{"id": "ecthr-0", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  At the beginning of the events relevant to the application, K. had a daughter, P., and a son, M., born in 1986 and 1988 respectively. P.’s father is X and M.’s father is V. From March to May 1989 K. was voluntarily hospitalised for about three months, having been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. From August to November 1989 and from December 1989 to March 1990, she was again hospitalised for periods of about three months on account of this illness. In 1991 she was hospitalised for less than a week, diagnosed as suffering from an atypical and undefinable psychosis. It appears that social welfare and health authorities have been in contact with the family since 1989.\n12.  The applicants initially cohabited from the summer of 1991 to July 1993. In 1991 both P. and M. were living with them. From 1991 to 1993 K. and X were involved in a custody and access dispute concerning P. In May 1992 a residence order was made transferring custody of P. to X.\n13.  K. was again hospitalised from 22 April to 7 May 1992, from 13 May to 10 June 1992, and from 11 to 17 January 1993, on account of psychoses. She was in compulsory care between 15 May and 10 June 1992. According to a medical report dated 15 May 1992, K. was paranoid and psychotic.\n14.  On 19 March 1993, according to the social welfare authorities’ records, a discussion took place between a social worker and K.’s mother. K.’s mother said that her daughter’s health condition was really bad and that K. had destroyed a childhood picture of hers, a wedding photo of the mother, broken a glass and “pierced the eyes” of all appearing in the photos. K.’s mother had said that she was tired of the situation, as she did not get any support from the mental health authorities. She added that she was worried and afraid that “again something must happen before K. is admitted to care”.\nOn 24 March 1993 K. was placed under observation with a view to determining whether she should be placed in compulsory psychiatric care, having initially been diagnosed as suffering from psychosis. The conditions for compulsory care were not considered to be met but she remained in voluntary care until 5 May 1993.\n15.  Allegedly, X did not allow K., P. and M. to meet. On 11 May 1993, when K. was again pregnant, her access to P. was further limited by an order of the District Court of R. Basing itself on a doctor’s opinion, the court held that the child’s mental development would be endangered if the meetings between P. and K. continued without supervision as had been ordered in 1992.\n16.  According to the records of the social welfare authorities, M. showed signs of behavioural problems. On 30 March 1992 a psychologist reported how M. had played with two dolls saying – in very vulgar terms – that they were performing sexual acts. On 17 February 1993 K. was said to have broken a mirror in the presence of M. who had kept repeating: “mummy broke the mirror ...”\nNotes of the social authorities of 24 and 30 March 1993 among others state that games which M. played and pictures he drew were of a destructive nature. According to the notes taken on 30 March, he had lately, while the children were singing together at the day-care nursery, shown immense hatred, threatening “to kill everybody”. The occasions when K. fetched him were described as “unpleasant scenes”, M. shouting and hitting his mother who did not react. It was noted, however, that he no longer played doll games with sexual connotations.\n17.  According to the re", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  In June 1949 plots of agricultural land owned by the applicant’s father were expropriated by the former Doksy District National Council (okresní národní výbor) under the Czechoslovak New Land Reform Act No. 46/1948 (“the 1948 Act”). The applicant’s father had never obtained any compensation. In 1957 some of these plots were transferred to the ownership of natural persons in an assignment procedure under the 1948 Act. In 1977 the applicant’s father died and the applicant’s rights over his estate were confirmed.\n10.  After the fall of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia, the Act No. 229/1991 on Adjustment of Ownership Rights in respect of Land and Other Agricultural Property (“zákon o půdě”, the “Land Ownership Act”) entered into force on 24 June 1991. The Act provided that the 1948 Act was no longer applicable and that under certain conditions property confiscated pursuant to that Act without compensation could be returned to its former owners or their heirs if it was still in the possession of the State or of a legal person. However, if such property had been transferred into the possession of natural persons, the former owners or their heirs could – subject to certain exceptions – only claim the assignment of other equivalent property or financial compensation.\n11.  On the basis of the Land Ownership Act, the applicant entered into restitution agreements with two legal persons (the Hradec Králové State Forest Enterprise and the Líny – Krásná Ves Agricultural Cooperative) on 10 December 1993 and 4 May 1994 respectively. By two decisions of 12 October 1994 the Mladá Boleslav Land Office (pozemkový úřad, “the Land Office”) refused to approve the restitution agreements. Referring to section 32(3) of the Land Ownership Act, it found that some of the plots had been assigned to different owners pursuant to the 1948 Act, and that these owners, being natural persons, had proved their property rights by showing their deeds of assignment. The Land Office based its decisions on the following documents: the decision of the former Mladá Boleslav State Notary (státní notářství) of 26 May 1977 on the applicant’s father’s inheritance, the decision of the former Doksy District National Council of 7 June 1949 on the expropriation of the applicant’s father’s property, the record of the former Líny Local National Council (místní národní výbor) of 7 November 1949 on the proceedings on the applicant’s father’s appeal against the expropriation, the decision of the former Liberec Regional National Council (krajský národní výbor) of 29 November 1949 by which the decision of expropriation had been modified, and an extract (výpis) from the land register (pozemková kniha) relating to the Líny and Krásná Ves Districts. The Land Office had also at its disposal copies of the deeds of assignment made out by the Mladá Boleslav Land Register Office (katastrální úřad) on 23 September 1994.\n12.  It appears from the text of the invitation issued by the Land Office on 28 September 1994 that the latter scheduled a hearing for 12 October 1994 to which the applicant and his lawyer were invited, together with the representatives of the State Forest Enterprise, the agricultural cooperative and representatives of the Mladá Boleslav Land Fund (Pozemkový fond). According to the record of the hearing, only the applicant and the representatives of the State Forest Enterprise and of the agricultural cooperative attended the hearing. The applicant refused to make any comments on", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  In 1991 Mr Dušan Slobodník, a research worker in the field of literature, published an autobiography entitled Paragraph: Polar Circle. He described in it, inter alia, his conviction by a Soviet military tribunal in 1945 on the ground that he had been ordered to spy on the Soviet army after having been enrolled, in 1944 when he was 17 years old, in a military training course organised by Germans. In the book, Mr Slobodník also wrote about his detention in Soviet gulags and his rehabilitation by the Supreme Court of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics in 1960. In June 1992 Mr Slobodník became Minister for Culture and Education of the Slovak Republic.\n9.  On 20 July 1992 the newspaper Telegraf published a poem by the applicant. It was dated 17 July 1992 (the day when the sovereignty of the Slovak Republic was solemnly proclaimed) and entitled “Good night, my beloved” (“Dobrú noc, má milá”). One of its verses read as follows:\n“In Prague prisoner Havel is giving up his presidential office. In Bratislava the prosecutor rules again. And rule by one party is above the law. A member of the SS and a member of the ŠTB [The ŠTB (Štátna bezpečnosť) was the secret police during the communist regime in Czechoslovakia] embraced each other.”\n10.  The poem was later published in another newspaper. In separate articles, two journalists alleged that the expression “member of the SS” stood for Mr Dušan Slobodník.\n11.  On 30 July 1992 several newspapers published a statement which the applicant had distributed to the Public Information Service (Verejná informačná služba) the day before. It was entitled “For a better picture of Slovakia – without a minister with a fascist past” (“Za lepší obraz Slovenska – bez ministra s fašistickou minulosťou”). It read as follows:\n“There has been a problem about how to keep a democratic character in [the Slovakian] national emancipation process, which we have tried to resolve many times. Until now, Slovakia has lost most when matters related to the Slovakian nation were in the hands of the wrong people who led us away from democratic evolution. The cost was high: for example, the combatants’ lives lost in the Slovakian National Uprising [in 1944 and 1945] . \nNow, we are scared that this mistake could be made again. To say that our way to Europe is by working together and cooperating in its democratic evolution is not enough. This is a direct condition arising from international law without the fulfilment of which no one in Europe will take notice of us.\nI expressed this concern in my polemics with Mr Dušan Slobodník last year; life has finished the writing of our polemics, and my views were proved correct.\nThis year Mr Slobodník became the Slovak Republic’s Minister for Culture and Education and the next thing was that his fascist past came out in public. Mr Slobodník managed this situation in a way that allowed the writer Ladislav Mňačko to prove he was a liar. But he still has not given up his ministerial post, although in any other democratic country he would have had to do so a long time ago.\nDoes Mr Slobodník think that Slovakia is some special exception and that it is the only country having the right to revise the philosophy of the Nuremberg trials, which is binding on the post-war development of all other European countries? Or is the message of the Slovakian National Uprising not correct? ... Does Mr Mečiar think that having this minister in the government will help him to persuade people in Europe that", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  In 1987 the applicant association published a book entitled Euskadi at war. There were four versions – Basque, English, Spanish and French – and the book was distributed in numerous countries, including France and Spain. According to the applicant association, this was a collective work containing contributions from a number of academics with specialist knowledge of the Basque Country and giving an account of the historical, cultural, linguistic and socio-political aspects of the Basque cause. It ended with a political article entitled “Euskadi at war, a promise of peace” by the Basque national liberation movement.\n13.  The book was published in the second quarter of 1987. On 29 April 1988 a ministerial order was issued by the French Ministry of the Interior under section 14 of the Law of 29 July 1881, as amended by the decree of 6 May 1939, banning the circulation, distribution and sale of the book in France in any of its four versions on the ground that “the circulation in France of this book, which promotes separatism and vindicates recourse to violence, is likely to constitute a threat to public order”. On 6 May 1988, pursuant to the aforementioned order, the département director of the airport and border police refused to allow over two thousand copies of the book to be brought into France.\n14.  On 1 June 1988 the applicant association lodged an administrative appeal against the ban. When this was implicitly rejected, it appealed to the Pau Administrative Court on 29 November 1988.\n15.  The Administrative Court held that it did not have jurisdiction and so referred the case to the Conseil d’Etat. By a decision of 9 January 1991 the President of the Judicial Division of the Conseil d’Etat remitted the case to the Pau Administrative Court.\n16.  In a judgment delivered on 1 June 1993 after a public hearing in the presence of both parties, the Pau Administrative Court rejected the applicant association’s appeal on the following grounds:\n“It has been established that the book at issue entitled Euskadi at war was printed in Spain, that four of its five chapters were written by authors of Spanish nationality and that the documentation used for the preparation of the publication was mainly of Spanish origin. Therefore, and notwithstanding the fact that the book was published by the applicant association, which is based in Bayonne, the offending book must be regarded as of foreign origin within the meaning of the aforementioned provisions. Accordingly, the Minister of the Interior was legally entitled to prohibit the book’s circulation, distribution and sale.\nIn taking the view that the book at issue could pose a threat to public order since it argued, particularly in Chapter 4, that the violence of the Spanish State justified the ETA terrorist organisation’s ‘proportionate counter-offensive’, the Minister of the Interior did not make any obvious error in assessing the evidence.\nUnder Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, ‘[e]veryone has the right to freedom ...’; it is the task of the administrative courts to assess whether any restriction of the freedom of expression guaranteed by the above-mentioned Article 10 is proportionate to the legitimate aim being pursued and to assess whether the ban on a publication of foreign origin is in keeping with that aim. In the instant case the evidence does not show that the general prohibition of the book at issue was disproportionate to the public-order objectives being pursued .", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are former members of the Turkish National Assembly and of the Democracy Party (DEP), which was dissolved by the Constitutional Court on 16 June 1994.\n8.  The public prosecutor at the Ankara National Security Court accused them of having infringed Article 125 of the Turkish Criminal Code and made repeated applications – on 27 November 1991, 16 December 1992, 25 May 1993 and 2 July 1993 – for their parliamentary immunity to be lifted.\nOn 2 March 1994 the National Assembly, having deliberated on the basis of the application of 16 December 1992, decided to lift the applicants’ parliamentary immunity under Article 83 of the Turkish Constitution.\n9.  On 2 March 1994 Mr Dicle and Mr Doğan were taken into police custody on the orders of the public prosecutor at the Ankara National Security Court. On 4 March 1994 Mrs Zana suffered the same fate.\nA few days later the public prosecutor at the Ankara National Security Court ordered the detention of those three applicants in police custody to be extended until 16 March 1994.\n10.  While in custody, the applicants made no statements to the police.\n11.  On 16 March 1994 they were brought before a judge of the Ankara National Security Court and placed in detention pending trial.\n12.  On 16 June 1994 the Constitutional Court dissolved the DEP and ordered the party’s MPs to vacate their parliamentary seats.\n13.  Mr Sadak was taken into police custody on 1 July 1994 and placed in detention pending trial on 12 July 1994.\n14.  In the meantime, on 21 June 1994 the public prosecutor at the Ankara National Security Court had filed a bill of indictment in which he accused the applicants of treason against the integrity of the State – a capital offence under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. The accusation was based firstly on the activities that the applicants were alleged to have engaged in on behalf of the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan (PKK) (harbouring militants and providing one of them with medical care, negotiating with local leaders or proffering threats against them to make them help the PKK establish itself in their regions) and secondly on the content of oral and written statements by the applicants expressing support for PKK activities. On the evening of 21 June 1994 the offences of which the applicants were accused were announced in the news bulletin of the publicly owned TRT 1 television channel.\n15.  On 8 December 1994, the date of the final hearing before the Ankara National Security Court, the applicants learned that the prosecution was proposing to alter the charge to belonging to an armed gang within the meaning of Article 168 of the Criminal Code. The National Security Court invited the applicants to submit their observations on this new characterisation of the offences. The applicants’ lawyers were not present at the hearing because they had decided to protest against the National Security Court’s refusal to adopt a procedural measure they had requested of it.\n16.  In a judgment of 8 December 1994 the Ankara National Security Court sentenced the four applicants to fifteen years’ imprisonment for belonging to an armed gang within the meaning of Article 168, paragraph 2, of the Turkish Criminal Code. It rejected the charge under Article 125 of the Criminal Code, which provided for the death penalty in the event of treason against the integrity of the State.\n17.  It found it established that the applicants had engaged in intensive “separatist” activity under instructions from l", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The circumstances in which the applicant’s brother disappeared are disputed. In accordance with former Article 28 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Commission conducted an investigation with the assistance of the parties and obtained documentary evidence and oral depositions.\nDelegates from the Commission heard witnesses on 17 September 1999 in Strasbourg and from 20 to 22 September 1999 in Ankara. They also visited the offices of the anti-terrorist branch at Ankara Security Directorate on 20 September 1999. Evidence was taken from the following witnesses: the applicant, eleven people who had been in custody at the material time at Ankara Security Directorate and who alleged that they had met Kenan Bilgin there and had witnessed the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected, two public prosecutors who had investigated the case, a deputy director at Ankara Security Directorate and a police officer from the anti-terrorist branch at Ankara Security Directorate.\n8.  At 10 a.m. on 12 September 1994 the applicant’s brother, Kenan Bilgin, was arrested at a taxi rank in Dikmen (Ankara) by plainclothes police officers. His family was not informed.\n9.  The applicant received three anonymous telephone calls from someone who confirmed that his brother was being held at Gölbaşı (Ankara) with three other prisoners. He was told that his brother’s condition was serious and that he was being administered serum. During the last conversation, which took place on 15 November 1994, the caller said that the applicant’s brother had been moved elsewhere.\n10.  On 3 October 1994 Kenan Bilgin’s lawyer, Ms Hatipoğlu, contacted the Human Rights Commission of the Turkish National Assembly. She and two other lawyers also made a written statement to the press.\n11.  By an undated letter the applicant requested information from the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Ankara National Security Court about his brother’s health, indicating that his brother had been arrested on 11 September 1994. On 4 October 1994 a similar request was made to the Principal Public Prosecutor by Ms Hatipoğlu, who put the date of the arrest at 13 September 1994.\n12.  In his letters in reply dated 10 October 1994 the Principal Public Prosecutor said that no one by the name of Kenan Bilgin had been interviewed and that no warrant had been issued for his arrest.\n13.  On 10 October 1994 the applicant made a written statement to the press. The same day, his representatives contacted the Ankara branch of the Human Rights Association about his brother’s case. On 11 October 1994 the association issued an appeal to the provincial governor of Ankara for Kenan Bilgin to be brought before the public prosecutor, while the applicant managed to obtain written statements signed by ten prisoners who had also been held at Ankara Security Directorate between 12 and 27 September 1994, in which they confirmed that Kenan Bilgin had been held there between those dates and subjected to ill-treatment.\n14.  On 12 October 1994 Ms Hatipoğlu wrote to the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Ankara National Security Court to enquire what had become of Kenan Bilgin. She explained that although several witnesses affirmed that they had seen him in police custody, the police denied that he had been detained.\n15.  On 9 November 1994 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ankara public prosecutor against the officers who had been on duty while his brother was in custody, namely police officers from the anti-terrorist branch ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  On 29 April 1962 the applicant married Mr A. Gigliozzi in a religious ceremony which was also valid in the eyes of the law (matrimonio concordatario).\n12.  On 23 February 1987 the applicant petitioned the Rome District Court for judicial separation.\n13.  In a judgment dated 2 October 1990 the District Court granted her petition and also ordered Mr Gigliozzi to pay the applicant maintenance (mantenimento) of 300,000 Italian lira per month.\n14.  In the meantime, on 20 November 1987, the applicant was summoned to appear before the Lazio Regional Ecclesiastical Court of the Rome Vicariate on 1 December 1987 “to answer questions in the Gigliozzi-Pellegrini matrimonial case”.\n15.  On 1 December 1987 the applicant went alone to the Ecclesiastical Court without knowing why she had been summoned to appear. She was informed that on 6 November 1987 her husband had sought to have the marriage annulled on the ground of consanguinity (the applicant’s mother and Mr Gigliozzi’s father being cousins). She was questioned by the judge and stated that she had known of her consanguineous relationship with Mr Gigliozzi but did not know whether, at the time of her marriage, the priest had requested a special dispensation (dispensatio).\n16.  In a judgment delivered on 10 December 1987 and deposited with the registry on the same day, the Ecclesiastical Court annulled the marriage on the ground of consanguinity. The court had followed a summary procedure (praetermissis solemnitatibus processus ordinarii) under Article 1688 of the Code of Canon Law. That procedure is followed where, once the parties have been summoned to appear and the defensor vinculis (defender of the institution of marriage) has intervened, it is clear from an agreed document that there is a ground for annulling the marriage.\n17.  On 12 December 1987 the applicant was notified by the registry of the Ecclesiastical Court that on 6 November 1987 the court had annulled the marriage on the ground of consanguinity.\n18.  On 21 December 1987 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Roman Rota (Romana Rota) against the Ecclesiastical Court’s judgment. She submitted first that she had never received a copy of the judgment in question and complained that the court had not heard her submissions until 1 December 1987, which was after it had delivered its judgment of 6 November 1987. The applicant also alleged a breach of her defence rights and of the adversarial principle on account of the fact that she had been summoned to appear before the Ecclesiastical Court without being informed in advance either of the application to have the marriage annulled or the reasons for that application. She had therefore not prepared any defence and, furthermore, had not been assisted by a lawyer.\n19.  On 26 January 1988 the registry of the Ecclesiastical Court informed the applicant that there had been a clerical error in the notification sent to her on 12 December 1987 and that the judgment was dated 10 December 1987.\n20.  On 3 February 1988 the defensor vinculis submitted observations to the effect that the applicant “had acted correctly in appealing against the judgment” (la convenuta aveva agito giustamente facendo appello contro la sentenza) of the Lazio Court. Accordingly, in a summons of 9 March 1988 the reporting judge of the Rota summoned the parties and the defensor vinculis to appear.\n21.  On 10 March 1988 the applicant was informed that the Rota would examine her appeal on 13 April 1988 and that she had t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-9", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a Lithuanian national, born in 1974.\n8.  From 5 October 1993 the applicant served a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment for the theft, possession and sale of firearms. On an unspecified date in early April 1998 he was transferred from Lukiškės Prison to Pravieniškės Prison (Pravieniškių 2-oji sustiprintojo režimo pataisos darbų kolonija).\n9.  From the moment when the applicant arrived in Pravieniškės Prison he was placed in the separate segregation unit of the prison (Sunkiai auklėjamųjų būrys – “the SAB”), located in Wing 5 of the prison (V lokalinis sektorius). On 30 June 1998 the applicant was released from the SAB and detained under normal conditions in Section 13 and later in Section 21 (13 ir 21 brigados), located in Wing 1 of the prison (I lokalinis sektorius). From 5 to 20 January 1999 the applicant was detained in solitary confinement (Baudos izoliatorius). He was again placed in the SAB on 20 January 1999. The applicant stayed in Pravieniškės Prison until his release on 14 April 2000 following a presidential pardon.\n10.  The present case concerns the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Pravieniškės Prison and his treatment there from April 1998 until April 2000.\n11.  The evidence of the applicant was taken by the Court delegates in Vilnius on 25 May 2000 and then in Pravieniškės on 26 May 2000. The applicant’s statements may be summarised as follows.\n (a)  General conditions of detention\n(i)  The SAB\n12.  The unit consisted of a dormitory where twenty-two inmates were held, a small kitchen, a relaxation room and a shower cubicle. In the applicant’s view, only six to eight persons could be held in the SAB, and it was accordingly seriously overcrowded. Only the dormitory had windows. There were no windows or ventilation in the kitchen and the relaxation room. A window was installed in the kitchen during renovations in 1999.\n13.  The SAB had a corridor leading to the small courtyard outside. The yard was closed off above with wire netting, which was covered with snow in the wintertime. As a result there was a lack of light in the courtyard during the winter.\n14.  The toilets consisted of eight Asian-type “squat” holes, which lacked partitions. Inmates in the SAB used the toilets one by one in order to respect each other’s privacy. There were no windows, and a ventilation system was installed in the toilets only after renovations in late 1999. As a result the toilets smelled terribly.\n15.  There was no access to the prison laundry for washing private clothes; it therefore had to be done by hand in bowls in the shower. Drying such items in the small courtyard was complicated. In addition, no private bedding was allowed. Every inmate received from the prison administration bed linen and towels, which were regularly washed in the prison laundry.\n16.  The administrative officers visited the SAB only during the distribution of meals and check-ups. The prison governor used to visit the unit from time to time. Doctors went to the SAB very rarely. The only way of communicating with the outside world was by telephone. On 11 June 1998 the applicant felt that he had a fever. His condition was so serious that he missed the regular check-ups at the SAB and lay in bed. He asked the guards to send for a doctor. He also used the special telephone line connecting the SAB to the prison medical service. However, no one answered, as it was lunchtime. The applicant did not telephone the medical service again. Instead, he o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-10", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 11 February 1980, the applicant pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility in respect of the death of his 62‑year-old landlady whom he had battered with an axe. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The court acted on medical evidence that the applicant had a gross personality disorder to such a degree that he was amoral. The consultant psychiatrist said in his report at the trial that:\n“... although [the applicant’s] instability might get less over the years as he matured, should he be sent to prison, his eventual release should be approached with great caution.”\n8.  The applicant was initially sent to a Category A prison due to concerns about his dangerousness and risk of escape. He was involved in work to address his offending and other problems. He successfully completed an Anger Management and Skills Courts in the Hull Special Unit in or about 1989 and his conduct was noted as significantly improving from that point. In 1993, he was transferred to a Category B prison.\n9.  The applicant’s tariff period of 15 years expired on 25 June 1994 (this was the minimum period fixed by the Secretary of State concerning the requirements of retribution and deterrence). The Parole Board in that month agreed to the transfer of the applicant from a Category B to Category C prison. The Secretary of State deferred a decision until after the Discretionary Lifer Panel (DLP) of the Parole Board had conducted a hearing on the matter under the new provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (“the 1991 Act”).\n10.  On 13 December 1994, after a hearing held pursuant to section 34 of the 1991 Act, the DLP decided it would not be safe to release the applicant but recommended transfer to Category D (open prison), or Category C with a review after 12 months instead of the usual two year period. On 15 March 1995, the Secretary of State decided to transfer the applicant to Category C with a review after 12 months.\n11.  In November 1995, the applicant failed to obtain leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the DLP and the decision of the Secretary of State. In April 1996, the Court of Appeal refused leave to apply for judicial review.\n12.  Following a positive drugs test, the applicant agreed to follow and successfully completed in July 1996 a drugs awareness course.\n13.  On 9 October 1996, the applicant’s case came before another DLP. Reports noted that he had made considerable progress over the preceding six years but would need phased re-introduction into society. A psychiatric report dated 24 June 1996 stated that the applicant had much greater control over his behaviour, that personal and maturational developments had taken place and that he was not the same person that he was when he entered prison. It was concluded that the applicant, who had shown a reclusiveness and narrowness of interests, needed however to test and increase his social interaction in order to be able to cope with living outside prison. A psychiatric report issued about the same time stated that the applicant’s personality, described as psychopathic, had shown some capacity for change and that, although he was not considered a serious risk to the public, any release on licence would have to be carefully planned, as problems were likely to arise following a long period of institutionalisation and a lack of family support. The DLP did not recommend release but transfer to a Category D prison. In paragraph 5 of the decision letter the DLP ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-11", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 13 August 1992, following proceedings on appeal, the Arnhem Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) convicted the applicant of attempted homicide and sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment with deduction of the time spent in pre-trial detention. In addition, the Court of Appeal imposed a TBS order (terbeschikkingstelling) with confinement to a secure institution (met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege). The TBS order took effect on 4 September 1992 and expired two years later, on 4 September 1994.\n10.  By decision of 9 September 1994, the Arnhem Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Arnhem prolonged the TBS order by one year. It was consequently due to expire on 4 September 1995.\n11.  On 18 July 1995 the public prosecutor filed a request for a further prolongation with the Arnhem Regional Court, where it was registered on 19 July 1995. This prolongation request was based on an advice of 6 July 1995 by the secure institution where the applicant was being treated. In this advice, a prolongation of the TBS order was recommended because the applicant was still considered capable of being seriously aggressive towards other people.\n12.  The Regional Court examined the request in the course of a hearing held on 22 September 1995. The applicant submitted that the public prosecutor’s request for a prolongation should be declared inadmissible since the Regional Court was no longer competent to prolong his TBS order as it had expired on 4 September 1995. The applicant further submitted that the Regional Court had failed to comply with Article 509t of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering; hereinafter referred to as “CCP”) which provides that a decision on a request for prolongation has to be taken within two months after the submission of the request for prolongation.\n13.  In its decision of 6 October 1995, the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s arguments and prolonged his TBS order with confinement to a secure institution by one more year, taking into account the advice issued by the secure institution where the applicant was being treated and the testimony of an expert witness, recommending that the TBS order should be extended because the applicant was still considered capable of being seriously aggressive towards others. The Regional Court admitted that the examination of the request had not taken place within the time-limit contained in Article 509t CCP and that the reason therefor was the fact that during the holiday months it had not been able to hold sufficient hearings with judges having the specialised knowledge needed. However, it held that a failure to observe the time-limit in Article 509t CCP did not imply that the public prosecutor’s request should be declared inadmissible. It noted that the date of the hearing in the instant case had been fixed on 20 July 1995, i.e. within a period of two months after the submission of the prolongation request. It further noted that, by summons of 28 July 1995, the applicant had been invited to appear at the hearing of 22 September 1995 and that a copy of the summons had been sent to his representative. The Regional Court considered that, if the latter had objected to the fixing of that date, the hearing could have been rescheduled for an earlier date during the recess. The Regional Court concluded that in all these circumstances the general security of persons required a prolongation of the TBS order.\n14.  The applicant filed an appeal with the Arnhem Court o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-12", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 13 January 1993 the applicant was detained on charges of armed robbery, burglary and assault occasioning bodily injuries.\n9.  On 13 April 1993 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). The applicant was indicted on the charges of armed robbery, burglary and assault committed together with six other persons.\n10.  The court listed hearings for 4, 5 and 6 May 1994 but subsequently cancelled all of them because one of the applicant’s co-defendants had failed to appear. On the last of those dates, the hearing was postponed because Z.K. (one of the co-defendants) was ill and the court considered it necessary to obtain a medical report determining whether or not he would be able to take part in the trial. The relevant report was received at the court’s registry on 13 June.\n11.  Two days later the Regional Court set the trial for 6 and 7 September but, on 6 September, it adjourned the hearings since a court interpreter had failed to appear (D.B., one of the co-defendants, was of Lithuanian nationality and therefore not able to follow the trial without the assistance of an interpreter).\n12.  The first hearing on the merits was held on 8 November 1994. The court heard evidence from four defendants. The trial continued on 9 and 14 November 1994. In the course of those two hearings, the court heard evidence from other defendants.\n13.  The next hearing took place on 16 January 1995. During that hearing the applicant unsuccessfully asked the court to remit the case to the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor and order a further investigation with a view of indicting his wife. On 17 January 1995, in the course of the next hearing, he made a similar application and stated that if it was not granted, he would not attend hearings. Later, he apologised for his behaviour. A hearing listed for 18 January started with a delay because it emerged from a medical certificate made by a prison doctor that the applicant was ill. On that day the court however decided to proceed with the trial in the applicant’s absence because, on the basis of another, subsequently obtained medical certificate, it came to the conclusion that he had misinformed the prison authorities as to the state of his health. The trial continued on 19 and 20 January and on 17, 20 and 23 March 1995. Further hearings were listed for 17, 18 and 19 May 1995. The hearing set for 18 May did not take place because one of the co-defendants had not appeared before the court. In the meantime, on 8 May 1995, the applicant, relying on his previous record of psychiatric treatment, asked the court to order that he be examined by a psychiatrist.\n14.  On 19 May 1995 the court ordered that evidence be obtained from psychiatrists to establish whether tempore criminis the applicant and two of his co-defendants had acted in a state of diminished responsibility. It adjourned the trial to 26 and 27 July 1995.\n15.  On 22 May 1995 the court requested the Department of Forensic Psychiatry of Warsaw-Mokotów Prison to place the applicant and his co-defendants under psychiatric observation. The applicant underwent that observation from 3 October 1995 to 15 January 1996.\n16.  On 29 December 1995, 13 January, 13 and 29 February, 4 March and 16 April 1996, the applicant asked the Warsaw Regional Court to release him. He submitted that his detention on remand had meanwhile exceeded two years and that it was putting a severe strain on his family, especially as his child was ill and his wife a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-13", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 19 October 1992 the applicant lent to MJB, a company in Zagreb, 10,000 German marks (DEM) for a period of three months at a rate of interest of 27%. On 23 November 1992 she lent to ZIP, a company in Zagreb, DEM 20,390 for a period of one month at a rate of interest of 20%.\n8.  As the said companies failed to repay the loans, the applicant instituted proceedings against ZIP and MJB in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).\n9.  The proceedings against ZIP and its alleged owner Ž.M. commenced on 29 March 1995 when the applicant, together with thirty-nine other plaintiffs, filed an action for repayment of their loans.\n10.  On 17 May 1995 the court asked the applicant’s counsel to provide the address of the second defendant. On 23 May 1995 the applicant’s counsel submitted the address concerned.\n11.  A hearing was scheduled for 4 October 1995 but it was adjourned since the defendants failed to appear. It turned out that the defendants had not received notice of the date of the hearing as the address indicated was incorrect. The court asked the applicant’s counsel to submit the defendants’ correct address within thirty days.\n12.  The next hearing was scheduled for 24 January 1996. However, it appears that in the meantime ZIP had ceased to exist and, as Ž.M.’s address remained unknown, the court ordered the applicant’s counsel to request the Social Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb) to appoint a legal representative for Ž.M.\n13.  On 20 June 1996 the applicant’s counsel informed the court that the Zagreb Social Welfare Centre had, by its decision of 11 March 1996, appointed a legal representative for Ž.M.\n14.  On 13 September 1996 the court asked the applicant’s counsel to submit within thirty days a certificate from the registry of the Zagreb Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Zagrebu) concerning the legal status of ZIP.\n15.  The next hearing, scheduled for 2 December 1999, was also adjourned due to the absence of the defendants. It turned out again that ZIP and Ž.M. had not received notice of the hearing date as the address indicated was incorrect. The court invited the applicant’s counsel to inform it within thirty days whether ZIP had in fact ceased to exist.\n16.  According to the Government, during the next hearing on 7 June 2000, the court decided upon the parties’ application to return the proceedings to the status quo ante (zahtjev za povrat u prijašnje stanje). Due to the absence of ZIP the hearing was adjourned to 17 October 2000. It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the Zagreb Municipal Court.\n17.  The proceedings against MJB and its alleged owner B.J. commenced on 30 March 1995 when the applicant, together with thirty other plaintiffs, filed an action for repayment of their loans with the Zagreb Municipal Court.\n18.  The court asked the applicant’s counsel to provide the address of B.J. On 25 August 1995 the applicant’s counsel informed the court of B.J.’s address.\n19.  The hearing scheduled for 2 October 1995 was adjourned due to the absence of the defendants. It turned out that MJB was no longer at its previous address and that B.J. was in detention on remand. The applicant’s counsel informed the court that B.J. had been released from detention and requested that the notices for the next hearing be sent to the defendants at the same addresses as before.\n20.  The hearing on 27 November 1995 was again adjourned due to the defendants’ absence. It appears that MJB had in the meantime ceas", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-14", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 4 October 1993 the applicant was arrested on charges of forgery of documents and fraud in connection with a criminal investigation that had been opened on 10 September 1993. \nIt was alleged that the applicant, with the assistance of a customs officer and two other accomplices, had made false customs declarations certifying fictitious exports of consignments of cigarettes which in reality had been sold on the domestic market. On the basis of the false declarations the applicant had obtained the reimbursement of some excise tax and had attempted to obtain further reimbursements. The total amount involved, for which the applicant was eventually found guilty (see paragraph 33 below), was 15,230,400 old Bulgarian levs (“BGL”) (about 3,000,000 French francs (“FRF”) at the time).\nThe charges preferred against the applicant were based on section 212 § 4 of the Penal Code, which provided for a sentence of ten to twenty years’ imprisonment.\n10.  During the preliminary investigation the case file was transmitted twice from the Plovdiv investigator’s office to the Plovdiv Regional Court so that the appeals against detention could be examined. The case file was thus unavailable to the investigator and the supervising prosecutor for twelve days (between 28 October and 9 November 1993) and for a further four days (between 28 February and 2 March 1994).\n11.  The preliminary investigation was concluded on 5 April 1994 when the indictment drawn up by the prosecutor was submitted to the Plovdiv Regional Court.\n12.  The Plovdiv Regional Court sat as a chamber of three judges: a president who was a professional judge and two lay judges.\nIt held its first hearing on 12 and 13 May 1994 when the four accused and several witnesses were heard. The prosecutor and the defence lawyers requested permission to submit further evidence. The court adjourned the hearing.\n13.  Several times during the proceedings the Regional Court had to wait for the case file to be returned by the Supreme Court in Sofia, where it had been sent for the examination of the appeals submitted by the applicant and his co-accused against the Regional Court’s refusals to release them on bail. In practice, whenever such an appeal was submitted, the Plovdiv Regional Court transmitted the case file together with the appeal and a prosecutor’s opinion.\n14.  The case file was sent to the Supreme Court on 28 May 1994 for one of the co-accused’s appeal against detention to be examined and was returned on 30 June 1994.\nThe Regional Court did not deal with the case until 13 September 1994, when the presiding judge ordered the production of a piece of evidence.\n15.  The next hearing was held on 6 October 1994. The court heard several witnesses and adjourned the hearing as the prosecutor insisted on the examination of other witnesses who had not appeared. Some of them were ordered to pay fines for their failure to appear. The court further decided to seek the assistance of the police to establish the addresses of other witnesses who could not be found.\n16.  The hearing resumed on 29 and 30 November 1994. Several witnesses and experts were heard. Both the prosecution and the defence sought to adduce additional evidence. The hearing was adjourned.\n17.  Between 20 January and 21 February 1995 the case file was in Sofia at the Supreme Court for the examination of appeals against detention.\n18.  The hearing listed for 19 April 1995 was adjourned as the presiding judge was ill. The next hearing, scheduled", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-15", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, who was born in 1942, is a judge. After the summer of 1990 he applied for membership of the Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani. On 5 March 1991 he became a member of the Adriano Lemmi Lodge in Milan.\nDuring the summer of 1992 the applicant read in the national press that certain State prosecutors, in particular the state prosecutor of Palmi (Reggio di Calabria), had begun inquiries, which, according to certain rumours, also concerned lodges associated with the Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani.\nIn October 1992 the applicant asked to distance himself from the organisation and on 5 November 1992 he was made a “dormant member”.\n9.  The Palmi public prosecutor’s office sent the National Council of the Judiciary (Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura) a list of judges who were Freemasons. The National Council of the Judiciary then sent it to the Minister of Justice and Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation, who instituted disciplinary proceedings against the judges. The list was then made public – at least in part – by the press.\n10.  In July 1993, after an inquiry had been commenced, the applicant was questioned by an inspector from the General Inspectorate for the Ministry of Justice. Subsequently, in February 1994, he was questioned by Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation.\n11.  In June 1994 he was summoned to appear before the disciplinary section of the National Council of the Judiciary. He was accused of having undermined the prestige of the judiciary by committing a serious breach of his duties, and thus being unworthy of the trust that must be had in a judge.\nIn his address, counsel for the applicant referred to a decision of the same section, given some ten years earlier, which drew a distinction between secret associations – of which judges were forbidden from being members – and discreet associations. Counsel for the applicant also noted that the guidelines of the National Council of the Judiciary, which stated that judicial office was incompatible with membership of the Freemasons, had been adopted during the summer of 1993, which was one year after the applicant had left the organisation of his own accord.\nAt the end of the proceedings the disciplinary section found that the applicant had breached Article 18 of Royal Legislative Decree no. 511 of 31 May 1946 (“the 1946 decree”) and gave him a warning.\n12.  The applicant appealed on points of law to the Court of Cassation, which examined the case in plenary session on 13 June 1996. It dismissed the appeal in a judgment of 10 December 1996.\n13.  On 17 May 2000 the Fourth Committee of the National Council of the Judiciary indicated again (having already made a similar recommendation on an unknown date) that it was not in favour of the applicant’s promotion – for which the requisite conditions had been fulfilled since 17 October 1997 – in view of the disciplinary sanction that had been imposed on him.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-16", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are Italian nationals who were born in 1959 and 1951 respectively and live in Rome.\n8.  On 10 and 19 July 1997 two armed robberies were committed in the Rome area. It emerges from a report prepared by the Rome police on 23 July 1997 that there was evidence that the stolen goods had been hidden in a warehouse belonging to the company owned by the applicants. The latter were also said to have been in telephone contact with persons suspected of the offences.\n9.  On 18 December 1997 the Rome public prosecutor applied for the applicants to be placed in pre-trial detention. In an order of 22 December 1997, the Rome investigating judge allowed that application.\n10.  On 23 December 1997 the applicants were arrested and taken to Rome Prison. On 24 December 1997 they appealed against the order of 22 December 1997 to the division of the Rome District Court responsible for reconsidering security measures (tribunale del riesame).\n11.  The hearing before the Rome District Court was held on 7 January 1998. In an order delivered the same day, filed with the registry on 10 January 1998, the court replaced the applicants’ pre-trial detention with the security measure of house arrest (arresti domiciliari). It considered, in particular, that it was reasonable to suspect that the applicants had committed the offences in issue and that it was to be feared that they might commit others of the same type. Taking the view, however, that there was no “tangible risk for the gathering of evidence” and having regard to the defendants’ clean police record, it concluded that a less restrictive measure, such as house arrest, was preferable. That measure required the applicants to stay in their home and leave only with the authorities’ prior authorisation.\n12.  The order of 7 January was served on the applicants on 10 January 1998. They should therefore have been immediately escorted from Rome Prison, where they were being held, to their home. However, no police officers were available to escort them and so their transfer was delayed until 13 January 1998.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-17", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  Since 1967 the applicant company has owned approximately 65,000 square metres of land in the municipality of Pomezia, entered in the Land Register as folio 11, parcel 66. In 1963 the Pomezia District Council had given its approval for a building project to be carried out on the land.\n9.  On 29 December 1967 the Pomezia District Council resolved to adopt a general development plan (piano regolatore generale – “GDP”).\n10.  On 20 November 1974 the Lazio Regional Council approved the GDP for Pomezia, which set aside the applicant company’s land for the creation of a public park (parco pubblico) and, consequently, imposed an absolute prohibition on building on the land with a view to its expropriation.\n11.  Pursuant to section 2 of Law no. 1187/1968, the prohibition on building imposed by the GDP lapsed in 1979, no detailed development plan having been adopted in the intervening five years.\n12.  Despite the fact that the prohibition on building had lapsed, the applicant company’s land did not revert to its original use.\n13.  Pending a decision by the Pomezia District Council on its future use, the land was subject to the regulations in section 4 of Law no. 10/1977, a provision which the courts had held to apply in situations of that kind (see paragraphs 38-40 below), and, from 1990, to the regulations in Law no. 86 of the Lazio Region.\n14.  The applicant company’s land was consequently affected by the building restrictions deriving from the application of these laws.\n15.  On 12 March 1987 the applicant company asked the Pomezia District Council to determine the use to which the land was to be put. No action was taken on this request.\n16.  In view of the District Council’s failure to reply, which amounted to a refusal, the applicant company appealed to the Regional Administrative Court (“the RAC”). It argued, firstly, that the District Council was under an obligation to determine the intended use of the land and that its inaction was unlawful. It also sought to have the land designated as building land by the authorities.\n17.  In a decision of 16 October 1989 the Lazio RAC allowed the applicant company’s appeal in so far as it acknowledged that the Pomezia District Council’s inaction was unlawful.\n18.  The court held that the prohibition on building imposed in 1974 had ceased to be effective after five years, pursuant to Law no. 1187/1968, because the Pomezia District Council had not adopted a detailed development plan. Since then, the applicant company’s land had been subject to the regulations in Law no. 10/1977. The court considered, however, that the building restrictions deriving from the application of that Law could not take the place of an actual decision by the administrative authorities as to the intended use of the land; the authorities were consequently under an obligation to revise the land-use plan (ricostituzione della disciplina urbanistica), and their inaction was unlawful. However, the District Council remained entirely at liberty to determine the use to which the land in issue should be put; the RAC was not empowered to direct that the land should be given a particular designation.\n19.  In conclusion, the RAC ordered the administrative authorities to give a fresh decision as to the intended use of the applicant company’s land.\n20.  The Pomezia District Council appealed against that decision.\n21.  In a decision of 28 February 1992 the Consiglio di Stato dismissed the Pomezia District Council’s appeal and upheld the impug", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-18", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is an Algerian citizen born in 1967.\n7.  The applicant entered Switzerland with a tourist visa in December 1992. On 19 March 1993 he married M.B., a Swiss citizen.\n8.  On 27 April 1994 the applicant was convicted by the Zürich District Office (Statthalteramt) of the unlawful possession of weapons.\n9.  According to the charges subsequently raised against the applicant, he committed, on 28 April 1994 in Zürich, the offences of robbery and damage to property by attacking a man, together with another person, at 1 a.m., by throwing him to the ground, kicking him in the face and taking 1,201 Swiss francs from him.\n10.  The Zürich District Court (Bezirksgericht) convicted the applicant of these offences on 17 May 1995, though the judgment was quashed upon appeal as the applicant had not been represented by a lawyer. Proceedings were resumed before the District Court, which on 1 July 1996 sentenced the applicant to eighteen months’ imprisonment, suspended on probation.\n11.  Both the public prosecutor’s office and the applicant filed an appeal, whereupon on 31 January 1997 the Court of Appeal (Obergericht) of the Canton of Zürich sentenced the applicant to two years’ unconditional imprisonment for robbery and damage to property. In its judgment the court considered that the applicant had been particularly ruthless and brutal, and that his culpability (Verschulden) was severe.\n12.  The applicant’s further plea of nullity was dismissed on 17 November 1997 by the Court of Cassation (Kassationsgericht) of the Canton of Zürich.\n13.  On 11 May 1998 the applicant began his two-year prison sentence.\n14.  On 19 May 1998 the Directorate for Social Matters and Security (Direktion für Soziales und Sicherheit) of the Canton of Zürich refused to renew the applicant’s residence permit (Aufenthaltsbewilligung).\n15.  The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the government (Regierungsrat) of the Canton of Zürich on 21 October 1998.\n16.  In a written statement of 18 November 1998, the applicant’s wife complained of being expected to follow her husband to Algeria. While admitting that she spoke French, she claimed that she would have no work in Algeria and no money. She found it most shocking that a married couple was being separated.\n17.  The applicant’s appeal against the decision of 21 October 1998 was dismissed by the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) of the Canton of Zürich on 16 June 1999. In its decision, the court relied for the non-renewal of the applicant’s residence permit in particular on sections 7 and 11 of the Federal Aliens’ Domicile and Residence Act (Bundesgesetz über Aufenthalt und Niederlassung der Ausländer) and on Article 16 § 3 of the ordinance implementing the Act (Vollziehungsverordnung). The court considered that the non-renewal was called for in the interests of public order and security. It might well separate the applicant from his wife, though they could live together in another country, or visit each other.\n18.  On 2 August 1999 the applicant was given early release from prison.\n19.  The applicant’s administrative-law appeal (Verwaltungsgerichts- beschwerde) against the decision of 21 October 1998 was dismissed by the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) on 3 November 1999. The court recalled that according to section 10(1) of the Federal Aliens’ Domicile and Residence Act the criminal conviction of a foreigner served as a ground for expulsion. There was no breach of Article 8 of the Convention ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-19", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 29 November 1980 police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate arrested the applicant on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way).\n9.  On 26 January 1981 the Ankara Martial-Law Court (sıkıyönetim mahkemesi) remanded the applicant in custody.\n10.  On 26 February 1982 the military public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Martial-Law Court against the applicant and 722 other defendants. The public prosecutor accused the applicant of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the Dev-Yol, whose object was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime. He further charged the applicant with having been involved in a number of crimes such as acting as an armed look-out for the killers of several individuals, a bomb attack on a coffee house and opening fire on a house.\nThe prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code.\n11.  In a judgment of 19 July 1989 the Martial-Law Court, composed of two civilian judges, two military judges and an army officer, found the applicant guilty as charged, sentenced him to life imprisonment (in effect eighteen years assuming good conduct) for offences under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code and permanently debarred him from employment in the civil service. It took from 19 July 1989 until 1993 for the reasons for the judgment to be set down in writing.\n12.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Military Court of Cassation (askeri yargıtay).\n13.  On 23 July 1991 the Martial-Law Court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.\n14.  Following promulgation of the Law of 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial-law courts, the Court of Cassation (yargıtay) acquired jurisdiction over the case and the file was transmitted to it.\n15.  On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-20", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 28 February 1995 Detective Inspector Mann (D.I. Mann), received information that an armed robbery of a Securicor Ltd cash-collection van was going to be committed on or around 2 March 1995 by the first applicant and B. at one of several possible locations. The police knew where B. lived and began visual surveillance of those same premises the same day. D.I. Mann learnt that B. was suspected of being a drug dealer and that surveillance operations mounted against B. in the past had proved unsuccessful because they had been compromised. It was therefore concluded that B. was “surveillance-conscious”. B. was suspected of being responsible for the shooting of a police officer with a shotgun in the course of a robbery. This was something that all the officers, and particularly the Chief Constable, were aware of when the police operation was being planned.\n9.  No robbery took place on 2 March 1995. By 3 March 1995, however, the police had received further information that the robbery was to take place “somewhere” on 9 March 1995. Further information as to the location or target of the proposed robbery could not be obtained on 3 March 1995. In order to obtain further details about the proposed robbery, D.I. Mann prepared a report for the Chief Constable in support of an application for authorisation to install a covert listening device in B.’s flat. Some of the contents of this report were the subject of a successful application for non-disclosure by the Crown on the ground that serious damage would be caused to the public interest were they to be made public.\n10.  The use of covert listening devices was governed by the “Guidelines on the Use of Equipment in Police Surveillance Operations” issued by the Home Office in 1984 (“the Guidelines”). On 3 March 1995 the Chief Constable decided that the use of such a device was justified under the Guidelines but would not authorise its use until he was satisfied that its installation was feasible. Reconnaissance during the night of 3/4 March established that it was feasible.\n11.  On 4 March 1995 the Chief Constable gave oral authorisation to proceed with its use. However, he did not provide written confirmation as required by the Guidelines because he was on annual leave, so he gave the authority by telephone from home. The Chief Constable stated that the use of the device was to be reviewed on a daily basis. He said that he had asked the Deputy Chief Constable to look after the written formalities and to ensure, inter alia, that there was written confirmation of the message that the installation of the device was feasible. He did not receive this confirmation until 8 March. On 8 March 1995 the Deputy Chief Constable gave “retrospective” written authorisation for use of the listening device.\n12.  On 4 March a covert listening device was therefore installed in a sofa in B.’s flat before the Deputy Chief Constable had confirmed the authorisation in writing. Conversations between B. and others in B.’s living room were monitored and recorded until 15 March 1995.\n13.  On 14 March 1995 the police made a request to BT (British Telecommunications PLC) for itemised billing in relation to the telephone number of B. at his flat for the period from 1 January 1995 to the date of the request. The data-protection form was countersigned by a police superintendent in line with BT’s requirements, stating that the information was necessary to assist in the identification of members of a team of suspected armed robb", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-21", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 11 June 1981 police officers from the Bursa Security Directorate arrested the applicant on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way).\n9.  On 27 July 1981 the applicant was brought to the Sivas Public Prosecutor’s office where he conceded the accusations against him and explained his role in the Dev-Yol.\n10.  On 3 September 1981, following his transfer to Ankara, the applicant was questioned by police officers at the Ankara Security Directorate. He confirmed his statements concerning his involvement in the activities of the Dev-Yol.\n11.  On 16 September 1981 the applicant was taken to the Ankara Military Public Prosecutor’s office where the statements he had made at the Ankara Security Directorate were read to him. He made some amendments to his statements and confirmed that they were true. He explained in detail his involvement in the Dev-Yol.\n12.  On 18 September 1981 the Ankara Martial Law Court (sıkıyönetim mahkemesi) remanded the applicant in custody.\n13.  On 26 February 1982 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Martial Law Court against the applicant and 722 other defendants. The Public Prosecutor accused the applicant of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the Dev-Yol, whose object was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime. The Public Prosecutor alleged that the applicant had been involved in numerous illegal activities of the Dev-Yol, such as collection of money for expenditures of the organisation, supplying weapons to the organisation and giving orders to the militants under his command for robberies, murder and bombings. He maintained that the applicant had also been involved in the armed clashes with the police and opponent groups and had organised illegal meetings in Bursa.\nThe prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code.\n14.  In the meantime, the Ankara Martial Law Court decided that the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant by the Gölcük Martial Law Public Prosecutor’s office on 30 October 1981 and the Erzincan Military Public Prosecutor’s office on 23 December 1981 should be joined to the criminal proceedings instituted by the Ankara Military Public Prosecutor’s office.\n15.  On 18 March 1987 the Martial Law Court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.\n16.  In a judgment of 19 July 1989 the Martial Law Court, composed of two civilian judges, two military judges and an army officer, convicted the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol, and of having a leading role in that organisation. It sentenced him to 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, debarred him from employment in the civil service and placed him under judicial guardianship for offences under Articles 59 and 168 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code and Article 17 of Law no. 1402. The court acquitted the applicant of the other charges.\n17.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Military Court of Cassation (askeri yargıtay).\n18.  Following promulgation of the Law of 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial law courts, the Court of Cassation (yargıtay) acquired jurisdiction over the case and the file was transmitted to it.\n19.  On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant’s sentence. It held that the Martial Law Court had wrongly applied Article 17 of Law no. 1402 to the applicant’s case. It conside", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-22", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 14 February 1992 the pension fund of the applicant’s employer granted the applicant a full temporary disability pension as from 1 March 1992 until 30 June 1992. Thereafter the period of full pension was prolonged several times.\n9.  On 13 June 1997 the pension fund reviewed its previous decision and changed the applicant’s pension into a partial one for an indefinite period beginning on 1 June 1997. The pension fund reasoned its decision by observing that, according to the documents submitted to the pension fund, the applicant’s capability to work could no longer be considered reduced to such an extent as entitling him to a full disability pension. It was also noted that the applicant could be expected to work at least part-time.\n10.  The applicant appealed to the Pension Board, which on 4 March 1998 rejected the appeal. The decision was reasoned as follows:\n“An employee is entitled to a full disability pension provided that his or her ability to work has continuously been reduced by at least three fifths for a minimum of one year and that this reduction has been caused by an illness, a defect or an injury. The employee’s remaining ability to earn income by carrying out work that would be available to him or her and that he or she could reasonably be expected to perform must be taken into account when assessing the reduction in the employee’s ability to work. Furthermore, the employee’s education, previous activities, age, living conditions and other comparable factors must be taken into consideration.\nAccording to the statements on [the applicant’s] state of health, [the applicant] suffers from depression that has become more difficult during the autumn of 1997. However, [the applicant’s] symptoms must be considered as mild. Therefore, the Pension Board finds [the applicant] still partly capable of working as from 1 June 1997.”\n11.  The applicant appealed to the Insurance Court. He referred, inter alia, to several medical statements according to which he was for the time being incapable of working because of his mental illness. On 27 October 1998, the Insurance Court rejected the appeal reasoning the decision as follows:\n“[The Insurance Court refers to] the reasons given in the Pension Board’s decision. The new material filed while the case was pending [before the Insurance Court] does not change the evaluation of [the applicant’s] disability.”\n12.  The pension fund decided later, on 27 January 1999, to reject the applicant’s renewed application for a full disability pension instead of partial one. The Pension Board rejected the applicant’s appeal on 25 May 1999. The applicant further appealed to the Insurance Court which, on 22 June 2000, found that the applicant’s capability of working had been reduced at least by 60 percent on account of his illness as from the beginning of December 1999, and ordered the pension fund to grant the applicant a full disability pension as from 1 January 1999.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-23", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  In the course of a judicial investigation concerning the applicant, his wife, his former brother-in-law and one of his nephews, the applicant was remanded in custody on 16 June 1993 and charged with rape of a child under 15 (his niece), sexual assaults on children under 15 (his nephews) and a number of further counts of sexual assault.\nOn 16 September 1993 the investigating judge at the Lorient tribunal de grande instance ordered medico-psychological examinations of the applicant’s niece and all the persons under investigation. He appointed two doctors, named Gautier and Daumer, for that purpose.\n11.  The two doctors were informed of the applicant’s criminal record. In addition to a number of prison sentences, this included an investigation opened in 1989 into charges against the applicant of sexual interference with the daughter of his brother-in-law’s sister.\n12.  On 29 October 1993 the experts filed their report on the applicant. They stated, among other things, that although the applicant, by his own admission, did have fantasist and even mythomaniac tendencies, these were not obviously pathological in nature, as had been shown two years previously by his statements regarding the relations between P.H. and K.S, two of the victims.\n13.  The doctors concluded as follows:\n“1.  Our examination of G.B. has revealed psychopathic traits and signs of sexual perversion for which objective evidence is provided by his statements regarding P.H. and C.H. 2.  The offence of which he stands accused with respect to C.H. and P.H. is linked to a state of sexual perversion. It is difficult to assess the extent or the nature of this state in so far as the accused presents the facts as isolated incidents. He denies raping K.S. and so it is not possible to address that issue from a clinical viewpoint. 5.  Rehabilitation will not pose a problem, but a cure will depend on clearer identification of the subject’s underlying sexual problem. 6.  The subject was not insane within the meaning of (former) Article 64 of the Criminal Code when committing the offences of which he stands accused.\n14.  In November 1993 the experts’ conclusions were served on the applicant. The applicant’s detention pending trial was extended several times during the investigation of the case.\n15.  On 19 October 1995 the applicant and his co-defendants (J.C.H., C.H. and S.C., the applicant’s wife) were committed for trial at the Morbihan Assize Court by a judgment delivered by the Indictment Division of the Rennes Court of Appeal. The Indictment Division pointed out, in particular, that the applicant had initially denied any sexual abuse of his niece and nephews and then admitted to the conduct of which he was accused only to retract that admission. It related what had been said during the examination of the applicant’s niece on the one hand and his nephews on the other, the latter having also been accused of rape and sexual abuse by the niece. The Indictment Division also mentioned the previous convictions on the applicant’s criminal record, namely driving under the influence of alcohol, insulting a member of the police force in the performance of his duties, a hit-and-run offence and a further conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol.\n16.  The applicant appealed on points of law against the decision to commit him for trial, drawing attention to the vagueness of the terms used in the operative provisions of that decision. In a judgment of 26 February 1996 the Court o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-24", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (“the applicant association” or “Ilinden”) is an association based in south-western Bulgaria (in an area known as the Pirin region or the geographic region of Pirin Macedonia).\nMr Boris Stankov is a Bulgarian citizen, born in 1926 and living in Petrich. At the relevant time he was the chairman of a branch of the applicant association.\n10.  The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden was founded on 14 April 1990. Its aims, according to its statute and programme, were to “unite all Macedonians in Bulgaria on a regional and cultural basis” and to achieve “the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria”. Sections 8 and 9 of the statute stated that the organisation would not infringe the territorial integrity of Bulgaria and that it “would not use violent, brutal, inhuman or unlawful means”.\nAccording to the applicants’ submissions before the Court, the main activity of the applicant association was the organisation of celebrations to commemorate historical events of importance for Macedonians in Bulgaria. Over an unspecified period it published a newspaper.\n11.  In 1990 Ilinden applied for, but was refused, registration. In the proceedings for registration the Blagoevgrad Regional Court and the Supreme Court examined the statute of the association, its programme and other written evidence.\n12.  In their decisions of July and November 1990 and March 1991 the courts found that the applicant association’s aims were directed against the unity of the nation, that it advocated national and ethnic hatred, and that it was dangerous for the territorial integrity of Bulgaria. Therefore, its registration would be contrary to Articles 3, 8 and 52 § 3 of the Constitution of 1971, as in force at the time. In particular, the aims of the association included, inter alia, the “political development of Macedonia” and the establishment of a “united, independent Macedonian State”. Moreover, in its appeal to the Supreme Court the association had stated that “the Macedonian people would not accept Bulgarian, Greek or Serbian rule”. The formal declaration in the applicant association’s statute that it would not infringe the territorial integrity of Bulgaria, appeared inconsistent with the remaining material.\n13.  The judgment of the Supreme Court of 11 March 1991 stated, inter alia:\n“[T]he lower courts correctly established that the aims of the [applicant association] under its statute and programme were directed against the unity of the nation ... [The material in the case] demonstrates that the [applicant association] seeks to disseminate the ideas of Macedonianism among the Bulgarian population, especially in a particular geographical area. [Those ideas] presuppose the ‘denationalisation’ of the Bulgarian population and its conversion into a Macedonian population ... It follows that the [applicant association] is directed against the unity of the nation and is therefore prohibited under Article 35 § 3 of the [1971] Constitution ...”\n14.  The parties do not dispute, it seems, that during the relevant period the applicant association underwent changes of leadership and that there was internal conflict. Its local branches or separate factions differed in their views and activities.\n15.  The applicant association held a meeting for the first time on 22 April 1990 at the Rozhen Monastery, at the grave of Yane Sandanski.\n16.  On 20 April 1991 the applicant association organised a commemoration meeting at the Rozh", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-25", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 1 October 1993 the Poznań-Nowe Miasto District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy), on the basis of evidence obtained by the Warsaw Police Headquarters (Komenda Stołeczna Policji) from the Interpol Office in London, opened an investigation against persons unknown into the circumstances of an attempt to obtain a loan of 25,000,000 US dollars (USD) by false pretences. On 5 November 1993 the prosecutor laid charges against two persons of having attempted to forge bank guarantees and fraudulently to seize public property.\n8.  A day later, on 6 November 1993, the Poznań-Nowe Miasto District Prosecutor charged the applicant with forgery and attempting to obtain a loan of USD 25,000,000 by false pretences, committed together with four other persons, and detained him on remand on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged.\n9.  Subsequently, on 8 November 1993, the Poznań Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki) took over the investigation from the Poznań-Nowe Miasto District Prosecutor.\n10.  On 10 and 15 November 1993 respectively, both the applicant and his defence counsel appealed against the detention order of 6 November 1993. The other suspects lodged similar appeals at about the same time. On 13 December 1993 the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) upheld all the detention orders.\n11.  On 10 and 14 January 1994 the investigating prosecutor ordered that evidence be obtained from an expert in graphology, an expert in financial and banking matters, as well as from a psychiatrist and a psychologist. On 12 January 1994 the prosecutor issued a letter of request to the German authorities, asking them to hear evidence from certain witnesses residing in Germany.\n12.  On 12 January 1994, at the applicant’s request, the Regional Prosecutor presented, in writing, detailed reasons for the charges laid against him. The prosecutor maintained, in particular, that those charges were based on abundant evidence, in particular in the form of bank documents and testimonies of the applicant’s co-suspects. In consequence and in the light of the material collected at this stage, the prosecution considered that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant and his co-suspects had forged thirty provisional bank guarantees and fifty final bank guarantees in order to obtain a loan of USD 25,000,000.\n13.  On 20 January 1994 the Poznań Regional Prosecutor ordered that the charges laid against the applicant in other criminal proceedings instituted against him by the Inowrocław District Prosecutor be joined in the same criminal proceedings and, accordingly, referred the latter case to the investigating prosecutor.\n14.  On 31 January 1994, on an application by the Poznań Regional Prosecutor, the Poznań Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s and his co-suspects’ detention until 4 May 1994. On 15 March 1994, ruling on the applicant’s appeal, the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the first-instance decision.\n15.  In the meantime, on 14 March 1994, the applicant had asked the Poznań Regional Prosecutor to release him or to vary the measure imposed on him by replacing detention by bail or police supervision. That application was rejected on 30 March 1994.\n16.  On 4 April 1994 the applicant asked the Poznań Regional Prosecutor to release him on bail. He asserted that his detention was putting a severe strain on his family. In particular, his minor daughter had recently been examined by psychiatrists ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-27", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is an Iranian national and was born in 1971. His present address is unknown.\n10.  He entered Germany in October 1997 after fleeing Iran and applied for political-refugee status.\n11.  At a hearing on 16 October 1997 at the Federal Office for Refugees (Bundesamt für die Anerkennung ausländischer Flüchtlinge), the applicant gave evidence that one of his sisters had been executed in Iran in 1982 or 1983, while another had been imprisoned from 10 January 1983 to 13 September 1984 and had been missing since 1987 or 1988. He had raised funds in Iran and taken notes during radio programmes which he had subsequently added to and circulated. He had decided to leave Iran on learning from third parties that the family home had been searched on 6 September 1997.\nThe verbatim record taken by the Federal Office for Refugees indicates that the applicant had produced a list of the martyrs of the People’s Mujahidin Organisation of Iran (an opposition movement in Iran), which included his first sister, and a certificate from the Sari Islamic Revolutionary Court of 31 December 1984 indicating that his second sister had been arrested and imprisoned from 10 January 1983 to 11 September 1984 on account of her activities for the Monafeghin.\n12.  In a decision of 31 August 1998 the Federal Office for Refugees dismissed his application on the ground that there was no bar to his expulsion under section 51 or 53 of the Aliens Act (Ausländergesetz – see “Relevant Domestic Law” below), since he had not succeeded in establishing that he risked persecution if he returned to Iran. The Federal Office found his account vague and parts of it self-contradictory; it also considered it strange that it had not been until several years after the persecution of his sisters that he had become involved in activities against the regime.\n13.  On 5 November 1998 a group of Iranian political refugees sent a letter to the Federal Office for Refugees stating that the applicant was a supporter of the People’s Mujahidin of Iran and a member of a family of “martyrs” in Iran that was under threat from the incumbent regime, one of his sisters having been arrested, tortured and executed in the 1980s.\n14.  At a hearing on 10 November 1998 in the Regensburg Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) the applicant asked for Mr Yaghoubinia, his brother-in-law, who has political-refugee status in Switzerland, to be called as a witness. The court, however, turned his request down.\n15.  On 11 November 1998 the Regensburg Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Federal Office for Refugees. On 15 December 1998 the Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal (Bayerischer Verwaltungs-gerichshof) dismissed a further appeal by the applicant.\n16.  On 2 March 1999 the applicant made a fresh application for asylum (Asylfolgeantrag), inter alia, on the ground that he had been interviewed by the Offener Kanal Dortmund television channel at a demonstration outside the Iranian embassy in Bonn on 9 January 1999 and had signed a resolution against the Iranian regime that had been published in an opposition newspaper in Iran on 2 February 1999.\n17.  On 28 April 1999 the Federal Office for Refugees dismissed that application, finding that the new evidence was insufficient to establish that the applicant would face political persecution if he returned to Iran.\n18.  On 25 May and 23 June 1999 the applicant appealed against that decision and applied for a stay of execution of the expulsion order, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-28", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a German national, born in 1938 and living in Mettmann.\n9.  In a letter of 30 December 1985 addressed to the Rheinprovinz Pension Office (Landesversicherungsanstalt), the applicant and her husband, born in 1927, declared that for the purposes of entitlement to a widow’s or a widower’s pension the statutory rules still in force should continue to apply in future (see below, “Relevant domestic law”).\n10.  On 4 March 1986, following her husband’s death, the applicant applied with the Rheinprovinz Insurance Office for the payment of a survivor’s pension.\n11.  On 10 June 1986 the Insurance Office issued a decision granting the applicant a survivor’s pension as from 1 March 1986. The Office, referring to the relevant provision of the Workers’ Pension (Reform) Act, further stated that in case that the person concerned had other earned income or income in lieu of earned income, the payment of the survivor’s pension was not suspended during the first year after the spouse’s death. During the second year, the survivor’s pension was reduced by a specific percentage in relation to a dynamic exonerated amount.\n12.  On 20 June 1986 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint (Widerspruch) with the Pensions Office, which was dismissed on 24 March 1987.\n13.  By submissions dated 27 April 1987, the applicant, represented by counsel, instituted proceedings with the Düsseldorf Social Court, challenging the above decisions issued by the Rheinprovinz Pension Office. She maintained in particular that the underlying legislation, especially the age-limit for opting out of the new system, was unconstitutional, i.e. in breach of the right to property. In this respect, the applicant noted that, according to information provided by the Federal Ministry for Labour and Social Matters, a constitutional complaint concerning the above issue was pending before the Federal Constitutional Court. She suggested that the proceedings before the Social Court be suspended to await the outcome of the said constitutional complaint proceedings. With her action, the applicant also objected to the calculation of the pension in question.\n14.  On 24 June 1987 the Düsseldorf Social Court suspended the proceedings pursuant to Section 251 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung - see below, Relevant domestic law).\n15.  On 14 August 1987 the Rheinprovinz Pensions Office reassessed the applicant’s survivor’s pension. Taking her other income into account, the Office suspended the monthly payment of DEM 967.10.\n16.  By submissions of 10 September 1987, the applicant filed an action with the Düsseldorf Social Court against the decision of 14 August 1987. She again suggested that the proceedings be suspended pending constitutional complaint proceedings in a similar case. The second set of proceedings was, thereupon, also suspended.\n17.  On 26 February 1993 the applicant requested the Social Court to resume the suspended proceedings. She noted that in the meantime the Federal Constitutional Court had not taken any decisions concerning the legal provision at issue in her case. On 17 March 1993 the Social Court informed the applicant that the proceedings had been resumed.\n18.  On 22 July 1993 the Social Court inquired with the Federal Constitutional Court about the state of the constitutional complaint proceedings concerning certain aspects of the reform of the rules governing a survivor’s pension. On 5 August 1993 the Federal Constitutional Court informed th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-29", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was arrested in the early morning of 21 October 1990 under section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in Strabane by police officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (“the RUC”) investigating the murder of a former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The applicant was transported to the special holding centre for terrorist investigations at Castlereagh, Belfast.\n9.  The applicant was interviewed for thirty-five hours on consecutive days by RUC police officers, beginning at 11.01 a.m. on 21 October until 25 October.\n10.  At the time when the applicant was arrested (1.50 a.m. on 21 October), there was an initial decision made to defer the applicant’s access to a solicitor by Superintendent M., the police officer in charge of the investigation. He communicated this decision to Castlereagh police station by telephone and confirmed this in writing when he arrived in Castlereagh. The applicant had by this time arrived in Castlereagh and had requested a solicitor. At a review at 9.15 p.m. on 21 October 1990, the applicant was informed that his right to see a solicitor had been delayed for twenty-four hours. The deferral was therefore effective until the morning of 22 October. His solicitor, Mr Fahy, was informed of the deferral but did not attend until 12.10 p.m. on 23 October. There was a period of time from early morning on 22 October when the applicant was not being denied access to his solicitor. He made relevant admissions that afternoon.\n11.  The applicant did not see his solicitor until the next day, namely 23 October. The applicant’s first interview with his solicitor lasted forty minutes until 12.50 p.m. and the applicant made no complaint of ill-treatment during that visit. The applicant saw his solicitor again at 3.15 p.m. on 25 October and again no complaint of ill-treatment was made in that interview, which lasted until 4.00 p.m. During the first interview with his solicitor, a policeman was present. The consultation took place within sight and hearing of the police officer who was in close proximity to the applicant and his solicitor. At the beginning of the interview, the police inspector told the solicitor in the presence of the applicant that no names were to be discussed or information conveyed which could assist other suspects and that the interview should be purely on legal advice.\n12.  The applicant was seen by doctors on a total of eight occasions during his stay in Castlereagh, beginning with an examination following his arrival in Castlereagh in the early morning of 21 October 1990. He made no complaint of ill-treatment to any of the doctors who examined him. The doctors found no evidence to indicate any ill-treatment or mental handicap.\n13.  The police alleged that the applicant admitted his involvement in the murder during an interview in the afternoon of 22 October. They further stated that in a later interview the applicant signed a statement to this effect and that thereafter he freely and voluntarily admitted additional terrorist activity and signed further statements.\n14.  The applicant alleged that he had not volunteered the statements freely but, instead, that all the verbal and written statements had been extracted by ill-treatment, threats of ill-treatment, threats to his family and other oppressive conduct. The allegations of ill-treatment were denied by the RUC.\n15.  All of the verbal and written statements made by the applicant had been obtained by the po", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-30", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was, and still is, a prominent member of Sinn Fein. He has been arrested by the police on a number of occasions and has issued proceedings relating to his allegations, inter alia, of arbitrary arrest, assault and ill-treatment arising out of six incidents. In proceedings lodged for incidents in 1988 and on 19 March 1993, he received an award of damages (amount unspecified). In or about January 1994 he was awarded damages of 2,500 pounds sterling (GBP) for an incident in Guildhall Square on 16 March 1993 when the judge found that he had been wrongfully arrested by police officers who had purported to arrest the applicant for obstruction in failing to give his name when in fact they were fully aware of his identity. This case concerns his arrest in 1985 in relation to the murder of Mr Kurt Konig.\n9.  Kurt Konig was a German citizen working for the caterers of canteens in police stations in Londonderry. He was murdered on 21 November 1985. The Provisional IRA claimed responsibility for his death.\n10.  The Government submitted that Special Branch received intelligence that the applicant and three other persons were involved in the murder. The intelligence derived from four informants who had proved reliable in the past and had provided information leading to seizures of explosives or firearms and to prosecutions. None of the informants had a criminal record. The information given by these four informants was consistent, in that all gave the same names as being involved, and independent, in that none was aware of the existence of the others and each gave the information at separate meetings with police officers.\n11.  Detective Superintendent R. of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (“the RUC”) was briefed by Special Branch concerning this intelligence that the applicant was a member of the Provisional IRA and had been implicated in the murder.\n12.  Detective Superintendent R. briefed Inspector B. who in turn briefed Detective Constable S.\n13.  On 28 December 1985, at about 6 or 6.15 a.m., Detective Constable S. visited the applicant’s house and conducted a search. At the conclusion of the search, at 8.05 a.m., S. arrested the applicant. He told the applicant that he was arresting him under section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”) which empowered a police constable to arrest, without a warrant, a person whom he had reasonable grounds for suspecting of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.\n14.  The applicant was taken to Castlereagh Detention Centre where he was questioned about his possible membership of the IRA, his suspected involvement in Kurt Konig’s murder and also his possible involvement in the murder of two soldiers on 1 April 1982. He was interviewed on thirty-four occasions. He did not respond to any questions. According to the Government, the first interview occurred on 28 December 1985 at 11.50 a.m., at the start of which he was told that the police were enquiring into his involvement with the Provisional IRA and related matters. Police notes provided by the Government record that during the next interview, from 2.05 to 4 p.m., the interrogating officers told the applicant that they were making enquiries in relation to his membership of the IRA and the murder of Kurt Konig.\n15.  On 29 December 1985 the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland extended the applicant’s period of detention beyond the initial 48-hour perio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-32", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 25 October 1980 police officers from the Fatsa Security Directorate arrested the applicant on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way).\n10.  On 3 January 1981 the Perşembe Criminal ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n11.  On 10 May 1982 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Erzincan Martial Law Court against the applicant and 722 other defendants. The Public Prosecutor accused the applicant, inter alia, of membership of the Dev-Yol, whose object was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime. The prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code.\n12.  On 5 February 1985 the applicant was released pending trial.\n13.  In a judgment of 24 August 1988 the Martial Law Court convicted the applicant on account of his involvement in the Dev-Yol. It sentenced the applicant to fifteen years’ imprisonment under Article 146 § 3 of the Turkish Criminal Code, permanently debarred him from employment in the civil service.\n14.  The applicant appealed to the Military Court of Cassation.\n15.  Following promulgation of the Law of 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, the Court of Cassation (yargıtay) acquired jurisdiction over the case and on 26 December 1994 the case file was transmitted to it.\n16.  On 4 July 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant’s conviction on the ground that he should have been convicted of the offence under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code. It referred the case to the Ankara Assize Court (ağır ceza mahkemesi).\n17.  On 24 June 1997 the Ankara Assize Court decided, under Article 102 of the Turkish Criminal Code, that the criminal proceedings against the applicant should be discontinued since the prosecution was time‑barred.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-33", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 17 November 1980 police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate arrested the applicant on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way).\n10.  On 20 February 1981 the Ankara Martial Law Court (sıkıyönetim mahkemesi) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n11.  On 26 February 1982 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Martial Law Court against the applicant and 722 other defendants. The Public Prosecutor accused the applicant, inter alia, of membership of the Dev-Yol, whose object was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime. The prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code.\n12.  On 14 December 1988 the Ankara Martial Law Court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.\n13.  In a judgment of 19 July 1989 the Martial Law Court convicted the applicant of membership of the Dev-Yol. It sentenced the applicant to 16 years’ imprisonment under Article 168 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code, permanently debarred him from employment in the civil service and placed him under judicial guardianship.\n14.  As the applicant’s sentence exceeded 15 years’ imprisonment, his case was automatically referred to the Military Court of Cassation (askeri yargıtay).\n15.  Following promulgation of the Law of 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, the Court of Cassation (yargıtay) acquired jurisdiction over the case and on 26 December 1994 the case file was transmitted to it.\n16.  On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant’s conviction on the ground that he should have been convicted of the offence under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code. It referred the case to the Ankara Assize Court (ağır ceza mahkemesi). The criminal proceedings are still pending before the latter court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-34", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 2 February 1994 the applicants’ two-year-old daughter, Erika, underwent heart surgery at Marie-Lannelongue Hospital in Le Plessis-Robinson (France).\n9.  On 17 June 1996 Erika was admitted to the same hospital for a postoperative check-up.\n10.  On 18 June 1996 she became feverish and vomited blood. The doctors diagnosed rhinopharyngitis and prescribed antibiotics. On 20 June 1996 the doctors decided to allow the child to leave the hospital.\n11.  In the evening of the same day the applicants telephoned the hospital because Erika was feverish again.\n12.  On 22 June 1996 the applicants took the child to a doctor, who diagnosed pneumonia, telephoned the hospital and requested that Erika be admitted to hospital immediately. On arriving at the hospital Erika was initially taken to the cardiology unit. When she fell into a coma she was transferred to the intensive care unit. The doctors said that she had a serious infection in the left lung, which had weakened her heart.\n13.  On 24 June 1996 Erika died.\n14.  On 28 June 1996 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Nanterre public prosecutor. On 1 July 1996 an inquiry into the causes of death was opened.\n15.  On 3 July 1996 the investigating judge, Miss M., instructed the Sceaux Gendarmerie Investigation Squad to seize Erika’s medical file and question the members of the medical staff who had looked after Erika. On 14 August 1996 the Sceaux Investigation Squad reported back to the judge with its incomplete findings.\n16.  On 5 July 1996 the investigating judge ordered an autopsy, which was carried out on 9 July. Several tissue samples were taken in case a further examination was needed. The autopsy report, dated 25 July 1996, concluded that at the time of Erika’s death she had been suffering from an acute respiratory infection.\n17.  On 16 September 1996 the investigating judge commissioned a further anatomopathological report from Professor L., an expert in forensic medicine, and Dr D., a heart specialist, giving them until 15 December 1996 to submit their report.\n18.  On 13 January 1997 the investigating judge asked them to send her their report by the “absolute deadline of 20 January 1997”.\n19.  From the date of the autopsy onwards the applicants sent numerous letters to the Italian consulate-general in Paris, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Rome and Italian members of Parliament with the aim of securing the return of Erika’s body.\n20.  In Italy a number of MPs put parliamentary questions to the government and held press conferences on the case. Several newspaper articles were published on the subject.\n21.  The Italian consul-general made repeated representations to the investigating judge, including letters sent on 26 September, 26 November and 12 December 1996, and forwarded the information he had obtained to the applicants.\n22.  In January 1997 the consul-general made a formal complaint to the public prosecutor, who demanded an explanation from Professor L. In a letter of 12 February 1997, Professor L. replied as follows:\n“The autopsy was carried out on 9 July 1996 and the investigating judge was immediately notified of the results by telephone. She was told that all the necessary samples of tissue from the internal organs had been taken and that the body could be returned to the family as from 9 July 1996.\nThe internal organs were to be studied subsequently from an anatomopathological viewpoint and this was done on 20 January and 4 February 1997, but I had also been instructed t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-37", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a Lithuanian national, born in 1948 and living in Vilnius. From 1993 to 1996 he was the Prime Minister of Lithuania.\n8.  In January 1996 two members of the Seimas (Parliament) wrote letters to the Prosecutor General, requesting him to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with allegations of financial impropriety amounting to abuse of office. On 24 January 1996 proceedings were instituted.\n9.  On an unspecified date in January 1996, the applicant’s bank accounts were seized in the context of the proceedings. On 8 February 1996 he resigned as Prime Minister in order to pursue business activities.\n10.  On 10 October 1996 a prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General charged the applicant with two counts of abuse of office. On 17 October 1996 the preliminary investigation was concluded, and the applicant was given access to the case-file until 28 November 1996. On 16 December 1996 the prosecutor re-formulated the charges against the applicant. From 18 to 19 December 1996 the applicant again had access to the case-file. On 21 December 1996 the bill of indictment was confirmed, and the case was transmitted to the Vilnius Regional Court.\n11.  On 13 March 1997 the Vilnius Regional Court, after a directions hearing on 24 January 1997, found that the pre-trial investigation had been conducted improperly as the charges against the applicant had been vague and speculative, and his defence rights had been breached. The Regional Court returned the case to the prosecution for further investigation.\n12.  On 26 March 1997 the prosecutor appealed. The appeal was dismissed on 14 May 1997. On 29 October 1997 the prosecutor again charged the applicant, this time with four counts of abuse of office, forgery and cheating. On 1 December 1997 the prosecutor re-formulated the charges. From 3 December 1997 to 23 February 1998 the applicant had access to the case-file. On 23 February 1998 the applicant requested the prosecution to discontinue the case in the absence of any offence. This was rejected on 6 March 1998. On 23 March 1998 a new bill of indictment was confirmed and the case transmitted to the Vilnius Regional Court.\n13.  On 19 June, 10 July and 9 to 30 September 1998, the Vilnius Regional Court heard the case. On 30 September 1998 the court found that the charges against the applicant had been vague and speculative, and that the collection of further material evidence was required. The court adjourned the case and applied to the Constitutional Court, requesting it to rule on the compatibility with the Constitution of a number of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertaining to the investigative nature of judicial functions. On 5 February 1999 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision on the request, returning the case-file to the Regional Court on 8 March 1999.\n14.  On 10 May 1999 a prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General charged the applicant for the fifth time, this time with five counts of abuse of office, forgery and cheating. One co-defendant was charged together with the applicant.\n15.  On 10 and 19 May 1999 the Vilnius Regional Court adjourned the case because of the absence of the co-defendant. The court heard the case on 28 June and 13 July 1999. On that latter date the Vilnius Regional Court found that the investigation had been conducted improperly as the charges against the applicant had been unclear. The court returned the case to the prosecution for further inv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-38", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 15 December 1993 the Koszalin District Court appointed the applicant to the function of a judicial liquidator of a limited liability company H. located in Koszalin.\n10.  On 19 March 1994 the insolvency judge M. requested the commercial division of the Koszalin District Court to dismiss the applicant from his function.  She submitted that the applicant had been involved in civil proceedings relating to his failure to pay salaries to employees of a company that he owned and that the court had found against him.  Therefore he did not comply with the legal requirements that a judicial liquidator had to satisfy since he could not be considered trustworthy.  Furthermore, until the end of January 1994 he had failed to give notice to all the employees of the H. company. Consequently, he had not been performing his obligations in a satisfactory manner as required by law.\n11.  On 21 March 1994 the Koszalin District Court, at a session held in camera, dismissed the applicant and appointed a new liquidator.  The insolvency judge sat on the bench composed of three professional judges that gave this decision. No party to the insolvency proceedings attended the session and the applicant was, likewise, not present, not having been informed of the session or summoned to attend it, as the law did not provide for it.\n12.  On 28 March 1994 the applicant appealed against this decision.  He submitted that, while it was true that no appeal could be filed against the decision to appoint a new liquidator, the law was not clear as to whether an appeal was available against his dismissal from his function. Furthermore, his good reputation as a lawyer and as an employer had been damaged both by the contents of judge M.’s  motion of 19 March 1994 and by his subsequent dismissal. He argued that certain statements in the motion were incorrect as to the facts.  Therefore he had to lodge an appeal in order to challenge them.  He contested both the allegations that he was untrustworthy and that he had not been carrying out his duties properly.  He further submitted that the insolvency judge, considering her own motion for his dismissal, had acted both as a claimant and as a member of the court, which called into question the court’s impartiality.\n13.  By a decision of 30 March 1994 the Koszalin District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.  The court considered that the Insolvency Act did not provide for an appeal against a dismissal of the judicial liquidator. Judge M. was entitled to sit on the bench of the commercial court, deciding about the applicant’s dismissal, because the Insolvency Act excluded participation of the insolvency judge in that court only in cases in which an appeal was available against a decision of that judge given in the insolvency proceedings.\n14.  The applicant appealed to the Koszalin Regional Court, submitting that the District Court was wrong to hold that there was no appeal against his dismissal.  He reiterated that he had been denied a possibility to have the allegations against him reviewed by an impartial court.\n15.  On 8 July 1994 the Koszalin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, considering that under the Insolvency Act, no appeal was possible against a decision by which a liquidator was dismissed and a new one appointed.\n16.  On 29 April 1996 the Słupsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of misappropriation of the H. company’s assets, sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and stayed the enforcement of the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-39", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Krzysztof Iwańczuk, is a Polish national, who was born in 1962. He lives in Brzeg, Poland.\n9.  On 12 September 1991 the Wrocław-Krzyki District Prosecutor charged the applicant with forgery of various documents and use of counterfeit documents. On 14 May 1992 the Wrocław-Krzyki District Prosecutor issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant on suspicion of theft. On 22 May 1992 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the warrant of arrest.\n10.   On 24 July 1992 the Wrocław Regional Court decided to prolong the applicant’s detention until 15 November 1992.  On 21 August 1992 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision.\n11.  On 12 September 1992 the Prosecutor charged the applicant with fraud. On 6 November 1992 the Wrocław Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 December 1992. On 18 December 1992 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor changed the charges laid against the applicant into misappropriation. On 23 December 1992 the Wrocław Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 28 February 1993.\n12.  On 23 February 1993 the Wrocław Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 15 April 1993. On 18 March 1993 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision.\n13.  On 8 April 1993 the bill of indictment against the applicant was submitted to the Wrocław Regional Court. On 30 April 1993 that court prolonged the applicant’s detention for another three months. On 12 May 1993 the applicant appealed against that decision, and on 25 May 1993 completed his appeal by a request to be present at the court’s hearing concerning a further prolongation of his detention.\n14.  On 1 July 1993 the applicant requested the court to fix the date for a first hearing. On the same day the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the prolongation of detention of 30 April 1993.\n15.  On 19 September 1993 at 9.30 p.m the applicant requested the prison authorities to allow him to vote in the parliamentary elections, as there were voting facilities for detainees in the Wrocław prison. The prison guard took him to the guards’ room. The applicant was then told by a group of four guards that in order to be allowed to vote he must get undressed and undergo a body search. The applicant took off his clothes except his underwear, whereupon the prison guards allegedly ridiculed him, exchanged humiliating remarks about his body and abused him verbally. The applicant was ordered to strip naked. He refused to do so and repeatedly requested permission to vote without a body search. As this was refused, the applicant was taken back to his cell without being allowed to vote.\n16.  A group of other prisoners who requested permission to go to the voting room at approximately 9 p.m. on that day, were also ordered to undergo the body search.\n17.  On 20 and 22 September 1993 the first hearing on the merits was held before the Wrocław Regional Court.\n18.  On 23 September 1993 the applicant brought an action before the Supreme Court, complaining that his right to vote had been breached in that he had been prevented from voting. He submitted that the requirement to undergo a body search was unjustified as there had not been any indications in his behaviour during the entire period of his detention that he might threaten the safety of other voting prisoners or guards. He complained of humiliation by the prison ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-40", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  On 14 December 1993 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 16 December 1993 the Starogard Gdański District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged the applicant with the commission of robbery together with three accomplices and remanded him in custody. The charges related to a brutal assault of a businessman who had been attacked with a baseball bat and tear gas and robbed of 122,864 zlotys.\n10.  On 22 February 1994 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) decided to extend the applicant’s detention. On 1 March 1994 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). On 16 March 1994 the appellate court dismissed the appeal. It rejected the applicant’s contention that the Regional Court’s decision referred only in general terms to the reasons justifying his detention. In addition, the appellate court considered that the evidence taken from one of the witnesses gave rise to reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the robbery.\n11.  On 24 May 1994 the Gdańsk Regional Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention until 1 September 1994. It considered that the evidence showed that the applicant had probably committed the criminal offence with which he was charged. The court pointed out that several pieces of evidence remained to be taken, including the psychiatric examination of the applicant. It also considered that the fact that the investigation in the case was not concluded at that stage could not be attributed to the inactivity of the prosecuting authorities. On 27 May 1994 the applicant appealed to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal against that decision. On 15 June 1994 his appeal was dismissed.\n12.  On 29 August 1994 the Gdańsk District Prosecutor filed with the Gdańsk Regional Court a bill of indictment. However, the Regional Court returned it to the District Prosecutor instructing him to elaborate its reasoning.\n13.  On 10 November 1994 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed an application for release made by the applicant. The court noted, inter alia, that the evidence gave rise to reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a criminal offence, which constituted a significant danger to society (znaczny stopień społecznego niebezpieczeństwa). It also observed that the applicant’s son was cared for by his cohabitee, who was assisted by her parents and the applicant’s mother. The applicant appealed that decision.\n14.  On 15 and 21 November 1994 the applicant applied to the Gdańsk Regional Court for release from detention.\n15.  On 28 November 1994 the Gdańsk District Prosecutor re-submitted a bill of indictment to the Gdańsk Regional Court.\n16.  On 5 December 1994 the applicant again applied to the Gdańsk Regional Court for release from detention but his application was dismissed on 6 December 1994.\n17.  On 14 December 1994 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Regional Court’s decision of 10 November 1994.\n18.  The applicant made a fresh application for release but it was on 17 January 1995 dismissed by the Gdańsk Regional Court. The court noted that the evidence gave rise to reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a criminal offence, which caused the significant danger to society. It also rejected the applicant’s contention that he should be released because he had already spent a long period of time in detention waiting for a hear", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-44", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  In 1925 the Greek State occupied an olive grove of a total area of 3,877,000 sq. m in Chalkidiki (northern Greece) and assigned it to the Refugees’ Relief Committee (Επιτροπή Περιθάλψεως Προσφύγων) with a view to settling refugees from Asia Minor there following the mandatory exchange of populations with Turkey under the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. The land was occupied without any compensation being paid to the owners of the olive grove, of whom the applicants are the heirs. The basis for the occupation was a government ordinance of 14 February 1923 authorising the expropriation and occupation of land before any compensation was paid to its owners. The ordinance was subsequently ratified by a constitutional resolution of 15 September 1924; its content was also incorporated into Article 119 of the 1927 Constitution.\n8.  On 21 August 1933, by decision no. 81/1933 of the Expropriations Committee of Chalkidiki (Επιτροπή Απαλλοτριώσεων Χαλκιδικής), the Greek State expropriated the land in question.\n9.  On 8 December 1933 the applicants lodged an application with the appropriate courts for compensation owed them by the State, which had in the meantime taken over from the Refugees’ Relief Committee. Following that application the following judgments, among others, were delivered:\n(i)  interlocutory decision (προδικαστική) no. 28/1934 of the Chalkidiki Court of First Instance ordering a number of expert assessments;\n(ii)  final decision no. 28/1936 of the Chalkidiki Court of First Instance assessing the final unit amount of compensation at 2,008 drachmas (GRD) per square metre; the parties appealed against that decision;\n(iii)  interlocutory judgment no. 54/1938 of the Salonika Court of Appeal setting aside the decision and ordering the parties to produce supplementary evidence;\n(iv)  decision no. 4/1939 of the President of the Chalkidiki Court of First Instance recognising that the applicants were entitled to the compensation assessed;\n(v)  judgment no. 155/1939 of the Salonika Court of Appeal quashing judgment no. 54/1938 and ordering the case to be remitted to the Chalkidiki Court of First Instance;\n(vi)  decision no. 89/1940 of the Chalkidiki Court of First Instance assessing the final unit amount of compensation at GRD 2,720 per square metre; the parties appealed against that decision, but the hearing was not held until 23 January 1961; in the meantime, on 29 April 1959, the applicants had lodged a further application with the Court of Appeal for an assessment of the compensation amount; \n(vii)  judgment no. 96/1961 of the Salonika Court of Appeal ordering a fresh expert assessment, which was begun in 1971 and completed in 1977; at a hearing on 13 February 1979 the applicants claimed GRD 110,000 per square metre and the State raised an objection on the ground that their right to compensation had lapsed;\n(viii)  interlocutory judgment no. 654/1979 of the Salonika Court of Appeal dismissing the objection raised by the State and ordering the applicants to justify their assessment of the value of their land;\n(ix)  judgment no. 1718/1981 of the Salonika Court of Appeal dismissing a further objection raised by the State that the right to compensation had lapsed and assessing the final unit amount of compensation at GRD 50,000 to GRD 180,000 per square metre; the State lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment, raising the same objection again;\n(x)  judgment no. 1305/1983 of the Third Division of the Court of Cassation, setting as", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-45", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8. The applicant was an accountant by profession. He retired in 1998. On 2 April 1986 the Chamber of Accountants instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. Subsequently, the proceedings were adjourned having regard to criminal proceedings pending against the applicant.\n9.  On 14 April 1986 the applicant was convicted of aggravated fraud by the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen), which conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) on 3 October 1988. By the end of 1990 the file relating to the criminal proceedings reached the Disciplinary Court and on 8 November 1991 the hearing date was set down for 8 May 1992.\n10.  On 8 May 1992 the Disciplinary Court of the Chamber of Accountants, having regard to the applicant’s conviction, found that he had infringed the profession’s reputation and ordered the suspension of the applicant’s right to practise for one year.\n11.  On 19 October 1992 the applicant appealed this decision. On 7 May 1993 the Appeals Board dismissed the appeal stating that the suspension should last for one year. This decision was served on 30 January 1995.\n12.  On 15 March 1995 the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) refused to deal with the applicant’s complaint and transferred the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).\n13.  On 30 March 1995 the Chamber of Accountants declared the suspension to be effective from 31 January 1995 to 30 January 1996.\n14.  On 17 May 1995 the Administrative Court granted the applicant’s complaint suspensive effect. On 28 February 1997 it dismissed the complaint. The decision was served on 22 March 1997.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-46", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant, the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, is an autonomous Orthodox Church having canonical jurisdiction in the territory of the Republic of Moldova. The other applicants are Moldovan nationals who are members of the eparchic council of the first applicant. They are: Mr Petru Păduraru, Archbishop of Chişinău, Metropolitan of Bessarabia and living in Chişinău; Mr Petru Buburuz, prosyncellus, living in Chişinău; Mr Ioan Eşanu, protosyncellus, living in Călăraşi; Mr Victor Rusu, protopresbyter, living in Lipnic, Ocniţa; Mr Anatol Goncear, a priest living in Zubreşti, Străşeni; Mr Valeriu Cernei, a priest living in Sloveanca, Sângerei; Mr Gheorghe Ioniţă, a priest living in Crasnoarmeisc, Hânceşti; Mr Valeriu Matciac, a priest living in Chişinău; Mr Vlad Cubreacov, member of the Moldovan parliament and of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and living in Chişinău, Mr Anatol Telembici, living in Chişinău; and Mr Alexandru Magola, Chancellor of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, living in Chişinău.\n10.  On 14 September 1992 the applicant natural persons joined together to form the applicant Church – the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia – a local, autonomous Orthodox Church. According to its articles of association, it took the place, from the canon-law point of view, of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia which had existed until 1944.\nIn December 1992 it was attached to the patriarchate of Bucharest.\n11.  The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia adopted articles of association which determined, among other matters, the composition and administration of its organs, the training, recruitment and disciplinary supervision of its clergy, the ecclesiastical hierarchy and rules concerning its assets. In the preamble to the articles of association the principles governing the organisation and operation of the applicant Church are defined as follows:\n“The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia is a local, autonomous Orthodox Church attached to the patriarchate of Bucharest. The traditional ecclesiastical denomination ‘Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia’ is of a historically conventional nature and has no link with current or previous political situations. The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia has no political activities and will have none in future. It shall carry on its work in the territory of the Republic of Moldova. The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia shall have the status of an exarchate of the country. According to canon law, communities of the Moldovan diaspora may also become members. No charge shall be made for the accession of individual members and communities living abroad.\nIn the context of its activity in the Republic of Moldova, it shall respect the laws of the State and international human rights law. Communities abroad which have adhered for the purposes of canon law to the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia shall establish relations with the authorities of the States concerned, complying with their legislation and the relevant provisions of international law. The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia shall cooperate with the authorities of the State in the sphere of culture, education and social assistance. The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia does not make any claim of an economic or any other kind against other Churches or religious organisations. The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia maintains ecumenical relations  with other Churches and religious movements and considers that fraternal dialogue ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-47", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was a shareholder in a limited liability company, but assigned his shares to another shareholder in 1985. Subsequently, the company went bankrupt.\n9.  On 8 April 1986 a bank which had extended credit to the company filed an action against the applicant with the Innsbruck Regional Court (Landesgericht) requesting repayment because of his joint and several liability for the credit.\n10.  On 29 April 1986 the first hearing was held and on 14 July 1986 the second. On 1 August 1986 the file was transmitted to the Lienz District Court (Bezirksgericht) to hear two witnesses and the applicant. On 18 November 1986 the Lienz District Court returned the file to the Innsbruck District Court. On 25 November 1986 the file was transmitted to the Salzburg District Court to hear witnesses. The file was returned on 12 May 1987 and 10 September 1987 was set down as date for the next hearing. It was postponed upon the applicant’s request and was eventually held on 6 October 1987. On 18 November 1987 the court appointed a banking expert. On 11 February 1988 the file was again transmitted to the Lienz District Court for the hearing of a further witness. It was returned on 3 March and sent to the expert on 22 April 1988. The expert delivered his opinion on 23 September 1988. The applicant’s request for an extension of the time‑limit to comment on the expert opinion was granted and the time‑limit set at 14 November 1988. On 19 January 1989 another hearing was held.\n11.  On 20 February 1989 the Regional Court granted the bank’s claim having regard to the submissions of the parties, witnesses and the expert, to documentary evidence and to the case files of the bankruptcy proceedings.\n12.  On 29 March 1989 the applicant appealed against this decision. On 25 August 1989 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) quashed the decision and referred the case back to the Regional Court.\n13.  A hearing which was scheduled by the Innsbruck Regional Court for 22 March 1990 had to be postponed as the claimant had failed to submit necessary documents and a witness could not be summoned. It was held on 29 August 1990. Subsequently, the applicant requested legal aid and on 24 September 1990 requested an extension by four weeks of the time-limit for submitting his declaration of means. On 3 December 1990, after the applicant had been granted legal aid, the expert was ordered to supplement his opinion. The expert complied with this order on 11 October 1991. After a hearing was held on 7 May 1992, the expert was again ordered to supplement his opinion. On 14 September 1993 the expert informed the court that both parties had failed to submit documents required. On 29 September 1993 a further hearing was held at which the court dismissed the applicant’s motion for bias concerning the expert. The next hearing was held on 25 April 1994 and on 9 May 1994 the file was again transmitted to the expert. On 30 January 1995 the expert submitted his supplemented opinion. On 15 March 1995 a further hearing was held.\n14.  On 12 February 1996 the Innsbruck Regional Court again granted the bank’s claim. On 3 April 1996 the applicant appealed against the decision.\n15.  On 12 July 1996 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n16.  On 30 January 1997 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on 18 February 1997.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-48", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Ryn, Poland.\n9.  On 27 November 1990 the applicant lodged with the Giżycko District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an action in which he sought from a certain company T compensation in the amount of 5,000,000 old zlotys (PLZ). The amount claimed represented the value of a TV set which the applicant had bought from the defendant and which broke down.\n10.  On 5 December 1990 the case was transmitted to the Pruszków District Court. On 3 January 1991 the applicant increased the amount of the claimed compensation to PLZ 10,000,000.\n11.  On 13 February, 12 July and 7 November 1991 hearings were held before the Pruszków District Court.\n12.  On 12 November 1991 the District Court allowed the applicant’s request for interim measures and issued a seizure warrant in respect of a part of property belonging to the T company.\n13.  On 17 January 1992 the applicant replied to the court’s request of 15 January 1992 and confirmed that he sought compensation from the T company. In a letter of 17 January 1992 the Pruszków District Court advised the applicant that the T company had no legal capacity to be sued. The court further pointed out that the company’s sole owner lived in Stuttgart, Germany and that it did not have a plenipotentiary authorised to act on its behalf. The court also informed the applicant that the application for an appointment of a receiver for the company was being considered by the Economic Section of the Pruszków District Court.\n14.  On 29 January 1992 the District Court asked the applicant to confirm whether he still wished to pursue his action against the T company and whether he insisted that Mr Z.S., who was a director of that company, should be considered as a second defendant in the case. On 5 February 1992 the applicant replied that in view of the fact that the branch of the T company situated in Nadarzyn had been liquidated, his action was directed against the company’s branch located in Płońsk. He also insisted that Mr Z.S. was a second defendant in the case and increased his claim to PLZ 15,000,000.\n15.  On 21 February 1992 the applicant asked the District Court why no hearing had been fixed in his case since 7 November 1991. On 2 March 1992 the President of the Pruszków District Court informed the applicant that the delivery of a judgment in the case had been scheduled for 13 November 1991 but had been adjourned in view of the fact that he had requested interim measures and increased his claim. The President also observed that after the applicant had stated that his action had been directed against the branch of the T company situated in Płońsk, the court had advised him that the T company had no legal capacity to be sued and that he should have directed his action against the owner of the company. The President informed the applicant that he should therefore submit to the court a statement explaining against whom his action was directed and that if he had persisted in claiming compensation from the T company instead of its owner, his action would be rejected on procedural grounds.\n16.  On 11 March 1992 the applicant identified Mr Z.C., the owner of the T company, as a defendant in his case.\n17.  On 23 March 1992 the District Court instructed the applicant to inform it whether Mr Z.C. spoke Polish, to submit copies of his statement of claim and of a pleading confirming that Mr Z.S. was the second defendant in the case.\n18.  On 7 May 1992 the Pruszków District Court requested the Stutt", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-49", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 16 September 1994 the Wałbrzych District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged the applicant with receiving a bribe and detained him on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. On the same day the prosecutor confronted the applicant with his co-suspect who had offered him a bribe, and ordered a search of the applicant’s home. On 28 September 1994, on an appeal filed by the applicant, the Wałbrzych Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the detention order and released him under police supervision.\n10.  On 10 February 1995 the Wałbrzych District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Wałbrzych Regional Court. The indictment comprised twelve counts charging seven co-defendants. Two of the applicant’s co-defendants were indicted on charges of an attempt to traffic in women.\n11.  Subsequently, on an unknown date, the Wałbrzych Regional Court appointed a defence counsel for the applicant.\n12.  The trial ended on 15 April 1996. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment suspended for two years and a fine. The Regional Court exempted the applicant from paying the costs of the proceedings and court fees at first instance. It ordered the State Treasury (Skarb Państwa) to cover the legal fees involved in his defence by the officially-appointed lawyer.\n13.  On 24 June 1996 the applicant’s lawyer filed an appeal with the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). The Regional Prosecutor lodged his appeal at about the same time. The applicant filed a memorandum and produced documents in support of his arguments on 27 September 1996.\n14.  Later, the Wrocław Court of Appeal appointed a new defence counsel to assist the applicant in the appellate proceedings.\n15.  On 10 October 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal heard the appeals. Both the applicant and his officially-appointed lawyer were present. The applicant asked the court to read out all the records of evidence heard from him during the first instance proceedings. The court declined to do so, pointing out that the appellate hearing was limited to the questions of fact and law which had been put forward by the parties in their appeals and oral pleadings. It found it unnecessary to read the voluminous records of the oral evidence taken from the applicant.\n16.  On the same day the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment. It levied on the applicant a court fee of 65.00 Polish zlotys [approx. 130 FRF] for examining his appeal and ordered him to pay 50.96 Polish zlotys [approx. 100 FRF] as the costs of the appellate proceedings. The court ordered that the costs involved in the applicant’s defence in the appeal proceedings be borne by the State Treasury.\n17.  On 12 October 1996 the applicant lodged a notice of cassation appeal with the Wrocław Court of Appeal and asked it to serve on him the written reasons for its judgment. He also asked the Court of Appeal to appoint a new lawyer to assist him in the preparation of his cassation appeal. The relevant part of the application read:\n“The appeal proceedings were of a fictitious nature ... [which was shown] by the time foreseen by the Court of Appeal for dealing with [my] appeal. [That] court foresaw only 15 minutes ... The appellate hearing was to start at 9.00 a.m. and the next case was to be heard at 9.15 a.m. ... In addition, as I learnt on 11 October this year, the Court of Appeal had replaced my previous defence counsel by someone else ...", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-50", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 12 September 1984 policemen from the Ankara Security Directorate arrested the applicant on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way).\n10.  On 26 October 1984 the Ankara Martial Law Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n11.  On 26 December 1984 and 10 May 1985 the Military Public Prosecutor filed two bills of indictment with the Ankara Martial Law Court against the applicant. He accused the applicant of membership of the Dev-Yol, whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime, contrary to Article 146 § 3 of the Criminal Code. The Public Prosecutor further alleged, inter alia, that the applicant had been involved in a number of crimes such as a bomb attack on a coffee house, opening fire on a house and several robberies.\n12.  On 26 May 1986 the applicant was released pending trial.\n13.  On 19 July 1989 the Ankara Martial Law Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment on account of his membership of an illegal armed organisation (Article 168 § 2). The applicant lodged an appeal with the Military Court of Cassation against this judgment.\n14.  On 26 December 1994 the jurisdiction of the martial law courts was abolished and the Court of Cassation acquired jurisdiction over the case.\n15.  On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation held that the criminal proceedings against the applicant should be discontinued on the ground that the prosecution was time‑barred.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-51", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is the mother of two children: T., born on 8 April 1993, and A., born on 17 December 1994.\n10.  On 31 March 1995 the Youth Welfare Office (Jugendwohlfahrtsträger) at the Linz-Land District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft), pursuant to section 215 of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch), took T. and A. provisionally into their care. It noted that on the morning of that day, the applicant, who delivers newspapers, had come back late from work and her children had been at home without supervision for approximately 45 minutes. The applicant’s neighbour, who had seen T. alone in the garden at around 8.30 a.m., had contacted the District Administrative Authority. The Youth Welfare Office placed the children with a socio-pedagogical facility in Salzburg for an evaluation of their development.\n11.  On 4 April 1995 the Youth Welfare Office requested the formal transfer of the custody of the children to it before the Enns District Court (Bezirksgericht). The Youth Welfare Office, relying on section 215 of the Civil Code, claimed that the living conditions of the children were chaotic. It did not submit a formal statement of reasons, but promised to do so later.\n12.  On 24 April 1995 the applicant, assisted by counsel, requested the District Court to order the Youth Welfare Office to return T. and A. to her.\n13.  On 10 May 1995 the District Court rejected the Youth Welfare Office’s request and ordered that T. and A. be promptly returned to their mother’s custody. The District Court found that the removal of the children from their mother was unlawful, as the Youth Welfare Office had failed to submit a formal statement of reasons giving arguments in support of the children’s removal and the transfer of their custody. The court observed that, without such a statement, it could not take the evidence necessary to verify whether the Youth Welfare Office’s request was well-founded. Consequently, the court was not in a position to decide on the merits.\n14.  On 11 May 1995 the Youth Welfare Office appealed and refused to give T. and A. back to their mother. On 16 May 1995 it supplemented its appeal arguing that the applicant was incapable of bringing up T. and A. It submitted that on the early morning of 31 March 1995 the children had been at home alone. T. was wandering about in the garden alone at 0°C, wearing only pyjamas. In support of its arguments, the Youth Welfare Office filed, inter alia, a fax of the Enns rural police (Gendarmerieposten) of 31 March 1995, certificates of 5 April 1995 concerning the children’s condition of health issued by a medical officer (Amtsarzt), and the transcripts of the statements of the applicant’s neighbour before the District Administrative Authority.\n15.  On 6 June 1995 the Steyr Regional Court (Landesgericht) quashed the District Court’s decision and remitted the case back to the District Court, instructing the latter to take a new decision after having supplemented its proceedings (Verfahrensergänzung). The Regional Court found that, taking the ex officio character of the custody proceedings (Pflegschaftsverfahren) into account, it had been for the District Court to investigate the facts sufficiently in order to reach a decision. In particular the Youth Welfare Office should have been given the opportunity to correct its procedural mistake by submitting a formal statement of reasons.\n16.  On 27 June 1995 the Salzburg socio-pedagogical centre (Sozialpädagog", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-52", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 4 February 1989 the Austrian police were informed via Interpol that on 30 January 1989 in Poquoson (Virginia, USA) E.P., a German citizen, and H.S., an Austrian citizen, had been killed and that the applicant, who at that time lived in Virginia, was suspected of having killed and robbed them. A warrant of arrest was issued against the applicant in the United States.\n10.  On 5 February 1989 the applicant, who in the meantime had returned to Austria, was arrested and on 7 February 1989 was remanded in custody. The applicant remained on remand until 17 June 1992. This period was interrupted from 17 May to 6 June 1989 and from 6 February 1998 to 17 May 1989 whilst the applicant served prison sentences imposed in respect of previous convictions.\n11.  Meanwhile the trial against the applicant took place before the Assizes of the Innsbruck Regional Court sitting with a jury. On 16 October 1991 the jury acquitted the applicant, but the bench of the Assize Court set aside the jury’s verdict as erroneous. A new trial against the applicant and one co-accused was held before another Assize Court of the Innsbruck Regional Court.\n12.  On 17 June 1992 the Court of Assizes again acquitted the applicant. The jury answered the question as to murder and the question as to aggravated robbery with six votes of “no” and two votes of “yes”. According to the record of the jury’s deliberations, the majority of its members found the applicant not guilty as there had been discrepancies between the statements of the witnesses (“Widersprüche in den Zeugenaussagen”).\n13.  On 1 October 1993 the Innsbruck Regional Court sitting with a single judge heard the applicant in private on his claim for compensation in respect of his detention on remand. The applicant, assisted by counsel, argued that the proceedings under the Criminal Proceedings Compensation Act (Strafrechtliches Entschädigungsgesetz) infringed the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. He referred to the Sekanina v. Austria judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (25 August 1993, Series A no.266-A). The applicant also presented fresh evidence which, in his opinion, could entirely dissipate the suspicion still subsisting against him.\n14.  On 24 January 1996 a chamber of the Innsbruck Regional Court, composed of three judges, dismissed the applicant’s compensation claim. The Regional Court found that a right to compensation in the applicant’s case would require that the suspicion against him had been entirely dissipated. According to the records of the jury’s deliberations, a majority of the members had found the applicant not guilty on the grounds that there had been discrepancies between the statements of witnesses. The applicant was not acquitted because his innocence had been proven, but because he had been given the benefit of the doubt. Thus, the suspicion against the applicant had not been dissipated. As regards the applicant’s request for the taking of evidence, the Regional Court found that it was prevented from examining further evidence. It referred in this respect to the Constitutional Court’s case-law following the Sekanina judgement, according to which a fresh examination of the question of guilt in compensation proceedings following a final acquittal would be in breach of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.\n15.  On 12 February 1996 the applicant appealed against this decision. He submitted, inter alia, that the Regional Court had re-examined the Assiz", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-53", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 9 November 1994 the Braunau District Administrative Authority (Bezirks­hauptmannschaft) convicted the applicant twice under the Motor Vehicles Act (Kraftfahrgesetz) for failure to comply with the instructions of the Authority to inform them who had used his car on specific days (Lenkerauskunft), and sentenced him, on each offence, to a fine of 4,000 ATS or six days’ imprisonment in default. The Authority noted that the applicant had given information but found it to be incorrect.\n10.  On 29 November 1994 the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with the Upper Austrian Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat). He complained that the District Administrative Authority had incorrectly applied the law and failed to sufficiently assess the evidence before it or clarify why the information he had given was untrue. The applicant did not request a hearing, nor did he expressly waive this right. No oral hearing was held.\n11.  On 2 January 1995 the Independent Administrative Panel dismissed the appeal on the merits but reduced the sentence.\n12.  On 28 February 1995 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). He complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Independent Administrative Panel had failed to hold a hearing. Such a hearing would have been necessary because his appeal was not limited to points of law. He had also criticised the District Administrative Authority’s assessment of evidence. Therefore an oral hearing would have been necessary. In such a hearing the Independent Administrative Panel could have properly assessed this evidence, which had already been obtained at first instance, as well as fresh evidence.\n13.  On 13 July 1995 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint on the ground that it did not have sufficient prospects of success. Upon a request filed by the applicant on 10 August 1995, the Constitutional Court transferred the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).\n14.  On 23 February 1996 the Administrative Court, relying on Section 33a of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz), declined to deal with the applicant’s case, finding that it did not raise important legal issues. On 10 May 1996 this decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-54", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  In the late evening of 29 April 1993, the father of S., born in 1985, laid a criminal information against the applicant, alleging that the applicant, her private music teacher, had sexually abused S. during an individual music lesson that afternoon. S. and her mother were questioned at the local police office on the afternoon of 30 April 1993. S. was heard by a police officer and confirmed her father’s statements. S.’s mother stated that S. had been very disturbed after her music lesson and that she had later confided in her mother.\n9.  On 10 January 1994 the Künzelsau District Court, sitting with a single judge, convicted the applicant of having committed the offence of sexual abuse of a child in concurrence with the offence of sexual abuse of a charge. He was sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment on probation. \nIn establishing the relevant facts, the court relied on the statements made by the mother concerning her daughter’s account of the relevant events, her behaviour after the music lesson on 29 April 1993 and her character in general, and also on the evidence given by the police officer who had questioned S. shortly after the offence in April 1993. \nThe court dismissed the applicant’s request for a psychological expert opinion regarding the credibility of S.’s statements on the ground of the court’s own professional experience, acquired as a judge in family matters, in evaluating statements made by children. \nMoreover, the court observed that it had not been reasonable to hear S. herself, as, according to her mother, she had meanwhile repressed her recollection of the event in question and would seriously suffer if reminded thereof. If S. were to be examined, this would not contribute to a further clarification of the facts, but seriously impair her personal development.\n10.  The applicant appealed to the Heilbronn Regional Court, requesting his acquittal. In the appeal proceedings, he was assisted by counsel.\n11.  On 17 March 1995 the Heilbronn Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against his conviction of sexual abuse of a child, but set aside the conviction of sexual abuse of a charge. The sentence to seven months’ imprisonment on probation was upheld.\nThe Regional Court noted that the applicant had denied having sexually abused S. It found that his guilt could be established on the basis of the evidence before it, i.e. the statements made by S.’s mother and the police officer as well as a psychological expert opinion on the question of S.’s credibility, ordered in the context of the appeal proceedings. In her report of November 1994, the expert, who had questioned S. in October 1994, confirmed that S.’s statements were credible. \nThe Regional Court considered that the absence of S.’s testimony in court constituted a serious shortcoming in the taking of evidence. In this respect, it noted that the parents had refused to bring their daughter to court on account of the risk that her state of health would deteriorate as she suffered from neurodermatitis. According to the Regional Court, the parents’ refusal was understandable. In this respect, the Regional Court had regard to a medical certificate confirming the parents’ statements and the findings of the psychological expert that S.’s state of health would most likely deteriorate again if she were to be heard anew on the event in question. Taking into account that S.’s statements had been reported by her mother and by the police officer and that an expert opinion", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-55", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants are German citizens. They live respectively in Oberhausen and Mülheim/Ruhr. The application concerns proceedings initiated by Mrs Gretel Janssen, who died on 27 July 1986. After her death, her son Heinz–Jürgen Janssen and her daughter Margit Jakobs, born Janssen, continued the proceedings. Heinz–Jürgen Janssen died on 19 November 1992. His widow Roswitha Janssen and his daughter Melanie Janssen act in his stead in pursuing the case.\n11.  The husband of the original plaintiff Mrs Gretel Janssen worked between October 1950 and December 1959 as an asbestos fabric cutter in an area where asbestos mattresses were manufactured. During this period, the workers who were exposed to asbestos dust while working had to clean their clothes themselves. This was done by the original plaintiff Mrs Gretel Janssen for her husband. The husband contracted an asbestos dust–related lung disease (asbestosis), which was recognised as an occupational disease by the Düsseldorf Health Insurance Association (Maschinenbau- und Metall-Berufsgenossenschaft). The Health Insurance Association paid the husband a pension until his death on 21 February 1973 and subsequently a widow’s and orphan’s pension to the surviving family members.\n12.  Having contracted a mesothelioma, an asbestosis related disease, Mrs Gretel Janssen applied on 23 December 1985 to the Düsseldorf Health Insurance Association for compensation payments, claiming that her illness was the consequence of the daily cleaning of her husband’s work clothes. On 28 February 1986 the Health Insurance Association dismissed her request holding that her activity was not covered by the industrial health insurance, since she had acted on a strictly private basis and not as an employee.\n13.  On 20 March 1986 Mrs Gretel Janssen filed an objection (Widerspruch) against this decision which was rejected on 23 April 1986 by the Appeals Board of the Health Insurance Association.\n14.  On 26 May 1986 Mrs Gretel Janssen commenced proceedings before the Duisburg Social Court (Sozialgericht).\n15.  On 27 May 1986 the Social Court invited the defendant Health Insurance Association to comment on the claim and to submit the file. On 9 July 1986 Mrs Janssen’s lawyer telephoned the court and requested that a date be fixed for a hearing as soon as possible. He expressed the fear that the plaintiff would not live to attend a hearing in July or August 1986. On 18 July 1986 the Health Insurance Association sent written observations and the administrative file to the Social Court. Mrs Gretel Janssen died on 27 July 1986. Written observations on her behalf were submitted on 18 August 1986. On 13 October 1987 the court received a power of attorney on behalf of the applicants as heirs of Mrs Gretel Janssen without any further explanation. On 9 November 1987 the parties were summoned to appear at a hearing on 26 November 1987. This hearing was cancelled on 23 November 1987.\n16.  On 24 November 1987 the plaintiff’s counsel informed the court about Mrs Gretel Janssen’s death. On 17 March 1988 the Social Court requested the plaintiff’s counsel to indicate the successors in title. It sent a reminder on 8 July 1988. The court received the requested information on 25 July 1988.\n17.  The proceedings were resumed on 28 July 1988. On 22 November 1988 the parties were summoned to appear at a hearing on 8 December 1988. On 28 November 1988 the plaintiff’s counsel requested to anticipate the hour of the hearing. On 5 December 1988 the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-56", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 5 July 1990 the applicant's mother filed an action with the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against the Municipality of Črnomerec, Zagreb (Općina Črnomerec) concerning her property rights to a part of an apartment building situated within the area of the above municipality.\n9.  At the preliminary hearing on 17 January 1991 the defendant disputed the plaintiff’s allegations. On 15 February 1991 the defendant submitted its reply to the plaintiff’s claim. The next hearing took place on 2 February 1993.\n10.  By decision of 9 November 1994 the Zagreb Municipal Court decided that it had no jurisdiction in the case. On 6 December 1994 the plaintiff appealed against that decision. On 25 September 1996 the case file was transmitted to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Gradu Zagrebu) as the appellate court.\n11.  On 15 September 1997 the applicant's mother died and the applicant was proclaimed her only heir. He continued the proceedings instituted by his mother.\n12.  On 12 May 1998 the Zagreb County Court quashed the first instance decision and remitted the case to the Zagreb Municipal Court. The case was received at that court on 10 June 1998 and was assigned to a judge on 1 January 1999.\n13.  The next hearing before the Zagreb Municipal Court took place on 21 September 1999. The parties repeated their claims. According to the applicant on 27 October 1999 and 20 January 2000 he requested the court to speed up the proceedings.\n14.  As the law regulating ownership had been changed, on 2 May 2000 the court invited the applicant to adjust his claim to the changes in law.\n15.  At the hearing on 19 May 2000 the applicant's counsel submitted the adjusted claim. The court invited the Zagreb Housing Council (Gradsko stambeno komunalno gospodarstvo Zagreb) to submit a list of the flats in the building, the names of the owners and occupiers as well as the legal position of the occupiers and the flats.\n16.  The next hearing scheduled for 27 June 2000 was adjourned. The court repeated its request to the Zagreb Housing Council.\n17.  At the next hearing on 12 September 2000 the court invited the parties to file their observations concerning the Zagreb Housing Council’s submissions. The next hearing was scheduled for 6 November 2001. The proceedings are pending before the first instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-57", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1921 and lives in Michałowice, Poland.\n8.  In 1976 the applicant’s former wife lodged with the Pruszków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an action against the applicant in which she sought the distribution of the common property of their marriage.\n9.  Up to 30 April 1993, the Pruszków District Court held eighty-four hearings in the case.\n10.  Between 9 July 1993 and 7 April 1995 six hearings took place. During that period the parties filed pleadings with the trial court on eighteen occasions.\n11.  During the hearing held on 17 May 1995 the applicant made threats against the plaintiff’s counsel.\n12.  Between 11 June and 7 September 1995 the District Court held four hearings and received seven memorials from the parties. One of the memorials submitted by the applicant included a list of forty-one questions to the plaintiff.\n13.  On 14 September 1995 the applicant made a request to the Ombudsman that the case be transferred to another court. He also threatened that he would blow himself up with a grenade in the courtroom if his case were not decided in 1996.\n14.  On 12 March 1996 the President of the Pruszków District Court decided that, in view of the threats made by the applicant against the court and the plaintiff’s counsel, police officers should be present in the courtroom during the hearing scheduled for the next day. However, on 13 March 1996 the hearing was postponed because counsel for the plaintiff failed to attend.\n15.  According to the Government, the hearing fixed for 24 April 1996 was cancelled because on 27 March 1996 the applicant had challenged the presiding judge. The challenge was subsequently dismissed. The applicant submitted that the hearing had been adjourned because the plaintiff’s counsel had been absent.\n16.  On 2 July 1996 the applicant challenged all the judges of the Pruszków District Court, but subsequently he withdrew the challenge.\n17.  On 8 January 1997 the applicant asked the Vice-President of the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) to transfer the case-file to the Pruszków District Court immediately. He pointed out that the Regional Court had decided his procedural request on 25 November 1996 and the case-file had been lying since then in the archives of the Regional Court. As a result, no judicial activity had taken place during that period. On 22 January 1997 the applicant visited the registry of the Warsaw Regional Court and repeated his complaint of 8 January 1997.\n18.  On 6 February 1997 the Vice-President of the Warsaw Regional Court informed the applicant that his complaint was well-founded and apologised to him for the delay in returning the case-file to the Pruszków District Court. He also advised the applicant that on 5 February 1997 the case-file had been transmitted to the District Court and a copy of the Regional Court’s decision of 25 November 1996 had been sent to him.\n19.  On 28 May 1997 the applicant filed with the trial court three requests concerning an expert witness and the disputed property.\n20.  Hearings took place on 28 May, 30 June and 6 August 1997. During the first of these hearings, the plaintiff replied to forty-one questions submitted by the applicant in 1995.\n21.  On 12 August 1997 the applicant filed with the trial court written pleadings concerning the distribution of the property.\n22.  On 22 August 1997 the Pruszków District Court ordered the applicant to allow the plaintiff access to a water supply on the contested property. The applicant ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-58", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 3 June 1994 an action in defamation (üble Nachrede) was brought against the applicant. He was suspected of having abused another person in the course of an altercation. Trial hearings were held on 8 November 1994, 8 May 1995 and 3 October 1995 before the Herzogenburg District Court (Bezirksgericht). On the latter date the applicant was convicted of defamation and sentenced to a fine.\n8.  On 4 March 1996, following the applicant’s appeal, the St. Pölten Regional Court quashed the sentence because of errors of procedure and law, and referred the case back to the District Court. It found, inter alia, that the District Court had relied on evidence that had been precluded.\n9.  On 17 February 1997, after hearings on that date and 10 January 1997, the District Court convicted the applicant again, qualifying the incriminated behaviour this time as an insult (Beleidigung).\n10.  On 8 January 1998, following the applicant’s appeal, the St. Pölten Regional Court quashed the sentence again and referred the case back to the District Court. The Court of Appeal found that the District Court had failed to take evidence concerning the applicant’s intentions.\n11.  On 18 May 1998 the District Court again convicted the applicant of insult. On 25 January 1999 the St. Pölten Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on 27 April 1999.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-60", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 8 May 1996 the applicant was arrested in New York (USA) and placed in detention on the basis of a extradition request from the authorities of the Netherlands Antilles where he had been charged with embezzlement and forgery. He was extradited to the Netherlands Antilles on 30 May 1996 and detained in the Pointe Blanche Penitentiary on the island of St. Maarten.\n10.  In a document dated 18 June 1996 bearing the applicant’s signature, it is stated that the applicant appointed Mr D. Gebhardt as the:\n“true and lawful Attorney in my name, place and stead and for my use and benefit: To exercise any or all of the following powers as to my criminal case in the Netherlands Antilles, any interest therein and thereon. To appoint or terminate lawyers, receive and take possession of documents, to ask demand, sue for, recover, collect and receive all necessary documents in my criminal case, and appeal any decision, file complaints and whatsoever. Giving and granting to my said Attorney full powers and authority ... until this power is revoked.”\n11.  On 11 December 1996, following adversarial proceedings during which the applicant was assisted by Mr R. – a local legal aid lawyer to whom the case had been assigned –, the First Instance Court (Gerecht in Eerste Aanleg) of the Netherlands Antilles convicted the applicant of embezzlement and fraud and sentenced him to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. Both the applicant and the public prosecutor filed an appeal with the Joint Court of Justice (Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie) of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba.\n12.  On 7 October 1997, following adversarial proceedings during which the applicant was represented by Mr J. – a local lawyer –, the Joint Court of Justice quashed the judgment of 11 December 1996, convicted the applicant of embezzlement and forgery and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. Although on 13 October 1997 the applicant filed an appeal in cassation with the Netherlands Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), he subsequently withdrew this appeal. Consequently, the Joint Court of Justice’s judgment of 7 October 1997 became final. On 27 February 1998, after having served his sentence, the applicant was released from prison.\n13.  On 21 September 1996 the applicant sent a letter of complaint about the conditions of detention in the Point Blanche Penitentiary, where he was held, to one of the judges of the First Instance Court of St. Maarten, in the latter’s capacity as a member of the Prisons and Remand Centres Supervisory Board (Commissie van Toezicht Gevangeniswezen en Huizen van Bewaring).\n14.  In this letter, in which the applicant referred to a conversation he had had with this judge on 20 September 1996, the applicant explained, among other things, that inmates were locked in their cells for 21 hours a day with nothing to do, that after ten days’ detention in Point Blanche an inmate was permitted on the following Saturday a maximum of four sheets of paper and four envelopes, that there were no telephone facilities apart from previously announced incoming telephone calls not exceeding fifteen minutes, that inmates had to provide for their own clothing and bed linen, which they had to wash in the showers or primitive sinks during recreation, that toilets did not flush and that shower taps and pipes were leaking. In his letter the applicant suggested practical solutions for these matters and explained why such solutions would be beneficial for all concerned.\n15.  On 13 Janu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-61", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  On 25 October 1991 the Investigating Judge at the Graz Regional Court (Landesgericht) issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant on suspicion of having committed fraud and falsification of documents. The suspicion related to the applicant’s business activities, and in particular two real estate investment projects. The Investigating Judge issued a search warrant ordering a house search at the premises of the SDBV company, a private company (Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung) for which the applicant acted as general manager. The seizure of documents relating to the real estate investment projects was also ordered. That same day the warrant, search and seizure were executed, the latter in the presence of the Investigating Judge. Later in the day the Investigating Judge questioned the applicant and ordered his detention on remand as he found that there existed a danger of the applicant absconding and collusion. As regards the risk of collusion, the Investigating Judge found that there was the danger that the applicant would attempt to influence the employees of the SDBV company and to remove documents which had not been found at the house search.\n11.  On 27 October 1991 the applicant requested his release from detention on remand.\n12.  On 6 November 1991 the Review Chamber (Ratskammer) of the Graz Regional Court, after an oral hearing in the presence of the applicant, his defence counsel and the Public Prosecutor, dismissed his request. The Review Chamber found that no danger of absconding existed. However, the danger of collusion continued to exist as the applicant might try to influence witnesses not yet heard and to remove any traces of the offence. There was also a danger of his committing further offences. On 20 November 1991 the applicant appealed. At an unspecified date also the Public Prosecutor appealed, arguing that detention on remand should also be based on the risk of the applicant absconding.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 11 November 1991, the Investigating Judge ordered that the applicant’s contacts with his defence counsel should take place under the surveillance of the court because of the existence of a danger of collusion. The Investigating Judge found that this measure was necessary because co-suspects were still at large, several witnesses had not yet been heard and there was a risk that the applicant could influence them. The Investigating Judge stated that the validity of this order would expire at the latest when the two-month statutory time-limit for detention on remand based on the risk of collusion would end. The applicant appealed against this decision. He submitted that he did not oppose this measure in principle, however, the measure constituted an unnecessary limitation on his defence rights and the Investigating Judge had failed to order this measure within 14 days as prescribed by law.\n14.  On 21 November 1991 the Review Chamber dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Investigating Judge’s search warrant and the order for surveillance of the applicant’s contacts with his defence counsel. As regards the complaint about the surveillance of the applicant’s contacts with counsel, the Review Chamber found the Investigating Judge’s decision to be correct. This order did not involve any criticism of counsel or any reproach of conduct contrary to law or the disciplinary rules of the members of the bar, but merely had the purpose of preventing any contact whatsoever with third persons in order not to endang", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-62", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 24 July 1996 police officers from the Istanbul Security Directorate arrested the applicant in his house and placed him in custody in the course of an investigation conducted against the members of the PKK.\n7.  In a letter dated 25 July 1996 the Istanbul Security Directorate informed the office of the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court that on account of the applicant’s confessions the police officers had conducted a search in the applicant’s house and found several explosives. In the same letter the Istanbul Security Directorate requested the Istanbul State Security public prosecutor to authorise the extension of the applicant’s detention period. On the same date the Istanbul State Security Court public prosecutor authorised the Istanbul Security Directorate to extend the detention period until 5 August 1996.\n8.  On 5 August 1996 the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court. During his questioning the applicant partly confirmed the veracity of his statement he gave in police custody on account of his involvement in the PKK.\n9.  On 5 August 1996 the applicant was questioned by the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. The applicant rejected his involvement in the PKK and the accusations mentioned in the statement he gave in police custody. On the same date the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n10.  At a hearing on 18 October 1996 before the Istanbul State Security Court the applicant rejected the allegations against him and stated that he had been forced to sign a statement without having read it. The applicant confirmed the veracity of the statements he gave before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge.\n11.  At two hearings on 18 October 1996 and 9 December 1996 the Istanbul State Security Court rejected the applicant’s requests for release pending trial.\n12.  On 23 May 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting the PKK pursuant to Article 169 of the Turkish Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law No. 3713. It sentenced the applicant to five years’ imprisonment and debarred him from employment in public service.\n13.  On 20 June 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation against the decision of the Istanbul State Security Court.\n14.  On 12 March 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Istanbul State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-63", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  Mr Ján Čonka, Mrs Mária Čonková, Miss Nad'a Čonková and Miss Nikola Čonková are Slovakian nationals of Roma origin who were born in 1960, 1961, 1985 and 1991 respectively. The first two applicants are the parents of the third and fourth applicants.\n8.  The applicants say that on several occasions between March and November 1998 they were violently assaulted by skinheads in the Slovak Republic. Indeed, in November 1998 Mr Čonka had been so seriously injured in an assault that he had had to be hospitalised. The police had been called but had refused to intervene. Several days later Mr and Mrs Čonka had been subjected to renewed insults and threats by skinheads, but the police had again refused to intervene.\nAs a result of those constant threats, the applicants had decided to flee Slovakia and travel to Belgium, where they had arrived at the beginning of November 1998: Mr Čonka and the two minor children on 6 November and Mrs Čonka two days later.\n9.  On 12 November 1998 the applicants requested political asylum in Belgium.\n10.  On 3 March 1999 their applications for asylum were declared inadmissible by the Minister of the Interior through the Directorate-General of the Aliens Office on the ground that they had not produced sufficient evidence to show that their lives were at risk in Slovakia for the purposes of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The decisions refusing permission to remain in Belgium were accompanied by a decision refusing permission to enter the territory itself, endorsed with an order to leave the territory within five days.\n11.  On 5 March 1999 the applicants lodged an appeal under the urgent-applications procedure with the Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (“the Commissioner-General”) against the decisions refusing them permission to remain in Belgium.\n12.  On 14 April 1999 Mr Čonka was invited to attend the Commissioner-General's Office to set out his grounds for seeking asylum. He failed to keep the appointment.\n13.  On 23 April 1999 Mrs Čonková, assisted by an interpreter, was heard by representatives of the Commissioner-General's Office at Ghent Prison, where she was in custody pending trial. On 17 May 1999 she was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment for theft by the Ghent Criminal Court.\n14.  On 18 June 1999 the Commissioner-General's Office upheld the decision of the Aliens Office refusing the applicants permission to remain. Its decision in Mr Čonka's case was based on his failure to attend his appointment without showing due cause. As regards Mrs Čonková, in some two pages of reasons the Commissioner-General pointed out major discrepancies in her deposition and expressed serious doubts about her credibility.\nFor example, Mrs Čonková had declared among other things that on 4 November 1998 her husband, Mr Čonka, had been assaulted by skinheads so violently that he had had to be taken to hospital. The police had been called but had not come out. That incident had been the direct cause of their decision to flee Slovakia. However, the Commissioner-General considered that statement to be refuted by the fact that the travel tickets had been issued before the above incident of 4 November: Mrs Čonková's plane ticket on 2 October and her husband's and their children's bus tickets for the journey to Belgium on 2 November 1998. Furthermore, Mrs Čonková's account of the incident did not match her stepdaughter's, in particular on the important issue of whether the police h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-64", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a child born out of wedlock on 25 November 1996. On 30 January 1997 the applicant and her mother filed a civil suit against H.P. before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) in order to establish paternity.\n9.  At the hearing on 17 June 1997 the Municipal Court pronounced judgment by default against the defendant. The adoption of such a judgment, however, is expressly prohibited by the Marriage and Family Act (Zakon o braku i porodičnim odnosima – 1977, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992 and 1999) in “civil-status matters” (statusni sporovi). On 1 July 1997 the defendant appealed against that judgment.\n10.  At the hearing on 6 October 1997 the Zagreb Municipal Court annulled its own judgment. The next hearing was scheduled for 9 December 1997.\n11.  Meanwhile, H.P. filed a motion accusing the presiding judge of bias, which was allowed on 27 January 1998 by the President of the Zagreb Municipal Court. Consequently, on 23 February 1998 the case was transferred to another judge.\n12.  The hearing scheduled for 18 June 1998 was adjourned owing to the absence of H.P.'s counsel.\n13.  The hearing scheduled for 14 July 1998 was adjourned as H.P.'s counsel had died.\n14.  At the hearing on 14 October 1998 H.P.'s new counsel argued that the applicant's mother had had relations with persons other than H.P. at the relevant time (exceptio plurium concubentium) and invited the court to summon several witnesses.\n15.  At the hearing on 21 January 1999 only two witnesses were heard, as the other witnesses failed to appear.\n16.  At the next hearing on 18 March 1999 the court ordered a DNA blood test. The appointment at the relevant clinic was scheduled for 21 May 1999, but H.P. failed to appear.\n17.  The next appointment was scheduled for 18 June 1999, but H.P. informed the court that he would be absent from 1 June 1999 until 15 September 1999.\n18.  On 19 July 1999 the court ordered another appointment for the blood test, which was scheduled for 27 September 1999, but H.P. again failed to appear.\n19.  On 13 October 1999 the court ordered a fourth appointment, scheduled for 22 October 1999, but H.P. informed the court that he would be absent that day.\n20.  On 28 November 1999 the court ordered a fifth appointment, scheduled for 6 December 1999, and once again H.P. failed to appear.\n21.  The next hearing scheduled for 17 February 2000 was adjourned as H.P. did not appear.\n22.  At the hearing on 29 February 2000 the court heard testimonies from the parties and scheduled the sixth appointment for the DNA tests for 25 April 2000, at which H.P. failed to appear.\n23.  The next hearing, scheduled for 5 June 2000, was adjourned, as H.P. did not appear.\n24.  On 12 July 2000 the court concluded the trial.\n25.  On 3 October 2000 the applicant's counsel received the Municipal Court's judgment of 12 July 2000 establishing the defendant's paternity and granting the applicant maintenance. The first-instance court found that the fact that the defendant had been avoiding DNA tests supported the applicant's claim. On 27 November 2000 H.P. appealed against the judgment.\n26.  On 3 April 2001 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for retrial. The appellate court found that the first-instance court had failed to establish all the relevant evidence and that H.P.'s paternity could not have been established primarily on his avoidance of DNA tests. It ordered the first-inst", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-65", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  In a statement taken and recorded by police on 30 September 1987, one Mr A. said that he had been kidnapped and beaten up by two unknown men. He suspected that they had acted on the orders of another man, Mr G., and that his kidnap had constituted an act of revenge for a burglary that he, Mr A., was rumoured to have carried out. On 11 April 1988 preliminary judicial investigations were initiated into allegations that the applicant and an accomplice, Mr D., had intentionally deprived Mr A. of his liberty on 30 September 1987.\n11.  On 28 April 1988 two police officers drew up an official record (proces-verbaal) containing the findings of the investigation into the kidnapping and assault of Mr A. It stated, inter alia, that a number of witnesses had seen Mr G. and two other persons in bars in the town of Weesp in the night of 29 to 30 September 1987 and that these witnesses had overheard the three men making inquiries into the whereabouts of the victim, Mr A. Mr A. was said to know Mr G. well and to be very afraid of him. Police investigations conducted in various bars in Weesp had shown that Mr G. had such a reputation that this fear was shared by many people. According to the reporting officers, the witnesses who had seen the suspects prior to and during the commission of the offences in question were so scared that they were afraid to make written statements.\n12.  The official police record then describes how four witnesses were confronted with the applicant and his co-accused Mr D. through a two-way mirror. The police officers observed that the witnesses became very fearful upon seeing the suspects and that they wanted to leave the room as soon as possible. None of the four witnesses identified the applicant, although one of them said that the applicant looked similar to one of the perpetrators. The witnesses were interviewed separately after the identification procedure; one of them indicated to the police officers that s/he did not wish to remain on his/her own for fear of coming face to face with Mr D. whom s/he had recognised as one of the perpetrators. The police officers further reported that a fifth witness recognised from twelve photographs shown to him/her the applicant, Mr D. and Mr G. as the men who had made enquiries into the whereabouts of the victim.\n13.  One of the police officers also noted that the witnesses had repeatedly telephoned him after they had made their statements, saying that they wished to withdraw these statements because they feared reprisals by the applicant and his co-accused. The police officer considered that this fear was not unfounded given that, since the event, unknown persons had put pressure on the victim.\n14.  Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant in the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Utrecht. The charges against him included having been an accomplice to the offence of intentionally and unlawfully depriving Mr A. of his liberty and keeping him deprived thereof.\n15.  On 1 June 1989 the Regional Court acquitted the applicant of that charge, convicted him on another charge and sentenced him to a partly suspended term of ten weeks’ imprisonment, less the time spent in pre-trial detention. By a judgment of the same date, the Regional Court also acquitted the applicant’s co-accused, Mr D.\n16.  Both the applicant and the Prosecutions Department (Openbaar Ministerie) lodged an appeal against the Regional Court’s decision with the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of Ams", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-68", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants are Swiss citizens born in 1950 and 1957, respectively. The first applicant lives in Siebnen, the second in Lachen in Switzerland.\n10.  In 1994 the applicants announced their intention to construct a subterranean garage in Lachen. The neighbours complained, arguing that certain prescribed boundary distances between the real properties had not been observed. Their objection was dismissed by the March District Court (Bezirksgericht) on 19 July 1994. The court awarded the applicants, as defendants, 8,000 Swiss francs (CHF) for procedural expenses (Prozessentschädigung), as the plaintiffs, their neighbours, could themselves have verified that the distances in question had been respected. The court costs of CHF 1,149.20 were imposed on the plaintiffs.\n11.  The neighbours filed an appeal (Berufung) which the Cantonal Court (Kantonsgericht) of the Canton of Schwyz dismissed on 4 July 1995. In the operative part of its decision, the court took formal note of the applicants' commitment that no changes would be made within fifty centimetres from the border separating the real properties. The court also ordered the applicants to pay the plaintiffs CHF 4,000 as procedural expenses for the first-instance proceedings and CHF 4,000 for the appeal court proceedings, and imposed on the applicants the first-instance court costs as well as appeal court costs amounting to CHF 3,450.50. The court found that the applicants' plans had been incomplete and even incorrect and the terms employed had been vague, thus prompting the plaintiffs to uphold their objection. The uncertainty brought about by the applicants' conduct contrary to good faith had actually provoked the procedures before the two instances.\n12.  On 9 October 1995 the applicants filed a public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde) with the Federal Court (Bundesgericht), complaining, first, about the imposition of costs, which in their view was disproportionate as the Cantonal Court had dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. There had been no obligation to submit plans, and neither the first nor the second instance had considered it necessary to ask for further plans. It was unclear to what extent the terms used had been imprecise, and indeed, the objections raised by the plaintiffs had a priori been completely unfounded. On the whole it appeared disproportionate that, for a matter of a value of CHF 10,000, the applicants were now asked to pay CHF 12,000 for completely unnecessary proceedings. Second, the applicants complained that the Cantonal Court had in its judgment incorrectly taken note of their commitment which in fact had not been requested by the parties in the proceedings.\n13.  The Federal Court transmitted the applicants' public law appeal for observations to both the Cantonal Court and the plaintiffs.\n14.  The Cantonal Court sent its reply, running to seven pages, together with the case-file, to the Federal Court on 16 November 1995, requesting the latter to dismiss the applicants' public law appeal. In its submissions it explained why the applicants' plans had been vague and that precise early information would have been necessary. The court continued that it was “quite typical for the (applicants') mentality” (geradezu typisch für die Mentalität) that they had submitted sketches of plans only after objections had been filed, since they knew that there were tensions with their neighbours and that the latter would object. Other remarks of the applicants were misplaced (", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-70", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants are German nationals who were born in 1966 and 1968 respectively and live at Badbergen (Germany). They are married and have two daughters: Corinna, who was born on 11 September 1991, and Nicola, who was born on 27 February 1993.\n11.  The applicants and their two daughters had lived since the girls' birth with Mr Kutzner's parents and his unmarried brother on an old farm. Mr Kutzner works on a poultry farm. Mrs Kutzner used to work in a factory, but since losing her job has stayed at home to look after the children and do the housework.\nThe applicants had attended a special school for people with learning difficulties (Sonderschule fûr Lernbehinderte).\n12.  Owing to their late physical and, above all, mental development, the girls underwent a series of medical examinations. On the advice of one of the doctors and at the applicants' request, they received educational assistance and support from a very early age. Thus, from 1994 Corinna, the elder daughter, received educational assistance (Frühförderung), while from 1995 and 1996 respectively, both girls attended a day-nursery school for children with special needs (Heilpädagogischer Kindergarten).\n13.  Between October 1995 and May 1996, Ms Klose, a social worker (sozialpädagogische Familienhilfe) visited the applicants' family at home, officially for ten hours a week. The applicants say that she actually spent only three hours there, as the time she spent travelling had to be taken into account. Relations between her and the applicants rapidly deteriorated, which the applicants say resulted in her preparing a very negative report on them.\n14.  Ms Klose's report to the Osnabrück District Youth Office (Kreisjugendamt) did indeed emphasise negative points: the applicants' intellectual shortcomings, conflictual relations between the family members and the contempt that, initially at least, she had been shown by the family.\n15.  Following that report the District Youth Office made an application on 13 September 1996 to the Bersenbrück Guardianship Court (Vormundschaftsgericht) for an order withdrawing the applicants' parental responsibility for their two children.\n16.  On 18 September 1996 the Bersenbrück Guardianship Court appointed Mr Waschke-Peter, a psychologist, to give expert evidence. He delivered his report on 20 November 1996.\n17.  On 12 February 1997, after hearing evidence from the applicants and the grandparents, the Guardianship Court made an interlocutory order (einstweilige Anordnung) withdrawing the applicants' rights to decide where their children should live (Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrecht) or to take decisions regarding the children's health (Recht zur Bestimmung über ärztliche Maßnahmen), notably on the ground that “[the applicants did] not have the intellectual capacity required to bring up their children properly” (“die Kindeseltern sind intellektuell nicht in der Lage, ihre Kinder ordnungsgemäss zu erziehen”).\n18.  From February to July 1997 the girls were placed in the care of the assessment team (Clearingstelle) of a private association at Meppen (Verein für familienorientierte Sozialpädagogik), which was part of the Society for Family Education (Gesellschaft für familienorientierte Sozialpädagogik).\n19.  In a report dated 18 and 24 April 1997, the chairwoman of the executive board of the society, Ms Backhaus, also requested that the applicants' parental responsibility be withdrawn on the ground that, while the children's IQ was expected to decrease, a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-71", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is a Portuguese national, born in 1940. He was a lawyer and is currently detained in the Santa Cruz do Bispo secure psychiatric unit in Matosinhos (Portugal).\n10.  The applicant, who was suspected of fraud, was arrested on 1 March 1996 and placed in pre-trial detention.\n11.  During the proceedings against him the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist. In his report of 22 July 1996 the psychiatrist concluded that the applicant was suffering from residual schizophrenia and should be given long-term psychiatric treatment.\n12.  In a judgment of 11 November 1996 the Oporto Criminal Court held that, on account of his mentally disturbed state, the applicant was not criminally responsible (inimputável) and was dangerous. It accordingly ordered that he be detained for a maximum period of eight years.\n13.  On 4 December 1996 the applicant was transferred to the Santa Cruz do Bispo secure psychiatric unit.\n14.  In an order of 24 January 1997 a judge of the Oporto Criminal Court decided that, in accordance with the relevant legislation, the mandatory periodic review of the applicant's detention should take place on 1 March 1998.\n15.  The applicant's file was transmitted to the Oporto Sentence-Supervision Court (Tribunal de Execução das Penas). On 19 February 1997 the judge of that court assigned a lawyer to represent the applicant, who had not chosen one himself. He also asked the staff of the Santo Cruz do Bispo secure unit to prepare an initial report on the applicant's condition.\n16.  In a letter of 19 March 1997 Dr M.S.C. informed the judge that the applicant was “clinically balanced”. He added that his behavoiur “[was] adequate and he [could] be released on probation [liberdade para prova] if he agree[d] to accept psychiatric support outside and [took] his medication”.\n17.  In an order of 7 April 1997 the judge decided to await the expiry of the time-limits provided for in Article 504 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n18.  On 2 July 1997 the applicant personally lodged an application for release, relying on Dr M.S.C.'s favourable opinion. On 4 July 1997 the judge marked the file as “seen” (visto).\n19.  On 7 January 1998 the judge asked the Institute for Social Rehabilitation, in accordance with the relevant legislation, to submit its opinion on the applicant's social situation and asked the Oporto Institute of Forensic Medicine (“the IFM”) to carry out a medical examination.\n20.  The Institute for Social Rehabilitation submitted its report on 18 May 1998, concluding that the applicant's circumstances were such that he could be released on probation. A medical examination was carried out on 28 April 1998. The IFM filed a report also on 18 May 1998 concluding that the applicant remained a danger to society.\n21.  On 2 June 1998 the applicant personally lodged a further application for release, relying on, inter alia, Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.\n22.  On 1 July 1998 the applicant was examined by the judge. As the applicant's officially assigned lawyer was not present, the judge appointed an officer from the Santa Cruz do Bispo secure psychiatric unit as his defence counsel. The applicant stated, among other things, that he considered himself to have recovered and that the medicines which he was still taking were unnecessary.\n23.  On 9 July 1998 the applicant personally lodged a further application for release. On 14 and 24 July 1998 he filed pleadings criticising the IFM's medical report.\n24.  On 9 November 1998 the Priso", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-73", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  In September 1991, at the age of 16, the applicant became a member of the British Army, joining the Life Guards regiment of the Household Cavalry. In November 1992 the applicant was posted to the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment (“the HCMR”) where he was taught to ride a horse. The applicant alleges that during riding lessons he became the target of bullying by other soldiers, including a lance-corporal. According to the applicant, towards the end of November 1992 the lance-corporal hit him on the side of the head with his fist, causing him to fall and strike his head on the ground. On 30 November 1992, several days after the attack, the applicant reported sick and told the medical officer that the injury to his face had been caused by falling off a horse. On 26 February 1993 the applicant, who alleges to have feared a further physical attack, went absent without leave. On 17 March 1993 he wrote to the commanding officer (“CO”) of the regiment (a lieutenant-colonel), stating, inter alia, that “[his] inability to express sufficient enthusiasm during training sometimes resulted in physical abuse by certain NCOs [non-commissioned officers]”, and asking to terminate his service. He received no reply to this letter.\n10.  The applicant was arrested by the civilian police on 16 October 1996 and taken to the HCMR's barracks at Hyde Park, London. The following day he was charged with being absent without leave contrary to section 38(a) of the Army Act 1955. On 18 October 1996 he was remanded in close arrest by Major Kelly, acting as subordinate CO. On the “Eight Day Delay Report” dated 24 October 1996, the reason for the detention is stated: “Likely to absent himself ... – has already offered bribe to JNCO on guard to release him.” On 31 October 1996 he appeared before the CO and was remanded by him in close arrest for an abstract of evidence. He was subsequently released by the CO into open arrest on 11 November 1996. The CO remanded him for trial by district court martial on 13 March 1997.\n11.  In a statement dated 4 November 1996 to the Ministry of Defence Police, the applicant stated that the attack by the lance-corporal had occurred in the week prior to his going absent without leave, while in a statement dated 29 January 1997 he stated that the attack occurred sometime in February 1993. The police found that the lance-corporal had left the army and took statements from other soldiers who had been on the same riding course as the applicant. They found that there was no evidence to support his complaint. The applicant subsequently signed a statement saying, inter alia: “I have come to the conclusion that I just want to get out of the army and get on with my life ... Even though this assault happened, I do not want the Ministry of Defence Police ... to take any further action concerning the incident.”\n12.  Following the applicant's remand for trial, the CO appointed Captain A. as “defending officer”. Captain A. was an army officer with no legal training, serving as a troop commander with the HCMR. The applicant applied to the Army Criminal Legal Aid Authority (“the Legal Aid Authority”) for legal aid to enable him to be represented by a solicitor. On the application form he stated that his weekly income after deduction of tax, rent and national insurance was 158.13 pounds sterling (GBP), and that he had no savings or other property of value. The form was countersigned by his CO. By a letter dated 26 March 1997, the Legal Aid Authority r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-74", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant company is the publisher of a newspaper (Kronenzeitung) with its registered office in Vienna.\n10.  On 3, 4, 7, 8 and 15 March, as well as on 3 and 16 May and 29 June 1995, the applicant company published, in its Carinthian regional edition (Lokalausgabe), articles on the financial situation of a certain Mr Posch who, at that time, was employed as a teacher and, at the same time, was a member of the Austrian National Assembly (Nationalrat) and the European Parliament. The articles commented on these professional tasks and, in harsh terms, alleged that he received three salaries unlawfully as, according to Austrian law, he was not entitled to a teacher’s salary during his membership of the European Parliament. He was, inter alia, referred to as someone unjustly enriching himself. These articles were accompanied by photographs of Mr Posch.\n11.  On 18 August 1995 Mr Posch applied for an injunction under Section 78 of the Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz) to the Klagenfurt Regional Court against the applicant company. He requested that the applicant company be ordered to refrain from publishing his picture in connection with statements describing him as somebody who received his salaries unlawfully and who benefited from unlawful privileges. Furthermore, he requested an order for the publication of the judgment in the applicant company’s newspaper, indicating the grant of damages and the injunction (einstweilige Verfügung).\n12.  On 21 September 1995 the applicant company filed a statement of defence (Klage­be­antwortung) in which it argued, inter alia, that the publication of the impugned articles had been justified under Article 10 of the Convention.\n13.  On 10 October 1995 the Klagenfurt Regional Court granted an interim injunction. It found the measure justified because the plaintiff’s interest in prohibiting the publication of his photograph outweighed the applicant company’s interest in the publication of the illustrated articles, in particular as the publication of the pictures per se had no special information value (Nachrichtenwert).\n14.  On 4 January 1996 the Klagenfurt Regional Court granted the permanent injunction prohibiting the applicant company from publishing the plaintiff’s picture in connection with the above mentioned or similar articles. It dismissed the remainder of the action. The court found that Section 78 of the Copyright Act prohibited publishing a person’s picture if the publication violated that person’s legitimate interests. When considering such interests, account had to be taken of whether the person concerned was known to the public, because the publication of the photographs of unknown persons made it possible to identify them later. The court found that Mr Posch’s face was not generally known, despite his membership of the National Assembly. Therefore, his legitimate interests had been infringed by creating the possibility of identifying him. The applicant company was of course entitled to report on the plaintiff’s activities and financial situation, but there was no legitimate interest in publishing his picture as it had, per se, no information value. Furthermore, it was irrelevant for this specific question whether the content of the articles was true or false.\n15.  On 8 February 1996 the applicant company appealed. It argued that the court had erred when it found that the plaintiff’s interests outweighed the applicant company’s interests, as the public in Carinthia, who had elected Mr ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-75", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant, an Austrian citizen born in 1921 and residing in Vienna, is the chief editor and publisher of the newspaper “Neue Kronen‑Zeitung”. The second applicant, a limited partnership (Kommanditgesellschaft) is the owner of this newspaper. The third applicant is a limited company, the general partner (Komplementär) of the second applicant. The second and third applicants have their places of business in Vienna.\n10.  The applicants belong to a large media group which at the relevant time was in strong competition with another media group represented by Mr Michael Graff, a lawyer practising in Vienna. Besides his profession as a lawyer, Mr Graff was from 1982 to 1987 secretary general of the Austrian People’s Party (Österreichische Volkspartei) and, from 1983 to 1995, a Member of Parliament for that party. Between 1987 and 1995 he was the Chairman of the Parliament’s Legislative Committee (Justizausschuß). From 1989 to July 1995 he represented the applicants’ competitor in several proceedings concerning unfair competition against companies belonging to the applicants’ media group.\n11.  In 1989 several Austrian laws were amended by the Extended Pecuniary Limits Amendment Act (Erweiterte Wertgrenzen-Novelle). The Government Bill (Regierungsvorlage) had also provided for an amendment to Section 359 § 1 of the Enforcement Act (Exekutionsordnung), a section which is of particular relevance for the enforcement of injunctions. The Government Bill had envisaged raising the fines that could be imposed for non-compliance with injunctions from ATS 50,000 per enforcement order to ATS 80,000 per enforcement order.\n12.  Under the chairmanship of Mr Graff, the Legislative Committee dealing with the Government Bill proposed a different version, namely that a maximum fine of AS 80,000 could be imposed for each request for enforcement (Exekutionsantrag) instead of for each enforcement order issued by the Enforcement Court. In its report of June 1989, the Legislative Committee pointed out that the fine had to be multiplied by the number of requests for enforcement, if only one decision combining several requests was taken. This proposal was adopted by Parliament on 29 June 1989 and published as Article XI of the Extended Pecuniary Limits Amendment Act, Federal Law Gazette 1989/343 (Erweiterte Wertgrenzen-Novelle 1989, BGBl. 1989/343).\n13.  Four years later, in June 1993, the following article written by the first applicant under the pseudonym “Cato” was published in the “Neue Kronen-Zeitung”:\n“Moral 93\nBefore Roland Dumas became the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, he was one of Europe’s most famous and most successful lawyers. He administered the gigantic estate of Picasso; he represented Kreisky and an Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs when the latter found himself in a bad situation. Dumas took it for granted that he had to give up his law firm when he became a member of the government. In every democracy of the world this course of action is followed. Only Mr Graff, who is obviously thick-skinned, does not intend to comply with these moral concepts.\nIt so happened that at the time when Mr Graff was presiding Parliament’s Legislative Committee, a law was amended which brought about big advantages for the newspaper publishers whom Mr Graff represented as a lawyer. In order to ensure that in such cases no suspicion, not even one that has no objective justification, can arise, there exists the wise rule of incompatibility; a lawyer i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-76", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is a registered association (Verein) in Vienna and the publisher of a periodical called TATblatt. In the 9 December 1992 issue of TATblatt, the following leaflet was published:\n“Querformat, a (new) wall-newspaper against the trend towards the right wing ...”\n“Racism has a name and address\nThe FPÖ [Austrian Freedom Party] and its party officials are certainly interested in your opinion! So, let's call them and tell them what we think of them and their policy. Or let's send them small gifts in response to their racist agitation.\nWe have gathered a small selection of Vienna FPÖ officials, FPÖ offices and of course Jörg Haider in order to facilitate a little the unbureaucratic exchange of opinions.\nThey will surely enjoy your phone calls, letters and parcels: ...”\nThe above text was followed by a list of addresses and telephone numbers of members and offices of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ).\n10.  Between 25 January and 1 February 1993 an opinion poll (Volksbegehren) under the heading “Austria first” (“Österreich zuerst”) took place which had been initiated by the FPÖ several months before. The opinion poll, on the issue of immigration, consisted of twelve proposals, partly to amend legislation and partly to change administrative practices. It proposed, inter alia, the following:\n– to amend the Federal Constitution by a provision stating that Austria was not a country of immigration;\n– to stop immigration until a satisfactory solution to illegal immigration was found;\n– to oblige all foreign workers to carry an identity card at their place of work, showing that they had a valid work permit;\n– to increase the police force and create a separate border police;\n– to limit the percentage of pupils whose mother tongue was not German to 30 % and, if the percentage were higher, to create separate classes for foreigners;\n– to deny foreigners the right to vote; and\n– to require the immediate expulsion of and residence prohibition on foreign offenders.\n11.  On 11 February 1993 Mr Jörg Haider, leader of the FPÖ and at that time a member of Parliament, brought civil proceedings for an injunction under Article 1330 of the Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) against the applicant before the Vienna Commercial Court (Handelsgericht). He requested that the applicant be prohibited from repeating the statement according to which he had incited people to “racist agitation” (“rassistische Hetze”) and any similar statements. He further requested that the applicant be prohibited from inviting people to “send small gifts in response to their racist agitation”, together with the publication of the names, telephone numbers and addresses of members of the plaintiff's political party.\n12.  The applicant submitted that it had never identified itself with the leaflet at issue and had merely published it out of journalistic interest and in order to inform the public. Moreover, the words “racist agitation” were not a statement of fact but a value judgment, and were meant as a critical comment of the opinion poll “Austria first” which the plaintiff had initiated and which was directed against “immigration without control”.\n13.  On 14 April 1994 the Vienna Commercial Court granted the injunction. It found that the impugned statement about “racist agitation” was not a value judgment, but a statement of fact. Such a statement contained a reproach of a criminal offence, namely “incitement to hatred” (Verhetzung) under Article 283 of the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-77", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  In October 1991 the applicant made an application for prior authorisation to adopt a child. A social inquiry was opened by the Paris Social Services, Child Welfare and Health Department. On 18 December 1991 the applicant had a first interview with a psychologist from the Department, during which he revealed that he was a homosexual. He submits that during the interview he was strongly urged not to continue with the adoption process.\n10.  In a decision of 3 May 1993 the Paris Social Services Department rejected the applicant's application for authorisation to adopt. The reasons given for the decision were that the applicant had “no stable maternal role model” to offer and had “difficulties in envisaging the practical consequences of the upheaval occasioned by the arrival of a child”. The decision was taken on the basis of various inquiries leading, among other things, to a social services report of 2 March 1993, which included the following statements:\n“... Mr Fretté seems to us to be a sensitive, thoughtful man who shows consideration for others. He discusses his emotional life and his homosexuality with a great deal of honesty and simplicity. He spoke to us of a number of relationships which have had a major impact on his life, particularly one with a male friend who has now died. It should be added that he is now the auxiliary guardian of this friend's child. ...\nHis humanistic, altruistic cast of mind prompts him to take an interest in the problems of the Third World. He sponsors two Tibetan children, one of whom is a baby.\nHe is able to talk sensibly and intelligently about the boy over whom he has guardianship. He is not personally responsible for the boy, who is in the care of his grandmother, but he plays a highly active part in his upbringing. His ideas about bringing up children are well thought out and imbued with a spirit of tolerance.\nMr Fretté has been thinking about adopting since 1985. He is aware that his homosexuality may be an obstacle to being granted authorisation to adopt because of the prevailing views of society.\nIn his opinion, his choice of emotional and sexual lifestyle has no bearing on his desire to bring up a child. His application is a personal undertaking not a militant gesture.\nSince 1985 he has met many homosexual men with children.\nHe even once considered having a child with a female friend but the plan came to nothing because of a lack of maturity on both sides. This friend is nonetheless still very interested in Mr Fretté's plan to adopt and has even promised to act as a female role model for the child.\nMr Fretté's application to adopt a child is motivated by a desire to provide a child with affection and a proper upbringing. In his view the essential thing is to love and care for a child, adoption, for him, being no more than a social and legal procedure.\nMr Fretté has the support of the friends around him. It seems, however, that his family either do not know of his plans or have misgivings about them.\nHis desire for a child is genuine but he has difficulties in envisaging the practical consequences of the upheaval occasioned by the arrival of a child. For example, it was only when we visited his home that he realised how unsuitable his flat is for a child to live in. As a result he began considering the possibility of moving.\nWhen questioned as to how he regarded his role in society as a single father he said he did not have an answer. He considers himself capable of managing the day-to-day lif", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-78", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 26 December 1991 the applicants' house in the village of Martinec (Croatia) was destroyed by an explosion.\n9.  On 29 November 1994 the applicants brought an action for damages against the Republic of Croatia in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).\nA hearing was held on 2 May 1995.\n10.  On 12 May 1995 the applicants asked the court to request the Bjelovar Police Department (Policijska uprava Bjelovarska) to submit their report concerning the events that had led to the destruction of the applicants' property. On 19 May 1995 the court requested the report.\n11.  On 17 January 1996 the Croatian parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act which provided that all proceedings concerning actions in respect of damage resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject and that before the enactment of such new legislation damages for terrorist acts could not be sought. So far, the Croatian authorities have not enacted any new legislation regulating the matter.\n12.  It appears that several constitutional claims were lodged, though not by the applicants in the present case, challenging the above legislation. The Constitutional Court has not yet reached any decision.\n13.  On 24 April 1998 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings in accordance with the above legislation. No appeal was lodged against that decision.\n14.  On 13 November 1994 the applicants' garage and the adjacent storage room and a meat-curing shed in Bjelovar were destroyed, also as a result of an explosion.\n15.  On 14 December 1994 the applicants brought an action for damages against the Republic of Croatia in the Zagreb Municipal Court.\n16.  A hearing was held on 8 May 1995. The court requested the Bjelovar Police Department to submit their report concerning the events that had led to the destruction of the applicants' property.\n17.  On 19 July 2000 the court stayed the proceedings. No appeal was lodged against that decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-79", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 9 September 1993 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request for registration of the title of a periodical, The Social and Political Monthly – A European Moral Tribunal (Miesięcznik społeczno-polityczny, europejski sąd moralny) to be published in Kęty. The court considered that in accordance with the Press Act and the Ordinance of the Minister of Justice on the registration of periodicals, the name of a periodical should be relevant to its contents. The name as proposed by the applicant would suggest that a European institution had been established in Kęty, which was untrue and would be misleading to prospective buyers. Moreover, the proposed title would be disproportionate to the periodical's actual importance and readership as it was hardly conceivable that a periodical of a European dimension could be published in Kęty. The court went on to state:\n“... the applicant stubbornly applies for registration of periodicals the titles of which would suggest the existence in Kęty of an institution of international character (such as the European Moral Tribunal or the World Tribunal of Morality), and when requested by the court to change the titles he declares that he will not do so.”\n7.  On 17 December 1993 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant against this decision. The court stated, inter alia, that in the proceedings before the first-instance court the applicant had been requested to change the proposed title by deleting the term “European Moral Tribunal”, but he had refused to do so.\n8.  Subsequently, the applicant made a number of further applications for the registration of periodicals. He succeeded in obtaining four registrations.\n9.  On 6 May 1994 the Minister of Justice refused to grant leave for an extraordinary appeal against the decision of 17 December 1993, finding that it was in accordance with the law.\n10.  On 17 February 1994 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court dismissed a new request by the applicant for registration of a periodical, Germany – A thousand-year-old enemy of Poland. The court noted that at a hearing on 17 February 1994 the applicant, when requested to change the proposed title so as to remove its negative character, had refused to do so. The court considered that registration of the periodical with the proposed title would be harmful to Polish-German reconciliation and detrimental to good cross-border relations.\n11.  The applicant appealed against this decision, submitting that it was incomprehensible and amounted to censorship.\n12.  On 12 April 1994 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the contested decision. The court observed that the title, as proposed by the applicant, suggested that the proposed periodical would concentrate unduly on negative aspects of Polish-German relations. The court considered that such a title would be in conflict with reality in that it would give an unbalanced picture of the relevant facts. The court further considered that the lower court had been justified in refusing registration on the ground that the title would be detrimental to Polish-German reconciliation and to good relations between Poland and Germany.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-80", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The facts of this case were subject to investigation before a private, non-statutory inquiry, which issued a report on 15 June 1998, setting out extensive findings of fact. As these were not contested by the parties, the Court has relied on the report in its own assessment of the facts below.\n9.  Prior to his death, Christopher Edwards had shown signs of developing a serious mental illness. In 1991 a psychiatric assessment expressed the tentative diagnosis of schizophrenia. In July 1994 he stopped living at home with the applicants, his parents. At this time he stopped taking his medication.\n10.  On 27 November 1994 Christopher Edwards, then 30 years old, was arrested in Colchester by the police and taken to Colchester police station. He had been approaching young women in the street and making inappropriate suggestions. His behaviour before arrest, and at the police station where he attempted to assault a policewoman, led police officers to suspect that he might be mentally ill. He was assessed at the police station by an approved social worker, who discussed the matter on the telephone with a consultant psychiatrist. They agreed that, while there was some evidence of possible developing schizophrenia, he did not need urgent medical attention and that he was fit to be detained at the police station. Any psychiatric assessment could take place as part of a pre-sentencing exercise. Christopher Edwards was held in a cell on his own. The police officer responsible did not fill in a CID2 form identifying Christopher Edwards as an exceptional risk on ground of mental illness due to the opinion expressed by the social worker. The police officer did, however, note in the confidential information form (MG6A) her belief that if Christopher Edwards was not treated or seen by the mental health team he might seriously harm a female. She was not aware that her own suspicion of his mental state was sufficient to warrant categorising Christopher Edwards as an exceptional risk.\n11.  On 28 November 1994 Christopher Edwards was brought to Colchester Magistrates' Court. Immediately his handcuffs were removed, he pushed through the other prisoners and confronted a female prison officer. He was restrained, but struggled and tried to approach her again. He was placed in a cell on his own. During the morning, he continually banged on the cell door and shouted: “I want a woman.” He shouted obscenities about women. The applicants met the duty solicitor at about 9.45 a.m. and explained that their son was mentally unwell and that they wanted him to receive medical care and not to be remanded in custody. When the duty solicitor attempted to talk to Christopher Edwards in his cell, he received no assistance from his client who continued to make obscene suggestions about women. The duty solicitor discussed the problem with the Clerk to the Justices.\n12.  On his way to court and in the courtroom, Christopher Edwards repeated his earlier comments about women. The prosecutor had in her possession the MG6A form and had been requested by the police to obtain his remand in custody as there was a risk that he would reoffend and there was a real question mark about his mental state. The prosecutor informed the court that he was perceived as a risk to women, although it is unclear how much detail was given. She relied on the fact that an assessment by a psychiatrist had not yet been carried out in support of her application. Consideration was given by the Bench, together", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-81", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  Since 20 March 1991 the applicant has been serving in the Sniego Prison in Vilnius a sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment for aggravated murder. By a Presidential decree of pardon of 27 June 1998 the applicant’s sentence was reduced by two years.\n9.  On 21 July 1998 the applicant applied to the prison administration, requesting his transfer to another prison. The prison administration refused his request. The applicant unsuccessfully complained that he was unable to change prisons to various Lithuanian and international authorities and NGOs, including the Council of Europe, the Council of the Baltic Sea States (“the CBSS”) and Amnesty International.\n10.  On 20 October 1998 he received a letter dated 16 October 1998 from the CBSS Commissioner on Democratic Institutions and Human Rights based in Copenhagen. The letter had been opened when he received it.\n11.  On 2 November 1998 he received a letter dated 21 October 1998 from the Secretariat of the European Commission of Human Rights. The letter had also been subjected to initial screening by the prison administration before the applicant had access to it.\n12.  On 3 December 1998 the applicant was reprimanded in disciplinary proceedings. He lodged with the Ombudsman a complaint concerning the reprimand and alleged breaches of the freedom of his correspondence.\n13.  On 22 December 1998 the Ombudsman found that the prison administration had censored a letter from the applicant to his wife in which he had accused the prison staff of theft. The Ombudsman found that, as a consequence, on 30 October 1998 the prison administration had disciplined the applicant for slander. The Ombudsman held that the applicant’s letters to his wife pertained to the field of his private life, and that his allegations of theft did not constitute any formal suggestions, applications or complaints for the purpose of Rule 7 § 3 (4) of the Prison Rules (see the ‘Relevant domestic law’ part below). The Ombudsman concluded that the disciplinary penalty was unlawful, and suggested that it should be lifted. The Ombudsman also found that the letter from the CBSS of 16 October 1998 had been opened. He held that the applicant’s right to respect for correspondence under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights was “almost inviolable”, but that the State was allowed to censor prisoners’ letters in certain cases. The Ombudsman found no violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence.\n14.  On the basis of the Ombudsman’s conclusions, on 29 December 1998 the Director of the Penitentiary Department lifted the disciplinary penalty.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-82", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 18 August 1992, the applicant began work in the Culloden Hotel, Belfast, as a silver service waiter. This hotel is owned by Moyola Cellars Limited, which is subsidiary of Hastings Hotels Group Limited. Initially the applicant had been doing very well and was optimistic about promotion. On 31 October 1992, the restaurant manager informed the applicant that he was being dismissed forthwith. The applicant was given no reason whatsoever for his peremptory dismissal. Various attempts to get an explanation for the dismissal were unsuccessful. Ultimately the general manager told the applicant on 1 November 1992 that he was dismissed because he did not meet the grade and there was no other reason. Of all the full-time and permanent staff in the restaurant the applicant believes that he was the only Catholic.\n9.  The applicant made a complaint to the Fair Employment Tribunal that he had been unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. The applicant and thirteen of his fifteen siblings are not involved in any politically related activity.\n10.  By a letter of 22 December 1992, the applicant’s solicitors wrote to the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (“RUC”) stating that they had been informed that the reason for the applicant’s dismissal from his employment at the Culloden Hotel was an approach made to the Hotel by members of the RUC who had stated that the applicant was a suspect. The solicitors requested that the RUC provide information as to what the applicant was suspected of and on what basis the applicant had been allegedly described as a suspect. The RUC replied to this letter, stating that they were unable to comment on such matters, it not being force policy to do so.\n11.  On 29 March 1993 the solicitors acting on behalf of the applicant’s employers wrote to the Fair Employment Tribunal.\n“We return herewith Notice of Appearance in relation to the application presented by Mr Liam Devenney. On our instructions, the acts of which complaint is made, were done for the purpose of protecting public safety, and in the circumstances by virtue of Section 42 of the Fair Employment Act 1976, the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Acts do not apply so that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.”\n12.  The Fair Employment Tribunal then of its own motion fixed a preliminary hearing for determination of the following issue:\n“Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s complaint in view of the provisions of Section 42 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976.”\n13.  On 3 December 1993 the Fair Employment Commission, acting on behalf of the applicant, wrote to the solicitors acting on behalf of the applicant’s employers requesting to know, inter alia, whether the Secretary of State or any other Agency had been approached with a view to obtaining a Section 42 (2) certificate. By reply of 6 December 1993 the employers’ solicitors stated:\n“We today received your letter dated 3 December 1993 in relation to the above. You will be pleased to hear that during the writer’s holiday last week a Section 42 certificate was received from the Crown Solicitor’s office (a certified copy of which is enclosed herewith) so that it now seems unnecessary to take any further action, and that you may close your file in this matter.”\n14.  The applicant stated that he did not know the basis upon which the certificate was issued. He had never been shown, an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-83", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  In 1992-93 the applicant appeared as defence counsel in the Kokkola City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätt) in two sets of criminal proceedings against her client I.S. and others. The applicant acted as counsel under the 1973 Cost-Free Proceedings Act (laki maksuttomasta oikeudenkäynnistä, lag om fri rättegång 87/1973) with the City Court's consent.\n8.  In the 1992 trial the public prosecutor, T., requested that I.S., his brother S.S. and L.O. be temporarily barred from conducting business (liiketoimintakielto, näringsförbud). The request had been triggered by the winding up of various companies which the defendants had owned or in which they had held positions of trust. At a hearing on 4 March 1992 T. argued, inter alia, that regardless of whether S.S. had actually participated in the administration of the companies, he should be barred from conducting business, given his formal membership of their boards of directors. Evidence was heard from the companies' bookkeeper, M.H., who was one of the witnesses. Those proceedings ended with a decision of 9 February 1993 rendered by the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen).\n9.  In the meantime, I.S., S.S., L.O. and M.H. had been questioned as suspects in relation to a complaint lodged by M.S. (the wife of S.S.) alleging that they had, among other things, abused their positions of trust within one of the companies. On 7 December 1992 T. decided not to bring charges against S.S., having found no evidence that he had participated in any meeting of the board at which the funds invested by the complainant had been allocated for purposes to which she had not agreed, or that S.S. had otherwise consented to such allocation.\n10.  On 2 February 1993 I.S. was charged with aiding and abetting fraud and abusing a position of trust. L.O. was accused, inter alia, of aggravated fraud and fraud, whereas M.H. was charged with abusing a position of trust. The public prosecutor, T., had summoned S.S. to testify but the applicant and the other defence counsel objected to this on behalf of their clients. Before the City Court the applicant read out and handed in a memorial entitled “Role manipulation and unlawful presentation of evidence” (in Finnish, “Roolimanipulointi ja kiellonvastainen todistelu”) in which, among other arguments, she made the following points:\n“... The indictment seeks to hide the fact that S.S. ... was ... chairman of the board of the company in question. ...\nThe blatant abuse in respect of the presentation of evidence must lead the court to reject such evidence. ... \nThe prosecutor's arrangement shows that he seeks, by means of procedural tactics, to make a witness out of a co-accused so as to support the indictment. In order to prevent the accused from submitting evidence on those points the prosecutor has, in the same case, brought trumped-up charges against a person who would qualify as a witness. ... Such deliberate abuse of discretion on the part of a public authority is highly unusual in a State governed by the rule of law. \nAs regards, in particular, the procedural tactics which the prosecutor has adopted in the present case, namely as many as two instances of role manipulation in one and the same case, I submit that a milder form of such manipulation has been condemned by the Norwegian Supreme Court. That precedent disclosed unlawful behaviour similar to that of the prosecutor in the present case ...\nThe prosecutor has, in this case, committed role manipulation, ther", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-84", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was the owner and director of several holding companies which defaulted on their financial obligations. On 8 January 1993 criminal proceedings were instituted against him on suspicion that he had concealed his income. On 30 July 1993 the applicant was charged with cheating. On 2 August 1993 the case was transferred to the Vilnius First City District Court. On the same date the applicant was granted bail. On 25 July 1994 the applicant failed to attend a court hearing, and the court ordered his detention on remand.\n9.  On 25 October 1994 another criminal case was instituted against the applicant concerning irregular operations with currency and securities. On the same date, a prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention on remand in the context of that case.\n10.  Meanwhile, the applicant was suspected of hiding in Russia. On 25 October 1994 the Prosecutor General requested the Russian authorities to extradite him on suspicion of having engaged in irregular operations with currency and securities. On 29 October 1994 the applicant was arrested in Moscow. On 1 November 1994 he was extradited to Lithuania and remanded in custody.\n11.  On 9 November 1994 he was charged with irregular operations with currency and securities. On 10 November 1994 the prosecutor’s decision of 25 October 1994 to authorise the applicant’s detention on remand was revoked on the ground that there had already been the court order regarding the applicant’s detention of 25 July 1994.\n12.  On 27 December 1994 the judge of the Vilnius City First District Court decided that the applicant should remain in custody. No term was specified.\n13.  On 20 March 1995 the Prosecutor General authorised the applicant’s detention in the criminal case concerning the operations with currency and securities. The Prosecutor General noted that the applicant had previously breached his bail, and that the reasons for his detention were the dangers of absconding and obstructing the establishment of the truth in the case. No term of detention was specified.\n14.  On 21 March 1995 the Vilnius Regional Court revoked the detention order of 25 July 1994.\n15.  On an unspecified date the criminal cases against the applicant were joined. From 18 May 1995 until 21 August 1996 the term of the applicant’s detention was extended every two months by the Prosecutor General, for fear of the applicant’s absconding.\n16.  On 14 August 1996 the applicant was indicted on nine counts, including cheating, misappropriating the property of another, and irregular operations with currency and securities. There were four other co-accused persons in the case. On the same date the Prosecutor General extended the term of the pre-trial investigation until 21 September 1996.\n17.  On 20 August 1996 a judge of the Vilnius Regional Court examined the prosecution’s application to extend the term of the applicant’s detention until 21 September 1996 given the risks of absconding and obstructing the establishment of the truth in the case. The prosecutors’ application was granted. The applicant’s defence counsel was present at the hearing.\n18.  On 10 September 1996 the pre-trial investigation was concluded. From 10 September 1996 until 14 November 1996 all the accused had access to the case-file.\n19.  On 18 November 1996 the Deputy Prosecutor General confirmed the bill of indictment whereby the applicant was charged on nine counts, including cheating (Article 274 of the Criminal Code), embezzlement (Article 275), a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-85", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, a widow of an appeal-court judge, applied for a readjustment of her pension. On 4 December 1995 the State General Accounting Department turned her application down. In its decision the State General Accounting Department stated that any benefit paid to judges in service in any manner whatsoever, does not constitute an increase in their basic salary and cannot be taken into consideration for the calculation of the retirement pension or an adjustment of this pension. The applicant appealed to the Court of Audit.\n7.  On 9 September 1997 the Court of Audit upheld her appeal considering that she was entitled to an additional pension of 103,800 drachmas (GRD) per month for the period between 1 December 1991 and 31 December 1995 (judgment No. 1636/97). The court ordered the State to pay the applicant immediately the money owed for the period between 1 December 1991 and 30 June 1993. Moreover, the State was to pay the applicant on 1 April 1998 the money owed for the period between 1 July 1993 and 30 April 1994, on 1 April 1999 the money owed for the period between 1 May 1994 and 31 March 1995 and on 1 April 2000 the money owed for the period between 1 April 1995 and 31 December 1995.\n8.  The decision was served on the Minister of Finance on 9 October 1997. Because the State did not appeal within one year, the decision of the Court of Audit became final on 19 September 1998 as provided by domestic law.\n9.  In the meantime, on 27 June 1997 Law No. 2512/1997 was enacted. Section 3 of that statute interpreted Law No. 2320/1995 and provided that the scales established by various ministerial decisions could not be applied to the calculation of the judge’s retirement pensions. Furthermore, any claim based on that statute was statute-barred, any pending judicial proceedings set aside and any sum paid out, other than pursuant to a final judgment, had to be refunded.\n10.  In a judgment of 17 December 1997 the Court of Audit, sitting as a full court, held that Section 3 of the above-mentioned statute was unconstitutional and contrary to Article 6 of the Convention.\n11.  However, the authorities refused to pay the applicant the additional pension as specified in the above decision.\n12.  By a decision No. 71320 of 30 June 2000 the Minister of Finance ordered that all judgments of the Court of Audit whereby retirement pensions had been adjusted should be enforced. The decision provides for the payment of the additional pensions for the period 1 December 1991 to 31 December 1995 by way of seven six-monthly instalments without interest in the form of State bonds. The sums are to be paid to the interested parties upon submission of a declaration certifying that they have not already received any other payment in this respect and that they will not raise any other similar claim for the above-mentioned period.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-86", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was the Minister of Defence and a Member of the Seimas (Parliament) from 1996 to 2000.\n8.  On 12 August 1997 the applicant was apprehended in a hotel lobby by the security intelligence and the prosecuting authorities while accepting an envelope containing 15,000 United States dollars (USD) from KK. The latter, a senior executive of a troubled oil company (hereinafter referred to as “the company”), had previously informed the intelligence authorities that the applicant had requested 300,000 USD for his assistance in obtaining the discontinuance of criminal proceedings concerning the company’s vast debts. For slightly more than an hour the applicant was questioned in the hotel lobby. His explanations were recorded and he was allowed to leave the hotel.\n9.  On 14 August 1997 the Prosecutor General requested the Seimas to permit the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant. On 19 August 1997 the Seimas agreed. On 20 August 1997 criminal proceedings were instituted. On 14 October 1997 the applicant was charged with attempting to cheat (obtaining property by deception).\n10.  On 20 October 1997 the Prosecutor General applied to the Seimas for permission to detain the applicant on remand. On 28 October 1997 permission was given. On the same day a prosecutor requested the Vilnius City Second District Court to order the applicant’s detention on remand. Also that day the applicant was brought before a judge of the Vilnius City Second District Court who issued a warrant for the applicant’s arrest on the grounds that he might obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case, inter alia, by exploiting the media and influencing witnesses. The applicant was duly detained.\n11.  On 30 October 1997 the judge extended the term of the applicant’s detention on remand until 30 November 1997 in the presence of the parties for the same reasons as before. On 3, 5 and 7 November 1997 the applicant appealed against his detention on remand. He requested a hearing. On 11 November 1997 a judge of the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal without hearing the parties.\n12.  From 27 November 1997 to 5 December 1997 the applicant and his counsel had access to the case-file. On 5 December 1997 the applicant requested the prosecutor to discontinue the proceedings. On a number of occasions he also requested the prosecutor to vary the remand. These requests were rejected.\n13.  On 8 December 1997 a judge of the Vilnius City Second District Court extended the term of the applicant’s detention on remand until 31 December 1997. On 9 December 1997 the applicant appealed. On 11 December 1997 the Regional Court informed him that no appeal lay against that decision.\n14.  On 29 December 1997 the Prosecutor General confirmed the bill of indictment, which was transmitted to the Vilnius Regional Court.\n15.  From 1 to 5 January 1998 the applicant submitted numerous applications to courts, the prison administration, the Ombudsman and the Seimas, alleging that his detention had been unlawful. On 7 January 1998 the Ombudsman concluded that from 31 December 1997 the applicant had been held in detention unlawfully.\n16.  On 8 January 1998 the Vilnius Regional Court committed the applicant for trial. The court also decided that the applicant’s detention on remand “shall remain unchanged”. No term for that detention was specified.\n17.  On 23 March 1998 the Vilnius Regional Court adjourned the case and ordered the prosecuting authorities to s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-87", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicant lived in the Çelebi hamlet of the Arıklı village of the Lice district in the province of Diyarbakır. In April 1994, security forces burned down the applicant's house, along with the other houses and forced the evacuation on the entire hamlet. The applicant then settled in Arıklı and his son Vahdettin Haran in Lice.\n13.  On 12 May 1994 Vahdettin went to Arıklı in order to help the applicant to prune grapes in his vineyard. The gendarmes and soldiers arrived at the village and convened all the villagers in the schoolyard. They then started to burn the houses. At about 11 a.m., as houses were still being burned, the applicant heard the sound of gunfire coming from his vineyard.\n14.  In the evening villagers who came from the direction of the vineyard said that the gendarmes had taken someone away with them and gone towards Lice. The applicant feared that this might have been his son.\nOn the morning of the following day, 13 May 1994, the applicant sent his other children to the vineyard, where the body of Vahdettin was found dead.\n15.  Later on 13 May 1994 the applicant went to Lice and reported the killing of his son to the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor told the applicant that he would not be able to come to the village as it would be too dangerous for him, but that an autopsy would be carried out if the body could be brought to Lice. The applicant took the body of his son to Lice and an autopsy was conducted by the Public Prosecutor. The applicant was not given any information or any document pertaining to the autopsy.\n16.  The applicant, with the authorisation of the Public Prosecutor, took his son's body and buried him in the village.\n17.  On 12 May 1994, an official autopsy was conducted on the body of Vahdettin Haran. The autopsy report indicated that the death was caused by shattering of internal organs by bullets.\n18.  On 6 June 1994, the Public Prosecutor of Lice initiated a preliminary investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death. The Court was not informed of the outcome of the investigation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-88", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The first applicant, Kęstutis Birutis, is a Lithuanian national born in 1974. The second applicant, Vidmantas Byla, is a Lithuanian national born in 1968. The third applicant, Laimonas Janutėnas, is a Lithuanian national born in 1976. At present the first and the second applicants are detained in the Lukiškės Prison in Vilnius. The third applicant is currently detained in the Pravieniškės Prison in the Kaunas region.\n11.  The applicants, while completing their sentences in the Pravieniškės Prison, were suspected of participating in a riot that took place in the prison on 15 January 1997. 21 detainees, including the applicants, were accused of causing or taking part in the riot.\n12.  The third applicant was released from prison after completing his original sentence on 14 February 1997. He was arrested on 25 June 1997 in the context of the proceedings for riot. The first and the second applicants were still completing their original sentences throughout these proceedings.\n13.  During the pre-trial investigation two witnesses were examined on behalf of the third applicant. During the trial one witness was called by the Kaunas Regional Court on the third applicant’s behalf. The first and second applicants called no witnesses.\n14.  On 3 November 1997 the Kaunas Regional Court convicted all the defendants in the case, including the applicants. The court found that the first and the second applicants had organised the riot and that they had also committed affray. They were sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The third applicant was found guilty of having actively taken part in the riot and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.\n15.  In establishing the first applicant’s guilt, the court referred to the statements of 17 anonymous witnesses who were mostly other detainees. These statements had been recorded by the prosecution during the pre-trial investigation. The secret witnesses testified that the first applicant had organised the riot. The court further referred to the statements at the pre-trial investigation of three co-accused, J, S and T, confirming the first applicant’s guilt. The Regional Court noted that J, S and T had subsequently changed their testimony, alleging inter alia that prosecutors had forced them to inculpate the first applicant. However, the court considered that the initial statements of J, S and T had been valid, and that they had only changed their evidence upon intimidation by the other defendants. The court also took account of the statements given during the trial by a complainant, a detainee belonging to “a lower caste among prisoners”. The latter had testified that the first applicant had assaulted him on 15 January 1997. The court further noted the evidence given at the trial by five members of the prison staff, alleging that the first applicant had organised the riot. The Regional Court found that on the day of the riot the first applicant had been under the influence of alcohol. In concluding that the first applicant was guilty of riot and affray, the court also mentioned indirect evidence: on-site inspection records, material evidence and expert examinations.\n16.  In finding the second applicant guilty, the Regional Court referred to the statements by 19 anonymous witnesses recorded by the prosecution during the pre-trial investigation. The anonymous statements testified that the second applicant had also been an organiser of the riot. As was the case with the first applicant, the court rejected the lat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-91", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  At the material time the first applicant, Feridun Yazar, was chairman of the People's Labour Party (Halkın Emeği Partisi – “the HEP”), the second applicant, Ahmet Karataş, was its vice-chairman and the third applicant, İbrahim Aksoy, was its general secretary.\n10.  On 7 June 1990 the HEP was founded and its constitution was filed with the Ministry of the Interior.\n11.  On 3 July 1992 Principal State Counsel at the Court of Cassation applied to the Turkish Constitutional Court to have the HEP dissolved. In his application he accused the party of having undermined the integrity of the State. He submitted that certain statements made at meetings and to the press by the party's leaders and senior officials at both central and local level had infringed the Constitution and the Law on the regulation of political parties. He also accused the HEP of assisting and protecting those of its members who had committed illegal acts.\n12.  On 8 July 1992 the President of the Constitutional Court sent Principal State Counsel's application to the chairman of the HEP, inviting him to submit his preliminary observations in reply.\n13.  On 3 September 1992 the HEP's lawyer filed his preliminary written observations and requested a hearing. In his observations he submitted, in particular, that the Law on the regulation of political parties contained provisions that were contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. He also maintained that the dissolution of the party, as called for by Principal State Counsel, would contravene international instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris for a New Europe. In addition, he argued that there was insufficient evidence of the links between the HEP and the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan). He further contended that Principal State Counsel's application referred to statements made by individuals, for which the HEP could not be held liable, pursuant to section 101(b) of the Law on the regulation of political parties.\n14.  On 22 January 1993 the HEP's lawyer submitted his observations on the merits. He again requested a hearing. He also sought leave, should that request be refused, for the HEP's chairman and his predecessors to give evidence to the Constitutional Court.\n15.  The Constitutional Court acceded to the latter request. Accordingly, the former chairman and the chairman of the HEP made oral submissions to the court on 1 March 1993.\n16.  On 14 July 1993 the Constitutional Court decided to dissolve the HEP. Its judgment was served on Principal State Counsel, the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Prime Minister's Office.\n17.  The Constitutional Court's judgment was published in the Official Gazette on 18 August 1993.\n18.  In its judgment the Constitutional Court began by reiterating the main constitutional principles of relevance to the case, to the effect that all persons living within Turkish territory, whatever their ethnic origin, formed a whole united by their common culture. Accordingly, the sum of the persons who made up the Republic of Turkey was called the “Turkish nation”. The different ethnic groups making up the “nation” were therefore not divided into a majority or minorities. The Constitutional Court pointed out that, under the Constitution, no political or legal distinction based on ethnic or racial origin could be made between citizen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-93", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  In October 1984 the applicant’s father (“the plaintiff”) brought an action against an upholstery workshop. He claimed some outstanding royalty fees on account of the workshop’s manufacture and sale of a series of foldable beds based on his invention.\n10.  In September 1986 the Buda Central District Court informed the plaintiff that the upholstery workshop as such had no capacity to conduct legal proceedings and that its members were personally required to enter the proceedings as defendants.\n11.  On 28 April 1987 the District Court, for reasons of competence, discontinued the proceedings and transferred the case to the Budapest Regional Court. On 4 February 1988 the Regional Court held that it had no competence in the case either, and requested the Supreme Court to designate the competent court.\n12.  On 5 May 1988 the Supreme Court designated the Buda Central District Court to hear the case. On 10 November 1988, 16 February, 26 April, 21 June and 20 October 1989, 20 March and 29 June 1990, the District Court held hearings. Meanwhile, on 13 February 1989 and 15 June 1990 the plaintiff extended his claims.\n13.  In its judgment of 6 July 1990 the District Court awarded the plaintiff 714,070 Hungarian forints (HUF), plus accrued interest.\n14.  On appeal, on 22 May 1991 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing, quashed the first-instance judgment and instructed its own competent bench to re-hear the case. It pointed out that, due to the plaintiff’s repeated extensions of his claims, the case was no longer within the District Court’s competence.\n15.  On 20 December 1991, 17 June, 15 July and 4 November 1992 the Regional Court held hearings. On the latter date it ordered the plaintiff to elaborate his claims within thirty days.\n16.  On 7 December 1992 the plaintiff again extended his action and, on 27 January 1993, he filed a memorandum with the Regional Court submitting the precise figures of his claims.\n17.  On 17 February and 28 April 1993 the Regional Court held hearings. The hearings scheduled for 1 September and 10 December 1993 and 9 March 1994 were adjourned.\n18.  On 4 May 1994 the Regional Court decided to obtain a technical expert opinion. On 28 September 1994 it put concrete questions to an expert institution, which on 27 October 1994 renounced the request. On 7 November 1994 another expert was appointed who presented his opinion on 19 December 1994.\n19.  On 1 March 1995 the Regional Court held a hearing. On this occasion the plaintiff again modified his claims. A hearing scheduled for 17 May 1995 was adjourned. On 16 June 1995 the plaintiff further extended his claims.\n20.  On 27 September 1995, 26 January and 3 July 1996 the Regional Court held further hearings. On the latter date the plaintiff was granted a 15-day time-limit to elaborate further the quantification of claims. His memorandum on that subject was returned for supplementation on 1 August 1996. The revised memorandum reached the Regional Court on 9 September 1996.\n21.  On 20 November 1996 the Regional Court held a further hearing and appointed an expert accountant. On 24 January 1997 the Regional Court ordered the plaintiff to advance payment for the expert.\n22.  On 6 June 1997 the Regional Court declared that the proceedings were interrupted on account of the death of one of the defendants. On 12 December 1997 the proceedings were resumed and a hearing was held.\n23.  On 13 February 1998 the Regional Court discontinued, on account of the plaintiff’s partial waive", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-94", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant had inherited half a mine producing fluoride, which on 28 January 1985 was assessed by an inspector. According to the Mining Code, minerals are owned by the State and may be assigned by the State to any person, in accordance with the provisions of the law. The main obligation of a mine owner is the exploitation of the mine (Articles 102 and s.). When the competent public service establishes that no exploitation or mining research is carried out in a mine in accordance with the provisions of the law, it forwards the pertinent particulars to the Mines Board which, after hearing the concerned parties, decides on the forfeiture of the right of ownership (Article 121).\n9.  On 30 April 1986 the applicant asked the Ministry of Industry not to declare that he had forfeited his rights over the mine. He claimed that the mine’s production had dropped because its exploitation had provisionally become unprofitable.\n10.  On 17 July 1986 the Ministry of Industry declared that the applicant and the other two owners of the mine had forfeited their rights over it because they had remained idle during three years, between 1981 and 1983. During that period there was a crisis in the market as opposed to complete lack of demand for the mineral in question, as the applicant had claimed. The applicant was not given any compensation.\n11.  On 25 August 1986 the applicant and the two other owners lodged an appeal (προσφυγή) against the decision of the Ministry before the first-instance administrative court (Διοικητικό Πρωτοδικείο) of Athens. They alleged that the Ministry’s decision did not contain adequate reasons. They pointed out in this connection that between 1981 and 1983 the mine was not idle. Its production had simply fallen because there was a crisis in the fluoride market. They also alleged that the inspector’s report of 28 January 1985, on which the Ministry’s decision was based, had not examined their claims. Finally, they alleged that the decision was unlawful because they should have been given an extra year in which to exploit the mine.\n12.  On 30 October 1987 the court rejected the appeal on the grounds that the mine had indeed remained idle, that it was up to the appellants to prove that there was a crisis in the market and that the fact that they had not been given an extra year was an irrelevant consideration under the relevant rules. This judgment was served on the applicant on 8 November 1998.\n13.  On 5 December 1988 the applicant and the two other owners appealed. A hearing was set down for 3 July 1990. On that date, on the applicant’s request, the hearing was postponed for 22 November 1990.\n14.  On 14 December 1990 the Administrative Court of Appeal (Διοικητικό Εφετείο) of Athens ordered the production of a number of documents including the report of 28 January 1985. On 29 November 1991 it rejected the appeal considering, inter alia, that the crisis in the relevant market could not justify the idleness of the mine, as the report of 28 January 1985 had wrongly accepted. The idleness could be justified only if there was no demand for the mineral in question whatsoever, a fact which the appellants did not prove. Finally, there was no obligation under the law for the authorities to grant the applicant an extra year. This judgment was served on the applicant on 21 July 1992.\n15.  On 17 August 1992 the applicant and the two other persons appealed in cassation. At first, the hearing was set down for 24 March 1993 but it was conti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-95", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants teach as temporary staff at the polytechnic school in Piraeus (Τεχνολογικό Εκπαιδευτικό Ίδρυμα Πειραιά) on the basis of private-law contracts. On 22 October 1992 they sued their employer for a supplement to their salary, as research allowance (ερευνητική χορηγία - hereinafter “the benefit”), that had been granted by ministerial decision no. 2023080/2538/0022/SHET.2057/1989 to “those teaching at polytechnics”. They served their action (επίδοση αγωγής) to the school on 27 October 1992.\n9.  The applicants relied on a number of decisions by the Court of Appeal in Piraeus granting the benefit in question to academic staff of the polytechnic school with the applicants’ status. Their action was one of several actions pending before the Piraeus courts at the time.\n10.  On 30 September 1993 the single-member first instance civil court (Μονομελές Πρωτοδικείο) of Piraeus considered that the applicants were entitled to the benefit. It awarded GRD 600,000 to applicant no. 1, GRD 570,000 to each of applicants nos. 2-5, GRD 380,000 to each of applicants nos. 6 and 7, GRD 300,000 to each of applicants nos. 8-12, GRD 450,000 to each of applicants nos. 13-20, GRD 330,000 to each of applicants nos. 21-23 and GRD 210,000 to applicant no. 24. The court also held that the applicants should be awarded legal interest on the above‑mentioned sums from the date when they served their action to the school, namely from 27 October 1992.\n11.  On 11 February 1994 the school appealed.\n12.  On 31 August 1994 Parliament enacted Law no. 2233/1994. Article 2 § 2 of that law provided the following: the ministerial decision of 1989, according to its true meaning, concerned only permanent staff; any claims that had not been recognised by final decisions were statute-barred; all pending court cases were discontinued.\n13.  On 19 July 1995 the Court of Appeal of Piraeus upheld the school’s appeal (decision no. 1001/1995). The court considered that Article 2 § 2 of Law no. 2233/1994 “is truly interpretative and has retroactive effect (Article 77 § 1 of the Constitution)”, and that “it clearly results from these provisions that the temporary staff of the polytechnic schools are not entitled to the benefit provided for by the ministerial decision [of 1989]”. The court continued:\n“Moreover... Articles 4 and 22 of the Constitution ... provide for equal pay for work of equal value rendered ... However, the principle of non-discrimination ... is relented when the differentiation in the pay for work of equal value is imposed by reasons of general public and social interest. Such a reason, which justifies the fixing by the legislator of a different pay among employees who render ... the same work, exists when the ones work on the basis of public law contracts and the others on the basis of private law contracts, i.e. when each group belongs to a different category, ruled by a different legal status entailing different ... rights and obligations. Therefore the judgment under appeal which ... considered that [the applicants] as temporary staff of the school ... working on the basis of private law contracts, are entitled to receive the benefit ... was wrong and did not interpret correctly the law, which was in fact interpreted by the ensuing (truly) interpretative Law no. 2233/1994, and thus the doubt which was created due to its ambiguity has been removed. In view of the fact that by virtue of that law the benefit is given only to permanent staff and not to temporary sta", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-96", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1904 and lived in Warsaw. He was the co-owner of a plot of land and a house in Warsaw.\n9.  On 23 September 1980 G.G., one of the co-owners (“the petitioner”) filed with the Warsaw-Praga District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an application for division of the property.\n10.  On 2 August 1984 the District Court gave a decision and divided the property. On 21 January 1985, on the applicant’s appeal, the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the decision and remitted the case to the District Court.\n11.  On 24 September 1986, at the request of the petitioner, the District Court issued an interim order enjoining third parties from entering the attic of the house. On 27 May 1988 the court issued another interim order enjoining the applicant and his wife from carrying out any work to the house. On 24 November 1989 the court rejected another request of the petitioner for an interim order.\n12.  Having obtained a number of expert reports, the District Court gave a preliminary decision (postanowienie wstępne) on 22 December 1989. It determined that the house in question consisted of two apartments, basements and an attic. On 9 July 1990, on the applicant’s appeal, the Regional Court quashed this decision.\n13.  On 24 December 1990 the applicant filed with the District Court an application for permission to carry out works on the gas supply to his apartment. On 8 March 1991 the court decided to join his application to the merits of the proceedings concerning the division of the property. On 7 June 1991 the Warsaw Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 8 March 1991 as inadmissible in law.\n14.  On 4 March 1992 the District Court rejected the applicant’s request for an interim order authorising works to be carried out on the attic of the house. On 10 June 1992 the Regional Court upheld this decision.\n15.  It appears that on an unspecified date in 1993 the District Court decided to carry out an inspection of the property. In April 1993 the parties paid an advance fee towards the costs of the inspection, as ordered by the court. By a letter of 8 April 1994 the applicant’s lawyer informed the court that although the date of the inspection had been fixed on two occasions (for 14 October 1993 and 24 March 1994), it had not taken place since the representatives of the court had not turned up at the site. On 29 April 1994 the court rejected the applicant’s request to inspect the property. On 27 May 1994 the applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the District Court as being inadmissible in law.\n16.  On 29 April 1994 the District Court ordered that expert evidence be obtained from the Institute of Construction Technology (Instytut Techniki Budowlanej). As from 2 February 1995 the case file was with the Regional Court, following the applicant’s appeal against an unspecified decision (procedural order) of the District Court. On 20 March 1995 the Regional Court upheld the decision. On 27 April 1995 the case file was returned to the District Court.\n17.  On 4 May 1995 the District Court requested the Director of the Institute of Construction Technology to appoint an expert to take charge of the preparation of the report ordered by the court. On 8 June 1995 the case file was sent to the Institute of Construction Technology in order to have the report prepared within a two-month period. On 16 August 1995 the District Court requested the Institute to expedite the preparation of the report. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-97", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  Under the General Tax Code as worded until 31 December 1978 the applicant company was liable to value-added tax (VAT) on its commercial activity. It paid a total of 291,816 French francs (FRF) in VAT on its 1978 transactions.\n10.  Article 13-B-a of the Sixth Directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 17 May 1977 granted an exemption from VAT for “insurance and reinsurance transactions, including related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents”. That provision was to come into force on 1 January 1978.\n11.  On 30 June 1978 the Ninth Directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 26 June 1978 was notified to the French State. It granted France an extension of time – until 1 January 1979 – in which to implement the provisions of Article 13-B-a of the Sixth Directive of 1977. Since such directives have no retroactive effect, the Sixth Directive ought nonetheless to have been applied from 1 January to 30 June 1978.\n12.  Relying on the Sixth Directive, the applicant company sought reimbursement of the VAT it had paid for the period from 1 January to 31 December 1978, which it considered had not been due as the Ninth Directive had no retroactive effect. It also brought an action in damages against the State for failing to bring French law into line with the Sixth Directive within the prescribed period, thereby causing it to sustain damage equal to the amount of the VAT paid. It claimed reimbursement of the VAT paid or, failing that, the amount attributable to the period from 1 January 1978 to the date the Sixth Directive had come into force.\n13.  The Paris Administrative Court dismissed its claims in a judgment of 8 July 1982. It held, inter alia, that it was clear from the Treaty of the European Communities that while directives placed an obligation on States to achieve a particular result, the choice of the appropriate means of implementing a directive in domestic law lay within the sole discretion of the national authorities, such that individuals and private bodies could not rely directly on a directive to defeat a provision of domestic law.\n14.  On 10 June 1982 a claim by another firm of insurance brokers, S.A. Revert et Badelon, for the reimbursement of VAT paid on its transactions in 1978 was dismissed by the Paris Administrative Court for the same reasons.\n15.  In a further development, the authorities directed in an administrative circular issued on 2 January 1986: \n“... no further action shall be taken to collect sums remaining due at the date of publication of this circular from insurance brokers who have failed to charge value-added tax on their transactions between 1 January and 30 June 1978 and have received supplementary tax assessments as a result.”\n16.  In a judgment of 19 March 1986 the Conseil d'Etat dismissed an appeal by the applicant company. It held that individuals and private bodies were not entitled to rely on the provisions of a European directive that had yet to be transposed into domestic law and declared the action in damages inadmissible, as the applicant company had omitted to apply in the first instance to the tax authorities. The main points in its judgment were as follows.\n17.  As regards the first head of claim:\n“Article 189 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community of 25 March 1957 makes it clear that, while Council directives are binding upon each member State 'as to the result to be achieved' and while in order to achieve the prescribed results t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-98", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  Following complaints from the National Union of Finishing Contractors (Syndicat national des entreprises de second œuvre) that large construction firms were engaging in certain illegal practices, France's central government authorities instructed the National Investigations Office to carry out a large-scale administrative investigation into the conduct of public-works contractors.\n9.  In a memorandum dated 9 October 1985 the head of the National Investigations Office – a body attached to the Competition and Consumer Affairs Department, which on 5 November 1985 became the Department for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Prevention (“the DGCCRF”) – provided the officials responsible at inter-département level with details of the planned investigation into the conduct of roadworks contractors in local tendering procedures. Appended to the memorandum was a list of companies to be inspected, either at their head office or at local branch offices, in seventeen départements. The list included the three applicant companies.\n10.  On 19 November 1985 inspectors from the DGCCRF carried out simultaneous raids on fifty-six companies without authorisation from the companies' management and seized several thousand documents. At a later date, on 15 October 1986, they conducted further inquiries with a view to obtaining statements.\n11.  On each occasion the inspectors entered the applicant companies' premises under the provisions of Ordinance no. 45-1484 of 30 June 1945, which did not require any judicial authorisation. While carrying out the raids, the inspectors seized various documents containing evidence of unlawful agreements relating to certain contracts that did not appear in the list of contracts concerned by the investigation.\n12.  On 14 November 1986, on the basis of those documents, the Minister for Economic Affairs, Finance and Privatisation asked the Competition Commission (which became the Competition Council after the entry into force of Ordinance no. 86-1243 of 1 December 1986) to investigate certain acts which, in his opinion, amounted to collusion between separate firms, artificial competition between firms belonging to one and the same group in local tendering procedures for roadworks contracts, and agreements restricting competition in the operation of mixing plants.\n13.  On 30 July 1987 the Competition Council was additionally asked by the head of the DGCCRF to investigate acts of a similar nature. That request concerned fifty-five companies, including the applicant companies.\n14.  In a decision of 25 October 1989, published in the Official Bulletin on Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Prevention (Bulletin officiel de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes – “the BOCCRF”), the Competition Council, finding evidence of practices outlawed by the ordinance of 30 June 1945 and the ordinance of 1 December 1986, fined the first applicant company 12,000,000 French francs (FRF), the second FRF 4,000,000 and the third FRF 6,000,000.\n15.  In a judgment of 4 July 1990 published in the BOCCRF, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld all those penalties. The applicant companies appealed on points of law.\n16.  In a judgment of 6 October 1992, likewise published in the BOCCRF, the Commercial Division of the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal, on the ground that its calculation of turnover and its assessment of the amount of the fines had had no basis in law. It remitted the case", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-99", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Athens.\n9.  Between 13 July 1953 and 15 October 1957 the applicant paid contributions to the Fund of Typographers and Graphic-Arts Employees (Ταμείο Τυπογράφων και Μισθωτών Γραφικών Τεχνών) for 1136 working days. Between 1 February 1979 and 31 December 1980 the applicant paid contributions to the Social Security Foundation (Ίδρυμα Κοινωνικών Ασφαλίσεων) for 86 working days. Between 1 January 1981 and 30 July 1981 the applicant paid contributions to the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press (Ταμείο Ασφάλισης Τεχνικών Τύπου Αθηνών) for seven months. Between 1 August 1981 and 31 May 1988 he paid contributions to the same fund for five years, ten months and 18 days.\n10.  Then the applicant requested to be put on retirement under sections 18 § 2 and 10 § 1 of Law No. 1186/81. On 16 December 1988 the Director of the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press decided that the applicant was entitled to the pension provided for those who had worked for five to ten years (section 10 § 1 (a)).\n11.  The applicant appealed against this decision considering that, under the relevant legislation, the Fund should also have taken into consideration the working days in respect of which he had paid contributions to the Fund of Typographers and Graphic-Arts Employees and the Social Security Foundation. His appeal was rejected by the Board of the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press sometime in 1989.\n12.  On 19 April 1989 the applicant challenged this decision before the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens. On 28 February 1990 the court considered that sections 18 § 2 and 10 § 1 of Law No. 1186/81 were provisions of an exceptional nature. As a result, there was no room for applying the legislation concerning the taking into consideration of working days in respect of which contributions had been paid to other funds.\n13.  On 20 July 1990 the applicant appealed against this decision. His appeal was rejected by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens on 10 April 1992.\n14.  On 2 July 1993 the applicant appealed in cassation. He argued that if the contributions he had paid to other funds were not taken into account, his property rights would be violated, in breach of the Constitution.\n15.  At first, the hearing was set down for 11 April 1994 but it was adjourned because the lawyers of the Athens Bar Association were on strike. A new hearing was set down for 21 November 1994 but it was continuously postponed. The hearing was finally held on 25 May 1998.\n16.  On 9 June 1998 the Council of State rejected the applicant’s appeal referring to a number of previous decisions to the effect that the legislation concerning the taking into consideration of working days in respect of which contributions had been paid to other funds did not apply in cases of provisions that create exceptional rights to a pension.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-100", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 1 October 1986 the applicant was called up by the military authorities to take part in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. The applicant was engaged in the operations until 11 January 1987 and, as a result, suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions.\n8.  In 1991, following an expert opinion which established the link between the applicant's poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events, the applicant was awarded compensation.\n9.  In 1997 the applicant brought proceedings against the Shakhty Social Security Service (Управление социальной защиты населения по г. Шахты) as the compensation had not been paid. On 3 March 1997 the Shakhty City Court (Шахтинский городской суд) found in the applicant's favour and awarded him 23,786,567 [The amount is indicated without regard to the denomination in 1998. In accordance with the Presidential Decree “on the Modification of Face Value of Russian Currency and Standards of Value” of 4 August 1997, 1,000 “old” roubles became 1 “new” rouble from 1 January 1998] Russian roubles (RUR) of the outstanding compensation and an equal sum in the form of a penalty.\n10.  On 9 April 1999 the Shakhty Bailiff's Service (Служба судебных приставов г. Шахты) instituted enforcement proceedings for recovery of the penalty awarded on 3 March 1997.\n11.  In 1999 the applicant brought an action against the Social Security Service to challenge a reduction in the amount of the monthly payment and to recover the unpaid compensation. On 21 May 1999 the Shakhty City Court restored the original amount of the compensation and ordered the Social Security Service to make monthly compensation payments of RUR 3,011.36 with subsequent indexation. The court also ordered the payment of outstanding moneys totalling RUR 8,752.65.\n12.  On 30 August 1999 the Shakhty Bailiff's Service instituted proceedings to enforce the judgment of 21 May 1999.\n13.  On 16 September 1999 the Shakhty Bailiff's Service notified the applicant that even though the proceedings to enforce the judgment of 3 March 1997 were pending, the payments to the applicant could not be made because the Social Security Service was underfunded.\n14.  On 7 October 1999 the Rostov Regional Department of Justice (Главное управление юстиции Ростовской области) notified the applicant that the two judgments could not be complied with because the defendant did not have sufficient funds.\n15.  Following a complaint by the applicant about the failure to enforce the judgments, on 12 November 1999 the prosecutor of Shakhty informed the applicant that the Bailiff's Service was following the established enforcement procedure but had been hampered by the defendant's lack of proper funding.\n16.  On 22 December 1999 the Rostov Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that funds to pay the Chernobyl compensation had been allocated from the federal budget and that payment would be made upon receipt of an appropriate transfer from the Ministry of Finance.\n17.  On 26 January 2000 the Rostov Regional Prosecutor's Office (Прокуратура Ростовской области) informed the applicant that the non-enforcement could in no way be attributed to the Bailiff's Service, and that the debts would be discharged as soon as proper allocations had been made from the federal budget.\n18.  On 22 March 2000 the Rostov Regional Department of Justice notified the applicant that compensation of Chernobyl victims would be financed from the federal bud", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-102", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants, Netherlands nationals born in 1920 and 1957 respectively, were partners in a timber trading enterprise based in Heeze. They operated as a trading partnership (vennootschap onder firma).\n11.  Mr Mathijs Henricus Meulendijks died in September 2000. The proceedings are being pursued in his stead by his heirs. For convenience, Mr Mathijs Henricus Meulendijks will continue to be referred to hereinafter as an applicant (“the first applicant”) although his heirs now have this status.\n12.  On 7 December 1988, a preliminary criminal investigation (gerechtelijk vooronderzoek) was opened against the applicants’ trading partnership on suspicion of forgery committed for fiscal purposes. On 13 December 1988, in the context of this investigation, the applicants’ business premises were searched and a major part of the office records was seized by the investigating authorities.\n13.  By letters of 16 and 23 December 1988, the applicants’ lawyer unsuccessfully requested the public prosecutor to return the items seized on 13 December 1988 in order to allow the trading partnership to continue its business activities.\n14.  At some unspecified date, the applicants’ lawyer was informed by the investigating judge (rechter-commissaris) that the seized office records would be returned after a final examination (slotverhoor). This examination took place on 28 February 1991.\n15.  On 19 March 1991, the applicants’ trading partnership, as a separate legal entity, received a formal notification that no further criminal proceedings would be brought against it (kennisgeving van niet verdere vervolging).\n16.  Since the seized office records had still not been returned, the applicants’ lawyer informed the investigating judge by letters of 25 March and 8 April 1991 that, if the office records were not returned by a certain date, a formal complaint (beklag) about the continuation of the seizure would be filed with the Regional Court. At some later date part of the seized office records was returned. The return of the remaining part was refused.\n17.  At some unspecified date, the first applicant was summoned to appear on 23 May 1991 before the Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) of ‘s-Hertogenbosch on charges under Article 225 of the Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht) and Article 68 of the General State Taxation Act (Algemene Wet inzake Rijksbelastingen). Criminal proceedings were also brought against the second applicant.\n18.  In the subsequent criminal proceedings against the first applicant, the Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) of ‘s-Hertogenbosch, in its judgment of 27 April 1994, declared the prosecution inadmissible for non-compliance with the reasonable time requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The criminal proceedings brought against the second applicant ended with the decision of the Court of Appeal of 27 April 1994 in which the summons against the second applicant was declared null and void, also for failure to respect the reasonable time requirement.\n19.  The applicants’ counsel lodged a request for the return of the office records in July 1994. The applicants state that part of the records were returned in September of that year. The remainder was returned later.\n20.  On 28 March 1989, the Occupational Association for the Timber and Furniture Industry and the Timber Wholesale Trade (Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Hout- en Meubelindustrie en Groothandel in Hout, hereinafter referred to as “the Occupational Association”)", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-103", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Ms Şemsi Önen, is a Turkish citizen, born in 1968. At the relevant time, she lived in the village Karataş near Mazıdağı (Mardin) in south-east Turkey. The application was brought by the applicant on behalf of her deceased parents and brother, on her own behalf and on behalf of her ten suriving siblings, namely Mekiye, Ishan, Ercan, Mehmet Nuri, Medine, Sultan, Sevgi, Iskender, Melek and Hamdullah. It concerns the killing of their parents and brother Orhan, allegedly by armed members of the Balpınar village guards, and the investigation thereof.\n10.  Since the 1980s, a violent conflict has been conducted in the south-eastern region of Turkey between the security forces and sections of the Kurdish population in favour of Kurdish autonomy, in particular members of the PKK (Kurdish Workers' Party). According to the Government, one of the main terrorist activities of the PKK was the killing of people who have acted contrary to the cause of this organisation or who have misused property of the PKK. At the time of the events in issue, ten of the eleven provinces of south-east Turkey had been under emergency rule since 1987.\n11.  The facts of the case, in particular the circumstances of the killings and the efforts of the authorities to investigate the killings, are disputed.\n12.  As the village of Karataş, where the applicant and her family lived at the time of the events in issue, had refused the village guard system, tension had arisen between Karataş and its neighbouring village Balpınar. This refusal had also resulted in pressure being applied to the villagers by the gendarmes.\n13.  On or about 15 November 1992, four Balpınar village guards were killed in a clash with the PKK. On the same day, shortly after the clash, gendarmes and village guards attacked the village of Karataş. This attack lasted several hours. The following day, the Muhtar of Karataş complained to the Governor that his village was being subjected to pressure and violence from the gendarmes and village guards. No investigation of the attack took place.\n14.  Some weeks before 16 March 1993 the house of the Muhtar and the applicant's family house were both strafed by several rounds of bullets fired by Balpınar village guards. The Muhtar again complained to the Governor about the pressure exerted on his village by the Balpınar village guards and requested that steps be taken to put an end to it.\n15.  In the evening of 16 March 1993 the applicant's older brother, Orhan Önen, and her parents, Ibrahim and Mome Önen, were killed and the applicant suffered a wound to her foot as a result of a planned action by members of the Balpınar village guards to kill Orhan Önen. Before he was shot and killed, the applicant's father was able to pull the scarf from the head of one of the intruders and shouted that he recognised the gunmen as Ali Ertaş, head of the Balpınar village guards, and his nephew Orhan Ertaş, a former Balpınar village guard. The applicant's mother, who was seriously injured by a bullet, died on her way to hospital.\n16.  The Commander of the local Fosfat gendarme station, who had possibly been informed beforehand of the plan by the Balpınar village guards to kill Orhan Önen, seriously delayed the applicant's mother's access to medical treatment by refusing to provide a car to replace the defective minibus which was to transport her to a hospital and by unduly delaying the departure of this minibus for Mazıdağı.\n17.  The subsequent investigation of the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-104", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 9 December 1992 a criminal action was filed against the applicant and two other defendants with the Nicosia District Court. The applicant was charged with the offences of forging official documents, circulating forged documents, fraudulently avoiding customs duties and corrupting a public officer. The Charge Sheet contained 48 charges but 28 were withdrawn at the close of the prosecution case. The witness list attached to the Charge Sheet contained 61 names and was amended to add another three, although the actual number of witnesses ultimately called was 37.\n9.  On 18 January 1993 the lawyer of one of the co-accused of the applicant asked for an adjournment of the case so that he could study the file and advise his client.\n10.  The applicant refused to enter a plea to the charges and asked for an adjournment until 28 January 1993, which was granted. On that date, the applicant’s lawyer (Mr Triantafyllides) asked for another adjournment and informed the District Court that he would be abroad between 16 and 22 February 1993. The Attorney General informed the District Court that he would also be away between 22 and 28 February 1993. The hearing was set for 2 March 1993 and then adjourned until 23 March 1993 at the request of the lawyer (Mr Clerides) of another defendant.\n11.  On 23 March 1993 Mr Clerides submitted a preliminary objection which concerned the discretion of the Attorney General to prefer a Charge Sheet in accordance with the Criminal Code. The trial judge dismissed the objection on 28 May 1993 and set the hearing for 29 September 1993.\n12.  On 5 July 1993 the accused asked the District Court to reserve the question of law for the Supreme Court as to whether the Attorney General had a discretion to launch criminal proceedings in such a case. The Attorney General objected to that request. This resulted in four days of hearing (10, 16 and 24 June and 1 July 1993) before the District Court granted the request. On 18 November 1993 the Supreme Court held that the fact that the investigations were carried out by the Customs Office did not prevent the Attorney General from preferring the Charge Sheet.\n13.  Following this decision, the accused entered a plea of “not guilty”.\n14.  The case was referred back to the District Court and the hearing was listed for 11 March 1994. On that date the applicant’s co-accused invited the District Court to postpone the hearing until the completion of another hearing in criminal proceedings no. 21341/92, to which all the defendants were also parties. The District Court granted the request and adjourned the examination of the case until 8 June 1994. However, as proceedings no. 21341/92 had not been completed on that date (they were concluded on 18 January 1995), the hearing was further adjourned until 26 October 1994 and then until 3 February 1995 (because the Attorney General was otherwise engaged before the Supreme Court), 8 May 1995 (because witnesses for the prosecution were unavailable) and 30 October 1995.\n15.  On 30 October 1995 the lawyers for all the defendants submitted a preliminary objection as regards the competence of a newly appointed judge, who replaced the judge to whom the case had been initially assigned and who had in the meantime retired. The objection was dismissed on 6 November 1995 and the hearing set for 4 December 1995.\n16.  The hearing started on 4 December 1995 and continued on 5 and 11 December 1995. On that last date the lawyer of one of the defendants objected to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-105", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was in the care of the Eastern Health Board (“the Board”) from when he was 2 years of age until the age of majority (18 years). From 1984 to 1986 he was placed in children's homes and thereafter with a foster family. In 1991 the foster placement broke down and the subsequent placement with a “carer” family also broke down due to the applicant's behaviour. Between 1993 and May 1996 he was detained at Oberstown Boys' Centre on foot of assault charges. Subsequent placements failed again due to the applicant's behaviour and in August 1996 the Board placed him in a private and specialised residential unit in the United Kingdom, which placement also failed.\n11.  In November 1996 the applicant was convicted in the United Kingdom of criminal damage, burglary, arson and aggravated theft (offences committed during his stay in the above-mentioned residential unit) and sentenced to nine months in prison. In February 1997, and at the request of the Board, the Irish High Court granted a warrant (pursuant to the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act 1995) allowing the applicant to serve the balance of his nine-month sentence in St Patrick's Institution (“St Patrick's”) in Ireland. The applicant was released on 7 March 1997.\n12.  He slept rough the first night of his release and subsequently resided on a temporary basis in a homeless boys' hostel run on a voluntary basis by a priest. From then until the judicial review proceedings (described below) issued, the applicant's solicitor wrote to the Board five times requesting that proper accommodation be made available to the applicant. A case conference was held on 14 March 1997 where it was agreed that his needs would be met in a high-support therapeutic unit for 16- to 18-year-olds but that no such unit existed in Ireland and could not be put in place in time for the applicant's needs. It was decided that the Board would look into placements outside Ireland and into interim options in Ireland.\n13.  On 28 April 1997 the High Court appointed a guardian ad litem and gave the applicant leave to apply for judicial review (citing, inter alia, the Board and the Attorney-General as respondents) for (a) a declaration that, in failing to provide suitable care and accommodation for the applicant and in discriminating against him as compared with other children, the respondents deprived the applicant of his constitutional rights under, in particular, Articles 40 § 1, 40 § 3 (1), 40 § 3 (2) and 42 § 5 of the Irish Constitution. The applicant referred in this context to his being a child at risk, namely dangerous to himself and potentially to others, and pointed out that the lack of appropriate care meant that his rights had not been vindicated; (b) an order of mandamus and an injunction directing the respondents to provide suitable care and accommodation for the applicant were also requested. The grounds submitted by the applicant related to the Board's failure to comply with its statutory duties to provide such accommodation under sections 4, 5, 16 and 38 the Child Care Act 1991; and (c) damages, although the applicant had submitted that he would suffer irreparable loss and damage for which monetary compensation would not suffice (hence the application for an order of mandamus and an injunction).\n14.  The application for interlocutory relief (namely for relief until the making of a final order following the hearing of the case) came before the High Court on 6, 12, 21 and 30 May 1997. However, on 4 Ju", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-106", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The first applicant is the widow of the late Mr Timo Jokela (“Mr Jokela”), who died on 19 September 1992. The other applicants are his children and all the applicants are beneficiaries of his estate.\n9.  At the time of his death Mr Jokela possessed, inter alia, the following properties in the centre of Nakkila municipality: Saha 1:15, Saha I 5:55, Saha I 5:78 and Saha II 3:20. The size of the properties came about 2.9 ha in total. Mr Jokela had purchased a third of the land for 300,000 markkas (FIM) in December 1989. A regional master plan (seutukaava, regionplan) of 1977 had designated part of the land for roadworks. That designation had been maintained in a municipal building plan (rakennuskaava, byggnadsplan) of 1989, whereas construction mainly for industrial purposes had been allowed on the remaining part of the properties.\n10.  In June 1990 the Turku District Roads Authority requested the partial expropriation of Mr Jokela's properties with a view to constructing an overpass pursuant to a road plan confirmed in February 1990. The overall area to be expropriated covered about half of the properties in question (1.53 ha). The request was referred to a panel composed of a State-appointed land surveyor (“the expert”) and two lay members chosen by the expert from a list drawn up by the municipality (“the trustees”).\n11.  In the autumn of 1990 the Roads Authority took over those parts of the properties which were to be expropriated. In December 1990 Mr Jokela sold other parts of the properties Saha 1:15 and Saha II 3:20 for FIM 121 per square metre to a well-established service-station company intending to construct a new service station to replace the one situated on adjacent land subject to expropriation.\n12.  After reaching an agreement with the Roads Authority in March 1991 Mr Jokela received FIM 700,000 in compensation for the removal of the buildings, equipment and vegetation from the expropriated land. The removal took place the same year. The agreement did not concern the compensation to be paid for the land itself and the inconvenience suffered. On these points Mr Jokela and, following his death, the applicants disagreed with the Roads Authority.\n13.  The matter was then referred to the expert and the trustees who, on 3 June 1993, fixed the market value (käypä arvo, gängse pris) of the land at FIM 7.50 per square metre. They apparently arrived at this amount disregarding three voluntary sales of land in the vicinity, as they considered that the sellers – Mr Jokela and the municipality – had been “in a dominant position” at the time and thus able to dictate the price. Instead, the expert and trustees took into account the prices paid for land within a wider area. The applicants were awarded about FIM 115,000 in compensation for the land and some additional compensation for the inconvenience suffered.\n14.  The applicants and the Roads Authority appealed to the Land Court (maaoikeus, jorddomstolen) of Southern Finland which, on 27 September 1994, held an oral hearing also attended by the expert. The applicants, represented by counsel, argued that the market value of the expropriated land was between FIM 60 and FIM 112 per square metre. In support of their contention, they submitted various pieces of documentary evidence indicating a current value ranging between FIM 20 and FIM 114 per square metre. The evidence included, inter alia:\n(1)  an offer of 1990 in which the Nakkila municipality had stated its interest in purchasing 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-107", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 17 November 1980 the first applicant lodged a claim, seeking that the paternity of the defendant be established in respect of the second applicant. The applicants also claimed child support. On 10 December 1986 the Zabrze District Court dismissed their claims. On 18 March 1987 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the applicants' appeal. The applicants requested the Minister of Justice to lodge on their behalf an extraordinary appeal against the judgment. On 18 September 1987 the Minister of Justice lodged such an appeal with the Supreme Court, maintaining that the lower courts had committed serious errors of substantive law.\n8.  On 23 October 1987 the Supreme Court quashed the judgments and ordered the case to be reconsidered.\n9.  On 23 December 1991 the Zabrze District Court again dismissed the applicants' claims. On 12 May 1992, as a result of the applicants' appeal, the Katowice Regional Court quashed the judgment of 23 December 1991 and ordered the case to be reconsidered.\n10.  On 10 May 1993 the defendant informed the Zabrze District Court that he refused to undergo the DNA tests. Notwithstanding his refusal, three other dates (23 August, 9 September and 11 October 1993) were fixed for the purpose of these tests. The defendant did not report for the tests on any of these dates.\n11.  On 15 December 1993 the next hearing was held.  The court fixed for the defendant a fourteen-day time-limit in which he was to take a final decision as to the DNA tests. In a letter of 27 December 1993 the defendant informed the court about his refusal to undergo them, submitting that the first applicant had on many occasions lied in the course of proceedings. He referred to the judgment of the Katowice Regional Court of 12 May 1992 in which it had been stated that the applicant had submitted inaccurate information as to her last menstruation before the pregnancy.\n12.  On 23 February 1994 the next hearing was held. During the hearing held on 23 March 1994 the court heard another witness and asked the defendant again whether he would undergo the DNA tests. He refused.\n13.  On 4 May and 7 June 1994 further hearings were held. The court questioned one witness and an expert who had been appointed earlier. The court again asked whether the defendant would agree to undergo the DNA tests and again he refused to do so. On the latter date he challenged one of the lay judges sitting on the court panel.\n14.  On 14 September 1994 another hearing was held. The defendant again refused to undergo the DNA tests and the court heard another witness. At the subsequent hearing, which was held on 26 October 1994, the court questioned the applicant and the defendant. At the hearing held on 30 November 1994 the defendant was absent. On 16 December 1994 the court decided to close the hearing and adjourned the delivery of the judgment until 28 December 1994.\n15.  On 28 December 1994 the Zabrze District Court dismissed again the applicant's claims. The court considered that the applicant's testimony contained contradictory information. It further noted that she had tried not to reveal to the court certain facts established in the course of the proceedings and relevant to the ruling in the case, such as the fact of spending a night in one room in the hotel “N”  with another man during the period of possible conception. The defendant's testimony, on the other hand, was quite consistent.\n16.  On 8 March 1995 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment with the Kato", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-108", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  In July 1996, there were disturbances throughout Northern Ireland. On 7 July 1996, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) had announced that they would not allow a march by the loyalist Orange Order from Drumcree Church to the Orange Lodge in Portadown to pass through the mainly Catholic residential area of the Garvaghy Road. Members of the Orange Order gathered in the area, and demonstrations occurred in Londonderry (Derry) and Belfast. On 11 July 1996, the RUC reversed its decision and at 11 a.m. the march proceeded through the Garvaghy Road.\n10.  The following day, 12 July 1996, another controversial march was allowed through the mainly nationalist area of the Lower Ormagh Road in Belfast. That evening, there was a major disturbance in Londonderry, characterised by the use of petrol bombs and the substantial use of “baton rounds”, or plastic bullets, by the RUC and the British Army.\n11.  Dermot McShane, the husband of the applicant, had been with friends in a bar close to Londonderry city centre during that night. According to a friend who was with him, they left the bar at about 1.30 a.m. Close to the junction of Little James Street and Great James Street, a large crowd of people had gathered and were throwing missiles at the police. Military reinforcements were called. Police were firing large numbers of plastic baton rounds at the crowd. A commercial skip and a large piece of hoarding were being used by persons in the crowd to shield them from plastic baton rounds as they moved towards the police. An RUC inspector at the scene consulted with army personnel who were arriving and requested that the barricades be removed. According to his statement, he instructed the driver of a Saxon armoured personnel carrier (“the APC”), Private P., to advance towards the obstruction.\n12.  Dermot McShane fell underneath the hoarding over which the APC advanced. The circumstances in which the APC struck the hoarding, its speed, and the length of time which it remained on the hoarding are subject to dispute.\n13.  RUC officers reached Dermot McShane and arranged for his transfer by ambulance to hospital where he died a short time later. According to the pathologist who carried out the post mortem examination, his injuries were consistent with having been run over by the wheels of a vehicle while lying underneath a sheet of hoarding. He also had injuries on the thigh, consistent with being struck by a plastic baton round. No traces of petrol, paraffin or any type of fire accelerant were found which might suggest that Dermot McShane had been in contact with petrol bombs.\n14.  At 6.17 a.m. on 13 July 1996, Detective Constable Cooper attended the scene at which Dermot McShane had been hit. He removed the hoarding and a bloodstained bandage for inspection. Shortly afterwards, the scene was secured. The Government submitted that the delay in crime scene procedures was due to crowd violence.\n15.  At 8 a.m., Detective Superintendent Houston was directed to undertake the investigation into the death. He appointed Detective Chief Inspector Cooke as Deputy Senior Investigating Officer.\n16.  At 10.05 a.m., photographs were taken of the scene. DS Houston attended, making arrangements inter alia for the mapping of the scene.\n17.  In the afternoon of 13 July 1996, statements were collected by the police from 13 members of the army, regarding the events. This included a statement from Private P., the driver of the APC which hit Dermot McShane. DS Houston informed t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-109", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  In January 1967 the applicant was convicted of murder. He was released on licence in April 1979. His licence required him to cooperate with his probation officer and to remain in the United Kingdom unless his probation officer agreed to his travelling abroad.\n11.  Soon after release the applicant left the United Kingdom in breach of his licence and went to live in South Africa. In September 1980 his licence was revoked and thereafter he was continuously “unlawfully at large”.\n12.  In April 1989 the applicant was arrested in the United Kingdom, having returned from South Africa in possession of a false passport. Possession of a false passport led to a fine. He remained in custody, however, due to the revocation of the life licence. He made written representations to the Parole Board against the 1980 decision to recall him to prison but the Board rejected those representations and recommended a further review in July 1990.\n13.  In November 1990 the Board recommended the applicant's release subject to a satisfactory release plan. This recommendation was accepted by the Secretary of State. In March 1991 the applicant was released on life licence.\n14.  In July 1993 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on counterfeiting charges. On 19 July 1994 he was convicted on two counts of conspiracy to forge travellers' cheques and passports and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.\n15.  In September 1994 the Parole Board recommended revocation of the applicant's life licence and further review at the parole eligibility date of his six-year sentence. The Secretary of State accepted the Board's recommendation, revoking the licence under section 39(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (“the 1991 Act”). The applicant made written representations, but the Board maintained its decision.\n16.  In 1996 the Parole Board conducted a formal review of the applicant's case and recommended his release on life licence. It said:\n“This case is exceptional in that it is a recall one and he has previously made a successful transition from prison to the community without violent reoffending ... It is felt that the risk of serious reoffending in the future is very low. Recent reports of progress in prison have been favourable and no untoward incidents have been reported; positive links with his family have been maintained. In view of these facts, it is now felt that he could be released safely and appropriately into the community. The Panel took the view after lengthy consideration that nothing further would be gained by a period in open conditions, and the successful return to the community, bearing in mind all risk factors, would be best facilitated by returning to his family directly.”\n17.  By letter of 27 February 1997 to the applicant, the Secretary of State rejected the Board's recommendation in the following terms:\n“... [The Secretary of State] notes with concern the circumstances surrounding your two recalls to prison ... Both these occasions represent a serious and grave breach of the trust placed in you as a life licensee and demonstrate a lack of regard for the requirements of supervision. Against this background the Secretary of State is not yet satisfied that if released on licence for a third time, you would fully comply with the conditions of your life licence. He notes that you have spent the past 3 1/2 years in closed prison conditions and therefore have not on this occasion followed the normal progression of life sentence prisoners. This ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-110", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  Between 1984 and 1992 the applicant was the sole managing director of London Clubs Limited (“LCL”), a company which owned and controlled six of the twenty casinos licensed to operate in London. LCL was a subsidiary company of London Clubs International PLC (“LCI”) of which the applicant was also managing director. Both companies will hereafter be collectively referred to as London Clubs.\n12.  In June 1991 a raid took place at the various premises of LCL. The raid was carried out by the police in the presence of officials of the Gaming Board for Great Britain (“the Gaming Board”), a statutory body which regulates and monitors the gaming industry. A large quantity of documents was seized. In March 1992 the Gaming Board lodged objections with the clerk to the Licensing Magistrates with regard to LCL's annual application for renewal of the licences it held in respect of each of its casinos. The Gaming Board also made cancellation applications in respect of the existing licences held by LCL. \nA meeting was held between the Gaming Board and the non-executive directors of LCL and their legal advisers on 26 March 1992. As a result of that meeting, the applicant and the other executive directors (with the exception of the finance director) resigned with effect from 30 April 1992, on the understanding that such resignation was involuntary and constituted dismissal by London Clubs. \nSubsequently an agreement was reached between the Gaming Board and London Clubs, whereby LCL would apply for new licences for the casinos via reconstituted operating companies, to which applications the Gaming Board would not object. If the applications were successful and new licences were granted by the Licensing Magistrates, LCL would undertake to surrender its existing licences, thereby avoiding the necessity for the applications for cancellation or renewal to be heard. \nThe Gaming Board issued LCL with certificates of consent, which LCL was statutorily obliged to obtain from the Gaming Board as a prerequisite to making an application to the Licensing Magistrates for new licences. Objections to the issuing of new licences were made by a rival casino owner. However, these objections were rejected and new licences were granted in October 1992, after a three day hearing before the Licensing Magistrates. The Gaming Board was represented at the hearing and expressed to the Licensing Magistrates its support for the application of LCL, explaining the grounds on which the Gaming Board itself had granted LCL certificates of consent in the following terms:\n“In determining that it should issue certificates of consent the Board took into consideration, amongst other relevant factors, the degree to which LCI had addressed the Board's grave concerns at the matters of complaint referred to above, and in particular had in mind the following:\nThose executive directors of LCI and of [LCL] who in the Board's view carried the principal responsibility for the matters of complaint ... [the applicant was named along with nine others] have left the company and relinquished their management shares. \n...\nThe Board and Police viewed the matters raised in their cancellation applications extremely seriously. However they are satisfied that the practices that were unacceptable have now been eradicated and that those individuals responsible for encouraging or tolerating them have been removed.”\n13.  In November 1992 the Chairman of the Gaming Board, Lady Littler, addressed the British Casin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-112", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicant and her husband have always lived in the Netherlands. By a decision of 7 August 1984, the applicant's husband was granted a married man's old-age pension under the General Old Age Pensions Act (Algemene Ouderdomswet) commencing on 1 August 1984. However, pursuant to the then section 10 of the Act, his pension was reduced by 38% as neither he nor the applicant had been insured under the Act during nine periods between 1 February 1957 and 1 August 1977 when he had worked in Germany and had an old-age insurance under the German social-security legislation. These nine periods amounted in total to nineteen years. No appeal was filed against this decision.\n12.  After the applicant reached the age of 65 in 1989, the Board of the Social Insurance Bank (Sociale Verzekeringsbank), by a decision of 14 February 1989, granted the applicant an old-age pension under the General Old Age Pensions Act commencing on 1 March 1989. As had occurred with her husband's pension, her pension was also reduced by 38%. The applicant filed an appeal with the Arnhem Appeals Tribunal (Raad van Beroep), as it was then known, complaining that this reduction in her old-age pension constituted discriminatory treatment.\n13.  In its decision of 10 January 1990 the Appeals Tribunal noted that, under sections 7 and 9 of the General Old Age Pensions Act, a married person – like the applicant – who had been insured under this Act and had reached the age of 65 was entitled to an old-age pension amounting to 50% of the net minimum wage per month.\n14.  However, under the terms of section 13 of the Act, this amount could be reduced by 2% for each full year in which the person concerned had not been insured between the ages of 15 and 65. The Appeals Tribunal further noted that, according to section 6(1) of the Act, those insured were persons between the ages of 15 and 65 who were either resident in the Netherlands or, if not, were liable to payment of salaries tax (loonbelasting) in respect of work carried out in the Netherlands under a contract of employment. Under the present subsection 2 of section 6 of the Act, it was possible, by way of an Order in Council (Algemene Maatregel van Bestuur), to extend or limit the group of insured persons as an exception to the general rule contained in section 6(1).\n15.  The Appeals Tribunal referred to the case-law of the Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep) to the effect that the question whether or not a person was insured under the General Old Age Pensions Act fell to be determined on the basis of the rules in force at the relevant time.\n16.  It further noted that, by virtue of five consecutive royal decrees on the extension and limitation of the group of insured persons (Koninklijke Besluiten Uitbreiding en Beperking van de kring der verzekerden) that had been issued under section 6(1) of the Act and had remained in force until 1 April 1985, persons residing in the Netherlands but working abroad under a contract of employment and insured under a foreign social-security scheme by virtue of that employment were not insured under the Act. That limitation also applied to a woman married to a person who, pursuant to those royal decrees, was not insured under the Act.\n17.  The Appeals Tribunal noted that it was not in dispute that, during the relevant periods, the applicant's husband had been working in Germany and had been subject to German social-security legislation in accordance with Ordinance no. 3 of the Co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-113", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was employed by the District National Committee (Okresný národný výbor) in Bardejov. In 1988 he was dismissed for breach of discipline. Subsequently courts at two levels of jurisdiction declared the dismissal unlawful. Their decisions became final on 2 August 1991.\n10.  In 1990, while the above proceedings were pending, the national committees ceased to exist ex lege, and their liquidation formally ended on 31 July 1991. The national committees were replaced by district offices (okresné úrady) which were not formally their legal successors.\n11.  On 2 September 1991 the Bardejov District Office gave notice to the applicant pursuant to Section 46 (1) (b) of the Labour Code. The dismissal became effective on 31 December 1991. The applicant challenged this decision. He argued, in particular, that the dismissal was unlawful and claimed compensation for damage caused by the termination of his contract of employment.\n12.  On 16 July 1993 the Bardejov District Court (Okresný súd) heard the parties and dismissed the applicant’s action.\n13.  The applicant appealed. He alleged that the governmental regulations relating to liquidation of the former national committees were unlawful, that he had become an employee of the District Office in Bardejov after his dismissal in 1988 had been declared unlawful on 2 August 1991, and that the District Office had paid his salary until the end of 1991.\n14.  On 8 March 1994 the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) heard the parties. The case was adjourned and the representative of the defendant was requested to submit the Government’s regulation of 24 November 1990 concerning the practical aspects of liquidation of the national committees. On 14 April 1994 the applicant complained to the Regional Court that it should have decided on the case on 8 March 1994 as it had had all relevant evidence before it. Another hearing before the Regional Court was held on 26 April 1994. The parties were acquainted with documentary evidence submitted by the representatives of the defendant. The applicant requested the exclusion of the Regional Court judges.\n15.  On 7 July 1994 the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed the first instance judgment and ordered the District Court to take further evidence. The decision stated that the first instance court had not established with sufficient certainty whether or not the applicant had been employed by the District Office in Bardejov between 2 August 1991 and his second dismissal. In particular, the Regional Court considered it necessary to establish whether the applicant had received a salary, or compensation therefor, during the period in question, that is, whether the sums which he had received had been paid from the funds allocated to the District Office or from a special fund of the Ministry of the Interior. The appellate court further instructed the District Court to establish whether or not the Ministry of the Interior had authorised the head of the District Office in Bardejov to settle the applicant’s claims. The decision stated that witnesses should be heard with a view to establishing the above facts. The case was sent back to the Bardejov District Court for a new adjudication.\n16.  The applicant and the representative of the defendant failed to appear before the District Court on 8 September 1994. The applicant did not appear at subsequent hearings scheduled for 26 September 1994 and 4 October 1994. He excused his absence on the last mentioned date. In ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-117", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a British national born in 1956 and living in Bristol.\n8.  In December 1984 the applicant married Marlene Willis. They had two children: Natasha Uma, born on 24 March 1989, and Ross Amal, born on 2 August 1990. Mrs Willis died of cancer on 7 June 1996, at the age of 39. The applicant is the administrator of his late wife's estate.\n9.  Mrs Willis had been employed as a local authority housing officer. For the greater part of her married life, she was the primary breadwinner. She had paid full social-security contributions as an employed earner until 1994, and was subsequently entitled to contribution credits as a person unfit for work. On 3 November 1995 the applicant gave up work to nurse his wife and care for their children. Following his wife's death, he worked part time between 2 September 1996 and 6 November 1996, for an annual salary of 4,393 pounds sterling (GBP), but since this proved uneconomic he stopped working to care full time for the children.\n10.  On 4 November 1996 the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency for the payment of social-security benefits. He applied for benefits equivalent to those which a widow whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of Mrs Willis would have been entitled, namely a widow's payment and a widowed mother's allowance, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992.\n11.  By a letter dated 18 November 1996, the Benefits Agency informed the applicant that the benefits he had claimed did not exist for widowers, and that his claim accordingly could not be accepted as valid. The letter continued:\n“I am afraid I can only explain that the Government says that it has no plans to introduce a widowers' pension on the same line as the existing widows' benefits.\nIt may help if I explain the current policy underlying widows' benefits was established at a time when married women rarely worked. It is based on the assumption that women are more likely than men to have been financially dependent on their spouse's earnings and therefore more likely on widowhood to face greater financial hardship. The benefits themselves are concentrated on those widows who are perceived to have the greatest problems, those with children and older women who may have been out of the labour market for many years.\nIt is accepted that social patterns have changed considerably since the provisions were first introduced. However, it is still broadly the case that on bereavement, women are more likely than men to be in financial need. For instance, most widowers of working age will have been in employment before the death of their wives. They will not therefore have the same degree of difficulty in supporting themselves as widows who may have been out of the labour market for some time and may find it difficult to obtain paid work. Women on average earn less than men. So even for women who have been working, the financial loss on widowhood is likely to be significantly more than for men.\nWidows' benefits are not means tested and are paid regardless of the level of the widows' earnings. The Government says that the extension of the benefits on the same basis to widowers would mean substantial extra expenditure in paying maintenance benefit to men who are likely to be already maintaining themselves by their earnings, and in some cases, very high earnings indeed. To make existing widows' benefits provisions available to widowers would add an estimated GBP 490 million to the annual Social Secur", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-118", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Mrs Assya Anguelova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Razgrad.\n10.  On 29 January 1996 her son, Anguel Zabchekov, aged 17, who had been known to the police as a suspect on theft charges, died after having spent several hours in police custody in Razgrad following his arrest for attempted theft. The ensuing investigations conducted by the prosecution authorities ended with the conclusion that the death must have been caused by an accidental injury which pre-dated Mr Zabchekov's arrest. The applicant contested that conclusion.\nThe applicant describes herself and her late son as belonging to the Roma/Gypsy ethnic group).\n11.  According to the statements of several witnesses, on 28 January 1996 Mr Zabchekov spent part of the day doing some odd jobs for a neighbour. In the evening he went home for a while and then went out with his sister, her boyfriend and a Mr M., another friend of his. He then spent most of the evening in their company at a local bar. He consumed alcohol.\nAt about 10.30 p.m. or 11.30 p.m. Mr Zabchekov's sister and her boyfriend left the bar, leaving him there with Mr M. The bar closed shortly afterwards. Mr M. stated that he had then left the bar with Mr Zabchekov and that they had parted at the door, Mr M. returning home.\nAll the witnesses (the owner of the bar, the person for whom Mr Zabchekov had worked that day, his sister and her boyfriend, and Mr Zabchekov's father, who was at home when his son dropped in on his way to the bar) were unanimous that he had been in good health, that he had no visible injuries on his body, that he had not been involved in any quarrel or fight, and that he had consumed alcohol.\n12.  At about midnight on 29 January 1996 a Ms I.A., who lived in a block of flats in Beli Lom Street in Razgrad, noticed from her balcony a man later identified as Mr Zabchekov hanging around by parked cars, bending over and “doing something”. Ms I.A. telephoned a neighbour, Ms I.M. The two women shouted at Mr Zabchekov from their balconies to ask him what he was doing. At that moment Sergeant Mutafov (“C”), a police officer who was not on duty that day, and a young man (“D”), both of whom also lived in the same block of flats, were passing by in the street and were alerted by their neighbours.\n13.  Mr Zabchekov attempted to run away, and C ran after him. The chase apparently continued for a minute or two. Then D and his two neighbours saw C appearing from around the corner, holding Mr Zabchekov and leading him back to the entrance of the building. The witnesses stated that there had been snow on the ground.\n14.  C later stated that while trying to run away Mr Zabchekov had slipped and fallen down but had quickly stood up again. This was confirmed by Ms I.A. and Ms I.M., who had been watching from their balconies. They explained that Mr Zabchekov had fallen on a patch of grass. However, D, who had remained in the street and had also observed the incident, stated that he had not seen Mr Zabchekov falling at any moment before his arrest. He repeated that statement at a confrontation with the other witnesses.\n15.  C was the only witness of the events between the moment when Mr Zabchekov and he had turned round the corner and the moment when they had reappeared in front of the building in Beli Lom Street. C stated that Mr Zabchekov had slipped and fallen down two more times. As a result, C had been able to catch up with him and, while Mr Zabchekov was back on his feet and r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-120", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The case mainly concerns events which took place in May 1994 at Deveboyu hamlet of Çağlayan village in the Kulp district of the Diyarbakır province in south-east Turkey. From Çağlayan village the road goes to Zeyrek, to whose gendarme station Çağlayan village and its hamlets are attached. Zeyrek is on the main road between the towns of Kulp and Lice.\nThe applicant alleges that on 6 May 1994 the State's security forces burned and evacuated the hamlet of Deveboyu and that on 24 May 1994 the same soldiers returned to Deveboyu detaining the applicant's brothers (Selim and Hasan Orhan) and his son (Cezayir Orhan), after which those three relatives (“the Orhans”) disappeared.\n10.  The facts being disputed by the parties, the Commission appointed Delegates who took evidence in Ankara from 6 to 8 October 1999. \nThey heard the following witnesses: the applicant; Adnan Orhan (son of Selim Orhan); Mehmet Emre (the applicant's cousin from the neighbouring hamlet of Gümüşsuyu of Emalı village); Mehmet Can (son-in-law of Selim Orhan who lived in Diyarbakır at the relevant time); Ahmet Potaş (Commander of Zeyrek Gendarme station); Ali Ergülmez (Commander of Kulp District Gendarme Station); Ümit Şenocak (Deputy Commander of Kulp District Gendarme Station); Kamil Taşcı (Commander of Kulp Central Gendarme Station); Şahap Yaralı (Commander of Lice District Gendarme Station); Hasan Çakır (Commander of Lice Central Gendarme Station); Aziz Yıldız (succeeded Hasan Çakır); Mustafa Atagün (prosecutor in the office of Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor); and Mehmet Yönder (a Kulp public prosecutor).\n11.  The transcripts of the oral evidence, together with the documentary evidence provided by the parties to the Commission, have been transmitted to the Court. Additionally, the parties have provided further documents to the Court which had been requested by the Commission. \nThe submissions by the parties on the facts (Sections A and B), the material submitted by the parties in the present case (Sections C and D), relevant material submitted by the Government in the Çiçek case (Çiçek v. Turkey, no. 25704/94, ECHR 2001 – Section E below) together with the oral evidence to the Delegates (Section F) are summarised below.\n12.  Between 1992-1994 a large number of disappearances and unexplained killings occurred in south-eastern Turkey in the context of counter-insurgency measures against the PKK. The province of Diyarbakır and its districts of Lice and Kulp were particularly affected.\n13.  The applicant, Salih Orhan, was born in 1955. Selim and Hasan Orhan (born in 1954) and were his only brothers. His eldest son, Cezayir, was born in 1977. At the relevant time, all lived in Deveboyu, the applicant and his brothers each owning separate houses.\n14.  On 20 April 1994 military forces of 300-400 men with over 100 vehicles pitched camp near Deveboyu.\n15.  On 6 May 1994 at around 6.00 a.m. a number of the soldiers entered the village. The village imam announced that their Commander required the villagers to assemble in front of the mosque, which they did. The Commander then announced that Çağlayan village (including the Deveoboyu hamlet) was to be burnt, but that he would allow the villagers to remove their possessions. The applicant returned to his house and started to remove his possessions. As he was doing so, the soldiers set fire to his and others' houses. Having completed this task and given the villagers three days to leave the village, the soldiers moved on.\n16.  T", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-121", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant states that he is Ali Samy and that he is an Algerian national, born in 1968 in Algiers. He is currently living in the Netherlands.\n9.  On 26 August 1996, the applicant was arrested and taken into detention on suspicion of theft. He was released on the same day. However, as it had appeared during the criminal investigation that he was likely to be an illegal alien, he was handed over to and, in accordance with Article 19 § 2 of the Aliens Act (Vreemdelingenwet), apprehended by the Aliens Department (Vreemdelingendienst) in order to verify his identity, nationality and residence status.\n10.  On 27 August 1996, in accordance with Article 26 § 1 of the Aliens Act, the State Secretary of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) ordered the applicant's placement in aliens' detention with a view to his expulsion (vreemdelingenbewaring) and, on the same day, issued an expulsion order.\n11.  The applicant's lawyer filed several unsucessful requests for the applicant's release from aliens' detention with the Hague Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank). In particular, a second request lodged on 29 November 1996 was rejected on 22 January 1997.\n12.  On 7 March 1997, the applicant was released from detention because there was no real prospect of expelling him at that time as his origins could not be established.\n13.  In a decision of 11 March 1997, the Hague Regional Court sitting in Amsterdam noted that the applicant had been released on 7 March 1997. The Regional Court found that the applicant's detention as of 27 February 1997 had not been lawful and awarded the applicant 1,200 Netherlands Guilders (544,54 euros) in compensation. The Regional Court also issued a costs order against the State Secretary of Justice.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-122", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is an owner of an apartment house located in Warsaw. On 30 July 1992 the applicant's husband lodged with the Warsaw District Court an eviction claim against two of his tenants, T.M. and S.P. The first hearing took place on 18 December 1992. In 1993 hearings were held on the following dates: 15 January, 24 March, 6 and 18 May, 16 and 21 June, 16 July, 12 August, 24 September, 20 October, 17 and 30 November and 21 December.\n8.  On 22 December 1992 the applicant's husband died and, accordingly, on 24 March 1993 the court stayed the proceedings invoking Article 174 § 1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n9.  On 6 May 1993 the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings and her request was granted promptly afterwards. On 27 May 1993 the applicant revoked the power of attorney of her lawyer A.J. On 16 June 1993 she submitted all the documents requested by the defendants.\n10.  At the next hearing, held on 30 November 1993, the court fixed twenty-one days' time-limit for T.M., the defendant, to institute administrative proceedings to have her tenancy rights, apparently originating from an administrative decision given in the 1940s or 1950s,  confirmed.\n11.  On 24 March 1994 the Mokotów Housing Administration, in reply to the court's query, informed it that relevant administrative proceedings had been instituted in respect of both defendants.\n12.  On an unspecified later date defendant T. M. appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court against a decision by which the relevant authorities had discontinued proceedings in which she had requested that an administrative decision be given awarding her administrative tenancy rights. Likewise, on an unspecified date S. P. filed an appeal with the same court against a decision by which his request for confirmation of his tenancy rights had been refused.\n13.  On 14 April 1994 the Warsaw District Court stayed the eviction proceedings until the end of the administrative proceedings instituted by the defendants and later on, by a decision of 14 July 1994, refused the applicant's request to resume the proceedings. On 28 July 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. The case-file was forwarded to the Regional Court on 25 August 1994. The appeal was dismissed on 28 December 1994 by the Warsaw Regional Court.\n14.  On 31 January 1995 the second-instance administrative authority refused to confirm T.M.'s tenancy rights.\n15.  On 24 April 1995 the Warsaw District Court refused the applicant's further request of 18 February 1995 to resume the proceedings as the administrative proceedings concerning the tenancy entitlements of her tenants had not come to an end and remained pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.\n16.  On 26 June 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court informed the applicant that the administrative proceedings instituted by the defendants T.M. and S.P. could not be accelerated.\n17.  On 23 August 1995 the Warsaw District Court refused the applicant's next request to resume the proceedings, as the administrative proceedings concerning the administrative tenancy entitlements of her tenants remained pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.  On 30 August 1995 the applicant complained to the President of the District Court about the excessive length of proceedings.\n18.  On 29 January 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed an appeal lodged by T. M. against a decision by which she had been refused, by way of an administrative decision, con", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-123", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 5 June 1995 police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the İstanbul Security Directorate arrested the applicant, who was a student at the time, on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK.\n10.  On 6 June 1995 the head of the anti-terrorist branch of the İstanbul Security Directorate wrote a letter to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court requesting permission for an extension of the applicant's detention in police custody until 12 June 1995. On the same day the Public Prosecutor no. 23783 granted the extension requested.\n11.  On 12 June 1995 the Public Prosecutor no. 16429 at the İstanbul State Security Court questioned the applicant in relation to his actions within the PKK and submitted a petition to the İstanbul State Security Court requesting an order for the applicant's detention on remand.\n12.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the İstanbul State Security Court which ordered his detention on remand.\n13.  On 23 August 1995 the Chief Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with the İstanbul State Security Court charging the applicant with membership of the PKK. The charges were brought under Article 168 § 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713 as well as Article 19 § 2 of Law no. 2918 (Traffic Act).\n14.  On 9 August 1996 the applicant was released pending trial.\n15.  On 18 November 1998 the applicant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment in accordance with Article 168 § 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-124", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  Since 1971 the applicant has been suffering from diabetes.  She is on insulin.\n10.  On 19 August 1994 the applicant was arrested by policemen from Warsaw-East Railway Police Station (Komisariat Kolejowy Policji) and then taken to the Warsaw Sobering-up Centre (Izba Wytrzeźwień).\nThe facts surrounding the applicant's arrest and her stay in the sobering-up centre were in dispute.\n11.  The applicant submitted that, on 19 August 1994, she had taken the 3.36 p.m. train from Łowicz to Warsaw-East.  She fell asleep and then fell into a hypoglycaemic coma because she had taken her last injection of insulin at 6 a.m.  She further claimed that despite her state she could recall that during and after her arrest she had been beaten by policemen, kicked on her legs and slapped on the face. She remembered persons in police uniforms but was unable to specify who of them had beaten her up or to depict those persons.\n12.  The applicant confirmed that the policemen had later brought her to the Warsaw Sobering-up centre.\nUpon her arrival at the sobering-up centre, she immediately reported to W.Z., a doctor who admitted her to that centre, that she had been brutally assaulted by the policemen, that she suffered from diabetes and that she needed medical care. She maintained that the doctor, when she showed him her bodily injuries, commented: “They should have beaten you up even more badly.” He disregarded her.  When she mentioned that she suffered from diabetes, he did not listen to her and refused to talk to her. The staff of the centre then tied her to a bed.\n13.  The applicant submitted that she had asked that a breath test be carried out and that that test had been done; however, the staff of the centre refused to inform her of the result, saying: “This is none of your business.” After the test she was again tied to the bed.  It was as late as 19 May 1995 when she eventually learnt from the investigating prosecutor that the breath test had shown 1.70 promille of alcohol in her blood.\n14.  In the applicant's submission, she had twice requested the doctor to give her an insulin injection: on 19 August 1994 at about 11.00 p.m. and again on 20 August 1994 at about 6 a.m.  He promised to give her medicines before her release, but he did not do so.  She was released on 20 August 1994 at 9.00 a.m.\n15.  The Government, in their version of the relevant facts, relied on evidence heard during the investigation from the policemen involved in the applicant's arrest, namely, D.R. and M.F. (who arrested her on the train) and E.M. (who did a body search of the applicant at the police station).\n16.  D.R. and M.F. asserted that, in response to the applicant's resistance, they had disabled her. \nWhen she started to behave more aggressively and tried to make it impossible for them to escort her, D.R. hit the applicant on her legs two or three times with a truncheon.  The applicant was aggressive and used vulgar expressions.  That confirmed their suspicion that she was drunk.\n17.  At the police station, when E.M. entered the cell in which the applicant was kept, she saw the applicant straining and struggling with the policemen who held her.  She also kicked them.  In E.M.'s words, “she looked as a person being in a state of madness”. Given the applicant's behaviour, the policemen used physical force against her by seizing her hands and legs, and holding her on the floor in order to enable E.M. to do a body search of the applicant.  Since all the policemen who dealt with", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-125", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 28 July 1996 police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the İzmir Security Directorate arrested the applicants on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PRK-Rızgari.\n10.  On 5 August 1996 the İzmir State Security Court ordered the applicants' detention on remand.\n11.  On 28 August 1996 the Chief Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with the İzmir State Security Court charging the applicants with membership of the PRK-Rızgari and undertaking actions against the indivisible integrity of the state. The charges were brought under Articles 125 and 168 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  In a judgment dated 14 August 1997 the İzmir State Security Court acquitted Ms Melahat Filiz of the charges, holding that there was insufficient evidence to convict her. The court found Mr Nadir Kalkan guilty of the offences under Articles 125 and 168 and sentenced him to capital punishment.\n13.  On 19 September 1997 Mr Kalkan lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation. The applicant did not submit any information concerning the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-126", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant, Mr Daruish Auni Al-Nashif, a stateless person of Palestinian origin, was born in 1967 in Kuwait. He resided in Bulgaria between September 1992 and July 1999, when he was deported. He now lives in Syria.\nThe second and third applicants, Abrar and Auni Al-Nashif, are the first applicant's children. They were born in Bulgaria in 1993 and 1994 respectively. They are of Bulgarian nationality and lived in the town of Smolyan, Bulgaria, with their mother, Mrs Hetam Ahmed Rashid Saleh, apparently also a stateless person, until June 2000. Thereafter, Mrs Saleh and the second and third applicants left Bulgaria and settled in Jordan.\n10.  The first applicant describes his personal circumstances as follows. His father, who died in 1986 in Kuwait, was a stateless person of Palestinian origin. His mother is a Syrian citizen. Despite the fact that he was born in Kuwait and that his mother is a Syrian citizen, the first applicant cannot acquire Kuwaiti or Syrian nationality because in both countries only offspring of male nationals of those States may obtain citizenship.\n11.  The first applicant lived in Kuwait until the age of 25. He attended high school there and obtained a degree in electronics. In 1992 he married Mrs Hetam Saleh. The parties have not stated the nationality of Mrs Saleh, whose parents live in Jordan. It appears undisputed, however, that the second and third applicants, her children, became Bulgarian nationals pursuant to a provision which confers Bulgarian citizenship on children born in Bulgaria to stateless parents.\n12.  Mr Al-Nashif has two sisters who live in Syria. His mother also lives in Syria, in the city of Hama. He also has a brother who lived in Kuwait at least until 1994 and has resided in Bulgaria, where he married a Bulgarian national, since 1998.\n13.  The first applicant submits that after the Gulf War many Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait as Palestinian leaders had supported the Iraqi invasion in 1990. He left Kuwait with his wife, Mrs Saleh, on 16 August 1992 and travelled to Syria and then, on 20 September 1992, to Bulgaria. The first applicant submits that he was in search of a country in which to settle. He could not stay in Syria as he was unable to provide for his family there. The choice of Bulgaria was made because of the existing job opportunities, the relatively easy procedure for obtaining legal status, and the fact that the family had friends of Palestinian origin living there.\n14.  Mr Al-Nashif and Mrs Saleh arrived in Bulgaria on 20 September 1992. The first applicant was in possession of a Syrian stateless person's identity document, valid until 1993, which he later renewed at the Syrian Embassy in Sofia. In an application form for a residence permit he indicated Hama, Syria, as his place of residence.\n15.  On an unspecified date shortly after his arrival the first applicant obtained a temporary residence permit. Mr Al-Nashif, together with other persons, ran a beverages production business. He and his wife initially resided in Sofia, where the second and the third applicants were born in 1993 and 1994.\nIn February 1995 the first applicant obtained a permanent residence permit.\n16.  In February 1995 the first applicant contracted a Muslim religious marriage with a Ms M., a Bulgarian citizen. Under Bulgarian law that marriage has no legal effect.\nMs M. lived in Sofia with her mother. During an unspecified period of time Mr Al-Nashif supported them financially. \nIt is undis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-127", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant lives in Zaussenberg in Lower Austria.\n8.  In 1983 agricultural land consolidation proceedings, involving the property of the applicant's mother, were instituted by the Lower Austria District Agricultural Authority. On 9 September 1983 the authority ordered the provisional transfer of compensatory parcels.\n9.  On 7 October 1987 the District Agricultural Authority issued the consolidation scheme, against which the applicant's mother appealed.\n10.  On 5 June 1991 the Supreme Land Reform Board partly allowed the appeal lodged by the applicant's mother and awarded her compensation. This decision was quashed by the Administrative Court on 19 September 1994.\n11.  On 20 February 1995 the applicant filed a declaration that he wanted to pursue the proceedings as his mother's legal successor.\n12.  After a new decision by the Supreme Land Reform Board, reassessing the compensation issue had been quashed by the Administrative Court on 29 October 1996 it gave a further decision on 7 May 1997 granting a higher amount of compensation.\n13.  On 18 February 1999 the Administrative Court upheld this decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-128", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant, Roman Berliński, is a Polish national born in 1971. The second applicant, Słavomir Berliński, is a Polish national born in 1974. The applicants are brothers. At present they live in Poland.\n10.  On 4 October 1993 the applicants, who practice body-building, were attending an athletics club at a Lublin university. The club manager urged the applicants to exit, as they had been present at the club without the appropriate permission. He warned that he would call the police if they did not leave. The applicants did not agree to leave. The manager called the police, and six uniformed officers arrived soon thereafter.\n11.  According to the applicants' account, the officers allegedly “showed a hostile attitude” towards them and “were not interested in checking their [identity documents] but simply to force them out” of the athletics club. The policemen “immediately wanted to handcuff them and pulled their arms backwards”. The applicants state that they “resisted this treatment”. The first applicant “managed to get free for a moment”, while the second applicant was “pushed and pulled” by two police officers. He was treated with tear-gas and struck with a stick.\n12.  According to the Government, the applicants resisted and attacked the policemen who were trying to apprehend them. One of the officers was kicked in the face and another in the crotch.\n13.  The parties submit that only when one officer drew a gun from his holster did the applicants yield. They were then handcuffed.\n14.  The applicants were immediately put in a police vehicle.\n15.  The Government state that the applicants still resisted whilst being taken to the vehicle, and force again had to be used against them.\n16.  The applicants were taken to a police station situated 4 kilometres from the athletics club.\n17.  According to the applicants' account, in the police van they were put on the ground and stayed handcuffed. The van had no separate cell for the arrested. The policemen and the applicants were closed together in the rear part of the van. The applicants “had no chance but to expose their bodies to the treatment of the policemen”. They “suffered heavy blows in their heads, kidneys, backs and spines”. The policemen used their police sticks to beat them up. The first applicant lost consciousness.\n18.  The Government deny that any ill-treatment occurred in the van.\n19.  At the police station the applicants were briefly questioned. The part of the first applicant's custody interview record concerning his physical condition reads: “before [the arrest the applicant was] well, at present [he complains of] pain in the left eye, the neck, the left kidney, the jaw and the head”. The relevant part of the second applicant's custody interview record reads: “pain in the temples, the hands, the nose, the teeth, the right thumb”. In the late evening of the same day the applicants were examined by doctors. The x-ray photograph of the first applicant's cranium showed no apparent injuries to his head. On the basis of the applicants' physical examination, which disclosed no problems in their circulatory and respiratory systems, a doctor concluded that they could be regarded as fit for detention.\n20.  The applicants remained in custody until the afternoon of the next day, 5 October 1993, when they were brought before a district prosecutor. They were released after having been questioned by the prosecutor.\n21.  The first applicant was taken to a hospital where he remained ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-129", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  In 1992 the Tarnów Regional Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated fraud, falsification of documents and issuing bad cheques. By a letter of 6 October 1993 the Tarnów Regional Prosecutor informed the applicant that the fact that summonses for questioning had been sent both to his new and to his old address did not in any way infringe  his defence rights.\n9.  On 13 October 1993 the applicant informed the Tarnów Regional Prosecutor of a change of his address. On 15 October 1993 the Tarnów Regional Prosecutor issued a warrant for the applicant’s arrest, considering that there were strong grounds for believing that he had committed an offence constituting a serious danger to society, and that there was a risk of collusion and absconding as the applicant had failed to comply with certain summonses and had changed his address several times.  On the same day the applicant was remanded in custody.\n10.  The applicant appealed against that decision. He submitted that the nature of the offence was such that all the evidence was contained in documents belonging to his company, which had already been seized by the prosecutor or kept by the banks. The witnesses in the case had already been heard by the prosecuting authorities. Thus, there was no risk of collusion as the applicant was not in a position to alter or suppress evidence. The applicant had usually complied with summonses except on the rare occasions when he had been unwell and had submitted relevant medical certificates, including a certificate drawn up by the Kraków Forensic Medicine Institute.  There was no risk of his absconding as he had informed the prosecutor of his change of address and could not leave the country as his passport had been confiscated by virtue of a decision given in November 1991. The applicant further submitted that the amount he was accused of embezzling was so high solely as a result of the high rate of interest at a time of hyperinflation and that the amount could not be used as an argument in support of the seriousness of the offence concerned.\n11.  On 25 October 1993 the Tarnów Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order.  The court first observed that the applicant had on several occasions failed to comply with the summonses without justification. In particular, the case file did not contain any documents showing that there had been justified medical grounds for his absence. Even though he had informed the prosecutor of his change of address, the address he had given appeared to be false as there was a convent at that address.  Moreover, it seemed that the applicant did not live there. The court considered that in the light of the financial documents in the case file, the offence of which the applicant was suspected was serious enough to warrant detention on remand, the more so as the value of the embezzled property had been assessed without regard to the sums of statutory interest, contrary to the applicant’s submissions in his appeal.\n12.  On 6 November 1993 the prosecutor appointed an expert in accountancy to analyse certain financial documents belonging to the applicant’s companies that related to his credit applications in order to assess the damage caused by the offences with which the applicant had been charged.\n13.  On 8 November 1993 the applicant submitted medical certificates stating that he had been ill from 1 August 1993 to 10 September 1993. On the same date ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-130", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The first two applicants were born in 1948 and 1960 respectively and live in Paris.\n9.  In order to consider an application by Morocco for membership of the European Union, the European Commission decided it would need very precise information on the issue of cannabis production in that State and the measures being taken to eradicate it, that being the avowed political aim of the King of Morocco in person. To that end, the Secretariat General of the Commission requested the Observatoire géopolitique des drogues (OGD – Geopolitical Drugs Observatory) to prepare a report on drug production and trafficking in Morocco. Investigations and reports by the OGD, which closed down in 2000, were considered authoritative. The Paris tribunal de grande instance and the Paris public prosecutor’s office were among the subscribers to its publications.\n10.  The OGD delivered its report to the European Commission in February 1994. The report contained the names of people implicated in drug trafficking in Morocco. However, the Commission asked the Observatory for a revised version of the report, with the names of the drug traffickers deleted in order to make it more suitable for the discussions that were scheduled with the Moroccan authorities. This expurgated version of the initial report was published, notably in a book sold by the OGD entitled Etat des drogues, drogue des Etats (“State of drugs, drugs of States”) and containing a chapter on Morocco. The book was referred to in the newspaper Le Monde on 25 May 1994.\n11.  After initially remaining confidential, the original version of the report began to circulate. Le Monde learnt of its existence in the autumn of 1995. The report contained twelve chapters with the following titles: (1) “Cannabis in Morocco – the historical background”; (2) “General overview of Er Rif”; (3) “The characteristics of cannabis growing”; (4) “The socio-economic impact and areas of production”; (5) “The increase in the land set aside for cannabis production”; (6) “Morocco – the world’s leading exporter of hashish”; (7) “Drug-trafficking routes”; (8) “The criminal networks”; (9) “The emergence of hard drugs”; (10) “Drug money”; (11) “The ‘war on drugs’ ”; and (12) “Conclusion”. It related how, over a period of ten years, there had been a tenfold increase in the area of land that had historically been used for cannabis production in the region of Er Rif and that current levels of production made “the sharif kingdom a serious contender for the title of the world’s leading exporter of cannabis”.\n12.  On 3 November 1995 Le Monde published an article by Mr Incyan giving details of the report.\n13.  The front page of the newspaper carried an introductory article under the main headline: “Morocco, world’s leading exporter of cannabis”, and a sub-heading: “King Hassan II’s entourage implicated by confidential report.” The article, which was relatively short (it ran to some thirty or so lines in two columns), summarised the terms of the OGD’s report. A more detailed article (covering six columns) appeared on page two under the headline: “Moroccan government implicated in cannabis trafficking according to confidential report”, and a sub-heading: “The report, which was commissioned by the European Union from the Geopolitical Drugs Observatory, says Morocco is the world’s leading exporter and the European market’s main supplier. It points to the direct responsibility of the sharif authorities in these lucrative activities”. A summary of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-131", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  During 1992 the applicant lent various sums of money to a number of companies in Zagreb for periods ranging from three to twelve months at a rate of interest ranging from 5 to 31% (so-called financial engineering). As these companies failed to repay the loans, the applicant instituted ten different sets of proceedings for re-payment of his loans.\n9.  On 29 June 1993 the applicant filed an action with the Zagreb Municipal Court against A.K.M and its owner, A.K for re-payment of his loan in the amount of 70,000 Austrian schillings (ATS).\n10.  At the preliminary hearing on 22 November 1993 the applicant's counsel withdrew the claim in respect of A.K.M. He also requested leave to file additional submissions within eight days.\n11.  On 1 December 1993 the applicant's counsel filed additional submissions specifying the claim.\n12.  According to the Government, following the resignation of the judge in charge of the case a certain period of time elapsed before the case was assigned to another judge.\n13.  The next hearing, scheduled for 15 September 2000, was adjourned due to maintenance work on the court building's electrical circuit.\n14.  At the next hearing, on 14 December 2000, the court exempted the applicant from paying the court fees. The documents showed that A.K. was unknown at the address indicated.\n15.  The hearing scheduled for 23 March 2001 was adjourned because A.K. did not appear. The court invited the applicant to adjust his claim to the monetary system in Croatia and to specify his interest claim, which the applicant did on 10 October 2001. The case is presently pending before the court of first instance.\n16.  On 12 October 1993 the applicant, together with four other plaintiffs, filed an action with the Zagreb Municipal Court against T.I.A. and its owner, I.A for re-payment of their loans. The applicant claimed the sum of ATS 70,000.\n17.  On 14 December 1993 the court refused to allow the plaintiffs' representative to represent him as he had, in other proceedings, been charged with providing unlicensed legal services. The plaintiffs appealed against that decision. On 24 May 1994 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal.\n18.  According to the Government, the judge in this case resigned from her duties. The judge to whom the case was transferred was on maternity leave. The case was therefore re-transferred to another judge.\n19.  At the next hearing, on 28 June 2000, the defendants' counsel replied to the applicant's claim stating that the same claim had already been decided by the Zabok Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zaboku).\n20.  At the hearing on 10 December 2001 the court exempted the applicant from paying the court fees. It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the Zagreb Municipal Court.\n21.  On 15 October 1993 the applicant, together with two other plaintiffs, filed an action with the Zagreb Municipal Court against T.T.B. and its owner, T.B for re-payment of their loans. The applicant claimed the sum of 6,000 German Marks (DEM).\n22.  A preliminary hearing scheduled for 13 January 1994 was adjourned because T.B. did not appear. The documents showed that the address indicated on the notice of the hearing date did not exist.\nOn 17 January 1994 the plaintiffs submitted T.B.'s correct address.\n23.  A hearing scheduled for 8 April 1994 was adjourned because T.B. again did not appear. The documents showed that she had failed to collect the notice of the hearing date.\n2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-133", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant company is the owner and hire purchaser of a fleet of vehicles registered in Cyprus and licensed as “Z” vehicles.\n9.  On 1st July 1996 the District Court of Nicosia delivered judgment in a civil action lodged by the applicant against another company, Diprose Ltd, also in the car hire business. The District Court held, inter alia, that the applicant having legally terminated an agreement with Diprose, permitting the use and exploitation by the latter of the “Z” fleet of cars, it was entitled to take possession thereof and to sell them in satisfaction of a debt of 667,776 Cypriot pounds owed to it by Diprose, by way of rental under the said agreement, and to pay the remaining amount in satisfaction of debts owed by the applicant to a number of banks which had financed the purchase of the fleet by the applicant. Furthermore, the District Court ordered Diprose to deliver the cars to the applicant. Diprose obtained a stay of execution of the judgment on condition that it regularly paid certain instalments to the applicant for the use of the vehicles which the applicant had given to it in the past for rental to third parties.\n10.  Diprose failed to keep up the instalments and, as a result, on 8 January 1998, the District Court of Nicosia allowed the applicant to collect the vehicles. In the meantime, Diprose had been wound up and, by letter of 11 February 1998, the liquidator declared that he was willing to return the vehicles, which apparently had been wrongfully given to another company, Kemtours Ltd, belonging to the same group as Diprose, without the consent of the applicant.\n11.  In the meantime, Kemtours had instituted proceedings (action 3315/98) seeking damages from the applicant for breach of the agreement which they had allegedly concluded on 3 February 1997. Kemtours contended that, under that agreement, 127 vehicles had been rented to it by the applicant but a number of them was still in the applicant's possession. Kemtours further sought to obtain a decision preventing the applicant company from interfering with Kemtours' activities under the agreement and ordering it to hand over to Kemtours a number of the vehicles which were still in the applicant's possession.\n12.  Whilst the applicant was in the process of collecting the vehicles, Kemtours obtained in fresh proceedings before the District Court of Nicosia, and on an ex parte basis, an interim decision which ordered the applicant to deliver the said vehicles to Kemtours. This order was issued on 31 March 1998 and served on the same date on the applicant.\n13.  The order was to be enforced on 13 April 1998. On that date, the applicant's lawyer appeared before the court and requested time to appeal against the order. The court fixed the case for directions on 5 May 1998 and then again on 7, 20 and 25 May in order to afford time to the parties to settle their dispute. The court invited the lawyer to file an appeal at least four days before 5 May 1998.\n14.  However, the applicant filed its appeal on 5 May 1998. The applicant maintained that the court had been misled by Kemtours, which had failed to disclose the real facts of the case and the previous judgment and decision of the District Court. The applicant invited the District Court to hold a hearing as soon as possible in view of the fact that the fleet of “Z” cars was worth more than 500,000 Cypriot pounds. Furthermore, the applicant alleged that the unauthorised use of the vehicles under the interim decision", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-134", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Biała Podlaska, Poland.\n9.  On 2 January 1996 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed burglary. On 4 January 1996 he was brought before U. Ś.-O., a district prosecutor from the Biała Podlaska District Prosecutor's Office (Prokuratura Rejonowa), charged with two counts of burglary and detained on remand in view of the reasonable risk that he might obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n10.  On 5 January 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Biała Podlaska District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), maintaining that his detention was unlawful because the detention order had been made by the prosecutor, who did not have the attributes of a “judge” required under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.\nThe court deemed the complaint to be an appeal against the detention order of 4 January 1996. It examined it as such and dismissed it on 18 January 1996. The court considered that the applicant should be detained because there was a reasonable risk that he might obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n11.  Subsequently, in January and February 1996, the applicant complained to the Biała Podlaska District Prosecutor and the Ombudsman (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich) that, after having been arrested, he had not been brought before a judge but before the prosecutor, who had not been authorised by law to exercise judicial power.\n12.  On 21 February 1996 the Biała Podlaska District Prosecutor replied to that complaint, stating that, under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as they stood at the material time, the prosecutor had a power to detain him on remand; however, under the amendments to Polish criminal legislation, which were to enter into force on 4 August 1996, only the courts of law could impose detention on remand.\n13.  On 27 March 1996 the Biała Podlaska District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Biała Podlaska District Court.\n14.  On 23 June 1996 the court gave judgment and convicted the applicant of dealing with stolen goods.\n15.  On 17 July 1996 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) that, after having been arrested, he had not been brought before a judge but before the Biała Podlaska District Prosecutor.\n16.  On 30 July 1996 the Case-law Department of the Supreme Court replied to the applicant's complaint in the following way:\n“ ... Under Article 210 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court imposes preventive measures after a bill of indictment has been lodged with that court; beforehand - a prosecutor [imposes such measures].  It thus follows that your doubts as to the imposition of detention [in your case] are unreasonable.\nArticle 5 § 5 of the Convention clearly states that everyone detained shall be brought promptly before a judge – or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power.  Under [the relevant] legislation, a prosecutor is such an officer. ...”", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-136", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant, Mr Wilson, was employed as a journalist at the Daily Mail by Associated Newspapers Limited. The local branch, or “Chapel” of the second applicant, the NUJ, had been recognised since at least 1912 for the purpose of collective bargaining as regards all aspects of the terms and conditions of employment of its members.\n10.  On 10 November 1989 the first applicant, in common with other journalists, received the following letter from the editor of the Daily Mail:\n“Dear Dave,\nYou probably know that the collective bargaining agreement between the Chapel and the Management is due to end on 1 April 1990. The Company has given notice that it does not intend to negotiate a new agreement with the Chapel and that, from that date, the NUJ will not be recognised as a negotiating body.\nInstead, salaries will be reviewed annually each 1 October as they are already for the senior editors. Departmental heads will make recommendations to me for each individual member of their staff. I will, of course, discuss these with my editors in detail and add my own assessment, as I do now, for merit rises. I shall then implement salary increases.\nA handbook has been drawn up which contains the benefits and conditions which exist under the current agreement.\nEach member of staff will be given a new contract which embodies these conditions together with the Handbook. I think it is worth pointing out that the Handbook includes a grievance procedure.\nAll journalists who sign their new contracts before 1 January 1990 will be awarded a 4.5% wage increase backdated to 1 October 1989. As I have said, the next review of salaries will be on 1 October 1990.\nI would like to point out that, contrary to what is happening on other national newspapers, our new arrangement does not involve any redundancies. Nor any radical changes in the way we produce our papers.\nI think you should know that the initiative to end collective bargaining has come from the editors, not the management.\nIt is the skill of journalists as individuals that makes our papers. We appoint journalists as individuals and we want to continue to treat them as individuals throughout their whole career here, in order that they and our papers shall prosper.\nThe success of the Daily Mail is based on its team of highly qualified and highly paid journalists. We intend to develop that success and, with it, the careers of our journalists.\nYours sincerely,\n...”\n11.  The first applicant refused to sign a new contract, because he objected to its provisions prohibiting trade union activity during working hours and removing his right to be represented by the union and the rights of the union to negotiate with management and be consulted on and agree changes to terms and conditions of employment. In subsequent years Mr Wilson's salary increased, but was never raised to the same level as that of employees who had accepted personal contracts.\n12.  After 1 April 1990 the employer continued to deal with the NUJ on health and safety issues, but did not recognise the union for any other purpose.\n13.  The third and fourth applicants, Mr Palmer and Mr Wyeth, were employed by Associated British Ports (“the ABP”) at the Port of Southampton as manual grade employees. They were members of the NURMTW (the fifth applicant). The trade union was recognised by the employer for the purposes of collective bargaining under the terms of a collective agreement.\n14.  On 8 February 1991 the third and fourth applicants, in commo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-137", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first and the second applicant were born in 1927 and 1950 respectively. The third and the fourth applicant were born in 1954. The first applicant lives in Józefów and her three daughters in Warsaw, Poland.\n7.  From 1939 to 1944, Jan Hałka, the first applicant's husband, was a member of the Polish resistance troops of the underground Home Army (Armia Krajowa). In 1944 he was arrested by the NKVD and the Polish political police and imprisoned in a labour camp in Siberia. He was kept in Borowice (former USSR) from November 1944 to February 1946. He died on 17 November 1986.\n8.  On 8 December 1994 the applicants filed an application with the Warsaw Regional Court for compensation under section 8 § 2(a) of the Law of 23 February 1991 on annulment of convictions whereby persons were persecuted for their activities aimed at achieving independence for Poland (Ustawa o uznaniu za nieważne orzeczeń wydanych wobec osób represjonowanych za działalność na rzecz niepodległego buty Państwa Polskiego)  (“the 1991 Act”).\n9.  In 1996 the first applicant personally went to the court and asked a judge to fix a date for a hearing as soon as possible. She submitted that she was an elderly person and that the court should therefore give priority to her case.\n10.  In 1998 she again went in person to the Warsaw Regional Court and asked the judge to set a date for a hearing as soon as possible.\n11.  On 11 May 2000 she sent a letter to the court, asking for a hearing date to be set and for information on the proceedings. She maintained that her previous applications for the proceedings to be accelerated had been to no avail and that the period of total inactivity on the part of that court had exceeded five years.\n12.  On 1 October 2000 she complained to the Minister of Justice about the lack of progress in the proceedings.\n13.  On 4 December 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing in the applicants' case. On the same date the court gave judgment and awarded the first applicant and her three daughters compensation in the amount of 8,075 Polish zlotys (PLN) each. Since no party appealed within the statutory time-limit of seven days, the first-instance decision became final on 12 December 2000.\n14.  On 19 March 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court informed the first and the third applicant that they could collect the sums awarded from the Financial Department of the Warsaw Regional Court on 25 March 2002. They did so. It appears from the material produced by the applicants that the second and the fourth applicant have not yet received their share of the compensation awarded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-138", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Gabrovo.\n10.  On 28 June 1996 she was arrested upon the order of a prosecutor and brought to a psychiatric clinic for an examination. She was detained for five days and then released.\nShe was again detained for a psychiatric examination on 28 August 1996. \nOn 21 March 1997 the applicant was arrested and detained for a third time. She was brought to a psychiatric clinic where she was detained allegedly incommunicado until 4 April 1997.\n11.  Upon the applicant's complaint, she was informed by letter of 28 March 1997 of the district health authorities that her detention had been ordered by a prosecutor in accordance with the law. The applicant allegedly submitted another complaint to the Ministry of Health on 25 April 1997 but never received an answer.\n12.  A summary of the relevant domestic law and practice in respect of detention with the purpose to conduct psychiatric examinations is contained in the Court's judgment in the case of Varbanov v. Bulgaria (no. 31165/95, ECHR 2000-X). Paragraphs 28-32 of that judgment, insofar as relevant, read as follows:\n“[Judicial proceedings for an order for compulsory psychiatric treatment] are instituted by a district prosecutor who is under the obligation to undertake a prior inquiry, including a psychiatric examination, in order to assess the need for instituting proceedings. The prosecutor therefore would normally invite the person concerned to undergo an examination in the framework of his inquiry.\nThe Public Health Act, as in force [until February 1997], did not contain a provision expressly authorising a prosecutor to order a person being brought by force to a hospital and his detention at the hospital for purposes of such a psychiatric examination... The relevant law did not provide for an appeal to a court in cases of persons detained for an examination in the framework of a district prosecutor's inquiry...\nCertain amendments to the Public Health Act were introduced in February 1997... [providing] ... that a prosecutor, in the framework of his inquiry, can order confinement to a psychiatric hospital for up to 30 days (up to three months in exceptional cases) for the medical examination of a person who has refused to undergo such an examination voluntarily. However, no provision allowing judicial review of the prosecutor's order was introduced.\nThe Code of Criminal Procedure, by virtue of an amendment in force since 1 January 2000, introduced a judicial procedure for confinement in a psychiatric clinic of a person against whom criminal proceedings have been brought. This procedure, however, does not concern persons who have been confined in a clinic for a psychiatric examination pursuant to a prosecutor's order under Section 61 of the Public Health Act.”\n13.  In the Varbanov case the Court made the following findings relevant to the present case (see paragraphs 43-53 of that judgment): \n“... the Public Health Act, as in force [until February 1997], did not contain any provision empowering prosecutors to commit a person to compulsory confinement in a psychiatric clinic for the purpose of effecting a psychiatric examination. \nMoreover, the applicable law, as in force at the relevant time and even after its amendment in 1997, does not provide for the seeking of a medical opinion as a pre-condition to ordering detention with a view to compulsory psychiatric examination and thus falls short of the required standard of protection against arbitrariness.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-139", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On an unspecified date, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for tax offences.\n9.  In an order of 18 September 1991, the Benevento investigating judge committed the applicant for trial, commencing on 16 December 1991 before the Benevento District Court. On 21 September 1991, this order was served on the applicant, who was thus informed of the charges brought against him.\n10.  The first hearing was adjourned because the applicant was ill. On 8 June 1992, at the parties' request, the District Court, acting in accordance with Article 2 § 3 of Presidential Decree n° 23 of  20 January 1992, decided to suspend the proceedings awaiting the information from the Benevento Revenue (Ufficio Finanziario delle Imposte dirette) on the applicant's integration into the taxpayers' list. On 29 October 1997, the District Court requested the Benevento Revenue to produce the information at issue. The information was given on 20 December 1997.\n11.  On 22 January 1998, the case was adjourned because on that day the lawyers of the Benevento Bar Association were on strike.\n12.  On 16 April 1998, the parties presented their final pleadings. The applicant and the Public Prosecutor requested the District Court to declare that the offences were time-barred.\n13.  By a judgment of 16 April 1998, filed with the registry on 23 April 1998, the District Court held that the charges had become time-barred in July 1997.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-140", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 4 May 1988 the Genoa Public Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that criminal proceedings concerning his public duties (the applicant was a civil servant in the Ministry of Public Works) had been instituted against him. These proceedings were subsequently transferred to the Milan Public Prosecutor's Office, and on 7 September 1988 the Milan investigating judge informed the applicant that a charge of corruption was pending against him.\n9.  On 26 May 1989 the applicant was heard by the Milan investigating judge.\n10.  On 31 May 1991 the applicant and forty-four other persons were committed for trial before the Milan District Court. The first hearing, initially scheduled for 27 January 1993, took place on 12 January 1994.\n11.  In a judgement of 31 March 1994, the District Court, following the plea bargain procedure (“applicazione della pena su richiesta delle parti”) sentenced the applicant to one year and four months' imprisonment. This decision was filed with the registry only on 19 March 1997. It became final on 6 July 1997.\n12.  In the meantime, by an order of 31 July 1995, the Ministry of Public Works dismissed the applicant from his post as a consequence of his criminal conviction.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-141", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 9 December 1985 the applicant, accused of theft and possession of drugs, was arrested and placed in detention on remand. He was released on 21 January 1986.\n9.  In an order of 27 May 1986, the Ancona investigating judge committed the applicant and fifty-eight other persons for trial before the Ancona District Court.\n10.  On 2 September 1986 the President of the Ancona District Court scheduled the date of the first hearing for 12 November 1986.\n11.  In a judgment of 5 March 1987, filed with the registry on 20 March 1987, the District Court acquitted the applicant for lack of evidence (“insufficienza di prove”). A number of his co-accused were sentenced to heavy penalties.\n12.  The applicant, together with fourteen other accused, lodged an appeal with the Ancona Court of Appeal in order to obtain a more favourable acquittal formula.\n13.  On 17 February 1988 the case-file was forwarded to the Court of Appeal.\n14.  The trial hearing, initially scheduled for 16 April 1996, was adjourned until 13 December 1996.\n15.  In a judgment of the same day, filed with the registry on 10 January 1997, the Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant. This decision became final on 2 February 1997.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-142", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is an Iranian citizen, born in 1966, and lives in Viborg, Denmark.\n10.  In 1986 the applicant commenced his military training in Iran. It is not clear whether he participated directly in the war between Iran and Iraq. On 25 April 1987 he deserted and fled to Turkey, where he arrived on 5 May 1987. It appears that the applicant stayed for some time in Turkey and then in Greece.\n11.  He arrived in Denmark on 20 August 1989 and applied for asylum. Pursuant to the practice of the Danish immigration authorities at that time, all asylum-seekers from Iran who, due to desertion from the army, had left their home country before the armistice between Iran and Iraq in the summer of 1988 were granted a residence permit. Accordingly, on 12 October 1990 the applicant was granted a residence and work permit. On 25 August 1994 the residence permit became permanent.\n12.  In 1992 the applicant met a Danish woman, A, with whom he cohabited. A daughter was born out of the relationship on 16 October 1996. The applicant and A got married on 23 September 1997 and had another child, a son, born on 20 April 2001. A also has a daughter born in 1989 from a previous relationship, who lives with A and the applicant, and with whom the applicant has a very close relationship. All three children have been raised pursuant to Danish traditions.\n13.  It appears that the applicant's family broke off all relations with him in 1987 due to his desertion from the army.\n14.  In Denmark the applicant had been making a living as the owner of a pizzeria until the end of 1996. Since May 2000 he had been receiving welfare benefits and was at the same time assigned job training by the municipality with the possibility of continuing employment. A works at a retirement home.\n15.  On 17 December 1996 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand, charged with drug trafficking allegedly committed during 1996. By judgment of 1 October 1997 the City Court of Hobro (retten i Hobro) found him guilty, inter alia, of drug trafficking with regard to at least 450 grams of heroine contrary to Article 191 of the Criminal Code. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment and, pursuant to sections 22 and 26 of the Aliens Act, was expelled from Denmark with a life-long ban on his return. \nThe applicant appealed against the judgment but withdrew the appeal in November 1997, whereupon the City Court judgment acquired legal force.\n16.  On 14 July 1998, pursuant to section 50 of the Aliens Act, the applicant instituted proceedings in the City Court of Hobro claiming that material changes in his circumstances had occurred on account of which he requested the court to review the expulsion order. He referred to his family situation and alleged, with reference to information obtained from Amnesty International, that it could not be ruled out that he would risk severe punishment in Iran for having deserted from the army and also perhaps receive a life sentence for the narcotics crimes committed in Denmark.\nOn 11 September 1998 the City Court rejected the applicant's request, as it did not find that the applicant's situation had changed to such an extent that there was any reason to revoke the expulsion order. This decision was upheld by the High Court of Western Denmark (Vestre Landsret) on 9 October 1998.\n17.  On 17 December 1998 the applicant had served two-thirds of his sentence and was due to be released on parole. Since he did not consent to the deportation and refused to leave t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-143", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in Gumpoldskirchen (Austria).\n8.  As a client had allegedly not paid enough for construction work accomplished for him, the applicant filed an action for unjustified enrichment with the Vienna Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) on 30 May 1980.\n9.  On 21 November 1994 the Regional Court, after having held numerous hearings, dismissed the applicant's action.\n10.  On 23 May 1995 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n11.  On 25 October 1995 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) rejected the applicant's further appeal on points of law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-144", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  Between 1982 and 1989 the applicant used to live in a rented apartment located in the area of Terontola, in the province of Perugia. He was housing a Nigerian national whom the authorities maintain is the applicant's cousin, whereas the applicant alleges he is only a friend.\n9.  On 23 February 1988 a criminal complaint was filed against the applicant and against the person who was sharing the apartment with him for membership of a drug-trafficking ring.\n10.  On an unspecified date a search warrant was issued against the applicant's friend/cousin. On 13 November 1988 the applicant's apartment was searched. The police found a certain amount of drugs, partly in the house and partly in a nearby barn. On the same date the applicant was arrested and charged with illegal possession of drugs.\n11.  During his police interrogation the applicant chose the family home of a couple of close friends, Mr and Mrs C., as the address for service of communications relating to the case, as provided for by Section 171 of the former Italian Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant was subsequently committed for trial before the Arezzo District Court on the charge of illegal possession of drugs.\n12.  On 7 December 1988 the Arezzo District Court acquitted the applicant on the ground of lack of evidence (insufficienza di prove). The court however found the applicant's friend/cousin guilty of possessing drugs and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment.\n13.  Following his acquittal the applicant again elected Mr and Mrs C.'s family home as his address for service. However, shortly after his acquittal the applicant moved to Germany where he obtained employment. The applicant did not inform the Italian authorities of this change of address as required by Italian law.\n14.  On an unspecified date the Public Prosecutor attached to the Arezzo District Court appealed against the judgment acquitting the applicant. On 10 July 1989 the President of the Florence Court of Appeal issued a summons for the applicant to attend the appeal hearing set for 6 October 1989. On 2 August 1989 the bailiff (ufficiale giudiziario) completed a form stating that he could not serve the summons on account of the fact that the applicant was no longer living there and that it appeared that he had left the country (“non potuto notificare perchè il notificando non è piu' domiciliato presso la famiglia in questione ma pare sia ritornato all'estero”). On 16 August 1989 the bailiff completed a report stating that he had served the summons on the applicant by depositing it at the registry of the Florence Court of Appeal.\n15.  On 6 September 1989 the registry of the Florence Court of Appeal issued a notice to Mr D., the applicant's officially-appointed lawyer (avvocato d'ufficio), which stated that, as it had not been possible to serve the summons on the applicant, it had been filed with the court registry. On 25 September 1989 the bailiff served this notice on Mr D.\n16.  On 6 October 1989 the Florence Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance judgment concerning the applicant and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment for illegal possession of drugs. The applicant, who had had no notice of the appeal proceedings, was not present at the hearing.\n17.  On 3 January 1990 the bailiff wrote a report stating that the attempt to serve notice of the judgment on the applicant at the old address had failed, the applicant no longer being domiciled there, as declared by Mr C. On 29 January 1990 the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-145", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen born in 1937 and is a post-operative male to female transsexual.\n13.  The applicant had a tendency to dress as a woman from early childhood and underwent aversion therapy in 1963-64. In the mid-1960s,  she was diagnosed as a transsexual. Though she married a woman and they had four children, her conviction was that her “brain sex” did not fit her body. From that time until 1984 she dressed as a man for work but as a woman in her free time. In January 1985, the applicant began treatment in earnest, attending appointments once every three months at the Gender Identity Clinic at the Charing Cross Hospital, which included regular consultations with a psychiatrist as well as on occasion a psychologist. She was prescribed hormone therapy, began attending grooming classes and voice training. Since this time, she has lived fully as a woman. In October 1986, she underwent surgery to shorten her vocal chords. In August 1987, she was accepted on the waiting list for gender re-assignment surgery. In 1990, she underwent gender re-assignment surgery at a National Health Service hospital. Her treatment and surgery was provided for and paid for by the National Health Service.\n14.  The applicant divorced from her former wife on a date unspecified but continued to enjoy the love and support of her children.\n15.  The applicant claims that between 1990 and 1992 she was sexually harassed by colleagues at work. She attempted to pursue a case of sexual harassment in the Industrial Tribunal but claimed that she was unsuccessful because she was considered in law to be a man. She did not challenge this decision by appealing to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The applicant was subsequently dismissed from her employment for reasons connected with her health, but alleges that the real reason was that she was a transsexual.\n16.  In 1996, the applicant started work with a new employer and was required to provide her National Insurance (“NI”) number. She was concerned that the new employer would be in a position to trace her details as once in the possession of the number it would have been possible to find out about her previous employers and obtain information from them. Although she requested the allocation of a new NI number from the Department of Social Security (“DSS”), this was rejected and she eventually gave the new employer her NI number. The applicant claims that the new employer has now traced back her identity as she began experiencing problems at work. Colleagues stopped speaking to her and she was told that everyone was talking about her behind her back.\n17.  The DSS Contributions Agency informed the applicant that she would be ineligible for a State pension at the age of 60, the age of entitlement for women in the United Kingdom. In April 1997, the DSS informed the applicant that her pension contributions would have to be continued until the date at which she reached the age of 65, being the age of entitlement for men, namely April 2002. On 23 April 1997, she therefore entered into an undertaking with the DSS to pay direct the NI contributions which would otherwise be deducted by her employer as for all male employees. In the light of this undertaking, on 2 May 1997, the DSS Contributions Agency issued the applicant with a Form CF 384 Age Exemption Certificate (see Relevant domestic law and practice below).\n18.  The applicant's files at the DSS were marked “sensitive” to ensure that only an employee of a p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-146", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 22 October 1985, just before the 1986 elections, the first applicant published an Article entitled “The capon and self-esteem ‑ Short portrait of Mr Tassos Papadopoulos ‑ Archives, Gigolo, Computer and Specimen of writing”, of which the second applicant was the author.\n10.  On 26 October 1985 Mr Papadopoulos filed a civil action for libel with the District Court of Nicosia. The applicants filed a memorandum of appearance to the writ on 5 November 1985. The plaintiff's statement of claim, which, by virtue of Order 20 r.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, ought to have been filed within ten days after the appearance, was delivered to the applicants on 3 February 1988. Although on 6 November 1987 the District Court had fixed a time-limit of twenty-one days for the filing of the statement of claim, the plaintiff requested and obtained on 11 January 1988 an extension until 29 January 1988. On that date, as the statement of claim was not yet filed, the District Court did not fix the case anew, but gave instructions to the Registrar to bring the case before it, after 1 February 1988, in order to dismiss it for want of prosecution.\n11.  On 16 September 1988 and 17 January 1989 the applicants filed two similar applications whereby they sought to obtain an order of the court striking out or amending paragraph 8 of the plaintiff's statement of claim, as tending to embarrass or delay the fair examination of the action or as being unnecessary or scandalous. The hearing of the applications was fixed for 7 November 1988, but on that date it was adjourned until 14 December 1988 at the request of both parties and then, ex officio, until 9 January 1989, when it was dismissed for want of prosecution. On 17 January 1989 the applicants filed a third similar application which was subsequently withdrawn on the date of the hearing on 21 April 1989, in the light of a statement made by the plaintiff's lawyer.\n12.  On 31 May 1989 the applicants applied to the District Court for an adjournment of the time-limit to file their defence, on the ground that it had not been possible to do it in time owing to the numerous applications which were submitted in the action. An adjournment was granted until 7 June 1989 but the applicants did not file their defence until 12 September 1989.\n13.  On 15 February 1990 the applicants applied to the District Court to expedite proceedings. The court fixed the case for mention on 16 March 1990 and for hearing on 9 November 1990. On that date the hearing was adjourned ex officio until 21 March 1991 and 15 November 1991, and then until 28 May 1992 and 13 January 1993. On that last date the applicants failed to appear because the plaintiff's lawyer had omitted to notify them of the date of the hearing.\n14.  On 21 June 1993 the hearing was adjourned again until 4 February 1994, owing to the lack of time by the court, and again until 16 September 1994, following a request from the applicants. On three occasions the hearing was adjourned ex officio: on 16 September 1994, 1 March 1995 and 18 September 1995 and, following a further request from the applicants, again on 12 January 1996.\nFrom 16 March 1990 until 14 March 1996, when the hearing actually started, the hearing was adjourned on eight occasions, due to lack of time of the Court: from 16 March 1990 to 9 November 1990, from 9 November 1990 to 21 March 1991, from 21 March 1991 to 15 November 1991, from 15 November 1991 to 28 May 1992, from 28 May 1992 to 13 January 1993, from 13 Janu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-147", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Tunceli.\n9.  On 5 and 6 June 1992 the applicant participated in a meeting organised by the Tunceli Human Rights Association. At this meeting he made a speech concerning the problems of the Kurdish people and expressed his opinions on possible solutions.\n10.  On 3 May 1993 the Public Prosecutor attached to the Kayseri State Security Court (“the State Security Court”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant together with three other persons who had participated in the meeting. In his indictment, the public prosecutor accused the applicant, under Article 8 § 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1991, of disseminating propaganda against the indivisibility of the State.\n11.  On 26 August 1993 the State Security Court found the applicant guilty of an offence under Article 8 § 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and a fine of 50,000,000 Turkish Liras (TRL). In its decision the court held that the applicant, along with three other persons, had put forward the idea of a separate people contrary to the concept of nation adopted in the Constitution. The court considered that the applicant and the three other accused, in their speeches and poems, had claimed that the Kurdish people were fighting against the Republic of Turkey for their independence and that their struggle should be supported. Referring to all the speeches made by the accused, the court held that sentences such as “the Kurdish people are exercising the right of rebellion in their fight for emancipation from captivity”, “the Kurds should be given the right to determine their future”; “the Kurdish people are engaged in a great struggle, fighting for socialism and national independence” amounted to propaganda against the indivisibility of the State. The court further referred to the slogans shouted by the audience during the speeches, such as “Let Kurdistan walk” and “Deho Apo” (the PKK leader) and to the presence of the symbolic colours of the Kurdish people, i.e. red, green and yellow in the meeting hall's decorations. Finally, the court found that the accused had carried out the proscribed propaganda at a time and place at which the threat to the unity of the State and the Nation was particularly acute.\n12.  The applicant appealed against this judgment.\n13.  On 6 May 1994 the Court of Cassation upheld the State Security Court's judgment.\n14.  Following the amendments made by Law no. 4126 of 27 October 1995 to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the State Security Court ex officio re-examined the applicant's case.\n15.  On 28 November 1998 the State Security Court confirmed the applicant's conviction, and ultimately reduced the sentence to one year's imprisonment and a fine of 50,000,000 TRL.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-148", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  At the material time the applicant was employed as a clerk in the İzmir 2nd Court of Taxation. On 18 July 1995 the İzmir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction forwarded the name and workplace of the applicant to the İzmir public prosecutor's office, stating that the applicant was suspected of having stolen and falsified court documents relating to a decided divorce case.\n12.  On 25 July 1995 the office of the public prosecutor referred the case to the İzmir Security Directorate.\n13.  At 5.10 p.m. on 25 July 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody and detained at the İzmir Security Directorate. He was accused of the above offences. The applicant gave a statement in which he denied that he had been involved in the incident relating to the court's case file. The applicant later claimed that he was not permitted to contact his family or consult a lawyer and that he was insulted and beaten for two hours.\n14.  Two other suspects were also detained and statements were taken from them. A statement was also taken from A.B., a party to the divorce proceedings.\n15.  On 27 July 1995 an investigation record was drawn up for the applicant and the two other suspects. At 5 p.m. on the same day the applicant was released pursuant to the decision of the public prosecutor. The two other suspects were kept in custody.\n16.  In the evening of 27 July 1995, following his release, the applicant went to the İzmir State Hospital. He was subsequently granted four days' sick leave by his employer. The medical report prepared at the hospital referred to the fact that the applicant was suffering from a common skin disease caused by the inflammation of the roots of his facial hair.\n17.  On 31 July 1995 the office of the public prosecutor of Karşıyaka decided not to bring charges against the applicant (takipsizlik kararı) for lack of evidence. The decision was served on the applicant on 19 August 1995.\n18.  The public prosecutor took a statement from the applicant on 28 August 1995. In his statement the applicant declared that he had applied to the Ministry of Justice to have proceedings brought against the individual who had reported him to the authorities.\n19.  On 29 August 1995 the public prosecutor decided not to bring charges against the person named by the applicant.\n20.  On 5 September 1995 the applicant filed a complaint under Law no. 466 with the Karşıyaka Assize Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi) against the Treasury requesting 200,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) by way of compensation for his detention between “24 and 27 July 1995”. In the petition, the applicant's lawyer stated, inter alia, that the applicant, while in detention, had been tortured and ill-treated by being beaten and insulted for two hours and deprived of his right to contact his family and a lawyer. As a result of his injuries, the applicant had had to take four days' sick leave. Furthermore, the applicant's reputation had suffered. He did not rely on any specific section of Law no. 466.\n21.  On 14 September 1995 the three-judge Karşıyaka Assize Court appointed one of its members (naip hakim) to investigate the case and draft a report. The judge designated for this purpose verified, inter alia, that the office of the public prosecutor of İzmir had dropped the charges against the applicant. He also obtained information about the applicant's personal, financial and social status. The judge found that the evidence obtained was sufficient to enable him to draft his report and decided in the e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-149", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 21 March 1985, the applicant applied to the Vienna Arbitration Board (Schlichtungsstelle) for an increase in the rent payable by his tenants to enable repairs to the house. The increase was granted on 25 June 1985.\n8.  On 28 June 1985, several tenants filed an appeal against this decision with the Hernals District Court (Bezirksgericht). The court held hearings on 25 October 1985, 24 January and 28 February 1986. On 27 May 1986, the court determined the classification of the respective apartments for the purposes of rent calculation under the Rent Act. It dismissed one tenant's request to render an interlocutory decision on a preliminary issue as it could be joined to the merits. On 18 November 1987, the Vienna Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) dismissed that tenant's appeal concerning an interlocutory decision.\n9.  The District Court held a further hearing on 26 August 1988. It appointed an expert on 8 September and, after this expert had declared bias, appointed another expert on 5 October 1988. On 2 March 1989, following two extensions of the time-limit set for this purpose, the applicant submitted documents required by the court. On 16 May 1989 the expert submitted his opinion. Thereupon, further hearings were held on 5 October 1989, 23 January, 18 May and 18 October 1990 and 6 February 1991. A hearing which had been scheduled for 16 May 1991 had to be postponed to 9 August 1991 as the court had failed to serve the applicant's submissions on the other parties in time. At the hearing of 9 August 1991 the judge closed the taking of evidence.\n10.  On 16 March 1992, the proceedings were resumed for the taking of further evidence and hearings were held on 8 July and 18 December 1992, and on 20 April 1993 when the proceedings were adjourned for delivery of a written judgment. The applicant was ordered to submit further documents which he did on 11 May 1993.\n11.  Throughout the District Court proceedings the judge responsible for dealing with the case changed four times. The parties made numerous requests for the taking of evidence. One tenant in particular filed numerous objections against the minutes of the hearings.\n12.  On 29 June 1994, the applicant filed an application under section 91 of the Courts Act (Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz) for a time-limit to be fixed for the delivery of the written judgment. On 20 October 1994, the Vienna Regional Civil Court granted this application and set a time-limit of six weeks.\n13.  On 12 June 1995, the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim for a rent increase. The applicant's appeal against the decision of 1 July 1995 was dismissed by the Vienna Regional Civil Court on 12 December 1995.\n14.  On 16 April 1996, the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law, noting that the conditions of section 528 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not met. According to this provision, an appeal on points of law against the decision of an appellate court is only admissible if it raises a legal issue of particular importance for the uniformity, certainty, or further development of the law. The judgment was served on 24 May 1996.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-150", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Florence, which they had let to A.R.\n8.  In a registered letter of 18 April 1991, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 27 September 1991, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 28 October 1991, which was made enforceable on 8 November 1991, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n11.  On 25 January 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 3 March 1993, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 March 1993.\n13.  On 30 July 1993, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for the third applicant.\n14.  Between 30 March 1993 and 23 September 1999, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 28 March 1997, the second applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son.\n16.  On 2 August 1999, the tenant requested the Florence Magistrate (according to art. 6 L. 431/98) to set a fresh date for the enforcement of the order.\n17.  On 16 October 2000, the Florence Magistrate set the enforcement of the order for 15 May 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-151", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Moscow. At the material time he was the president of the North East Commercial Bank (Северо – Восточный Акционерный Банк).\n12.  On 8 February 1995 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, the details of which are set out under sub-heading B below. On 29 June 1995 the applicant was taken into custody and, by a judgment of the Magadan City Court (Магаданский городской суд) of 3 August 1999, he was convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.\n13.  From 29 June 1995 to 20 October 1999 the applicant was kept in the detention facility IZ-47/1 in the city of Magadan (Investigatory Isolation Ward No. 1 (СИЗО-1)). On 20 October 1999 he was sent to serve his sentence, following the City Court judgment of 3 August 1999, to the penitentiary establishment AV-261/3 in the village of Talaya. On 9 December 1999 he was transferred back to the detention facility in Magadan where he stayed until his release on 26 June 2000.\n \n1)  The applicant's submissions on the facts\n14.  As regards the first period of his detention in the Magadan detention facility, the applicant alleged that  he had been kept in a cell measuring 17 square meters (“m²”) where there were 8 bunk beds. However, it nearly always held 24 inmates; only rarely did the number fall to 18. As there were three men to every bunk, the inmates slept taking turns. The others would lie or sit on the floor or cardboard boxes waiting for their turn. It was impossible to sleep properly as the television was on around the clock and, during the day, there was much commotion in the cell. The light in the cell was never turned off.\n15.  The lavatory pan in the corner of the cell offered no privacy. A partition separated it from a wash stand, but not from the living area and dining table. The lavatory pan was elevated from the floor by half a meter while the partition measured 1,1 meters in height. Therefore, the person using the toilet was in the view of both his cellmates and a prison guard observing the inmates through a peep-hole in the door. \nThe inmates had to eat their meals in the cell at a dining table which was only a meter away from the toilet. The meals were of poor quality.\n16.  The cell, which had no ventilation, was stiflingly hot in summer and very cold in winter. Because of the poor quality of the air in the cell, a window had to remain open all the time. Being surrounded by heavy smokers, the applicant was forced to become a passive smoker. The applicant claims that he was never given proper bedding, dishes or kitchen utensils. He only received a quilted mattress and a thin flannel blanket from the administration, and had to borrow kitchenware from cell-mates who had received these items from relatives.\n17.  The cells of the detention facility were overrun with cockroaches and ants, but no attempt was made to exterminate them. The only sanitary precaution taken was that once a week the guards gave the inmates a litre of chloride disinfectant for the lavatory.\n18.  He contracted a variety of skin diseases and fungal infections, losing his toenails and some of his fingernails. During the trial from 11 November 1996 to 23 April 1997 and from 15 April 1999 to 3 August 1999, a recess was ordered so that he could be treated for scabies.\nOn six occasions detainees, with tuberculosis and syphilis were placed in his cell and he received prophylactic antibiotic injections.\n19.  The applicant submitted that he cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-152", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 27 April 1995, the applicant was arrested and charged on two counts with conspiracy to supply Class A and Class B drugs respectively. On 27 January 1997, he and his co-defendants (Kevin Douglas, Paul Anthony Easingwood, Keith Gleeson and Andrew David Dalton) pleaded guilty to the charges after the trial judge ruled disputed evidence admissible.\n9.  The evidence at issue resulted from a covert surveillance operation involving observation and recording of conversations in the home of Kevin Douglas allegedly from October 1994 until January 1995 and in April 1995. According to the applicant, the authority for such surveillance had been sought and granted on the purported grounds that the drug operation conducted by the defendants was of such sophistication that conventional evidence gathering techniques were fruitless. He claimed that it was not the Chief Constable who authorised the warrant, but rather the Chief Superintendent.\n10.  The defendants challenged the admissibility of the evidence on grounds of improper compliance with the Home Office Guidelines and argued that the judge should exercise his discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”) to exclude the recordings. A voir dire regarding the assertions was conducted. The taped conversations constituted the sole evidence against the applicant.\n11.  Upon the trial judge's ruling that the evidence was admissible, the defendants pleaded guilty to the relevant charges on the indictment.\n12.  On 6 February 1997, the applicant was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.\n13.  The applicant applied for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence out of time. On 28 January 1999, the applicant's application to seek leave to appeal against conviction and sentence out of time was refused by Mr Justice Hooper and Lord Justice Rose.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-153", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The Blackspur group of companies (collectively, “Blackspur”), was formed by the applicant and others in September 1987 and at various times the applicant acted as director and chairman. Blackspur went into receivership in July 1990 with an estimated deficit of GBP 34 million.\n9.  On 1 July 1992, on the last day of the applicable two year limitation period, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (“the Secretary of State”) issued proceedings against the applicant and four others (“the Blackspur proceedings”) under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (“the CDDA”: see paragraphs 19-20 below).\n10.  The Secretary of State's evidence was not complete at the time he commenced proceedings, and he applied for an extension of time for the serving of evidence (see paragraph 21 below). The applicant refused to consent to an extension being granted and instead, on 13 October 1992, together with two other defendants, applied to strike out the proceedings.\n11.  The Secretary of State's evidence was completed and served on the applicant on 14 December 1992. The application for permission to file the evidence out of time, and the cross-application to strike out the proceedings, were not heard by the Registrar until 20 May 1993, when they were adjourned to 29 July 1993. On 27 January 1994 the Registrar granted the Secretary of State's application for an extension of time and dismissed the applicant's strike-out application. The applicant appealed to the High Court.\n12.  Related criminal charges had been brought against the four other defendants in the Blackspur proceedings, but not the applicant, on 1 July 1992. The criminal trial took place between March and June 1994, during which period the disqualification proceedings were adjourned generally, with liberty to restore. At the conclusion of the criminal trial, two defendants were acquitted and two were convicted. On appeal, the two convictions were quashed in February 1995.\n13.  By letters dated 19 July and 16 September 1994 the defendants to the Blackspur disqualification proceedings wrote to the Secretary of State inviting him to reconsider whether to carry on with the proceedings. On 15 December 1994 the Treasury Solicitor replied that the Secretary of State had decided that it remained expedient in the public interest to continue.\n14.  Once the criminal trial had been concluded, the applicant's appeal to the High Court against the Registrar's decision of 27 January 1994 could proceed and was dismissed on 2 May 1995. In November 1995 the applicant was granted leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal, and his substantive appeal was dismissed by that court on 24 May 1996. The Court of Appeal found that the reasons for the Secretary of State's failure to complete his evidence before the proceedings were commenced had been “far from satisfactory”, but considered nonetheless that the case should proceed since it was in the public interest to determine the “particularly serious” allegations of false accounting and trading while insolvent made against the defendants. In addition, the court observed that the delay by the Secretary of State had not affected the timing of the hearing or prejudiced the applicant, and that, once the proceedings had commenced, “the respondents' main concern was to delay the proceedings until after the conclusion of the criminal trial, not to hurry them on”.\n15.  On 1 July 1996 the Registrar directed that the defendants should serve th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-154", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  P., born in 1958, is a citizen of the United States of America; C., the husband of P., was born in 1962 and is a United Kingdom citizen; S., their daughter was born in 1998 and is a United Kingdom and American citizen. They are all resident in the United Kingdom.\n10.  In January 1976 P., then living in the United States of America, gave birth to a son A. shortly before her eighteenth birthday. In 1980 P. married her first husband and had a second son B. in February 1985. In 1992 she and her husband separated. Both parents contested custody of B.\n11.  Between December 1990 and January 1994 B. was referred to his general practitioner for some forty-seven complaints.\n12.  In March/April 1993 B. was taken for examination to hospital on numerous occasions for complaints of diarrhoea and fever, and on each occasion he was found to be in a normal condition. When on 18 April 1994 B. was admitted to hospital, a laboratory stools test indicated the presence of phenolphthalein (a laxative). The doctor was satisfied that P. had been responsible for laxative poisoning and reported the matter.\n13.  On the same date the Californian authorities took B. into protective custody, alleging that P. was harming her son, then aged 9, by administering laxatives to him inappropriately. He was suspected of being a victim of induced-illness abuse, the syndrome known variously as Munchhausen syndrome by proxy (“MSBP”), fabricated or induced illness, illness-induction syndrome or paediatric falsified condition. MSBP is a label sometimes used to describe a form of psychiatric illness, mainly found in women, who seek attention by inducing illness in their children or inventing accounts of illness in their children, and by repeatedly presenting their children to the medical authorities for investigation and treatment.\n14.  On 23 August 1994 a Californian court ordered that B. live with his father. Following this placement, B. did not suffer from any acute or abnormal diarrhoea. At a hearing in September 1995, the court approved supervised contact between P. and her son B. once a month for two to four hours for the following three years. P. was informed that, if she wished increased contact, it could be envisaged in a supervised, therapeutic context.\n15.  P. was charged with cruelty towards B. and endangering B.'s health, a felony offence under section 273A(a) of the Californian Penal Code. A report prepared by Dr Schreier stated that P. suffered from MSBP and that she had victimised B. over several years, causing him severe diarrhoea, possibly vomiting, weight loss and multiple non-trivial procedures and hospitalisations. On 4 October 1995, after a five-week trial before a jury in the Superior Court of California, she was convicted of a misdemeanour under section 273A(b), a lesser offence, and acquitted of the felony. On 17 November 1995 she was sentenced to three years' probation and three months in custody, subsequently suspended. She was also ordered to enter and complete a “psychological and psychiatric treatment programme”.\n16.  During the divorce proceedings, P. was required to have therapy as a condition for getting custody of B. and saw a therapist from 1992 until the end of 1993. From late 1992 she was prescribed an antidepressant by a psychiatrist whom she saw regularly to review the medication. She also consulted with psychiatrists during the criminal trial. From about April to December 1995, she saw a psychologist twice a month for therapy.\n17.  On 2 M", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-155", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant's husband Yusuf Ekinci, was born in Lice (south-east Turkey) and was a member of a well-known Turkish family of Kurdish origin. He was a practising lawyer and a member of the Ankara Bar. During his studies, he worked for the Turkish Workers Party (Türkiye İşçi Partisi) and was a member of the Eastern Revolutionary Cultural Grouping (Doğu Devrimci Kültür Ocakları). On that latter account, he was arrested in May 1971. He spent six months in prison, but was finally acquitted. Following his acquittal, he took no further active part in politics.\n11.  On 24 February 1994, at about 6.30 p.m., Yusuf Ekinci left his office in the central part of Ankara to drive in his private car to his home located in a different part of the town. Before he left his office, he spoke to several persons including the applicant who had telephoned him at about 5 p.m.. He gave his office assistant Güngör S.E. a lift. As the applicant's husband had just enough petrol to get home, he dropped Güngör S.E. off somewhere on the way.\n12.  When Yusuf Ekinci failed to return home, the applicant and Güngör S.E. inquired at local hospitals and police stations in the course of the evening, but were unable to obtain any information about his whereabouts. As the applicant was concerned that her husband had met with the same fate as Behçet Cantürk[1] from Lice – who had disappeared a month previously and whose body had been found soon after – she telephoned around midnight Mehmet Kahraman, the State Minister responsible for Human Rights and a friend of the family, and asked him for help. The first thing Mr Kahraman said was: \"This cannot have been done to Yusuf ...\", which frightened the applicant even more.\n13.  On 25 February 1994, at about 2 a.m. and 7.30 a.m. respectively, the applicant received two anonymous telephone calls. No one spoke on the other end of the line. During the second call, the applicant could hear the sound of typewriters. At about 9.30 a.m. the telephone rang again. When the applicant answered, a woman said, \"I am the depths of hell\", and then put the receiver down.\n14.  Later that day, at about 12.30 p.m., road workers found the body of Yusuf Ekinci along the E-90 TEM highway in Gölbaşı on the outskirts of Ankara, i.e. 1.5 kilometres from the Doktorlar Sitesi neighbourhood and 1 kilometre in the direction of Eskişehir. They informed the police. Yusuf Ekinci had been shot and killed. His car was found at a distance of 1 to 2 kilometres from the place where his body was found. The petrol tank was empty.\n15.  On the same day, the Gölbaşı public prosecutor opened a criminal investigation into the death of Yusuf Ekinci.\n16.  According to the applicant, the buttons of Yusuf Ekinci's coat were done up when his body was found. His identity documents, a small quantity of cash and his spectacles were missing. His ring and a valuable watch were returned to the applicant by the police.\nThe domestic investigation\na.  Police records\n17.  On a sketch map drafted by a police officer, dated 25 February 1994, it is recorded that eight bullets were found directly next to the head of Yusuf Ekinci.\n18.  In the police report on the finding of Yusuf Ekinci's body, dated 26 February 1994, it is recorded that no weapon and no empty cartridges were found near to or within a radius of 500 metres from the body, and that his car was found at a distance of about 2.5 kilometres from the spot where the body was found.\nb.  Forensic examinations\n19.  An autopsy on Yusuf ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-156", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  P.L.Z., G.Z. and S.Z. were the owners of an apartment in Florence, which they had let to G.G.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 17 November 1986, they communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 11 December 1986, which was made enforceable on 23 March 1988, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n9.  On 8 October 1987, the applicant became the owner of the apartment.\n10.  On 8 April 1988, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 28 December 1990, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n12.  On 4 March 1991, the tenant having died in the meantime, she served notice on the latter's cohabiting daughter, requiring her to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 28 March 1991, the applicant served notice on her informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 17 May 1991.\n14.  Between 17 May 1991 and 23 May 1995, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On an unspecified date of 1998, the tenant's daughter spontaneously vacated the apartment ant the applicant repossessed the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-157", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  Mrs G.F. was the owner of an apartment in Rome, which she had let to L.N.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 April 1983, she communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 12 May 1983, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 September 1984. Upon the tenant's request, the Rome Magistrate postponed the execution of the order for possession to 31 January 1985.\n10.  On 4 February 1986, Mrs G.F. served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. On 27 February 1986, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 April 1986.\n11.  Between 30 April 1986 and 26 October 1989, the bailiff made sixteen attempts to recover possession.\n12.  On 15 November 1989, the applicants became the owners of the apartment.\n13.  After four unsuccessful attempts by the bailiff to evict the tenant, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for their daughter.\n14.  Between 14 November 1990 and 23 October 1998, the bailiff made thirty-six attempts to recover possession.\n15.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  On 26 November 1998, the tenant vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-158", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to E.P.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 June 1987, the applicant communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 18 June 1987, which was made enforceable on 29 June 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 June 1989.\n9.  On 16 May 1989 and again on 1 October 1990 the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 6 November 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 November 1990.\n11.  Between 23 November 1990 and 15 July 1999, the bailiff made thirty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.\n13.  In July 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-159", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Karlovac, Croatia.\n9.  On 18 September 1992 the applicant filed a civil action with the Karlovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Karlovcu), seeking damages for his destroyed property from an insurance company - C.O. The applicant claimed that an unknown person had set fire in his summer house in Pirovac, Croatia, and had also appropriated his property from the house.\n10.  Before 5 November 1997, i.e., the date of the entry of the Convention into force in respect of Croatia, the first instance court held three hearings.\n11.  At the hearing on 2 December 1997 the defendant asked the court to order the Šibenik Police Department (Policijska uprava Šibenska) to submit a report concerning the applicant's claim.\nOn 5 December 1997 the court ordered the Šibenik Police Department and the defendant's office in Šibenik to submit information relevant for the applicant's claim. Furthermore, the court ordered the Šibenik Public Prosecutor's Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Šibeniku) to inform it about criminal reports on arson submitted in the period relevant for the applicant's claim.\nThe defendant's office in Šibenik replied on 22 December 1997, the Šibenik Public Prosecutor's Office on 2 January 1998 and the Šibenik Police Department on 12 January 1998.\n12.  According to the Government the hearing scheduled for 12 May 1998 was adjourned because the applicant's counsel had not received the notice of the hearing date.\nAccording to the applicant the hearing on 12 May 1998 was held in his presence. The defendant repeated its request from the previous hearing that the court order the Šibenik Police Department to submit a report relevant for the applicant's claim. The applicant replied that the defendant was already in possession of that report and accused the defendant's counsel of lying. The judge left the courtroom.\n13.  According to the Government, since neither the applicant nor his counsel, although notified, appeared at the hearing scheduled for 6 October 1998 the court stayed the proceedings (mirovanje postupka).\nAccording to the applicant he had never been notified of the hearing date.\n14.  On 12 January 1999 the applicant's counsel requested the court to resume the proceedings.\n15.  On 21 January 1999 the Karlovac Municipal Court struck out the applicant's claim. On 3 February 1999 the applicant appealed against that decision. On 17 March 1999 the Karlovac County Court (Županijski sud u Karlovcu) quashed the first instance decision and remitted the case to the Karlovac Municipal Court.\n16.  It appears that the applicant filed a motion requesting that the presiding judge be removed from the case. On 5 July 1999 the President of the Karlovac Municipal Court rejected the request.\n17.  At the hearing on 5 October 1999 the court invited the defendant to submit its observations on the County Court's decision of 17 March 1999 within 30 days.\nOn 12 October 1999 the defendant filed its submissions.\n18.  On 14 February 2000 the applicant increased the sum sought.\n19.  At the next hearing on 17 May 2000 the court decided that it would order the Šibenik Public Prosecutor's Office to submit further information concerning the arson in the applicant's house.\nOn 9 June 2000 the Šibenik Public Prosecutor's Office submitted the requested information.\n20.  According to the Government, on 21 July 2000 the court scheduled the next hearing for 10 October 2000, but the applicant failed to collect the notice of t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-160", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The first applicant, Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag, a taxi company, was dissolved due to a lack of assets on 2 December 1997. The second applicant, Nino Vulic, was the director of the first applicant. At the time when the tax liability in dispute in the present case arose, he owned 50% of its shares. Later, he acquired all the shares of the company.\n9.  In the autumn of 1994, as part of a large-scale investigation into taxicab operators, the Tax Authority (skattemyndigheten) of the County of Stockholm carried out a tax audit concerning the first applicant's taxi business. Having previously submitted its tax returns for the assessment year 1994, the first applicant was asked to submit supplementary information on several occasions, starting on 29 November 1994. Having discovered in the course of the audit certain irregularities in the tax returns, the Tax Authority informed the first applicant on 20 February 1995 that it intended to revise upwards the figure given in the tax returns for the turnover of the taxi business and impose additional taxes and tax surcharges on the company. The first applicant was invited to submit further comments, which it did.\n10.  Having regard to the findings of the audit and the first applicant's observations, the Tax Authority – by a decision of 10 August 1995 – revised upwards the turnover of the company's business by more than 400,000 Swedish kronor (SEK). After deductions for undeclared salary and petrol costs, the Tax Authority's assessments resulted in an increase in the deficit of the first applicant's business. However, by decisions of 11 and 15 August 1995, the taxation bases for calculating value-added tax (mervärdesskatt) and employer's contributions (arbetsgivaravgifter) were raised upwards in correspondence with the turnover and, as a consequence, the first applicant's liability to value-added tax and employer's contributions were increased by SEK 47,956 and 125,650, respectively. Moreover, as the information supplied by the first applicant in its tax returns was found to be incorrect and its liability to value-added tax and employer's contributions had been increased under a discretionary assessment procedure, the Tax Authority ordered it to pay tax surcharges (skattetillägg, avgiftstillägg) amounting to 20% of the increased tax liability. The additional taxes levied on the first applicant, including interest and surcharges, totalled SEK 232,069, of which SEK 34,710 were surcharges. It appears that the whole of the amount was payable in October 1995.\n11.  On 11 August 1995 the Tax Authority presented a report, according to which it intended to raise upwards the second applicant's taxable income and impose a tax surcharge, as a consequence of the assessments concerning the first applicant. The second applicant was invited to submit comments, which he did.\n12.  By a decision of 6 October 1995 the Tax Authority increased the second applicant's liability to income tax by SEK 146,602. Like the first applicant, and for the same reasons, he was ordered to pay tax surcharges. The additional tax levied on the second applicant, including interest and surcharges, totalled SEK 226,776, of which SEK 57,757 were surcharges. The whole of the amount was payable on 12 February 1996.\n13.  Claiming that the information relied upon by the Tax Authority to calculate the turnover of the first applicant's business was inaccurate, both applicants challenged the Tax Authority's decisions, the first applicant on 4 Sept", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-161", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  In the autumn of 1995, as part of a large-scale investigation into taxicab operators, the Tax Authority (skattemyndigheten) of the County of Stockholm carried out a tax audit of the applicant's taxi firm. Having discovered in the course of the audit certain irregularities in the tax returns for the assessment year 1994, the Tax Authority drafted an audit report on 1 December 1995 containing a supplementary tax assessment and invited the applicant to submit comments. The applicant challenged the report and requested that further investigative measures be carried out.\n9.  Having regard to the findings of the audit and the applicant's observations, the Tax Authority – by decisions of 22 and 27 December 1995 – increased the applicant's liability to income tax by 286,859 Swedish kronor (SEK), to value-added tax (mervärdesskatt) by SEK 192,866 and to employer's contributions (arbetsgivaravgifter) by SEK 253,783. Moreover, as the information supplied by the applicant in his tax returns was found to be incorrect and the figure given for the turnover of the business had been revised upwards under a discretionary assessment procedure, the Tax Authority ordered him to pay tax surcharges (skattetillägg, avgiftstillägg) amounting to 20% or 40% of the increased tax liability, depending on the type of tax involved. The additional taxes levied on the applicant, including interest and surcharges, totalled SEK 1,020,300, of which SEK 161,261 were surcharges. The amounts relating to value-added tax and employer's contributions were payable on 5 January 1996 and those relating to income tax on 10 April 1996.\n10.  Claiming that the information relied upon by the Tax Authority to calculate the turnover of his business was inaccurate, the applicant, by a letter of 8 March 1996, requested the Authority to reconsider its decisions. As he risked being declared bankrupt before his tax liability had been determined by the courts, he also requested a stay of execution in respect of the amounts assessed. The request was prompted by the fact that neither an appeal to a court nor a request for reconsideration by the Tax Authority had in itself any suspensive effect on the obligation to pay the taxes and surcharges due as a result of the impugned decisions.\n11.  In letters of 19 April 1996 to the applicant's counsel the Tax Authority responded to the applicant's request for a stay of execution as follows:\n“... The Tax Authority considers that the prerequisites laid down in section 49, subsection 1(2) or (3), of the Tax Collection Act [Uppbördslagen, 1953:272] for granting a stay of execution have been fulfilled.\nAccording to section 49, subsection 2, of the Tax Collection Act, the Tax Authority may, in certain cases, require that security be provided for any amount in respect of which a stay of execution is sought.\nHaving regard to the information contained in [the applicant's] tax return and considering the other circumstances in the case, the Tax Authority finds that [the applicant's] ability to pay is open to serious doubt.\nThe Tax Authority is of the opinion that [the applicant] has to provide security for the amount ... in respect of which he has requested a stay of execution. Only a banker's guarantee will be accepted as security.\nYou are hereby invited to provide security. This should be done no later than 8 May 1996.\nShould you fail to provide security by the date mentioned above, the Tax Authority will reject your request.”\n12.  By decisions of 21 May 1996", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-162", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant company, Sovtransavto Holding, an international transport undertaking, is a Russian limited company that was set up in 1993 and has its registered office in Moscow.\n10.  Between 1993 and 1997 the applicant company held 49% of the shares in Sovtransavto-Lugansk, a Ukrainian public limited company.\n11.  On 3 January 1996 a general meeting of Sovtransavto-Lugansk's shareholders adopted a resolution altering the company's memorandum and articles of association, converting it into a private limited company. On 23 January 1996 the Lugansk Executive Council (виконавчий комітет), a municipal body legally vested with the requisite power, ratified the decision of 3 January.\n12.  By decisions of 26 December 1996, 11 August 1997 and 20 October 1997, Sovtransavto-Lugansk's managing director increased the company's share capital, each time by one-third, and altered its memorandum and articles of association accordingly. These decisions were ratified by the Lugansk Executive Council on 30 December 1996, 12 August 1997 and 18 November 1997 respectively.\n13.  These increases in Sovtransavto-Lugansk's share capital enabled its directors to assume sole control of the company's management and assets. The applicant company's shareholding fell from 49% to 20.7%.\n14.  According to the applicant company, between 1997 and 1999 some of Sovtransavto-Lugansk's assets were sold to various undertakings that had been set up by its managing director.\n15.  On 25 June 1997 the applicant company lodged a complaint (Case no. 70/10-98) with the Lugansk Region Arbitration Tribunal (the court of first instance in the present case) against Sovtransavto-Lugansk and the Lugansk Executive Council. It sought a declaration that the decisions altering Sovtransavto-Lugansk's memorandum and articles of association and the Executive Council's decision of 23 January 1996 ratifying the changes were unlawful. It submitted that, contrary to the requirements of the legislation in force and Sovtransavto-Lugansk's memorandum and articles of association, the general meeting on 3 January 1996 had been organised without the participation or agreement of the representatives of Sovtransavto Holding. Moreover, the minutes had not been signed by all the shareholders. On 4 August 1997 the Arbitration Tribunal rejected the applicant company's claim.\n16.  On 9 September 1997 the applicant company lodged with the President of the Lugansk Region Arbitration Tribunal an application for revision under the “supervisory review” procedure (заява про перевірку рішення у порядку нагляду) [Note by the Registry. Under the arbitration rules in force prior to 21 June 2001, an application for revision was a remedy that allowed the parties to seek “supervisory review” of a final judgment or order of an arbitration tribunal] of the judgment of 4 August 1997. In a judgment of 14 October 1997, the tribunal's Vice-President refused the application.\n17.  On 21 November 1997 the applicant company applied to a bench of the Ukrainian Supreme Arbitration Tribunal seeking revision under the “supervisory review” procedure of the two judgments mentioned above. In a judgment of 6 March 1998 the bench set aside the judgments of 4 August and 14 October 1997 on the ground that the tribunals concerned had not taken sufficient account of the facts of the case and the applicant company's arguments. It remitted the case for reconsideration to the Kiev Region Arbitration Tribunal (which thus became the court of first i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-163", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, who was born in 1910, is currently in custody in the Santé Prison in Paris.\n9.  From May 1942 to August 1944 the applicant was the secretary-general of the Gironde prefecture under the authority of the prefect, Maurice Sabatier.\n10.  After the Liberation, according to figures provided by the applicant, more than 30,000 civil servants who had served under the Occupation were punished and several thousand people were executed, both officially and unofficially.\n11.  In an opinion dated 6 December 1944 the Ministry of the Interior's Committee for the Purge of Collaborators (comité d'épuration) proposed that the applicant should retain his post, taking the view that although he had held office under the Vichy regime, he had shown a favourable attitude towards the Resistance. He was therefore allowed to continue serving as head of the private office of Gaston Cusin, the Bordeaux Commissioner of the Republic.\n12.  He was appointed to the rank of prefect and posted to Corsica in 1947, then served as Paris Police Commissioner from 1958 to 1966. He was a member of Parliament from 1968 to 1978 and mayor of Saint-Amand-Montrond from 1971 to 1988. He served as chairman of the Finance Committee of the National Assembly from 1972 to 1973 and then as the general rapporteur on the budget until 1978. From 1978 to 1981 he was Minister for the Budget.\n13.  On 6 May 1981, between the two rounds of the presidential election, the weekly newspaper Le Canard Enchaîné published the first of a series of articles in which the applicant, who was Minister for the Budget at the time, was criticised for his behaviour during the Second World War.\n14.  The applicant asked the Action Committee of the Resistance to appoint a court of honour to assess his conduct under the German occupation. On 15 December 1981, having examined his immediate hierarchical superior, Maurice Sabatier, who said that he assumed “full responsibility for the anti-Jewish repression for which his prefecture was responsible”, the court of honour delivered a verdict in which it formally acknowledged that the applicant had been a member of the Resistance from January 1943 onwards but concluded “that in the very name of the principles which he believed he was defending, and not having been instructed to remain in his post by a competent authority of the Resistance, he should have resigned from his post as secretary-general of Gironde in July 1942”.\n15.  On 8 December 1981 a lawyer named Boulanger lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant together with a civil-party application for crimes against humanity, aiding and abetting murder and abuse of official authority in connection with the deportation of eight persons arrested by the French police in Bordeaux and held in Bordeaux and then in Drancy Camp before being deported to Auschwitz and exterminated there. Six other criminal complaints together with civil-party applications relating to seventeen other victims of deportations were lodged in March and April 1982 by another lawyer, Mr Serge Klarsfeld, who is also the chairman of the association “Sons and daughters of France's Jewish deportees”. On 29 July 1982 the Bordeaux public prosecutor's office asked for investigations to be opened in respect of all seven complaints.\n16.  On 19 January 1983 the applicant was charged with crimes against humanity by the chief investigating judge at the Bordeaux tribunal de grande instance.\n17.  On 22 February 1984 the investigating judge com", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-164", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1950 and 1938 and live at Irigny, at Colombes and in Paris respectively.\n12.  The applicant was arrested on 15 April 1992 and charged by an investigating judge at Mâcon tribunal de grande instance with using a vehicle registration document that had been obtained illegally and handling a stolen vehicle. He was remanded in custody from 16 April to 18 May 1992. On 31 March 1994 he was committed to stand trial before the Mâcon Criminal Court.\n13.  In a judgment of 21 October 1994 the Mâcon Criminal Court dismissed the applicant's application to have the proceedings set aside as defective and, finding him guilty, imposed a suspended sentence of eight months' imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 French francs (FRF). The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 2 February 1995 the Dijon Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Criminal Court in its entirety. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation.\n15.  By a judgment of 17 January 1996 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal.\n16.  On 5 November 1994 the applicant was caught by a speed trap while at the wheel of his vehicle. The gendarmerie reported him for exceeding the speed limit by at least 40 k.p.h., namely by driving at 143 k.p.h. in a 90 k.p.h. speed-limit zone.\n17.  On 14 March 1995 the Melle Police Court found him guilty of the offence, and imposed a fine of FRF 1,500 and banned him from driving for twenty-one days.\n18.  On 15 December 1995 the Poitiers Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, and increased the fine to FRF 3,000 and the ban to three months.\n19.  By a judgment of 6 August 1996 the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n20.  On 11 November 1994 the police reported the applicant for two offences of failing to stop at a red traffic light. He was summoned to appear at the Paris Police Court for a hearing on 8 March 1995.\n21.  On 12 April 1995 the Paris Police Court found the applicant guilty of the offences. It imposed two fines of FRF 1,800 each and banned him from driving for one month.\n22.  On 27 October 1995 the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Police Court in its entirety. On 2 November 1995 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. He sought communication of the advocate-general's written submissions in order to be able to reply to them, but to no avail.\n23.  By a judgment of 10 July 1996 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-165", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are fishermen operating in the coastal region of the Gulf of Bothnia on the basis of leases contracted with the State in 1989 and renewed in 1995 (for a further period ending in 1999) as well as in 2000 (for the period 2000-04).\n9.  By virtue of section 116, subsection 3, of the 1982 Fishing Act (kalastuslaki, lag om fiske 286/1982) the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry may restrict fishing, inter alia, if this is deemed necessary in order to safeguard future fish stocks. Since 1986 the Ministry has imposed such restrictions by issuing decrees. The restrictions have varied to some degree as regards their timing, territorial scope, the fish species in question and the prohibited fishing gear. The restrictions may also extend to private waters.\n10.  In 1991 Mr Rahko and others challenged the lawfulness of Decree no. 684/1991 (“the 1991 Decree”), whereby fishing with certain gear had been prohibited, inter alia, in waters leased by him. In its judgment of 14 June 1991 the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) declined to examine the merits of the appeal, considering that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appellants' demands that the decree be revoked and the implementation thereof stayed.\n11.  By Decree no. 231/1994, which entered into force on 1 April 1994 (“the 1994 Decree”), the Ministry prohibited salmon fishing with certain gear during certain periods in the main basin of the Baltic Sea, in the Gulf of Bothnia and in the Simojoki River. The restrictions concerned the fishing of salmon between certain latitudes in the open sea and in coastal waters as well as in certain rivers and their estuaries, and extended to the fishing waters which the applicants were leasing from the State. The decree was later repealed and replaced by Decree no. 258/1996 (“the 1996 Decree”). The date of entry into force of the last-mentioned decree (29 April 1996) was specified by Decree no. 262/1996. In so far as the restriction concerned the applicants, it was maintained on substantially similar terms by Decree no. 266/1998, which entered into force on 16 April 1998 (“the 1998 Decree”).\n12.  On 25 November 1994, in response to a petition lodged by the applicants and others, the Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan oikeusasiamies, riksdagens justitieombudsman) found no indication that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had, in restricting the salmon fishing in certain waters, acted contrary to, inter alia, the Supreme Administrative Court's decision of 30 May 1980 (see paragraph 25 below) or otherwise incorrectly.\n13.  On 21 March 1995 the applicants and the State extended their respective leases up to the end of 1999. In so far as relevant to the present case, the leases referred back to the terms of the 1989 leases.\n14.  In a further decision of 26 May 1995, in response to a petition by others, the Ombudsman considered that, in issuing the 1994 Decree, the Ministry had not exceeded the powers which the Fishing Act had conferred upon it. After hearing submissions from the Ministry he concluded that the restrictions set forth in the decree had been justified in order to safeguard the fish stocks. In so far as the petitioners had complained of discriminatory treatment, the Ombudsman noted that the restrictions had differed from area to area in order to take into account the spawning routes of the salmon. He therefore accepted that there had been sufficient justification for the diffe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-166", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1960 and he lives in Leicester. He is the eldest of three children. He was in voluntary care with the social services' department of the local authority for five periods during his childhood: 8 September – 6 November 1961, 15 February – 20 July 1962, 26 October – 23 December 1962, 4 April 1963 – 4 April 1966 and 16 January – 8 April 1967.\n10.  During these periods his mother was receiving periodic psychiatric treatment and his father had some difficulty coping with the children on his own. The applicant had contact with both parents while in care: there was contact each week and weekend during the second period of care, there were visits over every weekend and then fortnightly weekend visits by the end of the fourth (and longest) period, and those fortnightly weekend visits continued during the fifth period of care. It is not known how much parental contact there was during the first and third periods of care.\n11.  By letter dated 10 April 1995, the applicant requested access to his social service records. By letters dated 5 and 9 June 1995, he requested specific information including whether he had ever been on the “risk register”, whether his father had been investigated or convicted of crimes against children and about the responsibility of the local authority for abuse he had suffered as a child.\n12.  On 13 June 1995 a social worker discussed with the applicant the access procedures and the information sought. On 27 June 1995 that social worker went through background information gleaned from the file with the applicant (concerning the dates and places of care) and provided him with hand-written notes of that information.\n13.  On 22 August 1995 the same social worker provided the applicant with further information gleaned from the file in the form of typed notes (covering September 1961 to March 1966). She also discussed certain areas of particular concern to the applicant including the impact of childhood neglect and ill-treatment which he remembered at the hands of his father, his feelings about having had a violent father and his vague suspicions of having been abused while in local authority institutional care. They also discussed the allegations of ill-treatment of the applicant by his father which had been made by neighbours via the school to the local authority in November 1966, and the consequent investigation and decisions made by the local authority. The social worker also provided the applicant with various documents, including letters from his father to the social services between August 1962 and February 1967, social service progress reports dated November 1961 and April 1963, medical treatment permission forms signed by his father between September 1961 and February 1962, child care agreements with his father from September 1961 to April 1963, a medical report card dated January 1967 and a copy of his birth certificate. He was also given a report of a Child Care Officer dated 16 March 1967 (which was prepared for a case conference to be held on 17 March 1967) together with notes of that case conference. The latter report provided further detail of the allegations of ill-treatment in November 1966, of the consequent investigation and of the recommendations of the Child Care Officer.\n14.  By letter dated 18 September 1995, the social worker wrote to the applicant with more typed information taken from his file. That note dealt with the period April 1966 – September 1976. It included brief re", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-167", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant formerly managed “The Godfather Restaurant” in Newcastle upon Tyne, which was operated by a company of which the applicant was a director. Following an inquiry by the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise in 1988 into the restaurant and the applicant, the company went into liquidation and ownership of the lease of the restaurant was transferred to a new company controlled by the applicant. However, the restaurant was run by a succession of management companies under short-term management contracts. The various companies were all registered for Value Added Tax (“VAT”) purposes but failed to make any VAT payments or returns to the Customs and Excise authorities. In addition, wages were paid to employees in cash and were not declared to the Inland Revenue. The resulting loss of VAT was assessed at approximately 460,000 pounds sterling (“GBP”) and the accumulated losses in respect of Income Tax and National Insurance contributions were assessed at GBP 360,000. In September 1994 the applicant was declared bankrupt as a result of civil proceedings brought by the Inland Revenue to recover unpaid tax.\n9.  On 25 November 1994 the applicant was arrested and on 26 November 1994 charged with various offences of fraudulently evading VAT. He was remanded in custody. His applications for bail on 12 April 1995, 13 June 1995 and 7 December 1995 were refused.\n10.  The applicant was granted legal aid on 1 March 1995. The legal aid order covered both the committal hearings and the actual trial. The applicant was represented throughout the proceedings by a Queen's Counsel (“QC”), who was also a Recorder, a very experienced junior counsel and two different firms of solicitors.\n11.  On 3 March 1995 the Newcastle upon Tyne Magistrates' Court committed the applicant for trial before the Crown Court at Newcastle.\n12.  Preliminary hearings were held on 10 April 1995 and 2 June 1995. At the hearing of 16 June 1995 the applicant was indicted with two others on two counts of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of VAT (between 22 May 1989 and 25 July 1994) and of taking steps with a view to the fraudulent evasion of VAT (between 25 July 1994 and 24 November 1994). The applicant pleaded not guilty.\n13.  At none of these hearings did either the applicant or his legal team request the provision of an interpreter, nor suggest to the court that the applicant required the services of an interpreter.\n14.  At the trial on 4 January 1996, the applicant, on the advice of counsel, changed his plea to guilty. He was also indicted on another count of cheating the public revenue and pleaded guilty to that charge too. The court was informed that the applicant disagreed on the quantum of the sums which formed the basis of the plea with the consequence that further discussion was needed on this matter with the prosecution. Defence counsel informed the court for the first time that the applicant had:\n“considerable difficulty in communicating, save in very simple concepts, in English. Now for the purpose of consultation we can get by, but one of the difficulties is that his English is very poor and his Italian is very Southern”.\n15.  Counsel invited the court to direct that an interpreter be present at the subsequent hearing, given that at either a hearing or indeed a plea:\n“... certain complicated matters might well have to be put before the court, and which he should understand as they are being put”.\n16.  The court granted this request and adjourned", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-169", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The first applicant, Mr Patrick Benjamin, was sentenced to life imprisonment for rape in 1983. His tariff period (the minimum period of detention satisfying the requirements of retribution and deterrence) was set at six years and expired in April 1989. His time in prison was characterised by periods of thought disorder, delusions and behavioural problems and the Secretary of State decided that he was in need of care and treatment in a secure hospital. In August 1989, he was made the subject of a transfer direction and a restriction order under, respectively, sections 47 and 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the 1983 Act) and transferred to Broadmoor Special Hospital.\n9.  In October 1993, the Secretary of State decided, following consultation with the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice, that the first applicant should be regarded as a “technical lifer” (that is a person who was suffering from a mental disorder which influenced him to a significant extent at the time of the offence although the court had not made a hospital order on sentencing).\n10.  In April 1994, the first applicant was transferred to Bracton Clinic Regional Secure Unit. On 1 July 1996, his case for discharge was considered by the Mental Health Review Tribunal which found that it was not satisfied that the first applicant did not any longer require treatment in a hospital for mental illness.\n11.  When his case was reviewed most recently, on 9 January 2001, the MHR Tribunal recommended his discharge. The Secretary of State accepted the recommendation and the first applicant was discharged.\n12.  The second applicant, Mr Hueth Wilson, was sentenced to life imprisonment for buggery of a young girl in 1977. The court had before it psychiatric evidence to the effect that he suffered from mental illness. Expert psychiatric evidence recommended that he should be made subject to a hospital order coupled with a restriction order without limit of time under sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1959. Due to an absence of any beds in hospitals providing the level of security that the trial judge considered necessary, the judge felt unable to make the orders and passed, instead, a discretionary life sentence. The judge commented that the second applicant could later be transferred to hospital if his condition required it. His tariff period was set at eight years and expired in 1984.\n13.  In August 1977, the second applicant was transferred to hospital under the Mental Health Act 1959 (later replaced by the 1983 Act). In November 1977, the applicant returned to prison and there were several other transfers to and from hospital in subsequent years. In October 1992, the second applicant was transferred to Rampton Special Hospital under sections 47 and 49 of the 1983 Act. In June 1993, following consultation with the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice, the Secretary of State decided that the second applicant should be regarded as a “technical lifer”.\n14.  On 6 July 1996 the MHR Tribunal considered the second applicant's case for discharge and found that they were not satisfied that he no longer required treatment in hospital for mental illness. His case was reviewed most recently on 13 June 2000 when the Tribunal again did not recommend discharge.\n15.  By decisions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department communicated to the applicants in October and November 1992, the Secretary of State refused to certify the applicants as eligible for review by the discretio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-170", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1930 and living in Warsaw.\n9.  On 2 November 1987 the applicant lodged a motion with the Warsaw District Court, claiming division of conjugal property, consisting, as she claimed, of 42 pieces of movable property. Subsequently, hearings were held on, inter alia, 18 May 1988, 11 January 1989 and 17 February 1989.\n10.  In 1990 an expert submitted a report concerning the value of movable property. Apparently, on an unspecified later date, the President of the District Court, following the applicant’s complaints about the lack of progress in the case, ordered that the conduct of the proceedings be supervised by him. On an unspecified date in 1991 the case was transferred to another judge rapporteur. On 1 April 1992 the applicant again complained about the excessive length of the proceedings.\n11.  On an unspecified date the defendant claimed that a house in which the applicant lived should be included in the property concerned. On an unspecified date four years after the beginning of the proceedings he submitted certain documents to prove that his family had borne certain costs relating to the construction of the house. On 15 January 1992 a hearing was held and the court ordered that an expert report be prepared to estimate the value of the house. On 9 February 1993 the defendant proposed that a court settlement be concluded. The applicant did not accept the proposed terms. On the whole, 22 hearings were held until 1 May 1993, the date on which Poland’s recognition of the right of individual petition became effective.\n12.  In 1993 further hearings were held on 17 August, 16 September, 2 November and 2 December. Later on, the court again appointed an expert with the task of producing an estimate of the value of movable property. The defendant twice failed to make his property accessible to the expert.\n13.  In reply to the applicant’s fresh complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings, on 2 July 1994 the President of the Warsaw Regional Court informed her that the case was complex as the property concerned consisted of a substantial number of objects. Moreover, the parties submitted conflicting claims as to whether a certain plot of land constituted a part of this property, and concerning expenditure borne by them. What was more, the parties had repeatedly submitted new requests for evidence to be taken, which the court had allowed. As a result, further hearings had been held on 2 November and 2 December 1993, 11 July and 27 September 1994. Two further expert opinions had been prepared in order to complete the previously submitted opinions, as the lapse of time had rendered the old ones obsolete.\n14.  On 2 November 1994 the applicant submitted her further pleadings. On 4 November 1994 a hearing was held. As witness R.S. failed to attend, the court imposed a fine on her and adjourned the hearing for 18 November 1994. On that day, the court lifted the fine as R.S. had informed the court that she was of advanced age and could therefore not come to the court.\n15.  On 8 February 1995 the court ordered that enforcement proceedings be instituted against the applicant as she had failed to pay her part of the expert’s fees, despite two summonses to do so.\n16.  On 14 March 1995 the court ordered that a new expert, M.S., draw up a further opinion as to the value of movables in order to complement the opinions that had been prepared previously. On 22 March 1995 the defendant submitted his new plea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-171", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1956 respectively. They are a married couple and live in Karaman (Turkey).\n10.  In 1974, the first applicant moved from Turkey to the Netherlands where he was employed as a dockworker until 24 September 1984, when he stopped working on account of certain mental problems apparently related to his difficulties in coping with the death of his first wife in 1981.\n11.  After having received sickness benefits for the maximum period, he was granted combined disability benefits as from 21 September 1985 under the General Labour Disablement Benefits Act (Algemene Arbeids-ongeschiktheidswet; “AAW”) and the Labour Disablement Insurance Act (Wet op de Arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering; “WAO”) in a decision of 23 September 1985 and on the basis of a finding of being 80-100% incapacitated for work.\n12.  At an unspecified date in 1986, the applicants and their family returned permanently to Turkey, retaining the first applicant's right to AAW/WAO benefits.\n13.  In its decision of 3 November 1993, on the basis of medical examinations of the first applicant carried out on 3 August 1993 by an orthopaedic surgeon, and on 4 August 1993 by a social insurance medical specialist and a psychiatrist, the National Institute for Social Insurance (Landelijk instituut sociale verzekeringen; “LISV”) withdrew the first applicant's AAW/WAO benefits as from 14 April 1994, on the basis of a finding that his incapacity for work had diminished to less than 25% for the purposes of the AAW and to less than 15% for the purposes of the WAO.\n14.  On 30 November 1993, the first applicant filed an appeal against this decision with the Hague Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank). On 23 December 1994, the Regional Court requested the first applicant to submit updated information about his medical condition and the names of the doctors who were treating him.\n15.  Following a hearing held on 12 July 1995, the Hague Regional Court rejected this appeal on 16 August 1995. The first applicant filed a further appeal with the Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep).\n16.  The first applicant's lawyer submitted the written grounds for appeal to the Central Appeals Tribunal on 22 September 1995. On 2 October 1995 the Central Appeals Tribunal confirmed receipt of the appeal and, on 14 November 1995, informed the first applicant's lawyer that, due to its heavy workload, it would take some time before the first applicant's appeal could be heard. The LISV submitted its response to the first applicant's grounds of appeal on 13 December 1995.\n17.  On 8 April 1996, the first applicant's case was added to the Central Appeal Tribunal's list of cases awaiting preparation for a hearing. On 12 June 1997, it was submitted to the presiding judge of the relevant section of the Central Appeals Tribunal for entry on the case-list. On 16 October 1997, the parties were informed that a hearing had been scheduled for 26 November 1997.\n18.  On 26 November 1997, a hearing was held before the Central Appeals Tribunal. At the beginning of this hearing the first applicant's lawyer, referring to the conclusion reached by the European Commission of Human Rights that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the duration of similar proceedings in the case of Düman v. the Netherlands (application no. 18266/91, Commission's report of 5 April 1995, unreported), stated to find it incomprehensible that it should take more than four yea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-172", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Turin, which he had let to F.C.\n8.  In a registered letter of 7 June 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n9.  On 29 June 1991, he served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on the same day, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 2 October 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n12.  On 23 January 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 10 December 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n14.  On 24 February 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 April 1993.\n15.  Between 6 April 1993 and 16 March 1999, the bailiff made eighteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  Pursuant to Law 431/98, the period of enforcement of the order was suspended.\n17.  On an unspecified date of June 1999, the tenant vacated the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-174", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 14 June 1991 the Hamburg Regional Court convicted the applicant, a German national born in 1966, on charges of receiving stolen goods and theft and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. The execution of the sentence was suspended on probation for a period of four years.\n9.  On 18 March 1993 the Ahrensburg District Court convicted the applicant on charges of negligent drunken driving and negligent driving without licence and imposed a fine. Thereupon, the Hamburg Regional Court decided to prolong by two years the applicant's probationary period.\n10.  On 15 September 1995 the Hamburg Prosecutor's Office charged the applicant and two co-accused with several counts of fraud, committed between March 1993 and April 1994.\n11.  Moreover, on 28 September 1995 the applicant was issued with a penal order (Strafbefehl) by the Hamburg District Court in the framework of a summary procedure. He was sentenced to a fine of 30 German marks (DEM - approximately 15 Euro) per day for thirty days for an offence of fraud, committed in February 1994 to the detriment of Mr H. Upon the applicant's objection, lodged with the assistance of Mr Klingbeil, main proceedings were instituted before the District Court. On 24 November 1995 these proceedings and the proceedings concerning the charges of September 1995, were joined.\n12.  In May 2000 the Hamburg District Court convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to ten months' imprisonment. The proceedings concerning the charge of fraud to the detriment of Mr H. were provisionally stayed pursuant to section 154 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it appeared unnecessary to sanction the offence in question separately, the applicant having been sentenced to ten months' imprisonment in respect of the other fraud offences.\n13.  On 21 December 1995 the Kiel District Court issued a penal order against the applicant, convicting him of fraud, committed in August 1994. He was sentenced to a fine of DEM 20 per day for fifty days.\n14.  When the postman found nobody at the applicant's home, the order was served in accordance with the relevant legal provisions, by way of a notification in his letter-box on 10 January 1996 to collect the said decision deposited at the local post office in his absence. Since the applicant did not lodge an objection in time, the penal order acquired legal force as the final judgment in the matter on 25 January 1995. On 11 October 1996 the Rendsburg District Court granted the applicant's request for retrial.\n15.  On 2 April 1996 the Hamburg Regional Court informed the applicant of its intention to revoke the suspension of his sentence of 1991 and invited him to comment within a period of one week after service of the letter. Due to the applicant's absence from home, the letter was served by way of a notification in his letter-box on 6 April 1996 to collect the said letter at the local post office.\n16.  On 18 April 1996 the Hamburg Regional Court revoked the suspension of the applicant's sentence to two years' imprisonment, imposed on 14 June 1991.\n17.  In the reasons given for its decision, the Regional Court, referring to section 56f (1)(1) of the Penal Code, found that the applicant had committed criminal offences during the period of probation and had thereby shown that he did not fulfil the expectations upon which the suspension of the sentence was based.\n18.  The Regional Court noted that, subsequent to the said suspension, the applicant had been convicted of further crimi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-175", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Turin, which he had let to G.C.\n8.  In a writ of 7 November 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991, and asked him to vacate the premises by that date. He summoned him to appear before the Turin Magistrate on 29 November 1991.\n9.  By a decision of 22 January 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 22 January 1993.\n10.  On 24 December 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n11.  On 13 January 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 2 February 1993 he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 March 1993.\n13.  Between 9 March 1993 and 23 July 1998, the bailiff made fifteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On an unspecified day of July 1998, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-176", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 3 January 1997 the applicant and a co-defendant, M., were convicted of the robbery, false imprisonment and attempted murder of Mr Mohamed Mohamoud. The applicant was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. A third co-defendant, W., was convicted of robbery and false imprisonment.\n8.  According to the prosecution’s case, on 3 January 1996 Mr Mohamoud, who had spent some of the day selling Khat (a stimulant leaf), picked up W., a prostitute, and arranged to go to her home for sex. W. lived in a fourth-floor council flat which was also occupied by M. When they arrived there were three men, a woman and two teenagers in the flat. Mr Mohamoud was held by the applicant and searched at knife-point by M. who took thirty to forty pounds in cash from him and then left to buy drugs. M. later returned with a quantity of crack cocaine which the occupants of the flat, but not Mr Mohamoud, smoked.\n9.  Mr Mohamoud was then searched a second time by the applicant and W. and a further sum of money was taken from him. He was prevented all this time from leaving the flat by the applicant.\n10.  At some stage M.’s mood changed under the effects of the drugs and he became angry. M., together with the applicant and an unidentified woman, lifted Mr Mohamoud up and threw him out of the window. He fell four floors. He survived, although he was left paralysed from the waist down. The occupants of the flat made no attempt to call an ambulance. He managed to attract attention by throwing stones at the window of a ground-floor flat. An ambulance eventually arrived to take him to hospital.\n11.  M. was arrested on 13 January 1996, the applicant on 24 January and W. on 26 January.\n12.  The applicant was cautioned by the police in the following terms:\n“You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you say may be given in evidence.”\n13.  The applicant then told the police:\n“I’m relieved. I’ve expected this every time I’ve been to the shops.”\n14.  When being taken to the police station he further stated:\n“He wasn’t pushed. He jumped. How is he?” and “I can tell you everything, he jumped.”\n15.  The applicant was advised to wait until he was interviewed at the police station.\n16.  At the start of the interview on 24 January 1996 the applicant’s solicitor informed the police that he had had a lengthy private conversation with his client and had advised him not to reply to any questions at the present time. His reasons were based on what he had been told about the allegations and his view that it would not be reasonable for the applicant to answer questions at that stage. He informed the police that the applicant would be willing to take part in an identification procedure.\n17.  The applicant was reminded by the police that he was under caution and he confirmed that he understood the implications of the caution. Thereafter, the applicant answered “no comment” to each question and in particular did so when asked whether he was present at the flat at the time of the offences, whether he knew Mr Mohamoud, whether the latter was thrown out of the window and whether he would like to offer any account of the events in question. The applicant points out that the police never put to him his remark “He wasn’t pushed-he jumped” (see paragraph 14 above). The applicant submits that this statement was at the core of his defence and should have been referred to during interview.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-178", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 3 May 1995 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the Anti-Terror branch of the Ankara Police Headquarters. He was accused of being a member of an illegal organisation, the TDKP/GKB (Türk Devrimci Komünist Partisi/Genç Komünistler Birliği – The Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party/Young Communists' Union).\n8.  The applicant alleges that he was beaten, hung by his arms, given electric shocks to his body and threatened with death during his interrogation by the police officers.\n9.  On 15 May 1995 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Ankara Forensic Medicine Institute who noted in his report the presence of numerous differently shaped and coloured bruises on his shoulders, on the left upper part of his fist, his back and thigh. The doctor further noted the presence of four ecchymoses on the applicant's outer gluteal. The applicant was also suffering from pain in his chest. The doctor concluded that the applicant would be unfit for work for five days.\n10.  On 15 May 1995 the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor, Ali Rıza Konuralp, at the Ankara State Security Court. During his questioning the applicant denied the allegations against him and stated that he had signed his statement under duress. The applicant also refused to give a detailed statement, saying that he was suffering from trauma resulting from the severe torture to which he was subjected while in police custody.\n11.  On the same day the Ankara State Security Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand.\n12.  On 21 July 1995 the applicant submitted a written statement to the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court. The statement reads as follows:\n“On 3 May 1995 I was arrested by three plain-clothes men. ... They [later] told me that they were police officers. I was handcuffed and blindfolded. Thirty or forty minutes [after my arrest] I was brought to a deserted area. As soon as they took me out of the car they started beating me. At the same time they were asking me if I was a member of the terrorist organisation. ... They were also asking about the names of the other members. When I told them that I was not a member of the organisation they continued hitting and asking me the same questions again. They took off my clothes and beat me with my belt. This [treatment] continued for three hours. ... Afterwards they put a gun to my head and threatened me with death. I repeated that I had nothing to say. They told me that they would take me to Gölbaşı and that I would get lost there. They also told me that they would not kill me immediately because they wanted me first to suffer. It was getting dark. They put me in the car and drove towards a building, which, I understood afterwards, was the Ankara Police Headquarters. I was dragged into a cell. I do not remember what they were saying because I was unconscious. I only remember them hitting me. After a while they took me out of the cell and brought me into a room called “the room with mirrors”. [My wife was there]. ... They told me that they would let us go if I told them the truth. ... After a while they brought me back to the cell. Two days later they came back to my cell with some papers. They wanted me to sign the papers. After having read the papers I told them that I would not sign the papers because those papers contained untrue statements about my wife and me. They again brought me to the room with mirrors. A.K with whom I was working was there. They told me that A.K and", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-179", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Sonsbeck (Germany).\n11.  On 12 January 1993 the applicant was arrested in connection with an anti-drug-trafficking operation as a result of which the Sintra public prosecutor’s office brought criminal proceedings against about forty persons. The applicant was interviewed on 13 January 1993 by an investigating judge, in the presence of an interpreter and a lawyer appointed under the legal-aid scheme, and was then placed in pre-trial detention.\n12.  On 21 January 1993 a search of his home was carried out and large sums of money in several different currencies and a self-defence spray were seized.\n13.  On 28 April 1993 the applicant, represented by a lawyer whom he had in the meantime authorised to act for him, asked to be interviewed in the presence of another person involved in the case, one A.G. That request was refused on an unspecified date.\n14.  On 7 January 1994 the public prosecutor’s office filed the prosecution submissions (acusação) against the applicant and forty-three other persons. Mr Czekalla was accused of aggravated drug trafficking and conspiracy (associação criminosa). The indictment listed fifty prosecution witnesses and the submissions ran to 156 pages.\n15.  On 19 January 1994 the applicant asked the judge to let him have a copy of the case file so that he could prepare his defence. The judge granted his request and the file was made available to the applicant’s lawyer at the registry of the Sintra District Court.\n16.  On 23 January 1994 the applicant applied to the judge personally in English, asking for a translation of the prosecution submissions into German, his native language. On 27 January 1994 the investigating judge at the Sintra District Court, ruling on the basis of Article 92 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, refused that application without looking into its merits on the ground that it was not written in Portuguese.\n17.  In a letter of 16 February 1994 the German embassy in Lisbon asked the Sintra District Court to send the applicant a German translation of the prosecution submissions. The embassy later informed the court that it could assist it by providing the services of a sworn translator (letter of 8 September 1994).\n18.  On 20 February 1994 the applicant submitted a request similar to that of 23 January 1994 but written in Portuguese. In response to that request, on 27 April 1994, an interpreter appointed by the Sintra District Court went to the prison where the applicant was being held and gave him an oral translation of the prosecution submissions.\n19.  As a number of the accused had asked for the judicial investigation to be formally opened, that was done, on 16 March 1994. An adversarial hearing was held on 21 April 1994. On 27 April 1994 the investigating judge made an order (despacho de pronuncía) committing thirty-five of the accused, including the applicant, for trial. The order was read out to all the accused and simultaneous interpretation was provided in several foreign languages.\n20.  On 28 June 1994 the applicant filed his defence pleadings and submitted a list of the defence witnesses.\n21.  In a judgment of 7 July 1994 the Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal de Justiça) ruled that the Sintra District Court could hold the trial on the premises of the Lisbon Criminal Court in Monsanto on account of the lack of space at its own courthouse in Sintra.\n22.  The trial began on 8 November 1994 and lasted for eight months, during which fifty-eigh", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-180", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant inherited a piece of land along with three other persons in Seydişehir. He holds a title deed to the land as a joint owner.\n8.  In 1976 the authorities conducted a land registry survey in Seydişehir and revised the local plans. Following this revision, the land in question was registered in the Land Registry with the title of six other persons (Zehra Özden and five others: 'the defendants') along with the applicant's and the three other persons' title ('the plaintiffs') as the heirs of Mr Kara Beşe Ahmet Bin-i Ali Efendi (A.E.).\n9.  On 3 August 1977 the applicant and the three other plaintiffs brought an action in the Seydişehir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) against Zehra Özden and five defendants. The applicant and his co-plaintiffs stated that the land in question had belonged to their and the defendants' testator (muris), A.E. They alleged, however, that A.E. was not the owner of the land before his death since he had transferred the land to their mother in 1953. In support of this allegation they submitted a title deed dated 21 December 1953 bearing their mother's name as well as invoices indicating that their mother used to pay taxes in respect of the land.\n10.  The applicant and his co-plaintiffs requested the court to order the revision of the Land Registry and to determine that Zehra Özden and her five co-defendants had no rights to the land since they were not the heirs of their mother. They further asked the court to order that the land in question be registered under their title alone.\n11.  In the proceedings before the court, three of the defendants acknowledged the applicant's and his co-plaintiffs' claim and agreed that the land should be registered under their title.\n12.  On 6 November 1978 an expert and a judge, Mr Orhan Gündem, from the Seydişehir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, conducted a survey of the land.\n13.  On 4 October 1984 an expert and a judge, Mrs Canan Karcı, from the same court, conducted a second survey of the land.\n14.  On 12 December 1988 the Seydişehir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction issued a decision finding that it lacked jurisdiction, following the entry into force of Law no. 3402 abolishing the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts of General Jurisdiction on land registry matters.\n15.  On 26 January 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Ministry of Justice complaining that the impugned proceedings lasted unreasonably long.\n16.  On 14 September 1994 the Seydişehir Chief Public Prosecutor, with reference to the applicant's petition to the Ministry of Justice, sent a letter to the applicant explaining the reasons for the length of the proceedings. He stated that the heavy workload of the court, the change in the composition of the court on sixteen occasions, the resignation or dismissal of the parties' representatives on three occasions, the death of two of the defendants, the parties' requests for an extension of time-limits on three occasions, the parties' failure to attend the trials and other legal reasons had delayed the proceedings. He further stated that the courts had held seventy-nine hearings and had conducted two surveys of the land.\n17.  On 17 May 1996 the judge of the Seydişehir Cadastre Court and an expert conducted a third survey of the land.\n18.  On 20 March 1998 the Seydişehir Cadastre Court dismissed the case brought by the applicant and his co-plaintiffs. The court held that their mother did not have a title to the land si", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-181", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a British national, born in Karachi, Pakistan, in 1953 and living in Melling, Merseyside.\n8.  The applicant qualified as a surgeon in Pakistan in 1978 and came to the United Kingdom in 1980. In 1986 she was appointed to the post of Ear, Nose and Throat Registrar at Walton Hospital in Merseyside.\n9.  In July 1988, the Mersey Regional Health Authority (“the Health Authority”) held reviews of the nine non-rotational registrars, including the applicant. The applicant alleged that she was treated less favourably than others, on racial grounds, in relation to the review and in relation to other aspects of her training and employment.\n10.  On 25 October 1988, the applicant, supported by the Commission for Racial Equality, commenced proceedings in the Liverpool Employment Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) against the Health Authority and others alleging discrimination contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976 (“the first claim”).\n11.  The respondents’ defence (“Notice of Appearance”) was filed on 30 November 1988, fourteen days after the expiry of the relevant time-limit.\n12.  The case was originally to be listed for hearing in January 1989, but the applicant declined the proposed dates because she would be busy with examinations. The hearing on the merits took place between 21-23 February 1989 but could not be concluded within the period foreseen by the parties, so was adjourned to 10-13 April 1989.\n13.  The Tribunal’s decision, dismissing the applicant’s claim, was given on 9 May 1989, and received by the applicant on 15 May 1989.\n14.  On 4 May 1989, prior to the delivery of the Tribunal’s decision, the applicant had submitted an “Application for Perjury”, alleging that two of the respondents’ witnesses had given false evidence. She was informed by a letter dated 11 May 1989 that her allegations had not prevented the Tribunal from issuing its decision, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to take action over perjury, which was a criminal offence. The applicant responded on 21 May 1989 that she wished her “Application for Perjury” to be treated as an application for review, and she submitted a full application on 28 May 1989. The Tribunal may exercise its powers of review on limited grounds, such as emergence of new evidence, a decision made in the absence of a party or “the interests of justice”.\n15.  The Tribunal heard the application for review on 16 August 1989. In its decision of 31 August 1989 the Tribunal granted leave for a review on two grounds: whether two of the respondents’ witnesses had given false evidence as to the qualifications necessary for appointment as Senior Registrar, and whether an assessment form about the applicant had been fabricated. A further three-day hearing took place between 1-3 November 1989, and in a decision dated 16 November 1989, sent to the parties on 20 November 1989, the Tribunal rejected the applicant’s allegations and upheld the original decision.\n16.  In addition, on 17 June 1989, the applicant appealed against the Tribunal’s decision of 9 May 1989 to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”). On 4 October 1989 she wrote to the EAT asking for the appeal to be postponed until the Tribunal had considered her application for review. Following the Tribunal’s decision of 16 November 1989 on the review application, the applicant wrote to the EAT on 24 December 1989 asking it to proceed with the original appeal and also indicating that she wished to appeal against the review decision.\n17.  Her ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-183", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Xanthi.\n10.  In 1990 one of the two Muslim religious leaders of Thrace, the Mufti of Xanthi, died. On 15 February 1990 the local Prefect (Νομάρχης) appointed the applicant to act as a deputy (τοποτηρητής).\n11.  In August 1990 the two independent Muslim Members of Parliament for Xanthi and Rodopi requested the State to organise elections for the post of Mufti of Xanthi. Having received no reply, the two independent MPs decided to organise themselves elections at the mosques on 17 August 1990 after the prayers. On that date the applicant was chosen to be the Mufti of Xanthi by those attending Friday prayers at the mosques.\n12.  On 24 December 1990 the President of the Republic, on the proposal of the Council of Ministers and under Article 44 § 1 of the Constitution, adopted a Legislative Act (πράξη νομοθετικού περιεχομένου) by which the manner of election of the Muftis was changed. Law no. 1920/1991 retroactively validated the Legislative Act of 24 December 1990.\n13.  On 20 August 1991, in accordance with the new regulations, the Greek State appointed another Mufti. The applicant refused to step down.\n14.  Eight sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Articles 175 and 176 of the Criminal Code for having usurped the functions of a minister of a “known religion”. The Court of Cassation, considering that there might be disturbances in Xanthi, decided, under Articles 136 and 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the proceedings should take place in other cities. The applicant was legally represented throughout the proceedings by lawyers of his own choice. The courts heard a number of prosecution and defence witnesses.\n15.  On 17 January 1994 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on the ground that on 11 January 1993 and 19 April 1993 he had issued messages in the capacity of the mufti of Xanthi.\n16.  On 28 June 1996 the single-member first instance criminal court (Μονομελές Πλημμελειοδικείο) of Agrinio found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment (decision no. 2206/1996). The applicant appealed (see below paragraph 19).\n17.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged for having issued messages in the capacity of the mufti of Xanthi on 3 January 1994, 19 January 1994 and 10 February 1994.\n18.  On 28 June 1996 the single-member first instance criminal court of Agrinio found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment (decision no. 2207/1996). The applicant appealed.\n19.  On 29 April 1998 the three-member first instance criminal court (Τριμελές Πλημμελειοδικείο) of Agrinio upheld the applicant’s conviction in the first and second sets of proceedings. It imposed a global sentence of six months’ imprisonment and converted it into a fine (decision no. 682/1998). The applicant appealed in cassation. He alleged that his conviction amounted to a violation of Articles 6, 9, 10 and 14 of the Convention (see below paragraph 29).\n20.  On 20 January 1996 a third set of proceedings was instituted against the applicant for the same offence on the ground that on 3 May 1995, 11 November 1995, 13 December 1995, 30 December 1995 and 17 January 1996 he had issued messages in the capacity of the mufti of Xanthi.\n21.  On 3 April 1997 the single-member first instance criminal court of Lamia found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to twelve months’ imprisonment (decision no. 1336/1997). The applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-184", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Austria.\n10.  On 10 April 1996 the applicant was arrested and on 12 April the Wels Regional Court (Landesgericht) remanded her in custody on suspicion of murder. Her repeated requests for release remained unsuccessful.\n11.  On 13 December 1996 the Wels Regional Court, sitting as an assize court, composed of three professional judges and an eight member jury, acquitted the applicant. The jury answered the main question as to murder with six votes “no” and two votes “yes”. In the record of its deliberations, the jury gave the following reasons for its decision: “The evidence produced at the trial is not sufficient to convict the accused. As the incriminating witnesses were partially not credible – acquittal in dubio”. Upon the pronouncement of the acquittal, the applicant was released.\n12.  Immediately after the pronouncement of the acquittal, at the same hearing, the applicant requested compensation for her detention on remand. The Wels Regional Court, with the same composition as above, dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that, apart from the fact that the jury’s verdict had not been unanimous, the suspicion against the applicant had not been dispelled. Thus the requirements of section 2 (1)(b) of the Compensation (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1969 (Strafrechtliches Entschädigungsgesetz 1969 – “the 1969 Act”) were not met. In particular, the statement of the applicant’s parents that she had spent the night of the murder at their home was not credible. In addition, she had owned a weapon which could have been the one used for the murder and her defence that she had no contact with the victim shortly before the commission of the crime had been disproved by the statements of a number of witnesses. The decision was served on the applicant after her acquittal had become final on 17 December 1996.\n13.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht). She argued that section 2 (1)(b) of the 1969 Act was incompatible with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. Furthermore, the main suspicion against her had been dispelled during the trial.\n14.  On 20 June 1997 the Linz Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Referring to the case of Sekanina v. Austria (judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A), it considered that only a decision which, following the accused’s acquittal, expressed the view that he or she was guilty could violate the presumption of innocence, whereas the Regional Court had only found that there was a remaining suspicion against the applicant. Further, referring to the Constitutional Court’s (Verfassungsgerichtshof) judgment of 29 September 1994, it found that section 2 (1)(b) of the 1969 Act was not in itself incompatible with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention. The Court of Appeal continued as follows: \n“Nor does the principle of the presumption of innocence prevent the prosecuting authorities from suspecting someone of having committed an offence. By section 2(1)(b) of the [1969 Act], refusal of a claim [for compensation] (on the ground that suspicion has not been dispelled) depends not on proven guilt but on the possibility that the person concerned may have committed the offence and therefore on a (persisting) suspicion... In the instant case it was precisely such a suspicion concerning Snjezana Vostic that had not been wholly dispelled, particularly in view of the fact that it was still possible that Snjezana Vostic’s gun had been the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-185", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the village of Altınakar, Diyarbakır, Turkey.\n10.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n11.  On 21 June 1993 the applicant's husband, M.S.Ö., was arrested in the hamlet of Dikmetaş (“Kırkat” in Kurdish) of the Ortaşar village (Çınar) by gendarmes from the Diyarbakır gendarme regiment (“Alay Komutanlığı”). Another person, C.G., was also arrested at the same time.\n12.  The applicant claims that on 21 June 1993 gendarmes searched their house between 4.00 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. Her husband was taken away in a jeep along with C.G. by gendarmes who had arrived by helicopter. The applicant maintains that one of the commanding officers had grey hair, was about 50 years old and was referred to as “Apo” by the gendarmes. Her husband and C.G. were taken to a wooded area outside the village. Her husband was stripped naked and strung up by his arms using the form of torture known as Palestinian hanging. The gendarmes fastened a rope to his genitals and pulled on it. Electric shocks were administered to his body and he was subjected to torture until 5.00 p.m. Her husband's condition deteriorated. He was taken to Çınar Gendarme Station\n13.  The search of her house ended at 7.30 p.m. She and her children were ill-treated during the time of the search.\n14.  The arrest record drawn up by the gendarmes, dated 21 June 1993, mentioned that the gendarmes had, in a joint operation involving members of the Diyarbakır Provincial Central Gendarme Command and Çınar District Gendarme Command, surrounded Dikmetaş hamlet following reception of information to the effect that the inhabitants had been providing assistance to and sheltering PKK militants. M.S.Ö. and C.G., despite the warning issued, had resisted arrest and tried to flee. The report indicated that the security forces had to use force to arrest and take them into custody. According to the report, M.S.Ö. and C.G had been arrested for questioning and with the aim of bringing them before a judicial authority. The report was signed by M.S.Ö. and C.G. as well as by two team commanders and two operations commanders.\n15.  On 22 June 1993 M.S.Ö. was taken to the emergency unit of Diyarbakır State Hospital. A medical report dated 22 June 1993 referred to the following marks having been found on M.S.Ö.'s body: three bruises, each 10 cm long, on the back of his arm; bruises on his back; a rash and bruise on the joint of his collarbone. The report was signed by Dr Uğur N. Yüce. M.S.Ö. was put in the urology unit, in the section reserved for detainees.\n16.  The applicant's husband was released from the hospital and taken to Diyarbakır gendarme regiment headquarters. His questioning continued under medical control. His health deteriorated and he had to be transferred back to the hospital. In a letter dated 4 July 1993 Hakan Polat, a senior officer, requested the Chief Medical Officer of Diyarbakır State Hospital to admit the applicant for treatment.\n17.  On 5 July 1993 the public prosecutor attached to the Diyarbakır State Security Court went to the detainees' unit in the Diyarbakır State Hospital. A report drawn up on the same day referred to the fact that M.S.Ö. could not speak and that he had traces of blood around his mouth. The public prosecutor's report indicated that no statement could be taken from M.S.Ö.\n18.  On 5 July 1993 M.S.Ö. died at Dicle University Hospital.\n19.  On 5 July 1993 two doctors carried out an autopsy on ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-186", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Blaubeuren.\n9.  On 25 October 1995 the Tübingen District Disciplinary Court for Medical Practitioners (Bezirksberufsgericht für Ärzte) imposed a fine amounting to 2,000 German marks (“DEM”) upon the applicant, an ophthalmologist, for disregarding the ban on advertising under the relevant provisions of the Baden-Württemberg Rules of Professional Conduct of the Medical Practitioners’ Council (Berufsordnung der Landesärztekammer) and the Act on the Councils for the Medical Professions (Heilberufe‑Kammergesetz).\n10.  In its reasoning, the Disciplinary Court found that the applicant performed medical operations with a laser technique. In the house where he had his consultation rooms, his wife ran an “excimer-laser-centre”. In May 1994 the journalist Ms K. of the newspaper Schwäbische Zeitung had visited the applicant, upon appointment, in his consultation rooms and discussed his new laser operation technique. Moreover, a photograph was taken of the applicant at his place of work. On 26 September 1994, there had appeared in the said newspaper an article signed by Ms K. and entitled “Cornea under fire – laser restores full vision. In Blaubeuren, the ‘photorefractive keratotomy’ has been applied since three years – operation risks are low - expenses are partly reimbursed by the insurances” (“Die Hornhaut unter Beschuss – Laser gibt dem Auge die volle Sehkraft zurück. In Blaubeuren wird seit drei Jahren die ‘Photorefraktive Keratektomie’ angewandt – Operationsrisiken sind gering – Kosten werden teilweise von den Kassen übernommen.”). In the article, it had been inter alia stated that, according to his indications, the applicant had treated more than 400 patients having defective vision with a laser technique and that in no case had any subsequent corrective measures been necessary and that accordingly he had a success rate of 100%. The article had also reported the applicant’s statement that the long-term success of an operation depended upon the experience of the medical practitioner and on the selection of the patients. The article had been illustrated by a photograph of 12x19 cm in size which showed the applicant at his computer pointing to the monitor. It had the caption: “On the occasion of the ‘mapping’ Dr Miro Stambuk sees on the monitor of his computer whether or not the patient can be treated with the laser technique” (“Beim ‘mapping’ sieht Dr. Miro Stambuk auf dem Monitor seines Computers, ob ein Patient mit dem Laser behandelt werden kann.”).\n11.  The Disciplinary Court considered that the applicant had thereby disregarded sections 25(2) and 27 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Medical Practitioners’ Council (see below, Relevant domestic law, paragraph 20). Thus, according to section 25(2), a medical practitioner should not allow for picture-stories to be published in respect of his professional activities which had an advertising character, indicated the name and showed a photograph. According to section 27, the cooperation of a medical practitioner in informative publications in the press was only permissible if these publications were limited to objective information and if the person and the activities of the practitioner were not presented in the form of an advertisement. In press interviews, the medical practitioner was held to “responsible objectivity” (“verantwortungsbewusste Objektivität”).\n12.  According to the Court, the applicant had disregarded these rules in that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-187", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  Between August 1995 and the applicant’s arrest on 21 January 1996, he was the target of surveillance by the police. Using a “clone” of the applicant’s pager, the police were able to intercept messages sent to him. The pager system used by the applicant and intercepted by the police operated as follows: The sender, whether in the United Kingdom or overseas, would telephone the pager bureau in the United Kingdom via the public telephone network. The pager operator would key the message into a computer and read it back to the sender to confirm its accuracy. The computer message was transmitted via the public telephone system to the pager terminal, from where it was relayed by radio to one of four regional base stations and thence, again by radio, simultaneously to the applicant’s and the police’s clone pagers, which displayed the message in text.\n10.  The applicant was arrested and charged with conspiracy to supply a controlled drug. The prosecution alleged that he had been one of the principal organisers of the importation to the United Kingdom from Amsterdam of over 22,000 ecstasy tablets worth approximately GBP 268,000. He was tried, along with a number of alleged co-conspirators, at Bristol Crown Court in September 1997.\n11.  Part of the prosecution case against the applicant consisted of the contemporaneous written notes of the pager messages which had been transcribed by the police. The applicant’s counsel submitted that these notes should not be admitted in evidence because the police had not had a warrant under section 2 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”) for the interception of the pager messages. However, the trial judge ruled that, since the messages had been transmitted via a private system, the 1985 Act did not apply and no warrant had been necessary.\n12.  The applicant pleaded not guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.\n13.  The applicant appealed against conviction and sentence. One of the grounds was the admission in evidence of the pager messages. The Court of Appeal, dismissing the appeal on 13 September 1998, upheld the trial judge’s ruling that the messages had been intercepted at the point of transmission on the private radio system, so that the 1985 Act did not apply and the messages were admissible despite having been intercepted without a warrant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-188", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Stratford-on-Avon.\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  The applicant was an inventor and entered into an agreement with Ferranti plc whereby the latter would have exclusive rights to develop, design, manufacture and sell gaming machines based on the applicant’s ideas. The applicant also set up a company (“Transworld”) which entered into an agreement with Ferranti Instrumentation Limited relating to the marketing of the machines. The venture was not a commercial success and in June 1982 the agreements were repudiated by the respective Ferranti companies.\n10.  On 4 July 1984 the applicant issued a writ in his own name and in that of Transworld (together, “the plaintiffs”) against the two Ferranti companies (together, “the defendants”). It was served on 5 July 1984. The defendants were granted one extension of time for service of the Defence with the plaintiffs’ consent and then applied to the court for a further extension. On 3 October 1984, before that application could be heard, judgment in default of defence was entered for the plaintiffs. That judgment was set aside on 12 December 1984 and the Defence was served on 20 December 1984. The defendants served a request for Further and Better Particulars of the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim on the same date. The plaintiffs failed to reply within the fourteen-day deadline, leading the defendants to apply to the court which, on 21 March 1985, ordered that the plaintiffs reply within 42 days.\n11.  The defendants applied for security for their costs, and the court granted the application on 26 September 1985 by ordering the plaintiffs to pay a sum reflecting the defendants’ likely costs up until the date for exchange of evidence. The proceedings were stayed until the security was paid.\n12.  On 3 October 1985 the plaintiffs appealed against the order. A hearing was listed for later that month but was postponed, according to the applicant due to a series of errors by the court registry.\n13.  The appeal was dismissed on 31 January 1986 and the plaintiffs paid the security on 28 February 1986.\n14.  On 2 August 1985 the plaintiffs served a request for Further and Better Particulars of the Defence. On 8 July 1986, once the stay imposed in September 1985 had been lifted by payment of the security, an order was made by consent of the parties.\n15.  On 21 May 1987 the defendants applied for an order that the plaintiffs fulfil their discovery obligations by serving a list of documents. The deadline for service of the list had expired on 3 January 1985. The order was made on 30 June 1987.\n16.  The plaintiffs’ solicitors filed a Notice of Intention to Proceed on 5 January 1989 as required by the rules of court since no steps had been taken in the prosecution of the claim for more than a year. On 10 February 1989 the plaintiffs served a Summons for Directions, the deadline for which had expired on 2 February 1985.\n17.  On 27 February 1989 the plaintiffs made an application for specific discovery and the defendants made a further application for security for costs. These, together with the Summons for Directions, came before the District Registrar on 7 April 1989 but were adjourned. According to the applicant, this adjournment was due to failure by the court registry properly to notify the defendants’ counsel of the hearing date. The Government state that it was due to the parties not having ensured that suf", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-189", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to F.G.\n8.  In a registered letter of 18 December 1985, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 28 June 1986 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 22 October 1986, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 17 December 1986, which was made enforceable on 26 January 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 18 December 1987.\n11.  On 23 November 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 12 January 1988 she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 12 February 1988.\n13.  Between 12 February 1988 and 27 January 2000, the bailiff made forty-five attempts to recover possession.\n14.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 4 April 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-190", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which she had let to R.U.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 September 1986, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 28 October 1986, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n9.  On 30 May 1989 the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n10.  On 7 July 1989 the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 15 September 1989 she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 October 1989.\n12.  Between 6 October 1989 and 26 June 1998 the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 23 July 1998, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-191", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Florence, which they had let to E.F.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 2 November 1987, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 30 November 1987, which was made enforceable on 5 January 1988, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n9.  On 20 May 1989, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.\n10.  On 7 June 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 22 June 1989, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 August 1989.\n12.  Between 18 August 1989 and 10 September 1998, the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession.\n13.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.\n15.  The applicants have not recovered possession of their apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-192", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n13.  The applicant, who was born in 1960, was sentenced with final effect to life imprisonment. He was subsequently acquitted following a retrial which he had sought after he had applied to the Court.\n14.  The present application concerns the conduct of the initial proceedings.\n15.  In its judgment (paragraphs 6-14) the Chamber established the following facts:\n“6.  On 4 August 1993 the applicant's wife, Ms B., was murdered. A number of factors suggested that the murder had taken place between 11.30 a.m. and 12 noon (or, in any event, shortly before or afterwards) in the flat occupied by Ms A., with whom the applicant was having an extramarital affair. 7.  Proceedings were subsequently instituted in respect of the applicant and Ms A.\nBetween 7 August and 8 November 1993 the applicant was interviewed four times by the Rome public prosecutor. He denied having participated in the murder and stated that on 4 August 1993 he had gone to the National Police Institute, where he worked, leaving the premises only between 10 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. in order to have some keys cut and to file certain documents at the land registry. He mentioned, in particular, that there had been a stamp missing from the file of the person in front of him in the queue at the land registry and that a discussion had ensued with a clerk. The applicant had not, however, been able to identify the person in question.\nThe time of the applicant's absence from the National Police Institute was subsequently confirmed in statements by his colleagues. During the trial the applicant produced a copy of the documents he had allegedly filed at the land registry on the day of the murder; the documents had been stamped with an acknowledgment of receipt.\nDuring questioning Ms A. stated that the murder had been committed by the applicant, who had then asked her to dispose of the body. 8.  On an unspecified date the applicant and Ms A. were committed for trial in the Rome Assize Court on charges of murder and concealing a body. 9.  At a hearing on 28 October 1994 the applicant made a request under Article 507 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the CCP') to have Mr B. summoned and examined as a witness for the defence. He asserted, in particular, that Mr B. was the person who had been in front of him in the queue at the land registry on the day of the murder and would be able to confirm the events to which the applicant had referred during questioning; Mr B.'s name had not been included on the list of witnesses because his identity had only been ascertained at a later stage after a lengthy search. ...\nIn an order of 28 October 1994 the Rome Assize Court refused the applicant's request on the ground that the examination of Mr B. was not “absolutely necessary” (Article 507 of the CCP).\nIn the course of the investigation the carabinieri carried out a reconstruction of the events in order to establish how long it would take, in early August and in a car identical to the one owned by the applicant, to cover the twenty-three kilometres from the National Police Institute to Ms A.'s flat. It was found that the return journey could be completed in forty minutes. 10.  In a judgment of 29 November 1994, the text of which was deposited at the registry on 24 December 1994, the Rome Assize Court convicted the applicant and Ms A. and sentenced them to life imprisonment. It noted that the applicant had not adduced any evidence to prove that he had in fact gone to the land registry. The documents produced bo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-194", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1975, 1976 and 1995 respectively. When they introduced the application, they were all living in Austria.\n10.  The first applicant went to Austria in 1989 to live with his parents and siblings. As from 1994 he cohabited with the second applicant, who was born in Austria and has lived there all her life. They married under muslim law in April 1994 and under Austrian civil law in March 1997. Their daughter, the third applicant, was born on 14 August 1995.\n11.  On 5 January 1993 the first applicant was sentenced to three days’ imprisonment on probation for shoplifting by a Swiss Court.\n12.  On 19 May 1993 the Dornbirn District Court (Bezirksgericht) convicted him of theft without pronouncing a sentence. The court established that in 1992 the first applicant had stolen moped-accessories, cutlery and other commodities, two gold rings and a gold bracelet, worth altogether less than 25,000 Austrian schillings (ATS), equivalent to 1,817 euros (EUR). A probation period of three years was fixed.\n13.  In 1992 and 1993 the first applicant was convicted of three minor breaches of traffic rules and sentenced to pay fines of ATS 300, 500 and 1,000 respectively. Between February and April 1994 he was convicted three times of driving a car without a driving licence and sentenced to pay fines of ATS 3,000, 4,000 and 5,000, respectively (equivalent to EUR 218, 290 and 363).\n14.  On 28 February 1994, still without a driving licence, he overran a red traffic light and exceeded the speed limit of 60 km/h, driving at 170 km/h. On 6 April 1994 the Dornbirn District Authority (Bezirkshaupt-mannschaft) convicted him of these offences and sentenced him to a fine of ATS 14,500.\n15.  On 21 September 1994 the Dornbirn District Authority imposed a five year residence ban on the first applicant.\n16.  On 24 January 1995 the Vorarlberg Public Security Authority (Sicherheitsdirektion) dismissed the first applicant’s appeal.\n17.  The authority referred to section 18 §§ 1 and 2 of the 1992 Aliens Act, which paragraphs provide that a residence ban has to be issued against an alien, inter alia, if he has been convicted more than once for similar offences by a domestic or foreign court, or if a fine has been imposed on him more than once for a grave administrative offence by an administrative authority. The Authority found that both conditions had been met in this case.\n18.  Further, the Vorarlberg Public Security Authority, referring to the first applicant’s stay in Austria since 1989, the fact that his close family was living in Austria, his co-habitation with a Turkish national who was born in Austria, and his employment, found that the residence ban constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life. However, it was necessary for the aims set out in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, namely for the prevention of crime and the protection of the rights of others. Given the first applicant’s continuous disregard of Austrian law, the authority assumed that it was probable that he would commit similar offences in the future. Thus, despite the first applicant’s high degree of integration in Austria, the public interest in issuing a residence ban outweighed the first applicant’s interest in staying. This decision was served on the first applicant on 8 February 1995.\n19.  On 11 May 1995 the applicant was taken into detention with a view to his expulsion.\n20.  On 13 June 1995 the Constitutional Court refus", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-195", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 29 December 1967 the first applicant and her husband purchased a forester’s house with a barn and cowshed which they had been renting since 1953. The sale price – 14,703 Czechoslovak korunas (CSK) – was fixed by a surveyor appointed by the landlord, a State enterprise which was also the couple’s employer and which had acquired the house without compensating the former owners, who had been dispossessed of their property in 1948 pursuant to Law no. 142/1947 on revision of the First Land Reform (zákon o revizi první pozemkové reformy).\n10.  On 30 June 1968 the first applicant and her husband paid the vendor CSK 2,030 under the terms of an agreement giving them the right to make personal use of the land attached to the house.\n11.  On 23 December 1992, after the entry into force of Law no. 229/1991 (zákon o půdě – “the Land Act”), the son of the persons to whom the forester’s house had belonged until its confiscation in 1948 instituted proceedings in the Příbram District Court (okresní soud) seeking recovery of the property by virtue of section 8(1) of the Land Act. He alleged that the acquisition of the house by the first applicant and her husband had been vitiated by a breach of the regulations in force at the time and that they had enjoyed an unlawful advantage in that the price they had been required to pay had been lower than the property’s real value. He argued that the valuation of the house had been neither objective nor compatible with the legislation then in force.\n12.  In their defence, filed with the District Court on 12 February 1993, the applicants submitted that the purchase price had been properly calculated in accordance with the provisions applicable at the material time, and pointed out that the contract of sale had been adjudged valid by the Příbram branch of the State notary service (státní notářství), which had registered it.\n13.  On 7 February 1994 the District Court commissioned an expert opinion to establish whether the 1967 valuation had complied with the regulations then in force. The expert’s report was filed with the court on 30 March 1994. In it the expert stated that after studying the file and the 1967 valuation he had found that “this valuation was not entirely compatible with the legislation in force at the time” and that he had “in addition noted instances of underestimation of area”. He had therefore decided to “carry out a complete revaluation, applying the legislation formerly applicable and taking as [his] basis the state of affairs as described in the course of the proceedings” in order to be able to compare the two valuations and quantify the difference between them. The expert report assessed (a) the inhabitable parts of the property and (b) the non-inhabitable parts, namely the barn and cowshed. With regard to the latter, the expert reported:\n“... the small barn and the adjoining cowshed were classified as ‘small constructions’, as they served only for the use of the occupier, not for any agricultural activity. That led to an essential difference between the valuation produced ... in 1967 and the present one. My valuation is justified by a written instruction of 1965 relating to Article 7, which provides: ‘The purchase price may also be applied to small constructions used for animal husbandry, provided that this activity does not go beyond the personal needs of the owner and the members of his family.’ The barn is currently used as a toolshed. ... My classification of the two buildings compli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-197", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Vienna.\n10.  On 29 November 1992 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted blackmail and unlawful possession of a firearm. Subsequently, he was taken into detention on remand. He was suspected of having tried to blackmail Turkish restaurant owners in that he together with several accomplices, all being members of a Kurdish association, came to their restaurants and threatened them in order to obtain money for this association. Further, the applicant was suspected of unlawful possession of a firearm, which had been found in a car he used to drive. In these and the following proceedings the applicant was represented by counsel. On 3 August 1993 the applicant was released.\n11.  On 31 March 1995 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen), after its first judgment had been quashed on appeal, acquitted the applicant and his co-accused giving them the benefit of the doubt. The prosecution did not appeal against the acquittal. Therefore, in accordance with the relevant procedural provisions, it was not necessary to serve a written version of the judgment on the applicant, but it was sufficient to include its operative part without any reasons in the minutes of the hearing (so-called abridged version of minutes and judgment – Protokollsvermerk und gekürzte Urteilsausfertigung).\n12.  On 16 October 1995 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court, after a first decision on the applicant’s compensation claim for detention on remand under section 2 (1)(b) of the Compensation (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1969 (Strafrechtliches Entschädigungsgesetz 1969, hereinafter “the 1969 Act”) had been quashed on appeal, again dismissed the applicant’s compensation claim.\n13.  On 26 February 1996 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandes-gericht), upon the applicant’s appeal, quashed the Regional Court’s decision on the ground that it did not contain sufficient reasons. As to the applicant’s complaint that the decision violated the presumption of innocence it noted that the European Court of Human Rights in the Sekanina v. Austria judgment of 25 August 1993 (Series A no. 266-A) had not challenged the conformity with Article 6 § 2 of the Convention of section 2 (1)(b) of the 1969 Act. Following an acquittal it was still admissible to examine the question whether the suspicion had been dispelled as long as the assessment did not go beyond the reasons given for the acquittal. It, therefore, instructed the Regional Court to state the reasons for the acquittal of the applicant, which were not included in the abridged version of minutes and judgment of 31 March 1995.\n14.  Thereupon, the Regional Court supplemented the minutes accordingly, stating that the evidence before it did not carry a finding of guilt. As to the charge of attempted blackmail it noted that in the second set of proceedings the witnesses, namely the restaurant owners concerned, had given a weakened version of their previous statements. They said in particular that the applicant and his accomplices had not directly menaced them and that they had only been frightened as the applicant and his co-accused clearly asked for money and announced that they would return. Although the witnesses now tried to describe the incidents at issue as favourably to the accused as possible and although their statements were insufficient for a conviction, they had disproved the defence of the applicant who had claimed that he had only come to the respecti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-198", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Braine-l’Alleud. The second applicant has its registered office in Brussels.\n10.  In October 1990 a magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI or NMR) unit with a built-in electronic calculator – a high-technology medical device – was installed at the IMEC. In accordance with a royal decree of 27 October 1989, a department in which an MRI unit was installed was regarded as a “high-cost medico-technical service” within the meaning of section 44 of the Hospitals Act, consolidated on 7 August 1987. Pursuant to that statutory provision, such services had to be approved. The criteria for approval were laid down in the royal decree. The relevant department at the IMEC had not, however, obtained the necessary approval.\n11.  On 15 March 1991 the Ministers of Public Health for the Brussels-Capital bilingual region lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor against the first applicant for installing high-cost medical equipment without the prior approval of the minister responsible for public health. In January 1993 the first applicant and the IMEC, his employer, which was civilly liable for his acts, were summoned to appear in the Brussels Criminal Court. The Belgian State subsequently applied to join the proceedings as a civil party.\n12.  On 22 March 1994 the Brussels Criminal Court acquitted the first applicant and cleared the IMEC.\n13.  On 31 March 1994 that judgment prompted the following speech by a member of Parliament during the passage of a bill amending the Hospitals Act: \n“I was shocked by the court ruling last week in the Wynen case. Everyone knows Dr Wynen’s habit of not caring about legislation. He illegally installs high-cost scanners at his hospital, the Edith-Cavell, and justifies his actions with arguments about medical ethics.” (summary record, House of Representatives, 1993/94 ordinary session, sitting of 31 March 1994)\n14.  State Counsel’s Office and the civil party appealed against the judgment of 22 March 1994.\nIn their appeal submissions the applicants argued, among other things, that the royal decree of 27 October 1989, which had formed the basis for the prosecution, was unlawful, particularly as it concerned a matter dealt with by legislation at community rather than federal level. They pointed out in that connection:\n“Section 44 of the Hospitals Act empowers the King to lay down approval and planning criteria for the installation of magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI) units with built-in electronic calculators, with a view to controlling public expenditure.\nThe decree lays down a number of conditions relating to:\n(1) the department in which the equipment is installed; (2) the number of employees and their qualifications; (3) the safety of the equipment and of the surrounding area; (4) quality control of the work carried out by users; (5) the geographical location of the equipment (the requirements vary according to the power of the equipment); and (6) the number of beds.\nAt best, only the fifth criterion can possibly come under the responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Social Affairs. The other conditions pursue a quite different aim, namely that of regulating the provision of health care, responsibility for which currently falls to the Communities by virtue of section 5(1)(I)(1) of the Special Law of 8 August 1980 on institutional reform.\nSeeing that four of the five conditions it lays down do not come under the responsibility of the national authorities, the royal decree o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-199", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 3 February 1995 Mr David Beesley, store manager, was shot dead in the manager's office of a Kwik-Save supermarket in Greater Manchester.\n9.  On 18 February 1995 the applicant and another man, by the name of Leroy Grant, were arrested on suspicion of having committed a robbery at the Late Saver shop, Cheadle. At the time, they were in possession of an 8-mm Beretta replica handgun. Charged in connection with this offence, Mr Grant admitted to the offence and several other late-night shop robberies. The applicant denied involvement in any of the offences. On or about 20 February 1995 an anonymous informant told the police that the applicant had been involved in the murder of David Beesley.\n10.  On 20 February 1995 the applicant and Leroy Grant appeared in custody at the Stockport Magistrates' Court and were further remanded in custody to reappear on 23 February 1995. On 20 February 1995 Detective Chief Inspector Dunn requested permission for the cell and the visiting areas used by the applicant and Leroy Grant to be bugged with audio and video technology, alleging that all regular methods of investigation to identify David Beesley's murderer had failed. The Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police granted authority on the same day for an unlimited period for both the police stations at Stockport and Cheadle Hulme. On 13 March 1995 similar authority was sought and obtained for the installation of a listening device with video system to be placed in the visiting area of Stretford police station, where the applicant was then held.\n11.  On 8 March 1995 the applicant was arrested for the murder and questioned. In the interviews with the police which followed, the police told the applicant that he was not obliged to say anything. He availed himself of that right.\n12.  During this time visits to the applicant by his female friend, J.N.S, were recorded on audio and videotape in the prison visiting area between 12 and 28 March 1995. The applicant and Leroy Grant were held for long periods in the same cell and recordings of their conversations were made from 20 February to 12 March 1995.\n13.  On 23 March 1995 H. was brought to Stretford police station. H. was a long-standing police informant with a criminal record who had been arrested on 21 March 1995 for unrelated offences. He was placed in the applicant's cell for the purpose of eliciting information from the applicant. As asserted by the applicant, H. had every incentive to inform on him. Telephone conversations between H. and the police included comments by the police instructing H. to “push him for what you can” and disclosed evidence of concerted police coaching. After 20 April 1995 he associated regularly with the applicant who was remanded at Strangeways Prison.\n14.  On 28 June 1995 the applicant was taken away from the prison to be interviewed by the police concerning the Kwik-Save robbery. He was attended and advised by his solicitor. During the course of the interview, the applicant was invited to comment on the recordings made in February and March 1995. He made no comment to any question. According to the applicant, he was interrogated at length by the police in an attempt to “rattle” or unsettle him, such that he would be more talkative and vulnerable to H. upon his return to the prison. H. had been fitted with recording devices. The recording thereby obtained was adduced in evidence at the applicant's trial.\n15.  The applicant was interviewed again in the presence of h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-200", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Laukaa.\n10.  On 5 January 1987 criminal investigations were instituted against the applicant who was taken into police custody the same day in respect of, inter alia, alleged tax frauds. He was released on 16 January 1987.\n11.  On 5 July and 31 August 1990 the applicant was summoned to appear before the Helsinki City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätt, as from 1 December 1993 Helsinki District Court, käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) indicted for several aggravated tax frauds. The alleged offences concerned the importation of parts of vehicles and failure to pay relevant tax for them. The relevant decisions of the tax authorities after the clearance of the taxes were not yet final as the applicant had appealed against them. The first hearing before the District Court was held on 14 November 1990. The complainants and one of the four defendants, MI, had not yet been summoned. The Public Prosecutor charged the applicant with ten aggravated tax frauds, some of which he had allegedly committed together with other defendants, including MI. The applicant’s lawyer asked to be allowed to reply to the charges later. At the request of the Public Prosecutor the case was adjourned until 3 April 1991.\n12.  At the second hearing, on 3 April 1991, the applicant denied all the charges. Concerning the alleged offences in complicity with MI, the applicant stressed MI’s role in the events and his greater knowledge of the subject. Two complainants and the defendant MI had still not been summoned. At the request of the Public Prosecutor and the National Board of Customs, which was one of the complainants, the case was adjourned until 29 May 1991.\n13.  At the third hearing on 29 May 1991 the National Board of Customs submitted claims for damages. The applicant’s lawyer opposed the claims and said he would revert to the question of damages in a later hearing. The defendant MI had still not been summoned to appear before the City Court. The Public Prosecutor requested an adjournment in order to have MI summoned and to submit further clarification to certain questions. His request was not opposed. The next hearing was ordered to be on 16 October 1991.\n14.  At the fourth hearing on 16 October 1991 the applicant was heard in person. His lawyer also clarified the reply to the claims of the National Board of Customs. The Public Prosecutor stated that MI had not yet been contacted and requested an adjournment in order to have him summoned. The applicant left the request for an adjournment to the City Court’s discretion. The case was adjourned until 4 December 1991.\n15.  At the fifth hearing on 4 December 1991 the Public Prosecutor stated that MI had still not been summoned and requested a further adjournment. The applicant left the request to the City Court’s discretion. The case was adjourned until 13 May 1992.\n16.  At the sixth hearing on 13 May 1992 the Public Prosecutor requested the case to be adjourned until further notice since MI’s place of residence was not known. The applicant left the case to be decided for his part. The City Court considered that it was necessary to hear MI before giving a decision on the charges against the applicant. Furthermore, the National Board of Customs had not yet given its decision concerning the appeals against the decisions of the tax authorities after the clearance of the taxes. The City Court, therefore, adjourned the case until further notice of the date of the next hearing would be", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-202", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  In 1959, the applicant acquired freehold ownership of plot 565, Nicosia, with a frontage on Jason Street, which is now called Georgios Grivas Digenis Avenue. She was also issued with a Certificate of Registration of Immovable Property by the Land Registry Office, Registration No. B662, dated 28 April 1959. The surface area of plot 565 was 23,488 square feet. On 16 September 1959 the applicant leased plot 565 to Mobil Oil Cyprus Ltd. On 7 October 1959 Mobil, in its capacity as the representative of the applicant, applied to the municipality of Nicosia and obtained a building permit for the construction of a petrol-station, a car‑wash and other ancillary structures. In 1969 the lease was renewed until September 1973, with the option to extend until September 1977. In paragraph 1 of the third page of the lease, the rented property was described as being “situated at Grivas Digenis Avenue on plot 565”. Paragraph 5(e) of the lease provided that the landlord authorised the tenant as her agent to sign all applications concerning the plants and works which Mobil would construct, reconstruct, operate and continue to operate on the plot, and generally to do all things necessary on her behalf.\n9.  On 30 March 1973, Notice No. 612 was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic No. 1002, pursuant to the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96, by the Municipal Committee of Nicosia, aimed at widening Grivas Digenis Avenue.\n10.  According to the text of paragraph 1 of the Notice, the affected plots were the following: all plots with frontage on a certain specified part of the Avenue (that is, the part of the Avenue between Prodromos Street and Th. Dervis Street) and certain plots with frontage on both the Avenue and other side roads. (The numbers of these “corner plots” were expressly set out in the Notice.)\n11.  However, the Notice did not mention that plot 565 was part of the land taken for the widening of the street.\n12.  The Notice provided that any objection against the widening scheme should be raised within seventy-five days of the publication of the Notice in the Official Gazette.\n13.  On 11 July 1973, Mobil filed with the Municipality an application for a building permit to make minor alterations to a station built in 1959, the pumps’ shelter and an oil ditch. The distance of the new construction from the newly aligned Grivas Digenis Avenue was more than 10 feet, the distance required by Regulation 6(3) of the Streets and Buildings Regulations.\n14.  Upon receipt of the application, the Municipality addressed to the applicant, through her duly authorised agent, a letter dated 24 July 1973. It was expressly provided in that letter that the plans of the street-widening scheme relating to the Grivas Digenis Avenue should be taken into account. A copy of the official plan which showed the effect of the street-widening scheme was attached to the letter.\n15.  According to the Government neither the applicant nor Mobil protested.\n16.  On 27 March 1978 the building permit was issued. By letter of 28 March 1978, the Municipality of Nicosia requested the Office of the Land Registry and Survey to register as part of the public domain, by virtue of section 13 (1) of the Streets and Buildings Regulation Law, Cap. 96, the part of plot 565 affected by the street-widening scheme. At some time between 1978 and 1979, the District Land Registry Office of Nicosia registered the disputed area of 2,060 square feet as part of Grivas Digenis Avenue.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-203", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Katowice, Poland.\n10.  On 13 November 1981 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) declared the applicant the sole heir of his mother’s estate. Consequently, he became a co-owner of an apartment building situated in Katowice. The building was owned in equal parts by the applicant and his brother, Mr M. P., who had inherited his share of the property from their father in 1973. It consisted of two separate apartments, a staircase and several rooms situated in the basement and in the attic.\n11.  On 10 January 1983 Mr M.P. instituted non-contentious proceedings (postępowanie nieprocesowe) before the Katowice District Court in which he sought a ruling on how the property should be used by the co-owners.\n12.  The Government averred that the proceedings were stayed between 1 March and 11 November 1983 because the parties had failed to make a downpayment to cover expert fees. The applicant claimed that he had made the required payment on time.\n13.  The Government submitted that before 1 May 1993 the trial court had held fifteen hearings and that the applicant had failed to attend six of them. The applicant contested that submission.\n14.  Before 1 May 1993 the presiding judge on two occasions inspected the property.\n15.  Between 17 August and 7 December 1993 the trial court held five hearings. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to attend three of them and that one of these absences had not been justified. The applicant claimed that he had attended all five hearings.\n16.  During the hearing held on 11 January 1994 the trial court dismissed two requests concerning evidence submitted by the applicant. It also suggested a friendly settlement to the parties, but to no avail.\n17.  On 25 January 1994 the Katowice District Court decided that the applicant should have exclusive access to a room situated in the attic and that he should share a garden with his brother. Both parties appealed to the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) against that decision.\n18.  On 25 October 1994 the Regional Court held the first hearing, which was adjourned because of the applicant’s absence. The applicant submitted that he had not attended the hearing because he had not been served with the summons.\n19.  On 24 November 1994 the Katowice Regional Court quashed the judgment of the District Court except for a part concerning the division of the garden and remitted the case to the first-instance court. The Regional Court considered that the decision to award the applicant exclusive access to a room situated in the attic could lead to further conflicts between the parties. It also pointed out that on several occasions the applicant had changed his claims and that the District Court had failed to take into account certain proposals submitted by the plaintiff in the first-instance proceedings.\n20.  On 28 January 1995 Mr M. P. died and was replaced as a party to the proceedings by his widow, Mrs K. P. and his son, Mr L. P. During the hearing held on 14 March 1995 the District Court stayed the proceedings to allow them to obtain a declaration of heirs. The proceedings were resumed on 21 August 1995.\n21.  The next hearing was held on 19 October 1995. On 13 November 1995 the judge visited the property.\n22.  The Government submitted that during the hearing held on 19 March 1996 the applicant had asked the court to take evidence from two expert witnesses. The applicant disputed that submission.\n23.  Between 1 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-205", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1915 and lives in Kraków, Poland.\n7.  The proceedings in question, which concerned the distribution of an inheritance, began on 10 September 1986. On that date the applicant’s sister-in-law, Z.S.-G. filed with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an application for distribution of the estate left by the applicant’s deceased brother.\n8.  Between 10 September 1986 and 11 June 1991 the court held seven hearings (of which two were adjourned) and obtained four expert reports.\n9.  On 11 June 1991 the District Court gave a partial decision (postanowienie częściowe). On 14 April 1992 that decision was quashed on appeal by the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). The case was remitted to the District Court.\n10.  In the course of the subsequent proceedings the District Court held a number of hearings and obtained several expert reports.\n11.  On 18 November 1998 the District Court gave its second partial decision, determining the assets which constituted the estate left by the applicant’s brother. It further proceeded to the sharing out of the property in the estate. It that connection, it needed to obtain fresh evidence from experts.\n12.  On 28 May 2001 the Warsaw District Court gave a decision. On 26 June 2001 E.D., one of the parties to the proceedings, appealed. The applicant appealed on 28 June 2001. On 6 August 2001 the District Court refused to proceed with her appeal as she had failed to comply with a number of procedural requirements. \nIt appears that the proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-206", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Bielsko-Biała.\n10.  On 10 August 1991 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed homicide. On 12 August 1991 the Bielsko-Biała District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged the applicant with homicide and uttering threats, and detained him on remand.\n11.  On 30 April 1992 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The applicant was indicted on the charges of homicide and uttering threats.\n12.  The trial began on 16 June 1992.\n13.  On 14 October 1992 Court quashed the order for the applicant’s detention and released him. The Regional Prosecutor appealed. \nThe Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 4 November 1992. It held that a “reasonable suspicion” that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged was no longer justified because S.U., the witness who had incriminated him in the investigation, had fundamentally changed his original testimony.\n14.  Between 16 June 1992 and 1 May 1993 the trial court held fourteen hearings. It heard evidence from twenty lay witnesses and one expert witness.\n15.  Between 4 May 1993 and 25 May 1994 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court held ten hearings and heard evidence from forty-one witnesses and two experts. It needed to rehear evidence from some witnesses several times.\n16.  On 25 May 1994 the court acquitted the applicant on all charges. On 12 October 1994 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor appealed against the acquittal.\n17.  The appeal was heard before the Katowice Court of Appeal on 9 March 1995. The court quashed the contested judgment and remitted the case to the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor, holding that a further investigation should be carried out. In particular, the Court of Appeal ordered the prosecutor to reconstruct the scene of the crime and to obtain evidence from experts in psychology. It considered that in order to assess the credibility of evidence given by S.U., the main prosecution witness, it was necessary to diagnose his personality and establish his perception skills.\n18.  On 12 May 1995 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor asked the Institute of Forensic Experts (Instytut Ekspertyz Sądowych) in Cracow to prepare a comprehensive report on S.U.’s psychological profile. Furthermore, since in the course of the original investigation the prosecution had already obtained two, albeit inconsistent, reports from psychologists, the prosecutor also adduced copies of those reports and asked experts from the Institute to resolve contradictions.\n19.  The experts set the dates of the examination for 19 December 1995 and for 12 February 1996 respectively. However, S.U. did not keep his appointment for the examination on either of these dates. Eventually, he appeared before the experts on 9 May 1996 and was examined by them on that day. Their report was ready on 6 September 1996.\n20.  On 30 December 1996 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor lodged a new bill of indictment with the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court. The applicant was again indicted on the charges of homicide and uttering threats.\n21.  On 27 March 1997 the trial court remitted the case to the Bielsko-Biała Regional Prosecutor, holding that the prosecution had not complied with the orders given by the Katowice Court of Appeal on 9 March 1995. They had not, among other things, reconstructed the scene of the crime.\n22.  On 30 April 1997 t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-207", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1918 and lives in Kraków, Poland.\n9.  On 28 May 1971 the Chrzanów District Court (Sąd Powiatowy) gave a decision (postanowienie) declaring that, under the will of M.H. (the applicant’s mother-in-law), her estate be inherited by her three daughters Z.Z., H.Ś.-Z. and M.K. (the applicant’s wife) and by her granddaughter (M.S.). \nOn 30 June 1977 the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) declared that the applicant had inherited the estate of his late wife.\n10.  On 15 October 1977 Z.Z., H.Ś.-Z. and M.S. (“the petitioners”) filed with the Kraków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an application for distribution of the estate of M.H. The estate consisted of three plots of land and a house and had so far been held in individual shares. The applicant was a party to these proceedings as a successor to his wife.\n11.  On 30 May 1979 the Kraków District Court gave a decision (postanowienie) distributing the estate. Upon the applicant’s appeal, on 16 November 1979 the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) partly amended the first-instance decision.\n12.  On 3 October 1980, on an extraordinary appeal lodged by the Minister of Justice, the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) set aside both above decisions and remitted the case to the court of first instance.\n13.  On 29 January 1985 the District Court gave a decision. On 11 September 1985 the Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the case. On 16 June 1986 the District Court gave a subsequent decision. On 18 September 1987 the Regional Court set it aside.\n14.  On 26 October 1988 the District Court gave a decision. On 3 February 1989 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s further appeal against that decision.\n15.  On 14 September 1989, on an extraordinary appeal lodged by the Minister of Justice, the Supreme Court partly quashed the decisions of both lower courts, and remitted the case to the District Court. On 14 September 1989 the decision of the District Court of 26 October 1988, in respect of the manner in which the estate was distributed, became final. The subsequent proceedings concerned solely the amount of payments for the respective shares in the estate.\n16.  Prior to 1 May 1993 there were 38 hearings held in the case before the District Court, the Regional Court and the Supreme Court. During that period the courts dealing with the case heard evidence from at least fifteen witnesses and five experts. There were eleven expert reports submitted to the courts and five inspections of the site took place. On five occasions the applicant challenged the judges dealing with the case which resulted in a delay of approximately ten months. The proceedings were stayed on two occasions (on 23 May 1980 by the Supreme Court and on 13 July 1982 by the District Court) which resulted in a delay of approximately eleven months.\n17.  On 1 July 1993 the District Court ordered that a fresh report from expert R.L be obtained. On 15 September 1993 the applicant challenged that expert and requested the court to obtain an additional report from expert A.S.\n18.  On 11 October 1993 expert R.L. submitted his report to the District Court. There were certain difficulties in the preparation of that report which were caused by the parties. On 6 November 1993 the applicant again requested the court to obtain a report from another expert.\n19.  On 10 November 1993 the applicant challenged the presiding judge. On 18 November 1993 the District Court dismissed that challenge as unfounded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-208", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Josef Müller, is a Swiss citizen born in 1924. A businessman by profession, he resides in Zurich in Switzerland.\n10.  In 1957 and 1959 the applicant acquired three adjacent properties, used for farming purposes, in Niederhasli in the vicinity of Zurich airport. The combined surfaces of the properties amount to approximately 25,500m2. During the ensuing proceedings at issue, there were, apart from an empty storehouse, no constructions on the properties.\n11.  In 1966 these properties were attributed to the residential zone, and in 1984 to the commercial zone.\n12.  Meanwhile, in 1983, the area of these properties was designated as pertaining to Security Zone I of Zurich airport and therefore the construction height of any new buildings was to be limited to between 21 and 38 meters.\n13.  On 8 July 1983 the applicant applied to the President of the Federal Assessment Commission (Eidgenössische Schätzungskommission), requesting the institution of compensation proceedings on account of an alleged de facto expropriation (materielle Expropriation). The request was refused by the Commission in 1984 and, upon appeal, by the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) on 29 May 1986.\n14.  On 7 March 1986 the applicant filed a new request for compensation which was declared inadmissible by the Commission “for the time being” (zur Zeit) on 4 February 1987 although, following the designation of new noise protection zones, the Commission decided to resume proceedings in 1988. Against both decisions the applicant filed administrative law appeals which were dismissed by the Federal Court in 1989.\n15.  Meanwhile the applicant requested compensation from the Niederhasli municipality for the change in zone of his properties. The case was transmitted successively to the Federal Assessment Commission, the Dielsdorf District Council and the Government of the Canton of Zurich, which in 1990 ordered the Niederhasli municipality to institute compensation proceedings. Against this last decision the applicant filed an appeal with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich, which in 1992 found that it was up to the Cantonal Assessment Commission rather than the Niederhasli municipality to conduct the compensation proceedings. These proceedings were then instituted before the Cantonal Assessment Commission, though on 30 June 1995 the Federal Assessment Commission decided to suspend the proceedings until the Federal Court had given its judgment.\n16.  Meanwhile, the Federal Assessment Commission dismissed on 26 October 1990 the applicant’s request for compensation of 7 March 1986 as, inter alia, there were still adequate possibilities for the applicant to use his properties.\n17.  On 6 February 1991 the applicant filed an administrative law appeal (Verwaltungsgerichtsbeschwede) with the Federal Court against this decision, requesting compensation for the depreciation in value of his properties on account of the extension and operations of Zurich airport. He also challenged all the Federal Court judges as they had previously sat in other proceedings concerning himself.\n18.  By decision of 5 June 1991, the Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge.\n19.  The Federal Court then brought the applicant’s administrative appeal to the attention of the Government of the Canton of Zurich, which in its observations requested the court to dismiss the appeal. The Federal Assessment Commission refrained from filing observations. Upon the applicant’s request, the cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-209", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The first to fifth applicants were born in 1929, 1970, 1934, 1929 and 1934 respectively and live in Zagreb.\n11.  During 1992 the applicants lent various sums of money to a number of agencies that were supposed to pay back the loans within periods ranging from 2 to 12 months and at interest rates ranging from 10 to 30 % per month (so called “financial engineering”). As these agencies failed to re-pay the loans, the applicants instituted civil proceedings against the agencies and their alleged owners.\n12.  On 18 October 1993 the applicant filed an action with the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking payment of his loan in the amount of 10,000 German Marks (DEM).\n13.  The preliminary hearing scheduled for 24 January 1994 was adjourned.\nAs on 15 February 1994 the presiding judge resigned from her office, the case was transferred to another judge in October 1996.\n14.  The next hearing scheduled for 6 December 2000 was adjourned because the presiding judge was absent.\n15.  The hearing scheduled for 20 April 2001 was adjourned because B.J. did not appear. As the documents indicated that she had been released from detention on remand, the court invited the applicant to submit her new address. When the applicant informed the court that he did not know B.J.’s new address, the court requested the Ministry of Interior (Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova Republike Hrvatske) to submit B.J.’s new address. The Ministry of Interior informed the court that B.J. had changed her name into B.Č.\n16.  The hearings scheduled for 21 September 2001 and 4 April 2002 were adjourned because B.J. had not collected a notice of the hearing date.\nIt appears that the proceedings are pending before the court of first instance.\nb.  Proceedings against B.B.\n17.  On 18 October 1993 the applicant filed an action with the Zagreb Municipal Court for re-payment of his loan in the amount of DEM 20,000.\n18.  Before the period to be examined by the Court several hearings were held and several adjourned. The hearing scheduled for 18 June 1997 was adjourned because B.B. did not appear. The court invited the applicant to submit the number of the case-file concerning criminal proceedings against B.B. before the same court.\nAs the applicant failed to do so, the court itself found the file number, but was unable to review that file because it was sent to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on 13 June 1997. The court repeated its request to examine the file on 15 November 1998, 15 September 1999 and 5 September 2000.\n19.  As neither party appeared at the hearing scheduled for 11 April 2001 the court found that the applicant had withdrawn his claim.\nThe applicant appealed against that decision stating that he had been ill on the date of the hearing. On 23 May 2001 the court invited the applicant to submit evidence as to the fact that he had been ill. The applicant appeared before the court on 13 June 2001 and stated that he had no medical documentation.\nOn 5 July the court sent the case-file to the Zagreb County Court as the appellate court. However that court found that the applicant’s appeal in effect had been a request to resume the proceedings. Consequently, on 22 October 2001 the case-file was returned to the Zagreb Municipal Court.\nIt appears that the proceedings are pending before the Zagreb Municipal Court.\n20.  On 6 May 1993 the applicant, together with 244 other plaintiffs, filed an action for re-payment of their loans with the Zagreb Municipa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-210", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  Mr E.B. was the owner of an apartment in Rome, which he had let to F.G.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 July 1986, he communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 12 February 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 November 1988.\n10.  On 9 March 1990, Mr E.B. served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. On 23 May 1990, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 June 1990.\n11.  Between 7 June 1990 and 30 April 1991, the bailiff made ten attempts to recover possession.\n12.  On 14 May 1991, the applicant became the owner of the apartment.\n13.  Between 28 May 1991 and 16 November 1994, the bailiff made thirty-three attempts to recover possession.\n14.  On 1 December 1994, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n15.  Between 26 January 1995 and 7 May 1997, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  On 10 May 1997, the tenant vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-211", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  In 1964 the applicant inherited from her father the title over an apartment in Florence; her mother L. inherited a life and controlling interest in that apartment, i.e. the right to use it and derive any benefits therefrom. L. let the apartment to D.D.C. The lease was due to expire on 31 December 1987. In a writ served on the tenant on 9 January 1986, L. communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n8.  On 12 February 1986, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988. That decision was made enforceable on 21 March 1988.\n9.  On 5 October 1990, L. served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. On 14 November 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 November 1990.\n10.  Between 21 November 1990 and 19 November 1996, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as L. was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n11.  In the meantime, on 28 February 1991, the applicant in her capacity as the owner of the apartment, made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her son.\n12.  On 28 November 1996 L. died and the applicant acquired the interest in the apartment. She pursued the proceedings in her own name.\n13.  Between 17 March 1997 and 22 January 1999, the bailiff made five further attempts to recover possession, which attempts were unsuccessful due to the lack of police assistance.\n14.  Under the newly enacted Law 431/1998, the tenant proposed to the applicant that they enter into a new lease. On 1 July 1999, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to repossess the apartment.\n15.  On 27 July 1999, the tenant requested the Florence District Court, under Section 6 of Law 431/98, to set a new date for the eviction.\n16.  On 27 December 1999, reaching a friendly agreement with the tenant, the applicant recovered possession of her apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-212", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Tartu, Estonia. He is the owner of the company AS Giga, with a registered office in Tartu. The company has been involved in reconstructing the public heat supply of the city.\n10.  On 14 November 1995 the Tartu police initiated criminal proceedings against the head of the Energy Department of the Tartu City Government. The proceedings concerned the alleged abuse of his position in contracting a loan with the Ministry of Finance for reconstructing the city's heat supply in an amount higher than approved and guaranteed by the City Council. In the context of these criminal proceedings the Tartu Public Prosecutor (Tartu prokurör) approved a search of the applicant's company's premises on 14 November 1995 in order to determine whether there were any original bookkeeping documents which might provide information with regard to the unauthorised use of the loan.\n11.  On 15 and 20 November 1995 the Tartu police searched the company's premises and seized respectively 36 and 50 files of documents, which comprised practically all of the company's bookkeeping records from the years 1994 and 1995. The documents seized were recorded by the files and not individually. The applicant estimates that their total number amounted to approximately 10,000.\nAll seized files were placed in a separate room in the Tartu Police Prefecture for examination by the State auditors, who were assisted by staff of the financial department of the Tartu City Government.\n12.  On 16 November 1995 the applicant filed a complaint with the Tartu Public Prosecutor alleging that the police search and seizure of documents had been unlawful. On 17 November 1995 he complained also to the State Public Prosecutor (Riigiprokurör), submitting that the wholesale nature of the seizure and the failure to make an individual record of the seized items were inconsistent with the requirements of Articles 139 and 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n13.  On 22 November 1995 the police informed the applicant that he was free to consult the seized documents at the police station for the continued activities of his company.\n14.  On 23 November 1995 the Tartu Public Prosecutor instructed the police to make a record of the individual characteristics of the seized documents and to return the documents irrelevant to the criminal investigation.\n15.  On 24 November 1995, in response to the applicant's complaint, the Tartu Public Prosecutor informed him of his instructions to the police to correct the deficiencies in the recording of documents and pointed out that the police had given the applicant access to the documents with the possibility of making photocopies. The prosecutor also stated that his action was open to appeal to the State Public Prosecutor.\n16.  On 27 November 1995 the applicant filed a complaint with the State Public Prosecutor. On the same day the police returned to the applicant's company three previously seized files.\n17.  By a letter of 30 November 1995 the Deputy State Public Prosecutor informed the applicant that he had examined the complaint. He noted that the searches had been approved by the prosecutor, but acknowledged that, due to the large number of documents, their recording had been deficient. He further noted that the Tartu Public Prosecutor had ordered the police to remove the shortcomings. He accepted the measures of the Tartu Public Prosecutor and the reply issued to the applicant on 24 November 1995. It was also noted tha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-213", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1951 and is presently serving a prison sentence in the Lepoglava State Prison (hereinafter the “LSP”).\n9.  In 1994 the applicant was found guilty on one account of murder. During the process he was diagnosed with the post-traumatic stress disorder and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Since 3 March 2000 he has been in the LSP where he was placed in the B wing.\n10.  The LSP consists of a radial building comprising four wings, each of four storeys, and a two-storey annex. Three wings were renovated, wing E is currently under renovation. B-wing has not yet been renovated.\n11.  From May 2001 until June 2002 the applicant was placed in cell number 17 in the B wing. Most of the time there was another inmate sharing the cell with the applicant. It measured 3,50 meters by 1,60 meters. There were no in-cell sanitary facilities. There were two non-working electrical outlets. There was a dim light on the ceiling. The window on the wall opposite the door measured 80 cm². There was one wooden chair and a metal locker. There was one set of bunk beds. The cell smelled strongly of moisture. The cement walls were damp to the touch.\n12.  The applicant stated that the mattresses were dirty and bloodstained and the food served to the inmates was insufficient and of low quality.\nMedical assistance was provided once a week, on an assigned day, regardless of his health. The applicant stated that he could not address himself to the social services in the prison. There were no entertainment or other activities in the prison.\nIn general, the prison was overcrowded. The prison buildings had been built about two hundred years ago and are in a very poor state.\nCases of ill-treatment by the guards were allegedly not uncommon.\nThe applicant alleged further that the halls where the inmates work were cold.\n13.  According to the Government the food served to the inmates complied with the prescribed calories value. In general, the inmates had not complained about the quality of food, nor had there been objections in that respect in the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Report (hereinafter the “CPT Report”).\nMedical assistance was provided according to the needs of each inmate. The conditions had improved after the CPT Report in so far as one general practitioner and one dentist had been employed full time. If there was a need, specialist treatment was available in the hospital for prisoners or in any regular hospital.\nThe inmates have an opportunity to work if they wish. There are wood and metal processing plants as well as some service-providing jobs. About 50% of the inmates worked. The applicant expressed a wish not to work.\nThe inmates were allowed to watch television, use a library, exercise or choose among several other activities such as art work, barrel-making, literature or music classes. On Sundays and public holidays there were film projections; sometimes concerts and theatre plays were organised.\n14.  The applicant was involved in therapeutic sessions concerning inmates suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and in outdoor exercising.\n15.  In June 2002 the applicant was moved to another cell in one of the renovated wings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-214", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants have been members of the Homeopathic Association (Homeopatická společnost) since 1991. The Homeopathic Association is in turn a member of the Czech Medical Society J.E. Purkyně (Česká lékařská společnost J.E. Purkyně – “the Medical Society”), an independent association made up of private individuals – doctors, chemists, and other people in the medical or paramedical profession – and companies. The Medical Society's objects include developing and disseminating knowledge obtained from the field of medical science and related spheres, using that knowledge in the public-health sector, improving the professional skills of its members, creating a suitable environment in which its members and other similar organisations and institutions in the Czech Republic and overseas can exchange information, and supporting the activity of professional partnerships, medical practices and other groups employed in the medical and paramedical sectors.\n9.  On 20 November 1996 the Medical Society resolved in congress to amend its internal rules (stanovy) by adding Rule 2 § 8, which provided: “The Czech Medical Society J.E. Purkyně shall ensure that its members only use diagnostic, preventive or curative methods that are based on currently recognised scientific evidence, as regards both their characteristics and their effects.” The congress made a recommendation to the executive board of the Medical Society for the Homeopathic Association to be expelled from its membership, on the ground that it did not satisfy the conditions laid down by Rule 2 § 8.\n10.  On 30 December 1996 the executive board of the Medical Society resolved to expel the Homeopathic Association from the Medical Society under Rule 2 § 8 with effect from 31 December 1996. It informed the applicants of that resolution in a letter of 30 December 1996.\n11.  On 20 January 1997 eleven members of the Homeopathic Association, including the applicants, brought an action against the Medical Society under section 15 of the Citizens' Associations Act (Law no. 83/1990) and Article 80 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. They sought declarations that the amendment of 20 November 1996 to the internal rules and, consequently, the decision to expel their association were nullities (neplatnost) and that the Homeopathic Association remained a member of the Medical Society. They maintained that the Medical Society's decision had damaged the reputation of the Homeopathic Association and had caused patients to become wary of doctors practising homeopathy (a fact which they submitted gave them a relevant interest for the purposes of Article 80 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure). They said that the decision had been arbitrary, unlawful and subjective, as it had been taken without the benefit of expert professional or scientific advice and was liable to cause unjustified discrimination against certain healing methods.\n12.  In a judgment of 2 October 1997, Prague 2 Municipal Court (obvodní soud) dismissed the applicants' action without examining the merits, holding:\n“The Court finds that [the applicants] are not entitled [in their action for a declaration of nullity under Article 80 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure] ... to an order negating the alleged illegality of the resolution adopted by the organ of the society or any inconsistency with the internal rules [of the Medical Society]. [Section 15(1) of Law no. 83/1990] only gives the court power to review an impugned decision, not to vary or uphold ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-216", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 6 October 1986 the applicant, who was born in 1919, applied for disability benefits under the Social Insurance Act (Lagen om allmän försäkring, 1962:381; hereinafter “the 1962 Act”). He claimed that he was in need of assistance and had additional costs due to a speech impediment caused by a laryngectomy operation in 1979.\n9.  By a decision of 24 April 1987 the Social Insurance Office (försäkringskassan; hereinafter “the Office”) of the County of Västmanland rejected the application, finding that the applicant’s needs or costs were not such as to make him eligible for disability benefits.\n10.  On 27 December 1990 the applicant requested the Office to review its decision under chapter 20, section 10 a of the 1962 Act. He claimed that he had failed to fully state his need of assistance and his additional costs in the original application. On 27 April 1991 he asked the Office, alternatively, to consider his request as a new application and to grant him benefits as from November 1988.\n11.  On 12 July 1991 the Office found that there was no basis for a review of its earlier decision. Further, in regard to the applicant’s alternative claim, the Office noted that the applicant had reached the age of 65 in 1984 and that information relating to the time that followed could not be taken into account under the relevant rules. Consequently, the applicant’s alternative claim was rejected.\n12.  The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Västmanland. On 13 November 1992 the court gave judgment in his favour. It considered that the Office’s first decision had been based on insufficient information and that the Office should therefore have reviewed that decision at the applicant’s request. It noted that, according to the two medical certificates in the case, the applicant had considerable additional costs due to his handicap. Consequently, he was entitled to disability benefits as long as his need of assistance and his additional costs, taken together, attained the level required under the 1962 Act. Accepting the information submitted by the applicant in this regard, the court found that that level had been attained and granted him a disability allowance as from July 1986. The court did not hold an oral hearing nor, apparently, did the applicant request one.\n13.  The National Social Insurance Board (Riksförsäkringsverket; hereinafter “the Board”) appealed against the County Administrative Court’s judgment to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Stockholm, requesting that the Office’s decision of 12 July 1991 be confirmed. The Board claimed that the information in the case showed that, before the age of 65, the applicant had not suffered a functional impairment to such an extent that his need of assistance and extra expenses on account thereof had made him eligible for a disability allowance. Thus, the Office’s first decision could not be considered to have been incorrect due to it being based on incorrect or incomplete material. Consequently, there were no grounds for a review under the 1962 Act. The Board further requested the appellate court to stay the enforcement of the appealed judgment. The latter request was granted by a decision of 30 December 1992.\n14.  The applicant made submissions in response to the Board’s appeal. On 25 February 1993 he requested the Administrative Court of Appeal to hold an oral hearing in the case during which the person in charge of the case at the Office", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-217", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Wrocław, Poland.\n10.  On 22 February 1994 the applicant was arrested by the police.\n11.  On 24 February 1994 the applicant was brought before the Wrocław District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) who charged him with larceny and detained him on remand.\n12.  On 2 July 1994 the applicant’s mother died.\n13.  On 3 July 1994 the applicant made an application for leave to attend the funeral of his mother. The application was in the following terms:\n“I kindly ask you to grant me leave, on the basis of the telegram received on 3.7.94, [to attend] the funeral of my mother Płoska Stefania, address Bełchatów 67-400, Osiedle Dolnośląskie, Blok 225 – who died, which is confirmed by the telegram [informing] that her funeral will take place on 5.07.1994. \nI very kindly ask you to grant me leave – I would like to pay last respects to my mother, a beloved person whom I lost. I ask you to agree to my request – I thank you very much for that.”\n14.  The application was accompanied by the statement of a prison officer who supported the applicant’s request.\n15.  On 4 July 1994 the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court refused the permission to grant the applicant leave considering that he “was a habitual offender whose return to the prison cannot be guaranteed.”\n16.  On 5 July 1994 the Penitentiary Judge rejected the applicant’s application for leave to attend the funeral of his mother. The judge’s decision was worded as follows:\n“Further to the application of 3.07.1994 for compassionate leave I hereby inform you that, after analysing the case, I have not found grounds for granting such leave because there are no compassionate circumstances as referred to in Art. 59 § 1 of the Code of the Enforcement of Sentences. I should inform you that the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court on 4.07.94 (...) refused permission to grant compassionate leave.”\n17.  On 3 August 1994 the applicant’s father died.\n18.  On 6 August 1994 the applicant made an application for leave to attend the funeral of his father. The application was in the following terms:\n“I kindly ask you to grant me a compassionate leave because my father Wacław Płoski has died. The funeral will take place on 8.08.1994 and I would like to attend it and to pay last respects to him. I should add that this is yet another death because in July 94 my mother died and I did not attend her funeral. Now my dad has died, so that I have been left without parents and I would like to bid farewell and attend my dad’s funeral. I declare that I will return from leave on time and I will not breach the trust. I ask you to agree to my request and I thank you for that.”\n19.  The application was accompanied by the statement of a prison officer who confirmed that the applicant’s “behaviour was beyond reproach” and that he “stayed in touch with his wife and children.”\n20.  On 8 August 1994 the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court refused permission to grant the applicant leave. The court gave the following reasons for its decision:\n“The charges against the accused involve a significant danger to society. The accused Wacław Płoski is a habitual offender within the meaning of Article 60 § 2 of the Criminal Code. In the court’s view, his return to the Detention Centre cannot be guaranteed. It should be pointed out that the next hearing has been fixed for 11 August 1994. For these reasons the above decision has been made.”\n21.  On 9 August 1994 the Penitentiary Judge refused the applicant’s a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-218", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 9 November 1994 the applicant sued the co-operative Úsvit before the Bratislava II District Court (Obvodný súd). She claimed the payment of a sum of money to which she was entitled after she had ceased to be a member of the co-operative in 1993.\n10.  On 18 January 1995 the Bratislava II District Court adjourned the case as the defendant's representative did not appear.\n11.  On 20 February 1995 the District Court again adjourned the hearing because of the applicant's failure to appear.\n12.  A hearing scheduled for 22 March 1995 had to be adjourned due to the absence of both parties.\n13.  On 24 April 1995 the District Court adjourned the case on the ground that the defendant had not been duly served with a copy of the action.\n14.  On 29 May 1995 the District Court adjourned the case until 26 June 1995 as the applicant did not appear.\n15.  On 26 June 1995 the District Court established that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case and transferred it to the Bratislava City Court (Mestský súd).\n16.  On 13 October 1995 the Bratislava City Court invited the applicant to pay the court fees.\n17.  On 7 November 1995 the Bratislava City Court was notified that the applicant had paid the fees.\n18.  On 29 November 1995 the Bratislava City Court resolved that the applicant had to pay an additional amount in court fees.\n19.  On 12 April 1996 the applicant requested the Bratislava City Court to proceed with the case.\n20.  On 12 September 1996 the applicant complained about delays in the proceedings to the president of the City Court.\n21.  On 24 September 1996 the latter informed the applicant that the proceedings had been stayed on 18 September 1996 and that the relevant decision would be served later.\n22.  In its decision of 18 September 1996 the Bratislava City Court noted that the decision on the applicant's action depended on the assessment of the property of the co-operative concerned and that this preliminary issue was the subject matter of a different set of proceedings which were brought in 1992 and were still pending before it. The City Court therefore stayed the proceedings concerning the applicant's claim pending the outcome of the other set of proceedings.\n23.  The applicant appealed on 25 September 1996. She maintained, with reference to the relevant provision of the Commercial Code as well as to the memorandum and articles of the co-operative, that the amount due to her was to be calculated on the basis of the co-operative's net business assets set out in its financial statement for the year when her membership in the co‑operative had been terminated. The applicant argued that this information was available and that the outcome of the other set of the proceedings had no bearing on the determination of her claim.\n24.  On 12 December 1996 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice that her case was not being proceeded with.\n25.  On 27 January 1997 the Ministry of Justice admitted that the applicant's complaint about delays in the proceedings was justified. The letter stated that the case had been transferred to the Bratislava City Court on 29 September 1995 and that the latter, apart from requesting the applicant to pay the court fees, had not proceeded with the case effectively until 18 September 1996.\n26.  On 29 January 1997 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) dismissed the applicant's appeal against the City Court's decision of 18 September 1996.\n27.  On 24 March 1999 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-219", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 26 March 1993 the applicant claimed damages resulting from the termination of his membership of a co-operative before the Trnava District Court. On 20 September 1993 the latter allowed the applicant’s claims in part.\n8.  The defendant and the applicant appealed respectively on 8 and 13 October 1993. On 13 December 1993 the applicant submitted reasons for his appeal. On 23 December 1993 the case was submitted to the Bratislava Regional Court.\n9.  On 31 January 1994 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment on the ground that the reasoning was insufficient.\n10.  The District Court held hearings on 30 March, 25 April and 23 May 1994.\n11.  Another hearing scheduled for 13 June 1994 had to be adjourned as the applicant’s lawyer had failed to appear. On 6 July 1994 the District Court again adjourned the case as the applicant’s lawyer had failed to submit written observations in time.\n12.  On 15 July 1994 the applicant challenged the Trnava District Court judge dealing with his case. On 16 August 1994 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the objection.\n13.  On 24 October 1994 the Trnava District Court delivered a new judgment allowing the applicant’s claim for damages in part. The parties appealed and the case was submitted to the appellate court on 12 December 1994.\n14.  On 7 July 1995 the case had to be adjourned as neither the applicant nor his lawyer appeared.\n15.  On 31 July 1995 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment on the ground that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case. The case was transferred to another chamber of the Regional Court on 2 October 1995.\n16.  On 24 June 1996 the Ministry of Justice admitted, in reply to a complaint lodged by the applicant, that there had been undue delays in the proceedings.\n17.  Between 17 July 1996 and 25 December 1996 the judge dealing with the case took several procedural steps.\n18.  On 24 January 1997 the president of the Bratislava Regional Court apologised to the applicant for delays in the proceedings and informed him that a hearing was scheduled for 28 January 1997.\n19.  On the latter date the court heard the defendant and adjourned the case until 25 March 1997 as it was not clear whether the applicant’s lawyer had received the summons. On 24 March 1997 the applicant’s lawyer informed the court that he no longer represented the applicant. On 25 March 1997 the Regional Court therefore adjourned the case until 22 April 1997.\n20.  On 22 April 1997 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the action on the ground that the applicant failed to show that he had suffered damage. On 2 May 1997 the applicant appealed. The case file was transmitted to the Supreme Court on 26 May 1997. On 3 June 1997 the Supreme Court returned the case to the Regional Court and instructed the latter to decide on the fees for the appeal proceedings. The Regional Court delivered a decision on court fees on 14 June 1997 and sent the case to the Supreme Court on 1 August 1997.\n21.  On 22 December 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the first instance judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Regional Court had not established the relevant facts of the case.\n22.  On 4 February 1998 the applicant requested the exclusion of the Regional Court judges dealing with his case. He alleged, in particular, that the judges had decided on his claim erroneously and that they had caused delays in the proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the request on 24 Au", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-220", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 17 October 1994 the applicant, who was born in 1937 and had been on early retirement since 1989, applied for disability benefits under the Social Insurance Act (Lagen om allmän försäkring, 1962:381; hereinafter “the 1962 Act”). He claimed that he had extra costs following an operation on his intestines in September 1994 due to, inter alia, an increased consumption of fluids.\n9.  By a decision of 28 December 1994 the Social Insurance Office (försäkringskassan; hereinafter “the Office”) of the County of Stockholm rejected the application, finding that the applicant’s costs were not such as to make him eligible for benefits.\n10.  The applicant later made a new application, which was rejected by the Office on 8 February 1995.\n11.  The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Stockholm. On 16 May 1995 the court rejected his appeal. The court did not hold an oral hearing nor did the applicant request one.\n12.  Following the applicant’s further appeal, the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Stockholm, by a decision of 17 November 1995, refused him leave to appeal.\n13.  On 5 December 1995 the applicant made yet another application for disability benefits. On 3 April 1996 the application was rejected by the Office, which again found that the applicant’s costs did not attain the required level. The Office had at its disposal three medical certificates issued by different physicians. They expressed differing opinions on the applicant’s need of extra consumption of fluids, two of them considering that there was no such need and the third one stating that the applicant was recommended, from a surgical point of view, an increased consumption of, for instance, mineral water.\n14.  The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court. In a decision of 23 July 1996 the court noted that the issue in the case was whether the applicant’s extra costs attained the level required for a disability allowance under the 1962 Act. Finding that the medical evidence in the case was inconclusive and did not provide the Court with a sufficient basis for a decision, the court ordered the National Social Insurance Board (Riksförsäkringsverket; hereinafter “the Board”) to submit observations in the case. The Board answered by a letter of 13 August 1996, in which it contested the applicant’s claims. The applicant made observations in reply.\n15.  On 16 October 1996 the County Administrative Court gave judgment in the applicant’s favour. Having reiterated that the medical evidence was inconclusive, the court also noted that the calculations of the applicant’s extra costs made by the Office and the applicant himself were very close on either side of the level required for entitlement to a disability allowance. In these circumstances, it gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt and granted him an allowance. An oral hearing was not requested by the applicant, nor did the court hold one of its own motion.\n16.  The Board appealed against the judgment to the Administrative Court of Appeal and submitted a medical certificate from a further physician, who stated that an increased consumption of fluids was necessary due to the applicant’s handicap but that there was no particular need for mineral water. On 2 April 1997 the appellate court granted the Board leave to appeal.\n17.  By a letter of 23 April 1997 the applicant requested the appellate court to hold an oral hearing in the case. He did not state any reason", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-221", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 20 June 1967 the applicants executed a deed of sale and gift (kupní a darovací smlouva) under which M.R., as vendor, agreed to sell them a farmhouse in Srch and to transfer the adjoining agricultural land to them without consideration. At the time, the system for transferring agricultural holdings was by a sale of the house and gift of the adjoining land that was farmed by a socialist cooperative. The approval of the cooperative and the agreement of the competent national committee were required before the deed of sale and gift could be executed. Purchasers of land were required to give an undertaking that they would work for the cooperative.\nAccording to the applicants, M.R. wished to secure his release from his obligation to work for the socialist cooperative and could only do so by transferring the land. It was he who had proposed the arrangement, as he wanted to sort out his domestic affairs. Under the statutory provisions then in force, the applicants were obliged, as a condition for purchasing the house, to give an undertaking to work for the cooperative as a replacement for M.R. They paid him 30,000 Czechoslovak korunas on top of the purchase price of the house, as compensation for the value of the transferred land.\n10.  In 1991 M.R. signed a declaration that he had transferred the land of his own free will. In the applicants' submission, that declaration constituted a rider to the deed confirming M.R.'s consent.\n11.  However on 1 July 1993 M.R. brought a civil action against the applicants seeking, inter alia, rescission under section 8(3) of the Land Act (Law no. 229/1991) of the part of the agreement that concerned the transfer of the agricultural land.\n12.  In a judgment of 30 September 1994, the Pardubice District Court (okresní soud) found in favour of M.R., holding, inter alia:\n“[The applicants] have invited the Court to dismiss M.R.'s actions on the ground that he transferred his land of his own free will to sort out his domestic affairs and that in consideration [for that transfer] they had assumed his obligation to work for the agricultural cooperative. ...\nSection 8(3) of the Land Act (Law no. 229/1991) provides that if a landowner has donated land to a private individual under duress or transferred it without consideration under a contract for the sale of an adjoining building and at the date this Act entered into force the land was still in that person's possession, the court shall, on application by a person with standing, either (a) order rescission of that part of the sale agreement by which the land was donated or transferred without consideration, or (b) order the current owner to reimburse the price of the land. ...\nThe Court ... finds that the aforementioned conditions were satisfied in the present case and therefore finds in favour of [M.R.]. It has been established that [M.R.] is the person with standing within the meaning of Law no. 229/1991, that is to say the person who gave [the applicants] – the obligees within the meaning of that Act – the agricultural land in connection with the sale of the building ... It has also been established that [the applicants] are currently in possession of the land. Consequently, the Court ... rescinds the section of the deed of sale and gift executed by the parties on 20 June 1967 that provides for the transfer of ownership of the land in question without consideration. ... It does not consider that the 'minuted rider to the deed' dated 6 April 1991 constitutes a va", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-222", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant claimed restitution of real property which had been expropriated from her in 1967.\n8.  On 15 September 1992 the Košice-mesto Land Office (Pozemkový úrad) granted the applicant’s claim. The Land Office established, after an inspection of the land in question, that it had never served the purpose for which it had been expropriated which was a relevant reason for its restitution within the meaning of Section 6 (1) (m) of the Land Ownership Act of 1991. The educational institution which possessed the land challenged the decision.\n9.  On 19 April 1993 the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed the administrative decision as it considered the reasons for it to be insufficient. The Regional Court instructed the administrative authority to establish all relevant facts of the case and to hear the parties.\n10.  On 29 December 1997 both the applicant and a representative of the institution using the land in question met with officials of the Košice 2 District Office (Okresný úrad) to which the case fell to be examined. In the course of the meeting the relevant facts of the case were examined.\n11.  On 6 February 1998 the Košice 2 District Office delivered a new decision by which it dismissed the applicant’s claim. It held that the plot served the original purpose of its expropriation within the meaning of Section 6 (1) (m) of the Land Ownership Act of 1991 and that the applicant had received compensation for it. The decision was signed by the head of the land, agriculture and forest department of the District Office.\n12.  On 10 March 1998 the applicant requested judicial review of this decision. She complained that the Land Office had failed to establish the relevant facts correctly, that it had decided arbitrarily and that there had been no hearing in the case.\n13.  On 12 June 1998 the Košice Regional Court upheld the District Office’s decision. The court found, with reference to the documents included in the file of the District Office, that the plot in question served the purpose of its expropriation since a social institution used it as a playground for handicapped children. With reference to Article 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Regional Court decided in camera.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-223", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Fougaron.\n8.  On 12 June 1996 the Haute-Garonne Assize Court sentenced the applicant to fifteen years' imprisonment for armed robbery carried out as part of a gang, false imprisonment and fraud. He was detained in Lannemezan Prison (département of Hautes-Pyrénées).\n9.  In late 1998 his health deteriorated.\n10.  On 8 January 1999 a doctor from the Outpatient Consultation and Treatment Unit (unité de consultation et de soins ambulatoires – “the UCSA”) at Lannemezan Prison issued a medical certificate, which stated: \n“This patient has a history of serious [medical] problems ...\nHe was recently found to have B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, with some evidence of tumour ...\nThe leukaemia is currently not accompanied by any alteration of the other cell lines; in particular, there is no sign of anaemia or thrombocytopenia.\nHowever, bilateral axillary adenopathy is present, predominantly on the right-hand side.\nThis certificate has been issued at the patient's request and handed to him in connection with an application for parole on medical grounds.”\n11.  On 30 September 1999 a further medical report stated:\n“This patient has chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, which has caused severe asthenia. Furthermore, there are signs of orthopaedic disorders as a result of an injury to the left knee and the left ankle causing osteoarthritis of the left patellofemoral and tibiofemoral joints and making it painful for him to remain for long periods in a seated position with his legs bent.\nIn addition, on account of the orthopaedic disorders observed in his left lower limb, the patient has to use a walking stick to move about.\nHis condition is not compatible with the use of restraints on his lower limbs.”\n12.  On 6 December 1999 the UCSA doctor advised against applying restraints to the applicant's lower limbs.\n13.  The applicant applied to the French President for a pardon on medical grounds, but his application was refused on 7 March 2000.\n14.  On 31 March 2000 International Prison Watch (IPW) issued the following press release:\n \n“No early release for prisoners with serious illnesses\nOn 7 March 2000 the Minister of Justice refused applications for a pardon lodged on behalf of a prisoner suffering from a rapidly progressive disease.\n52-year-old Jean Mouisel is currently in Lannemezan Prison. He was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in November 1998. Jean Mouisel has served two-thirds of his sentence. If remissions of sentence are taken into account, he will be due for release in 2002. On 24 February 2000 a doctor from the UCSA at Lannemezan Prison drew up a certificate attesting that the disease was transforming into lymphoma and that an extended course of cancer treatment involving chemotherapy was therefore necessary. This prisoner is taken to hospital once a week and has to endure his illness while in detention. He is allowed only one visit a week from his relatives, in accordance with the prison's rules.\nHis doctor and various associations applied for a pardon on his behalf. The Ministry of Justice, which centralises such applications and takes an initial decision, did not see fit to refer his case to the President's Private Office.\nIPW wishes to stress that 'no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' (Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights).”\n15.  On 12 May 2000 the UCSA doctor drew up a further medical certificate, which stated:\n“Thi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-224", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Milan.\n9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to M.A.H. on 1 March 1987.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 13 February 1991 the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 15 March 1991, which was made enforceable on 19 March 1991, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 30 September 1991.\n12.  On 10 July 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 18 November 1991 she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 November 1991.\n14.  Between 29 November 1991 and 22 January 1999 the bailiff made twenty-four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 22 November 1999, the applicant repossessed the premises with the assistance of the police.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-225", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which he had let to S.P.\n9.  In a registered letter of 28 June 1988, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 1 July 1988 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 20 February 1991, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 14 March 1991, which was made enforceable on 27 March 1991, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n12.  On 30 November 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. On an unidentified date, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 February 1993.\n13.  On 3 December 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his mother.\n14.  Between 19 February 1993 and 12 May 1997 the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 31 August 1997, the applicant repossessed the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-226", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are the owners of a flat in Milan, which they had let to G.M. and R.C.\n9.  In a registered letter of 23 January 1982, the applicants informed the tenants that they intended to terminate the lease and asked them to vacate the premises by 27 July 1982.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenants on an unspecified date, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 4 November 1982, which was made enforceable on 15 December 1982, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1983.\n12.  By a decision of 28 June 1985, the Milan Magistrate postponed the said deadline to 18 December 1985.\n13.  On 13 December 1985, the applicants served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 11 February 1986, they served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 February 1986.\n15.  Between 25 February 1986 and 24 November 1986, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession.\n16.  On 14 April 1987, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for their daughter.\n17.  Between 28 April 1987 and 12 January 1999, the bailiff made fifty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n18.  At the end of January 1999, the tenants vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-227", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Florence.\n9.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Florence which he had let to G.F.\n10.  In a registered letter of 6 June 1989, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 April 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 27 September 1989 the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 6 November 1989, which was made enforceable on 7 December 1989, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1993.\n13.  On 28 September 1991, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter.\n14.  On 14 May 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n15.  On 18 June 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 June 1993.\n16.  Between 23 June 1993 and 15 December 1998 the bailiff made 13 attempts to recover possession.\n17.  On 10 September 1998, the applicant made a second statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter.\n18.  Each attempt of the bailiff proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n19.  On 25 August 1999, the applicant served notice again on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 November 1999.\n20.  On 17 September 1999, the tenant asked the Florence District Court to set a fresh date for the enforcement of the order for possession pursuant to Section 6 of Law No. 431/98.\n21.  On 9 November 1999, the bailiff attempted to recover possession of the applicant’s apartment without success due to the lack of police assistance. He adjourned the enforcement proceedings to 23 March 2000.\n22.  On 26 January 2001, the applicant recovered possession of his flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-228", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The application relates to two sets of proceedings. The first concerns the divorce proceedings proper before the court of first instance and the second concerns the interim measures in respect of which Article 1280 of the Judicial Code gives the summary applications court special power and jurisdiction to hear applications for interim measures during the divorce proceedings.\n9.  On 17 March 1998 the applicant's husband filed a divorce petition against her on a specified ground.\n10.  After a hearing on 20 October 1998 judgment was reserved until 4 November 1998, when the Brussels Court of First Instance granted a divorce against the applicant and ordered each party to pay its own costs.\n11.  On 22 December 1998 the applicant's husband appealed against the costs order.\n12.  At a preliminary hearing on 26 January 1999 the parties declared that the case was ready for trial. It was immediately set down for hearing in the relevant ordinary division. On 7 May 1999, in reply to a letter from the applicant's lawyer, the registry of the Brussels Court of Appeal informed her that it would take eight months for the appeal to be heard. On 25 November 1999 the registry listed the case for hearing on 24 February 2000. At the hearing the applicant's husband stated that he was withdrawing his appeal. The court gave judgment on 16 March 2000 acknowledging that the appeal had been withdrawn.\n13.  The divorce decree was registered on 24 October 2000.\n14.  On 17 March 1998 the applicant was summoned before the Brussels Court of First Instance, as the court hearing summary applications, to deal with interim measures relating to the divorce petition and, more particularly, to the two children, born in 1984 and 1988, of whom the father had had custody since the couple had separated in 1995. The parties filed their main pleadings before the hearing of 17 June 1998. The applicant then filed further pleadings at the hearing. In an order of 26 June 1998 the President of the Brussels Court of First Instance provisionally granted the mother renewed contact with the children and determined the maintenance payable to the applicant by the father per child and per month.\n15.  On 31 July 1998 the applicant's husband appealed against that order. Neither party appeared at a preliminary hearing on 11 August 1998 and the appeal was re-listed for hearing. On 21 October 1998 the appellant asked for the hearing date to be fixed by judicial recorded delivery. At the hearing listed for 24 November 1998 the appeal was adjourned until 12 January 1999 for the court to check that it was ready for hearing. At the hearing the parties filed their grounds of appeal and a timetable for subsequent pleadings. On 21 January 1999 the applicant filed further pleadings and a list of documents. Her ex-husband filed further pleadings on 27 January 1999. On 28 January 1999 the case, which was now ready for hearing, was set down for hearing in an ordinary division.\n16.  On 6 May 1999, in reply to a letter from the applicant's lawyer, the registry of the Brussels Court of Appeal stated that the case had been set down for hearing and would take approximately eight months to come to a hearing. On 14 December 1999 the registry informed the parties that the case would be heard on 24 March 2000 but did not specify how the hearing would be conducted.\n17.  On 16 May 2000 the parties filed joint pleadings with the registry of the Court of Appeal stating that they intended to withdraw from the proceeding", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-229", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1956 and living in Florence.\n9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which she had let to P.R. and A.R.Z.\n10.  In a registered letter of 7 June 1989, the applicant informed the tenants that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 15 December 1989 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.\n11.  On 8 June 1989, she served a notice to quit on the tenants, but they refused to leave.\n12.  In a writ served on the tenants on 21 October 1989, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n13.  By a decision of 20 November 1989, which was made enforceable on 27 November 1989, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 December 1990.\n14.  On 18 December 1990, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n15.  On 28 December 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.\n16.  On 22 January 1991, she served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 February 1991.\n17.  Between 6 February 1991 and 27 February 2000, the bailiff made twenty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n18.  On 15 March 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-230", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1914 and lives in Inzago (Milano).\n9.  The applicant is usufructuary of a flat owned by her husband A.C., which had been let to G.P.\n10.  In a registered letter of 28 February 1985, the applicant’s husband informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 April 1986 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 April 1986, the applicant’s husband reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 26 April 1986, which was made enforceable on 14 May 1986, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1987.\n13.  On 20 May 1987, the applicant’s husband served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 9 June 1987, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 July 1987.\n15.  Between 10 July 1987 and 17 February 1988, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession.\n16.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant’s husband was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n17.  On 4 august 1988, the applicant’s husband died and the applicant inherited the usufruct of the flat.\n18.  Between 30 June 1989 and 10 December 1998, the bailiff made 30 attempts to recover possession.\n19.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n20.  On 12 May 2000, the applicant recovered possession of her flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-231", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Florence.\n9.  Mr and Mrs B. were the owners of an apartment in Florence, which they had let to M.C.B.\n10.  In a registered letter of 21 February 1987, they informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 April 1987, they reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 11 June 1987, which was made enforceable on 23 June 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n13.  On 6 August 1987, the applicant became the owner of the apartment.\n14.  On 11 January 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n15.  On 9 May 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n16.  On 18 May 1989, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 July 1989.\n17.  Between 11 July 1989 and 21 May 1998, the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n18.  On 3 July 1998, the tenant vacated the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-232", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Florence.\n9.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to A.R.\n10.  In a registered letter of 4 November 1985, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 13 January 1987, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 19 January 1987, which was made enforceable on 4 February 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1988.\n13.  On 18 March 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n14.  On 21 June 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n15.  On 7 August 1989 he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 August 1989.\n16.  Between 18 September 1989 and 4 July 1996 the bailiff made 15 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n17.  On 18 September 1996, the applicant recovered possession of his flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-233", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8. The applicant is the owner of a flat in Milan, which she had let to L.D.Z.\n9.  In a registered letter of 6 June 1984, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 29 December 1984 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n10.  On 11 February 1985, she served a notice to quit on the tenant, but she refused to leave.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 February 1985, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 27 February 1985, which was made enforceable on 14 March 1985, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 27 February 1986.\n13.  On 23 January 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 7 March 1986, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 April 1986.\n15.  Between 18 April 1986 and 18 June 1992 the bailiff made 23 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  Thereafter, the applicant decided not to pursue the enforcement proceedings, in order to avoid useless costs, given the lack of prospects of obtaining the assistance of the police.\n17.  On 13 April 1996 the applicant repossessed the flat, which the tenant vacated in pursuance of an agreement reached with the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-234", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  D.L.F. and D.E. were the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to F.M.\n9.  In a registered letter of 30 December 1982, they informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 8 March 1986 D.L.F and D.E. reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 6 May 1986, which was made enforceable on 16 May 1986, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1988.\n12.  On 28 April 1988, the applicant became the owner of the apartment.\n13.  On 21 December 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 10 January 1991, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 March 1991.\n15.  Between 18 March 1991 and 6 December 1991, the bailiff made three attempts to recover possession. After the third attempt, the applicant decided to discontinue the enforcement proceedings because of the lack of police assistance.\n16.  On 8 February 1995, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her own use.\n17.  On 20 February 1995, the applicant served notice again on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n18.  On 14 March 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 May 1995.\n19.  Between 15 May 1995 and 14 April 1997, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n20.  Following a friendly settlement, in January 1998 the tenant vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-235", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are the owners of a flat in Ghezzano di San Giuliano Terme (Pisa) which had been let to V.F.\n9.  In a registered letter of 5 December 1990, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 23 December 1991, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Pisa Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 31 January 1992, which was made enforceable on 6 February 1992, the Pisa Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 January 1993.\n12.  On 27 January 1994, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 14 February 1994, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 February 1994.\n14.  Between 28 February 1994 and 25 April 1998 the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  In June 1998, the applicants repossessed their flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-236", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Torre del Greco, which he had let to A.P.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 October 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned him to appear before the Naples Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 30 November 1990, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n11.  On 11 March 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter.\n12.  On 19 March 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 7 April 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 26 April 1993.\n14.  Between 26 April 1993 and 16 January 1997, the bailiff made nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt of the bailiff proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 28 April 1997, the tenant vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-238", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which he had let to S.S.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 29 March 1989, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned him to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 28 April 1989, which was made enforceable on 14 April 1993, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n11.  On 13 April 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter.\n12.  On 21 April 1993, he served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 9 June 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 June 1993.\n14.  Between 18 June 1993 and 14 May 1997, the bailiff made 10 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt of the bailiff proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 29 April 1997, the applicant and the tenant reached a friendly agreement and on 30 September 1998, the tenant vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-239", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 12 January 1996 the applicant had an accident while driving a car belonging to his employer. The police found alcohol on the applicant’s breath and seized his driving licence.\n9.  On 17 January 1996 the police department in Košice decided not to restore the driving licence to the applicant pending the outcome of the investigation into the accident. On 1 February 1996 the applicant appealed.\n10.  On 5 March 1996 the Ministry of the Interior upheld the first instance decision.\n11.  On 17 May 1996 the applicant sought a judicial review of the administrative decisions to withhold his driving licence.\n12.  On 30 June 1997 the Bratislava III District Court dismissed the action. It noted that the administrative decisions in question were of a procedural nature and that it lacked jurisdiction to review them.\n13.  On 19 December 1997 the applicant lodged a petition with the Constitutional Court. He alleged a violation of his constitutional right to a hearing without undue delays in the proceedings concerning the decision to withhold his driving licence. He also alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the proceedings before the Bratislava III District Court had been unfair.\n14.  On 11 February 1998 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as it found no reason for applying an international treaty in the applicant’s case. It declared admissible the complaint about the length of the proceedings. On 31 March 1998 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s constitutional right to a hearing without undue delays had been violated in the proceedings before the Bratislava III District Court.\n15.  On 12 April 1996 the Košice 1 District Prosecutor indicted the applicant for two offences on the ground that on 17 December 1995 and on 12 January 1996 respectively he had driven a car after having drunk alcohol and that on the latter date he had caused a road accident.\n16.  On 30 April 1996 the Košice 1 District Court issued a penal order convicting the applicant on two counts of causing danger to other persons while being intoxicated and imposed a conditional six months’ prison sentence. The applicant was further disqualified from driving for two and a half years.\n17.  On 15 May 1996 the applicant challenged the penal order.\n18.  Hearings before the Košice 1 District Court were held on 11 June 1996, on 26 November 1996 and on 17 December 1996. On the latter date the Košice 1 District Court delivered a judgment the operative part of which was the same, in substantive terms, as that of the penal order.\n19.  On 7 February 1997 the applicant appealed.\n20.  On 23 April 1997 the Supreme Court transferred the case from the Košice Regional Court to the Žilina Regional Court.\n21.  On 16 July 1997 the latter quashed the first instance judgment with reference to several shortcomings in the proceedings before the trial court. The decision was to be served by the Košice 1 District Court. The latter received it on 28 July 1997.\n22.  On 25 March 1998 the applicant complained to the President of the Košice 1 District Court that he had not been notified of the appellate court’s decision. On 16 April 1998 the President of the Košice 1 District apologised to the applicant for delays in the proceedings.\n23.  On 4 May 1998 the applicant complained to the President of the Košice Regional Court that the decision on his appeal had not been served and that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably lon", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-240", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were both born in 1956 and they are currently living in Istanbul.\n9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  Until 18 September 1994 the applicants lived in the Dirimpınar village of the Malazgirt district in the province of Muş.\n11.  On an unspecified date, while the applicant Ramazan Kınay was serving a prison sentence in Diyarbakır prison, the mayor of the village (muhtar) told the villagers and the applicant Makbule Kınay that their houses would be burned by security forces. Following this information, some of the villagers removed their belongings from their houses.\n12.  On 18 September 1995, at about 8 p.m., security forces, composed of 50-60 village guards, special team members and gendarmes, arrived in the applicants’ village. Some members of the security forces conducted a search of the applicants’ house. They seized the valuables belonging to Makbule Kınay. They manhandled and insulted her as well as her three children. Then they poured gas on the applicants’ house and set it on fire together with its contents.\n13.  Makbule Kınay recognised the village guards who had burned her house as being from the Nurettin village of the Malazgirt district.\n14.  Following the burning of her house, Makbule Kınay moved to her relatives’ house in the Bulanık district of Muş. She then moved to İstanbul as a result of intimidation by the security forces. She later learnt that 75 tons of barley had been collected from their fields by the village guards.\n15.  On 15 March 1995 Ramazan Kınay was conditionally released. On 30 November 1995 Ramazan Kınay filed a petition with the Üsküdar Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in İstanbul for submission to the Public Prosecutor’s office in Malazgirt. In his petition, he complained about the burning of his and his relatives’ houses by village guards. He requested permission to return to his village and compensation for the losses.\n16.  No investigation was carried out into the applicants’ complaints.\n17.  The applicant Ramazan Kınay was convicted of membership of the PKK. He was serving a prison sentence at the time of the alleged events.\n18.  The authorities carried out an investigation into the applicants’ allegations of destruction of their property and their forced eviction from the village.\n19.  On 5 December 1997 the Malazgirt Gendarme Commander took statements from the mayor of the Dirimpınar village. In his statements, the latter denied the applicants’ allegations. He stated that there were families still living in the village and that the applicant Makbule Kınay moved out of the village of her own free will.\n20.  According to the records of the Land Registry, the applicants are the owners of 10,56 acres of land.\n21.  Subsequent to the investigation carried out by the authorities, it was understood that, at the relevant time, there were no village guards or operations being carried out in the region.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-241", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Ağrı. He is the father of the deceased Orhan Yakar, who was 16 years old at the time of the events in question.\n8.  In June 1996 the applicant’s son went to Istanbul where he worked as a painter for a couple of months. In September 1996 the applicant lost contact with his son. In November 1996 the applicant went to Istanbul in order to find out his son’s whereabouts. Orhan’s neighbours told him that his son had disappeared two months earlier.\n9.  On 13 November 1996 the applicant filed a petition with the office of the Istanbul Public Prosecutor. He requested that his son be found and that those responsible be punished if anything had happened to him. The applicant also filed a petition with the Istanbul Security Directorate as to the whereabouts of his son. Then, he returned to his village in Ağrı.\n10.  On 17 November 1996 the security forces carried out a search in order to arrest a member of the PKK who had been located near the township of Sancak in the province of Bingöl. The security forces arrested the applicant’s son in the course of the search. In an incident report drafted by the gendarmes it was noted that the applicant’s son had been carrying a rifle and some ammunition when he was arrested. In a further incident report it was noted that Orhan Yakar had been arrested at 2.45 p.m. and that he had been subsequently transferred to the Interrogation Department in the Provincial Gendarmerie Command (İl Jandarma Komutanlığı Sorgu Kısım Amirliği) by a helicopter.\n11.  Neither reports bore the signature of the applicant’s son.\n12.  On 18 November 1996 the gendarmes, accompanied by the applicant’s son, carried out a search in order to find the body of a terrorist. While the gendarmes were 40 or 45 metres away from the location where the body had been left, Orhan, who was walking in front of the gendarmes, stepped on a mine placed by the PKK and died. The gendarmes continued their search and found the body of the terrorist. They also arrested a member of the PKK and seized two rifles.\n13.  In the meantime, the applicant was told at the Doğubeyazıt Gendarmerie Command that his son had joined the PKK and that he had surrendered to the security forces in Bingöl where he had been held in custody.\n14.  The applicant went to Bingöl in order to investigate the whereabouts of his son. He was told at the Bingöl Gendarmerie Command that his son, who had just surrendered to the security forces, had died after stepping on a mine.\n15.  In a letter of 22 November 1996 the Bingöl Gendarmerie Command informed the public prosecutor in Bingöl that the applicant’s son had been arrested on 17 November 1996, at 2.30 p.m., in the township of Sancak near the village of Karapınar and had been transferred to the Interrogation Department in the Provincial Gendarmerie Command. During his interrogation the applicant’s son had stated that he knew where the body of İhsan Meriç, who had died during the clashes of 16 November 1996, was hidden. The gendarmes, accompanied by Orhan, had carried out a search in order to find out where the body was hidden. However, Orhan had died after stepping on a mine.\n16.  On 23 December 1996 the applicant filed a petition with the office of the Bingöl public prosecutor. He requested that the corpse of his son be handed over to him.\n17.  On 6 January 1997 the applicant requested from the Bingöl Gendarmerie Command access to all information and documents concerning the death of his son.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-242", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 6 July 1990 the police investigator accused the applicant of theft and of breach of domestic privacy. On 7 July 1990 the Košice Public Prosecutor decided to remand the applicant in custody as from 5 July 1990.\n9.  On 4 January 1991 the applicant was indicted for several offences.\n10.  On 16 May 1991 the Supreme Court decided that the case was within the jurisdiction of the Košice Regional Court.\n11.  On 3 July 1991 the Košice Regional Court sent the applicant’s criminal case back to the Public Prosecutor for further investigation.\n12.  On 31 December 1991 the applicant was released from detention on remand.\n13.  On 13 April 1992 a new indictment was filed with the Košice City Court. On 27 May 1992 the latter referred the case to the Košice Regional Court for reasons of jurisdiction.\n14.  On 10 August 1992 the Košice Regional Court returned the case to the Public Prosecutor for further investigation.\n15.  On 9 February 1993 the Košice 1 District Prosecutor filed a new indictment against the applicant to the Košice 1 District Court. On 3 March 1993 the District Court transferred the case to the Košice Regional Court for reasons of jurisdiction. On 1 June 1993 the public prosecutor withdrew the indictment.\n16.  On 6 May 1994 the Košice 1 District Prosecutor again indicted the applicant before the Košice 1 District Court. On 16 May 1994 the prosecutor withdrew the indictment.\n17.  On 5 October 1994 the Košice 1 District Prosecutor filed a new indictment with the Košice 1 District Court. On 30 June 1995 the latter returned the case to the public prosecutor and ordered further investigation into the case. On 9 November 1995 the Košice Regional Court ordered the District Court to decide on the case on the basis of the indictment filed on 5 October 1994.\n18.  On 15 and 22 January 1996 the District Court adjourned the case after it had found that the applicant could not attend because he was detained in the context of different proceedings.\n19.  Hearings before the District Court were held on 14, 26 and 29 February 1996.\n20.  On 29 April 1996 the applicant requested that a different lawyer be appointed to represent him in the proceedings. His request was granted. Further hearings were held on 22 May 1996 and on 10 June 1996.\n21.  On 1 July 1996 the case was adjourned as witnesses did not appear. The court proceeded with the case on 11 and 16 September 1996. On the latter date the District Court delivered a judgment in which it convicted the applicant on sixty-nine counts of theft and attempted theft, of violation of domestic privacy and of damaging other persons’ property.\n22.  The Public Prosecutor appealed and claimed that the court should have imposed a consolidated sentence on the applicant.\n23.  On 30 September 1997 the Košice Regional Court granted the appeal and imposed a consolidated three years’ prison sentence.\n24.  In the meantime, on 5 May 1997, the applicant requested the District Court to restore his savings book which had been taken away from him at the preliminary stage of the proceedings.\n25.  On 5 November 1997 the Košice 1 District Court issued a decision, in the context of the above criminal proceedings, by which it seized the savings book from the applicant. On 18 February 1998 the Košice Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against this decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-243", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 26 January 1993 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the Ankara Police Headquarters on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation, the THKP-C (Turkish People’s Revolutionary Frontier Organisation).\n8.  The applicant was placed in custody at the Ankara Security Directorate. His wife was also taken into police custody on the same date.\n9.  According to the applicant, the police officers, who are known as the C-2 squad of the Anti-Terror branch, beat and hit him on the head with a nailed stick, squeezed his testicles, kept him in a cold room and did not allow him to go to the toilet. The police officers sexually harassed the applicant’s wife and attempted to rape her in his presence.\n10.  On 27 January 1993 the applicant was seen by a doctor at the Ankara Forensic Medicine Institute who noted in his report the presence of scars of a brain operation on the forehead, an abrasion of 3 cm long on the right temporal part of the head, a laceration of 1 cm long over the right ear, a haematoma of 2 cm below the right eye, an ecchymosis of 1 cm and conjunctival hyperaemia on the right eyelid. It was suggested that a brain surgeon examine the applicant. The forensic doctor decided to draft his final report in the light of the findings of the brain examination.\n11.  On the same date the applicant was transferred to the Numune Hospital following a letter of the Anti-Terror Branch Director addressed to the hospital.\n12.  When the applicant was brought to the Numune Hospital, a doctor decided to transfer the applicant to another hospital because she was unable to carry out a brain tomogram. The applicant was brought to the İbni Sina Hospital where he was examined by a brain surgeon. The findings of the brain examination were transmitted to the forensic doctor who drafted his final report. As no pathological findings were indicated by the surgeon, it was concluded that the applicant’s injuries were not life threatening but would prevent him working for four days.\n13.  A forensic doctor carried out a further medical examination on the applicant on 30 January 1993. It was concluded, with reference to the findings of the brain examination, that the applicant was in need of serious medical treatment.\n14.  On 8 February 1993 the Ankara State Security Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n15.  On 20 July 1993 the applicant filed a petition with the Ankara State Security Court in which he alleged that he was severely tortured while in custody by the C-2 squad of the Anti-Terror Branch. He was hit on the head with a nailed stick and that his wife was subjected to sexual harassment in his presence. He was examined by doctors at the Numune and İbni Sina Hospitals and at the Forensic Medicine Institute. The applicant alleged that he identified the C-2 squad members who were present at the hearing before the State Security Court on 11 June 1993.\n16.  On 16 August 1993 the applicant gave a statement to the Ankara Public Prosecutor. He stated that his shirt had been smeared with blood as a result of torture while in custody. He had showed to the public prosecutor and to the judge when he appeared before them on 8 February 1993 his shirt and his wife’s trousers that had been torn by the police officers when they attempted to rape her.\n17.  On 7 September 1993 the applicant filed a petition with the office of the Ankara Public Prosecutor. He reiterated his allegations and gave a detailed description of the police officers th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-244", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants, E., H., L. and T. were born in 1960, 1961, 1963 and 1965 respectively and live in Scotland. E., L. and T. are sisters and H. is their brother.\n9.  The applicants’ mother had six children by her husband. After the death of the applicants’ father in 1965, their mother cohabited with W.H. Two further children were born in that relationship.\n10.  The family, living in a local authority flat in Dumfries, were known to the social services of Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council (“the local authority”). The records provided by the Government show that they were principally concerned from 1970 onwards in relation to the mother’s severe financial difficulties. The mother suffered from bad health and it was noted in 1973 that when she had a broken arm she always kept one of the children off school (presumably to help in the home) and was likely to be summoned before the Education Sub-Committee. Problems with rent and electricity arrears were noted as recurring through 1975 and 1976, as well as continuing health difficulties suffered by the mother. An entry on August 1976 noted that the eight children were all happy though overcrowded and that there were no behavioural problems.\n11.  On 16 November 1976, it was recorded however that E., the first applicant, who had been causing concern as she had been staying out at night, was found semi-conscious at a nearby flat, having taken an overdose. It was noted that the mother was to take her to attend a psychiatric clinic. The medical notes recorded that E. complained that she disliked intensely her mother’s cohabitee W.H. who hit her, shouted and upset her so much that she ran away with intent to kill herself.\n12.  A social work report dated 25 November 1976 noted that the family consisted of six daughters and two sons living with their mother. W.H., the father of the two youngest children, was recorded as not cohabiting and the mother had stated that she would not marry him as she would be worse off financially. The state of the home was said to fluctuate according to the mother’s health but was considered to be adequately furnished with a warm, friendly atmosphere. The mother had always demonstrated a great deal of concern for her children and had perhaps overindulged them at times. In spite of the fact that there was much juvenile delinquency in the area, this was noted as being the first time that any of her children had given cause for concern. The mother’s ambivalent attitude to school attendance was commented on.\n13.  In December 1976, E. left school and the social services gave assistance in finding employment.\n14.  On 7 January 1977, L., the third applicant, then aged 13, ran away from home, following an incident in which she claimed that W.H. had attempted to rape her. She was referred as an emergency by the police to the social services. The police interviewed all the family. It is not apparent that the family, in particular the children, were interviewed by social workers concerning the implications of L.’s disclosures. No steps were taken to refer them to the Reporter of the Children’s Hearing.\n15.  On 7 January 1977, W.H. was arrested by the police and charged with indecently assaulting E. and L.\n16.  On 8 January 1977, W.H. entered a guilty plea concerning charges involving offences of indecent behaviour against E. and L. before Dumfries Sheriff Court. The pleas were accepted by the prosecution and the case proceeded on the basis that W.H. had committed one act of in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-245", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant association, whose members are co-proprietors and inhabitants of a large housing project in Linz, has the aim of improving communication between the inhabitants inter alia by setting up an internal cable network. In proceedings brought in 1978 and terminated in 1986, it unsuccessfully applied for an operating licence.\n11.  On 24 November 1993 the European Court of Human Rights gave judgment in the case of Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria        (Series A no. 276), finding a violation of Article 10 of the Convention as regards inter alia the applicant's complaint that it had been unable to set up a television station due to the broadcasting monopoly of the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation.\n12.  On 18 August 1994 the applicant, referring to the above judgment, filed a new request for an operating licence with the Telecommunications Office for Upper Austria and Salzburg. On 3 May 1995 the latter dismissed the request noting that no legislation allowing it to grant such a licence had been passed as regards cable broadcasting. On 9 November 1995 the Federal Ministry of Public Economy and Transport dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n13.  On 1 August 1996 the Constitutional Court's judgment of 27 September 1995 took effect, according to which private broadcasters were free to create and transmit their own programmes via cable-net without any conditions being attached.\n14.  On 1 July 1997 the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Act entered into force, which lays down the conditions under which private cable broadcasting is allowed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-247", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which she had let to M.P.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 18 February 1985, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 24 September 1985, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1986.\n9.  On 9 July 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 4 August 1986, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 September 1986.\n11.  On 16 May 1987 and on 13 May 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n12.  Between 27 September 1986 and 6 February 1990, the bailiff made twenty-four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 14 March 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 30 March 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 April 1990.\n15.  Between 10 April 1990 and 16 September 1993, the bailiff made thirty-six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  On 4 March 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n17.  On 14 May 1994, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 May 1994.\n18.  Between 19 May 1994 and 14 October 1999, the bailiff made twenty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n19.  On 15 November 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-248", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant's father was the owner of an apartment in Rome, which he had let to M.G.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 March 1990, he communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 20 June 1990, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 July 1991.\n9.  On 17 October 1991, the applicant's father served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 15 November 1991, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 17 December 1991.\n11.  Between 17 December 1991 and 17 February 1995, the bailiff made fifteen attempts to recover possession. In the meantime, on 10 March 1992, the applicant's father died and the applicant inherited the apartment.\n12.  On 6 December 1993 and 28 April 1995, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her daughters.\n13.  Between 28 April 1995 and 15 September 1999, the bailiff made seventeen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On 3 April 2000, the applicant recovered the apartment because the tenant vacated the premises spontaneously.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-249", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants live in Frankfurt, Germany.\n9.  On 2 October 1939 the applicants' mother acquired title to a property in Bucharest composed of three flats. On 30 March 1948 she sold one of the flats to L.N. In 1975 she emigrated to Germany.\n10.  On 18 September 1975 the State took possession of the property pursuant to Confiscation Decree no. 223/1974. The applicants' mother was never informed of the grounds or legal basis for that confiscation.\nAction for recovery of possession\n11.  On 27 July 1992 the applicants, as heirs, brought proceedings against Bucharest City Council and the managing company of State-owned housing, H., in the Court of First Instance of the first district of Bucharest to have the confiscation order against the property set aside. They argued that their mother had been the owner of the property and that the State had confiscated it pursuant to Confiscation Decree no. 223/1974, but that the deprivation of property had been unlawful because the administrative confiscation order had never been served on their mother. On 3 May 1994 the court delivered a judgement which was subsequently set aside by a decision of 19 April 1995 of the Bucharest County Court following a procedural flaw. The case was then remitted to the Court of First Instance.\n12.  In a judgment of 28 January 1995 the court granted the claim on the ground that the administrative confiscation order in favour of the State had not satisfied the statutory formal conditions. Accordingly, it held that the State had not lawfully acquired title to the property and that the applicants were the lawful owners. The court ordered the confiscation order to be set aside and the property to be returned to the applicants.\n13.  An appeal by Bucharest City Council was dismissed on 17 May 1996 by the Bucharest County Court on the same grounds as the Court of First Instance.\n14.  The City Council appealed to the Bucharest Court of Appeal. In a judgment of 14 October 1996 the court allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicants' action for recovery of possession. It found that the property in question had become State property pursuant to a valid legal title, namely the City Council's decision of 18 September 1975, and held that in order to secure its return or, if applicable, compensation, the applicants' only remedy was under the provisions of Law no. 112/1995 on the restitution of certain nationalised property.\n15.  On 20 December 1996 the State sold one of the remaining two flats to the former tenant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-250", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Ploieşti.\n10.  On 20 January 1944 the applicant received as a dowry from her father a house situated in Ploieşti (hereafter called “the house”), composed of two flats and a garage plus the adjoining land.\n11.  In 1950 the State took possession of the property, allegedly under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation. The applicant was never informed of the grounds or legal basis for that deprivation of property. She was, however, allowed to use one of the flats in the house as a tenant of the State.\n12.  Between 1950 and 1955 the applicant made several complaints to the authorities, arguing that the provisions of Decree no. 92/1950 were inapplicable to her case and requesting that the house be returned to her. She did not receive any reply.\n13.  In 1954 the State demolished the garage.\n14.  In 1994 the applicant brought an action in the Ploieşti Court of First Instance for recovery of possession of the house. She submitted that she belonged to the category of persons whose property Decree no. 92/1950 exempted from nationalisation and requested that the State-owned company, R.P., which managed State-owned housing, be ordered to return her property. On 3 May 1994 the court dismissed her claim on the ground that she had not proved her allegations.\n15.  The applicant appealed against that judgment to the Prahova County Court. In a decision of 13 January 1995 the court allowed the appeal, declared the action to recover possession admissible and ordered the house to be returned. It found that, as a nurse and a war widow since 1941, the applicant belonged to the category of persons whose property the decree exempted from nationalisation.\n16.  R.P. appealed against that decision. In a judgment of 13 June 1995 the Ploieşti Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the judgment of 13 January 1995 and dismissed the applicant's claim on the ground that the house had become State property pursuant to Decree no. 92/1950 and that the courts did not have jurisdiction to review whether the decree had been properly applied to her. The court added that provision as to redress for any wrongful seizure of property by the State would have to be made in new legislation.\n17.  On 26 July 1995 the applicant requested the Procurator-General of Romania to lodge an application to have that final judgment set aside, submitting that it was unfair because the court had refused to examine whether Decree no. 92/1950 was applicable to her.\n18.  The Procurator-General replied on 8 August 1995, informing her that an application to have a final court judgment set aside could be made only, inter alia, where the decision was ultra vires, which had not been the case here. He added that final decisions could not be challenged on grounds of lawfulness or on the merits.\n19.  On 6 March 1996 the applicant lodged an application for restitution of the house with the administrative board established to deal with applications lodged in Ploieşti pursuant to Law no. 112/1995 (“the Administrative Board”). She submitted that she had been dispossessed of her property in breach of Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation, and that the Ploieşti County Court, in its decision of 13 January 1995, had held that the deprivation of property had been unlawful but that the Ploieşti Court of Appeal had refused to entertain her claim and had indicated that she should bring administrative proceedings.\n20.  In a decision of 17 July 1996 the Administrative Boar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-251", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Łódź, Poland.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant inherited from her mother a 25% share in a property situated in Łódź at 6 Piotrowska Street. The property consisted of an apartment building and a plot of land. On 18 October 1990 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) appointed the applicant as the administrator of the property.\n11.  Subsequently, the applicant requested the previous administrator of the property, the association Z.W.Z.D., to cease all of its activities relating to the administration of the property. However, the association ignored her request and continued to collect rent from tenants living in the apartment building. In addition, the applicant challenged the right of Mr H.D. to collect rent from tenants leasing business premises located in the building, claiming that his title to a part of the property had been obtained under false pretences. These challenges resulted in an on-going dispute between the applicant on the one side and the association and Mr H.D. on the other.\n12.  On 8 March 1994, Mr H.D., acting through his counsel Mr L.B., brought a private prosecution against the applicant. A private bill of indictment filed by Mr H.D. alleged that the applicant was guilty of criminal libel since, on 19 January 1994, she had sent to a bank, which had made a loan to Mr H.D., a letter stating that he had obtained the loan under false pretences and had been repaying it from income obtained from her property.\n13.  During the hearing before the Łódź District Court held on 12 April 1994, counsel for Mr H.D. and the applicant refused to settle the case. The applicant confirmed that on 19 January 1994 she had sent the impugned letter, which had led Mr H.D. to bring the private prosecution against her. Counsel for Mr H.D. asked the court to request the Łódź Psychiatric Clinic (Poradnia Zdrowia Psychicznego) for information on whether the applicant was a patient of that clinic and, if so, to instruct it to provide the court with her medical file. Counsel based his request on the fact that, according to his knowledge, the applicant was indeed a patient at that clinic. The applicant denied that she had ever undergone psychiatric treatment and stated that counsel's submission was slanderous. The court decided that it would consider counsel's request in camera at a later date, and that it would request information about the applicant's criminal record and background (wywiad środowiskowy).\n14.  On 14 April 1994 the District Court granted the request made on 12 April 1994 and asked the Łódź Psychiatric Clinic to provide information about any medical treatment which the applicant had received there.\n15.  On 19 April 1994 the Łódź Psychiatric Clinic informed the District Court, in a letter signed by Dr B.K., that on 23 October 1973 the applicant had visited the clinic and that her medical file included a reference to “suspected paranoid schizophrenia” (podejrzenie schizofrenii urojeniowej).\n16.  On 6 May 1994 police constable Z.A. issued a statement concerning the outcome of the background check, which had been conducted at 4 Sienkiewicza Street where the applicant resided at that time. He concluded, inter alia, that the applicant's neighbours had a good opinion of her, that she did not drink heavily and that she was not involved in any quarrels with her neighbours.\n17.  On 11 May 1994 counsel for Mr H.D. requested the Łódź District Court to order an expert opinion on the state of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-252", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Champagny-en-Vanoise (Savoie).\n9.  On 30 September 1991 she signed a notarial deed by which she entered into a leasing arrangement with a limited company called SOFEBAIL for the renovation and furnishment of a holiday centre. She intended to run the business as a sole trader. As early as the end of 1991 she complained that the company had failed to complete the renovation works stipulated in the contract.\n10.  On 13 June 1994 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the company for fraud, theft and fraudulent breach of trust and sought leave to join the proceedings as a civil party seeking damages.\n11.  On 5 May 1997 the investigating judge discontinued the proceedings in an order worded as follows:\n“It appears, in fact, from the evidence given by the civil parties and the head of SOFEBAIL and from the documents produced by the parties that the leasing arrangement, the mechanism of which has been described as fraudulent by the civil party, does not fall within the ambit of the criminal law. The disputes between [the applicant] and SOFEBAIL are clearly matters governed by civil or commercial law and have, moreover, given rise to various proceedings of this type in the civil or commercial courts.”\n12.  On 7 May 1997 the applicant appealed against that order.\n13.  On 10 July 1997 the Indictment Division of the Colmar Court of Appeal upheld the order in question. It found that the applicant's complaints were “manifestly dilatory” and that some of her allegations were “contradictory”, “purely gratuitous” or “entirely unsupported”.\n14.  On 11 July 1997 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. Her appeal was heard on 24 September 1998. She was represented by counsel. Both parts of the reporting judge's report (the first containing a statement of the facts, the procedure and the grounds of appeal and the second a legal analysis of the case and an opinion on the merits of the appeal) had been sent to the advocate-general prior to the hearing. However, the applicant had not been sent a copy of both parts of the reporting judge's report. In a judgment of the same date the Court of Cassation declared the appeal inadmissible on the following grounds:\n“The Court of Cassation is satisfied from the wording of the judgment appealed against that, in upholding the order discontinuing the proceedings, the Indictment Division, after examining all the facts alleged by the appellant and addressing the main arguments in her memorial, stated the reasons for its decision that there was insufficient evidence that anyone had committed the alleged offences of fraudulent breach of trust and fraud or any other offence.\nNone of the grounds of appeal, which amount to contesting the validity of the judges' findings of fact and of law, corresponds to any of the situations in which a civil party may appeal to the Court of Cassation, under Article 575 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against a judgment of an indictment division in the absence of an appeal by the prosecution ...”\n...", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-254", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Wolverhampton. In March 1995 he was a soldier in the British Army.\n9.  On 3 March 1995 the Special Investigations Branch of the military police (“SIB”) began investigating charges against him in relation to the fraudulent misuse of travel warrants. He was due to be interviewed on 28 March 1995 but went missing from his unit. On 20 April 1995 he was arrested by the civilian police and returned to his unit. His commanding officer dealt with the charge of absence without leave summarily and sentenced him to, inter alia, 28 days' imprisonment. The applicant served 23 days.\n10.  On 27 May 1995 the applicant was due for release, but his detention was continued because of the SIB investigation. On 1 and 2 June 1995 he was interviewed by the SIB. On 15 June 1995 he instructed his current legal representative.\n11.  On 16 June 1995 he was brought before his commanding officer and a charge sheet was read out to him. It recorded one charge of obtaining property by deception (fraudulently claiming motor mileage allowance – “MMA”) contrary to section 15(1) of the Theft Act 1968. An offence contrary to section 15(1) carries a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment.\n12.  On 4 July 1995 the SIB submitted its final report on its investigation into allegations concerning the fraudulent misuse of MMA and of railway warrants (“RW”).\n13.  On 29 August 1995 a further charge sheet was read to him. It recorded eight additional charges of obtaining property by deception contrary to section 15(1) of the Theft Act 1968, charges also relating to MMA. The applicant was remanded in custody for trial by court-martial.\n14.  On 15 September 1995 he applied for legal aid under the army legal aid scheme. The legal aid certificate was sent by the Director of Army Legal Services to the applicant's unit on 6 October 1995 and the legal aid certificate was received by the applicant on 6 November 1995.\n15.  On 16 October 1995 the applicant requested his military medical records. The records were delivered in four batches between mid-November and 1 December 1995. The applicant's purpose in obtaining these records was the preparation of medical reports supporting his claim that he suffered from epilepsy.\n16.  On 11 December 1995, the applicant was released to open arrest. The court-martial hearing, fixed for 20 November 1995, was adjourned in light of the delay in receiving the medical records. The hearing was then fixed for 5 February 1996 as the applicant indicated that he would not be ready before that date.\n17.  On 5 February 1996 the hearing was adjourned at the applicant's request to allow him to undergo a brain scan. Hearing dates of 18 and 25 March 1996 were proposed but neither party could make the first date and the applicant could not make the second date. The applicant referred on both occasions to his continuing medical tests for epilepsy.\n18.  Given the applicant's allegations of epilepsy, in or around mid-1996 the prosecution decided to have the applicant attend its own medical experts. The applicant did not dispute that he was uncooperative in arranging appointments and that he left certain appointments prior to the examination being completed, even when he had been escorted by colleagues to the consulting rooms. He explained that he was not told that the prosecution had wished to enquire about the existence of his epilepsy. He had also been advised by his legal representative not to attend appointments that had ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-255", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in London.\n9.  The applicant, then aged sixteen years, was convicted of the murder of his grandmother on 12 October 1981. At his trial, he had unsuccessfully raised the defence of diminished responsibility, based on the fact that he had been addicted to glue sniffing for several years. He was sentenced to detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure pursuant to section 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. His tariff (the portion of sentence representing punishment and deterrence) was set at 10 years.\n10.  On 26 January 1994, the applicant, aged 29 years, was released on life licence.\n11.  No concerns arose with his supervising probation officer until in April 1997 the applicant told her that he had been having a sexual relationship with MM, a 16-year-old youth. MM was regarded as a vulnerable youth and had been provided with the support of a social worker following his involvement in a theft offence.\n12.  In June 1997, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being in possession of prohibited drugs (namely, ecstasy tablets). He was taken to a police station and released on bail. His probation officer sent him a registered letter requesting him to meet her on 20 June 1997. He did not attend the meeting or make any contact by telephone until 23 June 1997, when he agreed to meet her the next day.\n13.  On 24 June 1997, however, the applicant made a suicide attempt, taking 30 paracetamol tablets. He was discharged from hospital on 25 June 1997. He met his probation officer on 26 June 1997 and agreed to meet her again on 1 July 1997. He failed to keep the appointment, telephoning to say that he had overslept.\n14.  On 2 July 1997, he met with his probation officer and Mr L. from the Community Drug and Alcohol Services. During this meeting, the applicant admitted that he had been using drugs (LSD, ecstasy and cannabis) since his release from prison and that his use of ecstasy was beyond his control. He obtained the drugs from friends or acquaintances who expected him to do favours for them in return. He stated that he was no longer having a sexual relationship with MM but that MM had been staying with him at his flat. He met with his probation officer again on 4 July 1997.\n15.  In her report of 4 July 1997, the probation officer stated:\n“Until October 1996 [the applicant’s] response to his Licence, in terms of reporting for appointments, had been exemplary and he appeared to have made good progress in settling into the community, via stable employment and the allocation of his own council flat. It would appear however, that his resignation from his job in September 1996 significantly impacted on the sense of structure and purpose he then had about his day to day life which he now admits he has since found difficult to attain. Until recently, his presentation during our meetings gave no cause for concern. However, he now reports that he had been less than honest about the changes in his functioning as he feared a recall to prison, particularly given his initial stability and progress. In addition to his now admitted drug use, it would appear that [the applicant’s] anxieties about his future are limited to: (a) his previous unsafe sexual practices and the possible consequences of this on his health; (b) his wish to have a long-term and supportive monogamous relationship; (c) his growing sense of loneliness and isolation despite a wide social network... and (d) a sense of stagnation about the cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-257", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1941 respectively and live in Kent.\n10.  On 7 February 1986 the applicants granted to a company now known as Buckingham International Limited (“Buckingham”) an option to purchase 90% of the share capital in Worldwide Dryers Limited (“WWD”) for 2 pounds sterling (“GBP”) a share, with a further option to purchase the remaining 10% at a price to be fixed by an agreed formula. On 2 October 1986 the first lot of shares in WWD was purchased. Relations between Buckingham and the applicants subsequently deteriorated.\n11.  On 12 February 1988 WWD and Buckingham issued High Court proceedings against the applicants claiming, inter alia, damages for breach of contract. On 27 October 1988 Buckingham exercised its call option on the remaining 10% of the shares of WWD, Buckingham alleging that no further payment was due to the applicants given its outstanding claims against them.\n12.  In January 1990 the second applicant was granted legal aid.\n13.  The plaintiffs finally served their statement of claim on 1 May 1990 having received numerous extensions of time (ordered by the court on the basis of the parties’ consent). The statement of claim ran to fifteen pages. It included many allegations of breaches of warranties in the option agreement and claims that the applicants owed WWD substantial sums of money which they had borrowed from WWD through directors’ loans schemes.\n14.  The applicants served a short-form defence on 31 July 1990 after two extensions of the relevant time-limit granted by the High Court following contested hearings. Further particulars of the defence were requested by the plaintiffs in November 1990. At a directions hearing on 28 February 1991, a Master of the High Court, inter alia, allowed the applicants to amend their defence and to file a counterclaim, and ordered that the action be set down for hearing on or before 23 March 1991. This date was subsequently vacated by the parties’ agreement. On 23 April 1991 the applicants were accorded until 14 May 1991 to file the amended defence and counterclaim, and it was so filed. In June 1991 the first applicant was granted legal aid. The plaintiffs’ reply and defence to the counterclaim was served on 9 September 1991, after an extension of time.\n15.  At the request of the applicants’ solicitors, on 23 October 1991 the High Court ordered that the plaintiffs’ claim and the applicants’ counterclaim be set down for hearing. The relevant setting down notice was filed by the plaintiffs on 31 October 1991.\n16.  On 13 November and 19 December 1991 the High Court ordered the plaintiffs to file outstanding pleadings. By letter dated 7 November 1991, the applicants requested an expedited hearing from the Lord Chancellor’s office. The letter of the Administrator of the Royal Courts of Justice dated 20 November 1991, in response, explained that the applicants could apply to the High Court to advance the hearing but that the court was otherwise unable to bring the hearing date forward. It further explained that such delays often occurred given the number of cases waiting to be heard, in the light of the estimated hearing time (then ten days) and because a fixed hearing date had been requested.\n17.  In late 1991 and early 1992 the applicants were advised by solicitors and by junior and Queen’s Counsel that an application for an expedited trial was unlikely to succeed as inter alia there were no grounds for granting the applicants priority over other litigants. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-259", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants, Dirk Venema, Wubbechien Venema-Huiting and Kimberly Venema, are Netherlands nationals and live in Alphen aan den Rijn, in the Netherlands.\n10.  Mr Dirk Venema and Mrs Wubbechien Venema-Huiting, who were born in 1964 and 1967 respectively, are the parents of Kimberly Venema. Kimberly was born on 14 February 1994.\n11.  From May 1994 onwards Mr and Mrs Venema became aware that Kimberly's breathing sometimes stopped and her heart raced. This led them to seek medical advice from, inter alios, doctors practising at Leiden University Hospital. Kimberly was taken into hospital for two periods, of fourteen days and six days respectively, in the course of July and August 1994.\n12.  The doctors found nothing physically wrong with Kimberly. They began to suspect that Kimberly was healthy but that Mrs Venema might be suffering from a psychological disturbance known as the Munchausen syndrome by proxy.\n13.  The Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a condition in which a parent of a young child, nearly always the mother, driven by a need of her own for attention, seeks superfluous medical assistance for her child. The parent may invent a disease or even cause the symptoms. In certain cases, for example if the child's breathing is interfered with, the child's life may be in danger.\n14.  At around this time Kimberly was referred to Curium, a children's psychiatric clinic in Oegstgeest, near Leiden.\n15.  In August 1994 the Leiden University Hospital doctors made their fears known to the Child Welfare Board (Raad voor de Kinderbescherming). The Government state that the identity of the applicants was not revealed to the Child Welfare Board at this time. The Child Welfare Board advised the doctors to provide adequate medical care and discuss their fears with the child's parents. The Venema family was kept under medical observation but the doctors did not discuss their suspicions with Mr and Mrs Venema.\n16.  On 1 December 1994 the Child Abuse Medical Counselling Centre (Bureau Vertrouwensarts inzake Kindermishandeling) in The Hague telephoned the Child Welfare Board. A doctor connected with this centre stated – according to the Government, still without naming the applicants – that it was suspected that Mrs Venema was suffering from the Munchausen syndrome by proxy. In spite of the medical care provided, the situation had not improved. The question arose whether to intervene. It was agreed that the Child Abuse Medical Counselling Centre doctor would obtain more information with a view to informing the Child Welfare Board. It is not recorded that the doctor did so.\n17.  Kimberly was again taken into hospital on 14 December 1994, following an incident two days earlier.\n18.  A meeting took place on 20 December 1994 to discuss the case of Kimberly. Those taking part included the director of Curium, four doctors and two nurses connected with Leiden University Hospital, the doctor connected with the Child Abuse Medical Counselling Centre, the Venema family's general practitioner, the deputy unit head of the Child Welfare Board and a specialised family help worker (gezinsverzorger). It was decided that Leiden University Hospital and Curium would jointly submit a report to the Child Welfare Board. Mr and Mrs Venema were neither involved nor informed.\n19.  It would appear that it was only during this meeting that the identity of the applicants was communicated to the Child Welfare Board.\n20.  On 2 January 1995 the Child Welfare Board was provided by C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-261", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Milan.\n9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to S.S.\n10.  In a registered letter of 19 June 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 13 October 1988, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 3 November 1988, which was made enforceable on 10 November 1988, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 September 1989.\n13.  On 22 September 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 12 October 1989, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 November 1989.\n15.  Between 10 November 1989 and 18 June 1996, the bailiff made twenty-six attempts to recover possession.\n16.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n17.  On 26 June 1996, the tenant vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-262", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which it had let to L.L.D.L.\n9.  In a registered letter of 20 November 1984, the applicant informed the tenant that it intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1986 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n10.  On 5 June 1986, it served a notice to quit on the tenant, but she refused to leave.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 12 June 1986, the applicant reiterated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 30 June 1986, which was made enforceable on 20 November 1986, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1987.\n13.  On 17 March 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 9 June 1990 it served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 June 1990.\n15.  Between 15 June 1990 and 25 September 1996 the bailiff made thirty-two attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  On 6 May 1997, the applicant sold the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-263", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1961 respectively and live in Prato.\n9.  The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Florence, which they had let to M.P.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 4 June 1985, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 24 June 1985, which was made enforceable on 1 July 1985, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 August 1987.\n12.  On 29 September 1987, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 21 October 1987, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 November 1987.\n14.  Between 27 November 1987 and 13 April 1989, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession.\n15.  On 29 May 1989, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.\n16.  Between 11 October 1989 and 13 February 1997, the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n17.  On 29 April 1997, the applicants repossessed the premises with the assistance of the police.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-264", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Naples.\n9.  He is the owner of a flat in Naples, which he had let to R.T.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 July 1988, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.\n11.  By a provisional decision of 20 January 1989, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit, ordered that the premises be vacated by 20 January 1990 and declined jurisdiction on account of the value of the case.\n12.  On 22 February 1989, the applicant resumed the proceedings before the Naples District Court. By a judgment of 14 April 1994, the court declared that the lease was terminated as of 31 December 1987 and confirmed the date of vacation indicated by the Magistrate. The judgment was made enforceable on 2 September 1994.\n13.  On 1 April 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 21 April 1995, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 May 1995.\n15.  Between 30 May 1995 and 21 September 1999, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  On an unspecified date in 2000, the applicant recovered possession of his flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-265", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are the owners of a flat in S. Agnello, which they had let to A.M.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 30 January 1984, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Sorrento Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 15 March 1984, the Magistrate refused to uphold the validity of the notice to quit, declined jurisdiction on account of the value of the case and indicated that the Naples District Court had jurisdiction to hear it.\n11.  On 26 March 1984, the applicants resumed the proceedings before the Naples District Court.\n12.  In a judgment of 22 June 1988, which was filed with the registry on 19 October 1988, the court allowed the applicants' claim and ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 December 1989.\n13.  On 16 December 1988, the tenant appealed to the Naples Court of appeal.\n14.  In a judgment of 17 October 1991, which was filed with the registry on 9 November 1991, the court rejected the appeal.\n15.  On 5 February 1992, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n16.  On 2 February 1993, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 March 1993.\n17.  As from 15 March 1993 until 16 October 1997, the bailiff made several attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n18.  On 16 October 1997, the tenant vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-266", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is an Italian company having its registered seat in Milan.\n9.  Mrs C. was the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to D.S.\n10.  In a registered letter of 20 January 1987, she informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n11.  In a writ served on the heirs of the tenant, who had died in the meantime, on 25 February 1988, Mrs C. reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned them to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 24 March 1988, which was made enforceable on 29 March 1988, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 24 March 1989.\n13.  On 25 July 1989, the applicant became the owner of the apartment.\n14.  On 17 July 1990, the applicant served notice on the heirs, now tenants, requiring them to vacate the premises.\n15.  On 5 October 1990, it served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 October 1990.\n16.  Between 15 October 1990 and 15 October 1996, the bailiff made twenty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions on the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n17.  At the beginning of January 1997, the applicant repossessed the apartment as the tenants had spontaneously vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-267", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1913 and lives in Florence. She is the owner of three apartments in Florence, which she had let to P.U., C.G. and G.G.\n1)  The proceedings against P.U.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 20 March 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 11 April 1990, which was made enforceable on 29 May 1990, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n11.  On 3 December 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 12 January 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 February 1993.\n13.  Between 19 February 1993 and 23 February 1996, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On an unspecified date in 1996, the applicant sold the apartment.\n2)  The proceedings against C.G.\n15.  In a writ served on the tenant on 17 February 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n16.  By a decision of 7 March 1990, which was made enforceable on 23 March 1990, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 October 1991.\n17.  On 12 October 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n18.  On 21 November 1991, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 January 1992.\n19.  Between 15 January 1992 and 28 May 1996, the bailiff made seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n20.  On an unspecified date in 1996, the applicant sold the apartment.\n3)  The proceedings against G.G.\n21.  In a writ served on the tenant on 17 February 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n22.  By a decision of 8 March 1990, which was made enforceable on 27 April 1990, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 January 1993.\n23.  On 3 December 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n24.  On 12 January 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 February 1993.\n25.  Between 19 February 1993 and 16 January 1996, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n26.  On an unspecified date in 1996, the applicant sold the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-268", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Padova.\n8.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Padova, which she had let to F.C.\n9.  In a registered letter of 4 July 1989, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 6 September 1989, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Padova Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 19 September 1989, which was made enforceable on 26 September 1989, the Padova Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n12.  On 20 April 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 8 June 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 17 July 1993.\n14.  Between 17 July 1993 and 27 February 1995 the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession.\n15.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  Thereafter, the applicant decided not to pursue the enforcement proceedings, in order to avoid useless costs, given the lack of prospects of obtaining the assistance of the police.\n17.  On 7 December 1995, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n18.  On 23 January 1998, the tenant vacated the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-269", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first and the second applicants were born in 1958 and 1959, respectively, and live in Požega. The third applicant, “Mesoprodukt”, is a meat production company.\n8.  In 1991 the first and second applicants founded the company “Mesoprodukt”, a personal private company in Požega. The company is entirely owned by the first and second applicants and they are liable for the company's obligations with all their assets. The present case concerns several proceedings in respect of “Mesoprodukt”.\n9.  By virtue of the Požega County Veterinary Inspection (veterinarski inspektor Ureda za gospodarstvo Županije požeško-slavonske) decision of 26 May 1994, the applicant company was prohibited from slaughtering animals and producing meat for human consumption.\n10.  Upon the applicant company's appeal the Appeal Commission of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (Uprava za veterinarstvo poljoprivrede i šumarstva) quashed the first instance decision on 14 June 1994.\n11.  On 14 November 1994 the applicant company filed a suit with the Požega Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Požegi) seeking payment of damages from the Požega and Slavonija County (Županija Požeško-Slavonska), due to the fact that it had been prohibited from producing meat from 26 May 1994 until 14 June 1994.\n12.  Prior to 5 November 1997 the Požega Municipal Court ordered that a financial expertise be carried out and invited the applicant company to pay an advance for expenses related to the expert opinion. The applicant company paid the advance in part.\n13.  On 3 April 1998 the court invited the applicant company to pay the remainder of the advance.\n14.  On 4 May 1999 the appointed expert informed the court that the applicant company had not paid the remainder of the advance for the expenses.\n15.  At the hearing on 7 May 1999 the court invited the Požega Tax Revenue Service to submit documentation about the applicant company's income in 1993 and 1994 in order to carry out a complete financial expertise. In January 2000 the requested documents were submitted. On 10 April 2000 the court sent this documentation to the appointed expert. The applicant company was invited to pay an advance for the expenses related to a new expertise.\n16.  The next hearing scheduled for 23 January 2001 was adjourned at the request of the applicants' counsel.\n17.  At the hearing on 1 March 2001 the court stayed the proceedings because the first and second applicants, although they received the notice of the hearing date, did not appear.\n18.  On 12 June 2001 the applicants' counsel asked the court to resume the proceedings. The court then ordered that additional expertise be carried out and invited the defendant to pay an advance for the expenses of the expertise.\n19.  On 5 December 2001 the defendant informed the court that it did not wish to pay the expenses.\n20.  On 4 January 2002 the court requested the Slavonski Brod Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Slavonskom Brodu) to provide documentation concerning the applicant company's registration.\nOn 17 January the requested documentation was submitted.\n21.  At the hearing on 18 February 2002 one witness was heard and the defendant filed further written submissions. The applicants' counsel was asked to file a written reply and to specify their claim within fifteen days.\n22.  It appears that the proceedings are pending before the court of first instance.\n23.  On 18 March 1994 the police seized a vehicle owned by the first applicant's wife. The vehicle had been ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-270", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were the owners of a flat in Milan, which they had let to M.A.\n10.  In a registered letter of 16 January 1989, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1990 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 28 February 1990, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 28 March 1990, which was made enforceable on 25 June 1990, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1991.\n13.  On 5 June and again on 13 September 1991, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 3 July 1991, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.\n15.  On 4 December 1991, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 December 1991.\n16.  Between 13 December 1991 and 7 January 1997, the bailiff made twenty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n17.  At the end of January 1997, the tenant vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-271", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to V.C.\n7.  The tenant fell in rent arrears.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 29 May 1984, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 5 June 1984, which was made enforceable on 5 July 1984, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 5 June 1985.\n10.  On an unspecified date, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 July 1986.\n12.  Between 29 July 1986 and 20 September 1993 the bailiff made twenty-five attempts to recover possession.\n13.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On 25 November 1993, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-272", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1955. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n10.  On 26 February 1996 the Regional Prosecutor remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of drug trafficking, committed from August until November 1995 in conspiracy with other persons. In the detention order the prosecuting authorities stressed that the testimony given during the investigations by the co-suspects strongly supported the suspicion against the applicant.\n11.  On 15 March 1996 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) dismissed the applicant's appeal against the detention order. On 25 March 1996 and on an unknown later date the applicant's requests for release were refused by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor. On 29 March 1996 the Regional Prosecutor prolonged the applicant's detention until 30 June 1996, invoking the complexity of the case. On 2 and 22 April 1996 the applicant's appeals against these decisions were dismissed by the Appellate Prosecutor. On 16 May 1996 the Regional Court further prolonged the applicant's detention on remand until 31 August 1996. On 5 June 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the applicant's appeal against this decision.\n12.  On 19 June 1996 the Regional Prosecutor prolonged the investigations in the case until 30 September 1996.\n13.  On 24 June 1996 the Regional Prosecutor refused the applicant's new request for release and to have the detention on remand changed for a more lenient preventive measure.  On 26 August 1996 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 30 September 1996.\n14.  On 25 September 1996 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor prolonged the investigations until 31 December 1996. On 30  September 1996 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until the same date. On 14 November 1996 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 30 September 1996, considering, inter alia, that applicable domestic law did not require that the evidence in support of his detention was such as to allow a conviction. It was sufficient that there were strong indications that the applicant had committed the offence in question.\n15.  On 19 December 1996 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 24 February 1997, having regard to newly discovered circumstances of the case which would justify bringing charges of forgery against the applicant, and to the need for translating some judicial documents from Germany. The Wrocław Regional Prosecutor prolonged the investigations until 31 May 1997. On 7 February 1997 the Prosecutor General  lodged a motion with the Supreme Court to have the applicant's detention prolonged until 30 April 1997.\n16.  On 10 February 1997 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 19 December 1996. On 17 February 1997 it prolonged the applicant's detention until 30 April 1997. On 25 March and 7 April 1997 the Regional Prosecutor refused the applicant's further requests for release. The applicant appealed to the higher prosecutor. On 2 and 22 April 1997 the Appellate Prosecutor upheld these decisions, relying, inter alia, on the findings of the investigations that the applicant had had a leading role in the organisation of a drug trafficking network, and to the fact that the evidence included the applicant's forged passport. This revealed a risk of absconding if the applicant were to be released.\n17.  On 21 April 1997 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor closed the investigations. On 24 April 1997 the Wrocław Regional Prose", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-273", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Leghorn.\n9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Leghorn, which she had let to G.T. and G.P.\n10.  In a registered letter of 18 November 1987, the applicant informed the tenants that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 October 1989 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenants on 5 December 1987, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Leghorn Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 14 December 1987, which was made enforceable on 15 December 1987, the Leghorn Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 October 1989.\n13.  On 11 May 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 31 May 1990, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n15.  On 15 June 1990, she served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 July 1990.\n16.  Between 10 July 1990 and 5 April 1996, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession.\n17.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n18.  On 9 July 1999, the tenants asked the Leghorn District Court to postpone the execution of the order for possession, pursuant to Article 6 of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998.\n19.  On 11 August 1999, the applicant served a second notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 September 1999.\n20.  On 10 November 1999, pursuant to Article 6 of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998, the Leghorn District Court postponed the execution of the order for possession until 14 April 2000.\n21.  On 25 May 2000 and on 15 July 2000, the bailiff made two attempts, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n22.  In the meanwhile, on 2 July 2000, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently needed the apartment for herself.\n23.  On 19 October 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-274", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Rocca Priora (Rome).\n9.  He is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which he had let to C.C.\n10.  In a registered letter of 17 April 1984, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 May 1986 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 18 January 1985, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 11 March 1985, which was made enforceable on 2 April 1985, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 February 1987.\n13.  On 3 April 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 27 April 1987 he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 June 1987.\n15.  Between 5 June 1987 and 31 January 1989, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession.\n16.  On 11 May 1989, the applicant had made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself. On 20 October 1993, he reiterated the declaration.\n17.  Between 6 September 1989 and 22 February 1996, the bailiff made forty two attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n18.  On 24 March 1996, the tenant vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-275", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Rome.\n9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which she had let to G.S.\n10.  In a registered letter of 2 November 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 11 December 1984, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 6 February 1985, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 10 January 1986.\n13.  On 19 December 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 27 January 1987, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 March 1987.\n15.  Between 13 March 1987 and 27 January 1989, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession.\n16.  On 12 May 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her family.\n17.  Between 19 May 1989 and 14 July 1999, the bailiff made sixty-three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n18.  On 25 February 2000, the tenant vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-276", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Florence.\n9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which she had let to S.G.\n10.  In a registered letter of 26 March 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 12 June 1985 the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n12.  On 27 December 1985, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 December 1986. That decision was made enforceable on 7 April 1987.\n13.  On 16 April 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 20 May 1987, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 June 1987.\n15.  Between 29 June 1987 and 17 September 1992, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession.\n16.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n17.  On 28 September 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises in order to sell them at a normal market price.\n18. Between 20 January 1993 and 16 September 1998, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession.\n19.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n20.  Following the entry into force of Law No. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 28 June 1999.\n21.  On 29 March 2002, the Florence Magistrate ordered that the premises be vacated by 4 December 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-277", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Leghorn.\n8.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Leghorn, which she had let to O.C.L.\n9.  On an unidentified date, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 16 July 1991 the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Leghorn Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 29 July 1991, which was made enforceable on 17 September 1991, the Leghorn Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n12.  On 29 March 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 15 May 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n14.  On 20 May 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 17 June 1993.\n15.  Between 17 June 1993 and 4 June 1998, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  Following the entry into force of Law No. 431 of 1998, on 27 July 1999, the tenant asked the Leghorn District Court to set a fresh date for the enforcement of the order for possession.\n17.  The applicant asked the court to reject the tenant's request.\n18.  On 23 September 1999, the Leghorn Magistrate decided to postpone the enforcement proceedings until 10 February 2001. In the meantime, pursuant to Law No. 388/00 all evictions of tenants were suspended until 30  June 2001.\n19.  On 2 July 2001, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 July 2001.\n20.  On 3 August 2001, the Leghorn Magistrate decided to postpone the enforcement proceedings first until 23 April 2002 and then until 16 May 2002.\n21.  On 23 May 2002, the applicant was granted police assistance to evict the tenant only once, but to no avail, as the tenant claimed he was ill and an officially assigned doctor was available to check his allegations.\n22.  On 24 May 2002 the applicant had not recovered possession of her flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-279", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 20 December 1996 the applicant was accused of an offence of attempting to sell explosives.\n9.  On 28 January 1997 he was arrested in the context of the criminal proceedings. On 30 January 1997 a judge ordered his release.\n10.  On 3 February 1997 the Minister of the Interior dismissed the applicant from the police. The decision referred to the conclusions reached by the Police Corps Inspection Office according to which the applicant had offered to sell explosives, and that on 8 June 1996 he had driven a car in which the police later found explosives.\n11.  On 26 March 1997 an expert opinion on the applicant’s mental health was submitted to the Žilina Regional Office of Investigation in the context of the criminal proceedings.\n12.  On 28 May 1997 the Žilina Regional Prosecutor indicted the applicant, charging him with two offences of involvement in the unauthorised transport of explosives before the Žilina Regional Court.\n13.  On 11 June 1997 the case was assigned to a different judge as the judge to whom the case had originally fallen to be examined was an acquaintance of the applicant.\n14.  On 25 November 1997 the Regional Court judge requested the Prievidza District Court to submit decisions concerning one of the accused.\n15.  On 16 April 1999 the Regional Court returned the case to the public prosecutor for further investigation. The prosecutor appealed on 27 April 1999. On 11 May 1999 the case was submitted to the Supreme Court. On 18 August 1999 the latter quashed the Regional Court’s decision of 16 April 1999 and ordered the first instance court to proceed with the case. The case file was returned to the Regional Court on 11 October 1999.\n16.  A hearing scheduled for 12 January 2000 had to be adjourned as one of the accused persons’ lawyers was absent.\n17.  Hearings were held on 17 February 2000, on 10 March 2000, on 16 June 2000 and on 27 July 2000. The case was adjourned as it was necessary to hear further witnesses.\n18.  On 13 September 2000 and on 26 October 2000 the case had to be adjourned as witnesses failed to appear.\n19.  On 29 November 2000 the Regional Court heard three witnesses. The case was adjourned as the court considered it necessary to hear another witness in respect of whom an arrest warrant had been issued. On 1 and 22 December 2000 and on 3 April 2001 the Regional Court asked the police to establish the whereabouts of the witness.\n20.  On 14 February 2001 the president of the Žilina Regional Court informed the applicant that the case had not been proceeded with in January 2001 as the presiding judge was ill.\n21.  On 10 May 2001 the Žilina Regional Court acquitted the applicant. On 17 August 2001 the public prosecutor appealed. One of the applicant’s co-accused also filed an appeal. The case file was transmitted to the Supreme Court on 27 August 2001. On 15 November 2001 one of the accused submitted observations on the public prosecutor’s appeal.\n22.  A hearing before the Supreme Court scheduled for 12 December 2001 was cancelled.\n23.  On 30 January 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. The decision became final on the same day.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-280", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are the owners of a flat in Riano, which they had let to F.M.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 31 July 1986, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Castelnuovo di Porto Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 3 November 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Castelnuovo di Porto Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 30 April 1989.\n11.  On 17 May 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 1 August 1989, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 August 1989.\n13.  Between 11 August 1989 and 27 May 1996, the bailiff made thirty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/1998, the enforcement proceedings were suspended for nine months.\n15.  The applicant decided, therefore, not to pursue the enforcement proceedings given the lack of prospects of obtaining the assistance of the police.\n16.  According to the latest information provided by the applicants in their letter of 18 February 2002, they have not recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-281", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.\n9.  On 25 October 1998 the applicant was arrested on the strength of a provisional arrest warrant issued by a duty magistrate in connection with a request for his extradition made by the Kingdom of Morocco. The request was relayed to Malta through Interpol. The charge related to the applicant's involvement in international drug trafficking in cannabis. The information laid before the magistrate by the Attorney General referred, inter alia, to the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (“the Vienna Convention”), to Legal Notice 120 concerning designated countries and Government Notice 332 published in the Government Gazette of 24 May 1996 which reproduced the text of the Convention to which Malta acceded on 28 February 1996. Attached to the request was a Red Notice issued by Interpol bearing the applicant's description and fingerprints as well as a certificate issued by the Prime Minister under subsection (4) of section 4 of the 1996 Order on Extradition (Designated Foreign Countries).\n10.  On 26 October 1998, pursuant to section 15(1) of the Extradition Act, the applicant was brought before the Magistrates' Court acting as a court of criminal inquiry in connection with extradition proceedings. A defence counsel was appointed for him. The presiding magistrate was different from the one who issued the provisional arrest warrant. The applicant did not challenge the lawfulness of his arrest and the proceedings were adjourned until 3 November 1998.\n11.  On 28 October 1998 the applicant filed a judicial act with the First Hall of the Civil Court alleging that the provisional arrest warrant was unlawful because, inter alia, there were no bilateral extradition arrangements between Malta and Morocco and the Vienna Convention had not been incorporated into domestic law.\n12.  On 30 October 1998 the Prime Minister as the minister responsible for justice matters replied to the act. The Prime Minister rejected the applicant's claim as frivolous and vexatious. He stressed that both Malta and Morocco were parties to the Vienna Convention even though the Convention had not been incorporated into domestic law. On the latter point, he noted that Maltese law was already sufficiently equipped and adequate to implement Malta's obligation under the Vienna Convention.\n13.  At its next sitting on 3 November 1998, the applicant's lawyer pleaded that the Magistrates' Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case for extradition, that the provisional arrest warrant was therefore unlawful and that the applicant should be released. The prosecution disputed the applicant's reasoning. The case was adjourned to 13 November 1998.\n14.  At the further hearing on 13 November 1998 the applicant again pleaded that the Maltese courts lacked jurisdiction to examine the extradition request as there was no extradition treaty in force between Malta and Morocco and that the Vienna Convention, although signed by Malta, had not been duly ratified in accordance with Maltese law.\n15.  On 20 November 1998 the Magistrates' Court rejected the plea of lack of jurisdiction and declared that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. The Magistrates' Court took into account, in particular, the applicant's argument according to which the Vienna Convention had not been ratified as required by the Ratification of Treaties Act. It observed, however, that the sa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-282", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which she had let to I.M.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 11 June 1987, the applicant communicated her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1987 and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 29 June 1987, which was made enforceable on 7 July 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1988.\n9.  On 4 May 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n10.  On 7 October 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 17 November 1989, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 December 1989.\n12.  Between 18 December 1989 and 24 January 1997, the bailiff made fifteen attempts to recover possession.\n13.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On 28 February 1997, the applicant repossessed the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-283", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1912 and lives in Mercato Sanseverino.\n9.  He is the owner of an apartment in Mercato Sanseverino, which he had let to M.S. in 1974. The lease was due to expire on 31 December 1983, but was extended until 31 December 1987 pursuant to Law No. 392/78.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 4 September 1986, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Mercato Sanseverino Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 30 September 1986, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Mercato Sanseverino Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1989.\n12.  On 1 August 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 15 October 1991, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 October 1991.\n14.  On 28 October 1991, the bailiff made an attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 18 November 1991, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter.\n16.  On 18 February 1992, the bailiff asked the local police to provide their assistance in enforcing the order for possession and at the same time suspended the enforcement proceedings until the assistance would be granted.\n17.  At the beginning of 1998, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-284", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Naples.\n9.  She is the owner of an apartment in Naples, which she had let to L.T.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 October 1986, the applicant communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.\n11.  On 3 November 1986, the Naples Magistrate did not uphold the validity of the notice to quit and declined jurisdiction on account of the value of the case.\n12.  On 11 November 1986, the applicant resumed the proceedings before the Naples District Court. In a judgment of 10 July 1987, deposited with the registry on 22 July 1987, the court declared that the lease would terminate on 4 November 1987 and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n13.  On 20 February 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 8 April 1992, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 April 1992.\n15.  On 28 April 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her daughter.\n16.  On 29 April 1992 and 12 February 1993, the bailiff made two attempts to recover possession.\n17.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n18.  Thereafter, the applicant decided not to pursue the enforcement proceedings, in order to avoid useless costs, given the lack of prospects of obtaining the assistance of the police.\n19.  On 27 June 1995, the applicant served again notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n20.  On 5 July 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 July 1995.\n21.  Between 24 July 1995 and 7 October 1998, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n22.  On 28 October 1998, the tenant vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-285", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1967 and 1968 respectively and live in Vienna.\n10.  On 8 February 1996 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) convicted the first applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) of homosexual acts with adolescents and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment suspended on probation for a period of three years. Relying mainly on the first applicant's diary, in which he had made entries about his sexual encounters, the court found it established that between 1989 and 1994 the first applicant had had, in Austria and in a number of other countries, homosexual relations either by way of oral sex or masturbation with numerous persons between 14 and 18 years of age, whose identity could not be established.\n11.  On 5 November 1996 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof), upon the first applicant's plea of nullity, quashed the judgment regarding the offences committed abroad.\n12.  On 29 January 1997 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court resumed the proceedings, which had been discontinued as far as the offences committed abroad were concerned, and found the first applicant guilty under Article 209 of the Criminal Code of the offences committed in Austria, sentencing him to eleven months' imprisonment suspended on probation for a period of three years.\n13.  On 27 May 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed the first applicant's plea of nullity in which he had complained that the application of Article 209 of the Criminal Code violated his right to respect for his private life and his right to non-discrimination and had suggested that the Supreme Court request the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of that provision.\n14.  On 31 July 1997 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht), upon the first applicant's appeal, reduced the sentence to eight months' imprisonment suspended on probation for a period of three years.\n15.  On 21 February 1997 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court convicted the second applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code of homosexual acts with adolescents, and on one minor count of misappropriation. It sentenced him to six months' imprisonment suspended on probation for a period of three years. The Court found it established that on one occasion the second applicant had had oral sex with a 15-year-old.\n16.  On 22 May 1997 the Vienna Court of Appeal dismissed the second applicant's appeal on points of law, in which he had complained that Article 209 of the Criminal Code was discriminatory and violated his right to respect for his private life and had suggested that the Court of Appeal request the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of that provision. It also dismissed his appeal against sentence. The decision was served on 3 July 1997.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-286", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Rakovski, in the region of Plovdiv.\n10.  On 22 August 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having stolen from a Ms S. gold jewellery and money worth 20,110,448 Bulgarian levs (“BGL”). In view of the value of the stolen objects and money, the offence with which the applicant was charged constituted a “serious” offence, within the meaning of the Penal Code.\nAccording to the indictment drawn up later, the applicant, who had been employed by a private security company to keep Ms S.’s house , had taken advantage of her and her family’s departure on holiday to steal the above valuables on 2 August 1997. On the same day he had taken some of the jewellery and money to his sister’s home. Approximately ten days later, having learned that Ms S. had discovered the theft, the applicant had travelled to the nearby city of Plovdiv to sell some of the jewellery before returning home. On 19 August 1997 the applicant and his family (his wife and their two month-old child) had visited the applicant’s mother in the town of Perushtiza. There the applicant had given his mother the remaining money.\n11.  On the day of his arrest and on being questioned by an assistant investigator the following day, 23 August 1997, the applicant admitted the theft and directed the police to the persons who had bought some of the stolen jewellery from him. The majority of the valuables were recovered by the police the same day. The applicant’s mother returned the money she had been given by her son.\n12.  The period between 23 August and 10 October 1997 was taken up by procedural acts. No new evidence was collected during that period. The applicant was not interrogated.\n13.  On 26 August 1997 the assistant investigator transmitted the file to the District Prosecutor’s Office inviting it to reclassify the proceedings, which had begun as a summary investigation (дознание), into an ordinary investigation (следствие). On 5 September 1997 the District Prosecutor’s Office transmitted the case file to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office, as it considered that the proceedings came within the latter’s competence. By a decision dated 10 September 1997 a prosecutor from the Regional Prosecutor’s Office found that the case fell to be dealt with by the District Prosecutor’s Office and gave instructions for its return. On 12 September 1997 the case file was transmitted to the District Prosecutor’s Office.\n14.  By a letter of 19 September 1997 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office of the delays in the proceedings and stated that he had been unable to obtain detailed information about the accusation and had been refused access to the case file. He also requested the removal of the district prosecutor.\nOn 25 September 1997 that request was transmitted with the case file to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office. On 1 October 1997 it was dismissed and the case file was sent back to the District Prosecutor’s Office.\n15.  On 6 October 1997 the District Prosecutor’s Office decided to reclassify the proceedings as an ordinary investigation and not a summary investigation. On 8 October 1997 the case was assigned to an investigator with instructions to treat it as urgent in view of the fact that the accused was remanded in custody.\n16.  Between 10 October 1997 and 8 December 1997 the investigator questioned the applicant twice, summoned three witnesses, requested information from the National Bank about the exchange rates", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-287", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which he had let to P.D.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 25 May 1991, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 21 October 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 November 1992.\n11.  On 2 December 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 11 January 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 16 February 1993.\n13.  On 11 February 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n14.  Between 16 February 1993 and 12 May 1998, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  At the end of June 1998, the tenant vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-288", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9. The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Istanbul.\n10. In an indictment dated 22 December 1980, the Kırklareli Public Prosecutor charged the applicant, under Article 240 of the Criminal Code, with abuse of office by assisting and protecting smugglers.\n11. On 23 February 1982 the Tekirdağ Assize Court convicted the applicant for abuse of office and sentenced him to one year and eight months' imprisonment and to a heavy fine. The applicant appealed. On 30 June 1982 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment.\n12. The Tekirdağ Assize Court subsequently joined the applicant's case with another case of collective smuggling initiated against 13 co-accused.\n13. On 12 December 1990 the Tekirdağ Assize Court convicted the applicant and the other co-accused for collective smuggling and sentenced the applicant to one year and eight months' imprisonment.  On 15 April 1992 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Tekirdağ Assize Court.\n14. On 23 September 1992 the Head Office of the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant's petition for rectification of the Court of Cassation's judgment dated 15 April 1992.\n15. On 5 November 1992 the Tekirdağ Assize Court admitted the applicant's request that his case be re-opened and initiated new proceedings. On 16 September 1993 the Tekirdağ Assize Court convicted the applicant confirming its former judgment of 12 December 1990.\n16. The applicant appealed. On 5 October 1994 the Court of Cassation upheld the Tekirdağ Assize Court's judgment of 16 September 1993.\n17. On 7 December 1994 the Head Office of the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant's petition for rectification of its decision.\n18. On 15 February 1995 the Tekirdağ Assize Court rejected the applicant's second petition that his case be re-opened.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-290", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant and his wife S. have three children, K., born in 1980, A., born in 1981, and J., born in 1986. S. suffers from mental problems and is on early retirement. On 28 January 1992 the Social Welfare Office of the relevant city was contacted by a private individual raising a suspicion that the children were being sexually abused by their parents. The matter was considered by the child welfare support group of the local Social Welfare Board (sosiaalilautakunta, socialnämnden) on 5 February 1992. The group included Drs H.L. and U.K. of the Central Hospital located in the same city, the school welfare officer, a nurse of the child welfare clinic, the leading psychologist of the family advice centre and the director of J.’s nursery. Since no proof of incest was found, no further action was taken.\n11.  From 24 to 29 February 1992 J.’s development was monitored in the children’s ward of the Central Hospital. The examination revealed no signs of sexual abuse. On 16 March 1992 his nursery notified the social welfare authorities that he had shown a strong regression after having remained at home with his mother for one week following his hospital stay, and that similar regression had appeared whenever he had been spending longer periods at home.\n12.  Between 27 and 30 April 1992 the social welfare authorities were contacted on three further occasions with regard to the family. The information received again raised a suspicion that the mother was sexually abusing the children. It was alleged that the children were watching pornographic films, that the mother was walking around at home nearly naked and that she was using sexually explicit language when talking with and about the children. The parents were allegedly also consuming large quantities of beer on a daily basis.\n13.  The child welfare support group again considered the matter on 29 April, discussing for the first time the possible need to place the children in public care, and on 25 May 1992. On the same day social officials, the school welfare officer and the school nurse interviewed K. and A. together with their parents. According to the social welfare officer’s entry in the Board’s records, the daughters had confirmed the suspicions of sexual abuse, whereas the parents denied it. According to the applicant, the parents did not attend this interview. Moreover, A. had denied having been sexually abused by her parents, whereas K., when prompted to discuss her breasts, had stated that the mother had touched them in the sauna.\n14.  The parents consented to having the children undergo an examination in the child psychiatric department of the Central Hospital. The children were admitted to the Central Hospital on 25 May 1992 and their examination took place between 1 and 17 June 1992. Social welfare officials were in contact with the parents on 1 and 9 June 1992, raising the possibility of taking the children into public care. The parents objected to any such measure.\n15.  By emergency orders of 12 June 1992 the children were placed in public care in pursuance of section 18 of the Child Welfare Act (lastensuojelulaki, barnskyddslagen 683/1983) with a view to ensuring that the incest investigation could be completed. The Court has not been provided with copies of these orders which were apparently issued by the Chairman of the Social Welfare Board on its behalf. In the care orders of 24 June 1992 the Board referred to its decision of 12 June 1992, at paragraph 24 of the minutes, t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-291", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.\n9.  On 18 May 1992 the applicant filed with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an action in which he sought the eviction of a tenant from an apartment situated in a house belonging to him. In addition, the applicant requested that the tenant pay overdue rent and be also evicted from the basement of the building.\n10.  Having held two hearings, on 9 October 1992 and 5 February 1993, the District Court delivered its judgment on 11 February 1993. It ruled that the tenant should pay the overdue rent and be evicted from the basement, but dismissed the action for eviction from the apartment.\n11.  The applicant and the defendant appealed against that judgment. A hearing scheduled for 19 October 1993 was adjourned because of an illness of the judge rapporteur.\n12.  On 26 November 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n13.  From 26 November 1993 to 27 November 1995 no hearing was held. From 27 November 1995 to 3 June 1998 the Warsaw District Court scheduled nineteen hearings, two of which were adjourned.\n14.  On 3 and 17 June 1998 respectively the court adjourned the delivery of its judgment. On 1 July 1998 the court decided to re-open the examination of the case and ordered an expert opinion.\n15.  On 6 July 1998 the court rejected the applicant’s complaint against its decision of 17 June 1998.\n16.  On 25 January 1999 a summons for a hearing was served on the applicant, but, as the hearing was supposed to take place on 29 January 1999, he requested that it be rescheduled.\n17.  On 23 June 1999 the court adjourned the delivery of its judgment until 7 July 1999. On 2 August 1999 the court delivered a partial judgment (wyrok częściowy). It ordered the eviction of the defendant from the basement and dismissed the claim concerning the eviction from the apartment.\n18.  On 23 and 26 November 1999 respectively the applicant and the defendant lodged their appeals.\n19.  On 21 June 2000 the applicant informed the District Court that the defendant had died. He also requested that the defendant’s widow join the proceedings as a defendant.\n20.  On 20 October 2000 the Regional Court held a hearing. No parties appeared. The court stayed the proceedings due to the defendant’s death.\n21.  On 3 November 2000 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to submit information about all legal successors of the deceased defendant. On 14 November 2000 the applicant submitted the information.\n22.  On 5 December 2000 the Regional Court held a hearing and resumed the proceedings. The court adjourned the hearing until 28 December 2000 at the request of the defendant’s widow.\n23.  On 28 December 2000 the Regional Court held a hearing and set aside the contested partial judgment of the District Court. It discontinued the proceedings in respect of the eviction of the defendant due to his death. It also considered that the proceedings in respect of the applicant’s claim for overdue rent could be continued with the participation of the heirs of the defendant.\n24.  The decision of the Regional Court was served on the applicant on 12 March 2001.\n25.  On 19 March 2001 the applicant requested the District Court that the proceedings be reopened.\n26.  It appears that the proceedings are pending before the District Court in respect of the claim for overdue rent.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-292", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Warsaw.\n9.  The applicant, a professional army officer, took an early retirement in 1965.\n10.  On 13 June 1994 the applicant filed a civil action against the Ministry of National Defence, claiming that he had been deprived of adequate medical treatment, to which he was entitled as a retired army officer. He maintained that numerous errors committed by military dentists and their incompetence had led to irreversible bodily harm and damage to his health.\n11.  On 21 July 1994, on the Warsaw Regional Court’s order, the applicant particularised his claim. He sought a finding of the defendant’s liability, a sum of 1 PLN as compensation, and reimbursement of legal costs. On 3 August 1994 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a decision stating its lack of jurisdiction and forwarded the case to the Warsaw District Court.\n12.  On 8 August 1994 the applicant extended his claim and alleged that his heart illness had been caused by the defendant ministry. On 5 September 1994 the applicant submitted, on the court’s order, a statement of his financial and family situation. On 21 September 1994 the court exempted the applicant from the court fees.\n13.  On 22 September, 12 and 27 October 1994, the applicant filed his further objections as to the work and conduct of the dentists concerned. On 5 December 1994 the Ministry of National Defence sent copies of the applicant’s statement of claim to the Central Clinical Hospital at the Warsaw Medical Academy and to the court. The Ministry also declared that the hospital had been authorised to represent the State Treasury in the case. On 20 December 1994 the defendant’s counsel filed a reply to the applicant’s statement of claim with the court and requested it to summon three dentists as witnesses.\n14.  The applicant submitted his further pleadings on 21 November, 27 December 1994 and 21 February 1995. The hearing scheduled for 28 February had to be adjourned due to illness of the judge rapporteur. The applicant’s further pleadings were lodged with the court on 21 March, 11 and 24 April, 7 and 31 May, 16 and 30 June, 20 July, and 1, 7 and 21 August 1995. On 28 August 1995 the court held a hearing. It heard the applicant and one witness. Subsequently the applicant filed his pleadings on 21 September, 9 and 23 October 1995.\n15.  The second hearing was held by the court on 30 October 1995. The court interviewed one witness, a dentist who had treated the applicant in the defendant ministry polyclinic. The other witness, summoned for that date, failed to appear. The court accordingly adjourned the hearing.\n16.  The applicant filed his pleadings on 24 November and 19 December 1995. The subsequent hearing was fixed for 21 December 1995. It had to be adjourned as the defendant’s lawyer and the witness failed to comply with the summons. The applicant was told by the judge that the next hearing would be held on 15 February 1996, at 9.15 a.m.\n17.  On 15 February 1996 the applicant appeared before the court an hour after the hearing had begun. He complained to the President of the Warsaw District Court that he had not been properly informed about the time fixed for the hearing. He further complained that, after having waited several years for the trial, he had been denied the opportunity of questioning witnesses and had not been allowed to examine the minutes of the hearing. The President of the District Court was of the view that the applicant’s complaint was unfounded, explaining ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-293", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Olubukunola Obasa, is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Wellingborough.\n9.  The applicant commenced employment as a social worker with the London Borough of Islington (“the Council”) on 4 September 1989. In April 1991, she submitted a formal complaint to the Council's principal Equal Opportunities Officers alleging inter alia harassment and refusal of a promotion on grounds of race. She was interviewed by investigating officers in October 1991.\n10.  On 9 December 1991, the applicant presented an originating application to the Employment Tribunal alleging that she had been discriminated against as a black woman with a disability, inter alia, due to the decision to give a promotion to another employee instead of herself, the failure to transfer her to another post and the failure to assign her to a higher grade by giving due recognition to her professional qualifications. In her application, she relied on events going back to the commencement of her employment in 1989.\n11.  On 23 January 1992, one of the Council's investigating officers informed the applicant that her complaints had been found to be unsubstantiated. The applicant sought to appeal the rejection of her complaints pursuant to the Council's internal grievance procedure.\n12.  The Employment Tribunal held a hearing on 9 June 1992, at which the parties agreed that under section 68(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976, which required that complaints be presented within three months of the act complained of, the applicant could not rely upon events taking place before September 1990. Determination of the merits was considered to require detailed evidence and the matter was reserved for a further hearing.\n13.  On 24 June 1992, the Council made a request for further and better particulars of the originating application. The applicant replied on 24 November 1992.\n14.  While in the ordinary course of events the hearing on the merits would have been listed for hearing in the first half of 1993, the Council applied to the Employment Tribunal for the merits hearing to be postponed, on the grounds that it would be preferable to await the outcome of the applicant's internal appeal. The matter was adjourned, the applicant making no objection to this adjournment.\n15.  The applicant's internal appeal was heard by the Council on 28 April and 4 May 1993. By letter dated 13 May 1993, she was informed that her appeal had been rejected. However, with regard to the applicant's transfer request, the Council committee was concerned at the lack of evidence that any serious consideration was given to this matter and expressed the view that steps should be taken to find the applicant alternative work and to expedite her transfer. Pursuant to this decision, instructions were given to investigate options for a transfer. An offer of transfer was made to the applicant on 8 February 1994.\n16.  Following the determination of the internal appeal, the Tribunal resumed consideration of the applicant's case, listing the case for a merits hearing on 11-13 May 1994. The case lasted longer than anticipated by the parties and it was adjourned and re-listed. The Council had indicated to the Tribunal on 13 May that it would be possible to reach a negotiated settlement. In the event a settlement was not reached and the Tribunal re-convened on 7 November 1994 for a further four days.\n17.  On 20 December 1994, the Tribunal issued its decision, finding that there had been discrimi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-294", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Warsaw.\nThe facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  On 1 May 1983 the applicant, following clashes with the police during anticommunist demonstrations, was put by the police in their van and beaten. He was seriously injured. On 17 May 1983 he was discharged from hospital. A brain injury, post-traumatic epilepsy and permanent brain damage were diagnosed. Since then he has remained under permanent care in a psychiatric clinic.\n11.  By a judgment of 24 June 1986, the Warsaw Regional Court granted the applicant compensation for damage to his health and held that a monthly supplementary pension be paid by the police – the State Treasury. The court observed that the applicant had lost the capacity to work and was disabled in the so-called second degree (an intermediate degree of disability).\n12.  On 11 April 1990 the applicant was granted the first degree status of disability (serious disability).\n13.  In 1990 the monthly supplementary pension was increased to 100 PLN as a result of a settlement between the parties.\n14.  On 27 February 1993 the applicant's father lodged a claim with the Warsaw Regional Court, in which he requested an increase in his son's monthly pension. On 8 March 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court remitted the case to the Warsaw District Court. Subsequently, six hearings were held in the case. On 15 September 1993 the court held a hearing. The defendant's lawyer asked for an adjournment in order to reach a friendly settlement.\n15.  On 12 November 1993 the court held a hearing. The applicant increased the amount of the claim. The court decided to request certain information from the applicant's former employer. On 19 November 1993 the court obtained the requested information.\n16.  On 23 November 1993 the court held a hearing. The applicant increased the amount of the claim. The court decided to request the psychiatric clinic for some additional information on the applicant's health. On 13 December 1993 the applicant's lawyer specified the claim. He requested the court to appoint an expert to give a report on the applicant's health.\n17.  On 17 December 1993 the next hearing was held. It was decided to request the psychiatric clinic to expedite the preparation of the requested documents.\n18.  On 27 January 1994 the court held its next hearing and interviewed witnesses. The applicant further specified the claim.\n19.  On 6 May 1994 a hearing was held. The defendant contested the amount of the applicant's claim. The court decided to request the applicant's former employer to submit certain information. On 24 May 1994 the applicant increased his claim. Taking into account the value of the claim, on 25 May 1994 the applicant requested the court to remit the case to the Regional Court. On 23 June 1994 the Warsaw District Court remitted the case to the Warsaw Regional Court, as the latter had become competent following the increase of the applicant's claim. Subsequently, on 25 November 1994 and 21 December 1994 the defendant and the applicant submitted pleadings to the court.\n20.  In January 1995 the applicant requested the court not to schedule any hearings in the period from 1 until 18 March 1995. In February 1995 the applicant requested the court not to schedule any hearings from 1 until 15 April 1995. On 19 April 1995 the applicant increased the claim.\n21.  On 28 April 1995 the parties asked for an adjournment in order to reach an out-of-court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-298", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Essex.\n9.  In February 1994 Brentwood Borough Council (“the Council”) approved guidelines for the operation and management of CCTV. The CCTV tape recordings would be retained initially for ninety days, this period to be reviewed from time to time and reduced to a minimum, and the tapes would be erased on completion of the storage period. In the section headed “privacy to neighbouring properties”, it was noted that the CCTV system should ensure adequate provision for the avoidance of unwarranted intrusion in areas surrounding those under surveillance. In the event of it becoming apparent that privacy was being violated, it was foreseen that the Council would take such steps as to ensure that “either an electronic (digital) screening or physical screening is taking place”. In April 1994 the Council installed a CCTV surveillance system in Brentwood. It was fully operational by July 1994. The Council's monitoring operator had a direct visual and audio link to the police so that if it was considered that an incident warranting police intervention was taking place, the images being captured could be switched through to the police.\n10.  In August 1995 the applicant was suffering from depression as a result of personal and family circumstances. On 20 August 1995 at 11.30 p.m. he walked alone down the high street towards a central junction in the centre of Brentwood with a kitchen knife in his hand and he attempted to commit suicide by cutting his wrists. He stopped at the junction and leaned over a railing facing the traffic with the knife in his hand. He was unaware that a CCTV camera, mounted on the traffic island in front of the junction, filmed his movements. The CCTV footage later disclosed did not show the applicant cutting his wrists, the operator being solely alerted to an individual in possession of a knife at the junction.\n11.  The police were notified by the CCTV operator and arrived. They took the knife from the applicant, gave him medical assistance and brought him to the police station. He was detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. His custody record refers to the self-inflicted injuries to his wrists on arrival and notes that he was examined and treated by a doctor, after which he was released without charge and taken home by police officers.\n12.  On 14 September 1995 the CCTV working party of the Council agreed to authorise the release of regular press features on the CCTV system. The Council also decided to cooperate with third parties in the preparation of factual programmes concerning their CCTV system.\n13.  The Council's first press feature, the CCTV News, was released on 9 October 1995 and included two photographs taken from the CCTV footage of the applicant to accompany an article entitled “Defused – The partnership between CCTV and the police prevents a potentially dangerous situation”. The applicant's face was not specifically masked. The article noted that an individual had been spotted with a knife in his hand, that he was clearly unhappy but not looking for trouble, that the police had been alerted, that the individual had been disarmed and brought to the police station where he was questioned and given assistance for his problems. The article included the name of a Council employee in the event that readers wished to obtain copies of the pictures.\n14.  On 12 October 1995 the Brentwood Weekly News used a photograph of the incident involving the applicant on its front", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-299", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 23 June 1994 the applicant's husband filed a divorce petition with the Wałbrzych Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).\n9.  On 26 August 1994 the applicant filed a pleading. On 19 October 1994 her husband requested the court to find that the applicant was responsible for the marital breakdown.\n10.  On 1 September 1995 the court ordered the applicant's husband to pay 170 Polish zlotys (PLN) in family maintenance pending trial.\n11.  The court held twelve hearings on the following dates: 26 August, 6 December 1994; 31 January, 21 March, 16 May, 1 September, 28 November 1995; 9 January, 13 February, 19 March, 17 April and 26 April 1996. It heard evidence from at least twelve witnesses.\n12.  On 26 April 1996 the court granted a divorce decree. It considered that both spouses had been at fault in respect of the breakdown of their marriage. The court further vested custody rights over their minor child with the applicant and obliged her husband to pay maintenance for the child.\n13.  On 28 May 1996 the applicant filed an appeal against the above judgment. She claimed that her husband had been exclusively responsible for the failure of their marriage and that, therefore, divorce was inadmissible in law.\n14.  On 5 July 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Wałbrzych Regional Court.\n15.  On 10 October 1996 the applicant filed a request for her maintenance claims to be secured. The court considered that further evidence regarding the financial situation of both parties should be obtained.\n16.  On 13 November 1996 the court held a hearing. On 9 April 1997 the court amended its decision of 1 September 1995 concerning the family maintenance pending trial, increasing it to PLN 250. It dismissed the remainder of the applicant's maintenance claims.\n17.  On 6 June 1997 the Wałbrzych Regional Court ordered that evidence be obtained from experts in psychiatry, psychology and pedagogics. On 27 November 1997 experts from the Family Diagnostics Centre (Rodzinny Ośrodek Diagnostyczno-Konsultacyjny) prepared their report.\n18.  Subsequently, the court held hearings on the following dates: 13 February, 16 March, 24 April 1998.\n19.  On 15 May 1998 the Wałbrzych Regional Court pronounced divorce, finding that both spouses had been at fault in respect of the breakdown of their marriage.\n20.  On 16 June 1998 the applicant filed an appeal with the Wrocław Court of Appeal. On 5 August 1998 it upheld the contested judgment. On the same day the applicant applied to the court to grant her legal assistance and to exempt her from court fees in cassation proceedings. On 28 September 1998 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed her application.\n21.  On 12 November 1998 the applicant filed a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 5 August 1998. On 5 January 2001 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) held a hearing and on the same date it dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-300", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, who was born in 1981, was a minor at the relevant time.\n9.  On 5 April 1997 he was arrested on the suspicion of having destroyed a car with the use of explosives.\n10.  On the day of his arrest he was brought before an investigator who charged him under Article 333 in conjunction with Articles 330 § 1 and 3 of the Penal Code. The investigator also decided to detain the applicant pending trial. This decision, which apparently was confirmed on an unspecified date by a prosecutor, only referred to Article 152 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n11.  On 2 May 1997 the applicant appealed to the District Prosecutor's Office in Plovdiv requesting his release.\n12.  On 20 May 1997 this request was refused on the ground that the applicant was charged with a “serious wilful offence”, within the meaning of Article 152 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n13.  On 29 May 1997 the applicant's mother appealed to the Regional Prosecutor's Office against the refusal of the District Public Prosecutor. She requested her son's release on the ground that he needed medical supervision and possibly surgery. A copy of a medical certificate was also produced, indicating that the applicant was suffering from a tumour to his right hand which was reappearing despite two surgical operations for its removal.\n14.  On 12 June 1997 the applicant's lawyer requested the Regional Investigation Authorities (OSS) to order his client's examination by a medical doctor with a view to establishing his mental state and whether or not the tumour to his hand required treatment. This request was apparently granted.\n15.  By decision of 4 July 1997 the Regional Public Prosecutor's Office refused to release the applicant. The decision stated that the district prosecutor had erred in relying on Article 152 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the offence of which the applicant had been accused was punishable, in the case of a minor, by up to three years' imprisonment, and therefore Article 152 § 1 of the Code, which concerned “serious wilful offences” (those punishable by more than five years' imprisonment) was not applicable. However, it was clear from the findings of the investigation that there existed a “prima facie” danger of absconding, committing further offences, or obstructing the investigation, such a danger being a ground for detention pending trial under Article 152 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n16.  On 9 July 1997 the applicant's lawyer submitted to the District Prosecutor's Office another request for release. \nHe stated that the investigation during which the applicant had fully co‑operated and had made confessions, was completed, that the applicant needed medical treatment, that he was psychologically unstable which transpired from the opinion of a psychiatrist who had examined him while in detention, and that Article 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed pre-trial detention of minors only in exceptional circumstances.\nIt is unclear whether this request was examined.\n17.  On 5 August 1997 the applicant's lawyer appealed to the District Court in Plovdiv against his client's pre-trial detention and requested a public hearing.\nHe relied on the arguments already raised before the prosecutors and emphasised that the provision of Article 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been disregarded. He also relied on the Convention.\n18.  On the same day the appeal was sent to the District Public Prosecutor to complete the case file.\n19. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-301", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Naples.\n10.  In 1993 he worked as a prosecutor at the Palmi public prosecutor's office. In the exercise of his functions, he had investigated a certain Mr C. The latter had had dealings with Mr Francesco Cossiga, a former Italian President, who at the end of his term of office had become a senator for life in accordance with Article 59 § 1 of the Constitution.\n11.  In August 1993 Mr Cossiga sent the applicant a fax and two letters. He said he was making him a gift of the copyright in his written, telephone and oral communications with Mr C., “including for the purposes of their stage and film exploitation” (“anche ai fini di eventuale sfruttamento teatrale e cinematografico”), “by way of a very modest contribution towards the costs which [he would] be incurring for [his] transfer from Palmi to Naples” (“come modestissimo contributo alle spese che Ella dovrà affrontare per il suo trasferimento da Palmi a Napoli”). Mr Cossiga also told the applicant that he was going to send him a small wooden horse and a tricycle “for the leisure pursuits which [he] believe[d] [he was] entitled to enjoy” (“per quegli svaghi que credo abbia diritto a concedersi”). Mr Cossiga then actually sent the little wooden horse and the tricycle to the applicant together with a detective game called “Super Cluedo”. With the parcel came the following message: “Have fun, dear Prosecutor! Best wishes, F. Cossiga” (“Si prenda un po' di svago, gentile Procuratore! Cordialmente F. Cossiga”).\n12.  The applicant filed a complaint against Mr Cossiga, alleging that the communications and gifts described above had damaged his honour and reputation. Proceedings were then brought against Mr Cossiga for having insulted a public official.\n13.  On 12 July 1996 Mr Cossiga was committed for trial before the Messina District Court. On 23 June 1997 the applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party.\n14.  In the meantime, the President of the Senate had informed the District Court that the Parliamentary Immunities Commission (Giunta ... delle immunità parlamentari) proposed that the Senate should declare that the acts of which Mr Cossiga was accused were covered by the immunity provided for in Article 68 § 1 of the Constitution.\n15.  By a resolution of 2 July 1997 a majority in the Senate approved the Parliamentary Immunities Commission's proposal.\n16.  On 23 September 1997 the applicant submitted a statement to the Messina public prosecutor and District Court in which he attacked the Senate's resolution, observing that there was no discernible link between the acts of which Mr Cossiga was accused (which he submitted ought to be construed as a personal quarrel with a prosecutor) and the exercise of parliamentary functions. On that basis, the applicant alleged that the Senate, in applying Article 68 to circumstances not provided for in the Constitution, had encroached on the powers of the judiciary, and requested that the matter be referred to the Constitutional Court to resolve the conflict of State powers.\n17.  By a judgment on 27 September 1997, the text of which was lodged with the registry on 10 October 1997, the Messina District Court ruled that Mr Cossiga had no case to answer “pursuant to Article 68 § 1 of the Constitution”.\n18.  The District Court observed that it was for the Senate, whose resolutions were not subject to review by the courts, to determine whether the conditions listed in Article 68 were met. Moreover, it saw no n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-302", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1949 and is currently detained in Maastricht.\n10.  The applicant was detained on remand (voorlopige hechtenis) on 11 September 1995. The criminal proceedings against him, in which he stood accused of a number of offences including murder, manslaughter/grievous bodily harm, rape and narcotics offences, came to an end on 26 March 2002, when the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) confirmed the judgment of the ‘s-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) of 6 March 2001 in which the applicant had been sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. In imposing that sentence, the Court of Appeal had taken into account the fact that the applicant had spent much of his pre-trial detention in maximum security. In addition, the Court of Appeal had imposed a TBS order (placement at the disposal of the Government – terbeschikkingstelling) with confinement in a secure institution (met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege).\n11.  The applicant was initially detained in ordinary remand institutions (huizen van bewaring). In a letter dated 7 October 1997 to the governor of the remand institution where the applicant was detained at that time, the National Public Prosecutor stated:\n“... I wish to inform you that a seriously increased safety risk exists in relation to [the applicant]. The Detainee Intelligence Information Service [Gedetineerde Recherche Informatie Punt – “GRIP”] has obtained information – which has been examined by myself and which I have found to be sufficiently relevant, reliable and concrete but which should be protected for reasons of security – to the effect that [the applicant] is intending to escape from detention and to that purpose is managing to make contacts outside the penitentiary.\nAn escape or breakout is liable to be accompanied by assistance from the outside and violence directed at others.\nI would further draw your attention to the fact that it also appears from the aforementioned information that [the applicant] has approached persons, or has had them approached on his behalf, in a threatening and intimidating manner.\nI advise you to take the appropriate measures to ensure the uninterrupted continuation of the [applicant’s] detention as well as appropriate measures to prevent any damage, and in particular damage to persons, occurring outside the penitentiary.”\n12.  On 14 October 1997 the governor of the remand institution where the applicant was detained proposed to the special selection board of the maximum-security institution (Extra Beveiligde Inrichting – “EBI”) that the applicant be placed in the EBI which is part of the Nieuw Vosseveld Penitentiary Complex in Vught. At a meeting of the selection board on 24 October 1997 the applicant was selected for placement. He was transferred to the EBI on 29 October 1997.\n13.  In a letter of 4 November 1997 the Minister of Justice confirmed the applicant’s placement and informed him of the reasons which had led to that decision having been taken. Reference was made to the letter (referred to as the “official report” (ambtsbericht)) of 7 October 1997. In respect of the threats and intimidation, the Minister of Justice wrote that these had not only been brought to bear on fellow inmates but also on persons outside the remand institution. The applicant was further informed that his escape would pose an unacceptable risk to society. The Minister had also decided that the so-called “A regime” should apply to the applicant in view of the latter’s threat that he wo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-303", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant is Mr Jacobus Lorsé, who was born in 1945. The second applicant, Mrs Everdina Lorsé-Quint (born in 1961), is the wife of the first applicant. The third, fourth and fifth applicants, Pieternella Johanna Lorsé (born in 1985), Paula Martina Lorsé (born in 1987) and Jacobus Lorsé junior (born in 1992), are the children of the first and second applicants.\nThe sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth applicants, Maria Petronella van Esch (born in 1965), Johanna Maria Lorsé (born in 1966), Neeltje Maria Lorsé (born in 1968) and Hubertus Joseph Lorsé (born in 1970), are children of the first applicant born out of previous relationships.\nThe first applicant is currently serving a prison sentence in Dordrecht. The other applicants are all resident in Maastricht, with the exception of the ninth applicant who resides in Rotterdam.\n10.  The first applicant, hereinafter referred to as Mr Lorsé, was taken into police custody (in verzekering gesteld) on 24 July 1994 and subsequently placed in detention on remand (voorlopige hechtenis). He was initially detained in ordinary remand institutions (huizen van bewaring).\n11.  Mr Lorsé was convicted of drugs and firearms offences. He was sentenced at first instance to twelve years’ imprisonment and a fine of one million Netherlands guilders (NLG). On appeal the prison term was increased to fifteen years’ imprisonment, the fine remaining the same. His conviction and sentence became final on 30 June 1998 when his appeal on points of law was rejected by the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad). He is now serving that sentence. He will be eligible for provisional release no sooner than July 2004. It would appear that he has been sentenced in Belgium to a six-year prison sentence for drugs-related crimes but that the proceedings there are still pending.\n12.  On 14 September 1994, while the criminal proceedings were still pending, Mr Lorsé handed his counsel a letter from the prison authorities from which it appeared that it was intended to place him (Mr Lorsé) in an extra security institution. On 27 September 1994 Mr Lorsé was transferred to the Temporary Extra Security Institution (Tijdelijke Extra Beveiligde Inrichting, “TEBI”), part of the Nieuw Vosseveld Penitentiary Complex in Vught.\n13.  By a letter of 28 September 1994 the Minister of Justice informed Mr Lorsé that apart from the fact that he was suspected of very serious crimes, official information (ambtsberichten) was available from which it appeared that he was likely to use violence in an attempt to escape. Reference was made to the fact that he had already once managed to avoid being arrested, endangering human life in so doing. Reference was also made to the prison sentence awaiting him in Belgium. In these circumstances it was considered that public order would be severely affected should Mr Lorsé manage to escape.\n14.  Mr Lorsé was subsequently notified, by letters couched in similar terms and dated 21 November 1995, 29 May 1996, 5 December 1996, 16 June 1997, 9 December 1997, 19 June 1998 and 21 January 1999, of the prolongation of his detention in the TEBI and – following the rejection of his appeal on points of law on 30 June 1998 – in the Extra Security Institution (Extra Beveiligde Inrichting, “EBI”).\n15.  On a number of occasions Mr Lorsé made use of legal remedies to protest against his placement, and the prolongation of that placement, in the EBI. On 1 February 1999, for example, Mr Lorsé, through his counsel, lodged an appeal to the A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-304", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lived at the time of the events in Vöcklabruck (Austria). He presently lives in Banova Jaruga (Croatia).\n9.  In February 1991 the applicant arrived in Austria together with his brother, born in 1985, and joined his mother who had already been living and working there. Subsequently his mother remarried. The applicant's family now consists of his mother, his stepfather, his brother and two half sisters, born in 1993 and 1995.\n10.  On 14 January 1994 the Police Authorities filed a criminal complaint against the applicant on suspicion of burglary. On 14 March 1994 the Wels Regional Court (Landesgericht) provisionally discontinued the criminal proceedings and ordered the applicant to compensate the victims for the damage caused. On 11 May 1995 the Vöcklabruck District Administrative Authority issued a prohibition to possess arms (Waffenverbot) under the Weapons Act (Waffengesetz) against the applicant as he had, in April 1995, attacked several persons with an electroshock device. On 31 May 1995 the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of having committed some fifty burglaries.\n11.  On 28 August 1995 the Wels Regional Court convicted the applicant of burglary and sentenced him to five months' imprisonment, suspended for a probationary period of three years. On the same day the applicant was released from detention on remand.\n12.  On 28 September 1995 the Vöcklabruck District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) issued a ten year residence prohibition against the applicant. Having regard to the above events and in particular the applicant's conviction, it found that his further stay in Austria was contrary to the public interest. These considerations were not outweighed by his family links in Austria. On 16 October 1995 the applicant, assisted by counsel, appealed against this decision. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention he submitted, inter alia, that the District Administrative Authority had failed to take sufficiently into account his private and family situation.\n13.  On 18 December 1995 the applicant was again remanded in custody on suspicion of having committed further burglaries in December 1995. On 26 February 1996 the Wels Regional Court again convicted the applicant of burglary and sentenced him to a further term of imprisonment of ten weeks, suspended for a probationary period of three years. On the same day the applicant was released from detention on remand.\n14.  On 2 May 1996 the Upper Austria Public Security Authority (Sicherheitsdirektion) dismissed the applicant's appeal against the District Administrative Authority's decision of 28 September 1995. As regards the applicant's family situation, the authority noted that the applicant's mother, his brother and two half sisters were living in Austria. However, having regard to the applicant's serious criminal behaviour the issue of a residence prohibition was nevertheless necessary in the public interest.\n15.  On 21 June 1996 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) against the residence prohibition. On 30 September 1996 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the matter for lack of prospects of success and remitted the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).\n16.  On 9 December 1996 the applicant supplemented his complaint to the Administrative Court which dismissed it on 19 February 1997. It found that the authorities had correctly found that the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-305", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Aridaia.\n9.  The applicant and Mr D. Varsamas requested the Prefect (Νομάρχης) of Pella to grant them permission to search for ore minerals in two specific areas. On 26 September 1983 and 10 October 1983 the Prefect of Pella issued them with two such licences.\n10.  On 21 November 1985 and 4 December 1985 the applicant and Mr Varsamas, after conducting ore mineral research in the said areas, asked the Prefect of Pella to cede to them approximately 100.000 sq. meters of each area for exploitation. According to the Mining Code, minerals are owned by the State and may be assigned by it to any person, in accordance with the provisions of the law. The two applications were transmitted to the Minister of Industry.\n11.  On 14 April 1986 the Minister of Industry, following an opinion of the Geological and Mineral Research Institute (Ινστιτούτο Γεωλογικών και Μεταλλευτικών Ερευνών), rejected the applications on the ground that the raw material traced in the area by the applicant and Mr Varsamas was not ore minerals but rather quarry matter.\n12.  On 26 May 1986 the applicant and Mr Varsamas challenged before the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens the refusal of the authorities to cede the areas requested.\n13.  On 27 February 1987 the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens rejected their action (decision no. 3324/1987).\n14.  On 24 March 1987 the applicant and Mr Varsamas appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens.\n15.  On 30 November 1987 the latter quashed the decision of the first instance court on the ground that the Minister of Industry should have prolonged the initial licences to conduct research instead of rejecting the applications for the cession of the areas in question (decision no. 4298/1987).\n16.  The State, the applicant and Mr Varsamas appealed in cassation to the Council of State on 21 and 22 January 1988 respectively, on the ground that the Administrative Court of Appeal had not interpreted and applied the relevant legislation correctly. The State requested the confirmation of the decision of the first instance court while the applicant and Mr Varsamas requested the cession of the relevant areas.\n17.  On 30 September 1991 the Council of State accepted the appeal of the State, set aside the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal on the ground that it had not interpreted and applied the relevant legislation correctly and referred the case to the Administrative Court of Appeal for re‑examination of the factual background. Having accepted the appeal of the State, the Council of State did not consider it necessary to examine the applicant's appeal (decision no. 2674/1991).\n18.  The Court of Appeal registered the case on 26 November 1991. On 3 April 1992 it delivered an interlocutory decision ordering the hearing of university professors who had examined samples of the ores (decision no. 1839/1992).\n19.  On 16 December 1992 the Court of Appeal considered that the disputed area should have been considered as containing ore minerals (decision no. 4367/1992).\n20.  On 4 March 1993 the State appealed on points of law against the latter judgement questioning the interpretation of the relevant legislation and the adequacy of its reasons.\n21.  In 1994 Mr Varsamas died.\n22.  On 18 January 1995 the Council of State quashed the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal and sent the case back to it in order for the reasoning to be supplemented on certain fac", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-306", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Rome, which they had let to G.R.\n7.  In a registered letter of 15 October 1990, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date. The tenant told the applicants that he would not leave.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 2 February 1991, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 23 May 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n10.  On 8 January 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 29 January 1993, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 February 1993.\n12.  Between 25 February 1993 and 29 January 2000 the bailiff made thirty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 26 January 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-307", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Spain.\n10.  On 1 October 1997 the applicant was charged (under Articles 193, first alternative, and Articles 229 and 233, first and second sub-paragraphs of the Penal Code-straffeloven) of having committed on Saturday, 6 May 1995, offences of violent assault, sexual assault and homicide against his cousin Ms T. (aged 17).\n11.  The Karmsund District Court (herredsrett), sitting with 2 professional judges and 3 lay judges, held a hearing from 20 October to 19 November 1997, during which 84 witnesses and 5 experts were heard. On 27 November 1997 the District Court convicted the applicant of the charges and sentenced him to 14 years’ imprisonment. Moreover, under Article 3-5 of the Damage Compensation Act 1969, the District Court ordered the applicant to pay NOK 100,000 in compensation to Ms T.’s parents for pain and suffering and additional inconvenience.\n12.  The applicant appealed to the Gulating High Court (lagmannsrett), which held a hearing between 4 May and 18 June 1998, during which it took oral evidence from 115 witnesses, 2 of whom were experts appointed by the High Court. Statements by 10 expert witnesses were submitted. Giving its verdict, the jury answered all the questions put to it in the negative. When the jury’s verdict is that the person is not guilty, but the court finds that he is undoubtedly guilty, the court may unanimously decide that the case shall be retried before other judges. The professional judges withdrew and deliberated for approximately 50 minutes, before they came back to announce that they accepted the jury’s verdict. The High Court thence acquitted the applicant of the charges.\n13.  On the following day, after hearing the pleas of counsel for the applicant and for the victim’s parents lasting approximately one hour, but without further evidence being submitted by the parties or taken by the court, the High Court judges unanimously upheld the District Court’ decision to award NOK 100,000 in compensation to Ms T.’s parents. On this point the High Court relied on the following considerations:\n“It has been established in case-law that in such a serious case as the present one, and where the question of guilt has been decided in favour of the accused, a condition for making an award of compensation for non-pecuniary damages is that it must be clear on the balance of probabilities that the accused has committed the infringements specified in the indictment, see Norsk Retstidende 1996:864.\nConsidering the evidence adduced in the case as a whole, the High Court finds it clearly probable that [the applicant] has committed the offences against Ms T. with which he was charged and that an award of compensation to her parents should be made under Article 3-5 (2) of the Damage Compensation Act.\nWith respect to the compensation matter the High Court finds the following circumstances established.\nOn Friday, 5 May 1995 the applicant went to the cinema in Kopervik with some of his friends. Around midnight he was in the centre of town. The same night Ms T. had attended a Christian event at Avaldsnes. After this event she hitchhiked to the centre of Kopervik, where she arrived around midnight. She talked to some friends who were in the main street of Kopervik and then left the centre at approximately 12.10 a.m. About the same time [the applicant] left the main street and went for a short while to one of his friend’s house. Thereafter he cycled towards his home. He caught up wit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-308", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 15 March 1986 the applicant sued for damages the Warsaw-Mokotów District Office (Urząd Dzielnicowy), the Warsaw Architecture Office (Urząd Stołecznej Architektury) and three of his neighbours, A.H., H.H. and T.H., in the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). The applicant sought 1,000,000 old Polish zlotys (PLZ) for the loss that he had allegedly sustained on account of various impediments to the construction of his house.\n10.  On 4 January 1988 the applicant withdrew his claims against the first two defendants. Since then, the proceedings have been directed only against his neighbours A.H., H.H. and T.H.\n11.  Between 1988 and March 1992 the Regional Court listed 8 hearings. It also ordered that 3 reports from construction experts be obtained so as to assess the value of the financial loss sustained by the applicant.\nThe last of those reports was submitted to the court in December 1992.\n12.  At the hearing held on 29 September 1993 the court heard evidence from Z.S., an expert.\nLater, both parties contested Z.S.' s report. The applicant nevertheless asked the court to give a ruling on his claim, stressing that the length of the proceedings had to date exceeded 8 years.\nOn 18 November 1994 the court ordered that fresh evidence be obtained from Z.S.\n13.  In December 1994 the presiding judge stepped down and the case was referred to another judge.\n14.  On 27 February 1995 the applicant complained to the President of the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) about – in his words – “an exceptional delay in the proceedings”. In a letter of 26 April 1995 the President admitted that the procrastination in the proceedings had indeed been caused by the fact that the Regional Court had failed to keep the proceedings moving along procedural lines. He apologised to the applicant in the name of the administration of justice.\n15.  On 16 May 1995 the applicant complained to the President of the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) about the inactivity of the Warsaw Regional Court. On 13 June 1995 the President referred the complaint to the Minister of Justice, an authority responsible for monitoring the conduct of court proceedings. He observed, however, that despite the case having already been brought under the Minister's supervision, since 29 September 1993 no hearing had taken place before the Regional Court.\n16.  Subsequently, the applicant made three further similar complaints to the President of the Warsaw Court of Appeal. \nIn a letter of 4 August 1995 the President again apologised to the applicant and admitted that the monitoring of the conduct of the proceedings had not been very successful. He also informed the applicant that the President of the Warsaw Regional Court had been instructed to take steps in order to accelerate the proceedings.\n17.  On 4 October 1995 the court held a hearing and served copies of Z.S.'s fresh report on the parties. Since the inflation rate and purchasing power of the Polish currency had meanwhile changed substantially, the court ordered the applicant to state the exact amount of damages claimed in the light of current circumstances.\n18.  On 11 October and 17 October 1995 the applicant filed two pleadings with the court and stated that the current total value of his claim was 355,585.59 new Polish zlotys (PLN).\n19.  On 6 March 1996 the court held a hearing. It ordered the applicant to pay court fees of PLN 14,342 for having lodged, in the court's view, a new and higher claim, and on pain of the statement of cl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-309", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Norway.\n10.  By an indictment of 23 June 1993, the applicant and his father were charged under Articles 195 § 1 (sexual relations with a minor) and 207 (sexual relations with a close relative) of the Criminal Code (straffeloven) with having committed sexual offences during the periods from 1985 to 1989 and 1988 to 1991 respectively against the applicant’s daughter, L., who was born on 18 October 1981.\n11.  By a judgment of 1 June 1994, the Eidsivating High Court (lagmannsrett), sitting with three judges and a jury, noted that the jury had answered the questions on the charges in the negative and therefore acquitted the applicant and his father. No appeal was lodged against the judgment, which consequently gained legal force.\n12.  Subsequently, on 29 August 1994, the applicant and his father filed a petition with the High Court requesting compensation under Articles 444 and 446 of the 1981 Code of Criminal Procedure (straffeprosessloven) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the criminal proceedings against them. The father sought, in the alternative, compensation under Articles 445 and 446.\n13.  In the compensation proceedings, the High Court, sitting with the same judges as in the trial, received written pleadings but did not hold an oral hearing. By a decision (kjennelse) of 25 January 1995, it rejected the applicant’s claim but awarded his father 30,000 Norwegian kroner in compensation under Articles 444 and 446. \nIn the introduction to its decision, the High Court reiterated certain information derived from the criminal proceedings, notably the specific contents of the charges of sexual abuse, the jury’s verdict and the acquittal by the High Court.\nAs regards the applicant’s claim, the High Court stated, inter alia:\n“The High Court notes that, pursuant to Articles 444 or 446 ... of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is a condition for obtaining compensation that it must be shown to be probable that the accused did not carry out the act which formed the basis of the charge. Accordingly, in order to award compensation it must be shown on the balance of probabilities that the accused did not commit the acts in respect of which he has been acquitted.\nThe High Court finds it probable that the victim [L.], born on 18 October 1981, has been subjected to sexual abuse in the form of sexual intercourse. Reference is made to the medical examination carried out ... on 21 November 1991 ... \n[L.’s] father and mother separated in 1989 when the mother moved to Oslo together with [L.] ... As a witness, the mother made statements about [L.’s behaviour] before as well as after the separation. This could indicate that she has been subjected to sexual abuse. The child’s behaviour resulted in the mother contacting the ... institute in the summer of 1991 where [L.] underwent individual and family therapy, as did her mother and her cohabitant.\nAs a witness during the trial, Ms Anne Okstad, a psychologist, ... explained [L.’s] behaviour. In the light of this and of talks and symbolic games with [L.], Ms Okstad concluded that there was no doubt that [L.] had been subjected to sexual abuse.\nThe question is therefore now whether on the balance of probabilities other persons than the defendants are behind the abuses. In this respect the judicial examinations of [L.] are of central importance and the witness evidence as to what [L.] has stated is significant. From the outset there had been no concrete in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-310", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Ozorków, Poland.\n9.  The applicant is the owner of a plot of land in Ozorków. Since 1989 construction works have been carried out by the applicant’s neighbours (J.C. and Z.W., F.W.) on their plots of land, adjoining his property.\n10.  On 4 July 1989 the Mayor of Ozorków (Naczelnik Miasta) issued a planning permission concerning the construction of an outhouse (plan realizacyjny budynku gospodarczego) in favour of J.C. The applicant appealed. On 30 August 1989 the Łódź Municipal Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 1 June 1990 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) quashed the contested decision.\n11.  On 16 October 1992 the Mayor of Ozorków (Burmistrz) granted J.C. a building permit concerning the construction of an outhouse, a garage, a vestibule and a toilet adjacent to the existing house.\n12.  On 18 June 1993 J.C. requested the Mayor of Ozorków to grant her a fresh building permit. This was granted on 23 June 1993. The new building permit was to “annul and replace” (“unieważnia i zastępuje”) the one issued on 16 October 1992. Both the applicant and J.C. appealed against the building permit of 23 June 1993.\n13.  On 20 August 1993 the Łódź Governor (Wojewoda) quashed the decision of 23 June 1993 and remitted the case to the Mayor of Ozorków.\n14.  In the meantime, on 21 June 1993, the Zgierz District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) had inspected J.C.’s construction site. On 24 June 1993 it ordered that the construction works concerning the adjacent dwelling be stayed.\n15.  On 23 July 1993 the Łódź Governor reopened the proceedings relating to the building permit of 16 October 1992. On 17 September 1993 the Mayor of Ozorków issued two building permits in favour of J.C. The first permit allowed her to continue the construction of an adjacent dwelling and approved the planning permission. The second permit allowed J.C. to build an outhouse and a garage and approved the planning permission.\n16.  The applicant appealed against both these decisions. He failed, however, to pay the fees due for lodging an appeal. As a consequence, on 6 November 1993, the Łódź Governor returned the appeal to the applicant.\n17.  Later, the applicant appealed to the Minister of Construction (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa). On 24 December 1993 the Minister set aside both decisions and ordered that the Łódź Governor should examine the merits of the appeal, notwithstanding the applicant’s failure to pay the fees. On 2 February 1994 the Łódź Governor upheld the contested decisions.\n18.  On 3 October 1994, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision relating to the issue of the building permit in respect of the adjacent dwelling and declared null and void the building permit relating to the outhouse and the garage. The court found that the original decision of 16 October 1992 was still in force as the decision of 23 June 1993 had been quashed on 20 August 1993.\n19.  As a consequence, on 15 February 1995, the Łódź Governor quashed the decision granting the building permit of 16 October 1992 and remitted the case to the Mayor of Ozorków.\n20.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed a complaint with the Łódź Governor, alleging inactivity on the part of the Mayor of Ozorków. On 1 June 1995 the Łódź Governor found that the applicant’s complaint was indeed well-founded and obliged the Mayor of Ozorków to render a decision before 14 June 1995.\n21.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-311", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bjugn.\n11.  On 10 March 1992 the head of the social services in the municipality of Bjugn contacted the local police after having received reports from Botngård kindergarten indicating that the applicant, who was an assistant at the kindergarten at the time, had sexually abused one or more of the children there. Subsequently, a criminal investigation was carried out. On 13 March 1992 the applicant was interrogated. He denied the accusations. On the same date he was suspended from his post.\n12.  On 1 September 1992 the applicant was formally indicted with respect to various offences under Articles 195, 198 and 228 of the Penal Code (straffeloven) concerning the sexual abuse of minors, allegedly committed against two children at the kindergarten, and under Article 192 of the Penal Code with respect to one of them. On 12 October 1992 the indictment was extended to 14 children at the kindergarten and, on 21 October 1992, a new indictment was issued involving 15 children. On 9 January 1993 the indictment was again extended to offences of sexual abuse of 36 named children and an unknown number of children at the kindergarten.\n13.  On the latter date, 6 further persons were indicted for sexual offences in relation to the same matter: the applicant's wife, two employees at the kindergarten and the local sheriff.\n14.  As a result of the above, the applicant spent three periods in pre-trial detention – respectively 7, 7 and 32 days – a total of 46 days. In the course of the investigations, three searches were carried out at the applicant's home.\n15.  On 22 September 1993 the applicant was formally indicted under Articles 195, 198 and 213 of the Penal Code for having allegedly committed various offences of sexual abuse against 10 kindergarten children.\n16.  On the same date the charges against the six other accused persons were dropped. They later claimed compensation under Articles 444 to 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (straffeprosessloven). The local sheriff obtained a settlement of NOK 200,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage; the five others obtained a court order requiring the State to pay NOK 200,000 to each of them. The applicant's wife obtained, in addition, NOK 140,000 in compensation for pecuniary damage.\n17.  The applicant's trial took place before the Frostating High Court (lagmannsrett), sitting with three judges and a jury, over a period of 43 days, between 15 November 1993 and 31 January 1994. After the jury had answered all of the 25 questions relating to the indictment in the negative, the applicant was acquitted by a judgment of 31 January 1994.\n18.  The applicant subsequently filed a petition with the High Court, claiming compensation under Articles 444 to 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\nThe High Court, sitting with two of the judges who had taken part in the trial and a new judge (replacing the judge who had presided at the trial, disqualified from sitting in the compensation case), held an oral hearing between 13 and 15 February 1995. \nIn its decision of 28 February 1995, the High Court ordered the State to award him the entirety of his claim of NOK 45,000 in compensation for pecuniary damage under Article 445, according to which provision such “compensation for special or disproportionate damage as a consequence of the criminal prosecution” could be awarded as was “reasonable in the circumstances”. Moreover, under Article 446, cf. 445, the High Court award", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-313", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  On 17 February 1987 the applicant, who had qualified as a doctor in Algeria in 1969 after graduating in medicine from the University of Algiers, applied to the Bouches-du-Rhône département council of the ordre des médecins (Medical Association) for registration as a member of the ordre.\n11.  The département council refused her application on the ground that, although she was French, she did not have a French medical qualification. The applicant subsequently made eleven unsuccessful applications to the Minister for Health for authorisation under Article L. 356, point (2), third paragraph, of the Public Health Code.\n12.  On 1 June 1995 the applicant again applied to the département council, relying on the Government Declarations of 19 March 1962 on Algeria, known as the “Evian Accords”, and in particular on the Government Declaration on Cultural Cooperation between France and Algeria (“the 1962 Government Declaration”), of which Article 5 of Part I provides:\n“Academic diplomas and qualifications obtained in Algeria and France under the same conditions as regards curriculum, attendance and examinations shall be automatically valid in both countries.”\n13.  Her application was rejected on 16 June 1995 by the Bouches-du-Rhône département council of the ordre des médecins, which refused to register her.\n14.  The applicant appealed against that decision to the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur-Corse regional council of the ordre des médecins. In a decision of 17 December 1995 the regional council upheld the decision to refuse her registration.\n15.  On 13 February 1996 the applicant applied to the disciplinary section of the National Council of the ordre des médecins. In a decision of 20 March 1996 the disciplinary section refused her application on the ground, inter alia, that the terms of Article 5 of the 1962 Government Declarations could not by themselves confer the right to practise medicine in France on all those who had obtained medical qualifications in Algeria after that date, and therefore could not be used in support of an application for registration.\n16.  On 3 June 1996 the applicant applied to the Conseil d'Etat for judicial review of that decision.\n17.  On 29 October 1998, at the request of the Conseil d'Etat, the Legal Affairs Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs submitted observations on the applicant's application. It stated:\n“This application calls for the following observations on my part, which, as you requested, concern the provisions of Article 5 of the Government Declaration of 19 March 1962 on Cultural Cooperation between France and Algeria, one of the declarations making up the 'Evian Accords'. ... 1.  Nature of the provisions\nThe Conseil d'Etat, acting in its judicial capacity, has already had occasion to rule on the nature of the provisions of the 'Evian Accords'. Agreeing with the Department's position, it held that the Accords constituted an international treaty (see the Conseil d'Etat's Moraly judgment of 31 January 1969, Recueil des arrêts du Conseil d'Etat [Reports of the judgments of the Conseil d'Etat], 1969, p. 50). 2.  Applicability of the provisions\nThe Government Declarations of 19 March 1962 were approved in a referendum held on 8 April 1962 and were subsequently published in the Official Gazette on 20 April 1962. They came into force on 3 July 1962 following an exchange of letters between the President of the French Republic and the Chairman of the Provisional Executive of the Algerian State.\nSince", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-314", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Mr Rémi Bertuzzi, was born in 1951 and lives in Saint-Laurent (département of Vosges).\n10.  He applied to the Metz tribunal de grande instance for legal aid to bring an action in damages against Mr T., a lawyer, for failing to represent him properly in court proceedings. He was granted full legal aid on 1 June 1995.\n11.  Three lawyers were assigned in turn by the president of the bar council to represent the applicant under the legal-aid scheme, but they applied for permission to withdraw from the case, owing to personal links with the lawyer the applicant wished to sue. The last of them withdrew from the case in late October or early November 1995.\n12.  On 23 November 1995 the applicant asked the president of the legal-aid office to assign a fourth lawyer. On 27 November 1995 he made a like request to the president of the bar council. The registry of the legal-aid office forwarded the applicant's letter to a lawyer who had been delegated by the bar council to the legal-aid office.\n13.  On 12 December 1995 that lawyer wrote to the president of the bar council in Metz to request the appointment of a fourth lawyer. The latter took no immediate action on the request, other than to seek information about the nature of the applicant's case, which he was given.\n14.  In the absence of a reply, the applicant wrote to the Minister of Justice on 14 June 1996. All he received in reply was a letter which arrived on 21 June 1996 informing him that his request had been transferred to the Director of the Civil Affairs Department. The applicant pointed this out in a letter to the minister dated 23 November 1996.\n15.  In March 1997 the applicant received a reply from the president of the bar council informing him that the grant of legal aid dated 1 June 1995 had lapsed. Consequently, he was advised to make a fresh application if he wished to pursue his claim against Mr T. The applicant did not reply to that letter.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-316", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants are Turkish nationals and live in Diyarbakir. At the material time, they worked as journalists on Ülkede Gündem, a Turkish-language daily newspaper based in Istanbul. Publication of the newspaper ceased on 24 October 1998 and it was replaced initially by Özgür Bakis and subsequently, on 27 April 2000, by another daily newspaper, 2 Binde Yeni Gündem. That newspaper was replaced on 31 May 2001 by a weekly periodical called Yedinci Gündem.\n10.  At the material time one of the applicants, Mr Çetin, an independent journalist, wrote a column entitled “Notes from Diyarbakir” (Diyarbakir'dan Notlar), which was published on Tuesdays in Ülkede Gündem. Mr Bakaç was Ülkede Gündem's representative in Diyarbakir. He currently works as a press officer for the Diyarbakir Urban District Council.\n11.  As for the other applicants, Mr Bagir is now the mayor of Lice, Mr Kaya is a lawyer and Mr Sahin and Mr Kiliç both teach in schools in eastern Turkey. Mr Sünbül continues to work as a journalist with the weekly publication 7. Gündem, while Mr Dag currently works as a press officer for Kayapinar Town Council.\n12.  The main point at issue in the present case is a ban that was imposed on 1 December 1997 by the governor of the state of emergency region on the distribution of Ülkede Gündem in that region.\n13.  According to the applicants, the distribution of Ülkede Gündem was impeded by the security forces in the period from September to November 1997, and the governor of the state of emergency region subsequently imposed a ban on its publication and distribution in the region where the state of emergency had been declared (see paragraph 24 below). On 13 November 1997 the proprietor of Ülkede Gündem sent a letter to the Ministry of the Interior informing it of the disruption caused to the distribution of the newspaper and demanding an end to these unlawful acts. He also sought compensation for the loss sustained.\n14.  On 19 November 1997 the governor of the state of emergency region wrote to the proprietor of Ülkede Gündem to say that his office was not responsible for the acts mentioned in the letter. He enclosed the seizure orders that had been made by the relevant authorities.\n15.  The Government have produced to the Court seventy-two warrants issued by judges of the Istanbul National Security Court for the seizure of various issues of the newspaper in the months of September, November and December 1997.\n16.  On 4 November 1997 Mr Bakaç and Mr Bagir lodged a criminal complaint with the Diyarbakir public prosecutor's office because of the alleged disruption to the distribution of the newspaper.\n17.  On 25 November 1997 the public prosecutor's office ruled that it had no power to deal with the complaint and referred it to the Diyarbakir Administrative Council under the Prosecution of Civil Servants Act.\n18.  On 5 February 1998 the Diyarbakir Administrative Council held that there was no case to answer in view of the seizure warrants that had been issued by the Istanbul National Security Court. Its decision was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court on 3 March 2000.\n19.  On 1 December 1997 the governor of the state of emergency region imposed a ban on the publication and distribution of Ülkede Gündem in that region.\n20.  On 4 December 1997 the Diyarbakir Security Directorate wrote to Mr Bakaç, in his capacity as Ülkede Gündem's representative in Diyarbakir, informing him of the ban. Its letter read as follows:\n“Regard being had to Directiv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-318", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Athens.\n9.  Between 1 February 1961 and 31 May 1981 the applicant paid contributions to the Fund of Typographers and Graphic-Arts Employees for 4,246 working days. Between 1 May 1979 and 30 July 1981 he paid contributions to the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press for twenty months and six days. Between 1 August 1981 and 9 May 1988 he paid contributions to the same fund for six years, eight months and three days. Then the applicant requested to be put on retirement under sections 18 § 2 and 10 § 1 of Law no. 1186/81. According to that law, persons who had contributed for at least five years to the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press were entitled to a pension if they were made redundant out of no fault of their own or because of the introduction of new technology. Those who had contributed for five to ten years would receive a monthly pension of GRD 10,000. A higher amount was fixed for those who had contributed for more than ten years.\n10.  On 5 August 1988 the Director of the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press decided that the applicant was entitled to the pension provided for those who had worked for five to ten years.\n11.  On 24 September 1988 the applicant appealed against this decision considering that, under the relevant legislation, the Fund should have also taken into consideration the working days in respect of which he had paid contributions to the Fund of Typographers and Graphic-Arts Employees. His appeal was rejected by the Board of the Social Security Fund for Technical Staff working in the Athens Press sometime in 1988.\n12.  On 12 November 1988 the applicant challenged this decision before the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens. On 15 December 1989 the court considered that sections 18 § 2 and 10 § 1 of Law no. 1186/81 were provisions of an exceptional nature. As a result, there was no room for applying the legislation concerning the taking into consideration of working days in respect of which contributions had been paid to other funds.\n13.  On 18 July 1990 the applicant appealed against this decision.\n14.  On 30 June 1992 the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens allowed the applicant's appeal.\n15.  On 8 June 1993 the Social Security Fund appealed in cassation.\n16.  On 5 May 1997 the Council of State quashed the decision brought before it and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal.\n17.  On 10 December 1999 the Administrative Court of Appeal of Athens rejected the applicant's appeal. This judgment was notified to the applicant on 19 May 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-319", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a Cypriot national of Turkish origin who was born in 1950 and is a paediatrician residing in Nicosia, north of the “green line”.\n9.  In addition to being a critic of the Turkish-Cypriot authorities and of the Turkish military presence in the northern part of Cyprus, which he defines as “occupation”, the applicant is the “Turkish-Cypriot coordinator” of the Movement for an Independent and Federal Cyprus, an unregistered association of Turkish and Greek Cypriots founded in 1989 in Nicosia. The movement has a Turkish-Cypriot coordinating committee in the northern part of the island and a Greek-Cypriot coordinating committee in the southern part. The purpose of the Movement is to develop close relations between the two communities. To that end, it organises bi-communal meetings of a political, cultural, medical or social character.\n10.  The applicant is normally unable to obtain a permit from the Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot authorities to visit the “buffer-zone” or the southern part of the island in order to participate in various bi-communal meetings. Thus, between 8 March 1992 and 14 April 1998, the date of the Commission's admissibility decision, only 6 out of 46 requests for such permits were granted. Further, between 18 April 1998 and 16 October 1999 two more permits were refused, one of which, however, was granted later on. The requests that were turned down concerned, inter alia, a UNFICYP (United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus) Spring Fair at Nicosia International Airport in May 1992, a bi-communal medical seminar organised by the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) in June 1992, a meeting of the coordinating committee for the “Movement for an Independent and Federal Cyprus” at the Ledra Palace in October 1992 as well as two meetings for the reorganisation of this committee in April and July 1994, a seminar on cardiology organised by the UNHCR in June 1994, a general meeting of the New Cyprus Association in December 1997 and a number of receptions organised by the German embassy in Nicosia. Moreover, in May 1992 the above-mentioned authorities refused to allow Greek Cypriots to attend a meeting organised by the applicant in the northern part of the island.\n11.  The applicant claimed that the Council of Ministers of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the “TRNC”) had adopted a decision prohibiting him from contacting Greek Cypriots. Reference to this decision was allegedly made in a letter dated 3 February 1992 by the Health Minister of the “TRNC” to the applicant, which reads as follows:\n“According to the information our Ministry has received, you were informed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Defence orally and this has been a decision of the government and we have nothing to add in our capacity as the Ministry.”\n12.  On 7 May 1992 the applicant wrote to the Prime Minister of the “TRNC” requesting to be informed of the content of the Council of Ministers' decision referred to in the above-mentioned letter, but received no reply.\n13.  On 29 May 1992 he sent a letter of protest to the Foreign Minister of Turkey, which has also remained unanswered.\n14.  On 18 May 1994 the Directorate of Consular and Minority Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Defence of the “TRNC” informed the applicant that “the permission requested by [his] letter of 19 April 1994 was refused for security reasons, in the public interest and because [he had] made propaganda against the State”.\n15. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-320", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Pagani, which they had let to R.E.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 December 1983, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Nocera Inferiore Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 12 April 1984, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Nocera Inferiore Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 July 1985.\n9.  On 13 September 1985, 21 January 1988 and 11 January 1990, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 12 March 1990, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 April 1990.\n11.  Between 6 April 1990 and 25 June 1990 the bailiff made two attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  On 9 September 1999, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 October 1999.\n13.  Between 6 October 1999 and 17 January 2000, the bailiff made three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On 17 January 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-321", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Naples, which she had let to E.F and then to his widow L.D'A.\n8.  In a writ of 7 November 1981, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 3 May 1982. She asked the tenant to vacate the premises by that date and summoned him to appear before the Naples Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 13 October 1983, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 3 May 1984.\n10.  On 25 November 1983, E.F. opposed alleging the expiry of the lease on another date.\n11.  By a decision of 23 November 1984, the Naples District Court rejected the appeal of E.F. and served him notice that the order for possession would be enforced on 17 May 1990.\n12.  On 22 February 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 17 May 1990.\n13.  Between 17 May 1990 and 15 December 1998, the bailiff made twenty-six attempts to recover possession.\n14.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  According to law no. 431/98, the Naples Magistrate suspended the eviction proceedings until 15 May 1999.\n16.  On 1 June 1999, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 June 1999.\n17.  Between 15 June 1999 and 16 November 1999, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession.\n18.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n19.  On an unspecified date of 2001, the tenant died and the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-322", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1950 and is currently detained in Carstairs Hospital, Lanarkshire.\n10.  On 8 September 1967 the applicant, then aged 17, was convicted, after a guilty plea, of culpable homicide. The court was satisfied on the oral evidence of two consultant psychiatrists that the applicant was suffering from “mental deficiency”, a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 and such as would warrant his detention (sections 6 and 23(1)). It ordered that he be detained in a mental hospital under a hospital order. It also made an order restricting his discharge from detention without limit of time (sections 55(1) and (7) and 60(1) of the 1960 Act). Although one doctor gave the opinion that the applicant suffered from a psychopathic or personality disorder, this was not the basis for the detention.\n11.  On 24 April 1972 the applicant escaped from the State hospital but was recaptured the same day.\n12.  By no later than 1980, he was no longer regarded as suffering from a mental deficiency. The sole medical basis for his detention since that date has been a diagnosis of anti-social personality or psychopathic disorder.\n13.  After 1983, patients under a restriction order were provided with the opportunity of applying annually to the sheriff to obtain discharge. According to the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”), the criteria for admission for both civil and criminal patients were amended. Section 17 provided that where the mental disorder from which the person suffered was a persistent one manifested only by abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct (that is, a psychopathic or anti-social personality disorder), he could only be detained where medical treatment was likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration of his condition. This reflected general medical pessimism as to the benefits of medical treatment for psychopaths. The sheriff was required to release a restricted patient where the patient was not suffering from a mental disorder making it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment, or it was not necessary for the health and safety of the patient or the protection of other persons that he receive such treatment (section 64 of the 1984 Act).\n14.  In 1985 the applicant was transferred to an open hospital. On 6 August 1986 he reoffended, was arrested and remanded to prison. He was charged on a summary complaint with the assault and attempted abduction of an 8-year-old child. Psychiatric reports were obtained from two consultant psychiatrists. In their reports of 14 August 1986, both referred to the applicant’s personality disorder but neither considered him to be suffering from mental disorder making it appropriate for him to receive hospital treatment. He was found sane and fit to plead. Accordingly, on conviction of assault and attempted abduction by a sheriff on 26 September 1986, he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, not to a hospital disposal.\n15.  On completion of his sentence in prison, the applicant was recalled to the State hospital by the Secretary of State on the basis of the 1967 hospital and restriction orders, pursuant to section 68(3) of the 1984 Act. This had been on the recommendation of a consultant psychiatrist consulted by the Secretary of State, who in his report of 8 August 1986 found that there was no continuing evidence of mental subnormality or of any evidence of mental illness other than persistent ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-323", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1945 in 1963 respectively and live in Luxembourg.\n9.  On 21 July 1998 the first applicant, acting in his capacity as a journalist, published an article in Lëtzebuerger Journal, a daily newspaper, under the headline “Minister W. convicted of tax fraud” (Minister W. der Steuerhinterziehung überführt). He alleged in the article that the minister had broken the Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Commandments by committing value-added tax (VAT) frauds. He went on to say that a politician from the right might have been expected to take the rules so carefully drawn up by Moses more seriously. He added that a fiscal fine of 100,000 Luxembourg francs had been imposed on the minister. He said in conclusion that the minister’s conduct was particularly shameful in that it involved a public figure, who should have set an example.\n10.  The applicants produced documents showing that the fine had been imposed on the minister concerned on 16 July 1998 by the Director of the Registration and State-Property Department (Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines), pursuant to section 77(2) of the VAT Act of 12 February 1979. The decision had been served on the minister on 20 July 1998. It also appears that on 27 July 1998 the minister appealed to the District Court against the fine. In a judgment of 3 March 1999, the District Court ruled that the fine was not justified as the offence under section 77(2) of the VAT Act of 12 February 1979 had not been made out. An appeal was lodged against that judgment to the Supreme Court of Justice. The parties have not furnished any further information regarding developments in those proceedings.\n11.  The decision of 16 July 1998 was the subject of comment in other newspapers, such as the daily Le Républicain Lorrain and the weekly d’Lëtzebuerger Land. A Liberal member of Parliament also tabled a parliamentary question on the matter.\n12.  Two sets of court proceedings were issued following the publication of the first applicant’s article.\n13.  On 24 July 1998 the minister brought an action in damages in the District Court against the first applicant and Lëtzebuerger Journal, arguing that they had been at fault in publishing the information concerning the fiscal fine and making comments which he said constituted an attack on his honour. In a judgment of 31 March 1999, the District Court dismissed the minister’s action on the ground that the article came within the sphere of freedom of the press. In a judgment of 27 February 2002, the Court of Appeal overturned the District Court’s judgment.\n14.  On 4 August 1998 the minister lodged a criminal complaint.\n15.  On 21 August 1998 the public prosecutor requested the investigating judge to open an investigation into a suspected offence by the first applicant of handling information disclosed in breach of professional confidence, and by a person or persons unknown of breach of professional confidence. The public prosecutor stated in his submissions: “The investigation and inquiries should determine which civil servant or civil servants from the Registration and State-Property Department had any involvement in the case and access to the documents.” The public prosecutor also requested the investigating judge to carry out or arrange for searches of the first applicant’s home and any appurtenances, the offices of Lëtzebuerger Journal and the Registration and State-Property Department offices.\n16.  Various searches were then carried out.\n17.  On 19 Oc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-324", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Budapest. His previous applications (nos. 23209/94 and 27313/95) to the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) were joined and declared inadmissible by the Plenary Commission on 13 January 1997.\n9.  On 18 November 1965 the Budapest Regional Court, in the context of criminal proceedings with certain political connotations, convicted the applicant of espionage and sentenced him to six and a half years’ imprisonment. The Court also ordered the confiscation of his property. On 23 February 1966 the Supreme Court, upon the applicant’s appeal, amended the first-instance judgment in that the criminal offence was characterised as attempted sedition and the prison term was reduced to five years. The remainder of the appeal was dismissed. Subsequently the applicant served his sentence. His property, namely his villa and garden as well as his car and money in a bank, was confiscated.\n10.  On 25 October 1989 the Attorney General lodged an appeal on legal grounds with the Supreme Court against the judgments of 1965 and 1966, proposing that the applicant’s conviction be quashed as being unlawful and that the applicant be acquitted. On 12 December 1989 the Supreme Court followed this proposal.\n11.  On 6 February 1990 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Budapest Regional Court claiming restitution of his property. He further claimed compensation as a victim of a miscarriage of justice. On 19 February 1993 the Regional Court awarded him four million Hungarian forints (HUF) as compensation for damage suffered as a consequence of his imprisonment.\n12.  In the restitution proceedings, between September 1990 and February 1992 the Regional Court held several hearings. Moreover, given that both the confiscated car and real estate had been sold and that, therefore, only compensation was feasible, the court took expert evidence as to the value of this property. The Technical Institute of Judicial Experts prepared an opinion on that question.\n13.  On 24 February 1992 the Regional Court, following a further hearing, issued an order awarding the applicant HUF 50,000 for the car, plus HUF 6,200,000 in compensation for his losses. The remainder of his claims was dismissed. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court sitting as a second instance, claiming higher compensation.\n14.  On 10 December 1992 the Supreme Court considered the case by way of a written procedure and dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n15.  On 12 February 1993 the Attorney General, reacting to the applicant’s request to seek review of the Supreme Court’s decision, informed him that restitution proceedings were governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, which excluded such a review.\n16.  On 19 February 1993 the applicant nevertheless lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, complaining of the Budapest Regional Court’s decision, as well as of the second-instance decision taken by the Supreme Court.\n17.  On 22 June 1993 the Supreme Court rejected his petition.\n18.  On 5 April 1995 the Constitutional Court decided that the application of procedural rules assigning restitution cases to the criminal courts – and excluding a review by the Supreme Court – amounted to arbitrary discrimination. The Constitutional Court amended the said rules to the effect that the files should be forwarded to the civil courts with a view to conducting the proceedings. Concerning the applicant’s particular case, it decided that h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-325", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mrs Waleria Kroenitz, is a Polish national, who was born in 1903 and lives in Przemyśl, Poland.\n6.  In 1948 the applicant’s property was expropriated. On 28 June 1996 the Minister of Economy (Minister Gospodarki) annulled the expropriation order.\n7.  On 23 December 1996 the applicant brought a claim against a company “Domgos” (Częstochowskie Zakłady Metalowe “Domgos”) before the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), seeking restitution of her property. The court held hearings on 30 May, 10 July and 17 October 1997.\n8.  On 30 January 1998 the applicant modified her claim and filed an action for compensation for loss of profits caused by the prolonged impossibility of using her property.\n9.  On 8 March 1999 the Częstochowa Regional Court held a hearing and gave an interlocutory judgment. It ordered that the property be restored to the applicant.\n10.  On 9 December 1999 the court was to hold a hearing, but an expert failed to appear because he had not been duly summoned. On 27 January 2000 and 23 March 2000 the court held further hearings.\n11.  A hearing listed for 15 February 2001 was cancelled since the expert and the defendant failed to appear.\n12.  The hearing listed for 29 March 2001 was adjourned as the court had ordered the expert to prepare a supplementary report. On 21 February 2002 the court held a hearing.\n13.  On 8 March 2002 the Regional Court gave judgment and awarded the applicant compensation. Following the defendant’s appeal, the proceedings are pending before the Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny).\n14.  On 26 April 1998 the applicant asked the Minister of Economy to award her compensation. On 22 May 1998 the Minister dismissed her request.\n15.  On 24 June 1998 the applicant filed with the Warsaw Regional Court an action for compensation against the State Treasury the Minister of Economy. The court held hearings on 19 November 1999 and 22 September 2000.\n16.  On 22 September 2000 the court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.\n17.  On 24 January and 7 March 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held hearings. On the latter date the court gave judgment. The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-326", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1951 and 1953 respectively and live in Florence.\n9.  Mrs B.P. was the owner of an apartment in Florence, which she had let to M.D.S.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 21 November 1985, she informed him of her intention to terminate the lease expiring on 31 May 1986 and summoned him to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 9 December 1985, which was made enforceable on 11 October 1988, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n12.  On 17 December 1986, the applicants became the owners of the apartment.\n13.  On 8 November 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 27 December 1989, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 January 1990.\n15.  On 2 June 1990, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.\n16.  Between 23 January 1990 and 17 June 1996, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n17.  On 4 September 1996, the tenant vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-327", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is a German national who was born in 1915. He has an illegitimate daughter, Isa, who was born in 1985. Both before and after her birth, relations between the parents were strained. Until the summer of 1989 the applicant saw his daughter regularly, looking after her during the daytime on occasion, even though he lived some 300 km from her home. After a year without any contact, he saw her again at the end of 1990. Thereafter, the mother refused to allow any further contact.\n10.  In 1991 the applicant applied to the Bonn District Court (Amtsgericht) for an order granting him access to his daughter. On 12 March 1992 the District Court dismissed his application, holding that in view of the strained relations between the parents, the applicant’s obsessional attitude (zwanghaft) towards his daughter and her unwillingness to see him, it would not at that juncture be in the child’s interest, within the meaning of Article 1711 of the Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below) to grant the applicant access. The District Court also found that the applicant could not claim to be the victim of discrimination, as its decision would not have been any different had his daughter been legitimate. The applicant’s appeals to the Regional Court (Landgericht) and to the Cologne Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) were dismissed. On 9 February 1993 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht), sitting as a panel of three judges, decided not to entertain the applicant’s constitutional complaint. On 24 March 1993 the Bonn District Court dismissed a further application by the applicant on the grounds that the relations between the parents remained strained and that a two-year “cooling-off period” (Zeit der Ruhe) was required before the case could be re-examined.\n11.  On 23 June 1993 the applicant made a further application to the Bonn District Court for access to his daughter.\n12.  In a letter of 6 July 1993, the applicant informed the District Court that he considered that the judge hearing the case was biased.\n13.  On 2 November 1993 the District Court rejected the application and adjourned its decision until 12 March 1992.\n14.  On 20 January 1994 the applicant lodged further particulars of his grounds for challenging the judge hearing the case. On 28 January 1994 the Bonn Regional Court ruled that the challenge was unfounded. On 18 February 1994 the applicant appealed against that decision.\n15.  On 28 February 1994 he lodged his grounds of appeal and also appealed against the District Court’s decision of 2 November 1993. On 18 March 1994 the Cologne Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the Regional Court’s decision of 28 January 1994.\n16.  On 25 April 1994 the applicant lodged his grounds of appeal against the District Court’s decision of 2 November 1993. On 30 May and 25 July 1994 the Regional Court heard the child and her mother, followed by the applicant.\n17.  On 22 September 1994 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It found that it would not be in the interests of the child’s welfare, within the meaning of Article 1711 § 2 of the Civil Code, to grant the applicant access. In particular, it noted that the situation observed on 25 September 1992 remained unchanged.\n18.  On 7 November 1994 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with the Federal Constitutional Court in which he argued that Article 1711 of the Civil Code was unconstitutional.\n19.  On 22 M", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-328", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  In 1983 the applicant was found to be partially disabled. She continued working. On 2 November 1988 the applicant was obliged to sign an agreement with her employer according to which her contract of employment would expire on 30 June 1989.\n10.  On 4 September 1989 the Social Security Commission in Bratislava declared the applicant fully disabled as from 1 July 1989. A full invalidity pension was granted to the applicant.\n11.  On 1 October 1990 her former employer rehabilitated the applicant for the persecution to which she had been subjected in the past.\n12.  After the entry into force of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act (see “Relevant domestic law” below) the applicant claimed that her invalidity pension should be increased. She alleged, in particular, that the termination of her contract of employment in 1989 had been due to political persecution within the meaning of Section 21 of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act.\n13.  On 5 April 1993 the Social Security Administration dismissed the applicant’s claim on the ground that she had failed to comply with the requirements set out in Sections 21 and 22 of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act.\n14.  On 21 March 1995 the Bratislava City Court upheld the decision. The City Court heard the parties and established that the applicant had failed to submit a certificate within the meaning of Section 22 of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act which was a prerequisite for granting her claim. The City Court noted that separate proceedings concerning this issue were pending before the Bratislava I District Court. It was further stated in the reasons for the judgment that the representative of the Social Security Administration had promised to adjust the applicant’s pension upon the delivery of such a certificate.\n15.  On 26 March 1996 the Bratislava I District Court ordered the successor of the applicant’s former employer to deliver a certificate pursuant to Section 22(1) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act to the applicant. Prior to that the District Court appointed an advocate to represent the applicant at the latter’s request. The applicant received the certificate on 14 October 1996.\n16.  On 18 October 1996 the applicant again requested the Social Security Administration to adjust her invalidity pension pursuant to the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act. The request was dismissed on 30 October 1996. The decision stated, with reference to Section 24(6) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act, that the applicant’s invalidity pension could not be adjusted as her contract of employment had been terminated in the course of the same year when she had acquired the right to an invalidity pension.\n17.  On 18 November 1996 the applicant challenged the decision before the Bratislava City Court. She also requested the City Court to appoint a lawyer to represent her in the proceedings. She referred to Article 30(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and explained that her handicap prevented her from coming to the court in person. The applicant further stated that she was indigent and that the case might raise questions of law of a complex nature.\n18.  In a written submission of 13 January 1997 the Social Security Administration asked the court to uphold the decision challenged by the applicant. This submission was forwarded to the applicant who submitted a written reply on 14 February 1997. The applicant maintained, in particular, that the conclusion of the administrative authority was er", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-329", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Taganrog.\n9.  The applicant worked for the Taganrog Customs Board, supervising the clearance of imported goods at a seaport customs post. In 1996 criminal proceedings were instituted against him and certain others for the alleged smuggling of considerable amounts of vodka.\n10.  On 22 May 2000 the Neklinovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region, composed of Judge Kink and two lay judges (народные заседатели), Ms Streblyanskaya and Ms Khovyakova, found the applicant guilty of being an accessory in the avoidance of customs duties and of abuse of office.\n11.  Immediately upon his conviction, the applicant was dispensed from serving the sentence partly because of the expiry of a statutory limitation period and partly because of a 1997 amnesty law.\n12.  On 26 and 29 May and 16 June 2000 the applicant and his counsel filed appeals against the judgment.\n13.  On 17 August 2000 the applicant requested from the President of the Neklinovskiy District Court a list of lay judges currently serving in the court and a copy of the President’s decision selecting those lay judges who were to sit in cases under the presidency of Judge Kink between January and May 2000.\n14.  On 29 August 2000 the applicant supplemented his appeal with new points. He challenged the bench that had delivered the judgment of 22 May, alleging a breach of the rules on the appointment of lay judges. In particular, the applicant submitted that, whereas the Federal Law on the Lay Judges of the Federal Courts of General Jurisdiction (“the Lay Judges Act”) allowed lay judges to be called once a year for a maximum period of fourteen days, or for as long as a specific case lasted, the lay judges Ms Streblyanskaya and Ms Khovyakova had been engaged earlier in the course of 2000 in several other trials. In addition, it was claimed that Ms Streblyanskaya’s statutory term of office had expired before the day of the applicant’s trial.\n15.  On 29 August 2000 the Criminal Division of the Rostov Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeals. The court also refused an application by the applicant and his counsel for access to copies of earlier judgments delivered by the Neklinovskiy District Court under the presidency of Judge Kink. The court held that the applicant had been informed of his right to challenge the bench at the outset of his trial, but he had failed to do so. No breach of the rules for the appointment of lay judges had been established.\n16.  On 16 November 2000 the President of the Rostov Regional Court refused an application for supervisory review (принесение протеста в порядке надзора) of the applicant’s case. In his application to the President, the applicant had raised a new argument in support of his allegation that the judges had not been appointed according to the applicable rules: it was claimed that there was nothing to indicate that the judges had been drawn at random by lot as required by the Lay Judges Act. The President rejected the applicant’s earlier argument as to the expiry of the judges’ term, referring to the Presidential Decree of 25 January 2000, whereby the terms of lay judges already in office had been extended pending the appointment of new ones. The President noted that the list of lay judges for the Rostov Region had been drawn up on 18 October 2000, after the applicant’s conviction. No answer was given to the applicant’s allegation that the judges had not been drawn by lot.\n17.  On 20 February 2001 the P", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-330", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 23 September 1992 the applicants lodged an action with the Michalovce District Court. They claimed compensation, under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act, for both real and movable property which had been taken away from their late father.\n10.  On 20 January 1993 the District Court submitted the action to the defendant authority for comments. On 6 April 1993 the defendant authority submitted its observations in reply.\n11.  On 28 April 1993 the District Court adjourned the case and requested the applicants to specify the legal provisions on which their claim was based and to submit further documentary evidence. On 24 May 1993 the applicants submitted further documents. They specified the provisions of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act on which their action was based on 3 September 1993.\n12.  On 16 September 1993 the District Court heard the applicants.\n13.  On 5 October 1993 the judge inspected the real property in question in the presence of the parties. The judge also heard a witness.\n14.  On 8 November 1993 the applicants withdrew their claim concerning compensation for movable property. On 15 December 1993 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of that claim. This decision became final on 11 February 1994.\n15.  On 14 April 1994 the court heard two witnesses.\n16.  On 27 April 1994 the judge visited the real property in question and heard two witnesses and an expert.\n17.  On 11 May 1994 the applicants proposed that the court hear three witnesses. In September 1994 they requested the court not to proceed with the case between 20 October and 1 November 1994 due to the absence of their lawyer.\n18.  On 7 March 1995 the District Court heard three witnesses and invited the parties to explore the possibility of settling the case. On 18 May 1995 the applicants informed the judge that they were not opposed to her intention to order an expert opinion with a view to evaluating the property should the attempt to settle the case fail. On 29 June 1995 the defendant ministry refused to accept the applicants’ claims.\n19.  On 11 October 1995 the Michalovce District Court dismissed the action. The judgment was served on the parties on 1 and 4 December 1995 respectively.\n20.  On 15 December 1995 the applicants appealed. The defendant authority submitted its observations in reply on 29 January 1996, and on 20 February 1996 the case file was submitted to the appellate court.\n21.  On 6 March 1996 the applicants submitted further arguments to the appellate court.\n22.  On 7 October 1997 the Košice Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment.\n23.  On 7 January 1998 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. They challenged the lower courts’ conclusions and complained that the Regional Court had not appointed an expert with a view to establishing the value of the property.\n24.  On 21 April 1998 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law. It found that the refusal to order an expert opinion was not a relevant reason for quashing the second instance judgment and held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the appellate court’s finding on the merits.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-332", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Florence, which she had let to A.L. and F.U..\n8.  In a writ served on the tenants on 23 December 1986, the applicant informed them that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and summoned them to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 27 January 1987, which was made enforceable on 2 February 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n10.  On 8 June 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 8 July 1989, she served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 August 1989.\n12.  Between 7 August 1989 and 18 February 1999, the bailiff made twenty-two attempts to recover possession.\n13.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  Pursuant to Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 6 September 1999.\n15.  On 6 July 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-333", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Palanga.\n9.  Before the Second World War the applicant's mother occupied a dwelling house (“the house”) on a plot of land measuring 1,422 square metres (“the plot”) in the centre of the tourist resort of Palanga on the Baltic Sea coast. Following the Soviet occupation of Lithuania in 1940, the land was nationalised and the house was demolished in the 1960s.\n10.  By a decision of 25 September 1992 the Palanga City Council, by reference to the Restitution of Property Act, decided to “restore the property rights” of the applicant and her sister in regard to their late mother's land. No form of restitution was specified in the decision.\n11.  The decision of 25 September 1992 was not implemented as no land was returned and no compensation was offered. In January 1995 the applicant brought a court action against the local authority, claiming that the plot should have been returned to her and her sister.\n12.  On 15 December 1995 the Palanga City District Court dismissed the applicant's action. By reference to Article 5 of the Restitution of Property Act (see § 22 below), the court held that the applicant was not entitled to recover the plot, but that she should have been offered an alternative parcel in compensation as required by the law.\n13.  The applicant appealed, stating that the plot had to be returned to her.\n14.  On 3 April 1996 the Klaipėda Regional Court quashed the judgment of the District Court. The Regional Court found that the decision of the Palanga City Council of 25 September 1992 did not comply with Article 19 of the Restitution of Property Act as the local authority had not decided whether land or money and, in either case, which land or what amount of money should have been offered to the applicant as a compensation. The Regional Court held that the local authority had to resolve these questions. The court required the administration of Klaipėda County to “adopt, by 30 June 1996, a decision on the request by Stasė Jasiūnienė to restore her property rights in regard to the plot of land (iki 1996 m. birželio 30 d. priimti sprendimą pagal Stasės Jasiūnienės prašymą dėl nuosavybės teisės į žemės sklypą atstatymo)”.\n15.  However, no such decision was taken as the applicant refused an alternative parcel of land in another area of Palanga. The applicant's sister accepted an alternative parcel.\n16.  On 13 August 1996 the applicant obtained an execution warrant for the judgment of 3 April 1996. She put the matter in the hands of bailiffs who were unable to execute the warrant against the county administration. The executive authorities took no further decision as the applicant had again refused an alternative parcel of land.\n17.  By a letter of 15 December 1997, the Klaipėda County Governor stated that the applicant had misinterpreted the judgment of 3 April 1996. In the Governor's opinion, the Regional Court had only required the county administration to adopt a decision in accordance with the Restitution of Property Act. As the applicant had no buildings or other property on the plot, she was not entitled to its return. The Governor requested the applicant to approach planners at the Palanga City Council to choose an alternative parcel. He warned her that a different parcel would be allotted without her consent in order to comply with the judgment of 3 April 1996.\n18.  On 31 December 1997 the applicant wrote to the Prime Minister, stating that she had been entitled to the plot, that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-335", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Nicosia.\n7.  The applicant was recruited in September 1946 by the Bank of Cyprus (“the Bank”). He retired from the Bank on 31 December 1988. To enhance his career prospects, he continued his studies while working, studying through distance-learning programmes run by British colleges. In 1960 he was granted two-years’ unpaid educational leave to study in London. When he returned he was promoted deputy to the Chief Inspector with the prospect of succeeding the latter. In 1963 the Government established the Central Bank (the State issuing Bank), which published its vacant posts. Interested in one of the four advertised managerial posts, the applicant contacted the Central Bank’s Governor who offered him a post entailing responsibility for banking operations.\n8.  On hearing about the Central Bank’s offer, the applicant’s Bank, in 1964, offered him orally the post of Chief Inspector on the condition that he followed a six-month training course in London. When the applicant returned from his training, the Bank promoted him to the lower post of Head of Department. In 1967 the Bank amended its Conditions of Service. The applicant was kept in the same grade. In the same year the applicant was transferred on promotion to take charge of the Bank’s Paphos Branch. In 1969 he was again promoted (but not to the post allegedly agreed on). In 1970 he was transferred back to the Head Office, where he alleges he was given various duties below managerial status.\n9.  The applicant alleges that in 1983 the Chairman of the Bank, in the course of a private meeting, stated that the reason for not promoting him to the post agreed on in 1964 was that the Board of Directors had received from a group of shareholders a number of anonymous letters criticising the Board for bad administration. The Board suspected that these letters had been sent by the applicant. The applicant further alleges that, following this information, he tried hard for almost two years to convince the Bank of his innocence, but to no avail.\n10.  The applicant claims that in 1987, nineteen months before his retirement, the Bank offered him 32,000 Cyprus pounds with a year’s increment in salary and threatened him that, if he did not accept, the Bank would demote him from Sub-Manager to Head of Department. The applicant refused the offer.\n11.  In 1988 the Disciplinary Committee of the Bank ordered the applicant’s dismissal with stay of execution.\n12.  Considering that the Bank had not respected its commitment to appoint him to a senior management position, the applicant instituted proceedings before the District Court of Nicosia claiming damages. 2.  The proceedings before the District Court of Nicosia and the Supreme Court sitting as an appeal court\n(a)  The hearing of the action\n13.  The applicant lodged an action for damages (no. 7439/85) with the District Court of Nicosia on 12 August 1985. On 22 October 1985 he filed his statement of claim and on 15 April 1986 he filed an amended version.\n14.  On 27 June 1986 the applicant applied for the action to be set down for a hearing. The hearing was fixed for 7 October 1986. One month before the hearing the applicant replaced his lawyer and, following the request of both parties, the hearing was adjourned to 19 February 1987 and then to 10 June 1987. On 3 March 1987 the applicant filed an application to amend further his statement of claim. This application was granted on 23 May 1987.\n15.  On 6 June 198", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-336", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Oskar Orzeł, is a Polish national who was born in 1978. He is a student and lives in Częstochowa, Poland.\n6.  Since early childhood, the applicant suffered from chronic inflammation of the vascular coat of his eyes. On 27 December 1984 the Katowice Clinical Hospital (Szpital Kliniczny w Katowicach) began to provide the applicant with both outpatient and inpatient care. After a few months, Professor G.-Ł. was put in charge of the applicant’s treatment.\n7.  In October 1988 Professor G.-Ł. recommended that the applicant undergo a laser coagulation surgery of his right eye. As she did not have experience in providing that kind of treatment, she decided that Doctor F.‑K. would perform the surgery.\n8.  In the early morning of 4 November 1988 the applicant, who at that time was ten years old, arrived together with his mother at the Katowice Clinical Hospital. At 11 a.m. Doctor F.-K. started to receive patients. The applicant was received at around 2 p.m. as the last patient. He entered the examination room together with his mother. Except for Doctor F.-K., no other medical staff were present in the room.\n9.  The applicant was seated in a chair facing Doctor F.-K., whereas his mother stood behind her watching the treatment. The applicant was calm and relaxed. A red light on a laser started to flash indicating that the surgery was underway. Suddenly, Doctor F.-K. shouted in a stern voice “look straight”. At that moment, the applicant’s mother observed that his left eye moved. Soon afterwards, the red light stopped flashing, indicating that the treatment was finished. Doctor F.-K. stood up without saying a word. The applicant and his mother left the room. While putting on his clothes in the hospital corridor, the applicant told his mother that he could not see with his right eye. The mother immediately went back to the examination room and informed Doctor F.-K. about it. She also asked whether this was a normal reaction after the surgery but received no answer. The applicant’s mother asked Doctor F.-K. when the applicant should report for a check-up. She was informed that he should keep his previously booked appointment in a week’s time.\n10.  On 5 November 1988 the applicant was examined in the ophthalmological ward of the Częstochowa Regional Hospital (Wojewódzki Szpital Zespolony). He was diagnosed with a cataract and a hole in the capsule of the lens. The doctor who examined the applicant considered that his loss of vision was caused by a laser surgery.\n11.  In 1989 and 1990 the applicant received medical treatment in Germany, Russia and Poland.\n12.  On 23 March 1990 the applicant, represented by his mother, lodged with the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an action in which he claimed compensation from the Katowice Clinical Hospital. The applicant also asked the court to find the defendant liable for any future deterioration of his health resulting from the alleged medical malpractice. He claimed that because of the negligence of a doctor who carried out the surgery, the capsule of the lens in his right eye had been punctured. It led to a cataract and required further medical treatment. As a result of the medical malpractice the applicant, who was thirteen, was an invalid and had thoughts of suicide.\n13.  Before 1 May 1993 nine hearings were held and three medical opinions were submitted to the court.\n14.  On 22 June 1993 the applicant extended his claim. He requested a monthly allowance. The applicant based his ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-338", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Białystok, Poland.\n5.  In April 1992 the applicant married Mr M.O., a divorcee who had two daughters from his first marriage. In May 1992 the applicant gave birth to a son. On 14 January 1993 the applicant’s husband committed suicide.\n6.  On 26 January 1993 the applicant initiated court proceedings before the Białystok District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) in order to obtain a decision as to who should be regarded as heirs to her late husband’s estate. She submitted that the estate should be divided between her and her son, according to the holograph will written by the applicant’s husband on 16 October 1992.\n7.  On 5 February 1993 the first hearing was held. The daughters of M.O. joined the proceedings. Their counsel requested that the inheritance be declared according to statute and therefore be in part accorded to them.\n8.  During the second hearing, held on 14 April 1993, the deceased’s daughters contested the validity of his will.\n9.  The Government submit that between April and August 1993 the applicant asked the court to take evidence from eleven witnesses.\n10.  In 1993 the District Court held five hearings and heard eight witnesses. In September and November 1993 two hearings were adjourned because the applicant had to attend a commission for disability and her counsel was ill.\n11.  On 18 January, 1 February and 22 February 1994 hearings were held at which both daughters of M.O. requested to hear witnesses living in New York. Subsequently, the applicant applied to the court to hear her father who also lived in New York.\n12.  At the hearing held on 8 March 1994 the court allowed the applications to hear witnesses with the help of the Polish Consulate in New York. On 26 September 1994 the court received a deposition taken from the applicant’s father. The witnesses requested by M.O.’s daughters were not heard because they did not arrive at the Consulate.\n13.  At the next hearing held on 26 January 1995, upon the application of M.O.’s daughters, the court requested an expert opinion to establish whether the will had been hand-written by M.O.\n14.  During the hearing held on 14 September 1995 the court examined the expert opinion which confirmed that the will had been hand-written by M.O. The counsel representing M.O.’s daughters requested another expert opinion to establish the testator’s mental condition at the time of writing the will on the basis of his hand-writing. The applicant contested the necessity for such opinion. Nevertheless, the court granted the application and adjourned the hearing. In November 1995 the Krakow Forensic Medicine Institute informed the court that it was unable to prepare the requested opinion.\n15.  At the hearing held on 15 December 1995 the court again decided to request a psychiatric opinion based on M.O.’s hand-writing by another expert. The opinion was submitted to the court in October 1996.\n16.  Between 16 December 1995 and 5 December 1996 no hearings were held. Subsequently, the case was taken over by another judge.\n17.  On 6 December 1996 a hearing was held. The court decided that an inventory of the estate would be prepared and ordered four expert opinions.\n18.  In January 1997 the applicant requested the court to exempt her from the costs of the expert opinions. On 11 March 1997 the court dismissed her application.\n19.  On 8 May 1997 the applicant applied to stay the proceedings because another set of civil proceedings between the same parties was pending", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-339", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 22 November 1995 the Wrocław-Stare Miasto District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged the applicant with fraud committed together with several accomplices and detained him on remand for three months in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question and the risk that he might obstruct the proper course of the proceedings.\n8.  On an unknown later date the applicant appealed to the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) against the order for his detention. On 27 November 1995 he lodged a pleading supplementing his appeal. In that pleading, he submitted that his detention had been imposed by a prosecutor, a party to the proceedings, whereas under the Convention detention had to be ordered either by a judge or by another officer exercising judicial power.\n9.  On 5 December 1995 a single judge, sitting as the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court, dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant's detention had an adequate legal basis. The applicant did not participate in the court session, whereas the Wrocław-Stare Miasto District Prosecutor did.\n10.  On 28 November and 14 December 1995 the applicant asked the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court to appoint a defence lawyer for him. That application was granted on 19 January 1996.\n11.  On 11 December 1995 the applicant asked the Wrocław-Stare Miasto District Prosecutor to release him. The application was dismissed on 12 December 1995 by the prosecutor at first instance and on 30 December 1995 on appeal. The authorities held that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged. They also considered that holding him in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n12.  On 21 December 1995 the applicant made a further application for release. He complained about the prison conditions and maintained that his continued detention had severely affected his health. The prosecution asked medical experts to examine the applicant. The doctors made their report on 22 December 1995. They concluded that the applicant could receive adequate medical treatment in prison.\nBasing themselves on that report, the authorities refused to release the applicant. The relevant decisions were made on 2 January 1996 by the prosecutor at first instance and on 24 January 1996 on appeal. The prosecutors, referring to the experts' report, held that the applicant's health did not militate decisively against his being kept in detention.\n13.  In the meantime, the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki) took over the investigation from the Wrocław-Stare Miasto District Prosecutor.\n14.  On 5 February 1996 the applicant asked the Regional Prosecutor to release him in view of his bad health. He stressed that he was suffering from diabetes, high blood pressure and arteriosclerosis. He maintained that he did not receive proper medical treatment and diet in prison. The application was dismissed on 7 February 1996 by the prosecutor at first instance and on 21 February 1997 on appeal. The main ground on which the authorities relied was that, according to a medical report obtained on 6 February 1996, the applicant's general condition was not an obstacle to keeping him in detention.\n15.  On 15 February 1996, on an application made by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor, the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 30 June 1996. The applicant appealed on 26 Fe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-340", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in La Spezia. He is the owner of an apartment in La Spezia, which he had let to B.L.\n9.  In a registered letter of 21 February 1992, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 August 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n10.  On 31 August 1992, he served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 22 February 1993, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the La Spezia Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 4 March 1993, which was made enforceable on the same day, the La Spezia Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1993.\n13.  On 14 January 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 16 February 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 March 1994.\n15.  On 30 May 1994, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his mother.\n16.  Between 8 March 1994 and 14 May 1998, the bailiff made three attempts to recover possession.\n17.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n18.  On 27 September 1996, the applicant asked the La Spezia Magistrate for police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. The La Spezia Magistrate rejected the request.\n19.  On 13 February 1998 and on 4 May 1998, the applicant served two notices to quit on the tenant, informing him that the order for possession would be enforced with the assistance of the police.\n20.  On 14 May 1998, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-341", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Naples.\n9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Naples, which she had let to L.P.\n10.  In a writ of 31 January 1984 , the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n11.  On 31 April 1984, she served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.\n12.  In a writ served on the tenant on 30 May 1984, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.\n13.  By a decision of 5 March 1986, which was made enforceable on 7 March 1990, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 5 September 1987.\n14.  On 4 May 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 July 1990.\n15.  On 6 May 1991, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n16.  Between 27 July 1990 and 6 December 1994, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n17.  On 4 January 1995, the Naples Magistrate served notice to quit on the tenant, informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 March 1995.\n18.  On 28 January 1997, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-342", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Rome.\n9.  A.G.D. was the owner of an apartment in Rome, which she had let to V.P.\n10.  A.G.D. informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983, and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n11.  By a decision of 21 October 1986, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1987.\n12.  On 13 November 1986, the applicant became the owner of the apartment and pursued the enforcement proceedings.\n13.  On 8 May 1987, she served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.\n14.  On 20 May 1987 she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 July 1987.\n15.  On 3 April 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n16.  Between 7 July 1987 and 1 December 1999, the bailiff made forty-nine attempts to recover possession.\n17.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n18.  After reaching an agreement with the tenant, on 18 December 1999 the applicant recovered possession of her apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-343", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Matera.\n9.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Milan, which she had let to D.D'A.M.\n10.  In a registered letter of 3 October 1984, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1985 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n11.  On 23 October 1985, she served a notice to quit on the tenant and summoned her to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 16 October 1986, which was made enforceable on 19 November 1986, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1988.\n13.  On 30 June 1988 and on 2 May 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 1 June 1989, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 June 1989.\n15.  Between 27 June 1989 and 25 November 1997, the bailiff made thirty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  On 27 December 1997, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment, because the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-344", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Milan.\n9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  Stelios company was the owner of an apartment in Milan which it had let to E.T.\n11.  In a registered letter sent in December 1990, Stelios informed the tenant that it intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 29 September 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n12.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 March 1991, Stelios reiterated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n13.  By a decision of 4 April 1991, which was made enforceable on 30 June 1993, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by the same date.\n14.  On 15 December 1992, the applicant became the owner of the apartment and pursued the enforcement proceedings.\n15.  On 15 November 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n16.  On 25 January 1994, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 February 1994.\n17.  In a registered letter of 13 March 1995, the applicant proposed negotiations to the tenant in order to settle their dispute, but they failed.\n18.  Between 11 February 1994 and 15 March 1999, the bailiff made seventeen attempts to recover possession.\n19.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n20.  On 14 December 1999, the enforcement of the order for possession was suspended pursuant Section 6 of Law no. 431/98 and set for 12 May 2000.\n21.  On 9 May 2000 and 13 June 2000, the bailiff made two attempts to recover possession.\n22.  Later in June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-345", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a company based in Lainate.\n9.  In 1987, it became the owner of several flats in Milan, which had all been leased by the previous owner.\n1)  Proceedings against A.D.P.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1990.\n12.  On 21 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 11 May 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 June 1990.\n14.  Between 8 June 1990 and 8 November 1999, the bailiff made thirty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 19 May 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.\n2)  Proceedings against J.D.\n16.  In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n17.  By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1989.\n18.  On 20 November 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n19.  On 10 December 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 4 January 1991.\n20.  Between 4 January 1991 and 11 November 1997, the bailiff made twenty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n21.  In March 1998, the tenant vacated the premises.\n3)  Proceedings against C.F.C.\n22.  In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n23.  By a decision of 13 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 20 October 1987, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1990.\n24.  On 21 April 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n25.  On 11 May 1990, it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 June 1990.\n26.  Between 8 June 1990 and 11 April 2000, the bailiff made thirty-eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n27.  On an unspecified date, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.\n4)  Proceedings against V.D.\n28.  In a writ served on the tenant on 2 October 1987, the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-346", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Samokov. Between 1991 and 1994 he was the mayor of Samokov.\n8.  On 27 May 1993 the District Prosecutor's Office (Районна прокуратура) in Samokov opened criminal proceedings against the applicant. It was alleged that the applicant in his capacity as mayor of Samokov had bestowed unlawfully benefits to individuals by granting tenancy orders and authorising construction works (abuse of office contrary to Article 282 §§ 1 and 2 of the Penal Code), that he had made a false certification in an official document (Article 311 § 1 of the Penal Code), and that he had used offensive language in respect of several persons (Articles 146 and 148 § 1(3)(4)).\n9.  As a measure to secure the applicant's appearance before the competent authorities, he was required to sign an undertaking that he would not leave Samokov without authorisation. This undertaking apparently remained in force throughout the proceedings.\n10.  On 16 June 1993 the case was assigned to an investigator. On 14 July 1993 the applicant was questioned. On 27 July 1993 the investigator heard one witness. On 11 August 1993 the investigator concluded his work on the case and drew up a report proposing the termination of the proceedings, as the applicant's acts did not constitute criminal offences.\n11.  On 24 September 1993 the District Prosecutor's Office referred the case back for further investigation. On an unspecified date the case was assigned to another investigator.\n12.  On 18 January 1994 the Regional Prosecutor's Office (Окръжна прокуратура) in Sofia, acting under section 154 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered the suspension of the applicant's term as the mayor of Samokov as there was a danger that he would obstruct the investigation. Upon the applicant's appeal this decision was confirmed by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office (Главна прокуратура). On 19 October 1994 the municipal council (общински съвет) removed the applicant from the post of mayor of Samokov. The removal was upheld on appeal by the Sofia Regional Court and by the Supreme Court.\n13.  In the continuing criminal proceedings, on 24 March 1994 the investigator proposed a temporary suspension of the proceedings as an important witness was allegedly in hiding. On 4 April 1994 the case was again referred back for further investigation by decision of the District Prosecutor's Office.\n14.  On 6 September 1994 the investigator reformulated the charges and, in addition, charged the applicant under Articles 172 §§ 1 and 2 and 282 of the Penal Code in respect of allegedly unlawful payments to dismissed municipal employees and his refusal to comply with a judicial order reinstating an employee.\n15.  On 31 October 1994 the District Prosecutor's Office terminated the proceedings in so far as they concerned the charges about payments to dismissed employees and in respect of some of the incidents where the applicant had allegedly used offensive language. On the same date the prosecutor drew up an indictment in respect of the alleged crimes under Articles 282 §§ 1, 2 and 3 and 311 § 1 of the Penal Code and also as regards the applicant's alleged failure to comply with a judicial order (Article 172 §§ 1 and 2 of the Penal Code) and the remaining incidents where the applicant allegedly employed offensive language (Articles 146 and 148 § 1(3)(4)).\n16.  During the preliminary investigation, in the period May 1993 - October 1994, the investigators examined numerous documents a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-347", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Milan.\n9.  In a letter of 28 June 1982, the former owner of the flat informed R.S. (the tenant) that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 16 April 1984, the owner reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 20 November 1984, which was made enforceable on the same date, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 10 September 1985.\n12.  The tenant asked the Milan Magistrate to postpone the enforcement proceedings. The Milan Magistrate set a fresh date for the end of August 1986.\n13.  On 29 January 1985, the applicant became the owner of the flat and pursued the enforcement proceedings.\n14.  On 4 July 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n15.  On 19 August 1986, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 September 1986.\n16.  Between 24 September 1986 and 22 October 1987, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n17.  On 24 March 1987, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n18.  The tenant asked the Milan Magistrate to set again a fresh date for the enforcement for 28 July 1988.\n19.  On 14 December 1988 and on 14 April 1989, the applicant served two notices on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n20.  On 4 May 1989, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 26 May 1989.\n21.  Between 26 May 1989 and 13 January 2000, the bailiff made forty-four attempts to recover possession.\n22.  On 13 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-348", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is a Netherlands national, born in 1953 and living in The Hague. He has been a practising lawyer (advocaat) since 1979.\n10.  At the beginning of November 1993, the applicant agreed to act as defence counsel for a Mr K. in criminal proceedings brought against the latter. At that time, Mr K. was in pre-trial detention. In connection with this case, the applicant met several times with Mrs S., who at that time was Mr K.'s wife.\n11.  At some point Mrs S. told Mr K. that on 9 November 1993 the applicant had made sexual advances towards her. Mr K. informed the police officer investigating his case, Officer N., of this, who in turn informed the public prosecutor in charge of the investigation against Mr K., Public Prosecutor T. The latter gave instructions that a criminal complaint against the applicant should be filed with the vice squad. On this basis, Officer N. contacted both Mrs S. and Officer R. of the vice squad.\n12.  Mrs S. was initially reluctant to lodge a criminal complaint against the applicant as she feared that her word – the only evidence available – would be insufficient against that of the applicant.\n13.  Following discussions between Officers R. and R.K. of the vice squad and Public Prosecutor T., the suggestion was made to Mrs S. to connect a tape recorder to her telephone in order to allow her to tape incoming conversations with the applicant. Police officers subsequently connected a cassette tape recorder to Mrs S.'s telephone in her home and suggested that she steer her conversations with the applicant towards the latter's advances. Mrs S. was shown how to operate the device. The police came to her home twice in order to collect the recordings and load new cassette tapes into the tape recorder.\n14.  Mrs S. recorded three conversations with the applicant, which were transcribed by the police. These transcripts were added to the case-file on the investigation against the applicant.\n15.  The case was reported in the press. This induced two other women to come forward and lodge criminal complaints against the applicant: one Mrs V., who claimed to have been raped and sexually assaulted by the applicant, and one Mrs C., who also complained that she had been sexually assaulted by the applicant.\n16.  The applicant was subsequently summoned to appear on 14 April 1994 before the Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague on charges of sexual assault and rape.\n17.  In its judgment of 28 April 1994, following adversarial proceedings in the course of which a hearing was held on 14 April 1994, the Regional Court convicted the applicant of having sexually assaulted Mrs S. and Mrs C., and acquitted him of the charges brought in respect of Mrs V. The Regional Court sentenced the applicant to eight months' imprisonment, four months of which were suspended for a probationary period of two years.\n18.  Both the applicant and the public prosecutor lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) of The Hague.\n19.  In its judgment of 16 June 1995, the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 28 April 1994, convicted the applicant of having sexually assaulted Mrs S. and Mrs C. and acquitted him of the charges in respect of Mrs V. It sentenced the applicant to four months' imprisonment, suspended for a probationary period of two years, and a fine of 10,000 Netherlands guilders. It based the applicant's conviction on statements taken from the applicant, Mrs S., Mrs C. and three other persons. The recorded teleph", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-349", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1959 and 1952 respectively and live in Szigethalom, Hungary.\n9.  On 8 February 1993 the applicants were dismissed by their employer, a car manufacturer.\n10.  On 4 March 1993 the applicants brought an action before the Pest County Labour Court for unlawful dismissal.\n11.  On 24 November 1993 the Labour Court held a hearing and transferred the case to the Economic Collegium of the Pest County Regional Court. The Labour Court observed that liquidation proceedings were pending against the applicants' former employer.\n12.  On appeal, on 28 February 1994 the Regional Court quashed the Labour Court's decision and remitted the case to it.\n13.  On 31 August 1994 the Labour Court decided that the applicants' dismissal had been unlawful. It transferred their pecuniary claims to the Regional Court's Economic Collegium.\n14.  On appeal, on 27 February 1995 the Regional Court quashed the Labour Court's decision and remitted the case to it a second time.\n15.  On 28 September 1995 the Labour Court annulled the applicants' dismissal on grounds of unlawfulness. On 25 March 1996 the Regional Court upheld this decision.\n16.  Subsequently the applicants lodged various pecuniary claims with the Labour Court for outstanding wages and severance pay. On 3 July 1996 the Labour Court held a hearing, ruled that it lacked competence to hear the claims and transferred the file to the Bankruptcy and Liquidation Section of the Regional Court, which was in charge of the liquidation of the defendant company.\n17.  On 22 October 1996 the Supreme Court, acting as a review instance, quashed the decisions of 28 September 1995 and 25 March 1996. Simultaneously, it discontinued those proceedings and transferred that part of the applicants' claims to the Regional Court. The Supreme Court pointed out that, according to section 38 § 3 of the Insolvency Act, pecuniary claims against a business entity under liquidation could only be pursued in the framework of liquidation proceedings.\n18.  In the context of the liquidation proceedings, the Regional Court held a hearing on 18 December 1996 and ordered the liquidation trustee in charge of the defendant company to complete the case-file.\n19.  By a decision of 29 January 1997, the Regional Court annulled the applicants' dismissal. On 24 April 1997 the Supreme Court, acting as a second instance, upheld this decision and ruled that the applicants had been unlawfully dismissed.\n20.  As regards the quantification of the applicants' claims, the Regional Court held a hearing on 30 June 1997 and, on 3 July 1997, it awarded 1,827,792 Hungarian forints (HUF) to the first applicant and HUF 899,264 to the second applicant, for outstanding wages and severance pay. The decision was immediately enforceable.\n21.  On 8 September and 24 November 1997 the Regional Court held further hearings. On 28 November 1997, it awarded a further HUF 681,620 to the first applicant and HUF 305,685 to the second applicant, for loss of earnings. The Regional Court dismissed the applicants' claims for compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n22.  On the applicants' appeal, on 26 November 1998 the Supreme Court, acting as a second instance, upheld the dismissal of the applicants' claims for compensation for non-pecuniary damages. However, it quashed the remainder of the first instance decision – to the extent that it was disputed on appeal – and remitted the claims in question to the first instance court.\n23.  The proceedings before the Regio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-350", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1953 respectively and live in Sopron, Hungary. Their previous application (no. 27587/95) was declared inadmissible by a Committee of the Commission on 16 May 1996.\n9.  Seeking judicial review and compensation for damages on account of administrative decisions taken in a protracted dispute over their licence to sell folk-art items on public premises, the applicants brought an action on 9 October 1992 against the Sopron Mayor's Office (“the 1992 action”). The action was first registered at the Sopron District Court, which on 4 November 1992 issued an order for the completion of the file. The applicants complied with this order on 12 November 1992.\n10.  On 1 March 1993 the District Court rejected the action, holding that it had no competence to hear the case. On 23 March 1993 the applicants appealed.\n11.  On 5 August 1993 the Győr-Moson-Sopron County Regional Court quashed the District Court's decision. It transferred the case-file to its own competent bench.\n12.  In the proceedings before the Regional Court, on 16 September and 28 October 1993 orders were issued for the completion of the file. The applicants complied with these orders on 28 September and 5 November 1993, respectively. On 19 November 1993 the defendant authority was eventually notified of the action.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 1 March 1993, the applicants brought an official liability action in the context of the above-mentioned proceedings before the District Court (“the 1993 action”). The defendant authority was notified of this action on 22 October 1993. On 20 November 1993 the District Court held a hearing and, on 29 November 1993, it transferred the case-file to the Regional Court for reasons of competence.\n14.  Following a hearing held on 14 December 1993, the Regional Court on 9 February 1994 discontinued the proceedings concerning the applicants' 1992 action. The Regional Court observed that the defendant authority had been notified earlier of the 1993 action and, for that reason, the applicants' claims were to be pursued in the proceedings relating to the latter action. On 21 February 1994 the applicants appealed to the Supreme Court, which, on 13 October 1994, upheld the decision to discontinue the proceedings on the 1992 action.\n15.  Meanwhile, following repeated exchanges of observations between the parties in the proceedings concerning the 1993 action, the Regional Court held hearings on 25 August and 18 October 1994. Another hearing was scheduled for 25 October 1994. In the context of procedural disputes concerning the applicants' motion to hear certain witnesses, their obligation to pay outstanding stamp duties, as well as questions of legal aid, on 2 November 1995 the Supreme Court decided the applicants' procedural appeals.\n16.  On 9 July 1996 the Regional Court awarded the applicants compensation in a total amount of 300,000 Hungarian forints (“HUF”), plus accrued interest. The Regional Court dismissed the remainder of their claims. Having reviewed numerous related administrative files and decisions, the Regional Court ruled that the defendant authority's conduct had hindered the applicants in the exercise of their rights derived from their licence to trade on public premises. In reasoning its ten-page decision, the Regional Court relied on documentary evidence.\n17.  On 6 August 1996 the applicants appealed. On 2 September 1996 they supplemented their appeal.\n18.  On 5 February 1998 the Supreme Court, acting as a second in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-351", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Cífer.\n5.  On 2 January 1995 the applicant filed an action for rehabilitation with the Bratislava City Court.\n6.  On 7 February 1995 the City Court transferred the case to the Bratislava I District Court for reasons of jurisdiction. On 1 July 1998 the case was assigned to another judge who started proceeding with it on 16 June 1999.\n7.  On 2 September 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicant's constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delays. In its finding the Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that the District Court had failed to proceed with the case between 31 July 1995 and  3 April 1997 and also between 1 July 1998 and 16 June 1999.\n8.  On 27 November 2001 the Bratislava I District Court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed on 23 June 2002. The proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-352", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Dřevnovice (Czech Republic).\n6.  On 9 April 1991 the applicant claimed compensation from a person who had damaged his car.\n7.  On 3 February 1994 the Košice - okolie District Court allowed the applicant's claims in part. On 6 December 1995 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment.\n8.  On 17 November 1999 the Košice - okolie District Court noted that the applicant had withdrawn a part of his action and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the relevant claims. It further dismissed the remainder of the applicant's action.\n9.  On 3 January 2000 the applicant appealed against the decision to dismiss his action. He also challenged the District Court's decision on the expert's fees.\n10.  On 23 May 2000 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court upheld the District Court's decision to dismiss the applicant's action.\n11.  On 27 June 2000 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. The Supreme Court rejected it, on 28 September 2000, as being inadmissible.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-353", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is a Dutch national, born in 1957 and living in Bregenz (Austria).\n10.  The applicant is a physiotherapist who completed his professional training in Belgium and received his diploma in 1986. From 1987 to 1993 he worked as a physiotherapist in Austria during which time he was employed by an association working in that field.\n11.  On 19 February 1992 the Vorarlberg Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann) recognised his diploma with suspensive effect until he accomplished two additional exams. On 11 January 1995 the Regional Governor completed the decree of recognition upon the applicant’s submission of the required certificates.\n12.  On 4 April 1995 the applicant filed a request with the Vorarlberg Regional Governor for the authorisation to work as a self-employed physiotherapist. He further submitted an employment certificate dated 4 January 1994, which had been issued by the association he had worked for.\n13.  On 26 July 1995 the Regional Governor refused to grant the applicant’s request. It found that the applicant did not comply with the requirements set out in section 7 § 3 of the Act on Medico-Technical Services (Bundesgesetz über die Regelung der gehobenen medizinisch-technischen Dienste, MTD-Gesetz). According to this provision the right to work as a self-employed physiotherapist may only be granted after three years of authorised professional practice within the last ten years.\n14.  On 31 January 1996 the Ministry for Health and Consumer Protection (Ministerium für Gesundheit und Konsumentenschutz) partly granted the applicant’s appeal. It found that the Regional Governor should have based its decision on section 68 § 6 of the Nursing Act (Krankenpflegegesetz) according to which the right to work as a self-employed physiotherapist may already be granted after two years of authorised professional practice within the last ten years. It held that, as regards the content, the Regional Government had decided correctly, however, it had based its decision on the wrong legal provision.\n15.  On 11 April 1996 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court. He requested an oral hearing and asked the court to seek a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice under Article 177 of the EC Treaty.\n16.  On 23 August 1996 the applicant filed another request with the Regional Governor in order to be granted the right to work as a self-employed physiotherapist.\n17.  On 28 November 1996 the Regional Governor also rejected this request. He held that the applicant was authorised to work as physiotherapist in Austria since 11 January 1995 following recognition of his foreign diploma. His employment at the association had been before that time and could not be considered as “authorised” professional practice within the meaning of section 68 § 6 of the Nursing Act.\n18.  On 28 February 1997 the Ministry for Health and Consumer Protection rejected the applicant’s appeal on formal grounds, applying the principle of res iudicata.\n19.  On 22 May 1997 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court, requested an oral hearing and asked the court to seek a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice under Article 177 of the EC Treaty.\n20.  On 10 June 1997 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the applicant’s complaint for lack of prospects of success. It found that his case did not raise serious questions of constitutional law or of the application of Community law and that the matter was no", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-354", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is the owner of an appartment in Turin, which he had let to E.M.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 25 February 1993 the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease on 31 December 1993 and summoned her to appear before the Turuin Magistrate.\n8.  The tenant refused to leave the premises.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 7 May 1993, the appliquant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 19 May 1993, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1994.\n11.  On 27 January 1995 the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 8 March 1995 the applicant informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 March 1995.\n13.  Between 28 March 1995 and 13 September 2000, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  Pursuant to Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 13 September 2000.\n15.  On 17 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-355", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Rome, which he had let to M.D.M.\n7.  In a registered letter of 8 February 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n8.  The tenant told the applicant that she would not leave the premises.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 January 1993, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 29 April 1993, which was made enforceable on 12 May 1993, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 April 1994.\n11.  On 18 May 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 11 July 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 July 1994.\n13.  Between 29 July 1994 and 14 November 2000, the bailiff made twenty-five attempts to recover possession.\n14.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 14 February 2001, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-356", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is an Icelandic national, born in 1954. He is a practising lawyer and lives in Reykjavik, Iceland.\n9.  The applicant instituted proceedings against the National Bank of Iceland, claiming compensation under the law of torts, on the grounds that one of the Bank’s legally trained employees had made an incorrect declaration in 1992 which was instrumental in the Supreme Court’s finding that a certain claim was no longer enforceable. As the District Court found for the defendant bank, the applicant, by a summons of 31 May 1996, instituted appeal proceedings before the Supreme Court.\n10.  In the course of the proceedings before the Supreme Court the applicant was given various dates between 10 July and 30 October 1996 within which to complete his submissions and the respondent Bank was given until 6 November 1996 to submit its reply. Subsequently the hearing was scheduled to open on 14 April 1997. Meanwhile, sometime between early March and early April 1997, the case was included in the Supreme Court’s docket.\n11.  By a judgment of 25 April 1997, the Supreme Court, by three votes to two, rejected the applicant’s claim. The minority found that the applicant’s claim should be upheld and that the National Bank was liable to pay him ISK 8,746,319 Icelandic krónur (ISK) in compensation, plus default interest from 30 August 1993.\n12.  One of the three judges forming the majority was Mrs Justice Guðrún Erlendsdóttir. The applicant submitted that after the delivery of the Supreme Court’s judgment, it came to light that Mrs Justice Guðrún Erlendsdóttir and her husband, a Supreme Court lawyer, had a financial relationship with the National Bank of such a nature as to disqualify her from sitting in the applicant’s case.\n13.  In the spring of 1996 Mr Örn Clausen, husband of Mrs Justice Guðrún Erlendsdóttir, had sought a solution to certain financial problems arising from the inability of a debtor, Mr Edvard Lövdal, to pay certain debts with respect to which Mr Örn Clausen was one of the guarantors, and the inability of other guarantors to honour the guarantee. In early May 1996 twenty-one creditors, one of which was the National Bank, possessed claims under the guarantees amounting to approximately ISK 50,000,000. This included a claim of approximately ISK 16,000,000 by the National Bank. Another large creditor was the Savings Banks’ Hedge Fund which, on behalf of the S-Þingeyinga Savings Bank (Sparisjóður Suður-Þingeyinga – “the Savings Bank”), held a claim of approximately ISK 17,500,000.\n14.  In order to solve these problems Mr Örn Clausen attempted to reach a settlement with each of the creditors. An economic consultant company, Ráð, agreed to examine his financial situation and to look into the possibilities of obtaining full settlement against partial payment, starting with the two largest creditors and thereafter opening negotiations with the smaller ones, to be completed within six months.\nA settlement request made by the company to the National Bank’s lawyer on 15 April 1996, included the following observations:\n“... Mr Örn Clausen has informed us that he had, for the sake of friendship, provided guarantees with respect to Mr Lövdahl’s debts, as they have been friends for decades. He also informs us that he owns no property, and that he will foreseeably have to answer for guarantees on account of Mr Lövdahl in an amount of approximately ISK 49,550,000. His other liabilities amount to approximately ISK 10,000,000 around ISK 8,000", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-357", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is the owner of an apartment in Livorno, which she had let to P.B.C.\n8.  In a registered letter of 13 April 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 22 April 1989, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 15 May 1989, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 November 1989.\n11.  On 20 January 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 31 March 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 April 1990.\n13.  Between 18 April 1990 and 18 November 1998, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On an unspecified date of May 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment because the tenant vacated the premises spontaneously.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-358", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are involved in a long-standing dispute with the State concerning the ownership of land in Omorphokklisia in Galatsi forming part of a wider area called the “Veikou Estate” over which the State claims ownership. In 1923, 1928, 1931, 1932 and 1941 the State expropriated large parts of the Veikou Estate for various purposes in the public interest.\n9.  In an opinion (no. 23/1987) which was approved by the Minister of Finance in 1987 and confirmed by the same minister in 1992, the Public Estates Consultative Board said that the Veikou Estate belonged to the State, since Mr Veïkos’s heirs had failed to prove that they had acquired property rights under title deeds or from adverse possession of the estate. On the basis of that opinion, the State Lands Authority registered the land possessed by Mr Veïkos’s heirs and subsequently all the plots which had been transferred to third parties by the heirs as public estates. Various sets of proceedings brought against the State by Mr Veïkos’s heirs and third parties are still pending in the domestic courts.\n10.  In 1934 the Minister of Agriculture decided to extend reafforestation in Attica to a region which included the disputed land. According to that decision, the area had “consisted, before the destruction and deterioration of the forest vegetation ..., of pine-tree forest which [had] progressively deteriorated and was starting to disappear ...” (decision no. 108424/1934).\n11.  However, in a document of the Athens Forestry Commission of 16 November 1968 on city planning, it was stated that half the area concerned was agricultural and the other half scrubland covered by bushes and just five pine trees. The Forestry Commission expressed the opinion that the area had never been forest land and could not be reafforested, since the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture of 1934 excluded from the scope of reafforestation barren land or parcels owned by individuals. The Forestry Commission concluded that the city development plan could be extended to the area concerned. Two previous documents of the Ministry of Agriculture, dated 3 December 1948 and 11 September 1949, and an expert report concerning the Veikou Estate had arrived at the same conclusion.\n12.  On 10 October 1994 the prefect of Athens decided that an area within the Veikou Estate, including the disputed plot of land, should be reafforested. It was expressly stated in the prefect’s decision that the aim was “... to recreate the forest greenery that [had] been destroyed or [had] deteriorated by illegal quarrying and other illegal actions, such as land clearing and building, over an area covering 935,483,000 sq. m”.\n13.  On 23 December 1994 the applicants challenged the prefect’s decision of 10 October 1994 in the Supreme Administrative Court. They claimed that they were the owners of properties that had been created by the parcelling of the Veikou Estate and were located inside the area set aside for reafforestation. In particular, they contended that the prefect’s decision sought to deprive them of any rights of possession or ownership in the contested plot. In their additional observations of 26 July 1996, they claimed that the underlying reason for the decision was an attempt by the State to create a dispute over the applicants’ rights of possession or ownership, despite the fact that there was no basis in law for the decision, since the area had never been a forest in the past.\n14.  On 20 January 1995 the applicants inv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-360", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are the owners of an apartment in Florence, which they had let to M.N.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 February 1986, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 13 March 1986, which was made enforceable on 24 March 1986, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n9.  On 13 April 1989, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for their son.\n10.  On 13 May 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 14 June 1989, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 August 1989.\n12.  Between 9 August 1989 and 1 December 1998, the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  Pursuant to Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 3 November 1999.\n14.  By a decision of 3 July 2000, which was made enforceable on 6 September 2000, the Florence Magistrate ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 March 2001.\n15.  On 1 March 2001, the applicants served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 March 2001.\n16.  Pursuant to Law no. 388/00 and then to Legislative Decree no. 247/01 the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 28 March 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-361", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1938, 1942, 1948 and 1962 respectively. They are farmers living in Stumm (Austria).\n10.  On 7 July 1966 the Tirol Regional Government as the Agricultural Authority of First Instance (Landesregierung als Agrarbehörde erster Instanz - “the Agricultural Authority”) instituted land consolidation proceedings (Zusammenlegungsverfahren) involving property belonging to the first applicant, the second applicant’s mother, the third applicant and the fourth applicant’s father.\n11.  On 18 December 1974 the Agricultural Authority ordered the provisional transfer (vorläufige Übernahme) of compensatory parcels (Grundabfindung).\n12.  On 28 December 1980 the municipal council amended the area zoning plan (Flächenwidmungsplan) re-designating agricultural land which had, before 1974, belonged to the first applicant, the second applicant’s mother and to the fourth applicant’s father, as building land.\n13.  In February 1988 the second applicant took over his mother’s farm.\n14.  On 28 July 1988 the consolidation scheme (Zusammenlegungsplan) was issued by the Agricultural Authority confirming the situation created by the provisional transfer.\n15.  On 16 September 1988 the third applicant appealed against the consolidation scheme. The first and second applicants as well as the fourth applicant’s father did so on 19 September 1988.\n16.  In May, June and October 1989, the Provincial Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat - “the Provincial Board”), sitting in camera, held hearings on these appeals. Subsequently, the fourth applicant took over his father’s farm.\n17.  On 26 November 1990 all four applicants filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction to the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat - “the Supreme Board”), which the latter dismissed on 27 February 1991.\n18.  On 18 April 1991 the Provincial Board, after having held a hearing in camera, dismissed the first applicant’s appeal.\n19.  On 3 June 1991 the first applicant filed complaints with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) and the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). In the complaint to the Administrative Court he requested that a public oral hearing be held.\n20.  On 25 November 1991 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the case and referred it to the Administrative Court.\n21.  On 16 November 1993 the Administrative Court requested the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of section 15 § 1 of the Tirol Land Planning Act (Flurverfassungslandesgesetz), which provides that changes in value which occur after the provisional transfer cannot be taken into account in the determination of compensation.\n22.  On 13 October 1995 the Constitutional Court found that section 15 § 1 of the Tirol Land Planning Act was in conformity with the Constitution.\n23.  On 28 February 1996 the Administrative Court dismissed the first applicant’s complaint rejecting at the same time, in accordance with section 39 § 2 (6) of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungs-gerichtshofgesetz), the applicant’s request for a hearing.\n24.  The Administrative Court found in particular that the calculation of compensation as regards the plots of land transferred to the municipality for building a street, had been carried out in a detailed and comprehensible manner and confirmed that the said compensation was in accordance with the relevant law. The decision was served on 24 May 1996.\n25.  On 18 April 1991 the Provincial Board, after having held a hearing in cam", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-362", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant lives in Rome.\n8.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to A.M.S.\n9.  In a registered letter of 10 April 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 14 October 1987, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 1 February 1988, which was made enforceable on 22 April 1988, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 1 February 1989.\n12.  On 24 May 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 18 July 1989 he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 July 1989.\n14.  Between 25 July 1989 and 10 December 1998 the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  Pursuant to Article 6 of Law no. 431/98, the eviction proceedings were suspended until 30 November 2000.\n16.  On 11 October 2000, the applicant served a second notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n17.  On 3 November 2000, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 November 2000.\n18.  On February 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-363", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Rome.\n9.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Rome, which had been let to M.R.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 16 September 1991, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 11 March 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 July 1992.\n12.  On 22 September 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 22 October 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 November 1992.\n14.  On 21 November 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n15.  Between 27 November 1992 and 11 March 1997, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  On 8 April 1997, the applicant repossessed the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-364", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1954, 1956 and 1952 respectively and live in Rome.\n9.  The applicants are the owners of a flat in Rome, which they had let to G.D.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 May 1984, the applicants communicated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 15 October 1984, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 May 1987.\n12.  On 17 June 1987, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 30 July 1987, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 14 September 1987.\n14.  Between 14 September 1987 and 29 February 2000, the bailiff made thirty attempts to recover possession.\n15.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension or the staggering of evictions, the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  On 3 July 2000, the applicants recovered possession of their flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-365", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Monte Porzio Catone (Rome).\n8.  She is the owner of a flat in Monte Porzio Catone, which she had let to R.L.\n9.  In a registered letter of 7 July 1986, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n10.  The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 December 1986, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Frascati Magistrate (Rome).\n12.  By a decision of 31 March 1987, which was made enforceable on 14 April 1987, the Frascati Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n13.  On 10 January 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 4 July 1989, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 July 1989.\n15.  Between 27 July 1989 and 26 May 2000 the bailiff made thirty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  In the meanwhile, on 12 July 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her daughter.\n17.  On 8 June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-367", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Sorrento.\n8.  She is the owner of a flat in Meta (Naples), which she had let to V.C.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 January 1987, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Sorrento Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 12 July 1989, which was made enforceable on 26 September 1989, the Sorrento Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 4 May 1991.\n11.  On 18 June 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 27 July 1992 she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 12 August 1992.\n13.  Between 12 August 1992 and 16 June 1998 the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On 18 June 1998 the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-368", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Sorrento.\n9.  He is the owner of a flat in Sorrento, which he had let to A.E. and F.C.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenants on 5 November 1983, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned them to appear before the Naples Magistrate.\n11.  By a provisional decision of 23 November 1983, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit, ordered that the premises be vacated by 1 January 1986 and declined jurisdiction on account of the value of the case, indicating that the Naples District Court had jurisdiction to hear it.\n12.  On 16 January 1984, the applicant resumed the proceedings before the Naples District Court. In a judgment of 10 January 1986, the Court declared that the lease was terminated as of 31 December 1985 and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 30 September 1986. The judgment was made enforceable on 18 January 1990.\n13.  On 23 January 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises. On 9 February 1990, he served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 May 1990.\n14.  On 8 May 1990, the bailiff made an attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  Thereafter, the applicant decided to suspend the eviction attempts, in order to avoid useless costs, given the lack of prospects of obtaining the assistance of the police.\n16.  On 30 November 1995, the applicant served again notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises. On 18 December 1995, he served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 February 1996.\n17.  The bailiff made three further attempts to recover possession in enforcing the order for possession, which attempts proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n18.  On 10 April 1997, the tenants vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-369", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Livorno.\n9.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Livorno, which he had let to A.R.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 16 September 1991, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 19 October 1991, which was made enforceable on 17 March 1993, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 14 October 1992.\n12.  On 23 March 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 6 May 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 June 1993.\n14.  Between 8 June 1993 and 26 June 2000, the bailiff made ten attempts to recover possession.\n15.  Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  In the meantime, on 27 January 1994, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter\n17.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/1998, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.\n18.  At the beginning of 2002 the tenant vacated the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-370", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin and lives in Adana, Turkey. Her husband, Hacı Sait Macir, was a former HEP (Halkın Emek Partisi-People’s Labour Party) and DEP (Demokrasi Partisi –Democracy Party) delegate. At the material time he was a member of the provincial committee of HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi – People’s Democracy Party) and was the president of the party’s commission in the Mutlu neighbourhood. He was also the owner of the Güneydoğu cafe in the Yüreğir district of Adana.\n8.  On 3 October 1994 the president of the provincial committee of HADEP, Rebih Çabuk and a member of the same committee, Sefer Cerf were shot dead in front of the Güneydoğu cafe. The applicant’s husband witnessed these killings.\n9.  On the same day the applicant’s husband was taken to the police station to give a statement. He stated that on 3 October 1994, at 9 a.m., he saw Sefer Cerf collapse after he being shot. He did not see the identity of the two gunmen who immediately ran away. The applicant alleges that her husband was taken to the police station on the pretext of giving a statement. However, he was threatened by the police officers and was asked about his association and friendship with Rebih Çabuk and Sefer Cerf. The applicant also alleges that her husband was continuously subjected to harassment after this incident and that the police closed the Güneydoğu cafe for three days without giving any reasons.\n10.  On 5 October 1994, Ahmet Dizman, who was at the Güneydoğu cafe at the time Rebih Çabuk and Sefer Cerf were killed and took Rebih Çabuk to the hospital in his car, was abducted from the Erzurumlular cafe by plain-clothes policemen. He was taken to a deserted field where he was beaten. During this incident the police asked him if he knew Sait Macir. His abductors told Ahmet Dizman that they would kill Sait Macir.\n11.  In a record of the  investigation into the killing of Rebih Çabuk and Sefer Cerf dated 10 October 1994, the applicant’s husband appeared among the witnesses who had given statements to the police.\n12.  On 30 December 1994 the applicant’s husband was shot in front of the Güneydoğu cafe. He was taken to hospital, where he died on 1 January 1995.\n13.  In a police report dated 30 December 1994 it is recorded that one empty 38 calibre cartridge was found at the spot where the applicant’s husband was shot. A sketch of the crime scene was also attached to this document.\n14.  On 30 December 1994 two eyewitnesses, Ahmet Sarıkaya and Bilal Ünver, gave statements to the police. They stated that they drove the applicant’s husband to hospital. They did not see the identity of the gunmen.\n15.  On 2 January 1995 the applicant was invited to the hospital to identify her husband’s body. At the hospital the applicant gave a statement to the Adana public prosecutor, Vahit Civelek. She stated that her husband had no enemies and that she did not know who could have killed him.\n16.  A preliminary autopsy on Sait Macir was carried out on 2 January 1995. It was concluded that he died as a result of gunshot wounds. Blood and organ samples were taken from the body for toxicological examination.\n17.  On the same day Mr Civelek requested the Adana Forensic Medicine Institution to conduct the final autopsy examination of Sait Macir’s body.\n18.  By letter dated 9 January 1995, with reference to the findings of the ballistics examination of 10 January 1995[1], the Adana Police Headquarters informed the office of the Adana public prosecu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-371", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Germany.\n7.  At the time of the events in question the applicant was detained in the Buca Prison in İzmir. He was accused of being a member of the PKK.\n8.  On 26 April 1994 the prison warders, instructed by their directors, assaulted the prisoners while the applicant was waiting for his relatives along with other prisoners in the visiting room of the prison.\n9.  In a report drafted and signed by 14 prison warders and directors on 26 April 1994, it is stated that 11 prisoners who were convicted of being members of the PKK requested that they be moved from their wing because they were afraid of being attacked by other prisoners. As soon as they were moved to another wing some of the prisoners protested against the administration’s decision and demanded that the prisoners be returned to their former wing. When their demand was rejected by the administration the prisoners started to chant slogans in the visiting room and declared that they would not leave the room until the prisoners were returned to their former wing. The warders brought the prisoners to their wing when they failed to persuade them to return. The prisoners resisted and injured themselves by hitting the iron beds in the wing.\n10.  On 27 April 1994 the applicant’s representative visited the applicant in the prison. She observed that the applicant was suffering from wounds and bruises to his arms, face and eyes caused by blows.\n11.  On 29 April 1994 the applicant signed a petition along with other prisoners complaining that they had been attacked by prison warders. They alleged that the chief warder of the prison, Ahmet Ayhan, had instructed the warders to attack them.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant petitioned the İzmir Public Prosecutor, complaining of the mistreatment which he suffered at the hands of the warders in the prison. He alleged that he had been severely beaten by the warders and sustained injuries and bruises as a result. The applicant requested the public prosecutor to initiate an investigation and to order a medical examination to be carried out by the Forensic Medicine Institute.\n13.  On 11 May 1994 the applicant was examined at the İzmir Forensic Medicine Institute. In a medical report drafted by a doctor at the Institute, it is stated that the applicant had a 2 cm scar on the right temporal part of his eyebrow, two 1 cm scars on the crurista and a haematoma on the third finger of his right hand. The report concluded that the applicant would be unfit to work for two days.\n14.  On 29 September 1994 the İzmir Public Prosecutor decided that no prosecution should be brought (takipsizlik kararı) against the prison administration and warders. According to the prosecutor, the prison administration was authorised to use necessary force in order to maintain peace and order in the prison pursuant to the Directive on the Execution of Punishments (Ceza İnfaz Yönetmeliği). The use of force applied in the incident was in accordance with the provisions of the Directive.\n15.  On 14 December 1994 the applicant filed a petition with the office of the İzmir Public Prosecutor. He requested a copy of investigation file no. 1994/24153.\n16.  On the same day the İzmir Public Prosecutor rejected the applicant’s request.\n17.  On 21 December 1994 the applicant filed an objection with the İzmir Assize Court against the decision of the İzmir Public Prosecutor of 29 September 1994. He complained that the prosecutor accepted the ac", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-372", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Hozat district of Tunceli.\n9.  On 7 October 1994 military units arrived in the applicant’s village of Kozluca. The security forces surrounded the village and set up a camp around the village. The Gendarme Commander of the village told the villagers to vacate their houses and to leave the village as the security forces were going to burn the houses.\n10.  The villagers left the village and moved to Hozat, where the District Governor placed the applicant and his family in the municipal wedding hall. Other villagers were housed in tents. After they left their village the soldiers burned the houses.\n11.  On 14 November 1994 the applicant filed petitions with the Prime Minister’s office, the Tunceli Provincial Governor’s office, the State of Emergency Region Governor’s office and the Welfare and Housing Minister’s office, complaining about the destruction of his home and requesting housing under the provisions of Housing Law no. 2150.\n12.  On 12 January 1995 the Deputy Governor, wrote a letter in reply to the applicant, informing him that residences demolished as a result of terrorist raids do not come within the scope of the Law on Disasters (Law no. 7629 - 1051). For this reason, the applicant was not able to benefit from the Housing Law.\n13.  The applicant did not pursue any other domestic remedy.\n14.  In 1994 security forces took action against PKK terrorists in the province of Tunceli. The PKK terrorists began to threaten and attack villages in order to meet their needs. As a result of the pressure exerted by the PKK, the inhabitants left their villages and fled to larger settlement areas.\n15.  The applicant left his village along with other villagers and moved to Hozat. The authorities there lodged him and his family in the wedding hall of the Hozat District Municipality. The applicant received financial aid between 1994 and 1996 for food, heating and health-related expenditure.\n16.  On an unspecified date the inhabitants of the Kozluca village lodged criminal complaints with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Hozat. They complained that the security forces in the region had burned their houses. As the case concerned an investigation of acts allegedly committed by the security forces, the public prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and referred the investigation file to the Hozat District Governor’s office in accordance with the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu).\n17.  The Hozat District Governor decided to discontinue the investigation on the grounds that the villagers could not identify the perpetrators and the evidence contained in the investigation file led to the conclusion that the village had been burned by PKK terrorists.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-373", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1994 respectively. The first applicant lives in West Bloomfield (Michigan) and the second applicant lives in Graz.\n11.  The first applicant married an Austrian citizen in April 1994. The marriage was concluded in the United States of America, where the couple set up their common residence. On 11 September 1994 their daughter, the second applicant, was born. The family's last common residence was in Michigan. Under the law of the State of Michigan the parents had joint custody over the second applicant.\n12.  On 30 October 1995 the first applicant's wife, without obtaining his consent, left the United States with the second applicant and took her to Austria.\n13.  On 31 October 1995 the first applicant, relying on the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”), requested the Austrian courts to order the second applicant's return. In these and the subsequent proceedings the first applicant was represented by counsel.\n14.  On 3 November 1995 the second applicant's mother filed an application with the Graz District Civil Court (Bezirksgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) for the award of sole custody over the second applicant.\n15.  On 20 December 1995 the Graz District Civil Court, after having heard evidence from the first applicant and his wife and the oral statement of an expert in child psychology, Dr. K., ordered that the second applicant be returned to the first applicant at her former place of residence in Michigan.\n16.  The court, noting that under Michigan law the first applicant and his wife had joint custody of their daughter, found that the first applicant's wife had wrongfully removed the child within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention. Moreover, it dismissed the mother's claim that the child's return would entail a grave risk of physical or psychological harm within the meaning of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention. It considered that the second applicant's return could not be hindered by the fact that the mother was her main person of reference and that returning could cause a massive trauma affecting her development. Otherwise, mothers of small children could easily circumvent the aim of the Hague Convention. As to the mother's allegation that the first applicant regularly masturbated in the presence of the child, the court referred to the expert's statement that such conduct would, in view of the child's tender age, not cause immediate harm. The fact that such conduct, if proved, could in the long run be harmful to the child would have to be assessed in the custody proceedings. Finally, it held that the mother could be expected to return with the second applicant to the United States.\n17.  On 19 January 1996 the Graz Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) dismissed an appeal by the second applicant's mother.\n18.  The Regional Court confirmed the District Court's assessment as regards the question whether the second applicant's return would entail a grave risk of physical or psychological harm within the meaning of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention. It noted that the onus of proof was on the person opposing the return, i.e. the second applicant's mother. Further, it noted that the statement of  the expert in child psychology had denied that there was any such risk. That statement had been made on the assumption that the mother's allegations were true. However, the Regional Court emphasised th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-374", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Saintes (Charente-Maritime). He is a winegrower.\n9.  On 19 May 1993 plans for improving a major road on the edge of the Saintes urban area were declared to be in the public interest. Completion of this operation required the expropriation of various plots of land, including twenty-one hectares belonging to the applicant. The expropriation liability order was issued on 5 September 1994.\n10.  On 12 September 1994 the expropriations judge for the département of Charente-Maritime issued an expropriation order giving rise to a transfer of ownership.\nOn 28 September 1994, in the absence of an agreement between the applicant and the State as the expropriating authority (represented by Mr H., an inspector from the Charente-Maritime Revenue Department) on the amount of compensation to be paid, the latter applied to the expropriations judge. In an order of the same day the expropriations judge for the département of Charente-Maritime set 4 November 1994 as the date for the site inspection and stated that the public hearing would be held immediately afterwards.\nOn 3 November 1994 Mr P., Deputy Director of the Charente-Maritime Revenue Department, filed submissions in his capacity as Government Commissioner. The applicant’s lawyer then requested an adjournment because of the lateness of these submissions. The hearing was accordingly fixed for 18 November 1994.\nIn a judgment of 9 December 1994, having heard the applicant, Mr H., the State’s representative in the proceedings, and Mr P., the Government Commissioner, the expropriations judge assessed the compensation payable by the State at 1,441,517 French francs (FRF).\n11.  On 5 January 1995 the applicant appealed against this decison and filed a memorial with the Expropriations Division of the Poitiers Court of Appeal, in which he assessed the amount of compensation due at FRF 3,763,698.\nOn 13 April 1995 the Charente-Maritime Revenue Department filed a memorial in reply, signed by Mr H., in which it asked that the decision be upheld; a sheet of paper entitled “Study of the local property market”, listing thirteen contracts of sale and one judgment, was appended. On 24 April 1995 the applicant’s representative wrote to the signee of the memorial, requesting that he send a full copy of the contracts and decisions cited. In a letter of 18 July 1995 the Deputy Director of the Charente-Maritime Revenue Department, Mr P., refused to produce the documents on the ground that tax officials were bound by a duty of professional confidentiality.\nOn 17 August 1995 the applicant’s counsel replied to the Deputy Director of the Revenue Department as follows:\n“... it is regrettable that almost three months were required to send a brief reply to a standard request for production of documents, dated 24 April 1995, even though the case is due to be heard on 22 September. This aside, you are mistaken in failing to distinguish between your roles as Director of the Revenue Department and as representative of the expropriating authority in legal proceedings brought in application of the Decree of 11 December 1973 – Article R. 179 of the Code of State Property.\nIn this latter capacity, you are obliged to respect the fundamental principle of adversarial proceedings and the provisions of the new Code of Civil Procedure which impose a basic obligation on the parties to produce the evidence to which they refer. This principle also applies when you are acting in your capacity as Go", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-375", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Derik, Turkey.\n12.  The case concerns the circumstances of the death of the applicant's brother, Mr Yakup Aktaş. According to his death certificate, Mr Yakup Aktaş, who was born in 1964, died in Mardin, Turkey, on 25 November 1990. He left a widow and also a daughter who had been born earlier that year.\n13.  The applicant alleges that the death of Yakup Aktaş resulted from torture following his arrest. The Government deny this.\n14.  The facts of the case being in dispute, the Commission appointed Delegates who took evidence in Ankara on 19 and 20 November 1997. They heard the applicant and the following witnesses: the applicant's brother Mr Mahmut Aktaş, the Public Prosecutor Şevki Artar, Professor Dr Özdemir Kolusayın, Dr Hüseyin Sarı and Dr Güneş Pay.\n15.  On 18 November 1997, while evidence was being taken in a different case, the Acting Agent of the Government submitted that, for their security, ten members of the gendarmerie who had been summoned to appear before the Delegates in the present case should give evidence in the absence of the applicant and his relatives and be shielded from the view of the applicant's representatives by a screen. On 19 November 1997 the Government extended that request to include a further witness: the member of the gendarmerie who had investigated Yakup Aktaş's death on behalf of the Mardin Provincial Administrative Council. Having deliberated, the Delegates decided not to comply with the request for a screen. However, they suggested to the Acting Agent that the eleven witnesses give their evidence on a day when neither the applicant nor his relatives would be present in the Palace of Justice. The Acting Agent informed the Delegates that the eleven witnesses would not give evidence in those circumstances, whereupon the Delegates invited the Government to submit their request to the Commission in writing, giving full reasons for it in respect of each witness.\n16.  Further documentary material was submitted by the parties during the hearing. On 20 November 1997 the Acting Agent showed four photographs of a body said to be that of Yakup Aktaş. They were not marked with any kind of identifying information, either on the front or on the back. At the conclusion of the hearing the Delegates requested the Government to submit further information, a number of documents and two sets of copies of the photographs with the negatives. That request was subsequently confirmed by a letter dated 26 November 1997. On the same day the parties were also requested to inform the Commission of the names of any witnesses they might still wish to be heard.\n17.  On 8 December 1997 the Government were reminded of an outstanding request for the name of the doctor who pronounced Yakup Aktaş dead.\n18.  By a letter dated 23 December 1997 the Government submitted a doctor's note relating to one of the witnesses who had not appeared before the Delegates and a number of other documents. One of these was a copy of a letter dated 10 December 1997 from the Chief Public Prosecutor at Mardin to the Ministry of Justice (General Directorate of International Law and External Relations) to the effect that the requested negatives of the four photographs were not in the file at the Mardin Assize Court or in the possession of the Mardin Provincial Gendarmerie Headquarters.\n19.  By a letter dated 5 February 1998 the Government informed the Commission that it had not proved possible to trace the name ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-377", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 12 December 1995 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court (oблacний суд) convicted the applicant of the murder of four persons, sentenced him to death and ordered the confiscation of his personal property.\n10.  On 22 February 1996 the Supreme Court (Верхoвний суд) upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The applicant was transferred by the authorities responsible for the isolation block of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior (Адміністрація слідчого ізолятору Управління міністерства внутрішніх справ) to one of the cells intended for persons awaiting execution of the death sentence.\n11.  A moratorium on executions was declared by the President of Ukraine on 11 March 1997. In judgment no. 11pп/99 of 29 December 1999, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine held that the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning the death penalty were contrary to the Ukrainian Constitution. As a result, death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment by Law no. 1483-III of 22 February 2000.\n12.  On 2 June 2000 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court commuted the applicant’s death sentence to life imprisonment.\n13.  The facts of the case concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Ivano-Frankivsk Prison and the events during his time there are disputed.\n14.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in paragraphs 17 to 23 below. The facts as presented by the Government are set out in paragraphs 24 to 30.\n15.  A description of the material submitted to the Commission and to the Court will be found in paragraphs 31 to 58 below.\n16.  The Commission, in order to establish the facts in the light of the dispute over the conditions of the applicant’s detention and the events which occurred in Ivano-Frankivsk Prison, conducted its own investigation pursuant to former Article 28 § 1 (a) of the Convention. To this end, the Commission examined a series of documents submitted by the applicant and the Government in support of their respective assertions and appointed three delegates to take evidence from witnesses at a hearing conducted at the Ministry of Justice in Kyiv on 23 and 26 November 1998, and in Ivano-Frankivsk on 24 and 25 November 1998. The Commission’s assessment of the evidence and its findings of fact are summarised in paragraphs 59 to 75 below.\n17.  On 12 December 1995 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of the murder of four persons, sentenced him to death and ordered the confiscation of his personal property. After the first-instance judgment, he was placed in a separate cell. He was not allowed to write to his family, nor could he be visited by his lawyer. He applied several times for permission to meet his lawyer.\n18.  On 22 February 1996 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. On a decision of the authorities responsible for the isolation block of the Ministry of the Interior, the applicant was transferred to a cell intended for prisoners awaiting execution of the death sentence. On 30 March 1996 the applicant’s lawyer applied to see the applicant in order to give him the Supreme Court’s decision in the case. The prison governor did not grant him permission to do so.\n19.   Conditions of detention of persons sentenced to death were governed by the Pre-Trial Detention Act 1993 (“the Act”) and by an instruction of 20 April 1998 (“the Instruction”), whose content remained top secret. Under the terms of the Instruction, exercise in the open ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-378", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  In February 1995 the applicant who was then aged nineteen was arrested by the police on several occasions and on 13 March 1995 he was detained on remand.\n12.  On 9 February 1996 the Khmelnitskiy Regional Court (обласний суд) convicted the applicant of the murder of two persons and sentenced him to death.\n13.  On 26 March 1996 the Supreme Court (Верховний суд) upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n14.  In September 1997 the applicant was diagnosed as having tuberculosis.\n15.  On 29 October 1997 the Khmelnitskiy Regional Prosecutor (Прокурор Хмельницькoï oблacmi) informed the applicant’s mother that the domestic legislation did not provide for visits by a notary to persons sentenced to death. On 30 October 1997 the Ministry of the Interior confirmed this information.\n16.  On 10 December 1997 the Regional Court gave the applicant leave to receive a visit from a notary.\n17.  On 6 January 1998 the Khmelnitskiy Notary Office (Перша Xмельницька державна нотарiальна контoрa) confirmed that between 5 December 1997 and 6 January 1998 they did not receive any written permission for a visit of the applicant.\n18.  On 10 February 1998 a notary visited the applicant and certified the applicant’s signature on the power of attorney.\n19.  A moratorium on executions was declared by the President of Ukraine on 11 March 1997. In judgment no. 11рп/99 of 29 December 1999 the Constitutional Court held that the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning the death penalty were contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine. The death penalty was therefore abolished and replaced by life imprisonment by Act no. 1483-III of 22 February 2000.\n20.  On 21 June 2000 the Regional Court commuted the applicant’s death sentence to life imprisonment.\n21.  Evidence from the applicant and four other witnesses was taken by a Court delegation in Khmelnitskiy Prison on 7 and 8 October 1999. The statements may be summarised as follows:\n22.  The applicant stated that he had been informed about his rights and obligations as a convicted person on 23 September 1999, having been given a sheet of paper with the rules containing the rights and obligations of an inmate. He had had to sign this document.\n23.  He confirmed that he preferred to be detained alone. On the day of the Delegates’ visit to Khmelnitskiy Prison, he was held in a single cell.\n24.  The applicant did not complain about the medical care in the prison, apart from the treatment of tuberculosis. He had applied for dental treatment, but had been told that during such treatment a warder had to be present and that the treatment was lengthy. He had repeatedly complained about this practice to the head of the prison medical unit and to the medical assistant (фельдшер). However, he had never submitted any written complaint. He had not informed his mother about his dental problems.\n25.  The applicant stated that he was almost always hungry. Moreover, hot water which had been brought from the prison kitchen was not hot enough to prepare tea.\n26.  He also stated that the temperature in his cell was satisfactory during summer but that in winter it was very cold.\n27.  He was allowed to take a hot shower once a week, but according to him, the bathroom was in an unacceptable state.\n28.  The only lamp in his cell was switched on 24 hours a day, but it did not disturb the applicant too much. The window was opened by the prison staff during his daily walks. He could not open it himself. According to him, the window had been shut", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-379", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant, María Iglesias Gil, was born in 1961 and lives in Vigo. She is the mother of the second applicant, A.U.I., who was born in 1995.\n10.  On 8 September 1989 the first applicant married A.U.A. On 3 June 1994 the couple divorced. Their son A.U.I. was born on 7 December 1995 and A.U.A. acknowledged paternity. In a decision of 20 December 1996, the Vigo Family Court awarded the first applicant custody of A.U.I., and the father access. On 1 February 1997 A.U.A. abducted his son during an access visit and left Spain with him. After passing through France and Belgium, he travelled with the child by air to the United States.\n11.  The first applicant lodged a criminal complaint with Vigo investigating judge no. 5 alleging child abduction and applied to be joined to the proceedings as a civil party. On 4 February 1997 the investigating judge made orders for a nationwide search to be made for A.U.A. and for the child’s immediate return to its mother. Subsequently, the first applicant also made criminal complaints against various members of A.U.A.’s family who, she said, had assisted in her son’s abduction.\n12.  During the investigation, the first applicant requested Vigo investigating judge no. 5 to monitor calls on A.U.A.’s mobile telephone and to interview members of A.U.A.’s family. In a decision of 19 February 1997, the investigating judge turned down both requests, the former on the ground that there was no evidence that the mobile telephone number that had been given was A.U.A.’s and the latter because the first applicant had not given precise details of the questions she wished to be put to her former husband’s relatives. The first applicant also asked the investigating judge for a search to be carried out at the registered office of a company belonging to A.U.A. that was responsible for administering his property in his absence, and for the examination of a vehicle he had used to leave Spain. The judge again refused.\n13.  The first applicant asked the judge to issue an international search and arrest warrant against A.U.A., but in an order of 29 May 1997, he declined, stating:\n“... 2.  As regards the international search and arrest warrant, the offences of coercion and extortion have not been made out. It is debatable whether there has been an offence of criminal contempt, since it has not been proved that the person concerned was ordered to comply with the judgment of the family court and warned that he was liable to commit this offence. In addition, since this offence (Article 556 of the Criminal Code) only carries a prison sentence of between six months and one year, an international search and arrest warrant is not justified, [especially] as the conduct complained of appears to come within Article 622 of the Criminal Code, which characterises it as a minor offence.\n... 4.  Furthermore, it should be noted that the requested procedural steps are neither lawful, nor adapted to the aim pursued, and must therefore be refused pursuant to Article 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”\n14.  In a decision of 5 June 1997, investigating judge no. 5 turned down further requests by the first applicant for investigative steps to be taken as a result of her former husband’s contempt and failure to comply with the judgment of the family court on the following grounds:\n“... 2.  Investigative steps are taken in order to establish whether an offence has been committed. The investigation is brought to an end by a judicial decision, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-380", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  On 23 October 1995 the applicant was arrested by the militia and detained on remand in the Isolation Block of the Central Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (слідчui ізолятор Головного Управління міністерства внутрішніх справ Автономної Республіки Крим).\n11.  On 26 April 1996 the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (судoва колегія з кримінальних справ Верховного суду Автономної Республіки Крим) convicted the applicant of the murder of two persons and sentenced him to death.\n12.  On the same day the Administration of the Isolation Block of the Central Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (адміністрація слідчого ізолятору Головного Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ Автономної Республіки Крим) decided to move the applicant to a separate cell to await his execution, in accordance with the 1993 Pre-trial Detention Act (hereinafter “the Act”).\n13.  On 25 July 1996 the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (судoва колегія з кримінальних справ Верховного суду Украïни) upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n14.  On 20 February, 27 March, 15 May, 26 June and 23 July 1997 the applicant's mother was permitted to visit her son. On 7 October 1997 she was again allowed to visit the applicant, together with the latter's brother.\n15.  On 24 October 1997 the Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected an application for leave to lodge an extraordinary appeal, introduced by the applicant's lawyer.\n16.  On 23 December 1997 the applicant's mother visited her son again. Her next visit took place on 30 January 1998, when she was accompanied by the applicant's brother.\n17.  A moratorium on executions was declared by the President of Ukraine on 11 March 1997. In judgment no. 11рп/99 of 29 December 1999 the Constitutional Court held that the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning the death penalty were contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine. The death penalty was abolished and replaced by life imprisonment by Act no. 1483-III of 22 February 2000.\n18.  On 26 June 2000 the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea commuted the applicant's death sentence to life imprisonment.\n19.  Evidence from the applicant was taken by a Court Delegation in Simferopol Prison on 4 October 1999. The Delegation was composed of Judges M. Pellonpää, J. Makarczyk and R. Maruste. The evidence taken may be summarised as follows:\n20.  The applicant was admitted to Simferopol Prison on 26 October 1995. On the day of the Court Delegates' visit, he confirmed that he had been informed about his rights and obligations. Actually, three or four days earlier, he signed a sheet of paper containing these rights and obligations.\n21.  He stated that he had been allowed to have a hot shower every Tuesday and could shave with an individual razor blade. At the same time, his hair was cut. Until autumn 1998, he could wash himself only once every ten days. Since the same date he could use an individual razor. According to him, the death row inmates started having soap and cold water in their cells in 1998. Previously, there had been water taps, but the inmates could not switch them on or off, this being done by a guard for all the prisoners. Small windows had been installed in the cells which the inmates could open to let fresh air in.\n22.  According to the applicant, an iron sheet covered the window in his cell until su", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-381", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants Andrew George McGlinchey and Natalie Jane Best, born in 1985 and 1990 respectively, are the children of Judith McGlinchey (born in 1968). The applicant Hilary Davenport, born in 1945, is the mother of Judith McGlinchey.\n9.  On 3 January 1999, Judith McGlinchey died in Pinderfields Hospital, Wakefield, West Yorkshire, whilst in the care of the Home Office of the United Kingdom government as a convicted prisoner.\n10.  Judith McGlinchey had a long history of intravenous heroin addiction and was asthmatic, for which she had been admitted to hospital on six occasions during the previous year. \nIt is purported that Judith McGlinchey had, prior to being imprisoned, told her mother, who now cares for her children Andrew and Natalie, that she wanted rehabilitation assistance to rid herself of the heroin addiction. She told her solicitor that she had tried to refer herself for help but that it was impossible to obtain appointments without inordinate delays.\n11.  After having been convicted of theft, Judith McGlinchey was sentenced at Leeds Magistrates’ Court, on 7 December 1998, to four months’ imprisonment, despite an alternative proposal for a probation order with a condition that she be treated for her addiction. Thereafter, she was detained at New Hall Prison, Wakefield. She stated to her solicitor that she intended to use the period in custody as an opportunity to rid herself of her addiction to heroin.\n12.  At the health screening on her arrival at the prison on 7 December 1998, Judith McGlinchey was noted as not seeming excessively withdrawn, depressed or anxious. She weighed 50 kg. She complained of swelling to her left arm, withdrawal symptoms from her addiction and suffering from severe asthma especially when withdrawing, and was kept in the health-care centre pending an examination by a doctor. That evening, Judith McGlinchey telephoned her mother complaining of her infected arm and asthma. During the night, when she was observed to be wheezing, she was given an inhaler. She was also given paracetamol.\n13.  The prison medical records showed thereafter that she was complaining of withdrawal symptoms and that she was vomiting frequently. The records consisted of the continuous medical record, prescription and administration charts and the nursing assessment notes. Her blood pressure, temperature and pulse were checked daily.\n14.  On 8 December 1998 Judith McGlinchey was examined by Dr K., the prison senior medical officer, who prescribed antibiotics for her arm, inhalers for her asthma and medication, Lofexidine, to appease the symptoms of heroin withdrawal. The nursing notes stated that she threw a cup of tea across the cell, was “locked in for education” and that during the night she was very loud and demanding. Lofexidine was not administered at 12 noon. The applicants alleged that this was a punishment, while the Government submitted that it was on the instructions of the doctor due to a drop in Judith McGlinchey’s blood pressure. The entries in the nursing notes show that Judith McGlinchey was seen by a medical officer that morning and the drugs record sheet, signed by Dr K., indicates that after a blood pressure reading of 80/60 the next dose of Lofexidine was omitted at 12 noon.\n15.  On 9 December 1998 the record noted that she remained demanding. She had been told to clean her cell prior to education, which was a reference to the routine tidying-up of the cell and in accordance with normal practice. It was note", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-383", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 12 December 1995 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court (oблacний суд) convicted the applicant of the murder of four persons and sentenced him to death and ordered the confiscation of his personal property.\n10.  On 22 February 1996 the Supreme Court (Верхoвний суд) upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The applicant was transferred by the authorities in charge of the Isolation Block of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior (Адміністрація слідчого ізолятору Управління міністерства внутрішніх справ) to one of the cells for persons awaiting execution of their death sentence.\n11.  A moratorium on executions was declared by the President of Ukraine on 11 March 1997. In judgment no. 11pп/99 of 29 December 1999, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine held that the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning the death penalty were contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine. Death sentences were therefore commuted to life imprisonment pursuant to Act no. 1483-III of 22 February 2000.\nOn 2 June 2000 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court commuted the applicant's death sentence to life imprisonment.\n12.  The facts of the case concerning the conditions of the applicant's detention in Ivano-Frankivsk Prison and the events during his time there were disputed.\n13.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in paragraphs 16 to 19 below. The facts as presented by the Government are set out in paragraphs 20 to 25 below.\n14.  A description of the material submitted to the Commission and to the Court will be found in paragraphs 26 to 41 below.\n15.  The Commission, in order to establish the facts in the light of the dispute over the conditions of the applicant's detention and the events which occurred in Ivano-Frankivsk Prison, conducted its own investigation pursuant to former Article 28 § 1 (a) of the Convention. To this end, the Commission examined a series of documents submitted by the applicant and the Government in support of their respective assertions and appointed three delegates to take evidence from witnesses at a hearing conducted at the Ministry of Justice in Kiev on 23 and 26 November 1998, and in Ivano-Frankivsk on 24 and 25 November 1998. The Commission's evaluation of the evidence and its findings of facts are summarised in paragraphs 42 to 57 below.\n16.  On 12 December 1995 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of the murder of four persons, sentenced him to death and ordered the confiscation of his personal property.\n17.  On 22 February 1996 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. Upon a decision of the Administration of the Isolation Block of the Ministry of the Interior, the applicant was transferred to a cell intended for prisoners awaiting the death penalty. According to the applicant, he was deprived of all his rights.\n18.  The applicant claimed that the Pre-Trial Detention Act (“the Act”) did not apply to him, since the relevant legislation was an Instruction which operated in secret. Pursuant to the Instruction, the applicant was not taken for an outside walk for more than two and a half years. He could be visited by his mother only once a month, he had been refused visits and, since July 1996, the number of visits had been reduced to one every three months.\n19.  Following his application for confession sent to the Greek Catholic Bishop of the Ivano-Frankivsk diocese, the clergy approached the investigative isolation unit on this matter.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-384", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  On 3 April 1997 the Zaporozhie Regional Court (Запорізький обласний суд) convicted the applicant of the murder of three persons and the attempted murder of one person and sentenced him to death.\n11.  On the same day the Administration of the Zaporozhie Isolation Block of the Central Department of the Ministry of the Interior (адміністрація слідчого ізолятору Головного Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ України в Запорiзькій областi) decided to move the applicant to a separate cell to await execution, in accordance with the Pre-trial Detention Act 1993 (hereinafter “the Act”).\n12.  On 24 July 1997 the Supreme Court (Верховний суд) upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n13.  On 15 August 1997 the Prosecutor General (Генеральний Прокурор), on an extraordinary appeal by the applicant's mother, found that the national courts had properly assessed all the evidence adduced before them and had reached sound legal conclusions. He held that the appeal was manifestly ill-founded.\n14.  On 27 August 1997 the applicant filed a plea for pardon with the President of Ukraine.\n15.  On 19 September and 15 December 1997 the Vice-President of the Supreme Court refused two further extraordinary appeals by the applicant's wife and mother.\n16.  A moratorium on executions was declared by the President of Ukraine on 11 March 1997. In a judgment no. 11рп/99 of 29 December 1999 the Constitutional Court held that the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning the death penalty were contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine. The death penalty was abolished and replaced by life imprisonment by Act no. 1483-III of 22 February 2000.\n17.  On 14 June 2000 the Zaporozhie Regional Court commuted the applicant's death sentence to one of life imprisonment.\n18.  The evidence of the applicant was taken by the Court Delegates in Zaporozhie Prison no. 1 on 6 October 1999. The Delegation was composed of Judges M. Pellonpää, J. Makarczyk and R. Maruste. The statements of certain witnesses were taken in Zaporozhie Prison no. 2. The evidence taken may be summarised as follows:\n19.  The applicant was admitted to Zaporozhie Prison no. 1 two weeks before the Court Delegates' visit. Previously, he had been detained in Zaporozhie Prison no. 2, where he had stayed for three years. On the day of the Court Delegates' visit, he confirmed that he had been informed about his rights and obligations. However, the practice in Zaporozhie Prison no. 2 had been different. He described it as follows: “Whenever a commission from Kiev came - they do not care much when the local commission from the supervising prosecutor's office comes - the prison authorities distributed a sheet of paper with rules, posted it on the walls and the next day took it off. Although the paper was not on the walls in the cells, we were informed about it.”\n20.  In Zaporozhie Prison no. 2, the applicant changed cells every week and later every month, having generally been detained alone. This practice had still been in force six months ago. According to him, the windows in his cells had been covered and there was no water tap. The cells for two inmates were the same size as those in Zaporozhie Prison no. 1, but those for one inmate were much smaller, even twice as small, as the cell where he was detained on the day of the Delegates' visit. The applicant acknowledged that he had been detained alone at his own request. However, when the prison administration of Zaporozhie Prison no. 2 had insisted that he share", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-385", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  On 5 March 1996 the applicant was arrested by the Russian police and detained on remand in Krasnodar (Russia). On 7 March 1996 he was transferred to Simferopol (Ukraine) where he continued to be detained on remand.\n11.  On 10 February 1997 the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (судова колегія Верховного суду Автономної Республіки Крим) convicted the applicant of masterminding and carrying out organised crime and on several counts of aiding and abetting murder and attempted murder, and sentenced him to death. It also ordered the confiscation of his property.\n12.  On the same day the Administration of the Isolation Block of the Central Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (адміністрація слідчого ізолятору Головного Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ Автономної Республіки Крим) moved the applicant to one of the cells for persons awaiting execution of the death sentence.\n13.  On 15 May 1997 the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (судова колегія з кримінальних справ Верховного суду України) upheld the judgment given at first instance.\n14.  A moratorium on executions was declared by the President of Ukraine on 11 March 1997. In judgment no. 11рп/99 of 29 December 1999 the Constitutional Court held that the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning the death penalty were contrary to the Constitution of Ukraine. The death penalty was therefore abolished and replaced by life imprisonment by Act no. 1483-III of 22 February 2000.\n15.  On 8 June 2000 the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea commuted the applicant's death sentence to life imprisonment.\n16.  Evidence of the applicant and four other witnesses was taken by the Court Delegates in Simferopol Prison on 4 October 1999. The Delegation was composed of Judges M. Pellonpää, J. Makarczyk and R. Maruste. The evidence taken may be summarised as follows:\n17.  The applicant stated that he had not been informed that under the general conditions he was entitled to a visit of one to two hours by his relatives. In general, he had been allowed to have one visit per month for 15-20 minutes or half an hour at the most. He said that until the day of the Court Delegates' visit, he had not received a document with his rights and obligations under the prison regime. He further said that he had been moved that day into a newly renovated cell where “something like” that was hanging on the wall. He stated that he had been asked by the prison administration to sign the document, but had refused and had said that he wanted first to be informed about his rights and obligations. According to him, in his previous cell there had been no document listing those rights and obligations. Whenever he had been punished, he had always asked to be shown this document. However, he had been told that it was a secret document.\n18.  As a punishment, he had once not been allowed to have daily walks for 10 days, he had been kept in isolation under a strict regime, and he had not been allowed to buy food in the prison shop. He had been punished for the first time when he had shared the cell with another inmate; a warder had found “something like a knife” on the other inmate, and the applicant had intervened. On the second occasion, a warder had found a soap of good quality in the cell, had asked where the applicant had found it and had later seized it. The applicant had been punished by being prevented from me", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-386", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1943 and 1942 respectively and live in Józefów, Poland.\n9.  The applicants share a house and a plot of land with another family (“the neighbours”). On 2 January 1989 the applicants filed with the Otwock District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which they requested that the co-ownership of the plot of land and the building be dissolved in accordance with an administrative decision issued in 1983.\n10.  From 2 January 1989 to 1 May 1993 the court held hearings on the following dates: 23 March, 21 August and 4 December 1989, 15 January, 9 April, 14 May, 21 June, 6 September, and 15 October 1990.\n11.  On 16 May 1991 the court held a hearing and ordered not to carry out any construction works in the building except for the erection of a wall in the attic. Subsequently, the court held hearings on 16 September 1991 and 16 January 1992.\n12.  On 30 January 1992 the court stayed the proceedings until the termination of the administrative proceedings concerning the annulment of the 1983 decision.\n13.  The court held hearings on 11 June and 16 July 1992.\n14.  On 20 July 1992 the court dissolved the co-ownership of the property. The neighbours appealed.\n15.  On 30 October 1992 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the decision of 20 July 1992 and remitted the case for re-examination.\n16.  On 6 August and 2 September 1993 the experts’ reports were submitted to the court. The neighbours challenged the report of 6 August 1993.\n17.  Subsequently, the court held hearings on the following dates: 11 May, 6 June and 25 August 1994.\n18.  On 25 August 1994 the Otwock District Court quashed in part its decision of 16 May 1991 and allowed the applicants to carry out certain works in the building. The neighbours appealed against this decision.\n19.  A hearing listed for 20 October 1994 was adjourned as the neighbours’ lawyer was not present.\n20.  On 5 December 1994 a supplementary expert report was submitted to the court. Subsequently, on 21 December 1994 the court held a hearing.\n21.  On 4 August 1995, in the course of the administrative proceedings, the Mayor of Józefów (Burmistrz) issued a decision allowing the construction of a wall dividing the building co-owned by the applicants. On 22 January 1996 the Warsaw Governor (Wojewoda) allowed the applicants’ appeal and quashed the decision of the Mayor of Józefów.\n22.  In the meantime, on 4 January 1996, the court had held a hearing.\n23.  On 24 January 1996 the neighbours’ lawyer requested the court to stay the proceedings until the termination of the administrative proceedings. On 30 January 1996 the court stayed the proceedings.\n24.  On 14 February 1996 the neighbours lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) against the decision of the Warsaw Governor.\n25.  On 15 February 1996 the Otwock District Court resumed the proceedings. On 26 February 1996 the neighbours again requested the court to stay the proceedings. On 15 May 1996 the court held a hearing and stayed the proceedings. On 11 July 1996 the court resumed them.\n26.  Further hearings were held on 18 October, 23 December 1996 and 27 January 1997.\n27.  On 27 January 1997 the court issued a preliminary decision (postanowienie wstępne) by which it dissolved the co-ownership of the property and divided it into two separate estates. On 30 January 1997 the applicants’ neighbours appealed.\n28.  On 6 February 1997 the court stayed the proceedings as one of the neighbours had", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-387", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants, Danuta Gryziecka (“the first applicant”) and Henryk Gryziecki (“the second applicant”), were born in 1950 and 1949 respectively, and live in Niedźwiedź, Poland.\n9.  On 31 August 1981 J.P. (“the plaintiff”) sued the applicants in the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) seeking repayment of the money he had invested in the applicants’ hen house.\n10.  On 11 September 1981 the case was transferred to the Stargard Szczeciński District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) as the court competent to decide it.\n11.  On 11 November 1981 the applicants filed their pleadings with the court. They acknowledged the plaintiff’s claim in respect of 728,000 old Polish zlotys.\n12.  On 17 March 1982 the court stayed the proceedings because the plaintiff had not complied with a certain court order. On 30 September 1982 the plaintiff’s lawyer requested to resume the proceedings. On 7 March 1983 the court resumed the proceedings.\n13.  On 22 March 1983 the court held the first hearing. Subsequently, from that date to 9 February 1989 the court held approximately nine hearings. In the meantime the plaintiff had modified his claim.\n14.  On an unknown date in 1984 the applicants transferred the sum of 728,000 old Polish zlotys to the plaintiff’s account.\n15.  In July 1984 the plaintiff died. Subsequently, his wife and daughter (“the plaintiffs”) joined the proceedings as his legal successors.\n16.  On 9 February 1989 the court held a hearing. The witness did not appear. The court decided to obtain evidence from a bank.\n17.  On an unknown date in 1989 the plaintiffs modified their claim.\n18.  From that date to 9 November 1992 the court held a number of hearings. It obtained three expert reports, held one view of the site and heard some witnesses. The plaintiffs again modified their claim.\n19.  On 9 November 1992 the court decided to obtain fresh expert evidence in order to determine the value of certain construction works made by the second applicant. The expert report was submitted to the court on 22 December 1992.\n20.  On 27 May 1993 the expert report was served on the applicants’ lawyer. On 3 June 1993 the applicants submitted their observations on it. On 19 April 1994 the plaintiffs asked the court to set a date for a hearing.\n21.  On 7 July and on 11 August 1994 respectively the court ordered the parties to produce the evidence in support of their submissions.\n22.  On 19 May 1995 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from certain witnesses. It also ordered the plaintiffs’ lawyer to specify their claim and to produce the marriage certificate of the late plaintiff. On 5 April 1996 the plaintiffs specified the value of the claim.\n23.  On 10 and on 21 May 1996 respectively, the plaintiffs requested the court to list a hearing. In the meantime, the case had been assigned to a new judge.\n24.  On 20 August 1996 the court decided that fresh expert evidence be obtained, in order to determine the value of the land on which the hen house had been constructed. On 12 November 1996 the expert report was submitted to the court. On 11 December 1996 it was served on the applicants. On 27 December 1996 they submitted their observations on the report.\n25.  On 14 January 1997 the plaintiffs’ lawyer requested the court to list a hearing. On 18 March 1997 the applicants filed their pleadings with the court.\n26.  On 24 March 1997 the court held a hearing. The applicants requested that the court index the repayment of their bank loan and the payment made to the original", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-389", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 15 January 1996 the applicant filed an action for protection of his good name and reputation with the Košice I District Court. He sued a limited liability company on the ground that a newspaper published by the latter contained articles alleging that the applicant had been an agent of the former secret police.\n5.  On 9 January 1997 the District Court dismissed the action. On 7 March 1997 the applicant appealed. He further requested that he should be exempted from the obligation to pay court fees. The District Court dismissed the request on 24 July 1997. On 20 August 1997 the applicant appealed against this decision.\n6.  The case file and the applicant’s above two appeals were transmitted to the Košice Regional Court on 9 September 1997. As the applicant’s brother was a judge of that court the Supreme Court ordered, on 25 November 1997, that the case should be dealt with by the Prešov Regional Court.\n7.  On 11 February 1998 the Supreme Court excluded the Regional Court’s judge at the latter’s request. The case was assigned to a different judge on 26 February 1998.\n8.  In March and in May 1998 the Regional Court requested the Košice I District Court to submit a judgment and the file concerning a different case in which the applicant was a plaintiff. The Regional Court received the judgment in question on 15 May 1998.\n9.  On 20 January 1999 the applicant amended his action in that he reduced the amount of the compensation claimed.\n10.  On 16 March 1999 the Regional Court accepted the applicant’s request for the action to be amended and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the claim which the applicant had withdrawn. On the same day the Regional Court quashed the remaining part of the District Court’s judgment of 9 January 1997 and sent the case back to the first instance court. It also upheld the District Court’s above decision of 24 July 1997.\n11.  On 13 October 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the Prešov Regional Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delays. In its finding the Constitutional Court found that the case was not complex and that no delays could be imputed to the applicant. The Constitutional Court further held that the Prešov Regional Court had not effectively proceeded with the case between 18 May 1998 and 16 March 1999.\n12.  On 9 February 2000 the applicant filed a new petition to the Constitutional Court in which he complained about delays in the proceedings before the Košice I District Court. On 28 June 2000 the Constitutional Court delivered a decision in which it held that the above Constitutional Court’s finding of 13 October 1999 covered the overall length of the proceedings before the general courts to the date of its delivery. The Constitutional Court found no undue delays in the proceedings in the subsequent period, that is between 13 October 1999 and 28 June 2000.\n13.  In the meantime, on 15 March 2000 the Košice I District Court heard the parties, and on 30 March 2000 it dismissed the applicant’s action. The judgment with reasons was served on the applicant on 4 May 2000. On 10 May 2000 he filed an appeal. On 12 May 2000 the applicant also appealed against a decision of the District Court of 26 April 2000 concerning the court fees.\n14.  On 14 July 2000 the applicant was informed that the proceedings concerning his action were stayed as bankruptcy proceedings had been brought against the defendant company.\n15.  On 21 February 2002 the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-390", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Gliwice, Poland.\n9.  In December 1989 riots broke out in the Nowogard prison, where the applicant was serving his sentence in a medical ward due to his mental state. The applicant contends that he was beaten up by the prison officers who had been called to suppress the riots. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Brzeg prison where he was allegedly assaulted by a prison officer.\n10.  On 14 March 1991 the applicant filed an application with the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) for compensation against the State Treasury. He claimed that he had sustained injuries as a result of the assaults by the prison officers in the Nowogard prison.\n11.  On 20 March 1991 the court exempted the applicant from payment of court fees. On 29 March 1991 he was granted legal aid.\n12.  On 27 August 1991 the court held a hearing.\n13.  At the end of 1991, at the applicant’s lawyer request, the court stayed the proceedings, considering that the determination of the case depended on the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the prison officers involved in the events in the Nowogard prison.\n14.  On an unknown date in 1992 the criminal proceedings were terminated by the judgment of the Goleniów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n15.  On 14 October 1992 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Szczecin Regional Court to resume the proceedings.\n16.  On 10 February 1994 the trial court set a time-limit for the applicant to submit addresses of six witnesses to be heard by the court. On 1 March 1994 the applicant’s lawyer requested the trial court to assist in establishing addresses of the witnesses.\n17.  On 24 October 1994 the Szczecin Regional Court resumed the impugned proceedings.\n18.  On 4 January 1995 the applicant complained to the trial court about the excessive length of the proceedings.\n19.  On 10 January 1995 the court held a hearing. Two witnesses did not appear. The court ordered an expert report by a psychiatrist.\n20.  On 29 April 1995 the applicant again complained to the court about the length of the proceedings.\n21.  On 16 May 1995 the court requested prisons in Gdańsk, Siedlce and Sztum to submit information on the whereabouts of three witnesses indicated by the applicant’s lawyer. It also requested the Warsaw District Court, Stargard Szczecinski District Court and Gliwice District Court to take evidence from certain witnesses.\n22.  On 2 June 1995 the Stargard Szczecinski District Court informed the trial court that its request had not been executed because the whereabouts of the witnesses were unknown.\n23.  In the meantime, the applicant had changed his domicile by moving to Gliwice. On 13 May 1996 the trial court requested that the Gliwice District Court obtain the expert report due to the applicant’s new domicile.\n24.  On 29 June 1995 the applicant was heard before the District Court.\n25.  On 23 October 1995 the trial court requested the Wyszków Regional Court for legal assistance in taking evidence from a certain witness. On 17 November 1995 the Wyszków Regional Court informed the trial court that the requested witness had failed to appear before the court.\n26.  On 1 February 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court heard a witness.\n27.  On 8 February 1996 the applicant’s lawyer withdrew the evidence motion due to difficulties in establishing the whereabouts of the witnesses.\n28.  On 26 February 1996 the applicant complained to the trial court about the excessive length of the proceedings.\n29.  On 9 Apr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-391", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1941 respectively and live in Gdańsk.\n8.  The applicants share a plot of land and a house with another family (hereinafter: the neighbours).\n9.  On 17 June 1987 they filed with the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which they requested that the co-ownership of the plot of land and the house be dissolved.\n10.  On 19 April 1989 the court forbade the neighbours to carry out any modifications in the cellar until the completion of the proceedings. On 27 September 1989 a similar order concerning the whole house was issued in respect of the applicants.\n11.  On 3 June 1992 the Gdańsk District Court gave judgment. The neighbours appealed and on 11 March 1993 the Gdańsk Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n12.  Subsequently, the District Court held a number of hearings and ordered several expert opinions.\n13.  On 28 October 1996 it forbade the neighbours to carry out any works in the house. On 23 May 1997 the Regional Court dismissed their appeal against that decision.\n14.  In its letter of 30 January 1997 the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the proceedings were lengthy and found that the applicants’ neighbours had contributed to the delay by their petitions contesting the expert opinions. It further noted that since 1994 the President of the Gdańsk Regional Court had supervised the course of the proceedings and made monthly reports on their progress. However, the Ministry found these measures ineffective and decided to take the proceedings under its administrative supervision.\n15.  The proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-392", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Reszel, Poland.\n7. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8. On 12 July 1994 the applicant filed with the Warsaw District Court (sąd rejonowy) an action in which she sought a declaration that she had inherited the property of her late aunt.\n9. The court held hearings on 25 October and 24 November 1994.\n10. On 24 September 1996 it refused the applicant’s request for exemption from courts fees.\n11. On 11 May 1999 the court held a hearing. It decided to contact the Office of Foreign Litigation in the United States and enquire whether one of the relatives of the deceased summoned to participate in the proceedings had received the summons. The court stayed the proceedings.\n12. On 12 April 2000 it appointed a guardian ad litem for that relative.\n13. On 19 May 2000 the court resumed the proceedings.\n14. The court held hearings on 18 July and 16 November 2000, as well as on 20 March 2002.\n15. The proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-393", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Radom.\n8.  In 1977 the applicant, while serving a prison sentence, was injured in an occupational accident. He lodged a compensation claim with the Warsaw Regional Court against the State Treasury. By the Warsaw Regional Court’s judgment of 11 June 1980 the applicant was awarded a monthly pension of 500 (old) PLN, payable from 1 February 1978, and a lump sum of 12,000 PLN as compensation.\n9.  On 21 November 1991 the applicant lodged an action with the Warsaw Regional Court claiming that his pension be increased. On an unspecified later date the Warsaw Regional Court transferred his case to the Lublin Regional Court, considering that it had jurisdiction to entertain the case. Hearings in the case were held before the Lublin Regional Court on 8 February 1993, 5 April, 21 November and 20 December 1994.\n10.  By a judgment of 30 December 1994 the Lublin Regional Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered that a compensation of 107,000,000 (old) PLN be paid to him, as well as 1,629,650 (old) PLN as monthly pension, from 1 September 1995. The defendant State Treasury, represented by the Warsaw Detention Centre, lodged an appeal against this judgment. As a result, on 31 May 1995 the Lublin Court of Appeal quashed the judgment under appeal and ordered the case to be reconsidered.\n11.  Subsequently, a number of hearings were held before the Lublin Regional Court and expert reports as to the applicant’s health were ordered and considered by the court.\n12.  On 10 May 2000 the Lublin Regional Court gave a judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim in its entirety. The applicant appealed.\n13.  On 28 September 2000 the Lublin Court of Appeal held a hearing. By a judgment of 11 October 2000 the court partially altered the judgement of the Lublin Regional Court increasing the applicant’s monthly pension to 280 PLN and awarding him compensation of 4179 PLN. On 5 December 2000 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n14.  The proceedings before the Supreme Court are apparently pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-394", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Kamień Pomorski, Poland.\n8.  The applicant was a manager of the Kamień Pomorski health resort. On 14 May 1990 he filed an action with the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), in which he requested that a certain A.P. (“the defendant”) be ordered to stop spreading information damaging to the good name of the applicant and to retract in the press his defamatory statements.\n9.  Subsequently, the court held hearings on 2 July and 5 September 1990.\n10.  On 3 October 1990 the court held a hearing. It heard a witness and decided to stay the proceedings until the completion of proceedings concerning the applicant’s dismissal from the position of manager. On 27 December 1991 the dismissal proceedings were terminated.\n11.  On 30 January 1992 the applicant requested the court to resume the defamation proceedings. On 7 December 1992 the trial court resumed the proceedings.\n12.  On 5 March 1993 the court adjourned a hearing, because of the lack of the defendant’s pleadings in the case file.\n13.  On 11 August 1993 the applicant extended his claim.\n14.  On 21 October 1994 the court held a hearing.\n15.  On 6 December 1995 the court adjourned a hearing at the defendant’s request.\n16.  On 24 January 1996 the court closed the examination of the case and announced that the judgment would be delivered on 7 February 1996. On 6 February 1996 the court reopened the examination of the case and decided that the defendant would be heard in Kamień Pomorski. On 19 February 1996 the court heard the defendant.\n17.  On 28 February 1996 the Szczecin Regional Court gave judgment. It ordered the defendant to retract his statements concerning the applicant in certain newspapers at his own expense.\n18.  On 8 August 1996 the applicant received a copy of the judgment. Subsequently, the defendant lodged an appeal against that judgment.\n19.  On 12 November 1996 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held a hearing and on 21 November 1996 it gave judgment. The court quashed the judgment of the Szczecin Regional Court and remitted the case for re-examination.\n20.  Despite numerous complaints by the applicant and his lawyer, the Szczecin Regional Court listed no hearing until 12 May 1999. On 12 January 1999 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the President of the Poznań Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings. In a reply of 27 January 1999, the President of the Regional Court admitted that the complaint was justified.\n21.  On 12 May 1999 the court held a hearing.\n22.  On 28 June 2000 the Szczecin Regional Court held a hearing. It heard the applicant and adjourned the examination of the case for the purpose of hearing the defendant before the Kamień Pomorski District Court. The defendant was heard on 25 August 2000.\n23.  The next hearing was listed for 29 December 2000. The court closed the examination of the case and informed the parties that the judgment would be delivered on 12 January 2001. On 26 January 2001 the court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. On an unspecified date, in the second half of 2001, he appealed against the judgment.\n24.  It appears that the proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-395", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kaczyn, Poland.\n8.  On 10 June 1988 the applicant filed with the Kielce District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an application for distribution of the inheritance left by her late mother. From 19 July 1988 to 30 April 1993 the court held eleven hearings and ordered that seven expert reports be prepared.\n9.  On 31 August and 14 October 1993 the court held hearings. Subsequently, on 25 October 1993 the court heard a witness at the place of his residence.\n10.  A hearing listed for 18 November 1993 was adjourned sine die since a witness did not appear. On the same day the court ordered that a supplementary expert report be prepared.\n11.  On 6 May 1994 the court adjourned the hearing at the request of a lawyer of B.J. (“B.J.”), a party to the proceedings.\n12.  A hearing listed for 8 June 1994 was adjourned as a witness failed to appear.\n13.  On 6 July 1994 the court held a hearing and set a time-limit for the parties to submit their requests as to evidence in the case.\n14.  During the hearing held on 29 July 1994 the court ordered that a supplementary expert report be prepared. On 24 October 1994 it was submitted to the court.\n15.  On 15 December 1994 B.J. requested the court to secure the claim.\n16.  On 13 February 1995 the court held a hearing. It set 14 days time‑limit for B.J. to submit his requests as to evidence in the case and for the applicant as to submit her pleadings.\n17.  A hearing listed for 27 March 1995 was adjourned until 8 May 1995 at the request of B.J.’s lawyer. Subsequently, the court adjourned the hearing scheduled for 8 May 1995 until 22 May 1995.\n18.  At the hearing held on 22 May 1995 B.J. challenged the expert opinion and requested the court to inspect the site.\n19.  On 29 May 1995 the court refused to secure the claim.\n20.  On 10 November 1995 the court held a hearing. A hearing scheduled for 26 January 1996 was adjourned as the expert failed to appear.\n21.  On 27 March 1996 the court held a hearing. It heard the expert and ordered inspection of the site. The inspection of the site scheduled for 28 June 1996 was postponed because of the bad weather. On 23 August 1996 the court inspected the site.\n22.  On 7 January 1997 the court ordered that supplementary expert reports be prepared.\n23.  On 17 March 1997 the applicant and four other parties to the proceedings sent a letter to the President of the Cracow Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) requesting that the proceedings be expedited. In a letter of 13 May 1997 the President informed the applicant that the President of the Kielce District Court would supervise the conduct of the proceedings. He also admitted that the proceedings had been slowed down as a result of changes to the rapporteurs.\n24.  On 8 May 1997 a supplementary report was submitted to the court.\n25.  On 14 July 1997 the court held a hearing. It set a two‑week time‑limit for the lawyer of B.J. to submit pleadings.\n26.  A hearing listed for 5 September 1997 was adjourned sine die.\n27.  On 6 October 1997 the court ordered that a supplementary report be prepared. On 20 October 1997 it was submitted to the court.\n28.  The next hearing, listed for 22 November 1997, was adjourned at the request of B.J, as he was ill.\n29.  On 22 December 1997 the court held a hearing.\n30.  A hearing scheduled for 4 February 1998 was adjourned at the request of B.J.’s lawyer.\n31.  On 18 February 1998 the court held a hearing. It ordered that a supplementary expert report be prepared. On 17 Mar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-398", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Aghios Stefanos (Attica).\n8.  On 30 May 1990 the Commercial Bank of Greece lodged a criminal complaint against a number of its employees, including the applicant, alleging suppression of documents, forgery and uttering, and fraud, offences which it claimed had caused it a loss of more than 20,000,000 drachmas. It accused the employees concerned of having debited the account of Greek Railways (“the OSE”) using seven cheques from a cheque book that had been produced in the railway company’s name but never actually issued to it. On 2 June 1990 the public prosecutor instituted proceedings against the applicant.\n9.  On 27 March 1991 the applicant was summoned to appear before the investigating judge and was placed in pre-trial detention. On 23 April 1991 he was released on bail, subject to court supervision entailing, among other things, a ban on leaving the country.\n10.  In a decision of 26 June 1992 the Indictment Division of the Athens Court of Appeal committed some of the accused, including the applicant, for trial in the Athens Court of Appeal, composed of three judges as is the rule for cases dealt with by courts of appeal at first instance.\n11.  The hearing, initially set down for 27 May 1994, was adjourned firstly until 26 January 1996 because of a strike by members of the Athens Bar and subsequently until 31 May 1996 because of the ill health of one of the other defendants. On that date the hearing was again adjourned, this time until 13 October 1997.\n12.  On 4 June 1996 the applicant, who before joining the bank had been an officer in the merchant navy, applied to have the ban on his leaving the country lifted so that he could work in the navy again. He argued that he needed to be in gainful employment in order to support his wife and three children and pointed out that the proceedings had been adjourned several times by the court itself. However, his application was refused by the public prosecutor and subsequently by the Indictment Division of the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal having earlier rejected a similar application.\n13.  The trial finally began on 13 October 1997 – five years, three months and seventeen days after the Indictment Division’s decision of 26 June 1992 and more than seven years after the complaint had been lodged and the proceedings instituted. Hearings were held on 13, 14, 15, 21 and 29 October 1997. One of the co-defendants requested the production in court of the back-up tape for the bank’s computer (but not the cheques in question). Counsel for the bank produced a declaration by the bank’s information technology department attesting that the copies of the computer tapes in the file were authentic. The declaration was read out at the hearing without eliciting any reaction from the defendants. During the trial at least sixty-six documents were read out and evidence was heard from three witnesses.\nThe Court of Appeal gave judgment on 29 October 1997. It convicted the applicant and sentenced him to five years and four months’ imprisonment, to be reduced by the period already spent in pre-trial detention, and ordered the confiscation and destruction of the seven cheques in question. Lastly, it ruled that if the applicant decided to appeal, the appeal would suspend the execution of the sentence.\n14.  The applicant appealed against the judgment to the appropriate court, namely the Athens Court of Appeal, sitting as a bench of five judges. On 20 February 1998 t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-400", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Mr İsak Tepe, is a Turkish citizen who was born in 1943 and is at present living in İstanbul (Turkey). At the time of the events giving rise to his application, the applicant was the provincial chairman of a political party, the DEP (Democracy Party), in the province of Bitlis (south‑east Turkey). The application concerns the applicant’s allegations that his son, Mr Ferhat Tepe, was abducted and killed by undercover agents of the State.\n9.  The facts surrounding the death of the applicant’s son are disputed between the parties.\n10.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section 1 below. The facts presented by the Government are contained in Section 2.\n11.  A summary of the documents submitted by the parties is to be found in Part B. The witness evidence taken by the Court’s delegates at hearings conducted in Ankara is summarised in Part C.\n12.  In the beginning of July 1993, General Korkmaz Tağma, the commander of the Tatvan 6th Armoured Brigade, invited the provincial leaders of all political parties to a meeting at the army barracks. The applicant attended this meeting as the representative of the DEP and spoke in support of the cultural and democratic rights of the Kurdish population in Turkey. During the meeting, General Tağma claimed that there were no Kurds in Turkey and that those who had taken to the mountains were Armenians. He then asked the participants to report to him the names of the people who helped the PKK. The applicant replied to General Tağma that there were Kurds in Turkey as well as Turks and other minorities and that these people should be treated on the basis of equality in a democratic manner. He added that the denial of other people’s existence and the oppression or repression of others would not lead anywhere. General Tağma was furious and wanted to obtain information on the children of the chairmen, for example where they worked and how old they were. He warned the chairmen, including the applicant, that their children would be destroyed if they were not raised as loyal citizens of the State.\n13.  In the afternoon of 10 July 1993 the applicant’s son, Ferhat Tepe, born in 1974 and working as a reporter for the Özgür Gündem newspaper in Bitlis, was taken into police custody. No reasons were given for his arrest. He was released the same day in the afternoon.\n14.  On 28 July 1993 at around 7 p.m., while Ferhat was in the schoolyard of the Şemsi Bitlis primary school, a tall, bearded man who was known in the area to be a policeman, took him by the arm, put him in a car and drove away with him. Their car was followed by a white car, a Renault with the registration number 65 AD 095. There were two persons inside the white Renault, which was seen later that day parked next to Mahallebaşı police station.\n15.  Later on the same day, the applicant learned from İsmetullah Güzelsoy and Adnan Karslıoğlu that two plain-clothes policemen had made enquiries about Ferhat in the building where they lived. He went home in panic and realised that Ferhat was missing.\n16.  On 29 July 1993 at around 6 a.m. the applicant received a phone call from an anonymous person who claimed to be a member of an organisation called the “Ottoman Turkish Revenge Brigade” and said that they were keeping his son as a hostage. The caller said that Ferhat would be killed unless the applicant closed down the DEP’s Bitlis branch, released four French tourists who were in the hands of the PKK and paid one billion Turki", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-401", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.   The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1906 and living in Rome.\n8.  A.M.G. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to M.T.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 31 December 1990, the owner informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1991 and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 7 May 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 May 1992.\n11.  On 13 December 1994, the owner served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 3 May 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 May 1995.\n13.  Between 30 May 1995 and 30 January 1997, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the owner was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On an unspecified date of 1995, the applicant, became the owner of the flat.\n15.  On 30 May 1997, she served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. On 14 July 1997, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 July 1997.\n16.  Between 25 July 1997 and 11 September 1998, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n17.  On 13 October 1998, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 November 1998.\n18.  Between 11 November 1998 and 16 November 1999, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n19.  On 19 October 2000, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n20.  On 9 November 2000, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 December 2000.\n21.  On 7 December 2000, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n22.  Subsequently, pursuant to Law no. 388 of 23 December 2000 and to Law Decree no. 247 of 2 July 2001, the eviction proceedings have been suspended until 31 December 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-402", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1958 and living in Rome. M.V. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to T.C.\n7.  In a registered letter of 24 June 1983, the owner informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n8.  The tenant told the owner that she would not leave the premises.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 3 August 1984, the owner reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 3 December 1984, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 3 December 1985.\n11.  On an unspecified date, the owner served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n12.  On an unspecified date, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 April 1987.\n13.  Between 23 April 1987 and 14 February 1989, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the owner was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  In the meanwhile, on 12 December 1988, the applicant became the owner of the apartment and pursued the enforcement proceedings.\n15.  Between 13 June 1989 and 27 July 2000, the bailiff made thirty-nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  On 20 June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat with the assistance of the police.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-403", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1921 and 1953 respectively and live in Munich. The first applicant is the second applicant’s mother.\n9.  The applicants own real property in the south-eastern part of the Greek island of Tinos, where they spend part of their time. The first applicant is the co-owner of a house and a plot of land on the Ayia Kiriaki-Apokofto peninsula, which is adjacent to a swamp by the coast of Ayios Yiannis.\n10.  On 4 December 1985 the prefect (νομάρχης) of Cyclades redrew the boundaries of the settlement (οικισμός) of Ayios Yiannis in the municipality of Dio Horia and of the settlements of Ayia Varvara, Ayios Sostis and Lautaris in the municipality of Triandaru (decision no. 9468/1985). On 6 May 1988 the prefect again redrew the boundaries of the settlements of Ayios Yiannis and Ayios Sostis (decision no. 2400/1988).\n11.  On 18 March 1993 the town-planning authority of Syros issued building permit no. 620 on the basis of the prefect’s decision no. 9468/1985. Another permit (no. 298) had been issued on the same basis by the same authority in 1992.\n12.  On 21 July 1993 the applicants and the Greek Society for the Protection of the Environment and Cultural Heritage lodged an application for judicial review of the prefect’s decisions nos. 9468/1985 and 2400/1988 and of building permit no. 620/1993 with the Supreme Administrative Court. On the same date a second application was lodged by the same persons for judicial review of the prefect’s two decisions and of building permit no. 298/1992. The basic argument of the applicants before the Supreme Administrative Court was that the prefect’s decisions, and consequently the building permits, were illegal because in the area concerned there was a swamp and Article 24 of the Greek Constitution, which protects the environment, provided that no settlement should be built in such a place.\n13.  On 10 July 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court considered that the applicants had locus standi because they owned property in the area concerned. The court held that it could not review the prefect’s decision no. 9468/1985 directly because the application had not been lodged within the time-limit prescribed by law. However, it could review the two building permits issued on the basis of that decision and, in the context of this review, the court was obliged to examine the constitutionality of the prefect’s decision. The decision was found to have violated Article 24 of the Constitution, which protects the environment, because the redrawing of the boundaries of the settlements put in jeopardy the swamp in Ayios Yiannis, an important natural habitat for various protected species (such as birds, fishes and sea-turtles). It followed that the building permits were also unlawful and had to be quashed. Moreover, the court quashed the prefect’s decision no. 2400/1988 because it had not been published in the Official Gazette in the manner prescribed by law (decisions nos. 3955/1995 and 3956/1995).\n14.  In 1996 the prefect issued two decisions (nos. DP2315/1996 and DP2316/1996) which excluded the contested buildings from demolition.\n15.  On 21 April 1997 a special committee of the Supreme Administrative Court found that the authorities had failed to comply with the above decisions. They had not demolished the two buildings constructed on the basis of permits nos. 620/1993 and 298/1992 and had continued issuing building permits in respect of the area that had been included in the settlements further to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-404", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant lives in Grottaferrata (Rome).\n8.  She is the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to B.F.R.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 4 February 1991, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 29 May 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 July 1992.\n11.  On 7 October 1992, 20 September 1995 and 10 February 2000, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 7 December 1992, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 December 1992.\n13.  Between 15 December 1992 and 25 February 1993, the bailiff made three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On 13 October 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 31 October 1995.\nBetween 31 October 1995 and 6 November 1996, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 28 February 2000, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 March 2000.\n16.  Between 24 March 2000 and 13 July 2000, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n17.  On 24 July 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-405", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Benevento.\n8.  He is the owner of a flat in Benevento, which he had let to N.C.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 27 April 1994, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Benevento Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 25 May 1994, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Benevento Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 November 1996.\n11.  On 30 November 1996, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 10 February 1997, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 February 1997.\n13.  Between 25 February 1997 and 9 November 1998, the bailiff made nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked the Benevento District Court to set a new date for the enforcement of the order for possession. The date was set for 25 April 2000 and then for 30 September 2000.\n15.  On 12 October 2000, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n16.  On 4 November 2000, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 November 2000.\n17.  Between 27 November 2000 and 26 April 2001, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance.\n18.  A new attempt of the bailiff to enforce the order for possession was set for 21 June 2001.\n19.  On 8 August 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-406", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 23 May 1988 the applicant filed an action for damages with the Košice I District Court. He claimed compensation from several persons on the ground that his house had been damaged as a result of a road traffic accident.\n6.  On 3 November 1993 the Košice I District Court allowed the applicant’s claims in part.\n7.  The applicant and one of the defendants appealed. The case file was submitted to the Košice Regional Court on 27 February 1995. On 24 August 1995 the latter quashed a part of the first instance judgment and ordered the District Court to take further evidence on the relevant claims.\n8.  The District Court instructed an expert to submit an opinion, and it heard the parties on 18 December 1995 and on 23 April 1996. A second expert was appointed by a decision delivered on 2 December 1997. He submitted the opinion on 31 December 1997. The applicant challenged both the expert and the District Court judge.\n9.  The case file was submitted to the Regional Court, between 12 January 1998 and 12 March 1998, which granted the applicant’s request for exclusion of the District Court judge.\n10.  On 23 July 1998 the District Court asked the parties to submit comments on the expert opinion. The applicant replied on 3 August 1998.\n11.  The case was adjourned on 26 October 1998, on 30 November 1998, on 8 February 1999 and on 22 March 1999. On 20 July 1999 the District Court appointed another expert who submitted her opinion on 17 September 1999. Hearings before the District Court were held on 2 May 2000 and on 30 October 2000.\n12.  On 24 October 2000 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice I District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delay. In its finding, the Constitutional Court held that the complex character of the case could not, on its own, justify the overall length of the proceedings, and that no delays in the proceedings could be imputed to the applicant. The Constitutional Court further held that the Košice I District Court had remained inactive for an overall period of approximately four years.\n13.  On 15 January 2001 the Košice I District Court delivered a second judgment on the case. It became final on 11 May 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-407", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Fintice.\n5.  On 29 December 1994 the applicant filed an action for outstanding salary to the Prešov District Court.\n6.  The District Court heard the parties on 22 March 1995. It discontinued the proceedings in respect of two defendants.\n7.  On 10 May 1995 the District Court delivered an interim judgment to the effect that the defendant owed salary to the applicant.\n8.  On 19 June 1995 the defendant appealed. The case file was submitted to the Košice Regional Court on 22 August 1995. On 29 March 1996 the latter quashed the judgment of 10 May 1995.\n9.  In October 1996 the above District Court’s decision of 22 March 1995 was served on the parties. On 14 October 1996 one of the defendants appealed and challenged the District Court’s decision on costs of the proceedings.\n10.  Hearings before the District Court were held on 13 November 1996, 18 December 1996 and on 23 April 1997. On 9 January 1997 the case was taken over by another judge.\n11.  On 9 June 1997 the case file was submitted to the Prešov Regional Court for a decision on the defendant’s appeal of 14 October 1996. The Regional Court decided on the appeal on 27 June 1997 and the case file was returned to the District Court on 7 October 1997.\n12.  Another hearing before the District Court was held on 25 May 1998. The parties failed to appear before the court on 3 June 1998. On 30 September 1998 the District Court heard the applicant.\n13.  On 12 October 1998 the defendant requested the District Court to take further evidence. The District Court heard witnesses on 26 October 1998 and in the course of November 1998 it obtained further documentary evidence. On 3 December 1998 the applicant specified his claim.\n14.  Hearings before the District Court were held on 27 January 1999 and on 1 February 1999. On 3 February 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action.\n15.  On 19 March 1999 the applicant appealed. The case file was submitted to the Prešov Regional Court on 27 April 1999. On 20 December 1999 the appellate court quashed the first instance judgment. The case file was returned to the District Court on 10 January 2000.\n16.  Hearings before the District Court were held on 20 March 2000 and on 10 May 2000. On 1 June 2000 the District Court ordered that an expert opinion be submitted within fifty days. On 16 September 2000 the expert requested the District Court to specify her task. The District Court replied to the expert on 25 September 2000. On 2 January 2001, 5 April 2001 and on 11 May 2001 the District Court urged the expert to submit the opinion.\n17.  On 11 March 2001 the expert requested the defendant to submit further information to her. The defendant complied with the request on 26 June 2001. The expert opinion was submitted to the District Court on 12 July 2001. On 27 August 2001 the District Court asked for the parties’ comments on the opinion. The parties replied in September 2001.\n18.  A hearing before the District Court was held on 24 October 2001. The applicant requested that a second expert opinion be ordered. On 2 November 2001 the applicant specified the issues to be addressed by the second expert.\n19.  On 31 July 2001 the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings to the Constitutional Court. On 1 February 2002 he supplemented his submissions in that, inter alia, he claimed compensation pursuant to Article 127 of the Constitution, as in force from 1 January 2002.\n20.  On 28 February 2002 the Const", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-408", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 24 February 1999 the applicant claimed before the Prešov District Court that the maintenance which her former husband had been earlier ordered to pay in respect of their two minor children should be increased.\n6.  The first hearing in the case was scheduled for 24 May 2000.\n7.  On 1 June 2000 the Constitutional Court found that the Prešov District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have her case examined without undue delay. In its finding, the Constitutional Court held, in particular, that what was at stake for the applicant required special diligence and that the District Court had remained inactive for approximately fifteen months. The Constitutional Court considered irrelevant that the delay was due to the heavy workload of the judges.\n8.  On 8 November 2000 the Prešov District Court increased the maintenance due by the applicant’s former husband with retroactive effect.\n9.  The applicant appealed and claimed that the increase awarded should be higher.\n10.  On 31 May 2001 the Prešov Regional Court delivered a judgment by which it increased the sums which the applicant’s former husband was to pay. The Regional Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 25 July 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-409", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1948 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in HMP Verne.\n8.  The applicant owned a garage in Dorset and had business connections in Spain. He had two Mercedes cars each of which had a false compartment in the fuel tank. The false compartments could hold up to 45 kilograms of cannabis resin. From 1994 he was suspected by the police of being involved in drug trafficking. The police also suspected him of being involved in the handling of stolen goods, including stolen vehicles.\n9.  On 22 February 1995 he was arrested by the Dorset police in relation to their suspicions of his handling stolen goods. Whilst he was in custody, a listening device was installed at his garage premises which remained there and active until 26 July 1995 when it was discovered.\n10.  On 30 December 1996 an indictment was signed charging the applicant with conspiracy to import controlled drugs and conspiracy to supply controlled drugs, namely cannabis. The prosecution evidence against the applicant relied on tape recordings made from the listening device which had been installed by the police at the applicant’s garage premises. It was acknowledged by the prosecution that without the evidence from the tapes, there was no prima facie case against the applicant.\n11.  The applicant objected to the admission of the tape recordings as evidence in his trial. He argued inter alia that the original grant of authority and the renewal of authority for the placement of the listening device were not in compliance with the Home Office Guidelines, which governed the use of surveillance equipment by the police at the relevant time. He submitted that his prosecution ought to be stayed as an abuse of the process of the court, alternatively the tape evidence should be excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE”).\n12.  A preliminary hearing was held on the matter of the admissibility of the tape recordings. His Honour Judge Pryor QC held on 8 July 1997 that he was satisfied that the original authority for the use of the surveillance equipment was properly granted and that there were proper grounds for renewal, though he made some criticism of the lack of documentation on the renewals and noted that there had been a technical infringement in that one renewal took place a day late. The judge concluded that the tapes were admissible as evidence and should not be excluded under section 78 of PACE.\n13.  Following the admission of the tapes as evidence, the applicant pleaded guilty to the charges of conspiracy to import controlled drugs and conspiracy to supply controlled drugs, namely cannabis. On 5 September 1997 he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.\n14.  The applicant was granted leave to appeal against his conviction. On 24 September 1997, the Court of Appeal held that in the light of the applicant’s pleas of guilty his convictions could not be regarded as “unsafe” and rejected his appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-410", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Gdańsk.\n8.  In June 1993 the counsel for H.K. (“the petitioner”) filed with the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court (“the court”) a petition to dissolve joint ownership of a certain property, belonging to H.K. and K.K. who owned four fifths of it , and to M.S., who owned one fifth. On 6 July 1993 the court returned the statement of the claim as H.K. had failed to pay the court fees. On 8 July 1993 she requested the court to exempt her from the court fees. On 14 July 1993 the court allowed her request.\n9.  The first hearing in the case was held on 10 September 1993. At the hearing H.K. requested the court to summon W.S., the applicant and J.S., who were successors of the late M.S. as parties to the case.\n10.  On 14 December 1993 and on 31 January 1994 the applicant filed her pleadings with the court.\n11.  On 20 December 1993 the court stayed the proceedings on the ground of the petitioner’s failure to indicate service addresses of certain of the parties. On 2 February 1994 the petitioner requested the court to resume the proceedings. On 4 February 1994 the court allowed this motion.\n12.  On 22 March 1994 the second hearing was held before the court. The applicant was absent. The hearing was adjourned until 26 April 1994.\n13.  At the hearing held on 26 April 1994 the court heard the petitioner and the applicant. The parties were given a fourteen-day time-limit to state their position with respect to H.K.’s petition to have the property divided, and also to submit their comments on the division proposal. The hearing was adjourned until 24 June 1994.\n14.  On 6 May 1994 the court received the applicant’s letter expressing her position as regards the petition.\n15.  On 24 June 1994 the court held another hearing. The applicant was absent. The court heard K.K. and granted the parties seven days to submit motions for any evidence to be taken. The hearing was adjourned until 6 September 1994.\n16.  On 17 August and 6 September 1994 the applicant filed her further pleadings with the court.\n17.  The applicant did not attend the hearing held on 6 September 1994. The court informed the parties about her pleadings. In view of their large volume and failure to produce copies for the other parties, the court ordered the applicant to provide it with the necessary number of copies and granted the other parties seven days to comment on her pleadings. The hearing was adjourned until 3 November 1994, but the court decided to inspect the property on 14 October 1994.\n18.  On 15 September 1994 J.S. informed the court that he wished to be paid off by H.K. and K.K. and that he gave up his claim for the physical division of the property.\n19.  On 27 September 1994 the petitioner’s counsel replied to the applicant’s pleadings, submitting that in almost all of her pleadings she had insulted the court and the parties. Moreover, she had alleged that all the witnesses were lying, even though no witnesses had been heard so far. On the whole, she had made no valuable contribution to the proceedings and had not adduced any evidence. Subsequently, K.K.’s counsel commented in a similar way on the applicant’s conduct.\n20.  On 30 September and 11 October 1994 the applicant filed further pleadings with the court.\n21.  On 14 October 1994 the court inspected the property in issue and heard two witnesses.\n22.  On 21 October 1994 the applicant filed further pleadings with the court.\n23.  At the hearing held on 3 November 1994 the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-412", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1941. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n10.  On 16 December 1993 the Nowy Targ District Court convicted the applicant of aggravated theft and sentenced him to imprisonment. While in prison, on unspecified dates the applicant wrote a letter to the Penitentiary Division of the Katowice Regional Court and he received a reply. Dissatisfied with that reply, on 15 November 1994 the applicant sent a letter to the President of the Katowice Regional Court, complaining about the judge who had replied to his letter. The relevant passages of the applicant's letter read: \n“(...) It cannot be excluded that further acts of that kind on the part of the Penitentiary Division of the Regional Court would make me complain to the judicial supervision about the irresponsible clowns placed in that Division. \nI will start by saying that any little cretin, whether he wears a gown or not, should vent his need to intimidate others by making allusions to legal responsibility [for their acts] on his mistress, if he has one, or on his dog, but not on me. I am not going to be afraid of any such clown who wants to intimidate me, but the truth is that my request of 18 August 1994 was addressed to the court, not to some fool. \nI expect that the President of the Katowice Regional Court will somehow convey my request to that bully and that he will, at the same time, read his reply to me (...)\nNot only does [the judge] write rubbish about my alleged request for a pardon, which my request was absolutely not, but he also intimidates me. If he is such a brilliant lawyer that he is able to reply to questions that were not asked – and his legal skills can be seen if the content of my letter is compared with his reply – he should find a relevant legal provision to use against me. It would not change the fact that such a limited individual, such a cretin should not take the post of a reliable lawyer who would know how to reply to a letter. A cretin he will remain and I see no reason to be afraid of any legal consequences. “You know, you understand, shut up” – that is all the education he has, as a fool does not need any better.”\n11.  Subsequently, on an unspecified date, the Sosnowiec District Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant. On 31 January 1994 the prosecuting authorities lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Sosnowiec District Court. He was charged with proffering insults against a State authority at its headquarters or in public, an offence punishable under Article 237 of the Criminal Code 1969, committed by sending a letter to the President of the Katowice Regional Court. In this letter the applicant had insulted an unidentified judge of that court's Penitentiary Division and all judges of that court. The applicant had been questioned in connection with the offence. He had stated that he had not meant the court as a whole, but only one judge, and this in his personal, not professional, capacity. He maintained that the letter could only be regarded as an insult against a private person, but not a State institution.\n12.  On 6 September 1995 the Sosnowiec District Court convicted the applicant of insulting a State authority and sentenced him to eight months' imprisonment. The court found that on 15 November 1994 the applicant had sent a letter to the President of the Regional Court in which he referred to all judges of the Regional Court's Penitentiary Division in an insulting and abusive", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-413", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mrs Ayşenur Zarakolu was a Turkish national and lived in Istanbul. She was represented before the Court by Mr Özcan Kılıç, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.\n7.  On 25 April 2002 the Court was informed of Mrs Zarakolu’s death on 28 January 2002 and that Mr Ragıp Zarakolu, her widower, wanted the proceedings to continue and wished to participate in them, retaining the applicant’s lawyer as his representative.\n8.  For practical reasons, Mrs Zarakolu will continue to be called “the applicant”, although Mr Zarakolu is now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI and see also Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1641, § 3).\n9.  The applicant was the owner of a publishing company called “Belge International Publishing Co.”.\n10.  In June 1994 Belge International Publishing Co. published a book entitled Birakuji-Kürtlerin İç Savaşı, written by F.D.\n11.  In an indictment dated 5 July 1994 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court charged the applicant with disseminating PKK propaganda through publishing this book. The Public Prosecutor requested that the applicant be convicted in accordance with Article 7 § 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law No. 3713).\n12.  In the proceedings before the Istanbul State Security Court the applicant denied the charges. She stated that the book was based on true facts. She also referred to her rights under Article 10 of the Convention.\n13.  In a judgment dated 28 September 1995, the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty of the offence under Article 7 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The applicant was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment and the payment of a fine of TRL 41,666,666.\n14.  In concluding that the applicant had disseminated propaganda in support of a terrorist organisation, the court referred to the interview with Cemil Bayık, a commander of the PKK, published in pp. 243-250 of the book. The court quoted the following views of Cemil Bayık in its judgment:\n“[T]he war in the south has shown that the power of the PKK was not as straightforward as had been estimated. It has also shown that it is not easy to eliminate the PKK. Everybody has been able to see for themselves that it is not possible to reach a solution in Kurdistan without the PKK. The PKK did not lose the war. In fact the reality is that it has emerged from this war with significant gains. The Turkish Republic, in an attempt to hide its defeat, has been disseminating propaganda based on lies, such as that the PKK has been defeated, that it has lost thousands of its men and that it will not recover. In the press, it has also been reported that the PKK has not been crushed and that it has emerged from this war ever more powerful. It has further been reported in the press that by disseminating such propaganda, they [the State] are deceiving themselves but that they need such propaganda to maintain high spirits”.\n15.  On 12 October 1995 the applicant appealed alleging, inter alia, that Article 7 § 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act was inapplicable in her case and that the court had convicted her solely on the basis of an interview contained in pp. 243-250 of the book. She referred to her rights under Article 10 of the Convention.\n16.  In a decision of 26 December 1995, the 9th Chamber of the Court of Cassation, upholding the cogency of the Istanbul State Security Court’s assessmen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-414", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Bogoria, Poland.\n6.  On 5 July 1974 the applicant’s husband filed with the Staszów District Court (sąd rejonowy) an action in which he sought a declaration that he and other relatives inherited the property of his late father.\n7.  On 30 November 1977 the court issued the relevant decision. Some of the participants in the proceedings lodged an appeal against it.\n8.  On 14 April 1978 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki) amended that decision in part and dismissed the remainder of the appeal.\n9.  On 21 December 1981 the applicant filed with the Staszów District Court a petition in which she requested the division of the inherited property.\n10.  On 27 August 1992 the court issued a partial decision. The applicant appealed it.\n11.  On 24 June 1993 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the case for re-examination.\n12.  On 15 June 1994 the applicant challenged participation in the proceedings of all the judges from the Staszów District Court.\n13.  On 7 October 1994 the Regional Court dismissed that challenge. She appealed against that decision.\n14.  On 14 November 1994 the President of the Regional Court, in reply to the applicant’s complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings, wrote a letter informing her that the case was very complex and that she contributed to the delay by her numerous petitions.\n15.  On 24 February 1995 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (sąd apelacyjny) amended the Regional Court’s decision of 7 October 1994 in that it excluded four judges from participation in the proceedings.\n16.  On 29 May 1995 the District Court held a hearing. It stayed the proceedings, because three participants had died. The court ordered the applicant to provide information concerning their legal successors.\n17.  On 11 December 1995 the court refused the applicant’s request to have the proceedings resumed. It noted that she had failed to provide the addresses of the heirs of one of the participants in the proceedings and submitted only that they lived in the United States.\n18.  On 12 July 1996 the District Court refused the applicant’s subsequent request in this respect. It relied, inter alia, on the fact that she had failed to specify whether the persons concerned had Polish or American nationality, which made it impossible for the court to serve summonses on them. The applicant appealed that decision.\n19.  On 7 November 1996 the Regional Court quashed the appealed decision and ordered its re-examination by the District Court.\n20.  On 7 April 1998 the District Court resumed the proceedings. On the same date it decided to appoint a guardian ad litem for absent participants in the proceedings and announce that fact in a newspaper.\n21.  On 22 September 1998 the President of the District Court informed the applicant that the newspaper which the court had requested to publish the announcement had not replied. The President resolved to undertake necessary steps in order to ensure a more expeditious examination of the case.\n22.  On 22 June 1999 the Regional Court excluded a judge from participation in the proceedings and transferred the case to the Opatów District Court.\n23.  On 29 September 1999 four judges from the latter court requested to be excluded from participation in the proceedings due to their personal relations with one of the participants.\n24.  On 28 July 2000 the applicant was ordered to submit certain pleadings and provide information about the natio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-415", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n14.  The applicant is a former public prosecutor who now works as a lawyer. He was born in 1947 and lives in Timişoara.\n15.  During the night of 20 to 21 April 1994 the applicant was involved in an altercation with D.N., who was seriously wounded. According to the report of the medical examination carried out after the incident in question, D.N. sustained several fractures on this occasion, requiring 250 days of medical care. Without appropriate medical treatment, these injuries could have proved life-threatening.\n16.  By a resolution of 7 June 1994 public prosecutor D. from the prosecution service at the Bihor County Court decided to open a criminal investigation with regard to the applicant.\n17.  On 7, 14, 16, 23 and 30 June and 5 July 1994 D.N. (the victim) and twenty-one witnesses were interviewed by the prosecution service in connection with the incident.\n18.  On 23 June 1994 the applicant was questioned by public prosecutor D. on the subject of his altercation with D.N. During this interview the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer.\n19.  By an order of 5 July 1994 public prosecutor D. instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and decided that he should be placed in pre-trial detention. He issued a committal warrant against the applicant for a period of thirty days from the date of his arrest by the police. Relying on Article 148, sub-paragraphs (c), (e) and (h), of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), the prosecutor mentioned in his order that the applicant was wanted by the police, whom he was wilfully evading, and that his continued liberty represented a threat to public order.\n20.  On 13 July 1994, on an application by public prosecutor D., the applicant was committed for trial before the Bihor County Court for attempted homicide, an offence prohibited under the second paragraph of Article 174 of the Criminal Code. The prosecutor stated in his application that he had ordered the applicant’s arrest on the ground that the latter had evaded the criminal proceedings brought against him. The prosecutor pointed out that the applicant had failed to appear for the reconstruction of the events of the night of 20 to 21 April 1994 and had also failed to appear before the prosecution service, which had summoned him to provide a further statement.\n21.  On 20 July 1994 the applicant was arrested and detained in Oradea Prison.\n22.  In the medical record established at the time of his imprisonment, the doctor noted that the applicant weighed 99 kg and was suffering from a duodenal ulcer, cholelithiasis and paranoid personality disorder.\n23.  On 21 July 1994, pursuant to Article 152 of the CCP, the applicant, assisted by a lawyer of his choice, was brought before Judge M.V., Section President at the Bihor County Court. At a private hearing the judge informed the applicant that the prosecution service had decided that he should be committed for trial, and read him the prosecution’s submissions word for word. On this occasion, when questioned about a statement he had made to the prosecution service, the applicant complained that the prosecutor had not allowed him to write the statement himself, arguing that it was late and that he did not have time. The applicant also complained that he had been “terrorised” by the prosecutor, who had made him wait for two days in the corridor of the prosecution service, threatening not to record his statement and to have him arrested. Finally, he stressed that he had responded to the prosecu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-416", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 2 January 1995 the applicant filed an action for rehabilitation with the Bratislava City Court. He alleged that he had been persecuted for political reasons between 1972 and 1973 and claimed compensation. On 6 February 1995 the City Court decided to transfer the case to the Bratislava I District Court for reasons of jurisdiction.\n6.  On 11 March 1996 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to substantiate his action. On 26 June 1996 the Bratislava City Court quashed the District Court’s decision of 11 March 1996.\n7.  On 19 May 1997 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for waiver of court fees. On 28 August 1997 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld this decision. Between 24 September 1996 and 30 October 1998 the Bratislava I District Court took several procedural steps.\n8.  The first hearing was scheduled for 25 March 1999. The case was adjourned as the applicant could not attend. On 20 May 1999 the case had to be adjourned again as the applicant’s summons had been sent to a wrong address.\n9.  On 2 September 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delays. In its finding the Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that the Bratislava I District Court had failed to proceed with the case in an appropriate manner.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-417", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1948 and 1945 respectively. They are a married couple. They live in Stryn, Norway.\n9.  The facts of the case, as described mainly in the judgments of the national courts, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  In 1986 the applicants bought at the price of NOK 1 a property at Stryn in Western Norway. On the land was a large wooden house built in 1886, which had previously served as a hotel and school. In the mid-1980s the municipal authorities wished to destroy the building, which by then had been unoccupied for two decades. The applicants' initial plan was to renovate the building and then to sell it, but later they used the building as a hotel in the summer and rented it out to schoolchildren during the winter.\n11.  The renovation costs were initially estimated at NOK 3.5 million, of which approximately NOK 2.8 million was to be financed by mortgages. At the time it was difficult to obtain loans, but in the end the applicants were able to borrow from the Sandane Branch of the Bergen Bank, NOK 2.3 million, secured on the applicants' property in Stryn (gnr 45, bnr 108), and NOK 0.5 million, secured on their property (gnr 113, bnr 91 and 92) in Vågsøy. The Bergen Bank subsequently merged with Den norske Creditbank and became Den norske Bank (DNB) (hereinafter referred to as “the Bank”). Eventually the renovation, which was completed in 1988, became more extensive and expensive than expected, in part because of difficulties related to the installation of a fire prevention system. At an unspecified time in 1989 or 1990, the applicants stopped paying the mortgages and the interest on them, resulting in an overdraft of NOK 4 million. In addition, they apparently owed NOK 1.6 million to the State Fund for Development of Districts (Distriktenes Utbyggingsfond – hereinafter “the DUF”).\n12.  As the Bank considered that the applicants had failed to honour their obligations, it sought to have the applicants' property in Stryn and Vågsøy sold at an auction in order to recover its loans. In 1991 the Bank instituted proceedings for this purpose. On 31 March 1992 the proceedings concerning the property in Stryn were discontinued. In the meantime, on 8 January 1992 the Bank had obtained a decision by the Nordfjord Court of Execution and Enforcement (namsrett), the local district court, confirming an auction bid but that decision was later quashed by Gulating High Court (lagmannsrett) on 17 November 1993.\n13.  On 5 June 1992 the Bank again brought proceedings to have the Stryn property sold at auction, and on 16 June 1992 the Nordfjord Court of Execution and Enforcement granted the request.\n14.  In a complaint filed with the District Court on 19 May 1992 the applicants requested inter alia that Mr Justice Steintveit should stand down on account of his past employment with the Bergen Bank.\n15.  On 25 May 1992 Mr Justice Steintveit confirmed that he had been, for a period from July 1984 to January 1987, an employee of the Bergen Bank assigned to the Bank's legal department in Oslo. He had not deemed it necessary to inform the parties about this as he did not consider that it had any importance for his eligibility to sit in the case.\n16.  On 3 June 1992 the applicants submitted a complaint to the Nordfjord Court of Execution and Enforcement, asking Mr Justice Steintveit to stand down under Sections 108 and 109 of the Administration of Courts Act 1915 (Domstolloven) on the grounds that he had had close ties with the defendant Bank", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-418", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul.\n10.  On 15 September 1981 police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate arrested the applicant at his mother’s house in the Safranbolu district of Zonguldak on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). He was placed in custody at the Ankara Security Directorate. The applicant stated during his questioning that he had hidden ammunition belonging to the organisation in the chimney of his mother’s house. A search was conducted of the house and a large number of weapons and bullets, including a Kalashnikov automatic rifle and dynamite, were recovered.\n11.  On 27 October 1981 the applicant was brought before the Military Court judge who ordered his detention on remand.\n12.  On 26 February 1982 the public prosecutor at the Ankara Martial Law Court, whose jurisdiction covered Ankara, Çankırı and Kastamonu provinces, indicted the applicant together with 723 others. The charges against the defendants included membership of Dev-Yol, an organisation which aimed to replace the constitutional order with a Marxist-Leninist regime contrary to Article 146 of the Turkish Criminal Code. The applicant was further charged with robbery, bombing and armed attacks against persons, and opening fire on three houses.\n13.  On 11 November 1987, having spent more than six years in prison, the applicant was released pending trial.\n14.  After martial law was lifted, the Ankara Martial Law Court was subsequently designated as the Martial Law Court attached to the 4th Army Corps.\n15.  On 19 July 1994 the Martial Law Court found the applicant guilty of the aforementioned offences. It was also established that the ammunition found in the house of the applicant’s mother had been used in various illegal activities. The applicant was convicted of an offence under Article 146 § 3 of the Turkish Criminal Code. The applicant appealed to the Military Court of Cassation (Askeri Yargıtay).\n16.  On 26 December 1994 following the promulgation of Law no. 3953 of 27 December 1993 which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Courts, the case-file was transferred from the Military Court of Cassation to the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Ceza Dairesi).\n17.  On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court and sent the case-file to the Ankara Assize Court so that the applicant could be sentenced under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code which prescribed capital punishment for the category of offence of which the applicant was convicted.\n18.  On 16 July 2002 the Ankara Assize Court found the applicant guilty under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code and sentenced him to death. This sentence was commuted to a life sentence. The applicant’s appeal against this judgment is at present pending before the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-419", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1961.\n8.  In March 1994 the applicant was suspected by police officers in the Cambridge Constabulary of involvement in robbery. The view was taken by the Cambridgeshire Regional Crime Squad that it was necessary to place a hidden battery-powered listening and recording device in the applicant’s home. An application was therefore made to the Chief Constable for the instalment of such a device, which was authorised on 21 June 1994, pursuant to the non-statutory Home Office Guidelines of 1984.\n9.  In order to install the device, the police decided to arrest the applicant and his partner in connection with another matter (credit card fraud) and to remove them and their children from their home. Enquiries into the credit card fraud had previously lapsed without any arrest or questioning of the applicant or his partner. However, DC Harrison of the Regional Crime Squad and WDC Fletcher, an officer in the intelligence bureau of the Cambridgeshire County Constabulary, decided to revive the investigation for the purpose of removing the applicant and his partner from their home for long enough to enable the installation of the listening device.\n10.  WDC Fletcher briefed three officers about purported grounds for arresting the applicant and his partner for credit card fraud, without informing them of the intended installation of the device.\n11.  At 6.15 a.m. on 8 July 1994 the three officers arrested the applicant’s partner in her home and shortly thereafter arrested the applicant. Both were taken to the police station. The officers seized the keys to the applicant’s home and car. Officers from the Regional Crime Squad then used the house key to enter the applicant’s home and install the listening device. They also had a copy of the key cut to enable them to enter the house at a later date.\n12.  The applicant and his partner were released from police custody on the evening of 8 July 1994 after being interviewed. Neither was charged, but both were released on police bail and required to report back to the police station on 24 August 1994. The applicant’s keys to his home and car were returned to him.\n13.  On 24 August 1994 the applicant and his partner attended the police station in accordance with their bail and were interviewed again. Neither was charged at that time or subsequently with credit card fraud. During their interview police officers entered their home using the duplicate key in order to renew the battery in the listening device.\n14.  During September 1994, police officers again entered the applicant’s home to renew the battery in the listening device.\n15.  As a result of conversations that were recorded between the applicant and J, his co-defendant in the criminal proceedings, both men were arrested in September 1994. They were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery and burglary between 1 January 1993 and 9 December 1994.\n16.  The trial was at Peterborough Crown Court in October 1996. An application was made, in a voir dire procedure, on behalf of the defendants for the tape recorded evidence to be excluded under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on the basis that it had been obtained unlawfully and in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This application was rejected by the trial judge on 24 October 1996. The judge found that the officers who carried out the arrests on 8 July 1994 did have reasonable grounds for suspecting those whom they arrested and th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-420", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1931 and is currently serving a prison sentence in HM Prison Highdown, Surrey.\n8.  On 30 November 1988, the applicant was convicted at the Central Criminal Court in London of robbery, wounding with intent, possessing firearms with intent to endanger life and possessing ammunition with intent to endanger life.\n9.  The offences arose out of a single robbery which occurred on 23 November 1987 at a shop in Woolwich. One of the applicant’s associates entered the shop, snatched a Securicor bag containing 10,400 pounds sterling and held a loaded revolver to the head of a member of the shop’s staff. The applicant, armed with a loaded revolver, kept watch outside. During a changeover of cars in their flight from the crime, the applicant and his associates were intercepted by the police, who surrounded them and told them to lay down their arms. The applicant fired six shots, wounding one police officer in the leg. The police returned fire and one of the applicant’s associates was killed. The applicant received a superficial wound to his shoulder. He was arrested and immediately detained.\n10.  The applicant was subsequently tried and was not represented at his trial. He stated that he was informed by his counsel that his defence was “political” in nature and could not be put by a professional advocate. His counsel then withdrew. The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment. In sentencing him, the judge made reference to his long, violent criminal record and the dangerous nature of his character.\n11.  In June 1990, the Court of Appeal refused the applicant’s renewed application for  leave to appeal against conviction, leave having already been refused by a single judge. The Court of Appeal also rejected the applicant’s appeal against sentence. At this hearing the applicant was again not represented.\n12.  On 9 December 1992, a certificate was issued on behalf of the Secretary of State, stating that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 for certifying the tariffs of discretionary life sentence prisoners would not apply to the applicant. The applicant’s release from prison would therefore be at the Home Secretary’s discretion, following a favourable recommendation from the Parole Board and after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and trial judge, if available. The certificate stated that it was Home Office policy that no life sentence prisoner should be detained more that 17 years without a review by the Parole Board. The first review of the applicant’s case by the Parole Board would be in November 2004. The applicant stated that he had no record of receiving this document.\n13.  On 27 July 1995, the Prison Service informed the applicant that, following a judgment of the House of Lords, the Secretary of State would now be setting a specific tariff which would be disclosed to the applicant, along with the judicial recommendations and any reasons for any departure from them. The judicial recommendations - that in the applicant’s case “ ’life’ should mean ‘life’ ” – were disclosed to the applicant and he was invited to make representations.\n14.  On 5 February 1998, the Home Secretary agreed to certify that the applicant should be subject to the arrangements for the release of discretionary life prisoners, despite having previously qualified the applicant as someone serving a mandatory life sentence. The decision of 5 February 1998 also set the tariff of the applicant’s sentence at 16 years, expiring on 24 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-421", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Krems (Austria). He is a practising lawyer by profession.\n5.  On 18 June 1993 a colleague,  Mr P., laid a disciplinary information against the applicant alleging that he had infringed the profession’s honour and reputation in the context of administrative criminal proceedings relating to traffic offences. He was suspected of having misbehaved towards intervening police officers during a traffic control by threatening them with job-related troubles in case they charged him with traffic offences. Subsequently, on 10 September 1993 the Disciplinary Council of the Lower Austrian Bar Chamber (Disziplinarrat der Niederösterreichischen Rechtsanwaltskammer), upon request of the Bar Chamber’s Prosecutor (Kammeranwalt), appointed an Investigating Commissioner (Untersuchungskommissär).\n6.  On 16 September 1993 the Investigating Commissioner informed the applicant that disciplinary proceedings against him were opened and requested him to file observations as regards the charges against him.\n7.  On 4 October 1993 the applicant complied with this request.\n8.  On 13 June 1994 the Investigating Commissioner submitted a report to the Disciplinary Council.\n9.  On 7 October 1994 the Disciplinary Council discontinued the proceedings against the applicant. The Bar Chamber’s Prosecutor filed an appeal against this decision.\n10.  On 15 December 1994 the applicant submitted his observations on the appeal.\n11.  On 20 February 1995 the Appeals Board (Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission) allowed the Bar Chamber’s Prosecutor’s appeal and remitted the case to the Disciplinary Council.\n12.  In August 1995, after the case had been taken over by another Investigating Commissioner, the latter agreed with the Vienna Federal Police Directorate (Bundespolizeidirektion) to question the police officers involved in the traffic control at issue by way of letters rogatory. On 3 November 1995 he filed letters rogatory with the Donaustadt District Court (Bezirksgericht) which were subsequently transferred to the Josefstadt District Court.\n13.  On 13 December 1995 the two police officers were questioned by the Josefstadt District Court.\n14.  On 8 February 1996 the Investigating Commissioner submitted his report to the Disciplinary Council.\n15.  On 3 June 1996 the Disciplinary Council, upon the Investigating Commissioner’s report, decided to open the main proceedings. This decision was served on the applicant on 31 July 1996.\n16.  On 30 August 1996 the applicant filed his observations.\n17.  On 20 September 1996 the Disciplinary Council fixed a hearing for 14 October 1996 and summoned the applicant, his spouse and the two police officers. As the applicant’s spouse and one police officers submitted that they could not appear at that date, the hearing was cancelled.\n18.  On 24 February 1997 the Constitutional Court, in proceedings unrelated to the present one’s, issued a decision concerning the composition of the Disciplinary Council. On 15 May 1997, after an internal discussion of the consequences of the Constitutional Court’s decision for the proceedings at issue, Mr F was appointed as new chairman of the Disciplinary Council.\n19.  On 17 September 1997 the Disciplinary Council fixed a hearing for 6 October 1997. The applicant’s spouse and the two police officers submitted that they could not appear at that date.\n20.  On 19 September 1997 the applicant filed observations and challenged the chairman and another member of the Di", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-423", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Berlin. At birth, she was registered as male, with the forenames Bernhard Friedrich.\n9.  In 1990 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Schöneberg District Court, asking it to change her forenames to Carola Brenda.\n10.  On 20 December 1991 the District Court granted the applicant’s request. The court found that the conditions under section 1 of the Transsexuals Act (Gesetz über die Änderung der Vornamen und die Feststellung der Geschlechtszugehörigkeit in besonderen Fällen) were met in the applicant’s case.\n11.  The District Court, having heard the applicant and having regard to the written opinions of the psychiatric experts Prof. R. and Dr O. of 28 August 1991, and of the psychological expert Prof. D. of 1 September 1991, considered that the applicant was a male-to-female transsexual. It noted that, although Prof. R. and Dr O. had indicated that the applicant was not a typical transsexual, the Transsexuals Act required only that the condition of transsexuality be met, irrespective of the particular form it took. Moreover, the court found that the experts had convincingly shown that the applicant had been for at least the last three years under the constraint of living according to these tendencies and that there was a high probability that the she would not change these tendencies in the future.\n12.  In 1992 the applicant, represented by counsel, brought an action with the Berlin Regional Court against a German health insurance company. Having been affiliated to this company since 1975, she claimed reimbursement of pharmaceutical expenses for hormone treatment. She further requested a declaratory judgment to the effect that the defendant company was liable to reimburse 50% of the expenses for gender reassignment operations and further hormone treatment. As an employee of the Berlin Land, she was entitled to allowances covering half of her medical expenses; the private health insurance was to cover the other half.\n13.  On 20 October 1992 the Berlin Regional Court decided to take expert evidence on the questions of whether or not the applicant was a male-to-female transsexual; whether or not her kind of transsexuality was a disease; whether or not the gender reassignment operation was the necessary medical treatment for the transsexuality; and whether or not this treatment was generally recognised by medical science.\n14.  The psychiatrist Dr H., having examined the applicant in January 1993, delivered his opinion in February 1993. In his conclusions, he confirmed that the applicant was a male-to-female transsexual and that her transsexuality had to be regarded as a disease. He further indicated that gender reassignment surgery was not the only possible medical treatment in cases of transsexuality. In the applicant’s case, he recommended such an operation from a psychiatric-psychotherapeutic point of view, as it would improve her social situation. He noted that gender reassignment surgery was not generally recognised by medical science and that there were several comments in the specialised literature questioning whether the operation was effective; however, it could be assumed that the fact that transsexuals accepted themselves and their bodies contributed to their stabilisation. According to him, many transsexuals reached such stability only after an operation. In his view, this was the case for the applicant and an operation should therefore be approved. The expert concluded tha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-424", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Wels.\n10.  On 4 April 1984 the Wels Regional Court (Kreisgericht) served an arrest warrant on the applicant for suspicion of continued aggravated fraud (gewerbsmäβiger schwerer Betrug) committed since 1 January 1979. The same day the applicant was arrested.\n11.  On 5 April 1984 the Wels Regional Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n12.  On 13 and 17 April 1984 and 7 June 1984 supplementary charges led to the extension of the preliminary investigations against the applicant.\n13.  On 4 May 1984 the appointed accountancy expert was sworn in.\n14.  On 28 September 1984 the applicant was released from detention.\n15.  During the pre-trial phase in 1985 and 1986 more than 60 witnesses were heard, some of them under letters rogatory. On 14 February 1986 the expert submitted a comprehensive opinion, as a result of which further witnesses were heard.\n16.  On 22 April 1987 the preliminary investigations were closed and the file, which comprised 15 volumes consisting of more than 500 documents, was transferred to the Wels Public Prosecutor’s Office (Staatsanwaltschaft).\n17.  On 6 July 1987 the Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred the indictment charging the applicant and three co-accused with continued aggravated fraud, and with negligent and fraudulent bankruptcy (fahrlässige und betrügerische Krida). The bill of indictment, which arrived at the Regional Court on 29 July 1987, comprised 143 pages and consisted of 29 counts of aggravated fraud, out of which 10 concerned the applicant; 5 counts of fraudulent bankruptcy, out of which one concerned the applicant; and 4 counts of negligent bankruptcy all concerning the applicant. \nThe major part of the charges as well as further charges relating to various other offences concerned one co-accused, Mr H., a former judge at the Wels Regional Court. The applicant’s and Mr H.’s objections against the indictment were dismissed by the Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht).\n18.  On 30 May 1988 the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) that jurisdiction over the case be transferred to the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) on the ground that H. had moved to Vienna and that numerous witnesses were residing there. On 9 August 1988 the Supreme Court allowed the transfer. The file arrived at the Vienna Regional Court on 16 September 1988, which set trial hearings for the period between September and November 1989.\n19.  On 25 September 1989 the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction to the Linz Regional Court since it had turned out that H. had not moved to Vienna. The Linz Regional Court was proposed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office on the ground that it was feared that all the judges of the Wels Regional Court could declare themselves biased as the case concerned their former colleague H. In his statement of 13 October 1989 the applicant indicated that he had no objections against this transfer. On 18 December 1989 the Supreme Court allowed the transfer. On 29 December 1989 the Linz Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that a trial hearing be fixed.\n20.  Subsequently the Linz Regional Court, sitting with two professional and two lay judges, suggested ex officio the re-transfer of the case to the Wels Regional Court, which was refused by the Linz Court of Appeal on 13 June 1990. On 22 June 1990 a first trial hearing was set for 18 December 1990.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-425", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 8 February 1977 affiliation proceedings were brought in respect of the applicant before the then Košice City Court.\n5.  On 30 November 1988 the Košice Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment delivered on 15 September 1987.\n6.  The Košice II District Court, to which the case fell to be examined, experienced difficulties in obtaining the evidence. This was mainly due to the fact that the person who was supposed to be the applicant’s father was a Belgian national and that he had refused to co-operate with the court.\n7.  On 22 September 1995 the Constitutional Court found, in proceedings under Article 130 (3) of the Constitution, that the Košice II District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have the case examined without undue delays.\n8.  On 16 January 1996 the Košice II District Court dismissed the action. On 6 May 1997 the Košice Regional Court quashed the judgment and sent the case back to the first instance court.\n9.  On 16 June 2000 the Košice II District Court delivered a new judgment by which it dismissed the action. On 17 July 2000 the applicant appealed.\n10.  On 16 August 2002 the Košice Regional Court overturned the first instance judgment in that it found that the defendant was the applicant’s father. As to the remainder of the action including the maintenance and the court fee, the Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment and sent the case back to the latter.\n11.  On 5 November 2002 the defendant filed an appeal on points of law.\nThe proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-426", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a Spanish national who was born in 1941 and lives in Albacete. He is a law graduate and is employed by the University of Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM).\n9.   By a decision of 11 July 1996, the rector of UCLM ordered that the applicant be dismissed as director of administrative and service personnel (gerente) of the university campus at Albacete, a post to which he had been appointed by the rector himself in 1985. On 30 July 1996 the applicant applied to the Higher Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha for special judicial review of that decision, relying on the right to judicial protection of his fundamental rights in accordance with the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights Act (Law no. 62/1978 of 26 December 1978). By a decision of 18 November 1996, the court dismissed the application as unfounded.\n10.  In parallel, on 17 September 1996, the applicant had lodged an ordinary application for judicial review of the 11 July 1996 decision with the Higher Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha. The case was referred to the First Section of the court, whose President was J.B.L. During the hearing of the application, the Section, presided over by J.B.L., issued several orders.\n11.  On 14 May 1998 the applicant lodged an application with the Administrative Division of the Higher Court of Justice. Explaining that he had discovered that Judge J.B.L. was associate professor of law at UCLM and was receiving emoluments in that capacity, he applied for his removal in accordance with sections 219 and 223(1) of the Judicature Act (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial – “the LOPJ”) and requested the court to take evidence on the point in accordance with section 225(4) of the LOPJ. By a decision of 21 May 1998, the plenary Administrative Division of the Higher Court of Justice rejected the application for the judge’s removal for the following reasons:\n \n“Section 223(1) of the LOPJ lays down the condition that the removal must be applied for as soon as the grounds for removal are known. If the grounds are known prior to the dispute, the application for removal must be lodged at the start of the proceedings, failing which the application will be inadmissible.\nIt is this last legal effect which applies in the present case, namely the inadmissibility of the application for removal of the judge of this Division, Mr J.B.L., since he has been for several years, and in any event had been long before the disputed decisions were taken, associate professor at the University of Castilla-La Mancha (which is essentially the ground for his removal). This fact cannot have escaped the attention of someone who was, until July 1996, the manager of the university campus at Albacete .\nMoreover, given that the application was drafted, in [the applicant’s] own words, ‘as soon as he became aware of the ground [for removal]”, he should have adduced evidence to that effect, namely that he had become aware only very recently and not prior to the dispute that J.B.L. was associate professor at the University of Castilla-La Mancha. However he provided no such evidence.\nAccordingly, an application for removal should have been lodged as soon as the applicant had been advised of the composition of the Division whose President was the person being challenged. As that was not done, the application is inadmissible.”\n12.  By a judgment on the merits of 10 May 1999, the First Section of the Administrative Division of the Higher Court of Justice, composed of three judges and pre", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-427", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Marl-Haim, Germany.\n8.  In 1974 the applicant, after having worked for ten years as a labourer in Germany, bought land in the Değirmen hamlet of the Çayağzı village, in the Yayladere district of Bingöl and built a house on it. The applicant and his family went to the house each summer. The land was cultivated by Ş.T., who gave half of the annual revenue from the land to the applicant. Ş.T. also lived in the house when the applicant was not there.\n9.  In 1994 security forces carried out operations in the region. Gunfire discharged by security forces from helicopters destroyed the roof of the applicant’s house. Thereafter, security forces forcibly evicted Ş.T. from the applicant’s house.\n10.  On 8 December 1995 an inhabitant of the hamlet, H.D., informed a relative of the applicant living in İstanbul, S.G., that the applicant’s house had been burned down. S.G. subsequently informed the applicant about the destruction of his property.\n11.  On 14 December 1995 the applicant went to the hamlet and saw that his house and its contents had been burned. He took photographs and made a video recording of his house. He was informed by the mayor of the village (muhtar), H.T., and by other villagers that there had been clashes between security forces and terrorists near the hamlet and that two days after the clashes his house had been burned down because it had been used by terrorists.\n12.  On 10 January 1996 the applicant filed a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Istanbul for submission to the Public Prosecutor’s office in Bingöl. He requested an investigation into the destruction of his house and its contents by security forces.\n13.  The applicant did not pursue any further domestic remedy.\n14.  Subsequent to the receipt of the applicant’s petition concerning his request for an investigation, the Bingöl Chief Public Prosecutor declined jurisdiction ratione loci and sent the applicant’s petition to the Yayladere Public Prosecutor’s office.\n15.  On 31 December 1996 the Yayladere Chief Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non‑jurisdiction stating that the impugned incident should be investigated by the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court since it concerned a terrorist act. The Public Prosecutor noted that the applicant’s house had been destroyed during clashes between terrorists and security forces. He noted however that the perpetrators could not be identified.\n16.  The local authorities carried out an investigation into the destruction of the applicant’s house. In this respect, on 25 February 1998 gendarmes from the Yayladere Central Gendarme Command went to the applicant’s hamlet to carry out a survey of the scene of the incident. After having viewed the state of the applicant’s house, the gendarmes drew up a scene of incident report. They noted that the roof of the applicant’s house had been destroyed, wooden parts of the house had been burned, the walls were in good condition and the house was empty. They further noted that the house had been destroyed during clashes between the security forces and terrorists in the region.\n17.  On 25 February 1998 the Yayladere Central Gendarme Station Commander took statements from the inhabitants of the applicant’s village. The mayor of the village, (muhtar), Mr Mehmet Dilek, stated that in 1994 security forces had carried out an operation against terrorists in the region and that there had been clashes between security ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-428", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in in 1947 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 3 May 1991 the applicant filed an action for damages with the Bratislava I District Court. She claimed compensation for a work-related accident.\n6.  On 9 September 1993 the District Court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed on 1 October 1993.\n7.  On 31 August 1994 the Bratislava City Court quashed the first instance judgment.\n8.  On 31 October 1996 the applicant extended her action in that she also claimed the protection of her right to protection of her reputation.\n9.  On 31 July 1998 the Bratislava I District Court ordered an expert opinion to be submitted.\n10.  The applicant filed a petition pursuant to Article 130 (3) of the Constitution in which she complained about the length of the proceedings. On 22 September 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have her case examined without undue delays.\n11.  On 18 December 2000 the Bratislava I District Court ordered an expert opinion. Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully challenged the District Court judge.\n12.  On 12 August 2002 the District Court decided on the expert’s fees. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 6 September 2002 she submitted to the court her comments on the expert’s conclusions.\n13.  On 4 March 2003 the District Court invited the parties to submit further information. The proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-429", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 29 November 1996 the applicant filed for divorce from his wife and for custody of their children before the Košice I District Court.\n5.  On 29 April 1998 the Košice I District Court requested the applicant to submit a certificate about his and his wife’s residence. The applicant complied with the request on 15 May 1998. On 9 November 1998 the applicant’s wife asked the court to proceed with the case as the situation in their family affected the children born out of the wedlock.\n6.  On 25 November 1999 the Košice I District Court transferred the case to the Košice II District Court for reasons of jurisdiction. On 14 February 2000 the Košice Regional Court found that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the Košice I District Court.\n7.  On 5 September 2000 the Košice I District Court appointed a guardian to the applicant’s children in the context of the divorce proceedings. On 26 September 2000 both the applicant and his wife stated their position on the subject-matter of the case in reply to the court’s request. On 4 October 2000 the District Court asked the applicant’s employer to submit information about the applicant’s income.\n8.  On 2 November 2000 the Košice I District Court heard the parties and delivered a judgment by which it granted a divorce to the applicant and his wife. The court further granted the custody of the children to the mother, decided on the maintenance and on the applicant’s right to have contact with the children. The judgment became final on 31 January 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-430", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Pesaro (Italy).\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  By a writ filed on 11 March 1993 C.R., a bank, brought proceedings against Mrs Tierce before the Commissario della legge (“the Commissario”) seeking termination of her lease and an eviction order against her for non-payment of her rent. On 26 March 1993 the Commissario authorised the commencement of the action against the applicant and summoned the parties to appear on 7 April 1993. As the applicant did not attend the hearing the case was listed for 7 May 1993. On 29 April 1993 the applicant deposited with the registry a bankbook (libretto al portatore), mentioning a sum to be handed over to the claimant bank if it were to accept a settlement out of court.\n7.  On 13 May 1993 C.R. claimed the sum in question, the Commissario ordered notification of the claim to the applicant and gave her five days to file her submissions. On 3 June 1993, as Mrs Tierce had not filed any observations, C.R. repeated its claim of 13 May.\n8.  On 17 June 1993 C.R. declared that it did not wish to withdraw its action, even if it obtained the sum concerned. On the following day the Commissario gave the applicant five days to file submissions.\n9.  At a hearing on 9 September 1993 the applicant confirmed her offer of 29 April 1993 and asked for the money to be attached to guarantee payment. C.R. objected, seeking the applicant’s eviction. On the same day the Commissario scheduled a hearing for 7 October 1993, which was later put back by one week because he had another engagement, for the attempt to reach a friendly settlement prescribed by law in eviction cases (section 21 of Law no. 26 of 20 February 1991); when that attempt came to nothing the Commissario opened the first of two time-limited stages for adducing evidence, each waivable by the claimant (primo termine probatorio – see paragraph 22 below). On 30 October 1993 he opened the second such stage (secondo termine probatorio).\n10.  On 9 December 1993 the applicant asked the Commissario to open the first of two further time-limited stages waivable by the defendant (primo termine reprobatorio), and he did so on 10 December 1993. On 23 December 1993 the applicant asked for evidence to be taken from a witness. The Commissario listed a hearing for that purpose to take place on 17 February 1994, but on that date the witness failed to appear. On 3 March 1994 the applicant filed documents, and on 21 March 1994 the Commissario asked her to inform him whether she wished to maintain her request for witness evidence to be taken. On 25 March 1994, at the applicant’s request, the Commissario listed a new hearing for that purpose to take place on 28 April 1994, later adjourned to 20 May 1994 on account of another engagement. As the witness failed to appear, the Commissario fixed a new hearing for 14 June 1994, that being the last opportunity to hear the witness. On 8 September 1994 C.R. asked the Commissario to declare that the witness could no longer be called, having failed to appear within the time allowed; on 13 September 1994 the Commissario allowed that application.\n11.  On 22 September 1994 Mrs Tierce requested the opening of the next time-limited stage (secondo termine reprobatorio); the Commissario complied with that request on the following day. On 6 October 1994 Mrs Tierce asked for evidence to be taken from another witness, who was examined on 1 December 1994", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-431", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 5 January 1994 the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal from a job before the Bratislava III District Court.\n6.  On 2 September 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava III District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delays. In its finding the Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that the case had to be adjourned on twelve occasions as the chamber dealing with it was incomplete.\n7.  On 6 October 1999 the District Court declared the applicant’s dismissal unlawful. The judgment was served on the applicant on 14 March 2000 and the defendant company appealed on 17 March 2000.\n8.  On 4 October 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment to the extent that it concerned the compensation awarded to the applicant and the decision on court fee. The Regional Court upheld the remainder of the District Court’s judgment.\n9.  In the proceedings concerning the outstanding part of the applicant’s claims the Bratislava III District Court scheduled hearings for 23 November 2001 and 15 February 2002. The proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-432", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is living in Mittersill/Austria, where he is a farmer and owner of the Rossweg alp. According to a regulatory deed (Regulierungsurkunde) of 1868 concerning the alp, the owner of this alp is entitled to obtain timber from the Austrian Federal Forestry Administration to the extent necessary for the maintenance of the alp's cabins.\n10.  On 30 October 1987 the applicant requested the Office of the Salzburg Regional Government as the agricultural authority of first instance (Landesregierung als Agrarbehörde erster Instanz - “the Agricultural Authority”) to grant him the necessary quantity of timber for the maintenance of existing and the edification of new alpine cabins.\n11.  On 14 July 1988 the Agricultural Authority held a hearing and on 20 June 1989 a forestry expert delivered his opinion.\n12.  On 4 September 1989 the Agricultural Authority gave its decision, ordering the Federal Forestry Administration to provide the applicant with a certain quantity of timber within four weeks.\n13.  On 25 September 1989 the applicant appealed against this decision.\n14.  On 2 February 1990 the Salzburg Regional Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat - “the Regional Board”) dismissed the appeal and ordered the Federal Forestry Administration to provide the applicant with a smaller quantity of timber within four weeks.\n15.  On 27 June 1990 the applicant filed a complaint against this decision with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).\n16.  On 12 October 1993 the Administrative Court quashed the Regional Board's decision.\n17.  On 28 January 1994 the Regional Board granted the applicant's appeal of 25 September 1989 and referred the case back to the Agricultural Authority.\n18.  By a decision of 6 June 1994 the Agricultural Authority opened supplementary proceedings with a view to amending the regulatory deed of 1868 concerning the alp. On 25 August 1994 and 25 January 1995 hearings were held. On 12 December 1994 an agricultural expert delivered his opinion as to the average annual timber supply necessary for the maintenance of the cabins.\n19.  On 6 February 1995 the Agricultural Authority issued a decision, by which it amended the regulatory deed of 1868 and determined the provision of timber for the owner of the Rossweg alp. The applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that a fixed annual supply of timber should be granted irrespective of the need to maintain the cabins.\n20.  On 23 June 1995 the Regional Board partly granted the appeal and amended the Agricultural Authority's decision.\n21.  On 17 November 1995 the Regional Board granted the applicant's request for leave to appeal out of time (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand) to the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat - “the Supreme Board”) against the Regional Board's decision.\n22.  On 6 March 1996 the Supreme Board, after having held a hearing, dismissed the applicant's further appeal. It found that the legal instrument of 1868 only conferred a right to obtain timber for the maintenance of cabins, not a right to a fixed annual quantity of timber.\n23.  On 30 May 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof).\n24.  On 24 September 1996 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the complaint for lack of sufficient prospects of success and remitted the case to the Administrative Court.\n25.  On 11 December 1997 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. It confirmed that the applicant was ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-433", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, a Turkish citizen born in 1964, is currently serving a life sentence in Diyarbakır Prison.\n10.  On 19 June 1992 the applicant was arrested by the security forces in the village of Çayçatı, in the district of Varto (province of Muş). A handwritten and partly illegible report drawn up on the same day includes the following passage:\n“Following an investigation, Mr Güneş, [suspected of having] taken part in an armed clash with gendarmes in the district of Varto on 14 June 1992, ... was arrested, unarmed, while hiding in the house of one N.Ö., in the course of a gendarmerie operation on 19 June 1992.”\n11.  On the same day, the gendarmes who had arrested the applicant drew up a further report in which they identified him as one of the terrorists who had taken part in an armed attack on 14 June 1992 in which one soldier had died and two others had been injured. \n...\n13.  According to a report drawn up on 29 June 1992, a confrontation was held between the applicant and the gendarmes who had taken part in the armed clash of 14 June 1992. Three of them identified the applicant. The report was not signed by him.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to the Muş provincial gendarmerie headquarters for questioning. However, the circumstances in which he was questioned cannot be established from the evidence adduced by the parties. \n... 18.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the Police Court, composed of a single judge, who ordered his detention pending trial. Before the judge, the applicant denied all the accusations against him. He stated that he had not taken part in any armed attack. He also denied that a confrontation had been held on 29 June 1992 (see paragraph 13 above) and asserted that on the day of his arrest he had been shown to a soldier, who had been unable to identify him. Lastly, he stated that he had been ill-treated while being detained at the Muş provincial gendarmerie headquarters. \n... 42.  In an indictment preferred on 20 July 1992 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır National Security Court instituted proceedings against the applicant, charging him with separatism and with undermining the integrity of the State, capital offences under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. He accused him of having taken part in two armed attacks on 12 October 1991 and 14 June 1992 and, in particular, of having fired, together with other terrorists, at the security forces, causing the death of one soldier and injuring two others. 43.  In connection with the criminal proceedings against the applicant, a Mr Erdal was also accused of having taken part in the armed attack of 14 June 1992. He was therefore tried in the same proceedings. 44.  At a hearing on 28 August 1992 the National Security Court read out statements by the gendarmes (Z.K., Z.Ko. and T.E.) who had identified the applicant during the investigation (see paragraph 11 above). The applicant disputed the statements and denied all the charges. The court decided to summon the three gendarmes as witnesses. 45.  At a hearing on 2 October 1992 counsel for the applicant contested the record of the confrontation of 19 June 1992 (see paragraph 13 above) and argued that the statements by the gendarmes alleged to have identified his client were contradictory. 46.  At a hearing on 30 October 1992 the court, as requested by the public prosecutor, decided, on “road-safety grounds”, to have evidence from the three gendarmes taken on commission. Accordi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-434", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Moosburg, Germany.\n9.  On 18 June 1990 the applicant filed a civil action against I.R. for disturbance of peaceful possession of leased premises before the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci). He claimed that I.R. disturbed the peaceful possession of his business premises - a tailor's workshop in Rijeka - in that she had forcefully evicted the applicant and his son from the premises.\n10.  On 29 September 1994 I.R. died and the proceedings were continued against her legal successors.\n11.  In the ensuing proceedings, several hearings were held and several adjourned until 5 November 1997 when the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia.\n12.  The hearing scheduled for 5 October 1999 was adjourned on the applicant counsel's request.\n13.  At the hearing on 22 November 1999 the proceedings were concluded and the court rejected the applicant's request. The applicant did not appeal against that decision and it became final on 10 February 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-436", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lived in Wareham.\n11.  By a lease dated 27 November 1969 the applicant was granted a building lease of industrial land by Dorchester Borough Council (“Dorchester”) for twenty-two years from 29 September 1969. The lease required him to erect up to six buildings at his own expense for light industrial use and included an option to renew for a further twenty-one years in the following terms (at sub-clause 5(1)):\n“If the Lessee shall be desirous of taking a lease of the said demised premises for a further term of 21 years from the expiration of the terms hereby granted and shall, not more than 12 months nor less than six months before the expiration of the said terms, give the Corporation notice in writing of his desire and if he shall have paid the rents hereby reserved and shall have reasonably performed and observed the covenants, provisions and stipulations herein contained (...), then the Corporation will let the demised premises to the Lessee for the said further term of 21 years (...)”.\n12.  The applicant states that he had requested a 43 year term in the course of negotiations but that this request was refused by Dorchester. The applicant was represented by solicitors when negotiating and entering into the lease.\n13.  In accordance with sub-clause 5(1) of the lease the applicant gave notice to exercise the option on 4 October 1990. At this date, he was paying a ground rent of 1,045 pounds sterling (GBP) per annum. He had paid GBP 20,020 in total rent over the 22 year period and his income from his sub-leases of the six units was GBP 58,599 for the year ending March 1991.\n14.  By this time West Dorset County Council (“West Dorset”) had become the statutory successor to Dorchester. On 2 November 1990, West Dorset acknowledged the applicant’s notice and indicated that it would be instructing surveyors to negotiate a new rent for the first seven years of the term. Negotiations commenced between the parties as to renewal of the lease and a draft lease was drawn up on the basis of an increased ground rent, which the applicant states was agreed at GBP 14,000 per annum. The applicant signed his copy of the draft and meanwhile commenced discussions with various of his tenants concerning increases of rent under their subleases. In August 1991 however, West Dorset notified the applicant that it considered that the option could not be exercised. In the subsequent proceedings, it took three points: that the applicant was in breach of the repairing covenants in the 1969 lease; that the option was not capable of being exercised by the applicant because by granting five subleases for terms greater than the term of the 1969 lease he had assigned his interest in the units under sublease; and that the option was ultra vires Dorchester.\n15.  On 26 September 1991 the applicant applied to the Chancery Division of the High Court for a declaration that he was entitled to the grant of the further term and for an order of specific performance to enforce his right. His application was dismissed on 25 April 1996. The judge rejected West Dorset’s claim as to breach of covenant but found in favour of West Dorset on their two other objections. He noted that the ultra vires point had not been raised until relatively late in the proceedings, namely, in an affidavit lodged by West Dorset dated 5 October 1995.\n16.  On 10 November 1997 the Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s decision, on the ground that the grant of the option ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-437", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Trnava.\n5.  On 15 October 1993 the applicant claimed compensation from a limited liability company on the ground that the latter had failed to comply with a contract. On 12 November 1993 the Zvolen District court delivered a payment order by which it allowed the applicant’s claim. On 29 November 1993 the defendant company challenged the payment order. On 3 December 1993 the applicant challenged the court’s conclusion concerning the costs of the proceedings.\n6.  On 8 and 31 March 1994 the applicant and the defendant respectively submitted comments on the other party’s observations.\n7.  On 12 May 1994 the applicant extended his action in that he increased the sum claimed. On 8 August 1994 the District Court admitted that the action be extended. As the applicant had failed to pay additional court fees concerning the extended part of his action, the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the additional claims on 27 September 1994. Subsequently the judge left the judiciary and his cases had to be distributed among the other District Court judges.\n8.  Following the applicant’s complaint, a hearing was scheduled for 23 June 1995. On that date the case was adjourned as the defendant failed to appear. On 3 and 6 July 1995 the applicant and the defendant submitted further information.\n9.  On 24 July 1995 the court heard the defendant. The applicant excused his absence and the case was adjourned. In the course of August 1995 the parties informed the District Court of their position regarding the possibility of settling the case.\n10.  On 21 December 1995 the applicant requested that a judgment be delivered. A hearing was scheduled for 4 March 1996. On 1 February 1996 the applicant informed the court that he would not be able to attend and proposed that he be heard, if need be, by the Trnava District Court.\n11.  On 4 March 1996 the Zvolen District Court allowed the applicant’s action. On 3 April 1996 the judge dealing with the case asked for an extension of the time-limit for drafting the judgment with reasons. The judgment was sent to the parties on 10 May 1996.\n12.  On 28 May 1996 the defendant appealed. On 10 June 1996 the applicant submitted his comments and the case file was transferred to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court on 19 June 1996.\n13.  On 9 August 1996, on 27 December 1996 and on 14 May 1997 the applicant requested that the case be proceeded with. On 11 June 1997 the applicant was informed that the judges had a heavy workload.\n14.  On 9 September 1998 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the Zvolen District Court’s judgment of 4 March 1996 and instructed the first instance court to take further evidence. The case-file was returned to the District Court on 9 November 1999.\n15.  On 23 November 1998 the applicant informed the District Court, at the latter’s request, which further evidence he proposed to be taken. The applicant also increased the sum claimed by him. The District Court accepted this amendment of the action on 3 May 1999. On 5 May 1999 the District Court decided on court fees in respect of the applicant’s additional claim. The applicant appealed against this decision on 19 May 1999. At the same time he requested that he should be exempted from the obligation to pay court fees as he was indigent.\n16.  On 24 May 1999 the District Court adjourned the case as the parties failed to appear. On 2 June 1999 the applicant was requested to substantiate his reque", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-438", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Spånga.\n10.  In 1935 the applicant’s mother and her four siblings jointly inherited two estates – Marum 1:6 and Marum 1:8 – from their father. The ownership of the estates, consisting of several islands in the archipelago of Stockholm, was over the years partly transferred to other members of the family. Disagreements arose between the family members. Some of them wished to divide the property (klyvning) and thus dissolve the joint ownership, but the applicant’s mother opposed this idea.\n11.  On the land managed by the applicant’s mother – which formed part of Marum 1:8 – the mother owned a number of houses. Two of the houses were used by the applicant’s two sisters. A third house situated on the property was considered too small for the applicant’s needs and it was therefore decided to enlarge it. The applicant applied for a building permit to the Österåker Building Committee (byggnadsnämnden). On 9 September 1987, finding that the enlargement could not be approved as the house in question was situated too close to the shore, the committee nevertheless granted a permit for the building of a new house further away from the shore. The new house was built in 1988.\n12.  On 4 August 1989 the applicant’s mother died, leaving four children, namely the applicant, her brother and her two sisters. However, no distribution of the mother’s estate was made before 1991. By a partial division on 29 June 1991, the new house was transferred to the applicant.\n13.  On 21 December 1989 practically all the other joint owners of the two estates brought proceedings against the applicant in the District Court (tingsrätten) of Södra Roslag, requesting that she be ordered to remove the new house on Marum 1:8 as it had been built without their consent, contrary to the requirements of the Joint Ownership Act (Lagen om samäganderätt, 1904:48 – “the 1904 Act”). The applicant disputed this and argued, inter alia, that it was her mother who had built the house and that accordingly it belonged to her mother’s estate. Thus, she was not the proper defendant in the case.\n14.  By a judgment of 10 May 1990 (“the removal judgment”) the District Court declared that the applicant was to remove the house, or risk having it demolished at her expense. The court stated, inter alia, that it was the applicant who owned the house and that she had built it without the necessary consent of all the other joint owners.\n15.  In 1991 one of the joint owners applied for the sale of Marum 1:6 and Marum 1:8 at a public auction. On 22 May 1992 the District Court decided to stay those proceedings.\n16.  On 22 February 1994 the District Court’s removal judgment was upheld on appeal by the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt).\n17.  The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen). She later requested, inter alia, that no further action be taken on the case pending the outcome of division proceedings which she had begun in October 1990. In these proceedings, the applicant claimed that the joint ownership of the two estates should be dissolved and individual plots be assigned to the family members. Following several decisions taken by the Real Estate Formation Authority (Fastighetsbildningsmyndigheten – “the REFA”) and the courts, the case had to be referred back by the Court of Appeal to the REFA for re-examination as the latter had made procedural errors. Subsequently, by a decision of 1 December 1995, the REFA allowed the creation of f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-439", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Namysłów, Poland.\n7.  In 1979 the applicant’s sister and her husband filed with the Kluczbork District Court (sąd rejonowy) an action in which they requested that the co-ownership of the house shared by them with the applicant be dissolved. They sought to be granted the sole ownership of the house on payment of a compensation to the applicant.\n8.  In 1981 the District Court dismissed the action.\n9.  In 1982 the Opole Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki) quashed that judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n10.  In 1983, having re-examined the case, the District Court granted the plaintiffs’ claim. In 1984 the Regional Court amended that judgment.\n11.  Subsequently, the General Prosecutor filed an extraordinary appeal against the judgments of both courts.\n12.  In 1985 the Supreme Court quashed them and remitted the case for re-examination.\n13.  In 1988 the District Court after the re-examination again granted the plaintiffs’ claim.\n14.  In October 1988 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that judgment. The First President of the Supreme Court filed an extraordinary appeal.\n15.  In 1991 the Supreme Court again quashed the judgments of both courts and remitted the case for re-examination.\n16.  On 27 October 1997 the Kluczbork District Court gave judgment. It dissolved the co-ownership and awarded the ownership of separate parts of the house to the parties. The applicant and the plaintiffs appealed.\n17.  On 5 August 1998 the Opole Regional Court dismissed both appeals. The applicant filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n18.  On 12 June 2001 the Supreme Court refused to entertain that appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-440", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1946 and is currently detained in HM Prison Kingston, Portsmouth.\n10.  On 22 March 1989 at Norwich Crown Court the applicant was convicted of the murder of Christopher Nugent and sentenced to life imprisonment.\n11.  Mr Nugent had been the applicant’s business partner. He was shot and killed at their business premises on 15 December 1987 by Stephen Gray, who left the scene of the crime in a car driven by Gary Runham.\n12.  Runham and Gray were arrested in January 1988 and the applicant was arrested in February 1988. He was charged with murder jointly with Runham, Gray and two other men who had allegedly provided money to pay for the killing of Christopher Nugent.\n13.  The Crown’s case was that the applicant had paid Runham and Gray 20,000 pounds sterling (GBP) to kill Nugent, because Nugent knew too much about the applicant’s involvement in mortgage fraud.\n14.  The applicant’s defence was that he had hired Runham and Gray to break one of Nugent’s limbs in order to put him out of action for a few weeks while the applicant effected his own transfer to another branch of the firm. He alleged that he had paid Runham and Gray GBP 7,500 for the assault, but that after Gray had killed Nugent, Gray blackmailed the applicant into paying him more money. The applicant claimed that he would have had no motive for killing Nugent, since the latter was himself involved in the fraudulent activities being perpetrated through the business. The applicant submitted, however, that his representatives felt unable to pursue this line of argument satisfactorily because of lack of evidence of Nugent’s dishonesty; the jury were asked to accept the applicant’s word alone on this issue.\n15.  Runham and Gray pleaded guilty to murder. Gray gave evidence for the prosecution against the applicant concerning the alleged murder conspiracy. The two alleged co-conspirators, who according to the prosecution had, together with the applicant, paid for Nugent to be murdered, were acquitted.\n16.  Following his conviction, the applicant complained to the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) about Suffolk Constabulary’s refusal to disclose material evidence. After investigation, in a letter of 30 October 1992 to the applicant, the PCA reported that it could not support any allegation of perversion of the course of justice but had found various instances of negligence.\n17.  According to the applicant, in July 1993 he was informed that there were seventeen boxes of hitherto undisclosed material. The applicant contended that some of this evidence would have supported his defence that he had had no need to murder Nugent to ensure his silence since it showed that the latter was also deeply involved in the fraudulent activities perpetrated through the business. The applicant claimed that some of the material from the seventeen boxes was disclosed to him in the week prior to his appeal hearing, while other material from the boxes remained undisclosed.\n18.  According to the Government, the evidence which was not disclosed at first instance, but which was disclosed prior to the applicant’s appeal, fell into two categories. The first type of evidence derived from the Holmes computer system used by the police officers conducting the murder inquiry to store and cross-reference all the information obtained in the course of the inquiry. The computer data included documents known as “messages” which recorded information when first received by an officer, and documents k", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-441", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Larnod (France).\n11.  On 4 September 1993 the applicant married S.C., a Portuguese national. The couple had a child, Julien, born in 1995.\n12.  By a judgment of 19 February 1998, the Besançon tribunal de grande instance granted the couple a divorce based on S.C.’s fault and ordered that the child reside at the applicant’s home, with the mother to have rights of access. Earlier, on 6 August 1996, the applicant had already been granted interim custody of Julien by a decision of the same court.\n13.  On 3 June 1997 S.C. abducted Julien from his paternal grandmother’s home and took him with her to Portugal. The applicant filed a complaint against S.C. for child abduction and assault. By a judgment of the Besançon tribunal de grande instance of 12 June 1998, S.C. was found guilty and sentenced in absentia to one year’s imprisonment. A warrant was issued for her arrest.\n14.  On 5 June 1997, relying on the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and on the Convention on Judicial Cooperation between France and Portugal for the Protection of Minors of 20 July 1983, the applicant lodged an application for the child’s return with the French Ministry of Justice, which was the French “Central Authority” within the meaning of both instruments. On the same day, the French Central Authority requested the Institute for Social Reinsertion (“the IRS”), which forms part of the Portuguese Ministry of Justice and is the Portuguese Central Authority, to secure the child’s return pursuant to the provisions of the Franco-Portuguese convention.\n15.  On 18 June 1997 the IRS referred the application to the prosecution service of the Oeiras judicial district, where the applicant had indicated that S.C. was living. On 16 July 1997 the prosecution service applied to that court for the judicial return (entrega judicial) of the child pursuant to section 191 et seq. of the Minors Act (Organização Tutelar de Menores) and relying on the above-mentioned Franco-Portuguese cooperation convention.\n16.  On 17 July 1997 the judge of the Third Civil Division of the Oeiras District Court, to which the case had been allocated, summoned the child’s mother to appear before the court to make submissions concerning the prosecution’s application. Registered letters with acknowledgment of receipt were sent on 17 and 22 July 1997 to the address given by the applicant. However, both letters were returned to the court with the acknowledgments of receipt unsigned and unclaimed. On 27 August 1997 the judge, at the prosecution’s request, asked the police to find out where Julien’s mother was living. On 10 September and 6 October 1997 respectively the security police and the republican national guard informed the court that S.C. was not living at the stated address.\n17.  On 23 September 1997 the IRS asked the Oeiras District Court for information about the progress of the proceedings. The judge replied on 6 October 1997 to the effect that the child’s mother had not yet been found.\n18.  On 21 October 1997 the prosecution service asked the judge to write to the Lisbon social security office to request information concerning S.C.’s address and workplace. On 27 October 1997 the judge ordered the registry to send the letter in question, which was sent on 7 November 1997. On 27 November 1997 the social security office replied that it had no record of S.C. on file.\n19.  On 5 December 1997 the judge asked", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-442", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  On 2 April 1992 the applicant filed with the Warsaw Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki) a petition in which he requested the annulment of a judgment delivered in 1947 in criminal proceedings against him, submitting that they had been of a political nature. He also claimed compensation.\n7.  On 10 February 1993 the court annulled that judgment. However, its decision did not relate to the compensation claim.\n8.  On 19 February 1993 the applicant filed another compensation claim.\n9.  Subsequently, he lodged several complaints concerning the inactivity of the court, but to no avail.\n10.  In her letters of 15 December 1993 and 29 June 1994, in reply to the applicant's complaints, a judge of the Regional Court informed the applicant that the delay in the examination of his compensation claim was caused by a large number of similar requests lodged with that court and the dearth of judges.\n11.  On 22 February 1995 the court held a hearing. A public prosecutor requested that the proceedings be stayed, submitting that a part of the Regional Court's decision of 10 February 1993 was invalid and required supplementation. Subsequently, the court stayed the proceedings.\n12.  The hearing scheduled for 22 March 1995 was adjourned at the applicant's request.\n13.  On 4 April 1995 the Regional Court asked the Office for the State Protection (Urząd Ochrony Państwa) to submit certain documents. The documents were submitted to the court on 27 March 1996.\n14.  On 4 July 1996 the proceedings were resumed.\n15.  The court adjourned the hearing scheduled for 23 January 1997, as the proceedings concerning the annulment of the criminal judgment against the applicant given in 1947 had not been completed.\n16.  On 19 June 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. It awarded the applicant PLN 7,500 in compensation. He did not lodge an appeal against that judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-444", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Belfast, Northern Ireland.\n10.  Around 7.25 p.m. on 12 February 1989 the applicant's husband, solicitor Patrick Finucane, was killed in front of her and their three children by two masked men who broke into their home. She herself was injured, probably by a ricochet bullet. Patrick Finucane was shot in the head, neck and chest. Six bullets had struck the head and there was evidence that one or more of these had been fired within a range of 15 inches when he was lying on the floor. The day after the murder, 13 February 1989, a man telephoned the press and stated that the illegal loyalist paramilitary group the Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF) claimed responsibility for killing Patrick Finucane – the Provisional Irish Republican Army (Provisional IRA) officer – not the solicitor.\n11.  Patrick Finucane represented clients from both sides of the conflict in Northern Ireland and was involved in a number of high-profile cases arising from that conflict. The applicant believed that it was because of his work on these cases that prior to his murder he had received death threats, via his clients, from officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and was targeted for murder. Patrick Finucane had been threatened occasionally since the late 1970s. After acting for Brian Gillen in a case concerning maltreatment in RUC custody, the threats apparently escalated, and clients reported that police officers often abused and threatened to kill him during interrogations at holding centres such as Castlereagh. On 5 January 1989, five weeks before his death, one of Patrick Finucane's clients reported that an RUC officer had said that the solicitor would meet his end. On 7 January 1989 another client claimed that he was told that Patrick Finucane was “getting took out” (murdered). His death came less than four weeks after Douglas Hogg MP, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, had said in a committee stage debate on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill on 17 January 1989:\n“I have to state as a fact, but with great regret, that there are in Northern Ireland a number of solicitors who are unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA.”\n12.  After the shooting, the applicant's house was cordoned off by the RUC and a forensic examination of the scene conducted by experts. Photographs were taken and maps prepared. A scene of crimes officer examined the car believed to have been used by those responsible for the shooting and which had been found abandoned.\n13.  On 13 February 1989 a consultant in pathology conducted a post-mortem examination.\n14.  A “major incident room” was set up at the Antrim Road police station. Many suspected members of the UFF were detained and interviewed about the murder.\n15.  On 4 July 1989 the RUC found one of the weapons believed to have been used in the murder. On 5 April 1990 three members of the UFF were convicted of possessing this and another weapon and of membership of the UFF. The weapon had been stolen from the barracks of the Ulster Defence Regiment (UDR – a locally recruited regiment of the British army) in August 1987, and in 1988 a member of the UDR was convicted of this theft.\n16.  In or around September 1990 the police found firearms in the attic of William Stobie's flat. The latter was arrested. He was, according to the applicant, questioned about the Finucane murder from 13 to 20 September 1990. A journalist had allegedly intervie", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-445", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants live in Rome.\n7.  A.M.C. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to A.N.\n8.  In a registered letter of 12 July 1990, the owner informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date. The tenant told the owner that she would not leave the premises by that date.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 18 December 1990, the owner reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 3 May 1991, which was made enforceable on 8 July 1991, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n11.  On an unspecified date F.B, the applicants' father, became the owner of the flat by transfer of property.\n12.  On 25 January 1993, the new owner served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 12 May 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 May 1993.\n14.  On 21 May 1993, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession which proved unsuccessful as the owner was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 1 July 1993, the owner served a second notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n16.  On 23 September 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 September 1993.\n17.  Between 29 September 1993 and 15 June 1995, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as the owner was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n18.  On 16 March 1995, the owner made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n19.  On 16 July 1997, the owner served a new notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n20.  On 5 September 1997, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 July 1997.\n21.  Between 23 July 1997 and 21 November 1997, the bailiff made two attempts to recover possession. \nEach attempt proved unsuccessful as the owner was not granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n22.  On 20 September 1997, the owner died and his children – the applicants – inherited the flat.\n23.  On 21 May 1998, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n24.  On 5 June 1998, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 1 July 1998.\n25.  Between 1 July 1998 and 15 July 1999, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n26.  On 14 September 1999, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-446", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1944 and living in Florence.\n7.  She is the owner of a flat in Florence, which she had let to M.C.\n8.  In a registered letter of 26 October 1992, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 May 1995 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 20 November 1992, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 14 December 1992, which was made enforceable on 12 January 1993, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 May 1995.\n11.  On 28 November 1994, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her son.\n12.  On 5 June 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 21 June 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 September 1995.\n14.  Between 5 September 1995 and 2 May 1999, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  Pursuant to Law no. 431/98, on 23 July 1999, the tenant asked the Florence Magistrate to suspend the enforcement proceedings.\n16.  On 12 March 2001, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 2 October 2002.\n17.  On 6 April 2001, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 2 October 2002.\n18.  On an unspecified date, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-447", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicant, born in 1950, was a Turkish national at the time of the events complained of. He subsequently obtained German nationality.\n12.  The applicant is the father of G., born out of wedlock on 29 June 1988. In a document dated 15 June 1988, he acknowledged paternity of the unborn child, and in a further document, dated 15 August 1988, he acknowledged paternity and undertook to pay maintenance.\n13.  The applicant met the child's mother, Ms D., in 1985 and in December 1987 he moved into her flat, where they lived together until at least July 1989 or, as stated by the applicant, until February 1990. In any event, the applicant continued to visit the child and her mother until February 1990, and between the end of July and October 1990 he regularly fetched G. for visits. From November 1990 onwards, Ms D. prohibited any contact between the applicant and the child.\n14.  On 5 December 1990 the applicant applied to the Wiesbaden District Court for a decision granting him a right of access to his daughter on every Sunday from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. as well as on Boxing Day and Easter Monday.\n15.  On 5 September 1991 the District Court, having regard to the statements made by the parties and the Wiesbaden Youth Office and having considered evidence obtained from several witnesses, dismissed the applicant's request.\n16.  The court, referring to Article 1711 of the Civil Code, observed that the mother, as the person having custody, determined the father's right of access to the child and that the guardianship court could only grant the father a right of access if this was in the child's best interests. The court found as follows:\n“The Court is convinced that the petitioner's wish for [G.] to visit him is motivated by attachment to his child and genuine affection for her. It nonetheless takes the view that personal contact with her father is not in the child's best interests, since her mother dislikes her father so deeply and opposes all contact so fiercely that any visits ordered by the court would take place in a tense, emotionally charged atmosphere which would probably be extremely harmful to the child.\nThe Court can discern no special circumstances which, given the strong differences between the parents, might make personal contact with her father appear beneficial for [G.] ... The relationship which developed between [G.] and her father in the period from her birth to her father's moving out – that is, approximately one year and nine months – is probably not of such fundamental importance that the risk of seriously upsetting the child by resuming contact opposed by her mother is worth taking. The staff who looked after [G.] at the day nursery, and who were questioned as witnesses, stated that she displayed no – or at least no serious and lasting – behavioural abnormalities when she was parted from her father and contact between them ceased, and that she is a balanced, cheerful and outgoing child. The evidence does not therefore confirm her father's claim that she missed him and frequently asked about him after their contact at the day nursery ceased.\nIt has not therefore been shown that the conditions laid down in Article 1711 § 2 have been met, and the Court is accordingly obliged to dismiss the father's request.”\n17.  On 12 March 1992 the applicant appealed to the Wiesbaden Regional Court.\n18.  On 12 May 1992 the Regional Court ordered a psychological expert opinion on the question whether contact with the applicant was in G.'s in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-449", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Legionowo, Poland.\n7.  On 7 August 1948 the Warsaw District Military Court convicted the applicant’s father of an unspecified offence related to his political activity.\n8.  On 20 April 1994 the applicant filed an application with the Ostrołęka Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) for the annulment of his father’s conviction under the Law of 23 February 1991 on annulment of convictions whereby persons were persecuted for their activities aimed at achieving independence for Poland (Ustawa o uznaniu za nieważne orzeczeń wydanych wobec osób represjonowanych za działalność na rzecz niepodległego bytu Państwa Polskiego).\n9.  On 20 June 1994 the Regional Court declared the conviction null and void.\n10.  On an unknown later date in 1994 the applicant filed an application for compensation for his father’s wrongful conviction with the Ostrołęka Regional Court.\n11.  Subsequently, the case was referred to the Warsaw Regional Court.\n12.  On 11 July 2000 the Regional Court granted the applicant’s claim. That judgment became final on 19 July 2000.\n13.  On 14 November 2000 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice about the fact that he had not received the awarded compensation.\n14.  The compensation was paid on 2 April 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-450", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Skarżysko-Kamienna, Poland.\n9.  In 1984 the applicant’s father died. On 4 October 1985 W.S. (“the petitioner”) filed an application for distribution of the estate of the deceased with the Starachowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The applicant was a party to the proceedings.\n10.  From 23 November 1987 to 15 March 1988 the proceedings were stayed due to the death of one of the parties. Later, the petitioner instituted administrative proceedings and requested that title to the applicant’s father real property be declared null and void. As a result, on 27 November 1991 the court stayed the proceedings. On 12 February 1992 they were resumed.\n11.  In the course of the proceedings the court held a number of hearings and obtained thirteen expert reports. On 24 October 1994 it gave a decision. The petitioner appealed.\n12.  On 14 June 1995 the Kielce Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) set aside the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the District Court.\n13.  Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on the following dates: 16 January, 2 and 30 April 1996. On 31 October 1996 the court stayed the proceedings. The applicant appealed. On 21 December 1996 the court quashed the contested decision.\n14.  The court held hearings on the following dates: 27 May, 16 September, 1 December 1997 and 16 January 1998.\n15.  On 17 February 1998 the court stayed the proceedings, considering that the determination of the case depended on the outcome of the other civil proceedings. The applicant appealed. On 29 May 1998 the Kielce Regional Court upheld the decision of the District Court.\n16.  On 4 August 1998 the applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed. On 20 October 2000 the court refused the applicant’s request as the petitioner had failed to secure an advance payment for an expert report.\n17.  It appears that the proceedings are still stayed and, therefore, pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-451", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11. The applicant, born in 1953, is the father of the child M., born out of wedlock on 25 January 1981. The applicant acknowledged paternity of M.\n12. The applicant and the child’s mother lived together at the time of the child’s birth. They separated in September 1986. The child’s mother prohibited any contact between the applicant and the child. The applicant still met M. several times at school until such contact was no longer possible. Subsequently the child’s mother married Mr W., the father of her child A., born in August 1985, W. being the common family name.\n13. On 2 October 1990 the applicant applied to the Rostock District Court for a decision granting him a right of access to his daughter. Having heard the persons concerned, the Rostock Youth Office, in comments dated 11 April 1991, advised against a right of access. The Youth Office submitted that M. had established a close relationship with Mr. W., which would be adversely affected by contact between M. and her natural father. It also stated that M., when heard in the absence of her mother, had indicated that she was not keen to see the applicant and was suffering as a result of his continuing efforts to obtain access.\n14. On 27 June 1991 M., then ten years old, was heard by a judge of the District Court. She stated that the fact that the applicant was always standing at the fence of the schoolyard disturbed her and that she did not wish to visit the applicant even if access should be ordered by the court.\n15. At a court hearing on 31 July 1991, the applicant and the child’s mother declared that they would attempt to settle the question of a visiting arrangement with the assistance of the Youth Office. On 30 September 1991 the Youth Office informed the District Court that no agreement had been achieved and that M. had stated that she did not wish to see the applicant.\n16. On 12 December 1991 the court ordered that a psychological expert opinion be prepared. On 9 April 1992, in one-page submissions, the psychologist of the Rostock Health Services stated that, as contact between the applicant and M. had been disrupted for six years, no diagnosis of their current relationship appeared possible. The psychologist considered that the views which the applicant and M. had expressed on the question of future contact were very different. M. was growing up in a family unit and, unlike the applicant, was not suffering from any deficits in that respect, and did not wish to have any personal contact with the applicant. He should give her the necessary time to take up contact of her own motion. The psychologist noted that she had arranged a meeting between the applicant and M. which, however, had been cancelled by M.’s stepfather.\n17. On 24 June 1992 the District Court judge heard the applicant and M. in the presence of the psychological expert. M. having repeatedly stated that she did not wish to have contact with the applicant, the latter affirmed that he would withdraw his request for a right of access.\n18.  The applicant withdrew his request on 1 July 1992.\n19. On 13 September 1993 the applicant again applied to the District Court for a right of access to his daughter.\n20. On 15 February 1994 the District Court judge heard the thirteen-year-old M., who stated that she did not wish to talk to the applicant or accept presents from him and that he should no longer bother her. She also said that she had a father whom she loved, though it was not her natural father. The court held a hearin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-452", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Florence.\n5.  She is the owner of a flat, which she had let to P.M.\n6.  In a registered letter of 30 March 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 3 February 1988, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 29 February 1988, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 1 March 1989.\n9.  On 5 April 1989, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n10.  On 15 April 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 8 May 1989 she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 June 1989.\n12.  Between 7 June 1989 and 9 June 1998 the bailiff made eighteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 30 June 1999 the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-453", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Ljubljana, Slovenia.\n9.  On 24 April 1992 the applicant's restaurant and adjacent house in Novigrad (Croatia) were destroyed as the result of an explosion.\n10.  On 29 November 1994 the applicant filed an action for compensation with the Buje Municipal Court (Opcinski sud u Bujama), against the Republic of Croatia.\n11.  On 1 June 1995 the court pronounced judgment awarding the applicant 1,911,000.24 Croatian Kunas (HRK) in compensation together with interests and costs.\n12.  On 17 January 1996 Parliament introduced a change of the Civil Obligations Act which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for compensation for damage resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject and that before the enactment of such new legislation compensation for damage resulting from terrorist acts could not be sought. So far the Croatian authorities have not enacted any new legislation regulating the matter.\n13.  On 29 February 1996 the first instance judgment adopted on 1 June 1995 was sent to the parties.\n14.  On 11 March 1996 the Republic of Croatia appealed against the judgment of 1 June 1995 asking the court to stay the proceedings pursuant to the above changes in law.\n15.  On 14 October 1996 the Pula County Court (Zupanijski sud u Puli) quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the case for a re-trial. It found that the first instance court had not adequately assessed whether the applicant's property was destroyed by an act which might be deemed to be a terrorist act.\n16.  On 9 February 1998 the Buje Municipal Court decided to stay the proceedings in accordance with the above legislation.\n17.  On 3 March 1998 the applicant appealed against that decision. He claimed that the 1996 Act was applied retroactively in his case.\n18.  On 4 May 1998 the Pula County Court upheld the first instance decision.\n19.  On 20 June 1998 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint challenging the constitutionality of the lower courts' decisions to stay the proceedings. He also asked the Constitutional Court to institute proceedings in order to examine the constitutionality of the Act on Changes of the Civil Obligations Act.\n20.  On 17 January 2000 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's complaint inadmissible. It found that the applicant had filed a constitutional complaint against the County Court's decision of 4 May 1998 which upheld the Buje Municipal Court's decision to stay the proceedings concerning the applicant's claim for compensation. However, according to the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court an applicant may file a constitutional complaint only against a final decision concerning any proceedings. The court found that the contested decision was not final since it represented a mere procedural decision and since the proceedings were still pending. It did not give any reply to the applicant's request to institute proceedings in order to examine the constitutionality of the contested laws.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-454", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant company is owned by Mr Smail Smailagić who lived in Banja Luka, which is situated on the territory of the present day Republika Srpska, a part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, until 15 May 1992 when he fled to Croatia and went to live in Porat-Červar.\n9.  On 13 August 1992 the Croatian Military Police requisitioned a vehicle belonging to the applicant company.\n10.  According to the Government the vehicle had been requisitioned by the military authorities from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Upon the request by the military authorities from Bosnia and Herzegovina for the return of vehicles which had been requisitioned in Bosnia and Herzegovina for military purposes, in case that they were located in Croatia, the Croatian Ministry of Defence conferred the applicant company's vehicle after having found it. The vehicle was conferred to the Bosnian authorities on 19 August 1993 and has ever since been in their possession.\n11.  According to the applicant the vehicle was requisitioned by the Croatian authorities and conferred to the Croatian para-military forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the so-called Croatian Defence Council (Hrvatsko vijeće obrane). The applicant company repeatedly requested the Croatian Defence Council to return the vehicle, but to no avail.\n12.  On 11 October 1993 the applicant company filed a civil claim for damages in the amount of 15,600 German Marks (DEM) against the Republic of Croatia, with the Zagreb County Commercial Court (Okružni privredni sud u Zagrebu). It appears that the case was subsequently transferred to the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).\n13.  On 15 May 1995 the Republic of Croatia filed its reply denying the plaintiff's claim. It requested the court to stay the proceedings until the end of war in Croatia. It stated further that the vehicle had been requisitioned only temporarily for needs of the army and would be returned to the applicant company after the war.\n14.  At the hearing on 14 September 1995 the applicant company specified the claim for damages seeking 58,000 Croatian Kunas (HRK).\n15.  On 12 March 1998 the applicant company requested the Ministry of Justice to speed up the proceedings.\n16.  On 13 July 1998 the court decided that an expertise be carried out in order to establish the value of the vehicle in question. The applicant company was invited to pay an advance for the costs of the expertise.\n17.  On 31 August 1998 the case-file was assigned to an expert who submitted his opinion on 5 October 1998.\n18.  It appears that the defendant asked the court to stay the proceedings claiming that it was uncertain whether the applicant company still existed because the excerpt from the Banja Luka Court registry on the applicant company's legal status was quite old.\n19.  On 4 May 1999 the court invited the company's representative to submit a new excerpt from the relevant registry.\n20.  The applicant company's legal representative informed the court that he no longer represented the applicant.\n21.  On 5 July 1999 the applicant company requested the court to schedule a hearing.\n22.  On 19 July 1999 the applicant company's representative submitted an uncertified excerpt from the Banja Luka Court's registry dating from 1990.\n23.  On 25 August 1999 the court invited the applicant to submit a new excerpt, not older than six months, showing that Mr Smailagić was entitled to represent the applicant company.\n24.  On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced a change of the Civil Obligations A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-455", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 31 December 1948 the applicants left the former Czechoslovakia clandestinely. Since 1954 the first applicant has been a permanent resident of France, where he was naturalised in 1968, while keeping Czechoslovak nationality. The second applicant settled in the United States of America in 1949. On 2 April 1958 he obtained American nationality, automatically losing Czechoslovak nationality in accordance with the bilateral treaty of 1928 on naturalisation. On 9 November 1999 he acquired Czech nationality.\n10.  After the applicants had emigrated all their immovable property, namely four houses in Prague, a detached house and adjoining land in Želízy, together with movable property in the shape of 1,200 books from the library of the famous singer Ema Destinnová (Emmy Destinn), were seized and administered by the local communist authorities. On 1 July 1955 the Klatovy People's Court (lidový soud) ordered the confiscation of this property.\n11.  After the change of regime in 1989 the applicants began to take steps to recover their former possessions.\n12.  On 17 November 1992 (9 December 1992 according to the Government) the first applicant brought proceedings in the Mělník District Court (of over) for recovery of the land in Želízy, under the Land Reform Act (Law no. 229/1991.\n... 20.  On 24 May 2000 ... the District Court gave judgment, dismissing the action brought by the first applicant to prove that he was the owner of the land in Želízy. 25.  On 5 November 2001 the Prague Regional Court (krajský soud) set aside the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.\n... 27.  On 22 May 2002 the District Court again dismissed the applicant's action, noting that he had not corrected its procedural defects in the time allowed.\n... 29.  On 4 September 2002 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal of 10 June 2002; the Government asserted that the case was finally concluded on 2 October 2002. 30.  On 18 October 1995 (23 October according to the Government) the second applicant brought an action for recovery in the Mělník District Court against the current owners of the detached house and land in Želízy.\n... 35.  On 5 April 2000 the District Court gave judgment on the merits, dismissing the second applicant's action. The judgment became final on 5 July 2000. 36.  On 17 October 1995 (25 October according to the Government) the second applicant brought an action against the Prague 7 District Office for recovery of the houses under Laws nos. 87/1991 and 119/1990.\n... 39.  At the end of the hearing on 5 March 1998 the District Court dismissed the applicant's action on the ground with that he was not a Czech national and was therefore not entitled to obtain recovery of the houses he claimed. 40.  On 19 June 1998 the applicant appealed to the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud), arguing that the condition of Czech nationality was of negligible importance, since he had been a Czech citizen at the time when his property was confiscated.\nOn 9 November 1999, in accordance with Law no. 193/1999, he obtained a certificate of Czech nationality, issued by the Prague 7 District Office, and became on that date a citizen of the Czech Republic. 41.  On 9 November 2000 the applicant brought a new action against the district of Prague 7 seeking recovery of half of the houses concerned.  A hearing was set down for 6 August 2002. 42.  On 10 January 2002 the Prague Municipal Court dismissed the second applicant's appeal of 19 June 199", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-456", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The first applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Salonika. The second applicant is a commercial partnership with its registered office in Pieria (northern Greece).\n9.  On 7 July 1994, by means of a joint decision of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works (no. 1078361/4744/0010), the Greek State expropriated property covering a total surface area of 455,024 sq. m, with a view to improving certain sections of the main road between the towns of Platamonas and Katerini in Pieria. The expropriation affected 2,455.12 sq. m of land belonging to the first applicant and 2,401 sq. m belonging to the second (entered in the land register as plots nos. 64 and 214 respectively). The administrative authorities decided that the applicants should not receive any compensation in respect of 716.40 sq. m of plot no. 64 and 490 sq. m of plot no. 214, as they were deemed to have derived benefit from the construction of the road.\n10.  On 7 June 1995 the State applied to the Katerini Court of First Instance for an assessment of the provisional unit amount of compensation per square metre. The first applicant was not summoned to appear in court.\n11.  On 14 June 1996 the court determined the provisional amount of compensation for plot no. 214. It also assessed the amount of special compensation for the unexpropriated parcels of land at 100,000,000 drachmas (GRD) (judgment no. 118/1996).\n12.  The applicants subsequently applied to the Salonika Court of Appeal for the assessment of the final amount of compensation for the expropriation. In their observations, they submitted that the irrebuttable presumption in law that owners of property fronting a public highway derived benefit from the expansion of the highway was contrary to Article 17 of the Constitution and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.\n13.  In an interlocutory decision of 18 June 1997 the Court of Appeal observed that, in assessing the unit amount of compensation for property expropriated with a view to building a main road, the court merely determined the amount, without considering whether and to what extent the adjoining owners had an obligation to contribute to the expropriation costs pursuant to section 1 of Law no. 653/1977. It ordered an expert assessment of the real value of the expropriated property (judgment no. 2380/1997).\n14.  On 29 September 1999 the Court of Appeal assessed the final unit amount of compensation for the expropriation of plots nos. 64 and 214 at GRD 8,000 per square metre. It also assessed the final amount of special compensation for the unexpropriated parcels of plot no. 64 at GRD 45,142,390 (judgment no. 2741/1999).\n15.  On 18 March 2000 the applicants appealed on points of law. They argued that the fact that the Court of Appeal had merely determined the amount of compensation for the expropriation, without considering whether and to what extent the adjoining owners had an obligation to contribute to the expropriation costs, was contrary to Article 17 of the Constitution, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.\n16.  In a judgment of 23 March 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, at least in so far as it concerned the present case (judgment no. 480/2001).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-458", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Bydgoszcz, Poland.\n9.  On 20 August 1992 the applicant filed with the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an action in which he requested that a certain B. M., who had failed to comply with her own declaration to exchange a defective car sold to the applicant for a new one, pay him the amount equivalent to the value of that car.\n10.  The court held hearings on 14 October 1992, 13 January, 10 February, 5 April, 19 May and 23 June 1993. It ordered an expert opinion.\n11.  On 29 June 1993 the applicant challenged the participation in the proceedings of an expert. On 6 October 1993 he lodged a complaint about the fact that the case-file had been handed over to the expert.\n12.  On 29 October 1993 the court requested the expert to submit his opinion in due time.\n13.  On 7 November 1993 the expert submitted his opinion. On 18 November 1993 the applicant's lawyer challenged that opinion. On 24 November 1993 the applicant requested the court to dismiss the testimony given by certain witnesses.\n14.  On 25 March 1994 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request for an interim measure.\n15.  At the hearing held on 25 March 1994 the applicant rejected a friendly-settlement proposal made by the defendant. The court ordered a supplementary expert opinion.\n16.  On 10 May 1994 the applicant challenged the expert opinion.\n17.  On 30 May 1994 his lawyer requested the court to order the defendant to submit the original of a bill of lading.\n18.  The court held a hearing on 31 May 1994. Between June and August 1994 the court verified the authenticity of that bill of lading.\n19.  At the hearing held on 30 August 1994 it imposed a fine on the witness who had failed to appear before the court.\n20.  Further hearings were held on 30 August and 28 October 1994.\n21.  On 7 November 1994, at the applicant's request, the court asked the Katowice Customs Office to submit certain documents concerning the customs clearance of the car.\n22.  On 22 November 1994 a hearing was adjourned because of the absence of the defendant's lawyer.\n23.  The court held hearings on 27 January, 11 April and 9 May 1995.\n24.  According to the applicant, the hearings scheduled for 29 August and 15 December 1995, as well as 16 February 1996, were adjourned due to the defendant's failure to appear before the court. The Government submit that the court did hold those hearings.\n25.  On 30 October 1995 the hearing was adjourned, according to the applicant, because of the applicant's illness and the defendant's absence. The Government submit that it was adjourned because of the presiding judge's illness.\n26.  Hearings took place on 12 April, 25 April, 10 May, 3 June and 28 June 1996. The hearing of 25 April 1996 was held at the defendant's home, because of her illness. On 3 June 1996 the court refused the applicant's request for an interim measure.\n27.  The hearing scheduled for 27 September 1996 was adjourned because of the judge's illness.\n28.  On 19 November 1996 the court adjourned a hearing as none of the parties had been duly informed about it.\n29.  On 15 January 1997 the applicant extended his claims.\n30.  At the hearing held on 17 January 1997 the expert submitted an additional opinion.\n31.  On 1 September 1997 the court refused the applicant's request to correct the minutes of a hearing.\n32.  The court did not schedule any hearings between January and October 1997, when it scheduled one for 16 January 1998.\n33.  In October and Nove", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-459", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Warsaw.\n9.  In March 1982 the applicant became divorced.\n10.  On 30 September 1982 his former wife filed with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a request for the partition of the property of the spouses. The request related to 147 items and a shared flat in a housing co-operative building.\n11.  The Government submitted that between 27 December 1982 and 2 December 1987 the court held 19 hearings. The applicant stated that one of the hearings referred to by the Government had never been held and four others had been only in camera sittings.\n12.  In 1985 and 1986 the court ordered six expert opinions. According to the Government, on an unspecified date after 2 December 1987 the case-file was lost.\n13.  In 1992 the applicant lodged a further request for the partition of the property. He informed the Warsaw District Court that the place of residence of his former wife was unknown and it was impossible to bring her before the court. The applicant maintained that he had had difficulties in establishing her place of residence. The court appointed a guardian ad litem for her. On 22 May 1992 it gave judgment.\n14.  The Government submitted that after the completion of those proceedings the applicant had formally reported his former wife's departure to Germany.\n15.  In December 1992, after her return to Poland, the applicant's former wife requested the re-opening of those proceedings, relying on the applicant's misinformation as to the alleged lack of knowledge of her residence in Germany. On 22 July 1993 the Warsaw District Court quashed the decision issued in those proceedings.\n16.  In January 1994 the lost case-file was found. The court held hearings on 14 January, 4 March, 16 May, 5 August and 14 November 1994. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to attend the hearings of 14 January, 4 March and 16 May 1994. The applicant maintained that he had been present at the hearing on 14 January 1994 and that his absence on 16 May 1994 had been justified.\n17.  The court held a hearing on 12 June 1995.\n18.  On 18 July 1995 the court ex officio made attempts aimed at converting the disputed flat into smaller ones. Between July 1995 and January 1996 it enquired with various authorities as to possible solutions to the dispute.\n19.  The hearing scheduled for 30 September 1996 was adjourned because of the absence of the applicant's lawyer. The applicant submitted that his lawyer had had an operation on his heart.\n20.  Further hearings were held on 6 January, 14 April and 18 September 1997. According to the applicant, the hearing of 18 September 1997 was in fact an in camera sitting.\n21.  The applicant requested the adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 30 January 1998.\n22.  Subsequent hearings were held on 25 May 1998 and 25 February 1999, as well as on 7 January and 3 March 2000.\n23.  On several occasions the applicant's former wife failed to attend hearings or her lawyer failed to submit certain documents or pleadings. The court ordered expert opinions concerning the value of objects located in the flat of the applicant and his former wife, their cars and jewellery.\n24.  On 25 May 2000 the applicant learnt that the case-file had been lost again. It was subsequently found.\n25.  The applicant failed to attend the hearing scheduled for 18 December 2000.\n26.  According to the Government, the hearing scheduled for 19 April 2001 was adjourned at the applicant's request. He submitted that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-460", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is a multinational company specialising, inter alia, in the wholesale of petrochemical products, as was Neste at the time of relevance to the case.\n10.  In light of submissions lodged by another company in the field – Suomalainen Energiaosuuskunta (“SEO”) – the Competition Office (kilpailuvirasto, konkurrensverket), on 11 October 1993, initiated proceedings before the Competition Council (kilpailuneuvosto, konkurrensrådet), requesting that Neste be ordered to cease abusing its dominant position on the Finnish market for motor engine fuel. In the view of the Competition Office the reductions in Neste's wholesale prices discriminated against some of its clients, thereby violating the 1992 Act on Competition Restrictions (laki kilpailunrajoituksista, lag om konkurrensbegränsningar 480/1992). The Competition Office therefore requested that Neste be ordered to cease and desist from applying certain pricing criteria.\n11.  In a further submission of 11 February 1994 the Competition Office requested that an administrative fine (seuraamusmaksu, påföljdsavgift) be imposed. As a new fact the Competition Office referred to Neste's unwillingness to concede that it had been violating the relevant provisions and accordingly to change the price of fuel sold to SEO.\n12.  On 16 June 1994 the Competition Council held that Neste had abused its dominant position on the relevant market but found no reason to impose a fine on the company. Neste, SEO and the Competition Office all appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen). Neste maintained that it did not hold a dominant position on the market in question and in any case had not been abusing it. SEO appealed in so far as the Competition Council had accepted certain of Neste's criteria for price differentiation. The Competition Office contended that a fine should have been imposed.\n13.  On 9 and 14 September 1994 Neste forwarded to the Competition Office its interpretation of the Competition Council's decision as to the pricing criteria to be applied in light of the latter's decision. On 17 October 1994 the Competition Office replied that its interventions were limited to questions of principle. It could therefore not pronounce itself on Neste's proposed interpretation regarding the acceptable pricing criteria.\n14.  On 14 and 30 November 1994 Neste again drew the Competition Office's attention to its difficulties in interpreting the Competition Council's decision.\n15.  In a submission to the Supreme Administrative Court dated 26 June 1995 Neste demanded equality of arms in the proceedings. Reference was made to a telephone conversation between Neste's representative and a legal officer of the Supreme Administrative Court from which it had transpired that a secret memorandum of the Competition Office dated 19 June 1995 had been filed with the Supreme Administrative Court. The memorandum discussed Neste's conduct following the Competition Council's decision. The document had been released to Neste by the Competition Office itself on 22 June 1995 in response to the company's request.\n16.  In a further submission to the Supreme Administrative Court dated 24 July 1995 Neste challenged the accuracy of the Competition Office's memorandum, including the conclusions drawn. Neste again objected to the Supreme Administrative Court's failure to hear it formally in respect of the Competition Office's observations and apparently other memoranda.\n17.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-461", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.\n7.  On 2 October 1984 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) declared that the applicant should inherit his mother’s estate. On an unknown date in 1985 the applicant’s step-father M.O. filed an application with the Warsaw District Court for division of their marital property.\n8.  On 9 June 1988 the court gave a decision. On 4 April 1989 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed the applicant’s further appeal. On 15 November 1989, on an extraordinary appeal lodged by the General Prosecutor, the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) set aside both above decisions and remitted the case to the court of first instance.\n9.  On 8 June 1992 the court stayed the proceedings. They were later resumed on 4 November 1996.\n10.  Between 6 May 1998 and 15 November 2002 the trial court held nine hearings.\n11.  The proceedings are pending before the Warsaw District Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-462", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8. The applicant is an Icelandic national, born in 1971 and living in Iceland.\n9. According to the applicant, around 1 a.m. on 13 May 1997 he, accompanied by 4 other persons, including Mr S.T.E., entered a night-club, named Vegas, in Reykjavík. After a while the applicant had an argument with a certain Mr S.S., whereupon the latter arm-locked the applicant's throat and both fell to the floor. A fight broke out involving S.T.E. and two of S.S.'s friends. Doorkeepers tried to stop the fight but S.T.E. knocked S.S. unconscious, following which he fell on his back and hit the back of his neck on the floor. The applicant and his companions left the night-club in a hurry for S.T.E.'s home.\n10.  When, shortly thereafter, the police officers arrived at the scene, a man was lying unconscious on a sofa in the innermost part of the premises. According to the summary of facts found in the national courts' judgments referred to below, the police officers had been told that he had been struck on the head and that four persons, three men and one woman, had attacked him, struck him, treated him roughly and kicked him in the head. The person who was said to be mainly responsible was nicknamed Silli, a reference to the applicant. The persons in question were also said to have beaten two of S.S.'s friends, resulting in visible injuries. The former had then left the night-club. The police reports recording the witness evidence were not entirely clear. Investigators of the National Bureau of Investigation had not been called immediately and arrived at the scene after the witnesses had left.\n11.  While an ambulance took S.S. to the emergency ward of Reykjavík City Hospital his heart stopped beating and his breathing ceased. The heartbeat was recovered after resuscitation in the ambulance, but on arrival at the ward S.S.'s pupils were still wide and unresponsive to light. The only injury noticed on first examination was a small haematoma at the back of the neck. A tomograph examination however revealed an extensive sub-arachnoidal haemorrage. Brain surgery was performed immediately, but the attempts to save his life were unsuccessful. S.S. died the following day.\n12.  An autopsy carried out on 15 May 1997 concluded that an extensive cerebral haemorrhage had been the cause of death. Moreover, according to the autopsy report, from a bruise on the hairy scalp in the neck region and a haematoma under the scalp, it could be deduced that an impact (i.e. a blow, a kick or a fall) causing a sharp movement to the brain could have resulted in a tear of an artery and the resultant haemorrhage. No evidence had been found to the effect that the haemorrhage could have been caused by disease. S.S. had been heavily under the influence of alcohol at the time he received the injury to his head.\n13.  On becoming aware the day after the incident that S.S. had been taken to hospital and was in a poor state, the applicant reported to the National Bureau of Investigation. During questioning he admitted to having had a scuffle with the deceased but he denied having kicked him in the head. A forensic examination was carried out on the applicant's shoes a few days after the event but no evidence was found to substantiate such an allegation.\n14.  On 15 July 1997 S.T.E. was indicted with having attacked S.S., and for having dealt him a heavy blow to the back of the head causing him to fall unconscious to the floor. The applicant was charged with having subsequently kicked S.S. in the he", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-463", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.\n7.  On 20 May 1992 the prosecution authorities lodged with the Warsaw District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy) a bill of indictment against the applicant. He was charged with causing a traffic accident occasioning death and serious bodily harm.\n8.  The District Court held hearings on 6 May and 27 May 1993. At the hearing held on 15 June 1993 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment suspended for three years.\n9.  On 23 November 1993, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the case to the Piaseczno District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy), holding that a further investigation should be carried out.\n10.  On 1 October 1994 the Piaseczno District Prosecutor lodged a new bill of indictment with the Warsaw District Court. On 23 July 1997 the trial court remitted the case to the Piaseczno District Prosecutor, holding that the prosecution had not complied with the orders given by the Regional Court on 23 November 1993.\n11.  On 19 August 1997, upon the prosecutor’s appeal, the Warsaw Regional Court quashed this decision and ordered the District Court to proceed with the case.\n12.  The court held hearings on 11 December 1997, 3 March, 17 April and 2 June  1998.\n13.  On 9 April 1999 the Warsaw District Court gave judgment and acquitted the applicant on all charges.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-464", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Torre del Greco (Naples).\n5.  She is the owner of a flat in Torre del Greco, which she had let to M. R.\n6.  In a registered letter of 1 December 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987, and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 1 September 1989, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 20 September 1989, which was made enforceable on 4 October 1989, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1992.\n9.  On 14 July 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her son.\n10.  On 23 September 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 11 November 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 November 1993.\n12.  Between 22 November 1993 and 16 April 1998 the bailiff made ten attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 4 March 1999, the applicant and the tenant entered into a new lease.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-465", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Druento (Turin).\n10.  In 1982 the Asti District Court made an order for the compulsory winding up of a commercial partnership formed by the applicant's wife in 1980.\n11.  On 16 November 1984 the same court made an order declaring the applicant personally bankrupt on the ground that he was a de facto partner.\n12.  On an unspecified date the trustee in bankruptcy filed a list of the bankrupt estate's debts with the registry.\n13.  On 21 November 1984 the judge assigned to the case gave the trustee in bankruptcy leave to intervene in proceedings that had been brought by a bank, SPT, for the forced sale of the applicant's house.\n14.  On 27 November 1984 he gave the trustee in bankruptcy leave to lodge tax appeals with the Tax Commissioners (Commissione Tributaria) in respect of sums claimed by the Turin and Asti tax authorities from the applicant's partnership.\n15.  Between 15 and 28 December 1984 the judge gave the trustee in bankruptcy permission to withdraw sums from the current account of the bankrupt estate for the payment, inter alia, of fees due to the trustee and an expert.\n16.  On an unspecified date in 1985 an initial attempt to sell the applicant's house at auction failed.\n17.  On 26 March 1985 the trustee in bankruptcy lodged a report. On 28 March 1985 the President of the District Court summoned G.Z. to appear in order to establish whether he was a partner of the applicant. G.Z. was heard on 26 April 1985.\n18.  On 10 June and 6 September 1985 the judge authorised the trustee in bankruptcy to make payments covering, inter alia, an expert's fees and the costs of publication of various notices.\n19.  On 21 January 1986 the judge gave permission for a lawyer to be instructed to act in the aforementioned proceedings concerning the applicant's house.\n20.  On 10 March 1986 the judge gave the applicant permission to draw his pension and on 21 March 1986 authorised the trustee in bankruptcy to settle proceedings that had been brought by S.G. for an order for the restitution of certain movables that were part of the bankrupt estate.\n21.  On 6 August 1986 the judge authorised the trustee in bankruptcy to enter into a loan agreement in respect of a building included in the bankrupt estate.\n22.  On 19 December 1986 the judge gave permission for a lawyer to be instructed to act in proceedings brought by P.C. contesting the bankrupt estate's liabilities.\n23.  On 23 March and 3 December 1987 the judge authorised the payment of various costs necessarily incurred in the proceedings.\n24.  On 16 December 1987 the trustee in bankruptcy sought an order for the replacement of the chairman of the Creditors' Committee following the latter's death.\n25.  On 22 December 1987 the judge refused permission for the sale by private contract (vendita a trattativa privata) of immovable property from the bankrupt estate on the ground that the Insolvency Act did not permit private sales of immovable property.\n26.  On 28 December 1987 the judge authorised the payment of a carer's allowance to the applicant's wife.\n27.  On 21 January 1988 he authorised the trustee in bankruptcy to return the deposit that had been paid on the proposed sale by private contract.\n28.  On 4 May 1988 the judge granted an application by O.D.S., one of the applicant's partners, for restitution of sums paid by a company, CPI, for services she had rendered.\n29.  On 28 June and 3 and 17 November 1988 he authorised the payment of advertising costs a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-466", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Cave.\n5.  F.D. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to A.C.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 20 October 1987, he communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n7.  By a judgment of 30 April 1990, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 3 May 1990, the Rome Magistrate declared termination of the lease and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 November 1990. The judgment was made enforceable on 24 September 1990.\n8.  On 17 January 1991, F.D. served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises. On 28 February 1991, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 April 1991.\n9.  Between 15 April 1991 and 27 May 1993, the bailiff made 13 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, F.D. was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant became the owner of the flat.\n11.  On 28 February 1994, he served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 3 May 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 May 1994.\n13.  Between 10 May 1994 and 1 December 1998, the bailiff made 24 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431 of 9 December 1998, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.\n15.  On 30 November 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-467", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1964 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in HM Prison Craiginches, Aberdeen.\n10.  The applicant was arrested on a charge of attempted murder arising out of a high speed car chase which occurred in the early hours of 29 October 1995. On 30 October 1995, he was arrested again, interviewed and cautioned in respect of a separate incident of rape and assault which also occurred during the early morning of 29 October 1995.\n11.  On 31 October 1995, the applicant appeared in court in respect of the various road traffic offences and the attempted murder of a police officer. On 7 November 1995, he was fully committed and remanded in custody on those charges (of which he was later acquitted).\n12.  On 30 November 1995, the applicant appeared before the Sheriff and was committed in respect of the rape charge.\n13.  On 24 June 1996, the trial began in the High Court. On 2 July 1996, the applicant was convicted, by a majority verdict, of all charges and sentenced to 9 years 9 months' imprisonment.\n14.  On 8 July 1996, the applicant lodged an intention to appeal with the High Court sitting as an appeal court. On 20 August 1996, a Note of Appeal was lodged.\n15.  On 26 September 1996, a single judge refused the appeal. The applicant appealed.\n16.  On 31 October 1996, the Note of Appeal was allowed by three judges in restricted terms relating to the direction given by the trial judge on the special defence of alibi.\n17.  On 20 December 1996, the appeal was set down to be heard. According to the Government, it did not take place as the applicant refused to leave prison. The applicant stated that contrary to statutory authority the prison governor refused to allow him to leave the prison wearing civilian clothes instead of a prison uniform for the hearing. A further hearing was fixed for 22 May 1997. On that date, the Crown requested, and obtained, an adjournment as the Advocate Depute was engaged abroad.\n18.  On 19 November 1997, the appeal was set down to be heard. It was discontinued due to lack of court time and pressure of other business. It was noted that the appeal was complex and would last half a day.\n19.  On 13 and 14 January 1998, there was another appeal hearing. As the applicant's solicitor had become aware that the prosecution had never cited a witness, W. to appear at the trial, he had lodged and argued an additional ground of appeal on this point. Following argument, he sought to lodge further additional grounds of appeal. The appeal was continued to 13 February 1998 to enable him to do so.\n20.  On 13 February 1998, the High Court held that the failure to hear the evidence of W. resulted in unfairness and that further evidence should be heard. Lord Philip was designated as the judge to hear the evidence. On 28 May 1998, he fixed a date to take the evidence of W. On 20 August 1998, the hearing was adjourned as the applicant's counsel withdrew from acting on his behalf.\n21.  On 16 October 1998, W. gave evidence. In his note of 20 November 1998, Lord Philip gave his view of the credibility and reliability of W. The appeal was relisted for hearing on 8 January 1999 but the applicant's solicitors wrote to the court requesting that another date, possibly in the following week, be fixed due to the unavailability of counsel.\n22.  On 24 June 1999, the appeal was heard before the High Court.\n23.  On 22 July 1999, the judgment of the court was given by the Lord Justice General, Lord Rodger. It dismissed the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-468", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in S. Donà di Piave (Venice).\n5.  He and his sister are the owners of a flat in Cava De' Tirreni (Salerno), which they had let to A.A.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 27 June 1991, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 12 March 1993 and summoned the tenant to appear before the Cava De' Tirreni Magistrate (Salerno).\n7.  By a decision of 16 September 1991, which was made enforceable on 5 November 1991, the Cava De' Tirreni Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 12 March 1994.\n8.  On 9 April 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 23 April 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 16 May 1994.\n10.  On 16 May 1994, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order of possession.\n11.  The tenant asked the Cava De' Tirreni Magistrate to suspend the eviction proceedings.\n12.  On 28 July 1997, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n13.  Pursuant to Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 26 December 2000.\n14.  On 28 February 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-469", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Naples.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Naples, which he had let to C.E.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 January 1987, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 13 December 1987, which was filed with the registry on 16 December 1987, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 December 1989.\n8.  On 30 November 1988, the tenant appealed to the Naples District Court.\n9.  By a decision of 26 October 1990, the court rejected the appeal and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1991.\n10.  On 27 December 1990, the applicant served notice of the judgment on the tenant.\n11.  On 5 July 1991, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 16 July 1991.\n12.  Between 16 July 1991 and 24 September 1992, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 19 February 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his father.\n14.  Between 25 February 1993 and 28 April 1998, the bailiff made eighteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 3 July 1998, the applicant repossessed the flat with the assistance of the police.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-470", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1964 and is currently detained in HM Prison Brixton.\n8.  In 1997, there were a series of armed robberies of mini-cab drivers in and around Wolverhampton. Each robbery was carried out in the same way by a person posing as a passenger at night. Each involved violence. The first robbery was committed on 15 April 1997 (for which the applicant was later acquitted). On 17 April 1997, the applicant was arrested and agreed to an identification parade on 15 May 1997. He was released pending the parade.\n9.  On 30 April 1997, a second robbery, later alleged in count 2 of the indictment against the applicant, was committed. On 1 May 1997, the applicant was arrested in relation to that offence. The applicant again agreed to participate in an identification parade to be held on 15 May and was then released. However, on that date, the applicant did not appear for the identification parade but instead sent a doctor's note stating that he was too ill to go to work. A subsequent identification parade was set for 5 June 1997. Notice to that effect was sent to the applicant's residence.  He did not appear for identification on the specified date, stating later that he did not receive such notification as he had changed address.\n10.  On 27 June 1997, the applicant was arrested on an unrelated matter at which time he gave the address to which the previous notification was sent.\n11.  On 21 July 1997, a robbery, for which the applicant was charged in count 3 of his indictment, occurred. The applicant was arrested on 1 August 1997 and later acquitted on this count. The applicant agreed to stand on an identification parade scheduled to take place on 11 September. On 3 September, the applicant was interviewed with respect to another unconnected matter and said that he would attend the parade on 11 September. On that date, he did not in fact attend.\n12.  On the 17 September 1997, the robbery alleged in count 4 occurred, while a further robbery alleged in count 5 took place on 24 October 1997.\n13.  An important part of the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the ability of the witnesses to visually identify the perpetrator. For this reason, submitting the applicant to an identification parade was of great importance for the prosecution. Given the failure of the applicant to attend the arranged identification parades, the police decided to arrange a video identification parade. Permission to covertly video the applicant for identification purposes was sought from the Deputy Chief Constable for the West Midlands Police Force under the Home Office Guidelines on the Use of Equipment in Police Surveillance Operations 1984.\n14.  On 19 November 1997, the applicant was taken from Strangeways Prison (where he was being detained on another matter) to the Bilston Street police station. The prison, and the applicant, had been informed that this was for identification purposes and further interviews concerning the armed robberies. On arrival at the police station, he was asked to participate in an identification parade. He refused.\n15.  Meanwhile, on his arrival at the police station, he was filmed by the custody suite camera which was kept running at all times and was in an area through which police personnel and other suspects came and went. An engineer had adjusted the camera to ensure that it took clear pictures during his visit. A compilation tape was prepared in which eleven volunteers imitated the actions of the applicant as capture", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-471", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1916 and lives in Viareggio.\n5.  The applicant is the owner of two flats in Camaiore, which he had let to V.D.B. and S.C. respectively.\n \n \n1)  The proceedings against V.D.B.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 10 October 1990, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Lucca Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 18 October 1990, the Lucca Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992. That decision was made enforceable on 21 January 1993.\n8.  On 3 February 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 24 February 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 October 1993.\n10.  On 30 June 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n11.  Between 20 October 1993 and 23 May 1996, the bailiff made 13 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  In December 1996, the tenant vacated the premises.\n2)  The proceedings against S.C.\n13.  In a writ served on the tenant on 10 October 1990, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Lucca Magistrate.\n14.  By a decision of 18 October 1990, the Lucca Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992. That decision was made enforceable on 21 January 1993.\n15.  On 3 February 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n16.  On 24 February 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 October 1993.\n17.  On 30 June 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter.\n18.  Between 20 October 1993 and 13 January 1997, the bailiff made 17 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n19.  In February 1997, the tenant vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-472", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant, an Italian national born in 1934, was the general secretary of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) from 1976 to 1993. From 1983 to 1987 he was Prime Minister of Italy. As of April 1994 (according to the applicant) or May 1994 (according to the Italian authorities), he lived in Hammamet (Tunisia).\n11.  The proceedings to which this application relates were part of the criminal proceedings brought by the Milan Public Prosecutor's Office during the so-called “clean hands” (mani pulite) campaign.\n12.  Between January and October 1993, the Milan Public Prosecutor issued twenty-six notices of prosecution (avvisi di garanzia) in respect of the applicant, in particular for corruption, dishonest receipt of money by a public officer, concealment of dishonest gain and offences against the legislation on the financing of political parties.\n13.  On 10 May, 10 September 1993 and 7 May 1994 the Rome Public Prosecutor also issued notices of prosecution in respect of the applicant for dishonest receipt of money by a public officer, offences against the legislation on the financing of political parties, corruption and misuse of public office.\n14.  The prosecutions against the applicant and other figures in politics, business and public institutions received attention from the media.\n15.  Amongst the cases against the applicant was that of Metropolitana Milanese, which concerned payments of large sums of money made between 1983 and 1992 by a number of firms to the representatives of political parties and the influence the latter exerted on the board of directors of the Metropolitana Milanese company with a view to awarding contracts to those firms in connection with works on the Milan underground system.\n16.  On 8 June 1994 the investigating judge committed the applicant and twenty-nine co-defendants for trial before the Milan District Court. The applicant was charged, in particular, with interference with freedom of contract and corruption.\n17.  The first trial hearing took place on 20 September 1994. The applicant was not present and the District Court accordingly declared him absent (contumace). Some of the accused requested and obtained a plea bargain, while the position of some other accused persons was separated from that of the applicant. The trial before the Milan District Court thus continued only against the applicant and five co-defendants. The Metropolitana Milanese company joined the proceedings as a civil party.\n18.  In a decision of 7 July 1995 the Milan District Court remanded the applicant in custody. On 12 July 1995 counsel for the applicant informed the Milan District Court that he had learned of that decision through the press and asked for a copy of it. On 20 July 1995 the Milan District Court declared the applicant to be latitante, that is, to be deliberately evading the court's jurisdiction.\n19.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 7 July 1995. In an order of 25 September 1995, the Milan District Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court held that once the preliminary investigation was completed it was for the trial court to consider whether there were substantial indications of guilt and whether in particular there was still a danger that the applicant would abscond. In this respect the court noted that since 5 May 1994 it had been impossible to find the applicant in Italy and that in the various proceedings brought against him a number of coercive measures had been ordered that could not be enf", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-473", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Woking.\n10.  On 9 August 1994, following a surveillance and undercover operation, he was arrested in a van in the company of an undercover police officer known only as “Graham”. In the van was a briefcase containing 4.83 kilograms of 50% pure heroin. On 7 April 1995 the applicant was convicted in Snaresbrook Crown Court of possessing a Class A drug with intent to supply and was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.\n11.  The first applicant's defence was that at the time of his arrest he believed he was taking part in a transaction to sell stolen jewellery. He alleged that his participation had been organised by a man named Geoffrey Lerway, whom he had met the previous year while both were detained on remand in Brixton Prison. According to the applicant, the week before his arrest Lerway had introduced him to a man called Jim Humphries and a man presented to him only as “Martin”. The day before the arrest, the applicant was contacted by Lerway and asked if he would be interested in going to Birmingham in connection with a jewellery deal in which Lerway was acting as intermediary to Martin. He would be given a cut of the purchase price. The applicant agreed that Lerway would pick him up from his home the next day.\n12.  The following morning he was told that the plans had changed as Martin was now coming to London. The first applicant agreed to accompany Lerway to a public house where, at approximately 12.45 p.m., a red Jaguar car and a white van drew up. The driver of the Jaguar was introduced to the applicant as “Jeff”; he was accompanied by a man and a woman, subsequently called “Terry” and “Carol”. The driver of the van was introduced as “Graham”. Jeff gave Lerway a briefcase containing GBP 125,000. They all then left in convoy for the Clive Hotel, Primrose Hill, where they were to meet Martin.\n13.  At the hotel, Lerway decided to stay with the money in the car and asked the applicant to see if Martin had arrived. The applicant therefore went into the hotel where he met Jim Humphries, who told him that the arrangements had changed again as Martin was now in Euston. Humphries and Lerway asked the applicant to take a taxi to Euston and ask Martin to return with him to the Clive Hotel. The applicant followed these instructions and found Martin, who told him he had to leave immediately for another meeting. Martin, having spoken to Humphries or Lerway by mobile phone, gave the applicant the key to a room in the nearby Ibis Hotel, and explained that the “goods” were in a briefcase in the room.\n14.  According to the applicant, Graham came from Primrose Hill in his van and met the applicant outside the Ibis. Graham then suggested that the applicant should accompany him up to the room and offered to give him a lift back to Primrose Hill afterwards. In the hotel room, Graham forced the lock on the case while the applicant was in the bathroom and when he came out Graham was ready to go. They returned to the van where the briefcase was opened and within moments the applicant had been arrested.\n15.  Of all the participants in the above transaction, only the applicant was arrested and charged. The applicant suspects that the other participants were undercover police officers or informers acting on police instructions, but their identities and status have never been revealed to him. In this regard he considers it relevant that at the time of the alleged dealings, Lerway was on bail to the Middles", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-475", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bingöl.\n10.  On 15 October 1993 the applicant and two days later his wife, Mrs N.F., were taken into police custody in Bingöl on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal terrorist organisation, namely the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan).\n11.  Mrs F. was held in police custody for four days, during which period she was allegedly kept blindfolded. The police officers allegedly hit her with truncheons, insulted her verbally and threatened her with rape.\n12.  On 20 October 1993, following her detention in police custody, Mrs F. was examined by a doctor, who reported that there were no signs of ill-treatment on her body. On the same day she was taken to a gynaecologist for a further examination. The police requested that the report should indicate whether she had had vaginal or anal intercourse while in custody. Despite her refusal, Mrs F. was forced by the police officers to undergo a gynaecological examination. The police officers remained on the premises while Mrs F. was examined behind a curtain. The doctor reported that she had not had any sexual intercourse in the days preceding the examination.\n13.  On the same day Mrs F. was taken to the Bingöl public prosecutor's office, where she complained about her forced gynaecological examination. The public prosecutor did not record her complaints and ordered her release.\n14.  On 28 October 1993 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır National Security Court charged the applicant and his wife with aiding and abetting members of the PKK.\n15.  On 23 March 1994 the Diyarbakır National Security Court acquitted the applicant and his wife for lack of evidence.\n16.  On 9 February 1995, the applicant and his wife complained to the Bingöl public prosecutor about their ill-treatment while in police custody. They further complained that Mrs F. had been forced to undergo a gynaecological examination without her consent.\n17.  The police officers denied the allegations in statements made before the Bingöl public prosecutor. They submitted that it had been necessary for a gynaecological examination to be performed in order to determine whether Mrs F. had been sexually assaulted while in police custody. They further submitted that the examination had been performed with her consent.\n18.  On 5 October 1995 the Bingöl public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the police officers for lack of evidence. The applicant and his wife appealed.\n19.  On 29 November 1995 the Muş Assize Court quashed the public prosecutor's decision on the ground that there had been insufficient examination of the evidence in the investigation file.\n20.  On 19 December 1995 the Bingöl public prosecutor charged three police officers with, inter alia, violating Mrs F.'s private life by forcing her to undergo a gynaecological examination.\n21.  On 16 May 1996 the Bingöl Assize Court acquitted the defendant police officers on the ground that the complainants had not provided sufficient convincing evidence in support of their allegations. The court held that the police officers had had no intention of subjecting the applicant's wife to degrading and humiliating treatment when they made her undergo a gynaecological examination, but were trying to protect themselves against a possible accusation of rape. The applicant and his wife appealed.\n22.  On 7 May 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the Bingöl Assize Court's judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-476", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lived in Gyömrő, Hungary.\n11.  In 1986 the applicant had a work-related accident. Until July 1990 he was unfit for work and received an 'accident allowance' on account of a partial disability. In the light of subsequent medical reports showing an improved working capacity, the allowance was stopped as from August 1990.\n12.  On 16 April 1993 the applicant brought a court action to challenge the social security authorities' decisions refusing to resume payment of the allowance.\n13.  On 30 April, 7 June and 3 September 1993 the Buda Surroundings District Court held hearings. On 21 December 1993 it joined the applicant's various claims against the social security authorities. Several hearings and an expert examination were conducted between 12 January 1994 and 1 March 1996.\n14.  On 24 June 1997 the District Court appointed a traumatology expert. The applicant underwent further medical examinations on 15 September and 9 October 1997. The completed expert opinion was submitted on 10 February 1998. On 12 February 1998 the District Court ordered the Forensic Committee of the Health Science Council to reconcile the various medical opinions submitted in the case, which it did on 2 September 1998.\n15.  On 12 November 1998 the District Court dismissed the applicant's action.\n16.  On 8 March 1999 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n17.  On 12 December 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review. On 13 March 2001 this decision was forwarded to the first instance court for service on the parties.\n18.  On 16 December 2002 the applicant died. On 14 May 2003 the Government informed the Registry of this fact. None of the applicant's successors, if such exist, has contacted the Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-477", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Turku.\n7.  On 16 June 1998 the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Vantaa convicted the applicant of aggravated concealment of stolen goods and aggravated forgery, sentencing him to one year and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant and his co-defendants had denied the charges. The District Court referred the complainants’ claims for damages to be pursued in separate civil proceedings once the criminal proceedings had ended.\n8.  In his appeal to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Helsinki the applicant maintained his innocence and, in the alternative, requested that his sentence be reduced or suspended. He also proposed to re-examine witness P., who had already been heard in the District Court.\n9.  The Court of Appeal summoned the applicant to attend its oral hearing on 24 May 1999. He failed to do so, allegedly due to his dementia and other age-related illnesses, but was represented by his counsel, who submitted a medical certificate and alluded to the applicant’s dementia. Counsel further stated that the applicant had failed to show up for their joint departure for Helsinki in spite of their prior agreement.\n10.  In its decision of the same day the Court of Appeal found that no legally valid excuse had been shown for the applicant’s absence. His appeal was therefore struck out without counsel having been able to plead its merits and without having been able to re-examine witness P. The State was ordered to pay P. an allowance and reimburse her costs for having presented herself at the hearing venue.\n11.  On 15 July 1999 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s request for the proceedings to be re-opened. A fresh medical certificate of 11 June 1999 had not convinced the court that he had had a valid excuse for being absent from its main hearing.\n12.  On 28 September 1999 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.\n13.  In civil proceedings brought by an insurance company the District Court, on 1 November 2000, ordered the applicant and others to compensate the company for damage caused in the commission of their crime. On 30 May 2002 the Court of Appeal refused the applicant’s appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-478", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Warsaw.\n9.  On 13 July 1995 the applicant filed with the Warszawa-Mokotów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an action against the Office of the Council of Ministers (Urząd Rady Ministrów) and a housing co-operative K. In her action she requested, inter alia, that a flat be granted to her, submitting that the area of the one allocated to her by co-operative K, on the basis of an agreement between it and the Office of the Council of Ministers, allegedly differed from the area indicated in the decision granting it to her. The applicant also claimed damages for losses allegedly sustained by her as a result of the increase of construction costs.\n10.  On 18 July 1995 the District Court declared its lack of jurisdiction over the case and transmitted it to the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).\n11.  On 23 September 1995 the court ordered the applicant to indicate the value of her claim (wartość przedmiotu sporu). On 5 October 1995 the court again ordered her to indicate that value, considering that the information provided by her in reply to the previous court order was not satisfactory. In her letter of 16 October 1995 the applicant indicated the value of her claim. On 8 November 1995 she was again ordered to provide certain information concerning the value of the claim. On 23 November 1995 she submitted the relevant information.\n12.  On 27 November 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court, having examined the applicant's request, exempted her partially from the court fees. She appealed against that decision. On 27 February 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed her appeal.\n13.  On 13 May 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court refused the applicant's request for free legal assistance, considering that at that stage of the proceedings legal assistance was not necessary. The court noted that neither the circumstances of the case, nor the applicant's financial situation called for granting her a legal-aid lawyer. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 19 July 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal.\n14.  On 9 October 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing. On the same day the defendant co-operative lodged a counter-claim against the applicant.\n15.  In the pleadings of 15 December 1996 the applicant's lawyer modified her action and raised additional claims, inter alia, for compensation for the allegedly deceitful taking over of her previous flat by the Office of the Council of Ministers.\n16.  On 30 July 1997 the applicant requested an interim measure. On 13 August 1997 the court dismissed her request.\n17.  On 19 January 1998 the applicant filed another request for an interim measure. On 23 January 1998 the court dismissed it. The applicant appealed against that decision and requested exemption from the court fees relating to that appeal.\n18.  On 24 March 1998 the court held a hearing.\n19.  On 3 August 1998 the defendant co-operative's lawyer requested the court not to fix hearings between 15 September and 15 October 1998 because of his vacation plans.\n20.  On 30 September 1998 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 23 January 1998.\n21.  On 17 February 1999 the applicant submitted a request for legal assistance, stating that she had not been able to contact a lawyer chosen by her.\n22.  At the hearing held on 9 June 1999 the court ordered an expert opinion concerning the construction costs.\n23.  On 2 July 1999 it requested th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-479", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants, Ms Yelena Pavlovna Smirnova (“Y.S.”) and Ms Irina Pavlovna Smirnova (“I.S.”) are twin sisters. They are Russian nationals, who were born in 1967 and live in Moscow.\n8.  On 5 February 1993 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicants on suspicion of defrauding a Moscow bank on a credit matter. The prosecution's case was that the applicants acted together to obtain a loan in the bank on the security of a flat which did not in fact belong to them.\n9.  On 26 August, according to the applicants, on 27 August 1995, according to the Government, Y.S. was arrested and remanded in custody. Several days later, on 31 August 1995, she was charged with large-scale concerted fraud.\n10.  On 5 September 1995 the proceedings against I.S. were discontinued.\n11.  Following Y.S.'s arrest, her lawyer lodged an application for release with the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. On 13 September 1995 the court held that it was too late to examine the application for release as by that time the preliminary investigation had finished.\n12.  On 26 March 1996 the investigating authorities sent Y.S.'s case to the Tverskoy District Court for trial.\n13.  On 21 March 1997 the Tverskoy District Court found that the evidence gathered against Y.S., although serious, did not embrace all offences possibly committed by her. The court also found that the proceedings against I.S. should not have been stopped because there had been evidence of her involvement in the offence too. It was decided to remit the case against Y.S. for further investigation. The court of its own motion re-instituted criminal proceedings against I.S. and joined them to Y.S.'s case. It was furthermore ordered that Y.S. should stay in detention, and that I.S., at large at the moment, should be imprisoned as soon as the police established her whereabouts.\n14.  Both applicants lodged appeals against the decision of 21 March 1997, but on 23 July 1997 the Moscow City Court disallowed them.\n15.  Since I.S. continued to hide from the investigating authorities, it was decided to sever her case from that of her sister and to stay it. The term of Y.S.'s detention was extended.\nFirst release of Y.S.\n16.  On 9 December 1997 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow ordered that Y.S. should be released from custody because the extension of her detention had been unlawful and because of her poor health. She was released conditionally under the undertaking not to leave her permanent residence.\n17.  On 15 December 1997 the case against Y.S. was for the second time sent to the Tverskoy District Court for trial.\nFirst detention of I.S.\n18.  On 30 March 1999, the police arrested I.S. and took her into custody. The proceedings against her were resumed.\nSecond detention of Y.S.\n19.  The second examination of the case against Y.S. by the Tverskoy District Court took place on 31 March 1999. The court noted that I.S. had by that time been arrested, and that given close factual links between the offences imputed to the sisters, the proceedings against them should be joined. The court also noted that Y.S. had not had sufficient opportunity to familiarise herself with the prosecution file before the hearing. As a result, the case against Y.S. was joined to that against I.S. and remitted for further investigation.\n20.  On the same day Y.S. was imprisoned on the ground of the gravity of the accusation.\n21.  The decision of 31 March 1999 became final on 13 May 1999 after it had been upheld on appeal by", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-480", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Mr Celalettin Yöyler, is a Turkish citizen who was born in 1941 and is at present living in Istanbul (Turkey). Until June 1994 the applicant lived in the village of Dirimpınar, attached to the Malazgirt district in the province of Muş. Between 1966 and 1994 the applicant was the imam (religious leader) of the village. As a result of his involvement with a number of political organisations, including the Social Democratic Populist Party (SHP), the People's Labour Party (HEP) and the Democracy Party (DEP), of which he became the local leader, he was imprisoned on a number of occasions. The applicant left and had never returned to his village prior to the alleged events in question, since he had been threatened with death. The application concerns the applicant's allegations that State security forces destroyed his house.\n10.  The facts surrounding the destruction of the applicant's house are in dispute between the parties.\n11.  In 1994 three young women from the village, all of whom were related to the applicant's extended family, decided to join the PKK.\n12.  On 15 September 1994 the gendarme unit commander of Malazgirt came to the village and threatened to burn the village to the ground if the women were not brought to him within three days.\n13.  The applicant's family and the families of the young women, frightened by this threat, loaded up their possessions and fled. However, the gendarmes, accompanied by special teams, forced them to return to the village and to unload their possessions. They gathered the families into a house by force, where they assaulted certain of them, including the applicant's wife. They withdrew from the village telling the villagers to take good photographs of their houses, as that was all they would have to remember them by.\n14.  On 18 September 1994, at 8 p.m., special gendarme teams and village guards came to the village. Villagers were ordered to go into their homes and to turn off their lamps. The security forces then took diesel oil from the villagers' tractors and barrels and set fire to the houses of the applicant and his family. The applicant was out of the village, in İzmir, when his house was burned down.\n15.  On 23 September 1994 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the Karşıyaka public prosecutor in İzmir for submission to the Malazgirt public prosecutor, calling for an on-site investigation and the institution of proceedings against the perpetrators. This document was registered as no. 35798 by the Karşıyaka public prosecutor's office.\n16.  On 24 September 1994 the applicant made a press statement through a human rights body, the Human Rights Association, which was carried the same day in the pro-Kurdish newspaper Özgür Ülke.\n17.  On 8 November 1994 the public prosecutor (no. 31583) sent a letter to the Gendarme Command in Malazgirt requesting a report on the matters raised in the applicant's allegations. He repeated his request in letters of 8 December 1994 (no. 30965) and 2 February 1995 (no. 31583).\n18.  By letter of 2 March 1995, the Gendarme Central Command in Malazgirt replied to the prosecutor's letter of 8 December 1994 by submitting the records of the statements they had taken. The prosecutor took further statements in May 1995, and the gendarme commander M.A. in June and November 1995. Since November 1995, there has been no development in the investigation.\n19.  The applicant left the village of Dirimpinar of his own free will, together with his spouse and c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-481", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lived in Vienna.\n11.  From 1989 the applicant lived with Mr W., with whom he had a homosexual relationship, in a flat in Vienna, which the latter had rented a year earlier. They shared the expenses on the flat.\n12.  In 1991 Mr W. discovered that he was infected with the Aids virus. His relationship with the applicant continued. In 1993, when Mr W. developed Aids, the applicant nursed him. In 1994 Mr W. died after designating the applicant as his heir.\n13.  In 1995 the landlord of the flat brought proceedings against the applicant for termination of the tenancy. On 6 January 1996 the Favoriten District Court (Bezirksgericht) dismissed the action. It considered that section 14(3) of the Rent Act (Mietrechtsgesetz), which provided that family members had a right to succeed to a tenancy, was also applicable to a homosexual relationship.\n14.  On 30 April 1996 the Vienna Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) dismissed the landlord's appeal. It found that section 14(3) of the Rent Act was intended to protect persons who had lived together for a long time without being married against sudden homelessness. It applied to homosexuals as well as to persons of opposite sex.\n15.  On 5 December 1996 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) granted the landlord's appeal, quashed the lower court's decision and terminated the lease. It found that the notion of “life companion” (Lebensgefährte) in section 14(3) of the Rent Act was to be interpreted as at the time it was enacted, and the legislature's intention in 1974 was not to include persons of the same sex.\n16.  On 26 September 2000 the applicant died.\n17.  On 11 November 2001 the applicant's lawyer informed the Court of the applicant's death and that his mother had waived her right to succeed to the estate. He asked the Court not to strike the application out of its list before the public notary handling the applicant's estate had traced other heirs.\n18.  On 10 April 2002 the applicant's lawyer informed the Court that the public notary had instigated enquiries in order to trace previously unknown heirs who might wish to succeed to the estate.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-482", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Ninovka, a village in the Belgorod region of Russia.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the Novooskolskiy branch of the Savings Bank of Russia, the Savings Bank of Russia and the State. She claimed that the value of her personal savings that had accrued in her accounts by 1991 had significantly dropped following the economic reforms. Her savings were the result of decades of hard work, and she had intended to buy a flat with the money. However, the State had not revalued the amounts on deposit to offset the effects of inflation, as it had been required to do by the Law on revaluation and protection of the savings of citizens of the Russian Federation enacted on 10 May 1995 (Федеральный закон «О восстановлении и защите сбережений граждан Российской Федерации» – “the Savings Act”).\n9.  On 30 December 1997 the Novooskolskiy District Court, presided over by Judge Lebedinskaya, found in the applicant's favour and awarded her 129,544,106 roubles[1] (RUR) payable by the State treasury. The court rejected the defendants' main argument that the reimbursement scheme under the Savings Act could not be implemented in practice since no special secondary legislation had been passed. Noting that the Savings Act recognised the guaranteed deposits as the State's internal debt and that the State had not introduced the necessary rules in time to enable the debt to be repaid, the court held that the defendants were liable under the civil law.\n10.  On 28 February 1998 the judgment was set aside on appeal by the Belgorod Regional Court and the case remitted for a retrial.\n11.  On 8 June 1998 the Novooskolskiy District Court, sitting in the same composition, delivered a judgment similar to its judgment of 30 December 1997. The award, however, was readjusted to RUR 133,963.70. No appeal was lodged against the judgment and it became final ten days later, on 18 June 1998.\n12.  Enforcement proceedings commenced on 18 January 1999.\n13.  On an unspecified date in 1999, while the enforcement proceedings were in progress, the President of the Belgorod Regional Court lodged an application for supervisory review (протест в порядке надзора) of the judgment of 8 June 1998, on the ground that it conflicted with substantive laws.\n14.  The application was examined on 19 March 1999 by the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court. Having accepted the reasons set out in the application, the Presidium set aside the judgment of 8 June 1998 and dismissed the applicant's claims altogether. The applicant was not informed that the application for supervisory review had been lodged, or invited to attend the hearing before the Presidium.\n15.  On 17 June 1999 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued.\n16.  On 4 January 2001 a deputy president of the Supreme Court lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of the Presidium of 19 March 1999.\n17.  On 22 January 2001 the Supreme Court granted the application for supervisory review. It upheld the reasons given by the Presidium for setting aside the judgment of 8 June 1998, but ruled that the applicant's case should not have been dismissed in full, as she had thereby been unjustly deprived of the right to seek reimbursement of the money. It also acknowledged that the applicant's right to be informed that the Presidium was reviewing her case had not been respected. The case was remitted to the Novooskolskiy District Court for a fresh examin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-483", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Brwinów, Poland.\n7.  On 3 February 1994 the applicant asked the Pruszków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Pruszkowie) to declare that he acquired property by prescription.\n8.  On 16 November 1994 the court held the first hearing.\n9.  In 1995 and 1996 the court held eight hearings at which it heard witnesses.\n10.  In 1997 the court scheduled five hearings. They were all adjourned either because the participants or witnesses were not properly notified about the hearings or they were absent for another reason.\n11.  From 20 February to 29 December 1998 the court listed seven hearings. Most of them were adjourned.\n12.  On 15 January 1999 the court ordered an inspection of the land register.\n13.  On 21 August 2000 the court, sitting in camera, called as participants four persons and stayed the proceedings.\n14.  It appears that the applicant appealed against this decision but her appeal was never examined.\n15.  On 2 March 2001 the court, sitting in camera, resumed the proceedings. It further established that one of the participants in the proceedings had died and stayed the proceedings again.\n16.  On 22 May 2001 the court, sitting in camera, resumed the proceedings and called two persons as participants.\n17.  The applicant submits that since December 1998 no hearings have been held and that the proceedings are pending before the Pruszków District Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-484", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 16 August 1994 the applicant applied for benefits under the General Labour Disability Act (Algemene Arbeidsongeschiktheidswet – “AAW”) for incapacity to work since birth. On 16 February 1995, the New General Occupational Association (Nieuwe algemene bedrijfsvereniging – “NAB”) rejected his request. On 17 March 1995 the applicant’s lawyer filed an appeal with the Administrative Law Division of the Utrecht Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank).\n8.  On 27 April 1995 the Registrar to the Utrecht Regional Court informed the applicant’s lawyer that the appeal could only be examined after payment of registration fees amounting to 50 Netherlands Guilders (NLG). On 12 May 1995 the applicant paid these fees, which were received by the Regional Court on 19 May 1995.\n9.  On 11 August 1995 the Utrecht Regional Court requested the NAB to submit its response to the applicant’s appeal, as well as documents relating to the case. It sent a reminder to the NAB on 12 September 1995.\n10.  On 14 September 1995, not having heard anything from the Regional Court since 27 April 1995, the applicant’s lawyer requested information from the Regional Court about the state of affairs. On the same day the Regional Court granted a request filed by the NAB to be allowed more time for the submission of the documents which the court had requested.\n11.  On 5 October 1995 the applicant submitted to the Regional Court a report from a psychiatrist, Mr M., according to which the applicant was incapacitated for work and that the reasons for his incapacity had existed since birth.\n12.  On 13 October 1995 the NAB filed a second request with the Regional Court for a postponement of the submission of the documents requested. The court granted this request. The NAB filed a third request for postponement on 14 November 1995.\n13.  As he had still received no reply from the Regional Court, the applicant’s lawyer sent a further request for information on 30 November 1995.\n14.  On 15 December 1995 the NAB filed a fourth request for postponement with the Regional Court. On 18 December 1995, the court informed the NAB that a postponement of four weeks had been granted, but that no further extension would be granted. In the absence of any submissions from the NAB, the Regional Court would proceed with the examination of the applicant’s case.\n15.  On 8 January 1996 the NAB submitted its response to the applicant’s appeal as well as a number of documents. The Regional Court transmitted these submissions to the applicant’s lawyer on 11 January 1996.\n16.  On 24 January 1996 the Regional Court commenced its examination. On the basis of preliminary conclusions reached, it requested the NAB on 20 June 1996 to provide further information and submissions on the merits of the case. On 16 July 1996, the NAB requested a postponement for these submissions.\n17.  On 18 July 1996 the Regional Court transmitted a copy of the report of Mr M. to the NAB. On 12 August 1996, the NAB submitted further documents to the Regional Court as well as a reaction to Mr M.’s report from a social security medical officer. These submissions were transmitted to the applicant on 28 August 1996. The applicant replied on 13 September 1996. His response was transmitted to the NAB on 3 October 1996.\n18.  On 2 December 1996 the Regional Court requested the NAB to explain why it had considered itself competent to determine the applicant’s request of 7 September 1994 rather than transmit it to the Occupational Association", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-485", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1929 and 1923 respectively. The applicant in application no. 43185/98 (“Dr Price”) is a consultant psychiatrist; the applicant in application no. 43186/98 (“Mrs Lowe”) is a medical secretary. They live in Lincoln.\n10.  The applicants, together with Dr Price’s wife, were sued by “K”, a former patient of Dr Price, in respect of property in Florida. The writ was issued on 12 February 1986. Before the action came to trial, the plaintiff was adjudicated bankrupt on 9 August 1989 and the trustee in bankruptcy continued the action.\n11.  The trial was set down to commence in the High Court in August 1994 but was postponed until the end of September 1994 because the judge was not available for the length of time needed for the hearing.\n12.  On the fourth day of trial, while K was being cross-examined, an adjournment was granted because K claimed to feel unwell. In the event, it emerged that no medical justification could be given for his continued non-attendance, but nonetheless he remained absent for the rest of the trial. Because of the delay caused by K’s non-attendance, the trial could not be concluded in September 1994 and had to be adjourned until January 1995. Judgment was given on 27 April 1995.\n13.  The judge accepted the argument of the applicants and Mrs Price that it was necessary to disregard K’s evidence because of his failure to remain for cross-examination. However, on the basis of the documentary evidence and that adduced by the applicants and Mrs Price, the judge found that the transfer of the Florida property should be set aside on the ground that the defendants had not been able to rebut the presumption of undue influence created by the discrepancy in the price they paid K for the property and its value at the time of the transfer, together with the doctor-patient relationship between Dr Price and K.\n14.  The formal record of the judge’s order was not prepared by the parties until 26 October 1995. The applicants and Mrs Price applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal on 1 November 1995. The appeal bundles were lodged on 4 October 1996. On 15 January 1997 the appeal was listed for hearing, and it was heard on 16 and 17 April 1997, on which last date the Court of Appeal gave judgment dismissing the appeal.\n15.  In connection with the moneys paid by Dr Price for the property, the Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the trial judge that the sum should be repaid, but that no interest should be paid on it. The trial judge had based his decision on the fact that Dr Price “had had possession of the properties and receipt of the rents since the completion of the sale, subject only to the agreement to allow [K] to use number 212 in the early months”. Lord Justice Nourse regarded this as a “rough and ready result”, but one which would “reduce the opportunities for further dispute between the parties”.\n16.  On 19 April 1997 the applicants and Mrs Price were refused leave by the Court of Appeal to appeal to the House of Lords. On 30 March 1998 the applicants and Mrs Price were refused leave to appeal by the House of Lords.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-486", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants, Mr M.M. and Ms E.M.M., were born in 1988 and 1990 respectively. They live in Ostrołęka, Poland.\n8.  On 26 August 1994 the applicants' mother was murdered by Mr J.M. – her husband and the father of the applicants. Subsequently, Mrs R.D. was appointed as the applicants' foster parent. Mr J.M. was deprived of his parental rights and on 15 October 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted him of murder. It appears that he was later declared unworthy of inheriting his wife's estate and that the applicants were declared her heirs.\n9.  On 14 June 1996 the applicants initiated before the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Warszawie) civil proceedings concerning division of their late mother's estate and the matrimonial property (o podział majątku dorobkowego i dział spadku). Mr J.M. was a party to those proceedings.\n10.  Subsequently, Mrs R.D. applied for an interim measure to appoint her as an administrator of a flat in Warsaw which belonged to the applicants' parents and was the most valuable part of their matrimonial property. It had been unoccupied since 1994 but Mrs R.D. had been paying all maintenance costs and wanted to prevent its further destruction, as the flat had been burgled on several occasions.\n11.  The first hearing was held on 19 December 1996.\n12.  On 5 February 1997 the Warsaw District Court, sitting in camera, allowed Mrs R.D.'s application for an interim measure. However, following Mr J.M.'s appeal, on 27 May 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki w Warszawie) quashed this decision and dismissed the application.\n13.  From 1 October 1997 to 28 January 1999 the District Court listed five hearings. Most of them were adjourned.\n14.  On 8 November 2000 the court, sitting in camera, stayed the proceedings.\n15.  The applicants appealed against this decision and on 14 December 2000 the Warsaw District Court allowed their appeal and quashed it.\n16.  Between October 1998 and July 2001 no hearings were held.\n17.  On 25 July 2001 the parties reached a friendly settlement according to which the applicants were granted the flat and their father kept all flat's equipment and a car.\n18.  Mr J.M. lodged an appeal against the settlement but on 20 February 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed it.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-487", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Ożarów Mazowiecki, Poland.\n7.  Since 1969 the applicant had been receiving a monthly pension from the State Insurance Company (Państwowy Zakład Ubezpieczeń). It appears that in 1987 the company stopped the payments.\n8.  On 10 May 1993 the applicant lodged with the Pruszków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Pruszkowie) an action for payment against the State Insurance Company. The applicant also requested a revaluation of the amount of the pension which would reflect the inflation.\n9.  It appears that the first and the second hearing, scheduled for 24 May and 2 June 1993, were adjourned because of the absence of the defendant.\n10.  From 9 September 1993 to 26 February 2001 the District Court listed twenty-three hearings. Most of them were adjourned. It also obtained four expert opinions.\n11.  On 12 March 2001 the Pruszków District Court gave judgment. It partly allowed the applicant’s claim and increased the amount of his pension.\n12.  On 6 December 2001, on the applicant’s appeal, the Warsaw Regional Court upheld that judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-488", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, born in 1972, is detained in Rampton Hospital.\n8.  In July 1973 the applicant and her three siblings were admitted to foster care by the local authority, following reports that their mother was unable to care for them and of squalid living conditions.\n9.  In May 1976 the applicant and her sister were placed with Mr and Mrs D. Over the following thirteen years the local authority noted various concerns about the placement. In 1980 matters had deteriorated to the extent that the girls were almost removed. A 1981 memorandum stated that they showed many signs of emotional disturbance. In 1984 and 1985 Mr and Mrs D. resisted a number of attempts by social workers to see the girls alone.\n10.  In 1989 the girls made allegations of physical and sexual abuse although no prosecution was brought. In June 1989 both made suicide attempts. In August 1989, the applicant finally left Mr and Mrs D. She was subsequently convicted of various offences, including assault and arson. She was admitted to psychiatric hospitals on a number of occasions and since 1993 has been detained in Rampton Hospital, with a diagnosis of mental illness and psychopathic disorder.\n11.  In 1995 the applicant issued proceedings in negligence against the local authority. A psychiatric report was prepared in which the applicant’s account of the horrific abuse she had endured was set out. It included details of how she and her sister had been deprived of food, severely beaten, locked in their room, denied access to the toilet and treated as slaves. The report concluded that the applicant’s traumatic upbringing had significantly contributed to her mental disorder, the symptoms of which included self-mutilation, mood disorder and anti-social behaviour. The applicant had not been aware of any sexual abuse, but her sister later made a statement, in support of a claim by the applicant for criminal injuries compensation, in which she detailed physical and sexual abuse.\n12.  In 1996 the High Court struck out the negligence claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, on the basis that there was no duty of care owed by a local authority to children in its care in English law at the time. In 1999 the applicant was awarded 50,000 pounds sterling (GBP) by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, in respect of the abuse by her foster-parents and for a separate claim relating to an assault.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-489", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Mr Vladimir Ivanov Hristov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Plovdiv.\n10.  The applicant was arrested on 10 September 1993 on charges that he had used forged documents in order to obtain unlawfully an excise tax refund in the amount of 15,855,800 Bulgarian levs (the equivalent of 615,175 US dollars at the relevant time). The applicant had acted in concert with three other persons all of whom later submitted applications raising complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, and the cases of Mihov v. Bulgaria, no. 35519/97, and Al Akidi v. Bulgaria, no. 35825/97).\n11.  The charges preferred against the applicant were based on Article 212 § 4 of the Penal Code, which provided for a sentence of ten to twenty years’ imprisonment. The accusations concerned alleged false certification of fictitious exports of consignments of cigarettes which in reality had been sold in the country.\n12.  On 5 April 1994 the preliminary investigation was completed and an indictment was submitted to the Plovdiv Regional Court. The prosecution relied on 33 witnesses and voluminous documentary material.\n13.  The Plovdiv Regional Court sat as a chamber of three judges: a president who was a professional judge and two lay judges.\n14.  The first hearing took place on 12 and 13 May 1994 when the Regional Court heard the four co-accused and several witnesses. Some of the witnesses did not appear. The prosecutor and the defence lawyers requested leave to submit further evidence. The court adjourned the hearing. On 16 May 1994 the court, sitting in private, appointed a graphology expert.\n15.  Several times during the proceedings the Regional Court had to wait for the case file to be returned by the Supreme Court in Sofia, where it had been sent for the examination of the appeals submitted by the applicant and his co-accused against the Regional Court’s refusals to release them on bail. In practice, whenever such an appeal was submitted, the Plovdiv Regional Court transmitted the case file together with the appeal and a prosecutor’s opinion.\n16.  The case file was sent to the Supreme Court on 28 May 1994 for one of the co-accused’s appeal against detention to be examined and was returned on 30 June 1994.\n17.  The Regional Court did not deal with the case until 13 September 1994, when the presiding judge ordered the production of a piece of evidence.\n18.  The trial resumed on 6 October 1994. The court heard several witnesses and adjourned the hearing as the prosecutor insisted on the examination of other witnesses who had not appeared and in order to enable the accused persons to submit further evidence. Some of the witnesses who had not appeared were ordered to pay fines.\n19.  The next trial hearing took place on 29 and 30 November 1994. The financial expert appointed by the court stated that he had been denied access to certain documents and therefore had not finalised his report. The court ordered a bank and the customs office to provide access to the documents in question. Two additional financial experts were also appointed. Both the prosecution and the defence sought to adduce additional evidence. The hearing was adjourned.\n20.  Between 20 January and 21 February 1995 the case file was in Sofia at the Supreme Court for the examination of appeals against detention.\n21.  The hearing listed for 19 April 1995 was adjourned as the presiding judge was ill.\n22.  The next h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-490", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The first applicant is a private company incorporated under Cypriot law and registered in Nicosia on 3 July 1986. It has one director and two shareholders. The second applicant is a Cypriot national of Greek-Cypriot origin, born in 1948 and living in Nicosia. He is the director of the first applicant and also its principal shareholder. The second shareholder of the company is the second applicant's wife. From the date of the incorporation of the first applicant until 28 November 1986, the second applicant owned 1,960 shares and his wife 40 shares. However, since 29 November 1986 the applicant has been the owner of 1,999 shares and his wife the owner of one share.\n11.  In April 1988 the first applicant became the co-owner of a substantial amount of property by way of gift. The property is situated in the village of Tymvou, in the northern district of Nicosia, located in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”). It consists of 51 plots of land with registration numbers A174, A194, A195, B245, B121, B238, B321, E262, E266, E268, E279, E291, E292, F221, F222, F301, F308, F314, F318, G102, G162, G193, G246, G288, G298, G299, G407, G411, G414, G415, G418, H17, H18, H26, H76, H87, H90, H98, H109, H112, H117, H130, H136, H144, H179, J12, J13, J32, J38, J46 and J55.\n12.  The first applicant owned the property in equal shares with another company also registered in Nicosia. However, on 3 April 1996 the first applicant and the other co-owner transferred their shares in the above property by way of gift to the second applicant. As from 3 April 1996 the second applicant became the exclusive owner of that property.\n13.  The applicants state that they are prevented by the Turkish armed forces from having access to their property and using and enjoying possession of it.\n14.  On 30 June 2003 the “Parliament of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” enacted the “Law on Compensation for Immovable Properties Located within the Boundaries of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”, which entered into force on the same day.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-491", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Mr Mohamed Nuri Al Akidi, was born in 1961.\n10.  The applicant was arrested on 10 September 1993 on charges that he had used forged documents in order to obtain unlawfully an excise tax refund. The amount at stake, in respect of which the applicant was eventually convicted, was 15,294,000 Bulgarian levs (the equivalent of 558,236 US dollars at the relevant time). The applicant had acted in concert with three other persons all of whom later submitted applications under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, and the cases of Hristov v. Bulgaria, no. 35346/97, and Mihov v. Bulgaria, no. 35519/97).\n11.  The charges preferred against the applicant were based on Article 212 § 4 of the Penal Code, which provided for a sentence of ten to twenty years' imprisonment. The accusations concerned alleged false certification of fictitious exports of consignments of cigarettes which in reality had been sold in the country.\n12.  On 5 April 1994 the preliminary investigation was completed and an indictment was submitted to the Plovdiv Regional Court. The prosecution relied on 33 witnesses and voluminous documentary material.\n13.  The Plovdiv Regional Court sat as a chamber of three judges: a president who was a professional judge and two lay judges.\n14.  The first hearing took place on 12 and 13 May 1994 when the Regional Court heard the four co-accused and several witnesses. Some of the witnesses did not appear. The prosecutor and the defence lawyers requested leave to submit further evidence. The court adjourned the hearing. On 16 May 1994 the court, sitting in private, appointed a graphology expert.\n15.  Several times during the proceedings the Regional Court had to wait for the case file to be returned by the Supreme Court in Sofia, where it had been sent for the examination of the appeals submitted by the applicant and his co-accused against the Regional Court's refusals to release them on bail. In practice, whenever such an appeal was submitted, the Plovdiv Regional Court transmitted the case file together with the appeal and a prosecutor's opinion.\n16.  The case file was sent to the Supreme Court on 28 May 1994 for one of the co-accused's appeal against detention to be examined and was returned on 30 June 1994.\n17.  The Regional Court did not deal with the case until 13 September 1994, when the presiding judge ordered the production of a piece of evidence.\n18.  The trial resumed on 6 October 1994. The court heard several witnesses and adjourned the hearing as the prosecutor insisted on the examination of other witnesses who had not appeared and in order to enable the accused persons to submit further evidence. Some of the witnesses who had not appeared were ordered to pay fines.\n19.  The next trial hearing took place on 29 and 30 November 1994. The financial expert appointed by the court stated that he had been denied access to certain documents and therefore had not finalised his report. The court ordered a bank and the customs office to provide access to the documents in question. Two additional financial experts were also appointed. Both the prosecution and the defence sought to adduce additional evidence. The hearing was adjourned.\n20.  Between 20 January and 21 February 1995 the case file was in Sofia at the Supreme Court for the examination of appeals against detention.\n21.  The hearing listed for 19 April 1995 was adjourned as the presiding judge was ill.\n22.  The next hea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-492", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were both born in 1940 and live in Florence.\n5.  They are the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to A.Q.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 14 September 1984, the applicants informed him of their intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and summoned him to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 14 November 1984, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n8.  In the meanwhile the tenant died and his wife refused to leave the premises.\n9.  On 25 September 1989, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for their son.\n10.  On 16 November 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 6 December 1989, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 31 January 1990.\n12.  Between 31 January 1990 and 8 February 2001, the bailiff made twenty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  In the meanwhile, on 1 December 1998, the applicants made a second statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for their son.\n14.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, on 9 July 1999, the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings. The Florence Magistrate suspended the proceedings until 8 February 2001.\n15.  On 9 March 2001, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-494", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Prato.\n5.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Ercolano, which she had let to P.D.R.\n6.  In a registered letter of 9 April 1992, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 January 1993 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 May 1992, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Portici Magistrate (Naples).\n8.  By a decision of 15 June 1992, which was made enforceable on 22 June 1992, the Portici Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 January 1994.\n9.  On 11 February 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 26 February 1994, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 14 April 1994.\n11.  Between 14 April 1994 and 19 July 2000, the bailiff made ten attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  On 22 July 1999, pursuant to section 6 of law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 4 April 2000.\n13.  On 6 October 2000, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-495", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Rome.\n5.  She is the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to M.T.O.T.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 28 January 1991, the applicant informed her that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 21 May 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n8.  On 1 February 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 17 March 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 April 1993.\n10.  Between 7 April 1993 and 17 December 1999, the bailiff made thirty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n11.  On 25 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-496", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Pino Torinese (Turin).\n5.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Turin, which he had let to V.D.F.\n6.  In a registered letter of 10 February 1992, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 August 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 27 May 1992, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 26 June 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 August 1993.\n9.  On 29 September 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 26 October 1993, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 December 1993.\n11.  Between 7 December 1993 and 7 October 1998, the bailiff made nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 14 June 2000.\n13.  On 14 June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-497", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and live in Rome.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to L.E.\n6.  In a registered letter of 23 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  The tenant told the applicant that she would not leave the premises.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 5 February 1986, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 4 April 1986, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 August 1986.\n10.  On 21 July 1986, invoking articles 10 and 11 of Law No. 84/82, the tenant asked for a postponement of the eviction proceedings and then the Rome Magistrate ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 May 1987.\n11.  On 3 July 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 22 July 1987, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 September 1987.\n13.  Between 18 September 1987 and 9 March 2000, the bailiff made fifty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  In the meanwhile, on 27 February 1991, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n15.  On 9 July 1999, pursuant to article 6 of Law No. 431/98, the tenant asked the Rome Magistrate to suspend the eviction proceedings. Consequently, the Rome Magistrate suspended the proceedings until 15 January 2000.\n16.  On 22 March 2000, the applicant sold the flat to the tenant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-498", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Mr Mihail Simeonov Mihov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1966.\n9.  On 11 September 1993, the applicant, who worked as a custom officer, was questioned in relation to a preliminary investigation opened on 10 September 1993 by the Plovdiv Regional Public Prosecutor against persons suspected of having obtained unlawfully excise tax refunds through forged documents.\n10.  On 19 November 1993 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of having aided and abetted those persons and having forged documents in contravention of Article 212 §§ 2 and 4 of the Criminal Code, which provided for a sentence of ten to twenty years’ imprisonment.\n11.  Four persons, including the applicant, were eventually prosecuted and convicted in one trial. All of them later submitted applications raising complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention (see, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001, and the cases of Hristov v. Bulgaria, no. 35436/97 and Al Akidi v. Bulgaria, no. 35825/97).\n12.  The accusations against the applicant concerned the alleged false certification, made by him on 9 May 1993, of a fictitious export of consignments of cigarettes which in reality had never left the country. That false certification had enabled Mr Ilijkov to obtain unlawfully 6,249,600 Bulgarian levs (the equivalent of 200,417 US dollars at the relevant time).\n13.  The applicant’s defence was apparently based on his assertion that on the relevant day he had been working in his office on the basis of documents only and that his colleagues had been checking the actual traffic of lorries.\n14.  On 5 April 1994, having completed the preliminary investigation, the prosecution authorities submitted an indictment to the Plovdiv Regional Court. The indictment relied on 33 witnesses and voluminous documentary material.\n15.  The Plovdiv Regional Court sat as a chamber of three judges: a president who was a professional judge and two lay judges.\n16.  The first hearing took place on 12 and 13 May 1994 when the Regional Court heard the four co-accused and several witnesses. Some of the witnesses did not appear. The prosecutor and the defence lawyers requested leave to submit further evidence. The court adjourned the hearing. On 16 May 1994 the court, sitting in private, appointed a graphology expert.\n17.  Several times during the proceedings the Regional Court had to wait for the case file to be returned by the Supreme Court in Sofia, where it had been sent for the examination of the appeals submitted by the applicant and his co-accused against the Regional Court’s refusals to release them on bail. In practice, whenever such an appeal was submitted, the Plovdiv Regional Court transmitted the case file together with the appeal and a prosecutor’s opinion.\n18.  The case file was sent to the Supreme Court on 28 May 1994 for one of the co-accused’s appeal against detention to be examined and was returned on 30 June 1994.\n19.  The Regional Court did not deal with the case until 13 September 1994, when the presiding judge ordered the production of a piece of evidence.\n20.  The trial resumed on 6 October 1994. The court heard several witnesses and adjourned the hearing as the prosecutor insisted on the examination of other witnesses who had not appeared and in order to enable the accused persons to submit further evidence. Some of the witnesses who had not appeared were ordered to pay fines.\n21.  The next trial hearing took place on 29 and 30 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-499", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants live in Rome.\n5.  They are the owners of a flat in Rome, which they had let to G.B. and R.B.F.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenants on 23 July 1992, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease and summoned them to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 17 December 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 August 1993.\n8.  On 8 October 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 29 October 1993, they served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 16 December 1993.\n10.  Between 16 December 1993 and 25 January 2000, the bailiff made thirty-two attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n11.  On 27 March 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-500", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Milan.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Milan, which he had let to B.L.\n6.  In a registered letter of 11 October 1993, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 29 September 1994 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  The tenant told the applicant that she would not leave the premises.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 2 May 1994, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 2 June 1994, which was made enforceable on 13 June 1994, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit on 29 September 1996 and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1996. The delay of two years is due to Law no. 359/1992, which extended for two years the expiry of the term.\n10.  On 14 February 1997, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 26 February 1997, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 March 1997.\n12.  Between 21 March 1997 and 29 January 1998, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  The applicant, then, decided to suspend the enforcement proceedings in order to avoid additional costs.\n14.  On an unspecified date of April 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment because the tenant, who was in rent arrears since 29 December 1999, had disappeared.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-501", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Sofia.\n10.  On 8 February 1995 the District Prosecutor’s Office in Sofia opened an inquiry following a complaint by the director of the local telephone service that the applicant had been harassing him and other employees by making offensive statements and allegations that his telephone had been tapped.\n11.  On 5 June 1995 one of the applicant’s children complained about her father’s aggressive behaviour and requested that he be examined by a psychiatrist. She later made a further complaint in writing, stating that the applicant had beaten her. She enclosed a medical certificate as proof of this.\n12.  Between September and November 1995 the local police department collected written statements from employees of the telephone service, the applicant’s daughter, his wife and neighbours.\n13.  The District Prosecutor’s Office in Sofia requested the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination on 23 January 1996. The applicant did not comply with the request.\n14.  On 13 February 1996 a prosecutor ordered the applicant’s forced psychiatric examination and instructed the police to arrest him and bring him to the local mental health centre. These instructions did not refer to the length of time the applicant’s confinement was to last.\n15.  The applicant was not informed of the above decisions.\n16.  On 22 February 1996 the applicant was arrested and brought to the Sofia mental health centre. On the same day, after a short examination, he was transferred to a psychiatric hospital.\n17.  It transpires from a letter written in 2001 by the director of the hospital concerning the complaints which the applicant lodged with the Court that the hospital administration believed that the prosecutor had ordered that the applicant was to be confined for thirty days.\n18.  On 26 February 1996 the applicant submitted a written complaint to the hospital administration requesting his release. He also complained orally that his detention was unlawful and, on at least one occasion, asked for a lawyer.\n19.  On 22 March 1996 the applicant was discharged. He attended voluntarily an examination held on 28 March 1996 but did not turn up when invited for another examination on 5 April 1996.\n20.  On 2 May 1996 the psychiatric hospital forwarded to the District Prosecutor’s Office the doctors’ opinion on the applicant’s mental condition. The doctors noted in their opinion that the applicant was suffering from certain disorders, but concluded that the need to subject the applicant to compulsory psychiatric treatment should be decided by the competent court following a fresh assessment of his mental condition.\n21.  On 5 June 1996 the prosecution authorities submitted to the Sofia District Court a request for the applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment under section 36 of the Public Health Act. On 8 April 1997 the proceedings were terminated.\n22.  On an unspecified date in 1996 the applicant complained to the Sofia City Police Department about his arrest and detention as well as about the behaviour of the police officers involved in these measures.\n23.  On 1 September 1997 the applicant filed complaints with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and with the Minister of the Interior in which he described the events surrounding his arrest and subsequent detention in the psychiatric clinic. The applicant maintained that the authorities had acted unlawfully. By letter of 16 September 1997 the Third District Police Department in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-502", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Rome.\n5.  She is the owner of a flat in Coperchia (Salerno), which she had let to F.T.\n6.  In a registered letter of 12 June 1993, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 August 1994 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 28 June 1993, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Salerno Magistrate. The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.\n8.  By a decision of 6 July 1993, which was made enforceable on 22 February 1995, the Salerno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 February 1995.\n9.  On 4 March 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 24 March 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 3 April 1995.\n11.  On 3 April 1995, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  On 2 January 1996, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n13.  On 8 January 1997, the applicant asked the Salerno Magistrate to be granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On 8 May 1998, the Salerno Magistrate decided to grant the assistance of the police.\n15.  Between 16 July 1998 and 27 January 1999, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  Pursuant to law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.\n17.  On 20 February 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-503", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were respectively born in 1955, 1923, 1957 and 1961 and live in Rome.\n5.  The applicants are the owners of a flat in Rome, which they had let to M.T.S.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 29 April 1992, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1992 and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 3 December 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 May 1995.\n8.  On 8 August 1995, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 15 September 1995, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 October 1995.\n10.  Between 13 October 1995 and 27 October 1999, the bailiff made twenty-six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n11.  On 23 March 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-504", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants are Irish citizens, born in 1958 and 1957, respectively, and they both live in County Wicklow, Ireland.\n10.  On 12 September 1990 they agreed to buy a site with planning permission from “the vendors” on which they intended to build a house. The sale was completed in October 1990. It subsequently emerged that, because of discrepancies in the relevant site maps on which they relied during the sale, they did not have access to the site from the road. They were obliged to discontinue building and to sell the site.\n11.  On 31 May 1991 the Minister for Agriculture and Food established the Tribunal of Enquiry into the Beef Processing Industry (“Beef Tribunal”) and nominated the President of the High Court to be the sole member of the Tribunal. While conducting the Beef Tribunal, the President continued, when possible, to sit in cases in the High Court.\n12.  On 17 July 1991 the applicants instituted High Court proceedings for negligence, negligent misstatement, breach of contract, misrepresentation and breach of warranty against their own solicitors (“the applicants' solicitors”), the vendors and “the vendors' solicitors”. On 10 March 1992 the High Court ordered discovery on a consent basis. Pursuant to the applicants' motion and the defendants' consent, on 4 May 1992 the High Court ordered the defendants to file their defence within 4 weeks. Further motions of the applicants were struck out on 22 and 24 June and on 19 October 1992. On 18 May 1993 the case was certified ready for hearing by the applicants' senior counsel.\n13.  The case was originally listed for hearing on 8 July 1993 but it was adjourned (the applicants objected) due to the illness of one of the defendants to 15 July 1993 when another hearing date would be fixed. On 15 July 1993 a hearing date was fixed for 6 October 1993. On that date there was no judge available and the matter was heard on 7 October 1993 when the President of the High Court (“the trial judge”) made himself available.\nThe Government maintained that the trial judge was advised by counsel present that the hearing required two days, that the judge had notified the parties that his tribunal commitments meant that he had only two days for their case so that, if the case took longer, he would be obliged to adjourn until after the Beef Tribunal, that he would only deal with issues of liability and that the applicants agreed to this. The applicants denied that their counsel so advised the trial judge, that the trial judge had informed them that the trial would be so adjourned, that their counsel would have agreed to an indefinite adjournment (given the second applicant's psychological state) or that they agreed to the separation of issues of liability and damages.\n14.  The applicants' case was heard on 7 and 8 October 1993 and, since it was unfinished, the trial judge adjourned it. On 2 November 1993 and 8 February 1994 the applicants wrote to the Chief Registrar of the High Court asking for enquiries to be made as to when the action would be resumed. On 16 March 1994 they wrote to the Registrar asking him to intervene with the trial judge to fix a date and enclosing a medical report of the second applicant's doctor dated 12 March 1994 (see paragraph 32 below). The Registrar was also contacted by telephone on numerous occasions by the applicants regarding a hearing date. In March 1994 the Registrar informed the applicants by telephone that the trial judge had confirmed a hearing date in July 1994. A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-505", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Rome.\n5.  She is the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to B.C.\n6.  In a registered letter of 19 February 1986, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 October 1986 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 November 1987, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 20 February 1988, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 January 1989.\n10.  On 16 January 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 27 January 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 April 1990.\n12.  Between 5 April 1990 and 3 May 2000, the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 24 April 1996, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her nephew.\n14.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98 the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings. The Rome Magistrate suspended the enforcement proceedings from 1 September 1999 until 24 November 1999.\n15.  On 7 June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-506", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Łódź, Poland.\n9.  On 8 December 1992, relying on information provided by a certain X, the Łódź-Górna District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) opened an investigation against the applicant concerning theft and obstructing X’s use of certain objects.\n10.  On 30 July 1993 the District Prosecutor submitted the bill of indictment to the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n11.  X and witness L. K. failed to attend the hearing of 2 February 1994. On 8 February 1994 the court requested the police to provide the address of L. K.\n12.  The hearing scheduled for 28 February 1994 was adjourned because of the presiding judge’s illness.\n13.  The court held hearings on 30 March and 4 May 1994. The hearing scheduled for 11 May 1994 was adjourned due to the absence of three witnesses and the applicant’s lawyer.\n14.  On 16 May 1994 the court ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant. It considered that her behaviour in the course of the proceedings and the nature of her pleadings caused it to doubt whether she was capable of understanding the meaning of the criminal act allegedly committed by her and whether she was capable of taking part in the proceedings.\n15.  On 23 May 1994 the court rejected the applicant’s eight petitions concerning evidence.\n16.  On 14 June 1994 the examination was carried out. The applicant submitted that it had lasted a few minutes and the psychiatrists had seemed not to have read the case-file. The Government submitted that the psychiatrists had prepared a five-page opinion. On the same day the court ordered the applicant to undergo observation in a psychiatric hospital, relying on the psychiatrists’ statement that they had not been able to prepare their opinion on the basis of their single examination. The applicant appealed.\n17.  On 6 July 1994 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) amended the decision under appeal by indicating that the observation would not last more than three weeks. The court dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s appeal.\n18.  In her letter of 14 July 1994 she requested the annulment of those decisions, alleging that they had been given by persons who were not judges.\n19.  On 25 July 1994 the court held a hearing. It imposed a fine on a witness for his failure to attend that hearing.\n20.  On 29 August 1994 the court issued an order concerning the taking of the applicant’s child into public care during her psychiatric observation, which was supposed to be carried out from 1 to 9 September 1994.\n21.  The applicant left Łódź with her child before the starting date of her observation. On 21 September 1994 her lawyer informed the court that he ceased to represent her in the proceedings.\n22.  On 14 October 1994 a legal-aid lawyer refused to represent the applicant.\n23.  On 18 October 1994 the court held a sitting concerning the applicant’s motion for a new expert opinion.\n24.  Subsequently, it adjourned a hearing at the request of the applicant, who had not accepted her new legal-aid lawyer.\n25.  On 28 October 1994 the Regional Court quashed the decision concerning the taking of the applicant’s child into public care.\n26.  On 3 November 1994 the District Court held a hearing at which it decided to make an enquiry with a psychiatric hospital about a date on which the observation could be carried out. The applicant appealed that decision, pointing out that the psychiatrists’ opinion of 14 June 1994 was of a poor quality and that the court had overloo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-507", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  In April 1989 the applicant instituted proceedings in the District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm against a forwarding agent, claiming that goods belonging to the applicant had been damaged or lost while in the care of the agent. The agent was later declared bankrupt but the bankruptcy estate of the agent declined to enter as a party to the proceedings. On 16 December 1991 the District Court gave judgment in default (tredskodom) according to which the agent – the bankruptcy debtor – was to pay the applicant 112,340 Swedish kronor (SEK) in damages and SEK 199,210 in litigation costs. No appeal was made and the judgment acquired legal force.\n10.  In March 1992 the applicant and the bankruptcy estate of the agent signed an agreement according to which the estate assigned to the applicant the estate’s right to compensation from an insurance company under a third party insurance which had been taken out by the agent to cover possible liabilities incurred in connection with its forwarding business. Subsequently, the applicant instituted proceedings against the insurance company in the District Court, claiming that the insurance company should pay the applicant SEK 29,648 in compensation for damaged or lost goods and SEK 199,210 for the above-mentioned litigation costs.\n11.  On 7 July 1995 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claims against the insurance company and ordered the applicant to pay the insurer’s litigation costs in the amount of SEK 276,760. The court found that the bankruptcy estate of the forwarding agent had not been a party to the proceedings concluded by the judgment of 16 December 1991 – which had only determined the agent’s liability vis-à-vis the applicant – and that, thus, the estate had not acquired any rights or obligations on account of that judgment. Accordingly, the estate of the agent had not been in a position to assign to the applicant any rights emanating from the third party insurance.\n12.  The applicant appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) and requested that the enforcement of the District Court’s judgment be suspended as it had not acquired legal force. On 9 August 1995 the appellate court found that there was no legal possibility to suspend the enforcement and thus rejected the applicant’s request.\n13.  In order to recover its litigation costs, the insurance company requested the Enforcement Office (kronofogdemyndigheten) to levy execution on the applicant’s assets. The Enforcement Office found, however, that the applicant had no seizeable assets. The insurance company then filed a bankruptcy petition against the applicant. In a decision of 19 October 1995 the District Court considered that the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 7 July 1995 had no prospects of success and that, consequently, its liability to pay the litigation costs in question would remain unchanged. Noting further that the applicant was insolvent as it had no assets to pay the litigation costs, the court declared the applicant bankrupt and ordered it to pay the insurer’s litigation costs in the bankruptcy proceedings.\n14.  The declaration of bankruptcy was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 27 November 1995. However, the applicant made a further appeal to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen), and on 12 September 1996 that court quashed the appellate court’s decision, rejected the bankruptcy petition filed against the applicant and ordered the insurance company to pay the applicant’s litigation costs in the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-508", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Warsaw.\n9.  On 8 June 1994 the applicant was charged with having forced a witness in his divorce proceedings to withdraw her testimony. On 12 July 1994 the Warsaw District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) submitted to the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a bill of indictment concerning that charge.\n10.  On 20 June 1994 the prosecutor submitted to District Court another bill of indictment against the applicant. The applicant was charged with domestic violence against his wife.\n11.  On 13 July and 13 September 1994 he requested the appointment of a legal-aid lawyer.\n12.  On 15 September 1994 the Warsaw District Court joined those two cases.\n13.  On 23 September 1994 the court appointed a lawyer for the applicant.\n14.  On 27 September, as well as on 4 and 7 October 1994, the applicant submitted several pieces of evidence to the court.\n15.  The court held hearings on 10 and 11 October 1994. On the latter date it ordered the psychiatric examination of the applicant. On 2 December 1994 the psychiatric opinion was submitted to the court.\n16.  On 2 December 1994 another hearing was held. The court summoned certain witnesses. On 1 February 1995 it adjourned a hearing, as witness M., the examination of whom had been requested by the applicant, failed to appear. The court established that the witness resided abroad, in France or Germany. It ordered the police to find out when that witness would return to Poland.\n17.  On 8 February, as well as on 9, 20 and 29 March 1995, the applicant submitted further petitions concerning evidence.\n18.  On 24 April 1995 the police informed the court that witness M was still abroad.\n19.  On 14 September 1995 the applicant requested that a further hearing be scheduled in the case. On 19 September 1995 he informed the court that M had already returned to Poland. However, on 8 October 1995, upon the court’s order, the police again established that M was abroad.\n20.  On 8 November 1995 the court informed the applicant that the only reason why the hearings were not scheduled was witness M’s absence.\n21.  On 15 November 1995 the applicant informed the court about M’s alleged return to Poland and specified his place of residence. The police again found out that M was still abroad.\n22.  On 27 November 1995 the Warsaw District Prosecutor submitted to the court another bill of indictment in which he charged the applicant with the evasion of the payment of maintenance for his daughter.\n23.  On 11 and 12 December 1995 the applicant submitted to the court further petitions concerning evidence.\n24.  The hearing scheduled for 18 March 1996 was adjourned because of the presiding judge’s illness. After that date the court did not schedule any hearings until 8 June 2000.\n25.  On 18 April 1996 it joined the bill of indictment of 27 November 1995 to the proceedings.\n26.  On 22 April 1996 the court informed the applicant that due to the change of the presiding judge further hearings would be scheduled only in the second half of 1996.\n27.  On 29 April 1996 the applicant requested that all his cases which had been joined be examined separately. Subsequently, he was informed that no appeal lay against the decision of 18 April 1996 and that the case had to be re-opened due to the change of the presiding judge.\n28.  On 10 and 23 May 1996 the applicant again requested that witness M be summoned to appear before the court. Subsequently, he requested also that a hearing be scheduled.\n29.  On ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-509", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Iceland. She is the mother of two daughters, V.A, who was born in 1981, and A.A, who was born in 1982. At the time of their births the applicant was living in Reykjavik with Mr Halil Al, a Turkish citizen. The children were born out of wedlock.\n11.  On 13 April 1984 the couple married in Iceland. Halil Al obtained Icelandic citizenship three years later.\n12.  The applicant and Halil Al separated in November 1989 and Halil Al moved from the house they shared in February 1990.\n13.  In June 1990 Halil Al went to Turkey with the two girls for a holiday. The applicant gave her consent to allow her daughters to accompany their father to Turkey. In August 1990 the applicant received a telephone call from Halil Al, who told her that her daughters would not be returning to Iceland. From that point on Halil Al refused to communicate with the applicant. Over the following months the applicant received no information about the children or their condition in Turkey.\n14.  The applicant applied to the Icelandic authorities for a decree of divorce and custody of her two daughters.\n15.  On 11 January 1991 the Ministry of Justice issued a separation licence and provisionally granted custody of the children to the applicant.\n16.   On 10 April 1992 the Ministry of Justice decided that the applicant should be granted custody of the children in view of the fact that they had been living with their mother since their parents separated and that Iceland had always been their home. The Ministry based its decision on the opinion of the Reykjavik Child Welfare Committee, which made an overall assessment of the applicant’s and Halil Al’s financial situation and living conditions.\n17.  On the same date the Ministry of Justice issued a divorce decree, under which Halil Al was to pay the applicant maintenance for each child until the age of eighteen and the children were to have access to their father under arrangements to be determined by mutual agreement between the parents.\n18.  On 25 October 1991 the applicant brought an action before the Bakırköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) in Istanbul in which she sought a divorce and custody of her daughters.\n19.  At a hearing held on 12 March 1992 V.A and A.A appeared before the court. V.A stated as follows:\n“I want to remain in the custody of my father. Sophia was my mother once upon a time. She is not my mother anymore. She was bad to me. She has left us alone. She was going out with other men. I love my father.” A.A stated:\n“I want to remain in the custody of my father. Sophia was my mother once upon a time. I do not want her anymore. She has left us alone. We were frightened. She was always going somewhere. I love my father.”\n20.  On 12 November 1992 the Bakırköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction declared the applicant and Halil Al divorced and granted custody of the children to the father. It considered in accordance with Law no. 2675 that the applicable law in the case was Turkish law.\n21.  The Civil Court considered that the children had expressed the wish to stay with their father, who tended to their emotional needs and gave them a decent education. The children had adjusted to their life in Istanbul and to their father’s environment. If they were removed from their surroundings, they would suffer psychologically and emotionally. It was therefore in the children’s best interest to remain with their father, who had sufficient income to ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-510", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.\n8.  On 17 December 1990 the applicant sued the “Dromex” Company (“the defendant”) in the Warszawa-Praga District Court of Labour and Social Security (Sad Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Pragi Wydzial Pracy), seeking payment of her remuneration.\n9.  The trial court held hearings on the following dates: 22 February, 17 April, 8 November 1991 and 10 January 1992.\n10.  On 24 August 1992 the expert opinion was submitted to the court. Subsequently, the court held hearings on 16 December 1992 and 12 March 1993.\n11.  On 4 May 1993 a supplementary expert opinion was submitted to the court.\n12.  The court held further hearings on: 3 September, 24 November 1993 and 25 February 1994.\n13.  On 21 June 1994 a second supplementary expert opinion was submitted to the court.\n14.  Subsequently, the trial court held a new round of hearings on: 24 June, 9 November 1994, 3 February 1995, 7 April, 21 July, 13 November 1995, 14 June, 9 October 1996 and 7 March 1997.\n15.  On 30 November 1997 the court obtained a fresh expert opinion from another expert.\n16.  The court held additional hearings: 16 February 1998, 26 January, 27 June, 8 November 1999, 20 January and 7 April 2000.\n17.  On 17 April 2000 the court gave judgment. It became final on 8 May 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-511", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  Between 1979 and 1985 the applicants were arrested by policemen and placed in police custody. They were accused of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). The Ankara Martial Law Court (Sıkıyönetim Mahkemesi) remanded the applicants in custody.\n10.  The beginning and the end of the criminal proceedings against the applicants are as follows:\n \nApplicant's name\nBeginning of the criminal proceedings\nEnd of the criminal proceedings\n1) Şaban Değirmenci\n17 February 1981\n27 December 1995\n2) Mehmet Baha Çetintaş\n5 February 1981\n27 December 1995\n3) Yılmaz Ergül\n17 July 1980\n27 December 1995\n4) İbrahim Arslan\n9 July 1981\n27 December 1995\n5) Ercan Uğur\n18 August 1981\n27 December 1995\n6) İsmail Tayfun Üstün\n27 December 1980\n27 December 1995\n7) Abdullah Evcil\n9 April 1980\n27 December 1995\n8) Abdullah Şengörenoğlu\n6 December 1980\n27 December 1995\n9) İsmail Tümay\n12 December 1980\n27 December 1995\n10) Ziya Uncu\n24 November 1980\n27 December 1995\n11) Mehmet Üresin \n17 July 1980\n27 December 1995\n12) Naci Zaman\n17 September 1980\n27 December 1995\n13) Özgür Ovacık\n24 September 1980\n27 December 1995\n14) Kemal Elhan \n27 October 1980\n27 December 1995\n15) Murat Parlakay\n23 November 1980\nstill pending\n16) Celal Mut\n1 October 1980\nstill pending\n17) Mehmet Hassoy\n24 January 1980\nstill pending\n18) Bedia Zehra Torun\n22 January 1981\n27 December 1995\n19) Arif Kandemir\n10 September 1981\n27 December 1995\n20) Nejdet Özen \n11 April 1980\n27 December 1995\n21) Metin Bakkalcı\n8 October 1980\n27 December 1995\n22) Lütfi Doğan Tılıç\n20 April 1981\n27 December 1995\n23) Hürriyet Eğer\n2 September 1979\n27 December 1995\n24) Esma Güzel\n9 September 1980\n27 December 1995\n25) Tuncay Kara\n24 November 1980\n27 December 1995\n26) Ali Özkan Çakırlar\n1 December 1980\n27 December 1995\n27) Ertuğrul Özbek\n31 August 1980\n27 December 1995\n28) Mehmet Şahin\n4 September 1980\n27 December 1995\n29) Mehmet Akif Aküzüm\n31 October 1980\n27 December 1995\n30) Mehmet Nuri Sarpkaya\n11 November 1980\n27 December 1995\n31) Abdülrezzak Erten\n29 October 1980\n27 December 1995\n32) İlhan Burhan Çam1\n7 November 1980\n27 December 1995\n33) Hacı Badem\n9 September 1980\n27 December 1995\n34) Sami Altuntaş\n29 October 1980\n27 December 1995\n35) Ahter Yıldız\n12 July 1981\n27 December 1995\n36) Recai Kireç\n7 September 1979\n27 December 1995\n37) Halil Ulutaş\n21 September 1984\n27 December 1995\n[1. Rectified on 18 November 2003. The name of İlhan Burhan Çam was mentioned as : 'Burhan Çam'.]\n11.  On 26 February 1982 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Ankara Martial Law Court setting out the charges against 723 defendants, including the applicants. He accused the applicants of membership of an organisation whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime, contrary to Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code.\n12.  On different dates the applicants were all released pending trial by the Ankara Martial Law Court.\n13.  After martial law was lifted, the Ankara Martial Law Court was thereafter referred as the Martial Law Court attached to the 4th Army Corps.\n14.  On 19 July 1989 the Martial Law Court convicted the applicants and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment.\n15.  As the applicants' sentences exceeded 15 years' imprisonment, their cases were automatically referred to the Military Court of Cassation (Askeri Yargıtay).\n16.  Following promulgation of the Law of 26 December 1994, which abolished the jurisdiction of the m", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-512", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Zduńska Wola, Poland.\n7.   In 1980 the applicant was convicted of “having organised an illegal demonstration and having made disrespectful remarks concerning the Polish Nation” and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment. On 20 March 1996 the Supreme Court acquitted him of all charges.\n8.  On 17 May 1996 the applicant filed a request for compensation with the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki) for his wrongful conviction and imprisonment.\n9.  On 28 January 1997 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Regional Court to accelerate examination of the case. In reply, the Regional Court informed the applicant that, due to a large number of similar cases pending before the court, it could not set any approximate date for a hearing in the case.\n10.  On 19 June 2001 the applicant again requested the Regional Court to accelerate examination of his case. The Regional Court informed the applicant that the explanation given in its previous letter remained valid.\n11.  It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Warsaw Regional Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-513", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Cracow, Poland.\n8.  On 21 October 1991 the applicant’s husband filed a divorce petition with the Cracow Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).\n9.  Subsequently, the court held hearings on 13 February and 7 May 1992.\n10.  On 20 July 1992 the trial court secured the applicant’s maintenance claims. The applicant’s husband appealed. On 23 November 1992 the Cracow Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal.\n11.  The court held hearings on the following dates: 11 May, 22 June, 14 September 1993, 13 September and 4 November 1994.\n12.  On 12 April 1995 the trial court again secured the applicant’s maintenance claims. The applicant’s husband appealed. On 3 August 1995 the Cracow Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.\n13.  Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on the following dates: 17 October 1995, 5 March, 11 June, 5 November 1996, 4 March and 26 June 1997.\n14.  On 8 July 1997 the court granted a divorce decree. The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 21 January 1998 the Cracow Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n16.  On 5 February 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment. On 28 July 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment was delivered to the applicant on 1 December 1999.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-514", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Piła, Poland.\n8.  On 28 September 1992 the applicant sued T.K and J.J. (“the defendants”) in the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), seeking a payment by bill of exchange.\n9.  On 10 March 1993 the trial court held the first hearing. Subsequently, the court held hearings on the following dates: 11 July 1994 and 14 February 1995.\n10.  In the meantime the applicant had complained to the President of the trial court about the length of the proceedings.\n11.  The court held hearings on the following dates: 16 November 1995, 20 June 1996, 3 February, 5 September and 16 October 1997.\n12.  On 29 October 1997 the court gave judgment. The defendants appealed.\n13.  On 21 April 1998 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.\n14.  On 22 October 1998 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice about the slow conduct of the proceedings.\n15.  On 6 July 1998 the defendants lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment. In the meantime, the applicant had applied for enforcement of the judgment.\n16.  On 22 October 1998 the applicant complained to the President of the Poznań Regional Court about the delay in deciding her request for enforcement of the judgment.\n17.  On 28 April 1999 the Supreme Court gave judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n18.  On 19 August 1999 the Poznań Court of Appeal gave judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n19.  On 3 November 1999 the applicant requested the court to secure the claim.\n20.  On 25 January 2000 the applicant again complained to the Minister of Justice about the length of the proceedings.\n21.  On 17 February 2000 the Poznań Regional Court held a hearing.\n22.  On 28 April 2000 the court dismissed the applicant’s request to secure the claim. Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on the following dates: 1 June, 7 November 2000 and 9 January 2001.\n23.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-515", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 11 August 1995 on a public bus in the city of Århus the applicant, born in 1928, had a dispute with a ticket inspector, who accused her of having travelled without a valid ticket. When he was about to issue a penalty fare she refused to disclose her identity and the police were consequently called. They requested that the applicant give her name and address, and since she refused, she was arrested at 9.30 p.m. in accordance with section 755, subsection 1, cf. section 750 of the Administration of Justice Act (Retsplejeloven) and brought to the police station.\n8.  From the police reports it appears that the police estimated that the applicant was approximately sixty years old. Having been deprived of her personal belongings, she was put in a waiting room at 9.45 p.m. and after a visit to the toilet at 11.00 p.m. she was moved to a detention cell. On 12 August 1995 at 10.45 a.m. the applicant revealed her identity and she was released at 11.00 a.m.\n9.  Immediately after her release, the applicant collapsed and was hospitalised for three days diagnosed with high blood pressure.\n10.  The charge with the offence of refusing to reveal her identity was not followed up by an indictment. The outcome of the applicant's dispute with the bus company is unknown.\n11.  On 16 August 1995 the applicant complained about the detention to the Chief Constable of Århus (Politimesteren i Århus). In a letter of 14 September 1995 the Chief Constable provided his comments on the course of event, stating inter alia that the applicant had not been in possession of any papers which could have revealed her identity, that she appeared hysterical and refused to reveal her identity and that in the light thereof for security reasons she was placed in a detention cell. Furthermore, the Chief Constable noted that during the detention the applicant was regularly attended to and called upon through the intercommunication system but that each approach was met with screaming and continuing refusal to reveal her identity,\n12.  On 14 June 1996 the applicant claimed compensation for having been detained. The Chief Constable decided on the matter on 18 July 1996, and in so far as relevant his letter of the same day to the applicant reads as follows:\n“In connection with your previous complaint ... you received a ... letter of 14 September 1995 from Chief Superintendent HJH. [My] reply to your complaint... will not differ essentially from the content of [that letter]. \nHowever, in view of your relatively advanced age I find reason to regret that you were not, as promised, attended to by a doctor in connection with your stay in the detention cell. \nIn general, I find the fact that you were taken to the police station, that you were placed in the detention cell, and that the length of your stay in the detention cell from 11.00 p.m. until your release the following day at 11.00 a.m., totalling 12 hours can be ascribed substantially to your conduct and unwillingness to assist in replying to the question on which the police needed clarification.\nThis decision can be appealed against to the Ministry of Justice...\nThe claim for compensation made by you as regards the deprivation of liberty will be decided by the Regional State Prosecutor, who has received a copy of this letter”.\n13.  The applicant did not appeal to the Ministry of Justice against the Chief Constable's decision, but on 31 July 1996 she complained against the decision to the Regional State Prosecutor in Viborg (Statsa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-516", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul.\n7.  On 21 January 1997 the prison warders found three issues of a magazine titled “The Imperialist Capitalist System and the YPD” (Emperyalist Kapitalist Sistem ve YPD Üzerine) on Y.Ö. and S.Ö. who were paying a visit to N.Ö. and S.S. in the Gebze Prison. The magazines were published by the PKK (Worker's Party of Kurdistan) and the TRK/RIZGARİ.\n8.  In their statements Y.Ö. and S.Ö. stated that they obtained the magazines from the applicant at the Komal Publication House in Istanbul.\n9.  On 23 January 1997 police officers from the Istanbul Security Directorate conducted a search at the premises of the Komal Publication House and subsequently arrested the applicant along with eight others.\n10.  On 24 January 1997 the Istanbul Security Directorate requested the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court to authorise an extension of the applicant's detention period. On the same day the public prosecutor authorised the Security Directorate to extend the detention period until 31 January 1997.\n11.  On 27 January 1997 the applicant's lawyer petitioned the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court and requested to see the applicant. The public prosecutor rejected this request without giving any reasons.\n12.  On 31 January 1997 the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor and refused the accusations against him. The applicant was released on the same day.\n13.  On 3 February 1997 the public prosecutor decided not to commit the applicant for trial (takipsizlik kararı) on the grounds that there existed no evidence to substantiate his involvement in the activities of terrorist organisations.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-517", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Istanbul.\n7.  At the time of the events giving rise to the present application the applicant was the major shareholder and the editor in a publication company called “Evrensel Ltd”.\n8.  In 1992 Evrensel Limited published a book entitled “Conference Documents” (Konferans Belgeleri) comprising documents related to a conference organised by the Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party (an outlawed political party in Turkey).\n9.  On 2 September 1992 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court charged the applicant under sections 7 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law with disseminating propaganda against the indivisible integrity of the State and making propaganda of terrorist organisations.\n10.  In the proceedings before the Istanbul State Security Court, the applicant pleaded that the book only contained historical documents. She also referred to her freedom of expression.\n11.  In a judgment dated 1 July 1993, the Court found the applicant guilty of disseminating separatist propaganda, an offence under section 8 of the Anti-Terror Law as the publisher of the book. The applicant was sentenced to five months' imprisonment and payment of a fine. The Court noted that the book referred to a certain part of the Turkish territories as Kurdistan. The book also claimed that Turkish citizens living in those territories were of the Kurdish nation and that they should be given the right to self-determination, including the right to form a separate State, and that the Turkish army had invaded those territories. The Court concluded the book had disseminated propaganda against the indivisible integrity of the State.\n12.  The applicant appealed. She submitted that her conviction constituted an unjustified interference with her freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention.\n13.  On 2 December 1993 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the State Security Court. It considered that the publication of the book constituted an offence also under section 7 of the Anti-Terror Law, disseminating propaganda of terrorist organisations, and that the applicant should have been also convicted separately under section 7.\n14.  In a judgment dated 24 March 1994 the Istanbul State Security Court considered that the applicant should be sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment and a fine under sections 7 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law. However, having regard to the fact that no appeal had been filed by the Public Prosecutor against the judgment of 1 July 1993, the Court held that the applicant's sentence should not exceed the sentence pronounced in that judgment. The applicant was finally sentenced to five months' imprisonment and payment of a fine of 41,666,666 Turkish Lira (TRL).\n15.  The applicant appealed. On 22 September 1994 the Court of Cassation, upholding the cogency of the State Security Court's reasoning and evaluation of evidence in the judgment of 24 March 1994, dismissed the appeal.\n16.  On 18 October 1994 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court notified the prison sentence and fine to the applicant.\n17.  On 17 March 1995 the applicant began serving her sentence at the Bayrampaşa Prison in Istanbul. She was later transferred to the prison in İzmit. She was released after having served 112 days in prison. She also paid TRL 27,090,000 of the fine.\n18.  On 27 October 1995, after the custodial sentence imposed on the applicant was enforced, Law no. 4126 came into force a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-518", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the Paris area.\n10.  The applicant has been physically disabled since the age of seven. He was adopted by Mr Bernard Poirrez, a French national, under the terms of a judgment of 28 July 1987 of the Bouaké Court of First Instance. On 11 December 1987 the Bobigny tribunal de grande instance granted authority for the judgment to be executed.\n11.  In December 1987 the applicant applied for a declaration of French nationality. His application was found inadmissible on the ground that he was over 18 years old when it was submitted. He appealed to the Bobigny tribunal de grande instance, which gave judgment on 15 January 1988 declaring the application inadmissible. That judgment was upheld by the Paris Court of Appeal on 24 June 1993.\n12.  In the meantime, the Seine-Saint-Denis Occupational Counselling and Rehabilitation Board (commission technique d'orientation et de reclassement professionnel – “COTOREP”) registered the applicant as 80% disabled and issued him with an invalids' card. In May 1990 he applied to the Family Allowances Office (caisse d'allocations familiales – “CAF”) for the Paris area for an “allowance for disabled adults” (allocation aux adultes handicapés – “AAH”). In support of his application, he stated that he was a French resident of Ivory Coast nationality and the adopted son of a French national residing and working in France. His application was rejected on the ground that, as he was neither a French national nor a national of a country which had entered into a reciprocity agreement with France in respect of the AAH, he did not satisfy the relevant conditions laid down in Article L. 821-1 of the Social Security Code (see paragraph 24 below).\n13.  On 13 June 1990 the applicant brought his case before the Friendly Settlements Board of the Family Allowances Office.\n14.  In a decision of 6 September 1990, the Board confirmed the CAF's decision on the ground that the applicant did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article L. 821-1 of the Social Security Code. The authorities noted that the Ivory Coast, of which the applicant was a national, had not signed a reciprocity agreement with France in respect of the AAH.\n15.  On 26 February 1991 the applicant lodged an application with the Bobigny Social Security Tribunal for judicial review of the decision rejecting his claim. The applicant and the CAF lodged their pleadings on 26 February and 25 April 1991 respectively.\n16.  In a judgment of 12 June 1991, the court decided to stay the proceedings pending the referral of a question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling. The question was whether the decision not to award the allowance for disabled adults to the applicant, a member of the family (adopted son) of a European Community national resident in the country of which the head of household (the adoptive parent) had the nationality (in accordance with French legislation) was compatible with the European provisions contained in the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (“the EEC Treaty”). In a judgment of 16 December 1992 the ECJ replied to the question with a ruling that the refusal to award the benefit to the applicant was not incompatible with the relevant Articles of the EEC Treaty. It pointed out that the applicant's adoptive father could not claim to be a “migrant worker”, which was the category to which the European provisions in question applied. It based that finding on the fact", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-519", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Szczecin, Poland.\n8.  In 1989 the applicant, who worked as head of a department in a state-owned enterprise dealing with conservation of old buildings, was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed with the Szczecin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an action in which he requested that his dismissal be declared null and void, as well as that he be reinstated in his former post.\n9.  On 16 February 1990 the court dismissed his action. The applicant appealed, but on 22 June 1990 the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed his appeal.\n10.  On 7 June 1993 the Ombudsman lodged an extraordinary appeal against the Regional Court’s judgment.\n11.  On 14 July 1993 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n12.  In his pleadings of 28 March 1994 the applicant withdrew his claim for reinstatement in his former post and raised a compensation claim.\n13.  The District Court held hearings on 9 May and 28 November 1994, as well as on 2 and 25 January 1995.\n14.  On 25 January 1995 it dismissed the action again.\n15.  On 30 June 1995 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s judgment.\n16.  On 2 August 1996 the Ombudsman lodged a cassation appeal against that judgment.\n17.  On 13 December 1996 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n18.  On 23 April 1997 the Szczecin District Court stayed the proceedings, because of the fact that insolvency proceedings concerning the defendant were pending. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. On 30 June 1997 it was dismissed by the Szczecin Regional Court.\n19.  On 21 September 1998 the District Court resumed the proceedings.\n20.  On 22 October 1998 it held a hearing.\n21.  On 26 October 1998 the court awarded the applicant a partial compensation. The applicant appealed against that judgment.\n22.  On 17 February 1999 the Szczecin Regional Court held a hearing.\n23.  On 24 February 1999 it quashed the judgment of 26 October 1998 and remitted the case for re-examination.\n24.  The District Court held hearings on 23 July, as well as on 15 and 29 November 1999.\n25.  On 29 November 1999 it gave a judgment, in which it awarded the applicant compensation. The applicant appealed.\n26.  The Szczecin Regional Court held hearings on 10 and 31 May 2000.\n27.  On 31 May 2000 it amended the judgment under appeal in that it increased the amount of the compensation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-520", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Dunabogdány, Hungary.\n7.  On 16 May 1991 the applicant brought an action against her former husband before the Szentendre District Court for a division of their matrimonial property.\n8.  On 4 November 1991 and 8 January 1992 the parties were heard by the District Court and the applicant was ordered to submit her motions for the hearing of evidence within 30 days.\n9.  Further hearings took place on 6 April and 13 August 1992, at which the parties announced that they hoped to reach an agreement. At the hearing on 16 November 1992 the parties informed the court that the settlement negotiations had proved unsuccessful.\n10.  At the hearing on 24 May 1993 the applicant failed to appear. The District Court heard two witnesses. It also ordered the applicant to deposit an advance to cover the costs of an expert. Further hearings were held on 17 January, 9 February and 16 February 1994. At the hearing on 30 March 1994 the District Court found it necessary to appoint an expert and ordered the parties to deposit the anticipated costs or submit a request for exemption. The applicant submitted a request for exemption; the defendant, despite a warning, failed to comply with the order.\n11.  The hearing scheduled for 15 February 1995 was postponed due to the illness of the judge. Further hearings took place on 22 March, 24 April, and 2 October 1995, 2 September and 18 December 1996. On 27 November 1997 the court appointed an expert. Further hearings were held on 5 February, 23 June, 28 September and 23 November 1998, 18 and 25 January 1999.\n12.  On 17 February 1999 the Szentendre District Court delivered judgment, which was served on 27 April 1999 and became final on 13 May 1999.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-521", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Oberwart/Austria. He is an auditor and tax consultant (Wirtschaftstreuhänder).\n10.  In December 1989, the Salzburg Tax Office (Finanzamt), in the course of investigations into a large scale fraud relating to the “WEB/IMMAG” group, instituted criminal proceedings against 97 persons, requesting them to submit in writing their comments as suspects.\n11.  On 14 December 1989 the applicant, who in his professional capacity assisted the “WEB/IMMAG” group, wrote a letter to the Oberwart Tax Office. Therein he asked that his income tax declarations for the years 1985 to 1987 be corrected, so that the losses declared be cancelled, in particular ATS 541,585 for the year 1985; ATS 1 million for 1986 and ATS 220,000 for 1987. He further asked that following a re-calculation of his income, new tax assessment orders be issued.\n12.  On 27 and 28 December 1989 the Salzburg Tax Office informed the applicant that he was suspected of tax evasion in that he had acted as a sham holder of shares in three cases concerning the years 1985–87. It further invited him to submit his comments in writing.\n13.  After the applicant's request of 15 January 1990 for an extension of the time-limit had been granted, he submitted his comments on 31 January 1990.\n14.  Until 29 October 1992 the Salzburg Tax Office for the Audit of Large-scale Companies (Großbetriebsprüfung) examined the “WEB/IMMAG” group.\n15.  On 22 March 1993 the Salzburg Tax Office requested the Oberwart Tax Office to transmit the applicant's tax file in order to determine the amount of evaded taxes.\n16.  On 17 May 1993 the Oberwart Tax Office replied to the Salzburg Tax Office that the file could not be transferred because of pending investigations.\n17.  Following another request for transfer of the file by the Salzburg Tax Office on 23 July 1993, the Oberwart Tax Office, on 24 January 1994, replied that the file had been sent to the Vienna Tax Office for the Audit of Large-scale Companies and could only be transmitted after these investigations had been completed.\n18.  Upon the Salzburg Tax Office's request of 28 January 1994, the Vienna Tax Office for the Audit of Large-scale Companies transferred the applicant's file on 25 May 1994.\n19.  On 3 June 1994 the Salzburg Tax Office informed the Salzburg Public Prosecutor's Office of the result of its investigations and requested that the applicant be prosecuted for tax evasion. It noted that the losses declared by the applicant for the years 1985–1989 (ATS 541,585 for the year 1985, ATS 1 million for 1986 and ATS 220,000 for 1987) resulted in tax evasion of ATS 327,016 for the year 1985, ATS 603,552 for 1986 and ATS 148,821 for 1987. Thus, the total amount of evaded taxes was ATS 1,079,389.\n20.  On 8 August 1994, when interrogated by the Oberwart District Court, the applicant stated that he wished to submit his comments in writing directly to the Salzburg Regional Court by 31 August 1994. On that date and on 30 September 1994, he requested extensions of the time-limit as he had fallen ill. On 27 January 1995 he submitted his comments and observations in writing.\n21.  On 9 February 1995 the Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant charging him with tax evasion of ATS 1,079,389 in that he had made false statements of losses in his income tax forms between 1985 and 1987 (ATS 541,585 for 1985; ATS 1 million for 1986 and ATS 220,000 for 1987). The bill of indictment comprised ele", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-522", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Salerno.\n5.  M.G. was the owner of a flat in Salerno, which he had let to U.A.\n6.  In a registered letter of 23 May 1988, the owner informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 10 December 1988, the owner reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Salerno Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 3 February 1989, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Salerno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 May 1993.\n9.  On 21 December 1990, the applicant became the owner of the flat and pursued the enforcement proceedings.\n10.  On 17 April 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On the same day, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n12.  On 21 May 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 June 1993.\n13.  On 30 June 1993, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  Thereafter, the applicant decided to suspend the bailiff's attempts in order to avoid any additional costs and because she would not be granted the assistance of the police.\n15.  In the meanwhile, the tenant died and on 11 October 1999, his wife asked the Salerno Magistrate to suspend the enforcement proceedings.\n16.  The Salerno Magistrate suspended the enforcement proceedings until 13 May 2000.\n17.  The tenant's wife informed the applicant that she would not leave the premises.\n18.  On 11 October 2000, the applicant served notice on the tenant's wife informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 November 2000.\n19.  On 6 November 2000, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, but the tenant's son informed the bailiff that he and his mother would leave the premises on 29 November 2000.\n20.  On 27 November 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-523", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Mrs Ayşenur Zarakolu, was a Turkish national and lived in Istanbul. She was represented before the Court by Mr Özcan Kılıç, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.\n9.  On 25 April 2002 the Court was informed of Mrs Zarakolu's death on 28 January 2002 and that Mr Ragıp Zarakolu, her widower, wanted the proceedings to continue and wished to participate in them, retaining the applicant's lawyer as his representative.\n10.  For practical reasons, Mrs Zarakolu will continue to be called “the applicant”, although Mr Zarakolu is now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI and see also Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1641, § 3).\n11.  The applicant was the owner of a publishing company, Belge Uluslararası Yayıncılık, in Istanbul.\n12.  In June 1996 the applicant's company published a book entitled Özgürlüğün Bedeli (The Price of Freedom), written by Lissy Schmidt, a German journalist. The book, which was translated from German to Turkish, is a chronological compilation of articles and interviews involving the socio-economic and political evolution of an autonomous Kurdish region in Northern Iraq and criticism of Turkey's policy on the Kurdish issue.\n13.  On 15 January 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court lodged an application with the court requesting an order for the seizure of the book.\n14.  On the same day the 6th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, sitting with a single civilian judge, ordered the seizure of the book in accordance with Article 28 of the Constitution and Article 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court considered that the chapter between pages 111 and 120 of the book contained separatist propaganda against the integrity of the State.\n15.  On 29 January 1997 the applicant filed an objection with the Istanbul State Security Court against its order of 15 January 1997. She pleaded that the book, including the article impugned by the principal public prosecutor, did not contain any element of separatist propaganda. She further stated that the court's order lacked reasons and merely repeated the request of the Public Prosecutor. She maintained that in publishing the book she aimed at enjoying her right to express ideas and impart information to the public. She also contended that the court's order for the seizure of the book contravened Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Convention. She finally asked the court to set aside the seizure order of 15 January 1997.\n16.  On 3 February 1997 the 1st Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, sitting with three full members, including a military member, unanimously dismissed the applicant's objection and upheld the order for the seizure of the book.\n17.  In the meantime, on 28 April 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the court charging the applicant and two others who had translated the book, with disseminating separatist propaganda, an offence under Article 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law No. 3713). The public prosecutor alleged that the applicant published a book, translated from German to Turkish by Süheyla Kaya and Zeynep Herkmen, in which references were made, between the pages 111-119, 163-165 and 167-182, to a certain part of Turkish territory as “Kurdistan”. He requested that the court punish the applicant in accordance with Article 8 § 3 of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-524", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Mrs Ayşenur Zarakolu, was a Turkish national and lived in Istanbul. She was represented before the Court by Mr Özcan Kılıç, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.\n9.  On 25 April 2002 the Court was informed of Mrs Zarakolu's death on 28 January 2002 and that Mr Ragıp Zarakolu, her widower, wanted the proceedings to continue and wished to participate in them, retaining the applicant's lawyer as his representative.\n10.  For practical reasons, Mrs Zarakolu will continue to be called “the applicant”, although Mr Zarakolu is now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI and see also Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1641, § 3).\n11.  The applicant was the owner of a publishing company, Belge Uluslararası Yayıncılık, in Istanbul.\n12.  In April 1994 the applicant's company published a book entitled Emekçiye Mektuplar-1, Türkiye'nin Düzeni ve Kürt Sorunu (Letters to the Worker-1, The Order of Turkey and the Kurdish Problem), written by Haluk Gerger. The book is a chronological compilation of newspaper articles written by the author and published in various newspapers between 1991 and 1993.\n13.  On 8 March 1995 the chief public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court examined the book and decided not to take any action in respect of its publication.\n14.  On 17 January 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court lodged an application with the court requesting an order for the seizure of the book which was by that time in its 4th edition.\n15.  On the same day the 6th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, sitting with a single civilian judge, ordered the seizure of the book in accordance with Article 28 of the Constitution, Article 86 of the Code on Criminal Procedure and Article 2 § 1 of the Press Law no. 5680. The court considered that the book, at certain pages and taken as a whole, contained statements which provoked feelings of hatred and enmity among the people by discriminating on the grounds of race and region, offences under Article 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law No. 3713) and under Article 312 § 2 of the Criminal Code respectively.\n16.  On 29 January 1997 the applicant filed an objection with the Istanbul State Security Court against its order of 17 January 1997. She pleaded that the book as a whole, including the pages impugned by the principal public prosecutor, did not contain any element of the offence described in Article 8 of the Law No. 3713 or in Article 312 § 2 of the Criminal Code. She further stated that the court's order lacked reasons and merely repeated the request of the public prosecutor. She maintained that in publishing the book she aimed at enjoying her right to express ideas and impart information to the public. She also contended that the court's order for the seizure of the book contravened Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Convention. She finally asked the court to set aside the seizure order of 17 January 1997.\n17.  On 3 February 1997 the 6th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, sitting with three full members including a military member, dismissed the applicant's objection and upheld the order for the seizure of the book.\n18.  On 2 July 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment charging the applicant with disseminating separatist propaganda under Article 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-525", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Florence.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to A.R.\n6.  In a registered letter of 29 June 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 7 July 1989, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 21 September 1989, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 21 September 1990.\n10.  On 25 November 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 9 February 1995, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 February 1995.\n12.  Between 22 February 1995 and 13 June 2001, the bailiff made nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 6 December 1995, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son\n14.  On 17 August 2000, pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 13 June 2001.\n15.  On 29 June 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-526", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Mrs Ayşenur Zarakolu, was a Turkish national and lived in Istanbul. She was represented before the Court by Mr Özcan Kılıç, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.\n9.  On 25 April 2002 the Court was informed of Mrs Zarakolu's death on 28 January 2002 and that Mr Ragıp Zarakolu, her widower, wanted the proceedings to continue and wished to participate in them, retaining the applicant's lawyer as his representative.\n10.  For practical reasons, Mrs Zarakolu will continue to be called “the applicant”, although Mr Zarakolu is now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI and see also Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1641, § 3).\n11. The applicant was the owner of a publishing company, Belge Uluslararası Yayıncılık, in Istanbul.\n12.  In November 1996 the applicant's company published a book entitled Dersim Tertelesi (Dersim Uprising), written by Haydar Işık. The book is a novel of 240 pages, telling the story of the public upheavals at the end of the 1930s in Dersim (the Kurdish name for Tunceli).\n13.  On 22 January 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court lodged an application with the court requesting an order for the seizure of the book.\n14.  On 23 January 1997 the 6th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, sitting with a single civilian judge, ordered the seizure of the book in accordance with Article 28 of the Constitution, Article 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 2 § 1 of the Press Act no. 5680. The court considered that the novel, at certain pages and taken as a whole, contained separatist propaganda against the integrity of the State.\n15.  On 29 January 1997 the applicant filed an objection with the Istanbul State Security Court against its order of 23 January 1997. She pleaded that the novel as a whole, including the pages impugned by the public prosecutor, did not contain any element of separatist propaganda. She further stated that the court's order lacked reasons and merely repeated the request of the public prosecutor. She maintained that in publishing the novel she aimed at enjoying her right to express ideas and impart information to the public. She also contended that the court's order for the seizure of the novel contravened Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Convention. She finally asked the court to set aside the seizure order of 23 January 1997.\n16.  On 6 February 1997 the 1st Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, sitting with three full members including a military member, dismissed the applicant's objection and upheld the order for the seizure of the novel.\n17.  In the meantime, on 25 April 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the court charging the applicant and the author of the novel with disseminating separatist propaganda. The public prosecutor alleged that in the book the Tunceli province was defined as “Kurdistan” and that a distinction was made between Turks and Kurds. He requested the court to punish the applicant in accordance with Article 8 § 3 of Law no. 3713 (Prevention of Terrorism Act) and to order the confiscation of the incriminated novel.\n18.  In the proceedings before the 5th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court the applicant denied the charges against her. She pleaded that the incriminated novel did not contain any separatist propaganda against the integrity o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-527", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were respectively born in 1946 and 1950 and live in Rome.\n5.  They are the owners of a flat in Rome, which they had let to A.M.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 December 1986, the applicants informed her of their intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 9 May 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 September 1988.\n8.  On 7 October 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 12 December 1989, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 December 1989.\n10.  Between 29 December 1989 and 20 April 2001, the bailiff made fifty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n11.  On 6 May 2001, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-528", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, Mr Egon von Bülow, is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1946 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment at HM Prison Erlestoke.\n8.  The applicant was convicted in 1975 for the murder of a policeman and attempted murder of two other policemen arising out of an incident in the early hours of 6 July 1974 when, on being stopped by the police, he had pulled out a pistol and shot all three officers. He was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment for the murder and to two concurrent terms of fifteen years imprisonment for the attempted murders.\n9.  After his trial, the trial judge recommended that he serve a tariff (minimum period of detention representing the elements of retribution and deterrence) of 20 years. The Lord Chief Justice agreed. The Secretary of State did not set a tariff.\n10.  By letter dated 25 July 2000, the applicant was informed that the Secretary of State had given fresh consideration to the tariff in his case. The letter stated that the Secretary of State had decided to set the tariff at 23 years and that, as this period had expired, the tariff was no longer a factor in the applicant’s continued detention.\n11.  By letter dated 27 March 2001, the applicant was informed that the Parole Board had not recommended his release. Though some improvement had been observed, it was noted that the reports on the applicant agreed that he still had some way to go before a move to open conditions could be contemplated. As his progress in a category C prison had been encouraging however, his next review was set to commence on March 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-529", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n14.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n15.  The first applicant is Mrs Tatjana Slivenko, born in 1959. The second applicant is her daughter, Ms Karina Slivenko, born in 1981.\n16.  The applicants are of Russian origin. The first applicant was born in Estonia into the family of a military officer of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). At the age of one month she moved to Latvia together with her parents. Her husband, Nikolay Slivenko, born in 1952, was transferred to Latvia in 1977 to serve as a Soviet military officer. He met the first applicant in Latvia and married her there in 1980. In 1981 the first applicant gave birth to their daughter, the second applicant. The first applicant's father retired from the army in 1986.\n17.  Latvia regained independence from the USSR in 1991. On 28 January 1992 the Russian Federation assumed jurisdiction over the former Soviet armed forces, including those stationed in the territory of Latvia.\n18.  On 4 March 1993 the applicants and the first applicant's parents were entered in the register of Latvian residents (“the register”) as “ex-USSR citizens” (see paragraphs 50-56 below). At that time, none of them were citizens of any particular State. In her request to be entered in the register, the first applicant had not indicated that her husband was a Russian military officer.\n19.  The respondent Government state that, in requesting her entry in the register, the first applicant submitted false information about the occupation of Nikolay Slivenko, stating that he worked at a factory. The respondent Government have submitted a copy of an annex to the first applicant's application for residence in Latvia, including the statement that her husband worked at a factory.\n20.  The applicants and the third party submit that the document is falsified, and that it does not exist. They also refer to the fact that, during the subsequent proceedings concerning the legality of their stay in Latvia (see paragraphs 34-39 below), the immigration authorities did not refer to any such false information, and the Latvian courts did not establish that the applicants had at any point submitted the information mentioned by the respondent Government.\n21.  Nikolay Slivenko, who had become a Russian citizen on an unspecified date in the early 1990s, continued his service in the Russian army until his discharge in 1994 on the ground of the abolition of his post. The parties disagree as to the actual date of his discharge: the applicants state that he was discharged on 2 March 1994. They rely on the fact that an order for his discharge was signed and became effective on 2 March 1994. The Russian Government support this conclusion. The respondent Government argue that the first applicant's husband was discharged on 5 June 1994 as it was only on that date that he formally completed his leave; his leave allowance and retirement benefits had been calculated with reference to that date.\n22.  The treaty between Latvia and Russia on the withdrawal of the Russian troops (“the treaty”) was signed in Moscow on 30 April 1994 and became effective on that date (see paragraphs 64-67 below).\n23.  According to the respondent Government, even before the signature and entry into force of the treaty, various Latvian and Russian authorities cooperated in establishing the names of the Russian military personnel liable to be removed from Latvia. In this context, on 31 March 1994, the Russian mili", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-530", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937.\n6.  He was the owner of a flat in Livorno, which he had let to M.S.\n7.  In a registered letter of 4 March 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n8.  On 9 October 1984, he served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 7 January 1986, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 20 January 1986, which was made enforceable on 21 January 1986, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 20 December 1986.\n11.  On 2 April 1987 the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 21 April 1987 he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 May 1987.\n13.  Between 24 May 1987 and 27 November 1998 the bailiff made eighteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On 15 December 1998, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-531", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Torino.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Turin, which he had let to A.G.\n6.  In a registered letter of 27 November 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 October 1992 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 17 March 1993, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 27 April 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 March 1993.\n9.  On 5 November 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 18 January 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 January 1994.\n11.  On 19 January 1994, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n12.  Between 28 January 1994 and 23 September 1998, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 12 July 1999, pursuant to Law no. 431/98 the enforcement proceedings were suspended for eighteen months.\n14.  On 18 November 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-532", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Milan.\n7.  She is the owner of a flat in Milan, which she had let to W.V.\n8.  In a registered letter of 10 September 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 23 March 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 17 November 1992, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 14 December 1992, which was made enforceable on 8 January 1993, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 14 December 1993.\n11.  On 21 November 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 11 January 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 February 1995.\n13.  Between 10 February 1995 and 10 December 2001, the bailiff made twenty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On 10 January 2002, following the voluntary surrender of the tenant, the applicant recovered possession of her flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-533", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Naples.\n8.  She is the owner of a flat in Naples, which she had let to A.M.\n9.  In a registered letter of 27 November 1978, she informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 3 June 1979 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n10.  On 30 June 1980, she served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.\n11.  In a writ of 5 March 1981, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.\n12.  At the hearing of 5 May 1981, A.M. opposed alleging the expiry of the term on 31 January 1984. The Magistrate declared his incompetence and referred the parties to the Naples Tribunal.\n13.  By a decision of 13 February 1985, which was made enforceable on 11 March 1987, the Naples Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 20 February 1986.\n14.  At the hearing of 21 June 1985, A.M. opposed, alleging the expiry of the term on another date.\n15.  On 12 December 1986, the Naples Tribunal rejected the appeal.\n16.  On 15 November 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 June 1990.\n17.  On 17 January 1990, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her daughter.\n18.  Between 13 June 1990 and 13 October 1997, the bailiff made twenty-six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n19.  On 18 June 2002, the applicant' representative informed the Court that in the meantime, the applicant had entered into a new lease with the tenant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-534", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Florence.\n5.  She is the owner of a flat in Sesto Fiorentino (Florence), which she had let to G.L.M.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 18 September 1987, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and summoned him to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 12 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 26 October 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n8.  On 11 July 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 15 September 1989, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 October 1989.\n10.  Between 9 October 1989 and 10 November 1998 the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n11.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings.\n12.  On an unspecified date in April 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat because the tenant spontaneously left the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-535", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Sesto Fiorentino (Florence).\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Sesto Fiorentino, which he had let to G.C. and G.P.\n6.  In a registered letter of 29 November 1990, the applicant informed the tenants that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenants on 17 April 1991, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 23 May 1991, which was made enforceable on 31 July 1991, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n9.  On 29 April 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son.\n10.  On 14 May 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 2 June 1993, he served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 July 1993.\n12.  Between 15 July 1993 and 15 October 1998, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 27 June 1999.\n14.  On that date, the tenants asked the Florence Magistrate for a new suspension. On 11 July 2000, the Florence Magistrate decided to fix a new date for the enforcement proceedings, namely 25 January 2001.\n15.  On 31 October 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat because the tenants spontaneously vacated the premises.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-536", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Zagreb.\n9.  From 1 August 1992 until 31 August 1995 the Croatian army used the applicant's cottage in Gospić, Croatia, for military purposes. After the members of the army had left, the applicant found that the house had been wrecked and his possessions removed.\n10.  On 20 March 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for damages against the Republic of Croatia with the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud).\n11.  At the preliminary hearing on 18 November 1997 the applicant lodged an application to be exempted from payment of the court fees. The court heard the applicant, who stated that he lived with his daughter, son-in-law and grandchild in a flat in Zagreb which he owned. He also stated that he owned a small cottage and that his pension amounted to 1,624 kunas (HRK) per month. The court rejected the applicant's application for exemption from payment of the court fees and ordered him to pay the amount of HRK 6,780 within sixty days.\n12.  On 21 November 1997 the applicant appealed against the above decision to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud). He submitted a written copy of the appeal to the Zagreb Municipal Court. In the appeal he stated that his pension was his only income and that he had to support his daughter. Furthermore, his possessions were of no great value since his cottage had been wrecked. By paying the fees imposed, he would have jeopardised his own means of subsistence and those of the persons whom he supported.\n13.  However, the Zagreb Municipal Court did not forward the appeal to the Zagreb County Court, as the appellate court, because there was no written court decision on the applicant's application to be exempted from the court fees, which was a prerequisite for an appeal. On 31 December 1998 the statutory limitation period for non-payment of court fees expired and the issue thus became irrelevant.\n14.  On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced a change to the Civil Obligations Act to the effect that all proceedings concerning claims in respect of damage resulting from acts carried out by members of the Croatian army and police in the performance of their duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.\n15.  On 28 November 2000 the proceedings were stayed.\n16.  In the meantime, on 24 August 2000, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint challenging the constitutionality of the above legislation. The Constitutional Court has not yet adopted any decision on that complaint.\n17.  The applicant also filed a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings.\n18.  On 18 December 2000 the Constitutional Court dismissed the latter complaint, finding that the applicant's right to have his civil claim decided within a reasonable time had not been violated as the courts had not been in a position to proceed with his case on account of the changes in legislation.\n19.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation concerning liability for damage resulting from acts carried out by members of the Croatian army and police in the performance of their duties during the Homeland War in Croatia.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-537", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were both born in 1936 and live in La Spezia.\n5.  They are the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to G. and M. D.\n6.  In a registered letter of 3 April 1987, the applicants informed the tenants that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenants on 25 June 1987, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 19 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 2 November 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n9.  On 5 April 1989, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for their son.\n10.  On 29 June 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 21 July 1989, they served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 September 1989.\n12.  Between 11 September 1989 and 14 December 1998, the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 17 June 1999, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-538", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were respectively born in 1927 and 1929 and live in Rome.\n5.  They are the owners of a flat in Rome, which they had let to L.S.\n6.  In a registered letter of 19 February 1990, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 28 December 1990, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 9 May 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n9.  On 12 February 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 16 April 1993, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 May 1993.\n11.  Between 6 May 1993 and 7 December 1999, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  On 6 June 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-539", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n15.  The first applicant, born in the United Kingdom in 1967, lived in London until he was 4 years old. He then resided in Nigeria until he was 22 years old, after which he returned to the United Kingdom.\n16.  In 1991 he was convicted of rape, possessing an imitation firearm and attempted murder. He was sentenced to three concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest term being twelve years.\n17.  On 14 October 1996 the first applicant attended a meeting in the “C Wing interview room” with his probation officer for the preparation of his parole assessment report. The probation officer later alleged that the first applicant had threatened to kill her if she did not write down what he said. The first applicant was charged with an offence contrary to Rule 47(17) of the Prison Rules 1964 (“the Prison Rules”).\n18.  He was “put on report” and an adjudication hearing before the prison governor was convened for 15 October 1996. The first applicant requested legal representation in a form submitted to the governor dated 15 October 1996 and also during the hearing on that day before the governor. His reasons for such a request were not considered sufficient by the governor, but the hearing was adjourned to allow him to obtain legal advice. The first applicant's representative then advised him about the nature and format of the adjudication proceedings and about the questions he should raise.\n19.  In his detailed reply to the complaint lodged against him and written after the hearing on 15 October 1996, the first applicant stated that he required legal representation to put his points clearly to the authorities.\n20.  The hearing resumed on 21 October 1996. The record of the hearing indicates that the first applicant was asked whether he had had time to speak to his solicitor and whether he was ready to proceed. The relevant part of the record was ticked to indicate that this was the case. The hearing went ahead. The first applicant disputed that he had used threatening words against the probation officer. He submitted that the probation officer had misunderstood the actual words he had used, because of either his accent or language, and that the impugned remarks were about his life in Nigeria. Evidence was heard from the first applicant and the probation officer, to whom questions were put by the governor and the first applicant.\n21.  The first applicant was found guilty and awarded 40 additional days' custody (pursuant to section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 – “the 1991 Act”) together with 14 days' cellular confinement, 14 days' exclusion from associated work and 14 days' forfeiture of privileges. This was the applicant's twenty-second offence against discipline and his seventh offence of threatening to kill or injure a member of the prison staff.\n22.  On 22 October 1996 and 11 February 1997 the applicant unsuccessfully petitioned the Secretary of State about the conduct of his adjudication proceedings. In a letter dated 1 May 1997, it was confirmed that the Secretary of State had reviewed the adjudication procedure as a whole and found it to have been satisfactory.\n23.  The second applicant was born in 1954.\n24.  In January 1988 he was convicted on two counts of rape and of robbery and was sentenced to four concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest being eighteen years.\n25.  On 23 March 1997 the second applicant was jogging around a track in the prison exercise yard when he collided with a prison officer. The officer alleged that the s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-540", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Rome.\n7.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to F.M. and G.C.\n8.  In a registered letter of 8 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenants that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.\n9.  The tenants told the applicant that they would not leave the premises.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenants on 18 May 1985, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned them to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 29 June 1985, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 June 1986.\n12.  On 26 May 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 9 July 1986, he served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 31 July 1986.\n14.  Between 31 July 1986 and 19 May 2000, the bailiff made seventy-three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 14 June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-541", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Częstochowa, Poland.\n5.  In June 1995, on his way to work, the applicant bought a bottle of sparkling mineral water. While he was opening it, the bottle exploded and its metal cap hit the applicant’s left eye. The accident, despite the subsequent surgeries and medical treatment, resulted in the applicant’s loss of vision in his left eye. He was declared an invalid and was granted a disability pension by the Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych).\n6.  In August 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for compensation and pension against the producer of the mineral water. He submitted medical certificates issued by the Częstochowa and Katowice Hospitals which treated his injury.\n7.  On 23 October 1997 the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki w Częstochowie) exempted the applicant from the court fees.\n8.  On 15 November and 15 December 1997 the trial court held hearings.\n9.  In December 1997 the “S” assurance company joined the proceedings as an intervener.\n10.  In 1998 the trial court held four hearings at which it heard witnesses.\n11.  On 8 December 1998 the court, sitting in camera, ordered a medical expert opinion.\n12.  On 18 May 1999 the court received the opinion.\n13.  On 25 May 1999 the court, sitting in camera, ordered the Social Security Board to provide a copy of the applicant’s file.\n14.  Between 24 November 1998 and 7 September 1999 no hearings were held.\n15.  At the subsequent hearings held on 8 September 1999, 12 January and 14 June 2000 the court heard witnesses and ordered the preparation of new expert opinions.\n16.  On 13 December 2000 the trial court held a hearing at which it asked for another expert medical opinion to be prepared.\n17.  On 10 April 2001 the court received the expert opinion. The intervener challenged it.\n18.  At the hearing held on 20 June 2001 the court requested an expert opinion concerning the applicant’s pension.\n19.  The expert submitted the opinion on 31 January 2002. Again, the intervener challenged the opinion.\n20.  The next hearing, which was held on 20 March 2002, was adjourned sine die. The court ordered another expert opinion.\n21.  On 24 May 2002 the opinion was submitted to the court. Subsequently, the intervener challenged it.\n22.  On 27 September 2002 the trial court held a hearing.\n23.  On 30 September 2002 the Częstochowa Regional Court gave judgment. The defendant was found liable for the damage sustained by the applicant. The court awarded the applicant PLN 85,000 in compensation but dismissed his claim for pension.\n24.  Both parties appealed against this judgment.\n25.  On 4 April 2003 the applicant was exempted from the court-fees in the appeal procedure. The proceedings are pending before the Court of Appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-542", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Józef Gidel, is a Polish national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Kraków, Poland.\n5.  The applicant runs a car repair shop in Kraków. On 11 March 1993 he sued a certain I.K. and the State Treasury before the Kraków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), seeking payment for the repair of I.K’s car. On 27 August 1993 the statement of claim was served on  I.K who, at that time, lived in Germany.\n6.  The first hearing was set down for 21 December 1993 but was later adjourned because the presiding judge was ill. The court held hearings on 26 April, 26 August, 4 November 1994 and on 21 March 1995.\n7.  Subsequently, the defendant challenged the impartiality of all the judges of the Kraków District Court. On 8 November 1995 the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed his challenge, finding that it lacked any basis and that the relevant statutory requirements for the disqualification of the judges were not satisfied. His further appeal was dismissed by the Kraków Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 30 January 1996.\n8.  On 23 October, 1 December 1995 and on 13 May 1996 the applicant sent letters to the court asking for a hearing date to be fixed as soon as possible.\n9.  On 30 August 1996 the court ordered an expert to prepare a report. However, the expert failed to comply with the court’s order. On 21 October 1996 the court ordered yet another expert to prepare a report within one month. It was submitted to the court on 17 December 1996.\n10.  On 28 March 1997 the applicant again asked the court to fix a date for a hearing.\n11.  On 12 December 1997 the court held a hearing.\n12.  At the hearing held on 3 April 1998 the court ordered that the claim  against the State Treasury be examined separately. The next hearing, scheduled for 12 May 1998, was cancelled as there was no courtroom available.\n13.  On 1 April 1998 I.K. challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge. On 1 June 1998 a panel of three judges, sitting as the Kraków District Court, dismissed the defendant’s challenge, ruling that it was totally unsubstantiated. The court also imposed a fine on him, holding that the challenge had been made in bad faith. His further appeal was dismissed by the Kraków Regional Court on 10 February 1999.\n14.  On 26 June 1998 the Kraków District Court gave an interlocutory judgment. It dismissed the applicant’s claim against the State Treasury on the ground that its liability had not been established.\n15.   Meanwhile, the defendant had informed the trial court that he had moved to Poland. This resulted in Kraków-Śródmieście District Court no longer having territorial jurisdiction over the case. On an unknown date the applicant was asked to indicate in which court he wished to pursue his claim: Kraków-Podgórze District Court or Kraków-Nowa Huta District Court. The applicant failed to do so. On 12 July 2000, of the court’s own motion, the case was referred to the Kraków-Podgórze District Court.\n16.  On 16 October 2000 the applicant sent a letter to the President of the Kraków Regional Court. He complained about the slow conduct of the proceedings. On 17 November 2000, in reply to his complaints, the President observed that the proceedings were indeed lengthy and gave his assurance that he would supervise their conduct.\n17.  At the hearing held on 9 February 2001 the Kraków District Court gave judgment. On 27 April 2001 the applicant appealed. On 15 October 2001 the Kraków District Court rejected the appeal, as the applicant had fail", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-543", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Lubań, Poland.\n5.  The applicant was involved in administrative proceedings concerning the amount of the veteran benefit he had been receiving since 1974. On 12 September 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court gave a judgment in his case. The court, inter alia, ordered the Office for Veterans and Persecuted Persons (Urząd do Spraw Kombatantów i Osób Represjonowanych) to pay the applicant a sum of PLN 10 as reimbursement of the court fees. In May 1997 the applicant received from the Office for Veterans and Persecuted Persons only a half of the awarded sum (PLN 5).\n6.  In April 1997 the applicant lodged with the Lubań District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Lubaniu) a civil action against the Office for Veterans and Persecuted Persons. He claimed compensation and payment of, inter alia, the remaining sum of PLN 5.\n7.  On 7 May 1997 the Lubań District Court transmitted the case to the Warsaw District Court.\n8.  The Warsaw District Court held one hearing and on 30 November 1998 it gave a default judgment (wyrok zaoczny) against the defendant ordering it to pay PLN 50 in compensation and PLN 30 as a reimbursement of the court fees. The court ordered that the judgment should be immediately enforceable.\n9.  On 30 March 1999 the defendant lodged an objection against this decision.\n10.  On 18 October 1999 the Warsaw District Court suspended the enforcement order in respect of the judgment of 30 November 1998.\n11.  The applicant asked the court to order again that the judgment of 30 November 1998 be immediately enforceable. On 29 October 1999 the Warsaw District Court dismissed his request. The applicant appealed against this decision and was ordered to pay the court-fees. On 22 August 2000 his appeal was rejected due to the applicant's failure to pay the court fees. In the appeal procedure against this decision he was also ordered to pay the court‑fees. Finally, the applicant paid the court-fees and on 16 December 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) examined his appeal against the decision of 29 October 1999 and dismissed it.\n12.  On 23 October 1999 the Warsaw District Court, sitting in camera, decided that the applicant would be heard by the Lubań District Court. It appears that this court failed to hear the applicant and on 25 April 2002 the trial court repeated its request.\n13.  On 28 June 2002 the Lubań District Court heard the applicant.\n14.  The proceedings are pending before the Warsaw District Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-544", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Zamość, Poland.\n5.  In 1991 the applicant noticed a lump on her neck and went to the Lublin Hospital. After a general examination she was diagnosed with a non‑cancerous salivary gland tumor. In October 1991 she underwent a surgery. Only after her operation were the relevant tests carried out, which proved the malignant nature of her tumor. Subsequently, the applicant turned to another hospital, in Szczecin, where she underwent a second operation. This additional surgery has led to serious complications such as jaundice and post-traumatic stress disorder.\n6.  On 27 January 1994 the applicant initiated before the Lublin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Lublinie) civil proceedings for compensation against the State Treasury represented by the Lublin Hospital. She claimed that she was a victim of medical malpractice because of the errors committed while making the diagnosis and during the first surgery which led to additional surgery and caused enormous suffering and general deterioration of her health.\n7.  On 17 March 1994 the applicant was partly exempted from the court‑fees.\n8.  On 20 June 1994 the trial court held a first hearing.\n9.  Between 21 November 1994 and 28 March 1995 six hearings were held. The trial court heard witnesses and the applicant, and ordered preparation of expert opinions.\n10.  In April and July 1995 two expert opinions prepared by the Lublin Medical Academy were submitted to the court.\n11.  Between 29 March 1995 and 19 August 1996 no hearings were held.\n12.  At the hearings held on 20 August and 10 December 1996 the court ordered two additional expert medical opinions.\n13.  On 17 March 1997 the court, sitting in camera, dismissed the parties’ applications for another expert opinion because they had failed to pay the costs of the opinion.\n14.  At the hearing held on 4 April 1997 the court allowed the parties’ application for an additional expert opinion.\n15.  On 9 June 1997 the opinion was submitted to the court.\n16.  Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on 2 September and 27 November 1997.\n17.  In 1998 the trial court held in total six hearings and on 24 November 1998 it gave judgment. It awarded the applicant PLN 3,500 in compensation and dismissed the remaining part of her action.\n18.  Both parties appealed against the judgment.\n19.  On 6 May 1999 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) held a hearing and on 20 May 1999 it gave judgment. The court quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case to the Lublin District Court.\n20.  On 4 November 1999 the trial court held the first hearing at which the applicant changed the value of her claim. In consequence, the case was transferred to the Lublin Regional Court.\n21.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 25 January and 21 March 2000.\n22.  On 4 May 2000 the trial court, sitting in camera, decided that in view of the changes in the law on the administrative organisation of Poland the Lublin Governor would represent the Lublin Hospital.\n23.  On 18 July 2000 the applicant further extended her action. She requested PLN 35,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage.\n24.  On 7 September 2000 the trial court, sitting in camera, ordered two medical expert opinions. The court also exempted the applicant from the court‑fees for the extended value of her claim.\n25.  On 11 September, 11 December 2001 and 23 January 2002 the court held hearings.\n26.  On 1 February 2002 the Lublin Regional Court gave j", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-545", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1954 and at the relevant time he lived in Košice. At present he lives in Spain.\n10.  In the morning of 30 November 1996 the applicant’s wife warned the police by telephone that the applicant intended to drive his car after having drunk alcoholic beverages, that he carried a weapon, that his behaviour was strange and that it was possible that he could cause injury to other persons. Upon this information the police stopped the car driven by the applicant. As the applicant actively resisted his search, the police handcuffed him. A sword was taken away from him. The analysis of his breath indicated that the applicant had alcohol in his blood. According to the applicant, the breath test was forged.\n11.  The police brought the applicant to a police station, where they withdrew his driving licence. Subsequently he was brought to a psychiatrist. After a short examination the applicant was released. Later on the same day the doctor issued a certificate, at the request of the applicant’s wife, in which the police were requested for assistance in transporting the applicant to a mental hospital.\n12.  In the afternoon of 30 November 1996 the applicant returned to his home but he could not unlock the door. He asked the police for assistance. Upon the arrival of the police the applicant’s wife opened the door and asked that the applicant be taken away. He was brought to a mental hospital in an ambulance. After he had refused to undergo an examination, the applicant was brought against his will to another hospital. Medicaments were administered to him during three days and he had to undergo psychiatric tests.\n13.  On 2 December 1996 the administration of the hospital to which the applicant had been brought on 30 November 1996 informed the Košice II District Court about the applicant’s detention on account of the suspicion that he suffered from a mental disorder.\n14.  On 6 December 1996 the Košice II District Court delivered a decision by which it started proceedings, with reference to Sections 191a (1) and 191b (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, with a view to determining whether the applicant’s placement in a mental hospital was justified. By another decision delivered on 6 December 1996 the District Court appointed a guardian to defend the applicant’s rights in the proceedings.\n15.  On 9 December 1996 a record concerning the applicant’s detention in the mental hospital was drawn up in the presence of the applicant, the Košice II District Court judge dealing with the case and the doctor who treated the applicant. Reference was made to statements of the wife according to which the applicant’s behaviour had changed following his return from Venezuela where he had been on business for one year. According to her, the applicant alleged hearing strange voices and that his flat was monitored from outside by means of a fax machine. He had altercations with his colleagues and started carrying weapons. His wife feared that the applicant wanted to drown her in the bath and stated that he had not allowed their children to go to school. The applicant denied such allegations and explained that there had been disagreements between him and his wife. He affirmed that he was not ill and refused examination by psychologists. The record further stated that the applicant was being treated with medicaments and that his brother suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. It concluded that a professor would decide on 10 December 1996 whether further ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-546", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Stary Lubliniec, Poland.\n7.  On 10 October 1994 the applicant filed an application for delimitation of plots of land with the Lubaczów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n8.  On 9 November 1994 the court held the first hearing. Further hearings were held on 29 November, 20 December 1994, 27 November 1995 and 25 April 1996.\n9.  On 5 June 1996 the court held an inspection of the site. From 6 March 1997 to 22 June 1999 the court held nine hearings.\n10.  During the first-instance proceedings the court heard evidence from three witnesses and obtained reports from two experts.\n11.  On 5 November 1999 the Lubaczów District Court held a hearing and delivered judgment.\n12.  On 13 December 1999 the applicant appealed. The proceedings were terminated by the judgment of the Przemyśl Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) of 17 February 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-547", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Partizánske.\n5.  The applicant proposed two technological improvements to the company in which he worked. They were not accepted.\n6.  On 21 November 1989 the applicant filed an action with the Topoľčany District Court. He claimed the protection of his intellectual property in that his above proposals were not accepted.\n7.  On 14 February 1990 the applicant amended his action in that he claimed that one of the technological improvements proposed by him was submitted prior to other proposals concerning the same issue submitted by other persons, and that he should be compensated for both improvements proposed by him.\n8.  On 21 January 1991 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action after having ordered two expert opinions. On 20 March 1991 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed this decision on the ground that the first instance court had failed to establish the facts correctly and that it had proceeded erroneously.\n9.  On 18 July 1991 and on 30 September 1991 the appellate court dismissed the applicant’s requests for the exclusion of the District Court judges.\n10.  On 5 December 1991 the District Court appointed an expert. On 25 February 1992 the expert informed the District Court that he had a heavy workload and that he would be able to submit the opinion only after 21 April 1992. Subsequently the District Court repeatedly urged the expert to submit the opinion. The opinion was submitted on 23 November 1992. On 14 December 1992 the applicant submitted his comments on the opinion. On 14 January 1993 he challenged the District Court judge. The Nitra branch office of the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for exclusion of the District Court judge on 26 February 1993.\n11. On 15 September 1993 the case was adjourned as the defendant and the expert did not appear. The expert subsequently died.\n12.  On 23 May 1994 the District Court appointed an expert. The latter submitted the opinion on 8 December 1994.\n13.  On 25 January 1995 the Topoľčany District Court delivered an interim judgment in which it found, with reference to two expert opinions, that the applicant’s proposal concerning the circulation of air in the defendant company was to be given priority. The District Court further dismissed the claim for compensation concerning the applicant’s second proposal.\n14.  The defendant appealed on 6 March 1995, and on 13 July 1995 the Nitra branch office of the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment to the extent that it had allowed the applicant’s claim for his proposal to be given priority. The decision stated that the first instance court had failed to follow the instructions set out in the Regional Court’s above decision of 20 March 1991.\n15.  On 26 October 1995 the District Court heard the experts with a view to clarifying the differences in their conclusions. On 7 January 1996 it obtained a third expert’s opinion. Hearings were held on 22 February 1996 and on 6 March 1996.\n16.  Between 11 March and 9 September 1996 the case file was examined by the Constitutional Court.\n17.  On 28 October 1996 the Topoľčany District Court dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s action.\n18.  On 11 December 1996 the applicant appealed and claimed that the decision was arbitrary. He also challenged the District Court judge.\n19.  On 28 February 1997 the Constitutional Court found that the Topoľčany District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional ri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-548", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.\n5.  On 12 July 1995 the applicant’s brother initiated court proceedings before the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Warszawie) in order to obtain a decision declaring heirs to his late mother’s estate. The applicant’s brother applied to establish heirs on the basis of a will allegedly prepared by his mother.\n6.  On 13 February 1996 the applicant challenged the will.\n7.  The hearing scheduled for 4 April 1996 was adjourned upon the request filed by the applicant’s lawyer.\n8.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 16 May and 5 September 1996 at which the court allowed the parties’ applications to hear witnesses.\n9.  The hearings scheduled for 19 November, 16 December 1996 and 23 February 1997 were adjourned because the applicant’s brother was ill.\n10.  On 18 June 1997 the court stayed the proceedings since the applicant’s brother had died.\n11.  On 13 November 1997 the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings because the proceedings concerning her brother’s inheritance had ended and in consequence the reason for staying the proceedings had ceased to exist.\n12.  On 10 January 1998 the court resumed the proceedings. Ms M.P.P., the daughter of the applicant’s late brother and his heir, joined the proceedings.\n13.  On 23 April and 10 July 1998 the court held hearings. The trial court heard a witness requested by Ms M.P.P.\n14.  The hearing scheduled for 5 November 1998 was adjourned.\n15.  Subsequently, the court held hearings on 21 January and 19 April 1999. Ms M.P.P. applied to the court to prepare an expert opinion and the applicant’s lawyer asked the court not to schedule any hearings until September 1999.\n16.  The next hearing was held on 16 September 1999.\n17.  The hearings scheduled for 4 November 1999 and 20 January 2000 were adjourned due to the illness of the applicant’s lawyer and Ms M.P.P.\n18.  On 6 April, 21 September and 21 December 2000 the court held hearings. Both parties requested preparation of an expert opinion.\n19.  On 5 April 2001 the court held a hearing at which it heard the parties. The court requested a hospital to provide documents concerning the health of the applicant’s late mother.\n20.  On 26 April 2001 the court received the requested documents.\n21.  On 18 June 2001 the court, sitting in camera, ordered preparation of an expert opinion. The opinion was submitted to the court on 12 February 2002.\n22.  On 23 April 2002 the applicant’s counsel informed the court that he had ceased to represent her and would be absent at the next hearing scheduled for 26 April 2002. The court appointed another lawyer for the applicant, however, the latter refused to accept the appointment.\n23.  On 4 September 2002 the court ordered the Bar Association to designate a lawyer to represent the applicant.\n24.  Between 6 April 2001 and 25 April 2002 no hearings were held.\n25.  The hearings scheduled for 26 April and 5 September 2002 were adjourned because the applicant’s new lawyer failed to appear.\n26.  On 20 November 2002 the applicant’s lawyer informed the court that she would be absent at the next hearing scheduled for 21 November 2002.\n27.  At the hearing held on 21 November 2002 the court decided to inform the Bar Association about the continued absence of the lawyer at the hearings.\n28.  Subsequently, the Warsaw District Court scheduled a hearing for 24 April 2003.\n29.  The proceedings are pending before the Warsaw District Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-549", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1914 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.\n5.  In November and December 1989 the applicant’s neighbours were renovating an attic over her flat and partly removed the roof. As a result, the applicant’s flat was flooded and her belongings were damaged.\n6.  On 3 June 1992 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Warszawie) a civil action against her neighbours. She requested PLN 4,000 in compensation for damage to her property. On 16 October 1992 the case was transferred to the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki w Warszawie).\n7.  On 17 February 1993 the trial court held its first hearing at which it heard both parties.\n8.  In December 1993 the applicant challenged a judge. On 4 January 1994 her application was dismissed.\n9.  In 1994 the trial court held five hearings. The applicant’s lawyer twice asked the court not to schedule any hearings during a total period of five weeks because of her holidays.\n10.  In 1995 six hearings were held. The trial court ordered preparation of an expert opinion and held a view of the property.\n11.  On 28 December 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. It awarded the applicant PLN 1,500 by way of pecuniary damage and dismissed the remaining part of her action.\n12.  Both parties lodged appeals.\n13.  In August 1996 the President of the Warsaw Regional Court informed the applicant that her case-file was lost. Subsequently, the applicant was requested to provide copies of all documents in order to reconstruct it.\n14.  On 13 November 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie) held a hearing at which it gave a judgment. It partly quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case to the court of first‑instance.\n15.  On 24 July 1997 the Warsaw District Court held the first hearing.\n16.  On 2 October 1997 the court, sitting in camera, ordered an expert opinion. Subsequently, the court expert who was ordered to inspect the flat and evaluate the damages informed the court about his difficulties in entering the apartment in question.\n17.  Between 25 July 1997 and 8 June 1998 no hearings were held.\n18.  On 9 June 1998 the court held a hearing and decided to set a new deadline for the expert opinion. The applicant informed the court that in 1994 her flat had been sold by the City Council and that the new owner did not agree to the inspection. The hearing was adjourned sine die.\n19.  On 22 October 1998 the trial court held a hearing at which it again decided to send the case-file to the expert and set a one-month deadline for the expert opinion.\n20.  In November 1998 the applicant challenged a judge. On 19 November 1998 her application was dismissed.\n21.  In April 1999 the applicant’s lawyer asked the court not to schedule any hearings during a three-week period in July because of her holidays.\n22.  Between 23 October 1998 and 29 January 2001 no hearings were held.\n23.  In January 2001 the case was taken over by another judge.\n24.  On 30 January, 10 April and 16 May 2001 the court held hearings.\n25.  At the hearing held on 16 May 2001 the court again decided to send the case-file to the expert.\n26.  Between 17 May 2001 and 3 December 2002 no hearings were held.\n27.  On 4 December 2002 the Warsaw District Court held a hearing and on 18 December 2002 it gave a judgment.\n28.  On 25 February 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the appellate court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-550", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Ciechanów, Poland.\n5.  In August 1992 the applicant, at that time thirty-years-old, underwent gynaecological surgery. A few days later, due to post‑operative complications, the applicant had to undergo another operation during which her uterus and one ovary were removed.\n6.  In October 1992 the applicant requested the prosecution service to initiate criminal proceedings against the doctors and the hospital. On 15 February 1996 the proceedings were finally discontinued.\n7.  On 29 April 1993 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki w Warszawie) a civil action for compensation against the hospital. She claimed that she was a victim of medical malpractice which deprived her of a possibility of having more children and caused enormous psychological suffering. She requested compensation of PLN 50,000.\n8.  On 4 May 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court exempted the applicant from the court fees.\n9.  On 5 July 1994 the court held the first hearing at which the applicant was heard. The court requested from the prosecution service the case‑file concerning the criminal case against the doctors.\n10.  On 25 January 1995 the trial court stayed the proceedings because the prosecution service refused to provide the file of the criminal case while the criminal proceedings were pending.\n11.  On 21 June 1996 the trial court resumed the civil proceedings.\n12.  On 23 August 1996 the court held a hearing which had to be adjourned because of the absence of the defendant’s representative.\n13.  On 27 November 1996, 15 January and 12 February 1997 the trial court held hearings at which it heard witnesses.\n14.  On 2 April 1997 the court, sitting in camera, ordered an expert opinion. The opinion was prepared on 17 July 1997.\n15.  At the hearing which was held on 26 September 1997 the court heard an expert witness.\n16.  On 21 October 1997 the applicant requested the court to order the preparation of another expert opinion.\n17.  In February 1998 the applicant dismissed her lawyer because she could not any longer afford this expense. It appears that she applied for a court‑appointed lawyer but her application was not examined.\n18.  On 13 March 1998 the court, sitting in camera, allowed the applicant’s application for a second expert opinion. Subsequently, the applicant informed the court that she wished to cross-examine the expert witnesses.\n19.  On 15 July 1998 the court, sitting in camera, dismissed the applicant’s request to exempt her from the costs of the expert opinion.\n20.  On 30 September 1998 the applicant received the expert opinion and again requested the court to hear expert witnesses.\n21.  In May 1999 the court asked the applicant to designate the defendant because after the administrative reform the Mazowsze Governor had become a competent authority to represent the State Treasury. The applicant complied with this order. She also asked the trial court to call as a co‑defendant the doctor who performed the surgery, but on 8 December 1999 the court refused her application.\n22.  Between 27 September 1997 and 6 February 2000 no hearings were held.\n23.  On 7 February 2000 the court held a hearing. The applicant was informed that the court had lost her application to hear expert witnesses and her questions to them. The new date for cross-examination was set for 29 June 2000 before the Kraków Regional Court.\n24.  The applicant went to Kraków to take part in the hearing scheduled for 29 June 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-551", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Žiar nad Hronom. At the relevant time he was a police investigator. On 29 October 1996 a private TV company broadcast a statement by a Member of Parliament in which the applicant was accused of covering up crime.\n5.  On 29 November 1996 the applicant sued the Member of Parliament before the Žiar nad Hronom District Court. He claimed that the above statement was defamatory and sought protection of his reputation. On 3 December 1996 the applicant was requested to pay the court fees. On the same day the defendant was asked to submit his observations.\n6.  On 11 December 1996 the case file was transferred to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court as the District Court judges considered themselves biased. On 30 December 1996 the Regional Court excluded two District Court judges from dealing with the case. The decision was transmitted to the District Court on 7 February 1997. On 7 March 1997 the President of the Žiar nad Hronom District Court returned the case file to the Regional Court with a more detailed explanation as to why all District Court judges considered themselves biased. The Regional Court was requested to transfer the case to another court.\n7.  On 30 April 1997 the Regional Court excluded the Žiar nad Hronom District Court judges and transferred the case to the District Court in Veľký Krtíš. The case file was transferred to the latter court on 2 June 1997.\n8.  On 12 June 1997 the District Court in Veľký Krtíš discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to pay the court fees. On 30 June 1997 the applicant appealed. On 3 July 1997 the District Court quashed the decision as the applicant had paid the fees in the meantime.\n9.  On 14 August 1997 the Supreme Court, upon the proposal of the District Court judge to whom the case fell to be examined, transferred the case to the Bratislava I District Court. The latter received the case file on 22 September 1997.\n10.  On 30 January 1998 the applicant claimed that the transfer of the case to the Bratislava I District Court had been unlawful.\n11.  On 12 February 1998 the Bratislava I District Court heard the parties.\n12.  On 16 March 1998 the Bratislava I District Court asked the applicant to which court he wished the case to be transferred and to pay the court fee in respect of that request.\n13.  On 20 March 1998 the applicant replied that he could accept that the case be assigned to any court in the vicinity of Žiar nad Hronom district. On 26 March 1998 the applicant asked the court to specify the legal basis for the request for court fees. The applicant’s replies were not included in the case file.\n14.  On 11 September 1998 the District Court judge reiterated her request of 16 March 1998. On 23 September 1998 the applicant submitted copies of his above letters of 20 and 26 March 1998 and pointed out that he had received no reply to them.\n15.  On 12 October 1998 the District Court judge again requested the applicant to pay the fee in respect of his request that the case be transferred to a different court and to specify the court which, in his view, should deal with the case.\n16.  On 4 November 1998 the applicant reiterated that he wished the case to be examined by a court in the vicinity of Žiar nad Hronom district. He also complained that the judge had failed to proceed with the case.\n17.  On 7 January 2000 the applicant complained to the President of the Bratislava I District Court that his case had not been proceed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-552", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Rome.\n5.  She is the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to A.D'A.P.\n6.  In a registered letter of 29 July 1982, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 7 October 1985, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 12 December 1985, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1986.\n9.  On 31 October 1986 and 3 November 1986 the applicant served notices on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 25 November 1986 she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 January 1987.\n11.  Between 15 January 1987 and 12 November 1992 the bailiff made forty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  On 15 October 1987, the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of the Interior and the prefect in order to obtain reimbursement of the damages resulted from the refusal or delay to grant her police assistance. The proceedings was declared inadmissible.\n13.  In May 1989, Mr S.S. reiterated his proposition made in 1987, to rent the flat at a price of 1,100,000 Italian lire (ITL) [568.10 euros (EUR)] for the first year and ITL 1,200,000 [EUR 619.75] for the second year.\n14.  On 6 April 1994 the applicant served another notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n15.  On 11 May 1994 she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 3 June 1994.\n16.  Between 3 June 1994 and 23 October 1998 the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n17.  On 17 August 1998, the tenant died.\n18.  On 3 November 1998, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-553", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, born in 1939, is currently detained in HM Prison Full Sutton.\n8.  In 1964, the applicant was convicted of the murder of a woman whom he had violently assaulted. He was sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. In May 1980 (or November 1979, according to the applicant's submissions), he was released on life licence after a positive recommendation from the Parole Board.\n9.  In June 1981, the applicant killed a 75 year old woman. His plea of manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility was accepted by the court. In January 1982 a discretionary sentence of life imprisonment was imposed by the judge having regard to the extreme danger to the public posed by the applicant. At the same time, the court revoked his life licence concerning his earlier sentence of mandatory life imprisonment.\n10.  In December 1985, the applicant was transferred to the hospital wing of Parkhurst prison. Since then, he has been transferred into ordinary prison locations as a “Category A” (high security) prisoner.\n11.  The applicant learned that his “tariff” period fixed by the trial judge on the manslaughter offence expired in June 1991. He was informed by a Home Office Memorandum of 5 June 1992 that his continued detention was based on the risk he represented.\n12.  According to the applicant's submissions, his only Parole Board review took place in 1999, when, without holding an oral hearing, the Board declined to recommend release. According to the Government's submissions, the Parole Board considered the applicant's case in September 1994 and January 1997. In 1994, it concluded that his behaviour was aggressive and intimidatory and that he represented a high risk to the public. On 10 January 1997, it concluded that he remained far too great a risk to warrant transfer to open conditions. Of the reports before the Parole Board, none recommended early release or early transfer to open conditions.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-554", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1911 and lives in Chieri.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Turin, which he had let to C.V.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 5 May 1986, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 4 June 1986, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 4 June 1987.\n8.  On 16 January 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 25 February 1991, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 March 1991.\n10.  On 27 March 1991, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n11.  On 11 May 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 1 June 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 July 1992.\n13.  Between 8 July 1992 and 16 October 1998, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.\n15.  On 24 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-555", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Florence.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to R.C.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 14 May 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 October 1992 and summoned him to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 11 June 1990, which was made enforceable on 26 June 1990, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 October 1993.\n8.  In the meanwhile, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 31 October 1994.\n9.  On 28 June 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 19 July 1995, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 September 1995.\n11.  Between 18 September 1995 and 30 November 1999, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  On 2 May 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-556", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Rome.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to O.S.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 28 October 1992, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 3 March 1993, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 3 March 1994.\n8.  On 9 April 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 26 April 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 May 1994.\n10.  Between 24 May 1994 and 26 November 1999, the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n11.  On 26 November 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-557", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in San Cesareo (Rome).\n5.  P.C. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to A.C.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 3 March 1986, the owner informed her of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 12 June 1986, which was made enforceable on 6 November 1986, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n8.  On 30 April 1990, a notice was served on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 18 May 1990, a notice was served on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 July 1990.\n10.  Between 11 July 1990 and 5 October 1999, the bailiff made thirty attempts to recover possession, but they proved unsuccessful as the owner and then the applicant were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n11.  On 21 June 1991, the applicant became the owner of the flat and pursued the enforcement proceedings\n12.  On 13 October 1997, he made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n13.  On 2 May 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-558", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Bielsko-Biała, Poland.\n5.  In 1993 the Szczecin Regional Court annulled the decision given in 1947 by the Szczecin Military Court which had convicted the applicant’s father and had sentenced him to imprisonment and the forfeiture of his property.\n6.  On 25 September 1995 the Szczecin Regional Court (Criminal Chamber) awarded the applicant compensation for his father’s imprisonment.\n7.  On 20 July 1995 the applicant initiated before the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojwódzki w Szczecinie) civil proceedings against the State Treasury. He claimed compensation for the forfeited estate and farm machinery.\n8.  On 25 September 1995, upon the trial court’s request, the applicant called as defendant the State Treasury represented by the Bydgoszcz Regional Court.\n9.  In January 1996 the trial court requested the Criminal Chamber of the same court to provide the applicant’s case-file. It received the file in September 1996.\n10.  On 10 February 1999 the trial court held the first hearing at which it heard the applicant. It further decided that three witnesses would be heard by the Myslibórz District Court.\n11.  On 23 March and 13 April 1999 the Myslibórz District Court held hearings at which it heard the witnesses.\n12.  On 4 August 1999 the applicant applied to the trial court to give a partial judgment relating only to the pecuniary damage sustained by his father in respect of loss of income which, according to him, was fully justified by the provided documents.\n13.  On 14 February 2000 the trial court joined as a co-defendant the Minister of Finance. Three months later the trial court joined as another co‑defendant the Minister of the Treasury.\n14.  On 6 September 2000 the court held hearing at which it asked for an expert opinion concerning the value of the farm machinery.\n15.  On 8 May 2001 the expert opinion was submitted to the trial court.\n16.  On 18 May 2001 the court requested another expert opinion concerning the value of the land and buildings.\n17.  On 17 October 2001 the trial court held a hearing.\n18.  On 29 October 2001 the Szczecin Regional Court gave a partial judgment. It awarded the applicant PLN 21,105 as compensation for the confiscated machinery. The remaining part of the action was to be examined at the later date. The Minister of the Treasury appealed against this judgment.\n19.  On 21 May 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed the Minister’s appeal against the Szczecin Regional Court’s partial judgment. The Minister of the Treasury lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. This part of the proceedings is pending before the Supreme Court.\n20.  The proceedings relating to the part of the applicant’s action which was not examined by the Szczecin Regional Court in its partial judgment, are still pending before the trial court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-559", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Poznań.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 10 September 1985 the applicant lodged a compensation claim with the Poznań Regional Court, claiming PLZ (old Polish zlotys) 1,530,000 from the military hunting association “P.” for unpaid salary. Later on, he extended his claim to PLZ 4,138,729.\n9.  The court held a hearing on 2 December 1985.\n10.  By a decision of 16 January 1986, the court stayed the proceedings at the applicant’s request, having regard to the fact that criminal proceedings had been instituted against him. The civil proceedings were resumed on an unspecified date in 1987.\n11.  The court held hearings on 9 September 1987, 3 December 1987, 7 January 1988 and 21 January 1988.\n12.  On an unspecified date in 1991 the court ordered an expert opinion.\n13.  Another expert opinion was ordered by virtue of a decision of 14 January 1995.\n14.  In a letter of 8 December 1997 the applicant requested the court to adjourn the hearing scheduled on 16 December 1997 due to his bad health.\n15.  In 1997 the applicant requested the court to order a further expert opinion and he paid an advance fee for it in January 1998. Apparently, the court failed to order the relevant opinion.\n16.  By a decision of 9 March 1998 the court stayed the proceedings as the applicant was ill. The proceedings were resumed on an unspecified date in 2001.\n17.  The court held hearings on 24 April and 23 August 2001.\n18.  By virtue of a court settlement concluded on an unspecified date, on 14 December 2001 the applicant received a partial compensation from the military hunting association.\n19.  By a decision of 18 December 2001 the Poznań Regional Court terminated the proceedings as the applicant had withdrawn his claim.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-560", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a bank, a joint stock company with its registered office in Prague.\n9.  On 27 September 1993 the Czech National Bank (Česká národní banka) (“the CNB”), pursuant to section 26(1)(a) of the Banks Act (no. 21/1992) (zákon o bankách) (“the Act”), placed the applicant bank in compulsory administration with effect from 30 September 1993 to 31 March 1994, on the grounds that the financial situation and liquidity of the applicant bank had repeatedly been unsatisfactory and that the previous measures had not remedied the situation. A compulsory administrator (nucený správce) was appointed to replace the applicant bank's statutory body. The decision (rozhodnutí) contained a notice to the effect that the provisions of administrative procedure did not apply to it and that no appeal lay against it.\n10.  On 29 September 1993 the compulsory administration decision was published in the Commercial Bulletin (obchodní vĕstník).\n11.  In a ruling (usnesení) of 30 September 1993 the Prague 1 District Court (obvodní soud) (“the District Court”), upon the CNB's proposal, decided to allow an entry concerning the compulsory administration and the appointment of the compulsory administrator to be made in the Companies Register (obchodní rejstřík). The ruling fixed the date of 30 September 1993 as the date of the entry in the Companies Register and stated that the compulsory administrator represented the applicant bank. The ruling was not served on the applicant bank. On the same date, the compulsory administrator and a representative of the CNB came to the bank and informed all employees that the applicant bank had been placed in compulsory administration. The representative of the CNB served the CNB's decision of 27 September 1993 on Mr Moravec, the chairman of the bank's Board of Directors and its majority shareholder. On 4 October 1993 the District Court confirmed its ruling of 30 September 1993 by issuing a certificate of legal validity (právní moc).\n12.  On 18 March 1994 the CNB extended the compulsory administration until 30 June 1994.\n13.  On 22 March 1994 the applicant bank's legal representative, Mr Choděra, sent his power of attorney to the District Court, and requested that the proposal for an entry concerning the compulsory administration and the District Court's decision delivered in this regard be sent to his office. He noted that under Article 200(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant bank was a party to the proceedings.\n14.  On 30 March 1994 notice of the extension was published in the Commercial Bulletin. In a ruling of 30 March 1994 the District Court, upon a proposal of the CNB, approved an entry concerning the extension in the Companies Register. The court did not hold a public hearing. On the same day it confirmed the ruling by a certificate of legal validity. The ruling was not served on the applicant bank.\n15.  On 1 and 6 April 1994 respectively, the applicant bank, represented by the chairman of its Board of Directors and Mr Choděra, its legal representative, having become aware of the existence of the rulings of 30 September 1993 and 30 March 1994, appealed against them to the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) (“the Municipal Court”). It claimed that it should have been treated as a party to the proceedings in which the court had approved the entries concerning the compulsory administration and its extension in the Companies Register, and contended that the rulings had not been served on it. The applica", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-561", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  Mrs Lászlóné Nyírő (“the first applicant”) was born in 1947 and lives in Budapest. Mrs Lajosné Takács (“the second applicant”) was born in 1944 and lives in Budaörs, Hungary.\n10.  In the late 1980s the applicants, employed by a State-owned Hungarian company, were working in Tengiz, at a mineral, oil and gas mining construction site in Kazakhstan (former USSR).\n11.  On account of various obscure illnesses, the applicants were forced to retire prematurely. The applicants pointed out in their observations that they became disability pensioners after their return to Hungary.\n12.  On 16 December 1991 the first applicant brought an action before the Budapest Labour Court. She claimed that her illnesses had been caused by the hazardous working environment in Tengiz and that her former employer should be ordered to pay her compensation.\n13.  The first hearing in the case took place on 11 March 1993. On that occasion, two witnesses were heard and a medical expert was appointed. On 17 June 1993 another hearing was held and a chemistry institute was designated to provide an expert opinion.\n14.  Following the first applicant’s complaint to the Ministry of Justice about the slowness of the procedure, on 15 May 1995 another bench was assigned to deal with the case.\n15.  Another hearing took place on 30 August 1995. An expert witness failed to appear at the hearing. According to the Government’s observations, the defendant was ordered to file with the court the expert opinions which had been previously drawn up in connection with the construction work in Tengiz. The court decided that further experts should be appointed, if necessary, in the light of the documents to be submitted by the defendant company.\n16.  On 26 March 1996 the judge in charge of the case specified the questions to be put to the chemistry institute. On 2 October 1996 the institute declined to give answers to the questions put by the court as it had no experts available who could address such complex matters.\n17.  On 21 January 1997 the Budapest Technical University, which was subsequently appointed as the expert institution, also declined to carry out the examination as it lacked the competence to deal with air-pollution matters.\n18.  At the request of the first applicant’s lawyer, her proceedings were joined to those of the second applicant on 10 June 1997.\n19.  On 22 July 1991 the second applicant brought an action before the Budapest Labour Court against her former employer for compensation for damage caused by work-related illnesses. The first hearing was held on 19 March 1992. However, the second applicant failed to appear.\n20.  The next hearing was held on 9 July 1993. However, the second applicant did not attend the hearing. The court ordered the defendant company to submit various expert opinions as well as the results of medical examinations carried out on other persons employed at Tengiz.\n21.  At a hearing on 17 January 1995 the second applicant was heard and her doctor was invited to submit the second applicant’s medical files.\n22.  On 26 April 1996 the court appointed a medical expert. On 26 September 1996 the medical expert submitted his opinion. He relied on the previously submitted medical files, as the second applicant refused to undergo further medical examinations.\n23.  At a hearing on 26 November 1996, the court appointed a legal aid lawyer at the second applicant’s request and the medical expert’s opinion was discussed.\n24.  Further hearings were held on 28 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-562", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Orsk.\n8.  In 1981 criminal charges were brought against the applicant for dissemination of anti-Soviet propaganda. On 30 July 1981 the police searched his home and confiscated certain items – a radio, audio records, books, newspaper clippings and manuscripts – which he had allegedly used in his unlawful activity.\n9.  On 7 April 1982 the Orenburg Regional Court held that the applicant was not guilty on the ground of insanity and ordered him to be placed in a mental asylum.\n10.  On 23 April 1986 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Orsk found that the applicant's mental health had improved and that he could be released.\n11.  On 15 September 1992 the Orenburg Regional Public Prosecutor's Office issued a statement to acknowledge that the applicant had been unlawfully persecuted by the State. The applicant was reinstated in his rights.\n12.  In the course of 1995 to 1997 the applicant made several unsuccessful attempts to recover the property that had been confiscated in 1981. His requests to prosecutors' offices and the organisations then in possession of the property were rejected.\n13.  On 28 June 1996 the applicant brought a claim for repossession against the Orenburg Regional Public Prosecutor's Office and the Orsk City Committee of the Voluntary Society for Assistance to the Army, Air Force and Navy. He also brought a claim for damages against the Orsk City Council.\n14.  On 22 July 1998 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk granted the applicant's claims in part and ordered the Federal Treasury Department to pay the applicant 2,570.92 Russian roubles (RUR) compensation and RUR 200 by way of legal costs. On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Civil Chamber of the Orenburg Regional Court on 8 December 1998.\n15.  On 5 February 1999 the applicant submitted a writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 22 July 1998 to the registry of the Oktyabrskiy District Court.\n16.  He was not notified in time whether enforcement proceedings had been opened, or what action had been taken to execute the judgment. For this reason, he issued proceedings against the bailiff in charge of the execution. On 14 May 1999 the Oktyabrskiy Court found in the applicant's favour, holding that the bailiff had acted unlawfully. The applicant was also informed that responsibility for enforcement of the judgment had been passed to a different bailiff's service – the Leninskoye Bailiff's Service of Orenburg.\n17.  On 25 May 1999 the Leninskiy Court issued clarification on how its judgment of 22 July 1998 was to be enforced. It confirmed that, even though the Ministry of Finance was the defendant in the case, the compensation should be recovered from the Treasury Department – the authority liable for debts of the Ministry. The applicant appealed, insisting that the debtor's bank account details should be included in the operative part of the judgment to make the enforcement easier. The appeal was dismissed on 8 July 1999.\n18.  As no progress was made in the enforcement proceedings, on an unspecified date the applicant issued fresh professional negligence proceedings against the bailiff. On 28 July 1999 the Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg examined the complaint and dismissed it. It found that the bailiff had lawfully stayed the enforcement proceedings because an acting Public Prosecutor of the Orenburg Region had initiated supervisory-review of the judgment of 22 July 1998. The court stated that under national law, enforc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-563", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Vratsa.\n11.  On 22 June 1994 criminal proceedings were opened against him for having threatened another person with murder.\nA witness was questioned on 9 August 1994. Two other witnesses were questioned on 15 May and 25 June 1996.\n12.  The applicant was questioned as a witness on 23 August 1996. According to his submissions, it was only then that he became aware of the proceedings. On the same date the investigator in charge of the case commissioned a graphological expert to determine whether a threat note left in the victim's postal box had been written by the applicant. The expert's report was ready on 25 September 1996.\n13.  On 7 October 1996 the applicant was charged. He contested the authenticity of the threat note. On 21 October 1996 the investigator rejected this objection and on 22 October 1996 recommended that the applicant be committed for trial.\n14.  On 5 December 1996 the prosecution submitted to the Vratsa District Court an indictment against the applicant. On 15 January 1997 the judge to whom the case was assigned set it down for hearing.\n15.  On 1 April 1997 the applicant, who was involved in numerous proceedings together with his wife, requested the judge's withdrawal, because his wife had commenced a civil action against the judge for having insulted her in public. On 7 April 1997 the applicant's request was granted and the case was assigned to a new judge.\n16.  On 8 April 1997 the applicant requested that his case be examined by another court, arguing that all judges in the Vratsa District Court were “biased”. As a result of his request, on 14 May 1997 the case was transferred to the Biala Slatina District Court.\n17.  On 13 October 1997 the Biala Slatina District Court fixed a hearing for 13 March 1998.\n18.  On 20 January 1998 the applicant asked the court to reschedule the hearing, because on 13 March 1998 he had to attend a hearing in another case in a different town. The court rescheduled the hearing for 25 September 1998.\n19.  The hearing took place on 25 September 1998. The prosecutor asked the court to remit the case to the phase of the preliminary investigation, stating that the available evidence was not sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt and that certain witnesses had not been questioned. The court acceded to the request over the applicant's objection. The court's decision stated that it was subject to appeal before the Vratsa Regional Court.\n20.  On 5 October 1998 the applicant filed an interlocutory appeal against the remitting of the case. On 21 October 1998 he amended his appeal. On 5 November 1998 the Vratsa Regional Court declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that the lower court's decision to remit the case was not subject to appeal as it did not put an end to the criminal proceedings. On 9 November 1998 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court of Cassation. On 12 January 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the appeal.\n21.  The case file was then returned to the prosecution, which forwarded it to the investigation authorities on 22 March 1999 with instructions to question several witnesses. On 6 April 1999 the case was assigned to an assistant investigator.\n22.  On 30 July 2001 the applicant was charged anew.\n23.  On 5 September 2001 the investigator, having completed his work on the case, transmitted the file to the Vratsa District Prosecutor's Office.\n24.  On 11 October 2001 the Vratsa District Prosecutor's Of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-564", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1932 and 1934, respectively, and live in Schalchen, Austria.\n6.  The applicants run a fishing farm in Schalchen since 1976. Before that date the parents of the first applicant had run the fishing farm.\n7.  Between 1956 and 1969 the Braunau River Engineering Directorate (Flussbauleitung) carried out regulation works on a small river in the vicinity of the applicants' estate without permission under the Water Act (Wasserrechtsgesetz 1959).\n8.  In October 1969 the former owners of the estate requested the Braunau District Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) to order the Municipalities of Mattighofen and Schalchen (“the Municipalities”) to re-establish the former state of the river bed maintaining that the regulation works had damaged the well which supplied their fishing farm with water. They submitted that the original capacity of the well had been 800 litres of water per second. After the regulation of the river the capacity of the well had been reduced to 100 litres of water per second. This constituted an interference with their water-rights. In case that the regulation could not be reversed they requested that the Municipalities be ordered to take other steps to ensure the water supply of the fishing farm.\n9.  On 14 January 1970 the District Authority dismissed this request.\n10.  On 20 May 1970 the Upper Austria Regional Governor allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the District Authority to decide on the request.\n11.  On 13 January 1971 the applicants' predecessors filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) as the District Authority failed to decide within the statutory six months time-limit. On 11 February 1971 the Regional Governor dismissed this request.\n12.  On 3 September 1971 they filed again a request for transfer of jurisdiction and the Regional Governor again dismissed this request. The applicants' predecessors filed an appeal against this decision.\n13.  On 10 February 1972 the Federal Minister for Agriculture and Forestry (Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft) allowed the appeal as a consequence of which the Regional Governor had to take a decision on the merits.\n14.  On 8 August 1972 the Regional Governor ordered the Municipalities to ask for an ex post permission of the regulation works which had already been carried out or to re-establish the former state of the river.\n15.  On 23 August 1973 the Federal Minister dismissed the Municipalities' appeal.\n16.  Subsequently, on 28 November 1973 the Municipalities applied for an ex post permission. On 3 June 1975 the District Authority held a hearing. At this hearing the applicants' predecessors requested that the Municipalities be ordered to pay compensation as they had suffered prejudice caused by the regulation works.\n17.  On 3 September 1975 the District Authority granted the ex post permission and ordered the Municipalities to take specific steps to ensure the water supply of the fishing farm before 31 December 1976. The District Authority dismissed the request for compensation.\n18.  On 2 December 1975 Regional Governor dismissed the applicants' predecessors' appeal and found that their water rights were not violated by the granted permission.\n19.   On 27 January 1976 the Federal Minister rejected the applicants' predecessors' appeal as belated. Subsequently, they lodged a request for leave to appeal out of time (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand).\n20.  On 2 April 1976 the Federal Minister granted this ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-565", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants Talip Kalın, Ali Gezer and Ekrem Ötebay are Turkish citizens who live in Ağrı, Kahramanmaraş and Muş respectively. The first applicant was born in 1967, the second and the third applicants in 1973. They are all represented before the Court by Mr Talat Tepe, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\nApplication no. 24849/94\n8.  On 17 February 1994 the applicant was taken into police custody in Istanbul on suspicion of membership of the PKK. According to the official files the apprehension seems to have occurred on 24 February 1994.\n9.  On 28 February 1994 the applicant was interrogated by police officers and made confessions, allegedly under duress.\n10.  On 9 March 1994 the applicant, however, denied the allegations against him before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court (“the public prosecutor”).\n11.  On the same day the applicant was seen by a doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute who did not note any signs of beating or injuries on the applicant's body.\n12.  On 11 March 1994 the applicant was put in detention on remand. On 22 March 1994 the applicant was further examined by the prison doctor who noted in his report the presence of some injuries on his body.\n13.  On 27 March 1994 the applicant filed a complaint with the office of the Istanbul public prosecutor alleging that he had been subjected to torture while in custody, which lasted twenty-three days.\n14.  On 23 June 1994 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court requesting the conviction and sentencing of the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.\n15.  On 21 December 1995 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court against the four police officers who allegedly tortured the applicant.\n16.  On 27 June 1996 the Istanbul Assize Court held that there was no evidence on which to convict the police officers. \nApplication no. 24850/94\n17.  On 9 February 1994 the applicant was taken into police custody in Istanbul on suspicion of membership of the PKK. According to the official files the apprehension seems to have occurred on 28 February 1994.\n18.  On 1 March 1994 during interrogation by the police officers the applicant confessed his involvement in certain PKK activities.\n19.  On 9 March 1994 the applicant was seen by a doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute who noted the presence of some injuries on the applicant's body, which were not life-threatening but would prevent him from working for two days.\n20.  On 9 March 1994 during questioning by the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court (“the public prosecutor”) the applicant stated that he had signed his statement under duress and denied all the allegations.\n21.  On 11 March 1994 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand.\n22.  In an indictment dated 23 June 1994, the public prosecutor requested the conviction and sentencing of the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.\n23.  On 23 March 1994 the applicant was examined by the prison doctor. The doctor noted in his report the presence of fading bruises and injuries on the applicant's body. The applicant later underwent another medical examination where the same fading injuries were noted.\n24.  On 11 Ju", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-566", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Yekaterinburg.\n9.  On 25 September 1999 the applicant was visiting her acquaintance M.\n10.  According to the applicant, she stayed overnight to study the Bible and share her religious opinions. On 26 September 1999, M., offended by the applicant's views, called an ambulance to escort her to a mental hospital. Confused by the arrival of the ambulance, the applicant asked M. for an explanation, but was ordered by the medical staff to follow them.\n11.  According to the Government, the acquaintance had met the applicant in the street the day before and, perplexed by her unusual behaviour, took her home to take care of her. The applicant did not sleep all night long, cried, looked around, called for her mother (who lived in Kazakhstan) and hallucinated. The acquaintance therefore had to call an ambulance.\n12.  The applicant was taken to the Yekaterinburg City Psychiatric Hospital No. 26. The doctor on duty considered that she was suffering from a grave mental disorder, displaying symptoms of fear, anxiety and disorientation, which rendered the applicant a danger to herself and helpless. The applicant had cried and was uncooperative with the doctor.\n13.  On 26 September 1999 the hospital applied to a court for approval of the applicant's confinement.\n14.  Two days later, on 28 September 1999, a medical commission diagnosed the applicant as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and confirmed that she should be kept in hospital. According to the doctors, once in the hospital, the applicant remained suspicious and distrustful. She did not reveal her emotions or explain the behaviour which had led to her hospitalisation. She accused the medical staff of stealing her belongings. The applicant insisted that her detention had been inspired by her acquaintance who was a member of a religious sect and who had intended to lure her into the sect. Having no trust in the doctors, the applicant refused any treatment. She was untidy, wore three jerseys at once and did not undress for bed. The applicant also refused to wash for fear of catching a cold, and wrote complaints which she hid in her underwear. All that time, according to the medical report, she remained emotionally cold and mannered, whilst repeating herself.\n15.  On 5 November 1999 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg, after a hearing at the hospital, confirmed that the detention had been necessary as the applicant had suffered from an acute attack of paranoid schizophrenia. In its findings, the court relied on assertions by the hospital that the applicant's aggravated mental condition had put her physical integrity in danger and that she had been delirious. The hospital's representatives also testified that the applicant had been taken to the hospital by the emergency services in a deranged state of mind and that she “had remained awake throughout the night studying the Bible and weeping”. A work colleague of the applicant testified that the applicant “had become uncooperative and filed frequent complaints about her co-workers' alleged prejudices”.\n16.  The applicant's representative allegedly did not have any access to the report of the medical commission either before or after the hearing, despite his requests.\n17.  On 11 November 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 5 November. The applicant states that she was unable to file detailed points of appeal as, at that time, the final text of the court decision", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-567", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is a Netherlands national who was born in 1951 and lives in Oegstgeest. He is a practising lawyer (advocaat en procureur). He was not represented before the Court.\n10.  On 26 November 1992 the social security investigating officer (sociaal rechercheur) Mr W. took and recorded a statement from one Mr B., a person of Surinamese origin who was suspected of having unjustly received social security benefits and, in this context, of having committed forgery. Mr B. was alone with Mr W. at the time and did not have the assistance of either a lawyer or an interpreter.\n11.  Subsequently, Mr B. was prosecuted for social security fraud. In addition, civil proceedings were instituted against him by the social security authorities for the recovery of the excess benefits paid to him. The applicant acted as Mr B.'s counsel in both sets of proceedings.\n12.  In the civil proceedings, the applicant declared, inter alia:\n “The statement recorded in writing by Mr W. cannot have been obtained in any other way than by the application of pressure in an unacceptable manner in order to procure incriminating statements, the significance of which was not or not sufficiently understood by Mr B. given the absence of an interpreter.”\nThis passage appears in pleading notes submitted to the Hague Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) at a hearing held on 27 June 1994.\n13.  Having learned of this statement in May 1995, Mr W. filed a disciplinary complaint within the meaning of section 46c of the Legal Profession Act (Advocatenwet) against the applicant to the Dean (deken) of the local Bar Association (Orde van Advocaten). He complained that the applicant's unfounded insinuations had tarnished his professional honour and good reputation, that the applicant had transgressed the limits of decency, and that the applicant had accused him obliquely of having committed perjury in drawing up the record in question.\n14.  Following an exchange of correspondence, the Dean forwarded Mr W.'s complaint to the Disciplinary Council (Raad van Discipline) of The Hague.\n15.  In its decision of 1 July 1996, following adversarial proceedings, the Disciplinary Council rejected as unfounded the complaint that the applicant had, in veiled terms, accused Mr W. of perjury. It did, however, consider that the applicant, by contending that Mr W. had exerted unacceptable pressure on Mr B., had made an assertion that was not supported by any facts. It concluded that the applicant had thus transgressed the limits of acceptable behaviour and failed to observe the standards expected from a lawyer (“... de grenzen van het toelaatbare overschreden en heeft hij in strijd gehandeld met hetgeen een behoorlijk advocaat betaamt”). Noting the nature and the limited degree of seriousness of the applicant's conduct, the Disciplinary Council considered it sufficient to declare the complaint of Mr W. partially well-founded without imposing any sanction.\n16.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal (Hof van Discipline). He submitted that Mr B. had not had the assistance of a lawyer before he signed his written statement, despite having asked for a lawyer to be present, that no interpreter had been present at the interrogation, that Mr B. was a drug addict and that he had told him that pressure had been brought to bear. The applicant also referred to a statement taken by the investigating judge (rechter-commissaris) from Mr B. on 5 December 1994, which reads as foll", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-568", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Maaseik (Belgium).\n10.  On 15 February 1993 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody (verzekering) on suspicion of forgery and of being an accessory to bribery of a public official. The public official concerned was a Mr B. The applicant was released from police custody on 19 February 1993. On 7 June 1995 the applicant was informed that the preliminary judicial investigation (gerechtelijk vooronderzoek) into the case had been closed.\n11.  By summons of 24 August 1995, the applicant was ordered to appear on 7 September 1995 before the Maastricht Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) on charges of forgery committed together with others between 5 October 1991 and 5 November 1992.\n12.  Criminal proceedings had already been brought before the Maastricht Regional Court against Mr B. in relation to the same facts. Although both sets of criminal proceedings concerned the same facts, the criminal proceedings brought against Mr B. and the applicant were conducted separately.\n13.  In its judgment of 11 October 1995 in the applicant's case, the Maastricht Regional Court declared the prosecution inadmissible. It held that the judicial authorities had failed to deal with the applicant's case with the required diligence and that therefore the applicant's right to a trial within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been violated. The public prosecutor lodged an appeal with the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal (gerechtshof), but informed the applicant on 17 August 1996, before the appeal proceedings had commenced, that this appeal had been withdrawn.\n14.  On 20 January 1997, in the course of the criminal proceedings on appeal in the case of Mr B., the applicant was heard as a witness before the 's‑Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal. In its judgment of 3 February 1997, the 's‑Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal convicted Mr B. of, inter alia, participating in forgery. It was found established that a receipt dated 9 October 1991 in relation to an alleged payment of NLG 7,414 by Mr B. to the applicant had been fraudulently written out in co-operation with Mr B.\n15.  In the meantime, on 18 November 1996, the applicant had lodged a request under Article 591a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering) for the reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in the course of the criminal proceedings against him. His total claim amounted to NLG 104,708.80. On the same day he had lodged a request under Article 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by his having been kept in police custody. This claim amounted to NLG 205,000.\n16.  In its decision of 2 April 1997 in respect of the applicant's claim for costs and expenses incurred, the Maastricht Regional Court awarded the applicant an amount of NLG 114.60 for travel expenses and rejected his claims for the remainder. In a separate decision of the same date, the Maastricht Regional Court rejected the applicant's claim for compensation for the time spent in pre-trial detention. The applicant lodged appeals against both decisions with the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal.\n17.  In two separate decisions of 19 March 1998, the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeals against the two decisions of 2 April 1997 in relation to his claim for costs and expenses and his claim for the time spent in pre-trial detention. Its reasoning in both decisions included the f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-570", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n15.  On 2 February 1985 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody. He was accused of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). On 18 March 1985 the Ankara Martial Law Court (Sıkıyönetim Mahkemesi) ordered the applicant's detention on remand.\n16.  On 26 February 1982 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Ankara Martial Law Court setting out charges against seven hundred and twenty-three defendants, including the applicant. The military prosecutor accused the applicant of membership of an organisation whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime, contrary to Articles 146 § 1 and 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n17.  After martial law was lifted, the Ankara Martial Law Court took the name of the Martial Law Court attached to the 4th Army Corps.\n18.  On 19 July 1989 the Martial Law Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to death penalty. The applicant appealed against the conviction and the case was referred to the Military Court of Cassation (Askeri Yargıtay).\n19.  Following promulgation of the Law of 26 December 1994, which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial law courts, the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) acquired jurisdiction over the cases and the files were sent to it.\n20.  On 6 February 1995 the applicant was released pending trial.\n21.  On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant's conviction.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-571", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is an Italian national who was born in 1958. He was in Spoleto Prison when he lodged his application.\nAmong other measures, he was held in pre-trial detention for his involvement in the murder of Judge Falcone and his escort on 26 September 1997. He was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment by the Caltanissetta Assize Court. On 12 November 1997 he was given a second life sentence, on other charges, by the Palermo Assize Court. That sentence became final on 26 November 1999.\n10.  After his arrest on 4 June 1993 the applicant was placed under the special prison regime provided for in section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act, which derogates from the conditions for ordinary detention laid down in the Act.\nBetween 13 November 1996 and 31 December 2000 the Minister of Justice issued nine decrees, each introducing restrictions for the following six-month periods: 13 November 1996 to 13 May 1997 (decree no. 1); 13 May 1997 to 13 November 1997 (decree no. 2); 14 November 1997 to 14 May 1998 (decree no. 3); 15 May 1998 to 15 November 1998 (decree no. 4); 12 November 1998 to 12 May 1999 (decree no. 5); 11 May 1999 to 11 November 1999 (decree no. 6); 8 November 1999 to 31 December 1999 (decree no. 7); 28 December 1999 to 28 June 2000 (decree no. 8); and 23 June 2000 to 31 December 2000 (decree no. 9).\nThe applicant indicated that he had remained under the same regime for the period following 31 December 2000, but did not provide any precise details.\n11.  Decrees nos. 2 to 9 were not formal extensions of the previous decree, but fresh decisions that nonetheless reiterated the earlier decision.\n12.  By virtue of the nine decrees, the following restrictions were imposed on the applicant:\n(a)  limits on visits by family members, with a maximum of one visit for one hour per month;\n(b)  no meetings with third parties;\n(c)  prohibition on using the telephone, except for one call – to be recorded – per month to members of the family if the applicant had not had a visit;\n(d)  prohibition on receiving or sending out sums of money in excess of a specified amount, except for defence costs or fines;\n(e)  no more than two parcels of laundry per month;\n(f)  no organisation of cultural, recreational or sports activities;\n(g)  no right to vote in elections for prisoners' representatives or to be elected as a representative;\n(h)  no handicrafts;\n(i)  no more than two hours per day to be spent outdoors.\n13.  The applicant appealed against those decrees to the court responsible for the execution of sentences. The parties submitted the factual information set out below.\nDecree no. 1 – The applicant appealed on 2 January 1997. The Palermo court responsible for the execution of sentences held a hearing on 11 March 1997. In an order of 11 March 1997, deposited with the registry on 15 March 1997, the court declared the appeal inadmissible in accordance with the restrictive case-law followed at the time to the effect that the court hearing the case did not have power to examine the merits of the restrictions imposed.\nDecree no. 2 – In an order of 29 July 1997, deposited with the registry on 31 July 1997, the Florence court responsible for the execution of sentences declared inoperative the restrictions referred to in (a), (e) and (f) of the above list.\nDecree no. 3 – On an unknown date the applicant appealed to the Bologna court responsible for the execution of sentences. The court held a hearing on 27 January 1998 and dismissed the appeal in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-572", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Lublin, Poland.\n10.  On 23 May 1996 the applicant was taken into custody by the police. On 24 May 1996 the Lublin District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged the applicant with hiding a stolen car and possession of a counterfeit banknote and remanded him in custody. The District Prosecutor considered that there existed a danger of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses. Moreover, he referred to a significant danger to society of the criminal acts allegedly committed by the applicant.\n11.  The applicant appealed against the District Prosecutor's decision but on 18 June 1996 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed his appeal. The court considered that the reasons given for the applicant's detention had not ceased to exist.\n12.  On 14 August 1996 the Lublin Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 23 November 1996. It pointed out that the investigation had not been completed and that there was a risk that if released the applicant would obstruct the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant appealed against this decision but on 12 September 1996 the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal.\n13.  On 14 October 1996 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor decided to take evidence from an anonymous witness. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.\n14.  In November 1996 the prosecution dropped the charge of possession of a counterfeit banknote.\n15.  On 22 November 1996 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor filed with the Lublin Regional Court a bill of indictment against the applicant.\n16.  On 16 December 1996 the applicant applied for bail but on 17 December 1996 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed his application. It considered that the applicant's two adult children could help his wife, who was ill. Moreover, the evidence gave rise to reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the criminal offence with which he was charged. The court referred to Articles 209 and 218 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n17.  The applicant appealed against this decision but on 15 January 1997 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. The appellate court referred to Articles 209 and 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It considered that the prison term to which the applicant could be sentenced justified his detention. The court also pointed out that the recent medical examinations of the applicant's wife had shown that she did not need the help of third persons.\n18.  On 24 March 1997 the applicant applied to the Lublin Regional Court for release from detention. He submitted that his wife was ill and required his help.\n19.  On 25 March 1997 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's application. It considered that the evidence gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the criminal offence with which he was charged. In addition, the applicant's wife did not require hospitalisation and could be helped by other members of her family.\n20.  On 28 August 1997 the first hearing took place before the Lublin Regional Court.\n21.  On 26 September 1997 the Lublin Regional Court examined an anonymous witness.\n22.  Subsequently, hearings took place on 1 October and 5 November 1997.\n23.  During the hearing held on 20 November 1997 the Regional Court released the applicant from detention.\n24.  On 18 December 1997 and 7 January 1998 the trial court held hearings.\n25.  On 9 January 1998 the Lublin Regional Court convicted", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-573", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Salerno.\n5.  He is the owner of a flatt in Salerno, which he had let to R.C.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 3 May 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 November 1990 and summoned her to appear before the Salerno Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 15 May 1990, which was made enforceable on 1 June 1990, the Salerno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1991.\n8.  On 28 January 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 6 April 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 April 1992.\n10.  On 21 April 1992 the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession that proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n11.  On 27 January 1997, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n12.  Pursuant to article 6 of Law no. 431/98, the Salerno Magistrate suspended the eviction proceedings until 19 November 1999.\n13.  On 20 October 1999, he served a second notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 November 1999.\n14.  On 19 November 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-574", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were respectively born in 1962, 1932 and 1934 and live in Florence.\n5.  They are the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to P.V.\n6.  In a registered letter of 25 July 1983, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 April 1984 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 April 1984, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 11 May 1984, which was made enforceable on 13 June 1984, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 11 May 1985.\n9.  The tenant asked the Florence Magistrate that the enforcement be postponed.\n10.  On 21 June 1985, the Florence Magistrate ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1986.\n11.  On 5 June 1986, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 23 June 1986, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 3 September 1986.\n13.  Between 3 September 1986 and 16 December 1998, the bailiff made thirty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On 12 July 1999, pursuant to article 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked the Florence District Court to suspend the eviction proceedings.\n15.  On 9 April 2001, the tenant died and his son refused to leave the flat.\n16.  On 11 May 2001, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. The next attempt was deferred to 16 October 2001.\n17.  Between 16 October 2001 and 21 November 2002, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n18.  On 3 March 2003, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-575", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were respectively born in 1951 and 1952 and live in Messina.\n5.  They are the owners of a flat in Milan, which they had let to F.G.\n6.  In a registered letter of 29 April 1993, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 December 1993 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  The tenant told the applicants that he would not leave the premises.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 30 June 1993, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 28 October 1993, which was made enforceable on 8 November 1993, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 January 1996.\n10.  On 6 February 1996, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On an unspecified date, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 March 1996.\n12.  Between 15 March 1996 and 21 September 2001, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 29 January 2002 and on 16 April 2002, the bailiff made two attempts to recover possession which proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  In July 2002, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-577", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Hetes, Hungary.\n5.  In February 1990 the applicant’s father (“the plaintiff”) had a traffic accident. With a view to seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for loss of work capacity, he brought an action on 30 December 1991 against his insurer before the Pest Central District Court.\n6.  Hearings took place on 22 May and 12 November 1992. On the latter date, the District Court appointed medical and agricultural experts. The person who had caused the plaintiff’s injuries intervened in the case.\n7.  Meanwhile, on 30 September 1992 the District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s request for interim measures to be applied. On 3 March 1993 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed his appeal against this decision.\n8.  The medical expert submitted his opinion on 25 May 1993. On 16 June 1993 the District Court held a hearing and on 12 July 1993 the agricultural expert presented his opinion.\n9. The next hearing took place on 28 January 1994. Pursuant to a change in legislation, the action was extended to include the National Institute for Development.\n10.  On 4 February 1994 the District Court decided to award 89,550 Hungarian forints (HUF) plus accrued interest to the plaintiff and granted him an allowance.\n11.  On appeal, on 10 November 1994 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the appealed part of the first instance decision and remitted the case in this respect.\n12.  On 21 December 1994 the District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s renewed request for interim measures. This decision was upheld by the Budapest Regional Court on 27 April 1995.\n13.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held a hearing on 14 June 1995 and decided to obtain the opinions of medical, agricultural and motor-vehicle experts. A hearing took place on 15 November 1995. On 14 December 1995 the District Court ordered that the agricultural expert’s opinion be completed. On 27 February 1996 the court appointed a new expert.\n14.  On 22 April 1996 the District Court excused the agricultural expert since he had previously worked for the first defendant and appointed a third one.\n15.  On 21 May 1996 the agricultural expert appointed informed the court that he was not competent to provide an opinion on the issues raised. On 23 May 1996 the District Court discharged the expert and invited the parties to submit proposals for a competent agricultural expert.\n16.  On 23 August 1996 the District Court dismissed the request of the Hungarian State to join the proceedings due to a change in legislation. On the appeals of the first defendant and the State, the Budapest Regional Court quashed the decision and gave the State leave to join the proceedings.\n17.  On 17 December 1996 the District Court appointed another agricultural expert. On 24 March 1997 he was warned that he would be fined in the event of his non-compliance with his duties. This expert was replaced by another expert on 2 April 1997.\n18.  On account of the wishes of the experts to be excused for reasons of lack of competence or other commitments, they had to be replaced on 30 May, 5 June, 11 July and 5 September 1997.\n19.  On 5 November 1997 the District Court ordered the expert who was eventually appointed to submit her opinion as soon as possible and warned her that in the event of non-compliance she would be fined. On 9 December 1997 the court imposed a fine of HUF 25,000 on the expert. Despite warnings, the expert repeatedly failed to comply with t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-578", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Nowogard, Poland.\n5.  The applicant co-owned an estate. On 15 January 1988 she filed with the Goleniów District Court (sąd rejonowy) an action against the other co-owners for overdue rent and the recovery of possession of some property located on that estate.\n6.  On 30 June 1992 the court gave judgment, in which it dismissed the action.\n7.  On 9 March 1993 the Szczecin Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki) dismissed the applicant's appeal against that judgment.\n8.  On 12 May 1993 she requested the reopening of the proceedings, submitting that she had not been notified of the appellate hearing.\n9.  On 16 September 1993 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 9 March 1993 and a part of the District Court's judgment. It remitted the part of the case concerning rent for re-examination.\n10.  On 24 November 1994 the District Court summoned the applicant to specify her claim. On 16 February 1995 the court, having received the applicant's response, requested her to specify it once more.\n11.  On 28 March 1995 the case was transferred to the Szczecin Regional Court, which was competent to examine it as a court of the first-instance.\n12.  On 31 October 1995 it held a hearing. The applicant withdrew her claim against one of the co-owners and raised a claim against the Goleniów District Office (Urząd Rejonowy), which also co-owned the disputed property.\n13.  On 5 September 1996 the court held a hearing. On the same day it summoned the Goleniów District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) to participate in the procedure as the defendant.\n14.  On 18 July 1997 the court stayed the proceedings after the applicant's failure to specify her claim within the set time-limit. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.\n15.  On 8 August 1997 she requested that her legal-aid lawyer be replaced with another one.\n16.  On 17 May 1999 the applicant's lawyer asked the court to resume the examination of the case. On 26 May 1999 the court summoned the applicant to specify her claim and identify the defendant. The applicant submitted that that order was not served on her. She stated that she had been unable to comply with the court order because of difficulty in assessing the value of the property the possession of which she had sought.\n17.  By 28 August 2003 the court had not resumed the proceedings.\n18.  On 6 June 1991 the applicant filed with the Goleniów District Court an action in which she requested that the co-ownership of an estate be dissolved.\n19.  On 17 December 1993 and 12 January 1994 the court held hearings.\n20.  In March 1994 an expert opinion was prepared.\n21.  The Government submitted that on 22 March 1994 the applicant challenged that opinion and changed her statement of claim. The applicant stated that she had never challenged that opinion and that the modification of her claim had only followed the conclusions of the expert opinion.\n22.  On 19 April 1995, as well as 12 June and 17 July 1996 the court held hearings. In June 1996 the applicant changed her statement of claim.\n23.  On 12 November 1996 the court exempted the participants to the proceedings from fees relating to an expert opinion. It also ordered the preparation of an opinion.\n24.  In 1997 an expert proposed two projects for the division of the estate. The applicant requested a correction to those projects. The Goleniów District Office, being one of the co-owners of the disputed property, did not accept the correction proposed by applicant.\n25.  On", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-579", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Padua.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Battipaglia, which he had let to E.T.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 July 1991, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Eboli Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 15 July 1991, which was made enforceable on 4 September 1991, the Eboli Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 March 1992.\n8.  On 30 May 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 11 August 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 26 August 1994.\n10.  On 26 August 1994, the bailiff made an attempt to recover possession which proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n11.  Thereafter, the applicant decided not to pursue the enforcement proceedings, given the lack of prospects of obtaining the assistance of the police.\n12.  On 11 November 1999, the applicant resumed the proceedings. He served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 1 December 1999, the tenant instituted civil proceedings before the Salerno District Court contesting the enforcement proceedings.\n14.  According to the last information provided by the applicant, pursuant the entry into force of Law Decree no 450 of 27 December 2001, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until the 30 June 2002.\n15.  On 15 November 2002 the applicant had not yet recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-580", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a Lithuanian national, born in 1972 and living in Vilnius.\n9.  In November 1994 the applicant became a suspect in a criminal case of fraud. On 29 November 1994 a search was conducted in his flat in the context of the proceedings.\n10.  On 14 August 1996 the applicant was charged on five counts, including cheating and embezzlement. On 22 August 1996 he was remanded on bail. There were four other co-accused persons in the case.\n11.  On 10 September 1996 the pre-trial investigation was concluded. From 10 September 1996 until 14 November 1996 the applicant and the co-accused had access to the case-file. On 18 November 1996 the Deputy Prosecutor General confirmed the bill of indictment. On 20 November 1996 the case was transmitted to the Kaunas City District Court.\n12.  On 3 January 1997 the Kaunas City District Court committed the applicant for trial. On 23 May 1997 the court ordered further investigations in the case and returned the case-file to the investigators.\n13.  The prosecution appealed against the above decision, complaining that there was no need for further investigation, and that the trial could proceed. On 26 August 1997 the Kaunas Regional Court rejected the prosecution's appeal, holding that further investigation measures were required.\n14.  On 26 September 1997 the Prosecutor General lodged a cassation appeal against the decisions of 23 May 1997 and 26 August 1997, stating that there was no need for further investigation, and that the trial should resume. On 29 January 1998 the Court of Appeal examined the prosecuting authorities' cassation appeal. The cassation court quashed the decisions of 23 May 1997 and 26 August 1997, deciding that the trial could be resumed. It transmitted the case to the Kaunas City District Court for a new examination.\n15.  On 13 October 1998 the applicant was taken to hospital with a stomach illness.\n16.  On 15 October 1998 the Kaunas City District Court found the applicant guilty on four counts, the applicant's defence counsel being present. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment.\n17.  On 16 October 1998 the applicant was transferred from the hospital to the prison on the basis of the judgment of 15 October 1998.\n18.  Upon the applicant's appeal, on 22 March 1999 the Kaunas Regional Court amended the applicant's conviction insofar as it concerned damages which had been awarded against him. The applicant's sentence was not changed.\n19.  Upon the applicant's cassation appeal, on 30 September 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the conviction and the appellate decision because of numerous breaches of domestic criminal procedure. The Supreme Court found in regard to the applicant that the findings by the lower courts of his guilt on two counts had not been properly motivated, and that the question of damages against him had not been adequately resolved. The case was returned to the Kaunas City District Court for a new examination to be carried out. The Supreme Court ordered the applicant's release on bail. The applicant was not present during the cassation hearing. He was released on the next day when the decision of the Supreme Court was sent to the prison.\n20.  On 25 October 1999 the Kaunas City District Court returned the case to the prosecution for further investigations to be carried out. On an unspecified date the investigation was concluded. The applicant's trial is currently pending before the first instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-581", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant company is the publisher of a newspaper (Neue Kronenzeitung) with its registered office in Vienna.\n10.  In July 1996 the Neue Kronenzeitung published several articles on a case of parents, Ms and Mr K. who had abused their daughter. In the articles it was alleged that they had homo-bisexual inclinations. Subsequently Ms K. filed a compensation claim under the Media Act (Mediengesetz) with the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) against the applicant company.\n11.  On 30 July 1996 the court ordered the applicant company under Section 8a § 5 of the Media Act to publish a notice concerning the institution of the proceedings. On 4 September 1996 this notice was published in the Neue Kronenzeitung.\n12.  On 5 and 10 September 1996 Ms K. filed enforcement requests (Durchsetzungsanträge) under Section 20 of the Media Act against the applicant company. Referring to Section 13 § 3 of the Media Act, requiring a notice of the same “publishing value” (Veröffentlichungswert) as the original message, she argued that the notice of 4 September 1996 was smaller than the articles of July 1996 and was, thus, not published in due form.\n13.  On 17 December 1996 the Regional Court dismissed Ms K.'s request. The court found that the notice of 4 September 1996, though somewhat smaller, had the same “attention value” (Auffälligkeitswert) and, thus, the same “publishing value” as the articles.\n14.  With the Vienna Court of Appeal's (Oberlandesgericht) decision of 14 July 1997 the compensation proceedings were finally determined. The court ordered the applicant company to pay ATS 115,000 in compensation to Ms K. for breach of the presumption of innocence in its reporting about Ms K. and to publish the sentence. The applicant company complied with these orders.\n15.  On 30 July 1997 the Court of Appeal, upon Ms K.'s appeal, quashed the Regional Court's decision of 17 December 1996 and ordered the applicant company to pay a coercive indemnity (Geldbuße) of ATS 24,000 to Ms K., namely ATS 4,000 for each issue of the newspaper between 5 and 10 September 1996. The court considered that, in one of the disputed articles, Ms K. had been defamed even in a subtitle, whereas the notice had no subtitle. Therefore the “publishing value” was diminished.\n16.  Following this decision, Ms K. filed further enforcement requests for the period of 11 September 1996 until 4 August 1997.\n17.  On 23 September 1997 the applicant company requested that Section 20 § 4 of the Media Act be applied by analogy. This provision allowed for an exemption from the imposition of coercive indemnity for the duration of appeal proceedings in case a first-instance court had imposed a coercive indemnity for an inappropriate publication of the notice - which, however, had been published in a manner close to the due form - and the respondent had appealed against this decision. The applicant company argued that after the first-instance court's decision in its favour, finding that the notice had the same publishing value, it had not been required to publish another notice. Therefore the above rule of exemption from imposition of coercive indemnity during the appeal proceedings applied even more in its case. The applicant company further requested that Section 20 § 3 of the Media Act - which, in cases of special circumstances, allows the authority to stop or remit the imposition of coercive indemnity, once the notice has been published in due form - be applied for the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-582", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were respectively born in 1938, 1943 and 1948 and live in Rome.\n5.  The applicants' father was the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to C.C.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 January 1984, the applicants' father informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 17 April 1984, which was made enforceable on 2 May 1984, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 16 April 1985.\n8.  On 10 March 1985, the applicants' father served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 3 April 1987, the applicants' father served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 12 May 1987.\n10.  On 14 February 1992, the applicants' father died and they inherited the flat. Subsequently they became parties to the eviction proceedings.\n11.  Between 12 May 1987 and 15 February 2000, the bailiff made fifty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as neither the applicants' father nor themselves were entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n12. On an unspecified date in February 2000, reaching an agreement with the tenant, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-583", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is an Italian limited company, settled in Naples.\n9.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Naples, which it had let to B.L.\nOn an unspecified date, the applicant informed the tenant that it intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n10.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 March 1984, the applicant reiterated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate. The Magistrate declared that it was not competent to examine the matter, following which it was transferred to the Naples Tribunal.\n11.  By a decision of 8 July 1988, the Tribunal confirmed that the rent contract had expired on 31 December 1983. It ordered the tenant to vacate the premises by 28 June 1989.\n12.  On 4 February 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 February 1991\n13.  On 12 November 1990, the applicant once more required the tenant to vacate the premises.\n14. Between 19 February 1991 and 9 October 1997, the bailiff made twenty-eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On an unspecified date in September 1998, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-584", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1920 and lived in Florence.\n9.  Until 1992, she was the owner of a flat in Florence, which she had let to A.P.\n10.  After that date, by contract, she kept a life and controlling interest (usufrutto) in the flat, i.e. the right to use it and derive any benefits therefrom. Her representative, Mrs A.M. Foti, had the title (nuda proprietà) over that flat.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 23 November 1982, the applicant communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 3 October 1983, which was made enforceable on 16 December 1983, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 December 1984. At the tenant’s request the Magistrate postponed the deadline for vacation to an unspecified date.\n13.  On 30 September 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 2 November 1987, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 December 1987.\n15.  Between 9 December 1987 and 16 September 1998, the bailiff made twenty-four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  On 12 July 1999, the tenant requested the Florence District Court to set a fresh date for the enforcement of the order for possession pursuant to Section 6 of Law No. 431/98. The Court set the date for 26 January 2001.\n17.  On 7 November 1999, the applicant died and Mrs A.M. Foti acquired full interest in the flat as she was the owner with all the rights over the flat. Subsequently, she also became a part of the eviction proceedings.\n18.  According to the last information provided by Mrs A. M. Foti in her fax of 15 November 2002, the Florence District Court has now set the new date for 15 January 2004 for the enforcement of the order for possession with the assistance of the police.\n19.  As of today, Mrs A.M. Foti has not yet recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-585", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Szydłowiec, Poland.\n7.  On 17 January 1995 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of robbery. On 18 January 1995 the Przysucha District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged him with robbery and detained him on remand on the ground that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question.\n8.  On 13 March 1995 the applicant was indicted before the Radom Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).\n9.  The trial began on 17 August 1995. On 11 July 1996 the Radom Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 4 years' imprisonment. On 16 April 1997, on the applicant's appeal, the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended that judgment in part and reduced the sentence to 3 years' and 6 months' imprisonment.\n10.  On an unknown date the applicant was detained in Radom Remand Centre (Areszt Śledczy). On 18 September 1995 he was placed in a cell of 12.49 square metres together with 5 other prisoners, all of whom were heavy smokers. There was no running water, no sewage system, no toilet and insufficient natural lighting. The glow-lamps were switched on from morning to night. The cell lacked adequate ventilation. The detainees were given two buckets of drinking water and one extra bucket, which was used as a toilet by all of them.\n11.  The applicant many times complained about the conditions of his detention, in particular the size of his cell and the fact that he was detained together with heavy smokers. He also complained that he was deprived of any opportunity to exercise in the open air since detainees were only allowed a daily walk in a well in the prison building.\n12.  On 12 March and 28 May 1996, in letters to the applicant, the Governor of Radom Remand Centre acknowledged that the prison conditions were difficult since Radom Remand Centre was one of the oldest prisons in Poland. He added that the prison was constantly overcrowded by 20%.\n13.  On 17 July 1998 the applicant was released from prison.\n14.  On 15 March 1996 the applicant's wrote his first letter to the Commission. The letter was opened by the authorities. In the top left hand corner of the letter there was a stamp, which read: “censored” (“ocenzurowano”). The stamp was followed by an illegible signature.\n15.  Following the communication of the application, the Government enquired into the circumstances surrounding the censoring of the applicant's letter. They found that an employee of the Radom Regional Court had stamped the applicant's letter “censored”. They maintained that that had happened by mistake since the employee was an inexperienced clerk who had been unfamiliar with the rules governing the censorship of correspondence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-586", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Nagytarcsa, Hungary.\n5.  On 13 October 1995 the applicant filed for divorce before the Budapest Regional Court. She also claimed custody of the couple's three children, born respectively in 1984, 1986 and 1992, and requested the payment of maintenance and the division of the matrimonial property.\n6.  After repeated motions for bias filed by the applicant's husband, the Buda Central District Court was first appointed to hear the case. As a consequence of the husband's further motion for bias, the case-file was then transferred to the Zalaegerszeg District Court.\n7.  On 24 September 1996 the President, the Vice-President and all the judges of the Zalaegerszeg District Court declared bias.\n8.  On 6 February 1997 the Supreme Court appointed the Miskolc District Court and the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court to hear the case.\n9.  On 2 April 1997 the Miskolc District Court requested the applicant to supplement her action within 8 days. Following the grant of an extension of this time-limit, the applicant submitted additional material on 5 May 1997.\n10.  A hearing was held on 24 June 1997.\n11.  On 26 August 1997 the District Court requested the school attended by the couple's children to provide an opinion. It also appointed the Budapest Forensic Medical Expert Institute (“the Institute”) to give an expert psychological opinion on the parties and their children and requested to be advised as to which parent was the more suitable to raise the children.\n12.  The applicant together with the three children failed to appear at the examinations scheduled for 1 October 1997 as they had not received any notification.\n13.  The examinations scheduled for 18 November 1997 could not be carried out as the husband and two of the children failed to appear.\n14.  On 9 December 1997 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court found the husband's renewed motion for bias of 4 September 1997 unsubstantiated.\n15.  On 12 January 1998 the Miskolc District Court ordered the parties to provide information about the children's situation and the issue of maintenance.\n16.  In her letters of 15 January and 5 May 1998, the applicant requested the District Court to schedule a hearing in the case and, as an interim measure, to order her husband to pay maintenance.\n17.  On 25 January 1998 the husband filed a motion for bias against all of the judges of the county.\n18.  On 5 May 1998 the applicant requested the District Court to deal with the case urgently. On 15 July 1998 she repeatedly requested the court to pronounce the divorce, to grant her custody of the children, to oblige her husband to leave their flat and to pay maintenance.\n19.  On 26 October 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed the husband's renewed motion for bias and warned him that if he submitted another unsubstantiated motion, he would be fined.\n20.  At the court's request of 27 November 1998, the applicant provided information about the maintenance of the children.\n21.  On 14 December 1998 the husband again filed a motion for bias against the judges dealing with the case.\n22.  On 22 December 1998 the District Court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of a parallel action to place the husband under guardianship.\n23.  At the applicant's request, on 6 October 1999 the District Court decided to resume the proceedings and to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the husband.\n24.  On 9 November 1999 the applicant elaborated her action and requeste", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-587", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1917 and lives in Rome.\n5.  She is the owner of four flats in Rome, which she had let to P.C., G.F. and R.R., E.T. and S.A..\n1)  Proceedings against P.C. and then his widow M.L.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 November 1990, the applicant informed him of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 3 May 1991, which was made enforceable on 15 May 1991, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n8.  On 1 February 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 17 February 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 April 1993.\n10.  Between 7 April 1993 and 18 November 1999, the bailiff made twenty-three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n11.  On 15 December 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.\n2)  Proceedings against G.F. and R.R.\n12.  In a registered letter of 14 September 1989, the applicant informed the tenants that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 April 1990 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.\n13.  In a writ served on the tenants on 19 November 1990, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned them to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n14.  By a decision of 3 May 1991, which was made enforceable on 17 May 1991, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 3 May 1992.\n15.  On 19 October 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.\n16.  On 18 December 1992, she served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 January 1993.\n17.  Between 8 January 1993 and 6 October 1999, the bailiff made twenty-four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n18.  On 10 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.\n3)  Proceedings against E.T.\n19.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 November 1990, the applicant informed him of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n20.  By a decision of 3 May 1991, which was made enforceable on 15 May 1991, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n21.  On 1 February 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n22.  On 17 February 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 April 1993.\n23.  Between 7 April 1993 and 24 November 2000, the bailiff made thirty-two attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n24.  On 15 December 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.\n4)  Proceedings against S.A. and then his widow M.B.\n25.  In a writ served on the tenant on 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-588", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The case concerns events in November and December 1993 when the applicants were taken into custody for questioning about their alleged links with the PKK (the Kurdish Workers' Party).\n11.  The facts being disputed by the parties, the Commission appointed Delegates who took evidence in Ankara from 7 to 11 December 1998. They heard all the applicants (except for Hüsniye Ölmez) as witnesses, as well as Abdülhakim Güven, Fatma Demırel, Lokman Eğilmez, Eşref Hatipoğlu, Mahmut Demırel, Hasan Bozoğlu, Mithat Gül, Burhanettin Kiyak, Fırat Yavuz Yedekçi, Ünal Haney, Batuhan Özer, Murat Kirikçi, Hüsein Gazi Ateş, Ercüment Dönmez, Ali Kara, Hasan Şener, Cafer Öngün and Mehmet Durmaş.\n12.  The transcripts of the oral evidence, together with the documentary evidence provided by the parties to the Commission, have been transmitted to the Court. The relevant material is summarised below (Sections C and D), as are the original submissions by the parties concerning the facts (Sections A and B).\n13. On 23 November 1993 at around 8.30 a.m. two plain-clothed policemen went to the applicant Tahir Elçi's office in Cizre. After being searched, the applicant was taken to the gendarmerie. At 10 a.m. six policemen, including the two who had detained the applicant, returned with him to search his office. They seized all the applicant's note-books, powers of attorney, case files (particularly concerning applications to the Commission - no. 21689/93 Özkan and 31 others v. Turkey, no. 21895/93 Cağirge v. Turkey and no. 20764/92 Ertak v. Turkey). His collection of newspapers (the pro-Kurdish Özgür Gündem, Özgür Halk and Rawson), magazines and books were also seized. The applicant signed a procès-verbal concerning his provisional detention. At 11 a.m. the policemen took the applicant to his home, where they made a search but did not seize anything. He was kept at the police station until being handed over to the Cizre gendarmerie command a day or so later.\n14. He alleged that he was ill-treated by the Cizre police. He was stripped naked, insulted, threatened and beaten up. His testicles were squeezed and cold water was poured on him. This lasted about an hour. Then they took the applicant to the Cizre district gendarmerie command where he was kept, blindfolded, for a couple of days in a basement. Thereafter he was handed over to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command.\n15.  On 25 November 1993 the applicant's brothers were informed by the prosecuting authorities and a captain of the gendarmerie that he had been taken into detention on 24 November.\n16.  The applicant was detained in Diyarbakır incommunicado until his formal remand in custody on 10 December 1993. He alleged that during this first period of detention he was interrogated under torture concerning and because of applications he had filed on behalf of clients with the Commission. Correspondence and documentation relating to those applications were put to him by his interrogators. He was supposed to confess to having relations with the PKK and being a PKK courier. When he refused he was tortured. The interrogators assaulted and abused him, particularly concerning one of the cases he had taken to the Commission involving events at the Ormaniçi village. He was stripped and left naked. He was threatened with death should he pursue claims of village evacuations and disappearances. At one point he was taken to the countryside in a military vehicle and told that he was to be killed. However, he refused t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-589", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Karlovac, Croatia.\n9.  On 6 February 1999 the applicant was driving from Bosnia and Herzegovina and crossed the border to Croatia at the checkpoint at Maljevac. He was stopped by a customs officer for a routine check.\n10.  The applicant gives the following account of what happened at the border checkpoint. Before arriving in Croatia, the applicant and another person, K.B., had purchased four cartons of cigarettes and two litres of cooking oil.\n11.  At the border checkpoint they were approached by a customs officer who asked the applicant if he had anything to declare. The applicant pointed at the purchased goods, lying in the backseat of the car, inviting the customs officer to take a look. The officer then asked the applicant to show him his passport. While holding the applicant's passport the officer told the applicant that he had failed to declare the goods and thus committed a customs offence. He asked the applicant to pay a fine in the amount of two hundred Croatian Kunas (hereinafter HRK).\n12.  The applicant told the officer that he could not pay the fine right away because he did not have enough money on him. The officer did not return the applicant's passport and told him that he would receive his passport when he had paid the fine. The applicant then continued to Croatia.\n13.  The Government gave the following account of the facts. While entering Croatia the applicant failed to declare goods that he had purchased in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, a customs officer found five cartons of cigarettes and two litres of cooking oil in the applicant's car. He routinely fined the applicant with HRK 200 [Approximately 30 euros] for a minor customs offence. The applicant was immediately given a document which stated that he was fined with HRK 200 for having failed to declare five cartons of cigarettes he was importing. The applicant signed the document. During this procedure the applicant's passport was kept by the customs officer, who had intended to return it to the applicant. However, the applicant refused to pay the fine and demonstratively drove away, leaving his passport behind.\n14.  On 10 February 1999 the applicant wrote from his address in Karlovac to the Ministry of Finance, Customs Administration Headquarters asking that his passport be returned.\n15.  On 22 February 1999 the Customs Administration replied to the applicant's address in Karlovac that the custom officers acted in accordance with law when they seized the applicant's passport because he had refused to pay the fine for a customs offence which he had committed by failing to declare goods at a border checkpoint. They relied on Sections 325 to 333 of the Customs Act which, inter alia, provided that a person, while crossing a customs check point, had to declare and show all goods that he was importing. Failure to declare such goods represented a customs offence. The letter also stated that since the applicant had not declared the goods that he had been importing to Croatia, he had committed a customs offence under Section 353 of the Customs Act and fined pursuant to § 2 of that Section. The applicant's passport had been kept because the applicant had refused to pay the fine. The letter contained no indication of how and when the applicant's passport would be returned.\n16.  Although the applicant did not pay the imposed fine no other proceedings were instituted against him for the alleged customs offence.\n17.  In the mean", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-590", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The first applicant, an Austrian national born in 1943 and living in Vienna, is a journalist by profession. The applicant company is the owner and publisher of the Austrian weekly magazine News.\n13.  In 1995 the first applicant published a one-page article under the heading “Brown instead of Black and Red?” (Braun statt Schwarz und Rot?) in the applicant company's magazine News. In the Austrian political context, “Brown” means a person or group having some affinity with National Socialist ideology, “Black” refers to the People's Party (ÖVP) and “Red” to the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ). The article discussed the question whether it was possible and desirable to form a coalition government with the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) under the leadership of Jörg Haider.\n14.  The first applicant explained why, in his view, such a coalition government was not desirable. He gave nine reasons, each of which was dealt with under a separate subheading. Referring to statements by Jörg Haider and other FPÖ members, he broached topics such as the FPÖ's specific view of history, its German jingoism (Deutschtümelei), that is, its chauvinist and nostalgic affinity with Germany, its inclination towards racism, the opinion poll “Austria first” (Österreich zuerst) initiated by it, its political style and the possible negative reaction by foreign countries. 1.  The passage in issue\n“4.   Violent Scene [Gewaltszene]\nRight-wing thugs [Braune Schläger], fire-raisers and bomb-throwers have emerged from the FPÖ. Leading figures of brown terror, such as Burger, Haas, Honsik and Küssel, started their career with the Freedom Party. Under Steger the 'old closet Nazis' [Kellernazi] had left the party. Under Haider they are returning and are even allowed to run for office. Names such as B., Bl., D., Dü., G., Gr., H., Hat., K., M., Mi., Mrs Rosenkranz, S., Sch., St., Su. and W. show that the dissociation [Abgrenzung] from the extreme right that is constantly being stressed by Haider has in reality never taken place.”\n15.  Mr Steger was Chairman of the FPÖ in the early 1980s, when the party supported more moderate positions. In 1986 Mr Haider became Chairman of the FPÖ. Mrs Rosenkranz is a politician. At the material time, she was a member of the Lower Austria Regional Parliament (Landtag) and the deputy chairperson of the Lower Austria regional branch of the FPÖ; at present, she is a member of the Austrian National Assembly (Nationalrat) and the chairperson of the Lower Austria regional branch of the FPÖ. Her husband is a well-known right-wing politician and the editor of the magazine fakten, which is considered to be extreme right-wing.\n16.  Mrs Rosenkranz filed a private prosecution for defamation (üble Nachrede) against the first applicant and a compensation claim against the applicant company under the Media Act (Mediengesetz) in the St. Pölten Regional Court (Landesgericht).\n17.  On 21 June 1998 the first applicant was convicted of defamation under Article 111 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch). The court sentenced him to forty day-fines (Tagessätze) of 1,500 Austrian schillings (ATS) each (that is, a total of ATS 60,000) or twenty days' imprisonment in default, suspended for a three-year probationary period. The applicant company was ordered to pay ATS 30,000 in compensation to Mrs Rosenkranz pursuant to section 6 of the Media Act.\n18.  The court noted in its reasoning that the passage in issue was to be understood in the way it would be perceived by an av", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-591", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Wizna, Poland.\n5.  In 1991, in the course of court proceedings concerning child support maintenance the Łomża District Court (sąd rejonowy) imposed on the applicant an interim ban on leaving the territory of Poland. She was not notified of that decision until 16 July 1991, when she was stopped at an airport, on her way to the United States of America.\n6.  On 30 September 1991 the applicant filed with the Łomża Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki) an action in which she claimed damages from the State Treasury. She argued that that ban was wrongful and not served on her, which had made it impossible for her to return to the United States of America and pursue her application for a residence permit there. The applicant submitted that judge X who had issued that order had known her former husband, who had been a party to those proceedings.\n7.  On 31 October 1991 the Białystok Court of Appeal (sąd apelacyjny) transferred the case to the Białystok Regional Court.\n8.  The latter court held hearings on 7 April, 24 September and 17 December 1992.\n9.  On 5 January 1993 it rejected a part of the applicant's claim.\n10.  At the hearing held on 13 May 1993 the court, at both parties' request, stayed the proceedings until the completion of disciplinary proceedings against judge X.\n11.  On 3 September 1993 the court resumed the proceedings.\n12.  It held further hearings on 7 October and 16 December 1993, as well as 20 January 1994.\n13.  On 3 February 1994 the Białystok Regional court gave judgment. It awarded the applicant damages in the amount of 145.820.500 old zlotys with interest. The defendant and judge X, who joined the proceedings as an intervener, appealed.\n14.  On 7 July 1994 the Białystok Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Court's judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n15.  On 1 August 1994 the applicant challenged the participation in the proceedings of all the judges from the Białystok Regional court.\n16.  On 15 December 1994 the Białystok Court of Appeal dismissed that petition.\n17.  The Regional Court held hearings on 26 April, 28 June and 6 September 1995. At the former the court decided to request the U.S. embassy to submit a certain piece of information. At the hearing of 26 June 1995 it imposed a fine on a witness for non-attendance before the court.\n18.  Hearings were held on 22 August, 19 September and 28 November 1996.\n19.  The hearing scheduled for 18 December 1996 was adjourned because of the presiding judge's illness.\n20.  The court held a hearing on 17 April 1997.\n21.  On 30 April 1997 it gave judgment. The court dismissed the applicant's action. She appealed.\n22.  On 7 November 1997 the Regional Court refused the applicant's request for exemption from the appellate court costs. On 2 December 1997 the Court of Appeal changed that decision and exempted her from part of those costs.\n23.  It held hearings on 5 February and 3 March 1998.\n24.  On 10 March 1998 the Białystok Court of Appeal amended the judgment of 30 April 1997 in that it awarded the applicant damages in the amount of 23,864 zlotys (PLN) with interest. All the participants to the proceedings lodged cassation appeals against that judgment.\n25.  On 12 May 1998 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's cassation appeal. She appealed. On 27 August 1998 the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal's decision.\n26.  On 28 June 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment under appeal and remitted the case for re-ex", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-592", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1944 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in HMP Maidstone.\n8.  The applicant and his wife frequently travelled between various European countries. On 16 April 1997, the Chief Constable of South Wales authorised the installation of covert recording devices at the applicant's cottage and this was carried out on 23 April 1997. Authority for a further 28 days' surveillance was granted on 14 May 1997.\n9.  Over 160 hours of tapes were obtained between the period of 25 April to 9 June 1997, on which latter date the applicant and his wife were arrested. The transcripts of the taped conversations made up the bulk of the case against the applicant.\n10.  At trial, the applicant's defence alleged that the recorded discussions, which occurred while he and the others concerned were under the influence of drugs, were “drug-crazed ramblings” and challenged their admissibility. A “voir dire” took place from 28 May to 1 June 1998, during which the defence made submissions concerning the procedure for authorisation of the surveillance and seeking inter alia to exclude irrelevant or prejudicial material under sections 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). By agreement, the transcript evidence was reduced from five to two files and an agreed schedule was adopted by all counsel concerning the occasions on which the conversations occurred at the same time as drug taking. In summing up to the jury at the conclusion of the trial, the judge directed their attention to the fact that the supposedly incriminating statements taped at the cottage were or may have been the product of the participants' intoxicated state and that it was for them to assess whether despite the drugs the defendants were expressing rational, genuine thoughts, real ideas, plans or arrangements.\n11.  On 15 June 1998, the applicant was convicted of charges inter alia of conspiracy to import controlled drugs and possession of controlled drugs in connection with importation of marijuana and cocaine from overseas. He was sentenced to a total of fifteen years' imprisonment. A confiscation order was imposed on him on 24 September 1998 in the sum of 50,169.18 pounds sterling (GBP).\n12.  On 10 November 1999, a single judge of the Court of Appeal refused an extension of time to appeal against sentence and refused leave to appeal against conviction, noting that no satisfactory or sufficient reason had been given for the 11 month delay in lodging the application. The applicant's renewed application was refused by the Court of Appeal on 17 October 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-593", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1915 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 12 January 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court. She requested that the invalidity of a contract, by which her late husband had sold their house, be established. On 25 June 1995 she completed her statement of claim.\n6.  On 9 December 1995 the applicant requested the District Court to hold a hearing urgently.\n7.  A hearing was held on 25 March 1996.\n8.  On 21 October 1996 the District Court dismissed the applicant's action. On 14 October 1997 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed her appeal of 27 December 1996.\n9.  On 19 December 1997 the applicant pursued a petition for review before the Supreme Court.\n10.  On 27 May and 18 August 1998 the applicant requested the Supreme Court to give her case priority.\n11. On 1 September 1998 the Supreme Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer for the applicant. On 23 September 1998 the lawyer requested to be relieved of his duties. On 27 October 1998 the Supreme Court appointed another legal-aid lawyer to represent the applicant in the review proceedings.\n12.  The applicant's petition for review was renewed by the lawyer on 27 November 1998.\n13.  On 11 December 1998 the Supreme Court informed the parties that it intended to deliver its judgment without holding a hearing and requested the parties to submit their opinions on this matter within 8 days. On 15 January 1999 the applicant requested the Supreme Court to schedule a hearing.\n14.  On 23 June 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the final judgment on account of substantial procedural shortcomings, and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n15.  In the resumed proceedings, on 22 December 1999 the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court requested the applicant to extend her action to include Mr A.T. in the proceedings.\n16.  The applicant failed to comply with this order within the statutory time-limit. Consequently, the court decided to discontinue the case.\n17.  On 22 February 2000 the applicant's legal-aid lawyer appealed against the order to discontinue the case. Simultaneously, she complied with the order of 22 December 1999.\n18.  On 16 March 2000 the applicant renewed the motion to include Mr A.T. in the proceedings. On the same date, the defendant submitted his observations and counter-claims.\n19.  On 2 June 2000 the District Court accepted the applicant's procedural appeal and reinstated the proceedings.\n20.  Following the retirement of the applicant's lawyer, on 26 June 2000 the District Court appointed another legal-aid lawyer and scheduled a hearing for 19 September 2000.\n21.  The applicant failed to appear at the hearing held on 19 September 2000. She submitted that she was being treated in hospital. The District Court decided to enquire with the hospital about the applicant's health. On 24 October 2000 the hospital informed the court that the applicant was no longer a patient.\n22.  On 25 October 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant's motion challenging the presiding judge for bias.\n23.  In her submissions of 22 December 2000, the applicant requested the court to hold a hearing urgently, notwithstanding her potential absence. At the same time, she objected to being represented by a legal aid-lawyer, which was not obligatory before a first-instance court. Consequently, on 17 April 2001 the District Court relieved the lawyer of her duties. On the same date, the court adjourned a hearing scheduled for 4 May 2001 and requested the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-594", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Brwinów, Poland.\n5.  On 15 March 1985 the applicant instituted before the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Warszawie) civil proceedings concerning an inheritance dispute (o zachowek) against Mr A.Ł. The applicant sought a part of his late mother's estate.\n6.  Between April 1985 and January 1993 the court held over twenty hearings.\n7.  Between March 1988 and February 1990 as well as between June 1991 and December 1992 no hearings were held.\n8.  The hearing held on 11 January 1993 was adjourned.\n9.  On 25 April 1994 the court, sitting in camera, requested two expert opinions.\n10.  On 3 November 1994, 29 March and 26 June 1995 the Warsaw District Court obtained expert opinions.\n11.  On 30 January 1995 the court exempted the applicant from the court‑fees.\n12.  On 4 August 1995 the court, sitting in camera, decided to prepare another expert opinion. The defendant appealed against this decision. On 8 February 1996 the Warsaw District Court dismissed the appeal. The defendant's appeal against this decision was finally dismissed on 24 April 1996 by the Warsaw Regional Court.\n13.  On 11 October 1995 the court appointed a lawyer for the applicant.\n14.  On 5 August 1996 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.\n15.  Between 11 January 1993 and 13 December 1996 no hearings were held.\n16.  In 1997 the court held six hearings. Some of them were adjourned because the parties were not properly notified of them.\n17.  On 13 February and 6 April 1998 the court held hearings.\n18.  At the hearing held 25 June 1998 the applicant extended his claim.\n19.  On 26 June 1998 the court decided to transfer the case to the Warsaw Regional Court because of the increased value of the claim.\n20.  At the hearing held on 14 May 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court discontinued the proceedings with regard to the applicant's sister.\n21.  On 14 October 1999 the applicant extended his claim and applied to the court to give an interim ruling. On 18 September 2000 the court dismissed his application for the interim ruling. The applicant's appeal was dismissed on 1 March 2001 by the Warsaw Court of Appeal.\n22.  On 26 October 2001 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing at which it heard both parties.\n23.  In November 2001 the court, sitting in camera, requested another expert opinion.\n24.  In July and August 2002 the President of the Warsaw Regional Court informed the applicant that “due to the delay in the proceedings the case is going to be under constant supervision of the President”.\n25.  Subsequently, a hearing scheduled for 13 March 2003 was adjourned at the applicant's request. The new date was set for 23 March 2003.\n26.  The proceedings are pending before the Warsaw Regional Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-595", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 23 January 1987, the applicant informed him of its intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 3 December 1988 and summoned him to appear before the Torre Annunziata Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 25 February 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Torre Annunziata Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 March 1990.\n8.  On 21 April 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. It also informed him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 2 May 1995.\n9.  Between 2 May 1995 and 5 November 1997, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n10.  On 1 September 2000, the tenant spontaneously left the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.\n2)  Application no. 41935/98\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 23 June 1983, the applicant informed him of its intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and summoned him to appear before the Torre Annunziata Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 8 October 1983, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Torre Annunziata Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 1 January 1986.\n13.  On 2 February 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring them to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 21 April 1995, it informed him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 2 May 1995.\n15.  Between 2 May 1995 and 5 November 1997, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  On 3 June 2001, the tenant spontaneously left the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.\n \n \n3)  Application no. 42732/98\n17.  In a writ served on M.A. (the tenant) on 23 January 1987, the applicant informed her of its intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1988 and summoned her to appear before the Torre Annunziata Magistrate.\n18.  By a decision of 25 February 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Torre Annunziata Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 May 1991.\n19.  On 2 February 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n20.  On 21 April 1995, it informed her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 2 May 1995.\n21.  Between 2 May 1995 and 27 November 1998, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n22.  On 3 August 2002, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-596", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, who was born in 1925, is currently in prison in Nantes.\n8.  During the past few years he has been convicted of various criminal offences. In particular, he was sentenced on 9 November 1992 by the Assize Court for the département of Cher to ten years' imprisonment for armed robbery; on 2 September 1998 by the Bernay Criminal Court to six months' imprisonment for making off without payment; on 14 January 1999 by the Nevers Criminal Court to five years' imprisonment for armed robbery; and on 20 January 1999 by the Rouen Court of Appeal to six months' imprisonment for making off without payment. He was due for release from September 2001 onwards according to him, and from 17 February 2002 onwards according to the Government.\n9.  In February 1998 the applicant was also sentenced to six months' imprisonment by the Nevers Criminal Court for failing to return to prison on time after his last period of leave in 1998, having complied with the arrangements on the previous four occasions. The experts who examined him on the subject concluded that “at the material time” he had been suffering from a “psychological disorder” that had temporarily “impaired his judgment” and that prison could not be “therapeutic” for him, especially in view of his advanced age.\n10.  The applicant subsequently underwent a medical examination in prison and was found to have swollen glands in the throat area. The relevant service accordingly prescribed medical treatment. It was decided that the applicant would undergo an operation on 8 November 2000 after being taken to hospital on 7 November 2000 at 2.30 p.m.\n11.  On 6 November 2000 the governor of Eysses Prison informed the prefect that the prisoner needed to be taken to hospital and requested the presence of a police escort to supervise and guard him throughout his stay. As regards the security risk, the prison staff were issued with instructions that the applicant was to be kept under normal and not heightened supervision, left to the discretion of the senior escorting officer but in principle not requiring the permanent use of handcuffs and restraints.\n12.  On 7 November 2000, the day before the operation, the applicant was transferred, in handcuffs, to Pellegrin Hospital in Bordeaux in a prison van. Two police officers were waiting for him at the hospital in order to supervise and guard him throughout his time there. For the rest of the day the applicant remained handcuffed but not shackled.\n13.  During the night, a restraint was used on the applicant, consisting of a chain attaching one of his ankles to the bedpost. The Government assert that the restraint left him considerable freedom to move about in the bed, whereas the applicant maintains that the tension of the chain made any movement difficult or painful and sleep impossible.\n14.  On 8 November 2000, in the morning, the applicant stated that, if he could not be kept in humane conditions in hospital, he would prefer to be operated on once he had been released from prison. After a meeting with the hospital staff, he returned to prison on the same day at 11.45 a.m.\n15.  On 9 November 2000 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint, together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party, with the senior investigating judge at the Agen tribunal de grande instance, alleging “serious ill-treatment”, “assault” and “torture”. In the complaint, lodged against the two police officers who had guarded him while he was in hospital, he allege", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-597", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Rdzawka.\n9.  In a dispute with her neighbours about a right of way, she was a party to various sets of legal proceedings, as detailed below.\n10.  The applicant's neighbours accused her of preventing them on 27 August 1993 from taking the track leading to the housing estate. On 29 December 1993 the Nowy Targ District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) made a summary order (nakaz karny) requiring the applicant and her husband to pay a fine. On 10 February 1994 the same court, taking into account the low level of the disturbance to public order caused by the offence, made a discontinuation order (postanowienie o umorzeniu postepowania), coupled with a probationary period of one year.\nOn 24 May 1996 it found the accused not guilty (wyrok uniewinniający). Having compared the evidence given by the victims and the witnesses they had asked to be called, it noted differences which undermined the credibility of their version of the facts. On 14 October 1996 the Nowy Sącz Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed an appeal by the prosecution.\n11.  In 1994 the applicant was prosecuted under Article 167 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see “Relevant domestic law” below) for an offence committed on 27 August 1993. On 6 July 1994 the Nowy Targ District Court asked for the applicant to be examined by two psychiatrists in order to determine whether, at the material time, she had been in full possession of her mental faculties. The court grounded this request on the fact that the applicant was under treatment as an outpatient of the neurology centre and the fact that she had also been required to undergo a psychiatric examination in connection with another case. The examination was arranged for 3 August 1994. The applicant was duly informed of the appointment but did not attend.\n12.  On 12 August 1994 the consultation was put back to 31 August 1994, but did not take place on that date because the applicant announced that she was seriously ill.\n13.  On 26 September 1994 the District Court informed the applicant in an ordinary letter that the consultation had been put back to 12 October 1994 and made it clear that her attendance was compulsory and that if she did not comply with the order it would be obliged to have her arrested.\n14.  On the same day the District Court issued a warrant for the applicant's arrest, if required, in order to enforce her attendance at the psychiatric examination on 12 October 1994.\n15.  The applicant was arrested at her home on 12 October 1994 at 8.50 a.m. At 9.10 she signed the arrest report and wrote on it that she had heart problems, that she intended to complain about the arrest and that she did not want anyone in her family to be informed.\n16.  Initially (in her observations of 6 October 2000), the applicant submitted that she had sent a medical certificate to explain why she could not attend the appointment with the psychiatrist.\n17.  The Government asserted that no certificate had been received by the court, which had ordered the applicant to be escorted to her medical examination, and that a certificate could not have been mislaid by the District Court's registry.\n18.  In reply the applicant submitted that, not having received a summons, she did not find out about the court's decision until the police arrived. It was then that she had informed them that she had been unable to attend the appointment and had given them a medical certificate dated 9 October 1994 showing that she had been admitted", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-598", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Naples.\n7.  She is the owner of a flat in Casoria (Naples), which she had let to A.I.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 14 December 1987, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Casoria Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 22 January 1988, which was made enforceable on 31 September 1988, the Casoria Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 22 February 1989.\n10.  On 15 January 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 3 April 1990, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 12 April 1990.\n12.  Between 12 April 1990 and 30 November 1999, the bailiff made twenty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 6 December 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-599", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Rome.\n5.  A.S. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to G.C. and then to his wife L.C.\n6.  In a registered letter of 25 June 1991, the owner informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 13 December 1991, the owner reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 10 April 1992, which was made enforceable on 23 April 1992, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 February 1993.\n9.  On 9 December 1993, the applicant became the owner of the flat and continued the enforcement proceedings.\n10.  On 4 January 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 4 February 1994, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 March 1994.\n12.  Between 22 March 1994 and 16 September 1999, the bailiff made eighteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 13 November 1997, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n14.  On 4 October 1999, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 17 May 2000.\n15.  On 3 July 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-600", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 5 January 1983 the applicant and his wife purchased a house situated in Michalovce from the applicant's parents-in-law. The purchase contract was registered with the State Notary's Office in Michalovce.\n6.  On 5 March 1990 the applicant's mother-in-law filed an action with the Michalovce District Court claiming that the contract should be declared void. She alleged that the applicant and his wife had not paid the purchase price and that they had forced her and her late husband to conclude the contract.\n7.  On 21 November 1990 the Michalovce District Court declared the contract void. It found, with reference to witness statements and documentary evidence, that the vendors had concluded it under pressure.\n8.  On 14 January 1991 and on 8 May 1991 the applicant and his wife appealed. They challenged the conclusions of the District Court with reference to documentary evidence.\n9.  On 13 May 1991 the Košice Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment as it did not specify what kind of pressure the defendants had allegedly exercised on the vendors, and because it was not clear whether the contract corresponded to the genuine will of the parties. The Regional Court therefore instructed the District Court to hear the State Notary who had registered the contract and to establish whether the purchase price had been determined correctly.\n10.  On 6 December 1991 the Michalovce District Court again declared the contract void. After having taken further evidence, the District Court established that the applicant and his wife had exercised pressure on the vendors in that they had repeatedly pointed to their age and to their health problems, and that they had offered to take care of them subject to the transfer of the house. The court noted that there existed no evidence as to whether the applicant and his wife had paid the purchase price as alleged by them. It therefore relied on the argument of the applicant's mother-in-law according to which the purchase contract had been concluded formally with a view to reducing the costs of the transfer. The District Court concluded that the contract did not correspond to the genuine will of the parties and that it was therefore void within the meaning of Article 37 of the Civil Code.\n11.  On 19 December 1991 the applicant and his wife appealed. On 11 and 13 May 1992 they made further written submissions to the Regional Court.\n12.  On 31 June 1992 the Košice Regional Court quashed the District Court's judgment of 6 December 1991. The appellate court found that the evidence available did not suffice to conclude that the claimant and her late husband had been put under pressure by the defendants or that the contract in question was invalid. In its judgment the Regional Court instructed the District Court to hear the claimant thoroughly with a view to assessing the validity of the contract in the light of Article 37 of the Civil Code, that is whether the parties had concluded it of their own free will, with a serious intention to do so and in an unequivocal manner.\n13.  A hearing before the District Court was held on 17 November 1992. On 2 February 1992 the District Court appointed an expert in psychiatry. The latter submitted the opinion on 7 June 2003.\n14.  A hearing scheduled for 25 June 2003 was adjourned as the applicant's mother-in-law was ill. She died on 3 July 1993. On 31 August and on 3 September 1993 the defendants and the plaintiff'", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-601", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently detained in the Radom prison.\n10.  In July 1996 the applicant was released from prison. On 11 September 1996 the police arrested him. The police suspected that on 10 September 1996 the applicant had committed an armed robbery and rape. At the same time, the police enforced a warrant for the arrest of the applicant issued on 28 August 1996 by the Pruszków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) in the criminal proceedings against the applicant pending before that court.\n11.  On 13 September 1996 the Warsaw District Court remanded the applicant in custody on charges of armed robbery and sexual assault. The court took into account the fact that the applicant was of no fixed abode and that his accomplices had not been arrested.\n12.  On 8 November 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed the applicant's appeal against the District Court's decision to remand him in custody. The Regional Court considered that the applicant's detention was justified by the existence of serious evidence of his guilt, the gravity of charges against him, the risk of collusion, the fact that he was of no fixed abode and was unemployed. In addition, the court observed that the police failed to apprehend the applicant's accomplices and that there was a risk that he would go into hiding. Finally, the court was of the view that the applicant's case did not disclose any of the grounds for release provided by Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n13.  On 10 December 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 11 March 1997.\n14.  The applicant made an application for release but it was dismissed on 19 December 1996 by the Warsaw Regional Court. It referred to the gravity of the charges brought against the applicant and the existence of serious evidence of his guilt.\n15.  Between 20 January and 27 February 1997 the prosecution service decided that it would seek evidence from five expert witnesses and requested the applicant's medical file from a psychiatric hospital in which he had been treated.\n16.  On 4 March 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court appointed legal aid counsel to defend the applicant.\n17.  On 5 March 1997 the prosecution service received two expert opinions. On 7 March 1997 the District Prosecutor interviewed the victim of rape.\n18.  On 10 March 1997 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) allowed the request submitted by the prosecutor and extended the applicant's detention on remand until 11 May 1997. The court referred to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the grounds for detention provided in Article 217 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Moreover, it noted that one of the co-accused was still in hiding and that immediately after the commission of the alleged crime “there had been an attempt to contact the victim [of the assault]”. The court also agreed with the submissions of the prosecutor that the investigation was not finished because certain forensic tests still had to be carried out, the applicant and another co-accused were still under psychiatric observation, whereas the police was trying to apprehend the third accused. The applicant appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n19.  Between 8 and 18 April 1997 the prosecution service received two expert opinions and decided to request DNA tests.\n20.  On 24 April 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the Warsaw Court of Appeal'", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-602", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Warsaw.\n7.  In 1986 the applicant lodged a motion with the court claiming the inheritance of her late mother's estate. On 30 January 1990 the Warsaw District Court issued a decision awarding to her one third of the estate. Consequently, she became the owner of one-sixth of the property, half of the estate having belonged to the applicant's late mother's second husband F.S.\n8.  On 2 May 1990 F.S. lodged a motion with the court, claiming physical division of the estate, which comprised certain plots of land in the municipality of Izabelin.\n9.  Expert reports as to the manner in which the estate could be divided were submitted to the court in April 1990, in July 1991, 20 March and December 1992, but no decision was given by the court.\n10.  In January 1993 one of the parties to the proceedings, J.G., lodged an objection to the proposal for division submitted in the last expert report. Apparently the court subsequently called a new expert and ordered him to submit a new proposal as to the division.\n11.  On 17 September 1993 a hearing was held. The parties unsuccessfully tried to reach a friendly settlement. The court ordered the preparation of a new expert opinion.\n12.  On 7 March 1994 the expert appointed by the court submitted his report.\n13.  On 21 September 1994 J.G. complained to the court that the proceedings were not progressing and that hearings were held only once or twice a year.\n14.  The next hearing was held on 2 December 1994. The applicant did not agree that the case be decided by establishing co-ownership of the estate, instead of its physical division.\n15.  On 25 February 1995 a new expert opinion was submitted to court. This report was subsequently submitted to the Izabelin Municipal Office for approval.\n16.  On 23 March 1995 the Izabelin Municipal Office informed the court that it had not approved the proposal of the division of the estate as submitted by the expert, since it was incompatible with the general land-use plan of the municipality in that it did not take into account the public road to be constructed on the property concerned.\n17.  On 25 April 1995 A.K., a new expert appointed by the court, submitted a new proposal for the division of the estate.\n18.  On 24 July 1995 the Office of the Municipality of Izabelin again refused its approval for the division plan submitted by A.K., considering that it was incompatible with the current land-use plan in that the proposed plots were smaller than 1,000 square metres.\n19.  On 20 September 1995 the expert submitted a supplementary report.\n20.  On 24 September 1995 a meeting of the parties to the proceedings and the expert with the local planning authority was held. The parties were informed that the latest division proposal was incompatible with the current land-use plan, and that a new plan was being prepared. The proposal devised by the expert had been transmitted for consideration by the authority working on the new land-use plan. The new plan was to be adopted by the end of 1996.\n21.  On 24 May 1996 the Izabelin Municipal Office requested the same expert, A.K., to submit a new division proposal.\n22.  On 20 September 1996 A.K. informed the court that after consultation with the parties to the proceedings he did not see any possibility of devising a new plan to take into account the interests and demands of all the parties.\n23.  On 7 November 1996 the Izabelin Municipal Office informed the court that the new proposal for the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-603", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Otepää.\n9.  On 2 September 1977 he married a woman with whom he already had a son, born in 1962. On 3 February 1993 their son died.\n10.  On 3 February 1994 the applicant's wife filed with the Valga County Court (Valga Maakohus) an action for divorce and division of marital property, which included agricultural assets.\n11.  On 23 February 1994 the applicant filed against her an action for division of the inheritance of their son. The inheritance consisted of a house with adjacent buildings and two cars.\n12.  On 12 April 1994 the claims were joined by the court.\n13.  On 21 April 1994 the County Court held a hearing in the case and scheduled a further hearing for 24 May 1994.\n14.  On 9 May 1994 the County Court ordered, at the request of the applicant's wife, attachment of the property in order to ensure its preservation pending the resolution of her civil action. \nThe attachment was carried out by the court's bailiffs on 10 and 26 May 1994.\n15.  On 24 May 1994 the applicant was taken into custody in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted against him (see below).\n16.  Following his release from custody on 20 December 1994 the applicant filed, on 5 April 1995, an application with the County Court requesting that his civil case be transferred to another court alleging that the judge and the court were not impartial.\n17.  On 25 April 1995 the County Court imposed a fine on the applicant for having used insulting language in respect of the court both in his transfer application and at the hearings.\n18.  On 28 April 1995 the applicant requested that he be exempted from the fine. On 3 May 1995 the judge hearing the case withdrew. On 26 May 1995 the applicant informed the court that he had lost confidence in it and requested that all members of the court step down.\n19.  By a decision of 30 May 1995 the County Court dismissed both his requests. The decision was confirmed by the Tartu Court of Appeal (Tartu Ringkonnakohus) on 27 December 1995. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (Riigikohus) was refused on 13 March 1996.\n20.  On 3 June 1996 the applicant filed an action for divorce.\n21.  On 12 March 1997 and 30 September 1997 the judges of the Valga County Court withdrew from examining the applicant's and his wife's civil actions. In their decisions it was noted that that the applicant's written submissions, in particular that of April 1995, were disrespectful of the court and hampered an objective examination of the cases.\n22.  On 29 October 1997 the cases were transferred by a higher court to the Viljandi County Court (Viljandi Maakohus) which on 3 November 1997 scheduled a hearing for 10 February 1998.\nOn that day the hearing was adjourned as the parties failed to appear before the court. The applicant had not informed the court of the reasons for his failure to attend. His wife could not attend as she was hospitalised from 19 January 1998 until 6 February 1998.\n23.  On 4 March 1998 the applicant asked the court to set a hearing date.\n24.  On 24 August 1998 the hearing was adjourned since, according to a medical certificate presented to the court, the state of health of the applicant's wife did not allow her to take part in it and it was not possible to decide on the divorce request without her presence.\n25.  On 29 September 1998 the applicant requested the court to hear the case without the presence his wife and to inquire whether she would agree to this.\nIn response to its inquiry o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-604", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Budapest.\n9.  On 12 June 1997 the applicant, a recidivist offender, was arrested after having been caught red-handed selling amphetamines in a bar. During his interrogation on the same day the applicant refused to testify and destroyed evidence by swallowing a piece of paper found in his possession at the time of his arrest.\nIn the ensuing proceedings the applicant was assisted by a defence counsel of his choice.\n10.  On 14 June 1997 the Pest Central District Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand on charges of drug-trafficking. On the applicant's appeal, this decision was upheld by the Budapest Regional Court on 20 June 1997 on the ground of the danger of collusion.\nOn 30 June 1997, during his second interrogation, the applicant again refused to testify.\n11.  On 8 July 1997 the Buda Central District Court, as confirmed by the Budapest Regional Court on 14 August 1997, prolonged the applicant's detention on remand on the ground of the danger of collusion.\n12.  On 29 August 1997 the applicant made his first statement. The scope of the investigation was subsequently extended in order to uncover the chain of supply of drugs to the applicant.\n13.  On 3 September 1997 the Budapest Regional Court further prolonged the applicant's detention on remand on the grounds of the danger of collusion and the risk that the applicant would abscond. This decision was upheld on 26 September 1997 by an appeal chamber of the Regional Court.\n14.  On 26 September and 13 October 1997 two persons, also suspected of having been involved in the offence, were arrested and detained on remand.\nOn 13 October and 11 November 1997 the applicant was again interrogated.\n15.  On 8 January 1998 the Budapest Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention on remand on the grounds that there was a risk of collusion and that he would abscond. This decision was upheld on 3 February 1998.\n16.  On 9 February 1998 the Attorney General's Office requested legal assistance from the Federal Ministry of Justice of Germany in order to obtain evidence from a witness who had been convicted of drugs offences in Germany and who was serving a prison sentence in Bayreuth. The information requested was made available by the German authorities in July 1998.\n17.  On 23 March 1998 the applicant was again interrogated.\n18.  On 9 June and 12 October 1998 the Supreme Court prolonged the applicant's detention on remand on the grounds of risk of collusion and the danger that he would abscond.\n19.  On 20 October 1998 the proceedings against a co-defendant were disjoined from the applicant's case since it appeared that further evidence needed to be obtained from abroad in the former's case.\n20.  On 27 October 1998 the investigations in the applicant's case were closed. The case file contained some 3,000 pages of documents.\n21.  On 23 December 1998 the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor who ordered the resumption of the investigation with a view to clarifying several matters raised by the applicant.\n22.  On 6 January 1999 the applicant was again interrogated by the police.\n23.  On 12 January 1999 the Budapest VI/VII District Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant and two other defendants. The applicant was charged with the offence of abuse of narcotics.\n24.  On 18 January 1999 the Pest Central District Court confirmed the applicant's detention on remand.\n25.  On 7 April and 13 May 1999 the Dis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-605", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a Polish national, who was born in 1940 and lives in Marysin, Poland.\n9.  On 14 September 1992 the applicant's former wife (“the petitioner”) filed with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an application for the division of their matrimonial property.\n10.  On 9 October 1992 the trial court ordered an expert opinion. On 4 December 1992 the opinion was submitted to the court.\n11.  The first hearing scheduled for 4 February 1993 was adjourned because of the absence of the applicant.\n12.  On 12 February 1993 the court dismissed the applicant's request for exemption from the court fees.\n13.  On 18 March 1993 the applicant applied again for the exemption from the court-fees.\n14.  Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on 16 March and 22 April 1993.\n15.  On 15 May 1993 the applicant requested that the court include in the case file certain documents allegedly stolen by the petitioner.\n16.  On 27 July 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant's second application of 18 March 1993 for exemption from the court-fees.\n17.  On 17 August 1993 the applicant requested the Warsaw District Court to re-open the proceedings concerning the exemption from the court-fees. On 7 September 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) rejected his request on procedural grounds.\n18.  On 8 February 1994 the court held a hearing and heard an expert.\n19.  At the hearing held on 15 March 1994 the applicant asked the court to punish a witness who, in his opinion, had given a false testimony. He submits that the application was not examined. On the same day the court ordered a supplementary expert opinion. The applicant objected to this decision.\n20.  On 18 July 1994 the expert opinion was submitted to the court.\n21.  On 10 December 1994 the applicant lodged an objection against the allegedly unlawful appointment of an expert.\n22.  On 21 December 1994 the court held a hearing. On 23 December 1994 the applicant requested the court to admonish the petitioner for insulting him.\n23.  On 3 January 1995 the court delivered a partial decision. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. Subsequently, he was ordered to pay a fee therefor. He requested an exemption, but his request was on 24 March 1995 dismissed as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed but on 6 June 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his appeal. Since he had failed to pay the fee, on 6 July 1995 the Warsaw District Court rejected the applicant's appeal against the decision of 3 January 1995. The applicant appealed. On 5 January 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his appeal.\n24.  On 22 March and 10 May 1996 the District Court held hearings.\n25.  On 5 July 1996 the court adjourned a hearing because the counsel of the petitioner was ill.\n26.  On 8 July 1996 the applicant challenged the presiding judge. On 15 July 1996 his challenge was dismissed. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision but on 7 November 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed it.\n27.  In the meantime, a hearing scheduled for 8 August 1996 was adjourned.\n28.  On 6 January 1997 the applicant requested the court to reopen the proceedings terminated by the partial decision of 3 January 1995.\n29.  On 21 May 1997 the court held a hearing.\n30.  On 18 November 1997 the court rejected the applicant's request to reopen the proceedings. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. On 19 January 1998 the court ordered the applicant to pay a court fee for lodging the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-606", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Kecskemét, Hungary.\n5.  The applicant was dismissed from his employment. On 28 August 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Budapest Labour Court claiming severance pay. On 15 November 1995 the Labour Court held a hearing. On that occasion the applicant modified his action and also requested that his dismissal be annulled.\n6.  On 6 February 1996 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant's request to be reinstated in his employment, holding that his claim in this connection had been submitted outside the statutory time-limit.\n7.  On 19 June 1996 the Budapest Regional Court, sitting as a second instance, dismissed the applicant's appeal against the partial decision of 6 February 1996. On 12 November 1996 the Supreme Court dismissed his petition for review.\n8.  As regards the remainder of the action, the Budapest Labour Court held further hearings on 27 May and 1 July 1998. On the latter date it awarded the applicant in the region of 130,000 Hungarian forints plus accrued interest by way of severance pay and outstanding wages.\n9.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held hearings on 15 January, 14 April and 23 June 1999.\n10.  On 2 July 1999 the Regional Court increased the award in a partial judgment. On 2 September 1999 the applicant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 7 October 1999 the Supreme Court ordered that the petition be completed. On 25 February 2000 it appointed a legal-aid lawyer for the applicant. \nOn 3 January 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed, in a partial decision, the applicant's petition for review. This decision was served on the applicant on 7 February 2001.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 22 September 1999 the Regional Court suspended the proceedings conducted in respect of some claims still outstanding, pending the review proceedings.\n12.  Subsequent to the decision of 3 January 2001, the Regional Court resumed the proceedings. A hearing scheduled for June 2001 was adjourned as the notification sent to the applicant had been returned to the court undelivered. The Regional Court's further enquiry about the applicant's address was unsuccessful. Consequently, on 12 September 2001 the court suspended the proceedings. On 12 March 2002 the proceedings were discontinued, pursuant to section 137 § 1 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as a six months' period had elapsed from the date of the order suspending the case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-607", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Rome.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to F.S.A.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 October 1984, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 23 October 1984, which was made enforceable on 8 November 1984, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 23 October 1985.\n8.  On 12 February 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 3 April 1986 he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 May 1986.\n10.  Between 9 May 1986 and 29 January 1999, the bailiff made forty-three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n11.  On 28 October 1998, the applicant instituted proceedings against the tenant in the Rome magistrate's court. Pursuant to Article 1591 of the Italian Civil Code, he sought the reimbursement of the damages caused by the tenant in terms of loss of rent.\n12.  On 21 September 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.\n13.  On 26 November 1999, the applicant discontinued the civil proceedings instituted against the tenant. According to the applicant, he had had no prospects of obtaining adequate compensation in the light of the provisions of Law no. 421 of 9 December 1998 which limited the compensation claimable by the owner to a sum equal to the rent paid by the tenant at the time of the expiration of the lease, proportionally increased according to the cost of living, plus 20%, along the period of inability to dispose of the possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-608", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Rome.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to R.F.\n6.  In a registered letter of 22 June 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 18 January 1989, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 8 June 1989, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1990.\n10.  On 5 July 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 30 July 1990, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 3 October 1990.\n12.  Between 3 October 1990 and 1 April 2000, the bailiff made forty-three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 4 May 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-609", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Terni.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Scala (Salerno), which he had let to G.C. and R.F.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenants on 17 January 1991, the applicant informed them that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  He summoned the tenants to appear before the Salerno Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 14 June 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Salerno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1993.\n9.  On 2 August 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 7 October 1993, he informed the tenants that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 October 1993.\n11.  On 21 October 1993, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. After that date and until the 29 February 2000, the bailiff did not make any attempt to recover possession because the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  On 29 February 2000, the applicant, reaching a friendly agreement with the tenants, recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-610", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Rome, which it had let to S.S.\n5.  In a registered letter of 31 May 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that it intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n6.  The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 18 June 1986, the applicant reiterated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 28 November 1986, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 November 1987.\n9.  On 4 December 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 24 December 1987, it informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 February 1988.\n11.  Between 5 February 1988 and 15 December 2000, the bailiff made sixty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  On 16 January 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-611", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1907 and lives in Piacenza.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Milan, which he had let to A.B.\n6.  In a registered letter of 18 April 1985, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 15 April 1986 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 17 March 1986, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 8 April 1986, which was made enforceable on 16 September 1986, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 April 1987.\n9.  On 1 April 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 18 May 1987, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 May 1987.\n11.  Between 29 May 1987 and 16 November 2000, the bailiff made fifty-four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  On 28 March 2001, the applicant sold the flat to the tenant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-612", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant lives in Großbottwar, Germany.\n8.  He owned four shares in a company, the MotoMeter AG. 99 % of this company's shares were held by the company Robert Bosch GmbH.\n9.  On 6 July 1992, following a majority decision of the shareholders' meeting, the MotoMeter AG sold all its company assets to a newly founded company, the MotoMeter GmbH, and was subsequently liquidated. The majority shareholder offered to buy the minority shareholders' shares at a price of 615 DEM (314.44 EUR) per share.\n10.  On 22 July 1992, the applicant and other private shareholders challenged the decision of 6 July 1992 before the Stuttgart Regional Court. They submitted that the main shareholder had circumvented rules aiming at the protection of minority shareholders inherent in the German Act on Stock Companies (Aktiengesetz). They further complained that the price per share offered by the main shareholder was too low and that minority shareholders had not been able to buy parts of the assets.\n11.  On 22 January 1993, the Regional Court rejected the claim on the grounds that the decision in question was lawful and that there had been no violation of the applicant's and other shareholders' rights.\n12.  On 21 December 1993, the Stuttgart Court of Appeal rejected the appeals lodged by the applicant and the other minority shareholders.\n13.  On 5 December 1994, the Federal Court of Justice refused to entertain their appeals on points of law.\n14.  On 12 January 1995, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court.\n15.  On 23 August 2000 (served on 13 September 2000), the Federal Constitutional Court refused to entertain the applicant's complaint, finding that the complaint was not of fundamental constitutional significance. Referring to an earlier decision of the same day dealing with a similar subject matter, which it attached, the Federal Constitutional Court noted that entertaining the complaint was not necessary in order to enforce the applicant's rights. Finally, as the applicant had only possessed four shares of the MotoMeter AG, his financial loss had not posed an existential burden for him.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-613", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1980.\n10.  She alleged that she had been raped by two men on 31 July and 1 August 1995, when she was 14 years and 10 months old. The ensuing investigation came to the conclusion that there was insufficient proof of the applicant having been compelled to have sex.\n11.  On 31 July 1995 the applicant and a friend of hers had been waiting to enter a disco bar in the town of K., when three men, P. (21 years old at the time), A. (20 years old at the time) and V.A. (age not specified), arrived in a car owned by P. The applicant knew P. and A. She had met P. in the same disco bar and had danced with him once. A. was the older brother of a classmate of hers.\n12.  A. invited the applicant to go with him and his friends to a disco bar in a small town 17 km away. According to the applicant, she agreed on condition that she would be back home before 11 p.m.\n13.  In the bar, one or two of the group had drinks. The applicant saw some friends, with whom she had a short chat. According to the applicant, she repeatedly told the others it was time to leave, as it was getting late.\n14.  At some time late in the evening, the group left and headed back to K. On the way, they were briefly stopped and checked by traffic police.\n15.  A. then suggested stopping for a swim at a nearby reservoir. According to the applicant, they went there despite her objections. She submitted that she had not suspected the men's intentions.\n16.  At the reservoir, the applicant remained in the car, in the front passenger seat, saying that she was not interested in swimming. The three men headed towards the water. Soon afterwards, P. came back and sat in the front seat next to the applicant.\n17.  In her statements to the investigating authorities, the applicant submitted that P. had then pressed his body against hers, proposed that they “become friends” and started kissing her. The applicant had refused his advances and had asked him to leave. P. had persisted in kissing her while she had tried to push him back. He had then moved the car seat back to a horizontal position, grabbed her hands and pressed them against her back. The applicant had been scared and at the same time embarrassed by the fact that she had put herself in such a situation. She had not had the strength to resist violently or scream. Her efforts to push P. back had been unsuccessful, as he had been far stronger. P. had undressed her partially and had forced her to have sexual intercourse with him.\n18.  In her testimony, the applicant stated: “It was my first time and it hurt a lot. I felt sick and I wanted to throw up. I started crying.”\n19.  According to P.'s statements, he had had sex with the applicant in the car with her full consent. He had started kissing her, she had responded, and he had tried unsuccessfully to unbutton her jeans or loosen her belt, whereupon she had done so herself and had taken off her pants.\n20.  After P. had finished, he left the car and walked towards A. and V.A. In his submissions to the police, A. said that P. had told them that he had “shagged” the applicant. Shortly afterwards, the three men returned to the car and the group drove off.\n21.  In her submissions to the investigator, the applicant stated that she had later come to suspect that the three men had planned to have sex with her and had invented the pretext of swimming to drive to a deserted area. In particular, she did not remember A. and V.A. being wet when they h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-614", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1941. He is a retired labourer.\n10.  On 12 June 1995 the applicant took part in his capacity as the leader of Tarikat Aczmendi (a community describing itself as an Islamic sect) in a television programme, Ceviz Kabuğu (“Nutshell”), broadcast live on HBB, an independent channel.\n11.  It appears from the evidence before the Court that the programme started late in the evening of 12 June and lasted about four hours. Relevant excerpts from the programme are set out below.\nHulki Cevizoğlu (presenter – “H.C.”): “Good evening ... There is a group that is grabbing public attention because of the black robes [cüppe] worn by its members, the sticks they carry and their habit of chanting [zikir]. How can this group be described – it is called a sect [tarikat], but is it really a community or group? We will be discussing the various characteristics of this group – the Aczmendis – with their leader, Mr Müslüm Gündüz, who will be talking to us live. We will also be phoning a number of guests to hear their views. On the subject of the black robes, we'll be talking on the phone to Ms N. Yargıcı, a stylist and expert on black clothing. We'll also be hearing the views of Mr T. Ateş and Mr B. Baykam on Kemalism[1]. As regards Nurculuk[2], we'll be calling one of its most important leaders. The Aczmendi group – or sect – has views on religious matters as well. We'll be discussing those with Mr Y. İşcan, of the Religious Affairs Department. And while we are on the subject, viewers may phone in with questions for the Aczmendis' leader, Mr Gündüz ...”\nMs Yargıcı, a stylist taking part in the programme via a telephone link, asked Mr Gündüz a number of questions about women's clothing. They discussed religious apparel and whether the clothing worn by the sect's members was in keeping with fashion or with Islam.\nThe presenter then discussed movements claiming to represent Islam and asked the applicant a number of questions on the subject. They also talked about methods of chanting. In this context Mr Gündüz stated:\nMr Gündüz (“M.G.”): “Kemalism was born recently. It is a religion – that is, it is the name of a religion that has destroyed Islam and taken its place. Kemalism is a religion and secularism has no religion. Being a democrat also means having no religion ...” H.C.: “You have already expressed those views on a programme on the Star channel ... We are now going to have Bedri Baykam on the line to see what he thinks about your comments. We are going to ask him, as a proponent of Kemalism, if it can be regarded as a religion.” H.C.: “Do you agree with Mr Gündüz's views on Kemalism? You are one of Turkey's foremost Kemalists.”\nBedri Baykam (“B.B.”): “I don't know where to begin after so many incorrect statements. For one thing, Kemalism is not a religion and secularism has nothing to do with having no religion. It is completely wrong to maintain that democracy has no religion.”\nMr Baykam challenged Mr Gündüz's arguments and explained the concepts of democracy and secularism. He stated: B.B.: “A sect such as the one you belong to may observe a religion. But concepts such as democracy, philosophy and free thought do not observe a religion, because they are not creatures who can establish a moral relationship with God. In a democracy all people are free to choose their religion and may choose either to adhere to a religion or to call themselves atheists. Those who wish to manifest their religion in accordance with their belief may", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-615", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Rome.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to A.M.A.\n6.  In a registered letter of 7 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 7 December 1983, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 10 March 1984, which was made enforceable on 11 April 1984, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1984.\n9.  On 9 January 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 30 January 1986, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 February 1986.\n11.  Between 20 February 1986 and 23 January 1996, the bailiff made forty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  On 6 July 1999, the applicant served a second notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 19 July 1999, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 4 August 1999.\n14.  Between 4 August 1999 and 25 November 1999, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 7 December 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-616", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Naples.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Naples, which she had let to G.M.\n6.  In a registered letter of 8 April 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 23 March 1988, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 17 June 1988, which was made enforceable on 5 July 1988, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 4 May 1992.\n9.  On 16 December 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 13 January 1993, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 January 1993.\n11.  Between 21 January 1993 and 4 February 2000, the bailiff made fifteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  On 30 November 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-617", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1936 and 1958 respectively and live in Brwinow, Poland.\n7.  On 11 May 1989 the applicants filed with the Pruszków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an action in which they claimed the payment by an enterprise Z.R.B. run by a local State authority of the agreed price for their transportation services.\n8.  On 5 November 1990 the court awarded them the amount claimed. The defendant's representative lodged an appeal.\n9.  On 27 March 1991 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the District Court's judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n10.  On 5 June 1991 the District Court summoned the Brwinów commune's board (zarząd miasta i gminy), the self-governmental successor of the local State authority that had run enterprise Z.R.B., to take part in the proceedings as the defendant.\n11.  On 2 August 1999 the court gave judgment. It awarded the applicants the amount claimed by them. They appealed.\n12.  On 7 April 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed their appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-618", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Ostrów Wielkopolski, Poland.\n8.  On 21 August 1992 the applicant applied to the Poznań District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) for a payment order (nakaz zapłaty) against a certain Z.G. and his wife T.G.\n9.  On 3 November 1992 the Poznań District Court allowed the application and issued a payment order. Subsequently, the applicant obtained from the District Court a writ of execution (klauzulę wykonalności) necessary to start the enforcement of the payment order.\n10.  On 6 September 1993 the applicant requested the Bailiff of the Poznań District Court (Komornik Rewiru V Sądu Rejonowego w Poznaniu) to enforce the payment order.\n11.  Between 18 April and 13 June 1994 the enforcement proceedings were stayed by the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) at the request of Z.G.\n12.  On 23 September 1994 the bailiff announced an auction sale of a property owned by Z.G.\n13.  On 18 October 1994 the Poznań Regional Court again allowed a request submitted by Z.G. and stayed the enforcement proceedings. The applicant's appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny).\n14.  On an unspecified date in 1998 the enforcement proceedings were resumed. On 24 August 1998 the bailiff requested the applicant to pay a PLN 8,730 fee and PLN 1,000 for the valuation of a property belonging to Z.G.\n15.  On 1 September 1999 the bailiff stayed the enforcement proceedings because the applicant had not complied with the request of 24 August 1998.\n16.  On 14 December 1999, upon the applicant's appeal, the Poznań District Court upheld the impugned decision.\n17.  On 28 September 2001 the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings.\n18.  On 13 January 1994 Z.G. filed with the Poznań Regional Court an application for annulment of the writ of execution obtained by the applicant in respect of the payment order issued on 3 November 1992 (see above).\n19.  On 18 April and 18 October 1994 the court applied interim measures and stayed enforcement proceedings against Z.G. based on the disputed writ of execution.\n20.  Subsequently, the court held hearings on 22 December 1994 and 25 January and 11 May 1995.\n21.  Between December 1995 and 10 March 1997 the court held seven hearings.\n22.  On 18 March 1997 the Poznań Regional Court gave judgment in which it annulled the writ of execution. The applicant appealed against it.\n23.  Two hearings scheduled in 1997 were adjourned. Subsequently, the court held hearings on 15 January and 11 March 1998.\n24.  On 8 April 1998 the court quashed the judgment of the first‑instance court and dismissed the application for annulment of the writ of execution. The plaintiffs lodged with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) a cassation appeal against that judgment.\n25.  On 5 January 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the contested judgment and remitted the case for re‑examination.\n26.  On 8 May 2001 the Poznań Court of Appeal gave judgment.\n27.  It appears that the applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal against the judgment and it became final.\n28.  On 4 December 1993 the applicant filed with the Ostrów Wielkopolski District Court an action in which he claimed from a certain bank damages for negligence in arranging a loan facility. The case was transmitted to the Kalisz Regional Court where it was registered under no. I C 480/93.\n29.  On 11 February 1994 the Kalisz Regional Court requested the applicant to specify his claim. On 11 February 1994 the applicant complied with this ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-619", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Leverkusen (Germany).\n8.  He is the owner of a flat in Turin, which he had let to V.P.\n9.  On 2 December 1992, the applicant served a writ on the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 July 1993 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 16 December 1992, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 July 1994.\n11.  On 7 July 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 17 December 1994 he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 January 1995.\n13.  Between 10 January 1995 and 13 November 1998, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession.\n14.  On 12 May 1998, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son.\n15.  On 20 July 1999, the tenant requested the Turin Magistrate (according to art. 6 L.431/98) to set a fresh date for the enforcement of the order.\n16.  On 13 January 2000, the Turin Magistrate decided to defer the date of eviction until the 14 February 2000.\n17.  On 14 February 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-620", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Naples.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Naples, which he had let to G.S.\n6.  In a registered letter of 25 September 1989, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 July 1991, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 4 October 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 4 October 1992.\n10.  On 16 January 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 22 February 1993, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 2 March 1993.\n12.  Between 2 March 1993 and 29 June 2000, the bailiff made sixteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 7 July 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-622", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Vienna. \nShe is the mother of M, L and R, born in wedlock in 1973, 1974 and 1976, respectively. The spouses separated in 1982. Custody of L and M was assigned to the applicant, the custody of R to the father.\n5.  In December 1989 M was admitted in a public girls' home as she refused to stay with her mother. She stayed there until January 1992. From December 1989 until September 1995 custody proceedings concerning the temporary transfer of M's custody to the Vienna Youth Welfare Office for the time M had spent at the girls' home were pending before the Austrian courts.\n6.  On 3 January 1990 the Vienna Youth Welfare Office, on behalf of M, filed a request with the Floridsdorf District Court that the applicant should pay a monthly contribution to the expenses incurred for M's stay in the girls' home.\n7.  The file was later on transferred to the competent Juvenile Court and, in January 1990, the court heard M's parents.\n8.  On 8 March 1991 the Youth Welfare Office reduced the amount of the requested monthly contribution.\n9.  On 10 April 1991 the President of the Juvenile Court granted the applicant's motion for bias against the competent court clerk (Rechtspfleger).\n10.  A hearing scheduled for 25 July 1991 was cancelled due to the applicant's illness. Further hearings scheduled for 2 September 1991 and 11 September 1991 had to be cancelled because the court's attempts to deliver the summons to the applicant were unsuccessful.\n11.  On 10 February 1992 the Juvenile Court ordered that the applicant had to pay ATS 2,500 in monthly maintenance for M. The applicant appealed, claiming that she was fit to work to an extent of 75% only.\n12.  On 4 March 1992 the case was assigned to another judge as the competent judge had declared himself biased.\n13.  On 13 May 1992 the Appeal Chamber quashed the decision and remitted the case back to the Juvenile Court, instructing the latter to take a new decision after having supplemented its proceedings. In particular, it stated that the first instance court ought to appoint a forensic medical expert in order to establish the applicant's fitness to work.\n14.  On 20 May 1998 the Juvenile Court ordered the applicant to pay ATS 1,550 in monthly maintenance for M. At that stage of the proceedings, no expert had been heard yet.\n15.  Referring to the Appeal Chamber's decision of 13 May 1992, the applicant appealed, again relying on her reduced fitness to work.\n16.  On 13 August 1998 the Juvenile Court appointed an expert in forensic medicine to file a report on the question as to which extent the applicant's capacities to earn her living were reduced.\n17.  The applicant appealed against this decision, claiming that it no longer made sense to appoint a medical expert, now that the court had already dismissed her request by a decision of 20 May 1998. Further, she claimed that there was no need for a further report as, in this respect, she had already submitted two reports of different medical officers (Amtsarzt).\n18.  On 17 and 20 August 1998 the applicant filed motions for bias against the court clerk (Rechtspfleger) I.S., who was dealing with her case, claiming that the appointment of a further medical expert was not justified, that I.S. was handling the case file in a negligent manner, namely that several documents were missing from the file, and that I.S. had been rude to her on the telephone.\n19.  On 25 August 1998 the President of the Vienna Juvenile Court (Präsiden", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-623", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1945 and live in Rome.\n7.  V.C. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to C.V.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 June 1987, the owner informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 4 February 1988 and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 13 January 1988, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 September 1989.\n10.  On 13 October 1989, the owner served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 4 February 1989, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 January 1990.\n12.  Between 11 January 1990 and 13 November 1991, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the owner was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 12 November 1991, the applicants became the owners of the flat and pursued the enforcement proceedings.\n14.  On 2 March 1994, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n15.  On 31 March 1994, they informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 April 1994.\n16.  Between 29 April 1994 and 3 March 2000, the bailiff made twenty-six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n17.  In the meanwhile, on 24 January 1995, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.\n18.  On 7 April 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-624", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Kaunas.\n5.  The applicant was suspected of committing various financial irregularities. Criminal proceedings were instituted in this respect on 15 May 1995. On the same date the applicant was arrested.\n6.  On 18 May 1995 the applicant was released on bail.\n7.  On 13 May 1996 the applicant was charged with appropriating  property of another and embezzlement. On the same date he was again arrested.\n8.  On 9 July 1996 the Kaunas City District Court committed the applicant for trial.\n9.  On 11 October 1996 the court remitted the case to the prosecution for further investigative measures to be carried out.\n10.  Upon the prosecutors' appeal, on 17 December 1996 the Kaunas Regional Court quashed the above decision, ordering that trial should recommence.\n11.  On 7 February 1997 the Kaunas City District Court adjourned the examination of the case in order to conduct an audit of an enterprise owned by the applicant. On the same date the applicant was released on bail.\n12.  During the period from 7 February 1997 until 13 December 2001 the investigative authorities conducted the audit of the applicant's company.\n13.  On 21 February 2001 the trial recommenced.\n14.  On 2 April 2002 the Kaunas City District Court convicted the applicant on two counts, obtaining property of another and improper operations with currency,  sentencing him to two years' imprisonment. Civil damages in the amount of 811,560 Lithuanian litai (LTL) were also ordered against him.\n15.  Upon the applicant's appeal, on 10 October 2002 the Kaunas Regional Court quashed  the conviction, referring the case back to the first instance court for a fresh trial.\n16.  On 25 February 2003 the Supreme Court quashed the appeal judgment, returning the case for a fresh examination at appellate instance.\n17.  On 17 April 2003 the Kaunas Regional Court acting as a court of appeal pronounced a new judgment, acquitting the applicant on one of the charges against him (obtaining property of another). However, his conviction for improper currency operations stayed. The sentence was reduced to one year' imprisonment. No civil damages were ordered against the applicant.\n18.  The applicant submitted a cassation appeal which is currently pending before the Supreme Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-625", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.   Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, a limited liability company with its registered office in Vienna, is the owner of the daily newspaper Neue Kronenzeitung published by Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG (“the publisher”).\n10.  On 9 and 11 December 1994 the Salzburg edition of the Neue Kronenzeitung published an advertisement for subscriptions to the newspaper in which it compared its monthly subscription rates with those of another regional newspaper, the Salzburger Nachrichten. According to the advertisement, the Neue Kronenzeitung was “the best” local newspaper.\n11.  On 13 December 1994 the Salzburger Nachrichten applied to the Salzburg Regional Court (Landesgericht) for a preliminary injunction (einstweilige Verfügung) under sections 1 and 2 of the Unfair Competition Act (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb) against the applicant company and the publisher. It requested that the applicant company and the publisher be ordered to refrain from publishing the advertisement.\n12.  On 29 December 1994 the Salzburg Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction against the applicant company and the publisher to preserve the status quo during the proceedings. On appeal by the applicant company and the publisher, the Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) quashed the Regional Court's decision. The court stated, inter alia, that the two newspapers were competitors in the same market and for the same readership. On 23 May 1995 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof), on appeal by the Salzburger Nachrichten, issued a preliminary injunction. The court found that the advertisement was misleading. It considered that the Salzburger Nachrichten was a “quality newspaper” and the Neue Kronenzeitung was not, and that this difference was not necessarily known to readers. Furthermore, in the particular circumstances of the case, calling the Neue Kronenzeitung “the best” local newspaper amounted to disparagement of the Salzburger Nachrichten.\n13.  In the main proceedings which followed, the Salzburg Regional Court ordered the applicant company and the publisher to refrain from publishing the advertisement as long as it did not provide at the same time information which made it possible to avoid any generally pejorative value statement or any other risk of misleading readers. Secondly, it ordered them not to refer to the sales price of the Salzburger Nachrichten as “expensive”. Thirdly, it ordered them to refrain from comparing the sales prices of the two newspapers unless they indicated at the same time the differences in their respective reporting styles, in particular as regards coverage of foreign or domestic politics, economy, culture, science, health, environmental issues and law, and referred also to the Neue Kronenzeitung as an entertainment-orientated communications medium and the Salzburger Nachrichten as a medium mainly geared to information. Lastly, it ordered them to publish the decision.\n14.  On 21 March 1997 the Linz Court of Appeal, allowing in part an appeal by the applicant company and the publisher, confined the third branch of the injunction to the order that the applicant company and the publisher refrain from comparing the sales prices of the two newspapers without indicating the differences in their reporting styles as regards coverage of foreign or domestic politics, economy, culture, science, health, environmental issues and law. It confirmed the lower court's decision as to the remaining branches of the i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-626", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Mr Todor Antimov Yankov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1943 and lives in Plovdiv.\n10.  The applicant was the executive director of an agricultural investment fund and a financial company. He also used to teach economics, an area in which he has a doctorate.\n11.  On 11 March 1996 a preliminary investigation (no. 300/96) was opened by the Plovdiv District Public Prosecutor against him and other persons in respect of a number of financial transactions. The applicant was charged under Article 282 §§ 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code of dereliction of his professional duties with a view to obtaining an unlawful gain for himself and others.\n12.  In the course of the investigation the charges were altered several times. In all, eight persons were charged.\n13.  During the investigation, which lasted one year and nearly two months, the investigator heard 47 witnesses, examined numerous financial and banking documents, commissioned reports, and undertook searches.\n14.  On 5 May 1997 the preliminary investigation was completed and the file was transmitted to the competent prosecutor.\n15.  On 1 July 1997 the prosecutor submitted a 32-page indictment to the Plovdiv District Court, accompanied by 20 binders of documents.\n16.  The first hearing took place from 17 to 30 September 1997. The District Court heard the accused persons, several witnesses and experts. Some witnesses did not appear. Both the prosecution and the defence requested an adjournment.\n17.  The trial resumed on 25 November 1997. The District Court heard several witnesses. Ten other witnesses had not been summoned properly and others, although summoned, did not appear. The trial was adjourned until 7 January 1998.\n18.  On 1 December 1997 the court, sitting in private, granted a request by one of the accused persons for additional questions to be put to the experts. The experts submitted their report on 5 January 1998.\n19.  The trial resumed on 7 and 8 January 1998. The court adjourned the hearing as some witnesses had not appeared and ordered an additional financial report.\n20.  The hearing scheduled for 9 April 1998 was put off until 6 July 1998 and then until 19 October 1998 due to the applicant's ill health.\n21.  On 19 October 1998 the District Court held its last hearing. It heard the final pleadings of the parties.\n22.  On 30 October 1998 the Plovdiv District Court found the applicant guilty of ordering money transfers abroad in breach of the relevant financial regulations. The transfers had been ordered without proof of a lawful purpose and on behalf of clients of the applicant's financial company whom he had not fully identified. The applicant was also found guilty of issuing a power of attorney conferring wide-ranging powers to another person in breach of his duties as the manager of the financial company. The applicant was acquitted on the remainder of the charges against him and sentenced to five years' imprisonment.\n23.  The reasoning of the District Court's judgment was served on the applicant on an unspecified date in February 1999.\n24.  Several times during the proceedings the case file was unavailable as it was repeatedly transmitted to the competent court for examination of appeals by the applicant and his co-accused against their pre-trial detention. In practice, whenever such an appeal was lodged, the case file was transmitted together with the appeal.\n25.  Throughout the proceedings the District Court and, later, the Regional Court (see below)", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-627", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Lucca.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to A.D.L.\n6.  In a registered letter of 28 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 23 December 1986, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 22 January 1987, which was made enforceable on 3 September 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n9.  On 7 June 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 5 July 1989, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 26 July 1989.\n11.  Between 26 July 1989 and 20 March 1995, the bailiff made 13 attempts to recover possession.\n12.  On 20 July 1995, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his children.\n13.  Between 19 October 1995 and 17 April 2002, the bailiff made 11 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  In October 2002, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-628", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Somlóvásárhely, Hungary.\n5. On 6 May 1993 the applicant's wife requested the Ajka District Court to hold a preliminary hearing with a view to instituting divorce proceedings. In turn, on 7 July 1993 the applicant brought an action before the District Court claiming maintenance for the couple's son, who was at the time in the applicant's care. The District Court held hearings on the maintenance claim on 13 September and 3 November 1993. On the latter date the applicant's wife formally filed for divorce. The divorce proceedings were subsequently joined to the claim for maintenance.\n6.  In the joined proceedings, hearings took place on 27 April, 17 June, 16 September and 31 October 1994, 3 February and 5 April 1995.\n7.  On the latter date the District Court pronounced, in a partial decision, the couple's divorce. In line with the parties' agreement, it granted the mother custody of their son. The court ordered the applicant to pay maintenance, regulated his right of access to the boy and ordered the parties to share the use of their flat which was in common ownership. The court relied on the testimonies of numerous witnesses, including a social worker, the applicant's two step-children born out of the mother's previous marriage, and the couple's son.\n8.  On the applicant's appeal of 12 May 1995, the Veszprém County Regional Court held a hearing on 26 September 1995. At a hearing on 10 October 1995 the Regional Court allowed the applicant's appeal and amended the District Court's decision in the part concerning the amount of maintenance and the details of his access rights.\n9.  On 13 December 1995 the proceedings were resumed before the District Court in respect of the division of the matrimonial property. A hearing was held on 13 December 1995. \nA further hearing took place on 21 February 1996. On the latter date the District Court decided to obtain various expert opinions.\n10.  On 31 May and 23 July 1996, respectively, property and valuation experts submitted their opinions.\n11.  At a hearing on 18 October 1996 the District Court appointed a motor-vehicle expert to prepare an opinion. On 12 December 1996 the expert was urged to submit his opinion. On 31 December 1996 the expert informed the court that the applicant could not be located at the address notified to him. On 17 February 1997 the expert was requested to submit an opinion as soon as possible. On 27 February 1997 the expert submitted his opinion.\n12.  Further hearings were held on 28 April, 12 May and 17 November 1997. Meanwhile, on 6 June 1997 the applicant requested further expert evidence to be taken. Although it experienced difficulties in finding an expert jeweller, the District Court finally appointed one on 27 February 1998 and requested the parties to contact him. On 30 July 1998 the expert submitted his opinion.\n13.  On 28 September 1998 an expert psychologist submitted his opinion. A hearing scheduled for 28 October 1998 was adjourned at the applicant's request.\n14.  The next hearing took place on 20 January 1999. The District Court ordered the property expert to complete his opinion of 31 May 1996, taking into account any possible changes which might have occurred in the meantime. On 19 March 1999 the District Court requested the expert to proceed as a matter of urgency. On 24 March 1999 the expert submitted his opinion, which was based on an on-site inspection of the property.\n15.  Further hearings took place on 27 Septe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-629", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Devon. At the relevant time he was a serving member of the Royal Navy.\n11.  On 18 June 1998 he was convicted, pursuant to section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, by a naval court-martial of unlawfully and maliciously wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. He was sentenced to, inter alia, three years' imprisonment and to be dismissed from the service and reduced in rank. He was also ordered to pay GBP 700 compensation.\n12.  The court-martial comprised a President (a Captain of the Royal Navy), four naval officers (a Commander, 2 Lieutenant Commanders and a Lieutenant) and a Judge Advocate (Commander Flanagan). The Judge Advocate was a naval barrister who was working as the naval legal advisor to FLEET (the command responsible for the organisation and deployment of all ships at sea). His rank was lower than that of the President of the court-martial. The prosecution was conducted by a Lieutenant Commander of the staff of the Prosecuting Authority. The applicant chose to be represented by a naval barrister. The defending and prosecuting officers were junior in rank to the Judge Advocate and the defending officer was senior in rank to the prosecuting officer.\n13.  At the beginning of the court-martial the Judge Advocate directed the members of the court-martial as follows:\n“As Judge Advocate it's my role to ensure that the trial is conducted in accordance with the law and I am here to advise and guide you. I will have no role in the finding on the facts. You must accept what I say on matters of law and procedures [as] being correct. If you have any questions of me during the trial ... they must be asked of me in open Court in the presence of the accused, his friend and the prosecutor and any such questions should pass through you ... as President. That means ... that now that this trial has commenced, you and your court can have no direct communication with me except in open Court and therefore if I seem to avoid you outside the environs of the Court ... that's the reasoning behind that and please don't think I am being rude ...\nNow you and your colleagues may discuss the case when you are together and in private if you so wish, but my strong advice to you at this stage is to resist the temptation until you've heard all the evidence and indeed my own summing up. You must be particularly rigorous in not discussing the case at all during adjournments in the trial when you could be overheard by others such as during lunch in the Ward room where a room has been set aside for you and particularly overnight since you must not be influenced by anything said to you or which you observe which is not evidence in the trial. I will warn you of this ... each time we adjourn and particularly when we adjourn at the end of the days' proceedings.”\n14.  On 29 September 1998 the Navy Board decided not to vary the court-martial's verdict and sentence. In his advice to the Navy Board, the Judge Advocate of the Fleet commented that the trial had been “well conducted by all concerned”, that the main directions of law in the Judge Advocate's summing up were “impeccable” and that any errors were, in any event, favourable to the applicant.\n15.  On 30 June 1999 a single judge of the Courts-Martial Appeal Court rejected his appeal, as did the full court on 20 January 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-630", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Bytom, Poland.\n10.  On 22 November 1991 the applicant lodged with the Człuchów District Court an action against the State Treasury. He claimed 570,000 old zlotys (PLZ) in compensation for his belongings which had been stolen in December 1989 while he had been detained in the Czarne prison. The applicant contended that the theft had been committed by the prison officers who had intervened in order to end the riots in the prison.\n11.  On 27 November 1991 the Człuchów District Court exempted the applicant from the court fees and rejected his request for legal aid considering that the case did not call for the participation of counsel.\n12.  On 25 February 1992 the District Court stayed the proceedings. It considered that, since the prosecution had initiated criminal proceedings against the prison officers involved in ending the riots in the Czarne prison and the applicant had been listed as one of the victims, the outcome of those proceedings might be relevant to the adjudication of the applicant's claim.\n13.  On 3 May 1993 the applicant increased his claim to PLZ 31,720,000.\n14.  On 26 July 1994 the District Court annulled its earlier decision to join the action concerning the compensation for stolen belongings with the action concerning compensation for injuries (see paragraphs 34‑36 below) and decided to resume the proceedings concerning the former action.\n15.  On an unspecified date the Człuchów District Court requested the Zabrze District Court to take evidence from the applicant who was detained in a prison located within the jurisdiction of that court.\n16.  On 19 January 1995 the Człuchów District Court requested the Łęczyca District Court to take evidence from several witnesses for the applicant who were detained in a prison situated within the jurisdiction of that court. However, the Łęczyca District Court was unable to comply with the request as the witnesses had already been released from the prison.\n17.  The first hearing was held by the Człuchów District Court on 3 February 1995. It was adjourned since the applicant had not been properly served with the summons. During the next hearing, which was held on 17 February 1995, the court heard the witnesses requested by the applicant.\n18.  In the meantime, the Człuchów District Court on several occasions requested other district courts to take evidence from the witnesses for the applicant, who were detained in prisons located within the jurisdiction of those courts. However, the requests were declined because the witnesses could not be heard since they had been transferred to other prisons.\n19.  During the hearing held on 7 March 1995 the Człuchów District Court heard a witness, who according to the applicant's submissions had taken from him his belongings during the riots in the Czarne prison.\n20.  On 21 April 1995 the Człuchów District Court received from the Słupsk District Court evidence taken from one of the witnesses. On the same date the Człuchów District Court also received a statement taken from the applicant by the Jastrzębie District Court.\n21.  No hearing was held in 1996.\n22.  During the hearing held on 25 February 1997 the Człuchów District Court decided to request the Warsaw District Court to take evidence from one of the witnesses, a certain S.W. As the Warsaw District Court was not responding to that request, the Człuchów District Court renewed it on several occasions.\n23.  On 16 May 1997 the President of the Człuchów D", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-631", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a French citizen who was born in 1963 and lives in Alcira, near Valencia (Spain).\n8.  The applicant married in January 1983. She and her husband had two children, born in 1984 and 1989.\n9.  In August or September 1994 the applicant's husband left the matrimonial home and moved in with his mistress. In December 1994 the applicant petitioned for divorce.\n10.  By a judgment of 5 September 1996, the Nîmes tribunal de grande instance ruled on the divorce petition. It found, firstly, that a reading of the submitted documents had not established that the applicant's membership of the Jehovah's Witnesses had been the cause of the break-down in the couple's relationship, but that it had been attested that her husband had left the matrimonial home to live with his mistress, and had also prevented the applicant from working in the pizzeria they ran. Accordingly, it granted the divorce, attributing fault to the husband alone.\n11.  With regard to the children, the court decided that they would reside with their mother in Spain and that parental responsibility would be exercised jointly. The father was to have visiting and residence rights on an unrestricted basis and, in the absence of agreement, during the whole of the children's school holidays, provided that he collected them himself and escorted them back to their mother's home. It set the amount of the father's maintenance payments at 1,500 French francs (FRF) per month and per child.\n12.  On 21 November 1996 the applicant appealed against this judgment. She asked to be given access for one month during the children's summer holidays and one week during the Christmas and Easter holidays. She also renewed her request for a complementary allowance. In her pleadings in reply, the applicant complained that her ex-husband had not returned the children to her at the end of the 1997 summer holidays and had enrolled them in a school in Aigues-Mortes, where he lived with his new companion. She submitted that the father had influenced the children so that they would express a wish to live with him; she filed statements and photographs intended to show that she was bringing up her children with great care and that they were allowed to take part freely in any activity that interested them. She requested that a social inquiry report be drawn up.\n13.  The Nîmes Court of Appeal delivered judgment on 14 January 1998. It upheld the judgment with regard to the divorce pronouncement and awarded the applicant a complementary allowance of FRF 1,500 per month for three years. With regard to the children's place of residence, the court found as follows:\n“The two under-age children, C., aged 13, and M., aged 8, currently live with their father in Aigues-Mortes, where they attend school.\nThis is a de facto situation which has been brought about by the father, who, contrary to the provisions of the appealed judgment, failed to return the children to their mother's home at the end of the summer holidays.\nIn justifying his behaviour, R. claims that he has acted in the children's interests, in order to remove them from the detrimental influence of their mother and her circle, who oblige them to practice the religion known as 'the Jehovah's Witnesses'.\nFurthermore, R. has submitted a letter from child C., expressing the latter's wish to remain with his father, together with a medical certificate drawn up by Doctor D., a psychiatrist, on 7 January 1997, which states that child C. 'experiences his mother'", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-632", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant, Mr E. Záborský, was born in 1912 and died on 9 April 2000. Ms G. Strešnáková, his daughter, has acted in his stead in pursuing the case. The second applicant, Ms E. Šmáriková, was born in 1917 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 10 February 1992 the applicants claimed, together with several other persons, restitution of real property pursuant to the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act of 1991. They alleged that their legal predecessors had donated the property to the State under duress. On 27 February 1992 the applicants submitted further documents and on 18 March 1992 the defendant submitted observations on the action.\n6.  In two separate actions filed on 25 February 1992 further persons claimed restitution of a part of the same property. On 15 April 1992 the court decided to examine all actions in a single set of proceedings. On 22 May 1992 the defendant submitted an expert opinion concerning the property.\n7.  On 25 June 1992 the Banská Bystrica District Court adjourned the case as further documents were necessary. On 20 July 1992 it appointed an expert with a view to establishing whether or not the property in question had been re-built in a substantial manner as claimed by the defendant. The opinion was submitted on 7 September 1992. Hearings were held on 25 November 1992 and on 7 January 1993.\n8.  On 11 January 1993 the Banská Bystrica District Court decided the case in that it ordered the defendant to conclude with one of the plaintiffs an agreement on restitution of the property. The judgment was served in June 1993. The defendant and the unsuccessful plaintiffs appealed. On 16 September 1993 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment and instructed the District Court to take further evidence. The appellate court's decision was served on 5 November 1993, and the parties were invited to specify which evidence they proposed to take. The District Court also took further evidence of its own initiative.\n9.  A hearing was held on 21 February 1994. The plaintiffs were invited to submit further documents.\n10.  On 22 April 1994 the District Court appointed an expert with a view to establishing whether the property had been substantially rebuilt following its transfer to the State in 1962. On 5 May 1994 the institution concerned informed the court that it was not in a position to submit an expert opinion.\n11.  On 8 August 1994 the District Court appointed the Construction Faculty of the Slovak Technical University in Bratislava as expert and ordered that the opinion on the above issue be submitted within thirty days. On 23 November 1994 the court urged the expert to submit the opinion. It was submitted on 12 January 1995. In February and March 1995 the parties submitted their comments on the opinion.\n12.  Several plaintiffs and the representative of the defendant failed to appear at hearings held on 15 May 1995 and on 12 July 1995. The parties were instructed to submit further information.\n13.  Further hearings were held on 6 and 11 December 1995. On the latter date the Banská Bystrica District Court delivered a new judgment in which it ordered the defendant to restore the property in question to the plaintiffs. The judgment was served on the parties in the course of August 1996. On 6 and 17 September 1996 the defendant appealed.\n14.  On 8 October 1996 the president of the Banská Bystrica District Court admitted, in reply to the applicants' complaint, that there had been undue delays in draft", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-634", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest.\n9.  On 7 July 1993 Mr and Mrs N. brought an action against the applicant before the Pest Central District Court. The litigation concerned a contract of loan which had been concluded between the parties. The plaintiffs sought annulment of the acquisition by the applicant of their flat, which had been used as security in the event of their non-payment of the loan. On 15 July 1993 the applicant filed his counterclaims.\n10.  On 9 February, 21 March, 5 October 1994 and 8 March 1995 the District Court held hearings.\n11.  On 13 March 1995 the District Court adopted a judgment in which it annulled the applicant's acquisition of the flat. As to the loan contract, the court decided to reduce the amount owed by the plaintiffs' to the applicant.\n12.  On 22 March 1995 the plaintiffs appealed and, simultaneously, requested that the contract of loan should itself be annulled and that the judgment of 13 March 1995 should be supplemented to that effect. On 27 March 1995 the applicant filed his appeal.\n13.  On 29 March 1995 the applicant filed a motion for bias which was dismissed on 26 May 1995.\n14.  On 29 March 1995 the applicant filed a motion for bias which was dismissed on 26 May 1995. The Budapest Regional Court held hearings on 29 June and 14 November 1995. On the latter date the court suspended the appeal proceedings pending the first-instance completion of the judgment of 13 March 1995.\n15.  The hearings scheduled by the District Court for 7 February and 12 April 1996 were adjourned on account of unsuccessful attempts to summon one of the defendants.\n16.  By a supplementary decision of 9 October 1996, the District Court allowed the plaintiffs' claim for completion of the initial judgment and accordingly ruled that the contract of loan should be annulled.\n17.  On 21 November 1996 the applicant appealed. Subsequently, he challenged the second-instance court for bias.\n18.  On 17 February 1997 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's motion for bias. It resumed the suspended proceedings and held a hearing on 8 July 1997. At that hearing the applicant reiterated his allegations of bias.\n19.  On 4 September 1997 the judges declared bias and withdrew from the case.\n20.  A hearing scheduled for 22 January 1998 was cancelled on account of the illness of a judge on the newly appointed bench. A hearing took place on 2 June 1998.\n21.  On 9 June 1998 the Regional Court adopted a second-instance judgment upholding in essence the decisions taken at first instance.\n22.  On 3 September 1998 the applicant submitted a petition for review.\n23.  On 23 February 1999 the Supreme Court ordered the completion of the petition and attempted to notify the plaintiffs thereof. Subsequently a guardian ad litem had to be appointed for the plaintiffs. The guardian submitted the plaintiffs' claims in reply on 22 December 1999.\n24.  On 4 April 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review. This decision was served on him on 17 July 2000.\n25.  On 11 October 1994 the applicant brought an action before the Pest Central District Court against Mr and Mrs S., guarantors of the above-mentioned contract of loan. On 26 October 1994 the court ordered the applicant to complete his action. He did so on 5 December 1994.\n26.  On 18 July 1995 the District Court held a hearing at which it allowed the applicant's claims and ordered the defendants to pay him 610,000 Hungarian forints.\n27.  On 21 August 1995 the de", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-635", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Halásztelek, Hungary.\n9.  In February 1991 the applicant's employment was terminated by mutual consent. She subsequently challenged the validity of this agreement and claimed damages before the Budapest Labour Court. Her action was filed with the court on 3 May 1991. The applicant alleged that her resignation was void on account of her temporary incapacity at the time of signing the agreement with her employer.\n10.  On 3 July and 30 September 1991, as well as on 25 March and 22 September 1992, hearings were held. On 10 June 1993 the Labour Court suspended the proceedings pending the preparation of a medical expert opinion on the applicant's mental capacity. This opinion was submitted on 26 October 1993. In view of certain inconsistencies between this opinion and earlier opinions, the applicant was subsequently ordered to undergo an examination by the National Council of Health Sciences (“the Council”). This examination was carried out on 11 November 1994. The Council's opinion was submitted to the court on 12 January 1995.\n11.  The proceedings were resumed and a hearing was held on 10 October 1995. At the hearing the applicant was requested to elaborate on and quantify her claims.\n12.  On 16 April 1996 the Labour Court requested the Council to update its opinion. The Council's revised opinion was submitted on 11 July 1996.\n13.  On 29 October 1996 the Labour Court reminded the applicant of its order of 10 October 1995 requiring her to quantify her claims. She did so on 26 November 1996.\n14.  On 4 December 1996, 29 January, 12 March and 28 May 1997 further hearings took place. On the latter date the Budapest Labour Court delivered its judgment in which it annulled the disputed agreement and dismissed the remainder of the action.\n15.  The applicant's appeal of 14 November 1997 was dismissed by the Budapest Regional Court on 15 April 1998.\n16.  On 31 March 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed her petition for review. This decision was served on 4 May 1999.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-636", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Budapest.\n9.  The applicant is a merchant with business premises at the Budapest Market Hall. On 22 December 1998 the police arrived at the Market Hall in response to a bomb alert and required everyone to evacuate the building so that it could be searched. The applicant and several other persons refused to comply with this instruction. Following an argument lasting from 4 p.m. until 5.45 p.m. between certain merchants, including the applicant, and the police, the officer in charge decided to detain the applicant, believing him to be responsible for the general disobedience to the order to evacuate.\n10.  The Government stated that when two police officers grabbed him by his arms and started to hustle him out, the applicant threw himself on the ground.\n11.  The applicant stated that he had not resisted the police officers and that he had been grabbed without warning and his legs kicked from under him.\n12.  Having immobilised the applicant, two police officers dragged him through the Market Hall to the exit. Outside the building he was handcuffed and forced into a police car and then driven to the Budapest IX District Police Department.\n13.  The applicant stated that, while in the car, he was hit repeatedly by a police officer.\n14.  On their arrival at the Police Department, police officers lifted the applicant out of the car, hauling him up by the handcuffs attached to his wrists.\n15.  As the applicant had suffered some bruises to his wrists and face, a doctor was called. The applicant did not indicate to the doctor that he had been ill-treated by the police.\n16.  The applicant maintained that at the police station he was taken to the basement where at least four police officers repeatedly beat and kicked him. One of them stepped on his belly with such violence that it caused bowel movements. Subsequently, he was placed in a cell for about three hours. During that time a police lieutenant entered the cell, shouted at him, abused him verbally and spat in his face.\n17.  Eventually two police officers fetched the applicant and escorted him to the exit at about 9 p.m.\n18.  On 22 and 23 December 1998 the applicant was examined at the National Institute of Traumatology and the Central Institute of Stomatology.\n19.  On 23 December 1998 the applicant laid charges of ill-treatment and unlawful detention against the police. In the ensuing criminal proceedings, the Budapest Investigation Office heard the applicant, his wife and son and five other witnesses who had been present in the Market Hall at the time of the incident. \nThese witnesses, all from the applicant's side, confirmed that he had been dragged through the Market Hall but they remained inconclusive as to whether the applicant had been kicked off his feet or had thrown himself on the ground in resistance. \nThe Investigation Office also heard Mr F., who was the commander of the bomb disposal squad in charge of the operation at the Market Hall, as well as the managers of the Market Hall.\n20.  The applicant alleged that in the course of his interrogation he identified two of the police officers who had assaulted him and that he selected their photographs from several shown to him. However, the photograph of a third officer involved was not among those shown to him.\n21.  The prosecutor in charge obtained and watched a video recording shot by a television cameraman outside the Market Hall at the time of the incident, but found nothing of relevanc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-637", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Gerasdorf-Seyring (Austria).\n7.  On 2 October 1992 the Vienna Customs Office (Zollamt) opened investigations against a number of suspects under the Tax Offences Act (Finanzstrafgesetz) concerning charges of smuggling. Subsequently, these investigations were also directed against the applicant.\n8.  On 30 September 1993 the Customs Office transmitted the final investigations report concerning the applicant and seven other suspects to the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft).\n9.  On 1 July 1999, after the investigating judge conducted further investigations, the Public Prosecutor preferred the indictment on charges of smuggling against the applicant and two co-accused.\n10.  On 30 November 1999 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court acquitted the applicant.\n11.  On 12 September 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the pleas of nullity and the appeal against sentence. The decision was served on the applicant on 5 October 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-638", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants, Volkan Ükünç and Deniz Güneş, are Turkish nationals. They were both born in 1980 and live in Edirne, Turkey.\n10.  On 8 February 1996 the applicants were taken into custody by the Edirne Anti-Terror Branch on suspicion of being members of an illegal organisation, namely, the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front). The applicants were kept in custody until 12 February 1996. They were interrogated by the police on 10 February 1996 in the absence of their lawyers.\n11.  On 12 February 1996 the applicants were brought before the Public Prosecutor and then before a judge. On both occasions they repeated their statements of 10 February 1996. The applicants were released on the same day. They were not represented by lawyers.\n12.  On 11 March 1996 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the court and accused the applicants and three other co-accused of aiding and abetting an illegal terrorist organisation and requested the court to apply Article 169 of the Turkish Criminal Code and section 5 of Law No. 3713 (the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1991 as amended).\n13.  On 17 April 1996 the Edirne Assize Court requested the applicants' observations on the charges against them for submission to the Istanbul State Security Court. According to the minutes of the hearing which took place before the Edirne Assize Court, the applicants did not want to be represented by lawyers. They challenged for the first time the authenticity of the statements which they gave to the police, to the public prosecutor and to the judge.\n14.  On 21 May 1996 the applicants requested the Istanbul State Security Court not to require them to appear at any of the hearings since they had to attend school. This request was upheld by the court and the applicants were legally represented by four lawyers in their absence in subsequent hearings.\n15.  On 8 April 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicants guilty of aiding and abetting the DHKP-C, and sentenced them to two years and six months' imprisonment. The court pointed out that the applicants' defence statement to the Edirne Assize Court alleging that they had been forced to repeat the prepared confession statements when brought before the public prosecutor and the judge on 12 February 1996 was unconvincing. The court concluded that the applicants aided and abetted the DHKP-C by painting a slogan on a wall, distributing publications supporting DHKP-C and putting up a placard in the entrance of a shop.\n16.  The applicants appealed on the ground that they were convicted on the basis of the statements they had given under duress and that there was, therefore, no concrete evidence on which they could be convicted.\n17.  On 9 December 1997 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicants and upheld the State Security Court's decision. The Cassation Court noted in its decision that the applicants' lawyers, despite having requested the Cassation Court to hold an appeal hearing, did not attend the hearing.\n18.  In accordance with established practice, the judgment of the Court of Cassation of 9 December 1997 was sent to the Istanbul State Security Court and deposited with that court's Registry on 5 January 1998.\n19.  The applicants claim that they became aware of the decision on 4 March 1998.\n20.  On 9 March 1998 the applicants applied for rectification of the Court of Cassation's decision on the ground that the preliminary inves", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-639", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1966, 1975, 1934 and 1971 respectively and live in the town of Yüksekova, in south-east Turkey.\n8.  On 27 October 1995, soldiers belonging to the Yüksekova Commando Battalion under the command of Major Mehmet Emin Yurdakul came to Ağaçlı village to conduct a military operation.\n9.  Şemsettin Yurtseven, the father of the first and the second applicants, Mikdat Özeken, the son of the third applicant and Münür Sarıtaş, the younger brother of the fourth applicant, were singled out and put in a military vehicle and taken away by the soldiers. They were not released afterwards. Şemsettin Yurtseven was 73 years of age and was living in Ağaçlı village. Mikdat Özeken who was 18 years old and Münür Sarıtaş who was 13 years old, had come to Ağaçlı village that day to collect wood.\n10.  The applicants applied to the Yüksekova Commando Battalion and asked for information about their relatives. Major Yurdakul denied the arrest of the applicants' relatives.\n11.  Since the arrest of their relatives on 27 October 1995 the applicants have obtained no information about their relatives' whereabouts.\n12.  According to the Government, no security operation was conducted in Ağaçlı village on the day in question and that the applicants' relatives were not arrested.\n13.  On 13 June 1997 the Hakkari chief public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Hakkari Assize Court (Hakkari Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi). The chief public prosecutor stated that the information obtained indicated that Şemsettin Yurtseven had been beaten to death by Major Mehmet Emin Yurdakul after he was taken into custody during an operation conducted in Ağaçlı village between 25 and 28 October 1995. Mikdat Özeken and Münür Sarıtaş, who had witnessed this killing, were themselves later shot dead by Kahraman Bilgiç and Nihat Yiğiter, a confessor [Note: Itirafçı (confessor): a term used to describe a defected member of an illegal organisation who provides the authorities with information about that organisation.] and an army captain respectively.\n14.  On 12 November 1999 the Hakkari Assize Court acquitted Mehmet Emin Yurdakul, Nihat Yiğiter and Kahraman Bilgiç for lack of sufficient evidence to prove that they had killed the applicants' relatives.\n15.  The Hakkari Assize Court reached, inter alia, the following findings in its reasoning:\n“In the light of the evidence set out above, and in particular the testimonies of the villagers in whose village the operation took place, there is corroborating evidence that an operation was conducted in Karlı village on 27 October 1995 by the Yüksekova Mountain Commando Battalion and that Şemsettin (Abdulkerim) Yurtseven, Mikdat Özeken and Münür Sarıtaş were taken away by the soldiers in a military vehicle. There is, however, no evidence in the file to show what happened to these persons subsequently. In other words, their fates are unknown. There is no evidence in the file other than the allegations made by Kahraman Bilgiç during the course of the preliminary investigation on 25 February 1997 -which he later repeated during the trial proceedings - to prove that the disappeared persons were taken to the Battalion after the operation, that Şemsettin died as a result of having been beaten up by the commander Mehmet Emin Yurdakul, or that the other two were killed because they had witnessed the killing of Şemsettin...Finally, the fact that the bodies were never recovered casts doubt on the accuracy of the claims that these perso", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-640", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Milan, which it had let to E.S.\n5.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 April 1986, the applicant informed the tenant that it intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and summoned her to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n6.  By a decision of 12 May 1986, which was made enforceable on 22 May 1986, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 March 1987.\n7.  On 5 June 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n8.  On 26 June 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 July 1987.\n9.  Between 24 July 1987 and 9 November 1999, the bailiff made forty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n10.  On 14 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-641", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Koszwały, Poland.\n9.  On 6 February 1992 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder, grievous bodily harm, and insulting and assaulting policemen.\n10.  On 8 February 1992 the Gdańsk District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) brought criminal charges against him.\n11.  On 6 July 1992 prosecution authorities lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a bill of indictment against him.\n12.  From 29 January 1993 to 30 April 1993 no hearing was held.\n13.  A hearing listed for 18 June 1993 was adjourned until 21 September 1993. A further hearing, listed for 21 September 1993, was adjourned because the judge rapporteur was ill. The next hearing, scheduled for 12 October 1993, was cancelled because the judge rapporteur was hospitalised.\n14.  On 10 January 1994 the case was assigned to another panel of judges as the presiding judge rapporteur resigned from his function.\n15.  On 15 March 1994 the hearing was re-opened.\n16.  The subsequent hearings were held on 22 March, 18 May, 12 July and 26 September 1994 and on 10 January 1995.\n17.  On 13 January 1995 the Gdańsk Regional Court pronounced its judgment. It convicted the applicant as indicted, except for the count of murder, of which he was acquitted. The court sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. On 3 July 1995 the prosecutor lodged an appeal against that judgment, contesting its part relating to the acquittal.\n18.  On 12 October 1995 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the contested part of the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n19.  The court held hearings on 13 March and 15 May 1996. A hearing scheduled for 8 July 1996 was adjourned until 14 October 1996. A further hearing, listed for 14 October 1996, was cancelled because the judge rapporteur was ill. The subsequent hearing was held on 6 November 1996.\n20.  On 13 December 1996 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder with an oblique intent (w zamiarze ewentualnym) and sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment.\n21.  On 18 June 1997 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal modified the judgment in that it convicted the applicant of grievous bodily harm with deadly effect and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment.\n22.  In the letter of 1 July 1997 the applicant's legal aid lawyer informed him that he refused to lodge a cassation appeal against that judgment, arguing that there was no indication of any breach of substantive or procedural law. He explained that lodging that appeal would only delay the proceedings concerning a cumulative penalty (kara łączna) and, afterwards, proceedings concerning the applicant's conditional release.\n23.  On 13 July 1998 the Gdańsk Regional Court delivered a judgment in which it sentenced the applicant to ten years' imprisonment as the cumulative penalty for the convictions included in the judgments of 13 January 1995, 13 December 1996 and 27 May 1992 (delivered in the course of other criminal proceedings).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-642", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants are Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin born in 1940, 1934, 1964, 1966 and 1963 respectively. At the time of the events giving rise to their application, the applicants and their families were living in the town of Lice in Diyarbakır province (south-east Turkey). The application concerns the applicants' allegation that the security forces deliberately destroyed the town of Lice, including their houses and other possessions, as an act of retaliation for the inhabitants' alleged sympathy for the PKK.\n11.  The facts of the case, particularly concerning events on or about 22 and 23 October 1993, are disputed by the parties.\n12.  The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 16-23). The Government's submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 24-25).\n13.  The Commission, in order to establish the facts disputed by the parties, conducted an investigation with the assistance of the parties, pursuant to former Article 28 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Three delegates of the Commission heard the applicants in Ankara from 16 to 20 June 1997 as well as the following 15 witnesses: Leyla Ayder, daughter of the applicant Ahmet Ayder; Huri Biçer, sister of the applicant Şevket Biçer; Türkan, Tahir and Bedriye Ekmekçi, respectively the step-mother, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the applicant Zeydin Ekmekçi; Mustafa Öztan, chief constable of the Lice police; Mehmet Dabak and Özcan Küçüköz, public prosecutors; Ebedi Delidere, deputy mayor of Lice; Gürcan Acar, judge at the Lice Magistrates' Court; İbrahim Şahin, Governor of Diyarbakır province; Hasan Çakır, commander of Lice central gendarme station; Şahap Yaralı, commander of Lice district gendarmerie; Mustafa Küçük, commander of Lice gendarme commando unit; and Yunus Nebioğlu, gendarme investigator appointed by the Office of the Diyarbakır Provincial Governor.\nA further three witnesses, who had been involved in the damage assessments carried out in Lice, had been summoned but did not appear before the Commission's Delegates.\n14.  The Commission's evaluation of the evidence and its findings of fact are set out in its report of 21 October 1999 and are summarised in Section D below (paragraphs 26-61). The applicants accept the Commission's findings of fact.\n15.  Section E (paragraphs 62-63) contains excerpts of the summary of the evidence given to the Commission's Delegates by Gürcan Acar and İbrahim Şahin. Section F (paragraphs 64-66) sets out the documents submitted by the parties to the Commission and the Court relating to the assessment of damage.\n16.  Lice was a small town with a population of, very approximately, 5,000 people. Following an earthquake in 1975 many of the houses had been rebuilt in materials which, if set alight, burned easily. Many of the citizens had built stables close to their houses out of mud; these offered greater protection from fire. The official buildings were more substantial. Lice was built on a hillside, the northernmost part of the town being significantly higher than the southern side.\n17.  There had previously been considerable PKK activity both within and in the vicinity of Lice. Attacks within Lice were directed against State buildings and occurred at night. In the surrounding area, attacks were not confined to the hours of darkness. A short time before the events at issue there had been an operation outside Lice which resulted in the bodies of 15 dead terrorists being brough", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-643", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is born in 1969 and lives in Istanbul.\n10.  On 9 July 1994 the applicant with fourteen other people was taken into police custody by the Anti-Terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of being a member of the PKK.\n11.  The applicant alleges that he was ill-treated and tortured in the police car on the way to the Istanbul Security Directorate and during his detention there. He claims that during his interrogation, he was blindfolded and stripped naked. He was strung up by his arms in the form of torture known as “Palestinian hanging”. His head was hit against the wall and he was held parallel to the ground on his hands and feet. He was also electrocuted, threatened and insulted.\n12.  The applicant further claims that he was coerced into signing a statement in which it was stated that he had worked for and had been involved in the terrorist activities of the PKK. After having signed the statement prepared by the police, he was allegedly kept in custody for one more week so that the signs of the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected would disappear. During that week, he claims that a police officer came to his cell at regular intervals and applied a medicine on his wounds in order to cover up the signs of ill-treatment. He claims that due to this medicine his scars healed very quickly.\n13.  The Government submit that the applicant was questioned by the police on 15 July 1994. They have produced a copy of a statement signed by the applicant on this occasion.\n14.  On 22 July 1994 the applicant together with 14 other detainees was examined by Dr T. Taner Apaydın at the Istanbul Forensic Medical Department. According to the medical report prepared by Dr Apaydın, the applicant showed no signs of ill-treatment.\n15.  On 23 July 1994 the applicant was brought before the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court. According to the records of this hearing, the applicant admitted that he had been involved with PKK related activities in the past and had been convicted on that account by the Erzincan State Security Court in 1989. He denied having any current relation with the PKK. He stated that the police invented the statement taken in custody.\n16.  The applicant alleges that he was brought to the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court together with the other detainees on 22 July 1994 but that the Public Prosecutor did not take his statement because he had complained to the prosecutor that he had been tortured in police custody. He further stated that because he told to the prosecutor that he was subjected to torture, he was once again tortured by the police. The Government contested this argument and stated that the applicant was brought for the first time before the Public Prosecutor on 23 July 1994.\n17.  The applicant alleges that he told the prosecutor on 23 July 1994 of his subjection to torture but that his statement was not taken into consideration by the Public Prosecutor and was not written down on the hearing records.\n18.  The applicant further stated that he was not seen by a doctor before being questioned by the Prosecutor on 23 July 1994 and consequently he does not have any medical evidence concerning the torture he was subjected to on 22 July 1994.\n19.  On 23 July 1994 the applicant was also brought before the Judge at the State Security Court. He denied the allegations against him and stated that he was not a member of the PKK. He further declared that the stat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-644", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1969 and 1964 respectively and live in Şanlı Urfa, Turkey.\n10.  Police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate arrested the applicants on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party), and placed them in custody on 28 and 29 April 1995 respectively. Both applicants alleged that they had been beaten and insulted by policemen on the way to the Security Directorate Building.\n11.  On 29 April 1995 the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the extension of the applicants' custody period until 9 May 1995.\n12.  The applicants alleged that during their interrogation by the police, they had been kept blindfolded and forced to give information about persons they did not know. They were allegedly subjected to various forms of ill-treatment by police officers. They claimed they were beaten, strung up by the arms, threatened with death and given electric shocks.\n13.  On 2 May 1995 the applicants were allegedly forced to sign police statements about their activities in the PKK and their connections with other PKK members.\n14.  On 5 May 1995 the applicants were examined by the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute's medical expert along with fourteen other detainees. In his report, the institute's doctor noted that there were no signs of beating, force or violence on the bodies of the applicants, whereas he had spotted certain signs of injury on the bodies of two other detainees.\n15.  On 22 May 1995 the first applicant underwent a second medical examination in prison. According to the prison doctor's report, the applicant had fading bruises on his body and ecchymoses on his left foot. The applicant was later transferred to Fatih Forensic Medicine Institute where another medical expert examined him. In a report dated 20 June 1996, it was concluded that the applicants' injuries, as cited in the report of the prison doctor, would prevent him from carrying out his work for two days.\n16.  On 18 May 1995 the prison doctor also examined the second applicant. In his report, the doctor noted the presence of abrasions on the penis, pain in the chest and ecchymoses under the left eye. He also noted that the applicant had described a feeling of pain while chewing and pain on both shoulders.\n17.  On 5 May 1995 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court. In their questioning they denied their police statements and rejected the allegations against them.\n18.  On 6 May 1995 they were brought before the State Security Court, where they repeated their denials in relation to the statements taken by the public prosecutor. The court ordered the applicants' detention on remand on account of the nature of the accusations against them and of the evidence already available.\n19.  On 22 June 1995 the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants in the Istanbul State Security Court and charged them with carrying out acts aimed at the separation of a part of the State territories.\n20.  On 1 June 1995 the applicants filed a complaint with the Fatih public prosecutor's office alleging that they had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment during their detention in police custody.\n21.  By decisions of 19 and 21 September 1995 the Fatih public prosecutor declined to bring any criminal proceedings against the police officers, because of a lack of evide", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-645", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Liverpool.\n10.  The applicant is a widower. His wife, whom he had married in 1977, died on 1 February 1997. They had two children, born in 1983 and 1989. Prior to her death the applicant’s wife had worked as a schoolteacher for approximately twenty one years and paid full social security contributions.\n11.  On 7 February 2000 the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency for the payment of social security benefits. He applied for benefits equivalent to those which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widowed Mother’s Allowance, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992. He was informed by the Benefits Agency on 2 March 2000 that the benefit was not payable to him because it was available only to widows.\n12.  The applicant appealed against this latter decision to a social security appeal tribunal, which dismissed his appeal on 12 May 2000.\n13.  The applicant worked as a schoolteacher, except for a period between September 2000 and March 2001 when he was in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance, a means tested benefit. He also received Child Benefit and Lone Parent Benefit. From the day after that on which the claim for benefits was made, that is to say from 8 February 2000, a widow in a similar situation would have received Widowed Mother’s Allowance, payable regardless of income and savings. A widow would also have received a Christmas bonus of 10 pounds sterling (GBP) for the year 2000. Since 10 April 2001, the applicant has been in receipt of Widowed Parent’s Allowance.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-646", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Zamość, Poland.\n5.  The applicant’s father and mother died in 1982 and 1983 respectively. On 2 March 1984 the Zamość District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) declared that the applicant and her three brothers were to inherit their estate. On 17 September 1985 the applicant filed an application for distribution of the estate with the Zamość District Court. From 30 October 1985 to 27 June 1991 the court held thirty six hearings. It also obtained five expert reports.\n6.  On 28 September 1993 the court held a hearing during which it heard evidence from the applicant and one of her brothers. The court held a further hearing on 25 October 1993.\n7.  On 8 November 1993 the court closed the examination of the case and informed the parties that a preliminary decision would be delivered on 22 November 1993. It later resumed the examination of the case and listed a hearing for 24 January 1994. At that hearing, the court again heard evidence from the applicant and one of her brothers.\n8.  In April 1994 the applicant personally went to the court’s registry and asked the President of the Zamość District Court to fix a date for a hearing as soon as possible; she also complained about the slow progress in the proceedings.\n9.  On 16 May 1994 the court held a hearing, heard five witnesses and ordered an expert to prepare a report. On 20 June 1994 the expert submitted his report to the court. On 12 December 1994 and 16 January 1995 the court held further hearings.\n10.  In the course of the proceedings several judge rapporteurs dealt with the case.\n11.  In February 1995 the applicant sent a letter to the Minister of Justice asking that the proceedings be expedited. In a letter of 30 March 1995 the President of the Zamość Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) informed the applicant that he would personally supervise the conduct of the proceedings. He also admitted that the proceedings had been slowed down as a result of changes of rapporteurs.\n12.  On 22 January 1996 the court obtained an expert report. On 17 April 1996 the court held a hearing. Two further expert reports were submitted to the court on 25 May 1995 and 16 June 1996, respectively.\n13.  The court held hearings on 26 January and 9, 16 and 23 February 1999. On 20 April, 12 May and 24 October 1999, respectively, the experts submitted supplementary reports.\n14.  On 4 February, 3 March and 17 March 2000 the court held hearings and heard evidence from several witnesses. On 4 April 2000 the court informed the parties that the final decision would be delivered on 18 April 2000.\n15.  On 18 April 2000 the court decided that it would not deliver the final decision and resumed the proceedings. On the same date the court asked the applicant to submit an extract from the land register confirming that her late parents had owned a certain plot of land. On 4 May 2000 the applicant made submissions to the court. She maintained that she was not able to produce the documents required by the court because her parents did not have title to that property.\n16.  On 15 May 2000 the court stayed the proceedings. It held that the applicant had failed to comply with the order of 18 April 2000. Subsequently, on 20 September 2001 the applicant asked the court to resume the proceedings. On 23 January 2002 the Zamość Regional Court resumed the proceedings.\n17.  On 1 March 2002 the District Court held a hearing. On 15 March 2002 it gave a final decision. The applicant appealed. On 13 November and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-648", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Baj, Hungary.\n5.  On 2 October 1992 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Police Department informed the applicant, the managing director of a limited liability company (“the company”), that a criminal investigation had been opened against him on charges of fraud.\n6.  On 6 October 1992 the Police Department requested the Tax Authority’s Komárom-Esztergom County Department to carry out a tax inspection of the company. Subsequently, on 13 October 1992 the criminal investigation against the applicant was suspended pending the outcome of the tax inspection.\n7.  On 4 January 1993 the Tax Authority informed the Police Department of its findings. Consequently, on 8 January 1993 the Police Department ordered that the criminal investigation against the applicant be continued.\n8.  During the period until 14 December 1993, the Police Department questioned several witnesses on altogether fifteen occasions and interrogated the applicant on 24 August and 16 December 1993. On the latter date he refused to give testimony.\n9.  On 17 December 1993 the Police Department appointed an expert graphologist.\n10.  On 23 December 1993 the Police Department informed the applicant’s lawyer and the Tata District Public Prosecutor’s Office of the results of the investigation. On 27 December 1993 the Police Department terminated the investigations and transferred the file to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.\n11.  On 7 February 1994 the Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment.\n12.  The applicant’s request of 26 April 1995 to have the investigation re-opened was rejected by the Tata District Court.\n13.  The first trial hearing took place on 12 April 1996. On this occasion the District Court heard several witnesses. The applicant refused to testify and stated that he did not commit the crime with which he was charged.\n14.  On 15 April 1996 the District Court enquired of a witness who had failed to appear at the hearing of 12 April due to illness as to the expected date of his recovery.\n15.  On the applicant’s motion for bias of 10 June 1996, the presiding judge withdrew from the case.\n16.  On 30 October 1996 the President of the District Court appointed another judge. On 16 December 1996 the President of the District Court together with two other judges declared bias.\n17.  On 29 April 1997 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court appointed the Tatabánya District Court to deal with the case.\n18.  On 27 April 1999 the Tatabánya District Court held a hearing and acquitted the applicant.\n19.  On the appeal of the Prosecutor’s Office, on 11 and 25 January and 22 February 2000 the Regional Court held hearings.\n20.  On 14 March 2000 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment, which thereby became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-649", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a Turkish national of Kurdish origin, resident in Diyarbakır. She is the wife of Mr Ali Tekdağ (A.T.), who disappeared in Dağkapı (Turkey) on 13 November 1994.\n9.  The facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicant's husband are disputed.\n10. The applicant's version of events is set out in Section 1 below. The Government's version is set out in Section 2. A list of the documents submitted by the parties and a summary of statements by the witnesses whose testimonies were heard by the Court's delegates at hearings conducted in Ankara are provided in Part B.\n11.  On 13 November 1994 at about 11.00 a.m. the applicant and her husband A.T. went shopping in the village of Küçükkadı, in Diyarbakır. When they got off the bus at Dağkapı A.T. told the applicant that he had to attend to something and that she should wait for him for about five minutes. He went off in the direction of the bus station.\n12.  A.T. returned less than two minutes later but, instead of coming to meet the applicant, he walked right past her without looking at her. When she called out to him, he said: “Don't come near me!”, made signs with his hands and walked into a street nearby. He was being followed by people with walkie-talkies and long-barrelled guns.\n13.  There was gunfire and everyone, the applicant included, threw themselves to the ground. When the firing stopped, plain-clothed policemen arrived on the scene. They took A.T. into a nearby building and a few minutes later took him away in a white minibus. A.T. was bleeding from a head wound received when he threw himself to the ground. There was a military vehicle parked in front of a bank near the scene, but the soldiers inside did not intervene. A salesman called Mr Necmettin was an eyewitness to the incident.\n14.  The applicant has not seen her husband since he was taken away by the police on that day. She alleges that a witness, Mr Seyfettin Demir, saw A.T. in custody at the Diyarbakır Headquarters of the Rapid Intervention Force while he himself was being held there and that in November 1994 other witnesses had seen A.T. in custody but were afraid to testify.\n15.  On 16 November 1994 the applicant petitioned the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court for news of her husband, but was turned away by the police. She continued to submit petitions every day for thirty days until she was at last taken to see the Principal Public Prosecutor, Mr Bekir Selçuk.\n16.  The applicant reported her husband's disappearance to Mr Selçuk who said he would deal with the matter. When she returned a few days later, he said he had yet to obtain information. The applicant explained that, according to an article in Özgür Gündem newspaper, witnesses had seen her husband in prison but they were afraid to testify. She indicated that Seyfettin Demir was, however, willing to make a statement. Mr Selçuk replied that he wanted to know the names of the other witnesses, adding that the security forces could not have abducted her husband.\n17.  After forty days the applicant met the provincial governor Mr Doğan Hatipoğlu and explained the situation to him. Mr Hatipoğlu said he would make enquiries. When the applicant returned a few days later, he said he did not have the means to conduct an investigation.\n18.  Some time later the applicant, accompanied by her daughter Nuran (aged 21), went back to see Mr Selçuk, who denied that her husband had been taken into custody and said that A.T. was res", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-650", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Munich.\n5.  On 8 November 1993 the applicant brought an action against her brother before the Buda Central District Court claiming her statutory share of the inheritance of her deceased mother’s estate.\n6.  On 6 May 1994 the District Court held a hearing. On 20 September 1994 a further hearing took place, which lasted 30 minutes. The defendant failed to appear on both occasions. On the latter date, the defendant’s counsel requested that the applicant’s claim be rejected as it had been submitted outside the statutory time-limit.\n7.  On 18 November 1994 the District Court held a hearing, which lasted 30 minutes. It ordered the applicant to submit, within 30 days, any evidence that might prove that the period of the statutory limitation had been interrupted. The applicant complied with the order on 10 January 1995.\n8.  Meanwhile, on 21 September 1994 the applicant instituted inheritance proceedings before a public notary. A notarial notice was issued on 18 January 1995, in accordance with the Hungarian law on inheritance, requiring the estate to be divided up equally between the applicant and her brother.\n9.  On 25 January 1995 the applicant informed the District Court that her representative had withdrawn from the case. \nHearings scheduled for 31 January and 4 April 1995 were adjourned by the District Court, as the applicant, having been hospitalised, was unable to attend. Meanwhile, on 24 March 1995 the applicant notified the court of the name of her new representative.\n10.  At the hearing of 20 June 1995 the applicant raised the amount of her claim and requested legal aid. The court ordered the applicant to submit within 30 days all necessary documents proving that she needed legal aid. The applicant complied with the order on 10 August 1995. At the same time, she extended her claim to include her deceased aunt’s estate.\n11.  On 18 August 1995 the District Court rejected the applicant’s request for legal aid and ordered her to pay court fees corresponding to the amount of the increased claim. On 2 November 1995 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision.\n12.  The applicant’s renewed request for exemption from court fees was granted by the District Court on 16 January 1996. The court also took measures to obtain the case-file concerning the estate of the applicant’s deceased aunt.\n13.  On 28 February 1996 the District Court held a hearing, which lasted for 35 minutes. On 13 March 1996 the applicant elaborated her claims.\nAt the hearing held on 25 June 1996 the court ordered the defendant, who had repeatedly failed to appear before the court, to submit observations on the merits of the applicant’s claims before 5 September 1996. On 6 September 1996 the District Court imposed a fine on the defendant, who, despite a warning, failed to comply with the court’s order. This decision was later quashed as the defendant’s submissions were proved to have been posted on 5 September 1996.\n14.  On 19 November 1996 the District Court heard the defendant’s witnesses and ordered the parties to submit their observations within 30 days. At the hearing the applicant asked that witnesses be heard in support of her evidence and extended the scope of her action by requesting that a real estate contract of sale be nullified. The applicant’s observations were submitted on 22 January 1997.\n15.  On 12 March 1997 the District Court heard the defendant and a witness. On 7 April 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-651", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Opole, Poland.\n10.  On 16 June 1995 the applicant was taken into custody by the police. On 17 June 1995 the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed his complaint about placing him in police custody.\n11.  On 17 June 1995 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki) charged the applicant with aggravated fraud and remanded him in custody. The charges related to a period between 30 January and 3 March 1995 when the applicant, together with his accomplices, allegedly defrauded several individuals and businesses by obtaining from them under false pretences cash, automobiles, furniture, computers and other goods of a total value of PLN 1,050,000. In addition, the applicant was charged with possession of a forged passport. The Regional Prosecutor considered that the applicant’s detention on remand was warranted by the fact that he was charged with several criminal acts which caused a significant danger to society (stopień społecznego niebezpieczeństwa jest znaczny), as he had acted within a criminal organisation and had obtained valuable goods. In addition, the applicant’s criminal activity took place over a long time and it was probable that if released he would collude and try to destroy evidence.\n12.  On 10 July 1995 the applicant applied to the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor for release from detention. On 12 July 1995 the Regional Prosecutor rejected the application. He dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s claims that poor health and the financial situation of his family required his release. Moreover, the applicant’s contention that his ill‑health called for release would be decided after a panel of medical experts had examined him.\n13.  On 24 and 26 July 1995 the applicant again made applications to the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor for release from detention. On 26 July 1995 his requests were dismissed. The Regional Prosecutor relied on a medical opinion issued by the Wrocław Prison Hospital, which stated that the applicant could remain in detention. In addition, he considered that since the applicant’s daughter and his cohabitee lived with the latter’s parents, there was no need for him to be released to care for them.\n14.  On 2 August 1995 the applicant made an application for release from detention. On 4 August 1995 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor rejected his application. The prosecutor referred to the medical opinion of 19 July 1995, which confirmed that the applicant’s state of health allowed the continuation of his detention. Furthermore, he considered that the fact that the applicant’s daughter had recently received medical treatment in the infant pathology ward of the Wrocław Regional Hospital did not constitute a ground for the applicant’s release. The prosecutor also pointed out that the applicant’s cohabitee cared for his daughter.\n15.  On 9 August 1995 the Wrocław Appellate Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Regional Prosecutor’s decision of 26 July 1995. The Appellate Prosecutor considered that the evidence showed that the applicant had committed the criminal offences with which he was charged. Moreover, the state of health of his daughter did not require that he be released. The prosecutor was also of a view that the applicant’s detention was necessary to ensure the proper course of the proceedings.\n16.  On 23 August 1995 the applicant lodged with the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) a complaint about his detention. On 31 A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-652", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Lapua.\n10.  The applicant was a managing director in company X until it went into liquidation, on 8 May 1990, before the District Court (kihlakunnanoikeus, häradsrätt) of Isokyrö. The creditor withdrew the application later and the liquidation proceedings were terminated on 28 May 1990, only to be restarted on 15 August 1990.\n11.  In December 1990 the police started interrogating the applicant relating to the business activities and accounts of X. In 1991 the Central Criminal Police (keskusrikospoliisi, centralkriminalpolisen) conducted several searches of the applicant’s and X’s premises in Seinäjoki, Isokyrö and Nurmo. The police reports, resulting from the investigations, were dated 30 May 1991, 26 April 1993 and 7 July 1993. In respect of the third report the police carried out a further investigation which was terminated on 25 July 1994. The applicant was not taken into police custody during the criminal investigations or the subsequent criminal proceedings against him.\n12.  On 15 June 1994 the applicant was charged on eleven counts with offences, including, inter alia, aggravated tax fraud. The District Court held oral hearings on 7 September 1994, 8 December 1994, 22 February 1995, 20 April 1995 and 31 August 1995. The hearing was each time adjourned on the Prosecutor’s request. On 31 August 1995, the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. Two other persons were also accused and convicted of one offence each.\n13.  All the accused appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätt) of Vaasa which, by a decision of 25 January 1996, referred the case back to the District Court for reconsideration, on the grounds that the District Court’s judgment had been inadequately reasoned.\n14.  The case was reconsidered by the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) of Kyrönmaa, which had replaced the District Court of Isokyrö. On 14 November 1996, the District Court convicted the applicant on ten counts and sentenced him to one year and ten months’ imprisonment.\n15.  In addition to the applicant, the prosecutor and the Tax Administration of Western Finland (Länsi-Suomen verovirasto, Västra Finlands skatteverk), which was also a party to the proceedings, appealed to the Court of Appeal. On 2 February 1998 the Court of Appeal granted the applicant a partly cost-free trial as from 1 June 1996 onwards.\nOn 11 February 1998 the Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant of one of the charges and rejected the rest of the applicant’s appeal, upholding the prison sentence. The applicant was also obliged to pay the State of Finland a total of 3,460,000 Finnish Marks (equivalent to approximately EUR 582,000) with interest in compensation for unpaid taxes.\n16.  On 24 April 1998, the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.\n17.  The applicant twice requested the reopening of the proceedings before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s requests on 25 August and 24 November 1998, respectively.\n18.  On 21 September 1998, the applicant complained to the Chancellor of Justice (oikeuskansleri, justitiekansler) about the delay in the proceedings, amongst other things. The Deputy Chancellor of Justice found, in his decision of 30 October 2000, that the length of the proceedings could not be regarded as excessive, taking into account the fact that the criminal investigation lasted about two y", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-653", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1970. He is serving a sentence in the Ilava prison.\n9.  On 17 October 1995 the applicant was apprehended by the police as he was suspected of having murdered a taxi driver. Criminal proceedings were brought and the applicant was detained on remand in that context.\n10.  The main hearing before the Košice Regional Court was held on 24 February 1997. In his final speech the applicant requested, inter alia, that he should be released from detention. On the same day the Košice Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and of the unauthorised carrying of a weapon and sentenced him to twelve and a half years’ imprisonment. Neither the judgment nor the minutes mentioned the applicant’s request for release. In terms of domestic law the applicant continued being detained on remand until the final effect of the judgment leading to his conviction.\n11.  On 25 April and on 14 June 1997 the applicant appealed against the Regional Court’s judgment.\n12.  In a letter dated 12 May 1997 the applicant informed the presiding judge of the Košice Regional Court that he maintained his request for release from detention on remand of 24 February 1997.\n13.  On 2 July 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment convicting the applicant became final on the same day.\n14.  On 29 October 1997 and on 25 March 1998 respectively the president of the Košice Regional Court and the Ministry of Justice admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, that no decision had been taken on his application for release lodged at the hearing before the Regional Court on 24 February 1997.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-654", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Wrocław, Poland.\n10.  On an unknown date in 1995 the Wrocław District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) issued a warrant to search for the applicant by “wanted” notice on suspicion of his having committed fraud.\n11.  On 3 March 1995 the police arrested the applicant under that warrant.\n12.  On 10 March 1995 the applicant was brought before the Wrocław Stare Miasto District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy). The prosecutor charged him with several counts of aggravated fraud and ordered that he be remanded in custody until 2 June 1995. The detention order was based on Articles 210 § 1 and 217 § 1(2) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As to the grounds for the applicant’s detention, the prosecution first relied on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he had been charged. They also considered that the offence in question represented a serious danger to society (wysoki stopień społecznego niebezpieczeństwa czynu) and considered that there was a risk that the applicant might induce witnesses to give false testimony or obstruct the criminal proceedings against him by other unlawful means.\n13.  On 26 May 1995, on an application made by the Wrocław District Prosecutor, the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 August 1995 in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he had been charged and the serious nature of that offence. The court also found that, in the light of the material collected in the investigation, there was a high risk that the applicant would obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings. Finally, the court held that the interests of the investigation, such as the need to obtain and secure evidence, militated in favour of keeping him in custody.\n14.  Subsequently, the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki) took over the investigation from the District Prosecutor.\n15.  On 24 August 1995 the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), on an application made by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor, prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 November 1995, finding that it was necessary because there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the serious offence. Furthermore, the court found that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings militated against releasing him since, at the current stage of the investigation, it was necessary to hear evidence from all the injured parties, to carry out confrontations between witnesses and defendants and to lay further charges of dealing in stolen goods against several other persons who had not to date been involved in the proceedings.\n16.  On 24 November 1995, on the subsequent application from the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor, the Wrocław Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 December 1995, holding that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the serious offence with which he had been charged. The court also stressed that the applicant should be kept in custody in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, especially as the charges originally laid against the suspects needed to be supplemented.\n17.  On 27 December 1995 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor completed the investigation and, on 30 December 1995, lodged a bill of indictment with the Wrocław Regional Court. The applicant was indicted on several counts of aggravated fraud. Th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-655", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Balassagyarmat.\n9.  In 1974 the applicant married in former Czechoslovakia. Subsequently, the couple moved to Hungary. Their daughter was born in January 1980.\n10.  On 17 September 1996 the applicant’s wife, then a Slovak national, filed for divorce before the Balassagyarmat District Court. She also sought custody of their child and the division of the matrimonial property.\n11.  Shortly afterwards, the applicant challenged his paternity of their daughter before the District Court. On 24 January 1997 the District Court rejected this action as being incomplete.\n12.  Meanwhile, on 25 November 1996 and 11 February 1997 the District Court held hearings in the principal proceedings.\n13.  On 11 March 1997 the applicant filed a new paternity action.\n14.  At the hearing on 13 June 1997 the District Court suspended the proceedings in the divorce case pending a decision on the paternity dispute.\n15.  On 27 August 1997 the District Court again rejected the applicant’s paternity action as being incomplete.\n16.  On 9 September 1997 the applicant filed a new paternity action. On 25 March 1998 the District Court dismissed his claims. On 10 September 1998 the Nógrád County Regional Court dismissed his appeal.\n17.  Meanwhile, on 16 February 1998 the applicant’s wife requested that the principal proceedings be continued. She argued that their daughter had reached the age of 18 and for that reason it was no longer necessary to decide the question of custody; consequently, the outcome of the paternity proceedings was irrelevant to the determination of the divorce action. The proceedings were resumed soon afterwards.\n18.  Subsequently, the applicant brought a counter-action seeking the invalidation of the marriage. At the hearing on 23 April 1998 the District Court ordered that the relevant provisions of the Czechoslovakian Civil Code be obtained via the Ministry of Justice.\n19.  On 4 November 1998 the applicant’s daughter filed a rebuttal of the presumption of the applicant’s paternity. On 19 January 1999 the District Court appointed a medical expert to carry out a blood group examination of the parties. On 14 April 1999 the expert verified the applicant’s paternity. Subsequently, the plaintiff withdrew her claims and these proceedings were discontinued.\n20.  In the principal proceedings, the translation of the Czechoslovakian law reached the District Court on 19 October 1999.\n21.  On 26 October 1999 the District Court requested, via the Ministry of Justice, a copy of the parties’ marriage certificate from the archives of the Slovakian Nagykürtös District Registry.\n22.  On 9 December 1999 another hearing was held. On the same day, the District Court dismissed, in a partial decision, the applicant’s counter-claim for invalidation of the marriage. The District Court relied on documentary evidence received from Slovakia. On 16 May 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n23.  On 28 August 2000 the District Court held a further hearing and ordered a bank to submit information about the parties’ assets.\n24.  On 2 October 2000 the District Court pronounced the parties’ divorce and disjoined the remainder of the claims. In this latter respect, it ordered that the Land Registry be notified of the dispute concerning the division of the matrimonial property.\n25.  On 14 November 2000 the applicant appealed against the first-instance decision and challenged the Regional Court for bias. On 8 February 2001 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-656", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, a farmer living in Lustenau (Austria), owns, inter alia, parcels of land which, by an ordinance (Verordnung) issued by the Vorarlberg Regional Government (Landesregierung), were registered as protected wetland in 1990 (Ordinance No. 1990/40 of the Regional Law Gazette).\n8.  On 24 July 1991 the applicant filed a request with the Vorarlberg Regional Government for an exemption permit (Ausnahmebewilligung) from the above ordinance in order to install a drainage system as he intended to cultivate and exploit his land.\n9.  On 2 August 1991 the Landscape Protection Officer (Landschaftsschutzanwalt), on 5 August 1991 the Landscape Protection Board (Naturschau) and on 29 August 1991 the Agricultural Chamber (Landwirtschaftskammer) all submitted comments on the applicant's request which were communicated to him on 6 September 1991. Only the opinion of the Agricultural Chamber was in favour of the applicant's request.\n10.  On 17 September, 1 and 31 October 1991 the applicant filed observations with the Vorarlberg Regional Government.\n  On 20 November 1991 the opinion of an official expert for landscape protection (Amtssachverständiger für Natur- und Landschaftsschutz) was communicated to the applicant who, on 4 December 1991, filed his comments.\n11.  On 10 April 1992 the Vorarlberg Regional Government refused to grant an exemption permit.\n12.  On 27 May 1992 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). The applicant complained, inter alia, that the ordinance on which the refusal of the exemption permit was based was unlawful.\n13.  On 14 June 1993 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the case as it lacked any prospects of success, and transferred it to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).\n14.  On 29 November 1993 the applicant supplemented his complaint and requested the Administrative Court to hold a hearing and an on-site inspection, in the presence of a further expert to be appointed by the Administrative Court. As reason for his request he stated that such a hearing would show that the arguments given by the Regional Government in its decision were not correct.\n15.  On 4 January 1994 the Vorarlberg Regional Government submitted their comments on the applicant's complaint (Gegenschrift).\n16.  On 17 March 1997 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. It found that it had not been in dispute between the parties that the parcels of land at issue were subject to Ordinance No 1990/40. Accordingly, this land could only be used in the traditional manner. Cultivating, grazing, draining or using chemical fertilisers was prohibited. An exemption from these limitations could be granted if the interests of landscape protection were not seriously and permanently harmed and other interests, in particular agricultural ones, prevailed. Thus, if the interests of landscape protection were seriously and permanently harmed, it was no longer necessary to consider the interests of agriculture. In refusing the request the authority had essentially relied on the report by the expert on landscape protection. This expert had explained in detail which animals and plants would have been endangered by the measures envisaged by the applicant. The report had been communicated to the applicant who had been given the opportunity to react. The applicant, however, merely disputed the findings of the expert and failed to submit any scientifically valid argument. In such circu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-657", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant was born in 1927 and lived in Naples. The second applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Naples.\n8.  They were the owners of four flats in Arzano (Naples), which they had let respectively to L.U., L.C., C.S., G.R. and G.F.\n1)  Application no. 40672/98\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 November 1986, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and summoned him to appear before the Casoria (Naples) Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 20 February 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Casoria Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1989.\n11.  On 28 January 1994, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. \nOn 23 April 1994, they informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 April 1994.\n12.  Between 28 April 1994 and 8 March 1999, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 3 June 2001, the tenant spontaneously left the premises and the applicants recovered possession of their flat.\n2)  Application no. 40680/98\n14.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 November 1986, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and summoned him to appear before the Casoria (Naples) Magistrate.\n15.  By a decision of 13 February 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Casoria Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1989.\n16.  On 28 January 1994, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n17.  On 23 April 1994, they informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 April 1994.\n18.  Between 28 April 1994 and 8 March 1999, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n19.  On 4 September 1999, the tenant entered into a new lease.\n3)  Application no. 40681/98\n20.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 November 1986, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and summoned him to appear before the Casoria (Naples) Magistrate.\n21.  By a decision of 13 February 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Casoria Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1989.\n22.  On 28 January 1994, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n23.  On 23 April 1994, they informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 April 1994.\n24.  Between 28 April 1994 and 8 March 1999, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n25.  On an unspecified date of May 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.\n4)  Application no. 40884/98\n26.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 November 1986, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-658", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Helsinki.\n10.  On 4 October 1995 the local office of the Social Insurance Institution (kansaneläkelaitos, folkpensionsanstalten) granted the applicant a daily sickness allowance on account of his incapacity for work from 11 September 1995 onwards. On 16 October 1995 his allowance was extended until 31 October 1995.\n11.  On 16 October 1995 Dr M.M., a psychiatrist treating the applicant, considered him incapacitated for work from 11 September 1995 until 31 March 1996 on account of his depression and anxiety. On the strength of that opinion the applicant requested that he be granted a daily sickness allowance for the period 1 November 1995-31 March 1996.\n12.  The medical expert consulted by the local office of the Social Insurance Institution, Dr U.L., found in his opinion of 24 October 1995 that the applicant’s alleged incapacity for work was principally of a subjective nature, although the criteria for serious mental distress were not met. While not considering the applicant incapable for work, Dr U.L. recommended that an opinion be obtained from an expert in psychiatry before a new decision was reached on the applicant’s request.\n13.  In his opinion of 27 October 1995 Dr K.K., a psychiatrist, found on the basis of the information available that the applicant had been capable of working as of 1 January 1995.\n14.  Neither Dr U.L. nor Dr K.K. examined the applicant in person. Their identities and opinions were not known to the applicant until they were indicated by the Government in the course of the Convention proceedings.\n15.  On 15 November 1995 the Social Insurance Commission (sosiaali-vakuutustoimikunta, socialförsäkringskommissionen) of Helsinki refused the applicant’s request to have his allowance extended until 31 March 1996. The Commission, relying on section 14 of the Sickness Insurance Act (sairasvakuutuslaki, sjukförsäkringslag 364/1963), reasoned as follows:\n “A person who is incapacitated for work shall be entitled to a daily allowance. Incapacity for work is defined as a condition caused by an illness and during which the person is unable to perform his or her ordinary, or closely comparable, work. Your function as a tourist secretary has been regarded as your ordinary work. \nOn the basis of the material adduced you cannot be considered unable to perform this work or a closely comparable one.\nFor this reason, you are not entitled to a daily allowance.”\n16.  The applicant appealed to the Social Insurance Board (sosiaalivakuutuslautakunta, socialförsäkringsnämnden) for Southern Finland, adducing a report of 24 November 1995 in which his treating physician, Dr K.R., agreed with Dr M.M. that the applicant was incapacitated for work during the period in question, on account of his depression, panic feelings and neurosis. In its opinion to the Board dated 2 January 1996, but not forwarded to the applicant for his possible comments, the Social Insurance Commission explained the challenged decision as follows: \n“On the basis of medical certificates of the A category, [the applicant] was granted a daily allowance until 31 October 1995 on the basis of his incapacity for work which had commenced on 11 September 1995. Subsequently he adduced a certificate of the B category in which a psychiatrist considered him incapacitated for work until 31 March 1996 on account of his depression and undefined anxiety. In the opinion of the medical expert, a psychiatrist, the insured had to be considered", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-659", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Florence.\n7.  T.P.N. was the owner of a flat in Florence, which she had let to M.G.\n8.  In a registered letter of 20 June 1987, the owner informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 21 January 1988, the owner reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 10 February 1988, which was made enforceable on 22 February 1988, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 10 February 1989.\n11.  On 19 May 1989, the owner served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 15 June 1989, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 July 1989.\n13.  On 20 November 1989, the applicant became the owner of the flat.\n14.  Between 13 July 1989 and 1 September 2000, the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 11 February 1991, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n16.  On 1 September 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-660", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lived in Florence.\n6.  He was the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to A.T.\n7.  In a registered letter of 14 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 22 March 1984, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 30 April 1984, which was made enforceable on 9 June 1984, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1985.\n10.  On 19 September 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 23 October 1987, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 December 1987.\n12.  Between 15 December 1987 and 15 March 1999, the bailiff made thirty-two attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 10 September 1999.\n14.  On 30 January 2001, the applicant reached a friendly agreement with the tenant who was supposed to leave the premises on 1 February 2002.\n15.  On 31 April 2002, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-661", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Positano.\n6.  She is the owner of five flats in Castellammare di Stabia (Naples), that she had let to different tenants.\n7.  In a registered letter of 24 May 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 14 May 1992, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 20 May 1992, which was made enforceable on 27 May 1992, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 20 May 1993.\n10.  On 11 September 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 23 October 1995, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 4 November 1995.\n12.  Between 4 November 1995 and 3 December 1998, the bailiff made seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On an unspecified date in 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.\n14.  In a registered letter of 24 June 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n15.  In a writ served on the tenant on 17 April 1992, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.\n16.  By a decision of 22 June 1992, which was made enforceable on 17 July 1992, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 22 June 1993.\n17.  On 11 September 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n18.  On 23 October 1995, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 4 November 1995.\n19.  Between 4 November 1995 and 28 October 1997, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n20.  Following the entry into force of Law 431/98, the enforcement of the evictions proceedings was suspended until 31 January 2000.\n21.  In March 2000, the tenant entered into a new lease.\n22.  In a writ served on the tenant on 11 May 1992, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 8 December 1992 and summoned him to appear before the Naples Magistrate.\n23.  By a decision of 20 May 1992, which was made enforceable on 25 September 1992, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 20 May 1993.\n24.  On 11 September 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n25.  On 23 October 1995, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 4 November 1995.\n26.  Between 4 November 1995 and 25 November 1999, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n27.  On 24 March 2000,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-662", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Gus Khrustalnyi, a town in the Vladimir Region.\n9.  Before her removal to Gus Khrustalnyi the applicant lived and worked in Mys Shmidta, a town located in Chukotka, a far-eastern territory adjacent to Alaska.\n10.  On 31 October 1996 the applicant filed with the Shmidtovskiy District Court of the Chukotka Autonomous Region (the “Shmidtovskiy Court”) an action against her former employer, a local trading office. She wanted the defendant to pay outstanding emoluments, discharge and leave allowances, and to properly formalise her discharge.\n11.  As the proceedings did not progress, in 1997-1999 the applicant complained several times about the Shmidtovskiy Court to a number of higher judicial and other authorities.\n12.  On 18 April 1997 the President of the Judicial Qualifications Board, of the Chukotka Autonomous Region (the “Regional Qualifications Board”, “Board”) asked the President of the Shmidtovskiy Court to inform him why it took the court so long to deal with the applicant's case and when the case would be heard.\n13.  On 24 July 1997 the President of the Chukotka Regional Court (the “Regional Court”) asked the President of the Shmidtovskiy Court to start the proceedings, to fix a hearing and to inform the applicant about the date of the hearing before 20 August 1997.\n14.  On 1 August 1997 the President of the Civil Section of the Regional Court forwarded the applicant's complaint to the President of the Shmidtovskiy Court. He asked to inform him and the applicant about the state of the proceedings before 25 August 1997.\n15.  On 13 March 1998 the President of the Regional Court asked the President of the Shmidtovskiy Court to inform the applicant before 15 April 1998 of the date when her case would be heard. He also informed the applicant that the Regional Court could not deal with her case itself because it was understaffed. The President noted that his earlier requests to the Shmidtovskiy Court had remained unanswered.\n16.  On 30 March 1998 the President of the Supreme Judicial Qualifications Board asked the President of the Regional Court to investigate the applicant's complaint and take measures, if need be.\n17.  On 20 April 1998 the President of the Regional Court asked the President of the Shmidtovskiy Court to inform him before 20 May 1998 about the state of the proceedings. He noted that the President had not responded to the Regional Court's earlier requests to speed up the proceedings. He also warned the President that he would have to apply to a judicial qualifications board if the procrastination continued.\n18.  On 18 May 1998 the Shmidtovskiy Court issued a letter rogatory by which it asked a Moscow court to question the applicant. The Moscow court could not execute the request because the applicant had not informed the courts that her address had changed.\n19.  On 7 July 1998 the President of the Regional Court informed the applicant that her case could not be examined because the Shmidtovskiy Court was understaffed and overloaded with work.\n20.  On 4 August 1998 the new President of the Regional Qualifications Board asked the President of the Shmidtovskiy Court to forward to the Board before 1 October 1998 copies of procedural documents concerning the case. She noted with displeasure that the Shmidtovskiy Court had been ignoring the applicant's earlier complaints and the Board's requests. She also informed the applicant that the Shmidtovskiy Court had been understaffed sin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-664", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, born in 1936, lives in Vienna (Austria).\n10.  At the relevant time the applicant was the owner of several firms, whose business was trading in fowl and game as well as the processing, importation and exportation of meat. From 1975 onwards, one of the firms imported meat, processed it and re-exported it without putting it on the domestic market. Such an activity is exempted from restrictions to which the ordinary importation of meat is subject and the applicant was accordingly issued a permit for inward processing (aktiver Veredelungsverkehr) setting out the conditions for import and export.\n11.  On 25 June 1981 the Investigating Judge at the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht) instituted preliminary investigations against the applicant who was suspected of having breached the conditions of the inward processing permit by having exported a different quality of meat than he had imported and by having put the imported meat onto the domestic market without having paid the customs duties. These acts constituted offences under the Act on Fiscal Offences (Finanzstrafgesetz), the Trade in Animals Act (Viehwirtschaftsgesetz) and the Export Act (Aussenhandelsgesetz). Subsequently, the Investigating Judge ordered searches at the offices of the applicant's firms and at the cold storage depots where the meat had been kept. The applicant's stock of meat was seized.\n12.  On 24 June 1982 bankruptcy proceedings (Konkursverfahren) were opened against the applicant and, at an unspecified date, he was declared bankrupt. On 12 October 1983 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of fraud. In 1984 he was convicted of that offence and sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment. Subsequently, he was convicted of other criminal offences on two occasions and sentenced to further terms of imprisonment. In 1992 he was eventually released.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 25 February 1987 the Vienna Customs Office submitted a report on the charges in respect of which the proceedings had been opened on 25 June 1981 to the Public Prosecutor's Office and supplemented this report on 23 October 1987.\n14.  The Animals and Meat Commission (Vieh- und Fleischkommission), which is the authority competent under the Trade in Animals Act to decide on the relevant amount for the assessment of the fine, gave its decision on 30 December 1987. On 15 February 1988 the applicant appealed against this decision and on 31 October 1990 the competent Federal Minister dismissed the appeal. On 25 September 1991 the Administrative Court dismissed a complaint by the applicant against the Animals and Meat Commission's decision.\n15.  In the meantime, on 26 February 1990, the Vienna Customs Office (Zollamt) issued tax orders claiming outstanding customs duty and importation turnover tax (Einfuhrumsatzsteuer). It considered that the customs privileges linked to the inward processing permit were no longer applicable to certain quantities of meat imported in 1980. On 7 May 1990 the applicant appealed.\n16.  On 28 January 1994 the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office indicted the applicant of the offences in respect of which preliminary investigations had been opened on 25 June 1981. Subsequently an ex officio defence counsel was appointed for the applicant, who filed objections to the indictment. On 24 June 1994 the Regional Court dismissed these objections as unfounded.\n17.  On 31 May 1994 the applicant was summoned to attend trial before the Regional Court on 12 an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-665", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Weiler (Austria).\n8.  On 7 January 1994 the applicant applied for a planning permission as he wished to construct a storehouse and production facilities to produce wood chips on his plot of land acquired in 1989.\n9.  On 24 May 1994 the Feldkirch District Authority (Bezirkshaupt-mannschaft) dismissed this request, finding that there was no adequate access to the applicant's plot of land. On 9 June 1994 the applicant filed an appeal against this decision.\n10.  On 29 September 1994 the Weiler Municipality issued a building prohibition for the area within which the applicant's plot of land was situated, as it was planning to open re-allocation proceedings (Umlegungs-verfahren) to ensure a more efficient use of the area. The Vorarlberg Regional Government (Landesregierung), which had to decide on the applicant's appeal of 9 June 1994, requested the applicant to comment on the building prohibition.\n11.  On 9 November 1994 the Weiler Municipality issued a new building prohibition as the previous one had been quashed by the District Authority ex officio. The Vorarlberg Regional Government requested the applicant to comment on the new building prohibition.\n12.  On 29 December 1994 the Vorarlberg Regional Government, referring to the building prohibition, dismissed the applicant's appeal against the District Authority's decision of 24 May 1994. The decision was served on 15 February 1995.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 2 February 1995 the applicant had lodged an application against the administration's failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde) with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs-gerichtshof), as the Regional Government had not decided on his appeal of 9 June 1994 within the statutory six-month time-limit. On 18 May 1995 the Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings for failure to decide, as the Regional Government had already issued its decision on 29 December 1994 but ordered the Regional Government to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.\n14.  On 29 March 1995 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) against the Regional Government's decision of 29 December 1994. He complained that the building prohibition and consequently the refusal of the planning permission were unlawful.\n15.  On 25 September 1995 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint for lack of prospects of success. Subsequently, the applicant requested the case to be transferred to the Administrative Court.\n16. On 19 December 1995 the Administrative Court ordered the applicant to supplement his complaint. On 9 February 1996 he complied with this order, and on 3 May 1996 the Regional Government submitted its observations.\n17.  On 29 August 1996 the Administrative Court allowed the complaint and quashed the Regional Government's decision. It found that there was no indication that the applicant's project interfered with the objective of the intended re-allocation proceedings for which reason the refusal of the planning permission was unlawful.\n18.  On 15 January 1997 the Regional Government remitted the case to the District Authority.\n19.  In January 1997 the Weiler Municipality opened the re-allocation proceedings and the District Authority asked the applicant to comment thereupon, as a planning permission could only be issued under the Vorarlberg Regional Planning Act (Raumplanungsgesetz) if the project did not interfere with the objective of the re-allocation proceedings and if the Re", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-666", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Athens.\n9.  On 25 April 1987 she got married and on 23 January 1988 gave birth to a daughter.\n10.  On 19 November 1996 the applicant left the matrimonial home and went to England, leaving her daughter with her husband.\n11.  On 6 February 1997 the applicant's husband lodged an interlocutory application with the Athens Court of First Instance for an interim-custody order. On 1 March 1997 the applicant filed a cross-application for interim custody.\n12.  On 2 May 1997 the Court of First Instance made an interim order granting custody of the child to the father (judgment no. 11208/1997).\n13.  On 12 January 1998 it made a final order granting the father custody (judgment no. 1/1998). An appeal by the applicant against that judgment was dismissed by the Athens Court of Appeal on 29 February 2000 (judgment no. 1559/2000). The applicant did not appeal on points of law against that judgment.\n14.  In the meantime, on 9 and 23 May 1997 the applicant and her ex-husband each applied to the Athens Court of First Instance for interim orders concerning access. The hearing of the applicant's application, which was initially scheduled for 28 May 1997, was adjourned to 9 July 1997 so that it could be examined with the father's application.\n15.  On 6 June 1997 the applicant made a further application, seeking an order requiring her ex-husband to bring the child to her house. On the same day the judge issued an order granting the applicant interim access every Saturday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. On Saturday 7 June 1997 the applicant's former husband failed to comply with that order. On 9 June 1997 he asked the court to set aside the judge's interim order, which it did on 10 June 1997 (judgment no. 15142/1997).\n16.  In a medical report dated 26 June 1997, three psychologists who had examined the child and her father but not the applicant stated that the child was suffering from “physical negligence and abandonment by her mother, a denial of love and affection, and indifference to her achievements and the activities she was involved in”. They concluded that keeping “a distance from her mother temporarily would contribute to suppressing the child's negative feelings”.\n17.  After the hearing on 9 July 1997, the Court of First Instance delivered its judgment on 30 July 1997. In particular, it held:\n“On 19 November 1996, after the breakdown of the marital relationship between the parties, [the applicant] left the matrimonial home...and settled temporarily in Bristol, England, without giving any sign of life until 17 December 1996. She did not contact her daughter, who was constantly in tears and desperate to find her mother, being unable to understand her long absence. When the child visited her mother on 17 December 1996 at the hotel where she was staying in Bristol, [the applicant] left her alone in the room and went away, leaving the child with feelings of intense fear and insecurity ...It should also be noted that in early May 1997 the applicant, who had already returned to Greece and was accompanied by her mother, visited her daughter's school in order to meet her teachers; when her daughter saw her in the playground she ran away terrified, calling out for her teachers to help her and protect her from her mother. On the other hand, the applicant has a university education, moral principles and a high standard of living; for the whole period when they lived together as a family until the moment she left the matrimoni", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-667", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Mödling (Austria).\n7.  As from 1977 the applicant was the director of the Central Mint Office (Hauptmünzamt). On 10 May 1988 the Federal Ministry of Finance (Bundesministerium für Finanzen) dismissed the applicant without notice (fristlose Entlassung) and ordered him to return to his former working place at the Ministry of Finance as a civil servant.\n8.  On 21 June 1988 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of Finance and the Münze Austria AG, the legal successor of the Central Mint Office which had to enter as a party into all work contracts of the latter.\n9.  On 3 September 1992 the Vienna Labour and Social Court (Arbeits- und Sozialgericht) partly allowed the applicant's claim. On 28 May 1993 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicant's appeal and allowed the defendants' appeal. On 10 December 1993 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant's further appeal. It considered that the applicant qualified as a favoured disabled person (begünstigter Behinderter) since 1 February 1988. Such employees may not be dismissed without the consent of the Federal Social Office. However, the Ministry of Finance had not requested such an authorisation.\n10.  Subsequently, the applicant instituted civil proceedings, claiming the remuneration resulting from these valid work contracts. However, these proceedings were suspended and finally not reopened due to the following administrative proceedings.\n11.  On 30 April 1994 the Ministry of Finance filed an application with the Disabled Persons Committee at the Federal Social Office (Behindertenausschuss beim Bundessozialamt) to grant a retroactive authorisation in respect of the applicant's dismissal as provided under the Disabled Persons Employment Act.\n12.  On 12 December 1994 the Federal Social Office, after having held a hearing on 31 May 1994, dismissed the Ministry of Finance's application. On 20 April 1995 the Appeals Commission at the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (Berufungskommission beim Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales) allowed the appeal and granted the retroactive authorisation for the applicant's dismissal. On 23 September 1996 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the applicant's complaint of 20 July 1995 for lack of prospects of success. On 21 September 1999 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. It considered that the authorisation for the applicant's dismissal given by the Appeals Commission was lawful.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-669", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in London.\n10.  The relevant facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The events described below took place between January 1998 and February 1999.\n11.  The applicant contacted the police after he was attacked by a young man with whom he had had homosexual relations. He was arrested for allegedly engaging in buggery with a young man aged 16 years of age contrary to section 12(1) and schedule 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The applicant underwent a medical examination with his consent during which samples were taken and his residence was searched by police. He was released on police bail the following day and was subsequently formally charged.\n12.  The applicant attended before the Magistrates' Court on four occasions and each time he was bailed to re-appear. During this period, the applicant wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and other government officials stating that the criminal proceedings against him violated his human rights, citing the case of Sutherland v. the United Kingdom (no. 25186/94, Commission's report of 1 July 1997, unpublished).\n13.  The applicant subsequently requested leave to apply for judicial review of the CPS decision to prosecute him but this application was refused. His renewed application was later rejected by the High Court. Following a hearing at the Magistrates' Court, the applicant was committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court. He appeared before the Central Criminal Court for a plea and directions hearing and for a hearing on various matters including his request for the trial to be postponed in order to allow him more time to prepare.\n 14.  The CPS later advised the applicant by letter that it had decided not to proceed with the case against him and that he should accordingly attend the Central Criminal Court on a particular date. On that date he was formally acquitted by that court. The trial judge asked the applicant if he would like to make a claim for costs but, following a brief discussion, the applicant decided not to make any claim on the grounds that, in his view, the CPS were “quibbling” over the amount to be awarded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-673", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Viareggio (in the province of Lucca). He is a judge.\n12.  At the time he lodged the application, he was acting president of the La Spezia District Court. On 23 November 1993, following an inquiry by the General Inspectorate for the Ministry of Justice, the Minister of Justice instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant on account of his membership of a Masonic lodge affiliated to the Grande Oriente d'Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani. The Minister accused him of having been a Freemason from 1981 until March 1993 and of having thereby breached Article 18 of Royal Legislative Decree no. 511 of 31 May 1946 (see paragraph 18 below).\n13.  In a decision of 10 October 1995, the disciplinary section of the National Council of the Judiciary (Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura) found that the applicant had committed the offences of which he was accused and gave him a reprimand (censura). It stated that from 1982 onwards it should have been possible to “have a clear idea of the loss of integrity resulting from membership of the Freemasons ... because of the degeneration brought about when a number of people came together within the P2 lodge with plans to take control of the public authorities and subvert democratic institutions, and because of the collusion of certain Masonic lodges with the Mafia and organised crime”. The disciplinary section added that the directives issued by the National Council of the Judiciary on 22 March 1990 and 14 July 1993 (see paragraphs 21 and 22 below), which emphasised – the second one in particular – the substantial conflict between membership of the Freemasons and membership of the judiciary, were to be seen in the context of such developments. The decision also stated that it was contrary to disciplinary rules for a judge to be a Freemason, for the following reasons: the incompatibility between the Masonic and judicial oaths, the hierarchical relationship between Freemasons, the “rejection” of State justice in favour of Masonic “justice” and, lastly, the indissoluble nature of the bond between Freemasons, even in the case of a member who wished to leave the organisation.\nThe disciplinary section of the National Council of the Judiciary stated, lastly, that the applicant's alleged ignorance of the institutional debate on Freemasonry merely served to confirm the existence of conduct punishable under Article 18 of the 1946 Legislative Decree. In its opinion, such conduct was characterised by a lack of diligence, caution and wisdom in dealing with a situation that posed a threat to the values protected by that Article.\n14.  On 5 January 1996 the applicant appealed on points of law to the Court of Cassation. In the three grounds of his appeal he alleged a breach of Article 18 of the Constitution, challenged the arguments used in support of the finding that judicial office was incompatible with membership of the Freemasons, and complained that no reasons had been given for the conclusion that a judge would be discredited by belonging to the Freemasons.\n15.  On 2 February 1996 the Ministry of Justice lodged a cross-appeal. The Court of Cassation, sitting as a full court, examined the case on 19 September 1996 and, in a judgment of 20 December 1996, dismissed the applicant's appeal.\nIt held, firstly, that the application of Article 18 of the Constitution was limited by the constitutional principles of the impartiality and independence of the judiciary, princip", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-675", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1942 and is at present living in Diyarbakır, Turkey. At the time of the events giving rise to his application, the applicant was living in the Çaylarbaşı (Dahlezeri in Kurdish) hamlet attached to Türeli village in the Lice district of the province of Diyarbakır. The application concerns the alleged unacknowledged detention and subsequent disappearance of the applicant's two sons, Servet and İkram İpek, in the course of an operation conducted by security forces in his village on 18 May 1994. It further pertains to the alleged destruction of his family home and property by the security forces during the same operation.\n11.  The facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicant's two sons and the alleged destruction of his family home and property are disputed between the parties.\n12.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section 1 below. The facts presented by the Government are contained in Section 2.\n13.  A summary of the documents submitted by the parties is to be found in Part B. The witness evidence taken by the Court's Delegates at hearings conducted in Ankara is summarised in Part C.\n14.  On 17 May 1994 the applicant and his son İkram İpek were tending their sheep away from the village of Türeli when soldiers approached them and asked them for identification. After being shown identification, the soldiers went on their way. The applicant's other son, Servet İpek, had good relations with soldiers from Lice and had even made tea for them on occasions.\n15.  On 18 May 1994 at about 10 a.m. the applicant, together with his son İkram İpek, was bringing his sheep back to their hamlet near Türeli village, when a group of about 100 soldiers in uniform raided the village. The soldiers left their vehicles outside the hamlet and entered it on foot. They were armed with G-3 rifles and other weapons. A military helicopter circled above the hamlet. The applicant has since learned that the soldiers were not from Lice, but from around Bolu. The Lice soldiers had told the applicant previously to be wary of the soldiers from Bolu.\n16.  The soldiers told the applicant and İkram İpek to gather with the other villagers, that is, men, women and boys –the young girls were told to remain in the hamlet – by the local school, which is located outside the hamlet. The houses in the hamlet cannot be seen from the school. One group of soldiers remained by the school; the other group went into the hamlet.\n17.  The applicant saw flames rising from the village and his hamlet, and the women and children began to weep. The soldiers who were with them threatened them, saying: “If you start crying, we will burn you just like your houses”. All the villagers then fell quiet.\n18.  Both the applicant's and his brother's houses were completely destroyed by fire. After most of the houses had been destroyed, the soldiers released the villagers. But they did not release the applicant's sons İkram İpek and Servet İpek, or Seyithan, Abdülkerim, Nuri and Sait Yolur. These men went with the soldiers in order to carry the latter's equipment to their vehicles.\n19.  When the applicant returned to the hamlet, he saw that the houses were in flames. The young girls told him and the other villagers that the soldiers had thrown some white powder into the houses and had set them alight. The fires were so far advanced that there was nothing the applicant could do.\n20.  Since a few of the houses had not caught fire, the applicant and the ot", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-676", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Bydgoszcz, Poland.\n5.  On 19 July 1966 the applicant and his wife obtained a divorce decree. On 5 November 1975 the applicant's ex-wife filed with the Bydgoszcz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition for division of the matrimonial property. On 16 October 1978 the Bydgoszcz District Court gave a decision. Both parties appealed. On 30 May 1979 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case. In 1982 the applicant's ex-wife donated her share in the disputed property to A.H. and E.H., who became parties to the proceedings.\n6.  On 2 December 1990 the applicant sent a letter to the Minister of Justice, complaining about the slow progress of the proceedings. On 15 February 1991, in reply to his complaints, the President of the Bydgoszcz Regional Court acknowledged that the proceedings were indeed lengthy. Prior to 1 May 1993, the Bydgoszcz District Court held a number of hearings and obtained several expert reports.\n7.  On 19 July 1993 the District Court held a hearing. On 5 January 1994 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge.\n8.  On 29 May 1995 the District Court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. On 23 October 1995 the expert informed the court that he had been unable to prepare a report due to the applicant's conduct.\n9.  On 6 September and 23 October 1995 the trial court held inspections of the site.\n10.  On 2 October 1996 the Bydgoszcz District Court gave a decision. The court granted ownership of the entire property (plot of land and the house) to A.H. and E.H. The court also ordered them to pay off the applicant's share in the estate.\n11.  On 5 June 1997, on the applicant's appeal, the Bydgoszcz Regional Court partly amended the first-instance decision. On 19 September 1997 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal.\n12.  On 4 February 1998 A.H. and E.H. sold their share in the property to a certain J.S. On 28 April 1999 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) quashed the decision of 5 June 1997 and remitted the case to the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n13.  On 27 January 2000 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court gave a decision and remitted the case to the District Court.\n14.  On 20 December 2000 the Bydgoszcz District Court issued an interim order allowing the applicant to install central heating in his part of the house. On 25 June 2001, upon an appeal by J.S., the Bydgoszcz Regional Court quashed this decision.\n15.  On 21 January 2001 the District Court held a hearing.\n16.  The proceedings are pending before the Bydgoszcz District Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-678", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Nottingham, England.\n7.  In 1998 the applicant's local council received complaints about the behaviour of the applicant, and that of her children, from her neighbours, the Davies'.\n8.  Following the institution of proceedings against the applicant by the local council for the possession of her home in July 1999 as a result of an alleged assault by her upon Mrs Davies, the applicant agreed to be bound by an undertaking, until 17 April 2000, that she would not harass or cause a nuisance to anyone in her road.\n9.  The Davies' made further allegations about the behaviour of the applicant and her family between 9 November 1999 and 18 April 2000, including assertions that eggs had been thrown at their property, excrement had been placed on the door handle of their front door and bleach had been poured into their letterbox.\n10.  On 18 April 2000 the local council attached a hidden video camera to the wall to the right of the Davies' front door, which pointed towards the front door of the applicant's home and monitored the space directly in front of her home.\n11.  In May 2000 the applicant first became aware of the presence, and location, of the video camera. The local council issued further proceedings against the applicant seeking possession of her home on the grounds, inter alia, that she had broken an obligation of her tenancy and/or was causing a nuisance. The applicant either denied or did not admit the incidents alleged against her.\n12.  On 31 May 2000 the applicant gave an undertaking to the court promising not to assault or cause a nuisance to the Davies', and neither to trespass upon their land, nor to permit her children and/or visitors to her home to do so. As a result of the applicant complying with that undertaking, the possession proceedings were adjourned generally in or after September 2000. No possession of the applicant's home ever, in fact, took place.\n13.  By letter of 4 September 2000 the local council confirmed to the applicant that no further covert surveillance would be undertaken on her property and that the tapes of the surveillance undertaken to date had already been destroyed and disposed of. No surveillance took place thereafter.\n14.  No video surveillance was ever directed at the Davies' home.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-679", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Bregenz. She complains about six sets of administrative criminal proceedings against her.\n5.  On 12 July 1994 the Bregenz District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) issued a penal order against the applicant for prostitution contrary to sections 4 and 18 of the Vorarlberg Morals Act (Sittenpolizeigesetz) and sentenced her to twenty days' imprisonment. In addition, it imposed a fine of ATS 10,000.\n6.  On 21 November 1994 the District Authority issued another penal order against the applicant for having committed such offences on another occasion and sentenced her to thirty days' imprisonment. In addition, it imposed a fine of ATS 20,000.\n7.  The applicant appealed against the decisions. Subsequently, the proceedings were joined.\n8.  On 4 October 1995, after having held an oral hearing, the Vorarlberg Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) upheld both penal orders but reduced the prison sentence of the one dated 21 November 1994 to twenty days.\n9.  On 19 June 1996 the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) refused to deal with the applicant's complaint for lack of prospects of success. Upon the applicant's request of 23 July 1996, it referred the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) by decision of 24 July 1996.\n10.  On 23 September 1996, upon the Administrative Court's request, the applicant filed supplementary submissions. Subsequently, on 31 October 1996 the Administrative Court refused the applicant's request that her complaint be given suspensive effect.\n11.  On 27 November 1996 the Independent Administrative Panel submitted its comments on the applicant's appeal.\n12.  On 3 July 2000 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal as being unfounded. The decision was served on 19 July 2000.\n13.  On 27 October 1993 the Bregenz District Administrative Authority issued a penal order against the applicant for prostitution contrary to sections 4 and 18 of the Vorarlberg Morals Act and sentenced her to twenty days' imprisonment. In addition it imposed a fine of ATS 10,000.\n14.  On 1 February 1994 the District Authority issued another penal order against her for having committed such offences, sentencing her to twenty days' imprisonment. In addition it imposed a fine of ATS 10,000.\n15.  The applicant appealed against both decisions.\n16.  After having held an oral hearing in each case, the Vorarlberg Independent Administrative Panel, on 17 January and 21 March 1994, respectively, confirmed the decisions.\n17.  On 9 March and 3 August 1994, respectively, the applicant lodged complaints against both decisions with the Constitutional Court.\n18.  On 6 March 1995 the Constitutional Court, in joined proceedings, refused to deal with the applicant's complaint for lack of prospects of success. Upon the applicant's request of 1 June 1995, it referred the case to the Administrative Court by decision of 3 July 1995.\n19.  On 27 November 1995 the Administrative Court quashed both decisions and referred the matter to the Independent Administrative Panel. It found that, when fixing the sentence, the authority had failed duly to establish the aggravating circumstances it had taken into account.\n20.  On 30 April 1996 the Independent Administrative Panel upheld the penal orders, but reduced the prison sentences to eighteen days' each and lifted the fines. On 2 October 1996 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Constitutional Court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-680", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Komárno.\n9.  The applicant lodged a claim under the Land Ownership Act no. 229/1991 Coll. (Zákon o úprave vlastníckych vzťahov k pôde a inému poľnohospodárskemu majetku – “Act 229/91”) for the restitution of an ownership interest of 1/6 in an undivided plot of agricultural land which had belonged to her family before it was taken away during the communist regime.\n10.  On 15 September 1992 the applicant and the agricultural co‑operative that was using the plot concluded a restitution agreement (dohoda o vydaní) concerning the modalities of the ownership interest transfer to her.\n11.  On 19 October 1992 the Komárno Land Office (Okresný úrad, odbor pozemkový, poľnohospodárstva a lesného hospodárstva) approved the restitution agreement in accordance with Act 229/91.\n12.  On 22 November 1992 the Land Office informed the applicant that a third person (G.N.) had filed an appeal with the Ministry of Agriculture (Ministerstvo pôdohospodárstva) against the approval of 19 October 1992. G.N. was an heir of a person to whom the plot was assigned (prídelový vlastník – “the assigned owner”) by the State after it had been taken away from the applicant’s family. In her appeal, she claimed ownership of the plot. On 2 December 1992 the applicant submitted her observations in reply to the appeal.\n13.  On 22 December 1992 G.N. died.\n14.  On 21 October 1993 the Ministry annulled the approval of the Land Office of 19 October 1992.\n15.  On 3 November 1994 the Land Office ordered the accelerated consolidation of the plot in accordance with the Act on Land Consolidation no. 330/1991 Coll. (Zákon o pozemkových úpravách, usporiadaní pozemkového vlastníctva, pozemkových úradoch, pozemkovom fonde a o pozemkových spoločenstvách – “Act 330/91”). Pursuant to Section 15 § 2 of the Act, the accelerated land consolidation was ordered for an interim period, namely until the completion of the ongoing general land consolidation proceedings in the area concerned or, alternatively, until the co-operative was dissolved without a legal successor; whichever would occur earlier.\n16.  On 1 December 1995 the applicant requested that the Land Office should deal with her case expeditiously.\n17.  On 6 December 1995 the co‑operative rescinded the restitution agreement of 15 September 1992.\n18.  On 12 April 1996 the Land Office requested G.N.’s heir, P.N., to submit a decision on her estate.\n19.  On 27 September 1996, on a motion of the co‑operative, the Komárno District Prosecutor asked the Land Office to submit to him the case‑file concerning the applicant’s case. In his decision of 31 October 1996, the Prosecutor found that there had been undue delays in the proceedings in that the Land Office had failed to rule on the restitution agreement within the prescribed time‑limit and that since 4 November 1993 it had failed to take any procedural steps. The Prosecutor instructed the Land Office to deal with the case without undue delays.\n20.  In its decision of 25 November 1996 the Land Office withheld its approval of the restitution agreement of 15 September 1992.\n21.  On 23 December 1996 the applicant petitioned for a judicial review of this decision. On 27 December 1996 she supplemented her petition.\n22.  On 3 September 1997 a notary public determined G.N.’s estate.\n23.  On 30 November 1998 the Nitra Regional Court (Krajský súd) upheld the decision of the Land Office of 25 November 1996. As a result, under Act 229/91, it became incumbent upo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-681", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Pobiedziska, Poland.\n9.  On 11 October 1978 the applicant and the Pobiedziska Municipal Cooperative, “Samopomoc Chłopska”, entered into a contract under which the cooperative was to install central heating, electrical, water and sewage systems in the applicant’s house. Under the terms of the contract, the contractor was to complete these works by 30 May 1979, but it failed to meet that deadline.\nThe applicant on two occasions sued the cooperative seeking payment of damages for the defects in the works carried out under the contract. The proceedings were terminated on 1 June 1993 and 5 December 1994, respectively.\n10.  On 4 November 1995 the applicant, for the third time, sued the cooperative in the Gniezno District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) seeking 10,000 PLN in damages. The applicant asked the court to exempt him from the court fees and grant him legal assistance. On 24 November 1995 he asked the court to order the defendant to secure the claim by an unspecified guarantee.\n11.  On 13 December 1995 the Gniezno District Court refused to exempt the applicant from the court fees. On 29 January 1996, on the applicant’s further appeal, the Gniezno District Court exempted him from the court fees and appointed a legal aid counsel for him.\n12.  On 1 April 1996 the Gniezno District Court dismissed the applicant’s motion to secure the claim, as he had failed to submit the required information (numbers of land and mortgage registers).\n13.  At the hearing on 18 July 1996 the court obliged the applicant’s lawyer to specify within a time-limit of 20 days the damages sought on pain of staying the proceedings. As the applicant’s lawyer failed to comply with this order, the court stayed the proceedings on 12 August 1996. The applicant appealed. On 15 November 1996 the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the decision of 12 August 1996 and resumed the proceedings.\n14.  Subsequently, the applicant submitted the required information. On 28 April 1997 the Gniezno District Court secured the applicant’s claim. On 22 September 1997, upon the defendant’s further appeal, the Poznań Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the case. On 18 December 1997 the Gniezno District Court dismissed the applicant’s motion to secure the claim.\n15.  On 19 December 1997 the applicant increased the amount of damages claimed (to 100,000 PLN). Consequently, the Gniezno District Court no longer had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the case was referred to the Poznań Regional Court.\n16.  On 29 January 1998 the Minister of Justice informed the applicant that the proceedings would be supervised by the President of the Poznań Regional Court.\n17.  On 2 September 1998 the applicant lodged a further application for his claim to be secured. On 3 September 1998 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed his application and stayed the proceedings. The applicant appealed on 14 September 1998. On 13 November 1998 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. On 29 December 1998, the applicant again asked the court to secure the claim. On 22 January 1999 the Regional Court dismissed his appeal on the ground that the applicant had not yet substantiated his claim.\n18.  On 5 March 1999 the trial court resumed the proceedings. Subsequently, on 2 April 1999 the applicant was exempted from court fees. On 10 May 1999 he was granted legal aid.\n19.  In his letter of 28 May 2003 the applicant informed the Court that the proceedings were s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-682", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Split, Croatia.\n8.  The applicant and her husband were holders of a specially protected tenancy on a flat in Split where they lived. On 23 December 1993 they divorced and the husband left.\n9.  On 5 February 1994 I.Š. threw the applicant out of the flat and moved in.\n10.  On 9 February 1994 the applicant filed an action against I.Š. for disturbance of her possessions with the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu).\n11.  In separate proceedings before the same court, on 7 March 1994, the applicant obtained a judgment declaring her the sole holder of the specially protected tenancy on the flat.\n12.  In the proceedings against I.Š. on 11 November 1994 the applicant's claim was granted and the court ordered I.Š. to vacate the flat within eight days from the date when the decision became final. It was established that I.Š. had forcefully broken into the applicant's flat and had been living there without any legal ground. The decision became final on 27 February 1995.\n13.  Given that I.Š. did not comply with the court's order to vacate the flat, on 1 March 1995 the applicant applied for the execution of the decision to the Split Municipal Court. The execution order was issued on 8 March 1995.\n14.  On 10 August 1995 the Split Municipal Court invited the applicant to pay an advance for the costs of eviction. On 31 August 1995 the applicant informed the court that she had paid the costs.\n15.  The court ordered the eviction for 26 November 1996. However, on that date the execution officer of the court established that the family B.B. occupied the flat.\n16.  On 29 November 1996 the applicant again asked the court to enforce the eviction order. The court scheduled eviction for 15 October 1997. However, the eviction was adjourned because the applicant did not appear.\n17.  On 30 November 1998 the applicant again asked the court to enforce the eviction order.\n18.  On 5 February 1999 the court invited the applicant to pay an advance for the costs of eviction.\n19.  On 1 February 2000 the applicant bought the flat and became its owner.\n20.  On 2 March 2000 the applicant informed the court that she had paid the costs.\n21.  On 16 May 2000 the applicant asked the court to speed up the proceedings.\n22.  The court scheduled eviction for 23 October 2000.\n23.  However, on 21 September and 8 October 2000, respectively the Association of the Homeland War Invalids (Hrvatska udruga vojnih invalida domovinskog rata) and the Ministry of the Homeland War Veterans (Ministarstvo hrvatskih branitelja Domovinskog rata) asked the court to adjourn the eviction.\n24.  When on 23 October 2000 an eviction officer of the Split Municipal Court attempted to carry out the eviction order he found a number of war veterans obstructing his attempt. Despite the presence of the police the eviction order was not carried out.\n25.  On 8 May 2001 the court invited the applicant to once more pay an advance for the costs for eviction.\n26.  On 18 May 2001 the applicant informed the court that she had paid the costs.\n27.  The next attempt to carry out the eviction order was scheduled for 8 June 2001, but it failed because a physician invited to assist did not appear.\n28.  On 26 October 2001 the court scheduled the date for eviction for 20 November 2001. However, the parties agreed that the family B.B. vacate the premises before 20 March 2002.\n29.  On 21 March 2002 the family B.B. left the flat and the applicant moved in.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-683", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Krostitz, Germany.\n9.  He is the father of the child Christofer, born out of wedlock on 25 August 1999 in Leipzig.\n10.  The applicant met the child's mother, (Ms M.) in 1997. In 1998, they planned to get married, but Ms M. cancelled the wedding. Nevertheless, their relationship continued until the beginning of 1999. The applicant found out about Ms M.'s pregnancy in May 1999. According to the applicant, he and Ms M. agreed at that time that the applicant would take care of the child. Subsequently, the applicant inquired after Ms M. and her unborn child on a weekly basis, but was not able to contact her as from July 1999.\n11.  Directly after birth on 25 August 1999, Ms M. gave Christofer for adoption. The Wittenberg Youth Office (Jugendamt), as Christofer's curator (Amtsvormund), immediately informed Mr and Ms B., who were registered as prospective adoptive parents and who had previously adopted a child, that Christofer had been given for adoption. They fetched Christofer from hospital four days later and took him home.\n12.  In October 1999 the applicant heard about Christofer's birth and Ms M.'s giving the child for adoption. In November 1999, he went to the Leipzig Youth Office with the intention of adopting Christofer himself. Since Ms M. had not given any details regarding the paternity, the Youth Office refused to give the applicant any information regarding Christofer.\n13.  On 30 November 1999 Ms M. accompanied the applicant to the Youth Office and confirmed that he was Christofer's father, whereupon the applicant obtained his son's birth certificate.\n14.  On 12 January 2000 following an official acknowledgement of paternity and a request for custody rights on 10 January 2000, the applicant initiated paternity proceedings before the Wittenberg District Court.\n15.  On 20 June 2000 after the applicant had acknowledged paternity a second time on 2 May 2000 and submitted to a medical blood analysis, the Wittenberg District Court confirmed that he was Christofer's father.\n16.  Since December 1999 the applicant has been married under Islamic law to Ms C, a German national. He lives with his wife and one of her two children.\n17.  On 10 January 2000 the applicant requested the Wittenberg District Court to transfer custody of Christofer to him.\n18.  On 30 August 2000 the Wittenberg District Court appointed Ms F. as curator ad litem (Verfahrenspfleger) to represent Christofer's interests in the custody proceedings.\n19.  During a hearing held on 25 September 2000 the District Court decided that a meeting between the applicant and Ms C. and Mr and Ms B. should be arranged and that first contacts between the applicant and Christofer should be planned and implemented. On 13 October 2000 the applicant and Ms C. met Mr and Ms B. Up to December, four meetings took place between the applicant and his son in the presence of Christofer's foster parents. Since December 2000 no more meetings have taken place since Christofer was ill and his foster parents considered such meetings to be too much of a burden for a young child.\n20.  On 11 January 2001 the applicant lodged an application with the Wittenberg District Court in order to obtain access to his son. Ms F. was also appointed curator ad litem for the purposes of the access proceedings.\n21.  On 8 February 2001 the Wittenberg District Court, by way of an interim measure, ordered that the applicant should have access to Christofer on six consecutive Satur", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-684", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants  were born respectively in 1949, 1934, 1953 and live in Altopascio (Lucca), Lastra a Signa and Florence.\n5.  They are the owners of four flats in Florence.\n6.  On 10 January 2001, the whole property was transferred to the first applicant, Mr Enrico Fossi.\n \n1)  Proceedings against G.I.\n7.  In a registered letter of 29 April 1987, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 11 June 1987, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 14 July 1987, which was made enforceable on 4 January 1990, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 November 1990.\n10.  On 19 October 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 11 November 1993, they informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 December 1993.\n12.  Between 9 December 1993 and 16 November 1998, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  At the end of 1998, the applicants recovered possession of the flat. \n2)  Proceedings against G.C.\n14.  In a registered letter of 29 April 1987, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n15.  In a writ served on the tenant on 11 June 1987, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n16.  By a decision of 14 July 1987, which was made enforceable on 31 July 1991, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 May 1992.\n17.  On 19 October 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n18.  On 11 November 1993, they informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 December 1993.\n19.  Between 9 December 1993 and 17 March 1999, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n20.  On 1 August 2000, the applicants entered into a new lease with the tenant's wife.\n21.  On an unspecified date at the end of 2001, Mr Enrico Fossi recovered possession of the flat. \n3)  Proceedings against T.C.\n22.  In a registered letter of 29 April 1987, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n23.  In a writ served on the tenant on 11 June 1987, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n24.  By a decision of 14 July 1987, which was made enforceable on 31 July 1991, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 May 1992.\n25.  On 19 October 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n26.  On", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-685", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Suhopolje, Croatia.\n8.  On 1 July 1993 the applicant filed a civil action before the Virovitica Municipal Court (Opcinski sud u Virovitici) against the insurance company C. seeking compensation for injuries that he had sustained in a road accident. He claimed both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and asked for the compensation to include payment of a monthly sum.\n9.  Prior to 5 November 1997 when the Convention entered into force in respect of Croatia the Court of first instance held a number of hearings, ordered a medical report and on 22 February 1994 gave a partial judgment granting most of the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage.\n10.  The applicant's appeal was partially granted by the Bjelovar County Court (Zupanijski sud u Bjelovaru) which revised the first instance judgment on 5 May 1994.\n11.  The applicant then filed a request for revision and on 21 November 1996 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) increased the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n12.  On 21 April 1998 the Virovitica Municipal Court held a hearing, thus continuing the proceedings concerning the applicant's claim for a monthly sum. The applicant quantified his claim, seeking an amount of 450,00 Croatian Kunas (HRK) monthly from 10 August 1992 to 30 September 1993; HRK 600,00 from 1 October 1993 to 31 December 1994; HRK 800,00 from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1995; HRK 900,00 from 1 January 1996 to 28 February 1997 and HRK 825,00 from 1 March 1997 onwards.\n13.  At the hearing on 11 November 1998 the court heard the applicant so as to establish his income for the relevant periods, including the unemployment and sick leave benefits and his income during temporary employment. The Court asked one of the applicant's former employers and the Croatian Pension and Invalidity Fund for documentation concerning the applicant's income for January and March 1997.\n14.  At the hearing on 21 April 1999 it was established that the court had not received the requested documentation.\n15.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant's counsel submitted the requested documentation.\n16.  On 26 May 1999 the case was transferred to another judge because the previous judge had been temporarily transferred to another court.\n17.  At the hearing on 15 June 1999 the court again heard the applicant and partially granted the applicant's claim for a monthly sum.\n18.  The defendant appealed against the judgment and on 30 September 1999 the Bjelovar County Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for re-trial. It instructed the Virovitica Municipal Court to establish the exact amount of the monthly payments because it was not clear what income the applicant had received from different sources in the relevant periods.\n19.  At the hearing on 7 December 1999 the Virovitica Municipal Court asked the Employment Board (Hrvatski zavod za zaposljavanje) for documentation concerning the applicant's income during various periods.\n20.  The case was then transferred back to the previous judge who had returned to the Virovitica Municipal Court.\n21.  On an unspecified date the Employment Board submitted the requested documentation.\n22.  On 2 March 2000 the court asked the Pension Fund (Zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje) for documentation concerning the applicant's invalidity pension. It also asked the County Statistics Office (Zupanijski ured za statistiku) for the amount of an average salary in Croatia.\n23.  The relevant documentati", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-686", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Linz.\n5.  On 10 April 1986 the Linz Regional Court instituted preliminary investigations on the suspicion of murder against the applicant and remanded him in custody. On 31 March 1987 a Court of Assizes (Geschworenengericht) at the Linz Regional Court (Landesgericht) convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to eighteen years' imprisonment. On 15 September 1987 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) dismissed the applicant's plea of nullity and appeal against sentence.\n6.  On 6 September 1990 the applicant requested the re-opening of the criminal proceedings against him. On an unspecified date the Linz Regional Court dismissed this request. On 15 June 1992 the Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) granted the applicant's appeal and reopened the criminal proceedings against him. On 23 June 1992 the applicant was released. New preliminary investigations were instituted against him.\n7.  On 10 May 1993[1] the applicant instituted official liability proceedings (Amtshaftung) against the Republic of Austria. He claimed compensation for damages caused by his conviction, which had been annulled, and his detention which lasted approximately six years and two months. He further filed a request for legal aid.\n8.  On 6 June 1993 the case was transferred to the Steyr Regional Court. The Republic of Austria subsequently filed an appeal against the decision ordering the delegation. On 12 July 1993 the Republic of Austria withdrew their appeal.\n9.  On 19 August 1993 the Republic of Austria filed a statement of defence.\n10.  On 6 September 1993 the Presiding Judge (Vorsitzender) of the Steyr Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request for legal aid.\n11.  Upon the applicant's appeal, the Linz Court of Appeal quashed this decision.\n12.  On 12 October 1993 the Steyr Regional Court granted the applicant's request for legal aid.\n13.  In the meantime, on 27 September 1993, the Regional Court had rejected submissions filed by the applicant. The applicant's appeal was to no avail.\n14.  A hearing scheduled for 13 December 1993 had to be cancelled due to illness of the Presiding Judge.\n15.  On 15 March 1994 the Steyr Regional Court held a hearing and suspended the official liability proceedings, as the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending. The applicant appealed against this decision.  On 10 August 1994 the Court of Appeal dismissed this appeal.\n16.  On 29 August 1996 the Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charge of murder, but dismissed his application for compensation for detention (Haftentschädigung) under the Criminal Proceedings Compensation Act (Strafrechtliches Entschädigungsgesetz).\n17.  On 6 November 1996 the Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's appeal and stated that the applicant was entitled to a compensation under Section 2 § 1(b) and 1(c) of the Criminal Proceedings Compensation Act.\n18.  On 4 September 1996 the Steyr Regional Court decided to continue the official liability proceedings.\n19.  In the meantime, on 11 March 1996[2] the applicant instituted further official liability proceedings. On 28 June 1996 the Linz Court of Appeal transferred the case to the Steyr Regional Court. On 3 October 1996 the Supreme Court dismissed the Republic of Austria's appeal.\n20.  On 7 December 1996 the Steyr Regional Court decided to join the official liability proceedings.\n21.  On 11 March 1997 the Steyr Regional Court found that the competent presiding judge ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-687", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Zagreb.\n8.  The applicant lived with her parents in a flat in Zagreb. Her father had a protected tenancy of the flat. The flat was owned by the Ministry of Defence. In 1991 the parents left Croatia and the applicant stayed in the flat with her husband and children.\n9.  On 25 September 1995 S.Ž. broke into and occupied the flat.\n10.  On 4 October 1995 the applicant filed an action in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against S.Ž. for disturbance of her possession of the flat.\n11.  On 11 October 1997 the Zagreb Municipal Court allowed the applicant's claim and ordered S.Ž. to vacate the flat finding that he was living there without any legal ground.\n12.  Upon S.Ž.'s appeal the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) upheld the first instance decision on 26 January 1999.\n13.  On 6 April 1999 the applicant requested the Zagreb Municipal Court to issue an eviction order.\n14.  On 18 May 1999 the court requested the applicant to submit the decision on which she based her request together with a stamped endorsement certifying final adjudication (hereinafter “the endorsement”).\n15.  On 21 June 1999 the applicant's counsel informed the court that the presiding judge in the civil proceedings refused to endorse the decision and that he had asked the Zagreb Municipal Court's Enforcement Department to request the civil case-file from the Civil Department of the same court.\n16.  On 2 November 1999 the applicant's counsel asked the court to speed up the proceedings.\n17.  On 3 February 2000 the court issued the eviction order.\n18.  On 16 February 2000 the defendant filed an appeal against the eviction order with a request that the order should not be executed.\n19.  On 17 February 2000 the Ministry of Defence (Ministrastvo obrane Republike Hrvatske), as the third party in the proceedings, also appealed against the eviction order.\n20.  On 2 March 2000 the court invited the applicant's counsel to reply to the above appeals.\n21.  On 13 March 2000 the Ministry of the Homeland War Veterans (Ministarstvo hrvatskih branitelja Domovinskog rata) asked the court to postpone the eviction of the defendant until he had found alternative accommodation.\n22.  On 20 March 2000 the applicant's counsel filed his reply to the defendant's appeal.\n23.  On 19 May 2000 the court invited the applicant's counsel to reply to the third party's appeal. The court renewed its request on 28 June 2000.\n24.  On 29 June 2000 the applicant's counsel submitted a reply.\n25.  On 3 July 2000 the court rejected the request to postpone the eviction.\n26.  On 4 July 2000 the court instructed the third party to institute separate proceedings to have the eviction order cancelled.\n27.  On 18 July 2000 the applicant was granted a protected tenancy on the flat at issue by the Zagreb City Administration, Trnje Office (Gradska uprava Zagreb, Područni ured Trnje).\n28.  On 27 September 2000 the Ministry of Defence again asked the court to postpone the eviction because it had instituted proceedings for the cancellation of the eviction order.\n29.  On 28 September 2000 the Ministry of the Homeland War Veterans asked the court to postpone the eviction.\n30.  On 3 October 2000 S.Ž. asked the court to postpone the eviction alleging that both he and his wife were in bad health.\n31.  On 6 October 2000, when the execution officer of the court attempted to carry out the eviction order, S.Ž. asked that the eviction be postponed because of both hi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-688", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Ankara.\n9.  The applicant, a journalist, published an article entitled “State of Emergency and Provide Comfort Forces” (“OHAL ve Çekiç Güç”) in the 30 June 1995 issue of “Evrensel” (“Universal”), a daily newspaper published in Turkey.\n10.  On 30 June 1995, at the request of the public prosecutor, a single judge of the Istanbul State Security Court made an interim order for the seizure of copies of the issue of Evrensel newspaper published on 30 June 1995.\n11.  On 3 July 1995 the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court charged the applicant and the editor-in-chief of the newspaper with incitement to hatred and hostility by making distinctions on the basis of race and region under Article 312 §§ 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  On 23 September 1995 the applicant was released from prison after having served his sentence of one year and eight months’ imprisonment, stemming from another conviction by the Ankara State Security Court in connection with an earlier charge of incitement to hatred.\n13.  On 17 November 1995 the Ankara State Security Court commuted the applicant’s prison sentence to a fine in accordance with Law no. 4126, which came into force on 27 October 1995. The sentence was subsequently suspended.\n14.  On 15 May 1996 the Istanbul State Security Court, composed of three judges including a military judge, found the applicant guilty as charged. The court sentenced the applicant to one year and eight months’ imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 Turkish liras. The applicant was sentenced in absentia.\n15.  On 18 November 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court stating that the lower court should not have convicted the applicant without hearing his defence.\n16.  The case was remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court.\n17.  On 29 December 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant once again under Article 312 §§ 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code. It ruled that the impugned article, taken as a whole, amounted to incitement to hatred and hostility on the basis of distinctions between races and regions. The court sentenced the applicant under Article 312 §§ 2 and 3 of Criminal Code to one year and eight months’ imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 Turkish liras.\n18.  On 12 January 1998 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation.\n19.  On 16 March 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the Istanbul State Security Court’s judgment of 29 December 1997.\n20.  On 17 August 1998 the applicant lodged a petition with the Istanbul State Security Court. He requested that the period that he had been imprisoned due to his conviction by the Ankara State Security Court be deducted from the prison sentence ordered by the Istanbul State Security Court.\n21.  On 11 September 1998 the Istanbul State Security Court accepted the applicant’s request and, therefore, the applicant was not imprisoned.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-689", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, Mária Jablonská, is a Slovak national of Polish origin. She was born in 1921 in Warsaw and lives in Senec, Slovakia.\n8.  Before the Second World War the applicant’s parents had title to a house in Warsaw. By virtue of an edict of 26 October 1945, all land in Warsaw was nationalised and they were allocated a flat in Warsaw. Later, they requested the administrative authorities to grant them a right of perpetual lease (prawo wieczystej dzierżawy) of their house. On 10 July 1951 the Warsaw National Council (Rada Narodowa) refused their request. After the death of the applicant’s parents, she, being the sole heir to the property, sought restitution of, or compensation for, loss of property.\n9.  By a notarial deed of 4 December 1989 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Office (Urząd Dzielnicowy) granted a married couple, Mr S. and Mrs G.-S. the so-called “right of perpetual use” (prawo użytkowania wieczystego) of the property that had once belonged to the applicant’s parents. Mr S. and Mrs G.-S. claimed to have been legal successors of the applicant’s parents under a contract transferring title to the estate, a contract which had been allegedly concluded in 1967.\n10.  On 17 February 1992 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki) filed an action with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) against Mr S. and Mrs G.-S. and the Warsaw-Mokotów District Office, seeking to have the notarial deed of 4 December 1989 declared null and void.\n11.  By a notarial deed of 30 March 1992 Mr S. and Mrs G.-S. sold the property to a certain Ms J.P.\n12.  On 3 April 1992 the applicant filed an action with the Warsaw Regional Court against Mr S. and Mrs G.-S., seeking the annulment of the notarial deed of 4 December 1989.\n13.  On 23 June 1992 the court ordered that the action brought by the Regional Prosecutor and the one brought by the applicant be joined. On 7 May 1997 the proceedings were terminated by the judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal declaring the notarial deed of 4 December 1989 null and void.\n14.  On 5 November 1992 the applicant sued Ms J.P., Mr S. and Mrs G.‑S. before the Warsaw Regional Court. She asked that the notarial deed of 30 March 1992 concluded between Ms J.P. and two other defendants be declared null and void (see paragraph 11 above).\n15.  On 13 November 1992 the court exempted the applicant from court fees.\n16.  On 18 November 1992 the court secured the applicant’s claim and listed the first hearing for 18 January 1993.\n17.  On 13 May 1993 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings under Article 177 § 1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It considered that the determination of the case depended on the outcome of the proceedings brought against Mr S. and Mrs G.-S. (see paragraphs 10-13 above and paragraph 27 below).\n18.  On 19 September 1997 the applicant asked the trial court to resume the proceedings. On the same day she complained to the Minister of Justice about their excessive length.\n19.  The proceedings were resumed on 30 September 1997. \nA hearing listed for 5 February 1998 was, however, adjourned, as the defendants were not present. The court ordered them to present a justification for their absence. A further hearing, which was to be held on 2 June 1998, was adjourned at the request of the applicant’s lawyer. On the same day the court asked the Warsaw District Court to supply a file of a criminal case pending before that court and ordered the defendants to produce further documentary evidence.\n20.  On ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-690", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants, David (the first applicant) and Carol (the second applicant) Glass, are United Kingdom nationals. The first applicant, born in 1986, is a severely mentally and physically disabled child who requires twenty-four hour attention. The second applicant is his mother.\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  The first applicant had been particularly unwell since July 1998 when he was admitted to St Mary's Hospital, one of two hospitals belonging to the Portsmouth Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust (“the Trust”). He was operated on in order to alleviate an upper respiratory tract obstruction. The first applicant suffered post-operative complications, including infections, and had to be put on a ventilator since he had become critically ill.\n10.  During the period of the first applicant's treatment, discussions took place at the hospital between the second applicant and intensive-care staff and paediatricians. Among the views expressed was that, despite the best care, the first applicant was dying and that further intensive care would be inappropriate. The second applicant and other family members were not happy with this opinion, although a note drawn up on 30 July 1998 by Dr Smith mentioned that the family had appeared to accept the situation “without distress or significant surprise”. However, on 31 July 1998, following an “unconstructive and confrontational” meeting with family members, the hospital offered to arrange for an outside opinion on David's condition and the suitability of further active intensive-care therapy. This offer was made twice and on both occasions was refused. The Trust consulted its solicitors and advised the applicants to consult their solicitors.\n11.  However, the first applicant's condition improved and on 31 July 1998 he was able to be returned from intensive care to the paediatric ward. The applicants draw attention to the fact that the first applicant's notes on being discharged from intensive care made reference to a “demanding family”. They also observe that a note of Dr Wozniak drawn up on 3 August 1998 stated:\n“I think [the first applicant] would not survive this illness despite our efforts, but our efforts continue and we will continue his antibiotics, physio' and attempt to find feeds that he will tolerate ... We may need to consider measures to relieve distress e.g. hyoscine for the secretions, morphine and the risk of those measures and mum felt that this was not appropriate at present.”\n12.  The first applicant was eventually able to return home on 2 September 1998. However, he had to be readmitted to the hospital on several occasions thereafter on account of respiratory tract infections.\nOn one such occasion, on 8 September 1998, the doctors discussed with the second applicant the use of morphine to alleviate distress. The second applicant expressed her opposition to the use of morphine or other drugs to relieve distress. She told the doctors that in the event that the first applicant's heart stopped she would expect resuscitation, including intubation. Dr Walker considered that this would not be in the first applicant's best interests, and stated that if death were inevitable all that was on offer was “morphine and TLC [tender loving care]”. Dr Walker's case notes recorded that:\n“These replies [of the second applicant] are contrary to decisions particularly previously made and I do not believe that further intensive care i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-691", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Szabadbattyán, Hungary.\n9.  On 20 April 1995 the applicant was driving his car and had a collision with a bus. Some passengers suffered injuries. The Székesfehérvár Police inspected the scene of the accident. Subsequently the applicant’s blood alcohol level was tested.\n10.  On 6 May 1995 criminal investigations were instituted in which the applicant was accused of having negligently caused a traffic accident. On 12 May 1995 a motor-vehicle expert presented his opinion in the case.\n11.  On 22 December 1995 the Fejér County Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred charges. In view of the conclusions of a medical expert, on 29 May 1996 the Public Prosecutor’s Office completed the indictment charging the applicant with having caused permanent disability.\n12.  On 15 January 1997 the Székesfehérvár District Court held its first hearing. Subsequently experts were appointed, who presented their opinions on 30 June 1997.\n13.  A hearing scheduled for 15 April 1998 was adjourned on account of the applicant’s motion for bias, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 6 July 1998.\n14.  On 26 November 1998 the District Court held a hearing. On 10 December 1998 and 28 January 1999, respectively, the applicant and the Prosecutor’s Office proposed that an on-site experiment be carried out.\n15.  On 10 February 1999 the District Court adjourned the hearing scheduled for 25 February and ordered an expert institute to reconcile the earlier expert opinions. On 23 February 1999 the applicant submitted his further proposals concerning the taking of evidence.\n16.  A hearing scheduled for 20 May 1999 was adjourned on account of the applicant’s illness. On 26 July 1999 the expert institute presented its report.\n17.  On 24 November 1999 the District Court adjourned a hearing scheduled for 9 December 1999, since the applicant could not be summoned.\n18.  On 13 February 2000 the applicant submitted his further proposals concerning the taking of evidence and provided information on his new address. On 9 June 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s further motion for bias, introduced on 21 February 2000.\n19.  On 17 January 2001 the applicant proposed that the investigations be completed and an inspection of the accident scene be held.\n20.  A hearing scheduled for 25 January 2001 was adjourned on account of the applicant’s illness.\n21.  On 17 May 2001 a hearing took place. The District Court held that, on account of the lapse of time since the accident, the taking of evidence needed to be repeated completely. It decided not to make an on-site inspection until certain witnesses could be heard.\n22.  On 16 July 2001 an examination of the applicant’s fitness to drive was ordered. On 13 September 2001 a hearing at the scene of the accident was re-scheduled for 3 October 2001.\n23.  On 27 September 2001 the Fejér County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s further motion for bias.\n24.  On 3 October 2001 the District Court held a hearing and heard witnesses and experts. On the same day, the scene of the accident was also inspected.\n25.  The proceedings are still pending before the District Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-693", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants are a married Finnish couple, born in 1957 and 1955 respectively and resident in Helsinki. In 1987 they bought a real property from the owner of a neighbouring property, L., who had undertaken to tear down a lean-to which the latter had constructed partly on the land purchased by the applicants before splitting it up into a separate property. The applicants and L. allegedly reached a further agreement to the effect that the latter consented to the applicants’ construction of a car shelter which would be connected to a new sauna building which L. agreed to construct on his own property so as to replace the sauna in his lean-to.\n10.  On 26 January 1988 the Helsinki Building Inspection (rakennus-valvontavirasto, byggnadsinspektionen) granted permission to demolish the lean-to. Following that demolition, the Helsinki Building Board (rakennuslautakunta, byggnadsnämnden), on 23 February 1988, granted the applicants permission to construct a dwelling-house and a car shelter on their property. L. did not appeal but refused to demolish the whole of his lean-to and to construct the new sauna building to be connected to the applicants’ dwelling.\n11.  In August 1988 L. was prohibited from using his existing sauna as its chimney top was found to be partly under the roof level of the applicants’ car shelter. The applicants’ offer to have the chimney top extended was refused by L.\n12.  On 2 October 1990 representatives of the Building Board inspected the applicants’ car shelter and found that it complied with the building permit. L. lodged an objection with the Building Board against this finding.\n13.  In November 1990 L. brought a civil action against the applicants, demanding, inter alia, that they be ordered to tear down the car shelter which they had allegedly built in violation of the fire regulations. The Helsinki City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätten) held its first hearing in January 1991 but adjourned the case at L.’s request in anticipation of the Building Board’s forthcoming decision.\n14.  On 29 January 1991 the Building Board dismissed L.’s objection against the outcome of the inspection on 2 October 1990 and confirmed that the applicants had constructed their buildings in accordance with the permit delivered in 1988. The Board found that L. had contributed to the fact that he had been prohibited from using his sauna, having refused to carry out his own construction works as agreed with the applicants. Had he fulfilled his part of their joint agreement in accordance with the building permission granted to that effect, the roof of his and the applicants’ respective buildings would have been at the same height. The Board considered that the dispute between the parties was to be resolved by the civil courts.\n15.  L. appealed to the County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten) of Uusimaa, arguing that while he had consented to the applicants’ constructing up to the boundary line, he had not agreed to any construction on their part preventing him from using his existing sauna and requiring him to take construction measures of his own. Although he had informed the applicants that his consent did not cover those aspects, they had not informed the Building Board accordingly. As a result the building permit and the approval of the applicants’ construction works had been based on false premises.\n16.  In February 1991 the applicants filed a counter claim against L., demanding that he be ordered to carry out his part", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-694", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Rome.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to I.M.\n6.  In a registered letter of 30 April 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 6 October 1987, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 10 February 1988, which was made enforceable on 26 February 1988, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n9.  On 22 March 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 30 April 1991, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 14 June 1991.\n11.  On 14 May 1991, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n12.  Between 14 June 1991 and 21 September 1999, the bailiff made thirty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked the Rome District Court to set a new date for the enforcement of the order for possession. The date was set for 19 July 2000.\n14.  On 10 July 2001, the tenant spontaneously left the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-695", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant were respectively born in 1949, 1941, 1943, 1946 and 1956 and live in Rome.\n5.  They are the owners of a flat in Rome, which they had let to M.P., S.P. and L.P.\n6.  In a registered letter of 19 June 1991, the applicants informed the tenants that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenants on 5 July 1991, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 18 December 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 November 1992.\n9.  On 19 December 1992, the applicants served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 20 January 1993, they informed the tenants that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 March 1993.\n11.  Between 5 March 1993 and 2 February 2000, the bailiff made twenty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  In the meantime, on 6 October 1998, one of the applicants, P.C., had made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son.\n13.  On 3 February 2000, the tenants left spontaneously the premises and the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-696", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Livorno.\n5.  Her grandmother was the owner of a flat in Livorno, which she had let to I.B.C.\n6.  In a registered letter of 6 May 1987, the applicant's grandmother informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 1 January 1988 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n7.  The tenant told the applicant's grandmother that she would not leave the premises and she fell in rent arrears.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 11 July 1989, the applicant's grandmother reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 31 July 1989, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 1 January 1991.\n10.  On 9 August 1991, the applicant's grandmother died and the applicant inherited the apartment.\n11.  On 6 November 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 22 January 1992, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 February 1992.\n13.  On 12 November 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n14.  Between 19 February 1992 and 3 October 2000, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  In the meanwhile, on 10 July 1997, the applicant made a second statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n16.  On an unspecified date of June 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-697", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Rome.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to C.D.C.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 7 January 1992, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 14 April 1992, which was made enforceable on 24 June 1992, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1995.\n8.  On 25 July 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 4 September 1995 he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 October 1995.\n10.  On 13 October 1996, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his spouse.\n11.  Between 5 October 1995 and 21 July 2000, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  On 20 October 2000 the tenant left the premises spontaneously and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-698", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Naples.\n5.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Naples, which he had let to M. D'A.\n6.  In a registered letter of 12 April 1984, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and asked her to vacate the premises.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 28 April 1984, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 16 July 1984, which was made enforceable on 17 October 1984, the Naples Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1986.\n9.  The tenant objected to the Naples Magistrate decision and informed the applicant that she would not leave the premises.\n10.  On 16 July 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 17 September 1990, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 4 October 1990.\n12.  Between 4 October 1990 and 25 November 1991, the bailiff made three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 13 November 1992, the applicant served a second notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 24 December 1992, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 January 1993.\n15.  Between 8 January 1993 and 16 September 1993, the bailiff made two unsuccessful attempts to recover possession.\n16.  On 16 September 1993 the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings.\n17.  On 16 July 1996, the applicant served a third notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n18.  On 2 October 1996, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 October 1996.\n19.  Between 10 October 1996 and 4 December 1998, the bailiff made eight unsuccessful attempts to recover possession.\n20.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings. The Naples Court of Appeal decided to suspend it until 15 October 1999.\n21.  On 9 November 1999, the applicant informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 November 1999.\n22.  Between 19 November 1999 and 10 March 2000, the bailiff made four unsuccessful attempts to recover possession.\n23.  On 28 February 2002, the applicant served a fourth notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n24.  On 17 April 2002, the applicant informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 May 2002.\n25.  On 2 May 2002, pursuant to section 80 of Law no. 388/00, the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings.\n26.  On 20 June 2002, the law-decree no. 122 postponed the enforcement of the eviction proceedings until 30 June 2003.\n27.  According to the last information submitted by the applicant on 12 September 2003, he had not yet recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-699", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1945. He is currently in prison.\n8.  In 1973 the applicant was convicted of the murder of his wife and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. He was released in 1984.\n9.  On 8 December 1989 the applicant was convicted of the murder of his second wife, committed in a cruel manner, the case having been qualified as a “dangerous recidivism” within the meaning of Article 116 § 11 of the Penal Code. The applicant was sentenced to the death penalty. By judgment of 28 July 1990 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's ensuing appeal and upheld the death sentence.\n10.  On 20 July 1992 the applicant filed a petition for review to a five-member chamber of the Supreme Court. Following a hearing on 23 November 1992, the petition was refused on 11 January 1993.\n11.  Article 375 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as in force at the time, provided that no execution could be carried out prior to the President's decision whether or not to exercise his power of pardon.\n12.  The last executions of persons sentenced to the capital punishment were carried out in Bulgaria in November 1989.\n13.  Following a period of a de facto moratorium on executions, on 20 July 1990 the Parliament adopted a decision “on deferral of the execution of death sentences” which read:\n“The execution of death sentences which have entered into force shall be deferred until the resolution of the question regarding the application of the capital punishment in Bulgaria.”\n14.  Since the capital punishment remained in the Penal Code, the courts continued sentencing convicted persons to death or - as in the applicant's case - upholding on appeal death sentences delivered before 20 July 1990.\n15.  Although no explicit undertaking by Bulgaria to abolish the death penalty was made at the moment of Bulgaria's accession to the Council of Europe on 7 May 1992, such a requirement was regarded as implied in the general undertaking to comply with Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe (see the reports of the Parliamentary Assembly's commission on Bulgaria's compliance with its obligations and undertakings (report of 2 September 1998, Doc. 8180, §§ 5 and 125‑29 (urging the abolition as an implied obligation), and report of 17 January 2000, Doc. 8616, § 110 (noting with satisfaction the abolition of the death penalty)).\n16.  On 8 March 1993 the President of the Supreme Court submitted the applicant's case to the President of the Republic for a decision whether or not to pardon him. In the accompanying letter the President of the Supreme Court expressed his opinion that the applicant should be pardoned and his death sentence replaced by a term of imprisonment. He argued that due consideration should be given to the fact that the applicant was a person of limited self-control abilities and had acted under distress when murdering his wife. The President of the Republic did not make a decision, leaving the question of pardon pending.\n17.  In 1997 the applicant wrote to the President of the Republic requesting to be pardoned and to the prosecution authorities seeking reopening of the criminal case. He stated, inter alia, that his continued detention under threat of execution was inhuman and degrading and violated the Convention.\n18.  On 10 December 1998 Parliament abolished the death penalty replacing it by life imprisonment without parole eligibility.\n19.  By decision of 25 January 1999 the applicant's death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment witho", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-700", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1957. He is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility.\n9.  On 9 May 1990 the applicant, who had three previous convictions and prison sentences, was convicted of the murder on 17 July 1989 of three children, aged 8, 10 and 12, attempted rape of one of them, attempted rape of a woman in 1984 and attempted illegal crossing of the State border in August 1989. The court imposed the capital punishment.\n10.  The applicant's conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal on 24 October 1990 by the Supreme Court.\n11.  On 8 April 1994 a five-member chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's ensuing petition for review (cassation).\n12.  Article 375 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as in force at the time, provided that no execution could be carried out prior to the President's decision whether or not to exercise his power of pardon.\n13.  The last executions of persons sentenced to the capital punishment were carried out in Bulgaria in November 1989.\n14.  Following a period of a de facto moratorium on executions, on 20 July 1990 the Parliament adopted a decision “on deferral of the execution of death sentences” which read:\n“The execution of death sentences which have entered into force shall be deferred until the resolution of the question regarding the application of the capital punishment in Bulgaria.”\n15.  Since the capital punishment remained in the Penal Code, the courts continued sentencing convicted persons to death or - as in the applicant's case - upholding on appeal death sentences delivered before 20 July 1990.\n16.  Although no explicit undertaking by Bulgaria to abolish the death penalty was made at the moment of Bulgaria's accession to the Council of Europe on 7 May 1992, such a requirement was regarded as implied in the general undertaking to comply with Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe (see the reports of the Parliamentary Assembly's commission on Bulgaria's compliance with its obligations and undertakings (report of 2 September 1998, Doc. 8180, §§ 5 and 125‑29 (urging the abolition as an implied obligation), and report of 17 January 2000, Doc. 8616, § 110 (noting with satisfaction the abolition of the death penalty)).\n17.  On 10 December 1998 Parliament abolished the death penalty replacing it by life imprisonment without parole eligibility.\n18.  By decision of 25 January 1999 the applicant's death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment without parole eligibility.\n19.  On 29 September 1999 Bulgaria ratified Protocol No. 6 to the Convention.\n20.  The death penalty was an issue often debated between 1990 and 1998. A number of members of Parliament expressed views in support of reintroducing executions whereas others sought the abolition of the death penalty. The media periodically discussed the topic. It was widely known that the abolition of the death penalty was urged by the Council of Europe and other international organisations and was a step towards Bulgaria's European integration.\n21.  During the relevant period the Penal Code was amended several times. Some amendments expanded the scope of the death penalty. At the same time, work started on a draft Penal Code which excluded the death penalty. In 1995 an amendment to the Penal Code introduced for the first time life imprisonment.\n22.  The following attempts to reintroduce executions were made by supporters of the death penalty:\n23.  On 27 May 1992 the Chair of the Parliamentary", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-701", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Florence.\n6.  He is the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to A.B.\n7.  In a registered letter of 10 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n8.  The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 22 December 1983, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 16 January 1984, which was made enforceable on 19 June 1984, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1984.\n11.  On 17 September 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 23 October 1987, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 December 1987.\n13.  Between 15 December 1987 and 15 March 1999, the bailiff made thirty-two attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 10 September 1999.\n15.  On 26 March 2001, the tenant agreed to leave the premises on 31 December 2002.\n16.  On 31 December 2002, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-702", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.\n6.  In 1989 the applicant, a lorry driver, was involved in a traffic accident. As a result of that accident he sustained serious head injuries. Subsequently, he was granted a disability pension.\n7.  In 1991 a criminal court acquitted the applicant of breaching traffic regulations and established that the accident had been caused by a defective road surface.\n8.  On 15 May 1992 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an action for damages against the State Treasury – the Kielce Regional Directorate of State Roads (Dyrekcja Okręgowa Dróg Publicznych) and the State Insurance Company (PZU S.A).\n9.  On 29 September 1992 the court decided to transfer the case to the Kielce Regional Court. On 30 October 1992, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the decision of 29 September 1992.\n10.  A hearing listed for 16 April 1993 was adjourned.\n11.  A hearing scheduled for 18 June 1993 was adjourned at the request of the defendants.\n12.  Subsequently, on 28 September 1993 the court held a hearing at which it heard the applicant.\n13.  On 23 November 1993 the Busko-Zdrój District Court, at the trial court’s request, heard certain witnesses.\n14.  On 11 February 1994 the trial court held a hearing at which the parties applied to adduce new evidence. Upon the defendants’ application the court adjourned the hearing sine die.\n15.  On 14 February 1995 the court ordered an expert opinion. In June 1995 the opinion was submitted to the court.\n16.  Between 12 February 1994 and 4 February 1996 no hearings were held.\n17.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 5 February 1996, 13 May 1997 and 5 January 1998 at which the court heard expert witnesses and ordered new expert opinions.\n18.  At the hearing held on 3 April 1998 the court joined as co-defendant a certain road works company.\n19.  On 8 June, 10 September and 15 December 1998 the court held hearings. All of them were adjourned at the request of the defendants or because of the absence of witnesses.\n20.  On 14 January 1999, at the trial court’s request, the Kielce District Court heard a witness.\n21.  Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on 8 February and 1 April 1999.\n22.  On 23 September 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. It awarded the applicant non-pecuniary damages and a monthly allowance to be paid by the State Treasury – the Regional Directorate of State Roads. The court dismissed the applicant’s claims in respect of two other co-defendants.\n23.  On 3 March 2000 the State Treasury lodged an appeal against the judgment.\n24.  On 31 July 2000 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the impugned judgment in respect of the monthly allowance awarded to the applicant and remitted it to the first-instance court. It upheld the remaining part of the judgment.\n25.  In February and March 2001 the applicant applied to adduce new evidence and asked the court to speed up the proceedings.\n26.  The trial court held the first hearing on 20 September 2001.\n27.  In 2002 the court held four hearings.\n28.  On 19 January 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing and on 22 February 2004 it gave a partial judgment (wyrok częściowy). The proceedings in respect of the remainder of the claim are pending before the Warsaw Regional Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-703", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1951 and, at the time of lodging her application, lived in Nizip, Gaziantep, Turkey. She now lives in Paris, having apparently been granted asylum in France. The applicant stated that she made the application not only on her own behalf but also on behalf of her daughter and deceased husband. The case concerns the applicant’s allegations that her husband, Mehmet Şen, was abducted, tortured and killed by members of the security forces.\n9.  The facts surrounding the death of Mehmet Şen, are in dispute between the parties.\n10.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Part A below. The facts presented by the Government are contained in Part B. The witness evidence taken by Delegates of the Commission at a hearing in Ankara is summarised in Part C. The summary of the other evidence submitted by the parties, in documentary form, which the Court considers relevant is to be found in Part D.\n11.  The applicant’s husband, Mehmet Şen, was a Turkish national of Kurdish origin. He was an active member of the Democracy Party (the “DEP” Party) in Turkey until it withdrew from local elections. He had been the Party’s candidate for the post of the Mayor of Ayran (Birecik, Şanlı Urfa) in the 1994 local elections.\n12.  Throughout his involvement with the DEP, Mehmet Şen was followed and threatened by plain-clothed police and this continued after the withdrawal of his candidacy. On 25 March 1994 Mehmet Şen informed the applicant that he was not being followed by the usual plain-clothed policemen but by other people whom he said might be “hit-men”.\n13.  On 26 March 1994 at approximately 5 p.m., two plain-clothed policemen had a drink at the Çağdaş café in Birecik, which was owned by Mehmet Şen and Rasim Ağpak. At approximately 7 p.m., a Doğan SLX car (registration number 34 PLT 30) blocked the door of the café. Three plain-clothed persons entered, leaving the car engine running with a fourth person remaining in the vehicle. One of the three persons asked Rasim Ağpak whether he was Mehmet Şen. When he answered negatively, the person approached Mehmet Şen, who confirmed his identity and showed his identity card. Before the nine people in the café, the abductors stated that they were plain-clothed police who were there to take Mehmet Şen to the Security Directorate. Mehmet Şen was grabbed by the arms and taken away in the waiting car. It was later ascertained that a second car with four persons inside had left with the Doğan SLX vehicle.\n14.  Upon hearing the news of the abduction, the applicant contacted, inter alia:\n(a)  the Nizip Anti-Terrorism Department, who denied holding Mehmet Şen or any knowledge of the abduction;\n(b)  the Gaziantep Security Directorate who also denied all knowledge; and\n(c)  the Gaziantep Branch of the Human Rights Association, with a request that they look into the matter.\n15.  Other persons also contacted the Gaziantep Security Directorate on the applicant’s behalf, but were told that Mehmet Şen was not in custody.\n16.  On 28 March 1994 the applicant applied to the Nizip Prosecution by way of petition, reporting that Mehmet Şen had been abducted.\n17.  On 30 March 1994 an unknown person telephoned the “Özgür Gündem” newspaper and the Gaziantep Branch of the DEP, saying that Mehmet Şen’s body was at the Gaziantep State Hospital. The applicant went to the hospital and, on examining the corpse, concluded that her husband had been killed under torture. She saw the body with the right eye gouge", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-704", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Lębork, Poland.\n9.  On 23 May 1990 the applicant acquired the right to a long-term lease of a flat (spółdzielcze lokatorskie prawo do lokalu) in a building owned by the Lębork Housing Co-operative (Spółdzielnia Mieszkaniowa).\n10.  On 22 July 1993 the co-operative sued the applicant in the Lębork District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), seeking payment. On 25 October 1993 the court gave judgment and granted the claim. The applicant appealed against this judgment. On 19 January 1994 the Słupsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) amended the first-instance judgment.\n11.  Subsequently, the applicant twice requested the Minister of Justice to grant her leave to file an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). Her first request was rejected on 10 October 1994.\n12.  On 31 January 1997, upon the applicant’s second request, the Minister of Justice filed a cassation appeal on the applicant’s behalf, contesting the judgment of the Słupsk Regional Court of 19 January 1994.\n13.  On 29 April 1997 the Supreme Court quashed both judgments given in the applicant’s case and remitted the case to the court of first instance. It held that the lower courts had committed serious errors of fact and law.\n14.  On 28 October 1997 the Lębork District Court joined the applicant’s case with similar proceedings against seven other members of the co‑operative.\n15.  On 19 March 1998 the court held a hearing.\n16.  On 8 May 1998 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained.\n17.  On 9 June 1998 the court exempted the applicant from half of the court fees due. The applicant appealed. On 29 December 1998 the Słupsk Regional Court rejected her appeal.\n18.  On 29 February 2000 the trial court ordered that further expert evidence be obtained. On 19 May 2000 the expert submitted his report to the court. On 4 October 2000 the applicant challenged the expert’s opinion of 19 May 2000.\n19.  On 5 October 2000 the court held a hearing and listed the next hearing for 17 October 2000.\n20.  On 1 March 2002 the District Court gave judgment. On 8 April 2002 the applicant appealed against this judgment.\n21.  It appears that the proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-705", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and now lives in Israel. He owns ninety-nine per cent of the shares in Jason Development Enterprises Ltd (hereafter the “JDE”), a company registered in Ukraine.\n6.  On 27 September 1997 the Vadul-Syretska Customs Service of the State Customs Department of Ukraine conducted a customs check of the coffee-tilling goods supplied by the Jason Industries company (the company owned by the applicant) as a contributory to the statutory fund of the joint‑stock company, JDE. The customs check showed that a cargo-customs declaration had been made by the representatives of JDE on the basis of false documents. On 29 September 1997 the Vadul-Syretska Customs Service initiated a criminal investigation into alleged smuggling and fraud offences.\n7.  On the same date, the case was transferred to the prosecution service of the Chernivtsi Region (hereafter “the prosecution”) for further investigation. On the basis of resolutions of the prosecution of 10 and 20 October 1997, 18 November 1997 and 19 January 1998, the Vadul-Syretska Customs Service seized documents pertaining to the financial and commercial activities of JDE.\n8.  On 13 October 1997 the prosecution seized the goods supplied to the statutory fund of JDE as evidence and on 16 October 1997 it froze JDE’s accounts. It also seized all of the company’s documentation, including accounting books and copies of contracts, as well as other property belonging to the company and the applicant.\n9.  On 28 January 1998 the applicant was detained on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence under the Criminal Code of Ukraine (the “CCU”).\n10.  On 30 January 1998 the prosecution ordered the applicant’s detention on remand in view of the pending criminal investigation against him.\n11.  On 4 February 1998 the prosecution charged the applicant with smuggling (Article 70 of the CCU), financial fraud (Article 148-5 CCU) and fraud committed by an official (Article 172(2) CCU).\n12.  On 5 February 1998 the prosecutor extended the deadline for the investigation by four months.\n13.  On 17 March 1998 the prosecutor extended the applicant’s detention on remand by four months.\n14.  On 6 April 1998 the prosecutor extended the deadline for investigation by five months and fourteen days.\n15.  On 9 June 1998 the applicant was additionally charged with tax evasion (Article 148-2(2) CCU) and deliberate use of a forged document (Article 194(2) CCU).\n16.  On 10 June 1998 the applicant was notified about the completion of the investigation.\n17.  On 30 January 1999 the deputy prosecutor approved the bill of indictment issued by the investigating officer.\n18.  On 3 February 1999 the case file was transferred to the Leninsky District Court of Chernivtsi (the “District Court”).\n19.  On 29 June 1999 the District Court ordered the prosecution to conduct an additional investigation into the circumstances of the case since the investigation was incomplete. In the course of the proceedings the applicant lodged a motion with the District Court, seeking his release. His motion was rejected by the District Court since there was a risk that he might abscond.\n20.  In July 1999 the prosecution sought the annulment of the remittal decision before the Chernivtsi Regional Court (the “Regional Court”) on the ground that there was already sufficient corroborating evidence.\n21.  On 10 August 1999 the Regional Court rejected the prosecution’s application, considering that it was necessary to undertake additional in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-707", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  The applicant was employed by the Ministry of Interior as a stoker. His employment was terminated on 20 October 1997 due to his constructive dismissal, following the employer’s alleged breach of contract.\n6.  On 18 May 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Budapest Labour Court seeking the payment of additional wages and other benefits. On 24 August 1995 the defendant requested the court to dismiss the applicant’s claims.\n7.  At the hearing of 25 August 1995 the court heard the parties and requested the applicant to specify his claims. The applicant complied with the request on 8 September 1995.\n8.  On 1 July 1996 the Labour Court appointed an expert auditor. On 6 October 1996 the applicant’s lawyer requested that the expert’s opinion be submitted speedily.\n9.  On 22 January 1997 the defendant informed the court that the applicant had not appeared to collect the money earmarked for him.\n10.  On 17 November 1997 the Labour Court set a 10-day time-limit for the expert to submit his opinion. On 19 January 1998 the court withdrew the expert’s appointment since he had failed to respect the time-limit.\n11.  On 5 May 1998 the court invited the defendant to submit documents, which it did on 24 July 1998.\n12.  After the applicant had extended his action, the Labour Court, at a hearing on 30 October 1998, separated the new claims from the proceedings and registered them under another case number. The applicant has not submitted any documents concerning the state of the latter proceedings.\n13.  In a judgment of 6 November 1998, the Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed and on 28 December 1998 brought a motion for bias against the judges of the Budapest Labour Court.\n14.  On 31 March 1999 the Budapest Regional Court, sitting as a second instance court, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Labour Court. It held that, as the expert had failed to submit his opinion, the first-instance court had relied only on the applicant’s calculations.\n15.  On 9 December 1999 the applicant brought another motion for bias against the judges of the Budapest Regional Court. Subsequently, on 25 January 2000 the applicant’s motions were transferred to the Supreme Court for examination.\n16.  On 5 April 2000 the Supreme Court appointed the Pest County Labour Court to hear the case in view of the fact that all the judges of the Budapest Labour Court had declared bias.\n17.  On 16 June 2000 the Regional Court appointed a legal aid lawyer for the applicant.\n18.  On 20 July 2000 the applicant lodged further submissions with the court. On 11 August 2000 the applicant’s lawyer submitted a preparatory document.\n19.  At the hearing on 13 October 2000 the Regional Court heard the applicant and ordered the defendant to submit further documents.\n20.  On 5 January 2001 the Regional Court heard the parties and informed them that a second defendant had joined the proceedings.\n21.  The applicant’s motion for bias against the judges of the Regional Court was rejected by the Supreme Court on 27 February 2001.\n22.  At the hearing on 26 November 2001 the applicant submitted a renewed motion for bias against the judges of the Regional Court. On 16 January 2002 the Supreme Court appointed the Tatabánya Labour Court to deal with the case.\n23.  On 12 March 2002 the Labour Court heard the parties. On 5 April 2002 the court suspended the proceedings and requested the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-708", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Izmir, Turkey.\n10.  On 11 March 1994 the applicant was taken into custody by the officers from the Izmir Security Directorate Anti-Terror branch on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal terrorist organisation, the PKK.\n11.  On 17 March 1994 the applicant was brought before the judge at the Izmir State Security Court. Before the court she pleaded not guilty and maintained that she did not accept the statements that she had made at the Security Directorate. She further denied the testimony of a witness, A.A., against her. Subsequently, the court ordered her release on account of insufficient evidence to remand her in custody.\n12.  On 7 April 1994 the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed an indictment with the court charging the applicant under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713 (the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1991 as amended) with aiding and abetting the PKK.\n13.  On 24 November 1994 the Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced her to three years and nine months' imprisonment. She was further debarred from public service for three years. The court based its judgment on the following evidence: some ammunition found by the police, various weapons and the ballistics reports confirming the applicant's use thereof, invoices, a notebook used for recording expenditures of the PKK, photos of the applicant taken with some PKK militants, the statements made by the applicant at the Security Directorate, the statements made by S.A., A.A., M.T. and F.A. at the Security Directorate, the Public Prosecutor's office and before the court and finally the testimonies of T.T., N.F., A.O., H.K. and B.O., who were being tried by the same court for charges with other offences.\n14.  On 25 September 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld the Izmir State Security Court's judgment of 24 November 1994.\n15.  On 1 November 1995 the Izmir chief public prosecutor suspended the execution of the applicant's sentence until 28 April 1996 as she had given birth.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-709", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The case mainly concerns events which took place in 1993 in the village of Ormaniçi in the Güçlükonak district of the Şırnak province in south-east Turkey. The applicants alleged that, on 20 February 1993, security forces had attacked Ormaniçi, as a result of which two children had died. The applicants further alleged that on the same day the security forces had set fire to houses in Ormaniçi and had taken most of the male villagers into detention. The applicants claimed that these men had been subjected to ill-treatment in detention, resulting in various serious injuries and the death of one villager. They further alleged that the security forces had returned to Ormaniçi later in 1993, when they had burned houses and destroyed harvested crops, and that they had returned once again in the spring of 1994 when they had killed four villagers and forced the villagers to leave Ormaniçi.\n9.  The facts being disputed by the parties, the Commission appointed Delegates who took evidence in Ankara from 2 to 4 April 1998 and from 5 to 10 October 1998 from 25 applicants, 8 other villager witnesses and 15 officials.\n10.  The certified transcripts of the oral evidence, together with the documentary evidence provided by the parties to the Commission, have been transmitted to the Court.\n11.  The parties' submissions on the facts (Sections A and B) and the proceedings conducted before the domestic authorities (Section C) are summarised below. The documentary material before the Court is summarised in Appendix II and the oral evidence to the Delegates in Appendix III, which appendices are available on the Court's website and which are held in the Court's archives.\n12.  In the early morning of 20 February 1993, military forces attacked the village of Ormaniçi. Many soldiers were dressed in white camouflage gear. There was snow on the ground and it was very cold. The military forces started attacking the village with rifles and heavy weaponry and later moved into the village, systematically removing each family from their house and taking them to the village square. Many families were unable to dress and were forced into the open with their children without proper clothing and/or shoes.\n13.  Most of the male villagers were beaten as they were taken to the village square, where they were made to lie face down in the mud and snow, and were subsequently blindfolded. The villagers arrived in the square between 10 a.m. and 12 noon and remained there until just before sunset. The women and children were also assembled near the village square but were not blindfolded.\n14.  While the villagers were being gathered in the square, a detailed search of all the properties was conducted and the soldiers began systematically setting fire to the homes, using an incendiary agent that they appeared to have brought with them specifically for this purpose. Many of the animals which were kept in stables or were wandering around the village were shot, or burned in their stables.\n15.  During the raid one soldier threw a bomb into the house of a villager called Mevlüde Ekin. The bomb exploded, causing severe intestinal injuries to her six-year-old-daughter Abide. Ms Ekin and her other children, together with Abide, were then evacuated to the village square. The village muhtar[2], Mehmet Aslan, was taken to the house of Mevlüde Ekin to accompany the soldiers in a search. It was claimed that somebody had been shooting from her house at the soldiers when the bomb was thrown. Dur", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-710", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, Stanisław Krzak and Anna Krzak, a married couple, are Polish nationals. They were both born in 1921 and live in Sławnowice, Poland.\n7.  On 17 May 1988 W.Ł. (“the petitioner”) filed an application with the Żywiec District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), seeking a decision declaring that she had acquired a title to certain real property. The first applicant was one of the parties to the proceedings.\n8.  On 23 April 1991 the Żywiec District Court gave a decision. It declared that W.Ł. and her husband M.Ł. had acquired the title to the property which consisted of four plots of land. The first applicant appealed against that decision.\n9.  On 22 October 1993 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) set aside the first-instance decision and remitted the case in respect of one of the plots. It dismissed the remainder of the first applicant’s appeal.\n10.  The hearing listed for 10 January 1994 was adjourned since the first applicant had been improperly summoned.\n11.  On 7 February 1994 the court held a hearing. The first applicant was not present. At the next hearing, held on 18 March 1994, the court stayed the proceedings due to the death of M.K., one of the participants in the proceedings. On 29 August 1994 the court held hearing and resumed the proceedings. The hearing fixed for 11 October 1994 was adjourned at the petitioner’s request. The trial court held further hearings on 18 July, 6 September, and 6 October 1995.\n12.  On 19 October 1995 the court held a hearing. The first applicant failed to appear. The next hearing took place on 29 November 1995.\n13.  On 5 December 1995 the Żywiec District Court gave a decision (postanowienie). It held that W.Ł. and M.Ł. had acquired the title to the property in question.\n14.  On 15 March 1996 the first applicant asked for leave to file an appeal out of time. He claimed that he had been sick and he had not been able to lodge an appeal against the final decision within the prescribed time limit.\n15.  On 18 September 1996 the Żywiec District Court held a hearing in the appeal proceedings. At a further hearing held on 25 October 1996, the District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 15 March 1996.\n16.  Later, on an unknown date, the first applicant asked the Minister of Justice for leave to file a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) against the above-mentioned decisions of the Żywiec District Court. On 23 June 1998 the Minister of Justice lodged a cassation appeal on the first applicant’s behalf.\n17.  On 8 October 1998 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the Żywiec District Court of 23 April 1991 and 5 December 1995 and remitted the case. It found that the District Court had not summoned all the parties to the proceedings.\n18.  On 9 February 1999 the Żywiec District Court held a hearing. It ordered W.Ł. to produce certain documents. On 16 March 1999 the court stayed the proceedings because W.Ł. had failed to comply with that order. On 25 June 1999 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court dismissed the first applicant’s appeal against that decision.\n19.  On 26 July 1999 the Żywiec District Court dismissed the first applicant’s further appeal against the decision of 25 June 1999.\n20.  In a letter of 9 December 2003 the applicants informed the Court that the proceedings are still pending before the Żywiec District Court.\n21.  In 1991 the applicants requested the Żywiec District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) to institute criminal proceedings against J.K. and W.K.,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-711", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1967 and 1969 respectively and live in Budapest.\n5.  The first applicant is an illusionist and the second applicant is his partner.\n6.  On 1 March 1994 the applicants entered into a contractual relationship with E. Cruise Lines, a Greek company, with a view to performing the applicants’ show on board the cruiser Pallas Athene for 8 months. On 24 March 1994 the Greek company shipped the applicants’ equipment on board Pallas Athene where, on the same day, it was destroyed by a fire. The applicants had no insurance. \nAs the Greek company refused to pay compensation for the damage, on 25 January 1995 the applicants brought an action before the Hungarian Pest Central District Court.\n7.  On 2 February 1995 the District Court ordered the applicants to complete their statement of claims. The applicants complied with this order on 22 March 1995. On 7 April 1995 the court exempted the applicants from payment of an advance on court fees.\n8.  On 3 July 1995 the court ordered the applicants to submit documents with a view to attaching them to the request for information on Greek law to be sent to the Greek authorities. The applicants complied with the order within ten days.\n9.  On 15 December 1995 the Hungarian Ministry of Justice received the reply of the Greek authorities requesting further information on the case. On 22 May 1996 the District Court sent the completed request to the Hungarian Ministry of Justice.\n10.  In reply to the applicants’ enquiry with the District Court as to whether the requested information on Greek law had been obtained, the Ministry of Justice informed the District Court that, due to an administrative mistake, the request had had to be re-sent to the Greek authorities on 27 January 1997.\n11.  The Greek authorities’ reply was served on the District Court on 12 May 1997. In their observations of 20 June 1997 the applicants found the Greek authorities’ answer incomprehensible and requested the District Court to obtain more information from the Greek authorities.\n12.  On 1 September 1997 the applicants submitted evidence.\n13.  The District Court having completed the request for information according to the applicants’ observations, on 23 February 1998 the Hungarian Ministry of Justice forwarded the request to the Greek Ministry of Justice. The latter’s reply reached the District Court on 29 May 1998.\n14.  On 23 December 1998 the defendant company received the District Court’s summons of 21 October 1998.\n15.  At the applicants’ request, on 27 October 1998 the District Court granted priority to the case.\n16.  On 20 April 1999 the District Court held a hearing. The representative of the defendant company, Mr K., a lawyer, failed to attend. The District Court was unable to establish whether the applicants’ pleadings and the summons issued by the District Court had been validly served on Mr K. in Greece. Therefore, the District Court ordered an adjournment and, through the Ministry of Justice, requested that:\n(i) the public prosecutor attached to the first instance court of Pireus verify whether service of the pleadings and the summons on Mr K. was valid under Greek law and whether Mr. K. was employed by the defendant company or whether he had a valid power of attorney;\n(ii) the first instance court of Pireus certify whether E. Cruise Lines was an existing company under the law of the place of registration, or whether it had merged with another company, and if so, whether the latter was the success", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-712", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Domaniόw, Poland.\n9.  On 23 May 1994 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki) charged the applicant with drug smuggling and detained him on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question, the serious nature of that offence and the risk that he might obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings. On the same day, the applicant’s wife was charged with a similar offence and detained on remand. The prosecutor had ordered them to surrender their passports.\n10.  Subsequently, on several occasions, the applicant asked the prosecutor to release him on bail, but all his applications were to no avail.\n11.  On 3 August 1994, on an application by the Regional Prosecutor, the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 31 December 1994. The court held that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the serious offence with which he had been charged. It considered that the need to confront suspects with each other, to obtain evidence from abroad and expert evidence justified the prolongation of his detention in order to ensure the proper course of the investigation. That decision was upheld by the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 25 August 1994.\n12.  On 15 December 1994 the applicant’s wife was released from detention on health grounds.\n13.  On 22 December 1994, on a subsequent application by the Regional Prosecutor, the Wrocław Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 28 February 1995, repeating the reasons already invoked in the decision of 3 August 1994. The Wrocław Court of Appeal upheld that decision and the grounds therefor on 19 January 1995.\n14.  On 3 January 1995 the applicant’s counsel informed the prosecutor that his client’s health was very bad and that, in particular, he had lost consciousness during one of their meetings in prison. He asked the prosecutor to release the applicant immediately. \nThe prosecution first asked the prison authorities to provide them with an updated report on the applicant’s health. However, prison doctors did not consider that the applicant’s condition militated against keeping him in custody.\n15.  Meanwhile, on 22 December 1994, the applicant had filed an application for release on bail with the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor and offered a security in the form of his movable and immovable property. The application was dismissed by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor on 22 December 1994 and, on appeal, by the Wrocław Prosecutor of Appeal (Prokurator Apelacyjny) on 5 January 1995. In those decisions the prosecutors referred to the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings and considered that the applicant’s detention should continue until at least the end of the investigation, especially as the applicant had not confessed.\n16.  On 28 February 1995 the prosecution lodged a bill of indictment with the Wrocław Regional Court. The applicant was indicted on a charge of having smuggled not less than 30 kg of heroin. The bill of indictment comprised 21 charges against 15 co-accused.\n17.  In March 1995 the applicant made 3 applications for release on health grounds. He complained about frequent headaches and states of unconsciousness, insomnia and heart-burning sensation. He also referred to his difficult family situation and, in particular, to the bad health of his wife, who was suffering from depressive neurosis ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-713", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7. The applicants were born in 1968 and 1967 respectively and live in Altenberge (Germany).\n8. Mrs Haase is the mother of twelve children. While she was married to M. she gave birth to seven children, Matthias, born in 1985, Sascha, born in 1986, Ramona, born in 1987, Alexander, born in 1988, Timo, born in 1990,  and the twins Lisa-Marie and Nico, born in 1992. With her second husband, Mr Haase, she had five children. Anna-Karina was born in 1995, Sandra-Kristin in 1998, Maurice-Pascal in 2000 and Laura-Michelle on 11 December 2001. In December 2003 Mrs Haase gave birth to her last child.\n9. In 1993 the relations between Mrs Haase and M. deteriorated. In April 1993 M. instituted divorce proceedings and requested to be afforded parental rights over the children. By a decision of 29 October 1993 the Münster District Court (Amtsgericht) granted parental rights over the three younger children, Timo, Lisa-Marie and Nico, to Mrs Haase and over the four older children to her first husband. The Münster Youth Office appealed against the decision, but withdrew the appeal in September 1994. In December 1993 Mrs Haase moved with the three children to live withher present husband. On 18 November 1994 the Münster District Court pronounced Mrs Haase's divorce from her first husband.  The applicants have been married since December 1994.\n10.  In February 2001 Mrs Haase applied to the Münster Youth Office (Amt für Kinder, Jugendliche und Familien - KSD) for family aid. In order to be granted the aid, the applicants agreed to have their family situation assessed by a psychological expert. In May 2001 the Municipal Social Service instructed G. to draw up an expert report. The expert met Mrs Haase and three of her children on 26 September and 11, 15 17 and 22 October 2001 at the applicants' home.\n11.  Being of the opinion that the questions put to the children by the expert were irrelevant for the purposes of family aid and having regard to the expert's objection to Mrs Haase attending the meetings with the children's teachers, the applicants refused to co–operate with the expert any longer.\n12.  On 17 December 2001 the expert submitted his report to the Münster Youth Office. According to this report, the deficiencies in the children's care and home conditions risked jeopardising their development seriously. There was a damaging cycle of events in which the applicants were unreasonably harsh with their children on repeated occasions and had beaten them. The children needed to be in a secure long-term placement and any further contact between them and the applicants would have to be avoided.\n13.  On the same day the Youth Office applied to the Münster District Court for an interim injunction (einstweilige Anordnung) withdrawing the applicants' parental rights over the seven children, namely their four children, Anna-Karina, Sandra-Christine, Maurice-Pascal and Laura-Michelle, and three of the children born during Mrs Haase's first marriage, namely Timo, Nico and Lisa-Marie.\n14.  On that very day, i. e. on 17 December 2001, the Münster District Court, without hearing the parents or their children, issued the requested interim injunction. The applicants were ordered to hand over the children forthwith to the Münster Youth Office. The officer in charge of enforcing the decision was authorised to use force if necessary to collect the children. Relying notably on the findings of the expert report, the District Court found that the parents' inability to give the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-714", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Plovdiv.\n11.  On 11 March 1996 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation against Mr Hamanov, a bank branch manager, and several others, in connection with a number of financial transactions effected by them (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 11, 11 December 2003 and Hamanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44062/98, § 11, 8 April 2004).\n12.  In the course of the investigation Mr Hamanov was accused, inter alia, of having guaranteed on behalf of the bank – without having the right to do so – nine promissory notes issued by companies related to the applicant.\n13.  On an unspecified date in November 1996, in the course of questioning, Mr Hamanov stated that the applicant had prompted him to guarantee the promissory notes. On the basis of this statement the investigator decided to accuse the applicant of having incited and abetted Mr Hamanov to commit the alleged crime.\n14.  On 14 November 1996 the applicant was charged under Article 282 §§ 2 and 3 in conjunction with Article 20 §§ 3 and 4 of the Criminal Code (“CC”) with having incited and abetted Mr Hamanov to breach his professional duties with a view to an unlawful gain for himself and others.\n15.  Eight persons were charged in all. The charges were modified several times in the course of the investigation.\n16.  During the investigation, which lasted about fourteen months, the investigator heard forty-seven witnesses, examined numerous financial and banking documents, commissioned expert reports, and undertook searches.\n17.  On 5 May 1997 the investigation was completed and the case file was sent to the prosecutor.\n18.  On 1 July 1997 the prosecutor submitted to the Plovdiv District Court a thirty-two-page indictment accompanied by twenty binders of documentary evidence.\n19.  The first hearing took place from 17 to 30 September 1997. The Plovdiv District Court heard the accused as well as several witnesses and experts. Some witnesses did not appear. Both the prosecution and the defence requested an adjournment.\n20.  The trial resumed on 25 November 1997. The District Court heard several witnesses. Ten other witnesses were absent as they had not been subpoenaed properly and others, albeit subpoenaed, did not show up. The trial was adjourned until 7 January 1998.\n21.  The trial resumed on 7 and 8 January 1998. The court adjourned it to 9 April, as some witnesses did not appear, and ordered an additional financial report.\n22.  The hearing listed for 9 April 1998 was adjourned to 6 July and then again to 19 October by reason of the ill health of one of the applicant’s co‑accused.\n23.  On 19 October 1998 the District Court held its last hearing. It heard the closing argument of the parties.\n24.  On 30 October 1998 the District Court found the applicant guilty of having incited and abetted Mr Hamanov to guarantee on behalf of the bank, without having the right to do so, nine promissory notes. It sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment and banned him from engaging in financial dealings for a period of nine years.\n25.  The reasoning of the District Court’s judgment was deposited in the registry of that court on an unspecified date in late January 1999.\n26.  Several times during the proceedings the case file was unavailable as it would be transmitted to the competent court for the examination of appeals submitted by the applicant’s co‑accused against their detention. In practice, upon such an appeal, the entire case file would be tra", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-715", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Plovdiv.\n11.  On 11 March 1996 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office opened an investigation against the applicant, who was a bank branch manager, and several others, in connection with a number of financial transactions effected by them allegedly in breach of the law (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 11, 11 December 2003, and Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, § 11, 8 April 2004).\n12.  On 12 March 1996 the applicant was charged with having authorised thirty-five wire transfers abroad in breach of his professional duties and with a view to an unlawful gain for others.\n13.  In the course of the investigation the applicant was also accused of having guaranteed on behalf of the bank nine promissory notes issued by companies related to a Mr Belchev, and of unlawfully possessing firearm ammunition.\n14.  Eight persons were charged in all. The charges were modified several times in the course of the investigation.\n15.  During the investigation, which lasted about fourteen months, the investigator heard forty-seven witnesses, examined numerous financial and banking documents, commissioned expert reports, and undertook searches.\n16.  On 5 May 1997 the investigation was completed and the case file was sent to the prosecutor.\n17.  On 1 July 1997 the prosecutor submitted to the Plovdiv District Court a thirty-two-page indictment accompanied by twenty binders of documentary evidence.\n18.  The first hearing took place from 17 to 30 September 1997. The District Court heard the accused as well as several witnesses and experts. Some witnesses did not appear. Both the prosecution and the defence requested an adjournment.\n19.  The trial resumed on 25 November 1997. The District Court heard several witnesses. Ten other witnesses were absent as they had not been subpoenaed properly and others, albeit subpoenaed, did not show up. The trial was adjourned until 7 January 1998.\n20.  The trial resumed on 7 and 8 January 1998. The court adjourned it to 9 April, as some witnesses did not appear, and ordered an additional financial report.\n21.  The hearing listed for 9 April 1998 was adjourned to 6 July and then again to 19 October by reason of the ill health of one of the applicant's co‑accused.\n22.  On 19 October 1998 the District Court held its last hearing. It heard the closing argument of the parties.\n23.  On 30 October 1998 the District Court found the applicant guilty. It sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment and banned him from holding the post of a director of a bank's branch for a period of twelve years.\n24.  The reasoning of the District Court's judgment was deposited in the registry of that court on an unspecified date in late January 1999.\n25.  Several times during the proceedings the case file was unavailable as it would be transmitted to the competent court for the examination of appeals submitted by the applicant's co‑accused against their detention. In practice, upon such an appeal, the entire case file would be transmitted together with the appeal.\n26.  Throughout the proceedings the District Court and later the Regional Court sought police assistance to establish the addresses of witnesses and ensure their attendance.\n27.  On an unspecified date in November 1998 the applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence.\n28.  More than a year later, on 6 December 1999, the Plovdiv Regional Court held its first hearing, which was adjourned to 13 March 2000 because of health problems of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-717", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants (see paragraph 1), who were born in 1955, 1975, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1985, and 1988 respectively, are the wife and children of the deceased, Cavit Özalp, who was killed in 1995 while he was under custody.\nEvents concerning the death of Cavit Özalp\n10.  Until 1994, the Özalp family resided in the Serçeler village in Bismil District in province of Diyarbakır. When the security forces started to pressurise the Özalp family members to become village guards, the family moved to Diyarbakır in the spring of 1994.\n11.  On 21 August 1995 one of the applicants, Mr Hacı Özalp, went back to Bismil to visit the fields that belonged to his family. When he arrived in Bismil, he was stopped by soldiers and questioned about his father, Cavit Özalp. He was subsequently taken to the gendarme command, where he was further questioned about his father. During the interrogation, Hacı told them where they could find Cavit Özalp.\n12.  On 24 August 1995 Cavit Özalp was taken into custody in Diyarbakır. On the same day, Hacı saw his father in custody however he was not allowed to speak to him.\n13.  On 26 August 1995 Hacı was released from custody. On the same day, while he was still in Bismil, he was informed by an acquaintance that an incident had taken place in the Kamberli village and that it concerned his father. Consequently, when Hacı went to the Kamberli village to find out more about this incident, he met a villager, called Vehyettin, who told him that his father was dead.\n14.  On the same day two police officers visited Cavit's house in Diyarbakır and told Hacı's uncle that Cavit had died.\n15.  On 5 February 1996 the applicants' representatives filed a petition with the public prosecutor attached to the Diyarbakır State Security Court. Referring to the investigation that had been commenced into the death of Cavit Özalp and the decision of non-prosecution that had been delivered by the Diyarbakır State Security Court public prosecutor, the applicants' representatives requested a copy of the arrest and autopsy reports as well as the public prosecutor's decision of non-prosecution.\n16.  The public prosecutor refused to give these documents and noted at the bottom of the petition the following:\n“It has been decided [by this office] that no prosecution should be brought about the death of Cevat Özalp [Note: Cavit's name is spelled out as Cevat in the public prosecutor's note.] pursuant to Article 96 of the Turkish Criminal Code. The investigations in order to apprehend the co-activists of Cevat Özalp are still ongoing. A copy of the investigation file could not have been given [to the representatives] in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Constitution, as it would constitute disclosure of the content and the subject matter of the investigation file.”\n17.  On 24 August 1995 Cavit Özalp was taken into custody by the gendarmes from the Bismil Gendarme District Command on suspicion of membership of the PKK, proscribed as a terrorist organisation. He was suspected of aiding and abetting the PKK terrorists.\n18.  On an unspecified date Cavit Özalp gave a statement to the gendarmes. He stated that the PKK terrorists were occasionally staying in his house and that he was providing them with food and military equipment such as weapons, clothes and medicine. He further stated that he had dug a shelter with the terrorists on the slopes of a hill near the Pamuk River in the Sarıhüseyin hamlet attached to the Serçeler village to hide some equipm", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-718", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n32.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Sollentuna (Sweden). The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n33.  The applicant's brother Mehmet Salim Acar (son of Mehmet and Hüsna, born in Bismil in 1963), a farmer living in Ambar, a village in the Bismil district in south-east Turkey, disappeared on 20 August 1994. The facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicant's brother are in dispute between the parties.\n34.  The facts as submitted by the applicant are set out in Section 1 below. The facts as submitted by the Government are contained in Section 2. A summary of the documents produced is set out in Part B.\n35.  On 20 August 1994, while Mehmet Salim Acar was working in a cotton field near Ambar, a white or grey Renault car without any registration plates stopped. Two armed men in plain clothes – claiming to be police officers – got out of the car and asked Mehmet Salim to accompany them in order to help them find a field. When Mehmet Salim refused to get into the car, the two men threatened him with their weapons. They then took his identity card, tied his hands, blindfolded him, punched him in the head and stomach, forced him into their car and drove off.\n36.  The scene was witnessed by Mehmet Salim's son İhsan Acar and İlhan Ezer, another farmer. After the car had driven off, İhsan ran home and told his mother Halise Acar what had happened, and she in turn informed the village headman. Abide Acar, Mehmet Salim's daughter, had seen her father sitting in the back of a “grey-coloured” car passing through the village while she and a neighbour were washing clothes in a stream. Another villager had allegedly seen Mehmet Salim being taken to the riverbank, where five other people had been waiting in another car. Mehmet Salim's hands and feet were tied, he was blindfolded and his mouth was taped. The two cars had reportedly driven off in the direction of Bismil. Nothing has been heard from Mehmet Salim since.\n37.  Mehmet Salim's family filed a series of petitions and complaints about his disappearance to the authorities, including the Deputy Governor and the Bismil gendarmerie, in order to find out where and why he was being detained.\n38.  On or around 27 August 1994, Mehmet Salim's sister Meliha Dal personally handed a petition about her brother's disappearance to the Deputy Governor of Diyarbakır. After reading the petition and, in her presence, speaking on the telephone with Ahmet Korkmaz, a non-commissioned officer (NCO) of the gendarmerie, the Deputy Governor told her that Mehmet Salim was in the hands of the State and that there was nothing that she could do for the time being.\n39.  When leaving the Deputy Governor's office, Meliha Dal was approached by a police officer, Mehmet Şen, who volunteered to make enquiries about her brother with a friend in the “torture place” of the Bismil gendarmerie station. This police officer rang Meliha Dal three days later and told her that he had seen Mehmet Salim at the Bismil gendarmerie command and that he could take him some clothes and cigarettes. After Meliha Dal had fetched some clothes, the police officer told her that he would take them to her brother in one or two days' time. On 31 August 1994 the police officer called Meliha Dal again and told her that her brother had been taken away from the Bismil gendarmerie command but that he did not know where he had been taken to.\n40.  On 29 August 1994 Hüsna Acar, Mehmet Salim's mother, filed a pe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-720", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 3 June 1994 at about 4.30 a.m. while the applicant's brother, Savaş Buldan, was leaving the casino at the Çınar Hotel in the Yeşilyurt area of Istanbul, together with his two friends Adnan Yıldırım and Hacı Karay, they were approached by seven or eight people with walkie-talkies, firearms and bullet-proof vests who introduced themselves as police officers. The three men were then forced into three cars.\n10.  The applicant, who at this time was living in Turkey, was informed of what had happened to his brother at 5 a.m. that same day. With friends and family he began a search, especially along the Istanbul-Ankara motorway. Part of the search party came to an area called the Yedigöller (Seven Lakes). This was a national park. According to the applicant, there was a shooting polygon situated therein, open only to members of the security forces and high-level State officials. The Government on the other hand deny the existence of such a shooting polygon. The search party met a watchman at the national park, who told them that 10 or 11 people in three cars had entered the area on the same day at about 7.30 a.m. The watchman then gave a description of the three vehicles that matched the description given by those who had witnessed the abduction at the Çınar Hotel.\n11.  When the applicant learnt about the kidnapping of his brother, he immediately contacted members of Parliament, the Governor of Istanbul and the media. The Office of the Prime Minister was also informed about the kidnapping. The applicant and his legal representative made a further written application to the Bakırköy public prosecutor's office. The initial enquiries made by the authorities showed that the three persons had not been taken into custody.\n12.  The same day, Mr Nihat Buldan, one of Savaş Buldan's brothers, submitted another petition to the Bakırköy public prosecutor's office in which he claimed that his brother and two of his brother's friends had been abducted by people who had identified themselves as plainclothes police officers. Mr Nihat Buldan requested the prosecutor to investigate the matter. The prosecutor asked the family members to go to the Yeşilköy police headquarters, which was responsible for the area where the incident had taken place. The family members complied with this request but no written statements were taken from them at the police headquarters. The Yeşilköy police headquarters informed the Bakırköy police headquarters and also the anti-terrorist branch of the police about the events on the same day.\n13.  On 3 June 1994 at about 9 p.m., Mr İsmail Taşcan contacted the Yığılca gendarmerie station within the district of Bolu, some 270 kilometres from where the three men had been abducted. He informed the gendarmes that he had seen three bodies in an area near the river where he had gone to fish. The same day at about 9.15 p.m. the gendarmerie arrived at the scene. During the preliminary search, no empty cartridges or other evidence could be found as it was very dark.\n14.  The public prosecutor and two doctors arrived at the scene of the crime at about 11 p.m. The positions of the bodies were recorded. No documents or other property were found on the bodies which might establish their identities. It was further noted that valuable items such as gold rings and wrist watches were intact. The preliminary investigation of the bodies revealed that rigor mortis had set in and that the three men had been shot at point-blank range. Subsequently, at", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-721", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Istanbul.\n10.  On 30 May 1992 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, the Devrimci-Sol (Revolutionary-Left).\n11.  On 3 June 1992 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the latter charging the applicant, under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Articles 4 and 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, with aiding and abetting members of an illegal armed organisation.\n12.  On 7 September 1993 the Istanbul State Security Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against her for lack of evidence.\n13.  On 23 December 1993 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court. The court noted that the applicant had been in charge of communications among members of the Devrimci-Sol and that she had allowed them to organise meetings in her house. It further held that the first instance court had failed to take into account the applicant's confessions and the statements given by witnesses against her at the police station.\n14.  On 12 April 1994 the Istanbul State Security Court delivered a judgment identical to the first one. The court noted that the applicant had refuted the confession statements she made in police custody and that the two witnesses had rejected their statements as they had allegedly been made under duress at the police station. The court reiterated that there was insufficient evidence to convict the applicant. It ruled that the applicant should be acquitted.\n15.  On 3 October 1994 the Plenary Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu) quashed the Istanbul State Security Court's judgment on the ground that there was sufficient evidence to convict the applicant. The case was referred once again to the Istanbul State Security Court.\n16.  On 18 December 1995 the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to three years and nine months' imprisonment and debarred her from holding public office for three years. The applicant appealed. Furthermore, she requested a hearing before the Court of Cassation.\n17.  On 9 July 1996 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's request for a hearing holding that the request had been introduced out of time. Moreover, it upheld the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-722", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a Moldovan national who was born in 1949 and lives in Chişinău (Moldova). He is a lawyer and Chairman of the Moldovan Bar Council.\n9.  In 2000 a group composed of members of parliament and the Moldovan Ombudsman sought a ruling from the Constitutional Court that the Lawyers (Organisation of the Profession) Act (Law no. 395-XIV) was unconstitutional. The Act laid down, inter alia, that all lawyers practising in Moldova should be members of the Bar Council, a national association of all lawyers from the local Bars. They argued that compulsory membership of the Bar Council was contrary to the right of freedom of association guaranteed by the Moldovan Constitution.\n10.  After consulting, inter alia, the Bar Council, which expressed the view that the Act was consistent with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court held in a decision of 15 February 2000 that the provisions making membership of the Moldovan Bar Council compulsory were unconstitutional.\n11.  The applicant criticised the Constitutional Court’s decision in a telephone interview he gave to A.M., a journalist on the Economiceskoe Obozrenie (“Economic Analysis”) newspaper.\n12.  In the February 2000 edition of the newspaper, A.M. published an article on the debate which the Constitutional Court’s decision of 15 February 2000 had sparked off among lawyers. He gave the following account of his telephone interview with the applicant:\n“... After the Constitutional Court’s decision was made public, Economiceskoe Obozrenie put a series of questions to the Chairman of the Bar Council, Mr Gheorghe Amihalachioaie. His comments are tinged with emotion, no doubt because they were made in the heat of the moment:\n‘The Constitutional Court’s decision will produce total anarchy in the legal profession’, said Mr Amihalachioaie. ‘You will see what will happen over the course of the next year. From now on, we no longer have a single system for organising the profession or a unitarian State. We have become accustomed to this – it is easier to live and work in chaos. Taxes are not paid, there is no supervision and, consequently, no ethics, no discipline and no responsibility.\nIn view of this, the question is whether the Constitutional Court is constitutional. In 1990 the United Nations adopted its Basic Principles on the Role of the Bar, which are fully guaranteed by our law. The legal profession is independent the world over. In Moldova it is subordinate to the executive, that is to say the Ministry of Justice. This is a serious breach of fundamental democratic principles.\nThe Constitutional Court did not take into account the judgments of the Strasbourg Court referred to by the Bar Council in its observations. The judges of the Constitutional Court probably do not regard the European Court of Human Rights as an authority. Am I to assume that they have acquired more experience in five years than the Strasbourg judges in fifty? We shall certainly be informing the Council of Europe that Moldova does not comply with the case-law or requirements of the European Court of Human Rights.’\nAccording to Mr Amihalachioaie, lawyers have always been regarded as being at the forefront of the legal profession: ‘Despite everything, even after the Constitutional Court’s decision, the body of lawyers remains a force.’ ...”\n13.  In a letter of 18 February 2000, the President of the Constitutional Court informed the applicant that his remarks as reported in the Economiceskoe Obozrenie newspaper coul", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-723", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in Vienna in 1979 and lives at present in Serbia and Montenegro.\n10.  The applicant stayed with his parents, who are both citizens of Serbia and Montenegro and lawfully residing in Vienna, for about seven months after his birth in Austria. He then lived with his grandparents in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, now Serbia and Montenegro. There he completed primary school, though he spent the yearly school holidays with his parents in Austria.\n11.  In 1989, at the age of 10 years, he came back to live with his parents and his sister in Austria, where he finished secondary school and completed a three-year vocational training as a butcher. During this time, he resided lawfully in Austria and, on 5 May 1993, he received an unlimited residence permit (unbefristeter Sichtvermerk).\n12.  On 30 July 1997 the Vienna Juvenile Court (Jugendgerichtshof) convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery and burglary and sentenced him to thirty months’ imprisonment, out of which twenty-four months were suspended with a probationary period of three years. It found that the applicant, on 29 January 1997, together with his co-accused born in 1980, had knocked down the victim with a perfume bottle and had stolen cash in the amount of 65,000 Austrian schillings (ATS). On 11 and 14 April 1997 they had attempted to steal another victim’s daily cash receipt by using a wheel nut tool. Still on 14 April 1997, they had broken into that victim’s car and had taken away his daily cash receipt and a cheque, totalling almost ATS 125,000. When fixing the sentence, the court considered as mitigating circumstances that the applicant had so far no criminal record, that he had admitted the offences and had partly made amends (Schadensgutmachung), and that in two instances the offences remained attempts. As aggravating circumstances the court considered the concurrence of two different offences, the amount of damage, the injury of the victim and the qualification of the burglary. The judgment became final in the absence of an appeal by the applicant.\n13.  On 30 September 1997 the Vienna Federal Police Office (Bundespolizeidirektion Wien) issued a residence prohibition of unlimited duration against the applicant. It referred to Section 18 §§ 1 and 2 (1) of the 1992 Aliens Act (Fremdengesetz) according to which a residence prohibition is to be issued against an alien, if he has been sentenced to more than three months’ imprisonment by final judgment of a domestic court.\n14.  The applicant served his prison sentence until 14 October 1997. Subsequently he was transferred to a detention centre with a view to his expulsion.\n15.  On 28 October 1997 the Vienna Public Security Authority (Sicherheitsdirektion) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Noting that the applicant had lived for seven months after his birth in Austria and that, after his return from former Yugoslavia in 1989, he had continuously lived with his family in Austria for eight years, it found that the residence prohibition at issue constituted an interference with his right to private and family life. However, it was necessary to achieve the aims set out in Article 8 § 2 of the Convention, namely the prevention of disorder and crime and the protection of the rights of others. In particular, the applicant had committed aggravated robbery by using a weapon. Given the seriousness of the offences and the implied disrespect for physical safety and the property of others, no positive prognos", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-724", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1967.\n10.  In 1994 the Białystok Regional Prosecutor instituted investigations concerning suspicion of fraud. On 28 March 1995 the applicant was charged with fraud committed jointly with other persons. On 30 March 1995 the Białystok Regional Prosecutor ordered his detention on remand. The applicant was suspected of fraud committed by obtaining under false pretences a loan of USD 380,000 from a State-owned bank. The loan had not been reimbursed. It was further considered that the evidence in the case file rendered the charge against the applicant credible, while his attitude and the circumstances of the case indicated that he would jeopardise criminal proceedings, if left at liberty.\n11.  The applicant requested that detailed written grounds of the detention order be prepared by the prosecuting authorities. On 3 April 1995 the applicant's lawyer and on 6 April 1995 the applicant himself appealed against the detention order, arguing, inter alia, that his bad health was incompatible with his detention.\n12.  By a decision of 11 April 1995 the Białystok Regional Prosecutor preferred charges against the applicant. It was stated that the suspicion against him was rendered credible by evidence gathered in the investigations. The prosecutor referred in particular to documents concerning the circumstances in which the applicant had taken the loan, to the manner in which the funds had been transferred to the applicant's bank account, and to the links established between the suspects in the case.\n13.  On 10 April 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court, at a session held in camera, refused the applicant's lawyer's appeal against the detention order and on 27 April 1995 the applicant's own appeal was, likewise, dismissed.\n14.  On 25 April 1995 the applicant requested to be released.\n15.  On 28 April 1995 the same court refused to allow the applicant's appeal against the decision of 11 April 1995 by which the prosecution had preferred charges against the applicant. The court considered that the case was complex, that there were many suspects, and that the offences concerned were of a very serious nature.\n16.  On 28 April 1995 the Białystok Regional Prosecutor refused the applicant's application for release of 25 April 1995. On 18 May 1995 the Białystok Appellate Prosecutor upheld this decision, considering that a medical certificate confirmed that the applicant was suffering from Marfan syndrome which was a connective tissue disorder, so affected many structures, including the skeleton, lungs, eyes, heart and blood vessels. However, the applicant was under the medical supervision of a prison doctor. The grounds on which the applicant had been arrested still obtained, and the offence concerned was of a serious nature.\n17.  On 13 June 1995 the charges against the applicant were supplemented by two further counts of fraud, committed by obtaining another two bank loans by false pretences. The prosecuting authorities referred, inter alia, to various Polish and foreign documents, to the testimony of witnesses, interviewed during the investigations, and to other evidence. When questioned by the prosecutor on that day, the applicant requested that detailed written grounds of these charges, giving factual reasons grounding the suspicions against him, be prepared and served on him and on his lawyer.  On 28 June 1995 the applicant was served with this document.\n18.  On 26 June 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detenti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-725", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1953. At the time of the introduction of his application, the applicant was serving a prison sentence in the Netherlands.\n8.  On or around 26 January 1995 suspicions arose that the applicant, who at that time was serving a prison sentence in the Marwei penitentiary in Leeuwarden, had been involved in giving a false tip-off by telephone to the Leeuwarden police to the effect that three named detainees were planning to escape from prison by taking hostages. Thereafter, and in order to secure order, peace and safety in the penitentiary, the applicant’s telephone conversations were tapped and recorded on tape. These taped conversations were kept so as to allow the authorities to establish – if such a situation were to arise again – whether the applicant had been involved in giving any further false telephone tip-offs.\n9.  On 3 October 1995, as a result of the detonation of an explosive device placed in her car, Ms X – the applicant’s former partner – suffered slight injuries. Her son, Mr Y, suffered serious injuries necessitating the amputation of the lower part of his left leg.\n10.  At the time of the explosion, the applicant was still in prison. As it was suspected that he was involved in the bomb attack, the national public prosecutor (landelijk officier van justitie) ordered that the applicant’s recorded telephone conversations be made available to the criminal investigation into the bomb attack.\n11.  On 16 May 1998 the applicant was summoned to appear before the Haarlem Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) to stand trial on charges of, inter alia, (attempted) premeditated grievous bodily harm, causing an explosion endangering property and life, making a threat to kill and various counts of fraud.\n12.  On 22 August 1996 the Haarlem Regional Court convicted the applicant of making a threat to kill and one count of fraud, acquitted him on the remaining charges and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. Both the applicant and the public prosecutor filed an appeal with the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (gerechtshof).\n13.  In its judgment of 4 November 1997, following hearings held on 20 May and 21 October 1997, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 22 August 1996, convicted the applicant of complicity in (attempted) premeditated grievous bodily harm, causing an explosion endangering property and life, and making a threat to kill or, in any event, to inflict grievous bodily harm. He was also convicted of several counts of fraud. The applicant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. As regards the determination of the applicant’s sentence, the Court of Appeal held, inter alia, that the applicant, over a period of several months, had continuously threatened Ms X by telephone and had eventually carried out his threats by organising – from his place of detention – the placing of a bomb under her car. The detonation of this bomb had caused injuries to Ms X and Mr Y, necessitating the amputation of the lower part of the latter’s leg. The court noted that it was only as a result of the administration of rapid and adequate first aid that Mr Y had not bled to death. In addition, the explosion had caused collateral damage to another car as well as to windows of nearby houses and there had been a real danger that the explosion could also have (fatally) injured bystanders. The court further noted that the applicant had already been convicted in the past of having deliberately shot Ms X in the leg.\n14.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-726", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Warszawa.\n7.  In 1962 the applicant was injured in a train accident. Her injury caused her permanent disability and she was unable to continue her employment.\n8.  As from 1963 the applicant was in receipt of a monthly supplementary disability pension from the Central Direction of the State Railways (CDOKP: hereinafter “the State Railways”). By a decision of 15 March 1993 the State Railways reduced the applicant's supplementary pension, considering that she had reached pensionable age. The applicant objected to this decision.\n9.  On 16 February 1994 the State Railways lodged a motion with the Warsaw District Court in order to have the amount of the applicant's pension fixed. The court held three hearings, respectively on 10 May, on 7 July and on 26 September 1994.\n10.  By a judgment of 6 October 1994 the Warsaw District Court dismissed the claim and ordered the State Railways to pay the pension in the sum which it had hitherto paid her, considering that the applicant's reduced earning power had to be taken into account.\n11.  On 23 November 1994 the State Railways lodged an appeal with the Warsaw Regional Court.\n12.  By a decision of 19 January 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the judgment of 6 October 1994 and ordered that the case be remitted to the Warsaw District Court for reconsideration.\n13.  On 19 September 1995 the first hearing was held before the Warsaw District Court. New expert evidence was ordered to be taken in September 1996. The expert report was submitted to the court in May 1998. The next hearing was held on 12 January 1999, but both the plaintiff's representative and the applicant's legal representative appointed by the court under the legal aid scheme failed to attend.\n14.  By a judgment of 4 January 2000 the Warsaw District Court dismissed the appeal of the State Railways and ruled that the applicant's pension should not be reduced.\n15.  On 7 April 2000 the State Railways lodged an appeal against this judgment. On 4 July 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the reasoning of the first-instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-727", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Szamotuły, Poland.\n9.  On 30 July 1987 the applicant lodged a claim for payment against the Wielkopolska Gardening Co‑operative (Wielkopolska Spółdzielnia Ogrodnicza) with the Poznań District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). On 3 November 1987 the Polcomex Ltd joined the proceedings as a second defendant. Prior to 1 May 1993 the trial court held several hearings and ordered an opinion from an expert.\n10.  On 30 December 1993 the applicant modified his claim and applied for an exemption from court fees. At the hearing held on 21 February 1994 the court ordered the applicant to pay the court fees due for the submission of the modified claim.\n11.  On 28 February 1994 the applicant again asked the court to exempt him from court fees. On 28 March 1994 the Poznań District Court rejected his application. On 1 April 1994 the applicant appealed against that decision. On 30 September 1994 the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed his appeal.\n12.  On 8 November 1994 the applicant paid the required court fees.\n13.  On 7 January 1995 the applicant modified his claim for the second time. On 8 February 1995 the District Court partly exempted him from the court fees.\n14.  On 8 March 1995 the District Court held a hearing. On 28 May 1995 the applicant modified his claim for the third time.\n15.  On 12 February 1997 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. The expert opinion was completed on 19 May 1997 and submitted to the court. On 2 July 1997 the court ordered that a new expert opinion be obtained.\n16.  At the hearing held on 30 December 1997 the applicant finally specified his claim.\n17.  On 21 January 1998 the Poznań District Court gave judgment. On 18 March 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Poznań Regional Court. On 10 July 1998 the Poznań Regional Court quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case.\n18.  On 5 July 2000 the Poznań District Court gave judgment. On 21 October 2000 the applicant appealed. He also applied for an exemption from court fees. On 4 January 2001 the District Court rejected his application. On 26 January 2001 the applicant paid the required court fees.\n19.  On 14 December 2001 the Poznań Regional Court gave judgment. The judgment is final.\n20. On 22 September 1988 the applicant sued the Szczuczyn Agricultural Co‑operative (Rolniczy Kombinat Spółdzielczy) in the Poznań Regional Court, seeking compensation. Prior to 1 May 1993 the court ordered opinions from two experts.\n21.  On 7 July 1993 the Poznań Regional Court rejected the applicant's request for an exemption from court fees. On 8 October 1993 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld this decision.\n22.  On 6 November 1993 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay half of the court fees due.\n23.  On 21 March 1994 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the judges of the Poznań Regional Court. On 25 May 1994 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) referred the challenge to the Poznań Regional Court.\n24.  On 8 November 1994 the Regional Court held a hearing. It granted the applicant a general exemption from court fees.\n25.  On 4 February 1995 the applicant modified his claim. At the hearing held on 1 December 1995 the court ordered that an expert opinion be obtained.\n26.  On 13 and on 18 December 1995 respectively the co-operative and the applicant requested that certain witnesses be summoned.\n27.  Subsequently, two experts refused to prepare their opinions. On an unspecified date", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-728", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are spouses and they are Slovakian nationals. The first applicant, Mr Ján Sabol, was born in 1927. The second applicant, Ms Mária Sabolová, was born in 1939. They live in Košice.\n5.  On 15 January 1988 the applicants claimed before the Košice City Court that the boundary between their plot of land and the plot of their neighbours had not been traced correctly.\n6.  On 15 March 1990 the Košice City Court granted the action with reference to an expert opinion. The two parties appealed and the Košice Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment on 31 August 1990.\n7.  Upon the instruction of the City Court the applicants amended their action. They claimed that the defendants should put at their disposal a part of a plot of land and that they should remove a gas connection from that land. The City Court ordered a second expert opinion on 8 July 1991 and on 14 October 1991. The expert submitted an opinion on 29 November 1991.\n8.  On 13 February 1992 the applicants modified their claim. The defendants proposed to settle the case. On 2 June 1992 the court visited the site. On 30 July 1992 it requested the expert to submit further information.\n9.  On 26 November 1992 the defendants filed a counter-action in which they claimed that they should be granted the right to use the part of the land on which the gas connection was built. A hearing was held on 1 January 1993. On 26 February 1993 the second expert submitted an amended version of his opinion at the court's request.\n10.  After having taken further extensive evidence the court scheduled a hearing for 15 April 1994. On 29 April 1994 the Košice 1 District Court, by which the case fell to be examined, delivered a judgment ordering the defendants to vacate the plot. The court considered it appropriate not to order the removal of the gas connection in question as it was fixed to the central gas pipe-line belonging to the Slovak Gas Company. It ordered the defendants to pay compensation to the applicants for the use of the part of their land on which the gas connection was built. The judgment was served on the applicants on 21 December 1994. They appealed on 9 January 1995. On 6 March 1995 the applicants were requested to pay the court fee, and the case file was submitted to the appellate court on 11 April 1995.\n11.  On 13 February 1996 the Košice Regional Court sent the case back to the first instance court with the instruction to take further evidence.\n12.  The District Court heard the parties on 2 April 1996 and on 8 May 1996, and on 22 May 1996 it decided to obtain an expert opinion. On 8 January 1997 it appointed a different expert as the one appointed in May 1996 had been struck out of the list of experts. The District Court returned the case file to the Regional Court, at the latter's request, on 20 January 1997.\n13.  On 27 February 1997 the Košice Regional Court quashed a part of the District Court's judgment of 29 April 1994 on the ground that the first instance court had omitted to decide on a part of both the applicants' and defendants' claims.\n14.  On 17 April 1997 the District Court asked the defendants to pay an advance on the expert's fees. The defendants paid the sum on 29 April 1997. On 3 October 1997 the District Court sent the case file to the expert. The latter sent it back to the Court, on 21 October 1997, with the explanation that he no longer was registered as an expert.\n15.  On 10 November 1997 the Košice 1 District Court appointed another expert with", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-729", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, is a Polish national was born in 1947 and lives in Stalowa Wola, Poland. On 10 June 1991 the applicant and her husband obtained a divorce decree.\n9.  On 21 December 1993 the applicant filed an application with the Stalowa Wola District Court for the division of the marital property. She also asked the court to secure her claim.\n10.  On 10 January 1994 the applicant asked the court to exempt her from court fees. On 28 February 1994 the Stalowa Wola District Court exempted the applicant from the court fees and issued an interim order preventing her ex-husband from disposing of their marital property. On 29 June 1994, upon the defendant's appeal, the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court amended the interim order.\n11.  On 6 September 1994 the Stalowa Wola District Court decided to join the present proceedings with the action concerning the annulment of contracts (see B below). During a hearing held on 14 October 1994 the District Court reversed its previous decision and decided to deal with the proceedings separately.\n12.  On 12 April 1995 the court rejected the applicant's appeal against the order of 6 September 1994 as it had been lodged outside the prescribed time‑limit. On 26 July 1995, on the applicant's request, the District Court granted her leave to file an appeal out of time. On 5 October 1995 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed that appeal.\n13.  On 11 March 1996 the Stalowa Wola District Court stayed the proceedings. It considered that their result depended on the outcome of the proceedings relating to the annulment of contracts (see B below). On 23 April 1996 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for further examination.\n14.  The District Court held hearings on 1 August and 23 August 1996. On 15 January 1997 the District Court ordered that expert evidence from a company “TC” be obtained.\n15.  Subsequently, the applicant on three occasions lodged unsuccessful applications for her claim to be secured.\n16.  On 3 April and 8 April 1997 the trial court held hearings.\n17.  On 23 June 1997 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the judges of the Stalowa District Court. The Regional Court dismissed her challenge on 22 July 1997.\n18.  On 6 May, 18 August and 8 October 1997 the trial court repeatedly invited the expert “TC” company to submit their report. The court held further hearings on 18 June and 23 October 1998.\n19.  On 6 November 1998 the District Court delivered a preliminary ruling and gave an itemised breakdown of the marital property. This decision was upheld by the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court on 4 March 1999. The applicant's further cassation appeal was rejected on 16 October 1999 as it had been lodged outside the prescribed time limit.\n20.  The trial court held a hearing on 10 December 1998.\n21.  On 25 April 2001 the applicant asked the trial court to give a partial judgment in the case. On 10 May 2001 the court dismissed her request.\n22.  On 11 May 2001 the trial court again requested the “TC” company to prepare an opinion.\n23.  It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Stalowa Wola District Court.\n24.  On 15 November 1993 the applicant requested the Stalowa Wola District Court to declare a contract concluded by her ex-husband null and void.\n25.  The court held a hearing on 23 February 1993.\n26.  At the hearing held on 16 March 1994 the court stayed the proceedings. It considered that the determination of the claim depended on the outcome of the proceedings conc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-730", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Łódź, Poland.\n9.  On 31 July 1992 the applicant sued the “Bolesławów” Agriculture Co-operative (Rolnicza Spółdzielnia Przetwórstwa Owoców i Warzyw “Bolesławów”) in the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), seeking repayment of his indexed membership shares (udziały członkowskie).\n10.  On 29 April 1993 the applicant asked the court to list a hearing. On 21 September 1993 the court held the first hearing and requested the applicant to submit certain documents. On 25 September 1993 the applicant submitted to the court his pleadings together with the relevant documents.\n11.  On 17 May 1994 the court held the second hearing. It ordered an accountant of the co-operative to provide information about the management of the co-operative's assets. The documents were submitted to the court on 1 October 1994.\n12.  The third hearing was held on 23 March 1995. On 4 May 1995 the applicant requested that the court issue an interim order (zarządzenie tymczasowe) and restrain the co-operative from selling or encumbering its property in order to safeguard his claim. On 5 July 1995 the court refused to issue the interim order. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 7 September 1995 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the first‑instance decision.\n13.  On 16 November 1995 the Regional Court held the fourth hearing. The accountant of the co-operative summoned as a witness failed to appear due to illness.\n14.  The next hearing, listed for 16 April 1996, was adjourned on the ground that the presiding judge was ill.\n15.  On 20 April 1996 the applicant complained, invoking Article 6 of the Convention, about the length of the proceedings to the President of the Łódź Regional Court. On 30 April 1996 the President of the Regional Court instructed the President of the Civil Division of the Regional Court to list a hearing in the case. On 24 May 1996 the President of the Court of Appeal, informed the applicant that he would supervise the proceedings.\n16.  On 18 June 1996 the court held the fifth hearing. The accountant summoned as a witness again failed to appear. The court adjourned the hearing until 22 October 1996. In addition the court ordered the defendant to submit certain documentary evidence.\n17.  On 24 June 1996 the applicant complained for the second time to the President of the Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings. He also sent a letter to the President of the Court of Appeal. In reply, the President of the Court of Appeal informed the applicant that it was not possible to schedule a hearing before 22 October 1996.\n18.  In the meantime the case was assigned to a new judge. On 24 September 1996 the court held a hearing. The hearing scheduled for 22 October 1996 was adjourned due to the presiding judge's illness.\n19.  On 28 February 1997 the court held the last (seventh) hearing. According to the applicant's submissions, the court invited him to settle the case. On the same date the parties reached a friendly settlement and the court discontinued the proceedings. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-731", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  On 8 January 1996 the first applicant filed an action claiming that she should be granted the right to educate her granddaughter of whom the second applicant is the father.\n12.  The girl, who had been born to the first applicant's daughter, was then fourteen years old. The marriage of the second applicant and the first applicant's daughter had been terminated by a decision which had become final on 18 July 1985. The decision granted the custody of the child to the mother. In 1993 the mother married abroad and established her and her daughter's permanent residence there. At the time when the first applicant brought her action, the child and the mother were on a temporary stay in Slovakia.\n13.  In her action of 8 January 1996 the first applicant relied on Section 45 of the Family Act and explained that her daughter had failed to take proper care of the girl. She further submitted that the second applicant was in agreement with her proposal. She also claimed that the parents be ordered to contribute to the child's maintenance.\n14.  In January and February 1996 the Dunajská Streda District Court took several procedural steps. On 14 February 1996 the District Court appointed the Veľký Meder District Office to represent the interests of the child in the context of the proceedings. On 19 February 1996 the child's mother appealed against this decision. She claimed that the child's father was in arrears with payment of maintenance and that the officials of the District Office had failed to take appropriate action in that respect.\n15.  The District Court had also before it a request for adoption of the child lodged by the husband of the child's mother. The request was later withdrawn and the proceedings discontinued.\n16.  A hearing scheduled for 28 February 1996 had to be adjourned as the child's mother was ill.\n17.  The court heard the parties on 15 April 1996. On that date the second applicant joined the proceedings and claimed that the first applicant's action be granted.\n18.  In April and May 1996 the child's mother sought to disqualify the judge dealing with the case as well as the entire bench of the District Court. For this reason the hearing scheduled for 13 May 1996 was adjourned. The case file was submitted to the Trnava Regional Court for a decision on the request for disqualification of the judges.\n19.  Subsequently the girl was placed in a psychiatric hospital.\n20.  On 31 May 1996 the District Office in Veľký Meder issued an interim measure ordering that the child was to be temporarily placed in the first applicant's care. Reference was made to the conclusions of a psychiatrist who treated the child. The decision stated that the child's mother had married abroad in 1993 and that since then the relations between the child and the mother had deteriorated. According to the decision, the girl had expressed the wish to live with her grandparents.\n21.  The child's mother refused to comply with the order. Upon the child's release from the psychiatric hospital the mother and the girl went abroad to where their place of permanent residence was.\n22.  On 4 July 1996 the Dunajská Streda District Prosecutor joined the proceedings.\n23.  On 11 July 1996 the Regional Court sent the file back to the District Court and instructed it to invite the child's mother to specify her objection to the District Court judges. Subsequently the police informed the District Court that the child and her mother had left Slovakia in June 1996.\n24.  On 26 August 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-732", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Warsaw.\n5.  On 21 March 1994 the Municipal Housing Board for Warsaw‑Żoliborz (Zarząd Budynków Komunalnych ”Żoliborz”) lodged with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a civil action against the applicant. The plaintiff sought to terminate the payment of an annuity (renta wyrównawcza) to the applicant.\n6.  The trial court held hearings on 7 July, 19 October, 12 December 1994 and 9 February 1995.\n7.  On 20 February 1995 the District Court exempted the applicant from the court-fees.\n8.  On 5 March 1996 the court held a hearing.\n9.  On 23 December 1997 the trial court, sitting in camera, ordered an expert opinion. The opinion was submitted to the court in June 1998.\n10.  On 9 March 1999 the court held a hearing.\n11.  On 7 July 2000 the trial court ordered a supplementary expert opinion.\n12.  On 17 July 2001 the trial court decided to exempt the applicant from the costs of the expert opinion.\n13.  On 20 August 2002 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.\n14.  On 23 October 2002 the court held a hearing.\n15.  On 19 November 2002 the Warsaw District Court gave judgment in which it dismissed the plaintiff's claim and increased the applicant's annuity.\n16.  The parties did not appeal against it and the judgment became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-733", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1959 and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in HM Prison Doncaster.\n8.  The applicant was convicted in or around 1981 for the murder of an acquaintance. He was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment, and his tariff (the minimum period of imprisonment required to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence) was set at 12 years.\n9.  At the time of the applicant's latest Parole Board review in 2001, he was detained in HM Prison Wymott as a “Category C” prisoner (prisoners being given a security category classification ranging from Category A (highest risk) to Category D (suitable for open conditions)). The Parole Board recommended that the applicant should be transferred to open conditions, and that his detention should be reviewed after two years. By letter dated 6 July 2001 the Secretary of State informed the Prison Service that he did not accept the Parole Board's recommendation for transfer to open conditions, and that the next review should begin after 12 months. In the letter to the applicant which accompanied the decision it was stated that:\n“... [t]he Secretary of State attaches particular weight to the psychologist's report, it has highlighted in some detail, the need for further exploration of your insight into, and responsibility for, the index offence and the apparent lack of empathy towards the victim.”\n10.  In June 2001 the applicant was transferred to HM Prison Manchester. He claimed that he did not receive notification of the parole decision until sometime after 13 September 2001. The Government stated that a copy of the decision letter was sent to the applicant on 6 July 2001 and a copy to the solicitors then acting for the applicant on 7 August 2001. When the applicant changed his solicitors in September 2001, the authorities sent a copy of the decision to the new solicitors.\n11.  The applicant stated that he wanted to seek judicial review of the decision, but was unable to find a solicitor who was prepared to act on his behalf. His then solicitors gave advice that judicial review stood little prospect of success as the reports recommending a move to open conditions had been slightly ambiguous, there were a number of very unfavourable reports and the Secretary of State had given extensive reasons for rejecting the recommended move.\n12.  The applicant's first Parole Board oral hearing under new arrangements was scheduled for November 2003. At the applicant's request, it was deferred until May 2004 to allow the applicant time to complete certain courses identified in the reports for the Parole Board review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-734", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Oldham.\n8.  From 1977, the applicant ran a company which operated 20 chemist shops. Following financial problems, the company went into liquidation in February 1987. On 20 May 1987, a bankruptcy petition was presented against the applicant and on 11 March 1988, a bankruptcy order was made.\n9.  On 29 July 1988, the applicant was publicly examined by the official receiver. Under section 291 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the applicant was obliged to answer the questions put to him by the official receiver and if he failed to comply without reasonable excuse, he would have been guilty of contempt of court and liable to punishment by a fine or imprisonment.\n10.  On 16 March and 23 March 1988, a building society advanced 150,000 pounds sterling (GBP) and GBP 116,250 respectively to the applicant. On 23 March 1988, the applicant's wife collected part of the advance, GBP 104,000, and took it to India in a bin liner.\n11.  The applicant was subsequently charged with two offences of obtaining property by deception contrary to section 15(1) of the Theft Act 1968 on the grounds that he had misled the building society into advancing money by false representations regarding his income, his debts and the bankruptcy proceedings against him. He was also charged with two offences of removing property required to be delivered to the official receiver and failing to account for the loss of property while bankrupt contrary to section 354(2) and (3) of the Insolvency Act 1986.\n12.  At the applicant's trial in February 1992, the prosecution introduced as evidence the transcript of the examination of the applicant by the official receiver in the bankruptcy proceedings. The applicant submitted that the transcript was inadmissible under section 31 of the Theft Act 1968 which provides that a statement or admission made by a person answering questions in proceedings for the administration of any property or for an account of any property or dealings with property is not admissible in evidence against that person. However, the trial judge ruled the evidence admissible under section 433 of the Insolvency Act 1986 which provided that statements made in pursuance of a requirement imposed by the Act could be used in evidence against the maker of the statement. The full transcript was placed before the jury and in his summing up, the judge stated that the transcript “could be very important”.\n13.  On 18 February 1992, the applicant was convicted of the four offences charged and was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. The applicant appealed against conviction and on 12 May 1992, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal deciding, inter alia, that the transcript of the bankruptcy examination was admissible under section 433 of the Insolvency Act 1986 which abrogated the privilege against self-incrimination. Leave to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal and by the House of Lords.\n14.  On 27 June 1995, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain decided to remove the applicant's licence to practise as a pharmacist on the grounds of unfitness due to his involvement in the deception connected with his bankruptcy proceedings and a previous reprimand relating to the cleanliness of his premises.\n15.  On 27 April 1998, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“CCRC”) referred the applicant's case back to the Court of Appeal due to changes in the domestic law on obtaining mortgage advances by false statements. On 20 June 2000, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-736", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Michalovce.\n9.  On 28 September 1993 and on 15 March 1994 respectively the Regional Social Security Office in Michalovce issued two decisions ordering the applicant to pay a total of 12,512 Slovakian korunas. The sum included social insurance fees which the applicant had failed to pay and an administrative fine. The decisions became final on 18 October 1993 and on 6 April 1994 respectively.\n10.  On 14 October 1994 the Regional Social Security Office in Michalovce brought judicial enforcement proceedings against the applicant under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n11.  On 18 November 1994 the Michalovce District Court ordered the enforcement of the sum due by selling the applicant's movable property. The decision was served on the applicant on 23 September 1996. On 7 October 1996 the applicant appealed.\n12.  On 1 August 1996, the Michalovce branch office of the Social Security Administration requested the Michalovce District Court that the sum due be enforced by an enforcement officer, that is pursuant to Act No. 233/1995. In a letter dated 7 August 1996 and delivered on 12 August 1996 a judge informed the Social Security Administration that the District Court approved of the request.\n13.  On 6 February 1997 the Michalovce branch office of the Social Security Administration requested an enforcement officer to enforce the applicant's debt pursuant to Act No. 233/1995. On 10 March 1997 the Michalovce District Court authorised the enforcement officer to carry out the enforcement in accordance with Act No. 233/1995.\n14.  On 13 and 26 June 1997 the applicant filed objections to the enforcement. On 28 September 1998 the Michalovce District Court dismissed the applicant's objections to the enforcement.\n15.  On 25 October 2000 the Michalovce District Court dismissed the applicant's above appeal of 7 October 1996 which it had qualified as a request for the enforcement to be discontinued. On 21 and 30 November 2000 the applicant appealed.\n16.  According to the documents submitted by the applicant, the sum due was enforced by partial payments deducted from his old-age pension between February 1999 and August 2001.\n17.  On 15 October 2001 the Košice Regional Court upheld the District Court's decision of 25 October 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-737", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Nicosia.\n11.  From the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 and up to his dismissal from the public service, the applicant worked as Governor of the Department of Co-operative Development of the Public Service in Nicosia. On 28 July 1982 the Public Service Commission instituted disciplinary proceedings against him and decided to dismiss him retrospectively by reason of the fact that on 8 April 1981 he had been found guilty by the Nicosia District Court of stealing, breach of trust and abuse of authority. He had been sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. His appeal against both conviction and sentence had been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16 October 1981.\n12.  The Public Service Commission held that the applicant had managed the resources of the above-mentioned department as if it were his private property and spent them for purposes other than those of the department. The disciplinary sanction of dismissal also resulted in the forfeiture of the applicant's retirement benefits, including his pension, in accordance with section 79(7) of the Public Service Law (no. 33/67), from the date of his conviction by the District Court. In Cyprus, pensions are part of the overall employment contract offered to public servants. The pension scheme is non-contributory.\n13.  On 8 October 1982 the applicant filed an application with the Supreme Court requesting that the decision to dismiss him from the public service be declared null and void. The applicant's main argument was that the decision had been taken in excess or abuse of power in that the sanction of dismissal, with the consequent forfeiture of retirement benefits, was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. He also contended that the forfeiture was contrary to Article 12 § 2 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right not to be tried or punished twice. He alleged that the forfeiture of his pension rights and the sentence of imprisonment amounted to a double punishment for the same act.\n14.  By a judgment delivered on 12 June 1991, the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's application and confirmed the Public Service Commission's decision. In particular, the Supreme Court held:\n“It has been established by case-law that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to intervene on the subject of the sanction imposed unless it is evident that the disciplinary body has exceeded the limits of its discretionary power.\nThe Supreme Court's powers in such issues bear no resemblance to its powers while exercising its jurisdiction over the appeal of the district courts' judgments, on which it has the authority to intervene when the decision on the sentence is either incorrect from the outset, evidently excessive or insufficient.\nThe assessment of the severity of such a disciplinary sanction is outside the limits of this Court's authority (see, among others, Cristofides v. CY.T.A., (1979) 3 C.L.R. 99, and Papacleovoulou v. the Republic, (1982) 3 C.L.R. 187, 196-197).\nIt has been repeatedly established ... in a series of judgments that an administrative court, during the judgment of an appeal against the imposition of a disciplinary sanction, does not as a rule have the authority to intervene in the essential judgment and assessment of the facts by the competent body. ...\nSection 79(1) of Law no 33/67 enumerates a limited number of disciplinary sanctions that can be imposed under the provisions of the same Law. These sancti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-738", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the town of Pyatigorsk.\n5.  On 28 October 1996 a fire broke out in the applicant's flat. The possessions of the applicant's family were destroyed and the applicant's daughter was severely injured.\n6.  On 15 April 1997 (on 6 July 1998, according to the Government) the applicant and his wife brought a civil action for damages before the Pyatigorsk Town Court of the Stavropol Region against the local housing maintenance authority, the “Stavropol Tobacco Company” that rented the flat where the fire had begun, and Mr S., an employee of that company whose negligence during gas welding had apparently caused the fire.\n7.  On 6 August 1998 the applicant and his wife requested the court to summon additional witnesses on their behalf. The hearing was adjourned until 24 August.\n8.  On 24 August 1998 the Pyatigorsk Town Court stayed the proceedings in the applicant's action pending the completion of the criminal investigation against Mr S.\n9.  On 18 September 2001 the criminal case against Mr S. was terminated because of an amnesty act. Mr S. disagreed with this decision and complained to the regional prosecutor's office.\n10.  On unspecified dates in 1999 and 2000 Judge Ivleva of the Pyatigorsk Town Court confirmed to the applicant that the proceedings were still pending.\n11.  According to the Government, on 26 February 2001 the proceedings in the applicant's case were resumed. On 28 February 2001 the applicant and his wife increased their claims to take account of their loss of earnings and medical expenses incurred in connection with the treatment of their injured child.\n12.  On 15 March 2001 the court took statements by the parties and fixed a new hearing for 29 March after the applicant and his wife had left the courtroom.\n13.  On 29 March 2001 the hearing was adjourned until 5 April as both parties failed to appear.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicant's lawyer complained to the Stavropol Regional Court about the excessive length of proceedings in the applicant's case. On 4 April 2001 the Stavropol Regional Court replied that “a regional court cannot interfere with the proceedings pending before [lower] courts of the region”.\n15.  On 5 April 2001 the court stayed the proceedings and ordered an expert examination of the commercial value of lost possessions. After both parties refused to pay for the examination, on 19 October 2001 the proceedings were resumed.\n16.  On 24 October 2001 the Pyatigorsk Town Court gave its judgment. It ordered the defendants to pay the applicant and his wife compensation for damage to their property and non-pecuniary damage to their daughter. The court dismissed the applicant's request concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and his wife and for their loss of earnings.\n17.  On 16 November 2001 the applicant's lawyer appealed against the judgment. The defendant company also appealed.\n18.  On 19 December 2001 the Stavropol Regional Court quashed the judgment of 24 October 2001 on procedural grounds and remitted the case for a new examination. On 3 January 2002 the case was assigned to a new judge.\n19.  On 2 February 2002 the applicant's lawyer complained to the President of the Stavropol Regional Court that neither the applicant, nor himself had been given a copy of the judgment of 19 December 2001, which had allegedly impaired their ability to prepare their case before the first instance court.\n20.  On 6 February 2002 the Pyatigors", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-739", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1959 and is currently staying in a custodial clinic in the Netherlands.\n9.  Between 1975 and 1995, the applicant was convicted nineteen times of theft, criminal damage, assault and aggravated assault. On 21 January 1997 the Arnhem Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) convicted the applicant of assault and assault occasioning grievous bodily harm committed in 1996. Having found that at the time of the commission of the offence the applicant was able to understand the unlawful nature of his acts but that his mental faculties were so poorly developed that he could only be held responsible for these offences to a limited degree, the Regional Court sentenced the applicant to fifteen months' imprisonment in combination with an order for his confinement in a custodial clinic (hereafter a “TBS order” - terbeschikkingstelling met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege).\n10.  On 16 September 1997 the Arnhem Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) upheld the Regional Court's judgment of 21 January 1997.\n11.  Although the applicant had initially filed an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) against the judgment of 16 September 1997, he withdrew this appeal on 5 February 1998 when, after having served his prison sentence, the TBS order took effect. However, he was not transferred to a custodial clinic but was held in pre‑placement detention in an ordinary remand centre (huis van bewaring).\n12.  On 7 August 1998, the applicant filed an appeal with the Appeals Board (beroepscommissie) of the TBS Section of the Central Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice (Centrale Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing) against the apparently automatic prolongation by three months of the six-month period of pre‑placement detention referred to in Article 12 of the Act on confinement to a custodial clinic of persons subject to a TBS order (Beginselenwet verpleging ter beschikking gestelden; hereinafter referred to as “the 1997 Act”). He submitted that this six-month period had expired, that he had not received written notification from the Minister of Justice that his pre‑placement detention would be extended by three months and, apparently, that the procedure for selection and placement in a custodial clinic in his case had not yet started.\n13.  Between 11 September and 11 November 1998 the applicant stayed in the Dr. F.S. Meijers Institute for the purpose of selection and subsequent placement in a custodial clinic.\n14.  On 5 November 1998 the applicant filed a further appeal with the Appeals Board against the second apparently automatic prolongation of his pre‑placement detention by three months. He requested the Appeals Board to suspend the second prolongation request.\n15.  On 10 November 1998 the Minister of Justice filed written submissions with the Appeals Board in response to those filed by the applicant.\n16.  On 11 November 1998 the President of the Appeals Board rejected the applicant's request to suspend the further execution of the Minister's decision of 2 November 1998 to prolong the applicant's pre‑placement detention in the remand centre by three months. Taking into account the fact that the applicant, at the time of the decision, had spent eight months awaiting placement in a custodial clinic and that, according to the medical report of 15 October 1998, there was no apparent urgent medical need for his placement in a custodial clinic, the President found no pressing interest which required the suspension o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-740", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Eindhoven.\n10.  On 23 June 1994 the ’s-Hertogenbosch Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) convicted the applicant of participation in robbery with violence resulting in grievous bodily harm and sentenced him to fifteen months’ imprisonment, with deduction of the time spent in pre-trial detention. In addition, having found that the applicant was suffering from a mental disorder and was dangerous, the Regional Court further ordered the applicant’s confinement in a custodial clinic (hereafter a “TBS order” - terbeschikkingstelling met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege).\n11.  On 10 October 1994, when the applicant had served his prison sentence, the TBS order took effect. However, the applicant was not transferred to a custodial clinic as there were no places available. He therefore remained in pre-placement detention in the ’s‑Hertogenbosch ordinary remand centre.\n12.  In order to expedite his admission to a custodial clinic, the applicant instituted summary civil proceedings (kort geding) against the Netherlands State. He withdrew these summary proceedings after his transfer to a custodial clinic in Nijmegen on 28 December 1995.\n13.  On 8 February 1996 the applicant took civil proceedings against the Netherlands State before the Hague Regional Court, claiming compensation in tort (onrechtmatige daad) in an amount of 29,200 Netherlands guilders (NLG), i.e. NLG 50 for each day during the first ten months of his pre-placement detention after 10 October 1994 pending transfer to a custodial clinic and NLG 100 for each subsequent day until 28 December 1995.\n14.  In its judgment of 24 July 1996 the Regional Court held that a delay of six months was acceptable for a transfer to a custodial clinic and that the Netherlands State had only acted unlawfully in so far as this delay had exceeded six months. It awarded the applicant compensation in the amount of NLG 50 for each day spent in pre-placement detention between 6 and 10 months after 10 October 1994 and NLG 100 for each subsequent day until 28 December 1995, i.e. a total amount of NLG 20,100. It rejected the applicant’s claim for the remainder.\n15.  The Netherlands State filed an appeal with the Hague Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof). The applicant filed a cross-appeal (incidenteel beroep) in which he reduced his claim for damages to NLG 24,900 in that he no longer sought compensation for the first three months of his pre-placement detention, i.e. the period between 10 October 1994 and 28 December 1995.\n16.  In its judgment of 20 March 1997 the Court of Appeal rejected the principal appeal filed by the Netherlands State. It did, however, quash the judgment of 24 July 1996 on the basis of the cross-appeal filed by the applicant in so far as the applicant’s claims in excess of NLG 20,100 had been dismissed in this judgment. It ordered the Netherlands State to pay a further amount of NLG 4,800 to the applicant. The Netherlands State filed an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad).\n17.  On 5 June 1998 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 20 March 1997 and referred the case back to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal. It held, inter alia:\n“3.3  Article 9 § 1 (b) of the [1951] Prisons Act (Beginselenwet Gevangeniswezen) reads:\n‘Remand centres are intended: (b) for the accommodation of all others lawfully deprived of their liberty by a judicial decision, court order or public authority, in so far as there is no other suitable place ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-741", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Częstochowa, Poland.\n5.  The applicant shared a house and a plot of land with three family members (“the neighbours”). On 6 February 1989 he instituted non-contentious proceedings (postępowanie nieprocesowe) before the Częstochowa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Częstochowie) in which he requested that the co-ownership of the property be dissolved.\n6.  Until November 1991 the court held eight hearings and ordered two expert opinions.\n7.  On 30 April 1992 the court stayed the proceedings because the applicant had failed to pay an advance fee towards the costs of an expert opinion.\n8.  On 22 September 1994 the proceedings were resumed as the applicant paid the costs ordered by the court.\n9.  On 6 and 20 December 1994 the court held hearings. It ordered a supplementary expert opinion.\n10.  In February and March 1995 the applicant requested the court to appoint another expert. Subsequently, he challenged an expert opinion and the expert who prepared it. The court dismissed his applications on 22 March and 31 May 1995.\n11.  On 23 June 1995 the court ordered another expert opinion. The opinion was submitted to the court on 5 September 1995.\n12.  On 17 October 1995, 16 January, 2 April and 15 May 1996 the court held hearings. It ordered three supplementary expert opinions.\n13.  Between 12 August and 5 December 1996 the proceedings were stayed because the applicant failed to pay an advance fee towards the costs of a supplementary expert opinion.\n14.  In December 1996 an expert opinion was submitted to the court; subsequently, the court ordered another expert opinion.\n15.  In February 1997 the applicant challenged the appointment of a new expert.\n16.  On 17 September 1997 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.\n17.  On 24 November 1997 the court held a hearing.\n18.  On 28 November 1997 the Częstochowa District Court gave a decision in which it dissolved the co‑ownership.\n19.  The neighbours appealed against it.\n20.  On 26 May 1998 the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case to the first‑instance court.\n21.  On 22 October 1998 the court held a hearing at which it decided to hold a view of the property. The applicant requested the court not to schedule any hearing until 16 November 1998.\n22.  On 21 May 1999 the judge held a view of the property.\n23.  On 10 June 1999 the court held a hearing. Subsequently, the court ordered another expert opinion and ordered the applicant to pay an advance fee towards the costs of it.\n24.  On 10 September 1999 the Częstochowa District Court stayed the proceedings because the applicant had failed to pay the advance fee. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was allowed by the Częstochowa Regional Court on 15 November 1999.\n25.  On 12 April 2000 the court held a hearing.\n26.  Subsequently, the neighbours challenged a court expert. Their challenge was finally dismissed on 2 June 2000.\n27.  On 14 July 2000 the applicant challenged another court expert. On 2 August 2000 the Częstochowa District Court dismissed his application.\n28.  On 18 November 2000 the expert submitted another opinion to the court.\n29.  On 2 April 2001 the District Court held a hearing.\n30.  On 11 June 2001 the applicant instituted another set of civil proceedings in which he requested permission to be connected to the public water supply and to carry out construction works on the co-owned property. The proceedings are pending before t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-742", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are a married couple living in Goleniòw.\n9.  On 2 October 1988 the second applicant was seriously injured in a car accident during his professional military service in a military unit in G. On 3 November 1988 the investigations concerning the accident were discontinued, as the driver who had caused it had died.\n10.  Following the accident, the second applicant became disabled. On 14 December 1989 the military medical panel assessed his health loss at 100 per cent. He lost his ability to speak, is tetraplegic and suffers from depression. On 10 April 1990 the second applicant left military service.\n11.  On 23 November 1992 the military unit G. informed the State Insurance Company (Państwowy Zakład Ubezpieczeń), hereinafter referred to as SIC) of the accident and inquired about possible insurance entitlements that the second applicant might have had.\n12.  On 2 February 1993 the first applicant, acting also on behalf of her husband, lodged with the Szczecin Regional Court a compensation claim against the G. military unit and against the Stargard Szczeciński branch of the SIC. She also claimed to be granted a monthly allowance as she had to give up work in order to take full-time care of her husband. She submitted a power of attorney given by her husband. On 12 May 1993 the court ordered the applicants to identify the defendant more precisely.\n13.  On 11 June 1993 the Szczecin Regional Court exempted the applicants from the court fees.\n14.  On 23 February 1994 the applicants requested the court to fix a date for the hearing in the case.\n15.  On 8 December 1994 the court ordered that the statement of claim be served on the defendants.\n16.  On 29 December 1994 the Stargard Szczeciński branch of the SIC, the second defendant, lodged its written pleadings with the court. On 5 January 1995 the defendant military unit G. filed with the court its reply to the applicant’s statement of claim, and on 10 January 1995 it lodged further pleadings. On 21 January 1995 the court ordered the applicant to respond to the defendants’ pleadings.\n17.  On 15 March 1995 the Stargard branch of the SIC requested the court to summon the Goleniów branch of the SIC as another defendant.\n18.  On 10 April 1995 the applicants concluded a settlement with the Goleniów branch of the SIC, providing for a payment of PLN 20,000 and a monthly pension.\n19.  The court summoned the Goleniów branch of the SIC on 15 November 1995 to participate in the proceedings. On 16 January 1996 the statement of claim was served on the third defendant. On 19 February 1996 the Goleniów branch of the SIC submitted pleadings in which it requested that the proceedings against it be discontinued, referring to the settlement of 10 April 1995.\n20.  On 12 April 1996 the court ordered that the applicants be served with this reply and fixed the hearing for 4 July 1996.\n21.  On 13 May 1996 the applicants requested the Szczecin Regional Court to have regard to the second applicant’s disability and to transmit the case to the District Court in Goleniów in the vicinity of their domicile. On 17 July 1995 the Szczecin Regional Court informed the applicants that under the applicable legal provisions the case had to be conducted before the Szczecin Regional Court as it was the latter which was competent to entertain it, regard being had to the amount of the claim.\n22.  On 25 July 1996 a first hearing was held in the case. The court discontinued the proceedings concerning the Goleniów branch of th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-743", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 8 November 1995 the applicant company acquired the publishing rights for a book entitled Le Grand Secret (“The Big Secret”) from a Mr Gonod, a journalist, and a Dr Gubler, who had been private physician to President Mitterrand for several years. The book gave an account of the relations between Dr Gubler and the President, describing how the former had organised a medical team to take care of the latter, who had been diagnosed with cancer in 1981, a few months after he had first been elected President of France. It recounted in particular the difficulties Dr Gubler had encountered in concealing the illness, given that President Mitterrand had undertaken to issue a health bulletin every six months.\nThe book was due to be published in mid-January 1996, while President Mitterrand was still alive. However, following the President's death on 8 January 1996, the authors and Editions Plon decided to postpone its publication.\n7.  On 10 January 1996 the daily newspaper Le Monde published an article which revealed that President Mitterrand had been suffering from prostate cancer since the beginning of his first seven-year term of office and pointed out that the public had not been officially informed about his illness until 1992. The article also stated that President Mitterrand had dismissed Dr Gubler in 1994, choosing instead to be treated with medicine described by the applicant company as “alternative”.\nThose revelations were the subject of extensive comment in the media. Questions were asked, in particular, about the quality of the treatment received by President Mitterrand.\nA former cultural adviser to President Mitterrand had already claimed in a book entitled L'Année des adieux, published by Flammarion in June 1995, that the President had not received proper treatment. In addition, shortly after the President's death, one of his brothers made similar allegations. The head of the cancer treatment department at the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital did likewise, in particular asserting on the radio station Europe 1 that “for years [President Mitterrand had been] given nothing but magical cures, and these techniques were completely ineffective in treating his illness”.\nOn 12 January 1996, however, Le Monde published a statement by the President of the National Council of the ordre des médecins (Medical Association) to the effect that “according to the information in [his] possession, the President [had] received perfectly appropriate treatment”. Furthermore, on 11 January 1996 the President's widow and children had issued a statement emphasising that they maintained their trust in the medical team that had looked after him.\n8.  As Dr Gubler considered that his reputation had been called into question, it was decided to publish Le Grand Secret on 17 January 1996. The following text appeared on the back cover:\n“On 10 May 1981 François Mitterrand was elected President of France.\nOn 16 November 1981, six months later, medical examinations revealed that the head of State was suffering from cancer. Statistically, he had between three months and three years to live.\nA handful of doctors resolved to fight the illness, driven by the obsession to save the President and to obey his instruction that the French public should know nothing about the matter. It became a State secret.\nOnly Claude Gubler, private physician to François Mitterrand during his two terms of office, could have provided us with the astonishing account of how the President cheated de", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-744", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Chişinău.\n11.  In June 1946 the Soviet authorities nationalised the applicant's parents' house. In 1949 her parents were deported to Siberia.\n12.  On 8 December 1992 the Moldovan Parliament enacted Law No. 1225-XII “on the rehabilitation of the victims of the political repression committed by the totalitarian communist occupying regime”. The Law enabled the victims of the Soviet repression to claim their confiscated or nationalised property.\n13.  In 1997 the applicant lodged an action with the Centru District Court (Judecătoria Sectorului Centru) by which she sought the restitution of her parents' house. At the material time the disputed house consisted of six apartments: nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 13. Since apartments nos. 3, 6, 7, 8 and 13 had been purchased by their former tenants, the applicant sought to declare null and void the contracts by which they had been purchased from the State. She also sought the eviction of all the occupants of the house.\n14.  On 14 March 1997 the Centru District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the restitution of the house. It declared null and void the contracts by which apartments nos. 3, 6, 7, 8 and 13 had been sold to their tenants. The court further ordered the Municipal Council to evict all the occupants, including those of apartment no. 12, and indicated that the Municipal Council was to provide all the tenants with alternative accommodation.\n15.  The Municipal Council and the occupants lodged an appeal with the Chişinău Regional Court (Tribunalul Municipiului Chişinău) against the judgment of the Centru District Court. On 17 October 1997 the Chişinău Regional Court allowed the appeal and quashed the judgment of the Centru District Court.\n16.  The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court. On 31 March 1998 the Court of Appeal (Curtea de Apel) rejected the appeal in cassation and upheld the judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court.\n17.  Following a request by the applicant, the Procurator General's Office applied for annulment of the judgments of the Chişinău Regional Court and the Court of Appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice (Curtea Supremă de Justiţie).\n18.  On 19 August 1998 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgments of the Chişinău Regional Court and of the Court of Appeal, and upheld the judgment of the Centru District Court of 14 March 1997 on the ground that both the Chişinău Regional Court and the Court of Appeal had failed to observe the provisions of Law no. 1225-XII of 8 December 1992 (see paragraph 30 below).\n19.  On an unspecified date in 1998, after having obtained the enforcement warrant, the applicant asked the Municipal Council to execute the judgment of 14 March 1997. In a letter of 14 January 1999, the Municipal Council informed the applicant that due to a lack of funds for the construction of apartments for the evicted tenants, it could not execute the judgment.\n20.  In 1999 the applicant lodged a request with the Chişinău Land Register (Organul Cadastral Teritorial Chişinău) to issue her a certificate of ownership for the disputed house. In a letter of 15 September 1999, the Land Register informed the applicant that it would issue the ownership title only on the basis of an “act of delivery and receipt of the house” (act de predare-primire) issued by the Municipal Council.\n21.  In October 1999 the applicant lodged an action with the Centru District Cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-745", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1951 and is at present detained in Tolmezzo Prison, Udine.\n9.  In the course of criminal proceedings concerning an arms trafficking charge, the Rimini preliminary investigations judge set down the preliminary hearing for 23 April 1998.\n10.  On 30 October 1997 he ordered the notice of the date of the hearing, translated into Hungarian and accompanied by an invitation to appoint a legal representative, to be served by post on the accused, a Hungarian national living in Hungary named Thamas Somogyi, who was born in Miskolc on 23 October 1953. The reply slip acknowledging receipt of the notice reached the Rimini District Court's registry bearing a signature which, according to the applicant, was not his. He asserted that there was a difference between that signature and the one in his passport. Moreover, the forename of the signatory was “Thamas” and not “Tamas”.\n11.  As the defendant did not appear at the preliminary hearing, he was declared to be wilfully seeking to evade trial (contumace) and the court appointed a lawyer, Mr G., to assist him. From that point on, all notifications of procedural steps were served on Mr G.\n12.  Mr G. did not plead the nullity of the notice of the date of the preliminary hearing. An order was then made committing Thamas Somogyi for trial.\n13.  In a judgment of 22 June 1999, the Rimini District Court sentenced the accused to eight years' imprisonment and a fine of 2,000,000 Italian lire (approximately 1,032 euros).\n14.  That decision was grounded on statements made by certain persons facing charges in related proceedings, particularly a Mrs M. and the S. brothers, corroborated by other evidence. The text of the judgment did not indicate whether the persons in question had recognised the applicant on a photograph or if they had identified him in their statements purely on the basis of his name or personal information they had about him. The Rimini District Court merely said that the applicant had been “recognised and identified”. It further observed that, in view of the gravity of the offences he was charged with and the fact that he had constantly refused to give his version of the facts, he could not be granted the benefit of any extenuating circumstance.\n15.  The judgment of 22 June 1999 was served on Mr G.\n16.  On 30 October 1999 the Rimini District Court, having noted that the judgment of 22 June 1999 had become final, ordered the arrest of Mr Thamas Somogyi.\n17.  On 15 August 2000 the Austrian police arrested the applicant (Tamas Somogyi, born in Budapest on 19 October 1951) and notified the Italian authorities.\n18.  The Italian authorities opened an investigation which led to the finding that the person convicted on 22 June 1999 was in fact the applicant.\n19.  In a decision of 17 August 2000, the Rimini District Court ordered that the judgment of 22 June 1999 be rectified by insertion of the applicant's forename and his date and place of birth in place of the information originally recorded. That decision was served on Mr G.\n20.  The applicant was then extradited from Austria to Italy, where he was deprived of his liberty in execution of the judgment of 22 June 1999.\n21.  On a date which has not been specified he applied to the Rimini District Court under Article 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), asking it to reopen the time allowed for an appeal (istanza di rimessione in termini). He contended that the judgment of 22 June 1999 was invalid because the summ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-746", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1943 and 1939 respectively and live in Istanbul.\n5.  On 6 September 1993 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants in Istanbul. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land belonging to the applicants and compensation was paid to them when the expropriation took place.\n6.  On 4 February 1994, following the applicants’ request for increased compensation, the Kartal First Instance Court awarded them additional compensation of 48,410,250,000 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate of 30% per annum, namely the rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision. The date, 6 September 1993 was fixed by the domestic court for the running of the statutory rate of interest. The parties appealed.\n7.  On 12 May 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the first instance court. On 2 November 1994 the first instance court re-examined the case and amended the amount of the additional compensation to TRL 45,692,700,000. The decision became final since none of the parties appealed. On 29 December 1997 the administration paid the applicants TRL 95,426,696,000 as the additional compensation together with interest. The interest on the additional compensation was calculated at the statutory rate applicable between the date of the decision of the first instance court in favour of the applicant and 31 December 1997.\n8.  Between 1993 and 1999 the rate of inflation averaged 81.7% per annum.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-747", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lived in Sevlievo.\n10.  On 5 April 1995, at 8 a.m., the applicant, at that time 67 years old, was taken by three police officers, lieutenant R., chief-sergeant D., and a driver, to the District Police Department in the town of Sevlievo. The arrest took place in connection with a complaint filed the previous evening by one of the applicant’s neighbours, Mrs T., in which she had alleged that the applicant had beaten her with a stick.\n11.  Once on the premises of the District Police Department, the applicant was placed in a detention room, where she spent some time. Then she was brought into the office of lieutenant R. Present in the room were also Mrs T., Mr T. (her husband) and chief-sergeant D. The applicant was confronted with Mrs T. in order to establish whether the facts alleged in the complaint were true. The applicant denied the allegation and an argument erupted between her and Mrs T. Lieutenant R. left the room to take some documents from another office. As the argument between the applicant and Mrs T. continued, chief-sergeant D. led the applicant out of lieutenant R.’s office, into the corridor.\n12.  According to testimony given later by chief-sergeant D. and another police officer, sergeant U., after being led out of the office and into the corridor, the applicant, who was irritated, called chief-sergeant D. a “brat”, a “piss-pants” and a “sniveler”, and slapped him on the face. He then grabbed her hands and pushed her back but she kicked him in the ankle. Then sergeant U. intervened to help chief-sergeant D., and the two forced the applicant into a detention room, from where she continued screaming insults at them. Then both officers left the detention room. Both officers denied having hit the applicant or having pushed her to the floor.\n13.  The applicant’s version of the facts significantly differed. She denied having insulted or hit chief-sergeant D. She submitted that after taking her out of lieutenant R.’s office, chief-sergeant D. and sergeant U. had guided her to a detention room, where they had started beating her in order to extract a confession. The applicant stated that sergeant U. had been holding her while chief-sergeant D. had been hitting her face and temple and kicking her torso. Her nose had started bleeding and sergeant U. had taken her to the toilet to wash the blood. He had also made the applicant wash the basin and had brought her back to the detention room, where the two had continued beating her. Chief-sergeant D. had kicked her and, while falling on the floor, the applicant had bumped her head against the edge of a table. She had lost consciousness for some time. After that she had spent an unspecified amount of time lying in the detention room.\n14.  In his testimony given at the applicant’s trial lieutenant R. relayed that around 12 noon he had come to the detention room and had found the applicant squatting on the floor. The applicant had told him that she “[had been] killed, [that] her waist [had been] broken ... that she [had been] beaten”. He had not seen any blood or visible traces of injury on the applicant but she had told him that her nose and mouth had been injured. The lieutenant had helped her sit on a chair. He had presented her a procès‑verbal establishing the fact that the previous evening the applicant had beaten Mrs T. and had asked her to sign it. The applicant had written “I am not guilty” and had signed. Lieutenant R. had led the applicant to t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-748", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1952.\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  The applicant is a former Chairman of the Board of and majority shareholder in ZAO Media Most, a private Russian media holding company, which owned NTV, a popular television channel.\n10.  On 2 November 1999 the applicant was interviewed by Mr Nikolayev, senior special cases investigator at the General Prosecutor's Office (“the GPO”). It appeared from the transcript of this interview that it concerned an investigation into a State-owned company known as FGP RGK Russian Video (“Russian Video”) in respect of the transfer of a broadcasting licence to a limited liability company, OOO Russian Video‑11th Channel (“OOO Russian Video”), in violation of various provisions of the Civil Code.\n11.  After the interview, a witness statement was completed and signed by both the applicant and Mr Nikolayev. The applicant was allowed to check the notes made of the interview and to add his own comments. The investigating officer noted down on the statement that the applicant had been awarded the Friendship of the Peoples Order.\n12.  In 2000 Media Most was involved in a bitter dispute with OAO Gazprom, a natural gas monopoly controlled by the State, over Media Most's debts to Gazprom.\n13.  After Gazprom had discontinued the negotiations on the debts, Media Most's offices in Moscow were searched by special units from the GPO and the Federal Security Service. A number of documents and other materials were seized as evidence in the framework of an investigation into alleged infringements of privacy by Media Most's security staff.\n14.  On 15 March 2000 Mr Nikolayev opened a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant (criminal case no. 18/191012-98) concerning allegations of fraud. This case was joined to a criminal investigation (case no. 18/221012-98) in respect of R., an executive of Russian Video, which concerned allegations of embezzlement. In both cases the allegations related to the business relations between Russian Video and OOO Russian Video and, in particular, Media Most's inclusion into OOO Russian Video and an increase in the latter's authorised capital, which resulted in a redistribution of each shareholder's' stake.\n15.  On 11 June 2000 the applicant was summoned to attend the GPO on 13 June 2000 at 5 p.m. to be questioned as a witness in relation to another criminal case. At the time of the summons by the GPO, the applicant was out of the country, but he nevertheless made arrangements to return to Russia. On arrival at the GPO on 13 June 2000, he was arrested and imprisoned in Butyrka Prison pursuant to an order issued on 13 June 2000 by Mr Nikolayev.\n16.  The order stated that, on the basis of Articles 90 to 92 and 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), Mr Nikolayev considered that the crime of fraud, of which the applicant was suspected, constituted a serious public threat punishable by imprisonment alone, and that the applicant might obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case and attempt to elude the investigation and trial.\n17.  The applicant remained in custody until 16 June, during which time he was interrogated twice, on 14 and 16 June.\n18.  The interrogation on 14 June took place in the presence of the applicant's lawyers. It was explained to the applicant before the interview that he was suspected of committing large-scale fraud within the meaning of Article 159 § 3 (b) of the Criminal ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-749", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants, Mr Alfred Lotter and Ms Edith Lotter (Bernhart), are Austrian nationals who were born in 1956 and 1962 respectively. At the relevant time they were married together. The applicants are Jehovah’s Witnesses.\n9.  The applicants visited Bulgaria for the first time in December 1992. They entered Bulgaria again on 1 March 1993 and remained in the country for the following several years. In 1993 they obtained temporary residence permits valid until 6 November 1995.\n10.  On 22 April 1993 the investigation authorities opened a criminal investigation into the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In April and July 1993 the first applicant and other followers of Jehovah’s Witnesses were questioned.\n11.  In June 1994, following a legislative amendment requiring religious associations to re‑register, by decision of the Council of Ministers a number of such associations, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ organisation in Bulgaria, were refused re‑registration (see Khristiansko Sdruzhenie “Svideteli na Iehova” (Christian Association Jehovah’s Witnesses) v. Bulgaria, no. 28626/98, Commission’s decision of 3 July 1997, Decisions and Reports (DR) 90, p. 77). Although the applicants were not members of the dissolved association, it was an established administrative practice in Bulgaria to consider that the Council of Ministers’ decision of June 1994 rendered unlawful all religious activity related to the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ cult.\n12.  On 1 December 1995, acting on the recommendation of the Plovdiv security service, the police withdrew the applicants’ residence permits and ordered them to leave Bulgaria by 29 December 1995. The police decisions only stated that they were based on section 31(1) of the Aliens (Residence in Bulgaria) Act, which provided that an alien could be refused the right to reside in Bulgaria if he or she has endangered the security or the interests of the State or his or her activities could pose a threat in this respect. No reasons were provided.\n13.  The applicants appealed to the Plovdiv Regional Court. In a decision of 15 March 1996 that court held that it had no jurisdiction to examine the appeal as under section 34(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act measures relating to the national security were excluded from judicial review.\n14.  The applicants appealed to the Supreme Court. On 6 May 1997 the Supreme Court, which had in the meanwhile become the Supreme Administrative Court, dismissed the appeals.\n15.  The first applicant left Bulgaria at the end of 1997. It appears that the applicants divorced. The second applicant married a Bulgarian citizen and stayed in Bulgaria.\n16.  Following several months of negotiations, in February 1998 the Bulgarian Government and persons representing the dissolved association of Jehovah’s Witnesses signed a friendly settlement in the proceedings before the former Commission (see Khristiansko Sdruzhenie “Svideteli na Iehova” (Christian Association Jehovah’s Witnesses) v. Bulgaria, no. 28626/95, Commission’s report of 9 March 1998, DR 92, p. 44). Since October 1998 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Bulgaria enjoy the status of a religious denomination.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-750", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Biala Podlaska.\n7.  On 21 April 1993 the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of forgery.\n8.  On 19 August 1993 he was released on bail.\n9.  On 31 December 1993 the bill of indictment was submitted to the Lublin Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki).\n10.  The court held hearings on 19 August and 6 September 1994. The applicant did not attend them.\n11.  On 6 September 1994 the court ordered the detention on remand of the applicant. It made a reference to his hiding and obstructing the proceedings. The court adjourned the examination of the case. In October and November 1994 the police searched for the applicant.\n12.  On 15 November 1995 the court stayed the proceedings due to the absence of the applicant. On 26 October 1995 it resumed the examination of the case in so far as it concerned the other accused persons.\n13.  On 16 January 1995 the applicant was apprehended in Belarus. On 1 June 1995 a Belarusian court convicted him of theft and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment in a labour camp.\n14.  On 9 January 1996 the Belarusian authorities handed over the applicant to the Polish authorities and it was agreed that he would serve the remaining part of his sentence in Poland.\n15.  On 17 January 1996 the Lublin Regional Court resumed the proceedings against the applicant and scheduled a hearing for 15 February 1996. However, the hearing was adjourned on the grounds of the sickness of one of his co-accused.\n16.  On 13 February 1996 the court ordered the applicant’s psychiatric examination, considering that his experiences in Belarus could have affected his mental health.\n17.  On 28 October 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court ordered the execution of the remaining part of the sentence ordered by the Belarusian court in a Polish prison.\n18.  On 4 April 1997 the Lublin Regional Court held a hearing. On 22 April 1997 it adjourned the examination of charges against another accused person, S.M., to a separate set of proceedings.\n19.  On 29 April 1997 the applicant lodged a request for release. On 6 May 1997 the court refused that request, pointing out that since 1994 the proceedings could not be conducted because of the applicant’s failure to attend hearings and his commission of an offence abroad.\n20.  On 10 June 1997, in a decision refusing another such request, the court observed that since 9 January 1996 the applicant had not been detained on remand, but had been serving the sentence of the Belarusian court.\n21.  The hearing scheduled for 4 June 1997 was adjourned. It was held on 25 August 1997.\n22.  On 11 September 1997 the court refused the applicant’s further request for release. It referred to the severity of the punishment faced by him and the necessity to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n23.  On 6 October and 13 November 1997 the court held hearings.\n24.  On 17 January 1998 the applicant finished serving the sentence imposed in Belarus.\n25.  On 27 January 1998 the court decided to continue his detention until 30 June 1998. It relied on the severity of the punishment faced by the applicant and the necessity to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court made reference to the instances of obstructing the proceedings by the applicant.\n26.  On 18 February 1998 it held a hearing, at which it ordered the examination of a witness by another court.\n27.  On 23 June 1998 the court refused the applicant’s request for release and prolonged his detention until 31 October 199", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-751", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Pécs.\n5.  On 16 April 1986 the applicant filed for divorce. In the proceedings before the Nagyatád District Court he also claimed the division of the matrimonial property.\n6.  The District Court held hearings on 6 January, 3 March and 19 June 1987. It appointed an expert architect to evaluate the investments which the parties’ had made in their house.\n7.  On 22 September 1987 the District Court pronounced the parties’ divorce.\n8.  On 21 October 1987 the expert submitted his opinion.\n9.  On 23 June 1988 the District Court gave a decision on the division of the matrimonial property.\nOn appeal, on 1 December 1988 the Somogy County Regional Court held a hearing, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings before the District Court, on 17 January 1989 the applicant extended his action to involve his son and the mother of his ex-wife.\n11.  On 31 March, 17 April, 16 May, 26 July, 12 September 1989 and 29 August 1990 the District Court held hearings.\n12.  On 11 February 1991 the District Court appointed an agricultural expert to make an evaluation of the parties’ orchard. The expert submitted his opinion on 16 April 1991.\n13.  On 7 September 1992 the District Court heard the expert architect as well as four witnesses. A further hearing took place on 29 January 1993.\n14.  On 2 November 1993 the District Court divided the matrimonial property.\n15.  On 2 December 1993 the applicant requested the rectification of the judgment. On 16 December 1993 the District Court dismissed his request. The Regional Court confirmed this decision on 29 April 1994.\n16.  On appeal, the Regional Court held hearings on 28 April and 2 June 1994. On 10 June 1994 it modified the first-instance judgment.\n17.  On 17 October 1994 the applicant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.\n18.  On 25 April 1995 the Supreme Court quashed the second-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court.\n19.  In the resumed proceedings, a hearing took place on 16 November 1995. On 23 December 1995 the Regional Court appointed an agricultural expert who submitted his opinion on 28 May 1996.\n20.  On 5 September and 14 November 1996 the Regional Court held further hearings. On the latter occasion the agricultural expert and a witness were heard.\n21.  On 29 November 1996 the Regional Court appointed a forestry expert. The expert presented his opinion on 23 April 1997 and finalised it on 2 June 1997.\n22.  On 5 June and 3 July 1997 the Regional Court heard a witness and the forestry expert.\n23.  On 10 July 1997 the mother of the applicant’s ex-wife died. The Regional Court interrupted the proceedings on 18 July 1997. On 10 February 1998 the applicant requested the court to arrange for the deceased defendant’s successor to enter the proceedings. On 4 May 1998 the local public notary informed the court that the applicant’s son, being already a party to the case, was the successor.\n24.  On 28 August 1998 the Regional Court put further questions to the forestry expert. The expert submitted his replies on 9 November 1998.\n25.  On 4 February 1999 the parties requested that the proceedings be stayed.\n26.  On 7 October 1999, at the applicant’s request, the Regional Court continued the proceedings and held a hearing.\n27.  On 14 October 1999 the Regional Court delivered the final judgment in the case. It was served on the applicant on 4 November 1999.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-752", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Świecie, Poland.\n9.  Between 1977 and 1992 the applicant ran a cake shop on premises leased from the Association of the Landlords and Administrators of Houses in Świecie (Zrzeszenie Właścicieli i Zarządców Domów) (“the Association”). On an unknown date in 1991 the Świecie District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his eviction.\n10.  On 10 December 1992 the applicant sued the Association in the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), seeking the return of expenses incurred in connection with the modernisation of his business premises. On 3 February 1993 the court partly exempted the applicant from court fees. Subsequently, the case was assigned to another judge.\n11.  The hearing listed for 30 June 1993 was adjourned. The court held hearings on 6 October and 16 December 1993. At the hearing held on 1 April 1994 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. On 6 June 1994 the expert report was submitted to the court.\n12.  On 27 September 1994 the applicant modified his claim. On 5 January 1995, upon the applicant’s request, the court joined S.C., B.M. and T.R., the co-owners of the property, to the proceedings as the defendant parties.\n13.  The court held hearings on 30 January and 13 May 1995. Later, the case had to be re-opened due to the change of the presiding judge. The hearings listed for 13 July and 30 October 1995 were adjourned.\n14.  On 5 February 1996 the applicant requested that the court issue an interim order to safeguard his claim in the proceedings, until a judgment on the merits was given. On 10 June 1996 the trial court granted the applicant’s request.\n15.  On 13 March and 12 April 1996 the court held further hearings.\n16.  On 1 August 1996 the case was referred to a new presiding judge.\n17.  On 6 February 1997, on the defendant’s interim appeal, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) set aside the first-instance order of 10 June 1996. \n18  On 28 May 1997 the court held a hearing. The hearing listed for 9 September 1997 was adjourned. On 23 October 1997 the court held a viewing of the site. A further hearing was held on 28 January 1998.\n19.  On 11 February 1998 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court gave its judgment. The applicant appealed on 21 April 1998. On 9 October 1998 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal held a hearing. On 23 October 1998 the Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n20.  On 9 April 1999 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant specify his claims and adduce the relevant evidence. On 19 April 1999 he submitted his pleadings to the court. On 6 May 1999 the court again ordered the applicant to specify and substantiate his claims. On 13 May 1999 the applicant submitted his additional pleadings.\n21.  On 13 July 1999 the applicant modified his claim. On 8 September 1999 the court held a hearing. It partly exempted the applicant from court fees relating to the modification of his claim. On 15 November 1999 the court revoked the exemption. On 7 December 1999 the trial court refused to entertain the modified claim as a result of the applicant’s failure to pay the court fees.\n23.  On 22 December 2000 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. On 6 April 2001 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court rejected the appeal because the applicant had failed to pay the required court fee within the statutory time-limit.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-753", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Jarosław, Poland.\n5.  On 4 November 1994 the applicant lodged with the Jarosław District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a civil action against the Jarosław City Council (Gmina Miejska) in which she requested the court to amend the land register. She further applied for exemption from the court fees.\n6.  On 21 November 1994 the case was transferred to the Przemyśl Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).\n7.  On the same day, upon the court’s request, the applicant specified her claim.\n8.  On 30 January 1995 the court partly exempted the applicant from the court fees.\n9.  In April 1995 the court again ordered the applicant to specify her claim.\n10.  On 24 April 1995 the Regional Court held the first hearing.\n11.  Subsequently, the hearings were held on 20 June and 3 October 1995. At the latter hearing the court ordered an expert opinion.\n12.  On 16 April 1996 an expert submitted his opinion to the court.\n13.  On 27 August 1996 the court held a hearing at which it ordered a second expert opinion. The opinion was submitted to the court in January 1997.\n14.  The next hearings were held on 31 January, 25 February, 18 March, 18 April and 30 May 1997.\n15.  On 6 June 1997 the Przemyśl Regional Court gave judgment in which it dismissed the applicant’s claim.\n16.  On 4 August 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.\n17.  On 7 October 1997 the applicant was partly exempted from the court fees in the appellate proceedings.\n18.  On 8 October 1998 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n19.  On 9 November 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal. On 20 November 1998 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal exempted the applicant from the fees for lodging the cassation appeal.\n20.  On 25 May 2001 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal as it was manifestly ill-founded and raised no serious legal issues.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-754", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in or about Lancashire.\n9.  The applicant and his family are gypsies. They led a traditional travelling lifestyle until they suffered so much from being moved on with ever increasing frequency and harassment that they settled on the gypsy site run by the local authority at Cottingley Springs. They lived there permanently for about thirteen years, until February 1997 when they moved off. They stated that they moved off the site at that time due to the anti-social behaviour of others living on the site and others who came onto the site, e.g. vehicles being driven round the site at night, violence and disturbances such that they could not sleep at night or the children play safely during the day. They moved into a rented house but were unable to adapt to these conditions. They gave up their tenancy when offered two plots for the family at Cottingley Springs.\n10.  The applicant returned to the site with his family in October 1998.\n11.  By a licence agreement dated 22 October 1998, Leeds City Council (“the Council”) granted the applicant and his wife a contractual licence to occupy plot no. 35 at Cottingley Springs caravan site in Leeds. The licence in Clause 12 required the applicant as occupier to comply with the Site Regulations, while Clause 18 stated:\n“No nuisance is to be caused by the occupier, his guests, nor any member of his family to any other person, including employees of the Council, the occupiers of any other plots on the Site, or occupiers of any land or buildings in the vicinity of the Site.”\n12.  On 29 March 1999, the applicant’s adult daughter Margaret Connors was granted a licence to occupy the adjacent plot, Plot 36, where she lived with Michael Maloney who later became her husband. She also cared for the applicant’s mother-in-law, Margaret Kelby, until she went into a residential nursing home in the area. The applicant’s adult sons, James Junior and Joseph, did not reside with the applicant but were frequent visitors both to his plot and their sister next door.\n13.  During 1999, the applicant and his family were in dispute with the Council due to its alleged failure to undertake repairs on Plot 36 (there was no electricity supply or other facilities for some time), their objection to paying electricity charges which they considered to be overcharging and concerning the Council’s refusal to accept payment by instalment for the site deposit. Their complaints were referred to the Local Authority Ombudsman to investigate.\n14.  The Government stated that the applicant’s children (including his adult sons James Junior and Joseph) and Michael Maloney misbehaved and caused considerable nuisance at the site. The Council’s Travellers Services Manager, based at the site, was aware of many incidents of nuisance caused by the applicant’s children and visitors. The Manager visited the applicant and Margaret Connors on a number of occasions to report the misbehaviour and nuisance. On 16 December 1998, the Council gave the applicant written warning that further incidents of anti-social behaviour by his children could jeopardise his occupation of the plot. Nevertheless, both the applicant’s children and his visitor Michael Maloney continued to cause nuisance at the caravan site.\n15.  In January 2000, when it became known that Margaret Connors was going to marry Michael Maloney, the applicant alleged that the Council manager of the site stated, “The minute you marry Michael Maloney you’ll be o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-755", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 28 April 1993 the Vorarlberg Regional Employment Office (Landesarbeitsamt) granted the B. company, whose executive director was the applicant, a preliminary and temporary work permit for A., another Turkish citizen. It further stated that should the B. company receive a negative decision on the request for a definitive work permit, A. would loose his right to work four weeks after the service thereof. On 25 May 1993 the Regional Employment Office refused to grant A. a definitive work permit. This decision was served on 26 May 1993. The B. company appealed against it and, referring to A.’s preliminary work permit, requested that its appeal be exceptionally granted suspensive effect. On 20 July 1993 the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) refused this request. This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 12 August 1993.\n9.  On 19 August 1993 the B. company notified the Bregenz District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) of its commercial-law manager’s C. representation by counsel in possible administrative criminal proceedings against him for alleged illegal employment of a foreigner. The B. company argued that C. could not be deemed culpable for the period of time while its complaint had been pending before the Constitutional Court, as it was not until the service of that court’s decision that he learned that suspensive effect had not been granted.\n10.  On 28 October 1993 the Bregenz District Administrative Authority informed the applicant of its suspicion that he had illegally employed A. between 24 June and 10 August 1993. It invited the applicant either to comment in writing or to make an appointment with the authority for an oral justification within two weeks.\n11.  On 29 November 1993 the applicant replied to the District Administrative Authority by referring in essence to the contents of the B. company’s notification of 19 August 1993.\n12.  On 2 March 1994 the District Administrative Authority informed the applicant about the evidence taken in his case and attached a statement by the Vorarlberg Regional Employment Office. It invited the applicant to comment, within two weeks, either in writing or personally, at the authority’s office.\n13.  On 18 March 1994 the applicant submitted that he had initially employed A. on the basis of his preliminary work permit. He argued that he had not acted culpably as, prior to his case, the Constitutional Court had not ruled on the question whether an appeal against the refusal of a work permit could be granted suspensive effect in view of a prior preliminary work permit. Consequently, in such an unclear legal situation, he could not be blamed for a mistake of law either.\n14.  On 31 March 1994 the District Administrative Authority imposed a fine of 5,000 Austrian schilling (ATS) on the applicant for breach of Section 28 of the Employment of Foreigners Act (Ausländerbeschäftigungs-gesetz). It noted that he had illegally employed A. after his preliminary work permit had expired on 23 June 1993, i.e. four weeks after the service of the Regional Employment Office’s negative decision of 25 May 1993. It remarked that the B. company’s appeal against the latter decision had no effect on the applicant’s case.\n15.  On 11 May 1994 the applicant appealed against this decision, repeating in essence his submissions of 18 March 1994.\n16.  On 2 May 1995 the Vorarlberg Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat, hereafter referred to as the “IAP”) summo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-756", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Sansepolcro (Arezzo).\n7.  He is the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to L.B.\n8.  In a registered letter of 20 January 1992, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1993 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 20 April 1993, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 12 July 1993, which was made enforceable on 4 August 1993, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1993.\n11.  On 10 March 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 27 March 1995, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 May 1995.\n13.  Between 30 May 1995 and 7 May 1996, the bailiff made three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On 2 April 1997, the applicant served a second notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n15.  On 23 April 1997, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his children.\n16.  On 8 May 1997, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 June 1997.\n17.  Between 23 June 1997 and 3 September 1998, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n18.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, on 31 August 1999, the tenant asked for a suspension of the eviction proceedings.\n19.  On 15 December 2000, the Florence Magistrate decided to postpone the eviction proceedings until 11 July 2002.\n20.  On 11 July 2002, the applicant recovered possession of the flat with the assistance of the police.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-757", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 10 February 1992 the Topoľčany Land Office (Pozemkový úrad) delivered two decisions granting the applicants’ claims for restitution of real property under the Land Ownership Act. The defendants appealed.\n9.  On 16 December 1993 the Nitra branch office of the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd Bratislava, pobočka v Nitre) quashed these decisions on the ground that at the moment of the expropriation the land in question had been formally owned by a private company established by the members of the applicants’ family. However, the Land Ownership Act provided exclusively for restitution of property taken away from individuals. The Regional Court therefore sent the case back to the administrative authority. Prior to deciding on the case the Regional Court held a hearing with reference to Section 250q of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n10.  In the meantime, on 13 November 1992, the applicants and another member of their family concluded an agreement with the Western Slovakia Forest Administration. Under the agreement the Western Slovakia Forest Administration undertook to restore, in accordance with the Land Ownership Act, different real property expropriated from the applicants’ family. On 26 November 1992 the Topoľčany Land Office approved the agreement pursuant to Section 9 of the Land Ownership Act. Its decision became final on 18 December 1992.\n11.  On 17 June 1994 the Topoľčany Land Office decided to reopen the proceedings leading to its decision of 26 November 1992 pursuant to Section 62 (1) (a) and (b) of the Administrative Proceedings Act of 1967. The decision referred to the above finding of the Nitra branch office of the Bratislava Regional Court of 16 December 1993 according to which the land taken away from the applicants’ relatives could not be restored under the Land Ownership Act as it had been formally owned by a legal person.\n12.  On 4 July 1997 the applicants appealed through the intermediary of their lawyer. They argued that no relevant new facts had been established and that the decision to reopen the proceedings was not justified by the public interest. The applicants concluded that there existed no legal entitlement for having the proceedings reopened.\n13.  On 22 May 1995 the Ministry of Agriculture upheld the Land Office’s decision of 17 June 1994. The decision stated that no reasons for quashing or modifying the Land Office’s decision had been found.\n14.  The applicants sought a judicial review of the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture. On 29 September 1995 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) discontinued the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction to review administrative decisions of a procedural nature. Reference was made to Article 248 (2) (e) of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n15.  By a decision of 8 June 1995 the Topoľčany Land Office disapproved the agreement concluded on 13 November 1992 on the ground that the property in question had been taken away from a legal person and that under the Land Ownership Act only property originally owned by individuals could be restored.\n16.  The applicants appealed and argued that there existed no reason for reopening the proceedings and that the land had been taken away from the members of their family.\n17.  On 30 January 1998 the Nitra Regional Court upheld the Land Office’s decision of 8 June 1995. The judgment stated that the only point to be determined was a question of law, namely whether the plaintiffs were entitled, within the meaning of Section 4 of the Land Owne", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-758", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Klaukkala.\n8.  The applicant was declared bankrupt on 2 September 1993 by the District Court (kihlakunnanoikeus, häradsrätten) of Hyvinkää. J., a lawyer practising in Helsinki, was appointed by a court order to act as the official receiver to his estate.\n9.  By a written notice, dated 16 September 1993, J. requested the postal service to send all the mail addressed to the applicant to the law office of J. The day before, on 15 September 1993, a meeting was held between the debtor, i.e. the applicant, and the official receiver in the law office of J. According to the Government, it was agreed that the applicant’s mail be transferred to the office and handled so that the official mail was opened, whereas the private mail was put aside to be further transmitted to the applicant. According to the applicant, no such agreement was reached.\n10.  The applicant contacted a lawyer at the postal service who informed him that the personal mail of a person declared bankrupt should not be transferred to the official receiver. The applicant received his mail from 23 September 1993 onwards.\n11.  While the mail was being transferred to the law office (between 16 and 23 September 2003), J. received and opened a letter sent by an insurance company and addressed to the applicant. The letter was sent to the applicant in an official envelope of the company and signed by the representative of the company’s legal department. Apparently the letter concerned a valuation of an apartment owned by the applicant’s ex-wife.\n12.  On 4 June 1996, the applicant requested the police to investigate the matter. During the police investigation J. said that the applicant had sent him a message after the meeting of 15 September 1993, withdrawing his consent to the transfer of mail and that on 22 or 23 September 1993 the applicant requested the postal service to transfer the mail back to his own address as he considered that the transfer of mail to the law office had been unlawful.\n13.  On 22 July 1996, finding that the requested prosecution of the alleged offence had become time-barred, a prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute.\n14.  The applicant then instituted civil proceedings against J., requesting that J. be ordered to return all missing letters to the applicant and, failing which, he be ordered to pay 21,911 Finnish Marks (FIM) (approximately 3,685 Euros (EUR)) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage as well as the applicant’s legal fees and expenses. The proceedings were based on the fact that J. had opened the letter sent by the insurance company.\n15.  A legal counsel of the postal service who was heard before the District Court of Espoo (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) stated that the postal service applied the principles that were included in the repealed Postal Service Decree (postiliikenneasetus, posttrafikförordning; 692/1980) concerning the sorting of mail belonging to estates in respect of which an official receiver had been appointed by the court. According to him, it was a duty of the postal service to sort the debtor’s mail and put aside official mail belonging to the estate. In cases where the official nature of the mail was not clear, post offices decided on a case by case basis where to send the mail.\n16.  On 7 February 1997 the District Court rejected all the claims submitted by the applicant, finding that both J. and the postal service had acted in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act (konkurssisääntö, konk", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-759", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Częstochowa.\n9.  By a decision of 3 April 1979 the property of the applicant’s predecessors in title was expropriated. The property comprised a plot of land located in Częstochowa, at 30 Wieluńska Street (plot No. 30). A house located on this plot was later demolished.\n10.  On 20 October 1987 the Częstochowa Municipal Architect issued a permit, authorising J.M., the owner of a furniture repair workshop leasing premises situated on an adjacent plot (No. 28), to modernise the premises by, inter alia, fitting windows and a door in the boundary wall between the former property of the applicant’s predecessors in title and plot No. 28. On an unspecified later date J.M. opened a furniture shop on plot No. 28.\n11.  By a decision of the Częstochowa Municipal Council of 6 March 1990 the property situated at 30 Wieluńska Street in Częstochowa was returned to the applicant as the aim of the expropriation – the construction of an apartment building – had not been realised.\n12.  On 10 January 1992 the applicant requested the Częstochowa Governor to declare the decision of 20 October 1987 null and void.\n13.  On 28 July 1992 the Częstochowa Governor declared null and void the 1987 decision. The M. Company, owned by J.M., leasing plot No. 28, lodged an appeal with the Minister of Town and Country Planning. On 9 November 1992 the Minister upheld the contested decision. The M. Company lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n14.  On 3 March 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the decisions of 28 July and 9 November 1992 whereby the M. Company leasing plot No. 28 had been ordered to block doors and windows in a wall facing the applicant’s plot and adjacent to the boundary of the plot.\n15.  On 14 June 1994 the Częstochowa Governor refused the applicant’s request to have the 1987 decision declared partly null and void. On 18 August 1994 this decision was upheld by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. Apparently on 5 October 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision.\n16.  On 1 April 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions by which the administration refused to declare null and void the 1987 decision in so far as it authorised the fitting of a door and windows in the boundary wall between the plots. The court considered that the issue needed to be reconsidered, with special attention being paid to the question whether the building on plot No. 28 had been constructed on the basis of a building permit or, in the alternative, in the absence of any legal basis.\n17.  On 10 August 1996 the applicant was informed by the Częstochowa Regional Office that an administrative enquiry had been instituted in order to establish whether the building on plot No. 28 had been constructed lawfully. On 22 August 1996 he was further informed that the proceedings would not be terminated before 26 August 1996.\n18.  On 29 October 1996 the Częstochowa Regional Office refused to declare null and void the 1987 decision concerning the adjacent parcel No. 28. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision.\n19.  On 19 February 1997 the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision quashed the 1987 decision concerning parcel No. 28 in its entirety, considering that the fitting of windows and a door in the wall adjacent to the applicant’s parcel No. 30 was unlawful in that it rendered it impossible for the applicant to use his plot.\n20.  By a le", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-760", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Breda. He had a relationship with Ms B. from mid-1993. On 14 April 1995 a daughter, named A., was born to Ms B. and the applicant.\n8.  Pursuant to Article 1:287 § 1 of the Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek), as then in force, Ms B. obtained guardianship (voogdij) of A. The applicant was appointed as A.’s auxiliary guardian (toeziend voogd) on 19 May 1995 by the Enschede District Court judge (kantonrechter). The applicant’s auxiliary guardianship ended on 2 November 1995, when an amendment to the Civil Code came into force abolishing that function.\n9.  The applicant and Ms B. did not formally cohabit, but the applicant visited her and A. on a regular basis. He also babysat and took care of A. on several occasions. Ms B. sometimes consulted the applicant about A.’s hearing problems. The applicant did not formally recognise (erkenning) A., as Ms B. refused to give her permission and her family also opposed such recognition. Although the applicant could have sought judicial consent for recognising A. (see paragraph 17 below), he did not avail himself of this possibility, considering that it would stand little chance of success. Moreover, the applicant preferred to respect the position adopted by Ms B. and her relatives, and maintain the de facto family ties he had with his daughter rather than establish formal legal ties with her.\n10.  In August 1996 the applicant’s relationship with Ms B. broke down. On 23 January 1997 the applicant requested the Almelo Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) to grant him access (omgangsregeling) to A. one weekend every fortnight and some weeks during the holiday period. In those proceedings Ms B. argued primarily that the applicant’s request should be declared inadmissible in that there had never been any family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention between the applicant and A. and, in so far as family life had existed, it had ceased to exist after the end of her relationship with the applicant. In the alternative, Ms B. argued that to grant the applicant access would not be in A.’s interests. Ms B. further submitted that the applicant had behaved badly towards her (violence and financial abuse) and had shown little interest in A. She indicated, lastly, that A.’s hearing was impaired and that her daughter thus required a special approach of which she deemed the applicant incapable.\n11.  By a decision of 26 February 1997, the Almelo Regional Court accepted that there was family life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention between the applicant and A., and that this family life had not ceased to exist since the breakdown of the applicant’s relationship with Ms B. It consequently declared the applicant’s request admissible. However, given the difficulties between the applicant and Ms B., the Regional Court decided to order the Child Care and Protection Board (Raad voor de Kinderbescherming) to conduct an investigation and to report to it on the feasibility of an access arrangement.\n12.  Ms B. filed an appeal against this decision with the Arnhem Court of Appeal (gerechtshof). By a decision of 16 September 1997, the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 26 February 1997 and declared the applicant’s request inadmissible. In its decision, the Court of Appeal stated:\n“3.1  Out of the parties’ relationship (lasting from mid-1993 to August 1996), A. was born. Mr L. is the biological father of A. He has not recognised the child. The mother ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-761", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Diyarbakır. Until the end of 1993, the applicant lived in the village of Akdoruk, attached to the Kulp District in the province of Diyarbakır. The applicant left and has never returned to the village after the alleged incident.\n10.  The facts surrounding the destruction of the applicant’s house and property are in dispute between the parties.\n11.  Early in the morning of 11 November 1993 the applicant left his house and went to the fields to work. At about 7 a.m. a large number of soldiers arrived in the village of Akdoruk on foot. The soldiers had a list of names in their hands and started burning down some of the houses. From the field, the applicant saw that his house was on fire. The applicant’s wife tried to save some of their belongings and animals however she was prevented by the gendarmes who hit her with the butt of their rifles. In all, the soldiers burned down six houses in the village.\n12.  The applicant tried to go back to the village but was prevented by his wife, who told him that if he went back he would be arrested by the soldiers. The soldiers arrested ten villagers and sent them to the gendarmerie station. After spending the night in the village, the soldiers left Akdoruk village early in the morning of 12 November 1993.\n13.  The applicant spent the night at his sister’s house and then went to Diyarbakır to live with his daughter.\n14.  In February 1994, the applicant went to the Kulp Magistrate’s Court together with Ahmet Altun and Mustafa Aldemir to lodge a petition about the burning of his house. All three of them submitted handwritten petitions to the judge and requested him to conduct a visit to the village to establish the damage they had suffered. The judge however refused their request for security reasons. The same day, the applicant and the two other villagers were called to the public prosecutor’s office in Kulp, where they were interrogated about their complaints. The public prosecutor took their statements and typed down their complaints. The applicant, Ahmet Altun and Mustafa Aldemir, signed these petitions without understanding the content, as they were illiterate.\n15.  The applicant later learnt from his friends that these petitions had been transferred to the Kulp District Gendarmerie whose officers the applicant considered responsible for the destruction of his house. He was informed that the gendarmes were looking for him however he was too frightened to go to the gendarmerie headquarters, because the other two villagers, who had also lodged a petition with him, had also been summoned to the gendarmerie and had been severely beaten.\n16.  In the beginning of 1994 the gendarmes returned to the Akdoruk village and burned down the remaining houses.\n17.  The applicant is currently unemployed and occasionally works as a builder in constructions.\n18.  No military operation was conducted in or around the village of Akdoruk on 11 November 1993. Subsequent to the applicant’s complaint with the Kulp public prosecutor, an investigation was commenced into the allegations of the applicant. On 22 August 1994 the Kulp public prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Kulp Administrative Council pursuant to the Law on the prosecution of civil servants.\n19.  On 24 June 1994 the Kulp District Governor appointed the Kulp District Gendarme Commander, Ali Ergülmez, as investigating officer. By a report dated 1 April 1995, the District Ge", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-762", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  Mr Ulaş Batı was born in 1979, Mr Bülent Gedik in 1974, Mr Müştak Erhan İl in 1971, Mr Özgür Öktem in 1976, Mr Sinan Kaya in 1978, Mr İsmail Altun in 1974, Mr İzzet Tokur in 1973, Mr Okan Kablan in 1980, Mr Cemal Bozkurt in 1973, Mrs Devrim Öktem in 1975, Miss Sevgi Kaya in 1980, Miss Arzu Kemanoğlu in 1972, Miss Zülcihan Şahin in 1977, Miss Ebru Karahancı in 1978 and Miss Zühal Sürücü in 1979. All are Turkish nationals and live in Istanbul.\n10.  In February and March 1996, as part of a police operation against an illegal Marxist organisation, the TKEP/L (Communist Labour Party of Turkey/Leninist), the Istanbul police arrested the applicants and held them for questioning at the headquarters of the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul security police (“Security Headquarters”) for questioning.\n11.  The facts in each individual case may be summarised as follows:\n12.  Mr Batı was arrested on 8 February 1996.\n13.  On 19 February 1996 he informed the public prosecutor during an interview that he had been ill-treated by the police while in custody. He was later brought before a judge of the Istanbul National Security Court (“the judge”), to whom he repeated the statement he had made to the public prosecutor. The judge ordered his detention pending trial.\n14.  Mr Batı says that his ill-treatment at Security Headquarters took various forms: he was beaten, forced to remain standing, deprived of sleep, and threatened with death, rape and sexual assault with a truncheon.\n15.  He was given only one medical examination. In his report of 19 February 1996, the forensic doctor, a member of the Istanbul Institute of Forensic Medicine, found partly healed bruising measuring 0.5 cm by 0.5 cm in the sternal region. He noted that Mr Batı had complained of pain in his shoulders and certified him unfit for work for one day.\n16.  Mr Gedik was arrested on 6 February 1996.\n17.  On 19 February 1996 he informed the public prosecutor during an interview that he had been coerced into making a statement which he had signed without reading. He subsequently repeated this account to the judge, who ordered his detention pending trial.\n18.  Mr Gedik says his ill-treatment in custody included suspension by the arms, death threats and electric shocks.\n19.  He was given three medical examinations:\n(a)  In a report of 19 February 1996, a forensic doctor noted scab-covered lesions measuring 3 cm by 3 cm to the rear of the thighs and an old bruise measuring 3 cm by 3 cm in the upper scapular region. He certified Mr Gedik unfit for work for three days.\n(b)  In a report of 27 February 1996, the Bayrampaşa Prison doctor found bruising with scabs to the left arm and a leg. He noted that Mr Gedik complained of pain in various parts of the body and referred him to a forensic doctor for a final report.\n(c)  Mr Gedik was re-examined by a forensic doctor on 7 March 1996. The doctor recorded his complaints of pain in the left shoulder in the medical certificate. However, he considered that a final report could only be drawn up once Mr Gedik had been examined by a hospital neurology service. It appears from the case file, however, that the additional examination was never carried out.\n20.  Mr Erhan İl was arrested on 6 February 1996.\n21.  On 19 February 1996 he was interviewed by the public prosecutor, before whom he denied all the offences he was alleged to have committed. Subsequently he was brought before the judge, to whom he complained of ill-treatment by police officers while in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-763", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  In September 1980 the applicants were taken into police custody and were subsequently placed in detention on remand on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. The Erzincan Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Erzincan Martial Law Court (sıkıyönetim askeri mahkemesi) charging the applicants under Article 146 of the Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation whose object was to undermine the constitutional order.\n10.  On various dates between 1982 and 1984 the applicants were released pending trial.\n11.  On 13 September 1988 the Erzincan Martial Law Court acquitted the applicants of the charges against them.\n12.  On various dates in March, April and June 1989 the applicants brought individual actions before the Sinop Assize Court against the Treasury, pursuant to Law no. 466. They requested compensation for their unjustified detention on remand.\n13.  On 20 October 1989 the court decided to join the applicants’ cases.\n14.  On 15 December 1993 the Sinop Assize Court awarded non‑pecuniary compensation to the applicants. The applicants appealed, arguing that the amount of compensation awarded was not sufficient.\n15.  On 31 January 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court.\n16.  On 6 June 1995 the Sinop Assize Court increased the amount of non‑pecuniary compensation.\n17.  On 15 June 1995 the applicants again appealed.\n18.  On 30 May 1996 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the judgment of the assize court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-764", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Reykjavík.\n10.  Her complaints under the Convention stem from her arrest and detention in police custody in Reykjavík on six occasions as described below.\n11.  The applicant was arrested and held on remand in police custody on six occasions on different dates between 31 January 1988 and 11 January 1992. Each time, she spent the night in a cell and was released in the morning. Further details about these events are given in the police reports compiled by the responsible police officers for the Reykjavík Police Commissioner and are set out below.\n(i)  In the night of Sunday 31 January 1988 at 3.40 a.m., the applicant went to a local police station in a Reykjavík suburb accompanied by two taxi drivers. Although she only had ISK 100 in her possession, the taxi fare amounted to ISK 1.825. According to a police report (signed by Police Officer R.B.), the taxi drivers had stated that “they had been driving [the applicant] during the night, but since she had refused to pay they had driven her to the nearest police station.” The police report further stated that she was “obviously drunk and agitated” and that she was “very agitated, foul-mouthed and disruptive.” The applicant was then transferred to Reykjavík Police Headquarters where she was, on the decision of Assistant Police Inspector H.Ó., detained in custody until the next morning.\nA further police report of 31 January 1988 (signed by R.B.) relating to a police interrogation the next morning at 8.55 a.m. stated that the reasons for her “being summoned [had] been explained to her”, namely a “case ... concerning taxi fraud, intoxication, etc.” She had replied inter alia that she had intended to pay her fare to the driver in an amount of ISK 1.325 when returning home, but had refused to pay an invoice of ISK 500, which she would only pay after consultation with her lawyer. She expressed surprise over the fact that not only had she been subjected to a string of accusations by the police but also she had been held in detention without being given any reasons. She was released at 9.25 a.m.\n(ii)  On Friday 18 May 1990 at 0.05 a.m., the applicant arrived at the Reykjavík police headquarters at Hverfisgata. A police report (signed by Assistant Police Inspector H.Ó.) entitled “Intoxication and detention”, described the applicant's condition as “Very obviously drunk” and gave “Drunken behaviour” as the reason for her arrest. The report included the following passage:\n“As far as she could make herself understood she had arrived by taxi and there was some dispute between her and the driver. The driver and the taxi were nowhere to be seen.\n[After the police inspector had] talked with Hilda for a while it became clear that the cause of the dispute no longer existed. She suddenly began to stride about in the corridors and the personnel lounge of the police station, confronting the police personnel present and exhibiting drunken behaviour. She would not calm down despite repeated requests and finally it became necessary to restrain her by placing her in police custody.”\nAccording to the Government, the police had repeatedly requested the applicant to desist and to leave the police station but, as these requests were ignored, she was placed in police custody as a last resort. Since the relevant hand-written card file was no longer available, the time of her release could not be confirmed.\n(iii)  On Saturday 8 December 1990 at 10.15 p.m., the applicant went aga", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-765", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, all of whom are Moldovan citizens, live in the Republic of Moldova. They were born in 1920, 1927, 1925 and 1928 respectively.\n7.  On 29 July 1994 and on 16 February 1995 the Government and the Parliament passed two decisions according to which the deposits of certain categories of persons at the Savings Bank have to be index-linked. According to the decisions, the Ministry of Finance was supposed to allocate the necessary funds to the Savings Bank. However it failed to do so and the Savings Bank could not carry out the decisions of the Parliament and of the Government.\n8.  In 2000 and 2001 the applicants lodged with the Râşcani District Court civil actions against the Ministry of Finance in which they sought compensation.\n9.  By judgments of 25 August 2000 and 29 September 2000 the court awarded Ms Sofia Pasteli compensation of MDL 734[1] and MDL 1,466[2] respectively. No appeal was lodged and the judgments became final.\n10.  By judgment of 6 December 2000 the court awarded Ms Nadejda Cernicov compensation of MDL 4,398[3]. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n11.  By judgment of 25 August 2001 the court awarded Mr Pavel Careţchi compensation of MDL 2,904[4]. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n12.  By judgment of 25 August 2001 the court awarded Ms Maria Careţchi compensation of MDL 5,876[5]. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n13.  On unspecified dates the applicants lodged complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgments with the Ministry of Justice and the Enforcement Authority. In its replies, the Ministry of Justice and the Enforcement Authority informed them that the judgments could not be enforced, as no funds had been provided for the enforcement of judgments by the relevant legislation within the annual State budget.\n14.  On 22 April 2003, after the cases were communicated to the Government, the judgments were executed by the Ministry of Finance.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-766", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1920 and lives in Łódź, Poland.\n5.  On an unspecified date in 1992 the applicant asked the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office (Urząd do Spraw Kombatantów i Osób Represjonowanych) to grant him “veteran status.”\n6.  The President of the Office informed the applicant that his application was not complete and should be submitted first to a local veterans association.\n7.  On 2 October 1993, after having contacted the Łódź District Veterans Association, the applicant lodged for the second time an application with the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office concerning his “veteran status.”\n8.  The Office failed to issue a decision and informed the applicant that he should first lodge an application with the World Veteran Association.\n9.  On 25 February 1994 the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Office with the Supreme Administrative Court. On 24 June 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed his complaint and ordered the Office to give a decision within two months. The court established that the applicant’s application of 2 October 1993 had satisfied legal requirements and that the Office should have given a decision on merits instead of asking the applicant to fulfil other conditions.\n10.  On 8 February and 3 April 1995 the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office requested the applicant to submit additional documents concerning his case. The applicant complied with the requests.\n11.  On 4 July 1995 the President of the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office gave a decision in which he refused to grant the applicant “veteran status”. The Office found that the applicant had failed to provide evidence of his participation in the Polish Defence War in September 1939.\n12.  The applicant lodged a complaint against this decision with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n13.  On 5 March 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case to the first-instance authority. The court found that the Office had not examined the case properly and, in particular, had not heard the applicant despite his several applications and had not heard other soldiers who had allegedly fought with him.\n14.  Since the Office had failed to give a decision, on 11 July 1996 the applicant complained about this inactivity to the Supreme Administrative Court. At the hearing held on 10 January 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court gave judgment in which it dismissed the allegations concerning the inactivity of the authority since it established that the Office had been collecting additional evidence in the applicant’s case.\n15.  On 28 May 1997 the applicant lodged another complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court alleging inactivity on the part of the President of the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office. On 6 February 1998, the Supreme Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings because in the meantime, on 3 December 1997, the President had given a decision. In this decision the President of the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office again dismissed the applicant’s application to grant him “veteran status.”\n16.  On 16 December 1997 the applicant appealed against this decision by lodging an application for the case to be reconsidered by the President of the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office.\n17.  On 24 June 1998 the President of the Veterans and Persecuted Persons’ Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n18.  The applicant lodged a complaint against this decis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-767", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, Tinna Romlin, is a Swedish national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Sollentuna. She is represented before the Court by Mr Ulf Jacobson, a juris candidate, practising in Stockholm. The Government is represented by Mrs I. Kalmerborn of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, as Agent.\nThe facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The applicant suffers from rheumatoid arthritis. On 14 December 1989 she applied for a disability allowance (handikappersättning) under Chapter 9, Section 2 of the Social Insurance Act (Lagen om allmän försäkring, 1962:381) on the grounds of incapacity due to rheumatoid arthritis and asthma.\n9.  On 20 March 1991 the Social Insurance Office (försäkringskassan) of the County of Stockholm rejected the application, finding that her need for assistance and her additional costs due to her handicap did not attain the level required under the above provision. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this decision to the competent administrative courts, in proceedings which ended on 30 December 1994 when the Supreme Social Insurance Court (Försäkringsöverdomstolen) refused her leave to appeal. No oral hearing was held in those proceedings.\n10.  In the meantime, in August 1993 the applicant reapplied for a disability allowance. On 20 January 1994 the Social Insurance Office decided: \n“As from January 1993, [the applicant’s] additional expenses because of her reduced functional capacity entitled her to a disability allowance at the level of 69 per cent of the basic amount [basbeloppet].”\n11.  The applicant, represented by a lawyer, appealed against the Office’s decision to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Stockholm, claiming that the reduction in her functional capacity caused by her handicap and her need for support had remained unaltered at any rate since August 1991 and that she should have been granted a disability allowance as from then. She invoked the existing medical reports and requested the court to obtain the opinion of experts in rheumatology and to hold an oral hearing.\n12.  On 4 May 1995 the County Administrative Court rejected both her requests and gave her two weeks within which to indicate the further circumstances she wished to invoke and to submit final written observations. By a judgment of 22 June 1995 it upheld the Social Insurance Office’s decision.\n13.  The applicant, through her lawyer, appealed against the above judgment to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) requesting it to carry out an investigation in order to establish the extent of her disability and additional expenses for the period from August 1991 to December 1992 and to hold an oral hearing.\n14.  In December 1997 the Administrative Court of Appeal rejected her request for an oral hearing and gave her two weeks to complete her submissions in writing. On 5 January 1998 it refused her leave to appeal.\nOn 9 February 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) rejected the applicant’s request for an oral hearing and gave her three weeks within which to submit additional written observations. On 25 February 1999 it refused the applicant leave to appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-768", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Helsinki.\n9.  In 1987 the applicant founded a company called “Oy Finnish Options and Futures Exchanges Ltd” (hereinafter “FOFE”).\n10.  FOFE went into liquidation on 12 August 1993 and was finally dissolved on 16 May 1994.\n11.  In the liquidation proceedings the applicant filed his claim against the estate, claiming 1,106,715 Finnish marks (FIM; approximately EUR 186,000), plus interest, in respect of unpaid salaries and other claims related to his employment contract with FOFE. As the estate contested most of the applicant’s claims, the parties instituted civil proceedings against each other before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) of Helsinki. The estate of FOFE argued that the applicant had not been an employee of the company but had rather held an executive position as he had owned all its shares, and insisted that the applicant be ordered to reimburse to the estate certain assets he had allegedly transferred from the company to himself before the company was dissolved. The claims made by the parties against each other were jointly considered by the District Court.\n12.  It appears that at least one of the main issues in the civil proceedings was whether the applicant had been in an executive position in the company or not.\n13.  During a preparatory hearing at the District Court, on 15 August 1995, the representatives of FOFE named, among others, Mr J.S., President of the Board of Directors of FOFE, Mr S.L. and Mr A.P., both former members of FOFE’s Board of Directors and Mr A.P. also its former Executive Director, to give evidence on their behalf. The applicant named Mr J.N, former Managing Director of FOFE, the above-mentioned Mr J.S., and Mr E.S., to be heard as his witnesses concerning his position in the company.\n14.  In his written observations of 26 September 1995 to the District Court in respect of the estate’s claims the applicant stated, inter alia, as follows:\n“The estate of FOFE has called Mr S.L. and Mr A.P., both of whom were members of its Board of Directors and the latter also its Executive Director, to give evidence. We will also hear them in respect of exactly the same issues on which we will examine Mr J.S.\nWith the support of the above-mentioned witnesses we will prove that [the applicant] has not had any close connections with FOFE since he resigned from its Board of Directors on 3 June 1992, and that he has had no decisive position in the company.”\n15.  At another preparatory hearing, on 4 October 1995, FOFE repeated that they would call A.P. as a witness. The applicant named the witnesses he had named on 15 August 1995 and further named Mr M.S. who would give evidence about the applicant’s tasks. The District Court decided on the same day that A.P. would be summoned by the court ex officio.\n16.  At yet another preparatory hearing in the case, on the morning of 11 October 1995, FOFE repeated their intention to hear A.P. as their witness. According to the District Court’s minutes from that last preparatory hearing the applicant had named four witnesses, namely Mr J.N., Mr J.S., Mr E.S. and Mr M.S. Witness Mr A.P. was mentioned in the list of the adverse party’s witnesses only.\n17.  Thereafter the District Court decided that the preparatory stage of the proceedings had ended and that the main hearing would be held that same day at ten o’clock.\n18.  A.P. failed to appear before the District Court on 11 October 1995, having informed the court in advance that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-769", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Merseyside.\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  In June 1999 the applicant, who had just turned 11, and a 14-year-old boy called “L.A.”, approached an 87-year-old woman in the street. The applicant attempted to take the woman's bag, causing her to fall to the ground and fracture her left arm. The applicant ran away and L.A. stayed with the victim. The applicant was charged with attempted robbery. His defence was that he had acted under duress, having been threatened by L.A.\n10.  In July 1999, in connection with other offences, he was given a two-year supervision order and was remanded to the care of the local authority and placed with foster parents.\n11.  In August 1999 the Youth Court, looking at the applicant's offending history, which included offences of robbery, burglary, theft and arson, considered that it might be appropriate to impose a custodial sentence if he were convicted of the attempted robbery, and committed him for trial in the Crown Court. After committal, the applicant's legal representatives obtained two expert reports. The first report was prepared by Dr Ronan Brennan, an adolescent forensic psychiatrist, who was able to talk to the applicant for twenty minutes in September 1999 before the latter terminated the interview. The applicant was also seen by Diane Baines, a consultant clinical psychologist, on 11 October 1999.\n12.  In his report Dr Brennan observed, inter alia:\n“Mental state examination\n[The applicant] sat motionless in the chair throughout my brief interview. He appeared distracted and frequently asked me to repeat my questioning claiming that he could not understand me. He appeared defensive when questioned regarding family circumstances and was vague about his past schooling. He appeared reluctant to discuss his offending behaviour, asking me what point was there discussing it with me.\nUltimately, after repeating the statement that he was bored and wanted to eat he informed me that he would not answer any more questions and wanted to leave. Since it was clear that he was resistant to further questioning or probing I consented to his wish.\nImpression\nIt has been extremely difficult to form a detailed impression of this young man's problems and needs by virtue of his unwillingness to enter into the assessment process and a failure to obtain collateral information regarding his personal development and family background.\nIt is evident from the limited information available that [the applicant] has exhibited a behaviour disturbance from an early age which has resulted in restricted academic progress and alienation from his peers. ... [The applicant's] persistent pattern of disruptive and socially inappropriate behaviour would be consistent with a diagnosis of conduct disorder of the unsocialised type.\nIt would appear from Diane Baines's psychological report ... that [the applicant] has a significant degree of learning difficulties. He has a full scale IQ of 56 (0.2nd centile), a verbal IQ of 63 (1st centile) and a performance IQ of 55 (0.1st centile). These scores would be consistent with his academic underachievement and could be viewed as a consequence of his disrupted schooling. Diane Baines notes that with [the applicant's] cognitive abilities being more consistent with a child of 8 rather than 11, his 'ability to reason is noticeably restricted'. ...\nIt is clear that [the applicant] has complex needs w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-770", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, all of whom are Moldovan citizens, live in the Republic of Moldova.\n7.  The applicants are inspectors of the Chişinău Fire Department attached to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.\n8.  On 21 July 1994 the Government passed Decision No. 534-10, classified secret, which concerned the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of National Security (Intelligence Service) and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. According to that Decision, among other things, the personnel of the above-mentioned institutions were entitled to a monthly allowance of approximately MDL 135 instead of the old allowance of MDL 7.06. This Decision was not published in the Official Gazette (Monitorul Oficial) and accordingly the applicants did not know about it.\nThe applicants started to receive the increased allowance on 1 June 1995. They found out that their colleagues from other Ministries had been receiving the higher rate from 1 July 1994.\n9.  In June 1997 the applicants lodged an action with the Centru District Court against the Ministry of Internal Affairs seeking the payment of the increased allowance for the period July 1994 – June 1995.\nBy a judgment of 1 August 1997 the Centru District Court awarded Mr Gheorghe Bragoi, Mr Alexandru Usatîi and Mr Iulian Guştiuc compensation of MDL 1,407[1] each. By another judgment of 18 August 1997 the Centru District Court awarded Mr Pavel Sîrbu and Mr Vitalie Cornovan compensation of MDL 1,407 each and Mr Petru Bragoi compensation of MDL 1,127.02. No appeals were lodged and the judgments became final. Enforcement warrants were issued.\n10.  On numerous occasions the applicants lodged complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgments of 1 August 1997 and 18 August 1997 with the Ministry of Justice. In its replies, the Ministry of Justice informed the applicants that the judgments could not be enforced due to the “lack of funds in the bank account of the Ministry of Internal Affairs”.\n11.  On 15 May 2003, after the cases were communicated to the Government, the judgments were executed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-771", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Portsmouth. In 1980 he joined the Royal Navy.\n10.  In or around early 1996, he was charged, pursuant to section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (“the 1957 Act”), with three civilian offences (one under the Theft Act 1968 and two under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981). He was also charged, inter alia, on four counts of misapplication of public property contrary to section 30 of the 1957 Act. The charge sheet was signed by the convening authority, Rear Admiral N.E. Rankin (Flag Officer Portsmouth).\n11.  By convening order dated 1 February 1996, the convening authority acknowledged receipt of the “circumstantial letter” and ordered the convening of a court-martial for 26 February 1996 (see paragraph 21 below). He appointed the Prosecutor by name (of lower rank and in the convening authority’s chain of command). He also appointed the President of the court-martial and the other four members by name: all were subordinate in rank to the convening officer but were not in his chain of command. The Judge Advocate was also appointed by name by the convening authority and was not in the latter’s chain of command.\n12.  Advised that he could be represented by a civilian or naval lawyer, the applicant instructed a civilian lawyer, his current representative.\n13.  The court-martial took place on board HMS NELSON on 18 March 1996 and the applicant pleaded guilty to all charges. Having presented evidence in mitigation of sentence, he was sentenced, inter alia, to four months’ imprisonment, to be discharged from the navy and to stoppages of pay in the sum of 2,655 pounds sterling.\n14.  By letter dated 19 April 1996 the applicant was informed that his petition against sentence, which had been reviewed on behalf of the Admiralty Board by the Naval Secretary/Director General Naval Manning, had been rejected but that he could request that the petition be further considered by the Admiralty Board. \nHe subsequently renewed his petition against sentence. On 17 May 1996 he was released from prison and by letter dated 7 June 1996 he was notified that his petition had been rejected.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-772", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Bristol. In 1974 he joined the Royal Navy. At the relevant time he held a senior non-commissioned rank and was an experienced administrator. On 20 October 1995 he was informed that he was under investigation on suspicion of travel fraud. Since he was to be interviewed by the naval police, he was offered the opportunity to speak to a naval barrister. He accepted this offer, was given legal advice and confirmed that he understood the advice given.\n10.  He then attended two interviews with the naval police. At the beginning of both interviews he was cautioned (section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). He declined the opportunity accorded to him to obtain legal advice and to have a legal adviser present at those interviews. He made certain admissions at his first interview and gave the investigators access to his bank accounts. On 27 November 1995 he was interviewed for a second time and then charged.\n11.  The charge sheet, as approved by the convening authority listed six charges (pursuant to section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957) of obtaining property and a service by deception contrary to sections 1 and 15 of the Theft Act 1968. All charges related to the making of false representations about travel allowances.\n12.  By notice dated 3 July 1996 the convening authority ordered the convening of a court-martial to try the applicant on the charges. He appointed the members of the court-martial by name. All were subordinate to the convening authority but none served within his chain of command. The Judge Advocate was appointed by the Chief Naval Judge Advocate. While the Judge Advocate was subordinate in rank to the President and both served under the Second Sea Lord, there was no command or other substantive institutional link between them.\n13.  The court-martial took place on 8-10 July 1996. Once the applicant’s preliminary objections were rejected (he contested the admission of evidence from his interviews and he alleges that he challenged the composition of the court-martial), he pleaded guilty as charged. On 10 July 1996 he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.\n14.  By letter dated 14 January 1997, his legal representative was informed of the decision taken by the Admiralty Board to reject his petition against conviction and sentence. It was considered that his admissions in interview were not the result of oppression and that, given the seriousness of the offences, his sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-773", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, all of whom are Moldovan citizens, live in the Republic of Moldova. They were born in 1932, 1920, 1928, 1919, 1925, 1927, 1923, 1969, 1930, 1919, 1923, 1929, 1928, 1923 and 1922 respectively.\n7.  On 29 July 1994 and on 16 February 1995 the Government and the Parliament passed two decisions according to which the deposits of certain categories of persons at the Savings Bank have to be index-linked. According to the decisions, the Ministry of Finance was supposed to allocate the necessary funds to the Savings Bank. However it failed to do so and the Savings Bank could not carry out the decisions of the Parliament and of the Government.\n8.  In 1999-2001 the applicants lodged with the Râşcani District Court civil actions against the Ministry of Finance in which they sought compensation.\n9.  By a final judgment of 17 September 2000 the court awarded Mr Gheorghe Luntre compensation of MDL 2,936[1].\n10.  By a final judgment of 10 July 2000 the court awarded Ms Nina Voit compensation of MDL 2,934[2].\n11.  By a final judgment of 10 May 2000 the court awarded Mr Pavel Maloman compensation of MDL 733[3].\n12.  By a final judgment of 25 August 2000 the court awarded Mr Dumitru Tcacenco compensation of MDL 734.50[4].\n13.  By a final judgment of 10 May 2000 the court awarded Mr Mihail Zverev compensation of MDL 733[5].\n14.  By a final judgment of 3 May 2001 the court awarded Ms Lidia Abramov compensation of MDL 2,934[6].\n15.  By a final judgment of 15 March 2001 the court awarded Ms Eudochia Volcov compensation of MDL 3,667.50[7].\n16.  By a final judgment of 30 November 2000 the court awarded Ms Ianina Atnealov compensation of MDL 1,468[8].\n17.  By a final judgment of 30 November 2000 the court awarded Ms Nina Ceaica compensation of MDL 734[9].\n18.  By a final judgment of 18 October 1999 the court awarded Mr Dumitru Grişin compensation of MDL 1,446.76[10].\n19.  By a final judgment of 18 October 1999 the court awarded Ms Tatiana Grişin compensation of MDL 1,301.76[11].\n20.  By a final judgment of 14 December 2000 the court awarded Mr Pavel Epifanov compensation of MDL 2,130.69[12].\n21.  By a final judgment of 30 November 2000 the court awarded Ms Nadejda Cleauşev compensation of MDL 733.50[13].\n22.  By a final judgment of 10 May 2000 the court awarded Ms Ecaterina Bobîlev compensation of MDL 733[14].\n23.  By a final judgment of 10 May 2000 the court awarded Mr Ivan Prozor compensation of MDL 733[15].\n24.  On unspecified dates the applicants lodged complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgments with the Ministry of Justice and the Enforcement Authority. In its replies, the Ministry of Justice and the Enforcement Authority informed them that the judgments could not be enforced, as no funds had been provided for the enforcement of judgments by the relevant legislation within the annual State budget.\n25.  On 22-30 April 2003, after the cases were communicated to the Government, the judgments were executed by the Ministry of Finance.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-774", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Durham. At the relevant time he was a Lance Corporal in the British army stationed in Northern Ireland.\n10.  In August 1996 he was reported to his Commanding Officer on a wounding charge, which incident had allegedly occurred in May 1996. On 21 November 1996 he was arrested on two unrelated charges of failing to attend and disobeying a lawful command. On 22 November 1996 he appeared, on the orders of his Commanding Officer, on the latter two charges and he was reduced to the ranks. On the same day he was also remanded for an abstract of evidence (see paragraph 21 below) to be compiled on a charge of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.\n11.  In early December 1996 he went missing from his unit. On 27 January 1997 he was arrested in England by the civilian police, charged with aggravated burglary and handed over to the military authorities. When it was discovered that he had been absent without leave, he was placed in close arrest in the guardroom of Catterick garrison. On 28 January 1997 he was escorted under close arrest back to Northern Ireland.\n12.  The Government maintained that a copy of the information pamphlet entitled “The rights of a soldier charged with an offence under the Army Act 1955” (1994 edition) would have been available to the applicant at Catterick garrison and would have been provided to him against signature of a form acknowledging receipt. Since the relevant disciplinary file was lost, the Government could not provide a copy of the form. The applicant accepted that he received a copy of the pamphlet while in close arrest in Northern Ireland and that it was likely to have been the 1994 version of the pamphlet.\n13.  On 30 January 1997 he appeared before his Commanding Officer who remanded him in close arrest and ordered an abstract of evidence to be compiled on the absence without leave charge with a view to that Officer applying for power to award extended detention (paragraphs 21 and 24 below). No such application was in fact made. During that hearing the applicant received a copy of the charge sheet (the absence without leave charge). \nThe applicant maintained, and the Government denied, that at that same meeting he was asked by his Commanding Officer whether he would be pleading guilty or not guilty and that he had indicated the former.\n14.  On 13 February 1997 the applicant appeared before his Commanding Officer when the latter read the charge of absence without leave and formally asked the applicant whether he pleaded guilty or not guilty. He pleaded guilty and he was awarded 28 days’ military detention. On that day he was also remanded for trial on the wounding charge. \nThe applicant claimed that he was not afforded the opportunity of electing trial by court-martial whereas the Government submitted that he would have been given this option by the Commanding Officer before the finding of guilty was recorded on 13 February 1997.\n15.  On 26 February 1997 the applicant appeared before a Magistrates’ Court in Newcastle (England) on the aggravated burglary charge and was remanded on bail until 28 March 1997. He completed his military sentence of imprisonment on 7 March 1997. He was then informed by his Commanding Officer that he was to be retained in close arrest until his trial by court-martial on the wounding charge. He was then released to open arrest on 12 March 1997 following representa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-776", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Silopi.\n10.  On 28 April 1992 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of having been involved in the terrorist activities of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan), proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law.\n11.  On 25 May 1992 the applicant was brought before the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor. He denied the allegations against him. On the same day, a judge at the Şırnak Magistrates' Court (sulh ceza mahkemesi) ordered the applicant's detention on remand.\n12.  On 1 September 1992 the public prosecutor filed an indictment charging the applicant with treason under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n13.  On 12 October 1994 the public prosecutor filed a new indictment, charging the applicant under the same provision of the Criminal Code with involvement in other terrorist activities.\n14.  On 28 May 1995, upon the request of the public prosecutor, the applicant's case was joined to another case which was being considered in a different chamber of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n15.  On 3 July 1998 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code of treason and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n16.  The applicant's sentence was automatically referred to the Court of Cassation for appeal. The applicant's request for a hearing on his appeal was granted. On 27 October 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-777", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Ankara.\n10.  On 17 February 1981 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody by police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate. He was accused of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). On 15 April 1981 the Ankara Martial Law Court (sıkıyönetim mahkemesi) ordered the applicant's detention on remand.\n11.  On 26 February 1982 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Ankara Martial Law Court against the applicant and 722 other defendants. The prosecution requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code on account of his membership of an illegal armed organisation whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist‑Leninist regime, contrary to Articles 146 § 1 and 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  On 31 December 1983 the applicant was released pending trial.\n13.  On 11 November 1987 the court requested the public prosecutor to formulate his opinion on the charges. On 23 March 1988 the public prosecutor filed his opinion with the court.\n14.  On 19 July 1989 the Ankara Martial Law Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six years and eight months' imprisonment. The applicant was also permanently debarred from public service. The applicant appealed against the conviction and the case was referred to the Military Court of Cassation (Askeri Yargıtay).\n15.  Following the promulgation of Law no. 3953 of 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial law courts, the Court of Cassation acquired jurisdiction over the case and the file was transmitted to it.\n16.  On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation revised the judgment of the first-instance court, sentenced the applicant to five years' imprisonment and debarred him from public service for three years.\n17.  On 23 May 1996 the applicant was dismissed from his post at the Ankara Municipality on account of his conviction.\n18.  On 11 December 1996 the applicant was permitted to return to his previous post and to work as the head of the research and planning department of the municipality.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-778", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Marčana (Croatia).\n9.  On 26 January 1995 a police investigator in Banská Bystrica (Slovakia) apprehended the applicant on the ground that he had been accused, together with another person, of trafficking in women. Subsequently the following relevant facts occurred and decisions were taken.\n10.  On 27 January 1995 the Banská Bystrica District Court remanded the applicant in custody with effect from 26 January 1995. The decision stated that the applicant had brought two women from Slovakia to Spain and that he had forced one of them to carry out prostitution under the threat of shooting her. The judge considered the detention necessary with a view to preventing the accused from absconding and from committing further offences within the meaning of Article 67(1)(a) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 31 January 1995 the applicant challenged this decision through his lawyer.\n11.  On 15 February 1995 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision of 27 January 1995 on the ground that the reasons for it were not sufficient. The Regional Court noted that the applicant was a foreign national without a permanent address in Slovakia. It therefore considered his detention necessary, within the meaning of Article 67(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and remanded him in custody as from 26 January 1995.\n12.  On 21 July 1995 a judge of the Banská Bystrica District Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 26 August 1995 on the ground that the public prosecutor had decided to re-examine a witness who was staying abroad. The court considered that there was a risk of the applicant’s absconding in case of his release.\n13.  On 11 August 1995 the Banská Bystrica District Court extended, at the public prosecutor’s request, the applicant’s detention on remand until 26 December 1995. The decision stated that a witness staying abroad could not be re-examined and that it was also necessary to establish whether the accused persons had tried to benefit from the prostitution of other persons. The court considered the applicant’s detention necessary within the meaning of Article 67(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reference was made to the fact that the applicant was a foreign national and that he did not have permanent residence in Slovakia.\n14.  On 15 December 1995 the Banská Bystrica District Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 25 January 1996. The decision stated that the lawyer appointed to represent the applicant on 20 November 1995 needed more time to study the case file. Furthermore, the lawyer was ill and because of her absence the applicant had refused, on 6 December 1995, to acquaint himself with the outcome of the investigation.\n15.  On 19 April 1996 the applicant lodged a constitutional petition. He alleged, inter alia, that he was discriminated against as the Regional Court had refused to release him, referring to his nationality and to the fact that he had no permanent residence in Slovakia.\n16.  On 22 January 1997 the Supreme Court refused to grant a further extension of the applicant’s detention on remand. It found that the requirements laid down in Article 71(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not met. In particular, the Supreme Court noted that the case was not complex and that the period of almost one year during which the case had been pending at the preliminary stage was excessive given the scope of evide", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-779", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicants were born in 1957, 1952, 1951 and 1953 respectively. The first applicant couple live in Reggio Emilia and the second in Mantua. At the time when they lodged their applications they were deemed to be the adoptive parents of Florentina and Mariana, Romanian nationals who were born on 31 March and 17 April 1991 respectively and were living at the Poiana Soarelui Educational Centre in Braşov (“the CEPSB”).\n12.  In a final decision of 17 June 1994 the Iaşi County Court declared that Florentina, who at the time was 3 years old, had been abandoned. Parental rights over her were assigned to a public welfare institution, L.\n13.  On 6 September 1994, by a decision of the Iaşi Child Welfare Board, the child was placed in the care of the CEPSB.\n14.  On 15 May 2000, after the entry into force of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 25/1997 on the rules governing adoption (“Ordinance no. 25/1997”), the Romanian government entrusted a private association, C., with the task of finding a family or a person to adopt Florentina. It also instructed the Romanian Committee for Adoption to support the C. association in this process and to draw up a psychosocial report on the child.\n15.  The first applicant couple informed the C. association of their wish to adopt a Romanian child, and were sent a photograph of Florentina. They met her for the first time on 3 August 2000 at the CEPSB. They were subsequently informed by the C. association of the child’s desire to join them and of her love of music.\n16.  On 30 August 2000 the Braşov Child Welfare Board, on a proposal by the C. association, gave its approval to the adoption of Florentina by the first applicant couple, and on 21 September 2000 it referred the file on their application for adoption to the Braşov County Court, in accordance with section 14(2) of Ordinance no. 25/1997.\n17.  On 28 September 2000 the court granted the first applicant couple’s application. It noted that the Braşov Child Welfare Board had given its approval to the adoption and had confirmed that position before the court. Observing that the child was in the care of the CEPSB, it ordered the Population Registry Office to amend Florentina’s birth certificate and to issue her with a new one.\n18.  The Romanian Committee for Adoption appealed against that decision. On 13 December 2000 the Braşov Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as being out of time. The decision became final.\n19.  On 5 February 2001 the Romanian Committee for Adoption attested that Florentina’s adoption was in conformity with the domestic legislation in force and with the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of Intercountry Adoption, and issued the first applicant couple with a certificate to that effect.\n20.  On 14 February 2001 the Commission for Intercountry Adoption granted the child leave to enter Italy and to reside there permanently and ordered the notification of that decision, inter alia, to the Italian embassy in Bucharest.\n21.  On an unspecified date the Procurator-General lodged an application to set aside the Braşov County Court’s decision and the Braşov Court of Appeal’s judgment. On 5 June 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice declared the application inadmissible.\n22.  On 28 September 2000, following a procedure similar to that outlined in paragraphs 16 to 18 above, the Braşov County Court granted the second applicant couple’s application to adopt Mariana. It observed that the child, who had bee", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-780", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bratislava.\n9.  On 11 August 1993 the applicant consulted a doctor to whom he complained of health problems due to the fact that his neighbour had tried to poison him. The doctor sent the applicant to the hospital in Ružinov in an ambulance. The accompanying document established by the doctor indicated that the applicant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. In it the doctor requested that the applicant be treated as an in-patient. According to the applicant, he stayed in the central reception unit of the hospital in Ružinov for about ten minutes and during this time two injections were administered to him. Subsequently the applicant was brought against his will to the mental hospital in Pezinok. The chief physician of that hospital ordered that the applicant be released on 26 August 1993.\n10.  On 19 August 1993 the Bratislava-vidiek District Court gave a decision in which it found that the applicant was held in a mental hospital lawfully. The reasons for this decision read as follows:\n“The psychiatric hospital in Pezinok admitted Karol Tám, as an ill person, without his consent. The court took evidence with a view to assessing whether the grounds for his admission were lawful and concluded that the person concerned has suffered from a mental illness requiring treatment in a mental hospital.”\n11.  The District Court’s decision of 19 August 1993 was served on the applicant on 20 September 1996. On 1 October 1996 the applicant appealed and claimed that he had been taken to the mental hospital unlawfully.\n12.  On 30 April 1998 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision of 19 August 1993. The Regional Court found that the first instance court had failed to establish the relevant facts and had committed errors of both a legal and procedural nature. In particular, the District Court had not taken formal decisions to bring proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s examination in a mental hospital and to appoint a guardian for the applicant as required by Article 191b §§ 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the District Court had not heard the applicant and the doctor treating him with a view to establishing whether the applicant’s deprivation of liberty had been justified. The case was sent back to the District Court for a new adjudication.\n13.  In a letter dated 21 January 1999 a judge of the Bratislava III District Court (which had taken over the cases pending before the former Bratislava‑vidiek District Court) informed the applicant that the case would not be proceeded with as proceedings concerning the lawfulness of his placement in a mental hospital had never been formally brought.\n14.  On 26 February 1999 the Bratislava Regional Court instructed the District Court to deliver a decision on the case.\n15.  On 6 July 1999 the Bratislava III District Court discontinued the proceedings. The decision stated that the applicant had been released on 26 August 1993 and, therefore, the reasons for proceeding further with the case had fallen away. The applicant appealed on 9 August 1999. He claimed that his deprivation of liberty had been unlawful and that he had not been informed that a guardian had been appointed to represent him.\n16.  On 31 May 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision of 6 July 1999.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-781", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Nicosia.\n10.  On 30 January 2001 the applicant applied to the Ministry of the Interior, requesting to be registered on the electoral roll in order to exercise his voting rights in the parliamentary election of 27 May 2001.\n11.  On 8 February 2001 the Ministry of the Interior refused to enrol the applicant. The Ministry specified that, by virtue of Article 63 of the Constitution, members of the Turkish-Cypriot community could not be registered on the Greek-Cypriot electoral roll. Furthermore, the Ministry informed the applicant that the matter was under consideration by the Attorney-General of the Republic and that he would be informed of any developments.\n12.  On 27 April 2001 the applicant lodged an application with the Supreme Court against the decision of the Ministry of the Interior. He relied on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and submitted that, following the dissolution of the Communal Chambers, the Cypriot government had failed to set up two electoral lists in order to protect the electoral rights of members of both communities.\n13.  On 23 May 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the application on the following grounds:\n“... The right to vote is directly linked to the communal checks and balances which provide for the compilation of separate electoral lists and for separate elections of the representatives of each community. The ideal of democracy – one person, one vote in the person's place of residence – does not provide any grounds for the Court to assume the power to reform the Constitution. Such competence is not vested in us, nor can the judicial authorities claim such power. This would be against the principle of the separation of powers on which the Constitution is based ...\nArticle 63 is contained in Part IV of the Constitution, which governs the matters pertaining to the House of Representatives and provides for the compilation of separate electoral lists in which the members of each community are included. The applicant belongs to the Turkish community and is one of the small number of Turkish Cypriots residing in the part of the territory of Cyprus under the control of the Republic of Cyprus. The denunciation by the applicant of the Turkish invasion and his loyalty to the law do not alter what the Constitution provides with respect to the election of the members of the legislative body.\nArticle 5 of the [Election of Members of the House of Representatives] Law makes the right to vote conditional on the provisions of Article 63 of the Constitution. The applicant admits, as it transpires from his counsel's address, that the proviso to which the right to vote is subject under Article 5, if construed literally, excludes the inclusion in the electoral list of any person other than members of the Greek community in Cyprus. Nevertheless, he suggested that this reservation must be interpreted in the light of the current situation in Cyprus, which renders the compilation of an electoral list of the members of the Turkish community impossible. Given this fact, it had to be surmised that when the House of Representatives enacted Article 5 of the Law it had this situation in mind and the impossibility of compiling an electoral list of the members of the Turkish community. Hence, this justified the interpretation of the reservation contained in Article 5 as referring only to those provisions of Article 63 of the Constitution which were rendered inactive.\nAdopting the interpretation of Arti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-782", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is a Polish national who was born in 1944 and lives in Wieliczka, Małopolska Province, in Poland.\n10.  The eastern provinces of pre-war Poland were (and in dated usage still are) called “Borderlands” (“Kresy”). They included large areas of present-day Belarus and Ukraine and territories around Vilnius in what is now Lithuania.\nLater, when after the Second World War Poland's eastern border was fixed along the Bug River (whose central course formed part of the Curzon line), the “Borderlands” acquired the name of “territories beyond the Bug River” (“ziemie zabużańskie”).\nThose regions had been invaded by the USSR in September 1939.\n11.  Following agreements concluded between the Polish Committee of National Liberation (Polski Komitet Wyzwolenia Narodowego) and the former Soviet Socialist Republics of Ukraine (on 9 September 1944), Belarus (on 9 September 1944) and Lithuania (on 22 September 1944) (“the Republican Agreements” – “umowy republikańskie”), the Polish State took upon itself the obligation to compensate persons who were “repatriated” from the “territories beyond the Bug River” and had to abandon their property there. Such property is commonly referred to as “property beyond the Bug River” (“mienie zabużańskie”).\n12.  The Polish government estimated that from 1944 to 1953 some 1,240,000 persons were “repatriated” under the provisions of the Republican Agreements. At the oral hearing, the parties agreed that the vast majority of repatriated persons had been compensated for loss of property caused by their repatriation.\nIn that connection, the Government also stated that, on account of the delimitation of the Polish-Soviet State border – and despite the fact that Poland was “compensated” by the Allies with former German lands east of the Oder-Neisse line – Poland suffered a loss of territory amounting to 19.78%.\n13.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n14.  After the Second World War, the applicant's grandmother was repatriated from Lwów (now Lviv in Ukraine).\nOn 19 August 1947 the State Repatriation Office (Państwowy Urząd Repatriacyjny) in Cracow issued a certificate attesting that she had owned a piece of real property in Lwów and that the property in question consisted of approximately 400 sq. m of land and a house with a surface area of 260 sq. m.\n15.  On 11 June 1968 the Cracow District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant's mother had inherited the whole of her late mother's property.\n16.  On an unknown later date the applicant's mother asked the mayor of Wieliczka to enable her to purchase the so-called right of “perpetual use” (prawo użytkowania wieczystego) of land owned by the State Treasury (see also paragraph 66 below).\n17.  In September 1980 an expert from the Cracow Mayor's Office made a report assessing the value of the property abandoned by the applicant's grandmother in Lwów. The actual value was estimated at 1,949,560 old Polish zlotys (PLZ) but, for the purposes of compensation due from the State, the value was fixed at PLZ 532,260.\n18.  On 25 March 1981 the mayor of Wieliczka issued a decision enabling the applicant's mother to purchase the right of perpetual use of a plot of 467 sq. m situated in Wieliczka. The fee for the right of perpetual use was PLZ 392 per year and the duration was set at a minimum of forty and a maximum of ninety-nine years. The total fee for use, which amounted to PLZ 38,808 (PLZ 392 x 99 years) ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-783", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Włocławek, Poland.\n5.  The applicant and her neighbours were the co-owners of real estate located in Włocławek. On 28 June 1982 the applicant filed an action with the Włocławek District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) in which she requested that the co-ownership of the estate be dissolved.\n6.  Prior to 19 September 1989 the court held a number of hearings and two viewings of the site. It also obtained two expert reports.\n7.  On 19 September 1989 the District Court gave a decision. The neighbours (“the respondents”) appealed. On 5 July 1991 the Włocławek Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) set aside the first-instance decision and remitted the case.\n8.  On 20 December 1991 the District Court held a hearing. On 17 November 1992 the court obtained another expert’s opinion.\n9.  A hearing listed for 16 June 1993 was adjourned due to the absence of the respondents’ lawyer. On 3 August 1993 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from an expert.\n10.  The court held a further hearing on 29 April 1994. It ordered yet another expert to prepare an opinion. On 7 October 1994 the court held a viewing of the site. On 17 November 1994 a hearing was held. At a hearing held on 13 April 1995 the court heard evidence from an expert.\n11.  On 27 April 1995 the Włocławek District Court gave a decision and dissolved the co-ownership. The respondents appealed.\n12.  On 20 July 1995 the District Court refused to exempt the respondents from the court fees due for lodging the appeal. On 22 August 1995 they appealed against this decision and requested the court to grant them leave to appeal out of time. On 19 December 1995 the court granted them that leave. On 15 April 1996 the Włocławek Regional Court amended the decision of 20 July 1995 and partially exempted the respondents from the court fees.\n13.  On 12 September 1996 the Włocławek Regional Court dismissed the respondents’ appeal. On 18 December 1996, they lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). On 3 September 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal.\n14.  On 21 September 1996 the applicant filed an action for repossession of part of the property with the Włocławek District Court. She claimed that the court in its decision of 27 April 1995 (given in the first set of proceedings), had not ordered the respondents to surrender part of the property in question to her.\n15.  On 14 April 1997 the court stayed the proceedings, considering that the determination of the case depended on the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court. On 5 January 1998 the proceedings were resumed.\n16.  On 28 January 1998 the trial court held a hearing. On 14 March 1998 an expert opinion was submitted to the court.\n17.  On 21 April 1998 the Włocławek District Court gave judgment and granted the applicant’s claim. The defendants appealed. On 8 October 1998 the Włocławek Regional Court dismissed their appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-784", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Berlin, Germany.\n6.  On 7 August 1992 her house in Slavonski Brod, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n7.  On 4 October 1995 she instituted civil proceedings before the Slavonski Brod Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Slavonskom Brodu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for her damaged property.\n8.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima), the Slavonski Brod Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 28 September 2000.\n9.  Pursuant to the Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003 (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija), the proceedings resumed on 4 December 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-785", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1937 and 1939, respectively, and live in Krušedol, Serbia and Montenegro.\n7.  On an uncertain date the applicants’ weekend house in Lončarica, Croatia, was damaged by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 27 October 1997 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Grubišno Polje Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Grubišnom Polju) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for their damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 112/1999), the Grubišno Polje Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 31 May 2000.\n10.  Pursuant to the Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003 (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003), the proceedings resumed on 4 December 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-786", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1946.\n7.  On 14 August 1997 the investigating judge at the Vaduz Regional Court (Landgericht), having heard the applicant, ordered that he be taken into pre-trial detention on suspicion of, inter alia, embezzlement and continuous aggravated fraud (file no. 10 Vr 203/97). He found that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had enticed a number of persons to entrust him with the investment of their capital, which he had then fraudulently diverted using a network of partly foreign companies. Giving detailed reasons, the investigating judge found that there was a danger of absconding, a danger that the applicant might influence witnesses, and also a danger of repetition of the offences. Finally, having regard to the seriousness of the offence, the applicant’s detention was proportionate to the sentence he risked incurring.\n8.  On 19 September 1997 the Court of Appeal (Obergericht) held a hearing on the applicant’s request for release (Haftprüfungsverhandlung). The applicant was not represented by counsel at this hearing. Following the hearing, the court ordered that the applicant’s detention be continued. It confirmed the reasons advanced by the Regional Court.\n9.  On the same day the Vaduz Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request of 18 August to have a legal-aid counsel appointed for him. Regarding the applicant’s submissions concerning his income and assets, and the fact that he was represented by two counsel of his own choosing in a second set of proceedings (file no. 282/92), it found that he had sufficient means to pay for counsel.\n10.  On 10 December 1997 the Regional Court ordered the applicant’s representation by legal aid counsel. It noted that the investigations and, in particular, an expert opinion, which had meanwhile been submitted, had shown that the applicant had been living exclusively on money obtained from the investors in his various companies and had therefore no means to pay for defence counsel. In the evening of 16 December 1997 the Lawyers’ Chamber appointed Mr B.\n11.  On 17 December 1997 the Court of Appeal held a hearing on the applicant’s renewed request for release.\n12.  At the beginning of the hearing, the applicant’s counsel pointed out that he had only been appointed at 6 p.m. on the day before and had therefore been limited to two hours of consultation with the applicant without having had a possibility to study the voluminous file. The Court noted that it had not been informed of the late appointment of counsel for the applicant and drew his attention to the fact that he remained free to request that the hearing be adjourned as the statutory three days’ time-limit for its preparation had not been complied with. However, counsel did not request an adjournment.\n13.  At the close of the hearing, the court ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention. It confirmed the reasons given in the decisions of 14 August and 19 September 1997.\n14.  On 17 December 1997 the Lawyer’s Chamber appointed Mr K. as legal-aid counsel for the applicant.\n15.  On 14 January 1998 the Court of Appeal, sitting in camera as a panel of five judges, dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 17 December 1997. As to the applicant’s complaint that he did not have sufficient time to prepare for the hearing of 17 December 1997 concerning his detention, the court noted that his counsel had waived the right to request an adjournment. There were no reasons to doubt the vali", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-787", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Modrino Selo, Croatia.\n7.  On 9 March 1992 the applicant’s weekend house in Sveti Petar, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 8 March 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Biograd na moru Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Biogradu na moru) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996), the Biograd na moru Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 4 December 2000.\n10.  Pursuant to the Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003 (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003), the proceedings resumed on 16 December 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-788", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, who is the eldest daughter of Prince Rainier III of Monaco, was born in 1957. Her official residence is in Monaco but she lives in the Paris area most of the time.\nAs a member of Prince Rainier’s family, the applicant is the president of certain humanitarian or cultural foundations, such as the Princess Grace Foundation or the Prince Pierre of Monaco Foundation, and also represents the ruling family at events such as the Red Cross Ball or the opening of the International Circus Festival. She does not, however, perform any function within or on behalf of the State of Monaco or any of its institutions.\n9.  Since the early 1990s the applicant has been trying – often through the courts – in a number of European countries to prevent the publication of photos about her private life in the tabloid press.\n10.  The photos that were the subject of the proceedings described below were published by the Burda publishing company in the German magazines Bunte and Freizeit Revue, and by the Heinrich Bauer publishing company in the German magazine Neue Post. 1.  The first series of photos\n(a)  The five photos of the applicant published in Freizeit Revue magazine (issue no. 30 of 22 July 1993)\n11.  These photos show her with the actor Vincent Lindon at the far end of a restaurant courtyard in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence. The first page of the magazine refers to “The most tender photos of her romance with Vincent” (“Die zärtlichsten Fotos Ihrer Romanze mit Vincent”) and the photos themselves bear the caption “These photos are evidence of the most tender romance of our time” (“Diese Fotos sind der Beweis für die zärtlichste Romanze unserer Zeit”).\n(b)  The two photos of the applicant published in Bunte magazine (issue no. 32 of 5 August 1993)\n12.  The first photo shows her on horseback with the caption “Caroline and the blues. Her life is a novel with innumerable misfortunes, says the author Roig” (“Caroline und die Melancholie. Ihr Leben ist ein Roman mit unzähligen Unglücken, sagt Autor Roig”).\nThe second photo shows her with her children Pierre and Andrea.\nThe photos are part of an article entitled “I don’t think I could be a man’s ideal wife” (“Ich glaube nicht, dass ich die ideale Frau für einen Mann sein kann”).\n(c)  The seven photos of the applicant published in Bunte magazine (issue no. 34 of 19 August 1993)\n13.  The first photo shows her canoeing with her daughter Charlotte, the second shows her son Andrea with a bunch of flowers in his arms.\nThe third photo shows her doing her shopping with a bag slung over her shoulder, the fourth with Vincent Lindon in a restaurant and the fifth alone on a bicycle.\nThe sixth photo shows her with Vincent Lindon and her son Pierre.\nThe seventh photo shows her doing her shopping at the market, accompanied by her bodyguard.\nThe article is entitled “Pure happiness” (“Vom einfachen Glück”). 2.  The second series of photos\n(a)  The ten photos of the applicant published in Bunte magazine (issue no. 10 of 27 February 1997)\n14.  These photos show the applicant on a skiing holiday in Zürs/Arlberg. The accompanying article is entitled “Caroline... a woman returns to life” (“Caroline... eine Frau kehrt ins Leben zurück”).\n(b)  The eleven photos of the applicant published in Bunte magazine (issue no. 12 of 13 March 1997)\n15.  Seven photos show her with Prince Ernst August von Hannover at a horse show in Saint-Rémy-de-Provence. The accompanying article is entitled “The kiss. Or: they are not hiding anymore” (“De", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-789", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The facts as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.\n9.  Until October 1994 the applicants all lived in Boydaş, a village of Hozat district in Tunceli province, in the then state-of-emergency region of Turkey.\n10.  The applicants Abdullah Doğan, Ali Rıza Doğan, Ahmet Doğan, Kazım Balık, Müslüm Yılmaz and Yusuf Doğan (applications nos. 8803/02, 8805/02, 8806/02, 8811/02, 8815/02 and 8817/02 respectively) owned houses and land in Boydaş, whereas the other applicants cultivated land and lived in the houses owned by their fathers.\nIn particular, Cemal Doğan is the son of Ahmet Doğan (applications nos. 8804/02 and 8806/02 respectively).\nAli Murat Doğan, Hüseyin Doğan and Ali Rıza Doğan are the sons of Yusuf Doğan (applications nos. 8807/02, 8816/02, 8819/02 and 8817/02 respectively).\nHasan Yıldız (application no. 8808/02) cultivated the land owned by his father Nurettin Yıldız.\nHıdır and İhsan Balık are brothers (applications nos. 8809/02 and 8810/02 respectively). They used the property owned by their father Haydar Balık.\nMehmet Doğan is the son of Ali Rıza Doğan (applications nos. 8813/02 and 8805/02 respectively).\nHüseyin Doğan (application no. 8818/02) cultivated the land owned by his father Hasan Doğan.\n11.  Boydaş village may be described as an area of dispersed hamlets and houses spread over mountainous terrain, where there is insufficient land suitable for agriculture. For administrative purposes the village was regarded as being in the Hozat district. An extended patriarchal family system prevailed in the region, where there were no large landowners but generally small family farms. These usually took the form of livestock farms (sheep, goats and bee‑keeping) revolving around the grandfather or father and run by their married children. The applicants earned their living by farming, in particular stockbreeding, land cultivation, tree felling and the sale of timber, as did their fellow villagers.\n12.  In 1994, terrorist activity was a major concern in this area. Since the 1980s a violent conflict had been going on in the region between the security forces and sections of the Kurdish population in favour of Kurdish autonomy, in particular members of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). This resulted in the displacement of many people from in and around Boydaş village either because of the difficulty of life in the remote mountainous area or because of the security situation.\n13.  The facts of the case, in particular the circumstances of the applicants’ and the denial of access to their property in Boydaş village, are disputed.\n14.  In October 1994 the inhabitants of Boydaş were forcibly evicted from their village by security forces on account of the disturbances in the region. The security forces also destroyed the applicants’ houses with a view to forcing them to leave the village. The applicants and their families thus moved to safer areas, namely to Elazığ and Istanbul where they currently live in poor conditions.\n15.  Between 29 November 1994 and 15 August 2001 the applicants petitioned various administrative authorities, namely the offices of the Prime Minister, the Governor of the state-of-emergency region, the Tunceli Governor and the Hozat District Governor, complaining about the forced evacuation of their village by the security forces. They also requested permission to return to their village and to use their property.\n16.  Although the applicants’ petitions were received by the authorities, no response w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-790", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 18 August 1995 the applicant, a stoker, brought an action before the Budapest Labour Court against his employer, the Budapest Police Department, claiming payment of outstanding salary for the extra hours he had worked. On 22 September 1995 he provided particulars of his claims.\n6.  On 6 October 1995 the Labour Court held a hearing and ordered the defendant to submit its pleadings. The defendant complied with this order on 26 October 1995. The applicant specified further his claims on 20 October 1995 and 11 June 1996.\n7.  On 1 July 1996 the Labour Court appointed an expert auditor and ordered her to present an opinion within 90 days.\n8.  On 28 August, 16 October and 17 December 1996, 16 January, 7 February and 12 May 1997 the applicant submitted further details of his claims.\n9.  On 23 June and 28 October 1997 the applicant complained to the President of the Labour Court that the auditor had not yet submitted her opinion. In January 1998 the Labour Court revoked the auditor’s appointment.\n10.  On 15 January 1998 the applicant quit his job.\n11.  On 27 April 1998 the applicant complained to the President of the National Judicial Council about the Labour Court’s inactivity. On 6 August 1998 the President of the Budapest Regional Court’s Labour Law Section informed the applicant that the protraction of the proceedings was due to the multiple and often unclear particulars of his own claims, the lack of co-operation on the defendant’s side and the length of time taken by the auditor to finalise an opinion.\n12.  On 5 May 1998 the Labour Court ordered the defendant to submit supplementary information within 30 days. The defendant complied on 24 June 1998.\n13.  On 22 June and 13 July 1998 the applicant again provided particulars of his claims.\n14.  On 2 September 1998 the sum of 353,396 Hungarian forints (HUF) was transferred by the defendant to the applicant’s bank account.\n15.  On 4 September and 18 December 1998 the Labour Court held hearings. On the latter occasion the Labour Court ordered the parties to discuss the possibility of settling the case. The parties did so on 16 February 1999.\n16.  On 19 February 1999 a new judge was appointed to the bench to deal with the case.\n17.  On 26 April 1999 the Labour Court appointed another auditor and ordered him to submit his opinion within four months.\n18.  On 9 September 1999 the applicant requested the revocation of the new auditor’s appointment on the ground that he had failed to submit his opinion within the prescribed period. The auditor submitted his opinion on 13 October 1999.\n19.  On 1 and 16 November 1999 the applicant again provided particulars of his claims.\n20.  On 9 February 2000 the Labour Court heard the expert’s opinion. As both parties rejected the opinion, on 28 February 2000 the Labour Court appointed a third expert, the Budapest Auditors’ Institute. On the same day, the Labour Court reminded the parties of their obligation to conduct their case in a bona fide manner.\n21.  On 18 May and 20 June 2000 the applicant again submitted further particulars of his claims. Simultaneously, he challenged the presiding judge for bias and requested that the case be transferred to the Pest County Labour Court. His request was dismissed on 14 July 2000.\n22.  On 28 July 2000 the Auditors’ Institute submitted its opinion.\n23.  In an order dated 8 August 2000 the Labour Court fixed the fee payable to the Auditors’ Institute. On 1 Septem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-792", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Pavlovych Voytenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1961 and resides in the village of Nova Vodolaga, in the Kharkiv Region, Ukraine.\n5.  In September 1999, the applicant retired from the army. Upon retirement, the applicant was entitled to compensation for his uniform and to reimbursement of his travel expenses. As this compensation remained unpaid for three months, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Donetsk Garrison Military Court against the Donetsk Regional Military Registration Department (Донецкий Областной Военный Комиссариат), seeking recovery of the debt.\n6.  On 12 January 2000, the court found for the applicant (Решение Военного суда Донецкого гарнизона) and awarded him UAH 2,576.72[1] for the uniform and UAH 128.77[2] for travel expenses. The court decision was not appealed and therefore came into force on 22 January 2000. The execution writs were sent to the Voroshylovsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Donetsk (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Ворошиловского районного управления юстиции Донецкой области) and the enforcement proceedings started on 16 March 2000.\n7.  The debtor was given time to execute the judgment voluntarily, until 23 March 2000. After the debtor had failed to execute the judgment, the Bailiffs’ Service sent the execution writs and payment orders to the Donetsk Regional Treasury Department to withdraw the amount of the award from the debtor’s account, which revealed a lack of funds for such payments.\n8.  On 10 April 2000, the payment order and execution writ were returned to the Bailiffs’ Service without execution due to the debtor’s lack of funds.\n9.  On 17 May 2000, the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s favour were joined to other enforcement proceedings against the debtor.\n10.  On 24 October 2000, the debtor transferred to the Bailiffs’ Service the amount of UAH 128.77 (the reimbursement of the travel expenses) to be paid to the applicant. However, this sum was only transferred to the applicant on 20 July 2001 (4 October 2001 according to the applicant). The delay, according to the Government, was caused by a lack of information about the applicant’s banking details.\n11.  On 7 November 2000 and 20 July 2001, the execution writ and the payment order for the remaining amount (the compensation for the uniform) were twice re-sent to the Treasury Department. They were returned without enforcement on the same grounds as before – a lack of funds on the designated account.\n12.  On 9 September 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service checked and attached the debtor’s accounts. The Bailiffs also checked and found that the debtor had no vehicles or real estate in its possession.\n13.  On 22 February and 6 August 2002 the execution writ for the remaining amount and the payment order were twice re-sent to the Treasury Department. They were returned without enforcement on the same grounds. The Treasury Department also noted that the payment order had expired on 6 September 2002.\n14.  In response to the applicant’s inquiry, he was informed by the Bailiffs’ Service in August 2002 that the debtor’s accounts had been frozen and that the execution of his judgment would take place as soon as State budgetary money could be transferred to it.\n15.  On 25 November 2002, joint enforcement proceedings against the debtor, including the applicant’s judgment, were initiated by the Bailiffs’ Service for a total amount of UAH 32,680.80[3].\n16.  On 16 December 2002, the Bailiffs’ Serv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-793", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Zagreb.\n7.  The applicant alleged that he was infected with Hepatitis B and C following a vaccination while he was in the army.\n8.  On 29 July 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 112/1999), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 18 January 2000.\n10.  The proceedings resumed on 7 November 2003 pursuant to the Damage Caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War Act 2003 (Zakon o odgovornosti Republike Hrvatske za štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika Hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata, Official Gazette no. 117/2003).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-795", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, all of whom are Moldovan citizens, live in the Republic of Moldova. They were born in 1920, 1967, 1920, 1965, 1925, 1927, 1932, 1925 and 1924 respectively.\n7.  On 29 July 1994 and on 16 February 1995 the Government and the Parliament passed two decisions according to which the deposits of certain categories of persons at the Savings Bank had to be index-linked. According to the decisions, the Ministry of Finance was supposed to allocate the necessary funds to the Savings Bank. However it failed to do so and the Savings Bank could not carry out the decisions of the Parliament and of the Government.\n8.  In 2000 the applicants lodged with the Râşcani District Court civil actions against the Ministry of Finance in which they sought compensation.\n9.  By judgment of 18 December 2000 the court awarded Mr Ghenadie Bocancea compensation of 3,877 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of EUR 349 at the time). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n10.  By judgment of 21 December 2000 the court awarded Ms Angela Ciugureanu’s father compensation of MDL 2,200.50 (the equivalent of EUR 197 at the time). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n11.  By judgment of 20 December 2000 the court awarded Ms Zoia Juravlev compensation of MDL 2,798.5 (the equivalent of EUR 254 at the time). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final. Following her father’s death on 13 April 2001 she inherited his estate.\n12.  By judgment of 22 December 2000 the court awarded Ms Maria Melicenco compensation of MDL 3,667 (the equivalent of EUR 324 at the time). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n13.  By judgment of 25 September 2000 the court awarded Mr Boris Leviţchi compensation of MDL 2,932 (the equivalent of EUR 277 at the time). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n14.  By judgments of 31 October 2000 and 6 November 2000 the court awarded Ms Maria Pronin compensation of MDL 2,052.18 (the equivalent of EUR 196 at the time) and MDL 733 (the equivalent of EUR 68 at the time) respectively. No appeal was lodged and the judgments became final.\n15.  By judgment of 28 November 2000 the court awarded Ms Nadejda Stavilov compensation of MDL 3,466 (the equivalent of EUR 335 at the time). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n16.  By judgment of 25 August 2000 the court awarded Ms Ana Crivcianschi compensation of MDL 1,469 (the equivalent of EUR 132 at the time). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n17.  By judgment of 16 November 2000 the court awarded Ms Olga Cotov compensation of MDL 2,200.50 (the equivalent of EUR 208 at the time). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n18.  On unspecified dates the applicants lodged complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgments with the Ministry of Justice and the Enforcement Authority. In its replies, the Ministry of Justice and the Enforcement Authority informed them that the judgments could not be enforced, as no funds had been provided for the enforcement of judgments by the relevant legislation within the annual State budget.\n19.  On 22 April 2003, after the cases were communicated to the Government, the judgments were executed by the Ministry of Finance.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-796", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Köln, Germany.\n7.  In December 1992 the applicant’s business premises in Zagreb were blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 24 October 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property. He claimed that the property was damaged by members of the Croatian Army.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 112/1999), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 9 December 1999.\n10.  Pursuant to the Damage Caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War Act 2003 (Zakon o odgovornosti Republike Hrvatske za štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika Hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata, Official Gazette no. 117/2003), the proceedings resumed on 16 October 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-797", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Teteven. He was the executive director of Elprom‑EMT, a State‑owned company, against which bankruptcy proceedings were opened in 1997.\n9.  On 14 May 1997 the Teteven District Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal proceedings against the applicant and against the deputy director of Elprom‑EMT and a company employee.\n10.  On 3 June 1997 the applicant was charged with abuse of office and making false official documents, contrary to Articles 282 § 2 and 311 § 1 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”). It was alleged that, together with the deputy director, he had abused his managerial position during the period April 1996 – March 1997 and had occasioned losses to the company in order to secure a financial benefit for a private limited liability company in which his wife was a member. The alleged loss to Elprom‑EMT amounted to 23,302,275 old Bulgarian levs (BGL). It was also charged that to facilitate that offence the applicant had made false documents and had incited the deputy director and a company employee to make false documents.\n11.  On 6 June 1997 a prosecutor of the Lovech Regional Prosecutor’s Office ordered the suspension of the applicant from his position of executive director, on the grounds that the charges against him were for job‑related offences and that there were sufficient grounds to believe that he could jeopardise the investigation if he remained in office.\n12.  On 20 June 1997 the investigator in charge of the case ordered an expert financial report, which was assigned to two former employees of Elprom‑EMT.\n13.  On 4 August 1997 counsel for the applicant requested to be allowed to consult the case file. The request was granted on 10 August.\n14.  A graphological report ordered earlier was ready on 18 September 1997.\n15.  On 25 September 1997 the applicant was questioned. Counsel for the applicant requested to be allowed to inspect the case file. The investigator allowed them to consult certain documents but refused access to the whole file.\n16.  On 16 October 1997 the expert financial report ordered on 20 June 1997 was ready.\n17.  On 20 October and 25 November 1997 the investigator ordered expert reports on the prices of certain items relevant to the investigation.\n18.  On 10 December 1997 the applicant was questioned and was allowed, together with his counsel, to consult certain documents in the case file, including the expert reports.\n19.  On 29 December 1997 counsel for the applicant requested the disqualification of one of the experts who had prepared the expert financial report. They argued, inter alia, that one of the experts had been chief accountant of Elprom‑EMT and had been dismissed for disciplinary reasons by the applicant, which cast doubt on his objectivity. The request was denied.\n20.  It seems that most of the witnesses in the case were questioned on dates between June and December 1997.\n21.  On 10 February 1998 the applicant was questioned. His request to be allowed to consult the case file was granted.\n22.  On 12 February 1998 counsel for the applicant again requested the disqualification of the experts who had prepared the expert financial report. They repeated their arguments in respect of the first expert and also averred that the other expert had been involved in the bankruptcy proceedings of Elprom‑EMT.\n23.  The same day the applicant was presented with the amended charges. These included aggravated embezzlement facilitated by the making of false official docum", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-798", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are involved in a long-standing dispute with the State concerning the ownership of a plot of land known as “Omorphokklisia” in Galatsi, a suburb of Athens. This land is included in a wider area called the “Veïkou Estate”. The applicants have so far obtained a number of rulings in their favour from the civil courts and the public prosecutors of the Athens first instance and appeal courts. On several occasions, the State authorities have either claimed that the land in question was a forest or that it was not.\n8.  In 1934 the Ministry of Agriculture took a reforestation decision (no. 108424/1934) concerning a wider region in Attica, which included Athens, Piraeus and the suburbs. According to that decision, the area “consisted, before the destruction and downgrading of the forest vegetation ..., of pine-tree forest which was progressively downgraded and tended to disappear ...”\n9.  In a document of the Forest Inspection of Athens of 14 November 1968, it was stated that half of the area which included the applicants’ land was agricultural and half covered by bush and five pine-trees. The Forest Inspection expressed the opinion that, considering the morphology of the area, it has never been a forest and could not be reforested, since the decision of the Ministry of Agriculture of 1934 excluded from the scope of the reforestation barren lands or plots owned by individuals. The Forest Inspection concluded that the city plan could be extended to the impugned area.\n10.  On 6 September 1994 the prefect of Athens declared an area within the Veïkou Estate, including the applicants’ land, “reafforestable” (it should be turned back into a forest). As it was expressly stated in the prefect’s decision, the aim was “... to recreate the forest greenery destroyed or downgraded by illegal quarry activities and other illegal actions such as land clearing, constructions etc. in an area of 284 000 square meters” (decision no. 3015/1994). On 10 October 1994 the prefect took a similar decision for another area of the Veïkou Estate.\n11.  On 10 November 1994 the applicants challenged decision no. 3015/1994 before the Supreme Administrative Court. They claimed that they were owners of properties that originated from the parcelling of a broader area included in the major area known as “Veïkou Estate” and which were located inside the reafforestable area. In particular, in their appeal, they contended that the prefect’s decision lacked reasons and aimed at depriving them of any property or possession rights on the contested plot. In their additional observations of 3 March 1999 they claimed that the prefect’s decision was an operative act, in particular because it was issued after a new assessment of the factual situation (pages 55-59 of the applicants’ memorial). They further contended that the cause of the adoption of that decision was the attempt of the State to create a dispute over their property or possession rights, although the legal conditions for the issuance of such a decision were not met since the area never constituted a forest in the past.\n12.  On 14 December 1994 the applicants invited the State to purchase the plot in question from them according to the procedure prescribed by Law no. 998/1979. The authorities did not reply.\n13.  On 22 October 1999 the Forest Inspection of Athens qualified as “reafforestable” according to the procedure prescribed by Law no. 998/1979 an area of approximately 189 sq. m. located within the area conc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-799", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Plovdiv.\n10.  On 9 December 1994 a newspaper in the town of Parvomay, “Parvomay dnes”, published an article on the problems of the liquidation of State cooperative farms and the restitution of the agricultural land in the region. The article contained offensive allegations against the applicant who was a former chairman of the local commission in charge of the liquidation of the cooperative farms. The title of the article, quoting the applicant, read “Do not hassle me, I have a yellow card” („Не ме закачайте, аз съм с жълта карта“). The latter expression means that the person in question is registered as mentally ill. The article’s author commented on the poor results of the commission’s audit, stating that they could be expected since its chairman was a “person of unsound mind” („невменяем човек“). The applicant was also referred to as a “wretch” („нещастник“).\n11.  In February 1995 the applicant lodged with the Parvomay District Prosecutor’s Office a request for the opening of proceedings for criminal libel against the newspaper’s editor. On 6 March 1995 the competent prosecutor opened a preliminary inquiry with a view to the opening of criminal proceedings against the editor.\n12.  On 2 March 1995 the applicant filed a civil action against the newspaper’s editor and publisher, alleging that the article had defamed him. He claimed non‑pecuniary damages for injury to his reputation.\n13.  The Parvomay District Court held its first hearing in the case on 13 April 1995. Counsel for the defendants requested the court to stay the proceedings, presenting a certificate from the Prosecutor’s Office to the effect that a preliminary inquiry had been opened. The court stayed the proceedings in accordance with Article 182 § 1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”), pending the outcome of the preliminary inquiry.\n14.  The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal, arguing, inter alia, that the pending preliminary inquiry could not serve as grounds for the staying of the civil proceedings, the only such grounds being pending criminal proceedings.\n15.  On 13 July 1995 the Plovdiv Regional Court upheld the lower court’s ruling, holding that the facts alleged in the civil action constituted “criminal elements” within the meaning of Article 182 § 1 (d) of the CCP. The only bodies competent to decide whether a criminal offence had or had not been committed were the prosecutor and the criminal courts. The eventual ruling of the criminal court would be res judicata for the civil court, as provided by Article 222 of the CCP. Therefore, the proceedings had been properly stayed.\n16.  On 5 September 1995 the Parvomay District Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal proceedings against the journalist who had written the article against the applicant.\n17.  While the civil proceedings were stayed the Parvomay District Court sent numerous letters to the District Prosecutor’s Office and to the District Investigation Service, inquiring about the status of the criminal proceedings. Such letters were sent on 22 April, 9 September and 15 November 1996, 4 February and 5 and 11 December 1997, 12 May, 15 July and 18 December 1998, 12 April 1999, 25 January and 13 September 2000, and 28 February 2001.\n18.  Meanwhile, on 23 March 1998 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Parvomay District Prosecutor’s Office to do the necessary for the speedy conclusion of the criminal proceedings. On 4 May 1998 he filed a complaint with the Plo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-800", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in Austria.\n5.  On 26 August 1993 the applicant company instituted civil proceedings against 16 clients (hereafter the “defendants”), claiming approximately two million Austrian schillings (about 145 000 €) for work effected in the construction of semi-detached houses.\n6.  On 12, 13 and 15 October 1993 the defendants filed their submissions. On 18 November 1993 the applicant company filed further submissions.\n7.  On 2 December 1993 the St. Pölten Regional Court (Landesgericht) held an oral hearing and adjourned the case to 28 February 1994 in order to hear a witness on the question whether the applicant company had properly effected the construction work.\n8.  On 24 February 1994 the applicant company filed further submissions.\n9.  On 28 February 1994 the St. Pölten Regional Court heard a witness and adjourned the hearing in order to hear an expert. On 28 March 1994 the court appointed an expert. On 30 March 1994 the defendants filed further submissions. On 6 June 1994 the expert visited the locus in quo (Befundaufnahme).\n10.  On 26 January 1996 the expert submitted his report, comprising some 200 pages. The report dealt inter alia with the question to what extent the ascertained deficiencies had to be attributed to the applicant company, which had carried out the construction work, or to the planning engineer, the building supervisor, other craftsmen or the defendants.\n11.  On 30 January 1996 the court asked the parties of the proceedings to file comments on the expert opinion within two weeks. Upon the requests of the applicant company and the defendants the court subsequently extended the time-limit to six weeks. On 12 and 18 March 1996, respectively, the defendants and the applicant company filed their comments on the expert opinion. Upon the court’s request the applicant company, on 9 April 1996, supplemented  its comments.\n12.  On 12 December 1996 the St. Pölten Regional Court held another hearing and adjourned the case to 10 March 1997 to hear further witnesses.\n13.  On 14 January 1997 the court ordered the expert to supplement his opinion. On 5 March 1997 the expert submitted his supplementary findings.\n14.  On 10 March 1997 the court heard two witnesses and adjourned the case to 26 June 1997.\n15.  On 26 June 1997 the court held another hearing and adjourned the case in order to hear further witnesses.\n16.  On 18 July 1997 the court granted the application of two defendants to order the expert to prepare an opinion on moisture in their houses for the purpose of preserving evidence (Beweissicherungsantrag). On 22 December 1998 the expert submitted his opinion.\n17.  In March and April 1999 the defendants’ counsel informed the court that discussions concerning a friendly settlement were underway.\n18.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant company filed an application for accelaration of the proceedings under Section 91 (Fristsetzungsantrag) of the Courts Act (Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz) and asked that a time-limit be set for the Regional Court to hold another hearing or to issue the decision.\n19.  On 25 May 1999 the court scheduled another hearing for 14 October 1999. Due to the absence of a witness the hearing was later postponed to 11 November.\n20.  On 11 November 1999 the St. Pölten Regional Court heard further witnesses. The applicant company and the defendants filed further submissions.\n21.  On 25 November 1999 the court ordered the expert to submit a further opinion for ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-802", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n19.  The applicants, who were Moldovan nationals when the application was lodged, were born in 1952, 1955, 1961 and 1963 respectively. At the time when they lodged their application, they were detained in the Transdniestrian part of Moldova.\n20.  Although detained, Mr Ilaşcu was twice elected to the Moldovan parliament, from 1994 to 2000. As a member of parliament, he was appointed to form part of the Moldovan delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. On 4 October 2000 Mr Ilaşcu acquired Romanian nationality. In December 2000 he was elected to the Senate of the Romanian parliament and appointed as a member of the Romanian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.\n21.  Mr Leşco and Mr Ivanţoc acquired Romanian nationality in 2001.\n22.  Mr Ilaşcu was released on 5 May 2001; since then he has lived in Bucharest (Romania). The second and third applicants' homes are in Chişinău (Moldova), whereas the fourth applicant lives in Tiraspol (Transdniestria, Moldova). At present all three of them are detained in Tiraspol.\n23.  In view of the fact that, in the applicants' submission, it was impossible for them to apply to the Court directly, the application was lodged by their wives, Mrs Nina Ilaşcu, Mrs Tatiana Leşco and Mrs Eudochia Ivanţoc, and by the fourth applicant's sister, Mrs Raisa Petrov-Popa.\n24.  The second applicant was represented before the Court by Mr A. Tănase, of the Chişinău Bar. The other applicants were represented by Mr C. Dinu, of the Bucharest Bar, until his death in December 2002. Since January 2003 they have been represented by Mr V. Gribincea, of the Chişinău Bar.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-803", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Leokadia Guzicka, is a Polish national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Kąty Wrocławskie, Poland.\n5.  On 19 April 1994 the applicant brought a claim against her former employer, the “Perspektywa” Co-operative, to the Opole District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). She sought the annulment of the Co-operative Board’s resolution depriving her of her membership of the co-operative, and reinstatement.\n6.  On 26 February 1997 the District Court found that it was not competent to deal with the claim and referred the case to the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).\n7.  On 22 June 1998, following the applicant’s complaint, the District Court sent the case-file to the Regional Court.\n8.  The first hearing was set down for 18 September 1998.\n9.  On 23 October, 23 November and 21 December 1998 the court held hearings.\n10.  On 29 January 1999 the court allowed the applicant’s claim.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-804", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Frankfurt am Main.\n8.  In 1948 the applicant and his family left Poland and settled in Israel. His father appointed a representative to deal with all legal and financial matters in Poland. Despite that representative's opposition, in 1965 the State authorities expropriated a part of the property belonging to the applicant's family. The applicant could not take part in the proceedings concerning the expropriation, because the Polish authorities refused to grant him a visa to enter the territory of Poland.\n9.  On 24 March 1998 the applicant filed with the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an action in which he claimed compensation for the allegedly unlawful use of his estate by the State Treasury.\n10.  In December 1998 the Łódź District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) filed with the same court an action in which it sought a declaration that the State Treasury had acquired the ownership of that estate on the basis of the 1946 decree on abandoned property (dekret o majątkach opuszczonych i poniemieckich). The District Office submitted that the estate had been abandoned following the Second World War and in 1953 taken over by the State. It pointed out that until 1992 none of the previous owners had raised any claims in respect of that estate.\n11.  In the proceedings concerning the applicant's action the court held hearings on 19 February and 1 December 1999, as well as on 5 January 2000. According to the Government, the applicant failed to attend the hearing of 19 February 1999. The applicant submits that he attended it.\n12.  On 23 February 2000 the Łódź Town Office (Urząd Miasta) requested that the applicant's proceedings be stayed until the proceedings initiated in March 1998 had been completed, submitting that the outcome of those proceedings depended on the court's findings in the latter. On 6 March 2000 the court stayed these proceedings.\n13.  In his pleadings of 1 June 2000 the applicant's lawyer submitted that after the war the applicant's predecessor in title had resumed possession of the estate and in 1948 court proceedings concerning his title had been conducted.\n14.  On 7 August 2000 the court stayed also the proceedings instituted by the applicant, relying on the fact that inheritance proceedings concerning one of the heirs to the estate in question were pending. The applicant's lawyer unsuccessfully appealed against that decision, pointing out that the applicant's share in the estate was 127/144 and thus the necessity to conduct those inheritance proceedings could not be reasonably invoked as the reason for staying the main proceedings.\n15.  On 31 January 2002 the court gave judgment in the proceedings instituted in December 1998 by the Łódź District Office. It dismissed the claim that the State Treasury had acquired the property of the applicant's late father by prescription.\n16.  On 8 April 2002 the Łódź Regional Court resumed the compensation proceedings instituted by the applicant in March 1998. On 17 April 2002 the applicant requested that an expert opinion be ordered concerning the value of the property under dispute.\n17.  On 14 May 2002 the court held a hearing.\n18.  On 3 July 2002 an expert held a viewing of the property.\n19.  The compensation proceedings are pending.\n20.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant instituted a new set of proceedings against the Łódź municipality, in which he claimed release of the property concerned. On 19 April 2003 the court allowed the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-805", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The first applicant, Mr Antoni Pla Puncernau, who was born in 1966, is the adopted son of the second applicant, Mrs Roser Puncernau Pedro. The second applicant was the first applicant’s supervisor, as Mr Pla Puncernau is mentally handicapped. They both lived in Andorra. She died when the proceedings were still pending before the Court.\n11.  In 1949 Mrs Carolina Pujol Oller, the widow of Francesc Pla Guash, died leaving three children: Francesc-Xavier, Carolina and Sara. She had made a will before a notary in 1939. Under the seventh clause of her will, she settled her estate on her son, Francesc-Xavier, as tenant for life. Should he be unable to inherit, the estate was to pass to his sister, Carolina, and if she was also unable to inherit, it was to pass to Sara’s son, Josep Antoni Serra Pla.\n12.  The testatrix indicated that Francesc-Xavier, the beneficiary and life tenant under her will, was to transfer the estate to a son or grandson of a lawful and canonical marriage. To that effect she had inserted the following clause in her will: “The future heir to the estate must leave it to a son or grandson of a lawful and canonical marriage ...” (“El qui arribi a ésser hereu haurà forçosament de transmetre l’herència a un fill o net de legítim i canònic matrimoni ...)”.\nShould those conditions not be met, the testatrix had stipulated that the children and grandchildren of the remaindermen under the settlement would be entitled to her estate.\n13.  The beneficiary under the will, Francesc-Xavier, contracted canonical marriage to the second applicant, Roser Puncernau Pedro. By deed drawn up on 11 November 1969 before a notary in La Coruña (Spain), they adopted a child, Antoni, in accordance with the procedure for full adoption. They subsequently adopted a second child.\n14.  In 1995 Francesc-Xavier Pla Pujol made a will in which he left 300,506 euros (EUR) to his son, Antoni (the first applicant), and EUR 180,303 to his daughter. He named his wife, Roser (the second applicant), sole heir to the remainder of his estate. In a codicil of 3 July 1995, Francesc-Xavier Pla Pujol left the assets he had inherited under his mother’s will to his wife for life and to his adopted son, Antoni, as remainderman. The assets in question consisted of real estate. On 12 November 1996 Francesc-Xavier Pla Pujol died. The codicil was opened on 27 November 1996.\n15.  Accordingly, the only potential heirs to the estate under the will are the applicants, Antoni Pla Puncernau and his mother, and two sisters, Carolina and Immaculada Serra Areny, who are the great-grandchildren of the testatrix.\n16.  On 17 July 1997 Carolina and Immaculada Serra Areny brought proceedings in the Tribunal des Batlles of Andorra to have the codicil of 3 July 1995 declared null and void and seeking an order requiring the applicants, as defendants in the proceedings, to return to the plaintiffs all the assets of the estate of Carolina Pujol Oller, their great-grandmother, and to pay them damages for unlawful possession of the assets.\n17.  In a judgment delivered on 14 October 1999, after hearing submissions from both sides, the Civil Division of the Tribunal des Batlles of Andorra dismissed the action for the following reasons:\n“ ...\nIII.  Both parties agree that it is the contents of the will that determine the testatrix’s intention at the time of making it, so that the will has to be interpreted in accordance with that intention, which is to be inferred from the words used in the will (Di", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-806", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Trebišov.\n5.  The applicant was employed at the Mining Faculty of the Technical University in Košice. On 29 March 1993 she was given a notice concerning termination of her employment as, due to restructuring, her position had become redundant.\n6.  On 24 April 1993 the applicant challenged the dismissal before the Košice I District Court (Okresný súd).\n7.  On 28 July 1993 the District Court sent a copy of the action to the defendant – the applicant’s employer – and requested that it submit its observations in reply within ten days. The defendant did so on 3 August 1993.\n8.  On 3 September 1993 the District Court requested that the defendant submit documentary evidence within seven days. The defendant replied on 10 September 1993.\n9.  On 20 October 1993 the District Court requested that the defendant submit further documentary evidence within five days.\n10.  On 25 October 1993 the defendant informed the District Court that the applicant’s action was identical with another action before the same court and proposed that both actions be joined. On 2 November 1993 it replied to the District Court’s request of 20 October 1993.\n11.  On 31 January 1994 the President of the District Court assigned the case to another Chamber of that court.\n12.  A hearing listed for 12 January 1995 had to be adjourned as the applicant did not appear. A new hearing was called for 2 February 1995.\n13.  On 2 February 1995 the District Court held a hearing at which it heard the parties. It was adjourned until 23 March 1995. The parties were invited to submit documentary evidence and the District Court decided to call witnesses.\n14.  On 9 February 1995 the applicant extended the scope of her action in that she also claimed compensation for wages lost as a consequence of her dismissal.\n15.  On 22 March 1995 the defendant requested that the hearing listed for the following day be postponed as two of the witnesses who had been called and who were its employees could not attend. The hearing scheduled for 23 March 1995 was consequently adjourned sine die.\n16.  On 8 June 1995 the District Court held another hearing at which the parties and one witness were heard. Another witness who had apologised for being unable to attend did not appear. The hearing was adjourned until 28 September 1995 with a view to calling that witness.\n17.  On 28 September 1995 another hearing was held at which the District Court heard the above witness. It was adjourned until 23 November 1995 in order that the defendant might submit additional documentary evidence.\n18.  On 23 November 1995 the District Court held another hearing which the applicant did not attend. Following this hearing, on the same day, the District Court dismissed the action. It found that the procedural and material legal requirements for a dismissal had been satisfied in the applicant’s case. The judgment was served on the defendant on 12 January and on the applicant on 13 January 1996.\n19.  On 19 January 1996 the applicant lodged an appeal. She submitted the reasons for her appeal on 13 February 1996. She contested the District Court’s judgment on the grounds that it was based on findings which, according to her, were not proven by the evidence submitted. In the event that the court of appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment, the applicant requested that it grant her leave to appeal on points of law.\n20.  On 26 February 1996 the District Court invited the defendant to file its o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-807", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1932, lives in Bratislava and is of fragile health. The second applicant was born in 1941 and also lived in Bratislava. She died on 28 October 2001 during the proceedings before the Court. In a letter of 2 April 2004 the first applicant informed the Court that he wished to pursue the application also in the name of the late second applicant.\n5.  In 1989 the applicants concluded a contract with the State represented by the Bratislava II Housing Administration (bytový podnik) under which they purchased a family house located in Bratislava. The house had originally belonged to spouses S. Mrs S was a foreign national. The spouses S. had left the former Czechoslovakia in 1982. Mr S. was subsequently convicted of having stayed abroad illegally and sentenced to forfeiture of all his property. The house thus passed to the State.\n6.  In 1990 the Bratislava II District Court (okresný súd) rehabilitated Mr S. by cancelling his criminal conviction.\n7.  On 24 April 1991 the spouses S. lodged a civil action against the applicants and the State in the person of the Housing Administration with the Bratislava II District Court seeking a judicial ruling declaring the purchase contract of 1989 void.\n8.  On 18 March 1992 the Convention entered into force in respect of the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, to which Slovakia is one of the successor states. Prior to this date, the parties appointed lawyers to represent them in the proceedings, the Housing Administration submitted written observations in reply, the District Court held three hearings and sought information from the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Finance as to what legal status had Mrs S. had as a foreigner in the former Czechoslovakia and whether this legal status had qualified her under the applicable foreign exchange rules to acquire immovable property.\n9.  On 15 July 1992 the District Court requested information about the legal status of Mrs S. from the Police.\n10.  On 23 September 1992 the District Court held a hearing at which the plaintiffs were not present in person. They were however represented by their lawyer. The Housing Administration was not present. The hearing was adjourned with a view to summoning the legal representative of the applicants.\n11.  On 14 December 1992, following a hearing, the District Court declared the purchase contract of 1989 void. It found that Mrs S. had not been entitled to acquire the ownership of the house. Spouses S. thus had not become its legal owners. All later dispositions concerning the house had consequently been void. On 12 March 1993 the applicants appealed. On 4 June 1993 the Housing Administration also appealed.\n12.  On 30 September 1993 the Bratislava Regional Court (then mestský súd, at present krajský súd) quashed the District Court’s judgment. It held that the first instance court had failed to establish the facts of the case sufficiently and to give adequate reasons for its decision which thus could not be reviewed. The case‑file was returned to the District Court on 9 December 1993.\n13.  On 10 November 1994 the District Court listed a hearing for 18 January 1995. The plaintiffs were represented at this hearing by their lawyer. The case was adjourned and the District Court ordered the plaintiffs to submit further documentary evidence.\n14.  On 18 October 1995 the District Court judge dealing with the case was replaced by another judge as the former had left for legal training at the M", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-808", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Gliwice, Poland.\n11.  On 18 September 1985 the applicant sued the “Domek” building co‑operative (Spółdzielcze Zrzeszenie Budowy Domków Jednorodzinnych “Domek”) in the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), seeking damages for the incomplete and defective construction of her house.\n12.  Before 1 May 1993 the Court held eight hearings and obtained several expert opinions.\n13.  On 3 June, 27 September and 25 November 1993 the Regional Court held hearings.\n14.  On 25 January 1994 the trial court stayed the proceedings, finding that the applicant had not specified her claim. On 17 February 1995 the court resumed the proceedings. The court held further hearings on 10 April and 30 October 1995.\n15.  On 10 October 1996 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge. On 7 November 1996 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed her challenge. On 9 May 1997 the Kraków Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s further appeal.\n16.  At the hearing held on 18 September 1997 the court heard evidence from an expert. Further hearings were held on 2 October and 24 November 1997.\n17.  On 8 December 1997 the Kraków Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 9 February 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision.\n18.  On 9 October and 8 December 1998 the Kraków Court of Appeal held hearings. On 18 December 1998 the Kraków Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment.\n19.  On 12 March 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. The proceedings were terminated by a decision of the Supreme Court of 26 October 2001.\n20.  On 9 May 1990 the applicant sued the “Domek” building co‑operative in the Kraków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) seeking annulment of a resolution divesting her of membership in the co-operative.\n21.  The court held hearings on 19 June and 18 September 1990. On 26 November 1990 the trial court stayed the proceedings as it considered that their determination depended on the outcome of the proceedings concerning the action for damages (described above). On 20 March 1991 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision.\n22.  On 27 June 1993 the applicant asked the President of the Kraków Regional Court to resume the proceedings. On 6 July 1993 the President replied that he was not competent to make procedural decisions in the proceedings.\n23.  On 28 December 1993 the applicant asked the Kraków District Court to resume the proceedings. On 30 December 1993 the court refused her request, referring to the reasons given in the decision of 26 November 1990. On 31 May 1994 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s further appeal.\n24.  On 18 June 1997 the District Court discontinued the proceedings finding that they had been stayed for over three years and that the parties had not requested that they be resumed. On 1 July 1997 the applicant appealed against this decision. On 8 October 1997 the Regional Court quashed it.\n25.  On 5 June 1998 the applicant again asked the trial court to resume the proceedings. On 16 June 1998 the Kraków District Court refused her request.\n26.  On 15 October 2002 the District Court resumed the proceedings. On 30 January 2003 the court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 12 March 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Regional Court.\n27.  It appears that they are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-809", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants, who were born in 1962 and 1966 respectively, live in Mardin.\n11.  On 4 January 1998 police officers from the Mardin Security Directorate, together with soldiers from the gendarmerie station, arrived in Yüceli village and gathered the villagers in the village square. 20 villagers, including the applicants, were asked to indicate the places where PKK members were hiding. Subsequently the applicants were taken to the Mardin Security Directorate.\n12.  On 5 January 1998 the applicants were examined by a forensic doctor. According to the medical report, the first applicant bore a swelling measuring 8 by 3 cm on the right side of his chin, a laceration and bruising measuring 4 by 3 cm on the back of his right shoulder, a laceration measuring 6 by 2 cm on the left tibia, widespread old scars measuring 8 and 3 cm on the right knee, a laceration measuring 4 by 3 cm on the left calf and widespread lacerations around the lips. Another report was prepared for the second applicant, which noted the presence of old abrasions measuring 4 by 3 cm on his left tibia and 2 by 2 cm on his right tibia and 13 or 14 old scars on his right arm.\n13.  Following the medical examinations, the applicants were brought back to the Mardin Security Directorate and placed in custody. During their custody period, the applicants were blindfolded, stripped naked, subjected to verbal abuse, hosed with cold water, beaten with a truncheon, strung up by their arms and electric shocks were administered on their bodies. They were also threatened with death and forced to sign statements.\n14.  On 8 January 1998 the applicants were medically examined by a doctor once again. The doctor drew up reports and noted the presence of various injuries similar to those recorded in the medical reports of 5 January 1998.\n15.  On 8 January 1998 the applicants were brought before the Mardin Magistrate Court in Criminal Matters. The first applicant admitted before the judge that he had helped the PKK in the past by buying and transferring food for its members. The second applicant denied the charges against him however accepted that he had bought food for PKK members on one occasion. The court ordered their detention on remand.\n16.  On 21 January 1998 the chief public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with the court and charged the applicants with membership of the PKK. The charges were brought under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).\n17.  On 23 January 1998 the applicants were brought before the Diyarbakır State Security Court for a preliminary hearing. In view of the nature of the offence and the evidence contained in the file, the court ordered the applicants to remain in detention on remand.\n18.  On 19 March 1998, the applicants’ lawyer asserted before the court that the applicants had been tortured by police officers from the Mardin Security Directorate. He accordingly requested that criminal proceedings be instigated against the police officers. The court decided to consider this request at a later stage.\n19.  On 28 May 1998 the applicants argued before the court that their police statements had been extracted under torture. As the second applicant was suffering from tuberculosis, they asked the court to release the second applicant on bail. This request was rejected.\n20.  On 26 November 1998 the Diyarbakır State Security Court found the first applicant guilty of aiding ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-810", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Ankara.\n11.  On 23 March 1995 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody by police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate. He was accused of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front).\n12.  On 6 April 1995 the public prosecutor attached to the Ankara State Security Court filed an indictment with the latter charging the applicant, under Articles 168 § 2 and 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, with membership of an illegal organisation.\n13.  On 10 April 1996 the Ankara State Security Court found the applicant guilty of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, the DHKP-C, and sentenced him to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and debarred him from public service for three years.\n14.  The applicant appealed. On 11 June 1997 the chief public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion (tebliğname) on the merits of the appeal to the Court of Cassation. The chief public prosecutor proposed that the first instance court’s judgment be upheld. The written opinion of the chief public prosecutor was read out during the hearing before the Court of Cassation.\n15.  On 10 July 1997 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal upholding the Ankara State Security Court’s judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-811", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Zadar, Croatia.\n7.  On 1 November 1991 the applicant’s house in Starigrad was set on fire by unknown members of the local police.\n8.  On 12 April 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for her damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 112/1999), the Zadar Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 10 March 2000. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 17 May 2001 the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) rejected her appeal. On 30 January 2002 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed her appeal on the points of law as inadmissible.\n10.  Pursuant to the Damage Caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War Act 2003 (Zakon o odgovornosti Republike Hrvatske za štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika Hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata, Official Gazette no. 117/2003), the proceedings resumed on 3 December 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-812", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Sesvete, Croatia.\n7.  On 7 April 1994 the applicant’s house in Sesvete was destroyed by fire as a result of an explosion in a military depot.\n8.  On 20 September 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 112/1999), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 2 March 2000.\n10.  The proceedings resumed on 20 November 2003 pursuant to the “Damage Caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti Republike Hrvatske za štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika Hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata, Official Gazette no. 117/2003).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-813", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Košice.\n9.  At the relevant time the applicant was the publisher and editor in chief of the weekly Domino efekt. In 1994 and 1995 the weekly published three articles which concerned civil proceedings for defamation pending before the Slovakian courts. The proceedings were between Mr Slobodník, a Minister who became later a Member of Parliament, and Mr Feldek, a poet and publicist who had published a statement alleging, inter alia, that Mr Slobodník had a fascist past. The relevant parts of the articles, which were not written by the applicant, read as follows. 1.  Article published on 1 April 1994\n“Quo vadis, Slovakian justice? (A shameful judgment delivered by the Supreme Court)\nWhen the Bratislava City Court put an end to the first round of the judicial dispute between Mr Slobodník and Mr Feldek dismissing the former minister’s action for protection of his personality rights, voices could be heard alleging that the outcome of the appellate proceedings before the Supreme Court would be different. They argued that [the Supreme Court] judges were ‘different’. Those views came true and Slovakia faces further ridicule at the international level. The Supreme Court chamber presided over by [judge Š. - the article mentioned the full name of the judge] did not disappoint.\nA tragicomic farce\nThe Slovakian poet and writer Ľubomír Feldek (who opted for Czech nationality in the meantime) stated in 1992 that Mr Dušan Slobodník, who had just become the Minister of Culture of the Slovak Republic, should not exercise the post of a minister in a democratic state as he had a fascist past... The statement was based on facts which were generally known: during World War II Slobodník had been a member of the Hlinka Youth and he had participated in a terrorist course in Sekule organised under the auspices of that organisation. Several participants in that course (it should be mentioned that Dušan Slobodník was not among them) had been later involved in the killing of the inhabitants of [a] village...\nFeldek, who never alleged that Slobodník was a murderer or a criminal ... expressed the view of a citizen of a free society who considered that a person who had belonged to the Hlinka Youth and who had been close to people who later killed members of the civilian population, should not be a minister of a democratic state. Nothing more and nothing less...\n[Instead of retiring from the post] Slobodník filed an action for protection of his personality rights and thus gave rise to a case which, in a certain way, is tragicomic... [and in the course of which Mr Slobodník] failed to show that he had not been a member of the Hlinka Youth and that he had not participated in the course in Sekule. [Mr Slobodník] thus failed to disprove the facts on the basis of which Feldek had declared that he had a fascist past. We simply recall that a decree by President Beneš of 1945 provided that the Hlinka Youth was to be considered as a fascist organisation.\nStrange reasoning\nThe Bratislava City Court took all the above facts into account and ... dismissed the action of Slobodník. [The City Court judge] ...thus established the very best case-law for the newly born democracy and warned every politician that his or her past may and even must be the object of an increased interest by the public.\nAt the hearing held on 22 March 1994 [the Supreme Court] judge Š. took the opposite approach in that he ordered Feldek to pay 200,000 Slovakian k", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-814", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, a Polish citizen living in Katowice, Poland, and Mr P., an Italian citizen living in Italy, are the parents of a daughter who was born out of wedlock on 19 November 1988. The latter was registered with the registry of births, deaths and marriages as the child of the applicant and Mr P. Since the child’s birth, Mr P. has not assumed any parental duties.\n10.  The applicant instituted proceedings against Mr P. in the Katowice District Court, claiming maintenance for her minor daughter.\nOn 23 June 1993 the Katowice District Court ordered the defendant in absentia to pay maintenance in an amount equivalent to 350 zlotys (PLN) (approximately 73 euros (EUR)) per month from 19 November 1988, plus statutory interest should he default. This decision became final on 15 July 1993.\n11.  Having received no payments, on 30 May 1994 the applicant sought to avail herself of the United Nations Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance of 20 June 1956. She applied to the Katowice District Court (acting as the Transmitting Agency) for the recovery of maintenance through the Italian Ministry of the Interior (acting as the Receiving Agency), as provided for by that convention.\nIn her request, the applicant first asked for payment of the sum due of PLN 350 per month plus default interest which, by 1 January 1994, came to a total of PLN 21,350 (approximately EUR 4,495). The applicant also requested an increase in maintenance from PLN 350 per month to PLN 650 (approximately EUR 137) per month, on the grounds that she had learnt that Mr P. was earning 3,000 United States dollars per month and that the costs of bringing up the child were constantly rising. Finally, she asked the Italian authorities to start judicial proceedings against Mr P. to execute the decision of the Katowice District Court, and to recover her court costs if Mr P. refused to comply with the judgment.\n12.  On 30 May 1994 the Katowice District Court sent the applicant’s request to the Italian Ministry of the Interior.\n13.  In a letter sent to the Katowice District Court on 18 October 1994, the Ministry of the Interior confirmed that it had received the applicant’s request on 7 October 1994 and had referred it to the Prefecture of Terni. It added that, in so far as the existing decision obliged Mr P. to pay PLN 350 per month, a different amount could not be claimed. On 3 May 1996 the Ministry of the Interior sent another letter to the Katowice District Court informing it that Perugia District State Counsel had been appointed to initiate proceedings for the execution of the decision.\n14.  On 27 December 1996 Perugia District State Counsel informed the Ministry of the Interior that he had started these proceedings in November 1996.\n15.  On 27 February 1997 the Perugia Court of Appeal held a hearing at which it decided that the parties had to make their final submissions on 15 May 1997. On that date the court adjourned the case to 30 October 1997 and reserved judgment, which, by law, could not be delivered before the expiry of a period of eighty days. On 21 January 1998 the Perugia Court of Appeal declared the Katowice District Court decision enforceable in Italy. On 30 March 1999 the Ministry of the Interior invited the debtor to comply with his obligations. On 2 April 1999 the decision of the Perugia Court of Appeal became final.\n16.  On 2 May 2000 the Italian Ministry of the Interior asked the Polish authorities for an updated calculation of the debt, which the Polish ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-816", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant has a dual Polish and Austrian citizenship. He was born in 1955 and resides permanently in Austria. At present he is living in Płock, Poland.\n9.  In 1989 the applicant entered into a contract with a limited liability company Unirol (hereinafter “Unirol Ltd.”) in Płock. Under the terms of the contract, Unirol Ltd. was to sell in Poland satellite dishes supplied by the applicant from Austria. On 25 March 1994 Unirol Ltd. filed an action with the Płock District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) against the applicant. It sought damages for breach of contract.\n10.  On 21 April 1994 the plaintiff modified its claim. On 21 June 1994 the District Court found that, in view of the value of the claim, it was no longer competent to deal with the subject matter and referred the case to the Płock Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).\n11.  On 18 November 1994 the Regional Court exempted Unirol Ltd. from court fees.\n12.  On 16 December 1994 the court held the first hearing. At that hearing the applicant submitted a counterclaim, seeking payment of profits to which he was entitled under the terms of the contract. He also applied for an exemption from court fees but to no avail. The hearing was adjourned at the request of Unirol Ltd.\n13.  On 17 March 1995 the trial court held a hearing. The plaintiff was absent at that hearing. On 24 March 1995 the plaintiff’s representative informed the court that, due to his illness, he would not be able to appear before it until the end of June. On 14 July 1995 the court adjourned the hearing, as it appeared that Unirol Ltd. had not received the summons. The hearing listed for 4 September 1995 was adjourned due to the illness of Unirol Ltd.’s representative.\n14.  The court adjourned three further hearings listed for 12 January, 16 February and 10 May 1996 due to the absence of the plaintiff’s representative. On 2 August 1996 the court held a hearing but the plaintiff’s representative again failed to attend it. The court ordered him to appear at the next hearing on pain of staying the proceedings. The hearings listed for 18 October and 8 November 1996 were adjourned at the request of Unirol Ltd.\n15.  On 4 November 1996 the trial court dismissed the applicant’s challenge of the presiding judge. On 20 December 1996 the court held a hearing.\n16.  At the hearing held on 28 February 1997 the court closed the examination of the case and informed the parties that the judgment would be delivered on 5 March 1997. On 5 March 1997 the court decided that it would not deliver the final decision and resumed the proceedings.\n17.  The hearing listed for 23 May 1997 was cancelled because the judges dealing with the case had withdrawn.\n18.  At the hearing held on 14 November 1997 the court heard a witness. Further hearings were held on 8 May and 5 June 1998.\n19.  In the meantime, the court had lost part of the case-file. For that reason, the hearing listed for 10 July 1998 was cancelled. On 27 August 1998 the Regional Court ordered that the lost case-file be reconstituted.\n20.  On 9 June 1999 the court held a hearing and ordered the parties to specify their claims.\n21.  On 15 October 1999 the court held the next hearing and ordered that an expert opinion be obtained. On 12 April 2000 the expert submitted the relevant opinion to the court.\n22.  On 20 September 2000 Unirol Ltd. asked the court to appoint another expert. On 8 November 2000 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from the expert.\n23.  On 22 November 2000 the Płock Regio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-817", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Konin.\n10.  He was not legally represented before the Court. The respondent Government were represented by Mr Krzysztof Drzewicki, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.\n11.  In 1992 the applicant was the manager of a state-owned bank, located in Kramsk. On 18 March 1992 the Konin Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki) instituted an investigation concerning the applicant. Between 18 March 1992 and 2 June 1992 the prosecutor heard twenty-six witnesses in the case.\n12.  On 2 June 1992 the investigation was stayed until the completion of a control of the bank in Kramsk by experts of the National Bank of Poland. The investigation was resumed on 7 October 1992.\n13.  Between 15 October and 18 December 1992 the prosecutor heard a further eight witnesses.\n14.  On the latter date the prosecutor charged the applicant with accepting bribes and mismanagement of the bank.\n15.  On the same day he placed the applicant under police supervision and imposed bail in the amount of 100,000,000 old Polish zlotys. Subsequently, the applicant’s car was impounded.\n16.  On 28 December 1992 the prosecutor stayed the investigation because of the applicant’s state of health.\n17.  On 29 January 1993 the applicant added to the case-file a medical certificate stating that he was unable to take part in the proceedings for an indefinite period of time.\n18.  On 11 February 1993 the prosecutor, at the request of the applicant’s counsel, released the applicant from police supervision.\n19.  On 15 May 1993 the expert appointed by the prosecutor submitted his opinion to the effect that the applicant was able to participate in the proceedings.\n20.  On 28 May 1993 the prosecutor heard a witness. In November 1993 he heard four further witnesses and requested the receiver in bankruptcy of the bank in Kramsk to submit certain documents concerning the bank.\n21.  On 18 October and 27 December 1993 the applicant was questioned by the prosecutor. On the latter date the prosecutor laid additional charges against the applicant. On 29 December 1993 he decided to submit to the court a separate bill of indictment against the other suspects in the applicant’s case.\n22.  On 30 December 1993 the prosecutor discontinued the part of the investigation concerning the alleged accepting of bribes.\n23.  On 31 December 1993 he submitted to the Konin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) the bill of indictment.\n24.  On 8 March 1994 the court transferred the case to the Konin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), considering that it had no jurisdiction over that type of offences.\n25.  On 22 June 1994 the District Court ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant.\n26.  On 15 July 1994 it appointed a legal-aid counsel for the applicant. Subsequently, the counsel informed the court that due to a conflict of interests he could not defend the applicant. On 20 October 1994 it appointed another defence counsel for the applicant. Subsequently, after that counsel’s refusal to defend the applicant, the court appointed another one.\n27.  In August 1994 the court mistakenly scheduled a hearing for 31 October 1994, which was a public holiday. In reply to the applicant’s complaint, on 2 December 1994 the President of the Konin District Court apologised to him for that mistake.\n28.  The hearing scheduled for 22 December 1994 was adjourned at the request of the applicant’s counsel.\n29.  On 13 February 1995 the court refused the applicant’s request for release from the prevent", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-818", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire.\n8.  The Blackspur group of companies (collectively, “Blackspur”), was formed by the applicant and others in September 1987 and at various times the applicant acted as director. Blackspur went into receivership in July 1990 with an estimated deficit of GBP 34 million.\n9.  On 1 July 1992, on the last day of the applicable two year limitation period, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (“the Secretary of State”) issued proceedings against the applicant and four others (“the Blackspur proceedings”) under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (“the CDDA”: see below).\n10.  The Secretary of State’s evidence was not complete at the time he commenced proceedings, and he applied for an extension of time for the serving of evidence (see below). The defendants refused to consent to an extension being granted and instead, on 13 October 1992, three of the defendants (but not, at this stage, the applicant) applied to strike out the proceedings.\n11.  The Secretary of State’s evidence was completed and served on the applicant on 14 December 1992. On 13 May 1993 the applicant applied to strike out the proceedings. The Secretary of State’s application for permission to file the evidence out of time, and the cross-application to strike out the proceedings by the applicant and other defendants, were heard by the Registrar on 20 May 1993, when they were adjourned to 29 July 1993. On 27 January 1994 the Registrar granted the Secretary of State’s application for an extension of time and dismissed the strike-out application. Two of the applicant’s co-defendants appealed to the High Court. On 12 April 1995 the applicant also lodged an appeal.\n12.  Related criminal charges had been brought against the applicant and three other defendants in the Blackspur proceedings on 1 July 1992. In May 1993 the applicant and other defendants had applied to stay the disqualification proceedings pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The criminal trial took place between March and June 1994, during which period the disqualification proceedings were adjourned generally, with liberty to restore. At the conclusion of the criminal trial, the applicant and one other defendant were acquitted, and two defendants were convicted. On appeal, the two convictions were quashed in February 1995.\n13.  By a letter dated 16 September 1994 the applicant invited the Secretary of State to reconsider whether, in the light of the acquittals in the criminal trial, it was in the public interest to carry on with the disqualification proceedings. On 15 December 1994 the Treasury Solicitor replied that the Secretary of State had decided that it remained expedient in the public interest to continue.\n14.  Once the criminal trial had been concluded, the appeal to the High Court brought by the first defendant to the disqualification proceeding, Mr Davies, against the Registrar’s decision of 27 January 1994, could proceed and was dismissed on 2 May 1995. In November 1995 Mr Davies was granted leave to appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal, and his substantive appeal was dismissed by that court on 24 May 1996. The Court of Appeal found that the reasons for the Secretary of State’s failure to complete his evidence before the proceedings were commenced had been “far from satisfactory”, but considered nonetheless that the case should proceed since it was in the public interest to dete", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-819", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Afanasiyovych Shmalko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1930 and currently resides in Dnepropetrovsk. He is a disabled pensioner and a veteran of the Second World War. He suffers from myasthenia.\n6.  In March 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Babushkinsky District Court of Dnepropetrovsk against the Dnepropetrovsk City Health Protection Department (“HPD”) and the Dnepropetrovsk City Hospital No. 1 (the “Hospital”), seeking compensation for moral and material damage caused by their refusal between 1996 and 1998 to provide him with the prescription drug Kalimin-60. He alleged that the State authorities had failed to provide him with this drug free of charge, contrary to Resolution No. 1303 of the Cabinet of Ministers of 17 August 1998. He further complained that because this drug was not provided to him, he had to buy it in Moscow, Germany and the United Kingdom. He requested reimbursement of the costs incurred.\n7.  On 29 September 2000 the Babushkinsky District Court of Dnepropetrovsk (the “Babushkinsky Court”) rejected the applicant’s claims as being unsubstantiated. It found that the HPD and the Hospital could not be held responsible for the failure to provide a drug simply because it was not available in the Dnepropetrovsk Region.\n8.  On 13 November 2000 the Dnepropetrovsk Regional Court allowed the applicant’s appeal, quashed the decision of 29 September 2000 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n9.  On 22 February 2001 the Babushkinsky Court rejected the applicant’s claims as being unsubstantiated.\n10.  On 26 March 2001, following an appeal filed by the applicant, the Dnepropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 22 February 2001 and again remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n11.  On 13 July 2001 the Babushkinsky Court rejected the applicant’s claims as being unsubstantiated.\n12.  On 10 October 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Dnepropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal under the new appeal procedure introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure on 21 June 2001. On 29 November 2001 the Dnepropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s claims in part. The court ordered HPD to pay the applicant UAH 722.70 and UAH 750 (a total of UAH 1,509.95 [EUR 237.37]) in compensation for material and moral damage, respectively. It also ordered the Hospital to pay the applicant UAH 393.65, UAH 750 and UAH 22.25 (a total of UAH 1,165.9 [EUR 183.28]) in compensation for material and moral damage, costs and expenses.\n13.  On 19 April 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service of the Babushkinsky District Department of Justice (the “Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 29 November 2001.\n14.  On 15 May 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service ordered that the funds awarded by the judgment of 29 November 2001 be transferred to the applicant’s bank account.\n15.  On 27 May 2002 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court rejected the cassation appeal lodged by the Chief Doctor of the Hospital against the judgment of 29 November 2001 for want of substantiation. The institution of the cassation proceedings did not suspend the enforcement of the judgment of 29 November 2001.\n16.  On 17 October 2002 the writ of execution and the payment request were returned to the applicant because of the Hospital’s lack of funds.\n17.  On 21 October 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service requested the Dnepropetrovsk Regional State Treasury to inform it about the possibility o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-820", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Diyarbakır. He was a student at the Medical Faculty of the Diyarbakır Dicle University at the time of the events described below.\n10.  On 4 April 1997 the applicant was arrested and placed in custody by police officers from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. He was accused of membership of an illegal organisation, the YEKBUN (Kurdistan United People’s Party).\n11.  The police officers interrogated the applicant in relation to his alleged involvement in the YEKBUN. The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the officers during the interrogation which caused an oedema, a bruised nose and a broken tooth. According to the Government, the applicant’s injuries occurred when, due to lack of sleep, he inadvertently fell and hit his nose on a sink.\n12.  On 6 April 1997 the applicant signed a statement according to which he hit his nose on a sink while washing his face. The applicant claims that he was forced to sign the statement. He was then taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital and examined by Dr. R.C. who noted the following:\n“An oedema and an ecchymosed lesion as a result of trauma have been identified on the nose.\n...”\n13.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. Before the court, he denied being a member of an illegal organisation. He stated that he had been subjected to various forms of ill‑treatment during his detention in police custody and that the statement which he had signed did not reflect the truth of what had happened to him. The court ordered his release pending trial.\n14.  On 8 April 1997 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the chief public prosecutor’s office in Diyarbakır against the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated him. The chief public prosecutor ordered that the applicant be examined by a medical expert from the Forensic Medicine Institute. On the same day, he was examined by a forensic medical expert. The expert’s report stated the following: \n“...\nThere is an abrasion of 1 x 0,5 cm on the left side of the tip of the nose.  Furthermore, there is a minimal fracture on the front of the 8th of the lower teeth.\nThere is no danger to the individual’s life. However, the injuries render him unfit for work for two days.”\n15.  On 15 April 1997 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction in respect of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and referred the investigation file to the Diyarbakır District Administrative Council in accordance with the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakematı Kanunu).\n16.  On 13 June 1997 the Diyarbakır State Security Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against him. The court took note in its judgment of the applicant’s statement that he had been interrogated by police officers under duress.\n17.  On 26 June 1997 the Diyarbakır Administrative Council decided that, due to lack of evidence, the police officers who had allegedly ill‑treated the applicant should not be prosecuted.\n18.  On 6 August 1997 the applicant filed an objection with the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of the Diyarbakır Administrative Council. He also lodged a petition with the Diyarbakır Administrative Council and requested a copy of the investigation file. He received no response to his petition.\n19.  On 14 May 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the Administrative Council’s decision of non-prosecutio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-821", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Miskolc, Hungary. He is of Roma ethnic origin.\n9.  On 9 August 1995 the applicant, accompanied by Ms B. and Mr S., was selling coal from a truck on a door-to-door basis in Orosháza. After an aborted transaction, some would-be purchasers reported to the local police that the three had left their yard without having returned their fuel vouchers. At about 5.45 p.m. two local police officers halted the applicant’s truck and instructed the applicant and his companions to report to the Orosháza Police Station. The applicant was interrogated there by police officers S. and K.\n10.  The applicant stated that during the interrogation one of the police officers repeatedly slapped him across the face and left ear while the other punched him on the shoulder. The officers demanded that he reveal where the stolen vouchers had been hidden.\n11.  On being released after two hours of interrogation, the applicant was met on the ground floor of the police station by Ms B. and Mr S., as well as by Mr B. and Mr M., both of whom were acquaintances of the applicant and his companions.\nThe applicant stated that when he and his companions were leaving the police station, a police officer issued the following warning to them: “Tell the Miskolc gypsies that they had better not set foot in Orosháza”.\n12.  Having returned to his home in Miskolc on 11 August 1995, the applicant consulted Dr V., the local doctor, who advised him to report to the Ear, Nose and Throat Department of Diósgyőr Hospital. On 14 August 1995 Dr C. carried out an operation to reconstruct the applicant’s ear drum which had been damaged as a result of a traumatic perforation. On 16 August 1995 Dr C. reported the case to the police.\n13.  On 28 August 1995 the applicant was discharged from hospital. His medical report stated, without reference to any precise date, that he had sustained a traumatic perforation of the left tympanic membrane. This conclusion also figured in two further medical reports issued later by Dr C. on 25 August 1995 and by Dr V. on 29 September 1995. The applicant’s injury was described in a follow-up medical report dated 10 September 1997 as “low-to-medium-grade loss of sound perception” in the left ear.\n14.  On 25 September 1995 the Szeged Investigation Office informed the applicant that criminal proceedings had been opened against the police officers involved on the basis of information submitted by Dr C. on 16 August. The police officers were charged with the offences of “forced interrogation” and “ill-treatment committed in the course of official proceedings”.\n15.  The Investigation Office heard the applicant and several witnesses. Four persons were heard from the applicant’s side. \nMr S. stated as follows:\n“[In the building of the police station] I met [the applicant] [...] whose face had a bluish colour in the area under his left ear and was somewhat swollen. I then asked him if they had hurt him. He answered that they had hurt him a little and pointed to the left side of his face saying that it was hurting there. He said that he had no hearing on that side.”\nMs B. stated as follows:\n“[When the applicant was escorted down to the ground floor], it struck me that the left side of his face and his left ear were swollen. I thought that he had been beaten. I asked him about it, to which he only answered that he had been beaten a little. [...] I remember well that the left side of his face was red and I even saw the traces of fin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-823", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Älvsjö.\n7.  In the autumn of 1994, as part of a large-scale investigation into taxicab operators, the Tax Authority (skattemyndigheten) of the County of Stockholm carried out a tax audit of the applicant’s taxi firm. By decisions of 14 December 1995 and 8 February 1996 the Tax Authority increased the applicant’s liability to income tax, value-added tax and employer’s contributions. Moreover, as the information supplied by the applicant in his tax returns was found to be incorrect and the turnover of the applicant’s business had been revised upwards under a discretionary assessment procedure, the Tax Authority ordered him to pay tax surcharges (skattetillägg, avgiftstillägg) amounting to 20% or 40% of the increased tax liability, depending on the type of tax involved. The additional taxes levied on the applicant, including interest and surcharges, totalled SEK 566,967 Swedish kronor (SEK), of which SEK 99,507 were surcharges. The amounts were payable in February and May 1996.\n8.  The applicant appealed against the Tax Authority’s decisions on 4 March 1996. As the appeal had no suspensive effect on the obligation to pay the taxes and tax surcharges, he also requested a stay of execution in respect of the amounts assessed. As the applicant was unable to provide security for the amounts in question, his request was rejected, the final decision being taken by the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) on 17 September 1997.\n9.  Meanwhile, the debts relating to the taxes and tax surcharges imposed by the Tax Authority essentially remained outstanding. On 15 April 1997 the Enforcement Office (kronofogdemyndigheten) of the County of Stockholm, representing the State, filed a petition with the District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm, requesting that the applicant be declared bankrupt. The Office stated that an investigation had revealed that the value of the applicant’s property was insufficient to cover the debts. By a decision of 12 June 1997 the District Court declared the applicant bankrupt. The declaration was upheld on appeal, the final decision being taken by the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) on 26 September 1997.\n10.  Moreover, on 31 January 1997 the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the County of Stockholm revoked the applicant’s traffic licence (trafiktillstånd) and decided that he was unsuitable to run a commercial taxi business for a period of three years on the ground that he had failed to fulfil his obligations with respect to the payment of taxes and other charges. The decision was upheld on appeal, the final decision being taken by the Supreme Administrative Court on 17 December 1997.\n 11.  On 5 September 1997 the Public Prosecution Office (åklagar-myndigheten) in Stockholm indicted the applicant for a suspected bookkeeping offence related to the amounts which were subject to determination in the taxation proceedings. By a judgment of 13 January 1998 the District Court found the applicant guilty of having intentionally failed to enter certain income and salary payments in the books. He was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal but subsequently withdrew his appeal. Accordingly, on 14 December 1998 the case was struck out of the appellate court’s list.\n12.  By a judgment of 2 December 1998 the County Administrative Court upheld the Tax Authority’s taxation decisions. The judgment was upheld by the Administrative C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-824", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kiev, Ukraine.\n10.  On 16 February 1994 the applicant, who was then residing in Bulgaria, was questioned as a suspect in the embezzlement of 20,000 Bulgarian levs (BGL) from a cooperative farm in liquidation whose legal counsel he had been.\n11.  On 30 March 1994 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant.\n12.  On 27 July 1994 he was questioned.\n13.  On 29 July 1994 a graphological expert report was drawn up.\n14.  On 12 December 1994 the applicant was charged with embezzlement, falsification of official documents and false accusation of another. He was ordered to post bail in the amount of BGL 2,000. Under the then applicable provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), an accused on bail could leave the country only with the prosecutor’s or the court’s permission.\n15.  On 23 February 1995 the applicant’s apartment was attached by order of the investigator in charge of the case, apparently as a security for an impending civil claim by the victim of the offences alleged against the applicant. On the same date the applicant was allowed to consult the case file and was questioned.\n16.  On 15 March 1995 the applicant was detained. He was released on 21 March 1995.\n17.  On 15 March 1995 a technical expert report was drawn up.\n18.  On 27 March 1995 the applicant was questioned.\n19.  On 30 March 1995 another expert report was drawn up.\n20.  On 4 April 1995 the applicant was questioned.\n21.  On 5 April 1995 the investigator completed his work on the case and recommended that the applicant be indicted.\n22.  On 4 May 1995 the applicant was questioned.\n23.  On 2 June 1995 a prosecutor of the Popovo District Prosecutor’s Office presented the applicant with amended charges and questioned him.\n24.  By a decree of 28 March 1996 the Popovo District Prosecutor’s Office, finding that the applicant had not obstructed the criminal proceedings and that there was no danger of him absconding, allowed him to leave Bulgaria for one and a half months to visit his parents in Kiev, Ukraine.\n25.  The prohibition against the applicant leaving the country without prior permission by the prosecutor or the court was in force at least until 1 January 2000, when the CCP was amended.\n26.  On 12 September 2001 a prosecutor of the Popovo District Prosecutor’s Office presented all materials in the case file to the applicant.\n27.  On 14 September 2001 the Popovo District Prosecutor’s Office, noting that the relevant limitation period had expired, decided to drop the charges of falsification of official documents. On the same date it indicted the applicant for having embezzled BGL 20,000 and having falsely accused another of a serious offence.\n28.  On 15 December 2001 the applicant left Bulgaria and went to Ukraine, where he has resided ever since.\n29.  The first hearing in the applicant’s case, listed by the Popovo District Court for 17 December 2001, was adjourned because the applicant and several witnesses, despite being duly summoned, were absent.\n30.  A hearing fixed for 8 April 2002 was also adjourned because the applicant was not present.\n31.  A hearing listed for 3 June 2002 was likewise adjourned because of the applicant’s absence.\n32.  At the time of the latest relevant information from the parties (June 2002) the proceedings were still pending before the Popovo District Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-825", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The first applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Šiauliai. The second applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Vilnius.\nThe facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n11.  In 1974 the first applicant graduated from the Lithuanian Physical Culture Institute, qualifying as a certified sports instructor.\n12.  From 1975 to 1986 he was an employee of the Lithuanian branch of the Soviet Security Service (the KGB). After Lithuania declared its independence in 1990, he found employment as a tax inspector at the Inland Revenue.\n13.  On 31 May 1999 two authorities – the Lithuanian State Security Department and the Centre for Research into the Genocide and Resistance of the Lithuanian People – jointly concluded that the first applicant was subject to the restrictions provided under section 2 of the Law on the evaluation of the USSR State Security Committee (NKVD, NKGB, MGB, KGB) and the present activities of former permanent employees of the organisation (“the KGB Act” – see paragraph 24 below). The conclusion confirmed that the first applicant had the status of a “former KGB officer” (see paragraphs 26-27 below). On 2 June 1999 the first applicant was dismissed from the Inland Revenue on the basis of that conclusion.\n14.  The first applicant brought an administrative action against the security intelligence authorities, claiming that he had been engaged only in counterintelligence and ideology work while employed by the KGB, and that he had not been involved in the violation of individual rights by that organisation. He argued that his dismissal under section 2 of the KGB Act and the resultant inability to find employment were therefore unlawful.\n15.  On 9 September 1999 the Higher Administrative Court found that the conclusion of 31 May 1999 had been substantiated and that the first applicant was subject to the restrictions provided under section 2 of the KGB Act. In this respect, the court held that the applicant had the status of a “former KGB officer” within the meaning of the KGB Act, since he had occupied one of the positions mentioned in the list of 26 January 1999.\n16.  On 19 October 1999 the Court of Appeal dismissed the first applicant’s appeal. It found that he had not occupied a KGB position dealing only with criminal investigations and could not therefore benefit from the exceptions listed under section 3 of the KGB Act.\n17.  On an unspecified date in the 1980s, the second applicant graduated from Vilnius University as a qualified lawyer.\n18.  From 11 February 1991 he worked as a prosecutor at the Office of the Prosecutor General of Lithuania, investigating primarily cases of organised crime and corruption.\n19.  On 26 May 1999 the Lithuanian State Security Department and the Centre for Research into the Genocide and Resistance of the Lithuanian People jointly concluded that from 1985 to 1991 the second applicant had been an employee of the Lithuanian branch of the KGB, that he had the status of a “former KGB officer” and that he was thereby subject to the restrictions provided under section 2 of the KGB Act. On 31 May 1999 the second applicant was dismissed from his job at the Office of the Prosecutor General on the basis of that conclusion.\n20.  The second applicant brought an administrative action against the security intelligence authorities and the Office of the Prosecutor General. He claimed that from 1985 to 1990 he had merely studied at a special KGB school in Moscow and that from 1990 t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-826", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1933 and 1974 respectively and live in Diyarbakır.\n10.  The facts surrounding the arrest and subsequent death of Mehmet Şah İkincisoy (“Mehmet Şah”) are in dispute between the parties.\n11.  On 22 November 1993 at about 1 a.m. plain-clothes police officers arrived at the first applicant, Abdurrazak İkincisoy's (“Abdurrazak”)[2], apartment in Diyarbakır. They entered the apartment, carried out a quick search and inquired about Mehmet Şah. Abdurrazak informed them that Mehmet Şah was spending the night in his uncle Abdülkadir İkincisoy's apartment. Leaving one of the officers with Abdurrazak1, Garipşah İkincisoy, Hüseyin İkincisoy, Makbule İkincisoy and Nefise İkincisoy, the rest of the officers left taking the second applicant, Halil İkincisoy (“Halil”), with them to show them the way.\n12.  When they arrived at Abdülkadir İkincisoy's apartment, one of the police officers remained at the entrance of the building. Halil and two officers went up to the second floor. When they entered the apartment, the police officers carried out a search and an identity check. Several members of the İkincisoy family were present in the apartment, namely Mehmet Şah, Abdülkadir, Nasır, Adile, Sabriye, and Bilgi İkincisoy, as well as fourteen grandchildren of Abdülkadir İkincisoy and two of Mehmet Şah's friends. One of the police officers interrogated these two men in one of the rooms. The rest of the group was held in the sitting room. Suddenly, a gun shot was heard from the room and an armed clash broke between the police officers and the two men. The police officer who was interrogating the two men was shot dead. When the shooting started, the second police officer grabbed Mehmet Şah by his arm and dragged him downstairs. Halil and the others saw the two men try to escape. They heard further gunshots from downstairs. The group subsequently learnt that one of the men had died, the other had escaped and the officer who was waiting outside the building had been wounded.\n13.  Approximately ten minutes following the incident, several police teams surrounded the building. Halil, Abdülkadir, Adile, Nasır, Sabriye and Bilgi İkincisoy were arrested and taken to the Çarşı Police Station by a minibus. When they arrived at the Çarşı Police Station, they were detained in the entrance hall. On the right hand side of the entrance hall, there were three rooms, two of which were used for interrogation and the third was the office of the superintendent. Halil was called in to one of the small rooms for interrogation. When he entered the room, he saw his brother Mehmet Şah, lying on the floor face down, with his red leather jacket pulled over his head. In the meantime Abdurrazak[3], Hüseyin, Makbule, Nefise and Garipşah İkincisoy were also arrested and brought to the Çarşı Station by another minibus. When the second group entered the station, they were told to cover their heads with their jackets. Abdurrazak1 however was able to see through the parting of his jacket. He also saw his son Mehmet Şah standing behind him. The group was subsequently transferred to another location by a minibus. Abdurrazak1 saw Mehmet Şah also in this second location. They were then brought to the Rapid Intervention Headquarters for interrogation, where the applicants heard the cries of Mehmet Şah.\n14.  The first applicant was held in custody until 25 November 1995. When he was released, the police officers told him that if anyone asked about his son Mehmet Şah, the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-828", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants M.Ł and A.Ł were born in 1952 and 1975 respectively. They both live in Warsaw, Poland.\n5.  On 2 December 1994 the first applicant lodged a claim for maintenance against her ex-husband (“J.Ł”) with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n6.  On 22 February 1995 the court held a hearing and ordered an expert opinion. It was submitted to the court on 1 April 1995.\n7.  At a hearing held on 9 June 1995 the trial court refused to issue an interim measure in order to secure the claim. The first applicant appealed. On 3 August 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. Further hearings were held on 16 January, 16 September and 1 October 1996.\n8.  On 10 October 1996 the District Court gave judgment. On 7 November 1996 the first applicant filed an appeal. On 25 March, 20 May and 29 September 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court held hearings. On 13 October 1997 it gave judgment and dismissed the appeal. On 5 January 1998 the first applicant lodged a cassation appeal.\n9.  On 7 October 1999 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) gave judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court. On 22 December 1999 the Regional Court remitted the case to the District Court. On 8 May 2000 the first applicant modified her claim. On 10 May 2000 the District Court held a hearing in the applicant’s case.\n10.  On 8 June 2000 the District Court refused to issue an interim measure in order to secure the claim. The applicant appealed. On 20 September 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Subsequent hearings were held on 9 January and 22 February 2001.\n11.  On 22 January 2001 the President of the Warsaw District Court informed the applicant that he would supervise the case in order to expedite the proceedings. On 29 March 2001 the trial court held a hearing and ordered a joint opinion from three experts. On 10 May 2001 the court changed its previous order and decided that three expert opinions be obtained.\n12.  On 8 July 2001 the first applicant complained to the President of the Warsaw Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings. On 27 July 2001, in reply to her complaints, the President observed that the proceedings were conducted without any delay.\n13.  On 7 August 2001 the first applicant challenged an expert opinion. She further requested the court to exclude a certain expert from giving an opinion in her case. On 10 August 2001 the trial court dismissed her request. On 28 August 2001 the first applicant appealed against the decision. On the same date she challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge and requested his withdrawal from sitting in the case. On 7 September 2001 the District Court dismissed her request. The first applicant appealed.\n14.  Subsequent hearing was held on 7 November 2002. On 15 April 2003 the Warsaw District Court gave judgment. The judgment is final.\n15.  On 11 May 1993 the applicants lodged a claim with the Warsaw Regional Court, seeking annulment of a contract of sale of real estate.\n16.  On 1 June 1993 the court exempted the applicants from court fees. On 26 January 1994 the court fixed the date of a first hearing for 9 March. The trial court held hearings on the following dates: 9 March 1994; 2 June 1995; 22 August and 24 October 1997; 29 March, 22 June, 10 October and 26 November 1999.\n17.  On 10 December 1999 the Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the claim. The applicants appealed.\n18.  On 21 June 2000 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) gave judgme", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-829", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The facts of the case, in particular the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant’s brother İrfan Ağdaş on 13 May 1996, are disputed by the parties.\n10.  On 13 May 1996, at about 7.00 p.m., the applicant’s brother İrfan Ağdaş, aged 17, was walking through the Alibeyköy neighbourhood. Three plain-clothed police officers, who were patrolling the neighbourhood in an unmarked car, noticed the newspaper which İrfan was carrying in his hand and began to follow him. The newspaper was Zafer Yolunda Kurtuluş (Salvation in the Path of Glory) known for its leftist point of view. When İrfan noticed that he was being followed, he started to run. At that moment two of the police officers got out of the car and opened fire. İrfan was shot and he fell to the ground.\n11.  The police officers proceeded to kick him where he lay on the ground. A woman, A.B., a witness to the incident, ran to İrfan to help him. However, the police officers pushed her aside and put İrfan in the car. One of the police officers sat on him as they drove away. After an hour or so they left İrfan’s body near the Eyüp SSK Hospital.\n12.  On 13 May 1996, at about 8.00 p.m., three plain-clothed police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate, who were patrolling the Alibeyköy neighbourhood in an unmarked car, approached four suspects in order to carry out an identity control and a body search. The suspects, among whom was the applicant’s brother, İrfan Ağdaş, attempted to run away. During their flight, İrfan opened fire at the police officers. The police officers called them all to surrender and returned fire. The police officers did not aim at İrfan Ağdaş but fired warning shots. The other three suspects fled into the side streets and disappeared. During the exchange of fire, the applicant’s brother was wounded and died after his transfer to hospital by the police officers.\n13.  The police found twenty-seven copies of the newspaper Zafer Yolunda Kurtuluş in the black plastic bag that İrfan had been carrying.\n14.  Another patrolling police squad, informed about the armed incident through the police radio communications, arrived at the scene of the shooting. The witnesses told them that İrfan had been taken to hospital by the police officers present during the incident.\n15.  Upon the request of the Head of Eyüp Security Directorate, a doctor from the Eyüp SSK Hospital performed a post-mortem examination at 8.20 p.m. In the report drafted by the doctor, two bullet entry wounds were recorded. It was also stated in the report that İrfan was already dead when he was brought to the hospital.\n16.  At 8.50 p.m. the second police squad which arrived at the scene drafted an incident report and drew a sketch of the scene of the incident. The police squad directly involved in the alleged armed clash drafted an incident report at 9.20 p.m.\n17.  At around 9.30 p.m., the second police squad submitted to the police station the following items found at the scene of the incident: one 9 mm calibre Browning gun, six empty 9 mm calibre cartridges, seventeen empty 9 mm calibre cartridges, one cartridge clip and twenty‑seven copies of the Zafer Yolunda Kurtuluş newspaper.\n18.  On 14 May 1996 the applicant’s other brother Cemal Ağdaş identified the body in the morgue of the Forensic Institute. Subsequently, he lodged a complaint with the Eyüp Public Prosecutor, requesting that an on-site inspection of the scene of the incident be conducted and that the eye", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-830", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Viktor Petrovich Romashov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1954 and currently resides in Lysychansk, Ukraine. The applicant is a pensioner.\n6.  In May 1998 the applicant filed an application with the labour disputes commission of the Lysychans’ke Derzhavne Shakhtobudivne Upravlinnia (the “DSU”) to recover unpaid salary from a State-run coal mine.\n7.  On 16 June 1998 the labour disputes commission of the DSU allowed his claims and ordered the DSU to pay the applicant UAH 8,783.39[1] in compensation. On the same date the commission issued a certificate to the applicant, which had the same status as a writ of execution.\n8.  On 27 July 1998 the DSU’s property was attached by the tax inspectorate.\n9.  On 9 June, 7 July and 19 November 1999 the applicant was paid UAH 500[2], UAH 300[3] and UAH 210[4] respectively.\n10.  On 30 April 2000 the Lysychansk Department of Justice informed the applicant that there was a tax lien over the DSU’s property and it was therefore not possible to attach it. It also informed the applicant that there was no funding in the State budget to execute the decision of 16 June 1998.\n11.  On 14 June 2000 the applicant was informed that the labour commission decision of 16 June 1998 could not be executed due to the Coal Mining Ministry’s lack of funds.\n12.  On 23 January 2002 the Lysychansk City Court awarded the applicant UAH 2,282.21 to compensate for the loss of value of the sum awarded to him due to inflation. The applicant submitted that this judgment has remained unenforced.\n13.  On 10 January 2003 the applicant informed the Court that the execution proceedings in his case were still pending.\n14.  On 28 November 2003 the DSU paid the applicant the full amount of the debt awarded by the decision of 16 June 1998.\n15.  On 1 December 2003 the Execution Service terminated the enforcement proceedings as the judgment of 16 June 1998 had been enforced in full (UAH 8,783.39[5]).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-831", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9. The applicants (Desmond O’Reilly, James McGurren, Carol Moore, William Moore, Kevin Ludlow, Patrick Leddy, Patrick Brady and John Wilson) live in Belturbet, Ireland and all have homes, farms or business premises on a public road in Belturbet.\n10.  On 21 July 1994 certain residents on the road (including the applicants) applied on an ex parte basis for leave to take judicial review proceedings. The relief sought was an order of mandamus compelling the Council to repair the road and put it in good condition, a declaration that the Council had failed in its statutory duty to maintain the road in good repair and condition together with damages for breach of statutory duty and costs.\n11.  On 25 July 1994 leave was granted to apply for judicial review by way of an order of mandamus. By letter dated 4 August 1994 the applicants served the proceedings on the Council. On 5 December 1994 the Council served its statement of opposition. On 14 December 1994 the Council filed an affidavit of the County Engineer, on 20 February 1995 the applicants filed an affidavit in response, on 29 March 1995 the County Engineer filed a further affidavit and on 31 March 1995 the applicants filed a final responding affidavit. The pleadings thereby closed.\n12.  On 4 and 5 April 1995 the application for judicial review was heard by the High Court.  Judgment was reserved.\n13.  Some months thereafter, senior counsel for both parties requested an early judgment of the relevant High Court judge who indicated that she could not given the extent of her commitments.\n14.  In November 1996 one of the applicants wrote to the President of the High Court requesting that arrangements be made to have the judgment delivered quickly. The President of the High Court responded that he would endeavour to have the judgment delivered speedily.\n15.  By judgment delivered on 6 December 1996 the High Court made an order of mandamus requiring the Council to repair the road and to put it into good condition. The court found that the Council had a statutory obligation to repair the road and keep it in good condition and that the Council’s lack of resources could not constitute a defence. An order for costs was made in the applicants’ favour.\n16.  The Council requested a stay on the order of the High Court and this application was adjourned until 20 December 1996, when the High Court judge ordered that execution on foot of the order be stayed for six months from the date of perfection of the High Court order, that any application for an extension of the stay be made to the Supreme Court and that, in the event of an appeal by the Council, the stay on the order for costs would remain pending final determination of the appeal.\n17.  On 9 January 1997 the Council appealed to the Supreme Court. On 16 January 1997 the Council requested the applicants’ consent to the Council amending its notice of appeal. The applicants so consented.\n18.  In 1997 the Council commenced repair work on the relevant road, which was completed by the end of 1998.\n19.  On 11 March 1997 the Attorney General applied for liberty to appear as amicus curiae and be heard in the proceedings. By affidavit dated 1 May 1997 the applicants objected to the application and to the arguments the Attorney General was proposing to make. A hearing took place on this point on 22 July 1997 following which the Attorney General was given leave to appear and address the Supreme Court at the appeal hearing.\n20.  A date for the hearing of the appea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-832", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul. He is the widower of the deceased Sariye Yılmaz. He introduced this application on his own behalf and on behalf of his family and deceased spouse. At the time of the events at issue the applicant was residing in the village of Bayırlı (Karıncak) attached to the Lice district.\n10.  In June 1996 the commander of the Lice Gendarme Station, Hacı İlbaş, ordered all the villagers from Bayırlı village to evacuate their homes. This instruction was communicated to the villagers by the headman (muhtar) of the village. In response, the villagers requested the commander's permission to remain in the village long enough to harvest their crops.\n11.  Commander Hacı İlbaş began to pressurise and intimidate the villagers. No cars were allowed in or out of the village. The livestock was taken away from the villagers. A food embargo was imposed. At the beginning of October 1996 soldiers told the villagers that should they fail to evacuate the village by 15 October, their houses would be burned down.\n12.  On 7 October 1996 an armed clash broke out between members of the PKK (proscribed as a terrorist organisation under Turkish law) and the security forces stationed on Cüm Hill, which is situated between the applicant's village and Lice.\n13.  When the clash was over, at about 3 a.m. soldiers who were stationed at the Lice Boarding School fired four artillery shells towards the village. A piece of shrapnel wounded one of the villagers, Hürriyet Doğan, in the foot. Hearing Hürriyet Doğan's screams, the applicant attempted to leave his house to help her. However his wife, Sariye Yılmaz, tried to pull him back. At that moment a second artillery shell landed six to seven metres from their house and a piece of shrapnel struck the applicant's wife in the abdomen.\n14.  Around 5 p.m., when the shooting was over, the applicant and his elder brother, Adil Yılmaz, together with some other relatives, Mehmet Tataş, Ramazan Yaşar, Abdullah Doğan and a group of women set out for Lice in order to take Sariye Yılmaz to the local health clinic. She died on the way.\n15.  On 7 October 1996 a group of terrorists attacked the security forces which were stationed near the village of Bayırlı in the Lice district. At around 4.30 a.m. terrorists tried to escape through the village. When they arrived in Bayırlı the terrorists fired randomly at the houses. The applicant's wife and another villager were wounded in the incident. The security forces identified the footprints of members of the PKK in the village.\n16.  When the applicant and his relatives were returning to their village they were stopped on Cüm Hill by the security forces. The senior lieutenant examined the corpse of the applicant's wife. According to the applicant, the senior lieutenant drafted a report which stated that Sariye Yılmaz had died due to a shrapnel wound caused by an artillery shell fired by the soldiers. However, the applicant did not submit this report to the Court and the Government claimed that it did not exist.\nThe applicant requested to have an autopsy performed before burying the corpse. The senior lieutenant told him that there was no need to carry out an autopsy and reassured him that his report would be given to the relevant authorities.\n17.  On 7 October 1996 Sergeant Nuri Yüksel and a unit of soldiers arrived in the village to investigate the circumstances of the incident. Four villagers, namely Abdullah Doğan, Hürriyet Doğan, Ahmet Doğan and", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-833", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a private company located in the town of Hal Kirkop, Malta.\n8.  On 30 December 1986 the Housing Secretary of Malta issued a requisition order in respect of a tenement in Hal Kirkop. The applicant company occupied the tenement in question. The requisition order had the effect of protecting its occupation.\n9.  On 16 October 1987 the owners of the tenement, the V. brothers, instituted civil proceedings before the First Hall of the Civil Court against the Housing Secretary and the applicant company. They requested that the requisition order of 30 December 1986 be declared null and void as being contrary to section 4 of the 1949 Housing Act, and sought to regain possession of the tenement. They also requested compensation for the damage allegedly sustained.\n10.  In a judgment of 9 October 1991, the First Hall of the Civil Court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim.\n11.  The V. brothers appealed against that decision.\n12.  In a judgment of 30 December 1993, the Court of Appeal declared that the requisition order was null and void and ordered that the appellants be given possession of the premises within six months. It sent the case back to the First Hall of the Civil Court regarding compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the appellants.\n13.  On 21 March 1994 the applicant company lodged an application with the Court of Appeal for a new trial. It alleged that the judgment of 30 December 1993 had been based on a wrong application of the law, as the requisition order had been issued in the public interest and the powers of the Housing Secretary in this field could not be reviewed by the Court of Appeal.\n14.  The V. brothers intervened in the proceedings, requesting that the application be rejected. They argued that the law had in fact been duly applied and interpreted and that the applicant company was trying to lodge another appeal, inadmissible under Maltese law, against the judgment of 9 October 1991.\n15.  On 14 December 1994 the Court of Appeal invited the parties to file written submissions and adjourned the case to 6 February 1995.\n16.  The applicant company filed a note of submissions in which it requested, inter alia, that the judges of the Court of Appeal examining the request for a retrial withdraw from the case, as they were the same judges who had sat on the bench when the impugned judgment of 30 December 1993 had been delivered.\n17.  On 13 March 1995 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant company’s plea challenging the judges. It also observed that, under Article 816 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta – “the COCP”), where the ground for a judicial request was the wrong application of the law, the relevant party should make reference to the law which should have been applied. As the applicant company had failed to do so, its submissions were manifestly defective.\n18.  In a judgment of 17 January 1996, the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant company’s request for a new trial.\n19.  In the meantime, on 19 April 1995, the applicant company had initiated proceedings in the First Hall of the Civil Court sitting in its constitutional capacity. It alleged that the decision taken by the three judges composing the Court of Appeal rejecting the plea for their withdrawal had violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as the court in question could not be considered an “impartial tribunal” within the meaning of that provision.\n20.  In a judgment of 22 April 1997, the C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-834", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Zvonko Čevizović, is a Croatian national born in 1966. When lodging his application, he was detained in Oldenburg, Germany. He is presently living in Rogaška Slatina, Slovenia.\n10.  On 17 June 1996 the applicant was arrested in Wilhelmshaven. On 18 June 1996 the Wilhelmshaven District Court issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant on the ground that he was strongly suspected of having committed, with others, robbery connected with attempted murder.\n11.  On 4 November 1996 the Oldenburg Public Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant with attempted murder, aggravated robbery, grievous physical injury and unauthorised carrying of weapons.\n12.  On 18 February 1997 the Oldenburg Regional Court admitted the indictment without modifications and decided to open the trial against the applicant and two other accused. The trial started on 14 March 1997 and took place on fifty-six days with an average duration of ninety minutes. On 22 May 1998 a lay assessor fell ill. As the additional lay assessor who was supposed to replace her had also fallen sick earlier on, the trial had to begin anew.\n13.  On 28 May 1998 the Oldenburg Regional Court upheld the arrest warrant against the applicant. It found that irrespective of the delay occasioned by the assessors’ illness, the applicant’s continued detention was proportionate given the serious nature of the crimes he was accused of.\n14.  On 2 June 1998 the trial reopened with two additional lay assessors.\n15.  On 22 June 1998 the Oldenburg Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against the Oldenburg Regional Court’s decision to uphold the arrest warrant.\n16.  On 25 March 1999 the Oldenburg Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s renewed request to suspend the warrant of arrest of 18 June 1996 on the ground that the applicant remained under strong suspicion of having committed the crimes that he was accused of. On 7 May 1999 the Oldenburg Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal, reconsidered and confirmed its decision of 25 March 1999. It held that the delay in the trial had been caused by exceptional circumstances such as the difficulty in taking evidence, which required further investigations during the trial, and the illness of a lay assessor as well as the temporary illness of the presiding judge. The strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the serious crimes he was accused of had not been invalidated during the trial. As the applicant’s partner and son lived in Slovenia, the applicant was also likely to abscond if released.\n17.  On 1 June 1999 the Oldenburg Court of Appeal confirmed the decision of the lower court, stating that although the applicant had at that point already been in custody for nearly three years, this did not justify his release.\n18.  On 9 July 1999 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to entertain the applicant’s constitutional complaint.\n19.  On 14 June 2000 the Oldenburg Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s new request to suspend the warrant of arrest of 18 June 1996 on the ground that the allegedly new evidence submitted by the applicant did not justify such a suspension. It found that if released, the applicant was very likely to abscond, given the circumstances of his arrest and the sentence which he risked incurring if found guilty as charged. The Regional Court noted that the applicant was residing illegally in Germany and that an expulsion order had been issued against him. The length of the applicant’s detention on ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-835", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is currently detained in Batman “E” Type Prison.\n10.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n11.  On 2 September 1997 the applicant was arrested in Istanbul on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK. 4,000 German Marks and 2,600 US Dollars in cash were found in his possession. During his questioning at the Istanbul Police Headquarters, the applicant stated that he had joined the PKK in 1992 and that the money found in his possession at the time of his arrest had been given to him by the PKK to obtain a false passport. He also added that he had been trained in Syria and that he had carried out activities on behalf of the PKK in Germany, the Netherlands and France.\n12.  On 3 September 1997 the applicant’s detention period was extended for two days with the permission of the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court.\n13.  On 6 September 1997 the applicant was handed over to the Siirt Police Headquarters in whose jurisdiction the applicant had allegedly committed a number of offences. On the same day the Siirt public prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention for a further two days.\n14.  On 7 September 1997 a statement was taken from the applicant by the Siirt Police. The applicant reiterated the confessions he had made in his statement at the Istanbul Police Headquarters.\n15.  The applicant was subsequently handed over to the Batman Police in whose jurisdiction he had allegedly carried out certain illegal activities. On his arrival in Batman the applicant was given a medical examination by a doctor. No signs of ill-treatment were observed on his body according to the medical report drawn up on 7 September 1997.\n16.  On 8 September 1997, at the request of the Batman public prosecutor and without the applicant being brought before him, a judge at the Batman Magistrates’ Court in Criminal Matters authorised the applicant’s detention until 12 September 1997.\n17.  On 11 September 1997 a statement was taken from the applicant by the Batman Police. The applicant gave a detailed account of his involvement within the PKK and of the activities he had carried out on behalf of that organisation. He further described the structure of the PKK in detail.\n18.  On 12 September 1997 the applicant gave a statement before the Batman public prosecutor. He maintained that his police statements were correct and that he had nothing to add to them.\n19.  On the same day the applicant was taken before the Batman Magistrates’ Court in Criminal Matters and subsequently remanded in detention.\n20.  On 2 October 1997 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court against the applicant and requested the court to sentence him pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.\n21.  In the proceedings before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, which was composed of three judges including a military judge, the applicant mainly repeated the statements he had made to the police.\n22.  In a supplementary indictment submitted to the trial court on 30 May 2000, the prosecutor accused the applicant of carrying out activities aimed at breaking up the unity of the State and removing part of the national territory from the State’s control. He requested the court to sentence the applicant in accordance with Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n23.  On 2 November 2000 the Diyarbakı", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-836", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Dublin.\n10.  In 1982 he issued nuisance proceedings against his landlord. Those proceedings were settled in July 1985. Subsequently, and as a result of alleged further nuisance problems and new evidence, he unsuccessfully attempted to re-enter the nuisance proceedings in 1987.\n11.  On 29 June 1988 he issued negligence proceedings in the High Court against the firm of solicitors (“KC”) who had acted for him in the above-described nuisance action. He took issue with the advice given to him by KC during the settlement and, in particular, in relation to the possibility of re-entering his nuisance action. KC filed an appearance dated 26 October 1988. The applicant’s statement of claim was filed on 21 December 1988 and on 9 March 1989 he filed an application seeking judgment in default of defence which he obtained from the High Court on 10 April 1989. However, KC filed its defence on 18 April 1989 and sought an order to set aside the default judgment. On 1 May 1989 the default judgment was set aside. Further particulars of the applicant’s claim were requested by KC on 10 May 1989 and the applicant responded on 30 June 1989. On 15 May 1989 KC applied for discovery and on 2 June 1989 the High Court refused that application.\n12.  On 18 July 1989 the applicant applied for discovery by KC. On 5 October 1989 the High Court ordered discovery to be made by KC within six weeks. On 28 November 1989 he applied to strike out the defence of KC as they had not made discovery as ordered. That application was adjourned on 11 December 1989 and on 15 January 1990 his strike out application was refused. On 22 February 1990 he applied for further discovery from KC and on 5 March 1990 the High Court ordered KC to make further discovery within four weeks. KC filed affidavits of discovery on 26 February and 23 April 1990. On 21 November 1990 the applicant applied for further discovery to be made by KC. The hearing of this application was adjourned on 4 and 10 December 1990 and was considered on 14 January 1991. While the specific directions of the High Court after that hearing are not known, costs were awarded against KC.\n13.  On 28 June 1991 a notice of trial was filed by the applicant. On 21 August 1991 KC filed a motion for discovery by the applicant. On 24 October 1991 the High Court struck out this motion and costs were awarded against KC. The applicant then lodged a notice to amend his statement of claim on 5 May 1992. The action was put in a list to fix a hearing date three times (between July and December 1991). On the latter occasion the hearing date was fixed for 20 February 1992. However, on that date the High Court was informed of settlement negotiations and in March or April 1992 the case was accorded a further hearing date in May 1992. \nThe High Court heard the case on 5-7 May 1992, legal submissions were heard on 23 June 1992 and the court reserved its judgment. Judgment was delivered on 13 July 1993 dismissing the applicant’s case. The High Court judge found the evidence of a senior counsel (who had acted for the applicant in the nuisance proceedings – “SC”) more convincing than that of the applicant and found that KC had simply relied on the SC’s advice during the nuisance proceedings. Accordingly, it was found that no negligence could be attributed to KC. Costs were awarded to KC “when taxed and ascertained”.\n14.  On 30 August 1993 the applicant lodged his appeal to the Supreme Court: he argued that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-837", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1943, 1943 and 1944 and live in Dunavecse and Budapest, respectively.\n5.  By a judgment of 30 June 1988 delivered by the Budapest Regional Court the applicants were registered as the inventors of a tool called the “sledge”. Their shares in the invention were 35%, 20% and 40%, respectively, leaving 5% to a fourth person who is not a party to the proceedings before the Court.\n6.  On 5 October 1993 Mr Nagy and Mr Veizer brought an action before the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court, sitting as a first-instance court, against an agricultural co-operative. They sought royalties and requested that they be given possession of the tool.\n7.  On 16 March and 25 May 1994 the Regional Court held hearings. On the latter date the court requested the defendant to submit certain documents. Having failed to comply with the order, on 16 September 1994 the court imposed a fine on the defendant.\n8.  On 2 March 1995 the Regional Court heard the parties.\n9.  On 9 March 1995 the Regional Court granted royalties and interest thereon to the plaintiffs and obliged the defendant to hand over the tool to Mr Veizer.\n10.  On appeals of March 1995, on 29 May 1996 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, heard several witnesses. On 11 September 1996 the Supreme Court, in a partial decision, confirmed the first-instance judgment concerning the return of the tool but quashed the remainder and remitted it to the Regional Court.\n11.  Although the partial decision became final, the defendant failed to hand over the tool to Mr Veizer. The subsequent enforcement proceedings were unsuccessful. Consequently, Mr Nagy and Mr Veizer extended their action, claiming damages and unrealised profits resulting from the inability to use the tool.\n12.  In the resumed proceedings, on 6 January 1997 the Regional Court appointed an expert engineer. He submitted his opinion on 17 March 1997 and amended it on 10 June 1997.\n13.  The parties having failed to appear at the hearing on 14 October 1997, the Regional Court ordered the suspension of the proceedings. On Mr Veizer’s request of 29 January 1998 the proceedings were resumed.\n14.  On 26 March and 9 June 1998 the Regional Court held hearings. On the latter date the court heard the expert and requested him to complete his opinion.\n15.  On 2 September 1998 the Regional Court put further questions to the expert, to which he replied on 25 September 1998. At the hearing on 30 September 1998 the court requested the parties to submit their observations on the completed expert opinion.\n16.  On 16 November 1998 the third applicant, Mrs Veizer, also brought an action on the same ground against the co-operative. Her action was joined to the remitted proceedings.\n17.  The Regional Court held hearings on 3 and 24 March 1999.\n18.  On 28 April 1999, the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court accepted part of the applicants’ claims. On 11 June 1999 the applicants appealed.\n19.  On 14 November 2001, the Supreme Court, sitting as a second instance court, confirmed the first-instance judgment. This decision became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-838", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Bytom, Poland.\n5.  The applicant worked as the head of the sales department in a coal mine “Rozbark” in Bytom. On 24 August 1994 she was dismissed from her job.\n6.  On 2 September 1994 she lodged a claim for compensation and reinstatement with the Bytom District Court of Labour (Sąd Rejonowy Wydział Pracy). Before 26 January 1995 the trial court held four hearings and heard evidence from one witness.\n7.  On 2 March 1995 the parties reached a friendly settlement and the District Court discontinued the proceedings. On 16 March 1995 the applicant’s lawyer asked the court to resume the proceedings, as the defendant company had failed to comply with the terms of the settlement. On 27 June 1995 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the decision of 2 March and resumed the proceedings.\n8.  On 21 September 1995 the District Court held a hearing. On 23 October 1995 it stayed the proceedings until the conclusion of criminal proceedings against the applicant (referred to below). The applicant’s further appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Katowice Regional Court of Labour on 28 December 1995.\n9.  On 28 January 1999 the applicant asked the court to resume the proceedings. On 25 March 1999 the court held a hearing. On 29 October 1999 it dismissed her application. On 29 December 1999, on the applicant’s appeal, the Katowice Regional Court resumed the proceedings.\n10.  Between 9 March and 5 December 2000 the court held five hearings and heard evidence from five witnesses. On 5 December 2000 the Bytom District Court gave judgment. The court granted the applicant compensation and dismissed her claim for reinstatement. Both parties appealed.\n11.  On 8 May and 5 June 2001 the Regional Court held hearings. On 15 October 2001 the applicant sent a letter to the President of the Katowice Regional Court asking for a hearing date to be set.\n12.  On 21 November 2001 the Regional Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal. 20 December 2001 the Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The judgment is final.\n13.  On 30 December 1995 the Bytom District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) submitted to the Bytom District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a bill of indictment against the applicant and three other employees of the “Rozbark” coal mine. The applicant was charged with carrying out fraudulent financial operations. On 14 March 1996 the Bytom District Court returned the case-file to the District Prosecutor instructing him to complete the investigation. The District Prosecutor appealed. On 3 April 1996 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) ordered the District Court to proceed with the case.\n14.  During the proceedings the District Court held fifteen hearings and heard evidence from several witnesses.\n15.  On 23 September 1998 the Bytom District Court delivered a judgment and acquitted the applicant. The District Prosecutor appealed.\n16.  On 8 February 1999 the Katowice Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the prosecution authorities for a further investigation.\n17.  On 10 July 1999 the District Prosecutor ordered an expert opinion to be obtained.  The expert submitted his opinion on 22 October 1999. On 2 August 1999 the Bytom District Prosecutor decided to stay the investigation until an expert on management prepared an opinion.\n18.  On 15 December 1999 the applicant sent a letter to the Regional Prosecutor complaining about the slow ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-839", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Åkarp.\n7.  He owns a piece of real property in central Lund. Wishing to make an extension to the residential house situated on that property – a construction requiring a building permit under the Planning and Building Act (Plan- och bygglagen, 1987:10) – he applied, on 2 April 1990, to the Building Committee (byggnadsnämnden) of Lund for a tentative approval (förhandsbesked) of the permissibility of this project. The purpose of such an approval is to give a property owner, who is planning a building project for which the grant of a building permit is uncertain, the possibility to obtain an advance assessment of whether the planned measures may at all be permitted, thereby avoiding unnecessary projecting work and costs. In assessing an application for a building permit made within two years after the issuance of a tentative approval, the building committee is bound by the determinations made in that approval.\n8.  On 19 August 1992 the Building Committee, having obtained the opinions of some neighbours and several municipal offices, declared that a building permit could not be expected. It did not therefore give a tentative approval of the construction project.\n9.  The applicant appealed against the Building Committee’s decision. On 16 May 1994 the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen) of the County of Malmöhus, having obtained the observations of the Committee and the applicant on several occasions and visited the location of the property, upheld the appealed decision.\n10.  Upon the applicant’s further appeal, the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Gothenburg held an oral hearing at the location of the applicant’s property on 29 March 1995. By a judgment of 21 April 1995 it rejected the appeal.\n11.  The applicant then appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) which, by a decision of 15 October 1996, granted him leave to appeal. The court obtained the opinions of the Building Committee and the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (Boverket). By a judgment of 25 November 1997 it rejected the appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-840", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Alexandru Ţîmbal, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1944 and lives in Chişinău, Moldova.\n6.  The applicant was an employee of the Ministry of the Interior from 1963. In December 1994 he retired. In 1999 he lodged with the Chişinău District Court a civil action against the Ministry of the Interior seeking the difference between the pension he had received and the amount to which he was entitled (calculated pursuant to the Law of 23 June 1993 fixing the pensions for servicemen and military personnel of the Ministry of the Interior).\n7.  On 16 September 1999 the District Court awarded the applicant compensation in the amount of 8,394.40 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 737.37 euros (EUR) at the time). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n8.  On 1 October 1999 the District Court issued an enforcement warrant and sent it to the State Treasury for enforcement. However, enforcement was refused because of a lack of funds on the account of the Ministry of the Interior.\n9.  In November 1999 the applicant lodged an administrative action with the Court of Appeal seeking to compel the Ministry of Justice to enforce the judgment. On 24 November 2000 the Court of Appeal dismissed the action finding that jurisdiction in the matter lay with the competent district court.\n10.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against this decision. On 27 December 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal.\n11.  Throughout 2001 the applicant complained about the failure to enforce the judgment to the bailiff assigned to the case, but to no avail. He also complained to various judicial and executive authorities including the Chişinău District Court, the Ministry of Finance, the Parliament, the State Chancellery, the Office  of the President of Moldova, the Ministry of the Interior, the Office of the Prosecutor General and the Ministry of Justice. In a letter of 30 January 2002 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the judgment of 16 September 1999 could not be enforced due to the lack of funds on the bank account of the Ministry of the Interior.\n12.  The judgment was enforced on 25 April 2003, following communication of this application to the Government by this Court in February 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-841", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.   In 1964 the administrative authorities handed over to the applicant association the management and use of a property that had been expropriated from a religious association by the State Treasury in 1962. The decision concerning the transfer stipulated inter alia that, on termination of the use of the property, the applicant association would be entitled to recuperate the outlays incurred in connection with any construction work carried out on the buildings, less the normal costs of upkeep.\n8.  On 20 October 1992 the Warsaw Property Commission (“the Property Commission”), set up pursuant to the Law on relations between the State and the Catholic Church in Poland, returned the property to the religious association. The Property Commission ordered the latter to reimburse the applicant association its outlay to the sum of 420,353,658 old zlotys (PLZ) (42,035 new zlotys (PLN))[1]. That amount was based on a calculation prepared by experts. The applicant association challenged the amount and proposed its own calculation. However, the Property Commission declared that it lacked jurisdiction to examine further claims. Its decision contained a clause to the effect that the decision did not affect the applicant association’s right to make further claims relating to the 1964 decision in accordance with the general provisions of law.\n9.   The applicant association subsequently filed an action against the State Treasury with the Przemyśl Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki), in which it applied for reimbursement of the outstanding outlays, relying on the text of the 1964 decision in which the administrative authorities had established its right to those outlays. The applicant association also referred to the Property Commission’s decision of 20 October 1992.\n10.  On 15 December 1995 the court awarded the applicant association the sum of PLN 546,133.02[2] by way of reimbursement of its outlays. The court referred to the part of the 1964 decision which stated that the applicant association would be entitled to recover the outlays incurred in connection with any construction work carried out on the buildings, less the normal costs of upkeep.\nBoth parties to the proceedings appealed against this judgment.\n11.  On 13 June 1996 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (sąd apelacyjny) decided to submit to the Supreme Court the question whether the 1989 Law on the relations between the State and the Catholic Church in Poland excluded the possibility of submitting to a civil court claims arising out of the use of a property that was returned to its original owner on the strength of a decision by a property commission.\n12.  On 27 June 1996 the Supreme Court replied in the affirmative to the Court of Appeal’s question.\n13.  The Supreme Court observed that the 1989 Law was a statute which addressed, inter alia, an exceptional matter, namely the regularisation of property issues created by expropriations carried out in the past against the Catholic Church. It noted that the proceedings before a property commission involved the participation of all parties concerned. The decisions of those commissions were intended to settle all property claims arising out of past expropriations. Such claims – including claims concerning outlays incurred by a former user of a property – could be brought before a civil court only in those exceptional cases provided for in section 64 of the 1989 Law where a property commission was unable to restore a property to its original owner. The Supreme", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-842", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Poznań.\n10.  In March 1988 the applicant got divorced. She has two children, who were at that time about two years old and four years old respectively.\n11.  On 22 May 1988 she filed with the Poznań District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which she sought the division of the shared property of her and her former husband.\n12.  The court held hearings on 29 September and 11 November 1988, 4 April and 30 May 1989, 24 March, 24 May, 28 August and 25 October 1990, 4 February, 24 August and 18 November 1992, 27 January, 12 May and 19 August 1993, 9 November 1994, 11 January, 22 February, 26 April, 21 June and 25 August 1995, 9 February, 3 July, 16 October and 15 November 1996, 23 May and 31 December 1997, as well as 16 January 1998.\n13.  The court ordered 6 expert opinions concerning the value of the disputed property, out of which 3 had been prepared with a delay of five months.\n14.  On 16 January 1998 the court gave judgment. It granted the applicant, inter alia, the right to the flat in a housing co-operative and several objects located there. Her husband was granted, inter alia, a car and he was supposed to pay a certain sum to the applicant. The court pointed out that the parties to the proceedings had contested each other's statements with respect to most of the objects and on a few occasions had changed their own statements.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-843", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  In 1996 the applicant filed with the Warsaw District Court (sąd rejonowy) an action in which she requested the eviction of Ms J. from a flat she owned. She also claimed payment of overdue rent, in the amount of 4,371.17 Polish zlotys (PLN). She submitted that she had given notice of termination of the lease contract after J's recurrent failure to pay the rent on time. J. had been occupying the flat on the basis of an administrative decision, given under a so-called special lease scheme (see § 18 below). This administrative decision had created a protected tenancy contract between the parties, on the basis of which controlled rent was to be paid by the tenant and the tenancy could not be terminated by the owner.\n7.  In January 1999 the applicant, having offered Ms J. an alternative flat, added a new eviction application, which was based on article 56 of the Law on the Lease of Dwellings and Housing Allowances (Ustawa o najmie lokali mieszkalnych i dodatkach mieszkaniowych). Subsequently, she withdrew the claim related to her tenant's failure to pay the rent.\n8.  On 6 August 1999 the court gave judgment. It ordered Ms J. to pay overdue rent in the amount of PLN 459,15 and dismissed the eviction application. The court admitted that the applicant had offered J. an alternative flat before seeking her eviction. It pointed out, however, that Article 56 § 7 of the 1994 Law on the Lease of Dwellings provided that a flat offered to a tenant as alternative lodging had to be owned by the person seeking eviction (see § 20 below). However, the flat which the applicant had offered J. was owned by a housing co-operative and the applicant had only a limited right to it. The court considered that:\n“The plaintiff has a co-operative quasi-proprietorial right to that flat, which, although relatively extensive, is yet limited by a number of provisions of the Co-operative Law and cannot be equated with ownership. This court is bound by laws, and the relevant provision of the Law on the Lease of Dwellings [concerning the requirements that an alternative dwelling had to meet] is unequivocal.”\n9.  The court further considered that it was not empowered to assume that the legislature had made the reference to mandatory ownership of the alternative accommodation by mistake. Neither could it accept that this reference should be understood as covering also the quasi-proprietorial co‑operative right to an apartment.\n10.  The court finally considered that, pursuant to the 1994 Law on the Lease of Dwellings, eviction of a tenant, if preceded by the offer of an alternative flat, was an exception to the general rule that an owner could not evict a tenant who complied with his or her statutory duties. Accordingly, the provisions covering such exceptions could not be given an extensive interpretation.\n11.  In the same judgment the District Court discontinued the proceedings in so far as they related to the withdrawn application.\n12.  The applicant appealed. She submitted that the Law on the Lease of Dwellings should not have been interpreted in her case in the literal manner proposed by the District Court. She argued that the main objective of the provisions concerning eviction of tenants was to protect the property rights of owners. On the other hand, those provisions were also aimed at guaranteeing tenants an effective right to continued and peaceful enjoyment of accommodation and thus required the owners to secure alternative flats for them. In the light of that aim ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-844", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bielawa, Poland.\n6.  Between 18 and 21 February 1992 “Ekspres Sudecki”, a local newspaper, published letters of certain M.W. and A.P. The authors accused the applicant, at the time the Deputy Mayor of Bielawa, of fraud and called him a “liar”.\n7.  On 6 March 1992 the applicant brought a private prosecution on charges of libel against M.W. and A.P. to the Dzierżoniów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n8.  The trial began on 18 May 1992. The court adjourned the hearing due to the absence of one of the defendants.\n9.  Further hearings were listed for 8 and 30 June, 20 July, 20 August and 22 September 1992, 11 February and 28 April 1993, but most of them were adjourned because of the parties' or their lawyers' absence.\n10.  On 20 May 1993 the Court adjourned the trial because the defendants had failed to appear.\n11.  The next hearing, set down for 24 June 1993, was cancelled because of the absence of the lay judge.\n12.  Further hearings, scheduled for 8 July 1993, 25 March 1994, 31 May and 14 June 1995 were adjourned because of the absence of the defendants, their counsel, a witness and the applicant. The court decided to impose a fine on one of the witnesses who had failed to appear.\n13.  At the hearing on 29 June 1995 the defendants' counsel informed the court that he would not represent them any longer.\n14.  On 20 July 1995 the trial was adjourned because the defendants had failed to appear. The court ordered that both defendants be subjected to police supervision in order to ensure the proper course of the proceedings.\n15.  On 18 October 1995 the court lifted police supervision in respect of M.W.\n16.  A hearing set down for 1 March 1996 was adjourned since the defendants and a witness had failed to appear before the court. The court ordered that A.P. be detained on remand to ensure his presence at hearings.\n17.  A hearing scheduled for 29 March 1996 was adjourned because M.W., the applicant and witnesses had failed to appear.\n18.  On 4 April 1996 M.W. challenged the impartiality of all the judges sitting in the Dzierżoniów District Court. The challenge was dismissed as unfounded by the Wałbrzych Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) on 24 May 1996.\n19.  At a hearing on 5 April 1996 the Dzierżoniów District Court decided to re-hear evidence due to the change of the composition of the court. It also lifted A.P.'s detention and ordered that he be subjected to police supervision.\n20.  Hearings scheduled for 26 September and 10 October 1996 were adjourned because of M.W.'s and his counsel's absence.\n21.  On 24 October 1996 the court held a hearing.\n22.  The next hearing, which was to be held on 7 November 1996, was adjourned because A.P. had failed to appear. The court ordered that he be brought to the court by the police for the next hearing.\n23.  At the hearing on 15 November 1996 M.W.'s counsel asked the court to allow him time to inspect new documentary evidence and to adjourn the trial.\n24.  The proceedings were subsequently stayed because the applicant's lawyer was ill.\n25.  A hearing scheduled for 29 January 1998 was adjourned because of the absence of M.W., his lawyer and witnesses.\n26.  The court resumed the proceedings at a hearing on 19 February 1998. It also imposed a fine on one of the witnesses who had failed to appear.\n27.  On 6 March 1998 the court held that the conduct of M.W. made it impossible for it to try the case and decided to sever the charges against him. On the same day M.W.'s c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-845", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lived in Jankowice, Poland.\n6.  On 6 February 1973 the applicant applied to the Gliwice District Commission for Mining Damage (Okręgowa Komisja do Spraw Szkód Górniczych) for compensation for damage caused to her property and her plantation of fruit trees. The case was directed against the Rybnik Mining Company “Chwalowice”.\n7.  Between 20 September 1982 and 21 October 1991 the applicant on five occasions lodged similar applications.\n8.  On 15 January 1990 the District Commission for Mining Damage examined one of her applications. It partly allowed it and awarded the applicant compensation.\n9.  It appears that following the applicant's appeal, on 12 November 1991, the District Commission for Mining Damage amended its own decision.\n10.  The applicant appealed against this decision. She submitted, inter alia, that the Commission failed to examine her four applications lodged in 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1988.\n11.  On 30 September 1992 the Katowice Appellate Commission for Mining Damage (Odwoławcza Komisja do spraw Szkód Górniczych) quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case to the District Commission. It ordered the Commission to examine all applications for compensation lodged by the applicant between 1973 and 1991.\n12.  On 24 March 1993 the District Commission for Mining Damage gave its decision. The applicant appealed against it.\n13.  On 2 September 1994 a new law entered into force which provided that the civil courts would be competent to examine the applications for compensation for mining damage and abolished the Commissions for Mining Damage (Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994, Prawo geologiczne i górnicze).\n14.  Accordingly, the applicant's case was transferred to the Rybnik District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) which, on 24 January 1995, decided that the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) would be competent to examine the case.\n15.  On 5 April 1995 the court held a hearing.\n16.  Between 7 June 1995 and 4 April 1996 the proceedings were stayed since the applicant's counsel had apparently failed to specify her claims.\n17.  Subsequently, the trial court ordered that an expert opinion be obtained.\n18.  On 19 November 1996 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.\n19.  On 20 December 1996 the trial court held the second hearing at which it heard the expert. The court further decided to prepare another expert opinion.\n20.  On 21 January 1997 the applicant challenged the trial judge on the grounds that as a former member of the District Commission for Mining Damage he had given decisions in her case.\n21.  On 28 March 1997 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the challenge.\n22.  On 28 May 1997 the Katowice Regional Court held a hearing and on 4 June 1997 it gave judgment. The court partly allowed the applicant's action and awarded her compensation for damage sustained between 1972 and 1996.\n23.  On 17 July 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.\n24.  On 20 January 1998 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held a hearing and on 29 January 1998 it quashed a part of the impugned judgment and remitted it to the Regional Court. The appellate court upheld the remainder of the judgment.\n25.  On 11 March 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n26.  At the hearing held on 22 April 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed her cassation appeal.\n27.  Following the partial remittal of the case, the Katowice Regional Court sc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-846", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Zakopane, Poland.\n5.  The applicant and a co-operative “PSS Społem” were co-owners of an estate in Zakopane. On 29 November 1995 the co-operative filed with the Zakopane District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an application for dissolution of the co-ownership of the estate.\n6.  The court held hearings on 10 and 24 January 1996. On the latter date it ordered an expert opinion. On 21 February 1996 the court held a viewing of the site. On 19 April 1996 the expert submitted his opinion to the trial court. On 27 May 1996 the court ordered that a supplementary expert opinion be obtained. It was submitted to the court on 28 June 1996.\n7.  At the hearing held on 18 September 1996 the court heard evidence from an expert. The court further ordered him to prepare a supplementary opinion. It was submitted to the court on 10 October 1996.\n8.  On 3 February 1997 the court held a hearing and appointed a new expert. On 30 June 1997 the new expert submitted his opinion to the court.\n9.  At the hearing held on 21 January 1998 the court decide to obtain evidence from yet another expert. The opinion was submitted to the court on 17 June 1998.\n10.  In her pleading of 3 September 1998 the applicant submitted a new proposal concerning the division of the estate. On 28 September 1998 she revoked it.\n11.  The court held hearings on 16 December 1998, 22 February and 7 April 1999. On 17 December 1999 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from an expert. At that hearing the applicant authorised her father, who was a court expert, to represent her in the proceedings. As a result, the judge rapporteur asked to be excluded from dealing with the case. On 7 January 2000 the District Court acceded to his request.\n12.  On 24 January 2000 the applicant challenged the impartiality of all judges sitting in the Zakopane District Court. On 7 March 2000 the Nowy Sącz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant's challenge.\n13.  On 15 September 2000 the court held a hearing and ordered another expert opinion. Subsequent hearings were held on 23 April and 23 May 2001. On 6 June 2001 the District Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed. It appears that the proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-847", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1954 and 1956 respectively and live in Bełchatów, Poland.\n6.  The applicants bought a second-hand car on 19 July 1992.\n7.   Their car was seized by the German Border Guard on 13 April 1993, as it appeared that it had been stolen.\n8.  On 15 April 1993, at the second applicants' request, the Radom District Police instituted criminal proceedings against R.G., a car dealer from whom the applicants had bought the car.\n9.  On 14 July 1993 the second applicant informed the Radom District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) that he wished to join the proceedings as a civil party and asked the prosecution to forward his civil claim to the court together with the bill of indictment.\n10.   The Radom District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) convicted the accused on 19 August 1993.\n11.  The Radom District Prosecutor forwarded the applicant's claim to the Radom District Court on 27 August 1993. Since the criminal proceeding had already been terminated, the criminal court could not deal with the claim. Accordingly, it referred the claim to the Civil Division of the Radom District Court on 17 June 1994.\n12.  On 15 November 1994 the President of the Radom District Court informed the applicant that his statement of claim and accompanying documentary evidence had been lost. He asked the applicant to provide copies of documents in order to reconstruct the case-file.\n13.  On 7 December 1994 the District Court found that it was not competent to deal with the claim and referred the case to the Radom Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).\n14.  On 16 January 1995 the second applicant asked the court to exempt them from payment of the court fees. The court partly granted his request on 2 February 1995.\n15.  On 27 February 1995, at the applicant's request, the court issued an interim order to secure his claim.\n16.  On an unspecified date the second applicant appointed the first applicant as his representative. From then on she took part in the proceedings.\n17.  The first hearing before the Regional Court was set down for 17 May 1995.\n18.   The court held hearings on 28 June and 13 September 1995. They were adjourned because witnesses, J.N. and J.M., had failed to appear.\n19.  At the hearing on 30 October 1995 the court imposed fines on J.N. and J.M.\n20.  The court held hearings on 4 December 1995, 27 March and 12 April 1996.\n21.  A hearing scheduled for 3 July 1996 was adjourned due to the defendant's absence.\n22.  On 21 August 1996 the court held a hearing.\n23.  The proceedings were stayed on 27 November 1996 because the criminal proceedings against J.N. and J.M had been instituted in the meantime.\n24.  On 21 March 1997 the court, at the applicants' request, called J.N. as a co-defendant.\n25.  On 18 September 1997 the court stayed the proceedings for the same reasons as above. They were resumed on 15 October 1998.\n26.  A hearing scheduled for 1 December 1998 was adjourned because both parties had failed to appear.\n27.  At the hearing on 18 December 1998 the court ordered that an expert report on the value of the disputed car be obtained. The report was submitted to the court on 27 January 1999.\n28.  The next hearing took place on 15 February 1999.\n29.  On 18 February 1999 the Radom Regional Court allowed the applicants' claim.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-848", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are a married couple. The first applicant was born in 1945 and the second in 1940. They both live in Ożarów, Poland.\n5.  Civil proceedings concerning delimitation of various plots of land belonging to the applicants began on 22 May 1982. On 22 September 1982 the Pruszkόw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision. The applicants appealed. On 9 December 1982 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewόdzki) set aside the first-instance decision and remitted the case.\n6.  Following the remission of the case, the Pruszkόw District Court held a number of hearings and ordered that several expert reports be prepared. On 30 September 1985 the Pruszkόw District Court gave a decision. Upon the applicants' appeal, on 10 February 1986 the Warsaw Regional Court set aside the decision and remitted the case for re-examination.\n7.  Between 1986 and 1 May 1993 the District Court held 11 hearings.\n8.  After 1 May 1993 the Pruszkόw District Court held hearings on the following dates: 29 September, 18 November, 28 December 1993, 1 February, 4 March, 25 March and 20 April 1994.\n9.  On 31 May 1994 the court held a viewing of the site. The next hearing was held on 21 October 1994.\n10.  On 29 March 1995 the trial court held a hearing and stayed the proceedings because M.K., a party to the proceedings, had died. The applicants requested that the proceedings be resumed. On 5 January 1996 the court refused to resume the proceedings.\n11.  On 20 March 1996 the applicants complained to the Ministry of Justice about the delay in the proceedings. On an unspecified date their complaints were referred to the President of the Warsaw Regional Court, who replied thereto on 4 July 1996. He acknowledged that the proceedings were indeed lengthy and promised to supervise their conduct.\n12.  On 18 June 1996, on the applicants' appeal, the Warsaw Regional Court amended the decision of 5 January 1996 and resumed the proceedings.\n13.  Subsequently, the Pruszkόw District Court held hearings on the following dates: 9 December 1996, 4 September, 21 October and 3 December 1997.\n14.  On 3 December 1997 the case file was sent to an expert who was to prepare an opinion. The expert returned the case-file on 20 May 1999.\n15.  On 1 June 1999 the court delivered a supplementary expert report and ordered the parties to submit their observations on it. On 23 September and 19 November 1999 the court held hearings. On 19 November 1999 the court gave a decision and ordered a certain M.G. to join the proceedings. On 7 February 2000 the court held a further hearing.\n16.  On 18 February 2000 the applicants again complained to the President of the Warsaw Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings.\n17.  On 23 May 2001 the court stayed the proceedings. The applicants appealed on 8 June 2001. On 11 December 2001 the court dismissed their appeal.\n18.  On 19 September 2001, in reply to the applicants' complaint about the length of the proceedings, the Minister of Justice admitted that there was a certain delay in the proceedings. He further observed that the President of the Warsaw Regional Court and the President of the Pruszkόw District Court had supervised the conduct of the proceedings and had made reports on their progress.\n19.  It appears that the proceedings are still stayed and, therefore, pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-849", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Berdyansk, Ukraine.\n9.  The facts of the case are partially disputed by the parties. They may be summarised as follows.\n10.  The applicant’s father was subjected to repression in 1929-1930 as a rich peasant (“kulak”). In 1930 the family property, including a two-storey house in Sorochinsk, Orenburg Region, Russia, was confiscated. In 1989 the applicant’s father was rehabilitated post mortem. The family house remains intact in Sorochinsk, where it is used by the Sorochinsk Veterinary College to house its employees. At some point during the proceedings the families who lived in the house were permitted to acquire their flats.\n11.  The applicant lives in Berdyansk, Ukraine, and the train journey to Sorochinsk takes about two and a half days.\n12.  In 1990 the applicant and her sister, Mrs Mikhaylishina, initiated proceedings to have their property right to the house recognised. On 26 October 1990 the Sorochinsk Town Court rejected their request and advised them to seek compensation for the property from the Orenburg Regional financial department. It appears that the department refused their request for compensation.\n13.  In January 1992 the applicant’s sister died and the applicant remained the sole party to the proceedings.\n14.  At some point in March 1992 the applicant submitted new claims to the Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg. On 24 September 1992 the Leninskiy District Court rejected both her complaint about the decision of the Regional financial department and her civil claim to have her property right to the house confirmed. On 6 May 1993 the Orenburg Regional Court quashed the decision of 24 September 1992 and remitted the case to the District Court. On 15 September 1993 the Leninskiy District Court ordered the transfer of the case to the Sorochinsk Town Court which had territorial jurisdiction for the dispute over the building.\n15.  On 20 January 1995 the Head of the Sorochinsk Town administration issued an order, requesting the Veterinary College to pay the applicant the maximum compensation allowed by the national legislation, which would later be reimbursed to the College by the regional budget. The order was never complied with. On 10 April 1995 the Sorochinsk Town Court ordered the closure of the civil case as the applicant had been awarded the compensation. On 25 September 1995 the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court, acting by way of supervisory review, quashed the order of 10 April 1995 and returned the case to the Town Court.\n16.  On 27 December 1995 the Sorochinsk Town Court rejected the applicant’s claim against the Town administration as having no basis in the national legislation and because she had already been awarded the compensation. On 9 April 1996 the Orenburg Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case.\n17.  On 24 July 1996 the Sorochinsk Town Court confirmed that the applicant’s family had been the owners of the property and that the confiscation had taken place, but rejected the applicant’s claim to have the house returned. On 27 August 1996 the Orenburg Regional Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case.\n18.  On 13 February 1997 the Sorochinsk Town Court again confirmed the family’s previous ownership of the property and the fact of confiscation, but rejected the applicant’s claim to have the house returned. On 24 April 1997 the Orenburg Regional Court quashed this judgment. The applicant was then informed that the Orenburg Region", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-850", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1979 respectively and live in Sofia.\n9.  On 1 July 1988 the applicants were hit by a taxi driven by a Mr V.G. The first applicant’s injuries, although serious, were not life-threatening, whereas the second applicant, who was at the time nine years old, sustained life-threatening injuries. Subsequently her spleen had to be surgically removed. Apparently her health is still seriously affected by the aftermath of the accident.\n10.  Criminal proceedings were brought against Mr V.G. By a judgment of the competent criminal court of 8 December 1988 he was found guilty of negligently causing serious bodily injury to the second applicant and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, suspended. The first applicant took part in these criminal proceedings, but only as a private prosecutor on behalf of the second applicant and not as a civil claimant, which would have been possible under the applicable law.\n11.  On 17 June 1991 the first applicant filed with the Sofia City Court a tort action against Mr V.G. and the taxi enterprise where the latter had been employed at the time of the accident. She was acting on her own behalf and on behalf of the second applicant who was at the time still a minor. Both applicants claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.\n12.  On 12 August 1991 Mr V.G. filed third-party claims against another person involved in the accident, Ms V.B., and against the State Insurance Company. These claims were based on Mr V.G.’s assertions that Ms V.B.’s improper crossing of the street had been the cause of the accident and that the State Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the damage under his road accident insurance.\n13.  The first hearing was held on 4 October 1991. Finding that the applicants had not paid the requisite fee for filing the action, the court directed them to do so or to make a request to be exempted from payment of the fee. It also instructed Mr V.G. to provide the exact names and addresses of the third-party defendants. The court suspended the proceedings pending compliance with its instructions.\n14.  The proceedings resumed on 21 October 1991 after the applicants had successfully filed a request for exemption from fees and Mr V.G. had provided the names and addresses of the third-party defendants. A hearing was listed for 10 December 1991.\n15.  On 10 December 1991 the case had to be adjourned until 28 February 1992 as the taxi enterprise employing Mr V.G. at the time of the accident had in the meantime been reorganised into a commercial company[1] and had not received a copy of the applicants’ complaint. The applicants were instructed by the court to produce evidence that the taxi company listed as a defendant – Taxi Express – was the successor of the taxi enterprise, and to provide an additional copy of the complaint for it.\n16.  At the hearing on 28 February 1992 the court noted that there was no evidence as to identify of the successor of the taxi enterprise. It requested Taxi Express to provide information on whether it was the successor. At that hearing the State Insurance Company intervened in the initial action in support of Mr V.G.\n17.  At the next hearing, held on 21 April 1992, the court ruled on the successor of the taxi enterprise. It found that the successor was not the company listed as a defendant, Taxi Express, but another company, Softaxi. Accordingly, the court excluded the first defendant from the proceedings and constituted the second as a defendant,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-851", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1958 and 1964 respectively and live in the village of Aleko Konstantinovo, the Pazardjik region.\n8.  In December 1993 the applicants were questioned as suspects in the destruction of a walnut tree owned by a State‑owned company.\n9.  On 16 February 1994 the Pazardjik District Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal proceedings against the applicants.\n10.  The first applicant was charged on 11 December 1995. The second applicant was charged on an unspecified date in December 1995. Immediately after the charging the applicants were ordered not to leave the town without authorisation as a measure to secure appearance before the competent authority (see paragraph 21 below).\n11.  On 21 December 1995 the applicants were indicted. The prosecutor, acting on behalf of the State‑owned company, also brought a civil claim for damages against them.\n12.  The Pazardjik District Court held its first hearing on 18 March 1996. It heard the applicants and questioned three witnesses. Finding that the facts of the case were in need of further clarification, the court ordered an expert report on the value of the walnut tree timber and decided to call another witness. It adjourned the case.\n13.  The expert report was ready on 9 April 1996.\n14.  The next hearing took place on 23 April 1996. The court heard the expert and admitted his report in evidence. It held that the facts were in need of further elucidation, ordered the expert to supplement his report and adjourned the case.\n15.  The supplementary expert report was ready on 3 June 1996.\n16.  A hearing listed for 25 June 1996 failed to take place because the applicants’ lawyer was absent.\n17.  The next hearing was held on 9 August 1996. The prosecutor requested an additional expert report. The applicants’ lawyer agreed. The court ordered an additional expert report and adjourned the case.\n18.  The next hearing took place on 26 September 1996. The court repealed its prior order for an additional expert report, admitted certain documents gathered during the investigation in evidence and heard the parties’ closing argument. After deliberating in private, it found that a material breach of the rules of procedure had taken place during the investigation. In particular, the applicants had not been properly charged, which had infringed their defence rights. Accordingly, the court remitted the case to the prosecution authorities with instructions to rectify this shortcoming and also to gather additional evidence.\n19.  Since no progress took place in the remitted case, in August 1999 the applicants complained about the length of the proceedings to the Pazardjik Regional Prosecutor’s Office and to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office. On 24 August 1999 the Pazardjik Regional Prosecutor’s Office sent the applicants’ complaint to the Pazardjik District Prosecutor’s Office. On 14 September 1999 the Chief Prosecutor’s Office sent the applicants’ complaint to the Pazardjik Regional Prosecutor’s Office, ordering the prompt completion of the case. On 23 September 1999 the Pazardjik District Prosecutor’s Office informed the Pazardjik Regional Prosecutor’s Office and the applicants that the reason for the delay had been the failure of a witness to appear. It stated that measures had been taken for the speedy finalisation of the case.\n20.  On 18 March 2002 the Pazardjik District Prosecutor’s Office, finding that the relevant limitation period had expired, discontinued the criminal proceedings against the ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-852", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Sofia.\n9.  In March 1991 a statute providing for the restitution of agricultural lands collectivised during the communist regime, the Agricultural Lands Act of 1991, entered into force (see paragraphs 45‑47 below).\n10.  Between 19 November 1991 and 2 June 1992 the applicant filed seven applications with the competent agricultural lands’ commission, requesting the restitution of certain plots of agricultural land allegedly owned by his wife’s grandfather.\n11.  On 16 September 1992 the commission refused to restitute 492.3 decares claimed by the applicant. Apparently by mistake in the text of its decision the commission referred to a non‑existing application by the applicant. The applicant was informed of the decision by a letter dated 16 February 1993.\n12.  On 11 March 1993 the applicant lodged an application for judicial review of the refusal with the Tervel District Court, arguing that he was entitled to the restitution of the 492.3 decares.\n13.  The court held its first hearing on 26 September 1994. Counsel for the applicant presented certain written evidence and requested an adjournment, so as to be able to adduce further written evidence and call certain witnesses. The court granted the request and adjourned the case.\n14.  The second hearing, listed for 14 November 1994, was adjourned by request of the counsel for the applicant who stated that he was encountering difficulties with the gathering of certain written evidence.\n15.  The third hearing was held on 13 March 1995. Counsel for the applicant presented certain written evidence. The court heard two witnesses called by the applicant and the parties’ closing argument.\n16.  The Tervel District Court dismissed the application for judicial review in a judgment of 15 March 1995, holding that there was insufficient evidence that the applicant’s ancestor had owned the land. The applicant was notified of the judgment in writing on 11 April 1995.\n17.  On 12 May 1995 the applicant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Tervel District Court had erred in assessing the evidence and that his ancestor had owned the land in issue.\n18.  At the end of 1996 the Supreme Court was divided into a Supreme Court of Cassation and a Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant’s case was taken up by the Supreme Administrative Court.\n19.  The Supreme Administrative Court held a hearing on 13 March 1997. At the hearing counsel for the applicant presented additional written observations in which he pointed out that the agricultural lands’ commission’s file had not been appended to the court case file and that the Tervel District Court had hence decided the case without acquainting itself with all relevant documents.\n20.  On 25 March 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Tervel District Court’s judgement and remitted the case, holding that the non-appending of the commission’s file to the court’s case file had entailed a serious breach of the rules of procedure.\n21.  On remittal the Tervel District Court examined the case in three hearings.\n22.  The first hearing, listed for 22 May 1997, was adjourned because of the applicant’s request to adduce additional evidence and the agricultural lands’ commission’s failure to produce its file.\n23.  The second hearing, listed for 18 July 1997, was adjourned due to the failure of the lands’ commission to produce its file.\n24.  On 14 August 1997 the applicant complained to the Suprem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-853", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Budapest.\n (1) Criminal proceedings instituted in 1993\n5.  On 18 February 1993 the applicant, an examiner at the Road Authority, was arrested by officers of the Veszprém County Police Department. He was charged with having issued false certificates in his role as a member of an organised group involved in the legalisation of unlawfully acquired cars. He was in pre-trial detention between 22 February and 7 May 1993 and interrogated on 19 and 24 February, 9 and 26 March, 7 May and 29 June 1993. The investigations were closed on 13 December 1993. By then, more than 100 suspects and 250 witnesses had been heard, house searches were carried out and expert opinions were obtained.\n6.  On 9 June 1994 the Veszprém District Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant and 88 other defendants.\n7.  Between 22 November 1994 and 1 December 1995 the Veszprém District Court held 68 hearings. The District Court heard the defendants and 77 witnesses. The case-file of the trial amounted to 2,000 pages. It delivered and read out its 245-page long judgment on 1 and 14 December 1995 and on 30 January 1996. The District Court convicted the applicant of charges of bribery, forgery and misuse of fire arms and ammunition, and sentenced him to 2 years and 6 months' imprisonment. The applicant appealed, together with numerous other defendants.\n8.  The competent Veszprém County Regional Court held six hearings. On 9 February 1997 it quashed the District Court's judgment in respect of eleven defendants, including the applicant, and remitted the case to the first-instance court. On 16 July 1998 the Veszprém District Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a supplementary bill of indictment extending the charges against the applicant to an offence of receiving stolen goods of considerable value.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held hearings on 6 and 7 October 1998, 25 February, 15 June, 7 July, 26 October and 16 November 1999. On 15 December 1999 it delivered a judgment. The applicant was convicted of charges of bribery, forgery of official documents, receiving stolen goods and abuse of fire-arms. Despite the applicant's conviction for a further offence, the Regional Court reduced his sentence to 2 years' imprisonment, suspended for a 4-year probationary period. The Regional Court emphasised that the reduction of the sentence was exclusively due to the “unreasonably long duration of the proceedings”.\n10.  The applicant appealed. On 12 October 2000 the Regional Court upheld his conviction. This judgment was served on the applicant on 12 June 2001.\n(2) Criminal proceedings instituted in 1994\n11.  On 9 May 1994 another set of criminal proceedings was instituted against the applicant in Budapest. In January 1996 the Budapest XIV District Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment charging the applicant with offences committed in a context similar to that under (1) above.\n12.  On 2 April, 9 September and 10 December 1997, 31 March, 10 September and 2 November 1998 and 5 January 1999, the Pest Central District Court held hearings in the case. On 25 January 1999 the District Court delivered a judgment. It convicted the applicant of bribery and forgery of official documents, and sentenced him to a fine and 1 year and 2 months' imprisonment. The execution of the prison sentence was suspended for 4 years.\n13.  The applicant appealed. On 11 February 2000 the Budapest", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-854", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Renovit Építőipari Kft, is a Hungarian limited liability company, with its seat in Budapest.\n5.  On 24 August 1990 the I. Company brought an action against the applicant company before the Budapest Regional Court, claiming compensation in the amount of 106,493 Hungarian forints (HUF).\n6.  On 30 October 1991 the Regional Court accepted the plaintiff's claims. The applicant appealed on 6 December 1991.\n7.  On 11 May 1994 the plaintiff's successor entered the proceedings.\n8.  On 12 May 1994 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court's judgment and remitted the case to the first instance court.\n9.  On 30 November 1994 the competent Pest Central District Court held a hearing and requested the plaintiff to specify its claims. On 15 December 1994 the plaintiff complied with this order and extended its action to include a second defendant.\n10.  On 10 January 1995 the District Court requested the applicant to submit observations on the specified claims. The applicant complied with this order on 20 January 1995.\n11.  On 8 March 1995 the District Court heard witnesses and requested the parties to submit further documents. The plaintiff and the applicant complied with this order on 9 March and 5 May 1995, respectively.\n12.  The District Court held hearings on 16 May and 26 September 1995, and 12 January, 10 April and 14 May 1996.\n13.  In the meantime, on 16 April and 26 August 1996, the court instructed the plaintiff to request that its legal predecessor be discharged from the proceedings. The plaintiff complied with the instruction on 20 September 1996.\n14.  On 6 November 1996 none of the parties appeared at the hearing. Consequently, the District Court stayed the proceedings.\n15.  On 8 April 1997 the plaintiff requested that the proceedings be continued. In the resumed proceedings, on 22 October 1997 the District Court held a hearing and requested the applicant to submit some documents.\n16.  On 6 February and 14 May 1998 the District Court held further hearings.\n17.  On 22 October 1998 the District Court delivered a judgment and ordered the applicant to pay HUF 106,493 to the plaintiff. The applicant appealed on 2 January 1999, outside the statutory time-limit. On 6 April 1999 the District Court decided to accept the applicant's explanation for the delay and transferred the case to the Budapest Regional Court.\n18.  At the hearing on 4 May 2000 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-855", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1975, 1947, 1961 and 1985 respectively and live in Zgierz, Poland.\n5.  On 8 July 1992 the company with which the applicants had concluded a lease contract sued them for payment before the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).\n6.  On 9 March 1993 the court held the first hearing.\n7.  At a hearing on 6 April 1993 the applicant brought a counterclaim for payment.\n8.  On 27 April 1993 the court held a hearing.\n9.  On 17 March 1994 the court held a hearing.\n10.  A hearing scheduled for 21 April 1994 was adjourned because the judge was ill.\n11.  A hearing set down for 18 May 1994 was adjourned because witnesses failed to appear.\n12.  On 18 January 1995 the applicants sent a letter to the court asking for a hearing date to be fixed.\n13.  On 21 June, 10 July and 3 September 1996 and 17 March 1997 were adjourned because the parties had started friendly settlement negotiations.\n14.  On 18 June, 28 October and 11 December 1997, 19 February, 20 April and 17 July 1998 the court held hearings.\n15.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the composition of the court changed.\n16.  On 11 February 1999 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. The expert report was submitted to the court on 20 April 1999.\n17.  On 9 June, 6 September, 4 October and 20 December 1999 the court held hearings.\n18.  On 21 December 1999 the court allowed the plaintiff's claim and dismissed the applicants' counterclaim.\n19.  On 19 May 2000 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicants' appeal against the first-instance judgment.\n20.  On 30 June 2000 the applicants lodged a cassation appeal.\n21.  On 11 January 2002 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to deal with the appeal. A copy of the decision was served on the applicants on 27 March 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-856", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. The applicants were born in 1955 and 1959, respectively, and live in Székesfehérvár, Hungary. They represent their minor daughter, Sz.K. before the Court.  Sz.K. was born in 1985.\n5.  In 1986 Sz.K. suffered paralysis as a consequence of a compulsory polio inoculation. In 1987 the applicants, as her representatives, brought an action against the Hungarian State claiming compensation and a monthly allowance. The parties reached a friendly settlement. On the applicants' request, in 1991 the compensation and the allowance were raised. In 1993 the Supreme Court partly accepted their claim for the value of a special car.\n6.  On 26 November 1993 the applicants brought an action before the Fejér County Regional Court, sitting as a first instance court, claiming a raise in the monthly allowance as a result of inflation and the high cost of schooling.\n7.  Following the court's order, on 27 June 1994 an expert submitted an opinion on the matter.\n8.  On 7 January 1995 the applicants modified their action.\n9.  On 10 February 1995 the Regional Court partly granted the applicants' claims.\n10.  Upon the applicants' appeal, on 25 January 1996 the Supreme Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 12 June 1997 the expert submitted another opinion. On 8 August 1997 the applicants clarified their claims about inflation.\n12.  On 19 September 1997 the Regional Court partly accepted the applicants' claims.\n13.  On 12 October 1997 the applicants appealed to the Supreme Court for the full claim.\n14.  On 22 July 1998 the applicants requested the court to deliver a judgment, and modified their claims in view of the lapse of time since their appeal had been lodged.\n15.  On 9 January 2000 the applicants again requested the court to deliver a judgment and modified their claims, given the time lag.\n16.  On 3 February and 30 March 2000 the Supreme Court held hearings. In a judgment of 6 April 2000, the Supreme Court partly modified the first-instance decision.\n17.  On the applicants' petition for review, on 14 May 2001 the Supreme Court's review bench increased the award.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-857", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Łódź, Poland.\n5.  On 4 November 1993 the applicant lodged with the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a civil action against the State Treasury – the Zgierz Hospital. She claimed compensation and a monthly pension for damage she had sustained as a result of a medical treatment at the Zgierz Hospital.\n6.  On 5 November 1993 the court exempted the applicant from the court‑fees.\n7.  On 20 March 1995 the trial court held the first hearing.\n8.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 12 June and 13 November 1995.\n9.  On 27 November 1995 the Łódź Regional Court gave judgment. It dismissed the applicant's action. The trial court found no fault on the part of the doctors concerned and accordingly dismissed the liability of the State Treasury for the damage.\n10.  The applicant appealed against this judgment.\n11.  On 28 February 1996 the Lodz Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court.\n12.  The trial court held the first hearing on 2 October 1996.\n13.  At the subsequent hearings which were held on 29 August and 12 November 1997 the trial court ordered an expert opinion and heard an expert witness.\n14.  At the hearing held on 23 January 1998 the defendant asked the court to prepare another expert opinion.\n15.  Between 24 January 1998 and 18 January 1999 no hearings were held.\n16.  Subsequently, the Łódź Regional Court held six hearings and on 22 July 1999 it gave judgment. The trial court again dismissed the action.\n17.  The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n18.  The Łódź Court of Appeal held five hearings and on 9 October 2001 it gave judgment. The appellate court partly allowed the appeal and awarded the applicant PLN 4,000 in compensation. The court found, inter alia, that the doctors had failed to act diligently; consequently, the State Treasury was liable for the damage sustained by the applicant.\n19.  On 29 January 2002 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n20.  On 29 October 2002 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) rejected her cassation appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-858", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Góra Kalwaria, Poland.\n5.  On 16 December 1987 the applicant filed with the Warsaw District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy) an application for division of matrimonial property.\n6.  On 12 March 1993 the Warsaw District Court gave a partial decision (postanowienie częściowe).\n7.  Prior to 1 May 1993 the trial court held 20 hearings and obtained four expert opinions.\n8.  The court scheduled further hearings for 28 April 1995 and 26 May 1995 but the applicant due to her sick leave failed to appear. The hearings listed for 14 February 1996, 19 February 1997 and 16 May 1997 were adjourned.\n9.  On 18 July 1997 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from the parties. A hearing listed for 1 August 1997 was cancelled.\n10.  The applicant complained to the President of the District Court alleging inactivity on the part of that court in handling her case. In a reply of 9 February 1998 the President informed her that the next hearing was scheduled for 29 April 1998. However, that hearing was adjourned as the defendant and his counsel had not been present. They had not been served with the summons. The next hearing was held on 19 May 1998.\n11.  On 27 May 1998 the Warsaw District Court gave a decision (postanowienie końcowe). The applicant appealed.\n12.  The Warsaw Regional Court held hearings on 1 April, 20 July, 30 September, 24 November and 9 December 1999. The applicant was not present at any of the hearings despite being properly summoned.\n13.  On 4 January 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a final decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-859", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Wrocław, Poland.\n5. On 30 May 1994 the Puławy District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) detained the applicant on remand on suspicion of his having committed fraud.\n6.  The Puławy District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) upheld that decision on 10 June 1994.\n7.  Subsequently the applicant's detention was prolonged several times. He unsuccessfully appealed against those decisions.\n8.  On 3 January 1995 the Puławy District Court convicted the applicant of fraud.\n9.  On 28 April 1995 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed that judgment and remitted the case.\n10.  The applicant remained in detention throughout the subsequent proceedings.\n11.  On 1 September 1995 the Puławy District Court upheld its original judgment.\n12.  Following the applicant's further appeals, that conviction was eventually quashed by the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) on 25 April 1996.\n13.  On 7 April 1997 the applicant filed an application for compensation for wrongful conviction and unjustified detention with the Lublin Regional Court.\n14.  On 16 February 1999 the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) referred the case to the Warsaw Regional Court.\n15.  The applicant repeatedly asked both courts to fix a date for a hearing. On March 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court informed the applicant that, due to the heavy case-load and a shortage of staff in the court, it was not possible to accelerate the proceedings.\n16.  The first hearing on the merits was held on 2 December 2002. The court then adjourned the proceedings sine die.\n17.  On 23 June 2003 the court held a hearing.\n18.  The proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-860", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1935 and 1939 respectively and live in Szabadbattyán, Hungary.\n5.  In 1991 the applicants bought a flat from A.B. In the contract of sale A.B. agreed that the sum of 1,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) would be paid by the purchasers at a later date. However, the applicants refused to pay the amount, claiming that the house had turned out to be in a worse condition than they had thought at the time of the purchase and, therefore, its value was less than that agreed in the contract.\n6.  Consequently, on 13 December 1992 A.B. brought an action against the applicants before the Székesfehérvár District Court for the payment of the outstanding amount, plus interest.\n7.  On 22 June 1993 the District Court heard the plaintiff, whereas the applicants' lawyer failed to appear.\n8.  At the hearing on 16 December 1993 the plaintiff refused to give statements in the absence of her counsel. The District Court therefore ordered the lawyer to justify his absence. On 24 January 1994 the plaintiff appointed a new legal representative.\n9.  At the hearing on 8 March 1994 the plaintiff and her legal representative failed to appear. Consequently, the court stayed the proceedings. On 8 September 1994 the plaintiff requested that the case be continued.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings, on 5 December 1994 and 29 March 1995 the District Court requested further documents from the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted them on 27 March and 4 May 1995, respectively.\n11.  A hearing scheduled for 22 June 1995 was postponed on the parties' request.\n12.  On 10 October and 5 December 1995 the court heard the parties and, on the latter date, witnesses as well.\n13.  As the parties failed to appear at the hearing on 20 February 1996, while trying to settle the case, the District Court stayed the proceedings.\n14.  Having failed to settle the case, the parties requested that the proceedings be continued. In the resumed proceedings, the District Court postponed the hearing that had been scheduled for 27 June 1996, as a witness failed to appear. At the hearing on 29 October 1996 the witness, who had repeatedly failed to be present, was fined. The applicants requested that a real-estate expert be appointed in the case. They deposited the expert's costs on 3 December 1996. Consequently, on 16 December 1996 the District Court appointed an expert.\n15.  Following an on-site inspection of 1 March 1997, on 28 March 1997 the expert submitted his opinion.\n16.  In a judgment on 22 October 1997, the District Court ordered the applicants to pay the plaintiff HUF 850,000, plus interest. The court relied on the expert's opinion and testimonies given by the parties and several witnesses.\n17.  On the applicants' appeal, on 8 December 1997 the Fejér County Regional Court partially modified the first-instance judgment and reduced the court fees.\n18.  The applicants' petition for review of 21 September 1998 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18 May 2000, the final judgment having been delivered in accordance with the law.\n19.  The applicants were represented by a lawyer of their choice throughout the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-861", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Warszawa.\n5.  On 15 October 1993 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) declared that the heirs to the applicant late mother's estate were the applicant, her father, and her sister. The estate consisted of a house and a plot of land located in Warsaw.\n6.  On 14 November 1994 the applicant's sister (“the petitioner”) instituted non-contentious proceedings (postępowanie nieprocesowe) before the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Warszawie) in which she requested that the co-ownership of the house and the land be dissolved.\n7.  On 22 March 1995 the court held the first hearing.\n8.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 1 February, 7 March and 15 October 1996.\n9.  On 6 January 1997 the court, sitting in camera, decided to obtain an expert opinion. On 15 February 1997 an expert prepared the opinion. On 21 February 1997 the District Court, sitting in camera, gave a decision regarding the fee for the expert.\n10.  Between 16 October 1996 and 28 October 1997 no hearings were held.\n11.  The hearings scheduled for 29 October and 16 December 1997 were adjourned because of the absence of the petitioner.\n12.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 4 February, 19 June and 31 July 1998.\n13.  On 22 October 1998 the court ordered a second expert opinion. The opinion was submitted to the court on 20 January 1999.\n14.  Between 1 August 1998 and 15 April 1999 no hearings were held.\n15.  Hearings scheduled for 16 April, 2 June, and 9 September 1999 were adjourned because of the absence of the petitioner and expert witnesses.\n16.  On 22 November 1999 the District Court held the next hearing at which it ordered that a fourth expert opinion be prepared.\n17.  Between 23 November 1999 and 8 November 2001 no hearings were held.\n18.  Subsequently, the court held hearings on 9 November and 5 December 2001 as well as 21 February 2002.\n19.  On 24 January and 7 April 2003 the Warsaw District Court held hearings.\n20.  The proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-862", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.\n5.  On 21 February 1994 the applicant sued a certain E.K. (“the defendant”) in the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), seeking payment for works which he had carried out for her. On 17 March 1994 the applicant was partly exempted from the payment of court fees.\n6.  The first hearing was fixed for 26 January 1995, but was eventually adjourned since the defendant was ill.\n7.  On 22 February 1995 the defendant lodged a counterclaim. The trial court held hearings on: 2 March, 18 April, 6 June and 3 October 1995 and on 16 January and 16 April 1996. The court heard evidence from several witnesses and from the defendant.\n8.  On 16 April 1996 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. On 10 May 1996 the expert submitted his opinion to the court. On 24 September 1996 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from the expert. The applicant requested the court to take new expert evidence.\n9.  During the hearing held on 24 April 1997 the court heard several witnesses. The applicant asked the court to appoint another expert. On 16 June 1997 the applicant applied for an exemption from the costs involved in obtaining an expert opinion. His request was granted on 28 October 1997. On 28 October 1997 another expert submitted his opinion to the trial court.\n10.  On 17 July 1998 the applicant asked the court to set a date for a hearing. He stressed that the court had only held two hearings per year. The next hearing was fixed for 9 November 1998, but was adjourned at the parties' request.\n11.  On 16 April 1999 the applicant again asked the court to obtain new expert evidence and set a date for a hearing as soon as possible. He submitted that he had been suffering from various ailments and for that reason the court should give priority to his case.\n12.  On 8 October 1999 the court, sitting in camera, decided to obtain an opinion from another expert. On 14 December 1999 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.\n13.  On an unspecified later date the applicant complained to the Ombudsman about the length of the proceedings. On 22 October 1999 the Ombudsman informed the applicant that his complaint had been referred to the President of the Warsaw Regional Court.\n14.  During the hearing held on 15 March 2000 the court heard an expert and ordered the parties to state their position within two weeks. The applicant submitted his pleadings on 27 March 2000.\n15.  On 25 August 2000 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice, maintaining that the court was particularly slow in dealing with the case. In a letter to the applicant of 29 September 2000 the Minister of Justice conceded that the length of the proceedings was excessive.\n16.  On 11 October 2000 the Regional Court held a hearing. On 7 November 2000 the court held a viewing of the site. On 8 January 2001 and 12 March 2002 the court held further hearings.\n17.  On an unknown later date the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal gave judgments. Upon the applicant's subsequent cassation appeal, the proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-863", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant lives in Piotrków Trybunalski, Poland.\n7.  On 28 December 1993 the applicant sued the Polmozbyt State Enterprise (\"the Polmozbyt\") in the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), seeking return of payment made for an allegedly defective car.\n8.  On 21 June 1994 the court ordered an expert opinion to be obtained. It was submitted to the court on 28 September 1994.\n9.  On 18 January 1995, FSO Warszawa, the manufacturer of the car, joined the proceedings as an intervener (interwenient uboczny) on behalf of the defendant.\n10.  The court held hearings on 30 June, 9 August and 6 October 1995.\n11.  On 19 October 1995 the court ordered that another expert opinion be obtained. It was submitted to the court on 29 November 1995. On 1 March and 29 April 1996 the court held hearings.\n12.  On 2 July 1996 the court requested the laboratory of the Łódź Regional Police Headquarters (Wojewódzka Komenda Policji) to prepare an expert report in respect of the defects of the car paint. On 25 July 1996 the laboratory informed the court that it was not competent to prepare the report. On 23 December 1996 the court quashed its order of 2 July 1996. On the same date it also ordered that the report at issue be obtained from the Institute of Forensic Experts (Instytut Ekspertyz Sądowych) in Cracow. The applicant could not place his car at the disposal of the Institute because the car registration book had not been renewed due to technical defects of the car.\n13.  The court held hearings on 5 December 1997 and on 20 January, 24 February and 22 September 1999.\n14.  On 29 September 1999 the Łódź District Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim. On 16 February 2000 the applicant asked the court to grant him leave to appeal out of time. On 20 June 2000 the court refused his request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-865", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Gdynia, Poland. She is a historian by profession and used to work as a curator in the Gdynia City Museum.\n5.  On 10 September 1996 the applicant brought a private prosecution on charges of libel against S.L. the director of the Gdynia City Museum to the Gdynia District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n6.  On 24 April 1997 the court held a conciliatory hearing. The applicant requested that S.L. retract in the press her defamatory statements. The defendant refused.\n7.  The trial began on 27 May 1997 but the applicant failed to appear. The court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had been duly summoned. The court considered that the applicant had been notified about the service of the summons but failed to collect it from the post office. On 19 June 1997 the applicant appealed against this decision. On 2 September 1997 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed that decision and ordered that the District Court proceed with the case.\n8.  On 20 July 1998 the applicant filed a complaint with the District Court submitting that the length of the proceedings in her case had exceeded any reasonable time limit. On 31 July 1998 the president of the Criminal Division of the District Court informed her that the delay in the proceedings was caused by the presiding judge's illness.\n9.  On 25 October 1999 the president of the Criminal Division of the District Court ordered that the case be transferred to another judge.\n10.  The next hearing was held on 17 March 2000. On that date upon the court's order, the applicant specified the charges against S.L. Consequently, the court adjourned the hearing to consider discontinuation of the proceedings.\n11.  On 28 March 2000 the Gdynia District Court discontinued the proceedings, as the offence was time-barred. The court held that the applicant submitted her private prosecution after the time-limit of 3 months from the date on which she had become aware of the identity of the defendant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-866", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Plovdiv.\n9.  The applicant used to work as a cashier and accountant in a state‑owned company.\n10.  An audit of the company at the beginning of 1995 revealed a cash deficit of 1,290,059 old Bulgarian levs.\n11.  In February 1995 the applicant was given a copy of the audit’s final act, which contained the auditors’ opinion that, inter alia, during the period 1991‑94 she had deliberately made false entries in the accounting books and had thus misappropriated funds.\n12.  On 15 March 1995 the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office opened a preliminary investigation in respect of the applicant and three other employees of the company. It seems that the applicant became aware of the investigation soon after its opening. The case was sent for investigation to the Plovdiv Regional Investigation Service. The prosecutor in charge of the case indicated a number of specific facts which the investigator had to establish and ordered that the investigation be completed within sixty days.\n13.  On 10 August 1995 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office, noting that no investigative steps had been taken until that moment despite its instructions of 15 March 1995, directed the investigator immediately to start working on the case and finalise the investigation within sixty days.\n14.  In the following months the applicant was questioned several times. The investigation authorities also questioned a number of witnesses and gathered documents and other evidence.\n15.  On 24 October 1995 the applicant was charged under Article 203 § 1 in conjunction with Articles 202 § 1 (1) and 201 of the Criminal Code (“CC”) with particularly aggravated misappropriation of funds in particularly large amounts, the commission of which had been facilitated by other offences (making of official documents containing false information and abuse of office) carrying a lesser penalty.\n16.  On 6 November 1995 the Regional Investigation Service asked the Regional Prosecutor’s Office for a sixty‑day extension of the time‑limit for the completion of the investigation. On 14 November 1995 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office granted the extension.\n17.  On 11 January 1996 the Regional Investigation Service asked the Chief Prosecutor’s Office to extend the time-limit for the completion of the investigation with a further sixty days. It stated that all witnesses had already been questioned and a vast amount of accounting and other documents relating to the applicant’s criminal activity spanning over three years had been seized. A graphological expert report had been drawn up in respect of some of these documents. An accounting expert report was in the works, but would not be ready within the time-limit previously set for the completion of the investigation, because it required the processing of a large number of accounting documents. On 18 January 1996 the Chief Prosecutor’s Office acceded to this request.\n18.  On 25 June 1996 the investigator reformulated the charges against the applicant and notified her accordingly.\n19.  On 2 July 1996 the investigator allowed the applicant and her counsel to acquaint themselves with the case file.\n20.  A few days later the investigator concluded his work on the case and sent the file to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office with the proposal to commit the applicant for trial.\n21.  On 27 November 1997 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office found that the evidence thus far collected indicated that the misappropriation of funds allegedl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-867", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Ankara.\n10.  On 18 October 1992 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate following a search conducted in his house.\n11.  On 2 November 1992 the public prosecutor attached to the Ankara State Security Court laid charges against the applicant and six other persons for having formed an illegal organisation (“Partiye Rizgariye Kurdistan”: hereinafter “PRK”) whose aim was to undermine the territorial integrity of the State by illegal means. The applicant and his co-accused were also charged with distributing illegal leaflets and carrying identification cards and driving licences belonging to third parties.\n12.  The public prosecutor requested the court to convict the applicant and his co-accused under Article 125 of the Criminal Code with reference to Articles 171 § 1, 350 § 2 and 536 §§ 2 and 3 of the same Code as well as Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713 of 12 April 1991). The public prosecutor relied on the leaflets, the internal regulations of the PRK as well as the latter’s political programme and flag, all of which were seized during the search of the applicant’s and his co-accused’s houses.\n13.  On 7 November 1996 the Ankara State Security Court found the applicant and four of his co-accused guilty of an offence under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The search of their houses had uncovered the internal regulations of the party whose aim was to establish an independent Kurdish State on the territory of the Turkish State through dissemination of propaganda. The court also noted that the aim of the party was to set up by means of force an independent socialist and united State of Kurdistan within the territories of Iran, Iraq and Syria.\n14.  The court sentenced the applicant and four of his co-accused to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment and debarred them from public service indefinitely. The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 7 October 1997 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-868", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Sofia.\n8.  The applicant is a high‑school teacher. At about 11.45 a.m. on 2 March 1995 he went to a café with two of his work colleagues.\n9.  At about 12 noon seven or eight police officers with masks on their heads rushed into the café.\n10.  Subsequently it was established that they were officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Special Anti-Terrorism Squad („Специализиран отряд за борба с тероризма“) and the Central Service for Combating Organised Crime („Централна служба за борба с организираната престъпност“) and that they were conducting an operation for the arrest of several persons suspected of criminal offences who were apparently known to go regularly to that café.\n11.  The officers shouted “Police!” and ordered everyone in the café to lie down, put their hands up and close their eyes. The applicant asked where exactly he should put his hands. One of the officers told him that he should put his hands behind his neck. The applicant did so and lay down on the bench on which he had been sitting. He remained in this position for about two or three minutes, during which he was hit two or three times on the head with a solid object. After that he was ordered to go out of the café. The applicant asked why he had been hit, since he had done nothing to provoke this. He also said that he had difficulties moving because he was feeling a strong pain in his head and was losing blood. The police officers threatened the applicant and swore at him, using abusive language. They dragged him outside the café, hit him several times and threw him down on the ground. The applicant was hit several times in the head with the butt of a gun and received several kicks in the ribs. After that the officers ordered the applicant to produce his identity papers. He handed his wallet to an officer who checked the papers. At that point the applicant’s colleagues managed to explain that there had apparently been some kind of confusion as to the applicant’s identity and the beating stopped. The officers told the applicant that they had mistaken him for another person and apologised.\n12.  The applicant crossed the street with the help of his two colleagues and then lost consciousness. An ambulance was called which brought him to the neurosurgical ward of the Medical Academy in Sofia.\n13.  The applicant was examined by the emergency ward team. It was found that he had a cerebral trauma with an epidural haematoma in his left temporal area, cerebral contusion, polyfragmentary fracture of the left temporal bone, fracture of the ninth rib on the right side of the thorax and a subcutaneous emphysema in the right thoracic half. Six hours after his admission to hospital it was decided that urgent head surgery was needed. The applicant underwent decompressive craniotomy in the left temporal area, evacuation of the epidural haematoma and coagulation of the damaged arteria meningica media at the left side of his head.\n14.  The applicant remained in hospital until 13 March 1995.\n15.  During the following five or six months he was experiencing pain and had to be treated with analgesics and vasodilatory drugs. He was on sick leave until 27 November 1995.\n16.  The applicant was directed for another operation, which he could not afford financially.\n17.  On 10 September 1998 the competent commission for assessing disability issued a decision stating that the applicant suffered from second degree disability. The diagnosis on w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-869", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Plovdiv.\n9.  On 8 April 1993 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicant who was suspected of forgery of bank guarantees with a view to obtaining loans for himself and one of his business partners (Article 212 of the Penal Code).\n10.  On 14 July 1993 an investigator charged the applicant and ordered his detention pending trial. A prosecutor approved the detention order on an unspecified date.\n11.  Between an unspecified date in 1993 and September 1996 the applicant resided in the Netherlands. He applied unsuccessfully for asylum there. Upon his return to Bulgaria, on 11 September 1996, he was arrested and detained pending trial.\n12.  Between September 1996 and March 1997 the investigator examined documentary material, heard ten witnesses, appointed experts, examined their reports and questioned the applicant.\n13.  On 31 March 1997 the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office submitted an indictment against the applicant to the Sofia City Court.\n14.  A hearing was listed for 4 July 1997. In preparation therefor, in April and May 1997 the Sofia City Court summoned the civil plaintiff and ten witnesses and sought police assistance for the establishment of the address of one of them.\n15.  The Sofia City Court held five trial hearings.\n16.  On 4 July 1997 the Sofia City Court heard four witnesses, the applicant and two experts. Several witnesses did not appear. Both the prosecution and the applicant sought to adduce additional evidence. The hearing was adjourned until 12 September 1997.\n17.  On 12 September 1997 the court heard one witness. The remaining witnesses did not appear. The prosecution requested an adjournment as it considered important the examination of the witnesses who had not appeared. The applicant objected. The court granted the prosecutor’s request and listed the next hearing for 10 December 1997.\n18.  On that day the Sofia City Court heard one witness. The other witnesses failed to appear. The prosecutor insisted on them being heard and sought an adjournment. The applicant’s lawyers objected, stating that reading out those witnesses’ testimony given before the investigator would be sufficient. The court granted the prosecutor’s request for an adjournment and scheduled the next hearing for 26 January 1998.\n19.  On 26 January 1998 the court heard two witnesses. One witness did not appear. The applicant’s lawyers stated that they considered the examination of the remaining witness important and sought an adjournment. The court granted the request. It fixed the next hearing for 15 June 1998.\n20.  On the day of the last trial hearing, 15 June 1998, the applicant was found guilty under Articles 212 § 2 and 308 of the Penal Code and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He was acquitted on certain of the initial charges. The court reserved its reasoning.\n21.  On 25 June 1998 the applicant appealed to the Sofia Appellate Court. The prosecution also appealed.\n22.  On an unspecified date in September 1998 the Sofia City Court delivered the reasoning of its judgment of 15 June 1998.\n23.  The Sofia Appellate Court listed a hearing for 12 February 1999 which was however cancelled as the prosecution had not supplemented its appeal following the delivery of the reasoning of the first instance judgment.\n24.  The hearing took place on 28 May 1999. On the same day the Sofia Appellate Court upheld the applicant’s conviction of forgery of bank guarantees with intention to use them (Artic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-870", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1968 and at the relevant time lived in Svoboda, the region of Haskovo.\n9.  The applicant used to work in the village of Svoboda, with the Home Patronage branch of the Chirpan District Social Care Centre (Домашен социален патронаж, Общински център за социални грижи). At the relevant time, Social Care Centres were State administrative bodies funded by the State and municipal budgets.\n10.  On 3 December 1992 the applicant suffered an accident at work. Subsequently she underwent surgical operations. She was unfit for work for at least six months and continued experiencing health problems for several years thereafter.\n11.  On 20 July 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against her former employer, the local Home Patronage, claiming pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damages. A representative for Home Patronage took part in the proceedings apparently maintaining that the applicant was responsible for the accident and that the claims were excessive.\n12.  On 31 March 1995 the Chirpan District Court partially granted the applicant’s claim and awarded her 15,000 Bulgarian levs (“BGL”) in non‑pecuniary damages and BGL 4,500 in costs, plus statutory interest.\n13.  On 20 April 1995 the defendant, the Home Patronage, lodged an appeal with the Stara Zagora Regional Court.\n14.  According to the Government, on 17 July 1995 the Social Care Centre sent to the applicant a registered letter inviting her “to collect BGL 15,000” but the applicant refused receipt of the letter.\n15.  According to the applicant, as of 30 September 1995 the proceedings before the Regional Court were still pending.\n16.  On an unspecified date these proceedings ended and the District Court’s judgment became final and enforceable.\n17.  Following a conversation between the applicant and employees of the Social Care Centre, on 5 May 1996 the Social Care Centre sent to the applicant a letter inviting her “to collect BGL 15,000”.\n18.  On 9 May 1996 the applicant submitted a written request to the District Social Care Centre insisting on payment in compliance with the District Court’s judgment, including all interest and costs. She offered her calculation of the interest that had accrued since the relevant starting date, 20 July 1993, and stated that the amount due was BGL 40,620.\n19.  The applicant, who at that time lived in another town, authorised another person to receive the money.\n20.  According to “minutes”, drawn up by the accountant and two other employees of the Social Care Centre, on 15 May 1996 they withdrew BGL 15,000 from the Centre’s bank account but the applicant’s representative refused to accept the money.\n21.  On 3 June 1996 the Social Care Centre wrote to the applicant stating that they “wished to pay the damage sustained, in the amount of BGL 15,000”, and invited her to visit the Centre for that purpose on 7 June 1996. The letter also stated that the Centre was “free from any obligation to pay interest on the amount since the date of the conversation with [the applicant] held in the presence of [the Centre’s] employees”.\n22.  On 6 June 1996, upon the applicant’s request, the Chirpan District Court issued a writ of execution ordering the Home Patronage to pay to the applicant BGL 15,000 principal, BGL 4,500 in costs, and interest as from 20 July 1993.\n23.  On 6 June 1996 the applicant submitted a request to the competent enforcement judge seeking the institution of enforcement proceedings. That was refuse", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-871", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1948. He worked as chief financial expert at the Municipal Privatisation Agency in Plovdiv. In the end of 1995 the competent financial control authority commenced an audit in the course of which it was established that public funds might have been misappropriated by the applicant. He was questioned several times. On 10 May 1996 criminal proceedings were opened against him.\n9.  On 14 May 1996 the applicant was arrested and brought before an investigator who charged him and decided to remand him in custody. The detention order was approved by a prosecutor on the same day. The charges concerned misappropriation of public funds by means of several separate acts between 1994 and 1996. Charges were also brought against two other persons.\n10.  On 17 June 1996 the applicant requested the Regional Prosecutor to release him. He stated that there was no danger of him absconding, committing an offence or obstructing the course of justice as he did not have a criminal record, had a permanent address and a family and, ever since his daughter’s tragic death, had been taking care of his five years’ old grand‑daughter. The applicant’s daughter had been killed by her husband. Their child, the applicant’s granddaughter, had thus remained without parents, her father being in prison for the murder of her mother.\n11.  The request was dismissed on 21 June 1996 by the Regional Public Prosecutor who stated that the danger of absconding could not be excluded in view of the large amounts that the applicant might have misappropriated.\n12.  On 15 July 1996 the applicant appealed that decision to the Chief Public Prosecutor, adding that he had never attempted to abscond during the financial audit and had even collaborated actively and had arranged for the reimbursement of certain amounts. The applicant also stated that his health was unstable and that his wife was ill.\n13.  The appeal was dismissed by decision of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of 31 July 1996, registered on 2 August 1996. The decision stated that an exception from the mandatory detention under Article 152 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was only possible on health grounds. However, no such grounds had been established.\n14.  On 20 December 1996 the applicant appealed against his pre-trial detention. On 11 March 1997 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office confirmed the applicant’s remand in custody without giving reasons.\n15.  On an unspecified date the applicant again requested that his pre-trial detention be substituted by a more lenient measure.\n16.  On 12 May 1997 the Regional Public Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s request stating that the fact that the applicant had been taking care of his grand-daughter could not lead to the conclusion that no danger of his absconding existed. Furthermore, the medical doctors who had examined the applicant had found that he was healthy.\n17.  The applicant’s ensuing appeal of 19 May 1997, in which he submitted, inter alia, that the investigation had been unreasonably lengthy, was dismissed on 11 June 1997 by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office. The decision stated that only exceptional circumstances, excluding any hypothetical danger of absconding, reoffending or obstructing the course of justice, could warrant the applicant’s release. The applicant’s reference to the length of the investigation, to “justice” and international treaties could not be taken into consideration.\n18.  On 29 June 1997 the applicant appealed to t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-872", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant party was based in the Republic of Mordovia, a constituency of the Russian Federation.\n8.  On 15 March 1994 the applicant party was registered with the Ministry of Justice of Mordovia as a “Mordovian All-Republican Socio‑Political Association - the Presidential Party of Mordovia” (Республиканская общественно-политическая организация республики Мордовия – Президентская Партия Мордовии).\n9.  On 14 April 1995 the State Duma adopted a new Federal Law on Public Associations (Федеральный Закон «Об общественных объединениях – “the Federal Law on Associations”) which came into force on 19 May 1995. Article 52 of the Federal Law on Associations required public associations registered before 19 May 1995 to ensure that their articles of association complied with the Federal Law on Associations and to renew their registration by 1 July 1999.\n10.  On 30 June 1999 the applicant party applied to the Ministry of Justice of Mordovia to renew its registration. It presented its Articles of Association which contained the following provisions:\n“2. The party’s objectives 2.1. The party’s aims are:\n-  assisting in the formation of a free democratic society in the Republic of Mordovia and Russia;\n-  strengthening Russia’s unity;\n-  fighting against the separatism of the Republic of Mordovia;\n-  enhancing the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers;\n-  creating a strong executive power headed by the directly elected President of the Republic of Mordovia, integrated in the executive power of the Russian Federation;\n-  building a highly developed market economy;\n-  striving to achieve the individual’s social protection.\nIn order to meet these objectives the party: 2.1.1.  participates in presidential, parliamentary and local elections in the Republic of Mordovia by selecting and nominating candidates and assisting in their electoral campaigns. 2.1.2.  carries out programmes and initiatives directed at professional training, provides assistance to members of parliament and party members in the fields of economy, law, administration, mass media and the arts to support the preparation and running of electoral campaigns. 2.1.3.  develops a scheme to select a list of candidates and to establish the liability to the party of its members of parliament. 2.1.6.  assists individuals, public and private organisations, research and educational bodies in their activities concurring with the party’s aims.”\n11.  On 30 June 1999 the Minister of Justice of Mordovia refused to renew the applicant party’s registration with reference to the Federal Law on Associations and to the Law of the Republic of Mordovia on Becoming an All-Republican Public Association (Закон Республики Мордовия «О приобретении общественным объединением регионального (республиканского) статуса» - the Association Law of Mordovia). The decision stated that the applicant party had failed to create branches in more than half of the districts and cities of Mordovia to qualify for the title “All-Republican”. Furthermore, it stated that the applicant party’s Articles of Association did not comply with the requirement to include among its objectives participation in the political life of society and in elections.\n12.  On 8 July 1999 the applicant party filed its objections with the Ministry of Justice of Mordovia. It maintained that the requirement to establish branches contained in Article 21 of the Federal Law on Associations applied exclusively to international, all-Russian o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-873", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Sopot, Poland\n5.  In October 1988 the applicant lodged with the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an application for division of the matrimonial property. Her former husband, Mr R.B., whom she divorced in 1988, was a party to those proceedings. The matrimonial property consisted, inter alia, of a house in Gdańsk.\n6.  The District Court held several hearings. Some of them were adjourned because of the applicant's former husband's absence. The court ordered several expert opinions.\n7.  The hearings scheduled for 20 September and 13 October 1993 were adjourned. The applicant failed to appear at these hearings due to the illness and subsequent death of her daughter.\n8.  On 22 November 1993 the court held a hearing.\n9.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 21 February, 31 May and 29 September 1994. The court heard witnesses and imposed a fine on a witness who failed to appear before the court.\n10.  In 1995 the court held six hearings at which it heard the parties and witnesses. It further decided that a new expert opinion should be obtained.\n11.  The inspection of the property scheduled for 5 February 1996 did not take place because the applicant's former husband had refused to let her and her lawyer enter the property in question.\n12.  On 4 April 1996 the court ordered another expert report and a court‑expert inspected the property. He submitted his expert opinion to the court on 23 May 1996.\n13.  Subsequently, both parties challenged the expert opinion.\n14.  The hearings scheduled for 13 August and 13 September 1996 were adjourned upon the application of the applicant's former husband. The subsequent hearings scheduled for 25 October and 29 November 1996 were also adjourned since the expert witness had failed to appear before the court.\n15.  The court held a hearing on 7 January 1997. It heard an expert witness and ordered that a supplementary opinion be prepared.\n16.  At the hearing held on 25 March 1997 the applicant's former husband requested the court to stay the proceedings.\n17.  On 3 June 1997 the court decided to stay the proceedings since it established that the determination of the case depended on the outcome of another set of proceedings.\n18.  On 9 December 1997 the applicant applied to resume the proceedings because the reason for staying had ceased to exist as the other set of proceedings had ended with the Supreme Court's judgment of 13 August 1997.\n19.  On 16 March 1998 the Gdańsk District Court resumed the proceedings.\n20.  On 19 June and 5 November 1998 the court held hearings. Subsequently, the trial court decided to hold a view of the estate and to obtain an additional expert opinion. Two views of the property scheduled for 6 and 26 January 1999 did not take place.\n21.  Subsequently, the court held hearings on 17 January and 3 April 2000. It heard an expert witness and ordered that two new experts' opinions be prepared.\n22.  It appears that the experts refused to prepare their opinions and on 24 October 2000 the court ordered another expert to prepare an additional opinion.\n23.  On 30 May 2001 the court held the next hearing.\n24.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 11 July and 17 August 2001.\n25.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 27 February, 26 June and 27 October 2002. The trial court decided that an expert opinion should be obtained.\n26.  On 15 and 29 January 2003 the court held a hearing and heard expert witnesses.\n27.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 12 March", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-874", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 6 November 1995 the applicant, a stoker, brought an action against his employer seeking the invalidation of the termination of his employment.\n6.  The Labour Court held hearings on 17 January, 17 April and 19 June 1996. On the latter occasion, it dismissed the applicant’s action.\n7.  On appeal, on 26 March 1997 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and discontinued the proceedings, holding that the applicant’s action was time-barred.\n8.  In review proceedings, on 10 December 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, the Labour Court held hearings on 5 May, 30 June and 24 November 1998. On 26 May 1998 the court appointed a graphology expert who submitted his opinion on 24 September 1998. On the applicant’s request, a further expert was appointed who submitted his opinion on 15 February 1999. The Labour Court held hearings on 2 September and 4 November 1999, 20 January, 29 February and 6 June 2000. On 7 December 2000 the Labour Court partly admitted the applicant’s claim.\n10.  On the parties’ appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held hearings on 3 April and 22 May 2001. On the latter occasion, the Regional Court upheld the Labour Court’s decision.\n11.  On 31 August 2001 the applicant pursued a petition for review before the Supreme Court.\n12.  On 10 July 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision in essence and increased the interest rate to be applied.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-875", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a member of the Roma ethnic minority, who was born in 1943 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 3 October 1996 the applicant brought an action requesting that a flat which she had purchased from a third person, Mrs I.S., be vacated.\n6.  In the meantime, Mrs I.S. brought an action before the same court challenging the validity of the contract of sale.\n7.  On 2 April 1997 the Pest Central District Court suspended the proceedings relating to the applicant's action pending the outcome of the dispute over the validity of the contract of sale.\n8.  In the proceedings instituted by Mrs I.S., the Pest Central District Court held six hearings until 12 January 1999, when it dismissed the plaintiff's action. On 28 October 1999 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the District Court's decision and remitted the case to first instance. Following five hearings, on 6 February 2001 the District Court dismissed Mrs I.S.'s action. This judgment was finally confirmed by the Budapest Regional Court on 13 September 2001.\n9.  On the applicant's request, on 2 May 2002 the District Court held a hearing in the case concerning the evacuation of the flat in question. With an order, the court again suspended the proceedings until the applicant's ownership had been registered by the Budapest Land Registry.\n10.  The applicant appealed against this order on 15 May 2002, submitting that the original copy of the contract of sale could not be located at the Land Registry with the result that the applicant's ownership of the flat could not be registered.\n11.  On 29 May 2002 the Budapest Land Registry informed the District Court that the original copy of the contract had been sent to the District Court in the context of the case terminated on 13 September 2001. It requested the court to return the contract to it.\n12.  On 9 July 2002 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal of 15 May 2002, holding that the registration of her ownership had to be dealt with as a preliminary question.\n13.  On 4 September 2002 the Land Registry informed the applicant that the District Court had not replied to its request to date.\n14.  On 17 September 2002 the applicant also requested the District Court to return the contract in question to the Land Registry.\n15.  In February 2004 the applicant was informed that the contract in question had been found at the court. The proceedings are apparently either still suspended or pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-876", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Ołdrzychowice, Poland.\n5.  On 2 April 1985 the applicant applied to the Wrocław District Commission for Mining Damages (Okręgowa Komisja do spraw Szkód Górniczych) for compensation for damage caused to her house.\n6.  On 25 September 1985 the Commission dismissed her application.\n7.  The applicant appealed against this decision. Subsequently, on 7 July 1987 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) and on 24 August 1988 the Appellate Commission for Mining Damage (Odwoławcza Komisja do spraw Szkód Górniczych) quashed previous decisions given in the case.\n8.  On 7 April 1992 the District Commission for Mining Damage gave its decision in which it partly allowed the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed against this decision.\n9.  On 8 December 1993 the Wrocław Regional Commission held a hearing.\n10.  On 2 September 1994 a new law entered into force which provided that the civil courts would be competent to examine applications for compensation for mining damage and abolished the Commission for Mining Damage (Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994, Prawo geologiczne i górnicze).\n11.  Accordingly, the applicant’s case was transferred to the Świdnica Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).\n12.  The first hearing was held on 24 April 1995. The court ordered that an expert opinion be prepared. The opinion was submitted to the court on 26 April 1996.\n13.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 18 November 1996, 17 March and 19 September 1997, 13 February 1998 and 10 February 1999. The court ordered several new expert opinions.\n14.  On 17 February 1999 the Świdnica Regional Court gave judgment in which it dismissed the applicant’s action.\n15.  On 10 March 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.\n16.  On 11 May 1999 the Wrocław Court of Appeal quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.\n17.  On 1 October 1999 the Świdnica Regional Court held a hearing. The trial court ordered that new expert opinions be prepared. The hearing scheduled for 19 January 2000 was adjourned.\n18.  At the hearing held on 16 February 2000 the Świdnica Regional Court gave judgment. The court partly allowed the applicant’s action and granted her compensation.\n19.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.\n20.  On 31 May 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-877", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Komárom, Hungary.\n5.  On 29 April 1991 the applicant brought an action against his former spouse seeking the division of the matrimonial property.\n6.  Following three hearings, the District Court was inactive between 9June 1993 and 19 October 1995. The District Court then held four more hearings. On 13 March 1997 the defendant requested that a real-estate expert be appointed. Due to a delay in depositing the expert’s costs attributable to the parties, the expert was only appointed on 19 January 1998. Having obtained evidence from numerous witnesses as well as from a judicial real-estate expert, on 4 June 1998 the Komárom District Court ruled on the division of the property.\n7.  On 10 February 1999 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court confirmed the first-instance decision in substance.\n8.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which on 29 December 2000 upheld the Regional Court’s judgment. This decision was served on the applicant on 16 January 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-878", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Praszka.\n5.  On 28 March 1991 the applicant lodged a motion with the Oleśno District Court, claiming a division of inheritance and dissolution of co-ownership of a certain property.\n6.  The court held hearings on: 15 May 1991, 28 August 1991, 29 January 1992, 10 April 1992, 18 May 1992, 24 August 1992, 30 September 1992, 23 February 1993, 7 June 1993 and 28 March 1994.\n7.  Having regard to the lack of progress in the proceedings, and apparently aiming at obtaining possession of the property by other legal means, on 13 April 1993 the applicant lodged a motion with the Oleśno District Court, claiming acquisitive prescription of half of the property in question. By a decision of 11 May 1994 the Oleśno District Court dismissed her motion. By a decision of 27 September 1994 the Częstochowa Regional Court dismissed her further appeal and upheld the contested decision.\n8.  Further hearings in the dissolution case were held on 3 June 1998, 30 December 1999, 29 March 2000 and 23 May 2000.\n9.  The court ordered a number of expert opinions. They were submitted to the court on: 22 December 1991, 3 July 1992, 8 September 1997, 12 May 1998, 16 June 1998, 9 December 1998, 9 February 1999, 16 April 1999, 11 May 1999, 8 October 1999 and 27 November 2000.\n10.  By a decision of 10 January 2001 the Oleśno District Court stayed the proceedings due to the fact that one of the parties to the proceedings had died. By virtue of the same decision the court resumed the proceedings, having regard to his heirs' request that the proceedings be resumed.\n11.  On 3 June 2003 the Oleśno District Court gave a judgment on the merits.\n12.  On 16 December 2003 the Opole Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n13.  By a decision of 28 June 2004 the Supreme Court declined to examine the cassation appeal, considering that it had not been shown that arguable public interest grounds existed which would justify the examination of the appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-879", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Kielce, Poland.\n5.  On 8 and 9 November 1993 the national newspaper A published articles about unemployment and unfair treatment of employees by certain employers.\n6.  On 9 December 1993 the applicant lodged with the Kielce Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a civil action for protection of his personal rights (o ochronę dóbr osobistych) against the newspaper A and journalists B and C. The applicant, who at that time was the president of the “P” company and the president of the Polish Party of Unemployed, claimed that the articles included untrue information about him.\n7.  On 11 March 1994 the applicant was partly exempted from the court-fees.\n8.  On 8 June 1994 the trial court held the first hearing.\n9.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 14 November and 5 December 1994.\n10.  In 1995 the trial court held six hearings and heard several witnesses.\n11.  On 30 January, 18 April, 6 September and 3 October 1996 the court held hearings.\n12.  On 10 October 1996 the Kielce Regional Court gave judgment. It dismissed the applicant's action.\n13.  On 30 December 1996 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.\n14.  On 28 February 1997 the Kraków Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held a hearing and dismissed his appeal.\n15.  On 5 May 1997 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n16.  On 22 December 1997 the Supreme Court allowed his appeal, quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.\n17.  On 3 July 1998 the Court of Appeal held a hearing and gave judgment. It again dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n18.  On 10 December 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n19.  On 4 July 2001 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation appeal as it raised no important legal issues and was manifestly ill-founded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-880", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Dębno, Poland.\n5.  In 1989 the applicant was injured in a traffic accident. Later, a medical board assessed his disability as being of the first degree (serious) and he was granted a disability pension. The applicant also applied to PZU S.A., an insurance company, for a monthly allowance compensating him for his loss of ability to work (renta uzupełniająca). The company refused his request.\n6.  On 14 May 1991 the applicant sued PZU S.A. in the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), seeking an award of a monthly allowance. On 23 November 1992 the court partly granted his claim. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 19 May 1993 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) partly quashed the contested judgment and remitted the case.\n8.  The Regional Court held hearings on 13 January and 25 August 1994. At the hearing held on 27 October 1994 the applicant modified his claim. On 24 March 1995 the trial court asked the applicant to specify his claim. On 9 May 1995 the applicant submitted to the court his modified statement of claim.\n9.  The court held hearings on 8 June 1995, 7 December 1995 and 29 February 1996. On 5 April 1996 the court ordered an expert opinion. It was submitted to the court on 31 May 1996. On 17 July 1996 the court ordered an opinion from yet another expert. The expert submitted it to the court on 27 July 1996.\n10.  The court held a hearing on 20 February 1997. The hearing scheduled for 22 May 1997 was cancelled. On 15 December 1997 a supplementary opinion was submitted to the court.\n11.  Further hearings were held on 29 January 1998 and 20 April 1999. On 17 June 1999 yet another supplementary expert opinion was submitted to the court. On 4 November 1999 the court held a hearing.\n12.  On 18 November 1999 the Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed. On 13 June 2000 the Poznań Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment. The judgment is final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-881", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1920 and lives in Katowice, Poland.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  Since 1965, the applicant’s relatives, Z.D. and L.D, have occupied a part of the applicant’s property, with the agreement of the applicant. It appears that Z.D. and L.D. carried out construction work on the property which provoked a conflict between them and the applicant.\n7.  On 4 January 1994 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) in which he asked the court to order the eviction of Z.D. and L.D from his property.\n8.  On 31 January 1994 the trial court held a hearing at which it gave a default judgment (wyrok zaoczny). The court allowed the applicant’s action and ordered that the judgement be immediately enforceable.\n9.  The defendants lodged an objection against the judgment.\n10.  On 7 March 1994 the Katowice District Court held a hearing at which it allowed the applicant’s motions to hear witnesses and to hold a viewing of the property. Subsequently, the trial court requested a copy of the case‑file concerning another set of civil proceedings instituted by the defendants against the applicant.\n11.  On 27 April 1994 the court decided to stay the proceedings until the termination of the second set of proceedings, instituted by the defendants, in which they claimed that they had acquired the title to the property in question by prescription (stwierdzenie nabycia własności poprzez zasiedzenie).\n12.  The applicant appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings; however, on 6 July 1994 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed his appeal.\n13.  Subsequently on several occasions, the applicant applied to resume the proceedings.\n14.  In August 1994, February 1995, February, June, October and December 1996 and May 1997 the trial court requested the Second Division of the Katowice District Court to provide information concerning the state of the proceedings concerning the acquisition of property by prescription.\n15.  On 10 October 1997 the applicant applied to resume the proceedings. He submitted that the second set of proceedings for acquisitive prescription had ended on 24 September 1997 with the second‑instance court’s decision.\n16.  On 15 October 1997 the Katowice District Court allowed his application and resumed the proceedings.\n17.  At the hearing held on 9 December 1997 the defendants informed the court that the second set of proceedings was still pending because they had lodged a cassation appeal. Consequently, on 12 January 1998, the District Court again decided to stay the proceedings.\n18.  The applicant appealed against this decision, but on 23 March 1998 his appeal was rejected as he had failed to pay the fees for the appeal.\n19.  Subsequently, the applicant applied to the court to issue a writ of enforcement of the default judgment of 31 January 1994. On 22 May 1998 the Katowice District Court dismissed his application on the grounds that the proceedings were stayed.\n20.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision.\n21.  On 8 October 1998 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the decision of 22 May 1998 and remitted the application concerning the writ of enforcement for reconsideration.\n22.  On 11 January 1999 the applicant applied to resume the proceedings. He submitted that the second set of the proceedings had ended with the Supreme Court’s decision of 14 October 1998.\n23.  On 12 January 1999 the court ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-882", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Piotrków Trybunalski, Poland.\n5.  In December 1993 the applicant, at that time seventeen years old, was hit by a car driven by a certain Mr R.Z. As a consequence of the accident, his left leg had to be amputated.\n6.  On 17 June 1994 the applicant, represented by his mother, lodged with the Piotrków Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a civil action against the State Insurance Company (Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń). He claimed 800,000,000 old zlotys in compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 18 June 1994 the trial court exempted the applicant from payment of court-fees.\n8.  On 24 August 1994 the first hearing was held. The trial court requested the applicant's medical file from a hospital and ordered an expert opinion.\n9.  At the next hearing held on 1 February 1995 the court heard an expert witness and requested a second expert opinion.\n10.  Between 2 February and 21 November 1995 no hearings were held.\n11.  At the hearing held on 22 November 1995 the trial court gave the parties a time-limit for reaching a friendly settlement.\n12.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 11 March and 27 November 1996. At those hearings the court heard the applicant's mother and an expert witness.\n13.  The hearing scheduled for 26 February 1997 was cancelled due to illness of the applicant's counsel.\n14.  On 27 February 1997 the applicant modified his claim. He in addition sought a monthly allowance.\n15.  Afterwards, hearings were held on 5 March and 9 April 1997. Mr. R.Z., the driver responsible for the accident, joined the proceedings as an intervener.\n16.  Between 10 April 1997 and 10 September 1998 no hearings were held.\n17.  On 11 September and 9 October 1998 the trial court held hearings at which it heard an expert witness and the applicant.\n18.  On 2 December 1998 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court gave judgment. The trial court awarded the applicant compensation and a monthly pension.\n19.  On 28 January 1999 the defendant lodged an appeal against this judgment.\n20.  On 16 April 1999 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held a hearing and gave judgment. It amended the first-instance judgment regarding interest and ordered the applicant to reimburse the costs of the proceedings incurred by the defendant.\n21.  On 1 June 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n22.  On 23 January 2002 the Supreme Court held a hearing and gave judgment. The Supreme Court partly allowed his cassation appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-883", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Surrey. He has suffered from autism since birth. He is unable to speak and his level of understanding is limited. He is frequently agitated and has a history of self-harming behaviour. He lacks the capacity to consent or object to medical treatment. For over thirty years he was cared for in Bournewood Hospital (“the hospital”), a National Health Service Trust hospital. He was an in-patient at the Intensive Behavioural Unit (“IBU”) of the hospital from its inception in or around 1987. The applicant’s responsible medical officer (who had cared for him since 1977) was Dr M. (clinical director of learning disabilities, deputy medical director and consultant psychiatrist for psychiatry of learning disabilities).\n10.  In March 1994 he was entrusted on a trial basis to paid carers, Mr and Mrs E., with whom he successfully resided until 22 July 1997. He was not formally discharged, and the hospital remained responsible for his care and treatment. From 1995 onwards the applicant attended on a weekly basis a day-care centre run by the local authority.\n11.  On 22 July 1997 the applicant was at the day-care centre when he became particularly agitated, hitting himself on the head with his fists and banging his head against the wall. Staff could not contact Mr and Mrs E. and got in touch with a local doctor, who administered a sedative. The applicant remained agitated and, on the recommendation of the local authority care services manager (A.F.) with overall responsibility for the applicant, he was taken to the accident and emergency unit at the hospital.\n12.  At the hospital, the applicant remained agitated and anxious and was received and assessed by Dr P. (acting consultant psychiatrist – learning disabilities services) as being in need of in-patient treatment. He was transferred, with the physical support of two nursing assistants, to the hospital’s IBU. He was recorded as making no attempt to leave. Having consulted, Dr P. and Dr M. considered that the best interests of the applicant required his admission for in-patient treatment. Dr M. did consider his committal under the Mental Health Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”) but concluded that that was not necessary as the applicant was compliant and did not resist admission. The applicant was therefore admitted as an “informal patient”. Dr M. later confirmed (in her submissions in the judicial review proceedings referred to below) that, if the applicant had resisted admission, she would have detained him compulsorily under the 1983 Act as she was firmly of the view that he required in-patient treatment.\n13.  Dr M.’s personal attendance notes for that day record the reports she had received of extremely disturbed behaviour at the day-care centre on that day and previously; the suggestion by A.F. that the applicant may have been suffering from a cyclical mood disorder and the recommendation that the applicant be assessed to establish any action required; Dr M.’s detailed consultation throughout the day with the applicant’s local doctor, Dr P., A.F., ward staff and other care professionals; the conclusion that, given the escalation of behavioural problems, the applicant required readmission for “thorough investigation and treatment” but that he would not be “sectioned” as he was “quite compliant” and had “not attempted to run away”; the numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicant’s carers; and the decision to discourage visits by the applicant’s care", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-884", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Cracow, Poland.\n5.  On 5 February 1987 the applicant lodged a claim for division of her matrimonial property with the Cracow District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n6.  The court held the first hearing on 15 July 1987.\n7.  Between 1987 and 1991 the court held 14 hearings (6 in 1987, 1 in 1988, 4 in 1989, 2 in 1990 and 1 in 1991).\n8.  On 16 November 1993 and 23 September 1994 the court held hearings.\n9.  On 5 June 1995 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. The expert opinion was delivered to the court on 11 January 1996.\n10.  On 25 August 1995, 17 April, 24 June and 23 September 1997 the court held hearings.\n11.  On an unspecified date in May 1998 the court decided to obtain fresh expert evidence. The expert submitted his report to the court on 26 June 1998.\n12.  On 31 August 1998 the court held a hearing.\n13.  On 29 December 1998 the court gave judgment.\n14.  During the proceedings the composition of the court changed 9 times.\n15.  The applicant several times complained to the President of the Cracow Regional Court about the slow conduct of the proceedings. In reply, the President admitted that the proceedings were indeed too long and informed the applicant that he would supervise their further conduct.\n16.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the applicant’s husband lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment with the Cracow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n17.  On 15 February 2000 the court dismissed the appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-885", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Lublin, Poland.\n5.  On 4 January 1994 Ms A.O-K. and Ms G.T. (“the plaintiffs”) instituted civil proceedings against the applicant before the Lublin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) in which they sought a ruling on how the property co-owned by the applicant should be used by all co-owners.\n6.  On 20 May 1994 the court held the first hearing.\n7.  In November 1994 the plaintiffs modified their application and requested that co-ownership of the plot of the land and a building be dissolved (zniesienie współwłasności).\n8.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 9 December 1994, 13 and 27 January 1995.\n9.  In August 1994, the applicant lodged with the Lublin District Court a civil action for payment against Ms A.O-K. and Ms G.T. She sought reimbursement of maintenance costs in respect of the property and payment of rent for their office. On 28 November 1994 the Lublin District Court decided to join the case with the proceedings concerning the dissolution of co-ownership.\n10.  Between 28 January and 16 October 1995 no hearings were held.\n11.  At the next hearing held on 17 October 1995 the court decided to hold a view of the property.\n12.  On 8 November 1995 the judge with an expert viewed the house.\n13.  In December 1995 the parties challenged the judge. On 31 January 1996 the Lublin District Court dismissed the application. On 21 March 1996 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed their appeal.\n14.  On 26 April 1996 the applicant applied to the court for an interim ruling on her claim for payment lodged in August 1994.\n15.  In 1996 the Lublin District Court held three hearings and ordered expert opinions.\n16.  Subsequently, the court held hearings on 28 January and 25 February 1997. The court heard an expert witness and requested the third expert opinion.\n17.  Between February 1997 and February 1998 the court, sitting in camera, gave several decisions concerning expert opinions. No hearings were held.\n18.  On 19 February, 10 April, 14 May, 4 and 26 June 1998 the court held hearings at which it heard several expert witnesses.\n19.  No hearings were held between 27 June 1998 and 10 February 1999.\n20.  At the hearings held on 11 February and 25 March 1999 the court heard two expert witnesses and ordered that the sixth expert opinion be obtained.\n21.  Between 29 September 1999 and 7 January 2000 the court held four hearings at which it heard expert witnesses.\n22.  At the hearing held on 20 January 2000 the Lublin District Court gave a preliminary decision (postanowienie wstępne) and allowed Ms A.O-K. and Ms G.T. to carry out some construction work in the house.\n23.  The applicant and other co-owners appealed against this decision.\n24.  The Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) held several hearings and on 27 March 2001 it quashed the preliminary decision of the Lublin District Court.\n25.  In 2000 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice about the length of the proceedings.\n26.  On 31 August and 10 December 2001 the trial court held hearings.\n27.  In 2002 the Lublin District Court held seven hearings and on 10 October 2002 it gave decision and dissolved the co‑ownership of the building.\n28.  Both parties lodged appeals against this decision.\n29.  On 6 March 2003 the Lublin Regional Court held a hearing.\n30.  At the subsequent hearing held on 9 April 2003 the parties concluded a friendly settlement. Subsequently, the Lublin Regional Court discontinued the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-886", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  In the context of an inheritance dispute, two civil proceedings were brought against the applicant.\n6.  On 2 July 1990 Mr J.F.J. brought an action against the applicant before the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court challenging her status as an heiress. On 10 November 1993 the District Court dismissed the action.\n7.  On 12 July 1990 Mrs T.K. brought another action against Mr J.F.J., Mr F.J. and the applicant before the Pest Central District Court.\n8.  On 4 September 1990 the District Court held a hearing and requested the parties to submit motions.\n9.  On 26 October and 12 December 1990 the District Court held hearings. At the hearings some of the parties did not appear since the District Court had failed to summon them in accordance with the procedural rules. A hearing scheduled for 8 February 1991 was re-scheduled.\n10.  On 10 April and 20 June 1991 the District Court held hearings. On the latter date it stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings before the XVIII/XIX District Court. In the latter proceedings, on 24 November 1992 the court held a hearing. On 27 May 1993 the District Court appointed an expert. On 10 November 1993 the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The judgment became final on 15 April 1994.\n11.  At the plaintiff's request, on 13 October 1994 the Pest Central District Court resumed its proceedings. Subsequently, another judge was appointed to hear the case.\n12.  On 24 January 1995 the District Court held a hearing. At the hearing the plaintiff withdrew her action in respect of Mr J.F.J. and Mr F.J.\n13.  On 18 May 1995 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of Mr J.F.J. and Mr F.J. and ordered the applicant to submit further documents.\n14.  On 26 October 1995 the District Court delivered a judgment and partly admitted the plaintiff's claims. The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 20 June 1996 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and delivered a judgment which was pronounced on 27 June 1996. It partly quashed the District Court's decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n16.  In the resumed proceedings, on 30 January, 28 February, 24 June and 18 November 1997, the District Court held hearings.\nSubsequently, another judge was appointed to hear the case. On 30 January 1998 the District Court heard three witnesses.\n17.  On 22 July 1998 the District Court appointed a real-estate expert.\nSubsequently, yet another judge was appointed to hear the case. On 23 June 1999 the District Court held a hearing.\n18.  On 1 July 1999 the District Court delivered a judgment. The applicant appealed.\nIn the appeal proceedings, the hearings scheduled for 10 February and 6 July 2000 were re-scheduled due to the illness of one of the judges.\n19.  On 16 May and 26 October 2000 the Regional Court held hearings. On the latter date it delivered a judgment which was pronounced on 2 November 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-888", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Vienna.\nProceedings concerning the division of the matrimonial property and savings (the first round)\n5.  On 4 December 1987 the applicant’s former husband A., and on 15 December 1987 the applicant herself, requested the division of the matrimonial property and savings (Aufteilung des ehelichen Gebrauchsvermögens und der ehelichen Ersparnisse) following their divorce.\n6.  On 13 March 1989 the Döbling District Court (Bezirksgericht), after having held seven hearings, divided the matrimonial property. It decided, inter alia, to transfer A.’s title concerning the land and the house to the applicant, who was ordered to pay to A. the sum of 2,876,000 Austrian Schilling (ATS) by way of compensation. The applicant and A. appealed against this decision.\n7.  On 31 August 1989 the Vienna Regional Civil Court (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen) allowed the appeals due to procedural deficiencies and remitted the case to the District Court. Both parties filed an appeal on points of law (Revisionsrekurs) against this decision.\n8.  On 29 January 1991 the Supreme Court dismissed these appeals.\nThe second round of the proceedings\n9.  Subsequently, due to the District Court’s rule concerning the distribution of cases (Geschäftsverteilung), another judge was assigned who held three more hearings, heard additional witnesses in order to assess the applicant’s contribution to the matrimonial property and obtained an expert opinion concerning the value of the property at issue.\n10.  On 24 July 1991 the District Court divided the matrimonial property. It decided, inter alia, to transfer the applicant’s title concerning the land and the house to A., who was ordered to pay the applicant the sum of ATS 3,358,200 by way of compensation. Both parties appealed.\n11.  On 18 March 1992 the Regional Civil Court allowed the appeals and remitted the case to the District Court. It found that the District Court had failed to consider the applicant’s observations on the expert opinion.\nThe third round of the proceedings\n12.  On 23 October 1992 the District Court, after having held two hearings on 19 May and 22 July 1992, took a partial decision and decided, inter alia, to transfer the applicant’s title concerning the land and the house to A., who was ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of ATS 4,000,000 by way of compensation. As regards the applicant’s additional claim for compensation for her contribution to A.’s business, it decided to suspend the proceedings as tax assessment proceedings against A. were pending. The outcome of the tax assessment had to be taken into account in the instant proceedings. The applicant and A. again appealed.\n13.  On 10 March 1993 the Regional Civil Court allowed the appeals and remitted the case to the District Court. It found that the District Court had failed to calculate properly the value of the house.\nThe fourth round of the proceedings\n14.  Subsequently, the case was assigned to another judge due to the court’s rule concerning the distribution of cases. On 16 July, 13 September, 14 October, 3 and 17 November 1993, A. requested extensions of time-limits for the submission of documents or comments, respectively.\n15.  On 27 September 1993 and 19 January 1994 the District Court held another two hearings.\n16.  On 21 July 1994 the applicant filed a request for the acceleration of the proceedings under Section 91 of the Austrian Court Act (Fristsetzungsantrag). In particular she requested t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-889", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1975 and 1970 respectively.\n5.  On 19 and 20 August 1995 respectively the applicants were taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Aydın Security Directorate on suspicion of their membership to an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP/C.\n6.  In their police statements the applicants accepted the accusations against them.\n7.  On 22 August 1995 the applicants were brought before the investigating judge at the Aydın Magistrate’s Court, where they repeated the statements they had made to the police. The investigating judge ordered that they be placed in detention on remand.\n8.  In an indictment dated 6 September 1995, the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants. He charged the first applicant with being member of an armed gang under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and the second applicant with aiding and abetting an armed gang under Article 169 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  During the hearings before the Izmir State Security Court, the applicants denied the statements they had made to the police and the investigating judge.\n10.  On 25 March 1997 the Izmir State Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced the first applicant to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and the second applicant to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. Neither the applicants nor their lawyers were present in this last hearing.\n11.  The applicants appealed. On 12 November 1997 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal, upholding the Izmir State Security Court’s reasoning and assessment of evidence. The decision, which was pronounced in the absence of the applicants and their lawyers, was deposited with the Registry of the Izmir State Security Court on 21 November 1997.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-890", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 29 April 1994 Vatan was registered as a political party with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation.\n9.  According to Vatan’s constitutional charter, it was founded “to support the renascence of the Tartar nation, to enhance the latter’s  political activity and to protect Tartars’ political, socio-economic and cultural rights”. The name “Tartar” applies to the peoples of Turkic origin who speak a language which belongs to the Ural-Altaic language family. Four-fifths of the Tartars (about 5.5 million people) live in the Russian Federation: the majority live in the Republic of Tatarstan and the Republic of Bashkortostan, and the rest are dispersed across the Ural Mountains and in the Volga region. The Tartars are Muslims.\n10.  On 12 August 1994 the Simbirsk (Ulyanovsk) Regional Organisation of the People’s Democratic Party Vatan (“the Regional Organisation”) was registered with the Ulyanovsk Regional Department of Justice. Vatan claims that this was a branch of its party.\n11.  On 12 October 1997 the Regional Organisation made an appeal (“the appeal”) to the “peoples of the Volga region, to all oppressed peoples of the empire, to the Ulyanovsk Regional and City authorities, to historians, students of local lore, archaeologists and scientists”, entitled “Prevention and cancellation of the forthcoming witches’ Sabbath arranged by reactionary forces – ‘the war party’- the so-called ‘350th anniversary of the founding of the town of Simbirsk’ which is in fact an approximate date of the colonisation of Shekhry Sember”.\n12.  The appeal contained, inter alia, the following statements:\n“To the indigenous population of the Volga Region: tartars, chuvash, erzya, moksha, mari, bashkir. 1.  Never allow desecration or mockery of the memory of your ancestors; do not allow the reactionary Nazi forces to celebrate the date of colonisation of Sember. Shekhry Sember is a thousand-year-old town of your glorious ancestors. In the town centre, on Simbirskaya Hill and in the outskirts lie their graves – do not allow them to be defiled. Be prepared for the anniversary of the colonisation of Shekhry Sember. On the ancestors’ Memorial Day, 31 May 1998 at 9 a.m., all come out to our sacred Sember Hill – to the ancestors’ graves – between the Memorial and Lenin square. A trip to the ancestors’ graves and the ruins of the Shekhry Kalman will also be on offer  and everyone who wishes will have an opportunity to turn to Islam. Let us stand up for the honour and dignity of our peoples. Let us celebrate the 1350th Anniversary of Shekhry Sember in a dignified manner, inshallah. Strive for decolonisation of the peoples who are prisoners of Moscow-Shaitan Kala, the Russian empire. 2.  Who knows how much loss, humiliation, suffering, deprivation and sacrifice our peoples have endured: racial discrimination, employment discrimination, the ban on education in our native language, forced service in the occupiers’ army? 3.  Strive for legitimisation of indigenous languages. Strive for the holding of fair municipal elections on the basis of national communities. Strive for education for every child in the national language from primary level to higher education. Strive for satellite channels broadcasting from Kazan, Ufa, Cheboksary, Saransk, Yoshkar-Ola, Tashkent, Bishkek, Alma-Aty, Ankara, Istanbul, Teheran, Riyadh and Mecca. 4.  Indigenous peoples idel-uras-seber-krym iort, and in particular semberile and even American Indians – you are the heirs of the great I", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-891", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Reykjavik.\nIn 1969, at the age of 20, the applicant completed his training as a navigation officer at the Icelandic College of Navigation and started work as a seaman. This he continued to do until 1978, when he sustained a serious work accident on board a trawler. His right leg was struck by a 200 kg stone object, causing a compound fracture of his ankle. As a result, he had to give up work as a seaman. His disability was assessed at 100%, which made him eligible for a disability pension from the Seamen’s Pension Fund (“the Pension Fund”), to which he paid premiums intermittently from 1969 until 1981. The assessment was made on the basis of the criteria that applied under section 13(1) and (4) of the Seamen’s Pension Fund Act (Law no. 49/1974 – “the 1974 Act”), notably that the claimant was unable to carry out the work he had performed before his disability, that his participation in the Fund had been intended to insure against this contingency, and that he had a sustained loss of fitness for work (of 35% or more).\nThe applicant underwent regular disability assessments by a physician accredited by the Pension Fund and was each time assessed as 100% disabled in relation to his previous job.\n9.  After his accident the applicant joined a transport company, Samskip Ltd, as an office assistant, and is still employed there as head of the claims department.\n10.  In 1992 the 1974 Act was amended by sections 5 and 8 of Law no. 44/1992 (“the 1992 Act”), which considerably altered the basis for the assessment of disability in that the assessment was to be based not on the Pension Fund beneficiaries’ inability to perform the same work but work in general. The new provisions had been enacted on the initiative of the Pension Fund and in view of the Fund’s financial difficulties (according to an audit, at the beginning of 1990 the Pension Fund had a deficit of at least 20,000,000,000 Icelandic krónur (ISK)). The Pension Fund applied the new provisions not only to persons who had claimed a disability pension after the date of their entry into force but also to persons who were already in receipt of a disability pension before that date.\n11.  Under an interim provision in section 5, the above change to the reference criteria was not to apply for the first five years after the commencement of the 1992 Act to a person who, before its entry into force, was already receiving a disability pension.\n12.  Under the new rules, a fresh assessment of the applicant’s disability was carried out by an officially accredited Pension Fund physician, who concluded that the applicant’s loss of capacity for work in general was 25%, and thus did not reach the minimum level of 35%. As a result, from 1 July 1997 onwards the Pension Fund stopped paying the applicant the disability pension and related child benefits he had been receiving for nearly twenty years since the accident in 1978.\n13.  According to information obtained by the Government from the Pension Fund and submitted to the Court, the applicant had been one of 336 Fund members who were receiving disability pensions in June 1992 under the interim provision in section 5 of the 1992 Act (see paragraph 21 below). On 1 July 1997 the total number of disability pension recipients was 689. This included Fund members who had not become entitled to a disability pension until after the commencement of the 1992 Act in June 1992. The cases of the aforementioned 336 persons receiv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-892", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Milan.\n5.  He is the owner of a flat in Milan, which he had let to G.R. and R.M.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenants on 8 February 1983, the applicant informed them of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned them to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 8 March 1983, which was made enforceable on 8 May 1983, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 July 1984.\n8.  On 14 January 1985, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.\n9.  On 8 February 1986, he informed the tenants that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 February 1986.\n10.  Between 25 February 1986 and 1 July 1999, the bailiff made fifty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n11.  On 28 July 1999, the applicant sold the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-894", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, who was born in 1971, lives in Ankara.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 12 November 1991 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody by police officers from the Ankara Security Directorate on suspicion of his involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation, namely the TDKP/GKB (Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party / Young Communist Union).\n7.  On 19 November 1991 the applicant gave a statement to the police, allegedly under duress and confessed that he had been involved in certain illegal activities organised by the TDKP/GKB.\n8.  On 25 November 1991 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court questioned the applicant in relation to his involvement in the TDKP/GKB. The applicant denied the content of his written statement of 19 November 1991 and alleged that it had been taken under duress.\n9.  On 26 November 1991 the applicant was brought before a single judge of the Ankara State Security Court, who after taking his statement ordered his release.\n10.  On 30 December 1991 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicant and fourteen other defendants, accusing them of membership of an illegal organisation. The prosecution requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced pursuant to Article 7 § 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.\n11.  On 13 April 1993 the Ankara State Security Court, composed of three judges including a military judge, convicted the applicant as charged. The court held that there was sufficient and satisfactory evidence to disclose that he had committed the alleged offences. It accordingly sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. Both the applicant and the public prosecutor appealed.\n12.  On 8 February 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court on the ground that the applicant should have been convicted under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code on account of his membership to an illegal organisation.\n13.  On 16 March 1994 the Ankara State Security Court, to which the case had been remitted, held its first hearing and asked the accused persons to submit their final observations. On 27 May 1994 the applicant submitted his final observations and denied the charges against him. The court held thirty-three more hearings after this date, in search of one of the accused persons, who was on the run.\n14.  On 27 November 1997 the Ankara State Security Court applied the decision of the Court of Cassation and sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code\n15.  On 17 September 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request for appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-895", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1980, 1977, 1979 and 1979 respectively.\n5.  On 27 and 28 April 1998 respectively the applicants were taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Ankara Security Directorate.\n6.  On 7 May 1996 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court and subsequently before the investigating judge. After taking their statements, the investigating judge ordered that the applicants be placed in detention on remand.\n7.  In an indictment dated 23 May 1996, the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants and accused them of being members of an illegal armed organisation, namely the TIKP (the Revolutionary Communists’ Union of Turkey). The applicants were further accused of carrying out activities on behalf of the TIKB, such as taking part in demonstrations on 1 May and 8 March (Women’s Day) during which they had chanted slogans and distributed TIKB leaflets. The public prosecutor asked the court to convict the applicants pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  On 9 October 1996 the Ankara State Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, held that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicants were members of the TIKP, but found them guilty under Article 169 of the Criminal Code for aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. The first, second and third applicants were sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment, while the second applicant was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.\n9.  The applicants appealed. The chief public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his opinion on the merits of the appeal on 24 December 1997. This opinion was not served on the applicants, but read out during the hearing which took place on 18 March 1998.\n10.  On 20 May 1998 the Court of Cassation, upholding the Ankara State Security Court’s reasoning and assessment of evidence, dismissed the applicants’ request for appeal. The decision was pronounced on 10 June 1998.\n11.  The applicants’ request for rectification was further rejected on 30 June 1998.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-896", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Ms Efrosini Yorgiyadis, was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 25 October 1982 by signing a contract of adoption before a notary public in Bakırköy, Semiramis Gradlekova adopted the applicant. Semiramis Gradlekova died on 18 November 1982. The applicant was left as the only legal heir to her property.\n6.  On 17 May 1983 the Treasury filed an action with the Şişli First Instance Court in Civil Matters requesting the annulment of the above-mentioned contract of adoption. The Treasury alleged that the contract did not comply with the necessary requirements and was not therefore a valid contract of adoption. They requested that Mrs Gradlekova's property be transferred to the State.\n7.  On 3 August 1983 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Bakırköy Assize Court accusing the applicant and four other persons of fraudulent misrepresentation and forgery.\n8.  On 10 October 1983 experts in handwriting analysis produced a report in which they concluded that the signature of Semiramis Gradlekova appearing on the contract of adoption was authentic. The applicant submitted this report to the Şişli First Instance Court in Civil Matters. The court requested the opinion of another group of experts. On 27 November 1985 the second group of experts confirmed the findings contained in the first report.\n9.  On 17 December 1986 the Şişli First Instance Court in Civil Matters held that the contract satisfied the necessary requirements of a valid contract of adoption and rejected the Treasury's claims.\n10.  The Treasury appealed. On 20 December 1987 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Şişli First Instance Court. It held that the first-instance court should have adjourned the examination of the case pending the decision of the Bakırköy Assize Court in the criminal proceedings. The applicant requested rectification of the Court of Cassation's ruling. On 17 October 1988 the Court of Cassation rejected her request.\n11.  On 21 April 1989 the Şişli First Instance Court in Civil Matters decided not to follow the decision of the Court of Cassation. The Treasury lodged an appeal with the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Genel Kurulu), which quashed the decision of the Şişli First Instance Court in Civil Matters on 21 February 1990.\n12.  On 4 February 1991, at the request of the Bakırköy Assize Court, the Forensic Medicine Institute drew up a report which concluded that the signature of Semiramis Gradlekova on the contract of adoption was authentic. However, in a further report dated 28 August 1991 the Forensic Medicine Institute noted that its examination of 4 February 1991 had been based on a comparison between the signature of Semiramis Gradlekova on the contract of adoption and her signature on documents submitted in furtherance of her request for permission to draw up and conclude a contract of adoption. The examination of other materials bearing the signature of Semiramis Gradlekova revealed in fact that the signature on the contract of adoption was not her signature.\n13.  On 13 May 1992 five experts from the Forensic Medicine Institute prepared another report. According to the experts, the signature of Semiramis Gradlekova on the contract of adoption was not authentic.\n14.  The applicant sought the opinion of another group of handwriting experts. On 20 May 1993 the experts, a graphologist and two professors, finalised their analysis and drafted a report. According to the experts, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-897", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant was born in 1942 and the second applicant was born in 1944. They both live in Wrocław, Poland.\n8.  On 19 May 1994 the applicants, employees of the Wrocław Technical University (Politechnika Wrocławska) and members of a trade union, were informed by their employer that as from 1 September 1994 their employment contracts would be modified and that they would be transferred.\n9.  On 24 May 1994 the applicants sued the Wrocław Technical University in the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), seeking the annulment of the employer's decisions. The court joined their actions.\n10.  As a result of the applicants' refusal to accept the proposed changes to their employment contracts, they were dismissed from their jobs with effect from 31 August 1994. Subsequently, the applicants modified their claims and filed actions for reinstatement with the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court.\n11.  On 15 September 1994 the court held a first hearing in the case. It imposed a fine on the defendant for having failed to appear before the court. The court held hearings on 20 October and 6 December 1994, and 10 January 1995. The hearing listed for 27 January 1995 was cancelled because the judge rapporteur was ill.\n12.  On 24 February 1995 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from the parties and witnesses. On 10 March 1995 the second applicant asked the court not to fix hearings on Wednesdays and Fridays, since she would not be able to appear before the court. At the hearing held on 1 June 1995 the court heard evidence from other witnesses. On 16 June 1995 the court ordered that the case file be obtained from the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy).\n13.  On 6 July, 28 September and 7 December 1995, and 5 January 1996 the court held hearings.\n14.  On 16 January 1996 the District Court gave judgment. The applicants appealed.\n15.  On 16 April 1996 the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) held a hearing. On 30 April 1996 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n16.  The hearing before the District Court listed for 31 July 1996 was adjourned because the defendant's lawyer had failed to appear before the court. On 4 October 1996 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from a witness. The hearing listed for 5 December 1996 was adjourned because a witness had not appeared before it.\n17.  On 7 February 1997 the District Court gave judgment and ordered that the applicants be reinstated. The defendant appealed.\n18.  On 27 January and 28 April 1998 the Wrocław Regional Court held hearings. On 9 July 1998 the court ordered the defendant's lawyer to produce certain documentary evidence.\n19.  On 17 September 1998 the court adjourned a hearing because a summoned witness had not appeared before the court. On 26 November 1998 the court held a hearing and heard a witness.\n20.  On 10 December 1998 the Regional Court gave judgment. It set aside the first-instance judgment in respect of the applicants' reinstatement and awarded them compensation for unlawful dismissal.\n21.  The applicants lodged their cassation appeals with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). On 15 October 1999 the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Regional Court and remitted the case.\n22.  On 9 May and 5 September 2000 the court held hearings. At the hearing held on 28 November 2000 the applicants challenged two judges of the Regional Court. On 12 December 2000 the court dismissed their request as u", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-899", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest, Hungary.\n7.  The applicant used to work in the Budapest office of the company “Ars Antiqua Restauro” (“A.A.R.”) registered in Poland. On 17 May 1995 he was dismissed from his job. On 27 May 1995 he lodged a claim for reinstatement with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n8.  The court held hearings on 27 July and 5 December 1995. On 1 February 1996 the applicant asked the court to issue an interim order to safeguard his claim in the proceedings. On 2 April 1996 the court refused his request. On 14 May 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed the applicant's appeal against that decision.\n9.  On 2 April 1996 the court held a hearing. At the next hearing held on 23 July 1996 the applicant modified his claim. As a consequence, the case was transferred to the Regional Court.\n10.  The court held further hearings on 5 November and 17 December 1996. It also decided that two witnesses should be heard by two other courts. The witnesses were heard by the Cracow District Court and the Wrocław District Court on 30 June and 3 September 1997, respectively. On 26 November 1997 and 20 January 1998 the Regional Court held hearings. The hearing listed for 2 February 1998 was cancelled.\n11.  At the hearing held on 7 April 1998 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to specify his claim. On 27 April 1998 the applicant modified his claim.\n12.  On 27 May 1998 the court stayed the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had not complied with the order of 7 April 1998.\n13.  Upon the applicant's appeal, on 9 July 1998 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the decision of 27 May 1998.\n14.  On 30 March 1999 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to specify his claim. On 4 April 1999 he submitted his pleading to the court.\n15.  On 1 June 1999 the court held a hearing.\n16.  On 9 November 1999 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings because the president of the defendant company, who was its representative, had died. Upon the applicant's appeal the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed that decision on 28 December 1999.\n17.  On 27 September 2000 the court again stayed the proceedings, since the defendant company had not yet appointed a new representative. That decision was set aside by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 21 November 2000.\n18.  On 15 February 2001, for the third time, the Regional Court stayed the proceedings. On 26 May 2001 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n19.  On 27 August 2001 the applicant's lawyer asked the trial court to appoint a guardian to act on behalf of the “A.A.R.“\n20.  On 4 December 2002 the Warsaw District Court appointed a guardian. The proceedings were resumed at a later unknown date.\n21.  On 11 February 2003 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.\n22.  On 3 December 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment.\n23.  The applicant filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. It appears that the cassation proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-900", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Lublin, Poland.\n8.  The applicant underwent a heart operation in the Child Health Centre Hospital (Centrum Zdrowia Dziecka) in Warsaw-Międzylesie from 11 April to 27 May 1988. In May and June 1995 the applicant had been diagnosed with jaundice, which he considered to be a result of medical negligence.\n9.  On 10 September 1996 the applicant's mother filed an action for damages on his behalf with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) against the Child Health Centre Hospital. The applicant claimed that he had contracted jaundice during his stay in the hospital in 1988. In addition, he claimed that as a result of medical negligence he suffered from complications, including heart arrhythmia.\n10.  In March 1997 the defendant's counsel submitted his pleadings to the court. On 1 June 1997 the applicant's mother asked the court to adjourn the hearing until 30 June 1997 so that she would have sufficient time to prepare a reply to the defendant's submissions.\n11.  The first hearing was held on 20 November 1997. On 11 December 1997 the applicant submitted his pleadings to the court.\n12.  On 7 September 1998 the applicant asked to be granted legal aid. On 8 September 1998 the court granted his request and decided that the Warsaw Regional Bar would designate a lawyer for him.\n13.  On 29 September 1998 the applicant increased his claim.\n14.  The hearing listed for 5 October 1998 was adjourned at the request of the applicant's mother, since the Warsaw Regional Bar had not complied with the court's decision of 8 September 1998. The court again requested the Warsaw Regional Bar to designate a lawyer for the applicant.\n15.  On 16 December 1998 the court held a hearing. The applicant's counsel asked the court to order an expert opinion. On 11 February 1999 the court ordered an expert opinion from a panel of doctors (a cardiologist and an epidemiologist). On 24 March and 16 April 1999 respectively, the experts submitted their opinions to the court. On 15 May 1999 the applicant challenged both reports.\n16.  In her pleadings of 16 December 1999, the defendant's counsel argued that the Child Health Centre Hospital could not be a defendant in the case because it did not have standing in the proceedings and that the proper defendant should be the Minister of Health (Minister Zdrowia).\n17.  On 13 March 2000 the court held a hearing. On 24 March 2000 the court summoned the Minister of Health (representing the State Treasury) to join the proceedings as a defendant. On 9 October 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court changed its decision of 24 March 2000 and summoned the Governor of Mazowsze as a defendant.\n18.  On 18 April 2001 the Regional Court ordered yet another expert to prepare an opinion. On 11 February 2002 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.\n19.  On 6 January 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court gave partial judgment. The defendant lodged an appeal with the Warsaw Court of Appeal.\n20.  On 23 June 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. The proceedings are pending before the Warsaw Regional Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-901", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Vienna.\n5.  On 19 July 2000 the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) convicted the first applicant under section 209 of the Criminal Code of having committed homosexual acts with an adolescent and sentenced him to a fine of ATS 4,500 (approximately EUR 330) with 75 days’ imprisonment in default. The sentence was suspended on probation. The Regional Court found that, in September 1999, the first applicant, who was then twenty years old, had had about ten homosexual contacts with a sixteen-year-old. In determining the sentence the court had regard to the applicant’s confession and his young age as a mitigating circumstance, as well as to the repetition of the offence as an aggravating circumstance.\n6.  On 13 November 2000 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the first applicant’s appeal on points of law, in which he had complained that section 209 of the Criminal Code was discriminatory and violated his right to respect for his private life, and in which he had also suggested that the Court of Appeal request the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of that provision.\n7.  The second applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Traiskirchen.\n8.  On 7 August 2001 the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court ordered the second applicant’s detention on remand on suspicion of having committed homosexual acts with an adolescent contrary to section 209 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 24 August 2001 the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court convicted the second applicant under section 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to fifteen months’ imprisonment, fourteen of which were suspended on probation. It found that, from March 2001 until his arrest, the second applicant had a homosexual relationship with a seventeen-year-old. In determining the sentence the court had regard to the applicant’s confession as a mitigating circumstance, as well as to the repetition of the offence and a previous conviction as aggravating circumstances.\n10.  On 7 September 2001 the second applicant was released from detention on remand.\n11.  On 23 October 2001 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the second applicant’s appeal on points of law, in which he had complained that section 209 of the Criminal Code was discriminatory and violated his right to respect for his private life, and in which he had also suggested that the Court of Appeal request the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of that provision. Upon the Public Prosecutor’s appeal it changed the sentence to the effect that only ten out of fifteen months of imprisonment were suspended on probation.\n12.  Subsequently the second applicant was granted a stay of the execution of his sentence. On 7 July 2002 he requested a pardon and a further stay of execution pending the decision on his request for pardon. On 11 July 2002 the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court granted a further stay of execution.\n13.  On 23 September 2002 the Federal President, upon the second applicant’s request, granted him a remission of the remaining sentence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-902", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1960 and 1982, respectively and live in Ivanovac, Croatia.\n7.  On 20 November 1991 a member of the Croatian Army allegedly shot at the second applicant and killed his father and grandfather. The first applicant is the second applicant’s mother.\n8.  On 19 February 1996 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Osijek Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Osijeku) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 112/1999), the Osijek Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 13 November 2000.\n10.  The proceedings resumed on 1 September 2003 pursuant to the “Damage Caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti Republike Hrvatske za štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika Hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata, Official Gazette no. 117/2003).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-903", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1956 and currently lives in Diyarbakır. He was a shopkeeper at the time of the events giving rise to the application as well as the president of the Van branch of the Human Rights Association and a member of the Association’s National Management Committee.\n10.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and set out in the Court’s admissibility decision of 3 February 2000, were disputed. They may be summarised as follows.\nThe applicant\n11.  On 21 March 1992, during the Newroz Festival, incidents occurred in Van which eventually led to a curfew being imposed. The applicant alleges that he was severely beaten outside the building of the People’s Labour Party (“HEP”) by police officers. He spent nine days in hospital. Following his discharge from hospital, he was charged with public order offences and detained on remand. He was eventually acquitted for lack of evidence.\n12.  Also on 21 March 1992, the applicant’s shop was raided, the only shop out of 22 on the same floor to be raided. Goods and equipment in the shop were damaged or stolen. His subsequent claim for compensation was rejected by the Van Administrative Court.\n13.  On 30 August 1992 the applicant’s car was damaged while parked opposite his house in Van. Between 5 November 1993 and 13 January 1994 he was taken into custody on three separate occasions. According to the applicant, he and his family received threatening and abusive telephone calls, sometimes three a day, ordering him to leave Van or be killed.\n14.  On 11 February 1994 the applicant was attacked by two men who followed him on his way to a meeting at a friend’s office. When he recovered consciousness, he found himself in a lift-shaft. He sustained serious injuries. According to the applicant, the police did not follow-up this incident. After his discharge from hospital, the applicant received telephone calls warning him that he would not escape the next time.\nThe Government\n15.  The Government maintained that there were illegal demonstrations, violence and looting in Van on 21 March 1992. The applicant was injured by stone-throwing demonstrators when he emerged from the HEP building where he had taken shelter. He was rescued from the crowd by the police and taken to hospital. He was later charged with, inter alia, organising the illegal demonstration and eventually acquitted.\n16.  As to the lift-shaft incident of 11 February 1994, the Government stated that the police questioned the applicant on two occasions in connection with the incident, but he refused to provide them with any information. Accordingly, the police were unable to make any progress in their investigation.\n17.  The Government denied that the applicant had ever been subject to arbitrary arrest. They refuted his claims that the authorities had been involved, either directly or indirectly, in any of the various incidents described by him and maintained that he had failed to exhaust domestic remedies in connection with his allegations.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-904", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants live in Zagreb.\n7.  On 28 March 1992 the applicants’ weekend house in Sesvete, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 9 March 1995 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for their damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 5 April 1996.\n10.  The proceedings resumed on 20 November 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-905", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Krems-Egelsee.\n5.  On 30 January 1996 the Krems Municipal Council (Magistrat) asked the applicant to comment on the charge against her as she was suspected of illegal parking.\n6.  On 22 February 1996 the applicant, who was assisted by counsel, submitted her comments.\n7.  On 8 November 1996 the applicant filed a request to consult inter alia the ordinance upon which the charge was based.\n8.  On 20 February 1997 the applicant submitted further comments.\n9.  On 5 March 1997 the Municipal Council issued a penal order (Straferkenntnis) against the applicant finding her guilty of illegal parking and imposing a fine of 1,000 Austrian schillings (approximately 70 euros) with sixty hours’ imprisonment in default on her.\n10.  On 2 April 1997 the applicant appealed against this decision. On 7 May 1998 the applicant filed further comments.\n11.  On 16 June 1998 the Lower Austria Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n12.  On 2 July 1998 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court.\n13.  On 29 September 1998 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint for lack of prospects of success.\n14.  On 12 January 1999 the Constitutional Court, upon the applicant’s request of 22 December 1998, remitted the case to the Administrative Court.\nOn 10 February 1999 the applicant supplemented her complaint with the Administrative Court. On 19 April 1999 the Independent Administrative Panel submitted its comments.\n15.  On 25 January 2002 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as being unfounded. This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 20 February 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-906", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Hanau, Germany.\n7.  On 14 June 1992 the applicant’s house in Čepin, Croatia, was set ablaze by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 21 June 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 21 October 1998.\n10.  On 17 July 2003 the relevant authorities granted the applicant reconstruction assistance pursuant to the Reconstruction Act (Zakon o obnovi, Official Gazette nos. 24/1996, 54/1996, 87/1996 and 57/2000).\n11.  On an uncertain date the proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court resumed pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003).\n12.  On 5 December 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on the basis of its lack of jurisdiction. He appealed against that decision. It would appear that the proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-907", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro.\n7.  On 21 or 22 February 1992 her house and business premises in Zadar, Croatia, were blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 11 August 1994 she instituted civil proceedings before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) against the Republic of Croatia and an insurance company.\n9.  On 20 September 2002 the Zadar Municipal Court stayed the proceedings in respect of the Republic of Croatia. It based its decision on the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima). Both the applicant and the Republic of Croatia appealed. They argued that the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima) should have been applied instead.\n10.  On 6 November 2002 the Zadar Municipal Court decided to separate the proceedings in respect of the insurance company. It would appear that the proceedings against the insurance company are pending.\n11.  On 31 July 2003 the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” and the “Damage Caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War Act 2003” entered into force.\n12.  On 17 December 2003 the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) quashed the decision of 20 September 2002 and remitted the case to the Zadar Municipal Court for a retrial. It would appear that the proceedings against the Republic of Croatia are also pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-908", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1955, respectively and live in Boleč, Serbia and Montenegro.\n7.  On 6 or 7 May 1992 their house in Novska, Croatia, was set ablaze by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 11 November 1996 they instituted civil proceedings before the Novska Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Novskoj) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for their damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima), the Novska Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 24 October 1997.\n10.  The proceedings resumed on 22 October 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-909", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  In March 1993 welding work was carried out in the applicant’s fashion boutique. On 26 May 1995 the applicant filed an action for damages against the company which had carried out the welding work. She alleged that the welding work had soiled stored clothes and the salesroom of her boutique and had affected her health. The Salzburg Regional Court (Landesgericht), upon her request, had previously granted her legal aid for these proceedings on 4 May 1995.\n5.  On 29 August 1995 the Salzburg Regional Court held a first hearing.\n6.  On 6 October 1995 it appointed an expert and instructed him to prepare a report. The expert delivered his report on 29 January 1997.\n7.  On 2 June 1997 the court held a further hearing. It heard some witnesses and then adjourned the proceedings to hear the expert and further witnesses. On the same day the defendant challenged the expert for bias. The court dismissed this motion on 19 September 1997.\n8.  On 17 December 1997 the court held another hearing and heard further witnesses and the expert. It also ordered the parties to submit their extensive questions in writing and, on 3 February 1998, instructed the expert to supplement his opinion.\n9.  On 6 July 1998 the expert delivered his supplementary opinion. On 16 November 1998 the court held a hearing and, upon the applicant’s request, decided to appoint a further expert in order to assess the amount of damages. It further requested the applicant to declare whether she still claimed damages for injuries to her health. The proceedings were adjourned in order to appoint the expert and to hear a witness who had not appeared.\n10.  In a statement of 14 January 1999 the applicant declared that she maintained her claim for damages as regards injuries to her health.\n11.  On 4 March 1999 the court, noting that the applicant had made incorrect statements when declaring her financial situation, withdrew the legal aid granted to her. On 20 April 1999 the Linz Court of Appeal confirmed this decision. Subsequently, on 18 May 1999 the Salzburg Regional Court imposed a fine on the applicant for abuse of process. It further informed the parties that it considered it necessary to decide first whether the claim for damages was well-founded in principle before ordering further expert opinions.\n12.  On 2 July 1999 the court dismissed the applicant’s further request for legal aid. On 9 August 1999 the Linz Court of Appeal confirmed this decision.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 26 July 1999 the applicant filed an application under Section 91 of the Courts Act (Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz). In particular, she requested that the Regional Court be ordered to hold a further hearing, to question the witness H. and to take a decision. The Regional Court subsequently scheduled a hearing for 10 November 1999. On 17 August 1999 the Linz Court of Appeal dismissed the application. It found that, until the hearing of 17 December 1997, the court had been mainly concerned with obtaining the necessary expert opinions. There were no delays either during this period, or during the following period until the hearing of 16 November 1998. Subsequently, a number of procedural steps were taken by the applicant relating to the withdrawal of legal aid. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Regional Court had not been dilatory.\n14.  The applicant subsequently challenged the competent judge S. and, in a letter of 15 October 1999, complained that S. had not cancelled the hearing of 10 November 1999. On 15 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-910", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Zagreb.\n7.  On 25 August 1992 the applicant’s house in Sukošan, Croatia was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 19 July 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu), seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.\n9.  On 17 January 1996 Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o obveznim odnosima) which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed, pending the enactment of new legislation. Before the enactment of such new legislation, damages for terrorist acts could not be sought.\n10.  On 29 January 1997 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings.\n11.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-911", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1921 and lives in Zagreb.\n8.  On 6 September 1991 his summer house in Starigrad, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n9.  On 7 September 1994 he instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.\n10.  On 16 November 1995 the Zagreb Municipal Court gave judgment partly allowing the applicant’s claim.\n11.  On an uncertain date the defendant appealed against the first instance judgment.\n12.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 3 September 1997.\n13.  On 31 July 2003 the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija) entered into force. It provides that proceedings which were stayed pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 will resume. However, it is uncertain if and when the applicant’s proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court have resumed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-912", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Vinkovci.\n7.  On 12 April 1993 the applicant’s house in Lički Novi was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 11 April 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu), seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.\n9.  On 17 January 1996 Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o obveznim odnosima) which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed, pending the enactment of new legislation. Before the enactment of such new legislation damages for terrorist acts could not be sought.\n10.  On 5 October 1999 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings.\n11.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-914", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8. The applicant was born in [Note4]1950 and lives in Miedźno, Poland.\n9. In October 1991 the applicant was dismissed from work.\n10. On 21 October 1991 he filed with the Częstochowa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which he requested that he be reinstated in his former post and awarded compensation.\n11. On 18 May 1992 the court stayed the proceedings until the completion of criminal proceedings against the applicant, considering that the courts’ findings in those proceedings could affect the outcome of the employment dispute.\n12. On 31 July 1992 the criminal court gave judgment. On 27 November 1992 the second-instance court quashed it and remitted the case for re-examination.\n13. On 22 May 1995 the District Court discontinued the labour law proceedings, because three years had passed since the date of staying them.\n14. On 25 July 1995 it allowed the applicant’s appeal and quashed that decision.\n15. On 3 November 1995 the criminal court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant, considering that the theft of two boxes of glue committed by him was of an insignificant nature. On 23 February 1996 the second-instance court acquitted the applicant.\n16. On 15 May 1996 the Częstochowa District Court gave judgment in respect of part of his claim. It reinstated the applicant in his former post. On 6 August 1996 the second-instance court dismissed his employer’s appeal against that judgment.\n17. On 4 March 1997 the Częstochowa District Court ordered an expert opinion concerning the calculation of the applicant’s lost earnings. It was submitted on 26 August 1997. In September 1997 the court ordered a supplementary opinion.\n18. At the hearing held on 14 January 1998 it requested the preparation of another supplementary opinion. It was submitted on 16 June 1998.\n19. The court held a hearing on 5 February 1999. Subsequently, the parties exchanged their observations as to the amount of compensation for the applicant.\n20. On 15 February 2000 the court held a hearing. On 20 April 2000 it ordered a supplementary expert opinion.\n21. On 26 September and 14 November 2000 the court held hearings. On the former date it refused the applicant’s request for an interim order.\n22. On 28 December 2000 the court gave judgment. It awarded the applicant compensation for the lost earnings. Both parties appealed.\n23. On 16 May 2001 the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) held a hearing.\n24. On 31 May 2001 it dismissed a challenge to the participation in the proceedings of a judge lodged by the applicant’s lawyer. The court imposed a fine on the lawyer for having used that remedy in bad faith.\n25. On 13 June 2001 the court dismissed both appeals against the judgment of the District Court. The defendant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n26. On 19 November 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s appeal.\nTHE LAW[Note5]", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-915", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants, Abdurrahman Çelik and Kasim İmret were born in 1958 and 1947 respectively and live in Batman.\n10.  On 17 May 1998 the applicants, accused of acting as couriers for the PKK, were arrested by police officers from the Batman Security Directorate.\n11.  Prior to their detention in police custody, the applicants were examined by a doctor who found that they did not bear the marks of any injury. The applicants were then taken to the Batman Security Directorate where they were detained and questioned.\n12.  On 18 May 1998 the public prosecutor authorised the applicants' continued detention until 20 May 1998.\n13.  On 18 and 20 May 1998 the applicants were again examined by two doctors who found that there was no evidence that the applicants had been ill‑treated.\n14.  The applicants allege that they were subjected to various types of torture and inhuman treatment during their detention in police custody. They claim they were blindfolded and immersed in high pressure cold water. They had to stand naked and electric shocks were administered to various parts of their bodies including their sexual organs. They state that their testicles were squeezed and that their hands and legs were tied. They were severely beaten and deprived of food and water and prevented from using toilet facilities. They were also kept in isolation, subjected to unbearable noises, insulted and threatened with death. From time to time, police officers applied medication to their injuries.\n15.  On 20 May 1998 the applicants were brought before the Batman public prosecutor and then before the Batman Magistrates' Court (Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi). According to a protocol dated 20 May 1998 signed by six police officers, the applicants bumped into each other while they were getting out of the police car and Abdurrahman Çelik fell. It is to be noted that the applicants deny the authenticity of this protocol.\n16.  Both before the public prosecutor and the Batman Magistrates' Court the applicants denied the veracity of the statements that had been taken from them by the police and stated that they had been subjected to ill-treatment during their detention in police custody. The judge of the Batman Magistrates' Court observed that there was a violet-coloured bruise around Abdurrahman Çelik's left eye. She also noted the applicants' allegation that their statements were incorrect and had been obtained under duress. The Batman Magistrates' Court ordered the applicants' detention on remand.\n17.  On the same day the applicants were taken to the Batman prison.\n18.  On 21 May 1998 the applicants were examined by the prison doctor, Dr. T. D., who noted that there were marks on Abdurrahman Çelik's body resulting from the physical violence inflicted on him. He reported the following in respect of Abdurrahman Çelik:\n“There is a bruise of 3 cm underneath the left eye. Furthermore, there are two petechial lesions on both right and left inguinal areas.”\n19.  In respect of Kasım İmret, Dr. T.D. noted that the latter's body did not bear any injury resulting from physical violence. The doctor further reported the following regarding Kasım İmret:\n“There is a scar of 0,5 cm in diameter on the left side of the lower lip on the exterior.”\n20.  On the same day, the applicants filed petitions with the Batman Magistrates' Court and requested the latter to annul the order for their detention on remand. They emphasised, inter alia, that the statements taken by the police were false as they had been", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-916", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Prague.\n5.  The applicant's parents owned a house with a garden and private road. On 24 April 1967 they donated their property to the State. The property was then administered by the Humpolec Municipality (město Humpolec).\n6.  On 24 April 1991 the applicant requested the Municipality to conclude a restitution agreement with her, pursuant to the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitation Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The Municipality refused.\n7.  On 10 February 1993 the Pelhřimov District Court (okresní soud), after having held two hearings on 17 June 1992 and 9 February 1993, dismissed the applicant's action for restitution of the property in question, introduced on 31 March 1992 and completed on 8 and 16 June 1992, stating that the contract of donation had not been concluded under pressure, as envisaged by the Act.\n8.  On 13 May 1993 the České Budĕjovice Regional Court (krajský soud), upon the applicant's appeal of 17 March 1993, quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.\n9.  On 20 October and 10 December 1993 and on 26 and 29 July 1994 the District Court held hearings.\n10.  On 29 July 1994 it ordered the Municipality to restore the property to the applicant. The court, having assessed certain additional evidence, found that the applicant's parents had signed the contract of donation under pressure.\n11.  On 8 December 1994 the Regional Court, on the defendant's appeal of 28 August 1994, to which the applicant had made her comments on 4 September 1994, modified the District Court's judgment, dismissing the applicant's claim for restitution. It found that the Municipality had not owned the house on 1 April 1991, as provided for in the Act, and that it had not been transferred to the Municipality after the entry into force of Act no. 172/1991 with the obligation to restore it to the former owners.\n12.  On 13 February 1995 the judgment was notified to the applicant who, on 27 February 1995, filed an appeal on points of law (dovolání) with the Prague High Court (Vrchní soud), raising the question of the position of the Municipality as defendant.\n13.  On 17 December 1998 the Supreme Court, to which the applicant's case had been transferred for reasons of material competence on 2 January 1996, dismissed the applicant's appeal, endorsing the reasons given by the Regional Court.\n14.  On 23 March 1999 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnosti) claiming that the proceedings had been unreasonably long, and that her right to a fair and public hearing respecting the principle of equality of arms had been violated.\n15.  On 3 August 2000 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed her appeal, stating inter alia that there had been no unjustified delays in the proceedings. It considered that any delay in the proceedings before the Supreme Court had been caused by the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure (občanský soudní řád). The decision was notified to the applicant's lawyer on 14 August 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-917", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Mr Miller was born in 1972 and he resides in Stockton-on-Tees, Mr Morrison was born in 1970 and he resides in Aberdeen and Mr Gillespie was born in 1974 and he resides in Greenock. They are represented before the Court by Mr Blades, a lawyer practising in Lincoln.\n5.  In April 1996 the first applicant was a soldier and the second applicant was a non-commissioned officer in the regular forces of the British Army. On 29 April 1996 they were charged along with two others (pursuant to section 70 of the Army Act 1955) with four counts of indecent assault contrary to section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.\n6.  The convening officer, by order dated 26 July 1996, convened a general court-martial to try them. On 10 September 1996 the first applicant was found guilty on two of the charges and was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment and to be dismissed with disgrace. The second applicant was found guilty on three of the charges and sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, to be dismissed from the service with disgrace and to be reduced to the ranks. On 19 December 1996 the confirming officer reduced the first applicant's sentence to two years' imprisonment and the second applicant's sentence to three years and six months' imprisonment, but otherwise the findings of the court-martial were confirmed.\n7.  The applicants petitioned the Defence Council against conviction and sentence. By letters dated 18 February 1998 and 27 February 1997, their representatives were informed of the decisions (taken by the Army Board) to reject their petitions.\n8.  Both applicants applied to the single judge of the Courts-Martial Appeal Court (“CMAC”) for leave to appeal to that court against conviction and sentence. The first applicant pointed to various alleged failings by the judge advocate during the court-martial and argued that his sentence was excessive. The single judge granted leave to appeal to the full CMAC. Before the full CMAC, the first applicant added a new ground of appeal (that he did not have a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, citing Findlay v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I). The second applicant argued before the single judge that the judge advocate had erred and misdirected the court and that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal (referring also to the Findlay judgment). The single judge granted leave to appeal to the full CMAC.\n9.  On 4 March 1996 the applicant, a soldier of the regular forces of the British Army, was charged (pursuant to section 70 of the Army Act 1955) with wounding with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and with inflicting grievous bodily harm contrary to section 20 of that Act.\n10.  The convening officer, by order dated 13 August 1996, convened a general court-martial. On 6 September 1996 the applicant was found guilty on the first charge and of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the 1861 Act. He was sentenced to three years and six months' imprisonment and to be discharged from the army.\n11.  His petition against sentence to the confirming officer was rejected and his conviction and sentence were promulgated on 10 October 1996. By letter dated 20 November 1996, his legal representatives were informed that his petition against sentence had been rejected by a Reviewing Authority appoint", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-918", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Wilp.\n9.  On 17 December 1991, the applicant filed a request with the Voorst Municipal Council (gemeenteraad) for compensation under Article 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act (Wet op de Ruimtelijke Ordening) for damage caused by a partial revision of a zoning plan relating to land owned by him.\n10.  This request was rejected by the Municipal Council on 27 January 1992. On 26 September 1994 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division quashed that decision, considering that the Municipal Council had unjustly failed to seek the opinion of an independent expert before determining the applicant's request, and it issued an order for costs against the Voorst municipal authorities.\n11.  On 24 July 1995 the municipal authorities again refused the applicant compensation, after having consulted various experts.\n12.  The applicant filed an objection (bezwaar) with the Municipal Council, which was heard before the Commission for Appeals and Objections (Commissie voor de bezwaar- en beroepsschriften) on 31 October 1995.\n13.  By decision of 18 December 1995, in accordance with the advice given on 8 November 1995 by the Commission for Appeals and Objections, the Municipal Council rejected the applicant's objection as ill-founded. The applicant, who was informed of this decision on 29 December 1995, filed an appeal with the Zutphen Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) on 8 February 1996.\n14.  On 27 November 1997, after two rounds of written submissions by the parties, a hearing was held before the Regional Court. In its judgment of 12 January 1998, the Regional Court rejected the applicant's appeal.\n15.  On 20 February 1998, the applicant filed an appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. In its decision of 3 August 1999, following a hearing held on 7 December 1998, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division accepted the applicant's appeal. It found that the decision of 18 December 1995 had not been duly reasoned. Consequently, it quashed the judgment of 12 January 1998, admitted the applicant's appeal against the decision of 18 December 1995, quashed the latter decision, ordered the Municipal Council to take a new decision with due regard to the considerations of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, and issued an order for costs against the Voorst municipal authorities.\n16.  As from 3 August 1999, the applicant and the municipal authorities examined the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement, but failed to reach an agreement.\n17.  In an undated decision received by the applicant's lawyer on 21 September 2001, the Municipal Council awarded the applicant compensation in an amount of 11,218.14 euros, and ordered that interest be payable on this sum as from the date of filing of the applicant's compensation request. The Municipal Council rejected the remainder of the applicant's claim.\n18.  On 30 October 2001, the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with the Zutphen Regional Court, which rejected it on 20 January 2003. On 27 February 2003, the applicant filed an appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-919", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Dunaújváros, Hungary.\n5.  The applicant kept bees in his yard. On 11 April 1995 the Dunaújváros Municipality, acting in accordance with a Decree of the City Council, ordered the applicant to remove the bees from his yard to an area where they did not disturb the neighbours. On 24 May 1995 the Fejér County Administrative Office, on the applicant's appeal of 18 April 1995, quashed the first-instance administrative decision and remitted the case to the Municipality, holding that it had failed to warn the applicant prior to taking its decision.\n6.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 18 March 1996 the Municipality, as confirmed by the Administrative Office on 20 June 1996, limited the allowed population of bees to 20 families to protect the neighbours' interests and requested the applicant to remove the entities above this amount. Subsequently, on 8 July 1996 the applicant challenged these decisions before the Székesfehérvár District Court.\n7.  On the applicant's complaint, on 28 February 1997 the Constitutional Court partly annulled the City Council's aforementioned Decree.\n8.  On 13 January 1998 the District Court, as confirmed by the Fejér County Regional Court on 12 May 1998, quashed the administrative decisions and remitted the case to the Municipality. On 22 January 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review of these decisions.\n9.  Meanwhile in the resumed administrative proceedings, on 8 February 1999 the Municipality, as confirmed by the City Council on 9 March 1999, again limited the allowed population of bees to 20 families and requested the applicant to keep the entities above this amount at a place where they would not disturb the neighbours. On 12 April 1999 the applicant challenged these decisions before the Fejér County Regional Court. Simultaneously, he challenged all the judges of the Regional Court for bias.\n10.  On 29 September 1999 the Supreme Court appointed the Zala County Regional Court to hear the case. The court held hearings on 3 November 1999 and 1 March 2000. On the latter date, accepting the applicant's request, the court suspended the proceedings.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 12 June 2001 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claims. No appeal lay against this decision.\n12.  Subsequently, on 24 July 2001 the applicant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 21 January 2002 the Supreme Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer to assist the applicant. On 9 September 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review, holding that the decisions had been taken in order to protect public health in accordance with the law, namely Decree no. 15/1969 of the Ministry of Agriculture and local regulations.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-921", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Brno.\na. Facts prior to 18 March 1992, the date of the entry into force of the Convention with regard to the Czech Republic\n5.  On 3 February 1989 the applicant filed with the Brno Municipal Court (městský soud) an action for the protection of his personality (žaloba na ochranu osobnosti) against his father-in-law alleging that he had interfered with his honour and reputation. He asked the court to prohibit the defendant from mentioning, in writing, verbally or in another way, that he was suffering from mental illness, disorder or deviation and that his behaviour showed symptoms of mental illnesses.\n6.  A first hearing was scheduled for 28 April 1989 but was adjourned to 19 May 1989. Another hearing took place on 30 June 1989. According to the applicant, the court did not act on 28 April, and 9 and 30 June 1989. Three hearings scheduled for 14 July, 25 August and 22 September 1989 did not take place because the parties had not been convened in time or could not attend. Two further hearings were held on 11 October 1989 and 23 February 1990. According to the Government, the applicant's lawyer was duly convened to the hearings of 14 July and 22 September 1989.\n7.  On 30 January 1990 a hearing was scheduled for 23 February 1990. On 12 March 1990 the applicant was invited to attend the court but did not do so. On 2 May 1990 he requested that the judges of the Municipal Court's chamber be excluded from the examination of his case. On 2 July 1990 the applicant, upon the Municipal Court's request of 22 June 1990, informed the court that he insisted on the exclusion of all three members of the chamber from the examination of his case. On 12 September 1990 the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) excluded the president of the chamber.\n8.  On 20 November 1990 the applicant requested to have his former wife cited as a defendant. He also amended his original action in which he sought an order against the defendants enjoining them to refrain from oral attacks on him and to pay him damages in the amount of CZK 50,000 (EUR 1,592).\n9.  On 12 March 1991 a hearing of the applicant was to take place in connection with his objection to the judges of the chamber of the Municipal Court on grounds of bias. He did not appear. He attended the court on 28 March 1991 explaining that he was staying abroad and could only participate in the proceedings as from 29 April 1991.\n10.  By letter of 19 April 1991, the president of the Regional Court acknowledged that the proceedings had suffered from delays.\n11.  On 3 May 1991 the applicant orally informed the new president of the chamber at the Municipal Court that he still insisted on the exclusion of the other two members of the chamber from the examination of his case.\n12.  According to the applicant, from 1991 to 1995, no hearing was held by the court. Moreover, since 1991, his action was dealt with by a single judge (samosoudce).\nb. Facts after 18 March 1992\n13.  Between 15 January and 26 August 1992 the case file was sent to the Brno Regional Prosecutor Office (krajské státní zastupitelství) in connection with the applicant's criminal complaint against the defendants.\n14.  On 12 October 1992 the applicant informed it that he would be available to attend the court on 6 November 1992.\n15.  On 11 December 1992 the Municipal Court granted the applicant's request of 20 November 1990 to have his former wife cited as a defendant. On the same day, the court adopted an interim mea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-922", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Plovdiv. He used to work as a shunter at the Bulgarian State Railways. On 15 August 1995 he was dismissed from his work for having breached disciplinary regulations.\n9.  On 5 February 1996 the applicant filed with the Plovdiv District Court an action for wrongful dismissal against his former employer.\n10.  On 12 March 1996 the District Court heard the applicant and his lawyer and rejected the case, ruling that the applicant’s dismissal was not amenable to judicial review. It based its decision on section 9(3) of the Decree No. 9 of 6 January 1981 and the Supreme Court’s practice, according to which employees of the State Railways dismissed for breach of disciplinary regulations could only appeal to a higher administrative body, not to a court.\n11.  On 18 March 1996 the applicant appealed to the Plovdiv Regional Court against the District Court’s decision. He argued that Decree No. 9 was contrary to Article 6 of the Convention. He also relied on an amendment to the Labour Code of 1993, stating that it vested with the courts power to examine all appeals for wrongful dismissal, despite the provisions of Decree No. 9.\n12.  By decision bearing the date 8 April 1996 the Regional Court, sitting in private, dismissed the applicant’s appeal, holding that in accordance with Decree No. 9 a judicial appeal against the applicant’s dismissal was not possible.\n13.  The Regional Court’s decision was not pronounced publicly and was not served.\n14.  On 4 June 1996 the case file was transmitted by the judge-rapporteur to the Regional Court’s clerical staff which made an entry in the court’s register.\n15.  On 5 June 1996 the case file was transmitted to the District Court and an entry was made in its register.\n16.  On 13 June 1996 the applicant submitted a petition for review (преглед по реда на надзора) to the Supreme Administrative Court.\n17.  The parties were summoned for a hearing but none of them appeared.\n18.  On 18 July 1997, sitting in private, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the petition for review as time barred. It held that the Regional Court’s decision had entered into force on 8 April 1996 and that the two months’ time-limit for submission of a petition for review had expired on 8 June 1996 whereas the petition had been submitted on 13 June 1996.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-923", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Gdańsk, Poland.\n9.  On 24 August 1994 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extorting protection money from an escort agency. Subsequently, eleven other persons were charged and remanded in custody in connection with the investigation against the applicant.\n10.  In the course of the investigation the applicant’s detention was several times prolonged by the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki) and the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). The prosecution authorities also obtained two expert reports concerning the applicant’s mental health.\n11.  On 27 June 1995 the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki) lodged a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). The applicant was indicted together with eleven other persons on charges of robbery and extortion. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 106 witnesses.\n12.  On 26 July 1995 the applicant lodged an application for release. He submitted that his wife had been placed in a mental hospital and that their daughter had been left without care. On 18 August 1995 the Gdańsk Regional Court upheld the detention order. The court held that, given the number of suspects involved in the case and the serious nature of the offence in question, keeping the applicant in custody was necessary to ensure that the process of obtaining evidence followed its proper course. On 6 September 1995 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s further appeal.\n13.  On 30 April 1996 the applicant made an application for release. It was rejected by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 14 May 1996. The court held that keeping the applicant in custody had been necessary to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings. On 12 June 1996, on an appeal by the applicant, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld this decision. The court found that the applicant’s family situation did not militate against his continuing detention and that there were no grounds on which to release the applicant, as defined in Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, it also underlined the gravity of charges brought against the applicant.\n14.  On 4 December 1996 the applicant made yet another application for release. It was rejected by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 10 December 1996 as the applicant failed to submit any new arguments which would justify his release.\n15.  On 30 December 1996 the Gdańsk Regional Court asked the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) to prolong the applicant’s detention. On 16 January 1997 the Supreme Court granted the application and prolonged his and eight other co-accused’ detention until 30 June 1997.\n16.  On 6 June 1997 the applicant made yet another unsuccessful application for release from detention.\n17.  On 26 June 1997 the Gdańsk Regional Court lodged a request under Article 222 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the Supreme Court, asking it to prolong the applicant’s detention for a further period of six months. On 13 August 1997 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 1 December 1997, considering that it was necessary to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court stressed that the case was particularly complex as it concerned several co-accused. Furthermore, it observed that the trial court still had to hear evidence from 50 witnesses.\n18.  On 26 September 1996 the composition of the trial court had to be changed due to the presiding ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-924", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1933 and 1936, respectively and live in Zadar, Croatia.\n5.  In September 1991 the second applicant’s vehicle was requisitioned by the Croatian Army.\n6.  In August 1992 she was informed that the vehicle had been destroyed.\n7.  On 18 August 1995 she instituted civil proceedings before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for her damaged vehicle.\n8.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1999 (Zakon o dopunama Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 112/1999, hereinafter “the 1999 Act”), the Zadar Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 23 November 1999.\n9.  The proceedings resumed on 24 October 2003 pursuant to the “Damage Caused by Members of the Croatian Army and Police during the Homeland War Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti Republike Hrvatske za štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika Hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata, Official Gazette no. 117/2003, hereinafter “the 2003 Act”).\n10.  The applicants claimed that members of the Croatian Army damaged their house in Vodice, Croatia, in mid-1992.\n11.  On 22 August 1995 they instituted civil proceedings before the Šibenik Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Šibeniku) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for their damaged house.\n12.  On 20 May 1999 the Šibenik Municipal Court rejected their claim.\n13.  The applicants appealed against that judgment.\n14.  Pursuant to the 1999 Act, the Šibenik Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 10 December 1999. The applicants appealed against that decision. On 6 March 2000 the Šibenik County Court (Županijski sud u Šibeniku) rejected their appeal.\n15.  The proceedings resumed on 2 September 2003 pursuant to the 2003 Act.\n16.  On 31 May 2004 the Šibenik County Court quashed the judgment of 20 May 1999 and remitted the case to the Šibenik Municipal Court for a retrial.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-925", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, who was born in 1959, is currently detained in Muş Prison.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 7 November 1993 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Tatvan Security Directorate on suspicion of his membership to an illegal organisation, namely the PKK.\n7.  On 25 November 1993 the applicant was brought before the Tatvan public prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Tatvan Magistrate’s Court. The same day, the investigating judge ordered that the applicant be placed in detention on remand.\n8.  In an indictment dated 31 December 1993, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant. He charged him with being member of an armed gang under Article 168 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 13 March 1995 the Diyarbakır State Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.\n10.  The applicant appealed. On 17 November 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Diyarbakır State Security Court for procedural reasons.\n11.  On 18 November 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court applied the decision of the Court of Cassation and sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment for membership to an illegal organisation.\n12.  On 18 March 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upholding the Diyarbakır State Security Court’s reasoning and assessment of evidence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-926", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the city of Toronto, Canada.\n8.  As of 1988 the applicant ran a business in the city of Yalta, Ukraine, keeping a part of his profit in cash.\n9.  By the Presidential Decree of 22 January 1991, the bank-notes of 50 and 100 Soviet roubles issued in 1961 ceased to circulate and had to be exchanged for the notes of the same nomination issued in 1991. The Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of the same date specified the procedure of exchange, providing, inter alia, that a special sub-commission (hereinafter the exchange commission) should be created within the executive committees of the City or District Councils to decide on the exchange of bank-notes. The exchange commissions were empowered to allow or refuse exchanges fully or in part, depending on the legality of the source of income being proved.\n10.  In January 1991 the applicant put the amount of 230,000 Soviet roubles in 50 and 100 notes into an account at the Yalta Branch of the USSR State Bank. At the same time the applicant applied to the Yalta exchange commission for an exchange of that sum. On 25 March 1991 the commission (Решение комиссии Ялтинского Городского Совета народных депутатов по обмену денежных знаков) refused to exchange the full amount because of an alleged lack of proof as to the legality of the source of income, and limited the exchange to 2,462 roubles. The remaining sum of 227,538 roubles was not compensated.\n11.  The applicant challenged that decision before the higher exchange commission of the Republic of Crimea. On 6 May 1991 the latter upheld the decision of the Yalta exchange commission.\n12.  The Government submit that, in accordance with the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of the USSR no. 2 of 22 January 1991, which regulated the procedure for the exchange of bank-notes, this decision of 6 May 1991 was final.\n13.  At the same time the State Security Service checked the legality of the applicant's business and found no irregularities.\n14.  On 19 July 1991 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Yalta City Court against the exchange commission for its refusal to exchange the full sum of 230,000 roubles.\n15.  On 22 July 1991 the Yalta City Court (Определение Ялтинского городского народного суда) rejected the claim for lack of jurisdiction.\n16.  The applicant appealed to the Crimean Regional Court against the judgment of the Yalta City Court. On 26 August 1991 the former quashed the judgment of the latter and remitted the case for further consideration.\n17.  On 16 October 1991 the Yalta City Court (Решение Ялтинского городского народного суда) found for the applicant and ordered the executive committee of the Yalta City Council to exchange all the money deposited by the applicant (230,000 roubles).\n18.  On 8 April 1992 the Crimean Regional Court (Определение Крымского областного суда) upheld this judgment.\n19.  On 17 April 1992 the judgments of 16 October 1991 and 8 April 1992 were quashed by the Presidium of the Crimean Regional Court (Постановление Президиума Крымского областного суда).\n20.  On 14 April 1993 the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (Ухвала Верховного Суду України) quashed the latter judgment and upheld the judgments of 16 October 1991 and 8 April 1992 in the applicant's favour. This judgment was final.\n21.  The judgment was not fully enforced for several years. On various occasions the applicant lodged claims to have the awarded sum adjusted to the inflation rate. On 23 May", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-927", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Hozat, Tunceli.\n7.  Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Kozluca, a village of the Hozat district in Tunceli, where he owns property.\n8.  In October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Kozluca. They also destroyed the applicant's property. The applicant and his family then moved to Hozat, where they currently live.\n9.  On 31 October 1994 the applicant petitioned the offices of the Prime Minister, the Tunceli governor and the governor of the state of emergency region. He complained that he had been forcibly evicted from his village by the security forces.\n10.  On 16 November 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor's office in Hozat and requested that an investigation be initiated against those responsible for the evacuation of his village and the destruction of his property.\n11.  On 26 January 1995 the Hozat District Governor wrote a letter in reply to the applicant stating that he could not be provided with housing as he did not fulfil the requirements of Law no. 2510 on housing.\n12.  The applicant did not pursue any other domestic remedy.\n13.  The applicant left his village on account of the terrorist activities in the region and there is no evidence indicating that his house was burned down.\n14.  The Hozat District Governor supplied the applicant with accommodation upon his request. He further received aid for food, heating and rent. However, the applicant did not apply to the authorities to receive the monetary aid which was due at the time.\n15.  On 11 January 1995 the Chief Public Prosecutor in Hozat, who had received the applicant's criminal complaints concerning his eviction from his village and destruction of his property, issued a decision of non‑jurisdiction and referred the investigation file to the District Administrative Council in Hozat in accordance with the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants. The investigation is still pending before the Administrative Council.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-928", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Bydgoszcz.\n9.  In February 1986 the applicant and her husband divorced.\n10. In June 1987 she filed with the Bydgoszcz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition in which she sought the division of the spouses' property.\n11. In 1988 and 1989 the court ordered expert opinions.\n12. On 3 June 1992 it refused a request that the shares in the property be unequal.\n13. On 28 May 1993 the court declined the applicant's challenge to the participation in the proceedings of one of the judges. Her appeal against that decision was subsequently rejected.\n14. On 9 June 1993, in reply to the applicant's complaint, the President of the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) informed her that due to the excessive length of the proceedings they had been taken under his administrative supervision.\n15. On 16 July 1993 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court rejected the applicant's appeal against the decision of 28 May 1993.\n16. On 4 and 20 October 1993, as well as on 13 April and 25 May 1994, the Bydgoszcz District Court held hearings. In October 1993 the parties to the proceedings requested that certain further expert opinions be ordered.\n17. On 18 April 1994 the applicant changed her claim.\n18. On 10 January 1994 an expert appointed by the court submitted his opinion concerning the value of real property.\n19. In a letter of 1 July 1994 the President of the Bydgoszcz Regional Court agreed with the applicant's further complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings.\n20. On 8 June 1994 the court gave judgment in respect of part of the claims.\n21. On 31 August 1994 the applicant requested the court to appoint an expert to assess the value of movables.\n22. On 16 September 1994 the applicant's former husband lodged an appeal against the judgment of 8 June 1994.\n23. On 1 December 1994 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n24. From April to 4 December 1994 the applicant lodged several complaints with the judicial authorities about the lack of progress in the proceedings, to no avail.\n25. The Bydgoszcz District Court held hearings on 5 April, 25 October and 6 December 1995, 14 February, 24 April, 24 May, 3 July and 8 November 1996, as well as 5 February, 18 June, 9 July and 9 September 1997. It ordered four expert opinions.\n26. On 21 May 1996 the applicant changed her claim.\n27. On 23 September 1997 the court gave judgment. In the reasoning it pointed out that the applicant on several occasions had changed her claims. She appealed against that judgment.\n28. The Bydgoszcz Regional Court held hearings on 25 February, 25 June and 9 July 1998.\n29. On 9 July 1998 the parties reached a friendly settlement in respect of a part of the Bydgoszcz District Court's judgment. The applicant was to receive 26,150 Polish zlotys from her former husband as payment for transferring her share in the disputed property to him. She withdrew her appeal in respect of the remainder of the District Court's judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-929", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1966 and 1963 respectively and live in Istanbul.\n10.  On 8 January 1996 the applicants were in the Alibeyköy neighbourhood, on their way to attend the funeral of two prisoners who allegedly had been killed by the security forces. Police officers were arresting at random people in Alibeyköy who were walking on the street, waiting at the bus stop or driving their cars. When the applicants arrived in the neighbourhood, they were beaten by police officers and they were subsequently arrested together with many others. This was a notorious incident that had attracted media and public attention.\n11.  Following their arrest, the applicants were taken to a bus where they were beaten and insulted. They were brought to the Eyüp Stadium along with 1054 people who were arrested randomly. In the stadium they were again beaten and insulted. Their identity cards, money and valuables were seized by the police officers.\n12.  While the applicants were held in the Eyüp Stadium their friends filed a petition with the Eyüp Magistrate's Court requesting to have them brought before the competent public prosecutor. The Eyüp Magistrate's Court rejected their request. The court stated in its written reply that the public prosecutors were entitled to authorise the prolongation of the detention period of suspects for up to four days in respect of crimes committed by three or more persons. Thus it concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to take any decision at this stage.\n13.  The applicants were released on the same day.\n14.  On 9 January 1996 the applicants filed a complaint with the office of the Eyüp Public Prosecutor concerning the treatment to which they were subjected when they were held by the police in the Eyüp Stadium. They requested the public prosecutor to order their examination by a forensic expert. The prosecutor agreed to their request.\n15.  On the same day the applicants were examined by a doctor at the Eyüp Forensic Institute. According to the medical report the first applicant was suffering from bruising of 3 cm in diameter on her right shoulder and shoulder blade, pain in her shoulders and neck, a bruise of 4 cm in diameter on the right hip and marks of bruising on the exterior of her thigh. It was also noted that, before a final conclusion on her health situation was reached, the applicant had to be examined in a hospital as she had vaginal bleeding.\n16.  As regards the second applicant it was recorded in the medical report that he had a bruise of 3 cm in diameter on the right shoulder, a bruise of 5 cm in diameter on the right arm, a bruise of 2 cm in diameter on his back and a bruising of 15-20 cm in diameter on the left shoulder and around the shoulder-blade. He was also complaining of pain in his legs. The report concluded that the applicant would be unfit for work for ten days.\n17.  On 15 January 1996 the Eyüp Public Prosecutor decided to transfer the preliminary investigation file to the District Governor of Eyüp in Istanbul in accordance with the law on the prosecution of civil servants. At a later stage the file was transferred to the Provincial Administrative Council.\n18.  On 17 January 1996 the applicants, together with some others who had been arrested on the same day and allegedly subjected to ill-treatment by the police officers, filed a petition with the Eyüp Public Prosecutor. They requested the prosecutor to initiate an investigation concerning their arbitrary arrest and the ill-treatment to wh", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-930", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Ostrava.\n5.  On 6 October 1993 the applicant brought an action for damages (žaloba na náhradu škody), following a theft in premises belonging to a defendant[1], before the Ostrava District Court (okresní soud).\n6.  On 27 September 1994 the District Court held a hearing. Another hearing was to be held on 14 March 1995 but was cancelled because of the judge's long-term illness. In September 1995 the case was then given to another judge who fixed a hearing for 11 June 1996. However, the hearing was cancelled due to the absence of the judge. The next hearing was held on 20 August 1996, but was adjourned, as two witnesses did not appear.\n7. On 5 November 1996 the District Court held a hearing and ordered an expert opinion. The first expert appointed by the court on 11 April 1997 requested, on 6 May 1997, to be relieved of his commission. On 10 August 1997 the District Court appointed a new expert who received the case file on 9 October 1997. On 11 December 1997 he requested the judge to obtain technical documents about the applicant's damaged car. On the same day the judge forwarded this request to the Road Traffic Licensing Department of the Police of the Czech Republic (Dopravní inspektorát policie České republiky). The expert also contacted the applicant about the matter but he had sold the car in July 1993.\n8.  On 23 July 1998, the Road Traffic Licensing Department, after having been urged by the judge, informed the latter that it did not have the relevant technical documents. On 15 December 1998 the expert obtained the necessary data from the archives of the Road Traffic Licensing Department. On 9 February 1999 he drew up his report. On 4 and 22 March 1999 respectively, the parties submitted their comments.\n9. In the meantime, on 20 February 1999, the applicant had sent a complaint about delays in the proceedings to the president of the District Court who, on 5 March 1999, had informed him that his case was being “dealt with by the chamber within the time-limits corresponding to the volume of this chamber's backlog of cases”.\n10. On 12 March 1999 the applicant complained of the delays in the proceedings to the Ostrava Regional Court (krajský soud). On 23 March 1999 the president of that court replied that the applicant's complaint was well founded. On 4 April 1999 the applicant sent a similar complaint to the Ministry of Justice through the president of the Regional Court. On 16 April 1999 the Ministry informed the applicant that they had received his complaint and were examining the situation.\n11. Two hearings were held on 18 June and 17 August 1999. On the latter date, the District Court adopted a judgment, against which the applicant appealed on 23 November 1999. On 3 January 2000 the defendant[2] was invited to rectify certain shortcomings in his appeal, which he did on 28 January 2000.\n12.  On 26 May 2000 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of the District Court and sent the case back to it for further consideration.\n13. The hearing scheduled for 24 October 2000 was adjourned until 28 November 2000 in order to hear the expert. On the same day, the District Court adopted an interim judgment approving the well-foundedness of the legal basis of the applicant's action for damages, the amount of which had to be quantified later.\n14. On 18 June 2001 the Regional Court, upon the defendant's appeal of 20 December 2000, quashed the interim judgment and returned the case to the District Cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-931", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in HM Prison Long Lartin.\n8.  On 15 June 1995, Patrick 'Nobby' Clarke was murdered in the flat he had shared with the applicant for the preceding eighteen months. He had been clubbed over the head with what was probably a hammerhead in a sock and possibly another weapon. The applicant was arrested and charged with murder on 16 June 1995.\n9.  On 10 July 1996, the applicant was tried for the murder of Mr Clarke, the issue for the jury being whether it was the applicant who was responsible for the murder. He was convicted on 26 July 1996 and on 26 September 1996 appealed against the conviction. On 26 February 1998, the conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal on the basis that the judge had misdirected the jury. A retrial was ordered which took place between 20 July and 5 August 1998, when the jury was unable to reach a verdict and was discharged.\n10.  The Crown elected to proceed with a second retrial which began on 22 July 1999. At the outset counsel had unsuccessfully submitted that it was oppressive and an abuse of process to try the applicant again, after two unsuccessful trials. During the trial the applicant dispensed with the services of his counsel and solicitor and proceeded to defend himself, with assistance from a new solicitor. There came a point where he no longer felt able to do so and requested an adjournment. On 2 August 1999, the jury was duly discharged, and a further retrial began on 13 September 1999. The applicant did not give evidence at that trial. On 21 September 1999, he was convicted, by a majority of 10 to 2, and was sentenced to life imprisonment.\n11.  At each of the trials the Crown's case was essentially the same, except that a witness called Crittenden, to whom the applicant allegedly made a confession whilst they shared a prison cell, was not relied upon after the first trial, the Crown being of the view that they were not able to present him as a witness of truth. In addition, from the 84 prosecution witnesses called to give evidence at the first trial, only 33 were later called.\n12.  On 29 October 1999, the applicant appealed against the conviction. He argued inter alia that the second retrial (in July 1999) was an abuse of process, in that it flouted the convention in English law that if the prosecution has failed to secure a conviction on two occasions it does not then seek a further trial. Although the circumstances were different from those usually relied upon (namely the failure of the jury to reach a verdict on two occasions), it was argued on the applicant's behalf that the first conviction was found not to be safe and so could not be relied upon and on the second occasion the jury could not agree. The discharge of the jury in July 1998 should have been the end of the matter.\n13.  On 19 January 2001, the Court of Appeal found that there was no reason to conclude that the practice was applicable in the particular circumstances of the applicant's case. The court noted that there was a practice but not a rule of law for the prosecution not to offer evidence where two juries have disagreed and found no general principle existed barring further retrial where the prosecution had failed twice to secure a conviction. It said:\n“25.  ...Where a serious crime has been committed and it is shown that there is a case to answer as far as a defendant is concerned, there is a clear public interest in having a jury decide positively one way ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-932", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Jablonec nad Nisou.\n5.  On 12 January 1995 the applicant brought an action for damages before the Jablonec nad Nisou District Court (okresní soud) (hereinafter “the District Court”) against Mr S. who had allegedly caused damage to the applicant's house in Deštná.\n6.  On 27 July 1995 the District Court held a hearing and adjourned the case to 14 September 1995. The applicant claims that he was not summoned to appear at the hearing of 27 July 1995. The hearing held on 14 September 1995, at which the applicant and Mr S. did not appear due to illness, was adjourned to 10 October 1995. The hearing took place on that date but had to be adjourned at the request of the applicant when he suddenly felt sick. On 7 November 1995 another hearing took place and was then adjourned until 5 December 1995. The applicant apologised for his absence at the latter hearing. The next hearings were held on 4 January, 6 and 27 February 1996.\n7.  In the meantime, on 21 February 1996 the applicant and his legal representative had been informed that the proceedings had been suspended pending the submission of the applicant's modified claim.\n8.  On 28 June 1996 the applicant's legal representative, following the District Court's renewed request of 29 May 1996, submitted the modified version of his client's claim. By a decision of 15 July 1996 the District Court requested the applicant to pay court fees. On 4 November 1996 this decision was quashed.\n9.  A hearing held on 28 January 1997 was adjourned to 18 February 1997 because of the absence of Mr S. and his lawyer. Mr S. and his lawyer also failed to appear at the latter hearing. On 26 March 1997 the Prague 4 District Court interviewed Mr S. upon the request of the District Court, which received the records of the interview on 10 April 1997.\n10.  At the hearing held on 6 November 1997, the District Court heard the applicant in the absence of any representative of the interests of Mr S. According to the applicant, Judge V. was responsible for making certain illegal modifications to the record of this hearing. On 10 November 1997 (6 November 1997, according to the applicant), the District Court appointed an expert to evaluate the damage caused by Mr S. The expert report was drawn up on 8 January 1999.\n11.  On 10 February 1999 the applicant complained of delays in the proceedings and of certain procedural steps taken by judges at the District Court.\n12.  On 9 and 10 March 1999 he requested the District Court to adopt an interim measure. He alleged that Mr S. was the president of the management board of a private company whose shareholders had already lost CZK 1,500,000,000 (47,318,612 EUR), and that a criminal complaint had been lodged against Mr S. He therefore requested the court to prohibit the latter from disposing of his immovable and movable property.\n13.  On 11 May 1999 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (krajský soud) excluded Judge V. of the District Court from the consideration of the applicant's action for damages. According to the applicant, on 12 June 1999 the case was assigned to Judge T.\n14.  On 10 September 1999 the Regional Court, following the institution by the applicant of proceedings against Judge V., ruled that five other judges of the District Court should be excluded from hearing the case and that the case should be transferred to the Liberec District Court.\n15.  On 16 November 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicant's request for an interi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-933", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1964 and was detained in the Konya prison in Turkey at the time of the application. In May 2000 he went to Germany and sought asylum. He currently lives in Germany. He was the provincial leader of HADEP (People's Democracy Party) in Adana.\n10.  On 3 July 1995 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Adana Security Directorate. He alleges that he was blindfolded, put in a car, beaten and threatened. After being driven around for some time, still blindfolded, he was taken to the Adana Security Directorate. The applicant claims that he did not realise that the persons who had abducted him were police officers and that the building to which he had been taken was the Security Directorate.\n11.  The applicant further alleges that he was blindfolded, stripped naked and immersed in cold water in the Security Directorate. He was attached by the arms to the ceiling pipes and made to stand on a chair. Electric cables were attached to his body, in particular to his sexual organs. The chair was then pulled away and he was left suspended while electric shocks were administered. From time to time the shocks were stopped and his testicles were squeezed. The applicant was interrogated about his work and his connections with an illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party). He was further questioned as to why he had helped torture victims apply to the European Commission of Human Rights.\n12.  Between 3 and 11 July 1995 the applicant was detained in the Adana Security Directorate. The applicant alleges that his family had not been informed of his detention and that the interrogation under torture continued during this nine-day period.\n13.  On 11 July 1995 the applicant was examined by a medical expert from the Forensic Medicine Institute. The applicant stated that - as a result of the torture – he did not have the full use of his left arm, one of his ribs had been broken and there were injuries to various parts of his body on account of having been attached and suspended. The forensic medical expert's report stated the following: \n“4 x 3 cm superficial scab wounds were identified on the right knee of the person and inside both wrists. The person described numbness in his left arm and pain in the right side of his chest.”\n14.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the Adana public prosecutor and then before the Adana Magistrates' Court (Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi). On both occasions the applicant denied the veracity of the statements that had been taken from him by the police. The Adana Magistrates' Court ordered his detention on remand. He alleges that on the way from the courthouse to the Adana prison he was ill-treated by the policemen accompanying him, who used rifle butts and truncheons to beat him.\n15.  On 12 July 1995 the applicant was brought to the sickbay of the prison and examined by Dr. H.Ö. who noted the following in the prison patients' examination book:\n“He claims to have been subjected to duress in the Security Directorate. He further alleges that he was beaten up between the courthouse and the prison. There are bruises of 3-4 cm on the upper left arm, numerous erythematic and some ecchymosed lesions on the back. There are lesions, i.e. scratches and grazes, on the right ankle.”\n16.  The applicant claims that Dr. H.Ö. advised him to obtain permission from the prison authorities to be transferred to a hospital for treatment.\n17.  The applicant further claims that he submitte", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-934", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Budapest. At present, he is detained at Budapest Prison.\n8.  On 10 June 1999 the applicant was arrested and interrogated on a charge of murder. He was charged with having murdered a man in 1997. The man's corpse had been found in the garden of a co-accused. The victim's identity was not yet known. On the next day the Budapest Regional Public Prosecutor's Office dismissed the applicant's complaint in respect of his arrest. In the ensuing proceedings he was assisted by a defence counsel of his choice.\n9.  On 10 and 24 June, 9 September, 3 November 1999 and 2 May 2000 the applicant was interrogated, but he refused to answers the questions put to him. His co-accused was interrogated on 21 and 23 June, 8 September 1999 and 3 May 2000. Witnesses were heard on 10 and 23 June, 10 and 16 July, 2, 3, 6 and 9 August, 10 and 29 September, 3 November 1999, 17 February, 1 and 13 March 2000 and 10 July 2001.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 12 June 1999 the Pest Central District Court, as confirmed by the Budapest Regional Court on 18 June 1999, ordered the applicant's detention on remand until 12 July 1999. The District Court considered that – given the seriousness of the charges against him – there was a risk of the applicant's collusion and absconding.\n11.  On 14 June 1999 a forensic pathologist was appointed. He submitted his final opinion on 19 October 1999.\n12.  On 8 July 1999 the Buda Central District Court, as confirmed by the Regional Court on 26 July 1999, prolonged the applicant's detention until 12 September 1999 for the same reasons given by the Pest Central District Court.\n13.  On 7 September and 2 December 1999 the Regional Court, as confirmed by an appeal panel of the same court on 23 September and 22 December 1999, prolonged, for the same reasons, the applicant's detention until 12 December 1999 and 12 April 2000, respectively.\n14.  On 10 April, 4 July and 6 October 2000 the Supreme Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 12 July, 12 October 2000 and 20 January 2001, respectively. It referred to the danger of the applicant's absconding, noting that a DNA-analysis was being carried out with a view to confirming the victim's identity. An expert in haemogenetics, who had been appointed to this end on 16 August 1999, submitted his final opinion on 17 October 2001.\n15.  On 6 November 2000 the Regional Court, as confirmed by an appeal panel of the same court on 15 December 2000, dismissed the applicant's request for release.\n16.  On 17 January 2001 the Supreme Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 20 April 2001 and dismissed his request for release. It invoked the danger that the applicant would abscond if released.\n17.  On 6 March 2001 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request for release.\n18.  On 19 April 2001 the Supreme Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 20 July 2001 on the ground that he might abscond.\n19.  On 2 May 2001 the investigation was closed and the case-file was made available to the defendants. On 22 May 2001 the Public Prosecutor's Office reopened the investigation with a view to completion of the case against the defendants. These proceedings ended on 20 June 2001.\n20.  Meanwhile, on 5 June 2001 the Regional Court, as confirmed by an appeal panel of the same court on 27 June 2001, dismissed the applicant's request for release.\n21.  On 13 July 2001 the Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment, accusing the applicant and two others of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-935", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Wrocław, Poland.\n10. On 28 March 1991 Ms S. filed with the Oleśno District Court an action in which she sought the distribution of an inheritance and the dissolution of the co-ownership of the inherited property. The applicant was one of the heirs to that property.\n11. The court held hearings on 15 May, 28 August and 14 November 1991, 29 January, 22 April, 27 May and 30 September 1992, 23 February and 7 June 1993, 28 March and 25 April 1994, 28 June 1995, 27 March and 7 August 1996, 6 January, 17 November and 11 December 1997, as well as 3 June and 22 June 1998.\n12. On 4 March 1999 the hearing was adjourned because of the absence of the applicant's lawyer.\n13. Further hearings were held on 30 March, 23 April, 5 May, 11 May, 23 June, 14 July and 28 July 1999.\n14. The hearing scheduled for 8 September 1999 was adjourned because of an illness of a court expert.\n15. The court held hearings on 14 October and 30 December 1999, 17 January, 29 March, 20 April, 28 April, 18 May, 23 May and 16 June 2000.\n16. On 20 June 2000, in reply to the applicant's complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings, the President of the Częstochowa Regional Court noted that the delay resulted from the complexity of the case, the parties' numerous requests concerning evidence and their petitions challenging expert opinions. She admitted that the court experts had failed to issue their opinions within the time-limits. The President considered that in one of such cases, in 1997, the court had failed to use disciplinary measures against the expert. She finally informed the applicant that she had instituted proceedings which could result in the dismissal of certain experts.\n17. On 8 November 2000 the Oleśno District Court imposed a fine on an expert for his non-compliance with the time-limit for issuing his opinion.\n18. On 10 January 2001 the court quashed its decision of 8 November 2000.\n19. On the same day the court summoned certain individuals to participate in the proceedings.\n20. On 20 February 2001 it stayed the proceedings because of the death of one of the participants. On 5 June 2001 the court resumed the examination of the case.\n21. It held hearings on 6 July 2001 and 4 January 2002. The hearings scheduled for 15 February and 27 March 2002 were adjourned because of the absence of Ms S. Hearings were held on 29 May and 20 September 2002.\n22. On 2 April 2003 the court served a copy of an expert opinion on the applicant for observations.\n23. On 3 June 2003 the Oleśno District Court gave a judgment on the merits.\n24. On 16 December 2003 the Opole Regional Court dismissed an appeal against that judgment.\n25. By a decision of 28 June 2004 the Supreme Court declined to examine the cassation appeal, considering that it had not been shown that arguable public interest grounds existed which would justify the examination of the appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-936", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1921. He and his family were living in Kaynak hamlet at the time of the events giving rise to the present application.\n9.  The facts of the case, particularly concerning events which took place on or about 21 April 1992 and on or about 30 June 1992, are disputed by the parties.\n10.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 12-20). The Government's submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 21-23). Documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government are summarised in Sections D and E respectively.\n11.  The Commission, in order to establish the facts disputed by the parties, conducted an investigation with the assistance of the parties, pursuant to former Article 28 § 1 (a) of the Convention. It appointed three delegates (Mr G. Jörundsson, Mrs J. Liddy and Mr G. Ress), who took evidence in Ankara from 17 April 1996 to 19 April 1996. They heard the applicant's son as well as the following 10 witnesses: Hikmet İlhan, Halit Çirik, Mehmet Göçmen, Akın Yılmaz, Duran Kuşçu, Levent Değirmenci, Halim Çalışkan, Celal Göl, Davut Başer and finally Cemil Dinler. A summary of the oral evidence given by these witnesses may be found in Section F below.\nA further witness, Mr Kürşat Kayral, the chief public prosecutor in Mardin who had questioned the applicant, was also summoned but did not appear before the Commission's delegates. A letter written by Mr Kayral, explaining his failure to give evidence before the delegates, was read out during the fact-finding hearing. Mr Kayral stated that his involvement in the case was limited to his having taken a statement from the applicant and therefore he did not have any further information to offer.\n12.  Kaynak was a small hamlet where approximately 10 families lived. The village of Ahmetli, where 20-25 families lived, was about one kilometre away from the hamlet of Kaynak. As both places were very small they were joined so as to form one single village. Ahmetli was the centre and Kaynak the hamlet. It was built on a hillside and from there the nearby villages of Yardere and Aytepe, both of which were located at a lower altitude and within a one and a half kilometre radius, could be seen. To the west of the hamlet was the village of Konaklı where there was a gendarme station. It was one and a half kilometres away and located at a higher altitude than the hamlet. The villages of Oğuzköy, located six to seven kilometres to the south of the hamlet, and the village of Akıncılar, 17 kilometres away from the village of Konaklı, also had gendarme stations.\n13.  The applicant owned vineyards, almond, cherry, fig and oak trees which were located to the west of Kaynak hamlet. He also owned plum, peach and apricot trees which were located in the valley between his hamlet and the village of Yardere, located to the south-east of the hamlet. These trees were irrigated by a river which had its source in the village of Aytepe and flowed to Syria. The applicant owned land in the valley where he used to grow cotton and tobacco. He also kept sheep and goats.\n14.  On or about 21 April 1992 military units attached to the Gendarme Headquarters at Mardin searched the applicant's hamlet. No military operation was taking place in the area at the time. The soldiers rounded up the villagers, threatened them and told them that they would be killed if they did not leave the hamlet. T", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-937", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant companies are limited liability companies established under the law of the Netherlands. They have their registered office in Kwadendamme.\n9.  At some stage in 1989, officials of the Fiscal Intelligence and Information Service (Fiscale Inlichtingen- en Opsporingsdienst, “FIOD”) instituted an investigation into activities of the applicant companies and their director, Mr Wouterse, as they suspected forgery (valsheid in geschrifte) and tax fraud. On 29 October 1990 the FIOD searched the premises of the applicant companies and seized documents and items belonging to the companies. That same day Mr Wouterse was interviewed. The FIOD’s investigation was concluded on 7 August 1991. The official report of the investigation was completed on 17 August 1991. Twenty-one witnesses were heard during the investigation.\n10.  In April 1992 the scope for an out-of-court settlement in the cases of the applicant companies and Mr Wouterse was explored. In a letter of 24 April 1992 counsel for the applicant companies and Mr Wouterse asked the Public Prosecutor to allow them a period of three weeks in which to consider the question whether to request a preliminary judicial investigation (gerechtelijk vooronderzoek) so that witnesses could be heard by the FIOD or the investigating judge (rechter-commissaris). On 28 July 1992 the applicant companies and Mr Wouterse requested a preliminary judicial investigation, which was then applied for on 4 August 1992.\n11.  On 28 October 1992 the investigating judge sent a number of official records of evidence taken from witnesses to counsel for the applicant companies and asked him for the names of any further witnesses. On 10 November 1992 the investigating judge informed counsel that he had heard extensive testimony from a large number of witnesses and that in doing so he had given counsel the benefit of the doubt “with regard to the question of whether hearing these witnesses was necessary to the preliminary judicial investigation”. As to five new witnesses whose names counsel had put forward, he stated that counsel should provide detailed reasons why it was necessary for the purposes of the preliminary judicial investigation to hear them.\n12.  The preliminary judicial investigation into the applicant companies’ activities was concluded on 9 February 1993.\n13.  The applicant companies and Mr Wouterse submitted a request to the investigating judge on 16 February 1993 to reopen the preliminary judicial investigation because they still had five witnesses they wished to be heard. The investigating judge rejected this request in a decision of 19 February 1993 on the grounds that the applicant companies and Mr Wouterse had not established that hearing the five witnesses was in the interests of the investigation. The investigating judge also took the view that the defence would not by any reasonable standards be prejudiced if the five witnesses were not heard.\n14.  On 25 August 1993 the preliminary judicial investigation into the applicant companies was closed. Notice of closure was served on 3 September 1993. On 5 October 1993 notification of further proceedings against the applicant companies was sent to counsel.\n15.  On 29 December 1993 summonses were served on Mr Wouterse. The cases against the applicant companies and Mr Wouterse were dealt with at the same sitting but were not joined.\n16.  Following a hearing on 20 January 1994, the Middelburg Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) convicted the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-938", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  On 26 September 1991, the local commission in Pătrăuţi for the application of Law no. 18/1991 (“the local commission”) issued a certificate to the applicant recognising his ownership of a plot of land measuring 1,500 square metres.\n7.  In 1993, the Suceava county commission for the application of Law no. 18/1991 (“the county commission”) issued ownership titles to the applicant's neighbours for several plots of land which had become State property in 1944.\n8.  In 1993 the applicant brought an action in the Suceava District Court seeking the restitution of the aforementioned land, which he had inherited before the collectivisation. On 9 June 1993 the District Court ordered the restitution of part of the claimed land, measuring 3,087 square metres, on the site known by the name “Acasă”. Both litigants appealed against this decision. On 25 February 1994 the Bucharest County Court quashed the decision and remitted the case to the Suceava District Court. On 13 March 1995 the District Court ordered the same partial restitution to the applicant. No appeal was lodged and the decision became final.\n9.  On 9 November 1993 the applicant had filed an action with the Bucharest County Court seeking to compel the local commission to enforce the judgment of 9 June 1993 and the certificate of 26 September 1991. He also claimed compensation for the profits derived from the cultivation of the land by third parties.\n10.  On 25 January 1996 the County Court required the local commission to restore to the applicant the two plots of land (3,087 square metres and 1,500 square metres) as ordered in the final judgment of 13 March 1995 and the certificate of 26 September 1991. In the same decision, the County Court dismissed the applicant's claim for cultivation profits as the evidence produced was insufficient to make an evaluation. No appeal was lodged and the decision became final.\n11.  On 29 May 1998, in response to complaints by the applicant about the non-enforcement of the above judgment, the prefect of the county informed the applicant that, as long as there was a valid ownership title in respect of the land in question (issued to the applicant's neighbours) which had not been declared null and void, the judgment could not be enforced. The prefect suggested that the applicant lodge with the competent court an action for that purpose.\n12.  On 16 March 1999, the applicant brought an action seeking a declaration that the ownership title issued on 24 May 1993 in favour of H.M., one of the neighbours, was null and void.\n13.  In a judgment of 28 June 1999 given by the Suceava District Court, upheld by the final decision of 24 April 2001 of the Suceava Court of Appeal, the action was rejected on the ground that the applicant had not proven his ownership rights over the plot of land in question.\n14.  In 2000 the applicant brought an action in the Suceava District Court to compel the local commission to enforce the judgment of 13 March 1995. On 15 May 2001 the District Court dismissed the action because of the res judicata effect of the County Court's decision of 25 January 1996.\n15.  It appears from the parties' submissions that the judgments of 13 March 1995 and 25 January 1996 have to date not been enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-939", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first and fifth applicants were born in 1960. The second applicant was born in 1959. The third applicant was born in 1969. The fourth applicant was born in 1945. The sixth applicant was born in 1965. The applicants are nationals of Ukraine and reside in Beryslav, the Kherson Region.\n6.  In April 1998 the applicants initiated proceedings in the Beryslav City Court (the “Beryslav Court”) against the Department of Education of the Beryslav Municipal Council (the “Department”), seeking to recover an additional salary payment allegedly due to them for their time-in-service.\n7.  On 13 May 1998 the Beryslav Court allowed the applicants' claims and ordered the Department to pay the applicants the additional salary (time-in-service bonuses). In particular, it ordered that the first applicant be paid UAH 570.85[1] in compensation, the second – UAH 367.52[2], the third – UAH 204.3[3], the fourth – UAH 863.4[4], the fifth – UAH 561.4[5], and the sixth applicant – UAH 292.3[6].\n8.  On 18 May 1998 the Beryslav City Bailiffs' service (the “Bailiffs”) initiated enforcement proceedings for the judgment of 13 May 1998.\n9.  On 2 August 1999 the Beryslav Court suspended the execution of the judgment for three months due to the lack of funds in the budget of the Department.\n10.  On 7 March 2001 the Bailiffs informed the applicants that the Beryslav Court had suspended the execution of the judgment of 13 May 1998. On 13 August 2002 the Bailiffs informed the applicants that the judgment of 13 May 1998 would be executed when the State had provided the necessary budgetary funding. The judgment remained unenforced due to the Department's lack of funds.\n11.  On 31 July 2003 the amounts due to them pursuant to the judgment of 13 May 1998 were transferred to the applicants. They received the following amounts (the initial sums awarded by that judgment having been subjected to taxation): the first applicant – UAH 401.2[7], the second applicant – UAH 276.35[8], the third applicant – UAH 173.18[9], the fourth applicant – UAH 640.46[10], the fifth applicant – UAH 419.94[11], and the sixth applicant – UAH 242.98[12].", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-940", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the district of Kuşadası in the province of Aydın.\n5.  On 9 June 1989 the Kuşadası District Council (hereinafter “the Council”) and the applicant signed an agreement. By virtue of this agreement the Council unconditionally allocated part of the historic castle in Kuşadası to the applicant to open and run a museum for an indefinite period. On 18 July 1989 the applicant was issued with a special title deed to the property enabling him to open the museum.\n6.  On 26 May 1990 the museum was opened to the public following the grant of a licence by the Ministry of Culture.\n7.  On 22 April 1991 the Council annulled the agreement of 9 June 1989 on the ground that the applicant had not signed a protocol with the Mayor of Kuşadası within 15 days from the date of the opening of the museum. Pursuant to such a protocol the applicant would have undertaken to pay the Council 40% of the money generated from the sale of the entrance tickets to visitors to the museum. Items displayed in the museum were removed from the museum by the Council's employees.\n8.  On 27 June 1991 the applicant brought an action before the Aydın Administrative Court requesting the annulment of the Council's decision of 22 April 1991.\n9.  On 12 November 1991 the Aydın Administrative Court annulled the decision on the ground that the Council had never informed the applicant about the protocol or warned him about its intention to rescind the agreement. The Council appealed against the decision.\n10.  On 2 May 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Aydın Administrative Court's decision of 12 November 1991.\n11.  On 28 September 1995 the Aydın Administrative Court acceded to the Supreme Administrative Court's decision and rejected the applicant's request to annul the Council's decision. The court noted that a clause in the initial agreement between the Council and the applicant had stipulated that 40% of the income would be handed over to the Council. The court further observed that the applicant had been reminded by the Council about this clause on 24 May 1990 and had been urged to sign the protocol.\n12.  On 27 February 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant's appeal.\n13.  On 3 April 1997 the applicant applied to the Supreme Administrative Court and requested the rectification of the latter's decision of 27 February 1997.\n14.  On 23 December 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant's request for rectification.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-941", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Mrs Svetlana Borisovna Naumenko, was born on 26 January 1956 and currently resides in Odessa.\n10.  On 5 May 1991 the applicant was recognised as having been a relief worker at the 1986 Chernobyl Nuclear Plant disaster. The appropriate certificate (an identity card) was issued to the applicant by the Ministry of Health of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.\n11.  In November 1991 the applicant was recognised as falling within the second category of invalidity in relation to her participation in the relief work at Chernobyl.\n12.  On 22 April 1992 the Ministry of Health of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic annulled the certificate issued on 5 May 1991 because the applicant had not stayed and worked in the “Chernobyl alienation zone” (тридцятикілометрова зона або зона відчудження)[*].\n13.  On 7 November 1992 the Ministry of Health dismissed a petition filed by the chief doctor of the Odessa City Ambulance Service (the applicant's place of employment) requesting that the employees (including the applicant) of the Odessa City Ambulance Service who had worked in the alienation zone be given the status of relief workers.\n14.  On 1 September 1993 the Ministry of Chernobyl Affairs informed the chief doctor of the Odessa City Ambulance Service that there were no documents proving that the employees had stayed in the alienation zone.\n15.  In February 1994 the applicant lodged complaints with the Illichevsk District Court of Odessa, seeking to establish that she had indeed stayed in the alienation zone. On 3 March 1994 the Illichevsk District Court of Odessa delivered a judgment in which it accepted that the applicant had stayed in the alienation zone on 27 and 29 May 1986. The judgment became enforceable on 14 March 1994.\n16.  On 6 October 1994 the Odessa Regional Court dismissed as groundless the motion filed by the Chairman of the Odessa Regional Council's Commission on the Status of Victims of the Chernobyl Catastrophe to reverse the judgment of 3 March 1994.\n17.  On 28 December 1994 the Odessa Regional Council issued a certificate (an identity card) acknowledging the applicant's status as a victim of the Chernobyl disaster, as established by the decision of 3 March 1994.\n18.  On 8 June 1995 the Cabinet of Ministers adopted Resolution no. 404 introducing amendments to its earlier Resolution of 25 August 1992 no. 501 on the Procedure for the Issue of Certificates (Identity Cards) to Victims of the Chernobyl Catastrophe. By virtue of these amendments, court judgments could not serve as a basis for the issue of certificates (identity cards) nor provide proof of being a victim of the disaster and thereby give entitlement to special State benefits and social payments.\n19.  On 14 December 1995 the Commission on Disputes of the Ministry of Chernobyl Affairs refused to confirm the applicant's status as a Chernobyl victim since the relief work had taken place outside the alienation zone.\n20.  On 18 January 1996 the Odessa Regional Council's Commission on the Status of Victims of the Chernobyl Catastrophe (the “Commission”) annulled the decision of 28 December 1994 by which a certificate was issued to the applicant.\n21.  On 6 March 1996 the Chairman of the Department of Social Security of the Odessa Regional Council adopted a decision withdrawing the certificate from the applicant, suspending her social security payments and annulling the benefits awarded to her as a victim of the Chernobyl disaster.\n22.  On 18 June 1996 the C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-942", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Germany.\n5.  The applicant wrote an article entitled “Kurdistan: will it become a common colony of Europe?” in “Newroz”, a weekly newspaper published in Istanbul.\n6.  The article read:\n“The Turkish bourgeoisie has being advancing their intention of associating with the European Community since the date of the Treaty of Rome. However, the economic and political problems of Turkey have not been solved since that date. The conditions for association have not been established either. \nOn the other hand, the founders of the European Union are not keen on taking on board a huge problem with its fifteen million unemployed people and serious economic and social problems.\nConsidering the still unresolved problems of German unification and the unexpected economic integration of East European countries, the acceptance of Turkey by the Community definitely seems impossible.\n However, Europe does not want to keep out Turkey completely. It is keen on keeping Turkey within its hinterland as an investment area and a market. The dilemma of either being part of Europe or outside Europe is a common thread.\n Briefly, the structural problem of Turkey and the unwillingness of Europe for association with it intersect. On the one hand, the pressures on Turkey from the various institutions of European association on matters such as “Democracy”, “Human Rights”, “the Kurdish Problem”, etc. reflect the reaction of domestic public opinion in Europe. On the other hand, these pressures are being used as an excuse to keep Turkey out. \n The above issue has to be emphasised in order to point out the defects in the sincerity both of the approaches to the solution of the Kurdish problem and the idea that the European institutions are the purest supporters of democracy and human rights.\n The customs union seems an acquired right or an opportunity for Turkey. However, it also seems very difficult for Turkey, having regard to her political and economical problems.\n The way to the customs union and the European Union will result in important changes for the Kurdish National Movement. In the first instance, Kurdistan, already shared by the colonialist Middle East States, will become a common colony of Europe along with her Turkish part. Accordingly, Kurdistan's political and social problems which originate from her colonial status will be directly addressed to Europe. \n It will become easier for Turkey to control Kurdistan by economic means than has been the case with its control through military force and political violence. This means that Kurdistan will become an economic and political environment for Turkey such that she will have neither the need for, nor the possibility to keep, Kurdistan as a classic colony.\n One of the direct political effects of this situation will be Europe's insistence on the direct application of its rules to solve the Kurdish problem. Europe is closely interested in both national matters and in the Kurdistan problem and has its own experiences of colonialism. \n Another political effect is that most of the Kurdish refugee organisations in Europe are supporting and promoting the European solution. This approach considers the future of the Kurdish community in a Turkish Republic associated with Europe. Kurdish intellectuals in Europe are also supporting this approach and conveying their political message to Kurdistan.\n Any possible tension with Europe will have a direct effect on the politics of the sub", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-943", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1935 and 1968 respectively and live in Saint‑Petersburg.\n5.  The applicants invested money in the construction of a block of flats. The contractors failed to provide the applicants with a flat in time.\n6.  On 26 August 1996 the applicants brought an action against the contractors before the Primorskiy District Court of Saint-Petersburg (“the district court”).\n7.  The district court initiated proceedings in the case on 6 December 1996, after the applicants had paid a court fee.\n8.  On 10 February 1998 the district court refused to entertain the application because of the applicants' alleged failure to attend hearings. This decision was not served on the applicants.\n9.  On 23 June 1998 the applicants, who claimed that they had never been summoned, appealed and asked for the restoration of the relevant time limit.\n10.  On 26 November 1998 the Saint-Petersburg City Court quashed the district court's decision of 10 February 1998 as unlawful in view of the lack of evidence that the applicants had ever been summoned to the hearings. It ordered the district court to examine the case.\n11.  On 31 December 1998 the district court scheduled a hearing for 31 March 1999.\n12.  The hearing was adjourned on 31 March 1999 to 8 July 1999 and on 8 July 1999 to 8 December 1999 on the ground of the defendants' failure to appear.\n13.  On 8 December 1999 the hearing was adjourned to 3 May 2000 as the judge was ill.\n14.  On 3 May 2000 the hearing was adjourned to 30 November 2000 because of the failure of the defendants to appear.\n15.  During 1999‑2000 the applicants filed a number of complaints with the district court, the Saint-Petersburg City Court and the Supreme Court requesting the acceleration of the examination of their case.\n16.  On 30 November 2000 the hearing was adjourned to 9 March 2001 as the judge was ill.\n17.  Between 9 March 2001 and 31 October 2001 the hearing was adjourned twice at the request of both parties.\n18.  On 31 October 2001 the hearing was adjourned to 11 February 2002 because the defendant failed to appear.\n19.  On 11 April 2002 the district court examined the case and rejected the applicants' claim for a flat on the ground that all the flats in the block in question had already been distributed among other investors. The court noted that as regards the investments made, the applicants' interests were protected in the framework of ongoing bankruptcy proceedings against the contractors.\n20.  On 15 April 2002 the applicants appealed.\n21.  On 14 November 2002 the Saint-Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-944", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants, Mr Vincenzo Del Latte and Mr Angelo Del Latte, were born in 1966 and 1967 respectively and live in Volendam, the Netherlands.\n11.  On 22 June 1996 the applicants went together to the home of one Y., with whom they had quarrelled in a bar earlier. Finding Y. at home, one of them – apparently Vincenzo Del Latte – fired three shots from a gun in his general direction.\n12.  The applicants were arrested on the same day and charged with the attempted murder, or in the alternative, the attempted manslaughter of Y. The applicant Angelo Del Latte was in addition charged, in the further alternative, with aiding and abetting the attempted murder or manslaughter by Vincenzo Del Latte.\n13.  The applicants were taken into police custody (inverzekeringstelling) and thereafter kept in detention on remand (voorlopige hechtenis).\n14.  A first trial hearing took place before the Haarlem Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) on 30 September 1996. On 14 October 1996 the Regional Court gave an interlocutory judgment remitting the case to the investigating judge (rechter-commissaris) for additional investigations.\nA second trial hearing was held on 7 January 1997.\n15.  On 9 January 1997 the Regional Court gave judgment acquitting the applicants of all charges. This entailed the applicants' immediate release from detention on remand.\nThe prosecution appealed.\n16.  Following a hearing on 21 November 1997, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) gave judgment on 5 December 1997 upholding the Regional Court's acquittal.\nSince in the Netherlands no appeal on points of law is possible against an acquittal (Article 430 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering) – hereinafter “CCP”), this brought the criminal proceedings to an end.\n17.  Both applicants applied to the Court of Appeal in January 1998, each seeking monetary compensation in an amount of 31,200 Netherlands guilders (NLG) for the time spent in pre-trial detention (Article 89 CCP – see below).\n18.  A hearing was held on 24 April 1998.\n19.  On 5 June 1998 the Court of Appeal gave decisions dismissing the applicants' claims. Its reasoning, identical in both decisions, was the following (emphasis added):\n“The Court of Appeal finds that the file contains sufficient evidence to prove that the applicant together with his brother went to the home of the victim [Y.] in Edam-Volendam and that shots were fired by one of them through [Y.]'s living-room window with a firearm. At that moment [Y.] was in that living-room. However, it has not been established conclusively (onomstotelijk) that the shooting was intended to kill [Y.].\nHowever, in view of the other circumstances as they appear from the file, the actions of the applicant and his brother amounted to threats, within the meaning of Article 285 of the Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht – hereinafter “CC”).\nThe behaviour of the applicant together with his brother in any case justified that he be taken into police custody and subsequently held in detention on remand.\nThe Haarlem Regional Court, and also the Court of Appeal, have had to consider the case on the basis of the indictment prepared by the public prosecutor (officier van justitie). This indictment was limited to attempted murder/manslaughter. It did not contain any charge of threatening to commit a crime directed against life.\nThe Regional Court and the Court of Appeal found insufficient evidence to support the charges contained in the indictment, and", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-945", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and was imprisoned in the central prison of Ankara at the time of the introduction of his application. He currently lives in Ankara.\n6.  On 31 May 1995 an article titled “The International Atatürk Peace Award” (“Uluslararası Atatürk Barış Ödülü”) was printed by the applicant in the daily Yeni Politika newspaper. On the same day the newspaper was seized by security forces upon the order of the Istanbul public prosecutor at the printing office, before being distributed. \nThe impugned article read:\n“Peace, just like freedom, is a sacred creation of human consciousness and desire. This treasure deserves constant struggle, sincerity, alertness and solidarity for it. Peace, just like freedom, requires sacrifice and effort.\n It is certain that all peoples of the world understood the value and meaning of keeping peace better after the two world wars whose pain will continue to horrify the human consciousness for centuries. The rise of the anti-war movements, both at the national and international level, is the reflection of this consciousness. In fact, history has proven that for a permanent peace it is essential that an end be put to all forms of exploitation and discrimination and that the social system rest on the foundations of tolerance, mutual respect for rights, justice and the rule of law. This undisputable principle is also the only guarantee for today, both nationally and internationally.\nNowadays, peace movements in many countries, in addition to their own peace efforts in their countries, monitor the events out of their countries like a radar device and try to offer solidarity with people who fight for peace and freedom. In order to realize this purpose, national committees are being set up and the peace efforts of individuals and institutions are supported with annual peace awards. These committees’ decisions are generally taken after meticulous inquiries concerning the nominees. Among these awards, the Nobel Peace Prize is the most distinguished one.\nAs it is known, in the recent years the Republic of Turkey, having been influenced by the above-mentioned activities, introduced the International Atatürk Peace Award. By doing this, the statesmen, who have stripped concepts like freedom, equality, democracy, justice and law of their substance and who believe that they have succeeded in deceiving their own people and the international community with poor caricatures of those concepts, likewise have diluted and distorted the concept of peace.\nFirst of all, those who cannot establish democracy in all the institutions and regulations of their country, those who ignore human rights and who want to destroy all values of the people with racist and ravaging policies should not have the right to use a high concept like peace, insincerely, for their political purposes. Which country, where people are tortured and killed in custody, made to “disappear”, shot in the middle of a street; where villages and towns are evacuated, forests are burned down, gives a peace award? No. Nobody has the right to pollute the concept of peace and no one should.\nIt is known that the roots of the increasingly dirty war in Turkey today go back to the first years of the Republic. And who is responsible for the period between 1925 and 1938 when the identity and rights of the Kurdish people were denied and the experiments of brutal genocide were put into practice? Who is the architect of the policies of the Republic of Turkey which a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-946", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The case concerns the granting of permits to operate a gold mine in Ovacık, in the district of Bergama (İzmir) The applicants live in Bergama and the surrounding villages.\n12.  Mr Sefa Taşkın, born in 1950, was formerly the mayor of Bergama. He now lives in Dikili, ten kilometres away from the Ovacık gold mine.\nMr Tahsin Sezer, born in 1952, lives with his family in the village of Çamköy, which is 300 metres from the mine. He is a farmer and owns land in the surrounding area.\nMr Ali Karacaoğlu, born in 1950, lives with his family in the village of Çamköy. He owns land adjacent to the mine, on which he grows tobacco and olive trees.\nMrs Günseli Karacaoğlu, born in 1976, is the wife of the muhtar (elected local official) of the village of Çamköy. She is a livestock farmer.\nMr Muhterem Doğrul, born in 1949, lives in Çamköy. He is a livestock farmer. He and his family own an olive grove adjacent to the mine.\nMr İbrahim Dağ, born in 1951, lives in Çamköy. He is a livestock farmer and owns agricultural land near the mine, on some of which olive trees have been planted.\nMr Ali Duran, born in 1976, lives with his family in Çamköy. He is a livestock farmer.\nMr Sezer Umaç, born in 1978, used to live in the village of Süleymanlı, which is 900 metres from the mine. He asserts that he left the village recently on account of damage to the environment.\nMrs Ayşe Öçkan is the widow of Mr İzzet Öçkan, who died on 13 January 2004. She lives in the Bergama area and owns land near the mine.\nMr Hasan Geniş, born in 1968, lives in the village of Süleymanlı. He is a driver.\n13.  The applicants alleged that, as a result of the Ovacık gold mine’s development and operation, they had suffered and continued to suffer the effects of environmental damage; specifically, these include the movement of people and noise pollution caused by the use of machinery and explosives.\n14.  On 16 August 1989 the public limited company E.M. Eurogold Madencilik (“the company”), subsequently renamed Normandy Madencilik A.Ş., received authorisation to begin prospecting for gold.\n15.  On 4 July and 12 August 1991 the Directorate of Mines at the Ministry of Mines and the Ministry for Forests issued the two required permits to the company.\n16.  On 14 January 1992 the İzmir Directorate of Public Works sent a letter to the Ministry of the Environment requesting its opinion on the Ovacık gold mine.\n17  On 12 February 1992 the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources issued the company with an operating permit for the Ovacık gold mine. This permit was valid for ten years and authorised the use of cyanide leaching in the gold extraction process.\n18.  On 22 June 1992 the company began felling trees in part of the forestry area granted to it. The rest of the forest was left untouched in order to form a protection zone.\n19.  In accordance with section 10 of the Environment Act (Law no. 2872 – see paragraph 91 below), the procedure for an environmental impact report was launched on the Ministry of the Environment’s initiative.\n20.  On 26 October 1992 a public meeting was held as part of the preparations for the impact report. During that meeting, the public criticised, inter alia, the tree felling and the use of explosives and sodium cyanide; they also expressed their concerns about the seepage of waste into underground water supplies. The experts attending the meeting were asked a number of questions about the waste-retaining dam, the risks in the event of an earthquake and the state in whic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-947", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Vaasa, Finland.\n8.  The applicant is a journalist at the regional daily Pohjalainen which is published in Vaasa. In two articles published in January and February 1996 she described the allegedly unprofessional behaviour of an unnamed surgeon, “X”, which allegedly had caused the death of a patient in the Seinäjoki Central Hospital on 7 December 1992. The patient's top rib had been pressing on her artery, thereby hampering the blood flow in her left arm which would occasionally go numb. The surgery had consisted of shortening the top rib by 5-8 centimetres. Complications had arisen after the rib had been shortened and the patient was established to have died from the bursting of her subclavian vein and the blood flow into her pleural cavity.\n9.  The patient's widower, Mr Haapalainen, had filed a criminal complaint against X and another surgeon who had assisted during the operation. The National Medico-Legal Board (terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskus, rättsskyddscentralen för hälsovården) had not found it possible to establish at what stage of her operation Mrs Haapalainen had suffered the injury leading to her death. Consequently, no causal link could be established between the injury and the conduct of either of the two surgeons.\n10.  The Central Criminal Police had conducted a pre-trial investigation into the death. In April 1994 the Vaasa County Prosecutor had decided not to press charges against X, as there was no evidence that he was guilty either of an offence in office caused by negligence or of involuntary manslaughter. The prosecutor had reasoned, inter alia, as follows:\n“... From the point of view of criminal law it must be examined whether the subclavian vein burst as a result of conduct of which someone may be held guilty and whether errors were committed during the after-care. ... The [expert] opinions have not found that the subclavian vein burst as a result of maltreatment or negligence attributable to [X] or the other operating surgeon. ... [The pre-trial record contains] a number of statements concerning [X's] possible alcohol consumption. ... In respect of the day of the operation the information is contradictory. ... Therefore there is insufficient evidence to find that [X] was under the influence of alcohol while operating on Mrs Haapalainen and that such influence affected his ability to carry out his duties. ... Nor has it been possible to determine whether [X's] shaking hands impacted in any significant way on the conduct of his surgery. ...”\n11.  The applicant's first article of 4 January 1996 bore the title “If only I could get a good grip on life again” (Kun saisi vielä joskus elämästä kunnolla kiinni). It contained an interview with Mr Haapalainen. The text accompanying his picture read as follows:\n“How is it possible that a surgeon is allowed to conduct surgery with alcohol in his blood – is it not a fact that pilots only get to manoeuvre a plane when they are absolutely sober, wonders Jorma Haapalainen, who lost his wife.”\nThe introductory text on the front page bore the title: “How to survive all of this? (Miten tästä kaikesta selviää?). It read as follows:\n“Jorma Haapalainen, a father of two in Old Vaasa is trying to get a grip on his life again. Three years ago the wet Independence Day of a Seinäjoki surgeon cost the life of [Mr Haapalainen's] wife.\n– Whose is the responsibility, asks Jorma.” \nThe front page also carried a picture of the couple.\n12.  On 9 Janu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-948", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The late Olof Bruncrona’s heirs Marcus and Petter Bruncrona are Finnish nationals born in 1964 and 1967 and resident in Helsinki. The estate of Olof Bruncrona also acts as an applicant.\n13.  The applicants are the owners of the real property Karsby (registered as number 1:44; “the Karsby mansion”) in the village of the same name, currently part of the city of Tammisaari (Ekenäs).\n14.  The applicants claim ownership in the form of a right of permanent usufruct[1] (in Finnish vakaa hallinta-oikeus; in Swedish ständig besittningsrätt) in respect of the property Bergö-Högholm (registered as number 1:0) in the village of the same name, also within the city limits of Tammisaari. The property comprises 165.4 hectares of water and some islands totalling 27.6 hectares. The islands originally belonged to the Swedish Crown (“Crown land”; kruununluontoinen maa, jord av krononatur).\n15.  Around the early 18th century the then owners of the Karsby mansion (kartano, säteri) were afforded the right to make use of the Bergö-Högholm islands in return for an annual levy (sääntönäisvero, stadga or stadgad ränta). The levy was collected from 1723 onwards. That arrangement was maintained by a decision of the Senate of the then Grand Duchy on 9 May 1862. The decision noted the following:\n(In Swedish) “... så emedan dessa holmar äro påförde stadgade räntor och sedan medlet af förra århundradet opåtaldt innehafts ... pröve VI skäligt förklara desamma skola som hitintills förbliva under sagde säteri ... emot erläggande af de förre stadgade räntorne, hvarom anteckning likväl bör i jordeboken införas...”\n(Translation into English) “... since these islands are subject to payment of an annual levy and have been made use of in an undisturbed manner since the middle of the last century ... we find it reasonable that they should remain, as heretofore, attached to the said mansion ... in return for payment of the annual levy, which should be entered into the land register ...”\n16.  When land taxation was abolished in 1924 the duty to pay a levy was replaced by a liability to pay State wealth tax (varallisuusvero, förmögenhetsskatt). Up to that year the levy had amounted to the equivalent of 1.29 euros (EUR) at today’s value.\n17.  The Bergö-Högholm property was formed through a supplementary land-parcelling procedure in 1975. At the same time it was registered as ordinary real property instead of Crown land, the State being indicated as its owner. According to the record of the land parcelling the owner description was incomplete, but the property was leased to the Karsby mansion. During the land-parcelling proceedings the owners of the Karsby mansion submitted that they did not question the State’s ownership. However, they claimed that they had a right of disposal (dispositionsrätt in Swedish).\n18.  The owners of the Karsby mansion made use of the Bergö-Högholm islands and the surrounding waters in an undisturbed manner until 1984, when the National Forestry Board granted fishing rights to a third party without Olof Bruncrona’s consent.\n19.  In 1985 Olof Bruncrona initiated proceedings with a view to having his ownership of the Bergö-Högholm property confirmed. In a judgment of 9 October 1987 the Tammisaari District Court (kihlakunnanoikeus, häradsrätten) found it established that the claimant and the previous owners of the Karsby mansion had been enjoying a right of permanent usufruct in respect of the property, that right having developed into ownership.\n20.  The", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-949", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 3 January 1997 the applicant appeared before the magistrates' court, charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and failing to answer bail. He was legally represented. The applicant elected to be tried in the Crown Court. The stipendiary magistrate therefore adjourned the proceedings to enable a committal hearing to take place at a later date and proceeded to consider whether the applicant should be granted bail. During the course of that consideration, the applicant “reacted adversely” in court, causing a disturbance which led the magistrate to conclude that there existed a future risk of a breach of the peace by him. The magistrate therefore made an order binding the applicant over to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour under the Justices of the Peace Act 1361.\n9.  The applicant was “bound over” in his own recognisance of 50 pounds sterling (GBP) together with a surety of GBP 250. The precise terms of the order were found by the Divisional Court (in the later judicial review proceedings) to be unclear. However, the Divisional Court proceeded on the assumption that the order of the magistrates' court had fixed a period of 28 days' imprisonment in default of the applicant's own recognisance and/or a suitable surety. The magistrate did not give any opportunity for the applicant or his representative to make submissions about the terms of the order before it was imposed.\n10.  It appears that later on the day on which the binding over order was imposed, in the absence of both the applicant and his representative, the surety presented himself to the magistrate, who himself took the recognisance. The magistrate appears to have deemed the proposed surety unsuitable and to have done so on the ground that he did not have any readily available money. The applicant was committed to custody on the same day for 28 days. The Divisional Court later noted that he had remained in custody until 16 January 1997 or a little later.\n11.  On 2 June 1997 the applicant was granted leave to apply for judicial review of the decision to impose the binding over order.\n12.  On 20 January 1998 the Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review. The nature of the applicant's case was stated by the Divisional Court to be as follows:\n“It is not suggested by Mr. Daniel, for the applicant, that the magistrate had no power under [the Justices of the Peace Act 1361] or common law to impose a binding over order without consent, to require a surety or to impose a sentence of imprisonment in lieu. What is suggested is that there was a breach of natural justice or procedural irregularity in the way in which the magistrate dealt with the matter, without investigating further, or giving specific opportunity to the applicant or his legal representative to make representations about the terms of any binding over order.”\n13.  The Divisional Court (Lord Justice Simon Brown and Mr Justice Mance) agreed that the binding over order had been procedurally irregular and granted a declaration to that effect. During the course of their judgments, the judges of the Divisional Court held that:\n(a)  previous domestic case-law had established that there were circumstances where failing to hear a defendant or his representative prior to imposing a binding over order containing a requirement of a recognisance could amount to a breach of the rules of natural justice. Mr Justice Mance quoted, inter alia, the headnote of the case of R. v. Central Criminal Court e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-950", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The details concerning the applicants are contained in the Court's files and may be consulted in the Court archives.\n7.  Each applicant failed to pay sums due in respect of either local taxes (community charge, council tax or non-domestic rates), or court-imposed fines. In respect of the failure to pay local taxes, the magistrates' court had in each case determined that the applicants were liable to pay (issuing a liability order); in fines cases, the magistrates' court had imposed the fine as the sentence followed a criminal conviction.\n8.  Each applicant fell into arrears with the payments due from them. These cases involved the enforcement proceedings in respect of their arrears in the magistrates' court. Each applicant appeared before the court, following the issuing of an application for their committal to prison as a result of their failure to pay the sums due. At that hearing the magistrates found that the non-payment was due to the applicant's wilful refusal or culpable neglect. As a result each applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment. The sentence was suspended on terms that the applicant makes periodic payments towards the outstanding sum. When the applicant failed to comply with the terms imposed, a further hearing was held in the magistrates' court at which the suspended term of imprisonment was activated. Each applicant spent a period of time in prison.\n9.  Legal aid was not available for the enforcement proceedings prior to 1 June 1997 and none of the applicants were legally represented at the hearings in front of the magistrates.\n10.  Following their imprisonment, an application was made on behalf of each applicant, by way of either judicial review or case stated, which resulted in the High Court quashing the orders made by the magistrates. In three cases (Parker (46416/99), Daldry (58896/00), Dann (3859/02)), the orders of the magistrates were quashed in a judgment of the High Court. In the remaining cases the orders were quashed following the High Court's approval of a consent order agreed between the applicants and the magistrates who had sentenced them.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-951", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants are six women from northern Iraq, born in 1950, 1970, 1951, 1939, 1949 and 1947 respectively. The first applicant brought the application on her own behalf and on behalf of her deceased son, Ismail Hassan Sherif. The remaining applicants brought the application on their own behalf and on behalf of their deceased husbands, Ahmad Fatah Hassan, Abdula Teli Hussein, Abdulkadir Izat Khan Hassan, Abdulrahman Mohammad Sherriff and Guli Zekri Guli respectively. The fourth applicant has also brought the application on behalf of her deceased son, Sarabast Abdulkadir Izzat.\n11.  The facts of the case are in dispute between the parties.\n12.  The applicants are shepherdesses who earn their living by shepherding sheep in the valleys and hills surrounding their village of Azadi in Sarsang province near the Turkish border. Their deceased relatives were likewise employed.\n13.  On 1 April 1995 the applicants learned that the Turkish army, which had crossed earlier into Iraq, was in their area. They saw military activity and witnessed military helicopters transporting soldiers and food in the valley below their village.\n14.  On the morning of 2 April 1995 Ismail Hassan Sherif, Ahmad Fatah Hassan, Abdula Teli Hussein, Abdulkadir Izat Khan Hassan, Abdulrahman Mohammad Sherriff, Guli Zekri Guli and Sarabast Abdulkadir Izatthe, together with the first, third, fourth and fifth applicants, left the village to take their flocks of sheep to the hills. The second and sixth applicants remained in the village to take care of their children.\n15.  After the party of eleven shepherds (the first, third, fourth and fifth applicants and Ismail Hassan Sherif, Ahmad Fatah Hassan, Abdula Teli Hussein, Abdulkadir Izat Khan Hassan, Abdulrahman Mohammad Sherriff, Guli Zekri Guli and Sarabast Abdulkadir Izzat) had walked for fifteen minutes in the direction of Spna, with the four women walking in front of the seven men, they met Turkish soldiers. The latter started to shout abuse at the eleven shepherds, hitting them with their rifle butts, kicking them and slapping them on the face. They separated the women from the men. They told the women to return to the village and then took the men away. The four applicants returned to the village and told the other villagers what had happened.\n16.  In the meantime, the second and sixth applicants had begun to worry about their husbands. They had heard gunfire and had been told by a fellow villager that the Turkish army was nearby and that the shooting had come from the direction of a cave situated outside the village in the direction of Spna. The villager thought that Turkish soldiers had been firing inside the cave. As a result, the second and sixth applicants together with three other identified women decided to go to look for their men in the direction of the cave. This occurred before the first, third, fourth and fifth applicants had returned to the village. When the second and sixth applicants and the three other women reached the Turkish soldiers they saw the shepherds with them. The soldiers fired in their direction. The women left and went down into the valley. There they met another group of soldiers and requested permission to talk to the men. The soldiers pointed their guns at them and the women left.\n17.  Instead of going to the village, the five women tried to hide in the valley but were spotted by the soldiers who threatened to kill them. Eventually the women reached the cave, but the men were not there. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-952", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The applicant was born in New Zealand and at all material times was domiciled there. In 1966 he came to the United Kingdom to attend flying courses and at the same time engaged in other occupations of an engineering or building contractor variety, trading under the name “King Enterprises Engineering & Hardware Co”. The applicant met Miss J. and between April 1973 and October 1991 they purchased properties together.\n9.  From the 1970s onwards, the applicant's tax returns were incomplete and late, in some cases by several years. From February 1982, the Inland Revenue began investigating a number of guesthouse businesses in London which were associated with the applicant and/or his partner Miss J. of which no mention had been made in the applicant's tax returns.\n10.  In December 1985 the General Commissioners of taxes served two notices on the applicant requiring him to provide details of the acquisition of one of the guesthouses and to produce his business records. At a meeting on 21 November 1986, the applicant states that he was informed that the Revenue would be seeking penalties as part of any settlement.\n11.  From this time the applicant was involved in frequent discussions and correspondence with the Revenue about his affairs. The Government stated that the Revenue held some 38 meetings with the applicant and/or his accountant between September 1986 and July 1991.\n12.  In June 1987 the Revenue requested a statement of assets and liabilities from the applicant. The applicant states that he objected to disclosing all his assets since due to his non-domicile status his overseas assets were of no relevance. When he had not provided the statement by November 1987, the applicant was interviewed by the Inspector of taxes and on 21 November 1987 the “Hansard statement” was read to him. The statement, revised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer from time to time, sets out the practice of the Inland Revenue in cases in which criminal proceedings may be contemplated and outlines the factors taken into account by the Revenue when deciding whether to prosecute.\n13.  In April 1988 the General Commissioners served a notice requiring the applicant to give details of all transfers of property and cash and of his bank accounts. The notices included a warning about the financial penalty which could be imposed for non-compliance.\n14.  On 18 January 1989 the applicant signed a “Statement of Personal Assets and Liabilities and Business Interests” as at 1 September 1986. He states that this was after the Special Commissioners had refused to require him to disclose his overseas assets. The same month, the Revenue issued tax assessments against the applicant for the tax years 1972/3 to 1986/7. The assessments were for income tax on guesthouse profits and bank interest which had not been declared by the applicant in his tax returns. The total claimed was in excess of 620,000 pounds sterling (GBP). For the tax years more than six years prior to the assessments being made, the Revenue could only raise assessments which were to make good a loss of tax due to the neglect or wilful default of the applicant.\n15.  The applicant appealed against the assessments. Initial hearings during early 1989 before the General Commissioners were adjourned on the application of the applicant or Miss J. On 24 August 1989, at the Revenue's application, the appeals were transferred to the Speci", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-953", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Turany. He is a soldier by profession.\n8.  On 22 May 1997 the applicant's neighbour damaged a fence and entered the applicant's land while fixing the connection of his house pipes to the gas supply in the street. The applicant requested that the neighbour and the workers stop the works as he had not been notified and the neighbour had not shown that he had been authorised to do so. As the neighbour and the workers refused to stop the works, the applicant attempted to prevent them from continuing. The neighbour called the police.\n9.  Later an employee of the municipal office in Turany asked the applicant to allow the neighbour to fix the connection. As the applicant still prevented the works from being carried out, the police took him, with his consent, to a police station where he was asked to explain his behaviour.\n10.  On 7 July 1997 the Martin Office of Investigation charged the applicant with an offence in that he had tried to prevent his neighbour from having a gas supply extension fixed. On 6 August 1997 the Banská Bystrica District Military Prosecutor quashed this decision as, in view of their character, the applicant's actions did not constitute a criminal offence. They could be qualified as minor offences falling under the Minor Offences Act of 1990. As a result, the case was transmitted to the rector of the Military Academy in Liptovský Mikuláš where the applicant was attached as a professional soldier.\n11.  On 27 October 1997 the rector of the Military Academy in Liptovský Mikuláš issued a decision by which he imposed a fine of 1,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) on the applicant under the Minor Offences Act of 1990. The decision stated that the applicant had committed a disciplinary offence under the Military Order and that his actions constituted a minor offence under sections 49(1)(d) and 50(1) of the Minor Offences Act of 1990. According to the decision, the applicant had acted contrary to the rules of civic propriety in that he had cut through two electric wires belonging to a building company and had forcibly detached a steel pipe. He had thereby rendered difficult works which had been authorised by a public authority and had disregarded his civil obligations. Reference was made to the police case file.\n12.  The applicant appealed arguing that the neighbour and the authorities had acted contrary to the law.\n13.  On 10 December 1997 the Ministry of Defence dismissed the applicant's appeal. In March 1998 the Minister of Defence refused to review that decision.\n14.  On 9 January 1998 the applicant requested the Bratislava III District Court to examine the lawfulness of the decision delivered by the Ministry of Defence on 10 December 1997. On 29 May 1998 the District Court found, with reference to section 83(1) of the Minor Offences Act of 1990, that the decision in question could not be reviewed by courts. The proceedings were discontinued. The applicant appealed. On 26 November 1998 the Bratislava Regional Court discontinued the proceedings as an appeal was not available. On 29 June 1998 the Supreme Court refused to review the above decisions by which the applicant had been fined with reference to Article 248(2)(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n15.  On 23 March 1999 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that, inter alia, his right to judicial protection had been violated in that he could not have the administrative decisions imposing a fine on him reviewed by a tr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-954", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Helsinki, Finland. The second applicant (“the applicant company”) is a limited liability company based in Helsinki.\n8.  The applicant company publishes a newspaper called Iltalehti which has a circulation of approximately 120,000. On 31 October 1996 it published an article on a criminal trial concerning the drunken and disorderly behaviour, including an assault on a police officer, of Mr A., a lawyer practising in Seinäjoki. The article bore the title “His wife [is] the chairperson of the parliamentary Committee for Education and Culture – Lawyer from Seinäjoki hits policeman in restaurant” (“Vaimo eduskunnan sivistysvaliokunnan puheenjohtaja – Seinäjokelainen asianajaja iski poliisia ravintolassa”).\nFollow-up articles were published on 21 November and 10 December 1996 concerning the verdict whereby the defendant was convicted and sentenced to six months’ suspended imprisonment. It was reported that the defendant was the husband of Mrs A., a member of the Finnish parliament and the chairperson of its Committee for Education and Culture. The headline on 21 November read “... Husband of member of parliament hits policeman in restaurant” (“... Kansanedustajan aviomies löi poliisia ravintolassa”). The heading on 10 December 1996 read “... Husband of member of parliament receives harsh sentence for violence in restaurant” (“... Kansanedustajan miehelle kova tuomio ravintolassa riehumisesta”).\n9.  The trial of Mr A. had been widely publicised and discussed locally, and the role of Mrs A. – who was in no way involved in the criminal proceedings – had become the subject of, inter alia, political satire in a programme (“Iltalypsy”) broadcast on the main national television channel.\n10.  In April 1997 Mrs A., who did not dispute the facts as presented by Iltalehti, instituted proceedings against the applicants and two of the journalists involved on the grounds that the reporting by Iltalehti had been libellous and had invaded her privacy. She requested that the respondents be punished for invasion of privacy and defamation, and claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the articles. Moreover, she relied on section 15 of the Parliament Act then in force (valtiopäiväjärjestys, riksdagsordningen) which stipulated that members of parliament as well as parliamentary officials were to enjoy special protection in the performance of their duties and for the duration of parliamentary sessions. Criminal offences, in the form of words or physical acts, that violated the rights of members of parliament or officials while Parliament was in session, or subsequent physical violence, were to be regarded as being committed in particularly aggravating circumstances. According to Mrs A., this provision was applicable both in relation to the criminal charges and in determining the amount of damages in her case. She argued that the articles had caused her particular suffering as she had been publicly associated with a criminal act that was in no way connected to her person or function as member of parliament.\n11.  As editor-in-chief of Iltalehti the first applicant, Mr Karhuvaara, admitted to being superficially aware of the type of material published but denied any detailed prior knowledge of the specific material in question. According to section 32 of the Freedom of the Press Act then in force (painovapauslaki, tryckfrihetslag; 1/1919, replaced by Act no. 460/2003 in 2004), an editor-in-chief was ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-955", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in November 1945 and is resident in Richmond-upon-Thames, Surrey.\n9.  In August 1995, the police received a telephone call from GL alleging that the applicant had sexually abused him from December 1981 until December 1983. On 18 September 1995, GL informed the police that he had decided not to make a statement of complaint but on 29 January 1996 stated that he now wished to pursue the matter. On 2 February 1996, the police told GL that there would be a long delay in taking his statement due to other more pressing commitments. On 26 September 1996, the police started to take GL's statement, a process which continued on 18 and 19 December 1996 and several dates at the beginning of January 1997.\n10.  On 22 April 1996, DM telephoned the police and stated that he too had been sexually abused by the applicant from April 1973 until April 1978. DM informed the police that GL had contacted him and asked if he knew anyone else who had been sexually abused by the applicant and DM had answered that he had been. The police told DM that there would be a long delay before his statement could be taken. The police contacted DM again on 25 January 1997. His statement was taken over several days and completed on 4 February 1997. At a police interview on 25 January 1997, DM stated that he believed that the applicant had abused four other people including his brother, AM.\n11.  On 20 March 1997, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of indecent assaults on GL and DM. He was interviewed by the police on 21 March 1997 and was subsequently released on police bail.\n12.  On 4 June 1997, AM made a statement asserting that he had been abused by the applicant from November 1971 until November 1972.\n13.  On 2 July 1997, the police interviewed the applicant regarding the allegations made by AM. In October 1997, the police fingerprinted and took DNA swabs from the applicant. On 5 December 1997, the applicant was interviewed with respect to allegations of indecent assault made by a fourth person, MC, and was then charged with a number of counts of indecent assault. On 7 January 1998, MC withdrew his complaint.\n14.  From January to March 1998, the applicant made three remand appearances at the Magistrates' court. He requested a full committal hearing with consideration of the evidence. Shortly before the date set for the committal, it appeared that AM had left to work abroad. On 18 and 19 May 1998, the Magistrates' court refused the applicant's applications to discontinue the proceedings on the grounds of delay and adjourned the committal to allow AM, who was working abroad, to return and give evidence.\n15.  On 4 September 1998, the applicant was committed for trial on 20 counts relating to three different victims. On 18 December 1998, the trial was fixed for 14 April 1999. However, on 30 March 1999, the trial was delayed because the applicant was suffering from depression and memory loss. The applicant stated that the judge ordered a date to be fixed for trial from 1 June 1999 as he was responding well to medication and was fit to continue. In June 1999, the Crown Court refused the applicant's applications to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process or to sever the proceedings so that the applicant would be tried separately in respect of each complainant.\n16.  At the beginning of the trial, on 22 November 1999, the trial judge refused another application by the applicant for the proceedings to be stayed as an abuse of process. The applica", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-956", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Ayten Ünal Tekeli, is a Turkish national, born in 1965 and living in İzmir.\n10.  After her marriage on 25 December 1990 the applicant, who was then a trainee lawyer, took her husband’s name pursuant to Article 153 of the Turkish Civil Code. As she was known by her maiden name in her professional life, she continued putting it in front of her legal surname. However, she could not use both names together on official documents.\n11.  On 22 February 1995 the applicant brought proceedings in the Karşıyaka Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”) for permission to use only her maiden name, “Ünal”. On 4 April 1995 the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s request on the ground that, under Article 153 of the Turkish Civil Code, married women had to bear their husband’s name throughout their married life.\n12.  An appeal by the applicant on points of law was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 6 June 1995. The decision was served on the applicant on 23 June 1995.\n13.  By one of the amendments made to Article 153 of the Civil Code on 14 May 1997, married women acquired the right to put their maiden name in front of their husband’s surname. The applicant preferred not to make use of that possibility because, in her view, the amendment in question did not satisfy her demand, which was to use her maiden name alone as her surname.\nOn 22 November 2001 the new Civil Code was enacted. Article 187 was worded identically to the former Article 153.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-957", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Valencia.\n9.  The applicant has lived in a flat in a residential quarter of Valencia since 1970.\n10.  Since 1974 the Valencia City Council has allowed licensed premises such as bars, pubs and discotheques to open in the vicinity of her home, making it impossible for people living in the area to sleep.\n11.  Local residents first complained about vandalism and noise in the locality before 1980.\n12.  In view of the problems caused by the noise, the Valencia City Council resolved on 22 December 1983 not to permit any more night clubs to open in the area. However, the resolution was never implemented and new licences were granted.\n13.  In 1993 the City Council commissioned a report by an expert. The expert found that the noise levels were unacceptable and exceeded permitted levels. At 3.35 a.m. on Saturdays they were in excess of 100 dBA Leq (decibels), ranging from 101 to 115.9 dBA Leq.\n14.  In a report of 31 January 1995 the police informed the Valencia City Council that nightclubs and discotheques in the sector in which the applicant lived did not systematically close on time. They said that they were able to confirm that the local residents’ complaints were founded.\n15.  On 28 June 1996 the City Council approved a new bylaw on noise and vibrations, which was published on 23 July 1996 in the Official Gazette of Valencia province. Article 8 of the bylaw lays down that in a family residential area (such as the one in which the applicant lives) external noise levels were not to exceed 45 dBA Leq between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Article 30 of the bylaw defines “acoustically saturated zones” as areas in which the large number of establishments, activity of the people frequenting them and passing traffic expose local residents to high noise levels and cause them serious disturbance.\n16.  Lastly, the bylaw specified the conditions that had to be satisfied for an area to be designated an “acoustically saturated zone” (zona acústicamente saturada) and the consequences of designation, which included a ban on new activities (such as nightclubs and discotheques) that led to acoustic saturation.\n17.  Following a resolution of the Valencia City Council sitting in plenary session on 27 December 1996, which was published in the Official Gazette of the Valencia province on 27 January 1997, the area in which the applicant lived was designated an acoustically saturated zone.\n18.  Nevertheless, on 30 January 1997 the City Council granted a licence for a discotheque to be opened in the building she lived in. The licence was subsequently declared invalid by a judgment of the Supreme Court of 17 October 2001.\n19.  In order to determine whether the area should be designated an acoustically saturated zone, the City Council took various sound-level readings to monitor acoustic pollution there. In each of its reports the City Council laboratory indicated that the noise levels exceeded those permitted by the bylaw.\n20.  The applicant was exasperated by the situation, which prevented her from sleeping and resting and caused her insomnia and serious health problems. On 21 August 1997 she lodged a preliminary claim with the Valencia City Council in which she relied on Article 15 (right to life and to physical integrity) and Article 18 § 2 (right to the privacy and inviolability of the home). She sought 3,907 euros (650,000 pesetas) for the damage she had sustained and the cost of installing double glazing.\n21.  Having received ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-958", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  Between 4 July 1998 and 1 April 1999 a series of robberies and burglaries took place in the Coventry area. As a result of their investigations, the police considered that there were some nine persons involved in the commission of these offences, including the applicant and his three co-defendants. The police had difficulty obtaining evidence against those who they thought were responsible, and therefore decided to seek authority from the Chief Constable for the West Midlands to carry out a covert operation (“Operation Brassica”). The operation was to be carried out by arresting the suspects in groups, on suspicion of having committed different offences, and detaining them together in a police cell which had been specially fitted with covert audio equipment. It was hoped that the suspects would discuss the reasons for their arrest and that their ensuing conversation would be incriminating. On 17 May 1999 the Chief Constable gave authority for Operation Brassica to take place.\n8.  The applicant and two others were arrested on 20 May 1999. Their conversations whilst in police detention were recorded on 21 and 22 May 1999. Further covert recordings took place on 16 and 17 June 1999. The tapes formed the basis of the prosecution against the applicant.\n9.  The trial judge held a “voir dire” on the admissibility of the tapes. Counsel for the applicant argued that the methods of obtaining the evidence violated Articles 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention, and that they should therefore be excluded under section 78 or section 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). The tapes were ruled admissible on 13 March 2000. During the course of his ruling, the trial judge rejected the defendants' argument that the circumstances of obtaining the evidence were oppressive and the tapes should therefore be excluded under section 76 of PACE. In considering section 78 of the Act, the trial judge said:\n“I find that no mala fides exist in this case and that the Chief Constable acted throughout in good faith. Although I find the decision of the Chief Constable was not in accordance with a strict interpretation of the guidelines [Home Office Guidelines on the Use of Police Surveillance Equipment], it does not mean that his authority to use a bugging device or devices is no longer of importance. Of course it is. It is a very important factor which I have to take into account in deciding to exercise my discretion under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.”\n10.  He went on to consider the points raised under the Convention, saying:\n“There is no doubt that when the defendants were arrested the main plan was that the covert operation would be put into effect, and to do this all the defendants involved should be in the cells at the same time.\nHowever, the matter has to be taken in stages and then considered jointly. Firstly, did the police have power to arrest and was the arrest lawful? The evidence before me was that the police had information that the accused had committed some or other of the crimes which they were investigating. They not only had the right but the duty, in my judgment, to arrest and investigate the further evidence ... As I have indicated already, the police clearly hoped that the covert bugging operation would bear fruit and if it did not the relevant defendant would have to be released. They were not arresting to create evidence but in the hope that evidence would be forthcoming.\nThe wording of Article 5(1)(c) does not r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-959", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Vladivostok.\n8.  In 1988 the applicant and her partner, Mr Filippov, together moved into a flat provided by Mr Filippov’s employer, a State enterprise. The applicant left the flat where she had previously lived to her daughter and her daughter’s family.\n9.  Although the applicant and Mr Filippov never married, from 1988 onwards they lived together as husband and wife. They purchased all household items for the new flat jointly. Between 1992 and 1995 Mr Filippov supported their family financially because the applicant was unemployed. According to the applicant, Mr Filippov’s relatives and their neighbours considered them to be a family. Postcards and letters were addressed to Mr and Ms Filippov and the applicant received correspondence at the new address.\n10.  The applicant retained her residence registration at her old address. The applicant explains that she suffered from an ear ailment and wanted to remain under the observation of her former ear-specialist. Had she changed her residence registration, she would no longer have been entitled to visit the doctor practising in her former neighbourhood.\n11.  The applicant and Mr Filippov spent the summer of 1998 in their country cottage. On 18 August 1998 Mr Filippov returned to the town for a week.\n12.  On 24 August 1998 Mr Filippov died and his body was found by a neighbour. On 26 August 1998 Mr Filippov was buried in the presence of his son and his two sisters who had been summoned by a telegram.\n13.  The applicant was not notified of her partner’s death or funeral service. She only learnt of it when she returned to the city late in the day on 26 August 1998.\n14.  On 27 August 1998 the applicant received a phone call from the local housing maintenance authority (жилищно-эксплуатационное управление), requesting an explanation as to why the flat was not empty. The applicant responded that she did not have formal residence registration in the flat, but she had lived there for more than ten years. On 1 September 1998 a representative of the housing maintenance authority visited the applicant at the flat and drafted a report to the effect that the flat was not empty. The applicant was not given a copy of the report. The representative advised the applicant to secure her right to use the flat through a court.\n15.  On 2 September 1998 the applicant filed a request with the housing maintenance authority to be given an occupation certificate (ордер) for the flat. Her request was refused because on 1 September 1998 an occupation certificate had already been issued to Mr Valetov, the head of the local police department and hierarchical superior of Mr Filippov’s son.\n16.  On 4 September 1998, on returning to the flat, the applicant found that the door had been broken open and that books and other household items were being loaded onto a lorry. The applicant states that the possessions were removed in the presence of Mr Valetov, Mr Filippov’s son, several policemen in civilian clothing, and a representative of the housing maintenance authority. Once the removal was completed, the applicant was told to vacate the premises immediately. When the applicant refused to comply with the request, she was thrown out of the flat by force. The door was replaced and the applicant was not given keys.\n17.  On 7 September 1998 the applicant filed a complaint against Mr Valetov with the prosecutor’s office of the Sovietskiy District of Vladivostok. The applicant request", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-960", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant company, “Qufaj Co. sh.p.k.”, is an Albanian company, established by decision no. 5883 of the Tirana District Court on 20 July 1992, with the object of investing in the construction business.\n8.  The Municipality of Tirana sold the applicant company 15,788 square metres of land in a residential area in Tirana by decision no. 165 dated 9 June 1992.\n9.  By decision no. 174 of 15 June 1992, the Municipality granted the applicant company planning permission to build five hundred flats. A building permit was also required before the project could start, but the Municipality failed to decide the matter for a considerable length of time, thus preventing the building works from getting under way.\n10.  After the Municipality had refused to grant a building permit, the applicant company brought proceedings in the Tirana District Court seeking compensation of 60,000,000 leks (ALL) for its loss. Its claim was dismissed by judgment no. 4064 of 23 June 1995.\n11.  On appeal, the Tirana Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and ordered the Municipality to pay the applicant ALL 60,000,000 (decision no. 1197 of 23 February 1996).\n12.  In the absence of an appeal by the Municipality to the Court of Cassation, the Court of Appeal’s judgment became final and enforceable.\n13.  On 16 July 1996 the President of the Court of Cassation, in a document addressed to the Municipality, stated that, after the entry into force of the new Code of Civil Procedure, he no longer had the right to initiate a supervisory review of the legality of lower court decisions.\n14.  On 16 July 1997 the applicant company requested the Tirana District Court to issue a warrant for the execution of the compensation award.\n15.  On 25 June 1998 the Tirana District Court rejected a request by the Municipality to review the merits of decision no. 5492 of 20 December 1994, there being no basis in either law or fact for it to do so.\n16.  On 23 July 1997, in a document no. 704/gj dated 23 July 1997, the Enforcement Office notified the Municipality that it should execute the Court of Appeal decision by paying the applicant company ALL 60,000,000. However, the Municipality repeatedly refused to comply, arguing that it had no budget for the execution of judicial decisions.\n17.  At the same time, the Enforcement Office requested the Exchequer and Budget Department of the Ministry of Finance (the ultimate financial institution responsible for such payments) to comply with the decision by providing the necessary funding (Article 589, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure).\n18.  By documents nos. 2018/3 of 19 September 1997, 2018/5 of 7 November 1997, and 4670 of 22 September 1999, the Ministry of Finance rejected the requests of the Enforcement Office, arguing that either Article 589 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable, or that central funding was not possible under the State Budget Law. It added that the Municipality should contact the “District of Tirana Branch of the Treasury”, specifying the fund from which the debt should be paid and the part of the Municipality’s budget to which it should be allocated.\n19.  As the judgment was not executed, the applicant company brought proceedings in the Constitutional Court, claiming that local governmental institutions were obliged to guarantee the enforcement of final judicial decisions, not to impede them.\n20.  The Constitutional Court rejected the applicant company’s complaint, stating that the “complaint", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-961", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Zadar, Croatia.\n5.  On 15 July 1995 he lent 40,000 German marks to Z.G. and G.G. on the condition that the loan be repaid within 15 days of a request for repayment.\n6.  On 25 August 1995 Z.G. and G.G. died. Subsequently, proceedings concerning the inheritance of their estate commenced before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru).\n7.  On 4 October 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zadar Municipal Court against I.G. and M.G. (Z.G. and G.G.’s children) claiming repayment of the loan.\n8.  I.G. and M.G. were absent from the first hearing of 30 October 1995 as they had not been summoned.\n9.  The second hearing was held on 20 November 1995 in the presence of the applicant and M.G.\n10.  On 12 June 1997 and on 16 July 1998 the applicant requested the court to deal with his claim as soon as possible.\n11.  At the third hearing on 17 November 1998 the court requested the applicant to submit some additional information.\n12.  At the fourth hearing of 18 May 1999 the court stayed the proceedings pending the completion of the inheritance proceedings indicated in paragraph 6 above.\n13.  On 4 June 1999 the applicant submitted the information requested on 17 November 1998.\n14.  On 24 June 1999 the applicant again requested the court to deal with his claim as soon as possible.\n15.  I.G. and M.G. did not appear at the fifth hearing of 2 September 1999 although they were duly summoned.\n16.  At the sixth hearing on 21 September 1999 the court adjourned the trial sine die pursuant to a request of the representative of I.G. and M.G.\n17.  On 26 September 2001 the inheritance proceedings ended and the proceedings for repayment of the loan resumed on 10 January 2002.\n18.  On 6 February 2002 the court held the seventh hearing and, on the same date, gave its judgment allowing the applicant’s claim. That judgment became final because no appeal was lodged.\n19.  On 17 April 2002 the applicant obtained an order enforcing the judgment.\n20.  On 6 November 2002 the applicant requested the court to speed up the enforcement proceedings.\n21.  On 9 December 2003 the court scheduled for January 2004 an on-site assessment of the value of an apartment belonging to I.G. and M.G. An expert appointed by the court was not able to enter the apartment as I.G. and M.G. were not present. Nevertheless, the expert assessed the value of the apartment and submitted his report to the court on 2 February 2004.\n22.  On 17 May 2004 the court established the value of the apartment.\n23.  On 20 July 2004 the court held the first auction but the apartment was not sold.\n24.  The enforcement proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-962", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Ashdod, Israel.\n8.  On 9 January 1998 the applicant came to Russia to tend to a grave of his close relative. He had on him 1,600 US dollars which he omitted to note on his customs’ declaration.\n9.  On the same day the Sochi Customs Office (Сочинская таможня) found the applicant guilty of smuggling foreign currency and imposed on him a fine of an amount equal to the amount smuggled. The money that the applicant had on him was forfeited as the fine. The applicant appealed to a higher customs office and also lodged a civil action with a court.\n10.  On 30 July 1999 the Khostinskiy District Court of Sochi gave its judgment. The court quashed the order of the customs office of 9 January 1998 and ordered the treasury of the Russian Federation to repay the applicant 1,600 US dollars “in the form of their equivalent in Russian roubles, i.e. RUR 38,752”. The court dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage as having no grounds in the domestic law.\n11.  On 9 September 1999 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld, on the customs office’s appeal, the judgment of 30 July 1999.\n12.  On 29 December 1999 and 14 January 2000 the applicant wrote to the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation with a request to have the award in his favour enforced in US dollars and not in Russian roubles. He argued that he was an Israeli national and he could not receive any Russian roubles on his bank account in Israel.\n13.  On 13 March 2000 the Sochi Town Branch of the Federal Treasury (Отделение федерального казначейства по г. Сочи) advised the applicant that it had received the full amount of the award, but, having been unable to transfer it to the applicant’s bank in Israel, it deposited it in the applicant’s name with the Central office of the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation in Sochi.\n14.  In response to the applicant’s letter addressed to President Putin, on 26 April 2000 the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation informed the applicant that on 31 March 2000 it had granted permission to the Sochi Branch of the Federal Treasury to convert the amount of the award into US dollars.\n15.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked the court to clarify the operative part of the judgment of 30 July 1999 and amend the method and form of enforcement. He requested the court to order the Federal Treasury to wire 1,600 US dollars to his account in Israel.\n16.  On 23 November 2000 the Khostinskiy District Court of Sochi refused the applicant’s request because the Russian rouble was the only legal tender in the Russian Federation. This decision was quashed on the applicant’s appeal by the Krasnodar Regional Court.\n17.  On 15 February 2001 the Khostinskiy District Court of Sochi granted the applicant’s request. The court amended the operative part of the judgment of 30 July 1999 and ordered the Federal Treasury of the Russian Federation to transfer 1,600 US dollars to the applicant’s bank account in Israel.\n18.  The decision of 15 February 2001 was not appealed against and became final on 1 March 2001.\n19.  On 10 April 2001 the Khostinskiy District Court of Sochi issued a writ of execution and sent it to the bailiffs’ service in Moscow.\n20.  On 19 June 2001 the writ of execution was received by the 2nd Interdistrict office of court bailiffs of the Central Administrative District of Moscow (2й межрайонный отдел службы судебных приста", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-963", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Tamsweg, Austria.\n9.  On 3 July 2000 the Innsbruck Regional Court (Landesgericht), sitting as a court with two professional and two lay judges (Schöffengericht), acquitted the applicant of charges of drug trafficking on a large scale and other offences under the Drugs Act (Suchtmittelgesetz) on the basis of the principle in dubio pro reo. It dismissed the applicant’s request to hear further witnesses, finding that there was no additional evidence necessary to prove the lack of credibility of the incriminating statement.\n10.  Immediately after the pronouncement of the acquittal, and at the same hearing, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for compensation for his detention on remand from 2 May 1999 until 23 December 1999 and from 27 December 1999 to 22 May 2000.\nIt found that “pursuant to Section 2 (1)(b) of the Criminal Proceedings Compensation Act 1969 (Strafrechtliches Entschädigungsgesetz 1969 - “the 1969 Act”) compensation for detention on remand [might] be granted if the accused had been acquitted and the suspicion that he had committed the offence has been dispelled.“ Further, it found that “the requirements for granting compensation for detention on remand under Section 2 (1)(b) of the 1969 Act were not met as the applicant was only acquitted on the basis of the principle in dubio pro reo”.\n11.  On 19 September 2000 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Referring to the case of Sekanina v. Austria (judgment of 25 August 1993, Series A no. 266-A, pp.15-16, § 30), it considered that only a decision which, following the accused’s acquittal, expressed the view that the latter was guilty could violate the presumption of innocence, and that in the present case no such additional finding on the suspicion against the applicant had been made. Moreover, it found that, considering the incriminating statement of witness P.R., a suspicion against the applicant persisted.\n12.  On 11 August 2004 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof), upon the Procurator General’s plea of nullity for the preservation of law (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde zur Wahrung des Gesetzes), quashed the decisions of the Regional Court and the Court of Appeal and remitted the case to the Regional Court. It found that the courts’ failure to hold a public hearing in the compensation proceedings and to announce the decisions in public violated the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It also noted that, in the subsequent proceedings, the Regional Court would have to decide on the applicant’s compensation claim in the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in respect of the voicing of a suspicion following an acquittal, within the meaning of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-964", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, who was born in 1936, lives in Petrinja, Croatia.\n6.  The applicant was the owner of a house in Petrinja where he had lived until August 1995 when he left Croatia due to military actions in that area.\n7.  On 23 September 1995 Parliament enacted a law providing that the property of persons who left Croatia was to be taken into possession of the State. It also entitled the local authorities temporarily to accommodate refugees and displaced persons in such property.\n8.  On 24 March 1997 the Petrinja local authorities gave the applicant’s house to Z.L. and M.L. (“the occupants”) for temporary use because their house had been destroyed during the war.\n9.  On 10 June 1998 the applicant obtained a judgment from the Petrinja Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Petrinji) ordering the occupants to vacate his house within fifteen days. The judgment became final on 30 September 1998 when the Sisak County Court (Županijski sud u Sisku) dismissed the occupants’ appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.\n10.  Since the occupants refused to vacate the applicant’s house, on 24 November 1998 the applicant applied for the enforcement of the above judgment to the Petrinja Municipal Court. On 7 December 1998 the court issued an eviction order.\n11.  However, pursuant to the laws in force, the eviction order could not be carried out until the State secured alternative accommodation for the occupants. The court repeatedly requested the local authorities to find temporary accommodation for the occupants and enquired with the competent Ministry on the state of repair of their house. The local authorities informed the court that they were unable to find accommodation for the occupants.\n12.  On 28 June 2001 the competent Ministry informed the court that the reconstruction of the occupants’ house was completed.\n13.  On 8 November 2001 the occupants vacated the applicant’s house. On 12 November 2001 the applicant repossessed the house.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-965", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Novosibirsk.\n8.  Since 1991 the applicant has been receiving an old-age pension. From 1 February 1998 the amount of her pension was to be determined by the Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions (the “Pensions Law”). The Pensions Law introduced a new method of upgrading retirement benefits—“Individual Pensioner Coefficient” (“the IPC”). The IPC, established for the purpose of calculating individual pensions, was the ratio between the individual’s final wages at retirement and the national average wage, and was meant to maintain a link between a person’s pension and previous earnings.\n9.  The authority in charge of the applicant’s pension—the Pension Fund Agency of the Zayeltsovskiy District of Novosibirsk (“the Agency”)—decided that the IPC to be applied to her should be 0.525. The applicant considered this decision arbitrary as it conflicted, in her opinion, with the Pensions Law. On 12 April 1999 she brought an action against the Agency.\n10.  On 21 October 1999, the Zayeltsovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk (“the District Court”) found in the applicant’s favour. It held that since the defendant had misinterpreted the Pensions Law, the applicant’s pension should be recalculated with an IPC of 0.7. The Agency appealed against the judgment to the Novosibirsk Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). It alleged that the District Court had misinterpreted the Pensions Law.\n11.  While the appeal was pending before the Regional Court, on 24 January 2000 the Agency requested the District Court to re-consider its judgment of 21 October 1999 due to discovery of new circumstances. The Agency claimed that on 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development (“the Ministry of Labour”) had passed the Instruction on the Application of Limitations established by the Pensions Law (“the Instruction”). The Instruction specified how the Pensions Law should be applied. The Agency contended that since it had been unaware of these circumstances at the moment when the judgment was passed, the judgment should be re-considered.\n12.  On 30 January 2000 the Agency withdrew its application because the judgment of 21 October 1999 had not by that moment come into force, having been appealed against to the Regional Court.\n13.  On 15 February 2000 the Regional Court upheld the judgment having agreed with the interpretation of the relevant laws given by the District Court. The decision of the Regional Court contained no reference to the Instruction. The judgment of 21 October 1999 accordingly came into force as from 15 February 2000.\n14.  On 21 August 2000 the Agency submitted a new application for re‑consideration of the judgment of 21 October 1999 due to discovery of new circumstances. This time the Agency claimed, in addition, that on 24 April and 25 May 2000 the Supreme Court had confirmed the lawfulness of the Instruction.\n15.  On 16 January 2001 the District Court granted the Agency’s application. The court applied Article 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure according to which judgments could be re-considered in case of discovery of significant circumstances which were not and could not have been known to the party concerned. The court found that the Instruction, as upheld by the Supreme Court, could serve as such a circumstance. No appeal lay against this decision.\n16.  After a fresh examination on 12 February 2001, the District Court rejected the applicant’s claims in full having applied the In", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-967", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Konstantin Vladimirovich Klyakhin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Armavir, Krasnodar Region, in Russia.\n10.  On 13 August 1997 the applicant was detained and intimidated by a group of people, allegedly because they wanted him to testify against his relative K., an official in the Armavir Town Prosecutor's office.\n11.  On 26 August 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in a robbery, together with K. and a third person, U. The accusations against the applicant were made by the people who had allegedly intimidated him.\n12.  From 26 to 29 August 1997 the applicant was interviewed several times by an investigator from the prosecution service, sometimes in the presence of the Armavir Town Prosecutor. A lawyer was appointed, but the applicant refused to accept his services as he did not trust him.\n13.  On 29 August 1997 the Armavir Town Prosecutor authorised the applicant's detention on suspicion of theft. On 5 September 1997 the applicant was officially charged with involvement in a robbery.\n14.  The applicant appealed against the decision to detain him on 11 September 1997. On 6 October 1997 the Armavir Town Court rejected his complaint without giving any reasons.\n15.  The investigation was completed on 24 January 1998 and the applicant was given access to the case file between 24 and 27 January 1998. A lawyer, whom the applicant later dismissed, was present at this stage. The indictment was sent to the Armavir Town Court on 27 or 28 January 1998.\n16.  On 26 January 1998 the case file was transferred to the Armavir Town Court. After that date all complaints and requests submitted by the applicant to other authorities were forwarded to that court, in accordance with Section 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP).\n17.  On 16 February 1998 the Armavir Town Court scheduled the first hearing for 4 March 1998. The judge ordered the continued detention of the applicant and two other co-accused, K. and U., without giving reasons.\n18.  On 4 March 1998 a judge of the Town Court adjourned the case because the applicant had not had sufficient access to the case file. Between 19 February and 27 March 1998 the applicant was allowed additional access to the case file and was officially served with the indictment. The applicant submits that he was allowed only short periods over several days to review about 600 pages of documentation in the case file. He also submits that he was handcuffed while accessing it, and had difficulties copying the relevant documents.\n19.  The scheduled court hearing on 20 April 1998 did not take place, due to the absence of the victims and one of the representatives. On 22 April 1998 the judge ordered a psychiatric report on U. and adjourned the hearing.\n20.  It appears that further hearings were scheduled, but were adjourned or cancelled on 31 August 1998, 30 September 1998, 5 January 1999 and 20 January 1999.\n21.  The European Convention on Human Rights entered into force in respect of Russia on 5 May 1998.\n22. On 30 September 1998 the Armavir Town Court rejected requests by the applicant and his co-accused K. for release from detention, and stated that “at this stage of proceedings their release could influence further trial hearings”. On 11 November 1998 the Krasnodar Regional Court rejected an appeal by K. against this order.\n23.  On 21 January 1999 the case was adjourned due to the illness of U. By the same decision, the applicant's further detention on", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-968", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 21 February 1994 the applicant filed with the Łódź Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki) an action in which he claimed damages from one of his partners in a partnership allegedly responsible for a sale of the partnership's property without the applicant's prior approval. He sued also a certain company X which had purchased that property.\n9.  On 10 March 1994 the court exempted the applicant from court fees.\n10.  On 14 March 1994 it refused the applicant's request for an interim measure. His appeal against that decision was dismissed on 16 May 1994 by the Łódź Court of Appeal (sąd apelacyjny).\n11.  On 5 May 1994 the applicant submitted pleadings with a ninety-five-page annex. In July and October 1994, as well as in December 1995, he submitted further pleadings and requested the summoning of five witnesses.\n12.  The Regional Court held a hearing on 11 January 1996. It completed the examination of the case and informed the parties that it would pronounce its judgment on 25 January 1996. Subsequently, the applicant submitted pleadings containing motions concerning evidence. On 25 January 1996 the court resumed the examination of the case.\n13.  The hearing scheduled for 27 February 1996 was adjourned because of the absence of a lay judge.\n14.  On 27 March 1996 the court held a hearing.\n15.  On 10 April 1996 it declared its lack of jurisdiction over the applicant's claims in respect of his partner and transferred that part of the case to the Łódź District Court (sąd rejonowy).\n16.  The Regional Court held hearings on 26 November 1996, as well as on 29 January, 1 April and 23 July 1997. It ordered an expert opinion.\n17.  On 15 September 1997 the court refused the applicant's request for an interim measure.\n18.  The expert opinion was submitted on 5 February 1998.\n19.  Subsequently, the applicant challenged that opinion.\n20.  At the hearing held on 11 May 1998 the court ordered a supplementary expert opinion.\n21.  At the hearing of 25 June 1998 the court completed the examination of the case.\n22.  Subsequently, the applicant filed a petition in which he complained about certain errors in the minutes from that hearing. On 7 July 1998 the court issued a decision concerning those errors.\n23.  On 6 July 1998 the applicant submitted pleadings. On 9 July 1998 the court resumed the proceedings and requested the applicant to specify his claim.\n24.  In September 1998 the applicant requested the court to summon a customs office to join the proceedings as an intervener for the applicant.\n25.  At the hearing held on 9 November 1998 the court dismissed that request. The applicant requested the written reasoning of that decision. On 18 November 1998 his request was rejected as not provided for by the law.\n26.  On 19 November 1998 the court gave judgment. It awarded the applicant 32,345.23 Polish zlotys with interest. Both the applicant and the defendant company appealed.\n27.  The Łódź Court of Appeal held hearings on 9 April and 1 June 1999.\n28.  On 15 June 1999 it gave judgment. The court amended the judgment of the first-instance court in that it dismissed the action filed by the applicant. He received a copy of the written reasoning of that judgment on 4 April 2000. On 4 May 2000 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court a cassation appeal against that judgment.\n29.  On 16 January 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed that appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-969", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Ms Valentyna Mykolayivna Mykhaylenko was born in 1951. Mr Valentyn Andriyovych Mykhaylenko was born in 1944. Mr Grygoriy Stanislavovych Ganushevych was born in 1950. Mr Anatoliy Ivanovych Marchenko was born in 1952. Ms Oleksandra Romanivna Yudenok was born in 1948. Mr Vasyl Mykhaylovych Myshko was born in 1945. Mr Vasyl Kindratovych Bezpalko was born in 1958. Ms Galyna Stepanivna Zorenko was born in 1939. Mr Grigoriy Pavlovych Arkhitko was born in 1960. Mr Volodymyr Mykolayovych Litskevich was born in 1956. Mr Mykhaylo Pavlovych Tyshchenko was born in 1949. All the applicants live in Chernigiv, Ukraine.\n5.  Between 1997 and 2001 the applicants instituted separate sets of proceedings in the local domestic courts, seeking the recovery of salary arrears and other payments from their former employer, the State-owned company Atomspetsbud, which had carried out construction work at Chernobyl within the zone that had been compulsorily evacuated (see paragraphs 29-30 below).\n6.  By a decision of the Novozavodsky District Court of Chernigiv of 14 April 1998, Ms Valentyna Mykhaylenko was awarded 4,849 hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears and other payments. She received UAH 173.58 on 7 February 2000 and UAH 76.09 on 17 October 2001. However, the judgment remains largely unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 4,599.33 (the equivalent of 707.59 euros (EUR)).\n7.  By a decision of the Novozavodsky District Court of Chernigiv of 15 December 2000, Mr Valentyn Mykhaylenko was awarded UAH 10,479 in salary arrears. By another decision of the same court on 16 April 2002, he was awarded UAH 2,710 in compensation for the delay in the payment of the salary arrears. The judgments remain unenforced, the total debt amounting to UAH 13,189 (the equivalent of EUR 2,029.08).\n8.  By a decision of the Novozavodsky District Court of Chernigiv of 13 July 1998, Mr Grygoriy Ganushevych was awarded UAH 7,394 in salary arrears. He received UAH 219.37 on 21 January 2000 and UAH 116.03 on 18 August 2000. However, the judgment remains largely unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 7,058.60 (the equivalent of EUR 1,085.94).\n9.  By a decision of the Novozavodsky District Court of Chernigiv of 11 September 1997, Mr Anatoliy Marchenko was awarded UAH 4,528 in salary arrears. By another decision of the same court on 19 September 2001, he was awarded UAH 9,671.75 in compensation for the delay in payment of those arrears. He received UAH 1,000 on 17 February 1998, UAH 126.29 on 7 February 2000 and UAH 55.27 on 20 October 2000. However, the judgments remain to a large extent unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 13,018.19 (the equivalent of EUR 2,002.80).\n10.  By a decision of the Novozavodsky District Court of Chernigiv of 18 November 1998, Ms Oleksandra Yudenok was awarded UAH 5,664 in salary arrears and UAH 883 in compensation for the delay in their payment. On 7 February 2000 the applicant received UAH 234.37. The judgment remains largely unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 6,312.63 (the equivalent of EUR 971.17).\n11.  By a decision of the Novozavodsky District Court of Chernigiv of 24 March 1999, Mr Vasyl Myshko was awarded UAH 8,130 in salary arrears, but only UAH 418.62 were paid to him. The judgment remains to a large extent unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 7,711.38 (the equivalent of EUR 1,186.37).\n12.  By a decision of the Novozavodsky District Court of Chernigiv of 17 April 2001, Mr Vasyl Bezpalko was awarded UAH 14,764 (the equivalent of EUR 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-970", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Mardin.\n9.  On 22 December 1980 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.\n10.  On 10 March 1981 the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand.\n11.  On 14 September 1981 the public prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter, accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation. The public prosecutor's office requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  On 19 February 1985 the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-four years' imprisonment. Before the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court, the applicant was tried together with 624 co-suspects.\n13.  Following the applicant's appeal, his case was referred to the Military Court of Cassation.\n14.  On 10 April 1990 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court on the ground that latter had misinterpreted the domestic law in respect of the offence in question.\n15.  On 29 July 1990 the applicant was released from detention.\n16.  Subsequent to promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the applicant's case.\n17.  On 13 July 1998 the Diyarbakır Assize Court held that the offence fell within the scope of Article 168 § 2 and consequently the statutory time‑limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired. It accordingly ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated.\n18.  On 10 September 1998 the judgment became final in respect of the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-971", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Vadim Fedorovych Bakalov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born on 23 February 1970 and currently resides in Odessa. He is represented before the Court by Aleksandr Kazarnovskiy, a lawyer practicing in Odessa.\n6.  On 24 September 1997 the applicant was apprehended by police officers of the Leninskiy District Police Department of Odessa.\n7.  On 25 September 1997 the applicant's house was searched, during which ammunition was found.\n8.  On 30 September 1997 the applicant was charged with storing ammunition (Article 222-1 of the Criminal Code) and a criminal investigation was initiated against him.\n9.  On 26 December 1997 the investigation was terminated due to lack of proof.\n10.  On 25 August 1998 the applicant lodged complaints with the Kievsky District Court of Odessa, claiming unlawful detention, and the unlawful search and seizure of some of his property. The applicant alleged that the search was conducted without a warrant and that no ammunition had been found. He also sought compensation for moral damage caused by the unlawful police action.\n11.  On 16 August 1999 the Kievsky District Court of Odessa allowed the applicant's claims and ordered the State Treasury to pay the applicant UAH 82,472[1] in compensation.\n12.  On 6 June 2000 the Odessa Regional Court partly quashed this decision as regards compensation for material damage, which it remitted for fresh consideration to the Kievsky District Court of Odessa, which at a later date awarded the applicant UAH 2,020[2] in compensation for pecuniary damage. It also ordered the State Treasury to pay the applicant UAH 50,000[3] in compensation for moral damage.\n13.  On 31 October 2001 the applicant complained to the State Treasury about the non-execution of the judgment of 6 June 2000 given in his favour.\n14.  On 15 November 2001 the State Treasury informed the applicant that no funds were available for such payments in the 1999-2001 State budgets.\n15.  On 29 January 2002 the applicant requested the State Treasury to execute the judgment of 6 June 2000.\n16.  On 26 February 2002 the State Treasury informed the applicant there was no statutory procedure for the payment of compensation and therefore no payment was possible.\n17.  On 15 May 2002 the National Bank transferred UAH 2,020 to the applicant in compensation for pecuniary damage.\n18.  On 10 December 2002 the National Bank transferred UAH 50,000 to the applicant in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-972", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1955 and is now living in the district of Şirvan (province of Siirt), the area where he was born. At the material time he was living with twelve close relatives in the slum quarter (gecekondu mahallesi) of Kazım Karabekir in Ümraniye, a district of Istanbul, where he had moved after resigning from his post as a village guard in south-eastern Turkey.\n10.  Since the early 1970s a household-refuse tip had been in operation in Hekimbaşı, a slum area adjoining Kazım Karabekir. On 22 January 1960 Istanbul City Council (“the city council”) had been granted use of the land, which belonged to the Forestry Commission (and therefore to the Treasury), for a term of ninety-nine years. Situated on a slope overlooking a valley, the site spread out over a surface area of approximately 35 hectares and from 1972 onwards was used as a rubbish tip by the districts of Beykoz, Üsküdar, Kadıköy and Ümraniye under the authority and responsibility of the city council and, ultimately, the ministerial authorities.\nWhen the rubbish tip started being used, the area was uninhabited and the closest built-up area was approximately 3.5 km away. However, as the years passed, rudimentary dwellings were built without any authorisation in the area surrounding the rubbish tip, which eventually developed into the slums of Ümraniye.\nAccording to an official map covering the areas of Hekimbaşı and Kazım Karabekir, produced by Ümraniye District Council’s Technical Services Department, the applicant’s house was built on the corner of Dereboyu Street and Gerze Street. That part of the settlement was adjacent to the municipal rubbish tip and since 1978 had been under the authority of a local mayor answerable to the district council.\nThe Ümraniye tip no longer exists. The local council had it covered with earth and installed air ducts. Furthermore, land-use plans are currently being prepared for the areas of Hekimbaşı and Kazım Karabekir. The city council has planted trees on a large area of the former site of the tip and has had sports grounds laid.\n11.  Following the local elections of 26 March 1989, Ümraniye District Council sought to amend the urban development plan on a scale of 1:1,000. However, the decision-making authorities refused to adopt the plan as it covered an area that ran very close to the municipal rubbish tip.\nFrom 4 December of that year Ümraniye District Council began dumping heaps of earth and refuse on to the land surrounding the Ümraniye slums in order to redevelop the site of the rubbish tip.\nHowever, on 15 December 1989 M.C. and A.C., two inhabitants of the Hekimbaşı area, brought proceedings against the district council in the Fourth Division of the Üsküdar District Court to establish title to land. They complained of damage to their plantations and sought to have the work halted. In support of their application, M.C. and A.C. produced documents showing that they had been liable for council tax and property tax since 1977 under tax no. 168900. In 1983 the authorities had asked them to fill in a standard form for the declaration of illegal buildings so that their title to the properties and land could be regularised (see paragraph 54 below). On 21 August 1989, at their request, the city council’s water and mains authority had ordered a water meter to be installed in their house. Furthermore, copies of electricity bills show that M.C. and A.C., as consumers, made regular payments for the power they had used on the basis of read", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-973", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  In 1996 the applicant purchased a foreign-made car at a car market in Belarus from an unidentified seller. On coming back to Moscow he applied for its registration. Registration was refused because the car had not been properly registered in Belarus and its previous owner was not known. A criminal investigation was opened.\n6.  On 19 March 1998 a police department of Moscow decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings. No indication of a criminal offence in the applicant’s actions was established as he was not aware that the car had been sold with forged documents and without registration with the competent traffic police department. The engine and chassis numbers were not forged and the car was not in the search list. The applicant was advised to apply to a court to be recognised as a good faith purchaser and the legal owner of the car.\n7.  On 22 June 1998 the applicant applied to a court.\n8.  On 7 August 1998 the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow delivered a judgment in the applicant’s case. However, the applicant is not aware of the contents of the judgment. He explains that the judgment was not pronounced publicly, and the court’s registry refused to give him a copy of the judgment because “[his] case, along with several others, had been taken up to the city court”.\n9.  On 12 August 1998 the State Automobile Inspectorate refused to register the applicant’s car because the applicant had no court judgment.\n10.  On 25 February 1999 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court, by way of supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 7 August 1998 and remitted the case for a new examination.\n11.  Between 2 August 1999 and 15 January 2001 nine hearings were scheduled. Of those, seven hearings did not take place because the representatives of the State Automobile Inspectorate and tax inspectorate no. 15 failed to appear. Two hearings did not take place because both parties did not appear. Three judges in succession dealt with the case. The applicant sent many complaints to the Moscow City Court, the Moscow Justice Department, the Moscow Courts’ Administration Department and other authorities about unreasonable delays in the hearing of his case.\n12.  On 19 February 2001 the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s action. It found that, pursuant to the Regulations on registration of automobiles and motorcycles no. 624 of 26 November 1996, the vehicles previously registered by one department of the traffic police could not be registered by another department unless the former registration had been duly cancelled. As the applicant failed to produce documents showing that the registration of his car in Belarus had been duly cancelled or, for that matter, that it had been ever effected, the refusal of the Moscow traffic police to register the car had been lawful.\n13.  On 5 March 2001 the applicant filed his grounds of appeal. On 12 April 2001 the court invited the applicant to pay the appeal fee by 23 April 2001. The applicant did not pay the fee and his appeal was not considered.\n14.  Subsequently the time-limit for lodging the appeal was extended. On 18 July 2001 Judge G. of the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow accepted the grounds of appeal and told the applicant to pay the court fee of RUR 4,110 (EUR 187). The applicant complained to the judges’ qualification panel about the excessive and arbitrarily calculated amount. Upon examination of his complaint, the fee was", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-974", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Pula, Croatia.\n5.  On 3 May 1991 his goods stored in a kiosk in Zadar, Croatia, were damaged by unknown perpetrators.\n6.  On 16 June 1992 he instituted civil proceedings before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia and an insurance company for his damaged property.\n7.  On 17 May 1999 the Zadar Municipal Court stayed the proceedings in respect of the Republic of Croatia pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima). On the same date it decided to separate the proceedings in respect of the insurance company.\n8.  On 16 May 2002 the Zadar Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s claim against the insurance company. The applicant did not appeal.\n9.  The proceedings in respect of the Republic of Croatia resumed on 5 December 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-975", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Crikvenica, Croatia.\n5.  On 6 July 1992 his weekend house in Nin, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n6.  On 18 May 1993 he instituted civil proceedings before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.\n7.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima), the Zadar Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 17 December 1998.\n8.  The proceedings resumed on 24 October 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija).\n9.  On 20 February 2004 the Zadar Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s claim for damages. The applicant appealed and the case is now apparently pending before the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-976", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Zagreb.\n7.  In 1994 the applicant’s weekend house in Karlobag, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 12 May 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 2 April 1996.\n10.  On 25 November 2002 the applicant complained about the stay on his proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court to the Constitutional Court. It would appear that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court are still pending.\n11.  The proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court resumed on an uncertain date pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-977", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Zagreb.\n7.  On 13 or 14 July 1992 the applicant’s house in Sukošan, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 7 July 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 9 February 1996.\n10.  On 7 November 2002 the applicant complained about the stay on his proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court to the Constitutional Court. It would appear that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court are still pending.\n11.  The proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court resumed on an uncertain date pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).\n12.  On 26 September 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on the basis of its lack of jurisdiction. The applicant appealed and the case is now apparently pending before the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-978", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1959, respectively and live in Varaždin, Croatia.\n7.  On 5 December 1991 the applicants’ house in Nedeljanec, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 14 November 1994 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Varaždin Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Varaždinu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for their damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Varaždin Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 17 September 1996.\n10.  The proceedings resumed on 24 October 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-980", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1951 and 1952 respectively, and live in Svoboda nad Úpou.\n5.  In January 1986 the applicants bought from the State a house, which had been seized after the emigration of the former owners. The applicants made an initial payment of CZK 100,000 by 30 April 1986, the remaining sum of CZK 244,846 to be paid in fifteen annual instalments. However, the purchase was without risk of forfeiture if such an instalment remained unpaid.\n6.  Pursuant to the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitation Act (hereinafter “the Act”), in December 1991 the former owners brought an action against the applicants for the restitution of their property. In January 1996 the applicants were ordered to restore the property to the former owners. In May 1999 the applicants were ordered to vacate the house within a year of the coming into force of the first instance judgment without receiving compensatory accommodation.\n7.  In February 2002 the District Court ordered the execution of its judgment for the applicants' eviction. In May 2000 the Regional Court upheld the order. In October 2002 the District Court dismissed the applicants' request to suspend the execution. In April 2003 the Regional Court upheld the District Court's dismissal.\n8.  On 28 January 2004 the applicants were informed that the eviction would take place on 23 February 2004. On 19 February 2004 the District Court dismissed their request to suspend the eviction. On 23 February 2004, the applicants' lawyer was served with the District Court's dismissal of 19 February 2004 and, on 9 March 2004, she filed an appeal which is still pending before the Regional Court.\n9.  Apart from the two aforesaid proceedings, the former owners instituted proceedings against the applicants for the illegal use of the house since 1 January 1996, seeking payment of outstanding rent in the amount of CZK 431,000 (13,596 EUR). In these proceedings, which have been pending since 10 October 1997, the applicants sought to recover damages to compensate for expenditure invested in material improvements to the house, filing a counterclaim (kompenzační námitka) for CZE 300,000 (EUR 9,464) on 5 January 1998, apparently under section 7(4) of the Act. This provides that, if the value of the property has increased so that its price, as assessed on the day of the submission of the written request by the entitled person, substantially exceeds the original purchase price of the property, it is left to the discretion of the entitled person whether he or she will request financial compensation or the return of the property. If he or she insists on the surrender of the property, the entitled person must compensate the person obliged to return the property for the difference between the two prices.\n10.  In September 1997 the applicants lodged with the Ministry of Finance a request for reimbursement of the purchase price, pursuant to section 11 of the Act, which entitles physical persons who are under an obligation to restore property to recover the price they had paid when acquiring such property from the State. On 4 February 1998, upon the Ministry's request of 5 November 1997, they submitted additional documents. On 13 March 1998 their lawyer informed the Ministry that, on 11 March 1998, she had obtained the document of the Svoboda nad Úpou Municipal Office (městský úřad) confirming that the applicants had so far paid CZK 295,888 (EUR 9,334) of the purchase price. In a letter of 15 May 1998, the Ministry informed the applica", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-981", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Wrocław, Poland.\n8.  The applicant, who is a trombone player and since 1969 has been playing with the jazz band “Sami Swoi”, became its leader after a split in 1990. Mr Z.C. who had left the band in the same year, started playing with a new band using the name “The New Sami Swoi Orchestra”.\n9.  On 30 October 1990 the applicant lodged with the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an action for protection of his personal rights against Z.C. The applicant contended that the defendant had infringed his personal rights by having used the name “Sami Swoi” without his consent. He requested the court, inter alia, to order the defendant not to use that name in the future.\n10.  On 17 July 1992 the trial court dismissed his action.\n11.  The applicant appealed against that judgment.\n12.  On 9 December 1993 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the trial court.\n13.  On 12 June and 5 September 1995 the court held hearings. Both parties applied for an expert opinion. The applicant made a friendly settlement proposal but the defendant did not agree to it.\n14.  On 13 February 1996 the applicant requested the court not to order an expert opinion and argued that such opinion would be unnecessary.\n15.  On 15 February 1996 the trial court, sitting in camera, ordered preparation of an expert opinion.\n16.  In March 1996 the applicant asked for exemption from the costs of the expert opinion and appealed against the decision of 15 February 1996. On 1 April and 23 May 1996 the court dismissed his applications.\n17.  In August 1996 the court-appointed expert refused to prepare his opinion. Subsequently, the trial court twice requested the Katowice University Musical Academy to indicate an expert.\n18.  On 12 March 1997 the court ordered a new expert, Mr A.Z., to prepare an opinion. However, that expert failed to prepare the requested opinion.\n19.  In June 1997 the court appointed another expert, Mr K.K., to write an opinion in the case. However, due to his illness, the expert failed to prepare the opinion.\n20.  On 9 March 1998 the trial court ordered Mr H.M. to prepare an expert opinion. The expert did not prepare the opinion and in December 1998 he returned the case-file to the court.\n21.  On 6 January 1999 the trial court fined the expert for non‑compliance with the court's order.\n22.  On 15 February 1999 the court ordered another expert, Mr T.T., to prepare an opinion.\n23.  On 2 July 1999 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.\n24.  Between 6 September 1995 and 24 November 1999 no hearings were held.\n25.  Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on 25 November and 17 December 1999.\n26.  On 14 January 2000 the Chorzów District Court heard a witness.\n27.  The next hearings were held on 23 May, 13 July, 18 September, 3 November and 17 November 2000.\n28.  On 1 December 2000 the Wrocław Regional Court gave judgment and ordered the defendant to publish a press statement that the applicant was solely entitled to use the name “Sami Swoi” for his band. It dismissed the remainder of the applicant's action.\n29.  The defendant appealed against that judgment to the Wrocław Court of Appeal.\n30.  On 18 May 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal gave judgment in which it dismissed the defendant's appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-982", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Split, Croatia.\n7.  On 23 December 1991 the applicant’s house in Špišić Bukovica, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 31 October 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Virovitica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Virovitici) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for her damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Virovitica Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 7 February 1996.\n10.  The proceedings resumed on 29 October 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).\n11.  On 22 March 2004 the Virovitica Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on the basis of its lack of jurisdiction. The applicant appealed and the case is now apparently pending before the Virovitica County Court (Županijski sud u Virovitici).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-983", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Zagreb.\n7.  On 5 March 1992 the applicant’s house in Sukošan, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 23 February 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on an uncertain date.\n10.  The proceedings resumed on 1 December 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-984", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Zagreb.\n7.  On 13 or 14 April 1993 the applicant’s house in the vicinity of Gospić, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 23 December 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for her damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 2 May 1996.\n10.  On 7 November 2002 the applicant complained about the stay on her proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court to the Constitutional Court. It would appear that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court are still pending.\n11.  The proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court resumed on 9 December 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-985", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, the Supreme Holy Council (Висш духовен съвет) of the Muslim Community, headed by Mr Nedim Gendzhev, was the officially recognised leadership of Muslims in Bulgaria, at least between 1995 and 1997. In reality, at the relevant time it was one of the two rival Muslim religious leaderships in Bulgaria. Mr Nedim Gendzhev, a Bulgarian citizen born in 1945 and residing in Sofia, was its leader. He was the Chief Mufti at least between 1988 and 1992 and the President of the Supreme Holy Council at least between 1995 and 1997.\n8.  At the end of 1989 a process of democratisation commenced in Bulgaria. Soon thereafter some Muslim believers and activists of the Muslim religion in the country sought to replace the leadership of their religious organisation. They considered that Mr Gendzhev, who was the Chief Mufti at that time, and the members of the Supreme Holy Council had collaborated with the communist regime. The old leadership, with Mr Gendzhev as Chief Mufti of Bulgarian Muslims, also had supporters. This situation caused divisions and internal conflict within the Muslim community in Bulgaria.\n9.  At the end of 1991 a new Government, formed by the Union of Democratic Forces (Съюз на демократичните сили – “the SDS”) and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (Движение за права и свободи – “the DPS”), took office.\n10.  On 10 February 1992 the Directorate of Religious Denominations (Дирекция по вероизповеданията - “the Directorate”), a governmental agency attached to the Council of Ministers, declared the election of Mr Gendzhev in 1988 as Chief Mufti of the Muslims in Bulgaria null and void and proclaimed his removal from that position. This decision was based on findings, inter alia, that Mr Gendzhev’s election in 1988 had been politically motivated.\n11.  The Directorate appointed a three-member interim governing body of the Muslims’ religious organisation, considering that that was “the only possible means of preventing the organisational disintegration of the Muslim denomination”.\n12.  A national conference of Muslims, organised by the interim leadership, took place on 19 September 1992. It elected Mr Fikri Sali Hasan as Chief Mufti and also approved a new statute, which was registered in accordance with sections 6 and 16 of the Religious Denominations Act. After September 1992 the supporters of Mr Hasan obtained full control over the property and activities of the Muslim community.\n13.  Mr Gendzhev, who claimed that he remained the Chief Mufti, challenged the decision of 10 February 1992 before the Supreme Court. The proceedings ended with a final judgment of 7 April 1993. The Supreme Court, while considering that the impugned decision was not amenable to judicial review, nevertheless commented that the Directorate’s decision to declare Mr Gendzhev’s election null and void had been within its competence. In so far as the impugned decision had also proclaimed “the removal” of Mr Gendzhev from his position of Chief Mufti, this had been ultra vires. However, it was unnecessary to annul this part of the Directorate’s decision as in any event it had no legal consequences.\n14.  The leadership dispute between Mr Gendzhev and Mr Hasan continued throughout 1993 and 1994. The official position of the Directorate of Religious Denominations remained that Mr Hasan was the legitimate Chief Mufti of the Bulgarian Muslims. At the same time the Directorate apparently sought to “resolve” the dispute through the “unification” of the two factio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-986", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Milan.\n8.  A.C., the applicant’s father, was the owner of a flat in Milan, which he had let to V.S.\n9.  In a registered letter of 9 November 1990, the applicant’s father informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n10.  The tenant told the applicant’s father that he would not leave the premises.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 22 January 1991, the applicant’s father reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 21 March 1991, which was made enforceable on 26 March 1991, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n13.  On 11 January 1993, the applicant’s father served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 25 February 1993, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 March 1993.\n15.  Between 19 March 1993 and 18 April 2000, the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant’s father and then the applicant were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n16.  In the meanwhile, on 24 August 1993, the applicant’s father died and the applicant inherited the flat.\n17.  On 14 February 2000, she became party to the proceedings.\n18.  On 15 June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.\n19.  Pursuant to the Pinto Law, on 3 April 2002 the applicant applied to the Brescia Court of Appeal. By decision of 12 June 2002, the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s claim. As far as the conduct of the relevant authorities were concerned, the Court of Appeal underlined that the behaviour of the Prefect was in conformity with the criteria fixed by the national law and that after the Law no. 431/98 the expulsion was suspended by other laws. So the delays derived from factum principis and were therefore irrelevant for the purpose of the Pinto Law.\n20.  The applicant did not appeal to the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-987", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1932 and 1928, respectively and live in Sisak, Croatia.\n7.  On 1 July 1992 the applicants’ weekend house in Sukošan, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 9 May 1995 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for their damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 6 December 1999.\n10.  On 7 November 2002 the applicants complained about the stay on their proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court to the Constitutional Court. It would appear that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court are still pending.\n11.  The proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court resumed on 4 December 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).\n12.  On the same date the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed the applicants’ claim on the basis of its lack of jurisdiction. The applicants appealed and the case is now apparently pending before the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-988", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n15.  The applicants, Mr Cumpănă and Mr Mazăre, were born in 1951 and 1968 respectively and live in Constanţa.\n16.  In decision no. 33 of 30 June 1992, Constanţa City Council, implementing government decision no. 147 of 26 March 1992, introduced a fine for drivers of illegally parked vehicles and entrusted the task of removing, towing away and impounding such vehicles to S.C. CBN, a company based in Constanţa.\n17.  By order no. 163 of 30 June 1992, the mayor of Constanţa authorised a private company, Vinalex, to perform the services of removing, towing away and impounding illegally parked vehicles.\n18.  A partnership contract was signed on 16 December 1992 by the city authorities and the company in question, the signatories on behalf of the authorities being the deputy mayor (hereinafter “D.M.”) and the council’s legal expert (“Mrs R.M.”). In a letter of 1 April 1994, the mayor of Constanţa requested Vinalex to cease its activities under the contract and informed it that it was considering terminating the contract.\n19.  On 12 April 1994 the applicants, who are journalists by profession, published an article in the local newspaper Telegraf, of which the second applicant was the editor, with the headline “Former Deputy Mayor [D.M.] and serving judge [R.M.] responsible for series of offences in Vinalex scam”. The names of the former deputy mayor and of the city council’s former legal expert, Mrs R.M., who had subsequently become a judge, were printed in full in the headline and in the article itself.\n20.  The article, which appeared under the byline of both applicants, was worded as follows:\n“In decision no. 33 of 30 June 1992 Constanţa City Council entrusted a commercial company, S.C. CBN S.r.l., with the task of impounding illegally parked vehicles or trailers ... It was the duty of the city authorities’ specialist departments to lay down the practical arrangements for implementing the council’s decision. But things did not turn out that way. Six months after decision no. 33 was adopted, the city authorities, knowingly breaching the provisions of Law no. 69/1991, illegally concluded a partnership contract ... with S.C. Vinalex S.r.l., a company having no connection with the one initially chosen. It is worth noting, however, that the contract in question was signed by the deputy mayor, [D.M.], in place of the mayor, ... and by a certain [M.] instead of the legal expert [M.T.].\nBy what miracle did S.C. Vinalex enter into a partnership with the city authorities when, in decision no. 33 of 30 June 1992, the city council had authorised CBN S.r.l. to provide a straightforward service? What is striking is that there is no evidence that CBN agreed to give up the task of towing away illegally parked vehicles! ... The crook [D.M.] (the former deputy mayor, now a lawyer) granted Vinalex’s irresponsible employees the power to decide when a vehicle is illegally parked – in other words, to treat citizens and their property with contempt. What form did the fraud take? Sections 89 and 29 of Law no. 69/1991 provide that no partnership contract with a commercial company may be signed without a prior decision by the local council, adopted by a two-thirds’ majority of the total number of councillors. Before a contract is signed, it must be referred to all the local council’s specialist committees for their opinion ... The contract with Vinalex was negotiated and signed illegally, as the signatories based it on the decision [of 30 June 1992], which, as has al", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-990", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Athens.\n11.  In the evening of 13 September 1995 the police tried to stop the applicant, who had driven through a red traffic light in the centre of Athens, near the American embassy. Instead of stopping, the applicant accelerated. He was chased by several police officers in cars and on motorcycles. During the pursuit, the applicant’s car collided with several other vehicles. Two drivers were injured. After the applicant had broken through five police roadblocks, the police officers started firing at his car. The applicant alleged that the police were firing at the car’s cab, whereas the Government maintained that they were aiming at the tyres.\n12.  Eventually, the applicant stopped at a petrol station, but did not get out. The police officers continued firing. The applicant alleged that the policemen knelt down and fired at him, whereas the Government maintained that they were firing in the air, in particular because there were petrol pumps in danger of exploding. One of the police officers threw a pot at the windscreen. Finally, the applicant was arrested by a police officer who managed to break into the car. The applicant claimed that he was shot on the sole of his foot while being dragged out of his car. The Government contested that claim, referring to the findings of the domestic court (see paragraph 19 below). The applicant was immediately driven to hospital, where he remained for nine days. He was injured on the right arm, the right foot, the left buttock and the right side of the chest. One bullet was removed from his foot and another one is still inside his buttock. The applicant’s mental health, which had broken down in the past, has deteriorated considerably since the incident.\n13.  Following the incident, an administrative investigation was carried out by the police. Twenty-nine of the police officers who had taken part in the chase were identified. There were also other policemen who had participated in the incident of their own accord and who had left the scene without identifying themselves and without handing in their weapons. In total, thirty-five sworn witness statements were taken. Laboratory tests were conducted in order to examine thirty-three police firearms, three bullets and four metal fragments. The applicant’s car was also examined.\nThe laboratory’s findings\n14.  On 12 January 1996 the police laboratory issued a report which contained the following findings:\n(a)  As regards the applicant’s car\n“... The car that has been examined is severely damaged due to collisions/crashes, but also to bullets ... At the front, there is damage to the car’s windscreen, where there are three holes and a mark ... Bullets, directed from the inside of the car outwards, caused the three holes as well as the mark. From the general damage to the car (the rear window is broken and has collapsed), the location of the examined damage and the course (direction) of the bullets that caused it, it may be assumed that the bullets in question broke through the rear window and ended up hitting the windscreen, producing the holes and the mark.\n... The rear window is broken and has collapsed. Because of its total destruction, it is not possible to determine exactly why it broke. From the rest of the findings (the damage to the windscreen, etc.) it may be assumed that bullets were responsible ... The trajectory of the bullets that caused the holes is from the rear of the car towards the front ... T", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-991", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Ms Valentyna Mykolayivna Derkach, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1962. Mr Mykola Ivanovych Palek, is also a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1957. Both applicants reside in the town of Vyshgorod, Ukraine.\n5.  In 2001-2002 the applicants instituted separate sets of proceedings in the domestic local courts seeking the recovery of salary arrears and other payments against their former employer-the State-owned “Atomspetsbud” company which carried out construction work in Chernobyl, more precisely in the zone subject to compulsory evacuation.\n6.  By a decision of the Vyshgorodsky District Court of Kiev Region of 5 March 2002, Ms Valentyna Derkach was awarded UAH 9,133 (the equivalent of 1,405.08 euros [“EUR”]) in salary arrears and compensation. The decision came into force. On 22 April 2002 the Slavutsky District Department of the State Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings.\n7.  By a decision of the Vyshgorodsky District Court of Kiev Region of 15 May 2002, Mr Mykola Palek was awarded UAH 15,476 (the equivalent of EUR 2,380.92) in salary arrears and compensation. The decision came into force. On 8 August 2002 the Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n8.  On 29 June 2002 the Ministry of Energy decided to wind-up the debtor company, given its unprofitability. On 18 July 2002 a liquidation commission was established.\n9.  In December 2002 the writs of execution in both cases were forwarded to the liquidation commission.\n10.  The judgments remain unenforced, in particular due to the fact that the debtor's property could not be attached to enforce the judgments. Attachment would have required a special authorisation of the Ministry for Emergencies due to the location of the debtor's property in the Chernobyl area, contaminated by radiation. Authorisation was not granted.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-992", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Bochnia, Poland. He works as a notary.\n10. On an unspecified day in March 1991 a certain Mr X filed with the Bochnia District Court a request that the co-ownership of an estate be dissolved.\n11. The court held hearings on 30 July 1991, 12 May 1992, 9 March 1993, 29 April 1994, 26 April 1995 and 8 May 1996.\n12. On 29 August 1996 the applicant purchased a share in that estate.\n13. On 6 September 1996 he requested the court to allow him to participate in the proceedings.\n14. On 12 September 1996, as a party to the proceedings, he requested the court to appoint a guardian ad litem for those co-owners whose place of residence was not known and for the heirs of a late co-owner. The applicant further raised a claim to establish the title to the disputed property and to evict two individuals.\n15. On 16 October 1996 the court granted the applicant leave to participate in the proceedings.\n16. In November 1996 the case was transferred to the Kraków Nowa-Huta District Court.\n17. Hearings were held on 4 February and 26 March 1997.\n18. On 26 March 1997 the court refused to allow the former co-owners of the applicant's share to participate in the proceedings. On 30 September 1997 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed an appeal against that decision lodged by Mr X.\n19. The District Court held hearings on 11 December 1997, as well as on 5 February and 3 December 1998.\n20. On 28 February 1998 it refused certain co-owners' request for an interim measure. They appealed and on 21 July 1998 the Regional Court quashed that decision and ordered the re-examination of the request. On 9 and 28 October 1998 the District Court ordered interim measures.\n21. On 20 February 1999 the court stayed the proceedings, considering that it was first necessary to carry on inheritance proceedings concerning the estate of a late co-owner in order to establish the identity of the heirs and their shares in the estate. The applicant and certain other co-owners appealed and on 18 June 1999 the Kraków Regional Court quashed that decision. In its decision it also ordered the District Court to exclude from those proceedings the issue of the ownership title to the estate and to initiate separate proceedings in this respect. It considered that in the light of a suspicion that Mr X and certain other participants in the proceedings could not be co-owners of the estate it was necessary to establish who had the genuine ownership title to the share allegedly owned by them.\n22. The District Court carried out that order on 5 October 1999. On 11 October 1999 the court stayed the proceedings concerning the dissolution of the co-ownership until the proceedings concerning the establishment of the title to the disputed share were completed.\n23. On 2 December 1999 the Kraków Nowa-Huta District Court declared its lack of jurisdiction over the case and transferred it to the Tarnów Regional Court.\n24. On 7 December 1999 the District Court refused the applicant's request, lodged on 12 September 1996, to appoint a guardian ad litem. On 17 March 2000 the Kraków Regional Court quashed that decision and ordered the re-examination of the request.\n25. On 22 January 2001 the Kraków Court of Appeal, on the request of one of the defendants, excluded the judges of the Tarnów Regional Court from participation in the proceedings concerning the establishment of ownership title. The court found, inter alia, that the applicant used to work as a judge on that circuit and was", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-993", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Sapy, Poland.\n7.  On 17 July 1992 the applicant lodged with the Skierniewice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an action for damages against his neighbours. He claimed that the defendants had caused damage to his barn by improperly storing silage and animal waste.\n8.  In 1992 two hearings were adjourned.\n9.  On 16 February 1993 the court held a hearing at which it heard the parties and witnesses and ordered an expert opinion.\n10.  On 3 August 1993 an expert submitted his opinion to the court. The defendants' lawyer contested the expert's opinion.\n11.  A hearing scheduled for 17 September 1993 was adjourned due to the absence of the defendants' lawyer.\n12.  On 14 October 1993 the court held a hearing and heard an expert witness.\n13.  On an unknown later date, at the applicant's lawyer's request, the court ordered another expert opinion. In January 1994 the opinion was submitted to the court. Subsequently, the defendants' lawyer requested the court to order a supplementary expert opinion.\n14.  On 29 March 1994 the court held a hearing. It heard two witnesses and an expert witness.\n15.  Subsequently, the defendants' lawyer requested the court to order yet another expert opinion.\n16.  In August 1994 the applicant's and the defendants' lawyers requested the court not to schedule any hearings until 30 September 1994 because of their respective holidays.\n17.  On 8 December 1994 the court dismissed the defendants' request for exemption from the court fees. They lodged an appeal but on 9 January 1995 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed it.\n18.  In May 1995 the trial court asked the defendants to indicate an expert who would prepare an opinion.\n19.  Two subsequent hearings scheduled for 31 January and 23 February 1996 were adjourned due to the illness of the defendants and their lawyer.\n20.  On 10 July 1996 the court, sitting in camera, ordered another expert opinion.\n21.  On 6 August 1996 the defendant's lawyer requested the court to appoint two other experts indicated by him. On 15 November 1996 the trial court dismissed this application.\n22.  On 17 March 1997 an expert opinion was submitted to the court.\n23.  In June 1997 the case was assigned to another judge.\n24.  Subsequently, the applicant's lawyer requested the court not to schedule any hearings until 30 August 1997 because of his holidays.\n25.  On 8 September 1997 the court stayed the proceedings because one of the defendants had died. Later, his heirs joined the proceedings.\n26.  On 21 January 1998 the trial court resumed the proceedings and sent the case‑file to an expert in order to obtain an opinion.\n27.  On 20 March 1998 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.\n28.  Between 30 March 1994 and 5 May 1998 no hearings were held.\n29.  On 6 May 1998 the court held a hearing.\n30.  On 15 July 1998 the applicant's lawyer again requested the court not to schedule hearings during his holidays.\n31.  A hearing scheduled for 30 October 1998 was adjourned due to the absence of the defendants' lawyer.\n32.  In December 1998 the defendants' lawyer requested the court not to schedule any hearings between 1 December and 20 December 1998, and subsequently, until 1 February 1999.\n33.  A hearing scheduled for 8 February 1999 was adjourned because of the absence of the defendants' lawyer.\n34.  Between 7 May 1998 and 17 March 1999 no hearings were held.\n35.  On 18 March 1999 the court held a hearing.\n36.  On 31 March 1999 the Regional Court gave judgment in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-994", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is at present living in Istanbul.\n11.  On 6 August 1992, based on the statements given by two members of the PKK to the police, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered the arrest of five people, including the applicant, on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal terrorist organisation. Several terrorist acts, including an attack on the Hersan Police Station, carried out by the PKK were mentioned in the order. The public prosecutor further requested to be kept informed every three months about the progress being made in the investigation.\n12.  On 9 July 1995 at 5.40 a.m., the police eventually arrested the applicant at the Istanbul Atatürk Airport on the basis of an order prohibiting him from leaving the country. At about 10 a.m. he was taken to the Gayrettepe Office for the Enforcement of Judgments in Istanbul.\n13.  On 11 July 1995 at 2 p.m., the applicant was taken into custody at the Istanbul Security Directorate. On the same day the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court authorised the Istanbul Security Directorate to extend the applicant's detention for ten days, starting from 9 July 1995.\n14.  On 17 July 1995 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Haseki Hospital in Istanbul. The doctor noted in his report that no pathological findings had been found on the applicant's body and that the final medical report would be drafted by the Forensic Medicine Institute.\n15.  On 18 July 1995, at about 6 a.m., the applicant was taken to the Istanbul Atatürk Airport. The applicant and the police officers who accompanied him took a plane to Bitlis. At 2 p.m. he was handed over to police officers from the Bitlis Security Directorate. On the same day, the Bitlis Public Prosecutor authorised the extension of the applicant's detention for three more days.\n16.  The applicant alleged that he was subjected to ill-treatment in the Bitlis Security Directorate, which included beatings, electric shock treatment, blindfolding, verbal insults, hosing with cold water, being stripped naked and deprived of food.\n17.  On 19 July 1995 the applicant was driven to different places around Bitlis in order to locate his different meeting places with terrorists. A sketch map, describing the attack on the Hersan Police Station and how he had assisted the terrorists, was drafted by police officers. In a statement signed by the applicant on 19 July 1995, he confessed that he had aided members of the PKK. He alleged that, after having signed this confession, he was again subjected to ill-treatment.\n18.  On 20 July 1995 the applicant was seen by a doctor in Bitlis who noted in his report that there were no marks on his body of beatings or injuries consistent with the use of force. The applicant alleged that the doctor neither spoke to him nor examined him.\n19.  On the same day the applicant was first brought before the Diyarbakır State Security Court Public Prosecutor who decided to join the investigation file on the applicant dated 1992 to the new investigation file dated 1995. The applicant contended that his police statements were taken under duress and refuted the reliability of the medical report. Moreover, he denied all the allegations made against him. Later he was taken before the judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. He repeated that his police statements were taken under duress and refuted the allegations against him. Noting that the applicant had a profession an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-995", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants were born in 1952, 1979, 1981, 1983 and 1985 respectively and live in Kahramanmaraş.\n11.  On 15 April 1991 terrorists raided the applicants' village in Kahramanmaraş and killed the men of the village, including the first applicant's husband and the father of the other applicants, A. O.\n12.  On 15 April 1992 the applicants brought an action before the Ankara Administrative Court against the Ministry of Internal Affairs, (hereinafter “the defendant”), claiming a breach of the State's responsibility to protect the life and security of its citizens. They requested the court to award them compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in respect of A.O's death.\n13.  On 29 April 1992 the case was notified to the defendant.\n14.  On 28 May 1992 the defendant submitted its observations to the court. On 16 June 1992 the observations were sent to the applicants.\n15.  On 22 June 1992 the applicants submitted their response to the observations of the defendant. On 20 August 1992 the applicants' reply was sent to the defendant.\n16.  On 15 September 1992 the defendant submitted additional observations. They were notified to the applicants on 29 September 1992.\n17.  On 21 February 1994 the Ankara Administrative Court, after examining the parties' observations, declared itself incompetent ratione loci and sent the case file to the Gaziantep Administrative Court.\n18.  On 10 August 1994 the applicants paid an advance on the court fees.\n19.  On 22 December 1994 the Gaziantep Administrative Court gave an interim decision in which it requested information from different administrative authorities. The court also appointed an expert to calculate the amount of pecuniary damage the applicants had sustained as a result of the death of A.O.\n20.  Between 20 and 28 February 1995 documents requested from the Land Registry, the Elbistan Social Aid, the security forces, the Social Security Institution and the Elbistan District Governor's Office were deposited with the court.\n21.  On 7 March 1995 documents concerning the investigations into the killing of the applicant's husband were sent to the court by the Kahramanmaraş Gendarmerie Command.\n22.  On 4 April 1995 the court requested the birth records of the Ormancı family from the Elbistan birth registry.\n23.  On 5 June 1995 the files pertaining to the birth records of the Ormancı family were submitted to the court.\n24.  On 4 September 1995 the case file was sent to an expert.\n25.  On 22 September 1995 the expert's report was submitted to the court.\n26.  On 10 November 1995 the defendant objected to the report.\n27.  On 19 June 1996 the Gaziantep Administrative Court awarded the applicants compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage together with interest from the date of the action.\n28.  On 30 July 1996 the court requested the applicants to pay the fee for the communication of the decision to the parties.\n29.  On 27 September 1996 the court was informed that the applicants had paid the necessary fee.\n30.  On 9 December 1996 the defendant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of the Gaziantep Administrative Court.\n31.  On 13 February 1997 the applicants submitted their observations to the Supreme Administrative Court.\n32.  On 28 March 1997 the case file was received by the Supreme Administrative Court. The case was allocated to the 10th Division.\n33.  On 10 November 1997 the public prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court gave his opinion.\n34.  On 10 Mar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-996", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Prague. She is the co-owner of a building and plot of land in the Strakonice region.\n5.  On 21 September 1988 the other owner instituted civil proceedings before the Strakonice District Court, seeking the termination of the co-ownership arrangement and the assignment of entire property to him. On 31 October 1988 the District Court heard the co-owner. Another hearing was scheduled for 16 November 1988 but, as the applicant failed to attend, it was adjourned. On 13 December 1988 the applicant was heard by the Prague 6 District Court at the request of the Strakonice District Court.\n6.  On 14 February 1989 the District Court appointed an expert in order to determine the manner in which the property should be divided. The report was submitted on 6 April 1989.\n7.  Three other hearings were held by the District Court on 23 and 30 October 1990 and 7 January 1991.\n8.  On 18 July 1991 the District Court ordered an on-site visit to the property.\n9.  On 16 March and 14 April 1992 the applicant requested the District Court to explain why her case was not progressing. On 4 September 1992 she filed a complaint with the Ministry of Justice alleging unreasonable delays in the proceedings.\n10.  On 25 September 1992 the President of the České Budějovice Regional Court (krajský soud) admitted that her complaint was justified, but explained that the District Court had serious staffing problems.\n11.  On 17 June 1993 the applicant again complained of delays to the President of the Regional Court.\n12.  On 9 July 1993 a geometric plan was submitted upon the District Court's request of 7 May 1992.\n13.  On 5 August 1993 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicant presented her proposal for the division of the property. She finalised her proposal on 23 August 1993. Another hearing was held on 30 September 1993, but was adjourned because the professional licence of the expert had to be verified.\n14.  On 25 October 1993 the District Court carried out an on-site visit to the property. On the same day, it adjourned the proceedings pending the production of the reports on the division of the property and its value.\n15.  On 6 June 1994 the court appointed an expert to assess the value of the property.\n16.  The next hearing was held before the District Court on 27 July 1995. At that hearing the parties disagreed on how to divide the property and settle the co-ownership issue.\n17.  On an unspecified date in 1994 the case was assigned to another judge.\n18.  A hearing held on 1 August 1995 was adjourned because a new expert had to be appointed to determine the manner in which the property should be divided.\n19.  On 16 February 1996 the applicant complained of delays in the proceedings to the Regional Court and, on 7 March 1996, to the President of the District Court. On 28 February 1996 she was informed by the latter that the length of the proceedings was due to the complex nature of the case and the judge's inexperience.\n20.  On 12 April 1996 the District Court appointed a third expert to determine the manner in which the property should be divided. A hearing held on 23 June 1996 was adjourned because the expert report had not yet been submitted. This report was submitted on 24 July 1996 and sent to the applicant on 14 October 1996. The latter challenged the expert's impartiality on 19 November 1996. On 10 December 1996 the other owner of the property submitted his comments on the evaluation made of the property.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-997", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Chişinău, Moldova. He is a journalist.\n8.  On 14 August 1998 the Russian language weekly newspaper “Express” published an article entitled “The minor affairs of the big Airport”, signed by the applicant. He gave as sources for his article the outcome of an investigation conducted by him and the materials of a Parliamentary Commission concerning the selling of aircraft. The article stated, inter alia, that:\n“The scandal of the sale of Moldovan aircraft at dumping prices attracted the public attention of Moldovan society, which is already used to being unsurprised by such events. However, these still ongoing events offered our newspaper the opportunity to focus on this topic (see, 'Express' No. 19 and 20 of 19 and 26 June 1998). This article is an attempt to give a meaning to the events, which happened within the State Administration of Civil Aviation ('SACA') in the last two years, on the basis of facts which became known as a result of a press investigation. \nIn 1995 Chişinău International Airport ('CIA') split from the State Air Company 'Air Moldova' and became an independent enterprise. The Head of SACA was L.P., while A.I. was appointed as Head of CIA. An agreement was signed between SACA and A.I. for a period of three years. In 1996 the above agreement was cancelled on the grounds of the negligence of A.I. in carrying out his duties. This fact was the starting point of the story which follows. A.I. disagreed with SACA's decision on his dismissal and lodged a court action seeking his reinstatement. Since court proceedings in Moldova are so lengthy, A.I., who could not accept his dismissal, took steps to approach CIA's staff. To this end, he organised with the support of his adherents a demonstration on the old Airport square. A.I. took the floor and the core of his speech was that he was the only person who, as head of CIA, could ensure its economic growth. \nSACA also decided to seek the opinion of its staff and for this purpose, its Director General, L.P., summoned a meeting of his deputies and the Airport units' heads. Everyone expressed a view and the common opinion was that A.I. was not the right person to be the head of CIA. Hence, the meeting of the Airport administration clearly expressed its distrust of A.I.\nNevertheless, such an outcome did not discourage the pretender to the chairmanship. He even issued a leaflet entitled 'Appeal to the Airport staff', which stated: 1. SACA unfairly dismissed A.I.; 2. A.I. will inevitably become CIA's Chief Executive.\nThis proved to be true, when the court declared SACA's actions to be illegal and ordered the reinstatement of A.I. in his previous post. ...”\n9.  The following related to the events that took place after A.I.'s reinstatement:\n“...The purging and transfer of staff marked the reinstatement of A.I. in the position. Many were reminded of their disapproval of the candidature of A.I. for the position of Chief Executive of CIA, expressed at the meeting with directors and managers. ... Once he had become Chief Executive of the Chişinău Airport for the second time and after he had successfully accomplished the first staff purge by means of the reorganisation of the enterprise's structure, A.I. called up his 'team', which had been created in between his two directorships. ... the present Director General L.I., devoted to the policy chosen by his patron A.I. ...\n...One can become convinced about this by the example of another worker promote", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-998", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Grudziądz, Poland.\n  1. Proceedings against a dentist and a health centre\n9.  On 18 February 1994 the applicant filed with the Grudziądz District Court (sąd rejonowy) an action in which she claimed compensation from a dentist for alleged malpractice. Subsequently, she requested the court to stay the proceedings for half a year.\n10.  On 5 October 1994 the court refused the applicant's request for exemption from the court costs. Her appeal against that decision was rejected as having been lodged outside the prescribed time-limit.\n11.  The applicant submits that she did not attend the hearing held on 8 February 1995 because she had not been informed about it.\n12.  On 1 March 1995 the applicant also sued the health centre at which the defendant worked. On the same day the court held a hearing. On 28 April 1995 it granted the applicant's subsequent request for exemption from the court costs.\n13.  On 5 May 1995 the applicant requested the court to stay the proceedings for three months.\n14.  On 16 May 1995 the court held a hearing. It refused the applicant's request to have the proceedings stayed.\n15.  On 6 June 1995 the court gave judgment, in which it dismissed the applicant's action. She appealed.\n16.  On 6 October 1995 the Toruń Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki) quashed a part of the first-instance judgment and remitted the case, in this part, for re-examination. It dismissed the remainder of the appeal.\n17.  On 11 December 1995 the Grudziądz District Court held a hearing. On 19 January 1996 the case was transferred to the Regional Court, because the applicant had increased the amount of the compensation claimed.\n18.  The Toruń Regional Court held hearings on 9 May 1996 and in October 1996. The hearing scheduled for 3 December 1996 was adjourned due to the absence of a witness and the defendant's representative.\n19.  On 16 January 1997 the court held a further hearing, at which it ordered an expert opinion. On 13 June 1997 the experts returned the case file to the court, submitting that the applicant had refused to undergo a medical examination. On 18 June 1997 she requested the appointment of other experts.\n20.  The court held hearings on 21 November 1997 and 10 February 1998.\n21.  On 10 February 1998 it gave judgment, in which it dismissed the action. The applicant appealed.\n22.  On 18 June 1998 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (sąd apelacyjny) dismissed her appeal. She lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n23.  On 26 July 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed that cassation appeal.\n24.  On 27 April 1995 the applicant filed with the Grudziądz District Court an action in which she claimed compensation for alleged malpractice on the part of doctors who had performed a laser operation on her face.\n25.  On 5 May 1995 the court transferred the case to the Toruń District Court.\n26.  On 10 July 1995 the latter court refused the applicant's request for exemption from the court costs. On 9 August 1995 the Toruń Regional Court dismissed her appeal against that decision.\n27.  On 7 September 1995 the District Court summoned the applicant to specify the defendant party.\n28.  On 13 October 1995 the first hearing was held. Subsequently, the applicant increased the claimed amount.\n29.  The court summoned her to specify her claim. It adjourned the hearing scheduled for 14 November 1995 due to the applicant's failure to comply with its order relating to her claim.\n30.  On 20 November 1995 she increased the am", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-999", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Sofia.\n10.  During the relevant period the applicant, who was addicted to drugs, was charged with numerous counts of theft. The charges concerned thefts of electric appliances, small amounts of money, small religious ceremonial objects, food, cigarettes and objects of higher value, such as icons and antiquities. More than twenty separate investigations were launched in relation to those thefts. Some of the investigations were initially instituted against an unknown perpetrator whereas in others the applicant, either alone or together with other persons, was named as the suspected perpetrator from the outset.\n11.  In the course of the ensuing criminal proceedings the investigations were grouped. Two sets of such grouped proceedings are relevant to the present application: one concerning petty thefts and the second concerning icons and antiquities.\n12.  These included eight investigations and four summary investigations, instituted between 1993 and 1996. The applicant was charged for the first time on 26 October 1993 in respect of one of the investigations. Later charges were brought in the remainder and eventually the twelve files were joined.\n13.  During the investigation, between 1993 and 1996, the applicant and other suspected or accused persons were interrogated numerous times, forty‑four witnesses were questioned, fifteen on-site visits were made, nine searches were undertaken and numerous expert reports were commissioned and examined (psychiatric reports, finger-print reports and accounting reports).\n14.  Approximately one third of these acts of investigation concerned charges under which the applicant was eventually convicted. The remainder concerned charges in respect of which the applicant was later acquitted.\n15.  On 27 October 1994 the competent prosecutor referred the case back to the investigator as there had been irregularities and discrepancies. The investigator concluded his work on 15 June 1995.\n16.  On 20 February 1996 the Sofia Prosecutor’s Office submitted an indictment to the Sofia District Court.\n17.  On 18 March 1996 the Sofia District Court, noting that there had been breaches of procedural rules and discrepancies as regards the value of some of the stolen objects, referred the case back to the prosecutor.\n18.  On 20 February 1997 the prosecutor submitted a fresh indictment.\n19.  On 28 February 1997 the District Court, noting that some of the defects of the indictment had not been remedied despite the instructions given in the decision of 18 March 1996 and pointing to other discrepancies, referred the case back to the prosecutor.\n20.  On 22 January 1998 the prosecutor again submitted an indictment.\n21.  On 6 February 1998 the Sofia District Court, noting that certain procedural rules concerning the modification of the charges had not been observed, referred the case back to the prosecutor once more.\n22.  The final version of the indictment was submitted on 19 February 1998. It concerned sixteen counts of theft allegedly committed by the applicant and two other persons.\n23.  Throughout the judicial proceedings the applicant and his lawyer regularly appeared when summoned and did not cause any of the adjournments.\n24.  The first hearing was held on 13 May 1998. The court noted that one of the co-accused persons was not legally represented whereas legal representation was mandatory in view of the contradictory interests of the three accused persons. As a result, the hea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1000", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Wels.\n10.  On 10 April 1984 preliminary investigations were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated fraud (schwerer Betrug).\n11.  During the preliminary investigations in 1984 and 1985 many witnesses were heard, some of them under letters rogatory. On 14 February 1986 an accountancy expert submitted a comprehensive opinion, as a result of which further witnesses were heard.\n12.  On 22 April 1987 the preliminary investigations were closed and the file was transferred to the Wels Public Proscutor’s Office (Staatsanwaltschaft).\n13.  On 29 July 1987 the Wels Public Prosecutor’s Office issued the indictment against the applicant, her husband and three other co-accused. It charged the applicant, her husband and two co-accused with continued aggravated fraud and with negligent and fraudulent bankruptcy (fahrlässige und betrügerische Krida). The applicant’s objection against the indictment filed with the Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) was of no avail.\n14.  On 30 May 1988 the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) that jurisdiction over the case be transferred to the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) on the ground that the applicant and her husband would move to Vienna and that numerous witnesses were residing there. On 9 August 1988 the Supreme Court allowed the transfer. The file arrived at the Vienna Regional Court on 16 September 1988, which set trial hearings for the period between September and November 1989.\n15.  On 25 September 1989 the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction to the Linz Regional Court since it had turned out that the applicant and her husband had not moved to Vienna. The Linz Regional Court was proposed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office on the ground that all the judges of the Wels Regional Court could recuse themselves as the applicant’s husband was one of their former colleagues. On 18 December 1989 the Supreme Court allowed the transfer. On 27 December 1989 the Linz Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that a trial hearing be fixed.\n16.  Subsequently the Linz Regional Court suggested ex officio the re-transfer of the case to the Wels Regional Court. This was refused by the Linz Court of Appeal on 13 June 1990. On 22 June 1990 a first trial hearing was set by the Linz Regional Court for 18 December 1990.\n17.  Between 18 December 1990 and 5 September 1991, the Linz Regional Court, sitting with two professional and two lay judges, held further trial hearings against the applicant and the co-accused. Numerous witnesses as well as an expert on bookkeeping were heard.\n18.  On 11 July 1991, i.e. the fifteenth trial day, the Linz Regional Court decided to disjoin the proceedings against the applicant from those against the co-accused due to her poor state of health. The proceedings against the co-accused were continued. The judge competent to deal with the applicant’s case decided to wait for the outcome of these proceedings due to the close factual links with the applicant’s case.\n19.  On 5 September 1991 the Linz Regional Court convicted the applicant’s husband of continued aggravated fraud (gewerbsmässiger schwerer Betrug), fraudulent bankruptcy (betrügerische Krida), fraudulent conversion (Veruntreuung) and false testimony (falsche Beweisaussage vor Gericht).\n20.  On 26 November 1992 the Supreme Court quashed the Linz Regional Court’s deci", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1001", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1968 and 1936 respectively and live in Paris.\n9.  The first applicant was born on 6 December 1968 of a relationship which began in 1964 between the second applicant, a widow and the mother of a daughter born in 1957, and Mr R. Merger, a married man and the father of four children born in 1942, 1944, 1945 and 1947. At the time her birth, her father and mother had been living together since 1965. Her father formally acknowledged paternity on 7 December 1973 and she has borne his name since 17 May 1985.\n10.  On 11 May 1980 the first applicant's father drew up a private deed dividing his movable property between his five children. The document was signed by the four legitimate children and by the father on the first applicant's behalf.\n11.   On 11 October 1984 he made a manuscript will in which he left to the first applicant the disposable portion of his estate which, pursuant to Article 913 of the Civil Code, came to one quarter. He stipulated that it was to be taken free of his wife's life interest.\n12.   In a second manuscript will dated 16 June 1985 he stated that he wished the estate to be divided into five parts to be allocated by the drawing of lots in the presence of all his children, for the disposable portion of the estate to pass to the first applicant after an account had been taken of any gifts that had been made and for his wife's life interest to attach only to the share of the four legitimate children. The first applicant was to receive a reversionary pension for the duration of her studies and these were to be paid for if the law so permitted.\n13.  The first applicant's father died on 12 March 1986 leaving as his heirs his wife, four legitimate children and the first applicant, an illegitimate child conceived while he was bound by marriage to a person other than its mother.\n14.  A notary was instructed to wind up the estate. He took an inventory at the home on 20 June 1986. The first applicant (who was sitting her baccalaureate that day) was represented by the second applicant, who pointed out that certain movables were missing. The widow laid claim to certain items which she said belonged to her. The total value of the movables listed in the inventory was estimated at 114,175 French francs (FRF).\n15.  Since an amicable division of the estate proved impossible, the deceased's four legitimate children and their mother brought proceedings against the applicants in the Paris tribunal de grande instance seeking, inter alia, orders setting aside the gift of the disposable portion to the first applicant and the gifts their father had made to the second applicant – which were deemed to have been made to the first applicant – and restricting the first applicant's rights to 10 % of the net estate.\n16.  The applicants asked the Court, inter alia, to dismiss the claims and to order the claimants to hand over to the first applicant all the movable property she had been allocated on 11 May 1980.\n17.  In a judgment of 6 November 1992, the tribunal de grande instance found that funds that had been used to purchase a flat in the avenue d'Italie in Paris and a sum of FRF 500,000 were gifts that had been made to the first applicant through an intermediary and set them aside under Articles 908 and 911 of the Civil Code. It added that the value of the property that had been acquired with those gifts had to be brought into account. Relying on those provisions, the tribunal de grande instance ruled that the first ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1002", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Split, Croatia.\n7.  On 2 February 1992 his house in Kaštel Novi, Croatia, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 9 January 1995 he instituted civil proceedings before the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia for his damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima, Official Gazette no. 7/1996 of 26 January 1996), the Split Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 15 September 1998.\n10.  The proceedings resumed on 20 November 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija, Official Gazette no. 117/2003 of 23 July 2003).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1004", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Syracuse.\n7.  She was a teacher at a private school in Lentini (Syracuse). The school was owned by a limited liability company, G., of which the applicant and three other teachers were members and Mr G. the manager.\n8.  In July 1998 Mrs C. lodged a criminal complaint with the Revenue Police (Guardia di Finanza) about irregularities in the management of the school's affairs. She stated that she was a de facto member of G.\n9.  The Syracuse public prosecutor's office opened an investigation in respect of the members and manager. On 20 July 1998 the Revenue Police searched the company's head office and the members' homes. At that time the applicant received official notification that she was under investigation.\nOn an unspecified date the public prosecutor's office ordered the applicant to be questioned and informed her that she and the other persons charged were suspected of committing extortion, fraud and forgery. On 12 August 1998 the Revenue Police questioned the applicant.\n10.  On 17 November 1998 the public prosecutor's office asked the investigating judge to issue an arrest warrant against the applicant and certain other persons on charges of criminal association, tax evasion and forgery of official documents.\nOn 28 November 1998 the investigating judge ordered Mrs Sciacca and the other persons charged to be placed under house arrest.\n11.  On 4 December 1998 the applicant was served with the judge's decision. Like anyone placed under house arrest, she avoided being remanded in custody. However, the Revenue Police compiled a file on her; photographs and fingerprints were included in it. On the same day the deputy public prosecutor responsible for the investigation and officers from the Revenue Police gave a press conference.\n12.  Two newspapers published articles about the investigation.\n13.  The first daily, Giornale di Sicilia, published two articles, on 5 and 6 December 1998. In the first one it referred to “alleged formal and substantive illegalities in the management of a private school”. After stating that the applicant and three others, who had been placed under house arrest, had been charged with very serious offences (criminal association, extortion, forgery, fraud and tax evasion), the newspaper indicated that other persons charged “were allegedly also” victims of acts of extortion committed by the four people who had been arrested. After outlining the measures taken by the investigators, the newspaper stated that the four people who had been placed under house arrest “were allegedly” the de facto managers of the school. The newspaper went on to explain what the extortion had consisted of. It added that “unofficial accounts had been found at the home of the four people concerned” and that “the investigators had found that the pupils enrolled” in two classes “were in fact the husbands and cousins of the women who had been arrested”. The only passage reporting the investigators' statements concerned someone other than the applicant.\n14.  The other article – published on the following day together with a photograph of the four arrested women – was similar in content to the first one.\n15.  On 5 December 1998 the second daily, La Sicilia, published on the front page a photograph (identity format) of the four people who had been placed under house arrest and stated that they “had set up a bogus school”. The contents of the article were comparable to those of the articles published in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1005", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Istanbul.\n8.  The applicant worked as a journalist for the Turkish daily newspaper “Özgür Gündem”.\n9.  On 2 January 1994 “Özgür Gündem” published an article with the title “Four New Books by Zagros Publications”, written by the applicant. On the same day, the copies of the newspaper were confiscated by an order of the Istanbul State Security Court.\n10.  In the impugned article, the applicant reviewed four books written by four different authors who discussed problems related to Turkey's south‑eastern region. The first book reviewed in the article, “Tasfiyeciliğin Tasfiyesi” (“Liquidation of Liquidators”), was written by Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK.\n11.  Under this heading the author expressed his views in the following terms:\n“Combating 'liquidation' (tasfiye) is of paramount importance for every revolutionary movement. There is hardly any great movement in which 'liquidation' (tasfiye) does not exist. Abdullah Öcalan, the General Secretary of the PKK, examined the characteristics of the liquidators and the destructive damage they caused in the struggle. He reveals his determination on this issue by declaring: 'I will not hesitate even if I have to sacrifice the whole party in order to liquidate one of them'.\nIn this connection, a further success of the PKK is its never ceasing firm struggle against 'liquidation' (tasfiye). The PKK has revealed facts that almost no other revolutionary movement managed to do. This discipline and determination of the PKK may give an idea about its prospective system and the characteristics of its creators.\nThe PKK has, in this sense, diagnosed at the right time the 'liquidation' (tasfiye) tendencies which would lead the revolution to defeat, took measures against possible damage, organised the struggle to save the revolution's origins and thus has carried the revolution further to victory. These issues are explicitly taken up and evaluated in the book. 'Liquidation of Liquidators' (Tasfiyeciliğin Tasfiyesi) is not a theoretical work, nor a book written after examination of the relevant literature. On the contrary, it is a book that collects in chronological order the evaluations on the problem of 'liquidation' (tasfiye), encountered in practice during a long and hard struggle. The book is in this respect a documentary, including information and instructive lessons not only for The National Liberation Struggle for Kurdistan but also for all class or national liberation movements in the world.”\n12.  The titles of the other books reviewed in the same article are “History of Colonisation” and “From the nineteenth century to this day, the national problem and Kürdistan” and “The Cease-fire declared by the PKK and its Effects”. Under the last article, the applicant stated:\n“... [the] Cease fire, which was declared on 20 March 1993 by the PKK did not reach its goal, on the contrary, [it] continued the dirty war in Kürdistan. In fact, the guerrillas blocked the Elazığ-Bitlis highway on 25 May 1993 killed twenty-nine soldiers and the cease fire, which had not been responded to, ended.”\n13.  On 1 June 1994, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court charged the applicant with disseminating propaganda about an illegal separatist terrorist organisation. The charges in the indictment were brought under Article 7 § 2 of Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).\n14.  The public prosecutor based his indictment on the following sentences from the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1006", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Igor Samoylovich Dubenko, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1949 and currently resides in Artemivsk, the Donetsk Region.\n6.  In March 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Artemivsk City Court against the Komsomolets State Mine seeking to recover salary and compensation due to him.\n7.  On 26 April 2000 the Artemivsk City Court awarded the applicant UAH 5,270.38[1] in compensation (UAH 2,946.98 in salary arrears and UAH 2,323.4 in compensation for the delayed settlement).\n8.  On 10 May 2000 a writ of execution was issued and sent to the Mykytivsky District Bailiffs' Service of Gorlivka (the “Bailiffs”) for the enforcement of the judgment.\n9.  The execution proceedings were initiated on 7 September 2000 by the Bailiffs, who instituted separate proceedings with regard to the payment of the salary arrears and the compensation for the delayed settlement.\n10.  On 15 September 2000 the writs of execution were presented to the Gorlivka branch of Bank Nadra where the mining company had its account.\n11.  On 24 April 2001 the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the judgment of 26 April 2000 could not be executed due to the mine's lack of funds. It also informed the applicant that he was no. 191 in the list of creditors who sought to recover their debts.\n12.  On 26 February 2002 the applicant informed the Court that the execution proceedings were still pending.\n13.  On 6 May 2003 the Bailiffs lodged an application with the Artemivsk City Court seeking to replace the debtor in the enforcement proceedings by the Artemvugillia State Company. On 20 June 2003 the court allowed this request. The Artemvugillia was ordered to pay the applicant UAH 2,946.98[2] in compensation.\n14.  On 24 June 2003 the Bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings for the payment of UAH 2,946.98 and remitted the execution writs to the Gorlivka District Bailiffs' Service, which had the relevant jurisdiction.\n15.  On 1 July 2003 the writ of execution was assigned to a bailiff who, on 2 July, instituted enforcement proceedings in the applicant's case.\n16.  On 3 July 2003 the Artemvugillia transferred the funds due to the applicant to the deposit accounts of the Mykytivsky District and Gorlivka District Departments of Justice which were enforcing the two writs in the applicant's favour.\n17.  On 4 July 2003 the sum UAH 2,323.4 for the delay in settlement was transferred to the applicant's bank account in accordance with payment order no. 195.\n18.  On 7 July 2003 the enforcement of this part of the judgment was discontinued in view of its execution.\n19.  On 9 July 2003 the remainder of the sum due to the applicant (UAH 2,946.98) was transferred to the applicant's bank account in accordance with payment order no. 219.\n20.  On 21 January 2004 the applicant informed the Court that he had received the full amount of the award. However, he complained that he had received no compensation for the further delays in enforcement. He also complained that he had to pay bank fees for the transfer made to him.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1007", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Bjelovar, Croatia.\n5.  On 6 November 1994 the applicant was arrested on suspicion that he had committed murder. On the same date he was detained on remand at Bjelovar County Prison (Okružni zatvor Bjelovar).\n6.  On 9 November 1994 the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru) opened an investigation against the applicant.\n7.  On 5 December 1994 the Bjelovar County State Attorney’s Office (Okružno državno odvjetništvo Bjelovar) indicted the applicant for murder.\n8.  On 21 December 1994 the first hearing was held before the Bjelovar County Court.\n9.  On 26 April 1995 the County Court found the applicant guilty of murder. It held that the applicant had exceeded the force necessary for self-defence and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment.\n10.  On 15 May 1995 the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment. The County State Attorney’s Office also filed an appeal.\n11.  On 16 August 1995 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) quashed the first-instance judgment for factual shortcomings and remitted the case.\n12.  In the resumed proceedings, on 16 October 1995 the County Court found the applicant guilty of manslaughter. It sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. On the same date the applicant was released since the time he had spent in pre-trial detention was credited against his sentence.\n13.  On 30 October 1995 the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment. The County State Attorney’s Office also filed an appeal.\n14.  On 18 November 1997 the Supreme Court again quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. It held that the first-instance court had failed to state any reasons refuting the applicant’s argument that he had acted in self-defence.\n15.  In the resumed proceedings, the County Court held hearings on 11 February 1998 and 3 April 1998. On 3 April 1998 the County Court again found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment.\n16.  On 27 April 1998 the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment. The County State Attorney’s Office also filed an appeal.\n17.  On 28 August 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals as ill-founded and upheld the first-instance judgment. The Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicant’s counsel on 8 October 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1008", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940.\n5.  In 1991 the applicant moved from Georgia to Saint-Petersburg where his sister lived. In 1997 the Migration Service of St. Petersburg (Миграционная служба г. Санкт-Петербурга) granted the applicant’s family the right to use two rooms in a three-room communal flat.\n6.  On 5 August 1999 the Novyy Peterburg (“New Petersburg”) newspaper ran an article by Mr Usov under the headline “A Kurd from Novosibirsk? Claim your housing!” (“Курд из Новосибирска? Получи жилплощадь!”). The article alleged that the applicant and his wife, both of Kurdish origin, obtained the housing unlawfully, for a bribe. It was also said that they tortured and humiliated their neighbour (who lived in the third room of the flat) in order to “lay their hands on” the entire flat. The article implied that “compatriots of Öcalan” were given preference to the detriment of ethnic Russians.\n7.  The applicant complained to a prosecutor’s office, and the Tsentralniy prosecutor’s office of St. Petersburg opened a criminal case for libel. A preliminary investigation established that Mr Usov based his conclusions on statements by the applicant’s neighbour who had been diagnosed with a mental disorder of paranoid nature.\n8.  On 30 August 1999 (on 6 September 1999, according to the Government) the applicant lodged a civil action for defamation against the “New Petersburg” newspaper and Mr Usov. He claimed both publication of a refutation and compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount to be determined by the court.\n9.  The first hearing was fixed for 19 April 2000. Between 20 June 2000 and 25 November 2002 at least eight hearings were adjourned. According to the Government, the adjournments took place because the applicant failed to appear. According to the applicant, he came to every hearing, but the defendant never showed up.\n10.  On 17 January and 21 May 2002 the applicant moved to hear the case in his absence, explaining that it was difficult for him to come to every hearing because of his limited mobility. He also filed several complaints with the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St. Petersburg about unreasonable delays in the examination of his claim, requesting the court to expedite the proceedings.\n11.  On 31 May 2002 the Dzerzhinsky District Court of St. Petersburg inquired in writing whether the applicant would agree to the substitution of the “New Petersburg” newspaper, the original defendant, by the publishing house “New Petersburg”, the original defendant’s legal successor. On 18 July 2002 the applicant responded in the affirmative. On 30 July 2002 the court sent him again the same inquiry.\n12.  The hearing in the defamation action before the Dzerzhinsky District Court of St. Petersburg finally took place on 10 February 2003, and the court rendered a judgment in the applicant’s favour. The defendant was ordered to pay 3,000 Russian roubles (“RUR”) for non-pecuniary damage and publish a refutation.\n13.  In October 2003 the applicant complained to the President’s Office about the district court’s failure to make the text of the judgment available to him. On an unspecified date in December 2003 the applicant received the judgment.\n14.  On 5 March 2004 the judgment was enforced in the part concerning the pecuniary award and the enforcement proceedings were closed. The applicant submits that the judgment has remained unenforced in the part concerning publication of a refutation.\n15.  In early 2000 the applicant’s neighbour moved ou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1009", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Birsk in the Bashkortostan Republic of the Russian Federation.\n5.  On 17 February 1998 the Birsk Town Court of the Bashkortostan Republic granted the applicant’s civil action for compensation for work-related injuries against the municipal enterprise “Baltachevskaya rayselkhtoztekhnika” (МУП «Балтачевская райсельхозтехника», “the municipal enterprise”) and awarded her a lump sum of 18,526.99 Russian roubles (RUR) and monthly payments of RUR 788.40. No appeal was lodged against the judgment and it became final on 28 February 1998.\n6.  As the municipal enterprise stopped monthly payments from 1 January 1999, the applicant lodged a new civil action for the recovery of amounts outstanding and legal fees. On 17 January 2000 the Birsk Town Court of the Bashkortostan Republic allowed the action and awarded the applicant RUR 2,457.84.\n7.  On 22 November 2000 the Birsk Town Court of the Bashkortostan Republic amended, at the applicant’s request, the judgment of 17 February 1998. The court ordered that the amount of monthly payments indicated in that judgment should be regularly adjusted to take account of increases of the minimum monthly wage.\n8.  On 15 January and 30 September 2002 the Birsk Town Court allowed two further civil actions lodged by the applicant and awarded her interest on outstanding amounts and legal fees in the total amount of RUR 7,445.12.\n9.  On 27 March 1998 and 9 December 2000 the Baltachevsk district service of court bailiffs opened enforcement proceedings against the municipal enterprise. Between 1 July 2000 and 1 September 2001 it recovered RUR 16,526.14.\n10.  Unsatisfied with the bailiffs’ performance, the applicant complained to a court. On 11 December 2001 the Baltachevsk District Court of the Bashkortostan Republic granted her complaint. It found that as at 1 November 2001 the outstanding payments amounted to RUR 13,513.88. The municipal enterprise did not contest its obligation to pay, but claimed that it was unable to do so owing to insufficient funds. The court ordered that the bailiffs should seize the municipal enterprise’s property with a view to enforcing the judgment.\nOn the same day the bailiffs seized a lorry belonging to the municipal enterprise. However, it could not be sold because there was no willing purchaser and the applicant refused to accept the seized lorry in part payment of the debt, insisting on monetary compensation.\n11.  The applicant complained to a prosecutor’s office about the court bailiffs’ failure to enforce the judgment of 17 February 1998 in full. On 5 July 2002 an investigator of the prosecutor’s office of the Baltachevsk District informed her that a criminal case had been opened against the bailiffs under Article 315 of the Criminal Code (“Non-enforcement of a conviction, judgment or a court decision”).\nOn 8 July 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Baltachevsk district prosecutor ordered the chief court bailiff of the Bashkortostan Republic to take measures to enforce the judgment of the Baltachevsk District Court.\n12.  Between 2002 and the present time the following payments were made to the applicant in order to enforce the judgments in her favour:\n- by a wire transfer of 3 June 2002 – RUR 3,000;\n- by a wire transfer of 13 September 2002 – RUR 1,000;\n- by a wire transfer of 13 August 2003 (the proceeds from the sale of the municipal enterprise’s lorry) – RUR 63,720;\n- by a cheque of 15 January 2004 – RUR 37,200.01;\n- by a cheque of 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1010", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Ghent.\n9.  On 29 March 1994 he was arrested in connection with an investigation concerning a case of arson committed on 25 May 1993.\n10.  On 1 April 1994 the Committals Division of the Ghent Criminal Court refused to extend the validity of the arrest warrant. On appeal, the Indictment Division of the Ghent Court of Appeal overturned that decision and prolonged the applicant's pre-trial detention.\n11.  On 21 April 1994 the investigating judge rescinded the warrant concerned.\n12.  On 29 June 1994 and 2 June 1995 respectively the Committals Division and the Indictment Division, ruling on the action to be taken on the basis of the investigation to date, held that there was insufficient evidence to commit the applicant for trial and discontinued the proceedings.\n13.  On 25 October 1996 the applicant claimed compensation for unwarranted pre-trial detention, relying on the Law of 13 March 1973 (see “Relevant domestic law” below).\n14.  On 12 May 1997 the Minister of Justice refused the applicant's claim on the ground that he had not “established his innocence by adducing factual evidence or submitting legal argument to that effect”, as required by section 28(1)(b) of the Law of 1973. That requirement was justified, according to the Minister, in the case of an order or judgment discontinuing criminal proceedings, given that a discontinuation decision was not a bar to the reopening of the case if new information or evidence were to come to light.\n15.  On 4 July 1997 the applicant contested the Minister's decision by means of an application to the Unwarranted Pre-trial Detention Appeals Board.\n16.  On 1 December 1997 the applicant appeared before the Appeals Board, which upheld the refusal of his claim by a decision taken on the same day and served on the applicant on 29 March 1998. It noted that the grounds for presuming the guilt of the applicant, who had always denied committing the offence he stood accused of when appearing before the courts investigating the charge, had been held to be insufficient to justify committing him for trial. It observed that, although the applicant had announced his intention of submitting a pleading setting out the evidence in the file which “amply” proved his innocence, he had not done so and had not replied to the Government's submissions. Consequently, the Appeals Board found that he had not proved his innocence as the law required (dat verzoeker derhalve het bij de wet van hem vereiste bewijs van onschuld niet bijbrengt).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1011", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1943 and 1973 and live in Muć Gornji and Split respectively.\n5.  On 6 December 1989 the applicants rented business premises from the “Cibona” Basketball Club (“the Club”) in Zagreb.\n6.  On 10 February 1990 the Club unilaterally terminated the contract, because the applicants had delayed in paying an amount of money stipulated in the contract.\n7.  The applicants subsequently instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking to have the contract restored. On 17 October 1990 the first-instance court accepted their claim.\n8.  On 21 May 1991 the Zagreb County Court (Okružni sud Zagreb) dismissed an appeal by the Club. The applicants sought enforcement of that judgment on 18 July 1991.\n9.  The proceedings ended on 11 March 1992 when the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the Club’s request for revision on points of law.\n10.  The Club meanwhile concluded a new contract renting the same business premises to Ž.B. and T.B. (“the new tenants”), who immediately occupied the premises.\n11.  On 3 September 1991 the new tenants, as third parties, objected to the enforcement sought by the applicants on 18 July 1991, claiming that they were entitled to use the premises. They were instructed by the competent court to file a civil action against the applicants in order to have the enforcement declared inadmissible.\n12.  On 21 October 1991 the new tenants instituted civil proceedings against the applicants to that end. They claimed that they had not known and could not have known about the applicants’ contract with the Club. Consequently, on 8 January 1992 the enforcement proceedings were stayed pending a decision on this question.\n13.  After judgments at first instance and on appeal, which were quashed by the Supreme Court on 21 April 1994, the proceedings were remitted to the Zagreb Municipal Court.\n14.  In the resumed proceedings, the Zagreb Municipal Court held two hearings and heard evidence from two witnesses. On 4 April 1996 the court declared the enforcement inadmissible. It found that the new tenants, in concluding their contract with the Club, had acted in good faith and that they were thus entitled to use the premises in line with the legislation in force at the material time.\n15.  On 8 April 1997 the Zagreb County Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants.\n16.  On 10 June 1997 the applicants filed a request for revision on points of law (revizija). On 8 November 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed their request on the merits. This decision was served on the applicants on 31 January 2001.\n17.  On 15 June 2001 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed a constitutional complaint by the applicants, finding no violation of their constitutional rights.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1012", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Sofia.\n10.  During the period September 1995 – May 1996 the applicant was a university student in finance in the town of Svishtov, at the Danube river. He was also the manager of a sport‑shoes shop in the town of Novi Pazar, in north‑eastern Bulgaria (situated at approximately 415 kilometres from Sofia), owned by his girlfriend.\n11.  On 12 April 1995 Mr E.S.A., a Greek citizen living in Germany, drove through Bulgaria in a jeep with a trailer to transfer a corpse from Germany to Greece. At about 11.00 p.m. he stopped on the ring‑road of Sofia. A car stopped in front of the jeep, three men came out of it and approached the vehicle. One of them tried to hit Mr E.S.A. with a hammer through the jeep's window. Another got into the jeep and attacked him with a knife. Mr E.S.A. managed to knock off the knife, but in the meantime the man with the hammer hit him in the face. Then the three men threw Mr E.S.A. out of the vehicle, kicked him several times while he was lying on the ground, and drove away with the jeep.\n(b)  Second offence\n12.  At about 10.30 p.m. on 9 March 1996 Ms M.V. stopped her car in front of the house of a friend of her mother's and stepped out to wipe the ice from the windscreen. A man wearing a wool hat approached her, threatened her, sat in the driver's seat of her car and drove away.\n13.  An investigation into the first incident was opened on 13 April 1995. Mr E.S.A. was presented with photographs of several persons, including the applicant, and later was questioned. He identified the applicant as one of the assailants and described the assailant as having a dark complexion and short brown hair. Apparently the identification procedure was tainted as the investigator did not, as provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), question Mr E.S.A. about the distinctive features of the person to be identified prior to presenting him with the photographs. It also seems that the record was not signed by one of the certifying witnesses, as required by the CCP.\n14.  Following the identification, the investigator drew up a ruling to summon the applicant. On 11 and 12 July 1995 a process server visited the applicant's home to deliver the summons but was informed by a neighbour that the applicant was absent.\n15.  On 23 August 1995 the investigator charged the applicant in absentia with aggravated robbery and ordered his detention.\n16.  On 5 September 1995 a prosecutor of the Sofia City Prosecutor's Office confirmed the investigator's order for the applicant's detention.\n17.  On 22 September 1995 the applicant was listed in a police posting as a wanted criminal suspect.\n18.  On 5 October 1995 several police officers went to the home of the applicant to arrest him. They informed his parents that he was wanted. The applicant's mother told the officers that she had spoken with the applicant the previous day and that he was in Svishtov taking his university examinations.\n19.  The next day, 6 October 1995, the applicant's mother went to the Investigation Service and, being a practising lawyer, requested permission to represent the applicant together with another lawyer. She requested the investigator to allow her to get acquainted with the charges and informed him that the applicant would appear for questioning in a week's time. The investigator refused to acquaint her with the charges.\n20.  The applicant refused to appear for questioning. According to him, this was due to his believi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1013", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  In 1941 the Soviet authorities nationalised the house owned by his parents. In the same year his family was deported to Russia and to Uzbekistan.\n8.  On 8 December 1992 the Moldovan Parliament enacted Law No. 1225-XII “on the rehabilitation of the victims of the political repression committed by the totalitarian communist occupying regime”. The Law enabled the victims of the Soviet repression to claim restitution of their confiscated or nationalised property.\n9.  In 1997 the applicant lodged an action with the Centru District Court (Judecătoria Sectorului Centru) by which he sought the restitution of his parents' house. As the former tenants of the house had purchased it from the State, the applicant sought a judicial ruling declaring the purchase contracts null and void. He also requested the eviction of all the occupants of the house.\n10.  On 25 June 1997 the Centru District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the restitution of the house. It declared null and void the contracts by which the house had been sold to the tenants. The court further ordered the Municipal Council to evict all the occupants, and indicated that the Municipal Council was to provide them with alternative accommodation.\n11.  The Municipal Council, the Ministry of Privatization and the occupants lodged an appeal with the Chişinău Regional Court (Tribunalul Municipiului Chişinău) against the judgment of the Centru District Court. On 5 November 1997 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment with some textual amendments. Since nobody lodged an appeal in cassation, the judgment of 5 November 1997 became final.\n12.  In 1999, 2000 and 2001 the bailiff assigned to the case brought proceedings against the Municipal Council for failure to comply with the judgment of 5 November 1997 along with twenty-six similar judgments.\nOn 28 December 1999 the Centru District Court issued a decision by which a fine of 18 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of EUR 1.53 at the time) was imposed on the Head of the Housing Division of the Municipal Council for failure to comply with the judgments.\nOn 25 August 2000 the same court issued a decision by which it imposed a fine of MDL 1,800 (the equivalent of EUR 161 at the time) on the Municipal Council. The court found inter alia that the shortage of funds and the lack of available apartments could not be relied upon by the Municipal Council to justify the failure to comply with the above judgments.\nThe Municipal Council lodged an appeal against that decision and on 24 January 2001 the Chişinău Regional Court quashed it on the ground that the shortage of funds and the lack of available apartments had objectively impeded the Municipal Council from complying with the judgments.\nOn 23 February 2001 the Centru District Court issued a decision by which it imposed a fine of MDL 1,800 on the Municipal Council.\n13.  Between 1997 and 2002 the applicant lodged numerous complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 5 November 1997 with the Municipal Council, Centru District Court and the Ministry of Justice. In their replies, the Municipal Council and the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that due to the lack of funds for the construction of apartment buildings and due to the lack of available alternative accommodation for the evicted persons, the judgment of 5 November 1997 could not be complied with.\n14.  In April 2004 four occ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1014", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Plovdiv.\n10.  On 27 December 1997 the applicant was arrested, brought before an investigator and detained on rape charges. A prosecutor confirmed the detention on the same day. Later in the course of the investigation he was also charged with abduction.\n11.  Between 27 December 1997 and 5 January 1998 the investigator conducted searches in the applicant's apartment, ordered an expert analysis of various traces and objects and questioned the applicant.\n12.  On 5 January 1998 the applicant appealed to the Plovdiv District Court against the detention order.\n13.  In accordance with the established practice, the appeal was submitted through the investigation authorities, which transmitted it to the District Court on 15 January 1998. The matter was listed for a hearing on 19 January 1998.\n14.  On 19 January 1998 the applicant's lawyer requested access to the case file, which was refused by the judge on the same day.\n15.  At the hearing on 19 January 1998 the applicant's lawyer requested the withdrawal of the president of the bench as she had recently sought his prosecution for alleged defamatory statements. The lawyer was concerned that the judge's hostility towards him might prejudice his client's interests. The request for the judge's withdrawal was granted and the case adjourned.\n16.  On 21 January 1998 the case was assigned to another bench and listed for hearing on 23 January 1998.\n17.  On 21 January 1998 the applicant's lawyer reiterated his request for access to the case file. The request was refused on the same day.\n18.  The applicant's appeal against his detention was eventually heard on 23 January 1998.\n19.  At the opening of the hearing the judge refused to allow the participation of the applicant's lawyer, considering that his written authority form was invalid. The judge stated that the authority had only been signed by the applicant's wife and not by the applicant, that it bore no indication of the lawyer's fees and that it had not been made on a sheet from the usual lawyers' receipt-books.\n20.  Thereupon, the applicant, who was also present, handed to the judge another written authorisation, signed by him. The court refused to accept it as the case file number had not been marked on it. As a result, the applicant had to present his case without legal representation.\n21.  Having heard the applicant, the court dismissed his appeal against detention, stating that he was charged with a serious criminal offence. The court went on to conclude that the fact that the applicant had refused to sign the minutes of his first interrogations and to comment on the charges right away had demonstrated that he lacked critical judgment of his behaviour, which in turn revealed a danger that he would abscond and re-offend.\n22.  On 13 April 1998 the applicant filed a new appeal against detention, referring to passages in a psychiatrists' report concerning his mental state (see paragraph 41 below). On 13 April 1998 the applicant also filed a request for the replacement of the president of the bench, arguing that his partiality had been demonstrated by his behaviour at the hearing on 23 January 1998. The lawyer did not enclose a power of attorney and did not indicate his address and telephone number.\n23.  On 27 April 1998 the appeal was forwarded by the prosecution authorities to the District Court, where it was registered on 6 May 1998. A hearing was listed for 11 May 1998. The applicant, but not his la", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1015", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants, who were born in Lice, currently reside in Diyarbakır.\n11.  The facts of the case are in dispute between the parties.\n12.  On the night of 12 May 1994 and in the early hours of 13 May 1994, the applicants heard gun fire coming from outside their village of Yolçatı, located in the administrative jurisdiction of the Lice District within the province of Diyarbakır. The firing continued until approximately 5 a.m. Subsequently, soldiers entered the village and told all the villagers to gather at the village mosque.\n13.  The applicants alleged that the following took place:\n14.  On 12 May 1994 the applicant was at home with his family. During the night he heard gun fire coming from outside the village. In the early hours of 13 May his son, Kamil Menteşe, left to take the livestock out of the village. The soldiers stopped his son, checked his identity card and released him.\n15.  When the soldiers entered the village, they ordered all the villagers to gather near the village mosque. They asked them whether there were any PKK members in the area and whether they had been giving them food. The villagers replied that PKK activities were frequent in the area. Thereafter, the soldiers started to burn the houses in the village. At that time, the applicant’s son returned to the village and was taken away by the soldiers together with three other villagers. The applicant, together with the remaining villagers, was sent away from the village. After two days, they were allowed to go back to the village. When they came back, they saw that the village had been burned down. The next day, the applicant went to the Lice public prosecutor and to the military authorities to inquire into his son’s whereabouts. However, he received no reply. On 17 May 1994, five days after the incident, the corpses of twenty-six persons, including Kamil Menteşe, Sabri Akdoğan, Abdulvahap Maço and Yusuf Bozkuş, were found near the village. The corpse of the applicant’s son was found five hundred metres away from the others. The body was taken to the Lice Health Clinic and was subsequently buried in the Lice cemetery.\n16.  The applicant and her family lived in the hamlet of Beğendik in the Yolçatı village. On the night of 12 May 1994 the applicant was at home with her family. At about 11 p.m. they heard gun fire near their house. It continued until 5 a.m. In the morning of 13 May, the applicant’s brother in-law, Yusuf Bozkuş, led the animals towards the Yolçatı village. Yusuf was about 60 years old and he was of unsound mind. At the same time, the applicant and her children tried to leave the hamlet. However, they were not able to go very far as the area was surrounded by soldiers. From a distance, the applicant saw her house catch fire. On the evening of 13 May the applicant and her children stayed in the forest and saw smoke rising from the surrounding hamlets and villages. Early in the morning of 14 May, they headed towards Lice.\n17.  On 15 May 1994 the applicant heard from her neighbours that her brother-in-law, Yusuf Bozkus, had been arrested by the security forces near the Yolçatı village together with six other villagers. Upon receiving this information, the applicant attempted to search for Yusuf. However, as the roads were blocked with panzer tanks, she could not go back there. When she returned to Lice, her children told her that Yusuf’s body had been found and identified by Yusuf’s brother, Hasan Bozkuş. According to Hasan Bozkuş, Yusuf’s skull was c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1016", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Plovdiv.\n11.  On 14 August 1992 the applicant bought a car from a Mr I.G.\n12.  On 14 September 1992 the car was impounded by the police who explained to the applicant that it had been stolen. On 17 September 1992 the applicant requested the return of the car but received no reply.\n13.  On 30 September 1992 a criminal investigation was opened by the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office against a Mr N.P. for forgery of customs' declarations for the importation of cars, one of which was the applicant's. The prosecutor in charge of the case ordered that the car be held as a piece of evidence.\n14.  In October and November 1992 the applicant four times requested from the prosecution authorities the return of his car, but received no reply.\n15.  On 30 November 1992 the car was handed over to the Plovdiv Customs Administration by order of the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office. On 29 January 1993 the head of the Plovdiv Customs Administration made a penal order whereby he confiscated the car on the ground that it had been illegally imported into the country.\n16.  The applicant appealed against the penal order to the Plovdiv District Court. In a judgment of 28 July 1993 that court quashed the order and on 18 August 1993 the car was returned to the applicant.\n17.  On 22 November 1993 the applicant brought an action for damages against the Plovdiv Customs Administration and the Chief Prosecutor's Office, complaining that the impounding of his car and the unlawful order for its confiscation had prevented him from using it during a period of eleven months.\n18.  Noting that the applicant had failed to adduce written evidence in support of his allegations, the Plovdiv District Court instructed him to do so within seven days. The applicant complied with these instructions and the court set the case down for hearing.\n19.  The first hearing took place on 24 March 1994. The court noted the absence of a representative of one of the defendants, the Chief Prosecutor's Office, and ordered that it be summoned for the next hearing. The applicant's lawyer requested the court to subpoena as a witness the prosecutor who had ordered the car to be handed over to the Customs Administration. The court rejected the request by an order of 28 March 1994, holding that the prosecutor's actions could be proved through the official documents he had made and that his testimony would therefore be superfluous.\n20.  The second hearing was held on 13 June 1994. No representative of the Chief Prosecutor's Office appeared but a prosecutor was present in his capacity of “special party” to the proceedings. The “special party” prosecutor requested that the proceedings be stayed in order to take into account the pending criminal investigation against Mr N.P., as it related to the same car. In particular, there was information that the number on the engine and on the chassis of the car had been forged and that it had been illegally imported. The applicant's lawyer agreed and requested that the actions against the Chief Prosecutor's Office and against the Customs Administration be severed. The court refused to sever the actions and acceded to the request for staying the proceedings, finding that there existed criminal elements the determination of which was decisive for the outcome of the civil dispute before it, within the meaning of Article 182 § 1 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”).\n21.  On 20 June 1994 the applicant appea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1017", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Dubrovnik.\n8.  On 13 August 1992 the Croatian Military Police requisitioned the applicant's vehicle for use by the Croatian Army.\n9.  By a letter of 1 August 1996 the Dubrovnik Defence Office (Ured za obranu Dubrovnik) informed the applicant that the vehicle had been damaged beyond repair.\n10.  On 26 May 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Dubrovniku) seeking compensation for the loss of his vehicle from the State.\n11.  On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”). The amended legislation provided that all actions for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army and the police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.\n12.  On 2 May 2000 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation.\n13.  On 1 September 2000 the Dubrovnik County Court (Županijski sud u Dubrovniku) dismissed the applicant's appeal against that decision.\n14.  On 21 May 2003 the applicant lodged a motion with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) seeking a review of the constitutionality of the 1999 Amendments. These proceedings are still pending.\n15.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”).\n16.  In 2004 the applicant's proceedings resumed pursuant to the above legislation. The proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1018", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1919 in Russia, and lives in Bakhchisaray (Crimea).\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 8 October 1991 the Sudak City Court ordered the Automobile and Agricultural Machine Building Ministry of the USSR (the “Ministry”) to pay the applicant 20,500 Soviet roubles (excluding taxes) for the use of his invention and to cover court fees incurred by him.\n8.  On 9 December 1991 the Ministry paid the applicant 18,140 Soviet roubles for his invention which was covered by a patent. The sum paid to the applicant was transferred to him through the Savings Bank of the USSR. On 20 January 1992 17,414.40 Soviet roubles were paid to the applicant's bank account at the Bakhchisaray branch of the Savings Bank of Ukraine (the “Bank”).\n9.  This sum was indexed in 1996 on the basis of the Recovery of Citizens' Savings (State Guarantees) Act of 2 January 1992, and the applicant's deposit with the Savings Bank (account no. 42) eventually amounted to UAH 18,284.70[1].\n10.  In February 1998 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in the Bakhchisaray City Court against the Bank and its director complaining of their unlawful refusal to release his deposits from accounts nos. 42 and 4692. On 16 March 1998 the Bakhchisaray City Court rejected his claims as unsubstantiated. On 20 April 1998 the Supreme Court of the Crimea quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n11.  On 15 June 1998 the Bakhchisaray City Court ordered the Bank to pay the applicant UAH 18,284.70 from his account no. 42. It also held that UAH 977.20 had to be paid to the applicant from his account no. 4692. On 27 July 1998 the Supreme Court of Crimea quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. In particular, it held that a property dispute, such as in the instant case, had to be dealt with in contentious, not administrative, proceedings.\n12.  In October 1999 the applicant instituted contentious proceedings in the Bakhchisaray City Court against the Bank seeking recovery of the sum held by it. In particular, the applicant claimed that this sum was not a deposit but a payment for his invention that had been transferred by cable from Moscow to the Bank and never given to him.\n13.  On 29 November 1999 the applicant lodged a claim (new contentious proceedings) with the Bakhchisaray City Court against the Bank seeking to recover the sum of UAH 18,284.70 from it.\n14.  On 6 December 1999 the Bakhchisaray City Court refused to consider the applicant's complaint lodged against the Bank and its director on account of the recently initiated contentious proceedings concerning the recovery of the applicant's deposit with the Savings Bank pending before the same court.\n15.  On 30 November 1999 the court adjourned the hearing in the case to 28 January 2000 and then to 25 February 2000 in view of a business trip by the judge.\n16.  On 25 February 2000 the court rejected the applicant's claims. On 10 April 2000 the Supreme Court of Crimea quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n17.  On 22 May 2000 the case file was remitted to Bakhchisaray Court. The hearing was scheduled for 10 July 2000.\n18.  On 9 October 2000 the hearing was adjourned to 15 January 2001 due to the failure of the defendant to attend.\n19.  On 15 January 2001 the Bakhchisaray City Court allowed the applicant's claims and ordered the Bank to p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1019", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kaliningrad.\n8.  On 21 July 1998 the investigating authorities of the District Department of Internal Affairs of Kaliningrad opened a criminal investigation based on a complaint by Mr. S who alleged that the applicant had shot at his windows with a hunting rifle in revenge for an unpaid debt. Following Mr. S’s second complaint on 14 August 1998 concerning a similar incident, a second investigation was opened and joined with the first.\n9.  It appears that these investigations led to the applicant’s arrest on 21 September 1998. Following interrogations, he was detained on 22 September 1998 under suspicion of having committed a crime under Sections 167 § 2 and 213 § 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation which concerns intentional destruction of, or damage to, property and hooliganism and which carries a sentence of up to seven years’ imprisonment.\n10.  The following day, 23 September 1998, the applicant was released under his written undertaking not to leave the town as a measure of restraint.\n11.  On 1 December 1998 the prosecution authorities forwarded the case-file and an indictment to the Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad for examination and trial. However, on 24 March 1999 the court remitted the case for further investigations. During these subsequent investigations the authorities issued, on 7 July 1999, an arrest warrant against the applicant as he had on a number of occasions failed to attend for interrogation. The applicant was arrested on 27 July 1999 and remained in detention until 1 October 1999 when the District Court ordered his release, finding the alleged risk of the applicant absconding unsubstantiated.\n12.  In the meantime, on 2 August 1999, the resumed investigations had been brought to an end and the case-file sent, once more, to the District Court for adjudication. However, on 30 September 1999 the District Court ordered further investigation to be carried out. In the course of this investigation, on 4 April 2000, the authorities anew ordered the applicant’s arrest and detention on the basis that the applicant had changed his residence, failed to appear for interrogations and hampered the proceedings. On 17 April 2000 an arrest warrant was issued and on 26 July 2000 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand in the Remand Centre IZ‑39/1 of Kaliningrad.\n13.  According to the report issued by the Chief Prison Directorate of the Ministry of Justice, submitted by the Government, the applicant stayed at the Remand Centre IZ-39/1 from 26 July 2000 until 7 March 2001 and from 16 May 2001 until 18 July 2001. He was kept in six different cells described as follows: cell no. 67 (21 m² of surface, 10 bunks, the sanitary conditions satisfactory); cell no. 97 (7.8 m² of surface, 6 bunks, the sanitary conditions satisfactory); cell no. 135 (25.1 m² of surface, 10 bunks, the sanitary conditions satisfactory); cell nos. 4/16, 4/8, 4/21 (13.8 m² of surface for each cell, 8 bunks, the sanitary conditions of each of the cells satisfactory). It appears from the report that the sanitary and technical conditions of the cells in which the applicant was held were monitored on a regular basis.\n14.  In accordance with Section 17 § 1.11 of the Federal Law on detention the applicant was allowed daily walks for not less than one hour.\n15.  According to a letter from the Head of the Medical Department of the Prison Directorate for the Kaliningrad Region, submitted by the Gover", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1020", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicants were born in 1961, 1964, 1966, 1966, 1961 and 1972 respectively and live in İzmir.\n12.  On 30 June 1995 twenty-five people, including the applicants, gathered outside the Yenişehir Meslek Lisesi secondary school. The first applicant, İsmail Karademirci, who was the president of the Health Workers' Union (Tüm Sağlık Sen), read out a statement signed by the İzmir branches of that union and of the Education Union (Eğitim Sen) denouncing the ill-treatment of pupils from the İzmir Atatürk Sağlık Meslek Lisesi secondary school. The group remained outside the school for twenty-five minutes before dispersing.\n13.  The statement reads as follows:\n“To the press and the general public\nThe pressure put on pupils by the authorities at the İzmir Atatürk Sağlık Lisesi secondary school has resulted in Vesile Bayram receiving a beating. The pupils reacted by protesting against the school authorities because of the pressure they were under. In an initial attempt to calm down the pupils, whose reaction was justified, the authorities held a meeting with them. However, they reneged on a promise to open an inquiry into the actions of one of the teachers, E.S., who, moreover, was provided with a forensic report.\nThe pressure continues in the form of a lengthy (one year) suspension of nine pupils, and the deduction of eight marks from their marks for behaviour.\nAlthough officially pupils in the school are not subjected to beatings or academic pressure, the administrators are despots.\nWe strongly condemn the administrators and teachers, who are responsible for such pressure.\nWe call for the withdrawal of the penalties imposed on the nine pupils.\nWe call for an investigation into the conduct of the teacher who administered the beating.\nWe will not be intimidated by pressure.\nWe reject reactionary and oppressive education.\nThe pupils are not alone.\nSociety should not remain silent.”\n14.  By an indictment submitted on 23 October 1995, the public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against twenty-five leaders and members of the Health Workers' Union and the Education Union for making a “statement to the press” (basın açıklaması) without complying with the statutory requirement to obtain a receipt from the public prosecutor's office confirming that they had filed a copy of the statement with it. The public prosecutor relied in particular on sections 44 and 82 of the Associations Act (Law no. 2908 of 6 October 1983).\n15.  In a judgment of 13 February 1996, the İzmir Criminal Court found the applicants and nine other co-defendants guilty as charged and sentenced them to three months' imprisonment under the provisions relied on by the public prosecutor. The prison sentence was commuted to a suspended fine of 450,000 Turkish liras (7 United States dollars).\n16.  The Criminal Court held that the constitutive elements of the offence had been made out in that, firstly, the trade unions had not passed a resolution authorising a statement to be made to the press and, secondly, the accused were present when the statement was read out in public. The other co-defendants were acquitted on the ground that they were not present when the statement was read out.\n17.  The applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation against that judgment. In their written submissions, they alleged that their convictions violated their right to freedom of expression and, in particular, that “a statement to the press” could not be classified as a “leaflet” or “written statem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1022", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1947 and is homosexual. In 1994 it was discovered that he was infected with the HIV virus and that he had transmitted the virus to a 19-year-old man with whom he had first had sexual contact in 1990.\n9.  In this context, on 1 September 1994 a county medical officer (smittskyddsläkaren) issued the following instructions to the applicant pursuant to the 1988 Infectious Diseases Act (smittskyddslagen – “the 1988 Act”).\n“[The applicant] is not allowed to have sexual intercourse without first informing his partner about his HIV infection. He is required to use a condom. He is to abstain from consuming such an amount of alcohol that his judgment would thereby be impaired and others put at risk of being infected with HIV. If the applicant is to have a physical examination, an operation, a vaccination or a blood test or is bleeding for any reason, he must tell the relevant medical staff about his infection. He must also tell his dentist [about it]. Moreover, the applicant is prohibited from giving blood and donating organs or sperm. Finally, he is to visit his consulting physician again and to keep appointments fixed by the county medical officer.”\nIt appears to be in dispute whether the instructions were included in the applicant's medical record as prescribed by section 16 of the 1988 Act. It is not in dispute, however, that the applicant was informed of the instructions, which were issued to him on 1 September 1994, both orally and in writing.\n10.  The applicant kept three appointments with the county medical officer in September 1994 and one in November 1994. He also received two home visits by the county medical officer. He failed to appear as summoned five times during October and November 1994.\n11.  On 2 February 1995 the county medical officer petitioned the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) for a court order that the applicant be kept in compulsory isolation in a hospital for up to three months pursuant to section 38 of the 1988 Act.\nThe court's record of the applicant's statement reads, inter alia, as follows:\n“After learning about his HIV infection he had hardly had any sexual relationships. Henceforward he would only have sexual relations with other HIV infected persons. The applicant did not wish to visit the county medical officer or a psychiatrist, but finding his communication with his consulting physician satisfactory he intended to pay the latter monthly visits.”\nThe county medical officer stated, among other things:\n“[The applicant] may not be sexually active at present, but experience has shown that when the opportunity arises he is likely to have sexual relations, preferably with younger men and without thinking of the consequences. [The applicant] refuses to face his situation, does not want to change his conduct and distorts reality in such a way that he is never to blame for anything. In order for [the applicant's] behaviour to change it is necessary for him to consult a psychiatrist. Having regard to his [resistance thereto], the risk of him spreading the disease is obvious.”\n12.  A statement of 16 February 1995 was submitted to the County Administrative Court by a deputy chief physician and specialist in psychiatry, S.A., who had met the applicant twice in a psychiatric ward at an infection clinic. He found, inter alia:\n“Having learnt that he was HIV-positive, the applicant reacted with a high level of anxiety, which he attempted to alleviate with alcohol. He has maintained that he ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1024", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Pazardjik.\n9.  On 19 August 1993 he was arrested, charged with the rape of a minor and remanded in custody. Six other persons were also charged.\n10.  According to the indictment, the victim had been abducted by a Mr. A. and had been raped numerous times by several persons, some of whom had paid to Mr A. for having sex with the victim. Mr A. was charged with rape and acting as a procurer of prostitution. According to the applicant, all accused persons and the alleged victim are of Roma origin.\n11.  On unspecified dates an investigator interrogated the alleged victim and other accused persons and heard several experts.\n12.  In June 1994 the applicant and six other persons were indicted and the case listed for trial.\n13.  In September and October 1994 the trial court referred the case to the prosecutor in view of certain deficiencies in the investigation. On 17 February 1995 the applicant was released on bail.\n14.  In November 1995 the investigator concluded his work and submitted the file to the prosecutor.\n15.  In May 1996 the prosecutor ordered additional investigation. In June 1996 the investigator submitted the case to the prosecutor with the proposal that the applicant should be indicted.\n16.  In 1999 the applicant’s lawyer lodged requests with the prosecuting authorities complaining of the length of the criminal proceedings.\n17.  On 27 February 2001, noting that the case had remained dormant since June 1996, a prosecutor ordered the resumption of the proceedings and referred the case to an investigator.\n18.  On 4 April 2002 the investigator objected, stating that in view of the lapse of time, the ensuing evidentiary difficulties and the workload of the investigation service it was preferable to terminate the proceedings.\n19.  The prosecutor did not accept the investigator’s proposal and on 22 April 2002 ordered additional investigation.\n20.  It appears that as of November 2004 the proceedings were still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1025", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Bratislava.\n10.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n11.  On 17 June 1982 the applicant was served a notice of dismissal from job under Article 46 § 1 (f) of the Labour Code for an especially serious breach of work discipline in that he had been absent from his work for several days without an excuse.\n12.  On 18 June 1984 the Bratislava III District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd) rejected the applicant’s request for a judicial ruling declaring the dismissal null and void.\n13.  On 19 November 1985 a three‑judge Chamber of the Bratislava City Court (then Mestský súd, at present Krajský súd) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of 18 June 1984. The Chamber deciding on the appeal included judge S.\n14.  On 12 February 1993 the applicant and his wife took civil proceedings against the legal successor of his former employer before the Bratislava I District Court. They sought the applicant’s rehabilitation under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act (Law no. 87/1991 Coll. - Zákon o mimosúdnych rehabilitáciách) in respect of his dismissal in 1982.\n15.  In a judgment of 27 September 1994, following a hearing held on the same day, the Bratislava I District Court considered that the action aimed at obtaining a judicial order to the defendant to issue a formal confirmation that the applicant had been dismissed in 1982 for politically motivated reasons and in violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms within the meaning of section 21 (1) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act. The court rejected the action as being unsubstantiated.\n16.  On 6 December 1994 the applicant and his wife appealed to the Bratislava City Court and, on 10 January 1995, they supplemented the appeal (odvolanie). They argued that the District Court had misinterpreted the action in that it had not been aimed at obtaining a judicial order against the defendant, but at obtaining a declaratory judgment to the effect that the applicant’s dismissal had been based on the grounds referred to in section 21 (1) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act. They further complained that the District Court had overlooked the fact that the action had also been brought by the applicant’s wife.\n17.  On 28 February 1995 the Bratislava City Court quashed the District Court’s judgment of 27 September 1994 and remitted the case to the District Court, holding that the latter had failed to determine the action insofar as it had been brought by the applicant’s wife.\n18.  On 31 October 1995, following a hearing held on the same day, the District Court again dismissed the action after examining testimonies of the parties, the applicant’s personal file with his former employer and the case‑file concerning the applicant’s proceedings in the 1980s. The District Court found it established that the applicant had been dismissed from his work in 1982 for unauthorised absence for several days, i.e. an especially serious breach of work discipline which had had no political subtext. In so far as the applicant relied on section 21 § 1 (c) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act, he had failed to prove that his dismissal had been for reasons of political persecution or in violation of generally recognised human rights and freedoms. The District Court finally found that the applicant’s wife had no cause of action in the case, in that the dismissal did not directly concern her", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1026", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Chişinău, Moldova. He was a student at the time of the events and earned a stipend of 50 Moldovan Lei (MDL).\n8.  On 18 April 2000, between 9.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m., the applicant attended a demonstration against the decision of the Municipal Council to abolish urban transport privileges for students. The demonstration was not authorised in accordance with the law and it appears from the statements of the parties that its organisers did not even apply for authorisation. The demonstration took place on the Great National Assembly Square in Chişinău. In the beginning it was peaceful, but later some of the demonstrators started to throw eggs and stones at the Municipality building and the police intervened.\n9.  Around 12.30 p.m. the applicant was arrested by the police on grounds of being an active participant in an unauthorised demonstration in breach of Article 174/1 § 4 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter referred to as the “CAO”). He was brought to the precinct police station an hour later. Between 1.30 p.m. and 7.00 p.m., he was detained in the police station and interrogated by several criminal investigators.\n10.  In his written statement given at the police station, the applicant mentioned, inter alia, that he had been arrested by the police when he and a journalist from the National Radio approached a group of policemen beating up a student. Since he had written on his forehead the word “STUDENT”, the police arrested him. He stated that he was an active participant but that he was not involved in violence.\n11.  On an unspecified date, the district police completed the administrative case file in connection with the offence committed by the applicant, mentioning inter alia that he had actively participated in an unauthorised meeting that had taken place in front of the building of the Municipal Council. The case was then referred to the competent district court.\n12.  Following an oral hearing on 19 April 2000, the Centru District Court imposed on the applicant an administrative fine of MDL 36 (the equivalent of 3.17 euros (EUR) at the time) provided for in Article 174/1 § 4 of the CAO. In its order, the court stated, inter alia, that the applicant had actively participated in a demonstration of students, which had been carried out without authorisation from the Municipal Council, and that he had admitted having participated in the demonstration.\n13.  On 28 April 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal against the above order. He argued that the fine had been unlawfully imposed on him and that the sanction was contrary to the freedom of assembly and to the right to strike guaranteed by Articles 40 and 45 of the Constitution.\n14.  On 4 May 2000 at 10 a.m. the Chişinău Regional Court heard the applicant’s appeal in his absence and dismissed it.\n15.  According to the Government the summons for the hearing was sent on 2 May 2000 by regular post and should have arrived at its destination on 3 May 2000.\n16.  According to the applicant, it was sent on 3 May 2000 and was received by him on 4 May 2000 after 10 a.m.\n17.  The postmark on the envelope, applied by the outgoing post office (namely, by the first post office through which the envelope was routed) indicates the date of 3 May 2000. The postmark applied by the incoming post office is not entirely legible.\n18.  On 5 May 2000, the applicant appeared before the Registry of the Chişinău Regional Court to inquire about his case. He ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1027", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in East Sussex.\n8.  On 17 May 1990 the applicant was arrested, questioned at a police station in connection with an alleged importation of drugs, then refused bail and remanded in custody. On 18 December 1990, after a week-long jury trial, he was convicted of conspiracy to import a controlled drug and on 21 March 1991 he was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. On the same date, a confiscation order in the sum of GBP 22,000 was imposed, with a term of 18 months' imprisonment to be served consecutively to his main sentence if he failed to make the payment by 21 March 1992.\n9.  At the time of the applicant's conviction Her Majesty's Customs and Excise (henceforth, “Customs”) were in possession of a Rolex watch and GBP 2,600 belonging to the applicant. According to the Government, the applicant was informed by a letter dated 16 May 1991 that the order had been registered with Chichester Magistrates' Court, but the applicant denies ever having received such a letter.\n10.  On 30 September 1991 Customs wrote to the solicitors who had acted for the applicant at trial and asked how and when he intended to pay the sum ordered. According to the applicant, the solicitors, who had ceased to act for him in May 1991, never informed him of this letter. They wrote to Customs on 7 November 1991 that they had no instructions from the applicant.\n11.  On 20 March 1992 the Magistrates' Court wrote to Customs to enquire whether action would be taken to enforce the order in default of payment. Customs replied on 23 March 1992 that the sum ordered had not been paid and that they were considering applying for a distress warrant to be issued in respect of the watch and a receiver to be appointed to deal with the applicant's property.\n12.  By a letter dated 8 April 1992, the Magistrates' Court informed Customs that a distress warrant could not be issued. In another letter, dated 12 August 1992, the magistrates sought information from Customs about the appointing of a receiver. Customs replied on 22 October 1992 that the sum ordered had not been paid, but that they had not applied to the High Court to appoint a receiver in the attempt to identify any realisable assets held by the applicant and that they were awaiting further instructions from their Asset Forfeiture Unit.\n13.  The applicant was released from prison in May 1994. He had not paid the money due under the confiscation order, but the order had not been enforced.\n14.  By a letter dated 24 October 1995 Customs contacted the Magistrates' Court to discover whether payment had been made. The court replied on 27 October 1995 that it had not. On 23 January 1996 Customs contacted the applicant's former solicitors to inform them that they intended to enforce payment of the order.\n15.  On 29 February 1996 Customs asked the court to issue a distress warrant in respect of the watch. This was issued in March 1996 and an executed copy of the warrant was sent to Customs in May 1996.\n16.  On 25 June 1996 a warrant was issued for the applicant's arrest to bring him to court for a means inquiry to take place in respect of the sum of GBP 17,670 outstanding on the order. The inquiry took place on 10 July 1996. The applicant attended but was not represented. The proceedings were adjourned at the applicant's request to allow him to seek legal aid and a Certificate of Inadequacy (which would dispense him from the obligation to pay the order). According to the Government, the procee", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1028", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Warsaw.\n8.  The applicant's father owned the so-called “Kraków Bishops' Palace” situated in the centre of Warsaw and the plot of land on which it stood. The Government submitted that 75 to 80 % of the building had been destroyed during the Second World War.\n9.  By virtue of the 1945 Decree on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw (dekret o własności i użytkowaniu gruntów na obszarze m. st. Warszawy) the Warsaw municipality (and after 1950 the State Treasury) became the owner of all plots of land located in Warsaw. The decree gave the former owners the possibility of obtaining a perpetual lease (after 1946 - temporary ownership) of a plot of land on request.\n10.  In 1947 the applicant's father concluded, before a public notary, an agreement with a certain state institution, according to which that institution was to obtain the right of use of the property upon its declaration to reconstruct the palace. The Government submitted that the agreement at issue had never been enforced because it was illegal.\n11.  In 1948 the applicant's father lodged, under the 1945 Decree, a request to be granted the right of temporary ownership of the plot of land formerly owned by him. It was refused by a decision issued in 1949, which was served neither on him, nor on his lawyer.\n12.  In 1951 the applicant's father died.\n13.  In 1955 another decision refusing the 1948 request was issued. This decision was also not served.\n14.  On 14 March 1990 the applicant, as the sole heir to her father's property (the inheritance proceedings were completed in October 1990), filed with the Warsaw Śródmieście District Office (urząd dzielnicowy) a petition in which she requested the restitution of her property.\n15.  Subsequently, the Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych), which occupied the property, requested the administrative authorities to grant it the right of management (zarząd) of that property, but to no avail.\n16.  On 16 September 1991 the applicant was served with the decision of 1955 refusing her father the right of temporary ownership of the land.\n17.  On 24 September 1991 she lodged with the Warsaw Governor (wojewoda) a request for the annulment of that decision.\n18.  On 11 October 1991 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor (prokurator wojewódzki) joined the proceedings, considering that in the light of the gravity of the alleged breaches of the law the participation of the prosecutor was necessary.\n19.  On 27 July 1992 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) a complaint about the inactivity of the Governor, who had failed to issue a decision concerning her request.\n20.  On 11 December 1992 the court rejected the complaint, relying on the temporal limits of its jurisdiction.\n21.  On 24 December 1992 the Minister of Construction (Minister gospodarki przestrzennej i budownictwa) quashed the decision of 1955. He found that the impugned decision did not contain any reference to the 1949 decision, whereas they concerned the same matter. The Minister further considered that the reasoning of the decision was not supported by any documents.\n22.  On 5 October 1993 the Head of the Warsaw District Office (kierownik urzędu rejonowego) refused to grant the applicant the right of perpetual use (użytkowanie wieczyste, which replaced the former temporary ownership) of the land. He relied, inter alia, on the fact that over 70 % of the palace had been destroyed during th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1029", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Henryk Kolasiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1927 and lives in Koszalin, Poland.\n9.  The applicant's wife died on 15 May 1990. On 2 October 1990 the Koszalin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) declared that the applicant, his stepdaughter - J.K. - and her two grandsons were to inherit the estate.\n10.  On 28 December 1990 M.F., one of the grandsons, filed an application for distribution of the estate of the applicant's wife with the Koszalin District Court. He also applied to the court for dissolution of the joint matrimonial property of the applicant and his late wife.\n11.  On 4 December 1992 the court held the first hearing.\n12.  In a letter of 5 May 1993 the applicant requested the President of the Civil Division of the Koszalin District Court to expedite the proceedings.\n13.  On 5 November 1993 and 20 January 1994 the trial court held hearings.\n14.  On 17 February 1994 the District Court gave a final decision. The applicant appealed. On 5 July 1994 the Koszalin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) set aside the first-instance decision and remitted the case.\n15.  On 9 March and 18 May 1995 the court held hearings. At a hearing held on 29 June 1995 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained.\n16.  On 24 November 1995 the applicant complained to the President of the Koszalin District Court about the slow conduct of the proceedings. On 21 February 1996 the President of the Koszalin Regional Court informed the applicant that his complaint about the delays in the proceedings was justified.\n17.  On 10 June 1996 the court held a hearing.\n18.  On 22 August 1996 the District Court gave a decision. On 30 September 1996 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Koszalin Regional Court.\n19.  On 11 February and 25 March 1997 the Regional Court held hearings. On 22 April 1997 the Koszalin Regional Court set aside the impugned decision and remitted the case.\n20.  On 11 September 1997 the court held a hearing. On 22 October 1997 the applicant again requested the President of the Koszalin District Court to expedite the proceedings.\n21.  At the hearing held on 4 December 1997 the parties settled their claims in respect of a number of movables. Subsequently, the court discontinued the proceedings in that respect.\n22.  On 19 February 1998 the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings to the Minister of Justice.\n23.  On 10 April 1998 the court held a hearing and ordered that expert evidence be obtained.\n24.  On 24 April 1998 the District Court gave a partial decision (postanowienie częściowe). On 24 May 1998 the District Court held a hearing.\n25.  On 25 May 1998 the Minister of Justice informed the applicant that the President of the Koszalin Regional Court would supervise the proceedings. The District Court held further hearings on 3 July, 7 and 28 August 1998. On 1 October 1998 an expert submitted his report to the court.\n26.  At the hearing held on 20 November 1998 the District Court gave a decision. On 15 January 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Koszalin Regional Court. On 27 April 1999 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice about a delay in the proceedings and the fact that his appeal of 15 January 1999 had not been transmitted to the Regional Court.\n27.  On 28 September 1999 the Regional Court held a hearing. The hearings listed for 12 and 26 October 1999 were adjourned.\n28.  On 4 November 1999 the Regional Court upheld the first‑instance decision. On 15 March 2000 the applicant lodged", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1030", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1935 and 1939 respectively and live in Freistadt.\n5.  On 11 April 1994 the applicants applied for a building permit for an adjoining building with a garage on their property.\n6.  On 16 August 1994 the Mayor (Bürgermeister) of Freistadt granted the building permit.\n7.  On 31 August 1994 the applicants’ neighbours appealed.\n8.  On 30 March 1995 the Municipal Council granted the appeal and refused the building permit.\n9.  On 12 July 1995 the Upper Austria Regional Government (Landesregierung) dismissed the applicant’s appeal (Vorstellung).\n10.  On 27 February 1996 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof), upon the applicants’ complaint, quashed this decision.\n11.  Subsequently, on 25 June 1996, the Regional Government quashed the Municipal Council’s decision and remitted the case back to the Municipal Council.\n12.  On 10 February 1997 the applicants lodged an application with the Administrative Court against the Municipal Council’s failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde).\n13.  On 21 April 1997 the Municipal Council again dismissed the applicants’ request for a building permit.\n14.  On 17 June 1997 the Regional Government dismissed the applicants’ appeal.\n15.  On 31 July 1997 the applicants filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). In October 1997 the Upper Austria Regional Government and the Mayor of Freistadt submitted their observations. On 28 September 1999 the Constitutional Court instituted proceedings for the review of the lawfulness of the ordinance (Verordnungsprüfungsverfahren) upon which the Municipal Council had based its decision.\n16.  On 15 March 2000 the Constitutional Court found that the ordinance at issue was unlawful. On 6 April 2000 this decision was served on the applicants’ counsel.\n17.  On 26 May 2000 the Regional Government quashed the Municipal Council’s decision and remitted the case back to the Municipal Council.\n18. In January 2001,  following negotiations, the applicants reached an agreement with the Municipal Council to the effect that the latter accepted to pay the fees incurred by the applicants’ representation in the proceedings so far, on the condition that the applicants amended their request for a building permit in accordance with the newly established building scheme (Bebauungsplan).\n19.  On 6 February 2001 the applicants amended their request for a building permit.\n20.  Subsequently, on 28 May 2001, the Municipal Council quashed the building permit of 16 August 1994 and remitted the case back to the Mayor of Freistadt. It noted that the applicants had amended their request for the building permit with a view to the new building scheme.\n21.  On 28 June 2001 the Mayor of Freistadt requested the applicants to submit plans concerning their amended building project. On 28 September 2001 the Mayor of Freistadt reiterated this request.\n22.   On 30 October 2001 the applicants submitted the requested plans, which, however, turned out to be incomplete.\n23.   On 21 November 2001 the Mayor of Freistadt requested the applicants to correct the plans within two weeks.\n24.   On 14 December 2001 the applicants requested to extend this time-limit until 15 January 2002. On 15 January 2002 they submitted the corrected plans.\n25.  On 28 March 2002 the Mayor of Freistadt granted a building permit for a double garage with a parking area. This decision was served upon the applicants’ counsel on 4 April 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1031", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Vienna.\n5.  On 14 February 2001 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand on suspicion of having committed homosexual acts with adolescents contrary to Article 209 of the Criminal Code. The applicant was released on 27 February 2001.\n6.  Also on 14 February 2001 the investigating judge ordered a search of the applicant’s premises, as he was also suspected of owning child pornographic material. A number of video-tapes were seized but the suspicion was not confirmed and the subsequent proceedings were conducted for charges under Article 209 alone.\n7.  On 24 September 2001 the Regional Court decided to discontinue the proceedings on the condition of payment of a penalty of 20,000 Austrian schillings. The Public Prosecutor’s Office appealed against this decision.\n8.  On 11 December 2001 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) quashed the Regional Court’s decision and referred the case back to it.\n9.  On 15 January 2002 the Regional Court convicted the applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment suspended on probation. It found that, between 1994 and 2001, the applicant had performed homosexual acts with four different adolescents.\n10.  On 3 December 2002 the Vienna Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It referred to the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 21 June 2002 which had found that Article 209 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional. However, the amendment of the law, which had repealed Article 209 did not apply to proceedings, in which the first instance court’s judgment had already been given before its entry into force on 14 August 2002. The decision was served on the applicant on 4 July 2003.\n11.  The applicant’s petition for a pardon was of no avail.\n12.  On 3 April 2003 the Federal Minister of Justice replied to questions put by members of Parliament concerning the granting of a pardon in cases of convictions under Article 209. In these questions the applicant’s case was referred to by the file number and the date of the final decision. The Minister stated, without mentioning the applicant’s name, that he had denied a pardon in this case, as the conduct of the person concerned would also qualify as an offence under the newly introduced Article 207b, as in one case that person had taken advantage of the adolescent’s predicament, i.e. the fact that the latter had, following a conflict with his parents, temporarily lived in that person’s apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1032", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Höchst. He is a farmer.\n5.  On 18 July 1996 H., an officer of the Bregenz Works Inspection (Arbeitsinspektorat) inspected the applicant’s farm and found two persons of presumable Polish nationality who were working there. When asked for their passports both absconded. Upon request the applicant admitted that they were living at his farm.\n6.  On 21 July 1996 J.Z., one of the two workers declared before H. that he had “helped” at the applicant’s farm for five days and had received a sleeping opportunity and food in return. He confirmed this statement in writing.\n7.  On 20 August 1996 the Works Inspectorate submitted a report to the Bregenz District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) in which it stated that the applicant had illegally employed a foreigner at his farm.\n8.  Thereupon, the District Administrative Authority opened administrative criminal proceedings against the applicant under the Aliens’ Employment Act (Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz) and, on 16 September 1996, invited the applicant to comment on the charge against him (Aufforderung zur Stellungnahme). On 3 October 1996 the applicant submitted his comments.\n9.  On 23 June 1997 the District Administrative Authority convicted the applicant of an offence under the Aliens’ Employment Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of ATS 15,000 (approximately 1090 €) and the costs of the proceedings. It found that the applicant had employed a foreigner who had no working permit.\n10.  On 27 June 1997 the applicant appealed against this decision with the Vorarlberg Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat).\n11.  On 20 November 1997 the Independent Administrative Panel held a public hearing and heard H. Upon the applicant’s request it further decided to hear J.Z. by way of letters rogatory (im Rechtshilfeweg). In the subsequent proceedings it turned out, however, that it was not possible to hear J. Z, who was residing in Poland, by letters rogatory as there existed no legal assistance treaties with Poland concerning administrative criminal proceedings. On 31 August 1998 the Independent Administrative Panel wrote a letter to J.Z. at his address in Poland and requested him to answer several questions relating to the proceedings pending against the applicant. J.Z. did not reply. On 3 November 1998 the Independent Administrative Panel informed the applicant that it had not been possible to hear J. Z. and that the applicant had now the opportunity to produce further evidence to disprove the charges of the Works Inspectorate.\n12.  On 11 January 1999 the Independent Administrative Panel dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It based its decision upon the evidence given by H. It further noted that this evidence was corroborated by J. Z.’s written statement of 21 July 1996, the fact that J. Z. had absconded and the applicant’s first statement before the Works Inspectorate in which the applicant had even denied that there was a Polish person on his farm.\n13.  On 2 March 1999 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court against this decision. On 14 June 1999 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the complaint for lack of prospects of success and, on 21 August 1999, upon the applicant’s request, transferred the case to the Administrative Court.\n14.  On 29 October 1999 the applicant supplemented his observations with the Administrative Court and requested an oral hearing. On 25 November 1999 the IAP sub", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1033", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Innsbruck.\n8.  The applicant is a medical practitioner whose contract with the Tyrol Regional Health Insurance Board (Gebietskrankenkasse) was terminated by the latter on 31 December 1996. Subsequently the applicant was practising without a contract with the Health Insurance Board and is meanwhile retired. He complains about two sets of proceedings.\n9.  On 29 October 1996 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Tyrol Regional Health Insurance Board. He claimed that the defendant had to pay an additional amount of 120 Austrian schillings (ATS) for doctor’s fees.\n10.  On 2 April 1997 the Joint Arbitration Committee (Paritätische Schiedskommission) dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed against this decision.\n11.  On 2 July 1998 the Regional Appeals Commission (Landesberufungskommission) dismissed the appeal.\n12.  On 25 September 1998 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. He alleged, inter alia, that the general agreement between the Association of Social Insurance Boards (Hauptverband der Sozialversicherungsträger) and the Tyrol Medical Association (Ärztekammer) on which his doctor’s fees were based violated his constitutional right to non-discrimination (Recht auf Gleichheit).\n13.  On 15 April 1999 he amended his complaint and alleged that the Regional Appeals Commission was no independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention by virtue of its composition.\n14.  On 17 December 1999 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint. It did not accept that the Regional Appeals Commission’s decision had violated the applicant’s constitutional rights. As regards the composition of the Regional Appeals Commission, the Constitutional Court noted that the applicant’s complaint had been lodged out of the statutory six months time-limit. However, referring to its constant case-law, it found that the applicant’s constitutional rights were not violated.\n15.  On 11 February 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Tyrol Regional Health Insurance Board. He claimed that it had to pay some ATS 18 million (about 1,3 million euros) as the doctor’s fees provided for in the general agreement between the Association of Social Insurance Boards and the Tyrol Medical Association were far too low and, therefore, his contract with the Regional Health Insurance Board was null and void.\n16.  On 11 August 1997 the applicant made a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) as the Joint Arbitration Committee failed to decide within the statutory six months-period.\n17.  On 28 October 1997 the Regional Appeals Commission, after having held a hearing, dismissed the applicant’s claim.\n18.  On 15 December 1997 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. He alleged that the contract between the Association of Social Insurance Boards and the Tyrol Medical Association on which his doctor’s fees were based violated his constitutional right to non-discrimination. Further, he complained that the Regional Appeals Commission was no independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention by virtue of its composition and submitted that the Association of Social Insurance Boards had provided two deputy directors of the Tyrol Regional Health Insurance Board as assessors.\n19.  On 16 December 1999 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint. Referring to its constant case la", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1034", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Cincinnati, Ohio.\n8.  In April 1994 the applicant married an Austrian citizen. The marriage was concluded in the United States of America and the couple set up their common residence in Michigan. On 11 September 1994, their daughter was born.\n9.  On 31 October 1995, after his wife had left the United States with their daughter without obtaining the applicant’s consent and had set up her residence in Austria, he brought a petition for divorce in the Oakland Circuit Court (Michigan). He also introduced court proceedings in Austria requesting the return of his daughter under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction.\n10.  On 2 November 1995 the applicant’s wife brought a petition for divorce in the Graz District Civil Court.\n11.  On 16 April 1996 the Oakland Circuit Court confirmed a default decree of divorce issued in January 1996, noting that Mrs Sylvester had failed to comply with the requirements for setting aside the default. Further, it awarded the applicant sole custody over the couple’s daughter and ordered that she should reside with him in case of her return.\n12.  On 5 June 1996 the applicant filed a request for recognition of the divorce decree with the Austrian Federal Ministry of Justice.\n13.  On 26 September 1996 the Federal Ministry of Justice refused to grant this request. Referring to Section 24 § 1 of the Fourth Implementing Regulation to the Marriage Act (4. Durchführungsverordnung zum Ehegesetz), it considered that a recognition of the divorce decree would be contrary to Austrian ordre public as the applicant’s wife, being the defendant in the proceedings before the Oakland Circuit Court, had not been heard as she was considered to be in default, despite the fact that the applicant’s petition for divorce had not been duly served on her.\n14.  Thereupon, on 15 November 1996 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court. The latter instituted preliminary proceedings on 25 November 1996.\n15.  On 9 January 1997 the Administrative Court received the observations of the Federal Ministry of Justice and, on 20 January 1997, it received the observations of Mrs Sylvester as a third party.\n16.  On 18 December 1998 the Administrative Court referred the case to the Constitutional Court requesting it to review the constitutionality of Section 24 § 1 of the Fourth Implementing Regulation to the Marriage Act.\n17.  It argued that Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which has constitutional rank in Austrian law, applied to the proceedings concerning the recognition of foreign divorce decrees as their outcome had a direct effect on the civil law relationship of the persons concerned. However, it was incompatible with that Article that the Federal Ministry of Justice, an administrative authority, decided upon the request for recognition. The subsequent control by the Administrative Court was not sufficient where the subject matter, such as family law relations, fell within the very core of the notion of “civil rights”.\n18.  The Constitutional Court received the Administrative Court’s request on 19 February 1999. The Administrative Court submitted three further requests raising the same issue, which were received by the Constitutional Court on 13 July, 21 October and 12 November 1999, respectively. The proceedings in these cases were joined to proceedings in the applicant’s case.\n19.  On 4 Febru", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1035", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant lives in Feldkirch-Tosters (Austria).\n5.  In February 1996 the Feldkirch District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) instituted administrative criminal proceedings against the applicant under the Aliens’ Employment Act (Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz). He was suspected of having illegally employed a foreigner (Ö.) without the required permit to work.\n6.  On an unspecified date the District Administrative Authority invited the applicant to comment on the charge against him (Aufforderung zur Stellungnahme). On an unspecified date the applicant filed his comments.\n7.  On 3 July 1996 the District Authority issued a penal order and imposed a fine of ATS 25,000 (EUR 1,816.82). It found that the applicant had illegally employed a foreigner.\n8.  On 6 August 1996 the applicant, assisted by counsel, filed an appeal. On 12 August 1996 the applicant amended his appeal. He submitted that the Regional Vorarlberg Labour Office’s (Landesarbeitsamt) decision of 21 September 1994, by which it refused to grant a work permit for Ö, did not fulfil the formal requirements of a decision (Bescheid) and was therefore null and void. Thus, Ö.’s preliminary work permit was still valid and, consequently, the penal order had no legal basis.\n9.  On 4 November 1998 the Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltunssenat, “the IAP”) submitted that the applicant had filed his appeal out of time and ordered the applicant to comment on this submission within two weeks.\n10.  The applicant complied with this order on 19 November 1998. He submitted that the District Administrative Authorities’ decision of 3 July 1996 was only served on him on 23 July 1996 due to his absence at the material time and that therefore the appeal was lodged in time.\n11.  On 23 November 1998 the IAP ordered the applicant to prove his absence at the material time within two weeks. On 9 December 1998 the applicant complied with this order.\n12.  By a decision of 15 December 1998 the IAP partly allowed the applicant’s appeal and decreased the fine to ATS 20,000 (EUR 1,453.44) and ordered him to pay ATS 2,000 (EUR 145.35) as his contribution to the procedural costs at first instance. It found that Ö.’s preliminary work permit had expired on 24 October 1994 and that therefore the offence of illegal employment of a foreigner was met. The IAP further held that the applicant could not enjoy impunity for having committed an error of law, as he should have been aware that the District Administrative Authority would consider the employment illegal when the Labour Office’s refusal to grant a work permit for Ö. was served.\n13.  On 1 March 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). He submitted that the IAP was no “tribunal” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention as its member acted as both judge and prosecutor. Further, he submitted that his rights under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention were violated. He relied on a precedent in which the administrative authorities had considered a decision with a similar deficiency as invalid and, thus, he considered Ö.’s preliminary work permit still valid. However, pursuant to the applicable law he had to show that no fault lay with him for the contravention of the provisions of administrative law.\n14.  On 14 June 1999 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint for lack of prospects of success and transmitted the complaint to the Administrative Court (Verw", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1036", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant is a political group which was refused registration as a political party in a judgment delivered by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 28 August 1996. The second applicant is its chairman.\n10.  On 23 March 1996 the PCN was founded at a national conference chaired by the second applicant, at which its constitution and political programme were adopted. The relevant parts of the constitution read as follows:\n“The PCN shall respect national sovereignty, the territorial integrity of the State, its legal order and the principles of democracy. None of its members shall defame the country and the nation, promote war and national, racial, class or religious hatred, encourage discrimination, territorial separatism or public violence, or engage in obscene and immoral activities.\nThe PCN is a free association of citizens who support political pluralism, uphold the principles of a democratic law-based State and strive to defend their own interests without denying those of others.\nAims\nArticle 1: The PCN shall express, represent and defend the political interests of the workers, without any distinction based on ethnic origin, sex, age, profession, belief or opinions. 'Workers' means all those who earn their living by working, regardless of activity ...\nWith a view to ensuring a constant increase in workers' living standards, the PCN shall act within the law, using any means lawfully available to all political parties, to gain political power in order to establish a humane and democratic society. ...\nArticle 20: The PCN is not the successor of the former Romanian Communist Party, with which it has no connection; it represents the continuation of the resistance against the Communist Party prior to 1989. Being founded by and composed of persons who were not members of the former Communist Party, the PCN emphasises that none of the qualities with which the former Communist Party was credited, or the criticisms that party aroused, should be attributed to it.”\n11.  In its political programme, adopted on 23 March 1996, the PCN stated that its aims were to defend workers' interests and to adhere to the essence of communist doctrine, based on the following fundamental principles: non-exploitation of certain persons by others or by the State; social justice based on labour and proper qualitative competition; and genuine democracy capable of securing the rights of the majority through free elections in which all political tendencies should be allowed to take part. It deplored what it called the antisocial and anti-working-class direction in which Romanian society had moved since the overthrow of the previous regime in 1989, and the country's transformation into a “colony of the European and global neo-colonialist empires”. The programme also contained the following political ideas:\n“The thesis underlying all policy and all doctrine is that the main advantage in politics is number. Those who are greatest in number are always right, irrespective of the way they think or act, and this is constantly being borne out, as, for example, on 22 December 1989 when the anti-working-class, antisocial and antinational counter-revolution emerged victorious in several European countries.\nThe starting-point of all workers' action has been the desire to change what is evil; in practice, only what is good has changed, and almost completely. What do we mean by good? ... During its years of socio-economic practice in the territory of former Dacia[[1]], sociali", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1039", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in St. Petersburg.\n10.  On 29 August 1995 the North-Western transport prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against several police officers of the St. Petersburg transport police department where the applicant, in the rank of police major at that time, held the position of senior operational officer. The investigation established that the applicant had colluded with other police officers to detain individuals who had just arrived in St. Petersburg on the pretext of an identity check and to misappropriate their money.\n11.  On 31 August 1995 the applicant was detained on remand.\n12.  On 7 September 1995 the applicant was charged with criminal offences under Articles 144 § 2 (concerted theft), 145 § 3 (concerted large-scale robbery), 148 § 3 (large-scale extortion) and 170 § 1 (abuse of power or office) of the RSFSR Criminal Code, committed on several occasions between 1992 and 1995, in collusion with two other police officers.\n13.  On 18 June 1996 the case was referred to the Smolninskiy District Court of St. Petersburg for trial.\n14.  On 9 October 1996 the Smolninskiy District Court found that the bill of indictment was incomplete and remitted the case to the prosecutor’s office for additional investigation.\n15.  On 24 December 1996 the St. Petersburg City Court quashed the decision of 9 October 1996 and remitted the case to the Smolninskiy District Court for examination on the merits.\n16.  On 24 February, 31 March and 15 September 1997 the Smolninskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s requests for release from custody, each time referring generically to the gravity of the charges against him and to his personal characteristics.\n17.  According to the Government, on 10 February 1997 the applicant refused to go to the court and the hearing was adjourned until 24 February. The applicant refuted the allegation. He contended that as a detainee he had had no choice whether to be escorted to the court house or not.\n18.  The parties agreed that subsequent hearings had been held on 24 and 25 February, 31 March and 1 April 1997.\n19.  On 15 September 1997 the Smolninskiy District Court granted the applicant’s request for additional time to read the case file and transcripts of the court hearings. The Government alleged that at that hearing the applicant had prevented the court from examining witnesses and victims, falsely accusing them of criminal offences and perjury. The applicant contested this allegation as not supported by any documents. The next hearing was fixed for 11 December 1997.\n20.  On 11 or 22 December 1997 the applicant challenged the presiding judge, alleging that he had had an intimate relationship with her. The challenge was dismissed as unsubstantiated. The hearing was then adjourned until 9 February 1998 because the applicant fell ill.\n21.  Subsequent hearings in the Smolninskiy District Court took place on 9, 11 and 12 February 1998.\n22.  On 12 February 1998 (8 February, according to the Government) the Smolninskiy District Court suspended the proceedings and ordered a forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant.\n23.  On 5 May 1998 the Convention entered into force in respect of the Russian Federation.\n24.  On 22 May 1998 the experts found the applicant to be of sound mind at the time of examination and at the time when the incriminated acts had been committed. On 1 July 1998 the proceedings were resumed.\n25.  On 17 July 1998 the Smolninskiy District Court ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1040", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1918 and lives in Stockholm.\nUntil his retirement in March 1983 he worked as a teacher for 17 hours per week.\n5.  On 26 August 1996 the applicant applied for disability benefits (handikappersättning) under Chapter 9, section 2 of the Social Insurance Act 1962 (Lagen om allmän försäkring, 1962:381 - hereinafter “the 1962 Act”). He claimed that, even before his 65th birthday in 1983, he had incurred extra costs due to his illness, Charcot-Marie-Tooth[1], from which he had suffered since the 1970's and which had been diagnosed in September 1982. In support of his claim, he submitted:\n \n(i) A medical certificate dated 27 August 1996, produced by the applicant's general practitioner, Doctor P. Dekany, at the applicant's request, supporting his application for disability benefits. It stated that the doctor had known and treated the applicant since 1961, and that the Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease had started in the early 1970s involving difficulties in walking, problems of balance, dragging of the feet and the patient tripping over and falling continuously. The muscles in the legs and feet had considerably withered. The illness had attacked even the hands and arms, with withered muscles and reduced strength in the fingers. Because of multiple inconveniences, the patient's functional capacity had been strongly reduced; he needed help for heavier household tasks, the preparation of meals, the purchase of household goods, carrying heavier objects, and for personal hygiene. The patient had incurred extra costs for medical treatment, foot rails, soft shoes, home assistance, and to some extent his food budget because of a limited ability to prepare meals; he also had to pay for the transportation service for disabled persons, and extra travel by personal car, because of his considerably reduced ability to walk.\n(ii) A statement of 21 April 1997 by Doctor P. Dekany, reproducing extracts from the applicant's medical records for the period between 1975 and 1983, with a diagnosis of the Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease in September 1982;\n(iii) A statement dated 23 March 1983 by Mr P.K. Thomas, Professor and Doctor of the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, University of London, which concluded:\n“I quite agree that the diagnosis here is Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. The clinical findings and the nerve conduction studies indicate that it can be classified as type II hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy. He does show some minor pyramidal signs in the legs, which may be associated. I have explained to Mr Miller that although his symptoms may continue slowly to deteriorate, this is unlikely ever to become a very serious incapacity so that he becomes unable to walk.”\n6.  On 16 July 1997 the Social Insurance Office (försäkringskassan -hereinafter “the Office”) of the County of Stockholm rejected the application, finding that the applicant's disability had not reached the level required under Chapter 9, section 2 before he turned 65 years of age. One member reserved his position, considering that the applicant's need for assistance before turning 65 should be investigated.\n7.  The applicant, represented by a lawyer, appealed to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Stockholm and requested that an oral hearing be held in his case because he wished to call as witnesses his personal doctor, the doctor appointed by the Office and all the members of the Office who had participated in the decision of his case.\nOn 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1041", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Shakhty in the Rostov-on-Don Region.\n9.  In 1994 the applicant deposited his savings with “Hermes-Finance”, a Russian investment company. In 1995, when the applicant came to Moscow to recover his deposit, he found the company’s offices closed.\n10.  On 12 August 1995 the applicant lodged a civil action against the company in the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow. The court disallowed the applicant’s action for lack of territorial jurisdiction.\n11.  On 31 October 1995 the applicant brought an action against the company before the Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow. Citing lack of territorial jurisdiction, on 17 November 1995 the Khoroshevskiy District Court transferred the case to the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow. The Government submitted that there was no indication in the case-file of the receipt of the claim by the Tushinskiy District Court. The applicant challenged this statement, referring to the “forwarding note” of 17 November 1995, from the Khoroshevskiy District Court to the Tushinskiy District Court, which had been copied to him.\n12.  On 14 February 1996 the applicant sent a letter to the Tushinskiy District Court with a request to explain the delay in examination of his case. No answer was given.\n13.  In April 1996 the applicant lodged yet another action against the company with the Moscow City Court. It was not accepted for lack of hierarchical jurisdiction.\n14.  On 27 June 1996 the applicant brought an action against the company before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. On 9 August 1996 the Supreme Court forwarded the applicant’s statement of claim to the Moscow City Court, which, in turn, sent the claim on 22 August 1996 to the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow.\n15.  On 5 May 1998 the Convention entered into force in respect of the Russian Federation.\n16.  The parties offered different versions of further proceedings.\n17.  On 8 June 1998 the applicant received a summons to appear before the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow on the same day at 2.10 p.m. The summons was delivered by regular mail and put in his letter box.\n18.  On 29 September 1998 the applicant found in his letter box a summons to appear before the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow on 21 September 1998.\n19.  On 25 November 1998, on coming home from the office, the applicant found in his letter box a summons to appear before the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow on 26 November 1998 at 2 p.m.\n20.  The applicant submitted to the Court copies of the above summonses certified by a notary public.\n21.  The applicant did not receive any further summonses or communications from the Tushinskiy District Court.\n22.  On 29 March 2000 the applicant sent a letter to the Tushinskiy District Court, requesting it to account for the delay in the proceedings. On 13 April 2000 the applicant’s letter was returned to him with a handwritten request to specify the date when the action had been lodged. The applicant wrote the date on the same letter and sent it back on 20 April 2000. No answer was received.\n23.  The Government denied the applicant’s submission that the hearings had been listed for 8 June and 29 [sic] September 1998 as not supported with the case-file materials.\n24.  According to them, the first hearing on the applicant’s claim was fixed for 22 October 1998. As the parties failed to appear, the hearing was adjourned until 26 November 1998. The applicant was advised of the new date ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1042", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Königstein, Germany.\n9.  On 23 October 1990 a criminal charge was laid against the applicant, accusing him of tax evasion. On 8 January 1991 the Frankfurt/Main Tax Office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and informed him accordingly on 10 January 1991. These proceedings were eventually extended to the suspicion of fraud to the detriment of the joint owners of a plot of land and fraudulent breach of trust (Untreue) to the detriment of the city of Königstein by the Frankfurt/Main Public Prosecutor’s Office. The applicant, a civil servant, was subsequently suspended from office, and his salary was reduced.\n10.  On 5 March 1991 the competent public prosecutor at Königstein applied for a search warrant concerning the office of a notary at the Königstein District Court. A (modified) search warrant was issued by the Königstein District Court on 24 April 1991 and the warrant was executed on 14 June 1991, when two documents were seized.\n11.  Between 23 August 1991 and 26 March 1992 the Public Prosecutor’s Office granted access to the case files to the city of Königstein and the applicant’s counsel.\n12.  From 26 March 1992 until 23 November 1992 the investigations were stayed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in order to await the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings instituted by the city of Königstein against the applicant. The latter proceedings were then themselves stayed awaiting the outcome of the criminal proceedings.\n13.  The hearing of the applicant as an accused by the Public Prosecutor’s Office was postponed from 10 February 1993 to 25 June 1993 upon the request of the applicant’s counsel.\n14.  On 3 January 1994 the Frankfurt/Main Tax Office, after hearing two witnesses, made their closing comments regarding the investigations against the applicant. On 12 December 1994 the Prosecutor’s Office, after having ordered further investigations by the Frankfurt/Main Tax Office, issued an indictment charging the applicant with fraud, tax evasion and fraudulent breach of trust.\n15.  On 10 October 1995, following three hearings in September and October 1995, the Frankfurt/Main District Court convicted the applicant of fraud, fraudulent breach of trust and tax evasion in accordance with the indictment. It sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment. The District Court found that the applicant had, in his position as head of the municipal building office, deceived the joint owners of real estate as to the value of their property in order to induce them to sell it at a low price to a front man (Strohmann) working for him. He had enriched himself by, again via the front man, offering a part of this property to the municipality for an expansion of the local cemetery. The rest of the property had been sold on the open market.\n16.  On 20 May 1996 the Frankfurt/Main Regional Court, following the applicant’s appeal and eight trial hearings in April and May 1996, in which some ten witnesses were heard, amended the District Court’s decision to the effect that it convicted the applicant of fraud and tax evasion, whereas it acquitted him of fraudulent breach of trust, and sentenced him to one year and nine months’ imprisonment suspended on probation. In its judgment comprising 30 pages, the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request that an expert opinion be prepared on the actual value of the real estate involved, finding that such an opinion was unnecessary, as the Regi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1043", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants, Helen Steel and David Morris, were born in 1965 and 1954 respectively and live in London.\n9.  During the period with which this application is concerned, Ms Steel was at times employed as a part-time bar worker, earning approximately 65 pounds sterling (GBP) per week, and was at other times unwaged and dependent on income support. Mr Morris, a former postal worker, was unwaged and in receipt of income support. He was a single parent, responsible for the day-to-day care of his son, aged 4 when the trial began. At all material times the applicants were associated with London Greenpeace, a small group, unconnected to Greenpeace International, which campaigned principally on environmental and social issues.\n10.  In the mid-1980s London Greenpeace began an anti-McDonald's campaign. In 1986 a six-page leaflet entitled “What's wrong with McDonald's?” (“the leaflet”) was produced and distributed as part of that campaign. It was last reprinted in early 1987.\n11.  The first page of the leaflet showed a grotesque cartoon image of a man, wearing a Stetson and with dollar signs in his eyes, hiding behind a “Ronald McDonald” clown mask. Running along the top of pages 2 to 5 was a header comprised of the McDonald's “golden arches” symbol, with the words “McDollars, McGreedy, McCancer, McMurder, McDisease ...” and so forth superimposed on it.\n12.  The text of page 2 of the leaflet read as follows (extract):\n“What's the connection between McDonald's and starvation in the 'Third World'?\nTHERE's no point feeling guilty about eating while watching starving African children on TV. If you do send money to Band Aid, or shop at Oxfam, etc., that's morally good but politically useless. It shifts the blame from governments and does nothing to challenge the power of multinational corporations.\nHUNGRY FOR DOLLARS\nMcDonald's is one of several giant corporations with investments in vast tracts of land in poor countries, sold to them by the dollar-hungry rulers (often military) and privileged elites, evicting the small farmers that live there growing food for their own people.\nThe power of the US dollar means that in order to buy technology and manufactured goods, poor countries are trapped into producing more and more food for export to the States. Out of 40 of the world's poorest countries, 36 export food to the USA – the wealthiest.\nECONOMIC IMPERIALISM\nSome 'Third World' countries, where most children are undernourished, are actually exporting their staple crops as animal feed – i.e. to fatten cattle for turning into burgers in the 'First World'. Millions of acres of the best farmland in poor countries are being used for our benefit – for tea, coffee, tobacco, etc. – while people there are starving. McDonald's is directly involved in this economic imperialism, which keeps most black people poor and hungry while many whites grow fat.\nGROSS MISUSE OF RESOURCES\nGRAIN is fed to cattle in South American countries to produce the meat in McDonald's hamburgers. Cattle consume 10 times the amount of grain and soy that humans do: one calorie of beef demands ten calories of grain. Of the 145 million tons of grain and soy fed to livestock, only 21 million tons of meat and by-products are used. The waste is 124 million tons a year at a value of 20 billion US dollars. It has been calculated that this sum would feed, clothe and house the world's entire population for one year.”\nThe first page of the leaflet also included a photograph of a woman and child, wi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1044", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the Hüüru village, Harju County.\n8.  On 14 February 1998 the Pärnu police took the applicant into custody on suspicion of having committed burglary. On 16 February 1998 the applicant was released from custody, but was subjected to another preventive measure in the form of a ban on leaving his place of residence.\n9.  On 19 February 1998 the applicant was re-arrested on suspicion of two further acts of burglary, one of which had been committed the same day.\n10.  On 20 February 1998 the applicant was charged with three counts of burglary and the police investigator requested the Pärnu City Court (Pärnu Linnakohus) to apply the preventive custody measure until 20 April 1998. The investigator noted that the applicant had no fixed residence and considered that he could, if released, continue to commit offences, evade investigation and abscond.\nThe applicant stated in writing that he did not wish to participate in the hearing before the City Court concerning the investigator's request and that he did not consider the presence of his lawyer there necessary either.\nOn the same day, i.e., 20 February 1998, the City Court authorised the applicant's detention until 20 March 1998.\n11.  In March 1998 the applicant was charged with additional counts of burglary, committed together with two minors.\n12.  On 20 March 1998 the investigator applied for an extension of the applicant's detention. Having noted that the applicant had been charged with additional crimes, that he had no fixed residence or place of work and that he had two prior criminal convictions, the investigator found that the applicant could, while at liberty, re-offend, evade investigation and flee. The investigator also noted that the applicant had confessed to the charges.\nThe applicant did not wish to participate in the hearing before the City Court, which allowed the investigator's request and prolonged the applicant's detention until 20 April 1998.\nOn 17 April 1998 the City Court granted the investigator's request to prolong the applicant's detention further until 20 June 1998. The request was based on reasons which were similar to those contained in the previous request. The applicant again had stated that he did not wish to attend the hearing on the extension of his custody.\nOn 18 June 1998 the applicant's detention was prolonged by the City Court for the third time at the request of the investigator who relied on his earlier arguments. The extension was valid until 20 August 1998.\n13.  On 19 August 1998 the City Court held a hearing on the further prolongation of the applicant's detention. It heard the applicant and his lawyer as well as the investigator. It rejected the applicant's request to be released and extended his detention until 20 September 1998. The court found that the applicant had no place of residence, family or work. If released, he could continue committing offences in order to support himself, and also evade investigation.\n14.  On 1 September 1998 the investigator drew up a final indictment which included an additional charge of inducing minors to participate in a crime.\n15.  On 18 September 1998 the City Court held a hearing to decide on the investigator's request to extend the applicant's detention until 20 November 1998 having regard to the large volume of the criminal case. The applicant and his lawyer, who both took part in the hearing, objected to the request. The City Court decided to allow the request and to ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1045", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Bratislava.\n8.  On 5 January 1994 the applicant lodged an action for damages relating to the defendant's failure to comply with a lease contract. On 25 January 1994 he paid the court fees. On 21 March 1994 the defendant co-operative submitted its memorial to which the applicant replied on 9 May 1994.\n9.  On 21 October 1996 the applicant complained to the president of the Bratislava City Court that there was no progress in his case.\n10.  On 31 October 1996 the Bratislava City Court informed the applicant that it had transferred the case to the Bratislava II District Court. The latter received the file on 5 November 1996. As the Bratislava II District Court considered that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case, it requested the Supreme Court to determine the issue. On 24 February 1997 the Supreme Court found that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the Bratislava Regional Court which had taken over the case files of the former Bratislava City Court. The Regional Court received the Supreme Court's decision on 2 May 1997.\n11.  On 4 March 1998 the Bratislava Regional Court held a hearing and decided to adjourn the case. On 18 March 1998 the applicant submitted further information. Between 8 and 27 October 1998 the file was submitted to the Ministry of Justice.\n12.  A further hearing before the Bratislava Regional Court was held on 22 February 1999. On 28 May 1999 the Regional Court heard two witnesses. Another hearing before the Bratislava Regional Court scheduled for 24 August 1999 had to be cancelled as a witness failed to appear. The Regional Court therefore requested the Poprad District Court to hear the witness.\n13.  On 15 March 2001 the Bratislava Regional Court ordered the defendant to pay 3,400 Slovakian korunas (SKK) to the applicant and rejected the remainder of the latter' action. On 12 April 2001 the applicant appealed.\n14.  By two decisions dated 2 July 2001 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the applicant' request for waiver of fees of the appellate proceedings and instructed the applicant to pay those fees. On 31 August 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court's decision to dismiss the applicant's request for waiver of court fees. On 9 October 2001 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law against the Supreme Court's decision of 31 August 2001.\n15.  On 18 January 2004 the applicant informed the Court that the proceedings concerning his action were still pending.\n16.  On 16 June 1998 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant's constitutional right to a hearing without undue delays had been violated in the above proceedings concerning his claim for damages. The Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that the Bratislava City Court had taken more than two years to transfer the case, for reasons of jurisdiction, to the Bratislava II District Court and that the Bratislava Regional Court had remained inactive for ten months after it had received the Supreme Court's decision of 24 February 1997.\n17.  On 13 March 2002 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court alleging a violation of his constitutional rights to a hearing without undue delays and to compensation for damage. On 2 May 2002 the Constitutional Court declared admissible the complaint concerning the alleged delays in the proceedings brought on 5 January 1994. In its decision the Constitutional Court noted that the relevant part of the complaint followed its finding of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1046", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 3 April 1992 the applicant claimed restitution of a house before the Bratislava IV District Court. She relied on the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act of 1991.\n8.  On 21 December 1993 the District Court dismissed the claim. The judgment stated that the house had been taken away from the applicant's parents pursuant to President Beneš's Decree No. 108/1945, in 1945, and that the possibility of restoring property under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act extended only to cases where the property had been taken away between 25 February 1948 and 1 January 1990.\n9.  The applicant appealed. She claimed that she had acquired the house in question as an heir following her mother's death in 1941. She concluded that the subsequent confiscation of the house had been void as at that time her parents no longer owned it and that she had never stopped being the owner of the property.\n10.  On 31 May 1994 the applicant authorised her son to represent her in the proceedings.\n11.  By a decision of 24 June 1994 the District Court ordered the applicant to pay the court fees. On 11 July 1994 the applicant appealed against this decision. At the same time she requested a waiver from the obligation to pay the fees. On 15 July 1994 the District Court decided not to exempt the applicant from the obligation to pay the fees. On 18 October 1994 the Bratislava City Court quashed the decisions of 24 June and 15 July 1994 as the relevant law had been amended to the effect that no court fees were due in respect of proceedings under the Extra‑Judicial Rehabilitations Act.\n12.  By a separate decision delivered on 18 October 1994 the Bratislava City Court quashed the first instance judgment of 21 December 1993 and instructed the District Court to establish the relevant facts of the case.\n13.  On 5 June 1997 the Bratislava IV District Court again dismissed the applicant's claim. The court found void the confiscation of the property in question as the applicant's mother had died in 1941, that is prior to the confiscation. It noted that no inheritance proceedings had been held contrary to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code. The District Court further noted that the defendant had inherited the house from her predecessor and that the latter had bought it from the House Administration in Devínska Nová Ves on 30 May 1969. Accordingly, the former owner had not “transferred”, within the meaning of Section 4 of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act, the property to the defendant and the latter was not, therefore, obliged to restore it to the applicant under the provisions of that Act.\n14.  On 1 August 1997 the applicant appealed. She claimed, in particular, that the defendant was obliged to restore the property as her legal predecessor fell within Section 4 of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act.\n15.  On 21 October 1998 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment of 5 June 1997. The appellate court held that the confiscation had taken effect on 25 October 1945, that is outside the period covered by the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act. It considered irrelevant that the property had been formally confiscated from the applicant's mother who had died in 1941.\n16.  The Regional Court further found that the property had not been “transferred” to the defendant within the meaning of Section 4(2) of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act as she had inherited it following the death of her legal predecessor. The judgment was served on the applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1047", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1948 and is currently detained in Voghera.\n10.  On 6 August 1996 the applicant, accused of international drug‑trafficking, was arrested in Milan. He was in possession of a false passport in the name of José Luis Troccoli Perdomo.\n11.  On 7 August 1996 the applicant was questioned by the Milan Public Prosecutor. Criminal proceedings were instituted against José Luis Troccoli Perdomo.\n12.  By an order of 9 August 1996, the Milan investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody. He observed that there was strong evidence of guilt against the applicant, who was in possession of documents showing that he was in contact with persons connected to drug-trafficking. Given the amount of cocaine (104 kilograms) imported by those persons and the fact that they were probably part of a major criminal organisation, the investigating judge considered that there was a serious risk of re-offending and a risk of tampering with evidence. Moreover, the applicant had declared that he was a tourist and that he had no links whatsoever to Italy. It was therefore reasonable to believe that he would try to abscond in order to avoid the consequences of the legal proceedings commenced against him.\n13.  The applicant challenged the order before the Milan District Court, which dismissed his appeal on 23 September 1996. The District Court observed that new evidence had emerged against the applicant, who had been recognised as the person who had rented a deposit box in which the cocaine had been found, had helped to move a container into the deposit box and was facing another set of proceedings for drug-trafficking pending in Bassano del Grappa. The Milan District Court held that there was a serious risk of his re-offending, as evidenced by the fact that the applicant was part of a powerful criminal organisation. Moreover, if he were released, the applicant might try to get in touch with the other members of the organisation in order to tell them about the investigations with a view to tampering with the evidence. Finally, there was a risk of his absconding, confirmed by the fact that the applicant had given a different name to the Bassano del Grappa judicial authorities.\n14.  The applicant did not appeal on points of law to the Court of Cassation against the order of 23 September 1996.\n15.  On 27 May 1997 the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office requested that the applicant and twelve other persons be committed for trial. The preliminary hearing was scheduled for 23 June 1997, on which date the applicant was committed for trial, to begin on 2 April 1998 before the Milan District Court.\n16.  In a judgment of 22 April 1998, filed with the registry on 27 April 1998, the Milan District Court declared that the case was outside its jurisdiction ratione loci and ordered the transmission of the case-file to the Genoa Public Prosecutor’s Office.\n17.  In a decision of 8 May 1998 the Genoa investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention on remand. After confirming the observations made in the orders of 9 August and 23 September 1996, he noted that further investigation had revealed that the applicant had played an active role in renting the deposit box where the cocaine had been found and in sending the container in which it was concealed and had kept in contact with the other defendants who had been caught by the police in the act of removing the cocaine from the container. The investigating judge considered moreover that there was a risk o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1048", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Ussuriysk (Russia).\n10.  By a decision of 2 June 1995 under the Education Act, the trade union branch at the Melitopol State Teacher Training Institute (“the Institute”), which was the applicant's employer at the time, granted the applicant indefinite authorisation (ордер) to occupy and use a two-room, 25.1 sq. m flat in a building in Melitopol on the Institute's books.\n11.  In August 1995 the applicant resigned from the Institute and went to live in Vladimir (Russia) to prepare his doctoral thesis. Before leaving, he took his wife to Kotovsk (Ukraine), where she was due to receive medical treatment.\n12.  On 5 October 1995 the Institute annulled its decision of 2 June 1995 and granted authorisation to occupy and use the flat to T., another of its employees.\n13.  On 3 November 1995 T., accompanied by four witnesses, entered the flat. They noted that the flat was empty and made a statement to that effect. According to the applicant, his possessions were removed or stolen from the flat.\n14.  In November 1995 the applicant's wife returned to Melitopol. Unable to move back into the flat, which was now occupied by T.'s family, she had to return to Kotovsk and move in with relatives. In January 1996 the applicant returned to Melitopol, before joining his wife in Kotovsk.\n15.  In late February 1996 the applicant filed a civil claim against the Institute with the Melitopol City Court, claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and seeking to assert his right to free use of the flat in question. The Institute in turn lodged an application to have that right withdrawn from the applicant.\n16.  On 15 May 1996, following an intervention by the procurator at the applicant's request, the Institute annulled its decision of 5 October 1995, finding that it had been unlawful, and restored the applicant's rights to the flat.\n17.  In a judgment of 27 June 1996, the Melitopol City Court dismissed the applicant's claim and granted the Institute's application. It found in particular that, in accordance with the legislation in force and the employment contract concluded between the Institute and the applicant, the latter had forfeited his right to use of the flat concerned after taking up permanent residence elsewhere. The court also noted that, according to the statement made on 3 November 1995, the flat in question had been empty when it was entered.\n18.  Following an objection under the supervisory review procedure from the Zaporijya deputy regional procurator, the Zaporijya Regional Court, in a judgment of 23 May 1997, quashed the judgment of 27 June 1996 and remitted the case to the Melitopol City Court for further consideration.\n19.  By a judgment of 28 April 1998, the Melitopol City Court rejected the applicant's claim, reiterating in substance the findings of the judgment of 27 June 1996.\n20.  Following an appeal by the applicant on points of law the Zaporijya Regional Court, in a judgment of 18 August 1998, quashed the judgment of 28 April 1998 and remitted the case once more to the court of first instance. In particular, the Regional Court noted that the issue of the lawfulness of the Institute's decision of 5 October 1998, granting T. the rights to the flat in question, had not been addressed, despite the fact that the decision had subsequently been annulled following an objection from the procurator. The court further noted that the applicant's wife, who was also authorised to occupy t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1049", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1920 and lives in Istanbul. He is the heir of Mr Mustafa Rıfat Günter and Mrs Rabia Günter.\n9.  On 27 March 1985 Mr Mustafa Rıfat Günter and Mrs Rabia Günter made an oral will, in the presence of two witnesses, in which they undertook to give the property rights of their house to the Darülaceze (the poor people's house in Istanbul) in exchange for life-long support. Following this agreement, they were taken to the Darülaceze, where they died on 3 May 1985 and 2 May 1985 respectively.\n10.  On 7 May 1985 the Darülaceze requested the Şişli First Instance Court in Civil Matters to grant probate on Mr and Mrs Günter's will. On the same day the court read out the will and recognised the Darülaceze as the legal heir to their property. The decision of the court was notified to the heirs, whose names and addresses were known to the court. The applicant was not personally notified of this decision. However, a further notification was made by way of a newspaper publication for those whose names and addresses were not known to the court.\n11.  On 29 December 1992 the applicant filed a petition with the Istanbul First Instance Court in Civil Matters requesting the issue of an inheritance certificate (veraset ilamı), indicating the legal heirs of Mr and Mrs Günter and determining the individual shares.\n12.  On 25 May 1993 the applicant brought an action against the Darülaceze before the Şişli First Instance Court in Civil Matters, requesting a declaration that Mr and Mrs Günter's oral will was null and void. He claimed that the will did not satisfy procedural requirements as Mr and Mrs Günter had lacked legal capacity due to their old age. The first hearing took place on 14 July 1993. The representative of the applicant requested time to submit the list of evidence.\n13.  On 10 October 1993 the Treasury filed an action with a different chamber of the same court, also requesting the court to declare Mr and Mrs Günter's will null and void.\n14.  On 21 October 1993 the applicant submitted his list of evidence to the Şişli First Instance Court in Civil Matters. The court gave time to the Darülaceze to submit its list of evidence.\n15.  On 16 December 1993 neither the applicant nor his representatives attended the hearing. As the Darülaceze stated that it did not wish to continue the case, the case was removed from the list. The applicant renewed the case on 28 January 1994.\n16.  On 14 April 1994 the applicant did not attend the hearing, but instead he sent a letter of excuse.\n17.  At the hearing on 28 April 1994, the applicant maintained that, as the case initiated before the Istanbul First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction concerning the certificate of inheritance of Mr and Mrs Günter was not finalised, the court should postpone the case until after the judicial holidays. The court adjourned the hearing until September, considering that the issue of the inheritance certificate was a prerequisite question (ön mesele) for the present case.\n18.  On 20 September 1994 the applicant requested a further adjournment as the case concerning the certificate of inheritance was not finalised.\n19.  On 27 December 1994 the parties did not attend the hearing. The applicant sent a letter of excuse.\n20.  At the following two hearings, the applicant requested a further adjournment again because the case concerning the certificate of inheritance was not finalised.\n21.  On 11 July 1995 the court decided to join the Treasury's case to the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1050", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n16.  The applicant, who is a French national of Polish origin, was born in 1931 and lives in Andresy, France. She owns a house and a plot of land in Gdynia, Poland. The property previously belonged to her parents.\n17.  Polish legislation on rent control has been the result of many historical and recent circumstances. Legislative schemes restricting rights of landlords and regulating increases in rent were already in operation before the Second World War. The description below of the general situation was based on the findings of the Polish Constitutional Court (Trybunał Konstytucyjny), which, on 12 January 2000, in one of its judgments concerning the constitutionality of certain aspects of the legislation on rent control gave thorough consideration to the historical background of such legislation and the factors contributing to the preservation of restrictions dating back to an early stage of the communist regime in Poland.\n18.  The rent control scheme was the consequence of the introduction of the so-called “State management of housing matters” (publiczna gospodarka lokalami) by the former communist authorities (see paragraphs 71-74 below). It was accompanied by provisions drastically restricting the amount of rent chargeable. The applicable provisions originated in the exceptionally rigid distribution of housing resources which characterised the first 30 years of the communist regime in Poland.\n19.  The circumstances did not change significantly after the end of the communist rule in 1989; indeed, at the beginning of the 1990s the situation of housing in Poland was particularly difficult, as was demonstrated, on the one hand, by a shortage of dwellings and, on the other hand, by the high cost of acquiring a flat. The State-controlled rent, which also applied to privately owned buildings, covered merely 30% of the actual cost of maintenance of buildings.\nIn 1994 those social and economic factors prompted the legislature not only to maintain elements of the so-called “special lease scheme” (szczególny tryb najmu) (see also paragraph 73 below) in respect of State-owned dwellings but also to continue to apply that scheme – temporarily, for a period of 10 years expiring on 31 December 2004 – to privately owned buildings and dwellings. In short, the system was a combination of restrictions on the amount of rent chargeable and of limitations on the termination of leases, even in respect of tenants who did not comply with the terms of the contract.\n20.  The material collected by the Constitutional Court in 2000 included a report prepared by the Office for Housing and Town Development (Urząd Mieszkalnictwa i Rozwoju Miast). According to that report, in 1998, after 4 years of the operation of the 1994 rent control scheme, the average rent as fixed under that scheme covered only 60% of the costs of maintenance of residential buildings. The shortfall was to be covered by landlords. The scale of the problem was considered to have been very large since at that time 2,960,000 dwellings (25.5% of the country’s entire housing resources) were let under the rent-control scheme; that number comprised some 600,000 flats in buildings owned by private individuals. The total number of flats in Poland was estimated at about 11,600,000. Flats in privately owned buildings subject to the rent-control scheme constituted 5.2% of the country’s housing resources.\nThe report stated, among other things:\n“Before ... [1994], statutory rent determined by the Cabinet cove", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1051", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was a Ukrainian citizen born in 1948 who died on 16 September 2004. By letter of 5 November 2004, the applicant's widow and children informed the Court that they wished to pursue the application.\n5.  In 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novozavodsky District Court of Chernigiv seeking the recovery of salary arrears against his former employer - the State-owned “Atomspetsbud” company which performed construction work at Chernobyl in the zone which had been compulsory evacuated. By a decision of the court of 7 October 1998, the applicant was awarded 4,964 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears. On 25 January and 18 August 2000 the applicant received UAH 147.28 and UAH 77.90 respectively. However, the judgment remains to a large extent unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 4,738.82 (the equivalent of 677 euros [“EUR”]).\n6.  By letter of 4 January 2003, the Ukrainian Government Agent informed the applicant's lawyer about the large number of execution writs pending against the debtor company, in the total amount of UAH 3,849,312[1]. Enforcement of the judgments by the attachment of property, however, required a special authorisation from the Ministry for Emergencies due to the location of the debtor's property in the Chernobyl area, contaminated by radiation. Such authorisation was not granted.\n7.  By the order of 27 June 2002 of the Ministry of Energy, the debtor company was liquidated and a liquidation commission established.\n8.  Accordingly, on 17 March 2003 the State Bailiffs' Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicant's case and forwarded the execution writ to the liquidation commission as a creditor's claim. The liquidation proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1052", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and is a farmer living in Eichfeld.\n5.  In 1987 agricultural land consolidation proceedings (Zusammen-legungsverfahren), involving the property of the applicant and of 190 other parties, were instituted by the Graz District Agricultural Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde). From September 1987 until August 1989 the state of possessions was determined, the soil evaluated and plans were made for joint facilities and measures.\n6.  On 11 August 1989 the Agricultural Authority issued land ownership certificates (Besitzstandsausweis), the evaluation plan and the plan regarding joint measures and facilities. This decision became final after it had been laid open to general inspection. On the same day, the parties were ordered to pay the costs of surveying and marking the boundaries.\n7.  In June 1990 the Water Rights Authority (Wasserrechtsbehörde) presented a draft, according to which the entire land consolidation area was situated in the water protection zone. On 21 November 1990 the Styria Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann) issued a decree (Verordnung) for groundwater protection which, unlike the draft of June 1990, only included one-third of the land consolidation area. It entered into force on 1 January 1991.\na.  Provisional Transfer and Clearing decree\n8.  On 12 December 1990 the District Agricultural Authority ordered the provisional transfer (vorläufige Übernahme) of compensatory parcels (Grundabfindung). The applicant appealed on 28 December 1990.\n9.  The District Agricultural Authority issued a clearing decree (Rodungsbescheid) on 1 August 1991. The applicant appealed on 19 August 1991.\n10.  On 29 January 1992 the Steiermark Regional Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat - “the Regional Board”) issued two decisions, dismissing the applicant’s appeals of 28 December 1990 and 19 August 1991, respectively.\n11.  The applicant lodged a complaint on 6 April 1992 with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) against the Regional Board’s decisions. The Regional Board submitted observations in reply on 3 June 1992.\n12.  On 15 June 1992 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint concerning the clearing decree and remitted the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).\n13.  The Administrative Court requested the applicant to supplement his complaint on 4 September 1992 and, on 10 November 1992, it discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had failed to comply with the latter request.\n14.  On 1 December 1992 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint concerning the provisional transfer and remitted the case to the Administrative Court.\n15.  The Administrative Court requested the applicant to supplement his complaint on 22 March 1993. The applicant did so on 26 April 1993.\n16.  The Administrative Court dismissed the complaint on 25 May 1993. Thus, the order concerning the provisional transfer became final.\nb.  Contribution scale\n17.  On 28 September 1992 the District Agricultural Authority issued the final contribution scale (Beitragsschlüssel) for joint measures and facilities, determining the factor of compensation payments, the financial contributions to joint measures and facility and the compensation for clearances and substitute forestations. The applicant appealed to the Regional Board on 14 October 1992.\n18.  On 29 September 1993 the Regional Board partly granted the applicant’s appeal.\nc.  Consolidation scheme and amendment of the are", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1053", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Skopje. He worked as a pilot in the Yugoslav Army until he retired in 1968.\n11.  In former Yugoslavia, the citizens used to pay a tax for housing. On the basis of the accumulated funds the State constructed “socially owned” apartments which were then rented to individuals at legally fixed rates.\n12.  The Yugoslav Army was the single army on the territory of the former Yugoslavia governed by laws which were applicable throughout former Yugoslavia. The applicant, as an officer of the Yugoslav Army, paid monthly contributions from his salary to the Yugoslav Army for the construction of army apartments. All army servicemen were entitled to live in army apartments as tenants.\n13.  On 28 August 1968 the applicant ceased to be an active officer of the Yugoslav Army under an early retirement scheme. At that time, he lived in Belgrade, as a tenant in an apartment which belonged to the army. On an unspecified date the applicant, having found a job in Skopje, sought to obtain the tenancy of an army apartment there. In December 1979, under an agreement between the Yugoslav Army and the Macedonian Council of Ministers, the Socialist Republic of Macedonia (at that time a member of the Yugoslav Federation) obtained the possession of the applicant’s army apartment in Belgrade in exchange for an apartment in Skopje, which remained the property of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia but was to be used by the Yugoslav Army. In July 1980 the applicant moved into the apartment in Skopje.\n14.  On 29 December 1990 the Federal Assembly of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia enacted a Law on Housing of the Army Servicemen (Закон за станбено обезбедување во ЈНА) (the “Z.S.О.J.N.A.”), according to which army servicemen, current and retired, could purchase apartments in which they lived with a price adjustment for the amount of the paid contributions for the construction of army apartments and for development of the construction land. Section 26 of that law provides that the same purchase conditions apply to apartments which do not belong to the army, as it was in the case of the applicant. According to regulations issued by the Yugoslav Federal Ministry, the price difference was to be paid by the federal army (see paragraphs 43-46 below).\n15.  Following the fall of Yugoslavia and a referendum held on 8 September 1991, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia declared independence. On 17 November 1991 it adopted a Constitution (Устав на РМ) and the Law on the Implementation of the Constitution (Уставен Закон за спроведување на Уставот). According to the Constitution the laws from former Yugoslavia remain in force, except for the laws regulating the organisation and competence of the former Yugoslav federal organs. On 21 February 1992 the Macedonian President and the General of the Yugoslav Army concluded an agreement for the withdrawal of the Yugoslav Army from Macedonian territory.\n16.  On 28 February 1992 the Macedonian Government concluded an Agreement for Settlement of Claims and Obligations in Respect of Real Property (Спогодба за правата и обврските во врска со примопредажбата на недвижностите на територија на Република Македонија) (“the S.P.O.V.P.N.T.R.M.”) with the Federal Yugoslav Ministry of Defence. According to this agreement the Macedonian Ministry of Defence took over all the obligations of the Yugoslav Army in respect of army apartments, including the obligation to sell these apartments with", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1054", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, a German national, was born in 1939. He lives in Germany.\n10.  On 30 August 1995 he was arrested in Denmark, charged with aggravated tax fraud for an unknown amount, however exceeding 500,000 Danish kroner (DKK) and relating to the period 1990‑1995. Having consented to the seizure of his car and having agreed that his real estate in Denmark be provided as security, the applicant was released the following day after a court hearing held before the City Court in Vordingborg (Retten i Vordingborg).\n11.  The tax authorities (Told og Skat, Næstved) alleged that since 1990 the applicant had lived in Denmark to such an extent that he was liable to pay taxes, and thus carried out an investigation of the applicant’s tax assessment. The applicant disputed the assessments, notably on the grounds that he had paid tax in Germany, from where his business was run.\n12.  On 14 November 1995 the police requested that the City Court in Vordingborg issue an order for discovery to procure documents from the applicant’s accountants, lawyer and bankers in Germany. However by request of the applicant’s counsel, it was agreed that counsel together with the applicant procured the relevant documents. The documents were handed in on 7 October 1996 by the applicant, who in the meantime had changed counsel. The tax authorities changed their assessment on several occasions; once after it had been established on 10 March 1997 that the statements of accounts procured by the applicant (and his counsel) from a German bank were erroneous, and many times due to the applicant’s objections. On 16 June 1998 a final assessment was made, which the applicant appealed against on 11 September 1998 to the National Taxation Board (Landsskatteretten), where the case is still pending.\n13.  On 19 April 1999 the prosecution submitted an indictment to the City Court in Vordingborg claiming that the applicant had evaded tax in the amount of DKK 57,252 as to the period 1990-1991, during which he had allegedly stayed illegally in Denmark. Hearings were scheduled to take place on 4 and 5 November 1999. The applicant was convicted in accordance with the indictment by judgment of 12 November 1999. He was sentenced to a fine of DKK 57,000.\nAs to legal costs the court stated:\n“[The applicant] shall pay legal costs. In view of the fact that [the applicant] was arrested on 30 August 1995 and appeared before this court on 31 August 1995 charged with tax evasion of an unknown amount of not less than DKK 500,000, but now following a very lengthy investigation, is being charged with and convicted of tax evasion to an extent which is quite limited compared to the original charge, the court finds that the Treasury should pay the fees to the assigned counsel for the defence.”\nAccordingly, the applicant was exempted from paying fees to counsel in the amount of DKK 117,500 including VAT.\n14.  On 24 November 1999 the applicant appealed against the judgment to the High Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret). The Regional Public Prosecutor claimed that the judgment be upheld, including the part exempting the applicant from defraying fees to counsel. The applicant’s appeal was not received by the High Court until 1 February 2000 as pursuant to the Administration of Justice Act (Retsplejeloven) the notice of appeal and the indictment had to be served on the applicant through the German authorities.\n15.  In the meantime, on 8 January 2000, the applicant requested that the prosecution initia", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1055", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Novovoronezh, Voronezh Region.\n5.  In 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against the Chief Department of Finance of the Voronezh Region to claim welfare payments to which she was entitled in respect of her child.\n6.  On 5 January 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant 3,387.87 roubles (RUR). This judgment entered into force on 15 January 2000.\n7.  On 10 February 2000 the enforcement order was issued and sent to the bailiff service of the Tsentralnyy District of Voronezh.\n8.  On 10 April 2000 the applicant complained to the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region about the bailiffs’ failure to execute the judgment in her favour.\n9.  On 20 April 2000 the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region informed the applicant that her award would be enforced in accordance with the order of priority set out by the Federal Law on Enforcement Procedure.\n10.  On 26 June 2001 the bailiff terminated execution proceedings in respect of the judgment of 5 January 2000, as the debtor had no sufficient funds. The applicant was suggested to bring an action against the Administration of the Voronezh Region.\n11.  On 13 February 2002 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Voronezh granted the applicant’s request to resume enforcement proceedings. In this decision the court dismissed the bailiff’s argument that an action against the Administration of the Voronezh Region was necessary to secure execution of the judgment against the Chief Department of Finance. The court found that the judgment of 5 January 2000 could be enforced as it stood.\n12.  The sum awarded has not been paid to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1056", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1948 and 1944 respectively and live in Voronezh.\n5.  In 2000 the applicants each brought a set of proceedings against the welfare office of the Levoberezhnyi District of Voronezh to claim a raise of their pensions by a statutory index ratio.\n6.  On 10 October 2000 the Levoberezhnyi District Court of Voronezh granted both applicants' claims. It awarded them arrears of 1,123.07 roubles (RUR) and RUR 1,089.51 respectively. Both judgments entered into force on 21 October 2000.[i]\n7.  On 19 December 2000 the bailiff service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments of 10 October 2000.\n8.  On 27 April 2001 the bailiff service terminated execution proceedings in respect of both judgments of 10 October 2000, which had not been enforced because of the lack of funds on the debtor's accounts.\n9.  On 30 May 2002, following the applicant's request, the bailiff service instituted new enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments of 10 October 2000.\n10.  On 27 June 2002 the bailiff service terminated execution proceedings, again because of the lack of funds on the debtor's accounts.\n11.  The judgments of 10 October 2000 have not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1057", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Töging am Inn, Germany.\n9.  On 25 November 1992 the applicant and his wife (hereafter Ms W.) divorced before the Groß Gerau District Court. In this context, the District Court granted them joint custody of their two daughters, aged four and eight at that time.\n10.  On 6 July 1993, following Ms W.’s appeal (Beschwerde) and after hearing both her and the applicant as well as two representatives of the local Youth Office, the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal granted Ms W. sole custody of the children, while allowing the applicant to retain a right of access. It found that, given the fact that the parents did not seem entirely willing to co-operate in practical matters, it would be in the children’s best interest if decisions concerning their everyday life were taken by their mother alone. It added that the mother had agreed to discuss important decisions with the applicant and that she was expected to ensure that contacts between the applicant and his daughters would continue on a regular basis. In its decision, the Court of Appeal did not admit an appeal on points of law (weitere Beschwerde).\n11.  On 9 August 1993 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. He claimed in particular that the decision of the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal had misinterpreted the existing provisions on custody of children, notably Section 1671 of the Civil Code (see Relevant domestic law, below), and infringed his parental rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Basic Law.\n12.  On 23 March 1994 the President of the Federal Constitutional Court informed the applicant that he had communicated the case to 25 third parties, who had the right to submit their observations until 30 September 1994. The list of third parties included the Federal Parliament (Bundestag), the Federal Council (Bundesrat), the Federal Government, the Länder Governments, the President of the Federal Court of Justice, the parties of the proceedings before the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal, as well as various national organisations dealing with family law issues and involved in the protection of children.\n13.  On 13 November 1995, following the applicant’s request dated 2 October 1995, the Federal Constitutional Court forwarded the pertinent written observations dated 1 and 25 July, 20 and 27 September, 20 October and 9 December 1994 and 19 February 1995. These included the observations of the Federal Ministry of Justice of 9 December 1994 stating that the Government planned an amendment of the law on family matters, inter alia by introducing explicit provisions on joint custody after divorce.\n14.  Towards the end of 1997, the applicant received a telephone call from the Federal Constitutional Court informing him that the questions raised by his complaint would become obsolete with the expected entry into force of the amended Law on Family Matters of 16 December 1997 (Kindschaftsrechtsreformgesetz) on 1 July 1998. The applicant was asked whether he wanted to declare that his constitutional complaint had been disposed of (Erledigterklärung) under these circumstances.\n15.  On 24 June 1998 the applicant requested the Constitutional Court to deliver a decision despite the change of law brought about by the Law on Family Matters.\n16.  On 22 December 1999 (decision served on 20 January 2000), the Federal Constitutional Court, sitting as a panel of three judges, refused to admit the applicant’s constitutional", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1058", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.\n5.  In 2001 the applicant brought an action for damages against the Ministry of Internal Affairs following her husband's death during his military service in Chechnya.\n6.  On 29 August 2001 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov granted the applicant's claim. Her award consisted of a lump-sum compensation of 204,462 roubles (RUR) and a monthly payment of RUR 2,271.80, subject to future adjustment to a statutory rate.\n7.  On 17 September 2001 the applicant obtained an execution order, which she submitted to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for payment.\n8.  On 4 July 2003, after the case had been communicated to the Government, the applicant was paid RUR 313,508.40 pursuant to the execution order.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1059", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1930, 1931 and 1935 respectively and live in Novovoronezh, Voronezh Region.\n5.  In 2000 the applicants each brought a set of proceedings against the welfare office of Novovoronezh to claim a raise of their pensions by a statutory index ratio.\n6.  On 7 August 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region granted the second and the third applicants' claims. It awarded them arrears of 2,110.58 roubles (RUR) and RUR 1,521.09 respectively. Both judgments entered into force on 17 August 2000.\n7.  On 28-29 August 2000 the bailiff service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments of 7 August 2000.\n8.  On 22 January 2001 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region granted the first applicant's claim. It awarded her arrears of RUR 1,062.11. This judgment entered into force on 1 February 2001.\n9.  On 30 January 2001 the bailiff service terminated execution proceedings in respect of both judgments of 7 August 2000, which had not been enforced.\n10.  On 14 March 2001 the Voronezh Regional Office of the Pension Fund reported to the Town Administration of Novovoronezh that certain judgments concerning pension raise could not be enforced for lack of funding from the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation.\n11.  On 31 May 2001 the bailiff service informed the second and the third applicants that the judgments in their favour could not be enforced for lack of funds on the debtor's accounts. It also informed the applicants that they could apply again for enforcement of the same judgments.\n12.  On 20 August 2001 the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation reported to the Chairman of the Novovoronezh legislature that the bailiff service could not enforce certain judgments against the welfare office concerning pension matters. It pointed out that following a budgetary reform the welfare office was neither authorised, nor allocated funds to, make relevant payments. The bailiff office was thus unable to seize funds to secure enforcement of the judgments.\n13.  The judgments of 7 August 2000 and of 22 January 2001 have not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1060", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Novocherkassk, Rostov Region.\n5.  In 2001 the applicant brought an action for damages against the Ministry of Internal Affairs following the death of her husband during his military service in Chechnya.\n6.  On 7 June 2001 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov granted the applicant's claim. Her award consisted of a lump-sum compensation of 71,851.50 roubles (RUR) and monthly payments of RUR 1,710.75, subject to future adjustment to a statutory rate. The monthly payments were not paid to the applicant.\n7.  In 2002 the applicant brought new proceedings to obtain the adjustment of the outstanding monthly payments.\n8.  On 27 September 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov granted the applicant's claim. It made an adjustment of the monthly payments increasing them retrospectively to RUR 3,849. It awarded the applicant arrears of RUR 88,916.16 in respect of the period from 1 January 2002 to 1 October 2002.\n9.  On 9 October 2002 the applicant obtained an execution order, which she submitted to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for payment.\n10.  On 17 June 2003, after the case had been communicated to the Government, the applicant was paid RUR 30,793.44, and on 19 June 2003 she was paid RUR 88,916.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1061", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The first applicant was born in 1953, the second applicant was born in 1955 and the third applicant was born in 1945. The first two applicants are residents of Chechnya. The third applicant currently lives in Germany.\n11.  The facts surrounding the bombing of the civilian convoy and the ensuing investigation were partially disputed. In view of this fact, the Court requested the Government to produce copies of the entire investigation files opened in relation to the bombing. The Court also asked the applicants to produce additional documentary evidence in support of their allegations.\n12.  The submissions of the parties on the facts concerning the circumstances of the attack on the convoy and the ensuing investigation are set out in Sections 1 and 2 below. A description of the materials submitted to the Court is contained in Part B.\n13.  The first and third applicant lived in the city of Grozny, and the second applicant in Staraya Sunzha, which is a suburb of Grozny. In the autumn of 1999 hostilities began in Chechnya between the federal military forces and Chechen fighters. The city and its suburbs were the targets of wide-scale attacks by the military. The applicants allege that at some date after 25 October 1999 they learned from radio and television announcements, including on the all-Russian channels RTR and ORT, that on 29 October 1999 a “humanitarian corridor” would be arranged for civilians to escape from the fighting in Grozny.\n14.  Because of the attacks the third applicant and her family left Grozny on 26 October 1999 and went to stay with relatives in the village of Gekhi. The first applicant and her relatives tried to cross the border with Ingushetia on 28 October, but were told by the military at a roadblock that the corridor for civilians would be open the next day.\n15.  Early in the morning of 29 October 1999 the first and the second applicants and their relatives – about a dozen persons in a RAF mini-van – left Grozny along the road towards Nazran, also known as the Rostov – Baku highway, or the “Kavkaz” highway. Around 8 a.m. they reached the military roadblock “Kavkaz-1” on the administrative border between Chechnya and Ingushetia. There was already a line of cars about one kilometre long. The first applicant and some relatives walked to the roadblock and the military informed them that they were expecting an order from their superiors to open the road, and that the order should arrive at about 9 a.m. The weather was bad at that time, it was cloudy and raining.\n16.  The family of the third applicant left the village of Gekhi at about 5 a.m. on 29 October 1999 in three cars, a Zhiguli, a Niva and a blue GAZ-53, and travelled along the road to Nazran. When they reached the queue in front of the roadblock, they were assigned numbers 384 and 385 in the line. The line of cars grew very quickly, and there were three or four times as many cars behind them as in front. The third applicant estimated that there were over 1,000 cars in the column, including trucks, vans and buses.\n17.  People started asking the servicemen about the opening of the border. At first they were told that it should be opened after 9 a.m., and that the soldiers were expecting an order to that effect. The first applicant estimated that about 11 a.m. a senior officer came out and told the people that the “corridor” would not be opened that day and that he had no information as to when it would be opened. According to the applicants, he also ordered e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1062", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1955 respectively and were residents of Grozny, Chechnya. The first applicant currently resides in Ingushetia, and the second applicant in the Moscow Region.\n11.  The facts surrounding the deaths of the applicants' relatives and the ensuing investigation were partially disputed. In view of this the Court requested that the Government produce copies of the entire investigation files opened in relation to the applicants' relatives' deaths. The Court also requested that the applicants produce additional documentary evidence in support of their allegations.\n12.  The submissions of the parties on the facts concerning the circumstances of the applicants' relatives' deaths and the ensuing investigations are set out in Sections 1 and 2 below. A description of the materials submitted to the Court is contained in Part B.\n13.  The first applicant lived at 101 Tashkalinskaya Street in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny. After 1991 the first applicant, who is ethnic Ingush, attempted to sell the house and leave because he felt threatened by the situation in Chechnya, but could not find anyone to buy it. During the hostilities in 1994-1996 the first applicant and his family stayed in Ingushetia, and on their return found that all their property had been destroyed or looted.\n14.  In November 1999 the first applicant left Grozny because of the renewed hostilities. His relatives decided to stay in Grozny to look after their houses and property. They were his brother, Khamid Khashiyev (born in 1952), his sister Lidiya Khashiyeva (born in 1943) and her two sons, Rizvan Taymeskhanov (born in 1977) and Anzor Taymeskhanov (born in 1982). The first applicant's brother lived in the street parallel to Tashkalinskaya Street, at 109 Neftyanaya Street, and his sister lived in the neighbouring house at 107 Neftyanaya Street.\n15.  The second applicant was a resident of the “Tashkala” quarter in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny. In October 1999 she left the city together with her mother and sister because of the hostilities. Her brother, Adlan Akayev (born in 1953) remained to look after their property and house, located at 24 4-th Neftyanoy Lane.\n16.  In December 1999 the Russian federal army started an operation to take control of Grozny. Heavy fighting lasted until the end of January 2000, when the central parts of the city were finally taken. The exact date on which the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny was taken by the federal forces is somewhat unclear. The applicants submitted, referring to the Government RIA and Interfax news agencies, that by 20 January 2000 the Staropromyslovskiy district was under the Russian federal forces' firm control. Several witness statements produced by the parties indicate that the federal troops were in control of the district as from 27 December 1999. The Government disputed this allegation and referred to two witness statements, allegedly contained in criminal investigation file no. 12038 which suggest that, although troops were present in the district as early as 1 January 2000, they still faced scattered resistance from the Chechen fighters (“boyeviki”). However, no such testimonies are contained in the copy of the file submitted by the Government to the Court, nor are they listed in the list of documents attached to the criminal case-file.\n17.  At the end of January 2000 the applicants learned that their relatives had been killed in Grozny. On 25 January 2000 the f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1063", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant lives in Aistersheim.\n5.  The applicant owns a landholding of some 150 hectares, which is an approved hunting ground (Eigenjagd). According to the Upper Austria Hunting Act (Oberösterreichisches Jagdgesetz), every six years, the District Authority has to establish the boundaries of the Upper Austrian hunting grounds. In this respect, requests may be filed by landowners to have adjacent land allocated to their hunting grounds where, for proper functioning of hunting, boundaries need readjustment (Arrondierungsantrag).\n6.  On 30 September 1992 the applicant filed such a request for readjustment in respect of the next six years’ hunting period, i.e. from April 1993 to March 1999.\n7.  On 19 January 1993 the Grieskirchen District Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) partly granted the applicant’s request and assigned specified plots of third persons to the applicant’s hunting grounds, but dismissed her request concerning some other parcels of land. On 30 January 1993 the applicant appealed against this decision.\n8.  The Upper Austria Regional Government (Landesregierung) quashed the decision on 9 July 1993 and referred the case back to the District Authority, instructing the latter to take a new decision after having supplemented its proceedings.\n9.  On 14 October and 2 November 1993, respectively, the District Authority issued new decisions establishing the boundaries of the applicant’s hunting grounds. It dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s request for adjustment of the boundaries. The applicant appealed against this decision.\n10.  A hearing together with an inspection of the location took place on 25 January 1994.\n11.  On 10 March 1994 the appointed official hunting expert (jagdfachlicher Amtssachverständiger) filed an expertise on the question whether supplementary community land had to be assigned to the applicant’s hunting grounds.\n12.  On 22 March 1994 the Upper Austria Regional Hunting Committee (Landesjagdbeirat) commented on the applicant’s request. On 28 April 1994 the applicant submitted the opinion of a private expert (Privatsachverständiger).\n13.  The Upper Austria Regional Government partly granted the applicant’s appeal on 14 June 1994 and modified the impugned decision concerning some of the borders but confirmed the dismissal of parts of the applicant’s request for additional adjustment. The applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court.\n14.  On or about 27 September 1994 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint for lack of prospect of success and referred the case to the Administrative Court. This decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer in December 1994.\n15.  On 14 November 1995 the Administrative Court ordered the applicant to supplement his complaint. On 8 February 1996 the applicant complied with this request.\n16.  The Regional Government filed its comments on the applicant’s complaint on 15 May 1996.\n17.  On 3 July 1996 the Administrative Court, quashing the decision on formal grounds, referred the case to the Regional Government and ordered the latter to further supplement the proceedings. The court found in particular that the authority had failed to duly take into account the private expert’s opinion submitted by the applicant. The court considered that the authority should have obtained the official expert’s comment on the issues raised by the private expert. The decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 21 August 1996.\n18.  Thereupon, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1064", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Skopje. He used to be an army serviceman of the Yugoslav Army until he retired in 1985.\n11.  In former Yugoslavia, the citizens used to pay a tax for housing. On the basis of the accumulated funds the State constructed “socially owned” apartments which were then rented to individuals at legally fixed rates.\n12.  The Yugoslav Army was the single army on the territory of former Yugoslavia governed by laws which were applicable throughout former Yugoslavia. The applicant, as an officer of the Yugoslav Army, paid monthly contributions from his salary to the Yugoslav Army for the construction of army apartments. All army servicemen were entitled to live in army apartments as tenants.\n13.  The applicant, as an army serviceman, used to live until 1982 as a tenant in an apartment owned by the former Yugoslav Army in Skopje. Once he started working for the Macedonian Secretary of Defence, he sought to obtain a bigger apartment. On 3 June 1982 the Governing Council (Извршен совет) of the Socialistic Republic of Macedonia issued a decision by which it rented to the applicant a bigger apartment in its possession. The applicant gave up his previously rented apartment which remained the property of the former Yugoslav Army. In 1985 the applicant retired and continued living in the new apartment.\n14.  On 29 December 1990 the Federal Assembly of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia enacted a Law on Housing of the Army Servicemen (Закон за станбено обезбедување во ЈНА) (“Z.S.О.J.N.A.”), according to which army servicemen, current and retired, could purchase apartments in which they lived with a price adjustment for the amount of the paid contributions for the construction of army apartments and for development of the construction land. Section 26 of that law provides that the same purchase conditions apply to apartments which do not belong to the army, as it was in the case of the applicant. According to regulations issued by the Yugoslav Federal Ministry, the price difference was to be paid by the federal army (see paragraphs 39-42 below).\n15.  Following the fall of Yugoslavia and a referendum held on 8 September 1991, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia declared independence. On 17 November 1991 it adopted a Constitution (Устав на РМ) and the Law on the Implementation of the Constitution (Уставен Закон за спроведување на Уставот). According to the Constitution the laws from former Yugoslavia remain in force, except for the laws regulating the organisation and competence of the former Yugoslav federal organs. On 21 February 1992 the Macedonian President and the General of the Yugoslav Army concluded an agreement for the withdrawal of the Yugoslav Army from Macedonian territory.\n16.  On 28 February 1992 the Macedonian Government concluded an Agreement for Settlement of Claims and Obligations in Respect of Real Property (Спогодба за правата и обврските во врска со примопредажбата на недвижностите на територија на Република Македонија) (“the S.P.O.V.P.N.T.R.M.”) with the Federal Yugoslav Ministry of Defence. According to this agreement the Macedonian Ministry of Defence took over all the obligations of the Yugoslav Army in respect of army apartments, including the obligation to sell these apartments with a price reduction. The Macedonian Government in 1992 and 1994 enacted regulations implementing this agreement. In 1992 the Macedonian Government enacted Regulations on the Terms of Purchase of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1065", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1954 and is a resident of Katyr-Yurt, Achkhoy-Martan district, Chechnya.\n10.  The facts surrounding the bombardment of Katyr-Yurt and the ensuing investigation were partially disputed. The Court therefore asked the Government to produce copies of the entire investigation file in relation to the bombardment and the civilian casualties. The Court also asked the applicant to produce additional documentary evidence in support of her allegations.\n11.  The parties' submissions on the facts concerning the circumstances of the attack are set out in Sections 1 and 2 below. A description of the materials submitted to the Court is contained in Part B.\n12.  In autumn 1999 Russian federal military forces launched operations in Chechnya. In December 1999 rebel fighters (“boyeviki”) were blocked by the advancing federal forces in Grozny, where fierce fighting took place.\n13.  The applicant submits that at the end of January 2000 a special operation was planned and executed by the federal military commanders in order to entice the rebel forces from Grozny. Within that plan, the fighters were led to believe that a safe exit would be possible out of Grozny towards the mountains in the south of the republic. Money was paid by the fighters to the military for information about the exit and for the safe passage. Late at night on 29 January 2000 the fighters left the besieged city and moved south. They were allowed to leave the city. However, once they had left the city they were caught in minefields and the artillery and air force bombarded them along the route.\n14.  The applicant referred to the published memoirs of Major-General Viktor Barsukov and to the interview with Major-General Shamanov, the commanders of the operation, concerning its details (see §§ 111-112 below).\n15.  A significant group of Chechen fighters – ranging from several hundred to four thousand persons - entered the village of Katyr-Yurt early on the morning of 4 February 2000. According to the applicant, the arrival of the fighters in the village was totally unexpected and the villagers were not warned in advance of the ensuing fighting or about safe exit routes.\n16.  The applicant submitted that the population of Katyr-Yurt at the relevant time was about 25,000 persons, including local residents and internally displaced persons (IDPs) from elsewhere in Chechnya. She also submitted that their village had been declared a “safe zone”, which attracted people fleeing from fighting taking place in other districts of Chechnya.\n17.  The applicant submitted that the bombing started suddenly in the early hours of 4 February 2000. The applicant and her family hid in the cellar of their house. When the shelling subsided at about 3 p.m. the applicant and her family went outside and saw that other residents of the village were packing their belongings and leaving, because the military had apparently granted safe passage to the village's residents. The applicant and her family, together with their neighbours, entered a Gazel minibus and drove along Ordzhonikidze road, heading out of the village. While they were on the road, the planes reappeared, descended and bombed cars on the road. This occurred at about 3.30 p.m.\n18.  The applicant's son, Zelimkhan Isayev (aged 23) was hit by shrapnel and died within a few minutes. Three other persons in the vehicle were also wounded. During the same attack the applicant's three nieces were killed: Zarema Batayeva (aged 15), Kheda B", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1066", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Vienna.\n5.  On 28 June 1976 the applicant filed a request with the Federal Chancellor (Bundeskanzler) to examine a product developed by him, namely “Ukrain”, a medicine for the treatment of cancer. The request was transmitted to the Ministry of Health and Environmental Protection (Bundesministerium für Gesundheit und Umweltschutz ).\n6.  On 27 July 1981 the applicant requested the Minister for Health and Environmental Protection to authorise “Ukrain” under the Austrian pharmacopeia.\n7.  By letter of 14 August 1981 the Minister informed the applicant that, under the relevant legislation which was in force at that time, he did not meet the conditions to request such an authorisation as he was not in possession of a licence to produce the medicament in question.\n8.  On 29 August 1988 the applicant submitted a copy of his licence to produce “Ukrain” which had been issued on 15 May 1988.\n9.  On 31 August 1988 the then competent authority, namely the Federal Chancellor’s Office (Bundeskanzleramt), ordered the Federal Institute for chemical and pharmacological examinations (FICP, Bundesanstalt für chemische und pharmazeutische Untersuchungen) and the Federal Institute for experimental pharmacological and balneological examinations (FICB, Bundesstaatliche Anstalt für experimentell- pharmakologische und balneologische Untersuchungen) to submit expert opinions.\n10.  On 23 December 1988 the FICB submitted an expert opinion. It noted that the documentation submitted by the applicant               suffered from severe shortcomings. On 26 January 1989 the applicant was informed about the expert opinion and invited him to make the necessary amendments to his request within twelve months.\n11.  Between 1990 and 1995 the applicant submitted more documentation, which, however, was found to be insufficient in some twelve expert opinions issued by the FICB and the FICP.\n12.  On 1 February 1995 the applicant lodged an application against the administration’s failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde) with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).\n13.  On 13 February 1995 the Administrative Court ordered the Federal Minister to decide upon the applicant’s request, following which the then Federal Minister of Health and Consumer Protection (Bundesminister für Gesundheit und Konsumentenschutz) dismissed the applicant’s request for authorisation on 2 June 1995. He found that the applicant had failed to establish the necessary quality, effectiveness and harmlessness of “Ukrain”.\n14.  On 13 July 1995 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court. He complained inter alia about shortcomings in the proceedings in that the Federal Minister had not duly taken account of his arguments.\n15.  On 26 February 1996 the Administrative Court quashed the Federal Minister’s decision and remitted the case. It found that the Federal Minister had not given sufficient reasons for his decision and had not duly taken account of the applicant’s arguments.\n16.  Meanwhile, in July 1995 the applicant had submitted new documents to the Federal Minister. He had, in particular, altered the indication as to the type of cancer against which “Ukrain” should be used.\n17.  In two expert opinions of May and June 1996 the FICP and the FICB found that the documentation suffered from severe shortcomings and “Ukrain” should, therefore, not be authorised.\n18.  On 29 August 1996, 24 October 1996, 16 May 1997 and 17 and 23 July 1997 the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1067", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.\n5.  In 2001 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Internal Affairs to claim damages in respect of an injury he had sustained during his military service in Chechnya.\n6.  On 24 December 2001 the Sovetsky District Court of Rostov granted the applicant's claim. His award consisted of a lump-sum compensation of 80,112.26 roubles (RUR) and monthly payments of RUR 2,225.35, subject to future adjustment to a statutory rate. The judgment entered into force on 4 January 2002.\n7.  On 29 March 2002 the execution order was submitted to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for payment.\n8.  On 4 July 2003, after the case had been communicated to the Government, the applicant was paid the amounts due pursuant to the execution order.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1068", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The details concerning the date of birth and place of residence of the five applicants are contained in their application forms and are available in the respective case files.\n9.  Each applicant failed to pay sums due in respect of either local taxes (community charge or council tax), or court-imposed fines. In respect of the failure to pay local taxes, the magistrates’ court had in each case determined that the applicant was liable to pay (issuing a “liability order”); in fines cases, the magistrates’ court had imposed the fine as the sentence following a criminal conviction.\n10.  Each applicant fell into arrears with the payments due from them. These cases involve the enforcement proceedings in respect of their arrears in the magistrates’ court. Each applicant appeared before the court, following the issuing of an application for their committal to prison as a result of their failure to pay the sums due. At that hearing the magistrates found that the non-payment was due to the applicant’s wilful refusal or culpable neglect. As a result each applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment, suspended on terms that the applicant make periodic payments towards the outstanding sum. The applicants failed to comply with the terms imposed. A further hearing was thereafter held in the magistrates’ court at which the suspended term of imprisonment was activated. Each applicant spent a period of time in prison. Legal aid (free legal representation where the applicant did not have sufficient means to pay for it) was not available for these enforcement proceedings prior to 1 June 1997 and none of the applicants was legally represented at the hearings in front of the magistrates.\n11.  Following their imprisonment, an application was made on behalf of each applicant, by way of either judicial review or case stated, which resulted in the High Court quashing the orders made by the magistrates. The applicants were released from prison on bail at the time of making their applications to the High Court. In all five cases the orders were quashed following the High Court’s approval of a consent order agreed between the applicants and the magistrates who had sentenced them.\n12.  The Court has set out the relevant facts pertaining to each applicant in the table which appears at the end of the decision on admissibility (47675/99, McAndrew and Others v. the United Kingdom, decision of 21 October 2003). That table sets out the following information in respect of each applicant: their name and application number; whether their case involved non-payment of community charge (“CC”), council tax (“CT”) or fines (“F”) and the number of days which they spent in prison; whether their proceedings in the magistrates’ court took place before or after legal aid became available on 1 June 1997; and the grounds upon which the High Court quashed the orders of the magistrates. A summary of the terms of the consent order whereby the orders of the magistrates were quashed is also set out in the table.\n13.  Throughout the text of this decision, where there is a reference to a specific applicant, the Court has set out the surname of the applicant followed by their application number in brackets. The words “justices” and “magistrates” are synonymous in domestic law.\n14.  The Court sets out the facts of one case more fully below.\n Julie BEET (47676/99)\n15.  The applicant’s proceedings before the magistrates arose in respect of her arrears in payment of the community charge a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1070", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  Each applicant failed to pay sums due in respect of either local taxes (community charge, council tax or non-domestic rates) or court-imposed fines. In respect of the failure to pay local taxes, the magistrates’ court had in each case determined that the applicant was liable to pay (issuing a “liability order”); in fines cases, the magistrates’ court had imposed the fine as the sentence following a criminal conviction.\n10.  Each applicant fell into arrears with the payments due from them. These cases involve the enforcement proceedings in respect of their arrears in the magistrates’ court. Each applicant appeared before the court, following the issuing of an application for their committal to prison as a result of their failure to pay the sums due. At that hearing the magistrates found that the non-payment was due to the applicant’s wilful refusal or culpable neglect. As a result each applicant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment. The sentence was either imposed immediately (G.M., 34341/96) or was suspended on terms that the applicant make periodic payments towards the outstanding sum. In the latter circumstances, when the applicant failed to comply with the terms imposed, a further hearing was held in the magistrates’ court at which the suspended term of imprisonment was activated. Each applicant spent a period of time in prison. Legal aid (free legal representation where the applicant did not have sufficient means to pay for it) was not available for these enforcement proceedings prior to 1 June 1997 and none of the applicants was legally represented at the hearings in front of the magistrates.\n11.  Following their imprisonment, an application was made on behalf of each applicant, by way of either judicial review or case stated, which resulted in the High Court quashing the orders made by the magistrates. The majority of the applicants were released from prison on bail at the time of making their applications to the High Court. In three cases the orders of the magistrates were quashed in a judgment of the High Court. In the remaining cases the orders were quashed following the High Court’s approval of a consent order agreed between the applicants and the magistrates who had sentenced them.\n12.  With one exception (Christison, 56429/00), the Court has set out the relevant facts pertaining to each applicant in the table which appears at the end of the decision on admissibility (Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 29798/96 and others, decision of 21 October 2003). That table sets out the following information in respect of each applicant: their name and application number; whether their case involved non-payment of community charge (“CC”), council tax (“CT”), non-domestic rates (“NDR”) or fines (“F”) and the number of days which they spent in prison; whether their proceedings in the magistrates’ court took place before or after legal aid became available on 1 June 1997; and the grounds upon which the High Court quashed the orders of the magistrates. Additional relevant factual information appears in this column of the table where appropriate.\n13.  Where the orders of the magistrates were quashed following a judgment, the Court has indicated that fact in the table and quoted from the relevant part of the judgment. Where the orders of the magistrates were quashed by means of a consent order, the Court has set out the terms of the consent order in full. In such cases, where the terms agreed contain obvious mistakes or misq", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1071", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are relatives of sailors who lost their lives in a shipwreck.\n9.  On 14 January 1993 the vessel Jan Heweliusz sank in the Baltic Sea. It belonged to the company Polskie Linie Oceaniczne, whose registered office is in Gdynia, and was operated by the company Euroafrica, with its registered office in Szczecin. Of the 35 passengers and 29 crew members on board, 55 died in the shipwreck and 9 survived.\n10.  Several commissions of inquiry were set up to establish the cause of the shipwreck.\nThe commission set up by the Prime Minister suspended its inquiry in March 1993 without producing a report.\nThe commission set up by the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs submitted a report in April 1993 in which it found that the shipwreck had been due to force majeure.\nThe special commission set up within the National Labour Inspectorate concluded in May 1993 that the owner of the vessel and the crew were jointly responsible.\n11.  The Maritime Chamber attached to the Szczecin Regional Court (Izba Morska przy Sądzie Wojewódzkim) instituted proceedings seeking to establish the cause of the shipwreck. The relatives of the crew members who had died took part in the proceedings.\n12.  On 11 January 1994 the Maritime Chamber delivered its decision, attributing liability to the ship's captain, its technical team, the Polish Shipping Registry, which had inspected the vessel before the disaster, and the Polish rescue services.\n13.  On 18 November 1994 the Maritime Appeals Chamber of the Gdańsk Regional Court (Odwoławcza Izba Morska przy Sądzie Wojewódzkim), sitting in Gdynia, set aside the decision of 11 January 1994 and referred the case to the Maritime Chamber for a fresh examination.\n14.  The Gdańsk Maritime Chamber, sitting in Gdynia, examined the case between 20 March 1995 and 9 February 1996. On 23 February 1996 it gave a decision in which it held that the crew had been partly liable, that the vessel's operator had been at fault for failing to undertake the necessary repair work, and that the natural elements had also played a part.\n15.  The operator, the ship's owner, the representative of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs and the other parties to the proceedings appealed. In a decision delivered on 26 January 1999 and served on the parties on 19 November 1999, the Gdańsk Maritime Appeals Chamber partly upheld the finding of liability with regard to the operator. It also upheld the finding that certain acts of negligence on the part of the crew, in particular the captain and the chief officer, had contributed to the disaster, as had the fact that the rescue operation had not been properly coordinated.\nThe relevant passages of the decision read as follows:\n \npage 2\n“The most likely cause of the capsize of the car and train ferry the Jan Heweliusz and of the death by drowning and hypothermia of 27 passengers and 18 crew members and the disappearance of 8 passengers and 2 crew members was:\n...\n the fact that the ferry turned into the wind while unevenly ballasted (towards the port side), resulting in the shifting of the ballast towards the port side; violent gusts of wind on that side; the shifting of the vehicles' loads and the vehicles themselves to the port side; the discharge of bilge water to the outside on the port side of the ferry.”\npage 4\n“The Jan Heweliusz left the port of Świnoujście at 11.35 p.m. on 13 January 1993, bound for the port of Ystad, in an unseaworthy condition, as the safety requirements were not", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1072", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1973, 1965 and 1960 respectively. The first and second applicants live in Ankara and the third applicant lives in Trabzon.\n5.  The applicants were employed by the Culture and Education Department of the Sincan District Council in Ankara and were involved in the organisation of public activities and events during religious and national days. Upon the instructions of the mayor and the deputy mayor, the applicants organised on 31 January 1997 a special night called the “Jerusalem Night” during the month of Ramadan. The event was announced months in advance and representatives of the security forces and several important personalities living in the district were invited. The hall was decorated with posters of martyrs who had given their lives for the liberation of Jerusalem. The applicants also organised a five-minute play for the evening. The second applicant cleaned the hall, set up and maintained the sound system and welcomed the guests. The play, which was written by the first and third applicants, took the form of a conversation between a father and his son about life in Palestine and the struggle of the Palestinian people. The first applicant played the role of the father in the play. The mayor of Sincan and the Ambassador to Iran made speeches before the play began.\n6.  The second and third applicants were taken into police custody on 5 February 1997 and the first applicant on 6 February 1997. They were accused of disseminating propaganda in support of an armed, illegal organisation, namely the Hezbollah. During their police interrogations, the applicants denied the charges against them.\n7.  On 13 February 1997 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor. During their questioning, they repeated the statements they had made at the police station.\n8.  On the same day the applicants were brought before the investigating judge attached to the Ankara State Security Court, where they made similar statements. Subsequently, the investigating judge ordered that the applicants be remanded in custody.\n9.  In an indictment dated 7 March 1997, the public prosecutor attached to the Ankara State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants. It was alleged that they had disseminated propaganda in support of an armed, illegal organisation. The prosecution therefore called for the applicants to be sentenced pursuant to Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Law.\n10.  On 15 October 1997 the Ankara State Security Court, which was composed of three judges including a military judge, found that the applicants had aided and abetted a terrorist organisation by engaging in propaganda in support thereof. It found the applicants guilty as charged, sentenced them to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and debarred them from public service for three years.\n11.  On 21 September 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Ankara State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1073", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, who was born in 1959, lives in Ankara.\n5.  The applicant was the Deputy Mayor of the Sincan District in Ankara at the time of the events. In his capacity as the deputy mayor, he was responsible for the activities of the Culture and Education Department of the Sincan District Council. In January 1997, the Culture and Education Department prepared a thirty-day programme for the month of Ramadan. The draft programme was submitted to the applicant for his approval. After consulting the mayor, the applicant authorised the organising committee to begin the necessary preparations.\n6.  One of the events foreseen for 31 January 1997 was called the “Jerusalem Night”. This event was announced months in advance and representatives of several embassies as well as several important personalities living in the district were invited. The hall was decorated with posters of martyrs who had given their lives for the liberation of Jerusalem. A five-minute play was also written for the evening. The play took the form of a conversation between a father and his son about life in Palestine and the struggle of the Palestinian people. The mayor of Sincan and the Ambassador to Iran made speeches before the play began.\n7.  On 6 February 1997 the applicant was taken into police custody. He was accused of having disseminated propaganda in support of an armed, illegal organisation, namely the Hezbollah.\n8.  In his statement at the police station, the applicant denied being involved in any illegal organisation.\n9.  On 13 February 1997 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor. During his questioning, he repeated the statements he had made at the police station.\n10.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the investigating judge attached to the Ankara State Security Court and was remanded in custody.\n11.  In an indictment dated 7 March 1997, the public prosecutor attached to the Ankara State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant. It was alleged that he had disseminated propaganda in support of an armed, illegal organisation. The prosecution therefore called for the applicant to be sentenced pursuant to Article 169 of the Turkish Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.\n12.  On 15 October 1997 the Ankara State Security Court, which was composed of three judges including a military judge, concluded that the applicant had aided and abetted a terrorist organisation by engaging in propaganda in support thereof. It found the applicant guilty as charged, sentenced him to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and debarred him from public service for three years.\n13.  The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. The Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion on the merits of the appeal. The opinion was not notified to the applicant, but was read out during the hearing before the Court of Cassation.\n14.  On 21 September 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upholding the Ankara State Security Court’s assessment of the evidence and its reasons for rejecting the applicant’s defence.\n15.  On 7 December 1998 the chief public prosecutor attached to the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s request for rectification.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1074", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, who was born in 1964, resides in Istanbul.\n5.  On 31 January 1997 the applicant made a speech about the liberation movement in Palestine and praised the Muslim leaders who worked for the liberation of Jerusalem during a meeting which was organised by the Sincan District Council in Ankara.\n6.  On 6 February 1997 the applicant was taken into police custody. In his statement, he explained that he supported the Iranian regime and that he longed for a regime that was based on the Koran.\n7.  On 13 February 1997 the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor attached to the Ankara State Security Court. During his questioning by the prosecutor, the applicant repeated his police statement. On the same day the applicant was brought before the investigating judge attached to the Ankara State Security Court and he was subsequently placed in detention on remand.\n8.  In an indictment dated 7 March 1997, the Ankara State Security Court public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant.\n9.  Before the Ankara State Security Court, which was composed of three judges including a military judge, the applicant contested the charges against him.\n10.  On 15 October 1997 the Ankara State Security Court convicted the applicant of being a member of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to seventeen years and six months’ imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  On 6 January 1998 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. The Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion on the merits of the appeal. The opinion was not notified to the applicant, but was read out during the hearing before the Court of Cassation.\n12.  On 21 September 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upholding the Ankara State Security Court’s assessment of evidence and its reasons for rejecting the applicant’s defence.\n13.  On 24 December 1998 the Chief Public Prosecutor attached to the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s request for rectification.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1075", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant, Mr Fethi Gümüş, is a Turkish citizen, born in 1947 and living in Diyarbakır. He is a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The second applicant, Mr Ali Öncü, is a Turkish citizen, born in 1960 and living in Diyarbakır. He is a member of the TESİŞ Workers’ Union (TESİŞ Sendikası). The third applicant, Ms Sevtap Yokuş, is a Turkish citizen, born in 1966 and living in Kocaeli. She is a lecturer at the Law Faculty of Kocaeli University. The fourth applicant, Mr Sabahattin Acar, is a Turkish citizen, born in 1964 and living in Diyarbakır. He is a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The fifth applicant, Mr Vezir Perişan, is a Turkish citizen, born in 1951 and living in Diyarbakır. He is a member of the Municipal Workers’ Union (Belediye-İş Sendikası).\n5.  The edition dated 24 March 1992 of the newspaper “Diyarbakır Söz” and the edition dated 25 March 1992 of the newspaper “Felak” carried a press statement drafted by a delegation which included the applicants, two former Turkish parliamentarians, Leyla Zana and Hatip Dicle, and twenty representatives of various political parties and democratic public organisations.\nThe press statement which appeared in the newspapers read as follows:\n“The Kurdish nation has enhanced its honourable struggle for its claim to the right to a humane existence. The State, which is a party to the problem, has suddenly carried its war mechanism to the region so as to suppress this legitimate struggle by violence.\nThe 21st March, the day of the Nevroz festival, was declared to the press as the official starting date of the large-scale operation by the President, the Chief of Staff and the Under Secretary of the National Intelligence Service. The covert war in Şırnak, Cizre and Nusaybin came to light with the images of tanks, armoured carriers and helicopters shown on television. After the mountains, which have been under bombardment since January, it is now the civilian population which is being bombed.\nThe civilians who celebrated Nevroz in Cizre, Nusaybin, Şırnak and other places where incidents occurred, did not attack or open fire on security forces. That no members of security forces had been killed by gunfire during the Nevroz celebrations was confirmed by official declarations.\nFor the time being, the consequences of the war are 53 dead, hundreds of wounded, dozens of disappeared persons, thousands of detentions, burials in collective graves reminiscent of genocide and bombed, destroyed and burnt-down houses.\nThe security forces lack humane and judicial values. During the incidents, the transport of the injured was hindered, the vehicles carrying injured people were fired on, the health professionals and the relatives of the wounded who tried to help were threatened. Journalists, who tried to observe the incidents, were not allowed to enter the settlement units. They were also threatened, harassed and killed.\nThe Government cannot control the State. Laws are not respected in the region. The Laws on War to which the State is a party do not apply to this war. The conditions for the application of the 1949 Geneva Conventions exist. We invite the parties to this war to conform to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.\nWe invite the public not to be onlookers to the massacre but to act in solidarity with the Kurdish People who are exposed to massacre and whose rights are violated.”\n6.  On 19 June 1992 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings again", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1077", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Karlovac, Croatia.\n5.  On 11 November 1991 business premises in Karlovac leased by the applicant were blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n6.  On 10 November 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages. He based his claim on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.\n7.  On 17 January 1996 Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending enactment of new legislation on the subject.\n8.  On 14 February 1996 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.\n9.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament introduced the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”).\n10.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 19 November 2003 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings and, at the same time, dismissed the applicant's action finding that it no longer had the jurisdiction in the matter. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1078", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicant's husband are disputed between the parties.\n10.  The applicant's husband, Talat Türkoğlu, had been arrested and tried on several occasions in the past for political offences. Plain-clothes policemen used to keep him under surveillance.\n11.  On 29 March 1996, Talat Türkoğlu travelled by bus from Istanbul to Edirne, a city near the border with Greece, to visit relatives. During its journey to Edirne, the bus was stopped by a car and a person from this car got on the bus. Before its arrival in Edirne the same car stopped the bus once again and the person who had got on the bus earlier returned to the car. This car followed Talat Türkoğlu until he arrived at his relatives' house in Edirne.\n12.  On 1 April 1996 Talat Türkoğlu left Edirne for Istanbul. He did not arrive home and has been missing since. When entering her home on the fifth day after her husband's disappearance, the applicant noticed that the front door was open and that her television had been turned on. In her opinion, the persons who entered her home had done so with her husband's key.\n13.  The applicant filed petitions with several administrative and judicial bodies inquiring about her husband's whereabouts. On 25 April 1996, she applied to the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court and, on 26 April 1996, to the Forensic Medicine Institute and, via the Istanbul Human Rights Association, to the President, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Human Rights Commission of the Turkish Parliament. On 2 May 1996 the applicant applied to the General Security Directorate in Ankara. On 3 May 1996 she applied to the Governor's office in Istanbul, the Fatih Public Prosecutor and the National Intelligence Agency. On 6 May 1996 she further applied to the Governor's office in Edirne.\n14.  On 23 September 1996 the applicant applied to the Küçükçekmece public prosecutor. She complained that she was being followed by persons, whom she believed to be plain-clothes police officers. She further complained of receiving anonymous phone calls at her home by someone who swore at her and who threatened to kill her.\n15.  In her letters of 10 September 1997, the applicant informed the public prosecutor and the Governor in Edirne about an important statement made by a prisoner, Kasım Açık, to some other prisoners in which he gave detailed information about the killing of Talat Türkoğlu.\n16.  The applicant claims that Kasım Açık was a State agent who had infiltrated the MLKP (“Marksist Leninist Komünist Parti” – a prohibited left-wing organisation) in order to gather information about their activities. Prior to that, he had participated in counter-guerrilla activities and had been involved in the killing of a number of persons. He was strangled to death in prison on 18 May 1997. According to the applicant, Kasım Açık gave this statement when he was questioned after having been arrested and detained in the Gebze prison on suspicion of being a MLKP member, an offence for which he was later tried before the Istanbul State Security Court.\n17.  According to this statement, which was taped and later transcribed, Talat Türkoğlu was questioned in Çadırkent by a gang, whose members included police officers, soldiers and itirafçılar[1]. He was subsequently killed by Murat Demir and Murat İpek and his body was thrown into the river Meriç, which forms part of the border between Turkey and Greece. In her letter, the applicant further ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1079", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6. The applicants were born in 1952 and 1961 respectively and both live in Moscow.\n7.  The applicants took part in the liquidation of the consequences of the nuclear accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. They were recognised as handicapped, becoming entitled to a special disability pension.\n8.  In 2000 the applicants brought a civil action against the social security authorities, claiming that the amounts of their disability pensions had not been properly calculated. They maintained that the social security authorities should have increased their pensions in line with the increase of the minimal wage in Russia, but failed to do so.\n9.  On 29 January 2001 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow satisfied their claims awarding the first applicant 11,568.98 Russian roubles (RUR), and the second applicant RUR 14,862.5. The arrears awarded to the applicants by the District Court constituted more than 58 per cent of the amounts received by the applicants from the social security authorities within the contested period. On 18 April 2001 this decision was upheld by the Moscow City Court.\n10.  Later this year the applicants brought a new action claiming the outstanding amounts of the disability pensions due to them for the period starting from January 2001. They also claimed penalties for the delayed payment of their pensions during this period.\n11.  On 21 June 2001 the Nikulinskiy District Court awarded the first applicant RUR 10,351 and the second applicant RUR 13,274 as the outstanding amount of their pensions for the period January – June 2001. The sums awarded by the District Court as arrears constituted approximately 50 per cent of the amount paid to the applicants by the social security authorities during this period. Both applicants were also entitled to penalties, to be recovered from the social security authorities. The penalties were calculated on the basis of the amounts due to the applicants for the period between January and June 2001. On 28 November 2001 this decision was upheld in the main by the Moscow City Court, which only reduced the amount of penalties to RUR 1,000 for each applicant.\n12.  On an unspecified date between May and September 2001 the applicants obtained writs of execution in respect of the first judgments of the Nikulinskiy District Court of January 2001. In December 2001 the applicants obtained execution writs in respect of the decisions rendered by the District Court in June 2001. These execution writs were forwarded to the bailiffs. However, for a certain period of time the judgments of the Nikulinskiy District Court remained unexecuted.\n13.  In December 2001 the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, which was in charge of the bailiffs, informed the applicants that the execution of the above judgments was conditional upon the availability of budgetary funds allocated for these purposes by the federal legislature and could not be carried out through the bailiffs. The applicants were advised to send their writs of execution directly to the Ministry of Finance, a State body in charge of distributing budgetary funds.\n14.  However, as follows from the letter of 5 March 2002, the Ministry of Finance was no longer responsible for distributing the pension funds. Consequently, in 2002 the execution writs were forwarded to the Ministry of Labour and Social Security.\n15.  In April 2002 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings. The applicants challenged the discontinuation, and on 1 November 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1080", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Torre del Greco (Naples).\n7.  She is the owner of a flat in Torre del Greco, which she had let to G.V.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 2 July 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1988 and summoned him to appear before the Torre del Greco Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 9 October 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Torre del Greco Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1989.\n10.  On 20 February 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 20 March 1990, she informed him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 May 1990.\n12.  Between 10 May 1990 and 13 September 1999, the bailiff made twenty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 3 March 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1081", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Hälleforsnäs.\n6.  As from 1990, the applicant received a pension from the Swedish State in addition to the pension she received from the Finnish State. By a decision of 10 February 1995 the Stockholm Social Insurance Office (försäkringskassan) fixed her Swedish pension at 3,754 Swedish kronor (SEK) per month. As from 1996 the applicant was attached to the Social Insurance Office in Flen. Apparently, in August 1997 the entry in the computerised pension register concerning her pension was changed so that, as from September 1997, she received a monthly pension of SEK 776 from Sweden. The applicant received a notice that the amount had been deposited on her bank account from the Flen office. Later investigations revealed that the entry in the pension register had been made by the Stockholm office. The applicant’s case file, however, disappeared and she did not receive a formal decision concerning the reduction of her pension. Nevertheless, on 29 October 1997 counsel for the applicant sent a letter to the National Social Insurance Board (Riksförsäkringsverket) demanding the revocation of the social-insurance office’s decision and the establishment of her right to an unchanged pension. On 13 November 1997 the Board forwarded this letter to the Flen office. On 30 October 1997 the applicant herself sent a letter to the Stockholm office, in which she complained that her pension had been reduced by more than SEK 3,000 without any decision in the matter having been taken. Following an internal inquiry regarding which office was to deal with the case, it was, on 10 February 1998, allocated to the Stockholm office. This office later asked the applicant to send all the decisions she had received in order to establish what had happened in the case. Apart from this and attempts to locate the case file, the offices did not take any further action.\n7.  On 23 June 1998 the applicant complained to the Chancellor of Justice (Justitiekanslern). She claimed that, despite her efforts, no action had been taken in her case by the authorities and that her possibility to appeal had thereby been blocked. By a decision of 9 May 2000 the Chancellor severely criticised the two social-insurance offices for their handling of the applicant’s case. He noted that, as the case file had gone missing, it was not possible to clarify who had decided in 1997 to reduce her pension or on which basis the decision had been taken. Although the applicant’s letters to the offices had to be seen as appeals or requests for review, no re-examination of the decision had been made. Noting that, due to the offices’ handling of the case, the applicant had been deprived of her right to appeal, the Chancellor found it striking that the offices had not yet taken any action to make possible a review of the decision.\n8.  On 23 August 2000 the Stockholm office produced a decision replacing the missing decision from September 1997. It noted that the pension decision of 10 February 1995 had been incorrect and that there were thus reasons to review it under chapter 20, section 10 a of the Social Insurance Act (Lagen om allmän försäkring, 1962:381). Having regard to the provisions of the Nordic Convention on Social Security (Nordiska konventionen om social trygghet) and the pension the applicant received from Finland, the office found that the applicant was entitled to a Swedish pension of SEK 776.\n9.  The applicant appealed to the County Administrative C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1082", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Warsaw.\n9.  The applicant’s parents owned a two-storey building in Warsaw. By virtue of the 1945 Decree on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw the Warsaw municipality (and after 1950 the State Treasury) became the owner of all plots of land located in Warsaw. The decree provided for a possibility to obtain the perpetual lease of a plot of land on request. On 23 November 1948 the applicant’s parents filed such a request. At the beginning of the 1950s they were deprived of the right to manage the property and forced to renounce the rent collected from their tenants.\n10.  On 5 July 1967 the Board of the Warsaw National Council examined their request lodged in 1948. It refused to grant the applicant’s parents the perpetual use (former perpetual lease) of the land and declared that the building located on that land had become the property of the State.\n11.  On 4 December 1967 the Ministry of Municipal Administration dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision. It found that the building in question was not a small one-family house, which would qualify it for exclusion from the so-called “communal administration” of properties, provided for by a law adopted in 1957. As the building was covered by that administration, the Ministry considered that granting the perpetual use of the land would have no justification.\n12.  On 17 June 1991 the applicant filed with the Ministry of Construction a request for the annulment of the decision of 4 December 1967. On 1 April 1992 the Minister refused the request, considering that the challenged decision had been issued in accordance with the law. The applicant appealed. On 23 July 1993 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed his appeal.\n13.  Subsequently, the First President of the Supreme Court filed with that court an extraordinary appeal against that judgment.\n14.  On 7 February 1995 the Supreme Court quashed the 1993 judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court and the decision of the Minister of Construction. It considered that they had relied on the conformity of the 1967 decisions with the “communal administration” of properties, whereas the law providing for such administration had been adopted after the date of lodging the request for perpetual lease and therefore could not apply to the circumstances of the case. The court observed that the 1945 decree obliged the municipality to grant requests for perpetual use of land unless the use of that land by its former owner would be incompatible with its function set forth in the development plan. The Supreme Court pointed out that the organs dealing with the applicant’s request had not examined the issue of such compatibility. It made reference to the constitutionally guaranteed protection of property, pointing out that the applicant’s property had been expropriated on unspecified legal grounds and no compensation had been awarded therefor.\n15.  On 24 August 1995 the Minister of Construction, having regard to the Supreme Court’s judgment, declared that the part of the decision of 4 December 1967 concerning those flats in the disputed building which had been already sold by the municipality to their tenants had been issued in breach of the law. However, it was impossible to declare the decision null and void since, under applicable law, if more than ten years had elapsed from the date on which such an unlawful decision had been given, the Minister could only declare that it had been issued i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1083", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Košice.\n5.  At the beginning of August 1994 the applicant’s wife left the applicant together with their two children. She sought a divorce from the applicant. Later the girl born to the couple started living with the applicant. The following relevant events occurred and decisions were taken in the case.\n6.  On 2 September 1994 the applicant’s wife brought proceedings with a view to determining the parental obligations in respect of the two children born to her and the applicant.\n7.  In December 1994 the Košice II District Court appointed a guardian to represent the children in the proceedings. It further requested information about the parents’ income and about the reputation of the plaintiff.\n8.  The court heard the parties on 20 January 1995. It decided to obtain further information. The information was submitted in the course of February and March 1995.\n9.  On 13 July 1995 the applicant claimed that the court should determine his right to meet his son. He also claimed that the children should be placed in his custody.\n10.  On 2 August 1995 the District Court instructed an expert in psychology to submit an opinion. Both the applicant and his wife challenged the decision concerning an advance payment of the expert’s costs. The file was submitted to the Košice Regional Court on 21 September 1995. The Regional Court decided on the appeals on 28 December 1995.\n11.  The District Court sent the file to the expert on 7 March 1996. The expert submitted her opinion on 3 April 1996.\n12.  On 26 April 1996 the District Court requested further information concerning the income of the parents. It held a hearing on 5 June 1996.\n13.  On 10 June 1996 the Košice II District Court decided that the girl born in 1984 should be in the custody of the applicant and the boy born in 1986 in the custody of his mother. It ordered the applicant to pay maintenance in respect of his son with effect from 1 August 1994 and decided on the parents’ right of access to the child in the other spouse’s custody.\n14.  On 8 July 1996 the applicant appealed and requested that the case should be dealt with by an appellate court in a different region. On 9 August 1996 the file was submitted to the Regional Court. After the Regional Court judges had made written comments on the applicant’s objection, the file was submitted, on 27 November 1996, to the Supreme Court. On 17 December 1996 the Supreme Court dismissed the request as there was no indication that the Košice Regional Court judges by whom the case fell to be examined lacked impartiality. On 28 January 1997 the Košice Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request, based on the same arguments, for exclusion of the District Court judge dealing with the case.\n15.  On 10 April 1997 the District Court asked the applicant’s employer to update information on the applicant’s income. On 15 April 1997 the District Court transmitted the applicant’s appeal to his wife with a request for comments. After further information was obtained from the plaintiff, the file was transferred to the appellate court on 6 May 1997.\n16.  On 2 September 1997 a public prosecutor decided to join the proceedings.\n17.  On 15 January 1998 the Košice Regional Court asked an administrative authority for information about the applicant’s son. The authority replied on 16 February 1998.\n18.  On 23 February 1998 the Košice Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment to the extent that it concerned the custo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1084", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1955 and currently lives in Gambia.\n9.  The applicant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault on his then 15 year-old stepdaughter, by a judgment of the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Hyvinkää issued on 27 September 1996. He was sentenced to eleven months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation amounting to 30,000 Finnish Marks (FIM; 5,045 euros (EUR)) to the complainant. The case was heard in camera before the District Court and the court documents were ordered to be kept secret until 27 September 2006.\n10.  The alleged offence (principally forced oral sex) had taken place repeatedly in the family home over a period of seven weeks beginning on 26 December 1994.\n11.  The pre-trial investigation of the alleged offence began when the complainant, i.e. the applicant’s stepdaughter, reported it to the police on 14 August 1996. Earlier the same month, she had mentioned the alleged offence on separate occasions to two confidantes.\n12.  The District Court heard the testimony of the complainant and of the aforesaid confidantes, as well as that of the defendant’s wife and of others more distantly connected with certain details pertaining to the matter. The defence disputed that the complainant and the applicant had ever been alone together in the place where the offence was alleged to have occurred. The evidence of the applicant’s wife did not support his claims in this respect.\nThe District Court also had before it a medical certificate issued by the physician who attended to the complainant because of an illness she had. This medical certificate charted the progress of her illness over the period from late 1992 until 1995. Although the physician was unable to draw from his observations any inference concerning the alleged offence, the District Court, according to the applicant, found that the medical certificate supported the complainant’s view in the matter.\n13.  On 28 October 1996 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), annexing his wife’s statement in which she changed her position so as to support the applicant. An oral hearing was also requested.\n14.  On 26 November 1996, i.e. after the expiry of the time-limit for adducing written submissions to the Court of Appeal pursuant to Chapter 26, section 25 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, the applicant’s ex-wife submitted a letter to the Court of Appeal, retracting her previous submission. She explained that she had instigated divorce proceedings and could now think more clearly about the events.\n15.  In its judgment of 1 July 1997 the Court of Appeal, without having held an oral hearing, upheld the District Court’s judgment.\n16.  The applicant learned about his ex-wife’s submission of 26 November 1996 and of her changed position from the Court of Appeal’s aforementioned judgment, in which it was stated as follows:\n“[The applicant’s ex-wife] has, in her statement submitted to the Court of Appeal, announced that she wants to retract her earlier written statement which was annexed to [the applicant’s] letter of appeal and which she had, in her view, signed under heavy pressure. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt that her statement given at the District Court was not accurate. It is manifestly unnecessary to request [the applicant’s] comments on the statement. ... Thus, the request to hold an oral hearing is rejected as unfounded.”\n17.  On 29 August 1997 the applicant applied to the Supreme Court (k", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1085", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Tychy, Poland.\n10.  He is a member and an employee of a labour co-operative (spółdzielnia pracy).\n11.  On 12 April 1991 he filed with the Warsaw Regional Court an action in which he requested the annulment of several resolutions adopted by the assembly of the representatives of the co-operative (walne zgromadzenie). The contested resolutions concerned the co-operative’s finances.\n12.  Between 1992 and 1995, in addition to the original claim, the applicant challenged other resolutions relating to the division of the yearly profits of the co-operative.\n13.  On 18 November 1992 the court heard two witnesses and ordered an expert opinion.\n14.  On 14 May 1993 the applicant extended his claim.\n15.  On 9 September 1993 an expert refused to prepare the opinion ordered by the court, relying on the applicant’s alleged lack of co-operation. The applicant submits that that allegation was not confirmed by the court.\n16.  At the hearing held on 15 October 1993 the court summoned the applicant to submit documents that could be of relevance to that opinion.\n17.  The opinion was submitted to the court in March 1994.\n18.  On 3 March 1994 the applicant modified his claim.\n19.  On 24 March 1994 the court issued a decision concerning the remuneration of the court expert. The decision was subsequently amended by the Warsaw Court of Appeal.\n20.  On 9 May 1994 the applicant extended his claim.\n21.  In a letter of 9 August 1994 the President of the Warsaw Court of Appeal admitted that the time-limit for preparing the expert opinion had not been observed by the expert and that there had been periods of inactivity on the part of the Regional Court. On 10 October 1994 the court refused the applicant’s request for exemption from court costs. On 13 December 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld that decision.\n22.  On 21 October 1994 and 4 April 1995 the applicant modified his claim.\n23.  According to the Government, on 19 May 1995 the court held a hearing. The applicant submits that it was adjourned because the defendant had not been duly summoned.\n24.  On 23 May 1995 the court dismissed the applicant’s subsequent request for exemption from court costs. On 3 October 1995 the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended in part that decision.\n25.  On 7 February 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing.\n26.  On 21 March and 1 July 1996 the applicant extended his claim.\n27.  The Government submit that the hearing scheduled for 4 December 1996 was adjourned, as the parties considered reaching a settlement. The applicant states that the court itself suggested the settlement of the case and gave the parties a time-limit to start negotiations. On 22 January 1997 the defendant informed the court that no settlement had been reached.\n28.  On 5 November 1997 the court held another hearing.\n29.  On 14 November 1997 it gave judgment in which it dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed.\n30.  On 24 April 1998 the Warsaw Court of Appeal gave judgment. It quashed a part of the first-instance court’s judgment and remitted the case in that part for re-examination. The applicant lodged with the Supreme Court a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal.\n31.  On 25 May 2001 the Supreme Court refused to admit that appeal.\n32.  Subsequently, pursuant to the judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal, some of the applicant’s claims were remitted to the Warsaw Regional Court for re-examination.\n33.  On 14 January 2002 the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1086", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, Mr Ion Roşca, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1943 and lives in Chişinău. He was a shareholder in a private bank.\n8.  In 1999 he had a disagreement with the bank as to the redemption of two thousand shares and consequently he brought an action against the bank, seeking compensation of 163,422 Moldovan Lei (MDL).\n9.  On 21 September 2000 the Râşcani District Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded him MDL 20,000. Both the applicant and the bank appealed against that judgment.\n10.  On 14 February 2001 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal but upheld the bank’s appeal. By its judgment it rejected the applicant’s claim. The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation.\n11.  On 17 April 2001 the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal in cassation and by its judgment ordered the bank to pay the applicant MDL 102,653 (the equivalent of 8,959 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment became final and enforceable on the same date.\n12.  In June 2001 the Prosecutor General’s Office filed a request for annulment of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 17 April 2001, and asked the Supreme Court of Justice to uphold the judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court of 14 February 2001.\n13.  On 11 July 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed the final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 17 April 2001. The judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court of 14 February 2001 became final.\n14.  On 22 October 2004, following a request by the Government Agent, the Prosecutor General’s Office applied to the Supreme Court of Justice for the revision of its judgment of 11 July 2001. The application was based on Article 449 (j) of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 17 below).\n15.  On 15 December 2004, by a final decision, the Supreme Court of Justice admitted the Prosecutor General’s revision application and quashed its judgment of 11 July 2001. It found the Prosecutor General’s request justified since inter alia the quashing of the final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 17 April 2001 constituted a breach of the principle of legal certainty and consequently was in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The judgment of 17 April 2001 became final again.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1087", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1954 and 1979, respectively, and live in Suhopolje, Croatia.\n8.  On 18 January 1992 the applicants' house in Suhopolje was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n9.  On 17 March 1995 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against the State in the Virovitica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Virovitici) seeking damages. They based their claim on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.\n10.  On 14 December 1995 the Municipal Court gave judgment dismissing the applicants' claim on its merits.\n11.  On 18 December 1995 the applicants appealed to the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru).\n12.  On 17 January 1996 Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.\n13.  On 29 February 1996 the County Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.\n14.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament introduced the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”).\n15.  It appears that the proceedings resumed on 3 October 2003, pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act.\n16.  On 4 December 2003 the case was transferred to the Virovitica County Court (Županijski sud u Virovitici) as the appellate court, due to changes in jurisdiction.\nIt appears that the proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1088", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Krasnoyarsk.\n9.  In January 1995 a limited liability company, Telemediaservice (“TMS”), hired the applicant as an accountant.\n10.  In 1996 TMS granted the applicant an interest-free loan for the purchase of a Toyota Land Cruiser car. The terms and conditions of the loan were set out in a loan agreement of 10 June 1996 signed by the applicant and the director-general of TMS, Mr Yevseyev. The loan was for 266,847,000 Russian roubles[*] (“RUR”) over a period of eighty-four months. On 13 June 1996 the total amount was transferred directly to the bank account of the car dealer.\n11.  On 30 September 1996 the State Road Inspectorate of the Krasnoyarsk Region registered the purchased car in the applicant's name.\n12.  According to an undated certificate signed by the new TMS director-general, Ms Yakovleva, the applicant reimbursed seven instalments of RUR 3,200 (after denomination) between June 1996 and January 1997 and one additional instalment of RUR 490 in May 1999, to the total of RUR 22,890.\n13.  On 27 November 1998 the Tsentralniy District Court of Krasnoyarsk convicted Mr Yevseyev and the applicant's husband, Mr Frizen, of large-scale fraud. The applicant was a witness at the trial. It was established that the accused, while holding managerial positions in the State telecommunication company MTTS, had founded the TMS company that acted as a broker in the procurement of telecommunication equipment for MTTS. They used the MTTS's funds to make advance payments under the contracts for the purchase of telephones signed by TMS and then sold these telephones to MTTS at inflated prices. The court found:\n“Being managers of MTTS, Frizen and Yevseyev... used their position... to take advantage of the cash flow of [the MTTS] for their personal gain. Moreover, relatives of the defendants were simultaneously employees of the TMS and MTTS and they received a salary from both companies. It was established by the court... that the salary of the TMS employees, loans and dividends were paid out of money that had been taken from [the MTTS]”.\n14.  The court noted that the applicant had not shown the loan agreement to the investigator and held:\n“As it was established by the court that the loans for the purchase of cars had been granted to Yevseyev and [the applicant] unlawfully, at the expense of [the MTTS], without appropriate documentation, the court considers it necessary to order forfeiture of the cars as compensation for the damage (обратить в возмещение ущерба)”.\n15.  The court sentenced both Mr Frizen and Mr Yevseyev to four years' imprisonment and issued confiscation orders in respect of their property. It also recovered RUR 4,076,387 from them and ordered forfeiture of the TMS company's cash funds and the applicant's and Mr Yevseyev's cars as compensation for the damage.\n16. In December 1997 the applicant's car was seized. On 12 April 1999 certain household items in the applicant's flat were also seized.\n17.  The applicant brought a civil action, seeking to lift the seizure order in respect of her household items and the car.\n18.  On 23 August 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk granted the applicant's action in respect of the household items but upheld the seizure of the car, finding as follows:\n“The court has established that on 10 June 1996 the TMS company and [the applicant] concluded a loan agreement, by the terms of which [the applicant] was granted a loan of RUR 266,847,000... It is", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1089", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in St. Petersburg.\n5.  On 1 March 1994 a State-owned construction company “Lengidroenergospetsstroy” (промышленное строительно-монтажное объединение «Ленгидроэнергоспецстрой», hereinafter “LenGESS”) and a private investment company “Severo-Zapadniy Soyuz” (АОЗТ ТПК «Северо-Западный Союз», hereinafter “SZS”) signed a contract, pursuant to which the LenGESS undertook to build a block of flats in St. Petersburg and the SZS was to finance the construction in part. By way of consideration, the SZS was to receive title to a certain number of flats in the completed construction. In order to raise funds, the SZS collected money from private investors who were to become the eventual owners of the flats.\n6.  In February 1996 the applicant signed a contract for the purchase of a flat with the SZS and paid the stipulated price in full.\n7.  It appears that, once the block of flats had been built, the LenGESS refused to transfer the stipulated number of flats to the SZS, claiming that the funding raised by the latter had been insufficient. In December 1997, the SZS sued the LenGESS before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St. Petersburg, seeking enforcement of the 1994 contract.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged two statements of claim against the LenGESS with the Vyborgskiy and the Primorskiy district courts of St. Petersburg, seeking a court order upholding his title to a flat.\n9.  On 19 November 1998 the Primorskiy District Court, on a request by the applicant, stayed the proceedings pending the judgment of the Vyborgskiy District Court. It appears that these proceedings have not been resumed yet.\n10.  On 24 December 1998 the applicant entered the proceedings before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court as a co-plaintiff against the LenGESS, seeking to obtain title to the flat for which he had paid the stipulated price.\n11.  On 23 February 1999 the Vyborgskiy District Court, on a request by the applicant, stayed the proceedings pending completion of the proceedings before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court. It appears that these proceedings have not been resumed yet.\n12.  As hearings before the Kuybyshevskiy Court were repeatedly adjourned, on 25 May 1999 the applicant complained about delays to the president of the St. Petersburg City Court. By a letter of 4 June 1999, the president of the St. Petersburg City Court replied that hearings were adjourned because of a substantial backlog of cases and because the judge to which the case had been assigned had gone on vacation. The president advised the applicant to ask the president of the Kuybyshevskiy District Court to transfer the case to another judge.\n13.  On 21 June 1999 the applicant requested the president of the Kuybyshevskiy District Court to transfer the case to another judge. On 24 June 1999 the president responded that reassignment was not feasible because of a large number of pending cases and the court's light schedule during the summer.\n14.  On 30 June 1999 the applicant complained about delays to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which forwarded the complaint to the St. Petersburg City Court for consideration. On 24 August 1999 a deputy president of the St. Petersburg City Court dismissed the complaint, noting that the problem of delays had to be solved by the Kuybyshevskiy District Court.\n15.  On an unspecified date the Kuybyshevskiy District Court fixed a hearing for 24 December 1999, it was subsequently adjourned until", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1090", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1958. He is presently detained in the Bobov Dol prison.\n9.  During the 1975‑88 period the applicant was convicted six times of various offences: theft, car theft, deserting military duties and possession of narcotic drugs.\n10.  In 1988 the applicant fled Bulgaria to Austria, travelling through the former Yugoslavia and Italy on a Yugoslav passport. The applicant submits that he left Bulgaria on 25 June 1988, but according to the Pernik District Court's judgment of 30 October 1989 (see paragraph 15 below) he committed a rape on 13 July 1988 and an attempted rape on 3 September 1988, both offences taking place in Bulgaria. In 1990 the applicant settled in the United States of America, where he lived until 1999.\n11.  On 13 September 1988 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant on charges of rape. There is no indication – and it has not been argued by the Government – that the applicant was notified of the proceedings.\n12.  On 16 November 1988 the proceedings were stayed, most probably because the applicant was abroad. The proceedings resumed on 29 June 1989 and thereafter were conducted in the applicant's absence.\n13.  On 7 September 1989 the Pernik District Prosecutor's Office submitted an indictment against the applicant to the Pernik District Court.\n14.  The court held a hearing on 30 October 1989. The applicant was represented by an ex officio counsel, as mandated by Article 70 § 1 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”).\n15.  In a judgment of 30 October 1989 the Pernik District Court found the applicant guilty of rape and attempted rape and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. The court found that on 13 July 1988 the applicant had decoyed a Mrs D.K., who vaguely knew him, into following him into a house, where he had threatened and beaten her into having sexual intercourse with him. The court also found that on 3 September 1988 the applicant had decoyed, in a similar manner, an acquaintance of his, a Ms S.V., had likewise threatened and heavily beaten her and had cut her with a knife. She had, however, managed to break out, thus avoiding sexual intercourse with the applicant. The court based its findings of fact on the testimony of Mrs D.K., Ms S.V., Mrs D.K.'s husband, two other witnesses, medical reports and other written evidence, including two notes written by the applicant himself.\n16.  No appeal having been lodged against the judgment, it came into force on 14 November 1989.\n17.  On 16 January 1997 the Pernik District Court's case‑file, containing all documents relevant to the proceedings, was destroyed. Only a copy of the judgment was kept in the archive of the court.\n18.  On 21 November 1989 the Pernik District Prosecutor's Office transmitted a copy of the judgment to the police with a view to the applicant's apprehension for the purpose of enforcing his sentence. The letter accompanying the judgment stated that the applicant was believed to be in Austria, but his exact whereabouts were unknown.\n19.  On 25 April 1990 the Pernik District Prosecutor's Office sent a copy of the judgment to the Chief Prosecutor's Office with a view to the applicant's extradition from Austria. On 14 May 1990 the Chief Prosecutor's Office wrote back to the Pernik District Prosecutor's Office, stating that the legal cooperation treaty between Bulgaria and Austria contained no provisions for assistance in criminal cases, and that therefore there was no possibility to request the applicant's e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1091", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants, Mr Zülfi Akkum, Mr Hüseyin Akan and Mrs Rabia Karakoç, are Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin and were born in 1944, 1928 and 1930 respectively. They are the father, brother and mother of Mehmet Akkum, Mehmet Akan and Derviş Karakoç, who were killed, allegedly by members of the security forces, on 10 November 1992. At the time of their deaths the applicants’ relatives were respectively 29, 70 and 33 years of age.\n9.  The facts of the case, particularly concerning events which took place on 10 November 1992, are disputed by the parties.\n10.  The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 12-29). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 30-34). The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 35-97).\n11.  The Commission, in order to establish the facts disputed by the parties, conducted an investigation with the assistance of the parties, pursuant to former Article 28 § 1 (a) of the Convention. It appointed three delegates who took evidence in Ankara from 10 March 1997 to 13 March 1997. They interviewed the second and the third applicants as well as the following 17 witnesses: Abdurrahman Karakoç, Güllü Güzel-Karakoç, Zeliha Karakoç, Hayriye Karaman, Hacire Ceylan, Hüseyin Yılmaz, Alaattin Aydın, Koray Türkan, Nihat Turan, Ömer Faruk Köksal, Hüseyin Bakır, Ersan Topaloğlu, Mürşit Yılmaz, Muhammed Özdemir, Tuncer Arpacı, Murat Koç and finally Ramazan Dal. A summary of the oral evidence given by these witnesses is found in Section E below (paragraphs 98-174).\nThe first applicant, Zülfi Akkum, and Hediye Akelma Akodun were also summoned but did not appear before the Commission’s delegates. Mr Akkum’s lawyer explained that Zülfi Akkum feared for his life and that for that reason he did not want to give evidence before the delegates. Hediye Akelma Akodun, an alleged eye-witness to the events in question whose name was put forward by the applicants, also did not wish to give evidence before the delegates. She did not give any reasons for this. Finally, Mehmet Güranioğlu, who was the mayor of the town of Dicle at the relevant time and whose name was put forward by the applicants, failed to appear before the delegates.\n12.  The applicants Zülfi Akkum and Hüseyin Akan are from the village of Kurşunlu, located within the administrative jurisdiction of the district of Dicle, near Diyarbakır. Rabia Karakoç is from the hamlet of Kayaş in the village of Kırkpınar, which is also in the Dicle district.\n13.  The village of Kurşunlu and the hamlet of Kayaş are located in a fairly mountainous region and approximately 45 minutes’ walk from each other. Close to Kurşunlu village and about an hour’s walk from Kayaş is the Kurşunlu plain. This plain is completely flat with very little growth. It is surrounded, however, by mountains, which are forested in part. The plain and the surrounding mountainside were used by the Kurşunlu villagers for grazing their animals. To the north of the Kurşunlu plain, about two and a half hours’ walk from Kayaş, is the village of Çevrecik. To the south-east of Kurşunlu village is the village of Kelekçi, where on 10 November 1992 security forces burned down the houses of nine villagers, including that of the village headman (muhtar) Hüseyin Akdıvar (see Akdıvar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV).\n14. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1092", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Mank/Austria.\n9.  A., the applicant's brother, died on 1 December 1988. He had been a farmer and the owner of a farm. On 23 December 1998 the competent court was informed about A.'s death and, subsequently, appointed a notary public as court commissioner (Gerichtskommissär).\n10.  On 22 and 23 February 1989 the applicant and eight other persons entitled to the estate of A. appeared before the notary public in Ybbs and made conditional declarations of acceptance of succession (bedingte Erbserklärung).\n11.  On 23 February, 28 March and in April 1989 three experts submitted opinions on the value of the farm.\n12.  On 28 July 1989 the applicant's sister M. argued that the farm was a hereditary one (Erbhof) within the meaning of the Agricultural Succession Act 1958 (Anerbengesetz) and filed an application to be appointed as its principal heir (Anerbin).\n13.  On 22 September 1989 an expert submitted his opinion and concluded that the farm should not be considered hereditary.\n14.  On 2 October 1989 the applicant requested to be appointed as principal heir.\n15.  On 28 December 1989 the Ybbs District Court (Bezirksgericht) found that the farm did not qualify as a hereditary one because it could not provide a living for five adults as required under the applicable law. Further, it found the declarations of acceptance to be valid and appointed all nine statutory heirs as heirs to A.'s estate (Einantwortungsurkunde) but dismissed the requests by the applicant and M. to be appointed principal heirs. On 9 January 1990 the applicant appealed.\n16.  On 21 February 1990 the St. Pölten Regional Court (Landesgericht) quashed the District Court's decision and remitted the case to it. It found that the issue whether the farm qualified as hereditary within the meaning of the Agricultural Succession Act 1958 had not been sufficiently determined. The other heirs appealed.\n17.  On 18 October 1990 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Regional Court's finding.\n18.  On 31 December 1990 the District Court transmitted the file to the public notary for supplementary investigations. On 28 February 1991 an expert submitted an additional opinion.\n19.  On 8 April 1991 the District Court decided to request an additional expert opinion, which it obtained on 12 September 1991.\n20.  On 17 October 1991 the District Court, having heard an agricultural expert, found that the farm qualified as a hereditary one under the Agricultural Succession Act 1958. Five parties appealed.\n21.  On 4 March 1992 the Regional Court dismissed the appeals and, on 27 Mai 1992, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law and confirmed that the Agricultural Succession Act 1958 was applicable.\n22.  Subsequently the District Court held hearings on 7 September and 9 November 1992. It heard several agricultural experts in order to clarify whether M. or the applicant qualified as principal heir. On 13 January and 11 March 1993 the court obtained further expert opinions.\n23.  From April to June 1993 forest pest control measures were carried out in the forest belonging to the farm. As the parties of the hereditary proceedings did not reach an agreement, an estate curator (Verlassenschaftskurator) was appointed and the succession proceedings were suspended.\n24.  On 8 September 1993 the District Court dismissed the applicant's request to be appointed as principal heir. It found that he did not qualify as such because he already owned pa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1093", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1937 and 1947 respectively and live in Plovdiv.\n10.  The applicants own the first floor of a house with a yard in Plovdiv. In May 1992 the owners of a neighbouring building started reconstructing it without obtaining the necessary permission from the building control authorities. The works were presented as a reconstruction of an existing house, but it seems that in fact the old building was pulled down and replaced by a higher and larger structure.\n11.  In May and June 1992 the applicants filed complaints with the mayor and the chief architect of the municipality. They alleged that their consent for the construction had not been obtained and that the plan of the new building did not meet the relevant legal requirements.\n12.  On an unspecified date the municipal authorities ordered the suspension of the construction. The building plan was modified and the modifications were communicated to the applicants.\n13.  On 7 September 1992 the applicants submitted objections against their neighbours' request for legalisation of the construction.\n14.  On 19 January 1993 the municipal authorities dismissed the applicants' objections.\n15.  By a decision of 18 March 1993 the construction was legalised.\n16.  On 14 June 1993 the applicants appealed against the 18 March 1993 legalisation decision to the Plovdiv Regional Court.\n17.  At the first hearing, which took place on 15 July 1993, the applicants requested the court to constitute their neighbours as defendants, alongside the municipality of Plovdiv. The court acceded to their request and adjourned the case.\n18.  The second hearing was held on 23 August 1993. Pursuant to a request by the applicants the court ordered a technical expert report on the question whether the construction had been effected in compliance with the relevant technical rules.\n19.  The third hearing took place on 29 December 1993. One of the defendants stated that he had not received a copy of the applicants' appeal and requested an adjournment. The first applicant requested a graphological expert report to determine whether a signature appearing in the municipal records, relating to the construction, was in fact his. The court acceded to the parties' requests and adjourned the case.\n20.  The next hearing was held on 11 April 1994. The court admitted in evidence the technical and the graphological experts' reports and questioned the experts. The applicants' neighbours requested a new technical expert report to be drawn up by three experts. The court agreed and adjourned the case.\n21.  A hearing listed for 30 June 1994 failed to take place because one of the defendants could not attend.\n22.  At the next hearing, which took place on 26 October 1994, the three experts presented their report. Finding that they had failed to examine certain relevant documents, the court instructed them to do so and also asked them an additional question, as requested by the defendants. The case was adjourned.\n23.  The last hearing before the Plovdiv Regional Court took place on 25 January 1995. The court admitted the three experts' report and certain other documents in evidence. It also heard the parties' closing arguments and reserved judgment.\n24.  In a judgment of 30 June 1995 the Plovdiv Regional Court dismissed the applicants' appeal.\n25.  On 24 August 1995 the applicants lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court.\n26.  Noting that the applicants had not paid the requisite fee, the court instructed them t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1094", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bad Mitterndorf, Austria.\n9.  On 16 September 1989 the applicant was the victim of an assault and was heavily injured. He was brought to the Bad Aussee Hospital (Landeskrankenhaus) where he received medical treatment as he suffered from pulmonary disease. The applicant underwent an operation and was transferred to the Graz Hospital where another operation was carried out. After this medical treatment the applicant's ability to work was considerably reduced. He became unemployed and was without income.\n10.  On 27 November 1992 he instituted civil proceedings against the Steiermärkische Krankenanstalten Gesellschaft mbH, the company which administers public hospitals in the region of Styria. He claimed damages for pain and suffering and loss of profit. He alleged that medical malpractice had caused his state of health and that the surgeons treating him had infringed their duty to provide explanations and advice concerning the treatment.\n11.  The Leoben Regional Court (Landesgericht) held eight hearings between 12 January, 1993 and 15 December 1994. It heard numerous witnesses and medical experts. On 30 September 1993 the applicant challenged one of the experts. However, his challenge was dismissed on 14 October 1993.\n12.  On 15 December 1994 the Regional Court gave a partial judgment (Teilurteil). It considered the claim for damages to be well-founded in principle (dem Grunde nach), while the exact amount of compensation had to be determined in further proceedings. It found that the surgeons treating the applicant had infringed their duty to provide explanations and advice concerning the treatment.\n13.  On 3 February 1995 the defendant filed an appeal against this judgment and on 5 March 1995 the applicant commented on this appeal.\n14.  On 22 June 1995 the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal.\n15.  On 22 November 1995 the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal on points of law (außerordentliche Revision). Thus, the judgment finding the applicant's claim to be well-founded in principle became final.\n16.  Between 8 March 1996 and 10 January 1997 the Regional Court, presided by another judge, held five hearings, at which it heard further medical experts. The issue to be clarified at this stage of the proceedings was the level of the applicant's ability to work before the incident and the extent to which the medical treatment received at the hospitals influenced his ability to work. On the basis of these findings, the amount of compensation due had to be assessed.\n17.  On 23 October 1996 the applicant amended and extended his claim.\n18.  On 10 January 1997 the Regional Court ordered a medical expert to submit his opinion. On 28 May and on 17 June 1997 the Court urged the expert to deliver his opinion.\n19.  On 18 June 1997 the applicant filed a request under Section 91 (Fristsetzungsantrag) of the Courts Act (Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz) and asked the Court of Appeal to set a time-limit for the delivery of a medical expert report as the appointed expert had not submitted his report for more than five months.\n20.  On 2 July 1997 the Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's request and fixed a four weeks' time-limit for the delivery of the report.\n21.  On 7 July 1997 the expert submitted the opinion. Subsequently, the parties were invited to comment on it.\n22.  On 24 November 1997 the Regional Court held another hearing and appointed a further expert. On 25 March 1998 the new exp", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1096", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Ankara. He is a lawyer and a former member of the Turkish Grand National Assembly.\n10.  The applicant wrote a novel entitled “The Heat of Şiro” (Şiro'nun Ateşi). The book was based on real events which took place in Ormaniçi village in the province of Şırnak. The book was published in September 1997 by the Berfin Publishing Company.\n11.  On 14 October 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court requested the seizure of copies of the book. The public prosecutor contended that the content of the book incited hatred and hostility by making distinctions between Turkish citizens based on grounds of their ethnic or regional identity.\n12.  On 14 October 1997 a single judge of the State Security Court accepted the submissions of the public prosecutor and made an interim order for the seizure of copies of the first edition of the book. In its decision (no. 1997/442), the State Security Court held that the book, by attributing extremely disgusting acts to the security forces, identified with names and rank, incited people to hatred and hostility by making distinctions between Turkish citizens based on grounds of their ethnic or regional identity. The court further held that, while artistic expression fell within freedom of expression, that freedom was not absolute and that the dissemination of distasteful and disgusting texts by way of a novel could not be considered to be artistic expression.\n13.  According to the applicant, copies were then seized. However, the seizure protocol drafted by the police and signed by the owner of the publishing company on 15 October 1997 recorded that copies of the book were not found.\n14.  The Government in their observations drew attention to following passages on pages 202 and 203 of the book:\n“... Ah, I wish I were strong like before so that I could catch Mizrak in the meadow of Bana. Then he would have understood what the world is like. I would have stripped him under the summer sun; I would have had him walk before Kümeyt and whipped him all day long.\n - Then how would you be any different from those tyrants? No matter who does it, cruelty is an ugly thing. Whether it is you or the fox. It does not matter. Cruelty is such a dishonourable thing that, whoever does it, is not a human being.\n - I swear that I would turn him inside out. If I had only caught him then he would have understood. I swear upon your head that I would have put a rope around his neck and walked him naked all around Ankara, then I would have skinned him and filled him up with salt, as an example to all tyrants.\n - Then you, Şiro, would become the Mizrak of the Bana. Our Mizrak or somebody else's Mizrak, what difference does it make? People like Mizrak should not exist in Bana, Ankara, Damascus or anywhere else. These kind of people contaminate the world. They destroy love and brotherhood.\n - I beg you Brother, why do you talk like this? There is no other way to fight these tyrants! You have to talk to them in their own language; there is no other way!\n - I used to think just like you, Şiro. However, I went there and realised that Mizrak is not alone.\n - See, you have to make all of them disappear; you have to kill all of them.\n - You cannot terminate it by killing them. There are too many to kill. Whomsoever you want to kill is only the cog of the machine. Even if you break the cog of the machine there are too many degenerated people out there waiting to become the cog! Whe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1097", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Mardin.\n9.  On 29 September 1980 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.\n10.  On 7 January 1981 the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand.\n11.  On 14 September 1981 the public prosecutors' office at the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter, accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation. The public prosecutors' office requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  On 19 February 1985 the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court convicted the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to twenty-four years' imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 §1 of the Criminal Code. Before the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court the applicant was tried together with 623 other suspects.\n13.  On 10 April 1990 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court on the ground that the latter had misinterpreted the domestic law in respect of the offence in question.\n14.  On 29 July 1990 the applicant was released from detention.\n15.  Subsequent to promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Courts, the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the applicant's case.\n16.  On 13 July 1998 the Diyarbakır Assize Court ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1098", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, the СJSC “Ukrainian Media Group” (ЗАТ “Українська Прес-Група”), is a privately owned legal entity, registered and situated in Kyiv, Ukraine. It owns a daily newspaper The Day (газета “День”).\n10.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n11.  On 21 August 1999 The Day published an article by Ms Tetyana E. Korobova entitled “Is this a second Yurik for poor Yoriks, or a Ukrainian version of Lebed?” The article read as follows:\n“Epigraph: All of this is about her, our Natasha as well as yours. About the position that a progressive socialist, Natalia Vitrenko, may or may not hold - depending on which of the scenarios from Bankova [the name of the street where the President's Administration is situated] will eventually win the “tender” offered by office No. 1. Certainly, allowing for a certain margin of error, it will be possible to forecast which of the nominees would be easier to manipulate from the said office.\nThe first version [concerning her position] was predicted by The Day as far back as the spring, and was based on the assumption that, from the point of view of Bankova, Petro Symonenko [leader of the Communist Party] was not “nice or bright” enough for the role of “a scarecrow” in the pre-election scenario à la russe: “the reformer against the red threat”. Natalia Vitrenko, with her “Uranium mines”, and Volodymyr Marchenko are much more impressive and the best political scientists and sociologists told us, therefore, that she was the only person able to defeat Kuchma in the second round of the elections with a predicted 33 % of the poll. Political scientists and sociologists were soon proved wrong and Natalia Vitrenko's rating substantially decreased. However, this is due perhaps to the freedom of scientific debate and discord around the main body [that of the President] rather than Ms Vitrenko's real ratings. Of course, it is hard to believe that one third of the country's population, watching a TV programme where Natasha battered a deputy who had been knocked to the floor with the help of Marchenko's fists, would choose not to call an ambulance and medical help, but instead would race to vote for “progressive socialism”. It is evident, however, that the “Zhirinovsky percentage” of 10-11% is a normal result in a normal country, but not one where the society is mainly composed of sick people and beggars ... Natalia Vitrenko's special role was confirmed by the “painful” recounting of the number of signatures in support of her [registration as a candidate] at the Central Electoral Committee (CEC). Today the highly respected President of the CEC, Mr Mykhaylo Ryabets, told us how wrong the Supreme Court was when it ignored the required one million signatures and compelled the CEC to register the nominated candidates for the position of President in neglect of this norm. But only recently the same Ryabets shared his insights with the public which, if translated from the confidential-emotional language used, could sound like this: all the candidates registered by the CEC (acting on its own!) should not have been registered, because if the signatures submitted by the nominees had been subjected to serious scrutiny, none of the candidates, including Kuchma, would have withstood verification. What then was the criterion? Was it a presumption on the part of the CEC and its President about which scenario would be the best at the pre-election stage? For the CEC as well, apparently, it", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1099", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. In 1991, the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü), a State body responsible, inter alia, for motorway construction, expropriated four plots of land belonging to the applicants in Ankara in order to build the Ankara Central Motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the sum so fixed was paid to them when the expropriation took place.\n5.  Following the applicants' requests for increased compensation, on 2 February 1995 the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance awarded them additional compensation of 2,752,155,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 7,483 euros (EUR)), plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decisions, running from 1 August 1992.\n6.  On 22 December 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 2 February 1995.\n7.  On 19 January 1998 the decision of the Court of Cassation was served on the applicants.\n8.  On 18 March 1998 the administration paid the applicants TRL 7,614,418,000 (approximately EUR 20,705) in additional compensation together with interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1100", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a Polish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Wodzisław.\n8.  In October 1995 a local branch of the Christian-National Association published a political leaflet entitled “Wodzisławianin”, which contained a following note, written by the applicant:\n“The inhabitants of Wodzisław wonder why the lists of the local election commissions [for the coming 1995 presidential election] have not been made public in the city hall, as used to be the case.\nWe have the answer to this question: the composition of nine election committees was determined in a secret vote held by the [Wodzisław] Municipal Council, and the councillors elected themselves to hold posts [in these commissions]. Sixteen persons [who were not members of the Council] were not elected, including four representatives of the lower councils, three women [...] who are all respectable citizens.\nThe payment for the work in the election commission is PLZ 1,500,000, which is equivalent to two thirds of [unemployment benefit], ...\nInhabitants of Wodzisław! When you go to the polls, remember that the election committee No. 8 in P. will be composed of, among others, Mr [...] and Mr J. K., which means that [by receiving their payment] they would take away from you 1,5 tons of coal for this winter, while at the same time they obtain 8 to 10 per cent of the average national salary as remuneration for their work as councillors of the Municipal Council. [...]”\n9.  A list of other municipal councillors who would participate in the election committees followed, each name accompanied by a designation of certain goods, such as 500 loaves of bread or 200 bus tickets, worth PLZ 1,500,000 at that time, which, according to the leaflet, they would thus “take away” from the reader.\n10.  The note went on to say:\n“Remember! You could have received this money yourself. That money is to be paid from taxes you have paid.\nThe municipal councillors, whom you elected, are poor and concerned, above all, about their own interest and that of their families.\nYou, as a lesser member of the local society, should be thankful that your councillor has informed you about the possibility of earning additional income, that he elected himself to the local election committee, that he put his power to a legitimate use in the interest of the community, and that he thereby revealed the truth about himself”.\n11.  Subsequently J.K. lodged with the Jędrzejów District Court a private bill of indictment against the applicant, complaining that the leaflet was defamatory.\n12.  At the first hearing, held on 25 January 1996, J.K. expressed willingness to settle the case, but the applicant declined to do so. At the hearing on 26 June 1996 the plaintiff again proposed to settle the matter amicably. The applicant refused.\n13.  At the same hearing the court heard statements from the applicant and the plaintiff. The applicant refused to acknowledge that by publishing the impugned statements he had committed an offence. When interviewed by the court, he confirmed that he had written the contested text.\n14.  The court examined as witnesses requested by the prosecution a saleswoman from the kiosk where the applicant had left the leaflets to be taken by its clients and R.B., a journalist who had written an article about the way in which the public had reacted to the leaflet.\n15.  The applicant requested the court to admit in evidence the testimony of W.C. as to the contents of the impugned leaflet. He also asked the court to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1101", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Liptovský Mikuláš.\n9.  The father of the applicant owned a residential house. At some point in the late 1940s or early 1950s the house was expropriated and attributed to a State company. The applicant's father died in 1959.\n10.  On 23 January 1991 the applicant lodged a demand with the State company for restoration of the house to her under the Extra‑Judicial Rehabilitations Act (Law no. 87/1991 Coll.).\n11.  On 25 March 1992 the applicant filed a claim against the State company with the Liptovský Mikuláš District Court (Okresný súd) for the restitution of the house. In response to the District Court's request the applicant clarified and supplemented her original submission on 4 November 1992.\n12.  On 9 September 1993 the applicant submitted a further specification of the subject‑matter of her action.\n13.  On 14 September 1993 the District Court held a hearing.\n14.  By a submission of 23 September 1993 the applicant restated the scope of the subject‑matter of her action.\n15.  On 7 October 1993 the District Court held a hearing and granted the action.\n16.  On 3 November 1993 the judgment was sent by registered mail to both parties. The State company confirmed receipt of the judgment by signing a postal delivery card (doručenka) indicating 22 November 1993 as the date of service.\n17.  On 6 December 1993 the State company filed an appeal to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court (Krajský súd). It claimed that the District Court's judgment had been served on it on 22 November 1993.\n18.  On 23 December 1993 the applicant filed her observations in reply to the appeal.\n19.  On 11 January 1994 the District Court transmitted the case‑file to the Regional Court for a determination of the appeal. On 14 March 1994 the Regional Court returned the case‑file to the District Court as the latter had failed to collect the court fee from the appellant State company. On 25 August 1994 the District Court re‑submitted the appeal to the Regional Court after having collected the court fee.\n20.  On 17 November 1994 the Regional Court held a hearing on the appeal, quashed the District Court's judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for re‑examination.\n21.  On 11 January 1995 the District Court requested the parties to submit further evidence and especially the Decree of 8 July 1950 on nationalisation of the estate of the applicant's father (the “Nationalisation Decree of 1950”). On 19 February 1995 the applicant submitted evidence and informed the District Court that she was still searching for the Nationalisation Decree of 1950 and that she would submit it as soon as it was found.\n22.  On 9 March 1995 the applicant informed the District Court that, according to reports of 16 February and 2 March 1995 from the Slovakian National Archive and the Liptovský Mikuláš District Library, respectively, the Nationalisation Decree of 1950 could not be found there.\n23.  On 14 September 1995 the applicant appointed a lawyer to represent her in the proceedings.\n24.  On 11 October 1995 the Ministry of Administration and Privatisation of National Property (Ministerstvo pre správu a privatizáciu národného majetku) decided under the Act on the Transfer of State Property to Private Persons (Law no. 92/1991 Coll., as amended) to privatise the subsidiary of the State company whose assets comprised the house. The State company was transformed into a private joint stock company (“the privatised company”). Its assets were transfer", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1102", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Poreč.\n5.  On 7 January 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Virovitica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Virovitici) against the insurance company C. seeking payment on the basis of an insurance contract.\n6.  On 22 February 1996 the applicant’s claim was dismissed. The applicant appealed against the judgment on 20 March 1996.\n7.  On 18 July 1996 the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru) dismissed his appeal and upheld the first instance judgment.\n8.  On 7 October 1996 the applicant filed a request for revision on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske). The Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request on 7 June 2001. The judgment was served on the applicant on 24 October 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1103", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Lefkoşa, in the northern Cyprus, “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”).\n13.   The application concerns the killing of the applicant's husband, Mr Kutlu Adalı, by unknown persons. The applicant made serious allegations about the involvement of Turkish and/or “TRNC” agents in the murder. She further complained of the inadequacy of the investigation launched by the “TRNC” authorities into the death of Kutlu Adalı. She contended that her husband had received death threats on several occasions because of his articles and political opinions. The applicant further complained that following the death of her husband she had been subjected to continuing practices of harassment, intimidation and discrimination by the “TRNC” authorities. In this connection, she referred to several incidents.\n14.  The Government denied all allegations concerning the murder of Kutlu Adalı. They maintained that the “TRNC” authorities had immediately commenced an investigation into his death, and had conducted a thorough investigation. However, the perpetrators of the crime had not yet been identified. The Government also rejected the applicant's allegations of harassment and submitted that these submissions were of mere speculation.\n15.  The facts surrounding the killing of the applicant's husband and the alleged practices of harassment, intimidation and discrimination by the “TRNC” authorities are disputed between the parties.\n16.  The facts as submitted by the applicant are set out in Section 1 below. The facts as submitted by the Government are contained in Section 2.\n17.  A summary of the documents submitted by the parties is to be found in the Annex. The witness evidence taken by the Court's Delegates at hearings counducted in Strasbourg and Nicosia is summarised in Part B.\n18.  The applicant's husband, Mr Kutlu Adalı, was a Turkish Cypriot writer and journalist who was known for having written and published articles strongly criticising the policies and practices of the Turkish Government and the authorities of the “TRNC”. He had always claimed that Cyprus should not be divided and that Turkish and Greek Cypriots should live in a united republic based on a pluralist democratic system.\n19.  Apart from his writing and journalism, Mr Kutlu Adalı had also held various civil service posts in the past. Between 1961 and 1972 he was employed as the private secretary to Mr Rauf Denktaş, who later became the President of the “TRNC”. In 1972 Mr Adalı's salary was suspended because he had wished to write an article about policies of Mr Denktaş with which he disagreed.\n20.  At that time, Mr Denktaş wanted the applicant's husband, Kutlu Adalı, to work for a radio station called Bayrak (Flag), which was under the control of the Turkish Resistance Movement. Mr Kutlu Adalı refused to work for this radio station and was imprisoned without any charge or trial for one week because of his refusal. After his release, he started to work for the Bayrak radio station in order for his salary to be restored.\n21.  In 1974 Mr Adalı was appointed to the post of Head of the Identity Cards Section of the Department for the Registration of the Population. In December 1979 he was suspended, and was reinstated in 1986, when he was given the post of adviser in the Tourist Office of the “TRNC”. His career as a civil servant ended in 1987, when he was compelled to take early retirement at the age of 50.\n22.  During his public service and afte", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1104", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Mr Evgen Nevmerzhitsky, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in Kyiv in 1970 and currently resides there. He was formerly the manager of a branch of the Poltava Bank in Kyiv. The applicant was represented by Mr Portyanik, a lawyer practising in Kyiv.\n9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  On 28 September 1995 police officers seized 184,761 US dollars (USD) that had been stored by the applicant on the premises of the Poltava Bank in readiness for their sale to a customer, Y.G.L.\n11.  On 18 October 1995 the Investigative Division of the main department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in Kyiv (“the Investigative Division”) began a criminal investigation into allegations of unlawful currency transactions that had allegedly been committed by the applicant.\n12.  On 8 April 1997 the Investigative Department initiated criminal proceedings in respect of the involvement of the applicant and other suspects in the case. On the same date an investigator from the division decided that the applicant should be detained as a suspect pending a decision concerning the appropriate preventive measure. He was accordingly placed in custody that day.\n13.  On 14 April 1997 an investigator from the Investigative Division charged the applicant with, inter alia, engaging in unlawful currency transactions (Article 80 § 2 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code 1960 – hereafter the “UCC”), theft of substantial amounts of currency (Article 86-1 of the UCC) and tax evasion (Article 148-5 § 2 of the UCC).\n14.  On 8 December 1997 and 2 March 1998 the applicant was additionally charged with abuse of power by an official (Articles 165 § 2 and 166 § 3 of the UCC) and fraud and forgery committed by an official (Articles 172 § 2 and 194 §§ 1 and 3 of the UCC).\n15.  Between 15 January and 14 April 1998 the applicant lodged applications with the Investigative Department for a medical examination and challenged the appointment of the investigator. On 7 April 1998 the General Prosecution Service of Ukraine instructed the investigator to arrange for the applicant's medical examination. The doctors who examined the applicant recommended that he should receive medical treatment in a facility run by the Ministry of Health due to various diseases that he suffered from, including the skin infections of scabies and eczema.\n16.  On 13 March 1998 the investigator charged the applicant with offences under Articles 80 § 2, 86-1, 148-5 § 2, 166 § 3, 170 § 1, 172 § 2 and 194 § 3 of the UCC.\n17.  On 8 September 1998 the investigation into the case was completed and the accused, including the applicant, were allowed to inspect the case-file. On 9 August 1999 the accused finished their inspection.\n18.  On 9 August 1999 the criminal case-file was sent to the Kyiv Prosecution Service for approval of the indictment.\n19.  On 13 August 1999 the prosecution service transmitted the case to the Kyiv City Court (the “City Court”).\n20.  On 27 August 1999 the Moskovsky District Court of Kyiv rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant's complaint against the investigator of the Investigative Department, in which he had claimed that the investigator had acted unlawfully and requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against him for abuse of power.\n21.  On 1 November 1999 the City Court remitted the case to the prosecution service for an additional investigation (додаткове розслідування). On 5 November 1999 it lodged a separa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1105", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Nagymaros, Hungary.\n9.  In 1994 the applicant married Ms C.M., who is a national of both Romania and Hungary. On 16 February 1995 their daughter V. was born. The parents had joint custody in respect of the child, according to Hungarian law. They lived in Nagymaros.\n10.  In December 1998 they visited the wife’s family in Romania. The applicant returned to Hungary, while C.M. stayed in Romania with V. and promised to return by 30 January 1999.\n11.  On 4 January 1999 C.M. filed for divorce, custody of V. and maintenance before the Satu Mare District Court in Romania. On 17 January 1999, she informed the applicant by telephone that she had decided to live in Romania and would not allow him to take V. to Hungary, despite him still being her husband and having joint custody of their daughter.\n12.  In a decision of 8 October 2003, the Satu Mare District Court established the residence of the child with her mother, pending the outcome of the divorce proceedings and required the applicant to pay alimony for his daughter. It also granted the applicant visiting rights to his child. On 19 February 2004 the decision became final.\n13.  In the meantime, on 20 January 1999 the applicant submitted a request for the return of his daughter to Hungary under Article 3 of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”). The request was submitted through the Hungarian Ministry of Justice (“the Hungarian Ministry”) to the Romanian Ministry of Justice (“the Romanian Ministry”). He argued that V. was the victim of international kidnapping and had been retained in Romania unlawfully within the meaning of Article 72 § 1 of the Hungarian Code on Family Law.\n14.  The Romanian Ministry, acting as the Central Authority responsible for the obligations established by the Hague Convention, instituted proceedings on behalf of the applicant before the Satu Mare District Court. On 8 June 1999 the District Court found no violation of the relevant Articles of the Hague Convention and refused the applicant’s request. It considered that the retention of the child was not unlawful in so far as the applicant did not have exclusive custody rights in respect of his daughter and, thus, Article 3 of the Hague Convention was not applicable. The court considered that, in any case, the return of the child would constitute a great risk for her since she was already integrated into the new environment created by the mother during her stay in Romania.\n15.  On 5 October 1999 the Hungarian Nagymaros Guardianship Authority, at the applicant’s request, declared that C.M. had not instituted the correct administrative proceedings, as required by the Hungarian Code on Family Law, with respect to their daughter’s lawful removal to, and retention in Romania. It proposed that the child’s residence be established with her father.\n16.  On 22 October 1999 the Satu Mare County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 8 June 1999. It recalled that the applicant did not have exclusive custody rights with respect to his daughter. It further considered that the return of the child would deprive the mother of the exercise of her parental rights. Lastly, the county court stated that, as long as the marriage of the parents was still valid, they should have the custody matters resolved by a competent court.\n17.  The Romanian Ministry appealed on points of law against this ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1106", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  In October 1984 eleven artists founded the “Zichy Mihály” Art Gallery. In December 1984 the Hungarian Art’s Fund, pursuant to Government Decree No. 83/1982, approved the gallery’s foundation as a “creative art community”.\n5.  In 1989 Parliament passed the Associations Act, requiring the registration of associations.\n6.  As of 1 October 1992, due to a modification in the Government Decree, the supervision of the applicant was to be exercised by the Ministry of Culture and Education.\n7.  On 29 April 1993 the Constitutional Court declared the relevant parts of the Government Decree unconstitutional and annulled them. Consequently, the registration rules of the Associations Act became applicable to the applicant as well.\n8.  On 29 June 1995 the applicant requested that its legal personality be acknowledged by the Budapest Regional Court. The applicant refused to submit a request for registration, reasoning that it was the Ministry’s duty to do so.\n9.  On 23 April 1996 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request. The Regional Court held that the request of the applicant, whose legal personality had ceased pursuant to the Constitutional Court’s decision, had not complied with the substantive and formal requirements set out in the Associations Act. On 14 October 1996 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, upheld the Regional Court’s decision.\n10.  On 14 October 1997 the Supreme Court, in review proceedings, quashed these decisions and remitted the case to the Regional Court. The Supreme Court held that the applicant’s legal personality had not ceased because of the Constitutional Court’s decision.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 14 January 1998 the Budapest Public Prosecutor’s Office proposed that the Regional Court require the applicant to adjust its statute to the requirements of the Associations Act. On 23 February 1999 the Budapest Regional Court ordered the applicant’s registration.\n12.  On 8 March 2000 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court.\n13.  On 12 April 2000 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to submit supplementary documents. The applicant failed to comply with this order.\n14.  On 10 July 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request. On 31 July 2000 the applicant appealed.\n15.  On 10 April 2001 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, quashed the order and remitted the case to the Regional Court.\n16.  On 28 January 2002 the Budapest Regional Court registered the applicant association.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1107", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine.\n9.  On 1 March 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of crimes of swindling and taken to the Kyivsky District Police Station (Київський районний відділ міліції міста Харкова).\n10.  According to the applicant, he was handcuffed in the police station and police officers demanded that he confess. When he refused to do so, he was severely beaten several times. After each beating he was told that if he did not confess he would be subjected to further beatings. During the last beating one of the police officers, G., hit the applicant on the left ear, causing swelling and partial deafness. After the beatings, the police officers warned the applicant to “think it over” during the night, otherwise he would be beaten again the next day.\n11.  The applicant maintained that he had had many scratches and bruises on his body. On 2 March 2000, when the police officers wanted to transfer him to a temporary detention centre (ізолятор тимчасового утримання), the centre refused to admit him on account of his numerous injuries.\n12.  On 3 March 2000 the applicant was escorted to hospital where he was examined.\n13.  The same day the applicant was transferred to a temporary detention centre.\n14.  On 4 March 2000 the applicant was charged, but released on bail on condition that he did not abscond, by a decision of the Kyivsky District Prosecutor.\n15.  From 7 March to 5 April 2000 the applicant underwent medical examinations at the forensic medical examination department (відділ судово-медичної експертизи). The forensic expert recorded various injuries to the applicant’s body. The injuries included a damaged left ear, and bruises on the trunk, face, left arm and left leg (qualified as minor injuries by the Government). The expert also indicated the approximate dates on which the applicant had sustained these injuries, some 5 to 7 days before 7 March 2000. Those dates coincided with the applicant’s detention in the Kyivsky District Police Station.\n16.  On 13 April 2000 the applicant requested the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for torture. The request was transferred to the Kyivsky District Prosecutor’s Office for consideration.\n17.  On 24 April and 18 May 2000, the applicant requested the Kyivsky District Prosecutor’s Office to inform him about the outcome of his complaint.\n18.  On 24 April 2000, the deputy prosecutor of the Kyiv District of Kharkiv issued a decree refusing to institute criminal proceedings on the ground that there was no evidence that an offence had been committed. In his decree, the deputy prosecutor stated that criminal proceedings had been initiated against the applicant on 10 February 2000. The applicant confessed voluntarily to having committed the crimes of which he was charged when he learned that his accomplices had also confessed. Furthermore, police officers had been questioned about the applicant’s allegations and had refuted the accusations against them. The deputy prosecutor concluded:\n“(...) despite the fact that the forensic medical expert opinion No. 747/c of 5 April 2000 [established that the applicant suffered] minor bodily injuries giving rise to a short-term disability, no evidence has been obtained that those injuries were inflicted by officers of the Kyivsky District Police Station of Kharkiv. The [applicant’s] arguments set out in his request must be considered to have been invent", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1108", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 29 September 1995 the applicant brought an action against his former employer, the E. Rt, seeking the annulment of the termination of his employment and claiming payment of outstanding night-shift allowances. On 5 March 1996 the applicant modified his action and also requested that outstanding wages be paid to him.\n6.  On 21 May, 9 August and 6 September 1996, the Budapest Labour Court held hearings and, on 15 November 1996, it dismissed the applicant’s claims. On 2 January 1997 the applicant appealed. On 16 August 1997 he finalised his appeal.\n7.  On 5 November 1997 the Budapest Regional Court upheld, as confirmed by the Supreme Court’s review bench on 9 December 1998, the first-instance decision in so far as it concerned the termination of the applicant’s employment. As regards the issue of the outstanding night-shift allowances, the Regional Court quashed the Labour Court’s decision and remitted the case to it.\n8.  On 7 April 1999 the applicant requested that the final part of the proceedings be re-opened. He also submitted another petition for review against the final decision, which was rejected ex officio by the Supreme Court on 31 May 1999.\n9.  In the proceedings concerning the applicant’s request for a re-opening, the Labour Court held hearings on 1 October, 5 November and 17 December 1999. Subsequently, all of the judges of the Labour Court declared bias and requested permission to withdraw from the case. On 9 May 2000 the Supreme Court appointed the Pest County Labour Court to hear the case.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings for outstanding wages, on 4 October 2000 the Pest County Labour Court heard the parties, and on 10 October 2000 it ordered a judicial auditing expertise. The expert’s appointment was, however, cancelled on 4 December 2000. On 18 May, 22 June and 14 September 2001 the Labour Court held hearings.\n11.  On the applicant’s motion, on 19 November 2001 the judges of the Pest County Labour Court declared themselves biased. On 9 January 2002 the Supreme Court appointed the Székesfehérvár Labour Court to proceed with the applicant’s request for a re-opening. On 8 May 2002 the Labour Court rejected, as confirmed by the Fejér County Regional Court on 15 July 2002, the applicant’s request for the re-opening.\n12.  On 27 June 2002 the Supreme Court appointed the Székesfehérvár Labour Court to examine the applicant’s claim for outstanding wages in the resumed proceedings. On 21 October 2002 and 5 February 2003, the Labour Court held hearings.\n13.  On 19 May 2003 the Labour Court determined part of the applicant’s claims. The applicant’s appeal against this partial decision was dismissed by the Fejér County Regional Court on 6 April 2004. The applicant petitioned the Supreme Court for a review. These proceedings are still pending.\n14.  On 29 October 2004 the Székesfehérvár Labour Court suspended the proceedings concerning the remainder of the applicant’s claims. On 5 January 2005 the Fejér County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order suspending the case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1109", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  The applicant and her family (her husband and two children, born in 1982 and 1987) moved into a dormitory in Volgograd in 1985. They occupied two rooms in the dormitory, with shared kitchen, shower and toilet facilities. They were registered as living in the dormitory permanently, which was their sole residence. In 1993 the ownership of the dormitory was transferred to a company called “VNIITMASH”.\n10.  In 1995 the applicant, along with other residents, was ordered by the District Prosecutor of the Sovetskiy district of Volgograd to vacate the premises because the building required urgent structural renovation. The applicant was provided with temporary housing in another dormitory in Volgograd, although smaller and of inferior quality. In August 1995 the applicant was forcibly evicted from the building and her belongings were transferred.\n11.  The applicant, along with other residents, brought an action against VNIITMASH and the administration of the Sovetskiy district for provision of permanent housing and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. They alleged that though the status of the building was a dormitory, their contracts were not for dormitory-type accommodation, but for proper flats. On 24 April 1996 the Volgograd Regional Court confirmed in the final instance the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court to reject the applicants’ claim. VNIITMASH undertook to allow the applicants to return to the dormitory after the renovation, which was scheduled to be completed in September 1996.\n12.  The building was not renovated on time, and the applicant applied to the court again. The district administration accepted her claims. The Sovetskiy District Court by its judgment of 22 June 1999 ordered the administration to provide the applicant with “comfortable” (благоустроенное) housing. Neither of the parties appealed, and the judgment entered into force and was forwarded to the bailiff in July 1999.\n13.  On 8 September 1999 the renovation in the original building was completed and the ownership of it was transferred to the district administration, with the status of a dormitory.\n14.  On 24 September 1999 the administration of the Sovetskiy district issued a voucher (ордер) to the applicant’s family for two rooms of 34 square metres in the newly renovated dormitory building. It appears that the bailiff closed the enforcement procedures on 11 October 1999.\n15.  The applicant refused to accept the accommodation offered, as she believed that the housing in the dormitory did not correspond to the definition of “comfortable”, as ordered by the court on 22 June 1999. She also alleged that the conditions had become worse since the renovation. In particular, the applicant and her family would only be able to register as temporary occupants of the building and the rooms offered to them were separated from each other and were connected by a corridor shared with other rooms. Further, they were required to share the toilet and kitchen facilities with a larger number of families, and the quality of the building remained very poor, even after the renovation.\n16.  On her complaint, the bailiff reopened the enforcement procedures and on 23 February 2000 prohibited the issuing of housing vouchers by the district administration.\n17.  On 27 April 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court, on the administration’s complaint, quashed the bailiff’s order of 23 February 2000. On 28 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1110", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Ivan Trofimovich Varanitsa, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1934 and currently resides in Krasnoarmeysk, in the Donetsk Region.\n6.  On 19 January 2000 the Krasnoarmeysk City Court ordered the State mine “Rodinskaya” (the “Mine”) to pay the applicant UAH 2,961.35[1] in compensation for salary arrears. On the same date the court delivered writs of execution to the applicant. The judgment became final on 31 January 2000.\n7.  On 14 February 2000 the Krasnoarmeysk City Bailiffs initiated the enforcement of the judgment of 19 January 2000. The enforcement was suspended on the same date due to the bankruptcy proceedings concerning the Mine pending before the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration.\n8.  On 6 June 2000 the Krasnoarmeysk City Bailiffs reinitiated the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case.\n9.  On 10 April 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration declared the Mine bankrupt. On 19 June 2001 this decision was quashed by the same court.\n10.  On 18, 20 and 25 March 2002 the Krasnoarmeysk City Deparment of Justice, the Department of Justice for the Donetsk Region, informed the applicant that the judgment could not be executed due to the Mine’s lack of funds.\n11.  On 9 April 2002 the Krasnoarmeysk City Department of Justice informed the applicant that the Mine had been receiving funds from the State budget in order to pay salary arrears. It also informed the applicant that the Mine’s property could not be attached and that the Execution Service was presently executing earlier writs issued against the Mine in 1998.\n12.  On 21 August 2002 the applicant was paid UAH 58.26.[2]\n13.  On 23 August 2002 the applicant received UAH 25.52[3]. The remainder of the unpaid debt was therefore UAH 2,877.57[4].\n14.  In August 2003 the mine paid the remainder of the debt to the applicant, which was by then UAH 2,961.35[5].\n15.  On 11 August 2003 the Krasnoarmeysk City Department of Justice terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the full execution of the judgment of 19 January 2000.\n16.  On 8 October 2003 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment given in his favour had been enforced in full. However, he still requested compensation for moral damage for the State’s failure to enforce the judgment for three years and eight months.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1111", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is currently detained in Corradino Prison (Malta).\n8.  In November 1995 the applicant was arrested and charged with trafficking in dangerous drugs. On 15 May 1996, while he was in pre-trial detention, a fresh charge of complicity in attempted wilful homicide was brought against him. The applicant was accused of having tried, by means of an instruction issued to third parties, to kill Mr Richard Cachia Caruana, the personal assistant to the Prime Minister, on account of Mr Caruana's role in the separate proceedings on the charge of trafficking in dangerous drugs. The events in issue allegedly occurred before and on 18 December 1994. Expert forensic reports were submitted in January and February 1995.\n9.  The applicant was subsequently placed in detention on remand in connection with this new criminal charge also.\n10.  From the date of the applicant's arraignment (15 May 1996) until 13 August 1996, twenty-three hearings took place before the Court of Magistrates, acting as a court of criminal inquiry. A number of police officers, experts and witnesses, including Mr Joseph Fenech, an accomplice who had made a confession and had been granted a pardon, were cross ‑ examined by the parties. A number of objections were raised by the prosecution and the defence about the questions put by the other party. The court issued a ban on the publication of reports and articles about the proceedings before it.\n11.  On 13 August 1996 the Court of Magistrates appointed a graphologist and concluded that there were sufficient grounds for the filing of a bill of indictment against the applicant.\n12.  However, on 16 September 1996 the Attorney General asked the Court of Magistrates to re-open the proceedings in order to hear four witnesses, namely two other accomplices of the applicant, a doctor who had been on duty on the day the victim was admitted to hospital, and the graphologist appointed on 13 August 1996. On 30 September 1996 the court heard the first three witnesses. The two accomplices refused to give evidence in order not to incriminate themselves. The court revoked the appointment of the expert and asked the registrar to provide it with a new list of experts.\n13.  On 1 November 1996 the Attorney General again asked the court to re‑open the proceedings and to explain the reasons for revoking the appointment of the expert; to identify handwriting experts, including foreign ones; and to hear all the evidence the police could adduce.\n14.  On 13 November 1996 the Court of Magistrates appointed a new graphologist, Mr Manfred Hecker.\n15.  On 12 December 1996 the Attorney General requested once again that the inquiry be re-opened. He asked that Mr Hecker and Mr Fenech be heard, the latter being requested to give explanations about the record of his interrogation by the police. Moreover, he asked that some documents previously exhibited be listed in detail, while other documents not already exhibited should be produced by the registrar. A hearing, during which Mr Fenech was examined, took place on 8 January 1997.\n16.  On 28 February 1997 the Attorney General requested that the inquiry be re-opened for the following matters: to correct a mistake in the records; to hear Mr Hecker; to produce various newspapers; to complete the appointment of another expert and have him produce some photographs; and to hear two new witnesses.\n17.  On 11 March 1997, after the examination of five witnesses, the hearing was adjourned as Mr H", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1113", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Moscow.\n10.  On 3 July 1998 the applicant was arrested on the suspicion of shooting her husband, Lieutenant-General Lev Rokhlin, a member of the Russian Parliament. An investigator of the Moscow Region prosecutor's office authorised her detention on remand. The applicant was placed in detention facility no. IZ-49/9 in the Moscow Region.\n11.  On 8 July 1998 the applicant was charged with murder under Article 105 § 1 of the Criminal Code and questioned as an accused in the presence of Mr Vankovich, a lawyer retained by her. She chose to remain silent on the merits of the charge against her and requested that the investigator be replaced because he had allegedly intimidated her and showed lack of respect for her and her family. On an unspecified date the applicant's request was rejected as unsubstantiated.\n12.  On 16 July 1998 the State Duma of the Russian Federation (the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament) established a special commission to monitor the progress of the investigation into the circumstances of Lieutenant-General Rokhlin's death (“the Duma commission”).\n13.  On 21 August 1998 the applicant's detention on remand was extended until 3 December 1998. The applicant did not appeal against the extension order.\n14.  On 1 December 1998 the applicant's detention was extended until 3 April 1999, that is for a total of nine months starting from the day of her arrest. On 9 December 1998 the applicant's lawyers appealed to a court against the extension order. They complained, in particular, about unreasonable delays in the investigation of the charge against their client and pointed to her frail health. The applicant submitted a supplementary complaint against the extension order; she indicated that her prolonged separation from her mentally disturbed son was detrimental to his health.\n15.  On 21 December 1998 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow rejected the appeals against the extension order. It held that the detention on remand had been imposed and extended “without any substantial violations of the law of criminal procedure” and that the detention was justified “because [the applicant] was charged with an especially serious criminal offence”. The court found no grounds to release the applicant on bail. On 21 December 1998 and 10 and 13 January 1999 the applicant's lawyers appealed against the decision of the district court. They submitted that the court had not taken into account the applicant's deteriorating health, long periods of inactivity of the team of eight investigators, discrepancies in the applicant's confessions. They also alleged that the court had failed in its duty to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the continued detention. On 13 January 1999 the Moscow City Court heard the appeal and ruled that the suspicion against the applicant that she had committed an especially serious criminal offence was, pursuant to Article 96 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, a sufficient ground for her detention on remand.\n16.  On 13 January 1999 the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopted a special address to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. Members of Parliament noted that the investigation was lingering, while the applicant remained in custody. On 15 December 1998 the Duma commission members had met the applicant in prison and found her health unsatisfactory. In view of the applicant's poor health and adverse effects of her long separation from h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1114", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The first applicant, Mr Raimundas Rainys, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Vilnius. The second applicant, Mr Antanas Gasparavičius, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Kretinga.\nThe facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  From 1975 to October 1991 the first applicant was an employee of the Lithuanian branch of the Soviet Security Service (hereinafter the “KGB”). Thereafter he found employment as a lawyer in a private telecommunications company.\n10.  On 17 February 2000 two authorities - the Lithuanian State Security Department and the Centre for Research into the Genocide and Resistance of the Lithuanian People - jointly concluded that the applicant was subject to the restrictions imposed under Article 2 of the Law on the Evaluation of the USSR State Security Committee (NKVD, NKGB, MGB, KGB) and the Present Activities of Permanent Employees of the Organisation (hereinafter “the Act”, see paragraph 22 below). The conclusion confirmed that the applicant had the status of a “former KGB officer” as construed by the Act. As a result, on 23 February 2000 he was dismissed from his job at the telecommunications company.\n11.  The applicant brought an administrative action against the security intelligence authorities, arguing that his dismissal under Article 2 of the Act and the resultant inability to find employment were unlawful.\n12.  On 29 June 2000 the Higher Administrative Court found that the conclusion of 17 February 2000 had been substantiated, and that the applicant was subject to the restrictions imposed under Article 2 of the Act.\n13.  On 5 September 2000 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal.\n14.  The applicant has been unemployed since 26 February 2002.\n15.  From 1971 until October 1991 the second applicant worked at the KGB. Thereafter he started practising as a barrister.\n16.  On an unspecified date in 2000, the Lithuanian State Security Department and the Centre for Research into the Genocide and Resistance of the Lithuanian People jointly concluded that the applicant had the status of a “former KGB officer”, and that he was thereby subject to the restrictions imposed under Article 2 of the Act. On 12 June 2000 the Bar informed him that he would be disbarred pursuant to that law.\n17.  The applicant brought an administrative action, claiming that his dismissal from the Bar would be unlawful. While the applicant did not contest the fact that he had worked for the KGB even following the declaration of Lithuanian independence on 11 March 1990, he submitted that thereafter he had worked as an informer for the authorities of independent Lithuania. Furthermore, throughout his time at the KGB the applicant had allegedly only worked with cases concerning purely criminal investigations, not political persecutions. In the applicant's view, he had been entitled to be exempted from the employment restrictions, in accordance with Article 3 of the Act.\n18.  On 21 February 2001 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicant's claim. The court found that he had indeed worked with criminal investigations while at the KGB, but that he had remained employed there until his retirement in October 1990. The court held that the exceptions in Article 3 of the Act were not applicable to the applicant, given that he did not end his employment with the KGB immediately after Lithuania's declaration of independence on 11 March 1990.\n1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1115", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Vilnius.\n10.  The applicant was suspected of having committed various fraudulent offences between October 1992 and October 1993. In 1994 criminal proceedings on three counts of cheating, suppression of documents and false accounting were instituted against him. As the applicant had absconded from the investigation, on 21 November 1994 the prosecutors declared him a wanted person.\n11.  On 24 September 1996 the applicant was arrested in Moscow on an extradition request by the Lithuanian authorities. He was extradited to Lithuania on 30 December 1996.\n12.  On 31 December 1996 the Šiauliai City District Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand until 31 January 1997 on suspicion of his suppressing documents. The court referred to the dangers of the applicant absconding and committing further offences. On 24 January 1997 the court extended the term to 31 March 1997, on 28 March to 31 May 1997 and on 30 May to 13 June 1997.\n13.  On 5 June 1997 the case was transmitted to the Šiauliai City District Court. On 6 August 1997 the court committed the applicant for trial. On the same date the court also authorised the applicant's detention, stating that his remand must remain unchanged. No term of the detention was specified.\n14.  On 10 September 1998 the Šiauliai City District Court convicted the applicant of cheating and suppressing documents but acquitted him of false accounting. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and his property was confiscated. The court ordered him to pay 615,264 Lithuanian litai (LTL) of damages in favour of a bank.\n15.  On 2 March 1999 the Šiauliai Regional Court amended the first instance judgment insofar as it concerned the damages against the applicant, reducing the amount to 476,000 LTL.\n16.  Upon the applicant's cassation appeal, on 29 June 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the above decisions and returned the case for a new first instance examination. No question relating to the applicant's remand in custody was mentioned by the Supreme Court in the decision.\n17.  On 30 July 1999 the Šiauliai City District Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand until 1 September 1999 on suspicion of his having cheated and suppressed documents. The court referred to the danger of the applicant absconding. The District Court also noted that on 29 June 1999 the Supreme Court had not ruled on the applicant's remand. On 31 August 1999 the term of the applicant's detention was extended until 15 November 1999. On 15 November 1999 the term was extended until 31 December 1999. On 30 December 1999 the Šiauliai District Court extended the term of the applicant's remand in custody “until a court judgment would be taken in the case”.\n18.  On 6 March 2000 the Šiauliai District Court convicted the applicant of suppressing documents and acquitted him of cheating. 476,000 LTL were awarded against the applicant in damages in favour of a bank. The sentence of five years' imprisonment was reduced by one third due to an amnesty law. The applicant was released in the courtroom as he was deemed to have already completed his sentence because of the time he had spent on remand. The court also ordered his release on bail, with home arrest, until the entry into force of the judgment. The applicant and his lawyer were present during the hearing.\n19.  On 4 May 2000 the Šiauliai Regional Court rejected the applicant's appeal. On that date the conviction took effect for the purposes of domest", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1116", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Florence.\n7.  The applicants are the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to R. A.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 4 March 1987, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease and summoned him to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 3 June 1987, which was made enforceable on 12 June 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by February 1990.\n10.  On 10 March 1990, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 5 April 1990, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.\n12.  On 11 April 1990, they informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 31 May 1990.\n13.  Between 31 May 1990 and 4 May 1999, the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On 26 July 1999, pursuant to Law 431/98, the tenant asked for the suspension of the eviction proceedings.\n15.  On 30 September 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1117", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Rome.\n7.  He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to R.B.\n8.  In a registered letter of 31 December 1990, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 November 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 18 February 1992, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 8 July 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 May 1994.\n11.  Pursuant to Law no. 359/92 the expiry of the term was extended for two years from 30 November 1993 to 30 November 1995.\n12.  Nonetheless, on 4 November 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 30 November 1994, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 December 1994.\n14.  Between 15 December 1994 and 10 October 1995, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession. In the meanwhile, the tenant fell in rent arrears.\n15.  On 6 April 1995, pursuant to Law no. 61/89, the applicant asked the Rome Magistrate to suspend the extension of the expiry of the term and asked to be granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. The Rome Magistrate refused to grant the assistance of the police.\n16.  Therefore, the applicant decided to restart the eviction proceedings.\n17.  In a writ served on the tenant on 29 November 1995, the applicant informed her of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n18.  By a decision of 28 March 1996, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 15 January 1997.\n19.  On 20 February 1997, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n20.  On 9 May 1997, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 May 1997.\n21.  Between 20 May 1997 and 15 October 1998, the bailiff made seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n22.  The eviction proceedings having been suspended pursuant to Law no. 431/1998, on 8 September 1999 the applicant served a second order to vacate the premises.\n23.  On 29 September 1999, a second notice was served on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 October 1999.\n24.  After two attempts, on 3 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of his flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1118", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in born in 1961 and lives in Vienna. She is the owner of a plot of land in Vienna. At the time of the events she was building a house on her land.\n9.  On 16 October 1992 officers of the Regional Vienna Labour Office (Landesarbeitsamt) inspected the construction site and found that four persons of Czech nationality, who were carrying out plaster works, had no permit to work in Austria.\n10.  On 21 October 1992 the Labour Office submitted a report to the Vienna Municipal Office (Magistrat) alleging that the applicant had illegally employed four foreigners. Thereupon, the Municipal Office opened administrative criminal proceedings against the applicant under the Aliens' Employment Act (Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz) and invited her, by letter of 29 December 1992, to comment on the charge against her. As the applicant was out of town, this letter did not reach her prior to 20 January 1993, when the Municipal Office ordered the applicant to pay a fine in the amount of ATS 66,000 (EUR 4,796.41) for having illegally employed four foreigners contrary to the provisions of the Aliens' Employment Act. This order was served on the applicant on 4 February 1993. According to the applicant, this was the first time that she became aware that proceedings had been instituted against her.\n11.  On 11 February 1993 the applicant, assisted by counsel, filed a request for reinstatement into the first instance proceedings (Wiedereinsetzungsantrag) and lodged an appeal with the Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat, hereafter referred to as “IAP”) against the order of 20 January 1993.\n12.  On 19 February 1993 the Municipal Office rejected the request for reinstatement into the proceedings. The applicant appealed on 25 March 1993 to the IAP.\n13.  On 14 February 1995 the IAP summoned the parties to a hearing scheduled for 21 March 1995 and invited the applicant to comment on the charge. The applicant did so on 3 March 1995.\n14.  On 21 March 1995 the IAP dismissed her appeal concerning reinstatement. It found that the invitation to comment on the charge of 29 December 1992 had been served in accordance with the provisions of the Official Notifications Act (Zustellgesetz) and that therefore the Municipal Office's decision of 19 February 1993 to refuse reinstatement into the proceedings had been lawful. This decision was served on the applicant on 17 May 1995. The applicant's complaint of 21 June 1995 against the IAP's decision was rejected by the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) on 7 September 1995.\n15.  On 21 March 1995 the IAP also examined the applicant's appeal of 11 February 1993 against the order of 20 January 1993 to pay the fine in the amount of ATS 66,000. Having deliberated, the IAP rejected the applicant's appeal the same day.\n16.  On 23 August 1996 the IAP finalised the written version of its decision on the applicant's appeal of 11 February 1993. It found that the applicant had concluded work contracts with foreigners which required a valid work permit under the Aliens' Employment Act. The decision was served on 29 November 1996.\n17.  On 19 December 1996 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof).\n18.  By a decision of 30 September 1997 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the complaint for lack of prospects of success and transferred the case to the Administrative Court. This decision was served on 9 December 1997.\n19.  On 9 April 1998", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1119", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were respectively born in 1963 and 1959 and live in Rome.\n7.  A.C., the applicants' mother, was the owner of a flat in Rome which she had let to A.F.\n8.  In a registered letter of 2 May 1987, A.C. informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 15 June 1987, A.C. reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n10.  By a decision of 30 November 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.\n11.  On 2 October 1989, A.C. served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 30 October 1989, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 December 1989.\n13.  Between 19 December 1989 and 25 January 2000, the bailiff made forty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  In the meanwhile, on 27 February 1996, A.C., the applicants' mother, died and the applicants inherited the flat.\n15.  On 28 March 1996, the applicants became party in the national proceedings as heirs.\n16.  On 14 February 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1120", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On 21 November 1983 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev‑Yol (Devrimci Yol - the Revolutionary Way).\n6.  On 30 December 1983 the Ankara Martial Law Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n7.  On 14 December 1988 the applicant was released pending trial.\n8.  On 19 July 1989 the Ankara Martial Law Court convicted the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment.\n9.  On 28 December 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Ankara Martial Law Court on the ground that the latter had misinterpreted the domestic law in respect of the offence in question.\n10.  Subsequent to the promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, the Ankara Assize Court acquired jurisdiction in the applicant’s case.\n11.  On 6 May 1996 the Ankara Assize Court commenced the applicant’s trial.\n12.  On 28 May 2004 the applicant was convicted of attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 of the Criminal Code. The first-instance court however held that there was no need for the applicant’s imprisonment, taking into account his previous custody and detention on remand.\n13.  The proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1121", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1968 and is currently in prison in the Isle of Wight, the second was born in 1961 and lives in London and the third was born in 1980 and lives in Leeds. The fourth applicant was born in 1976.\n6.  On 15 March 1996 the applicant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment following a conviction for causing grievous bodily harm.\n7.  It was later alleged that on 5 June 1998, as he was being transferred to HMP Parkhurst, a fight broke out during which he “headbutted” one of the prison officers. On 6 June 1998 he was charged with assault contrary to Rule 47(1) of the Prison Rules 1964.\n8.  The adjudication hearing before the governor commenced on 22 June and continued on 23 June 1998 when a letter was received from the applicant’s solicitor requesting that he be legally represented at the hearing. The governor adjourned the hearing until 14 July 1998 to consider the request. On 7 July 1998 legal aid was granted by the Legal Aid Board for representation prior to and at the adjudication hearing.\n9.  On 8 July 1998 the applicant orally outlined to the governor why he needed legal representation but the governor rejected the request:\n“I have considered the case for legal [representation]. I do not feel there is an issue of seriousness or potential penalty. You are able to conduct your defence. You have access to check original with the prisoners you may call as witness. I do not consider you have been unfairly treated in comparison with the other prisoner so charged. No points of law are in question”.\n10.  By letter of 28 July 1998 the applicant’s solicitors asked the governor to reconsider. By letter of 30 July 1998 the prison service responded explaining that in considering requests for representation governors did not need to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that representation was not needed before rejecting a request but were required to take account of the six criteria set out in the “Tarrant principles” (R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Tarrant [1984] QB 251).\n11.  The adjudication hearing resumed on 25 September 1998. The applicant again requested legal representation for the hearing without success. The governor found the applicant guilty (adding “whether your actions were deliberate or reckless, although you have not advanced that as a defence”) and sentenced him to 21 “additional days” pursuant to Rule 50 (1) (f) of the Prison Rules 1964.\n12.  On 5 November 1998 his solicitors appealed to the Secretary of State referring to the imminent incorporation into domestic law of Article 6 of the Convention and to the failure to grant legal representation for the hearing. By letter dated 10 December 1998 the Secretary of State rejected the appeal stating that the adjudication had been thoroughly reviewed, that the hearing had been fairly conducted and that the findings should be upheld.\n13.  The applicant was granted legal aid to obtain counsel’s opinion on the lawfulness of the governor’s decision of 8 July 1998. Counsel advised on 11 January 1999 that the applicant had no realistic prospects of success given the Hone and McCartan case (Hone and McCartan v. Maze Prison Board of Visitors [1998] 1 All ER 381). As to whether the governor’s exercise of discretion was unreasonable, the “Tarrant criteria”, the “relatively minor nature of the offence” and the capacity of the applicant, meant that the prospects of passing the “high hurdle of irrationality” on judicial review were remote.\n14.  I", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1122", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n52.  The applicants, Mr Abdul-Vakhab Shamayev, Mr Rizvan (or Rezvan) Vissitov, Mr Khusein Aziev, Mr Adlan (or Aslan) Adayev (or Adiev), Mr Khusein Khadjiev, Mr Ruslan Gelogayev, Mr Akhmed Magomadov, Mr Khamzat Issayev, Mr Robinzon Margoshvili, Mr Giorgi Kushtanashvili, Mr Aslambek Khanchukayev, Mr Islam Khashiev alias Rustam Elikhadjiev alias Bekkhan Mulkoyev and Mr Timur (or Ruslan) Baymurzayev alias Khusein Alkhanov (see paragraphs 54 and 55 below)[2], are thirteen Russian and Georgian nationals who were born in 1975, 1977, 1973, 1968, 1975, 1958, 1955, 1975, 1967, 19...[3], 1981, 1979 (or 1980) and 1975 respectively.\n53.  On 17 and 18 October 2002 Mr Shamayev, Mr Vissitov, Mr Aziev, Mr Adayev and Mr Khadjiev, namely the applicants who had been extradited from Georgia to Russia on 4 October 2002, were placed in a pre-trial detention centre (“SIZO”) in A, a town in the Stavropol region, in the North Caucasus (see paragraph 17 above). Their place of custody between 4 and 17/18 October 2002 remains unknown. On 26 July 2003 Mr Shamayev, Mr Khadjiev, Mr Vissitov and Mr Adayev were transferred to a SIZO in town B, in the Stavropol region. Following the Court's request, on 7 October 2003 the Russian Government communicated the address of this SIZO and confirmed that Mr Aziev was also detained there (see also paragraph 242 below). They did not specify the date on which he had been transferred.\n54.  Having been unable to hear the applicants extradited to Russia (see paragraph 49 above), the Court has used the surnames provided by Ms Mukhashavria and Ms Dzamukashvili for four of them. The name of Mr Khusein Khadjiev, the fifth applicant, is that mentioned on his application form, which reached the Court on 27 October 2003 (see paragraph 235 below).\n55.  As to the non-extradited applicants, Mr Margoshvili has been free since his acquittal on 8 April 2003 (see paragraph 94 below); Mr Gelogayev was released following a judgment of 6 February 2004 (see paragraph 99 below); Mr Khanchukayev, Mr Issayev, Mr Magomadov and Mr Kushtanashvili were released on 5 and 6 January 2005 and 18 February 2005 (see paragraph 98 below). The identity of those six applicants has been established by the Court (see paragraphs 110-15 below). After disappearing in Tbilisi on 16 or 17 February 2004, Mr Khashiev and Mr Baymurzayev were arrested by the Russian authorities on 19 February 2004. They are apparently detained at present in the Essentuki pre-trial detention centre (see paragraph 101 below). Having been unable to hear them in Russia (see paragraphs 46 et seq. above), the Court will refer to them by the surnames communicated by their representatives when lodging the application.\n56.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and established by the Court during its fact-finding visit to Tbilisi, may be summarised as follows.\n57.  Between 3 and 5 August 2002 the applicants crossed the Russo-Georgian border near the Guirevi checkpoint (Georgia). Some of them were injured and were carrying sub-machine guns and grenades. Having asked the Georgian border guards for help, they apparently handed over their weapons voluntarily. An identity check was carried out. As a result, the names of the individuals claiming to be Abdul‑Vakhab Shamayev, Rizvan (or Rezvan) Vissitov, Khusein Aziev, Adlan (or Aslan) Adayev (or Adiev), Khusein Khadjiev (or Khosiin Khadjayev, Khajiev), Ruslan Mirjoyev, Adlan (Aldan) Usmanov, Khamzat Issiev, Ruslan Tepsayev, Seibul (or Feisul) Bayssar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1123", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  In 1988 the applicant was convicted of membership in an illegal organisation, namely the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party. On 15 April 1991 he was conditionally released from prison.\n7.  On 16 March 1996 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by the police. On 9 April 1996 the applicant was interrogated by the police officers at the Tunceli Security Directorate.\n8.  On 9 April 1996 the Malatya State Security Court ordered his detention on remand.\n9.  On 22 April 1996 the public prosecutor at the Malatya State Security Court filed an indictment with the latter, accusing the applicant of membership in an illegal armed organisation, namely the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party. The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of Law no. 3713.\n10.  In the meantime on 7 May 1996 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the latter accusing the applicant of being an accessory to a bank robbery and murder of a clerk on 18 May 1992. On 26 December 1996 the two cases were joined and the criminal proceedings against the applicant continued before the Malatya State Security Court.\n11.  On 16 December 1997 the Malatya State Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n12.  On 30 November 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Malatya State Security Court without conducting a hearing since the applicant's lawyer was absent without justification.\n13.  On 10 October 2002 the applicant's representative informed the Court that the applicant was released from prison due to ill-health pursuant to Article 399 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, the applicant was imprisoned, in total, for about six years and six months.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1124", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1939 and currently resides in Donetsk.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 23 May 1987 the applicant was injured in an accident at a State mine belonging to the Trest Donets’ke Shakhtobudivel’ne Upravlinnia No. 6 (the “DSU”). On 26 August 1987 the Medical Expert Commission recognised the applicant as falling within the third category of invalidity (третя група інвалідності). From 1987 to September 1996 the applicant received disablement benefits from the DSU.\n8.  In September 1996 the DSU stopped paying the disability allowance to the applicant.\n9.  In April 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Voroshylovsky District Court of Donetsk against the DSU, seeking compensation for the disablement benefits which had not been paid to him since 1996.\n10.  On 25 January 1999 the Voroshylovsky District Court of Donetsk allowed the applicant’s claims in part. It ordered the DSU to pay the applicant UAH 3,496.03[1] in compensation for material damage. On 18 February 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court partly quashed that decision in respect of the amount of compensation and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n11.  The applicant’s complaints to the Presidents of the Donetsk Regional Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, with a view to initiating a supervisory review, were rejected on 1 April 1999 and 26 September 2000, respectively, as being unsubstantiated.\n12.  On 1 July 1999 the Voroshylovsky District Court of Donetsk allowed the applicant’s claims. It also ordered the DSU to pay the applicant UAH 7,336.22[2] in compensation.\n13.  Later, the applicant introduced a claim against the DSU with the Kuybyshevsky District Court of Donetsk, requesting reimbursement of the disability allowance for the period between 1 July 1999 and 1 December 2000. On 16 May 2001 court awarded the applicant the amount of UAH 5,962.22[3].\n14.  On 1 November 1999 the applicant received UAH 25[4] in execution of the judgment of 1 July 1999.\n15.  On 7 February 2000 the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that no breaches of the law were found in the course of the execution proceedings or the auctioning of the DSU’s property by the Voroshylovsky District Execution Service.\n16.  In March 2000 the Voroshylovsky District Execution Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be executed in full due to the DSU’s lack of funds and its outstanding debt of UAH 800,000[5] in salary and social benefit payments.\n17.  On 27 April 2000 the Donetsk Municipal Council, in response to the applicant’s complaints, informed him that there was no finding of a breach of the law in the course of the execution proceedings or the auctioning of the DSU’s property.\n18.  On 16 May and 27 June 2001 the Kuybyshevsky District Court of Donetsk respectively awarded the applicant UAH 5,962.22[6] and UAH 714.15[7] in compensation for unpaid disablement benefits for the period from 1 July 1999 to January 2001.\n19.  The aforementioned judgments were presented to the Kuybyshevsky District Bailiffs’ Service for enforcement on 5 June and 27 August 2001, respectively. The enforcement proceedings were initiated on the same date.\n20.  During 1999-2002 the judgment of the Voroshylovsky District Court of 1 July 1999 was partially enforced in instalments: in 1999 the applicant received UAH 413[8], in 2000 – UAH 476[9], in 2001 – UAH 1,560[10] and UAH 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1125", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1956 and currently resides in Lysychansk, Ukraine.\n6.  In 1997-1998 the applicant worked as a miner for the State-owned Lysychansk Mine-Construction Company (Shakhtobudivel’ne Upravlinnia; the “LSU”).\n7.  The Government submitted that from 1997 onwards the LSU experienced financial difficulties and therefore the salaries were paid to its employees irregularly. On 24 July 1997 the Lysychansk State Tax Inspectorate informed the Bailiffs’ Service that the LSU’s property was in a tax lien.\n8.  In October 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Lysychansk City Court against the LSU seeking to recover the salary owed to him.\n9.  On 2 November 2000 the Lysychansk City Court allowed his claims and ordered the LSU to pay the applicant UAH 4,857.53[1] in compensation.\n10.  On 14 November 2000 the Lysychansk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted execution proceedings in respect of the judgment of 2 November 2000.\n11.  On 23 November 2000 the bailiff passed a resolution collecting an enforcement fee from the debtor and joining the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case to the combined enforcement proceedings no. 4/2 of 1 September 2000 that concerned other creditors of the mine.\n12.  On 1 July 2001 the Lysychansk City Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that his judgment could not be executed due to the LSU’s lack of funds.\n13.  On 28 November 2003 the LSU paid the applicant UAH 4,857.53, in compliance with the judgment of 2 November 2000.\n14.  On 1 December 2003 the Lysychansk City Bailiffs’ Service terminated the proceedings as the judgment had been enforced in full.\n15.  On 21 January 2004 the applicant informed the Court that he had been paid the sum of UAH 6,665[2] in compensation for salary arrears, which sum included the judgment debt of 2 November 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1126", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Olegovich Dolgov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born on 2 March 1958 in Illovaisk and currently resides there.\n7.  In September 1999 the applicant lodged two complaints with the Labour Disputes Commission (the “Commission”) of the State Joint Stock Company Illovayskaya Mine (his former employer – hereafter the “Mine”) seeking reimbursement of salary arrears in the amount of UAH 1,535.02[1] for work he had performed in 1997 and 1999.\n8.  On 19 October 1999 the Commission held that the first part of the complaint should be allowed and the Mine should pay the applicant UAH 687.61[2] in arrears for September, October, November and December 1997.\n9.  On 11 November 1999 the Commission ordered the Mine to pay the wages due to the applicant. On 6 December 1999 the Khartsyzsk City Baillifs initiated execution proceedings on the basis of this order. However, it was not executed due to the Mine’s lack of funds.\n10.  In February 2000 the applicant lodged an application with the Mine, seeking termination of his employment contract.\n11.  On 7 March 2000 the applicant again lodged complaints with the Commission, seeking to recover the wages owed to him on termination of his employment and the enforcement of the decision of 11 November 1999.\n12.  On 16 May 2000 the Commission examined the second complaint of the applicant and ordered that the debts amounting to UAH 847.42[3] be paid to the applicant (for the period of March, May, June, September, October and November 1999).\n13.  On 14 June 2000 the Commission issued certificates Nos. 42 (for UAH 687.61[4]) and 43 (for UAH 847.42[5]) acknowledging the Mine’s debts to the applicant.\n14.  On 10 August 2000 the Khartsyzsk State Baillifs initiated execution proceedings (виконавче провадження) on the basis of these certificates. The Baillifs set a time-limit for their enforcement, but the Commission’s decisions were not executed due to the Mine’s lack of funds.\n15.  On 12 June 2002 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Mine and held that a moratorium should be imposed on the forced sale of the Mine’s property.\n16.  On 5 August 2003 the Government informed the Court that the bankruptcy proceedings were still pending.\n17.  On 24 November 2003 the Khartsyzsk City Court rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant’s complaints regarding the Baillifs’ failure to enforce the decisions and his claim for compensation for moral damage. This judgment was not appealed and thus became final.\n18.  On 22 January 2004 the Mine paid UAH 1,535.00[6] to the applicant, being the full amount of the salary arrears owed to him, in compliance with the Commission’s decisions.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1127", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and currently resides in Privolye, the Lugansk Region.\n6.  The applicant is an employee of the Kapustin mine of the State-owned Lysychanskugol Company (hereafter “the mine”), which is a structural division of the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine.\n7.  According to the Government, all of the property of the mine has been in a tax lien since 24 July 1998. Moreover, since August 1997 the mine experienced financial difficulties and therefore salaries were not paid regularly to its employees.\n8.  On 25 January 2001 the labour disputes commission of the mine (“the commission”) ordered it to pay the applicant UAH 4,037.60[1] in compensation for unpaid salary for the period of 1997-2000.\n9.  Following this decision, the applicant complained to the Lysychansk City Court (the “Lysychansk Court”), seeking to institute proceedings against the mine in order to recover his salary. On 2 February 2001 the Lysychansk Court refused to consider the applicant’s complaints since the commission had already allowed his claims and awarded compensation in his favour.\n10.  On 12 February 2001 the Lysychansk Execution Service (the “bailiffs’ ”) initiated execution proceedings. On 5 March 2001 the bailiffs informed the applicant that the commission’s decision could not be executed due to the mine’s lack of funds. On 3 May 2001 the Lugansk Regional Department of Justice confirmed this.\n11.  On 29 May 2001 the Arbitration Court of Lugansk instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the mine on the basis of the application lodged by the Luganskoblenergo Company. On 17 July 2001 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court upheld the settlement reached by the parties in the case and discontinued the bankruptcy proceedings.\n12.  On 16 October 2001 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the mine on the basis of the application lodged by the Gorlivka Engineering Plant. These proceedings were also discontinued, on 23 September 2002, after a settlement.\n13.  On 28 November 2003 the mine transferred UAH 4,037.60[2] to the applicant’s account in the Lysychansk Branch of the Savings Bank of Ukraine.\n14.  On 8 December 2003 the bailiffs’ terminated the enforcement proceedings in the case in view of their completion.\n15.  On 12 June 2003 the commission awarded the applicant UAH 2,789.26[3] in compensation for salary arrears for the period of 2001-2003.\n16.  On 14 May 2004 the bailiffs’ terminated the ensuing enforcement proceedings in view of their completion on 12 June 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1128", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born on 6 January 1941 and lives in Dolyns’ka, the Kirovograd Region.\n8.  In March 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Dolyns’ka City Court against the State Treasury Department, the Dolyns’ka financial department of the Municipal Council and the Dolyns’ka Tax Police Department, seeking compensation for the damage caused by the unlawful seizure and confiscation of his car.\n9.  On 16 August 1999 the Dolyns’ka City Court awarded the applicant UAH 50,000[1] in compensation for moral and material damage.\n10.  On 15 March 2000 the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court allowed the protest of the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine lodged against this decision. It amended the decision of 16 August 1999 and reduced the amount of compensation to UAH 20,000[2].\n11.  On 21 June 2000 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the further protest of the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged against the decision of 15 March 2000. The Supreme Court ruled that the UAH 20,000[3] compensation awarded to the applicant by the decision of 16 August 1999, as amended on 15 March 2000, had been reasonably established.\n12.  On 20 September 2000 the Dolyns’ska City Court initiated enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case and delivered the relevant writs of execution to the applicant.\n13.  On 12 December 2000 the Kyiv City Department of Justice informed the applicant that the State Treasury of Ukraine and its regional departments were responsible for such payments and therefore the writs of execution had to be forwarded to them.\n14.  On 18 July 2001 the State Treasury of Ukraine informed the applicant that it was not possible to execute the judgment because there were no relevant provisions in Ukrainian law (i.e. no relevant resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) authorising it.\n15.  On 15 May 2002 the National Bank of Ukraine transferred UAH 20,000[4] to the applicant’s account in execution of the judgment of 16 August 1999, as modified by the resolution of the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court on 15 March 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1129", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Ms Khadra Mohammed Yuusuf, is a Somali national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Sint Maartensdijk (Netherlands).\n7.  The applicant, her husband and their two children entered the Netherlands on 10 October 1994. They were given temporary accommodation in a refugee holding centre.\n8.  While in the holding centre the applicant twice got into fights, in connection with which she was prosecuted and tried. She was sentenced to a fine of 500 Netherlands guilders (NLG), or ten days' detention in lieu, suspended for two years.\n9.  Three further children were born to the applicant and her husband after their arrival in the Netherlands.\n10.  The applicant, her husband and their children lodged applications for asylum in the Netherlands or, in the alternative, residence permits on humanitarian grounds. They were initially met with a refusal and pursued their case in objection and appeal proceedings.\n11.  On 6 October 2000, the competent administrative authority granted the applicant's husband and the children residence permits on humanitarian grounds; the applicant was refused a residence permit in view of her criminal record. On 14 June 2002 the Regional Court of The Hague confirmed this decision on appeal.\n12.  By decision of 31 July 2003 the Head of the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst), writing on behalf of the Minister for Aliens Affairs and Integration, notified the applicant's husband that he would be granted Netherlands nationality.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1130", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  During the applicant's birth in a public hospital, he suffered a lack of oxygen due to a delayed Caesarean section, which resulted in the permanent paralysis of his arms and legs.\n10.  On 30 June 1989 the applicant, represented by his parents, filed a motion for medical malpractice against the three doctors who had assisted at his birth.\n11.  On 27 September 1993 the Munich Regional Court (Landgericht), by partial judgment, rejected the applicant's motion with regard to one of the doctors.\n12.  On 3 November 1993 the applicant filed an appeal against the partial judgment.\n13.  On 26 January 1995 the Munich Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n14.  On 26 March 1996 the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) refused to entertain the applicant's appeal on points of law.\n15.  On 4 December 1996 the Regional Court rejected the applicant's remaining claims.\n16.  On 8 January 1998 the Court of Appeal confirmed the Regional Court's judgment.\n17.  On 8 December 1998 the Federal Court of Justice refused to entertain the applicant's appeal on points of law.\n18.  On 18 April 2000 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) refused to entertain the applicant's constitutional complaint.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1131", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1968 and 1964 and reside in London and Florence, respectively.\n6.  C.S. was the owner of a flat in Florence, which she had let to M.P.\n7.  On 21 December 1989 the applicants became the owners of the flat.\n8.  The applicants served formal notice on the tenant on 21 February 1990, informing him that they intended to terminate the lease when it expired on 30 June 1991, requiring him to vacate the premises by that date and giving him notice to appear before the Florence Magistrate's Court.\n9.  In a decision of 18 June 1990, that court formally fixed the termination of the lease for 15 November 1993 and ruled that the premises would have to be vacated by 15 September 1994. The decision became enforceable on 17 July 1990.\n10.  On 17 November 1994 one of the applicants, Mrs Ilaria Lo Tufo, signed a statutory declaration to the effect that she urgently needed to recover the use of the flat for her own accommodation.\n11. On 25 May 1995 the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 3 August 1995 they served notice on the tenant indicating that he would be evicted on 5 October 1995 by a bailiff.\n13.  Between 5 October 1995 and 1 October 1998 a bailiff made sixteen attempts to evict the tenant but each attempt proved unsuccessful. The applicants never obtained police assistance for the enforcement of the eviction.\n14.  On 21 July 1999, relying on section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant applied to the District Court for a stay of execution of the eviction. The court stayed the execution until 23 September 1999.\n15.  In October 2000 the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises and the applicants were able to recover the use of their flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1132", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the village of Grodovka, the Donetsk region of Ukraine.\n9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivsky City Court of the Donetsk Region against the “Novogrodivska” Mining Company - a State-owned enterprise - to recover unpaid salary for the years 1998-2000.\n11.  On 3 May 2001 the Novogrodivsky City Court found in favour of the applicant (рішення Новогродівського міського суду Донецької області) and awarded him UAH 7,406.21[1] in salary arrears and compensation for devaluation. The decision became effective on 14 May 2001 and was sent for execution to the Novogrodivsky City Bailiffs’ Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новогродівського міського управління юстиції). However, the decision was not executed, allegedly due to the failure of the Bailiffs’ Service to act in not selling the property of the Mining Company.\n12.  In the course of the enforcement proceedings, it was established that on 19 November 1998 the Donetsk Regional Arbitration Court (Арбітражний суд Донецької області) had instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the “Novogrodivska” Mining Company.\n13.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivsky City Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivsky City Bailiffs’ Service for failure to execute the court decision in his favour. On 18 July 2001 the City Court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding no fault had been committed by that Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs’ Service had presented a decision of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region of 30 August 2000 to the respondent company. This decision prohibited the enforcement of judgments against the company by selling its property, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against it.\n14.  On 1 November 2001 the Appellate Court of the Donetsk Region dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 18 February 2002 the panel of three judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal.\n15.  On 26 December 2001 the ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital was entrenched in the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property. On 10 June 2003 the Constitutional Court found the moratorium to be compatible with the provisions of the Constitution.\n16.  On 12 May 2004 the full amount awarded to the applicant was transferred to his bank account, and on 13 May 2004 the enforcement proceedings were completed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1133", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Sosnowiec.\n6. On 12 June 1994 he was arrested on suspicion of murdering his common-law wife.\n7. On 13 June 1994 the Sosnowiec District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged the applicant with homicide and remanded him in custody until 12 August 1994 in connection with the investigation against him. The prosecutor considered that, given the serious nature of the offence in question, keeping the applicant in custody was necessary to ensure that the process of obtaining evidence followed its proper course. On the same day the prosecutor ordered an autopsy.\n8. On 23 June 1994 the applicant appealed and requested his release.\n9. On 24 June and 4 July 1994 the prosecutor ordered expert opinions. On 6 July 1994 the prosecutor ordered a reconstitution of the events which had taken place on the day of the death.\n10. On 11 July 1994 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 23 June 1994. It found the same justification for the applicant’s detention: the reasonable suspicion against him, the serious nature of the offence in question and the fear that the applicant might tamper with the evidence.\n11. On 28 July 1994 the Sosnowiec District Prosecutor prolonged the applicant’s detention until 12 September 1994.\n12. On 29 July 1994 the Sosnowiec District Court ordered that two psychiatric reports be obtained in order to establish the applicant’s criminal responsibility.\n13. On 27 and 28 August 1994 the prosecutor ordered that two other medical reports be obtained.\n14. On 5 September 1994 the Katowice Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 30 October 1994, relying on the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. The court referred also to the fact that two expert reports had to be prepared. They were submitted to the court on 9 September and 24 October 1994.\n15. On 24 October 1994 the applicant obtained access to the case-file.\n16. On 28 October 1994 the District Prosecutor submitted the bill of indictment to the Regional Court. The prosecutor asked the court to hear evidence from 38 witnesses.\n17. The trial court held hearings on 12 January, 16 March, 21 March, 28 March, 1 June, 8 June, 20 June, 12 October and 12 December 1995, as well as on 28 March 1996.\n18. On 28 March 1996 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. The court convicted the applicant as charged, and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment.\n19. On 30 May 1996 the applicant appealed.\n20. On 13 August 1996 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. It pointed out that the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence and that certain facts required further clarification.\n21. In the course of the retrial, the Regional Court held hearings on 10 December 1996, 27 February, 28 February, 26 March, 30 April, 8 May and 28 October 1997, as well as on 14 and 22 January 1998. The hearing scheduled for 17 February 1998 was adjourned.\n22. At the hearings of 30 April 1997, 28 October 1997 and 17 February 1998 the applicant’s counsel applied for his release, but to no avail.\n23. On 1 June 1998 the court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 November 1998. It made reference to the reasonableness of the suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. The court stressed the serious nature of that offence and the necessity to consider further evid", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1134", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Kahramanmaraş. He was a civil servant at the time of the events giving rise to the application.\n10.  In 1990 the applicant was appointed to the Ölüdeniz Natural Park as a warden in charge of the sale of entry tickets.\n11.  On 29 July 1991 he was detained for selling tickets which had been fraudulently issued and crediting money to his account. In his police statement dated 29 July 1991 and in his statement to the public prosecutor on 30 July 1991, the applicant confessed that he had been involved in selling forged tickets together with two other persons.\n12.  On 30 July 1991 the Fethiye Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n13.  On 20 August 1991 the Fethiye public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Fethiye Assize Court, charging the applicant with embezzlement under Article 202 of the Criminal Code.\n14.  On 18 September 1991 the Fethiye Assize Court held its first hearing. Subsequently, the public prosecutor maintained that, as the applicant’s acts might constitute a breach of Article 342 of the Criminal Code regulating the offence of forgery, permission to prosecute was required from the local authority, pursuant to the Act on the Procedure for the Prosecution of Civil Servants.\n15.  On 30 December 1991 the first-instance court transferred the case file to the Fethiye District Council for investigation and ordered the suspension of the proceedings pending the decision of the District Council. It further ordered the applicant’s release from detention.\n16.  On 16 December 1992 the Fethiye District Governor decided that the applicant could be tried before the Fethiye Assize Court on account of the nature of the charges against him.\n17.  On 22 May 1993 the case file was remitted to the Fethiye Assize Court.\n18.  On 22 December 1993 the court found the applicant guilty of forgery under Article 342 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to one year, eleven months and ten days’ imprisonment.\n19.  On 6 December 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the first-instance court on procedural grounds.\n20.  On 8 March 1995 the Fethiye Assize Court amended the procedural errors in its former judgment and handed down the same sentence against the applicant. The applicant appealed.\n21.  On 11 December 1995 the Court of Cassation, referring to the opinion of the principal public prosecutor dated 20 November 1995, which had not been communicated to the applicant, ruled that the first-instance court had failed to apply the legal provisions relevant to the crime in question. Consequently, it quashed the judgment of the Fethiye Assize Court and stated that the applicant’s acts, which amounted to embezzlement under Turkish law, should have been examined under Article 202 of the Criminal Code.\n22.  The case was subsequently remitted to the Fethiye Assize Court. In his defence submissions before the latter, the applicant denied that his acts constituted a breach of Article 202 of the Criminal Code and requested the court to abide by its judgment of 8 March 1995.\n23.  On 13 March 1996 the Fethiye Assize Court found the applicant guilty of embezzlement under Article 202 of the Criminal Code. It sentenced the applicant to seven years, nine months and ten days’ imprisonment and to a fine of 33,333,333 Turkish liras (TRL) (390 euros (EUR)). The applicant was also debarred from working in the civil service.\n24.  On 6 March 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1136", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Sofia.\n5.  On 11 May 1994 he was arrested and remanded in custody on charges of fraud. He was accused of having obtained in February 1994 a bank credit in the amount of 300,000 Bulgarian levs (which, at the relevant time were the equivalent of approximately 10,000 US dollars) by presenting himself under a false identity and through the use of forged documents. Three other persons, the applicant's alleged accomplices, were also charged in the same proceedings in relation to a number of separate counts of fraud and forgery.\n6.  The applicant had a criminal record which included convictions for thefts dating from 1991, when he was sentenced to four years and two months' imprisonment. As a result, the charges brought against him in 1994 concerned a case of aggravated recidivism, punishable by three to fifteen years' imprisonment.\n7.  The preliminary investigation was completed in the beginning of 1996 when an indictment was submitted to the Sofia City Court.\n8.  The court held hearings on 24 June and 16 October 1996, 14 January, 18 March, 13 June and 3 November 1997, 13 January, 8 April and 11 November 1998, 3 May, 29 June and 8 October 1999. The hearings were adjourned as witnesses or representatives of the civil plaintiffs did not appear or could not be found and summoned. On some occasions adjournments were necessary as one or more of the co-accused persons had not appeared. The applicant's absence was the reason for one adjournment, of the hearing held on 18 March 1997.\n9.  On 8 October 1999 the presiding judge, Mrs M., withdrew from the case. The reason for her withdrawal was pressure brought to bear by the Sofia City Prosecutor in relation to Mrs M.'s decisions to release the applicant on bail (see paragraph 32 below). The examination of the case restarted.\n10.  The hearings listed for 10 April, 22 June, 28 September and 21 December 2000 could not proceed as some of the co-accused persons had not appeared. The applicant was present at those hearings.\n11.  On 23 February 2001 the hearing was adjourned as the applicant's lawyer withdrew from the case shortly before the start of the hearing.\n12.  The hearings scheduled for 25 April, 18 May and 22 October 2001 and 22 February 2002 were also adjourned as several of the persons summoned had not appeared and additional evidence ought to be collected.\n13.  The applicant and another accused person did not appear at the hearing listed for 25 June 2002. The Sofia City Court ordered the applicant's arrest and remand in custody and adjourned the hearing. The applicant was not found before the date of the next hearing, 25 November 2002, which caused another adjournment.\n14.  The applicant appeared at the hearings on 27 March 2003 and 8 September 2003, but the case was adjourned as another accused person had been unable to attend.\n15.  At the hearing on 21 and 24 November 2003 the Sofia City Court heard several witnesses and adjourned the case as some of the witnesses had not appeared.\n16.  As of February 2005 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending before the Sofia City Court, a hearing having been listed for 1 March 2005.\n17.  Throughout the proceedings the Sofia City Court sought police assistance to secure the presence of the persons summoned for the hearings and imposed fines or ordered the arrest of persons who had not appeared without good cause.\n18.  On 11 May 1994 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody.\n19", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1137", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants (husband and wife) were born in 1933 and 1953, respectively, and live in Virovitica, Croatia.\n5.  During a military operation undertaken during the Homeland War by the Croatian Army, in August 1995, the applicants' house in Karin Gornji, Croatia was destroyed.\n6.  On 10 September 1998 the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Obrovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Obrovcu) against the State seeking damages for their destroyed property.\n7.  On 6 November 1999 the Amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”) entered into force. The amended legislation provided that all proceedings instituted against the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.\n8.  On 1 December 1999 the Obrovac Municipal Court dismissed the applicants' claim. The applicants appealed.\n9.  On 8 March 2000 the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) returned the case file to the first-instance court with an instruction to stay the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation.\n10.  On 23 March 2000 the Obrovac Municipal Court stayed the proceedings.\n11.  On 31 July 2003 new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.\n12.  The Government submitted that the applicants' proceedings had resumed pursuant to the above legislation and that they are currently pending before the second-instance court.\nThe applicants submitted that they had received no decision to resume the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1138", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Rouse.\n10.  In 1976 the applicant started working for the Cargo Railway Station in Rouse and until 1989 she formally occupied the positions of dormitories supervisor and facilities and social activities co‑ordinator. In fact, throughout this period the applicant was working – under the instructions of her manager – as a typist at the local section of the Bulgarian Communist Party. This scheme had apparently been devised because the staff tables did not provide for a typist position.\n11.  Accordingly, the applicant's employment agreements and job descriptions did not mention her actual duties, which included mostly typewriting. This arrangement was apparently never called into question by the applicant or her employer.\n12.  Between 1989 and 1996 the applicant worked as an inspector at the human resources department of the Station.\n13.  In late December 1995 or in early January 1996 the applicant's employer, acting pursuant to a medical recommendation on the nature of work she was fit to perform, moved her to a different position – internal mail carrier.\n14.  In 1979 the applicant started experiencing pain in her hands and arms. Initially she was losing the sensitivity in her fingers and could not hold objects. With the passage of time the pain got stronger and her hands started to swell and tremble, especially after long periods of typing.\n15.  In December 1994 the applicant was examined by the Diagnostic Expert Commission (“the DEC”) at the Rouse Regional Hospital. In a decision of 15 December 1994 the DEC found that the applicant was suffering from vegetative polyneuropathy of the upper limbs, a disease which features on the Table of Occupational Diseases. However, the DEC, relying solely on the applicant's job descriptions, concluded that the positions she had occupied (dormitories supervisor, facilities and social activities co‑ordinator) did not entail increased strain on her upper limbs. Accordingly, it qualified her disease as non-occupational, finding no causal link between the conditions of work and the disease. Apparently the DEC refused to examine evidence (including affidavits) submitted by the applicant to prove her actual duties.\n16.  The applicant appealed to the Central Diagnostic Expert Commission (“the CDEC”), arguing that her de facto duties were different from the ones enumerated in her job descriptions. As no witness testimony was admissible, she again submitted affidavits from her managers to the effect that she had actually worked as a typist. On 15 March 1995 the CDEC dismissed the appeal, fully endorsing the reasons of the DEC. Apparently it refused to take into account any other evidence purporting to establish the actual duties of the applicant.\n17.  In October 1995 the applicant was admitted for treatment at the Medical Institute for Transport Workers in Sofia. On 19 December 1995 the DEC at the Institute examined the applicant and found that she suffered from osteohondrosis cervicalis. It also reached the conclusion that the disease was not an occupational one, being unrelated to the duties of the applicant as set out in her job descriptions.\n18.  The applicant appealed against this decision to the CDEC. By a decision of 13 February 1996 it upheld the ruling as to the non-occupational character of the applicant's disease and fully endorsed the DEC's reasons.\n19.  On 19 March 1996 the applicant brought an action against her employer under Article 200 of the Labou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1139", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Dettingen.\n11.  In August 1996 the Dettingen municipal authorities imposed a fine of 120 German marks (DEM), plus costs amounting to DEM 36, on V.B., the applicant's son, for having exceeded the speed limit of 50 km/h by 28 km/h on the evening of 21 May 1996, when travelling in a car belonging to the Trinkomat private limited company (Regulations 3 § 3 (1) and 49 § 1 (3) of the Road Traffic Regulations and section 24 of the Road Traffic Act – see “Relevant domestic law” below). The applicant is the owner and manager of that company.\n12.  On 4 September 1996 V.B. lodged an objection against the administrative decision imposing the fine.\n13.  On 12 March 1997 the trial in the case opened before the Bad Urach District Court. V.B. pleaded not guilty, stating that about fifteen other persons could have been driving the company car in question on that day. The applicant, summoned as a witness, refused to give evidence, as he was entitled to do as a family member. The hearing was adjourned to 19 March 1997.\n14.  On 13 March 1997 around 10 a.m. the applicant, on being asked by a policeman to give evidence about his employees in connection with the proceedings against his son, stated again that he did not wish to do so and that none of his employees was currently working on the business premises. On the same day a police officer, on the order of the Bad Urach District Court judge, asked the city of Dettingen to provide a passport photograph of the applicant's son. Police enquiries from the Dettingen trade authorities (Gewerbeamt) about the applicant's employees at the relevant time had led to nothing.\n15.  On 13 March 1997, at an unknown time, the Bad Urach District Court, in the context of the above proceedings against V.B., issued a warrant to search the business and residential premises of the applicant. The warrant read as follows:\n“In the context of the preliminary investigations against\n... [V.B.] ...\nconcerning\nthe contravention of a traffic regulation,\npursuant to Article 33 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without a prior hearing, in accordance with Articles 94, 95, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106 § 1, 111 et seq., and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 46 of the Contraventions of Regulations Act, 1.  the search of the business and residential premises of the father, Jürgen Buck, ..., 3 ... Street, Dettingen/Erms, Trinkomat company; 2.  the seizure of documents that reveal the identity of the employees of Trinkomat in ... Dettingen between 20 May and 22 May 1996\nare ordered.\nReasons:\nThe son of the manager of Trinkomat, who is charged with having committed, on 21 May 1996, a contravention of Regulation 3 of the Road Traffic Regulations with a company car, has stated at the trial hearing on 12 March 1997 that a driver employed by the company could have committed the offence.\n...”\n16.  The search of the residential and business premises in Dettingen, a town of some 10,000 inhabitants, was effected the same day around 2 p.m. by four police officers from the local police station. Several documents, such as personnel files and statements on working hours, were seized; copies were made and the originals were given back to the applicant the next day. The documents disclosed the names of at least six persons, four women and two men, who had been employed by the applicant's company at the relevant time and revealed, furthermore, that another relative of the applicant could have", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1140", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Novogrodovka, in the Donetsk Region, Ukraine.\n5.  In 2001, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovsky City Court of the Donetsk Region against the “Novogrodovskaya” Mining Company - a State-owned enterprise - to recover unpaid salary for the years 1998 to 2000.\n6.  On 24 May 2001, the Novogrodovsky City Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded him UAH 3,786.07[1] in salary arrears and compensation. The decision became effective the same day and was sent for execution to the Novogrodovsky City Bailiffs’ Service.\n7.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovsky City Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovsky City Bailiffs’ Service for failure to execute the court decision in his favour. On 19 September 2001, the City Court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding that no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs’ Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs’ Service had presented the decisions of the Commercial Court of 30 August 2000 and 14 May 2001 to the respondent company. These decisions prohibited the enforcement of decisions against the company by selling its property, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against it.\n8.  On 1 November 2001, the Appellate Court of the Donetsk Region dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 18 February 2002, the panel of three judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal.\n9.  On 26 December 2001, the ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital, was entrenched in the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.\n10.  On 23 December 2002 the Donetsk Regional Economic Court prohibited the Bailiffs from enforcing the judgments against the debtor company due to the bankruptcy proceedings. This prohibition was lifted in April 2003.\n11.  On 13 January 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service, following the restructuring of the debtor company, replaced the debtor by its legal successor, the Selydivvugillya State-owned Company. The same day the enforcement proceedings were transferred accordingly to another Local Bailiffs’ Service for further actions.\n12.  According to the Government, on 12 May 2004 the awarded amount was paid to the applicant in full and the enforcement proceedings were completed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1141", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1956, 1970, 1966, 1962 and 1963 respectively and live in the town of Zhovti Vody, Ukraine.\n5.  In 1999, all the applicants instituted separate proceedings in the Zheltovodsky Town Court of Dniepropetrovsk Region against their employer, the Elektron-Gaz State-owned company, in order to receive salary arrears and other payments. In 2000-2001, four of the applicants instituted new proceedings in the same court against the same enterprise to receive further payments and compensation.\n6.  On 9 March 1999, the court found for Mr Grishechkin and awarded him UAH 4,055.35 (around EUR 580). On 11 September 2001, in the second proceedings, the court found in part for the applicant and awarded him UAH 8,148.98 (around EUR 1,165).\n7.  On 30 June 1999, the court found for Mr Kayurov and awarded him UAH 1,801.63 (around EUR 257). On 13 January 2000, in the second proceedings, the court found in part for the applicant and awarded him UAH 1,242.92 (around EUR 178).\n8.  On 21 December 1999, the court found for Mr Zavgorodyanskiy and awarded him UAH 4,199.32 (around EUR 600).\n9.  On 9 December 1999, the court found for the Ms Tomayly and awarded her UAH 1,642.24 (around EUR 235). On 26 April 2001, in the second proceedings, the court found in part for the applicant and awarded her UAH 851.72 (around EUR 122).\n10.  On 9 December 1999, the court found for Ms Lopatina and awarded her UAH 1,125.59 (around EUR 161). On 16 November 2001, in the second proceedings, the court found in part for the applicant and awarded her UAH 812.41 (around EUR 116).\n11.  In 2001-2002 the applicants filed several complaints to the different State institutions about the non-enforcement of the above judgments given in their favour. By a letter of 28 March 2002, the applicants were informed by the Dniepropetrovsk Justice Department that the judgments could not be executed due to the operation of the Law of Ukraine “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property” concerning part of the company’s property and the practical impossibility of selling the remainder.\n12.  On 7 March 2003 bankruptcy proceedings were instituted against the debtor company.\n13.  In March 2004 all judgments given in favour of the applicants were enforced in full and the enforcement proceedings were completed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1142", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine.\n5.  In 2001 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Kuybyshevskiy Local Court of Donetsk against his former employer, a State-owned mining company, in order to receive salary arrears.\n6.  On 23 January 2002 the court found for the applicant and awarded him UAH 5,089.99[1]. This judgment was not appealed against and came into force on 24 February 2002. On 26 February the Kuybyshevsky Local Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce the above judgment.\n7.  By letter of 9 August 2002, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant about the measures taken by the bailiffs to enforce the judgment and the limitations on enforcement proceedings due to the operation of the Law of Ukraine “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property”.\n8.  On 29 October 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service, following the restructuring of the debtor company, replaced the debtor by its legal successor, the Donetskvugillya State-owned Company. The enforcement proceedings were transferred accordingly to another Local Bailiffs’ Service for further actions in November 2003.\n9.  On 11 May 2004 the awarded amount was paid to the applicant in full and the enforcement proceedings were completed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1143", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n13.  The applicant was born in 1949 and is currently being held in İmralı Prison (Mudanya, Bursa, Turkey). Prior to his arrest, he was the leader of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan).\nThe facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n14.  On 9 October 1998 the applicant was expelled from Syria, where he had been living for many years. He arrived the same day in Greece, where the Greek authorities asked him to leave Greek territory within two hours and refused his application for political asylum. On 10 October 1998 the applicant travelled to Moscow in an aircraft that had been chartered by the Greek secret services. His application for political asylum in Russia was accepted by the Duma, but the Russian Prime Minister did not implement that decision.\n15.  On 12 November 1998 the applicant went to Rome, where he made an application for political asylum. The Italian authorities initially detained him but subsequently placed him under house arrest. Although they refused to extradite him to Turkey, they also rejected his application for refugee status and the applicant had to bow to pressure for him to leave Italy. After spending either one or two days in Russia, he returned to Greece, probably on 1 February 1999. The following day (2 February 1999), the applicant was taken to Kenya. He was met at Nairobi Airport by officials from the Greek embassy and accommodated at the ambassador's residence. He lodged an application with the Greek ambassador for political asylum in Greece, but never received a reply.\n16.  On 15 February 1999 the Kenyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that Mr Öcalan had been on board an aircraft that had landed in Nairobi on 2 February 1999 and had entered Kenyan territory accompanied by Greek officials without declaring his identity or going through passport control. It added that the Kenyan Minister for Foreign Affairs had summoned the Greek ambassador in Nairobi in order to elicit information about the applicant's identity. After initially stating that the person concerned was not Mr Öcalan, on being pressed by the Kenyan authorities the Greek ambassador had gone on to acknowledge that it was in fact him. The Kenyan Minister for Foreign Affairs had been informed by the Greek ambassador that the authorities in Athens had agreed to arrange for Mr Öcalan's departure from Kenya.\nThe Kenyan Minister for Foreign Affairs also stated that Kenyan diplomatic missions abroad had been the target of terrorist attacks and that the applicant's presence in Kenya constituted a major security risk. In those circumstances, the Kenyan government was surprised that Greece, a State with which it enjoyed friendly relations, could knowingly have put Kenya in such a difficult position, exposing it to suspicion and the risk of attacks. Referring to the Greek ambassador's role in the events, the Kenyan government indicated that it had serious reservations about his credibility and requested his immediate recall.\nThe Kenyan Minister for Foreign Affairs added that the Kenyan authorities had played no part in the applicant's arrest and had had no say in the choice of his final destination. The Minister had not been informed of any operations by Turkish forces at the time of the applicant's departure and there had been no consultations between the Kenyan and Turkish governments on the subject.\n17.  On the final day of his stay in Nairobi, the applicant was informed by the Greek ambassador after the latter h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1144", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  In 1993 the applicant’s husband died in a road traffic accident. On 2 March 1995 the person responsible for the accident was convicted of an offence.\n6.  On 16 October 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava V District Court. She claimed compensation for her maintenance from the person responsible for the accident.\n7.  On 12 April 1996 the District Court judge instructed the court’s registry to obtain the criminal file relating to the death of the applicant’s husband and to notify the defendant of the action.\n8.  On 4 July 1996 the postal authority informed the District Court, in reply to its request, that the letter could not be served on the defendant.\n9.  On 6 February 1997 the District Court asked the applicant’s representative to submit further information. The representative complied with the request on 9 April 1997.\n10.  On 22 May 1997 the case was adjourned as the applicant’s lawyer failed to appear.\n11.  On 10 July 1997 the District Court heard the parties. Both parties were requested to submit further documentary evidence.\n12.  On 2 October 1997 the case was adjourned as the court needed further information from an authority administering the pensions system.\n13.  On 30 November 1998 and on 13 January 1999 the applicant requested the court to proceed with the case.\n14.  On 25 February 1999 the case was adjourned as an inquiry had to be made, to the General Prosecutor’s Office, concerning the relevant criminal file.\n15.  On 20 May 1999 the applicant informed the District Court that she had retired as from 1 April 1999 and that she had appealed against the determination of her pension which included both an old-age and a widow’s pension. The applicant therefore asked the court to adjourn the case as the outcome of the pension proceedings might have a bearing on her claim.\n16.  On 5 August 1999 the applicant submitted a decision on her pension. Her lawyer did not appear at the hearing.\n17.  On 18 November 1999 the applicant’s lawyer informed the court that he would submit his authority and also specify the applicant’s claims. The District Court asked the lawyer to submit the authority and to specify the claims on 22 January 2000, on 29 March 2000 and on 13 July 2000. On 25 July 2000 the lawyer informed the court that the applicant maintained her action and that he would submit further information shortly. On 13 September 2000 the court asked the lawyer to submit the information required within fifteen days.\n18.  The lawyer failed to appear at the hearing held on 12 December 2000.\n19.  On 18 December 2000 the applicant terminated the authority of the lawyer. She appointed a new lawyer to represent her in the proceedings. The lawyer specified the applicant’s claims on 8 January 2001.\n20.  On 15 February 2001 the case had to be adjourned as the defendant had not appeared. The next hearing was scheduled for 19 April 2001 and the defendant was informed that he could be brought to court by the police.\n21.  On 12 April 2001 the defendant asked for the case to be adjourned as his lawyer had ceased representing him. For this reason the case was adjourned until 1 June 2001.\n22.  On 1 June 2001 the case was adjourned as an inquiry was to be made of the Slovak Insurance Company which could possibly become a third party to the proceedings. On 4 July 2001 the Slovak Insurance Company informed the court that it did not wish to join the proceedings as it had no involv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1145", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Modra. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n5.  On 24 August 1993 the Modra municipality sued the applicant before the Bratislava-vidiek District Court. The plaintiff sought to have a contract of lease terminated in respect of a flat which had been earlier allocated to the applicant.\n6.  Between 7 September 1993 and 7 December 1993 the District Court scheduled five hearings. The applicant did not appear. On two occasions he informed the court that he was ill and on another two occasions he stated that his duties prevented him from attending the court hearings.\n7.  On 30 September 1994 a different judge was assigned to deal with the case. A hearing was held on 24 November 1994 at which the applicant failed to appear. The District Court therefore imposed a fine on the applicant as well as on a witness who had also failed to appear.\n8.  At a hearing held on 19 December 1994 the applicant appealed against the decision on a fine and he also challenged the District Court judge dealing with the case. The file was transmitted to the Bratislava Regional Court. On 25 April 1994 the latter quashed the decision on the fine and refused to exclude the District Court judge from dealing with the case.\n9.  The file was returned to the District Court on 1 June 1995. A hearing was scheduled for 4 March 1996. The court had difficulties in serving the summons on the applicant. On 1 March 1996 the applicant requested that the hearing be adjourned as he was ill.\n10.  On 4 April 1996 the case was again adjourned due to the absence of the applicant. The court requested a doctor to submit information on the applicant’s health. Both the applicant and the plaintiff’s lawyer informed the District Court that they could not attend a hearing scheduled for 5 August 1996.\n11.  On 17 September 1996 the District Court decided to jointly deal with the above case and an action of 31 July 1996 seeking termination of the applicant’s contract of lease on a different ground.\n12.  On 27 September 1996 the applicant requested that a hearing scheduled for 30 September 1996 be adjourned as he was ill.\n13.  On 14 November 1996 the District Court heard the parties.\n14.  In the context of a reform of the judiciary the case was transferred to the Bratislava III District Court. The new judge received the file in May 1997. In February 1998 she scheduled a hearing for 6 April 1998. On 16 March 1998 the applicant informed the court that he was ill. The case was adjourned as both the applicant and the plaintiff had failed to appear.\n15.  On 17 June 1998 the applicant made a counter-claim.\n16.  On 31 March 1999 the District Court heard the applicant. On 20 April 1999 the applicant requested that a witness should be heard. Subsequently the case was transferred to a different judge.\n17.  A hearing was held on 12 December 2000.\n18.  On 22 February 2001 and on 3 April 2001 the case was adjourned due to the applicant’s absence.\n19.  On 26 April 2001 the Bratislava III District Court dismissed the action. The decision became final on 10 July 2001.\n20.  By a judicial decision which became final in 1990 the applicant’s former wife was ordered to pay a sum of money to the applicant.\n21.  On 28 January 1991, on the applicant’s request of 3 December 1990, the Bratislava-vidiek District Court started enforcement proceedings in which the sum due was to be obtained by means of selling the defendant’s car.\n22.  On ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1146", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant. The applicants were born in Slovakia in 1960 and 1981, respectively, and now live outside Slovakia. They both have Slovakian nationality and the nationality of the country of their permanent residence.\n9.  In 1985 the Bratislava 4 District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd) pronounced the first applicant’s divorce from Mr P., the biological father of the second applicant. The second applicant was entrusted to the care and custody of the first applicant.\n10.  In 1993 the first applicant married Mr O.A.M. abroad and the applicants set up their permanent residence with him there.\n11.  On 8 January 1996 Mrs O., the mother of the first applicant, filed an action with the Dunajská Streda District Court claiming that she should be granted the right to educate the second applicant, her granddaughter. At that time the second applicant was fourteen years old and both applicants were in Slovakia on a temporary stay. Mr P. later joined the proceedings on the side of Mrs O.\n12.  On 14 February 1996 the District Court appointed the Veľký Meder District Office (Okresný úrad) to look after the second applicant’s interests in the proceedings.\n13.  On 19 February 1996 the first applicant made several submissions to the District Court. She asserted that she and the second applicant were permanently residing outside Slovakia and that, in addition to Slovakian nationality, they also had the nationality of the country of their permanent residence. As they were staying in Slovakia only temporarily, the Slovakian courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the question of the education and care of the second applicant. The first applicant further expressed critical views as to the character of Mrs O. and Mr P. Finally, she lodged an appeal against the decision of 14 February 1996 arguing that officials of the District Office had previously failed to represent the second applicant’s interests adequately and that they could not be expected to do so properly in the future.\n14.  In April and May 1996 the first applicant sought to disqualify the judge dealing with the case as well as all other judges of the District Court on grounds of bias. The hearing scheduled for 13 May 1996 had therefore to be adjourned and the case‑file was submitted to the Trnava Regional Court (Krajský súd) for a decision on the challenge.\n15.  On 27 May 1996 the first applicant filed a petition with the Bratislava Regional Court claiming that Mr P. should be deprived of his parental rights over the second applicant. According to the applicants, no decision has ever been taken in respect of this request.\n16.  On 31 May 1996 the District Office issued an interim measure ordering that the second applicant be temporarily placed in the care of Mrs O. The applicants claim that this measure was illegal and that it has never been served officially on them. The first applicant subsequently returned with the second applicant to their home abroad.\n17.  On 11 July 1996 the Trnava Regional Court sent the case‑file back to the District Court instructing it to invite the first applicant to indicate which judges of the District Court she was challenging and why. Subsequently the police informed the District Court that the applicants had left Slovakia in June 1996.\n18.  On 26 August 1996 Mrs O. requested that the District Court issue an interim measure granting her the custody of the second applicant pending the outcome of the proceed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1147", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Sergey Vasilyevich Chizhov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Zaporizzhia.\n7.  On 6 October 1997 the applicant was apprehended by police officers B.Y.Y. and L.G.T. On the same day he was brought to the medical sobering-up facility by these officers. In the course of the applicant’s apprehension the police officers inflicted bodily injuries on him, resulting in a short-term health disorder.\n8.  On 7 October 1997 the applicant was charged with assaulting and attempting to bribe them.\n9.  On 21 October 1997 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizzhia acquitted the applicant.\n10.  The applicant complained to the Regional Prosecution Service and the General Prosecution Service seeking to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who had unlawfully apprehended and harmed him.\n11.  On 12 February 1998 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the Zaporizzhia City Police Department in the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizzhia, seeking compensation for the moral damage caused by the actions of B.Y.Y. and L.G.T.\n12.  On 9 March 1998 the Prosecution Service of Zaporizzhia instituted criminal proceedings against the officers.\n13.  On 29 January 1999 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizzhia sentenced B.Y.Y. and L.G.T. to a 3 year suspended prison sentence following their conviction for abuse of power and inflicting bodily harm on the applicant. It also ordered the Zaporizzhia City Police Department to pay the applicant UAH 3,709.13[1] in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n14.  On 22 March 1999 the Zaporizzhia Regional Court upheld that decision.\n15.  On 1 April 1999 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizzhia initiated the execution proceedings for the judgment of 29 January 1999.\n16.  On 14 April 1999 the writ of execution was lodged with the Leninsky District Bailiffs’ Service in Zaporizzhia.\n17.  On 20 May 1999 the respondent in the case was changed from the City Police Department of Zaporizzhia to the Regional Police Department of Zaporizzhia, because the latter was responsible for managing the medical sobering-up facilities.\n18.  On 27 July 1999 the writ of execution was transferred to the Ordzhonikidze Bailiffs’ Service for further enforcement.\n19.  In August 1999 the State Treasury Department confirmed the lack of funds of the Regional Police Department.\n20.  On 16 August 1999 the applicant lodged a motion to attach the property of the Zaporizzhia Regional Police Department.\n21.  On 14 September 1999 the Ordzhonikidze District Execution Service of Zaporizzhia informed the applicant that the attachment of the property of a State institution was prohibited by law.\n22.  On 3 November 1999 the Ordzhonikidze District Execution Service informed the applicant of the Zaporizzhia Regional Police Department’s lack of funds. It also stated that the latter owned no property and therefore attachment was not possible.\n23.  During 1999-2000, the applicant repeatedly lodged a number of motions with the Prosecution Service of Zaporizzia, the General Prosecution Service, the State Security Service, the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the Human Rights Ombudsman, seeking to institute criminal proceedings against various officials of the Zaporizzhia Regional Police Department, the execution service officials, Judge D.L.A of the Leninsky District Court, and a private person, D.S.S., who had allegedly assaulted the applicant.\n24.  On 5 April 2000 the Ordzhonikidze District Baili", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1148", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Košice.\n5.  On 8 May 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Poprad District Court. She sued a private company which had constructed a building on her plot of land. The applicant claimed that legal relations between her and the defendant be settled and that easement be imposed in that context.\n6.  On 30 May 1995 the defendant submitted observations on the applicant’s claim. He informed the court that a similar issue was being determined in a different set of proceedings pending before the appellate court.\n7.  In July 1995 the parties submitted further information at the court’s request. Subsequently the judge dealing with the case sought to obtain the file concerning the other set of proceedings allegedly relating to the same issue. That file was returned from the appellate court on 31 May 1996. On 6 June 1996 the District Court asked the applicant to submit further information. The applicant replied on 15 July 1996. On 14 August 1996 the District Court asked the applicant to pay the court fee.\n8.  At a hearing held on 13 September 1996 the applicant modified her claim. The defendant submitted observations in reply on 3 October 1996.\n9.  On 9 March 1998 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 3 April 1998. On the latter date as well as on 4 May 1998 the case was adjourned as the parties had stated that they would attempt to reach a settlement.\n10.  On 5 June 1998 the District Court decided to obtain further information concerning the value of the land in question. That information was submitted to it on 6 July 1998.\n11.  On 28 July 1998 the District Court invited the applicant to pay an advance on the expert’s costs. The applicant paid the sum on 7 August 1998.\n12.  On 11 March 1999 the court appointed an expert and asked him to submit an opinion within forty days. The file was submitted to the expert on 16 March 1999. Subsequently the District Court repeatedly urged the expert to submit the opinion. On 24 March 2000 the expert informed the court that the advance payment of his costs should be increased. On 8 August 2000 the applicant objected to the expert’s request. On 9 November 2000 the District Court requested that the expert should return the file to it.\n13.  The applicant filed several complaints about the length of the proceedings. On 10 November 2000 the President of the Poprad District Court dismissed the complaints. The letter stated that the expert opinion had not been submitted due to illness of the expert and that the judge would consider the possibility of appointing a different expert. Reference was further made to the heavy workload of the judges.\n14.  On 11 January 2001 the District Court appointed a different expert with a view to obtaining an opinion. On 25 January 2001 the second expert informed the court that he was not in a position to elaborate an opinion due to his heavy workload.\n15.  On 13 March 2001 the District Court appointed a third expert. On 29 March 2001 the latter asked for his appointment to be revoked as he was ill.\n16.  On 14 March 2001 the applicant informed the court that a settlement of the case was envisaged.\n17.  On 18 June 2001 the applicant informed the District Court that a settlement had been reached between the parties and that she therefore wished to withdraw her action. On this ground the District Court discontinued the proceedings by a decision of 20 June 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1149", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lived in Bratislava. She committed suicide on 28 September 2004. On 25 October 2004 the applicant’s heirs, Ms V. Čillíková (the sister of the applicant) and Mr J. Bôbik (the applicant’s brother) informed the Court of their wish to pursue the application in the applicant’s stead.\n6.  By a decision which became final on 28 January 1998 the applicant’s and her former husband’s joint tenancy in respect of a flat was terminated. The Bratislava Regional Court decided that the applicant’s former husband should remain the sole tenant of the flat and ordered the applicant to move out of it within fifteen days after she has been provided with alternative accommodation. In the reasons for the judgment the Regional Court explicitly held that the applicant was entitled to use the flat until her former husband found appropriate accommodation for her. However, her former husband did not allow the applicant to enter the flat. She was therefore obliged to temporarily stay at different places including her sister’s flat.\n7.  On 1 March 2000 the applicant requested the Bratislava IV District Court to enforce the above judgment.\n8.  On 18 January 2002 the President of the Bratislava Regional Court admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, that the case had not been proceeded with effectively between 1 March 2000 and 10 January 2002.\n9.  On 9 December 2002, on 16 and 31 January 2003, on 31 March 2003 and on 28 April 2003 the Bratislava IV District Court adjourned the case as the applicant’s former husband failed to appear. The judge had unsuccessfully attempted to have the defendant brought by the police to the hearings held between January and April 2003. According to the applicant, those attempts were unsuccessful also due to the fact that the court had incorrectly indicated the address of the defendant’s employer to the police.\n10.  A hearing was held on 26 May 2003. Both parties attended. The defendant challenged the District Court judge.\n11.  On 6 October 2003 the Bratislava Regional Court decided on the request for exclusion of the District Court judge. The decision was served on the defendant on 28 November 2003.\n12.  A hearing scheduled for 4 March 2004 was adjourned as the District Court judge was ill.\n13.  On 22 April 2004 the applicant filed an enforcement request under a different provision of the Code of Civil Procedure under which a court can, where possible, authorise the person seeking the enforcement of a judicial decision to have a service carried out by a third person at the expense of the debtor. She also withdrew the authority of her lawyer.\n14.  On 22 July 2004 the Bratislava IV District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for enforcement of 1 March 2004. The decision stated that the judgment to be enforced did not explicitly order the defendant to put accommodation at the applicant’s disposal within a specific time-limit. On 24 September 2004 the applicant appealed. In January 2005 the applicant’s lawyer informed the Court that the proceedings were still pending before the Bratislava Regional Court.\n15.  On 8 April 2002 the applicant filed a complaint about delays in the proceedings pursuant to Article 127 of the Constitution. She also claimed 200,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) as just satisfaction.\n16.  On 10 July 2002 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right to a hearing without undue delay guaranteed by Article 48(2) of the Constitution and by Article 6 § 1 of the Conv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1150", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a limited liability company with its registered office in Prague.\n5.  On 5 September 1997 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Prague Regional Commercial Court (krajský obchodní soud) against the National Property Fund (Fond národního majetku) for unjust enrichment in the amount of 5,288,148 CZK (176,085 EUR). The court received the action on 18 September 1997.\n6.  On 22 February 2000 the applicant requested the Regional Commercial Court to schedule a hearing.\n7.  On 20 March 2000 the applicant received the Regional Commercial Court’s request of 23 February 2000 to pay the court fees. A confirmation of their payment was delivered to the court on 13 April 2000.\n8.  On 28 April 2000 the Regional Commercial Court issued a payment order (platební rozkaz) in favour of the applicant. On 5 June 2000 it was delivered to the parties in the proceedings.\n9.  On 11 July 2000 the Regional Commercial Court invited the applicant to submit its observations on the defendant’s appeal, which the court had received on 15 June 2000.\n10.  Upon its receipt of the court’s invitation of 27 July 2000, the applicant sent its observations on 15 September 2000. They were delivered to the court on 18 September 2000.\n11.  Due to the reorganization of the Czech judicial system, the case was transferred to the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) by 1 January 2001.\n12.  On 10 April 2001 the defendant’s lawyer informed the Municipal Court about his representation of the defendant.\n13.  On 29 October 2001 the Municipal Court delivered the applicant’s observations and the court’s request of 23 October 2001 to supplement the defendant’s appeal to the defendant’s lawyer.\n14.  After it had received the supplement to the defendant’s appeal on 7 November 2001, on 28 November 2001 the Municipal Court fixed a hearing for 31 January 2002, at which the applicant’s lawyer presented new evidence and proposed an extrajudicial settlement of the dispute. The defendant’s lawyer requested the Municipal Court to adjourn the hearing for and give him a month to study the evidence and the applicant’s proposal.\n15.  After having held hearings of 26 September and 5 December 2002, the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s action on 16 December 2002. On 20 February 2003 the judgment was delivered to the applicant’s lawyer.\n16.  Upon the applicant’s appeal of 21 February 2003, supplemented on 17 April 2003, the Prague High Court (Vrchní soud) held a hearing on 6 April 2004 and partly granted the applicant’s action on 20 April 2004. On 28 May 2004 the judgment entered into force.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1151", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Istanbul. He is the author of a book titled “Extraordinary War, Terror and Contra Guerrilla” (“Özel Savaş Terör ve Kontragerilla”).\n5.  On 6 January 1993 Orhan Sefa Kilercioğlu, the then Minister of State brought a civil action for compensation against the applicant, before the Ankara First Instance Court in Civil Matters. He claimed that the alleged defamatory remarks in the applicant’s book constituted an attack on his reputation and requested that the court award him compensation of 100,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) for non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  During the proceedings the court evaluated the following passages:\n“In an interview I gave in Antalya I commented on the “1 May 1977” massacre and the possibility of a coup d’état during that period. It seems that a magazine carried out research following these assertions and reached some interesting conclusions.\nAccording to the magazine, the Minister of State, Orhan Kilercioğlu, had established contacts with the Special War Department (Özel Harp Dairesi). He had been involved in the coup that was co-ordinated by General Namık Kemal Ersun together with Generals Recai Engin, Musa Öğün and Rüştü Naipoğlu. The names of these generals had appeared in several foreign and domestic newspapers where they were presented as the authors of the massacre carried out on 1st of May and of other provocative acts. The magazine interviewed Mr Orhan Kilercioğlu. He said the following:\n– Some newspapers and magazines have been presenting you as the author or even the perpetrator of the “1st of May” massacre until last year. You have never commented on those allegations for almost 12 years.\nKilercioğlu: I never thought of replying. The State has everything. It has mechanisms. [Those allegations] have never bothered me.\n– Comments regarding your involvement in the “1st of May” massacre were made with reference to an American newspaper. A periodical commented on your involvement in the contra guerrilla [activities].\nKilercioğlu: The State has laws, it has courts. Under such conditions, would they have kept silent until now? Everything has been done.\n– Did you exercise your right to reply?\nKilercioğlu: I do not remember.\nAs one can easily see, Mr Kilercioğlu is disregarding the questions and making a big fuss. By not having exercised his right to reply and not having lodged a complaint with the judicial organs, he must have been aware of the fact that he was implicitly acknowledging these allegations against him. Especially, someone like him: an ex-general and a Minister of State.\nMr Kilercioğlu answered another question:\n“I am the purest and the most innocent person that you could ever meet in life,” he says. If a person is identifying himself like this, let’s just leave the verdict to a doctor!\nIn an interview he gave after his retirement in 1989 he said: “As you know, there are groups in the army. They fight among themselves. We fought and lost.” He is probably admitting to having belonged to the junta by identifying himself as a member of the “group”.\nOne can conclude from his statement that he had been a member of the junta. One can also presume that the junta of General Namık Kemal Ersun had had plans to overthrow Demirel’s government. Then the question arises: How could Demirel appoint a minister who was involved in a junta against him? Maybe Mr Kilercioğlu is one of Mr Demirel’s sins?\n...\nLet’s go back to Kilercioğlu. Although he admitted to having belonged to a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1152", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1926, 1927, 1930, 1937 and 1939 respectively. The first and second applicants live in Vaduz, the third applicant lives in Schaan and the fourth and fifth applicants live in Triesen.\n9.  The applicants, who are siblings, were joint owners (one-fifth each) of two adjacent plots of land in Schellenberg, registered under files nos. 55/IV and 67/IV of the Schellenberg land register, which they inherited in 1983.\n10.  On 29 September 1972, when the property at issue still belonged to the applicants' father, the Schellenberg municipality issued a provisional area zoning plan (Zonenplanfestsetzungsbeschluss) designating the two parcels of land as non-building land. Before that, the property was not covered by any area zoning plan.\n11.  On 14 May 1980 the Schellenberg Municipal Council (Gemeinderat) dismissed an appeal by the applicants' father.\n12.  On 24 November 1981 the area zoning plan (Zonenplan) was approved by the Liechtenstein Government.\n13.  The applicants' request for a change of the designation of their land into building land (Bauland), dated 24 August 1994, was to no avail.\n14.  On 15 July 1997 the applicants claimed compensation of 4.9 million Swiss Francs (CHF) for damage allegedly incurred due to the designation of their land as non-building land. They claimed that that designation amounted to de facto expropriation.\n15.  On 2 June 1998 the Liechtenstein Government, sitting in camera, dismissed their claim. They found that the impugned designation of the applicants' property, not previously subject to any area zoning plan, as non-building land did not amount to a de facto expropriation conferring a right to compensation. In particular, the applicants' land had not been opened up for building, nor had there been any plans of the municipality to prepare it for development.\n16.  On 18 June 1998 the applicants filed an appeal against the above Government decision with the Liechtenstein Administrative Court (Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz). They claimed, inter alia, that the elements on which the Government had based their decision had not been established in adversarial proceedings. In particular, the applicants alleged that they had not been given an opportunity to present their views on the question of whether or not their land had been opened up for development purposes, which, in fact, had been the case. Thus, they requested that the parties be heard on the matter and that an inspection of the property be carried out. Further, they requested that the Administrative Court obtain the minutes of the Schellenberg Municipal Council's meeting of 5 July 1995, which showed that the municipality had considered the possibility of including their property in a building area.\n17.  On 21 October 1998 the Schellenberg municipality, as respondent, filed submissions (Gegenschrift) requesting the Administrative Court to dismiss the appeal. They referred to the reasons underlying the designation of the applicants' property as non-building land and claimed that the applicants' predecessor had not appealed against the area zoning plan. Further, the municipality contested the applicants' assertion that the said property had been opened up. Contrary to the applicants' assertions, the adjacent parcels had equally been designated as non-building land. The municipality also submitted the minutes referred to by the applicants. The municipality's comments were not served on the applicants.\n18.  On 25 June 1999 the Administra", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1153", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  At the time of the events at issue, the applicants resided in Çalpınar, a village attached to the district of Midyat in the Mardin province of south-east Turkey.\n11.  On 20 April 1992, at around 7 a.m., a group of villagers set out from the village of Çalpınar for the district of Midyat, by a minibus and a truck. On the way to Midyat, an armed group of people stopped the villagers one kilometre away from the village of Çalpınar. They forced the villagers to get out of the vehicles and ordered them to line up near the road. They fired at the villagers and fled. According to the applicants, the armed group consisted of village guards.\n12.  The gendarmes drew a sketch map of the crime scene and drafted an incident report addressed to the Midyat public prosecutor. It was stated in the report that a group of terrorists wearing military uniforms stopped a minibus and a truck near the hamlet of Kuyubaşı attached to the village of Çalpınar. They killed six villagers, namely Hasan Akay, İsmet Acar, Mehmet Ağırman, Abdülkadir Akan, Süleyman Acar and Mehmet Akan. Nine villagers, namely Reşit Acar, Mehmet Emin Acar, Sabri Acar, Ahmet Acar, İbrahim Akan, Yusuf Acar, Erdal Acar, Salih Acar, Süleyman Acar and Semra Akan, were wounded. Furthermore, the gendarmes found 66 empty cartridges of 7.62 mm which had been discharged from Kalashnikov rifles. The report concluded that the incident was an ideologically motivated killing by members of the PKK.\n13.  On the same day the Midyat Public Prosecutor and a forensic doctor conducted an autopsy at the scene of the incident. They concluded that the persons killed in the incident had died of bullet wounds. The autopsy report recorded the following injuries:\nİsmet Acar: One bullet entry on the right ear, one bullet exit on the upper part of the head, one bullet entry on the right armpit, one bullet exit on the right shoulder, one bullet wound on the abdomen, one bullet entry on the upper abdomen, one bullet exit on the waist, one bullet entry on the right upper abdomen, one bullet exit on the right upper hip, one bullet entry on the right thigh and one bullet exit on the front hip.\nHasan Akay: One bullet entry on the forehead, one bullet exit on the right part of the head, one bullet entry between the 10th and 11th ribs, one bullet exit on the right front ribs, one bullet entry on the inner right elbow, one bullet exit on the outer right elbow, one bullet entry on the left upper 12th rib, one bullet exit on the left part of the chest, one bullet wound on the left shoulder, one bullet entry on the inner left leg and one bullet exit on the outer left leg.\nMehmet Ağırman: One bullet entry on the left shoulder blade, one bullet exit on the right shoulder blade, one bullet entry on the inner right elbow, one bullet exit on the outer left elbow and one bullet wound on the right calf.\nSüleyman Acar: One bullet wound on the left temple, one bullet entry on the left shoulder, one bullet exit on the left shoulder blade, one bullet entry on the right part of the right wrist, one bullet exit on the left part of the right wrist and one bullet entry on the left calf.\nMehmet Akan: One bullet entry on the left hip, one bullet exit on the upper left hip, one bullet entry on the waist, one bullet exit on the scrotum, one bullet entry between the 9th and 10th ribs, one bullet exit on the upper right hip and one bullet exit between the 9th a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1154", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 11 March 1997 the applicant acquired a car – a Renault 21 Nevada - at an auction organised by the Białystok Tax Office. Having subsequently had certain technical defects of the car repaired, the applicant applied to the Białystok Municipal Office for registration. On an unspecified date the Director of the Office refused to do so on the ground that the car was unfit for use and could therefore be used only as scrap-metal. After numerous entreaties of the applicant, the Director orally agreed to register the car on condition that the applicant replaced the engine and a part of the chassis. On 17 March 1997 the applicant requested the Białystok Tax Office to reimburse the costs involved in the acquisition of the new engine and chassis. On 15 April 1997 the Białystok Tax Office declined the applicant’s request on unspecified grounds. Subsequently, the applicant ordered a new engine and chassis and made an advance payment in the amount of PLN 3000.\n10.  On 20 March 1997 the applicant was served with a decision of the Director of the Białystok Municipal Office refusing his request to register the car. The Director referred to the fact that the identification numbers of the engine and chassis had been forged and that that it was therefore impossible to find out who had owned car before its acquisition by the applicant. Therefore, the car could not be considered as a “recovered stolen car” within the meaning of the Annex No. 7 to the ministerial Order of 12 October 1995 (§ 28 below), which was a prerequisite for obtaining new identification numbers. On 23 April 1997 the Białystok Governor upheld the contested decision on the same grounds.\n11.  In a letter of 5 May 1997 the Warsaw-Śródmieście District Prosecutor expressed regret for the administrative authority’s refusal to register the applicant’s car and remarked on the lack of consistency in the interpretation of the relevant provisions by the authorities handling the applicant’s case. He also suggested that the applicant request the prosecuting authorities, in their capacity as guardians of legal order, to join administrative proceedings on his behalf.\nOn 7 May 1997 the Białystok Municipal Office informed the applicant that pursuant to the relevant regulations a car of unknown origin could not be registered.\n12.  On 3 July 1997 the Białystok District Prosecutor refused to institute proceedings against the public servants who had issued the administrative decisions in the applicant’s case, finding that they had no case to answer.\n13.  In reply to the applicant’s request, on 27 August 1997 the Ombudsman refused to act on his behalf, considering that the law only allowed new identification numbers to be engraved and the registration to be obtained on conditions which were not met in the applicant’s case.\n14.  On 8 September 1997 the Warszawa-Śródmieście District Prosecutor informed the applicant that the car in question, being “the subject of a criminal offence”, had been handed over to the Białystok Tax Office on the basis of a decision concerning exhibits, with a view to selling it at an auction under §§ 1 and 4 of the Regulation of the Council of Ministers of 6 March 1971 (§ 27 below).\n15.  On 2 October 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of 20 March 1997 and 23 April 1997. It found that the administrative authorities had failed to provide any reasons for their refusal of registration. In respect of the new chassis and engine identification numbers, the court ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1155", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Alexandru Dumbraveanu, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  The applicant is a policeman. According to the Law on Police Forces of 18 December 1990 the local administration is obliged to provide policemen with apartments within one year of their commencing employment. On an unspecified date the applicant filed an official request with the Municipal Council for an apartment. The Municipal Council rejected the request and the applicant brought a civil action against it.\n8.  On 22 June 1998 the Chişinău District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the Municipal Council to provide him with an apartment.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicant lodged an action with the Centru District Court seeking a change in the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 14 March 1997. In particular, he claimed money from the Municipal Council in lieu of an apartment.\n10.  On 8 September 2000 the Centru District Court decided to change the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 22 June 1998 and ordered the Municipal Council to pay the applicant 180,357 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 16,800 euros (EUR) at the time), the market value of the apartment. The Municipal Council filed an appeal against that decision.\n11.  On 8 November 2000 the Chisinau Regional Court allowed the appeal and in a final judgment reduced the amount from MDL 180,357 to MDL 111,240 (the equivalent of approximately EUR 10,500 at the time).\n12.  At the Municipal Council’s request, the Prosecutor General’s Office filed an application for annulment with the Supreme Court of Justice, but the application was dismissed on 4 April 2001.\n13.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the Bailiff failed to enforce.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicant wrote to the Ministry of Justice, complaining about the non-enforcement of the decision. In a letter addressed to the Municipal Council on 17 March 2003, the Ministry of Justice warned the former to execute the court judgment.\n15.  The judgment of 8 November 2000 was enforced on 11 September 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1156", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants, Mr J.S. and Ms A.S. are a married couple residing in Stegna.\n9.  By way of an administrative decision of 29 October 1948 a property owned by the second applicant’s father W.U. and located in Czarzaste-Chodubki was expropriated pursuant to provisions of the 1944 Decree on Agrarian Reform. It was stated in the decision that W.U. was the owner of this property.\n10.  On 21 December 1948 this decision was upheld by the Minister of Agriculture, who considered that the factual findings of the expropriation commission as to the area of the property concerned could not be called into question given that the commission was composed not only of agents of the administration, but also of political representatives.\n11.  By an on-site protocol of 7 May 1949 a commission, established under the provisions of the 1944 Decree on Agrarian Reform, inspected the property and found that land situated in Czarzaste-Chodubki owned by the second applicant’s father W.U. consisted of 68 hectares of land, out of which 50 hectares 3175 square metres constituted arable land.\n12.  On 15 February 1990 the applicants lodged with the Ministry of Agriculture an application to have the expropriation decision declared null and void under Article 156 of the Code of Administrative Procedure or amended under Article 155 of the Code of Administrative Procedure.\n13.  On 3 March 1995 the applicants complained to the Supreme Administrative Court about the failure of the administration to rule on their 1990 application.\n14.  On 24 March 1995 the applicants submitted further pleadings to that court, indicating that certain relevant documents had been found in the Ostrołęka Regional Office which showed that the on-site commission had wrongly calculated the surface of the property concerned in 1949. The area of the property was in fact, in the light of the newly found documents, 49,92 hectares of arable land. Thus, the property should not have been subject to expropriation within the framework of the agrarian reform law as it did not attain the minimum threshold of 50 hectares of arable land. The applicants further referred to an official protocol drawn up in 1957, which confirmed this finding.\n15.  By a judgment of 9 October 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the Minister of Agriculture to issue a decision concerning the applicants’ application of 1990 within two months from the date of the judgment.\n16.  By a letter of 10 November 1995 the applicants informed the Ministry that the property in question had had a surface of approximately 44 hectares, as shown by the protocol of 8 April 1948 and by another document drawn up by land surveyor A.P. in 1948.\n17.  On 17 April 1996 the Ministry of Agriculture obliged the Ostrołęka Regional Office to take further evidence in order to establish the legal status of the property concerned under the provisions of civil law, i.e. to determine who had been the owner of the property concerned at the time of expropriation.\n18.  The applicants objected thereto by a letter of 19 May 1996, pointing out that the question who had been the owner of the property in 1948 in terms of substantive civil law was entirely extraneous to the administrative case which was pending before the Ostrołęka Regional Office. Any issues concerning the assessment of the link between the former owner of the property and the applicants from the angle of substantive civil law on inheritance was irrelevant for the administrative case, which concerned", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1157", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bucharest.\n9.  In 1977 the applicant joined the Constanţa Bar (Romania). He practised as a lawyer until 1981, when he left for the United States. As a result, the Romanian authorities deprived him of his Romanian citizenship and required him to notify the Constanţa Bar that he had ceased his professional activities and to transfer to his colleagues the cases on which he was then working.\n10.  In a decision of 30 October 1981 the Constanţa Bar acknowledged the applicant’s request to cease his professional activities and decided to cancel the applicant’s membership. According to the applicant, he did not request that his membership of the Bar be cancelled.\n11.  In 1985 the applicant became a member of the New York Bar and practised there as an attorney until 1991.\n12.  In August 1990 the applicant applied to the Bucharest Bar to be registered as a lawyer there. On 5 November 1990 the Chairman of the Romanian Union of Lawyers (Uniunea Avocaţilor din România – “the UAR”) sent him the following reply:\n“Until a new law concerning lawyers is passed, we can only order the annulment of the Constanţa Bar’s decision to cancel your membership, so that you may resume your membership of that bar, but you will be deemed ineligible to practise until you return to this country. ... Indeed, the current law does not allow you to be a member of two bars, irrespective of the fact that one such bar is in this country and the other is abroad.”\n13.  The Chairman of the UAR confirmed his position in the course of subsequent meetings with the applicant in March 1991.\n14.  In March 1991, after his Romanian citizenship had been restored, the applicant returned to live in Romania. On 12 April 1991 he applied to the Constanţa Bar for the annulment of the 1981 decision, on the ground that he had never requested the cancellation of his Bar membership. He also applied for reinstatement as a lawyer and to be removed from the list of lawyers who were ineligible to practise as he had been a member of another Bar.\n15.  On 8 May 1991 the Constanţa Bar annulled the 1981 decision to remove the applicant’s name from the Bar roll but ordered his re-registration on the list of lawyers ineligible to practise, as he was still a member of another bar.\n16.  From 1991 onwards the applicant offered investment advice to several multinational corporate clients investing in Romania.\n17.  In 1994 he founded a company, Petru Buzescu SRL, subsequently renamed Buzescu & Co SRL, of which he was the sole shareholder and whose main field of activity was business and management consultancy.\n18.  On 19 May 1996 the Constanţa Bar decided to remove the applicant’s ineligible status and to register his name on the list of practising lawyers with effect from 10 May 1996.\n19.  From May 1996 until October 1999, given that he had been reinstated by the Constanţa Bar, he paid monthly Bar fees and UAR fees amounting to 1,983,000 Romanian lei (approximately 225 euros [“EUR”], according to the average exchange rate for the relevant period).\n20.  On 14 May 1996, in accordance with the Legal Profession Act (Law no. 51/1995) and the Rules governing the Legal Profession, the applicant submitted an application to the Bucharest Bar for a transfer from the Constanţa Bar. He did not receive any response.\n21.  On 27 June 1996 the UAR decided that, in accordance with Article 5 § 3 (j) of Legislative Decree no. 90/1990 concerning the organisation and practice of the lega", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1158", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Muş.\n7.  On 11 May 1994 the applicant was arrested and placed in custody by officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of his membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party).\n8.  On 19 May 1994 he was brought before the public prosecutor and then the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. The same day, the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n9.  In an indictment dated 1 June 1994, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and eleven others for being members of the PKK. The prosecutor requested that the applicant be sentenced pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of Law No. 3713 (the Anti-Terrorism Law).\n10.  On 29 May 1997 the applicant was convicted as charged by the Istanbul State Security Court and sentenced to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.\n11.  On 14 December 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant’s conviction on the ground that the State Security Court had delivered its judgment without obtaining a final statement from the applicant, and thus had restricted the applicant’s defence rights. The case was remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court for a further examination and the applicant remained in custody.\n12.  On 16 March 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court held its first hearing.\n13.  In the course of the criminal proceedings the applicant made numerous submissions for his release pending trial. He claimed that he was innocent and had been held in detention on remand for an excessive period, contrary to international norms. The court dismissed his request for release at each of the nine hearings held between 11 August 1994 and 28 November 1995 without indicating any reason. At each of the thirty-five hearings held between 1 February 1996 and 17 April 2001, it dismissed the request due to “the state of the evidence and the content of the case file”.\n14.  In the meantime, the applicant’s lawyer challenged his client’s continued detention before another court. In his petition of 7 November 2000, he stated that his client had been detained for six years and six months, despite the absence of any danger that he would destroy the evidence, which had all been submitted to the case file, or that he would abscond. The court dismissed the request on similar grounds (paragraph 13 in fine above), namely “having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file”.\n15.  The Istanbul State Security Court held twenty-eight more hearings before delivering its final judgment. At fifteen of them, where the court merely reviewed the applicant’s continued detention, the applicant was not present. For the others, the court fixed them at approximately two month intervals.\n16.  On 12 April 2001 the State Security Court adhered to its first judgment and convicted the applicant of the offence.\n17.  On 8 October 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1159", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1966 and lives in Switzerland where she has been granted political asylum. She was the wife of Necati Aydın, whose body was found on 9 April 1994 in a location outside Diyarbakır, with his hands tied at the back. He had been shot in the head with a single bullet.\n9.  The facts of the case, particularly those events which occurred between 18 March 1994 and 9 April 1994, are disputed by the parties.\n10.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 14-30). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 31-37). The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 38-73).\n11.  The Commission, in order to establish the facts disputed by the parties, conducted an investigation with the assistance of the parties, pursuant to former Article 28 § 1 (a) of the Convention. It appointed three delegates (Mr Jean-Claude Geus, Mr Marek Nowicki and Mr Marc Vila Amigó) who took evidence in Strasbourg on 17 September 1999 and in Ankara from 22 September 1999 to 24 September 1999. They interviewed the applicant as well as the following 11 witnesses: Ms Yasemin Aydın, Mr Şemsettin Aydın, Mr Sezgin Tanrıkulu, Mr Arif Altınkalem, Mr Bekir Selçuk, Mr Rıdvan Yıldırım, Mr Sami Güngör, Mr Ramazan Sürücü, Mr Yusuf Ercan, Mr Ali Uslu and finally Mr Cemil Çelik. A summary of the oral evidence given by these witnesses is found in Section E below (paragraphs 74-129).\n12.  Three other witnesses, Mr Osman Yetkin, Mr Raif Kalkıcı and Mr Tahir Baboğlu, were also summoned but did not appear before the Commission’s delegates.\n13.  Following the questioning of the above mentioned witnesses, the Commission considered it important to hear two police officers who had accompanied Necati Aydın and Mehmet Ay to the Diyarbakır State Security Court (see paragraph 116 below). The Commission informed the parties on 27 September 1999 that the delegates wanted to interview the police officers in Strasbourg on 28 October 1999. The Government were requested to identify the two police officers and summon them for the hearing in Strasbourg. The Government asked the Commission to explain why a need was felt to hear the police officers in person as opposed to questions being put to them in writing, and further asked the Commission to reconsider its decision. Despite the Commission’s repeated explanations, the Government failed to identify the witnesses and informed the Commission on 26 October 1999 that they did not have time to identify the two police officers and therefore they would not be able to ensure their attendance at the proposed hearing. The Commission was therefore obliged to cancel the proposed hearing.\n14.  In 1994 the applicant was working as an anaesthetics nurse, and her husband, Necati Aydın, as an environmental technician. They were civil servants. Necati was also the president of the Health Workers’ Trade Union (Tüm Sağlık Sen). Previously, the applicant and her husband had been subjected to harassment and arrest by the security forces. Their activities on behalf of the trade union had drawn the unwelcome attention of the security forces and the police to them.\n15.  In March 1994 the applicant and her husband did not have a permanent residence as they had been subjected to several transfer orders and had been moving around Turkey to various places of work. The app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1160", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is an organisational unit of the Roman Catholic Church with its head office in Prague.\n5.  On 27 April 2000 (according to the applicant) or 2 May 2000 (according to the Government), the applicant lodged an action with the Mělník District Court (okresní soud) against Mr H., seeking to establish its ownership of plots of land with a church and belfry in Obříství.\n6.  On 11 October 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request of 23 August 2000 for an interim measure to secure the applicant’s access to and use of the property in question. This decision was delivered to the applicant’s lawyer and the defendant on 16 and 26 October 2000 respectively. On the same date, the defendant received a copy of the applicant’s action.\n7.  On 6 November 2000 the applicant’s appeal of 23 October 2000 against the decision on interim measures was delivered to the defendant, who sent his observations on 22 November 2000.\n8.  On 5 December 2000 the case-file was submitted to the Prague Regional Court (krajský soud), which on 12 December 2000 quashed the lower court’s decision and remitted the case to it for further consideration. It ordered the District Court to hear the parties to the proceedings before deciding on the request.\n9.  In January 2001 the Regional Court’s decision was received by the parties to the proceedings.\n10.  On 8 March 2001 the District Court fixed a hearing for 23 April 2001, at which it granted the requested interim measure.\n11.  Upon the defendant’s appeal of 15 May 2001, received by the applicant’s lawyer on 21 May 2001 and after the submission of the case-file to the Regional Court on 5 June 2001, the latter upheld the District Court’s decision on 14 June 2001. This decision entered into force on 31 July 2001.\n12.  On 12 March 2003 the District Court held a hearing, at which it dismissed the applicant’s action.\n13.  On 27 June 2003 the Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal of 2 April 2003, supplemented on 10 April 2003, quashed the District Court’s judgment and remitted the case to it for further consideration.\n14.  On 21 January 2005 the applicant’s received the District Court’s decision of 6 January 2005 appointing an expert in the field of church law.\n15.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1161", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1950, and lives in Hatay.\n7.  On 10 February 1994 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody by officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of involvement in the activities of an illegal armed organisation, namely the TKEP/L (Turkey’s Communist Labour Party/Leninist).\n8.  On 24 February 1994 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and then the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. The same day the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n9.  In an indictment dated 17 May 1994, the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and eleven other defendants before the Istanbul State Security Court (“the court”), accusing them, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of involvement in activities that undermine the constitutional order of the State. The prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n10.  By a letter of 24 February 1995, the court requested from the First and Second Divisions of the State Security Court that the two case files pending before them be transmitted to it for examination, as some of the defendants had been put on trial for similar charges before these courts.\n11.  On 22 May 1995 the court decided that the criminal proceedings pending before the Konya State Security Court should also be joined to the present case as the applicant was being prosecuted for similar charges before that court.\n12.  At the hearings of 27 July 1995, 8 March, 20 May, 19 July, 23 September and 20 November 1996, the court obtained testimonies from the complainants, who claimed to be the victims of the acts of the defendants and eye witnesses to the events.\n13.  On 27 January 1997 the court joined the case with that pending before the First Division of the Istanbul State Security Court. In the other case, the applicant was also accused of being a member of the same organisation and the activities in which he was allegedly involved were similar.\n14.  On 11 April 1997 the Court of Cassation set aside the decision to join the two criminal proceedings.\n15.  By a letter of 10 September 1997, the court requested that the case files pending before the Fifth and the Second Divisions of the State Security Court be sent to it for examination, as the facts were allegedly the same as in the present case.\n16.  At the hearings of 19 November 1997 and 26 January 1998, the complainants of a robbery which had taken place in the Ağaoğlu and Aslantaş Commercial Centres were heard. The court noted that some of the witnesses had already made statements before the Seventh Division of the Istanbul Assize Court in relation to the incident at the Aslantaş Commercial Centre. Accordingly, it issued a letter to the Seventh Division of the Assize Court asking the latter to transfer the case file to it.\n17.  During the hearings held on 17 June and 5 August 1998, the court noted that the information requested from the Assize Court had not been received. It therefore repeated the earlier request.\n18.  On 7 October 1998 the Assize Court informed the State Security Court that it was unable to provide that information, as no defendant’s name had been mentioned in the letter of request.\n19.  On 22 February 1999 the prosecutor submitted his observations on the case, in which he sought the applicant’s conviction and sentence pursuant to Article 146 § 1 of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1162", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Rab.\n5.  On 10 June 1996 a company J. (“the company”) instituted civil proceedings against the applicant in the Rijeka Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Rijeci) seeking restitution of business premises in the applicant's possession and payment of rent.\n6.  On 7 August 1996 the applicant filed a counterclaim against the company seeking payment of a certain amount of money on the basis of his investments in the business premises.\n7.  The two cases were joined.\n8.  On 2 October 1996 the Rijeka Commercial Court decided in the company's favour. At the same time it dismissed the applicant's claim as inadmissible because the company had meanwhile gone bankrupt and the applicant failed to report his claim in bankruptcy.\n9.  The applicant appealed against that decision. On 11 February 1997 the High Commercial Court (Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske) upheld the first instance judgment.\n10.  On 27 March 1997 the applicant filed a request for revision on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).\n11.  On 11 December 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request on its merits. That decision was not served on the applicant until 6 May 2002.\n12.  Meanwhile, on 22 March 2002 a new section 59 (a), which subsequently became section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act entered into force, introducing a domestic remedy for length of proceedings in form of a constitutional complaint.\n13.  In line with the new legislation, on 11 April 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the proceedings.\n14.  On 2 October 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint because the Supreme Court had meanwhile decided his case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1163", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1921 and lives in Novska, Croatia.\n6.  During the Homeland War, members of the Croatian Army had seized the applicant's vehicle.\n7.  On 24 January 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking compensation for his vehicle from the State.\n8.  On 3 June 1997 the court gave partial judgment awarding the applicant compensation.\n9.  Both the applicant and the State appealed. On 25 August 1998 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the judgment and remitted the case.\n10.  On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”). The amended legislation provided that all actions for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army and the police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.\n11.  On 17 December 1999 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation. On 12 December 2000 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against that decision.\n12.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”).\n13.  On 11 November 2003 the applicant's proceedings resumed pursuant to the above legislation. The proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1164", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 14 April 1992 the applicant's house in Vinkovci, Croatia was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n6.  On 12 July 1993 the applicant, together with her husband, filed a civil action with the Vinkovci Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vinkovcima) against the State seeking damages in the amount of 847,671 Croatian kunas (HRK) for her destroyed property. She relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.\n7.  The court held hearings on 15 December 1993, 5 January and 22 March 1994 and 6 February 1996.\n8.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending enactment of new legislation on the subject.\n9.  On 25 July 1996 the applicant's husband applied to the administrative authorities for reconstruction assistance in order to obtain financial means to reconstruct their destroyed house. On 9 August 1996 the competent administrative authority granted his request. The reconstruction was completed on 26 May 1997. The total amount the State spent on the reconstruction of the house amounted to HRK 234,040.\n10.  On 27 March 2002 the Vinkovci Municipal Court stayed the above mentioned civil proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.\n11.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.\n12.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 14 January 2004 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings and, on 19 February 2004, dismissed the applicant's action finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against that decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1165", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Bludenz.\n5.  In May 2000 the Feldkirch Regional Court (Landesgericht) opened criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of having committed homosexual acts with adolescents contrary to Article 209 of the Criminal Code.\n6.  On 23 November 2000 the Regional Court, after having held a trial, convicted the applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment suspended on probation. It found that, in 1997, he had performed homosexual acts with two adolescents.\n7.  Upon the applicant's appeal, the Innsbruck Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) requested the Constitutional Court (Verfassungs-gerichtshof) to review the constitutionality of Article 209.\n8.  On 29 November 2001 the Constitutional Court dismissed this request (see paragraph 22 below).\n9.  On 20 December 2001 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal filed a new request for review of the constitutionality of Article 209.\n10.  On 21 June 2002 the Constitutional Court gave a judgment holding that Article 209 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional (see paragraph 23 below).\n11.  The amendment repealing Article 209 entered into force on 14 August 2002. While, according to the transitional provisions, Article 209 remained applicable in all cases in which the judgment at first instance had already been given before the entry into force of the amendment, it could no longer be applied in the applicant's case since it had been the case in point (Anlaßfall) before the Constitutional Court.\n12.  On 17 July 2002 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal, noting that the Constitutional Court had repealed Article 209 as unconstitutional, acquitted the applicant. This decision was served on him on 12 August 2002.\n13.  On 20 September 2002 the Feldkirch Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request for reimbursement of his defence costs holding that under Article 393a (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozeßordnung) no right to compensation existed if the accused was not punishable on grounds which occurred after the indictment was filed.\n14.  On 12 November 2002 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal partly granted the applicant's appeal, awarding him reimbursement of a total amount of 1,839.38 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. It found that the Regional Court had wrongly applied Article 393a (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant's case had been the case in point before the Constitutional Court leading to the repeal of Article 209 of the Criminal Code. His case had to be treated as if Article 209 had never existed. Consequently, it could not be said that he was acquitted on grounds which occurred after the indictment.\n15.  The court found that the applicant's defence costs including the costs relating to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, in which the applicant, as an interested party (mitbeteiligte Partei), had made detailed submissions, had been necessarily incurred. However, the law provided that only a maximum amount of EUR 1,091 was to be reimbursed as contribution to the defence costs. In addition EUR 748,38 were awarded for cash expenses.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1166", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1963 and 1951 respectively. They were shareholders in two limited liability companies. It appears that at least S.E. was also in a management position in those companies. Both companies were in the process of being wound up from 1991.\n8.  W., a lawyer working for the bank which was the main creditor of the companies, was appointed as the official receiver to control the assets of the companies. Having received a special auditor’s reports about the companies W., on 21 October 1992, requested the police to investigate whether offences had been committed in the companies before they went into liquidation. The police interview of the official receiver began on 9 December 1992 and continued in January 1993. S.E. was questioned by the police for the first time on 25 May 1993. That day he was also arrested and a large number of documents were seized from both the applicants. T.K. was questioned by the police on 27 May 1993.\n9.  On 12 September 1994 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) revoked the seizure of the documents, as requested by S.E., as the time-limit of four months had passed since they had been seized and no charges had been brought against the applicants during that time. The decision became a precedent (KKO 1994:83).\n10.  The applicants were questioned several times in the course of the investigations during the period from May 1993 until 1995. It appears that the police investigations concerning the two companies came to an end in November 1993 and April or May 1995 respectively.\n11.  S.E. petitioned the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman, who in her decision of 28 February 1997 took the view that the pre-trial investigations should have been speedier.\n12.  The applicants were charged with offences as dishonest debtors. Writs of summons were served upon S.E. on 1 November 1994 and on 11 May 1995 and upon T.K. on 8 May 1995. Three oral hearings were held in the Espoo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) on 16 February 1995, 11 May 1995 and 29 June 1995. S.E. was absent from the first hearing due to a lawful impediment. At the second hearing the complainants requested a deferral which was granted.\n13.  On 29 June 1995 the District Court ruled inadmissible the charges brought against the applicants, without considering their merits, on the grounds of their being in breach of procedural requirements. The District Court found that the complainants, i.e. the meeting of the debtors, had not requested that charges be brought against the applicants. The mere fact that the official receiver had made a request to that effect was not sufficient, as the practice at the time of the alleged offences required that the decision should be made by the meeting of the debtors. The District Court noted, however, that chapter 39, section 9 (3) of the Criminal Code (rikoslaki, strafflagen), which had entered into force after the commission of the alleged offences, allowed for the official receiver to request a prosecution. The District Court concluded that although the provision was of a procedural nature and as such applicable to offences committed prior to its entry into force, applying the provision in this case would lead to an unfavourable outcome for the applicants. Thus, the District Court decided not to apply the new provision, and accordingly, not to consider the merits of the charges.\n14.  In July 1995 the public prosecutor, the complainants and S.E. appealed. On 28 November 1996 the Helsinki ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1167", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n15.  The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1944 and lives in the town of Silvan within the administrative jurisdiction of the province of Diyarbakır, in south-east Turkey.\n16.  The facts of the case, particularly concerning events which took place on or about 21 April 1992 and on or about 30 June 1992, are disputed between the parties.\n17.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 18-32). The Government's submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 33-36). Documentary evidence submitted by the Government and by the applicant are summarised in Sections D (paragraphs 37-61) and E (62-67) respectively.\n18.  The applicant's son Ender Toğcu[1] was the manager of the Sento hotel and the Arzu club in Diyarbakır. He had no relations with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (the PKK) or any other similar organisations.\n19.  On an unspecified date, Ender's maternal cousin Mehmet Kartal was taken into custody in relation to a criminal case and when Ender's photograph was found on him, he apparently made a statement to the effect that he and Ender were partners in the alleged crime. The cousin was subsequently released without charge.\n20.  The applicant stated in the application form submitted to the Commission that, on 29 November 1994, Ender Toğcu's wife Güler was in Diyarbakır Hospital, giving birth. The applicant's wife was with her. At about 3 p.m. Ender Toğcu left his older brother Ali Toğcu to go to the hospital. However, Ender never arrived at the hospital and had not been seen since.\n21.  In reply to a query from the Court into details of the hospital records showing the date of birth, the applicant replied on 31 January 2000 with the correction that the woman who had been in hospital giving birth on the day of Ender's disappearance was not Ender's wife but the wife of his brother Ali. On the day in question Ender and Ali had had a meal together at a restaurant near their house before Ender had left for the hospital to visit Ali's wife. Although the applicant submitted that he would obtain hospital records and send them to the Court, he failed to do so.\n22.  In his memorial of 16 October 2001, the applicant submitted that on the day of his disappearance, his son Ender had been with his wife Güler, who was pregnant and had been taken to the maternity ward of the hospital as she was feeling unwell. Ender never returned from the hospital. The applicant also informed the Court that Ender had one child, born on 12 March 1993.\n23.  At about 10.30 p.m. on 29 November 1994, seven or eight plain‑clothes police officers came to the applicant's home in Diyarbakır and beat the applicant and his younger son. The police officers enquired about Ender's whereabouts. The applicant told them, although he knew that this was untrue, that Ender had left for Kayseri three days earlier. The police officers then told him that his son was in the hands of the police and that they would hand over his body in three days.\n24.  The police officers moved on to the house of Ali Toğcu, where they arrived at about midnight and conducted a search without finding anything. Ali told the police officers that he had not seen his brother Ender since 3 p.m. that day. The police officers took Ali to the applicant's house, where they told the applicant that there was a firearm in his house and ordered him to hand it over. Both the applicant and Ali denied the existence of any gun. After ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1168", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1955 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n10.  The facts of the case, particularly concerning events which took place on 20 February 1994, are disputed by the parties.\n11. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 12-18). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 19-21). Documentary evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 22-67).\n12.  At the time of the events giving rise to the present application the applicant and her family were living in the Sesveren hamlet of Karaorman village, located within the administrative jurisdiction of the town of Kulp, near Diyarbakır, south-east Turkey.\n13.  On 20 February 1994 approximately 200 soldiers from the Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters came to the applicant’s hamlet and forced the villagers out of their houses. The villagers were herded together into the village square and the soldiers began to burn the villagers’ houses.\n14.  One of the soldiers then read out a list of names of six male villagers: Halit Akdeniz (35 years old), İrfan Akdeniz (18 years old), Mehmet Şirin Allahverdi (35 years old), Ziya Çiçek (22 years old), Faik Akdeniz (35 years old), and finally the applicant’s son Mehdi Akdeniz (22 years old) (hereinafter “the six persons”). The six persons seemed to have been identified by a masked man who was with the gendarme officers. The soldiers then beat up the six persons; the applicant’s son was the subject of the worst treatment. The six persons were then taken away, out of sight of the villagers.\n15.  The soldiers stayed in the village for approximately two hours and then walked with the group of six persons to another hamlet, approximately 1.5 kilometres away, where they got into waiting vehicles and drove away.\n16.  Eye-witnesses, who were held in detention together with the applicant’s son, subsequently informed the applicant that Mehdi Akdeniz had been held at Kulp District Gendarme Headquarters for five days. He had been tortured whilst being detained and according to the eye-witnesses, he had received the worst treatment of the six persons.\n17.  Eye-witnesses confirmed that in Silvan, where he was held for one week before being taken to Diyarbakır, he was also in a very poor condition.\n18.  The applicant has heard nothing further about the whereabouts or fate of her son since that time. She has brought several applications, both orally and in writing, to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court (hereinafter “the Diyarbakır Court”) and tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain information about her son.\n19.  No operation was carried out in the Kulp-Sesveren area on 20 February 1994 and, according to the custody records, neither the applicant’s son nor any of the other five persons mentioned were taken into custody or detained.\n20.  Between 1992 and 1993 the Sesveren hamlet was attacked by members of the PKK and the inhabitants of the hamlet fled from their homes because of intimidation by the PKK.\n21.  On 11 May 1994 the applicant was informed by the Diyarbakır Court that, according to the custody records, Mehmet Şen (sic.) had not been taken into custody.\n22.  The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties.\n23.  According to a record of arrest, drawn up on 28 February 1994 and signed by three gendarme officers and four gendarme soldiers from the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1169", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Pusté Uľany.\n5.  In 1991 the applicant sustained an injury at work as a result of which she has been handicapped.\n6.  On 8 January 1992 she sought compensation from her former employer before the Galanta District Court. The applicant also submitted an expert opinion.\n7.  In the course of 1992 and 1993 the District Court held 12 hearings.\n8.  On 8 April 1994 the District Court decided to obtain a second expert opinion. The defendant challenged the decision ordering him to pay an advance on expert’s fees. On 31 August 1994 the appellate court determined that issue.\n9.  On 22 September 1994 the District Court decided to obtain an opinion from a different expert. On 1 December 1994 and on 9 March 1995 the court urged the expert to submit the opinion.\n10.  On 11 July 1995 the case was assigned to a different judge.\n11.  Between 28 November 1995 and 12 October 1999 the District Court requested the expert five times to submit the opinion or to return the file to it. The letter of 12 October 1999 was returned to the court with a remark indicating that the addressee had died. It was later established that the expert had died in December 1995.\n12.  Between 26 October 1999 and 3 May 2000 the District Court unsuccessfully attempted to locate and obtain the case file which had been sent to the expert. On 16 June 2000 it requested the parties to submit all relevant documents to it as the file had been lost with the expert. The court reiterated its request on 10 August 2000 and, as regards the applicant, also on 7 September 2000.\n13.  In the meantime, on 31 March 1999, bankruptcy proceedings were brought against the defendant.\n14.  On 17 August 2000 the administrator in bankruptcy informed the District Court that he did not possess the documents which the court had requested. The administrator asked the District Court to stay the proceedings due to the defendant’s bankruptcy.\n15.  On 20 September 2000 the applicant informed the District Court that she possessed no further documents relating to the case.\n16.  On 22 March 2001 the Galanta District Court stayed the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim pending the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings against the defendant company.\n17.  On 8 September 2003 and on 5 December 2003 the District Court requested the Bratislava Regional Court to submit to it the latter’s decision of 9 July 2003 under which the bankruptcy proceedings had been discontinued. In the meantime, on 27 October 2003, the defendant company had been deleted from the companies register whereby it had ceased to exist.\n18.  On 29 December 2003 the Galanta District Court received the above Bratislava Regional Court’s decision of 9 July 2003. On 19 January 2004 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in the applicant’s action of 8 January 1992 on the ground that the defendant had ceased to exist without any legal successor. The decision became final on 7 February 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1170", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 9 January 1997 the applicant gave birth to a girl. She stated to the authorities that the father of the child was a Yugoslav national living in Switzerland.\n6.  On 18 April 1997 the Humenné District Court heard the applicant on the issue of the paternity of her child.\n7.  On 22 December 1997 the Prešov District Court appointed the Snina District Office as guardian to the child for the purpose of bringing paternity proceedings on her behalf and representing her in such proceedings. The decision stated that it had been taken as the applicant had not filed a paternity action. The District Office received the decision on 23 December 1997, but it did not bring paternity proceedings. On 3 June 1999 the Prešov Regional Office admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, that the Snina District Office by its failure to file an action had delayed the case.\n8.  On 17 August 1998 paternity proceedings were instituted, at the applicant’s request, before the Prešov District Court. On 17 September 1998 the applicant paid the court fee.\n9.  On 25 January 1999 the Prešov District Court heard the applicant and decided to transfer the case to the Humenné District Court for reasons of jurisdiction. The file was submitted to the latter court on 8 March 1999.\n12.  On 1 December 2000 the District Court ordered an official translation of the relevant documents as it was necessary to seek the assistance of Swiss authorities. The request for assistance was sent to the competent Swiss court on 21 January 2001.\n13.  The District Court received the reply from the Swiss court on 26 March 2001. According to it, the defendant had denied the paternity of the applicant’s child. He declared himself ready to undergo a DNA test. The defendant had also explained that he had been granted asylum in Switzerland and that he could not travel abroad.\n14.  On 23 May 2001 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicant maintained her claim. On the same day the District Court appointed an expert in genetics. On 9 July 2001 the expert informed the applicant that he had not yet made a blood analysis of her daughter as the District Court had failed to pay an advance on his costs. The letter further stated that the expert had informed the District Court how to obtain a blood sample from the alleged father in Switzerland. The District Court sent the relevant request to the Swiss court on 29 June 2001.\n15.  On 31 January 2002 the expert informed the District Court that he had not yet received the blood sample from his Swiss counter-part. On 6 December 2002 the District Court informed the applicant that the Swiss authorities had not yet obtained a blood sample from the alleged father of the child.\n16.  After having made an inquiry from the expert on 11 February 2003, the District Court again requested the Swiss authorities for assistance on 13 March 2003. In a reply delivered on 14 April 2003 the competent Swiss court informed the Humenné District Court that the files relating to its request had already been sent to it. The Swiss court enclosed copies of those documents to its reply. It was later established that the original mail from the Swiss court had been lost prior to its delivery.\n17.  On 18 June 2003 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 10 September 2003. It unsuccessfully attempted to have the defendant summoned. On 10 September 2003 the case was adjourned as the defendant’s whereabouts were unknown.\n18.  On 16 September 2003 the Humenné District Court a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1171", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1931. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, he lived in the town of Kulp, located within the administrative jurisdiction of the province of Diyarbakır, in south-east Turkey.\n11.  The facts of the case, particularly concerning events which took place on 13 June 1995, are disputed by the parties.\n12.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (see paragraphs 13-33). The Government's submissions concerning the events are summarised in Section C below (see paragraphs 34-41). The documentary evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in Section D below (see paragraphs 42-74).\n13.  In 1995 the applicant's son, Kadri Ateş, lived in Diyarbakır where he worked for Zahit Trade, a business which sold foodstuffs wholesale to small businesses and security and military establishments in the region.\n14.  At about 6 a.m. on 13 June 1995 Kadri Ateş, together with his colleague Burhan Afşin, left Diyarbakır to go to the town of Kulp to sell foodstuffs. They used a small lorry owned by Zahit Trade. They were accompanied by Kadri's father-in-law Vehbi Demir, his paternal uncle Kemal Ateş and a man called Memduh Çetin. At Seyrantepe, Kemal Ateş disembarked from the vehicle due to overcrowding and continued his journey in another vehicle.\n15.  The lorry came off the Diyarbakır-Bingöl highway at the Lice turn-off and headed towards the town of Lice. At about 7.40 a.m., one kilometre before the Lice-Kulp fork, the vehicle slowed to a halt as a result of a police minibus blocking the width of the road. Thereafter, four police officers surrounded the van with firearms and proceeded to carry out an identity check of all the occupants. This resulted in Memduh Çetin and Burhan Afşin being ordered out of the lorry and taken by a police minibus to the police checkpoint at the entrance to the Lice district. The other occupants were told to follow in the lorry.\n16.  The four men were told to wait at the police checkpoint at Lice without receiving an explanation for their detention. Kemal Ateş, who had by then arrived at the police point in the other vehicle, sought an explanation but was stopped by the police. After about 10-15 minutes a grey-coloured Renault saloon car, with the registration number 06 MEH, arrived. Four plain-clothed police officers with pistols got out. One of the police officers was a 29-30 year old, of medium height, wearing a grey jumper and holding a walkie-talkie. This police officer proceeded to ask who owned the lorry and what names each of the men were known by in the village from where they came. Kadri Ateş replied “Gebooğulları” and Vehbi Demir replied “Galevan”.\n17.  Thereafter the plain-clothes police officers informed the men that they were to be taken back to Diyarbakır, to the Financial Branch of the Police, as there was a problem concerning some cheques. Vehbi Demir and Memduh Çetin said to the police that they had simply boarded the lorry as passengers and had nothing to do with any cheques. However, they, together with Burhan Afşin, were ordered to drive the lorry back to Diyarbakır, in front of the Renault. Kadri Ateş was placed into the back of the Renault, in between two police officers.\n18.  The vehicles stopped outside the Regional Traffic Directorate, located at the entrance to Diyarbakır, where the four men were told to remain in their respective vehicles. Three officers then entered the Directora", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1172", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1951 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n10.  The facts surrounding the killing of the applicant’s brother, Abdulkadir Çelikbilek, are disputed by the parties.\n11.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (see paragraphs 12-23). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (see paragraphs 24-28). Documentary evidence submitted by the Government is summarised in Part D (see paragraphs 29-46 below).\n12.  On 9 June 1994, the applicant’s brother, Abdulkadir Çelikbilek, gave a statement to the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court (hereinafter “the Diyarbakır Court”). He stated that he had heard that a certain Ms Amber Yılmaz had fallen from the roof of a three-storey house in the course of a military operation conducted at about 9.30 p.m. on 8 June 1994. He had further heard that Ms Yılmaz’ husband, Fethi Yaşar, had been a PKK member and that Mr Yaşar was currently serving a 36 year prison sentence for PKK[1] membership. He finally stated that he was not aware of any links between Ms Yılmaz and the PKK (see paragraph 30 below).\n13.  After having given this statement, Abdulkadir was followed on a number of occasions. In November 1994 Aynur Çelikbilek, the wife of Abdulkadir Çelikbilek, was visited by two policemen who asked her questions about her husband’s whereabouts.\n14.  At about 11.00 a.m. on 14 December 1994, Abdulkadir went to the Esnaflar Café in the centre of Diyarbakır. About ten minutes after his arrival, a white Renault car with four plain-clothes policemen stopped in front of the café. It is common knowledge in south-east Turkey that this kind of car is used by plain-clothes police officers. Two policemen stayed in the car while the other two entered the café. The latter two policemen were the same as the ones who had previously questioned Aynur Çelikbilek about her husband’s whereabouts. It was obvious that the two persons were policemen, as they were armed. Only members of the security forces could have entered a café in Diyarbakır carrying firearms. When the applicant’s brother was leaving the café, the two policemen also left the café. Outside the café the two policemen took Abdulkadir by the arms and forced him into the waiting white Renault. This was seen by all the persons present in the café. The car left in the direction of the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters. Two persons, who were present in the café when the plain-clothes police officers took Abdulkadir away, told the applicant at a later stage about this incident and added that the persons who had abducted his brother were certainly police officers.\n15.  On 15 December 1994, the applicant went to the Diyarbakır Branch of the Human Rights Association in order to inform them of the incident. He was advised to file a petition with the office of the Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Court. The applicant then went to the Diyarbakır Court to file a petition. However, the police at the door of the Court building told him that his brother’s name was not on their list. The applicant returned to the Diyarbakır Court several times in the course of the following days and unsuccessfully tried to obtain information about his brother.\n16.  At around 7.30 a.m. on 21 December 1994, three police officers came to the applicant’s home and told him that his brother had been wounded and admitted to the hospital.  When the police officers took the applicant t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1173", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1963 and lives in the United Kingdom. He is the brother of Hüseyin Koku, who was allegedly detained by the police on 20 October 1994 and whose body was found in a location outside the town of Pötürge, in south east Turkey on 26 April 1995.\n10.  The facts of the case, particularly concerning events which occurred between 20 October 1994 and 26 April 1995, are disputed by the parties.\n11.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 12-41). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 42-58). The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Sections D (paragraphs 59-87) and E (paragraphs 88-93) respectively.\n12.  The applicant’s brother, Hüseyin Koku, was born in the town of Elbistan in south-east Turkey, in 1958. In 1978 he married Fatma Koku (née Güzel) and by 1994 they had had six children, aged at that time between 6 and 15 years.\n13.  Hüseyin Koku and his family were active in local politics in Elbistan. Hüseyin became an active member of the pro-Kurdish Democracy Party (DEP). Following the closure of DEP by the Constitutional Court in 1994 and the arrest of the DEP Members of Parliament, the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP) was set up as a successor to DEP. Hüseyin Koku was one of the founding members of HADEP’s Elbistan district organisation and he became the chairman of HADEP’s Elbistan branch.\n14.  At the end of March 1994, or the beginning of April 1994, Hüseyin Koku was arrested, taken into custody and placed in detention on remand. He was accused of membership of, and helping and abetting, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). During his time in prison he was kept blindfolded, given electric shocks, subjected to falaka and to Palestinian hanging, hosed down with ice cold water, deprived of water and sleep and beaten with truncheons and iron bars. On 10 May 1994 he was released pending trial and was acquitted on 17 May 1994 due to a lack of evidence against him.\n15.  As a prominent local HADEP politician, Hüseyin Koku was the subject of harassment and intimidation by the police, and, in particular, by the Governor of Elbistan, Mr Şükrü Görücü. Mr Görücü threatened to kill him and alleged that he was a traitor to the State and further alleged that HADEP was a terrorist party. Mr Görücü also told Hüseyin Koku that “he would be removed quickly”. Hüseyin took this threat seriously and discussed it with other HADEP party officials. In an article published in the Özgür Ülke newspaper on 11 November 1994, the president of HADEP’s Kahramanmaraş branch was reported as saying that Hüseyin Koku had told him about the threats made by the local Governor in Elbistan.\n16.  At this time, Hüseyin Koku was also regularly followed by plain-clothes police officers and received anonymous telephone calls and threats. Another brother of Hüseyin’s and the applicant’s, Ali Koku, who worked closely with Hüseyin for HADEP, left Turkey because of political persecution and is currently living in the United Kingdom.\n17.  On or about 17 October 1994, a number of Kurds from the Cumhuriyet neighbourhood in Elbistan went to the local HADEP office and informed HADEP officials that plain-clothes security forces were painting red crosses on houses belonging to Kurdish families in the neighbourhood and were taking down house numbers and personal details of everyone in the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1174", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 19 July 1993 the applicants brought separate actions before the Baskil Civil Court of First Instance against the National Water Board. They alleged that their plots of land had been illegally seized by the administration for dam construction without any payment being made and requested compensation in this respect.\n5.  On 2 December 1993 the Baskil Civil Court of First Instance held that the cases should be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation rather than compensation claims arising from the illegal seizure of the applicants’ land since a committee of experts had assessed the value of the land and this amount had been paid by the authorities to those who were indicated as the owners of the land in the Land Registry. The court ordered the administration to pay the applicants an amount of increased compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 1986, when the plots of lands were submerged in the waters of the dam.\n6.  On 6 October 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgments of the first-instance court and held that the cases could not be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation. The applicants requested rectification of the decisions of the Court of Cassation.\n7.  On 7 March 1995 the Court of Cassation rectified its decisions, holding that the cases could be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation. It quashed the judgments of the first-instance court only in respect of the date from which the statutory rate of interest began to run from.\n8.  On 9 October 1997 the first-instance court abided by the ruling of the Court of Cassation. It accordingly ordered the administration to pay Ali Aslangiray, Fatma Özbilge and Gülsüm Özbilge 303,510,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 1,540 euros (EUR)), TRL 216,503,800 (approximately EUR 1,100) and TRL 424,914,000 (approximately EUR 2,155) respectively, plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 19 August 1993, the date on which the ownership of the property was transferred to the National Water Board. The National Water Board appealed.\n9.  On 17 March 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgments of the Baskil Civil Court of First Instance.\n10.  On 2 April 1998 the decisions of the Court of Cassation were served on the applicants.\n11.  On 11 November 1998 the administration paid the applicants the amounts due together with interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1175", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1948 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n10.  The facts of the case, particularly concerning events which took place between 6 and 12 October 1994, are disputed by the parties.\n11.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 12-25). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 26-35). Documentary evidence submitted by the Government and the applicant are summarised in Sections D (paragraphs 36-57) and E (paragraphs 58-62) respectively.\n12.  On 6 October 1994 at about 1.30 a.m., seven police officers from the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters came to the applicant’s house in Diyarbakır and questioned the applicant about her son Aydın’s whereabouts. Aydın had previously been taken into police custody on 26 August 1993, placed in detention on remand on 8 September 1993 and released on 10 November 1993. As he was afraid to find himself in the hands of the police once again, he was hiding at his relative Barış Kalkan’s house in Diyarbakır. Aware of her son’s fears, the applicant told the police officers that Aydın had gone to Istanbul.\n13.  The police officers also questioned the applicant’s two other sons, İrfan and Turan, who, like the applicant, stated that their brother Aydın had gone to İstanbul. The officers conducted a search of the house and took a certain amount of German marks. Five of the police officers left, taking İrfan and Turan with them. The remaining two police officers stayed in the applicant’s house and continued questioning the applicant and her daughter, Saniye, until the following morning.\n14.  In the morning the applicant’s husband Mersin returned home. The police stayed for two days and two nights, changing shifts at 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. each day. After the second day, the police forced the applicant’s husband to sign a document.\n15.  The police officers took İrfan and Turan to the Police Headquarters where they were questioned about Aydın for an hour and a half. Thereafter, İrfan and Turan were taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital to be examined by a doctor. From the hospital they were taken back to the Police Headquarters and again interrogated about Aydın.\n16.  The police asked İrfan about his relative Barış. İrfan informed them that he knew Barış, who was both a childhood friend of Aydın’s and a relative, and gave the police his address. The police officers then went to Barış’s house, taking İrfan with them.\n17.  On the morning of 6 October 1994, Barış’s mother saw a number of police vehicles in front of her building and warned Aydın. Aydın and Barış tried to run away but were caught by police officers while they were going up onto the roof. As the police were taking Aydın, Barış and Barış’s brother Yılmaz downstairs, Aydın made another attempt at escape. Yılmaz and Barış heard one of the police officers say that he was going to kill Aydın, but the other officers said that they needed Aydın for interrogation. Aydın was caught in the doorway and made to lie face down. He was handcuffed and a gun was held to his head. According to İrfan, Aydın was beaten up; he saw that Aydın’s head was bleeding and heard him screaming.\n18.  The police officers put Barış and Yılmaz in one vehicle and Aydın in another. They were then taken to the Police Headquarters. After ten minutes, they were taken to the State Hospital for a medical check. They were then put back into the vehicles. Yılma", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1176", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Moscow.\n9.  In 1997 the applicant became pregnant.\n10.  In the night of 1 August 1997, in the thirty-fifth week of pregnancy, the embryo asphyxiated in the womb. On 4 August 1997 the applicant gave birth to a stillborn baby boy and decided to bury him.\n11.  On 13 August 1997 the stillbirth was registered by the Chertanovskiy branch of the Civil Acts Registration Service (Чертановский отдел ЗАГС). Mr Z., who had been the applicant's husband until their divorce on 25 March 1997, was entered as the stillbirth's father in the birth certificate (акт о рождении) and in the birth register (книга записей рождений).\n12.  The applicant submitted that the biological father of the stillbirth had been Mr G., with whom she had been living as man and wife since 1994. Mr G. had expected the child and talked about their future son as his own. They could not, however, file a joint declaration establishing the child's paternity because Mr G. had been placed in a detention facility on 20 June 1997. It appears that the applicant had no access to her partner after that date. On 12 October 1997 Mr G. died in custody.\n13.  The applicant refused to put her former husband's surname on the stillborn child's tombstone and left it empty.\n14.  On 10 August 2000 the applicant requested the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow to establish Mr G.'s paternity in respect of the stillbirth and amend the child's surname and patronymic name accordingly. In Russian, patronymic names are normally formed from the father's forename and a special ending, -ovich for sons or -ovna for daughters. The applicant relied on Article 49 of the Family Code.\n15.  On 21 November 2000 the applicant's former husband died.\n16.  On 16 March 2001 the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow gave its decision. It held that the stillborn child had not acquired civil rights, whereas Article 49 of the Family Code only applied to living children. It ordered the discontinuation of the proceedings because “[the applicant's claim] was not fit for examination and determination in the framework of civil proceedings”.\n17.  On 18 May 2001 the Moscow City Court, on an appeal by the applicant, upheld the decision of 16 March 2001. The court repeated that “the case could not be examined as a civil action because the child had not acquired civil rights”.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1177", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 1 September 2001 the Innsbruck Regional Court (Landesgericht) ordered the first applicant's detention on remand on suspicion of having committed homosexual acts with adolescents contrary to Article 209 of the Criminal Code.\n5.  On 3 December 2001 the Innsbruck Regional Court convicted the first applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to eighteen months' imprisonment. It found that, from July 2001 until his arrest, the first applicant had had sexual relations with three different male minors born in 1986 and 1987 respectively. In determining the sentence the court had regard to the first applicant's confession as a mitigating circumstance and to his previous convictions as aggravating circumstance.\n6.  On 6 December 2001 the first applicant started to serve his sentence of imprisonment at Garsten prison. On 1 September 2002 the first applicant was granted early release from detention.\n7.  On 25 September 2000 the Wels Regional Court convicted the second applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment, suspended for a probation period of three years. It found that on 3 June 1998 the second applicant had had a sexual encounter with a male minor born in 1981. Referring to Article 41 § 1 of the Criminal Code the court found that the conditions for an extraordinary mitigation of sentence (ausserordentliche Strafmilderung) were met, i.e. a sentence below the statutory level of punishment could be pronounced. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, in particular that the offence had merely been attempted, the court found that a suspended term of imprisonment was commensurate to the second applicant's guilt.\n8.  On 14 December 2000 the second applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that Article 209 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional in that it did not comply with Article 8 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 14.\n9.  On 20 February 2001 the Linz Court of Appeal dismissed the second applicant's appeal. The Court stated that it had no doubts about the constitutionality of Article 209 of the Criminal Code and referred in this respect to the Constitutional Court's case-law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1178", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Krasnodar.\n9.  On 26 June 1998 the applicant had a loud quarrel with his neighbour and assaulted him. Further to the neighbour's complaint, the police opened criminal proceedings against the applicant.\n10.  On 27 October 1998 the applicant was taken in custody and placed in investigations ward no. IZ-18/3 of Novorossiysk[*] (ИЗ 18/3 г. Новороссийска, “the facility”).\n11.  On 5 November 1998 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novorossiysk found the applicant guilty of disorderly behaviour, an offence under Article 213 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code, and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment.\n12.  The applicant served the sentence in the same facility. He was released on 28 April 1999.\n13.  The applicant stayed in cells nos. 11 and 3.\n14.  According to the applicant, each cell measured approximately 42 m2 and accommodated 42 to 51 inmates. Inmates took turns to sleep. Thirty sleeping places were available, of which two were occupied with water receptacles for washing and flushing the toilet. The water containers were needed as running water was only available for one hour three times a day. No bedding was provided to inmates, save for tattered cotton mattresses. Between 5 November and 28 December 1998 in cell no. 11 the applicant had to sleep without a mattress on metal plates, covering himself with an old, dirty and worn cotton rag.\n15.  The Government did not dispute the cell measurements suggested by the applicant. They submitted that each cell had had 30 sleeping places, a full set of bedding had been distributed to each inmate and sleeping berths had been made of metal plates and covered with wadded mattresses.\n16.  According to the applicant, the ventilation in cells was only switched on for a few minutes when “inspectors” visited the facility. Windows were covered with steel plates leaving an open slot of about 10 cm. There was no fresh air in the cells.\n17.  The Government submitted that cells had been equipped with ventilation. It was switched on and off “in accordance with the schedule approved by the facility director” (order no. 41 of 26 May 1998). A copy of the schedule has not been produced to the Court. On “especially hot” days, doors were open to ensure a better circulation of air. At the material time windows had been covered with metal shields which were removed in 2002.\n18.  According to the applicant, the lavatory pan sat on an elevation of 0.5 m above the floor. A partition of 1.1 m in height separated it from the rest of the cell. Occasionally an inmate hung a sheet to have some privacy. According to the Government, lavatory pans were located at the entrance and separated from the living area by a brick partition measuring 1.3 m in height and width.\n19.  According to the applicant, inmates were given one piece of soap per week for the entire cell population. No laundry detergent was available. According to the Government, each inmate received 200 g of washing soap and 70 g of laundry detergent each month. Bathing was possible “regularly”.\n20.  The applicant claimed that a thick, black and footworn layer of dirt had covered the floor. Inmates' clothing swarmed with lice, spiders and other insects. Between 5 November 1998 and 15 January 1999 cell no. 11 was not once sanitised. Between 15 January and 28 April 1999 cell no. 3 was sanitised on one occasion. In the Government's view, the sanitary and hygienic conditions of the cells were up to the applicable standards an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1179", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Berdiansk. He is a former employee of a Joint Stock Company, the Iskra Brick Factory (“the IBF”). He worked at the IBF from 1 December 1996 to 24 November 1997, when he was dismissed from his position as a senior engineer at his own request. At the time of his dismissal the applicant was not paid the wages owed to him.\n7.  In March 1997 a construction company, the Closed JSC Donetskzhelezobetonmontazh (hereafter the CJSC), instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the IBF on account of its failure to comply with contractual obligations.\n8.  The bankruptcy proceedings were initiated on 8 April 1997 by the Zaporizhzhia Regional Arbitration Court (“the ZRAC”). The applicant acted in these proceedings as a representative of the IBF.\n9.  On 20 August 1997 the ZRAC declared the IBF bankrupt. It also established a liquidation commission to manage its debts. The liquidation commission consisted of representatives of the Berdiansk State Municipal Council, the Berdiansk State Tax Inspectorate, the Financial Department of the State Municipal Council, the Ukrayina Bank (a State-owned bank) and the CJSC. The liquidators were obliged to elect the chairman and members of the liquidation commission within a period of ten days.\n10.  On 23 September 1997 the commission made an inventory of the IBF’s property.\n11.  On 16 January 1998 the liquidation commission elected Mr Bogushko as its chairman.\n12.  Between October 1998 and 14 December 2000, in accordance with the submissions of the parties, the liquidation commission was not in operation.\n13.  On 5 October 1998 the then chair of the liquidation commission, Ms Chulkova, resigned.\n14.  On 14 December 2000 the liquidation commission elected Mr Fenenko as its chairman.\n15.  On 19 January 2001 the President of the ZRAC decided that the bankruptcy proceedings concerning the IBF should be referred from Judge A.E. Kuznetsov for consideration by another judge (Judge V.G. Serkiza).\n16.  On 19 November 2001 the President of the Zaporizhzhia Regional Commercial Court (the “ZRCC”, former Zaporizhzhia Regional Arbitration Court as renamed in 2001 as a result of “small judicial reform”), decided that the bankruptcy proceedings concerning the IBF should be referred for consideration from Judge V.G. Serkiza to another judge (Judge L.P. Turkina).\n17.  On 22 March 2002 the ZRCC found that the liquidation commission appointed in 1997 had deviated from its duties. It also informed the members of the liquidation commission that they had incurred criminal liability for failure to comply with the judgments and decisions of the domestic courts.\n18.  On 22 March, 10 April and 3 June 2002, the ZRCC requested the liquidation commission to submit a report on the results of the operation.\n19.  On 2 April 2002 the liquidation commission elected a new chairman, Mr Otryshko. The commission discussed the proposal for the friendly settlement of the IBF’s debts. The new chairman of the commission submitted a report to the ZRCC that made no reference to the IBF’s salary debts.\n20.  On 21 May 2002 the IBF’s shareholders agreed to enter into a friendly settlement with the creditors.\n21.  On 2 July 2002 the liquidation commission decided to conclude a friendly settlement in the bankruptcy proceedings pending against the IBF.\n22.  On 3 July 2002 the ZRCC held a hearing with a view to discussing the possible friendly settlement and the report by the liquidation commission. The hearing was adjourn", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1180", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  Criminal proceedings had been pending since 1997 against the applicant, who had absconded. On 12 February 1998 he was arrested by the police and remanded in custody by the Tábor District Court (Okresní soud).\n9.  By a judgment of 3 March 1999, the České Budĕjovice Regional Court (Krajský soud) convicted the applicant on several counts, including theft, trespass and illegal possession of weapons, and sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment. It also imposed a fine and disqualified him from driving for five years. The judgment also concerned a number of co-defendants, including V.Š. senior and V.Š. junior.\n10.  The applicant and the prosecutor lodged appeals before the Prague High Court (Vrchní soud) .\n11.  On 27 April 1999, R.T., a judge at the High Court, was allowed to withdraw from the criminal case V.Š. and Others on the ground that he was acquainted with V.Š.'s family.\n12.  Mr Chmelíř's appeal was subsequently severed from those of his co-defendants. According to the Government, the severance was necessary because of the applicant's numerous obstruction tactics. The applicant disputed that allegation in his observations, contending that his case had been severed no later than at the second hearing in November 1999, the first having taken place at the end of the previous summer.\n13.  Appeals by the applicant's co-defendants were dismissed by the High Court on 22 November 1999.\n14.  On 1 September 2000 the High Court division, in which Judge R.T. was sitting, dismissed the applicant's appeal as ill-founded.\n15.  On 4 December 2000 Mr Chmelíř lodged a constitutional appeal against the decisions of the lower courts. He complained in particular of the lack of impartiality of two of the High Court judges, observing that one of them knew the family of one of his co-defendants – and had, on that ground, been ordered to stand down from hearing the appeal lodged by the co-defendants, but not the applicant's severed appeal – and that the other was the defendant in an action he had brought for the protection of personality rights.\n16.  On 30 January 2001 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal as manifestly ill-founded, as it had found no indication that the applicant's guaranteed rights had been violated.\n17.  On 9 July 2004 the applicant was released on licence.\n18.  On 3 December 1999 the applicant applied for the withdrawal of M.V., President of the High Court division to which his appeal had been referred, alleging that they had had an intimate relationship in 1996.\n19.  On 20 December 1999 the High Court decided at a private sitting not to require M.V. to stand down from the applicant's case. Noting that M.V. had stated on 17 December 1999 that he had not been acquainted with the applicant before the criminal case against the latter was referred to him, the court considered that the applicant was simply using dilatory tactics.\n20.  On 5 January 2000 Mr Chmelíř appealed against that decision through counsel, contending that the High Court had failed to bring together the requisite documents. In his view, even if the objection of bias was lacking in justification, its subject matter was so serious that Judge M.V. should objectively have been excluded from hearing the case.\n21.  On 25 January 2000 the applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) as ill-founded.\n22.  By a decision of 15 February 2000 given by the President of the High Court division (M.V.) under Article 66 § 1 of the Code of Cr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1181", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Cherepovets, an important steel-producing centre approximately 300 kilometres north-east of Moscow. In 1982 her family moved to a flat situated at 1 Zhukov Street, approximately 450 metres from the site of the Severstal steel plant (“the plant”). This flat was provided by the plant to the applicant's husband, Mr Nikolay Fadeyev, under a tenancy agreement.\n11.  The plant was built during the Soviet era and was owned by the Ministry of Black Metallurgy of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). The plant was, and remains, the largest iron smelter in Russia and the main employer for approximately 60,000 people. In order to delimit the areas in which the pollution caused by steel production might be excessive, the authorities established a buffer zone around the Severstal premises – “the sanitary security zone”. This zone was first delimited in 1965. It covered a 5,000-metre-wide area around the site of the plant. Although this zone was, in theory, supposed to separate the plant from the town's residential areas, in practice thousands of people (including the applicant's family) lived there. The blocks of flats in the zone belonged to the plant and were designated mainly for its workers, who occupied the flats as life-long tenants (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below). A decree of the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR, dated 10 September 1974, imposed on the Ministry of Black Metallurgy the obligation to resettle the inhabitants of the sanitary security zone who lived in districts nos. 213 and 214 by 1977. However, this has not been done.\n12.  In 1990 the government of the RSFSR adopted a programme “On improving the environmental situation in Cherepovets”. The programme stated that “the concentration of toxic substances in the town's air exceed[ed] the acceptable norms many times” and that the morbidity rate of Cherepovets residents was higher than the average. It was noted that many people still lived within the steel plant's sanitary security zone. Under the programme, the steel plant was required to reduce its toxic emissions to safe levels by 1998. The programme listed a number of specific technological measures to attain this goal. The steel plant was also ordered to finance the construction of 20,000 square metres of residential property every year for the resettlement of people living within its sanitary security zone.\n13.  By Municipal Decree no. 30 of 18 November 1992, the boundaries of the sanitary security zone around the plant were redefined. The width of the zone was reduced to 1,000 metres.\n14.  In 1993 the steel plant was privatised and acquired by Severstal PLC. In the course of the privatisation the blocks of flats owned by the steel plant that were situated within the zone were transferred to the municipality.\n15.  On 3 October 1996 the government of the Russian Federation adopted Decree no. 1161 on the special federal programme “Improvement of the environmental situation and public health in Cherepovets” for the period from 1997 to 2010” (in 2002 this programme was replaced by the special federal programme “Russia's ecology and natural resources”). Implementation of the 1996 programme was funded by the World Bank. The second paragraph of this programme stated:\n“The concentration of certain polluting substances in the town's residential areas is twenty to fifty times higher than the maximum permissible limits (MPLs)[[1]] ...The bigges", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1182", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  On 26 March 1999 she bought a plot of land and a summer house in Michurinsk.\n6.  On 13 January 2000 a dealer who had assisted her in buying the property instituted proceedings against her, claiming recovery of a debt totalling 1,000 US dollars.\n7.  On 24 April 2000 the Michurinskiy Town Court of the Tambov Region dismissed the claim.\n8.  On 29 May 2000 the Tambov Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Michurinskiy Town Court for a fresh examination.\n9.  On 7 September 2000 the applicant filed an application for the case to be transferred to the Perovo District Court of Moscow.\n10.  On 15 September 2000 the Michurinskiy Town Court granted the application and transferred the case. On 20 September 2000 the case file was sent to the Perovo District Court. On 15 November 2000 the plaintiff filed a complaint against the transfer of the case.\n11.  On 14 December 2000 the Michurinskiy Town Court requested the Perovo District Court to confirm receipt of the case file. On 25 December 2000 and 15 February 2001 the Michurinskiy Town Court requested the Perovo District Court to send the case file back so that the plaintiff's complaint could be examined. On 21 February 2001 the Perovo District Court replied that it could not return the case file because the case in question had not been registered with it in the period 2000-2001. On 2 April 2001 the Michurinskiy Town Court again repeated the request. On 7 May 2001 the Perovo District Court returned the case file to the Michurinskiy Town Court.\n12.  On 12 July 2001, following an application for supervisory review lodged by a member of the Presidium, the Presidium of the Tambov Regional Court quashed the Michurinskiy Town Court's ruling of 15 September 2000 concerning transfer of the case to the Perovo District Court of Moscow on the ground, inter alia, that the plaintiff had not been duly notified of the hearing.\n13.  According to the Government, two hearings were fixed by the Michurinskiy Town Court for 28 August and 13 September 2001, but the applicant did not appear at either hearing. It is not clear whether these were hearings on the merits or whether the court was merely dealing with certain procedural issues.\n14.  On 28 January 2002, following another application for supervisory review lodged by the Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of Russia, the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the ruling of 12 July 2001 on the grounds that the applicant had not been duly notified of the hearing, and remitted the case to the Tambov Regional Court for a fresh examination.\n15.  On 21 March 2002 the Presidium of the Tambov Regional Court again quashed the ruling of the Michurinskiy Town Court of 15 September 2000.\n16.  On 25 April 2002 the applicant filed an application with the Michurinskiy Town Court, requesting that the case be transferred to the Perovo District Court.\n17.  In September 2002 the applicant lodged an application with the Chairman of the Supreme Court requesting supervisory review of the ruling of 21 March 2002. On 19 February 2003 the Supreme Court returned the application without consideration, as a number of procedural requirements had not been fulfilled.\n18.  Two hearings on the merits were fixed by the Michurinskiy Town Court for 15 and 22 August 2003. The parties did not appear at either of those hearings. On the latter date the court decided to leave the claim without consideration. That ruling was not ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1183", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Moscow.\nFirst set of proceedings\n5.  On 15 June 1998 the applicant brought proceedings against four publishing houses seeking recognition of his copyright and an award of damages. The claim was lodged with the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow.\n6.  On 5 November 1998 the claim was rejected on the ground that, according to the rules governing jurisdiction, it should have been filed with another court. On 15 November 1998 the applicant filed a complaint with the Moscow City Court.\n7.  The Moscow City Court on 10 December 1998 quashed the ruling of 5 November 1998 and remitted the case to the Ostankinskiy District Court for consideration on the merits.\n8.  On 22 April 1999 the Ostankinskiy District Court ruled that the case should be remitted to the Meschanskiy District Court of Moscow. On 5 May 1999 the applicant filed a complaint with the Moscow City Court.\n9.  The Moscow City Court on 30 July 1999 quashed the ruling of 22 April 1999 and remitted the case to the Ostankinskiy District Court for consideration on the merits.\n10.  On 11 November 1999 a preliminary hearing was fixed for 6 December 1999. However, the preparation of the case was initially extended to 31 January 2000 because of the defendants' failure to appear and subsequently extended to 14 February 2000 because of the judge's holiday leave.\n11.  On 14 February 2000 a hearing on the merits was fixed for 16 March 2000. That hearing did not take place because the case had been transferred to another judge.\n12.  On 10 August 2000 a hearing was fixed for 21 August 2000. It was initially postponed to 20 November 2000 because the judge was engaged in unrelated proceedings, and then to 18 December 2000 because of the defendants' failure to appear.\n13.  The Ostankinskiy District Court on 18 December 2000 again ruled that the case should be remitted to the Meschanskiy District Court. On 12 February 2001 the applicant filed a complaint with the Moscow City Court.\n14.  The Moscow City Court on 14 March 2001 quashed the ruling of 18 December 2000 and remitted the case to the Ostankinskiy District Court for consideration on the merits.\n15.  On 27 August 2001 a hearing on the merits was fixed for 29 November 2001. However, it was first postponed to 28 December 2001 and then to 4 January 2002 because the judge was engaged in unrelated proceedings.\n16.  On 4 January 2002 the hearing was postponed to 7 February 2002 because of the parties' failure to appear. The applicant did not appear on account of illness.\n17.  On 7 February 2002 the applicant's claim was left without consideration on account of his second failure to appear at the hearing.\n18.  The Ostankinskiy District Court on 2 September 2002 quashed its ruling of 7 February 2002 on the grounds that the applicant had not been notified about the hearing in due course. The court fixed a new hearing on the merits for 23 September 2002. It appears that the hearing did not take place.\n19.  On 21 October 2002 the applicant received notification that the hearing was fixed for 5 November 2002. The applicant could not appear on account of his illness and informed the court accordingly.\n20.  On an unspecified date the case was transferred to another judge, on account of the dismissal of the judge who had been dealing with the case. A preliminary hearing was fixed for 17 April 2003.\n21.  The applicant attended the hearing on the last mentioned date. However, the judge informed him that she did not", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1184", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n13.  All applicants – or their ancestors – owned real estate which was expropriated during the 1980s or the early 1990s. At the time of the expropriations they were awarded compensation in the form of flats which the authorities undertook to construct and deliver, but which have – with one exception (see paragraph 71 below) – remained unfinished and undelivered until present. The specific circumstances of each case are described below.\n14.  Mrs Kirilova and her husband owned jointly a house with a yard in the centre of Sofia.\n15.  By a mayor's order of 29 May 1985 their house was expropriated with a view to the construction of a school and a street. The order, based on section 98(1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of 1973 („Закон за териториалното и селищно устройство“ – “TUPA”)(see paragraphs 73 and 74 below), provided that Mrs Kirilova and her husband were to be compensated with one flat and their son, Mr Kirilov, was to be compensated with another flat. Both flats were to be situated in a building which the municipality intended to construct. The expropriated house was valued at 29,311.59 old Bulgarian levs (BGL).\n16.  By a supplementary order of 28 July 1986, based on section 100 of TUPA (see paragraph 75 below), the mayor indicated the exact flats with which Mrs Kirilova, her husband, and Mr Kirilov were to be compensated, specifying the building in which they would be located and their precise surface.\n17.  The expropriated house was pulled down and the construction of the school started. Mrs Kirilova and her husband, and their two children, Mr Kirilov and Ms Schneider, were settled in a municipal flat in the outskirts of Sofia, pending the construction of the flat offered in compensation.\nIn 1993 Mrs Kirilova's husband died.\n18.  The construction of the building in which the flats offered in compensation would be located did not start as planned, apparently because of financial difficulties experienced by the municipality.\n19.  On 22 July 1997 Mrs Kirilova, Mr Kirilov and Ms Schneider lodged complaints with the municipality, the regional governor, the Parliament, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Construction and Urban Development, stating that the flats allocated to them as compensation had not been constructed, apparently due to lack of funds. They stated that they had been waiting in vain, despite their repeated complaints. They also alleged that since 1986 the municipality had built and sold flats to other persons, but had never found funds to discharge its obligation to them. They requested to be given other flats as compensation. Their request was placed on a waiting list.\n20.  By letters of 5 December 1997 and 14 April 1998 the municipality informed Mrs Kirilova, Mr Kirilov and Ms Schneider that the construction of the flats was expected to start in 1998 and that additional funds were needed.\n21.  On 2 January 2001 Mrs Kirilova died. Mr Kirilov and Ms Schneider are her only heirs.\n22.  In April 2004 the municipality served on Mr Kirilov and Ms Schneider updated orders under section 100 of TUPA, which had been made on 19 November 2003 and 12 February 2004 respectively. The orders provided that the two applicants were to be offered other flats, not the originally intended ones, due to a modification of the plan of the building under construction.\n23.  At the time of the latest information from the two applicants (19 April 2004), the construction of the building in which their flats were to be situated had", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1185", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Shoumen.\n10.  At approximately 2 a.m. on 31 January 1998 the applicant allegedly took part in a violent incident in a bar in his home town of Shoumen. It seems that the police were alerted about the incident, intervened and questioned some of the participants and the other persons present on the spot, without making arrests.\n11.  At approximately 7.30 p.m. on 31 January 1998 the applicant allegedly took part in another violent incident in a restaurant in Shoumen. Apparently during this second incident a Mr P.P. was beaten, robbed, abducted and threatened with violence. Later that evening Mr P.P. complained to the police.\n12.  In the late evening of 31 January 1998 the applicant went to the Regional Police Department in Shoumen for questioning in connection with the incidents. At 11.55 p.m. he was questioned as a witness. He submits that during the following days he was kept under arrest in the police department. According to the Government, the applicant was not deprived of his liberty at that time.\n13.  On 1 February 1998 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant and seven other persons on suspicion that they had robbed Mr P.P., had deprived him of his liberty and had coerced him to pay them money.\n14.  On 2 February 1998 an investigator ordered the applicant's preliminary detention for a period of twenty‑four hours, starting to run at 3.30 p.m. on that day, on suspicion that on 31 January 1998 he had committed abduction and unlawful deprivation of liberty, contrary to Article 142 § 2 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”). The order stated that the applicant had been arrested immediately after having committed the alleged offence, in accordance with Article 202 § 1 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”). Despite the applicant's insistence to meet the investigator, he was not brought before him at that time.\n15.  On 3 February 1998 a prosecutor extended the applicant's preliminary detention for three more days, starting to run from the day of the extension. The same day the applicant was allowed to meet a lawyer.\n16.  At 3 p.m. on 5 February 1998 the applicant was brought before an investigator and charged with having instigated others to commit unlawful deprivation of liberty in a manner endangering the health of the victim and also to commit extortion through threats of murder accompanied by light bodily injury. The investigator ordered his pre‑trial detention. The same day a prosecutor from the Shoumen Regional Prosecutor's Office confirmed the investigator's decision to detain the applicant.\n17.  Immediately after the charging the applicant was questioned in the presence of his counsel. The applicant stated that he understood the charges against him. His counsel asked to be allowed access to the case‑file. The investigator allegedly refused.\n18.  On 11 February 1998 the applicant submitted an appeal against his pre‑trial detention. He claimed that he had not committed the alleged offences and that the accusation against him was not supported by the available evidence.\n19.  The Shoumen Investigation Service sent the applicant's appeal to the Shoumen Regional Court on 12 February 1998 together with the case‑file. It arrived in the court on 16 February 1998.\n20.  The appeal was examined by the Shoumen Regional Court on 4 March 1998 in an open hearing in the presence of the applicant and his counsel. Counsel referred to the alleged lack of evidence against the applicant a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1186", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Riga.\n9.  In 1997 he decided to move from Latvia to Russia. He negotiated a real estate deal with a Moscow-based agent.\n10.  On 20 March 1997 the applicant withdrew from his bank accounts 250,000 US dollars (“USD”) in cash and asked his acquaintance, B., to deliver the money to Moscow.\n11.  B. arrived in the Sheremetyevo-1 airport later the same day. He failed to declare the money at the customs checkpoint and was charged with smuggling.\n12.  On 13 September 2000, the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow found B. guilty of smuggling under Article 188-1 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to two years' suspended imprisonment. With regard to the money, the court said in the operative part of the judgment:\n“USD 250,000, deposited with the Sheremetyevo Customs Board, are to be forfeited to the Treasury as an object of smuggling.”\n13.  In his appeal against the judgment, B.'s lawyer submitted that the Golovinskiy District Court had failed to indicate any legal ground for the confiscation order. He argued that the money had been included in the case-file as evidence and that no relevant law provided for its confiscation. Moreover, lawfully obtained assets were to be returned to their owners. B.'s lawyer also claimed that Article 188-1 of the Criminal Code did not provide for such a sanction as confiscation.\n14.  On 25 October 2000, the Moscow City Court refused the appeal. With regard to the money, the court said:\n“USD 250,000, which was the object of the smuggling, was rightfully forfeited to the Treasury.”\n15.  On 1 July 2002 a Deputy President of the Supreme Court lodged an application for supervisory review against the judgments. He claimed that the smuggled money could only be confiscated if proven to have been acquired criminally.\n16.  On 18 July 2002 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court refused the application on the ground that a Ruling of the Plenary Supreme Court of the USSR issued in 1978 permitted the confiscation of smuggled goods which had been attached to case-files as exhibits.\n17.  On 15 August 2002 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court lodged another application for supervisory review claiming, among other things, that the Ruling of 1978 was inconsistent with later superseding legislation. However, on an unspecified date the Deputy President of the Supreme Court withdrew his application.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1187", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Opole, Poland.\n5.  In 1998 the prosecution service filed with the Opole District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a bill of indictment in which it charged the applicant with making unlawful threats. In the course of the court proceedings the applicant was represented by a court-appointed lawyer. On 6 November 2001 the trial court held a hearing at which the applicant and his court‑appointed lawyer were present. During the hearing, the court scheduled the next hearing for 4 December 2001 about which the applicant was informed.\n6.  On 4 December 2001 a hearing took place before the trial court. The applicant did not attend the hearing but his counsel was present. The applicant failed to give any reasons for his absence and the trial court finished the proceedings and decided in the presence of the counsel that the judgment would be delivered on 11 December 2001.\n7.  On 11 December 2001 the Opole District Court delivered a judgment in which it convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to a prison term of one year and six months. Neither the applicant nor his counsel was present at the delivery of the judgment.\n8.  The applicant did not appeal against the judgment of 11 December 2001 and did not apply for a copy of the reasons of that judgment.\n9.  Subsequently, the applicant lodged an application for leave to apply for a reasoned judgment out of time. In his application, he argued that his absence at the hearing held on 4 December 2001 was justified because he had been recently released from the detention and on 5 December 2001 he had been assaulted. The applicant also complained that he had not been informed about the date of the delivery of the judgment. On 9 April 2002 the Opole District Court examined the application and dismissed it. The court, in a reasoned decision, established that the applicant had known about the hearing scheduled for 4 December 2001. He failed to attend it without providing any justification for his absence. Therefore, the trial court was entitled to terminate the proceedings in his absence on the basis of Article 376 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court further examined the reasons for the absence submitted by the applicant. It established that in fact he had been released on 22 November 2001 - two weeks prior to the hearing. Moreover, while it was true that the applicant had been assaulted, nevertheless, that had happened the day following the hearing and the injuries sustained by the applicant, according to a hospital certificate, were not serious and the applicant was not admitted to hospital. With regard to the complaint that he was not informed about the date of the delivery of the judgment, the court found that the applicant had not been diligent since he had not contacted his lawyer. The applicant was aware of the scheduled hearing and knew the address and the name of his court‑appointed lawyer.\nThe applicant appealed against this decision. On 16 May 2003 the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) examined the reasons given by the District Court and upheld the decision.\n10.  On 14 January 2002 the applicant started serving the prison sentence ordered by the judgment of 11 December 2001.\n11.  On 6 December 2002 the Court received the applicant’s first letter dated 13 November 2002. The letter was sent while the applicant was serving a prison sentence in the Wrocław Detention Centre. The envelope in which the letter was delivered bears the following s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1189", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant company is a debt collector. In July 1999, it bought a defaulted State bond and sued the Government for the debt. After several years of litigation, on 10 April 2002 the Moscow City Commercial Court ordered the Government to pay the applicant company 100,000 American dollars (“USD”).\n8.  On 5 August 2002, the Appeals Division of the Moscow City Commercial Court upheld the judgment, but specified that the debt was to be paid by the Ministry of Finance.\n9.  On 6 November 2002, the ministry asked the court to stay the enforcement of the judgment until January 2003, because there were no funds in the State budget of 2002.\n10.  On 19 November 2002, bailiffs opened enforcement proceedings.\n11.  On 16 December 2002, the court refused to stay the enforcement because the ministry had failed to prove either that it did not have the funds, or that the funds would become available after January 2003.\n12.  On 7 February 2003, the ministry asked the court to stay the enforcement of the judgment until January 2004, because there were no funds in the State budget of 2003.\n13.  On 20 March 2003, the court refused to stay the enforcement because the ministry had failed to prove either that it did not have the funds, or that the funds would become available after January 2004.\n14.  In August 2003, the ministry asked the appeal court to clarify how the judgment was to be enforced.\n15.  On 3 September 2003, the appeal court clarified that the judgment was to be enforced only once the applicant company had handed in the bond. The applicant company appealed against this decision because the general conditions of the bond’s issue did not require that it be handed in. In addition, the applicant company argued that the judgment could be enforced on the basis of a writ of enforcement alone, and that the bond was to be returned to the ministry only after the enforcement. On 25 November 2003, the Federal Commercial Court of the Moscow Circuit dismissed this appeal.\n16.  On 18 February 2004, the applicant company handed in the bond to the ministry.\n17.  Subsequently, the applicant company unsuccessfully sought an injunction to oblige the ministry to enforce the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1190", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born on 30 August 1958 and lives in Niederselters (Germany).\n11.  The case concerns the applicant’s repeated placement in a psychiatric institution, her stay in a hospital, her medical treatment and her various compensation claims.\n12.  The applicant is currently 100% disabled and receives an invalidity pension. She claims to be constantly suffering from significant pain, especially in her arms and legs and her vertebral column. She has spent almost twenty years of her life in different psychiatric institutions and other hospitals.\n13.  From January 1974 to May 1974 (at which time the applicant was 15 years old), and from October 1974 to January 1975 (when she was 16 years old), the applicant was placed in the children and young people’s psychiatric department at Frankfurt am Main University Clinic for seven months at her father’s request.\n14.  From 29 July 1977 (when she was 18 years old) to 5 April 1979, she was placed in a locked ward (geschlossene Station) at a private psychiatric institution, the clinic of Dr Heines in Bremen, at her father’s request. There had been serious conflicts between the applicant and her parents, following which her father believed her to be suffering from a psychosis. The applicant’s mother had suffered from a paranoid-hallucinatory psychosis.\n15.  The applicant – who by that time had attained the age of majority – had not been placed under guardianship, had never signed a declaration that she had consented to her placement in the institution, and there had been no judicial decision authorising her detention in a psychiatric hospital. The private clinic of Dr Heines was not entitled to detain patients who were to be kept in accordance with the Act of the Land of Bremen on the detention of mentally insane persons, mentally deficient persons and drug addicts (see paragraphs 51-58 below). On 4 March 1979 the police brought the applicant back to the clinic by force after she had attempted to escape.\n16.  During her forced stay at that clinic, the applicant was unable to maintain regular social contact with persons outside the clinic. When she was three years old, she had fallen ill with poliomyelitis, and following her medical treatment at the clinic she developed post-poliomyelitis syndrome.\n17.  From 5 April 1979 to 21 May 1980, the applicant was placed in a psychiatric hospital in Gießen. She claimed that she had by chance been saved from having to stay there any longer by a patient in the hospital who had given her accommodation.\n18.  From 21 January to 20 April 1981, she again received medical treatment at Dr Heines’s clinic, having at that time lost her ability to speak and, according to the doctors, showing signs of autism.\n19.  On 7 May 1991 the applicant received medical treatment at Dr Horst Schmidt’s clinic for neurology and psychiatry.\n20.  From 3 September 1991 to 28 July 1992, the applicant received medical treatment (stationäre Behandlung) at Mainz University Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, a public-law institution, where she regained her ability to speak.\n21.  From 22 October to 21 December 1992, the applicant was treated in the orthopaedic department of a clinic in Frankfurt am Main and, from 4 February to 18 March 1993, she was treated in the orthopaedic department of a clinic in Isny.\n22.  On 18 April 1994 Dr Lempp, a professor of paedopsychiatry at Tübingen University and a member of the federal government’s investigating committee, prepared an e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1191", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Cheboksary. He used to work as a manager of a private building partnership. In April 2000 the police charged him with embezzlement. They accused the applicant of having fraudulently appropriated a tractor and a tank truck belonging to the partnership.\n9.  On 10 April 2000, the investigator in charge of the applicant's case interviewed the applicant and decided to put him in a remand prison. Since the applicant had had a heart condition during the interview, the investigator had to put him in a prison hospital instead.\n10.  Diagnosed with a coronary heart disease, the applicant spent the next 36 days in hospital UL-34/4. During this time, he was 14 times examined by a cardiologist and once by a neurologist. The doctors treated the applicant with medicines and made laboratory tests. As soon as the applicant's condition had stabilised, he was discharged from the hospital.\n11.  On 16 May 2000, the applicant was relocated to remand prison IZ-21/2 in Tsivilsk. The parties' descriptions of the prison and of the life in it differ.\n12.  According to the applicant, prisoners were delivered to the prison in armoured vans. Even though the heat outside reached 30oC, each van carried as many as 30–40 prisoners. The air in the vans was stuffy. Guards clubbed the prisoners and set the dogs on them. The prison building, built in the 18th century, had never been renovated. Dirt-filled floors let no air through. Cells were illuminated with 40 watt filament lamps, too dim to read by. The prison administration confiscated all the medicines the applicant had and gave no replacement.\n13.  According to the Government, the applicant was delivered to the prison in a van that could carry 22 prisoners. The air outside was cool, 6oC, and the van carried as few as 14 prisoners. The guards used no clubs or dogs. In2002–03 the prison building was renovated: sanitary equipment was replaced, walls were repainted, a forced ventilation system was installed. During the applicant's stay in the prison, all cells were sufficiently lit with filament lamps. Windows were large enough to read and work by natural light. The temperature and humidity in the cells were within the established norms. The prison had a central continuous supply of potable water from its own artesian well. The quality of the water was routinely inspected by a bacteriological laboratory. Every cell had a cistern of potable water. In addition, daily at 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. prisoners received boiled drinking water. The applicant always had a separate bed, a mattress, a blanket, two sheets, a pillow, and a pillow-case. He could have shower at least once a week. After each shower, the applicant received fresh bedding and underwear. Prison doctors treated him and gave him necessary medicines. The applicant could not, however, have any medicines of his own.\n14.  On his arrival to the prison, the applicant was put in Cell 16, in which he spent half a day. The parties' descriptions of this cell differ.\n15.  According to the applicant, this cell was in a poor technical condition. Its floor was flooded with excrements.\n16.  According to the Government, this cell measured 19.3 m². It housed 20 prisoners, even though it was designed to house 10. There was a double‑glazed window of 115 × 95 cm. The window had a 115 × 20 cm window leaf to ventilate the cell. In one corner of the cell there were a toilet and a wash-basin. The toilet was fixed 70 cm above the floor and could be reach", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1193", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Osijek.\n5.  On 15 January 1997 the applicant was dismissed from her position at the Osijek Faculty of Agriculture (“the Faculty”). The decision had retroactive effect as of 27 November 1995.\n6.  On 17 January 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings challenging the lawfulness of the Faculty's decision. She claimed to have never been reinstated, as was required by a final court decision from proceedings she had previously instituted against the Faculty, and that she could therefore not have been dismissed.\n7.  On 12 July 1999 the Osijek Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Osijeku) ruled in the applicant's favour, ordering the Faculty to reinstate her.\n8.  Following an appeal by the Faculty, on 28 October 1999 the Osijek County Court (Županijski sud u Osijeku) upheld the first instance judgment.\n9.  The Faculty subsequently filed a request for revision on points of law (revizija). On 3 May 2000, the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) reversed the first and second instance judgments and dismissed the applicant's claim. The Supreme Court found that the Faculty was under no obligation to reinstate the applicant and that therefore its decision was in line with the applicable law.\n10.  On 28 August 2000 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). She claimed that the Supreme Court's judgment was in breach of her constitutional right to work, of the rule of law and of the requirement that the courts adjudicate on the basis of laws and the Constitution.\n11.  On 24 March 2004 the Constitutional Court dismissed her complaint finding no violation of the alleged constitutional rights.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1195", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Harjumaa.\n9.  In April and May 1997 the Tartu Police instituted six criminal investigations relating to several offences of burglary, the forgery of a passport and the unlawful keeping of a firearm. The applicant, one of the suspects, could not be found. On 26 May 1997 the police declared him to be a wanted person. On 7 July 1997 a judge of the Tallinn City Court (Tallinna Linnakohus) authorised the police to take the applicant into custody for two months when he was located. On 27 October 1997 the applicant was caught and taken into custody. On 23 December 1997 the City Court authorised the applicant’s detention until 20 January 1998. However, on 29 December 1997 the City Court granted his request for release on bail. The amount of the bail was set at 42,000 kroons (€ 2,684).\n10.  On 12 September 1998 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of having on the same day committed a burglary with three other persons.\n11.  The next day the applicant’s arrest was approved by a judge of the Tallinn City Court who authorised the applicant’s detention for 10 days, i.e. until 22 September 1998. The court noted that the applicant had a prior criminal conviction and that he was suspected of having committed a new crime at a time when he had been released on bail in another criminal case (see paragraph 9 above) against him, which was pending before it.\n12.  On 22 September 1998 the applicant was formally charged with burglary. On the same day the City Court prolonged his detention until 22 November 1998 on the ground that he had a prior criminal conviction and could re-offend, if released.\n13.  In his appeal against the decision the applicant argued that the reasons referred to by the court were inadequate to justify his detention. He had a fixed place of residence and there was no reason to believe that he could commit new offences. Moreover, the reference to his prior conviction was irrelevant, since it was no longer on his criminal record.\n14.  On 13 October 1998 the Tallinn Court of Appeal (Tallinna Ringkonnakohus) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It considered that, although the applicant’s criminal record had been expunged, the fact of his conviction of theft in 1995 was still a factor relevant to his character. It also found it significant that the applicant had allegedly committed a new offence while he had been released on bail in other charges.\n15.  On 19 November 1998 the City Court extended the applicant’s detention until 22 January 1999 for reasons identical to those contained in its previous prolongation order of 22 September 1998.\n16.  Following the completion of the preliminary investigation on 13 January 1999, the City Court, by a decision of 20 January 1999, committed the applicant for trial and left unchanged the preventive custody measure. It joined to this case another criminal case against the applicant which concerned further acts of burglary, committed in a group of persons, as well as falsification of a document and unlawful possession of a firearm.\n17.  At a hearing before the City Court on 19 February 1999 the applicant requested his release from custody, arguing that his health had deteriorated and that he had difficulty eating without proper dentures which had been broken by a police officer at the time of his arrest. His request was refused on the ground of the danger of his re-offending if released.\nAs one of the co-defendant’s had fallen ill, the City C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1196", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1929, 1952, 1950 and 1949 respectively and live in the Nový Jičín region.\n8.  On 18 December 1991 the first applicant and her husband claimed restitution of their real property – a house with land – under the Land Ownership Act, alleging that in May 1985 they had been forced to sell it to the State, represented by the former Federal Ministry of National Defence (federální ministerstvo národní obrany), on terms that had been imposed on them. At the date of the entry into force of the Land Ownership Act, the property was managed by the Military Repair Enterprise (“the defendant”), the authority that was obliged to return the property to them, pursuant to section 5(1) and (2) of the Act.\n9.  The restitution claim was dealt with by the Nový Jičín Land Office (pozemkový úřad).\n10.  On 18 September 1992 the Nový Jičín Geodesy Centre (středisko geodézie) issued a survey plan in respect of the land. The plan was, however, found to be incomplete by the Land Office.\n11.  On 26 September 1993 the first applicant's husband died, and their three children joined the proceedings as his legal successors. In a medical report of 29 March 1994 it was stated that the premature death of the first applicant's husband was directly linked to an illness which had started after he had been forced to leave the house and to abandon his property.\n12.  On 22 February 1994 the Nový Jičín Land Registry (katastrální úřad) issued a new comparative plan of the land. Four other documents issued on 15 May, 3 June and 8 June 1994 were also included in the file. Two survey plans, issued at the request of the defendant and the Land Office, were produced on 11 November 1994 and 26 January 1995 respectively.\n13.  On 12 September 1995 the Land Office, having assessed the material in the file and having heard evidence from five witnesses who had been involved in the negotiations for the sale of the applicants' property, including Mr R., who was the defendant's lawyer, declared that the applicants were the owners of a major part of the property. It found that the contract of sale had been concluded under duress on strikingly unfavourable terms, within the meaning of section 6(1)(k) of the Land Ownership Act.\n14.  The Land Office established, among other things, that, contrary to the law then in force, the first applicant and her husband had not been considered parties to administrative proceedings which had resulted in the adoption of a decision on 20 March 1984 on the location of a construction\nsite. It also established that the purchase price had been determined by an expert, in accordance with Decree no. 128/1984.\n15.  On 26 October 1995 the defendant, represented by Mr R., appealed against the administrative decision to the Ostrava Regional Court (krajský soud), which on 9 July 1996 carried out an inspection of the site.\n16.  In their observations on the defendant's appeal, the applicants challenged, inter alia, the statement by Mr R., who had legally represented the defendant in the past and was acting again as its lawyer in the restitution proceedings.\n17.  On 9 July 1996 a meeting took place at the site.\n18.  On 20 August 1996 the Regional Court quashed the decision and remitted the case to the Land Office for further consideration. It stated that the existence of grounds for restitution of the property under section 6(1)(k) of the Land Ownership Act had not been sufficiently established.\n19.  On 13 May 1997 the Land Office again decided, hav", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1197", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1931. He died on 19 June 2003. In letters received by the Court on 12 December 2003 and 27 September 2004, the applicant’s daughter Ms T.A. Shvayko informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application.\n7.  The applicant was a former employee of the “Donetskaya” State Mine (the “DSM”). During his work at the DSM, he contracted an occupational disease. In 1995 a medical commission examined the applicant’s state of health, and he was recognised as falling within the second group of disabled persons, i.e. people with an 80% loss of ability to work.\n8.  Following his examination by the medical commission, the DSM decided to pay the applicant disability compensation in the amount of UAH 5,573[1]. They also ordered monthly allowances for the applicant, but failed to pay them.\n9.  In March 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings against the DSM seeking compensation for unpaid monthly disability allowances. On 26 February 2001 the Torez City Court ordered the DSM to pay the applicant UAH 17,037.19[2] in compensation for the delayed payment of disability benefits.\n10.  On 28 March 2001 the writ of execution no. 2-932 dated 26 February 2001 issued by the Torez City Court was presented to the Bailiffs’ Service of the Torez City Department of Justice for enforcement.\n11.  On 30 March 2001 the bailiff issued a resolution instituting the enforcement proceedings in the case.\n12.  On 18 April 2001 the bailiff attached the DSM’s current bank account and, on 17 May 2001, its property.\n13.  On 6 May 2001 the Torez Execution Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be executed immediately due to the DSM’s lack of funds.\n14.  On 10 October 2002 the applicant informed the court that the execution proceedings were still pending.\n15.  On 16 May 2003 the necessary funds were made available and, on 19 May 2003, the State Treasury in Shakhtarsk of the Donetsk Region paid the outstanding amount of the debt to the applicant.\n16.  In accordance with the information provided by the applicant’s representative, he received the full amount of compensation awarded by the Torez City Court on 25 May 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1198", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  Mr Tomáš Bzdúšek was born in 1926 and lives in Brezová pod Bradlom. Mr Ján Bzdúšek was born in 1952 and lives in Nitra. Mr Svetozár Bzdúšek was born in 1957 and lives in Myjava.\n8.  By decisions delivered by the Senica District Court on 20 January 1959 and by the Bratislava Regional Court on 13 February 1959 the father of Mr Tomáš Bzdúšek and the grandfather of the two other applicants was convicted of two offences and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment as well as to confiscation of movable property which included, inter alia, gold and silver coins of numismatic value, bank notes and savings books.\n9.  On 3 October 1991 the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic quashed, in the context of judicial rehabilitation provided for by the Judicial Rehabilitation Act of 1990, the above decisions of 1959 including all consequential decisions on the ground that the conviction had been unlawful. Subsequently the District Court in Prievidza delivered a judgment, on 30 March 1992, by which it acquitted the accused.\n10.  On 30 April 1993 the applicants filed an action claiming the restitution of the movable property which had been confiscated from their relative.\n11.  On 19 January 1994 the Bratislava I District Court, with which the applicants had filed the action, found that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case. On 17 May 1994 the Bratislava City Court quashed this decision as being erroneous.\n12.  On 6 February 1995 the Bratislava I District Court discontinued the proceedings. On 31 May 1995 the Bratislava City Court quashed this decision and instructed the District Court to proceed with the case.\n13.  On 7 October 1997 the Bratislava I District Court dismissed the action after having taken extensive evidence. The applicants appealed. On 13 May 1998 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment.\n14.  In the meantime, on 27 January 1998, the Constitutional Court found, upon a petition submitted by the applicants pursuant to Article 130(3) of the Constitution, that the Bratislava I District Court had violated their constitutional right to a hearing without undue delays. The Constitutional Court held, in particular, that the case was not complex and that the applicants had not contributed to the length of the proceedings by their behaviour. The case had not been proceeded with effectively between 30 April 1993 and 31 May 1995, and undue delays had arisen as a result of the fact that the judge dealing with the case had been changed three times.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1199", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Bedford.\n9.  On 5 June 1981 the applicant was convicted of wounding (the deliberate shooting of a police officer) with intent to resist arrest, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also sentenced to concurrent terms of 15 years for attempted robbery and firearms offences. His tariff was set at 17 years.\n10.  On 8 June 1998, upon the expiry of his tariff, the applicant’s detention was reviewed by a “Discretionary Lifer Panel” (“DLP”) of the Parole Board. At the time of his review, the applicant was a “category B” prisoner (prisoners being given a security classification ranging from category A (most serious) to category D). Life prisoners are normally expected to pass through each of the categories prior to release. While he would therefore ordinarily have been expected to progress to a category C prison before being considered suitable for transfer to a category D (“open”) prison, the applicant applied to be transferred directly to an open prison. His legal representative at the review hearing made it clear that he was seeking a transfer only, not release on licence.\n11.  Among the material which the DLP had before it were two reports (from Mr Cochrane, the prison probation officer, and Dr Williams, a psychiatrist commissioned on behalf of the applicant) which recommended a transfer of the applicant to a category D prison. Those reports stated that the applicant needed to be tested with a view to preparing him and considering him for release on licence, and that such testing could not take place in a category C prison and needed to take place in category D conditions. They were of the view that the risk to the safety of the public of a transfer to category D was acceptable. The third report in front of the DLP from Dr Narayana, a visiting consultant psychiatrist, was unfavourable to the applicant and neither recommended transferring him to category D nor directing his release. Mr Cochrane and Dr Williams gave oral evidence to the DLP. Dr Narayana did not. The conclusions of the latter were criticised by Dr Williams as being unsupported by evidence or reasoning.\n12.  The DLP did not recommend that the applicant should be released. However, it recommended that he should be transferred from a category B to a category D prison. Were that recommendation not to be accepted by the Secretary of State, the DLP recommended an early review after 12 months (i.e. in June 1999).\n13.  The decision letter of the DLP to the applicant of 10 June 1998 stated, in relevant part:\n“1.  The Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 requires the Parole Board to direct your release only if it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that you be confined. The panel of the Board who considered your case on 8 June 1998 were not so satisfied and therefore have not directed your release at this stage. This decision is binding upon the Secretary of State.\n... 2.  In reaching their decision that you are not yet suitable for release on licence, the panel took particular account of the contents of the reports which were before them, most of which did not recommend release and concluded that you remain a risk, at least until further work has been done on social skills and enhanced thinking. The panel noted the fact that your representative expressly stated that she did not ask for a recommendation for release at this stage. 3.  The panel recommended to the Secretary of State that you s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1200", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in London.\n8.  On 2 February 1998 the applicant was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. She was found to be suffering from a mental illness. She was detained in hospital pursuant to sections 37 and 41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”). She applied to a Mental Health Review Tribunal (“MHRT”) for her discharge from detention in hospital.\n9.  On 24 May 1999 the MHRT first considered her application. It adjourned in order, inter alia, to obtain a psychiatric report from a Dr Hamilton which was to address the eligibility of the applicant for a conditional discharge from hospital.\n10.  On 16 August 1999 the MHRT resumed its hearing of the applicant's application. It had before it the report of Dr Hamilton, which expressed the view that the applicant was not ready for discharge. Furthermore, the psychiatrist in charge of the applicant's care, Dr O'Grady, and a social worker gave evidence to the MHRT stating that they were opposed to the applicant's discharge. They proposed that the applicant should instead be transferred to hostel-type accommodation, under the care of a supervising consultant psychiatrist.\n11.  The MHRT nevertheless concluded that the applicant should be conditionally discharged. The conditions were that the applicant should reside at the home of her parents, that she should cooperate with supervision by a social worker and a forensic consultant psychiatrist, and that she should comply with such treatment as might be prescribed for her.\n12.  In coming to its decision, the MHRT answered the three questions below as follows:\n13.  The MHRT deferred the discharge of the applicant until satisfactory arrangements had been made to meet the conditions it had imposed.\n14.  On 30 September 1999 the psychiatrist responsible for supervising the applicant in the community, Dr Kennedy, saw her with two members of his team. He concluded that he was not prepared to supervise her if she were at home but only if she were in supported accommodation. He described his consultation with the applicant in a letter to Dr O'Grady, dated 6 October 1999, in which he wrote, inter alia:\n“I made it clear that I would not consider it safe to supervise [the applicant] if she were to go straight home to the care of her parents, as there are important areas of her treatment in which she has not yet made sufficient progress for anyone to be confident that she would not relapse and reoffend while there.”\n15.  Dr Kennedy made clear that he was in no doubt that the next stage in the applicant's treatment, rehabilitation and risk management should take place near her family, but in a medium-security unit or at a registered mental nursing home. Alternatively, he suggested asking one of his colleagues, or one of the general psychiatrists at St Anne's Hospital, whether they would be willing to supervise the applicant on conditional discharge to her parents' home.\n16.  On 11 October 1999 Dr O'Grady wrote to the MHRT. He stated that the purpose of his letter was to give the MHRT advance notice that his team was unable to meet the conditions set by the tribunal for the conditional discharge of the applicant. He explained that both Dr Hamilton and Dr Kennedy were agreed that it would be difficult to manage her should she be discharged directly to her parents' home. He continued:\n“In the circumstances, I believe it is highly unlikely that there will be another forensic psychiatrist willing to provi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1201", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1935 and currently resides in Torez, the Donetsk Region.\n7.  On 30 November 2000 the applicant was dismissed from her position in the State Holding Company “Torezantratsit” (the “SHC”).\n8.  In July 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Torez City Court against the SHC seeking to recover salary owed to her.\n9.  On 7 August 2000 the Torez City Court allowed her claims and ordered the SHC to pay the applicant UAH 2,379.76[1] in compensation.\n10.  On 14 June 2001 the Torez Execution Service informed the applicant that the judgment of 7 August 2000 could not be executed due to the SHC’s lack of funds.\n11.  On 10 October 2002 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment of 7 August 2000 had still not been executed.\n12.  The Government stated that between 9 November 2000 and 15 April 2003 the bailiffs conducted 8 inspections of the company’s accounts and found that there were no funds available to enforce the judgment. They also stated that the bailiffs were enforcing 92 writs of execution against the company, with a total debt of UAH 213,526[2].\n13.  On 2 July 2003 the applicant received UAH 2,379.76[3] in execution of the judgment of 7 August 2000.\n14.  On 3 July 2003 the enforcement proceedings on the applicant’s writ of execution were discontinued as the amount awarded by the judgment had been paid.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1202", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Ekaterinburg.\n5.  On 27 May 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings to challenge his dismissal from employment. He also claimed payment of his salary in respect of the period of enforced unemployment and damages.\n6.  On 13 October 1997 the Kirovskiy District Court of Ekaterinburg dismissed the applicant's claim. The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n7.  On 23 December 1997 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination. A new hearing on the merits was fixed for 4 March 1998.\n8.  Between 4 March 1998 and 8 September 1998 the hearing was postponed four times because of the parties' failure to appear.\n9.  Between 8 September 1998 and 21 December 1998 the hearing was postponed three times because of the defendant's failure to appear.\n10.  Between 21 December 1998 and 17 May 1999 the hearing was postponed three times: once for less than two months because of the parties' failure to appear and twice for an overall period of over three months because the judge was absent on sick leave.\n11.  On 17 May 1999 the hearing was postponed to 23 August 1999 because the judge was engaged in unrelated proceedings.\n12.  On 23 August 1999 the hearing was postponed to 26 August 1999 at the applicant's request, so that the court could obtain additional evidence.\n13.  On 26 August 1999 the Kirovskiy District Court of Ekaterinburg partially granted the applicant's claim. The applicant was not provided with a copy of the judgment.  On 24 February 2000 and 10 April 2000 he filed two complaints about the failure to provide him with a copy of the judgment, to the Kirovskiy District Court of Ekaterinburg and to the Chairman of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court respectively.\n14.  On 28 April 2000 the Chairman of the Kirovskiy District Court of Ekaterinburg sent him a copy of the judgment.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the judgment.\n15.  On 20 June 2000 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 26 August 1999 on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination. A new hearing on the merits was fixed for 18 December 2000.\n16.  On 18 December 2000 the hearing was postponed to 21 February 2001 at the applicant's request.\n17.  On 21 February 2001 the hearing was postponed to 25 April 2001 because of the parties' failure to appear.\n18.  Between 25 April 2001 and 23 October 2001 the hearing was postponed twice at the defendant's request.\n19.  On 23 October 2001 the hearing was postponed to 4 January 2002 because the judge was absent on sick leave.  A new date for the hearing was then fixed for 10 January 2002.\n20.  On 10 January 2002 the hearing was postponed to 31 January 2002 on account of the parties' failure to appear. On 31 January 2002 a new hearing was fixed for 5 March 2002. The hearing was then postponed to 27 March 2002 because the court ordered the applicant to submit a clarified statement of claim.\n21.  On 27 March 2002 the Kirovskiy District Court of Ekaterinburg declared the applicant's dismissal unlawful, ordered that he be paid his salary in respect of the period of enforced unemployment and partially granted the claim for damages. The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n22.  On 20 June 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court reversed the judgment in the part relating to the payment of the applicant's salary on the grounds that the trial court had miscalculated it, and remitted the case for a fresh examination. A new", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1203", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Kielce. He owned and ran a company.\n9.  The applicant was arrested on 10 March 1997. On the same day the Kielce District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand for three months in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed several counts of fraud. The court observed that the applicant's detention was also justified by the severity of the anticipated penalty in view of the serious nature of the offences at issue. In respect of the applicant's objections to holding him in detention based on health grounds, the court considered those objections unwarranted having regard to three medical reports. The applicant was detained in the Kielce Detention Centre.\n10. On 17 April 1997 the prosecution service filed with the Kielce Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a bill of indictment against the applicant, who was the sole accused. He was charged with multiple counts of aggravated fraud committed between December 1989 and May 1993, having acted against the interest of his company and having failed to file a petition for insolvency. The charges of fraud concerned business transactions in which the applicant misled other parties to enter into contracts. The prosecution asked the trial court to hear evidence from one hundred and twelve witnesses, four expert witnesses and it filed a list of seventy-seven victims. The investigation's case-file comprised 16 volumes.\n11.  From an unspecified date in May 1997 to 29 May 1997 the applicant was held in the Hospital of the Cracow Detention Centre.\n12.  On 19 September 1997 the applicant's counsel filed an application for release. That application was dismissed by the Kielce Regional Court on 6 October 1997. The court's decision was reasoned as follows:\n“The applicant's counsel submitted in his application for release that Wiesław Łatasiewicz should not be detained on account of the state of his health. The court has received a medical certificate from the Kielce Detention Centre which confirms that, [although] W. Łatasiewicz suffers from minor ailments, he is in good health and can remain in the Detention Centre and receive treatment there.\nThe evidence obtained in the case sufficiently shows that the accused had committed the acts with which he was charged. In view of the gravity of the charges laid against him, his detention is justified by the severity of anticipated penalty. The court considers that none of the grounds for release from detention as provided by Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to Wiesław Łatasiewicz.”\n13.  On 10 October 1997 the Kielce Regional Court decided to extend the applicant's pre-trial detention until 10 February 1998, relying on the same grounds as originally given for the applicant's detention. It also referred to the significant number of witnesses to be heard at trial. The Regional Court found no grounds which would justify the lifting of the applicant's detention pursuant to Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n14.  On 20 October 1997 the applicant's counsel appealed to the Cracow Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) against the decision of 10 October 1997. He pointed out that there had been no judicial decision authorising the applicant's detention between 10 June 1997, when the detention order issued on 10 March 1997 had expired, and 10 October 1997, the date of the appealed decision. Therefore, the detention during that period had been unlawful. In addition, the c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1204", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Celestynów, Poland.\n9.  The applicant and O. had a relationship and were living together for an unspecified period. In 1994 O. gave birth to the applicant's son, P. In August 1996 during the applicant's stay abroad, P.'s mother, O., moved out from their house and took P. with her, apparently as a result of growing tensions and disagreements in the couple. Afterwards she refused to allow the applicant to have contact with P. Subsequently, on an unspecified date, the applicant took P back to his place, without O.'s agreement.\n10.  On an unspecified later date O. filed with the Białystok District Court (sąd rejonowy) a request for limitation of the applicant's parental responsibility for P.\n11.  On 12 September 1996 the court issued an interim order to place P. with his mother. It relied on P.'s age, on the fact that O. breast-fed P. and, also, on the fact that he was suffering from allergy. On the following day a court-appointed guardian assisted by a police officer arrived at the applicant's place and after a two-hour skirmish took P. away.\n12.  On 8 November 1996 the applicant and O. concluded a friendly settlement as to the access arrangements. They agreed that P.'s place of residence would be with his mother. The applicant had a right to take P. to his place at specified dates and times in 1996. Starting from 1 January 1997 he was supposed to spend every second weekend with his son at his home. As to the exact dates of meetings in 1997 the parties agreed to determine them at a later date.\n13.  At the beginning of 1997 O. refused to hand over her son to the applicant, maintaining that P. was ill at that time.\n14.  In February 1997 the applicant requested that a court guardian assist him in meetings with P., submitting that O. failed to comply with the settlement they had concluded in November 1996.\n15.  On an unspecified date the applicant petitioned the Białystok District Court to fine O. for obstructing his contacts with P. as established in the settlement of 8 November 1996. He also requested the prosecution authorities to institute criminal proceedings against O.\n16.  On an unspecified date at the requests of the applicant and O. proceedings concerning parental responsibility were instituted.\n17.  On 4 April 1997 the Białystok District Court stayed the proceedings concerning the applicant's petition, considering that only after the completion of the parental-responsibility proceedings would it be possible to examine them. The court observed that the parties to the court settlement of November 1996 had not specified the dates of the applicant's meetings with P. and that therefore the settlement was impossible to enforce. It was therefore impossible to examine the applicant's petition to have a fine imposed on O.\n18.  On 19 May 1997 the applicant went to O. and, after an altercation, took his son away. Subsequently, O. informed prosecution authorities that the applicant had kidnapped P. and threatened her.\n19.  On 22 May 1997 the applicant sent letters to the Białystok District Court and the prosecution authorities informing them that he had taken over the custody of P. and would continue to exercise his parental rights until the completion of the parental-responsibility proceedings pending before the District Court. He declared that O. would be able to meet her son at the applicant's home.\n20.  On 17 July 1997 the District Court, at O.'s request, ordered the applicant to hand over P. t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1205", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is currently in Frosinone Prison.\n9.  On 28 November 1999 the applicant was discovered in possession of a package containing 485 grams of heroin and was arrested by the Rome carabinieri. Proceedings were instituted against him for drug trafficking. On 23 December 1999 the applicant appointed a lawyer of his own choosing, Mr M., who represented him throughout the proceedings.\n10.  The applicant subsequently requested, through the intermediary of his lawyer, adoption of the summary procedure (giudizio abbreviato) provided for in Articles 438 to 443 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”). The representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office gave a favourable opinion. The Rome preliminary hearings judge, taking the view that the charges against the applicant could be determined on the basis of the steps in the proceedings taken at the preliminary investigation stage (allo stato degli atti) ordered that the summary procedure be adopted.\n11.  At the private hearing held on 24 March 2000 in the presence of the applicant, the latter, through the intermediary of his lawyer, pleaded not guilty on the ground that the drugs had been intended for his personal use and not for sale.\n12.  In a judgment of 24 March 2000 the Rome preliminary hearings judge sentenced the applicant to six years’ imprisonment and a fine of 40,000,000 lire (approximately 20,658 euros). He observed that the quantity of drugs permitted for personal use must not exceed what was required to meet immediate needs. At the time of his arrest, the applicant had just purchased a quantity corresponding to more than 8,000 average daily doses.\n13.  The applicant appealed against the judgment, reiterating the arguments adduced at first instance. He contended that interpreting the law on drugs in a way that penalised drug users was in breach of the Constitution.\n14.  On 1 September 2000 Mr M. was informed that the hearing had been set down for 3 November 2000. On that day Mr M. objected to the continuation of the proceedings in the absence of his client and requested that the latter be brought from the prison to the hearing room. The Rome Court of Appeal dismissed his request, observing that the applicant had not informed the authorities in advance that he wished to participate in the appeal proceedings.\n15.  In a judgment of 3 November 2000 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment at first instance.\n16.  The applicant appealed on points of law. He alleged that the appeal judges had not allowed him to attend his trial and that the summons to appear at the appeal hearing had not been translated into Arabic.\n17.  In his final submissions, the public prosecutor requested that the impugned decision be set aside.\n18.  In a judgment of 24 January 2002 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It observed that neither the Convention nor the CCP required the steps in the proceedings to be translated into the language of a non-national defendant in Italy. However, the latter had the right to be assisted free of charge by an interpreter in order to be able to understand the charges against him and follow the progress of the proceedings. As to the other complaints, the Court of Cassation observed that the presence of the defendant was not required under the summary procedure, the adoption of which had been requested by the applicant himself of his own free will. Furthermore, the applicant had not made clear his wish to participate in the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1206", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1974 and 1977 respectively and live in Istanbul.\n10.  On an unspecified date police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Bağcılar Security Directorate reported that an illegal organisation, namely Dev-Sol (Revolutionary Left), would organise a demonstration in front of the head office of a daily journal, namely Hürriyet, on 13 August 1994.\n11.  On 13 August 1994 the applicants, together with twelve other people, were arrested in front of the newspaper’s head office and taken to police custody at the Bağcılar Security Directorate. According to the arrest report drafted by the police, Dev-Sol members were arrested following a chase and two warning shots. It was also noted that the police officers made the detainees lie on the floor and collected the pamphlets and banners that they carried.\n12.  On 15 August 1994 the Istanbul Criminal Police Laboratory provided an expert report where it concluded that Yılmaz Yeşilırmak’s handwriting matched the writing on several of the banners seized by the police.\n13.  On 17 August 1994 the applicants were examined by a doctor from the Bakırköy Forensic Medical Institute. The doctor reported bruises on one hand of the first applicant and on both hands of the second applicant. The report stated that the applicants’ injuries did not constitute a danger to life, but would prevent them from working for three days.\n14.  On the same day the Bağcılar Security Directorate held a press conference on the subject of the apprehension of members of the Dev-Sol organisation. There is no information in the case-file as to whether any declaration was made by the police during the conference. However, the next day the applicants’ names and pictures appeared in two national newspapers, namely Milliyet and Türkiye, where they were described as members of the Dev-Sol organisation.\n15.  The news in the Milliyet newspaper, with the headline “Fourteen members of Dev-Sol arrested”, read as follows:\n“The members of Dev-Sol organisation, namely ..., Yılmaz Yeşilırmak, Bülent Karakaş, ..., who were getting ready to hold a demonstration in Güneşli, in order to protest against the Hürriyet newspaper, have been arrested. The police seized the following items from the accused: pamphlets and banners with slogans against journalists, publications with leftist points of view, and slings to smash the windows of the Hürriyet building.”\n16.  The information in the Türkiye newspaper, with the headline “Protesters with slings”, was accompanied by a photo, in which a group of accused was standing behind a table on which pamphlets, banners and rubber bands were displayed. The text was as follows:\n“The police arrested fourteen people, (including five women), who were allegedly members of an illegal leftist organisation and were getting ready to hold a demonstration to protest about an article that was published in Hürriyet newspaper. The police seized banners, pamphlets, and rubber bands for slings which were found on the accused, namely ... Y.Y., Bülent Karakaş ...”\n17.  On 18 August 1994 the applicants were brought before the Public Prosecutor and then before a non-presiding judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, where they denied all charges. Both applicants rejected their statements given in police custody, contending that they had been forced to sign them. The court ordered their detention on remand.\n18.  On 23 August 1994 the applicants were examined by the prison doctor. The medical report indic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1207", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1954 and 1955 respectively, and live in Syktyvkar in the Komi Republic. They are both retired judges.\n5.  On 26 September 1994 the Ezhvinskiy District Court of the Komi Republic allowed the first applicant's claim against the Yemva Town Council for provision of State housing, for which he was eligible as a judge. The court ordered the town council to:\n“...grant or purchase for Mr Teterin, whose family comprises five members, a separate well-equipped flat or house taking account of the plaintiff's entitlement to one additional room or having a habitable surface of no less than 65 square metres, located near the Knyazhpogostskiy District Court in the town of Yemva”.\n6.  No appeal was brought against the judgment and it became final and enforceable ten days later.\n7.  In October 1994 enforcement proceedings were instituted. However, the judgment could not be enforced because the town authorities did not possess any available housing or the financial resources to purchase a flat.\n8.  The applicants complained to the Courts Administration Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Court Bailiffs' Department of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation and the Court Bailiffs' Department of the Komi Republic Department of Justice. The responses received by the applicants in 2001 and 2002 indicated that the judgment could not be enforced as the town authorities had no available housing.\n9.  In 2002 the first applicant applied to the Ezhvinskiy District Court with a request to change the method of execution of the judgment of 26 September 1994. He asked that the value of the flat be paid to him in cash.\n10.  On 24 April 2002 the Ezhvinskiy District Court closed the proceedings for the amendment of the judgment as the first applicant had withdrawn his request.\n11.  On 23 August 2002 a court bailiff reopened enforcement proceedings and ordered the Knyazhpogostskiy District Council to execute the judgment.\n12.  On 30 January 2003 the enforcement proceedings were closed because enforcement was not possible. On the following day the writ of execution was returned to the first applicant.\n13.  Further to the applicants' complaint, on 3 March 2003 the Knyazhpogostskiy District Court quashed the bailiff's decision to terminate the proceedings.\n14.  The proceedings were resumed on 7 May 2003. The bailiff collected information on the cash flows and funds of the Yemva Town Council.\n15.  On 7 July 2003 the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings on account of the town council's lack of funds for the construction or purchase of housing. The writ of execution was returned to the Ezhvinskiy District Court. The first applicant submits that a copy of that decision was not served on him and that he first became aware of it upon receipt of the Government's memorandum of 1 December 2003, to which it was attached.\n16.  On 19 January 2004 the Yemva Town Council offered the first applicant a two-room flat of 25 square metres with central heating. It noted that no State housing had been constructed since 1994 and that it was therefore not in a position to offer a flat with full amenities. The applicants did not accept the offer. On 17 December 2004 the enforcement proceedings were re-opened and they are now pending.\n17.  The judgment of 26 September 1994 has not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1208", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, Mr Bensaid Nakach, is a Moroccan national, who was born in 1944. At the time of the events complained of, he was detained in a secure institution, the Forensic Psychiatric Centre “Veldzicht” in Balkbrug, Netherlands; in July 2002 he was transferred to the secure institution “De Kijvelanden” in Poortugaal, near Rotterdam, Netherlands.\n8.  On 7 February 1994 the applicant hit his wife, Mrs K., on the head, the shoulders and the back with the blunt edge of a meat cleaver, choked her and kicked her in the face. Mrs K. was injured but survived.\n9.  On 10 October 1994 the Breda Regional Court convicted the applicant of attempted manslaughter. In the light of a psychiatric report which found the applicant's mental powers to be deficient and the chance of his re-offending to be high, it sentenced him to one year's imprisonment and ordered his placement at the Government's disposal (terbeschikkingstelling van de regering) with confinement in a secure institution.\n10.  On 10 October 1995 the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Regional Court.\n11.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (cassatie) with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), which was dismissed on 1 October 1996.\n12.  The time which the applicant had spent in detention on remand counting towards the sentence, the order placing the applicant at the Government's disposal therefore went into force on that date.\n13.  The placement order was prolonged for an additional two years in September 1998.\n14.  On 29 September 2000 the Breda Regional Court extended the applicant's placement order for a further two years.\n15.  The applicant appealed to the Arnhem Court of Appeal (gerechtshof).\n16.  A hearing was held on 9 April 2001. The Government state that the registrar (griffier) took notes and that these were kept in the case file.\n17.  The Court of Appeal gave its decision on 23 April 2001; it found that the applicant's continued placement at the Government's disposal remained necessary in the interest of public safety and accordingly upheld the decision of the Breda Regional Court. Summaries of an expert report and of statements made at the hearing by an expert and by the applicant's counsel are contained in this decision; they cover approximately a page and a half.\n18.  On 28 June 2001 the applicant's counsel wrote to the Court of Appeal asking for a copy of the official record of the hearing of 9 April.\n19.  A reply dated 11 July 2001, on stationery bearing the letterhead of the vice-president of the Court of Appeal in charge of criminal cases (the signature is illegible), contains the following passage:\n“In reply to your request of 28 June last I must inform you that no official records are usually made of hearings of the criminal division concerning prolongations of placements at the Government's disposal. The reason is that no ordinary remedy lies against the decisions concerned and the workload of the Court of Appeal does not admit of structural activities 'just to fill the archives' (voor het archief). For that reason, also, the decisions in question tend to render the statements made more extensively than would be the case if in fact an official record were prepared (in addition).”", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1211", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The first and the second applicant, Lomaseita Oy and CPT Data Oy, are limited liability companies. The third applicant, Mrs Kaisaleena Laaksonen was born in 1947 and lives in Espoo.\n9.  In 1987, the third applicant founded a company called CPT Informations Systems Oy (“CPT IS” hereinafter) together with two others. On 20 October 1993 the company was ordered to be wound-up.\n10.  The official receiver of the estate of CPT IS, P., a lawyer practising in Helsinki and a member of the Finnish Bar Association, instituted civil proceedings against the third applicant and the applicant companies, which are at least partly owned by the third applicant. In the proceedings before the District Court of Espoo (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten), P. requested that assets allegedly transferred from CPT IS to the applicants before the winding-up order was issued be returned to its estate.\n11.  On 31 January 1996, the District Court found partly in favour of the estate insofar as the first and second applicants were concerned and as a whole in favour of the estate in so far as the third applicant was concerned.\n12.  All the parties to the proceedings appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) and subsequently submitted their observations in reply. After the relevant time-limit for appeal had elapsed, the estate on two occasions in August 1997 submitted additional documentary material to the Court of Appeal, requesting that it be taken into account.\n13.  By its judgment of 23 December 1997 the Court of Appeal found in favour of the estate. Insofar as the additional material submitted by the estate after the time-limit for appeal had elapsed was concerned, the Court of Appeal stated as follows:\n“The Court of Appeal has not found any such particular reason as prescribed by chapter 26, section 5 (1) of the Code of Judicial Procedure (oikeudenkäymiskaari, rättegångsbalken) to take into account the additional submissions with enclosures submitted by the estate after the relevant time-limit set for the appeal had elapsed. Therefore, they are not taken into account and, accordingly, the [estate’s] request for an oral hearing is rejected.”\n14.  On 18 June 1998 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicants leave to appeal.\n15.  Having received the Supreme Court’s decision, the applicants’ representative at the time requested copies of all the relevant documents from the Court of Appeal. He found out that, despite what was said in the Court of Appeal’s judgment about the additional submissions by the estate after the relevant time-limit for appeal had elapsed, the judicial secretary (hovioikeudenviskaali, hovrättsfiskal) of the Court of Appeal had made 71 remarks to the submissions in question and as many as 161 remarks to an enclosure, an inspection report drafted by the National Bureau of Investigation (keskusrikospoliisi, centralkriminalpolisen).\n16.  On 30 November 1998, the applicants requested that the Supreme Court reopen the proceedings, claiming that they had been denied a fair trial before the Court of Appeal as the estate’s submissions, which had clearly been relevant and which had been taken into account even though there was a statement to the contrary in the Court of Appeal’s judgment, had not been communicated to them. They also noted that it appeared from the invoice concerning the estate’s legal costs included in the court file, that P. had consulted the Court of Appeal’s judicial secretary several ti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1212", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Wrocław. He is a lawyer belonging to the Wrocław Bar.\n11.  The applicant was a party to proceedings before the Council of the Wrocław Bar Association to determine where his practice was to be located, a necessary preliminary to any activity in his profession.\n12.  On 24 November 1982 the Bar Association of the Wrocław region (Okręgowa Rada Adwokacka) refused to enter the applicant's name in the list of practising lawyers. On 11 January 1983 the National Bar Association (Naczelna Rada Adwokacka) upheld that decision. On 21 October 1983 the Minister of Justice set aside the Bar Association's decision. On 25 November 1983 the Wrocław Bar Association entered the applicant's name in the list, but refused to determine a location for his practice on the ground that he had not joined a lawyers' cooperative (zespół adwokacki) in order to carry on his profession.\n13.  On 20 December 1983 the applicant appealed, informing the Wrocław Bar Association that he had been retired since 19 July 1982 and only worked from time to time. He received no reply.\n14.  On 13 June 1991 the applicant asked the Wrocław Bar Association to forward to the Minister of Justice his application for permission to carry on his profession as an independent lawyer and to have his practice established in Wrocław at the address he indicated.\n15.  On 5 September 1991 the Wrocław Bar Association refused his application on the ground that he had not made any request for the location of his practice to be designated. According to the Government, the applicant did not appeal against that decision.\n16.  On 23 December 1991 the applicant submitted a request to have his practice located in Wrocław; that request was refused on 23 January 1992 because there were no places available. On 18 March 1992 the National Bar Association dismissed an appeal by the applicant citing the lack of places and the need to give priority to trainee lawyers.\n17.  On 26 January 1993 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny), sitting in Warsaw, set aside the decisions given. It held that the Bar Association had been required to designate a location for the applicant's practice at the time when it entered his name in the list of members of the Bar, that is on 25 November 1983. It also held that when designating the location of the applicant's practice the Bar Association had a duty to take into account, among other considerations, his state of health.\n18.  On 29 April 1993 the Wrocław Bar Association decided that the applicant's practice should be located in Wołów (approximately 46 km from Wrocław). On appeal, that decision was upheld on 18 August 1993 by the National Bar Association.\n19.  On 31 January 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court once again set aside the decisions given. It held that the governing bodies of the profession, when designating the location of the applicant's practice, had still not taken into account his state of health, had not explained why, despite the growing number of law practices in the chief town of the region (Wrocław), the applicant's request had not been allowed, and had not explained why requests similar to the applicant's had been dealt with and granted as a priority.\n20.  That decision was served on the Wrocław Bar Association on 29 March 1995. On 8 June 1995 the Bar Association asked the applicant to supply information about his professional activity and his state of health. The applicant described his ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1213", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1967 and is currently staying in the Netherlands.\n9.  On 8 May 2001 the applicant arrived in the Netherlands, where on 21 May 2001 he applied for asylum (verblijfsvergunning asiel voor bepaalde tijd) at the asylum application centre (aanmeldcentrum) at Schiphol. A first interview with an official of the Immigration and Naturalisation Department of the Ministry of Justice took place that same day, in order to establish the applicant's identity, nationality and travel route. The next day he was interviewed regarding the reasons for his request for asylum. The applicant submitted the following.\n10.  After completing his eighteen months' military service on 1 December 1995, the applicant was again called up during a general mobilisation in April 1998. He served as a soldier in an anti-tank unit and fought in the war against Ethiopia.\n11.  Although the war ended on 13 June 2000, demobilisation did not commence until considerably later because the Eritrean authorities feared further military incursions by the Ethiopians. In August 2000 a meeting was held with the applicant's battalion, consisting of between 5,000 and 7,000 men, in order to evaluate its performance in the war. According to the applicant, it was customary for such meetings to be held, and they allowed the higher army echelons to cover up their mistakes by putting the blame for an unsuccessful campaign on the soldiers. During this meeting the commanders said that the soldiers had not fought well. The applicant spoke up and said that this was because the commanders had insisted that hungry, thirsty and tired soldiers should continue fighting at the front, which had resulted in casualties. He said that his unit should have been replaced or strengthened. Other soldiers present at the meeting also voiced criticism, saying, for example, that there had not been enough weapons. When the applicant had spoken out, the other soldiers had vociferously supported him and an argument had ensued.\n12.  For some time after the meeting, the applicant had the feeling that the army authorities were keeping an eye on him; for example, he thought he was being followed whenever he visited other units, and he was denied permission to go into town. On 5 December 2000, by which time he thought everything had been forgotten, he was summoned to the battalion's headquarters. There, he was informed that he had incited the soldiers. He was made to hand over his weapons and was detained in an underground cell for almost five months. He was neither interviewed, nor charged, nor brought before a military tribunal.\n13.  On 20 April 2001 he was put into a jeep, with a driver and a guard who were armed. He was neither handcuffed nor bound. During the drive, they happened upon a military vehicle that had had an accident. Both the driver and the guard got out of the car to see if they could lend assistance. The applicant, left alone, seized the opportunity and escaped through the back of the car.\n14.  The applicant made his way unhindered to Sudan, avoiding official border posts. An acquaintance of his in Khartoum brought him into contact with a travel agent, who arranged for a passport and air tickets. Accompanied by the travel agent, the applicant flew to Belgium via Syria and another, unspecified European country. From Brussels they took a train to Breda in the Netherlands. There, the travel agent told the applicant they had reached their destination. He asked him to hand back the pas", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1214", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Helsinki.\n7.  The applicant ran a snack bar together with his wife until 20 December 1993 when it was damaged by a fire. On 13 October 1997 the Kotka District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) convicted him of aggravated vandalism and aggravated fraud as he was found to have set the snack bar on fire and to have claimed and received compensation from an insurance company. He was sentenced to one year’s suspended imprisonment.\n8.  Both the applicant and the public prosecutor appealed to the Kouvola Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). The applicant requested an oral hearing. He also sought an order for an expert opinion on the reasons why the snack bar had caught fire.\n9.  On 9 March 1998 the applicant was summoned to an oral hearing to be held before the Court of Appeal on 20 May 1998. According to the summons, the oral hearing was limited only to the fire which had started from the storage room of the snack bar (“fire 2”); another fire (“fire 1”) had started from the part of the stand where the snacks were prepared. The Court of Appeal stated that it would call three of the prosecution witnesses, who had been heard before the District Court (police officer H., investigator L. and fireman T.).\n10.  In her letter of 18 May 1998 to the Court of Appeal, the applicant’s counsel requested that S., who had installed the electricity for the snack bar, be called to give evidence at the oral hearing about the reasons why the above-mentioned “fire 1” had started. S. had also been heard before the District Court.\n11.  On 20 May 1998 before the hearing started, the applicant’s counsel asked the judicial secretary of the Court of Appeal whether the applicant could call witnesses who would give evidence about “fire 1” and about the reasons why the snack bar had caught fire and how the fire had then spread to the whole building. The judicial secretary did not find it possible, or desirable, that such witnesses should be heard as the hearing was limited only to “fire 2”.\n12.  At the beginning of the hearing, a timetable of the proceedings was distributed to the parties according to which the hearing was limited only to “fire 2”. The above-mentioned prosecution witnesses were heard. The defence witness, S., was not. According to the applicant the statements made by the prosecution witnesses concerning “fire 1” as well as the reasons why the snack bar had caught fire were accepted by the court. According to the Government no such evidence was given before the Court of Appeal.\n13.  On 13 August 1998 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment, refusing the applicant’s request for an expert opinion. In its reasoning the court found, inter alia, as follows:\n“What is said above shows that the fire which occurred in the storage room [“fire 2”] was started deliberately. This strongly supports the allegation that the fire which occurred in the room where the snacks were prepared [“fire 1”] was also deliberate, in particular, as it is unlikely that the fire would have started from the electrical devices or the electricity wires which were situated on the roof of the preparation room [“fire 1].”\n14.  On 11 November 1998 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1215", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the village of Khokholskiy in the Voronezh Region. He is the father of Viktor Trubnikov, who was found dead on 13 September 1998 in a punishment cell of the prison where he had been serving his sentence. He had died of asphyxia caused by hanging. At the time of his death, Viktor Trubnikov was 26 years old and was due to be released 21 days later.\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  On 8 July 1993 Viktor Trubnikov was remanded in custody in connection with criminal charges brought against him.\n10.  On 30 August 1993 Viktor Trubnikov was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. He was serving his sentence in the correctional labour colony (исправительно-трудовая колония) OZH 118/8 in Rossosh, Voronezh Region. He expected to be released on probation on 4 October 1998.\n11.  According to the records submitted by the Government, on three occasions in 1994-1995 Viktor Trubnikov had been found to be under the influence of alcohol and placed in a punishment cell. During his second disciplinary confinement, Viktor Trubnikov inflicted bodily injury on himself, and during his third disciplinary confinement he attempted suicide (see the section entitled “Medical records”).\n12. Following the suicide attempt, Viktor Trubnikov was placed under regular psychiatric supervision.\n13.  On 13 September 1998 a prison football team, of which Viktor Trubnikov was a member, took part in a match outside the prison.\n14.  On return to the prison after the match, Viktor Trubnikov was found to be under the influence of alcohol. At 7.15 p.m. a prison officer placed him in a punishment cell where he was to be kept in solitary confinement before his inspection by the prison warder the following morning. At 8.20 p.m. Viktor Trubnikov was found dead, hanged by the sleeve of his jacket with another sleeve attached to a water pipe.\n15.  That evening the prison governor conducted an inquest. He examined six documents: (i) the order to place Viktor Trubnikov in the punishment cell, (ii) the disciplinary offence report, (iii) the report drawn up on finding Viktor Trubnikov dead, (iv) the site inspection report, (v) the site plan and (vi) the post mortem report. On the basis of this file, he stated that Viktor Trubnikov had hanged himself using the sleeve of his jacket and ordered that no criminal investigation be opened, as there had been no appearance that a crime had been committed. A reference was also made to his attempted suicide in June 1995, and it was stated that he had had suicidal tendencies.\n16.  On 15 September 1998 an autopsy was performed on the body. In October 1998 a post mortem report was issued according to which abrasions and bruises were found on the nose, hand, forearm and elbow. The expert came to the conclusion that death had been caused by pressure on the neck through hanging.\n17.  The applicant was informed orally that his son had committed suicide. He asked the prison authorities to initiate a criminal investigation. The authorities did not inform him that a decision had already been taken not to do so.\n18.  In March 1999 the applicant requested the Voronezh Regional Prosecutor’s Office to provide him with information about the circumstances of his son’s death. The request was transmitted to the Voronezh City Special Prosecutor’s Office supervising penitentiary institutions.\n19.  On 8 April 1999 the Voronezh City Special P", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1216", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Agrotehservis, is a Latvian-Ukrainian joint venture based in Riga, with legal personality under Latvian law.\n9.  On 13 May 1992, under the intergovernmental agreement of 21 April 1992 between the Republic of Latvia and Ukraine, the applicant concluded a contract with the Kherson Refinery, which was later transformed into the “Khersonnaftopererobka” Joint-Stock Company (hereinafter “the Refinery”). Under the contract the applicant was to supply oil to the Refinery and the latter had to provide it with oil products in return.\n10.  On 10 December 1996 the applicant lodged a claim with the Highest Arbitration Court of Ukraine (Вищий арбітражний суд України, hereinafter “the HAC”) against the Refinery for failure to honour the contract.\n11.  On 7 February 1997 the HAC rejected the applicant’s claim as time-barred. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.\n12.  On 2 September 1997 the panel of the Highest Arbitration Court for the review of judgments, orders and decisions (судова колегія з перегляду рішень, ухвал, постанов Вищого арбітражного суду України, hereinafter “the Review Panel”) reviewed the decision of 7 February 1997 on its own motion. The latter decision was quashed and the case was remitted for a fresh consideration.\n13.  On 9 October 1997 the HAC rejected the applicant’s claim as time-barred.\n14.  On 26 November 1997 the applicant appealed against this decision under the supervisory review procedure to the Review Panel. On 30 January 1998, the Panel quashed the decision of 9 October 1997 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n15.  On 10 April 1998 the HAC found for the applicant. The court established that in June 1992 the applicant had supplied 60,000 tonnes of oil to the defendant and was to receive 17,852 tonnes of oil products from the defendant in return. As the oil products had not been supplied, the HAC awarded them to the applicant. The court also awarded the applicant UAH 10,000 in legal costs.\n16.  In August 1998 the applicant lodged a claim with the HAC to change the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 10 April 1998. On 26 August 1998 the court allowed the claim and ordered the Refinery to pay the applicant UAH 7,011,186[1] in lieu of the 17,852 tonnes of oil products.\n17.  On 2 June 1998 the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine (Генеральна Прокуратура України, hereinafter - “the GPO”) lodged an appeal for supervisory review with the Review Panel of the HAC seeking to quash the judgment of 10 April 1998. The GPO maintained that the applicant had lodged its original claim outside the time-limit and had not paid a court fee. It further maintained that the HAC had not taken certain documents into account.\n18.  On 17 July 1998 the Review Panel rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated.\n19.  On 31 August 1998 the GPO lodged an appeal for supervisory review with the Presidium of the HAC (президія Вищого арбітражного суду України) to quash the judgment of 10 April 1998 given in the applicant’s favour. The GPO maintained that there was insufficient evidence that the applicant was the owner of the oil which had been supplied to the Refinery in 1992 and that the HAC had wrongly decided that the original claim was not time-barred.\n20.  On 26 November 1998 the Presidium of the HAC ordered a forensic examination in the framework of the supervisory review proceedings.\n21.  On 30 December 1998 the experts of the Kiev Scientific and Research Institute of Forensic Examination gave their opini", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1217", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest.\n9.  Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on a charge of misappropriation. On 23 May 2001 the National Police Department ordered his 72-hour arrest. In the ensuing proceedings he was assisted by defence counsel of his choice.\n10.  On 24 May 2001 the Budapest Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the applicant’s complaint concerning his arrest and lodged with the Pest Central District Court a motion for the applicant’s detention on remand. On 25 May 2001 the District Court heard the applicant and, as confirmed by the Budapest Regional Court on 1 June 2001, ordered his detention on remand until 25 June 2001. The District Court held that there was a risk of collusion by the applicant.\n11.  On 19 June 2001 the District Court, as confirmed by the Regional Court on 3 July 2001, prolonged the applicant’s detention until 25 August 2001. On 7 August and 16 October 2001 the Regional Court, as confirmed by an appeal panel of the same court on 27 August and 12 November 2001, prolonged his detention on remand until 25 October and 25 December 2001, respectively. In these proceedings the courts reached their decisions with reference to motions submitted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, all of which were based on the risk of collusion. Neither the applicant nor his defence counsel had been notified of these motions before the decisions were taken. In its decision of 12 November 2001 the Regional Court pointed out that notification was not prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and was a matter for the public prosecutor in the exercise of his discretion. The Regional Court was satisfied that this practice was in accordance with the principle of ‘equality of arms’.\n12.  On 27 November 2001 the applicant’s lawyer filed a request for release. This motion did not reach the Supreme Court, which by that stage was responsible for deciding on the applicant’s detention.\nOn 18 December 2001 the Supreme Court decided in camera to prolong the applicant’s detention until 25 April 2002. The Supreme Court held that – given the seriousness of the charges against him – there was a risk that the applicant would abscond.\n13.  On 1 March 2002 the Public Prosecutor’s Office ordered the applicant’s release.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1218", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are spouses. They were born in 1935 and 1938 respectively and live in Bratislava.\n5.  In 1990 the applicants concluded a contract with M., the owner of a building company. M. undertook to sell a plot of land to the applicants and to build a family house for them. The applicants paid 600,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) to M.\n6.  M. failed to comply with the contract. The applicants therefore revoked it on 28 January 1991.\n7.  On 5 February 1991 the applicants sued the company of M. before the Považská Bystrica District Court. On 26 April 1991 the court discontinued the proceedings as the applicants had not paid the court fee.\n8.  In 1991 criminal proceedings were brought against M. as he was suspected of fraud. The applicants declared that they wished to claim damages from M. in the context of the criminal proceedings.\n9.  On 18 August 1991 the applicants sued M. for damages before the Považská Bystrica District Court. On 16 March 1992 the District Court discontinued the proceedings. The decision stated, with reference to Article 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the applicants had also claimed damages in the context of the criminal proceedings against M. and that those criminal proceedings were pending. On 25 May 1992 an appellate court dismissed the applicants’ appeal.\n10.  In the meantime, on 23 October 1991, a public prosecutor froze property of M.’s company, the value of which corresponded to SKK 2,185,000, with a view to securing the claims of 21 aggrieved persons.\n11.  On 28 December 1992 M.’s mother returned SKK 50,000 to the applicants. In a written statement of 10 February 1995 M. admitted his debt in respect of the applicants.\n12.  In 1996 the charges against M. were enlarged to comprise economic offences which had no bearing on the applicants’ claim and which the accused had allegedly committed in the context of the dissolution of the former Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.\n13.  Following the enlargement of the charges against M. his bank account was blocked in the context of the criminal proceedings.\nThe Government submitted that the sum blocked amounted to SKK 8,885,006.\nThe applicants submitted, with reference to an article published in a weekly, that the Bratislava Regional Prosecutor had given his consent, in 1997, to unblock the account in which approximately SKK 64 millions had been deposited. The article further states that most of the money had subsequently been transferred abroad. In another article published in the same weekly the General Prosecutor confirmed that he had intended to start disciplinary proceedings against the Regional Prosecutor in that regard. However, the prosecutor had resigned from his post.\n14.  On 11 February 1998 the Bratislava Regional Prosecutor indicted M. before the Bratislava Regional Court. On 21 June 1999 the Regional Court returned the case to the public prosecutor for further investigation.\n15.  On 14 September 2001, the applicants made a written submission to the Bratislava Regional Court which was dealing with the criminal charges against M. The Regional Court interpreted the submission as a civil claim for damages and transferred it to the Považská Bystrica District Court.\n16.  A new indictment against M. was filed with the Bratislava Regional Court on 3 December 2001. The indictment concerned numerous offences and, in addition to M., two other persons.\n17.   On 28 February 2002 the criminal judge decided to deal separately with several aspects of the case, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1219", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The case concerns the killing on 19 July 1996 of Mr Angelov and Mr Petkov by a member of the military police who was attempting to arrest them.\n11.  All the applicants are Bulgarian nationals of Roma origin.\n12.  Ms Anelia Kunchova Nachova, who was born in 1995, is Mr Angelov's daughter. Ms Aksiniya Hristova, who was born in 1978, is Ms Nachova's mother. Both live in Dobrolevo, Bulgaria. Ms Todorka Petrova Rangelova and Mr Rangel Petkov Rangelov, who were born in 1955 and 1954 respectively and live in Lom, Bulgaria, are Mr Petkov's parents.\n13.  In 1996 Mr Angelov and Mr Petkov, who were both 21 years old, were conscripts in the Construction Force (Строителни войски), a division of the army dealing with the construction of apartment blocks and other civilian projects.\n14.  Early in 1996 Mr Angelov and Mr Petkov were arrested for being repeatedly absent without leave. On 22 May 1996 Mr Angelov was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment and Mr Petkov to five months' imprisonment. Both had previous convictions for theft.\n15.  On 15 July 1996 they fled from a construction site outside the prison where they had been brought to work and travelled to the home of Mr Angelov's grandmother, Ms Tonkova, in the village of Lesura. Neither man was armed.\n16.  Their absence was reported the following day and their names put on the military police's wanted list. A warrant for their arrest was received on 16 July 1996 by the Vratsa Military Police Unit.\n17.  At around twelve noon on 19 July 1996, the officer on duty in the Vratsa Military Police Unit received an anonymous telephone message that Mr Angelov and Mr Petkov were hiding in the village of Lesura. On at least one of the previous occasions when he had been absent without leave, it was there that Mr Angelov had been found and arrested.\n18.  The commanding officer, Colonel D., decided to dispatch four military police officers, under the command of Major G., to locate and arrest the two men. At least two of the officers knew one or both of them. Major G. apparently knew Lesura because, according to a secretary who worked at the town hall and was heard later as a witness, his mother was from the village.\n19.  Colonel D. told the officers that “in accordance with the rules” they should carry their handguns and automatic rifles and wear bullet-proof vests. He informed them that Mr Angelov and Mr Petkov were “criminally active” (криминално проявени) – an expression used to denote persons with previous convictions or persons suspected of an offence – and that they had escaped from detention. The officers were instructed to use whatever means were dictated by the circumstances to arrest them.\n20.  The officers immediately left for Lesura in a jeep. Two officers wore uniforms while the others were in civilian clothes. Only Major G. wore a bullet-proof vest. He was armed with a personal handgun and a 7.62 mm calibre Kalashnikov automatic rifle. The other men carried handguns. Three Kalashnikov automatic rifles remained in the boot of the vehicle throughout the operation.\n21.  The officers were briefed orally by Major G. on their way to Lesura. Sergeant N. was to cover the east side of the house, Major G. the west side and Sergeant K. was to go into the house. Sergeant S., the driver, was to remain with the vehicle and keep watch over the north side.\n22.  At around 1 p.m. the officers arrived in Lesura. They asked a secretary at the town hall and one of the villagers, Mr T.M., to join them and show the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1220", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Vienna. He is a tax accountant by profession.\n5.  In December 1989 the applicant, in the course of an inspection of his tax accountant office by tax inspectors (Betriebsprüfung) filed reports (Selbstanzeigen) in which he incriminated himself. He informed the Vienna Tax Authority for the 3rd and 11th District that he had made false statements in his income tax forms when he declared losses resulting from participation in the W. and G. company.\n6.  On 11 May 1994 the Salzburg-Land Tax Office (Finanzamt) instituted administrative criminal proceedings on suspicion of tax evasion against the applicant. The applicant's objection was of no avail.\n7.  Having held hearings on 2 June, 3 November and 4 December 1995, the Trial Board (Spruchsenat) at the Salzburg-Land Tax Office convicted the applicant on the latter date under Section 34 § 1 of the Tax Offences Act (Finanzstrafgesetz) of negligent tax evasion and sentenced him to a fine of ATS 700,000 (approximately 50,900 euros). It further ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings. The applicant and the Public Prosecutor (Amtsbeauftragter) filed an appeal.\n8. On 27 June 1996 the Appeals Board (Berufungssenat) at the Salzburg Regional Directorate of Finance (Finanzlandesdirektion), having held a hearing on the same day, granted the Public Prosecutor's appeal and convicted the applicant of intentional tax evasion under Section 33 § 1 of the Tax Offences Act. The sentence remained unchanged.\n9.  Subsequently, on 20 September 1996, the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court and requested an oral hearing. He complained inter alia that the Salzburg-Land Tax Office's had lacked jurisdiction in the proceedings at issue and that in the hearing before the Appeal's Board he had not been questioned.\n10.  The Salzburg Regional Directorate of Finance filed comments on the applicant's complaint on 12 November 1996.\n11.  On 10 December 1996 the Administrative Court granted suspensive effect to the applicant's complaint.\n12.  On 22 September 2000 the Administrative Court, without having held a hearing, dismissed the applicant's complaint and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings before it. Referring to its case-law, it stated that the Salzburg-Land Tax Office had been competent to conduct the proceedings at issue. Regarding the applicant's complaint that he had not been questioned in the hearing before the Appeal's Board, it noted inter alia that the applicant had not submitted that he had been prevented from presenting his arguments on his own motion in the hearing before the Appeal's Board.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant's counsel on 20 October 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1221", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Kostroma.\n5.  In 1998, after 23 years of military service, the applicant was dismissed due to a structural reorganisation. He became eligible for being granted social housing and was placed on a waiting list.\n6.  In 2001 he sued the Kostroma Town Administration, seeking to obtain social accommodation by the State. He invoked his statutory entitlement to receive a flat within three months of the placement on the waiting list.\n7.  On 29 August 2001 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma granted his claim and held that the Kostroma Town Administration was to provide the applicant with a flat in accordance with applicable housing standards. The judgment expressly referred to the three-month statutory time-limit for granting the accommodation.\n8.  The Kostroma Town Administration requested to stay the enforcement of the judgment for six months. On 10 January 2002 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma dismissed their request and held that the time-limit fixed for the enforcement of the judgment was compulsory.\n9.  On 10 June 2003 the Kostroma Town Administration issued the applicant with an occupancy voucher in respect of a flat in Kostroma measuring 70.77 m2.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1222", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Staryy Oskol, Belgorod Region.\n5.  In 1986 the applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. The applicant’s entitlement to certain State benefits is linked to the category of disability assigned to him as a result of the deterioration in his health arising from that event.\n6.  In 1999 the applicant applied for free accommodation from the State. His housing conditions were recognised as substandard and he was placed on a waiting list.\n7.  In 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the Belgorod Regional Administration, contesting its failure to make accommodation available to him within three months of placing him on a waiting list.\n8.  On 10 December 2001 the Starooskolskiy Town Court of the Belgorod Region ruled in the applicant’s favour. It referred to the Law On Social Protection of Citizens Exposed to Radiation as a Result of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station Explosion, noted that the applicant's accommodation was substandard and ordered the Belgorod Regional Administration to provide the applicant with a flat “in accordance with the applicable standard conditions and with the order of precedence on the waiting list”. This judgment was not appealed against, and enforcement proceedings were instituted on 6 February 2002.\n9.  On 28 June 2002 the bailiffs’ service informed the applicant about a lack of progress in the enforcement proceedings, due to an insufficient number of flats allocated to the waiting list. It advised the applicant to apply to the Starooskolskiy Town Court for replacement of the in‑kind award, conferred by the judgment of 10 December 2001, with an equivalent amount of money.\n10.  On 9 October 2002 the bailiffs’ service informed the applicant that it had sought instructions from the Starooskolskiy Town Court concerning enforcement of the judgment of 10 December 2001. In particular, it asked that a time-limit be imposed, within which the authorities were to provide the applicant with a flat.\n11.  On 2 December 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Belgorod examined the applicant’s complaint about the failure of the bailiffs’ service to enforce the judgment of 10 December 2001. It found no fault on the part of the service because the judgment had not included a time-limit for enforcement.\n12.  On 31 July 2003 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court conducted supervisory review of the judgment of 10 December 2001. It held that the statutory time-limit of three months was applicable and not amenable to further extensions. It removed the condition that the flat was to be provided in accordance with the order of precedence on the waiting list and upheld the remainder of the judgment.\n13.   The applicant was still waiting for accommodation in March 2004.\n14.  According to the applicant, on 5 March 2004 a group of five people, including the applicant, began a hunger strike to protest against the poor level of welfare protection provided for the Chernobyl victims. The mayor of Staryy Oskol launched a public call for donations in support of the protestors and collected the amount necessary to provide all of them with housing. The applicant submitted a statement signed by four other protesters in support of his version of events.\n15.  According to the Government, on 2 July 2004 the mayor of Staryy Oskol decided, pursuant to the judgment of 10 December 2001, to provide the applicant with a flat measuring 86.39 m²,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1223", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1932 and 1958, respectively, and live in Hrgovljani, Croatia.\n7.  On 12 February 1992 the applicants' house in Hrgovljani was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 9 February 1995 the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu), seeking damages for their destroyed property from the State.\n9.  On 17 January 1996 Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation. The new legislation was to be enacted within six months.\n10.  On 5 February 1996 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation.\n11.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament introduced the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”).\n12.  On 23 September 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court resumed the proceedings.\n13.  On 5 May 2004 the court dismissed the applicants' claim finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter.\n14.  On 18 June 2004 the applicants appealed against the above decision. It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the second instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1224", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n15.  The applicants are Romanian nationals of Roma origin. They used to live in the village of Hădăreni, in the Mureş district, and are agricultural workers. After the events described below, some applicants returned to live in Hădăreni, while others, who are homeless, live in various parts of the country. Mr Iulius Moldovan is currently living in Spain and Mrs Maria Floarea Zoltan is living in the United Kingdom.\n16.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:\n17.  On the evening of 20 September 1993 a row broke out in a bar in the centre of the village of Hădăreni (Mureş district). Rapa Lupian Lăcătuş and Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş, two Roma brothers, along with another Rom, Mircea Zoltan, began to argue with a non-Rom, Cheţan Gligor. The verbal confrontation developed into a physical one which ended with the death of Cheţan Crăciun, who had come to the aid of his father. The three Roma then fled the scene and sought refuge in a neighbour's house.\n18.  Soon afterwards, news of the incident spread and a large number of villagers learned of Cheţan Crăciun's death. Enraged, they gathered together to find the Roma. The angry mob arrived at the house where the three were hiding and demanded that they come out. Among the crowd were members of the local police force in Hădăreni, including the Chief of Police Ioan Moga, and Sergeant Alexandru Şuşcă, who had heard of the incident. When the brothers refused to come out, the crowd set fire to the house. As the fire engulfed the house, the brothers tried to flee but were caught by the mob who beat and kicked them with vineyard stakes and clubs. The two brothers died later that evening. Mircea Zoltan remained in the house, where he died in the fire. It appears that the police officers present did nothing to stop these attacks. The applicants alleged that, on the contrary, the police also called for and allowed the destruction of all Roma property in Hădăreni.\n19.  Later that evening the villagers decided to vent their anger on all the Roma living in the village and proceeded to burn the Roma homes and property in Hădăreni, including stables, cars and goods. The riots continued until the following day. In all, thirteen Roma houses belonging to the applicants were destroyed.\nThe individual applicants made the following allegations:\n20.  The applicant alleged that it was on his property that the three Roma were killed on 20 September 1993. His home and other property were set on fire and destroyed.\n21.  The applicant alleged that her house and various personal possessions were destroyed by the fire.\n22.  The applicant alleged that, on the evening of 20 September 1993, an angry mob had appeared at her door, entered the house and destroyed all her belongings. The mob had then proceeded to set fire to her home and she had watched as the flames destroyed it. The next day, when she had returned home with her husband and daughter, she had been met by an enraged mob of villagers who had prevented her from entering the house. Police officers Ioan Moga, Alexandru Şuşcă and Florin Nicu Drăghici had taken hold of her, sprayed pepper in her face and then proceeded to beat her badly. Costică Moldovan had witnessed these events. Colonel Drăghici had also fired at Costică Moldovan and his family as they tried to return home to fetch their pigs. The applicant declared that her house had been damaged and that she had lost valuables and other possessions.\n23.  The applicant alleged ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1225", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The case concerns the national authorities' failure to implement the domestic courts' order to shut down three thermal power plants which pollute the environment in the province of Muğla, in south-west Turkey.\n10.  The applicants are all lawyers who live and practise in İzmir, a city which is approximately 250 kilometres from the site of the power plants. Relying on Article 56 of the Constitution and section 3(a) of the Environment Act (see paragraphs 46 and 47 below), the applicants argued that it was their constitutional right to live in a healthy and balanced environment, and their duty to ensure the protection of the environment and to prevent environmental pollution.\n11.  The Yatağan, Yeniköy and Gökova thermal power plants have been operated for many years by the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources and the public utility company Türkiye Elektrik Kurumu (“TEAŞ”) in Muğla, in the Aegean region of Turkey. In the course of their operation, the poor-quality coal used by the plants to produce energy has caused pollution and harmed the region's biological diversity.\n12.  By petitions of 16 April 1993, 28 April 1993 and 11 February 1994, the applicants called on the Ministries of Health, of the Environment and of Energy and Natural Resources, TEAŞ and the Muğla provincial governor to take action to halt the operation of the Gökova, Yatağan and Yeniköy thermal power plants. They claimed that these three power plants had failed to obtain the requisite licences and that their operation constituted a danger to public health and to the environment.\n13.  The above-mentioned administrative authorities did not reply to the applicants' request, which, under section 10(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act (Law no. 2577), amounted to a refusal.\n14.  On 16 July 1993, 18 July 1993 and 18 May 1994 the applicants brought three separate actions in the Aydın Administrative Court concerning the Gökova, Yatağan and Yeniköy power plants respectively, against the Ministries of Health, of Energy and Natural Resources and of the Environment, TEAŞ and the Muğla provincial governor's office. They requested that the administrative decision refusing to halt the power plants' operation be set aside. The applicants further asked the court to order an interim measure to suspend the activities of these power plants on the ground that they were causing irreparable harm to nature and to public health. As to their legal capacity to bring the proceedings in question, the applicants relied on Article 56 of the Constitution and sections 3 and 30 of the Environment Act (see paragraphs 46, 47 and 50 below).\n15.  The Aydın Administrative Court appointed a panel of experts, composed of three university professors who were experts in forestry, the environment and chemistry respectively, with a view to determining the effects of the three power plants' operation on the environment.\n16.  On 16 February 1996 the experts submitted their reports to the court. They concluded that the plants emitted considerable amounts of nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide and were not equipped with the mandatory chimney filters. They found that the power plants constituted a danger to a zone measuring 25-30 kilometres in diameter. Accordingly, they recommended that the Gökova power plant be immediately shut down, that one unit in each of the Yeniköy and Yatağan power plants should cease to operate and that desulphurisation units should be installed in them.\n17.  On 20 June 1996 the Aydın ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1226", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  In February 1995 the applicant was hired as a cook by a private limited company, Air Inn, which ran a restaurant in an Airport. Air Inn had rented the premises from the Civil Aviation Administration (Luftfartsverket), hereinafter called the CAA, which is a public body responsible for airports, air-traffic control and air safety in Sweden. When hired, the applicant was provided with a document giving him access to sensitive areas at the airport.\n7.  On 1 July 1996 the Security Protection Act (Säkerhetsskyddslagen 1996:627) and the Security Protection Ordinance (Säkerhetsskyddsförordningen 1996:633) entered into force, on the basis of which, in 1998 Air Inn requested that the CAA run a security check, including a check of registers, on the applicant. The CAA had to request the National Police Board (Rikspolisstyrelsen) to check the registers. Thereafter, the National Police Board had to turn over the case, including the information found, to the Records Board (Registernämnden). The latter decided to communicate to the CAA that the applicant had been convicted of assault twice, in 1979 and 1998, respectively. The Records Board’s decision included the date of the judgments, the case numbers, the name of the district court, the criminal offences of which the applicant had been found guilty and the sentences imposed on him. The judgments, which were public and available at the relevant district court, were not enclosed with the decision. Subsequently, at a meeting with Air Inn and the Director of the Airport, the applicant had an opportunity to comment on the judgments. The applicant maintained that the first conviction concerned a youthful misdemeanour that had occurred more that twenty years earlier and that the last had stemmed from an incident within the applicant’s family at a time when the applicant had been under a great deal of stress due to his stepson’s psychiatric handicap (DAMP - deficit in attention, motor‑function and perception).\n8.  By decision of 27 November 1998 addressed to Air Inn, the CAA found the applicant unreliable from a security point of view. Air Inn was accordingly ordered to prevent the applicant from participating in activities requiring personnel to pass a security check, and to turn in his airport access document to the Director of the Airport. The decision could not be appealed against. Air Inn had no opportunities to transfer the applicant to other work locations and he was thus given notice and suspended from work as from 1 February 1999.\n9.  Subsequently, on the applicant’s behalf, his trade union, the Hotel and Restaurant Workers’ Union, instituted proceedings against Air Inn before the Labour Court claiming that the dismissal be declared void as being unjustified. By judgment of 16 February 2000, finding that Air Inn had no alternative other than to comply with the CAA’s decision, and that the applicant’s lack of access to the work place amounted to such a legal hindrance that Air Inn could invoke the right to be released from the employment agreement, the Labour Court found against the applicant.\n10.  During the proceedings a main issue to be determined was whether the Labour Court had authority to review the decision of the CAA, notably whether the decision was based on legislation contravening the Swedish Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen) or otherwise was unlawful and thus not binding for Air Inn. The Labour Court answered this in the negative, stating inter alia that neither the Security", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1227", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants, who are husband and wife, were born in 1936 and 1937 respectively and live in Donetsk in the Rostov Region of Russia.\n9.  The applicants receive old-age pensions. Under section 120 of the State Pensions Act of 1990, old-age pensions were payable in the month for which they were due. From June to December 1998 and from January to April 1999 the applicants received their pensions, totalling approximately 439 and 355 Russian roubles (RUR) per month, several months in arrears. In particular, the pensions due for June 1998 were paid on 14 August 1998; for July 1998 on 6 November 1998; for August 1998 on 14 December 1998; for September 1998 on 15 January 1999; for October 1998 on 9 February 1999; for November 1998 on 1 March 1999; for December 1998 on 25 March 1999; for January 1999 on 16 April 1999; for February 1999 on 18 June 1999; for March 1999 on 26 July 1999 and for April 1999 on 27 August 1999.\n10.  According to the applicants, inflation and devaluation of the Russian rouble during this period meant that pensions paid several months in arrears had lost a significant part of their value by the time they were paid.\n11.  According to information obtained by the applicants from the Donetsk Town Department of State Statistics, the month-on-month inflation rate ran at 2.7% in August 1998, 37.3% in September 1998, 4.4% in October 1998, 4.8% in November 1998, 10.2% in December 1998, 8.8% in January 1999, 5.9% in February 1999, 3.4% in March 1999 and 3.8% in April 1999.\n12.  According to information from the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the official exchange rate was approximately 6.2 Russian roubles to the US dollar in the period June - August 1998, 9.3 in September 1998, 15.8 in October and November 1998, 17.9 in December 1998, 20.7 in January 1998, 22.8 in February 1999, 22.9 in March 1999 and 24.2 in April 1999.\n13.  In December 1999 the applicants lodged an action with the Donetsk Town Court for damages in respect of the delays in payment of their pensions. In particular, they claimed index-linking of their pensions in line with inflation. The action was lodged against the Pension Fund which was responsible for the financing of pension payments.\n14.  On 26 January 2000 the Town Court refused to entertain the action on the ground that it had been lodged against the wrong respondent.\n15.  In February 2000 the applicants lodged an equivalent action against the Donetsk Social Security Authority, which was responsible for the calculation of pensions. During those proceedings, the Social Security Authority argued that the proper respondent in the case was the Pension Fund and not the Authority. The Town Court rejected that objection.\n16.  On 18 July 2000 the Town Court dismissed the applicants’ action. It confirmed that there had been delays in payment of the pensions but established no fault on the part of the Social Security Authority, which had calculated the pensions and filed requests for their payment in due time. The court found that the pensions had been paid late because the Pension Fund had failed to finance the payments in time. The court also considered that the applicants had failed to substantiate the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage allegedly sustained as a result of the delays.\n17.  On 13 September 2000 the applicants’ appeal was dismissed by the Rostov Regional Court. The appeal court stated that the delays were not the fault of the Social Security Authority because it merely made payments on re", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1228", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Zagreb.\n9.  On 10 July 1991 M.T. and H.T. (“the plaintiffs”) brought an action in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against the applicant seeking damages for breach of contract.\n10.  From 27 November 1991 until 27 January 1992 the plaintiffs were represented by their legal counsel, M.V. and thereafter by his daughter, S.T., who took over her father's law practice.\n11.  The plaintiffs, but not M.V., attended the first hearing in the case that was held on 11 December 1991. M.V.'s activity in the proceedings was thus limited to filing one set of submissions with the court on 2 December 1991 in which he responded to the applicant's arguments.\n12.  At the next hearing held on 27 January 1992 S.T. replaced her father as the plaintiffs' counsel.\n13.  On 28 April 1992 the Municipal Court gave judgment for the plaintiffs. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 9 February 1993 the Zagreb County Court (Okružni sud Zagreb) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Municipal Court.\n14.  In the resumed proceedings, on 6 July 1993 the Zagreb Municipal Court again gave judgment for the plaintiffs. The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 27 September 1994 the Zagreb County Court reversed the first-instance judgment, only accepting part of the plaintiffs' claim.\n16.  The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) in which he argued, inter alia, that he had been unable to present his case properly in the Municipal Court.\n17.  On 8 December 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law.\n18.  On 28 July 2000 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske).\n19.  Following the service of the Supreme Court's decision, on 24 August 2000 S.T. informed the Zagreb Municipal Court that she had ceased to act for the plaintiffs some four years earlier and that the decision should have been served on the plaintiffs directly.\n20.  On 18 December 2000 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. It found that the articles of the Constitution on which the applicant sought to rely did not contain any substantive provisions enshrining human rights or fundamental freedoms.\nJudge M.V. was a member of the panel of five judges which delivered that decision. The panel was presided over by another judge. The applicant became aware of the composition of the panel when he received the Constitutional Court's decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1229", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a Turkish national, who was born in 1961 and he lives in Adana.\n5.  On 16 November 1994 F.A. and her son, İ.A., filed a complaint with the gendarmes and submitted that they had received a threatening letter from the PKK. The letter which was written on purple paper and sealed with the symbol of the PKK read: “You have to change your statement concerning our friend or both of you will die.” F.A. and İ.A. stated that they had been summoned to give evidence in connection with an ongoing investigation against certain PKK members. They further maintained that they knew the person who had sent the letter.\n6.  Accordingly, the gendarme officers initiated an investigation, which led to the arrest of the applicant.\n7.  On 17 November 1994 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of sending threatening letters on behalf of the PKK. Samples of the applicant's handwriting were taken and sent to the laboratory for examination.\n8.  The Regional Criminal Police Laboratory compared the handwriting of the applicant to the handwriting on the letter. It concluded that the characteristics of the applicant's handwriting had similarities with the handwriting on the letter.\n9.  On 18 November 1994 the applicant gave a statement to the gendarmes and denied all the accusations against him. He submitted that he had no connections with the PKK and that he had not written the letter.\n10.  The same day, he was questioned by the Adana public prosecutor. In his statement to the public prosecutor, he mainly repeated his police statement and denied the charges against him.\n11.  The applicant was then taken before the Adana Magistrate's Court in Criminal Matters on the same day. He pleaded not guilty before the judge. He denied the allegation that he had carried out activities on behalf of the PKK. He further asserted that his signature which had been used for handwriting analysis had not been taken in accordance with the domestic legislation. After examining the expert report and the applicant's submissions, the court concluded that the sample of the applicant's handwriting which had been used for comparison had not been taken in accordance with the law. It accordingly concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to establish that the applicant had committed the alleged offence and ordered his release.\n12.  In an indictment dated 26 December 1994, the public prosecutor attached to the Konya State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant. He charged him with being a member of an armed gang under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. He based himself on the report of the Regional Criminal Police Laboratory which had concluded that the applicant's handwriting had similarities with the handwriting on the threatening letter sent to F.A. and İ.A.\n13.  Before the court, the applicant contested the charges against him. He stated that he had no connection with the PKK and that the allegations were baseless.\n14.  On 8 June 1995 the court ordered the Forensic Medicine Institute to carry out a handwriting examination.\n15.  On 17 July 1995 the Forensic Medicine Institute sent a letter to the court and requested further specimens to make an accurate comparison. In this respect, they required the applicant to write down the text of the letter in small letters, and the text on the envelope in capital letters. The Institute further requested the applicant to submit specimens of his handwriting, which he had written in the past.\n16.  Af", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1230", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Durham.\n8.  Between 1987 and 1997, the applicant lived in a stable relationship with Miss D. They never married.\n9.  On 18 June 1991, Miss D. had a daughter. The applicant was registered as father on the birth certificate.\n10.  In October 1997, the applicant and Miss D. separated. On 29 June 1998, they entered into a Deed of Separation by which the applicant undertook to pay weekly maintenance of 25 pounds sterling (GBP) for his daughter. In the 1998-1999 tax year, he paid GBP 1,300 under the Deed. The sum increased over time in accordance with the applicant’s increase in earnings. Since April 2002, the applicant has made weekly maintenance payments of GBP 35.\n11.  For the year of assessment 1997-1998, the applicant was granted relief on his self-assessment tax return for the maintenance payments made under the Deed. The Government state that this was an error by the Inland Revenue. In 1998-1999, the applicant put in a further claim to deduct these maintenance payments. This would have reduced his income tax liability by GBP 195.\n12.  By letter dated 21 December 2000, the Inland Revenue refused the claim for tax relief in respect of the maintenance payments: “because you were never married to your daughter’s mother.”\n13.  The applicant appealed against the refusal to a tax tribunal, namely the General Commissioners for the Division of Durham, invoking the provisions of the Convention.\n14.  A hearing took place on 11 July 2002. The applicant was unrepresented. On the morning of the hearing, counsel for the Inland Revenue presented him with a large file of the authorities on which the Inland Revenue sought to rely.\n15.  On 15 August 2002, the General Commissioners rejected his appeal, primarily on the ground that the Human Rights Act 1998 did not apply to the case as it had only come into force on 2 October 2000 after the tax year in question.\n16.  Miss D. married during the 1999-2000 tax year, on 24 July 1999.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1231", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Izmir.\n5.  On 6 February 1998 the General Directorate of National Airports expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to her when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicant's request for increased compensation, on 29 April 1999 the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance awarded her additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate.\n7.  On 20 October 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the First-instance court.\n8.  On 18 April 2000 the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance awarded the applicant an additional compensation of 3,400,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) plus an interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decision.\n9.  On 27 June 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance.\n10.  On 26 October 2000 the Court of Cassation rejected the General Directorate of National Airports' request for rectification.\n11.  On 7 December 2000 the General Directorate of National Airports paid the amount of TRL 8,138,266,000 to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1232", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  In June 2001 the applicant was advised by the Housing Policy Department of the North-Eastern Administrative District Council that the building in which she owned a flat had been scheduled for demolition within the framework of a city-wide programme for reconstruction of Soviet-era housing. The applicant was offered a substitute flat in a remote area of Yuzhnoye Butovo. After the applicant had rejected the offer, the Council sued her for eviction and resettlement.\n6.  On 27 September 2001 the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow found for the Council. It ordered the applicant's eviction from her old flat and transferred her title in it to the Council's account. It also held that the new flat in Yuzhnoye Butovo should be transferred into the applicant's ownership. On 6 December 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 27 September 2001.\n7.  On 24 January 2002 enforcement proceedings were opened. On 2 April 2002 bailiffs relocated the applicant into the new flat.\n8.  The applicant asked the court to clarify the judgment of 27 September 2001. She submitted that title in the new flat had not been transferred to her because the local council had asked her to pay for additional living surface and to advance the registration fee.\n9.  On 26 August 2002 the Babushkinskiy District Court delivered a procedural order (определение). It interpreted Article 49.3 of the Housing Code (see below) in the sense that, where eviction was required because of demolition of a building, registration fees were to be borne by the party who sought eviction, that is the North-Eastern District Council.\n10.  On 10 April 2003 a court bailiff requested the Municipal Housing Department of the North-Eastern Administrative District Council to report why the judgment of 27 September 2001, as clarified on 26 August 2002, remained unenforced in the part concerning the transfer of title to the applicant.\n11.  On 7 May 2003 the Municipal Housing Department responded to the bailiff that the judgment had not imposed the obligation to transfer title on the Department and that it was not competent to act on behalf of the North-Eastern Administrative District Council.\n12.  According to the Government, on 4 December 2003 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, the procedural order of 26 August 2002 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. On 20 May 2004 the Babushkinskiy District Court refused the applicant's request for a clarification of the judgment of 27 September 2001. Copies of these decisions were not made available to the Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1233", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  In a decision of 27 November 1989 the Labour‑Expert Medical Commission (“the LEMC” – see paragraph 19 below) specialised in pulmonary diseases diagnosed the applicant as suffering from asbestosis and various other diseases and determined that he qualified for second-degree disability. From that point on the applicant was undergoing biannual medical examinations at the LEMC, and each time his diagnosis and degree of disability were confirmed.\n9.  Apparently due to a deterioration of the applicant's health, in a decision of 9 December 1997 the competent LEMC revised his disability to first‑degree, without the need for another person's assistance. Later, on 21 May 1998, another LEMC decided that the applicant qualified for first‑degree disability in need of another person's assistance.\n10.  The chief expert at the Central Labour‑Expert Medical Commission (“the CLEMC” – see paragraph 19 below) at the Ministry of Health appealed against the latter decision. On 18 June 1998 the CLEMC overturned the LEMC's decisions of 9 December 1997 and 21 May 1998 and the applicant's disability status was set back to second‑degree.\n11.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n12.  On 6 October 1998 a three‑member panel of the court declared the applicant's appeal inadmissible. It held that the appealed decision was not subject to judicial review, in accordance with section 23(c) of the Implementing Regulations of the Labour Code of 1951, section 29a of Regulation no. 36 of the Minister of Health, and section 11(2) of the Implementing Regulations of the Pensions Act (see paragraph 22 below).\n13.  The applicant appealed to a five‑member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court, arguing that the refusal of the three-member panel to examine the appeal was contrary to Article 120 § 2 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention. He submitted that the CLEMC's determination directly affected the amount of disability pension that was allotted to him.\n14.  The five‑member panel upheld the three-member panel's decision in a final decision of 1 March 1999, holding that under section 23(c) of the Implementing Regulations of the Labour Code of 1951 the CLEMC's decisions were final and not subject to judicial review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1234", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the village of Zhdimir in the Oryol Region of Russia.\n10.  On 8 July 2000 the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of having committed theft of aluminium wire. He was placed in a cell intended for the detention of administrative offenders (“KAZ”) at the Znamenskiy district police station in the village of Znamenskoye.\n11.  On 9 July 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint with an investigator of the Znamenskiy District Police Department of the Oryol Region, seeking to have the lawfulness of his arrest and detention challenged before the Znamenskiy District Court of the Oryol Region and requesting that he be released. The complaint was never sent to the court.\n12.  On 11 July 2000 the applicant was charged with theft. On the same day an order for his pre-trial detention was issued by the investigator and confirmed by the prosecutor of the Znamenskiy District of the Oryol Region.\n13.  On 13 July 2000 the applicant was transferred to detention facility no. 1 (Investigatory Isolation Ward no. 1) in the town of Oryol.\n14.  On 27 July and 9 August 2000 the applicant again complained about the unlawfulness of his arrest and detention, this time to the Sovetskiy District Court of Oryol. The complaints reached the court on 7 and 16 August 2000 respectively.\n15.  On 17 August 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court asked to be sent the case file for examination and scheduled a hearing for 23 August 2000. The hearing was not held, since the case file had not been communicated and the applicant had not been brought to court.\n16.  On 22 August 2000 the applicant's counsel wrote to the prosecutor of the Znamenskiy District of the Oryol Region, complaining about the investigator's failure to transfer the applicant's complaint of 9 July 2000, alleging unlawful detention, to a court. The prosecutor did not react.\n17.  On 5 September 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court held a hearing. The court found that the applicant's arrest and detention were unlawful and ordered that he be released directly from the courtroom.\n18.  On 18 December 2001 the Khotynetskiy District Court of the Oryol Region remitted the criminal case against the applicant on a charge of theft to the public prosecutor of the Znamenskiy District of the Oryol Region for further investigation.\n19.  By a decision of 12 September 2003 the Znamenskiy District Court of the Oryol Region discontinued criminal proceedings in view of the fact that the prosecution service had dropped the charges against the applicant.\n20.  The applicant brought proceedings for non-pecuniary damage caused as a result of his detention.\n21.  On 23 April 2004 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Oryol held:\n“...the court has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff Rytsarev was unlawfully held in custody during the preliminary investigation for a total of over 56 days..., which caused him moral and physical suffering. Furthermore, with regard to compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the court takes into account that, while detained in the KAZ of the Znamenskiy District of Oryol Region from 8 July to 12 July 2000 inclusive, Rytsarev was not given food since, according to the report for the period from 6 to 15 July 2000 by the public catering enterprise “Znamenskoye”, which supplies meals for persons detained in the Znamenskiy district police department's KAZ, food was not delivered to the district police department from 6 to 13 July 2000... In that connection, the cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1236", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1914, 1920, 1921 and 1945 respectively. The first lives in Timişoara, the second in Delémont (Switzerland) and the others in Arad.\n5.  The first two applicants and their deceased brother, Mircea Stoinescu, whose heirs are the other two applicants, were the owners of a house in Arad. In 1950 the State took possession of that house under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation. The house was converted into four flats intended for rental.\n6.  On 27 September 1993 the first two applicants and Mircea Stoinescu brought an action for the recovery of possession of immovable property in the Arad Court of First Instance against Arad Town Council and R., a State-owned company responsible for the management of property belonging to the State. After the death of Mircea Stoinescu, the action was pursued by his heirs, Mrs Felicia Stoinescu and Mrs Maria Tăucean. The applicants sought a declaration that they were the rightful owners of the house and appurtenant land that the State had, in their opinion, wrongfully seized in 1950. They claimed that, under Article 2 of Decree no. 92/1950, property belonging to persons in certain social categories was not subject to nationalisation, and that they fell within such a category. In their view, the nationalisation of the house in question had therefore been improper and unlawful.\n7.  In a judgment of 12 April 1994, the Arad Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants' action, refusing to rule on the merits on the ground that they could not obtain redress for the damage they had sustained until the enactment of special legislation introducing reparation measures. The judgment was upheld by the Arad County Court on 3 November 1995. The applicants appealed against that decision.\n8.  In 1996 the tenants of the flats making up the house applied to purchase them, relying on Law no. 112/1995. Arad Town Council informed the R. company that a dispute was pending concerning the title to the house and instructed it not to pursue the sale of the flats in question.\n9.  Consequently, the tenants of three flats had their purchase applications rejected, but not H.D. (a former football player and international celebrity) and his wife, to whom the R. company sold flat no. 3 on 18 December 1996.\n10.  On 25 February 1997 the Timişoara Court of Appeal upheld an appeal by the applicants and remitted the case to the Arad Court of First Instance for a decision on the merits.\n11.  On 12 May 1997 Mr and Mrs D. applied to intervene in the Court of First Instance proceedings on the ground that they had been the owners of flat no. 3 since its sale on 18 December 1996.\n12.  Further to the couple's application to intervene, the applicants requested the court to find that the sale of flat no. 3 was null and void. In their view, as the nationalisation had been improper and unlawful, the State could not have been the rightful owner of the property and thus could not lawfully have sold any part of it. The applicants relied in particular on Article 966 of the Civil Code, whereby an undertaking entered into on an erroneous or unlawful basis could not produce any useful effect.\n13.  On 7 June 1997 the Arad Court of First Instance held that the nationalisation of the house had been unlawful and that the applicants were therefore the rightful owners. However, the court rejected the request for the rescission of the contract of sale between the State and Mr and Mrs D., on the ground that the couple had made the purc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1237", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Ulyanovsk.\n9.  On 6 September 2002 the Guberniya newspaper published a piece written and signed by the applicant. The entire text of the piece, entitled “[My] statement” («Заявление»), read as follows:\n“The voting ballots were still being counted, but it was already clear that General V.A. Shamanov had been elected Governor of the Ulyanovsk Region. That very night he made the following verbatim statement: 'Let me tell you bluntly and frankly – the local press has to be dealt with thoroughly'.\nDuring his electoral campaign General [Shamanov] made many promises to the residents of Ulyanovsk. But, in my opinion, he has kept only one: [he is] 'waging war' against the independent press, against journalists. The judicial proceedings in Shamanov's action against the highly talented Ulyanovsk journalist Dyomochkin are still pending. But the criminal prosecution of a journalist is exceptional. Yulia Shelamydova, editor-in-chief of the Simbirskiye Izvestia newspaper, has been sentenced to one year of correctional labour. Let us leave aside the legal aspects of that case: the full text of the court judgment has not yet been published and I hope there will be many more judicial proceedings, not only in Ulyanovsk, but also in Moscow. But there is a moral dimension to this case. How can three robust men, of whom two are Generals and one is a Hero of Russia, wage a battle against a woman who is still a young girl! This brings to mind Shamanov's support for Colonel Budanov, who killed a 18-year-old [Chechen] girl. No shame and no scruples!”\n(“Еще шел подсчет голосов, но было уже ясно: губернатором Ульяновской области избран генерал Шаманов В.А. Этой же ночью он заявил буквально следующее: «С местной прессой, прямо и откровенно скажу, предстоит детально разобраться».\nВо время избирательной кампании генерал обещал ульяновцам много. Но выполнил, с моей точки зрения, только одно: «воюет» с независимой прессой, с журналистами. Еще продолжаются суды по иску Шаманова В.А. к талантливейшему журналисту – ульяновцу Демочкину Г.А. Но преследование журналиста в уголовном порядке – это уникальный случай. Юлия Шеламыдова – главный редактор газеты «Симбирские известия» - осуждена на год исправительно-трудовых работ. Оставим пока в стороне юридический аспект этого дела: еще не опубликован полный текст решения суда, по этому поводу будет, надеюсь, еще много судов, причем не только в Ульяновске, но и в Москве. Но есть моральный аспект в этом деле. Как могут три здоровых мужика, из которых два – генерала, в том числе один – даже герой России, «воевать» с женщиной, более того – с молоденькой девчонкой! Почему-то вспоминается поддержка Шамановым В.А. полковника Буданова, убившего 18-летнюю девушку. Ни стыда, ни совести!”)\n10.  On 10 September 2002 Mr Shamanov brought a civil defamation action against the applicant, the editor's office and the newspaper's founder – the Fund for Assistance to Disenfranchised Communities Goryachev-Fond (“the Fund”). He claimed that the assertion alleging that he had no shame and no scruples was untrue and damaging to his honour and reputation. He sought 500,000 roubles ((RUR), approximately 20,000 euros (EUR)) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n11.  On 14 November 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Ulyanovsk found for the plaintiff. The court held as follows:\n“In the article the author asserts that Shamanov, Governor of the Ulyanovsk Region, has no shame and no scruples. The very tenor ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1238", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a Russian open joint-stock company which was set up in Moscow in 1994 by the Federal Ministry of State Property Management (“the Ministry”) in pursuance of a directive from the President of Russia and a Government decree. Its purpose was to hold shares of former state enterprises which produced electrical equipment for the railways. The applicant company's initial capital was formed by State property. Various individuals and private companies also became shareholders at a subsequent point.\n9.  On 14 November 1995, following a directive to that effect by the President of Russia, the Ministry adopted a resolution by which the applicant company was liquidated and a liquidation committee was appointed.\n10.  The applicant company, represented by its director general, joined proceedings brought by one of its minority shareholders before the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow seeking to have the Ministry's resolution of 14 November 1995 and a number of follow-up resolutions declared void.\n11.  The applicant company asked the District Court to issue an interim injunction prohibiting liquidation pending a trial and to strip the liquidation committee of its powers. On 29 October 1998 the District Court issued the injunction. It also prohibited the liquidation committee from acting on behalf of the applicant company in legal proceedings.\n12.  On 17 May 2000 the District Court found in favour of the applicant company and its co-plaintiffs. The court noted that the decision to liquidate the applicant company was one that could be taken only by a general assembly of its shareholders. The Ministry held less than 50% of the applicant company's shares at the material time, and its decision to liquidate the applicant company ran counter to the law. The court held that the resolution of 14 November 1995 and the follow-up resolutions were void and ordered the Ministry to annul them. The Ministry did not appeal and the judgment came into force on 28 May 2000.\n13.  Some time later the Ministry successfully applied for intervention in the proceedings by the Moscow public prosecutor. On 10 April 2001 the prosecutor lodged an application for supervisory review (протест в порядке надзора) of the judgment of 17 May 2000, seeking to have it set aside.\n14.  On 10 May 2001, further to the prosecutor's request, the Presidium of the Moscow City Court, which was composed of five judges, reviewed the case. The court heard submissions from the acting public prosecutor of Moscow, who supported the request. The applicant company did not attend the hearing as it had not been informed that it was to be held.\n15.   Referring to the outcome of other proceedings before different courts in 1997‑1999, the Presidium of the Moscow City Court stated that the Ministry had been the sole shareholder of the applicant company at the material time. It was thus empowered to take a decision on liquidating the applicant company in accordance with the relevant substantive law. The director general had no authority to bring proceedings on behalf of the applicant company, since his authority had been ended by the ministerial resolutions in dispute. The District Court should have ensured that the liquidation committee took part in the proceedings. Its failure to do so had made it impossible to establish all the facts which were relevant for the proper examination of the case.\n16.  The Presidium of the Moscow City Court granted the prosecutor's request, quashed the judgment", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1239", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Ternopil, Ukraine.\n9.  From 1996 to 2000 the applicant and her family lived and worked in the Chukotka Region in the Russian Federation.\n10.  In the winter of 1998 the applicant was taken to a hospital in the town of Bilibino. According to the applicant, local doctors failed to diagnose her correctly and provide adequate treatment; as a result her health was seriously damaged.\n11.  In August 1998 the applicant brought a medical malpractice suit against the municipal health protection institution “Bilibino Central District Hospital” (муниципальное учреждение здравоохранения «Билибинская центральная районная больница»).\n12.  On 21 February 2000 the Bilibinskiy District Court of the Chukotka Region allowed the applicant's action and awarded her RUR 60,000 (EUR 2,109). The judgment was not appealed against and on 1 March 2000 it became final and enforceable.\n13.  After the hospital had failed to pay the judgment debt for over a year the applicant sent complaints to the President of the Russian Federation, the Minister of Health, the Court Bailiffs' Service and other authorities.\n14.  On 15 November 2001 the Chukotka Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice (in charge of the court bailiffs) advised the applicant as follows:\n“...it was established that the debtor had no cash funds in its accounts. According to its founding documents, the debtor is an institution and, pursuant to Article 120 of the Civil Code, an institution is only liable to the extent of its cash funds. Article 298 § 1 of the Civil Code provides that an institution may not alienate or otherwise dispose of the property attached to it or of the property acquired at the expense [of its owner].\nIn accordance with Information Letter no. 45 of the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation of 14 July 1999 'On the recovery out of the property of an institution', if the debtor, who is an institution, lacks cash funds, then recovery is not possible out of the other property assigned to the institution by its owner...”\n15.  The Justice Department further informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been closed on 30 November 2000 because the enforcement had been impossible, but it was open for the applicant to initiate the enforcement proceedings again.\n16.  On 29 November 2001 the Chukotka Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice forwarded the applicant's complaint to the chief court bailiff of the Bilibino District, for enforcement.\n17.  On 10 December 2001 the Chukotka Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice responded to the applicant and gave the same explanation as in the letter of 15 November 2001. It also added that in respect of the hospital there were several other enforcement proceedings having the first and second rank, whilst the applicant's claim only had the fifth rank.\n18.  On 18 January 2002 a court bailiff confirmed again that the hospital had no cash funds and that the recovery could not be made out of its property.\n19.  On 28 January 2002 the bailiff required the Bilibino clearing centre to seize the cash funds of the hospital.\n20.  On 6 February 2002 the bailiff determined that the enforcement was not possible due to the debtor's lack of funds. The enforcement proceedings were definitively closed and the writ of execution was returned to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1240", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1926 and 1943 respectively, and live in Antalya.\n5.  On 17 December 1997 the General Directorate of National Airports expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot and the relevant amount was paid to them when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicants' request for increased compensation, on 20 March 1998 the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance awarded them additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decision.\n7.  On 9 June 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance.\n8.  On 28 September 1998 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants' request for rectification of the judgment of 9 June 1998.\n9.  On 20 December 1999 the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance awarded the applicants additional compensation of 33,318,109,000 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate running from 17 December 1997, the date on which the title deed to the land had been transferred to the General Directorate of National Airports in the land registry.\n10.  On 29 February 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance.\n11.  On 8 May 2000 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants' request for rectification.\n12.  On 7 June 2000 the General Directorate of National Airports paid the applicants an overall amount of TRL 77,103,800,000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1241", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1945, 1935, 1948 and 1938 respectively and live in İskenderun and Belen respectively.\n5.  In 1993 the applicants' plots of land in İskenderun were expropriated by the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways. A committee of experts assessed the value of these lands and the determined amounts were paid to them when the expropriation took place.\n6.  On 20 August, 10 October and 21 November 1996 respectively, the applicants filed separate actions for compensation with the İskenderun Civil Court of First Instance.\n7.  On 19 September 1997 the first-instance court ordered the administration to pay Mıstık Ateş 41,410,845,000 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 7 August 1996, the date on which the ownership of the property was transferred to the National Water Board.\n8.  On 25 September 1997 the first-instance court ordered the administration to pay Gülizar Pembe TRL 6,467,500,000 plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 11 September 1996, the date on which the ownership of the property was transferred to the National Water Board.\n9.  On the same day, the first-instance court ordered the administration to pay Yüksel Bozkaya TRL 80,274,368,000 plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 23 October 1996, the date on which the ownership of the property was transferred to the National Water Board.\n10.  On 7 October 1997 the first-instance court ordered the administration to pay İsmail Karapınar TRL 13,075,000,000 plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 11 September 1996, the date on which the ownership of the property was transferred to the National Water Board.\n11.  The Court of Cassation upheld the above-mentioned judgments of the İskenderun First Instance Court on 11 May, 20 May and 25 May 1998 respectively.\n12.  On 8 April, 13 April, 12 May and 4 June 1999 respectively, the administration paid the applicants the amounts due together with interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1242", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the town of Nova Kakhovka, Kherson region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 4 August 2000 the Nova Kakhovka Town Court awarded the applicant UAH 3,150.00[1] in salary arrears against his former employer – the Southern Machinery Construction factory (the majority share of which – 70% – was owned by the State). The judgment was not appealed and became final.\n6.  On 3 July 2001 the Nova Kakhovka Town Court awarded the applicant UAH 1,180.00[2] in compensation for moral damage against the same factory.\n7.  By letter of 14 February 2003, the Head of the Kherson Regional Department of Justice of Ukraine informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings against the factory had been stayed due to the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor.\n8.  On 17 May 2004 the Nova Kakhovka Town Court awarded the applicant UAH 13,460.72[3] in compensation for the delay in payment of the salary arrears against the same debtor. The enforcement proceedings in respect of this judgment were initiated on 24 June 2004.\n9.  The judgments remain unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1243", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, Mr Alexei Scutari, was born in 1930 and lives in Edineţ.\n8.  In 1949 the Soviet authorities nationalised the property owned by his parents and deported his family to Siberia.\n9.  On 8 December 1992 the Moldovan Parliament enacted Law No. 1225-XII “on the rehabilitation of the victims of the political repression committed by the totalitarian communist occupying regime”. The Law enabled the victims of Soviet repression to claim compensation for their nationalised property.\n10.  In 2001 the applicant brought an action against the Local Treasury Department in respect of the latter's refusal to pay him compensation.\n11.  On 26 July 2001 the Orhei District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the Local Treasury Department to pay him compensation of 41,705 Moldovan Lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 3,700 euros (EUR) at the time).\n12.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the bailiff failed to enforce. On an unspecified date the applicant wrote to the Ministry of Justice, complaining about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 26 July 2001. In a letter of 7 May 2003, the Ministry of Justice assured the applicant that everything possible was being done to enforce the decision, but that the Local Treasury Department did not have any money in its account.\n13.  On 20 February 2004, after the case had been communicated to the Government, the judgment was enforced. The applicant wrote a receipt addressed to the head of the Edineţ Department of Execution of Judgments in which he confirmed that he had received the money in accordance with the judgment of 26 July 2001 and that he had no more claims against the debtor and against the Department of the Execution of Judgments.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1245", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a water management association founded under Act no. 57 of 1995 on Water Management, with its seat in Mezőtúr, Hungary.\n5.  On 18 December 1996 the applicant requested the Szolnok District Court to issue an order for payment against a limited liability company. On 27 March 1997 the respondent objected to the order and brought a counter-claim against the applicant. The proceedings continued as civil litigation.\n6.  The District Court held hearings on 20 February, 8 April and 16 September 1998. In the meantime, on 10 July 1998 the District Court imposed a fine on the applicant’s legal representative for having failed to submit some requested documents.\n7.  On 22 October 1998 the District Court appointed an expert architect. The expert submitted his opinion on 14 May 1999. The parties submitted their observations on 28 June and 23 September 1999.\n8.  At the hearing of 24 September 1999, the applicant’s legal representative failed to appear. The court imposed a fine on him and invited him to make a statement in writing. He submitted his statement on 29 October 1999.\n9.  The District Court held hearings on 13 December 1999 and 27 March 2000.\n10.  On 31 May 2000 the court heard the parties’ representatives, the expert and some witnesses.\n11.  On 8 June 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action and partly accepted the respondent’s counter-claim.\n12.  On 23 November 2000 the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It filed a petition for review.\n13.  On 17 April 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1246", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Witoszόw Dolny, Poland.\n10.  The proceedings described below have already been examined by the Court from the point of view of the “reasonable time” requirement. In its judgment of 30 October 1998 the Court unanimously held that the Polish authorities had been in breach of Article 6 § 1 (Reports 1998-VIII, pp. 3387-3400).\n11.  On 25 May 1992 the applicant, who was at that time the owner and the president of the management board of the company “Polpure” sued the Świdnica Municipality (Miasto Gmina) in the Wałbrzych Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), seeking payment for construction works which it had carried out for the defendant. He also sought damages for the defendant’s delay in payment and penalties resulting from the breach of contract.\n12.  On 27 May 1992 the company was exempted from court fees due for lodging the claim.\n13.  On 7 September 1992 the Wałbrzych Regional Court gave judgment. It declared certain clauses of the contract null and void, as being in breach of a number of substantive civil law provisions.\n14.  Following the applicant’s appeal, the judgment was later quashed and the case remitted.\n15.  On 1 February 1993 the Wałbrzych Regional Court allowed the applicant’s claim for payment but declared null and void a clause of the contract that imposed penalties for the breach of contract. The parties’ further appeals were dismissed by the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 27 April 1993.\n(ii)  Facts after 1 May 1993\n16.  On 25 June 1993 the Ombudsman filed with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) an extraordinary appeal on behalf of the company, submitting that the Court of Appeal’s judgment had been in flagrant violation of substantive civil law and had unduly restricted the parties’ freedom of contract. That appeal was rejected on 7 October 1993.\n17.  On 28 January 1994 the Supreme Court, on an application made by the applicant, reopened the extraordinary appeal proceedings. It amended its judgment of 7 October 1993, set aside the judgments of 1 February and 27 April 1993 and remitted the case to the court of first instance. It ordered that the claims, save for the already-awarded claim for payment, be reconsidered. The Supreme Court held that the previous judgments were in breach of substantive civil law. It gave guidelines as to how to proceed with the claims.\n18.  On 5 May 1994 the applicant modified the claims and asked for a total award of 18,321,586,800 old Polish zlotys (PLZ). He also made an application to the Regional Court, asking for an exemption of the company from all court fees involved in the litigation.\n19.  On 6 June 1994 the court partly granted the application and exempted the company only from a court fee due for lodging the modified claim (which would normally have amounted to PLZ 932,080,000), except for the first PLZ 66,000,000.\n20.  The court observed that while it was true that the applicant’s company had encountered significant difficulties in recovering payments from third parties, had lost its credit solvency and was charged with debts, it had not yet been declared insolvent and was, accordingly, able to continue its commercial activity. In view of that, the court considered that exempting it from all future court fees would not be justified.\n21.  On 20 July 1994, on an appeal filed by the applicant, the Wrocław Court of Appeal quashed that decision and held that the exemption from the court fee due for lodging the claim, granted on 27 May", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1247", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants, Mr Grzegorz Jedamski and Mrs Teresa Jedamska, are a married couple. They are Polish nationals, who were born in 1954 and 1960, respectively. They live in Mikołajki Pomorskie, Poland.\n8.  The proceedings summarised below have already been examined by the Court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention from the angle of the “reasonable time” requirement. In its judgment of 26 July 2001 (Jedamski v. Poland appl. no. 29691/96) the Court (former Fourth Section) unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.\n9.  On 22 December 1992 the Łódź Bank of Development (Łódzki Bank Rozwoju), submitting a bill of exchange payable to bearer which required the first applicant to pay on demand 19,777,167,300 old Polish zlotys (PLZ), asked the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) to issue an order for payment against him.\n10.  On 14 January 1993 the court granted the plaintiff’s claim and ruled that the first applicant was to pay the sum in question within seven days from the date of service of the order or, alternatively, within the same time-limit, to lodge an appeal against the said order. The first applicant appealed.\n11.  On 11 February 1993, acting under a provisional writ of execution of 1 February 1993 and on a request by the creditor, i.e. the Łódź Bank of Development, the Bailiff of the Warsaw District Court (Komornik Sądu Rejonowego) made an order attaching the applicants’ shares in the Bank of Development of Export (Bank Rozwoju Eksportu) and an unknown sum of cash deposited in the Central Brokerage Bureau of the Bank PeKaO S.A. (Centralne Biuro Maklerskie Banku Polska Kasa Opieki S.A.), by way of security for the creditor’s claim for payment of PLZ 19,777,167,300 pending in the Łódź Regional Court.\n12.  On 26 February 1993 the first applicant lodged an unsuccessful complaint against the actions taken by the bailiff (skarga na czynności komornika), relying on Article 767 of the Code of Civil Procedure and arguing that the attached shares constituted the matrimonial property of the applicants, whereas the execution was against the applicant alone.\n13.  On 12 October 1993 the Łódź Bank of Development was taken over by the BIG Bank SA (Bank Inicjatyw Gospodarczych SA). The BIG Bank SA replaced the former bank as a plaintiff in the civil proceedings and as a creditor in the enforcement proceedings.\n14.  On 23 February 1999 the Łódź Regional Court quashed the order for payment and awarded the plaintiff bank 1,954,097.49 new Polish zlotys (PLN) [approx. EUR 442,000] together with interests and costs of the proceedings. The plaintiff bank and the first applicant appealed against that judgment.\n15.  On 9 April 1999 the Łódź Regional Court secured the plaintiff’s already-awarded claim by attaching the applicants’ shares in the Bank of Development of Export (Bank Rozwoju Eksportu), an amount of PLN 984,674.50 in cash deposited in the Central Brokerage Bureau of the Bank PeKaO S.A. (Centralne Biuro Maklerskie Banku Polska Kasa Opieki S.A.) and shares in the former Łódź Bank of Development (Łódzki Bank Rozwoju) (taken over by the BIG Bank SA) deposited in the Łódź District Court by the Bailiff of the Łódź District Court (Komornik Sądu Rejonowego).\n16.  On 6 October 1999 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal lodged by the first applicant against the decision of 9 April 1999.\n17.  On 19 October 1999 the Łódź Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 23 February 1999.\n18.  On 16 November 2000 the Bailiff", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1248", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1967 and 1970 respectively and live in Vantaa.\n9.  A shop selling fur coats in Kokkola was burgled on 1 March 1995. Two men, M. and R., were charged with aggravated theft before the District Court of Kokkola (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). On 10 April 1995 the District Court convicted them both as charged. The convictions were based on their acknowledgement of the charges.\n10.  The police investigation concerning the applicants as suspects in the above-mentioned offence began on 11 May 1995, when they were taken into police custody. The first applicant was arrested on 12 May 1995 by a decision of the District Court. The second applicant was arrested on the same day, but released in the afternoon.\n11.  The criminal proceedings against the applicants were instituted before the above District Court on 5 June 1995. They were charged with aggravated theft. They were suspected of having stolen fur coats worth 327,500 Finnish marks (FIM; 55,081.55 euros (EUR)) as accomplices with M. and R., who had already been convicted of the same offence. The applicants denied the charges.\n12.  According to the indictment, the applicants visited the fur shop in the beginning of February 1995 and made themselves familiar with the shop and its merchandise. The second applicant tried on headgear and promised to collect it the following week after it had been altered to fit her. The applicants did not, however, return to the shop at the agreed time, or later. During their visit to the shop, the first applicant requested to see the most expensive fur coat and the salesman showed him a rack with the most expensive furs. Later on, the first applicant proposed to M. to steal fur coats from the shop. At the end of February M. and the applicants contacted R., who lived in the Helsinki area, and apparently M. asked R. to take part in the burglary. Having rented or borrowed a Chevrolet Chevy van from D. on 28 February 1995, R. and M. drove to Kokkola, the applicants driving ahead of them in their light coloured Opel. M. and R. spent the night in the applicants’ home in Kokkola. The following day, i.e. on 1 March 1995, the first applicant showed M. and R. the fur shop by driving past it a couple of times in the above-mentioned Opel. Then all three of them returned to the apartment. The applicants stayed at home while M. and R. returned to the shop in the van, broke into the shop and stole the fur coats. Immediately after the burglary M. and R. left for Espoo, a town in the Helsinki area. The applicants followed M. and R. to Espoo in their own car. Together they hid the fur coats in a garage rented by the first applicant. Later on, the first applicant, M. and R. began to market the fur coats.\n13.  M. and R. were not present as the summons to appear before the court had not been served upon them. The public prosecutor referred in evidence to the statements given by them during their own police investigation. According to M.’s statement, the first applicant had told him that the applicants had visited the shop in order to buy headgear and while there, he had got the idea of stealing the furs. The first applicant had proposed that M. break into the shop. M. had considered the proposal and eventually, about a month later, accepted it as he was in need of money. According to M., the applicants did not take part in the burglary. In the beginning, the first applicant had said that the money would be divided into four parts, i.e. the second applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1249", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1956, 1954 and 1955 respectively and live in Munich, Germany.\n5.  In 1995 the Sakarya Governor’s office expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to them when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicants’ request for increased compensation, on 11 September 1997 the Sakarya Civil Court of First-instance awarded them an additional compensation of 865,267,950 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] plus interest at the statutory rate running from 12 December 1995, the date on which the title-deed to the land had been transferred to the Sakarya Governor’s Office. In the course of the proceedings, the court conducted on-site visits and requested three expert reports which concluded that the land in question was development land (arsa). In view of a judgment rendered by the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation which ruled that the lands within the vicinity of the Sakarya organised industrial zone should be considered as agricultural lands, the court decided that it would not take the three expert reports into account. It therefore relied on a fourth expert report which served as a conciliation report for a calculation of the amount due to the applicants.\n7.  The applicants appealed against the judgment of the Sakarya Civil Court of First-instance. In their submissions, the applicants contested the court’s decision to take solely the last expert report into consideration.\n8.  On 12 February 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Sakarya Civil Court of First-instance.\n9.  On 1 April 1998 the Sakarya Governor’s Office paid the amount of TRL 1,513,641,033[2] to the applicants.\n10.  On 26 May 1998 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ request for rectification.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1250", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicant, born in 1972, originates from the former Zaire (currently the DRC). He arrived in Finland on 20 July 1998 and immediately applied for asylum.\n13.  On his arrival in Finland the applicant filed an asylum request written in French, stating that he had left the DRC 13 months ago; that he had been trained to join the presidential guards and had been working as an informant in Office D of the special force responsible for protecting the then President Mobutu (Division Spéciale Présidentielle; “the DSP”); that he had belonged to the President’s and the DSP Commander-in-Chief’s inner circle; that he had been arrested in Angola while in the possession of a DSP badge and a photograph of Mobutu; that his life was in danger on account of his position and his Ngbandi origin; and that Laurent-Désiré Kabila’s regime (who had seized the power in the DRC in May 1997) had put out a warrant of arrest on former DSP agents. The applicant named three high-ranking officers within the DSP whose grades he also indicated.\n14.  According to the record of the asylum interview with the applicant on 22 July 1998, it was conducted with the assistance of a French interpreter. The applicant stated that he had been born on 2 December 1972 in Gbadolite in former Zaire; that he was a Christian of the Ngbandi tribe; that he had been a DSP agent by profession; that he had resided at Pavillon no. 22 at the presidential compound Camp Tshatshi in Kinshasa; that he was single; that his mother tongue was Lingala and that he also knew French, Kigongo and Swahili. He indicated the names of his parents and sister. He had gone to elementary and high school for a total of 12 years and had undergone a one-year training programme to become a garde civile. He had performed his military service in 1989-90, receiving the grade GT 2 (regional guard, class II). He also indicated his salary while working in the DSP.\n15.  The applicant further stated that he had been an asylum seeker in the Netherlands from 9 August 1993 to 26 October 1995, when he had been deported. On his return he had been living at Camp Tshatshi together with the President’s nephew, a named general. He had had at his disposal two rooms, a living room, a shower and parking spaces for his two cars. He had also had a considerable amount of money at his disposal.\n16.  Asked why he did not carry a passport on arriving in Finland, he had stated that it had remained with a (named) Commander in the President’s administration when the applicant had left the DRC.\n17.  Asked to describe his departure from the DRC, the applicant stated that he had left Kinshasa by boat to go to the airport in Brazzaville (the Republic of Congo) on 17 May 1997. At the end of June 1997 he had continued by train to Point Noir and from there by boat to Cabinda in Angola. There he had been staying for three months in order to acquire an Angolan identity card; he had been living in a house owned by a local. He had then travelled to Luanda by plane; he had run into some difficulties as he had not been speaking Portuguese; he had been arrested but had been allowed to continue his journey after he had paid some money. He had stayed in Luanda in the Petragol neighbourhood for one month, following which he had been detained in the Viana prison for three months (in October 1997), the authorities having taken him for a soldier in Mobutu’s forces as he had been unable to speak Portuguese. During his detention a rifle had been used to hit him i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1251", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The facts as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.\n12.  All of the applicants reside in Istanbul.\n13.  The applicants Ali Şimşek, Şaziment Simşek, Dilay Şimşek, Erkan Şimşek, Gökhan Şimşek and Şenay Şimşek are relatives of Dilek Şimşek Sevinç, who died during the Gazi incident.\n14.  The following applicants are all relatives of persons who also died during the Gazi incident:\n–Hakkı Yılmaz is the father of Dinçer Yılmaz (deceased);\n–Hüseyin Kopal is the father of Reis Kopal (deceased);\n–Cemal Poyraz is the father of Zeynep Poyraz, (deceased);\n–Mustafa Tunç is the father of Fevzi Tunç (deceased);\n–Mahmut Engin is the father of Sezgin Engin (deceased);\n–Arslan Bingöl is the husband of Fadime Bingöl (deceased);\n–Veli Kaya is the father of Mümtaz Kaya (deceased);\n–Mehmet Gürgen is the father of Hasan Gürgen (deceased);\n–Çiçek Yıldırım is the mother of Ali Yıldırım (deceased);\n–Hüseyin Sel is the father of Hasan Sel (deceased); and\n–Mukaddes Gündüz is the wife of Mehmet Gündüz (deceased).\nThe remaining applicants are relatives of persons who died during the Ümraniye incident:\n–Hacer Baltacı is the wife of İsmail Baltacı (deceased);\n–Sabri Puyan is the brother of Hasan Puyan (deceased);\n–Zeynel Abit Çabuk is the father of Hakan Çabuk (deceased);\n–Aynur Demir is the wife of Genco Demir (deceased); and\n–Aligül Yüksel is the son of İsmihan Yüksel (deceased).\n15.  Gazi is a neighbourhood located within the Gaziosmanpaşa district of Istanbul. A majority of residents living in the Gazi neighbourhood belongs to the Alevi sect.\n16.  At around 9 p.m. on 12 March 1995, a group of unidentified persons opened fire from a taxi on five cafés situated in the Gazi neighbourhood. The shooting continued for approximately five minutes. An elderly person, Halil Kaya, was killed and twenty-five persons were wounded. Many shops were badly damaged during the shooting. The perpetrators of the attack killed the driver of the taxi and fled.\n17.  Following this incident, residents of the neighbourhood gathered on the street outside the cafés and in front of the Cemevi[1] to protest against the indifference displayed by police officers after the shooting. People also gathered outside the hospitals, where injured people were being treated. At about midnight, the group started marching towards the local police station. The police set up barricades with panzers and subsequently attacked the group with their truncheons and the butts of their weapons.\n18.  At 4 a.m. on 13 March 1995, the Istanbul governor and the chief of police went to the Gaziosmanpaşa governor’s office and held a meeting with the community leaders to stop the incidents. The demonstrators began to calm down.\n19.  At that moment two panzers approached the demonstrators and began firing at them. As a result, Mehmet Gündüz was killed on the spot and ten persons were injured.\n20.  In the morning of 13 March 1995 thousands of people from the surrounding neighbourhoods joined the demonstrators. According to the applicants, there was no provocation by any terrorist organisation. Some of the demonstrators started throwing stones and coins at the police barricades.\n21.  At 11 a.m. police began firing from behind their barricades. Snipers were positioned on nearby buildings, targeting the protesters. During the firing, Fadime Bingöl and Sezgin Engin were killed and a number of others were injured.\n22.  The killing of these two persons raised the tension and the demonstrators began advancing towa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1252", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Poznań, Poland.\n8.  On an unknown date in 1997 the applicant’s husband lodged a petition for divorce with the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The applicant did not agree to a divorce and asked the court to dismiss the petition.\n9.  On 1 November 1997 the court made an interim periodical payments order requiring the applicant’s husband to pay 2,500 Polish zlotys (PLN) for maintenance in respect of their 3 children pending the proceedings.\n10.  On 21 September 1999 the Poznań Regional Court granted a decree of divorce. The court held that the marital breakdown was irretrievable and that both spouses had been at fault in respect of the breakdown of their marriage. It ordered that a final court fee (“wpis ostateczny”) of PLN 10,000 should be borne by the parties in equal shares (PLN 5,000 each).\n11.  On 20 October 1999 the applicant appealed against the divorce decree. She contested the findings made by the Regional Court in respect of the breakdown of the marriage and her being responsible for the marital breakdown. She also asked the court to rule that adultery on the part of her husband had been the main reason why their marriage had ended.\n12.  On 25 October 1999 the court ordered the applicant to pay a court fee of PLN 10,000 for lodging the appeal.\n13.  On 3 November 1999 the applicant made an application for an exemption from that fee. She argued, in particular, that a court fee for lodging an appeal constituted in fact an interim court fee (“wpis tymczasowy”) and that it should be estimated pursuant to section 11 of the Ordinance of the Minister of Justice of 17 December 1996 on Determining Court Fees in Civil Cases (Rozporządzenie Ministra Sprawiedliwości w sprawie określenia wysokości wpisów w sprawach cywilnych). It could not, therefore, exceed the maximum interim court fee in divorce proceedings, which was PLN 600. The applicant further submitted that she was in a difficult financial situation and that she was not able to pay the fee in question. She also stressed that the sum required from her was unusually high and out of any proportion to her standard of living.\n14.  On 8 November 1999 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed the application, considering that the applicant had “not shown that her financial situation made it impossible for her to pay the fee”. It held that she had not supplied a detailed statement concerning her financial situation.\n15.  On 20 November 1999 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision. She maintained that she had already submitted a declaration of means, pursuant to Article 113 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed that appeal on 30 November 1999. That decision did not contain any reasons.\n16.  On 16 December 1999 the Poznań Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay, within seven days, a court fee of PLN 10,000 for lodging the appeal of 20 October 1999, on pain of it being rejected.\n17.  On 10 January 2000 the applicant lodged the second application for an exemption from court fees. She submitted that, given her financial means, she could pay only a sum not exceeding PLN 3,300. The applicant argued that she was not employed and that her only means were payments for her share in marital property received from her husband. She further maintained that she had not put money aside for the litigation since she had not expected the court fee to be so high. The applicant also st", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1253", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were respectively born in 1932, 1963, 1941 and 1940 and live in Florence.\n6.  M.S. was the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to E.D.L. and after her death to her daughter S.L.D.B.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 19 October 1989, M.S. informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date. He summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 9 November 1989, which was made enforceable on 21 November 1989, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.\n9.  On 12 June 1993, M.S. died, his wife and children – the actual applicants – inherited the flat and became party to the proceedings as heirs.\n10.  On 14 December 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 18 January 1994, they informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 March 1994.\n12.  Between 8 March 1994 and 3 December 1998, the bailiff made nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 27 July 1999, pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked for a suspension of the eviction proceedings.\n14.  The eviction proceedings were suspended until 26 January 2001.\n15.  On 8 March 2001, the applicants served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 14 May 2001.\n16.  On that date, the bailiff made one attempt and discovered that the tenant had left the premises on 10 May 2001.\n17.  Consequently, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1254", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Rome.\n6.  A.C., the applicant's aunt, was the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to C.R.\n7.  In a registered letter of 10 May 1985, A.C. informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 April 1986 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 10 July 1985, A.C. reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 14 November 1985, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 May 1986.\n10.  On 29 May 1986, A.C. served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 24 July 1986, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 August 1986.\n12.  Between 5 August 1986 and 20 November 1998, the bailiff made thirty-six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as A.C. was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  In the meanwhile, on 9 November 1998, A.C. died and her nephew, the applicant, inherited the apartment.\n14.  On 22 July 1999, pursuant to Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings.\n15.  After that, on an unspecified day of 1999, the applicant became party to the national proceedings.\n16.  The enforcement proceedings were suspended first until 30 May 2000 and then until 16 November 2000.\n17.  On 30 January 2001, the tenant spontaneously left the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1255", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were respectively born in 1938, 1943 and 1948 and live in Rome.\n6.  The applicants' father was the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to V.D.C.\n7.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 January 1984, the applicants' father informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n8.  By a decision of 17 April 1984, which was made enforceable on 2 May 1984, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 16 April 1985.\n9.  On 2 May 1984, the applicants' father served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n10.  On 3 April 1987, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 12 May 1987.\n11.  Between 12 May 1987 and 29 March 2001, the bailiff made forty-six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants' father was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n12.  In the meanwhile, on 14 February 1992, the applicants' father died and the applicants inherited the flat.\n13.  On 18 July 1998, they became party to the eviction proceedings as heirs.\n14.  On an unspecified date of April 2001, the applicants recovered possession of the flat with the assistance of the police.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1256", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in San Giovanni Lupatoto (Verona).\n6.  G.S., the applicant's father, was the owner of a flat in Cagliari which he had let to G.A.S.\n7.  In a registered letter of 3 June 1991, the applicant's father informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 24 February 1992, the applicant's father reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Cagliari Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 23 March 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Cagliari Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 June 1992.\n10.  On 20 July 1992, the applicant's father served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On an unspecified date, the applicant's father made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n12.  Subsequently, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 October 1992.\n13.  Between 13 October 1992 and 23 June 1995, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant's father was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On 25 May 1995, the applicant's father made a request for police assistance.\n15.  On 27 July 1995, the Cagliari Prefect informed him that the police assistance would be granted after 30 September 1996.\n16.  On 22 September 1997, the applicant's father died and his daughter, the actual applicant, inherited the flat and took part in the proceedings as an heir.\n17.  On 13 July 1998, the Prefect informed the bailiff that the police assistance would be granted only after 31 December 1998, as there was no urgent necessity, the applicant's father having died.\n18.  On 19 April 1999, the applicant served on the tenant the order to vacate the premises.\n19.  On 3 May 1999, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 25 May 1999.\n20.  On an unspecified day of May 2001, the tenant spontaneously vacated the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1257", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The first applicant, Bronisław Rosenzweig, is a German national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Berlin. The second applicant is “Bonded Warehouses Ltd”, a public company.\n9.  On 18 February 1994 the Main Customs Office granted a licence to run a bonded warehouse in Słubice to the applicant company “International Bonded Warehouses Ltd.”.\n10.  On 29 May 1995 the German customs office at Frankfurt/Oder stated in writing that the German customs authorities had no objections to the operation of the applicant company.\n11.  On 1 June 1995 a further permit was given for exporting merchandise via the border crossing in Słubice by the Director of the local Customs Office in Słubice.\n12.  The applicant submitted that it had been repeatedly suggested that the company should pay various bribes to the customs officials if it wished to continue its operation undisturbed. The Government did not respond to this submission.\n13.  By a letter of 22 November 1995 the Director of the local Duty Office in Słubice stated that from 27 November 1995 on he would revoke the permit of 1 June 1995 for exporting merchandise via the Słubice border crossing. It was argued that the permit of 1 June 1995 was not in conformity with an agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the border crossings and trans-border movements of goods and persons.\n14.  On 27 November 1995 the customs officers ordered that the headquarters of the applicant company be closed and affixed official seals on its door, preventing it thereby from conducting further business. On the same day the applicant company complained to the Main Customs Office, submitting that there were no legal grounds on which the permit should be revoked and that the letter of 22 November 1995 was not an administrative decision, which made it impossible to lodge a formal appeal against it.\n15.  In a letter of 21 December 1995 the applicant company reiterated its complaint and stressed that the director of the Słubice Customs Office had failed, despite the company's repeated requests, to give any legal basis for the revocation of the permit. It was argued that the revocation of the permit breached economic freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution, and clearly infringed the terms of a valid licence which the company had received from the Main Customs Office in February 1994.\n16.  On 9 February 1996 the applicant company lodged a complaint under Article 17 of the Supreme Administrative Court's Act about the Main Customs Office's failure to give a decision following the appeal of 27 November 1995. It was submitted that the company had a valid permit given under the provisions of customs law. However, the company's operation had been de facto rendered impossible by the letter of 22 November 1995 as it could not run the warehouse if it was not allowed to export merchandise.\n17.  In reaction to this complaint, on 14 February 1996 the Main Customs Office informed the applicant company that the permit of 1 June 1995 was of a temporary character. It was to remain valid only until a bridge in nearby Świeck was to be constructed. After the construction of this bridge had been terminated, the border crossing in Słubice was to be used only for small trans-border movement of goods and persons. This was to be understood as allowing for crossing of the border by persons, but taking merchandise out of the country via this crossing did not fall within the ambit of the notion of the “small trans-border movement of goods", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1258", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were respectively born in 1943 and 1972 and live in Milan.\n6.  E.G., the first applicant's husband and the second applicant's father, was the owner of a flat in Milan, which he had let to R.M.\n7.  In a registered letter of 24 June 1985, the owner informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 29 December 1985 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 23 October 1985, the owner reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 5 December 1985, which was made enforceable on 14 December 1985, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 29 December 1986.\n10.  On 30 March 1987, the owner served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 17 April 1987, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 May 1987.\n12.  Between 15 May 1987 and 11 July 1996, the bailiff made thirty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, the owner was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  On 14 July 1996, the owner died and the applicants inherited the flat and became part of the proceedings as heirs.\n14.  Between 12 November 1996 and 30 November 1999, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n15.  On 14 November 2000, the tenant died and the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1260", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Lublin, Poland.\n5.  On 3 January 1996 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 5 January 1996 the Lublin District Prosecutor charged the applicant with homicide and larceny and remanded him in custody. The prosecutor considered that the applicant's detention was necessary because there existed the danger of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses. In addition, the charges laid against the applicant carried a significant danger to society at large.\n6.  On 22 February 1996 the applicant applied for release but on 23 February 1996 the prosecutor dismissed it.\n7.  On 13 November 1996 the applicant was indicted before the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).\n8.  On 27 October, 8 and 10 December 1997 and 15 January and 25 February 1998 the Lublin Regional Court held hearings in the applicant's case. During those hearings the court extended the applicant's pre‑trial detention.\n9.  On 31 March 1998 the Lublin Regional Court delivered a judgment in which it convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years' imprisonment.\n10.  The applicant appealed against his conviction and on 13 August 1998 the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed his conviction and remitted the case to the Lublin Regional Court.\n11.  On 15 September and 17 December 1998 the trial court held hearings. On 15 December 1998 the court again prolonged the applicant's detention relying on strong suspicion that the applicant committed the crime and on the gravity of charges.\n12.  On 23 March 1999 the Lublin Regional Court extended the applicant's detention. The applicant appealed against this decision but his appeal was dismissed on 14 April 1999 by the Lublin Court of Appeal. The appellate court gave the following reasons for its decision:\n“Marek Czarnecki is charged with murder for which Article 148 § 1 of the Criminal Code provides a prison term exceeding 8 years. Therefore, according to Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the pre-trial detention can be justified by the heavy sentence: in those circumstances it is not necessary to give other grounds for the continued pre-trial detention such as the risk of flight or obstructing the proper course of proceedings.\nFurthermore, one cannot agree with the accused's submission that the evidence collected in his case does not make it probable that he committed the crime. The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction because there were errors in the proceedings before the court of first instance as a result of which it was impossible to make it 100% certain that the accused had committed the crime. The absolute certainty, which is necessary for a conviction, should be distinguished from a probability that the crime was committed.\nThe court is of the view that the evidence collected in the case shows that there is a significant probability that the accused committed the crime with which he is charged. Accordingly, the requirement of Article 249 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is fulfilled.\nAs there are no reasons for release from the pre-trial detention (259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) it was necessary to decide as in the operative part.”\n13.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 14 April 1999 but his appeal was rejected on 10 May 1999 by the President of the Lublin Court of Appeal because it was not provided by the law. The applicant filed a further appeal to the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) but on 18 August 1999 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1261", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicants were born in 1978, 1963, 1955 and 1975 respectively and live in Şırnak. They are close relatives of Serdar Tanış and Ebubekir Deniz, respectively the President and Secretary of the Silopi branch of the People's Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi (HADEP)).\n13.  The applicants alleged that Serdar Tanış and Ebubekir Deniz received death threats from the Silopi gendarmerie command and the Şırnak gendarmerie regimental headquarters on account of their political activities.\n14.  At about 1.30 p.m. on 25 January 2001, three people in a blue Fiat purporting to be police officers attempted to force Serdar Tanış to get into the car. Having informed them that he would go to the central gendarmerie station only if he received an official summons, he made his way to HADEP's offices. On receiving a call on his mobile phone from the gendarmerie commanding officer, he went to the station accompanied by Ebubekir Deniz. Three witnesses, Ömer Sansur, İsa Kanat and Hamit Belge, saw them enter the station.\n15.  An hour later, unable to reach the men on their mobile phones, their families and lawyers asked the Silopi public prosecutor and the Silopi gendarmerie command for information. The commanding officer, Süleyman Can, told them on the telephone that neither man had attended the station or been taken into custody.\n16.  On 1 February 2001, after the incident was reported in the press, the Şırnak provincial governor issued a written statement indicating that the two men had gone to the Silopi gendarmerie station on 25 January 2001, stayed for half an hour, and then left the premises.\n17.  The applicants said that they had received no news of Serdar Tanış or Ebubekir Deniz since 25 January 2001. Neither man had shown any sign of life.\n18.  The Government said that, on 17 and 18 January 2001 respectively, Serdar Tanış and his father, Şuayip Tanış, attended the Silopi gendarmerie station to speak to the commanding officer. They signed the visitors' register, which indicated the times of their arrival and departure.\n19.  At 2 p.m. on 25 January 2001, Serdar Tanış and Ebubekir Deniz went to the station to see the commanding officer. As he was not there, they spoke to another officer and left the building at 2.30 p.m. They signed the visitors' register on entering and leaving the building.\n20.  After criminal complaints were lodged by the two men's families, the Silopi public prosecutor launched an investigation and took statements from the applicants. The relevant authorities were notified that they were missing and their photographs and descriptions were circulated to the public prosecutor's offices and police headquarters in the province.\n21.  On 26 February 2001, at the request of the prosecutor leading the investigation, the district court made an order under Article 143 of the Code of Criminal Procedure restricting access to the preliminary investigation file.\n22.  On 3 March 2001 the authorities seized a letter discovered when searching a vehicle that had crossed the border from northern Iraq which indicated that Serdar Tanış and Ebubekir Deniz were in a PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan) camp in Doloki (Iraq). The driver and owner of the vehicle and Serdar Tanış's father were taken into custody, but released after making statements.\n23.  Three delegates from the Court took the following depositions in Ankara between 28 and 30 April 2003. The depositions of Divan Arsu, Mehmet Ata Deniz and Zehra Deniz were obtained through an int", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1262", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1974 and 1975 respectively and live in Bucharest.\n5.  Following an incident on 17 March 1993 in which C.D. was robbed of some gold jewellery after being set upon and thumped by a group of people, the applicants were arrested and remanded in custody on 14 April 1993.\n6.  In an indictment of 10 June 1993 issued by the public prosecutor's office at the Bucharest Court of First Instance, the applicants were committed for trial on a charge of robbery, an offence punishable under Article 211 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n7.  By a judgment of 24 November 1993, they were acquitted and released. The court held that the facts in respect of which they had been prosecuted could not be attributed to them.\n8.  The prosecution appealed. The Bucharest County Court gave judgment on 12 July 1994 holding that the steps taken by the prosecution in the criminal proceedings were null and void. It therefore set the judgment of 24 November 1993 aside and referred the case back to the public prosecutor's office. It noted, in particular, that the steps taken by the prosecution against the applicants had been taken in the absence of a lawyer and that, furthermore, the prosecution had omitted to question certain witnesses during the investigation and had failed to examine a number of essential facts that could have led to the identification of the perpetrators of the incident that had occurred on 17 March 1993.\n9.  That decision became final after being upheld by the Bucharest Court of Appeal in a judgment of 27 October 1994. Subsequently, the criminal proceedings were reopened by the public prosecutor's office at the Bucharest Court of First Instance.\n10.  In an order of 11 November 1997, the prosecutor N.O. decided to discontinue the proceedings. In his order he stated that, although the facts of which the victim, C.D., had complained had actually happened, it could not be proved beyond all doubt that the responsibility lay with the applicants. The prosecutor also pointed out that a long period of time had elapsed since the incident in question and ordered the police to take no further action in the case.\n11.  The prosecution served that decision on the applicants, at their request, by letters dated 11 March and 4 December 1998 respectively.\n12.  On 12 May 1999 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Bucharest County Court set aside the order of 11 November 1997 and, relying on Articles 220 and 270 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered the proceedings to be reopened against the applicants for robbery and inciting third parties to give false evidence, offences punishable under Articles 211 and 260 of the Criminal Code respectively. The public prosecutor's office considered that the decision of the hierarchically lower public prosecutor's office had been inconsistent with the evidence on the file and that, furthermore, the prosecution had been incomplete because various steps had not been taken, such as bringing the presumed perpetrators face to face in the presence of their lawyers and taking evidence from certain witnesses.\n13.  On 26 May 2000 a police officer who had investigated the charges brought against the applicants asked the prosecuting authorities to stop the prosecution.\n14.  On 9 February 2001 the prosecuting authorities sent the investigation file back to the same police authority. No procedural steps were taken between 27 April and 30 November 2001. On 14 January 2002 the police referred the case to the public prosecu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1263", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the city of Uzhgorod, the Zakarpatye region.\n5. In May 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Uzhgorod Social Security Department (the “SSD”), alleging that it had erroneously calculated his period of employment in posts of hardship, thus lowering the amount of the pension to which he was entitled.\n6.  On 23 July 1999, after four hearings, three of which were adjourned due to the failure of the applicant's representative to appear, the Uzhgorod City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) allowed this complaint, ordering the SSD to include three years and five months of the applicant's employment at the Elektrodvygun Company in the said calculation.\n7.  On 20 January 2000, at the SSD's request, the City Court quashed the judgment of 23 July 1999 due to new circumstances and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n8.  According to the documents provided by the Government, between February 2000 and January 2001 the court held one hearing. The scheduled hearings were cancelled on four occasions due to the applicant's failure to appear and on six occasions due to the absence of both parties.\n9.  In the meantime the applicant requested that the trial judge be removed from the case, alleging that he intentionally delayed the proceedings. On 6 April 2000 the request was granted by the Acting President of the City Court, who found that “the proceedings were unduly delayed for different reasons” and assigned the case to another judge with a view to expediting the consideration of the claim.\n10.  On 26 January 2001 the court dismissed the case because of the applicant's failure to appear.\n11.  On 8 June 2001 the Deputy President of the Zakarpatye Regional Court, upon the applicant's request, filed a protest (an extraordinary appeal) against this decision. On 14 June 2001 the Presidium of the Zakarpatye Regional Court granted the protest, stating that there was no indication in the case file that the applicant had been duly informed about the time and place of the hearing. The decision of 26 January 2001 was quashed and the case was remitted for fresh consideration.\n12.  On 26 June 2001 the City Court allowed the applicant's claim and ordered the SSD to recalculate the period of the applicant's employment in hardship posts.\n13.  On 27 August 2001 the court ordered the Uzhgorod Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine (the “Fund”) to enforce the judgment.\n14.  On 8 October 2001 the Fund challenged the judgment of 26 June 2001 under the cassation procedures it had not been the defendant in the case. On 28 November 2001 the Supreme Court returned the appeal without an examination on account of its formal shortcomings. On 6 February 2002 the Fund produced an amended cassation appeal.\n15.  On 16 May 2002 the panel of three judges of the Supreme Court decided to transfer the case for hearing by a judicial chamber\n16.  The Supreme Court held one hearing. On 28 November 2002 it quashed the judgment of 26 June 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n17.  On 24 February 2003 the City Court appointed a technical expert from the State Department of Work Security to give an opinion in the case. On 7 April 2003 the expert informed the court that the relevant tests could not be carried out in the Department of Work Security for lack of adequate facilities. On 23 April 2003 the court appointed another expert and ordered that the appropriate examinations be performed in the Uzhgorod City D", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1264", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Ankara.\n6.  The applicant was the mayor of the Sincan District in Ankara at the time of the events. In January 1997, the Culture and Education Department of the Sincan District Council, which was in charge of organising public activities and events during religious and national days, prepared a thirty-day programme for the month of Ramadan. The draft programme was submitted to the applicant for his approval. Upon his authorisation, the organising committee started the necessary preparations.\n7.  One of the events, which had been foreseen for 31 January 1997, was called the “Jerusalem Night”. The aim of this event was to protest against the genocide and oppression of Muslims in Israel and Palestine. The Ambassador to Iran and a journalist called Nureddin Şirin were invited to the event as speakers. Furthermore, a five-minute play was written for that evening. The play took the form of a conversation between a father and his son about life in Palestine and the struggle of the Palestinian people.\n8.  The event was announced months in advance and representatives of several embassies as well as important personalities living in the district were invited. The meeting hall was decorated with posters of martyrs who had given their lives for the liberation of Jerusalem. The applicant made the opening speech.\n9.  On 6 February 1997 the applicant was taken into police custody. He was accused of disseminating propaganda in support of an armed illegal organisation, namely the Hezbollah, and of provoking hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction between races and regions.\n10.  In his statement taken at the police station, the applicant stated that the “Jerusalem Night” was organised as part of a thirty-day programme during the month of Ramadan and it was an activity of the Sincan District Council. He explained that the posters portrayed Muslim leaders who had given their lives for the liberation of Jerusalem. The applicant denied having connections with any illegal organisation.\n11.  On 13 February 1997 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor. During his questioning, he repeated the statements he had made at the police station. He pointed out that his speech did not contain any elements that would provoke hatred amongst those who did not wear headscarves.\n12.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the investigating judge attached to the Ankara State Security Court. In his statement taken by the investigating judge, the applicant explained that he supported the secular system and did not approve of the regime in Iran. He stated that he had no connections with any terrorist organisation. He was subsequently placed in detention on remand.\n13.  In an indictment dated 7 March 1997, the public prosecutor attached to the Ankara State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant. It was alleged that he had disseminated propaganda in support of an armed, illegal organisation and that his actions had amounted to incitement to hatred and hostility on the basis of distinctions between races and regions. The prosecution called for the applicant to be sentenced pursuant to Articles 169 and 312 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.\n14.  Before the Ankara State Security Court, which was composed of three judges including a military judge, the applicant contested the charges against him. He argued that the “Jerusalem night” was pa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1265", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1958 and currently resides in Donetsk. He is a lawyer practising in Ukraine.\n11.  On 31 July 1999 the Central Electoral Commission registered the applicant as the representative of a candidate for the presidency of Ukraine, Mr Olexander O. Moroz. The latter was the leader of the Socialist Party of Ukraine at the time.\n12.  On 31 October 1999 the Kyivsky District Prosecution Service of Donetsk (the “Kyivsky Prosecution Service”) conducted a criminal investigation into allegations that the applicant had interfered with the citizens' right to vote (Article 127 § 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine – “the CC”).\n13.  On 1 November 1999 the applicant was apprehended for having disseminated false information about the alleged death of a presidential candidate, the incumbent President Mr Leonid D. Kuchma. The applicant had allegedly disseminated this information on 30 and 31 October 1999 in the form of a statement by the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) published in a special nationwide issue of the Verkhovna Rada newspaper Holos Ukrayiny (газета “Голос України”). The text of the article disseminated by the applicant reads as follows:\n“Holos Ukrayiny / newspaper of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine / Special edition 29 November 1999 / free copy\nAppeal of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to the Ukrainian citizens\nWe, members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, are forced to appeal to you in this special edition of the parliamentary newspaper in view of an emergency existing in Ukraine. In fact, a coup d'état has taken place in the country, but the truth is carefully concealed from the people. We are being deceived! A person who appeared on TV and travelled around the country during the last week allegedly as the President of Ukraine Mr L.D. Kuchma is not the person he is pretending to be. It is only a clone of the President, who is being used by Mr Kuchma's criminal entourage to deceive people in the course of the presidential elections in order to retain power. The true President of Ukraine Mr Leonid Kuchma died on 24 October 1999 in Kyiv of acute heart deficiency caused by alcohol-related myocardiodystrophy. His body was cremated in strict secrecy and the ashes were taken abroad. Power has in fact been actually seized by the groups of Rabinovyches, Volkovs, Kobzons and Pinchuks.\nPeople are being intimidated, and forced to vote for the false Kuchma. There is a blatant information blockade of the opposition candidates. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine declares that it assumes control over the presidential elections. Each and every act of unlawful dismissal or other persecutions against people connected with the elections will be seen as a criminal offence. We bring this to the attention of the management of businesses and medical and educational institutions.\nThe powerful propaganda machine aimed at fooling the people has started its work. Power in Ukraine has been usurped.\nThe Verkhovna Rada declares that the only legitimate source of power in the State is the Ukrainian Parliament.\nThe Verkhovna Rada calls on all citizens of Ukraine not to allow the presidential elections to be hampered or to be declared unlawful in a manner that will lead to the establishment of a fascist regime in Ukraine.\nSpeaker of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine\n14.  Following the applicant's arrest, the Kyivsky Prosecution Service carried out a formal criminal investigation into the allegations made against him.\n15.  On", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1266", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, Mr Adem Kepeneklioğlu and Mr Mehmet Hakan Canpolat, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1954 and 1964 respectively. When they lodged their application with the Court they were imprisoned in Turkey.\n7.  On 29 and 30 June 1992 the applicants were taken into custody in Istanbul by police officers from the Istanbul Anti-Terrorist Branch. On 13 July 1992 they were detained on remand.\n8.  On 27 July 1992 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicants of, inter alia, organised murder and armed burglary, as well as being members of an illegal terrorist organization.\n9.  On 25 November 1992 the Istanbul State Security Court commenced the trial against the applicants and three other accused and prolonged the applicants' detention.\n10.  On 3 April 1998 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicants under Article 146 of the Criminal Code and sentenced them to death.\n11.  On 10 March 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment.\n12.  On 12 June 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted them of the same crimes.\n13.  On 4 February 2002, upon the applicants' appeal, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1268", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 28 May 1992 the applicant divorced. The court declared that both spouses should retain full and unrestricted parental rights with respect to their minor daughter M., born on 3 May 1984, but it ordered that she should live with her mother.\n10.  Since the applicant could not reach an agreement with his former wife as to the exercise of custody, on 24 November 1992 he requested the Toruń District Court to determine the access arrangements. On 11 May 1993 the court ordered that M. should visit the applicant twice a month for weekends. They were also to spend one month together during the summer holidays and one week during the winter holidays.\n11.  In the meantime, between June 1992 and 23 October 1993, the applicant made a number of unsuccessful attempts to see his child. The applicant therefore instituted enforcement proceedings on 8 June 1993, following the decision of 11 May 1993. On 18 October 1993 the Toruń District Court ordered the mother to give the applicant access to M. on pain of a fine. On 7 January 1994 the court imposed on the mother a fine for non‑compliance with its order in the amount of 100,000 (old) złotys. [1]\n12.  On 8 February 1994 the Toruń District Court, upon the applicant's request, changed the access arrangements. The court ruled that the applicant should be allowed to take M. from her place of residence on every first and every third Friday of the month, as from 6.30 p.m., and bring her back on Sunday before 7.30 p.m. The court further set out detailed rules as to holidays, with reference to exact dates.\n13.  Following these detailed arrangements, the applicant made further attempts to see M., but again to no avail. According to the applicant, every time he went to fetch his daughter at the appointed hour, either no one answered the door bell or he was informed that his daughter was out, busy, sleeping or not willing to see him. The applicant complained to various authorities, including the Toruń Commission for the Protection of the Rights of the Child, and the Ombudsman, but was informed that only the courts had the power to enforce a judicial decision in respect of access to a child.\n14.  On 6 May 1994 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the decision of 8 February 1994. Hearings were held in these proceedings on 15 and 30 June, 11 July and 18 August 1994. At the hearing of 18 August the court gave an order by which M.'s mother was obliged, on pain of a fine, to grant the applicant access to the child. On 15 September 1994 she appealed, arguing that she had never impeded the applicant's access to his daughter.\n15.  On 28 October 1994 her appeal was dismissed. On 17 November 1994 the applicant called on her to comply with the court's decision.\n16.  On 5 December 1994 the applicant requested the court to impose a fine on his ex-wife for non-compliance with the access decision.\n17.  On 18 January 1995 a hearing was held at which the applicant maintained his motion of 5 December 1994. The child's mother requested the court to adjourn the decision pending the termination of the proceedings concerning access. On 19 January 1995 the court imposed on her a fine of PLN 10 and ordered her to give the applicant access to his daughter within one week, on pain of a further fine. On 8 March 1995 the applicant requested the court to impose another fine on his former wife.\n18.  On 15 May 1995 a hearing was held, which the mother failed to attend. Her lawyer asked the court to stay the proceedi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1270", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Norway.\n8.  In 1987 the applicant married a Polish national M.C. In 1989 M.C. gave birth to their first daughter A. Subsequently, their son B was born in 1992 and their second daughter C in 1994.\n9.  The applicant and his family lived in Norway. The household also included S.C., the son of M.C. born in 1980 of her previous marriage.\n10.  On 22 November 1994 M.C. was committed to a psychiatric institution for more than two months. According to the applicant she was diagnosed with “a clear paranoid psychosis”.\n11.  S.C. suffered from development disorders caused by “massive rejection” by his mother.\n12.  On 31 March 1998 the applicant and M.C. separated. Subsequently, they filed for divorce.\n13.  On 15 June 1998 the Inderøy District Court granted the applicant the custody of A, B and C. Moreover, the court granted M.C. visiting rights. She was allowed to visit the children in their house once a week and every second weekend after giving the applicant a three-day written notice. At the same time, the court issued a restraining order prohibiting M.C. from visiting the children in their schools. The applicant and M.C. were both granted parental authority.\n14.  On 17 July 1998 the Trondheim Regional Court dismissed M.C.'s appeal against the District Court's decision.\n15.  On 28 August 1999 M.C. abducted A, B and C and took them to Poland.\n16.  On 31 August 1999 the applicant applied to the Polish Ministry of Justice – designated as a Central Authority under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”) – for assistance in securing the return of the children.\n17.  On 9 September 1999 M.C. applied to the Warsaw District Court for a decision declaring that A, B and C were habitually resident in Warsaw. She also applied for a restraining order prohibiting the applicant from removing the children from Poland.\n18.  On 24 September 1999 the applicant's application for the return of the children was submitted by the Polish Central Authority to the Warsaw District Court.\n19.  On 5 October 1999 the Warsaw District Court stayed the proceedings concerning the application lodged by M.C. The court's decision was based on Article 16 of the Hague Convention.\n20.  On 22 November 1999 a Polish translation of an expert opinion obtained by the Inderøy District Court on 4 October 1999 was submitted to the Polish Ministry of Justice.\n21.  On 25 November 1999 the Warsaw District Court held a hearing in a case concerning the applicant's application for the return of the children. M.C., whose lawyer did not attend the hearing, informed the court that she would like to submit later certain documents confirming that she and her children had been ill-treated by the applicant. The hearing was adjourned until 6 December 1999.\n22.  On 6 December 1999 the court requested an expert opinion on the relationships between the children and their parents and on whether the return of the children to the applicant would lead to psychological or physical damage to the children. The hearing was adjourned until 10 January 2000.\n23.  On 7 December 1999 the applicant, M.C. and the children were interviewed by the Warsaw Family Consultation Centre, which was responsible for preparing the expert opinion.\n24.  On 5 January 2000 the Inderøy District Court granted the applicant parental authority in respect of A, B and C and changed M.C.'s visiting rights. It considered that M.C. had unlawful", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1271", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr İbrahim Acar was born in 1933 and lives in Siirt.\n5.  On 9 October 1990 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated three plots of land belonging to the applicant.A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots and the relevant amount was paid to him on 12 and 13 August 1996.\n6.  On 15 October 1996 the applicant initiated proceedings for additional compensation. Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 1 September 1997 the Baykan Civil Court of First‑Instance awarded him additional compensation of 163,847,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 8 November 1996.\n7.  On 28 September 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n8.  According to the order of the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways, the amount due was paid to the applicant on 22 December 1998. The applicant claimed that he was paid on 4 January 1999. He received a total of TRL 368,837,000.[2]", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1273", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  In December 1998 the applicant brought proceedings against Mr S. (her neighbour), alleging that he had unlawfully seized and re-designed a corridor (measuring approximately 4 square meters) in their shared house.\n6.  On 28 December 1998 the Podilskyy District Court of Kyiv (hereafter “the District Court”) allowed the applicant's claim. She was awarded the ownership of the disputed corridor and Mr S. was ordered to restore its original design.\n7.  On 17 May 1999 the District Court, at the applicant's request, quashed its decision of 28 December 1998 due to new circumstances (namely, that the shared house had historical value) and reopened the proceedings.\n8.  On 19 August 1999 the District Court allowed the applicant's claim, declared the corridor in question to be the applicant's property and ordered Mr S. to remove the unauthorised changes in the corridor's design. No appeal was lodged against the judgment and it became final ten days later, on 29 August 1999.\n9.  Enforcement proceedings commenced in October 1999.\n10.  On 8 February 2001, while the enforcement proceedings were in progress, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court lodged a supervisory protest (an extraordinary appeal) against the judgment of 19 August 1999 on the ground that the first instance court had erred in its assessment of evidence and in the application of the law.\n11.  The protest was examined on 26 February 2001 by the Presidium of the Kyiv City Court. Having accepted the reasons advanced by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, the Presidium quashed the judgment 19 August 1999 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n12.  On 3 July 2002 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim due to her failure to pay in full the State tax for the introduction of the complaint. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1274", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and currently resides in the town of Pervomayskiy, the Kharkiv region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 26 March 2001 the Pervomayskiy Town Court ordered the Khimprom State Enterprise to pay the applicant UAH 3,923.4 (around 640 euros –“ EUR”) in salary arrears.\n6.  In August 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Pervomayskiy Town Court against the Pervomayskiy Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. On 7 September 2001 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs. On 19 November 2001 and 10 April 2002, respectively, the Appellate Court of the Kharkiv Region and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the first instance court.\n7.  The enforcement proceedings were suspended from 18 July 2001 until 10 September 2001 pending the proceedings against the Bailiffs' Service instituted by the applicant in the Pervomayskiy Town Court.\n8.  On 18 June 2001 the procedure for the forced sale of the debtor's assets was suspended due to the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the President.\n9.  The enforcement proceedings were also suspended from 4 September 2003 until 13 January 2004 pending the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against the debtor.\n10.  On 24 June 2004 the applicant was informed by a letter from the Bailiffs' Service that the judgment in her favour was not executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the latter's lack of funds.\n11.  The judgment of 26 March 2001 remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1275", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Chişinău. He is the former senior assistant to the prosecutor of the Centru District of Chişinău.\n9.  On 24 July 2002 the applicant was arrested by the Moldovan Secret Services on charges of bribe-taking. Later the charges were modified to corruption (trafic de influenţă).\n10.  On 15 August 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court ordered the remand of the applicant for a period of thirty days. The remand was later prolonged by the decisions of the Buiucani District Court of 2 September 2002 and 10 October 2002.\n11.  On 15 November 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered the applicant's release from detention.\n12.  On 4 April 2003 the applicant was convicted by the Court of Appeal and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. He was immediately put in detention. The applicant appealed against that decision. The outcome of the proceedings is unknown to the Court.\n13.  The applicant's complaints regarding the conditions of detention relate to two periods of detention served in the Remand Centre No. 3 of the Ministry of Justice (Izolatorul Anchetei Preliminare Nr. 3), namely between 18 October 2002 and 15 November 2002, and between 4 April 2003 and 13 December 2003.\n(a)  The applicant's submissions\n14.  The applicant claims to have been detained in a 25 m² cell together with at times more than twenty people. There were twenty metal bunk-beds, with no mattresses or covering and it was not always possible to have access to a bed because of overcrowding. After lodging his application with the Court, he was transferred to a smaller cell of 15 m², where he claims to have had to take turns in sleeping, because of overcrowding, and where the conditions were allegedly considerably worse than before.\n15.  Smoking inside the cells was not prohibited by the internal regulations of the prison, and because of lack of alternative smoking facilities, the inmates had to smoke inside the cells. The applicant suffered from asthma and the prison administration was aware of this since he had been arrested and brought to prison immediately after undergoing asthma treatment in hospital, where he was arrested. Because of the exposure to cigarette smoke the applicant suffered many asthma attacks, which usually happened two or three times a day.\n16.  There was no adequate medical assistance. Although there were medical personnel in the penitentiary, their ability to help was limited because of lack of medication. The applicant asked the prison doctor on many occasions for medical assistance, but he was refused. He was told that the prison did not have the necessary medication. Because of the lack of medication he had to endure the attacks and wait for them to pass, being obliged to sit in a vertical position. His attacks became more frequent and started to last longer. While the prison doctor knew that the applicant suffered from asthma, he gave his permission for the applicant to be placed in a cell with smokers. The applicant had to rely entirely on the supply of medication from his family.\n17.  His situation was worsened by the fact that the cell's window was closed by shutters and there was no fresh air coming through it. Moreover, the cell was not provided with a ventilation system, and was therefore very damp.\n18.  Because of lack of heating and insulation the cell was very cold during the winter and very hot during the summer.\n19.  The shutters on the windows prevented daylight from coming in. Nevertheless, the prison administra", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1276", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.   On 4 November 1993 the Szczecin Regional Prosecutor charged the applicant with the offence of obtaining 71,000,000,000 PLZ under false pretences. On the same date the prosecutor issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant.  The applicant was arrested on 6 November 1993 and on 9 November 1993 the Szczecin Regional Prosecutor detained him on remand for three months.  On 16 November 1993 the applicant appealed against the detention order. By a decision of 22 November 1993 the Szczecin Regional Court upheld it.\n9.  On 13 December 1993 the Szczecin Regional Prosecutor prolonged the investigations. On 28 January 1994 the Szczecin Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 6 May 1994. The court observed that the charges laid against him were sufficiently substantiated and that extensive evidence had still to be taken in the case. There were serious grounds for believing that the applicant, if he were to be released, would go into hiding.\n10.  On 26 April 1994 the Szczecin Regional Prosecutor decided to prolong the investigations case until 6 September 1994.On 29 April 1994 the Szczecin Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 6 September 1994. The court considered that further evidence was required to establish all the facts of the case and that the detention was indispensable to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings. On 15 June 1994 the Poznań Appeal Court upheld this decision.\n11.  In May and June 1994 at least thirty one witnesses were heard.  On 9 August 1994 the prosecutor dismissed the requests for release submitted by the applicant, his wife and his counsel in June and July 1994. On 9 September 1994 the Appeal Prosecutor upheld this decision.\n12.   Between 11 July and 7 September 1994 the prosecuting authorities questioned twenty-four witnesses.  On 22 August 1994 the prosecutor prolonged the investigation of the case. By a decision of 26 August 1994 the Szczecin Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 6 November 1994, having regard to the necessity of continuing investigative proceedings. In particular, there was a need to carry out certain specific examinations and to examine a number of witnesses. On 4 October 994 the Poznań Appeal Court upheld this decision.\n13.  On 21 September 1994 the applicant again requested his release, relying on the fact that his wife was in hospital. This request was dismissed on 26 September 1994 on the ground that she was capable of taking care of the children and of carrying on business activities.\n14.  On 7 October 1994 the prosecutor prolonged the investigation until 31 May 1995. On 4 November 1994 the Supreme Court further prolonged the applicant’s detention until 6 May 1995, considering that there was sufficient likelihood that he had committed the offence in question and there was a real danger of collusion on his part. The case was complex and multi-layered. It was necessary to pursue further investigative proceedings, including a request for judicial assistance from the prosecution authorities abroad. The court observed that the applicant had relapsed into crime and that he had been sought by a wanted notice at the initial stage of proceedings.\n15.  On 14 December 1994 the prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s request for release. Upon the applicant’s appeal the Poznań Appeal Prosecutor upheld the contested decision on 16 January 1995. Between 17 and 27 January 1995 the prosecutor heard fourteen witnesses and appointed one additional e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1277", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. The applicants were born in 1955 and 1931 respectively, and live in Prešov.\n5. On 28 May 1992 the applicants requested the Prague Regional Commercial Court (krajský obchodní soud) to order a private company to cease using their patent illegally, and to pay them compensation for it. On 15 June 1992 the court received their action.\n6.  On 23 March 1994 the applicants were invited to pay the court fees.\n7.  On 5 October and 16 November 1994 and 24 January 1995, the court held hearings.\n8.  In the meantime, between 3 August and 10 November 1994, the parties to the proceedings, upon the court's request of 11 July 1994, had submitted their respective observations and comments concerning the merits of the case.\n9.  On 30 January 1995 the court received the applicants' patent certificate (patentová listina), issued by the Office of Industrial Intellectual Property (Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví) (hereinafter the “OIP”) on 9 January 1995.\n10.  On 10 June and 9 October 1996 respectively, the applicants, upon the court's requests of 16 May and 1 October 1996, specified the product allegedly violating their patent. The specifications were received by the court on 14 June and 14 October 1996 respectively.\n11.  On 15 October 1996 the court received the OIP's information that, on 11 November 1995, the patent in question had been partly quashed and that, on 15 December 1995, new proceedings before the OIP concerning the patent had commenced.\n12.  On 22 October 1996 the court requested the defendant to submit documentation related to its product, specified by the applicants on 14 October 1996.\n13.  On 18 December 1996 the applicants sent to the court a copy of the OIP's decision of 12 December 1996, confirming that the product manufactured by the defendant fell within the ambit of the applicants' patent.\n14.  On 31 March 1998 the applicants sent to the court the OIP's decision and a decision of the OIP's President of 17 March 1998, dismissing the defendant's appeal against the OIP's decision of 12 December 1996.\n15.  On 14 October 1999 the court adjourned the hearing scheduled for 19 November to 9 December 1999 due to the judge's illness.\n16.  On 18 November 1999 the applicants specified their claim. On 25 November 1999 the court received the specifications.\n17.  On 9 December 1999 the court held a hearing, at which the applicants again modified their action. The court requested them to specify the facts and to supplement their request for modification of the action of 18 November 1999. On 20 December 1999 the applicants specified their action.\n18.  On 25 September 2000 the court fixed a hearing for 27 November 2000, at which it partly accepted the applicants' modification of their action.\n19.  On 24 November 2000 the applicants specified their claim for damages.\n20.  On 27 November 2000 the court held a hearing, at which the applicants again requested modification of their action, which the court granted.\n21.  On 26 February 2001 the court held a hearing, at which it stayed the proceedings pending the\n outcome of proceedings before the OIP concerning the defendant's request to annul the patent.\n22.  On 28 February and 28 August 2001 respectively, the court requested the OIP to inform it about the progress of the proceedings, which the latter did on 4 September 2001. On 10 January 2002 the court received the decision of the OIP's President of 9 January 2002, dismissing the defendant's appeal of 25 June 2001, against which the defendant had appealed t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1278", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Adana.\n8.  At the time of the events, the applicant was a member of the Peoples’ Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi, hereinafter “HADEP”).\n9.  On 26 June 1994 the applicant made a speech during HADEP’s first annual congress. According to the text of the speech, transcribed by three police officers on 30 June 1994, he stated the following:\n“Dear Chairman, dear delegates and dear guests, I welcome you all. We are holding this first congress of our party at a time when extraordinary circumstances are affecting the Kurdish nation and the Turkish proletariat. Our historical duties and obligations are ever more important at this time. At around this time last year most of us present had gathered at DEP’s first congress. The attacks against us and against our people were at their peak. The imperialist savagery aimed at our nation and our country had been continuing before the eyes of the world. When we were talking that day, we underlined what policies our democracy should follow in the light of the developments which were taking place. Important social and political developments have taken place since then. It was happening so fast that before we had a chance to think and analyse what was going on, new developments were taking place. These developments have proved us right. Without repeating what we said one year ago, I would like to remind you of the following: the biggest hurdle for the democratisation of Turkey is the existence of the problem of Kurdistan. The reality is that Kurdistan is a colony. It is not possible for Turkey to be a democracy without solving the status of Kurdistan. The precondition for democracy to be established is to defend and to support the Kurdish nation’s right to self-determination. Therefore, any means employed by the Kurdish nation in order to exercise this right in a free atmosphere is legal and justified.\nAs we have said before, it is impossible not to collide with all the legal constraints and formalities imposed by the Republic of Turkey. This is because the existing legal system of the Republic of Turkey is formulated in such a way as to make the colonisation of Kurdistan lawful. For us, on the other hand, it is not what is lawful that should be the starting point in our struggle, but what is legal.\nWhat Kurds mean to the [Turkish] Parliament has been evident in the practice of the last seventy years. To the world at large, the presence of the Kurdish parliamentarians in Parliament has always been interpreted as evidence that Parliament represents the political will of both the Turkish nation and the Kurdish nation. When, therefore, Parliament is presented as a legal entity, the imperialist terror imposed on Kurdistan has become lawful. The fact is, however, that for the Kurds this Parliament has done nothing other than legislate laws sending Kurds into exile, sentencing them to death, assimilating them, adopting the Takriri Sükun Act[1] and creating emergency regions and declaring martial law.\nUnfortunately, these realities have not been adequately dealt with during the time of DEP. This last year has shown us just how right we were in our conclusions. The imperialist violence has increased day by day and a large number of settlements has been evacuated and destroyed and hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to flee. Hundreds of people have become martyrs. Thousands have been injured. Tens of thousands of our people have been detained and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1279", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Järvenpää.\n8.  On 11 October 1993 the National Bureau of Investigation (keskusrikospoliisi, centralkriminalpolisen) interrogated the applicant as a suspect in the offence of aiding and abetting an aggravated embezzlement. The pre-trial investigation was concluded on 15 December 1993 and the file was transmitted to the public prosecutor on 17 December 1993.\n9.  The indictment was served on the applicant on 14 March 1996. On 9 September 1996 criminal proceedings were instituted against him and three other defendants before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) of Tuusula. The prosecutor charged two of them with aggravated embezzlement and the applicant and another co-defendant with aiding and abetting the said offence between 9 June and 22 August 1989. The complainant, now a limited liability company to which the ownership of a bank group had been transferred, joined the proceedings and presented an accessory claim for damages and legal costs. All defendants denied the charges.\n10.  On 10 September 1996 the prosecutor requested an adjournment in order to present further evidence. The case was adjourned until 21 November 1996, when seven prosecution witnesses gave evidence. The case was then adjourned until 30 January 1997 so as to enable the prosecutor to call additional witnesses. At that third hearing the District Court heard evidence from three further prosecution witnesses.\n11.  At the fourth hearing on 21 March 1997 a witness called by one of the defendants gave evidence. The prosecutor and one of the defendants requested a further adjournment which was granted.\n12.  At the fifth hearing on 23 May 1997 the District Court took evidence from a prosecution witness and three defence witnesses. At the request of one of the defendants the case was adjourned.\n13.  At the sixth hearing on 27 June 1997 the District Court heard two further defence witnesses. One of the defendants asked for a further adjournment in order to present additional evidence.\n14.  At the seventh hearing on 15 August 1997 a further defence witness gave evidence. At the request of two of the defendants the case was adjourned.\n15.  At the eighth hearing on 26 September 1997 two defence witnesses gave evidence. The applicant requested an immediate dismissal of the charge against him, arguing that it was not detailed enough and did not describe the essential elements of the offence he had been charged with. On the District Court’s refusal, he asked that the proceedings be suspended in anticipation of the outcome of his appeal to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätt) of Helsinki in a related matter. The District Court refused this request as well but adjourned the case in order to allow the parties to submit their closing arguments.\n16.  At the ninth hearing on 13 November 1997 the applicant requested that the complainant be ordered to reimburse his legal costs.\n17.  In its judgment of 13 November 1997 the District Court acquitted all defendants and dismissed the complainant’s accessory claim for damages. Noting that the complainant had merely joined the proceedings brought by the public prosecutor, the court also dismissed the applicant’s claim that the complainant be ordered to reimburse his legal costs.\n18.  The prosecutor, the complainant, the applicant and a co-defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal which rejected their appeals on 31 December 1998.\n19.  The applicant’s acquittal acquired legal force on 2 Mar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1280", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Siirt.\n5.  On 20 December 1990 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated three plots of land belonging to the applicant.A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the relevant amount was paid to him.\n6.  Following the applicant's request for increased compensation, on 8 September 1998 the Baykan Civil Court of First-instance awarded him additional compensation of 114,180,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1], plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decision. In order to calculate the amount of increased compensation, the court consulted several experts.\n7.  The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways appealed against the judgment of 8 September 1998.\n8.  On 19 October 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.\n9.  According to the order of the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways, the amount of TRL 248,595,000[2] was paid to the applicant on 22 December 1998. The applicant claimed that he was paid on 4 January 1999.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1281", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  In 1996 the National Water Board (Devlet Su İşleri) expropriated a part of the applicant’s plot of land. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to her.\n6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 14 July 1997 the Bursa Civil Court of First-instance awarded her additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate.\n7.  On 14 October 1997 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and quashed the judgment of the First-instance court.\n8.  On 27 April 1998 the Bursa Civil Court of First-instance awarded the applicant additional compensation of 3,591,690,496 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 29 August 1996, applicable at the date of the court’s decision.\n9.  On 7 July 1998 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the Bursa Civil Court of First-instance.\n10.  On 6 October 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification.\n11.  On 29 December 1998 the National Water Board paid TRL 7,101,232,000[2] to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1282", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was born in 1940 and lives in the town of Cizre, in south-east Turkey.\n10.  The facts surrounding the death of the applicant's son, Mesut Dündar, are disputed by the parties.\n11.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (see paragraphs 12-23). The Government's submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (see paragraphs 24-35). Documentary evidence submitted by the Government is summarised in Section D (see paragraphs 36-57 below).\n12.  The applicant's son Mesut Dündar was born in 1972. When he was a child Mesut Dündar suffered from meningitis. The applicant was unable to have him treated and he remained mentally disabled.\n13.  Mesut Dündar was always interested in Kurdish national music, poetry and colours and on many occasions used to walk in front of the crowd on Kurdish national holidays, carrying the Kurdish colours; yellow, red and green.\n14.  These activities of Mesut Dündar attracted the attention of the police, who took to following him and, on occasions, raided his family home. Mesut Dündar was taken into custody three times, and on each such occasion he was beaten and tortured by the police.\n15.  In about July 1992, police officers from Cizre Police Headquarters raided the applicant's home and told the applicant that they had come to take Mesut Dündar to Elazığ Psychiatric Hospital for treatment. They took the applicant and Mesut Dündar to the Police Headquarters. Mesut Dündar was terrified that he would be killed in the hospital and jumped out of a window and escaped.\n16.  Thereupon the police officers took the applicant around Cizre town centre and neighbouring villages for three days, during which they unsuccessfully looked for Mesut Dündar. The police officers beat the applicant and threatened him by saying that they would kill him if he did not find his son and hand him over to the police. The applicant was released at the end of the third day, only after having promised the police officers that if he saw his son he would bring him in himself.\n17.  Mesut Dündar did not return home because of his fear of the police. He stayed with friends and telephoned the applicant's house every day in order to speak to his mother. The police often visited the applicant's house to ask about Mesut Dündar's whereabouts.\n18.  After some time, Mesut Dündar no longer telephoned and the police no longer came to the applicant's home. The applicant therefore began to suspect that the police had caught Mesut Dündar.\n19.  On 6 September 1992 Mesut Dündar's strangled body was found near the Şeyh Değirmenci watermill, near the Sulak village. A report of an interview with four women from Sulak, who had been taking yoghurt to the market in Cizre in the early hours of that day, and another person, was published in Özgür Gündem newspaper on 19 November 1992. According to this interview, four armed persons, one of whom was thought to be a police officer, had strangled Mesut Dündar while his arms were tied behind his back. Soldiers, who had come to the place where Mesut Dündar had been strangled following the killing, had dragged his body behind an armoured personnel carrier, claiming that they were doing so because they thought there might be a booby-trap under the body.\n20.  The applicant's family heard at a later stage that Mesut Dündar's corpse was at the hospital. A member of the family went to the hospital where the body was handed over to h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1283", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul.\n9.  On 6 February 1999 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terror Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of his membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan).\n10.  On the same day the public prosecutor granted the request of the Anti-Terror Branch to place the applicant in police custody for four days at the Anti-Terror Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate.\n11.  On 10 February 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court extended the custody period for a further two days.\n12.  On 10 February 1999 the applicant was taken to Haseki Hospital, where he was issued with a medical report. In the report ‘surface erythema and scrapes on the proximal part of both arms’ were noted. On the same day the applicant was allegedly forced to sign a statement explaining that the bruises on his arms had been caused by a dust allergy.\n13.  On 12 February 1999 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor of the Istanbul State Security Court and then before a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, where he stated that he had been subjected to physical and emotional violence. The court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n14.  On the same day, a doctor at the Forensic Medical Institute of the Istanbul State Security Court examined the applicant and reported bruises of 30‑40 cm x 7-8 cm on both upper arms and an ecchymose under his left arm joint, as well as a complaint of backache. In the report, it was also noted that the signs of physical violence were sufficient to prevent the applicant from working for three days.\n15.  On 16 February 1999 the public prosecutor of the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with the criminal offence of being a member of an illegal organisation described in Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).\n16.  At the first hearing of 27 April 1999 the applicant repeated his allegation of ill-treatment before the Istanbul State Security Court. He also requested an allergy test and an examination of his signature. The court rejected his requests.\n17.  On 13 August 1999 the applicant was able to consult a dermatologist, who examined the applicant and found no indication of any allergies.\n18.  On 29 April 1999 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court, charging the two police officers whose signatures were on the applicant’s statement made in custody with a criminal offence proscribed by Article 243 of the Criminal Code. In his indictment the public prosecutor cited the two medical reports drawn up in respect of the applicant, which mentioned the bruises on his arms.\n19.  On 3 May 1999 the Assize Court ordered that a letter be sent to the applicant inviting him to take part in the proceedings.\n20.  At the hearings on 23 June and 23 September 1999, the court issued bench warrants for the applicant in order to consider his testimony as a witness. The responses to these warrants from the local authorities revealed that the applicant was detained in Üsküdar E Type Prison.\n21.  At the hearings on 30 November and 14 December 1999, the court ordered that written notifications be sent to Üsküdar Prison in order to secure the presence of the applicant before the court.\n22.  The prison administration informed the court that", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1284", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the city of Lysychansk, the Lugansk region, Ukraine.\n5.  By two separate decisions of 7 July 1999, the labour disputes commission ordered the Pryvolnyanska State Mine (the “Mine”) to pay the applicant UAH 1,418.27 (around 236 euros – “EUR”) in salary arrears.\n6.  In August 1998 the Lysychansk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above decision.\n7.  On 2 January 2001 the Lugansk Regional Arbitration Court initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the Mine.\n8.  On 15 February 2002 the Lysychansk City Court ordered the Mine to pay the applicant UAH 2,931.63 (around EUR 488) in salary arrears.\n9.  On 11 April 2002 the Bailiffs’ Services instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the decision of 15 February 2002.\n10.  According to the Government, on 28 November 2003 the sum of UAH 4,259.90 was transferred to the applicant’s bank account.\n11.  According to the applicant, he was not paid all the amounts awarded by the decisions at issue, the outstanding debt being UAH 42.60 (around EUR 7).\n12.  On 1 December 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the decisions of 7 July 1999 and 15 February 2002 on the ground that these decisions had been enforced in full.\n13.  The applicant did not challenge the Bailiffs’ decision of 1 December 2003 before the domestic courts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1285", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1960 and 1967 respectively and live in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 16 November 1993 the applicant was taken into custody by the security forces at the Sağırsu Gendarmerie Command.\n6.  In a report drafted by the gendarmes and signed by the applicant on the same day, it was stated that he was taken into custody on the basis of information contained in a document found on a PKK[1] terrorist.\n7.  In his statement taken by the gendarmes on 30 November 1993 the applicant confessed in detail to his involvement in the activities of the PKK.\n8.  On 1 December 1993 the applicant and five others were examined by a doctor at the Siirt Forensic Department, who concluded there were no traces of blows on their bodies.\n9.  Later on the same day, the applicant was first brought before the Siirt Public Prosecutor then before the judge at the Siirt Magistrates Court where he refuted his statements dated 30 November 1993 and he contested his involvement in the activities of the PKK. He confessed to having possessed a Kalashnikov rifle without a permit. The court ordered his detention on remand.\n10.  In his petition dated 2 December 1993 filed with the Siirt Assize Court, the applicant alleged that he had been severely tortured for eighteen days while in police custody. He stated that he had been told to strip, blindfolded, severely beaten and strung up by his arms. Moreover, he objected to the court’s decision to detain him on remand.\n11.  On an unspecified date the Siirt Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction as the charges against the applicant fell within the competence of the State Security Courts.\n12.  On 21 December 1993 the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with engaging in acts aimed at the separation of a part of the territory of the State, under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.\n13.  At the hearing held on 24 February 1994, the applicant denied the allegations against him and claimed that he had been forced to sign the statements drafted in police custody. The court refused the applicant’s request for release pending trial, in view of the state of the evidence and the nature of the offence of which he was accused. It further decided to join the applicant’s case to the second applicant’s case, as they raised similar issues.\n14.  On 24 October 1993 the applicant was taken into custody by the security forces at the Siirt Gendarmerie Command. According to the arrest report drafted by the gendarmes and signed by the applicant, he was taken into custody in the village of Koçlu in the course of an investigation concerning the PKK.\n15.  On 26 October 1993 the applicant took the police officers of the Prevention of Terrorism Department of the Siirt Security Directorate to where he was hiding weaponry, namely a Kalashnikov rifle, a hand grenade and bullets. The police officers later drafted an on-site inspection report, describing the location of the hideout and the weapons found there.\n16.  In his statement taken by the gendarmes on 3 November 1993, the applicant confessed in detail to his involvement in the activities of the PKK.\n17.  On 5 November 1993 the applicant and six other suspects were taken to the Siirt Forensic Department for an examination. According to the medical report drafted on the same date, no traces of blows were found on the applicant’s body.\n18.  On the same day, the ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1286", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Turkey.\n5.  On 23 May 1995 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Antalya Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the TDKP/GKB (Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party / Young Communist Union). He was subsequently taken to the Antalya Security Directorate Building, where he was interrogated. During his police interrogation the applicant signed a statement. He claims to have been subjected to pressure and ill-treatment when signing the document.\n6.  On 28 May 1995 the applicant was brought before a judge who ordered his detention on remand.\n7.  On 27 June 1995 the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed an indictment charging the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code with membership of the TDKP/GKB.\n8.  On 18 April 1996 the Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The court further debarred the applicant from working in the civil service.\n9.  On 13 October 1997 the applicant appealed.\n10.  On 2 February 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal upholding the Izmir State Security Court’s judgment. The decision of the Court of Cassation was pronounced in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer and it was not notified to them.\n11.  On 26 February 1998 the decision of the Court of Cassation was deposited with the registry of the Izmir State Security Court.\n12.  With a letter dated 23 June 2005, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had been conditionally released from prison on 5 October 2004 after having served three quarters of his sentence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1287", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in the town of Pervomaisk, the Kharkiv region, Ukraine.\n5.  In 1998 and 2001, respectively, the applicant instituted two sets of proceedings in the Pervomaisk Town Court against the Pervomaisk chemical factory “Khimprom” (the “PCFK”) – a State-owned enterprise – to recover unpaid salary. By decision of 2 November 1998, the court awarded the applicant UAH 2,974.79 (473 euros – “EUR”) in salary arrears and other payments. By another decision of 24 April 2001, the court awarded him UAH 2,307.11 (EUR 358) in salary arrears.\n6.  On 9 July 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgments given in his favour were not executed due to a large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was suspended due to the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the President.\n7.  In July 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Pervomaisk Town Court against the bailiff of the Pervomaisk Town Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgments in his favour. On 5 September 2001 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the bailiff.\n8.  On 21 November 2001 and 8 April 2002, respectively, the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n9.  Between 4 September 2003 and 13 January 2004 the enforcement proceedings were suspended due to the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings against the PCFK.\n10.  On 13 July 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that he was number 44 on the creditors’ waiting list in respect of the enforcement of the judgment of 2 November 1998. He was also number 472-474 on the creditors’ waiting list in respect of the enforcement of the judgment of 24 April 2001.\n11.  The judgments in the applicant’s favour remain unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1288", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and is currently serving a prison sentence at Penitentiary No. 8 in Zhytomyr (see in the latter respect Lupandin v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 70898/01, 7 October 2003).\n5.  In September 1995 the applicant had a serious accident at work in the Petrovskaya Mining Company (a State-owned enterprise, hereafter the “PMC”).\n6.  A year later, in September 1996, the PMC decided to pay the applicant a lump sum in compensation for the injury. However, no payment was made and in early 1997 the applicant sued the PMC for compensation for the industrial injury. On 20 March 1997 the Petrovsky District Court of Donetsk found for the applicant and awarded him UAH 16,445.74[1]. No appeal was lodged against the judgment and it became final ten days later, on 30 March 1997.\n7.  On 10 April 1997 the Petrovsky District Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted proceedings to enforce the judgment of 20 March 1997.\n8.  On 20 March 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the PMC and issued an injunction barring the debt recovery.\n9.  On 18 April 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service stayed the execution proceedings against the Company pending the resolution of the bankruptcy case.\n10.  In letters of 12 June and 15 and 25 October 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings were impeded by ongoing bankruptcy litigation and the entry into force of the 2001 Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property which barred the attachment and sale of the Company’s capital assets.\n11.  On 7 April 2003 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court discontinued the bankruptcy proceedings against the PMC and, accordingly, the Bailiffs Service resumed the execution proceedings in the applicant’s case. However, it appears that the gradual enforcement of the judgment of 20 March 1997 continued even during the period when the proceedings were formally suspended, as by October 2003 (when the case was communicated to the Government for observations) the applicant had been paid a total of UAH 5,712.88[2] in several instalments, including UAH 100[3] on 30 October 2002 and UAH 200[4] on 6 February 2003.\n12.  On 7 November and 1 December 2003 the applicant was repaid the remainder of the amount awarded by the judgment of 20 March 1997.\n13.  On 15 December 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings as the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1289", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the city of Zhytomyr, Ukraine.\n5.  On 28 January 2000 the applicant retired from his post in the Zhytomyr Regional Police Department (hereafter “the Police Department”). Having received no redundancy pay, to which he was entitled, the applicant instituted proceedings against the Police Department, seeking the recovery of the debt.\n6.  On 7 November 2001 the Koroliovsky District Court of Zhytomyr awarded the applicant UAH 7,410[1] in redundancy pay arrears. On 12 March 2002, the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal (hereafter “the Court of Appeal”), on the Police Department’s appeal, re-examined the case and upheld this judgment.\n7.  On 19 March 2002 the Koroliovsky District Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 7 November 2001 and joined the applicant’s case to other enforcement actions against the debtor.\n8.  On 14 June 2002 the Bogunsky District Court of Zhytomyr rejected the applicant’s complaint about the bailiffs’ inactivity. The court stated that in October 2001, acting in the course of the enforcement proceedings to which the applicant’s case was subsequently joined, the Bailiffs’ Service levied the Police Department’s bank account, which revealed no funds suitable for attachment. The court found that no further actions regarding the Police Department’s account were possible in the absence of budgetary funds earmarked for such purposes. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 26 August 2002 and by the Supreme Court on 13 January 2003.\n9.  On 17 January 2004 the Koroliovsky District Court of Zhytomyr, on the Police Department’s request, temporarily suspended the enforcement proceedings. On 6 April 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed this decision as it was taken in the applicant’s absence and manifestly unfounded. On 14 May 2004 the Koroliovsky District Court of Zhytomyr ultimately rejected the Police Department’s request.\n10.  On 23 September 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings as the judgment of 7 November 2001 had been enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1290", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants live in Izmir.\n5.  On 7 June 1996 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicants’ request for increased compensation, on 22 June 1998 the Bornova Civil Court of First-instance awarded them additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate.\n7.  On 8 December 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment.\n8.  On 27 July 1999 the Bornova Civil Court of First-instance awarded the applicants additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate.\n9.  On 12 October 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment.\n10.  On 15 May 2000 the Bornova Civil Court of First-instance awarded the applicants additional compensation of 9,976,332,312 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 26 February 1998, the date on which the title deed to the land had been transferred to the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways in the land registry.\n11.  On 11 September 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.\n12.  On 13 August 2001 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicants TRL 28,686,390,000[2].", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1291", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1971 and 1975 respectively and live in Istanbul.\n6.  On 11 March 1996 the Küçükyalı Police Station was informed that a poster with a bomb had been hung over the Küçükyalı Bridge. Following their arrival at the bridge, the police found a cloth-poster of 2x1 metres on which it was written “We have and will demand the account of Gazi[1], MLKP[2]”, (Gazinin hesabını sorduk, soracağız, MLKP). According to the police report, the box looked as if it contained a bomb. However, it did not.\n7.  On 12 March 1996 the first applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of her involvement in the hanging of the poster. On 19 March 1996 she was brought before the public prosecutor’s office at the Istanbul State Security Court and before the Istanbul State Security Court. The court remanded her in custody.\n8.  On 12 June 1996 the second applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of his involvement in the above-mentioned incident. On 18 June 1996 he was brought to the public prosecutor’s office at the Istanbul State Security Court and before Istanbul the State Security Court. The court remanded him in custody.\n9.  On 26 March 1996 and 20 June 1996 respectively, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court accusing the applicants of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, namely the MLKP. The public prosecutor requested that the applicants be convicted and sentenced under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.\n10.  On 1 April 1996 the Istanbul State Security Court commenced the trial of the first applicant together with other co-accused.\n11.  On an unspecified date, the first and second applicants’ case files were joined and they were tried before the Istanbul State Security Court along with four other suspects accused of the same offence.\n12.  On 23 October 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court, relying on the statements given by the applicants and the other suspects to the police, the public prosecutor and the court, convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.\n13.  Following a hearing held on 21 June 1999, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court. On 21 July 1999 the judgment of the Court of Cassation was deposited with the registry of the Istanbul State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1292", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Volodymyr Ivanovich Trykhlib, was born in 1961 and lives in Nova Kahovka, the Kherson region.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  Between 1997 and 2000 the applicant brought a number of proceedings (see the annexed table) against the Pivdenelektromash Company (a State-owned entity; hereafter “the Company”), seeking the recovery of salary arrears. Two sets of these proceedings were instituted in the Novokahovsky City Court, while the rest of them were brought to the Labour Disputes Commission of the “Pivdenelektromash” company (hereafter “the LDC”). The decisions given by the court and the LDC awarded the applicant the salary arrears which he claimed. These decisions were sent for execution to the Novokahovsky City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”).\n7.  The decisions in the applicant’s favour were gradually enforced until 5 June 2000 when the Kherson Regional Court of Arbitration (hereafter “the Arbitration Court”) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction barring the debt recovery.\n8.  On 20 June 2000 the Bailiffs’ Service stayed the execution proceedings against the Company pending the resolution of the bankruptcy case.\n9.  By letter of 10 August 2000, the Supreme Court of Arbitration directed that the enforcement of salary arrears cases could continue pending the bankruptcy and rehabilitation proceedings.\n10.  In a letter of 11 December 2000 the Bailiffs’ Service requested permission from the Arbitration Court to continue the enforcement proceedings. On 12 January 2001 Judge V. informed the Bailiffs that the claims based on court decisions awarding salary arrears could be paid from the proceeds of the finished products and raw materials belonging to the Company. The Judge stated that an injunction made under Article 12 of the Law of 14 May 1992 “on the Restoration of a Debtor’s Solvency or the Declaration of Bankruptcy” (hereafter “the Bankruptcy Act”) did not apply to salary payments.\n11.  On 11 January 2001 the Bailiffs ordered the attachment of the Company’s accounts.\n12.  On 15 January 2001 the Arbitration Court approved the rehabilitation proposal and appointed a trustee to run a bankruptcy rehabilitation programme for the Company’s business performance.\n13.  On 22 March 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service, referring to the judge’s letter of 12 January 2001, requested the trustee to inform them about the existence of the finished products and raw materials suitable for attachment.\n14.  However, on 17 January 2002 Judge V. reversed his opinion about attaching and selling the Company’s property, particularly as the rehabilitation proceedings were pending, the success of which, in his view, could be jeopardised if the Bailiffs’ actions continued.\n15.  On 23 January 2002 the Prominvest Bank servicing the Company’s accounts refused to freeze them on the Bailiffs’ request. The bank, inter alia, rejected as irrelevant the Bailiffs’ reference to the directive of the Supreme Court of Arbitration of 10 August 2000 (see paragraph 9 above).\n16.  On 14 August 2002 the Kherson Regional Bailiffs’ Service notified the applicant that by December 1999 he had been paid a total of UAH 3,477. The payment of the remainder of the awarded amount was impeded by ongoing bankruptcy litigation and the entry into force of the 2001 Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property which barred the attachment and sale", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1293", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Batman.\n7.  On 7 February 1993 the applicant was taken into custody in Batman by police officers from the Batman Anti-Terrorist Branch and he was held in custody until 5 March 1993.\n8.  On 5 March 1993 the Batman Criminal Court ordered the applicant’s remand in custody.\n9.  On 6 April 1993 and on 10 October 1994 the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed two different bills of indictment accusing the applicant of being a member of an illegal terrorist organization and undermining the integrity of the State.\n10.  On 5 May 1993 the State Security Court commenced the trial against the applicant and twenty-one other suspects, and prolonged the applicant’s detention.\n11.  On 1 December 1995, the State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The charges had been brought under Articles 168 and 125 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  Thereafter, the Court of cassation quashed the judgment three times, remitting it to the first-instance court, which reached the same conclusions as before:\n–Court of Cassation decisions quashing the judgments on 9 July 1996, 31 January 2000 and 2 April 2001;\n–the repetitive State Security Court decisions on 11 June 1999 (after numerous hearings), 28 September 2000 (after numerous hearings in the applicant’s absence) and 31 January 2002 (also after numerous hearings).\n13.  On that latter date, the State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 168/2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. He was released the same day.\n14.  The applicant did not appeal against this judgment. On 7 February 2002 it became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1294", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in the town of Seyhan, within the administrative jurisdiction of the province of Adana.\n10.  The facts surrounding the events of 5 October 1994 are disputed by the parties.\n11.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Part B below (see paragraphs 12-21). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Part C below (see paragraphs 22-23). Documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Part D (see paragraphs 24-27 below) and Part E (see paragraphs 28-52 below) respectively.\n12.  On 3 October 1994 Rehib Çabuk and Sefer Cerf were killed in Adana. They were, respectively, district leader and administrative board member of HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi, People’s Democracy Party), a pro-Kurdish political party. The applicant witnessed the killing and attended the funeral on 4 October 1994.\n13.  On 5 October 1994, at about 11 a.m., while the applicant was sitting in the Erzurumlular Café in the Mutlu neighbourhood in Adana, two persons, who later identified themselves as policemen, entered the café. Both were from the anti-terrorism branch of the police and both were armed with pistols. They told the applicant to come out of the café. On leaving the café the applicant was put in a white Renault car, with the registration number 01 HC 644.\n14.  There were two other police officers inside the car, both armed with MP-5 automatic weapons. The applicant’s elder brother Suphi Dizman, who was also in the café, asked the police officers why they were taking his brother away. The police told him that they wanted to ask his brother a number of questions and they would then return him to the café.\n15.  The car drove in the direction of Kabaktepe and stopped in a deserted field. The applicant was taken out of the car. As soon as he got out, the police officers started to punch and kick him and to beat him with the butts of their guns. The police officers told the applicant that they had seen him at the funeral of Sefer Cerf and Rehib Çabuk the day before. They threatened him and told him that if he continued to be involved in such activities, his end would be like those of the dead HADEP members.\n16.  The police officers questioned the applicant about a number of local people. The applicant was also forced to report the activities of local shopkeepers, who were allegedly selling the newspaper Özgür Ülke, a pro-Kurdish newspaper, and who were collecting money, presumably for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (hereinafter “the PKK”). The applicant was threatened that if he did not report the political activities of these shopkeepers regularly, he would be killed.\n17.  The applicant denied that he was involved in such activities and protested that they had no reason to treat him like a criminal. He was then put into the car and driven towards the town. Before releasing him, the officers gave the applicant an address and ordered him to be there on the following Friday evening.\n18.  When the applicant got home, his relatives took him to the hospital where it was established that his jaw bone had been broken and required surgery.\n19.  The applicant, with the assistance of a lawyer, submitted a petition to the Adana Prosecutor’s office on 7 October 1994 and requested the Prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers who had ill-treated him. He gave a detailed account of the incident and described the physical features of the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1295", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the town of Shakhty, the Rostov Region.\n5.  In 1987 the applicant took part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result the applicant suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. In 1996 the applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between the applicant’s poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. The applicant was awarded compensation, to be paid monthly.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant sued a local pension authority (Управление социальной защиты г. Шахты, “the authority”) for allegedly erroneous calculation of his monthly compensation and demanded arrears and damages.\n7.  By judgment of 21 May 1999 the Shakhy Town Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the authority to recalculate his monthly compensation for the period between 14 May 1996 and 31 May 1999, to pay the applicant the arrears of RUR 134,442.46 in this respect and monthly compensation of RUR 4,547.75 with further indexation until any subsequent changes of legislation.\n8.  The judgment of 21 May 1999 was not appealed against by the parties and came into force ten days later, on 31 May 1999.\n9.  Some time thereafter the authority applied to the Town Court requesting to re-open the applicant’s case by reference to newly discovered evidence, such as his pay statements for twelve months preceding the disabling incident.\n10.  On 10 July 2000 the Town Court granted the application and re-opened the proceedings.\n11.  It appears that the defendant authority and the Town Court failed properly to notify the applicant of the re-opening proceedings and the decision of 10 July 2000.\n12.  The applicant challenged the decision of 10 July 2000 by way of supervisory review by reference to this failure. His appeal also stated that the piece of evidence referred to by the authority could not be considered as newly discovered since it had been fully available to the Town Court during the first instance proceedings.\n13.  On 9 November 2000 the Rostov Regional Court acting as a supervisory review instance set aside the decision of 10 July 2000. The court upheld the applicant’s arguments in full and by the same decision dismissed the authority’s arguments as unfounded.\n14.  On 29 January 2001 the writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 21 May 1999 reached the baillifs and on 31 January 2001 they opened the enforcement proceedings in this connection.\n15.  According to the Government, the authority complied with the judgment by five bank transfers, dated 29 March, 24 April, 30 May, 27 and 28 June 2002 respectively. As of 1 July 2002 the applicant has been in receipt of the monthly compensation of RUR 7,627.49, with no debts outstanding.\n16.  According to the applicant, to date the judgment of 21 May 1999 has not been enforced in part relating to indexation of his monthly compensation until any subsequent changes in the legislation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1296", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Izmit.\n9.  On 6 November 1992 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Izmit Security Directorate and was placed in custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the TKP-ML/TIKKO (Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist, Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army).\n10.  On 11 November 1992 the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at the Kocaeli Criminal Court. The same day, the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n11.  On 10 February 1993 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the same court accusing the applicant and his seven other co-defendants of being a member of an illegal armed organisation and having committed armed robbery. The public prosecutor invoked Articles 168 § 2 and 497 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law No. 3713 (Anti-terror law).\n12.  On 23 February 1993, the Istanbul State Security Court pronounced the applicant’s continuing detention on the ground that the reasons for his detention on remand had not disappeared.\n13.  On 19 April 1994 the court decided to join the case with that pending before another court, as some of the defendants had been put on trial for similar charges before this court. Following this decision the number of the co-defendants of the applicant increased to twenty.\n14.  In the course of the criminal proceedings the applicant made numerous submissions for his release pending trial. He claimed that he was innocent and had been held in detention on remand for an excessive period. The Istanbul State Security Court dismissed these requests at each of the forty-eight hearings held between 17 May 1993 and 12 June 2000. In ordering the applicant’s continued detention each time, it relied on “the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the duration of the detention”.\n15.  On 12 June 2000 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant for being a member of an illegal organisation and committing the offence of armed robbery. The court sentenced the applicant to thirty-two years and six months’ imprisonment.\n16.  The judgment was, ex officio, subject to appeal. The applicant also appealed against the judgment.\n17.  On 15 May 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant’s conviction on the ground that the case-file did not enclose the applicant’s statement he made before the Kocaeli Assize Court, and remitted the case to the Istanbul State Security Court.\n18.  On 3 October 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court held its first hearing after the case was sent back to it. The applicant repeated his request for release from detention on remand during the hearing; the court dismissed his request on account of “the nature of the offence charged and the state of evidence”.\n19.  On 28 December 2001 the applicant was released from detention on remand.\n20.  On 22 May 2004, following the abolition of the Istanbul State Security Court, the applicant’s case was transferred to the Istanbul 11th Assize Court.\n21.   The case is still pending before the Istanbul 11th Assize Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1297", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.   The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Požega.\n5.  On 20 June 1991 the applicant sustained an injury in a traffic accident caused by a certain A.P., member of the Yugoslav People’s Army (“the YPA”).\n6.  On 10 August 1993 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Požega Municipal Court seeking non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 150,000 Croatian kunas (HRK).\n7.  On 21 June 1995 the Požega Municipal Court partly ruled in the applicant’s favour by awarding her HRK 26,530. The State appealed.\n8.  In August 1996 the Požega County Court (Županijski sud u Požegi) quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the case.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, on 6 February 1998 the Požega Municipal Court delivered an interim judgment (međupresuda) finding the State liable for the damage. It held that the State had taken over not only the rights and property of the former Yugoslavia, but also its obligations. The State appealed.\n10.  On 9 July 1998 the Požega County Court reversed the interim judgment finding that the State was not liable for the damage as it was not a legal successor of the former Yugoslavia and had not taken over any liability for damages caused by members of the YPA.\n11.   On 9 September 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) alleging that the County Court wrongly applied the substantive law.\n12.  On 6 November 1999 the Amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”) entered into force.\n13.  On 23 January 2002 the Supreme Court returned the case-file to the Požega Municipal Court with the instruction to stay the proceedings, pursuant to the above Act.\n14.  On 10 May 2002 the Požega Municipal Court decided to stay the proceedings. On 18 July 2002 the Požega County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision.\n15.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on the Liability of the Republic of Croatia for Damage Incurred in the Former Yugoslavia for which the Former Yugoslavia was Liable (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.\n16.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, the proceedings resumed.\n17.  On 3 September 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s appeal on points of law, quashed the County Court judgment of 9 July 1998 and the Municipal Court’s judgment of 6 February 1998 and remitted the case to the first instance court.\n18.  In the resumed proceedings, on 28 April 2004 the Municipal Court gave judgment partly accepting the applicant’s claim and awarded her HRK 101,000. The applicant appealed.\n19.  On 15 February 2005 the County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first instance judgment, which thereby became final.\n20.  Meanwhile, on 14 May 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. On 27 May 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant’s complaint.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1298", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 5 October 1993 the applicant bought a motorbike, produced in Belarus. The motorbike was sold by a Russian dealer company under a service warranty. The next day the motorbike got out of order. The service centre, indicated by the dealer company, refused to repair the motorbike.\n6.  On 2 December 1993 the applicant brought an action against four defendants: the dealer company, the factory having produced the motorbike, based in Belarus, the service centre, and the Moscow Bureau of Technical Expertise.  On 4 October 1994 the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the dealer company to pay damages to the applicant. The defendant appealed. On 28 March 1995 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first instance court.\n7.  In 1995-1997 hearings were adjourned on five occasions due to both parties’ failure to appear, on two occasions – due to the defendant’s failure to appear, and on six occasions – because of the judge having been busy with other cases. Finally, on 12 November 1997 the Meshchanskiy District Court severed the applicant’s claims against the service centre. At the same time the court dismissed the applicant’s claims against the dealer company. On 12 January 1998 the Moscow City Court upheld this judgment. The proceedings against the service centre continued.\n8.  In the proceedings against the service centre no hearings were held between 12 January 1998 and 12 April 1999. In the following months the examination of the case was adjourned on three occasions due to the defendant’s failure to appear.\n9.  By a default judgment of 20 December 1999 the Meshchanskiy District Court held against the service centre awarding the applicant damages in the amount of 261,690 Russian roubles (RUR). Since no appeal followed within the time-limits established by law, on 31 December 1999 the judgment became final. The court issued an execution warrant and opened the enforcement proceedings.\n10.  On 6 February 2000 the defendant lodged an appeal seeking, inter alia, to restore the time-limits allowed for the appeal. On 9 March 2003 the court decided to restore the time-limits and accepted the statement of appeal for examination on the merits. In the meantime RUR 30,267 were recovered from the service centre on the account of the amount due to the applicant under the judgment of 20 December 1999.\n11.  By the decision of 18 May 2000 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 20 December 1999, stating that the first instance court had failed to properly notify the defendant about the hearings. The case was remitted to the first instance court for new examination.\n12.  By a judgment of 20 June 2000 the Meshchanskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s action against the service centre. The court also ordered the applicant to reimburse the amount recovered from the service centre pursuant to the judgment of 20 December 1999.\n13.  On 26 July 2000 the Public Prosecutor of the Meshchanskiy District of Moscow lodged with the Moscow City Court an appeal on behalf of the applicant. On 12 September 2000 the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of 20 June 2000 and remitted the case to the first instance.\n14.  After the remittal of the case, the proceedings were stayed for a certain period of time. Within this period higher judicial authorities were examining the materials of the case-file for the purpose of bringing a supervisory review appeal against the decision of 12 September 2000. However, no supervisory ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1299", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.\n5.  In 1987 he took part in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result the applicant suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between the applicant’s poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. In 1994 the applicant was awarded compensation, to be paid monthly.\n7.  In 1999 the applicant sued a local pension authority (Муниципальное учреждение социальной защиты населения Первомайского района г. Ростова-на-Дону - “the defendant”) requesting to increase his monthly compensation, backdate the increase and recover the unpaid amount. The applicant considered that the amount of compensation had been determined incorrectly.\n8.  On 18 October 1999 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don (“the District Court”) granted the applicant’s claim and ruled that since 1 January 1999 his monthly compensation had been wrongly calculated. The court awarded the applicant the arrears of RUR 15,829.25 for the period between 1 January and 1 November 1999 and decided that as of 1 November 1999 the applicant was entitled to a monthly compensation of RUR 2,440.70, to be index-linked in line with changes of the minimum monthly wage.\n9.  The judgment of 18 October 1999 was not appealed against by the parties and came into force on 29 October 1999.\n10.  On 6 December 1999 the bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 18 October 1999.\n11.  Some time later the enforcement proceedings were terminated by reference to the lack of funding. On 22 March 2001 the bailiffs returned the writ and documents to the applicant. They referred to Decree No. 143 dated 22 February 2001 (see the relevant domestic law section below) and invited him to submit the documents to a local department of the Ministry of Finance (ОФК по Первомайскому району г. Ростова-на-Дону).\n12.  The applicant followed this invitation and on the same day applied to the local department of the Ministry which four days later rejected the application. It appears that the applicant was invited to fetch a renewed writ of execution from the District Court.\n13.  Having received the renewed writ from the court, the applicant re-submitted the documents to the Ministry which on 11 April 2001 rejected them, this time by reference to the absence of the defendant’s account at the Ministry.\n14.  On 30 May and 1 July 2002 respectively the authorities transferred a total amount of RUR 38.661,22 in the applicant’s favour and informed him that the enforcement of the judgment of 18 October 1999 was thus finalised.\n15.  It appears that the applicant disagreed. He informed the authority that they had failed to index-link his monthly compensation in line with the minimum monthly wage, as it was ordered by the judgment of 18 October 1999, and used a less favourable scheme of indexation.\n16.  On unspecified date the authority requested the District Court to interpret the judgment of 18 October 1999 and uphold its scheme of indexation.\n17.  By a decision of 6 March 2003 the District Court examined and granted the authority’s request. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 16 April 2003.\n18.  On 3 June 2003 the bailiffs ruled that the defendant authority had duly enforced the judgment of 18 October 1999 and terminated the enforcement proceedings", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1300", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  In July 1996 the applicant sued his former employer, a private company, for wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  On 31 January and 4 December 1997 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow issued judgments in the applicant’s action which were subsequently quashed on appeal.\n7.  The applicant amended his claims seeking reinstatement because he had been meanwhile dismissed.\n8.  Between 13 July 1998 and 18 May 1999 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow listed thirteen hearings, of which the hearing on 13 July 1998 was adjourned due to the applicant’s absence and eight hearings were adjourned so as to give time to his former employer to produce additional evidence or to read materials submitted by the applicant. The hearings of 3 and 18 March 1999 were adjourned due to the employer’s absence.\n9.  On 8 June 1999 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow allowed the applicant’s claim in part.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained about the bailiffs’ failure to enforce the judgment of 8 June 1999. On 17 November 1999 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow confirmed that the bailiffs had failed to comply with the domestic time-limit for the enforcement of judgments.\n11.  On 26 November 1999 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 8 June 1999. The judgments remained unenforced.\n12.  On 14 December 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgments of 8 June and 26 November 1999 and remitted the case to a differently composed bench.\n13.  On 23 January 2001 the President of the Nikulinskiy District Court assigned the case to a judge.\n14.  Of nineteen hearings scheduled between 7 February 2001 and 19 December 2002 two hearings were adjourned on the applicant’s request. Six hearings were adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to attend and five hearings were postponed as to give the defendant time to submit additional evidence. Three hearings were adjourned because the presiding judge was on leave or was involved in other proceedings.\n15.  On 22 January 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow reinstated the applicant, awarded him the arrears and a partial compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n16.  On 28 July 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment.\n17.  On 6 March 2003 bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings.\n18.  On 15 April 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow, upon the bailiff’s request, stayed the enforcement proceedings pending clarification of the judgment of 22 January 2003.\n19.  The applicant complained to a court that the judgment of 22 January 2003, as upheld on 28 July 2003, had not been enforced. On 13 August 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the complaint holding that the enforcement proceedings had been lawfully stayed.\n20.  On 4 September 2003 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow clarified the judgment of 22 January 2003, as upheld on 28 July 2003, and held that the applicant had to be immediately reinstated in his previous position. The court resumed the enforcement proceedings.\n21.  On 9 February 2004 the employer issued an order reinstating the applicant in his previous position. On 17 February 2004 the applicant asked the employer to grant him annual leave for all years of absence since 1996 and to dismiss him after the leave.\n22.  On 19 February 2004 the bailiffs asked the court to stay the enforcement until the applicant would return from his leave.\n23.  O", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1301", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1995 and lives in Prešov.\n5.  On 18 September 1996 the Prešov District Court (Okresný súd) pronounced the dissolution of the marriage of the applicant's parents. The applicant who suffers from serious health problems which necessitate constant care was entrusted to her mother. The father was ordered to contribute financially to the applicant's maintenance. The judgment became final and binding on 25 August 1997.\n6.  On 18 March 1998 the applicant, acting through her mother, lodged a petition with the District Court. She sought judicial enforcement of a claim against her father to an amount of money which was due by way of contribution to her maintenance.\n7.  On 14 April 1998 the District Court ordered the enforcement.\n8.  On 21 January 2002 the District Court discontinued the enforcement as regards a part of the claim as the defendant had paid it voluntarily.\n9.  On 22 April 2002, on the applicant's appeal, the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed the decision of 21 January 2002 finding that the District Court had erred in the ruling on the costs of the enforcement.\n10.  On 10 June 2003 the District Court again discontinued the enforcement as the defendant had paid his debt. The decision became final and binding on 3 July 2003.\n11.  On 9 August 1999 the applicant, acting through her mother, lodged a request with the District Court that the amount of contributions to her maintenance which her father had been ordered to pay in the above judgment of 18 September 1996 be increased.\n12.  On 2 February 2001 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicant's mother claimed an increase in the amount.\n13.  On 23 May 2002 the District Court increased the amount of the monthly contributions and decided that it should apply from 1 July 1999 onwards. The District Court authorised the defendant to pay the arrears for the period from 1 July 1999 to 31 May 2002 in monthly instalments in addition to the ordinary monthly payments. In so far as the applicant was claiming contributions of a higher amount, the District Court dismissed the remainder of her claim. Both parties appealed to the Regional Court.\n14.  On 26 September 2002 the Regional Court upheld the part of the District Court's judgment of 23 May 2002 in which it had granted the applicant's action. At the same time, the Regional Court quashed the part of the District Court's judgment in which it had dismissed the remainder of the action, considering that such a dismissal was superfluous. The ruling became final, binding and enforceable on 23 October 2002.\n15.  On 13 November 2002 the applicant, through her mother, filed a petition for enforcement of the judgments of 23 May and 26 September 2002.\n16.  On 3 December 2002 the District Court ordered the enforcement. It is still pending.\n17.  On 28 August 2000 the applicant's mother, on behalf of the applicant, lodged a petition (podnet) under Article 130 § 3 of the Constitution, as then in force, with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd).\nShe complained of the undue delays in the above enforcement and judicial proceedings and also in two other sets of proceedings.\n18.  On 17 May 2001 the Constitutional Court found, inter alia, that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay in both cases. The subject‑matters of those proceedings were not of a particular legal or factual complexity. The applicant's conduct did not ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1302", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1958 and 1953 respectively and live in Füzérkomlós, Hungary.\n5.  On 20 October 1995 the applicants brought an action in trespass against their neighbours before the Miskolc District Court. The court held nine hearings between 14 February 1996 and 5 January 1998 and obtained an expert opinion. On 15 June 1998 the court partly accepted the applicants' claims.\n6.  On appeal, on 4 February 1999 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court gave a partial decision. It upheld part of the first-instance decision, but quashed the remainder and remitted the case to the District Court. It appears that the applicants' repeated efforts to have the Regional Court's decision enforced were to no avail.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings before the District Court, hearings took place on 12 July, 6 September, 4 October, 14 December 1999, 19 January and 9 March 2000. On 3 May 2000 the District Court ordered that the proceedings be stayed under section 137 § 1 (b) of the Code on Civil Procedure because the applicants failed to appear at the hearing scheduled for that date.\n8.  On 8 September 2000 the applicants requested that the proceedings be continued.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 23 April 1999 the applicants filed a petition for the review by the Supreme Court of the partial decision of 4 February 1999.\nThe Supreme Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer, who subsequently had to be replaced twice at the applicants' request.\nOn 30 November 2000 the Supreme Court eventually rejected the petition as inadmissible, without examining it on the merits, since the applicants had, despite warning, failed to contact the legal-aid lawyer and were therefore not properly represented before the Supreme Court.\n10.  In the pending proceedings before the District Court, the applicants were repeatedly requested to clarify their claims at the hearings of 2 and 9 May 2001.\n11.  At the applicants' request, on 10 July 2001 the District Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer.\n12.  In its order of 30 November 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the pending claims. On appeal, on 1 March 2002 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court quashed the first-instance order and remitted the file to the District Court.\n13.  In the resumed proceedings, the applicants requested the District Court to hold a hearing in their absence because they felt that their presence at the previous hearings had been useless.\n14.  At the hearing on 24 September 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicants' claims. In the absence of an appeal, this decision became final on 25 November 2003.\n15.  In 1999 the representative of the building, in which the applicants lived, brought an action against them claiming overdue charges.\nOn 9 June 1999 the Miskolc District Court partly accepted the plaintiff's claims. On 16 December 1999 the Regional Court dismissed the applicants' appeal. On 11 April 2001 the Supreme Court's review bench refused to grant leave to appeal.\nIn similar proceedings, on 10 December 2001 the Sátoraljaújhely District Court partly accepted some further claims for overdue charges. On 4 April 2002 the Regional Court dismissed the applicants' appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1303", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company was incorporated as a limited liability company on 27 December 1995 by decision of the Kaspi District Court, Georgia. The second applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Tbilisi.\n6.  On 23 July 1998, the second applicant, in his capacity as founder and director of the construction company “Iza” Ltd, the applicant company, signed a building repair contract with a State school. The contract provided for the transfer of 117,514 Georgian Laris (“GEL”, EUR 53,892.50)[1] from the budget of the Ministry of Education onto the account of the applicant company. In exchange, the applicant company would perform repairs to the school.\n7.  Despite the fact that, by August 1998, the applicant company had already done some of the repairs, equivalent to 13,000 GEL (EUR 5,965)1 the Ministry of Education only transferred 5,800 GEL (EUR 2,661)1 to the company's account.\n8.  The tax authorities initiated proceedings against the applicant company and the second applicant personally, demanding taxes in the amount of 30,735 GEL (EUR 14,104)1. According to the applicants' submissions, the tax claim was based on the total payment due for the work performed under the contract of 23 July 1998, whilst, in reality, the applicant company only received partial payment.\n9.  On 23 January 2001, the Kaspi District Court partially upheld the claim of the tax authorities. While dismissing the tax claim of 26,388 GEL (EUR 12,106)1 towards the applicant company as being unsubstantiated, the District Court, in view of the second applicant's recognition of his company's indebtedness before the State budget as of 22 April 1998 (well before the signing of the contract with the Ministry of Education), ordered the second applicant personally to pay the VAT debt of 4,347 GEL (EUR 1,994)1.\n10.  As the remaining sum for the work performed under the contract of 23 July 1998 was not paid by the Ministry of Education and the tax debt of the second applicant was outstanding, according to the applicants' submissions, the applicant company could hardly continue its economic activity.\n11.  The applicant company, represented by the second applicant, brought proceedings against the Ministry of Education claiming the remaining 7,200 GEL (EUR 3,304)1 for the performed work, as well as the second applicant's tax debt of 4,347 GEL (EUR 1,994)1, given the Ministry's failure to meet its contractual obligations. By a judgment of 14 May 2001, the Didube-Chughureti District Court granted the applicant company's claims in full.\n12.  There was no appeal against the judgment of 14 May 2001, which therefore acquired binding force on 14 June 2001. Based on that judgment, on 2 July 2001, the District Court issued an order obliging the Ministry of Education to pay the applicant company 11,628 GEL (EUR 5,332)[2]. However, the order remained unexecuted.\n13.  On 19 April 2002, the second applicant, acting again on behalf of the applicant company, requested the Execution Department of the Ministry of Justice to comply with the judgment of 14 May 2001. In response, on 13 May 2002, the Head of the Department explained that the enforcement of judgments against the State budget institutions still remained one of the most difficult tasks to accomplish for the Enforcement Authorities. No information was provided as to when exactly enforcement could be expected.\n14.  On 29 October 2002, the second applicant again addressed the Ministry of Justice. This time he appealed directly to the Minister ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1304", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Prešov.\n5.  In 1994 the applicant married Mr Š. with whom, in 1995, she had a daughter. Since October 1995 the applicant and Mr Š. had not lived in a common household.\n6.  On 18 September 1996 the Prešov District Court (Okresný súd) pronounced the dissolution of the applicant's marriage, entrusted the child into the applicant's care and ordered Mr Š. To contribute to the child's maintenance. The judgment became final and binding on 25 August 1997.\n7.  On 22 March 1996 the applicant lodged an action against Mr Š. with the District Court. She sought a judicial order that he contribute to her maintenance as his spouse pursuant to Articles 91 et seq. of the Family Code (Low no. 94/1963 Coll., as amended).\n8.  On 29 April 1996, following a hearing held on the same day, the District Court granted the action. Mr Š. subsequently lodged an appeal.\n9.  On 18 February 1997, following a hearing on the appeal held on the same day, the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd) upheld the District Court's judgment of 29 April 1996 in so far as it related to the period from 22 March to 31 May 1996. As to the following period, the Regional Court quashed the relevant part of the District Court's judgment and remitted the case to the latter for a re‑examination.\n10.  The District Court held 3 hearings between October 1997 and August 1998.\n11.  On 17 September 1998, following a hearing held on the same day, the District Court dismissed the action as regards the outstanding period, i.e. from 1 June 1996 to 25 August 1997, when the applicant's divorce had become legally binding.\n12.  On 30 April 1999, on the applicant's appeal, the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 17 September 1998 and remitted the case to the District Court instructing it to take further evidence.\n13.  On 13 March 2002 the District Court ruled that, in the relevant period, Mr Š. had been obliged to contribute to the applicant's maintenance. It further determined the amount payable and ordered that he pay the amount due in instalments as from 1 April 2002. The District Court also ordered reimbursement of the applicant's legal costs.\n14.  On 11 September 2002 the Regional Court dismissed both parties' appeals.\n15.  On 30 October 1997 the applicant lodged an action with the District Court. She sought a judicial order that her ex‑husband pay her, on a monthly basis, an amount of money by way of contribution to her maintenance after divorce, pursuant to Articles 92 et seq. of the Family Code, as she was unable to provide for herself alone.\n16.  The District Court held hearings on 16 February and 30 March 1998.\n17.  On 30 April 1998 the District Court took a decision in the action. On 30 April 1999 the Regional Court quashed the District Court's judgment on an appeal.\n18.  On 16 June 1999 the District Court held a hearing.\n19.  On 16 March 2000, following a hearing held on the same day, the District Court dismissed the action.\n20.  On 24 January 2001, on the applicant's appeal, the Regional Court quashed the District Court's judgment of 16 March 2000 and remitted the case to the latter for re‑examination. The Regional Court found that, despite having been instructed to do so in the decision of 30 April 1999, the District Court had failed to examine the material situation of the defendant adequately.\n21.  On 31 October 2002 the District Court ruled that the defendant had been obliged to contribute to the applicant's maintenance from 30 October 1997 o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1305", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Joensuu. He is a member of the Finnish Bar. The other 17 applicants were his clients at the relevant time (“the client applicants”).\n8.  On 26 January 1999 the police conducted a search – it is not entirely clear of which premises – based on the suspicion that the first applicant's clients X and Y (not client applicants before the Court) had committed aggravated debtor's fraud. In the course of that search X managed to destroy the original of a promissory note which the police had attempted to seize and which may have been relevant to the financial arrangements underlying the suspected offence.\n9.  At the time the first applicant's status in the investigation had been that of a witness. On 22 February 1999 the police requested him to attend for questioning in this capacity. This request was apparently cancelled before he had taken any action thereon.\n10.  A police officer in charge of the criminal investigations granted a search warrant and on 2 March 1999 seven officers of the National Bureau of Investigation (keskusrikospoliisi, centralkriminalpolisen), assisted by a tax inspector and an enforcement official (ulosottomies, utmätningsman), searched the first applicant's law office, flat and vehicles. This search warrant was likewise based on the suspicion that X and Y had committed aggravated debtor's fraud but the first applicant was now indicated as a suspect, namely that he had aided and abetted the offences by drafting certain documents.\n11.  Under the terms of the warrant the search aimed at examining “the documents, computers and archives of the law office” as well as the first applicant's flat and vehicles “so as to investigate the share transactions by the limited liability company [H.] in 1998 and to find material relating to those transactions”.\n12.  During the search of his law office all of the first applicant's client files were allegedly perused. The police also examined all floppy disks and examined his note books pertaining to his meetings with clients. In addition, the hard disks in the office computers were copied: two were copied on the spot and two computers, including the one used by the first applicant himself, were seized for later disk-copying on police premises. Those computers were returned on 4 March 1999.\n13.  The first applicant's computer also contained software for electronic mail, including his private and professional messages.\n14.  A fellow member of the Bar assisted the first applicant during part of the search.\n15.  On 4 March 1999 the first applicant requested the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Joensuu to revoke the seizure as being unlawful. On 24 March 1999 the court nevertheless maintained it, noting that the first applicant was suspected of aiding and abetting aggravated debtor's dishonesty.\n16.  On 11 May 1999 the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Eastern Finland upheld the District Court's decision and on 25 November 1999 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the first applicant leave to appeal.\n17.  On 4 May 1999 the police certified the return of three of the four hard disks and that they had destroyed any copies thereof. They stated however that they would retain a copy of the fourth hard disk until the lawfulness of the seizure had been finally decided or until the material could be destroyed for any other reason.\n18.  In June 1999 three of the applicants (nos. 2-3 and 8) requested the Dist", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1306", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, a limited liability company, was incorporated on 6 September 1995 by a decision of the Didube District Court of Tbilisi, Georgia. The second applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Tbilisi.\n6.  In 1995 the Amat Shipping Company Limited and the second applicant founded a limited liability company called Amat-G, the applicant company, in Georgia. The second applicant was appointed general manager of that company.\n7.  Amat-G imported fish products from African countries to Georgia. In the years 1996-98, the company paid more than 1,000,000 United States dollars (USD) (approximately 970,874 euros (EUR)[1]) to the State budget in taxes and was considered by the State Tax Department to be a “large tax payer”.\n8.  In 1998-99 Amat-G supplied the Georgian Ministry of Defence with various types of fish products at different prices.\n9.  However, the Ministry of Defence paid only part of the amount due to Amat-G.\n10.  On 29 October 1999 the applicants brought civil proceedings against the Ministry of Defence in the Tbilisi Regional Court for breach of contract and consequential damage, claiming a total of 662,526 Georgian laris (GEL) (EUR 296,771).\n11.  In a judgment of 6 December 1999, the Panel for Civil and Commercial Affairs of the Tbilisi Regional Court partly allowed the action of the applicant company, ordering the Ministry of Defence to pay the company compensation of GEL 254,188 (EUR 113,860).\n12.  The judgment was never challenged and became binding on 6 January 2000.\n13.  On 22 March 2000 the applicants appealed to the execution department of the Ministry of Justice, requesting the immediate enforcement of the judgment.\n14.  On 23 March 2000 the enforcement officer of the execution department ordered the Ministry of Defence to pay the applicant company, voluntarily, within one month.\n15.  Upon the expiry of that period, the enforcement officer initiated the forcible execution procedure against the Ministry of Defence. He sent the centre of expertise of the Ministry of Justice a list of non-military buildings that could be put up for sale by tender in order to discharge the debt. However, that was the only step taken and the judgment of 6 December 1999 remained unexecuted.\n16.  On 10 July 2000 the Ministry of Defence appealed to the Tbilisi Regional Court, seeking a stay of execution of the judgment of 6 December 1999, in accordance with the provisions of Article 263 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Regional Court dismissed the ministry's request on 3 August 2000, concluding that “postponement of the enforcement would negatively affect the applicant company's interests and violate the principle of an equitable and adversarial hearing”. The ministry was consequently obliged to enforce the judgment without delay, yet it still failed to pay the debt.\n17.  During the same period, Amat-G signed a contract with the Amat Shipping Company Corporation on 19 January 2000 for the lease of a ship at a monthly rate of USD 45,000 (EUR 43,689).\n18.  On 20 January 2000 Amat-G contacted the Ministry of Defence, explaining that the money owed to it by the ministry was the only means which the applicant company had to pay for the lease of the ship. The applicant company waited eight months in vain to obtain payment of the debt from the Ministry of Defence. Meanwhile, the bill for the lease of the ship had risen to USD 511,200 (EUR 496,311). Amat-G also claimed that it had lost USD 1,344,421 (EUR 1,305,263) in business pr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1307", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Haarlem.\n9.  The applicant worked as a freelance photographer from the mid-1970s until the early or mid-1980s, but developed pulmonary and psychiatric problems. On 15 December 1988 he applied to the New General Occupational Association (Nieuwe algemene bedrijfsvereniging – “the NAB”) for a disability pension under the General Labour Disability Act (Algemene Arbeidsongeschiktheidswet – “the AAW”).\n10.  On 20 November 1989 the NAB gave a decision refusing the applicant such a pension on the ground that he had not at any time been unfit for work for fifty-two consecutive weeks, his disability having continued beyond such a period. The decision was signed on behalf of the NAB by the managing director of the Haarlem district branch of the Joint Administration Office (Gemeenschappelijk Administratiekantoor), per procurationem.\n11.  On 18 December 1989 the applicant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal (Raad van Beroep), the administrative tribunal competent in social security cases at the time. During the course of the proceedings, he was subjected to various medical examinations.\n12.  On 12 November 1991 the Appeals Tribunal dismissed the applicant's appeal on the ground that he had been sufficiently fit for alternative work.\n13.  On 22 November 1991 the applicant lodged a further appeal with the Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep). He submitted his grounds of appeal on 18 May 1992.\n14.  It seems that on 29 July 1993 the President of the Central Appeals Tribunal wrote to the management board of the NAB, asking whether the applicant, as a freelance photographer, was properly insured with their occupational association.\n15.  On 9 December 1993 the NAB management board replied, acknowledging responsibility for the applicant from 1 November 1983 onwards but suggesting that from 1 September 1982 until 1 November 1983 the competent occupational association might have been the Occupational Association for the Banking and Insurance Sector, Wholesale Trade and Professions (Bedrijfsvereniging voor Bank- en Verzekeringswezen, Groothandel en Vrije Beroepen – “the OA Banks and Professions”).\n16.  On 1 March 1994 the Central Appeals Tribunal quashed the NAB's decision on the ground that, in so far as it had included an assessment of the applicant's fitness for work between 1 September 1982 and 1 November 1983, it had been taken unlawfully; the competent occupational association during this period had been the OA Banks and Professions. The NAB was ordered to give a new decision taking this fact into account.\n17.  The NAB never considered the case again.\n18.  Even before the Central Appeals Tribunal's decision, on 14 January 1994 the OA Banks and Professions wrote to the applicant informing him that it was assuming responsibility for his social insurance for the period from 1 November 1975 until 1 November 1983. By a decision of the same date, it refused the applicant an AAW pension on the ground that he had not been unfit for work for fifty-two consecutive weeks between 1 November 1975 and 1 November 1983. This decision, like the NAB's decision of 20 November 1989, was signed per procurationem by the managing director of the Haarlem district branch of the Joint Administration Office.\n19.  The applicant appealed to the Administrative Law Division of the Haarlem Regional Court – the regional courts having by then succeeded the appeals tribunals as the competent first-instance tribunals in social sec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1308", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Mr Eduardo A.A. Mathew, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1973. As far as the Court is aware, he is currently living in Providence, Rhode Island, United States.\n10.  The applicant, a kickboxing instructor by trade who also had business interests, was arrested on Aruba on 9 October 2001 on a charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm. He was placed in detention on remand in the Aruba Correctional Institution (Korrektie Instituut Aruba – “the KIA”).\nAruba is a “country” (land) of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (see paragraph 125 below). It is one of a group of Caribbean islands known as the Dutch Leewards. Its climate is tropical.\n11.  The applicant and the Government disagreed on many of the events that occurred after the applicant had been placed in detention.\n12.  It appears that on 16 November 2001 a dispute took place between the applicant and a prison guard, after which the applicant was placed in solitary confinement in the punishment cell (cachot).\n13.  The applicant alleged that on 17 November 2001 he had been surreptitiously drugged, after which some guards had come in and ill‑treated him. He stated that a bag had been placed over his head and that when he came to he was lying on the floor in his own blood, covered in urine. He also stated that he had not been let out of the punishment cell for fresh air until 29 November and that he had never received any medical attention despite asking for it.\n14.  On 29 November 2001 a violent incident took place in which the then acting governor of the KIA, Mr B.F.C. Vocking, was seriously injured. The applicant was subsequently charged with inflicting grievous bodily harm on him (see below). For his part, the applicant denied having harmed Mr Vocking; according to his version of events, when entering his cell Mr Vocking had bumped into a prison guard, Mr Janga, and had fallen to the floor.\n15.  On 4 January 2002 the interim prison governor, Mr F.A. Maduro, who had by that time replaced Mr Vocking, ordered that the applicant be subjected to a special detention regime: he was to spend the remainder of his detention in the committal cell (gijzelaarscel), a solitary confinement cell located next to the punishment cell. In addition, the special regime applicable to the applicant was to comprise the following ten points:\n“1.  Under no circumstances may [the applicant] leave his cell without handcuffs and fetters; 3.  Outdoor exercise [luchten] shall take place in the space located behind the multi-purpose area for one hour a day, to be decided by the head of department of the internal service or, in his absence, the CMK team leader; 5.  Visits by, among others, counsel, probation officers [reclassering], social workers, the medical service and spiritual counsellors, shall take place in his cell where possible; 10.  The prisoner shall also be allowed mail, books and, for example, magazine subscriptions [leesmappen] which are being circulated, once they have been censored.”\n16.  On 20 February 2002 the applicant's lawyers, Mr Loth and Mr Römer, wrote to the public prosecutor responsible, Ms Hemmes-Boender, complaining about the applicant's treatment leading up to the events of 29 November 2001. It was stated that the acting prison governor, Mr Vocking, had entered the punishment cell with two prison guards, Mr Janga and Mr Van der Biesen, to interrogate the applicant about some threats he had allegedly made to a prison guard. When the applicant refused to cooperate, they ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1309", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic of the Russian Federation.\n5.  On 11 January and 14 December 1999 the Yakutsk Town Court granted the applicant’s claims against his former employer, a public company “Sakhaavialinii” (ОАО Авиакомпания «Сахаавиалинии», “the company”), and ordered payment of wage arrears and court fees.\n6.  It appears that the judgments could not be enforced as the company went bankrupt. In July 2000 the court bailiffs forwarded the writs of execution to the company’s receiver.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant sued the receiver. He claimed that the amounts outstanding should be adjusted for inflation.\n8.  On 17 January 2003 the Neryungri Town Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to appear at the hearings of 27 December 2002 and 17 January 2003, despite having been duly notified thereof. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.\n9.  In March 2004 the applicant for the second time sued the company’s receiver, asking to increase the amounts to take account of the inflation.\n10.  On 5 May 2004 the Yakutsk Town Court dismissed his claim because the company had been declared bankrupt in 2003 and had ceased to exist. On 30 June 2004 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic upheld the judgment on appeal.\n11.  The applicant brought a civil action against the Russian Government. He sought to enforce a State-issued promissory note for the purchase of a Russian-made car or to recover the monetary value thereof.\n12.  On 6 June 2000 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant’s action and awarded him 63,000 Russian roubles (“RUR”, EUR 2,360). The judgment was not appealed against and it became final and enforceable.\n13.  The applicant was issued with a writ of execution which he submitted to the court bailiffs’ service. On 26 April 2001 a bailiff of the 2nd Interdistrict Court Bailiffs’ Service of the Central Administrative District of Moscow refused to accept the writ because the law on budget for the year 2001 and the implementing Government regulation, introduced in December 2000, established that writs against the Treasury were to be submitted directly to the Federal Treasury.\n14.  On 13 August 2001 the applicant sued the Neryungri Department of the Federal Treasury seeking enforcement of the judgment of 6 June 2000 and adjustment of the judgment debt for inflation. His claim was dismissed in the final instance on 5 December 2001 by the Supreme Court of the Sakha Republic as having no grounds in the domestic law.\n15.  On 24 October 2001 the applicant also complained about the allegedly unlawful decision of the Moscow bailiff’s service to the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow. On 24 December 2002 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint in the final instance. It found that the bailiff had acted lawfully. The applicant received a copy of the judgment on 19 July 2003.\n16.  The judgment of 6 June 2000 remains unenforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1310", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Poznań, Poland.\n5.  On 17 June 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody for a period of three months on suspicion that he had committed three counts of armed robbery. It considered that that measure was indispensable in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, having regard to the serious nature of the offences in question and the severity of the anticipated penalty. Lastly, it considered that, given the way in which the offences in question had been committed, the applicant might attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony.\n6.  During the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged several times.\n7.  On 19 August 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged his detention until 16 December 1999, relying on the grounds originally given for his detention. It further referred to the need to take various investigative measures and obtain expert evidence. It also considered that the complexity of the case justified the prolongation of the applicant's detention with a view to securing the proper conduct of the investigation. The applicant appealed against that decision, relying on his poor health.\n8.  On 13 October 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal, having regard to the medical report of 28 September 1999 which concluded that the applicant could remain in detention.\n9.  On 8 December 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged his detention until 16 June 2000, finding that it was highly probable that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged. In that respect, it referred to evidence given by a certain A.Ł., a member of the same criminal group, who acted as a witness against the other suspects. The Court of Appeal further relied on the need to obtain and secure evidence, in particular from experts in ballistics, biology and fingerprints. It stressed that it was also necessary to hold a reconstruction of the crime and to confront the suspects with each other. It also considered that the scale and the nature of the offences in question justified the applicant's continued detention. The applicant appealed against that decision.\n10.  On 8 February 2000 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed his appeal. It had regard to the serious nature of the offences in question and the need to obtain further evidence. It further emphasised the complexity of the case and considered that the applicant's continued detention was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n11.  On 24 May 2000 the Supreme Court extended the applicant's detention until 15 December 2000, considering that the strong suspicion against him of having committed the serious offences with which he had been charged, the severity of the anticipated sentence and the risk of his tampering with evidence justified holding him in custody. It found that the present case was “particularly complex” within the meaning of Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to, inter alia, the nature of the offences and the number of suspects involved.\n12.  On 13 December 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the detention of the applicant and his 8 co-suspects pending investigation until 31 March 2001. On 7 March 2001 it ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 31 May 2001. It repeated the grounds stated in its previous decisions. It added that the prolongation of the ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1311", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Rumia, Poland.\n5.  On 31 August 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed a series of armed robberies in an organised group.\n6.  On 1 September 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand pending the investigation. It considered that in the light of the evidence obtained in the investigation, there was a strong likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. The District Court also noted that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant could induce witnesses to give false testimonies or obstruct the proper course of the proceedings by other unlawful means, since he had not admitted the offences and the investigation was pending. Lastly, the District Court had regard to the severity of anticipated penalty.\n7.  On 18 November 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged the applicant's detention until 29 February 2001.\n8.  On 16 February 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) ordered that the applicant and a certain T.M., a second detained suspect, be held in custody pending investigation until 30 June 2000. It held that the continued detention was justified by the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. That suspicion was based primarily on evidence given by a certain A.Ł., another member of the same criminal group, who acted as a witness against the other suspects. The Court of Appeal also considered that the continued detention was necessary in view of the serious nature and scale of the offences in question. Furthermore, it was also justified by the need to obtain evidence from many sources.\n9.  On 10 April 2000 the Supreme Court upheld that decision. It added that prolongation of detention was necessary given the organised character of the criminal activities of the applicant and T.M.\n10.  On 20 June 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 30 August 2000. In addition to the grounds previously given, it observed that that the applicant's detention was justified by the complexity of the investigation and the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed.\n11.  On 10 July 2000 the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor laid additional charges against the applicant.\n12.  On 17 August 2000 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy), on an application from the Prosecutor General (Prokurator Generalny), extended the applicant's detention until 15 December 2000. It found that the strong suspicion against the applicant of having committed the serious offences in question, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the need to obtain further evidence warranted holding him in custody.\n13.  Meanwhile, seven other persons were charged and detained in connection with the same set of offences.\n14.  On 13 December 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal, on an application from the Gdańsk Prosecutor of Appeal (Prokurator Apelacyjny), prolonged the applicant's detention pending the investigation until 31 March 2001. It reiterated the original grounds given for his detention. Taking into account the nature of the offences, the Court of Appeal added that the fact that the charges against all the nine suspects were closely interrelated justified a fear that, once released, they might obstruct the proceedings. It also referred to the particular complexity of the case. Furthermore, it noted t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1312", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Reda, Poland.\n5.  On 27 January 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed armed robbery. On 29 January 1999 the Tczew District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that he be detained on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the fear that he might tamper with evidence. The court also observed that other measures designed to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings would be insufficient, given the fact that at the time of the commission of the offence the applicant had already been released under police supervision in another case. That, in the court's opinion, convincingly showed that only detention could prevent him from committing another offence.\n6.  On 20 April 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention. It reiterated the grounds originally given for his detention. Referring to the fact that more lenient preventive measures had not prevented the applicant from having committed another offence, the court considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would abscond. Furthermore, it considered that since the applicant had not admitted the charge and that there had been other persons involved in the offence who had remained at large, there was a reasonable risk of collusion.\n7.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was several times prolonged by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). The court reiterated the grounds originally given for his detention and stressed that keeping him in custody was necessary to secure the process of obtaining evidence. The relevant decisions were given on 21 July 1999 (prolonging the applicant's detention until 31 December 1999) and 8 December 1999 (prolonging his detention until 27 January 2000). The applicant's appeals against those decisions – in which he contested the reasonableness of the charge against him – were rejected by the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n8.  On 21 January 2000 the Supreme Court prolonged the applicant's detention – which had meanwhile exceeded the 1 year's time-limit set for detention pending the investigation under Article 263 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – until 30 April 2000. It considered that the case was “particularly complex” within the meaning of Article 263 § 4 of the Code.\n9.  On 30 March 2000 the Supreme Court prolonged his detention until 30 June 2000. On 24 May 2000 the Supreme Court ordered that that term should further be prolonged until 15 December 2000. The court reiterated the previous grounds given for the applicant's detention and added that the case was very complex, given that 6 further suspects had in the meantime been charged and detained in the case and that several other potential suspects were still being searched for.\n10.  In the meantime, new charges were laid against the applicant.\n11.  Further prolongation of the applicant's detention pending the investigation were ordered by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 13 December 2000 (up to 31 March 2001) and on 7 March 2001 (up to 31 May 2001). In its decision of 13 December 2000, the Court of Appeal relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the severity of anticipated penalty. It also considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant and the other 8 detained co-suspects, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1313", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Genichesk, the Kherson region, Ukraine.\n5.  In 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Genicheskyi District Court against Mr S. (a private person) seeking recovery of a debt. On 20 August 1999 the court found for the applicant and ordered Mr S. to pay him UAH 6,975 (around 1,152 euros – “EUR”).\n6.  On 30 August 1999 the Genicheskyi District Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 20 August 1999.\n7.  According to the applicant, the judgment of 20 August 1999 has been enforced in part and he was paid UAH 3,000 (around EUR 496).\n8.  In December 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Genicheskyi District Court about the Bailiffs' Service's inactivity in respect of the enforcement of the judgment of 20 August 1999. On 16 January 2001 the court found for the applicant, declared the Bailiffs' Service's inactivity unlawful and ordered the immediate seizure of the property of Mr. S.\n9.  In March 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Genicheskyi District Court against the Bailiffs' Service seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused by the failure of the Bailiffs' Service to enforce the judgments of 20 August 1999 and 16 January 2001.\n10.  On 4 May 2001 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs' Service to pay the applicant UAH 5,500 (EUR 909) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The court held that due to the failure of the Bailiffs' Service to immediately seize the property of Mr S., as it had been ordered by the judgment of 16 January 2001, the latter had sold a substantial part of his property. The court further held that the Bailiffs' Service had failed to sell the part of the debtor's property, which had been seized.\n11.  On 25 May 2001 the Genicheskyi District Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 4 May 2001. On 20 November 2001 the Kherson Regional Department of Justice appointed the Novotroitskyi District Bailiffs' Service to be responsible for the enforcement of the aforementioned judgment.\n12.  On 29 July 2002 the Novotroitskyi Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the Genicheskyi Bailiffs' Service was being funded from the State Budget and it did not have its own assets suitable for seizure.\n13.  On 14 June 2002 the Novotroitskyi Bailiffs' Service applied to the Genicheskyi District Court seeking the interpretation of the way in which the judgment of 4 May 2001 should be enforced. On 7 August 2002 the court refused this application, stating that the judgment needed no further interpretation or clarification.\n14.  On 29 December 2002 the Novotroitskyi Bailiffs' Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings and returned the execution writ to the applicant on the grounds that the Genicheskyi Bailiffs' Service did not have its own assets and was financed by the Ministry of Justice.\n15.  The applicant did not challenge the decision of the Novotroitskyi District Bailiffs' Service of 29 December 2002 before the domestic courts.\n16.  The judgment of 4 May 2001 remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1314", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1954 and 1960, respectively, and live in the city of Kirovograd, Ukraine.\n8.  Until 1998 the applicants served as career officers in military unit A-425. In 1998, the applicants retired.\n9.  Upon retirement, the applicants were entitled to different types of compensation and payments. As these entitlements went unpaid, they instituted proceedings in the Cherkassy Garrison Military Court against military unit A-0425 for their recovery.\n10.  On 13 August 1998 the court found for Mr Svintitskiy and awarded him UAH 2,376.37[1].\n11.  On 24 September 1998 the court found for Mr Goncharov and awarded him UAH 670[2].\n12.  These court decisions were not appealed and came into force. The execution writs were sent to the Kirovograd Bailiffs' Service for enforcement.\n13.  Between March 1999 and March 2000 the applicants lodged numerous complaints with the local departments of justice and defence and with the local prosecutor's office about the non-enforcement of the judgments in their favour.\n14.  By letter of 6 September 1999, the head of the economic department of the Ministry of Defence informed the applicants that the judgments in their favour remained unenforced due to the lack of sufficient funding from the State Budget.\n15.  By letter of 12 January 2000, the Kirovograd District Prosecutors' Office informed the Mr Svintitskiy that the judgment in his favour could not be enforced due to the lack of funds of the debtor, and the impossibility of attaching the debtor's property since it belonged to the State.\n16.  On 1 August 2001 the judgment in favour of Mr Goncharov was enforced in full.\n17.  On 17 September 2001 the judgment in favour of Mr Svintitskiy was enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1315", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Dniprodzerzhynsk, Ukraine.\n5.  On 27 October 2000 the Arbitration Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the State Company “Prydniprovskyi Khimichnyi Zavod” (the “PKZ”) – a State-owned enterprise.\n6.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bagliyskyi District Court against the PKZ seeking recovery of salary arrears. On 9 August 2001 the court awarded the applicant UAH 2,201.58 (around 324 euros – “EUR”) in salary arrears and other payments.\n7.  On 5 July 2004 the applicant was informed by a letter from the Bailiffs' Service that the judgment in her favour was not enforced due to a large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against it. The Bailiffs also informed her that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.\n8.  The judgment in the applicant's favour remains to a large extent unenforced (UAH 2,192.58 (EUR 325)), as only UAH 9.00 (around EUR 1.32) were paid to her.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1316", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Mr Constantin Becciev, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1955 and lives in Chişinău. He is the head of the Chişinău Public Water Company.\n9.  On 21 February 2003 he was arrested by the Department of Criminal Investigation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on charges of embezzlement.\n10.  On 23 February 2003 a criminal investigator in charge of the case applied to the Centru District Court for an order to remand the applicant in custody for thirty days. The reasons invoked by the investigator were the following:\n“Becciev committed a serious offence, he might abscond from the investigation authorities and from the court, he might influence the participants in the investigation and the discovery of the truth and the sanction provided by law for the offence is imprisonment for more than one year”.\n11.  On 24 February 2003, following a hearing where the applicant and his lawyers were present, the Centru District Court issued an order for his remand in custody for twenty-five days. The court’s reasoning was the following:\n“the suspect has reached the age at which he may be criminally prosecuted, he is suspected of having committed a serious offence, he might abscond from the investigation authorities and from the court and he might influence the witnesses and the discovery of the truth”.\n12.  The applicant’s lawyers lodged an appeal against the order, arguing inter alia, that the decision to remand the applicant was groundless. They stated that the proceedings had been pending since 2001 and that during that time the applicant had never obstructed in any way the investigation. He had travelled abroad on many occasions and returned every time and he had always behaved irreproachably as regards the investigation. He was a well-known and respectable man and he had a family and a house and many reputable people were prepared to act as surety if he were to be released in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Chişinău Municipal Council and the leader of a parliamentary opposition party also declared their intention to act as surety for him in order to secure his release. The lawyers also stated that the applicant was ready to give up his passport. They finally alleged that the applicant’s detention was politically motivated and had been implemented to coincide with the approaching local elections.\n13.  They requested that the applicant be present in person at the hearing, but the request was dismissed, together with the applicant’s appeal following a hearing on 4 March 2003 by the Chişinău Regional Court. In dismissing the appeal, the court did not rely on any other arguments than those relied upon by the first instance court.\n14.  Meanwhile the applicant was detained in the remand centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Chişinău.\n(a)  The applicant’s submissions\n15.  According to the applicant, the conditions of detention were inhuman and degrading. The cell was damp, the window was closed by metal plates and the electric light was always on. The cells were not provided with ventilation. As a result of the damp, the inmates’ clothes were wet and rotted on their bodies. Instead of a toilet, there was a bucket which was not separated from the rest of the cell. Instead of beds, there were wooden shelves with no mattresses, pillows, blankets or bed linen. The inmates were denied the opportunity of a daily walk. There was no means of maintaining hygiene in the cell. There was no shower and", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1317", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Rumia, Poland. The application was lodged on his behalf by his mother, Mrs Teresa Jarzyńska, who submitted a duly signed written authorisation from the applicant.\n5.  On 1 June 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed several counts of armed robbery. It considered that there was a risk that the applicant would attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or to obstruct the proceedings by other unlawful means. It also relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty.\n6.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged on the following dates: 19 August 1999, 24 November 1999, 24 May 2000, 13 December 2000 and 7 March 2001.\n7.  In its decision of 13 December 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) considered that the strong suspicion against him of having committed the serious offences with which he had been charged, the severity of the anticipated sentence and the risk of his tampering with evidence justified holding him in custody.\n8.  On 10 May 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor terminated the investigation. On 15 May 2001 the applicant was indicted on 45 charges, including, inter alia, several counts of armed robbery before the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The bill of indictment listed 120 charges brought against 19 accused, who were all detained on remand. The case-file comprised 114 volumes. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 366 witnesses. The principal witness was a certain A.Ł., who was indicted together with all the defendants but gave evidence against them.\n9.  The trial began on 28 December 2001. However, as of April 2002 the reading out of the bill of indictment by the prosecution was still continuing.\n10.  During the trial, the applicant's detention was prolonged several times by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. The relevant decisions were given on 23 May 2001 (extending the applicant's detention until 31 October 2001), on 24 October 2001 (ordering his continued detention until 31 March 2002), on 13 March 2002 (prolonging his detention until 30 September 2002), on 11 September 2002 (extending that period until 31 December 2002), on 18 December 2002 (ordering his continued detention until 30 June 2003), on 25 June 2003 (prolonging that period until 31 December 2003), on 17 December 2003 (extending his detention until 30 June 2004), on 23 June 2004 (ordering his continued detention until 31 December 2004), on 15 December 2004 (prolonging his detention until 31 March 2005) and on 30 March 2005 (extending that period until 30 June 2005). As at the latter date, 8 of the 19 accused were still detained on remand and the trial court had heard most of the prosecution witnesses.\n11.  In its decision of 11 September 2002, the Court of Appeal considered that the applicant's detention was justified under Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since that provision established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant might induce him to obstruct the proceedings.\n12.  In its decision of 18 December 2002, the Court of Appeal added that the case was “particularly complex” within the meaning of Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n13.  In its decision of 23 June 2004, the Court of Appeal observed that up to April 2003 the main reason for ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1318", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Konstantynivka, the Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 22 December 1997 the Kostyantynivskyi Town Court ordered the Avtosklo State Company to pay the applicant UAH 2,462 (406 euros – “EUR”) in salary arrears.\n6.  On 15 January 1998 the Kostyantynivskyi Town Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment.\n7.  On 22 June 1998 the Donetsk Regional Arbitration Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor.\n8.  On 18 February 2002 the debtor was declared bankrupt and the liquidation proceedings were initiated against it.\n9.  On 6 February 2003 and 23 February 2004 the applicant was informed by two letters from the Bailiffs' Service that the judgment in his favour was not enforced due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the latter's lack of funds. The applicant was also informed that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.\n10.  The judgment of 22 December 1997 remains unenforced.\n11.  In March 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kostyantynivskyi Town Court against the Avtosklo State Company seeking compensation for the delay in payment of the judgment debt of 22 December 1997.\n12.  On 29 March 1999 the court found against the applicant. On 17 May 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court upheld the decision of the first instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1319", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the city of Lysychansk, the Lugansk region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 20 April 2001 the Lysychansk City Court ordered the Melnikova State Mine to pay the applicant UAH 3,727.39 (around EUR 488) in salary arrears.\n6.  On 3 May 2001 the Lysychansk City Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment.\n7.  On 4 March 2002 the Bailiff's Service informed the applicant that the Mine's property has been under a tax lien since 1998 and it lacked funds to pay the judgment debt.\n8.  On 30 May 2003 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the Mine.\n9.  According to the Government, on 28 November 2003 the sum awarded by the judgment at issue was transferred to the applicant's bank account.\n10.  According to the applicant, he received that amount on 15 December 2003.\n11.  On 1 December 2003 the Bailiffs' Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the judgment of the Lysychansk City Court of 20 April 2001 had been enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1320", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Lisichansk, the Lugansk region.\n5.  In 1982 the applicant had a serious accident at work and from that time onwards was entitled to occupational disability benefit – including compensation for a purchase of a car designed for disabled persons – from the Chernomorka coal mine (a State owned entity, hereafter “the Coal Mine”).\n6.  On 11 June 2001 the Lisichansk City Court awarded the applicant UAH 14,490 (approximately EUR 2,360) against the Coal Mine for its failure to pay compensation for a car.\n7.  The judgment became effective and was sent for execution to the Lysychansk City Bailiffs' Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs' Service”), which on 14 July 2001 instituted enforcement proceedings in the applicant's case.\n8.  On 12 November 2001 the Lisichansk City Court informed the applicant that the attachment and sale proceedings concerning the Coal Mine's assets were suspended due to the moratorium on the forced sale of the property of State-owned enterprises.\n9.  On 29 November 2001 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered the Coal Mine's liquidation, designating the Ukrvuglrestrukrutizatsyya Company as its successor. The coal mine's liquidation commission was established and on 18 February 2002 it was entrusted with the enforcement of the applicant's writ of execution.\n10.  On 5 June 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered that the Ukrvuglrestrukrutizatsyya Company split up and its funds be divided between the Luganskuglrestrukrutizatsyya and the Donetskvuglrestrukrutizatsyya Companies.\n11.  On 15 April 2004 the writ of execution was returned unenforced to the Bailiffs' Service, which reopened the enforcement proceedings. On account of the liquidation of the coal mine and the Ukrvuglrestrukrutizatsyya Company the Bailiffs' Service on 6 July 2004 suspended the proceedings pending the replacement of the debtor in the applicant's case.\n12.  From the parties' submissions it appears that the judgment in the applicant's favour remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1321", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Ankara.\n11.  The applicant is the owner of “Yurt Books and Publishing”, a small independent firm that has published numerous books in Turkey. The applicant was subjected to several criminal prosecutions for having published certain books between 1991 and 1994 which were held by various State Security Court to constitute propaganda against the indivisible unity of the State.\n12.  As a result, the applicant was convicted, in most cases, under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law No. 3712) and sentenced to periods of imprisonment ranging from six months to two years, as well as fines. After the changes to the Prevention of Terrorism Act on 27 October 1995, the proceedings against the applicant were re-opened and the applicant's sentences commuted to fines, where not otherwise completed. Following the entry into force on 4 August 1997 of Law No. 4304 on the deferment of the judgments and of the execution of sentences in respect of offences committed by editors before 12 July 1997, the ongoing criminal proceedings against the applicant were suspended. Most of the books were confiscated.\n13.  In all, the applicant served a total of one year, five months and twenty days in prison and paid the equivalent of 5,121 euros (EUR) in fines.\n14.  A chronology of the various proceedings is annexed to the present judgment.\n15.  This book was a compilation of interviews given by the author, İsmail Beşikçi, to various foreign and national newspapers, some of which were never published. The Istanbul State Security Court highlighted certain extracts to support the applicant's conviction:\n“Kürt sorununun odak noktasının Kürdistan'ın bölünmesi ve paylaşılması olduğunu düşünüyorum, bugün Iran'ın bir Kürdistanı var, Irak'ın bir Kürdistanı var, Türkiye'nin bir Kürdistanı var... Kürt ulusuna karşı böl yönet politikası uygulanmıştır...\n...Türkiye'de Kürtlere karşı yoğun bir devlet terörü var, Yani terörü devlet yapıyor. Örneğin devlet şöyle işler yapıyor Kürdistanda: Çoçukları bir duvarın dibine diziyor. Duvarın karşı tarafta da çocukların babalarını veya dedelerini diziyor. Karşılıklı iki ev. Bir tarafta babalar, dedeler işkence görüyorlar, diğer tarafta da onlarin çocukları ...\n...Kürdistan ulusal mücadelesinin çok onurlu, sonsuz derecede meşru bir mücadele olduğu kuşkusuzdur. Kürdistan'da kapsamlı, yoğun ve onurlu bir gerilla mücadelesi sürerken, yurt dışında olmanın bu mücadeleye aktif olarak katılamamanın yurt dışındaki kürtler için çok büyük bir güçlük oluşturduğunu düşünmekteyim ... Kürdistan ulusal kurtuluş mücadelesine katılmanın, bu onurlu mücadeleyi desteklemenin binbir türlü yolu vardır... Kürdistan ulusal mücadelesi içinde yeralan bütün işçilere, bütün köylülere, aydınlara, gerilaya katılan genç erkeklere ve kadınlara, gerilayı destekleyen herkese, gerilla mücadelesinin önderliğini yürüten bütün kadrolara, başkan Apo'ya binlerce selam olsun ...”\n<Translation>\n“I think the focal point of the Kurdish problem is the division and partition of Kurdistan. Today, Iran has a Kurdistan, Iraq has a Kurdistan, [and] Turkey has a Kurdistan. ... The policy of divide and rule was applied to the Kurdish Nation. ...\n...There is intense State terror against the Kurds in Turkey ... For example, the State is doing the following in Kurdistan: It is assembling children next to the wall. On the other side of the wall, it is assembling their fathers or grandfathers. Two houses facing each other. On the one side, fathers and g", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1322", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Jarocin.\n5.  On 20 April 1993 the applicant lodged a petition for a divorce with the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).\n6.  The Poznań Regional Court held hearings on 24 August and 7 October 1993, 13 January and 26 April 1994.\n7.  On 1 June 1994 the court ordered an expert opinion. It was submitted to the court on 29 August 1994.\n8.  Further hearings were held on 15 November 1994, 7 February 1995, 25 April 1995, 10 August 1995, 7 November 1995 and 16 May 1996.\n9.  On 5 June 1996 the applicant specified his claim and accepted that custody rights be granted to his wife.\n10.  On 13 September 1996 the court ordered fresh expert evidence. The court requested the Department of Psychology of the Poznań University to expedite the preparation of the opinion on the applicant's child's emotional development.\n11.  On 21 January 1997 the hearing was adjourned, in order to give the experts more time to prepare the opinion.\n12.  On 24 January 1997 the court requested the Psychology Department to send back the case file and to submit the opinion. The file was sent back on 21 March 1997; however, no opinion was submitted.\n13.  On 21 April 1997 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice about the length of the proceedings. On 3 June 1997 the Ministry of Justice examined the facts and considered that the applicant's complaint was justified.\n14.  The court held further hearings on 26 June 1997, 23 July 1997, 18 September 1997, 24 November 1997, 26 January 1998, 16 March 1998, 20 April 1998, 8 June 1998 and 13 July 1998.\n15.  On 26 August 1998 the applicant sent another letter to the Ministry of Justice complaining about the length of the proceedings. In September 1998 the case was put under the administrative supervision of the Ministry of Justice.\n16.  The Department of Psychology of the Poznań University failed to submit the relevant expert opinion. As a consequence, the court ordered a new expert opinion on 6 October 1998.\n17.  On 4 December 1998, upon the applicant's further complaint, the Ombudsman examined the case and considered the complaint justified. The Ombudsman requested the President of the Poznań Regional Court to take the necessary steps to accelerate the proceedings.\n18.  On 22 February 1999 and 8 March 1999 the court held hearings.\n19.  On 22 March 1999 the Poznań Regional Court gave judgment and dissolved the applicant's marriage. The court awarded parental rights to both parents and ordered that the child's permanent residence be with the applicant.\n20.  Both parties to the proceedings appealed. On 5 November 1999 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and upheld the first-instance judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 7 January 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1323", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in the town of Makeyevka, the Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 8 April 1998 the Girnytskiy District Court (the Girnytskiy Court) ordered the State Joint Stock Company “Cheluskintsyv mine” (the Mine) to pay the applicant UAH 6,388[1] in compensation for the applicant's occupational disability.\n6.  In November 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Petrovskiy District Court (the Petrovskiy Court) against the Mine seeking recovery of disability allowance debt and compensation for loss of earnings and for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 9 December 1998 the Petrovskiy Court found in part for the applicant and ordered the Mine to pay him UAH 6,496.59[2] for disability allowance debt, in compensation for loss of earnings and for damages.\n8.  The applicant did not appeal in cassation against this decision.\n9.  On an unspecified date the President of the Donetsk Regional Court, following the applicant's complaint, lodged a protest with the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court seeking initiation of supervisory review proceedings in respect of the decision of the Petrovskiy Court of 9 December 1998. On 24 March 1999 the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court allowed the protest, quashed the decision of 9 December 1998 as to part of the award and remitted this part of the case for a fresh consideration.\n10.  On 17 June 1999 the Petrovskiy Court found in part for the applicant and ordered the Mine to pay the applicant a lump sum of UAH 2,443.19[3] and a monthly allowance of UAH 146.29[4] for an unlimited period of time in compensation for loss of earnings. The court held that the applicant was entitled to payment of the monthly allowance from 1 June 1999.\n11.  By a separate procedural decision of the same date, the court rejected the remainder of the applicant's claim on the ground that on 8 April 1998 the Girnytskiy Court had delivered a judgment in the case between the same parties relating to the same facts.\n12.  The applicant did not appeal in cassation against the judgment or separate procedural decision of the Petrovskiy Court of 17 June 1999.\n13.  On 9 June 2000 a judge of the Supreme Court of Ukraine informed the applicant that the Deputy President of that court had rejected the applicant's request for supervisory review of the decisions of the Petrovskiy Court of 9 December 1998 and 17 June 1999 and the decision of the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court of 24 March 1999.\n14.  On 3 June 1998 and 1 July 1999, respectively, the Petrovskiy District Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments of the Girnytskiy Court of 8 April 1998 and of the Petrovskiy Court of 17 June 1999.\n15.  In October 1999 the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice (the “DRDJ”) informed the applicant that the above judgments were not executed due to the debtor's lack of funds and to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against it. The DRDJ further stated that the applicant was number 57 on the creditors' waiting list in respect of enforcement of the judgments in his favour and that he had been paid UAH 100[5] to date.\n16.  By letter of 30 January 2001, the Petrovskiy District Bailiffs' Service (the Bailiffs' Service) informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been suspended from January 1999 to June 2000 pending the bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor and that the judgments were not enforced due to the debtor's lack of funds. I", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1324", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Chişinău. He worked as the secretary of the Chişinău Municipal Council.\n7.  On 8 October 2004 the Prosecutor General initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for alleged abuse of power under Article 327 § 2 of the Criminal Code, in relation to a purchase of 40 ambulances by the Chişinău Mayoralty.\n8.  On 12 November 2004 the applicant was arrested by officer G.G. from the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (CFECC). On 15 November 2004 the Buiucani District Court issued a warrant for his remand in custody for 10 days. The reasons given by the court for issuing the warrant were that:\n“The criminal file was opened in accordance with the law in force. [The applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious offence for which the law provides imprisonment for more than two years; the evidence submitted to the court was obtained lawfully; the isolation of the suspect from society is necessary; he could abscond from law enforcement authorities or the court; he could obstruct the finding of truth in the criminal investigation or re-offend”.\n9.  On 18 November 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal partly quashed that decision and adopted a new one, ordering the applicant’s house arrest. The court found that:\n“The [lower] court did not commit any procedural mistakes, but taking into account that [the applicant] has a permanent place of residence, has no criminal record, is ill and requires treatment in conditions of non-isolation from society and that there is no specific information about the probability of his absconding from the law-enforcement authorities, the [court] considers that in the present case the normal flow of the criminal investigation will be ensured if the accused is subjected to the preventive measure of house arrest. The [court] also notes that the criminal file was opened on 8 October 2004 and that on 13 and 16 November 2004 the applicant was summonsed by the [law-enforcement authorities] as a witness, but on 12 November 2004 he was taken into custody, and no newly discovered circumstances requiring his detention were submitted. Besides, it is necessary to take into account the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the offence with which the applicant is charged is also punishable with a fine.”\n10.  On 19 November 2004 the applicant was again arrested on suspicion of having committed the offence of exceeding the limits of his powers in exercising a public function, contrary to Article 328 § 1 of the Criminal Code, in relation to the same purchase of ambulances referred to in paragraph 7 above. The reason given for the arrest was that “eye witnesses can testify that this person has committed a crime”.\n11.  On 22 November 2004 the President of the Buiucani District Court issued a warrant for his detention for 10 days. The reasons given by the court for issuing the warrant were that:\n“[the applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious offence, for which the law provides imprisonment for more than two years; the evidence submitted to the court was obtained lawfully; the isolation of the suspect from society is necessary; he could abscond from law enforcement authorities or the court; he could obstruct the finding of the truth in the criminal investigation or re-offend”.\n12.  The applicant submitted arguments against the necessity of applying the preventive measure of detention and focused on his ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1325", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the village of Krichka, the Ivano-Frankivs'k region of Ukraine.\n5.  In 1987 the applicant's family was placed on the waiting list to receive an apartment from the State. By 1990 the applicant was first on the housing list. Nevertheless, the Executive Committee of the Dzvinyach Village Council, by a decision of 12 October 1990, gave an available apartment to another person. The applicant instituted proceedings in the Ivano-Frankivs'k Regional Court against the executive committee of the Village Council, challenging its decision.\n6.  On 30 August 1991, the Ivano-Frankivs'k Regional Court found for the applicant and ordered the Village Council to assign the disputed apartment to the applicant. On 30 October 1991, the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the Regional Court.\n7.  In 1996, as the judgment in her favour remained unenforced, the applicant requested the Bogorodchansky District Court to change the manner of enforcement and to order the Village Council to build her a house. On 7 October 1996, the court satisfied the applicant's request and changed the manner of execution accordingly.\n8.  In 1997, as the judgment was still unenforced, the applicant requested the same district court to change the manner of execution again and to award her the pecuniary equivalent of the disputed apartment. On 16 June 1997, the Bogorodchansky District Court satisfied the applicant's request and awarded her UAH 29,600[1] in compensation.\n9.  On 28 December 2000, the Head of the Bogorodchansky District Department of the State Bailiffs' Service issued an order to freeze all the current bank accounts of the Village Council in order to secure the payment of the judgment debt in the applicant's favour.\n10.  On 26 January 2001, the Dzvinyach Village Council challenged the order of 28 December 2000 in the Bogorodchansky District Court. The enforcement proceedings were accordingly suspended.\n11.  On 12 February 2001, the Bogorodchansky District Court found in part for the Village Council and quashed the order of the Bailiffs' Service with respect to two principal accounts containing the budget funds for social payments, salaries, etc. By the same decision the court allowed the other accounts of the debtor to be frozen.\n12.  The applicant lodged a protest with the Deputy Chairman of the Ivano-Frankivs'k Regional Court to challenge this decision. The Deputy Chairman rejected her protest by his letter of 20 April 2001. On 8 October 2001, the panel of three judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal under the new cassation procedure.\n13.  On 21 November 2002 the court decision of 16 June 1997 was enforced in full and the Bailiffs ended the enforcement proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1326", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Belfast.\n8.  The applicant was the chair of the Irish Republican Felons Club[1], a registered social club operating on the Falls Road, Belfast. In May 1997, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (“RUC”) carried out a search of the premises and removed many documents.\n9.  The applicant was subsequently required to attend for interview with a financial investigator appointed under the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. He did so on 27 January 1998 and answered all questions put to him.\n10.  On 16 April 1998, the applicant was charged by the police with false accounting and conspiracy to defraud.\n11.  On 2 June 1998, a further notice was served on the applicant under the 1996 Order, requiring his attendance before financial investigators at a police station on 11 June 1998. The maximum penalty for failure to attend an interview was six months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding GBP 5,000. The notice, which was dated 1 June, stated that the investigation was into whether any person had benefited from theft or false accounting, contributing to the resources of a proscribed organisation or from contraventions of betting regulations. The applicant was required to attend at Woodbourne Police Station on 26 June 1998.\n12.  On 9 June 1998, the applicant's solicitors sent a letter seeking a written guarantee that no information or statements obtained during the interview would be used in criminal proceedings.\n13.  On 16 June 1998, a further notice, dated 16 June, was served on the applicant, again requiring him to attend the interview on 26 June 1998. The notice was served with a letter in which the investigators confirmed that they were aware of the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant. They set out the safeguards in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the Order, and stated that the applicant therefore had the guarantees he sought. They added that paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 restricted the disclosure of information obtained by a financial investigator, and added that “this does not prevent the answers or information being used to further the investigation”.\n14.  On 22 June 1998, the applicant's solicitor sent a letter to the financial investigators indicating that the applicant's replies could become admissible evidence at a trial and suggesting that the purpose of the interview was to compel him to disclose his defence. He added that the applicant had been advised not to attend an interview unless a satisfactory response to the letter was received.\n15.  On 23 June 1998, the applicant's solicitor was informed by letter that the reason for the interview was not to force the applicant to disclose his defence but that a number of matters from the earlier interview required clarification and additional matters had also arisen.\n16.  On a request by the investigators, on 25 June the applicant's representatives informed the investigators that the applicant would not attend the interview. The interview did not take place.\n17.  On 14 September 1998, a summons charged the applicant with the offence of failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the financial investigator's requirement to answer questions or otherwise furnish information, contrary to paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 2 to the 1996 Order. On 25 February 1999, the applicant was convicted of this offence in the Magistrates' Court and fined the sum of GBP 200.\n18.  On 5 July 2002, the Belfast County Court allowed the applicant's appeal a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1327", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in the town of Novogrodivka, the Donetsk region of Ukraine.\n5.  In 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivka Town Court against the “Novogrodivska” Mining Company - a State-owned enterprise - to recover unpaid salary.\n6.  On 21 July 1999 the Novogrodivka Town Court found in favour of the applicant (рішення Новогродівського міського суду Донецької області) and awarded him UAH 2,567.06[1] in salary arrears and compensation for delay in their payment. The decision was not appealed and became final.\n7.  On 5 August 1999 the Novogrodivka Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новогродівського міського управління юстиції) initiated enforcement proceedings. However, the decision was not executed.\n8.  In June 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivka Town Court against the Bailiffs' Service for failure to execute the court decision in his favour. On 7 July 2000 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs' Service to enforce the judgment of 21 July 1999. Nevertheless, the latter remained unenforced until 2 July 2003, when it was finally executed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1328", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the city of Novovolynsk, the Volyn region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 2 August 2000 the applicant suffered an industrial injury and lost 80% of his capacity to work.\n6.  On 30 January 2002 the Novovolynsk City Court ordered the Novovolynska State Mine (the “Mine”) to pay the applicant UAH 65,767.80[1] in compensation for the applicant's occupational disability. By the same decision, the court ordered the Novovolynsk Department of the Social Security Fund to pay the applicant a lump sum of UAH 2,301.30[2] and a monthly allowance of UAH 615.05[3] for a period of one year in compensation for loss of earnings.\n7.  On 22 March 2002 the Novovolynsk City Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings against the Mine.\n8.  On 18 April 2002 the Bailiff's Service informed the applicant that the judgment was not enforced due to a large number of enforcement proceedings against the Mine and its lack of funds. The Bailiffs also informed her that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.\n9.  In 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Novovolynsk City Court about the inactivity of the Head of the Bailiffs' Service in respect of the enforcement of the judgment at issue. On 26 November 2002 the court found for the applicant, declared the Bailiffs' Service's inactivity unlawful and ordered its Head to carry out supervision of the enforcement of the judgment by the Bailiffs' Service.\n10.  On 27 December 2002, 24 March, 15 August and 19 December 2003 the applicant was paid a total of UAH 3,200[4] in the course of the enforcement of the award against the Mine.\n11.  On 28 January 2004 the sum of UAH 58,917.80[5] was transferred to the applicant's bank account, out of which the applicant's bank deducted a fee of UAH 589.04[6].\n12.  On 26 March, 28 April and 17 June 2004 the applicant received UAH 2,550[7], UAH 900[8] and UAH 200[9], respectively.\n13.  On 17 June 2004 the Bailiffs' Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the judgment of the Novovolynsk City Court of 30 January 2002 in the part concerning the award against the Mine had been enforced in full.\n14.  The applicant did not challenge the decision of the Bailiffs' Service of 17 June 2004 before the domestic courts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1329", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicants were born in 1961 and 1962 respectively and live in Rosny-sous-Bois.\n13.  In the spring of 1996 Mrs Draon began her first pregnancy. The second ultrasound scan, carried out in the fifth month of pregnancy, revealed an anomaly in the development of the foetus.\n14.  On 20 August 1996 an amniocentesis was carried out at Saint‑Antoine hospital, run by Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP‑HP). The amniotic fluid sample was sent for analysis to the establishment’s cytogenetics laboratory (headed by Professor T.) with a request for karyotype and digestive enzyme analysis. In September 1996 T. informed the applicants that the amniocentesis showed the foetus had “a male chromosomal pattern with no anomaly detected”.\n15.  R. was born on 10 December 1996. Very soon, multiple anomalies were observed, particularly defective psychomotor development. The examinations carried out led to the conclusion that there was a congenital cardiopathy due to a “chromosomal anomaly”.\n16.  When informed of this T. admitted that his service had made the wrong diagnosis, the anomaly having already been entirely detectable at the time of the amniocentesis. He stated: “Concerning the child Draon R., ... we regret to have to say that there was indeed an asymmetry between the foetus’s two copies of chromosome 11; that anomaly or peculiarity escaped our attention”.\n17.  According to the medical reports, R. presents cerebral malformations causing grave disorders, severe impairment and permanent total invalidity, together with arrested weight gain. This means that it is necessary to make material arrangements for his everyday care, supervision and education, including ongoing specialist and non-specialist treatment.\n18.  On 10 December 1998 the applicants sent a claim to AP-HP seeking compensation for the damage suffered as a result of R.’s disability.\n19.  In a letter dated 8 February 1999 AP-HP replied that it “[did] not intend to deny liability in this case” but invited the applicants to “submit an application to the Paris Administrative Court which, in its wisdom, will assess the damage for which compensation should be paid”.\n20.  On 29 March 1999 the applicants submitted to the Paris Administrative Court a statement of their claim against AP-HP, requesting an assessment of the damage suffered.\n21.  At the same time the applicants submitted to the urgent applications judge at the same court a request for the appointment of an expert and an interim award.\n22.  In a decision of 10 May 1999 the urgent applications judge of the Paris Administrative Court made a first interim award of FRF 250,000 (EUR 38,112.25) and appointed an expert. He made the following points, among other observations:\n“[AP-HP] does not deny liability for the failure to diagnose the chromosomal anomaly which the boy R. is suffering from; ... having regard to the non-pecuniary damage, the disruption in the conditions of their lives and the special burdens arising for Mr and Mrs Draon from their child’s infirmity, AP-HP’s liability towards them in the sum of 250,000 francs may be considered, at the current stage of the investigation, not seriously open to challenge”.\n23.  The expert filed his report on 16 July 1999 and confirmed the seriousness of R.’s state of health.\n24.  On 14 December 1999, in a supplementary memorial on the merits, the applicants requested the Administrative Court to assess the amount of the compensation which AP-HP should be required to pay.\n25.  AP-HP’s ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1330", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Ivanec Zaprešički, Croatia.\n5.  On 4 December 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking non-pecuniary damages for injuries he had suffered in a traffic accident.\n6.  On 29 October 1997 the Zagreb Municipal Court gave judgment awarding part of the damages sought.\n7.  On appeal, on 9 February 1999 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings, the court held two hearings and gave another judgment on 18 March 2002. It again awarded part of the damages sought. The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 July 2002.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 5 July 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining about the length of the proceedings. On 7 November 2002 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint inadmissible, since the Municipal Court had given its judgment in the case.\n10.  On the respondent’s appeal, on 17 December 2002 the Zagreb County Court again quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings, the court held two hearings and concluded the main hearing on 13 May 2004. However, since the presiding judge had been dismissed from office, the main hearing was reopened and, subsequently, a judgment given on 16 December 2004.\n12.  The proceedings are currently pending before the Zagreb County Court, following an appeal against the above judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1332", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1965 respectively and live in Bouligny.\n13.  In 1990 the applicants had their first child, A., who was born with type 1 infantile spinal amyotrophy, a genetic disorder causing atrophy of the muscles.\n14.  In 1992 Mrs Maurice became pregnant again. A prenatal diagnosis conducted at Nancy University Hospital revealed that there was a risk of the unborn child’s being afflicted by the same genetic disorder. The applicants chose to terminate the pregnancy.\n15.  In 1997 Mrs Maurice, who was pregnant for the third time, again requested a prenatal diagnosis. This was conducted at Briey General Hospital, which sent the sample to the molecular diagnosis laboratory of the Necker Children’s Hospital Group, run by Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (“AP-HP”). In June 1997, in the light of that laboratory’s diagnosis, Briey General Hospital assured the applicants that the unborn child was not suffering from infantile spinal amyotrophy and was “healthy”.\n16.  C. was born on 25 September 1997. Less than two years after her birth it became apparent that she too suffered from infantile spinal amyotrophy. On 22 July 1999 a report by the head of the laboratory at the Necker Children’s Hospital in Paris revealed that the mistaken prenatal diagnosis was the result of transposing the results of the analyses relating to the applicants’ family and those of another family, caused by the switching of two bottles.\n17.  According to medical reports, C. presents grave disorders and objective signs of functional deficiency – frequent falls from which she is unable to get up unassisted, unsteady walk, tiredness at any effort. She needs the assistance of another person (particularly at night in order to turn her over so as to prevent her from suffocating, since she is unable to turn over alone). She cannot sit on her own and moves around with an electric scooter. She has to receive treatment several times a week and cannot be admitted to school because the latter is not suitably equipped. Her family doctor has expressed the view that “one must have reservations until the time of puberty both about motor and respiratory functions and about possible orthopaedic deformations”. These facts gave rise to several sets of proceedings.\n18.  On 13 November 2000 the applicants submitted a claim to AP-HP seeking compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of C.’s disability.\n19.  They also submitted to the urgent applications judge at the Paris Administrative Court a request for an interim award and for an expert to be appointed. The latter was appointed by an order issued on 4 December 2000.\n20.  In an order made on 26 April 2001, the urgent applications judge at the Paris Administrative Court dismissed the request for an interim award on the ground that, as the expert had not yet delivered his report, “AP-HP’s obligation to pay [could] not be regarded as indisputable”.\n21.  The expert submitted his report on 11 June 2001, concluding that on the occasion of the prenatal diagnosis conducted at the AP-HP laboratory there had not been medical negligence, because “the techniques employed [had been] consistent with the known scientific facts”, but there had been “negligence in the organisation and functioning of the service causing the transposition of results between two families tested at the same time”.\n22.  The applicants lodged a further application, asking for the hospital to be ordered to pay them an ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1333", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a Russian national, born in 1959 and living in the Perm Region.\n5.  By a first instance judgment of 24 October 1997 the Perm Regional Court sentenced the applicant to nineteen years’ imprisonment for murder and rape. On 19 February 1998 the judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court and came into force.\n6.  On 20 January 1999 the Regional Court reversed the conviction by reference to newly discovered circumstances and remitted the case for a fresh investigation to a prosecutor. On 8 February 1999 the prosecutor took a decision fully to acquit the applicant.\n7.  Thereafter the applicant brought court proceedings against the State, claiming damages for the wrongful conviction and unlawful detention for twenty months.\n8.  On 20 July 2001 the Lysva Town Court of the Perm Region examined and granted his action. The court took account of the circumstances of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his conviction, including total length of his remand in custody which was of one year, eight months and twenty one days, and related after-effects, such as personal anxiety, anguish and feeling of isolation. The applicant was awarded RUR 70,000 (~2,740 euros) in damages to be paid by the Ministry of Finance.\n9.  On 11 September 2001 the decision was upheld by the Perm Regional Court and came into force.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant obtained an execution writ and forwarded it, together with supporting documents, to the bailiffs’ service. By two letters of 30 March and 21 May 2001 the bailiffs refused to institute enforcement proceedings and returned the writ and documents to the applicant. They stated, in particular, that under the legislation in force execution writs issued against the State should be submitted directly to the Ministry of Finance (see the relevant domestic law section below).\n11.  The applicant followed the instruction and applied to the said Ministry. Upon receipt of the documents on 13 November 2001, the Ministry discovered that the address and details of the debtor in the writ had been mistaken. By a letter of 2 June 2002 the Ministry returned the documents to the applicant.\n12.  Having obtained an amended writ from the court, on 3 October 2002 the applicant re-submitted the documents. They reached the Ministry on 11 October 2002. By a letter of 4 June 2003 the Ministry informed the applicant that the new writ was invalid in that it did not contain a submission period and again returned him the documents.\n13.  On 20 June 2003 the applicant sent off the documents and 15 October 2003 the Ministry of Finance transferred him the money due pursuant to the decisions of 20 July and 11 September 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1334", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Zenzeli village, the Limanskiy District of the Astrakhan Region.\n8.  In 1986 the applicant took part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result the applicant suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. In 1996 and 1997 the applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between the applicant’s poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. The applicant was awarded compensation, to be paid monthly.\n9.  In 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against the Welfare Office of the Limanskiy District of the Astrakhan Region (Отдел социальной защиты населения Лиманского района Астраханской области - “the defendant”) for an increase in the compensation, for backdating the increase and recovering of the unpaid amount. The applicant considered that the amount of compensation had been determined incorrectly.\n10.  On 3 November 1999 the Limanskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region established, upholding the applicant’s claim, that the applicant was entitled to a monthly compensation of 5,045.73 roubles (RUR). The court established that the debt accrued as a result of previous underpayment was RUR 108,892.07. It also awarded the applicant RUR 60,000.00 as a penalty payment.\n11.  By a decision of 14 December 1999 the Astrakhan Regional Court, acting on appeal, upheld the judgment as to the amount of the monthly payment and the principal debt, but reversed the penalty award. The judgment entered into force and enforcement proceedings were instituted. Both parties lodged requests for supervisory review of the courts’ decisions.\n12.  On 17 March 2000 the Astrakhan Regional Court stayed the enforcement proceedings, pending the consideration of the defendant’s request for supervisory review.\n13.  The defendant’s request for supervisory review was refused by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 13 April 2000.\n14.  On 22 May 2000 the Limanskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region resumed the enforcement proceedings.\n15.  By a decision of 15 August 2000 the President of the Astrakhan Regional Court refused the applicant’s request for supervisory review.\n16.  On 15 September 2000 the Limanskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region granted a request by the Astrakhan Regional Office for Welfare Payments (Астраханский областной центр по начислению и выплате пенсий и пособий) to suspend the enforcement proceedings. The enforcement was stayed until 1 December 2000 to allow the authorities to “decide how to finance the court awards involving the recalculation of compensation to the victims of the Chernobyl catastrophe”.\n17.  On 17 October 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused the applicant’s request for supervisory review of the suspension order.\n18.  On an unspecified date, following a request made by the Astrakhan Regional Office for Welfare Payments, the President of the Astrakhan Regional Court brought an extraordinary appeal against the judgments of 3 November 1999 and 14 December 1999.\n19.  On 27 December 2000 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court examined the appeal and quashed both the judgment of the Limanskiy District Court of the Astrakhan Region dated 3 November 1999 and the judgment of the Astrakhan Regional Court dated 14 December 1999. The Presidium decided that the subordinate courts had wrongly determined the amount of monthly compensation. In particular, they had", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1335", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants were born in 1966, 1973 and 1971 respectively and live in Diyarbakır.\n11.  The first and the third applicant are lawyers. The first and the second applicants were members of the Human Rights Association and the third applicant was the president of the HADEP Diyarbakır provincial headquarters at the time of the events.\n12.  Following information received by the gendarmes that there was a meeting related to the PKK in the provincial headquarters of the HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi-People’s Democracy Party) and the Diyarbakır branch of the Human Rights Association, the police officers at the Diyarbakır Security Directorate, after receiving authorisation from the Diyarbakır Governor’s Office and a search warrant from the judge at the State Security Court upon the request of the public prosecutor at that Court on 27 February 1995, conducted a search on the premises and arrested the applicants together with eleven other persons.\n13.  On 27 February 1995 the applicants were handed over to the gendarmes at the Diyarbakır Provincial Gendarmerie Command.\n14.  According to the report drafted by the gendarmerie on 28 February 1995, at the HADEP headquarters, the police seized eight ERNK (National Liberation Front of Kurdistan) and PKK flags, a PKK emblem, sixty-five books and nine VHS videotapes about the PKK, seven audio tapes and documents addressed to the Secretary General of the European Parliament. They also found a pistol on one of the suspects.\n15.  On 9 March 1995 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor and the State Security Court. The latter ordered their remand in custody.\n16.  On 22 March 1995 the public prosecutor at the State Security Court filed an indictment with the latter accusing the applicants and the other suspects of having made propaganda on behalf of the PKK. He requested that the applicants and other detainees be convicted and sentenced for membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n17.  On 1 May 1995 the State Security Court, taking into account the charges and the evidence against the applicants, ordered their release pending trial.\n18.  On 8 April 1996 the State Security Court acquitted the applicants of all charges. It held that the materials found in the search could have been placed there by anyone and that apart from their statements in custody, which the applicants claimed to have given under duress, there was no evidence to convict them.\n19.  On 16 April 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the aforementioned judgment.\n20.  On 26 November 1997 the first applicant filed a petition with the Diyarbakır Assize Court under Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained. On 30 December 1997 the Diyarbakır Assize Court awarded the applicant an amount of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage to compensate the periods he spent in detention. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 29 September 1998.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1336", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company is a joint stock company with its seat in Pakrac, Croatia.\n5.  On 21 and 23 August 1991 the Croatian police requisitioned several vehicles belonging to the applicant company.\n6.  In March 1995 the applicant company instituted civil proceedings in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia. It based its claim on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.\n7.  On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”). The amended legislation provided that all proceedings for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army and the police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.\n8.  On 21 January 2000 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation.\n9.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”).\n10.The proceedings resumed on 5 November 2003 and are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1337", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n11.  The facts surrounding the disappearance of İhsan Haran are disputed between the parties. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (see paragraphs 13-22). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (see paragraphs 23‑26).\n12.  A summary of the relevant documents submitted by the parties have been set out separately in Sections D (see paragraphs 27-29) and E (see paragraphs 30-53) respectively. In summarizing the documents submitted by the parties, the Court has used the names of persons as cited in these documents. They do not necessarily reflect the correct spelling of the names of these persons.\n13.  On an unspecified date one of the applicant’s brothers and a paternal cousin joined the PKK. At that time the applicant and İhsan Haran approached the Lice public prosecutor’s office and told the prosecutor that they were not in the least responsible for anything the brother and the cousin did and that the brother and the cousin had become involved in the PKK without the knowledge of the applicant or İhsan Haran. The public prosecutor said that he did not intend to open any kind of case against the applicant or İhsan Haran because of these events. In any event, İhsan Haran would hide in the forest when soldiers would come to the Arıklı village where they were residing.\n14.  On 12 May 1994 the applicant and her husband together with their children moved from their village to Diyarbakır after their village was destroyed by the security forces. They did not consider it appropriate to give their new address to the authorities.\n15.  On 24 December 1994 the applicant’s husband İhsan Haran did not return from the construction site of the Diyarbakır underground market where he had been working for the previous eight days. The applicant and other family members did not find this unusual because if there was extra work he would remain at work and not return home.\n16.  On 27 December 1994 Mr Fahri Hazar, a co-villager, came to the applicant’s house and told her that on the morning of 24 December 1994 an identity check had been carried out by uniformed police officers at the construction site where İhsan Haran had been working and that while they were checking İhsan Haran’s identity papers, they started arguing amongst themselves. This argument lasted for some ten minutes and then the police officers took İhsan Haran away.\n17.  On 30 December 1994 Mr Fahri Hazar was arrested and taken into police custody.\n18.  After learning that her husband was arrested by the police officers, the applicant tried to file a petition with the public prosecutor’s office at the State Security Court in order to learn of his whereabouts. However, she was prevented from submitting her petition by the police officers standing in front of the State Security Court. She and other family members tried to see the public prosecutor for about a month without success.\n19.  The applicant then started visiting several prisons in order to find out whether anyone had seen her husband. She met one person, whom requested from the applicant not to be named, who was placed in the Dormitory 31 at the Diyarbakır E-type prison and who told her that he had seen İhsan Haran in custody.\n20.  On 1 February 1995 İhsan Haran’s brothers were taken into custody. In a statement dated 7 September 2004 given to their own legal representative, they said that while they w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1338", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  In 1982 the applicant, together with her relative A.M, purchased a flat in Crikvenica. The purchase agreement did not contain any provision on the shares of ownership of the flat.\n6.  On 23 May 1989 A.M. instituted civil proceedings before the Crikvenica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Crikvenici) seeking declaration of her ownership of two-thirds of the flat. On 29 October 1989 the applicant filed a counterclaim, seeking declaration that she was the owner of seven-eighths of the flat.\n7.  Following two remittals, on 18 June 1996 the Crikvenica Municipal Court ruled that A.M. was the owner of three-fifths and the applicant of two-fifths of the flat.\n8.  On appeal, on 8 October 1997 the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) upheld the first-instance judgment.\n9.  On 20 October 1998 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law (revizija) against the County Court’s judgment. On 4 April 2002 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed her appeal as ill-founded. The decision was served on the applicant on 13 September 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1339", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1958, 1978 and 1980, respectively, and live in Rijeka.\n5.  On 7 August 1995 the first applicant’s husband - the second and third applicant’s father - was killed by an unidentified member of the Croatian Army, during a military operation.\n6.  On 4 June 1998 the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci) seeking damages from the State. They based their claim on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.\n7.  On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”). The amended legislation provided that all proceedings for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army and the police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.\n8.  On 14 November 2001 the Rijeka Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation. The applicants’ appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) on 25 September 2002.\n9.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”).\n10.  On 13 October 2004 the applicants’ proceedings resumed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1340", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Lilienthal in Germany.\n9.  Since 1973 the applicant, her sister M. and their mother S. were the joint owners of a plot of land situated in Bremerhaven. The lease of the plot was managed by a partnership consisting of the applicant, M., S. and a limited company (S company). Partners of the S company were also the applicant, M. and S. Over the years, serious arguments arose between the applicant on one side and her mother and sister on the other side about questions of the proper administration of the partnership, in particular in respect of taxation matters.\n10.  By letter dated 28 March 1986, the applicant filed an action with the Bremen Regional Court (Landgericht Bremen), sitting as a court competent in commercial matters (Kammer für Handelssachen), against S., M. and the S company (hereafter “the defendants”). According to the Government’s submissions – which are contested by the applicant – the Regional Court received the action on 11 June 1986. The applicant asked the Regional Court to prohibit the defendants from excluding her from the management of the business. She also demanded that the defendants surrender all annual accounts since 1973 and that they distribute the net profits accordingly. The applicant alleged that the defendants had failed to consult her about the management. She further complained about mistakes in the management, in particular about the fact that the defendants insisted on paying business taxes without being obliged to do so.\n11.  On 21 July 1986 the applicant’s counsel stated that the applicant was willing to reach a friendly settlement.\n12.  On 30 September 1986, during a first oral hearing, the parties declared that they were willing to reach an understanding and only thereafter hold another hearing.\n13.  On 4 November 1986 the applicant’s counsel informed the Regional Court that negotiations on a settlement had not taken place.\n14.  On 20 March 1987, during a further hearing, the Regional Court’s continuing efforts to induce the parties to agree on a friendly settlement failed. However, S. agreed to submit all documents on the annual accounts since 1973 to the applicant’s counsel for inspection.\n15.  On 27 July 1987 the applicant’s counsel informed the Regional Court that S. had failed to comply.\n16.  On 11 August 1987 the Regional Court scheduled an oral hearing which was subsequently postponed on the applicant’s request.\n17.  On 6 November 1987 S. agreed to submit the relevant documents on the annual accounts since 1975 to the applicant’s counsel.\n18.  On 30 December 1987 the Regional Court instructed the defendants to submit the partnership agreements and the annual accounts since 1973 and to disclose the use of the reported profits. It further instructed the applicant to quantify her claims.\n19.  In December 1987 and January and April 1988 the Regional Court called for the case-file of a separate law suit which the applicant conducted against the partnership’s former tax consultant. On 4 February 1988 – according to the Government’s submissions, which are contested by the applicant – the defendants submitted the annual balances and reported on the use of the profits.\n20.  On 15 June 1988 the presiding judge noted that “particularly on emotional grounds, the sensible pursuit of progress in this case” was not possible before a final decision had been reached in the proceedings against the tax consultant.\n21.  On 24 July 1989 the applicant complied with ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1341", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 29 November 1991 the Croatian army requisitioned a vehicle belonging to the applicant. The vehicle was damaged beyond repair in a traffic accident on 16 May 1993.\n6.  On 19 January 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the Republic of Croatia. He based his claim on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.\n7.  On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”). The amended legislation provided that all proceedings for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army and the police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.\n8.  On 3 July 2000 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation.\n9.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”).\n10.  On 18 December 2003 proceedings resumed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1342", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Sławno, Poland.\n5.  On 5 August 1993 the Housing Co-operative “Wybrzeże” lodged a compensation claim with the Sławno District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) claiming the amount of 27,880,200 old Polish zlotys from the applicant for unpaid interest on a loan.\n6.  On 29 October and 9 November 1993 the court held hearings. On 30 November 1993 the Sławno District Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 18 May 1994 the Słupsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the contested judgment and referred the case to the first-instance court.\n8.  On 22 November 1996 the District Court held a hearing.\n9.  On 11 December 1996 the plaintiff increased the amount of the claim. Accordingly, the case had to be transmitted to the Słupsk Regional Court, which was now competent to examine it.\n10.  The court held hearings on the following dates: 19 May 1997, 6 October 1997, 22 April 1998, 20 May 1998, 10 June 1998 and 14 September 1998.\n11.  On 19 August 1997 an expert submitted his opinion to the court.\n12.  On 23 September 1998 the Słupsk Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed. On 17 February 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.\n13.  On 23 February 1999 the applicant asked the Gdańsk Court of Appeal to be served with a copy of the judgment. On 28 July 1999 it was served on the applicant.\n14.  On 30 August 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 8 February 2001 the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, considering that the applicant had failed to satisfy the procedural requirements set out in Polish law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1343", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Ms Julieta Saviţchi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1970 and lives in Chişinău. She is a journalist.\n9.  On 2 October 1999 the Russian language newspaper “The New Order” published an article entitled “Traffic Police – My Star” signed by the applicant. The article stated inter alia that:\n“...This is quite a banal story for us regular citizens, and a normal phenomenon for the traffic inspectors. In any event, it serves as a good example of the ‘star syndrome’ suffered by the traffic inspectors.\nA person was driving his Moskvitch on Stefan cel Mare Street. Let us call him ‘Victor’. When he approached the Stefan cel Mare and Tighina crossroads, the traffic lights turned red and, like any normal person, Victor pressed the brakes. But people who abide by the rules are not always lucky. A luxurious speeding Opel ran into the old Moskvitch. Both cars were damaged, but the Moskvitch was damaged more. Victor stayed at the place of the accident, as any man believing in the strictness of the law would do, awaiting the arrival of the police and their wise and fair verdict. The owner of the ‘Opel’ though, aware of his guilt, hit the gas and disappeared.\nBefore long a Sergeant of the traffic police arrived and began to take measurements and investigate, making notes in a note book. At the height of the investigation the owner of the Opel arrived, but without his car. He waited until the policeman finished his work, and then said that he would go to the Municipal Traffic Police Centre to solve the problem.\nAt the Municipal Traffic Police Centre the two car owners and the policeman were received by a person of a venerable age with the epaulets of a Sergeant-Major (later we found out that he worked in the emergency department). The owner of the Opel addressed him in a very friendly way, calling him ‘Jora’. The Sergeant-major Jora approached the young Sergeant, who investigated the accident, and asked him in a way more like an order than a question: ‘How many years have you been working for the Traffic Police?’ – Two years... ‘But I worked for twenty years; therefore you should listen to me. Don’t write anything, let the people come to an agreement themselves and the guilty one (i.e. the owner of the Opel) pay to the second one approximately 30 Moldovan Lei (MDL). In any event his car is a flea-pit, and there is no need to make a lot of fuss.’\nThe owner of the ‘flea-pit’, who cannot be considered a wealthy man, almost lost the power of speech when he heard that. How was it possible to offer him such a petty sum for his severely damaged car? Since the victim would not agree, Sergeant-Major Jora and the owner of the Opel increased somewhat the amount, bargaining for each leu. Afraid that he would not get anything, Victor agreed to the sum of MDL 75. He later had his car fixed by some acquaintances, who laughed at him for being fooled like a boy. Victor spent a little bit more than MDL 200 for the repair – a sum that might seem ridiculous to some traffic inspectors. For Victor though, this is really big money. But it is not the money, that he’s worried about, but the way he was treated at the Traffic Police Centre, in particular this Sergeant-Major Jora, who treated him as a man from the lowest strata, almost as a nonentity. After a few days Victor went to Jora and asked for his driver’s licence back. The Sergeant-Major promised to return the driver’s licence, but only on condition that Victor paid a fine of MDL 18. Victor was dumb", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1344", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 29 March 1993 the applicant brought an action against the Bratislava II Housing Cooperative (Stavebné bytové družstvo), of which she had formerly been a member, in the Bratislava II District Court (at that time Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd). She challenged a decision of the defendant of 26 October 1992 concerning her entitlement to a new flat and the procedure applied by the defendant in dealing with her appeal against it.\n6.  On 16 December 1993 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicant provided further particulars of her action in that she was seeking a ruling declaring that she had the right to the new flat.\n7.  On 13 January 1994 the District Court ruled that the applicant had a right to the new flat in question. The defendant challenged the judgment by an appeal (odvolanie).\n8.  On 13 October 1994 the Bratislava Regional Court (at that time Mestský súd, at present Krajský súd) held a hearing of the appeal and invited the defendant to submit further evidence which the defendant did on 27 October 1994.\n9.  On 26 January 1995, following another hearing of the appeal held on the same day, the Regional Court overturned the judgment of 13 January 1994 and dismissed the action.\n10.  On 20 April 1995 the applicant challenged the judgment of 24 January 1995 by an appeal on points of law (dovolanie).\n11.  On 21 November 1995 the applicant’s lawyer informed the District Court that he was no longer representing her. As legal representation in appeals on points of law was mandatory, the District Court invited the applicant to identify her new representative on 14 December 1995 and, in the absence of a reply, again on 26 March 1996. The applicant finally replied on 25 April 1996. The appeal on points of law was then submitted to the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) for a determination.\n12.  On 4 October 1996 the Supreme Court returned the case‑file to the District Court without a decision, on the ground that the power of attorney for the applicant’s legal representation did not state expressly that it applied to proceedings on appeals on points of law as was required under the applicable procedural rules.\n13.  On 11 December 1996 and repeatedly on 21 April 1997 the District Court requested that the applicant’s lawyer correct the power of attorney, which he did on 15 July 1997.\n14.  On 28 October 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the judgments of 13 January 1994 and 26 January 1995, finding that the lower courts had determined the action in a manner in which it had never actually been formulated. As the action fell to be determined at first instance by the Regional Court, it was remitted to it.\n15.  Between 28 March and 17 October 2000 the Regional Court held 6 hearings.\n16.  On 23 October 2000, following another hearing held on the same day, the Regional Court dismissed the action. The applicant challenged the judgment by an appeal.\n17.  On 19 December 2001, following a hearing of the appeal held on the same day, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 23 October 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1345", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants, N.A., N.A., A.A., J.Ö. and H.H., were born in 1926, 1956, 1954, 1949 and 1950 respectively and live in Antalya.\n10.  After surveys had been conducted by the Land Office between 1956 and 1958, a plot of land on the coast in the locality of Karasaz (village of Çikcilli, district of Alanya, parcel no. 84) was entered in the land register in the name of R.A.\n11.  Following R.A.'s death, the applicants inherited the land and paid the appropriate taxes and duties on it.\n12.  On 25 June 1986 the applicants obtained a tourist investment certificate from the Ministry of Culture and Tourism with a view to building a hotel on the land.\n13.  On 9 July 1986 the State Planning Organisation awarded the applicants an investment incentive certificate, again for the purpose of building a hotel. Paragraph X of the certificate stated that the applicants had to obtain a tourism licence once the investment had been made.\n14.  On 28 October 1986, after the applicants had started building the hotel, the Treasury instituted proceedings in the Alanya District Court, seeking an order for the cancellation of the entry of the property in the land register and for the demolition of the hotel.\n15.  An expert report of 31 October 1986 stated that parcel no. 84 was part of the coastline and could not be the subject of an acquisition.\n16.  On 31 October 1986 the District Court made an interim order for the suspension of building work on the hotel.\n17.  An expert report of 3 March 1987 pointed out that parcel no. 84 was part of the coastline and, as such, could not be owned by a private individual.\n18.  In a judgment of 16 June 1987 the District Court ordered the cancellation of the entry in the land register and the demolition of the partially built hotel. It made the following observations:\n“[Having regard to] the expert report [and] ruling on the merits [of the case], ... having regard to the available evidence and, in particular, the photographs and all the other items in the file, the Court considers that the property in issue is part of the seashore [Deniz kıyısı]. Although coastlines remain outside the boundary delimited and fixed in decisions by certain commissions, they cannot constitute property that is subject to private ownership ... the registration of the property in the claimants' name does not confer any rights on them.”\n19.  On 9 December 1987 the District Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants against the interim order of 31 October 1986.\n20.  In a judgment of 12 February 1988 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 16 June 1987 and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n21.  In a judgment of 17 February 1989, disregarding the Court of Cassation's judgment, the District Court reaffirmed its initial ruling. It held:\n“... the disputed site is the responsibility and property of the State. In that respect there is no discrepancy with [the judgment] delivered by the plenary Court of Cassation. Even the State, when placing restrictions on the enjoyment of possessions in accordance with property law ..., cannot accept the existence of private property at such a site ... Although the property in issue in the present case was formerly situated within the coastal boundary, it was placed outside that boundary by [a decision of] the commission formed at a later date. The site was quite clearly located on a sandy beach, as, indeed, is apparent from previous judicial decisions that have become final, and from expert reports and", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1346", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Wrocław, Poland.\n9.  In 1994 two sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. The first involved a charge of theft, the second a charge of forgery. The second proceedings, which were the object of the present application, began on 14 January 1994. On that day the applicant was arrested and charged with forgery. He was released after 48 hours. As from 3 March 1994 the police unsuccessfully tried to summon him in order to take evidence from him.\n10.  On 13 October 1994 the applicant was arrested by the police under a warrant of arrest, issued on 22 June 1994 along with a “wanted” notice. He was then brought before the Wrocław District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy). The applicant made his escape while the prosecutor was taking evidence from him.\n11.  On 12 December 1994 the applicant was re-arrested by the police and brought before the Wrocław-Fabryczna District Prosecutor. He was charged with five counts of burglary and one count of escaping from lawful custody. On the same day the prosecutor detained him on remand for three months.\n12.  On 3 January 1995 the investigation was taken over by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki).\n13.  On 13 June 1995 the Regional Prosecutor charged the applicant with forgery, escaping from lawful custody and seven counts of burglary.\n14.  The investigation involved 6 suspects, including the applicant. The prosecution obtained evidence from several witnesses, 17 reports from experts in mechanics and evidence from experts in graphology.\n15.  During the investigation, at the request of the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor, the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) on three occasions prolonged the applicant’s detention. The last of the relevant decisions was given on 30 August 1995 and extended the applicant’s detention until 10 December 1995.\n16.  In all those decisions the Regional Court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and their serious nature. It also held that his detention was necessary to ensure the proper course of the proceedings, in particular as during the investigation evidence needed to be obtained from other suspects, experts and numerous witnesses.\n17.  On 8 December 1995 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Wrocław Regional Court. The applicant was indicted on charges of handling stolen goods, forgery of documents and escaping from lawful custody.\n18.  Between December 1995 and the end of 1996 the applicant lodged numerous applications for release. In particular, he asked to be released on bail. All those applications were dismissed, both at first instance and on appeal.\n19.  Neither the applicant, nor his lawyer participated in any of the sessions held by the courts in connection with his applications for release or his subsequent appeals. The sessions were held in camera. The prosecution authorities were informed of session dates and were represented either by a regional prosecutor or a prosecutor of appeal. It was recorded in the minutes of the sessions held on 19 February and 27 June 1996 before the Wrocław Regional Court and on 9 September 1996 before the Wrocław Court of Appeal that the courts made their decisions after having heard the prosecutor’s arguments. The grounds invoked by the courts are stated below.\n20.  On 19 February 1996 the Wrocław Regional Court, ruling on the applicant’s app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1347", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Gorlovka, the Donetsk Region.\n5.  On 14 September 1999 the Tsentralny District Court of Gorlovka awarded the applicant UAH 10,798.45 (approximately EUR 1,800) against the Lenina coal-mine (a State-owned entity, hereafter “the LCM”) for arrears in industrial disablement benefits. The judgment became effective and was sent for execution to the Gorlovka City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”). On 5 October 1999 the Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case.\n6.  On 31 October 2000 the Tsentralny District Court of Gorlovka, referring to the decision of the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration (hereafter “the Court of Arbitration”) of 21 December 1998, whereby the LCM was declared bankrupt, ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to transfer the writ of execution to the LCM’s liquidation commission. According to the aforementioned decision of the Court of Arbitration the liquidation commission in issue was to be comprised of representatives of the LCM’s main creditors, including the State Pension Fund, the State Property Fund, the State Tax Administration and several State owned companies.\n7.  On 17 November 2000 the applicant was informed by the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice that it was impossible to transfer the writ of execution to the liquidation commission as no such commission had in fact been created.\n8.  On 26 January 2001 the Court of Arbitration’s judge, at the applicant’s request, informed him that the commission had not produced the liquidation balance, as it was supposed to do under the bankruptcy law. The court, however, indicated that the national legislation envisaged no time-limit for that, neither did it provide any sanctions for the commission’s inactivity.\n9.  On 8 February 2001 the Court of Arbitration ordered the liquidation commission to produce the abovementioned balance.\n10.  On 26 February 2001 the meeting of the LCM’s creditors acknowledged that no liquidation commission had been established.\n11.  On 20 March 2001 the Court of Arbitration, at the request of the Ordena Zhovtnevoy Revolutsiyy State Company, suspended the bankruptcy proceedings pending the supervisory review of its decision of 21 December 1998.\n12.  On 27 March 2001 the applicant’s writ of execution was sent to the newly created liquidation commission.\n13.  On 2 July 2001 the supervisory court quashed the decision of 21 December 1998 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n14.  On 29 August 2001 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court (a former Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration) extended the term of office of the liquidation commission and, following its proposal appointed a new trustee to run the bankruptcy programme. However, the writs of execution issued against the LCM were returned to the Bailiffs’ Service without enforcement.\n15.  The Bailiffs’ Service recommenced the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case. On numerous occasions in 2001 and 2002 they attached the assets belonging to the LCM. In 2002 the applicant was paid a total of 7,533.55 (approximately EUR 1,245) in several instalments.\n16.  On 28 December 2002 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered that several coal-mines, including the LCM, merge into the Artemvugillia State Company. Accordingly, the Bailiffs’ Service undertook to replace the debtor in the applicant’s enforcement case. The proceedings resumed in 20 May 2003 when the Bailiffs’ Service levied on the Artemvu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1348", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Szczecin, Poland.\n5.  On 10 November 1990 the applicant lodged a civil action for compensation against the State Treasury - the Białystok Remand Centre with the Białystok District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). He alleged that upon his arrival in the Białystok Remand Centre, on 14 December 1989, he had been beaten and insulted by the prison guards and had subsequently not received proper medical care. The applicant claimed that in consequence of the excessive use of force against him he had sustained a spinal injury and suffered permanent disability.\nAt the first hearing held on 20 December 1990 the court appointed a lawyer under a legal aid scheme for the applicant and ordered a copy of the case‑file concerning the criminal investigation concerning the events of December 1989.\nOn 31 January 1991 the court held a hearing at which the applicant’s court‑appointed lawyer, Mr B.Z., was present. The court stayed the proceedings.\nOn 17 July 1992 the Białystok District Court resumed the proceedings. However, on 12 August 1992 it decided to stay them again in view of the fact that the criminal proceedings against the Governor of the Białystok Remand Centre were pending.\n6.  On 29 May 1995 the Białystok District Court resumed the proceedings. The court further decided that the Białystok Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) was competent to deal with the case.\n7.  On 18 January 1996 the Białystok Regional Court held the first hearing. In January 1997 the applicant was heard before the Trzcianka District Court. Between 18 September and 18 November 1997 the trial court held four hearings.\n8.  On 27 November 1997 the Białystok Regional Court gave judgment. It partly allowed the applicant’s action. The court acknowledged that the applicant had suffered moral damage as a result of the illegal actions of the state agents and awarded him compensation. The Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s allegations that the incident had caused a spinal injury and dismissed the remainder of his claims for compensation.\n9.  On 7 May 1998 the Białystok Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held a hearing and examined the appeal lodged by the State Treasury. The appellate court gave judgment in which it allowed the State Treasury’s appeal, quashed the impugned judgment, and dismissed the applicant’s action.\n10.  Subsequently, the applicant’s court-appointed lawyer refused to lodge a cassation appeal against this judgment on his behalf as he apparently found no legal grounds for it.\n11.  On 28 January 1991 the applicant lodged a civil action for compensation against the State Treasury- Szczecin Remand Centre with the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). He claimed PLN 2,500 in compensation for an accident which had occurred in 1983, during his detention in the Szczecin Remand Centre. The applicant further complained that the medical treatment he had received at the material time had been inadequate.\n12.  On 11 March 1994 the trial court held the first hearing. The applicant, who had been in detention since 1977, was not present at the hearing because he had failed to return to prison from leave. At that hearing, the court stayed the proceedings on the grounds that the applicant’s address could not be established.\n13.  On 20 November 2000 the Szczecin Regional Court resumed the proceedings.\n14.  On 24 April 2001 the trial court held a hearing at which it ordered that an expert opinion be obtained. On 13 December 2001 the court held a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1349", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Uşak.\n8.  On 15 December 1997 the applicant was arrested by the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the İzmir Police Headquarters on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, the Revolutionary Communists’ Union of Turkey (“the TIKB”, Türkiye İhtilalci Komünistler Birliği) and placed in custody.\n9.  In her statement of 18 December 1997 the applicant declared that she aided and abetted the members of the TIKB and that she provided information to the TIKB members who were held in prison.\n10.  On 19 December 1997 the applicant was brought before the Public Prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court and then before the judge, where she denied all the charges against her. She declared that her statement in police custody was taken under duress and that she had been given electric shocks. The judge ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial.\n11.  On 23 December 1997 the Public Prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court filed an indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal terrorist organisation, aiding and abetting the organisation, providing information to its members who were imprisoned and participating in the demonstrations organised by the organisation.\n12.  On 4 June 1998 the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and sentenced her to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.\n13.  On 23 June 1998 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Court of Cassation.\n14.  On 20 September 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of State Security Court.\n15.  On 14 October 2000 the Court of Cassation’s decision was deposited with the registry of İzmir State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1350", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Tököl, Hungary.\n5.  On 9 November 1994 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, a bank manager, and his accomplices on suspicion of fraud. In the ensuing proceedings, the applicant was assisted by defence counsel of his choice.\nOn 25 September 1996 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant and two other individuals charging them with fraud and other offences.\n6.  After the completion of the bill of indictment, between 1 April and 21 October 1997 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court, sitting as a first-instance court, held nine hearings. Subsequently the proceedings were halted on account of the non-appearance of a co-accused for trial and an unsuccessful motion for bias filed by the latter. The hearings resumed on 5 January 1999. Between that date and 2 June 1999 the court held 29 hearings altogether.\n7.  On 2 June 1999 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated mismanagement and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. The Regional Court relied on the testimonies of numerous witnesses, the opinions of experts and documentary evidence.\n8.  On 28 September 2000 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s sentence.\n9.  On 20 March 2001 the review bench of the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s petition for review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1351", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was chairman of the board of directors of two private limited companies, in the following referred to as “HotLine Production” and “HotLine Export”, or together “the HotLine companies”.\n5.  In the 1990’s the HotLine companies entered into business with a private limited company, henceforth referred to as “Intertex”, concerning the use of modem components. Following a dispute, in December 1994 Intertex instituted civil proceedings before the District Court of Stockholm (Stockholms Tingsrätt) against HotLine Production and in October 1995 against HotLine Export, claiming compensation for the alleged exploitation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and infringement of copyright.\n6.  The cases were dealt with in joint proceedings and by judgment of 14 July 1997 the District Court found HotLine Production liable to pay damages to Intertex in the amount of 13,180,225 Swedish kronor (SEK), equal to approximately 1,442,701 euros (EUR), for which HotLine Export was found jointly liable as to SEK 7,516,875.\n7.  On appeal, before the Court of Appeal (Svea Hovrätt) on 19 January 1998 the applicant claimed that the judgment should be set aside and the case referred back to the District Court. In support thereof he submitted that the latter had not decided whether or not some disputed printed circuits were to be regarded as trade secrets. Written observations were submitted, and on 6 October 1998 the applicant urged the Court of Appeal to remit the case to the District Court as soon a possible. His claim was refused on 22 March 1999 by the Court of Appeal, and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) was refused on 3 May 1999. In vain the applicant repeated his request in this respect on 16 April 1999 and 12 April 2000.\n8.  By decision of 30 November 2000, the Court of Appeal quashed the District Court judgment of 14 July 1997 and referred the case back to the District Court on account of procedural errors because the latter had wrongly assumed that the question whether some printed circuits were to be regarded as trade secrets was non-contentious and therefore had not determined it. Intertex’s request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the remittal was refused on 10 September 2001.\n9.  The trial took place in the period between 16 September and 2 October 2002, and on 23 October 2002 the District Court delivered its second judgment finding HotLine Production liable to pay damages to Intertex in the amount of SEK 1,742,000, equal to approximately EUR 190,678, and rejecting Intertex’s action against HotLine Export.\n10.  Both parties appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal, before which apparently the case is still pending.\nThe proceedings between Intertex and the applicant.\n11.  In the meantime, on 27 December 1995 Intertex instituted civil proceedings before the District Court of Stockholm against the applicant claiming compensation in the amount of SEK 11,325,000, an amount that was subsequently modified several times, alleging that pursuant to Chapter 15, § 1 of the Companies Act (Aktiebolagslagen) the applicant had incurred liability in his role as chairman of the board of directors for having taken various questionable measures in order to intentionally reduce the HotLine companies’ net capital. Thus, if the Hotline companies were to lose their case against Intertex, the former would not be in a position to pay any compensation which might be awarded to Intertex in these proceedings. The", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1352", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Warsaw.\n7.  On 15 April 1992 a certain company U submitted a bill of exchange in the amount of PLN 50,000 signed by the applicant and requested the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) to issue an order for payment against him and other partners in the civil association K (spółka cywilna).\n8.  On 9 June 1992 the court made the order for payment, allowing the plaintiff’s application. The applicant lodged an appeal against that order.\n9.  Subsequently, the applicant applied for exemption from the court fees. On 4 July 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) finally allowed his application.\n10.  The Warsaw Regional Court scheduled hearings for 22 May, 18 September, 23 October and 24 November 1997. However, all of them were adjourned. Between 8 December 1997 and 18 May 1998 five hearings were adjourned.\n11.  On 18 June 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment in which it upheld the Warsaw District Court’s order of 9 June 1992. The applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment.\n12.  On 12 March 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n13.  Subsequently, the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n14.  On 13 November 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1353", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in the Orenburg Region.\n8.  As of 25 August 1995 the applicant has been in receipt of his old-age pension from the social security authorities.\n9.  On 23 June 1997 the Federal Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions («О порядке исчисления и увеличения государственных пенсий», “the Pensions Law”) was adopted. It introduced a new scheme of calculating retirement benefits – “Individual Pensioner Coefficient” (“IPC”).\n10.  On 1 February 1998 the amount of the applicant’s pension was re-assessed according to the Pensions Law. The Sakmarsky District Welfare Office of the Orenburg Region (Управление социальной защиты населения Сакмарского района Оренбургской области) decided that the IPC to be applied in the applicant’s case should be 0.420.\n11.  The applicant, who believed that he was eligible to an IPC of 0.641, sued the Sakmarsky District Welfare Office for insufficient increase of his pension.\n12.  On 11 October 1999 the Sakmarskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region found that the defendant had misinterpreted the Pensions Law. It granted the applicant’s claim to apply the IPC at 0.641 for calculating his pension, increasing it by RUR 400, and awarded him arrears of RUR 3,647.82.\n13.  On 16 December 1999 the Orenburg Regional Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal, and the judgment of 11 October 1999 became final.\n14.  On 10 July 2000 the President of the Orenburg Regional Court lodged an extraordinary appeal (протест в порядке надзора) against the judgment of 11 October 1999.\n15.  On 17 July 2000 the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court examined the extraordinary appeal in the supervisory review procedure.\n16.  The Presidium found that the lower courts misinterpreted the Pensions Law. It varied the judgment of 11 October 1999 and the decision of 16 December 1999 by reinstating the applicant’s IPC at 0.420 and annulling the previously awarded increase as well as the arrears.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1354", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1961 and 1962 respectively and live in the village of Kormilovka, Omsk Region.\n8.  The applicants, a married couple, used to live in Kargasok of the Tomsk Region where they worked as veterinarians. The first applicant held the position of Head Veterinarian of the Kargasok District.\n9.  On 26 September 1996 criminal proceedings for fraud were instituted against the first applicant and an obligation not to leave the place of his residence without permission was imposed on him as a preventive measure.  On 22 October 1996 by an order of the investigator the first applicant was suspended from his employment.\n10.  In February 1998 criminal proceedings for fraud were instituted against the second applicant and an obligation not to leave the place of her residence without permission was imposed on her as a preventive measure.\n11.  The criminal proceedings against both applicants were joined on 17 August 1998. The applicants were accused of submitting false reports on business trips in order to obtain cash from the veterinary practice where the first applicant worked unlawfully.\n12.  On 17 July 2000 the applicants asked for the obligation not to leave their place of residence without permission to be cancelled. It appears that the application was not considered.\n13.  Over the course of six years the criminal case was several times remitted by the courts for additional investigation: in May 1997 and on 5 February 1998, 21 September 1999, 31 May 2000 and 31 October 2000.\n14.  In 2001 the applicants' minor son was invited to attend an interview for a place at the Omsk State Agrarian University. The applicants submitted that he did not attend the interview since neither of them was allowed to accompany him in the journey to Omsk. On an unspecified date the acting prosecutor of the Kargasok District provided the second applicant with the following letter:\n“[The letter] is given to Ms Bevia Andreyevna Fedorova ... in order to confirm that on 10-11 July 2001 she was summoned to the Prosecutor's Office of the Kargasok District, as a result of which she could not leave for Omsk together with her son and be present at ... the interview on 12 July.\n[The letter] is to be presented to the examination panel of the Institute of Veterinary Medicine at the Omsk State Agrarian University.”\nThe applicants' son, having passed general entry exams, was later admitted to the University.\n15.  On 13 August 2002 the Parabelskiy District Court of the Tomsk Region acquitted the applicants and cancelled the obligation not to leave their place of residence without permission.  On appeal, on 16 December 2002 the Tomsk Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination by a different composition of judges.\n16.  On 8 May 2003 the Parabelskiy District Court of the Tomsk Region terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicants for lack of indication that a crime had been committed. The ruling was quashed on appeal on 30 June 2003 by the Tomsk Regional Court, which remitted the case for a fresh examination to the Molchanovskiy District Court of the Tomsk Region.\n17.  The Molchanovskiy District Court convicted the first applicant of misappropriation of property held in trust and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment on 31 December 2003. He was not required to serve the sentence on account of the statutory time-bar. The second applicant was fully acquitted. The court also lifted the obligation not to leave th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1355", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Chapayevsk, Samara Region.\n9.  On 4 September 1995 the Commercial Court of the Samara Region (Арбитражный суд Самарской области) granted a claim by the applicant's employer – a private company – for recovery of damages against the Chapayevsk Social Security Service (Управление социальной защиты населения администрации г. Чапаевска).\n10.  On 15 August 1997 the applicant's employer assigned her a part of the judgment debt in the amount of RUR 114,000,000 towards salary due.[1]  The applicant applied to the Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region for execution of the judgment on 29 May 1998.\n11.  It appears that by 2001 only the amount of RUR 16,000[2] has been paid to the applicant. As the judgment had not been executed in full, in 2001 she filed a claim with the Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region against the Chapayevsk Social Security Service for recovery of the sum with interest.\n12.  The Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region dismissed the claim on 5 April 2001 on the ground that the applicant had failed to substantiate her calculation of the amount of the interest.  On 19 September 2001 the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court, following an application for supervisory review lodged by the President of the Samara Regional Court, quashed the judgment of 5 April 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n13.  On 21 June 2002 the Chapayevsk Town Court of the Samara Region dismissed the claim and indicated that the execution of judgment by the Chapayevsk Social Security Service had been carried out according to the sums allocated from the budget. Thus, in 2000 the budget estimate provided for RUR 16,000 to be paid in instalments during that year. The estimate for 2001 provided for RUR 5,000 to be paid to the applicant, and the estimate for 2002 provided for RUR 12,000, out of which RUR 5,000 was paid to the applicant as of 1 June 2002. The outstanding debt remained at RUR 87,445.\nIt is not clear whether any further payments have been made.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1356", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 15 August 1990 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava II District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd) seeking a judicial ruling declaring void his dismissal from his job earlier in 1990 and an order for payment of an amount of money by way of compensation.\n6.  On 19 August 1991 the District Court dismissed the action. On the applicant’s appeal the Bratislava Regional Court (then Mestský súd, at present Krajský súd) quashed the judgment on 29 April 1992.\n7.  On 29 October 1992 the District Court ruled that the applicant’s dismissal was void and that he was entitled to financial compensation. As to the scope of the entitlement the District Court granted a part of the claim and dismissed its reminder. No appeal was filed against the ruling concerning the validity of the dismissal and it became final and binding on 3 December 1992. However, both parties challenged the ruling concerning the compensation.\n8.  On 26 February 1993 the Regional Court quashed the part of the judgment of 29 October 1992 concerning the compensation and remitted this issue to the District Court for the taking of further evidence and re‑consideration.\n9.  In judgments of 30 May 1994, 18 March 1996 and 29 November 2002 the District Court successively granted various parts of the applicant’s claim for compensation and dismissed its remainder. These judgments were challenged by appeals, the first two by the applicant and the last one by the defendant.\n10.  In judgments of 28 March 1995, 23 May 1997 and 1 July 2004 the Regional Court, respectively, quashed the judgment of 30 May 1994 and parts of the judgments of 18 March 1996 and 29 November 2002 as there were numerous procedural and substantive errors. A minor part of the applicant’s claim has thus been allowed with final effect but by far the greater part is still pending before the District Court.\n11.  In the period from 12 October 1993 to 17 May 2005 the District Court and the Regional Court held 15 and 4 hearings respectively. Two of the hearings had to be adjourned as no representative of the defendant appeared, for which it was sanctioned by a procedural fine. A part of the claim was granted by way of an interim award; further and better particulars were obtained from the applicant; he submitted further evidence; the case was assigned to a new judge at the District Court; two members of the Regional Court chamber retired and had to be replaced; and the District Court sought an expert report concerning the calculation of the claimed amount.\n12.  On 23 November 2000, on the applicant’s petition (podnet), the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) found that the District Court had violated his right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay.\n13.  The Constitutional Court observed that it had jurisdiction ratione temporis to consider only the period after 15 February 1993 when it had been established. It nevertheless took into account the state of the proceedings at that time. The part of the proceedings within its temporal jurisdiction had lasted more than 7 years and 9 months.\nThe Constitutional Court found that the case was not of a particular complexity and noted that after the District Court’s judgment of 29 October 1992 the subject matter of the proceedings had been narrowed to the applicant’s claim for compensation. The applicant had not caused any substantial delays and what was at sta", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1357", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1952, 1965 and 1945 respectively, and live in the city of Van.\n10.  The facts of the case, particularly concerning the events which occurred between 7 and 15 September 2001, are disputed by the parties.\n11.  The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 12-17). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 18-25). The documentary evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 26-65).\n12.  Mr Ebuzeyt Aslan is the first applicant’s elder brother and is the husband of the third applicant, Mrs Türkan Aslan. Mr Halit Aslan is the second applicant’s cousin and is the husband of the fourth applicant, Mrs Nihari Aslan.\n13.  On 7 September 2001 Ebuzeyt Aslan and Halit Aslan left their homes in Van for Beytüşşebap, a town within the administrative jurisdiction of the city of Şırnak. Nothing was heard from them until 15 September 2001 when Zübeyt Aslan, a relative, received an anonymous telephone call. The caller told Zübeyt Aslan that Ebuzeyt and Halit had been killed in an operation conducted by village guards and soldiers in the Dereyatağı area (Dereyatağı Mevkii) near the Geçitli hamlet, within the boundaries of Yeşilöz village. The person then hung up. After the call, the relatives of Ebuzeyt and Halit Aslan went to the local branches of the Human Rights Association in Diyarbakır and Van to ask for assistance.\n14.  A group of 30 relatives went to the Prosecutor’s office in Beytüşşebap. The Prosecutor confirmed what had been said by the anonymous caller. The Prosecutor further stated that the place where the incident had taken place was in a dangerous area and that he could not therefore hand the bodies over to them. He told the relatives to talk to the commander of the Provincial Gendarmerie Regiment. The identity cards of the members of the group who subsequently went to the Regiment were taken by the soldiers and they were kept waiting at the barracks for the rest of the day. The group was later escorted by soldiers to the outskirts of Beytüşşebap and told not to return or they would suffer the same fate as their relatives.\n15.  On 21 September 2001 the Diyarbakır Branch of the Human Rights Association by letter informed the Ministry of the Interior, the Human Rights Commission of the Turkish Parliament, the Governor of the Emergency Region, the Secretary of State Responsible for Human Rights, the Şırnak Governor, the Prosecutor’s Office in Şırnak, the offices of the Prosecutor and the Governor in Beytüşşebap, of the deaths of Ebuzeyt and Halit Aslan. They requested the authorities to investigate this incident and to find the perpetrators. They further requested that official identifications of the bodies and autopsies be carried out.\n16.  Amnesty International was also informed and requested to make an urgent appeal.\n17.  The applicants claim that neither Halit Aslan, who was born in 1939, nor Ebuzeyt Aslan, who was born in 1954, had any connections with the PKK[1]. Moreover, Halit Aslan had been suffering from health problems.\n18.  On 10 September 2001 a military operation was initiated by the Beytüşşebap Gendarmerie Regiment’s Commander (Beytüşşebap Jandarma Alay Komutanlığı) in the Yeşilöz-Faraşin area.\n19.  At around 5.30 p.m. on 12 September 2001, i.e. on the third day of the operation, the gendarme soldiers were confronted by a group of terrorists in the vicinity of Dereyatağı. When t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1358", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Costeşti.\n8.  In 1995, the applicant lodged with the Ialoveni District Court a civil action against Costeşti Municipal Council claiming compensation for alleged illegal acts.\n9.  On 6 October 1995, the Ialoveni District Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded her 675 Moldovan lei (MDL). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n10.  Between 1995 and 2003 the applicant complained on numerous occasions to different State bodies about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 October 1995.\n11.  On 11 March 2003, after the present case was communicated to the Government, the judgment of 6 October 1995 was enforced.\n12.  In 1996 the applicant lodged with the Ialoveni District Court a civil action against the Costeşti Municipal Council and a private agricultural enterprise.\n13.  On 16 September 1996, the Ialoveni District Court allowed the action in part and awarded the applicant MDL 20,960.\n14.  On 26 February 1998 the Chişinău Regional Court rejected the Costeşti Local Council’s appeal for failure to pay the court fees. The judgment of 16 September 1996 became final.\n15.  In 1998, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law in which she argued that the amount of compensation was insufficient.\n16.  On 18 August 1998, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment of 16 September 1996.\n17.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the Prosecutor General’s Office lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgments of 16 September 1996, 26 February 1998 and 18 August 1998.\n18.  On 17 May 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the Prosecutor General’s appeal, quashed the judgments of 16 September 1996, 26 February 1998 and 18 August 1998 and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings.\n19.  The re-opened proceedings ended by a final judgment of the Ialoveni District Court of 2 December 2002 by which the applicant’s application was struck out of the list of cases for failure to appear before the court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1359", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant, Terem Ltd, is a Ukrainian company registered in 1998. The second applicant, Mr Igor Vladimirovich Chechetkin is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Kiev. The third applicant, Mr Yevgeniy Vitalyevich Olius, is also a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Kiev. The second and third applicants are co-owners of the first applicant.\n5.  In November 1999 the property and financial documents belonging to the first applicant were seized by the tax police during a control of the company’s compliance with tax regulations.\n6.  On 10 February 2000 a major part of the first applicant’s property was declared to be “without an owner” by the Kiev Tax Police Department (hereinafter – “the KTPD”). On 3 March 2000 the Zhovtnevyy District State Administration decided to sell the property, which it then did.\n7.  In May 2000 the second and third applicants lodged a complaint with the Radyanskiy District Court of Kiev against the KTPD for its allegedly unlawful actions with respect to the first applicant.\n8.  On 10 October 2000 the court found for the applicants.\n9.  On 7 February 2001 the Kiev City Court quashed the decision of the first-instance court and terminated the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction, having established that the proper claimant in the case was the first applicant, which meant that the claim had to be considered by the commercial courts.\n10.  In March 2002 the first applicant, represented by the other two, filed a claim with the Kiev Commercial Court against the KTPD and the State Treasury, seeking compensation for material and moral damage caused by the actions of the tax police.\n11.  On 6 June 2003 the court found in part for the first applicant and awarded it UAH 5,655,475.40 in compensation for material and non-material damage and UAH 4,002.60 for the court fees[1]. In its decision the court established the unlawfulness of the actions of the KTPD and the resulting damage caused to the first applicant.\n12.  On 6 October 2003 the Kiev Appellate Commercial Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court.\n13.  On 22 October 2003 the Kiev Commercial Court issued two writs of execution for the amounts awarded in the decision of 6 June 2003.\n14.  On 10 December 2003 the Shevchenkivskiy District Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings in the case.\n15.  On 17 January 2004 the State Treasury informed the Bailiffs’ Service that, pursuant to domestic law, it was for the Treasury to enforce the judgment, not the Bailiffs’ Service.\n16.  On 23 February 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service returned the writs of execution to the first applicant and proposed that it submit them to the State Treasury for enforcement.\n17.  On 25 February 2004 the first applicant forwarded the writs of execution to the State Treasury.\n18.  On 5 April 2004 the Highest Commercial Court of Ukraine upheld the decisions of the lower courts of 6 June and 6 October 2003.\n19.  On 1 July 2004 the panel of three judges of the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the request of the KTPD for a review of the decision of 5 April 2004 in cassation.\n20.  By letter of 22 July 2004, the Kiev Department of the State Treasury informed the applicants that the decision of 6 June 2003 could not be enforced in the absence of legal grounds. In particular, it noted that the reimbursement of the value of the property confiscated by the State was limited to the sum obtained from the sale of the property, a matter to be confirmed by", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1360", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1938 and currently lives in Lancashire.\n10.  In 1953 he joined the British army at 15 years of age. He served with the Royal Engineers between February 1954 and April 1968, when he was discharged for reasons unrelated to the present application.\nIn 1981 he was diagnosed as suffering from hypertension and late onset bronchial asthma and in 1989 he was found to have high blood pressure and chronic obstructive airways disease (bronchitis – COAD). He has not worked since 1992 or thereabouts and is registered as an invalid.\n11.  The Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down (“Porton Down”) was established during the First World War in order to conduct research into chemical weapons with a view to advancing the protection of the United Kingdom's armed forces against such weapons. The research included tests of gases on humans as well as on animals. Servicemen who participated in the tests were paid extra wages.\n12.  The applicant participated in such tests at Porton Down. While there was some debate as to whether he attended in 1962, it was not disputed that he did so in July 1963. His service medical records contained no record of any tests at Porton Down.\n13.  The applicant alleged as follows. In the spring of 1962 he was invited to Porton Down; he was medically examined on arrival; he was asked on three or four occasions to enter a sealed and unventilated room, where he was seated and strapped to a chair; over a period of about six hours, drops of mustard gas were applied to patches of tissue which were then taped to his skin; he was told that, if he was unlucky, he might suffer temporary pain or discomfort but otherwise he was not given any, or any proper, warning about the possible consequences of the tests for his health; once the tests were finished he returned to his unit; there was no further medical examination after he left Porton Down. He relied on a memorandum and file note of 13 November 1989 (see paragraph 24 below) and on the conclusions in this respect of 14 January 2004 of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal (“the PAT” – see paragraph 63 below) to substantiate his participation in tests in 1962.\n14.  While the Government did not deny that participation, they pointed to a number of matters that appeared to militate against such a conclusion: the summary and alphabetical record books did not refer to his attendance in 1962 but only to his attendance in 1963; there was no documentary evidence at all of the 1962 tests whereas certain records existed of his 1963 tests; and if the PAT had accepted his participation in the 1962 tests, this was based solely on his recollections.\n15.  The nerve gas (known as “G-agent” or “GF”) test is described in the relevant records as “exposure to single-breath GF”. The applicant alleged that he was told before the test that the experiment “could not harm a mouse”; that he was placed in an air-tight, glass-partitioned cubicle containing a face mask, the mask was placed over his mouth and nose, the fitting was checked and the chamber was sealed; that a loudspeaker informed him that the test was about to begin and to inhale normally; that he felt an immediate tightening of the chest muscles and lungs which wore off after the end of the test; and that blood samples were taken at regular intervals during the following twenty-four hours. The Government submitted that diluted GF vapours were put into a gas chamber and, as the name of the test suggested, voluntee", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1361", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Tambov.\n5.  In the 1980s he took part in a rescue operation on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. As of late 1998 the applicant has been in receipt of social benefits in this connection.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant sued the Tambov Pension Authority (Управление социальной защиты населения мэрии города Тамбова, “the authority”) seeking to recover the amount of allegedly unpaid social benefits.\n7.  By judgment of 19 June 2000 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov (“the District Court”) examined and granted the applicant’s action and ordered the authority to pay him the arrears of RUR 10,890.73.\n8.  The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Tambov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) on 4 September 2000. It came into force on the same date. Immediately thereafter the applicant obtained an execution writ and instituted enforcement proceedings.\n9.  The amount due to the applicant pursuant to the judgment of 19 June 2000 and decision of 4 September 2000 was not paid to him until February 2004, which is three years and seven months after the entry of the judgment into force.\n10.  In 2001 the applicant brought another action against the authority, claiming damages for non-enforcement of the judgment of 19 June 2000.\n11.  On 14 March 2001 the District Court examined and granted the applicant’s claims. It ordered the authority to pay a half percent penalty fee for each day of the delay between September 2000 and March 2001, totalling at RUR 36,383.07. This judgment was not appealed against by the parties and came into force on 26 March 2001.\n12.  Thereafter the applicant submitted an execution writ in respect of the judgment of 14 March 2001 to the bailiffs. By letter of 15 December 2002 the bailiffs returned the documents and invited him to submit them to a local branch of the Federal Treasury.\n13.  Upon the authority’s request, on 19 June 2003 the District Court corrected an arithmetical mistake in the judgment of 14 March 2001 by replacing the amount of award of RUR 36,383.07 with RUR 25,492.32.\n14.  The judgment of 14 March 2001, as corrected by the decision of 19 June 2003, was enforced in full in February 2004, which is two years and eleven months later after its entry into force.\n15.  On 28 May 2002 the District Court examined and granted the applicant’s another claim for penalty, this time in connection with alleged non-enforcement of the judgment of 14 March 2001. The court ordered the authority to pay the applicant a half percent penalty fee for each day of the delay between April 2001 and May 2002, totalling at RUR 20,858.98.\n16.  The judgment of 28 May 2002 was not appealed against by the parties and came into force on 13 June 2002.\n17.  By letter of 10 December 2002 the authority informed the applicant of receipt in June 2002 of an execution writ in respect of the judgment of 28 May 2002. The authority refused to pay the money due as the federal budget had allocated funds only as regards court decisions which had came into force prior to 1 January 2002. By the same letter the authority returned the writ and supporting documents to the applicant.\n18.  Thereafter the applicant twice submitted the writ to the bailiffs’ service which, by letter of 18 February and 4 March 2003, returned the documents and informed him that the documents ought to be submitted directly to the local branch of the Federal Treasury.\n19.  On an unspecified date the authority brou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1362", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, Temer Tanrıkolu, İbrahim Bağdu, M. Emin Tanrıkolu, Mehmet Tayşun, A. Menaf Akyol, M. Emin Tayşun, Lokman Akyol, Hamo Tayşun, Ramazan Atak, Hıdır Şengil, Methi Tayşun, Abdurrahman Mungan, M. Sait Çek, Faruk Dilek, Ramazan Tanrıkolu, Hasan Arsu and Abdulaziz Arsu, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1977, 1948, 1960, 1956, 1950, 1953, 1971, 1950, 1960, 1977, 1973, 1975, 1964, 1974, 1975, 1949 and 1973 respectively. They all live in Silopi in south-east Turkey.\n5.  Between November 1992 and February 1993 the applicants were taken into police custody in Silopi by policemen on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, namely the PKK.\n6.   At the end of their police custody, the applicants were brought before the Şırnak Magistrate's Court in Criminal Matters and were subsequently placed in detention on remand.\n7.  On an unspecified date in 1993 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment. He accused the applicants of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, and called for them to be sentenced pursuant to Article 169 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  The applicants were all released pending trial.\n9.  On 6 February 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court, which was composed of three judges including a military judge, found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to different terms of imprisonment, ranging between two years and six months and three years and nine months.\n10.  On 9 June 1997 the Court of Cassation, upholding the Diyarbakır State Security Court's reasoning and assessment of evidence, dismissed the applicants' request for appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1363", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Ankara.\n6.  The applicant was arrested in Antalya on 21 November 1995 by the police officers from the Prevention of Terrorism Department of the Antalya Security Directorate, on suspicion of being a member of the PKK. She was kept in police custody until 29 November 1995.\n7.  In the evening of 29 November 1995, right after her release from police custody, the applicant went to a private hospital to be treated. According to the medical reports dated 30 November 1995 and 1 December 1995, drafted by the doctors who were involved in her treatment, the applicant stayed in the hospital for three days as she was suffering from hyper-tension. Moreover, it was also noted that she was diagnosed with neurotic anxiety. It was suggested for her to rest for three more days.\n8.  On 25 December 1995 the İzmir Public Prosecutor at the State Security Court dropped the charges against the applicant, on the ground of lack of evidence.\n9.  On 13 February 1996, invoking Articles 1 § 6 and 2 § 1 of the Law No. 466, the applicant brought an action before the Antalya Assize Court against the Treasury, requesting compensation for her unlawful arrest and detention which lasted eight days. She claimed 500,000,000 Turkish Liras (TRL) to compensate for her non-pecuniary damages and 11.820,000 TRL for her hospital expenses.\n10.  On 19 July 1996, after consulting the written opinion of the Public Prosecutor, the Antalya Assize Court held that the applicant be awarded compensation for her hospital expenses and 30,000,000 TRL for her non-pecuniary damages, calculated on the basis of her personal, financial and social status.\n11.  The applicant and the treasury both appealed against the award. The applicant contended on appeal that the amount of compensation was insufficient for her wrongful arrest and detention. The Treasury considered that the amount awarded was excessive.\n12.  On 19 March 1997 the Principal Public Prosecutor submitted his opinion on the merits of both parties' appeals. He advised the court to quash the first-instance judgment. He held that the expenses incurred in a private hospital should not be reimbursed. Moreover, in view of the relevant case law, he considered the compensation awarded for non-pecuniary damages to be excessive.\n13.  On 27 May 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on the ground that the Assize Court rendered its decision without first establishing whether the applicant's hyper-tension was caused by her detention in police custody.\n14.  On 4 July 1997 the court decided to obtain medical opinion concerning the cause of applicant's illness. Moreover, the Public Prosecutor was asked for his written observations on the applicant's claim.\n15.  Two medical reports, dated 27 October 1997 and 3 December 1997 and drafted by the doctors who treated the applicant, were submitted with the Antalya Assize Court. They confirmed the fact that the applicant was hospitalised in November 1995 for three days and that she was diagnosed with hyper-tension and neurotic anxiety which were aggravated due to the detention conditions.\n16.  On 13 January 1998 the court questioned the two doctors who were responsible for the applicant's treatment. The doctors confirmed that both the hyper-tension and the neurotic anxiety were health problems of which the applicant must have suffered well before her detention period. However, they also confirmed the aggravating effect of the detention conditions on these ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1364", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  UMO Ilinden – PIRIN was a political party founded on 28 February 1998 and based in south‑west Bulgaria (in an area known as the Pirin region or the geographic region of Pirin Macedonia). It was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court on 29 February 2000 and as a result dissolved.\n9.  Between 1990 and 1998 more than fifteen organisations of persons declaring to have Macedonian ethnic consciousness were formed and were active on the territory of Bulgaria. Apparently most of these never sought to be registered.\n10.  One of them, the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (“UMO Ilinden”), was founded on 14 April 1990. Its aims, according to its articles of association and programme, were to “unite all Macedonians in Bulgaria on a regional and cultural basis” and to achieve “the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria”. The same year it applied for, but was refused, registration. In their judgments of July and November 1990 and March 1991 the competent courts found that the association’s aims were directed against the unity of the nation, that it advocated national and ethnic hatred, and that it was dangerous for the territorial integrity of Bulgaria. The aims of the association included the “political development of Macedonia” and the “united, independent Macedonian State” (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, §§ 10‑14, ECHR 2001‑IX).\n11.  UMO Ilinden made an additional attempt to register in 1998‑99 (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 59491/00, 9 September 2004). Registration was again refused.\n12.  The applicant party was founded in the town of Gotze Delchev on 28 February 1998 by fifty‑one persons. Some of its founders had previously been members of UMO Ilinden. It applied for registration at the Sofia City Court.\n13.  In the course of the proceedings the public prosecutor, who participated ex officio, maintained that the party’s aims were contrary to Article 44 § 2 of the Constitution and that registration should therefore be refused. In connection with these remarks the founders decided to amend one point of the party’s constitution. They did so at a meeting on 14 November 1998 and presented the amended copy to the court.\n14.  By a judgment of 12 February 1999, a notice of which was published in the State Gazette on 23 February 1999, the Sofia City Court registered the applicant party, holding that its aims, as set out in its constitution and programme, were not contrary to the proscriptions of Article 44 § 2 of the Constitution and of section 3(2) of the Political Parties Act of 1990.\n15.  On 4 March 1999 sixty‑one members of the Bulgarian parliament requested the Constitutional Court to declare the applicant party unconstitutional, more specifically, contrary to Articles 11 § 4 and 44 § 2 of the Constitution of 1991. They argued that the party had in fact been formed in 1990 and was a successor of the “illegal” UMO Ilinden. They further argued that the party’s ultimate aim was the formation of an independent Macedonian state through the secession of Pirin Macedonia from Bulgaria. The party’s members and leaders had on numerous occasions declared such goals. The party’s original constitution, amended in the course of the proceedings before the Sofia City Court, contained language to the effect that it would “protect the interests of the population of Pirin Macedonia [and] of the refugees from Aegea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1365", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Kurdzhali.\n6.  On 20 June 1999 the applicant, while driving his car, was involved in a traffic accident with another car.\n7.  Subsequently, the driver of the other car filed a complaint with the police, claiming that the applicant had made him sign a note for 3,000 German Marks (approximately EUR 1,538) for a non-existent debt. He maintained that the applicant had forced him into signing the document by threatening him verbally, with a firearm and by inflicting a light bodily injury.\n8.  On 25 June 1999 the applicant was arrested, charged with extortion accompanied with a light bodily injury and using a firearm, and placed in pre-trial detention. The offence carried a possible sentence of two to eight years' imprisonment.\n9.  It is unclear how long the preliminary investigation lasted and when an indictment against the applicant was submitted to the courts.\n10.  On 13 September 1999 the applicant's defence counsel requested to be provided access to the evidence against the applicant. On an unspecified date the judge-rapporteur of the Pazardzhik Regional Court dismissed the request for access to the evidence prior to the court hearings.\n11.  The first court hearing was held on 6 October 1999.\n12.  By judgment of 4 November 1999 the Pazardzhik Regional Court found the applicant guilty of extortion accompanied with a light bodily injury and using a firearm. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, suspended, and fined 3,000 Bulgarian Levs (BGN : approximately EUR 1,538). The applicant was also ordered to pay BGN 3,000 (approximately EUR 1,538) in damages to the victim. Finally, the court ordered his release on bail of BGN 500 (approximately EUR 256), which he apparently paid and was released on the same day.\n13.  There are no indications that the applicant appealed against the judgment.\n14.  The applicant was in pre-trial detention between 25 June 1999 and 4 November 1999 for a total period of four months and nine days.\n15.  Following his arrest on 25 June 1999 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention by decision of an investigator from the Regional Investigation Division, approved by the Pazardzhik Prosecutor's Office later in the day. The motives for imposing the pre-trial detention were the\n“social severity of the crime, the personality of the offender, the high probability that he would abscond, re-offend or obstruct the investigation”.\n16.  The applicant filed six appeals against his detention.\n17.  On 28 June 1999 the applicant filed his first appeal against the detention. He maintained that it was unlawful, because of the alleged lack of evidence that he had committed the offence, that he would abscond, re‑offend or obstruct the investigation. He stated that he did not have a criminal record, that he had a permanent address and that all the evidence in the case had already been collected.\n18.  On 9 July 1999, which was eleven days after the filing date, the Pazardzhik Regional Court examined the applicant's appeal. At the hearing the representative of the Prosecutor's Office challenged the applicant's assertions. She considered the applicant's failure to report the traffic accident as an indication that he sought to hide the event, and therefore to hinder the investigation, and stated that there were still investigative procedures to be conducted in the case. By decision of the same day the Pazardzhik Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. It did not consider the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1366", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  Ilinden is an association based in south‑west Bulgaria, in an area known as the Pirin region or the geographic region of Pirin Macedonia. It has chapters in, inter alia, the towns of Sandanski, Petrich and Blagoevgrad.\n10.  Ilinden was founded on 14 April 1990. In 1990 it applied for registration. The courts refused, holding that “its statute and programme were directed against the unity of the nation” (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, §§ 10‑14, ECHR 2001‑IX). Its second and third attempts to register in 1998‑99 and 2002‑04 likewise failed (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 59491/00, 9 September 2004).\n11.  During the period 1990‑97 Ilinden each year tried to organise meetings at sites in Pirin Macedonia to commemorate certain historical events. All these commemorations were banned by the authorities (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, cited above §§ 15‑31).\n12.  On 25 March 1998 the second applicant and three other members of Ilinden informed the mayor of Sandanski that the organisation indented to organise a meeting on 19 April at the Rozhen monastery to commemorate the anniversary of the death of a historical figure buried there – Yane Sandanski. On 3 April the mayor informed them that he prohibited the meeting, as the municipality was preparing a commemoration and as another association, which, according to the Government, was hostile towards Ilinden, had already notified the mayor of its intention to hold a meeting at the same time and place. Upon that the second applicant and the other members of Ilinden informed the mayor that in view of this scheduling conflict they decided to move the event to an earlier date, 18 April. On 14 April the mayor replied that he could not assent to that either, as in the meantime the other association had informed him that their commemoration would last from 18 until 22 April.\n13.  On 14 and on 16 April 1998 Ilinden lodged applications for judicial review of the mayor's refusals with the Sandanski District Court.\n14.  On 10 April 1998 it also advised the head of the local police station of its intention to hold the meeting on 18 April.\n15.  On 16 April 1998 the police conducted a search at the home of a member of Ilinden, which served as a club of the organisation, and at another member's home, and seized a copy machine, newspapers, books, leaflets, and some other items.\n16.  On 17 April 1998 the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office issued a decree, ordering the police to take measures to prevent Ilinden from holding a meeting. The decree, which was based on Article 185 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), stated that the holding of the meeting would constitute an offence under Article 174a of the Criminal Code (“the CC”).\n17.  On 17 April 1998 the police summoned the second applicant and several other members of Ilinden. They were issued written warnings informing them that the planned meeting had been banned by the Blagoevgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office.\n18.  On 18 April 1998 a number of members and followers of Ilinden from towns and villages in Pirin Macedonia tried to approach Rozhen by cars and by buses. All were turned back by the police who were placed at checkpoints on the roads leading to the monastery. The passengers of one bus were forced off and the driver was fined for allegedly driving a vehicle in a state of disrepair. It ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1367", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, a Russian national, was born in 1927 and died in 2003. At the relevant time he lived in Rostov-on-Don.\n7.  The second applicant is a Russian national and was born in 1949. He is the applicant's son and lives in Rostov-on-Don.\n8.  In 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and placed in police custody. In 1996 the court acquitted him.\n9.  In September 1996 the applicant brought proceedings against the State claiming damages for his unlawful detention. On 29 December 1997 the Proletarskiy District Court satisfied his claim ordering the State to pay the applicant damages in the amount of RUR 34,000. This decision entered into force. However on 25 may 1998 the decision in the first applicant's favour was quashed by way of supervisory review. The case was remitted to the first instance court.\n10.  On 15 March 1999 the Rostov-on-Don Proletarskiy District Court satisfied the applicant's claims in part awarding him 24,917 Russian Roubles (~970 Euros), to be recovered from the regional branch of the Federal Treasure. The decision was not appealed against and, as follows from a copy of this decision provided by the applicant, became final on 17 March 1999.\n11.  On 12 May 1999 the local bailiffs' service initiated the enforcement proceedings against the regional branch of the Treasury. The applicant and the bailiff repeatedly contacted the defendant in order to recover the amount awarded by the District Court. However, the payment orders were returned to the bailiff unexecuted. The regional branch of the Treasury explained that since no budget funds had been allocated from the federal budget for these purposes, the judgment debt could not be paid.\n12.  In the following months the bailiffs addressed the Federal Treasury in Moscow and the Ministry of Finance with request to make necessary budget appropriations to execute the judgment of 15 March 1999. As follows from the letter of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Finance of 25 August 1999, the information on the judgment debt was included in a special data-base which listed all claims against the Federal Treasury.\n13.  In April 2000 the case-file concerning the enforcement proceedings was transmitted to the bailiffs in Moscow. The applicant was informed that henceforth the enforcement proceedings would be carried out by the bailiffs in Moscow, at the address of the central office of the Federal Treasury.\n14.  In the meantime the applicant asked the District Court to clarify which State institution was responsible for payment of the judgment debt. On 13 September 2000 the District Court ruled that the debt should be recovered from the central office of the Federal Treasury in Moscow. The court accordingly delivered a new writ of execution which was forwarded to the bailiffs' service in Moscow.\n15. On 26 March 2001 the writ of execution was returned to the applicant. The Moscow-based bailiffs' service explained to the applicant that due to changes in the legislation, and, in particular, pursuant to the Law on the Federal Budget for 2001 (see the “Relevant domestic law” below), they ceased to be responsible for the forced execution of the court judgment against the State authorities. The bailiff proposed the applicant to forward the writ of execution together with some additional documents directly to the Ministry of Finance in Moscow.\n16.  According to the respondent Government, at present the writ of execution is with the Ministry of Finance. The second applica", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1368", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Klimovsk in the Moscow Region.\n6.  In February 1999 the applicant brought an action against the Moscow Region health department, seeking to declare invalid some data in his medical records. The disputed information related to the applicant’s degree of disability and affected his pension entitlement and fitness for work.\n7.  On 1 September 1999 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claims.\n8.  On 10 September 1999 the applicant filed an appeal. The appeal hearing was listed for 28 March 2000.\n9.  On 20 March 2000 the applicant was admitted to a hospital for inpatient treatment. On 27 March 2000 his acquaintance asked the Moscow City Court, by a telegram sent on the applicant’s behalf, for an adjournment of the hearing. The Government denied that the telegram had been sent.\n10.  On 28 March 2000 the Moscow City Court adjourned the appeal hearing until 4 April 2000. The Government submitted that the hearing had been adjourned because there had been no information that the applicant had been duly summoned.\n11.  On 30 March 2000 the Moscow City Court mailed to the applicant a new summons for the hearing listed for 4 April. According to the postmark, it reached the applicant’s address on 5 April.\n12.  On 4 April 2000 the Moscow City Court examined the appeal and rejected it. Neither party was present.\n13.  On 7 April 2000 the applicant left the hospital.\n14.  On 31 August 2000 the Moscow City Court informed the applicant that his appeal had been rejected on 4 April 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1369", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Gaziantep.\n7.  On 3 September 1997, 79 packages of powder (subsequently found to be starch) were found in the belly tank of the apparently unladen lorry which the applicant had just brought into the United Kingdom. The applicant was arrested, and on 4 September 1997 he was charged with knowingly being involved in the attempted import of a controlled drug (diamorphine). He was convicted on 25 March 1998 and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment. His application for leave to appeal arrived at the Criminal Appeals Office on 23 April 1998, and leave to appeal and legal aid were granted on 22 March 1999.\n8.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 6 March 2001. As to sentence it found as follows:\n“76. ... The points ... are, first, that no diamorphine was imported and that seems to us to be the most important point, namely that this was an offence of attempt and not of actual importation. 77.Second, that the appellant appears to have occupied a lowly position in what was undoubtedly an extensive chain, stretching from source abroad into this country. 78.Third, it is said that there was no evidence that he knew of the quantity involved. However, in that respect, in a massive importation of this kind, it is not usual to investigate how far an appellant was privy to the actual amount involved, bearing in mind that it would obviously have been an extremely substantial importation. 81.We attach some slight importance to the fourth element. So far as the fifth is concerned it is not one in which of a case of this kind we regard appropriate and to take into consideration [sic]. 82.Finally, counsel has advanced upon us the argument that this appeal has taken, as it undoubtedly has taken, an unconscionably long time to come on, for reasons which are no fault of the appellant or his advisers, but appear to have related to administrative difficulties within this court. He makes reference in that respect to Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights. However, it is not necessary to invoke that Article for the court to take into account, if it considers it appropriate, a delay of that kind. 83.We consider that, absent any reason for reduction of an unusual kind, had this importation been an importation of diamorphine, as the appellant no doubt believed it to be, a sentence of 18 years could have been expected. It does appear that, on the basis that it was simply an attempt, the judge reduced the level of sentence to the order of 14 years, bearing in mind the appellant’s apparent position in the chain. 84.In our view, a somewhat greater allowance could well have been made, allowing this with the fact that the defendant has spent a time of some anxiety, no doubt, waiting for longer than he should, in order to see whether his sentence would be reduced, we consider that it is appropriate to reduce the sentence of 14 years imposed to one of 12 years’ imprisonment. The appeal upon the sentence will be successful to that extent.”\n9.  The applicant was released after having served approximately one half of the 12 year sentence, and deported to Turkey.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1370", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the village of Sorgovyy in the Zernogradksiy District of the Rostov Region.\n5.  In 1988 the applicant took part in a rescue operation on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Since late 1993 the applicant has been in receipt of social benefits in this connection.\n6.  On 4 December 1998 the Zernogradskyy District Court of the Rostov Region (“the District Court”) granted the applicant's claim against a local pension authority (“the authority”) and recovered RUR 40,361.07 of unpaid social benefits.\n7.  The judgment was upheld by the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) and came into force on 20 January 1999.\n8.  On 25 February 1999 the bailiffs brought enforcement proceedings against the authority in this respect.\n9.  The money due pursuant to the judgment of 4 December 1998 was paid to the applicant in full on 11 May 2002 which is three years, three months and twenty two days later.\n10.  By judgment of 11 March 1999 the District Court examined and granted the applicant's new claim against the authority for unpaid benefits. It ordered a one-time payment of RUR 2,360.44 and monthly payments of RUR 2,886.43 from 1 February 1999 onwards in the applicant's favour. The court also ordered the authority to index-link the future monthly payments.\n11.  The judgment was upheld by the Regional Court on 21 April 1999. On the same day it came into force.\n12.  According to the Government, the one-time payment of RUR 2,360.44 in the applicant's favour was made on 1 June 2002 which is three years, one month and ten days after the entry into force of the judgment of 11 March 1999. As regards the monthly payments which were due as of 1 February 1999, they were paid on 29 June 2002 by a single instalment of RUR 94,508.04 covering the period between 1 February 1999 and 1 July 2002. It appears that starting from 1 July 2002 the payments have been made fully and on time.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicant again sued the authority for unpaid social benefits. By judgment of 27 April 2000 the District Court granted the claim and recovered an outstanding debt of RUR 92,122.44 and monthly payments of RUR 4,881.61 from 1 November 1999. By the same judgment the court ordered the authority to index-link future payments in line with a minimum monthly wage.\n14.  The parties did not appeal against the judgment of 27 April 2000 and it came into force on 7 May 2000.\n15.  The one-time payment of RUR 92,122.44 in the applicant's favour was made on 11 May 2002 which is two years and four days after the entry into force of the judgment of 27 April 2000. The Government submitted that the authority had fully enforced the judgment of 27 April 2000.\n16.  On 29 November 2002 the District Court awarded damages in the applicant's favour and recovered compensation of RUR 207,201.56 for the delays in execution of the judgments in the above three sets of proceedings.\n17.  This decision was upheld by the Regional Court on 25 December 2002 and enforced in full by a bank transfer of 22 April 2004 which is one year, four months and twenty-eight days after its entry into force.\n18.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought a fresh set of court proceedings against the authority. He alleged that the remainder of the judgment of 27 April 2000 had not been enforced to date, that the minimum monthly wage in Russia had been increased five times, on 1 July 2000, 1 January and 1 July 2001, 1 May 2002 and 1 October 2003, that the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1371", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  In 1989 the applicant signed an agreement with the General Directorate of Land Office attached to the Ministry of Finance. Accordingly, the Land Office undertook to allocate a plot of land to the applicant and the applicant agreed to pay a certain amount of money to the authorities. The Land Office however failed to make the transfer and therefore on 18 October 1995 paid back the applicant’s money with interest.\n6.  Alleging that he had suffered financial loss, on 21 December 1994 the applicant brought compensation proceedings in the Istanbul Administrative Court against the Land Office.\n7.  On 27 December 1995 the Istanbul Administrative Court declared lack of jurisdiction and sent the file to the Ankara Administrative Court.\n8.  On 26 March 1997 the Ankara Administrative Court held that as the Land Office had paid the applicant’s money back with interest, there was no need for the court to rule for pecuniary or non-pecuniary compensation. It accordingly rejected the applicant’s compensation claims.\n9.  The applicant appealed and on 18 November 1999 the Council of State, upholding the first-instance court’s reasoning, rejected the applicant’s request.\n10.  The applicant further applied for rectification, however his request was rejected by the Council of State on 27 June 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1372", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1967. He appears to be currently detained in Ukraine.\n9.  At 8 p.m. on 12 October 1998 the applicant, who was allegedly in a state of intoxication, was arrested in the street by a police patrol and taken to a police station. He was then searched and a certain amount of marijuana was allegedly found on him.\n10.  At 12:15 a.m. on 13 October 1998 the applicant was detained, by a decision of an investigator of the Akademicheskiy District Police Department of Moscow, on suspicion of illegal acquisition and possession of drugs. The investigator referred to the suppression of crime and prevention of the risk of the applicant's absconding as the reasons for the decision.\n11.  On the same day the applicant was charged with the illegal acquisition of drugs for personal consumption and possession.\n12.  On 15 October 1998 the investigator issued an order to detain the applicant on remand, which was approved by a public prosecutor on the same day. The order referred to the applicant's personality, the danger posed to the public by the crime with which he had been charged and the risk of his absconding.\n13.  On 16 October 1998 the applicant was confined in the detention facility IZ‑48/2 “Butyrskiy” in Moscow.\n14.  By a decision of the investigating authority the applicant was subjected to a psychiatric examination.\n15.  On 19 November 1998 he was examined by experts from the Alekseev Psychiatric Hospital of Moscow. As the experts had difficulties in reaching conclusions the applicant was placed in the Serbskiy Forensic Psychiatry Institute in Moscow, which examined him from 10 December 1998 to 6 January 1999. It was noted that he had never previously been found to be suffering from a mental illness. The commission of experts diagnosed the applicant as suffering from profound dissociative personality disorder (innate psychopathy) and found that he could not be held responsible for the offence with which he had been charged. The experts recommended that the applicant undergo psychiatric treatment on an out‑patient basis at his place of residence.\n16.  The period of the investigation and the applicant's detention in custody were extended twice by the public prosecutor's office, first until 12 January 1999 and later until 12 February 1999.\n17.  On 10 February 1999 the investigation was completed and the applicant's criminal case was submitted to the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow.\n18.  On 28 June 1999 the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant's request for release and ordered, while giving no reasons and no chance for the defence to object, an additional psychiatric examination. On 23 July 1999 the decision was upheld by the Moscow City Court on appeal.\n19.  The applicant's examination by the commission of experts of the Serbskiy Forensic Psychiatry Institute on 25 August 1999 revealed no significant changes in the applicant's memory, attention and mental faculties. As the commission was uncertain as to the state of the applicant's mental health, it recommended he undergo a second psychiatric examination as an in‑patient.\n20.  The latter was ordered by the District Court on 20 September 1999 and carried out by the Serbskiy Forensic Psychiatry Institute from 24 November 1999 to 24 December 1999. The commission of experts found that the applicant suffered from a psychological disorder in the form of profound dissociative psychopathy, that he had committed the offence in a deranged state of mind and", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1373", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The political party Ouranio Toxo (Rainbow), founded in 1994, has regularly taken part in elections since that date. Its declared aims include the defence of the Macedonian minority living in Greece. The other two applicants are members of the party's political secretariat.\n10.  In September 1995 the party established its headquarters in the town of Florina. The second and third applicants affixed to the balcony of the premises a sign indicating the party's name in the two languages spoken in the region: Greek and Macedonian.\n11.  According to the applicants, the opening of the headquarters and the affixing of the sign triggered a wave of violent protests by the town's inhabitants, but the police failed to take the appropriate measures to protect them against the various attacks to which they were subjected.\n12.  In particular, the offices were opened in early September 1995 and on 12 September 1995 priests from the church in Florina published a statement describing the applicants as “friends of Skopje”, driven by “anti-Hellenic and treacherous sentiments”. The statement continued as follows: “we call upon the people to join a demonstration to protest against the enemies of Greece who arbitrarily display signs with anti-Hellenic slogans, and we will demand their deportation.”\n13.  On 13 September 1995 the Florina town council held an informal meeting and, by a resolution published in the local press, decided to organise protests against the applicants.\n14.  On the same day the public prosecutor at the Florina Criminal Court ordered the removal of the sign on the ground that the inclusion of the party's name in Macedonian was liable to sow discord (Article 192 of the Criminal Code – see paragraph 23 below) among the local population. Police officers removed the party's sign without giving any explanation to the applicants, who then put up a new sign. That evening, according to the applicants, while they were inside the party headquarters a crowd of people, among whom they apparently recognised the mayor, the deputy mayor and certain town councillors, gathered in front of the building to shout threats and insults at them, such as “traitors”, “dogs”, “death to the dogs of Skopje”, “you're going to die”, and “we'll burn everything”. The crowd also allegedly demanded that the applicants hand over the sign.\n15.  On 14 September 1995 at about 1.30 a.m. a number of people allegedly attacked the party headquarters, and, after breaking down the door, assaulted those inside and demanded that they hand over the sign, which the applicants did. Another group entered the premises at approximately 4 a.m., threw all the equipment and furniture out of the window and set it on fire. According to the applicants, throughout these events they made a number of telephone calls to the police station located some 500 metres from the party headquarters, but were apparently told that no officers were available to come out. The applicants submitted that the public prosecutor's office took no action against those involved in the incidents. However, criminal proceedings for inciting discord were brought against four members of the party, including the second and third applicants, under Article 192 of the Criminal Code. The bill of indictment stated that “they had affixed to the party headquarters a sign on which, among other things, the word vino-zito (rainbow) was written in a Slavic language, and had thus sowed discord among the local inhabitants ...”. The appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1374", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1980. She is imprisoned in Gebze Prison.\n7.  On 10 October 2001 the applicant was at a bus stop in İçerenköy in Istanbul when she was arrested by plain-clothes police officers on suspicion of being a member of the PKK. She was taken to the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul State Security Directorate. On the same day, the police officers drafted an arrest protocol stating that the applicant had been arrested on account of her involvement in PKK-related activities. The applicant signed this protocol.\n8.  The applicant's lawyer challenged the arrest before the investigating judge of the Istanbul State Security Court and requested that the applicant be released from detention. Her request was dismissed.\n9.  On 11 October 2001 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court extended the detention period until 14 October 2001.\n10.  On 14 October 2001 the applicant could see her lawyer for a short period of time following the permission of the public prosecutor.\n11.  On 15 October 2001 police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch requested that the applicant's custody period be extended for three more days. The single judge of the Istanbul State Security Court granted the request and extended the custody period until 17 October 2001 pursuant to Article 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant's lawyer challenged this decision before a panel of three judges of the Istanbul State Security Court and requested that the applicant be brought before a judge. Her request was dismissed.\n12.  On 16 October 2001 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor, and thereafter before the investigating judge of the Istanbul State Security Court. Subsequently the judge ordered that the applicant be detained on remand.\n13.  On 23 November 2001 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing the applicant of being a member of an illegal armed organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.\n14.  The Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant of the offence and sentenced her to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. The judgment was later upheld by the Court of Cassation on 11 November 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1375", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul.\n9.  On 22 February 1997 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate and was placed in custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the MLKP (Marxist Leninist Communist Party).\n10.  On 6 March 1997 the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court (“the State Security Court”). Subsequently, the investigating judge ordered the applicant's detention on remand.\n11.  On 10 March 1997 the applicant challenged her detention on remand with the State Security Court. In the petition, the applicant stated that her address was known, and that there was no danger of her absconding or destroying the evidence. The State Security Curt rejected her objections, upholding the previous order of detention on remand.\n12.  On 18 March 1997, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the same court against 23 persons including the applicant, inter alia, accusing her of being a member of the MLKP and having explosives in her possession. The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be punished pursuant to Articles 168 § 1 and 264 § 5 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law No. 3713 (Anti-Terrorism Law).\n13.  On 1 April 1997 the State Security Court commenced the trial against the applicant and prolonged her detention on remand having regard to the nature of the offences of which she was accused.\n14.  On 8 October 1997 the court took a statement from the applicant, who denied all the charges against her. The applicant also repudiated the veracity of her police statement, alleging that it was made under duress. At the same hearing, the court ordered the applicant's continued detention having regard to “the nature of the offence, the content of the case-file, and the non-completion of the evidence”.\n15.  At the hearing of 3 December 1997 the court heard three witnesses called by a co-accused of the applicant. Hand-written documents were shown to the applicant. The applicant accepted that these belonged to her, concerning notes taken from books. At the same hearing, the court accepted the intervention of the owner of a car which had been used during a robbery as the intervening complainant. The court further decided to ask the Istanbul 7th Assize Court about the outcome of criminal proceedings brought against the police officers that had conducted the preliminary investigation into the applicant and her co-accused. At the end of the hearing, the court rejected the applicant's request for release pending trial because of “the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the duration of the detention”.\n16.  On 11 February 1998 the court decided to separate two of the applicant's co-accused's cases from the case-file and join them to other cases pending before other divisions of the Istanbul State Security Court. At the end of the hearing, the court ordered the applicant's continued detention having regard to “the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence, and the duration of detention”.\n17.  At the hearing of 29 May 1998, the court showed the applicant photographs taken during the Mayday demonstration of 1 May 1996 by the police. The applicant accepted that she had participated in the demonstration and was in the photographs. At the same hearing the court rejected the applicant's request for release pendin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1376", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a set of enforcement proceedings against his debtors in order to enforce the payment of six bonds issued by his debtors between 1980 and 1981. The enforcement proceedings lasted for almost ten years. In 1993 the applicant was paid a sum of 54,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL), interest included.\n7.  On 25 January 1994 the applicant brought an action before the Istanbul Commercial Court against his debtors and requested an additional compensation under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations, for the damage he sustained as a result of the delay in payment. He alleged that the payment was made with ten years of delay and that his loss resulting from the increase in inflation during this period exceeded the interest awarded to him for late payment.\n8.  On 17 April 1995 an expert report was submitted to the court. The expert report stated that the applicant should not be awarded additional compensation on the ground that he was unable to substantiate the damages he sustained against inflation.\n9.  On 5 October 1995 the Istanbul Commercial Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the reasons stated in the expert’s report. The applicant appealed.\n10.  On 24 December 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the first- instance court’s decision on the ground that the applicant had sustained damages due to the delay in payment and that he should be awarded compensation. The case was remitted to the first instance court.\n11.  On 29 September 1997 the first-instance court adhered to its first decision. The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 3 November 1999 the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court’s decision. The applicant’s request for rectification was dismissed on 24 April 2000. This decision was served on the applicant on 24 May 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1377", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul.\n7.  On 14 May 1990 the Bakirköy District Governorship granted the applicant a licence to serve alcohol in his restaurant.\n8.  On an unspecified date, the quarter of Güngören, where the applicant’s restaurant was located, became a separate district. On 13 October 1997, the Güngören District Governorship revoked the applicant’s licence on the ground that the applicant’s restaurant was outside the designated area for restaurants serving alcohol.\n9.  On 27 October 1997 the applicant was notified of this decision and was barred from running the restaurant.\n10.  On 3 November 1997 the applicant brought an action before the Istanbul Administrative Court for the annulment of the Güngören District Governorship’s decision of 13 October 1997. He also requested that the decision be stayed.\n11.  On 23 January 1998 the Istanbul Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request for a stay of proceedings. The applicant objected to this decision. On 18 March 1998 the Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s challenge.\n12.  On 11 June 1998 the Istanbul Administrative Court delivered its judgment on the merits of the case. The court decided that the revocation order of the Güngören District Governorship was in conformity with the law. The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Supreme Administrative Court[1], and as a preliminary step, he once again requested the Supreme Administrative Court to stay the execution of the Governorship’s decision. On 12 November 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court decided on the request for a stay and rejected it.\n13.  On 15 February 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n14.  The applicant requested rectification of this decision. On 24 June 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request.\n15.  On 15 August 2002 the applicant was notified of the Supreme Administrative Court’s final decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1378", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 1 April 1996 the applicant retired from the position as a consultant at the Ministry of Finance of Russia.\n7.  In 1996 – 1997 he repeatedly applied to the Ministry of Labour for additional retirement benefits due to former State employees. By decision of 3 October 1997 a deputy Minister granted the applicant’s request and increased his pension as of 9 September 1997.\n8.  Thereafter the applicant sued the Ministry of Labour seeking arrears for the period between 1 April 1996 and 8 September 1997.\n9.  On 19 December 1997 the Basmanny District Court of Moscow dismissed his claims, stating that the applicant had only become eligible for a higher pension as of 9 September 1997 and therefore he had no right to arrears.\n10.  On 14 April 1998 the Moscow City Court set aside the first instance judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n11.  On 15 September 1999 the Basmanny District Court ruled in the applicant’s favour confirming his entitlement to additional retirement benefits as of 1 April 1996 and ordered the Ministry of Labour to re-calculate his pension.\n12.  No appeal was lodged, and on an unspecified date the judgment of 15 September 1999 became final.\n13.  On 25 November 1999 enforcement proceedings commenced.\n14.  On 26 October 2000 a deputy Prosecutor General lodged an extraordinary appeal against the judgment of 15 September 1999.\n15.  On 16 November 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court examined and rejected the extraordinary appeal in supervisory review proceedings, thus upholding the judgment of 15 September 1999.\n16.  On 2 February 2001 a deputy Prosecutor General filed another extraordinary appeal against the judgment of 15 September 1999 and the decision of 16 November 2000.\n17.  On 23 February 2001 the Civil Section of the Supreme Court of Russia, by way of supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 15 September 1999 and the decision of 16 November 2000, and remitted the case to the first instance court. It is not clear whether the applicant has pursued the proceedings.\n18.  In 2001 – 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully applied for supervisory review of the decision of 23 February 2001.\n19.  During the fresh examination, on 27 February 2003, the Basmanny District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims.\n20.  On 30 July 2003 the applicant appealed against the above judgment.\n21.  By decision of 29 August 2003 the Basmanny District Court refused to examine the applicant’s appeal brief as having been lodged outside the statutory time-limit of ten days.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1379", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, who were born in 1964, 1941, 1963, 1958, 1963, 1978, 1977, 1977, 1964, 1960, 1949, 1978, 1973, 1979, 1970, 1961, 1966, 1968 and 1961 respectively, live in Adıyaman.\n7.  Nine of the applicants, namely Bedir Çetin, Hüseyin Duran, İsmail Minkara, Hacı Pamuk, Abuzer Aslan, Şükrü Karadağ, Rıza Kılınç, Ramazan Sertkaya and Muhammet Emin Toprak, were the regional administrators of the HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi- People’s Democracy Party) in the province of Adıyaman.\n8.  The rest of the applicants are the relatives of prisoners who were convicted of being members of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK at the time of occurrence of the below mentioned events.\n9.  Following the capture of Abdullah Öcalan in Italy, prisoners who were convicted of being members of the PKK went on a hunger strike in several prisons. Some of these prisoners set themselves on fire in protest at the arrest.\n10.  On 16 December 1998, eleven of the applicants, namely Gülseren Öner, Hüseyin Duran, İsmail Turap, Fatma Doymaz, Nazife Bilgiç, Sakine Doymaz, Hüseyin Aslan, Fatma Dolaş, Arzu Doymaz, Hasan Gül and Sakine Sürgülü gathered in the Adıyaman regional office of HADEP and started a collective hunger strike in protest at the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan.\n11.  On 19 December 1998 the Adıyaman Public Prosecutor issued a search warrant in respect of the Adıyaman regional office of HADEP. On the same day the police conducted a search of the Adıyaman regional office of HADEP. According to the arrest report of the same date, the police arrested forty-five people including the applicants, who were present in the office when the search was taking place except Hüseyin Duran.\n12.  The arrest report, that was signed by the arrested persons including the applicants, revealed that publications of a separatist nature and flags of the PKK were found in the regional office of HADEP.\n13.  On 21 November 1998 the applicants Bedir Çetin, Muhammet Emin Toprak, İsmail Minkara and Hüseyin Aslan were tried before the Adıyaman Civil Court for participating in and organising meetings with the aim of disseminating separatist propaganda. The court ordered that the applicants be released pending trial on the same day.\n14.  On 31 December 1998 the Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Malatya State Security Court accusing the applicants of aiding the members of a terrorist organisation and requested that they be convicted under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.\n15.  On 6 May 1999 the Malatya State Security Court, considering as evidence the publications of separatist nature and flags of the PKK which had been found in the office, convicted the applicants of aiding a terrorist organisation pursuant to Article 169 of the Criminal Code and sentenced each of them to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.\n16.  On 12 April 2000 the applicants appealed against this decision. On 15 May 2000 the Court of Cassation, in a public hearing, upheld the decision of the State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1380", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Borovichi in the Novgorod Region.\n9.  On 7 May 1999 the prosecutor’s office of the Borovichi District began an investigation into the applicant’s dealings, as it suspected him of using his position as the president of a non-governmental organisation for personal gain. It was alleged, in particular, that he had used a grant of 5,000 US dollars (USD) to purchase computer equipment which he had kept at his home or, in the alternative, unlawfully given to a local law office.\n10.  On 13 October 1999 the prosecutor charged the applicant and issued an arrest warrant when he failed to attend the prosecutor’s office to countersign the charge sheet.\n11.  On 1 February 2000 a supervising prosecutor of the Novgorod Region quashed the decision to charge the applicant and cancelled the warrant. She found that the investigation was incomplete because pertinent facts had not been sufficiently examined.\n12.  On 9 February 2000 the Borovichi Criminal Police put the applicant’s name on the federal list of wanted persons.\n13.  On 20 March 2000 the applicant was charged again.\n14.  On 10 April 2000 a senior investigator from the Investigations Division of the Novgorod Regional Police dropped the charges against the applicant because there was no evidence that a criminal offence had been committed. On 4 May 2000 that decision was notified to the applicant’s lawyer.\n15.  At 9.50 p.m. on 14 June 2000 the applicant was detained in the Izmaylovo Hotel in Moscow on the basis of the arrest warrant issued on 13 October 1999 because his name was still on the federal list of wanted persons.\n16.  The applicant remained at the police station for twelve hours, until 10 a.m. on 15 June 2000. He was interrogated, searched and allegedly verbally abused by police officers. He was released only after the Novgorod Regional Police had confirmed, by a faxed letter, that the arrest warrant had been cancelled.\n17.  The officer in command at the police station refused to issue the applicant with a document confirming that he had been detained for twelve hours.\n18.  At 8.30 p.m. on 6 July 2000 the applicant was detained in Moscow on the basis of the same arrest warrant. He was handcuffed and escorted to the “Rostokino” Police Station of the North-Western Administrative District of Moscow.\n19.  According to the applicant, he was verbally abused by three police officers, one of whom also hit him in the chest. His requests for permission to make a phone call and to meet the officer in charge were ignored.\n20.  The applicant was not released until 6.15 p.m. on 7 July 2000, after confirmation had been received that the warrant had been cancelled. According to the applicant, during the entire period he spent in detention he received no water or food and was given no access to toilet facilities.\n21.  On 18 June 2000 the applicant complained to the Head of the Moscow Police and the Izmaylovskiy District Prosecutor’s Office. On 5 July 2000 the applicant complained to the Moscow City Prosecutor that he had been unlawfully detained and that the district prosecutor had failed to respond to his complaints. On 15 August 2000 he complained to the Prosecutor General about his unlawful detention in July 2000.\n22.  On 17 August 2000 a deputy director of the Operative Investigations Division of the Moscow Police informed the applicant that his detention on 14 June 2000 was considered lawful as he had been on the federal list of wanted person", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1381", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1961. At the time the application was lodged he lived in Erlenbach in Germany. He currently resides in Swidnica in Poland.\n9.  The applicant immigrated to Germany in February 1987. His request for asylum was rejected. His expulsion was, however, suspended under the agreement of the Home Secretaries of the Länder not to expel Polish nationals (“Ostblockbeschlüsse” der Innenminister der Länder). In November 1989 the applicant obtained a provisional residence permit (Aufenthaltserlaubnis). In January 1991, following an amendment of the Aliens Act, he was issued with a limited residence title for exceptional purposes (Aufenthaltsbefugnis). This residence title was renewed every two years, the last time in January 1995 until January 1997. In April 1997 the applicant obtained an unlimited residence permit (Aufenthaltsberechtigung).\n10.  In July 1995 the applicant’s daughter was born.\n11.  On 28 July 1995 the applicant applied to the Aschaffenburg Labour Office (Arbeitsamt) for child benefits according to Section 1 of the Federal Child Benefits Act (Bundeskindergeldgesetz, see relevant domestic law below).\n12.  On 18 August 1995 the Labour Office dismissed the applicant’s request under Section 1 § 3 of the Child Benefits Act. It noted that the applicant only had a limited residence title for exceptional purposes, and no unlimited residence permit or provisional residence permit, as required under Section 1 § 3.\n13.  On 12 October 1995 the Federal Labour Office (Bundesanstalt für Arbeit) rejected his objection.\n14.  The applicant lodged an action with the Würzburg Social Court (Sozialgericht), claiming that he had been residing in Germany since 1987 and that he should, therefore, have the right to child benefits.\n15.  On 21 April 1997 the Social Court dismissed the applicant’s action regarding child benefits between July 1995 and April 1997. It confirmed that only aliens with an unlimited residence permit or with a provisional residence permit were entitled to the payment of child benefits under Section 1 § 3 of the Child Benefits Act, as in force until 31 December 1995. According to the Social Court, the legislature had only intended to grant child benefits to aliens who were likely to stay in Germany on a permanent basis. Aliens with only a limited residence title for exceptional purposes were, however, not likely to stay. The court further pointed out that this distinction did not violate the German Basic Law. In the present case, the legislature had remained within its wide margin of appreciation in social law matters.\n16.  On 23 April 1998 the Bavarian Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht) dismissed the applicant’s appeal to the extent that his claims under the Child Benefits Act until 31 December 1995 were concerned. The Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court’s reasoning, noting that the applicant did not have a stable residence permit in 1995, as his limited residence title for exceptional purposes had had to be renewed every two years. Likewise, referring to the wide margin of appreciation of the legislature, it took the view that Section 1 § 3 of the Federal Child Benefits Act was compatible with the Basic Law. In this respect, it considered that until December 1995 families had benefited from child benefits and tax deductions (Kinderfreibetrag) as a system of compensation (dualer Familienlastenausgleich). The applicant and his wife had paid taxes in 1995 but had not obtained child benefits. In t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1382", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1947 respectively and live in Dortmund in Germany.\n9.  In 1985, the applicants, a married couple, immigrated to Germany with their daughter, born in 1979. Their son, born in 1970, joined them in 1986.\n10.  In 1987 their request to be recognised as immigrants of German origin (Vertriebene) was rejected. The applicants' request to reopen the proceedings was rejected on 5 November 1992 by the Münster Administrative Court of Appeal (Oberverwaltungsgericht). The same day the applicants were issued with residence titles for exceptional purposes (Aufenthaltsbefugnis) which have been regularly renewed.\n11.  On 27 December 1993 the Dortmund Labour Office (Arbeitsamt) informed the first applicant, who had received child benefits (Kindergeld) since 1986, that as from 1 January 1994 the child benefits would no longer be paid following a change in legislation. The office noted that according to Section 1 § 3 of the Federal Child Benefits Act (Bundeskindergeldgesetz, see relevant domestic law below), as amended and in force as from 1 January 1994, a foreigner was only entitled to child benefits if in possession of a residence permit (Aufenthaltsberechtigung) or a provisional residence permit (Aufenthaltserlaubnis). The office noted that this condition was not met in the applicants' case.\n12.  On 25 March 1994 the Federal Labour Office (Bundesanstalt für Arbeit) rejected the first applicant's objection.\n13.  The first applicant, assisted by counsel, lodged an action with the Dortmund Social Court (Sozialgericht) with the aim to be granted child benefits from January 1994 onwards. He claimed that he and his family had been residing in Germany since 1985 and had been paying tax and social contributions. He should, therefore, continue to be entitled to the child benefits.\n14.  On 27 March 1995 the Social Court dismissed the first applicant's action. It confirmed that only aliens with an unlimited or a provisional residence permit were entitled to the payment of child benefits. The new legislation had only intended to grant child benefits to aliens living in Germany on a permanent basis, whereas aliens with only a limited residence title for exceptional purposes were not likely to stay. The court further pointed out that this distinction did not violate the German Basic Law as had been stated by the Federal Social Court in several judgments since 1992. As to the special protection of the family provided under Article 6 of the German Basic Law, the court held that this did not prevent the State from subjecting the payment of child benefits to the type of the residence title.\n15.  On 14 June 1995 the first applicant, assisted by counsel, lodged an appeal with the North Rhine-Westphalia Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht).\n16.  On 2 May 1997 the Social Court of Appeal informed the first applicant that it had referred five pilot cases to the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) for review of Section 1 § 3 of the Child Benefits Acts, and asked him whether he would agree to a suspension of his appeal proceedings until a decision had been given by the Constitutional Court. On 20 May 1997 the Social Court of Appeal, having obtained the parties' agreement, ordered the suspension of the proceedings.\n17.  By decision of 6 July 2004 in the pilot cases (1 BvL 4/97, 1 BvL 5/97, 1 BvL 6/97), the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that section 1 § 3 of the Child Benefits Act as effective from January 19", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1383", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1928 and 1930 respectively. The second applicant lives in Belgorod.\n6.  The applicants received old-age pensions.\n7.  In 1999 the applicants sued the Pension Fund Agency of Belgorod (“the Agency”) alleging that their pensions had been calculated in breach of a scheme for the calculation of retirement benefits – the “Individual Pensioner Coefficient” (“IPC”) – introduced by the Pensions Law of 1997. The applicants maintained that they were entitled to an IPC of 0.7, whilst the Agency only applied an IPC of 0.525.\n8.  On 27 May 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Belgorod (“the Oktyabrskiy District Court”) dismissed the applicants’ claims as unfounded.\n9.  On 27 July 1999 the Civil Section of the Belgorod Regional Court (“the Belgorod Regional Court”) set aside the above judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a new examination.\n10.  On 23 September 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court found in the applicants’ favour. It held that the Agency had misinterpreted the Pensions Law and that the IPC to be applied in the applicants’ case should be 0.7. The court ordered the Agency to increase the applicants’ pension by RUR 642.84 and awarded them arrears of RUR 3,222.6.\n11.  On 16 November 1999 the Belgorod Regional Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal, and the judgment of 23 September 1999 became final.\n12.  On 3 December 1999 enforcement proceedings commenced.\n13.  On 13 January 2000 the Agency requested the court to suspend the enforcement pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Russia concerning similar pension cases.\n14.  On 14 February 2000 the Western Circuit Court of Belgorod (Федеральный суд Западного округа г. Белгорода, “the Western Circuit Court”) dismissed the request, having established no grounds for suspending the enforcement.\n15.  On an unspecified date the Agency filed a new request to postpone the execution of the judgment of 23 September 1999. On 17 March 2000 the Western Circuit Court granted the request.\n16.  On 18 April 2000, upon the order of the same court, the enforcement proceedings were resumed.\n17.  On an unspecified date the Agency again applied for a stay of the enforcement, referring to the lack of funds. On 19 June 2000 the Western Circuit Court rejected this request as groundless.\n18.  On 29 June 2000 the acting President of the Belgorod Regional Court ordered a stay of enforcement, as on an unspecified date an extraordinary appeal had been brought against the judgment of 23 September 1999.\n19.  On 29 September 2000 the President of the Belgorod Regional Court set aside the above order, following the withdrawal of the extraordinary appeal. The enforcement proceedings re-commenced.\n20.  On 19 May 2000 the Agency filed an application to re-consider the judgment of 23 September 1999 on account of newly-discovered circumstances. It stated that on 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour had passed an instruction clarifying the application of the Pensions Law which had gone against the interpretation of that law by the courts in the applicants’ case. The Agency maintained that it had been unaware of these circumstances when the judgment of 23 September 1999 had been given and, therefore, the judgment should be re-considered.\n21.  On 15 June 2000 the Western Circuit Court of Belgorod disallowed the Agency’s application, having noted that the instruction in question was not newly-discovered evidence within the meaning of the domestic law.\n22.  On 10 Oct", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1384", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961. At the time the application was lodged he lived in Lörrach in Germany. He is currently residing in Turkey.\n5.  In 1972 the applicant, aged ten years, entered German territory in order to live there with his parents and his brother. He attended secondary school until 1977. In 1984 the applicant married a Turkish national in Turkey. In 1986 a son was born to the couple. On 14 March 1988 the competent authorities granted the applicant a permanent residence permit. In 1989 the applicant’s wife and son followed him to Germany. In 1990, 1991 and 1993 three further sons were born to the couple. One of the children has a learning handicap. The applicant’s wife is in possession of a permanent residence permit; all family members are Turkish nationals.\n6.  In 1983 the applicant – in view of previous convictions – was warned and informed that he would face expulsion if he committed further criminal offences (ausländerrechtliche Verwarnung).\n7.  On 14 February 1989 the Lörrach District Court (Amtsgericht) convicted the applicant of insulting behaviour and ordered him to pay fifteen daily rates of DEM 50.\n8.  On 3 June 1991 the District Court convicted the applicant of negligent drunken driving (fahrlässige Trunkenheit im Verkehr) and ordered him to pay thirty daily rates of DEM 60.\n9.  On 17 August 1992 the District Court convicted the applicant of inflicting bodily harm and of obstructing public officers in the execution of their duties and ordered him to pay forty daily rates of DEM 30.\n10.  On 27 October 1993 the District Court convicted the applicant of reckless driving (Gefährdung des Straßenverkehrs) and sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment, suspended on probation.\n11.  On 25 September 1995 the District Court convicted the applicant of inflicting bodily harm and ordered him to pay thirty daily rates of DEM 15.\n12.  On 22 October 1996 the District Court convicted the applicant of negligent drunken driving and sentenced him to five months’ imprisonment, suspended on probation.\n13.  On 11 February 1998 the District Court convicted the applicant of drunken driving in conjunction with driving without a driving license and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment.\n14.  On 6 May 1998 the Freiburg Regional Court (Landgericht) rejected the applicant’s appeal in which he had asked that the execution of his sentence be suspended on probation. According to the Regional Court, the applicant’s numerous convictions did not seem to have served as warnings not to commit further criminal offences, having particular regard to the fact that the applicant had committed his last offence only three months after his previous conviction had acquired legal effect.\n15.  On 17 September 1998 the applicant was arrested and imprisoned. As his last offence had been committed while he was still on probation after the decision of the District Court of 22 October 1996, the suspension on probation was revoked and the applicant was imprisoned for four further months.\n16.  On 9 November 1998 the Lörrach District Court convicted the applicant of recklessly placing himself in a state of total intoxication (fahrlässiger Vollrausch) and sentenced him to a fine of forty daily rates.\n17.  On 22 January 1999 the Freiburg Regional Government (Regierungspräsidium) ordered the applicant’s expulsion to Turkey or to another State willing to accept him. Applying sections 47 § 2 and 48 § 1 of the Aliens Act (Ausländergesetz, see relevant domestic law", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1385", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and stays in a custodial clinic in the Netherlands.\n5.  On 15 June 1996 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand on suspicion of having attacked two persons. Criminal proceedings were subsequently taken against him.\n6.  In its judgment of 21 October 1996, the Amsterdam Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) found the applicant guilty of attempted homicide and assault. Finding further that at the material time the applicant was suffering from an inadequate development and pathological disturbance of his mental faculties, the Regional Court concluded that he could not be held criminally responsible. However, as he had been found guilty of two violent crimes in that he had twice attacked a passer-by for no reason and had already been convicted many times in the past of crimes of violence, and given that expert reports had concluded that he was a potentially very dangerous individual who would probably re-offend, the Regional Court decided that the general safety of the public required that an order for the applicant’s confinement in a custodial clinic (terbeschikkingstelling met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege; “TBS order”) be imposed.\n7.  On 5 November 1996, no appeal having been filed, this judgment became final and the TBS order took effect. Pending his admission to a custodial clinic, the applicant was held in pre-placement detention in an ordinary remand centre (huis van bewaring).\n8.  On 21 September 1998 the public prosecutor filed a request with the Amsterdam Regional Court for a two year extension of the applicant’s TBS order, which was due to expire on 5 November 1998.\n9.  On 9 November 1998, following a hearing on that day and after having noted the parties’ submissions and an expert opinion drawn up on 4 September 1998, as required by Article 509o § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering; “CCP”), recommending a two-year prolongation of the applicant’s TBS order as the applicant’s condition had remained the same as in 1996, the Amsterdam Regional Court decided to extend this order for a further period of two years.\n10.  On 8 December 1998, the Netherlands State and the applicant concluded an amicable settlement agreement (vaststellingsovereenkomst) in which the applicant waived all rights or claims relating to the time spent in pre-placement detention in excess of six months and granted the State a final discharge in this matter in exchange for financial compensation according to specific modalities set out in this agreement.\n11.  On 16 November 1998 the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 9 November 1998 was recorded at the Registry of the Amsterdam Regional Court. Pursuant to Article 509x § 1 of the CCP, such an appeal must be determined as soon as possible (“zo spoedig mogelijk”).\n12.  On 25 March 1999 the applicant was admitted to a custodial clinic. In accordance with the terms of the amicable settlement agreement of 8 December 1998, he was paid compensation in a total amount of 42,860 Netherlands guilders (“NLG”).\n13.  On 29 October 1999, the applicant’s lawyer requested the Regional Court to inform him of the date on which the applicant’s case file had been transmitted to the Arnhem Court of Appeal (gerechtshof). He sent reminders of this request to the Regional Court on 23 November and 22 December 1999, and on 6 January 2000.\n14.  By letter of 18 April 2000, the applicant’s lawyer informed the President of the Arnhem Court of Appeal tha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1386", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in Vienna. It is the owner and publisher of the weekly magazine Profil.\n8.  In November 1998 Profil published a one-page article with the heading “Antifa-Terror!” and subtitled “A political book. Member of the European Parliament for the Austrian Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs), Mr S., settles his account with anti-fascists in a new book.”\nThe book at issue with the title “The Antifa-Complex” was described as being not only critical but rather provocative. The book review criticised Mr S. for settling accounts with “post-war leftists” (“Nachkriegs-Linke”), while\n“S. did not find similar critical words as regards Jörg Haider. He even pardoned his [Haider's] belittlement of the concentration camps as 'punishment camps'. Haider's opponents had also employed nazi-terminology by using the term 'extermination camp'.\n(German)\nÜber Haider findet S. übrigens an keiner Stelle seines Buches ähnlich kritische Worte. Sogar dessen Verharmlosung der Konzentrationslager als 'Straflager' sieht er ihm nach. Haiders Gegner hätten mit dem Ausdruck 'Vernichtungslager' ebenfalls NS-Begriffe verwendet.”\n9.  On 29 December 1998 Mr Haider filed a compensation claim under the Media Act (Mediengesetz) with the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court (Landesgericht) against the applicant company.\n10.  On 28 July 1999 the Regional Court ordered the applicant company to pay 50,000 Austrian schillings (ATS – approximately 3,633 euros) as compensation to Mr Haider and to publish its judgment. Moreover it ordered the forfeiture of the issue of Profil, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Media Act. It also ordered the applicant to reimburse Mr Haider's procedural costs.\n11.  The court noted in its reasoning that the above passage gave the impression to an average reader of Profil that Jörg Haider had played down the extent of crimes committed in concentration camps when using the term punishment camps, and that he had thereby infringed Sections 3g and 3h of the National Socialism Prohibition Act (Verbotsgesetz). The reproach of a criminal offence was capable of slurring Mr Haider or of lowering him in public esteem and therefore constituted defamation (üble Nachrede) under Section 111 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch). Therefore Section 6 of the Media Act applied in the applicant company's case. It was unnecessary to determine whether the impugned passage constituted a value judgment or a statement of fact, as the applicant company had failed to give any factual background for its reproach. While it was true that Mr Haider, in 1995, had used the term at issue in a speech before the Parliament in plenary session and subsequently in an interview with the magazine Profil, he had done so, on both occasions, when also speaking about the near extinction of an ethnic minority in these camps. Therefore the reproach against Mr Haider was not justified.\n12.  The applicant company appealed, arguing that the term “belittlement” was a value judgment based on sufficient facts. Mr Haider had used the word “punishment camp” in his speech in Parliament. It was not excessive either, since the term at issue implied that persons detained in such camps had committed a crime, for which they were punished. As a politician, Mr Haider exposed himself to close scrutiny by journalists and the public and, thus, had to display a higher degree of tolerance against criticism for his choice of words.\n13.  On 15 December", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1387", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Kurgan.\n9.  In 1986 the applicant was called up by the authorities to take part in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result, the applicant suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions.\n10.  In 1997 following an expert opinion of 14 April 1997, which established the link between the applicant’s poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events, the applicant was granted monthly health damage compensation.\n11.  On 18 February 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against the Kurgan Social Security Service (МУ «Центр социальной защиты населения г. Кургана») to challenge the amount of compensation which he considered to be erroneous.\n12.  On 12 May 1999 the Kurgan Town Court found for the applicant and ordered the Social Security Service to make monthly compensation payments of 1,350.58 Russian roubles (RUR) and pay outstanding amount due from 14 April 1997. The parties did not appeal, and the judgment entered into force on 25 May 1999.\n13.  Following the applicant’s request, the Town Court clarified, by its decision of 7 September 1999 which became final on 18 September 1999, that the amount of the outstanding compensation totalled RUR 24,495.94.\n14.  The judgment of 12 May 1999 was executed on 6 October 2000.\n15.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the Social Security Service for damages caused by the delay in execution of the judgment of 12 May 1999.\n16.  On 21 July 1999 the Town Court found that the Social Security Service had failed to comply timely with the judgment of 12 May 1999 and awarded the applicant RUR 1,000 as a penalty for the delay.\n17.  On 5 October 1999 the Kurgan Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n18.  On 18 October 1999 the Kurgan Bailiff’s Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n19.  The judgment of 21 July 1999 was executed on 26 August 2002.\n20.  On 10 May 2000 the Town Court allowed the applicant’s claim against the Kurgan Town Council for provision of State housing, for which he was eligible as a participant of the liquidation of the Chernobyl disaster. The court ordered the Town Council to provide the applicant and his wife with separate well-equipped residential premises located in the town of Kurgan, complying with sanitary and technical standards, having total surface of no less than 52 sq. m., taking into account the applicant’s entitlement to one additional room.\n21.  On 22 June 2000 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n22.  On 10 July 2000 the Kurgan Bailiff’s Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n23.  The Town Council requested for deferment in execution of the judgment until 1 July 2001 for the reasons of the lack of relevant provisions in the town budget for the year 2000 and big expenses incurred by the Town Council in connection with the repair of damage caused by flood. By its decision of 17 July 2000 the Town Court granted the deferment until 31 December 2000.\n24.  At the beginning of 2001 the Town Council asked for another deferment explaining that the town had to finance preventive measures in connection with the new threat of flood in spring 2001. As the local authority did not carry out any housing construction, the execution of the applicant’s judgment was only possible by acquiring a flat on the market. On 20 February 2001 the court granted the deferment until 1 October 2001. On 29 March 2001 this decision was upheld on a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1389", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in the town of Novogrodovka, the Donetsk Region.\n5.  On 15 March 2001 the Novogrodovka City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant UAH 4,791.40[1] against the “Novogrodovskaya” coal mine (a State-owned enterprise, hereafter “the Coal Mine”) in salary arrears. The judgment became final and was sent to the Novogrodovka City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) for compulsory enforcement.\n6.  In June 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the City Court against the Bailiffs’ Service in respect of its alleged inactivity.  On 23 August 2001 the City Court rejected this complaint, stating, inter alia, that no fault was attributable to the bailiffs, who had undertaken all necessary measures to secure the execution of the judgment of 15 March 2001 and that the non-enforcement of this judgment was caused by the Coal Mine’s lack of funds. The City Court also indicated that the enforcement proceedings were further impeded by a bankruptcy case pending against the Coal Mine before the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration, which on 14 May 2001 prohibited the Bailiffs’ Service from performing any activity that involved the forced sale of the Coal Mine’s assets.  On 5 November 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the City Court. On 18 February 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal.\n7.  On 25 February 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered the merger of the Coal Mine with several others into the Selydivvugilia State Company.\n8.  In a letter of 21 July 2003, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant about the following impediments to the execution of the judgment given in his favour:\n- the ruling of the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration of 14 May 2001, prohibiting the Bailiffs’ Service from performing any activity that involved the forced sale of the Coal Mine’s assets;\n- the ruling of the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court of 23 February 2002, barring any attachment or sale of the Coal Mine’s property (both bans above were lifted on 2 April 2003, when the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court terminated the bankruptcy proceedings against the Coal Mine);\n- the moratorium on the forced sale of the property of State-owned enterprises introduced by the 2001 Law.\n9.  On 1 September 2003, following the transfer of the Coal Mine’s funds to the Selydivvugilia State Company, the Bailiffs’ Service suspended the enforcement proceedings pending the replacement of the debtor in the applicant’s case. On 24 October 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service applied to the City Court for a direction to that effect. On 31 October 2003 the City Court ordered that the debtor in the case be replaced by the Selydivvugilia State Company. On 19 November 2003 the enforcement case was transmitted to the Selidvivske City Bailiffs’ Service.\n10.  The sum awarded to the applicant by the judgment of 15 March 2001 was paid to him in two instalments in February and May 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1390", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  In May 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bagaleysky District Court of Dneprodzerzhynsk (hereafter “the District Court”) against Mr M. (her brother) for the division of their late parents’ estate.\n6.  The first court hearing was held on 11 June 1997, when the defendant filed a counterclaim. The next sitting before the District Court was scheduled for 25 June 1997 but was adjourned at the defendant’s request.\n7.  According to the Government, the hearing fixed for 22 July 1997 was cancelled on account of the applicant’s failure to appear. The applicant contested this submission, stating that she was present in court and that the hearing took place as scheduled.\n8.  On 9 September 1997 the applicant lodged a successful request for the removal of the judge.\n9.  At a hearing on 27 November 1997, the applicant obtained an adjournment.\n10.  On 18 December 1997 the defendant unsuccessfully challenged the participation of the trial judge and obtained an adjournment to summon witnesses. The adjournment was extended until 19 February 1998 at the applicant’s request.\n11.  During February 1998 the court held three hearings and questioned a number of witnesses.\n12.  The Government stated that on 19 March 1998 the applicant sought, and was granted, a two-month adjournment. The applicant did not deny this but, in her observations, she mentioned two hearings that were held during this period.\n13.  According to the Government, on 20 May 1998 the court, at the defendant’s request, ordered an assessment of the estate by a building expert and adjourned the hearing until 21 July 1998. The applicant enumerated, however, six hearings, allegedly fixed for this period, four of which were cancelled due to the defendant’s failure to appear.\n14.  On 21 July 1998 the defendant unsuccessfully challenged the trial judge and the expert.\n15.  On 21 August 1998 the hearing was adjourned until October 1998 due to the defendant’s failure to appear.\n16.  On 26 October 1998 the hearing was cancelled, according to the Government, due to the failure of the applicant’s lawyer to appear; according to the applicant, it was because the defendant did not show up.\n17.  On 4 November 1998, the court, following the defendant’s application, ordered an additional expert examination of the disputed property.\n18.  The applicant stated that on 21 December 1998 and 27 January 1999 the hearings were adjourned due to the defendant’s absence in court. The Government did not mention any hearings having been fixed during this period.\n19.  On 15 January 1999 the expert institution informed the court that the requested examination was impossible due to a lack of relevant documentation and the deficiency of the questions posed to them. The institution requested that further documents be provided and the questions reformulated.\n20.  On 3 February 1999 the court reformulated its questions to the experts, ordered the defendant to pay the costs of the expert opinion and made an interim injunction to preserve the status quo.\n21.  On 20 August 1999 the expert opinion was delivered.\n22.  On 1 September 1999 the hearing was cancelled due to the applicant’s failure to appear.\n23.  On 9 November 1999 the court adjourned the hearing on its own motion.\n24.  Between 11 November 1999 and 5 January 2000, the hearings were adjourned on four occasions due to the defendant’s failure to appear. On 16 November 1999 the court issued a warrant to co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1391", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1953 and was serving a sentence in Nazilli prison at the time of lodging his application.\n8.  On 5 January and 30 June 1994, and on 11 July 1995, the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court issued arrest warrants in respect of the applicant on suspicion of his involvement with the PKK[1].\n9.  On 23 May 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by police officers at the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. According to the arrest protocol, signed by a police officer and the applicant, the latter was arrested at 18.00 p.m. and was told of his rights, in particular, the right to object to the prolongation of his arrest and detention to a judge.\n10.  On an unspecified date[2], the applicant’s wife filed a petition with the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office and requested information as to where her husband was being held and when he would be brought before the public prosecutor. She submitted that her husband was arrested on 23 May 2001 at around 15.00 p.m. On 24 May 2001 the public prosecutor informed the applicant’s wife that her husband was held in custody on account of his involvement with the PKK.\n11.  The Government submitted that the applicant was taken for a medical examination at Diyarbakır State Hospital on the day of his arrest and on 24 and 25 May 2001. They maintained that on 24 May 2001 the İzmir Security Directorate requested the transfer of the applicant from Diyarbakır to İzmir and that the applicant arrived, accompanied by a police officer from the Diyarbakır State Security Directorate, by plane, in İzmir on 25 May 2001 at 14.30 p.m.\n12.  On 25 May 2001 the applicant was handed over to the police officers at the İzmir Security Directorate. On the same day, the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court authorised the extension of the applicant’s detention until 28 May 2001.\n13.  On the same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Atatürk Hospital at 14.50 p.m.\n14.  On 26 May 2001 the applicant was requested to identify other suspects that he had mentioned in his statements, by looking at photographs in the archives. The identification report signed by the applicant and four police officers indicated that the applicant had previously been interrogated and that he was illiterate. On 27 May 2001 the applicant’s statement was taken by two police officers at the Anti-Terror Branch of the İzmir Security Directorate.\n15.  On 28 May 2001 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Atatürk Hospital at 13.05 p.m.\n16.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court and before the İzmir State Security Court. The latter remanded him in custody since it considered that there was a risk of him escaping.\n17.  On 9 May 2002 the applicant was convicted of being a member of a terrorist organisation (Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code) and sentenced to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1392", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  Messrs Vasyl Vasylyovych Ishchenko and Viktor Ivanovich Khomenko were born in 1954. Mr Valeriy Volodymyrovych Rasyuk was born in 1952. Mrs Nadiya Ivanivna Yeremenko was born in 1950. Mr Anatoliy Mykolayovych Yeremenko was born in 1976. Mr Oleksandr Mykolayovych Yeremenko was born in 1974. All of the applicants reside in the city of Chernigiv, Ukraine.\n7.  Mrs Nadiya Ivanivna Yeremenko, Mr Anatoliy Mykolayovych Yeremenko and Mr Oleksandr Mykolayovych Yeremenko are the heirs of Mr Mykola Petrovych Yeremenko.\n8.  In 1998-2001 Messrs Vasyl Vasylyovych Ishchenko, Viktor Ivanovich Khomenko, Valeriy Volodymyrovych Rasyuk and Mykola Petrovych Yeremenko instituted separate sets of proceedings in the Desnyanskiy District Court of Chernigiv, seeking the recovery of salary arrears and other payments from their former employer, the State-owned “Atomspetsbud” company which performed construction work at Chernobyl in the zone which had been compulsory evacuated.\n9.  By judgments of 20 February and 26 July 2001, Mr Vasyl Vasylyovych Ishchenko was awarded a total of 12,379.10 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears and other payments. In March 2001 the Slavutytskyi Town Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 20 February 2001. In his complaints of 19 October and 12 December 2001 to the Bailiffs’ Service and to the Ministry of Justice, Mr Ishchenko requested information about the enforcement proceedings in respect of the second judgment in his favour. No answer was received. By letter of 24 January 2002, the Kyiv Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice informed Mr Ishchenko that the judgment of 20 February 2001 would be enforced gradually in accordance with the applicant’s place in the list of creditors. Both judgments in the applicant’s favour remain unenforced. The total debt is equivalent to 2,034.72 euros (“EUR”).\n10.  By judgment of 17 September 1998, Messrs Viktor Ivanovich Khomenko and Valeriy Volodymyrovych Rasyuk were awarded 7,692.57 and UAH 7,357.57, respectively, in salary arrears. In November 1998 the Slavutytskyi Town Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings. In 1999-2000 the applicants received UAH 396.10 and 378.74, respectively. However, the judgment remains to a large extent unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 7,296.47 and 6,978.83, respectively (the equivalent of EUR 1,199.3 and 1,147.09).\n11.  By judgment of 27 August 1999, Mr Mykola Petrovych Yeremenko was awarded UAH 7,243 in salary arrears. In October 1999 the Slavutytskyi Town Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings. On 2 April 2003 Mr Yeremenko died. The judgment in his favour remains unenforced. The debt is equivalent to EUR 1,190.51.\n12.  By letter of 4 January 2003, the Ukrainian Government Agent informed the applicants’ lawyer about the large number of execution writs pending against the debtor company, in the total amount of UAH 3,849,312[1]. Enforcement of the judgments by the attachment of property, however, required a special authorisation from the Ministry for Emergencies due to the location of the debtor’s property in the Chernobyl area, contaminated by radiation. Such authorisation was not granted.\n13.  By the order of 27 June 2002 of the Ministry of Energy, the debtor company was liquidated and a liquidation commission established.\n14.  Accordingly, between 26 December 2002 and 17 March 2003, the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicants’ cases a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1393", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first and the third applicants were born in 1946 and 1959 respectively, they both live in Bełchatów. The second applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Szczerców.\n5.  On 17 March 1989 the applicants filed with the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an action for payment against the Bełchatow Coal Mine in Rogowiec. On 17 November 1989 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court gave judgment. Both parties to the proceedings appealed.\n6.  On 7 March 1991 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) quashed the contested judgment and remitted the case.\n7.  On 7 June 1993 an expert submitted his opinion to the court. The court held hearings on the following dates: 16 September 1993, 28 June 1994 and 28 July 1994.\n8.  On 11 August 1994 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court gave judgment. Both parties to the proceedings appealed.\n9.  On 24 March 1995 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the contested judgment and referred the case to the lower instance for reconsideration.\n10.  On 22 February, 26 September, 5 November, 10 December 1996 and 3 June 1997 the Regional Court held hearings.\n11.  On 11 June 1997 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court gave judgment. The applicants appealed.\n12.  On 17 December 1997 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) amended the contested judgment and ordered the company B to pay a higher amount of compensation to the applicants. On 11 February 1999 the applicants lodged a cassation appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Court.\n13.  On 2 September 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ cassation appeal as unsubstantiated. On 16 March 2000 the Supreme Court, at the defendant’s lawyer’s request, amended the judgment of 2 September 1999 and ordered the applicants to pay the cassation fees. The decision was served on the applicants on 20 March 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1394", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Novogrodovka, the Donetsk Region.\n5.  On 8 July 1997 and 22 February 2000 the Novogrodovka City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant a total of UAH 33,277[1] against the Novogrodovskaya State-owned Coal Mine No. 2 (hereafter “the NCM”) for arrears of salary, redundancy pay and industrial disability benefits. The judgments became final and were remitted to the Novogrodovka City Bailiffs’ Service for compulsory enforcement.\n6.  In 1998 and 1999 the Novgorodsky City Court and the Donetsk Regional Court rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant’s complaints against the Rossiya Association (the NCM’s managing company between August 1997 and March 1998) and the NCM for their failure to pay in due time and in full the sum awarded to him by the judgment of 8 July 1997.\n7.  In 1999 and 2000 the Prosecutor’s Office rejected on several occasions the applicant’s criminal complaints against officials of the Bailiffs’ Service.\n8.  On 24 May 2001 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy decided to wind up the NCM, designating the Ukrvuglrestrukrutizatsyya Company as its successor.\n9.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the City Court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to execute the decisions in his favour. On 14 August 2001, the court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs, who had demonstrated due diligence in enforcing the judgments in the applicant’s favour, but the NCM’s lack of funds had prevented them from securing the immediate payment of the awards.\n10.  In 2002 and 2003, due to the on-going bankruptcy proceedings against the NCM, the Bailiffs’ Service forwarded on several occasions the applicant’s writs of execution to the NCM’s liquidation commission, which refused to accept them, referring to the company’s lack of funds.\n11.  The judgments of 8 July 1997 and 22 February 2000 remain partially unenforced, the outstanding debts being UAH 3,736[2] and 2,857[3] respectively.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1395", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  In September 1997 a building permit was issued to the applicant’s neighbour, which was amended on 6 October 1997. On 26 January 1998 the Budapest Administrative Office dismissed the applicant’s administrative appeal against these decisions.\n6.  On 19 March 1998 the applicant filed an action with the Pest Central District Court challenging the administrative decisions. The administrative case-file was transferred to the District Court on 6 April 1998, which held a hearing on 16 October 1998.\n7.  Meanwhile, an additional permit was issued to the neighbour on 23 June 1998 which was upheld by the Administrative Office on 16 November 1998. On 24 November 1998 the applicant filed an action against this decision and requested that the two cases be joined.\n8.  On 10 December 1998 the District Court held a hearing and joined the two actions.\n9.  On 26 January 1999 the case was transferred to the competent Budapest Regional Court. The latter held hearings on 12 May and 1 December 1999. On 28 February 2000 it appointed an expert architect. The expert submitted his opinion on 14 April 2000.\n10.  On 11 May and 5 November 2001 hearings were held. On 16 May, 10 September, 6 and 19 December 2001 the applicant submitted further particulars of her claims; she also requested that a hearing scheduled for 3 September 2001 be postponed.\n11.  On 14 January 2002 the Regional Court quashed the administrative decisions and ordered the authorities to re-examine the case.\n12.  On 11 February 2002 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. After having been instructed to do so, the applicant re-introduced her appeal, this time countersigned by a lawyer, on 6 November 2002.\n13.  On 31 March 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance decision.\n14.  In 2002 the applicant brought an action in damages against the neighbour in question. On 27 August and 12 December 2002 the Budapest II/III District Court held hearings.\n15.  The expert architect appointed in the case submitted her opinion in February 2003. Further hearings took place on 13 February, 17 April and 7 October 2003. After the applicant’s request to have it suspended pending the outcome of the above administrative litigation, the case appears to be still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1396", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n9.  On 28 October 2001 he was arrested by gendarmes and taken into custody at the Diyarbakır gendarmerie command.\n10.  On 30 October 2001 the gendarmes took a statement from him. He was suspected of having assisted and supported the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation under Turkish law. He allegedly signed his statement while blindfolded. At the end of his detention in the gendarmes' custody, he was examined by a forensic medical expert. No signs of ill-treatment were observed on his body.\n11.  On 1 November 2001, after being interviewed by the public prosecutor, the applicant was brought before a judge of the Diyarbakır National Security Court, who ordered his detention pending trial. Before both the prosecutor and the judge the applicant denied the accusations against him. He was subsequently taken to Diyarbakır Prison.\n12.  On 1 November 2001, ruling on applications by the governor of the state of emergency region and the public prosecutor, and on the basis of Article 3 (c) of Legislative Decree no. 430 on additional measures to be taken in connection with the state of emergency, the judge granted leave for the applicant to be sent back to the gendarmerie command for questioning for a period not exceeding ten days. The applicant was returned to the gendarmes' custody at 10.45 p.m. that day.\n13.  On 6 November 2001 the National Security Court dismissed an objection by the applicant's family, on the ground that the length of his detention was consistent with the limits laid down in domestic law.\n14.  On 10 November 2001 the judge extended the applicant's detention at the gendarmerie command by ten days, again on the basis of Legislative Decree no. 430.\n15.  On 15 November 2001 an objection by the applicant's representative was dismissed by the National Security Court.\n16.  On 20 November 2001 the applicant was taken back to prison.\n17.  On 20 and 21 November 2001 the governor of the state of emergency region and the public prosecutor, again on the basis of Legislative Decree no. 430, asked the judge to extend the applicant's detention at the gendarmerie command by a further ten days.\n18.  On 21 November 2001 the judge refused that request on the ground that the case file did not contain any evidence to substantiate it and that such an omission was attributable to the authorities.\n19.  The public prosecutor lodged an objection against that decision.\n20.  On 22 November 2001 the National Security Court allowed the objection and observed that the applicant was the subject of three other investigations. It granted a further ten-day extension and leave for the applicant to be taken from prison for questioning.\n21.  On the same day the applicant was handed over to the gendarmes.\n22.  On 1 December 2001 the judge extended the applicant's detention at the gendarmerie command by a further ten days.\n23.  On 12 December 2001 the applicant was taken back to Diyarbakır Prison.\n24.  Each time the applicant left and returned to the prison, he was examined by a doctor. The reports subsequently drawn up did not mention any signs of blows to the applicant's body.\n25.  In an indictment of 6 April 2001, the public prosecutor brought criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 168 of the Criminal Code, by which it is an offence to be a member of an armed gang.\n26.  At a hearing on 26 June 2001, the National Security Court ordered the applicant's provisional rele", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1397", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the city of Bryanka-1, Ukraine.\n5.  On 27 May 2002 the Bryanka City Court ordered the State Company “Shakhtoupravlinnya No. 17” to pay the applicant UAH 9,970.16[1] in salary arrears and other payments.\n6.  On 8 July 2002 the Shakhtarsk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.\n7.  On 25 October 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment of 18 June 2002 could not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.\n8.  On 25 December 2003, 7 September and 29 December 2004, respectively, the full amount of the judgment debt was paid to the applicant in three instalments of UAH 1,195.74[2], 1,727.84[3] and 7,053.58[4].\n9.  In November 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bryanka City Court against the same company seeking the amendment of his retirement date and compensation for the failure to pay him the judgment debt of 27 May 2002.\n10.  On 4 November 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 12 January 2005 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 4 November 2004. The applicant’s appeal in cassation is still pending before the Supreme Court of Ukraine.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1398", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in the town of Novogrodovka, the Donetsk region.\n5.  On 16 June 1999 and 11 April 2001 the Novogrodovka City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant a total of UAH 4,078[1] against the Novogrodovskaya Coal Mine (a State-owned entity, hereafter “the Coal Mine”) in salary arrears. Both judgments became final and were sent to the Novogrodovka City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) for compulsory enforcement.\n6.  In 2001 the applicant complained to the City Court about the Bailiffs’ alleged inactivity. On 11 September 2001 the court rejected this complaint, stating, inter alia, that no fault was attributable to the Bailiffs, who had undertaken all necessary measures to secure the execution of the judgments, and that their non-enforcement was due to the Coal Mine’s lack of funds. The City Court also indicated that the enforcement proceedings were further impeded by the bankruptcy case pending against the Coal Mine before the Donetsk Regional Court of Arbitration, which on 30 August 2000 and 14 May 2001 prohibited the Bailiffs’ Service from attaching and selling the Coal Mine’s assets.  On 19 November 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the City Court. On 7 March 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal.\n7.  On 25 February 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered a merger of the Coal Mine with several others to form the Selydivvugilia State Company.\n8.  On 3 December 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service applied to the City Court for directions regarding the replacement of the debtor in the applicant’s case. On 18 December 2003 the City Court ordered that the debtor be replaced by the Selydivvugilia State Company.\n9.  On 21 September 2004 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as the judgments in the applicant’s favour had been enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1399", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Krasnoyarskoye, the Donetsk region, Ukraine. He temporarily resides in the village of Kalinovka, the Vinnytsia region, Ukraine.\n10.  The circumstances of the case, as relevant to the complaints declared admissible, may be summarised as follows.\n11.  On 2 September 1988 the applicant lodged complaints with the Dobropolye City Court (the “DCC”) against the Belitskaya Mining Company (“Imeni XXI syezda KPSS”) in Dobropolye (the “Belitskaya Mine”), and the Dobropolskiy communal farm (“Sovkhoz Dobropolskiy”), seeking compensation for the damage caused to his house by the work of underground mining machines.\n12.  Between September 1988 and May 1998, the case was examined on a number of occasions by the DCC and the Donetsk Regional Court (the “DRC”).\n13.  By a judgment of 30 May 1994, the DCC declared the defendants liable for the damage caused to the applicant’s house. It ordered them to build a new house for the applicant, equivalent to that which had been damaged, by 1 July 1995, and to pay him compensation. The DCC held that the new house had to measure 76,64 square meters and had to include three rooms for habitation, utility rooms (підсобні приміщення) and outdoor premises (надвірні приміщення) on the plot of 0,25 hectare, surrounded by a fence. It also ordered the payment to the applicant and his wife of 2,627,925 karbovantsi, each, in compensation for the damage to certain property which had been in the original house, as well as costs for expert examinations and State taxes. In particular, the DCC ruled that:\n“ The Belitskaya mine and Dobropolskiy communal farm, in respective shares, [are] to ensure the restitution for pecuniary damage in kind by building him a house measuring 76,64 square meters on the plot of 0,25 hectares, to be composed of two bedrooms, a living room and auxiliary rooms – a kitchen, hall, bathroom and toilet; outdoor premises: a lobby/porch, basement and garage; support premises: a summer kitchen, premises for domestic animals, birds, storage space for food, coal and wood; a fence surrounding the plot with an additional asphalt cover for the yard and green plantations around the house; to be completed before 1 July 1995.\n[Orders] the Belitskaya Mine and the Dobropolskiy communal farm to pay the applicant and his wife, each, 2,627,925 karbovantsi in compensation for the damage caused to their property...”\n14.  On 11 July 1994, the DRC upheld the judgment of 30 May 1994, which, that same day, became final.\n15.  Contested enforcement proceedings ensued after the defendants failed to comply with the judgment of 30 May 1994. Two key decisions were as follows:\n- first, that of the DCC on 14 November 1996, upholding the judgment in the applicant’s favour and ordering the defendants to reimburse the applicant, before 14 February 1997, UAH 70,054.70 for his expenses relating to the construction of a new house;\n- secondly, that of the DRC on 13 January 1997, upholding the preceding decision, which thereby became final and enforceable.\n16.  On 10 September 1997 the Presidium of the DRC allowed the protest of the Acting Prosecutor of the Donetsk Region, quashed the decisions of 14 November 1996 and 13 January 1997, and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the DCC.\n17.  On 15 May 1998 the Prosecutor General lodged a new protest with the Supreme Court, seeking the initiation of supervisory review proceedings in the applicant’s case. By a Resolution of 10 June 1998, the Su", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1400", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in the city of Snizhne, Ukraine.\n5.  On 12 June 2000 the Snizhne City Court ordered the State Holding Company “Torezantratsit” to pay the applicant UAH 3,448.60[1] in salary arrears and other payments.\n6.  On 26 June 2000 the Torezk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.\n7.  On 2 March 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment of 12 June 2000 could not be executed due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor, and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor has been suspended due to the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.\n8.  On 28 October and 22 December 2004, respectively, the full amount of the judgment debt was paid to the applicant in two instalments of UAH 2,679.70[2] and 768.90[3].", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1401", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in Orenburg, Russia, in 1954. He currently resides in Simferopol, the Crimea.\n9.  In 1984 the applicant was convicted of attempted rape. However, he was exempted from serving his sentence on the grounds of diminished responsibility and underwent compulsory medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital from 1984 to 1986.\n10.  On 9 September 1990 the applicant again attempted to commit rape.\n11.  On 9 April 1991 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Simferopol (the “Zheleznodorozhny Court”) ordered the applicant to undergo compulsory medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital under close supervision. This decision was not appealed and became final. He was detained in the Dnepropetrovsk Specialised Psychiatric Hospital.\n12.  On 24 November 1997 the psychiatric commission recommended that the applicant be transferred to a hospital with strict supervision (a higher level than the previous one).\n13.  On 2 December 1997 the Krasnogvardejsky District Court of Dnepropetrovsk allowed the petition lodged by the chief psychiatrist of the Dnepropetrovsk Regional Health Department. It quashed the decision of 9 April 1991, but decided that the applicant should continue to undergo compulsory medical treatment under close supervision. This resolution was not appealed and became final.\n14.  From 11 September to 14 December 1997 the applicant remained in detention in the Dnepropetrovsk Specialised Psychiatric Hospital under close supervision.\n15.  From 15 December 1997 until 20 January 1999 the applicant was under compulsory medical treatment with close supervision in the Crimean Republican Psychiatric Hospital (the “CRPH”).\n16.  On 17 December 1998 the CRPH lodged a request with the Zheleznodorozhny Court that the applicant’s regime be reduced to ordinary supervision.\n17.  On 6 January 1999 the Zheleznodorozhny Court decided that the applicant should be placed under ordinary supervision in the psychiatric hospital since his behaviour had improved.\n18.  On 12 July 1999 the Zheleznodorozhny Court refused an application by the Chief Psychiatrist of the Ministry of Health of the Crimea (the “Chief Psychiatrist”), based on a medical report dated 3 June 1999, to terminate the applicant’s compulsory medical treatment since his state of health had improved. In particular, it referred to the gravity of the offence committed by the applicant.\n19.  On 19 August 1999 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of the Crimea. On 30 August 1999 this court upheld the decision of 12 July 1999. In particular, it ruled that the requests for release were unsubstantiated as the applicant had not fully recovered from his mental illness.\n20.  On 14 March 2000 the Zheleznodorozhny Court rejected a further application by the Chief Psychiatrist lodged on the basis of the conclusions of the applicant’s medical examination on 13 January 2000, as being unsubstantiated.\n21.  On 20 March 2000, the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court of the Crimea. On 4 April 2000 the court upheld the decision.\n22.  On 10 July 2000 the Chief Psychiatrist lodged another application with the Central District Court of Simferopol (the “Central Court”) seeking to quash the compulsory medical treatment of the applicant and to transfer him to a regime of ordinary supervision. On 1 September 2000 the Central Court rejected this application for lack of substantiation and, on 31 October 2000, the Supreme Court of the Crim", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1402", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is a Moldovan incorporated insurance company, with its seat in Chişinău.\n10.  On 12 June 1991, a governmental order allowed the applicant company to enter “banking and investments operations”, apart from its main insurance activity.\n11.  On 28 November 1991, the applicant company obtained from the National Bank of Moldova a licence to engage in banking operations. During a routine audit procedure, the company refused to disclose its books, claiming it did not perform any banking activities. On 13 October 1992, the applicant company’s licence was withdrawn. The applicant company did not challenge this decision.\n12.  On 25 November 1994, the applicant company concluded a one-year contract (“the contract”), with company F., entitled “Joint Commercial Transaction”. The applicant company made a capital contribution of 330,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) to company F., and in exchange it was to receive the sum of MDL 269,500, payable in monthly instalments. Company F. was also to reimburse the capital contribution in a lump sum by 25 November 1995. Non compliance with the terms of the contract gave rise to a penalty of 0,50% of the unpaid sum for each overdue day. By a collateral contract, company F. mortgaged its plant and equipment, as security.\n13.  By 23 April 1996, company F. had paid the applicant company MDL 420,750. Due to a slowdown in the national economy, company F. was, as of that date, unable to pay the balance in full and had no reasonable prospect of complying with the terms of the contract.\n14.  On 24 May 1996 the applicant company filed an application with the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Moldova for breach of contract and requested that company F. be ordered to pay MDL 468,472, constituting the capital contribution and contractual penalties.\n15.  Company F. argued that the contract contained an implied obligation, arising from the nature and purpose of the contract, that the applicant company was to contribute to the expenses and losses of the joint venture. As the company had experienced losses, in spite of its good faith in performance, it asked for an adjustment or cancellation of the MDL 468,472 debt, invoking the Civil Code provisions on risk-sharing in joint ventures. As a subsidiary argument, it submitted that, in the absence of this implied obligation, the contract became a regular loan, for which the applicant company did not possess a licence.\n16.  On 1 August 1996 the Arbitration Court partially allowed the applicant company’s application, but it reduced the contractual penalties by 50%, considering the claim to be disproportionate in relation to the actual damage experienced by the applicant company, and issued an order of payment for an amount of MDL 327,474.75 (the equivalent of 62,780.00 euros (EUR) at the time)).\n17.  On 20 August 1996, the Prosecutor General, who was not a party to the proceedings, lodged an ordinary appeal against the judgment of 1 August 1996.\n18.  On 28 November 1996 the “Law on Economic Courts” entered into force. It provided for the re-organisation of the part of the judiciary system dealing with economic disputes. The re-organisation process resulted in a suspension of the hearings for several months.\n19.  On 14 April 1997 the Prosecutor General withdrew his appeal against the judgment of 1 August 1996. The judgment of the Arbitration Court thus became final.\n20.  On 16 June 1997 the Prosecutor General lodged a request for annulment (recurs în anulare) under Article 38", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1403", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1945 and resides in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine.\n8.  The applicant has worked as an English teacher in a secondary school since 1984.\n9.  On 23 March 1996 the Ukrainian Parliament adopted a new wording for the Education Act that provided for, in particular, the payment of certain benefits to teachers.\n10.  On 2 April 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Donetsk against the Leninsky District Department for Education, claiming entitlement to those benefits. The applicant maintained that he had more than 10 years’ of service and was thus entitled to a 20% increase in his salary as from 1 January 1997. However, the defendant had not paid him this increase. He further maintained that the defendant had not paid him annual bonuses for excellent work and recreation. The defendant stated that the claimed amounts could not be paid because the State budgets for 1997-1999 did not make any provision for such expenditures.\n11.  On 5 October 1999 the court found in part for the applicant. The court rejected the applicant’s claim for an excellent work bonus as such a payment required an assessment of the applicant’s work which was outside the court’s competence. The court also rejected the applicant’s claim for unpaid benefits in 1997 and 1998 as being out of time, according to the law on employment disputes. The court further rejected the applicant’s claim for benefits after 1 June 1999 as the Secondary Education Act, adopted in May 1999, had suspended them. The court, however, awarded the applicant the claimed increase in salary for the period between 1 January and 1 June 1999.\n12.  The applicant appealed against this decision to the Donetsk Regional Court.\n13.  On 4 November 1999 the regional court quashed the decision of the first instance court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The court noted, in particular, that the Secondary Education Act had entered into force on 23 June 1999; therefore the first instance court had erroneously overlooked the period between 1 and 23 June 1999.\n14.  On 24 February 2000 the Leninsky District Court of Donetsk ruled against the applicant. The court found that, under the transitional clauses of the Secondary Education Act, the provision entitling the applicant to benefits would only resume force on 1 September 2001. Thus, at the time of the examination of the claim, there was no legal basis for it.\n15.  On 30 March 2000, the Donetsk Regional Court upheld the decision of the first instance court. It observed that the claims of the applicant for the periods prior to the adoption of the Secondary Education Act could not be satisfied, since at the time of the consideration of the case the relevant provisions of the Education Act had been suspended by the Secondary Education Act. This decision was final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1404", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in the city of Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine.\n5.  On 22 August 2002 the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv ordered the Khmelnytskyi Regional Court of Appeal to pay the applicant UAH 9,565.17[1] in pension arrears (involving a special retired judges’ allowance). The court also ordered the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice to transfer to the Khmelnytskyi Regional Court of Appeal the amount of the award.\n6.  On 31 January 2003 the Pecherskyi District Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.\n7.  On 15 December 2003 the judgment was enforced in full.\n8.  On 27 December 2002 the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv ordered the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice to pay the applicant UAH 3,618.78[2] in similar pension arrears. The court held that the amount of the award should be seized from a specific account of the State Treasury.\n9.  On 5 March 2003 the Pecherskyi District Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 27 December 2002. On 16 May 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service submitted the writ of execution for the judgment to the State Treasury of Ukraine. On an unspecified date the State Treasury returned the writ of execution and informed the Bailiffs’ Service that the judgment could not be enforced because of the absence of relevant allocations from the State Budget.\n10.  On 24 December 2004 the judgment of 27 December 2002 was enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1405", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Arlington, United States of America.\n8.  Georgiy Gongadze, the applicant's husband, was a journalist. He disappeared on 16 September 2000 in circumstances that have not yet been fully established by the Ukrainian authorities despite the numerous demands and requests of the applicant. Recently, however, several police officers were charged with the kidnap and murder of Mr Gongadze.\n9.  Mr Gongadze was a political journalist and the editor-in-chief of Ukrayinska Pravda, an online newspaper. He was known for his criticism of those in power and for his active involvement in awareness-raising in Ukraine and abroad as regards the problems of freedom of speech in his country. He reported on such topics as the allegedly undemocratic initiatives of the Ukrainian authorities and corruption amongst high-level State officials.\n10.  For months before his disappearance Mr Gongadze had been telling his relatives and colleagues that he was receiving threats and was under surveillance.\n11.  On 14 July 2000 Mr Gongadze wrote an open letter to the Prosecutor General making the following complaints:\n(i)  His relatives and friends in the city of Lviv, and his colleagues in Kyiv, had been interviewed by law enforcement officers about him. The pretext for holding these interviews had been an inquiry into a criminal incident in Odessa in which Mr Gongadze had allegedly been involved. (The applicant maintained that Mr Gongadze had known nothing about the incident or the people involved in it. He himself had never been interviewed about it.)\n(ii)  For some time, unknown persons in a car with the number plate 07309 KB had been following Mr Gongadze from his home to his office and back.\nIn his open letter, Mr Gongadze requested the Prosecutor General to take measures to protect him from what he described as “moral terror”, and to find and punish those involved.\n12.  In response, the Prosecutor General sent the letter to the regional prosecutor's office in Lviv, where Mr Gongadze was officially registered as a resident (propiska). The Lviv prosecutor replied that the places and streets (of Kyiv) mentioned in Mr Gongadze's letter were unknown in Lviv.\n13.  Later, the then Minister of the Interior told representatives of the non-governmental organisation “Reporters sans frontières” (as recounted in the latter's report of 22 January 2001) that the car registration plate had been stolen from a police vehicle in February 2000.\n14.  On 1 September 2000 the General Prosecutor's Office (“the GPO”) informed Mr Gongadze that there were no grounds for the adoption of any decision under Article 52-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (protective measures during criminal proceedings) regarding his letter.\n15.  Mr Gongadze disappeared on 16 September 2000.\n16.  On 17 September 2000 the applicant reported her husband's disappearance to the Moskovskiy District Police Department in Kyiv.\n17.  On 18 September 2000 (19 September, according to the Government) the Pechersky district prosecutor's office initiated an inquiry into a case of premeditated murder (the “Gongadze case”). The inquiry included a search of the places where Mr Gongadze had last been seen and interviews with people who had been there at the time. The applicant maintained that the investigating prosecutor in charge of the case, Mr H., had seemed to be conducting a serious investigation. However, he was replaced at the beginning of November by another prosecutor, Mr V.\n1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1406", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine.\n5.  On 13 December 2000 the labour disputes commission (hereafter “the LDC”) ordered the “Zhovtnevy Rudnyk” coal mine (a State enterprise, hereafter “the ZRCM”) to pay the applicant UAH 29,875[1] in compensation for unpaid industrial disability benefits.\n6.  On 13 March 2001 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Donetsk (hereafter “the District Court”) awarded the applicant UAH 7,427.58[2] against the ZRCM in salary arrears.\n7.  On 9 January and 9 April 2001 respectively, the Kuybyshevskiy District Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) opened the enforcement proceedings concerning the above decisions.\n8.  On 23 June 2001 the Deputy Head of the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that the LDC decision of 13 December 2000 and the court judgment of 13 March 2001 could not be immediately executed in full due to the debtor’s lack of funds. However, on 22 March 2001 the applicant was paid UAH 388.88[3] of the benefits awarded by the LDC.\n9.  On 19 April, 5 August and 6 December 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the decisions of the court and the labour commission could not be enforced on account of the debtor’s lack of funds and the moratorium on the forced sale of the property of State enterprises introduced by the 2001 Law.\n10.  On 7 February 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered the merger of several coal mines, including the ZRCM, into the Donetskvugillia State Company.\n11.  On 1 September 2003, relying on the fact that the ZRCM’s had lost its status as an independent legal entity, the Bailiffs dealing with the applicant’s case terminated the enforcement proceedings. However, on 23 October 2003 the Head of the Bailiffs’ Service annulled this decision as ill-founded.\n12.  On 20 and 28 October 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service applied to the District Court, seeking directions regarding the replacement of the debtor in the applicant’s enforcement cases. On 24 and 30 October 2003 the court ordered that the debtor in the cases be replaced by the Donetskvugillia State Company. On 13 November 2003 the enforcement case was transmitted to the Voroshylovske District Bailiffs’ Service.\n13.  The amount awarded by the judgment of 13 March 2001 was paid to the applicant on 5 December 2003. The benefits awarded on 13 December 2000 were paid in two instalments on 3 and 29 December 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1407", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant was born on 12 January 1952 and currently resides in Yevpatoria, the Crimea. He lodged his application with the Court on behalf of his wife (the second applicant), who died on 25 October 2001, and on behalf of his youngest daughter (the third applicant), born in 1980.\n8.  On 31 July 1997 police sergeant B.A.I. of the Shostka City Police Department, while under the influence of alcohol, fatally wounded the applicant’s eldest daughter, Mrs Iryna Yachmeneva (born Zamula).\n9.  On 3 March 1998 the Sumy Regional Court sentenced B.A.I. to 14 years’ imprisonment following his conviction for the murder of the applicant’s daughter, attempted murder of other persons and abuse of power. It also ordered the Shostka District Police Department to pay UAH 65,114.20[1] to the first applicant and his deceased daughter’s mother (the second applicant), youngest sister (the third applicant) and her former husband Mr Aleksandr Yachmenev.\n10.  On 7 April 1998 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld this decision.\n11.  The execution proceedings commenced on 19 May 1998.\n12.  On 15 May 2000 the Shostka City Execution Service informed the first applicant that UAH 1,223.56[2] were to be paid to the family, but that it was not possible to execute the decision in full. It also informed him that the outstanding debt was UAH 63,805.64[3], of which UAH 19,405.64[4] was to be paid to the first applicant and UAH 14,800[5] to each of the other victims.\n13.  In October 2000 the Sumy Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior (the “Sumy Department”) underwent reorganisation and the Shostka District Department of the Interior was joined to the City Department of the Interior.\n14.  On 9 February 2001 the Sumy Regional Court declared the Shostka City Department of the Ministry of the Interior to be the legal successor to the debt awarded to the applicants by the judgment of 3 March 1998.\n15.  On 5 July 2001 the Bailiffs terminated the execution proceedings due to the Shostka City Police Department’s lack of funds. It was noted in the resolution that the writ of execution could be reintroduced for enforcement before 5 July 2004.\n16.  On 9 July 2001 the Sumy Regional Department of Justice informed the first applicant of the Police Department’s lack of funds. It also informed him that he could reapply for execution of the judgment of 3 March 1998 within a three-year period.\n17.  The second applicant died on 25 October 2001.\n18.  On 2 November 2001 the first applicant informed the Court that he was the guardian of Ms Ekaterina Yachmeneva, born in 1995, the child of his murdered daughter, whose father (A.Y.) had been divested of his parental rights.\n19.  On 16 July 2003 the Sumy Department informed the applicants that the awards were available for payment and they could receive them after presentation of the writs of execution of the judgment of 3 March 1998.\n20.  The first applicant received this letter on 22 July 2003.\n21.  On 21 January 2004 the Department of the Ministry of Justice urged the applicants to accept the sums awarded to them by the judgment of 3 March 1998. It mentioned that, in the event that the applicants refused these sums, their further recovery would be impossible and that “further consideration of the case would be discontinued”.\n22.  On 18 November 2003 and 22 March 2004 the Ministry of Justice informed the Court that the applicants had failed to reintroduce the execution writs at the State Bailiffs’ Service.\n23.  On 18 March 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1408", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1938 and currently resides in Dnipropetrovs’k.\n9.  On 5 September 1938 the Troika tribunal of the Department of the NKVD[1] of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in the Dnipropetrovs’k Region (Трійка Управління Народного Комісаріату Внутрішніх Справ УPСР по Дніпропетровській області) resolved that the applicant’s father was a “socially harmful element” after a purported robbery (“соціально шкідливий елемент”), and sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment in a correctional labour camp.\n10.  The applicant’s father died on 26 March 1976.\n11.  On 28 March 1980 the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court quashed the resolution of 5 September 1938 of the Troika tribunal upon the protest lodged by the prosecutor of the Dnipropetrovs’k Region. It also terminated the proceedings in the case. In particular it found that:\n“... there is no evidence of ... robbery...\n... the investigation in the case was conducted in grave violation of the rules of procedural law.\nNo criminal proceedings in the case were initiated; the [applicant’s father] was not charged; there was no indictment in the case. In the course of the investigation of the case, the elementary rights of the accused were not respected (the right to defend oneself, etc.).\nIn such circumstances the resolution of the Troika has to be annulled and the proceedings in the case shall be terminated on the basis of an absence of any corpus juris in his actions ...”\n12.  On 29 May 1980 the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court issued written notice to the applicant that the proceedings in his father’s case had been terminated and that the Troika’s resolution of 5 September 1938 had been annulled.\n13.  On 24 February 1997 the Commission on Rehabilitation of the Dnipropetrovs’k Municipal Council requested the President of the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court to provide information concerning the conviction of the applicant’s father on 5 September 1938, as the notice of 29 May 1980 contained insufficient information about it. The Commission was also requested to state whether the father’s conviction had been politically motivated.\n14.  On 4 March 1997 the Deputy President of the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court issued written notice to the Commission on Rehabilitation of the Dnipropetrovs’k Municipal Council that:\n“... by a resolution of the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court of 28 March 1980, the resolution of the Troika has been annulled and the proceedings in the case terminated due to the lack of proof of guilt.”\n15.  From March 1997 until May 2000, the applicant unsuccessfully appealed to the Deputy President of the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court and the President of that court, and wrote to the Supreme Court of Ukraine, claiming the untruthfulness of the notice and asking that it be reworded, since it did not correspond to the resolution of Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court of 28 March 1980 and, accordingly, his father’s memory had been defamed. He also sought initiation of criminal proceedings against the Deputy President of the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court.\n16.  On 8 August 1997 the Deputy President of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court remitted the applicant’s complaint about the notice of 4 March 1997 to the President of the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court for consideration on the merits. He also requested that the notice be rectified and that a public apology be presented to the applicant.\n17.  By letters sent to the applicant by the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 26 September an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1409", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1965. On 17 August 1998 he arrived in Russia from Tajikistan. He stayed in Vladimir at his cousin's flat.\n11.  On 22 January 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of the unlawful purchase and possession of drugs. A search was carried out in the flat where he was staying.\n12.  On 30 January 1999 the applicant was charged under Article 228 § 1 of the Criminal Code with the unlawful purchase and possession of 3 grams of hashish. He pleaded not guilty and indicated that he did not need an interpreter because he had studied in Leningrad.\n13.  On 12 March and 5 April 1999 the applicant's detention was extended until 11 July 1999.\n14.  On 4 June 1999 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir refused the applicant's request for release on bail. It found that the applicant's detention had been extended in accordance with the law and that no grounds for releasing him could be established. The applicant did not appeal to the Regional Court.\n15.  On 30 June and 2 September 1999 the applicant's detention was extended until 21 December 1999.\n16.  On 2 December 1999 the acting Prosecutor General approved the extension of the applicant's detention until 21 June 2000. The applicant appealed to the Leninskiy District Court, which on 28 December 1999 dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant had been charged with an particularly serious criminal offence and had resided in Vladimir only temporarily, his permanent residence being in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, so that there was good reason to suspect that he would abscond if released. The applicant did not appeal against that decision to the Regional Court.\n17.  On 21 June 2000 the supervising prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and the case against the applicant and twenty co-defendants was sent to the Vladimir Regional Court for trial.\n18.  On 23 June and 17 July 2000 the applicant requested the Vladimir Regional Court to review the lawfulness of his detention on remand.\n19.  On 18 July 2000 the Vladimir Regional Court ordered the case to be remitted for an additional investigation because the bill of indictment had not been translated into the Tajik language, even though seven of the defendants were Tajik. The court held that the applicant and his co-defendants should remain in custody.\n20.  On 24 July 2000 the prosecution appealed against the decision but subsequently withdrew their appeal. On 30 August 2000 the case was returned to the Vladimir Regional Court for examination on the merits.\n21.  On 23 November 2000 the Vladimir Regional Court ordered the case to be remitted for an additional investigation because the rights of some of the defendants had been unlawfully restricted. The prosecution appealed.\n22.  On 28 February 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the decision of 23 November 2000. It found that, after the case had been remitted for an additional investigation on 18 July 2000, the prosecution had not remedied the defects identified by the Regional Court. In particular, the prosecution had not arranged for translation of the bill of indictment or checked that the interpreter had the requisite skills. In view of these procedural defects, the Supreme Court held that all the subsequent judicial decisions had been unlawful and remitted the case to the Regional Court for implementation of the decision of 18 July 2000.\n23.  On 4 April 2001 the case was remitted to the prosecutor of the Vladimir Region for an additional investigation", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1410", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1969.\n9.  On 22 May 1996 the applicant was taken into custody by the Jõgeva police on suspicion of having committed burglary.\n10.  On 8 November 1996 the applicant was charged with fraud and three counts of burglary.\n11.  On 19 May 1997 the Jõgeva County Court (Jõgeva Maakohus) convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.\n12.  On 8 October 1997 the Tartu Court of Appeal (Tartu Ringkonnakohus) quashed the judgment of the County Court on procedural grounds and remitted the case to it for fresh consideration by a differently constituted court. The applicant was ordered to remain in custody.\n13.  In November 1998 a new criminal case concerning an act of hooliganism in prison was opened against the applicant, which was later joined to the charges under consideration before the trial court.\n14.  On 28 September 1999 the County Court convicted the applicant on all charges and sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment.\n15.  On 29 November 1999 the Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant of hooliganism, upholding the County Court’s judgment in respect of the other charges.\n16.  On 19 January 2000 the Supreme Court (Riigikohus) refused the applicant leave to lodge an appeal with it.\n17.  During his detention on remand from 22 May 1996 the applicant was kept for the most part in Tallinn Central Prison (Keskvangla). In addition to several shorter stays in the prison hospital totalling about three months, the applicant was hospitalised from 17 May 1999 until 22 December 1999.\n18.  The applicant spent 14 short periods, lasting from 5 to 15 days, in the Jõgeva Police District Arrest House (Jõgeva Politseiprefektuuri arestimaja), where he was escorted from the Central Prison in connection with his trial. In total he spent 139 days in the arrest house.\n19.  On 22 December 1999 he was sent to serve his sentence in Murru Prison. He was released in November 2000.\n20.  As regards the Jõgeva Arrest House, the applicant submits that his cell measured 9 sq. m (or 3.5 m by 3 m). It had no ventilation and had only a small window (25 cm by 25 cm). The ventilation was installed in 2000. There was no chair, table or proper bed. Inmates slept on a shared platform which was used by four to five persons. In the cell there was little room for movement, since 60% of it was occupied by the large plank bed. From 6 November to 9 November 1998 the applicant shared his cell with R.J., who was ill with tuberculosis in its contagious form.\nThe inmates were provided with food only once a day. They had to keep their food on the floor, as there were no cupboards for it. The toilet (a hole) and the sink also occupied part of the tiny room. The condition of the cell was extremely insanitary.\n(b)  The Central Prison\n21.  The general conditions in Tallinn Central Prison were equally unsatisfactory. The applicant’s cell lacked fresh air and it had no natural light as there were metal slats fitted to the cell window. He was permitted to walk outside his cell for one hour a day. The food in the detention facility was of poor quality.\n22.  All ordinary confinement cells where the applicant was held in the Central Prison measured 14 m by 3 m. He stayed in the following cells.\nFrom July to September 1996 he was held in cell no. 89. There were fourteen inmates in it.\nFrom October to December 1996 he was in cell no. 141. There were four inmates.\nIn December 1996 he was in cell no. 78. The number of detainees wa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1411", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the city of Dnipropetrovs’k, Ukraine.\n5.  On 4 August 1993, the applicant was attacked and injured by Mr Ts., when trying to prevent the latter from stealing State property.\n6.  The next day a criminal investigation was started by the Apostolivskiy District Police Department.\n7.  On 5 October 1993 the applicant was granted the status of an aggrieved party.\n8.  The criminal investigation under Article 101 of the Criminal Code (grievous bodily harm) was completed by the Kryvyy Rig Prosecutors’ Office on 8 May 1994 and referred to the court.\n9.  On 21 November 1994 the applicant introduced a civil claim against Mr Ts. in the framework of the pending criminal proceedings.\n10.  On 11 June 1996, Apostolivsky District Court of Dnipropetrovs’k Region found Mr Ts. guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm on the applicant and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years pending probation. The civil claim of the applicant was not granted due to a lack of supporting documents.\n11.  On 27 August 1996, the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court quashed the decision of the first instance court on the ground that the sentence was too lenient and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n12.  On 20 May 1998, the Apostolivsky District Court found Mr Ts. guilty and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years pending probation.\n13.  On 21 July 1998, the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court quashed the decision of the first instance court, again for imposing too lenient a sentence, and remitted the case for fresh consideration to another first instance court.\n14.  The same day, by a separate decision, the Regional Court found that the first instance court had not complied with its previous decision of 27 August 1996 and had delayed the consideration of the case on the merits for two years. The court decided to inform the Chairman of the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court about this so that the appropriate measures would be taken.\n15.  On 6 August 2001, the Nikopolskiy District Court sentenced Mr Ts. to four years’ imprisonment. By the same decision, the court awarded the applicant UAH 212.35 (around 34 euros – “EUR”) in material damages and UAH 5,000 (around EUR 806) in moral damages.\n16.  On 30 October 2001, the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court quashed the decision of the first instance court and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n17.  On 10 April 2003 the Nikopolskiy District Court sentenced Mr Ts. to five years’ imprisonment, suspended for three years pending probation. By the same decision, the court awarded the applicant UAH 875.33 (around EUR 141) in material damages and UAH 8,000 (around EUR 1,290) in moral damages.\n18.  On 18 August 2003 the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the first instance court and terminated the proceedings on the ground that a further prosecution of Mr Ts. was time-barred. The court also advised the applicant to lodge a separate civil claim against Mr Ts.\n19.  On 8 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of the appellate court and confirmed that the applicant had to lodge a separate civil claim against Mr Ts. for compensation for damages. The Court has not been informed whether the applicant lodged a separate civil claim.\n20.  According to the Government, during the period between 11 September 1997 and 18 August 2003, the applicant caused delays by:\n- being absent from 18 hearings;\n- failing to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1412", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1972, 1973, 1998 and 1999 respectively and are currently in Sweden.\n10.  They arrived in Sweden on 25 August 2002 and applied to the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) for asylum on the following day. The first applicant submitted that he was of Kurdish origin, a Sunnite Muslim, and had lived with his family and worked in Beirut (Lebanon) since 1995. He claimed that in December 1999 he and three of his brothers had been arrested by the Syrian security police and imprisoned in Aleppo (Syria) for nine months because the police wanted information about another brother who had absconded while performing military service in 1998. He further alleged that he had been tortured and ill-treated in prison and had only been released after being hospitalised as a result of the ill-treatment. After his release, he returned to Beirut to stay with his family. Between 2001 and 2002 he was arrested four times by the security police, questioned about his brother's whereabouts and beaten. However, on each occasion, he was released after a few days. In 2002 the applicants moved to Aleppo, where they remained until they left Syria in August 2002.\nThe applicants stated that they had left Syria legally, flying from Damascus to Turkey and then on to Stockholm. They had travelled using their own passports but had destroyed them upon their arrival in Sweden.\n11.  On 27 June 2003 the Migration Board rejected the family's application for asylum and their request for residence permits and ordered their deportation to Syria. It noted, firstly, that the general situation of Kurds in Syria was not such as to satisfy the requirements for asylum since, inter alia, Kurds who were Syrian nationals had the same rights as all other citizens. Moreover, the majority of the population in Syria were Sunnite Muslims. The Migration Board then found that the applicants had not shown that they risked persecution if they were sent back to Syria. It observed that, except for the first occasion in 1999, the first applicant had been released shortly after each interrogation by the security police. Moreover, as the interrogations had concerned his brother and not himself, the Migration Board considered that he was not personally in need of protection. In this connection, it noted that the first applicant had not been able to explain why his brother had left the army or why the security police was so interested in him. The Migration Board also observed that the applicants had left Syria legally.\n12.  The applicants appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden), relying on the same grounds as they had before the Migration Board and adding that Kurds were being persecuted and discriminated against in Syria. They also claimed that they had paid 6,000 United States dollars for false passports which they had subsequently discarded. Furthermore, the second applicant had been admitted to an emergency psychiatric clinic for three days in July 2003 owing to panic attacks.\n13.  On 16 September 2003 the Aliens Appeals Board dismissed the appeal on the same grounds as the Migration Board, stating that the new reasons advanced by the applicants did not alter the position. The deportation order was also upheld.\n14.  The applicants subsequently lodged a new application with the Aliens Appeals Board which was rejected on 27 November 2003.\n15.  Further, during the autumn of 2003, the District Court (tingsrätten) of Blekinge convicted the first applicant of threat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1413", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are Ukrainian nationals, who were born in 1957 and 1977, respectively. They reside in the Nyzhnia Krynka village, Ukraine. Ms Leshchenko was the second applicant’s guardian until he reached the age of majority.\n9.  On 18 January 1993 a bus belonging to the Khartsyzk Transportation Company No. 11414 (the “TCK”), in which the second applicant travelled to work, had an accident. As a result of the accident he received multiple injuries which left him with a permanent disability, as established by a medical commission.\n10.  On 1 November 1993 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makeyevka sentenced Y.F.P. (the bus driver responsible for the accident) to eight years’ imprisonment following his conviction for an infringement of road traffic regulations which had had grave consequences. The court did not consider the applicants’ claims for pecuniary damage lodged in the course of the criminal proceedings, and advised them to appeal to the civil courts in separate proceedings.\n11.  In May 1994 the first applicant, the mother and legal representative of the second applicant, lodged complaints on his behalf with the Sovetskiy District Court of Makeyevka against the TCK, seeking compensation for injuries suffered by the second applicant as a result of the accident.\n12.  On 7 June 1994 the court allowed the applicants’ claims and ordered the TCK to pay him 29,325,933 Ukrainian Karbovantsi (українські карбованці)[1] in compensation. Later, the Donetsk Regional Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for reconsideration.\n13.  In November 1996 the second applicant, after reaching the age of majority (набуття повнолітнього віку), lodged his own complaints with the Sovetskiy District Court of Makeyevka against the TCK, seeking compensation for the damage caused by the accident. On 26 December 1996 the court allowed his claims and ordered the TCK to pay him UAH 36,232[2] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Moreover, it fixed a monthly pension of UAH 254[3] to be paid to him for the period from 1 December 1996 until 1 September 1997. This judgment was not appealed in cassation and became final.\n14.  On 26 February 1997 the applicants lodged complaints with the Prosecutor of the Donetsk Region, seeking to institute a supervisory review of the judgment of 26 December 1996.\n15.  In April 1997 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Donetsk Region lodged a protest with the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court, seeking to quash the judgment of 26 December 1996. On 9 April 1997 the Presidium quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the Sovetskiy District Court of Makeyevka.\n16.  On 27 August 1997 the second applicant was declared to be in the “first group” of disabled persons (перша група інвалідності).\n17.  On 19 September 1997 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makeyevka allowed the applicants’ petition for a forensic medical examination, suspending the proceedings in the meantime.\n18.  On 7 October 1997 the forensic medical examination fixed the second applicant’s loss of work capacity at 100% (з повною втратою працездатності).\n19.  In October 1997 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makeyevka re-examined the second applicant’s petition on the basis of the first applicant’s claims regarding the recalculation of the amount of compensation. On 29 October 1997 the court partially allowed the second applicant’s petition and ordered the TCK to pay him UAH 2,965.26[4] in additional compensation. The court also ordered the TCK to pay the second", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1414", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Łódź.\n7.  On 21 November 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of receiving and selling stolen goods.\n8.  On 22 November 1997 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand until 21 February 1998. The court referred to the strong probability of the applicant’s guilt and to the high risk of his hindering the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court also emphasised that it was likely that the applicant, if released, would go into hiding.\n9.  By a decision of 24 February 1998, the Łódź District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 21 September 1998. The court considered that the reasons for which the detention had been ordered continued to exist. The decision was served on the applicant on 25 February 1998.\n10.  The applicant appealed, claiming that keeping him in custody between 21 February 1998 and 24 February 1998 had been unlawful since there had been no valid judicial decision authorising his detention.\n11.  On 25 March 1998 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unsubstantiated. However, the court altered the decision of 24 February 1998 and prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 30 June 1998, finding that the case had not been complex and that the evidence against the applicant pointed to his guilt.\n12.  In a letter of 28 April 1998, the Łódź District Court admitted its mistake and confirmed that there had been no valid judicial decision authorising the applicant’s detention on remand between 21 February 1998 and 24 February 1998. It added that this period would be deducted from any sentence of imprisonment eventually imposed on the applicant.\n13.  On 5 June 1998 the Łódź District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1415", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Köln, Germany.\n5.  On 14 October 1993 the applicant lodged an application with the Warsaw Śródmieście Municipality (Urząd Gminy Warszawa Śródmieście). He asked for the right to the grant of so-called “temporary ownership” of the property (a plot of land and a house).\n6.  On 18 August 1995 the Warsaw Śródmieście Municipality referred the application to the Warsaw Municipality (Urząd Gminy Warszawa Centrum).\n7.  On 13 November 1995 the applicant complained to the Self-Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) that the Mayor of Warsaw (Prezydent Warszawy) had failed to handle his case within the prescribed time-limit.\n8.  On 28 December 1995 the Board of Appeal ordered the Mayor to deal with the applicant’s application within a month.\n9.  On 29 March 1996 the Mayor stayed the proceedings.\n10.   The Board of Appeal quashed that decision on 17 March 1997.\n11.  On 20 August 1998 the applicant complained to the Self-Government Board of Appeal about inactivity on the part of the Mayor of Warsaw.\n12.  On 17 September 1998 the Mayor issued a decision. He refused to grant the applicant the right he sought. In consequence, the applicant withdrew his complaint of 20 August 1998.\n13.  On 20 April 1999 the Board of Appeal quashed the Mayor’s decision and remitted the case.\n14.   The Mayor upheld his original decision on 30 November 1999.\n15.  On the same day the applicant appealed to the Board of Appeal.\n16.  The Board of Appeal quashed the Mayor’s decision on 7 June 2000.\n17.  On 8 January 2002 the applicant complained to the Self-Government Board of Appeal that the Mayor had failed to handle his case within the prescribed time-limit.\n18.  On 10 June 2002 the Board ordered the Mayor to deal with the case by 30 June 2002.\n19.  On 24 September 2003 the Mayor of Warsaw refused to grant the applicant temporary ownership of the property.\n20.  The Self-Government Board of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case on 29 April 2004.\n21.  The proceedings are still pending.\n22.  Article 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure lays down time-limits ranging from 1 month to 2 months for dealing with a case pending before an administrative authority. If those time-limits have not been complied with, the authority must, under Article 36 of the Code, inform the parties of that fact, explain the reasons for the delay and fix a new time-limit. Pursuant to Article 37 § 1, if the case has not been dealt with within the time-limits referred to in Articles 35 and 36, a party to administrative proceedings may lodge a complaint to the higher authority, alleging inactivity. In cases where the allegations of inactivity are well-founded, the higher authority fixes a new term for examining the case and orders an inquiry in order to determine the reasons for the inactivity and to identify the persons responsible for the delay. If need be, the authority may order that measures be applied to prevent such delays in the future.\n23.  Until 1 October 1995, under Article 216 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, a party to administrative proceedings could, at any time, lodge a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court about the fact that an administrative authority had failed to issue a decision.\n24.  On 1 October 1995, when the Law of 11 May 1995 on the Supreme Administrative Court (“the 1995 Act”) took effect, Article 216 of the Code of Administrative Procedure was repealed.\n25.  Under section 17 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1416", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kocaeli.\n6.  On 14 December 1995 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration Office (Kocaeli İl Özel İdare Müdürlüğü) expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to him on 22 November 1996.\n7.  On 22 October 1996 the applicant filed an action for compensation with the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance.\n8.  On 20 February 1998 the first-instance court ordered the administration to pay the applicant 4,619,997,360 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 22 November 1996, the date on which the ownership of the property was transferred to the administration.\n9.  On 22 September 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first-instance court.\n10.  On 15 December 1998 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s request for the rectification of its decision.\n11.  On 29 July 1999 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration paid the applicant the amount due together with interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1417", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n14.  The applicant was born in 1973 and has lived in Vienna since 1999, when she left Istanbul to pursue her medical studies at the Faculty of Medicine at Vienna University. She comes from a traditional family of practising Muslims and considers it her religious duty to wear the Islamic headscarf.\n15.  On 26 August 1997 the applicant, then in her fifth year at the Faculty of Medicine at Bursa University, enrolled at the Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine at Istanbul University. She says she wore the Islamic headscarf during the four years she spent studying medicine at the University of Bursa and continued to do so until February 1998.\n16.  On 23 February 1998 the Vice-Chancellor of Istanbul University issued a circular, the relevant part of which provides:\n“By virtue of the Constitution, the law and regulations, and in accordance with the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court and the European Commission of Human Rights and the resolutions adopted by the university administrative boards, students whose ‘heads are covered’ (who wear the Islamic headscarf) and students (including overseas students) with beards must not be admitted to lectures, courses or tutorials. Consequently, the name and number of any student with a beard or wearing the Islamic headscarf must not be added to the lists of registered students. However, students who insist on attending tutorials and entering lecture theatres although their names and numbers are not on the lists must be advised of the position and, should they refuse to leave, their names and numbers must be taken and they must be informed that they are not entitled to attend lectures. If they refuse to leave the lecture theatre, the teacher shall record the incident in a report explaining why it was not possible to give the lecture and shall bring the incident to the attention of the university authorities as a matter of urgency so that disciplinary measures can be taken.”\n17.  On 12 March 1998, in accordance with the aforementioned circular, the applicant was denied access by invigilators to a written examination on oncology because she was wearing the Islamic headscarf. On 20 March 1998 the secretariat of the chair of orthopaedic traumatology refused to allow her to enrol because she was wearing a headscarf. On 16 April 1998 she was refused admission to a neurology lecture and on 10 June 1998 to a written examination on public health, again for the same reason.\n18.  On 29 July 1998 the applicant lodged an application for an order setting aside the circular of 23 February 1998. In her written pleadings, she submitted that the circular and its implementation had infringed her rights guaranteed by Articles 8, 9 and 14 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, in that there was no statutory basis for the circular and the Vice-Chancellor’s Office had no regulatory power in that sphere.\n19.  In a judgment of 19 March 1999, the Istanbul Administrative Court dismissed the application, holding that by virtue of section 13(b) of the Higher Education Act (Law no. 2547 – see paragraph 52 below) a university vice-chancellor, as the executive organ of the university, had power to regulate students’ dress for the purposes of maintaining order. That regulatory power had to be exercised in accordance with the relevant legislation and the judgments of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. Referring to the settled case-law of those courts, the Administrative Court held that neither th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1418", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Barcelona.\n10.  On 3 May 1997, the mother of A., a then ten-year old boy, filed a criminal complaint with the police alleging that on 1 May 1997 A. had been sexually assaulted by an unknown man at a playground. On the same day Mr Z., an officer of the Juvenile and Vice Police (jeugd- en zedenpolitie), took a statement from A., as well as from his mother.\n11.  On 11 May 1997, the mother of B., a then six-year old boy, informed the police that on 10 May 1997 an unknown man had sexually assaulted B.\n12.  On 12 May 1997, on the basis of descriptions given to the police by A. and B., the applicant was arrested in Amsterdam and detained on remand.\n13.  On 13 May 1997, A. was confronted with the applicant through a two-way mirror and identified him as the man who had assaulted him. According to the record of this confrontation drawn up by Mrs X., an officer of the Juvenile and Vice Police, A. had slightly recoiled when he saw the applicant, saying “That is him”. A. was also shown a rucksack, which he identified as belonging to the applicant. A. further declared that a woman from the neighbourhood had spoken with the man and that she had told him that the man spoke Spanish.\n14.  On the same day, Mrs E. – a maternal aunt of B. – gave a statement to the police in which she stated that on 10 May 1997, directly after having been told by her son W. that a man had touched the genitals of his cousin B., she had left her house in order to find this man, that she had found a man who matched the description given by her son and who was identified by B. and W. who had accompanied her, that he was sitting with some children and that this man had run away from her. One of these children, C., had told her that the man had stuck his hand into C.'s pants and that C. had then slapped the man's hand. When confronted with the applicant through a two-way mirror, she stated that she believed that he was the man whom she had seen on 10 May 1997. However, as he no longer had a beard and was looking neater and cleaner, she did not dare to say that she recognised him with 100%, rather with 80% certainty.\n15.  Also on 13 May 1997, B.'s mother filed a criminal complaint with the police against the unknown man who had sexually assaulted her son. On the same day, Mrs Y., an officer of the Juvenile and Vice Police, took a statement from B. When subsequently confronted with the applicant through a two-way mirror, he identified the applicant as the man who had sexually assaulted him. B. was further shown a rucksack, which he identified as belonging to the applicant.\n16.  On 13 May 1997, the mother of C., a then nine-year old boy, filed a criminal complaint with the police against an unknown man who had sexually assaulted her son on 10 May 1997. In his statement to the police officer Mrs Y., C. gave a description of the man. According to the record drawn up by Mrs Y., C. visibly reacted in fright when he was subsequently confronted with the applicant through a two-way mirror, identified him as the man who had sexually assaulted him and started crying. C. was further shown a rucksack, which he identified as belonging to the applicant. According to the police record drawn up on 14 May 1997, the description given by C. of the pants worn by the perpetrator corresponded to pants found in the applicant's possession.\n17.  A statement was also taken from C.'s mother, who declared that her son had told her on 10 May 1997 that a man had to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1419", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 28 May 1990 a certain D.I. (“the plaintiff”) brought a civil action against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking the conclusion of a sale contract by which the applicant was to sell her flat to the plaintiff.\n6.  On 6 November 1990 the applicant filed her response and a counter-claim alleging that the plaintiff did not pay her the full price for the flat.\n7.  In November 1990 the plaintiff requested that the case be joined to another case pending between the same parties. In November 1991, July and November 1992 the applicant requested the court to schedule a hearing. In May 1994 the applicant objected to the plaintiff’s request to have the two cases joined.\n8.  The court held hearings on 21 November 1990, 14 February, 8 April and 22 November 1994 and 7 March 1995.\n9.  By a judgment of 7 March 1995 the Municipal Court accepted the plaintiff’s claim and dismissed the applicant’s counter-claim. On 23 October 1996 the applicant appealed.\n10.  On 9 June 1998 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) accepted the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court held a hearing on 19 July 1999. On that date it decided to close the main hearing.\n12.  On 15 October 1999 the applicant requested the court to reopen the main hearing and obtain an opinion from a financial expert. On 10 November 1999 the court accepted the applicant’s request.\n13.  On 21 January 2000 the court heard witnesses and requested the applicant to advance the costs of the expert. On 26 January 2000 the applicant did so.\n14.  On 2 February 2000 the court appointed an expert. On 19 May 2000 the expert submitted his report to the court which then forwarded it to the applicant, who received it on 28 August 2000.\n15.  On 11 October 2000 the Municipal Court closed the main hearing.\n16.  By a judgment of 11 October 2000 the court again accepted the plaintiff’s claim and declared inadmissible the applicant’s counter-claim. The judgment was served on the applicant on 2 July 2001.\n17.  The plaintiff and the applicant appealed on 10 July and 12 July 2001, respectively. In her appeal, the applicant also applied to be exempted from the court fees. The appeals were forwarded to the County Court, which received them on 8 February 2002.\n18.  On 15 October 2002 the Zagreb County Court, without deciding on the admissibility or merits of the appeals, returned the case-file to the Municipal Court. It instructed the latter to decide on the applicant’s application for exemption from the court fees and the plaintiff’s ‘appeal’ which, in fact, constituted an application for a rectification of the judgment.\n19.  On 14 September 2004 the Zagreb County Court accepted the appeals, quashed the Municipal Court’s judgment of 11 October 2000 and remitted the case.\n20.  In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court scheduled a hearing for 8 March 2005. It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.\n21.  Meanwhile, on 9 May 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings. On 14 November 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed her complaint on its merits. It examined the length of the proceedings in respect of their part following the Convention’s entry into force with respect to Croatia. The Constitutional Court found that the case was complex since it had already been remitt", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1420", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a farmer and lives in Langenegg.\n9.  On 16 August 1988 the applicant requested permissions under the Water Act (Wasserrechtsgesetz) and the Landscape Protection Act (Landschaftsschutzgesetz) which were necessary for putting a culvert through a drain on agricultural land owned by him.\n10.  Thereupon, on 14 September 1988 the Bregenz District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) conducted an oral hearing on the applicant’s requests and inspected his land.\n11.  On 21 June 1990 the District Administrative Authority refused the requested permissions. The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 12 December 1990 the Vorarlberg Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann) granted the requested permission under the Water Act.\n13.  The Vorarlberg Regional Government (Landesregierung), on 2 April 1991, dismissed the applicant’s appeal insofar as it concerned the request for permission under the Landscape Protection Act.\n14.  On 28 May 1991 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) against the Regional Government’s decision.\n15.  The Administrative Court quashed the Regional Government’s decision on the ground of procedural deficiencies on 6 May 1996 and remitted the case to the latter. It found that the authorities had failed to obtain detailed information concerning nature conservancy issues which were raised by the applicant’s project.\n16.  On 16 January 1997 the Regional Government invited the applicant to comment on the additional expert opinion on nature conservancy issues of the expert A. On 31 January 1997 the applicant submitted his comments, following which A. amended the expert opinion on 5 May 1997.\n17.  Subsequently, on 26 May 1997, the applicant lodged an application with the Administrative Court against the administrative authorities’ failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde).\n18.  On 10 July 1997 the Administrative Court ordered the Regional Government to issue a decision within three months. Subsequently, the Regional Government appointed an expert on agriculture and forestry issues, who, after inspecting the applicant’s land on 19 August 1997, delivered his opinion on 22 August 1997.\n19.  On 4 November 1998 the Administrative Court requested the Regional Government to order expert A. to submit an additional expert opinion on nature conservancy issues, which A. delivered on 12 January 1999.\n20.  Subsequently, on 25 January 1999, the Regional Government invited the applicant to submit comments on the expert opinions on nature conservancy issues and on agriculture and forestry issues within two weeks.\n21.  On 24 February 1999 the applicant submitted comments on these opinions and requested an oral hearing. He also requested that the experts be summoned to the hearing and that the land be inspected by the court. He stressed that the project would improve the productivity of the agricultural land and that therefore public interest existed in the realisation of his project as required under the applicable law. He also challenged the expert A. for bias as he had already delivered an opinion upon a request by the Regional Government and that his independence was doubtful as he was a civil servant bound by instructions.\n22.  On 6 July 1999 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Authority’s decision of 21 June 1990 concerning the request for permission under the Landscape Protection Act. It found that the competence to decide on the merits had pass", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1421", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1971. When lodging his application, he was detained in Oldenburg, Germany. He is presently living in Hamburg, Germany.\n10.  On 6 July 1996 the applicant was arrested in Wilhelmshaven. On  7 July 1996 the Wilhelmshaven District Court issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant on the ground that there was a strong suspicion that he had committed five counts of robbery and one count of robbery in connection with attempted murder.\n11.  On 4 November 1996 the Oldenburg Public Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant with attempted murder, aggravated robbery causing physical injury, and an offence under the Federal Weapons Act.\n12.  On 6 December 1996 the Oldenburg Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s motion to have Mr B. appointed as defence counsel.\n13.  On 8 January 1997 the Oldenburg Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant’s detention on remand be continued on the grounds that the strong suspicion that he had committed the crimes he was accused of persisted and that he was likely to abscond if released.\n14.  On 14 January 1997 the Oldenburg Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Regional Court’s decision of 6 December 1996.\n15.  On 18 February 1997 the Oldenburg Regional Court admitted the indictment without modifications and decided to open the trial against the applicant and two other accused. The trial started on 14 March 1997.\n16.  On 25 June and 26 September 1997 the Oldenburg Regional Court confirmed the arrest warrant of 7 July 1996. On 29 December 1997 the Oldenburg Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request to suspend the arrest warrant of 7 July 1996.\n17.  On 22 May 1998, after the trial had taken place on fifty-five days with an average duration of ninety minutes, a lay assessor fell ill. As the designated substitute lay assessor had withdrawn previously, also due to illness, the trial had to begin anew.\n18.  On 28 May 1998 the Oldenburg Regional Court upheld the arrest warrant. It found that irrespective of the delays occasioned by the assessors’ illness, the applicant’s continued detention was proportionate given the serious nature of the crimes he was charged with.\n19.  On 2 June 1998 the trial was reopened with two substitute lay assessors.\n20.  On 22 June 1998 the Oldenburg Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against the Oldenburg Regional Court’s decision of 28 May 1998 upholding the arrest warrant.\n21.  On 1 February 1999, the applicant alleged for the first time that he had been in Tetovo, in Macedonia, at the time of the offence.\n22.  On 10 February 1999 the Oldenburg Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request to suspend the execution of the arrest warrant. It decided that investigations in Macedonia with regard to the applicant’s alibi be conducted by way of letters rogatory.\n23.  On 25 February 1999 the Oldenburg Regional Court, following the applicant’s appeal, refused to change its decision of 10 February 1999 (Nichtabhilfe der Beschwerde) and forwarded the appeal to the Oldenburg Court of Appeal. According to the Regional Court, the applicant’s continued detention on remand was not disproportionate. It reasoned that, if the applicant were convicted, his sentence would exceed the length of the detention on remand so far, due to the serious nature of the crimes and the damages and injuries suffered by the victim. As to the length of the proceedings, the Regional Court noted that there had been debates on whether to disjoin the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1422", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Split.\n5.  The applicant worked for the company K. (“the company”) for several years. By virtue of a 1985 court decision and the subsequent decision of the company in 1986, he was granted use of a privately owned flat. However, he was not able to move into the flat until 1 September 1989.\n6.  On 15 December 1989 the applicant filed a civil action against the company and T.V. as the owner of the flat seeking damages for not having been able to move into the flat until 1989 and for having had to renovate it. Subsequently, T.V. filed a counterclaim seeking the applicant’s eviction from the flat and the payment of rent for the time he had spent in it.\n7.  On 13 December 1995 the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) dismissed both the applicant’s claim and T.V.’s counterclaim.\n8.  On appeal, on 28 August 1998 the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case in so far as it involved the payment of rent by the applicant. At the same time, the County Court upheld the remainder of the first-instance judgment in its part concerning the applicant’s claim and T.V.’s claim for the applicant’s eviction, which thereby became final. T.V. filed an appeal on points of law (revizija) against that part of the County Court’s decision. On 21 March 2001 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared his appeal inadmissible, because the value of the subject matter in dispute did not reach the threshold prescribed by law.\n9.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, the applicant withdrew his claim in respect of the company, but maintained in his action against T.V. During the proceedings, also T.V. changed his counterclaim on several occasions. Subsequently, on 1 July 2003 the Split Municipal Court again dismissed the applicant’s action, accepting T.V.’s counterclaim for payment of rent by the applicant.\n10.  On 15 May 2003 the applicant appealed against that decision.\n11.  On 19 May 2003 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings.\n12.  On 23 October 2003 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded. It found that, at the time when the applicant had lodged his constitutional complaint, the proceedings before the Split County Court had been pending for only four days and that therefore, on the basis of the existing case-law of the Constitutional Court, the conditions set out in section 63 § 1 of the Constitutional Act were not fulfilled.\n13.  On 4 February 2005 the Split County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment in its part concerning the order to pay to T.V. the rent. At the same time, the second-instance court remitted the case in its part concerning the exact amount of the rent due.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1424", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, Mr Victor Baibarac, was born in 1931 and lives in Edineţ.\n8.  In 1949 the Soviet authorities nationalised the property owned by his parents and deported his family to Siberia.\n9.  On 8 December 1992 the Moldovan Parliament enacted Law No. 1225-XII “on the rehabilitation of the victims of the political repression committed by the totalitarian communist occupying regime”. The Law enabled the victims of Soviet repression to claim compensation for their nationalised property.\n10.  In 2002 the applicant brought an action against the Local Treasury Department in respect of the latter’s refusal to pay him compensation.\n11.  On 27 September 2002 the Edineţ District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the Local Treasury Department to pay him compensation of 40,000 Moldovan Lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 3,010 euros (EUR) at the time).\n12.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the bailiff failed to enforce. On an unspecified date the applicant wrote to the Ministry of Justice, complaining about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 27 September 2002. In a letter of 7 May 2003, the Ministry of Justice assured the applicant that everything possible was being done to enforce the decision, but that the Local Treasury Department did not have any money in its account.\n13.  On 20 February 2004, after the case had been communicated to the Government, the judgment was enforced. The applicant wrote a receipt addressed to the head of the Edineţ Department of Execution of Judgments in which he confirmed that he had received the money in accordance with the judgment of 27 September 2002 and that he had no more claims against the debtor and against the Department of the Execution of Judgments.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1425", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Tvrdošín.\n5.  On 27 June 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his job in a private company due to its restructuring. Subsequently the applicant brought proceedings against the company before the Dolný Kubín District Court in which he claimed arrears of salary. The Dolný Kubín District Court granted the applicant’s claim on 3 February 1998.\n6.  On 31 May 1999 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court declared the defendant company bankrupt. On 28 July 1999 the applicant registered his claim against the debtor in the bankruptcy proceedings.\n7.  On 13 December 1999 the administrator in bankruptcy asked to be replaced in that function due to serious health problems. On 21 January 2000 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court appointed a new administrator.\n8.  On 19 October 2000 the Regional Court authorised the administrator to pay outstanding salary to the single remaining employee of the company in bankruptcy.\n9.  On 6 December 2000 the administrator informed the Regional Court that the means of the company did not suffice to cover his expenses. On 26 January 2001 the Regional Court authorised the administrator to sell several obsolete objects of negligible value with a view to obtaining financial means.\n10.  On 23 February 2001 a hearing was held before the Banská Bystrica Regional Court. The administrator submitted a report on the debtor company’s property and his activity. The report stated that it was doubtful whether any means could be obtained with a view to satisfying the creditors. At the hearing the court acknowledged that the applicant’s claim in respect of the debtor company was justified.\n11.  On 19 November 2003 the administrator informed the court that he expected to submit his final report before 31 January 2004. Following the Regional Court’s inquiry of 29 September 2004, the administrator submitted the report on the company’s property on 1 September 2004. It indicated that the financial means obtained in the course of the bankruptcy proceedings did not suffice even to cover the costs and fees of the administrator.\n12.  On 18 October 2004 the Regional Court quashed the declaration of bankruptcy as the debtor’s property was insufficient. The decision became final on 25 November 2004.\n13.  In July 1997 the applicant started working in a different company. He was dismissed from his job, due to restructuring of the company, on 28 February 1998.\n14.  In 1998 the applicant filed an action against the company claiming arrears of salary and a severance payment. On 26 August 1998 the company acknowledged the debt. On 9 September 1998 the Banská Bystrica District Court awarded the equivalent of approximately 750 euros plus default interest to the applicant. The judgment became final on 5 October 1998.\n15.  On 15 December 1998 the applicant filed a motion with an executions officer and requested enforcement of the sum in issue. On 18 January 1999 the Banská Bystrica District Court appointed the executions officer to enforce the judgment.\n16.  On 5 February 1999 the executions officer informed the debtor company that enforcement proceedings had been brought against it and that the sum due would be transferred to the applicant from the debtor’s bank account.\n17.  On 26 April 1999 the applicant concluded a contract with the executions officer on enforcement of the judgment in issue. Article II of the contract provided that the applicant did not have to pay any advance on costs of the execution to the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1427", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants, Ms Sinikka Kukkola and Ms Salme Kukkola were joint owners of the real property Kukkola (registered as number 1:120) comprising 32 hectares, until the death of Ms Sinikka Kukkola. Ms Salme Kukkola, being the sole heir of Sinikka Kukkola, inherited the real property and is now its sole owner. Ms Salme Kukkola was born in 1945 and lives in Pertunmaa.\nThe “activity prohibition”\n8.  In 1989 the Council of State (valtioneuvosto, statsrådet) declared that the white-backed woodpecker should be afforded particular protection pursuant to Section 16 (c) of the 1923 Nature Conservation Act (luonnonsuojelulaki, lagen om naturskydd 71/1923).\n9.  In 1992 the Ministry of the Environment (ympäristöministeriö, miljöministeriet) drew up a provisional plan for the protection of the species and invited the County Administrative Boards (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen) to comment thereon. The plan was to be confirmed subsequently. In the provisional plan some 20 hectares of the applicants' forest was included in section II of the plan which covered areas where the woodpecker was seen occasionally and which could not be expropriated. On 3 December 1992 the Ministry instructed the relevant County Administrative Board to transfer the applicants' land to section I of the plan which covered the nesting areas of the species and which could be expropriated.\nThe decision on the conservation measures with regard to the applicants' property was made while the repealed 1923 Nature Conservation Act was still in force. Under the provisions of the repealed Act, conservation was to be implemented by means of establishing a nature conservation area, either as a private conservation area upon an application by the landowner or as a state-owned conservation area through a voluntary sale or exchange contract or expropriation. The objective of the State was that the landowners concerned would voluntarily sell their properties at the current price or exchange them for a state-owned area of the same value. The applicants did not take any voluntary conservation measures.\n10.  By a letter of 4 December 1992 the County Administrative Board of Mikkeli stated that, according to its knowledge, the applicants owned land within a nesting area of the species. The Board recommended that the area be protected in either of the following ways:\n“1.  If the applicants of their own motion were to request permanent conservation of the area, they would receive compensation in the form of a taxfree lump sum fixed according to the current value of the loss of economic income resulting from the conservation (i.e. the restricted use of the area). The area would remain in their possession and the property tax would be alleviated to reflect the lost yield. 3.  The applicants' area could also be exchanged for a state-owned area of the same value.”\nThe applicants objected to the planned inclusion of their property in the conservation plan, stating that no white-backed woodpecker or nest of that species had ever been spotted on their land.\nOn 25 January 1993 the applicants' property was inspected by representatives of the County Administrative Board and the World Wildlife Fund (“WWF”). The applicants also participated in the inspection.\n11.  On 3 November 1993 the applicants announced their intention to commence logging on their property according to a forestry plan drawn up by the local Forestry Board (metsälautakunta, skogsnämnden).\n12.  On 18 November 1993 the County Administrative Boa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1429", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  The applicant receives welfare payments for her child.\n6.  In 1998 the applicant brought civil proceedings against her employer, a private company, claiming arrears in those payments for 1997 – 1998.\n7.  On 23 February 1998 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh awarded the third applicant 672.22 Russian roubles (RUR). The judgment entered into force on 6 March 1998 and the enforcement proceedings were commenced accordingly.\n8.  On 4 February 2004 the defendant company paid the applicant the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.\n9.  In 2001 the applicant sued a local welfare authority for arrears in welfare payments for her child for 1998 – 1999.\n10.  On 4 August 2000 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh awarded RUR 2,158.10 in the applicant’s favour. This judgment entered into force on 15 August 2000 and a writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.\n11.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 4 August 2000 and returned the writ of execution to the applicant, as the debtor had insufficient funds.\n12.  In January – February 2004 the judgment of 4 August 2000 was paid in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1430", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the Voronezh Region.\n5.  The applicant receives welfare payments for her child. In 1999 she brought civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments for 1998 – 1999.\n6.  On 17 December 1999 the Novousmanskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant 1,593.54 Russian roubles (RUR).\n7.  On 17 March 2000 a writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.\n8.  On 24 October 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 17 December 1999 and returned the writ of execution to the applicant, as the debtor had insufficient funds.\n9.  In January – February 2004 the applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1431", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Volgograd.\n5.  Pursuant to a decision of the Volgograd Central District Administration of 14 October 1987 the applicant began receiving a monthly single mother allowance in respect of her daughter who was born on 15 April 1986.\n6.  In 1998, from April to July, the applicant received no payments.\nOn 4 September 1998 the applicant brought proceedings before the Central District Court of the City of Volgograd (Центральный районный суд города Волгограда) requesting the payment of outstanding sums.\n7.  By a judgment of 21 September 1998 the court allowed the applicant’s claim and ordered the Finance Department of the Volgograd Regional Administration (Волгоградское облфинуправление) to pay the applicant 467.56 roubles (RUR).\n8.  Following the entry into force of the judgment, the court’s bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings for recovery of the sum awarded to the applicant. However, the applicant was informed that in 1998 the court judgment could not be enforced, because the defendant lacked sufficient funds.\n9.  The applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment to the Department of Justice of the Volgograd Regional Administration (Управление юстиции администрации Волгоградской области), which on 16 February 1999 forwarded her complaint to the bailiff’s service of the first instance court for reply and necessary measures.\nIn an undated letter of 1999, the bailiff’s service informed the applicant that it had issued a writ of execution, but had not yet received from the defendant the sum due to the applicant.\n10.  According to the Governments submissions, which were not contested by the applicant, the sum of RUR 467.56 was paid to her twice – on 29 September 2000 and on 9 October 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1432", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1964, 1972 and 1954 respectively and live in Voronezh.\n5.  The applicants are in receipt of welfare payments for their children. In 1999 – 2001 they brought separate sets of civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.\n6.  On 5 October 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded the first applicant 4,295.89 Russian roubles (RUR) against the welfare authority. This judgment entered into force on 16 October 2000.\n7.  On 9 November 2000 a writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs. It appears that some time later the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment and returned the writ of execution to the first applicant, as the debtor had insufficient funds.\n8.  In January – February 2004 the first applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.\n9.  On 27 December 1999 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded the second applicant RUR 2,221.45 against the welfare authority. This judgment entered into force on 7 January 2000 and a writ of execution was sent to the bailiffs.\n10.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 27 December 1999 and returned the writ of execution to the second applicant, referring to the lack of the debtor’s funds.\n11.  In January – February 2004 the second applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.\n12.  On 30 January and 29 May 2001 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh awarded the third applicant RUR 3,939.15 and 2,550.07 respectively. The judgments entered into force on 12 February and 11 June 2001.\n13.  On 12 February and 14 June 2001 writs of execution were issued and sent to the bailiffs. It appears that some time later the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgments and returned the writs of execution to her, referring to the lack of the debtor’s funds.\n14.  On 3 September 2001, in reply to the third applicant’s complaint about the bailiffs’ failure to enforce the judgments in her favour, the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region informed the applicant that her award would be enforced in the order of priority set out by the Federal Law on Enforcement Procedure.\n15.  In January – February 2004 the third applicant was paid the amounts due pursuant to the writs of execution.\n16.  On 27 October 2000 the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh awarded the fourth applicant RUR 5,024.98. The judgment entered into force on 8 November 2000.\n17.  On 14 November 2000 a writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs. It appears that some time later the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment and returned the writ of execution to the fourth applicant, as the debtor had insufficient funds.\n18.  In January – February 2004 the fourth applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1433", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 5 October 1995 the applicant filed a civil action in damages with the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against the weekly magazine G. (“the defendant”), claiming that it had published a libellous article about him.\n6.  The court scheduled the first hearing for 1 April 1996. That hearing, as well as the one scheduled for 11 March 1997, were adjourned at the applicant’s request.\n7.  At the hearing on 17 April 1998 the defendant submitted its reply to the applicant’s claim. On 13 April 1999 the court heard the applicant.\n8.  The hearings scheduled for 27 September 1999 and 26 November 1999 were adjourned because the witnesses summoned did not appear.\n9.  On 28 February 2000 the court heard one witness and concluded the main hearing. On the same day, it gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. The judgment was served on the applicant four months later.\n10.  On 6 June 2000 the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n11.  On 28 February 2001 the case-file was transferred to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) as the second-instance court. On 14 May 2002 that court returned the case-file to the Municipal Court because it lacked the power of attorney. Having obtained the missing document, the case-file was returned to the County Court on 27 September 2002. Subsequently, on 25 March 2003 the County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n12.  In the resumed proceedings, on 12 February 2004 the Zagreb Municipal Court held a hearing and decided to obtain additional witness statements. The hearings scheduled for 16 June and 23 November 2004 were adjourned because of improper summoning of the witnesses. The next hearing was scheduled for 14 April 2005. The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 10 December 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining about the length of the proceedings. On 13 June 2003 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint inadmissible since the County Court had already decided on the case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1434", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  The applicant receives welfare payments for her child. In 2000 she brought civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments for 1997 – 2000.\n6.  On 28 January 2000 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant 6,882.59 Russian roubles (RUR). This judgment entered into force on 8 February 2000.\n7.  On 6 March 2000 the writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.\n8.  On 4 November 2000, in reply to the applicant’s complaint about the bailiffs’ failure to enforce the judgment in her favour, the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region informed the applicant that her award would be enforced in the order of priority set out by the Federal Law on Enforcement Procedure.\n9.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 28 January 2000 and returned the writ of execution to the applicant, as the debtor had insufficient funds.\n10.  In January – February 2004 the applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1435", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  The applicant is in receipt of welfare payments for her child. In 2000 she brought civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.\n6.  On 25 December 2000 the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant 10,017.45 Russian roubles (RUR). This judgment entered into force on 6 January 2001.\n7.  On 23 January 2001 a writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.\n8.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 25 December 2000 and returned the writ of execution to the applicant, as the debtor had insufficient funds.\n9.  On 26 April 2002 the applicant requested the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region to ensure the enforcement of the judgment in her favour.\n10.  By letter of 7 May 2002 the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region invited the applicant to re-submit the writ of execution to the bailiffs.\n11.  In January – February 2004 the applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1436", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are residents of Voronezh.\n5.  The applicants are in receipt of welfare payments for their children. In 1999 – 2000 they brought separate sets of civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.\n6.  On the dates set out in the appendix the domestic courts granted the applicants’ claims and ordered the welfare authority to pay them the respective amounts. The enforcement proceedings were commenced accordingly.\n7.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments in the applicants’ favour and returned them the writs of execution referring to the lack of the debtor’s funds.\n8.  In 2002 – 2004 the applicants unsuccessfully applied to various public bodies seeking to have the judgments in the favour enforced.\n9.  On 2 June 2004 the applicants were paid the amounts due pursuant to the writs of execution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1437", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Križevci, Croatia.\n7.  On 4 February 1992 the applicant’s house in Bjelovar was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n8.  On 29 January 1997 he instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages from the State for his damaged property.\n9.  Pursuant to the Civil Obligations (Amendments) Act 1996 (Zakon o izmjeni Zakona o obveznim odnosima), the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on 16 September 1999.\n10.  On 26 November 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court (Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the stay on his proceedings. It would appear that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court are still pending.\n11.  The proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court resumed on 25 November 2003 pursuant to the “Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act 2003” (Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija).\n12.  On 8 December 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court decided that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and dismissed his claim accordingly. The applicant appealed to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) where the case is apparently still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1438", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  The applicant receives welfare payments for her child. In 2000 she brought civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.\n6.  On 2 November 2000 the Tsentralny District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant 2,388.49 Russian roubles (RUR). This judgment entered into force on 13 November 2000 and on the same date the writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.\n7.  On 28 September 2001 the Voronezh Department of the Central Bank of Russia informed the applicant that the judgment in her favour could not be enforced for lack of the debtor’s funds.\n8.  On 11 September 2002 the bailiffs returned the writ of execution to the applicant without enforcement.\n9.  By letter of 21 March 2003 the Voronezh Department of the Central Bank of Russia invited the applicant to address her queries concerning the enforcement of the judgment of 2 November 2000 to the debtor.\n10.  In January – February 2004 the applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1439", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  The applicant receives welfare payments for her child. In 2000 she brought civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments for 1998 – 1999.\n6.  On 25 February 2000 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant 3,952.66 Russian roubles (RUR). This judgment entered into force on 6 March 2000.\n7.  On 19 April 2000 a writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.\n8.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 25 February 2000 and returned the writ of execution to the applicant, as the debtor had insufficient funds.\n9.  In January – February 2004 the applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1440", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1946, 1957 and 1970 respectively and live in Voronezh.\n5.  The applicants are in receipt of welfare payments for their children. In 1999 – 2000 they brought separate sets of civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.\n6.  On 17 December 1999 the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh awarded the first applicant 3,245.28 Russian roubles (RUR) against the welfare authority. This judgment entered into force on 28 December 1999.\n7.  On 31 January 2000 the writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.\n8.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 17 December 1999 and returned the writ of execution to the first applicant, as the debtor had insufficient funds.\n9.  On 26 February 2002 the first applicant complained to the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region about the bailiffs’ failure to execute the judgment in her favour.\n10.  By letter of 27 March 2002 the Department of Justice of the Voronezh informed the first applicant that the judgment in question had not been enforced, as the defendant had insufficient assets, and that it was open to her again to send the writ of execution to the bailiffs’ service.\n11.  On 29 April 2002 the first applicant lodged a court complaint against the bailiffs for their failure to enforce the judgment in her favour.\n12.  On 19 June 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh allowed the first applicant’s complaint and ordered the bailiffs to recommence the enforcement proceedings.\n13.  On 2 June 2004 the first applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.\n14.  On 29 March 2000 the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded the second applicant RUR 1,980.6 against the welfare authority. This judgment entered into force on 9 April 2000.\n15.  On 29 March 2000 the writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.\n16.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 29 March 2000 and returned the writ of execution to the second applicant, referring to the lack of the debtor’s funds.\n17.  On 27 April and 6 May 2002 the second applicant again sent the writ of execution to the bailiffs’ service.\n18.  On 30 September 2002 the bailiffs returned the writ of execution to the second applicant, having stated that they had been unable to enforce the judgment in her favour, as the defendant refused to pay.\n19.  On 2 June 2004 the judgment of 29 March 2000 was paid in full.\n20.  On 9 November 2000 the Tsentralny District Court of Voronezh awarded the third applicant RUR 4,304.7. This judgment entered into force on 20 November 2000. On the same date the writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.\n21.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 9 November 2000 and returned the writ of execution to the third applicant by reference to the lack of the debtor’s funds.\n22.  On 24 May 2002 the third applicant requested the bailiffs’ service and the Department of Justice of the Voronezh Region to ensure the enforcement of the judgment in her favour. It is unclear whether any response was ever sent to that request.\n23.  On 2 June 2004 the third applicant was paid the amount due pursuant to the writ of execution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1441", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are residents of Voronezh.\n5.  They are in receipt of welfare payments for their children. In 1999 – 2002 the applicants brought separate sets of civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.\n6.  On the dates set out in appendix 1 the domestic courts granted the applicants’ claims and ordered the welfare authority to pay them the respective amounts. The enforcement proceedings were commenced accordingly.\n7.  Subsequently the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments in the applicants’ favour and returned the writs of execution to them referring to the lack of the debtor’s funds.\n8.  In 2001 – 2002 the applicants brought several sets of civil proceedings against private banks in Voronezh in which the defendant authority had its accounts, claiming the recovery of the awarded amounts. The domestic courts rejected those claims as unfounded.\n9.  In June 2004 the applicants were paid the amounts due pursuant to the writs of execution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1442", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Tallinn.\n9.  On 5 June 2000 the Tallinn police initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of having committed extortion under Article 142 of the Criminal Code. On 17 June 2000 the applicant was taken into custody.\nThe applicant was charged with having threatened, by way of telephone calls, to explode a bomb in the supermarket Pirita Selver if his demands for a sum of money were not met.\n10.  Following the conclusion of the preliminary investigation the criminal case-file was sent to the Tallinn City Court (Tallinna Linnakohus). On 11 January 2001 witnesses K., R. and V. failed to appear at the hearing in the City Court and the hearing was adjourned to 5 February 2001. At the hearing of 5 February 2001 the applicant was questioned. The City Court again adjourned the hearing, since the witnesses had not appeared. Subsequently, the City Court heard the case on 20 February 2001.\n11.  According to the record of the City Court hearing, which set out the documents disclosed to the prosecution and defence at the public hearing, the City Court’s case-file included, inter alia, written witness statements made during the preliminary investigation by K. and R., who were both employees of the supermarket. Witness K. had stated that the phone calls on 2 and 4 June 2000 had been made by a male person, probably 40-50 years of age or more. She had submitted that it was possible that she would recognise the voice. Witness R. had submitted that she had received phone calls from a male person on 3 and 4 June 2000. The case-file further contained six tapes with recordings of several phone calls made to the supermarket (from 4, 5, 7, 8 and 11 June 2000) and one tape with an undercover recording of a phone call by the applicant from 29 June 2000, as well as transcripts of the tape recordings.\nAccording to the written records of witness V.’s statements during the preliminary investigation, on 13 June 2000 the applicant had asked him to dial a phone number of the applicant’s girl-friend and hand the handset over to the applicant. They tried to make four phone calls, but none of the calls was answered. The number called to was a local number, the last three digits containing a combination of “fives”, possibly “550” or similar.\nThe City Court’s case-file also included a written statement of witness R.’s testimony, according to which, on 10 August 2000, she had been presented with an undercover recording of a phone call made by the applicant for recognition. She had been of the opinion that the male voice in the recorded conversation closely resembled the voice of the person who in June 2000 had made the bomb threats to the supermarket. She had answered four phone calls to the supermarket. When the threats were made, the voice had been more nervous, but otherwise the voices were identical.\nThe case-file further contained a written record of the examination of an anonymous witness “Artur”, who stated that in June 2000 he had met the applicant at a party, where the latter had said that he had made the threats to the supermarket. In this way the applicant had had a chance to make good money. The owner of a shop located near the supermarket had asked him to make the threats. Every time after making the threats he had called the owner of the shop. Witness Artur stated that from the recordings of the bomb threats on six tapes he recognised the applicant’s voice. Witness Artur considered that the soun", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1443", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Balatonkenese.\n5.  The applicant brought an action against a building society for repossession of real property. He also claimed compensation. On 15 May 1992 the Budapest Regional Court awarded him 624,986 Hungarian forints (HUF) in compensation.\n6.  On 28 October 1994 the applicant, being dissatisfied with the award, brought another action for compensation against the building society on partly modified legal grounds.\nAfter having held a hearing on 23 February 1995, the Buda Central District Court dismissed his action on 12 March 1995. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 11 October 1995 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment. The applicant filed a petition for review on 19 January 1996.\n8.  On 30 May 1997 the Supreme Court quashed both decisions and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, on 1 December 1997 the case was given priority. Hearings took place on 17 December 1997 and 19 March 1998. On 12 May 1998 a real-estate expert was appointed. Following a warning, the latter presented his opinion 30 September 1998.\n10.  On 13 October 1998 the Buda Central District Court held a hearing and, on 21 October 1998, dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 26 May 1999 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed his motion for bias.\n12.  On 2 June 1999 the Regional Court held a hearing and, on 9 July 1999, partly changed the first-instance judgment and awarded the applicant HUF 152,204 in compensation. The applicant filed a petition for review on 7 January 2000.\n13.  On 27 February 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision. This judgment was served on 23 May 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1444", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952. He was detained in Burdur prison at the time of lodging his application.\n6.  On 28 March 1994 an arrest warrant was issued in respect of the applicant.\n7.  On 14 April 1994 the public prosecutor at the Malatya State Security Court filed an indictment, accusing the applicant together with two other co‑accused of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party. The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.\n8.  On 19 October 1995 the Malatya State Security Court decided to separate the proceedings in respect of the applicant as he could not be found.\n9.  On 30 August 1996 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by the police. On 6 September 1996 he was interrogated by two police officers.\n10.  On 10 September 1996 he was brought before the public prosecutor and the State Security Court. He denied his statements made in police custody.\n11.  On 30 October 1996 an additional indictment was submitted by the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court.\n12.  On 20 January 1998 the Malatya State Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713, and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.\n13.  On 2 March 1998 the applicant appealed against the judgment of the Malatya State Security Court.\n14.  On 7 December 1998 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and on the same day upheld the above judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1445", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in the village of Ivanivka, the Lugansk region of Ukraine.\n5.  On 6 September 2000 the Krasnolutchsk City Court ordered the Krasnolutchska State Mine to supply the applicant with 8,850 kg of coal.\n6.  On 6 October 2000 the Krasnolutchsk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.\n7.  On 5 May 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.\n8.  On 21 October 2004 the judgment was enforced in full.\n9.  On 30 July 2003 the same court ordered the Mine to supply the applicant with another 8,850 kg of coal.\n10.  On 1 September 2003 the Krasnolutchsk City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 30 July 2003.\n11.  On 19 October 2004 that judgment was also enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1446", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Kharkiv, Ukraine.\n5.  On 18 January 2000 the Moskovskyi District Court of Kharkiv ordered the State Enterprise “Kharkivskyi Elektromekhanichnyi Zavod” to pay the applicant UAH 1,730.48[1] in salary arrears.\n6.  On 6 February 2000 the Moskovskyi District Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.\n7.  In August 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the Bailiffs’ Service seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. On 17 September 2003 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.\n8.  On 8 August 2003 the applicant received the full amount of the judgment debt.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1447", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the village of Mykolaivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  In 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Slovyansky Town Court against her employer, the State-owned “Slovyansky Keramichny Kombinat” company, to recover salary arrears. On 6 September 2000 the court awarded the applicant UAH 3,485.10[1] in salary arrears and compensation for damages.\n6.  On several occasions the applicant was informed by the Bailiffs’ Service that the judgment could not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor, and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 26 November 2001.\n7.  In 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Slovyansky Town Court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment of 6 September 2000. On 23 May 2003, the court rejected her complaint as unsubstantiated. The court found that the Bailiffs were prohibited from attaching the debtor’s property and, therefore, could not be held responsible for the non-enforcement of the judgment.\n8.  In August 2004 the liquidation of the debtor was initiated and, on 7 December 2004, the Bailiffs’ Service transferred the execution writs to the liquidation commission.\n9.  The judgment of 6 September 2000 in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1448", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the city of Lozova, Ukraine.\n5.  On 14 April 1999 the Lozova Town Court ordered the Lozova Town Department of Education to pay the applicant UAH 1,407.14[1] in salary arrears.\n6.  On 7 June 1999 the Lozova Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.\n7.  In October 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. On 24 May 2002 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs. The court held that the judgment could not be enforced because of a lack of funds in the State budget.\n8.  On 13 August 2002 and 30 January 2003, respectively, the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 24 May 2002.\n9.  On 24 November 2004 the judgment of 14 April 1999 was enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1449", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Elazığ.\n7.  On 20 June 1991 the applicant was seriously injured in an explosion of a bomb placed in the garden of the Military barracks in Gaziosmanpaşa district of İstanbul. He was ten years old at the time of the events.\n8.  On 10 February 1992 the applicant’s father, acting as his legal guardian, filed a petition with the Ministry of Internal Affairs requesting compensation for the damage the applicant had sustained. The Ministry of Internal Affairs rejected this request on 15 April 1992.\n9.  On 3 June 1992 the applicant’s father brought an action for compensation before the İstanbul Administrative Court against the Ministry of Internal Affairs (hereinafter “the respondent”).\n10.  On 16 June 1992 the case was notified to the respondent which submitted its observations on 11 August 1992.\n11.  On 3 March 1993 the İstanbul Administrative Court dismissed the respondent’s preliminary objection.\n12.  Between 3 March 1993 and 4 December 1994 the first-instance court took certain procedural decisions on 10 December 1993, 27 June 1994 and 16 September 1994.\n13.  On 4 December 1994 the İstanbul Administrative Court considered that there was neither fault nor negligence attributable to the authorities and dismissed the case.\n14.  On 30 January 1995 the applicant appealed against the aforementioned decision and requested the suspension of the execution of the judgment. On 30 January 1995 the applicant paid the expenses pertaining to the appeal procedure. The applicant was warned that the amount paid was insufficient and on 30 March 1995 he paid the remaining costs of the appeal procedure.\n15.  On 3 May 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for a suspension of the execution of the judgment of 4 December 1994.\n16.  On 16 November 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. The court referred to the doctrine of “social risk”, which did not require the establishment of any causal link between the harmful action and the loss, and reasoned that the damage caused by terrorism should be shared by the society as a whole in accordance with the principles of “justice” and “social state”.\n17.  On 15 March 1996 the respondent requested the rectification of the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court.\n18.  On 9 March 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request of the respondent.\n19.  On 30 September 1998 the Istanbul Administrative Court decided to abide by the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court.\n20.  On 27 November 1998 the case-file was sent to an expert. On 29 December 1998 the expert submitted its report to the Court.\n21.  On 17 February 1999 the Istanbul Administrative Court awarded the applicant an amount of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage with legal interest running from 18 February 1992.\n22.  On 30 April 1999 the judgment became final.\n23.  On 18 September 2000 the applicant was paid the due amount of compensation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1450", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in the city of Pavlograd, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant is the former employee of the Pavlogradska State Mine. He is suffering from an occupational disease.\n6.  On 24 January 2002 the Pavlograd City Court ordered the mine to pay the applicant UAH 24,352[1] in occupational disability allowance arrears.\n7.  On 27 February 2002 the Pavlograd City Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.\n8.  According to the Government, the judgment was partially enforced in instalments: during the periods of April – December 2002 and August – December 2003 the applicant received a total of UAH 10,227[2], and on 19 July 2004 he received UAH 1,972[3].\n9.  On 12 October 2004 the applicant was paid the remaining amount of the judgment debt (UAH 12,153[4]).\n10.  On 15 October 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the full enforcement of the judgment given in the applicant’s favour.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1451", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine. She is a retired judge of the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal.\n5.  On 5 April 2002 the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv ordered the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine to pay the applicant UAH 4,187.97[1] in pension arrears (involving a special retired judges’ allowance). The court held that the amount of the award should be seized from a specific account of the State Treasury.\n6.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 17 May 2002. On the same date the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv submitted the writ of execution for that judgment to the Pecherskyi District Bailiffs’ Service of Kyiv for initiation of the enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On 22 December 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service returned the writ to the applicant because of the absence of relevant allocations from the State Budget.\n8.  The applicant challenged the decision of 22 December 2003 before the Golosiyvskyi District Court of Kyiv. On 26 April 2004 the court found in part for the applicant and quashed the decision of 22 December 2003. It also ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to renew the enforcement proceedings.\n9.  On 29 April 2005 the judgment was enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1452", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1967, 1959 and 1970, respectively. All three live in Kyiv.\n5.  On 26 June 1996 criminal proceedings against the applicants were instituted.\n6.  On 31 June 1996 A.D. was arrested on suspicion of fraud and theft. On 16 August 1996 V.S. and, on 19 August 1996 A.A., were arrested on similar charges. The prosecution’s case was that the applicants had fraudulently (using false documents) converted and subsequently sold an apartment belonging to Mr K.\n7.  During the investigation the prosecution authorities obtained several economic expert opinions regarding the suspect transaction.\n8.  On 3 March 1997 the Kyiv City Prosecutor approved the indictment and referred the case to the Kyiv City Court, requesting it to determine the territorial jurisdiction in the case. On 5 March 1997 the Kyiv City Court (hereafter “City Court”) remitted the case to the Shevchenkovsky District Court of Kyiv (hereafter “the District Court”). The applicants stood trial on charges of theft, fraud, and embezzlement of official documents (A.D.), fraud and forgery (V.S.) and fraud and theft (A.A.).\n9.  On 2 April 1997 the District Court committed the applicants for trial.\n10.  On 3 April 1997 the District Court released A.A. and V.S. on bail of UAH 3,000 each (approximately USD 1,500 at the material time) and an undertaking not to abscond. On 19 May 1997 A.D. was also released on bail of UAH 4,000 (approximately USD 2,000) and an undertaking not to abscond. On 27 May 1997 the applicants’ bail was raised to UAH 17,000 (approximately USD 8,500) each.\n11.  Between April 1997 and June 1998 the District Court listed 22 hearings (14 between September 1997 and June 1998). Ten hearings were adjourned mainly due to the failure of the victim, witnesses and the applicants’ lawyers to appear in court. In the course of the proceedings on 24 October 1997 the court issued a compulsory summons for the witness F.\n12.  On 22 June 1998 the District Court decided to remit the case for further inquiries on account of the insufficiency of the original investigation. The court stated inter alia, that the investigative authorities had failed to establish the whereabouts of one of the key witnesses, F., which made it impossible for the court to summon her to give evidence. The prosecution appealed against this decision. The decision was, apart from one point, quashed by the City Court in its ruling of 6 August 1998 because the flaws in the investigation indicated in this decision could be remedied during the trial. However, the City Court upheld the findings of the District Court that the charges of aggravated embezzlement filed against A.D. needed additional investigation.\n13.  The trial resumed on 2 November 1998. During the period November 1998 to April 2000 thirty hearings were scheduled, of which seven were held. Fifteen hearings were cancelled due to the victim’s failure to appear, five hearings were adjourned on account of the applicants’ absence and on two occasions the presiding judge was ill. In particular, the hearing scheduled for 12 May 2000 was adjourned until 17 May 1999 on account of V.S. being on a mission. On 15 March 2000 he lodged with the trial court a successful request for permission to go to the Russian Federation for medical treatment.\n14.  On 20 April 2000 the District Court remitted the case for further investigation, referring to the similar circumstances in its decision of 22 June 1998. The prosecution’s appeal out of time was rejected ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1453", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 29 January 1996 the applicant brought an action against several respondents, claiming fees for the use of garages owned by him. Some defendants brought counterclaims against the applicant, claiming that they had made payments for the use of certain garages in respect of which their ownership was later established by court decisions.\n6.  The Buda Central District Court held hearings on 27 June and 13 December 1996, as well as on 10 and 28 February 1997. On 10 June 1997 an expert was appointed.\nFurther hearings took place on 11 July and 7 November 1997.\n7.  On 19 November 1997 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action and ordered him to pay the claimed amounts to the respondents.\n8.  On appeal, on 24 February 1999 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing. On 14 May 1999 it partly changed the first-instance judgment and reduced the amount payable by the applicant.\n9.  On 26 July 1999 the applicant filed a petition for a review by the Supreme Court. On 20 and 21 October 1999 the respondents filed their observations in reply. The applicant submitted a reply on 8 December 1999.\n10.  On 28 June 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision. This decision was served on the applicant on 3 September 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1454", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the city of Lugansk, Ukraine.\n5.  On 17 April 2000 the Leninsky District Court of Lugansk ordered the State Enterprise “Luganskyi Stankobudivnyi Zavod” to pay the applicant UAH 1,219.10[1] in salary arrears and other payments.\n6.  On 20 July 2000 the Leninsky District Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.\n7.  In May 2001 the applicant lodged with the Leninsky District Court of Lugansk a complaint alleging the unlawfulness of the Bailiffs’ Service’s inactivity in respect of the enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 15 May 2001 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs. The applicant did not appeal in cassation against that decision.\n8.  In March 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the Bailiffs’ Service seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgment. On 7 May 2002 the court rejected the applicant’s claim as being unsubstantiated.\n9.  On 12 September 2002 and 5 May 2003, respectively, the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 7 May 2002.\n10.  In two instalments of 11 and 27 October 2004 the amount of the judgment debt was transferred to the Bailiffs’ deposit account. On the same dates the applicant was invited to provide the Bailiffs’ Service with his bank account details in order that they transfer the amount of the award.\n11.  The applicant informed the Bailiffs’ Service that he did not wish to take the money before the Court decided on his application.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1455", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the city of Zhovti Vody, Ukraine. The second applicant was born in 1980 and lives in the same city. They both were employed by the Electron-Gaz Company, in which the State held 99.96% of the share capital.\n5.  By two decisions of 9 March and 21 December 1999, the Zhovti Vody Town Court ordered the company to pay the first applicant a total amount of UAH 4,118.15[1] in salary arrears.\n6.  In April 1999 and January 2000, respectively, the Zhovti Vody Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgments.\n7.  On 29 December 1999 the Zhovti Vody Town Court ordered the same company to pay the second applicant UAH 1,164[2] in salary arrears.\n8.  On 17 January 2000 the Zhovti Vody Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.\n9.  By a number of letters of 2002 and 2003, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicants that the judgments given in their favour could not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.\n10.  On 21 December 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the full enforcement of the judgments given in the applicants’ favour.\n11.  According to the applicants, the judgments were fully enforced on 22 December 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1456", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 25 June 1993 the Social Security Directorate of Budapest and Pest County requested that an order for payment be issued against the applicant on account of her overdue social security contributions.\n6.  On 30 July 1993 the applicant filed with the Directorate a court action contesting the order and, simultaneously, claiming damages. However, the Directorate only forwarded the action to the Pest Central District Court on 21 March 1995.\n7.  Hearings took place on 25 April and 27 November 1996. On that latter date the applicant failed to appear and the proceedings had to be stayed. On 27 February 1997 the applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed and, on 28 April 1997, that her claim for damages be transferred to the competent court. The principal proceedings resumed and a hearing was held on 27 January 1998. On 15 April 1999 the respondent was released from the case and replaced by the Tax Authority’s competent Contributions Directorate. The court held a further hearing on 15 September 1999. On 7 December 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action and upheld the Directorate’s order for payment.\n8.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held two hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert accountant. On 22 May 2001 it gave judgment, reducing the amount payable by the applicant. The decision was served on the applicant on 20 June 2001.\n9.  Meanwhile, in the proceedings for damages, the applicant’s claims were transferred to the competent bench of the Budapest Regional Court on 26 August 1997. On 15 October 1997 she extended her claims to include another respondent. After an exchange of observations between the parties, hearings took place on 9 April and 1 October 1998 and 4 March 1999. During this period, the applicant was repeatedly instructed to submit evidence to support her claims. On 22 April 1999 she filed a medical certificate justifying that, for health reasons, she had not been able to do so earlier. On 30 April 1999 the court appointed a medical expert.\n10.  At the hearing on 1 July 1999 the applicant did not appear. Following an exchange of observations concerning the opinion of the expert and the submission of the applicant’s amended claims, another hearing took place on 2 November 1999. The applicant again changed her claims on 8 November 1999 and 21 March 2000, extending her action to include yet another respondent. Further hearings took place on 28 March and 19 September 2000. On 30 November 2000 the court suspended the proceedings pending the termination of the case concerning the order for payment.\n11.  The proceedings resumed on 2 October 2001. Subsequently, the applicant extended her action to include a fourth respondent. The court held a hearing on 21 March 2002 and invited to applicant to specify her claims. She did so on 10 September 2002. Subsequently, she extended her action to include a fifth respondent. Another hearing took place on 3 October 2002. On 3 February 2003 the Regional Court gave judgment, finding in part for the applicant.\n12.  On 2 October 2003 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld this decision and on 26 February 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s petition for review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1457", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants, Chriso Kakoulli, Andreas Kakoulli, Martha Kakoulli and Kyriaki Kakoulli, were born in 1944, 1969, 1972 and 1970 respectively. The first, third and fourth applicants live in Avgorou and the second applicant lives in Paralini. The first applicant is the widow and the other applicants are the children of Petros Kyriakou Kakoulli, a Greek Cypriot who died on 13 October 1996.\n10.  In the early hours of 13 October 1996 Petros Kyriakou Kakoulli and his daughter’s fiancé, Panikos Hadjiathanasiou, drove to an area called Syrindjieris, situated near the Achna roundabout in the British Sovereign Base Area (SBA) of Dhekelia, to collect snails. After a time, they separated and agreed to meet up at about 7.30 a.m. to return to their village.\n11.  A villager from Avgorou, Georgios Mishis, who was also collecting snails on the north side of the main road, saw the victim standing in a field approximately 70 metres away from him. He also saw a Turkish soldier approximately 10 metres from Mr Kakoulli pointing his rifle at him and a second Turkish soldier approaching him. Georgios Mishis heard Mr Kakoulli ask the first soldier, in Greek, whether he spoke Greek, to which there was no response. At that moment, the two soldiers caught sight of Mr Mishis and one of them pointed a weapon at him. Mr Mishis then backed away.\n12.  At this moment Mr Mishis saw an SBA police patrol vehicle on the road and told the driver, Constable Pyrgou, what he had seen. Constable Pyrgou immediately reported the incident to Sergeant Serghiou of the SBA police at Ayios Nikolaos.\n13.  Shortly after Mr Mishis had seen Mr Kakoulli surrounded by Turkish soldiers, Panikos Hadjiathanasiou, who was searching for Mr Kakoulli, saw him at a distance of approximately 400 metres inside the territory of northern Cyprus. Panikos Hadjiathanasiou then heard the soldiers issue a command in Turkish to stop. Upon hearing these words, Mr Kakoulli remained still and raised his hands above his head. Panikos Hadjiathanasiou saw two Turkish soldiers in combat uniform drop to battle positions on the ground approximately 40 metres from the victim and aim their rifles at him. Immediately afterwards, Panikos Hadjiathanasiou heard a shot and saw Mr Kakoulli fall down. Mr Hadjiathanasiou heard a second shot immediately after the first.\n14.  A few minutes later, while Mr Kakoulli was still lying on the ground, Mr Hadjiathanasiou saw one of the Turkish soldiers move and fire a third shot at him from a distance of about 7 to 8 metres from where he was lying.\n15.  Following orders from Sergeant Serghiou of the SBA police, Constable Duru Chorekdjioglou (a Turkish-Cypriot member of the SBA police) and Constable Petros Kamaris (a Greek-Cypriot member of the SBA police) arrived at the Achna roundabout, where they met Panikos Hadjiathanasiou, who explained what had just happened.\n16.  Constable Duru Chorekdjioglou spoke to a Turkish lieutenant who told him that a Greek Cypriot had entered the territory of northern Cyprus and had been shot by Turkish soldiers. The officer said that the Greek Cypriot was dead.\n17.  The officer allowed Constable Duru Chorekdjioglou to see the body of the deceased though not to touch or examine it. Constable Duru Chorekdjioglou reported that Mr Kakoulli appeared to be dead.\n18.  Sergeant Engin Mustafa of the SBA police (a Turkish Cypriot), together with two Turkish soldiers, also visited the scene of the killing and saw the body. The Turkish soldiers told Sergeant Engin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1458", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Eger.\n5.  In 1990 the applicant hired two individuals to construct a well for him. Since they had not completed the work in due time, in December 1990 he brought an action with a view to obliging them to complete the job. In the alternative, he claimed damages.\n6.  In response to the applicant’s motion for bias, the Supreme Court appointed the Mezőkövesd District Court to hear the case. After having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert, on 27 September 1994 this court dismissed the applicant’s action.\n7.  In pursuit of the applicant’s repeated motion for bias, the Supreme Court appointed the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court to deal with his appeal. On 11 October 1995 that court quashed the District Court’s decision and remitted the case.\n8.  On 11 June 1996 the Supreme Court appointed the Debrecen District Court to hear the case in the resumed proceedings. After having held several hearings and obtained the supplementary opinion of an expert, on 7 October1998 that court dismissed the applicant’s action.\n9.  On 9 June 1999 the Regional Court quashed this decision and, again, remitted the case.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings, the Debrecen District Court held several hearings and obtained the opinion of another expert. It heard several witnesses and the expert. On 18 December 2000 it dismissed the applicant’s action.\n11.  On 21 March 2001 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n12.  On 19 June 2001 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to seek a review, in accordance with section 271 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, given that the amount of the claim fell below the threshold requirements for leave to be considered.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1459", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants describe themselves as being of Macedonian ethnicity and are members of the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – PIRIN (“UMO Ilinden – PIRIN”).\n10.  UMO Ilinden – PIRIN apparently has close links with the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, an association based in south‑west Bulgaria (in an area known as the Pirin region or the geographic region of Pirin Macedonia), that makes yearly attempts to organise commemorative events on various sites in Pirin Macedonia. During the period 1994‑2003 these rallies were, with minor exceptions, systematically banned by the authorities (see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, ECHR 2001‑IX, and The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, 20 October 2005). Also, this association was refused registration in 1990‑91 and again in 1998‑99 (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 59491/00, 9 September 2004).\n11.  On 29 February 2000 UMO Ilinden – PIRIN, which had in the meantime obtained registration as a political party, was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, and as a result dissolved (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – PIRIN and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59489/00, 20 October 2005).\n12.  On 3 August 1998 the second applicant, acting on behalf of the members and the followers of UMO Ilinden – PIRIN, informed the mayor of Sofia that a rally had been planned for 10 August 1998 – the anniversary of the 1913 Bucharest Treaty[1] – in the public garden in front of the National Theatre. Approximately one hundred people were expected to turn up. The applicant assured the mayor that no disturbances would occur during the event.\n13.  The same day, 3 August 1998, the mayor of Sofia issued an order prohibiting the rally pursuant to section 12(2)(2) of the Meetings and Marches Act. He opined, without giving further reasons, that the event would “create conditions for breaches of the public order”. A copy of the order was sent to the Sofia police authorities for enforcement.\n14.  Apparently no appeal was made against the order.\n15.  On 1 September 1998 the first applicant, acting on behalf of the members and the followers of UMO Ilinden – PIRIN, informed the mayor of Sofia that a rally had been planned for 12 September 1998 between 12 noon and 2 p.m. in front of the National Theatre. He stated that the event would be in commemoration of the “[d]ay of the genocide against the Macedonians”. Approximately one hundred and twenty persons were expected to take part. The applicant assured the mayor that the event would be entirely peaceful and that no disturbances would occur.\n16.  The next day, 2 September 1998, the mayor issued an order banning the rally pursuant to section 12(2)(2) of the Meetings and Marches Act. The order stated that the event would “create conditions for breaches of the public order”, without giving further reasons. A copy of the order was sent to the Sofia police authorities for enforcement.\n17.  The same day the first applicant lodged an appeal against the order with the Sofia District Court. He argued that the order was not reasoned and that there were no grounds to anticipate that the planned rally would pose a threat to public order. If the local authorities were allowed to prohibit public events without specifying the reasons for doing so, that would render nugatory the legal guarantees of freedom of assem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1460", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Gross-Rohrheim (Germany).\n9.  On 10 August 1989 the applicant registered his marriage with Ms G. in Novosibirsk. After the marriage they moved to St. Petersburg.\n10.  On 12 May 1995, during her stay at her parents’ home in Novosibirsk, Ms G. gave birth to a son to whom she gave her surname, despite objections from the applicant. Shortly thereafter the birth was registered; the applicant was named as the child’s father in the register.\n11.  In late September 1995 Ms G. and her son returned to St. Petersburg. The applicant believed that he was the boy’s father and treated him as his own.\n12.  On 28 March 1996 the applicant moved to Germany. Until September 1997 he waited for Ms G. and the son to join him there. However, in a letter of September 1997, Ms G. informed him that she had no plans to continue their marriage and would be applying for maintenance for the child. At about that time the applicant’s relatives in Novosibirsk advised him that he was not the boy’s father.\n13.  On 16 December 1997 the applicant petitioned for divorce and brought an action contesting paternity. On 12 April 1999 the divorce was granted.\n14.  On 16 November 2000 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Novosibirsk delivered judgment in the paternity action. It noted that genetic (DNA) tests of 28 June 1999 and 5 June 2000 demonstrated that the applicant could not be the boy’s father. Although Ms G. maintained that the applicant was the father, in the absence of any doubts as to the accuracy of the tests, the court established that the applicant was not the father of her son.\nThe District Court ruled, however, that the case was governed by the RSFSR[1] Marriage and Family Code of 30 July 1969 because the child had been born before 1 March 1996, that is to say before the new Family Code of the Russian Federation came into effect. The RSFSR Marriage and Family Code set a one-year limitation period for an action contesting paternity, the starting point of which was calculated from the date the putative father was informed that he had been registered as the father. As the applicant had not contested paternity when the child was born and had only applied to the courts in December 1997, after the expiry of the time-limit, his action was held to be time-barred. The fact that a new Family Code had been introduced which did not lay down a limitation period for paternity actions was irrelevant because it was only applicable to family-law disputes arising after 1 March 1996.\n15.  On 15 March 2001, on an appeal by the applicant, the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 16 November 2000.\n16.  On 20 April and 26 October 2001 the Novosibirsk Regional Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, respectively, refused requests by the applicant for supervisory review.\n17.  On 12 September 2002 the Justice of the Peace of the Third Court Circuit of the Zheleznodorozhniy District of Novosibirsk granted Ms G.’s claim for maintenance and made a charging order over the applicant’s interest in a flat.\n18.  On 15 September 2003 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Novosibirsk upheld the maintenance order.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1462", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant bank was set up and acquired a banking licence in 1993. On 20 November 1997 its licence was revoked by the BNB and on 6 January 1998 it was put into compulsory liquidation (see paragraphs 20 and 27 below). On 20 April 2005 the bank was wound up and it was struck off the register of companies (see paragraph 37 below).\n11.  On 27 March 1997 the BNB ruled that the applicant bank was insolvent.\n12.  On 5 May 1997 the BNB lodged a petition with the Sofia City Court to wind up the applicant bank.\n13.  In a decision of 15 May 1997 the BNB found that the overall amount of the applicant bank’s outstanding major loans was more than twenty times greater than the amount of its capital (including paid‑up capital and reserves), when the regulatory maximum was eight times. Considering that that situation put at risk the bank’s ability to operate and posed certain other problems with its financial standing, it decided to restrict the bank’s operations. In particular, it prohibited it from taking deposits, granting loans or other credit facilities, purchasing bills of exchange or promissory notes, entering into foreign‑currency or precious‑metals transactions, entering into deposit transactions, acting as a surety or guarantor or providing security to third parties, effecting non‑cash operations, clearing current accounts of third parties and conducting factoring transactions. The BNB also appointed a special administrator (see paragraph 49 below) to supervise the activities of the applicant bank and to verify whether it complied with the restrictions.\n14.  On 23 September 1997 the Sofia City Court, finding that the BNB had yet to revoke the applicant bank’s licence, which was a precondition to making a winding-up order under the new Banks Act of 1997, discontinued the proceedings. Its decision was upheld by the Supreme Court of Cassation on 12 November 1997.\n15.  In principle, it would have been possible to remedy the problems noted in the BNB’s decisions of 27 March and of 15 May 1997 (see paragraphs 11 and 13 above) by increasing the applicant bank’s capital.\n16.  This appears to have been the reason why on 23 March 1997 the applicant bank’s general meeting of shareholders resolved to issue new shares up to an amount of 12,000,000,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL)[1], to be subscribed by the shareholders. The resolution was registered by the Sofia City Court and took effect on 12 May 1997.\n17.  Two of the applicant bank’s shareholders, TOO Royal Flash and OOO Rontadent Trade, subscribed the shares and, accordingly, became liable to pay for them. However, they sought to discharge this liability by other means. On 30 June and 7 and 29 August 1997 the two shareholders purchased, at a discount, debts due by the applicant bank to the BNB and several other banks and companies. By virtue of these debt assignments the applicant bank’s shareholders also became its creditors. They advised the applicant bank that they wished to set off their obligations to pay for their newly subscribed shares against the debts that the applicant bank now owed them. Accordingly, the applicant bank made entries in its accounts to effect the required set-offs.\n18.  On 11 November 1997 the deputy‑governor of the BNB responsible for banking supervision, in whom the Central Bank’s powers under section 65 of the Banks Act of 1997 (see paragraph 48 below) were vested, directed the applicant bank to cancel the above‑mentioned entries in its accounts. She reasoned that the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1463", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Ms Valentyna Tymofiyivna Shevchenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born on 23 February 1970 and lives in Odessa, Ukraine.\n5.  In October 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zarichny District Court of Sumy (the “Zarichny Court”) against the Department of Education of the Sumy Municipal Council (Department), seeking the recovery of unpaid salary.\n6.  On 15 November 1999 the Zarichny Court allowed her claims and ordered the Department to pay the applicant UAH 1,181.71[1] in compensation. On 19 January and 28 January 2000, the Department paid the applicant UAH 199.39[2] in execution of the judgment.\n7.  On 1 February 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zarichny Court against the State Bailiffs’ Service of Sumy, seeking the full execution of the judgment of 15 November 1999. She also sought a declaration of unlawfulness as to the actions of the Bailiffs’ Service in deciding to join the pending writs of execution against the Department.\n8.  On 9 March 2000 the Zarichny Court rejected her claims as unsubstantiated. In particular the court found that the judgment of 15 November 1999 could not be fully executed due to the lack of funds of the Department.\n9.  On 19 April 2000 the Sumy Regional Court (the “Sumy Court”) rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal against the decision of 9 March 2000.\n10.  The applicant’s complaints with a view to instituting supervisory proceedings, lodged with the President of the Sumy Court, were rejected on 11 May 2000 as being unsubstantiated.\n11.  On 15 June 2000 the Zarichny Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that there were 1,152 pending writs of execution that had been issued against the Department for a total sum of UAH 348,529.80[3]. It also informed the applicant that insufficient funds were available to execute the decision. The applicant was invited to accept UAH 74[4] in execution of the judgment.\n12.  On 21 August 2000 the Deputy President of the Sumy Court lodged a protest with the Presidium of that court against the judgment of 9 March 2000 of the Zarichny Court. On 4 September 2000 the Presidium of the Sumy Court quashed the decisions of 9 April and 19 April 2000 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n13.  During 2000 the applicant received UAH 411.38[5] as a result of enforcement measures of the State Bailiffs.\n14.  On 1 February 2001 the Zarichny Court rejected the applicant’s claims as being unsubstantiated. On 23 February 2001 the Sumy Court upheld that decision. In particular, it held that, if there are a number of execution proceedings pending against the same legal entity, these proceedings can be joined (зведене виконавче провадження). It also informed the applicant that the partial enforcement of judgments authorised by the Bailiffs’ Service was lawful.\n15.  At the time of lodging the application, the debt owed to the applicant amounted to UAH 770.33[6].\n16.  On 8 August 2001 the enforcement proceedings were terminated due to the Department’s lack of funds.\n17.  On 5 October 2003 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment given in her favour remained unenforced.\n18.  On 15 March 2004 the applicant informed the Court that she had received the full amount of the debt due to her. She also confirmed that she had received an additional sum of UAH 500[7] in compensation[8]. On 17 May 2004 the Government informed the Court that the judgment had been enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1464", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants live in Žilina. The first applicant was born in 1939 and the second applicant was born in 1944.\n5.  The first applicant participated in a tender concerning the resolution of a technical problem within a State-owned company. The tender never resulted in a contract as the company went into liquidation.\n6.  On 20 November 1991 the first applicant claimed compensation (the equivalent of approximately 200 euros) from the company. He later indicated several Ministries as additional defendants.\n7.  On 23 April 1992 the Ministry of Construction and Works informed the District Court in Žilina that the defendant company had ceased to exist and that it had taken over the company’s obligations. The decision concerning the transfer of liabilities of the company was later quashed.\n8.  On 26 August 1992 the first applicant extended his action to comprise also the above Ministry as defendant. He later indicated three other Ministries as defendants as it was unclear which authority was liable for the original defendant’s obligations. On 8 December 1992 the first applicant requested that the District Court should issue a payment order.\n9.  On 20 February 1995 the Žilina District Court decided to deal separately with the claim to the extent that it concerned three Ministries. At the applicant’s request it discontinued the proceedings in respect of the other defendants including the State-owned company which, in the meantime, had ceased to exist.\n10.  On 7 April 1995 the first applicant sued also the Ministry of Economy in the context of the proceedings. In October 1995 and in January 1996 representatives of that Ministry informed the court that the Ministry of Economy lacked standing in the case.\n11.  Hearings were held on 28 February 1996 and on 2 September 1996. On 18 July 1996 the applicant requested a change in the defendants. He amended his claim on 3 September 1996.\n12.  On 5 February 1998 the District Court asked the first applicant to specify which authorities were defendants in the case. The applicant replied on 19 February 1998. On 18 March 1998 he submitted further information.\n13.  On 31 March 1998 the District Court joined to the proceedings the Ministry of Economy and the Ministry of Construction and Public Works as authorities representing the defendant State. One of the Ministries appealed on 27 April 1998. On 1 April 1998 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of two different authorities.\n14.  On 28 October 1998 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision of 31 March 1998.\n15.  On 20 July 1999 the first applicant made a submission to the District Court.\n16.  On 1 August 2000, in accordance with the instruction of the Regional Court, the District Court invited the applicant to specify which authority acted on behalf of the Slovak Republic in the proceedings and to specify the sum claimed. The first applicant replied on 10 August 2000.\n17.  On 17 October 2000 the District Court asked the defendant for comments on the action. The defendant replied on 30 October 2000. Subsequently the District Court unsuccessfully attempted to obtain documents concerning the work for which the applicant claimed compensation.\n18.  On 6 June 2001 the District Court dismissed the first applicant’s claim. The court found that the State-owned company which had sought the tenders had been liquidated without any successor by a final decision of 31 March 1992.\n19.  On 27 July 2001 the applicant appe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1465", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Svitlovodsk, Kirovograd region, Ukraine.\n5.  In 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Svitlovodskiy Town Court against her former employer, the State-owned “VAT Chysti Metaly” company, to recover salary arrears.\n6.  On 2 November 1999 the court awarded the applicant UAH 970.37[1] in salary arrears. On 18 November 1999 the Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings.\n7.  In February 2001, upon the applicant’s request, UAH 150 from the above judgment debt were transferred to the Municipal Heating Service to cover the applicant’s debt to the Service.\n8.  On 25 April 2002 the same court awarded the applicant UAH 1,333.37[2] in compensation for the delay in enforcement of the judgment of 2 November 1999. On 20 June 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings.\n9.  By letter of 16 October 2002, the local Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgments in her favour could not be enforced due to the debtor’s lack of funds, and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 26 November 2001.\n10.  On 12 May 2003 the enforcement proceedings against the debtor were suspended due to the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against it. On 10 June 2004 the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Commercial Court approved the recovery plan for the debtor.\n11.  On 11 March 2005 the debtor made a postal money order in favour of the applicant for the outstanding debts under the judgments of 2 November 1999 and 25 April 2002. The applicant refused to receive the money, and 10 days later it was transferred to the account of the Bailiffs’ Service.\n12.  On 31 March 2005 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that she should provide them with details of her bank account, to which the money could be transferred.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1466", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the town of Belozerskoe, Donetsk region of Ukraine.\n5.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Dobropolsky Town Court against his former employer, the State-owned “Novodonetskaya” mining company, to recover disability benefit arrears. On 3 June 2002 the court awarded the applicant UAH 50,822.44[1]. On 9 July 2002 the enforcement proceedings were initiated.\n6.  In September 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Dobropolsky Town Court against the Dobropolsky Town Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment of 3 June 2002 expeditiously.\n7.  On 18 October 2002 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs to enforce the judgment immediately.\n8.  By 7 December 2004 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full and the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings on that date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1467", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Mersin.\n5.  On 12 March 1996 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicant when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 17 December 1996, the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance awarded him additional compensation of 610,659,800 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 27 April 1994, the date of the transfer of the title-deeds.\n7.  On 2 November 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance.\n8.  On 17 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicant TRL 1,860,240,000 (approximately 3,339 euros (EUR), including interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1468", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Pruszków, Poland.\n5.  On 29 June 1993 the applicant lodged a motion with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) claiming PLZ (old zlotys) 100,000,000 from the insurance company “PZU” as compensation for his traffic accident. He also claimed a supplementary disability pension.\n6.  On 14 April 1994 the court ordered an expert opinion. It was submitted to the court in June 1994.\n7.  On 15 December 1994 the court ordered the expert to supplement her opinion. On 27 April 1995 the court appointed another expert. On 7 December 1995 the court held a hearing.\n8.  At the hearing held on, 23 April 1996 the court stayed the proceedings until the termination of social insurance proceedings instituted by the applicant against the Social Insurance authorities. These proceedings had in fact been terminated by a judgment of the Warsaw Regional Labour Court of 19 March 1996.\n9.  On 16 August 1996 the applicant submitted the copy of the judgment of 19 March 1996 to the Warsaw Regional Court and requested the court to resume the compensation proceedings against the insurance company “PZU”.\n10.  On 28 November 1996 the court held a hearing and resumed the proceedings.\n11.  On 11 March 1997 the applicant modified his claim, having regard to the inflation rate.\n12.  The court held further hearings on 13 May 1997, 18 September 1997, 27 November 1997, 2 September 1998, 22 October 1998, 21 October 1999, 9 December 1999, 17 February 2000, 24 October 2000 and 4 December 2000.\n13.  The court ordered two further expert opinions in 1997.\n14.  On 26 February 1999 the applicant requested the Director of the insurance company to conclude an out-of-court settlement in order to terminate the proceedings. This proposal was refused.\n15.  On 5 March 1999 yet another expert opinion was ordered by the court. It was submitted to the court on 9 August 1999. On 17 February 2000 the court requested the experts to supplement their opinion. The supplemented opinion was submitted to the court on 13 May 2000.\n16.  On 18 December 2000 the court closed the examination of the case. On 15 January 2001 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment and ordered the insurance company to pay PLN 25,000 to the applicant.\n17.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), claiming a higher amount of compensation.\n18.  On 25 April 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal gave judgment. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n19.  On 21 October 2003 the Supreme Court gave judgment and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal.\n20.  On 4 February 2004 the Warsaw Court of Appeal remitted the case to the Regional Court.\n21.  On 3 March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Court of Appeal under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“2004 Act”). On 25 April 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed it as manifestly ill-founded. The court held that it could only assess the proceedings after the remittal by the Court of Appeal i.e. after 4 February 2004, however, after that date there had not been any significant delays in the proceedings.\n22.  In the light of the information available to the Court at the date of the adoption of the present judgment, the proceedings are pending before the Regional Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1469", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and resides in the town of Zhovti Vody, the Dnipropetrovsk Region.\n5.  On 28 May 1999 and 18 October 2000 the Zhovti Vody City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant a total of UAH 5,712[1] against the State owned Electrongaz Company (hereafter “the Company”) in salary arrears. Both judgments became final and were sent to the Zhovti Vody City Bailiffs’ Office (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) for compulsory enforcement.\n6.  In a letter of 24 January 2003, the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the enforcement of the judgments in his favour was impeded by the entry into force of the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property 2001, which barred the attachment and sale of the Company’s capital assets.\n7.  On 7 March 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court (hereafter “the Commercial Court”) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction barring any debt recovery. On 10 October 2003 the Commercial Court approved the rehabilitation proposal and appointed a trustee to run the bankruptcy rehabilitation of the Company’s business.\n8.  On 21 October 2004 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s favour as both awards were paid to him in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1470", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Mersin.\n5.  On 12 March 1996 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicant in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicant when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 30 December 1996 the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance awarded him additional compensation of 962,996,880 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 12 March 1996, the date of the transfer of the title-deeds.\n7.  On 29 June 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance.\n8.  On 16 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicant the amount of TRL 2,861,840,000, including interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1471", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1946 and currently resides in Rozdilna, the Odessa Region, Ukraine.\n8.  On 20 July 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Rozdilna City Court against the Rozdilna Municipal Council, seeking to recover an additional salary payment for her time-in-service as a teacher, and healthcare benefits.\n9.  On 7 October 1999 the Rozdilna City Court (Роздільнянський районний суд Одеської області) allowed the applicant’s claims and ordered the Department of Education of the Rozdilna Municipal Council (Department) to pay the applicant UAH 1,957.80[1] in compensation (UAH 1,506.6 in bonuses for the term of service, UAH 324 in welfare benefits, UAH 97.2 in additional payments for pupils’ supervision and UAH 30 in costs and expenses). This judgment became final on 17 October 1999 and writs of enforcement were issued by the court on 18 October 1999.\n10.  The execution proceedings were initiated on 1 November 1999 by the Rozdilna Bailiffs’ Service (the “RBS”).\n11.  On 13 November 2000 the RBS informed the applicant that the judgment could not be executed due to the lack of funds in the State budget.\n12.  On 14 July 2000 the Department of Justice of the Odessa Region (the “Department of Justice”) informed the applicant that the Department had no property that could be attached.\n13.  On 17 April 2001 the Department of Justice informed the applicant that the decision could not be executed due to the lack of funds in the State budget.\n14.  On 22 August 2001, 16 December 2003 and 19 May 2004, the RBS attached the bank accounts of the Department. These resolutions of the RBS were quashed on 26 September 2001, 24 December 2003 and 21 May 2004, respectively.\n15.  On 20 September 2001 the Department lodged complaints with the Rozdilna City Court, seeking to quash the decision of 22 August 2001.\n16.  On 26 September 2001 the Rozdilna City Court allowed the Department’s claims.\n17.  On 29 December 2001 the RBS terminated the enforcement proceedings in the case in part with regard to the payment of UAH 97.2 to the applicant, which was then made on 21 January 2002.\n18.  On 22 May 2002 the Department of Justice informed the applicant that the rest of the judgment would be executed after the State had provided the necessary funds.\n19.  On 14 August 2003 the writs of enforcement were returned to the applicant due to the lack of funds of the Department.\n20.  On 30 April 2004 the RBS reinstituted the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case.\n21.  In June 2001, after the RBS returned the writs of enforcement to the applicant unenforced, the applicant lodged complaints with the Rozdilna City Court seeking compensation for the failure of the RBS to enforce the judgment of 7 October 1999 given in her favour. She also requested the court to declare unlawful the failure of the Bailiffs to enforce the judgment.\n22.  The proceedings were transferred to the Velykomykhaylivsky District Court of the Odessa Region (Великомихайлівський районний суд Одеської області; the Velykomykhaylivsky Court). On 30 July 2001 the Velykomykhaylivsky Court rejected the applicant’s complaints.\n23.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal, which on 21 March 2003 quashed the judgment of 30 July 2001 and remitted the case for reconsideration to the same first-instance court.\n24.  On 19 July 2004 the Velykomykhaylivsky Court found no inactivity on the part of the Bailiffs. It also held that they had acted in accordance with the l", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1472", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Mrs Aleksandra Gracheva was born in 1947; Mr Nikolay Grachev was born in 1936; Mr Anatoliy Yakovlevich Pedan was born in 1942 and Mr Eduard Gennadyevich Kuznetsov was born in 1969. All the applicants reside in the town of Zhovti Vody, the Dnipropetrovsk Region.\n5.  Between 1999 and 2001 the applicants instituted separate sets of proceedings in the Zhovti Vody City Court (hereafter “the City Court”), seeking the recovery of salary arrears against their former employer - the State owned Electrongaz Company (hereafter “the Company”).\n6.  On 7 June 1999 and 30 March 2001 the City Court awarded Mrs Aleksandra Gracheva a total of UAH 6,759[1] against the Company.\n7.  By the City Court’s judgments of 7 June 1999 and 4 May 2001, and the Dnepropetrovsky Regional Court of Appeal’s decision of 15 August 2001, Mr Nikolay Grachev was awarded a total of UAH 5,358[2] against the Company.\n8.  On 31 March 2000 and 29 March 2001 the City Court awarded Mr Pedan salary arrears of UAH 7,027[3] against the Company.\n9.  On 19 February 1999 the City Court ordered the Company to pay Mr Kuznetsov UAH 2,916[4] in salary arrears.\n10.  All the judgments above became final and were sent to the Zhovti Vody City Bailiffs’ Office (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) for compulsory enforcement.\n11.  In letters dated 23 and 24 January 2003, the Bailiffs informed the applicants that the enforcement of the judgments in their favour was impeded by the entry into force of the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property 2001, which barred the attachment and sale of the Company’s capital assets.\n12.  On 7 March 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court (hereafter “the Commercial Court”) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction, barring the debt recovery. On 10 October 2003 the Commercial Court approved the rehabilitation proposal and appointed a trustee to run the bankruptcy rehabilitation of the Company’s business.\n13.  On 21 October 2004 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicants’ favour as the awards were paid to them in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1473", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 30 August 1991 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava III District Court. She claimed that the defendants should be restrained from trespassing on her plot of land and from damaging her property and ordered to compensate her for damage.\n7.  In the course of 1991 both parties made submission to the court. The applicant submitted further claims.\n8.  On 5 March 1992 the District Court adjourned the case. The applicant was invited to specify her claims in which, inter alia, she contested the validity of a purchase contract which she had concluded with the defendants in 1982. The applicant submitted further documents on 9 March 1992. The defendants commented on them on 31 March and on 13 April 1992.\n9.  Hearings were held on 26 May 1992, on 1 July 1992 and on 3 September 1992. Between the hearings the applicant continued submitting further documents.\n10.  On 16 October 1992 the District Court decided to obtain expert opinion on the applicant’s legal capacity at the time when she had signed the contract in 1982. On 9 November 1992 the applicant appealed claiming that she was unable to pay an advance on the expert’s fee. She withdrew the appeal on 20 January 1992. The file was transmitted to the expert on 27 November 1992. The expert submitted her opinion on 16 February 1993. On 23 March 1993 the court decided on the expert’s fee.\n11.  In July and August 1993 the applicant made further submissions to the court.\n12.  On 24 September 1993 the court scheduled a hearing for 3 December 1993. It was adjourned to 14 December 1993 at the applicant’s request. On 14 December 1993 and on 31 January 1994 the case had to be adjourned as the expert could not attend.\n13.  A hearing was held on 7 June 1994. In the course of June and July 1994 the parties submitted further documents to the court.\n14.  On 20 September 1994 the court heard the parties. The case was adjourned as the expert did not appear. On the same day the court gave a decision refusing to exempt the applicant from the obligation to pay the court fee. The applicant appealed against that decision on 12 October 1994.\n15.  On 27 October 1994 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim concerning the validity of the purchase contract of 1982 on the ground that the applicant’s right to challenge the contract had lapsed. It further found that the remainder of the action, as specified by the applicant on 4 March 1992, concerned compensation for damage. The court decided to deal with that claim in a separate set of proceedings.\n16.  On 17 November 1994 the applicant appealed against the decision to dismiss her claim concerning the validity of the purchase contract. She submitted further reasons for her appeal on 3 March 1995. The defendants submitted observations in reply on 10 April 1995. The file was transmitted to the Bratislava City Court on 26 April 1995.\n17.  On 20 June 1995 the Bratislava City Court upheld the District Court’s judgment of 27 October 1994 as well as the first instance decision on the applicant’s obligation to pay the court fee. The appellate court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 14 November 1995. On 6 December 1995 she filed an appeal on points of law.\n18.  On 12 April 1996 the District Court invited the applicant to pay the fee in respect of her appeal on points of law. On 22 April 1996 the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1474", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kyiv. He is a former employee of the Institute of Semiconductor Physics of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (the “ASU”).\n10.  Between 1991 and 1995 the applicant, who was already a tenant of studio No. 35/5 in a communal apartment, petitioned various Ukrainian authorities seeking the right to reside in studio No. 35/6, which had become vacant in January 1995. By a decree of 10 July 1995, the Leningradsky District Council of Kyiv (the “LDC”) granted Mrs V.M.K. (a private person) the right to use that studio.\n11.  On 30 August 1995 the applicant lodged complaints with the Leningradsky District Court of Kyiv (the “Leningradsky Court”), seeking Mrs V.M.K.’s eviction from the studio. He also requested the court to issue him with a certificate granting him the right to occupy it.\n12.  On 22 November 1996 the Leningradsky Court rejected the applicant’s claims as being unsubstantiated. On 5 February 1997 the Kyiv City Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n13.  In December 1997 the applicant lodged his complaints with the Leningradsky Court against the ASU and the LDC, seeking to quash the decree of 10 July 1995 and to be allocated studio No. 35/6. By a judgment of 4 December 1997, the court quashed the decree of 10 July 1995 and recognized the applicant’s right to use the studio. The court ordered the respondents to take all necessary measures for the applicant’s enjoyment of his residential premises and the enforcement of the judgment of 4 December 1997. The judgment became final on 14 December 1997.\n14.  In January 1998 the applicant lodged the writ of execution with the Leningradsky District Execution Service of Kyiv. As a result, the certificate of Mrs V.M.K. granting her the use of studio No. 35/6 was annulled.\n15.  On 6 February 1998 the applicant lodged the writ of execution with the Starokyivsky District Execution Service of Kyiv (the “Starokyivsky Execution Service”) to oblige the ASU, one of the owners of the apartment, to certify that he could use studio No. 35/6. The execution proceedings were instituted on 23 February 1998.\n16.  Between April 1998 and February 1999, the applicant lodged several complaints with the Leningradsky Court, the Starokyivsky District Court of Kyiv (the “Starokyivsky Court”), the Kyiv City Court, the General Prosecution Service and the Kyiv Department of the Ministry of Justice, complaining about the failure of the Execution Service to enforce the judgment of 4 December 1997.\n17.  On 1 September 1998 the Starokyivsky Execution Service initiated administrative proceedings against the Logistics Director of the ASU who had failed to execute the judgment given in the applicant’s favour.\n18.  On 10 September 1998 the Logistics Department of the ASU informed the applicant and the Starokyivsky Court that the applicant had received the keys and free access to studio No. 35/6 in May 1998.\n19.  On 23 September 1998 the Starokyivsky Court fined the Logistics Director of the ASU for failure to comply with the judgment of 4 December 1997.\n20.  The Director appealed against this decision as he did not have the power to issue a certificate for the use of the apartment, which power lay with the LDC. The Kyiv City Court allowed the Director’s appeal on 4 November 1998. On 29 December 1998 the Starokyivsky Court dismissed the petition of the Starokyivsky Execution Service of 1 September 1998 by which it had initiated administrative proceed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1475", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Shostka, the Sumy Region, Ukraine.\n5.  In October 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Shostka City Court against the Department of Education of the Shostka Municipal Council (the Department), seeking to recover additional salary for her time-in-service and healthcare benefits.\n6.  On 8 December 1998 the Shostka City Court ordered the Department to pay the applicant UAH 1,201[1] in compensation. The judgment was not executed due to the Department’s lack of funds.\n7.  In July 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Shostka City Court against the Shostka State Execution Service seeking to oblige it to execute the decision of 8 December 1998 and to receive compensation for moral damage caused by the non-execution of that judgment.\n8.  On 29 July 1999 the Shostka City Court rejected these claims as being unsubstantiated. It also found that the judgment was not executed due to the lack of funds in the State budget.\n9.  On 8 September 1999 the Sumy Regional Court upheld that decision.\n10.  Between 1999 and 2001 the applicant unsuccessfully complained to the Presidents of the Sumy Regional Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine with a view to having supervisory review proceedings initiated in her case.\n11.  On 14 March 2001 the writ of execution was returned to the applicant unenforced due to the lack of funds on the accounts of the education department.\n12.  On 17 May 2001 the Regional Court informed the applicant that there were no grounds for initiating supervisory review proceedings upon her complaints.\n13.  On 2 July 2001 the Department responsible for the public water supply of the Shostka Municipal Council (the “DPW”) instituted proceedings in the Shostka City Court against Mr V.S. Kireyev (“V.S.K”.), seeking the payment of UAH 796.25[2] for the water supplied to him and his use of the water mains. On 21 February 2002 the Shostka City Court allowed the DPW’s claims and ordered V.S.K. to pay the debt. On 29 May 2002 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision.\n14.  In August 2001 the State “Sumyteplocomunenergo” company (the “SCS”) instituted proceedings in the Shostka City Court against V.S.K., seeking the payment of UAH 113.76[3] for his use of heating facilities. On 25 January 2002 the Shostka City Court allowed the SCS’s claims and ordered V.S.K. to pay the debt. On 29 April 2002 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision.\n15.  On 28 August 2001 the DPW instituted proceedings in the Shostka City Court against the applicant, seeking the payment of UAH 311.44[4] for the water supplied to her and for her use of the water mains. On 21 February 2002 the Shostka City Court allowed the DPW’s claims and ordered the applicant to pay the debt. On 29 May 2002 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision.\n16.  On 2 July 2001 the SCS instituted proceedings in the Shostka City Court against the applicant, seeking the payment of UAH 773.85[5] for the use of heating facilities. On 1 March 2002 the Shostka City Court allowed the SCS’s claims and ordered the applicant to pay the debt. On 29 May 2002 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1476", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Bratislava.\n7.  The inhabitants of the house in which the applicant lives asked the owner of the house to transfer to them the ownership of the respective flats pursuant to the Flat and Other Premises Ownership Act of 1993. The administrator of the house, the Bratislava - Staré mesto municipality, proposed to sell the flats to the inhabitants. However, it excluded the loft from the sales contracts as it envisaged selling it to a third person who planned to build new flats there. Subsequently the following relevant facts occurred and decisions were taken.\n8.  On 4 November 1998 the applicant and nine other inhabitants challenged the validity of the construction contract concluded between the municipality Bratislava - Staré mesto and the company RAFT, s.r.o. concerning the construction of flats at the roof level of the house in which the plaintiffs lived.\n9.  On 11 July 2001 the President of the Bratislava I District Court informed the applicant that the judge dealing with the case had a heavy workload and that she had therefore not yet started examining the case.\n10.  On 18 October 2002 the Bratislava I District Court declared the contract void. The defendants appealed. The proceedings are pending before the Bratislava Regional Court.\n11.  On 23 July 1999 the applicant and the other inhabitants of the house claimed that the Bratislava I District Court should deliver a judgment replacing the declaration of intent of the Bratislava - Staré mesto municipality and permitting the transfer of ownership of the flats, including the loft, to them under the Flats and Other Premises Ownership Act of 1993. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant municipality had failed to comply with its statutory obligation to do so.\n12.  On 4 November 1999 the plaintiffs submitted further information at the court’s request.\n13.  On 28 February 2000 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the action was incomplete.\n14.  The plaintiffs appealed and the Bratislava Regional Court, on 25 May 2000, quashed the first instance decision.\n15.  The appellate court’s decision was served in June 2000. On 1 February 2001 the District Court requested the defendant to submit comments on the action.\n16.  On 10 May 2001 the applicant submitted further information at the District Court’s request.\n17.  On 26 November 2002 the Bratislava I District Court dismissed the action. It noted that several plaintiffs had already concluded purchase contracts in respect of their apartments and that in the draft contracts attached to their action the plaintiffs proposed to buy the apartments from a person other than the defendant.\n18.  On 5 February 2003 the applicant and the other plaintiffs appealed.\n19.  On 9 September 2003 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment concluding that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with the relevant statutory requirements.\n20.  On 31 August 2001 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s constitutional right to a hearing without undue delay had been violated by the Bratislava I District Court in both the above sets of proceedings. It held that the District Court had failed to proceed with the cases in an appropriate manner as a result of which there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings. As regards the proceedings concerning the sale of the apartments in particular, the Constitutional Court held that the District Court had remained inactive fo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1478", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and currently resides in Kyiv.\n6.  The applicant is a former employee of the State Committee on Nationalities and Migration (the “Committee”).\n7.  On 15 December 1999 the President issued a decree “on changes to the structure of central government bodies” and liquidated the Committee. The decree also gave instructions to the Cabinet of Ministers (the “CM”) to control and manage the liquidation of the Committee.\n8.  On 29 March 2000 the applicant was dismissed from his position as a secretarial assistant, with effect from 31 March 2000.\n9.  On 4 April 2000 the CM decided to abolish this Committee and to create a Department of Nationalities and Migration within the Ministry of Justice. Some functions of the Committee were transferred to the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Culture.\n10.  In April 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv (the “Pechersky Court”) against the CM, seeking the recovery of unpaid salary.\n11.  On 22 May 2001 the court allowed his claims. It decided that the CM was liable for the salary debt and ordered it to pay the applicant UAH 4,241[1] in compensation. In particular, it found that the CM, as the body responsible for managing and financing the liquidation of the Committee and a central body of executive power, was to ensure payment of the debt to the applicant.\n12.  The writ of enforcement was issued on 20 July 2001.\n13.  On 1 August 2001 the Pechersky District Bailiffs’ Service (the “PDBS”) commenced the enforcement of the judgment of 22 May 2001.\n14.  On 20 November 2001 the First Deputy Prime Minister requested the Pechersky Court to suspend the enforcement proceedings in the case in view of the appeal in cassation pending before the Supreme Court. On the same date the CM lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court, through the Pechersky Court.\n15.  On 7 December 2001 the Pechersky Court suspended the enforcement of that judgment in view of the pending cassation appeal.\n16.  On 20 May 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the CM’s cassation appeal as being unsubstantiated. On 16 July 2002 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.\n17.  On 10 October 2002 the Pechersky Court heard the request of the PDBS for an interpretation of the procedure for the enforcement of the judgment of 22 May 2001. In particular, it specified that the CM was responsible for the payment of the award.\n18.  On 19 November 2002 the Deputy State Secretary of the CM, notwithstanding the ruling of 10 October 2002, informed the PDBS that the CM was a collegiate body and not a legal entity, and did not have its own funds or bank accounts that would contain such funds. He therefore concluded that the judgment of 22 May 2001 could not be enforced.\n19.  On 27 November 2002 the PDBS returned the writ of enforcement to the applicant as it found that the CM had no funds and was not a legal entity.\n20.  On 27 January 2003 the Golosiyivsky District Court of Kyiv (the “Golosiyivsky Court”) declared the failure of the PDBS to enforce the judgment of 22 May 2001 unlawful. It also ordered the PDBS to reinitiate the enforcement proceedings and comply with its obligations.\n21.  On 18 February 2002 the PDBS reinitiated the enforcement proceedings in the case.\n22.  On 24 March 2003 the PDBS informed the Pechersky Court that it could not enforce the judgment of 22 May 2001 as the CM was not a legal entity or physical person, and that it had no bank accounts or property", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1479", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the village of Kosharivka, the Kharkiv region, Ukraine.\n5.  In 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kupyansk Town Court against the Joint Stock Company “Kupyanskyi Liteinyi Zavod” (the “KLZ”), in which the State held about 41% of the share capital. She sought the recovery of salary arrears. On 18 December 2000 the court awarded her UAH 1,400[1] in salary arrears and other payments.\n6.  On 22 January 2001 the Kupyansk Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.\n7.  In 2001 the applicant filed an application with the labour disputes commission of the KLZ, seeking recovery of salary arrears. On 17 May 2001 the labour disputes commission allowed the applicant’s claims and ordered the KLZ to pay the applicant UAH 857[2] in arrears. On 23 May 2001 the commission issued a certificate in respect of its decision of 17 May 2001, which had the same status as a writ of execution issued by a court.\n8.  On 8 June 2001 the Kupyansk Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the commission’s decision.\n9.  In June 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in Kupyansk City Court against the KLZ, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 5 July 2001 the court found against the applicant. On 25 October 2001 the same court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal for failure to comply with procedural formalities. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.\n10.  On 8 July 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the decisions of 18 December 2000 and 17 May 2001 could not be executed due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the KLZ and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor company had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Order of the President of Ukraine of 23 May 2001.\n11.  By two decisions of 28 January 2005, the Bailiffs’ Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the decisions had been enforced in full.\n12.  The applicant did not challenge these decisions of the Bailiffs’ Service before the domestic courts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1480", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants live in Mersin.\n5.  On 9 February 1993 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicants in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicants’ request for increased compensation, on 10 November 1993, the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance awarded them additional compensation of 443,710,000 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 9 February 1993, the date of the transfer of the title-deeds.\n7.  On 26 October1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance.\n8.  On 17 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicants TRL 1,768,440,000 (approximately 3,175 euros (EUR)), including interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1481", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Luchegorsk.\n5.  In September 1995 the applicant lodged an action before the Severo-Evenkiyskiy District Court of the Magadan Region against the head of the local administration, a transport company and a private individual for compensation for damage.\n6.  The Severo-Evenkiyskiy District Court disallowed the action because it should have been lodged before the Magadan Town Court which had territorial jurisdiction over it.\n7.  On 1 November 1995 the applicant lodged the action before the Magadan Town Court. She asked the court to examine her claim in her absence, as she lived in Khabarovsk.\n8.  As the applicant’s claim had not been examined from 1995 to 1998, she complained to various officials about the court’s inactivity.\n9.  On 16 August 1998 the Deputy President of the Magadan Town Court informed the applicant that it was impossible to expedite the proceedings because the judges were overburdened with cases.\n10.  On 4 March 1999 the applicant increased her claim.\n11.  A hearing was fixed for 8 April 1999 and adjourned due to the defendants’ absence.\n12.  On 28 July 1999 the Magadan Town Court dismissed the applicant’s action.\n13.  On 24 August 1999 a copy of the judgment was sent to the applicant.\n14.  On 14 October 1999 the applicant appealed against the judgment of 28 July 1999.\n15.  On 1 November 1999 the Magadan Town Court stayed the appeal proceedings and requested the applicant to submit by 30 November 1999 three copies of her statement of appeal and to pay RUR 5 in a court fee.\n16.  On 30 November 1999 the judgment of 28 July 1999 became final because the applicant had not paid the fee.\n17.  On 16 December 1999 the Magadan Town Court returned the statement of appeal.\n18.  On 7 June 2000 the Presidium of the Magdan Regional Court, by way of supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 28 July 1999 and remitted the case for a new examination.\n19.  On 20 June 2000 the case-file was sent to the town court.\n20.  On 10 July 2000 the judge M. was assigned to the case.\n21.  On 13 September 2000 the case was transferred to the judge D.\n22.  Of six hearings listed between 19 October 2000 and 27 February 2001, four hearings were adjourned. Two hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s absence. The other hearings were adjourned because the parties did not attend, although the applicant repeatedly asked the court to hold hearings in her absence.\n23.  In February 2001 the applicant moved from Khabarovsk to the Primorye Region. She submits that promptly after the move she advised by post the Magadan Town Court of her new address.\n24.  On 10 April 2001 the Magadan Town Court requested the applicant to submit additional documents. It appears that the instructions were successfully fulfilled by the applicant.\n25.  On 14 June 2001 the Magadan Town Court, in the applicant’s absence, dismissed her action.\n26.  On 17 July 2001 the registry of the Magadan Town Court sent a copy of the judgment to the applicant’s old address in Khabarovsk.\n27.  On 14 March 2002 the applicant complained to the Magadan Regional Court about the town court’s inactivity in her case.\n28.  On 2 April 2002 the President of the Magadan Regional Court replied by a letter that the case had been decided on 14 June 2001. The President also acknowledged that, although the applicant had advised the court of her new address, on 17 July 2001 a copy of the judgment had been mistakenly sent to the applicant’s previous address.\n29.  On ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1482", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Salsk, Rostov Region.\n5.  In September 1996 the applicant was awarded by the Salsk Social Security Service (Управление соцзащиты г. Сальска) a monthly child allowance in respect of her son who was born on 26 July 1996.\n6.  In June 1998, having received no payments, the applicant brought proceedings before the Salsk City Court (Сальский городской суд) requesting the payment of outstanding sums for one year and ten months.\n7.  By a judgment of 7 October 1998 the City Court allowed the applicant’s claim and ordered the Salsk Social Security Service to pay her 1,886.13 roubles (RUR).\n8.  After the judgment gained legal force on 17 October 1998, the Salsk Bailiff’s Service (Служба судебных приставов по Сальскому району) instituted proceedings to enforce the judgment. However, as the defendant lacked proper funding the judgment could not be executed.\n9.  On 31 January 2000 the Rostov Regional Department of Justice (Главное управление юстиции Ростовской области) replied to the applicant’s complaint concerning the non-execution of the judgment in her favour that the budgetary situation of the Salsk Social Security Service had not significantly improved and that due to the large number of similar claims totalling 291 the applicant had to wait for her turn on the waiting list where her position was no. 118.\n10.  On 10 September 2001 the sum of RUR 1,886.13 was transferred to the applicant’s bank account.\n11.  On 3 December 2003 the applicant informed the Court that since she had received no payments of child allowance for 1998 and 1999, she had lodged a claim against the Financial Department of the Salsk Administration (Финансовое Управление Администрации г. Сальска и Сальского района). On 12 September 2002 the Second District Court of Salsk (Судебный участок № 2 г. Сальска и Сальского района) had allowed the applicant’s claim and had ordered the Financial Department to pay her RUR 12,133.84, comprising the arrears of child allowance, indexed due to inflation, and the court fees. On 15 October 2002 the applicant had turned to the Salsk Bailiff’s Service (Служба судебных приставов г. Сальска) in order to have the judgment executed. In August 2003 she had been paid RUR 2,404.21.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1483", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant in was born in 1931 and lives in the Chita Region.\n9.  In 1973 the applicant, then a miner, was injured at work. In 1999 the applicant filed with the Chernyshevskiy District Court of the Chita Region two actions against his former employer, a private company. He claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage (вoзмещение морального вреда) caused to him by the injury, and payment of a “lump-sum allowance” (единовременное пособие). This allowance pertained to victims of industrial accidents.\n10.  On 21 September 1999 the Chernyshevskiy District Court delivered two judgments in the applicant’s favour. The Court granted RUR 11,582.80 for non-pecuniary damage and RUR 30,000 as the lump-sum allowance. The judgments were not appealed against and became final. Bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings in this respect.\n11.  On an unspecified date the defendant applied to the President of the Chita Regional Court for “supervisory review” of the case (see the “Relevant Domestic Law” part below).\n12.  On 13 July 2000 the President of the Chita Regional Court lodged with the Regional Court an extraordinary appeal (протест в порядке надзора) against the judgments of 21 September 1999. A copy of the appeal was sent to the applicant. The President stated that the relevant provisions concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damage and payment of a “lump-sum allowance” had entered into force in 1992, while the injury had been inflicted in 1973. The President concluded that the lower court had erroneously applied the legislation retroactively.\n13.  On 10 August 2000 the Presidium of the Chita Regional Court examined the appeal under the presidency of the Court’s President. The applicant, who was not present, submitted his objections in writing.\n14.  The Presidium found that the Chernyshevskiy District Court of the Chita Region had erroneously applied the legislation of 1992 to the facts which had taken place in 1973. As a result the Presidium quashed the two judgments of 21 September 1999 and adopted two new judgments, dismissing the applicant’s claims in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1484", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Bucharest.\n8.  On 20 August 1940 the applicant's father purchased a building located at 7 Intrarea Domneşti Street, Bucharest, which was made up of two blocks, A and B, containing three and two flats respectively.\n9.  In 1950 the State nationalised the building under Decree no. 92/1950.\n10.  On 7 February 1996 the applicant applied to the board established by the Bucharest City Council to deal with applications lodged under Law no. 112/1995 (“the Board”) seeking the return of the whole building under Law no. 112/1995 on the legal status of nationalised residential property (“Law no. 112/1995”).\n11.  On 23 October 1996 the Board decided that buildings nationalised prior to 1989 in respect of which former owners had lodged a claim for restitution under Law no. 112/1995 or had brought an action for recovery of possession before the courts were not to be sold to tenants until their legal status had been clarified.\n12.  On 23 February and 17 March 1997 the city council sold to the tenants the two flats in block B and the adjoining land, under Law no. 112/1995.\n13.  On 20 March 1997 the applicant brought an action against the city council before the Bucharest Court of First Instance for recovery of possession of the entire building.\n14.  In a judgment of 10 April 1997 the court granted the action for recovery of possession and recognised the applicant as the building's owner. It held that the applicant's father had not been among those individuals to whom Decree no. 92/1950 had applied, since he was specifically excluded by its Article II. It ordered the city council to return the building to the applicant. The judgment became final and, in the absence of an appeal, became legally binding.\n15.  On 16 April 1997, under Law no. 112/1995, the city council sold to the former tenants flat no. 2 – one of the three flats in block A of the building in question – and the adjoining land.\n16.  By a decision of 22 July 1997, issued in compliance with the judgment of 10 April 1997, the city council ordered that the whole building be returned to the applicant.\n17.  On 17 September 1997 the applicant and the representatives of the city council signed a memorandum assigning possession of the part of the building which had not been affected by the above-mentioned contracts of sale (see paragraphs 12 and 15 above). They noted that, in order for the rest of the building to be returned to the applicant, the contracts concluded with the tenants would first have to be set aside.\n18.  On 28 April 1998 the Board informed the applicant that he could no longer benefit from the reparation measures provided for in Law no. 112/1995, a piece of extraordinary legislation, since the building's return had been ordered in the judgment of 10 April 1997.\nIn 1999 the city council advised the applicant that, under Law no. 112/1995, he was entitled only to damages, and not to the return of the property.\n19.  On 6 November 1997 the city council brought an action in the Bucharest Court of First Instance, seeking to have set aside the contracts of sale concluded with the tenants (see paragraphs 12 and 15 above). On 27 February 1998 the applicant asked to be allowed to take part in these proceedings; he too requested that the contracts be set aside.\n20.  In a judgment of 9 March 1999 the court dismissed the main claim lodged by the city council and allowed in part the applicant's interlocutory request.\nAt the same time, the court held th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1485", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant Goi Tuquabo-Tekle was born in 1963 and her son Adhanom Ghedlay Subhatu in 1978. Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle’s husband, Tarreke Tuquabo, was born in 1952, and their children Tmnit and Ablel in 1994 and 1995, respectively. These applicants live in Amsterdam. The applicant Mehret Ghedlay Subhatu – a daughter of Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle – was born on 12 November 1981 and lives in Adi Hanso, Eritrea.\n9.  In 1989, after the death of her first husband and during the civil war, Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle fled from Ethiopia to Norway, where she applied for asylum. She submitted that she had been harassed and detained by the Ethiopian authorities on account of her husband’s activities for the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front. Although denied asylum, she was granted a residence permit on humanitarian grounds in 1990. Her eldest child, Adhanom, had stayed behind in Addis Ababa with a friend of his mother’s, and she had left her other two children, Mehret and Michael, in the care of an uncle and their grandmother (in what subsequently became the State of Eritrea). After permission was granted by the Norwegian authorities for the children to reside with Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle, and with the assistance of those authorities and the UNHCR, her son Adhanom entered Norway in October 1991. It did not prove possible at that time to procure the departure of the other children from Eritrea, but it was Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle’s intention to bring them to Norway later.\n10.  In June 1992 Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle married Mr Tuquabo, who was living in the Netherlands where he had been admitted as a refugee. On 19 July 1993 Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle and her son Adhanom moved to the Netherlands to live with Mr Tuquabo. Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle was granted a residence permit in order to reside in the Netherlands with her husband on 21 July 1993. Two children, Tmnit and Ablel, were subsequently born to the couple.\n11.  On 16 September 1997, Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle and Mr Tuquabo filed a request for a provisional residence visa (machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf) for Mehret, in an attempt to have their (step)daughter, who was then fifteen years old, join them in the Netherlands. Such a visa is normally a prerequisite for the grant of a residence permit, which confers more permanent residence rights.\n12.  On 25 March 1998 the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken) rejected their request. The Minister concluded that there were no grounds to authorise family reunion in the Netherlands since the close family ties (gezinsband) between Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle and her daughter were considered to have ceased to exist and such ties had never existed between Mr Tuquabo and his stepdaughter. Ever since Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle had left Eritrea, Mehret had been living with an uncle and her grandmother; she was deemed to have been integrated into the latter’s family and thus no longer actually belonged to Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle’s family unit (gezin). There was no indication that this situation could not be maintained. Moreover, after marrying Mr Tuquabo, Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle had started a new family unit in the Netherlands to which her daughter had never belonged. Furthermore, the couple had not shown that they had been sufficiently involved with the upbringing and care of their (step)daughter. According to the information available, it was Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle’s parents who had custody of Mehret.\n13.  On 20 April 1998 Mrs Tuquabo-Tekle and Mr Tuquabo filed an objection (bezwaar) through counsel with the Minister of Foreign Aff", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1486", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Sarajevo.\n6.  On 25 August 1993 the Military Police seized the applicant’s car in front of his house in Mala Duba near Makarska, Croatia.\nOn 10 September 1993 the applicant brought a civil action in the Makarska Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Makarskoj) against the State seeking recovery of the seized car or, alternatively, pecuniary damages.\n7.  On 13 November 1997 the Municipal Court gave judgment by which it accepted the applicant’s claim and awarded him the damages sought.\n8.  On 2 February 1998 the State lodged an appeal against the judgment with the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu).\n9.  On 6 November 1999 the Amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”) entered into force. The amended legislation provided that all proceedings instituted against the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.\n10.  After the enactment of the above legislation, the County Court returned the case-file to the Municipal Court with a view to staying the proceedings.\n11.  On 10 February 2003 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings.\n12.  On 8 April 2003 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Split County Court. The proceedings are currently pending before that court.\n13.  On 31 July 2003 new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.\n14.  Meanwhile, on 8 August 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. To date, the Constitutional Court has not given a decision on the applicant’s complaint.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1487", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1958, 1965 and 1958 respectively, and live in the same household in Szeged, Hungary.\n5.  On account of his modest means and the financial burden of his minor daughter’s upbringing, on 16 December 1996 the first applicant lodged a request for a special family allowance (rendszeres nevelési segély) with the Mayor of Szeged. In February 1997 the request was refused; the applicant filed an administrative appeal. On 10 April 1997 the General Assembly of the Szeged Municipality upheld the Mayor’s decision.\n6.  On 14 May 1997 the first applicant brought an action before the Szeged District Court for the judicial review of the General Assembly’s decision. On 27 October 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed his motions for bias against the Szeged District Court and the Csongrád County Regional Court.\n7.  On 9 February and 29 April 1998 hearings were held. Following proceedings concerning the first applicant’s renewed motions of bias, on 2 April 1999 the case was transferred to the Regional Court, because of a change in the law concerning courts’ jurisdiction.\n8.  On 28 June 1999 the Regional Court dismissed the action. On 13 August 1999 the first applicant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. On 13 January 2000 the Supreme Court invited him to complete his motion, which he did on 24 February 2000. On 16 February 2001 it decided to deal with the motion in appellate, rather than review proceedings.\n9.  On 22 February 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 28 June 1999 and remitted the case.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings, the judges of the Csongrád County Regional Court declared themselves biased. On 20 November 2001 the Supreme Court appointed the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court to hear the case. That court appointed a legal-aid lawyer for the first applicant on 4 July 2002.\n11.  On 17 September 2002 the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court quashed the General Assembly’s decision and remitted the case to the first administrative body. The respondent authority appealed.\n12.  On 9 July 2003 the Budapest Court of Appeal held a hearing but the parties did not appear. On 17 September 2003 it upheld the Regional Court’s decision.\n13.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 13 January 2004 the first applicant was granted the allowance sought. His quantitative appeal was dismissed by the second-instance administrative authority on 14 May 2004.\n14.  On 21 June 2004 the applicant sought judicial review. On 13 December 2004 the Békés County Regional Court dismissed his action.\n15.  In 2001 and 2002 the applicants, acting on behalf of their minor children, lodged several requests with the Mayor of Szeged for another type of social benefit (gyermekintézményi étkeztetési térítési díj támogatása). On 16 July 2001 and 11 July 2002, respectively, their requests were refused. The General Assembly of the Szeged Municipality dismissed their administrative appeals on 5 October 2001 and 16 September 2002, respectively. The applicants sought judicial review before the Jász‑Nagykun‑Szolnok County Regional Court.\n16.  The Regional Court dismissed their action on 15 September 2003, holding that the administrative authorities’ decisions had been in compliance with the local regulations. The latter excluded the disbursement of the allowance sought if the requesting individuals received other social benefits (rendszeres gyermekvédelmi támogatás) – which was the applicants’ case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1488", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Brzeg, Poland.\n5.  On 26 January 2000 the applicant was remanded in custody on a charge of robbery. On 31 July 2000 he was convicted as charged and sentenced to a prison term.\n6.  The applicant appealed against his conviction but his appeal was dismissed on 20 December 2000 by the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny).\n7.  On 13 March 2002 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.\n8.  The first page of the applicant’s first letter to the Court of 26 May 2000, which was delivered to the Court on 19 July 2000, bears a stamp: “Censored on – [a hand‑written date]: 14.07.2000, judge: [an illegible signature]” (Ocenzurowano dnia – 14.07.2000, sędzia [podpis nieczytelny]). The same stamp and signature are marked on the third page of the letter. Moreover, two words have been obscured with a felt-tip pen on the last page of the letter. The left side of the envelope in which the letter was delivered was opened and subsequently sealed with Sellotape.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1489", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul.\n7.  On 12 September 1980 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of having committed an armed attack and attempted murder.\n8.  On 17 October 1980 the Ankara Martial Law Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n9.  On 13 April 1991 he was released pending trial.\n10.  On 25 December 1992 the Ankara Martial Court convicted the applicant of premeditated murder, pursuant to Article 450 § 4 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n11.  On 12 May 1993 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Ankara Martial Law Court on the ground that the latter had misinterpreted the domestic law in respect of the offence in question and remitted the case to the court of first instance.\n12.  Subsequent to the promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, the Ankara Assize Court acquired jurisdiction in the applicant’s case.\n13.  In 1994 the Ankara Assize Court commenced the applicant’s trial together with one hundred and thirty-two other accused.\n14.  On 21 November 2003 after numerous hearings had been conducted, Ankara Assize Court convicted the applicant of the aforementioned crime and sentenced him to thirty-six years’ imprisonment under Article 59 of the Criminal Code.\n15.  On 7 May 2004 the Public Prosecutor before the Ankara Assize Court appealed to the Military Court of Cassation against this judgment.\n16.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant are currently pending before the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1490", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 15 April 1998 the applicant was arrested and charged with attempted extortion of money by threats. On 16 April the Pruszków District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order, finding that in the light of the evidence the arrest was justified.\n10.  On 17 April 1998 the Pruszków District Court decided to detain the applicant on remand. Subsequently, throughout the initial period of his detention, at least until 2 July 1998, the applicant remained in the detention centre Warszawa-Białołęka.\n11.  On an unspecified date after 2 July 1998 the applicant was transferred to the detention centre Warszawa-Mokotów.\n12.  On 26 July 1998 the applicant sent his first letter to the European Commission of Human Rights. A letter of 24 August 1998, sent by the Commission to the applicant, was intercepted, opened and read by the prosecutor conducting the investigations in the applicant’s case.\nThe envelope in which the letter was delivered bears the following stamps: Detention Centre Warszawa-Białołęka, 8 September 1998; Detention Centre Warszawa 10 September 1998, Detention Centre in Olsztyn 12 October 1998, the Barczewo Prison 14 October 1998. It also bears a note: Censored, 15 September 1998 (“Ocenzurowano”) signed by an illegible signature.\n13.  The applicant requested that criminal proceedings be instituted in respect of the interference with his correspondence from the European Commission of Human Rights.\n14.  On 27 December 2001 the Warszawa-Ochota District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation of the applicant’s complaint about the letter of 24 August 1998 having been intercepted, opened and read, finding that no criminal offence had been committed. The applicant appealed.\n15.  By a decision of 9 May 2002 the Pruszków District Court dismissed his appeal. The court observed that the prosecutor Z.O. who had opened the letter had been authorised by law to open it, to read its contents and to decide whether to forward it to the detained person. The court further considered that Article 103 of the Code of Enforcement of Criminal Sentences, insofar as it prohibited interference with correspondence with international institutions for the protection of human rights, was applicable only to persons convicted by final judicial decisions. Hence, it was not applicable to the situation of the applicant who had at the material time been detained on remand and his situation was therefore governed by other provisions.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1491", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Turany.\n5.  On 18 November 1997 the Martin District Court issued a payment order under which the applicant was obliged to pay the equivalent of approximately 250 euros to the plaintiff.\n6.  On 10 December 1997 the applicant, through his lawyer, filed an objection to the order. The lawyer sent the objection to the District Court by registered mail. He submitted a copy of a postal certificate according to which he had deposited the mail for despatch to the District Court in Martin at the post office on 10 December 1997. The mail had registration number R 690. The certificate, in which the addressee was indicated by the sender, did not mention the contents of the mail.\n7.  On 12 December 1997 the Martin District Court dismissed the applicant’s objection to the payment order. The decision stated that the order had been served on 25 November 1997 and that the time-limit for challenging it by means of an objection had expired on 10 December 1997. The court held that the applicant had filed the objection on 11 December 1997 – the date appearing on the stamp of the District Court – which was out of time.\n8.  On 29 December 1997 the applicant appealed. With reference to Article 57(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure he argued that by depositing the remedy as registered mail at the post office on 10 December 1997 he had respected the statutory time-limit. He submitted a copy of the postal certificate R 690.\n9.  On 26 October 1999 the District Court judge heard the applicant and his lawyer. The lawyer stated that the registered mail R 690 was the only mail which he had deposited in person at the post office in Turany on 10 December 1997.\n10.  On 29 October 1999 the judge heard an employee of the District Court in charge of incoming mail. The employee, after having consulted the file, confirmed that the document in question had been stamped and signed by her and that she had received it in person. She further stated that, in accordance with constant practice, the court’s registry would attach the envelope to the letter in case of its delivery by post and that this fact would be mentioned on the document. The employee also pointed out that the applicant’s lawyer used to bring most of his documents to the court in person but admitted that he sometimes also sent submissions by post. In reply to a question by the lawyer the employee stated that it was impossible to determine the contents of the registered mail R 690 addressed to the court and to whom it had been submitted.\n11.  On 30 November 1999 the Žilina Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision of 12 December 1997. With reference to the District Court’s stamp of 11 December 1997 on the relevant document and to the above statement of the employee of the District Court, the Regional Court established that the remedy had been filed out of time. Since the postal certificate did not indicate the contents of registered mail R 690, the applicant had not reliably shown that he had deposited the relevant document at the post office on 10 December 1997.\n12.  On 11 February 2000 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. He argued that the employee of the District Court could have committed an error when registering the document and that the mail register of the District Court did not indicate the contents of registered mail R 690 and to whom it had been transferred. He argued that it had not been reliably shown that the document had been deposited", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1492", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Prešov.\n5.  In 1993 the applicant was dismissed from her job. On 16 November 1995 the Prešov District Court found that the dismissal had been unlawful. On 20 November 1995 it issued a supplementary judgment in which, inter alia, it dismissed the applicant’s claim that her employment with the defendant still continued. The parties did not appeal against this conclusion and it thus became final.\n6.  On 18 August 1997 the Prešov District Court delivered a decision approving a settlement agreement under which the defendant undertook to pay compensation to the applicant for the above unlawful termination of her employment. The period for which compensation was to be paid ended by the date on which the judgment of 16 November 1995 had become final, that is 3 June 1997.\n7.  On 10 October 1997 the employer asked the applicant to sign a document indicating that she was being compensated for lost income in the context of the above judicial decisions and the subsequent settlement agreement. The document further indicated that the applicant had refused to resume her job, agreed to the termination of her employment with effect from 31 May 1997, and waived any further claims in this respect.\n8.  On 22 November 1997 the applicant challenged the second termination of her employment before the Prešov District Court. She alleged that she had been obliged to sign the above document.\n9.  In the course of 1998 the District Court held six hearings, and on 10 September 1998 it found that the termination of the applicant’s employment as from 31 May 1997 had been unlawful. The court heard witnesses and took further evidence. It established that the applicant had not agreed to the termination of her employment of her own free will as the relevant document had been typed in advance and the payment of compensation under the earlier judicial decisions was made subject to the applicant’s agreement to the termination of her employment.\n10.  On 29 October 1998 the defendant appealed. On 13 November 1998 the applicant submitted her observations in reply.\n11.  On 28 June 1999 the Prešov Regional Court overturned the first instance judgment and dismissed the applicant’s action. It noted that in the first set of proceedings terminated by the Prešov District Court’s judgments of 16 and 20 November 1995, the applicant’s claim concerning the duration of her contract employment had been dismissed as the applicant had expressly stated at a hearing that she did not wish to return to her job. That decision had become final. As a result, the applicant’s contract of employment had been terminated in accordance with the relevant law. The Regional Court concluded that, when the above document had been signed on 10 October 1997, the applicant had no longer been entitled to be employed by the defendant.\n12.  The appellate court’s judgment was to be served on the parties through the intermediary of the District Court. It was sent by registered mail and the delivery slip indicates that the post officer unsuccessfully attempted to serve the document at the address of the applicant’s advocate on 3 and 4 August 1999. The delivery slip further indicates that the envelope was deposited at the post office on the latter date.\n13.  The advocate representing the applicant was on leave abroad between 30 July 1999 and 14 August 1999. The employee authorised to receive mail addressed to the advocate fell ill on 30 July 1999. A medical certificate indi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1493", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 20 February 1995 the applicant’s wife filed for divorce. She also requested the division of the matrimonial property and the settlement of the use of the couple’s flat.\n6.  After five hearings, on 26 June 1996 the court gave a partial decision and pronounced the parties’ divorce. The proceedings concerning the matrimonial property continued.\n7.  Meanwhile, on 13 June 1995 the applicant brought an action before the same court, challenging the validity of a contract by which his ex-wife had meanwhile sold their common flat.\n8.  After five hearings, on 16 January 1997 these proceedings were joined to the dispute concerning the division of the matrimonial property.\n9.  After another two hearings, on 16 July 1997 a valuation expert was appointed.\n10.  Following four further hearings, on 26 June 1998 the District Court gave a partial decision. It established the parties’ respective shares of the ownership of the flat, annulled the above-mentioned contract and suspended the examination of the remainder of the case (i.e. the distribution of movable property) until the partial decision became final.\n11.  After a hearing on 20 January 1999, on 21 April 1999 the Budapest Regional Court confirmed the partial decision.\n12.  In review proceedings, on 8 May 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the partial decision while upholding, again as a partial decision, the establishment of the parties’ respective shares of the ownership of the flat. However, it did not annul the disputed contract.\n13.  Subsequently, on 14 March 2002 the District Court resumed the proceedings. After a hearing on 2 July 2002, on 4 December 2002 it divided the matrimonial property.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1494", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Budaörs.\n5.  In 1976 the applicant married Mr J.V. Their daughters were born in 1978 and 1981.\n6.  In March 1993 the applicant filed for divorce before the Budaörs District Court. She also sought custody of the couple’s children and the regulation of related matters.\n7.  On 8 August 1994 an expert submitted her opinion on the children’s relationship with the parents.\n8.  On 27 September 1994 the District Court pronounced the couple’s divorce, granted custody of the children to the mother, ordered the respondent to pay maintenance, regulated his access rights and ordered that the couple should share the use of the flat, which was jointly owned. It considered that the respondent’s alcoholism and its negative effect on the children did not justify the grant of the exclusive use of the flat to the mother and the children.\nBoth parties appealed. The applicant claimed exclusive use of the flat.\n9.  On 7 February 1995 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the parties’ appeal, holding that the first-instance decision had been given in accordance with the law.\n10.  On 23 February 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Budaörs District Court for the division of the matrimonial property.\n11.  The court held hearings on 19 May and 11 July 1995. On 20 July 1995 it appointed an expert architect. Further hearings took place 1 November and 4 December 1995, 1 February and 11 March 1996.\n12.  On 12 March 1996 the applicant unsuccessfully requested the court to grant priority to her case.\n13.  The District Court held hearings on 13 June, 1 October and 12 December 1996. On 16 January 1997 another expert was appointed.\n14.  A further hearing took place on 25 June 1997. A third expert was appointed on 5 September 1997.\n15.  On 1 October, 25 November and 9 December 1997, 13 February and 31 March 1998, the court held additional hearings. On that date it appointed an expert committee to reconcile the existing expert opinions. After having been urged to do so on 3 May 1999, the latter submitted its opinion on 1 June 2000.\n16.  Meanwhile, on 23 September 1998 and 18 February 2000, the applicant again unsuccessfully requested that priority be granted to her case.\n17.  On 30 June and 12 July 2000 the applicant’s motion for bias and her complaint against the committee’s opinion were rejected.\n18.  On 27 October 2000 the District Court delivered its judgment and divided the matrimonial property between the parties, ordering the applicant to pay 2,179,500 Hungarian forints to the respondent as compensation for his share of the flat which he had to leave.\n19.  On 15 May 2001 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the parties’ appeals.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1495", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  In 1941 the Soviet authorities nationalised the house owned by his parents. In the same year his family was deported to Russia and to Uzbekistan.\n8.  On 8 December 1992 the Moldovan Parliament enacted Law No. 1225-XII “on the rehabilitation of the victims of the political repression committed by the totalitarian communist occupying regime”. The Law enabled the victims of the Soviet repression to claim restitution of their confiscated or nationalised property.\n9.  In 1997 the applicant lodged an action with the Centru District Court (Judecătoria Sectorului Centru) by which he sought the restitution of his parents’ house. As the former tenants of the house had purchased it from the State, the applicant sought a judicial ruling declaring the purchase contracts null and void. He also requested the eviction of all the occupants of the house.\n10.  By a final judgment of 5 November 1997 the applicant’s action was upheld.\n11.  Between 1997 and 2002 the applicant lodged numerous complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 5 November 1997 with the Municipal Council, Centru District Court and the Ministry of Justice.\n12.  In 2001 the applicant complained to the Court about the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 5 November 1997. The applicant’s application was given number 74153/01 and was communicated to the Government in January 2003.\n13.  In April 2004 four occupants of the applicant’s house lodged with the Chişinău Court of Appeal a request for revision of the judgment of 5 November 1997. Relying on Article 449 of the new Code of Civil Procedure they argued in their request that new information had become known to them. They also asked the court to extend the deadline for lodging the request in view of the fact that the new information had been obtained by them from the National Archives in April 2004.\n14.  The applicant alleges that on 20 May 2004 the Government Agent offered him for signature an agreement according to the terms of which he would consent to withdrawing his application to the Court and waiving his right to any compensation in exchange for receiving his house. According to the applicant, the Agent allegedly suggested that in the event of his refusal the Court of Appeal would continue the examination of the revision request lodged by the defendants and the proceedings would remain unresolved for a long time. He refused to sign the agreement.\n15.  On 26 May 2004 the Court of Appeal examined the revision request lodged by the occupants of the applicant’s house in which newly discovered facts were invoked.\n16.  The new facts relied upon by occupants were an issue of the Municipal Official Gazette of 1940 and four certificates from the National Archives and from the Land Register dated 6 April 2004, 18 May 2004 and 19 May 2004.\n17.  A certificate from the National Archives dated 6 April 2004 had the following content:\n“... according to the Municipal Official Gazette of 1940, there is a house with a new number 36 (old number 46) on the Stefan cel Mare street whose owner is Pelagheia Popova and a house with the new number 33 (old number 37) on the Stefan cel Mare street, whose owner is Pelagheia Popov”.\n18.  Another certificate from the National Archives dated 6 April 2004 stated:\n“... according to the Archives of the Municipal Council on 29 February 1924 the name of the street Nicolaievskaia was changed to Stefan cel Mare.”\n19.  The certificate of 18 May 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1496", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Florence.\n6.  A.C., C.G. and G.G. were the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to R.F.\n7.  In a registered letter of 29 June 1987, the owners informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 9 September 1988, the owners reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 18 October 1988, which was made enforceable on 23 November 1988, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 13 October 1989.\n10.  In the meanwhile, on 4 April 1989, the applicant became the owner of the flat and pursued the enforcement proceedings.\n11.  On 14 November 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n12.  On 5 December 1989, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 26 January 1990.\n13.  Between 26 January 1990 and 22 January 1999, the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  On 17 May 1990, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.\n15.  On 11 October 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1497", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Kumanovo.\n5.  On 4 August 1995 the Kumanovo Employment Bureau (“the Bureau”) (Републичкиот завод за вработување - Биро за вработување Куманово) granted the applicant, who had been laid off, a monthly unemployment compensation, the amount of which equalled the minimum salary reduced by 20%.\n6  On 28 August 1995 the applicant appealed the decision before the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (“the Ministry”) (Министерство за труд и социјална политика), alleging that his compensation had been miscalculated. He claimed that the amount of compensation should be based on the average of his last three monthly salaries reduced by 50%.\n7.  As the Ministry remained inactive, the applicant instituted administrative contentious proceedings before the Supreme Court (Врховен суд на Република Македонија).\n8.  On 24 April 1997 the Supreme Court rejected his appeal as he had failed to re-introduce his complaint with the Ministry before instituting the administrative contentious proceedings.\n10.  On 27 August 1997 the Bureau, which transmits administrative complaints to the Ministry, rejected his complaint finding that he had already appealed the first-instance decision and that the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 April 1997 had not provided instructions for further remedies.\n11.  On 15 December 1997 the applicant filed a new appeal with the Supreme Court, complaining about the Ministry’s inactivity and the rejection of his prior complaint. The Ministry did not reply to the applicant’s pleadings nor did it provide the Supreme Court with the requested documents.\n12.  On 28 April 1999 the Supreme Court granted the applicant’s appeal and ordered the Ministry to decide upon his complaint of 28 August 1995 within 30 days from the serving of its decision. The Supreme Court also held that the Bureau had unjustifiably rejected the applicant’s appeal instead of transmitting it to the Ministry for consideration.\n13.  As the Ministry remained inactive, the applicant took another action before the Supreme Court to decide on the merits.\n14.  On 6 October 1999 the Supreme Court annulled the Bureau’s decision from 1995 and remitted the case for re-examination.\n17.  As it remained inactive, on 7 February 2000 the applicant re-introduced his claim before the Ministry.\n18.  It appears that the applicant instituted administrative contentious proceedings before the Supreme Court on account of the inactivity of the Ministry.\n19.  In the meantime, on an unspecified date prior to 15 August 2000, the Ministry upheld the Bureau’s decision of 26 November 1999. This decision was allegedly served on the applicant on 18 August 2000.\n20.  On 27 June 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the Ministry’s decision, finding that the applicant’s unemployment benefit had been calculated in accordance with the law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1498", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were respectively born in 1927 and 1929 and live in Rome.\n5.  In a registered letter of 26 February 1990, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 5 October 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n6.  In a writ served on the tenant on 28 December 1990, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n7.  By a decision of 17 May 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit on 5 October 1992 and ordered that the premises be vacated by 5 October 1993.\n8.  Pursuant to Law no. 359/92, the expiry of the term was extended until 5 October 1994.\n9.  This decision invalidated the previous writ. As a result, the applicants had to restart the eviction proceedings.\n10.  On 5 April 1996, they served on the tenant a second notice to quit and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n11.  By a decision of 20 November 1996, the Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 20 May 1997.\n12.  On 18 December 1998, the applicants served on the tenant the order to vacate the premises.\n13.  On 17 February 1999, they informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 July 1999.\n14.  On 25 October 1999, the applicants served on the tenant a second order to vacate the premises.\n15.  On 4 November 1999, they informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 November 1999.\n16.  Between 30 November 1999 and 14 April 2000, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful.\n17.  On 30 June 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.\n18.  In a registered letter of 19 February 1990, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n19.  In a writ served on the tenant on 13 June 1990, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n20.  By a decision of 22 June 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit on 31 December 1993 and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 September 1994.\n21.  Pursuant to Law no. 359/92, the expiry of the term was extended until 31 December 1995.\n22.  This decision invalidated the previous writ. As a result, the applicants had to restart the eviction proceedings.\n23.  On 5 April 1995, the applicants served a second writ on the tenant with a view to terminating the lease.\n24.  The tenant was then summoned to appear before the Rome Magistrate who, by a decision of 20 November 1996, upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered the premises be vacated by 20 November 1997.\n25.  On 18 December 1998, a notice was served on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n26.  On 17 February 1999, the applicants informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 July 1999.\n27.  Between 30 November 1999 and 14 April 2000, the bailiff made 4 attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful.\n28.  On 29 September 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1499", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.\n5.  The applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a consequence, he was entitled to certain social benefits.\n6.  In 2001 the applicant was placed on a waiting list for free housing. As the Kirovskiy District Administration did not provide him with a flat within three months, the applicant sued the administration.\n7.  On 19 December 2001 the Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don allowed the applicant’s claim against the Kirovskiy District Administration for the provision of housing. It ordered that the administration:\n“...provide [the applicant’s] family of five - [the applicant], his wife, his son, his daughter and his mother - with other comfortable living premises within three months after the entry of the judgment into force”.\n8.  No appeal was brought against the judgment and on 4 January 2002 it became final.\n9.  On 24 January 2002 the bailiffs’ service opened enforcement proceedings. However, the judgment could not be enforced because the town administration possessed no available housing or financial resources to purchase a flat.\n10.  On 10 August 2003 the applicant’s mother died.\n11.  On 28 October 2004 the Mayor of Rostov-on-Don issued an order allocating a three-room flat measuring 81.7 square metres in the Blagodatnaya Street to the applicant’s family of four.\n12.  The bailiffs asked the Kirovskiy District Court to stay the enforcement proceedings until the completion of the construction works on the block of flats in the Blagodatnaya Street. In the alternative, they requested to amend the method of enforcement and to order that the Kirovskiy District Administration should pay the applicant the monetary value of the flat.\n13.  On 1 December 2004 the Kirovskiy District Court dismissed the bailiffs’ request.\n14.  On 24 January 2005 the Rostov Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the matter for a new examination. The proceedings are now pending.\n15.  By a letter of 14 December 2004 the Chief Bailiff of the Kirovskiy District bailiffs’ service informed the applicant that the bailiffs had fined the Kirovskiy District Administration five times for their failure to execute the judgment of 19 December 2001. It was not possible to collect the fines because the administration’s funds were allocated for specific purposes.\n16.  The applicant has not yet received an occupancy voucher in respect of either the flat in the Blagodatnaya Street or any other flat.\n17.  It appears that the judgment of 19 December 2001 remains unenforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1500", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8. The applicants were born in 1959, 1948 and 1952 respectively. They live in Milan and Rome respectively.\n9. The applicants inherited plots of building land, located at Nuoro and entered in the land register as folio 43, parcels 4, 11, 13, 31 and 32, and folio 41, parcels 3, 217 and 219 respectively. Each of the applicants has a holding of 29/360.\n10. By a decree of the “Bank for the South” (Cassa per il Mezzogiorno) of 9 April 1976 and two decrees by the President of the Sardinia Regional Council of 7 and 17 January 1977, a project to build low-rent housing and leisure structures on the applicants' land was approved.\n11. By three decrees, adopted on 1 December 1976 and 20 May and 15 June 1977 respectively, the President of the Sardinia Regional Council authorised possession under the expedited procedure of part of the applicants' land, namely 77,782 square metres, for a maximum period of five years, with a view to its expropriation, in order to begin construction of the low-rent housing and leisure structures.\n12. On 20 January, 28 June and 22 July 1977 the authorities took physical possession of the applicants' land.\n13. By a writ served on 11 November 1983, the applicants brought an action for damages before the Nuoro Court against the Nuoro Municipality.\n14. They alleged that the occupation of the land was illegal and that the construction work had been completed without there having been a formal expropriation of the land and payment of compensation. They claimed a sum corresponding to the market value of the land and a sum for loss of enjoyment of the land.\n15. During the proceedings an expert report and an additional report were submitted to the court registry on 8 February 1990 and 30 April 1992 respectively. According to the expert, a first section of the land had been irreversibly altered in 1982, and a second section in 1983, through the public works performed. The total market value of the occupied land in 1982 and 1983 was 5,372,538,000 liras (ITL), or ITL 432,787,783 for each applicant. The expert assessed the compensation for possession of the land at ITL 1,611,761,400, or ITL 129,836,335 per applicant.\n16. By a provisional judgment of 14 July 1997, the Nuoro Court declared that the possession of the land, initially authorised, had become illegal as of 1982 and 1983. It found that the land had been irreversibly transformed by the public works. As a result, in accordance with the constructive expropriation rule (occupazione acquisitiva), the applicants had been deprived of their property, by virtue of its irreversible alteration, on the date on which the possession had ceased to be legal. In the light of those considerations, the court ordered the municipality to pay, as an advance, a sum equal to 55% of the market value of the land, namely ITL 238,033,280 for each applicant, plus interest and adjustment for inflation, and compensation for occupation amounting to ITL 129,836,334 for each applicant.\n17. In the same judgment, the court ordered that the proceedings be continued in order to recalculate the final sum to be awarded to the applicants under Law no. 662 of 1996, which had entered into force in the meantime.\n18. On 27 March 1997 the municipality paid the applicants the amounts due in application of the provisional judgment of 14 July 1997. Tax, at a rate of 20 %, was deducted at source from these sums.\n19. In a final judgment filed with the registry on 17 July 2003, the Nuoro court upheld its provisional judgment o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1501", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Senec.\n5.  On 10 February 1999 a company sued the applicant for a sum of money which he allegedly owed for the lease of his flat and for services provided by the company.\n6.  On 27 May 1999 the Bratislava III District Court issued a payment order under which the applicant was obliged to pay the equivalent of approximately 1,000 euros to the plaintiff.\n7.  On 10 June 1999 the applicant challenged the payment order. The case was therefore to be heard by the first instance court in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n8.  The District Court held hearings on 18 May 2000, on 12 June 2000, on 11 September 2000 and on 9 October 2000. At the last mentioned hearing the plaintiff extended the action.\n9.  On 27 March 2003 the District Court appointed an expert and asked him to submit an opinion.\n10.  On 1 December 2003 the judge instructed the court’s registry to transmit the file to the expert. The expert received the file on 29 December 2003. He submitted his opinion to the court on 24 February 2004.\n11.  On 4 May 2004 the District Court decided on the expert’s fee. The expert opinion was delivered to the parties on 13 and 14 May 2004 respectively. On 1 June 2004 the applicant submitted his comments on it.\n12.  Hearings before the District Court were held on 27 September 2004 and on 11 October 2004. A hearing scheduled for 2 December 2004 was adjourned.\n13.  In May 2005 the applicant informed the Court that there had been no further progress in the case.\n14.  On 11 March 2003 the applicant filed a complaint about the length of proceedings to the Constitutional Court. He claimed, inter alia, 800,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n15.  On 13 August 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been violated and ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delays. The decision stated that the District Court had remained inactive between 15 June 1999 and 28 January 2000, that is for more than 7 months, and also between 9 October 2000 and 27 March 2003, that is for more than 29 months.\n16.  The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation noting that the applicant had by his conduct considerably contributed to the fact that the dispute had come into being and that the proceedings had been protracted, since in particular he had not regularly paid the sums due and the company therefore had to extend the action. The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to reimburse the costs related to the constitutional proceedings to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1502", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants, who are Greek nationals of Roma origin, were born in 1980 and live in Mesolonghi (Western Greece).\n9.  On 8 May 1998, at approximately 00.45 a.m., a patrol car from the Mesolonghi police station responded to a telephone complaint reporting the attempted burglary of a kiosk. The call had been made by the grandson of the owner of the kiosk, Mr Pavlakis. Upon arriving at the scene, the latter found the first applicant attempting to break into the kiosk with an iron bar while the second applicant was apparently acting as a lookout. He struggled with the second applicant, who subsequently stated that Mr Pavlakis had punched him in the face.\n10.  At that point three police officers, Mr Sompolos, Mr Alexopoulos and Mr Ganavias, arrived. The first applicant claimed that he was initially handcuffed without being beaten. Then, an officer removed his handcuffs and repeatedly beat him on the back and the head with a truncheon. He stopped when the first applicant complained that he had a medical condition and was feeling dizzy.\n11.  Following their arrest, the applicants were taken to the Mesolonghi police station, where officers Tsikrikas, Avgeris, Zalokostas, Skoutas and Kaminatos were present. The first applicant alleged that as he was being led to his cell one officer beat him twice with a truncheon and another slapped him in the face.\n12.  At 10.00 a.m. the first applicant was taken to the interview room, where allegedly three police officers punched him in the stomach and the back, trying to extract confessions to other crimes and information about who was dealing in drugs in the area. According to the first applicant, the police officers took turns beating him, slapping him and hitting him all over his body. The first applicant further alleged that another police officer beat him with the iron bar that had been used in the attempted burglary. He alleged that this officer also pushed him against the wall, choking him with the iron bar and threatening to sexually assault him, saying “I will f... you”, while trying to lower his trousers.\n13.  The second applicant said that he was also abused throughout his interrogation. During the early hours of the day, he was allegedly beaten with a truncheon on his back and kicked in the stomach by an officer who later returned to beat him again. Subsequently, the second applicant identified the officer as Mr Tsikrikas. The second applicant also testified that the police officers “inserted a truncheon in [his] bottom and then raised it to [his] face, asking [him] whether it smelled”.\n14.  The applicants stated that they were both able to hear each other’s screams and cries throughout their interrogation. The first applicant testified before the domestic court: “I could hear Koutropoulos crying in the other room”. The second applicant stated: “I screamed and cried when they were beating me. I could also hear Bekos’s screams and cries”. They also claimed that they suffered repeated verbal abuse about their Roma origins. In his sworn deposition dated 3 July 1998 the first applicant testified before the public prosecutor that the officer who had choked him with the iron bar said to him “you guys f... your sisters” and “your mothers are getting f... by others” (see also paragraph 25 below).\nThe Government disputed that the applicants had been assaulted or subjected to racial abuse while in police detention.\n15.  The applicants remained in detention until the morning of 9 May 1998. At 11.00 a.m", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1503", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1959. The second applicant was born in 1947. They both reside in Kharkiv.\n5.  On 4 October 2000 the Moskovsky District Court of Kharkiv ordered the Kharkiv enterprise “Serp i Molot”, which is an enterprise in which the State owns 90% of the shares (hereafter referred to as the “KESM”), to pay the first applicant UAH 23,963.78[1] for salary arrears, and compensation for the delay in that payment (for the period between March 1998 and 1 August 2000) and moral damage.\n6.  On 16 October 2000 the Moskovsky District Bailiffs’ Service initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On 5 November 2002 the Commercial Court of the Kharkiv Region initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the KESM and, therefore, the Bailiffs’ Service suspended the execution of the judgment. In accordance with the plan for the financial recovery of the enterprise, the applicant received UAH 100 in compensation.\n8.  On 7 March 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that the enforcement was still pending because of these bankruptcy proceedings.\n9.  On 31 December 2003 the applicant received UAH 100[2] in partial payment of the judgment debt.\n10.  On 29 January 2004 the applicant received UAH 7,529.05[3] in further partial payment of the debt owed by the KESM.\n11.  On 8 November 2004 the applicant informed the Court that he had received payment for the remainder of the debt (UAH 16,434.73[4]) on 6 October 2004. The enforcement proceedings were terminated on the same date. The payment was made on the basis of funds transferred to the account of the KESM, as approved by the Head of the Kharkiv Regional Administration on 10 March 2004.\nII.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF APPLICATION NO. 6717/03\n12.  On 4 October 2000 the Moskovsky District Court of Kharkiv ordered the KESM to pay the second applicant UAH 21,170.19[5] in compensation for the delayed payment of salary arrears (for the period between March 1998 and 1 August 2000) and moral damage.\n13.  On 16 October 2000 the Moskovsky District Bailiffs’ Service initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n14.  On 5 November 2002 the Commercial Court of the Kharkiv Region initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the KESM and, therefore, the execution of the judgment was suspended.\n15.  On 31 December 2003 the applicant received UAH 88[6] in partial payment of the judgment debt.\n16.  On 29 January 2004 the applicant received 6,755.73[7] in further partial payment of the debt owed by the KESM.\n17.  On 5 November 2004 the applicant informed the Court that he had received payment of the remainder of the debt (UAH 14,414.46[8]) on 6 October 2004. The enforcement proceedings were terminated on the same date. The payment was made on the basis of funds transferred to the account of the KESM, as approved by the Head of the Kharkiv Regional Administration on 10 March 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1504", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and currently resides in Odessa. He is a former employee of the State Company “Chornomorske Morske Paroplavstvo” (the “CMP”).\n5.  In 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings against the CMP in the Zhovtnevy District Court of Odessa, seeking the recovery of salary arrears.\n6.  On 6 October 1998 the Zhovtnevy District Court of Odessa ordered the CMP to pay the applicant UAH 3,604[1] in compensation. The decision was not appealed and became final on 16 October 1998.\n7.  On 18 December 2000 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the judgment in his favour could not be immediately executed due to the CMP’s lack of funds. In particular, it noted that the CMP’s debts amounted to UAH 20,095,905, including salary arrears in the amount of UAH 5,067,027. They also stated that they were in the course of selling some of the CMP’s property and vessels belonging to it.\n8.  On 28 May 2001 the Zhovtnevy District Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the Bailiffs’ Service had frozen the CMP’s bank accounts, however they had been empty since 1997.\n9.  On 26 December 2002 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment had been executed when, on 18 December 2002, he had been paid UAH 3,604[2].", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1505", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the town of Askaniya-Nova, the Kherson region.\n5.  By two separate decisions of 22 April 2002, the Chaplynsk Town Court ordered the State Agricultural Research Firm “Askaniya-Nova” to pay the applicant the total of UAH 10,101[1] in debts and compensation.\n6.  On 27 June 2002 the Chaplynsk Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On 16 December 2002 the Kherson Regional Commercial Court initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor. On 26 November 2003 the same court terminated these proceedings. On 23 May 2003 the court reinitiated bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor.\n8.  On 2 December 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment given in his favour could not be enforced due to the debtor’s lack of funds and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.\n9.  The judgments in the applicant’s favour remain unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1507", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the town of Nova Kakhovka, the Kherson region.\n5.  The State owns 75% of the shares in the Pivdenelektromash Company (hereafter “the Company), which is therefore subject to the moratorium on the forced sale of property of State-owned entities, barring the attachment and sale of its assets.\n6.  On 5 June 2000 the Kherson Regional Court of Arbitration (hereafter “the Arbitration Court”) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction barring debt recovery. This decision led, inter alia, to the suspension of the enforcement of all court judgments given against the Company.\n7.  Following the adoption of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Arbitration of 10 August 2000, which directed that the bankruptcy proceedings should not impede the execution of judgments awarding salary arrears, the Novokahovsky City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) resumed enforcement proceedings against the Company.\n8.  On 15 January 2001 the Arbitration Court approved a rehabilitation proposal and appointed a trustee to rehabilitate the Company’s business. On 17 January 2002 the court found that enforcement proceedings of any kind contradicted the June 2000 injunction, particularly in view of the pending rehabilitation programme, the success of which could be jeopardised if the Bailiffs’ actions continued (cf. Trykhlib v. Ukraine, no. 58312/00, 20 September 2005, §§ 7-14).\n9.  The applicant is a former employee of the Company, against which he instituted proceeding, claiming salary arrears. On 5 December 2002 the Nova Kakhovka City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) granted this claim and awarded the applicant UAH 6,044[1]. The judgment became final and was sent to the Bailiffs’ Service for compulsory enforcement.\n10.  By letters of 26 February 2003 and 15 April 2003, the Bailiffs’ Service and the Kherson Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been suspended due to the rehabilitation proceedings pending against the debtor.\n11.  On 11 August 2003 the City Court rejected the applicant’s complaint about the allegedly unlawful inactivity of the Bailiffs’ Service. The court stated that there was no fault attributable to the defendant, who had to suspend the enforcement of the applicant’s award in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act 1992.\n12.  On 9 December 2003 the Minister for Justice issued a circular letter, informing the Bailiffs that the injunction against debt collection in bankruptcy cases did not extend to warrants for the execution of judgments awarding salary arrears.\n13.  On 15 January 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service resumed the execution proceedings in the applicant’s case. On 23 January and 10 February 2004, it ordered the attachment of the Company’s accounts. However, on 27 February 2004 the Kherson Regional Commercial Court, on the trustee’s appeal, quashed these decisions because the Bankruptcy Act envisaged the obligatory suspension of enforcement proceedings pending the resolution of a bankruptcy case. The exemption of salary arrears payments from the general injunction against debt recovery concerned only the Company’s current salary expenditures.\n14.  The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1508", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and currently resides in Donetsk. The applicant is a former employee of the State Skochinsky Mine (the “SSM”).\n5.  In December 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kirovsky District Court of Donetsk (the “Kirovsky Court”) against the SSM, seeking recovery of salary arrears.\n6.  On 24 January 2001 the Kirovsky Court ordered the SSM to pay the applicant UAH 9,349.78[1] in compensation.\n7.  On 24 February 2001 the Kirovsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Donetsk (the “Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings.\n8.  On 11 November 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be executed due to the SSM’s lack of funds. It also informed the applicant of the pending bankruptcy proceedings against the SSM and the ban imposed by the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court on the execution of judgments against the company.\n9.  On 23 December 2002 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court prohibited the collection by the Bailiffs’ Service of funds from the SSM’s accounts in view of the latter’s pending bankruptcy and financial recovery programme.\n10.  On 7 February 2003 the Bailiff’s Service resumed the enforcement proceedings in the case. However, this decision was quashed by the Head of the Bailiffs’ Service in view of the bankruptcy proceedings pending against the SSM.\n11.  On 3 March 2003 the Kirovsky Court awarded the applicant additional compensation for the unreasonable delay in the execution of the judgment and ordered the SSM to pay him UAH 826.98[2] in compensation.\n12.  On 11 April 2003 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court approved a friendly settlement reached between the SSM and its creditors, and terminated the bankruptcy proceedings.\n13.  On 19 May 2003 the SSM requested the Kirovsky Court to change the debtor in the enforcement proceedings to the State Enterprise “Donetskvugillia”, which had become the SSM’s legal successor following the decision of the Ministry of Fuel and Energy.\n14.  On 22 August 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service suspended the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case, awaiting the replacement of the debtor by the court.\n15.  On 15 January 2004 the Kirovsky Court effected the replacement.\n16.  On 11 May 2004 the applicant received the amount of UAH 9,309.88[3] awarded by the judgment of 24 January 2001 and UAH 826.88[4] awarded by the judgment of 3 March 2003.[*]\n17.  On 18 May 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service discontinued the proceedings in the applicant’s case in view of the full enforcement of the judgments.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1509", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Stročín.\n5.  On 18 August 1992 the applicant’s son claimed that the maintenance which courts had earlier ordered the applicant to pay should be increased. The plaintiff submitted that his living costs had increased as he had started studying at a university.\n6.  On 26 October 1992 the Košice 1 District Court heard the parties. On 29 October 1992 it asked a tax office for information on the applicant’s income. The tax office submitted the information on 15 January 2003.\n7.  In the course of February and March 1993 the parties made further submissions and the court obtained fresh information on the applicant’s income.\n8.  The plaintiff did not appear before the court on 22 March 1993. The case was adjourned. Further documentary evidence was obtained in April 1993.\n9.  On 10 May 1993 the Košice 1 District Court ordered the applicant to pay monthly 1,200 Slovakian korunas (SKK) to his son as from 1 September 1992. The applicant appealed on 4 June 1993. On 9 July 1993 the applicant submitted another copy of his appeal and paid the court fee. The file was transferred to the appellate court on 29 July 1993.\n10.  On 30 September 1993 the Košice Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment to the extent that it had been challenged by the applicant. The appellate court found that the first instance court had failed to establish the relevant fact of the case and that it had acted contrary to the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and of the Family Act. Reference was made, inter alia, to Article 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n11.  On 7 March 1994 the District Court made an inquiry about the plaintiff’s studies. On 24 March 1994 the case had to be adjourned as both the plaintiff and the applicant had not appeared.\n12.  Between 15 April 1994 and 9 September 1994 the District Court held five hearings and it also obtained documentary evidence. On the latter date the court decided to determine the applicant’s income on the basis of an expert opinion which had been ordered in a different set of proceedings concerning the maintenance of the applicant’s other son. On 23 December 1994 the District Court found that the opinion had not been submitted as the applicant had refused to co-operate with the expert.\n13.  On 14 February 1995 the applicant proposed to settle the case. On 28 February 1995 the plaintiff agreed to a settlement. However, the parties refused to settle the case at a hearing held on 16 March 1995. The case was adjourned. On 22 April 1996 the court found that the applicant had not yet submitted the relevant documents to the expert in the context of the different set of proceedings.\n14.  On 7 March 1996 the President of the Košice 1 District Court admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, that there had been delays in the proceedings after the Regional Court had quashed the first instance judgment.\n15.  In January and in October 1997 the District Court asked for the file in the proceedings concerning the maintenance of the applicant’s other son. The file could not be submitted to it as that case, which the first instance court had determined in the meantime even in the absence of an expert opinion, was pending before the appellate court.\n16.  On 29 April 1998 the plaintiff modified the claim. He proposed that a criminal file against the applicant be examined by the District Court.\n17.  On 7 May 1998 a hearing was held. In May 1998 the District Court obtained furthe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1510", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the town of Nalchik, in the Kabardino-Balkar Republic of the Russian Federation. He is a lawyer.\n10.  The applicant is an ethnic Chechen; he was born in the Chechen Republic and lived there. On 31 December 1994 his property in Grozny was destroyed as a result of a military operation. Since 15 August 1996 the applicant has been living in Nalchik as a forced migrant.\n11.  In 1997 the applicant applied for registration of his permanent residence in Nalchik. His application was rejected pursuant to the local laws of Kabardino-Balkaria prohibiting former residents of the Chechen Republic from obtaining permanent residence in Kabardino-Balkaria. The refusal of the local authorities was upheld by the Nalchik City Court on 19 September 1997 and by the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkar Republic on 23 October 1997.\n12.  On 19 June 1999 the applicant and his driver travelled by car from Nazran in the Republic of Ingushetia to Nalchik in the Kabardino-Balkar Republic. The parties submitted different versions of the subsequent events.\n13.  According to the applicant, at about 3 p.m. their car was stopped at the Urukh checkpoint on the administrative border between Ingushetia and Kabardino-Balkaria. Officers of the Kabardino-Balkar State Inspectorate for Road Safety (Гибдд Мвд Кбр) refused him entry, referring to an oral instruction from the Ministry of the Interior of Kabardino-Balkaria not to admit persons of Chechen ethnic origin. He had had to turn back and make a detour of 300 kilometres to reach Nalchik through a different checkpoint.\nAccording to the Government, the applicant attempted to jump the queue of cars waiting for their turn at the checkpoint, but he was refused priority treatment and had to leave.\n14.  The applicant complained to a court about the allegedly unlawful actions of the police officers; he also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n15.  On 25 August 1999 the Nalchik City Court dismissed the applicant's claim, finding as follows:\n“By an order of the Head of the State Inspectorate for Road Safety of the Kabardino-Balkar Republic (no. 68 of 21 June 1999), because of the complicated operational situation at the [administrative] border with the Chechen Republic ... with a view to preventing and putting an end to the entering into towns and villages of persons having terrorist or antisocial intentions ... the road safety police were ordered to reinforce security measures from 2 p.m. on 19 June 1999 until further notice. The police were also instructed to perform stricter controls of vehicles and passengers at checkpoints.\n[Police officers M., Kh. and Me.] testified before the Court that, on that day, the Urukh checkpoint had a long queue of vehicles with freight and passengers waiting for passage and registration. The car in which Mr Timishev was travelling attempted to jump the queue, but was refused priority treatment and signalled to wait its turn. None of the officers refused anyone entry into Kabardino-Balkaria on account of their ethnicity, including Mr Timishev. On that day more than seventy buses of Chechens gained entry. However, Mr Timishev accused the officers of deliberately refusing him entry because he was a Chechen. He showed his advocate's card and said that he worked in Nalchik.\nThe Court considers that the actions of the police officers complied with the Police Act. Although Mr Timishev produced his advocate's card, it indicated that he was a lawyer i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1511", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the village of Myrne, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the “ARC”).\n5.  On 22 November 2000 the Zaliznodorozhnyi District Court of Simferopil (the “Zaliznodorozhnyi Court”) ordered the Zaliznodorozhnyi District Council of Simferopil to pay the applicant UAH 1,371.33[1] in health care allowances and salary arrears.\n6.  On 30 January 2001 the Zaliznodorozhnyi District Bailiffs’ Service of Simferopil instituted enforcement proceedings.\n7.  In August 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the council, seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. On 25 October 2001 the court rejected his claim as unsubstantiated. The court held that the judgment was not enforced due to the lack of relevant allocations in the council’s budget, for which it could not be held responsible. On 21 January and 23 September 2002, respectively, the Court of Appeal of the ARC and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld that decision.\n8.  In 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zaliznodorozhnyi Court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. On 15 May 2001 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to apply all the measures envisaged by the law to enforce the judgment.\n9.  On 1 December 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the debtor’s lack of funds.\n10.  The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1512", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Słupno.\n5.  On 12 February 2001 the Pruszków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody until 11 May 2001 in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed 5 counts of armed robbery against lorry drivers in an organised armed group of criminals. It also had regard to the likelihood that a severe penalty might be imposed on him and the risk that he might tamper with evidence, especially as some of his accomplices had not yet been apprehended. The court further stressed that, given the applicant’s modus operandi – namely, the repeated nature of the offences in question – there was a risk that, once released, he would commit a similar offence.\n6.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was prolonged on several occasions. On 10 May 2001 the Płock Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 19 August 2001. It held that the investigation concerned several dangerous suspects and that some of them were still at large. The court considered that the applicant’s detention was necessary in order to prevent him from obstructing the investigation. It also had regard to the need to obtain extensive evidence.\n7.  On 14 August 2001 the Regional Court prolonged his detention until 19 November 2001. It considered that there was a real risk that the suspects, including the applicant, might obstruct the investigation, having regard to the nature of their criminal activities and the severity of the anticipated penalty. It also referred to the need to collect further evidence. On 13 November 2001 the Płock Regional Court ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 11 February 2002, relying on the same grounds as in its previous decision.\n8.  On 6 February 2002 the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 March 2002. On 26 March 2002 the Płock Regional Court ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 30 June 2002. In all those decisions the courts reiterated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s detention. They added that that measure was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n9.  On 15 March 2002 the applicant was indicted on the charge of having committed 5 counts of armed robbery in an organised armed group before the Płock Regional Court. The bill of indictment comprised numerous charges brought against 11 accused. It appears that most charges were based on evidence given by a certain X.Y. who had been granted the status of the State’s witness (świadek koronny).\n10.  Subsequently, on 16 April 2002, the Płock Regional Court referred the case to the Warsaw Regional Court, holding that that court had jurisdiction to hear the case. On 10 June 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court disagreed and referred the case to the Warsaw Court of Appeal, in order to obtain a ruling as to which court was competent to deal with it. On 5 July 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered that the case be heard by the Płock Regional Court.\n11.  On 10 June 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 September 2002. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. In addition, it held that the prolongation of the applicant’s detention was justified under Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this respect, the Regional Court observed that the likelihood of a severe penalty being ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1513", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the town of Nova Kakhovka, the Kherson region.\n5.  The State owns 75% of the shares in the Pivdenelektromash Company (hereafter “the Company), which is therefore subject to the moratorium on the forced sale of property of State-owned entities, barring the attachment and sale of its assets.\n6.  On 5 June 2000 the Kherson Regional Court of Arbitration (hereafter “the Arbitration Court”) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction barring debt recovery. This decision led, inter alia, to the suspension of the enforcement of all court judgments given against the Company.\n7.  Following the adoption of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Arbitration of 10 August 2000, which directed that the bankruptcy proceedings should not impede the execution of judgments awarding salary arrears, the Novokahovsky City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) restarted enforcement proceedings against the Company in such cases.\n8.  On 15 January 2001 the Arbitration Court approved a rehabilitation proposal and appointed a trustee to rehabilitate the Company’s business. On 17 January 2002 the court found that enforcement proceedings of any kind contradicted the June 2000 injunction, particularly in view of the pending rehabilitation programme, the success of which could be jeopardised if the Bailiffs’ actions continued (cf. Trykhlib v. Ukraine, no. 58312/00, 20 September 2005, §§ 7-14).\n9.  The applicant is a former employee of the Company. In September 2002 he brought proceeding against it, claiming salary arrears. On 26 September 2002 the Nova Kakhovka City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) granted this claim and awarded the applicant UAH 2,517.58[1]. The judgment became final and was sent to the Bailiffs’ Service for compulsory enforcement.\n10.  In a letter of 13 March 2003, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the award could not be enforced due to the debtor’s lack of funds.\n11.  On 9 December 2003 the Minister for Justice issued a circular letter, informing the Bailiffs that the injunction against debt collection in bankruptcy cases did not extend to warrants for the execution of judgments awarding salary arrears.\n12.  On 15 January 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service resumed the execution proceedings in the applicant’s case. On 23 January 2004 it ordered the attachment of the Company’s accounts. However, on 27 February 2004 the Kherson Regional Commercial Court, on the trustee’s appeal, quashed these decisions because the Bankruptcy Act envisaged the obligatory suspension of enforcement proceedings pending the resolution of a bankruptcy case. The exemption of the payment of salary arrears from the general injunction against debt recovery concerned only the Company’s current salary expenditures (see Trykhlib v. Ukraine, cited above, § 20).\n13.  The judgment of the City Court of 26 September 2002 remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1514", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and apparently lives in Portugal.\n7.  On 30 March 1993 the applicant was interrogated on suspicion of debtor’s dishonesty. He had acted as a financial consultant in connection with transactions between two companies, Osakeyhtiö Six (as of 1997 Fryckman-Yhtiö Oy) and Moniplan Oy. On 30 December 1988 Osakeyhtiö Six had sold to Moniplan Oy the shares of its subsidiaries Six-Myynti Oy (later Seroponex Oy) and Aromimauste Oy (later Cenoporex Oy). The above-mentioned sales contract had later been declared null and void in civil proceedings.\n8.  On 15 December 1993 the applicant was charged with two counts of aiding and abetting debtor’s dishonesty before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Helsinki. At the same trial the owners of Osakeyhtiö Six and Moniplan Oy were charged with two counts of debtor’s dishonesty. The case was heard on 26 occasions before the District Court.\n9.  On 10 December 1997 the Helsinki Tax Rectification Committee (verotuksen oikaisulautakunta, prövningsnämnden i beskattningsärenden found Seroponex Oy and Cenoporex Oy liable to pay certain taxes. They appealed to the County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten).\n10.  At the 16th hearing on 10 June 1997 the District Court adjourned the case in anticipation of the outcome of the taxation proceedings pending before the County Administrative Court.\n11.  After the 19th hearing, held on 27 May 1998, the presiding judge died and she was replaced by another judge.\n12.  On 11 March 1999 the County Administrative Court issued its decision, dismissing the appeals.\n13.  At the 23rd hearing on 23 June 1999 and 24th hearing on 18 November 1999 the District Court adjourned the case in anticipation of the outcome of the taxation proceedings which were now pending before the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen). In two decisions of 2 December 1999 the court dismissed the appeals.\n14.  At the 25th hearing on 9 February 2000 the District Court took note of the above decisions and deferred judgment until 13 June 2000, when it found the applicant guilty on both counts. He was sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment of eight months and ordered to pay damages jointly and severally with two other convicted persons.\n15.  On 23 November 2001 the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Helsinki dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n16.  On 28 June 2002 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1515", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the town of Torez, the Donetsk region.\n5.  On 1 June 1999 the Torez Town Court ordered the Progres State Mine to pay the applicant UAH 11,695.98[1] in occupational disability allowances and salary arrears.\n6.  On 28 June 1999 the Torez Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.\n7.  By three decisions of 19 January 2001, the labour disputes commission of the mine awarded the applicant UAH 16,197.63[2] in arrears of salary and occupational disability allowances.\n8.  According to the Government, the judgment and the commission’s decisions were partly enforced in instalments: in November 1999, December 2000, June and September 2001 the applicant received a total of UAH 6,329.45[3], on an unspecified date he received a total of UAH 8,500.79[4], and in July and September 2003 he was paid UAH 2,984.74[5].\n9.  The parties did not specify the date on which the applicant was paid the remaining amount of the awards of the judgment and the commission’s decisions awards (UAH 10,078.63[6]).\n10.  On 22 September 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the full enforcement of the judgment and the commission’s decisions given in the applicant’s favour.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1516", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in the town of Pervomaysk, the Mykolaiv region.\n5.  On 22 December 1997 the Pervomaysk Town Court found the applicant guilty of libel and sentenced her to a public reprimand. By the same decision, the court rejected the applicant’s criminal law complaint against Mr and Mrs S as unsubstantiated. On 29 January 1998 the Mykolaiv Regional Court upheld that decision.\n6.  By two decisions of 16 February and 21 November 2000, the Pervomaysk Town Court ordered the Pervomaysk Town Department of Education (the “Department”) to pay the applicant UAH 2,641.19[1] in salary arrears and other payments.\n7.  On 31 March 2000 and 5 February 2001, respectively, the Pervomaysk Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of these judgments.\n8.  By a number of letters between 2000 and 2003, the Bailiffs’ Service and the Ministry of Education informed the applicant that the judgments in her favour could not be enforced due to the lack of State budgetary allocations in respect of the Department’s expenditures.\n9.  According to the Government, the Department transferred the amounts due under the judgments to the deposit account of the Bailiffs’ Service in two instalments of 27 June and 4 July 2003.\n10.  The applicant acknowledged that on 9 and 10 July 2003 she had been invited to obtain the money due to her at the premises of the Bailiffs’ Service. She has, however, failed to do so, no reasons having been given.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1517", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in the town of Chuguyev, the Kharkiv region.\n5.  The State owns 32.67% of the shares in the Chuguyevskaya Toplivnaya Apparatura Company (the applicants’ employer, hereafter “the Company”), which is therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property”.\n6.  On 2 December 1999 the labour disputes commission of the Company awarded the applicant UAH 1,216[1] in salary arrears. On the same date the commission issued a certificate to the applicant, which had the same status as a court’s writ of execution. The enforcement proceedings were initiated on 8 December 1999 by the Chuguyev City Department of the State Bailiffs’ Service (the “Bailiffs”).\n7.  On 12 June 2002 the Chuguyev City Court ordered that the Company’s salary, social benefits and alimony arrears be paid by instalments. The court referred, inter alia, to the practical suspension of the enforcement proceedings against the Company following the adoption of the aforementioned moratorium Law.\n8.  In a letter of 2 July 2003, the Kharkiv Regional Department of Justice (the “Department”) also referred to this Law as being an impediment to the enforcement of the award. However, the Department indicated that the proceedings with respect to the assets of the Company not covered by the moratorium (i.e. bank accounts) were to continue.\n9.  Numerous enforcement proceedings against the Company (including the applicant’s case) were impeded by the decision of the City Court of 12 June 2002. Therefore, on 30 July 2002 and 29 October 2002, the Bailiffs applied to the court, requesting the clarification of its decision. However, it was not until 9 April 2003 that the clarification, enabling the Bailiffs to carry out the enforcement, was delivered.\n10.  On a number of occasions between July 2002 and February 2004, the Kharkiv Regional Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction barring further debt recovery. The last decision of this kind was taken on 19 February 2004.\n11.  According to a letter dated 5 May 2004 from the Department, the enforcement of the applicant’s award was hindered by both the City Court decision of 12 June 2002 and the bankruptcy proceedings against the Company. The latter caused the Bailiffs to stay the enforcement proceedings on a number of occasions (the last such suspension being made on 16 May 2003 and subsequently lifted on 16 January 2004).\n12.  On 31 March 2005 the award was fully paid to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1518", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is the owner and publisher of the weekly magazine “Profil”.\n10.  In its issue 25/1998 of 15 June 1998 the applicant company published an article about Mr R., at that time a member of Parliament, and his cohabitee Mrs G. The article, with the title “Diary of an escape” and the subtitle “Report. Several myths are entwined around P. R.’s trip to Brazil. The reconstruction of a banal reality”, described the couple’s flight from Austria in April 1998 as Mr R. was suspected of having committed the offences of aggravated fraud (Betrug) and fraudulent conversion (Untreue). After an international arrest warrant had been issued, Mr R. was arrested in Brazil on 5 June 1998. At the time of the events, great public interest in the criminal proceedings against Mr R. existed. After Mr R.’s arrest, Mrs G. had given interviews on these events. The article was accompanied by a photo, which appeared on another page, showing Mrs G. standing beside Mr R.\n11.  The article and its context, namely a short text accompanying photos showing the couple’s hotel and a bar in Brazil, contained the following statements:\n“...Thus, the Lower Austrian mutation of ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ started on the last part of their trip, a four hour bus ride... (Also brach die niederösterreichische Mutation von Bonnie and Clyde zur letzten Etappe, einer vierstündigen Busfahrt...auf.)\n...The first two weeks, ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ hardly ever left the hotel... (Die ersten beiden Wochen verlassen ‘Bonnie und Clyde’ das Haus praktisch nie.)\n...’Bonnie and Clyde’ from Lower Austria wish to rent the Mayor’s bar... (‘Bonnie und Clyde’ aus Niederösterreich wollen die Bar des Bürgermeisters pachten.)\n...’Bonnie and Clyde’ are dreaming of a decent life as pub owners... (‘Bonnie und Clyde’ träumen von einem bescheidenen Leben als Barbetreiber.)”\n \nThe article, when describing the arrest of Mr R., further stated :\n“C. G., against whom no suspicion exists, stays behind. (Zurück bleibt C.G., gegen die nichts vorliegt.)”\n12.  On 20 November 1998 Mrs G. brought proceedings against the applicant company claiming compensation for defamation under Section 6 of the Media Act (Mediengesetz). Further she requested supplementary measures under the Media Act, such as the publication of the judgment. She stressed that the applicant company, by publishing the article at issue, had committed the offence of defamation under the Criminal Code (Üble Nachrede).\n13.  She argued that the comparison with the famous criminals ‘Bonnie and Clyde’ from the thirties, whose story was the basis of a film produced in the sixties, could have given the impression that she was also involved in the offences of Mr R.\n14.  On 7 April 1999 the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court (Landesgericht) dismissed Mrs G.’s claim. It found that the average reader would have understood “Bonnie and Clyde” as a synonym for a couple on the run and that it had been a pictorial description with a humorous and entertaining message. It considered that the average reader would have connected “Bonnie” with a woman who follows her partner “through thick and thin” and that the characterisation as “Bonnie” did not amount to an accusation of having participated in the offences of Mr R.\n15.  On 4 November 1999 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) quashed this decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court. It observed that “Bonnie and Clyde” had been violent criminals and found that the established connection between Mrs G. and “Bonnie", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1519", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1947 and live in Litomyšl and České Budějovice respectively.\n5. On 26 September 1994 the applicants instituted restitution proceedings in the Žďár nad Sázavou District Court (okresní soud).\n6.  Received on 30 September 1994, the court sent the action on 31 October 1994 to the defendants for their observations. On 29 November 1994 and 25 January 1995 respectively, it requested the Land Registry (katastr nemovitostí) to provide it with supplementary documents.\n7.  On 22 February 1995 the District Court requested the applicants to complete their action in order to reflect the facts revealed by the Land Registry’s documents. The applicants complied on 14 March 1995. The next day, the court requested the Land Registry to provide additional documentation.\n8.  On 6 April 1995 it invited the applicants to substantiate the defendants’ liability to be sued (pasivní legitimace).\n9.  On 24 April 1995 the applicants requested the District Court to include a fourth defendant in the proceedings. The court had therefore to obtain information about this new defendant from the Register of Companies (obchodní rejstřík).\n10.  On 19 September 1995 it invited one of the defendants to submit written observations.  On 23 October 1995 the court received the applicants’ proposal to modify their restitution action. The same day, it admitted the new version of the action.\n11.  A hearing scheduled for 12 April 1996 was adjourned at the applicants’ request until 4 June 1996.\n12.  On 25 April 1996 the court received observations from one of the parties to the proceedings.\n13. One of the applicants did not attend the hearing of 4 June 1996 which was then adjourned sine die in order to produce the evidence suggested by the parties.\n14.  On 20, 21, 24, 25 and 27 June, 17 July and 4 September 1996, the District Court received documentary evidence.\n15.   In a judgment of 1 October 1996 the District Court dismissed the applicants’ restitution action.\n16.  On 18 October 1996 the applicants appealed. On 23 October 1996 they motivated their appeal, which was forwarded to the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) on 12 December 1996.\n17.  On 22 November 1999 the Regional Court, having requested further evidence on 3 November 1996 and having held a hearing on 15 November 1999, modified the first instance judgment.\n18.  On 29 December 1999 the case file was returned to the District Court and, on 3 January 2000, the Regional Court’s judgment was sent to the parties.\n19.  On 3 March 2000 the applicants filed a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost), claiming that Articles 1 (equality of all), 3 (prohibition on discrimination) and 11 § 1 (right to property) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Listina základních práv a svobod) had been violated.\n20.  On 12 April 2000 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed the appeal which the applicants had lodged on points of law (dovolání) on 4 February 2000.\n21.  On 17 May 2000 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) invited the applicants to remove certain shortcomings in their appeal. The applicants complied on 2 June 2000. On 20 June 2000 the court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1520", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Ms Yekaterina Nikiforovna Miroshnichenko (the first applicant) and Ms Tatyana Ivanovna Grabovskaya (the second applicant) were born in 1948. Both applicants live in the town of Chuguyev, the Kharkiv region.\n5.  The State owns 32.67% of the shares in the Chuguyevskaya Toplivnaya Apparatura Company (the applicants’ employer, hereafter “the Company”), which is therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property”.\n6.  On 12 June 2002 the Chuguyev City Court (hereafter the “City Court”) ordered that the Company’s salary, social benefits and alimony arrears be paid by instalments. The court referred, inter alia, to the practical suspension of the enforcement proceedings due to the aforementioned moratorium Law.\n7.  On 25 November 2002 and 3 March 2003, the City Court awarded the first applicant a total of UAH 2,810[1] against the Company in salary arrears. On 3 March 2003 the City Court made a similar award in favour of the second applicant for the sum of UAH 2,178.35[2].\n8.  Both judgments became final and were sent to the Chuguyev City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) for compulsory enforcement.\n9.  In a letter of 8 July 2003, the Kharkiv Regional Department of Justice (hereafter “the Department”) informed the first applicant that the award could not be immediately enforced due to, inter alia, the moratorium Law. However, the Department indicated that the proceedings with respect to the assets of the Company not covered by the moratorium (i.e. bank accounts) were to continue. On 10 March 2004 the second applicant received a similar letter from the Bailiffs.\n10.  Numerous enforcement proceedings against the Company (including the applicants’ cases) were impeded by the decision of the City Court of 12 June 2002. Therefore, on 30 July 2002 and 29 October 2002, the Bailiffs applied to the court, requesting the clarification of its decision. However, it was not until 9 April 2003, that the clarification, enabling the Bailiffs to carry out the enforcement, was delivered.\n11.  On a number of occasions between July 2002 and February 2004, the Kharkiv Regional Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction barring further debt recovery. The last decision of this kind was taken on 19 February 2004.\n12.  According to a letter dated 5 May 2004 from the Department, the enforcement of the applicants’ awards was hindered by both the City Court decision of 12 June 2002 and the bankruptcy proceedings against the Company. The latter caused the Bailiffs to stay the enforcement proceedings on a number of occasions (the last such suspension being made on 16 May 2003 and subsequently lifted on 16 January 2004).\n13.  The judgments in the applicants’ favour remain unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1521", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in the town of Dnipryany, the Kherson region.\n5.  On 15 January 2002 the Nova-Kakhovka Town Court ordered the Joint Stock Company “Pivdenelektronmash”, in which the State held 75% of the share capital, to pay the applicant UAH 4,831.83[1] in salary arrears. At that time there were bankruptcy proceedings pending against the debtor company.\n6.  On 21 February 2002 the Nova-Kakhovka Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On the same date the Bailiffs’ Service suspended the enforcement proceedings because of the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended by the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.\n8.  On 3 June 2002 the Nova-Kakhovka Town Court, following the applicant’s request, quashed that decision.\n9.  On 26 June 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the tax lien placed on the debtor’s property and its lack of funds.\n10.  On 15 October 2002 the same court quashed the decision of the Bailiffs’ Service and ordered the latter to resume the enforcement proceedings.\n11.  On 20 December 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service suspended the enforcement proceedings due to the bankruptcy proceedings pending against the debtor company.\n12.  On 4 February 2003 the same court quashed the decision of 20 December 2002 and ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to renew the enforcement proceedings. On 20 May 2003 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal upheld decision of the first instance court.\n13.  In November 2003 the applicant was paid UAH 1,635[2].\n14.  In April 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Nova-Kakhovka Town Court against the Bailiffs’ Service, seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgment given in his favour. On 7 October 2004 the court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.\n15.  The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains to a large extent unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 3,196.83[3].", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1522", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  T. and A. are the father and mother of J. and S. and were born in 1949. J. was born in 1975 and S. was born in 1985. The applicants live in Helsinki.\n7.  In September 1990 the parents and the social welfare authority were informed by day care staff that S. had been playing “sexually coloured” games with other children. S. stated that an older boy had initiated the games.\n8.  On 29 January 1991, S. was admitted to the A. hospital for examinations. In February 1991 the parents and the social welfare authorities were informed of the hospital’s conclusion that S. had been subjected to incest by T. It was suspected that T. had also sexually abused J. T., A. and J. denied the accusations. On 26 March 1991 S. was transferred to a children’s home.\n9.  On 20 June 1991 the parents requested that S. be discharged from the children’s home. This request was refused and on 26 June 1991 S. was placed in public care by decision of the Director of the Social Welfare and Health Care Board, which was endorsed by the Board on 27 June 1991.\n10.  On 11 July 1991 the Board ordered that S. be taken into public care for an indefinite period of time, with a review of the care plan to take place at the latest in September 1991. The Board took note of an opinion of 12 March 1991 of psychologist M.S., Dr P.T. and another expert to the effect that there was an incestuous relationship at least between S. and T. S. was deemed to be in need of safe conditions away from his home, so as to prevent a continuation of the incestuous relationship. S. was also in need of therapy which in order to be successful required that he be provided with stable conditions.\n11.  On 11 July 1991 the Social Welfare and Health Care Board also decided to request an investigation into whether S. had been the victim of a sexual offence. On the basis of the pre-trial investigation the public prosecutor subsequently charged T. with sexual abuse.\n12.  On 13 March 1992 T.’s appeal against the care order was refused by the County Administrative Court. The court noted that the examinations both at the Family Advice Centre and the hospital had to some extent been conducted in a tendentious manner and some of S.’s statements had been wrongly interpreted. Although the conclusion by the hospital staff that S. had been subjected to incest could not therefore be fully endorsed, the investigation results could not be wholly disregarded. The court went on to find that the care order would not be lifted.\n13.  On 8 October 1992 the Helsinki City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätten) acquitted T. of the incest charges. It found it established that S. had been subjected to sexual abuse, but noted the contradictory testimony as to whether the abuse had been inflicted by T. The results of the examinations of S. were also open to differing interpretations.\n14.  On 12 and 22 October 1992 A. demanded that the care of S. be terminated in light of T.’s acquittal and his having moved out of the home.\n15.  On 10 December 1992 the Social Welfare and Health Care Board refused the request, considering that the conditions for continued public care were still met. It also restricted access to S.\n16.  On 28 December 1992 the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) refused the parents’ appeal against the County Administrative Court’s decision of 13 March 1992.\n17.  On 19 July 1993, further restrictions on access to S. were imposed.\n18.  On 16 September 1993 the County Administ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1523", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Lugansk.\n5.  On 26 May 2000, the Leninskyi District Court of Lugansk ordered the State Enterprise “Luganskyi Stankobudivelnyi Zavod” to pay the applicant UAH 1,240.65[1] in salary arrears and other payments.\n6.  On 8 June 2000 the Leninskyi District Bailiffs’ Service of Lugansk instituted enforcement proceedings.\n7.  In August 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. On 15 May 2001 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs. On 18 June 2001 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court.\n8.  On 1 February 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment given in his favour could not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.\n9.  In March 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyi District Court of Lugansk against the Bailiffs’ Service, seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. On 7 May 2002 the court rejected his claim as being unsubstantiated. On 8 August 2002 and 9 January 2003, respectively, the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld that decision.\n10.  On 27 April 2005 the applicant received the full amount of the judgment debt.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1524", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and resides in the town of Zhovti Vody, the Dnipropetrovsk Region.\n5.  On 7 May 1999 and 30 August 2001 the Zhovti Vody City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant a total of UAH 3,124[1] against the State-owned Electrongaz Company (hereafter “the Company”) in salary arrears. Both judgments became final and were sent to the Zhovti Vody City Bailiffs’ Office (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) for compulsory enforcement.\n6.  In a letter of 27 February 2003, the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the enforcement of the judgments in her favour was impeded by the entry into force of the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property 2001, which barred the attachment and sale of the Company’s assets.\n7.  On 7 March 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court (hereafter “the Commercial Court”) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction barring any debt recovery. On 10 October 2003 the Commercial Court approved a rehabilitation proposal and appointed a trustee to rehabilitate the Company’s business.\n8.  On 21 October 2004 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s favour as both awards were fully paid to her.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1525", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Kehl, Germany.\n5.  The applicant has a son, N.D.K., born out of wedlock in 1995. Under German law she has sole custody of her son.\n6.  The applicant had lived with her son and his father, Ž.P., until 1999, when Ž.P. fled Germany on account of several sets of criminal proceedings instituted against him. From then on Ž.P. lived in Croatia, whereas the applicant intended to continue living with her son in Germany. They visited Ž.P. on several occasions.\n7.  At some time in May 2000, during one of their visits to Croatia, Ž.P. did not allow the applicant to take N.D.K. back to Germany. In the following months the applicant visited her son several times in Croatia and requested Ž.P. to allow her to take him back, but in vain.\n8.  On 8 September 2001 the applicant managed to take N.D.K. back to Germany. However, on 18 September 2001 Ž.P. kidnapped N.D.K. in the open street in Kehl and took him back to Croatia.\n9.  Meanwhile, on an application by the applicant, on 25 April 2001 the Freudenstadt District Court (Amtsgericht Freudenstadt) issued a decision confirming that Ž.P.’s decision to keep the child in Croatia had been “wrongful” within the meaning of Article 3 of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”). Following an appeal by Ž.P., on 28 January 2003 the Stuttgart Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart) upheld the first-instance decision.\n10.  Furthermore, on 25 April 2001, relying on the Hague Convention, the applicant requested the Chief Federal Prosecutor (Generalbundesanwalt) as the German central authority to return her son. The Chief Federal Prosecutor immediately contacted the Croatian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (Ministarstvo zdravstva i socijalne skrbi) as the Croatian central authority. In letters of 12 June and 19 December 2001 the Chief Federal Prosecutor informed the applicant that he had not received any reply to his request from the Croatian central authority.\n11.  In Croatia, on an unspecified date in the summer of 2001, the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare instructed the Poreč Welfare Centre (centar za socijalnu skrb) to contact Ž.P. and order him to return N.D.K. to the applicant. Ž.P. refused to do so.\n12.  Thus, on 21 October 2001 the Poreč Welfare Centre instituted proceedings for the child’s return in the Poreč Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Poreču).\n13.  The court held three hearings and took testimonies from the applicant, Ž.P. and a representative of the Poreč Welfare Centre.\n14.  On 6 May 2002 the Poreč Municipal Court ordered that N.D.K. be returned to the applicant. On appeal, on 14 October 2002 the Pula County Court (Županijski sud u Puli) quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court, ordering it to determine the exact time of N.D.K.’s alleged abduction and whether the conditions set out in Articles 12 and 13 of the Hague Convention had been met.\n15.  In the resumed proceedings the Poreč Municipal Court held a hearing on 6 May 2003, when it heard evidence from an expert in clinical psychology. The expert stated that there was no threat that, by being returned to Germany, N.D.K. would be exposed to any harm.\n16.  On 12 May 2003 the Poreč Municipal Court again ordered that N.D.K. be returned to the applicant. On 18 August 2003 the Pula County Court dismissed an appeal by Ž.P. as being ill-founded.\n17.  On an application by the applicant, on 29 September ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1526", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Cork. He is a medical doctor. In May 1995 a formal complaint was made to the police by a former female patient that she had been indecently assaulted by the applicant and that he had made video recordings. On 4 June 1995 a search warrant was obtained. On 6 June 1995 his home, clinic and consulting rooms were searched. Videos were found reflecting matters similar to those about which the woman had complained. Pills obtained by a prescription made out to, and using the medical card of, another patient were found although that patient knew nothing of the pills. A replica pistol and blank ammunition were found. The applicant was questioned. He admitted that he had obtained pills in that manner for several years.\n5. In July 1995 the Medical Council (“the Council”) was informed of a number of complaints against him by two former female patients and, in August 1995, the police confirmed to the Council that they were investigating allegations of indecent assault by the applicant. In October 1995 the Council received written complaints from those two patients alleging sexual assault and blackmail. On 19 October 1995 the Fitness to Practice Committee (“the Committee”) of the Council decided that there was a prima facie case for the holding of an enquiry.\n6. On 27 October 1995 the High Court made an order (unpublished) restraining him from practising pending the outcome of the inquiry. On 6 November 1995 the High Court ordered the removal of the applicant’s name from the register of practitioner’s and restrained him from practising pending the inquiry and all consequent proceedings. The High Court also agreed that the Council could make public the “sequence of events” including the orders of 27 October and 6 November 1995. The Council issued a press release on the same day which included the applicant’s name, the terms of those two High Court orders and details of how an individual could complain to the Council about a medical practitioner. Further complaints (600) were then received from other former female patients of the applicant, of which 145 made formal statements to the police.\n7. The applicant left Ireland for a number of months to avoid the publicity but kept in contact with the police through his solicitor. On 2 March 1996 he attended with his solicitor, and by prearranged appointment, at a police station to enquire as to whether there were criminal charges pending against him. He claims that he was informed that no charges were pending. However, on 6 March 1996 when he voluntarily attended the same police station with his solicitor, his solicitor insisted on attending the interview, the police refused and, given the dispute, arrested the applicant (under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 – for the proper investigation of a crime - on suspicion of sexual assault of a former patient) during which period the applicant saw his solicitor. The period of lawful detention expired that evening: that same evening he appeared voluntarily before a High Court judge in his habeas corpus application. That application was later determined against him.\n8. On 9 April 1996 the Chief State Solicitor advised the applicant that certain summonses had issued against him. The applicant was served at his solicitor’s office. The charges concerned the pills, replica pistol and ammunition found. On 8 July 1996 these charges were, pursuant to his application, struck out for lack of evidence.\n9. On unspecified d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1527", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n1.  The case originated in an application (no. 2333/02) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Lithuanian national, Mr Haroldas Trijonis (“the applicant”), on 19 April 2001. 3.  The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. Mr P. Kūris, the judge elected in respect of Lithuania, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr J. Hedigan, the judge elected in respect of Ireland, to sit in his place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 4.  The applicant complained inter alia that criminal proceedings against him had been excessively long contrary to the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, and that the remand measure of home arrest ordered in the context of those proceedings had breached Article 5 of the Convention. The applicant made his last communication to the Court by an undated letter received on 24 February 2004, stating that he had maintained his complaints under the Convention. 5.  On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Third Section (Rule 52 § 1). 7.  By a letter of the Registry of 31 March 2005 the applicant was informed about the decision. It was noted in the letter that the applicant had until 23 May 2005 to submit his observations on the merits, his position on the friendly settlement in the case, and his claims for just satisfaction (Rules 59, 60 and 62 of the Rules of Court). The letter was sent to his home address in Klaipeda by ordinary post. 9.  By a letter of the Registry of 21 June 2005, sent to the applicant’s home address by registered post, the applicant was reminded that he had not submitted a reply to the Court’s letter of 31 March 2005. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provided that the Court could strike the case out of its list of cases where the circumstances led to the conclusion that an applicant did not intend to pursue the application. 10.  On 23 September 2005 a further letter of the Registry was sent to the applicant’s home address by registered post, reiterating the contents of the letters of 31 March and 21 June 2005. 11.  Receipt by the applicant of the registered letters of 21 June and 23 September 2005 was confirmed by the post service. However, the applicant has not replied to any of the above-mentioned letters from the Registry of the Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1528", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n14.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Nicosia.\n15.  He is an advocate who has been practising for over forty years. He was formerly a lawyer at the Office of the Attorney‑General and a member of the Cypriot House of Representatives.\n16.  On 14 February 2001 the applicant was defending a person accused of murder before the Limassol Assize Court. He alleged that, while he was conducting the cross-examination of a prosecution witness, a police constable, the court interrupted him after he had put a question to the witness. He claimed that he had felt offended and had sought permission to withdraw from the case. In their written observations, the Government stated that the court had attempted to make a routine intervention with a simple and polite remark regarding the manner in which the applicant was cross-examining the witness. The applicant had immediately interrupted, without allowing the court to finish its remark and refusing to proceed with his cross-examination.\n17.  The verbatim record of the proceedings reports the following exchange (translation):\n“Court: We consider that your cross-examination goes into detail beyond the extent to which it should go at this stage of the main trial regarding questions...\nApplicant: I will stop my cross-examination...\nCourt: Mr Kyprianou...\nApplicant: Since the Court considers that I am not doing my job properly in defending this man, I ask for your leave to withdraw from this case.\nCourt: Whether an advocate is to be granted leave to withdraw or not is a matter within the discretionary power of the court and, in the light of what we have heard, no such leave is granted. We rely on Kafkaros and Others v. the Republic and we do not grant leave.\nApplicant: Since you are preventing me from continuing my cross-examination on significant points of the case, then my role here does not serve any purpose.\nCourt: We consider your persistence...\nApplicant: And I am sorry that when I was cross-examining the members of the Court were talking to each other, passing ravasakia among themselves, which is not compatible with allowing me to continue the cross-examination with the required vigour, if it is under the secret scrutiny of the Court.\nCourt: We consider that what has just been said by Mr Kyprianou, and in particular the manner in which he addresses the Court, constitutes a contempt of court and Mr Kyprianou has two choices: either to maintain what he said and to give reasons why no sentence should be imposed on him, or to decide whether he should retract. We give him this opportunity exceptionally. Section 44(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Law applies to its full extent.\nApplicant: You can try me.\nCourt: Would you like to say anything?\nApplicant: I saw with my own eyes the small pieces of paper going from one judge to another when I was cross-examining, in a way that is not very flattering to the defence. How can I find the stamina to defend a man who is accused of murder?\nCourt (Mr Photiou): It so happens that the piece of paper to which Mr Kyprianou refers is still in the hands of brother Judge Mr Economou and Mr Kyprianou may inspect it.\nCourt (Mrs Michaelidou): The exchange of written views between the members of the bench as to the manner in which Mr Kyprianou is conducting the case does not give him any rights, and I consider Mr Kyprianou's behaviour utterly unacceptable.\nCourt (Mr Photiou): We shall have a break in order to consider the matter. The defendant [in the main trial] should in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1529", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1936 and currently resides in Dneprodzerzhinsk, the Dnepropetrovsk Region. The applicant is a former employee of the Public Transportation Company “Dneprodzerzhinskgorelectrotrans” (“the PTC”), managed and owned by the Department of Communal Property of the Dneprodzerzhinsk City Council.\n7.  On 5 July 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zavodskoy District Court of Dneprodzerzhinsk against the PTC, seeking compensation for unpaid salary. On 18 July 2000 the Zavodskoy District Court of Dneprodzerzhinsk allowed her claims and ordered the PTC to pay her UAH 2,970 in compensation.\n8.  On 10 August 2000 the Bailiffs’ Service instituted the enforcement proceedings with regard to the judgment of 18 July 2000.\n9.  In June 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings against the PTC, seeking compensation for delayed salary payments, unpaid salary and compensation for moral damage. On 4 July 2001 the Zavodskoy District Court of Dnepropetrovsk allowed the applicant’s claims in part and ordered the PTC to pay her UAH 990 and UAH 800 in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage respectively.\n10.  The execution proceedings for this judgment were initiated on 16 July 2001.\n11.  On 3 September 2001 the Zavodskoy Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the aforementioned judgments could not be executed due the PTC’s lack of funds.\n12.  On 4 February 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service proposed that the PTC’s property (trams, technical equipment and an administrative building) be transferred to the debtors.\n13.  On 14 June 2002 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Department of Justice also informed the applicant that the judgments could not be executed due to the PTC’s lack of funds.\n14.  On 6 September 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service returned the writs of enforcement to the applicant unenforced. On 20 September 2002 the applicant informed the Court that the execution proceedings were still pending.\n15.  On 7 June 2003 the applicant received UAH 1,380 in partial enforcement of the judgments against PTC. On 17 June 2003 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court declared the PTC bankrupt.\n16.  On 14 October 2004 the applicant informed the Court that the outstanding unpaid debt was UAH 1,436.\n17.  On 16 December 2004 the PTC ceased to exist as a result of its liquidation.\n18.  On 1 February 2005 the applicant informed the Court that the unpaid amount was UAH 800.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1530", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Neryungri.\n5.  On 10 April 2002 the Nyuringri Town Court granted the applicant’s civil action against the Neryungri Town police department and awarded her 16,683.23 Russian roubles (“RUR”). On 5 June 2002 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment on appeal. On the same day the judgment became final and enforceable.\n6.  On 3 December 2002 the Nyuringri Town Court issued a writ of execution.\n7.  On 16 July 2003 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Neryungri Town police department.\n8.  On 8 December 2004 the Neryungri Town Administration transferred RUR 16,683.23 to the applicant’s account.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1531", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Moscow.\n9.  On 3 June 1998 the applicant was arrested and taken to the Kapotnya district police station in Moscow, where he was searched and found to be in possession of a sachet of heroin. In a decision of 4 June 1998 the head of the Kapotnya district police department held that the applicant had committed an act of petty hooliganism and ordered him to pay an administrative fine. He was released on 5 June 1998, according to his submissions, and on 4 June 1998, according to the Government. On 5 June 1998 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on suspicion of procuring and storing drugs. The investigation resulted in the indictment of the applicant for procurement, storage and sale of drugs, punishable under Article 228 § 4 of the Criminal Code.\n10.  On 2 April 1999 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow convicted the applicant and SZ under Article 228 § 4 of the Criminal Code of having unlawfully procured, stored with a view to their sale and sold drugs in “particularly large” quantities. The applicant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and a confiscation order was made. Further to a medical report, he was ordered to undergo compulsory psychiatric treatment for drug addiction.\n11.  At the hearing before the District Court the applicant stated that on 2 June 1998 he had telephoned SZ. He asked SZ to obtain drugs for him. SZ said that he would try to do so and they agreed that the applicant would go to SZ’s flat. Shortly afterwards, OZ called the applicant and asked him to buy heroin for her. She complained that she badly needed drugs as she was suffering from withdrawal symptoms. Frightened that she might commit suicide, the applicant agreed and arranged to meet her near the block of flats where SZ lived. They met later in the evening. He received 200 roubles (RUR) from OZ and went to SZ’s flat, where SZ sold him one sachet of heroin at a cost of RUR 300. Since the amount of heroin bought from SZ was insufficient even for his own needs, he decided not to share it with OZ. The applicant further submitted to the court that he had subsequently given OZ a soporific, telling her that the narcotic was of bad quality and that he would repay her money later. As he left, he saw people approaching who were, as he subsequently learned, police officers. He escaped from them, throwing the drugs away. Later that night he returned and found the drugs. The next day, with the drugs still in his possession, he went to work, where he was arrested by the police. They found the drugs in his possession and seized them.\n12.  The applicant’s co‑defendant SZ also submitted at the hearing before the District Court that he had sold the applicant one sachet of heroin for RUR 300.\n13.  The District Court observed that the applicant’s testimony in court differed from that which he had consistently given throughout the pre-trial investigation, when he had pleaded guilty to buying two sachets of heroin from SZ, one for OZ and the other for himself, for RUR 400, of which RUR 200 had been received from OZ. He also admitted that he had repeatedly bought drugs from SZ. Similarly, SZ stated throughout the pre‑trial investigation that he had sold two sachets of heroin to the applicant for RUR 400.\n14.  The District Court heard EF and MB, police officers from the criminal investigation department of the Kapotnya district police of Moscow, who submitted that the police had information that the applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1532", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Bilibino, Chukotka Region.\n5.  The applicant submitted that on 30 December 1998 he had instituted proceedings against the district and regional pension authorities and the district social security authority (Управление пенсионного фонда РФ по Билибинскому району Чукотского АО, Отделение Пенсионного фонда РФ по ЧАО и Отдел социальной защиты населения Администрации Билибинского района) for the recovery of arrears of his old-age pension which had accrued between 1993 and 1998 in the amount of 2,020.64 Russian roubles (RUR). He also claimed that the amount should be index-linked. The Government submitted that the claim had been received by the court on 10 February 1999. They enclosed no supporting documents.\n6.  On 1 June 1999 the Bilibino District Court stayed the proceedings on the grounds that the applicant had amended the claim. The Chukotka Regional Court quashed the ruling to stay the proceedings on 14 October 1999 and ordered the examination of the claim on the merits.\n7.  Between 14 October 1999 and 21 March 2001 the hearings were adjourned three times: on 11 April 2000 because the judge was on a mission, on 15 December 2000 on account of the parties’ failure to appear at the hearing, and on 19 March 2001 on account of a failure to notify them about the next hearing. The applicant submitted that on 15 December 2000 his representative had arrived at the court by the scheduled time, but the judge had not opened the hearing. His representative’s request for information about the reasons for the failure to hold a hearing had been refused.\n8.  On 21 March 2001 the Bilibino District Court partially granted the claim. On 2 April 2001 the Bilibino District Prosecutor lodged an appeal against the judgment on behalf of the applicant.\n9.  On 19 July 2001 the Chukotka Regional Court quashed the judgment and referred the case back for a fresh examination on the grounds, inter alia, that the applicant had not appeared at the hearing and there was no evidence that he had been duly notified about it.\n10.  The Government submitted that after the case file had been received on 9 August 2001 by the Bilibino District Court, on 17 August 2001 the judge had ordered that the case should be prepared for hearing and requested the parties to submit their pleadings. The applicant stated that the requested information had been submitted on 24 August 2001.\n11.  On 7 October 2002 the hearing was adjourned because the judge was on a mission. On 1 December 2002 the case was transferred to another judge.\n12.  According to the Government, the case was not examined in 2002 because the local pension authorities were in the process of reorganisation and the court had to establish the proper defendant.\n13.  On 10 July 2003 the Bilibino District Court granted the applicant’s claim against the local pension authority (Управление пенсионного фонда РФ по Билибинскому району Чукотского АО) for recovery of the arrears of his old-age pension with index-linking and awarded him RUR 13,333.89 (approximately EUR 387). The court dismissed the claim against the other defendants. The Chukotka Regional Court upheld the judgment on 25 September 2003. The judgment was executed on 3 November 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1533", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Mátészalka, Hungary.\n5.  In proceedings instituted by the applicant, on 12 November 1993 the Supreme Court finally declared that his former employer had terminated his employment unlawfully and granted him severance pay and damages. Simultaneously, on 25 May 1993 the applicant brought an action before the Nyíregyháza Labour Court against the employer claiming pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.\n6.  On 15 June 1995 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. On appeal, on 26 June 1996 the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court granted the applicant damages plus accrued interest.\n7.  On 15 April 1997 the Supreme Court’s review bench quashed the second-instance decision in its part concerning the pecuniary damages, and remitted this aspect of the case to the Regional Court.\n8.  In the resumed second-instance proceedings, on 29 September 1998 the Regional Court granted damages plus accrued interest to the applicant. This decision was partially quashed by the Supreme Court’s review bench on 8 July 1999 for procedural shortcomings.\n9.  In the resumed second-instance proceedings, on 29 February 2000 the Regional Court granted some damages plus accrued interest to the applicant and dismissed the remainder of his action. On 29 March 2001 the Supreme Court’s review bench partially quashed this decision as the Regional Court had miscalculated the amount granted to the applicant.\n10.  In the proceedings resumed for the third time, on 30 October 2001 the Regional Court granted the applicant damages plus accrued interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1534", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Zabrze, Poland.\n9.  On 8 January 1994 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed burglary. On 10 January 1994 he was brought before J.K., a district prosecutor from the Pszczyna District Prosecutor’s Office (Prokuratora Rejonowa), charged with six counts of burglary and detained on remand. The prosecutor considered that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question because he had been arrested in flagrante delicto. He also relied on the serious nature of the offences in question.\n10.  On 12 February 1994 the Pszczyna District Prosecutor prolonged the applicant’s detention until 8 March 1994 on the ground that it was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The prosecutor stressed that in the light of evidence gathered during the investigation it was likely that the applicant had also committed other, similar offences and that, in turn, justified a risk that he might obstruct the process of obtaining evidence from witnesses.\n11.  On 25 February 1994 the District Prosecutor prolonged the applicant’s detention until 8 April 1994, considering that it was necessary to secure the conduct of the investigation, especially as fresh evidence needed to be obtained.\n12.  On 30 March 1994, on an application made by the Pszczyna District Prosecutor, the Pszczyna District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) prolonged the applicant’s detention until 8 June 1994 in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the fact that the investigation could not be completed because evidence from a fingerprint expert and yet another forensic expert needed to be obtained.\n13.  On 30 May 1994, on the subsequent application by the District Prosecutor, the Pszczyna District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 8 August 1994. It found that such further prolongation was necessary to secure the process of obtaining fresh evidence, especially as several new charges of burglary had in the meantime been laid against the applicant. Moreover, evidence from an expert-valuer needed to be obtained to determine the damage caused by the offences.\n14.  On 4 August 1994, on a further, similar application by the District Prosecutor, Z.R., a single judge sitting as the Pszczyna District Court, prolonged the applicant’s detention until 8 September 1994. The reasons for that decision read, in so far as relevant:\n“[The applicant] was charged with the offence defined in Article 208 read in conjunction with Article 60 § 1 of the Criminal Code. In the light of the material gathered in the case, that charge has a sufficient degree of verisimilitude (zarzut ten został w wystarczającym stopniu uprawdopodobniony). As it emerges from the case-file, new circumstances have arisen which might indicate that it would be necessary to obtain evidence from psychiatrists in order to establish the suspect’s criminal responsibility. That being so and since in this court’s opinion the grounds given for [the applicant’s] detention have not ceased to exist but new circumstances have appeared that make it impossible [for the prosecution] to terminate the investigation, it has been held as in the operative part of the decision.”\n15.  On 29 August 1994 the Pszczyna District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Pszczyna District Court. The applicant was indicted on 22 charges of burglary.\n16.  On 19 September 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1535", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Mr Vladimir Oleynik (the first applicant) and Mr Dmitriy Baybarza (the second applicant) were born in 1935 and 1941 respectively, and live in Zhovti Vody, the Dnipropetrovsk Region.\n5.  On 26 October 2000 the Zhovti Vody City Court awarded the first applicant UAH 7,929.74[1] against the Electron-Gaz Company (a State owned entity; hereafter “the Company”) in salary arrears. On 18 October 2000 the second applicant was awarded 7,040.03[2] against the Company. Both judgments became final and were sent to the Zhovti Vody City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) for compulsory enforcement.\n6.  On 2 April 2002 the Zhovti Vody City Prosecutor informed the second applicant that the delay in the execution of numerous court judgments against the Company was due to the moratorium on the forced sale of the property of State-owned enterprises, which significantly limited the resources for refunding the Company’s salary arrears.\n7.  On 19 April 2002 the Department of Industry, Transportation and Communications of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration issued a letter, stating that improvement of the Company’s financial performance (including that of its salary payments) was a matter of concern for various State authorities. In particular, the State Property Fund was preparing the Company’s development plan which was to be presented at the next stockholders’ meeting.\n8.  On 7 March 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court (hereafter “the Commercial Court”) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and issued an injunction barring any debt recovery. On 10 October 2003 the Commercial Court approved a rehabilitation proposal and appointed a trustee to rehabilitate the Company’s business.\n9.  The judgments given in the applicants’ favour remain unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1536", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  In 1993, the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü), a State body responsible, inter alia, for motorway construction, expropriated a part of a plot of land in Ankara belonging to the applicants and several other persons. A committee of experts assessed the value of the applicants’ land and the sum fixed thereby was paid when the expropriation took place.\n7.  On 28 December 1993 the applicants, along with twenty-one co‑owners, lodged a case with the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance, requesting increased compensation.\n8.  On 14 September 1994 the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance awarded the plaintiffs additional compensation of 5,305,080,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 126,200 euros (EUR)) plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 15 February 1993. The amount of compensation that was awarded to the applicants was TRL 2,269,264,010 (approximately EUR 53,980).\n9.  On 30 January 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n10.  On 17 February 1998 the administration paid the plaintiffs a total of TRL 13,208,453,000 (approximately EUR 53,900). The applicants received TRL 5,649,955,705 (approximately EUR 23,000).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1537", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kerecsend, Hungary.\n5.  On 1 March 2001 criminal investigations were instituted against 30 suspects, including the applicant (a businesswoman) on suspicion of several counts of tax fraud, involving the issue of some 250 fictitious invoices. The applicant’s company was concerned in each count of fraud. The material of the ensuing investigation amounted to 2,180 pages.\n6.  On 10 April 2001 tax investigators searched the applicant’s house for documents and arrested her. The applicant alleges that the tax investigators’ behaviour was harsh and insensitive in that they hindered her for several minutes from providing her minor son with a spray-inhaler when he suffered an asthma attack during the search. Moreover, she submits that, on her arrest, she was forcibly seated in the authority’s car, in which the tax investigators touched her inappropriately and made abusive remarks.\nShe was kept in police custody for three days.\n7.  On 18 July 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint about the tax investigators’ conduct. On 23 August 2001 the Heves County Investigating Office refused to proceed with the complaint, considering that the investigators had carried out the search and the arrest in accordance with the law. The Office noted that the applicant had complained about the incident only after a delay of more than three months. On 12 October and 15 November 2001 and 4 March 2002, respectively, the Eger District and the Heves County Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office dismissed the applicant’s further complaints.\n8.  On 30 May 2002 the police again searched the applicant’s house.\nIn her submissions to the Court filed on 11 February 2004, the applicant stated that on that occasion she had been ill-treated by the police officers and that the latter had not allowed the emergency medical staff, which had been called to her son on account of another asthma attack, to enter the house.\nOn 12 March 2003 the Investigating Office discontinued the investigation into the incident. On 18 April 2003 the Eger District Public Prosecutor’s Office finally dismissed the applicant’s complaint.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 28 April and 18 October 2001, 17 January 2002 and 28 April 2003, the applicant was interrogated by the Heves County Criminal Directorate of the Tax Authority. Moreover, between April 2001 and May 2003 altogether 31 suspects were interrogated on various occasions. More than 40 witnesses were heard and several house searches and confrontations of witnesses took place. Furthermore, 14 opinions were obtained from expert accountants.\n10.  On 5 May 2003 the proceedings were discontinued against six suspects.\n11.  On 12 June 2003 a bill of indictment was preferred. The applicant was charged with 30 counts of tax fraud and 12 counts of document forgery.\n12.  The first hearings were scheduled by the Eger District Court for 28 and 29 October 2004. The proceedings have been pending at first instance ever since.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1538", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Mrs Myra Xenides-Arestis, is a Cypriot national of Greek-Cypriot origin, who was born in 1945 and lives in Nicosia.\n10.  The applicant owns property in the area of Ayios Memnon (Esperidon Street), in the fenced-up area of Famagusta, that she acquired by way of a gift from her mother. In particular, she owns half a share in a plot of land (plot no. 142, sheet/plan 33/29) with buildings thereon, consisting of one shop, one flat and three houses. One of the houses was her home, where she lived with her husband and children, whereas the rest of the property was used by members of the family and/or rented out to third parties. Furthermore, the applicant partly owns a plot of land (plot no. 158, sheet/plan 33/29) with an orchard (her share being equivalent to 5/48). This was registered in her name on 31 January 1984. The rest of the property is owned by other members of her family.\n11.  In August 1974 she was forced by the Turkish military forces to leave Famagusta with her family and abandon their home, property and possessions. Since then she has been prevented from having access to, using and enjoying her home and property, which are under the occupation and the control of the Turkish military forces. According to the applicant, only the Turkish military forces have access to the fenced-up area of Famagusta.\n12.  On 23 April 2003 new measures were adopted by the authorities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) regarding crossings from northern to southern Cyprus and vice versa through specified checkpoints. On 30 June 2003 the “Parliament of the TRNC” enacted “Law no. 49/2003” on compensation for immovable properties located within the boundaries of the “TRNC”, which entered into force on the same day. On 30 July 2003, under Article 11 of this “Law”, an “Immovable Property, Determination, Evaluation and Compensation Commission” was established in the “TRNC”. The rules of the commission were published in the “TRNC Official Gazette” on 15 August 2003 and the commission was constituted by a decision of the “TRNC Council of Ministers” published in the aforementioned gazette on 18 August 2003.\n13.  On 24 April 2004 two separate referendums were held simultaneously in Cyprus on the Foundation Agreement–Settlement Plan (“Annan Plan”) which had been finalised on 31 March 2004. Since the plan was approved in the Turkish-Cypriot referendum but not in the Greek-Cypriot referendum, the Foundation Agreement did not enter into force.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1539", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, Mihajlo Atanasovic, Slavko Atanasovski and Savka Milanovska, are nationals of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, who were born in 1937, 1945 and 1926 respectively, and live in Kumanovo, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.\n5.  By judgments of the then Kumanovo Municipal Court (Општински суд во Куманово) of 7 December 1988 and 17 May 1989, the applicants obtained parts of the movable and immovable property of Mr S.A., the father of the first and the second applicants.\n6.  In 1989 the applicants instituted proceedings to divide the property of Mr S.A. On 22 November 1990 the Kumanovo Municipal Court decided the applicants’ claim and divided the property at issue. Mr S.A. was also ordered to pay certain amounts to each of the applicants, in compensation for the movable property that was awarded only to him.\n7.  As Mr S.A. did not comply, the applicants instituted enforcement proceedings before the Kumanovo Municipal Court.\n8.  On 20 March 1991 the Kumanovo Municipal Court ordered public sale of certain items belonging to Mr S.A. to satisfy the applicants’ claims.\n9.  On 17 September 1991 the Kumanovo Municipal Court accepted Mr S.A.’s objection that the interest had been miscalculated and ordered a new calculation.\n10.  On 15 December 1991 Mr S.A. passed away. On 10 March 1992 the court stayed the enforcement proceedings pending the decision as to the succession to Mr S.A.’s estate.\n11.  By a decision of 21 May 1993, delivered in separate succession proceedings, the Kumanovo Municipal Court determined five heirs of Mr S.A.’s estate: the first and second applicants and their three brothers – Mr S.K., Mr K.I. and Mr C.I. Each of the heirs obtained equal parts of their late father’s estate.\n12.  On 22 December 1993 the applicants asked the Kumanovo Municipal Court to continue the enforcement proceedings against one of their brothers, Mr C.I. The applicants argued that Mr C.I. should take over his late father’s debts towards them as he had allegedly been in possession of Mr. S.A.’ s estate before his death and had benefited from it.\n13.  On 20 March 1994 the court granted the applicants’ request and approved the enforcement of their claims against Mr C.I.\n14.  On 9 May 1994 the Kumanovo Municipal Court upheld Mr C.I’s challenge and stayed the enforcement proceedings. The court decided to continue the proceedings against all five heirs for the execution of the third applicant’s claims only. The first and the second applicants were thus named debtors and the third applicant - the sole creditor.\n15.  On 14 December 1995 the then Skopje District Court (Окружен суд во Скопје) upheld the applicants’ and Mr C.I.’s complaints. It quashed the lower court’s decision and ordered a retrial. It, inter alia, instructed the lower court to examine the case on the basis of section 144 of the Law on inheritance whether and, if so, to what extent, Mr C.I. owed sums of money to the applicants. It also instructed the lower court to establish whether the amount of the debt was correctly calculated.\n16.  No further actions were taken by the Municipal Court of Kumanovo.\n17.  On 9 December 1998 the applicants requested the Kumanovo Municipal Court to resume the enforcement proceedings and to re-evaluate their original claims. They received no reply to their request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1540", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1964 and is currently detained in Midyat prison.\n7.   On 21 March 2000 the applicant was arrested in Şırnak by members of the anti-terrorist branch of the Şırnak Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party).\n8.   In a letter dated 22 March 2000 the Şırnak Security Directorate requested the Şırnak Public Prosecutor to extend the applicant’s detention period until 25 March 2000 together with eight others. On the same day, considering the number of the accused and the difficulty to obtain evidence, the public prosecutor authorised to extend the detention period as requested.\n9.  On 24 March 2000 the Şırnak Criminal Court of First Instance ordered the prolongation of the applicant’s custody for another six days on the ground that the interrogation process had not yet been completed.\n10.  On 31 March 2000 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor. On the same day the Diyarbakır Criminal Court of First Instance ordered that the applicant be detained on remand. 6.  On 20 April 2000 the Public Prosecutor before the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code with assisting and abetting and membership of a terrorist organisation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1541", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1973, 1975, and 1980 respectively. They were detained in Elazığ Prison in Turkey.\n7.  On 14 March 1999 the police raided a flat which was used as a cell by Hezbollah in Mardin. The police officers seized, among other things, three computer hard disks during the operation. The applicants' names were recorded on these hard disks as members of Hezbollah.\n8.  On 4 June 1999 the applicants were arrested by police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate on suspicion of being members of Hezbollah. On the same day, the police officers drafted arrest protocols stating that the applicants had been arrested in the course of an operation conducted against the members of the illegal organisation.\n9.  On 5 June 1999 the public prosecutor of the Diyarbakır State Security Court drew up a list of the materials that were seized during the raid in Mardin in order to place them in the custody of the court, amongst which the computer hard disks were noted.\n10.  On 11 June 1999 the applicants gave statements to the police where they accepted the charges against them. On the same day, they were brought before the public prosecutor, and thereafter before the investigating judge of the Diyarbakır State Security Court, where they denied both the accuracy of the statements taken by the police and all the charges against them. The investigating judge ordered that the applicants be detained on remand.\n11.  On 25 June 1999 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court, accusing the applicants of being members of Hezbollah pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  At the hearings before the Diyarbakır State Security Court the applicants denied the content of their police statements alleging that they were taken under duress. The court read out the police statements that were taken from M.Ç., M.P. and A.Y. – who were also accused of being members of the same organisation – to the applicants and asked the latter to comment on them. The applicants stated that they did not know these persons, and that they did not accept the parts of the statements that were against them. The court further read out the transcriptions of the hard disks to the applicants and asked them about their counter-arguments against these. They denied the content of these documents. They further stated that they had no idea as to how their names had appeared on the computer hard disks.\n13.  On 27 December 2001 the Diyarbakır State Security Court noted that the applicants' police statements were supported by information gathered from the archive of the organisation and further evidence. It accordingly convicted the applicants of the offence as charged and sentenced them to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. The applicants appealed.\n14.  The Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation in his written submissions recommended that the court uphold the decision of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n15.  On 27 May 2002 the Court of Cassation, having regard, inter alia, to the opinion of the Principal Prosecutor, upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1542", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1972, 1969, 1977 and 1947 respectively. They are imprisoned in Erzurum Prison in Turkey.\n8.  The first applicant was detained on 7 January 1995, the second applicant on 16 March 1994, the third applicant on 11 July 1994, and the fourth applicant on 3 February 1994 on suspicion of membership of the PKK and carrying out separatist activities against the Republic of Turkey.\n9.  The applicants were brought before the investigating judges on 11 February, 24 March, 20 July 1994 and 20 January 1995. Subsequently, the investigating judges ordered the applicants’ detention on remand.\n10.  On 12, 13 and 15 September 1994 the public prosecutor at the Erzincan State Security Court filed indictments with the same court against twenty-two persons including the applicants accusing them, inter alia, of involvement in separatist activities and being members of, and aiding and abetting, the PKK. The accusation against the first applicant included the forming of the Evci village committee of the PKK, setting three primary schools in different villages on fire, and recruiting people for the mountain team of the organisation.\n11.  On 2 June 1997, following the promulgation of Law no. 4210 which abolished the Erzincan State Security Court, the case-file was transferred to the Erzurum State Security Court.\n12.  Throughout the criminal proceedings, either on its own motion or at the applicants’ request, at the end of every hearing, the State Security Court examined and ordered the applicants’ continued detention. The State Security Court relied on the nature of the offences charged and the state of the evidence for the applicants’ further detention.\n13.  On 8 January 1999 the Erzurum State Security Court sentenced the first and second applicants to the death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code for their involvement in separatist activities and then commuted this to a life sentence. It further sentenced the third applicant to death for the same offence and commuted this to twenty years’ imprisonment, and the fourth applicant to fifteen years’ imprisonment for being a member of the PKK.\n14.  On 23 December 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the lower court’s decision on the grounds that the State Security Court had failed to respect the right of defence during the proceedings concerning some of the co-accused and the absence of the necessary signatures and stamps in the copies of the family registry documents of some of the accused, including the fourth applicant. The case-file was remitted to the State Security Court.\n15.  On 22 May 2001 the Erzurum State Security Court sentenced the first and second applicants to the death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code for their involvement in separatist activities and then commuted this to a life sentence. It further sentenced the third applicant to death for the same offence and commuted this to sixteen years and eight months’ imprisonment. The fourth applicant was sentenced to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment for being a member of the PKK.\n16.  The judgment was, ex officio, subject to appeal.\n17.  On 29 November 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the latter decision of the State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1543", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  In May 1992 he was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation and detained on remand. He was subsequently charged with carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory under Article 125 of the Criminal Code and tried before the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n6.  On 8 December 1994 the applicant was released pending trial.\n7.  On 30 March 1995 the first-instance court acquitted the applicant of the charges brought against him.\n8.  On 29 February 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n9.  On 25 October 1996 the applicant filed an action for compensation with the Kartal Assize Court against the Treasury, pursuant to Law no. 466. The applicant requested a compensation of 2,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) for his unjustified detention on remand.\n10.  On 2 December 1996 the Kartal Assize Court requested the Diyarbakır State Security Court to send the documents pertaining to the criminal proceedings against the applicant. In particular, the first-instance court requested that the documents showing the date on which the judgment had become final be sent promptly in order to determine whether the applicant had filed his compensation claim within the statutory time-limit.\n11.  Between 2 December 1996 and 30 November 1999 the Kartal Assize Court consistently requested the Diyarbakır State Security Court to send the aforementioned documents.\n12.  On 10 November 1999 the Kartal Assize Court appointed an expert to calculate the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant due to his deprivation of liberty.\n13.  On 24 November 1999 the expert submitted his report concerning the amount of pecuniary damage.\n14.  On 30 November 1999 the Kartal Assize Court awarded the applicant a certain amount of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to compensate the periods the applicant had spent in police custody and in detention on remand.\n15.  The applicant and the Ministry of Treasury appealed against the judgment of the Kartal Assize Court.\n16.  On 5 October 2000 the Court of Cassation held that the amount awarded to the applicant was too low and quashed the judgment of the first‑instance court.\n17.  On 9 November 2000 the expert appointed by the first-instance court submitted a report concerning the amount of pecuniary damage the applicant sustained as a result of his deprivation of liberty.\n18.  On 10 November 2000 the Kartal Assize Court awarded the applicant TRL 1,538,492,740 in respect of pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage.\n19.  The Ministry of Treasury appealed.\n20.  On 5 April 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court due to a procedural error.\n21.  On 28 June 2001 the Kartal Assize Court once again awarded the applicant TRL 1,538,492,740.\n22.  The Ministry of Treasury appealed.\n23.  On 8 November 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Kartal Assize Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1544", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Saint Petersburg.\n5.  On 12 August 1998 the applicant lodged a civil action before the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg against the Governor of St. Petersburg and St. Petersburg committee for housing policy (Комитет по жилищной политике г. Санкт-Петербург), seeking to obtain a flat under a city-funded programme. A copy of the applicant’s statement of claim bears a signature of the registry indicating that the statement was received on 12 August 1998.\n6.  Of the three hearings fixed between 24 February and 21 October 1999, two hearings were adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to appear and one hearing was postponed upon the defendant’s request to join another party to the proceedings.\n7.  The next hearing, fixed for 16 March 2000, was adjourned to allow the applicant to amend his claims.\n8.  Of the four hearings listed between 5 April 2000 and 28 February 2001, three hearings were adjourned because the defendants did not attend and one hearing was adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings.\n9.  On 15 March 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg held a hearing. A representative of the Governor of St. Petersburg requested to adjourn the proceedings in order to enable the Governor to amend the existing regulation which affected the applicant’s housing rights. The request was granted.\n10.  Between 22 May 2001 and 28 March 2002 the district court fixed four hearings. Three hearings were adjourned because the defendants did not attend and one hearing was adjourned to allow the applicant to amend his claims.\n11.   On 8 April 2002 the applicant filed the amended claims.\n12.  The hearing of 19 December 2002 was postponed until 1 April 2003 because the defendants did not attend. The Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg sent a written warning to the defendants, informing them that they would be fined if they failed to attend the next hearing.\n13.   Three hearings fixed between 1 April and 17 June 2003 were adjourned because the defendants had not attended.\n14.  The hearing of 14 October 2003 was rescheduled because the presiding judge had been dismissed from her office.\n15.  The hearing fixed for 5 May 2004 was adjourned because the defendants did not appear.\n16.  The hearing of 5 July 2004 was adjourned because the applicant was ill.\n17.  On 29 September 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg gave the judgment.\n18.  On 8 December 2004 the St. Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of 29 September 2004.\n19.  On 21 December 2002, 5 January and 9 November 2003 the applicant complained to the President of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg, a deputy President of the St. Petersburg City Court and the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation about delays.\n20.  On 30 December 2002 and 10 February 2003 a deputy President of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg and on 25 March 2004 a deputy President of the St. Petersburg City Court informed the applicant that the excessive length of the proceedings in his case had been caused by a large number of pending civil cases.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1545", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Freising, Germany.\n5.  On 8 February 1996 the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı) issued an order of expropriation for a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Dinar, a district attached to Afyon, following the earthquake which happened on 1 October 1995. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot and the amount was paid to the applicant.\n6.  On 2 April 1997 the applicant brought an action for additional compensation before the Dinar Civil Court of First Instance.\n7.  On 14 August 1997 the first-instance court decided to award the applicant an additional compensation of 3,330,990,000 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision running from 2 April 1997.\n8.  On 22 October 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Dinar Civil Court of First Instance.\n9.  On an unspecified date, the applicant requested rectification of the Court of Cassation’s decision.\n10.  On 8 December 1997 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request.\n11.  On 20 April and 19 July 1999 the Ministry paid the applicant TRL 6,242,830,425 in additional compensation together with interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1546", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Ankara.\n7.  At the material time the applicant was the leader of the People’s Democratic Party (HADEP). At a party meeting in Ankara in October 1999 he made a speech, which was recorded and scripted by the police officers of the Ankara Security Directorate.\n8.  In an indictment dated 8 February 2000 the public prosecutor’s office at the Ankara State Security Court, on account of this speech, instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on the ground of disseminating propaganda against the indivisible unity of the state with its territory and nation, contrary to Section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).\n9.  In the proceedings before the Ankara State Security Court the applicant pleaded not guilty and maintained that he had never intended to promote separatism. He argued that he expressed his opinion on the country’s important questions as the leader of a political party, which is essential in a democratic society, criticised the existing practice and offered their solution to these problems. He further stated that his speech should be assessed within the scope of freedom of expression.\n10.  On 1 June 2000 the Ankara State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged by the public prosecutor. It ruled that the speech amounted to dissemination of separatist propaganda against the indivisible unity of the Turkish State with its territory and the nation. He was fined the amount of 800,000,000 Turkish liras and sentenced to one-year term of imprisonment.\n11.  The applicant appealed against the conviction to the Court of Cassation. On 15 January 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal, upholding the State Security Court’s assessment under Section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1547", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Tychy.\n5.  On 13 July 2000 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed burglary.\n6.  On 15 July 2000 the Tychy District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody for a period of three months in view of the strong suspicion that he had committed five counts of burglary. It considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would tamper with evidence, given the fact that he had only partly confessed. Further, the court referred to the risk that the applicant might obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings by going into hiding. In that regard, the court relied on evidence from one of the applicant’s co-suspects, who had stated that, shortly before having been arrested, the applicant had tried to leave for Germany in order to evade serving a sentence of imprisonment which had been previously imposed on him. Finally, the court had regard to the severity of the anticipated penalty.\n7.  Subsequently, the applicant was charged with 8 counts of burglary. He confessed to 2 counts.\n8.  On 30 January 2001 the District Prosecutor terminated the investigation. On the same day he filed a bill of indictment with the Tychy District Court. The applicant had been indicted on 8 charges of burglary and one charge of assault. There were 6 other defendants in the case. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 42 witnesses.\n9.  From 1 June 2001 to 19 December 2002 the trial court listed 10 hearings (for 1 June, 6 July, 9 November and 7 December 2001 and 30 January, 20 March, 17 May, 17 July, 27 September and 19 December 2002). All those hearings were cancelled for various reasons, usually because the police had failed to bring the accused from prison.\n10.  The trial began on 17 January 2003. The subsequent hearings were held on 30 January, 21 February and 20 and 21 March 2003. At the hearing held on the latter date the District Court fined 5 witnesses who had failed to appear.\n11.  The District Court several times prolonged the applicant’s detention, holding that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question and that, given his attempt to leave Poland and the resultant risk that he might go into hiding or tamper with evidence, as well as the fact that he had only partly confessed, keeping him in custody was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court also relied on the serious nature of the charges against the applicant and the severity of the anticipated penalty. Lastly, the court had regard to the fact that the applicant had a previous conviction.\n12.  The relevant decisions were given on 12 October 2000 (prolonging his detention until 5 January 2001), on 28 December 2000 (ordering his continued detention until 13 February 2001), on 8 February 2001 (extending his detention until 13 May 2001), on 10 May 2001 (prolonging that period until 13 August 2001), on 10 August 2001 (ordering his continued detention until 13 November 2001), on 5 November 2001 (extending his detention until 13 February 2002), on 13 February 2002 (prolonging his detention until 13 May 2002) and on 13 May 2002 (ordering his continued detention until 7 July 2002).\n13.  In its decision of 10 April 2002 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the prolongation of his detention, the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) instructed the District Court to take determined measures with a view to speedil", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1548", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Dębica.\n9.  On 10 October 1995 the applicant and other suspects were arrested on suspicion of assault and inflicting torture. On 11 October 1995 the applicant was remanded in custody by the Tarnów District Prosecutor, who referred to the strong probability of his guilt, the gravity of the charges against him and the high risk of his hindering the proper conduct of the proceedings by exerting pressure on witnesses. His detention was ordered for a period of three months. On the same day the applicant lodged an appeal against the detention order, questioning the credibility of the evidence of the victims of the alleged assault and claiming that he was innocent. He also referred to the difficult situation of his family.\n10.  On 12 October 1995 the applicant requested the Tarnów Regional Prosecutor to order his release. On 20 October 1995 the Tarnów Regional Court dismissed this request. It considered that the victims of the assault had given evidence pointing to the applicant’s guilt. It referred to the serious nature of the charges and expressed the view that his case did not disclose any of the grounds provided by Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for challenging the lawfulness of his detention.\n11.  On 24 October 1995 the Tarnów Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 11 October 1995, referring to its decision of 20 October 1995.\n12.  On 24 October 1995 the Tarnów District Prosecutor charged the wives of three suspects with the offence of inducing a victim of the assault to give false testimony.\n13.  On 3 November 1995 the applicant requested the prosecutor to release him on bail. This was refused on 6 November 1995 on the ground that the reasons for the applicant’s detention had not ceased to exist and that there were no circumstances justifying his release under Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant appealed against this decision, but his appeal was dismissed on 15 November 1995.\n14.  On 14 November 1995 the victims of the assault changed their testimony and withdrew charges against the suspects. They had left Poland and their whereabouts were unknown.\n15.  On 1 December 1995 the applicant unsuccessfully requested the prosecutor to replace the detention with police supervision and bail.\n16.  On 3 January 1996 the Tarnów Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 10 February 1996. It noted that the investigation had not yet been completed since one of the co-accused had lodged a complaint concerning an anonymous witness and, in addition, some of the witnesses, whose whereabouts were unknown, had still not been heard. It further noted that, in spite of the fact that the victims of the assault had changed their initial testimony, there were still serious grounds for believing that the applicant had committed the offences in question. The court also observed that the law did not require that the evidence in support of detention had to be such as to justify a conviction.\n17.  The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on 24 January 1996 by the Kraków Court of Appeal.\n18.  On 6 February 1996 the Tarnów District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Tarnów Regional Court. It comprised charges in respect of seven persons. The prosecutor requested the summoning of 19 witnesses.\n19.  On 26 February 1996 the applicant requested the court to quash the detention or replace it with a more lenient measure. The court di", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1549", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 15 April 1997 the applicant company filed a claim against the Best-Sat company in the Bielsko-Biała District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The value of the claim was PLN 246,969.86. The claim resulted from Best-Sat’s refusal to pay the applicant company’s invoice issued on 8 October 1995 for the construction of a TV cable network, in accordance with the contract concluded between the parties. The applicant company requested that its claim be considered in a summary procedure (postępowanie nakazowe).\n8.  On 24 April 1997 the District Court decided that the case should be considered in the ordinary procedure as it did not fulfil the legal conditions for the summary procedure. On 14 May 1997 the applicant company filed with the Bielsko-Biała District Court an interlocutory appeal (zażalenie) against the decision of 24 April 1997. Subsequently, the court ordered the applicant company to pay a court fee of PLN 2,789.60 for the consideration of its interlocutory appeal. On 10 June 1997 the applicant filed with the Bielsko-Biała District Court an application for an exemption from that fee. However, on 21 July 1997 the District Court dismissed that application. The applicant filed another, apparently unsuccessful, interlocutory appeal against the decision of 21 July 1997, claiming that the company was on the brink of insolvency as a result of its enforceable claims not having been satisfied by the Best-Sat company.\n9.  On an unspecified later date, the case was transmitted to the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) in order to be considered in the ordinary proceedings. On 3 February 1998 the Regional Court ordered the applicant company to pay a court fee of PLN 13,948.49 for lodging its claim.\n10.  On 17 February 1998 the applicant company filed with the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court an application for an exemption from the fee, pursuant to section 113 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It stated that the amount of the fee was considerably beyond its means. It also submitted that, for the first 10 months of 1997, it had made net profits of only PLN 7,695.37, while the company’s assets amounted to PLN 31,366.98, but consisted mostly of claims to be satisfied.\n11.  The applicant company stressed that it had no possibility to dispose of its assets promptly in order to secure funds to pay the court fee and, even if that were possible, it would lead to the winding up of the company. It further argued that the lack of funds to pay the court fee did not result from any fault in its activities or from a negligent failure to secure funds for the litigation. It also maintained that its claim resulted from work done over the past few years which had dominated the activities of the company. Consequently, it did not have other possibilities to secure sufficient funds from other contracts.\n12.  On 2 March 1998 the Regional Court ordered the applicant company to produce a number of documents concerning its financial situation. The relevant documents were submitted to the court as enclosures to a letter of 16 March 1998. In the same letter the applicant supplemented its application for exemption from the court fees. It stated that it had three enforceable claims, including two against the Best-Sat Company which were the subject of the pending litigation. The third claim, although enforceable as of 25 November 1997, had not been satisfied. The applicant company stated that its fixed assets of PLN 11,670.90 were necessary to continue the running of its ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1550", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant lives in Ankara.\n5.  In 1973 the authorities conducted a land registry survey in Mudanya and revised the local plans. Following this revision, 25 plots belonging to the applicant were registered in the Land Registry under the title of 23 other persons. In June 1973 the applicant challenged this decision and applied to the Land Registry Council to have this decision annulled. However, on 26 May 1974 the Council rejected the applicant’s request.\n6.  On 20 June 1974 the applicant brought an action in the Mudanya Land Registry Court against 23 defendants. She alleged that the land in dispute had belonged to her before the revision, and requested that the records in the Land Registry be corrected.\n7.  In 1982 the case was transferred to the Mudanya Cadastre Court.\n8.  On 14 May 2002 the Mudanya Cadastre Court rejected the applicant’s claims.\n9.  On 25 March 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Mudanya Cadastre Court.\n10.  The proceedings are still pending before the Mudanya Cadastre Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1551", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Izmir.\n5.  On 27 December 2001 the applicant, who was sixteen years old at the time, was arrested by police officers from the Karşıyaka Police Station in connection with an ongoing investigation concerning a robbery that had taken place in a primary school. In his police statement, the applicant confessed that he had been involved in a robbery on 26 November 2001 together with two of his friends. He explained that he had helped his friends in carrying a computer from the primary school. The same day he was brought before the public prosecutor, and the investigating judge at the Karşıyaka Magistrate’s Court, where he repeated his statement to the police. Having regard to the evidence in the file and considering that there was a risk of absconding, the investigating judge ordered that the applicant be detained on remand in a prison together with adults.\n6.  The applicant’s representative challenged this decision before the Karşıyaka Criminal Court and maintained that the evidence in the file did not suffice to keep her client in detention. Invoking Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, she requested that the applicant be released.\n7.  On 10 January 2002 the Karşıyaka public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in the Karşıyaka Criminal Court. He charged him with robbery under Article 493 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  On 14 January 2002 the Karşıyaka Criminal Court commenced the trial against the applicant. Taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the evidence in the case-file, it ordered that the applicant’s detention on remand be continued.\n9.  On 16 January 2002 the applicant’s representative challenged this decision. She invoked Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention and alleged that there was not sufficient evidence in the file to keep her client in detention. She further maintained that pursuant to Article 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a person could only be held in detention on remand if there were a risk of absconding and/or of tampering with evidence. She stated that the authorities knew where the applicant lived and there were no sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant would try to flee. Furthermore, according to the lawyer, as all the evidence relating to the case had already been gathered by the authorities, there was no risk of tampering with evidence.\n10.  On 30 January 2002 the Karşıyaka Assize Court refused the applicant’s request for release basing itself on the nature and seriousness of the accusation, and the evidence in the file.\n11.  During the hearing which was held on 8 February 2002, the Karşıyaka Assize Court heard the applicant’s testimony. Before the court, the applicant denied the charges and stated that he had not been involved in the robbery. Underlining that the applicant was a minor, the representative of the applicant asked the court for his release. Having regard to the nature of the crime, and taking into consideration the time spent in detention, the court decided that the applicant’s detention should be continued.\n12.  On 7 March 2002 the applicant’s representative asked the Karşıyaka Criminal Court to release her client. She maintained that he had been in detention since 27 December 2002 and stated that there was no sufficient evidence to keep him in detention. The court once again refused her request.\n13.  On 28 March 2002 the applicant’s representative further requested her client’s release referring to Art", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1552", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1977, 1976, 1974 and 1968 respectively and were serving their prison sentences in Nazilli at the time of their applications to the Court.\n7.  The police officers at the Anti-Terror branch of the Antalya Security Directorate arrested Tayyip Ölmez, Vahdettin Budak, Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçın and placed them in custody on 22 February, 13 March, 12 April and 24 April 1998 respectively.\n8.  The Antalya Magistrates’ Court ordered the remand in custody of Tayyip Ölmez, Vahdettin Budak, Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçın on 27 February, 22 March, 21 April and 29 April 1998 respectively.\n9.  By indictments dated 24 March, 8 May, 17 May and 22 May 1998 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court accused Vahdettin Budak, Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçın of membership of an illegal organisation and Tayyip Ölmez of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. He requested that Vahdettin Budak be convicted and sentenced under Article 125 of Criminal Code. In respect of Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçin, the public prosecutor requested that they be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 §2 of Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713. As for Tayyip Ölmez, the public prosecutor requested that he be convicted and sentenced under Article 169 of Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.\n10.  On 11 November 1998 the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced Vahdettin Budak to life, Songül Karatağna and Mehmet Emin Yalçın to twelve years and six months and Tayyip Ölmez to five years’ imprisonment.\n11.  On 11 October 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the İzmir State Security Court. On 2 November 1999 the judgment of the Court of Cassation was deposited with the registry of the İzmir State Security Court.\n12.  On 29 March 2005 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that all the applicants, except for Mr Vahdettin Budak, were released from prison.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1553", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in İstanbul.\n8.  On 17 May 1997 five police officers from the Anti-terror branch of the İstanbul Security Directorate searched the flat of the applicant. She and her husband were arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of their membership of an illegal organisation, namely the TKP/ML[1]. According to the search protocol drafted on the same day by the police officers and signed by the applicant, the police found a number of documents, guns, ammunition and dynamite. The report mentioned that the applicant and her husband resisted arrest[2].\n9.  On the same day, the police officers from the Anti-terror branch of İstanbul Security Directorate arrested other suspects, including Mr E.Y., on the same grounds as the applicant.\n10.  On 19 May 1997 the applicant was interrogated by two police officers. The applicant submitted that she was not involved with the TKP/ML and that she was not aware of the existence of the materials found during the search. She stated that she did not know when her husband had brought and hid those materials. The applicant signed her deposition.\n11.  On 21 May 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor from the Forensic Medicine Department of the İstanbul State Security Court who noted the presence of a 2x8 cm hyperaemia[3] below the applicant’s right shoulder blade, a swelling of 3 cm in the neck area and subjective pain in the neck. The report drafted by the doctor concluded that, apart from these findings, there were no other signs of injury attributable to ill-treatment.\n12.  On 21 May 1997 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court. She acknowledged the contents of her police deposition. However, she stated that during her custody, four or five police officers had sexually harassed her by touching her breasts and buttocks. She claimed that she was also punched. She affirmed that she would be able to recognise them if she were to meet them again.\n13.  On the same day, the applicant was released and no criminal proceedings were brought against her.\n14.  On 22 May 1997 the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court considered that it lacked competence to examine the allegations of ill‑treatment brought by the applicant and Mr E.Y., and transferred the investigation file to the Fatih public prosecutor’s office.\n15.  On 30 May and 3 July 1997 the Fatih public prosecutor requested the Kartal and Tuzla Security Directorate to secure the applicant’s presence before him. On 21 August 1997 the Tuzla Security Directorate informed the prosecutor that the applicant had not been at the address indicated by the prosecutor and that they had discovered that the applicant was working at the SSK Hospital in the district of Kartal. On 27 August 1997 the public prosecutor reiterated his request to the Kartal Security Directorate. The applicant’s address was stated as the hospital where she was working.\n16.  Upon the request of the Fatih public prosecutor dated 30 May 1997, the İstanbul Security Directorate submitted, on 8 July 1997, documents pertaining to the arrest and detention of the applicant and Mr E.Y. and informed him of the identities of the police officers that had interrogated Mr E.Y. and the applicant.\n17.  In her testimony, on 26 September 1997, given to the Fatih public prosecutor, the applicant submitted, in particular, that when she was taken to the police station, she was separated from her husband and blind", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1554", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Århus, Denmark. In the spring of 1996 he did his national service. Since a few months remained before he could commence studying mathematics and physics at the University of Århus, on 10 May 1996 he applied for a job as a holiday relief worker in a company, FDB Distributionen (“FDB”). For this purpose, he filled in an application form, which contained a pre-printed paragraph stating, among other things:\n“To obtain the job it is mandatory to be a member of one of the trade unions affiliated to the Danish Confederation of Trade Unions (LO). You will be informed on request of the name of the union.”\n10.  In a letter of 20 May 1996, the applicant was offered the job from 3 June until 10 August 1996 and informed that his terms of employment would be regulated by an agreement concluded between FDB and a trade union called SID, which was affiliated to LO, and of which the applicant was obliged to become a member.\n11.  From his first payslip on 20 June 1996 the applicant became aware that he was paying a subscription to SID, although he had not applied for membership. Instead, at the time of his appointment he had applied for membership of a trade union called Denmark's Free Trade Union (Danmarks Frie Fagforening). In a letter of 23 June 1996, the applicant informed his employer and the shop steward that he did not want to pay the subscription to SID because he had been told that, as a holiday relief employee, he would not be given full membership of SID.\n12.  Consequently, on 24 June 1996, the applicant was dismissed for not satisfying the requirements for obtaining the job as he was not a member of a trade union affiliated to LO.\n13.  The applicant, represented by Denmark's Free Trade Union, instituted proceedings before the High Court of Western Denmark (Vestre Landsret) against FDB, requesting that FDB be ordered to acknowledge that his dismissal was unlawful and to pay him compensation. He alleged that section 2(2) of the Protection against Dismissal due to Association Membership Act of 9 June 1982 (Lov om beskyttelse mod afskedigelse på grund af foreningsforhold), as amended on 13 June 1990, violated Article 11 of the Convention as it allowed an employer to require an employee to be a member of a specific association in order to obtain employment. The applicant stated, among other things, that he did not share SID's political views.\n14.  On 18 November 1998 the High Court found for FDB, stating as follows:\n“The High Court finds it established that the applicant was aware that membership of SID was a condition for his employment in the company. Thus, since the applicant did not comply with this requirement the conditions for dismissing him are fulfilled in accordance with section 2, subsection (2), in conjunction with subsection (1), of the Protection against Dismissal due to Association Membership Act.\nTherefore, the pertinent question is whether the Act in issue, and with it the applicant's dismissal, is at variance with Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the light of the interpretation this Article has been given by the European Court of Human Rights in its recent case-law.\nThe Protection against Dismissal due to Association Membership Act was passed by Parliament in 1982 as a result, inter alia, of the British Rail judgment (Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, Series A no. 44) delivered by the European Court of Human Rights in 1981. In this judgmen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1556", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  All applicants live in Sarnitza, the region of Velingrad. They are the heirs of Mrs Fatma Bozova, who possessed land in the vicinity of Sarnitza until the collectivisation of agricultural land in the 1950s.\n13.  In 1991 Parliament adopted the Agricultural Land Act which provided for the restitution of “collectivised” agricultural land. The former owners, or their heirs, could request the restoration of their right under certain conditions (see paragraphs 34 and 35 below).\n14.  On unspecified dates the applicants requested the restitution of several plots of land.\n15.  By decision of 19 February 1993, the local agricultural land commission partially refused the applicants' requests. The refusal concerned, inter alia, plots covering 14 ha in the Okusha area, adjacent to the Dospat reservoir, in the vicinity of Sarnitza, which are the object of the present case, as delimited by the applicants' complaints and the Court's admissibility decision in the present case.\n16.  Upon the applicants' appeal against the land commission's decision, on 29 June 1995 the Velingrad District Court set aside the commission's decision and restored the applicants' title on part of the plots of land claimed, including those covering 14 ha in the Okusha area. On the basis of documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses, the court found that in the 1940s and at the time of the collectivisation Mrs Fatma Bozova had been the owner, by virtue of acquisitive prescription, of a part of the land claimed, and that the conditions for restitution under the 1991 Agricultural Land Act had been met in respect of that part of the land. The agricultural land commission, the respondent in these proceedings, was summoned but did not take part.\n17.  On an unspecified date the Chief Public Prosecutor instituted review (cassation) proceedings before the Supreme Court against the District Court's judgment. At the relevant time and until 1998 the Chief Public Prosecutor could institute review (cassation) proceedings under former Article 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thus intervening in a civil dispute.\n18.  The Supreme Court examined the case on the merits and by judgment of 20 September 1996 upheld the District Court's judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor's arguments that the property rights of Mrs Fatma Bozova, whom the applicants inherited, had not been proven, that the land in question was not agricultural, could not be restored under the Agricultural Land Act and had therefore remained State property. In particular, the Supreme Court found that even if part of the land may have been forested after the collectivisation, that was not an obstacle to restitution under the Act, only protected forests being excluded from restitution.\n19.  In compliance with these judgments, on 3 February 1997 the local agricultural land commission ordered the restitution of the applicants' land to them. On 4 April 1997 they formally entered into possession thereof. On 20 August 1997 they obtained a notary deed.\n20.  In 1997 the local forest authority brought an action for rei vindicatio against the applicants, claiming that they had unlawfully entered into possession of State forest land. The claim concerned plots covering 25.6 ha, including the plots of 14 ha in the Okusha area relevant in the present case.\n21.  On 30 April 1998 the Velingrad District Court found that the disputed land had remained state owned and ordered the applicants to vacate it. To reach that conc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1557", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Bidnija (Malta).\n9.  The applicant is a well-known businessman in Malta. On 29 December 1963 he married a Maltese national, X, in a Catholic ceremony. In 1966 X became pregnant; at that time she was still living together with the applicant, who was aware of the pregnancy. In March 1967 the applicant and X separated and stopped living together. On 4 July 1967 X gave birth to a child, Y.\n10.  The applicant states that he had had doubts regarding the paternity of Y and wanted to carry out a blood test, although such a test would not have been conclusive under Maltese law, which did not allow him to institute an action to rebut the legal presumption that he was Y’s father. He was registered as the natural father of the child.\n11.  A few months after Y’s birth, X refused to carry out the blood test. This behaviour intensified the applicant’s suspicions regarding the child’s paternity. He alleged that he distanced himself completely from Y and, although legally obliged to pay maintenance for her until she reached the age of majority, he had no relationship with her. This is disputed by Y (see “D. The statements by Y and by the applicant” below).\n12.  The applicant legally separated from X on 2 March 1968 by means of a contract of voluntary separation. Subsequently the marriage was annulled by a decree of the Court of Appeal of the Vicariate of the City of Rome on 24 April 1972.\n13.  According to the applicant’s version of events, on an unspecified date after 1993 Y contacted him and volunteered to undergo a blood test. Scientific examinations were carried out in Switzerland and concluded that the applicant was not Y’s biological father. However, in a written statement attached to the Government’s observations on the merits, Y declared that the DNA test had been carried out in 1990 and not in 1993. She further stated that the results of this test had never been shown to her.\n14.  On 1 November 1996 the applicant lodged an application with the Civil Court (First Hall), seeking a declaration that notwithstanding the provisions of the Maltese Civil Code, he had a right to proceed with an action for disavowal of paternity.\n15.  The applicant alleged that the right to respect for his private and family life included the right to have family relationships governed by biological certainty and not by a legal presumption conflicting with the reality of the facts. He considered that the lack of any remedy in that respect violated Article 8 of the Convention, as interpreted by the Court in the case of Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands (judgment of 27 October 1994, Series A no. 297-C).\n16.  In submissions filed with the Civil Court the applicant also invoked Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention, alleging a potential violation of his right of access to a court and his right not to be discriminated against vis-à-vis the mother of the child, the child herself or any third parties who, unlike the betrayed husband, were free to deny legitimacy without being subject to any time-limit.\n17.  In a judgment of 30 May 1997 the Civil Court allowed the applicant’s application. It observed that Articles 70 and 73 of the Civil Code had never allowed him to adduce scientific and genetic evidence to prove that the child borne by his former wife was not in fact his daughter. Therefore, there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.\n18.  The Civil Court considered that the status of father was intimately linked wi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1558", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 16 September 1971 Sweden and Finland concluded the Frontier Rivers Agreement (“the Agreement”) under which an inter-State body, the Finnish-Swedish Frontier Rivers Commission (finsk-svenska gränsälvskommissionen – “the Commission”), was established in order to oversee implementation of the Agreement with respect to certain matters, including fishing, in the frontier area between the two countries covering, inter alia, the Torne River in the coastal area of Haparanda. The Agreement was incorporated into Swedish national law by means of the Law of 1971 concerning the Frontier Rivers Agreement of 16 September 1971 between Sweden and Finland (lag 1971:850 med anledning av gränsälvsöverenskommelsen den 16 september 1971 mellan Sverige och Finland). To the extent that the Agreement did not include specific provisions, the relevant national law in force within each of the States was to apply (Chapter 1, Article 8).\n7.  In 1997 the Swedish government issued an ordinance concerning fishing in the Torne River Fishing Area (förordning FIFS 1997:12 om fisket i Torne älvs fiskeområde), according to which the fishing of salmon and trout within the frontier area was prohibited between 1 May and 5 July each year, as was fishing with stationary equipment (fasta redskap) for other fish. Under Article 22 of the Statute on fishing in the Torne River Fishing Area (Stadgan för fisket i Torne älvs fiskeområde, Appendix B to the Agreement), the Commission was, subject to certain conditions, authorised by the government to grant exemptions from the above prohibition for persons holding private fishing rights in the area.\n8.  For the 1999 season the applicants, who held private fishing rights in the Torne River Fishing Area, requested the Commission to grant them an exemption from the above prohibitions. On 31 May 1999 the Commission granted the eight professional fishermen authorisation to catch fish, other than trout and salmon, with stationary equipment, but rejected the remainder of the request.\n9.  According to Chapter 8, Article 17, of the Agreement, no appeal lay against the Commission's decision on a request for exemption, which came into force immediately.\n10.  Notwithstanding the above, the applicants appealed to the National Fishery Board (Fiskeriverket) and to the Environmental Court of Appeal (Miljööverdomstolen), both of which found, by decisions of 9 July 1999 and 5 October 2000 respectively, that they did not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Concurrently with this, the applicants also appealed to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of northern Sweden. That court referred the appeal to the Commission but, on 17 May 2000, the latter remitted the appeal to the County Administrative Court without taking any measures.\nOn 17 April 2001 the County Administrative Court dismissed the appeal on the following grounds. Reiterating the reasoning of the Environmental Court of Appeal, the County Administrative Court agreed that the determination of the applicants' right to dispensation was covered by Article 6 of the Convention and that they therefore had a right of access to a tribunal. The Commission, however, could not be regarded as a tribunal. The County Administrative Court concluded that it was not empowered to review an appeal against the Commission's decision. It stated, inter alia, that:\n“The County Administrative Court notes that the Finnish-Swedish Frontier Rivers Commission is a special inter-State body which, in the Count", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1559", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the town of Dniprodzerzhynsk.\n5.  In 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bagaliyskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk (the “Bagaliyskyy Court”) against the Bagaliyskyy Municipal Housing Enterprise, seeking the recovery of salary arrears.\n6.  On 18 December 2000 the court found for the applicant and ordered the entity to pay him UAH 2543.49 (around 421 euros – “EUR”).\n7.  On 23 December 2000 the Bagaliyskyy District Bailiffs’ Service of Dniprodzerzhynsk instituted enforcement proceedings.\n8.  On 18 June 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment was not enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and its lack of funds.\n9.  On 6 June 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service applied to the Bagaliyskyy Court to have the debtor in the enforcement proceedings replaced, as the latter’s property had been transferred to the Dniprodzerzhynsk Housing Municipal Enterprise (the “DHME”) pursuant to the decision of the Dniprodzerzhynsk Town Council.\n10.  On 17 June 2002 the court granted the request of the Bailiffs’ Service and ruled that the DHME was responsible for the payment of the judgment debt of 18 December 2000 to the applicant.\n11.  On 29 September 2004 the DHME transferred the amount of the award to the deposit account of the Bailiffs’ Service.\n12.  On 30 September 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service requested the applicant to provide them with his bank account details in order that they transfer the amount of the award.\n13.  According to the Government, the applicant failed to provide the Bailiffs with the information requested.\n14.  The applicant did not contest this submission.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1561", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the town of Kramatorsk, Ukraine.\n5.  In February 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kramatorsk Town Court against the Joint Stock Company “Konstantinovskyi Metzavod” – a State-owned enterprise – seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. On 18 June 2002 the court awarded the applicant UAH 4,937.86 (around EUR 815) in salary arrears and other payments.\n6.  On 15 August 2002 the applicant lodged with the Kostyantynivka Town Bailiffs’ Service a writ of execution for the judgment of 18 June 2002. On the same date the Bailiffs’ Service instituted the enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On 31 October 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment of 18 June 2002 could not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the fact that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor had been suspended because of the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001.\n8.  The judgment of 18 June 2002 remains unenforced.\n9.  On 23 October 2002 the same court ordered the State Company “Domnaremont” to pay the applicant UAH 5,626.05 (around EUR 925) in salary arrears.\n10.  The applicant did not apply to the Bailiffs’ Service for the execution of the judgment. It remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1563", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Mr Sergey Vodopyanov (hereafter “the first applicant”) and Mrs Alyena Vodopyanova (hereafter “the second applicant”), are husband and wife, who were born in 1964 and 1971 respectively and live in Ingulskoye, the Kirovograd region.\n5.  In August 1998, the first applicant (a former Deputy Chief of the Ustinovskaya Prison no. 37 – Устіновська виправна колонія № 37 – hereafter “the UP”) was dismissed from the Ministry of Interior. Upon retirement, the applicant was entitled to the reimbursement of his food ration expenses. As this compensation remained unpaid for two years, the first applicant instituted proceedings in the Ustinovska City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) against the UP, seeking recovery of the debt and compensation for the delay in payment of his salary.\n6.  On 1 August 2000 the court awarded the first applicant UAH 594[1] for the food ration debt, whilst rejecting the other claims. On 14 August 2000 the Ustinovska City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of this judgment.\n7.  On 26 March 2001 the Kirovograd Regional Department of Justice informed the first applicant that the judgment in his favour could not be immediately executed due to the lack of funds in the debtor’s account.\n8.  On 18 September 2003 the execution proceedings were terminated on the ground that the award had been fully paid to the first applicant. However, the subsequent inquiry by the higher Bailiffs’ authority revealed that, due to the mistake of the UP’s accountant, the applicant had been underpaid UAH 50[2]. The enforcement proceedings were reopened and on 3 February 2005 the remaining amount was transferred from the UP to the Bailiffs’ Service. On 18 February 2005 the first applicant was notified about the availability of this money and requested to provide his banking details. On 27 May 2005 the Bailiffs’ Service, having received no reply from the first applicant, sent him a postal money order, which has been collected by the applicant. On 31 May 2005 the proceedings were terminated as the judgment of 1 August 2000 had been enforced in full.\n9.  In October 2000 the second applicant retired from the position as a kitchen worker at the UP. Immediately upon the retirement she instituted proceedings against the UP, claiming salary arrears. On 13 February 2001 the Ustinovska City Court awarded the second applicant UAH 3,864[3]. On the same date the Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of this judgment.\n10.  On 15 March 2002 the Kirovograd Regional Department of Justice informed the second applicant that the judgment in her favour could not be immediately executed due to the lack of funds in the debtor’s account. The Department also indicated that the enforcement proceedings were impeded by the moratorium on the forced sale of the capital assets of State-owned entities.\n11.  On 29 June 2004 the execution proceedings were terminated as the award had been fully paid to the second applicant.\nb.  Enforcement of the judgment of 9 September 2004\n12.  In July 2004 the second applicant instituted proceedings against the UP seeking to receive her average pay for the period of delay in the payment of her salary arrears. On 9 September 2004 the Ustinovska City Court granted this claim and ordered the UP to pay the second applicant UAH 4,517.94[4]. On 12 October 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of this judgment.\n13.  On 20 October", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1564", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are Finnish citizens. Their dates of birth and places of residence are set out in the Annex.\n7.  On 25 November 1995 a group of young people organised a sit-in in the premises of a department store in Helsinki, Oy Stockmann Ab (presently Oyj Stockmann Abp; henceforth “Stockmann”), criticising it for selling fur coats and thereby participating in cruelty to animals. Around the same time various pamphlets and posters had appeared in Helsinki, criticising the fur trade in general and Stockmann in particular. The group had to be forcibly removed from the store.\n8.  In March 1996 Stockmann requested a pre-trial investigation into “the distribution to the public of printed matters purporting to be produced on the company’s behalf but which had not been commissioned by [it]”. Should the police find that a criminal offence had been committed, Stockmann requested that the matter be brought to the attention of the public prosecutor. The request was registered as a matter of suspected public defamation.\n9.  In the ensuing pre-trial investigation 36 persons, including the applicants, were heard as suspects in respect of the offence of public defamation.\n10.  On 11 April 1996 the police conducted a search at the home of Mr Miettinen, relying on chapter 4, section 1, and chapter 5, section 1 of the Coercive Measures Act (pakkokeinolaki, tvångsmedelslagen 450/1987). According to the minutes, the search was carried out for the purpose of an investigation into malicious damage (vahingonteko, skadegörelse) of which his room mates – A.L. (not an applicant) and Ms Karjalainen – had been suspected. The police seized pamphlets critical of Stockmann’s sale of fur products as well as letters related to Mr Miettinen’s participation in an association of anti-fur activists.\n11.  On 13 June 1996 the police searched the homes of Ms Mikola and Ms Soini. According to the minutes, the searches were carried out “for other investigation purposes”. The police seized pamphlets and documents related to Ms Mikola’s participation in the same association of anti-fur activists. At the home of Ms Soini the police seized similar pamphlets, diaries from the years 1994-1995 and a telephone note book.\n12.  On 20 June 1996 the police returned to Ms Mikola some of the seized material, retaining eight pamphlets stating, inter alia: “Stockmann supports trading in carcasses” (Stocka [Stockmann] tukee raatokauppaa).\n13.  On 26 June 1996 the police returned two of Ms Soini’s diaries, keeping a third one until 9 September 1996.\n14.  On 18 October 1996 the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Helsinki maintained the seizures of Ms Mikola’s and Ms Soini’s materials until 31 December 1996. The seizures were later extended until 31 January 1997.\n15.  On 20 November 1996 the pre-trial investigation ended with a signed report. On 10 January 1997 applicants Sami and Sanna Seppilä, Soini, Uosukainen, Karjalainen, Särkisilta, Kaihovaara, Pelkonen, Riska, Karlstedt, Salonen, Miettinen and Mikola were charged with a violation of Stockmann’s domiciliary peace (kotirauhan rikkominen, hemfridsbrott) and a violation of the Police Act, both committed on 25 November 1995. All except applicants Sami Seppilä, Uosukainen, Karlstedt and Miettinen had been minors at the time of the offence.\n16.  At the same time, applicants Soini, Therman and Mustonen were charged with having defamed Stockmann in public while being minors. Applicants Uosukainen and Karjalainen were charged with the s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1565", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Helsinki.\nBackground\n5.  In November 1994 400,000 US dollars were transferred from the applicant’s Swiss bank account to a Finnish bank account. According to the applicant, the intention was that the money should go into her Finnish bank account. It appears that her husband, B, organised the operation but transferred the money allegedly by mistake to his own account. Soon after, that same amount was transferred from B’s account to an account which belonged to a company, C. The applicant and B had a right to use that account.\nDistraint order and subsequent administrative proceedings\n6.  The bailiff noticed that the money had passed through B’s account and, on 19 April 1995, seized the amount from C’s account as there were recovery proceedings against B relating to unpaid taxes.\n7.  On 9 May 1995 the applicant appealed against the distraint order to the County Administrative Board (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen) of Uusimaa, arguing that the assets belonged to her and could not, thus, be seized for the payment of B’s personal debts. On 12 May 1995 the County Administrative Board stayed the execution of the order.\n8.  On 31 January 1996 the County Administrative Board instructed the applicant, under chapter 4, section 10 of the Execution Act (ulosottolaki, utsökningslagen) as in force at the relevant time, to take proceedings against B, the bank and the Tax Office of Uusimaa (verovirasto, skatteverket) within three months from the service of the decision and to inform the bailiff of the institution of proceedings. A failure to do so would lead to the payment of the debts to the creditors, who had applied for enforcement. The applicant did not appeal.\nOwnership proceedings\n9.  On 12 April 1996 the applicant instituted proceedings against the bank (which had allowed the assets in C’s account to be seized), the Tax Office (at the request of which the distraint order was issued) and B (whom the bailiff assumed to be the owner of the assets), requesting that the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Helsinki confirm that she was the owner of the assets.\n10.  It appears that the District Court invited the bank’s and the Tax Office’s responses to the summons during the first quarter of the year 1997. From March 1997 they made several requests, which the District Court granted, for an extension of the time allowed for their submissions. They filed their responses on 19 and 22 May 1997 respectively, urging the court to invite the applicant to supplement the summons.\n11.  Over a year later, on 18 June 1998, the District Court invited the applicant to do so by 24 July 1998. Following her request for an extension of the time-limit, the court received her submission on 15 August 1998.\n12.  In the preparatory hearing on 3 November 1998 the applicant among others requested an extension, which was granted. The principal hearing was held on 12 January 1999.\n13.  On 26 January 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims, finding that she had lent the moneys in issue to C and, thus, no longer had a right to dispose of the assets. She could only be considered to have an equivalent claim against C.\n14.  On 23 February 1999 the applicant appealed. On 25 May 2000 the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) overturned the District Court’s judgment and revoked the distraint order, finding the applicant to be the rightful owner of the assets in question. The bailiff was ordered to return t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1566", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in the village of Razdalovka, the Donetsk Region.\n5.  On 12 April 2001 the Mykytivsky District Court of Gorlovka (hereafter “the District Court”) awarded the applicant a total of UAH 41,992[1] against the Komsomolskaya Coal Mine (a State-owned entity; hereafter “the Coal Mine”) for arrears of industrial disease benefits. The judgment became final and was sent to the Mykytivsky District Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) for compulsory enforcement.\n6.  According to a letter of the Donetsk Regional Department of Justice of 20 December 2001, the enforcement of the judgment was impeded by the moratorium on the forced sale of property of State owned enterprises which barred the attachment and sale of the Company’s capital assets.\n7.  On 25 February 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy ordered a merger of the Coal Mine with several others to form the Artemvugilia State Company (hereafter “the Company”).\n8.  On 8 July 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service applied to the District Court for directions regarding the replacement of the debtor in the applicant’s case.\n9.  On 1 September 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the compulsory enforcement proceedings following the applicant’s withdrawal of his writ of execution. The applicant alleged that he had done so under pressure from the Ministry of Fuel and Energy’s officials.\n10.  The award was paid to the applicant in two instalments on 19 and 20 November 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1567", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Vienna.\n5.  On 9 December 1998 the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand on suspicion of having committed homosexual acts with adolescents contrary to Article 209 of the Criminal Code.\n6.  On 8 April 1999 the presiding judge of the competent chamber of the Regional Court scheduled the applicant’s trial for 21 April 1999. On the first day of the trial, on 21 April 1999, the applicant was released from detention on remand and the hearing was adjourned in order to summon a witness residing in the Slovak Republic to the trial. At the hearing of 14 July 1999 the witnesses summoned in Slovakia did not appear. On 16 July 1999 the Regional Court sent letters rogatory requesting the summoning of these witnesses to the competent court in Bratislava. A further hearing was held on 24 November 1999 and the trial again adjourned.\n7.  On 15 December 1999 the Bratislava District Court II informed the Regional Court that the summons could not be served on the witnesses.\n8.  On 31 January 2000 the Regional Court requested the applicant to submit addresses to which the summons could be sent. On 15 May 2000 the applicant gave such information in respect of two of the witnesses.\n9.  On 20 December 2000 the Regional Court again sent letters rogatory to the Slovakian judicial authority to hear one witness. It appears that the Slovakian courts did not succeed in obtaining statements of that witness.\n10.  On 21 November 2001 a further hearing in the trial against the applicant took place. The Regional Court read out statements of three witnesses made at the pre-trial stage. The applicant’s counsel objected to the reading out of the statements. No witnesses were heard.\n11.  On the same day, the Regional Court convicted the applicant on several counts of the offence under Section 209 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment suspended on probation for three years. The applicant was acquitted as regards other charges.\n12.  On 8 January 2002 the Public Prosecutor filed an appeal against the sentence and, on 25 January 2002, the applicant filed an appeal on points of law and fact, as well as against the sentence. The applicant argued, inter alia, that Article 209 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional in that it did not comply with Article 8 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 14 and that the reading out of the statement of the witnesses at the trial violated his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the Convention.\n13.  On 8 April 2002 the Vienna Court of Appeal, after a public hearing, dismissed the applicant’s appeal but granted the Public Prosecutor’s appeal and increased the sentence to nine months’ imprisonment, out of which six months were suspended on probation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1568", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1937 and live in München.\n5.  On 28 March 1989 a civil action was filed by the applicants before the District Court of Paphos in respect of a contract of sale of a flat in Paphos that had been concluded between them and a building development company, the defendants. They sought a declaratory judgment to the effect that the contract had been annulled. They also sought damages totalling 35,305 Cypriot pounds (CYP), plus interest. The defendants filed a counterclaim against the applicants for damages amounting to CYP 31,200.\n6.  On 26 May 1989 the submission of pleadings was completed.\n7.  From the latter date until 21 October1991 the case was adjourned or set at a later date at the applicants’ request five times. The case was rescheduled twice by the court, once for a period of approximately five months and once only for six days.\n8.  The hearing of the action commenced on 21 October 1991 and following several hearing sessions, it was completed on 5 June 1992.\n9.  On 18 November 1992 the Paphos District Court delivered judgment in favour of the applicants awarding them damages amounting to CYP 32,000 and CYP 800 as costs with interest at 6% from the date of the judgment. The defendants however were awarded CYP 1,650 as damages in respect of their counterclaim, for the period during which the applicants remained in occupation of the flat following the termination of the contract.\n10.  On 23 December 1992 the defendants filed an appeal against the first instance judgment before the Supreme Court.\n11.  On 15 January 1993 the appellants filed an application for a stay of execution concerning the payment of damages. On 2 February 1994, the applicants entered a written agreement with the appellants agreeing to the stay on certain conditions.\n12.  The records of the Supreme Court of 3 and 13 December 1996 reveal that the appeal was dismissed on 23 March 1993 in view of the fact that the appellants had not applied to the Registry for the minutes within the prescribed three month time-limit. Yet, at the time, on 7 May 1993, the Chief Registrar had informed the appellants that if they wished to pursue their appeal they had to pay the fees required for the minutes. The appellants submitted their application for the minutes and the fees on 10 June 1993. On 7 February 1996 the Chief Registrar notified them that the case had been set for hearing on 22 April 1996 and that the minutes were ready. The proceedings commenced on the latter date and the hearing on 25 September 1996. The Registrar brought the dismissal of the appeal to the attention of the court and the parties on 3 December 1996.\n13.  On 13 December 1996 the court examined the matter and on 20 December 1996 the appellants filed an application for the reinstatement of their appeal. Following the filing of an opposition by the applicants, the case was adjourned sine die on 27 January 1997 pending the outcome in a number of other cases before the Supreme Court concerning the question of reinstatement of appeals in similar cases.\n14.  On 31 March 1997 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment allowing reinstatement of the appeal and following the appellants’ application to the Registrar to fix their case before the court, the appeal was reinstated on 18 April 1997.\n15.  Hearing sessions were held on 28 August and 29 October 1997.\n16.  On 19 February 1998 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment setting aside the district court’s decision in part regarding the expen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1569", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant company is the owner and publisher of the magazine “Der 13. – Zeitung der Katholiken für Glaube und Kirche” (The 13th – Newspaper of Catholics for Faith and Church).\n10.  On 13 November 1996 the magazine “Der 13.” published six letters to the editor dealing with the discussion on a “Church Referendum Movement (Kirchenvolksbegehren)” organised by catholics to promote “progressive” ideas and to strengthen lay influence within the Catholic Church in Austria. One of these letters at issue in the present case reflected a conservative position towards the Church Referendum Movement and criticised Mr Paarhammer, at the material time Vicar General (Generalvikar) of the Archdiocese of Salzburg, member of the Salzburg Cathedral Chapter (Domkapitel) and Professor of Canon Law at the Salzburg University, for his behaviour during the election process for the new Salzburg Archbishop in 1988/89.\n11.  The letter’s layout could be distinguished from the remainder of the page in that its text was framed and headed with: “Priests loyal to the Pope should be appointed to influential positions” and read as follows:\n“The Diocesan Forum in Salzburg came to a close on 24 September, the feast day of St Rupert, the patron saint of our diocese and our province.\nIt is thanks to the prudent leadership, tactical skill and resolute attitude of Suffragan Bishop Laun that the pernicious ideas of the Church Referendum Movement did not find their way into the resolutions adopted at the Diocesan Forum.\nFor that, our esteemed suffragan bishop deserves our warmest thanks and congratulations.\nWhat will happen now? Will the resolutions be put into effect or will they remain a dead letter?\nWhen will the rebels in the cathedral chapter strike their next blow against Laun?\nPaarhammer did not even shrink from publicly criticising and disparaging the Pope in an extremely offensive manner, while Sieberer insulted Laun as soon as he was appointed.\nThose who say that the renewal of the Church in Salzburg cannot be effected without changes in its clergy will probably prove right.\nWith the Diocesan Forum over, the time has come for priests who are critical of the Church to be swiftly removed from all influential positions and for priests who are truly loyal to Pope and Church to be appointed in their place.\nThat step is bound to be painful for the diocese to begin with, but it will undoubtedly be worthwhile in the long run.\nWe hope that the bishops have the courage to take it.\nInitiative to Restore the Unity of the Church in Salzburg, A-5020 Salzburg (Initiative zur Wiederherstellung der Einheit der Kirche in Salzburg)”\n12.  The letter was anonymous as the “Initiative” turned out to be non-existent.\n13.  The allegations concerning Mr Paarhammer related to a press release by the Cathedral Chapter of 30 December 1988 stating, inter alia, that the Holy See’s choice of candidates for the Salzburg archbishop had put the Cathedral Chapter in a situation of moral conflict. Further reference could be made to a radio interview on 10 January 1989, in which Mr Paarhammer, as speaker of the Cathedral Chapter, had expressed discontent about the way the Holy See had dealt with the succession of the Salzburg archbishop and that the Cathedral Chapter, asking to discuss the list of candidates proposed by the Holy See, had not been received in audience by the Pope.\n14.  In March 1997 Mr Paarhammer sought compensation for defamation from the applicant company under Section 6 of the Medi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1570", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  Ilinden is an association based in south‑west Bulgaria, in an area known as the Pirin region or the geographic region of Pirin Macedonia.\n9.  Ilinden was founded on 14 April 1990. Its aims, according to its articles of association and programme, were to “unite all Macedonians in Bulgaria on a regional and cultural basis” and to achieve “the recognition of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria”. Clauses 8 and 9 of the articles stated that the organisation would not infringe the territorial integrity of Bulgaria and “would not use violent, brutal, inhuman or unlawful means”.\n10.  In 1990 Ilinden applied for, but was refused, registration. In the proceedings for registration, the Blagoevgrad Regional Court and the Supreme Court examined its articles of association, its programme and other written evidence.\n11.  In their decisions of July and November 1990 and March 1991 the courts found that Ilinden’s aims were directed against the unity of the nation, that it advocated national and ethnic hatred and that it was dangerous for the territorial integrity of Bulgaria. Therefore, its registration would have been contrary to Articles 3, 8 and 52 § 3 of the Constitution of 1971, as in force at the time. In particular, the aims of the association included the “political development of Macedonia” and the “united, independent Macedonian State”. Moreover, in its appeal to the Supreme Court, the association had stated that “the Macedonian people [would] not accept Bulgarian, Greek or Serbian rule”. The formal declaration in its articles of association that it would not imperil the territorial integrity of Bulgaria appeared inconsistent with the remaining material.\n12.  The judgment of the Supreme Court of 11 March 1991 stated, inter alia:\n“[T]he lower courts have correctly established that the aims of [Ilinden] under its articles of association and programme were directed against the unity of the nation... [The material in the case] demonstrates that [Ilinden] seeks to disseminate the ideas of Macedonianism among the Bulgarian population, especially in a particular geographical area. [Those ideas] presuppose the ‘denationalisation’ of the Bulgarian population and its conversion into a Macedonian population... It follows that [Ilinden] is directed against the unity of the nation and is therefore prohibited under Article 35 § 3 of the [1971] Constitution...”\n13.  Throughout the period 1990‑2003 Ilinden tried to organise commemorations of historical events every year on certain dates in April, August and September, on various sites in Pirin Macedonia. Almost all of the commemoration gatherings were banned by the authorities, often on the basis of the organisation not been registered. In some instances the courts refused to examine appeals against such bans on the same ground (for the period 1994‑97 see Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria, nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, §§ 21, 25, and 29‑30, ECHR 2001‑IX; for the period 1998‑2003 see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, §§ 12‑71, 20 October 2005).\n14.  On 26 October 1997 the applicants, together with seven, eight or nine other persons, held a meeting in Petrich. There are two versions of the minutes of this meeting. The first one states that eighteen persons adopted a resolution to re‑apply for registration of Ilinden. The second one states that seventeen persons decided to found a non‑profit‑making association named Ilinden. Both v", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1571", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Limassol.\n5.  On 12 November 1993 he filed a civil action before the District Court of Limassol claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages in respect of personal injuries suffered when he was hit by a car driven by the defendant on 7 December 1991.\n6.  The parties’ pleadings were completed by 10 February 1995 and the applicant applied to the registrar to have the action fixed on 14 April 1995.\n7.  Until the commencement of the trial on 9 May 1997, the case was adjourned four times, once by the court, once by the defendant and twice at the request of both parties.\n8.  From 9 May 1997 until the trial’s conclusion on 8 October 1998 nine hearing sessions were held and the case was adjourned three times by the court.\n9.  On 8 October 1998 judgment was reserved.\n10.  Approximately nine months following the conclusion of the proceedings the Supreme Court took steps, ex proprio motu, under the Rules of Procedure concerning the prompt delivery of court judgments (1986) with regard to the delay in the delivery of the first instant judgment. The case was set before the Supreme Court several times for this purpose, some letters were sent by that court to the presiding district judge and an order was issued requiring the latter to deliver judgment.\n11.  The district court delivered its decision on 29 June 2000 in favour of the applicant awarding damages thereto (amounting to CYP 110,000 plus interest).\n12.  On 8 August 2000 the defendant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.\n13.  The Supreme Court was provided with the records of the first instance proceedings on 2 April 2001.\n14.  The proceedings were concluded on 21 November 2001 by means of a settlement. Through the settlement the applicant was paid damages amounting to CYP 130,000 along with CYP 6,000 as expenses and interest on both amounts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1572", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Świnoujście, Poland.\n5.  From 1990 until 1992 the applicant worked for a company in Cyprus as a technician for the installation of elevators in a hotel that was under construction at the time. On 1 June 1992 he was seriously injured following a work related accident and was hospitalised for 40 days.\n6.  The Cypriot Ministry of Labour instituted criminal proceedings against the company that was found guilty of offences relating to the accident by the District Court of Paphos (31 March 1994) and on appeal by the Supreme Court (23 June 1996).\n7.  On 17 September 1997 the applicant filed compensation proceedings before the District Court of Paphos against his employers (civil action no. 3449/97).\n8.  Between 28 November 1997 and 23 October 2000 the case was continuously adjourned and no hearing was held. In particular, two adjournments were granted at the request of the applicant, one at the parties’ request and four at the defendants’ request. The adjournments were mainly for procedural reasons, primarily, the submission of pleadings and various applications and objections thereto. Further, there was a delay regarding the medical examination of the applicant by the defendants’ lawyers.\n9.  The case was also adjourned by the court itself four times in the above period, inter alia, from 18 October 1999 until 14 March 2000 and from 13 April 2000 until 23 October 2000. Furthermore, within this period, two new judges were appointed to the case.\n10.  The hearing began on 23 October 2000. Subsequently, between 24 October 2000 and 23 October 2001 the case was adjourned a total of ten times: once at the defendants’ request, once due to the absence of the applicant’s lawyer and eight times at the applicant’s request.\n11.  On 24 October 2001 the hearing of the second application of the applicant for amendment of his statement of claim was held. The judge set 29 November 2001 as the date of delivery of the decision concerning the application. However, the relevant decision was not ready on that date and thus, the case was set sine die.\n12.  On 23 May 2002 the decision on the application for amendment was delivered and the trial judge also informed the parties that a new judge would be appointed suggesting therefore that the trial should start anew.\n13.  Between 23 May 2002 and 2 September 2002 the case was adjourned once due to the absence of the applicant’s lawyer.\n14.  On 2 September 2002 the parties agreed that the case should be tried anew.\n15.  On 10 September 2002 the case was put before a new judge and the case was set for mention on 27 September 2002.\n16.  The case was subsequently adjourned twice so that the parties could reach an agreement on a sum to be deposited as security of costs subsequent to an application by the applicant in this respect and an objection thereto by the defendant. On 22 October 2002 the court set the hearing for 4 and 5 February 2003.\n17.  On 20 February 2003 the judge recorded an out-of-court settlement that was concluded by the parties for the payment of 16,500 Cypriot pounds (CYP) as damages for the injuries sustained by the applicant plus CYP 3,000 for legal costs.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1573", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1964 respectively and live in Nicosia.\n5.  On 22 January 1998 the applicants filed a civil action before the District Court of Nicosia against the Bank of Cyprus Ltd concerning a deposit they had allegedly made to the latter in 1993. The applicants stated that, before filing the action, they had complained to the police and to the Attorney-General of the Republic, who they maintained, refused to investigate their case.\n6.  The pleadings were completed on 16 November 1998 following five adjournments at the defendant’s request, with the applicants’ consent, in relation to the filing of its defence.\n7.  From 16 November 1998 until 24 February 2003 the case was adjourned four times at the defendant’s request and with the applicants’ consent, twice at the parties’ and once at the applicant’s request. Further, the court adjourned the case six times mainly for the purpose of dealing with other civil actions. For example the case was adjourned from 30 April 1999 until 7 October 1999 and then to 1 February 2000; from November 2000 to 26 March 2001 and from 24 September 2001 until 28 February 2002 for directions. Within this period, the court also dealt with an interlocutory application filed by the defendant in the proceedings.\n8.  The hearing of the case commenced on 24 February 2003 and concluded on 22 April 2003. Within this period a total of four hearing sessions were held and an interim decision was delivered.\n9.  On 23 May 2003 the district court delivered its judgment dismissing the applicants’ action with costs to be paid by them.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1574", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Limassol.\n5.  On 10 February 1986 the applicant filed a civil action (no. 702/86) before the District Court of Limassol against three individuals and a company in respect of a contract of sale of an apartment.\n6.  On 11 September 1987 the case was taken off the trial list, following a request by the applicant’s lawyer and the accord of the defendants’ lawyer, in view of the fact that an application for a winding-up order of the defendant company was pending before the District Court of Nicosia. The court in particular stated that “by consent the action is taken off the trial list to be fixed afresh on the application of either side to the Registrar when the case [was] ready to be heard”.\n7.  On 29 October 1987 the lawyer of the first three defendants notified the court that the winding-up order had been issued against the defendant company and that the applicant could only continue the action against the latter with the leave of the court.\n8.  On 19 March 1988 the Official Receiver requested the court not to grant leave for the continuation of the action at that particular time. Thus, the proceedings remained suspended.\n9.  The action was fixed for a hearing following a letter sent on 9 February 1995 to the court by the lawyer of the first three defendants.\n10.  Between the above date and 7 March 2002, only two hearing sessions were held. The case was adjourned several times. Five of these adjournments were at the applicant’s request, two due to the absence of his lawyer, three at the parties’ and two at the defendants’ request. The adjournments related to, inter alia, amendments to pleadings and objections thereto and appointment of administrators and new lawyers. The applicant had requested an additional adjournment within this period, which had been rejected by the court. Further, the case was adjourned on the basis of proceedings pending before the Supreme Court, namely, on 15 September 1998 by an order of the Supreme Court pending its determination of applications by the applicant for certiorari and prohibition until the decision was adopted on 18 March 1999, and, secondly, pending the determination of an appeal lodged by the applicant on 6 February 2001 against the decision by the district court dismissing an application for an amendment of his statement of claim. The Supreme Court rejected his latter appeal on 21 February 2002. The case also appears to have remained dormant from 14 May 1996 and 31 October 1997.\n11.  From 8 March 2002 until 26 March 2002 three hearing sessions took place and one session of oral submissions.\n12.  By a judgment dated 23 May 2002, the District Court dismissed the action concerning three of the defendants but found in favour of the applicant regarding the defendant company.\n13.  On 2 July 2002 the applicant filed an appeal against the first instance judgment. The appeal was heard on 21 March 2003, following one adjournment at the defendants’ request with the applicant’s consent.\n14.  On 21 April 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and confirmed the findings of the district court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1575", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1925 and 1937 respectively and live in Limassol.\n5.  On 30 April 1990 a civil action was lodged against the applicants before the District Court of Nicosia, in their capacity as administrators of the estate of Mr K. Kynigos, concerning a contract of sale of property the latter had concluded with the plaintiffs.\n6.  The pleadings were completed by 7 December 1990.\n7.  Between the above date and 12 May 1997, the case was continuously adjourned. Two adjournments were at the applicants’ request; four took place due to the failure of the applicants’ lawyer to appear before the court and six at the request of both parties. Further, within this period the case was adjourned five times by the court itself, namely in 26 March 1993 until 6 April 1993, on 19 November 1993 until 11 April 1994 and then again to 13 October 1994; on 11 October 1995 the court adjourned the case until 4 March 1996 and then again until 30 September 1996.\n8.  The hearing commenced on 12 May 1997 and was completed after several sessions on 6 July 1999, with two adjournments at the plaintiffs’ request and three at the applicants’.\n9.  On 30 November 1999 the district court delivered its judgment finding in favour of the plaintiffs.\n10.  On 11 January 2000 the applicants filed an appeal against the judgment.\n11.   The file of the case was transmitted to the Supreme Court on 8 February 2001.\n12.  The appeal was dismissed on 8 June 2001 by the Supreme Court for failure of the applicants to submit their outline address within the required time-limit.\n13.  On 17 July 2001 the applicants lodged an application for the reinstatement of the appeal.\n14.  The appeal was heard on 1 February 2002 following one adjournment by the court and on 21 May 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ application.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1576", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1930 respectively and live in Nicosia.\n5.  The applicants lodged two separate civil actions before the District Court of Paphos on 19 September and 8 November 1985 (actions 1621/85 and 1961/85). In both actions the applicants sought remedies against two defendants in respect of trespass and nuisance to their respective properties.\n6.  From the institution of the proceedings until 1 January 1989 the court dealt with applications by the applicants for substituted service of the writs, and two applications by the second applicant in her action for an interim order and in respect of a boundary dispute. The pleadings in both actions were completed in October and November 1987.\n7.  On 9 January 1989 the actions were fixed for directions and were then adjourned to give more time to the parties to decide on whether an inspection of the property should be carried out.\n8.  On 20 February 1989, with the consent of all the parties, the district court ordered the inspection of the properties concerned by the District Land Office (DLO). Consequently, the actions were adjourned sine die pending the inspection to be fixed on the application of either party upon completion.\n9.  Following an application by one of the defendants to the court for the joining of the actions on 19 November 1991, and the opposition by the first applicant thereto, the court decided to join the actions on 31 March 1992. Within this period two adjournments took place at the applicants’ request.\n10.  In view of the fact that the inspection had not been completed yet, the actions were adjourned sine die.\n11.  Although the actions were fixed for trial several times between 13 January 1995 and 19 October 1995, no hearing took place pending the findings of the DLO. Within this period, three adjournments took place due to the first applicant’s absence.\n12.  It appears that the parties and the court were informed on 26 September 1995 that the inspection had been carried out.\n13.  On 19 October 1995 the hearing was adjourned at the applicants’ request.\n14.  The hearing of the actions commenced on 30 January 1996. From that date until 11 June 1998 approximately sixteen hearing sessions were held, two of which were adjourned and one cut short at the applicants’ request. In the meantime, it appears that the DLO’s inspection was annulled and following another examination of the matter the parties were informed on 3 October 1996 that the DLO’s findings were ready.\n15.  On 10 December 1998 the Paphos District Court delivered its judgment dismissing the actions with costs to be paid by the applicants.\n16.  On 9 January 1999 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court challenging the above judgment. Within their grounds of appeal, the applicants alleged that the excessive length of the proceedings was in breach of the Cypriot Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights. Consequently, they claimed that the first instance decision should be set aside.\n17.  Meanwhile, on 8 March 1999, the applicants also applied to the District Court of Paphos challenging the assessment of legal costs they were required to pay. This application was dismissed on 9 July 1999.\n18.  The records concerning the first instance proceedings were transmitted to the Supreme Court on 29 June 1999 and the parties were notified on 31 August 1999 that the appeal had been fixed for pre-trial directions on 26 October 1999. The appeal was adjourned four times at the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1577", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Nicosia.\n5.  On 20 October 1987 the applicant filed a civil action in the District Court of Paphos against two private individuals and the Government requesting damages in respect of unlawful trespass to his property and the increased costs he incurred as a result.\n6.  The pleadings were completed around February/March 1989. Subsequently the case was fixed twice for mention and then for hearing on 3 October 1989, at the parties’ request for a hearing date after the summer holidays. The hearing, however, was adjourned on the latter date following an application by the applicant to that effect.\n7.  On 14 November 1989, following an application by the applicant, the court issued an order for an inspection to be carried out by the Land Registry Office. The case was left sine die pending the outcome of the inspection.\n8.  On 8 January 1993 the Land Registry informed the court that their report was ready.\n9.  Between 8 January 1993 and 18 March 1997 the case was adjourned several times. Once at the applicant’s request and three times due to the failure of his lawyer to appear before the court, once by one of the defendants, three times at the request of all parties and once by the court itself. Within this period, the court also dealt with, inter alia, an interlocutory application filed by the defendant Government on 12 October 1995 for the dismissal of the case on the basis of lack of jurisdiction. On 8 November 1995 the court dismissed this application. An appeal was lodged by the defendant Government with the Supreme Court which was withdrawn on 21 February 1997.\n10.  On 18 March 1997 the case returned to the District Court of Paphos and was set for hearing on 30 June 1997. Following two adjournments, one at the applicant’s request and the other at one of the defendant’s request, the hearing of the case commenced on 10 December 1997.\n11.  The hearing was completed on 22 October 1998. Within this period, approximately ten hearing sessions were held.\n12.  On 20 September 1999 the district court delivered its judgment in favour of the applicant concerning his claims against the first two defendants and awarding him costs and nominal damages. The court dismissed the action in so far as the Government was concerned.\n13.  On 1 November 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court.\n14.  The appeal was heard on 24 April 2001 and on 26 June 2001 the Supreme Court rejected his appeal with costs to be paid by him.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1578", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants live in Mersin.\n5.  On 27 March 1996 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicants in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicants’ request for increased compensation, on 14 October 1997 the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance awarded them additional compensation of 1,503,941,200 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 25 May 1994, the date of the seizure of the plots by the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways.\n7.  On 16 February 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance.\n8.  On 16 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicants TRL 4,442,320,000 (approximately 7,694 euros (EUR), interest included.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1579", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in İzmir.\n10.  Until 1985 he lived in Germany, where he completed part of his schooling. He subsequently moved to Turkey, where he continued his education, eventually going on to university.\n11.  In 1993 he became an active member of the Association of Opponents of War (Savaş Karşıtları Derneği – “the SKD”), founded in 1992. Until late 1993 he represented the SKD at various international conferences in different countries. After the SKD was dissolved in November 1993 the İzmir Association of Opponents of War (İzmir Savaş Karşıtları Derneği – “the ISKD”) was founded and the applicant served as its chairman from 1994 to 1998.\n12.  In August 1995 the applicant was called up. Invoking his pacifist convictions, he refused to perform military service and publicly burned his call-up papers at a press conference in İzmir on 1 September 1995.\n13.  On 8 October 1996 he was arrested. On 18 October 1996 he was indicted by the military prosecutor attached to the Ankara Military Court of the General Staff (“the General Staff Court”), under Article 155 of the Criminal Code and Article 58 of the Military Penal Code, on a charge of inciting conscripts to evade military service.\n14.  In a judgment of 28 January 1997 the Ankara General Staff Court sentenced the applicant, on the basis of the indictment of 18 October 1996, to six months’ imprisonment and to a fine. The court also found that the applicant was a deserter and made an order requesting the military prosecutor attached to that court to enlist him.\n15.  On 3 March 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. In his grounds of appeal he relied on, among other provisions, Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, claiming that he was a conscientious objector.\n16.  In a judgment of 3 July 1997 the Military Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance judgment.\n17.  In the meantime, on 22 November 1996, the applicant was transferred to the 9th Regiment, attached to the Bilecik gendarmerie command. He refused to wear military uniform or carry out the orders of the regiment’s commanding officer. He was detained in the regimental prison, where he refused to wear prison uniform.\n18.  On 26 November 1996 the military prosecutor at the Court of the Eskişehir Tactical Air Forces Command (“the Command Court”) indicted the applicant on a charge of “persistent disobedience” and sought his conviction under Article 87 of the Military Penal Code.\n19.  Ruling on the applicant’s refusal to wear prison uniform, the Command Court, in a judgment of 2 December 1996 after urgent proceedings, restricted his right to receive visitors for fifteen days, as a disciplinary measure.\n20.  Ultimately, in a judgment of 6 March 1997, the Command Court sentenced him to five months’ imprisonment for persistent disobedience.\n21.  On 4 July 1997 the Military Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 6 March 1997.\n22.  In the meantime, the applicant had failed to rejoin his regiment after being released on 27 December 1996. He was arrested and remanded in custody.\n23.  He was indicted on 7 March 1997 by the military prosecutor at the Command Court, on charges of desertion and “persistent disobedience”.\n24.  In a judgment of 23 October 1997 the Command Court sentenced the applicant to ten months’ imprisonment and to a fine.\n25.  In the meantime, on 29 May 1997, he had been released on the condition that he rejoined his regiment on 31 May to perform his military service. As he failed to do", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1580", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Mersin.\n5.  On 2 November 1993 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicant when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 25 April 1997 the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance awarded him additional compensation of 305,201,400 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 2 November 1993, the date of transfer of the title-deeds.\n7.  On 23 March 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Mersin Civil Court of First-instance.\n8. On 17 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicant TRL 1,167,070,000, interest included.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1581", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1969, 1951, 1961 and 1964 respectively and live in İzmir.\n6.  On 2 June 1995 Nedim Öndeş, Arap Doğan, Ferhan Özçelik and Selhan Tekin were arrested and taken into custody by the Anti-Terror branch of the İzmir Security Directorate on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. On 6 June 1995 Yahya Kezer was arrested and taken into custody by the same police officers on the same grounds.\n7.  On 14 June 1995 the applicants were brought before the İzmir State Security Court. The court ordered their remand in custody.\n8.  On 10 July 1995 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing Yahya Keser and Nedim Öndeş of membership of an illegal organisation and the other applicants of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. He requested that Yahya Keser and Nedim Öndeş be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 §2 of Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713. In respect of the other applicants, the public prosecutor requested that they be convicted and sentenced under Article 169 of Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.\n9.  On 22 July 1997 the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced Yahya Keser to fifteen years, Nedim Öndeş to fourteen years and seventeen months, Arap Doğan to two years and eleven months and Ferhan Özçelik and Selhan Tekin to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.\n10.  On 7 July 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the İzmir State Security Court for non-compliance with procedural rules.\n11.  On 3 December 1998 the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced Yahya Keser to fifteen years’ imprisonment, Nedim Öndeş to fourteen years’ and seventeen months’ imprisonment and the other applicants to three years’ and nine months’ imprisonment.\n12.  On 18 October 1999 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the İzmir State Security Court. On 18 November 1999 the judgment of the Court of Cassation was deposited with the registry of the İzmir State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1582", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Wiśniowa, Poland.\n5.  On an unspecified date in 1989 the applicant’s father lodged an application with the Myślenice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) for distribution of the inheritance from his late wife. The applicant was a participant in the proceedings.\n6.  Between October 1989 and December 1992 the court held four hearings.\n7.  On 19 February 1993 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained.\n8.  On 26 May 1993 four of the participants challenged the expert opinion.\n9.  On 2 November 1994 the applicant submitted her own proposal to the court for distribution of inheritance.\n10.  On 15 November 1994 the expert submitted his new opinion.\n11.  At a hearing on 19 January 1995 the court proposed that the participants conclude a friendly settlement. Only two of the participants accepted the court’s proposal.\n12.  At a hearing on 23 March 1995 the court ordered that new expert evidence be obtained. It also ordered the participants to pay an advance to cover the costs of the preparation of an expert report..\n13.  On 17 September 1997 the court decided that, as the participants had failed to comply with the order of 23 March 1995, the costs of the preparation of expert opinions would be temporarily covered by the court.\n14.  Between 17 January 1996 and 16 July 1998, J.M., one of the participants in the proceedings, unsuccessfully challenged the presiding judge four times.\n15.  On 2 October 1998 and 4 March 1999 the court appointed experts to prepare opinions on agriculture and forestry. The experts submitted their reports on 12 November 1998 and 21 March 1999 respectively.\n16.  On November 1999 the court held a hearing.\n17.  On 30 November 1999 the Myślenice District Court gave judgment.\n18.  On 27 March 2000 the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n19.  On 28 June 2001 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to deal with her cassation appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1583", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n9.  On 1 June 1994 the applicant was taken into custody by policemen from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate on suspicion of his membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan (“the PKK”).\n10.  On 2 June 1994 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Bismil Health Clinic who reported that there was no sign of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body.\n11.  In his police statement dated 6 June 1994, which was allegedly taken under duress, the applicant stated he had disseminated propaganda and collected money in support of the PKK, of which he was a member. He further admitted that he owned an unlicensed gun.\n12.  On 7 June 1994 the applicant was once again taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital for a medical examination. The report indicated that he did not bear any signs of ill-treatment.\n13.  On the same day, the applicant was further interrogated by the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. Before the public prosecutor, the applicant denounced his police statement, alleging that it had been made under duress. While admitting that he owned an unlicensed gun, he denied being a member or engaging in the activities of the PKK. The applicant was subsequently brought before the investigating judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, where he repeated his statement taken by the prosecutor. Taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, the judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n14.  By an indictment dated 13 June 1994, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant. He accused the applicant of membership of the PKK, and called for the applicant’s conviction under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n15.  The trial commenced before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. In the subsequent nine hearings the court, taking into account the nature of the alleged offence and the state of the evidence, refused to release the applicant on bail.\n16.  On 4 September 1996, during the tenth hearing, the court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.\n17.  The same day, while waiting to be released from the Gaziantep Prison, the applicant was taken into police custody by members of the Gaziantep Security Directorate. On 7 September 1996 the applicant was handed over to police officers from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate and he was taken to the building of the Rapid Action Force for interrogation.\n18.  The applicant alleges that he was ill-treated there. He submits that he was stripped naked, beaten, hosed with cold water, hung by his arms and subjected to electric shocks. The police officers questioned him about his involvement with the PKK. They read out an internal PKK report, which was allegedly written by the applicant. The officers told the applicant that this document had been found among the belongings of a PKK member, who had been killed during a clash with the security forces. The officers also questioned the applicant about four armed attacks which had taken place in Bismil in 1994. On 18 September 1996, together with the applicant, the officers made on-site inspections of the crime scenes. The applicant states that he was forced to sign the incident reports which had been prepared by the police officers. The police also took samples of the applicant’s handwriting.\n19.  On 19 September 1996 the applicant wa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1584", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Płock, Poland.\n5.  On 7 March 1992 the applicant asked the Częstochowa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) for a payment order against the “Westa” insurance company.\n6.  The court refused the application on 22 June 1992.\n7.  On 15 September 1992, on the applicant’s appeal, the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) remitted the case.\n8.  On 15 December 1992 the District Court upheld its original decision.\n9.  On 25 March 1993 the Częstochowa Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s further appeal.\n10.  The case was subsequently examined by the District Court in ordinary civil proceedings.\n11.  On 7 July 1993 the court stayed the proceedings because bankruptcy proceedings had been initiated against the defendant (that decision is obligatory under Polish civil procedure).\n12.  On 14 December 1993 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision.\n13.  The applicant unsuccessfully asked the court several times to resume the proceedings.\n14.   The court resumed the proceedings on 13 September 1996.\n15.  Hearings were scheduled for 23 October 1996 and 8 July 1997.\n16.  On 4 August 1997 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. It also ordered the applicant to pay an advance sum of money to cover the costs of the preparation of an expert report.\n17.  On 16 April 1998 the court stayed the proceedings because the applicant had not paid the advance sum required.\n18.  The applicant appealed against that decision. He maintained that, according to the established case-law of the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy), a party’s failure to pay in advance costs of an expert opinion is not a sufficient ground for staying the proceedings.\n19.  On 29 July 1998 the Regional Court dismissed the appeal.\n20.  On 30 September 1999 the District Court resumed the proceedings and, on the same day, partly granted the applicant’s claim.\n21.  On 12 September 2000 the Regional Court amended the first-instance judgment and partly granted the claim. Due to the value of the claim a cassation appeal was not available in this case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1585", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod. At the relevant time he was a police officer in the road traffic department. On 8 September 1998, while off duty, he and his friend F met MS, a teenage girl, in Bogorodsk, in the Nizhniy Novgorod region. The applicant gave MS a lift in his car to Nizhniy Novgorod.\n10.  On 10 September 1998 MS’s mother informed the Bogorodsk municipal police of her daughter’s disappearance. At 4 p.m. on the same day, the applicant was arrested. F was also arrested and brought to Bogorodsk police station. The applicant and F were questioned by police officers in relation to the disappearance of MS. However, no charge was brought against them. Following the questioning, the police seized the applicant’s identity card and other documents and put him in the detention wing.\n11.  On the evening of 10 September 1998 the applicant’s superior officer came to the applicant’s cell and forced him to sign a resignation statement backdated to 17 August 1998.\n12.  On 11 September 1998 the police searched the applicant’s flat, country house, garage and car. They found three gun cartridges in his car.\n13.  On 12 September 1998 three officers from Bogorodsk municipal police, N, T and D, filed an “administrative offence report” with a judge of Bogorodsk Town Court. The report stated that on the evening of 11 September 1998 the applicant and F had committed a “disturbance of the peace” at the railway station. On the same date the judge sentenced the applicant and F to five days’ administrative detention from 11 September 1998.\n14.  According to the applicant, while in detention in Bogorodsk police station, he had been repeatedly questioned about the disappearance of MS. He denied any involvement in her disappearance. He said that he had requested a lawyer on many occasions, but that his request had been refused.\n15.  On 16 September 1998 the police opened a criminal investigation relating to the ammunition found by the police during the search of 11 September 1998 (criminal case no. 68205). By this time the term of the applicant’s administrative detention had expired and the applicant had been placed in custody in connection with the criminal case. He was transferred to another detention centre, under the jurisdiction of Leninskiy police department, who were in charge of the case.\n16.  The applicant submitted that after his transfer to the detention centre the questioning had become more intensive and even violent. For instance, on several occasions the police officers had slapped him and threatened him with torture in order to extract a confession that he had killed MS. In particular, they had threatened to apply electric shocks to him or place him in a cell with “hardcore criminals” who would kill him if they learned he was a police officer.\n17.  On 17 September 1998 the applicant was visited by a lawyer hired by the applicant’s mother several days earlier in connection with criminal case no. 68205. According to the applicant, during the conversation with the lawyer he had mentioned that the real reason for his detention was the disappearance of MS. However, the lawyer replied that she could not take on another case that she had not been paid for. The next day, according to the applicant, the police investigator banned all visits by the lawyer to the applicant.\n18.  Meanwhile, F testified to the police that he had seen the applicant rape and kill MS. He indicated to the investigators the place where they ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1586", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Austria.\n5.  On 11 March 1992 the Kärnten Regional Government (Landesregierung) dismissed the applicant’s request for a permit under the Kärnten Environmental Protection Act (Naturschutzgesetz) to build a tool shed on his agricultural and forestal estate. It noted that the project was contrary to the objectives of the area zoning plan (Flächenwidmungsplan) as a tool shed was not necessary in order to cultivate a forestal estate of less than 10 hectares.\n6.  Two further requests of the applicant for the granting of a permit were rejected on the ground of res iudicata: On 28 November 1994 the Kärnten Regional Government found that the extension of the applicant’s forestal estate to approximately 6 hectares did not constitute any relevant change of the circumstances. The Administrative Court confirmed this decision on 23 October 1995. On 16 January 1996 the applicant again requested a permit and submitted that he had acquired further 13 hectares of land. On 22 August 1997 the Kärnten Regional Government rejected this request as it found that the purchase contract was not valid and there was, therefore, no change of the relevant circumstances.\n7.  On 2 April 1998 the applicant again requested a permit for the tool shed which he had in the meanwhile built. He submitted that the relevant circumstances of his case had changed in that his brother-in-law was disposed to rent him approximately 5 hectares of land.\n8.  On 5 October 1998 the applicant filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) to the Kärnten Regional Government as the Spittal an der Drau District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshaupt-mannschaft) failed to decide within the statutory six months time-limit.\n9.  Upon request of the Regional Government, the building office (Baubezirksamt) at the District Administrative Authority issued an expert opinion on 20 November 1998. This opinion was communicated to the applicant, who, on 26 March and 21 June 1999 respectively, submitted two opinions of the private experts H and M in reply.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 26 May 1999, the building office at the District Administrative Authority, upon request of the Regional Government, commented on the private expert opinion of H. On 22 June 1999 the forestry inspection office (Bezirksforstinspektion) at the District Administrative Authority, upon request of the Regional Government, issued a further statement. Neither document was communicated to the applicant.\n11.  On 7 July 1999, the Kärnten Regional Government allowed the applicant’s request for transfer of jurisdiction but dismissed his request for the permit under the Environmental Protection Act. It noted that, due to changes in the relevant legislation, the question whether a project was in accordance with the objectives of the area zoning plan was not any longer relevant in the proceedings concerning a permit under the Environmental Protection Act. The permit could, however, not be granted as the tool shed had an adverse effect on the character of the concerned landscape. The Regional Government referred in this regard to the official expert’s opinion of 20 November 1998, who had found that the project led to urban sprawl. The Regional Government further noted that the construction of the tool shed was not a measure of public interest. It referred in this regard to expert opinions submitted in the previous proceedings which had found that the tool shed was not necessary for the cul", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1587", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1966 and 1972 respectively and live in Amsterdam.\n9.  The first applicant entered the Netherlands in October 1989. From his relationship with the second applicant, who has been lawfully residing in the Netherlands since the age of seven and holds a permanent residence permit (vestigingsvergunning), a child, Adem, was born on 27 June 1990. The applicants married on 25 October 1990. One month later, the first applicant filed a request for a residence permit for the purposes of forming a family unit (gezinsvorming) with his wife and working in the Netherlands. This permit was granted on 12 February 1991. On 24 January 1992 the first applicant acquired the right to remain in the Netherlands indefinitely ex jure pursuant to Article 10 para. 2 of the Aliens Act 1965 (Vreemdelingenwet 1965).\n10.  On 31 July 1992 the first applicant was arrested and placed in detention on remand. The Regional Court of Amsterdam convicted the first applicant on 20 January 1993 of participating in an organisation aimed at committing offences and of being a co-perpetrator (medepleger) of intentionally being in the possession of about 52 kilos of heroin, committed on or around 31 July 1992. The first applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. In respect of the determination of this sentence, the Regional Court held as follows:\n“... in the decision to impose a sentence involving a deprivation of liberty and the duration thereof, the Regional Court is in particular taking account of the fact that the accused has for a long time let his house be used as a safe house for quantities, of considerable size and suitable for further distribution, of a substance harmful to public health, so that only a prison sentence of considerable duration is appropriate.”\nThe first applicant was released on 11 April 1995. He went back to live with his wife and child and found a job.\n11.  Due to marital problems, the applicants did not live together for some time in 1995/1996. On 28 November 1995 the first applicant’s name was removed from the municipal register as living at the same address as his spouse. He was registered as once again living in the matrimonial home on 25 June 1996.\n12.  On 14 May 1996 both applicants went to the Aliens’ Police Department as they were going to resume cohabitation and wanted to prolong the first applicant’s residence permit. However, an official at that Department told them it would be better if the first applicant applied for an independent residence permit. For that reason, an application was made for prolongation of the first applicant’s residence permit or for an amendment of the restrictions attached to that permit so that it would enable him to reside in the Netherlands for the purpose of working in salaried employment without being required to live with his spouse.\n13.  On 14 October 1996 a second child, Mahsun, was born to the applicants. Both children have Turkish nationality.\n14.  The Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) informed the first applicant on 7 March 1997 of her intention to impose a ten-year exclusion order on him by declaring him an undesirable alien (ongewenst vreemdeling). The first applicant was invited to submit his views on the matter. By letter of 24 March 1997 the first applicant declared that he would never again do anything wrong and asked to be given a second chance.\n15.  The Deputy Minister rejected the request for prolongation of the residence permit on 5 Ju", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1588", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the town of Belitskoye, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 24 April 1998 the Dobropolye Town Court ordered the Belitskaya Mine, a State enterprise, to pay the applicant UAH 15,675.40 in compensation for an occupational disability and for moral damage. The applicant failed to inform the Court whether he appealed against this judgment or not.\n6.  In July 1998 the Dobropolye Town Bailiffs’ Service opened the enforcement proceedings.\n7.  Between 1998 and 2003 the judgment was enforced in instalments, the final payment being transferred on 10 November 2003.\n8.  On 12 November 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the full enforcement of the judgment given in the applicant’s favour.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1589", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Košice.\n5.  In 1975 the applicant concluded a contract with a co‑operative pursuant to which the latter was to build a family house for him.\n6.  In 1977 the applicant lodged a civil action against the co‑operative with the Košice City Court (Mestský súd) seeking a judicial ruling determining the date when the house was to be handed over.\n7.  On 12 May 1978 the City Court discontinued the proceedings. It observed that, at a hearing held on 12 April 1978, the applicant had withdrawn the action. Although the applicant’s lawyer was not present at that hearing, a copy of the decision was served on him. As no appeal was lodged, the decision became final and binding on 11 July 1978.\n8.  In 1981 the applicant and the judge dealing with the action of 1977 were found guilty of bribery in connection with the case and sentenced to imprisonment.\n9.  On 24 June 1992 the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) declared the applicant’s “appeal” of 21 April 1992 against the decision of 12 May 1978 inadmissible as being out of time.\n10.  On 27 July 1995 the applicant lodged an action against the Ministry of Justice as the State with the Košice II District Court (Okresný súd). He alleged that the decision of 12 May 1978 was arbitrary. The District Court had intentionally overlooked that at the hearing of 12 April 1978, the applicant had withdrawn the power of attorney from his lawyer. The service on the lawyer of a copy of the decision of 12 May 1978 was thus unlawful. It deprived the applicant of the opportunity to challenge the decision by a timely appeal. Considering that these facts amounted to wrongful official conduct resulting in an unlawful decision, the applicant claimed damages under the State Liability Act of 1969 (Law no. 58/1969 Coll. - “the 1969 Act”). He later supplemented his claim four times, in particular, by claiming that the decision of 12 May 1978 should be quashed as being illegal.\n11.  In December 1995 the applicant informed the Košice II District Court that he had moved to another address. As his new address was in the judicial district of the Košice I District Court, the action was transferred to it in April 1996.\n12.  On 13 February 1997 and 11 November 1998 the Košice I District Court held hearings.\n13.  On 2 June 1999 the Košice I District Court dismissed the action. It observed that, pursuant to sections 3 and 4 (1) of the 1969 Act, damage resulting from a wrongful official decision could only be compensated if that decision had been quashed by the competent body in a prescribed procedure. As the decision of 12 May 1978 had not been quashed, compensation for any damage allegedly inflicted thereby was out of the question. The District Court further found that the applicant had failed to prove his allegation of having withdrawn the power of attorney from his lawyer. The serving of the decision of 12 May 1978 on the applicant’s lawyer had been in conformity with Article 49 § 1 of the Code of the Civil Procedure and no wrongful official conduct had been established in this connection. The District Court finally noted that, in any event, in the criminal proceedings leading to his conviction in 1981 the applicant had clearly stated several times that he had withdrawn his civil action of 1977.\n14.  In July 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of 2 June 1999. He objected to the factual findings and legal conclusions of the District Court.\n15.  On 6 February 2002, followin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1590", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Paris. He explained that he sought in all of his work to promote a rapprochement between Jews and Christians.\n12.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n13.  In its issue of 4 January 1994, the newspaper Le quotidien de Paris published an article written by the applicant, entitled “The obscurity of error” concerning the papal encyclical “The Splendour of Truth” (“Veritatis Splendor”), which had been published at the end of 1993.\n14.  On 18 March 1994 the association General Alliance against Racism and for Respect for the French and Christian Identity (Alliance générale contre le racisme et pour le respect de l'identité française et chrétienne (AGRIF)) brought proceedings before the Paris Criminal Court against Mr P. Tesson, publishing director of the newspaper, the applicant and the newspaper Le quotidien de Paris, as author, accomplice and the entity civilly liable respectively, alleging that, through publication of the above-mentioned article, they had made racially defamatory statements against the Christian community, an offence punishable under section 32, second paragraph, of the Freedom of the Press Act of 29 July 1881. In particular, they referred to the following passages:\n“The Catholic Church sets itself up as the sole keeper of divine truth ... It strongly proclaims the fulfilment of the Old Covenant in the New, and the superiority of the latter ...\n... Many Christians have acknowledged that scriptural anti-Judaism and the doctrine of the 'fulfilment' [accomplissement] of the Old Covenant in the New led to anti-Semitism and prepared the ground in which the idea and implementation [accomplissement] of Auschwitz took seed.”\n15.  By a judgment of 4 October 1994, the Criminal Court dismissed the objections of invalidity raised by the applicant and, inter alia, committed the case for trial. By a judgment of 8 March 1995, the Criminal Court found established the offence of publicly defaming a group of persons on the ground of membership of a religion, in this case the Christian community. The publishing director and the applicant were both ordered to pay a fine of 6,000 French francs (FRF).\n16.  The Criminal Court found the AGRIF's civil application admissible and ordered the publishing director and the applicant, jointly and severally, to pay the association one franc in damages and FRF 7,000 in application of Article 475-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In addition, the court ordered that its decision be published, at the defendants' expense up to FRF 10,000, in a national newspaper. In its judgment, it stated, inter alia:\n“The Catholic Church, which is described as holding, exclusively and in error, divine truth, is accused of proclaiming its attachment to the doctrine of the fulfilment of the Old Covenant in the New Covenant, a doctrine that was reaffirmed in the encyclical 'The Splendour of Truth'. It is also stated that anti-Judaism in the Scriptures and this doctrine of fulfilment 'led to anti-Semitism and prepared the ground in which the idea and implementation of Auschwitz took seed'.\nThus, according to the author of the text, not only the idea, but even the implementation of the massacres and horrors committed at Auschwitz, the symbol of the Nazi extermination camps, was a direct extension of one of the core doctrines of the Catholic faith, namely the doctrine of the fulfilment of the Old Covenant in the New, and thus directly", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1591", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Ciechanów, Poland.\n5.  On an unspecified date in 1988 a certain T.M. lodged a claim against the applicant with the Rzeszów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). She sought a division of property.\n6.  On 26 April 1989 the court held a hearing.\n7.  On 24 January 1992 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. The expert’s report was submitted to the court on 26 May 1992.\n8.  On 21 April 1993 the court gave judgment.\n9.  The applicant appealed on 26 June 1993.\n10.  On 22 April 1994 the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.\n11.  On 6 February 1996 the applicant sent a letter to the court, asking for a hearing date to be set.\n12.  On 3 October 1997 the court decided that new expert evidence be obtained.\n13.   The court held hearings on 4 May 1998 and 22 December 2000.\n14.  On 28 February 2001 the Rzeszów District Court gave judgment.\n15.  The applicant appealed on 5 April 2001.\n16.  On 26 June 2001 the Rzeszów Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1592", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Trenčín.\n5.  On 8 April 1994 the applicant lodged an action against his employer with the Banská Bystrica Regional Court (Krajský súd). He sought financial compensation for the latter’s use of four of his inventions and one industrial design which related to the applicant’s job with the employer and to which the applicant had a 50% title.\n6.  A hearing called for 23 June 1994 was rescheduled on the applicant’s request and took place on 21 July 1994. The defendant did not appear and the hearing was adjourned. The Regional Court invited the applicant to submit a list of all owners of the intellectual property at issue and a list of experts who could assess the property’s value. The applicant submitted this information in letters of 26 July and 1 August 1994.\n7.  On 8 December 1994 the Regional Court requested that the Trenčín District Court examine witnesses. The examination took place on 29 December 1994.\n8.  In a letter of 5 February 1996 the President of the Regional Court acknowledged that for a long period of time there had been no progress in the case. The letter stated that the judge to whom the action was assigned had originally not been authorised to acquaint herself with classified information that was relevant to the case. The authorisation was granted on 20 November 1995 and only thereafter could the judge proceed with the matter.\n9.  On 21 April 1997 the Regional Court held a hearing. On 12 November 1997 it enquired of the Ministry of Defence whether it was possible to inspect the subject‑matter of the action. On 11 March 1998 the Regional Court appointed an expert to make a technical assessment of its value. At the same time the parties were ordered to pay a deposit towards the expert’s expenses. The defendant lodged an appeal against this order.\n10.  On 28 May 1998 the expert submitted his report. On 1 December the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) dismissed the defendant’s appeal concerning the payment of his expenses.\n11.  In the meantime the applicant had submitted and later withdrawn a request that the action be transferred to another court. A similar request was submitted by the defendant and dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18 September 1997.\n12.  On 25 January 1999 the Bratislava Regional Court declared the defendant company insolvent. Pursuant to Article 14 § 1 (d) of the Bankruptcy and Composition Code (Law no. 328/1991 Coll., as amended), all judicial proceedings against it, including the applicant’s action, were thus automatically ex lege stayed.\n13.  Despite the insolvency order, on 14 April 1999, the Banská Bystrica Regional Court held a hearing at which the defendant failed to appear.\n14.  On 27 April 1999 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court gave a formal decision to stay the proceedings in the applicant’s action under Article 14 § 1 (d) of the Bankruptcy and Composition Code. On 20 April 2001 the bankruptcy trustee requested under Article 14 § 5 of that Code that the proceedings resume.\n15.  On 16 May 2001, following a hearing held on the same day, the Banská Bystrica Regional Court granted a major part of the action and dismissed the remainder. No party challenged the judgment by an appeal and it became final and binding on 2 July 2001.\n16.  At an unspecified time the applicant registered his claim under the judgment of 16 May 2001 in the insolvency proceedings which are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1593", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The first applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Amsterdam. The second applicant was born in 1996 and lives in Amsterdam and Uithoorn.\n9.  The first applicant came to the Netherlands in June 1994, leaving her two sons from a previous relationship, Jean (born in 1990) and Carlos (born in 1992), with her parents. In the Netherlands she lived with her partner Mr Hoogkamer, who was in paid employment at that time. The first applicant submitted that they had looked into applying for a residence permit allowing her to reside in the Netherlands with her partner, but that, owing to the unavailability of documents concerning Mr Hoogkamer's income, such an application had never actually been made.\n10.  In April 1995 the first applicant's son Carlos joined his mother and Mr Hoogkamer. Her other son Jean remained in Brazil with his grandparents.\n11.  On 3 February 1996 Rachael, the second applicant, was born to the first applicant and Mr Hoogkamer. The first applicant was invested ipso jure with parental authority (ouderlijk gezag) over Rachael. Rachael was recognised (erkenning) by Mr Hoogkamer on 28 March 1996, as a result of which she obtained Dutch nationality.\n12.  The first applicant and Mr Hoogkamer split up in January 1997. Rachael stayed with her father, who subsequently applied to the Amsterdam District Court (kantonrechter) seeking to be awarded parental authority over Rachael. The District Court granted the application on 20 February 1997. The first applicant subsequently appealed to the Amsterdam Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) against that decision. The Regional Court requested the Child Care and Protection Board (Raad voor de Kinderbescherming) to examine which attribution of parental authority would be in Rachael's best interests.\n13.  On 12 August 1997 the first applicant applied for a residence permit which would allow her to reside in the Netherlands, either – depending on the outcome of the proceedings concerning parental authority – with her daughter Rachael, or in order to have access to her. She also made an application on behalf of her son Carlos.\n14.  The Child Care and Protection Board found, in its report of 26 August 1997, that parental authority should remain with Mr Hoogkamer. In view of the likelihood of the first applicant having to return to Brazil, awarding her parental authority over Rachael could lead to a break-off in contact between Rachael and her father and also between Rachael and her paternal grandparents, who were very important to her. It was felt that this would be a traumatic experience for Rachael, who had her roots in the Netherlands and whose bonding with all the persons concerned had taken place in that country.\n15.  In a decision of 26 November 1997, the Amsterdam Regional Court nevertheless quashed the decision of the District Court and awarded the first applicant parental authority over Rachael. Mr Hoogkamer lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad).\n16.  On 12 January 1998 the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) rejected the first applicant's application for a residence permit. The first applicant lodged an objection (bezwaar) against this decision. At the hearing on this objection before an official committee (ambtelijke commissie) on 27 May 1998, it was stated on behalf of the first applicant that she worked (illegally, as she was not in possession of a residence permit allowing her to do so) from Monday to Thursday and that on t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1594", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is currently serving a prison sentence at Penitentiary No. 8 in Makeyevka, the Donetsk region.\n5.  On 27 February 1998 the applicant, along with eight others, was arrested on suspicion of hooliganism and extortion.\n6.  On 2 March 1998 the applicant was charged with the above crimes and detained on remand.\n7.  By June 1998 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant was given access to the case file. On 26 June 1998 he finished studying it.\n8.  On 17 July 1998 the investigator drafted the bill of indictment. On 3 August 1998, it was approved by the district prosecutor and referred to the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Court of Gorlovka (hereafter “the District Court”) for examination on the merits. The prosecution’s case was that the applicant and eight other suspects were members of a gang, involved in several counts of extortion and hooliganism (Articles 144 and 206 of the 1960 Criminal Code, respectively).\n9.  Between 2 September 1998 and 6 October 1998 the District Court held eight hearings. On the latter date it ordered an additional forensic assessment of the severity of the bodily harm suffered by K. (one of four victims).\n10.  On 3 December 1998 the trial judge resumed the hearing and, until 16 December 1998, conducted three more sittings.\n11.  On 30 December 1998 the applicant was acquitted of extortion but sentenced to two years’ imprisonment for inflicting bodily harm (Article 102 of the Code). The prosecution appealed, challenging the court’s reclassification of the imputed offences which led to the excessive mildness of the sentence. On 23 February 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court upheld the conviction.\n12.  On 24 February 1999 the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court, following the protest (an extraordinary appeal) of the Deputy President of the Donetsk Regional Court (hereafter “the Regional Court”), quashed these decisions and remitted the case for a fresh investigation.\n13.  By April 1999 the additional investigation was finalised and the applicant was given access to the case file. On 26 May 1999 the investigator filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and his co-accused, charging them with extortion.\n14.  On 22 June 1999 the new trial commenced before the District Court, sitting with another judge, and on 22 July 1999, following ten hearings, the District Court convicted the applicant and his co-defendants of inflicting bodily harm and unlawfully depriving another of liberty (Article 123 of the Code). The court further amnestied and released six of the convicts; however, the applicant and two others were left in custody. The prosecution challenged this decision relying on the same grounds as in its previous appeal (paragraph 11 above).\n15.  On 19 October 1999 the Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court on account of its failure to provide the defendants with an opportunity to study the court records, as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n16.  On 22 November 1999 the District Court, having complied with that requirement, resubmitted the case to the Regional Court. On 30 November 1999 the latter quashed the decision of 22 June 1999 and remitted the case to the Kuybyshevsky District Court of Gorlovka (hereafter “the Kuybyshevsky Court”).\n17.  On 4 January 2000 the Kuybyshevsky Court recommenced the trial and scheduled the first hearing for 11 January 2000. However, this sitting did not take place due to the absence of the defenda", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1595", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Antalya.\n5.  On 9 July 1997 the General Directorate of National Airports expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot and the relevant amount was paid to him when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 20 March 1998 the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate.\n7.  On 16 June 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment.\n8.  On 20 December 1999 the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance awarded the applicant an additional compensation of 3,184,691,136 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision running from 18 December 1997, the date on which the title deed to the land had been transferred to the General Directorate of National Airports.\n9.  On 4 April 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the First‑instance court.\n10.  On 18 May 2000 the Court of Cassation rejected the parties’ request for rectification.\n11.  On 20 July 2000 the General Directorate of National Airports paid the amount of TRL 7,636,830,000 to the applicant.\n12.  After the application was communicated to the Government, the applicant was requested to submit his observations on the merits of the case and also her just satisfaction claims until 23 March 2005. However, he failed to submit them within the required time-limit. He did not request any extension of time, either.\n13.  By registered letter of 27 May 2005 the applicant was informed that the Court had not received his observations and just satisfaction claims and that the Court might strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant did not intend to pursue the application.\n14.  On 8 August 2005 the applicant submitted his observations containing his just satisfaction claims.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1596", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1972. She is detained in Gebze Prison.\n7.  On 17 September 1993 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of being a member of Dev-Sol (Revolutionary Left), and was taken into custody. During the operation, the police officers gathered guns and illegal documents from the flat where they had captured the applicant. The applicant had also two forged identity cards in her possession.\n8.  On 1 October 1993 she was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. Subsequently, the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n9.  On 31 December 1993 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court against twenty-five persons, including the applicant, and requested that the applicant be punished pursuant to Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code with the death penalty.\n10.  Throughout the criminal proceedings, either on its own motion or at the applicant’s request, the Istanbul State Security Court examined and ordered the applicant’s continued detention. The court relied on “the serious nature of the offences with which the applicant had been charged, the state of evidence, the content of the case file, and the duration of the detention” when further detaining the applicant. On two occasions on 3 November 1997 and 5 May 2000, the court also noted that the case was due to be decided soon.\n11.  On 17 December 2003 the applicant was convicted of the offence as charged and sentenced to life imprisonment.\n12.  On 1 April 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant’s conviction, and remitted the case back to the Istanbul State Security Court.\n13.  The case is still pending before the Istanbul State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1600", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1930 and was living in Izmir. Following his death on 23 November 2003, his wife and children on 6 April 2004 expressed their intention to pursue the application.\n9.  On an unspecified date, the applicant had signed contracts with the Izmir Municipality concerning a road construction. While the construction was in progress, the Municipality annulled the contracts by decisions of 2 and 5 April 1984.\n10.  By a judgment of 16 March 1992, the Izmir Commercial Court decided that the cancellations of the contracts were unlawful and therefore invalid.\n11.  On 2 October 1992 the applicant approached the Municipality and requested that it followed the court order. By a letter of 20 November 1992, the Municipality declined the applicant’s request.\n12.  On 4 March 1993, relying on the judgment of 16 March 1992, the applicant brought an action against the Municipality before the Izmir Commercial Court claiming compensation for the damages he incurred on account of the annulment of the contract.\n13.  On 12 October 1993, the court appointed an expert commission in order to determine the amount of the damage incurred by the applicant. On 3 May 1994 the expert report was admitted to the case-file, and the Court decided that the report should be communicated to the parties following payment of the experts’ additional fee by the applicant.\n14.  On 1 June 1994 the applicant disputed the conclusions of the expert report regarding the suggested sum and requested a new report.\n15.  At the hearing of 15 December 1994 the lawyers of the Municipality failed to appear before the court. Following the hearing, the court issued a letter to the Izmir 2nd Commercial Court asking the latter to transfer the case-file concerning the cancellations of the contracts. On 7 March 1995 the parties were granted time to comment on this file.\n16.  On 7 July 1995 the court changed its composition and the case-file was deposited with the new panel of judges for examination.\n17.  At the hearing of 18 July 1995, the lawyers of the parties failed to appear before the court. The court decided to obtain an additional report from the experts as both parties had disputed the previous report.\n18.  Six hearings were held between 16 November 1995 and 16 May 1997. On that date the court noted that the case-file had not been transmitted to the experts in order them to submit an additional report. The court also noted that the failure to obtain an additional report was due to the fact that one of the experts could not be reached and thus a commission be formed. The parties requested that a new expert commission be appointed. Accordingly, the court designated a new expert commission of three experts to this end.\n19.  On 23 December 1997 the court acknowledged receipt of the second report and it was communicated to the parties in order for them to comment on it.\n20.  On 30 April 1998 the court accepted the applicant’s claim in part and ordered that the Municipality pay him a certain amount of money.\n21.  On 3 September 1998 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation against the judgment of the first-instance court.\n22.  On 14 December 1998 the Court of Cassation, upholding the judgment, rejected the applicant’s appeal. The applicant was notified of this decision on 12 February 1999.\n23.  On 26 February 1999 the applicant requested rectification of this decision. On 7 June 1999 the Court of Cassation rejected the request for rectification.\n24.  This final decisi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1601", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are Turkish nationals who were born in 1957, 1962 and 1964 and live in Ankara, Batman and Diyarbakır, respectively\n7.  On 16 November 1998 the head of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate requested the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor to issue a search warrant in order to inspect the Diyarbakır and Batman offices of HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi-People’s Democracy Party), where demonstrations and hunger strikes were allegedly being organised, in order to protest the arrest of the PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan. The public prosecutor issued the search warrant on the same day.\n8.  On 18 November 1998 the applicants were taken into police custody by the police officers at the Batman Security Directorate.\n9.  In a letter dated 20 November 1998 the Diyarbakır Security Directorate requested the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor to extend the applicants’ detention period until 22 November 1998 together with hundred and seven others. On the same day, considering the number of the accused and the difficulty to obtain evidence, the public prosecutor authorised to extend the detention period as requested.\n10.  On 22 November 1998 a judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to extend the applicants’ detention period until 28 November 1998, following the Diyarbakır Security Directorate’s second request.\n11.  On 26 November 1998 the applicants were first brought before a public prosecutor and then a judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, where they refused all allegations against them. The judge ordered their release pending trial.\n12.  On 17 December 1998 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court accusing the first applicant of aiding and abetting members of a terrorist organisation. On the same day three public prosecutors attached to the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided that no prosecution should be brought against the second applicant on the ground that there existed no evidence to convict him.\n13.  On 3 April 2001 the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to defer the imposition of a final sentence upon the first applicant, pursuant to Law no. 4616. The court held, under Article 1 § 4 of the same law, that the criminal proceedings against her would be suspended and a final sentence would be imposed should she be convicted of a further intentional offence within five years of this decision.\n14.  On 17 November 1998 the applicant was taken into police custody together with a group of twenty people outside the party’s headquarter in Diyarbakır.\n15.  In a letter dated 18 November 1998 the Diyarbakır Security Directorate requested the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor to extend the detention period of the applicant along with hundred and ten others until 21 November 1998. On the same day the public prosecutor authorised the security directorate to extend the detention period until that date.\n16.  On 20 November 1998, following a request from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate and considering the number of the accused, the judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to extend the detention period until 26 November 1998.\n17.  On 25 November 1998 the applicant was brought before a public prosecutor and a judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. The judge ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.\n18.  On 22 February 2001 the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to defer the imposition of a final sentence upon the applicant, pursuant to Law no. 4", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1602", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 20 January 1995 the applicant, who was 21 years old at the time, was charged with armed robbery and assault causing heavy injuries on one person and the death of another.\n8.  The charges, as modified later, concerned a number of robberies allegedly committed by an organised armed group who posed as traffic policemen and robbed motor vehicles and their passengers. The applicant had allegedly joined the group for its last two robberies. He was accused of being the one who had made the fatal gunshot killing the victim in one of those robberies.\n9.  The preliminary investigation was completed in August 1995 and in October 1995 an indictment was submitted to the Regional Court of Veliko Tarnovo against twelve persons, including the applicant.\n10.  The Regional Court held hearings on 11 December 1995, 3‑10 January, 3-5 June and 2-12 September 1996. Numerous witnesses were heard and other evidence admitted.\n11.  On 12 September 1996 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment. Ten other accused persons were also convicted in the same proceedings.\n12.  On 16 September 1996 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court.\n13.  The Supreme Court held hearings on 14 February, 25 April and 27 June 1997.\n14.  In 1997 the judicial system in Bulgaria was reformed. As a result, the applicant’s case fell within the jurisdiction of the newly created appellate courts. On 1 April 1998 it was assigned to the Veliko Tarnovo Appellate Court and the file transmitted to that newly created court.\n15.  The Appellate Court held hearings on 11 January and 8 February 1999.\n16.  On 9 February 1999 the court set aside the Regional Court’s judgment noting that two of the accused persons had been represented at the preliminary investigation stage by the same lawyer despite an obvious conflict of interest. In the court’s view, that fact vitiated the whole procedure and warranted remitting the case to the investigation stage.\n17.  On 5 August 1999 an investigator reformulated the charges against the applicant.\n18.  On 23 September 1999 a fresh indictment was submitted to the Regional Court.\n19.  On 5 January 2000 the Regional Court remitted the case to the investigation stage.\n20.  On 2 May 2000 a third indictment was drawn up and submitted to the Veliko Tarnovo Regional Court. As all but one of the judges at that court had been involved in the examination of the case or had decided on the accused persons’ applications for bail, in June 2000 the case was assigned to another court, the Lovech Regional Court.\n21.  A substitute judge and substitute jurors were designated and took part in the proceedings before the Lovech Regional Court.\n22.  The court held a hearing on 11 December 2000. It ordered a medical report and adjourned the examination of the case.\n23.  Between December 2000 and November 2005 the Lovech Regional Court fixed thirty-two dates for hearings: 12 February, 9 April, 10 September and 29 November 2001, 21 February, 15 April, 14 June, 1 October, 1 November and 11 November 2002, 14 January, 31 January, 14 March, 28 March, 20 May, 26 September and 18 December 2003, 20 February, 5 March, 30 April, 14 May, 28 May, 2 July, 15 July, 1 October, 29 October and 3 December 2004, 25 February, 18 March, 29 April, 30 May and 9 September 2005.\n24.  On each of those dates approximately fifteen to twenty-five of the persons summoned appeared before the Lovech Regional Court, including most accused persons and their lawyers. The applicant, who was in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1605", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in İstanbul.\n5.  On 14 December 1995 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration Office (Kocaeli İl Özel İdare Müdürlüğü) expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot and the relevant amount was paid to her when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 20 February 1998 the Gebze Civil Court of First-instance awarded her an additional compensation of 3,189,159,368 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision.\n7.  On 24 November 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.\n8.  On 2 March 1999 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s request for rectification.\n9.  On 6 October 1999 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration paid the amount of TRL 7,049,472,900 to the applicant, interest included.\n10.  On 13 September 1999 the applicant lodged an application with the Court.\n11.  After the application was communicated to the Government, the applicant was requested to submit her observations on the merits of the case and also her just satisfaction claims until 9 September 2004. However, she failed to submit her observations within the required time-limit. She did not request any extension of time, either.\n12.  By registered letter of 29 May 2005 the applicant was informed that the Court had not received her observations and just satisfaction claims and that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.\n13.  On 7 June 2005 the applicant submitted her observations on the merits of the case. However, she failed to submit her claims for just satisfaction.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1606", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants Ms Layihe Biç, Mr Resul Biç, Ms Zehra Biç and Ms Hamdiye Biç, were born in 1962, 1982, 1984 and 1993 respectively and live in the village of Yukarıharım, attached to the province of Diyarbakır.\n9.  On 13 October 1993 İhsan Biç was arrested by security forces in Bismil on suspicion of having participated in an attack on a military convoy, organised by the PKK. In his statement to the gendarmes, he confessed to being a member of the PKK and having participated in the attack against the military convoy.\n10.  On 8 November 1993 İhsan Biç was brought before the public prosecutor. The same day he was brought before the investigating judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, who subsequently ordered his detention on remand. İhsan Biç was accordingly sent to Batman prison.\n11.  On 1 December 1993 the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against İhsan Biç in the Diyarbakır State Security Court. In his indictment, he accused him of membership of an illegal organisation, of aiding and abetting the members of this organisation and of having participated in an attack that had been aimed against the security forces. He asked the court to sentence him under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  On 19 September 1995 the Diyarbakır State Security Court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove that İhsan Biç had taken part in any armed attack, but found him guilty of membership of an illegal organisation. He was accordingly sentenced to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The court further ordered his transfer to the Diyarbakır Prison.\n13.  On 25 September 1995 İhsan Biç appealed.\n14.  On 2 October 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the State Security Court and sent the case file back for re-examination.\n15.  The proceedings recommenced before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. The first-instance court decided to keep İhsan Biç in detention on remand during the course of the trials. While the proceedings continued, İhsan Biç was twice operated upon a stomach complaint. At a later date, he was also diagnosed with hepatitis B and subsequently died in the hospital on 9 October 1999 due to liver cirrhosis.\n16.  The Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against İhsan Biç after his death.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1608", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 10 June 1996 the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office, acting pursuant to a report from the state financial control authorities, which had audited a company whose chairperson the applicant had been, and reports by the economic police and by the company’s trustee in bankruptcy, decided to open criminal proceedings against the applicant. At that time the applicant was living in the United States of America, where he had arrived on 30 October 1995.\n10.  On 20 June 1996 the applicant was charged in his absence with misappropriation of funds in large amounts, contrary to Article 203 § 1 in conjunction with Article 201 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”)(see paragraph 69 below). It was alleged that in March 1994, when he had been the chairperson of the board of directors of the above‑mentioned company, he had misappropriated 792,000 Swiss francs. Reasoning that the applicant was accused of a “serious” offence (see paragraph 73 below) and that he had gone into hiding, the investigator in charge of the case decided that, once apprehended, the applicant should be placed in pre‑trial detention. This decision was approved by the prosecutor in charge of the case.\n11.  The applicant averred that, after having been notified by relatives that the Bulgarian media were circulating information that criminal proceedings had been opened against him and that he was wanted by the authorities, and after reading copies of newspapers brought by his wife in October 1996, he decided to return to Bulgaria.\n12.  The applicant arrived at Sofia airport on 25 October 1996 and was immediately arrested, questioned and brought to the detention centre at the Plovdiv Regional Investigation Service.\n13.  The following day, 26 October 1996, the applicant was apprised of the charges against him by an investigator and was questioned. The investigator confirmed the order for his detention pending trial.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s lawyer requested the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office to release the applicant, arguing that there was not enough evidence to prove that the applicant had committed an offence.\n15.  The Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office denied the request in a decision of 21 February 1997. It reasoned that, since the applicant had been charged with a serious intentional offence, he had to remain in custody, as mandated by Article 152 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”)(see paragraphs 72‑75 below). The exception provided for by paragraph 2 of that Article was not applicable, because the applicant could jeopardise the investigation in view of the number of impending investigative steps. The issues whether there was enough evidence to sustain the charges against the applicant and whether the applicant had committed other offences would arise after the conclusion of the investigation.\n16.  The applicant’s lawyer appealed to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office, contending that there was no risk of the applicant absconding, committing an offence, or jeopardising the investigation. In particular, the applicant had returned from abroad of his own accord, despite the fact that he had known that a criminal investigation had been pending against him.\n17.  The Chief Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the appeal in a decision of 3 April 1997. It reasoned that in view of the rule of Article 152 § 1 of the CCrP the applicant had to remain in custody. There was nothing to indicate that the applicant came within the exception provided for in paragraph 2 o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1609", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Obninsk in the Kaluga Region.\n5.  In 1987 the applicant took part in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. Since 1994, when the link was established between his disability and his involvement in the Chernobyl events, the applicant has been in receipt of monthly health damage compensation. He brought proceedings against the Obninsk town pension authority to challenge the amount of the compensation.\n6.  On 20 January 2000 the Obninsk Town Court of the Kaluga Region (“the Town Court”) granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the pension authority to make monthly compensation payments of 3,161.19 Russian roubles (RUR) and pay him the outstanding compensation in the amount of RUR 20,082.86.\n7.  The judgment was upheld by the Kaluga Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) and came into force on 6 April 2000.\n8.  On 7 June 2000 the Town Court issued two writs of execution, for the monthly compensation and the arrears. On 8 June 2000 the bailiffs brought enforcement proceedings against the pension authority in this respect. By decisions of 25 July and 25 November 2000 the bailiffs forwarded the execution writs to the Obninsk Town Department of the Federal Treasury as an authority responsible for the enforcement and discontinued the enforcement proceedings.\n9.  Following the applicant’s request, on 2 October 2000 the Town Court clarified that the enforcement of the judgment should be made at the expense of the federal budget.\n10.  On 4 April 2001 the Town Department of the Federal Treasury returned both writs to the applicant without enforcement. They stated, in particular, that under the legislation in force execution writs issued against the Federal Treasury should be submitted directly to the Ministry of Finance.\n11.  Following the applicant’s request, on 1 June 2001 the Town Court clarified that the monthly compensation payments awarded by the judgment of 20 January 2000 should be paid with subsequent indexation based on the statutory minimum wage.\n12.  On 24 July 2001 the applicant applied to the Ministry of Finance for the enforcement of the judgment.\n13.  The outstanding compensation of RUR 20,082.86 was paid to the applicant on 22 April 2002, two years and sixteen days after the entry into force of the judgment. As regards the monthly compensation, in 2000 it was paid monthly in the amount of RUR 292.22; the arrears of RUR 31558.67 were paid by a single instalment on 30 October 2002. In 2001, 2002 and the first half of 2003 the amount of the monthly payments was RUR 350. The amount of RUR 33734.28 was transferred to the applicant’s bank account on 16 December 2002 to pay off the arrears for 2001. The arrears for 2002 in the same amount were paid on 9 April 2003.\n14.  According to the Government’s information, on 19 February 2003, following the prosecutor’s application, the Presidium of the Kaluga Regional Court quashed the ruling of the Town Court of 1 June 2001 in which the latter clarified the judgment of 20 January 2000. Following a fresh action brought by the applicant, on 17 April 2003 the Town Court found that the amount of the compensation established in its judgment of 20 January 2001 should have been increased as the relevant legislation required that it was subject to indexation based on the statutory minimum wage in 2001 and on the statutory living wage in 2002. It ordered the Obninsk Social Security Service to pay the applicant the health damag", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1610", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Mersin.\n5.  The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü), a State body responsible, inter alia, for motorway construction, expropriated four plots of land belonging to the applicant in İçel in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the sum so fixed was paid to him when the expropriation took place.\n6.  On 26 December 1995 the applicant requested increased compensation. Accordingly, on 13 November 1996 the Mersin Civil Court of First Instance awarded him additional compensation of 4,500,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 35,976 euros (EUR)), plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 26 December 1995.\n7.  On 2 February 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 13 November 1996.\n8.  On 13 April 1998 the administration paid the applicant TRL 8,475,906,000 (approximately EUR 31,684) in additional compensation, together with interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1611", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Mokroluh.\n5. On 28 August 1990 the applicant and his wife filed an action with the Bardejov District Court. They claimed that the defendant should be prohibited from entering the plots of land in their ownership and from interfering with their right to peacefully enjoy that property. They also requested that an interim measure should be issued. In the action, the plaintiffs stated, inter alia, that one of the relevant plots had been expropriated from them by the Bardejov National Committee decision of 29 June 1990 which, however, had not yet become final as the appellate proceedings in this respect were still pending.\n6.  On 27 April 1991 the court asked the defendant to submit comments on the action. It reiterated the request on 10 May 1991. On 19 December 1991 the court invited the applicant to specify the relevant plots of land.\n7.  On 18 September 1992 the court held a hearing where it requested the applicant to rectify shortcomings in the action and to submit relevant documents. On 24 September 1992 the applicant submitted his amended action to the court.\n8.  On 28 September 1992 and on 17 November 1992 respectively the court sent by registered mail the amended action to the defendant for comments. The delivery of the letter failed twice as the defendant was not present at his domicile.\n9.  On 28 September 1992 the court asked an administrative authority to inform it about expropriation proceedings concerning one of the plots of land. On 30 November 1992 the administrative authority submitted a decision indicating that the appeal of the applicant and of his wife against the expropriation decision had been dismissed on 23 November 1990. The decision on expropriation of the plot of land had thus become final.\n10.  At a hearing held on 10 December 1992 the applicant challenged the District Court judge. On 27 January 1993 the Košice Regional Court refused to exclude the judge from hearing the case.\n11.  The court held hearings on 22 February 1993 and on 5 March 1993. On the latter date, the applicant withdrew his request for an interim measure and modified the action in that he claimed that the defendant and his wife should allow him to pass across plots of land.\n12.  On 1 April 1993 the court appointed an expert. The parties paid an advance on costs of the expert examination.\n13.  On 24 May 1993 the District Court rejected the action with respect to the applicant’s wife and discontinued the proceedings on the applicant’s claim. The court also quashed the decision of 1 April 1993 on the appointment of an expert. The applicant appealed on 18 June 1993. The case file was submitted to the court of appeal on 2 August 1993.\n14.  On 14 September 1993 the Košice Regional Court quashed the District Court decision and remitted the case to the first instance court.\n15.  At a hearing held on 8 February 1994 the District Court judge considered one of the defendant’s statements as a challenge to his impartiality and submitted the case to the Košice Regional Court. On 25 March 1994 the Regional Court held that by the statement in issue the defendant had not challenged the judge and returned the case file to the District Court.\n16.  The District Court held hearings on 20 May 1994, on 12 September 1994 and on 31 October 1994. On the last mentioned date the applicant submitted an additional claim for restoration of a plot of land. On the same date the District Court granted the request of the advocate, ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1612", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Mersin.\n5.  The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü), a State body responsible, inter alia, for motorway construction, expropriated four plots of land belonging to the applicant in İçel in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the sum so fixed was paid to her when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 31 December 1993 the Mersin Civil Court of First Instance awarded her additional compensation of 238,172,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 14,341 euros (EUR)), plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 22 June 1993.\n7.  On 15 December 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 31 December 1993.\n8.  On 21 April 1998 the administration paid the applicant TRL 651,598,000 (approximately EUR 2,391) in additional compensation, together with interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1613", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Mersin.\nThe General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü), a State body responsible, inter alia, for motorway construction, expropriated four plots of land belonging to the applicant in İçel in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the sum so fixed was paid to him when the expropriation took place.\n5.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 22 February 1995 the Mersin Civil Court of First Instance awarded him additional compensation of 204,787,320 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 3,900 euros (EUR)), plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 14 December 1993.\n6.  On 16 December 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 22 February 1995.\n7.  On 16 April 1998 the administration paid the applicant TRL 545,269,000 (approximately EUR 2,020) in additional compensation, together with interest.\n8.  On 21 January 1998 the decision of the Court of Cassation was served on the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1614", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1937, 1921, 1963, 1929, 1945, 1926, 1943, 1948 and 1950 respectively and live in Gebze.\n5.  In 1996 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration Office (Kocaeli İl Özel İdare Müdürlüğü) expropriated nineteen plots of land belonging to the applicants. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriation took place.\n6.  On 5 November 1996 the applicants brought three separate actions for compensation before the Gebze Civil Court of First-instance.\n7.  In order to assess the real value of the land, the court ordered on-site inspections and expert reports. Primarily, the experts worked on the classification of the plots since the value of urbanised land (arsa) was higher than rural land (arazi). In this context, the experts observed that the plots were not reserved for habitation under any urban plan (imar planı) of the Municipality or the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement; they were not situated within residential areas; and there was no annotation in the land registry that these plots were to be used for tourism purposes. Instead, the plots were classified as “fields” in the Land Registry. As a result of the on-site inspections and their findings, the experts decided that the plots should be classified as rural land. They therefore calculated the value of the plots on that basis.\n8.  In their written submissions the applicants contested the expert reports. They submitted an expert report dated 5 March 1998 which concluded that the land in question should have been considered urbanised.\n9.  After taking into consideration three expert reports for each case, the Gebze Civil Court of First-instance rejected the applicants’ objections in respect of the nature of the land.\n10.  On 15 September 1998, 13 March 1998 and 4 May 1998, the court issued three decisions and awarded the applicants the below-mentioned amounts:\n \nSETS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST-INSTANCE COURT\n \nDATES OF DECISIONS\nAWARDED AMOUNTS\n(In Turkish liras)\n \nFIRST SET OF PROCEEDINGS\n11.  On 2 March 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld these decisions.\n12.  On 14 May 1999 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ requests for rectification.\n13.  Three sets of enforcement proceedings were initiated before the Execution Offices.\n14.  At the end of the enforcement proceedings, the amounts indicated below were paid to the applicants by the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration Office on the dates mentioned:\n \nSETS OF EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE\n \nDATES OF PAYMENT\nAMOUNT OF PAYMENTS\n(In Turkish liras)\n \nFIRST SET OF EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1616", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Marsascala (Malta).\n8.  On 13 June 1996 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Water Services Corporation, against the Director of the Drainage Department in the Ministry of the Environment and against the Minister of the Environment. He complained about the infiltration of foul liquid in several of his properties, allegedly due to the seepage of sewage from the Government drainage system and asked for compensation.\n9.  Thirty-three hearings took place before the Civil Court. A number of witnesses were examined and an expert report was prepared. Thirteen hearings were adjourned by reason of the defendants’ absence.\n10.  In a judgment of 5 July 2000, the Civil Court found in favour of the applicant. It held that the Minister of the Environment was not liable and declared that the two other defendants were responsible for the damage suffered by the applicant. It therefore awarded him 5,649.92 liri (Lm – approximately 13,559 euros, “EUR”) for damages and a sum for reimbursement of all the legal costs of the case.\n11.  On 25 July 2000 the Water Services Corporation and the Director of the Drainage Department appealed against the judgment of 5 July 2000.\n12.  On 31 July 2002 the applicant requested that his case be dealt with and decided within a short time.\n13.  By a decree of 28 August 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered that the case be fixed for hearing according to law.\n14.  On 15 October 2002, the hearing was fixed for 10 December 2002. An application for postponement presented by the Director of the Drainage Department on the ground of the absence of his lawyer was rejected.\n15.  On 10 December 2002 the parties presented their pleadings and the case was left for judgment to be delivered on 25 April 2003.\n16.  In a judgment of 8 May 2003, the Court of Appeal confirmed the first‑instance decision. Observing that the first court had correctly concluded that the applicant had summoned the Minister of the Environment without good reason, the Court of Appeal decided that the legal expenses incurred by the Minister should be borne by the applicant.\n17.  Meanwhile, on 1 October 2002, the applicant had filed a constitutional complaint before the Civil Court (First Hall). He alleged that as the appeal against the judgment of 5 July 2000 had not been decided, his right to a hearing within a reasonable time, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and by Article 39(1) of the Constitution of Malta, had been violated.\n18.  By a judgment of 29 April 2003, the Civil Court upheld the applicant’s claim and awarded him compensation of Lm 500 (approximately EUR 1,200).\n19.  The Civil Court noted that the delay in fixing the hearing before the Court of Appeal was due to the workload of the domestic courts. Now, the State had the duty of organising its judicial system in such a way that the courts could comply with the requirements established in Article 6 of the Convention.\n20.  Moreover, according to Article 152(1) of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta, as in force at the relevant time, the Registrar had the duty to list an appeal for hearing not later than six months after the filing of the appeal. However, in the applicant’s case the date of the hearing had been fixed for 10 December 2002, and this had happened only after the applicant had filed two submissions in which he complained about the undue delay. As a principal rule of procedure had been breached and no fault could be imputed to the ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1617", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the Novolobinskaya village, Krasnodar Region.\n6.  In 1992 the applicant was convicted of theft and sentenced to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Following the revision of his criminal case by way of supervisory review in 1995, his sentence was reduced. However, this decision was erroneously sent to the prison administration with a considerable delay. As a result, the applicant was released eight months later than provided by the court decision.\n7.  In September 1996 the applicant brought civil proceedings claiming damages in this respect. On 14 September 1998 the Krasnoarmeyskiy Town Court of the Saratov Region awarded the applicant 1,000 Roubles, to be paid by the Ministry of Finances of Russia. The parties did not appeal and this judgment became final.\n8.  The Krasnoarmeyskiy Town Court issued an execution order and on 23 October 1998 (or, according to the Government, on 20 October 1998) it was forwarded to the Kirovskiy District Court of Saratov. On 26 October the Kirovskiy District Court received the execution order. On the same day the execution order was forwarded to the court bailiffs for execution. However, it never reached the bailiffs.\n9.  The applicant asserted that in the following years he requested the Kirovskiy District Court of Saratov and the bailiffs’ service to resume the enforcement proceedings. In reply to one of his letters, on 16 April 2001 the Saratov Region Chief Bailiff advised the applicant to file a request to the Krasnoarmeyskiy District Court with a view to obtain a duplicata of the execution order. However, as the Government suggested, he did not do so.\n10.  On 20 October 2004 the Krasnoarmeyskiy District Court of the Saratov Region issued a duplicata of the execution order. It is unclear whether the court did it on its own motion or upon the applicant’s initiative. In December 2004 it was forwarded to the Ministry of Finance, with a copy to the applicant. In a cover letter of 6 December 2004 the District Court noted that the parties had been duly notified about the hearing but failed to appear. The Court also drew the applicant’s attention to the fact that he should provide the Ministry of Finance with his bank account details.\n11.  It appears that the judgment of 14 September 1998 remains unenforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1618", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Ukhta in the Republic of Komi.\n5.  In March 1995 the applicant was charged with murder and an obligation not to leave the place of her residence without permission was imposed on her as a preventive measure. During the subsequent criminal investigation she was detained on remand from 24 May 1995 to 29 May 1996. On the latter date an obligation not to leave the place of her residence without permission was again imposed on her. In January 1997 she was convicted of murder and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. The sentence was considered to have been served in view of the applicant’s detention on remand. In June 1997, on appeal, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi found that the applicant had not committed the crime as she had acted in self-defence. It quashed the judgment and discontinued the criminal proceedings.\n6.  On 28 January 2002 the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, claiming non-pecuniary damages caused by her unlawful prosecution, detention and conviction. On 15 February 2002 the Ukhta Town Court held that the applicant was entitled to compensation on account of her unlawful prosecution, detention and conviction. It found, inter alia, that the applicant had never been prosecuted earlier, that she had a minor child at the time, that her deprivation of liberty had involved stress and sufferings, that her health had deteriorated as a result of her stay in the detention facility and that she had had no liberty of movement and freedom to choose her residence for a long time. It allowed her claim in part and awarded her 70,000 Russian roubles (RUR) for non‑pecuniary damage at the expense of the Federal Treasury. The parties appealed. On 28 March 2002 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi upheld the judgment which came into force on the same day.\n7.  On 4 April 2002 the Town Court sent an execution writ to the applicant. On 22 April 2002 the applicant submitted it, together with supporting documents, to the Ukhta town department of the Federal Treasury of the Ministry of Finance. On 24 April 2002 the latter forwarded the documents to the Republic Komi department of the Federal Treasury of the Ministry of Finance which, in its turn, on 26 April 2002 forwarded the documents to the Ministry of Finance which received them on 7 May 2002.\n8.  In December 2002 and in April 2003 the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment to the Minister of Finance and to other authorities.\n9.  On 6 May 2003 the Federal Treasury transferred RUR 70,000 to the Republic Komi department of the Federal Treasury for the enforcement of the judgment. On 14 May 2003 the latter transferred RUR 70,000 to the applicant’s bank account. The amount was credited to the applicant’s account on 16 May 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1619", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant party, the Christian Democratic People's Party (“the CDPP”), is a parliamentary political party in the Republic of Moldova which was in opposition at the time of the events.\n9.  Towards the end of 2001, the Moldovan government made public its intention to make the study of the Russian language compulsory in schools for children aged seven and over.\n10.  This initiative prompted vehement criticism from the opposition and generated a heated public debate.\n11.  On 26 December 2001 the parliamentary group of the CDPP informed Chişinău Municipal Council of its intention to hold a meeting with its supporters on 9 January 2002, in Great National Assembly Square, in front of the government buildings. It stated that the meeting would relate to the introduction of the compulsory study of Russian in schools. It relied on section 22 of the Status of Members of Parliament Act (see paragraph 35 below) which, according to the CDPP, did not require members of parliament to obtain prior authorisation for meetings with their supporters.\n12.  By a decision of 3 January 2002, the Municipal Council classified the gathering to be held on 9 January 2002 as a “demonstration” within the meaning of sections 4, 8, 12 and 13 of the Assemblies Act (see paragraph 36 below) and authorised the parliamentary group of the CDPP to hold it in National Opera Square. It did not give any reasons for the change of location.\n13.  Later, on 23 January 2002, the Municipal Council addressed a letter to the Ministry of Justice, informing it that there was a discrepancy between the provisions of the Status of Members of Parliament Act and those of the Assemblies Act and that it did not know which to apply. It stated, inter alia, that a number of reputable lawyers supported the idea that the CDPP members of parliament had the right to hold meetings with their supporters in Great National Assembly Square without obtaining prior authorisation, in accordance with the provisions of sections 22 and 23 of the Status of Members of Parliament Act. It cited in that respect the opinion of an ombudsman who considered that, since section 23 of the Status of Members of Parliament Act proclaimed the right of MPs to raise demands on the spot for action to remedy a breach of the law, the CDPP members of parliament were entitled to raise their demands for the cessation of the alleged breaches concerning the introduction of compulsory Russian lessons in front of the government building, as it also housed the Ministry of Education. Accordingly, the Municipal Council requested the Ministry of Justice to ask Parliament for an official interpretation of the legislation in question.\n14.  On 26 January 2002 the Municipal Council issued a decision which stated, inter alia:\n“Having regard to the fact that the provisions of the domestic legislation are contradictory in respect of the demonstrations organised by the CDPP and that the opinions of legal experts are contradictory, and bearing in mind the considerable social impact of a possible decision regarding the matter and the consequences it might entail, the Municipal Council has formally requested the Ministry of Justice to ask Parliament for an official and urgent interpretation of the relevant legislation. ... The Municipal Council's decision of 3 January 2002 is hereby suspended until Parliament has given its official interpretation.”\n15.  In the meantime, on 9 January 2002, the parliamentary group of the CDPP held a gathering in Grea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1620", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.   The applicant lives in Frýdlant v Čechách.\n5.  On 21 November 1988 the applicant, having been divorced on 27 June 1988, lodged an action with the Liberec District Court (okresní soud) for the separation of the matrimonial property.\n6.  On 13 January and 13 February 1989 the court held two hearings. On 28 April and 8 June 1989 it appointed two experts with a view to evaluating real estate, antiques and jewellery. Subsequent hearings were held on 13 December 1989, 29 November 1990 and 5 March 1991. In the meantime, the expert in real estate delivered his opinion. Another hearing was scheduled for 28 June 1991.\n7.  On 15 March 1992 a new expert opinion concerning the real estate was submitted to the court, which had appointed another expert in antiques and jewellery.\n8.  On 20 August 1993 the District Court ordered a new expert opinion concerning the real estate. The expert submitted his report on 6 September 1993.\n9.  On 4 January 1994 the case was transmitted to another judge at the District Court.\n10.  Two hearings were held on 19 May and 9 June 1999. The parties expressed their wish to reach a friendly settlement. The last hearing was therefore adjourned sine die.\n11.  As the parties had not informed the court about a friendly settlement, a hearing was held on 7 February 2002. It was adjourned in order to evaluate the antiques and jewellery claim. Moreover, the applicant was invited to submit the address of a witness she had suggested be heard.\n12.  On 4 October 2002 the court appointed a new expert in real estate. The expert submitted his opinion in February 2003.\n13.  On 31 October 2002 and 29 April 2003, the District Court held hearings. The applicant did not attend the last hearing, being in the United States of America. The court therefore adjourned the hearing sine die.\n14.  On 17 July 2003 the applicant’s lawyer informed the court that her client had returned to the Czech Republic and that a friendly settlement of the case was not excluded. On 3 September 2003 she informed the court of the continuation of the dispute. On 16 October 2003 the applicant notified the court that she would be abroad until December 2003.\n15.  A hearing scheduled for 4 May 2004 was adjourned at the request of the applicant’s lawyer until 18 May 2004. At this hearing, the defendant challenged the judge for bias. On 15 July 2004 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (krajský soud) decided that the judge was not biased, and remitted the case to the District Court.\n16.  A hearing scheduled for 2 November 2004 was adjourned, the defendant being ill.\n17.  A hearing held on 25 January 2005 was adjourned sine die, the parties not agreeing on the value of the antiques and jewellery. The court requested the Czech Insurance and Police Office to submit written opinions as the defendant claimed that certain antiques had been stolen in 1995.\n18.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending at first instance.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1621", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Prešov.\n9.  The applicant worked in the State administration of the school system. He occupied a leading post that fell within the purview of section 1 of Act No. 451/1991 Coll. (“the Lustration Act”) which defined some supplementary requirements for holding certain posts in public administration.\n10.  In January 1992 the applicant’s employer requested, pursuant to section 6 of the Lustration Act, that the Ministry of the Interior of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (“the Federal Ministry”) issue a clearance (lustračné osvedčenie) concerning the applicant under section 9 of the Lustration Act (see below).\n11.  On 19 March 1992 the Federal Ministry issued a negative security clearance. It stated that it was based on section 9 (1) of the Lustration Act and certified that the applicant “[was] registered as a person referred to in section 2 (1) (b) of the Lustration Act”. This provision defined six categories of collaborators of the [former] State Security Agency (Štátna bezpečnosť, “StB”) who, if registered as such in the StB’s files in the period from 25 February 1948 to 17 November 1989, were disqualified from holding certain posts in public administration. The document was served on the applicant on 26 March 1992.\n12.  The applicant resigned from his post. In 1994 he left his employer completely, having felt compelled to do so. Since then the applicant has been commuting to work in a location remote from his place of residence.\n13.  The information about who was registered in the StB files in the categories referred to in section 2 (1) (b) of the Lustration Act has been made public in newspapers and, unofficially as well as officially, on the internet.\n14.  On 25 May 1992 the applicant lodged an action against the Federal Ministry for protection of his good name and reputation under Article 11 et seq. of the Civil Code with the Prague (the Czech Republic) City Court (Městský soud). He claimed that his registration as a collaborator of the StB was wrongful and unjustified. He requested that the Federal Ministry issue a new clearance to the effect that he was not registered as a person referred to in section 2 (1) (b) of the Lustration Act.\n15.  The City Court subsequently sent a copy of the action to the defendant, invited the applicant to pay the court fee and listed a hearing for 6 August 1992.\n16.  On 23 July 1992 the applicant filed a request under Article 12 §§ 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a transfer of his action to the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd). On 29 July 1992 he demanded that the hearing scheduled for 6 August 1992 be cancelled in view of his request for transfer of the action.\n17.  On 7 August 1992, after the applicant had paid the court fee, the City Court sent a copy of the request of 23 July 1992 to the defendant for comments. On 23 September 1992 the latter objected to the transfer.\n18.  On 24 September 1992 the City Court submitted the case file to the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic for a determination as to which court was to entertain the action at first instance.\n19.  On 4 November 1992 the Supreme Court ruled that the action fell to be determined by the Regional Court. The case file was sent to it on 13 November 1992.\n20.  On 16 November 1992 the Regional Court requested the defendant’s observations in reply. In a letter of 25 November 1992 the defendant replied that it had already filed its observations ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1622", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1959 respectively and live in Bratislava.\n5.  The applicants own a residential house. Two flats in the house are occupied under a lease by families P. and S. respectively. The applicants sought a judicial ruling pursuant to Article 711 § 1 of the Civil Code authorising the termination of the leases.\n6.  On 27 May and 16 December 1993, respectively, the termination of the leases was authorised by the Bratislava I District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd) and, on appeal, by the Bratislava Regional Court (then Mestský súd, at present Krajský súd). The leases were to expire three months after the month in which the ruling became final and binding. Under Article 711 § 2 of the Civil Code the defendants were entitled to “alternative accommodation” and were ordered to vacate the flats at issue within 15 days after such accommodation was provided to them.\n7.  The judgment terminating the leases became final and binding on 12 March 1994. Consequently, the leases expired on 30 June 1994.\n8.  On 6 July and 31 October 1994 the applicants applied to the District Court for enforcement of the judgment under the general provisions of the Code of the Civil Procedure against, respectively, family S. and family P.\n9.  On 7 November 1995 the applicants restated their application. They argued that the defendants had refused to accept the flats where the applicants were currently living as the alternative accommodation to which they were entitled.\n10.  On 5 December 1995 the District Court issued two separate warrants for enforcement. The first warrant was issued in favour of the first applicant against family S. and authorised the moving of S. to the first applicant’s current flat. The second warrant was issued in favour of the second applicant and authorised the moving of P. to her current flat.\n11.  On 19 December 1995 the defendants challenged the warrants by appeals to the Regional Court arguing that the alternative accommodation offered to them by the applicants was not adequate.\n12.  In February and May 1996, respectively, the District Court repeatedly invited the applicants to submit documentary evidence.\n13.  In October 1996 the defendants challenged the Regional Court judges involved in the determination of their appeals for bias. In December 1996 the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge.\n14.  On 27 March 1997 the Regional Court quashed the warrants of 5 December 1995 finding that the District Court had failed to examine the defendants’ objections as to the adequacy of the alternative accommodation. The matter was remitted to the District Court for a new determination.\n15.  On 12 November 1997 the Environment Department (odbor životného prostredia) of the Bratislava I District Office (Okresný úrad) ordered that the applicants carry out maintenance work on the roof of the house.\n16.  On 4 December 1997 the District Court issued new warrants against S. and P. respectively. It formally ordered the enforcement. However, it left the determination of the practical modalities of the enforcement for later, once the applicants had secured adequate alternative accommodation for S. and P. The applicants’ appeal against the warrants was unsuccessful.\n17.  On 28 January 1999 the District Office imposed a fine of 2,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK)[1] on the first applicant on the ground that she had failed to comply with the order of 12 November 1997.\n18.  In October 1999 the District Court invited the applica", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1623", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Litomyšl.\n5.  On 25 May 1998 the applicant brought proceedings against C. seeking restitution of a lorry or, alternatively, the payment of compensation.\n6.  On 19 June 1998 the Blansko District Court (okresní soud) invited the applicant to pay court fees. On 24 June 1998 the applicant requested to be exempted from court fees. On 10 September 1998 he informed the court that he did not receive welfare benefits. On 16 December 1998 the court granted the applicant’s request.\n7.  In the meantime, on 7 October 1998, the court had received the applicant’s request for an interim measure.\n8.  On 18 February 1999 the court invited the applicant to clarify his action. Having received this invitation on 12 March 1999, the applicant replied on 18 March 1999.\n9.  On 18 May 1999 the court asked the Svitavy District Police Directorate (okresní ředitelství policie) to verify the identification data of the lorry concerned. The court received this information on 24 May 1999.\n10. According to the Government, the applicant did not attend, without an excuse, a hearing held on 27 May 1999 which was then adjourned sine die. The applicant submits that his legal representative was present at the hearing, together with his ex-wife who was ready to be heard as a witness and that, actually, it was the defendant who did not attend the hearing.\n11.  On 30 June 1999 the District Court discontinued the proceedings for an interim measure sought by the applicant. On 16 September 1999 the latter appealed to the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) which, on 24 October 2000, quashed this decision and remitted the case to the District Court, which decided in the applicant’s favour on 22 November 2000.\n12.  On 15 January 2001 the applicant modified his action, claiming CZK 140,000 (EUR 4,667) should C. could not return the lorry.\n13.  After a hearing on 30 January 2001, the District Court delivered a judgment in which it ordered C. to pay this sum together with the court fees. On 14 March 2001 C. appealed requesting, at the same time, to be exempted from court fees. On 27 July 2001 the District Court granted his request and, on 14 September 2001, sent the case file to the Regional Court which, on 24 November 2003, modified the first instance judgment, ordering C. to pay CZK 28,000 (EUR 966) to the applicant.\n14.  On 11 May 2004 the latter filed an appeal on points of law (dovolání) with the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) where, it seems, the proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1624", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Bismil. The application concerns the disappearance of the applicant’s son, Mehmet Şah Şeker, who was 23 years old at the time of the events giving rise to the application. The facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicant’s son are disputed between the parties.\n9.  On 9 October 1999 at around 6 p.m. the applicant’s son, Mehmet Şah Şeker, left his workplace in Bismil, where he was working as a plumber, to return home. The journey on foot usually took around ten minutes. However, he never arrived home. The route took Mehmet Şah Şeker through a central part of town, past the police headquarters, the Council building, the Governor’s residence and other Government buildings.\n10.  On 12 October 1999 the applicant was informed by two people that they had seen four persons forcing someone into a white car on or around 9 October 1999. He believed that the latter was his son.\n11.  Between 11 October 1999 and 5 November 1999 the applicant filed numerous petitions with the public prosecutor’s offices in Bismil, in Diyarbakır, at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, the governor’s office of the state of emergency region and the regional gendarme command in Diyarbakır, the Human Rights Commission of the Turkish Grand National Assembly and the Ministry of the Interior. He requested that the authorities carry out an investigation into the disappearance of Mehmet Şah Şeker and that he be informed of his son’s whereabouts.\n12.  In 2000 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court contacted the applicant and requested him to give a blood sample in order to compare his DNA with that of corpses found in houses of Hizbullah members. The applicant did so on 21 February 2000.\n13.  On 14 October 2004 he was informed by the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that a DNA analysis could not be carried out as there was insufficient DNA in the bones of the corpses.\n14.  In March 2005 one of the applicant’s legal advisers informed the applicant that he had seen a copy of the university identity card of Mehmet Şah Şeker in the file of the case brought against the leaders of the Hizbullah before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. The applicant subsequently requested the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court to provide him with this document. The public prosecutor however was unable to find it in the case file.\n15.  On 11 October 1999, after having received the applicant’s petition, the Bismil public prosecutor requested the Bismil Security Directorate to examine the allegations.\n16.  Following this request, two police officers from the Bismil Security Directorate took statements from the applicant, the employer and two colleagues of Mehmet Şah Şeker.\n17.  On 20 October 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor initiated an investigation following the receipt of the applicant’s petition. The public prosecutor took statements from the applicant concerning the disappearance of his son. He also contacted the Diyarbakır Security Directorate and requested an investigation into the disappearance.\n18.  On different dates in 1999 and 2000, the Security Directorates in Bismil and Diyarbakır informed the public prosecutor’s office that Mehmet Şah Şeker had not been taken into custody and that the search was continuing.\n19. On 7 July 2000 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor declined jurisdiction ratione loci, holding that the events in question occurred in Bismil, and sent the case file to the Bismil pub", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1625", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Prague.\n5.  On 25 March 1992 the applicant’s brother brought restitution proceedings before the Brno Municipal Court (městský soud) against the Brno I Housing Association (podnik bytového hospodářství).\n6.  Between 2 November 1992 and 4 January 1995, the court and the parties to the proceedings took a number of procedural steps, including a query by the court on 7 December 1994 regarding a possible settlement, to which the defendant replied on 4 January 1995.\n7.  On 6 June 1995 the applicant requested the court to be added to the proceedings as a second claimant. His request was granted at a hearing held on 8 August 1995, which was then adjourned sine die, the claimants being requested to complete, within one month, their action.\n8.  On 10 May 1996 the claimants were urged to supplement their action.\n9.  On 16 December 1996 the court granted the claimants’ request that two other defendants be added to the proceedings. At the same time, it invited the claimants to present documentary evidence.\n10.  On 19 February 1997 the court dismissed one of the defendants’ appeals of 16 January 1997 against the previous decision. On 19 May 1997 it requested that evidence suggested by the applicant be adduced.\n11.  A hearing held on 4 September 1997 was adjourned until 14 October 1997. However, on 7 October 1997 it was again adjourned sine die, the plaintiffs’ submissions and claims still being unclear.\n12.  A hearing held on 3 March 1998 was adjourned in order to complete the evidence. On 1 April 1998 the applicant adduced further documents in evidence. On 4 May 1998 the court invited the parties to submit their final written pleadings.\n13. In a judgment of 30 June 1998 the Municipal Court dismissed the claimants’ restitution action.\n14.  On 1 and 6 October and 18 November 1998 respectively, the court received the claimants’ appeals. According to the applicant, his appeal was dated 27 September 1998.\n15.  On 8 December 1998 the Municipal Court sent the case file to the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) which, on 26 February 1999, invited the applicant to clarify, within seven days, his challenge to the Municipal Court’s presiding judge for bias. On 10 March 1999 the applicant complied, mentioning at the same time his new domicile. On 18 March 1999, the Regional Court remitted the case file to the Municipal Court, inviting the presiding judge to submit her comments. On 5 May 1999 the judge replied that she did not feel impartial.\n16.  On 3 January 2000 the Regional Court informed the Brno Municipal Prosecutor (městské státní zastupitelství) that the applicant’s wording in his appeal of 27 September 1999 had to be interpreted as a criminal claim against the Municipal Court’s presiding judge, with which the court could deal. On 4 February 2000 the Municipal Prosecutor informed the court that the motion in question could not be considered as a criminal claim.\n17.  On 5 September 2000 the Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the case to the Municipal Court, stating that the judgment lacked sufficient reasoning, which consisted in mere references to the legal opinions of the parties and to facts presented by them. It also disqualified the Municipal Court’s presiding judge from considering the applicant’s case, as she had herself filed a request to be withdrawn, whilst rejecting the applicant’s allegation of anti-Semitism.\n18.  On 23 October 2000 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní so", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1626", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  Tüm Haber Sen is a trade union, now dissolved, which was active between 1992 and 1995. The application was lodged by its former president, İsmail Çınar, a Turkish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Istanbul.\n9.  On 16 January 1992 Tüm Haber Sen was formed when its founding document was lodged with the Istanbul Governor's Office, in application of Article 51 of the Constitution. Its statutes referred, inter alia, to the right to conclude collective-bargaining agreements. The founders of Tüm Haber Sen were 851 public-sector contractual staff working in the communications field, in particular for the post office (PTT) and the telecommunications service (Türk Telecom). When it was dissolved the trade union had 40,000 members and 55 local branches.\n10.  On 20 January 1992 the Istanbul Governor's Office applied to the Şişli public prosecutor's office, seeking the suspension of Tüm Haber Sen's activities and the trade union's dissolution on the ground that State employees could not form trade unions. It referred in its complaint to Article 51 of the Constitution, section 1 of the Trade Union Act (Law no. 2821) and sections 22 and 27 of the State Employees Act (Law no. 657).\n11.  In a notice of 3 February 1992, the Principal Public Prosecutor called on the Fourth Civil Division of the Şişli District Court to suspend the trade union's activities and to order its dissolution on the ground that under the positive law State employees, who were subject to Law no. 657, were not entitled to form trade unions.\n12.  In their written observations submitted to the District Court on 26 March 1992, the trade union's representatives argued that the legal provisions in force did not expressly prohibit the formation of trade unions by civil servants and that an obstacle to the exercise of trade-union rights would be in breach of Turkey's international commitments as a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, the conventions of the International Labour Organisation, and the European Social Charter.\n13.  On 15 December 1992 the District Court suspended the trade union's activities and ordered that it be dissolved.\n14.  The trade union's representatives appealed to the Court of Cassation.\n15.  On 14 February 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the District Court's judgment and referred the case back to it. In its reasoning, it stated that the fact that the words “trade union” appeared in the association's title did not make it a trade union in the technical sense, namely that it would be authorised to call strikes and to enter into collective agreements. At the most, the association could be considered as a professional organisation which aimed to protect the interests of its members, who worked in a specified sector.\n16.  Before the District Court, the representatives of Tüm Haber Sen argued that it ought to be considered as a trade union which was authorised to call strikes and to enter into collective agreements. On 9 November 1994 the District Court, having examined the arguments submitted by the trade union's representatives, upheld its initial judgment.\n17.  The trade union's representatives again submitted an appeal on points of law.\n18.  In a judgment of 24 May 1995, the Court of Cassation, sitting as a full court and ruling at last instance, ordered the dissolution of Tüm Haber Sen. It considered that implementation of the right to form trade unions, as set out in the Constitution, required the enactment of a general principles a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1627", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in İstanbul.\n11.  At the time of the events giving rise to the application, the applicant worked as a customs broker in a private company.\n12.  On 28 December 1988 the applicant was questioned by a customs inspector in respect of his involvement in the smuggling of electronic goods.\n13.  On 7 March 1989 the customs inspector submitted his report and on 18 May 1989 the Edirne public prosecutor filed a petition with the Edirne Assize Court accusing the applicant and three other suspects of smuggling electronic goods. He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Articles 27 §§ 2, 3, 4 and 5 and 33 § 2 of Law no. 1918.\n14.  On 22 May 1989 the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant and three other co-accused commenced before the Edirne Assize Court.\n15.  On 27 July 1989 the applicant was remanded in custody. He was released pending trial on 19 June 1990.\n16.  On an undetermined date, the Edirne public prosecutor submitted an additional indictment against six other suspects and the cases were joined.\n17.  On 10 September 1991 the Edirne Assize Court declared that it lacked competence ratione materiae to examine the case. The case-file was transferred to the İstanbul State Security Court.\n18.  On 18 November 1992, Article 9 of Law no. 2845 on the Establishment and the Rules of Procedure of the State Security Courts was amended to exclude organized smuggling offences within the competence of the State Security Courts. Accordingly, on 25 December 1992 the İstanbul State Security Court declared that it lacked competence ratione materiae to examine the case.\n19.  On 25 January 1993 the criminal proceedings before the Edirne Assize Court commenced. The applicant was tried together with nine other co-accused.\n20.  Between 25 January 1993 and 26 December 1995 the first-instance court held twenty-two hearings on regular intervals. During this period the court undertook various procedural decisions with a view to determining the addresses of the co-accused and obtaining their additional defence submissions by way of rogatory letters.\n21.  In a hearing held on 18 November 1993 the court noted that no reply had been received from the various authorities to its requests for information for the case-file. On 15 September 1994 the court observed that the documents from the German authorities in respect of the co‑accused Mr K.Ç. had been translated and submitted to the case-file. It further noted that the Küçükçekmece Civil Court had not responded to its instruction to hear the co-accused Mr H.K. The court was informed that the public prosecutor’s office was unable to determine the address of another co‑accused Mr E.Ç. The court issued instructions to both the Küçükçekmece Civil Court and the public prosecutor’s office with a view to completing the case-file.\n22.  On 23 February 1995 the additional defence submission of Mr H.K. was submitted to the court. The court noted that the public prosecutor’s office had not responded to its request to determine the address of Mr E.Ç.\n23.  On 11 April 1995 the address of Mr E.Ç. was submitted to the court by the public prosecutor’s office. It appeared that Mr E.Ç. was a civil servant working in the Sarp Customs. On 25 May 1995 the additional defence submission of Mr E.Ç., taken by Hopa Criminal Court of First Instance, was submitted to the case-file.\n24.  On 27 June 1995 the public prosecutor submitted his observations on the merits. The ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1628", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Kramatorsk, Ukraine.\n9.  On 13 April 2000 the Kramatorsk City Court (the “Kramatorsk Court”) ordered the OJSC “Teploenergomontazh” (the “TEM”) to pay the applicant UAH 5,949.11[1] in compensation for salary arrears.\n10.  On 27 July 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court (the “DRC”) upheld this judgment.\n11.  According to the documents submitted by the Government, the judgment of 13 April 2000 was enforced in full on 30 November 2000. The enforcement proceedings were terminated on the same date.\n12.  On 13 December 2000 the Presidium of the DRC allowed the protest filed by its President, following the defendant company’s request for a supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 13 April 2000 and the ruling of 27 July 2000, and remitted the case to the Kramatorsk Court for a fresh consideration.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1629", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  At approximately 2 a.m. on 6 June 1993 Mr Stefanov died after having fallen the previous day from the window of room 36 on the third floor of the police station in the town of Kazanluk. Numerous injuries were found on his body. The ensuing investigation concluded that he had voluntarily jumped out of the window of the room where he had been brought for questioning, and that all his injuries had been the result of his fall. The applicants contested these conclusions.\n9.  At an unknown time on 4 June 1993 Mr Stefanov, then aged twenty‑three, was arrested by the police in the town of Muglizh. Another person, Mr D.O., also of Roma ethnic origin, was likewise taken into custody. According to a subsequent statement of Mr D.O., he had turned himself in, whereas according to a statement of lieutenant I.C., a police officer involved in these events (see paragraph 10 below), he had been arrested. Apparently Mr Stefanov and Mr D.O. were suspected of numerous thefts and burglaries committed in complicity. The two were brought to the Kazanluk police station either later that evening or the next morning. The applicants submitted that Mr Stefanov had been in good health at the time of his arrest. The Government did not contest this assertion.\n10.  The events of the next morning, as described hereafter, are only known from the statements of lieutenant I.C. and chief sergeant H.B., the two police officers who participated in the events, of Mr D.O., and partly from the statement of chief sergeant B.B., an officer guarding the cell block of the police station. Apparently the only eyewitnesses to what happened in room 36, from whose window Mr Stefanov fell to the ground, were lieutenant I.C., chief sergeant H.B. and Mr D.O.\n11.  Lieutenant I.C. arrived at the Kazanluk police station at approximately 10 a.m. on 5 June 1993 and first proceeded to question Mr D.O. about the thefts and burglaries allegedly committed by him and Mr Stefanov.\n12.  The questioning took place in lieutenant I.C.’s office – room 36 on the third floor of the police station – an east‑facing room measuring 5 by 2.8 m.. It had two two‑wing windows, overlooking the backyard, with sills 96 cm above the floor. It seems that the south window was opened. In the middle of the room there were two desks, adjacent to each other.\n13.  In the back yard, beneath the room’s windows, 70 cm south of the one which was open, there was a shed for motorcycles, with a 1.95 meter high ceiling, covered with an iron sheet roof. Beside the shed there was an inspection tunnel for automobiles, leading to an underground garage. The inspection tunnel had a concrete edge. The room’s windows stood at 9.6 m above the ground, the distance between the windows and the concrete edge was 7.9 m, and that between the windows and the iron sheet roof – 5.9 m.\n14.  After questioning Mr D.O., lieutenant I.C. sent him back to the cell block on the first floor, and brought Mr Stefanov up for questioning. During the questioning Mr Stefanov was seated in a chair behind the south desk in room 36. Lieutenant I.C. was sitting opposite him, behind the north desk. Throughout the questioning Mr Stefanov was handcuffed. It is not clear whether his hands were secured behind his back or in front of him.\n15.  According to the statements made later by lieutenant I.C., sergeant H.B. and Mr D.O., during the questioning the lieutenant established discrepancies between the versions of Mr Stefanov and Mr D.O about their participation in the all", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1630", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Lębork, Poland.\n9.  In the evening of 12 November 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted extortion committed earlier on that day.\n10.  On 14 November 1996 the Lębork District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) detained him on remand until 12 February 1997. It observed that the evidence obtained so far indicated that there was a great likelihood that the offence in question had been committed by the applicant. Further, it noted that the victim of the crime gave detailed testimony which he confirmed during the confrontation with the applicant. The placing of the applicant in detention was also justified by the severity of the anticipated penalty and the risk of the applicant’s going into hiding and attempting to influence witnesses. With regard to the risk of going into hiding, the District Court emphasised that in connection with the second set of proceedings (see below), the police had been looking for the applicant for over a month before his arrest. The applicant appealed against the detention order.\n11.  On 25 November 1996 the applicant requested his release. On 29 November 1996 the Słupsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) upheld the decision on the applicant’s detention and rejected his application for release. On unspecified dates in November 1996 the Lębork District Prosecutor heard testimonies from a number of witnesses.\n12.  On 21 January 1997 the investigation was terminated. On 30 January 1997 the District Prosecutor lodged with the Lębork District Court a bill of indictment against the applicant and the three co-accused persons. The applicant was charged with attempted extortion.\n13.  On 12 February 1997 the President of the Lębork District Court fixed the date of the first hearing for 8 May 1997. On 14 April 1997 the applicant’s lawyer requested the trial court to adjourn the hearing scheduled for 8 May 1997, since on the same day he had to attend a hearing in another case. On 18 April 1997 the court informed the applicant’s lawyer that it did not find any compelling reasons to adjourn the hearing.\n14.  A hearing scheduled for 8 May 1997 was adjourned due to the absence of the co-accused B.C. and the lawyers for the applicant and B.C. The trial court fixed the dates of the subsequent hearings for 17 June and 1 July 1997.\n15.  At the hearing of 17 June 1997 the applicant’s lawyer requested the applicant’s release. The trial court dismissed the request, considering that the grounds originally given for the applicant’s detention were still valid and that there were no new circumstances which would justify the termination of the detention. The trial court decided to adjourn the trial until 28 August 1997.\n16.  The hearing fixed for 28 August 1997 was adjourned until 9 October 1997. On 12 September 1997 the District Court ordered that the co-accused B.C. be detained on remand, considering that his behaviour clearly jeopardised the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n17.  On 7 October 1997 the trial court heard three witnesses. A hearing scheduled for 9 October 1997 was adjourned until 13 November 1997. On that date the District Court heard one witness and decided to close the trial. The applicant’s lawyer requested that his client be released.\n18.  On 14 November 1997 the Lębork District Court delivered its judgment. It convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment and a fine. It also dismissed a request for the applicant’s release. The applica", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1631", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1956 and 1948 respectively and live in Alba Iulia.\n5.  In connection with the restructuring of the armed forces, which had begun in 1995, a number of legislative measures were passed with a view to encouraging professional soldiers to apply for reassignment to the reserve force and thereby to take early retirement.\n6.  In addition to their retirement pension, section 7 of Government Ordinance no. 7 of 26 January 1998 (“Ordinance no. 7/1998”) granted those concerned a tax-free “income replacement allowance” calculated in relation to their gross monthly pay. Under section 31 (1) of Law no. 138 of 20 July 1999 (“Law no. 138/1999”), they were additionally entitled to a tax-free “maintenance allowance”, also calculated in relation to their gross monthly pay. The method of calculating those allowances was amended by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 136 of 14 September 2000 (“Ordinance no. 136/2000”), which provided that the net monthly pay would be used as the basis of calculation.\n7.  At their request, the applicants were assigned to the reserve force and thereby took early retirement, on 31 March 2000 for the first and third, and on 31 May 2000 for the second, with entitlements to the above-mentioned pension and allowances. However, when those sums were paid out, the Ministry of Defence deducted income tax, calculated in accordance with Ordinance no. 73 of 27 August 1999 concerning income tax (“Ordinance no. 73/1999”), thereby depriving the first applicant of 85,804,572 Romanian lei (ROL), the second of ROL 77,945,656 and the third of ROL 59,605,499.\n8.  In an action against the Ministry of Defence, the applicants claimed the reimbursement of those sums, which they alleged had been wrongfully deducted, on the ground that their allowances were exempt from tax under Ordinance no. 7/1998 and Law no. 138/1999. The Ministry disputed their claim, contending that the taxation in question was consistent with Ordinance no. 73/1999.\n9.  In a judgment of 11 January 2001 the Alba Iulia Court of First Instance allowed the applicants’ action and ordered the Ministry to reimburse the amounts deducted for tax. The court considered that on the date of their retirement, that is to say some time before the entry into force of Ordinance no. 136/2000, the applicants had acquired an entitlement to tax-free allowances calculated in relation to their gross monthly pay. Moreover, the court observed that section 5 of Ordinance no. 73/1999 provided that maintenance allowances were likewise tax exempt.\n10.  The Ministry of Defence appealed, arguing that the tax exemption provision in respect of the income replacement allowance, under section 7 of Ordinance no. 7/1998, had been expressly repealed by section 86 of Ordinance no. 73/1999, which had also implicitly abolished the exemption in respect of maintenance allowances under section 31 (1) of Law no. 138/1999.\n11.  In a final decision of 27 March 2001 the Alba County Court upheld the merits of the judgment at first instance on the following grounds:\n“Even assuming, purely for the sake of argument, that the provisions of section 7 of Ordinance no. 7/1998 had been repealed, those of section 31 (1) of Law no. 138/1999 – which also provide for tax exemption and for the calculation [of the allowance] in relation to gross monthly pay – would remain as a legal basis. The Ministry contends that the provision in question was implicitly repealed, but that view has not been substantiated,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1632", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Skopje (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).\n9.  On 24 April 1997 the applicant was accused of having committed the offence of the unauthorised production and possession of narcotics and poisonous substances between January and April 1997, contrary to Article 187 § 1 of the Criminal Code as in force at the material time.\n10.  According to the Government, a witness using the fictitious name of “Jana Charvátová” was examined for the first time on 24 April 1997, having been contacted by the police in connection with their investigation into the applicant’s criminal activities. The witness stated, inter alia, that “she want[ed] to testify because she kn[ew] what heroin c[ould] do and that she want[ed] Teplice to be free of drug dealers” and that “for great fear for her own life she w[ould] testify provided that anonymity w[ould] be granted to her, because after the police had detained most of former dealers, the Yugoslavs threaten[ed] that if anybody w[ould] ‘rat’ on the dealers and they w[ould] find it, they w[ould] ‘annihilate’ him or her”.\n11.  The applicant stated that the record of the interview in his criminal file was not a statement signed by the witness, but a so-called official record (úřední záznam) drawn up and signed by the police officer afterwards. He further maintained that it was not clear from that record whether “Jana Charvátová” had been examined or whether the report had been drawn up before or after the applicant was charged. He contended that such a record could not be used as evidence for the prosecution.\n12.  In the course of the pre-trial proceedings the applicant denied his guilt, stressing that he was a heroin addict and that the drugs found in his possession were for his own use only. “Jana Charvátová” and another witness, using the fictitious name of “Jan Novotný”, were questioned by the Teplice District Investigation Office (okresní úřad vyšetřování) on 11 July 1997. The applicant’s lawyer attended the interview, the applicant not being present. Witness “Jana Charvátová” said:\n“... as for Hasan Krasniki, I am not familiar with his surname, I got in touch with him some time in the winter of last year ... my boyfriend, who is also a drug addict, sent me to see him.\nI wish to correct the facts concerning the individual named Hasan Krasniki. As I have already said, I am not familiar with his surname. I know, or more precisely, I remember the forename: my boyfriend sent me to Pikes in Trnovany and told me to find a certain Hasan in order to get 0.5 grams of heroin. ...\nAs for Hasan, I was still buying narcotics ... from him ... last year. I do not remember seeing him since then. As for his description, I can say that he is about 170 cm tall, slim with short dark blond hair ... and I recall that he wore blue jeans and a dark jacket.”\n13.  In reply to a question put by the applicant’s lawyer, the witness said that she was giving evidence as an anonymous witness because she owed money for drugs. In reply to a question put by the investigating officer as to whether the persons to whom she owed money had ever threatened or beaten her, she replied that a Yugoslav to whom she had owed money for drugs had beaten her up and that there had been similar incidents.\n14.  She was shown a photograph album with ten photographs and was asked to examine them. She stated:\n“... I do not know the name of the person in photograph no. 5[1] ... I was buying narcotics from him ... in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1633", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the village of Veseloye, Kherson region, Ukraine.\n5.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novokakhovskiy Town Court against his former employer, the State-owned “Uzhelektromash” company, to recover salary arrears. On 17 December 2001 the court awarded the applicant UAH 10,282[1] in salary arrears and compensation.\n6.  On 26 June 2002 the Novokahovska Bailiffs’ Service returned the writ of execution to the applicant on the ground that the debtor lacked funds that could be attached and the court had prohibited seizure of the debtor’s accounts.\n7.  On 10 June 2005 the Novokakhovskiy Town Court, following the applicant’s complaint, ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to renew the enforcement proceedings in the case.\n8.  The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1634", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  Mr Aleksandr Kondratyevich Komar was born in 1942. Mr Yevgeniy Leonidovich Tsysyuk was born in 1980. Mr Sergey Leonidovich Tsysyuk was born in 1977. Mr Vadim Alekseyevich Maltsev was born in 1968. Mr Vyacheslav Vladimirovich Mikhaylenko was born in 1957. Mr Vladimir Aleksandrovich Serdyuk was born in 1951. Ms Nina Timofeyevna Maltseva was born in 1938. Messrs Mikhaylenko and Serdyuk reside in the village of Grodovka, Donetsk region, Ukraine. The other applicants reside in the town of Novogrodovka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n7.  The applicants instituted separate sets of proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court, seeking recovery of salary arrears and other payments from their former employer, the State-owned “Novogrodovskaya 1/3” Mining Company.\n8.  By judgment of 27 March 2001 Mr Komar was awarded UAH 4,851.43. In 2004 the judgment was enforced by instalments, the final amount being paid on 12 May 2004. The length of enforcement proceedings in his case was therefore more than three years and one month.\n9.  By judgments of 17 April 2002 Messrs Yevgeniy Tsysyuk and Sergey Tsysyuk were awarded UAH 1,903.61 and 1,510.99 respectively. In 2004 the judgments were enforced by instalments, the final amounts being paid to Mr Yevgeniy Tsysyuk on 9 August 2004 and to Mr Sergey Tsysyuk on 23 September 2004. The enforcement proceedings in their cases lasted more than 2 years and 3 months and more than 2 years and 5 months respectively.\n10.  By judgment of 11 May 2001 Mr Maltsev was awarded UAH 5,757.87. The judgment was enforced in August 2004, the length of enforcement being about 3 years and 3 months.\n11.  By judgment of 6 April 2001 Mr Mikhaylenko was awarded UAH 7,320.37. The judgment was enforced in August 2004, the length of enforcement being more than 3 years and 4 months.\n12.  By judgment of 12 April 2001 Mr Serdyuk was awarded UAH 6,672.89. The judgment was enforced in August 2004, the length of enforcement being more than 3 years and 4 months.\n13.  By judgment of 11 May 2001 Ms Maltseva was awarded UAH 2,751.01. The judgment was enforced in August 2004, the length of enforcement being more than 3 years and 3 months.\n14.  Pending the enforcement of the judgments in their favour, the applicants instituted separate sets of proceedings in the Novogrodivskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service for failure to execute these judgments. The Town Court rejected the applicants’ claims, finding no fault had been committed by that Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs’ Service had presented a decision of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region of 30 August 2000 to the respondent company. This decision prohibited the enforcement of judgments against the company by selling its property, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against it. The decisions of the Town Court were subsequently appealed against but all of the appeals were rejected.\n15.  On 26 December 2001 the ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital was entrenched in the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property. On 10 June 2003 the Constitutional Court found the moratorium to be compatible with the provisions of the Constitution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1635", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Humenné.\n5.  Under a contract of employment of 1991, the applicant was employed with the municipality of Humenné and occupied the position of the head of one of its departments.\n6.  In December 1994 the new mayor of the municipality cancelled the applicant’s appointment as the head of department and informed him that, due to the lack of other appropriate posts for him, his employment with the municipality would be terminated. The notice of termination was served on the applicant at some point in February 1995.\n7.  On 11 July 1995 the applicant challenged the cancellation of his appointment and the termination of his employment before the Humenné District Court (Okresný súd). He also claimed compensation in respect of lost wages.\n8.  On 18 August 1995 the District Court discontinued the proceedings observing that the applicant had not paid the court fee and finding that he was not eligible for an exemption from the obligation to do so.\n9.  On 28 November 1995, on the applicant’s appeal (odvolanie), the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed the decision of 18 August 1995, finding that the applicant’s action fell within the ambit of the exemption under section 4 (2) (d) of the Court Fees’ Act (Law no. 71/1992 Coll., as amended).\n10.  On 15 March 1996 the District Court ruled that both the cancellation of the applicant’s appointment and the termination of his employment were void. The District Court found that the applicant’s employment had not been established by a deed of appointment (vymenovaním) under Article 27 §§ 4 and 5 of the Labour Code but by an ordinary employment contract (pracovná zmluva) under Article 27 § 2 of that Code. The applicant’s “appointment” thus could not be “cancelled” and the statutory condition for the valid termination of his employment contract had not been met.\nThe District Court further ruled that the applicant’s claim for compensation for lost wages would be dealt with in separate proceedings.\n11.  On 25 June 1997, on the defendant’s appeal, the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 15 March 1996 and remitted the case to the District Court for re‑examination. The Regional Court noted that, at the time of the applicant’s dismissal, the post of his superior - the head of the municipal office - had been vacant. The applicant had thus been directly answerable to the mayor of the municipality. This being so, the applicant’s employment fell within the category of employment by appointment. In the light of these findings, the case had to be reconsidered at first instance.\n12.  On 29 June 1998 the District Court dismissed the action. It observed that the applicant had been directly answerable to the mayor and that, consequently, the rules for the cancellation of an appointment had applied to him and were complied with. As the municipality had had no possibility of continuing to employ the applicant and all other conditions for the termination of his employment contract had been met, the applicant’s dismissal was lawful.\n13.  On 17 December 1998, on the applicant’s appeal, the Regional Court upheld the part of the judgment of 29 June 1998 dismissing the applicant’s motion to declare the cancellation of his appointment void. The Regional Court further overturned the part of the District Court’s judgment concerning the termination of the applicant’s contract of employment and ruled that it was void.\nIt was observed that the applicant undoubtedly became the employee", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1636", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Akarp. He is the owner of a property known as “Humanisten 1” located in the city of Lund, in the south of Sweden. On the property there is a one-family house, which was built in 1934.\n9.  The applicant inherited the property from his father, who died in 1991. The area where the property is located was regulated by a city plan (stadsplan) which, in accordance with the provisional regulations under the new Planning and Building Act of 1987 (Plan- och Bygglagen, - hereinafter “the 1987 Act”), became valid as a detailed development plan (detaljplan). In order to facilitate the implementation of the detailed development plan, a more specific “property plan” (fastighetsplan) was adopted with respect to Humanisten 1.\n10.  The applicant’s late father had applied on 13 June 1989 to the Building Committee (byggnadsnämnden) of Lund for tentative approval (förhandsbesked) of a plan to divide Humanisten 1 and build a new one-family house. The purpose of such an approval, issued under Chapter 8, section 34 of the 1987 Act, was to give a property owner who was planning a building project for which the grant of a building permit was uncertain the possibility to obtain an advance assessment of whether the planned measures may be permitted at all, thereby avoiding unnecessary project work and costs. In assessing an application for a building permit made within two years after the grant of tentative approval, the Building Committee was bound by the determinations made in that approval.\nAccording to the detailed development plan in force, only one main building was allowed on the existing property plot (the applicant’s plot corresponded to his property). The request for tentative approval was motivated by the father’s wish to build a house suited to his age, as he had difficulties in walking up and down the stairs of his current home.\n11.  In February 1990 the Building Committee decided to postpone its reply to the request until a new detailed development plan for the area had acquired legal force, but only until 13 June 1991. Subsequently, on 12 June 1991 the City Building Director (Stadsbyggnadsdirektören) adopted a new detailed development plan for Humanisten 1 by which a division of the property was prohibited. Accordingly, the Building Committee, on 14 August 1991, informed the applicant that he could not expect to be granted a building permit for a new one-family house and therefore did not give tentative approval for the project.\n12.  As the new owner of the property, the applicant appealed against both decisions to the County Administrative Board (länsstyrelsen, - hereinafter “the Board”) of the County of Malmöhus, claiming that the City Building Director had not been competent to adopt a new detailed development plan since the plan was contentious. He claimed that the refusal to grant tentative approval was also based on false assumptions. On 12 March 1992 the Board, which agreed with the applicant, quashed the City Building Director’s decision to adopt the plan and, on 16 March 1992, quashed the Building Committee’s decision and remitted the matter to the Committee for a new examination.\n13.  On 15 April 1992 the Building Committee granted the applicant a tentative approval, referring to his father’s initial application (of June 1989) for a tentative approval of a plan to divide the plot – Humanisten 1 – and to build a new one-family house. The decision moreover referred to the County Administrative", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1637", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the city of Chernigiv, Ukraine.\n5.  In 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Desnyanskyy District Court against the State Company “Atomspetsbud” to recover unpaid salary. On 5 August 1999 the court awarded him 10,353 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears.\n6.  At the end of 2001, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv against the President of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Justice, for compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 29 January 2002 the court found against the applicant, stating that the applicant could have lodged appropriate claims for damages against the State Bailiffs’ Service and not against the above defendants, whose responsibility for the non-enforcement of the judgment had not been proved by the claimant. The applicant did not appeal against this decision under the ordinary appellate and cassation procedures.\n7.  By an order of 27 June 2002, the debtor company was liquidated and all the writs of execution were forwarded to the liquidation commission which had been established.\n8.  By a letter dated 4 January 2003 from the Ministry of Justice to other creditors, the applicant became aware that the judgment of 5 August 1999 would not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor. In addition, the Ministry had stated that the enforcement of the judgment by an attachment of property required the special authorisation of the Ministry of Emergencies due to the location of the debtor’s property in the Chernobyl area, contaminated by radioactivity.\n9.  The judgment apparently remains unexecuted.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1638", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in the village of Ponyatovka, Odessa region, Ukraine.\n8.  The applicant worked as a customs officer at the Rozdilnyanska Customs Office in the Odessa Region, Ukraine.\n9.  On 24 July 2000 the applicant was charged with the criminal offences of aiding and abetting in smuggling and tax evasion, abuse of power and fraud. The same day the applicant was arrested. He remained in custody until 6 November 2000.\n10.  On 6 November 2000 the Novozavodsky District Court of Chernigiv decided the applicant’s case. The court established, in particular, that the applicant had certified documents confirming that two vans with goods had left the customs territory of Ukraine, and that the applicant had not checked the actual presence of the vehicles at the customs post. The goods were, however, found and seized by the Security Service somewhere else within the customs territory of Ukraine. The court did not find any proof that the applicant had acted deliberately in order to aid the crime: the applicant denied any criminal intent and no other persons involved in the actual smuggling or tax evasion had been established by the investigation. On the basis of these findings, the court sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment for the negligent performance of his professional duties and to a fine of UAH 400[1]. At the same time, the court acquitted the applicant of other charges. By the same decision, the applicant was absolved from this sentence under the Amnesty Law of 11 May 2000. This decision was not appealed and became final on 14 November 2000.\n11.  On an unspecified date, the President of the Chernigiv Regional Court lodged a request for a supervisory review of the judgment of 6 November 2000, on the grounds of an erroneous qualification of the applicant’s actions and his unreasonable acquittal on the other criminal charges brought by the prosecution. The President also noted that the sentence was too lenient.\n12.  On 25 December 2000 the Presidium of the Chernigiv Regional Court allowed the request of its President, quashed the judgment of 6 November 2000, and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The court instructed the first instance court to examine more thoroughly the existing evidence in the case and to conduct additional, more comprehensive interrogations of the accused and the witnesses.\n13.  On 29 January 2001 the Novozavodsky District Court of Chernigiv considered the case anew and sentenced the applicant to five years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years pending probation, and a fine of UAH 1,000[2]. The court found the applicant guilty of aiding and abetting in smuggling, an abuse of power and fraud. The court acquitted the applicant of aiding and abetting tax evasion, since all the smuggled goods had been seized by the law enforcement bodies and no profit had been made by anyone selling them.\n14.  On 1 March 2001 the Criminal Chamber of the Chernigiv Regional Court upheld the decision of the first instance court. The former found that the first instance court had correctly qualified the applicant’s actions. This decision was final.\n15.  On an unspecified date, the President of the Chernigiv Regional Court lodged a request for a supervisory review of the judgments of 29 January and 1 March 2001, on the ground that the courts had not followed the instructions given in the previous decision of the Presidium of the Chernigiv Regional Court of 25 December 2000 about the qualificat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1639", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Hamburg (Germany).\n11.  On 8 September 1992 Mr S. was fatally injured by a shot fired at a travellers' encampment (campo nomadi) in Rome. The initial statements taken by the police from witnesses indicated that the applicant had been responsible for the killing.\n12.  On 15 October 1992 the Rome investigating judge made an order for the applicant's detention pending trial. However, the order could not be enforced as the applicant had become untraceable. As a result, the Italian authorities considered that he had deliberately sought to evade justice and on 14 November 1992 declared him to be a “fugitive” (latitante). The applicant was identified as Cloce (or Kroce) Sejdovic (or Sajdovic), probably born in Titograd on 5 August 1972, the son of Jusuf Sejdovic (or Sajdovic) and the brother of Zaim (ou Zain) Sejdovic (or Sajdovic).\n13.  As the Italian authorities had not managed to contact the applicant to invite him to choose his own defence counsel, they assigned him a lawyer, who was informed that his client and four other persons had been committed for trial on a specified date in the Rome Assize Court.\n14.  The lawyer took part in the trial, but the applicant was absent.\n15.  In a judgment of 2 July 1996, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 30 September 1996, the Rome Assize Court convicted the applicant of murder and illegally carrying a weapon and sentenced him to twenty-one years and eight months' imprisonment. One of the applicant's fellow defendants was sentenced to fifteen years and eight months' imprisonment for the same offences, while the other three were acquitted.\n16.  The applicant's lawyer was informed that the Assize Court's judgment had been deposited with the registry. He did not appeal. The applicant's conviction accordingly became final on 22 January 1997.\n17.  On 22 September 1999 the applicant was arrested in Hamburg by the German police under an arrest warrant issued by the Rome public prosecutor's office. On 30 September 1999 the Italian Minister of Justice requested the applicant's extradition. He added that, once he had been extradited to Italy, the applicant would be entitled to apply under Article 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for leave to appeal out of time against the Rome Assize Court's judgment.\n18.  At the request of the German authorities, the Rome public prosecutor's office stated that it did not appear from the evidence that the applicant had been officially notified of the charges against him. The public prosecutor's office was unable to say whether the applicant had contacted the lawyer assigned to represent him. In any event, the lawyer had attended the trial and had played an active role in conducting his client's defence, having called a large number of witnesses. Furthermore, the Rome Assize Court had clearly established that the applicant, who had been identified by numerous witnesses as Mr S.'s killer, was guilty. In the opinion of the public prosecutor's office, the applicant had absconded immediately after Mr S.'s death precisely to avoid being arrested and tried. Lastly, the public prosecutor's office stated: “A person who is to be extradited may seek leave to appeal against the judgment. However, for a court to agree to re-examine the case it has to be proved that the accused was wrongly deemed to be a 'fugitive'. To sum up, a new trial, even in the form of an appeal (during which new evidence may be submitted), is not ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1640", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Larnaca.\n5.  On 1 November 1985 the applicant lodged a civil action (no. 2891/85) before the District Court of Larnaca concerning the payment of the remainder of the price agreed under the contract of sale of his enterprise in South Africa. The total claim was 60,000 South African Rand (ZAR), which was the equivalent of 30,000 Cypriot pounds (CYP) at the relevant time.\n6.  Between the above date and 1 January 1989 the Court dealt with the submission of the parties’ pleadings and several applications for their amendment, for the purposes of which a number of adjournments or requests for extensions took place. Approximately five adjournments took place in this period, one at the applicant’s request, two at the defendant’s request and two by the court itself.\n7.  On 20 February 1989 the case was adjourned until 9 June 1989 on the parties’ request. The hearing of the case commenced on that date and was fixed to continue on 26 June 1989 but following an adjournment requested by the applicant it was fixed for 27 September 1989. On the latter date the defendant raised an objection challenging the jurisdiction of the Larnaca District Court since the contract between the parties had been concluded in South Africa. The court fixed the hearing in respect of the objection for 14 October 1989. Following two adjournments at the defendant’s request the hearing took place on 10 November 1989.\n8.  On 30 January 1990 the court dismissed the defendant’s objection pertaining to its jurisdiction and fixed the hearing for 6 March 1990.\n9.  On 13 February 1990 an appeal (no. 8052) was filed against the district court’s ruling of 30 January 1990, concerning its jurisdiction to try the case. Consequently, the case was taken off the trial list pending the result of the appeal.\n10.  On 21 February 1990 the defendant was served with a notice by the Registrar of the Supreme Court requesting him to pay the due fee for the preparation of the record of the first instance proceedings. The court’s record was sent by the Larnaca District Court to the Supreme Court on 22 March 1990.\n11.  On 23 November 1992 the parties were notified by the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 15 December 1992. On that date however the case was adjourned to enable the applicant to file a cross-appeal.\n12.  On 27 April 1993 the Supreme Court found that the Larnaca District Court had jurisdiction to try the action and dismissed the appeal.\n13.  On 7 June 1995 the applicant applied for a date of mention concerning the continuation of the proceedings and the case was fixed for this purpose for 7 July 1995. On that date it was fixed to be heard on 5 December 1995.\n14.  Between the above date and 20 December 1996 the case was adjourned several times. Approximately three of these adjournments were at the applicant’s request, four at the parties’ request and one at the defendant’s.\n15.  On 20 December 1996 the Larnaca District Court reserved its judgment. This was delivered on 30 January 1997 dismissing the applicant’s action.\n16.  On 3 March 1997 the applicant filed an appeal (appeal no. 9912) against the first instance judgment.\n17.  The notice of the appeal was sent by the Registrar of the Larnaca District Court on 13 March 1997 to the Supreme Court indicating that the file of the case had been given for the purposes of typing the record of the proceedings and that this would be available in ten months due ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1642", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Jambul, Kazakhstan.\n9.  On 28 October 1992 the Moscow police opened a criminal investigation into the theft of about four thousand million Russian roubles (approximately thirty-five million US dollars) from the Bank of Russia through the use of forged credit notes of the National Bank of Kazakhstan.\n10.  On 24 December 1992 the applicant was arrested at Moscow Airport on his arrival from Italy and taken into custody. On 26 and 27 December 1992 the applicant confessed to having conspired with Mr Smolenskiy, director of a Russian commercial bank, to steal the money.\n11.  On 28 December 1992 the applicant was released from custody.\n12.  On 23 November 1994 the applicant was charged with large-scale fraud, an offence under Article 147 § 3 of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) Criminal Code, and ordered to be detained pending trial. As by that time the applicant had fled from Russia, his name was placed on the list of fugitives from justice.\n13.  On 20 March 1997 the applicant’s name was placed on the Interpol wanted list. On 11 September 1997 the Swiss police arrested the applicant in Lugano, Switzerland, with a view to extraditing him.\n14.  Upon receipt of the documents supporting the extradition request, the Swiss authorities decided on 29 January 1998 to extradite the applicant.\n15.  On 24 April 1998 the applicant was extradited to Russia, where he was placed in detention facility IZ-48/4 (“Matrosskaya Tishina”).\n16.  On 15 June 1998 the applicant’s counsel asked the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow to release the applicant. She submitted, in particular, that he had been detained in Switzerland on the basis of the arrest warrant of 23 November 1994 and had remained in custody for more than nine months. In Kazakhstan, his country of nationality, the criminal proceedings against him had been discontinued on the ground that no criminal offence had been committed. In any event, after six years’ investigation the investigators had gathered all the available evidence including statements by witnesses, and the applicant could not therefore interfere with the establishment of the truth. Finally, his release was necessary on medical grounds because his health had seriously deteriorated in detention.\n17.  On 25 June and 8 July 1998 the hearings listed before the Preobrazhenskiy District Court were adjourned because the applicant had not been brought to the court.\n18.  On 13 July 1998 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation authorised an extension of the applicant’s detention pending trial until 8 September 1998, that is, for a total of twelve months from the date of his initial detention in Switzerland. The continued detention was justified by reference to the gravity of the offence, the risk that the applicant might abscond and the international obligations undertaken by the Russian authorities in the extradition proceedings.\n19.  On 14 July 1998 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court took statements from the applicant and his lawyer and from the prosecutor and held that the detention had been imposed and subsequently extended on valid grounds and in compliance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, no grounds for applying a different measure of restraint had been made out.\n20.  On 3 August 1998 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 14 July 1998. The court reiterated in general terms the finding that the applicant’s detention was lawful.\n21. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1643", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  The applicant was a member of the National Bolsheviks Party.\n8.  At 12.30 p.m. on 14 December 2004 forty Party members effected an unauthorised entry into the reception area of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation (the “President’s Office”). Some of them pushed away the guards at the entrance and occupied room no. 14 on the ground floor. They locked themselves in, blocked the door with a heavy safe and let the others enter through the window.\n9.  Until the police arrived, the Party members, including the applicant, waved placards through the office window, threw out leaflets and chanted slogans calling for the President’s resignation. They stayed in the office for approximately one hour.\n10.  On 14 December 2004 the applicant came with her friends for a walk in the city centre. Suddenly she found herself in the midst of a dense crowd and she thought it best to go in the same direction as everyone else. The crowd brought her into a certain building which turned out to be the waiting area of the President’s Office. She felt weak and sat down on the floor. The people around shouted and chanted but she could not understand what was going on. Then the police arrived and took everyone in custody.\n11.  The media reported that on 14 December 2004 a group of about forty members of the National Bolsheviks Party locked themselves in an office on the ground floor of the President’s Office.\n12.  They asked for a meeting with the President, the deputy head of the President’s Office Mr Surkov, and the President’s economic advisor Mr Illarionov. They waved placards with “Putin, resign!” («Путин, уйди!») written on them through the window and distributed leaflets with a printed address to the President that listed ten aspects in which he failed to respect the Russian Constitution, and a call for his resignation.\n13.  The intruders stayed in the office for one hour and a half until the police broke through the door. They did not offer any resistance to the authorities.\n14.  On 15 December 2004 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s placement in custody on the ground that she was suspected of a particularly serious criminal offence. The applicant did not appeal against the arrest warrant.\n15.  On 21 December 2004 an investigator for particularly important criminal cases of the prosecutor’s office of the Central Administrative District of Moscow charged the applicant with violent overthrow of State power (Article 278 of the Criminal Code) and intentional destruction and degradation of others’ property in public places (Articles 167 § 2 and 214).\n16.  Between 24 December 2004 and 4 February 2005 the applicant did not participate in any investigative actions.\n17.  On 4 February 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended her detention on remand until 14 April 2005. The court’s entire reasoning read as follows:\n“The court sees no reason to apply a more lenient preventive measure to [the applicant]. She is charged with a criminal offence under Article 278 of the Criminal Code which is classified as a particularly serious one and requires a thorough, comprehensive and objective investigation.\nNotwithstanding the fact that [the applicant] has a permanent registered place of residence in Moscow, has no criminal record, is a student, has positive references and suffers from frail health, the court, taking into account the nature and fac", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1644", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in the town of Tambov.\n5.  In the 1980s he took part in a rescue operation on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. As of an unspecified date the applicant has been in receipt of social benefits in this connection.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant sued the Tambov Pension Authority (Управление социальной защиты населения мэрии города Тамбова, “the authority”) seeking to recover the amount of allegedly unpaid social benefits.\n7.  By judgment of 19 March 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov (“the District Court”) examined and granted the applicant’s action and ordered the authority to pay him the arrears of RUR 20,603.67.\n8.  The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Tambov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) on 16 May 2001. It came into force on the same date. Immediately thereafter the applicant obtained an execution writ and instituted enforcement proceedings.\n9.  The amount due to the applicant pursuant to the judgment of 19 March 2001 and decision of 16 May 2001 was paid to him by two money transfers dated 7 March 2003 (20,603.67 RUR) and 19 February 2004 (5,130.31 RUR) respectively.\n10.  On 28 May 2002 the District Court examined and granted the applicant’s claim for penalty in connection with alleged non-enforcement of the judgment of 19 March 2001. The court ordered the authority to pay the applicant RUR 38,940.93.\n11.  The judgment of 28 May 2002 was not appealed against by the parties and came into force on 13 June 2002.\n12.  Immediately thereafter the applicant obtained an execution writ and instituted enforcement proceedings.\n13.  By letter of 18 February 2003 the bailiffs returned the writ and supporting documents to the applicant and invited him to apply to a local branch of the Federal Treasury.\n14.  It appears that the applicant followed these instructions and submitted the writ and supporting documents to the Federal Treasury. On 4 March 2003 the Federal Treasury refused to pay the money due by reference to the fact that the respondent authority had not been registered.\n15.  On an unspecified date the respondent authority brought an application seeking supervisory review of the judgment of 28 May 2002. A judge of the Regional Court on 17 June 2003 examined the application and decided to forward it for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Regional Court.\n16.  It appears that by letter of 17 June 2003 the Regional Court notified the applicant and other parties in the case of the supervisory review hearing of 26 June 2003.\n17.  On 26 June 2003 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 28 May 2002 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for a fresh examination at the first instance. It appears that the applicant was absent from the hearing.\n18.  According to the Government, on 16 July 2003 the first instance court discontinued the proceedings in the case for the applicant’s failure to appear.\n19.  It appears that on 16 June and 10 October 2003 the District Court examined and fully granted the applicant’s two fresh claims for unpaid social benefits. It ordered the authority to pay RUR 18,721.85 and RUR 5,130.31 respectively. Both decisions were enforced with a six months delay, in December 2003 and February 2004 respectively.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1646", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Stoke-on-Trent.\n5.  The applicant was arrested on 14 May 2002 on suspicion of having intimidated witnesses. In an identity parade held the same afternoon, he was positively identified by one of the two witnesses. The applicant states that this witness accepted in her original statement of evidence to the police that she was a heroin user and an inherently unreliable witness. The applicant was subsequently charged with five counts of doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice.\n6.  The applicant pleaded not guilty on 2 August 2002 and the trial was adjourned to the Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court on 7 October 2002. On that date no judge was available and the trial was moved to 3 February 2003. On the second day of the trial the witness who had identified the applicant did not attend and the trial had to be aborted. At the re-listed trial on 15 September 2003, Counsel for the Crown addressed the court in the following terms:\n“When this matter was listed for trial in February, [L.] attended on the first day. She wasn't called to give evidence and didn't come back on the second day. Certainly, that caused some concern. I think it is fair to say, at different stages of the entire case, she has blown slightly hot and cold.\n[L.] indicated to the police when they contacted her recently and, in fact, again yesterday, that she was reluctant to give evidence. She has attended court today and with my learned friend's permission, I have had the chance to sit down and have a chat to her.\nYour Honour, the reality is that she does not want to give evidence. She has personal reasons I don't propose to divulge in open court. She has formed a new relationship. She has moved on. She is trying very hard to put the events of this entire case behind her. She has satisfied the police who spoke to her yesterday and satisfied those who instruct me that no threats have been made toward her in relation to today's proceedings. She insists that there has been no contact from [the applicant] or others acting on his behalf. We don't feel that, due to the nature of this allegation, she ought to be compelled to give evidence in this case.\nYour Honour, there has been a very full discussion and the view we have taken is that without her evidence, plainly, we can't proceed. I offer no evidence. Verdicts must follow.”\n7.  The applicant was duly acquitted. On his counsel's application for a defendant's costs order, the judge refused to make an order and stated:\n“That order will be refused. There is clear evidence on the court papers. The Crown have taken the view that they are not going to compel this witness although there is compelling evidence in respect of those matters. It is a discretion which I am afraid I am not going to exercise in your favour.”\n8.  The applicant's attempted appeal was dismissed on 14 November 2003 as “to be appealable as a sentence, the order must be contingent upon conviction. As the defendant's costs order only arises when a prosecution is unsuccessful, it cannot be a sentence and cannot be appealed at the Court of Appeal Criminal Division”.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1647", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Helsinki.\n7.  On 16 February 1995 the applicant wrote an article which criticised the business transactions and financial affairs of the Student Association of the University of Helsinki (to be called “HYY” hereinafter). The article was published in a magazine called “Uusi Ylioppilaslehti” which is a publication mainly distributed to the students and professors of the University of Helsinki and others interested in questions concerning the Student Association and the University. On 7 August 1995 HYY and some others mentioned in the article requested the police to investigate whether the applicant had defamed them.\n8.  On 13 September 1995 the applicant was interrogated by the police for the first time for approximately one hour. On 13 February 1996 the police received another request for investigation which was related to a further alleged defamation in November-December 1995. In the context of this investigation, the applicant was heard on 2 May 1996 and the investigation was completed on the same day.\n9.  On 20 June 1996 a local prosecutor decided not to prosecute the applicant for either of the alleged offences. However, as a result of an extraordinary appeal (kantelu, klagan) of 22 July 1996 by the complainants the County Prosecutor of Uusimaa ordered, on 17 January 1997, that the applicant be charged with an offence. On 27 January 1997 another local prosecutor brought defamation charges against the applicant before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) of Espoo. Charges were brought and a summons was served on the applicant on 31 January 1997.\n10.  There were eight hearings before the District Court on 17 April 1997, 15 and 17 September 1997, 25 November 1997, 3 December 1997, 21 January 1998 and 26 February 1998, respectively. Both parties requested an adjournment on four occasions. On 7 April 1998 the District Court issued its judgment, finding the applicant guilty of defamation. Fines or other penalties were not imposed but the applicant was ordered to pay compensation for some non-pecuniary damage and part of the complainants’ legal expenses.\n11.  The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätt) of Helsinki in May 1998. On 22 December 1998 he submitted to the appellate court two missing pages of one appendix and on 30 March 1999 his lawyer’s invoice on legal aid.\n12.  On 27 June 2000 the Court of Appeal overturned the District Court’s judgment and acquitted the applicant of all charges by two votes to one. It found that the applicant had a right to discuss the financial affairs of HYY publicly and to raise the issue among the students and other interested parties. Having a right to use his freedom of speech in this respect, the applicant had not committed an offence.\n13.  No appeals were made to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) and the judgment gained legal force on 28 August 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1648", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Roubaix.\n5.  On 21 March 2002 the applicant was arrested by the police on the public highway and taken in the course of the evening to Lommelet de Saint-André Psychiatric Hospital, where she was compulsorily admitted at the request of a third party.\nThe Government submitted that the applicant had been “picked up” on the public highway by a police officer who had asked for her to be admitted to hospital. They added that her admission had been ordered on the basis of two medical certificates issued by different doctors to the effect that she required hospital treatment.\nThe applicant disputed that account and stated that she had been arrested while cycling to the shops and taken to the police station, where she had promptly been examined by a doctor who had been requisitioned to draw up a medical certificate for her admission to hospital.\n6.  She submitted that after her admission at the hospital she had immediately been undressed and made to lie down with all four limbs attached to the bedposts in a seclusion cell, without being given any explanation. She had not undergone a medical examination on arrival but had been injected with unknown substances. She had remained in that position for five days, and was released only briefly at mealtimes.\n7.  She remained in the hospital until 8 April 2002, without being allowed to receive visits or to make or receive telephone calls.\n8.  In the meantime, on 23 March 2002, the applicant's mother applied by registered letter to the President of the Lille tribunal de grande instance for her daughter's immediate discharge. The parties have been unable to establish the date on which the letter was received. However, in a letter of 8 April 2002, Lille State Counsel replied that he was not empowered to deal with the subject matter of her correspondence and that her daughter was required to apply directly to him to be discharged.\nOn 28 March 2002 Afcap in turn applied to the President of the Lille tribunal de grande instance for the applicant's immediate discharge.\n9.  On 22 April 2002 State Counsel's Office decided to take no further action on that application as it was devoid of purpose.\n10.  Neither the President of the Lille tribunal de grande instance nor the judge responsible for matters relating to personal liberties and detention (juge des libertés et de la détention – “the liberties and detention judge”) ever gave a ruling on the applications.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1649", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Siecie, Poland.\n5.  On 15 April 2000 the applicant was arrested. On the following day the Słupsk District Court remanded him in custody until 15 May 2000 on suspicion of homicide and attempted burglary. It relied on the evidence given by the applicant’s co-suspect. In addition, the court held that his detention was justified in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings and referred to the severity of the anticipated penalty. Furthermore, having regard to the fact that the applicant had not confessed, the court considered that there was a reasonable risk that he would attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimonies or otherwise interfere with the proceedings.\n6.  On 11 May 2000 the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 15 July 2000. It referred to the reasonable suspicion of his having committed the offences in question and the severity of the anticipated penalty. The court further held that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would unlawfully obstruct the proceedings, having regard to the fact that his co-suspect had not been detained at the time. Additionally, it relied on the need to obtain further expert evidence. Lastly, the court considered that other preventive measures would not secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n7.  On 11 July 2000 the Słupsk Regional Court dismissed the prosecutor’s request for prolongation of the applicant’s detention and ordered his release. It found that there had been no other evidence of the applicant’s alleged involvement in the offences in question than the statements of his co-suspect. In addition, the statements of that co-suspect had not been consistent as at the earlier stage of the investigation he had excluded a possibility of the applicant’s involvement in the offences. The applicant was released on 11 July 2000.\n8.  On 11 July 2000 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to undergo a six-week psychiatric examination in order to determine whether he could be held criminally responsible.\n9.  On 17 July 2000 the prosecutor appealed against the decision refusing his request for prolongation of the applicant’s detention. On 26 July 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the contested decision for failure to assess all the evidence in favour and against holding the applicant in custody and remitted the case.\n10.  Between 10 August and 4 September 2000 the applicant underwent examination in a psychiatric hospital.\n11.  On 17 August 2000 the Słupsk Regional Court again refused the prosecutor’s request for prolongation of the applicant’s detention. The prosecutor’s request was based on the evidence given by the applicant’s co-suspect. The Regional Court, however, found it to be unreliable. The prosecutor appealed against the decision of 17 August 2000. On 30 August 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the impugned decision on procedural grounds and remitted the case.\n12.  On 18 September 2000 the Słupsk Regional Court ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of 2 months. It held that the period of the applicant’s examination in a psychiatric hospital should count towards his detention on remand. The Regional Court relied on the statements of the applicant’s co-suspect, which it had found to be consistent. Further, it had regard to a report by the smell recognition expert (opinia osmologiczna) of 10 September 2000 and medical evidence concerning the victim of the homicide. It also relied on", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1650", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicant was born in 1926 and currently lives in Rome, Italy.\n13.  In 1953 the applicant, together with her husband, acquired a specially protected tenancy (stanarsko pravo) of a flat in Zadar. After her husband’s death in 1989 the applicant became the sole holder of the specially protected tenancy.\n14.  On 19 June 1991 the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act came into force. It regulated the sale of publicly owned flats previously let under a specially protected tenancy.\n15.  On 26 July 1991 the applicant went to visit her daughter who lived in Rome. She intended to stay with her daughter for the summer. The applicant locked the flat in Zadar and left all her furniture and personal belongings in it. She asked a neighbour to pay the bills in her absence and to take care of the flat.\n16.  However, by the end of August 1991 armed conflict had escalated in Dalmatia, resulting in severe travel difficulties in that area, including the town of Zadar. From 15 September 1991, the town of Zadar was exposed to constant shelling and the supply of electricity and water was disrupted for over a hundred days.\n17.  The applicant submitted that in October 1991 the Croatian authorities had stopped paying her war widow’s pension and that the payments had resumed in April 1994. The Government submitted that the applicant’s pension had been paid by the Yugoslav Military Pension Fund in Belgrade rather than the Croatian Pension Fund and that it was the Belgrade authorities which had stopped paying the pension in December 1991.\n18.  According to the applicant, she also lost the right to medical insurance. The Government maintained that her medical insurance had never been stopped or interrupted.\n19.  Given these circumstances, the applicant decided to remain in Rome.\n20.  In November 1991 a certain M.F., with his wife and two children, broke into and occupied the applicant’s flat in Zadar. The applicant claimed that M.F. had been assisted by an official of the municipality who had provided him with a list of empty flats in Zadar, including hers.\n21.  On 12 February 1992 the Zadar Municipality (Općina Zadar) brought a civil action against the applicant before the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) for termination of her specially protected tenancy on the ground that she had been absent from the flat for more than six months without justified reason, contrary to section 99 of the Housing Act.\n22.  In her submissions to the domestic court, the applicant explained that she had been forced to stay with her daughter in Rome from July 1991 until May 1992. She had not been able to return to Zadar since she had no means of subsistence and no medical insurance and was in poor health. Furthermore, during her stay in Rome she had learned from her neighbour that M.F. had broken into her flat with his family. When she had enquired about her flat and her possessions in it, M.F. had threatened her over the telephone.\n23.  On 9 October 1992 the Zadar Municipal Court terminated the applicant’s specially protected tenancy. The court found that the applicant had left Zadar on 26 July 1991 and had not returned until 15 May 1992. It stated that during the relevant period the citizens of Zadar had not been ordered to evacuate the town on account of the escalation of the armed conflict and that each citizen had had the choice to leave the town or to stay. On that basis the court found that the war in Croatia could not justify the applicant’s abs", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1651", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant is a limited company specialising in petroleum products. Its predecessor was called Greek petroleum, oil and lubricants – Industrial and commercial limited company (EKO AVEE).\n9.  On 8 May 1987 the applicant company paid the tax authorities 137,020,491 drachmas (GDR) (approximately 402,338 euros (EUR)) as an advance payment on the income tax due for the tax year 1987. On 11 May 1987 the tax authorities granted the applicant company a 10% reduction on the amount paid, as a bonus for paying the full advance payment due without requesting to pay by instalments. Accordingly, the advance tax payment ultimately paid by the applicant company amounted to GDR 123,387,306 (approximately EUR 362,105).\n10.  On 10 May 1988 the applicant company filed its tax return with the tax authorities for the year 1987. The return showed that the company had sustained a substantial loss of profit, which meant that the authorities had to refund the applicant company the amount paid as an advance payment since it had been unduly paid.\n11.  On 24 June 1988 and 9 December 1991 the applicant company sought a refund of GDR 123,387,306 from the Athens tax authorities dealing with limited companies, which was the amount levied in income tax for the year 1987. On an unspecified date the State refused to comply with its request.\n12.  On 27 December 1991 the applicant company brought proceedings against the State in the Athens Administrative Court. It requested a refund, under section 38(2) of Law no. 1473/1984, of the sum of GDR 123,387,306 that had been unduly paid in income tax. It also claimed default interest on that amount accruing from 10 May 1988, when the State had been informed that the tax had been unduly paid, up until payment. The applicant company based its claims on Article 345 of the Civil Code, which provides for the payment of default interest in the event of a pecuniary debt.\n13.  Law no. 2120/1993 was published on 4 March 1993. Section 3 of that Law provides that the State will pay interest in the event of a refund of tax unduly paid. With regard to cases pending at the time of publication of the Law, it provides that interest shall start to accrue on the first day of the month following a period of six months after its publication.\n14.  On 12 November 1993, prior to the hearing in the case listed for 23 September 1994, the State refunded the applicant company GDR 123,387,306, which corresponded to the tax it had paid. In its submissions before the Administrative Court, the applicant company limited its claims to statutory interest for the delay in paying the refund.\n15.  On 26 January 1995 the Administrative Court declared the applicant company’s application inadmissible (decision no. 512/1995). On 3 November 1995 the applicant company appealed.\n16.  On 6 June 1996 the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal declared the applicant company’s appeal admissible, but held that it was ill-founded on the ground that at the material time the Code for the Collection of Public Revenues did not provide that the State was liable to pay interest in the event of a delay in refunding tax unduly paid. Moreover, the court held that Article 345 of the Civil Code did not apply to the present case, since the provision governed only civil-law relations (decision no. 4042/1996).\n17.  On 27 June 1997 the applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law.\n18.  On 8 November 2000, by judgment no. 3547/2000, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1653", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5. The applicant, Vili Kveder, was a Slovenian national born in 1904, who lived in Vojnik. He died on 20 July 2000. His son and heir, Mr Viljem (Vili) Kveder, wished to pursue his father’s application before the Court.\n6.  On 15 January 1963 the applicant entered into a contract for the sale of 37,331 m2 of his land to the State Company. He alleged that he had been forced by the State to conclude such a contract.\nOn 18 January 1965 the Celje administrative authorities nationalized the land in question.\n7.  On 29 August 1990 the applicant lodged an application with the administrative authorities of Celje.\n8.  On 24 January 1992 he lodged a formal request for the restitution of his property under the 1991 Denationalisation Act.\n9.  According to the applicant, he was instructed by the administrative authorities to institute proceedings also before the Celje Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče) (see below).\n10.  On 13 July 1992 the administrative authorities held a meeting with the applicant.\n11.  On 23 March 1993 the administrative authorities informed HKŽ, the entity holding the land in question, that the restitution claim had been lodged. On 9 April 1993 the latter responded to the claim.\n12.  On 24 February 1995 the State Attorney’s Office requested a copy of the purchase agreement and other documents from the administrative authorities. On 5 July 1995 the latter prepared a response. On 10 January 1996 HKŽ submitted the requested documents.\n13.  On 18 September 1997 a hearing was held. The applicant was represented by his son Vili.\n14.  On 26 September 1997 the (renamed) Celje Administrative Unit (Upravna enota) terminated the proceedings, considering that the courts enjoyed jurisdiction in the present case.\n15.  On 24 October 1997 the file was transferred to the Celje District Court.\n16.  On 20 January 2000 the Celje District Court requested the Celje Administrative Unit to submit its file for review. The latter responded on 10 February 2000.\n17.  On 15 March 2001 the Celje District Court instituted a dispute on jurisdiction.\n18.  On 5 April 2001 the Constitutional Court ruled that the administrative authorities enjoyed jurisdiction.\n19.  On 11 May 2001 the Celje Administrative Unit received the file from the Celje District Court.\n20.  On 24 October 2001 the applicant’s son, Mr Vili Kveder, informed the authorities of his father’s death and that he continued the proceedings as his legal heir.\n21.  On 26 February 2002 a notice of the lodging of the denationalisation claim was submitted to the liable entity.\n22.  On 5 March 2002 the applicant filed submissions.\n23.  On 11 March 2002 the parties were summoned for a hearing and on 26 March 2002 a hearing was held.\n24.  On 27 March 2002 a financial expert was designated.\n25.  On 8 and 11 April 2002 a certificate of the cadastral state was submitted.\n26.  On 16 April 2002 the applicant filed new documents.\n27.  On 22 April 2002 the expert was summoned.\n28.  On 3 July 2002 the expert established her schedule of costs.\n29.  On 4 July 2002 the administrative authorities ordered the applicant to make payment of a provision to the valuation expert. On 31 July 2002 the applicant appealed against the decision.\n30.  On 14 August 2002 the file was transferred to the appellate authority.\n31.  On 7 February 2003 the Ministry quashed the decision and returned the case for re-examination to the Celje Administrative Unit.\n32.  On 11 March 2003 the expert drew up an opinion.\n33.  On 13 March 2003 a hearing was h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1654", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Šoštanj.\n6.  On 15 June 1992 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\nOn 22 December 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings with the Celje Basic Court, Celje Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Celju, Enota v Celju) against ZT seeking damages in the amount of 5,399,253 tolars (approximately 22,500 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 1 April 1994 the court held a hearing and decided to issue a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 16 May 1994.\n7.  On 26 May 1994 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 19 October 1994 the court dismissed both appeals.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 15 November 1994.\n8.  On 28 November 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 29 November 1996 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, but allowed the ZT’s appeal and reduced the awarded damages.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 6 January 1997.\n9.  On 5 March 1997 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\nOn 26 January 2000 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) declared the case admissible and on 7 December 2000, ruling on the merits, dismissed the appeal.\n The decision was served on the applicant on 28 December 2000.\n10.  On 18 November 1993 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\nOn 27 December 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,560,000 tolars (approximately 6,500 euros) for the injuries sustained.\n11.  On 1 June 1997 ZT instituted proceedings in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) against the applicant seeking 500,000 tolars for access payment of damages in the first set of proceedings.\n12.  On 4 September 1997 the court decided to join the two cases.\nOn 15 March 1999 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 15 June 1999 the court held a hearing and decided that it would issue a written judgment.\nThe judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part and ZT’s claim in whole, was served on the applicant on 24 June 1999.\n13.  On 28 June 1999 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.\nOn 10 May 2000 the court dismissed the appeal.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 5 June 2000.\n14.  On 4 July 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court.\nOn 5 April 2001 the court dismissed the appeal.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 14 May 2001.\n15.  On 8 June 2001 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\nOn 18 November 2002 the Constitutional Court declared the case admissible.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1655", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1961 and 1983 respectively and live in Zagreb.\n5.  On 4 January 1992 I.P., the first applicant’s husband and the second applicant’s father, died in a traffic accident.\n6.  On 10 February 1992 the applicants brought a civil action against the insurance company C.O. with the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages.\n7.  The Municipal Court held hearings on 6 April and 2 December 1992, 3 May, 20 June and 19 September 1994 and 10 November 1997.\n8.  On 17 September 1998 and 10 February 1999 the applicants filed two rush notes requesting the court to schedule a hearing and deliver a decision.\n9.  The hearings scheduled for 9 February 1999 and 19 January 2000 were adjourned due to the illness of the judge. The hearings scheduled for 10 May 2000 and 19 September 2000 were adjourned for absence of the summoned witnesses. At the hearing held on 9 February 2001 the court heard those witnesses.\n10.  On 23 March 2001 the Municipal Court closed the main hearing and gave judgment dismissing the applicants’ claim. The judgment was served on the applicants on 12 April 2001.\n11.  On 25 April 2001 the applicants appealed to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).\n12.  On 18 February 2003 the County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. The decision was served on the applicants on 30 April 2003.\n13.  In the resumed proceedings, the Zagreb Municipal Court held hearings on 10 October 2003, 7 April 2004 and 20 May 2005.\nThe Government submitted that the court also had held a hearing on 10 December 2003. According to the applicants that hearing never took place.\n14.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the Municipal Court.\n15.  Meanwhile, in 2002 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the proceedings.\n16.  On 11 April 2003 the Constitutional Court declared the applicants’ complaint inadmissible, since the Municipal Court had given its judgment in the case while the complaint had been pending before the Constitutional Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1657", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Bataysk, Rostov Region.\n9.  On 11 February 1999 the police started an investigation into a murder case in which they identified L. as a suspect. It was believed that L. was the applicant's boyfriend.\n10.  On the same day the police decided they would search for L. at the applicant's home.\n11.  On 12 February 1999, about midnight, the police arrived at the applicant's flat, apparently to conduct a search, but since they failed to produce a warrant she would not let them in.\n12.  On the following day, 13 February 1999, at about 4.30 p.m., three policemen in plain clothes were waiting for the applicant at her door. One of them produced the identity card of a police major S. and demanded to enter the applicant's flat. As they still had no warrant, the applicant again refused to let them in. The policemen insisted and the applicant fell into a heated discussion with them during which both sides exchanged threats and insults. Ultimately, the major ordered the applicant's arrest. His subordinates, P. and B., seized the applicant, turned her upside down and, while continuing to intimidate her, threw her into a car with no police markings on it. In the struggle the applicant was pushed against the door and hurt her leg and her head; she also banged her head against the car when she was being pushed into it. On the way, the major S. threatened the applicant, saying that he would beat her family and loot her flat while searching it.\n13.  The applicant was taken to the Zheleznodorozhnyy district police station in Rostov-on-Don. She was not informed why she had been taken to the police station. According to the Government's subsequent accounts, it was to fill in the official report on her forceful resistance to the police. However, in the police report it was stated that she was brought in for questioning.\n14.  At the police station, the applicant was brought before the Deputy Head of the Criminal Investigation Department who questioned her about the whereabouts of “her husband”. The applicant told him that she had never been married, and after that he started strangling her with his hands and several other policemen started beating her. For about two hours they administered kicks and blows to her legs, threw her across the room, beat her with a baton and hit her head against the walls. While beating her they accused her of telling lies, insulted her and threatened her with rape and violence against her family.\n15.  The applicant requested that her relatives be informed about her detention; she also requested medical assistance and permission to contact a lawyer, but all her requests were refused.\n16.  At the end of the applicant's interrogation, the deputy prosecutor of the district of Zheleznodorozhnyy, D., happened to visit the police station and enter the room where the applicant had been beaten. The applicant seized this opportunity to complain about her arrest and the beating. He listened to her and suggested that she write him a complaint about her unlawful arrest, but he discouraged her from complaining about ill-treatment. The applicant claimed that she wrote her complaint on the spot and handed it to D.\n17.  After that, at about 7 p.m., the applicant was taken home because the police wanted to conduct a search of her flat. The applicant's neighbour Z., who was summoned as a witness, was told that they were looking for L., and she confirmed that L. did not live there. The police insisted on se", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1658", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Viljevo, Croatia.\n10.  On 15 December 1993 the applicant was found guilty of several criminal offences, including murder, and sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment. He started serving his prison sentence on 4 January 1995 at Lepoglava State Prison (Kazneni zavod Lepoglava – “LSP”).\n11.  LSP is a building comprising five wings: A, B, C, D and E. All the wings have now been renovated. B wing was the last to be renovated, its renovation being completed in December 2003.\n12.  The applicant remained at LSP until 27 September 1995, when he was transferred to another prison. He was admitted to LSP for a second time on 30 December 1998.\n13.  On 4 October 1999 the applicant was transferred to Glina Penitentiary where he remained until 5 April 2000. Then he was transferred to Požega Penitentiary. During his stay in that institution, the applicant was granted various privileges, including the right to short periods of leave. After committing criminal offences (burglary and theft) while on leave, the applicant was again transferred to LSP on 21 September 2000. On 3 January 2001 he was placed in B wing.\n14.  On 8 April 2003 the applicant was transferred to a cell in the renovated part of B wing.\n15.  On 22 August 2003 the applicant was released as he had served his time in prison.\n16.  The applicant gave the following account of the detention conditions in B wing of LSP.\n17.  The cell he was placed in was small and there were neither sanitary facilities nor running water. There was no heating and the cell walls were damp and mouldy. The cell was dirty and the bed sheets were not changed for very long periods of time. In order to urinate at night and at other times when he was confined to his cell, the applicant had to use a four-litre plastic container in the shape of a bottle, because the guards refused to unlock his cell and let him use the toilet. Toiletries and other personal hygiene products were provided only every four to five months. The food served to the inmates was of insufficient quantity and poor quality; the inmates were served only carbohydrates, without any vegetables and hardly any meat. In general, the prison was overcrowded. The prison buildings, built about two hundred years ago, were in a very poor state of repair. As the prison guards did not wear badges with their number or name, the inmates did not know their identities. The prisoners were made to line up as many as ten times a day, even when it rained. They also had to take outdoor exercise daily in slippers, even when it rained or snowed.\n18.  The Government provided the following account of the applicant's detention conditions at LSP.\n19.  The applicant's cell was a double-occupancy cell. Most of the time the applicant shared it with another inmate and only for a period of about two months was he alone in the cell. The cell was 3.5 m long, 1.6 m wide (5.6 m2) and 3.05 m high. It had a 0.8 x 0.8 m (0.64 m2) window and one artificial light. There was no toilet in the cell although the applicant had permanent access to communal sanitary facilities and could use a shower. Inmates were provided with toothpaste, soap, shaving cream, disposable razors, shampoo and toilet paper on a monthly basis. The food served to the inmates was of the prescribed calorific value and in general the inmates had no complaints in that respect. The inmates were lined up several times a day before meals. The inmates who worked were also lined up when ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1659", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 17 February 2000 I.S., a head of division at the National Privatisation Agency, was murdered in front of the entrance to the building where she lived in Riga. The same day the specialised public prosecutor's office for organised crime and other offences (Organizētās noziedzības un citu nozaru specializētā prokuratūra) opened a preliminary investigation into the murder.\n9.  On 27 March 2000 the police arrested two men, V.S. and V.B., on the ground that they were suspects (aizdomās turētie) in the murder and took them into police custody. Shortly afterwards, they were charged and placed in detention on remand.\nOn 18 April 2000 the Belarusian police, acting on a request from the Latvian authorities, arrested two other men, I.F. and I.Č., who had fled to Belarus in the meantime. On 28 April 2000 the men were extradited to Latvia. They too were charged with the murder of I.S. and were brought before the relevant judge, who remanded them in custody.\n10.  During the preliminary investigation, the four co-defendants gave statements to the public prosecutor to the effect that the applicant, who at the time had been the manager of a private company, had ordered and funded I.S.'s murder for reasons of personal revenge. According to I.F., the applicant had first given him 10,000 United States dollars (USD) as payment for carrying out the murder and later comparable sums to enable him to flee the country. On 20 April 2000 I.F.'s girlfriend, who was questioned as a witness, said that she had overheard a conversation between her boyfriend and I.Č. in which both men had referred to V.B. as having perpetrated the murder.\n11.  Accordingly, on 1 June 2000, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being the principal organiser and instigator of the murder. On being taken into police custody and questioned, the applicant admitted having known the victim personally; however, she denied any financial links with her.\nThe same day the police conducted two searches, one at the applicant's home and the other at her office. They seized a large number of documents and files, which were placed in forty cardboard boxes and taken away.\n12.  On the following day, 2 June 2000, the public prosecutor's office placed the applicant under investigation for murder. At the same time, V.S., V.B., I.F. and I.Č. were charged with committing the murder.\n13.  Also on 2 June 2000, the public prosecutor's office applied to the Riga City Kurzeme District Court seeking to have the applicant and the four suspected perpetrators of the crime remanded in custody for an initial period of two months. In court, the prosecution referred to the statements by the four men, which it considered to be credible, and stressed the need to detain the applicant “so that it [could] conduct a thorough preliminary investigation and establish the facts of the case in an objective manner”. According to the prosecution, “if A. Svipsta remain[ed] at liberty, there [was] a danger that she [would] hinder the determination of the truth [and] evade investigation and trial”.\nIn an order issued on 2 June 2000 following inter partes proceedings attended by the applicant and her lawyer, the District Court granted the public prosecutor's request. The order stated that the applicant's detention was necessary in order to counter the risk of collusion and prevent her from obstructing the investigation. Further reasons given were the seriousness of the offence, the personality of the defendant and “other circumsta", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1660", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Maribor.\n6.  In January 1991, after two concluded disciplinary proceedings, the applicant’s employer L. dismissed the applicant from his work. The applicant, who was consequently unemployed, instituted several proceedings challenging both decisions given in the disciplinary proceedings.\n7.   On 16 April 1990 and, according to the applicant, on 1 February 1991 respectively, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Ljubljana Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela v Ljubljani) seeking the annulment of the disciplinary decisions.\nOn 15 May 1991, after several hearings, the court delivered, in the joint proceedings, a decision rejecting the applicant’s claims.\nOn 20 February 1992 the Court of Associated Labour of the Republic of Slovenia (Sodišče združenega dela Republike Slovenije) allowed the applicant’s appeal of 28 June 1991 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nOn 3 March 1993 the Ljubljana Court of Associated Labour again rejected the applicant’s claims.\n On 25 November 1993 the Court of Associated Labour of the Republic of Slovenia allowed the applicant’s appeal of 31 March 1993 and remitted the case again to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia.\nIn the re-examination proceedings, the applicant lodged several written submissions addressed to the first-instance court, the (renamed) Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in social sodišče) and to different judges.\nOf the three hearings held between 11 July 1994 and 3 February 1995, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert. It appears that the applicant objected to the appointment and the Higher Labour and Social Court rejected the objection on 6 October 1994.\nAfter the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 20 February 1995.\n8.  On 27 February 1995, the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.\nOn 13 December 1996 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 14 February 1997.\n9.  On 1 March 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). On 29 April 1997 the applicant urged the court to decide on his appeal and on 23 May 1997 he supplemented the appeal.\nOn 23 September 1997 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 22 November 1997.\n10.  In the meantime, on 27 March 1997 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against all the courts involved in his case. It appears that on 15 December 1997 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal also against the Supreme Court’s judgment.\nOn 7 March 2000 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 1 June 2000.\n11. Despite the Court’s request, the applicant has not filed copies of his requests and the relevant decisions regarding the re-opening proceedings. However, according to the information supplied by the Government and corresponding to that supplied by the applicant, the latter, on 20 October 1998, lodged a request for reopening of the proceedings with the (renamed) Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani). After the decision r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1661", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 10 April 1996 the applicant was injured in an accident at work.\n7.  On 20 January 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his employer GVV in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 5,053,330 Slovenian tolars (approximately 21,060 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 12 April 2001 and 10 April 2002 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions.\nBetween 24 September 1998 and 16 January 2001 he made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the three hearings held between 12 April 2001 and 23 May 2002, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 4 September 2002.\n8.  On 5 September 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 23 March 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 26 May 2005.\n9.  On 22 June 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1662", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Jesenice.\n6.  On 27 December 1994 the applicant lodged a request for promotion with the Ministry of Education and Sport.\nOn 10 November 1995 the Ministry rejected the applicant’s request.\n7.  On 16 February 1996 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Ministry in the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) seeking an amendment of the Ministry’s decision.\nAccording to the information supplied by the Government, the applicant three times adduced written evidences between 8 December 1997 and 10 February 2000.\nBetween 10 December 1998 and 16 June 1999 he three times requested information about the state of the proceedings.\nFollowing the legislative reform concerning the judicial review of administrative acts, the case was in September 2000 reassigned to the Administrative Court (Upravno sodišče).\nOn 18 April 2001 the court delivered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s claim.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 26 April 2001.\n8.  On 9 May 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 5 November 2003 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 20 December 2003.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\nOn 2 June 2004, the Ministry granted to the applicant the requested promotion.\nOn 11 May 2005 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nIt is not clear from the case-file when the decision was served on the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1663", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 30 June 1994 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 5 December 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,243,411 tolars (approximately 5,180 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 26 April 1996 and 27 December 2001 the applicant made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 13 November 1996 and 7 February 2000 she lodged ten preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOn 8 March 1999 the court declared the case out of its jurisdiction, because the applicant increased her claim to 3,243,411 in the submission of 24 February 1999. The case was transferred to the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju).\nAt an undetermined time in late 2000 or early 2001 the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was assigned to a new judge.\nOf the six hearings held between 20 November 1996 and 5 June 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 17 October 2002.\n8.  On 30 November 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. She requested the first-instance court to correct the judgment and also issue a supplementary judgment. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 30 September 2003 the first-instance court corrected the judgment.\nOn 15 October the applicant appealed against the decision of the first-instance court to correct the judgment.\nOn 2 December 2003 the Celje Higher Court allowed the applicant’s appeals in part and increased the damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 26 January 2005.\n9.  On 18 February 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1664", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1958, 1984 and 1985 respectively and live in Škofja Vas. The first applicant is a mother of the other two applicants. She was a wife of I. Z., who was also a father of the other two applicants.\n6.  On 20 November 1997 the first applicant and I. Z. were injured in a car accident. I. Z. died after the accident because of the injures sustained. The perpetrator of the accident, C. D., had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZA.\n7.  On 22 May 1998 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against ZA in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 9.789.433,00 Slovenian tolars (approximately 40,790 euros) for the death of I. Z. and in respect of a non-pecuniary damage resulted from the injures the first applicant’s sustained in the accident.\nBetween 22 February 1999 and 10 June 2003 the applicants lodged fifteen preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nDuring the proceedings, the applicants partially withdrew their claim.\nBetween 17 November 1998 and 19 October 2001 they made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the six hearings held between 12 February 1999 and 7 July 2003, none was adjourned at the request of the applicants.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the hearing held on 4 September 2002, the court decided to suspend the civil proceedings until the criminal proceedings against C. D. were concluded. On 16 September 2002 and 2 December 2002 the applicants requested that a date be set for a hearing in the criminal proceedings. On 9 June 2003 the court issued a judgement finding C. D guilty and the civil proceedings subsequently continued.\nOn 30 October 2003 the court delivered a judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicants on 19 December 2003.\n8.  On 22 December 2003 the applicants appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 24 November 2005 the court allowed the applicants’s appeal in part and increased the damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicants on 12 December 2005.\n9.  On 15 December 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1665", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Škofja vas.\n6.  On 6 August 1990 the applicant fell in the Celje community health care centre (the “health centre”) and injured herself. The health centre had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 16 December 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the health centre and Celje Hospital in the Celje Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,111,460 tolars (approximately 8,800 euros) for the injuries sustained, which she unsuccessfully claimed from ZT in the preceding dispute before the same court.\nOn 5 April 1994 the applicant lodged a preliminary written submission reducing her claim to the amount of 1,561,460 tolars (approximately 8,800 euros).\nBetween 6 September 1994 and 26 April 1996 she made eight requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 1 January 1995 the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.\n8.  On 28 February 1997 the court declared the case out of its jurisdiction and decided to transfer the case, once the decision became final, to the Celje Local Court (Okranjo sodišče v Celju). The decision was served on the applicant on 10 March 1997.\n9.  On 5 June 1997 the applicant added a subsidiary claim in the amount of 2,370,296 (approximately 9,900 euros) to her initial claim.\nConsequently, on 10 June 1997 the court declared the case out of its jurisdiction and decided to transfer the case, once the decision became final, to the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju). The decision was served on the applicant on 16 June 1997.\nOn 17 June 1997 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 18 December 1997 the court dismissed the appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 22 January 1998.\n10.  Between 8 April and 4 June 1998 the applicant made three requests that a date be set for a hearing. On 31 May and 12 October 1999 she filed preliminary written observations.\nOf the three hearings held between 19 November 1998 and 9 November 1999 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 2 February 2000.\n11.  On 4 February 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. The health centre and Celje Hospital cross-appealed.\nOn 1 February 2001 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal, allowed the appeals of the opposite parties in part and rejected the applicant’s claim.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 19 April 2001.\n12.  On 14 May 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 10 April 2002 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 13 May 2002.\n13.  On 20 June 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\nOn 11 May 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 12 May 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1666", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Celje.\n6.  On 10 February 1994 the applicant was injured in an accident at work in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju). The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 20 February 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court seeking damages in the amount of 1,586,610 tolars (approximately 6,600 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 30 March 1995 the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) transferred the case to the Ptuj Local Court (Okrajno sodišče na Ptuju), since the applicant was an employee of the Celje Local Court.\nBetween 8 June 1996 and 25 September 1997 the applicant made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 20 February 1997 the court held a hearing.\nOn 17 March 1997 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.\nOn 25 March 1997 the court appointed a medical expert.\nOn 24 October 1997 the applicant increased her claim to 3,136,610 tolars (approximately 13,000 euros).\nOn 8 January 1998 the court declared the case out of its jurisdiction and the case was transferred to the Ptuj District Court (Okrožno sodišče na Ptuju)\nBetween 18 February 1998 and 3 May 1999 the applicant made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 6 March 1998 and 1 September 1999 she lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the three hearings held between 27 November 1998 and 6 September 1999 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts who also appeared before the court.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 17 September 1999.\n8.  On 27 September 1999 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 11 September 2002 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part dismissed the ZT’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 4 July 2002.\n9.  On 10 July 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court.\nOn 29 May 2003 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 26 June 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1668", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Hagimus.\n7.  Following the construction of a public road, her house was damaged and she brought an action against the Local Council.\n8.  On 1 June 2001 she obtained a judgment in her favour, according to which the Local Council was obliged to pay her 155,868 Moldovan lei (MDL). On 29 January 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the Local Council’s appeal. On 11 April 2002 the Court of Appeal dismissed the Local Council’s appeal on points of law and the judgment became final.\n9.  It appears from the documents submitted by the applicant that on 21 May 2002 an enforcement warrant was sent by the Căuşeni District Court to the Căuşeni Department of Enforcement of Judgments.\n10.  The applicant complained to the Căuşeni District Court and to the Ministry of Justice on numerous occasions about the non-enforcement of the judgment favourable to her.\n11.  In a letter of 28 August 2002 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that during the enforcement proceedings the court decided to change the manner of enforcement of the judgment and on 29 July 2002 it issued a decision in that respect. That decision was challenged by one of the parties to the proceedings.\n12.  In the meantime, on 11 July 2002 the Prosecutor General’s Office filed a request for annulment of all the judgments, and asked the Supreme Court of Justice to re-open the proceedings.\n13.  On 2 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the request for annulment, quashed all the judgments and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings. The re-opened proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1669", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1974 and 1972 respectively and live in İstanbul. The first applicant is the owner of the monthly magazine “Revolution for Equality, Liberty and Peace” (Eşitlik, Özgürlük ve Barış için Devrim) and the second applicant is its editor-in-chief.\n8.  In the fifth and sixth issue of the magazine, three articles written by Mr C.K. were published. The articles were entitled “The Kurdish problem in Turkey and the peace process 2 and 3” and “The butcher of justice is once again at work”.\n9.  The first two articles “The Kurdish problem in Turkey and the peace process 2 and 3” read, inter alia, as follows:\n“The Kurdish problem has taken the shape of an open war for the past thirteen years. (...) It must be firstly stated that the war waged by the State is a dirty war and that the Kurdish national struggle is a righteous resistance with a democratic content. (...) Today’s Kurdish problem is considered as a delayed national movement by most of the left and liberals. (...) To consider the Kurdish problem as a delayed national movement could lead to dangerous tendencies for both the Kurdish problem and Turkish politics. (...)[Kurdish] people are crushed (...). An inevitable imperative for the salvation of crushed people is the integration of the social revolution with the right to self determination. (...) In Turkey, the problem of people who are crushed is a Kurdish problem. Those who consider the Kurdish problem as a delayed national movement, see the present movement as a natural continuation of the Kurdish uprisings that occurred in the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. (...) However, the main dynamic of the present movement is the (...) oppressed Kurdish people. The Kurdish problem can only be solved by considering it as a product of new colonialism and not by considering it as part of a classical colonial system. (...) The ruin of the region on account of the new colonial capitalism and fascism influenced the Kurdish people to embrace, in mid 1980’s, the national war flag of the PKK. (...) The objective revolutionary feature of the PKK (...) is not an excuse to dispense it from criticism. (...) A “democratic peace” struggle is not only to ask for the end of the ongoing war in the region. Of course, a ceasefire is the first and the compulsory step to peace. (...) The request for peace of the oppressed people and proletarians is part of the struggle against imperialism and oligarchy (...)”\n10.  The third article “The butcher of justice is once again at work” read, inter alia, as follows:\n“Oltan Sungurlu, taking behind him a registry tainted by blood, became the Minister of Justice of the MGK Government. Prisoners, relatives of prisoners and human rights advocates know him from old times. Sungurlu, who has been the Minister of Justice for the fourth time, is directly responsible for the prison policies of the ANAP governments. He is against the abolition of death penalty. [He is] the architect of the Regulation of 1st August. He is the minister who transferred the prisoners who were on hunger strike against this Regulation. He is responsible in the first degree for the deaths of M.Y. and H.H.E. who died during a transfer of 12 hours following 35 days of hunger strike (...) Oltan Sungurlu does not deny that they are considering a transition to cell-type prisons. He thinks that he can convince the public and those who visit him because he has found a good pretext for the application of this p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1670", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Paphos.\n9.  The applicant is a gynaecologist. On 10 October 1994, a pregnant woman, Mrs A., died at the hospital of Paphos after being transferred there from a private clinic. The applicant, who had been her medical practitioner, had taken the decision to transfer her to hospital because he had been unable to detect at the clinic the cause of a haemorrhage from which she had been suffering.\n10.  On 7 August 1995 the administrators of the estate of the deceased lodged a civil action against the applicant before the District Court of Paphos claiming damages for alleged medical negligence on his part.\n11.  The parties’ pleadings were completed between 4 September 1995 and 22 December 1995. Within this period the court dealt with an application by the applicant for dismissal of the action for want of prosecution on the basis of the plaintiffs’ failure to deliver their statement of claim within the required time. This application was withdrawn by the applicant and then dismissed by the court once the plaintiffs filed their statement of claim.\n12.  On 9 January 1996, the applicant filed an application requesting that a preliminary point of law be examined before the hearing of the action. In particular, the applicant claimed that the action ought to have been dismissed on the ground that another action, that had been filed earlier and concerned the death of the same person, was also pending before the same district court. Initially, the plaintiffs were granted time to file an objection to the application but when they subsequently withdrew the action they had previously lodged, the applicant proceeded on 22 May 1996 to withdraw his own application claiming his costs. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application, awarding the applicant his costs.\n13.  On 22 August 1996 the plaintiffs applied to the court to fix the case for mention or hearing. Subsequently, on 5 September 1996 the district court fixed the action for mention for 27 September 1996 and then for hearing for 5 December 1996. However, on that date the court adjourned the hearing until 28 February 1997, at the plaintiffs’ request and with the applicant’s consent, in view of the fact that one of their witnesses was unable to attend and testify for their case on that particular date.\n14.  The hearing commenced on 28 February 1997 and was completed on 17 July 1997 with the parties’ final addresses. Approximately ten hearing sessions were held in this period involving the hearing of testimony and the cross-examination of sixteen witnesses. Within this period two short adjournments took place, one by the court itself and one at the plaintiffs’ request. The applicant did not object to these adjournments.\n15.  On 9 October 1997 the Paphos District Court delivered its judgment. It held that the applicant was liable for medical negligence causing death, and ordered him to pay by way of damages an amount of 46,200 Cypriot pounds (CYP) plus interest to the deceased’s dependants, as well as one third of the plaintiffs’ costs.\n16.  On 19 November 1997 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court against the first instance judgment. He based his appeal on a total of thirty one grounds pertaining to the appraisal of the evidence given at first instance as well as the damages awarded.\n17.  In this connection, the applicant stated that on 24 November 1997 he applied to the Supreme Court to have the appeal fixed for hearing (and provides a copy of thi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1671", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Maastricht, the Netherlands.\n5.  In May 1995 a certain A.Š. broke in and occupied the applicant’s summer house in Sabunike near Zadar. Following the applicant’s successful civil action, on 8 October 2001 A.Š. vacated the house.\n6.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.\n7.  On 20 March 1999 the applicant brought a civil action against the State and the County of Zadar (Županija Zadarska – “the County”) with the Zadar Municipal Court seeking damages. He argued that the State and the County were liable for A.Š.’s breaking into his house and the ensuing damage. In particular, the applicant sought compensation for the rent lost due to the prolonged inability to let the house to tourists and for the value of the stolen movable property.\n8.  On 25 May 2000 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that A.Š.’s act was not to be qualified as an act of violence for which the State or the County was liable. Accordingly, there was no need to stay the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment. The applicant appealed.\n9.  On 17 April 2002 the Zadar County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. It found that the subject-matter of the case was to be considered an act of violence for which the State or the County was liable. Accordingly, it instructed the Municipal Court to stay the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.\n10.  On 30 April 2002 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings.\n11.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.\n12. Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 15 February 2005 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings and scheduled a hearing for 11 April 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1672", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Gütersloh, Germany. He is also acting on behalf of his daughter Anna Kemper.\n7.  The applicant is married and lives with his wife and two children born in wedlock. His daughter Anna, whose mother, Ms Kemper, died after having given birth to her, was born out of wedlock on 29 December 1993. Due to her premature birth and a so-called hydrocephalous she had developed, Anna needed constant medical supervision. She stayed in hospital until 11 March 1994 and has since then been living with Mr P. and his wife Mrs P., her mother’s half-sister.\n8.  On 3 January 1994 the applicant lodged a motion with the Gütersloh District Court to appoint him as Anna’s guardian. On 9 March 1994 a judicial officer of the District Court granted Mr and Mrs P.’s motion to appoint them as Anna’s guardians and dismissed the applicant’s respective motion. The District Court found in particular that the applicant was not in a position to ensure that his daughter received the intensive care and medical treatment she needed on account of her illness.\n9.  On 28 December 1994 the Bielefeld Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s decision after having heard the parties twice. On 26 February 1996 the Hamm Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s further appeal regarding his request for appointment as guardian. Insofar as the appointment of both Mrs and Mr P. as guardians was concerned, the Court of Appeal remitted the case to the District Court as, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Civil Code, only one person should have been appointed.\n10.  On 3 April 1996 a judicial officer of the Gütersloh District Court discharged Mr P. as Anna’s guardian, finding that Mrs P. was taking care of the child in the first place. On 3 June 1996 the Bielefeld Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s decision. On 20 May 1997 the Hamm Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s further appeal.\n11.  On 13 December 2000 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the applicant’s constitutional complaints lodged on 21 March 1996 and on 30 June 1997 respectively against the above-mentioned decisions of the guardianship courts in a joint decision. The decision was sent to the applicant on 27 December 2000.\n12.  On 27 March 1995 the applicant lodged a motion with the Rheda‑Wiedenbrück District Court to be granted access to his daughter. On 23 February 1996 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request to be granted access to Anna by way of an interim injunction. On 28 May 1997 the District Court, after having held three hearings, dismissed the applicant’s request for access. It notably found that due to Anna’s fragile state of health and psychological condition and the extreme enmity between the applicant and Mrs P. access would have a detrimental effect on Anna’s well-being.\n13.  On 22 January 1998 the Bielefeld Regional Court, without holding a hearing, dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n14.  On 13 December 2000 the Federal Constitutional Court, without giving further reasons, refused to admit the applicant’s constitutional complaint lodged on 27 February 1998. The decision was served on the applicant on 28 December 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1673", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Slavyansk-na-Kubani in the Krasnodar Region.\n9.  The applicant is a former member of the armed forces. In 1993, after serving on the island of Sakhalin, he retired and moved to Slavyansk-na-Kubani in the Krasnodar Region. He applied to the Slavyansk Town Council for State housing aid. He was put on a waiting list but, since that had no effect, he brought proceedings against the Town Council in the Slavyansk Town Court.\n10.  On 31 March 1998 the Slavyansk Town Court received a letter from the President of the Krasnodar Regional Court (no. 03-06, dated 11 March 1998). The letter, which was distributed to the presidents of all the town and district courts in the region, recommended that, in order to allow the local authorities to function properly, the courts refrain from seizing their bank accounts when giving judgments in cases brought against them by individuals for recovery of pensions and social benefits including State housing aid, and that they provide, in the operative provisions of judgments in such cases, that payments be made as soon as funds were received from an appropriate State budget (district, town, regional or federal) and in the order set out on a waiting list drawn up by the defendant authority.\n11.  On 6 April 1998 the Town Court examined the case. The Town Council submitted at the hearing that the applicant was entitled by law to State housing aid for retired military personnel. However, for the past few years it had not received any funds from the federal budget for that purpose. The court found that the applicant, as a retired serviceman, met the statutory requirements for entitlement to State housing aid financed by the federal budget. In the operative provisions of its judgment of 6 April 1998 the court ordered:\n“that the sum of 113,040 roubles be recovered from the Slavyansk-na-Kubani Town Council in the Krasnodar Region in favour of Vladimir Nikolayevich Konovalov, as a person discharged from military service and transferred to the reserve, as a grant for the purchase of housing;\nthat payment be made from the federal budget of the Russian Federation, upon receipt of funds from the budget and subject to the waiting list.\nThe judgment may be appealed against to the Krasnodar Regional Court through the Slavyansk Town Court within a ten-day term.”\nThe authority did not appeal and the judgment of 6 April 1998 became final on 17 April 1998. On 19 May 1998 the court issued a writ of execution. According to the applicant, enforcement proceedings were initiated on the same day.\n12.  On 4 and 17 December 1998 the Ministry of Finance and the local authority responded to an enquiry from the applicant, informing him about the lack of federal funds for the payment of State housing aid to him.\n13.  As the judgment had not been executed, the applicant brought an application for index-linking of the award in line with an increase in the market prices of immovable property. At a hearing before the Town Court the defendant town council did not object to the applicant’s claim. In a judgment of 19 April 2000 the Town Court increased the amount awarded to the applicant in the judgment of 6 April 1998 for the purchase of housing to 377,020 Russian roubles (“RUR”). In the operative provisions of the judgment the court ordered:\n“that the sum of 377,020 roubles be recovered from the Slavyansk-na-Kubani Town Council in the Krasnodar Region in favour of Vladimir Nikolayevich Konovalov as a gr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1674", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Amorosi (Benevento).\n9.  In a judgment deposited with the court's registry on 30 June 1997, the Benevento District Court made a winding-up order in respect of the applicant's company, a beverage company, and also declared the applicant personally bankrupt.\n10.  On 15 October 1997 the trustee in bankruptcy filed a report.\n11.  On 9 April 1998 the bankruptcy judge (“the judge”) checked the statement of liabilities of the bankrupt estate and on 7 June 1999 declared it judicially established (esecutivo).\n12.  On 1, 5 and 9 July 1999 respectively the companies C.D.O., C.C.C. and F.C. instituted proceedings contesting the statement of liabilities.\n13.  At a hearing held on 14 April 2000, the judge ordered the striking out of the action brought by the company F.C. as being out of time.\n14.  On 18 December 2000 the trustee in bankruptcy requested the creditors' committee to give its opinion on the possible sale of two lorries in very poor condition which were listed in the statement of assets.\n15.  On 8 January 2001 the trustee in bankruptcy requested the judge to declare the lorries unfit for sale (illiquidabili) so that the proceedings could be terminated.\n16.  On 5 February 2001 the trustee in bankruptcy filed the revenue and expenditure account, which the judge approved on 12 March 2001.\n17.  By a decision deposited with the registry on 20 March 2001, the judge terminated the bankruptcy proceedings for lack of any further assets to distribute.\n18.  The decision was posted in the District Court on 23 March 2001. It became final on 7 April 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1675", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Zielona Góra, Poland.\n5.  On 19 December 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of kidnapping a certain J.M. On 21 December 1999 the Zielona Góra District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 19 March 2000 in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question and the fear that, given the severity of the anticipated penalty, he might go into hiding or otherwise obstruct the proceedings against him.\n6.  On 1 February 2000 the Zielona Góra Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) refused the applicant’s counsel’s request to release him under police supervision. The Prosecutor reasoned that there was the risk that the applicant would induce other suspects to give false testimony or attempt to disclose the anonymous witnesses. The Poznań Appellate Prosecutor (Prokurator Apelacyjny) upheld that decision on 16 February 2000.\n7.  On 9 March 2000 the Krosno Odrzańskie District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 19 June 2000. The court repeated the reasons previously given for the applicant’s detention.\n8.  Later, the applicant was charged relating to the homicide of J.M.\n9.  On 13 June 2000 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), on an application from the Zielona Góra Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) prolonged the applicant’s detention pending the investigation until 19 September 2000. It fully upheld the reasons originally given for his detention.\n10.  The applicant repeatedly – but unsuccessfully – asked for release, arguing that the charges against him had no factual basis.\n11.  On 6 September 2000 the Zielona Góra Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged the applicant’s detention until 19 December 2000, finding that the grounds originally given for keeping him in custody were still valid.\n12.  On 23 February 2001 the Prosecutor filed the bill of indictment with the homicide of J.M.\n13.  The Regional Court subsequently extended the applicant’s detention until 8 June 2001. The relevant decisions were given on 12 December 2000 and 12 March 2001 respectively. The court reiterated the original grounds for his detention and added that the suspicion against the applicant was confirmed by evidence given by 2 anonymous witnesses and that, given that 2 of his 3 accomplices were still being searched for by an international “wanted” notice, the risk that he might obstruct justice was considerable.\n14.  Between March 2002 and the end of December 2003 the Poznań Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention on 6 occasions. Those decisions were given on the following dates: 12 March, 6 June and 14 November 2002 and 26 March, 27 June and 29 December 2003. On the last of those dates, his detention was extended until 30 June 2004.\n15.  In all those decisions, the Court of Appeal reiterated that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the serious offences with which he had been charged. It considered that, given the severity of the anticipated sentence and the risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence, keeping him in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. It also found that there were no special grounds, as specified in Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that would justify lifting the detention and imposing less severe measures.\n16.  Throughout the trial the applicant made several unsuccessful applications for rel", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1676", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Vasilyevich Melnik, is a Ukrainian national who was born on 17 May 1961. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n5.  In December 1999 M.O.D. (a private person) found a packet of opium (макова соломка). M.O.D., with the applicant's agreement, later hid the packet in the applicant's house with a view to its subsequent sale and the purchase of alcohol.\n6.  On 28 February 2000 the captain of the Vinnytsia District of the Interior's Division on Combating the Illegal Circulation of Drugs (the “CICD”) issued a resolution authorising the purchase of opium from the applicant on the basis of information received from undisclosed sources. This resolution was approved by the Vinnytsia District prosecutor and the Head of the Vinnytsia Department of the Interior.\n7.  On the same date C.I.S. (an undercover police agent operating under a pseudonym) received instructions from police officers (міліціонерів) to purchase some of the opium. He also received the sum of 12 hryvnas (UAH)[1] for that purpose.\n8.  On the same date the applicant and M.O.D. were apprehended for selling drugs to C.I.S. The opium, which weighed 190 grams, was seized by the police, together with the marked money received by the applicant from C.I.S. The police prepared records of the purchase (про оперативну закупку), finding, confiscation (віднайдення та виїмки) and weighing (взвішування) of the substance and of the search of the buyer (акт огляду покупця). Statements were drawn up in the presence of two witnesses, as required by the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant and M.O.D. were not placed in detention, but were released on an undertaking not to abscond.\n9.  On 9 and 10 March 2000 the investigator of the Investigative Division of the Ministry of the Interior's Vinnytsia District Department (the “Division”) questioned two witnesses (V.V.M. and P.Yu.M.). They were the police officers from the CICD who had organised the purchase and subsequently arrested the applicant and M.O.D.\n10.  On 24 March 2000 the Division's investigator informed the applicant that he was entitled to have a representative. The investigator relied on Articles 21, 44 and 45 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant stated that he refused to be represented by a lawyer and that this decision was not related to his financial situation.\n11.  On the same date the Division's investigator issued a resolution accusing the applicant of being involved in the purchase, sale and storage of narcotic substances with intent to sell, premeditated by a group of persons (Article 229-1 of the former Criminal Code). The applicant was questioned by the investigator as an accused.\n12.  The applicant claims that in the course of the investigation he and his relatives requested legal representation.\n13.  On 25 April 2000 the Vinnytsia District Court of the Vinnytsia region (Вінницький районний суд Вінницької області) held a preliminary hearing. It assumed jurisdiction over the case and adjourned the hearing to 22 May 2000 at the applicant's request. The applicant informed the court that he did not wish to be represented by a lawyer but wished to represent himself at the hearing. The hearing was adjourned upon M.O.D.'s request.\n14.  On 22 May 2000 the court resumed its examination of the case. The participants in the hearing were the prosecutor, the applicant and M.O.D., a witness police officer from the CICD (S.V.V.) and G.A.I., the applicant's neighbour, wh", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1677", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1953. The second applicant was born in 1962. They both reside in Kharkiv. They are former employees of the State Enterprise “Vilne Housing and Communal Property Authority” of the Dzhankoy District of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the “debtor”).\n5.  On 14 February 1999 the Dzhankoy City Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicants UAH 573.43[1] and UAH 256.12[2], respectively. The court issued separate judgments with respect to each applicant on 6 March and 7 April 1999.\n6.  On 24 February 1999 the Dzhankoy Bailiffs’ Service (the “DBS”) initiated the enforcement proceedings in the case.\n7.  On 29 September 1999 the Dzhankoy City Court awarded the first applicant UAH 140.60[3] in child support arrears.\n8.  On 2 September 2000 the Crimean Department of Justice of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicants that the enforcement proceedings were still pending.\n9.  On 20 August 2001 the DBS attached the debtor’s bank accounts. Certain enforcement actions were undertaken by the DBS from 26 November 2001 to 26 January 2004 (attachment of the debtor’s funds, sale of its property, etc.).\n10.  On 26 January 2004 the applicants had been fully paid the salary arrears due to them and the judgments had thus been enforced.\n11.  On 29 January 2004 the DBS terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicants’ case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1678", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the village of Bilashky, the Vinnitsa region of Ukraine.\n5.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Staromiskiy Local Court of Vinnitsa against her former employer – the “Vinnitska Kondyterska Fabryka” Open Joint Stock Company – to be reinstated in her position and to receive compensation.\n6.  On 12 November 2001 the court discontinued proceedings in the applicant’s case on the ground that she had failed to appear before the court.\n7.  On 27 February 2002 the Vinnitsa Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of 12 November 2001. On 26 April 2002 the applicant appealed in cassation.\n8.  On 29 April 2002 the Staromiskiy Local Court rejected the applicant’s request for a cassation appeal as having been submitted too late. The court stated that, under the new wording of Article 321 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter - “the CCP”), which had entered into force on 4 April 2002, the time-limit for lodging an appeal in cassation was one month, and that the applicant had exceeded that time-limit by only lodging her appeal on 26 April 2002. No reference was made in the decision to the actual deadline which had not been complied with.\n9.  On 9 September 2002 the Vinnitsa Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of 29 April 2002.\n10.  On 5 February 2003 the panel of three judges of the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation against the rulings of 29 April and 9 September 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1679", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 26 February 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, a college student, on a charge of extortion, which had allegedly been committed the day before. On 27 February 2002 he was arrested.\n6.  On 28 February 2002 the Budapest Police Department heard the applicant, explaining that criminal proceedings were being conducted against him and three other defendants on suspicion of having participated in the sequestration and beating of a certain Mr K., and of having forced him to sign a false statement of debt, conduct punishable under sections 175 and 323 of the Criminal Code.\n7.  Between 27 February 2002 and 21 March 2003, the defendants were interrogated on several occasions; moreover, several confrontations took place between the defendants themselves and between them and the victim. In particular, the applicant was interrogated on five occasions during this period. Also in the same period, the police heard 17 witnesses and the victim on altogether 14 occasions. Furthermore, experts in toxicology, haemogenetics and dactyloscopy were appointed, along with a forensic medical expert and an expert on physical evidence. The police were collecting evidence from banks, telephone companies, the land registry and the register of passenger cars.\n8.  Meanwhile, on 2 March 2002 the Pest Central District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, referring to the danger of his absconding, in particular in view of the fact that he had not been living at his registered address for more than two years. Additional reference was made to the risk of collusion. On 11 March 2002 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed his appeal.\n9.  The applicant was assisted by defence counsel of his choice and was initially held at the Gyorskocsi Police Detention Facility. His detention was prolonged on 26 March and 24 May 2002 on the ground of a risk of absconding and collusion. These decisions were confirmed on 30 April and 12 June 2002, respectively. The courts held that the seriousness of the charges against the applicant alone sufficed to establish the risk of absconding.\n10.  On 9 August 2002 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release. On 10 September 2002 that court’s appellate bench rejected his appeal. His further complaint of 15 September 2002 was to no avail.\n11.  On 27 September 2002 the applicant’s detention was again prolonged, essentially on the ground of a risk of absconding. The court noted that the risk of collusion was diminishing, since the applicant had confessed to his crime.\n12.  Meanwhile, from July 2002 onwards, the applicant’s behaviour in detention became more and more erratic; in particular, on one occasion he attacked a fellow inmate. In July and October 2002 as well as July, August and September 2003 the applicant was repeatedly committed, for shorter periods, to the Asylum for the Criminally Insane (“IMEI”) with a view to having his mental status observed by expert psychiatrists. Eventually, it was concluded that he suffered from a psychosis.\n13.  On 18 December 2002 and 17 January 2003, the renewed requests for release of the applicant, who from October 2002 onwards was detained at Budapest Penitentiary, were dismissed.\n14.  On 27 February and 26 June 2003 the Supreme Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on the basis of the risk of his absconding.\n15.  Given his increasingly disturbed state of mind, on 14 April 2003 the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1680", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On an undetermined date between December 1990 and October 1992, the applicant brought an action in trespass against her neighbour in the Pest Central District Court.\n6.  Between 19 October 1993 and 17 November 1998 the District Court held nine hearings, repeatedly instructed the applicant to submit better particulars of her claims and appointed a legal-aid lawyer. On the latter date it dismissed the applicant’s action, holding that the disturbance that had been caused by maintenance works on some pipes crossing through the applicant’s plot was of a reasonable extent and justified by the rights under the neighbour’s easement.\n7.  On 19 November 1999 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n8.  On 16 March 2000 the applicant filed a petition for review.\n9.  On 26 June 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review, holding that the first and second instance judgments had been delivered according to the law. This decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 17 October 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1681", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Chrzanów, Poland. He is represented before the Court by Mr T. Marek, a lawyer practising in Oświęcim, Poland.\n5.  On 16 March 2001 the Chrzanów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery. The court considered that the applicant’s detention was justified in view of the gravity of the charges against him. There was also a risk that he could go into hiding.\n6.  On 21 May 2001 the applicant asked for release from detention. The Chrzanów District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) refused on 29 May 2001. He considered that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question and a risk that he might obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings. He found also that there were no grounds on which to release the applicant, as defined in Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, he underlined the gravity of the charges brought against him.\n7.  On 30 May 2001 the applicant was indicted on 3 counts of armed robbery committed together with 2 accomplices before the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n8.  On 11 July 2001 the Katowice Regional Court ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 30 October 2001. The court repeated the reasons previously given for his detention.\n9.  On 23 July 2001 the Katowice Regional Court referred the case to the Cracow Regional Court, considering that that court had jurisdiction over the matter. The Cracow Regional Court disagreed and, on 24 September 2001, referred the case to the Cracow Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) for a ruling determining which court was to deal with it. On 17 October 2001 the Court of Appeal ordered that the case be tried before the Katowice Regional Court.\n10.  The applicant’s detention was further extended on 25 October and 10 December 2001, despite the applicant’s requests for release.\n11.  The first hearing was to be held on 19 April 2002 but the trial was adjourned for procedural reasons.\n12.  During the proceedings the applicant’s detention was prolonged on several occasions. The last decision was taken on 11 October 2002, when the Katowice Regional Court ordered that he be held in custody until 15 March 2003.\n13.  The applicant made many unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions prolonging his detention. He maintained that his detention was excessive and that other measures, such as bail or police supervision could secure the proper conduct of the trial. All decisions dismissing his applications repeated the same grounds for the applicant’s detention: the reasonable suspicion against him and the severity of the anticipated sentence and the fear that he might tamper with evidence.\n14.  On 10 March 2003 the Katowice Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment.\n15.  The Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment on 6 November 2003.\n16.  On 17 September 2004 the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) entered into force.\n17.  The applicant did not lodge a complaint under the 2004 Act.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1682", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Konstancin Jeziorna, Poland.\n5.  The applicant’s grandfather (“J.O.”) owned a plot of land and a house situated in the centre of Warsaw. During the Second World War the house was demolished. By virtue of the 1945 Decree on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw (Dekret o własności i użytkowaniu gruntów na obszarze m. st. Warszawy) all land in Warsaw was nationalised. In 1948 J.O. asked the administrative authorities to grant him a right of temporary ownership (własność czasowa) of his plot. On 24 December 1951 the Board of the Warsaw National Council (Prezydium Rady Narodowej) dismissed his application.\n6.  On 6 August 1993 the applicant and other J.O.’s heirs filed with the Minister of Town and Country Planning (Ministerstwo Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa) an application for the annulment of the decision of 1951. They also asked for a right of perpetual use (użytkowanie wieczyste) of the plot in question to be granted to them. On 27 February 1995 the Minister quashed the 1951 decision and remitted the case to the Mayor of Warsaw (Prezydent Miasta Warszawy) for re-examination.\n7.  By June 1996 the Mayor had not delivered any decision. On 4 June 1996 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Self-Governmental Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) a complaint alleging inactivity on the part of the Mayor of Warsaw.\n8.  On 31 July 1996 the Mayor stayed the proceedings until the applicant had submitted certain documents. On 13 August 1996, upon a further appeal by the applicant, the Board of Appeal quashed that decision. On 14 August 1996 the Board of Appeal ordered the Mayor to give a decision within 30 days. The Mayor failed to comply with this order.\n9.  On 13 September 1996 the Mayor of Warsaw asked the Board of Appeal to extend the time-limit as he needed to obtain some additional documents. On 30 September 1996 the Mayor asked for an extension of the time-limit until 30 November 1996.\n10.  On 15 November 1996 the Mayor again stayed the proceedings, this time until the conclusion of other administrative proceedings. On 13 February 1997, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Board of Appeal quashed that decision and ordered the Mayor to proceed with the case.\n11.  On 11 March 1997 the Mayor refused the application for the grant of the right of perpetual use of the plot concerned. The applicant appealed. On 2 July 1997 the Board of Appeal set aside the first-instance decision and remitted the case.\n12.  On 27 October 1997 the Mayor of Warsaw for the second time refused the application for the grant of the right of perpetual use. On 25 February 1998 the Board of Appeal again quashed this decision and remitted the case.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 5 August 1997 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny), alleging inactivity on the part of the Mayor of Warsaw. On 12 October 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court delivered a judgment in which it ordered the Mayor to issue a decision within 30 days and awarded the applicant 5 PLN for costs and expenses.\n14.  On 14 December 1998 the Mayor stayed the proceedings until the conclusion of the administrative proceedings concerning the transfer of ownership to the Warsaw Municipality and the adoption of a local master plan (Miejscowy plan zagospodarowania przestrzennego). Upon the applicant’s appeal, the Board of Appeal upheld this decision on 23 April 1999. On 14 March 2000 the Supreme Adminis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1683", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n1.  The case originated in an application (no. 67506/01) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Lithuanian national, Mr Vytautas Bendžius (“the applicant”), on 19 December 2000. 3.  The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had been subjected to entrapment in breach of Article 6 of the Convention. His last communication to the Court was a letter dated 14 February 2004, sent from his home address in Jurbarkas, stating that he maintained his complaint under the Convention. 4.  The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1. 5.  On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Second Section (Rule 52 § 1). Ms D. Jočienė, the judge elected in respect of Lithuania, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28). The Government accordingly appointed Mr J.-P. Costa, the judge elected in respect of France, to sit in her place (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1). 7.  By a letter dated 29 April 2005, the Registry informed the applicant about the decision. The applicant was invited to submit by 27 June 2005 his observations on the merits, his position on a friendly settlement of the case and his claims for just satisfaction (Rules 59, 60 and 62 of the Rules of Court). 9.  By a letter dated 11 August 2005, sent to the applicant’s home address by registered post, the Registry reminded the applicant that the time-limit for submission of his observations on the merits had expired, without a reply from him. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that an applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 10.  Receipt of the registered letter of 11 August 2005 was confirmed by the postal service. The applicant has not replied to this correspondence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1684", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Strzelce Krajeńskie, Poland.\n5.  On 3 March 2000 the applicant was brought before the Radomsko District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). He was charged with having committed burglary. The court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 1 June 2000.\n6.  The applicant was placed in the Piotrków Trybunalski Detention Centre (Areszt Śledczy). His detention was subsequently prolonged several times until the end of the proceedings against him.\n7.  On 15 November 2000 the Radomsko District Court convicted the applicant of handling stolen goods and sentenced him to 15 months’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 2 February 2001 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the first-instance judgment.\n9.  On 28 May 2001 the applicant’s officially-appointed lawyer, who represented him in the proceedings before both instances, refused to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf.\n10.  The applicant sent numerous letters to the Court, most of which appear to have been opened and read by the domestic authorities.\n11.  The applicant’s first letter of 1 May 2000 bears the stamp “Radomsko District Prosecutor (Prokuratura Rejonowa w Radomsku)”, the date 8 May 2000 (stamped), and an illegible signature.\n12.  His letter of 27 August 2001 bears the same stamp, a signature “prok. R. Gawęcka (Prosecutor R. Gawęcka)”, and the date 28 August 2001, which is both stamped and hand-written.\n13.  The applicant’s letter of 10 September 2001 is marked with the same stamp and the date 12 September 2001 (stamped and hand-written) and bears an illegible signature.\n14.  The envelopes of the applicant’s letters of 14 and 22 October, 18 November 2001, 2 April, 3 and 22 July, 13 October, 4 December 2002 bear the stamp “Censored” (ocenzurowano) and the official stamp of the Radomsko District Court. Each of them is marked with a date-stamp and an illegible signature. All envelopes bear traces of opening after being sealed: they were cut open and resealed with adhesive tape.\n15.  On 3 January 2003 the applicant sent a letter to the Court. He complained that his correspondence with the Court’s Registry had been censored. He enclosed the envelope of the letter sent to him by the Registry on 22 November 2002. The envelope was marked with the stamp “Censored”, the date 5 December 2002 and an illegible signature. The envelope of the applicant’s letter to the Court also bears the stamp “censored”, the date 10 January 2003 and an illegible signature. They have been covered up with white corrector fluid.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1685", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Catanzaro.\n13.  On 21 May 1986 Mr P. brought proceedings against the applicant in the Chiaravalle Centrale Magistrate’s Court for recognition of the existence of a right of way.\n14.  Preparation of the case for trial began on 28 May 1986 and on that date the Magistrate’s Court appointed an expert. Of the seven hearings listed between 8 October 1986 and 2 December 1987 three were devoted to organising expert evidence, two to an inspection of the premises by the pretore, two were adjourned by the court of its own motion and one was adjourned because the lawyers were on strike. On 27 July 1988 the Magistrate’s Court set the case down for hearing of oral submissions on 1 March 1989. On that date the hearing was adjourned to 5 July 1989 at the parties’ request. Of the fifteen hearings listed between 2 May 1991 and 4 June 1997 six were adjourned at the parties’ request, two at the request of the defendant, five by the court of its own motion – one of which was because the registry had not notified the applicant of the date of the hearing – one because the applicant had changed lawyer and another one to allow the registry to check that the stamps had duly been affixed to a number of documents in the case file. Judgment was reserved on 22 October 1997.\n15.  In an order of 26 November 1997, which was not made at a hearing, the court declared the case reopened and requested the parties to file documents with the registry. On 4 March 1998 the court reserved judgment.\n16. In an order of 9 April 1998 the court declared the case reopened, noted that the parties had not yet filed the documents requested and adjourned the case to 7 October 1998. On that date judgment was reserved.\n17.  In a judgment of the same date, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 16 August 1999, the Magistrate’s Court granted Mr P.’s application.\n18.  On 27 October 2000 the applicant appealed to the Catanzaro Court of Appeal. According to information provided by the applicant on 6 June 2005, the first hearing, which was to be held on 22 January 2001, was not held until 10 December 2001 following two adjournments of the court’s own motion and an adjournment of a hearing because the registry had not notified the parties of the hearing date. The parties made their submissions two hearings later, on 27 May 2002, and the hearing of final submissions was set down for 9 December 2003. That hearing was adjourned to 6 July 2004 following the transfer of the judge directing the preparations for trial, then to 18 January 2005. On that date judgment was reserved.\n19.  In a judgment of 21 February 2005, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 18 March 2005, the Court of Appeal set aside the first-instance court’s judgment and allowed the applicant’s appeal. According to information provided by the applicant on 14 October 2005, as the judgment had not been served the time allowed for appealing to the Court of Cassation was still running.\n20.  On an unspecified date in April 2002 the applicant lodged an application with the Salerno Court of Appeal under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, complaining of the length of the above-described proceedings. He requested the court to rule that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and to order the Italian State to pay compensation for the distress and other non-pecuniary damage sustained. The applicant claimed 13,000 euros (EUR) in comp", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1686", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Pianello Val Tidone (Piacenza).\n13.  On 8 April 1974 the applicant sued Mr P. in the Piacenza District Court seeking damages for the loss she had sustained as a result of works carried out by her neighbour which had resulted, among other things, in sewage being dumped on her property.\n14.  Preparation of the case for trial began on 11 May 1974. Of the sixty- six hearings listed between 11 November 1974 and 15 June 1995 nineteen were adjourned at the request of the parties, three at the request of the applicant, two at the request of Mr P., four by the court of its own motion, and one on account of a lawyers’ strike; twelve were devoted to organising expert evidence, twelve to the filing of documents and the hearing of witnesses, twelve to attempts to seek a friendly settlement, and one was adjourned in order to allow the parties to make their submissions.\n15.  In the meantime Mr P.’s lawyer had filed a death certificate with the registry in respect of his client. At a hearing on 29 February 1996 the judge declared the proceedings interrupted. The proceedings were resumed on 25 September 1996 and the judge fixed 11 June 1998 as the date for hearing submissions. On an unspecified date the case was referred to the bench of judges dealing with the oldest cases (sezioni stralcio). At a hearing on 18 November 1999 the parties requested that a date be fixed for hearing oral submissions and the judge adjourned the case to 8 June 2000. The hearing was not held on that date, but adjourned to 12 June 2000. On that date judgment was reserved.\n16.  In a judgment of 23 October 2000, the text of which was deposited with the registry on the same day, the Piacenza Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part and ordered Mr P.’s heir to move the septic tank that had not been installed at the prescribed distance and to replace part of the applicant’s sullage pipes. It also awarded her 15,000,000 Italian lire (7,747 euros (EUR)).\n17.  On 17 October 2001 the applicant lodged an application with the Ancona Court of Appeal under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, complaining of the excessive length of the above-described proceedings. The applicant requested the court to conclude that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and to order the Italian Government to pay compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The applicant claimed 200,000,000 Italian lire (EUR 103,291.37) in non-pecuniary damages and an unquantified amount for costs and expenses.\n18.  In a decision of 31 January 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 13 February 2002, the Court of Appeal found that the proceedings had been excessively long. It held as follows:\n“In the instant case, even if the proceedings are not entirely straightforward given the subject of the proceedings (a bitter dispute between neighbours), which has given rise to many attempts at conciliation, hearings of witnesses and an expert report, the length of the proceedings - over 26 years – nonetheless does not appear proportionate to the objective importance and the consequences of the judicial proceedings.\nWith regard to the conduct of the parties, account cannot be taken of the extension of the length of the proceedings owing to legitimate requests or the time necessary to rationalise and ensure the normal conduct of the proceedings given that proceedings are unreasonably long where the applicant cannot be blam", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1687", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n13.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lived in Paduli (Benevento).\n14.  On 10 November 1994 the applicant brought proceedings in the Benevento Magistrate’s Court, sitting as an employment tribunal, seeking acknowledgment of her right to an invalidity pension (pensione di inabilità) and an attendance allowance (indennità di accompagnamento).\n15.  On 21 November 1994 the Magistrate’s Court set the case down for the first hearing on 19 February 1996. On that day the court appointed an expert and adjourned the proceedings to a hearing on 8 July 1997. The hearing was adjourned by the court of its own motion to 28 January 1999. On that date the court set the case down for hearing of oral submissions on 15 June 1999. In the meantime, following his mother’s death, Mr Casciano declared his intention to continue the proceedings.\n16.  The following hearing was adjourned by the court of its own motion to 14 February 2000. However, it was not held on that date because of a lawyers’ strike. The three hearings held between 28 March 2000 and 7 November 2000 were devoted to new expert evidence.\n17.  In a decision of 30 January 2001, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 6 February 2001, the Benevento Magistrate’s Court, sitting as an employment tribunal, dismissed the applicant’s claim.\n18.  On 15 February 2001 Mr Casciano appealed to the Naples Court of Appeal. On 2 January 2002 the president appointed a reporting judge. The first hearing was held on 7 October 2002. Two hearings later, on 19 May 2003, judgment was reserved. In a judgment of the same date, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 6 November 2003, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.\n19.  On an unspecified date, after 16 October 2001, the applicant’s son lodged an application with the Rome Court of Appeal under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, complaining of the excessive length of the above-described proceedings. The applicant’s son requested the court to rule that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and to order the Italian Government to pay compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained and pay the legal costs including those incurred before the Court. Mr Casciano claimed, inter alia, 20,000,000 Italian lire (10,329.14 euros (EUR)) in non-pecuniary damages. He sought the reimbursement of his legal costs, including those incurred before the Court, but did not quantify or give particulars of them.\n20.  In a decision of 5 April 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 6 June 2002, the Court of Appeal found that the proceedings had been excessively long. It held as follows:\n“... As is clear from the circumstances described by the applicant, and confirmed by the documentation produced, the length of these proceedings (more than 7 years) was justified only in part by the procedural requirements whereas certain adjournments were attributable to the inefficiency of the authorities themselves or their officers.\nDelays occurred that were not justified by specific reasons related to the special nature of the case, are not attributable to the conduct of the applicant and give rise, irrespective of the finding of particular omissions or negligence of the persons involved, to responsibility on the part of the State for a breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time.\nThe case concerns social-security proceedings. Bearing in mind the complexity of the proceedings and the necessary expert", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1688", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicants were born in 1932 and 1938 respectively and live in Benevento.\n13.  On 23 October 1989 Mr G.P., the applicants’ father, brought proceedings against E., a company, in the Benevento District Court to have a contract for the installation of windows in his flat set aside and seeking compensation for the damage incurred.\n14.  Preparation of the case for trial began on 30 November 1989. Of the eighteen hearings listed between 22 March 1990 and 18 May 1998 three were adjourned by the court of its own motion and three because E.’s lawyer had failed to appear, four were devoted to organising expert evidence, five to hearing evidence from witnesses, one was adjourned because the judge had withdrawn from the case, another one was adjourned because Mr G.P.’s lawyer had failed to appear and a further one was adjourned at his request. The applicants declared their intention to continue the proceedings following Mr G.P.’s death on 27 March 1995.\n15.  On an unspecified date the case was referred to the bench of judges dealing with the oldest cases (sezione stralcio).\nOf the six hearings listed between 15 February 1999 and 9 October 2001 two were adjourned by the court of its own motion, one was adjourned by the judge responsible for preparing the case, one was devoted to a request to set the case down for hearing of oral submissions and two to hearing the submissions.\n16.  In a judgment of 30 May 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 31 October 2002, the court granted the applicants’ claims in part and awarded them 945.40 euros (EUR) in compensation for the damage sustained.\n17.  On 10 October 2001 the applicants lodged an application with the Rome Court of Appeal under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, complaining of the excessive length of the above-described proceedings. The applicants requested the court to rule that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and to order the Italian Government to pay compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The applicants claimed 25,000,000 Italian lire (EUR 12,911.42) each in non-pecuniary damages plus an unquantified amount for costs and expenses.\n18.  In a decision of 25 February 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 23 April 2002, the Court of Appeal found that the proceedings had been excessively long. It held as follows:\n“Whereas...\n the applicants, as Mr Giuseppe Procaccini’s heirs, continued the proceedings he had instituted in the Benevento District Court by a summons served on 23 October 1989 seeking an order against the defendant company to replace a number of defective frames that it had installed;\n– during the proceedings an expert report was ordered and produced;\n– the proceedings are still pending before the sezione stralcio bench;\n– there has without any doubt been a breach of the reasonable-time requirement in respect of proceedings that have lasted 9 years;\n– for want of proof of pecuniary damage, a total amount of 2,250 euros can be awarded under the head of non-pecuniary loss for damage to quality of life plus statutory interest to accrue from the date of the claim, on account of the very low stakes involved in the proceedings.”\nThe Court of Appeal dismissed the claim for pecuniary damages for lack of proof and awarded a global sum of EUR 2,250, on an equitable basis, in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 750 for costs and expenses. That decision was served on 20 December 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1690", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Benevento.\n13.  On 5 May 1987 Mr F. asked the Benevento District Court to order the applicant to pay him 73,934,495 Italian lire (38,183.98 euros (EUR)) for professional services. On 11 May 1987 the President of the Benevento District Court granted the application. The order was served on the applicant on 20 May 1987.\n14.  On 8 June 1987 the applicant challenged the order in the Benevento District Court. Preparation of the case for trial began on 24 September 1987. Of the twenty-nine hearings listed between 26 November 1987 and 16 October 1998 seven were adjourned by the court of its own motion, ten were devoted to organising expert evidence and supplementary findings and two were adjourned at the parties’ request.\n15.  On 16 April 1999 the case was referred to the bench of judges dealing with the oldest cases (sezioni stralcio). Of the four hearings listed between 22 September 1999 and 8 February 2002 one was adjourned by the court of its own motion and one because the parties had not appeared. On 2 May 2003 the case was struck out of the list of cases because the parties had not appeared.\n16.  On 10 January 2002 the applicant lodged an application with the Rome Court of Appeal under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, complaining of the excessive length of the above-described proceedings. The applicant asked the court to rule that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and to order the Italian Government to pay compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained. The applicant claimed EUR 14,460.94 in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. He sought the reimbursement of his legal costs, including those incurred before the European Court of Human Rights, but did not quantify or give particulars of them.\n17.  In a decision of 21 June 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 2 October 2002, the Court of Appeal found that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. It held as follows:\n“ ... The proceedings have lasted approximately 15 years without being disposed of.\nTheir length is clearly well over the reasonable time required by Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention.\nOn the basis of the time periods considered reasonable in a series of judgments of the Strasbourg Court, this type of proceedings should have ended within three years at the most since they were normal proceedings on the merits to be prepared and dealt with in accordance with the ordinary procedure.\nAccordingly, in respect of the surplus period of approximately 12 years the delay has to be regarded as unjustified.\nThat delay certainly cannot be attributed to culpable conduct on the part of the applicant, who did not make any unsubstantiated requests for an adjournment or applications for investigative measures on false pretexts since he merely put up with the numerous adjournments ordered by the court of its own motion and the slowness in preparing the case without being able to intervene to expedite the proceedings, as was in his interests, and have set aside an order to pay a substantial sum which he considered unfair.\nNor is the delay attributable to the complexity of the case since, on the contrary, it was an ordinary dispute which could easily have been disposed of in less time by examining a number of documents and the expert report that was drawn up, as the technical investigation did not require a lot of work.\nNor have the courts been negli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1691", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Pesco Sannita (Benevento).\n13.  On 17 January 1992 the applicant brought proceedings in the Benevento Magistrate's Court, sitting as an employment tribunal, seeking acknowledgement of her right to be reregistered on the lists of farmers and of her status in that capacity. That status had been contested by the Farmers' Social Insurance Fund (Servizio Contributi Agricoli Unificati – “the SCAU”). Her entitlement to a maternity allowance depended on the type of occupational status she had.\n14.  On 22 February 1992 the Magistrate's Court set the case down for the first hearing on 14 March 1994. On that day it also requested documents relating to the records drawn up by the labour inspector and ordered them to be filed at a hearing on 8 November 1995. On that date, at the request of counsel for the defendant, the Magistrate's Court declared the proceedings interrupted on the ground that the SCAU had been abolished.\n15.  On 24 November 1995 the applicant lodged an application with the court registry for the proceedings to be resumed against the social-security department (Istituto Nazionale di Previdenza Sociale). On 25 January 1996 the Magistrate's Court set the case down for hearing on 21 October 1997. However, that hearing was adjourned by the court of its own motion to 4 March 1999. The next three hearings, held between 8 April 1999 and 18 September 2000, were devoted to hearing evidence from witnesses. One of those hearings was adjourned at the parties' request. On 13 November 2000 the parties made their submissions.\n16.  In a judgment of the same date, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 21 November 2000, the Magistrate's Court dismissed the claim because the applicant had failed to show that a relationship of subordination had existed at her work.\n17.  On 24 April 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Naples Court of Appeal. On 11 February 2001 the president set the appeal down for hearing on 26 January 2004. On that day the Court of Appeal reserved judgment. In a judgment of the same date, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 15 March 2004, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.\n18.  On 3 October 2001 the applicant lodged an application with the Rome Court of Appeal under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, complaining of the excessive length of the above-described proceedings. She asked the court to rule that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and to order the Italian Government to pay compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained, plus an unquantified amount for costs and expenses.\n19.  In a decision of 28 February 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 30 April 2002, the Court of Appeal found that the proceedings had been excessively long. It held as follows:\n“...The Convention principle that everyone's case must be examined within a reasonable time has been breached, and the applicant has sustained non-pecuniary damage for the excessive length of the proceedings involving interests of considerable importance. In truth, the proceedings ... should not have lasted more than five years for two levels of jurisdiction. Non-pecuniary damage (distress on account of the prolongment of proceedings relating to an important situation in the applicant's life) must be deemed to exist in relation to the violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention – a violation which objectively exists on", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1692", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Benevento.\n13.  On 15 July 1994 Mrs P., the applicant’s mother, brought proceedings in the Benevento Magistrate’s Court, sitting as an employment tribunal, seeking acknowledgment of her right to an invalidity pension (pensione di inabilità) and an attendance allowance (indennità di accompagnamento).\n14.  On 23 July 1994 the Magistrate’s Court set the case down for the first hearing on 11 March 1996. On that day the court appointed an expert and adjourned the proceedings to a hearing on 9 April 1997.\n15.  In a judgment of the same day, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 13 June 1997, the court dismissed Mrs P’s claim.\n16.  On 29 July 1997 Mrs P. lodged an appeal with the Naples District Court. The president of the court appointed a judge rapporteur and set the appeal down for hearing on 30 April 2001.\n17.  In the meantime, also on 29 July 1997, Mrs P. died. According to information provided by the applicant’s lawyer on 18 March 1998, when he attempted to file with the court registry the document stating his client’s intention to continue the proceedings as heir, an employee of the Naples District Court registry told him to come back in the year 2000. His reason for this was that the hearing would not be until 2001 and he would otherwise have to waste hours looking in hundreds of cases listed for April 2001. On 25 January 2000 the applicant lodged a document declaring his intention to continue the proceedings as heir. A hearing was listed for 14 February 2002.\n18.  In a judgment of 16 January 2003, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 21 March 2003, the court noted that a further expert’s report showed that Mrs P. had been suffering from a number of ailments which rendered her totally unfit for work and made it necessary to hire a permanent home help. Accordingly, it granted Mrs P.’s claim from 1 June 1996 until the date of her death.\n19.  On 3 October 2001 the applicant lodged an application with the Rome Court of Appeal under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, complaining of the excessive length of the above-described proceedings. The applicant requested the court to conclude that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and to order the Italian State to pay compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained, which he had assessed at 30,000,000 Italian lire (15,493.71 euros (EUR)), plus an unspecified amount in costs and expenses.\n20.  In a decision of 7 March 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 6 May 2002, the Court of Appeal found that the length of the proceedings had been excessive for the following reasons:\n“... The first-instance proceedings ended after approximately three years, whereas the appeal lodged in 1997 is still pending.\nThe Convention principle that everyone’s case must be examined within a reasonable time must be deemed to have been breached.\nThe length of the proceedings in question does not comply with the reasonable-time requirement because – given the subject matter – they should not have exceeded two years at first instance and eighteen months on appeal since the case is not a complex one.\nNo particularly repetitive conduct such as to prolong the proceedings can be attributed to the applicant.\nIt is undeniable that the judicial system – on account of the relevant rules of procedure and the lack of staff – prevents judicial proceedings from being disposed of rapidly, despi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1693", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicants were born in 1959, 1949, 1951 and 1953 respectively and live in Reggio di Calabria.\n13.  In 1992 the applicants inherited from Mr A. Scordino several plots of land in Reggio di Calabria, entered in the land register as folio 111, parcels 105, 107, 109 and 662. On 25 March 1970 Reggio di Calabria District Council had adopted a general development plan, which was approved by the Calabria Regional Council on 17 March 1975. The land in issue in the present application, an area of 1,786 sq. m designated as parcel 109, was made the subject of an expropriation permit under the general development plan with a view to the construction of housing on the land. The land was subsequently included in the zonal development plan approved by the Calabria Regional Council on 20 June 1979.\n14.  In 1980 Reggio di Calabria District Council decided that a cooperative society, Edilizia Aquila, would carry out building work on the land in question. In a decision of 13 March 1981, the administrative authorities granted the cooperative permission to occupy the land.\n15.  On 30 March 1982, pursuant to Law no. 385/1980, Reggio di Calabria District Council offered an advance on the compensation payable for the expropriation, the amount having been determined in accordance with Law no. 865/1971. The sum offered, 606,560 Italian lire (ITL), was calculated according to the rules in force for agricultural land, using a value of ITL 340 per square metre as a basis, with the proviso that the final amount of compensation would be determined once a law had been enacted laying down new compensation criteria for building land.\n16.  The offer was refused by Mr A. Scordino.\n17.  On 21 March 1983 the Regional Council issued an expropriation order in respect of the land.\n18.  On 13 June 1983 the District Council made a second offer of an advance, this time amounting to ITL 785,000. The offer was not accepted.\n19.  In judgment no. 223 of 15 July 1983, the Constitutional Court declared Law no. 385/1980 unconstitutional on the ground that it made the award of compensation subject to the enactment of a future law.\n20.  As a result of that judgment, Law no. 2359/1865, which provided that compensation for expropriation should correspond to the market value of the land in question, came back into force.\n21.  On 10 August 1984 Mr A. Scordino served formal notice on the District Council to determine the final amount of compensation in accordance with Law no. 2359/1865. On 16 November 1989 he learned that Reggio di Calabria District Council had assessed the final amount at ITL 88,414,940 (ITL 50,000 per square metre) in an order of 6 October 1989.\n22.  On 25 May 1990, contesting the amount of compensation he had been awarded, Mr A. Scordino brought proceedings against the District Council and the cooperative in the Reggio di Calabria Court of Appeal.\n23.  He argued that the amount determined by the District Council was ridiculously low in relation to the market value of the land and requested, among other things, to have the compensation calculated in accordance with Law no. 2359/1865. He also sought compensation for the period during which the land had been occupied before the expropriation order had been issued, and for the area of land (1,500 sq. m) that had become unusable as a result of the building work.\n24.  Preparation of the case for hearing began on 7 January 1991.\n25.  The cooperative gave notice of its intention to defend and raised an objection, arguing th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1694", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Benevento.\n13.  On an unspecified date E.A.S., a company, applied to the Benevento District Court for an order against the applicant for payment of 7,500,000 Italian lire (3,873.43 euros (EUR)) in performance of a contract for professional services. In a decision of 13 October 1988 the president of the court granted the application. The order was served on the applicant by E.A.S. on 28 November 1988. On 3 December 1988 the applicant challenged it in the same court.\n14.  Preparation of the case for trial began on 13 January 1989. On 18 January 1989 the case was joined to another case that was pending between the same parties. The immediate enforcement of the order was suspended. Of the seventeen hearings listed between 14 June 1989 and 26 November 1998 two were devoted to hearing evidence from the applicant, three to hearing other evidence, six were adjourned by the court of its own motion, one was adjourned to allow the parties to reach a friendly settlement, four were adjourned at the request of the applicant or both parties and one was adjourned because E.A.S. had failed to appear.\n15.  However, on an unspecified date the case was referred to the bench of judges dealing with the oldest cases (sezione stralcio). Of the six hearings listed between 16 March 1999 and 28 November 2001 one was adjourned because E.A.S. had not appeared (owing to the registry’s failure to notify it of the date to which the hearing had been adjourned by the court of its own motion), one because of a lawyers’ strike, one to allow the parties to make their submissions, and two by the court of its own motion.\n16.  Six hearings later, on 13 April 2005 the court set the case down for hearing of oral submissions on 8 June 2005. On that date judgment was reserved. According to information provided by the applicant on 12 October 2005, the proceedings were still pending.\n17.  On 10 January 2002 the applicant lodged an application with the Rome Court of Appeal under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, complaining of the length of the above-described proceedings. He asked the court to rule that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and to order the Italian State to pay compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained. The applicant claimed EUR 14,460.94 in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. He sought the reimbursement of his legal costs, including those incurred before the Court, but did not quantify or give particulars of them.\n18.  In a decision of 21 June 2002, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 3 September 2002, the Court of Appeal found that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. It held as follows:\n“... Despite a number of adjournments for which the judicial authorities are not responsible because they were ordered at the request of the parties or because of a lawyers’ strike, the length of the proceedings was unreasonable.\nWhilst the allegation of pecuniary damage and personal injury is not supported by any proof, the applicant very likely suffered mental distress on account of the unjustified length of the proceedings. The resultant damage, given the foregoing considerations, can be assessed at 1,000 euros, and the legal costs, including those for the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights, at 800 euros.”\nThe Court of Appeal awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 on an equitable basis in compensation for non-pecuniary da", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1695", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 20 April 1994 the applicant was injured while serving military service as a conscript.\n7.  On 23 April 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings with the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) against the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia seeking damages in the amount of 4,373,756 tolars (approximately 18,200 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 25 September 1997 the presiding judge was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was assigned to a new judge.\nOn 23 November 1998 the applicant made a request that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 17 May 1997 and 20 September 2001 the applicant lodged eight preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the five hearings held between 5 February 1999 and 8 October 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 7 November 2001.\n8.  On 21 November 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). He also requested that the court corrected its judgment. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 5 November 2001 the judge, presiding the case before the first-instance court, was appointed to the Celje Higher Court and the case was assigned to a new judge.\nOn 10 November 2003 the Celje District Court held a hearing and decided to issue a supplementary judgment. This judgment was served on the applicant on 19 January 2004.\nOn 29 January 2004 the applicant appealed against the supplementary judgment to the Celje Higher Court.\nOn 27 May 2004 the court allowed the appeals from both parties, annulled the first-instance court’s judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n9.  The proceedings before the first-instance court are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1696", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Goričan.\n6.  As a result of the accident at work, which occurred on 15 February 1988, the applicant was a disabled person. From 1 June 1990 until 30 September 1993, he was in training to qualify for a post suitable for his health problems. After the training, he was not appointed to any post at his employer, the company called EM. On 15 October 1994 he was made redundant.\n7.  On 24 November 1994 the applicant instituted labour law proceedings against EM in the Celje Labour Court (Delovno sodišče v Celju) contesting the termination of employment. He also sought temporary injunction.\nOn 12 December 1994 the court issued a temporary injunction ordering EM to pay the applicant an advance of his salaries since 1 November 1994.\nEM appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče). On 12 January 1995 the court dismissed the appeal.\nOn 6 April 1995 the Celje Labour Court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment.\nThe judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 13 April 1995.\n8.  At an undetermined time, EM appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.\nOn 9 October 1996 the court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n9.  On 19 September 1997 the applicant requested in the first-instance court that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the five hearings held between 27 March and 11 December 1997 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nThe judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 17 December 1997.\n10.  At an undetermined time, EM appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.\nOn 4 February 1999 the court allowed the appeal in part and remitted the claim to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n11.  At an undetermined time, EM lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 23 November 1999 the court dismissed the appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 14 December 1999.\n12.  On 24 February 2000 the first-instance court held a hearing and appointed a financial expert to calculate the applicant’s loss of income. On 1 February 2001 the court held a hearing and decided to issue a written judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 26 February 2001.\n13.  On 27 February 2001, the applicant appealed against the decision concerning the costs and expenses.\nOn 18 July 2002 the Higher Labour and Social Court dismissed the appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 3 September 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1697", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 5 February 1996 the applicant was injured in an accident at work in a mine. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 27 May 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,068,257 tolars (approximately 12,800 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 19 June 2001 and 14 February 2002 the applicant lodged five preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 10 November 1998 and 30 March 2001 he made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nNeither of the hearings held on 24 September 2001 and 11 March 2002 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 11 April 2002.\n8.  On 15 April 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 9 July 2003 the court dismissed both appeals.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 25 August 2003.\n9.  On 12 September 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 17 February 2005 the court dismissed the appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 21 March 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1698", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Vitanje.\n6.  On 28 June 1994 the applicant was injured while serving a military service as a conscript.\n7.  On 30 December 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against Ministry of Defence in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 4,367,095 Slovenia tolars (approximately 18,200 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 21 September 1998 and 3 July 2003 the applicant lodged seven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 1 September 1997 and 25 November 1998 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the three hearings held between 5 October 1998 and 1 October 2003, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert and a fighting expert.\nIn the course of the proceedings, the case was twice, namely on 25 September 1997 and 5 November 2001, reassigned to a new judge due to a promotion of the previous judges.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 8 December 2003.\n8.  On 10 December 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 20 October 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 8 December 2005.\n9.  On 13 December 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1699", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Žalec.\n6.  On 4 March 1995 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 13 August 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 7,488,140 tolars (approximately 31,200 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nAt an undetermined time in 1997, the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was transferred to a new judge.\nBetween 5 November 1996 and 22 January 1999 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 27 April 1997 and 18 June 2001 the applicant lodged fourteen preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the six hearings held between 27 January 1998 and 26 June 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts and a road traffic expert. The court once replaced the designated road traffic expert with a new one.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 10 December 2001.\n8.  On 17 December 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 19 February 2002 the court requested the first-instance court to correct its judgment in the part concerning the penalty interests.\nOn 3 June 2003 the first-instance court corrected its judgment.\nOn 10 June 2003 the applicant appealed.\nOn 27 January 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeals, allowed the ZT’s appeal in part and lowered the damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 28 February 2005.\n9.  On 10 March 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1700", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Šentrupert.\n6.  On 12 October 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 13 May 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,064,671 tolars (approximately 8,600 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 11 September 1998 and 30 October 2001 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 19 September 1997 and 8 June 1998 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the three hearings held between 11 September 1998 and 3 October 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed experts.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 25 October 2001.\n8.  On 6 November 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 12 February 2003 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the ZT’s appeal in part.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 23 April 2003.\n9.  On 24 April 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 7 October 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 9 November 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1701", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Petrovče.\n6.  On 17 March 1994 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 20 June 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Basic Court, Celje Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Celju, Enota v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 795,722 tolars (approximately 3.300 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 1 January 1995 the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.\nBetween 16 November 1994 and 29 December 1997 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 16 November 1994 and 6 November 1996 he made eight requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the three hearings held between 11 December 1996 and 29 January 1998 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 18 February 1998.\n8.  On 4 March 1998 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 10 June 1998 the court allowed the appeals and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 27 August 1998.\n9.  Between 4 February 1999 and 12 April 2001 the applicant lodged five preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 15 March and 4 May he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the four hearings held between 15 June 1999 and 22 May 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a work-safety expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 19 June 2001.\n10.  On 20 June 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 18 July 2002 the court allowed the appeals in part and amended the first-instance court’s judgment.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 10 September 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1702", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 15 December 1996 the applicant was injured in an accident at work.\n7.  On 3 January 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against her employer G in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,320,317 tolars (approximately 13,840 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 14 December 1998 and 10 February 2000 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions.\n Between 20 November 1997 and 23 June 1998 she made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the four hearings held between 20 November 1998 and 25 February 2000, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.\nIn the course of the proceedings the trail judge was appointed to the Higher Court and the case file was therefore assigned to another judge.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 8 May 2000.\n8.  On 12 May 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). G cross-appealed.\nOn 4 October 2001 the court allowed both appeals in part and reduced the awarded damages.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 6 November 2001.\nOn 27 February 2002 the court issued a decision concerning G’s legal costs that had been missed out in the judgment.\n9.  On 21 November 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). She also requested that a Supreme Court judge be excluded from the proceedings, which was rejected by the court on 10 June 2002.\nOn 8 January 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 6 March 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1703", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Bohinjska Bistrica.\n6.  The case concerns three set of proceedings resulting from the dismissal of the applicant from his office in 1994, subsequent transfer to other posts and, ultimately, the termination of his employment in 1998. During the proceedings the applicant urged different authorities to accelerate the proceedings, including the Petition’s Commission of the Parliament, the Ombudsman for Human Rights and the Higher Labour and Social Court.\n7.  On 14 March 1994 the applicant’s employer A dismissed the applicant from a job position of a technical director and on 15 March 1994 transferred him to a new post.\n8.  On 28 February 1994 the applicant instituted proceedings against A in the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) seeking, inter alia, the annulment of the above mentioned decisions.\nOf the seven hearings held between 17 February 1995 and 10 September 1997, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nOn 4 June 1997 the applicant requested the exclusion of a judge from the proceedings, which was rejected on 2 July 1997.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 17 October 1997.\n9.  On 24 October 1997 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče). On 4 May he made a request to speed up the proceedings.\nOn 14 January 2000 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n10. In the meanwhile, on 16 November 1998, the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court (Ustavno Sodišče), which was rejected on 2 February 1999 as premature.\n11.  In the re-examination proceedings, of the four hearings held between 20 June 2000 and 15 October 2001, one was adjourned due to the applicant’s modification of the claim.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 27 November 2001.\n12.  On 5 December 2001 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.\nOn 24 September 2004 the court in part upheld the first-instance court judgment and in part remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe Higher Labour and Social Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 9 February 2005.\n13.  On 5 March 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) against the part of the Higher Court’s judgment upholding the first-instance court judgment.\nThe proceedings are pending in part before the Supreme Court and in part on the first instance.\n14.  On 9 November 1998 the applicant was again transferred to a new post.\n15.  On 22 December 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings against A in the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court seeking annulment of the above decision on transfer and payment of the loss in his salary.\nOn 9 January 2002 the court held a hearing.\nAfter the hearing, the court delivered a judgment, in which it excluded from the proceedings the part of the claim concerning the difference in the salary, which was joined with the third set of the proceedings, and rejected the remainder of the applicant’s claim.\n16.  On 7 March 2002 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.\nOn 29 January 2004 the court dismissed ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1704", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Kumertau in the Republic of Bashkortostan.\n9.  In September 1994 the applicant purchased an imported second-hand car from a third person. Subsequently, the Bashkir Customs Board (“the Customs”) discovered that the car had been customs cleared by its previous owner on the basis of forged documents for which reason, on 13 May 1997, it confiscated the car pursuant to Article 280 of the Customs Code.\n10.  Upon the applicant’s challenge on 15 May 1997 to the Customs’ decision, seeking to declare the decision to seize the car unlawful, the Sovetskiy District Court of Ufa upheld the Customs’ decision on 24 June 1997. The judgment was final and not subject to appeal.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the Supreme Court to examine the case anew under a supervisory-review procedure. On 5 February 1999 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan allowed the application, set aside the judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n12.  By judgment of 19 March 1999 the Sovetskiy District Court held in the applicant’s favour. It found it established that the applicant had not known that the customs clearance was improper for which reason the court quashed the Customs’ decision of 13 May 1997 as unlawful. The judgment was final and not subject to appeal.\n13.  Following a subsequent successful supervisory-review request submitted by the Customs, the above judgment of 19 March 1999 was quashed and the case remitted once more to the Sovetskiy District Court for consideration. By judgment of 28 April 2000 this court held in favour of the Customs and dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the Customs’ decision of 13 May 1997.\n14.  Following yet another supervisory review the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 3 June 2002 quashed the above judgment of 28 April 2000 and re-instated the judgment of 19 March 1999 which granted the applicant’s complaint that the Customs’ decision of 13 May 1997 was unlawful.\n15.  According to the applicant, since his request for recovery of the car lodged with the Customs on 24 April 1999 had been to no avail, on 3 June 1999 he unsuccessfully attempted to file a suit against the Customs before the Sovetskiy District Court of Ufa seeking, inter alia, the restitution of his car and non-pecuniary damages. He then unsuccessfully attempted to bring many actions against courts, including the Sovetskiy District Court of Ufa, and individual judges accusing them of libel, incompetence, and obstruction of justice. However, he has failed, according to information available to the Court, properly to institute proceedings with a view to obtain compensation for the relevant losses.\n16.  According to the Government, the car was not returned to the applicant because it had been sold following its confiscation in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1705", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Žalec.\n6.  On 23 November 1993 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 4 August 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 8,174,751 tolars (approximately 34,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 31 January 1996 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 15 January 1997 and 16 April 1998 he lodged preparatory written submissions.\nOn 6 February 1997 and 21 April 1998 the court held hearings.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 21 May 1998.\n8.  On 5 June 1998 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 14 January 1999 the first-instance court, at the request of the Celje Higher Court, amended the apparent errors in the judgment and resubmitted the case to the Celje Higher Court.\nOn 13 May 1999 the court allowed both appeals in part and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination in the part referring to the damages for disfigurement.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 26 August 1999.\n9.  On 21 September 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 31 May 2000 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld ZT’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 17 July 2000.\n10.  On 27 July 2000 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\nOn 11 June 2001 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 4 July 2001.\n11.  On 9 April 2002 the first-instance court held a hearing concerning the damages for disfigurement. The parties reached a court settlement.\nOn 4 October 2002 the applicant requested the court to decide on the costs and expenses. The court rendered the decision on 3 July 2003.\n12.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Celje Higher Court contesting the decision on costs and expenses.\nOn 18 November 2004 the court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 28 December 2004.\n13.  On 16 February 2005 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.\nThe case is pending before the Celje District Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1706", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Vitanje.\n6.  On 28 April 1993 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 2 June 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Basic Court, Slovenske Konjice Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Celju, Enota v Slovenjskih Konjicah) seeking damages in the amount of 5,075,000 tolars (approximately 21,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 1 January 1995 the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) gained jurisdiction in the case due to the reform of the Slovenian court system.\nAt an undetermined time in 1996, the presiding judge was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was assigned to a new judge.\nBetween 14 July 1994 and 27 March 1997 the applicant made six requests that a date be set for a hearing. During this time he lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the six hearings held between 7 June 1995 and 2 October 1998 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 29 December 1998.\n8.  On 31 December 1998 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 12 May 1999 the court allowed both appeals in part and lowered the damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 17 July 1999.\n9.  On 30 July 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). On 14 April 2000 he sought a recusal of one of the judges.\nOn 23 May 2000 the president of the court rejected the request for a recusal.\nOn 1 July 2000 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 17 July 2000.\n10.  On 27 July 2000 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\nOn 11 June 2001 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 4 July 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1707", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Grobelno.\n6.  On 6 August 1989 the applicant was run over at the border crossing between Slovenia (at the time forming part of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and Austria by a caravan driven by a Dutch citizen who had taken out insurance with the insurance company CBS.\n7.  On 8 November 1989 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the insurance companies ZT and CBS in the Celje Basic Court, Šentjur Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Celju, Enota Šentjur) seeking damages for the injuries sustained.\nFollowing the first hearing, which was held on 22 December 1989, the court appointed medical and financial experts.\nOn 1 January 1995 the case was transferred to the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) following the reorganization of the Slovenian courts.\nOn 23 February 1995 the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Slovenia requested the Hertogenbosch Municipal Court (the Netherlands) to hear a witness.\nBetween 23 August 1994 and 21 June 1999 the applicant made fourteen requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 17 December 1997 and 16 April 2003 he lodged twenty-four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the seven hearings held between 4 December 1997 and 13 May 2003 one was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed three medical experts, a road traffic expert and an expert on financial accounting.\nThe judgment upholding in part the applicant’s claims was served on the applicant on 12 June 2003.\n8.  On 16 June 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT and CBS cross-appealed.\nOn 14 April 2004 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and amended the first-instance court judgment. The court dismissed the ZT’s and CBS’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 17 June 2004.\n9.  On 30 June 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1708", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Celje.\n6.  On 25 February 1994 the applicant was injured while serving a military service as a conscript.\n7.  On 4 February 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of Defence in the Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani) seeking damages in the amount of 1,821,312 Slovenian tolars (approximately 7,590 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 30 October 2000 the Ljubljana Local Court declared that the case was out of its jurisdiction and reassigned it to the Ljubljana District Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani).\nBetween 26 October 2000 and 15 October 2001 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 9 September 1998 and 20 November 2001 he made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the five hearings held between 20 September 2001 and 31 May 2002, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nAt the last hearing, the Ljubljana District Court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 11 June 2002.\n8.  On 27 June 2002 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani).\nOn 11 June 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 26 June 2003.\n9. In the re-examination proceedings, the applicant made a request that a date be set for a hearing on 28 August 2003.\nOn 16 October 2003 he lodged preliminary written submissions.\nHearings were held on 30 October 2003 and 8 December 2003. A hearing scheduled for 22 December 2003 was postponed until 12 January 2004 at the request of the applicant due to the death of his family member.\nThe applicant did not attend the hearing scheduled for 12 January 2004 and the Ljubljana District Court consequently issued a decision suspending the proceeding.\nOn 13 April 2004 the applicant requested the court to continue the proceedings and on 6 May 2004 made a request that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the two hearings held on 4 June 2004 and on 2 September 2005, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.\nOn 28 October 2004 and 1 August 2005 the applicant lodged written submissions.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 3 October 2005.\n10.  On 18 October 2005 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court.\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1709", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and, at the time of the latest information from him, lived in Burgas.\n6.  In 1993 the applicant became the chairman of the board of a credit and savings cooperative (popular bank) – Popular Bank‑Pekov – having its registered office in Burgas.\n7.  In 1994 the applicant became the chairman of the board of the Union of the Popular Banks, having its registered office in Burgas.\n8.  On an unspecified date in mid-1995 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant in relation with his duties as chairman of the board of Popular Bank‑Pekov.\n9.  On 15 August 1995 the investigation authorities requested the Nesebar District Court to attach certain assets belonging to the applicant and to Popular Bank‑Pekov, with a view to securing their forfeiture in the event the applicant was convicted. In a decision of 21 August 1995 the Nesebar District Court allowed that request.\n10.  On 25 August 1995 an investigator at the Burgas Regional Investigation Service attached further property belonging to Popular Bank-Pekov.\n11.  On 29 August 1995 the applicant was charged with having engaged in banking business without the requisite licence, contrary to Article 252 § 2 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”).\n12.  On 3 January 1996 new charges were preferred against the applicant. It was alleged that he had misappropriated 65,000,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL) from the deposits made in Popular Bank‑Pekov, contrary to Article 203 § 1 of the CC.\n13.  It seems that witnesses were questioned on 4 January, 30 and 31 July, 17 and 23 September, 17 and 22 October, 4 November, and 6, 9, 10 and 15 December 1996, 14 and 18 January, 20 and 28 February, 20 March, and 4 and 7 August 1997. On an unspecified date an accounting expert report was drawn up.\n14.  On 4 February 1998 the applicant was charged anew under Articles 202 § 2, 219 § 1, 252 § 2 and 282 § 2 of the CC.\n15.  On 7 July 1998 the Burgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office decided to drop the charges under Articles 203 § 1 and 219 § 1 of the CC. On 15 December 1998 its decision was quashed by the Burgas Appellate Prosecutor’s Office insofar as it concerned the charges under Article 219 § 1 of the CC, and upheld, insofar as it concerned the charges under Article 203 § 1 of the CC.\n16.  On 10 July 2001 the applicant was charged anew under Articles 201, 202 §§ 1 and 2, 219 § 1, 252 §§ 1 and 2, and 282 § 2 of the CC.\n17.  On 18 December 2001 the charges against the applicant were amended once again to include counts under Articles 201, 202 §§ 1 and 2, 219 § 1, 252 §§ 1 and 2, and 282 § 2 of the CC.\n18.  On 3 July 2003 the applicant was charged anew under Articles 202 § 2, 219 § 4, 252 § 2 and 282 § 2 of the CC.\n19.  On 8 July 2003 the Burgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office submitted an indictment against the applicant to the Burgas Regional Court.\n20.  The first hearing, listed for 27 October 2003, was adjourned at the request of the applicant, who presented a doctor’s note to the effect that he was ill and could not attend, and argued that the copy of the indictment which had been sent to him had pages missing. Another reason for the adjournment was that most of the prosecution’s witnesses did not show up.\n21.  A hearing scheduled for 12 January 2004 was adjourned by reason of the failure of a number of witnesses to show up. The court ordered a new accounting expert report to be drawn up by three experts.\n22.  A hearing planned for 5 April 2004 could not take place because the accounting expert", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1710", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Maribor.\n6.  On 14 July 1975 the applicant, who used to work as a farmer and a car mechanic, was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company HUK.\n7.  On 20 June 1978 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against HUK in the Maribor District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru) seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages resulting from the accident.\nOn 11 February 1981 the applicant and insurance community T, acting on behalf of HUK, made an out-of-court settlement concerning non-pecuniary damage. Subsequently, HUK recognized the basis of the claim, but continued to disagree with the amount claimed for the pecuniary damage, including the damage for loss of capacity and business loss.\nDuring the proceedings HUK was represented firstly by T and then by its alleged successor, insurance company ZM.\nBy 28 June 1994, when the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia, the first-instance court decisions were three times quashed on appeal and remitted for re-examination, the last time on 18 March 1994.\nBetween 4 April 1996 and 25 November 1998, in the fourth trail, the applicant lodged five preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the seven hearings held between 14 December 1995 and 15 April 1999, one was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a financial expert. The court also sought two additional opinions from the appointed experts.\nAt the last hearing, the court delivered a judgment, in which it upheld the applicant’s claim in part.\n8.  On 1 June 1999 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru). HUK cross-appealed. Insurance company M also appealed.\nOn 5 December 2000 the Maribor Higher Court rejected ZM’s appeal and allowed the appeals of applicant and HUK and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. It found, inter alia, that ZM all the time during the proceedings lacked the authority to represent HUK.\n9.  In the fifth trail, the applicant lodged nine preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence between 2 February 2001 and 9 May 2002.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert, a financial expert and an agricultural expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from one of the appointed experts.\nOf the seven hearings held between 28 June 2001 and 3 June 2004, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 9 July 2004.\n10.  At an undetermined time the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru). HUK cross-appealed.\nOn 31 May 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and allowed the HUK’s appeal in part.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 14 July 2005.\n11.  On 18 July 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.\n12.  In the meanwhile, on 10 February 2001 the applicant instituted a separate set of proceedings against the insurance company ZM seeking compensation for damage he sustained due to ZM’s unauthorized interference in the above proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1711", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Nüziders, Austria.\n6.  On 16 July 1994 the applicant damaged his car in a car accident. He had taken out insurance with the insurance company IVA. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 28 July 1995 the applicant and IVA instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani) seeking damages in the amount of 205,012 tolars (approximately 850 euros) for the car damage.\nOn 5 July 1996 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence.\nOn 5 July and 8 October 1996 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 17 January 1997 the court held a hearing. Since the defendant did not appear before the court and failed to reply to the applicant’s claim, the applicant requested the court to issue a default judgment.\nOn 12 February 1998 the court decided to recommence the hearing in the present case.\n8.  On 17 March 1998 the applicant appealed.\nOn 5 October 2000 the Ljubljana Local Court dismissed the appeal.\nOn 19 October 2000 the applicant appealed.\nOn 9 August 2001 the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) dismissed the appeal.\n9.  In the meanwhile the first-instance court continued the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim.\nOn 20 April 1998 the applicant requested that the defendant’s reply to the claim be served on him.\nBetween 12 May 1998 and 17 December 2003 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 16 October 1998 and 7 May 1999 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the four hearings held between 26 May 1998 and 16 January 2004, one was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the case was transferred twice to a new judge for an undetermined reason.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 16 February 2004.\n10.  On 18 February 2004 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani).\nOn 11 January 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 7 March 2005.\n11.  On 6 May and 13 July 2005 the applicant lodged preliminary written observations with the Ljubljana Local Court.\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1712", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 17 March 1986 the applicant was injured in an accident at work in a lignite mine. Following two separate court settlements made in 1987 and 1992, the applicant received compensation for the injuries sustained.\n7.  On 5 April 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his employer, a company called RLV, in the Celje Labour Court (Sodišče združenega dela v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,315,789 tolars (approximately 9,600 euros) for the injuries sustained in the accident of 1986, but which only became apparent after the settlements.\nBetween 1 June 1994 and 10 February 1997 the applicant lodged ten preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 1 June 1994 and 13 December 1996 he made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the five hearings held between 9 January 1995 and 25 March 1997 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert and a financial expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed experts.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 1 April 1997.\n8.  On 10 April 1997 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče). RLV cross-appealed.\nOn 3 December 1999 the court allowed the appeals in part and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 17 January 2000.\n9.  The hearing before the Celje Labour Court scheduled for 2 March 2000 was adjourned until 30 March 2000 at the applicant’s request.\nBetween 29 March 2000 and 21 March 2001 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions.\nOn 20 June 2000 the court sought an additional opinion from the appointed medical expert.\nOn 24 May 2001 the court held a hearing and concluded the case.\nThe judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 21 June 2001.\n10.  On 26 June 2001 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court. He also sought an exemption from court fees. RLV cross-appealed.\nOn 24 August 2001 the Celje Labour Court rejected the applicant’s request for exemption from court fees.\nOn 4 September 2001 the applicant appealed against the decision concerning court fees to the Higher Labour and Social Court.\nOn 3 October 2003 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the first-instance court decision concerning court fees.\nOn the same day the court rejected the appeals against the first-instance court’s judgment.\n11.  On 30 October 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 15 June 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 28 June 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1713", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 11 March 1996 the applicant brought an action before the Pest Central District Court seeking the termination of the common ownership of real estate belonging to him and his divorced wife.\n6.  At the subsequent hearings on 27 March, 12 June, 29 June and 21 October 1997 and 26 May 1998, the applicant extended his claims to include the allocation of other items of the matrimonial property. He was repeatedly invited to give better particulars of his claims.\n7.  At the hearing on 22 October 1998 the District Court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of expropriation proceedings concerning one of the real properties at issue.\n8.  On the applicant’s procedural appeal, on 14 January 1999 the Budapest Regional Court ordered that the proceedings be resumed. Subsequently, hearings were held on 9 September 1999, 6 January and 11 April 2000. On the latter date the District Court appointed a valuation expert. The expert filed his report on 1 August 2000.\n9.  Further hearings took place on 12 September 2000, 9 January and 4 October 2001. On 25 January 2002 another valuation expert was appointed.\n10.  The court held additional hearings on 12 February, 26 November 2002, 20 March, 10 July 2003, 9 March, 24 July, 4 November 2004, 4 January and 14 April 2005. On the latter date it again invited the applicant to give better particulars of his claims.\n11.  The proceedings are still pending.\n12.  On 23 May 1997 the Budapest and Pest County Health Insurance Fund issued a payment order against the applicant concerning unpaid social-security contributions. Subsequently the applicant brought an action in the Pest Central District Court challenging the lawfulness of the administrative decision.\n13.  On 3 May 1999 the court observed that, due to a change of legislation, the respondent was replaced by the Tax Authority. On 11 January 2000 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s procedural appeal. He filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court which he withdrew on 27 September 2000.\n14.  The court held hearings on 28 March and 5 December 2001. On 5 April 2002 an expert accountant was appointed. The expert presented his opinion on 28 August 2002.\n15.  Further hearings took place on 2 October and 28 November 2002.\n16.  On 22 January 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action, holding that the payment order had been issued lawfully.\n17.  On 11 April 2003 the applicant appealed.\n18.  On 26 January 2004 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n19.  On 14 April 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1714", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants, Mr Sarı and Ms Çolak, were born in 1973 and 1977 respectively. At the material time they lived in Ankara.\n8.  On 17 November 1997, at 11.45 p.m., the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody by officers of the Ankara security police in connection with an investigation into the illegal organisation THKP-C Dev Yol – Devrim Hareketi (Turkish People’s Liberation Party-Front – Revolutionary Way – Revolutionary Movement).\n9.  The applicants’ detention in police custody was extended, under section 16 of Law no. 2845 (see paragraph 17 below), initially until 21 November 1997, on the authorisation of the public prosecutor at the Ankara National Security Court, and subsequently until 23 November 1997 (inclusive) by order of a judge of that court.\n10.  Before the end of their police custody period, on 23 November 1997 at 11.45 p.m., the applicants were questioned by the public prosecutor. They were not brought before a judge until the following morning, that is to say on 24 November 1997. The judge ordered Ms Çolak to be released for the duration of the proceedings and remanded Mr Sarı in custody.\n11.  By a bill of indictment of 8 December 1997, the public prosecutor committed the applicants to stand trial before the National Security Court. He called for their conviction, under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code, on a charge of belonging to an armed gang.\n12.  Following a hearing on 9 June 1998 before a trial court, Mr Sarı was granted provisional release.\n13.  In a judgment of 22 April 1999, after reclassifying the offence, the National Security Court found the applicants guilty of aiding and abetting an armed gang, an offence punishable under Article 169 of the Criminal Code. It sentenced them to three years and nine months’ imprisonment each, and banned them from holding public office for three years.\n14.  The applicants appealed on points of law against that judgment.\n15.  In a judgment of 23 February 2000, the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on account of an erroneous classification of the offence.\n16.  The National Security Court, in a judgment of 7 November 2001, deferred its decision on the applicants’ case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1715", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1963 respectively and live in Most.\n5.  On 20 July 1992 they bought a building and plots of land from the Town of Most (Město Most) for CZK 1,600,000 (EUR 56,338). They intended to use them for business purposes. The purchase agreement stated that the property and all the relevant documentation would be handed over to the applicants within twenty days of the date of payment of the purchase price but not before the registration of the transfer in the Cadastral Registry, and that the property was free of all legal burdens vis-à-vis third persons.\n6.  In August 1992 the seller allowed the applicants to begin work on the property. On 29 January 1993 the applicants received part of the documentation relating to the property. It revealed that a heating flue traversed (underneath) one of the plots, which made the property unsuitable for their envisaged business purposes.\n7.  On 23 May 1993 the applicants notified the seller of the discovery of the heating flue and requested a discount from the purchase price, in the sum of CZK 500,000 CZK (EUR 17,606). On 31 August 1993 they received the remainder of the documentation.\n8.  As the seller refused the applicants’ request of 23 May 1993, they lodged a civil action in the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (krajský soud) on 30 September 1993, claiming a discount from the purchase price.\n9.  On 3 May 1994 the Regional Court, having received the applicants’ action on 4 October 1993, held that it was not competent to deal with the action which was, on 9 June 1994, transferred to the Most District Court (okresní soud). On 29 August 1994 the applicants’ lawyer was invited to pay court fees, which he did on 23 September 1994.\n10.  On 2 January 1995 the applicants’ lawyer, following the court’s request of 2 December 1994, supplemented his clients’ action. On 3 January 1995 the District Court issued a payment order against the defendant who, on 1 February 1995, filed a protest (odpor). On 13 March 1995 the case was given to another judge. On 16 March and 6 May 1995 respectively, the defendant was invited to provide reasons for his protest. He complied on 14 June 1995. On 20 June 1995 the document was sent to the applicants’ lawyer.\n11. On 21 August 1995 the court invited the Most Housing Association (podnik bytového hospodářství) to submit a report. It received the report on 5 September 1995.\n12.  A hearing held on 6 December 1995 was adjourned until 23 February 1996 in order, inter alia, to hear the second applicant, who had not attended the hearing.\n13.  On 19 and 30 April 1996 the applicants’ lawyer, following the court’s request of 6 March 1996, submitted supplementary documents.\n14.  A hearing held on 6 September 1996 was adjourned sine die in order to have an expert report drawn up. On 5 March 1997 an expert was appointed. However, on 2 April 1997, he asked to be released from his appointment because of health problems. On 20 May 1997 the court appointed a new expert, who presented his opinion on 5 August 1997. On 11 September 1997 the court decided on the expert’s fees.\n15.  On 17 November 1997, in reply to the court’s request of 29 October 1997, the applicants’ lawyer informed the court that he would not adduce any supplementary evidence.\n16.  A hearing held on 23 January 1998 was adjourned until 16 March 1998 in order to summon two witnesses suggested by the defendant. A hearing on 16 March 1998 was adjourned as the applicants’ lawyer requested a period of 14 da", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1716", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Hrob.\n5.  On 25 November 1992 the applicant applied under the Land Ownership Act to the Teplice Land Office (pozemkový úřad) for the restitution of a building and plot of land in Hrob, which had been confiscated from her parents in 1961. On 10 August 1993 some documents identifying the property at issue, prepared ex officio by the Teplice Land Registry (katastrální úřad) because the applicant had not included them with her original restitution claim, were sent to her.\n6.  On 15 October 1993 she requested the current owner, the District Housing Association (okresní bytový podnik)[1], a State-owned entity, to restore the property to her. Upon its refusal, she requested the Land Office to commence restitution proceedings on 19 November 1993.\n7.   On 7 December 1993 the applicant was requested to submit supplementary documents.\n8.  The District Housing Association, despite its knowledge of the applicant’s restitution claim, transferred the property to the Hrob Municipality, which on 11 January 1994 sold it to other individuals.\n9.  On 24 February 1994 the Land Office interrupted the proceedings in order to appoint an expert, who drew up his opinion on 15 May 1994. In the meantime, on 10 March 1994, the Land Office had carried out an inspection of the site.\n10.  On 8 September 1994 it granted the applicant’s restitution claim, with the exception of one of the buildings at issue.\n11.  On 1 December 1994 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (krajský soud), upon the applicant’s appeal of 26 October 1994, quashed the Land Office’s decision and remitted the case to it, due to an insufficient establishment of the facts.\n12.  On 3 July 1995 the Land Office granted the applicant’s restitution claim, except for the building which had been substantially rebuilt.\n13.  On 29 November 1995 the Regional Court, on the Hrob Municipality’s appeal, quashed the Land Office’s decision and remitted the case to it, due to an insufficient establishment of the facts.\n14.  On 7 April 1997 the Land Office dismissed the applicant’s restitution claim after obtaining an amended version of the expert opinion, on 12 November 1996, which had assessed the character of the building.\n15.  On 7 April 1998 the Regional Court, following the applicant’s appeal sent to it on 7 May 1997, quashed the Land Office’s decision finding, inter alia, that the expert opinion had been drafted without the applicant’s participation, and that its conclusion had not been supported by objective measurements. It remitted the case to the Land Office.\n16.  On 29 September 1998 the Land Office ordered a new expert opinion, which was submitted on 8 February 1999.\n17.  On 19 April 1999 the Land Office granted the applicant’s restitution claim for the plot of land but not for the building since it had undergone substantial reconstruction.\n18.  On 17 May 2001 the Regional Court, having received on 19 May 1999 the applicant’s appeal in which she complained of an unsatisfactory establishment of the facts, as well as incorrect expert opinions and assessment of evidence, upheld the Land Office’s decision, finding that the latter’s admission and assessment of the evidence and the decision were in accordance with the law.\n19.  On 18 October 2001 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) of 20 July 2001 against the Regional Court’s judgment as being manifestly ill-founded, concluding that the court had ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1717", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Cărpineni, Moldova.\n9.  On 9 July 1998 the applicant, who was seventeen years old, was arrested on charges of theft. On the way to the police car he made an attempt to throw away a pocket-knife. After being alerted by a passer-by, the police officers A. Tulbu and V. Dubceac threw the applicant to the ground. According to the applicant, they also punched him in the face and handcuffed him. They also allegedly assaulted him all the way to the police station.\n10.  At the police station the police officers allegedly continued beating the applicant during questioning. They kicked him, punched him and beat him with batons all over his body and on the soles of his feet in order to obtain a confession. During the beatings he was handcuffed. He was also allegedly suspended on a metal bar for a long period of time. The Government deny these allegations.\n11.  On 10 July 1998 the applicant claims to have been taken by the arresting police officers to a forest for the reconstruction of the crime. He was allegedly beaten up on the way to the forest. In the forest, one of the officers allegedly put a gun to the applicant’s head and threatened to shoot him if he did not confess. He was released from detention in the evening. It appears from the documents submitted by the parties that the applicant confessed to having committed the theft. However, later the criminal proceedings against him were discontinued on grounds of lack of “constitutive elements” of an offence.\n12.  According to the Government, the applicant could not have been threatened with a gun by the police officers because they did not accompany him to the woods. He was taken to the woods for investigation purposes, but not for a reconstruction of the crime.\n13.  On 11 July 1998, the applicant’s state of health worsened and his mother took him to a doctor who established that he had suffered a head trauma and cerebral post-concussion syndrome.\n14.  On 13 July 1998 a forensic doctor examined the applicant and established that he had grey-yellowish bruises of 3 x 2 cm and of 6 x 5 cm around his right eye, right ear, lips and on the sole of his left foot. The soft tissue on his head and his teeth on the right side were painful when touched. The doctor concluded that the injuries could have been inflicted by blows with a blunt object, possibly in the conditions described by the applicant, and corresponded to the category of light corporal injuries.\n15.  On 13 July 1998 the applicant’s mother lodged a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office of Hânceşti County, asking it to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated her son and threatened him with death.\n16.  On 14 July 1998 an ear, nose and throat specialist examined the applicant and concluded that he was suffering from hyperaemia and had a central perforation of the right tympanic membrane.\n17.  On 28 July 1998 another specialist concluded that the applicant was suffering from post-traumatic acute otitis media on the right side and agnogenic otitis on the left side with perceptive deafness.\n18.  Between 14 and 25 July, 30 July and 22 August, 2 and 17 September and 14 October and 3 November 1998, the applicant was hospitalised with the diagnosis of head trauma and sudden deafness (surditate de percepţie brusc instalată).\n19.  On 3 August 1998 the applicant’s mother was informed by the Hânceşti Prosecutor’s Office that her complaint had been dis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1718", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Dąbrowa Górnicza, Poland.\n5.  On 15 October 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed fraud.\n6.  On 16 October 1998 he was brought before the Tarnowskie Góry District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), which ordered that he be remanded in custody until 15 January 1999. The court considered that the applicant’s detention was justified by the existence of strong evidence against him, the gravity of the charges and the severity of the anticipated penalty. His two alleged accomplices were subject to police supervision.\n7.  On 29 October 1998 the Tarnowskie Góry District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) refused the applicant’s application for release. He considered that keeping him in detention was necessary because an investigation was pending and the police still needed to collect evidence against him. The Katowice Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) upheld that decision on 20 November 1998.\n8.  On 8 January 1999 the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 15 April 1999. It referred to the interests of the pending investigation, such as the need to obtain additional evidence. On 27 January 1999 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision.\n9.  In the course of the investigation the applicant filed numerous applications for release. They were dismissed by the District Prosecutor, who found that the reasons for the applicant’s detention had not ceased to exist.\n10.  On 30 March 1999 the prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant and two other defendants with the Tarnowskie Góry District Court. The applicant was indicted on several charges of fraud and forgery of documents.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked the District Court to release him in view of his bad health. He maintained that he suffered from high blood pressure.\n12.  On 21 March 1999 the court refused the application. It found that the applicant’s health condition allowed him to remain in detention and that his case “did not disclose any of the grounds for release” provided by Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court based its view on the opinion of a prison doctor.\n13.  On 12 April 1999 the court again prolonged the applicant’s detention until 15 October 1999. It considered that it was justified by the existence of strong evidence against him and the gravity of the charges. The Katowice Regional Court upheld that decision on 27 October 1999.\n14.  The trial began on 13 August 1999. The District Court held 8 hearings and heard 23 witnesses.\nOn 15 October 1999 the court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 15 April 2000, relying on the grounds previously given.\n15.  The applicant repeatedly asked the Tarnowskie Góry District Court to release him in view of the state of his health. Each time, the court repeated the reasons it had previously given, finding that the original grounds for the applicant’s detention were still valid and that he had failed to adduce any arguments which would weigh in favour of his release. It also found that keeping the applicant in detention would not endanger his health, as it was possible for him to obtain medical treatment in the detention centre.\n16.  The District Court convicted the applicant as charged on 17 March 2000. It sentenced him to 4 years’ and 6 months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n17.  On 18 July 2000 the Katowice Regional Court partly amended the f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1719", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  On 30 October 1998 two police officers, in the course of a murder investigation, searched the applicant’s home. They found nine hunting-gun cartridges and arrested the applicant for the unlawful possession of ammunition. On the same day the police opened a criminal investigation against the applicant.\n6.  On 31 October 1998 the applicant was questioned as a suspect.\n7.  On 3 November 1998 the case was referred to the Investigative Division of the Zaliznychnyy District Police Department of Kyiv. The responsible investigator charged the applicant with the unlawful possession of ammunition and authorised his detention on remand.\n8.  On 10 November 1998 the investigator ordered an expert ballistic examination of the cartridges found in the applicant’s home to determine whether they fell into the category of ammunition. The expert’s opinion was submitted on 20 November 1998.\n9.  On 4 December 1998 the investigator questioned witnesses and, on 10 December 1998, the police officers who had conducted the search in the applicant’s home.\n10.  On 11 December 1998 the case file was transferred to the Leningradskyy District Police Department of Kyiv. On 24 December 1998 an investigator attached to this Department took over the case.\n11.  The investigation was completed on 30 December 1998 and the applicant and his lawyer were given access to the case file. On 11 January 1999 they finished studying it. On 12 January 1999 the applicant’s lawyer unsuccessfully requested the investigator to terminate the proceedings for a lack of corpus delicti.\n12.  On 18 January 1999 the indictment was approved by the district prosecutor and sent to the Leningradskyy District Court of Kyiv (hereafter “the District Court”).\n13.  On 1 February 1999 the judge of the District Court committed the applicant to trial. In his decision the judge also decided that the applicant’s “remand shall remain unchanged”.\n14.  The court held hearings on 16 March 1999, 16 April 1999, 17 and 24 May 1999. Two scheduled hearings were cancelled: on 4 March 1999 witnesses were absent (the court issued compulsory summonses in their respect for the following sittings) and on 4 May 1999 a judge was unavailable. On 16 April and 17 May 1999 the court heard evidence, but had to adjourn the case due to the failure of the witnesses to appear.\n15.  On 25 May 1999 the applicant’s lawyer requested that the case be referred for further investigation. On 27 May 1999 the District Court granted this request, citing the lack of reliable evidence collected by the authorities. By the same decision, the applicant was released on bail (a sum of UAH 5,100[1] was deposited with the Prosecutor’s Office).\n16.  On 24 June 1999 the Kyiv City Court (hereafter “the City Court”), allowing the appeal of the prosecution, quashed the decision to remit the case for reinvestigation. The court held that any flaws or shortcomings in the evidence could be assessed and, if need be, rectified during the trial.\n17.  Between July and December 1999 the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the applicant’s request for supervisory review of the City Court’s decision. On 2 December 1999 the Supreme Court rejected this request.\n18.  On 23 February 2000 the District Court resumed the trial and, on 28 February 2000, found the applicant guilty of the unlawful possession of ammunition and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, suspended on probation. The court relied prim", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1720", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Dzerzhynsk, the Donetsk Region.\n5.  In September 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Artema State-owned coal mine (the applicant’s former employer, hereafter “the ACM”), seeking an increase of his industrial disease benefits and claiming compensation for the delays in current payments. On 29 September 2000 the Dzerzhynsk City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) rejected the applicant’s claim for increased benefits. However, the court awarded the applicant a total of UAH 27,972[1] for arrears in the current payments. The applicant appealed against the rejection of his first claim. On 20 November 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of the City Court which, accordingly, became final and was sent to the Dzerzhynsk City Bailiffs’ Service for compulsory enforcement.\n6.  On 14 June 2001 the Deputy President of the Donetsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request for supervisory review of the September 2000 judgment.  On 6 October 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal lodged under the new cassation procedure.\n7.  On 8 May 2001 the City Court awarded the applicant a further UAH 17,777[2] in compensation for unpaid industrial disability benefits. The enforcement proceedings regarding this judgment were instituted on 5 July 2001.\n8.  On 30 August 2001 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy decided to wind up the ACM and, on 7 November 2001, to transfer its assets to the Gorlovka Directorate for Coal Mine Liquidations.\n9.  On 19 November 2001 the applicant was partially paid the award from September 2000, save for UAH 600[3], and received UAH 1998.86[4] of the amount awarded in May 2001.\n10.  On 10 July 2002 the applicant’s enforcement cases were transmitted to the ACM’s liquidation commission.\n11.  On 11 July 2002 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the ACM and, on 8 August 2002, having declared it bankrupt, opened the liquidation procedure.\n12.  The judgments of 29 September 2000 and 8 May 2001 remain partially unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1721", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Hřensko.\n4.  On 3 July 1992 the Děčín District Court (okresní soud) granted the applicant’s action and declared the North-Bohemian Gas Company’s (Severočeské plynárny) immediate termination of his employment in 1989 null and void.\n5.  On 14 October 1997 the applicant lodged an action for loss of wages against his former employer in the Ústí nad Labem District Court[1]. On 10 December 1997 he paid court fees.\n6.  On 25 September 1998 the District Court discontinued the proceedings due to the applicant’s alleged withdrawal of his action.\n7.  On 30 November 1998 the Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal of 23 November 1998, quashed this decision and remitted the case to the District Court for further consideration.\n8.  A hearing held on 9 April 1999 was adjourned sine die with a view to verifying information presented at the hearing.\n9.  On 25 October 1999 the applicant’s case was transmitted to another judge because of the long-term illness of the original judge.\n10.  On 4 October 2000 the applicant’s legal representative, upon the court’s telephoned request, submitted supplementary documents.\n11.  On 15 January 2001 he was requested to present other documents. As the applicant’s legal representative did not do so, the court urged him to comply on 9 April 2001. He complied on 14 May 2001.\n12.  On 13 June 2001 the defendant submitted its written comments.\n13.  On 28 August 2001 the District Court’s vice-president, upon the applicant’s complaint, acknowledged the delay in the proceedings.\n14.  As the judge dealing with the applicant’s case had left on maternity leave on 8 October 2001, another judge was appointed. On 15 November 2001 the District Court vice-president requested the new judge to deal with the case speedily. She renewed her request on 1 October 2002. On 31 October 2002 the vice-president appointed another judge to deal with the case due to the long-term illness of the previous judge.\n15.  In the meantime, on 9 August 2002, the applicant had asked for referral of his action to the Liberec District Court, considering that the latter would deal with the action without delay. On 10 March 2003 his legal representative was invited to clarify his client’s request. On 7 April 2003 the lawyer replied and, on 18 April 2003, he paid court fees concerning the referral.\n16.  On 7 May 2003 the applicant’s request was sent to the defendant which, on 29 May 2003, expressed its disagreement.\n17. On 20 June 2003 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (krajský soud) decided that the applicant’s action would not be transferred to the Liberec District Court.\n18.  On 4 September 2003 the vice-president of the District Court again urged the judge to continue to deal with the case.\n19.  Two hearings were held, on 7 November 2003 and 6 February 2004. A hearing which was to be held on 14 May 2004 was adjourned sine die on 2 April 2004, as the judge was ill. On 20 September 2004 another judge was appointed, who fixed the next hearing for 5 January 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1722", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is the father of Mr Andrey Shevchenko, deceased (hereinafter A.S.). He was born in 1944 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  At 2 a.m. on 3 October 2000 A.S. (a First Lieutenant in the Ukrainian Air Force) was detailed to guard a military airdrome of the A-2491 Air Force Unit (hereafter “the Unit”). He was issued a handgun with sixteen live cartridges. Around 5.40 a.m. he was found dead in the guardroom with two gunshot wounds to his head.\n6.  A criminal investigation into his death was opened the same day and an investigator from the Military Prosecutor’s Office (hereafter “the MPO”), Captain S., inspected the scene. In his report he described the position of the body and a Makarov handgun lying near a foot, loaded with three cartridges[1]. No traces of a struggle were found either at the scene or on the deceased. There were bullet holes in a window and the ceiling, as well as three spent cartridges. A black ink pen was retrieved from A.S.’s pocket. The report drawn up on that occasion stated that the inspection had been conducted by the Commanding Officer (hereafter “the CO”) of the Unit, Colonel V., and witnessed by two other officers from the Unit.\n7.  According to the applicant, around 8 a.m. Ms H., A.S.’s partner, went to his apartment and saw that it was open and that Lieutenant-Colonel D. (the Executive Officer of the Unit, hereafter “the EO”) with other persons was conducting a search.\n8.  The official documents state that the apartment of the deceased was searched at 3 p.m. However, First Lieutenant M. testified that at 8 p.m. several officers, including himself, had been detailed to conduct an inventory at A.S.’s apartment under the supervision of the EO.\n9.  The applicant and Ms H. alleged that A.S. had kept some USD 15,000 in a side-table. During the search no money was found there. Instead, First Lieutenant G., an inquiry officer (an officer of the Unit, who had been appointed by the CO to conduct an inquiry into the possible crime) found a suicide letter.\n10.  On 4 October 2000 Ms H. was questioned by Lieutenant G. as regards her relations with the deceased. She stated that the deceased had been “a clever person and one worth communicating with” who had never expressed any thoughts of suicide. On 2 October 2000, when A.S. was going on duty, he had invited her to come over.\n11.  According to the testimony of Major-General O., on 3 October 2000 he visited the Unit because of the tragic incident. On 4 October 2000 he informed the assembled Unit about the event and, whilst allowing the possibility of murder, nevertheless read out several extracts from the suicide letter. However, several other witnesses testified that the Major-General said nothing about murder, but focused on the alleged suicide, stating that A.S. had long prepared himself to die at his own hand by, inter alia, reading occult philosophy written by Carlos Castaneda.\n12.  Typed copies of the alleged suicide letter were disseminated among the staff of the Unit by the EO, who gave a copy to the applicant when the investigator refused to allow him to make a photocopy of the handwritten original.\n13.  During the applicant’s interrogation on 5 October 2000, Captain S. remarked that he was almost completely sure that A.S.’s death had been a suicide and refused to add to the protocol the applicant’s comments about the disappearance of USD 15,000.\n14.  By 10 October 2000 Lieutenant G. had questioned a number of witnesses - mainly those who had seen the applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1723", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Laško.\n6.  On 23 October 1995 the applicant was injured while serving a military service as a conscript.\n7.  On 3 August 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State (the Ministry of Defence) in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,800,000 Slovenian tolars (approximately 15,840 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 29 March 1999 and 25 September 2002 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 27 September 1999 and 3 October 2001 he made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the two hearings held on 5 February 2002 and on 10 October 2002, neither was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 20 January 2003.\n8.  On 3 February 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 19 May 2004 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 2 July 2004.\n9. In the re-examination proceedings the applicant lodged one preliminary written submission.\nAt the hearing held on 12 October 2004, the Celje District Court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 25 November 2004.\n10. On 9 December 2004 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1724", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in born in 1950. She is a choreographer and lives in Łódź, Poland.\n8.  On 10 June 1992 at 11 p.m. Mr Andrzej Kern, at that time the Deputy Speaker of the Sejm, made a formal notification of the commission of an offence (zawiadomienie o popełnieniu przestępstwa) to the Łódź Regional Prosecutor, E.S., alleging that the applicant and her husband had kidnapped his 17-year-old daughter, M.K. The applicant submitted that the allegation was false as M.K. had in fact run away from home and had only been accompanied by the applicant’s son who had been her boyfriend for a long time. M.K. had previously run away from home on several occasions because of conflicts with her parents. Prosecutor E.S., who – according to the applicant – was a friend of Mr Kern, immediately instructed the Łódź Deputy Regional Prosecutor E.C. to take charge of the case.\n9.  On the same day, i.e. 10 June 1992, the prosecutor E.C. signed a warrant authorising the search of the applicant’s flat. The warrant was intended to search the flat for M.K. and for drugs. On 11 June 1992 prosecutor E.C. signed an order allowing the tapping of the applicant’s telephone.\n10.  On 11 June 1992 at 1 a.m. the applicant’s husband went to his cottage situated in the suburbs of Łódź. He was arrested by police officers who then searched the cottage. Prosecutor E.S. and Mr Kern were present at the scene. Subsequently, the applicant’s husband was taken to the Łódź Regional Police Station, where he was detained overnight.\n11.  On 11 June 1992 at 4 a.m. police officers searched the applicant’s flat in her presence. However, they did not find either M.K. or drugs. The police officers advised the applicant that her husband had been detained and served her with a summons to report on the same day at 12 noon to the Regional Police Station for questioning.\n12.  In the morning of 11 June 1992 the applicant’s husband was taken handcuffed to the premises of the regional prosecution service. He was questioned by prosecutors E.S. and E.C.. Mr Kern was present during the questioning. The applicant’s husband was released after the questioning.\n(b)  The detention of the applicant\n13.  The applicant failed to report for questioning on 11 June 1992. She submitted to the police a letter explaining that she had to care for her daughter who was ill. Subsequently, the applicant failed to report for questioning on 15 and 17 June 1992. On 23 and 24 June 1992 police officers tried to serve a summons on the applicant, but could not find her at her place of residence.\n14.  On 25 June 1992 prosecutor E.C. charged the applicant with kidnapping and signed an arrest warrant for her. Prosecutor E.C. also charged the applicant’s son with kidnapping.\n15.  On 29 June 1992 the applicant was taken into custody. She was detained in the Łódź prison hospital, apparently in the psychiatric ward.\n16.  On 1 and 2 July 1992 the applicant was questioned by prosecutor E.C. She was also confronted with Mr Kern.\n17.  In the afternoon of 2 July 1992 the applicant was released from detention.\n(c)  The end of the criminal proceedings against the applicant\n18.  On 30 June 1992 the applicant applied for a transfer of her case to a prosecutor who worked outside the Łódź region. On 4 August 1992 the Ministry of Justice advised her that the application had been allowed and that her case had been taken over by the Poznań Regional Prosecutor R.G.\n19.  On 16 September 1992 prosecutor R.G. decided to discontinue the criminal p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1725", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Celje.\n6.  On 25 December 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident.\n7.  On 15 April 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the insurance company ZM in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,019,000 Slovenian tolars (approximately 8,420 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 25 September 1998 and 16 October 2001 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 22 January 1999 and 25 April 2000 he made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the three hearings held between 23 November 1999 and 23 October 2001, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed two medical experts.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 20 November 2001.\n8.  On 4 December 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZM cross-appealed.\nOn 8 January 2003 the court partly upheld both appeals.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 10 February 2003.\n9.  On 5 March 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 22 April 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 12 July 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1726", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Žalec.\n6.  In 1987 the applicant was injured in a dispute with his former wife R.I. in which both sustained injuries.\n7.  On 9 February 1988 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against R. I. in the Celje Basic Court, Žalec Unit (Temljeno sodišče v Celju, enota v Žalcu) seeking damages for the injuries sustained. R. I. lodged a counter-claim.\nUntil 28 June 1994, when the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia, the court held three hearings and appointed three medical experts.\nAt the hearing held on 4 November 1994, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding both claims in part, was served on the applicant on 10 January 1995.\n8. On 26 January 1995 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). R. I. cross-appealed.\nOn 4 April 1996 the court allowed both appeals and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 9 May 1996.\n9. On 3 June 1996, further to the reform of the judicial system, the (renamed) Žalec Local Court declared lack of jurisdiction and reassigned the case to the (renamed) Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju).\nIn the re-examination proceedings, the applicant made three requests that a date be set for a hearing between 6 January and 9 November 1998.\nAt the hearing held 18 January 1999, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding both claims in part, was served on the applicant on 20 April 1999.\n10. On 30 April 1999 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. R. I. cross-appealed.\nOn 11 November 1999 the court allowed both appeals by amending the first-instance decision in part and remitting the case for re-examination in part.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 16 December 1999.\n11. On 14 January 2000 R. I. lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) regarding the part of the judgment amending the first-instance court’s judgment in favour of the applicant.\nOn 18 October 2001 the court allowed R. I.’s appeal in part and accordingly changed the Higher Court’s judgment.\nThe Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 13 December 2001.\n12. On 14 January 2002 the applicant filed pleadings regarding the remaining part of the case that was remitted to the first instance court.\nOn 19 March 2002 the parties reached a court settlement.\n13. On 12 June 2002 the first-instance court ordered the applicant to pay court fees for the proceedings.\nOn 28 June 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal, which was rejected by the Celje Higher Court on 11 December 2002.\nThat decision was served on the applicant on 16 January 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1727", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Žalec.\n6.  On 23 October 1995 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 12 December 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,800,000 tolars (approximately 11,700 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 25 September 1997 the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was transferred to a new judge.\nBetween 6 November 1997 and 24 February 2000 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 11 February 1998 and 21 December 1999 he made seven requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the five hearings held between 12 October 1998 and 6 December 2000 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 26 February 2001.\n8.  On 13 March 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court and requested the first-instance court to issue a supplement judgment. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 29 March 2001 the first-instance court issued a supplement judgment.\nOn 30 May 2002 the Celje Higher Court dismissed both appeals.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 17 June 2002.\n9.  On 30 May 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) and sought recusal of one of the judges.\nOn 24 February 2003 the president of the court rejected the request for a recusal of a judge.\nOn 30 October 2003 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 18 November 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1728", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Vojnik.\n6.  On 10 January 1996 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. He was a conscript and was appointed to work in a cafeteria of the military training centre.\n7.  On 15 January 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Defence (Republika Slovenija, Ministrtstvo za obrambo, the Ministry) in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,286,000 tolars (approximately 13,700 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 21 October 1998 and 10 April 2001 the applicant made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 18 May and 16 July 2001 he lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the five hearings held between 27 September 2001 and 10 March 2003 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert and an expert for safety at work.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 16 March 2003.\n8.  On 17 March 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). The Ministry cross-appealed.\nOn 20 October 2004 the court allowed the Ministry’s appeal in part and lowered the damages awarded by the first-instance court.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 2 November 2004.\n9.  On 22 November 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1729", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Krasnodar.\n9.  In 1993 the applicant sued his former employer, the public company “KAPRSM”, for unpaid compensation for a work-related injury, caused by a lorry owned by another company, “KTS”.\n10.  On 21 April 1997 the Takhtamukayskiy District Court found for the applicant and awarded him a lump sum and life-long monthly payments. The lump sum was made up of the principal amount, interest thereon and a penalty for belated payments.\n11.  On 3 June 1997 the Supreme Court of the Adygheya Republic set aside the judgment in the part concerning the claim for penalty and remitted that claim for a new examination. It upheld the remainder of the judgment. The claim for penalty was subsequently examined by courts of various levels. As of March 2002 the claim was pending before the District Court.\n12.  On 15 March 2002 the acting President of the Takhtamukayskiy District Court lodged an application (представление) with the Supreme Court of the Adygheya Republic to quash the judgment of 21 April 1997 and all other judgments in the case, because the defendant in the applicant’s action should have been KTS that had owned the lorry rather than KAPRSM that had been the applicant’s employer.\n13.  According to the Government, on 15 August 2002 the Supreme Court informed the applicant that the above application would be examined at a hearing on 27 August 2002.\n14.  On 27 August 2002 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Adygheya Republic granted the application and quashed the previous judgments, including those of 21 April and 3 June 1997. It found that those judgments had been unlawful because the lower courts had failed to determine the proper defendant. The applicant’s claims were remitted for a new examination.\n15.  In the resumed proceedings, on 12 May 2003 the Takhtamukayskiy District Court established that the applicant had been informed of the possibility to substitute the legal successor of the KTS company as the proper defendant and to join the regional branch of the Social Security Fund as a third party, but he had not agreed to the substitution. His claim was therefore dismissed as being directed against an improper defendant.\n16.  In his observations on the admissibility and merits of the case of 25 November 2003, the applicant made certain abrasive remarks which prompted the respondent’s Government request to declare the application inadmissible as an abuse of the right of petition.\n17.  In its admissibility decision of 8 July 2004, the Court rejected the Government’s request for the reason that they had not identified the allegedly abusive expressions or passages in the applicant’s submissions and as the application had not been knowingly based on untrue facts. The Court noted, nevertheless, that some of the applicant’s statements had been irrelevant and excessively emotional.\n18.  In September 2004 the applicant and the Government filed their observations on the merits of the application. The Section President set 11 November 2004 as the time-limit by which the parties could submit written comments in reply to each other’s observations.\n19.  In a letter of 19 October 2004, the applicant commented on the Government’s observations in the same abrasive manner.\n20.  In their observations on the merits of the case and letters of 14 December 2004 and 18 January 2005, the Government invited the Court to declare the application inadmissible as an abuse of the right of petition. Drawing a parall", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1730", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Griže.\n6.  On 12 March 1994 the applicant was bitten by a dog owned by M. D. and V. D.\n7.  On 17 January 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against M. D. in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,400,000 Slovenian tolars (approximately 14,170 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 24 August 1995 the applicant lodged a preliminary written submission in which she modified her claim so that it concerned also V. D.\nOn 20 June 1997 she made a request that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the six hearings scheduled between 26 February 1996 and 18 May 1998, only the first and the last were held, the remaining four were adjourned due to the absence of the defendant.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 3 July 1998.\n8.  On 8 July 1998 M. D. and V. D. appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 28 October 1999 the court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n9.  In the re-examination proceedings, the applicant lodged, between 2 August 2000 and 10 March 2004, nine preliminary written submissions.\nOn 12 November 2001 she made a request that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the four hearings held between 13 September 2000 and 2 June 2004, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed three experts and carried out two additional hearings at the spot of the incident.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 16 July 2004.\n10.  On 22 July 2004 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 20 October 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 18 November 2005.\n11.  On 2 December 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1731", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Celje.\n6.  On 11 June 1998 the applicant’s request for the approval of his medical treatment in a foreign country was rejected by the Slovenia Health Insurance Institute (“ZZZS”).\n7.  On 21 July 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings against ZZZS in the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodiščev v Ljubljani) seeking reimbursement of the cost for the before mentioned medical treatment.\nBetween 22 June 2000 and 11 September 2001 the applicant lodged seven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 1 March 1999 and 6 November 2001 he made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 7 June 2000 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Ministry of Justice (Ministrstvo za pravosodje) because of delays in the proceedings.\nOf the three hearings held between 12 July 2000 and 19 December 2001, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 18 March 2002.\n8.  On 25 March 2002 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje Delovno in socialno sodišče). ZZZS cross-appealed.\nOn 5 March 2004 the court allowed in part the defendant’s appeal and accordingly changed the first instance court’s judgement and dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 31 May 2004.\n9.  On 23 June 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 18 January 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the second-instance court for re-examination.\n10. In the re-examination proceedings, on 3 February 2005, the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the applicant’s (previously rejected) appeal and in the respective part remitted the case to the first instance court for re-examination.\nThe Supreme Court’s decision and the Higher Labour and Social Court’s judgment were served on the applicant on 2 March 2005.\n11. The proceedings are pending before the first-instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1732", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Celje.\n6. In 1988 the applicant was granted an invalidity status after being injured in an accident at work. The Pension and Disability Insurance Community (“PDIC”) paid his invalidity pension, allegedly with some delays.\n7.  On 30 March 1990 the applicant instituted proceedings against PDIC in the Court of Associated Labour of Pension and Disability Insurance (Sodišče združenega dela invalidskega in pokojninskega zavarovanja) seeking payment of interests which occurred due to the late payments of his invalidity pension.\nAfter the first instance judgment had been quashed twice on appeal and remitted for reconsideration, on 12 October 1993 the Court of Associated Labour of Pension and Disability Insurance upheld the applicant’s claim in part.\nOn 2 November 1993 the applicant appealed.\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia.\nOn 22 September 1994, further to the applicant’s appeal, the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in social sodišče) quashed the first-instance decision again and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n8.  Between 23 January 1995 and 3 November 1998 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 23 October 1997 and 18 June 1998 he made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the two hearings held on 8 July 1998 and 10 December 1998, neither was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nAt the last hearing, the (renamed) Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 4 March 1999.\n9.  On 8 March 1999 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.\nOn 5 February 2002 the applicant urged the court to decide on the appeal.\nOn 1 March 2002 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 12 March 2002.\n10.  On 21 March 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 6 May 2003 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 26 May 2003.\n11. On 23 May 2003 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court requested the applicant to pay court fees. Subsequently, the applicant paid only part of the fees. As regards the remaining part, he lodged an objection stating that the request was time barred.\nOn 11 June 2003 the court issued a decision ordering the applicant to pay the remainder of the court fees and rejected his objection.\nOn 16 June 2003 the applicant appealed.\nOn 20 August 2004 the Higher Labour and Social Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. That decision was served on the applicant on 1 September 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1733", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Grobelno.\n6.  On 17 January 1992 the applicant was injured in an accident at work.\n7.  On 28 October 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his employer SŽ in the Celje Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela Celje) seeking damages in the amount of 3,300,000 tolars (approximately 13,750 euros) for the injuries sustained in the accident.\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia.\nBetween 27 October 1994 and 29 September 1995 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOn 22 February 1995 he made a request that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the two hearings held on 3 April 1995 and 9 October 1995, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nOn 18 April 1995 the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing, the renamed Celje Labour Court (Delovno sodišče v Celju) decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 27 October 1995.\n8.  On 2 November 1995 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče). SŽ cross-appealed.\nOn 18 September 1997 the court quashed the first instance court’s judgement and remanded the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. The decision was served on the applicant on 26 November 1997.\n9.  Between 5 February 1997 and 4 February 1999 the applicant lodged five preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidences\nOn 6 May 1999 he made a request that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the two hearings held on 14 May 1998 and 31 May 1999, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court again appointed a medical expert.\nThe judgment of 31 May 1999, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 28 June 1999.\n10.  On 6 July 1999 the applicant and SŽ appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court.\nOn 30 March 2000 the court upheld both appeals and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. The decision was served on the applicant on 4 May 2000.\n11. In the re-examination proceedings, between 16 June 2000 and 30 April 2002, the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidences.\nOn 23 November 2001 he made a request that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the three hearings held between 4 September 2000 and 27 June 2002, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant. However, the hearings scheduled for 4 December 2000 and 19 February 2001 were called off on the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a traffic expert, acquired two additional expert opinions and carried out a site survey.\nThe judgment of 27 June 2002, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 11 July 2002.\n12. On 15 July 2002 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court. SŽ cross-appealed.\nOn 4 December 2003 the court upheld the applicant’s appeal and partly upheld the SŽ’s appeal. The case was in the respective part remitted to the Celje Labour Court for re-examination. The judgment was served on the applicant on 17 December 2003.\n13.  Between 5 January and 10 September 2004 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions.\nOn 5 January 2004 he also requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the two hearings held on 5 April and 6 December 2004, none was adjourne", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1734", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Braslovče.\n6.  On 2 February 1997 the applicant was bitten by a dog owned by S.H..\n7.  On 24 April 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against S.H. in the Žalec Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Žalcu) seeking damages in the amount of 705,000 Slovenian tolars (approximately 2,940 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 21 July 1997 the applicant lodged a preliminary written submission.\nOf the four hearings held between 10 May 1999 and 27 September 1999, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written interim judgment. It appears that the judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 1 December 1999.\n8.  On 16 December 1999 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). S.H. cross-appealed.\nOn 20 September 2000 the court allowed both appeals and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n9.  Between 10 January and 26 June 2001 the applicant lodged ten preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence with the Žalec Local Court.\nOf the seven hearings held between 6 December 2000 and 12 July 2001, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written interim judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 24 October 2001.\n10.  On 5 November 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). On 26 November 2001 he also appealed against the first-instance decision of 15 November 2001 concerning costs of proceedings.\nOn 10 October 2002 the court allowed the applicant’s appeals and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination by a new judge.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 7 November 2002.\n11. The applicant in the re-examination proceedings lodged five written submissions and/or adduced evidence between 27 June 2003 and 29 January 2004.\nOf the two hearings held on 30 June 2003 and 13 February 2004, neither was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nOn 4 September 2003 the court appointed a medical expert M.V. Since the applicant objected to this appointment, the court, on 14 October 2003, appointed another medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the Žalec Local Court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 16 March 2004.\n12.  On 19 March 2004 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). S.H. cross-appealed.\nOn 9 March 2005 the court dismissed both appeals, but changed the part of the first –instance judgment concerning legal costs.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 23 March 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1735", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 9 November 1992, at an auction organised by the Bolesławiec District Office, the applicants, who were the only participants in the bid, purchased real property owned by the District Office for 202,000 zlotys (PLN).\n9.  On 2 August 1996 the Bolesławiec District Prosecutor, acting on behalf of the State Treasury and relying on the 1991 Law on unjustified enrichment at the expense of the State Treasury, sued the applicants in a civil court, seeking payment in the amount of PLN 111,046. The prosecuting authorities referred to Article 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 31 below) and invoked their powers as the guardians of the legal order. They submitted that the applicants had purchased the property concerned under a compensatory scheme for persons who had abandoned their property on territories beyond the Bug River that had belonged to Poland before the Second World War. Under this scheme, governed chiefly by the provisions of the Land Administration and Expropriation Act of 29 April 1985 (“the Land Administration Act” – see paragraphs 38-44 below), the applicants had a “right to credit”, that is, the right to count the price of the abandoned property towards the price of the property to be purchased from the State Treasury.\n10.  The prosecuting authorities further argued that the purchase price, which partly comprised compensation for the property left by the applicants’ legal predecessors in Trembowla, in the former Polish territories beyond the Bug River, had been calculated wrongly. They averred in that respect that the value of the property, as assessed by expert A.Ż., amounted to PLN 125,130. Later, a month before the contract was concluded, the same expert had assessed the value of the same property at PLN 218,985. The prosecuting authorities, harbouring certain doubts as to the soundness of the estimates, had instituted investigations and appointed a new expert, who had estimated the value of the abandoned property at only PLN 90,953. Consequently, as the value of the house that the applicants’ legal predecessors had abandoned in Trembowla was much lower than the price the applicants had paid for the property in Bolesławiec, the State had sold them the latter property at a considerable loss. The plaintiff prosecuting authority further argued that the first expert, A.Ż., had had regard to the market value of the Trembowla property, whereas under the relevant legislation he should have taken the technical value of the property into account. As the applicants had refused to comply with the Bolesławiec District Office’s demand to pay PLN 111,046, the prosecuting authorities claimed that the applicants should repay that amount to them.\n11.  The applicants argued in their pleadings that the State Treasury, which had sold them the property in Bolesławiec under the provisions of the Land Administration Act, had had the expert estimates at its disposal and had not put forward any objections at that time. They submitted that the estimate relied on by the prosecuting authorities in their statement of claim was based on the assumption that the property in Trembowla was in a rural location, which was incorrect as it was situated in a town.\n12.  On 18 December 1997 the Nowy Sącz Regional Court dismissed the prosecutor’s claim against the applicants, considering it to be unfounded.\n13.  The court first observed that the applicants had bought the property at a public auction organised by the Bolesławiec District Office under th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1736", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 17 August 1989 the applicant was injured in an accident at work in a mine. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 30 June 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT. in the Celje Basic Court, Celje Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Celju, Enota v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 700,000 tolars (approximately 2,900 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nUntil 28 June 1994, the day the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia, the applicant lodged six preliminary written observations and made four requests that a date be set for a hearing. The court held a hearing and appointed a medical expert.\nOn 1 January 1995 the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.\nOn 13 June 1996 and 11 September 1996 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOn 18 October 1996 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nNeither of the hearings held on 13 July 1994 and 29 January 1997 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court sought an additional opinion from the appointed medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 3 March 1997.\n8.  On 18 March 1997 ZT appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 17 September 1997 the court allowed the ZT’s appeal in part and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 22 December 1997.\n9.  On 5 January 1998 the applicant submitted preliminary written observations and requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 12 March 1998 the court held a hearing.\nThe judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 7 April 1998.\n10.  On 21 April 1998 ZT appealed to the Celje Higher Court.\nOn 23 September 1998 the court allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicant’s claim.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 28 December 1998.\n11.  On 7 January 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 20 January 2000 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal, annulled the second-instance court’s judgment and remitted the case to the second-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 6 November 2000.\n12.  On 28 September 2000 the Celje Higher Court, re-examining TZ’s appeal of 21 April 1998, allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n13.  Between 12 February 2001 and 4 July 2001 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nNeither of the hearings held on 1 March 2001 and 4 April 2001 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court sought an additional opinion from the appointed medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, dismissed the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 2 October 1997.\n14.  On 4 October 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.\nOn 18 September 2002 the court dismissed the appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 15 October 2002.\n15.  On 23 October 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the S", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1737", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants, Mrs Macedonia Gavrielidou, Mr Nicos Kannavas, Mrs Maria Kannava and Mr George Kannavas were born in 1926, 1936, 1943 and 1969 respectively and live in Limassol.\n9.  The applicants were defendants in two sets of proceedings initiated against them before the District Court of Limassol.\n10.  Both actions were originally filed against the first and second applicants and Mr Andreas Kannavas in relation to contracts for the sale of certain flats in a block that had been built by a company know as A. Pieris Estates Ltd on land owned by the applicants in the coastal area of Limassol. On 10 March 1978 the applicants had concluded an agreement with the above company allowing the latter to build a block of flats and a restaurant on their land. In return the company would have 75% of the flats (twenty five in total) and a share equivalent to that percentage in the restaurant. The company had also undertaken to complete and deliver to the applicants in a specified period of time the remaining ten flats tantamount to a 25% share in the building. The applicants would also have a share of 25% in the restaurant. Following an agreement between the above company, the applicants and another company (A. Pieri Alakatoudi Beach Court Ltd) on 7 April 1978, the above company transferred all the rights it had in the block to A. Pieri Alakatoudi Beach Court Ltd. The latter then concluded contracts with the third persons for the sale of flats in the block. It appears that these contracts were not deposited with the Land Registry.\n11.  Subsequently, in 1982, the applicants terminated their agreements with the companies in view of the fact that the latter had not completed the work undertaken in the period prescribed. The termination of the aforementioned agreements had been the object of an action before the District Court of Limassol (action no. 2024/82) filed by the applicants, who had also requested an order for the sale of 75% of the building by auction to cover the amount of damages. Following an agreement on 26 March 1982 between the purchasers and A. Pieri Alakatoudi Beach Court Ltd, the flats were completed and delivered to the applicants and the purchasers. Both the applicants and the purchasers took possession of the flats. It appears however that the rest of the building was not completed.\n12.  The purchasers then brought civil actions against the applicants and A. Pieri Alakatoudi Beach Court Ltd concerning the flats (action no. 5949/85, St George Car Hire Ltd others v. Macedonia Gavrielidou and others and action no. 702/86, Andreas Tsaggaris v. Macedonia Gavrielidou and others). This company was subsequently wound up and the official receiver was joined as a defendant in the domestic proceedings, being the liquidator of this company.\n13.  In both sets of proceedings the plaintiffs requested the same remedies: an order by the court declaring that, firstly, the contracts of sale of the relevant flats concluded between them and the above-mentioned company were binding on the latter as well as the applicants who were not parties to the contracts; secondly, that the applicants as co-owners and/or sellers of the relevant flats held the flats as trustees for the benefit of the plaintiffs; and lastly, any other remedy the court deemed fit to award.\n14.  Following the death of Mr Andreas Kannavas on 18 May 1995, the last two applicants were appointed as administrators of his estate and were joined on 19 June 1996 (civil action no. 5949/85) a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1738", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n15.  The first two applicants were born in 1930 and 1932 respectively and live in Bucharest. The third applicant lives in Villebon-sur-Yvette, France.\n16.  In 1934 S.D., the applicants’ father, a university lecturer, purchased a plot of land of 1,690 sq.m in Predeal, Romania. In 1937 S.D. had a house built on the land.\n17.  On 30 August 1946 a room in the house was requisitioned pursuant to an order of Predeal Town Council.\n18.  On 22 May 1948 the Braşov prefect ordered the restitution of the house and land (“the property”) to the owner, S.D., but the property was never returned.\n19.  On 13 September 1965 the Braşov notarial bureau recorded that the property had been nationalised under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation.\n20.  On 17 August 1971 the Braşov prefect decided to place the property under the administration of a branch of the Department of State Security (Securitate).\n21.  In 1992 the management of the property was transferred to the Romanian Intelligence Service (Serviciul Român de Informatii – “the SRI”), successor to the Securitate.\n22.  On 8 January 1993 the first two applicants and Maria Margareta Dumitrescu brought an action for recovery of possession in the Braşov Court of First Instance against SRI Military Command Centre no. 05024. They argued that they were the heirs of S.D., that he had owned 2,686 sq.m of land in Predeal on which he had had a house built, and that in 1946 a room in that house had been requisitioned but that subsequently the State had unlawfully seized the entire property. They sought to establish their title to the house and land as heirs.\n23.  In a judgment of 25 May 1993 the court found that the requisition order could not have had the effect of lawfully vesting ownership of the property in the State and that the nationalisation of the property under Decree no. 92/1950 had been unlawful. The court accordingly held that the applicants were the rightful owners of the house and land and ordered the State’s property title to be struck out of the land register and the late S.D. to be registered as owner.\n24.  In a final judgment of 20 September 1995 the Braşov Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the SRI on points of law and dismissed the applicants’ action for recovery of possession, holding that the courts below had exceeded their jurisdiction when they had examined the lawfulness of the nationalisation, since such matters could only be settled by statute.\n25.  On an unspecified date the applicants lodged an application for restitution of the property with the Braşov City Council’s administrative board established to deal with the implementation of Law no. 122/1995 (“the Administrative Board”).\n26.  In an administrative decision of 29 June 1999 the Administrative Board allowed the application and ordered the property to be returned to the applicants.\n27.  On 10 September 1999 the SRI lodged an application to have the administrative decision of 29 June 1999 set aside.\n28.  In a final and enforceable judgment, on appeal, the Braşov County Court upheld the administrative decision, finding in particular that the lawfulness of the nationalisation could not be dealt with under the objection procedure provided for by Law no. 112/1995.\n29.  In a judgment of 24 October 2000 the Braşov Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the SRI on points of law, setting aside the decision of the Administrative Board in which it had ordered the return of the property. It found that the Administrative Board had not been ent", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1739", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Celje.\n6.  On 12 February 1997 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 19 September 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,800,000 tolars (approximately 7,500 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 5 February 1998 and 4 December 1999 the applicant made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 24 March 2000 and 6 June 2001 he lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the three hearings held between 17 April 2000 and 4 July 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 3 September 2001.\n8.  On 17 September 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 20 November 2002 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and dismissed ZT’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 9 December 2002.\n9.  On 16 December 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) and sought a recusal of one of the judges.\nOn 28 March 2003 the president of the court rejected the applicant’s request to recuse one judge.\nOn 19 February 2004 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part increased the damages awarded and remanded the case to the Celje Higher Court for re-examination of the judgment in the part rejecting the applicant’s claims.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 10 May 2005.\n10.  On 30 March 2005 the Celje Higher Court, upon re-examination, upheld the applicant’s appeal and remanded the case back to the first-instance court for a re-examination of the part rejecting the applicant’s claims.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 8 May 2005.\n11.  On 3 June 2005 the applicant requested the first-instance court that a day be set for a hearing.\nOn 23 June 2005 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.\nOn 6 July 2005 the court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment.\nThe judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 3 November 2005.\n12.  On 7 November 2005 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1740", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Štore.\n6.  On 23 November 1990 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 30 December 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Baisc Court (Temeljno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 6,700,000 tolars (approximately 28,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBefore 28 June 1994, the day the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia, the court held four hearings and appointed a road traffic expert and a medical expert.\nOn 1 July 1994 the applicant submitted a preliminary written submission.\nOn 5 July 1994 the court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment.\nThe judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 30 October 1994.\n8.  On 10 October 1994 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 14 June 1995 the court allowed both appeals in part and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 17 July 1995.\n9.  On 1 January 1995 the reorganisation of the Slovenian judicial system took effect.\nAfter the case had been remitted to the first-instance court, it was initially assigned to the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) but after the applicant raised his claim in preliminary written submissions of 31 August 1995, the case was transferred to the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju).\nBetween 31 August 1995 and 6 June 1997 the applicant made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 12 January 1996 and 29 August 1997 he lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the three hearings held between 12 February 1996 and 4 September 1997 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts.\nOn 25 September 1997 the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court and the case was assigned to a new district court judge.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 5 November 1997.\n10.  On 10 November 1997 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court and requested that the first-instant court corrected its judgment. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 21 November 1997 the first-instance court corrected the judgment. The decision was served on the applicant on 8 December 1997\nOn 18 March 1998 the Celje Higher Court upheld both appeals, annulled the judgment of 25 September 1997 and returned the case to first-instance court for a new trial.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 13 May 1998.\n11.  Between 6 July 1998 and 17 December 1999 the applicant made eight requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 6 July 1998 and 19 January 2000 he lodged seven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the four hearings held between 15 September 1998 and 3 February 2000 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert and a road traffic expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 27 March 2000.\n12.  On 6 April 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Celje ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1741", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Verpelét.\n5.  On 21 May 1991 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and her accomplices on charges of robbery and other offences. She was in detention on remand from 21 May 1991 until 19 May 1992.\n6.  Meanwhile, on 21 January 1992 a bill of indictment was preferred. Between 15 May 1992 and 1 October 1996, several hearings took place before the Pest Central District Court. On that last date the proceedings were suspended since some of the defendants could not be summoned.\n7.  On 5 March 2002 an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant and another defendant. On 29 April 2002 the applicant was arrested but released the next day.\n8.  On 6 May 2002 the proceedings were partially discontinued insofar as they concerned certain time-barred offences.\n9.  After a hearing on 21 January 2003, on 11 April 2003 the District Court sentenced the applicant to one year’s imprisonment, suspended for a year. In the absence of appeals, this judgment became final on 14 April and was served on 7 August 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1742", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1929, 1929, 1956, 1960, 1964 and 1966 respectively and live in Prostějov except for the sixth applicant who lives in Ostrov nad Ohří.\n6.  On 12 August 1992 the applicants lodged with the Prostějov District Court (okresní soud) a claim against the Ministry of Justice for damages caused by a violation of their personal rights and an unlawful court decision.\n7.  On 28 September 1992 the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) referred the matter to the Brno Municipal Court (městský soud) which, in a decision of 25 June 1993[1], having received the defendant’s observations on 5 March 1993, separated that part of the action relating to the damage caused by a violation of personal rights and transferred it to the Regional Court. On 29 October 1993 the Regional Court decided to send certain of the applicants’ claims contained in this part of their action back to the Municipal Court. This decision became effective on 3 December 1993.\ni. Proceedings for damages\n8.  At a hearing held on 24 November 1993 the Municipal Court heard the first three applicants; the sixth applicant was to be heard by the Karlovy Vary District Court (okresní soud). It appears from the minutes that the fourth applicant did not attend the hearing. According to the Government, as the fifth applicant had not attended the hearing, he submitted his written statement on 15 March 1994. On 25 March 1994 the first and second applicants supplemented the action.\n9.  In the meantime, on 30 November 1993, the Municipal Court had requested the Prostějov District Court, the Kroměříž District Court and the Prague High Court (Vrchní soud) to submit some documents.\n10.  On 17 May 1994 the Municipal Court contacted the Vyškov District Court and the Zlín District Court in order to obtain information concerning other judicial proceedings initiated by the applicants. On 8 September 1994 it re-contacted the Vyškov District Court.\n11.  On 1 July 1994 the Karlovy Vary District Court, at the Municipal Court’s request of 2 June 1994, heard the sixth applicant who, on 7 July 1994, supplemented the action. The Municipal Court sent this document to the other parties to the proceedings on 13 January 1995, after the applicant having submitted the appropriate number of her supplement.\n12.  On 19 October 1995 the second applicant supplemented the action through the fourth applicant. On 31 October 1995 the Municipal Court held a hearing which was adjourned in order to gather evidence and to clarify the stage of the other proceedings which the applicants had concurrently instituted. The fourth applicant did not attend the hearing.\n13.  On 9 August 1996 the applicants’ lawyer, who did not have a power of attorney signed by the fourth applicant, asked for the latter’s psychiatric examination. On 14 August 1996 the first and second applicants requested that the first and fourth applicants be heard in their home.\n14.  On 25 October 1996 an attempt to hear the fourth applicant was made.\n15.  On 14 March 1997 the Municipal Court contacted the Prostějov Health Centre (zdravotní středisko) with a view to obtaining information about the fourth applicant’s state of health. On 10 July 1997 it asked the Prostějov District Court whether proceedings on limitation of the fourth applicant’s capacity to act had been instituted. Having received a negative reply, it invited the applicants’ lawyer, on 4 August 1997, to consider whether the other applicants could act as the fourth applicant’s guardia", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1743", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1951 and 1979 respectively and live in Bodrum. The second applicant is the son of the first applicant.\n6.  On 28 June 2001 the Muğla Security Directorate asked the Bodrum Chief Public Prosecutor to issue an arrest warrant for sixteen persons who were suspected of being involved in an organised criminal gang. The gang was allegedly involved in bribing officials, threatening people into selling their property and in money laundering. The first applicant’s name was included in the list. Upon the request of the Bodrum Chief Public Prosecutor, the Bodrum Magistrates’ Court issued a warrant allowing the police to conduct searches of the houses of the suspected persons and to arrest them for the purposes of interrogation.\n7.  On the same day both applicants were taken into custody in Bodrum. The first applicant was arrested at his home. During the search of his residence the police found two pistols, five hunting rifles, one wire strangulation cord, one butterfly knife, four sets of handcuffs, five commando knives, two cartridge clips and twelve cartridges. The police prepared a search and arrest report, which was signed by the applicant.\n8.  The second applicant was working as a security guard in an exchange office owned by Ö.A, the person suspected of being the leader of the gang. While the police were conducting a search of the exchange office in order to arrest Ö.A., the second applicant arrived on the scene and was taken into custody for interrogation.\n9.  On 30 June 2001 the Muğla Security Directorate requested authorisation from the Bodrum Public Prosecutor to extend the applicants’ detention in police custody, as there were a number of suspects.\n10.  On 4 July 2001 both applicants gave statements to the police. They denied any involvement with the gang. In his statement, the first applicant explained that he knew Ö.A. and had occasionally lent him money. He also confirmed that he had bought a shop from him. However, he denied the allegation that he had been instructed by Ö.A. to threaten people.\n11.  On 5 July 2001 both applicants were interrogated by the Bodrum Public Prosecutor. During their questioning, the applicants repeated the statements they had made to the police. The second applicant was subsequently released. On the same day the first applicant was brought before the investigating judge at the Bodrum Magistrate’s Court, who subsequently ordered his detention on remand.\n12.  On 11 July 2001 the first applicant filed an objection against the remand decision.\n13.  On 23 August 2001 the İzmir State Security Court Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the İzmir State Security Court against the applicants and sixteen others, accusing them of being involved in the activities of an organised criminal gang, namely by bribing officials and threatening people.\n14.  On 17 September 2001 the first applicant filed a petition with the court, requesting his release.\n15.  On 17 October 2001 the applicants’ trial began at the İzmir State Security Court. At the end of the hearing, taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence and the evidence in the case file, the court ruled that the first applicant should be kept in detention on remand.\n16.  On 23 October 2001 the first applicant’s representative challenged the decision to continue to detain the first applicant on remand before the Istanbul State Security Court, via the registry of the Izmir State Security Court. He alleged that there wa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1744", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  The applicant was employed by a construction co-operative; his duty was to disinfect pieces of wood with chemicals. On account of various illnesses which the applicant alleged were caused by this activity, he suffered a 40% disability. In September 1989 he instituted proceedings in the Budapest Labour Court. He claimed that his diseases had been caused by the chemicals and that his former employer should pay him compensation. On 20 October 1990 the Labour Court dismissed the action. This judgment was quashed by the Budapest Regional Court on 8 January 1992. The case was remitted to the first instance court.\n6.  In the resumed proceedings, the respondent employer was replaced by its successor. Between 13 October 1992 and 22 February 1994, the Labour Court held five hearings and obtained an opinion from the Institute of Forensic Medicine. On that date it delivered a judgment and dismissed the applicant’s action. On 9 September 1994 the applicant appealed.\n7.  After a hearing on 6 September 1995, on 28 February 1996 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n8.  Following the applicant’s successful request of 13 August 1996 to have his case re-opened, the Labour Court held hearings on 5 December 1996, and 24 April and 5 June 1997. By 28 September 1998 the opinions of further two experts were obtained. Another hearing was held on 31 March 1999.\n9.  On 8 September 1999 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action, holding that the respondent was not liable for the applicant’s sickness.\n10.  On 30 March 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 13 October 2000 the applicant filed a petition for review. On 16 January 2001 the Supreme Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer for him. On 3 April it scheduled a hearing for 14 November 2001.\n11.  On 6 April 2001 the liquidator of the successor to the applicant’s former employer informed the Supreme Court that the respondent had been liquidated on 1 June and deleted from the company register on 7 October 2000. On 10 May 2001 the Supreme Court interrupted the proceedings until the respondent’s successor joined the proceedings.\n12.  On 18 September 2001 the applicant requested that the liquidator be allowed to join the proceedings as the defendant’s successor.\n13.  On 7 November 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request, observing that the liquidator was not the successor.\n14.  In separate proceedings, on 7 January 2002 the applicant requested that the proceedings resulting in the defendant’s liquidation be re-opened, since he had never been informed of them. On 1 February 2002 the Regional Court’s Economic Collegium dismissed this request. On 28 April 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal since the request was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Act no. XLIX of 1991 (“the Insolvency Act”). In its reasoning, the Supreme Court made reference to the fact that, under sections 20 and 82(g) of Act no. CXLI of 2000 on New Co-operatives, the respondent had ceased to exist ipso iure without a successor (section 1(3) of the Insolvency Act).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1745", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Gaziantep. The application concerns the alleged abduction and ill-treatment of Cemal Uçar, the applicant’s son, by unknown persons and his death in Diyarbakır E-type prison. At the time of the events giving rise to the application, Cemal Uçar was 26 years old. The facts surrounding the detention and death of the applicant’s son are disputed between the parties.\n9.  On 5 October 1999 at around 11 a.m. Cemal Uçar left his house to buy water. Four plain-clothes persons carrying weapons and radios attempted to abduct him. Cemal Uçar tried to run away. However, he was caught behind his house. These persons told him that they were policemen. He was then blindfolded and put in a vehicle. The applicant claims that a neighbour witnessed the abduction. According to this witness, Cemal Uçar resisted arrest but was dragged into a dark red car. After being driven around for some time Cemal Uçar was taken to an unknown location.\n10.  Between 11 and 26 October 1999, the applicant filed petitions with the public prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court and the Diyarbakır public prosecutor. He requested that the authorities carry out an investigation into the abduction of Cemal Uçar and that he be informed of his son’s whereabouts.\n11.  Between 5 October and 2 November 1999 Cemal Uçar was detained by the kidnappers. He was kept blindfolded, deprived of food and was subjected to electric shocks.\n12.  On 2 November 1999 the kidnappers took Cemal Uçar to the city stadium in Diyarbakır and left him outside. A balaclava was put over his head and he was made to lie on the ground. The kidnappers told him that they would send the police shortly.\n13.  On 11 October 1999, after having received the applicant’s petition, the Diyarbakır public prosecutor requested the security directorate to examine the allegations. He took statements from the applicant concerning the alleged abduction of Cemal Uçar.\n14.  On 22 November 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor sent letters to the public prosecutor’s office in Nusaybin, the Security Directorate, the Gendarme Command and the Population Office in Diyarbakır, requesting these offices to conduct an investigation.\n15.  On 26 November 1999 the Diyarbakır Security Directorate reported to the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that Cemal Uçar had been taken into police custody on 2 November 1999 by police officers from the Diyarbakır Anti‑Terror Branch and that on 10 November 1999 his detention on remand had been ordered after he had been brought before the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n16.  On 29 November 1999 the deputy chief of police in Diyarbakır notified the Diyarbakır public prosecutor that on 24 November 1999 Cemal Uçar had committed suicide in Diyarbakır E-type prison.\n17.  On 10 December 1999 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute in respect of the applicant’s allegations.\n18.  On 23 December 1999 the decision of 10 December 1999 was served on the applicant.\n19.  On 2 November 1999, at 3.30 a.m., within 3 to 5 minutes after the kidnappers had left, police arrived at the stadium and arrested Cemal Uçar. The police officers found a forged identity card in Cemal Uçar’s pocket. It had been placed there by his kidnappers. He was then taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital and examined by a doctor who noted that there were several injuries on various parts of his body.\n20.  On 10 November 1999 Cemal Uçar was ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1746", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and resided in Kazincbarcika. He died in March 2004.\n6.  On 2 September 1994 the applicant brought an action in the Miskolc Labour Court against his former employer, a joint-stock company. He requested the court to hold that his employment contract had been terminated unlawfully, that he should be reinstated and that the agreement with the employer company to buy his shares from him be annulled.\n7.  After a hearing on 30 November 1994, on 15 February 1995 the Labour Court discontinued the proceedings partly because the applicant’s action had been submitted outside the statutory time-limit, and partly because it had no competence in the case.\n8.  On 11 May 1995 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court quashed part of the first-instance decision and appointed the Kazincbarcika District Court to deal with the applicant’s civil law claim.\n9.  On 16 February 1996 the Supreme Court accepted the applicant’s petition for review and remitted the labour law aspects of the case to the Labour Court.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 25 April 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings, seeking the payment of damages, additional wages and other benefits. After a hearing on 6 December 1995, on 28 March 1996 the Labour Court ordered that this action be joined to the original proceedings which were to be resumed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision.\n11.  After hearings on 17 May and 7 June 1996, on 3 July 1996 the Labour Court gave a partial judgment. It stated that the company had terminated the applicant’s employment unlawfully and ordered it to reinstate him.\n12.  On appeal, on 28 November 1996 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance partial judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim concerning the termination of his employment.\n13.  In the proceedings concerning the remainder of the case, on 8 April, 4 September and 2 November 1997, the Labour Court held hearings. On 16 December 1997 it accepted part of the applicant’s claims for additional wages and outstanding benefits, but dismissed the remainder.\n14.  On appeal, on 2 April 1998 the Regional Court considered the first-instance judgment to be a partial decision and confirmed its contents. It held that the Labour Court had failed to examine some of the applicant’s claims, and that in this respect the proceedings were to be continued.\n15.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, on 15 June 1998 the Labour Court transferred part of the applicant’s claims to the competent Kazincbarcika District Court. After a hearing on 13 January 1999, on 3 February 1999 it dismissed the applicant’s action.\n16.  On 14 December 2000 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n17.  On 18 April 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1747", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Veszprém.\n5.  On 7 November 1994 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, the president of a savings bank, and other defendants. On 22 March 1995 the Veszprém County Police Department heard the applicant as a suspect and explained to him that an investigation was being conducted against him since he was accused of having committed fraud when granting credit to a limited company, a conduct punishable under section 297/A of the Criminal Code.\n6.  In February 1997 the investigation was closed.\n7.  On 16 October 2000 the Veszprém Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant charging him with aggravated fraud committed as an accomplice, a conduct punishable under section 318 §§ 1 and 6(a) of the Criminal Code.\n8.  At the hearing of 24 January 2002 a defendant and some representatives failed to appear. The Veszprém District Court heard the applicant, who stated that he did not want to propose any evidence. The case was adjourned.\n9.  Hearings took place on 28 May, 15 October 2002 and 3 March 2003. On 28 May 2002 the District Court rejected the applicant’s motion for bias.\n10.  On 11 September 2003 the District Court acquitted the applicant.\n11.  On 7 June 2004 the Veszprém County Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment concerning the applicant and remitted this part of the case to the District Court.\n12.  On 8 October 2004 the Budapest Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s motion for bias, filed against all the judges in Veszprém County.\n13.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held hearings on 24 March and 12 April 2005. On that date it acquitted the applicant in the absence of any evidence proving him guilty.\n14.  Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed. However, on 25 May 2005 the prosecution withdrew its appeal.\n15.  On 26 September 2005 the Regional Court upheld the applicant’s acquittal. In line with the applicant’s appeal, it found that the incriminated conduct did not constitute a criminal offence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1749", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in İzmir.\n8.  On 10 May 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having aided and abetted an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party), in March 1995.\n9.  On 12 May 2000 a Magistrates' Court in criminal matters ordered the applicant's detention on remand.\n10.  On 23 May 2000 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed an indictment charging the applicant with aiding and abetting an illegal terrorist organisation. In particular, the Public Prosecutor accused the applicant of having been involved in illegal activities in March 1995, notably sheltering members of the PKK, acting as their courier and recruiting new members for the organisation. The charges were brought under Article 169 of the now defunct Criminal Code. The Public Prosecutor asked the State Security Court to increase by half the penalty to be imposed on the applicant in application of Article 5 of Law no. 3713 (the Anti-terrorism Act) and Articles 31, 33 and 40 of the former Criminal Code.\n11.  On 3 August 2000 the applicant was released pending trial.\n12.  On 2 November 2000 the Izmir State Security Court discontinued the prosecution against the applicant, holding that the five year statutory time-limit laid down in Articles 102 § 4 and 104 § 2 of the Criminal Code had expired. The court noted that the offence in question had allegedly been committed in March 1995, whereas the indictment had been filed on 23 May 2000, i.e. more than five years after the commission of the alleged offence. It further found that the applicant had not been involved in any illegal activity during this time.\n13.  On 16 March 2001 the applicant filed a complaint under Law no. 466 with the Izmir Assize Court (Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi) against the Treasury, requesting 10,500,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) by way of compensation for his detention between 10 May and 3 August 2000.\n14.  On 21 March 2001 the three-judge Izmir Assize Court appointed one of its members (naip hakim) to investigate the case and draft a report. On the same day, the judge-rapporteur decided to ask the Principal Public Prosecutor for his written observations on the applicant's claim.\n15.  On 21 March 2001 the Principal Public Prosecutor, as required by Law no. 466, submitted his opinion to the Izmir Assize Court. The Public Prosecutor noted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been discontinued because they had been time-barred, within the meaning of Articles 102 § 4 and 104 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the applicant should not be granted compensation for non‑pecuniary damage since Law no. 466 did not provide for the possibility of compensation for cases concerning the discontinuation of criminal proceedings. This opinion was not served on the applicant.\n16.  The judge-rapporteur submitted his report to the Izmir Assize Court, recommending that the latter should not to accede to the applicant's claim.\n17.  On 28 March 2001 the Izmir Assize Court dismissed the applicant's claim for compensation, considering that he was not entitled to compensation under Law no. 466. The court held that section 1 of Law no. 466 provided an exhaustive list of situations for an award of compensation and that the applicant's circumstances did not fall within any of these categories.\n18.  On 1 October 2001 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. He argued that he was not only unlawfully hel", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1750", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Makó.\n5.  On 8 October 1993 the applicant’s ex-wife brought an action in trespass against him in the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court, in the context of a dispute concerning the use of the divorced couple’s flat.\n6.  On 21 December 1993 and 5 April 1994 this court held hearings.\n7.  On 28 February 1996 the court instructed the plaintiff to submit better particulars of her claims.\n8.  On 19 March 1997 the case was transferred to the Makó District Court for reasons of competence. On 9 and 23 September 1997 the court held hearings. After a short stay of the proceedings, a further hearing was held on 16 December 1997, which the plaintiff did not attend. After another stay, hearings took place on 5 May and 25 June 1998. On 7 July 1998 the plaintiff submitted additional particulars of her claims.\n9.  The court held hearings on 29 September, 22 October 1998, 15 July, 16 and 23 September 1999. On that day the court gave judgment, partly finding for the plaintiff. It ordered the applicant to pay compensation to the plaintiff in the amount of 67,592 Hungarian forints (HUF) plus accrued interest. The court held that the subject matter of the case was the settlement of scores concerning the division of the matrimonial property.\n10.  On appeal, on 26 January 2000 the Csongrád County Regional Court upheld this decision.\n11.  On 31 May 2000 the Supreme Court rejected as inadmissible the applicant’s petition for review, without examining it on the merits, since the disputed amount fell below the statutory threshold of HUF 500,000, under which no review lay against second-instance decisions.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1751", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1959, 1965, 1972, 1959 and 1972 respectively and live in Aydın.\n6.  The applicants were the Nazilli district directors of the Labour Party (Emeğin Partisi) at the time of the events.\n7.  On 31 July 1997 the Izmir Magistrates’ Court ordered the confiscation of a leaflet entitled “The Kurdish problem is a problem of the people of Turkey”. On 1 September 1997 this leaflet was distributed by the Nazilli District Headquarters of the Labour Party.\n8.  On 1 October 1997 the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicants of provoking hatred and hostility on the basis of a distinction between race and region. He requested that they be convicted and sentenced under Article 312 §§ 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 17 March 1998 the Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged. Mr Çamoğlu was sentenced to one year nine months and sixteen days’ imprisonment and to a fine of 1,576,566 Turkish liras (TRL). The other applicants were sentenced to one year and eight months’ imprisonment and to a fine of TRL 1,433,333. The sentences of Ms Çamoğlu and Mr Kazan were suspended as they did not have a criminal record.\n10.  On 6 April 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1752", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1921 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  The applicant was named beneficiary in her friend’s will. Following the friend’s death, the applicant claimed her inheritance.\n6.  On 12 September 1995 the State instituted proceedings against the applicant requesting the Pest Central District Court to declare the will invalid. The State claimed that the applicant’s friend had lacked the capacity to make reasonable decisions when she had signed the will.\n7.  The District Court held hearings on 17 December 1996, 15 April and 18 September 1997. On 6 October it appointed a medical expert, who submitted his opinion on 12 November 1997.\n8.  On 13 May 1998 the District Court dismissed the State’s action.\n9.  On 1 July 1998 the plaintiff appealed.\n10.  On 6 April and 21 October 1999 the Budapest Regional Court held hearings. On the latter date it quashed the first-instance decision and declared the will invalid. Relying essentially on the opinion of the medical expert, the court held that the testator had had no capacity to perform legal acts when the testament had been signed.\n11.  On 14 January 2000 the applicant filed a petition for review, which was completed on 17 November 2000.\n12.  On 30 April 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review. This decision was served on 13 June 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1753", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 14 December 1995 the applicant brought an action for divorce, the division of the matrimonial property, and the regulation of the use of the couple’s flat of common ownership.\n6.  The Pest Central District Court held hearings on 24 April, 20 October 1996, 16 February and 4 December 1997. On the latter date, the District Court pronounced the couple’s divorce and, at the parties’ request, suspended the proceedings concerning the division of the matrimonial property and the use of the flat. On 11 December 1997 the applicant requested that the examination of the case be continued.\n7.  Subsequently, the District Court held hearings on 12 June, 16 December 1998, 6 May 1999, and 24 May, 8 December 2000 and 23 January 2001.\n8.  On 8 February 2001 the District Court divided the parties’ matrimonial property, granting ownership of the flat to the respondent, and ordered him to pay compensation to the applicant. The parties appealed.\n9.  On 3 July 2001 the Budapest Regional Court remitted the case to the District Court, instructing it to complete its decision, in particular, to decide on the applicant’s claims concerning the use of the flat.\n10.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, on 30 October 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s motion for bias.\n11.  On 22 February 2002 the court completed its original decision. It terminated the applicant’s right to the enjoyment of the flat and dismissed her claims in this respect.\n12.  On appeal, the Regional Court held hearings on 4 July and 10 October 2002. On that date it partly changed the first-instance decision and gave ownership of the flat to the applicant, terminated the respondent’s right of use, obliging him to leave the flat within 30 days, and ordered the applicant to pay compensation.\n13.  Since the respondent failed to comply with the decision, enforcement proceedings were instituted against him on 19 December 2002. On 20 March 2003 the District Court corrected its execution order.\n14.  On 22 April 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the respondent’s petition for review, filed against the decision of 10 October 2002.\n15.  On 26 April 2003 the District Court appointed a judicial executor. On 16 June 2003 the applicant requested the executor to proceed with the case as soon as possible. On the same date the District Court dismissed the respondent’s request to have the proceedings suspended. On 9 December 2003 the Regional Court dismissed his appeal.\n16.  On 19 February 2004 the applicant requested the District Court to order that the execution be carried out with the assistance of the police. On 2 March 2004 the court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an order under section 174(d) of the Code of Judicial Enforcement.\n17.  On 9 April 2004 the respondent was evicted.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1754", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 27 January 1986 the applicant instituted proceedings against her ex-husband for the division of their matrimonial property in the Buda Central District Court.\n6.  The District Court held eleven hearings and appointed four experts, and, on 1 March 1990, it gave judgment. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held two hearings and heard another expert. On 1 July 1992 it quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held six hearings between 18 May 1993 and 27 October 1995. At the hearing on 30 January 1996, it appointed a valuation expert who presented his opinion on 26 August 1996. The opinion was completed on 3 December 1996.\n8.  In the period between 25 April 1996 and 20 May 1997, four further hearings took place. On 22 July 1997 another expert opinion was obtained.\n9.  Between 18 September 1997 and 15 April 1999, the court held ten hearings. On that date it gave judgment, ordering that the common ownership of certain real property be terminated by way of an auction, and granting the applicant the right to buy out another property.\n10.  On appeal, on 17 March 2000 the Budapest Regional Court changed the first-instance decision, transferring the right to buy out to the respondent.\n11.  On 2 June 2000 the applicant filed a petition for review which was completed on 6 December 2000.\n12.  On 15 April 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the second-instance decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1756", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, who is a civil servant in the State education service, was born in 1948 and lives in Papeete.\n8.  In June 1987 the Lycée René-Cassin in Bayonne – of which the applicant had been appointed accountant by a decision of the Director of Education for Bordeaux – and the French Federation of Basque Pelota signed an agreement to set up a centre at the school which would allow young athletes to continue studying during their training: the Basque Pelota National Training Centre (Centre national d’entraînement à la pelote basque – “the CNEA”). The CNEA, which had no separate legal personality, was attached to the school’s budget. The headmaster of the school was the director and authorising officer in respect of expenditure, and the applicant, who was appointed general secretary of the centre, was the accountant. In December 1987 the headmaster instituted a fixed monthly allowance in favour of the director of the CNEA and its general secretary.\n9.  On an audit of the accounts submitted by the applicant for the years 1989 to 1993, the Aquitaine Regional Audit Office gave interim rulings on 3 May 1996 and 11 March 1997 ordering the applicant to produce certain supplementary evidence.\nIn a judgment of 17 October 1997, the Aquitaine Regional Audit Office declared that the applicant owed the school the following amounts plus interest: 191,893.09 French francs (FRF), FRF 11,407.75 and FRF 17,806.60. Those amounts corresponded to payments made by the applicant in his capacity as public accountant of the school for the years 1989 to 1993. The first sum related to the fixed monthly allowance paid to the headmaster of the school in his capacity as director of the CNEA and to the applicant himself as general secretary; the second sum concerned a cashier’s indemnity paid to the applicant himself out of funds managed by the CNEA’s separate accounting department; and the third concerned the transfer of holiday compensation into the CNEA’s separate accounting department in favour of the director of the centre and the applicant himself. In its judgment, the Regional Audit Office noted that there was no resolution by the board of governors of the Lycée René-Cassin authorising these allowances – whereas that was the only body with power to set up a system of allowances – and, referring to the relevant provisions, pointed out that “the public accountant must satisfy himself that the documents he submits in support of the payments for which he takes charge are issued by the appropriate authority”.\n10.  The applicant appealed to the Court of Audit, which gave judgment on 20 October 1998 upholding the main parts of the Regional Audit Office’s judgment but partly varying the total amount to be repaid, which it reduced to FRF 191,893.09.\n11.  In a decision of 22 October 1999, the Conseil d’Etat declared an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant “inadmissible”. The decision is worded as follows:\n“Under section 11 of the Law of 31 December 1987 reforming administrative proceedings, ‘an appeal on points of law to the Conseil d’Etat is first subjected to an admissibility procedure. Leave to appeal is refused by judicial decision if the appeal is inadmissible or not based on a genuine ground of appeal’.\nIn applying for the judgment of 20 October 1998 [of] the Court of Audit ... to be set aside, Mr Martinie submitted that the judgment had been given in breach of the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention ..., since he had neither been summone", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1757", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  In 1990 the applicant founded and became the chairman of the Bulgarian Revolutionary Youth Party („Българска революционна младежка партия“). He ran for parliament in 1990 and in several later elections, unsuccessfully. Apparently he was also a presidential candidate in later elections on that party’s ballot.\n10.  At a meeting held on 10 November 1996 in Varna the applicant and forty‑nine other persons formed a party named Communist Party of Bulgaria („Комунистическа партия на България“). They adopted its constitution and elected its management organs. The applicant was elected the party’s chairman. The party’s aims, set out in the preamble to its constitution, were as follows:\n“...\nThe main aim of the Communist Party shall be the revolutionary change of the Bulgarian society – democratisation of the society as a road to true power of the people. The primary goal of the party shall be the practical improvement of the socialist democracy – broadening of the direct participation of the people in the government of the state; economic freedom of the enterprises within the framework of an economy changed and armed with the new philosophy of central planning; active shift towards self‑government of the municipalities and the economic units as a transition towards self‑governing communities within a society of social homogeneity.\n...\nThe Communist Party is convinced of the need for the union of the political parties, movements and eminent personalities into one political coalition – ‘Union for National Cooperation ‘Civic Forum’’, as the most proper way out of the societal antagonisms and divisions.\n...\nThe Party shall advocate a policy of rapprochement between peoples which are at different socio‑political stages of development; of deepening of the economic, political and cultural ties between them. The Communist Party’s ultimate aim is the ‘constant improvement of society’.\nThe Communist Party is a party of a new type. It shall struggle for political power and shall work dedicatedly for the triumph of the communist ideal – building of a civil society with the economic nature of a society ruled by the principles of scientific socialism and the political nature of a society free of class divisions, political parties and movements: a society in which the vehicle of development shall be the Man – a universally developed and harmonious personality.”\n11.  Articles 1 – 8 of the party’s constitution dealt with membership in the party and the members’ rights and obligations. Article 8 set out, inter alia, the grounds for expelling members.\n12.  Articles 9 – 26 of the constitution set out the organisational structure of the party and the powers of its organs.\n13.  Article 28 of the constitution, which described the party’s symbols, stated, inter alia, that they stood for the “idea of a revolutionary socio‑political order”.\n14.  On 3 December 1996 the applicant, in his capacity of chairman of the party, applied to the Sofia City Court to have it registered.\n15.  The court held a hearing on 18 December 1996. It noted that the manner of liquidation of the party had not been provided for in its constitution, that the declarations submitted by the founders were incomplete, and that there were certain other irregularities. Accordingly, it adjourned the case for 26 February 1997 with a view to allowing the party to remedy the deficiencies it had spotted.\n16.  In order to rectify the deficiencies noted by the court, the applicant and the other founders held", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1758", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Gornji Grad.\n6.  On 6 January 1994 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 27 December 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,920,993 tolars (approximately 12,200 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 7 May 1996 and 18 April 2000 the applicant lodged seven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence and made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 24 June 1999 the applicant partly withdrew his claim.\nOn 25 September 1997 the presiding judge was appointed to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) and the case was transferred to a new judge.\nOf the five hearings held between 10 November 1997 and 23 June 2000 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 20 September 2000.\n8.  On 5 October 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 19 September 2001 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n9.  On 16 November 2001 and 20 March 2003 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOn 28 December 2004 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the three hearings held between 28 November 2001 and 21 March 2003 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a work safety expert.\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1759", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 25 November 1967 and lives in Šoštanj.\n6.  On 14 September 1993 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 5 January 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 6,500,000 tolars (approximately 27,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 6 November 1995 and 3 March 1998 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nDuring this time he also made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nNeither of the hearings held on 24 March and 9 April 1998 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nThe judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 18 May 1998.\n8.  On 29 May 1998 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 14 January 1999 the court upheld the ZT’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 29 December 1999.\n9.  Between 10 January 2001 and 27 February 2001 the applicant lodged seven preliminary written submissions. During this time he also made two requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the three hearings held between 11 April 2000 and 23 January 2001 none was adjourned at the applicant’s request.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a work-safety expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 5 March 2001.\n10.  On 16 March 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 9 May 2002 the court dismissed the appeals in part and delivered a new decision on costs and expenses of the proceedings.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 23 May 2002.\n11.  On 3 June 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 23 October 2003 the court dismissed the appeals.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 24 November 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1760", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Prebold.\n6.  On 19 June 1995 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 4 November 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 5,447,223 tolars (approximately 22,700 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 6 December 1996 the presiding judge was appointed to the Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was assigned to a new judge.\nBetween 11 September 1997 and 15 September 1998 the applicant made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 8 June 1998 and 4 March 1999 he lodged preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the three hearings held between 8 June 1998 and 12 April 1999 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 7 June 1999.\n8.  On 21 June 1999 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 5 April 2000 the court allowed in part the applicant’s appeal and remanded the case back to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 12 July 2000.\n9.  On 19 July 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) and requested that one of the judges be recused. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 12 January 2001 the request for recusal was rejected.\nOn 14 June 2001 the court allowed in part the ZT’s appeal, rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the second-instance court’s decision of remitting the case for re-examination before the first-instance court.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 29 August 2001.\n10.  On 5 November 2001 the presiding first-instance court judge was appointed to the Celje Higher Court and the case was assigned to a new judge for re-examination. \nBetween 24 September 2001 and 18 November 2002 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence. \nOn 25 October 2001 he made a request that a date be set for a hearing.\nThe court held hearings on 27 May and 18 November 2002.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding in part the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 12 March 2003.\n11.  On 25 March 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.\nOn 21 October 2004 the court allowed in part the appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 13 January 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1761", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Miklavž pri Ormožu.\n6.  On 30 December 1997 the applicant was injured in a traffic accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZM.\n7.  On 2 April 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZM in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,127,050 Slovenian tolars (approximately 8,900 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 1 July 1999 and 3 October 2002 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 12 January 2001 and 25 March 2002 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the two hearings held on 12 April 2002 and 4 October 2002, neither was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 23 December 2002.\n8.  On 30 December 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 22 January 2004 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 1 March 2004.\n9.  On 26 March 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1762", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Taganrog.\n9.  The applicant was a party to a civil dispute involving several other persons.\n10.  On 16 October 2000 the Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region, composed of Ms C. (presiding judge), Ms S. and Ms L. (lay judges), dismissed the applicant’s claims and ordered her to bear costs and expenses.\n11.  On 23 and 24 October 2000 the applicant and her lawyer filed their notices of appeal. The applicant challenged, inter alia, the composition of the bench. She alleged a breach of the rules on the appointment of lay judges in that the lay judges had not been drawn by lot, contrary to the requirements of the Lay Judges Act. In addition, it was claimed that, while the Lay Judges Act allowed lay judges to be called once a year for a maximum period of fourteen days, or for as long as a specific case lasted, the lay judges S. and L. had been engaged earlier in the course of 2000 in at least one another case. Also, according to an undated letter of the President of the Taganrog Town Court, the lay judges S. and L. had been assigned to sit with the presiding judge I. rather than with the judge C.\n12.  On 24 January 2001 the Rostov Regional Court dismissed the appeals. The court rebutted the argument concerning the allegedly unlawful composition of the bench, relying on the President’s Decree of 25 January 2000 whereby the term of office of acting lay judges had been extended pending appointment of new ones in accordance with the Lay Judges Act. The list of lay judges had only been approved by the Rostov Regional Legislature on 15 June 2000 and made available to the courts on 18 October 2000, that is after the decisions in the applicant’s case had been made. This fact led the Regional Court to the conclusion that the lay judges who had sat in these cases were exempted from the requirements of the Lay Judges Act.\n13.  Following the Court’s decision as to the admissibility of the application, on 17 April 2004 the applicant submitted her claim for just satisfaction. She claimed, in particular, the legal fees paid to her representative before the Court, Mr Kiryanov, and expenses relating to translation of documents carried out by Ms Volkova.\n14.  On 9 July 2004 an officer of the Taganrog police department who investigated tax offences formally requested the applicant’s representative and translator to submit evidence that they had paid taxes on the amounts disbursed by the applicant.\n15.  On 11 July 2004 the applicant informed the Court about the above request. She alleged that it amounted to a hindrance with her right of individual application guaranteed under Article 34 of the Convention. The applicant submitted copies of the summonses for Mr Kiryanov and Ms Volkova and a description of Ms Volkova’s interview at the police station. The police officer questioned Ms Volkova as to who had asked her to perform translations for the applicant, how the applicant had paid for translations, whether they had signed a contract on provision of services and why she had not paid taxes on these amounts.\n16.  The Court asked the respondent Government to comment on compatibility of the above measures with Article 34 of the Convention.\n17.  On 29 July 2004 the Government submitted their comments on the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. They indicated, in particular, that the claimed translation costs had not been “real” because Ms Volkova had not reported the amounts received on her tax declaration.\n18.  In", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1763", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Topolščica.\n6.  On 18 September 1992 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 16 November 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 4,000,000 tolars (approximately 16,700 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 13 February 1997 the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was assigned to a new judge.\nBetween 29 January 1997 and 23 April 1997 the applicant filed four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the five hearings held between 4 February 1997 and 4 September 1997 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 22 January 1998.\n8.  On 30 January 1998 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.\nOn 10 June 1998 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 8 July 1998.\n9.  Between 23 July 1998 and 16 January 2002 the applicant filed seven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 23 July 1998 and 24 January 2002 he made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the nine hearings held between 4 May 1999 and 19 February 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 29 April 2002.\n10.  On 30 April 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.\nOn 23 October 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 19 November 2003.\n11.  Between 26 November 2003 and 10 December 2004 the applicant filed three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOn 30 May 2005 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nThe court sought additional opinion from the appointed experts.\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1764", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Trbovlje.\n6.  On 22 August 1997 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 5 January 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against ZT in the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani) seeking damages in the amount of 3,938,470 Slovenian tolars (approximately 16,410 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 11 November 1999 and 19 February 2002 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOn 18 February 2000 and 2 April 2001 he made requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the two hearings held on 18 June 2001 and 6 May 2002, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 1 July 2002.\n8.  On 12 July 2002 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani).\nOn 16 April 2003, the court upheld his appeal as far as the statutory default interests were concerned and rejected the remainder.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 6 May 2003.\n9.   On 20 May 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). He also requested a withdrawal of a Supreme Court’s judge.\nOn 14 July 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 30 August 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1765", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Baku.\n8.  On 6 March 2001 the applicant and her neighbour got involved in a quarrel which escalated into a serious fight during which the applicant allegedly produced a knife and threatened to kill the neighbour. After this incident, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant based on a criminal complaint filed by her neighbour.\n9.  On 24 April 2002, at about 11:00 a.m., several police officers came to the applicant’s apartment and “invited” her to follow them to a police station for interrogation concerning the criminal complaint filed against her by the neighbour. The applicant resisted and the police officers took her to the police station by force. At the station, they issued a “protocol on administrative offence” (inzibati xəta barədə protokol), accusing the applicant of the contempt of their lawful order to follow them to the police office for interrogation.\n10.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before a judge of the Sabail District Court, who sentenced the applicant to an immediate ten-day “administrative detention” for contempt of the police under Article 310.1 of the Code on Administrative Offences (İnzibati Xətalar Məcəlləsi). She was found guilty of resisting the “lawful order” of the police and making insulting and disrespectful statements about the Azerbaijani law and law‑enforcement authorities.\n11.  While the applicant was serving her ten-day sentence, her lawyer filed an appeal against the Sabail District Court’s decision of 24 April 2002. He argued that there was no lawful ground for convicting the applicant for contempt of the police, because the police officers had entered the applicant’s apartment without any arrest warrant or summons to attend the police office, and arrested her without any lawful reason. On 2 May 2002, the Court of Appeal upheld the Sabail District Court’s decision, without specifically replying to these arguments. In accordance with the domestic law on administrative procedure, no appeal could be lodged against the Court of Appeal’s decision concerning an administrative offence.\n12.  After the applicant had been released upon the expiry of the ten-day term of the “administrative detention”, she was charged with a criminal offence for beating her neighbour and threatening her with a knife. On 17 July 2002 the Nasimi District Court found the applicant guilty of “hooliganism with the use of weapons” under Article 221.3 of the Criminal Code and sentenced her to three-years’ imprisonment. On 10 May 2004, by virtue of a presidential pardon decree, she was released from serving the remainder of her sentence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1766", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Teharje.\n6.  On 30 November 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 27 July 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,278,616 tolars (approximately 9,500 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 3 September 1999 and 13 March 2000 the applicant made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 18 June 2001 he lodged preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence.\nOf the three hearings held between 19 June 2001 and 11 September 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 12 November 2001.\nOn 15 November 2001 the court corrected the calculation mistakes in the judgment. The corrected judgment was served on the applicant on 17 December 2001.\n8.  On 26 November 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 13 February 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and increased the damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 5 June 2003.\n9.  On 26 June 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 9 September 2003 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 25 November 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1767", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Laško.\n6.  On 21 July 1993 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 15 December 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 9,422,552.80 tolars (approximately 39,300 euros) and a life annuity of 215,148 SIT (approximately 900 euros) for the sustained injuries.\nOn 29 March and 6 November 1996 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 25 September 1997 the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 30 June and 14 September 1998 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOn 15 March 1999 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the three hearings held between 19 November 1997 and 22 March 2000 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a financial expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 5 June 2000.\n8.  On 19 June 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 25 January 2001 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in the part referring to costs and expenses of the proceedings.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 28 February 2001.\n9.  On 29 March 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 7 March 2002 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 22 April 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1768", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants live in the Voronezh Region.\n5.  They are in receipt of welfare payments for their children. In 1999 – 2001 the applicants brought separate sets of civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.\n6.  On the dates set out in appendix 1 the domestic courts granted the applicants’ claims and ordered the welfare authority to pay them the respective amounts. The enforcement proceedings were commenced accordingly.\n7.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments in the applicants’ favour and returned them the writs of execution referring to the lack of the debtor’s funds.\n8.  Thereafter the applicants unsuccessfully applied to various public bodies seeking to have the judgments in their favour enforced.\n9.  In January and February 2004 the applicants were paid the amounts due pursuant to the writs of execution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1769", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Rečica ob Savinji.\n6.  On 6 March 1998 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 2 November 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,107,000 tolars (approximately 13,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 3 September 1999 and 11 June 2003 the applicant made eight requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 13 June 2000 and 11 June 2003 he lodged ten preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the three hearings held between 27 July 2000 and 11 September 2003 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts. The court also sought an additional opinion from one of the appointed experts.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 2 October 2003.\n8.  On 3 October 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 30 March 2005 the court allowed in part the applicant’s appeal and increased the awarded damages.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 5 May 2005.\n9.  On 9 May 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1770", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Celje.\n6.  On 1 January 1998 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 1 April 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,069,320 tolars (approximately 8,600 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 1 June 1999 and 2 December 2003 the applicant lodged seven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOn 10 April 1999 he also requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 5 November 2001 the presiding judge was appointed to the Celje Higher Court and the case was assigned to a new judge.\nOf the five hearings held between 6 June 2001 and 15 December 2003 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 3 May 2004.\n8.  On 5 May 2004 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 13 July 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and dismissed the ZT’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 7 September 2005.\n9.  On 3 October 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1771", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 5 December 1995 the applicant was injured in an accident at work in a mine. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 3 July 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 9,177,050 tolars (approximately 38,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 31 July 1997 and 6 September 2000 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOn 31 August 1998 and 3 November 1998 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the three hearings held between 26 March 1999 and 25 September 2000 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 29 November 2000.\n8.  On 11 December 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). On 13 December 2000 he amended the appeal. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 14 March 2002 the court allowed both appeals in part, annulled a part of the first-instance court judgment and remitted the case to the first instance court for re-examination.\n9.  On 27 June 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 25 March 2004 the court dismissed both appeals.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 12 May 2004.\n10.  On 31 January 2005 the first-instance court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment.\nThe judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 3 February 2005.\n11.  On 4 February 2005 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court against the part of the judgment concerning costs and expenses of the proceedings.\nOn 15 February 2006 the court dismissed the appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 6 March 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1772", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 24 August 1996 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 3 April 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,200,0000 tolars (approximately 5,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 10 September 1997 and 14 January 1999 the applicant made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 24 June 1998 and 4 March 1999 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nNeither of the two hearings held on 10 June 1998 and 24 March 1999 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 8 April 1999.\n8.  On 23 April 1999 ZT appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 28 October 1999 the court allowed the appeal, annulled the first-instance court-s judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 6 December 1999.\n9.  Between 17 January 2000 and 10 May 2002 the applicant lodged five preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 1 February 2000 and 13 February 2003 she made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the four hearings held between 3 January 2001 and 17 March 2003 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding in part the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 20 June 2003.\n10.  On 2 July 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.\nOn 18 November 2004 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and increased the amount of the damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 13 January 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1773", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Volgodonsk, Rostov region.\n5.  The applicant receives an old-age pension. The Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions of 21 July 1997 (the “Pensions Law”) introduced, since 1 February 1998, a new method of calculating pensions. This method, “Individual Pensioner Coefficient” (“IPC”), was meant to link a person’s pension to his previous earnings.\n6.  On 22 April 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against the Volgodonsk labour and social development authority (Департамент труда и социального развития) before the Volgodonsk Town Court. He argued that his IPC should be fixed at 0.7, which would result in an increase in his pension.\n7.  The Town Court found for the applicant and ordered the defendant authority to re-calculate the applicant’s pension from 1 February 1998 based on the IPC equal to 0.7 and pay the arrears of 3,186.36 roubles. According to the applicant and the documents submitted by him, the judgment was dated 25 October 1999 and came into force on 8 December 1999. According to the Government, the judgment was dated 25 November 1999 and came into force on 5 December 1999.\n8.  On 14 January 2000 the Town Court issued a writ of execution. On 26 January 2000 the Volgodonsk bailiff’s service instituted enforcement proceedings. As the payments in enforcement of the judgment had not been made the applicant complained to various authorities. In letters of 10 June and 3 October 2000 the enforcement proceedings supervision department of the Rostov region division of the Ministry of Justice informed him that the judgment debt would be paid to him upon receipt of funds from the State budget.\n9.  According to the Government, the Volgodonsk labour and social development authority lodged an application with the Town Court for re‑consideration of the judgment given in the applicant’s case due to discovery of new circumstances. The authority argued that such a circumstance was an instruction of the Ministry of Labour and Social Development of 29 December 1999, which interpreted the Pensions Law in a way different from that in the judgment. On 29 September 2000 the Town Court granted the authority’s application and quashed the judgment due to discovery of new circumstances, notably the above ministerial instruction.\n10.  According to the applicant, he was never informed of the court decision of 29 September 2000.\n11.  On 5 January 2001 the Volgodonsk bailiff’s service terminated the enforcement proceedings. It stated in its decision as follows:\n“The proceedings [instituted on the basis of the writ of execution in favour of A. K. Sukhobokov] should be considered as terminated in connection with remitting the writ of execution, without enforcement, at the request of the court.\nOn the basis of the foregoing, being governed by Section 27 (2) of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings, decided that:\n12.  According to the applicant, he received a copy of that decision on 24 March 2001.\n13.  According to the applicant, the amount of his monthly pension was 1,523 roubles as of 1 May 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1774", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 29 November 1994 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 4 November 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 4,935,306 tolars (approximately 20,500 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 13 February 1997 the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was assigned to a new judge.\nOn 30 January 1997 and 2 April 1998 the applicant made requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 30 January 1997 and 3 February 1999 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nNeither of the hearings held on 14 May 1998 and 10 November 1998 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nThe court issued a written judgment on 19 February 1999. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 13 April 1999.\n8.  On 19 April 1999 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 18 November 1999 the court allowed both appeals in part and remanded the case back to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 28 December 1999.\n9.  Between 8 March 2000 and 3 December 2002 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the four hearings held between 13 April 2000 and 23 October 2003 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts.\nOn 3 December 2002 the court issued a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 13 January 2004.\n10.  On 28 January 2004 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 6 April 2005 the court upheld the applicant’s appeal in part and dismissed ZT’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 16 May 2005.\n11.  On 13 June 2005 the applicant lodged and appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court.\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1777", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Zidani Most.\n6.  On 28 July 1995 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 3 December 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,900,000 tolars (approximately 12,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 9 December 1999 and 17 April 2002 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the four hearings held between 23 November 1999 and 21 May 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert and a road traffic expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 17 June 2002.\n8.  On 2 July 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nUpon the request of the Celje Higher Court, the Celje District Court amended the flaws in its judgment on 19 December 2003.\nOn 2 March 2005 the Celje Higher Court allowed the applicant’s appeal, dismissed the ZT’s appeal, and increased the damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 24 March 2005.\n9.  On 14 April 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1778", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 8 September 1994 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7. On 12 February 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,411,312 Slovenian tolars (approximately 10,050 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 29 August 1996 and 2 April 2001 the applicant lodged thirteen preliminary written submissions.\nOn 1 April 1998 she made a request that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the seven hearings held between 18 September 1998 and 27 February 2002, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed three different medical experts. The court also sought additional opinions of the appointed experts.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 6 May 2002.\n8.  On 20 May 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 15 October 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and increased the damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 17 December 2003.\n9.  On 16 January 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 9 June 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 5 July 2005.\n10.  On 20 July 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1779", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 7 June 1995 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company A.\n7.  On 28 December 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against A in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,050,000 tolars (approximately 4,380 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 14 August 1996 and 14 December 2001 the applicant lodged eight preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 26 November 1996 and 30 March 2001 he made seven requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the four hearings held between 21 October 1996 and 9 January 2002, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed two medical experts.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 6 May 2002.\n8.  On 8 May 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). A cross-appealed.\nOn 15 October 2003 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal and partly upheld the A’s appeal, and accordingly decreased the damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 4 December 2003.\n9.  On 9 December 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 24 November 2005 the court upheld the applicant’s appeal in part.\nThe judgement was served on the applicant on 13 February 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1780", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Križevci.\n5.  The applicant was dismissed from work on 15 November 1991. Even though that decision of the employer was subsequently quashed by the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) on 10 October 1994, the applicant has never been reinstated.\n6.  On 18 December 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the employer, seeking compensation for his salary.\n7.  On 4 June 1997 the court obtained the opinion of an expert accountant. At the hearing held on 22 September 1997 the applicant objected to the expert opinion; and the court requested additional observations from the expert.\n8.  On 16 April 1998 the court held a hearing at which the applicant objected to the expert opinion and requested additional written observations from the expert witness. On 15 June 1998 the applicant requested another expert opinion. On 9 February 1999 the court obtained another opinion from a different expert.\n9.  On 2 March 1999 the applicant requested a fresh expert opinion. A new one was obtained on 17 January 2000. The applicant objected to that opinion as well.\n10.  In his rush notes of 20 October 2000 and 8 February 2001, the applicant urged the court to schedule a hearing.\n11.  The court obtained an additional expert opinion on 10 March 2001 and heard the expert on 19 March 2001. The applicant again objected to the opinion. On 18 September 2001 he requested that the appointed expert withdraw and a new opinion be obtained. He also requested withdrawal of the trial judge. On 21 September 2001 the court transferred the case-file to another judge and appointed a new expert.\n12.  On 4 October 2001 the court ordered the applicant to give better particulars of his claim. At the hearing on 20 November 2001 the expert replied to the objections of the applicant; and the employer was ordered to submit additional documents.\n13.  On 16 January 2002 the applicant urged the court to continue the proceedings, as the employer had failed to provide the requested documents.\n14.  On 15 February 2002 the court decided to hear the financial expert witness.\n15.  On 18 August 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court, complaining about the length of the proceedings.\n16.  On 12 February 2003 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It found that the Municipal Court had proceeded with due diligence. It also concluded that the applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings by asking seven times for an additional expert opinion. In those circumstances, the Constitutional Court found that the proceedings had not lasted unreasonably long.\n17.  Subsequently, on 31 January 2003 the main hearing was closed. On 7 May 2003 the court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. On appeal, on 11 May 2004 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) upheld the first-instance judgment.\n18.  The applicant filed an appeal on points of law and the proceedings are currently pending before the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1781", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in the Voronezh Region.\n6.  They are in receipt of welfare payments for their children. In 1999 – 2001 the applicants brought separate sets of civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.\n7.  On the dates set out in appendix 1 the domestic courts granted the applicants’ claims and ordered the welfare authority to pay them the respective amounts. The enforcement proceedings were commenced accordingly.\n8.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments in the applicants’ favour and returned the writs of execution to them referring to the lack of the debtor’s funds.\n9.  Thereafter the applicants unsuccessfully applied to various public bodies seeking to have the judgments in their favour enforced.\n10.  In January and February 2004 the applicants were paid the amounts due pursuant to the writs of execution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1782", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Tatabánya.\n5.  On 21 May 1992 the applicant brought an action against her husband for divorce, custody of their children, child maintenance and the division of matrimonial property.\n6.  On 17 May 1993 the Tatabánya District Court declared the parties’ divorce and granted the applicant custody of the children. The court also ordered the defendant to pay maintenance, regulated his visiting rights and divided the use of their common flat, giving ⅔ of the space to the applicant and the children, and ⅓ to the defendant.\n7.  On 15 July 1993 the applicant appealed against this decision, seeking exclusive use of the flat and the reduction of the defendant’s visiting rights.\n8.  On 22 September 1994 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court quashed the appealed part of the first-instance judgment and remitted the case, in this respect, to the District Court.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held a hearing and appointed two valuation experts on 4 September 1995. Further hearings took place on 3 June 1996, 10 June 1997, 1 September 1998, 25 January 1999, 14 February, 6 September and 25 October 2000.\n10.  On 8 January 2001 the court ordered the completion of the experts’ opinions. Further hearings were held on 31 August and 27 November 2001.\n11.  On 18 December 2001 the District Court granted the applicant ownership of the flat and ordered her to pay 927,282 Hungarian forints (HUF) in compensation to the defendant. It dismissed the remainder of her claims.\n12.  On 24 April 2002 the Regional Court confirmed the first-instance decision. This decision was served on 10 May 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1783", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Prague.\n5.  The applicant’s grandmother owned a house and plot of land in Městec Králové, which the State seized in 1960 and returned to her in 1969. On 15 October 1970 she signed an agreement to sell the property to the Městec Králové Centre for Agricultural Apprenticeship (Střední odborné učiliště zemědělské), a State institute, and was paid CZK 123,233.35 (EUR 4,355). Subsequently, part of the property was transferred to the Consumer Cooperative (spotřební družstvo) and the Městec Králové Municipal Office (městský úřad).\ni. Restitution proceedings under the Land Ownership Act\n6.  On 10 October 1991 the applicant requested the owners of the property under the Land Ownership Act to return the property to him, arguing that his grandmother had signed the sale agreement under duress and conspicuously disadvantageous conditions. Upon their refusal, on 4 December 1992 he requested the Nymburk Land Office (pozemkový úřad) to restore the property to him. His request was notified to the Land Office on 7 December 1992.\n7.  On 7 January 1993 the Land Office invited the applicant to submit certain relevant documents. At the same time, it interrupted the administrative proceedings until the administrative file would be complete.\n8. On 13 and 30 August 1993 respectively, the applicant presented the requested documents. On 26 June 1994 he identified the plot of land.\n9.  On 7 September 1994 an inspection of the site was carried out. On 15 September 1994 the Land Office requested the Ministry of Environment to provide access to their archives in order to find a purchase contract of 1970. On 29 September 1994 the Municipal Office, upon the Land Office’s request of 19 September 1994, submitted some additional documents. On the same day and on 17 October 1994 the applicant also added some documents.\n10.  On 23 November 1994 the Land Office ordered an expert opinion, which was drawn up on 14 January 1995.\n11.  On 25 January 1995 the applicant, at the Land Office’s request of 13 January 1995, clarified his relations with other members of his family.\n12.  On 31 January 1995 the Land Office dismissed the applicant’s request, stating that, while it was uncertain whether his grandmother had acted under duress, she had not sold the property under conspicuously disadvantageous conditions.\n13.  On 28 February 1995 the applicant appealed.\n14.  On 14 April and 5 June 1995 respectively, the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) invited the applicant’s representative to clarify his client’s appeal. On 1 June and 3 July 1995 respectively, he complied.\n15.  The applicant’s appeal was then sent to the other parties to the proceedings, who submitted their observations in August 1995.\n16.  In a judgment of 29 September 1995, the Municipal Court quashed the Land Office’s decision and returned the case to it for further establishment of the facts.\n17.  On 29 November 1995 the Municipal Office interviewed witnesses in accordance with the Municipal Court’s opinion expressed in its judgment. An inspection of the site was carried out.\n18.  On 8 December 1995 and 31 January 1996 respectively, the applicant lodged supplementary documents.\n19.  On 21 February 1996 the Land Office again dismissed the applicant’s request for the restitution of the property.\n20.  On 6 March 1996 the applicant appealed, supplementing his appeal on 6 May 1996. On 8 July 1996 the Land Office presented its comments.\n21.  The defendant’s observations were s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1784", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966. He entered the Czech Republic in 1983.\n5.  On 17 December 1997 at 10.30 a.m. the applicant was brought to a police investigation office in order to provide certain explanations (podání vysvětlení) in connection with an investigation for fraud. He was heard by a police investigator from 2.15 to 4.45 p.m. A lawyer was appointed for him. The applicant was arrested at 5.50 p.m, and charged with attempted fraud under sections 8(1) and 250(1) and (4) of the Criminal Code (hereinafter “the CC”) on the ground that he, together with a certain M.M., had opened bogus bank accounts on which they had attempted to collect CZK 56,228,000 (EUR 1,938,897) and CZK 36,572,000 (EUR 1,261,103) through false postal orders.\n6.  On 19 December 1997 the applicant was brought before a judge at the Prague 1 District Court (soudce obvodního soudu) who ordered his detention on remand.  On the same day, the applicant’s home was searched.\n7.  On 19 January 1998 the Prague Criminology Institute (Kriminalistický ústav) was requested to draw up an expert report on the false postal orders.  On 16 February 1998 the Criminology Technique and Expertise Department of the criminal police (odbor kriminalistické techniky a expertiz) was requested to examine the applicant’s computer and diary. The expert opinions were submitted on 29 April and 12 June 1998 respectively.\n8.  On 3 and 18 March, 22 July and 22 October 1998 respectively, the applicant was heard.\n9.  On 18 March 1999 he was informed that his criminal activity would be considered as complicity in fraud in an organised group under section 43 of the CC. On 6 September 1999 the postal orders were described.\n10.  On 24 September and 9 August 2000 respectively, the applicant was heard.\n11.  On 25 April 2001 the applicant’s defence counsel, after having examined her client’s file, asked that the evidence be completed by the hearing of two witnesses, one of them, T., being the applicant’s cousin. His request was refused by the police investigator on 22 May 2001 who did not consider the hearing of these witnesses necessary for the decision of the prosecutor and court.\n12.  Meanwhile, 28 other suspects had been charged with the same offence, some of them being placed in custody.\n13. On 3 July 2001 the Prague Regional Prosecutor (krajský státní zástupce), upon the investigator’s proposal of 21 June 2001, indicted the applicant and other co-accused before the Prague Regional Court (krajský soud). The applicant was so informed on 4 July 2001.\n14.  On 6 September 2001 the Regional Court sent the case back to the Regional Prosecutor for additional investigations. It held that the applicant should remain in custody until 17 December 2001. On 22 November 2001 the High Court dismissed the prosecutor’s objection to this decision. On 5 December 2001 the case file was remitted to the Regional Prosecutor.\n15.  On 29 May 2002 the applicant was heard but used his right to remain silent.\n16. On 14 August 2002 another expert, having been appointed on 13 February 2002, submitted a report.\n17.  Between June 2002 and January 2003, the authorities took a number of procedural steps.\n18.  On 30 January 2003 the Regional Prosecutor again indicted all the suspects, including the applicant. The indictment contained 89 pages. The applicant was so informed on 10 April 2003.\n19.  On 15 April 2003 the indictment in Czech, French and Arabian was forwarded to the Regional Court which, on 15 July 2003, set the trial for 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1786", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Cunski, Mali Losinj, Croatia.\n5.  On 7 April 1992 the applicant was arrested in Hungary on the suspicion of having murdered his wife, a German national. On 10 April 1992 the Hungarian Pest Central District Court ordered his detention on remand until his extradition to Germany. On 20 July 1993 the Hungarian National Police Department extradited the applicant and prohibited his return until 20 July 1998. Subsequently, he was held in pre-trial detention in Germany until 19 December 1994.\n6.  On 17 February 1995 the German Hildesheim Criminal Court acquitted the applicant. The judgment was pronounced in his presence and became final on the same day.\n7.  On 27 October 1995 the applicant’s lawyer brought an action in the Pest Central District Court seeking from the Hungarian State compensation (kártalanítás) under section 385/A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n8.  On 12 June 1996 the District Court transferred the case to the competent Budapest Regional Court. On 18 December 1996 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to complete his action, which he did on 8 September 1997.\n9.  Hearings took place on 11 September 1997, 22 January, 2 June and 8 December 1998, 4 May 1999 and 1 February 2000.\n10.  On 6 March 2000 the applicant extended his action and claimed damages (kártérítés) from the Hungarian State, relying on various provisions of the Civil Code.\n11.  On 28 April 2000 the Regional Court discontinued the proceedings, holding that the action had been submitted outside the statutory time-limit, as calculated from the final decision given in the criminal case.\n12.  On 5 June 2000 the applicant appealed. He submits that the respondent’s submissions in reply, filed on 22 June 2000, were made available to him only in autumn 2001, when his lawyer consulted the case file for the purposes of the review proceedings.\n13.  On 26 March 2001 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n14.  On 8 April 2002 the Supreme Court’s review bench quashed these decisions in their part concerning the claim for damages; this claim was remitted to the first instance court. Moreover, it upheld the discontinuation of the proceedings for compensation. The court observed that the time-limit for introducing this claim had been 17 August 1995 (i.e. six months after the applicant’s acquittal on 17 February 1995); however, the action had only been filed on 27 October 1995. It noted that the applicant – who referred to having been banned from Hungary and prohibited from accessing the Hungarian courts by the war in Croatia, as well as to his stay in a Croatian hospital from 14 August 1995 – should have requested procedural reinstatement (igazolási kérelem) within six months from the removal of these obstacles on 7 August 1995 (the date on which he had retained his Hungarian lawyer). However, the court found that he did so belatedly, only on 22 January 1998. The Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 25 June 2002.\n15.  In the resumed proceedings for damages, on 12 July 2002 the Regional Court joined to this case another action which the applicant had filed against the Budapest Police Department on 4 October 2000, claiming damages for the alleged breach of the presumption of innocence in the criminal proceedings.\n16.  On 21 March 2003 the court requested the competent German authorities to make available to it copies of documents relating to the applicant’s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1787", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1944 and 1936 respectively and live in Brno.\n5.  On 28 December 1992 the applicants prepared a civil action against the private company V. and Ms M. for the return of their ownership share in the private company V., amounting to CZK 120,000 (EUR 4,229). According to the Government, having received the applicants’ action on 13 January 1993, the Brno Regional Commercial Court (krajský obchodní soud) sent it to the defendants for their written comments.\n6.  On 20 July 1994 the applicants requested the court to accept an extension of their action to include Mr S. and the private company R. as defendants. The court received the request on 10 August 1994.\n7.  On 20 September 1994 the applicants requested the court to adopt interim measures against Ms M., but the court did not react to their request.\n8.  On 20 January 1997 the court accepted the applicants’ extension of their action, against which Mr S. and the company R. appealed on 3 February 1997. The next day, the appeal was sent to the other parties to the proceedings. On 3 July 1997 the appellants were invited to supplement their appeal.\n9.  On 21 July 1999 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) received new submissions. On 30 November 1999 it sent the case back to the Regional Commercial Court.\n10.  On 2 June 2000 the second applicant, upon the court’s request of 3 May 2000, provided information as to the name of his legal representative in 1997.\n11.  On 4 October 2001 the Regional Commercial Court invited the appellants, once again, to supplement their appeal.\n12.  On 5 February and 14 May 2002 respectively, the court contacted the central register of citizens (centrální evidence obyvatel) to determine the second defendant’s domicile.\n13.  On 2 June 2003 the court asked the Czech Post Office (Česká pošta) about the effective delivery of mail to the second defendant. It repeated its request on 5 January and 30 June 2004 respectively.\n14.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the High Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1788", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Brno.\n5.  On 29 May 1992 the applicant introduced before the Prague 4 District Court (obvodní soud) an action seeking the division of matrimonial property. According to the Government, the action was notified to the court on 1 June 1992. On 3 November 1992 the applicant’s former husband submitted his written comments on 295 pages.\n6.  On 8 September 1994 the District Court held a hearing which was adjourned in order to have an expert report drawn up. On 8 November 1994 an expert was appointed.\n7.  On 5 May 1995 the court invited the parties to an information meeting scheduled for 29 June 1995. However, the parties did not attend.\n8.  On 14 September 1995 another hearing was held in the absence of the defendant. On 17 November 1995 the expert informed the court that due to the defendant’s failure to cooperate, he was not able to draw up the opinion. On 11 December 1995 the court ordered the parties to cooperate with the expert.\n9.  On 19 January 1996 the defendant notified the court that due to his illness, he could not submit the relevant documents, which he finally did on 16 February 1996. On 19 February 1996 the case file was sent to the expert who, in the meantime, had been withdrawn. On 25 March 1996 a new one was appointed. The case file was sent to him on 23 June 1996. On 11 October 1996 the expert, having been urged to do so on 23 September 1996, sent the case file back to the court stating that due to his workload, he did not have time to prepare the report. On 19 December 1996 the court appointed another expert and, on 6 February 1997, it sent him the case file.\n10.  On 24 February 1997 the expert informed the District Court that he did not have necessary documents. On 7 March 1997 the court met the expert. On 17 March 1997 it invited the parties to submit a copy of an entry in the Land Registry and a copy of a land map. On 27 May 1997 the court pressed the expert to prepare his opinion. He replied on 13 June 1997 that he still did not have the necessary documents. On 1 July 1997 the court then imposed a procedural fine on the defendant who, on 29 July 1997, appealed. On 10 December 1997 the expert presented his report.\n11.  At a hearing held on 15 January 1998, the parties expressed their willingness to reach a friendly settlement. Another hearing was held on 5 March 1998. The defendant submitted his comments on the expert report on 1 April 1998. A week later, the court ordered the expert to amend his report in accordance with the defendant’s objections, which he did on 14 May 1998. At the same time, it appointed an expert to assess the value of movable property. She submitted her expert report on 24 November 1998.\n12.  On 29 December 1998 another expert was appointed to assess the value of other items. The expert informed the court, on 22 January 1999, that he was not sufficiently qualified for this work. On 27 January 1999 the court appointed a new expert who, however, repetitively did not take out the case file. The court then appointed another expert, to whom the case file was sent on 28 June 1999. The expert report was submitted on 10 August 1999.\n13.  In a judgment of 2 March 2000 the District Court, having held three hearings on 14 October, 3 February[1] and 2 March 2000 respectively, delivered a judgment by which it divided the matrimonial property.\n14.  On 12 May 2000 the defendant appealed. On 30 May 2000 the judge dealing with the case requested the president of the co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1789", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicants, four in all, are Austrian nationals of Turkish origin, born in 1978, 1959, 1959 and 1961 respectively, and are living in Lustenau (Austria). The second applicant is the first applicant’s father, the third applicant his mother and the fourth applicant his uncle. On 21 March 1997 the Feldkirch Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicants charging them with rape under section 201 § 2 of the Penal Code, coercion and deprivation of liberty. The public prosecutor stated that since September 1995 the first applicant had been the fiancé of F.D. Their future marriage had been arranged by their respective fathers. After the death of F.D.’s father in May 1996, F.D. considered herself no longer bound by the promise of betrothal given by her father. She told this to the first applicant and his parents who, however, refused to accept her change of mind.\n12.  Ever since the death of F.D.’s father the second applicant regularly brought F.D. by car to her place of work and drove her home again after work. On 22 July 1996, around 5.00 a.m., the second applicant, accompanied by the first and third applicant, picked up F.D. and brought her to the home of the fourth applicant. The second applicant told her that she was going to have sexual intercourse with the first applicant. He also told her that if she resisted she would be held by the second and fourth applicants and that the third applicant would force her legs apart. She was accompanied to the bedroom. The first applicant attempted to have sexual intercourse with her, but this attempt failed because of F.D.’s resistance. Thereupon, the first applicant requested the third applicant to help him. The third applicant tied F.D.’s hands with adhesive tape and stuck a strip of adhesive tape over her mouth. She then held F.D.s arms while the first applicant had intercourse with F.D. Thereafter, F.D. was constrained to spend the rest of the day with the first applicant in the house.\n13.  The second and third applicants phoned her mother and told her that F.D. had been kidnapped by them and that she should not contact the police, otherwise F.D. would be killed. Nevertheless, F.D.’s mother informed the police about the incident. Around 8.00 p.m. F.D. was allowed to phone her mother. Soon afterwards police officers arrived at the house and arrested all four applicants.\n14.  On 23 May 1997 the applicants’ trial was held before the Feldkirch Regional Court. The applicants, assisted by counsel, Mr. Weh, maintained their innocence and claimed that F.D. had accompanied them voluntarily in order to become closer acquainted with the first applicant’s uncle and that, on this occasion, she had had sexual intercourse with the first applicant of her own free will. No violence whatsoever had been used against her. The court heard the applicants and several witnesses, including the victim, her mother and a doctor who had examined the victim at the hospital. F.D. repeated to the court the statements she made to the police and the investigating judge, but added that her family and the applicants’ family had meanwhile settled the matter and that she had received a payment of 50,000 ATS from the applicants’ family.\n15.  On the same day the Regional Court convicted the applicants of rape under section 201 § 1 of the Penal Code and of deprivation of liberty. The first and second applicants were also convicted of aggravated coercion. The first applicant was sentenced to one year’s imprison", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1790", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 in Kumanovo, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.\n5.  On 13 May 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Skopje I Municipal Court (Општински Суд Скопје I) for annulment of a care agreement (“the agreement”) concluded on 25 February 1993 between her sister and their late aunt (the latter had also been the applicant’s adoptive mother). The applicant claimed that her adoptive mother had lacked legal capacity to enter into the agreement, which had been signed two months before her death, as she had not been in a fit condition to make rational decisions. Under the agreement, the applicant’s sister had been granted ownership of the flat at issue in return for caring for her adoptive mother.\n6.  Following enactment of the Courts Act in 1995, the Skopje I Municipal Court became the Skopje Court of First Instance (Основен Суд Скопје I).\n7.  Of the seventeen hearings held between 13 May 1993 and 4 February 1998 before the Skopje Court of First Instance, five were adjourned (the proceedings were stayed for three months by the trial judge owing to the applicant’s absence from the hearing of 29 November 1993).\n8.  On 4 February 1998 the Skopje Court of First Instance granted the applicant’s application and annulled the 1993 agreement. The decision was reportedly served on the parties on 11 September 1998.\n9.  On 28 September 1998 the applicant’s sister appealed against the lower court’s decision before the Skopje Court of Appeal (Апелационен Суд Скопје).\n10.  On 25 March 1999 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.\n11.  On 13 May 1999 the applicant’s sister lodged an appeal on points of law (ревизија) with the Supreme Court (Врховен Суд).\n12.  Оn 21 September 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance. It found that the courts had based their decisions on insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court instructed the Court of First Instance to obtain new evidence and to examine other witnesses, in order to shed light on the state of health of the applicant’s adoptive mother at the time the agreement had been concluded.\n13.  Of the sixteen hearings held between 1 December 2000 and 19 March 2004 before the Skopje Court of First Instance, six were adjourned (the applicant attended all the hearings except the hearing of 1 April 2002).\n14.  On 11 June 2003 the President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the trial judge’s request to be removed from the case on account of the applicant’s sister’s inappropriate behaviour during the proceedings and the doubts she had expressed concerning the judge’s impartiality.\n15.  After the case had been referred back to the Court of First Instance, two expert opinions were ordered for the purpose of determining the state of the adoptive mother’s health at the time the agreement had been concluded.\n16.  On 11 March 2005 the Court of First Instance upheld the applicant’s claim and declared the agreement null and void.\n17.  On 1 December 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s sister’s appeal and referred the case back for a retrial. The case is pending before the Court of First Instance.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1791", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  At the relevant time the applicant was the head of the Ministry of Justice’s division responsible for the financial and logistical support for the judicial system. In this capacity, he sometimes attended the meetings of the Supreme Judicial Council – the body responsible for, inter alia, allocating the judicial budget. The Supreme Judicial Council consists of twenty‑five members, including the chairpersons of the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court, and the Prosecutor-General. Its meetings are presided over by the Minister of Justice.\n9.  The Supreme Judicial Council held a meeting on 15 December 1993, at which the issue of the end‑of‑year bonus for judges, prosecutors, and investigators was discussed. The applicant attended the meeting, as he usually did in cases when budgetary matters were considered. The deputy Prosecutor‑General, Mr S., who was a member of the Council, was also present.\n10.  At some point during the meeting, after commenting the provisions of the State Budget Act, the applicant said: “You have decided to have financial matters dealt with by Mr S. For me he is not a clean person...”. He then added: “I can prove this”. The Prosecutor-General reacted vehemently, asking the applicant to leave the room. The applicant tried to continue but was interrupted by Mr S. who asked him to clarify what he meant by “unclean person”. The Minister of Justice intervened and requested the applicant to retract the words “unclean person”. The Prosecutor-General reacted immediately: “There is no retraction, there are prosecution authorities. This is already a problem, this is already a crime”. The Minister insisted on the applicant apologising for the words “unclean person”. Thereupon the applicant said: “Alright, I apologise”. Because of the tense situation all financial matters which were due to be discussed at the meeting were adjourned.\n11.  Immediately after the meeting the Prosecutor‑General requested a copy of the minutes. He received it on 27 December 1993 and on 12 January 1994 sent it to the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office with instructions to carry out a preliminary inquiry with a view to opening criminal proceedings against the applicant. On 11 February 1994 the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office transmitted the case file to the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office with instructions to open criminal proceedings against the applicant for insult. The investigation was to be performed not by an investigator, as would usually be the case, but by a prosecutor.\n12.  On 16 February 1994 the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for “having said publicly ‘for me he is not a clean person’ in respect of [Mr S.] in his presence ... which was degrading for the latter’s dignity”, contrary to Article 148 § 1 (1), (3) and (4) in conjunction with Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n13.  On 20 April 1994 the applicant was charged.\n14.  The investigation was concluded on 16 June 1994 and the applicant and his counsel were allowed to consult the case file. After having done so, counsel for the applicant requested that all members of the Supreme Judicial Council who had been present at the meeting be questioned and that an expert report be prepared to compare the audio tape of the meeting with the written minutes. The prosecutor in charge of the investigation refused, reasoning that the facts of the case had been elucidated by the evidence already gathered, which suppor", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1792", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Bielsko-Biała, Poland.\n6.  On 15 March 2000 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed homicide. On 16 March 2000 the Żywiec District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that he be detained on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question, the serious nature of that offence, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation, in particular the process of obtaining evidence.\n7.  During the investigation the applicant’s detention was extended on several occasions. He filed numerous but unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions prolonging his detention. The applicant made repeated applications for release on personal grounds, submitting that he had to secure the care and well‑being of his 3 year old son. He also contested the reasonableness of the charge against him, maintaining that it was solely based on evidence from his common-law wife who was his alleged accomplice.\n8.  On 7 June 2000 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged his detention until 15 September 2000. On 8 September 2000 it ordered that he be kept in custody until 15 December 2000. On 6 December 2000 it extended that period until 15 March 2001. The court reiterated the grounds originally given for the applicant’s detention. It also considered that the need to take further evidence from experts justified the continuation of that measure.\n9.  On 1 March 2001 the applicant, together with his common-law wife, was indicted on charges of homicide, attempted homicide, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, uttering threats, theft, burglary, fraud and illegally possessing explosives and dangerous substances before the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court. In all, 24 charges were brought against the applicant. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 95 witnesses.\n10.  The Regional Court continually prolonged the applicant’s detention pending trial. On 7 March 2001 it extended his detention until 30 June 2001.\n11.  On 7 June 2001 the trial court dismissed the applicant’s request of 5 June 2001 to sever his case and assign it to a separate set of proceedings. It adjourned the hearing due to the absence of the co-defendant’s counsel.\n12.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was prolonged on 25 June and 26 November 2001. The court held that the grounds originally given for his detention were still valid. It stressed the strong likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences in question.\n13.  In the meantime, on 6 July 2001, the applicant had unsuccessfully challenged the composition of the court.\n14.  On 18 July 2001 he requested the trial court to appoint him a new legal aid counsel.\n15.  On 1 and 23 August 2001 respectively he requested the trial court to assign his case to a separate set of proceedings. Subsequently, at the hearing held on 6 September 2001 the applicant withdrew his motion.\n16.  The hearings scheduled for 19 September and 8 October 2001 had to be adjourned due to the co-defendant’s absence. Two other hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the judge rapporteur.\n17.  The trial court held further hearings: on 6 November 2001, 5 and 22 February 2002. In the meantime, the hearings listed for 15 November and 12 December 2001 were cancelled due to the illness of the judge.\n18.  Subsequently, as the length of t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1793", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1955 respectively and live in Iittala.\n7.  On 19 January 1994 they brought a private prosecution before the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) against some District Court judges, who had convicted them of malicious accusation in separate proceedings. The judges were charged with abuse of office as they had allegedly neglected to examine the case thoroughly, both as to the facts and as to the law. The applicants claimed damages from the State.\n8.  On 4 February, 30 March and 25 May 1994 respectively the court invited the responses of the defendant judges, the Ministry of Justice and the acting public prosecutor, the Chancellor of Justice to the application for a summons. The court received them on 15 March, 19 April and 9 June 1994 respectively. The defendants denied the charges and the State its liability for any damages. In September 1994, the Deputy Chancellor of Justice informed the Court of Appeal that he did not associate himself with the private prosecution.\nOn 1 September 1994 the case was assigned to another judicial secretary of the court. On 15 November 1994 the court invited the applicants’ further comments and they were received on 15 December 1994.\nOn 10 March 1995 the court held its deliberations, following which the draft judgment was circulated among the judges for their final consideration. On 13 September 1995 the court, finding that the defendant judges had not overstepped their powers when deciding the case before them, rejected the charges and the other claims.\n9.  On 13 November 1995 the applicants appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), requesting an oral hearing. Alternatively, they requested that the case be referred back to the lower court and that it be directed to hold a hearing. On 11 December 1995 the case was assigned to a judicial secretary of the court, who reported on it to the judges on the bench on 27 March 1996. By its decision of 20 June 1996 the Supreme Court referred the case back to the lower court, as it considered that the case should not have been decided without an oral hearing.\n10.  On 25 June 1996 the case was restored to the Court of Appeal’s case-list. The case was assigned to a section of the court and to a judicial secretary on 23 July and 9 August 1996 respectively. The court held preparatory sessions on 31 January, 6 February, and on 5, 13 and 21 March 1997.\nOn 20 May 1997 the Court of Appeal held an oral hearing and received oral evidence from the parties. The Deputy Chancellor of Justice confirmed that he did not associate himself with the private prosecution.\nOn 23 November 1998 the court held its final deliberations in the case. On 1 December 1998 it gave judgment, finding that the defendant judges should not have convicted the applicants of malicious accusation. The Court of Appeal held that the judges had neglected their duties to examine thoroughly all aspects of the case, but it rejected the charges as it found that the neglect was only minor taken in the context of the proceedings as a whole. However, it found that the applicants were entitled to compensation due to the afore-mentioned wrongful conviction. The State was ordered to pay each applicant 30,000 Finnish marks (FIM; about 5,045 euros (EUR)) plus legal costs. All the parties appealed.\n11.  On 1 February 1999 the applicants among others lodged their appeals with the Supreme Court. On 20 May 1999 the case was assigned to a judicial secretary ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1794", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants’ dates of birth and their relationship to the five persons who were killed in the police operations described below are as follows:\nHüseyin Erdoğan (1933) was the father and Sevgi Erdoğan (1956) was the wife of the late İbrahim Erdoğan. Esme Şimşek (1946) is the mother and Hüseyin Şimşek (1942) is the father of the late Yücel Şimşek. İsmail Hakkı Ilcı (1960) is the brother of the late İbrahim Ilcı. Nahit Özkaya (1962) is the brother of the late Cavit Özkaya. Mahmut Ali Eliuygun (1926) was the father and Necla Nurlu (1956) is the sister of the late Hasan Eliuygun.\n10.  On 12 July 1991 the police carried out operations against activist members of Dev-Sol (“Revolutionary Left”), an extreme left-wing armed movement, classified as a terrorist organisation by the Turkish judicial authorities, in four buildings located in different areas of İstanbul. Ten alleged members of Dev-Sol were killed during these operations. None of the police officers, who had been wearing helmets and bullet-proof jackets, was killed or injured.\n11.  In every case, the victims had been under surveillance for some time and the area was sealed off before the operation. According to some newspaper reports, the Minister of Internal Affairs at the material time had confirmed in a press statement that the victims had been under surveillance before the operations took place and that the operations had been co‑ordinated.\n12.  According to some of the newspaper reports, after the operations Mr Mehmet Ağar, Chief of the İstanbul Police, had congratulated the members of the police force who had taken part in the raids.\n13.  The purpose of the operations, according to the Government, had been to apprehend persons suspected of having been involved in terrorist activities and bring them to trial, and also to prevent possible terrorist attacks.\n14.  The police reports suggest that in each case several calls to surrender were made, to which the deceased replied by opening fire with guns and rifles. All the suspected terrorists were killed. No member of the police force was killed or injured in any of the four locations. The only person injured was a resident in one of the buildings.\n15.  Certain newspaper reports suggest that there were calls to surrender, while some others claim that no call to surrender was made.\n16.  According to the police reports, the deceased had been heavily armed; in each case the deceased had opened fire first; and in each location, guns and rifles of various sizes, bombs, hand grenades and material used for producing explosives were found. The Public Prosecutor’s reports confirmed the police reports in this respect.\n17.  The circumstances of the four operations, which were co-ordinated, were as follows:\n18.  According to the police reports, this apartment was the first to be raided, at 7.00 p.m. on 12 July 1991.\n19.  The police reports suggest that there was an armed clash for one and a half hours between police and those inside the building. Two alleged terrorists were killed by the police at this location, namely İbrahim Ilcı and Bilal Karakaya.\nA resident (I.G.) who had tried to run away from the scene of the incident was shot and wounded by the police.\n20.  The following details of the incident are given in the police reports:\n“In the course of the operations launched against the illegal Devrimci Sol organisation ... we proceeded with the duty police officers to the address in question to arrest the militants of the organisation. ...", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1795", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Aydın.\n7.  The applicant was arrested in Nusaybin on 8 July 2001 by the Prevention of Terrorism Department of the Nusaybin Security Directorate, on suspicion of aiding and abetting the PKK[1].\n8.  On the same day the applicant signed a form whereby his rights as a detainee were explained to him. The form included his right to inform one of his relatives about his detention and his right to request the assistance of a lawyer.\n9.  According to the custody records (nezaret kayıt defteri), the police informed the husband of the applicant’s sister about his detention. Moreover, it was noted in these records that the applicant did not request the assistance of a lawyer.\n10.  During his interrogation by the police officers at the Nusaybin Security Directorate, the applicant confessed in detail to his involvement in the activities of the PKK. According to the interrogation minutes dated 9 July 2001, drafted by the police and signed by the applicant, he was informed of his right to have access to legal assistance of one or more lawyers at any stage and level of the investigation.\n11.  On 10 July 2001 the applicant was transferred to the Prevention of Terrorism Department of the İzmir Security Directorate, for further questioning.\n12.  On 11 July 2001, upon the request of the İzmir Security Directorate, the İzmir Public Prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention in police custody until 13 July 2001.\n13.  On 13 July 2001, during his questioning by the İzmir Public Prosecutor at the State Security Court, the applicant described the work that he carried out for the PKK. He confessed that he was working as a courier for the members of the organisation who were in prison. On the same day the applicant was brought before the İzmir Magistrate’s Court. He denied his statement given in Nusaybin Security Directorate, as he alleged that he had signed it under duress. He confirmed his statement given before the public prosecutor. The magistrate’s court ordered his detention on remand.\n14.  On 14 August 2001 the İzmir Public Prosecutor at the State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with membership of a terrorist organization, the PKK, and with assisting and abetting the said organisation, contrary to Articles 169 of the Turkish Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 12 April 1991. Before the İzmir State Security Court, the applicant was represented by his lawyer.\n15.  On 19 September 2002, the court convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. The court held that during his questioning by the police and the public prosecutor, the applicant had described his involvement with the activities of the PKK. Moreover, although in his statements given during the hearings he had claimed that he was not a member of the PKK, he had explained in detail his involvement with the activities of the organisation. Moreover, the other accused had also confirmed the fact that the applicant took new members of the organisation to the east of the country to join the guerrilla fight carried out in the mountains and acted as a courier for PKK members who were in prison.\n16.  On 4 March 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of 19 September 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1796", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, all of whom are Moldovan citizens, live in the Republic of Moldova. They were born in 1961, 1946, 1939, 1946, 1946 and 1951 respectively.\n7.  In 1994 each applicant concluded a contract with ASITO (an insurance company incorporated in Moldova), according to the terms of which he or she paid an insurance premium in exchange for an annuity pension. The size of the monthly pensions varied between 200 Moldovan lei (MDL) and MDL 600 (between the equivalent of 45 United States dollars (USD) and USD 135 at the time).\n8.  On different dates between 1999 and 2001 ASITO stopped paying the pensions, in some cases, or refused to start paying them, in other cases, invoking a change in the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova and calling for the termination of the contracts.\n9.  On unspecified dates in 2001, the applicants brought civil actions against ASITO, seeking the payment of the pension arrears to date and requiring the company to abide by the contracts of 1994.\n10.  All the applicants obtained final and enforceable judgments between 2001 and 2002, by which the domestic courts ordered ASITO to pay the pension arrears and to resume the execution of the contracts. The courts found the contracts to be valid and dismissed ASITO’s requests to terminate them or to exempt it from abiding by them on the ground of force majeure, which in ASITO’s view was constituted by the economic crisis, inflation and the change in the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova. The Court was not presented with information on whether those judgments were complied with by ASITO.\n11.  On 14 December 2001 the Prosecutor General lodged an “appeal in the interest of the law” with the Supreme Court of Justice. According to the Prosecutor General, the appeal had the purpose of clarifying the controversy surrounding the contracts and of setting a uniform practice for all courts.\n12.  On 11 March 2002, the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice issued a judgment deciding the dispute between ASITO and the pension beneficiaries in favour of the former. In particular, it ruled that the economic crisis, inflation and the change in the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova could be relied upon by ASITO in order unilaterally to avoid the annuity contracts. It also ruled that its judgment was binding on all the courts, although it could not, however, affect already existing judgments and it could not be used against the parties to proceedings which had already been decided.\n13.  Subsequently, on different dates, ASITO brought civil actions against the applicants asking for the termination of the contracts concluded in 1994. It relied on the same arguments as in the first sets of proceedings and also the judgment of the Plenary Supreme Court of 11 March 2002.\n14.  Between December 2002 and June 2003 ASITO obtained final favourable judgments against all the applicants. The courts dismissed the applicants’ submissions to the effect that the matter of the unilateral denunciation of the contracts by ASITO on grounds of hardship had already been resolved by final judgments and found instead that the subject matter of the proceedings which had ended in final judgments favourable to the applicants had been different, because those proceedings had been concerned with the enforcement of the annuity contracts up to the moment of their termination, while the subject matter of the new proceedings was the termination of the contracts.\n15.  On 25 October 2004, aft", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1797", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Ács, Hungary.\n5.  In April 1993 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and his accomplices on charges of counterfeiting money and of other offences.\n6.  On 6 December 1994 a bill of indictment was preferred.\n7.  The Tatabánya District Court held hearings on 20, 21 April, 9 May and 13 June 1995. On the latter date it ordered that the investigation be resumed. The time-limit for the completion of the investigation was prolonged on 7 September and 27 October 1995, and also at the hearings on 7 December 1995, 4 June and 13 November 1996. Simultaneously, legal assistance was being sought from the Slovak authorities.\n8.  Further hearings took place on 17 April, 7 October, 13 November and 11 December 1997. At the hearing on 22 January 1998 the case against two co-defendants was separated since they were abroad. Another hearing was held on 29 January 1998.\n9.  On 4 February 1998 the District Court convicted the applicant of abuse of explosives and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.\n10.  On 20 March 2000 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court quashed this judgment, essentially for procedural shortcomings, and remitted the case. It ordered that the case be given priority.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings the case fell within the Regional Court’s jurisdiction acting at first instance due to a legislative change.\n12.  The Regional Court held hearings on 7 February and 26, 27 and 28 June 2001. On the latter date it appointed a medical expert. A further hearing was held and another expert appointed on 27 September 2001.\n13.  Additional hearings took place on 1 March, 12 April, 30 August, 22 November and 20 December 2002.\n14.  After further hearings on 22 January, 25 February and 9 May 2003, on 22 May 2003 the court convicted the applicant of abuse of explosives and sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year. For the applicant, the judgment became final on the same day.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1798", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  In the context of a real estate dispute, the applicant and her late husband brought an action before the Buda Surroundings District Court apparently in July 1987. The action concerned their claim to possess part of a disputed real estate and their request that the relevant land registry entry be rectified.\n6.  On 20 November 1996 the District Court gave a partial decision as to the boundaries of the disputed land. As regards the land registry entry, the District Court ordered that this question be severed and dealt with by the Administrative Chamber of the District Court.\n7.  On 23 September 1997 the Pest County Regional Court suspended the appellate proceedings concerning the partial decision, pending the proceedings before the Administrative Chamber of the District Court. The latter held hearings on 7 October and 2 December 1997 and 27 January 1998. On that date it rejected part of the action and suspended the examination of another aspect of the case.\n8.  Meanwhile, the applicant and her late husband filed an application (no. 26209/95) with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) complaining in essence about the protraction of the proceedings. On 21 May 1997 the application was declared partly admissible. On 9 December 1997 the First Chamber of the Commission adopted its Report under former Article 28 of the Convention, observing that the parties had concluded a friendly settlement.\n9.  On 22 June 1998 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal against the decision of 27 January 1998. On 14 June 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed their petition for review.\n10.  Following the subsequent adjudication of the question whose examination had been suspended on 27 January 1998 – in those proceedings the Regional Court held a hearing on 18 June 2001 and gave judgement on 25 June 2001 – the proceedings resumed in their part suspended on 23 September 1997.\n11.  The Regional Court held hearings on 9 May, 13 June and 1 October 2002. On 22 October 2002 it accepted the plaintiffs’ claims and ordered the land registry to restore the original situation. On 20 March 2003 it rejected the plaintiffs’ request for rectification.\n12.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 7 July 2004 the Buda Surroundings Land Registry refused to restore the original situation, observing that this was impossible because of the physical and legal changes concerning the disputed land in the meantime.\n13.  On 10 December 2004 the Pest County Land Registry dismissed the applicant’s administrative appeal.\n14.  On 24 January 205 the applicant brought an action for judicial review. A first hearing was scheduled by the Regional Court for 15 September 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1799", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Diósd.\n5.  On 25 February 1994 the applicant brought an action in the Ráckeve District Court for the division of the common ownership of a house. She requested that the case be given priority.\n6.  The court held hearings on 28 April, 7 October 1994 and 16 February 1995. On 7 March 1995 it appointed two experts. Further hearings took place on 18 September, 8 December 1995, 25 April and 28 June 1996.\n7.  On 5 July 1996 the District Court gave judgment.\n8.  On appeal, the Pest County Regional Court held hearings on 20 February and 9 October 1997. On the latter date it suspended the proceedings pending the determination of a preliminary question. On 26 May 1998 it quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the District Court, instructing it to arrange for the owner of the real property in question, a minor, to join the proceedings. On 7 October 1998 a guardian ad litem was appointed to this end. On 2 December 1998 the owner joined the proceedings.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, hearings took place on 25 February and 19 April 1999. On 10 April 2000 the applicant’s lawyer urged that a hearing be scheduled. On 13 June 2000 a hearing took place and experts were appointed.\n10.  On 7 September 2000 several other defendants joined the proceedings. On 12 September 2000 the court held a hearing and ordered an on-site inspection. This took place on 6 November 2000. The expert’s opinion reached the court on 4 December 2000.\n11.  At the hearing on 30 January 2001, an elaboration of the opinion was ordered. Further hearings took place on 13 March, 24 April, 22 May 2001 and 10 January 2002.\n12.  At the hearing on 25 June 2002 the court decided to appoint another expert. This expert was appointed on 12 July and his opinion obtained on 30 November 2002. The hearing scheduled for 11 February 2003 was adjourned because the expert was indisposed.\n13.  On 11 March 2003 some of the defendants gave better particulars of their counterclaims. On 3 December 2003 they were instructed further to specify their claims. On 30 January 2004 their motion for bias was dismissed. On 18 February 2004 the court again instructed them further to specify their claims.\n14.  On 20 April 2004 the court dismissed the counterclaims as unsubstantiated. This decision was quashed by the Regional Court on 23 September 2004.\n15.  On 1 December 2004 the court partly discontinued the proceedings concerning certain defendants.\n16.  On 15 February 2005 the court held a hearing and delivered a partial decision concerning an ancillary question. On 22 September 2005 the Regional Court upheld the partial decision.\n17.  The case, in its part concerning the principal issue of the dispute, is still pending before the first instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1800", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1954, the second applicant in 1971 and the fourth applicant in 1963. The first, second and fourth applicants are judges who live in Kirovograd. The third applicant, a retired judge, was born in 1942 and currently lives in Gayvoron in the Kirovograd region.\n5.  In November 2002 the first applicant lodged complaints with the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv (“the Pechersky District Court”) against the Ministry of Finance and the State Treasury, seeking payment of salary arrears, life-term judicial benefits and compensation for delays in their payment.\n6.  On 16 December 2002 the district court allowed the applicant's claims. It ordered the Ministry of Finance and the State Treasury to pay the applicant 5,807.26 Ukrainian hryvnas[2] (UAH) in compensation.\n7.  On 9 July 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld this judgment and it became final.\n8.  On 11 August 2003 the Pechersky District Bailiffs' Service (“the PBS”) decided not to initiate enforcement proceedings in the case and informed the applicant that he should lodge the execution writs with the State Treasury.\n9.  On 22 September 2003 the State Treasury declined to enforce the judgment owing to a lack of budgetary funds, and stated that responsibility for enforcement lay with the State Judicial Administration.\n10.  On 6 November 2004 the applicant received the sum due to him under the judgment of 16 December 2002 (payment order no. 163). (The enforcement proceedings lasted from July 2003 to November 2004, that is, for about one year and four months.)\n11.  In November 2002 the applicant lodged complaints with the Pechersky District Court against the Ministry of Finance and the State Treasury, seeking payment of salary arrears, life-term judicial benefits and compensation for delays in their payment.\n12.  On 16 December 2002 the district court allowed the applicant's claims. It ordered the Ministry of Finance and the State Treasury to pay the applicant UAH 10,291.61[3] in compensation.\n13.  On 9 July 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld this judgment and it became final.\n14.  On 11 August 2003 the PBS decided not to initiate enforcement proceedings in the case and informed the applicant that she should lodge the execution writs with the State Treasury.\n15.  On 5 February 2004 the State Treasury returned the writs of execution in respect of the judgment of 16 December 2002, which remained unenforced owing to a lack of funds in the State budget.\n16.  On 15 November 2004 the applicant received the sum due to her (payment order no. 173). (The enforcement proceedings lasted from July 2003 to November 2004, that is, for about one year and four months.)\n17.  On 22 March 2000 the third applicant retired, following a decision of the Verkhovna Rada to dismiss him.\n18.  In November 2001 the applicant lodged complaints with the Pechersky District Court against the Ministry of Finance and the State Treasury, seeking payment of salary arrears, life-term judicial benefits and compensation for delays in their payment.\n19.  On 14 January 2002 the Pechersky District Court allowed the applicant's claims. It ordered the Ministry of Finance and the State Treasury to pay the applicant UAH 4,822[4] in compensation.\n20.  On 8 May 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld this judgment and it became final.\n21.  On 21 May 2003 the State Treasury declined to enforce the judgment owing to a lack of budgetary funds.\n22.  On 8 September 2003 the Kyiv City Department of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1801", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Žalec.\n6. On 1 December 1998 the applicant slipped in the premises of the company S and injured herself. S had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZA.\n7.  On 14 July 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZA in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,210,310 tolars (approximately 9,210 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 16 September 1999 and 17 April 2003 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 8 May 2001 and 21 March 2002 she made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the four hearings held between 12 September 2002 and 8 May 2003, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert and once examined a witness at home.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 23 June 2003.\n8.  On 4 July 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZM cross-appealed.\nOn 7 April 2005 the court allowed both appeals in part and remitted a part of the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 5 May 2005.\n9.  On 21 September 2005 the applicant withdrew her claim since the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement. In the letter to the Celje District Court of 21 September 2005, she waved her right to receive the court’s written decision on termination of the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1802", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Žalec.\n6.  On 6 December 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 11 November 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,312,900 tolars (approximately 13,800 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 21 May 1999 and 4 March 2003 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 2 April 1998 and 21 May 1999 he made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 5 November 2001 the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was assigned to a new first-instance court judge.\nOf the five hearings held between 11 October 1999 and 18 April 2003 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts. The court also sought an additional opinion from one of the appointed experts.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 17 June 2003.\n8.  On 24 June 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 2 February 2005 the court allowed the appeals in part, lowered the damages awarded, and remitted the case, in the part concerning the costs and expenses of the proceedings, to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 9 March 2005.\n9.  On 4 April 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1803", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Ruzayevka, Republic of Mordovia.\n5.  In 1987 the applicant took part in emergency operations at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. As a result he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. The applicant underwent medical examination which established the link between his poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. He was consequently granted status of a disabled person and awarded special monthly benefits from the State.\n6.  Until March 1999 the applicant received monthly benefits in the amount of 6,685.57 roubles (RUR). However, as from March 1999 the Ruzayevka Department of Social Security decreased the amount of the benefits to RUR 1,915 and as from May 1999 to RUR 525.29 on the grounds that the amount previously paid had been miscalculated.\n7.  Considering the decrease of the monthly benefits unlawful, in 2000 the applicant, together with two other plaintiffs, instituted proceedings against the Ruzayevka Department of Social Security.\n8.  On 30 June 2000 the Ruzayevskiy District Court granted the claim and found the decrease of the monthly benefits unlawful. The court awarded the applicant arrears for the period between 1 March 1999 and the date of the judgment in the amount of RUR 95,773.46 (approximately EUR 3,568) and ordered the Ruzayevka Department of Social Security to make monthly payments for his benefit in the amount of RUR 6,685.57 (approximately EUR 252). The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n9.  On 3 October 2000 the execution proceedings were instituted.\n10.  The Prosecutor of the Republic of Mordovia brought an application for supervisory review of the judgment. The application was dated 7 December 2000. The execution proceedings were stayed until the examination of the application. The order to stay the execution proceedings, which referred to the application for supervisory review lodged by the acting Prosecutor of the Republic of Mordovia, was dated 18 October 2000.\n11.  On 14 December 2000 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia granted the application. The Presidium quashed the judgment of 30 June 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh examination on the grounds that the first instance court miscalculated the amount of the monthly benefits.\n12.  On 22 January 2001 the execution proceedings were terminated due to the quashing of the judgment.\n13.  On 22 March 2001, after the new examination of the case, the Ruzayevskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim.\n14.  On 3 July 2001 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia upheld the judgment on appeal.\n15.  On 11 February 2002, following the applicant’s request of 8 August 2001, the Acting Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia brought an application for supervisory review of the judgments of 22 March and 3 July 2001.\n16.  On 21 February 2002 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Mordovia granted the application. The Presidium quashed the judgments of 22 March and 3 July 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh examination on the grounds that the court’s calculation of the amount of the monthly benefits was unlawful.\n17.  On 1 March 2002 the Ruzayevskiy District Court stayed the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim until the Constitutional Court pronounced on the relevant issue.\n18.  On 12 July 2002 the Ruzayevskiy District Court renewed the proceedings. It appears that at a certain stage the proceedings concerning the ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1804", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 2 April 1995 the applicant had a traffic accident. While he was driving a motorcycle, a dog jumped on the applicant and made him fall. The dog’s owner had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 25 August 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 231,201 tolars (approximately 965 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 23 March 1999 and 4 October 1999 the applicant made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 13 March 2000 and 24 March 2000 he lodged preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the five hearings held between 8 March 2000 and 28 June 2000 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to issue a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 14 December 2000.\n8.  On 27 December 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) against the decision on costs and expenses. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 6 February 2002 the court allowed both appeals and remanded the case back to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision judgment was served on the applicant on 7 March 2002.\n9.  On 12 March 2002 the applicants lodged preliminary written observations with the first-instance court.\nOn the 29 May 2002 the court held a hearing and rejected the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 4 June 2002.\n10.  On 5 June 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.\nOn 8 October 2003 the court allowed the appeal and increased the amount of damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 21 October 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1805", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 14 January 1998 the applicant was injured in a car accident. She was insured with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 24 July 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,080,314 tolars (approximately 8,680 euros) for the injuries sustained. She also requested to be exempted from paying the court fees.\nOn 2 March and 27 September 1999 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 20 October 1999 the court rejected her request for the exemption from the payment of the court fees. The decision was served on the applicant on 2 November 1999.\nOn 15 November 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 16 February 2000 the court partly upheld her appeal and the case was returned to the first-instance court for re-examination. The decision was served on the applicant on 6 March 2000.\nOn 16 March 2000 the applicant submitted new evidence in support of her claim for exemption from payment of the court fees.\nOn 29 March 2000 the applicant was exempted from payment of the court fees. The decision was served on the applicant on 14 June 2000.\nOn 30 March and 9 April 2000 the applicant requested that a hearing be scheduled.\nBetween 17 July 2001 and 4 April 2002 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the three hearings held between 4 June 2000 and 27 May 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 2 September 2002.\n8.  On 17 September 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 13 November 2003 the court allowed both appeals in part and lowered the damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 19 December 2003.\n9.  On 30 December 2003 the applicant lodged a motion with the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office (Vrhovno državno tožilstvo, “the Office”) requesting it to lodge a request for the protection of legality (zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 3 February 2004 the Office rejected the applicant’s request.\n10.  On 13 April 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against the judgments of the first and second-instance courts.\nOn 4 May 2005 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) dismissed the appeal. The court found that the applicant’s motion of 30 December 2003 was not a legal remedy available to a party to the civil proceedings and that no constitutional appeal was allowed against the decision of the Office. In addition, the court found that the constitutional appeal against the Celje Higher Court judgment was out of time.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 6 May 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1806", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 20 December 1995 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZTi.\n7.  On 16 July 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZTi in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,212,150 tolars (approximately 13,400 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 9 December 1997 and 1 February 2001 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOn 16 June and 23 November 1998 he made requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the two hearings held on 9 April 1999 and 2 February 2001, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 25 April 2001.\n8.  On 9 May 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZTi cross-appealed.\nOn 18 July 2002 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld ZTi’s appeal as far as the costs of the proceedings were concerned.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 11 September 2002.\n9.  On 19 September 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) and requested that the Supreme Court’s judge be recused.\nOn 23 October 2003 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 26 November 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1807", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Velenje.¸\n6. On 26 June 1995 the applicant was injured in an accident at work.\n7.  On 11 December 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his employer ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,833,150 tolars (approximately 15,980 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 27 December 1999 and 29 January 2002 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions.\nBetween 30 September 1998 and 11 January 2001 he made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the four hearings held between 3 April 2001 and 12 March 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant. However, a hearing scheduled for 22 June 2000 was called off on the applicant’s request since he had received the employer’s reply to his claim only one day before this date.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 29 April 2002.\n8.  On 13 May 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 21 April 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and increased the damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 24 May 2005.\n9.  On 16 June 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1808", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Rogaška Slatina.\n6.  On 18 July 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 7 September 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 7,715,240 tolars (approximately 32,200 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 10 May 1999 and 26 April 2002 the applicant made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 26 April 2002 and 16 January 2003 he lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the four hearings held between 11 September 2002 and 21 March 2003 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nThe hearing scheduled for 23 March 2001 was cancelled further to the request of both parties, lodged on 8 March 2001, in order to attempt to settle the case out of court. On 26 April 2002 the applicant informed the court of the unsuccessful negotiations with the defendant and requested the court to schedule a hearing.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 15 July 2003.\n8.  On 18 July 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 12 May 2005 the allowed in part the appeals and rejected the reminder. The judgment was served on the applicant on 28 June 2005.\n9.  On 5 July 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1809", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Šentjur.\n6.  On 14 December 1995 the applicant was severely injured in a car accident. The car, driven by the applicant’s husband, was insured with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 20 May 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 21,763,835 tolars (approximately 91,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 25 September 1997 the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was transferred to a new judge.\nBetween 16 March 1998 and 16 November 2000 the applicant made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 13 June 1999 and 26 October 2000 she lodged five preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the five hearings held between 5 June 1999 and 18 December 2000 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 26 February 2001.\n8.  On 14 March 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 20 September 2002 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal, allowed in part ZT’s appeal and decreased the awarded damages.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 25 October 2002.\n9.  On 14 November 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 19 February 2004 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant’s lawyers on 24 March 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1810", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Grobelno.\n6.  On 2 February 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator had insured his liability with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 7 April 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings with the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) against ZT seeking damages in the amount of 2,623,290 SIT (approximately 10,950 euros) for the injuries sustained in the car accident.\nBetween 11 June 1997 and 26 June 2002 the applicant filed seven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOn 1 September and 12 October 1997 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the four hearings held between 22 January 1999 and 8 July 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nOn 1 February 1999 the Court appointed a medical expert. The court received the expert’s opinion on 30 March 1999. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert on 22 June 2000.\nBetween 13 April 1999 and 19 November 1999 the court urged the applicant three times to pay the advance money for the expert’s fees. On 27 December 1999 the applicant submitted evidence that she had paid the advance.\nOn 14 December 2000 the court appointed an expert, a clinical psychologist.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to issue a written judgment. The judgment, upholding in part the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 22 October 2002.\n8.  On 5 November 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and requested that the first-instance court issue a supplementary judgment addressing the issues the court failed to address in the first judgment. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 6 March 2003 the first-instance court issued a supplementary judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 12 March 2003.\nOn 25 March 2003 the applicant appealed against the supplementary judgment.\nOn 1 July 2004 the Celje Higher Court allowed the applicant’s and ZT’s appeals.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 15 September 2004.\n9.  On 8 October 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1811", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Zgornji Dolič.\n6.  On 9 January 1993 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 30 August 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 8,009,850 tolars (approximately 33,300 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 1 October 1996 and 8 January 1999 the applicant lodged eight preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 14 November 1996 and 1 October 1998 she made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 25 September 1997 the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was assigned to a new first-instance court judge.\nOf the three hearings held between 13 December 1996 and 13 January 1999 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 1 March 1999.\n8.  On 16 March 1999 ZT appealed to the Celje Higher Court contesting the part of the judgment referring to costs and expenses of the proceedings.\nOn 16 February 2000 the court allowed the appeal in part and remanded the case back to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 21 March 2000.\n9.  Between 6 July 2000 and 13 March 2001 the applicant lodged four rush notices with the first-instance court.\nOn 6 April 2001 the first-instance court issued a new decision on costs and expenses. The decision was served on the applicant on 11 April 2001.\n10.  On 11 May 2001 ZT appealed to the Celje Higher Court.\nOn 18 July 2002 the court rejected the appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 28 August 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1812", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 15 February 1996 the applicant was injured at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZA.\n7.  On 13 October 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZA in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,512,973 Slovenian tolars (approximately 6,310 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 13 July 1998 and 25 October 2002 the applicant lodged sixteen preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\n On 5 February 1998 and 17 November 1998 he made requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the eight hearings held between 23 June 1998 and 14 January 2003, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed four medical experts and sought two additional expert opinions. The applicant and ZA objected to the appointment of certain experts.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 24 January 2003.\n8.  On 7 February 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZA cross-appealed.\nOn 7 April 2005 the court allowed both appeals and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 6 May 2005.\n9.  The proceedings are pending before the first-instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1813", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Casoria.\n5.  On 12 December 1992 the applicant and two others, all of whom were charged with fraudulent bankruptcy, were committed for trial in the Naples District Court. After numerous adjournments on account of failure to serve proper notice or lawyers’ strikes, a hearing was held on 23 September 1997. At the hearing the lawyer retained by Mr Sannino produced a list of witnesses he wanted to be summoned to appear in court. They were mainly people who would say that the applicant had been less directly involved in the management of X, a commercial company, after February 1989. The president of the court granted the request.\n6.  At a hearing on 18 November 1997, Mr Sannino was represented by a different lawyer of his choosing, Mr G., whom he had retained on 13 September 1996. Mr G. produced the list of witnesses again. The court again granted leave for the persons named in the list to be summoned. A number of witnesses were examined on 3 November 1998 in the presence of the applicant and Mr G.\n7.  In a note deposited with the registry of the Naples District Court on 18 January 1999, Mr G. announced that he was withdrawing from the case. He said that the applicant had been informed accordingly by registered letter sent on 18 January 1999. On 19 January 1999 the court assigned the applicant a defence lawyer, Mr B.\n8.  On 25 January 1999 Mr B. was informed of the date of the next hearing (17 February 1999). The note he received did not, however, mention that he had been officially assigned to represent Mr Sannino. No notification was sent to Mr Sannino.\n9.  Mr B. did not appear at the hearing on 17 February 1999, but the applicant did. The court ordered Mr B. to be replaced by another official defence lawyer, Mr M., and adjourned the case to 16 March 1999.\n10.  On that date Mr B. again failed to appear, but the applicant was present. The court ordered Mr B. to be replaced by another official defence lawyer, Mr A. One of the witnesses called by the prosecution was examined by the prosecution’s representative and cross-examined by the lawyer of one of the applicant’s co-defendants. The court adjourned the proceedings to 5 May 1999 and ordered the other witnesses to be summoned.\n11.  On that date Mr B. again failed to appear, but the applicant was present. The court ordered Mr B. to be replaced by another official defence lawyer, Mr O. Mr Sannino made a number of spontaneous statements. A witness called by the prosecution was examined. Having regard to the absence of two other prosecution witnesses, the court adjourned its examination of the case to 16 June 1999. The hearing was not held on that date and the proceedings were adjourned on account of the European parliamentary elections.\n12.  Further hearings were held on 2 November and 17 December 1999 and on 18 January and 29 March 2000, to which the witnesses on the applicant’s list were not summoned. Mr B., who had still not appeared, was replaced by a different court-appointed defence lawyer each time.\n13.  The record of the hearing on 2 November 1999 mentions that the applicant was present, which the applicant himself denies. He states that he attended his trial for the last time on 5 May 1999 and that after the adjournment of 16 June 1999 he was not notified of the date of the next hearing (2 November 1999). A notice of hearing had in fact been issued to a person who did not have authorisation (persona non abilitata) to receive notices. The", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1814", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Celje.\n6.  On 1 April 1992 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 29 September 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,111,949 tolars (approximately 8,800 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBefore 28 June 1994, the day the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia, the court held one hearing and appointed an ophthalmologist.\nBetween 9 September 1994 and 26 November 1996 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 9 September 1994 and 7 May 1996 he made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nNeither of the hearings held on 9 December 1994 and 3 December 1996 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nOn 1 January 1995 the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 13 February 1997.\n8.  On 24 February 1997 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 26 November 1997 the court quashed the first-instance court’s judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 8 January 1998.\n9.  On 11 June 1998 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions with the Celje District Court.\nOn 22 June 1998 the court held a hearing. The court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 24 September 1998.\n10.  On 2 October 1998 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 21 April 1999 the court quashed the first-instance court’s judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 31 May 1999.\n11.  On 14 June and 23 November 1999 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nNeither of the hearings held on 14 June 1999 and 13 December 1999 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court sought an additional opinion from the appointed ophthalmologist.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 9 February 2000.\n12.  On 14 February 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court against that part of the decision rejecting his claim.\nOn 21 March 2001 the second-instance court rejected his appeal.\n13.  On 21 May 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 13 June 2002 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 28 August 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1815", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Stranice.\n6.  On 12 November 1996 the applicant was injured in an accident at work in a lignite mine. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 15 May 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 764,506 tolars (approximately 3,190 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 10 September 1997 and 9 March 2000 the applicant made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 31 May 1999 and 12 March 2001 he lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the four hearings held between 20 May 1999 and 13 March 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 7 May 2001.\n8.  On 15 May 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 5 June 2002 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 9 September 2002.\n9.  On 18 September 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) and requested the withdrawal of one of the judges.\nOn 4 September 2003 the president of the Supreme Court rejected the request for the withdrawal of a judge.\nOn 6 November 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 10 December 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1816", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Šoštanj.\n6.  On 9 September 1994 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 16 December 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,104,192 tolars (approximately 4,600 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 23 March 1998 and 21 March 2001 the applicant filed seven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nFrom 6 September 1999 and 21 May 2001 he made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the three hearings held between 6 April 2000 and 2 October 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts. The court also sought an additional opinion from one of the appointed experts.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 25 October 2001.\n8.  On 9 November 2001 ZT appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 3 December 2002 the court dismissed the appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 27 December 2002.\n9.  On 15 January 2003 ZT lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 20 May 2004 the court dismissed the appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 21 June 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1817", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Prebold.\n6.  On 24 June 1995 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 25 August 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 9,561,000 tolars (approximately 40,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 6 February 1998 and 14 April 1999 the applicant made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 24 June 1999 and 7 November 2000 he lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the three hearings held between 18 June 1999 and 29 March 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 27 June 2001.\n8.  On 5 July 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 30 January 2003 the court dismissed the ZT’s appeal, allowed in part the applicant’s appeal, and increased the amount of the costs and expenses awarded. The judgment was served on the applicant on 6 March 2003.\n9.  On 28 March 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 13 May 2004 the court rejected the appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 3 June 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1818", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 1 September 1992 the applicant was working as a safeguard and a security officer at a swimming pool in Velenje. He was brutally beaten by three individuals. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 30 August 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT, the attackers and the parents of the attackers who were minors, in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,400.000 tolars (approximately 14,200 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 7 January 1998 and 11 March 2002 the applicant lodged eight preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOn 12 and 21 December 2000 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the six hearings held between 2 October 1998 and 22 May 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts, a neurologist and an orthopaedist. The court also sought an additional opinion from one of the appointed experts.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 28 August 2002.\n8.  On 11 September 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). All other parties to the proceedings cross-appealed.\nOn 19 November 2003 the court allowed the appeals and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 23 December 2003.\n9.  On 14 January 2004 the first-instance court held a new hearing on a re-examination of the case.\nOn 18 February 2004 a medical expert was appointed, but was replaced by a new expert on 6 May 2004.\nOn 18 July 2005 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1819", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Nicosia.\n10.  The applicant, a businessman, was the defendant in an action filed against him before the District Court if Nicosia on 23 January 1986 by the Federal Bank of Lebanon (civil action no. 747/86). The plaintiff bank sued the applicant in his capacity as guarantor of a Greek company, Hellas Eurotrade Ltd.\n11.  The facts leading to the action had taken place between 1975 and 1977 in a number of countries, including Cyprus, Lebanon, Nigeria, France and Greece.\n12.  Hellas Eurotrade Ltd had been established in 1975 and had three shareholders: the applicant who held 40% of the shares and three other individuals that held the remaining shares in equal parts. The company had been set up for the purposes of performing a contract between another company, World Tide Shipping Corporation, and the Nigerian Defence Ministry for the provision of 240,000 metric tons of cement to the latter. The Nigerian Central Bank had opened a letter of credit for this purpose, issued by a French bank- Banque Nationale de Paris. The obligations and the rights deriving from the contract and the letter of credit were transferred and/or assigned to Hellas Eurotrade Ltd in 1975. The plaintiff bank had undertaken to act as guarantor of the above-mentioned company for the delivery of the cement and the fulfilment of the obligations connected thereto and to provide banking and exchange facilities regarding the above obligation against personal guarantees, including that of the applicant. The action had been based on differences that arose between the plaintiff bank and the applicant from the performance of the obligation for delivery of cement to the Nigerian Government.\n13.  On 17 December 1977 the plaintiff bank addressed a letter to the Bank of Cyprus Ltd in Nicosia, together with two bills of exchange, one for 465,915.82 US dollars (USD) and the other for USD 300,000, with instructions that they be presented to the applicant for acceptance and payment. The applicant filed a civil action (no. 5746/77) before the District Court of Nicosia. On 29 December 1977 the court declared the two bills void ab initio and without any legal effect.\n14.  Consequently, on 29 November 1985 the plaintiff bank filed a civil action before the District Court of Nicosia (action no. 11078/85) against the applicant in his capacity as guarantor of the above-mentioned company. However, this action was discontinued and withdrawn by the plaintiff on 9 January 1986.\n15.  The plaintiff bank then filed civil action no. 747/86 against the applicant claiming an amount of USD 598,729 plus compound interest, the performance of accounts as to the sums which the company had received from the Nigerian Government and a court order for the payment of an amount equivalent to 1% of the received sum which in total exceeded USD 18,881.562 plus interest. On account of the Limitation of Actions Law, Cap. 115, the filing of the action would have been outside the limitation periods prescribed by the said law. However the Law of Suspension of Limitation of Actions (no. 57/64 of 1964) had suspended the laws of limitations in Cyprus.\n16.  The action was filed on 23 January 1986 by way of writ of summons.\n17.  The appearance was filed on 25 February 1986 and the statement of claim was filed on 13 May 1986.\n18.  On 28 May 1986 the applicant filed an application for security of costs which was granted on 11 June 1986 by consent.\n19.  Between the above date and 2 Oct", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1820", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Gliwice, Poland.\n6.  On 17 January 2000 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 18 January 2000 he was remanded in custody by the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) on charges of burglary. The applicant appealed against this decision but his appeal was dismissed on 4 February 2000 by the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n7.  On 14 September 2000 the prosecution service closed the investigation in the applicant’s case and lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Katowice Regional Court.\n8.  On 15 January 2001 the Katowice Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 15 May 2001. The court considered that it was probable that the applicant had committed the crimes with which he was charged. It also referred to the fact that the case involved twelve accused and thirty-four witnesses. Moreover, the crimes allegedly committed by the applicant carried a heavy sentence and there existed a risk of collusion. Finally, the court was of the view that the applicant’s case did not disclose any of the grounds for release from pre-trial detention listed in Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n9.  On 15 January 2001 the Katowice Regional Court decided that some of the charges laid against the applicant would be considered in separate proceedings before the Sosnowiec District Court. However, on 21 February 2001 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed that decision. The appellate court admitted that the number of charges and accused made the applicant’s case difficult. At the same time, it pointed out that the trial court had failed to schedule the date of the first hearing despite the fact that five months had passed since the bill of indictment had been lodged with the trial court. The court also stated:\n“One cannot agree with the Regional Court’ findings that... and that the accused upon release would impede the efficiency of the proceedings.\nIt should be noted that the last of the matters invoked [above] is an arbitrary and unsubstantiated suggestion of the Regional Court in a situation when the trial had not yet begun.”\n10.  On 14 May 2001 the Katowice Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 15 October 2001. The court considered that the evidence collected in the case sufficiently supported the charges laid against the applicant. Moreover, since the applicant’s case had been joined with the case of M.K. it involved twelve accused and thirty-four witnesses. The proceedings in such a case required longer time. The court was not responsible for the fact that it had not begun the consideration of the merits of the case as this delay had been caused by the absence of some of the accused and their counsel at the hearings and the lack of police officers to escort the detained accused to the court. The Regional Court further referred to the gravity of the charges laid against the applicant and the fact that they carried a heavy sentence. It considered that the applicant’s case did not disclose any of the grounds for release from pre‑trial detention listed in Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the applicant could go into hiding or interfere with the proceedings. The risk of the latter was particularly strong since the accused had not pleaded guilty.\n11.  The applicant made a fresh application for release from pre‑trial detention but it was dismissed on 25 June 2001 by the Katowice Regional Court. The court co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1822", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Istanbul.\n7.  On 1 September 1997, as editor of the newspaper Günlük Emek (Everyday Work), the applicant published in issue number 297 an article entitled “Giving the conscripts a send-off, and collective memory” (Asker uğurlamalar ve toplumsal hafıza) signed by Barış Avşar.\n8.  On 4 December 1997 the public prosecutor at the Military Court of the General Staff (“the General Staff Court”), acting under Article 58 of the Military Penal Code and Article 155 of the Criminal Code, charged the applicant with incitement, by publication of the above article, to evade military service (askerlikten soğutma).\n9.  The applicant informed the General Staff Court that the article had been written by Mr Şevki Akbaba, who had signed it with a pseudonym.\n10.  In a judgment of 20 October 1998 the General Staff Court initially sentenced the applicant to two months’ imprisonment and a fine of 60,000 Turkish liras (TRL). By virtue of section 4 of the Execution of Sentence Act (Law no. 647), which provided for prison sentences imposed on editors to be commuted to fines, the applicant was ultimately ordered to pay a “heavy fine” of TRL 1,160,000.[1]\n11.  In its judgment the General Staff Court referred to the following passage from the offending article:\n“This last week in bus stations has been a time for sending the August conscripts on their way... The novice soldiers setting off – “but you’ll soon be back”, people tell them to console them – already seemed during these ritual send-offs to be plunging into war by donning “invisible khaki”. It was a time when war seemed rather attractive; the congratulations and praises made it seem like a warm nest, almost as warm as a mother’s arms, into whose embrace they would have liked to run. What we saw at each of these ceremonies shows that the thing has become a collective hysteria and that this hysteria has also spawned its own indispensable attributes: the traditional drum and clarinet, the famous three-crescented flag, sometimes accompanied by the corn-ear flag of the RP [Welfare Party] or the rose-bearing flag of the BBP [Great Union Party] ... Warm-up ceremonies are organised for those setting off for the war, the exaltation felt on killing a man is the exaltation of winning a match and, what is more, the killer justifies his act by speaking of the love he has for his fatherland and his nation. In short, it can’t be said that what we’re doing is right... Those verses, written by a fallen soldier, are carved on his own tombstone. He will no longer see those who gather to give the conscripts a send-off, no longer hear the drum, the clarinet or the gunfire, not be able to read the verses written on his tombstone, on seeing which he would perhaps have felt repelled by the determinism they convey. Because from now on he is reduced to a title: a martyr... It is because the State does not recognise as such the war which is etched deeply into the collective life and the collective memory that, apart from a small minority, those who return from it after losing an arm, a leg or an eye receive no allowance. These people who are no longer capable of meeting their own needs are being deceived by talk of fictitious jobs. ‘There is a war, but not officially; you are war-wounded, but you count for nothing.’”\nIn its considerations the General Staff Court pointed out that military service was a constitutional duty and that the applicant, by denigrating military service had also de", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1823", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is at present detained in the Częstochowa Detention Centre.\n5.  On 7 March 2002 the applicant was arrested by the police.\n6.  On 7 March 2002 the Kraków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed several crimes including kidnapping for ransom and extorting protection money. Later, six other persons were detained and charged in connection with the same set of crimes.\n7.  On 22 May 2002 the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged the applicant’s detention until 28 August 2002 considering that the strong suspicion against him of having committed the serious crimes with which he had been charged and the risk of going into hiding and tampering with evidence justified holding him in custody.\n8.  The applicant’s detention on remand was prolonged on 13 August and 25 November 2002.\n9.  On 19 February 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) prolonged the applicant’s detention on the grounds that there was a strong suspicion that he had committed the crimes in question, that a severe sentence of imprisonment might be imposed on him and that keeping him in custody was necessary to secure the proper course of the investigation.\n10.  On 7 May 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal further prolonged the applicant’s detention considering that the grounds originally given for remanding him in custody were still valid.\n11.  On 14 August 2003 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and nine other persons that comprised 41 charges. The applicant was indicted on charges of having committed in total thirteen offences, including three offences while acting in an organised group.\n12.  The applicant’s detention was prolonged by the Katowice Regional Court on 25 August 2003. The court reiterated the grounds given previously for keeping him in custody and added:\n“The strong probability that severe imprisonment may be imposed on [the applicant] creates a legal presumption that [the applicant and other accused] will obstruct the criminal proceedings.”...\n13.  On an unspecified date the case was transferred to the Częstochowa Regional Court.\n14.  On 10 February 2004 the Częstochowa Regional Court made a request under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which it asked the Katowice Court of Appeal to extend the applicant’s detention.\n15.  On 18 February 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal allowed the request submitted by the Regional Court and prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 October 2004. In addition to the grounds previously given – the reasonable suspicion of his having committed the offences in question and the risk of a severe sentence – the court found that the complexity of the case justified the applicant’s detention. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed on 1 April 2004.\n16.  On 2 June 2004 the Katowice District Court decided to detain the applicant on remand in connection with another set of criminal proceedings against him. Subsequently, the applicant was indicted in this set of proceedings. The applicant’s detention ordered in this set of proceedings had been prolonged on several occasions and the applicant remains detained on the order of this court.\n17.  On 22 October 2004 and 20 May 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal further prolonged the applicant’s pre-trial detention. In the latter decision the court examined the course", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1824", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 20 June 1997 the applicant claimed a sum of money (the equivalent of approximately 500 euros) from an individual before the Bratislava III District Court.\n6.  On 27 August 1997 the District Court issued a payment order under which the debtor was obliged to pay the sum in issue to the applicant. The payment order was served on the applicant and on the defendant on 9 September 1997. It became final and binding on 25 September 1997.\n7.  On 20 April 1998 the applicant requested the Bratislava III District Court to enforce its order.\n8.  On 15 May 1998 the court asked the applicant to submit further information as regards her enforcement request and to pay a court fee. The applicant replied on 25 May 1998. In particular, she proposed that the sum in issue should be obtained by selling movable property from the premises of the debtor’s company.\n9.  On 28 May 1998 the District Court granted the applicant’s request and ordered enforcement of the sum in question by means of selling the defendant’s movables.\n10.  On 6 August 1998 a court bailiff visited the domicile of the defendant for the purpose of serving him with the District Court’s decision of 28 May 1998 and making a list of his movables. The action failed as the bailiff established that the defendant had been absent from his domicile for more than two years.\n11.  On 7 August 1998 the court asked the Central Register of Citizens and the police for information about the defendant’s domicile. On 19 August 1998 and on 7 September 1998 the court received replies according to which the defendant had not been present at his domicile for two years and his whereabouts were unknown.\n12.  On 7 September 1998 the court unsuccessfully requested information about the defendant’s whereabouts from the police and the Central Register of Prisoners.\n13.  On 27 October 1998 the District Court delivered a decision declaring the enforcement of its order by selling the defendant’s movable property inadmissible on the ground that the whereabouts of the defendant were unknown. The applicant was notified of the court’s decision on 12 November 1998. The service of that decision on the defendant failed.\n14.  On 24 November 1998 the applicant appealed against the District Court’s decision of 27 October 1998 and indicated the place where the defendant was staying.\n15.  On 10 December 1998, on 13 January 1999 and on 16 February 1999 respectively the court sent by registered mail the applicant’s appeal to the defendant. The delivery failed as the defendant was present neither at his domicile nor at the address indicated by the applicant. On 10 March 1999 the letter was finally returned to the court as undeliverable.\n16.  In April and November 2000 the applicant requested the District Court to proceed with the case. On 19 February 2001 she complained about delays in the proceedings to the Ministry of Justice.\n17.  On 3 November 2000 the case file was transferred to the Bratislava Regional Court for a decision on the applicant’s appeal.\n18.  On 21 February 2001 the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision of 27 October 1998.\n19.  On 18 May 2001 the Bratislava III District Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings. On 28 June 2001 the District Court appointed a guardian to the defendant as his whereabouts were unknown. The District Court’s decision of 18 May 2001 was delivered to the guardian and it became final on 20 July 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1825", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Lublin, Poland.\n5.  On 5 September 1999 the applicant was arrested on charges of illegal possession of weapons.\n6.  On 7 September 1999 the Lublin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand until 5 December 1999. The court considered that existence of strong evidence against him and the gravity of the charges justified his detention. It also found that the circumstances of the case had not been fully investigated and there was the risk that the applicant would attempt to obstruct the proceedings.\n7.  The Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Okregowy) upheld the first-instance decision on 14 October 1999.\n8.  On 30 November 1999 the Lublin Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 5 March 2000. It considered that the original grounds given for keeping him in custody were still valid and referred to the complexity of the case.\n9.  On 1 March 2000 the Lublin Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 5 June 2000. The court considered that the applicant was suspected of having committed several serious offences (procurement, obstructing the course of criminal proceedings, illegal possession of weapons; he was also a member of an organised crime gang) and there was substantial evidence against him. Since he had attempted to threaten witnesses, his detention was necessary to ensure the proper course of the proceedings.\n10.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged by the Lublin Regional Court on 31 May 2000.\n11.  On 31 August 2000 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) extended the applicant’s detention until 5 December 2000. It found that the reasons previously given for holding him in custody were still valid.\n12.  During the course of the investigation, the applicant lodged several unsuccessful appeals against prolongation of his detention with the Lublin Regional Court and the Supreme Court.\n13.  On 27 December 2000 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and seven other co-defendants with the Lublin Regional Court. He charged him with procurement, obstructing the course of criminal proceedings, illegal possession of weapons and participation in an organised crime gang.\n14.  The Lublin Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on 28 December 2000 and on 12 June 2001.\n15.  The Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s application for release on 30 January 2001.\n16.  The trial started on 14 September 2001. The Regional Court held 16 hearings.\n17.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged 3 times by the Court of Appeal, at the Regional Court’s request: on 11 July 2001 and 21 November 2001, 13 February and 22 May 2002 for the same reasons as before.\n18.  His appeals against those decisions were dismissed.\n19.  On 27 June 2002 the Lublin Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment.\n20.  During the proceedings before the appellate court the applicant remained in custody.\n21.  On 25 February 2003 the Lublin Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n22.  On 18 March 2003 the Lublin Regional Court ordered that the applicant remain in custody until 18 June 2003. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision on 9 April 2003. It found that the applicant’s detention was justified by the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n23.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonge", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1826", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Cartigny, Switzerland.\n10.  The applicant and his wife, B., who was of Finnish origin, had two children, a boy T. born on 2 June 1987 and a girl A. born on 28 September 1989. The family lived together in Switzerland until 1993 when B. took the children to Finland where she took up residence with L. as her female partner.\n11.  On 10 June 1994, B. applied for divorce and for custody of the children.\n12.  On 10 October 1994 the parents reached an interim agreement whereby the children would stay in Finland with their mother for the moment and the applicant have the right to three supervised visits.\n13.  The applicant states that on 13 October 1994 he became aware that the children’s maternal grandmother had made a complaint to the social services against B.’s female partner, L., alleging that she had sexually abused A. There is some indication in the documents that the applicant may also have lodged a complaint on this ground. The criminal charges lodged against L. were later dismissed by the courts.\n14.  Meanwhile, it appears that the applicant took proceedings with a view to having the children returned to Switzerland under the Hague Convention. However, by decisions of the Court of Appeal dated 7 December 1994 and by the Supreme Court dated 15 June 1995, the applicant’s application for return was refused, principally on the ground that he had voluntarily entered into an interim agreement that the children remain in Finland with their mother.\n15.  On 20 August 1996, the District Court awarded sole custody of the children to the mother, finding that the children had lived with their mother in Finland since 1993 and that it was in their best interests to remain with her. On 8 July 1997, the Court of Appeal upheld this decision, as did the Supreme Court on 14 November 1997.\n16.  The applicant was however granted visiting rights. It appears that the children visited him in Switzerland during Easter and the summer of 1997 and met with him in Finland in 1998 (twice) and 1999 (three times).\n17.  On 30 August 1999, B., the mother, died. The children were then aged twelve and nine years respectively.\n18.  The applicant returned immediately to Finland. On 23 September 1999, he lodged a request that the children, still living with L., be placed in a foster home and that he be accorded visiting rights.\n19.  Applications for custody of the children were lodged by both L. and by the applicant. During October 1999, the children were interviewed twice by a team consisting of a child psychiatrist and two psychologists. They expressed their wish to stay with L. because they felt safe and were used to living with her. A. was reported as stating that she would like to meet the applicant occasionally but only when she wished, while T. was reported as stating that the applicant was not part of his family and that he neither wanted to meet him or live in Switzerland.\n20.  The applicant saw the children three times during September 1999 in supervised contact visits. There was another meeting outside the social workers’ premises.\n21.  In a Social Welfare Board report dated 26 October 1999, it was stated that, following the mother’s death, L.’s influence on the children had increased and the children turned to her for support. It was noted that the children were not able to act against L.’s will, because they were dependent on her at that time. Consequently, the children were in a state of conflict, as they were not", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1827", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lived in Warszawa. He died in 2000.\n8.  On 28 June 1994 a bill of indictment in respect of the applicant, then a police officer, and four other individuals was submitted to the Warsaw District Court (sąd rejonowy). They were charged with accepting bribes.\n9.  The court placed the applicant under police supervision.\nDespite the applicant’s numerous petitions the District Court did not hold any hearings.\n10.  On 11 October 2000 the applicant died.\n11.  On 12 February 2002 the Warsaw District Court issued a decision to discontinue the proceedings with respect to the applicant due to his death.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1828", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Gdańsk.\n10.  From 1990 to 1994 the applicant lived with B.F. On 29 August 1992 B.F. had a baby, a boy D. He was registered at the Birth Register as having “Stanisław F.” as father, i.e. a fictitious name, consisting of the applicant’s first name and the mother’s surname.\n11.  In April 1994 the relationship ended. B.F. left the child with the applicant and disappeared for over a month. The applicant submits a copy of a letter, in which B.F. states that she leaves him and the boy and that they should now fend for themselves. As the child subsequently fell ill, the applicant took him to a hospital. B.F. took D. from the hospital on 21 May 1994. She then stayed in hiding for several months. Since then the applicant has not had any contacts with the child.\n12.  Prior to this, on 18 April 1994, the applicant lodged a motion with the Gdańsk District Court, claiming that the paternity of D. be established and submitting that he was his biological father. He was subsequently summoned by the court to submit certain documents in order to have a guardian appointed who would bring a paternity action on the child’s behalf as under the domestic law the alleged biological father, not married to the mother, lacked standing in paternity proceedings. The applicant failed to do so.\n13.  In a note of 20 May 1994 the Gdańsk Social Assistance Centre informed the family court about the situation of D. and requested it to take steps to supervise B.F. in her exercise of parental rights. The social assistance officer also referred in her note to the applicant and stated that, in the light of the information received from his sister, in her view he would be unable to take adequate care of the child.\n14.  Subsequently the Gdańsk District Court instituted custody proceedings concerning D. By a decision of 26 May 1994 the court ordered that D. be taken into public care. Apparently shortly afterwards this decision was revoked.\n15.  In August 1994 the Gdańsk District Court requested the prosecuting authorities to investigate whether B.F. had committed a criminal offence by exposing D. to immediate danger of serious bodily injury. Such investigations were instituted in November 1995.\n16.  By a decision of 27 January 1995 the District Court gave a new decision on the basis of which D. was taken into public care. The custody rights of B.F. were restricted and she was only allowed to visit him. The applicant was not a party to the proceedings. B.F. refused to give D. away when police officers came to take him to a children’s home.\n17.  On that date the applicant lodged a new motion with the District Court to have a guardian appointed to represent D. for the purposes of the paternity proceedings.\n18.  Prior to that, on 9 January 1995, the applicant requested the Gdańsk District Prosecutor to institute on his behalf proceedings to have his paternity established in respect of D. In a reply of 5 May 1995, the prosecutor recalled that the applicant, by a motion of 27 January 1995, had requested the civil court to appoint a guardian for the child for the purpose of instituting the paternity proceedings, and that therefore it would not be advisable that the prosecuting authorities considered the applicant’s request, which, if successful, would lead to two parallel sets of proceedings pending at the same time, both concerning the determination of the applicant’s paternity in respect of D.\n19.  In July 1995 the Court rejected the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1829", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  According to the applicant’s birth certificate, she is male. She served in the army for three years from the age of 17 and then worked as a police officer. Aged 24, she gave up attempting to live as a man, and had gender reassignment surgery two years later. She has presented as a woman since 1963, is identified as a woman on her National Insurance card and paid contributions to the National Insurance scheme at the female rate (until 1975, when the difference in rates was abolished). In 1972 she became self-employed and started paying into a private pension fund.\n8.  By a letter dated 22 August 1997, the applicant applied to the local government benefits office for State pension payments. She wished these to commence on 22 December 1997, her 60th birthday. Her application was refused by a decision of the Adjudication Officer issued on 31 October 1997. He stated that she had applied “too early”, and was only entitled to a State pension from the age of 65, the retirement age applicable to men.\n9.  Her appeal against this decision was heard by Birmingham Social Security Appeal Tribunal on 12 March 1998, which dismissed it on the basis of established case-law. At this time she claimed that she was no longer able to work due to a spinal collapse fracture of osteoporotic origin.\n10.  On 1 October 1998 the applicant submitted her appeal to the Social Security Commissioner. Leave to appeal was granted but, by a decision of 1 June 2000, her appeal was dismissed following an oral hearing. The Commissioner felt compelled to follow previous decisions and also held that the DSS had not entered into an agreement to treat the applicant as a woman.\n11.  In the light of the judgments of 11 July 2002 given by the Grand Chamber in Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 28957/95, ECHR 2002-VI) and I. v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 25680/94), in which the Court found that the Government’s continuing failure to take effective steps to effect the legal recognition of the change of gender of post-operative transsexuals was in breach of Article 8, the applicant wrote to the Office of Social Security on 12 July 2002 asking for her case to be reopened. The Commissioner notified her on 14 August 2002 that leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal had been granted.\n12.  On 5 September 2002 the Department for Work and Pensions refused to award the applicant a State pension in light of the judgment in Christine Goodwin.\n13.  In the Court of Appeal, the applicant sought, inter alia, a declaration that she was entitled to her full retirement pension from her 60th birthday, and damages for breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, in force from 2 October 2000. Meanwhile, on 22 December 2002, the applicant reached the age of 65 and her pension payments began.\n14.  By agreement, her case was adjourned to await the House of Lords judgment in Bellinger v. Bellinger. In that case the claimant, a transsexual, sought a declaration of validity in respect of a marriage contracted following gender reassignment surgery. By a decision of 10 April 2003, their Lordships, whilst finding the Government’s continuing failure to legislate to be a breach of Articles 8 and 12, deemed the formulation of legal norms to remedy that breach best left to Parliament ([2003] WLR 1174). Further, the House of Lords disapproved of attempts to seek recognition even in the clearest cases on the basis that (a) eventually a line would have to be drawn and (b) such demarcation required detailed c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1830", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in İstanbul.\n6.  On 9 October 1994 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-terror branch of the İstanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the TKP-ML/TIKKO[1].\n7.  On 21 October 1994 the applicant was brought before a judge at the İstanbul State Security Court who ordered his remand in custody.\n8.  On 18 November 1994 the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, together with ten other suspects, accusing him of membership of an illegal organisation. He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.\n9.  On 7 December 1994 the criminal proceedings against the applicant commenced before the İstanbul State Security Court.\n10.  At the end of the hearings held on 1 February and 24 March 1995, the first-instance court ordered that the applicant’s detention pending trial be continued having regard to the nature of the offence that he was charged with, the state of the evidence, the date of the detention on remand decision and of the fact that he had not been heard before the court.\n11.  On 15 May 1995 the applicant made statements before the İstanbul State Security Court and denied the charges against him. He contended that he was not a member of an illegal organisation. At the end of the hearing, the court decided that his detention pending trial should be continued having regard to the nature of the offence that he was charged with, the state of the evidence and the date of the decision to remand him in custody.\n12.  On 30 June 1995 the applicant’s representative requested the İstanbul State Security Court to release the applicant pending trial. She contended that a third person, K.T., had left a briefcase containing illegal documents in the applicant’s house and that he had been arrested and prosecuted because of these documents. In this connection, the lawyer maintained that the charges brought against the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code were erroneous and that the applicant could only be charged, under Article 169 of the Criminal Code, with aiding and abetting members of an illegal organisation. The applicant’s lawyer finally claimed that the acts of the applicant could not be considered to constitute an offence under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and that he should be released, since the length of his remand in custody was excessive. The İstanbul State Security Court dismissed the request.\n13.  Between 30 June 1995 and 7 February 1997 the first-instance court held twelve more hearings. Throughout these hearings, the applicant and his representative made written and oral submissions and requested that the applicant be released pending trial. They reiterated their submissions of 30 June 1995. The İstanbul State Security Court dismissed the requests on all occasions and held that the applicant’s detention pending trial should continue having regard to the nature of the offence that he was charged with, the state of the evidence and the date of the detention on remand decision.\n14.  On 7 February 1997, upon the request of the public prosecutor, the İstanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant and four of his co‑accused to make additional defence submissions in view of the possibility of the application of Article 168 § 1 of th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1831", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1970 and was serving his prison sentence at Adıyaman prison at the time of the lodging of the application.\n10.  On 19 March 1993 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody. On 30 March 1993 he was brought before the Siverek Magistrates’ Court. The latter ordered his remand in custody.\n11.  On 21 May 1993 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of hiding members of the PKK and guns and explosives as well as organising meetings in his house. He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.\n12.  On an unspecified date, the criminal proceedings against the applicant and 60 co-accused commenced before the 3rd Section of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n13.  On 29 December 1993 the 1st Section of the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to join the criminal proceedings of 44 other accused to that of the applicant.\n14.  Between 29 December 1993 and 28 December 1994 the first‑instance court held hearings at regular intervals.\n15.  On 28 December 1994 the public prosecutor submitted his observations on the merits of the case. The accused were given time to prepare their defence submissions on the merits.\n16.  Between 28 December 1994 and 30 October 1996 the first‑instance court held hearings at regular intervals. During this time, at each hearing until 13 December 1996, several of the co-accused requested the court to apply in their favour Law no. 341 concerning the provisions to be applied to offenders accused of certain categories of crimes, as amended by Law no. 4085. Under this law, an accused who confesses his guilt and who assists the security forces in identifying other offenders can be given a lesser sentence. As a result, during this period, the court undertook various procedural decisions with a view to obtaining the additional defence submissions of those co-accused who wanted to benefit from Law no. 341 by way of rogatory letters and also requested information from the Ministry of Interior as to whether these co-accused could be deemed to benefit from the application of this law.\n17.  In the hearing held on 5 August 1996, the applicant’s representative requested the court to rule on the merits of the case as soon as possible. He pointed out that the public prosecutor had already submitted his observations on the merits on 28 December 1994.\n18.  In a hearing held on 25 September 1996 the court requested the public prosecutor to submit his observations on the merits as regards the co‑accused who had requested to benefit from Law no. 341.\n19.  On 30 October 1996 the public prosecutor submitted his additional observations on the merits of the case in so far as it concerned those co‑accused who had requested to benefit from Law no. 341. In respect of the other co-accused, including the applicant, the public prosecutor referred to his initial observations of 28 December 1994.\n20.  In the next two hearings held on 28 November 1996 and 30 January 1997 the court heard the defence submissions of some of the co-accused.\n21.  At the end of each hearing, the court considered and refused the release of the applicant pending trial, either ex officio or at applicant’s request.\n22.  On 27 March 1997 the Diyarbakır Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. He was also barred from publi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1832", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1954, 1955, 1986 and 1990, respectively, and live in Budapest.\n5.  The applicants are husband and wife and their son and daughter. In December 1987 the parents travelled to Cuba on a trip organised by a travel agency. On 13 December 1987 the tourist group had dinner at a restaurant where they were served poisonous sea food. As a consequence, the muscles and the nervous systems of the first and the second applicant were seriously damaged which caused 67% disability.\n6.  In 1988 the first applicant brought an action against the travel agency in the Budapest II/III District Court claiming damages. The case was then transferred to the competent Pest Central District Court.\n7.  In an interim judgment (közbenső ítélet), on 23 March 1990 the District Court established the travel agency’s responsibility. After a hearing on 11 June 1993, in a partial judgment (részítélet) of 15 June 1993, it ordered the defendant to pay 600,000 Hungarian forints plus interest to the first applicant, but dismissed his claims for non-pecuniary damage.\n8.  In the continued proceedings, the District Court held hearings on 16 February, 11 May, 23 September and 9 December 1994, 7 July and 6 October 1995, 17 May 1996, and 9 May and 16 July 1997. The Government stated that further hearings took place on 16 January and 17 April 1998.\n9.  On 24 April 1998 the court delivered a decision ordering the defendant to pay damages and an allowance to the first applicant.\n10.  On appeal, on 10 December 1998 the Budapest Regional Court confirmed the first-instance decision. The applicant filed a petition for review on 27 January 1999.\n11.  On 30 March 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. This decision was served on 18 June 2001.\n12.  Meanwhile, on 14 January 1998 all four applicants brought an action in the Pest Central District Court against the travel agency claiming further damages. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Budapest II/III District Court. On 15 November 1998 the applicants requested in vain that their case be retransferred to the Pest Central District Court in order to facilitate the proceedings.\n13.  The Budapest II/III District Court held hearings on 27 May 1999 and 19 May 2000. On 27 June 2000 it decided to transfer the case to the Buda Central District Court. However, the file was transferred to the Pest Central District Court by mistake. It therefore only reached the Buda Central District Court on 27 September 2000.\n14.  On 28 March 2001 the Buda Central District Court declared its lack of competence and transferred the case to the Budapest Regional Court.\n15.  On 29 June 2001 the Regional Court declared its lack of competence and transferred the file to the Supreme Court for the appropriate delegation.\n16.  On 17 February 2002 the Supreme Court appointed the Buda Central District Court to hear the case.\n17.  On 22 April 2002 the District Court established that the proceedings had been stayed since 28 March 2002 because the summonses could not be served on the plaintiffs.\n18.  On 18 October 2002 the court observed that the case had ceased to exist on 28 September 2002, ipso iure, after a stay of six months. This decision became final on 2 January 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1833", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Komárom.\n5.  On 3 July 1994 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and his accomplices on charges of instigation to smuggling of weapons and of other offences.\n6.  On 6 December 1994 a bill of indictment was preferred.\n7.  The Tatabánya District Court held hearings on 20, 21 April, 9 May and 13 June 1995. On the latter date it ordered that the investigation be resumed. The time-limit for the completion of the investigation was prolonged on 7 September and 27 October 1995, and also at the hearings on 7 December 1995, 4 June and 13 November 1996. Simultaneously, legal assistance was being sought from the Slovak authorities.\n8.  Further hearings took place on 17 April, 7 October, 13 November and 11 December 1997. At the hearing on 22 January 1998 the case against two co-defendants was separated since they were abroad. Another hearing was held on 29 January 1998.\n9.  On 4 February 1998 the District Court acquitted the applicant.\n10.  On appeal, on 20 March 2000 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court quashed this judgment, essentially for procedural shortcomings, and remitted the case. It ordered that the case be given priority.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings the case fell within the Regional Court’s jurisdiction acting at first instance due to a legislative change.\n12.  The Regional Court held hearings on 7 February and 26, 27 and 28 June 2001. On the latter date it appointed a medical expert. A further hearing was held and another expert appointed on 27 September 2001.\n13.  Additional hearings took place on 1 March, 12 April, 30 August, 22 November and 20 December 2002, and 22 January, 25 February and 9 May 2003.\n14.  On 22 May 2003 the court finally acquitted the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1834", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Tiszatenyő.\n5.  It appears that in October or December 1991 the applicant brought an official liability action against the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court. She sought damages which she allegedly incurred as a consequence of the 1991 actions of a court bailiff belonging to the subordinate Szolnok District Court, when the bailiff was executing some claims enforceable on the applicant’s property.\n6.  On 24 November 1994 the Supreme Court appointed the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court to hear the case. On 2 December 1996 the applicant requested the court to give her case priority.\n7.  In January 1997 the defendant submitted its observations in reply to the applicant’s claims. Hearings took place on 27 January and 10 March1997. On the latter date, the proceedings were suspended pending the adjudication of another case. That case was terminated on 13 October 1998. However, it appears that the applicant only notified the Regional Court of this fact, requesting the continuation of the proceedings, in October 1999. She repeatedly requested the resumption of the proceedings in January 2003. Simultaneously, she challenged the Regional Court for bias. On 4 June 2003 the Supreme Court ordered that the case be transferred to the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court.\n8.  This court held a hearing on 17 October 2003. On 22 October 2003 it dismissed the action.\n9.  On appeal, on 19 February 2004 the Budapest Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings, the Regional Court held a hearing on 28 June 2004. On 2 July 2004 it delivered a decision, which was partly upheld and partly quashed by the Court of Appeal on 25 November 2004.\n11.  Concerning the claims still pending, the Regional Court held hearings on 28 February and 29 April 2005. Two experts were appointed who submitted their opinions on 21 June and 6 October 2005, respectively.\n12.  On 26 October 2005 the Regional Court awarded the applicant some damages and dismissed the remainder of her claims.\n13.  The applicant appealed to the Debrecen Court of Appeal in January 2006. The proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1835", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Mrs Ianka Riener, was born in 1946 in Lubimetz, Bulgaria, and lives currently in Sofia.\n9.  The applicant moved to Austria in 1985 and in 1986 married an Austrian national. In December 1989 she obtained Austrian nationality. Until December 2004 she remained a Bulgarian national (see paragraphs 48-52 below).\n10.  The applicant has a daughter, born in 1963 in Bulgaria, currently an Austrian national living in Austria with her husband and children (the applicant’s grandchildren).\n11.  The applicant was co-owner and commercial director of a company registered in Austria. In January 1991 she also registered in Bulgaria as a foreigner conducting economic activities there. Her main business was the importation of coffee in Bulgaria.\n12.  Between 1991 and 1995 the applicant spent most of her time in Bulgaria. She has remained there ever since.\n13.  By decision of 1 July 1992 a district fiscal authority in Sofia found that the applicant owed 26,494,582 “old” Bulgarian levs (“BGL”) of unpaid excise tax and BGL 4,104,925 of interest (the total amount due having been at the time the equivalent of about 1 million United States dollars (“USD”). The applicant’s ensuing appeals were dismissed on 20 August 1992 by the Sofia fiscal authority and on 7 April 1993, after a hearing on the matter, by the Sofia City Court. On 7 October 1994 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review (cassation) of the above decisions. The applicant then instituted proceedings seeking to declare the fiscal decisions null and void. This was refused by the Sofia Regional Court on 28 October 1996.\n14.  In 1992 and 1993 the fiscal authorities attached certain monies in bank accounts of the applicant and her company. It appears that not more than BGL 400,000 (less than 2 % of the debt) was thus collected in 1992.\n15.  In 1993 the fiscal authorities attached another USD 50,000. A smaller amount of money was seized from the applicant in relation to a criminal investigation against her, opened in 1991. The investigation was discontinued in 1993 and the money restored to her later (see paragraphs 53-56 below).\n16.  On 1 March 1995 the Sofia fiscal authority asked the Passport Department at the Directorate of the Police (Napravlenie “Pasporti i vizov rezhim, DNP) (“the Passport Police”) to impose on the applicant a travel ban under section 7 of the Law on Passports for Travelling Abroad (Zakon za zadgranichnite pasporti) (“the Passport Law”), until the payment of her debt, as established by the courts.\n17.  On 7 March 1995 the Passport Police issued an order which stated inter alia that a prohibition was imposed against the applicant leaving the country and that her document for travelling abroad should be seized. The order referred to the fiscal decisions in the applicant’s case, stated that she had Bulgarian and Austrian nationality, and relied on section 29(1)(v) of the Law on the Sojourn of Aliens in Bulgaria (Zakon za prebivavane na chuzhdentzite v Balgaria).\n18.  On 4 April 1995 the Bulgarian border control authorities seized the applicant’s Austrian passport when she attempted to leave Bulgaria and to enter Greece. The applicant did not have a Bulgarian passport.\n19.  Upon the applicant’s complaint, on 20 April 1995 the Passport Police informed her that a travel ban under section 29(1)(v) of the Law on the Sojourn of Aliens had been imposed, in relation to the applicant’s obligation to pay BGL 26,499,582.\n20.  On 26 May 1995 the applicant su", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1836", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in London.\n5.  The applicant founded Notareal Oy, which was a Finnish investment and industrial holding company, in 1985. He was managing director of the company from 1985 to 1991. He was also a shareholder in the company. In April 1992 he was questioned by the police and taken into custody. On 8 May 1994 he was charged with criminal offences under Finnish law allegedly committed during the period of 1988-1991. Eight other defendants were also charged. The charges, contained in 12 indictments (ten of which involved the applicant) covered over eighty counts, including offences of aggravated tax fraud, debtor’s dishonesty, accounting irregularities and aggravated fraud.\n6.  On 25 May 1994 the trial in the Espoo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) began. The District Court heard 220 witnesses. It convened 71 times. There were over 7,000 pages of pre-trial investigation reports. In addition, six victims presented their own criminal claims and claims for compensation.\n7.  On 14 February 1997 the District Court decided on all charges save indictment no.12. It found the applicant guilty of two tax offences and two accounting irregularities and sentenced him to a suspended term of imprisonment of 11 months as well as ordering him to pay compensation to the State in sums totalling FIM 1,596,850 (some 260,000 Euros). The charges on indictment no. 12 (the Yli-Takkula golf course charge) were rejected in a separate judgment by the District Court on 25 September 1998. The Government stated they were dealt with separately as they also concerned two defendants who had absconded. They explained that the District Court had ordered their detention in absentia on 19 September 1995. One of them was apprehended on 25 January 1997 and the other arrested in Spain in February 1997.\n8.  All parties in the case appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), which re-heard eight witnesses in an oral hearing. On 6 July 2000, it affirmed the conviction of the applicant by the District Court in respect of the four charges and convicted him additionally on 17 of the earlier rejected charges. The convictions were based on the evidence given by witnesses in the District Court in respect of the four charges and in the Court of Appeal, such as the applicant’s colleagues, accountants and liquidators, and on various documents regarding the financial state of the company and the applicant’s actions. The applicant was sentenced to six year’s imprisonment, his military rank was forfeited, and he was ordered to pay damages amounting to FIM 97,396,171 (some 16,000,000 Euros) as well as legal fees amounting to FIM 1,640,000 (some 280,000 Euros).\n9.  On 21 March 2001 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1837", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 26 April 1993 the applicant was taken into custody in Marmaris by police officers from the Muğla Security Department on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation, and he was held in custody until 21 May 1993.\n7.  On 21 May 1993 the Siirt Civil Court of First Instance ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n8.  On 8 June 1993 the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal terrorist organisation and aiding and abetting the said organization, contrary to Article 125 of the Turkish Criminal Code.\n9.  On 16 June 1993 the Diyarbakır State Security Court commenced the trial against the applicant and two other suspects and prolonged the applicant’s detention.\n10.  The State Security Court considered the applicant’s continued detention on 58 occasions, either on its own motion or upon the applicant’s request. On each occasion, the applicant’s continued detention was ordered having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the content of the file.\n11.  On 27 December 2001, after holding 58 hearings, the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 146 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to death, since commuted to life imprisonment.\n12.  On 10 July 2002, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1838", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants, Mr Eugene Weissman, Mrs Mariana Balan, Mrs Rosa Brener Veisman, Mrs Liana Alberta Veisman de Neuberger and Mrs Karin Weissman Humbert, were born in 1931, 1930, 1913, 1947 and 1937 respectively and live in Seattle, New York, Ariel (Israel) and Beaune (France).\n9.  On 3 September 1998, acting in their capacity as heirs of the former owners, the applicants lodged an action before the Bucharest County Court against the State, represented by the Ministry of Finance, and the firm L., responsible for managing the State’s immovable property, with a view to the restitution of real estate, consisting of a building and the adjacent land situated at 21 Rabat Street, Bucharest, and occupied by the embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany. They alleged that the State had appropriated the property in question in 1949 without title or any other legal authority, and that it had become part of the possessions of the Romanian Communist Party and, subsequently, of the firm L.\n10.  In defence pleadings, included in the case file on 2 November 1998, the Ministry of Finance informed the court that the State had taken possession of the building without title, and that it had no papers certifying this transfer of ownership. At the court’s request, the Bucharest City Council replied that it too had no papers on this matter. The firm L. confirmed that it was managing the building under Government Decision no. 115/1990 on the legal situation of buildings which had belonged to the Romanian Communist Party.\n11.  By a judgment of 14 April 1999, the Bucharest County Court allowed the applicants’ claim. It held that the State had taken possession of the building in 1949 without legal authority and that it continued to enjoy possession of it without title. It considered that Government Decision no. 115/1990 could not constitute valid title, given that there had been no legal basis for the appropriation itself. In consequence, it ordered the firm L. to return the building and adjacent land to the applicants.\n12.  On an appeal (apel) and further appeal (recurs) by the respondent parties, the judgment was upheld by a judgment of the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 9 September 1999 and by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice on 22 March 2000.\n13.  On 12 October 1999 the applicants were given possession of the building.\n14.  By an action brought on 11 May 1999 in the Bucharest County Court against the Ministry of Finance, the Bucharest City Council and the firm L., the applicants sought reimbursement of 35,506,776 United States dollars (the equivalent of 30,609,289 euros (EUR)) in respect of loss of earnings, based on the rental income received by the State for the building since its confiscation, paid, inter alia, by the embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany, which had occupied the building from an unspecified date.\n15.  At a hearing on 9 June 1999, the court ordered the applicants to pay stamp duty amounting to 5,333,215,000 Romanian lei (the equivalent of EUR 323,264), calculated in accordance with section 2 of Law no. 146/1997 on stamp duty.\n16.  At a hearing on 8 September 1999, the applicants’ lawyer requested that they be exempted from stamp duty on the ground that the action for reimbursement of rental income was accessory to the action for recovery of possession and that it was therefore exempt from costs, in application of section 15 of Law no. 146/1997.\n17.  By a judgment of 8 September 1999, the Bucharest County Court held that the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1839", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1931 and 1930 and live in Ankara and Hatay, respectively.\n5.  In 1965 the applicants bought a plot of land in Hatay from the Samandağ Municipality.\n6.  On 9 September 1976 the Ministry of Construction and Settlement conducted land consolidation proceedings and defined the coastline in the area where the applicants’ land was located.\n7.  On 27 April 1995 the Samandağ Municipality, acting on behalf of the Treasury, requested the Samandağ Court of First Instance in Civil Matters to determine whether the applicants’ plot of land was located within the coastline area. They claimed that, according to the Coastal Law, the land in question could not be owned by individuals and must only be used for public benefit purposes.\n8.  On 3 May 1995 a group of experts, composed of a geomorphologist, a cartography engineer and an agricultural engineer, appointed by the court, inspected the applicants’ land and concluded that it was located within the coastline area.\n9.  On 3 July 1995 the Samandağ Municipality filed an action before the Samandağ Court of First Instance in Civil Matters, on behalf of the Treasury, requesting the annulment of the record in the title deed registry of the applicants’ ownership. Furthermore, it requested the court to issue an injunction in order to prevent any transfer of that title until the end of the case.\n10.  On 19 September 1996 the applicants filed a petition with the court objecting to the expert report of 3 May 1995. They argued that, as the expert report failed to take into consideration the flora of their property as well as the features and age of the surrounding buildings, it could not be taken as a basis for the annulment of the record in the title deed register. Moreover, they maintained that the Municipality had not only disposed of the property as the original owner, but it had also encouraged the construction of buildings in the surrounding area, by implementing a development plan.\n11.  The court decided to obtain the opinion of another group of experts. On 28 October 1997, following a second inspection, the experts confirmed the first report. The summary of the report is as follows:\n“The first cadastral survey was carried out in the area on 29 March 1948. Thus, the title deed of the plot of land was registered before the coastal law came into force. The plot of land in question is covered by the development plan, approved by the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement. However, at the present time there is no construction on this plot.\nThe inspection carried out in the surrounding area reveals that the land is situated on the beach which is considered as the prolongation of the sea. The soil has a sandy texture. There is no vegetation on the land, as the soil is not suitable for cultivation.\nThe land is located within the coastline. Thus the plot of land in question has to be under the authority of the State. It cannot be the subject of private property.”\n12.  On 16 December 1999 the Samandağ First Instance Court upheld the request of the Treasury and decided to annul the record in the title deed register. It also ordered the applicants to reimburse the legal expenses of the plaintiff.\nThe summary of the court’s reasoning in its final decision is as follows:\n“At the time when the coastline had been determined, Law no. 6785 on urbanism (9 July 1956) was in force. The definition of the coastline found in Article 105 of Law no. 6785 is similar to the description in the Coastal L", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1840", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Chełm, Poland.\n9.  On 10 September 1994 the applicant began serving a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment that he had received for robbery on an unknown date.\n10.  On 16 December 1994 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged him with homicide. On the same day the prosecutor also ordered that the applicant be detained on remand.\n11.  At the beginning of December 1995 the Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). The applicant was indicted on charges of homicide, aggravated robbery and possessing a firearm and ammunition without a licence.\n12.  On 11 August 2000 the Lublin Regional Court convicted him of armed robbery and possessing a firearm and ammunition without a licence.\n13.  On 26 April 2001, on the applicant’s appeal, the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) partly amended the first-instance judgment.\n14.  The applicant did not file a cassation appeal (kasacja) with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyzszy).\n15.  The applicant produced 6 envelopes. Some of them contain letters. All envelopes bear traces of having been opened after having been sealed; their sides were cut open and, in some instances, resealed with adhesive paper tape.\n16.  On an unknown date in December 1997 the applicant wrote a letter to his defence counsel. The envelope bears stamps: “Censored” (“cenzurowano”) and “ 1997-12-9”.\n17.  On 17 July 1998 the applicant’s defence counsel sent a letter to him. The envelope bears a stamp that reads: “Censored. R[egional] C[ourt] Lublin”. A hand written note indicates that on 21 July 1998 the letter was received at the Regional Court’s registry and posted to the applicant on the same day.\n18.  On 28 September 1998 a letter that the applicant received from the Constitutional Court was opened and stamped “censored” by the Lublin Regional Court.\n19.  On 21 October and 9 November 1998 the Regional Court opened and stamped “censored” 2 letters sent to the applicant by a certain O.K., his sister-in-law (“O.K.”).\n20.  On 15 April 1999 the Regional Court opened and censored a letter sent to the applicant by the Court’s Registry on 6 April 1999. In that letter the registry informed the applicant that his defence counsel had been asked to provide more detailed information of his trial. A copy of the registry’s letter to the counsel – which, in addition to the request for information, contained an explanation as to why the applicant’s complaint about the length of detention lacked prospects of success – was enclosed with that letter.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1841", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1958.\n8.  The applicant is the father of M., born in wedlock in November 1987. The family moved in 1989 to the location where the authorities’ measures outlined below took place. In 1990 M.’s mother began to suffer from mental illness, including suicidal behaviour. Occasionally the applicant had to protect M. against the mother’s attempted assaults. As from the beginning of 1991 M. was in part-time day care, which was a support measure for both the child and his parents.\n9.  In September 1991 the parents contacted the family guidance centre, where M. was examined on several occasions. They sought help due to the fact that the mother could not cope with the boy because of his restlessness. Following the therapist’s report to the child welfare authorities, the family stopped visiting the centre. In December 1991 the mother was hospitalised until mid-February 1992. Domestic assistance was arranged for the family from mid-January to mid-February 1992. On 2 March 1992 the parents took M. to be examined at the Child Psychiatric Clinic of the Seinäjoki Central Hospital by a psychiatrist, Dr H.L. In May 1992 the mother was hospitalised again. On 21 May 1992 the parents visited Dr H.L.’s surgery and they discussed M.’s situation together with his nanny, his teacher at the day care centre, social welfare official M-L.K., psychologist H.V., family therapist H.H. and Dr H.L. The three last-mentioned were working at the Clinic of the above hospital. At that point the parents opposed M.’s placement for observation in the Clinic, but they expressed a wish that the social welfare authorities would make house calls and that they provide support for the mother in particular. However, in the summer the parents requested that M. be admitted for observation in the Clinic. On 26 August the parents visited Dr H.L.’s surgery and discussed the situation also with Dr L.V. From 21 September to 25 November 1992 M. was placed for observation on account of his behavioural disturbances. Both parents visited him regularly. The examinations disclosed that M. was one to two years late in his development and that he showed signs of insecurity. Moreover, he was clearly emotionally damaged. He was prescribed individual therapy, but he did not receive such therapy at that time.\n10.  Meanwhile, the parents initiated divorce proceedings. The applicant was granted custody of M. with the mother’s consent. Following the taking of M. into public care on 24 November 1992, the applicant suffered from a nervous collapse and it appears that he was hospitalised for a short period of time.\n11.  On 24 November 1992 the Social Welfare Board (sosiaalilautakunta, socialnämnden) placed M. in public care in pursuance of the Child Welfare Act (lastensuojelulaki, barnskyddslagen; Act no. 683/1983, as amended by Act no. 13/1990). It had obtained an opinion dated 26 October 1992 by Drs H.L. and L.V. The order was based on the mother’s physically and mentally violent behaviour directed against M., on both parents’ incapacity to raise him and on the fact that the support measures provided so far, for instance day care, domestic assistance and contacts with the family guidance centre, had proven insufficient. The public care was aimed at M.’s placement in a substitute family.\n12.  The applicant consented to the taking into care, allegedly after severe pressure from social welfare officials. The mother also consented, considering herself unable to care for the child. Th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1842", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 13 December 1994, the applicant sold a horse to A.G. for PLN 2,500. Two days later the buyer returned the horse claiming that it was ill. The applicant was therefore forced to pay the costs of the horse’s upkeep during the following year. As A.G. constantly refused to take the horse back, the applicant sold it to another buyer, as he could not afford the costs of upkeep.\n5.  On 25 January 1995 A.G. lodged a suit against the applicant with the Tarnobrzeg District Court, claiming payment of the price.\n6.  On 14 March 1995 the applicant lodged a counter-claim for costs of the upkeep of the horse.\n7.  During the first hearing on 15 March 1995 the court admitted witness evidence and adjourned the case.\n8.  On 5 April 1995 the court heard witnesses and adjourned the case.\n9.  On 22 May 1995 the court admitted in evidence an opinion of a veterinary surgeon and adjourned the case.\n10.  On 25 July 1995 the expert submitted the opinion, stating that the horse was well and had never been ill.\n11.  On 6 September 1995 the court called an expert in agriculture, who estimated that the costs of upkeep of the horse had greatly exceeded its value. The court adjourned the case.\n12.  On 2 October 1995 the court heard the parties.\n13.  On 11 October 1995 the court delivered a judgment. Both parties appealed.\n14.  On 28 March 1996 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court to have it completed.\n15.  On 5 September 1996 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n16.  On 16 January 1997 the parties declared that they could not reach a friendly settlement.\n17.  On 9 October 1997 the court admitted the evidence of a witness and adjourned the case.\n18.  On 10 February 1997 a witness was heard and the case was adjourned.\n19.  On 9 April 1998 further witnesses were heard.\n20.  On 2 June 1998 the court admitted in evidence another expert’s opinion.\n21.  On 18 January 1999 the expert submitted the opinion.\n22.  On 31 March 1999 the court summoned the expert and adjourned the case.\n23.  On 5 May 1999 the court found that the plaintiff had not paid an advance for the expert’s opinion and adjourned the case until 2 June 1999. The expert failed to attend the hearing on that day and the case was adjourned until 25 June.\n24.  On 19 November 1999 the District Court delivered a judgment, ordering PLN 4,690 to be paid by the applicant with interest from 1995, and 903 PLN to be paid by A.G. to the applicant.\n25.  On 13 April 2000 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed the appeals of both parties.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1844", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Nedelišče.\n7.  On 29 November 1981 the applicant was injured in a car accident which was caused by V.D.\n8. On 16 May 1988 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against V.D. in the Celje Basic Court, Velenje Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Celju, Enota v Velenju), seeking damages for the injuries sustained.\nOn 24 March 1994 the court upheld the applicant’s claim in part.\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia.\nOn 29 June 1994, forward to the applicant’s appeal of 20 April 1994, the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 17 August 1994.\n9. Further to the reorganisation of the Slovenian judicial system, the case was transferred to the Celje District Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) on 30 December 1994.\nOn 13 February 1997 the judge to whom the case had been assigned was promoted and the case was consequently reassigned to a new judge.\nBetween 6 September 1994 and 2 June 1999 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nA hearing was held on 3 June 1999.\nOn 30 June 1999 the court delivered a judgment.\nThe judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 7 December 1999.\n10. On 22 December 1999 V.D. appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 4 July 2001 the court dismissed the appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 29 August 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1845", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Kursk.\n8.  The applicant worked as a forwarding agent for a catering enterprise. In January 1999 the enterprise’s director instructed him to sell 10 tonnes of flour. The applicant sold the flour, purchased certain foodstuffs with the money thus raised and paid the transportation expenses. The director refused to accept the foodstuffs and asked the applicant to remit the value of the flour. The applicant sold the foodstuffs but the amount raised was insufficient to cover that value. The applicant offered various other goods in payment of the outstanding amount. The director refused to accept them. It appears that the applicant was subsequently dismissed. In January 2000 criminal proceedings for embezzlement were brought against the applicant. From 25 January 2000 to 4 February 2000 he was held in pre-trial detention.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant fully reimbursed the value of the flour.\n10.  On 17 May 2000 the Leninskiy District Court of Kursk convicted the applicant of embezzlement. He was given a two-year suspended prison sentence and fined 2,087.25 Russian roubles (RUR), which he paid.\n11.  The Kursk Regional Court upheld the judgment on 20 June 2000.\n12.  On 18 July 2001, following an application for supervisory review lodged by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Russia, the Presidium of the Kursk Regional Court quashed the sentence and terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the basis that there was no indication that an offence had been committed.\n13.  On 17 August 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of Finance seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the criminal proceedings against him, in particular as a result of his detention between 25 January 2000 and 4 February 2000 and his conviction of 17 May 2000.\n14.  The Leninskiy District Court of Kursk partially granted the claim for damages on 12 November 2001.\n15.  On 18 December 2001 the Kursk Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n16.  The Leninskiy District Court of Kursk partially granted the claim for damages on 10 January 2002.\n17.  On 14 March 2002 the Kursk Regional Court once more quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n18.  On 16 April 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Kursk partially granted the claim for damages. The court awarded the applicant RUR 15,000 in damages and RUR 3,700 for costs. The judgment stated:\n“Under Article 1070 of the Civil Code, damage caused to a citizen as a result of unlawful conviction, unlawful criminal prosecution, unlawful application of detention as a preventive measure ... shall be compensated at the expense of the Treasury of the Russian Federation. ...\nUnder Article 1100 compensation for non-pecuniary damage shall be effectuated irrespective of the fault of the causer of the damage where the damage is caused as a result of unlawful conviction, unlawful criminal prosecution. ...\nOn the foregoing grounds ... the court has decided to award [damages] against the Ministry of Finance in favour of [Mr] Shatunov...”\n19.  By a final decision of 14 May 2002 the Kursk Regional Court varied the judgment and awarded the applicant RUR 25,000 in damages and RUR 4,700 for costs.\n20.  On 23 April 2002 the applicant brought proceedings seeking compensation for the fine he had been ordered to pay in the judgment of 17 May 2000.\n21.  By a final", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1846", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 21 January 1997 the applicant was injured in an accident at work in a lignite mine. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 24 July 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,215,600 tolars (approximately 5,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 3 February 1999 and 23 April 2002 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 11 February and 12 November 1998 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the five hearings held between 11 December 1998 and 24 September 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert who was ultimately replaced by another medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 20 November 2002.\n8.  On 22 November 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and further requested that the first-instance court corrects its judgment for typos and miscalculations. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 27 November 2002 the first-instance court corrected the judgment. The decision was served on the applicant on 29 November 2002.\nOn 7 April 2004 the Celje Higher Court allowed both appeals in part, decreased the damages awarded and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination of the decision on costs and expenses.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 4 May 2004\nZT requested that the court corrected the judgment for miscalculations.\nOn 13 May 2004 the court corrected the judgment.\nOn 4 June 2004 this decision was served on the applicant.\n9.  On 8 October 2004 the first-instance court delivered a new decision on costs and expenses.\n10.  On 19 October 2004 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.\nOn 9 November 2005 the court allowed the appeal and increased the amount awarded for costs and expenses. The decision was served on the applicant on 21 November 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1847", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Rome.\n6.  The applicant is the owner of two flats in Rome, which he had respectively let to C.C. and G.C.\n7.  In a registered letter of 14 June 1991, the applicant informed the tenants that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenants on 16 January 1992, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Rome Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 16 April 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 March 1993.\n10.  On 11 March 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 25 March 1995, he informed the tenants that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 May 1995.\n12.  On 5 May 1995, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession of the flats which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.\n13.  Pursuant to Law no. 241/90, on 2 November 1995, the applicant addressed himself to the Prefectoral Committee in order to be granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  The Prefectoral Committee informed the applicant that priority was given to landlords urgently requiring premises as accommodation for themselves, their spouses, children or ascendants and for seeking priority treatment he should have made a statutory declaration.\n15.  On 11 September 1999, the Rome Magistrate set the date of the eviction proceedings for 10 January 2000.\n16.  Then, pursuant to Law no. 388 of 23 December 2000, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 29 June 2001; Law-Decree no. 247/01 suspended them until 31 December 2001 and Law-Decree no. 450/01 suspended them until 30 June 2002.\n17.  On 25 November 2002, the applicant recovered possession of the flat which he had let to C.C.\n18.  Pursuant to Law no. 200 of 24 August 2003, Law-Decree no. 147/03 suspended the enforcement proceedings until 30 June 2004.\n19.  On an unspecified date in 2003, it appears that the applicant has recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1848", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Rodinske, the Donetsk region.\n6.  In 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnoarmiysk Town Court against the State Enterprise Rodinska Mine (the “MR”), seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. By decision of 13 January 1999, the court awarded the applicant UAH 3,204.07[1] in salary arrears and other payments.\n7.  On 4 February 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine liquidated the MR and appointed the State Enterprise “Krasnoarmiyskvugillya” as the MR’s successor.\n8.  On 9 October 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment in his favour could not be executed due to the lack of funds of the debtor and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.\n9.  In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnoarmiysk Town Court against the State Enterprise “Krasnoarmiyskvugillya” for compensation. By decision of 26 November 2003, the court awarded the applicant UAH 1,312.38[2] in compensation.\n10.  On 25 April 2005 the judgments in the applicant’s favour were enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1849", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Vienna, Austria.\n7.  On 16 May 1987 the applicant, who was a conscript, was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator or the accident was an employee of a private company IN which insured the vehicle with the insurance company ZT. At the time of the accident the perpetrator was driving the private company’s vehicle for the Yugoslav armed forces while conscripted under the order issued by the Celje Municipality Department of Defence.\n8.  On 7 August 1989 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“SFRY”) and ZT in the Celje Basic Court, Celje Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Celju, Enota v Celju) seeking damages for the injuries sustained.\nOn 2 July 1990 the court upheld the applicant’s claim in part.\n9.  On 13 September 1990 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). SFRY and ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 13 March 1991 the court allowed the appeals and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n10.  On 4 September 1992 the first-instance court stayed the proceedings, because SFRY ceased to exist. The court advised the applicant that it would continue the proceedings once the legal successor of the SFRY took over the position of the defendant or upon the applicant’s request.\n11.  On 5 August 1994 the applicant lodged a request for continuation of the proceedings against the Republic of Slovenia (“RS”), the Succession Fund, the Celje Municipality and companies ZT and IN.\n12.  On 1 January 1995 the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.\n13.  On 5 February 1996 the court declared the case out of its jurisdiction and transferred it to the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju).\n14.  Between 31 January 1996 and 20 December 1999 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\n15.  The court held a hearing on 5 February 1996.\nBetween 11 February 1998 and 9 November 1998 the applicant made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nThe hearing scheduled for 18 December 1998 was adjourned because the applicant, who did not attend the hearing, needed to be heard. At the hearing, applicant’s legal representative informed that court that on that same day he had received a notice from the applicant explaining that he had moved to Austria.\nThe applicant failed to appear before the court on 29 January 1999 when the next hearing was held. At that time, the applicant resided in Austria and possessed a passport of SFRY which he could not use to exit Slovenia, had he entered it. Consequently the scheduled hearing was adjourned sine die, until the applicant would inform the court that he had acquired the required identification documents and could attend the hearing.\nThe court held a hearing on 20 December 1999 and the applicant attended it.\nAt the last hearing held on 14 February 2000 the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 4 May 2000.\n16.  On 12 May 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. RS cross-appealed.\n17.  On 23 May 2000 the first-instance court delivered a decision concerning the const and expenses of Celje Municipality.\nOn 18 July 2000 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Celje Higher Court.\n18.  On 31 May 2001 the court allowed the appeals co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1850", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in in the village of Novoselye, the Leningradskiy Region.\n5.  In 1995 the applicant entered into a contract with a joint-stock company “Energomashstroy” (ОАО «Энергомашстрой»). The contract stipulated that the applicant was under an obligation to transfer a sum of money to the company, whilst the latter undertook to build a flat for the applicant. Having moved into the new flat in January 1998, the applicant detected a number of constructional defects.\n6.  On 15 September 1998 the applicant brought an action against the company before the Lomonosovskiy District Court of the Leningradskiy Region (“the District Court”), seeking elimination of the above defects. Thereafter on 16 November 1998, 1 April and 17 September 1999, 26 April 2001, 21 July, 14 August and 15 December 2003 she supplemented and modified her claims, seeking the recovery of the money she had paid under the contract and damages.\n7.  On 10 December and 15 December 1998 the applicant requested the District Court to commence proceedings in her case. She received no responses to these requests.\n8.  On 1 March 1999 the applicant complained about delay in her case to the Court Administration Department at the Supreme Court of Russia (Управление Судебного департамента при Верховном Суде РФ, “the Court Department”). On 23 March 1999 the Court Department informed the applicant that the hearing in her case would be held on 26 March 1999.\n9.  On 26 March 1999 the District Court postponed the hearing until 14 May 1999 due to the parties’ failure to appear. The applicant submitted a request for examination of the case in her absence, whilst the defendant company requested the court to adjourn the hearing by reference to the belated delivery of the court summons.\n10.  On 14 May 1999 the hearing was postponed until 10 September 1999 because the judge was engaged in unrelated proceedings.\n11.  On 1 August 1999 the applicant requested the District Court to expedite the proceedings in her action.\n12.  On 10 September 1999 the hearing was adjourned until 8 October 1999 on the ground that the defendant’s representative was unable to appear as he was attending a hearing in an unrelated case, and then until 19 November 1999, as the court ordered the parties to submit certain documents. On the last mentioned date the hearing was postponed until 14 January 2000 and then until 25 January 2000 in view of the participation of the judge in unrelated proceedings.\n13.  On 23 November 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint about delays in her case with the Office of the President of Russia. In response, in a letter of 25 January 2000 the District Court notified the applicant that the hearing would take place on 26 January 2000.\n14.  On 26 January 2000 the District Court held a hearing and, upon the defendant’s request, ordered an expert examination of the applicant’s flat so as to ascertain its compliance with building standards. By the same decision the court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the examination. The applicant objected to the examination on the ground that such examination had already been performed by another expert body, and that she had already furnished its results with the court. According to the applicant, the District Court ignored her objection.\n15.  The applicant appealed against the above decision, and the case-file was transmitted to the Civil Section of the Leningradskiy Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). On 27 Apr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1851", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Vukovar.\n5.  The applicant had a specially protected tenancy of a flat in Vukovar. However, between 5 June 1997 and 24 February 2004 he lived and worked in Zagreb as Assistant Minister of Justice.\n6.  Following the peaceful reintegration of the Vukovar region, on 10 May 1998 certain S.Z. and D.Z. occupied the applicant’s flat.\n7.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Vukovar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vukovaru) to have S.Z. and D.Z. (“the respondents”) evicted.\n8.  On 10 December 1999 the court accepted the applicant’s claim and ordered the respondents to vacate the flat. It observed that the applicant had a specially protected tenancy of the flat and that the respondents had only been granted temporary use.\n9.  On 9 February 2000 the Vukovar County Court (Županijski sud u Vukovaru) dismissed the respondents’ appeal.\n10.  On 10 March 2000 the applicant sought enforcement of the Municipal Court’s judgment of 10 December 1999. On 21 April 2000 the Vukovar Municipal Court issued an eviction order. The respondents appealed, but their appeal was dismissed by the Vukovar County Court on 31 May 2002.\n11.  The applicant subsequently filed a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the proceedings. On 16 May 2003 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared his complaint inadmissible.\n12.  On 30 September 2003 a court bailiff went to the flat with a view to carrying out the eviction order, but the applicant agreed with the debtors to postpone the eviction until 20 November 2003. He asked for postponement on several occasions after that date.\n13.  On 29 January 2004 the respondents delivered the keys to the flat to the applicant.\n14.  On 6 February 2004 the Vukovar Municipal Court concluded the enforcement proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1852", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Vransko.\n6.  On 15 April 1997 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZM.\n7.  On 15 January 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZM in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,017,819 Slovenian tolars (approximately 8,410 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 1 September 1998 and 29 October 2001 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 4 March 1999 and 7 June 2000 she made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the two hearings held on 25 September 2000 and 29 October 2001, neither was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed three medical experts.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 17 December 2001.\n8.  On 19 December 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 2 April 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and accordingly increased the damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 23 April 2003.\n9.  On 24 April 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 13 October 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 25 November 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1853", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Topolščica.\n6.  On 27 June 1994 the applicant was injured in a car accident. She had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 22 December 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 11,003,980 tolars (approximately 46,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 11 January 1996 and 1 December 1998 the applicant lodged five preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 22 April 1996 and 7 May 1999 she made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the four hearings held between 19 November 1997 and 17 September 1999 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 21 December 1999.\n8.  On 31 December 1999 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 19 October 2000 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 15 January 2001.\n9.  On 14 March 2001 the first-instance court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment.\nThe judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 30 May 2001.\nOn 8 June 2001 the court corrected the typos and miscalculations in the judgment. The decision was served on the applicant on 12 June 2001.\n10.  On 8 June 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 3 October 2002 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal and raised the amount of damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 25 November 2002.\n11.  On 10 December 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) and requested the second-instance court to correct its judgment.\nOn 5 June 2003 the second-instance court corrected its judgment at the request of the applicant.\nOn 27 January 2005 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and increased the damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 14 March 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1854", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Vladimir, Russia.\n7.  On 20 July 2004 a criminal investigation into a financial fraud allegedly committed by the applicant in conspiracy with another person, was opened.\n8.  On 22 July 2004 the applicant’s flat was searched and she was informed about the suspicion against her.\n9.  On 23 July 2004 the applicant was arrested and charged with large-scale fraud, an offence under Article 159 § 3 of the Russian Criminal Code.\n10.  On 24 July 2004 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir ordered the applicant’s detention on the ground that she was suspected of a serious criminal offence and that she would abscond because her accomplice had already absconded. She could also destroy evidence because some documents had not yet been seized.\n11.  On 26 July 2004 the applicant sent her notice of appeal. She asked for a more lenient preventive measure and petitioned the court to take into account that she was charged with a financial crime, that she had no criminal record, had a permanent place of residence and employment in Vladimir, family ties, a stable way of life and two minor children aged four and three. If she wished, she could have absconded after the search in her flat. The fact that she had not fled from justice proved that she had no such intention. She also complained about inhuman conditions of her detention and sought leave to appear before the appeal court.\n12.  On 10 August 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the detention order of 24 July 2004, finding that it had been lawful, sufficiently reasoned and justified. In the Regional Court’s view, the District Court had correctly assessed the applicant’s “character” and other materials presented by the prosecutor. The appeal hearing took place in the presence of the prosecutor who repeated the arguments advanced before the District Court and two counsels for the applicant. The applicant’s request for leave to appear in person was refused because her arguments were clearly set out in her notice of appeal and did not require additional clarifications.\n13.  On 22 September 2004 the Frunzenskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 November 2004. The court grounded its decision on the gravity of the charge against the applicant and on the possibility that she could abscond or obstruct justice.\n14.  On 27 September 2004 the applicant appealed. She complained that the decision of 22 September 2004 was not sufficiently motivated, that the court did not take into account her individual situation, that the conditions of her detention were inhuman. She asked for release on bail.\n15.  The appeal hearing was scheduled for 19 October 2004. On that day the hearing was adjourned because the applicant had not been brought to the courthouse.\n16.  On 3 November 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court found that there were no reasons to vary the preventive measure and upheld the decision of 22 September 2004.\n17.  On 22 November 2004 the Frunzenskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 December 2004, finding as follows:\n“... it is necessary to carry out many investigative actions with [the applicant’s] participation.\n[The applicant] is charged with a serious criminal offence. Besides, the prosecution submitted documents showing that, once released, [the applicant] can flee from justice and interfere with the establishment of the truth.\nThe court sees no reasons to vary or cancel the preventive measure applied to [the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1855", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the town of Ternivka, the Dnipropetrovsk region.\n6.  The applicant is the former employee of the Pavlogradska State Mine. He is suffering from an occupational disease.\n7.  On 8 October 2001 the Ternivka Town Court ordered the Mine to pay the applicant UAH 13,678[1] in occupational disability allowance arrears.\n8.  On 14 November 2001 the Pavlograd Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n9.  According to the Government, the judgment was enforced in instalments: during the periods of November – December 2001, March – December 2002, August – December 2003, and July – November 2004 the applicant received a total of UAH 10,472[2], and on 21 December 2004 he received UAH 3,206[3].\n10.  The applicant did not contest that the judgment had been enforced in full on the latter date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1856", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Krivoborye, Voronezh Region.\n8.  On 25 July 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery.\n9.  On 27 July 2001 the Prosecutor ordered the pre-trial detention of the applicant as a preventive measure.\n10.  The applicant filed a complaint on 6 August 2001 with the Liskinskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region and on 7 August 2001 with the Voronezh Regional Court, claiming that his detention was unlawful.\n11.  On 9 August 2001 the applicant lodged an application for release pending trial with the Voronezh Regional Court. The application was sent by the administration of the remand prison on the same date and was received by that court on 14 August 2001.\n12.  On 16 August 2001 the applicant lodged another application for release pending trial with the Voronezh Regional Court. On the same date the Voronezh Regional Court forwarded the applicant’s application for release to the Zhelesnodorozhniy District Court of Voronezh. It is unclear whether that application was the one dated 9 August or 16 August 2001.\n13.  On 23 and 27 August 2001 the applicant again lodged applications for release pending trial with the Voronezh Regional Court. The application of 23 August 2001 was sent by the administration of the remand prison on the same date and was received by that court on 27 August 2001.\n14.  The Government submitted that on 23 August 2001 the Voronezh Regional Court had sent the applicant certain clarifications concerning Article 220-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n15.  The applicant submitted that on 27 August 2001 he had received a reply from the Voronezh Regional Court informing him that all his complaints and applications had been transmitted to the Liskinskiy District Court.\n16.  On 31 August 2001 the Voronezh Regional Court forwarded the applicant’s application to the Liskinskiy District Court. It is unclear to which of the applications this corresponded.\n17.  On 7 September 2001 the applicant was transferred to a different remand prison.\n18.  On 11 September 2001 the investigative authorities forwarded certain documents from the applicant’s case file to the Zhelesnodorozhniy District Court for examination under Article 220-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n19.  On 20 September 2001 the Liskinskiy District Court forwarded the applicant’s application for release pending trial to the Zhelesnodorozhniy District Court referring to the fact that the applicant was being held in a remand prison within the latter court’s jurisdiction. The application was received by the Zhelesnodorozhniy District Court on 24 September 2001.\n20.  On 26 September 2001 the administration of the remand prison where the applicant used to be held informed the Zhelesnodorozhniy District Court that the applicant could not be conveyed to a hearing on that date because on 7 September 2001 he had been transferred to the Liskinskiy District. It appears that the hearing was supposed to concern the application for release pending trial.\n21.  On 2 October 2001 the Zhelesnodorozhniy District Court forwarded the applicant’s applications for release pending trial to the Liskinskiy District Court. It is unclear which particular applications were concerned.\n22.  On 3 October 2001 the administration of the remand prison where the applicant used to be held again informed the Zhelesnodorozhniy District Court that the applicant could not be conveyed to a hearing on that date because on 7 September 2001 he had been trans", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1857", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Trapani. He is an oil producer.\n8.  On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant, who was charged with attempted extortion, attempted arson and arson, and (under Article 416 bis of the Criminal Code) with being a member of a mafia-type criminal association based in Sicily.\n9.  By an order of 12 July 1999, the Palermo preliminary investigations judge (giudice per le indagini preliminari), considering that there were “substantial indications” of the applicant’s guilt, remanded him in custody. As to the existence of special requirements (esigenze cautelari) justifying his detention pending trial under Article 274 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the preliminary investigations judge observed that on account of his involvement in a criminal organisation the applicant had contacts which might enable him to reoffend, abscond, or pervert the course of justice. Moreover, given that the applicant had also been charged with the offence provided for under Article 416 bis of the Criminal Code, the requirements referred to in Article 274 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were to be presumed to have been met unless there was proof to the contrary.\n10.  The applicant appealed against the order of 12 July 1999.\n11.  By an order of 2 August 1999, the division of the Palermo District Court responsible for reviewing precautionary measures (“the Specialised Division”), finding that the preliminary investigations judge had not correctly assessed the evidence of the applicant’s guilt, set aside the order of 12 July 1999 and ordered the applicant’s release.\n12.  The public prosecutor’s office appealed on points of law. It alleged in particular that the Specialised Division had given the reasons for its decision in an illogical and contradictory manner.\n13.  The Court of Cassation set the case down for a hearing on 15 February 2000. No summons to appear was served on the applicant or his lawyer.\n14.  The hearing was held on the scheduled date.\n15.  In a judgment of 15 February 2000, the Court of Cassation quashed the order of 2 August 1999, finding it to have been illogical and contradictory. It remitted the case to the Specialised Division, indicating the legal principles to which the Division should adhere.\n16.  The Specialised Division set the case down for a hearing on 4 April 2000. On that date Mr Oddo sought leave to produce additional evidence. He also argued that the judgment of 15 February 2000 was null and void as he had not been informed of the date of the hearing. He alleged that Article 627 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided that grounds of nullity that had not been examined previously could not be submitted before the court to which the case was remitted, breached the rights of the defence. Consequently, he requested that the provision in question be waived.\n17.  The Specialised Division agreed to the inclusion of the new evidence requested by Mr Oddo. Relying on Article 627 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it dismissed the objection that the judgment of 15 February 2000 was null and void.\n18.  On 13 April 2000 the Specialised Division upheld the preliminary investigations judge’s order of 12 July 1999 in respect of two of the charges and set aside the remaining provisions.\n19.  The applicant was then arrested and remanded in custody.\n20.  On 15 May 2000 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation, again claiming that the judgment of 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1858", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 8 March 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against an insurance company (“the respondent”) seeking compensation for damage caused by a fire in her house. On 2 July 1993 the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) dismissed her claim.\n6.  On appeal, on 6 February 1996 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings, the court held several hearings and heard two witnesses through the Biograd Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Biogradu). On 1 June 1999 the Zagreb Municipal Court gave a new judgment awarding the applicant the damages in part. Both parties appealed.\n8.  On 5 December 2000 the Zagreb County Court again quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, on 8 March 2001 the court requested the applicant to provide the addresses of the witnesses she had proposed. The applicant did not comply with this request.\n10.  The court held further hearings on 22 November 2002, 4 April, 12 September and 5 December 2003.\n11.  On 5 October 2004 the court gave judgment accepting the applicant’s claim in part.\n12.  Both parties appealed and the proceedings are still pending before the second-instance court.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 31 October 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. On 9 April 2003 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed her complaint as ill-founded, finding that the competent courts acted expeditiously and that the only delay in the proceedings (between 8 March 2001 and 22 November 2002) was attributable to the applicant on account of her failure to provide the addresses of the proposed witnesses.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1860", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Livorno.\n6.  He is the owner of a flat in Livorno, which he had let to I.M.\n7.  In a registered letter of 20 February 1990, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 1 September 1990 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 22 September 1990, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.\n9.  By a decision of 8 October 1990, which was made enforceable on 11 October 1990, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 March 1992.\n10.  On 9 April 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n11.  On 28 April 1992, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.\n12.  On 30 May 1992, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 23 June 1992.\n13.  Between 23 June 1992 and 29 November 2001, the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n14.  In the meanwhile, pursuant to Article 6 of Law No. 431 of 1998, on 15 July 1999, the tenant asked the Livorno Magistrate to postpone the enforcement proceedings. On 7 April 2000, the Livorno Magistrate set a fresh date for 24 November 2000.\n15.  On 9 July 2001, the tenant asked the Livorno Magistrate to postpone the enforcement proceedings.\n16.  On 20 July 2001, the Livorno Magistrate decided to provisionally suspend the enforcement and adjourned the hearing until 5 October 2001.\n17.  On 5 October 2001, the hearing was reported to 19 October 2001.\n18.  On 26 October 2001, the Livorno Magistrate ordered that the premises be vacated as soon as possible.\n19.  On 6 December 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1861", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in the town of Yalta. The applicant suffers from the diseases resulting in the highest recognised degree of disability, including arterial hypertension, sclerosis of the cerebral vessels and circulatory encephalopathy. In 1988 the authorities provided the applicant with a specially equipped car in order to facilitate his movement.\n6.  On 9 June 1997 the applicant’s car was damaged in a traffic accident, involving a car driven by Mrs F.\n7.  On the same date a traffic police officer drew up a report, stating that the applicant was responsible for the accident, and started administrative offence proceedings against him. On 19 June 1997 the Deputy Chief Officer of the Yalta Town Police Department discontinued these proceedings, finding no fault.\n8.  On 12 July 1997 the same officer found that Mrs F. was responsible for the accident and fined her with UAH 40[1].\n9.  On 26 August 1997 the Yalta Town Court quashed the decision of 12 July 1997 and ordered the police to conduct a further examination of the case. It held that the police had based their decisions on the conclusions of a person whose competence to give an official expert opinion had not been verified.\n10.  On 25 September 1997 the police drew up another report in which they reiterated their conclusions of 12 July 1997. The police, however, could not institute administrative proceedings against Mrs F., as they were time-barred.\n11.  In July 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Yalta Town Court (“the Yalta Court”) against Mrs F., seeking compensation. The applicant alleged that he had suffered pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage because of the accident. According to the applicant, his car was a write-off and unusable.\n12.  On 22 August and 5 September1997 the case was adjourned pending the outcome of the proceedings against Mrs F. concerning an administrative offence arising out of the incident.\n13.  On 11 September 1997 the applicant challenged this procedural decision of 5 September 1997 before the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic Crimea (“the ARC”).\n14.  On 6 October 1997 the Supreme Court of the ARC rejected the applicant’s complaint.\n15.  In November 1997 the Yalta Court rejected the defendant’s request for an expert examination of the accident.\n16.  On 3 December 1997 the applicant amended his original claims.\n17.  On 5 December 1997 the court found for the applicant and ordered Mrs F. to pay him UAH 1,641[2] in compensation.\n18.  On 19 January 1998 the Supreme Court of the ARC adjourned the consideration of the defendant’s appeal in cassation due to the applicant’s failure to appear for the hearing.\n19.  On 9 February 1998 the Supreme Court of the ARC quashed the judgment of the first instance court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n20.  On 17 April 1998 the Yalta Court ordered an expert examination of the accident at the defendant’s expense and suspended the proceedings.\n21.  On 29 September 1998 the Yalta Court was informed about the conclusions of the expert examination.\n22.  On 16 October 1998 the court postponed a hearing due to the applicant’s illness.\n23.  On 4 November 1998 the applicant lodged a motion with the court to have the judge dealing with his case withdrawn from the proceedings.\n24.  On 5 November 1998 the case was transferred to another judge of the same court.\n25.  On 1 December 1998 the hearing was adjourned following the applicant’s request.\n26.  On 2 December 1998 the court he", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1862", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 25 August 1994 the applicant was severely injured in an accident at work in a carpenters’ workshop. VE, the applicant’s employer, had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 31 July 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against VE and ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 10,337,422 tolars (approximately 43,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nHe also sought an exemption from court fees.\nBetween 30 December 1997 and 5 September 2001 the applicant lodged twenty-six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 30 December 1997 and 3 January 2001 he made eight requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the four hearings held between 18 January 1999 and 28 March 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed commission of three medical experts and two additional medical experts.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 15 April 2002.\nOn 10 April 2002 the court asked the applicant to complete his request for an exemption from court fees. Since the applicant failed to comply, the court dismissed his request on 24 April 2002.\n8.  On 18 April 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) against the first-instance court’s judgment and also requested that the court amended the judgment. ZT and VE cross-appealed.\nThe first instance-court corrected the judgment on 24 April 2002.\nOn 28 August 2002 the applicant appealed against the decision on the exemption from court fees.\nOn 4 December 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeals in part and dismissed the VE’s and ZT’s appeal. The court remitted the case, in the part referring to the exemption from court fees, to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 19 January 2004.\n9.  On 30 January 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). ZT and VE cross-appealed.\nOn 1 December 2005 the court allowed the appeals in part and lowered the amount of the damages awarded. The judgment was served on the applicant on 20 January 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1863", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Aleksin in the Tula Region.\n5.  On 11 October 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court of Tula granted the applicant’s claim against the Tula Regional Department of the Federal Employment Service and awarded him RUR 5,294.69 (EUR 197). On 16 April 2002 the Tula Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n6.  On 23 May 2002 the Sovetskiy District Court altered the judgment, indicating that the award was payable by the Ministry of Finance at the expense of the Treasury.\n7.  On 12 February 2003 the Tula Regional Department of the Ministry of Finance applied for supervisory review of the judgment. On 31 August 2004 the Tula Regional Court refused their application.\n8.  On 3 December 2004 the Treasury paid the amount outstanding to the applicant’s bank account.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1864", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Ruše.\n6.  On 15 January 1992 the applicant instituted denationalization proceedings in the Ruše Municipality (Občina Ruše) seeking restitution of a property previously owned by her grandmother.\nOn 17 April 1992 the Municipality forwarded the applicant’s claim to the Maribor Basic Court, Maribor Unit (Temeljno Sodišče v Mariboru, enota v Mariboru). The court dismissed her claim twice and declared a lack of jurisdiction in the case. However, both decisions had been quashed on appeal and the case was ultimately considered by the renamed Maribor Local Court (Okrajno Sodišče v Mariboru).\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia.\nOf the four hearings held between 8 December 1994 and 27 May 1999, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nOn 5 May 2000 the court gave a judgement dismissing the applicant’s claim.\n7.  On 23 May 2000 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru).\nOn 26 September 2000 the court allowed her appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n8. On 13 November 2001 the first-instance court held a hearing.\nOn 5 July 2002 the court found that the legal grounds for the denationalisation proceedings existed but suspended the part of the proceedings concerning the form and means of restitution until the decision concerning the legal grounds became final.\n9. On 19 July 2002 the first defendant (the National Farm Land and Forest Fund, represented by the State Attorney) and on 23 August 2002 the second defendant (the Selnica ob Dravi Agricultural Cooperative) appealed against that decision to the Maribor Higher Court.\n On 22 October 2002 the court allowed the appeals and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination by a new judge.\n10. Between 12 November 2003 and 7 November 2005 the Maribor Local Court held four hearings. A hearing scheduled for 2 March 2005 was called off on the applicant’s request.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed two experts to assess the property at issue.\nBetween 14 January and 9 February 2005 the applicant lodged three written submissions in which she disagreed with the estimated costs for one of the expert opinions.\nOn 9 November 2005 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.\nThe proceedings are still pending.\n11. Throughout the proceedings, the applicant lodged three requests for supervision with the President of the Maribor Local Court and three petitions with the Human Rights Ombudsman (Varuh človekovih pravic) complaining about the length of the denationalisation proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1865", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Jelsa.\n5.  The applicant’s mother died on 1 May 1994 and inheritance proceedings were opened before the Stari Grad Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Starom Gradu).\n6.  On 8 June 1999 the court issued a decision distributing the property between the applicant and his brother. The relevant part of that decision reads:\n... the land registry division of this court shall register the ownership of the heirs [listed above], once [that part of the decision] becomes final...\n7.  Subsequently, the applicant’s brother lodged an appeal against that decision complaining about the ruling on the costs of the proceedings.\n8.  On 12 April 2002 the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) declared the appeal inadmissible. The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 22 May 2002.\n9.  It would appear that the applicant’s ownership of the inherited property has to date not been recorded in the land register.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1866", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Limassol.\n5.  The applicant is the owner of immovable property in the area of Tseri-Gerovounos.\n6.  On 30 September 1994 the applicant applied to the Director of the Nicosia District Land Registry for the provision of a right of way to his plot, which was enclaved, via adjacent properties.\n7.  On 9 January 1995 the director carried out the required local inquiry.\n8.  On 9 January 1996 the director delivered his decision determining the right of way.\n9.  On 8 February 1996 the owner of the affected property (of the servient tenement) filed an appeal before the District Court of Nicosia against both the applicant and the director, challenging the latter’s decision concerning the course and extent of the right of way granted to the applicant (appeal no. 86/96 Anna Moeseos v. Director of Land and Surveys of the District Land Office and Andreas Gavrielides).\n10.  All the pleadings were completed by 29 April 1996 and the case was fixed for directions for 13 May 1996.\n11.  On 13 May 1996 the case was adjourned until 12 June 1996 at the parties’ request. From the latter date until 8 November 1996 it was adjourned three times at the appellant’s request. On 8 November 1996 the court fixed the case for 5 February 1997 but on that date it was adjourned at the appellant’s request until 4 March 1997. When the last adjournment was requested, the applicant strongly objected and complained to the court about the continuous adjournments. The court stated that this would be the final time it would fix the court for mention.\n12.  On 3 March 1997 the case was fixed for hearing for 20 June 1997.\n13.  The case was then adjourned until 30 June 1997 due to the applicant’s absence and to 22 September 1997 with the parties’ agreement for the purposes of a possible friendly settlement. On the latter date the case was set for hearing for 9 December 1997.\n14.  On the above date the hearing was adjourned following a preliminary objection by the director’s lawyer in that the director should not be a party to the proceedings and his request for a hearing in this connection.\n15.  On 19 December 1997 the district court issued an interim decision ruling that a written application should be made for a preliminary trial and the case was set for mention for 23 January 1998. It was then adjourned however to 16 February 1998 since service of the application to the applicant had not taken place and then fixed for mention for 10 March 1998.\n16.  On 11 March 1998 the proceedings against the director were dismissed by the district court and the appeal was fixed for hearing for 3 July 1998.\n17.  Subsequently, the hearing was adjourned twice at the appellant’s request; from 3 July 1998 to 22 December 1998 and on that date until 8 January 1999. The applicant was absent on both occasions. The hearing was held on the latter date in the applicant’s absence and the district court upheld the appeal and annulled the director’s decision awarding costs in favour of the appellant.\n18.  On 18 February 1999 the applicant filed an application before the district court requesting that the judgment be set aside. He alleged that he had been unable to attend two of the hearing dates for health reasons (he had, inter alia, been abroad for treatment) and submitted medical certificates in this respect. He also claimed that he had not received the notification for the third hearing date in due time. At the material time the applicant was not represented by", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1867", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Radovljica.\n6.  During the works on a nearby motorway, some plots of the applicant’s land were damaged by the investor – the National Road Administration of Ljubljana (“the NRAL”).\n7.  On 4 July 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the NRAL in the Kranj Basic Court, Radovljica Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Kranju, Enota v Radovljici), seeking compensation in the amount of 2,487,490 Slovenian tolars (approximately 10,370 euros).\nOn 22 April 1993 the court held a hearing and decided to appoint an expert to assess the damage sustained by the applicant.\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia.\nOn 10 October 1994 the applicant appealed against the court’s decision on the expert’s costs. On 9 January 1995 he also appealed against the subsequently issued correcting decision concerning these costs. On 27 February 1996 the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) rejected the second applicant’s appeal.\nIn the meantime, the Slovenian judicial system was reorganized and the Kranj District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Kranju), on 1 January 1995, obtained jurisdiction in the present case.\nOn 6 May 1998 the applicant made a request that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the two hearings held on 11 March and 7 June 1999, neither was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 4 September 1999.\n8.  On 17 September 1999 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court. The NRAL cross-appealed.\nOn 23 March 2000 the applicant made a request to expedite the proceedings.\nOn 11 October 2000, the Higher Court upheld both appeals and the case was remitted to the first-instance court for re-examination. The decision was served on the applicant on an unspecified date.\n9.  In the re-examination proceedings, between 28 March and 3 December 2001, the applicant filed three written submissions.\nThe court appointed a new expert to asses the damage.\nOf the three hearings held between 28 May 2001 and 18 September 2003, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant. However, one hearing fixed for 3 May 2001 was called off on the applicant’s request.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 2 December 2003.\n10. On 15 December 2003 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court.\nOn 2 March 2005 the court upheld the applicant’s appeal regarding the costs of the proceedings and in this part remitted the case to the first instance court. The court rejected the remainder of the appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 5 April 2005.\n11. On 30 March 2005 the Kranj District Court issued a new decision on the costs of the proceedings, which was served on the applicant on 6 April 2005.\n12.  On 18 April 2005 the applicant appealed also against this decision.\nOn 23 November 2005, the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 13 December 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1868", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in the town of Malaya Vyska, the Kirovograd region, Ukraine.\n6.  On 9 April 1997 the applicant sold his house for UAH 35,000[1] to the Kirovograd Regional Department of Justice (hereafter “the Department”), responsible for the logistical support of the judiciary. The Department was represented in the transaction by Mr R., the President of the Malaya Vyska City Court. The contract was certified by a notary and specified that the purchase price had to be paid in two instalments: UAH 5,000 and 30,000 to be paid by 1 May 1997 and 1 September 1997 respectively. The contract also contained a clause stating the following:\n“In case if the exchange rate of the Hryvna depreciates the overall sum to be paid cannot be less than the Hryvna equivalent of USD 17,000.”\n7.  In June 1997 the applicant was paid UAH 5,000. In 1998 the Hryvna substantially weakened against US dollar. In October 1998 and August 1999 the applicant received UAH 11,000 and 20,000 respectively.\n8.  The applicant instituted proceedings against the Department, claiming that it had failed to fulfil its obligations under the contract, as the sum paid did not take into account the substantial depreciation of the exchange rate of the Hryvna. Thus, according to the applicant, he had lost some USD 6,553.\n9.  On 4 November 1999 the Kirovsky District Court of Kirovograd (hereafter “the District Court”) rejected this claim as unsubstantiated. On 8 September 2000 the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court, following the protest (extraordinary appeal) of the Deputy President of this court, quashed the judgment and remitted the case.\n10.  On 29 November 2000, in the course of a new hearing, the Department lodged a counterclaim seeking the annulment of the contract on the ground that Mr R. had exceeded his powers in agreeing to the dollar value clause.\n11.  On 24 July 2001 the Kirovsky District Court of Kirovograd granted the applicant’s claim and rejected that of the Department. The court established that the clause in issue aimed at ensuring the stability of the contract and protecting the applicant against inflation. The court further found that the applicant had suffered increased financial losses due to the erosion of the Hryvna’s purchasing power during the lengthy delay in execution of the contract. It found that the amount eventually paid to him on the date of the final transaction had only been USD 10,457.50. The court awarded the applicant UAH 35,527.77 in compensation for the devaluation of the Hryvna, UAH 3,197.31 in statutory interest for the delay and UAH 502.13 in court costs.\n12.  The Department appealed against this judgment and, on 20 December 2001, the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal (hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) quashed it and rejected the applicant’s claim. The court found in favour of the Department on both of their objections. It noted that Mr R. had acted ultra vires by conceding the inclusion of the disputed provision in the contract without the prior consent from the Department. The Court of Appeal further stated that, according to Article 3 of the Governmental Decree on the Regime of Currency Regulation and Currency Control 1993 (the 1993 Decree), the Hryvna was the only currency which could be used for internal transactions. The court did not find convincing the District Court’s argument that the impugned clause protected the applicant from inflation, since Article 214 of the Civil Code 1963 provided for compe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1869", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Rostov in the Yaroslavl Region.\n5.  On 5 October 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of theft. On 19 April 2001 the proceedings were discontinued as no indications of a criminal offence had been established.\n6.  The applicant sued the Ministry of the Interior for the damage sustained through the unlawful prosecution.\n7.  On 26 September 2001 the Rostovskiy District Court of the Yaroslavl Region granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him RUR 5,000 (EUR 184). As no appeal had been lodged within the ten-day statutory time-limit, on 8 October 2001 the judgment became binding and the District Court issued the applicant with a writ of enforcement.\n8.  On 15 November 2001 the Moscow bailiffs returned the writ to the applicant, indicating that he should have submitted it directly to the Ministry of Finance.\n9.  On 14 January 2002 the applicant sent the writ to the Ministry of Finance which acknowledged its receipt on 11 February 2002.\n10.  On 25 April 2002 the Ministry of Finance forwarded the writ to the Ministry of the Interior. According to the Government, the Ministry of the Interior decided that payment should be effected by the Ministry of Finance and returned the writ.\n11.  On 16 May 2003 the Ministry of Finance asked the Ministry of the Interior whether the judgment had been appealed against. On 21 August 2003 the Ministry of the Interior responded to the inquiry.\n12.  On 10 September 2003 the Ministry of Finance paid the amount outstanding to the applicant’s bank account. The applicant was not informed about the payment.\n13.  In November 2003 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office about prolonged non-enforcement of the judgment. On 18 December 2003 the Office forwarded his letter to the Ministry of Finance. No further replies have been received.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1870", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in the town of Makyyvka, the Donetsk region.\n6.  The applicant is an employee of the State Joint Stock Company “Mine Zuyevska”.\n7.  In 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Khartsyzk Town Court against his employer seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation.\n8.  On 6 November 2000 the court found for the applicant and ordered the company to pay him UAH 860.90 (around 142 euros – “EUR”). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 17 November 2000.\n9.  On 6 December 2000 the Zhdanivskyi Local Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n10.  According to the Government, by two instalments of 16 and 18 September 2003, the full amount awarded by the judgment was transferred to the applicant’s bank account. The applicant did not contest this fact.\n11.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Khartsyzk Town Court against his employer seeking recovery of salary arrears and higher sums of disability benefits, which had been allegedly incorrectly calculated by the defendant.\n12.  On 7 May 2001 the court found in part for the applicant. The court ordered the company to pay the applicant UAH 975.94 (around 161 euros – “EUR”) in salary arrears and UAH 590 (around 98 euros – “EUR”) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and rejected the applicant’s claim for higher sums of disability benefits.\n13.  The applicant did not appeal in cassation against this judgment, as he did not trust the higher judicial authorities.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1871", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1957 and 1955 respectively and live in Florence.\n7.  E.M., the applicants’ father, was the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to G.B.\n8.  In a registered letter of 10 October 1988, the applicants’ father informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 23 May 1989 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.\n9.  The tenant told the owner that he would not leave the premises.\n10.  In the meanwhile, on 22 February 1989, the applicants’ father died and the applicants inherited the flat.\n11.  In a writ served on the tenant on 12 December 1990, they reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.\n12.  By a decision of 12 February 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 January 1992.\n13.  On 30 January 1992, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.\n14.  On 11 March 1992, they informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 April 1992.\n15.  On 4 April 1992, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves.\n16.  Between 24 April 1992 and 28 September 2000, the bailiff made fifteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.\n17.  On 12 October 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat.\n18.  On 19 January 2001 the first applicant sued the tenant before the Florence District Court seeking damages for the loss she had sustained as a result of the tenant’s refusal to quit the flat and because of the flat’s bad condition on restitution. On 11 February 2003 the second applicant sold his share in the flat to the first applicant.\n19.  During the preparation of the case for trial expert evidence was filed and witnesses were heard.\n20.  In a judgment of 28 May 2003, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 4 June 2003, the Florence District Court allowed the applicant 2,241.47 euros (EUR) for the works to be carried out in the flat and EUR 25,045.89 for the damage sustained on account of the flat’s unavailability, plus interest and the reimbursement of the costs and expenses.\n21.  On 7 June 2003 the applicant discovered that the former tenant (G.B.) had sold all his real property to members of his family in 2002. On 11 September 2003, the applicant served notice on G.B. to pay the amount owed. On 14 November 2003 the bailiff made a seizure of G.B.’s goods, but only up to an amount of EUR 1,500 because there was nothing more to be seized.\n22.  On 21 November 2003 G.B. notified the applicant that he had lodged an appeal with the Florence Court of Appeal. On 25 March 2004 the Court of Appeal rejected G.B.’s claim and ordered him to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings.\n23.  On 8 October 2004 the company in charge of the auction by order of the Court (“Istituto Vendite Giudiziarie s.r.l.”) informed the judge that it could not have access to the goods seized because the door of G.B.’s flat was closed or he refused to give the goods and asked the judge to grant the assistance of the police on 16 November 2004. The judge granted the assistance on 11 October 2004.\n24.  On 30 June 2005 the ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1872", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Velenje.\n7.  On 22 March 1994 and 11 February 1995 the applicant was injured while working for the Slovenian employer GVV in Russia. He consequently instituted two sets of civil proceedings in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages for the injuries sustained. In both proceedings an insurance company ZT was acting as an intervening party.\nFirst set of proceedings\n8.  On 21 January 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against GVV seeking damages in the amount of 2,050,000 tolars (approximately 8,550 euros) for the injuries sustained on 22 March 1994.\nBetween 23 July 1998 and 26 February 2001 the applicant lodged eight written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 24 November 1997 and 3 November 1999 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the ten hearings held between 23 April 1998 and 27 February 2001, one was adjourned due to the absence of both parties and one was adjourned due to the absence of the applicant\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 19 April 2001.\n9.  On 26 April 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). GVV cross-appealed.\nOn 10 October 2002 the court dismissed both appeals.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 28 October 2002.\n10.  On 15 November 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 19 February 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 22 March 2004.\nSecond set of proceedings\n11.  On 9 June 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against GVV seeking damages in the amount of 2,056,616 tolars (approximately 8,570 euros) for the injuries sustained on 11 February 1995.\nBetween 12 March 1998 and 25 September 2001 the applicant lodged nine preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 12 November 1997 and 12 November 1999 he made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the five hearings held between 11 January 2000 and 23 October 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 14 January 2002.\n12.  On 15 January 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.\nOn 12 March 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and increased the damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 5 June 2003.\n13.  On 12 June 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 9 December 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 13 January 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1873", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Gračanica, Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n5.  On 18 September 2000 the applicant sought enforcement of a judgment awarding him compensation following an employment dispute with the company G. (“the debtor”). He applied for enforcement on the debtor’s bank account and on its movable property.\n6.  On 6 February 2001 the Slatina Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Slatini) issued en enforcement order, which became final on 21 February 2001.\n7.  On 24 October 2001 the court made a list of the debtor’s movable property in the applicant’s absence and scheduled a public auction for 25 January 2002. The auction was unsuccessful.\n8.  Another public auction was held on 16 April 2002, which was again unsuccessful, as no bids were made.\n9.  On 12 August 2002 the court made a new list of the debtor’s movables on which the applicant, who had been duly summoned, did not appear.\n10.  On 28 October 2003 the applicant requested an injunction prohibiting the debtor to transfer or encumber shares it held in other companies.\n11.  On 19 November 2003 the court held yet another unsuccessful public auction.\n12.  On 6 July 2004 the applicant requested the court to order that the debtor should disclose its assets (prokazni popis imovine).\n13.  On 23 July 2004 the debtor paid the applicant the principal amount of his claim, stating that it would satisfy the remainder of the claim within eight days.\n14.  On 17 August 2004 the applicant informed the court that the claim had not been settled in full. The court forwarded the applicant’s submission to the debtor, for observations.\n15.  On 27 September 2004 and 19 January 2005 the court imposed fines on the debtor, for failure to comply with its orders.\n16.  On the latter date the court also denied the applicant’s motion for the disclosure of the debtor’s assets. At the same time, the court also dismissed the applicant’s motion for injunction prohibiting the transfer of the debtor’s shares. Instead it instructed the applicant to provide a detailed list and addresses of companies in which the debtor held such shares. On 25 January 2005 the applicant submitted the requested information.\n17.  The proceedings are still pending.\n18.  Meanwhile, on 10 June 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings.\n19.  On 2 October 2002 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared his complaint inadmissible finding that the enforcement order had already been issued.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1874", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The present application was brought by five applicants, all of whom are Swedish nationals: (1) Ms Ingrid Segerstedt-Wiberg (born in 1911), (2) Mr Per Nygren (born in 1948), (3) Mr Staffan Ehnebom (born in 1952), (4) Mr Bengt Frejd (born in 1948) and (5) Mr Herman Schmid (born in 1939). The first applicant lives in Gothenburg, the second applicant lives in Kungsbacka and the third and fourth applicants live in Västra Frölunda, Sweden. The fifth applicant lives in Copenhagen, Denmark.\n9.  The first applicant is the daughter of a well-known publisher and anti-Nazi activist, Mr Torgny Segerstedt. From 1958 to 1970 she was a Liberal member of parliament. During that period she was a member of the Standing Committee on the Constitution (konstitutionsutskottet). She has also been Chairperson of the United Nations Association of Sweden. She is a prominent figure in Swedish political and cultural life.\n10.  On 22 April 1998, relying on section 9A of the Police Register Act (lag om polisregister m.m., 1965:94), the first applicant made a request to the Minister of Justice for access to her Security Police records. She said that she had become aware of certain material held by the foreign service of the United States of America from which it appeared that since the Second World War she and others had been under continuous surveillance, in particular because of her work for the United Nations Association of Western Sweden. That information had originated from Sweden and had apparently been communicated by the United States to other countries in order to cause her damage and harm her work for the protection of refugees. She also referred to the spreading of rumours that she was “unreliable” in respect of the Soviet Union. Those rumours had started during the 1956 parliamentary elections, but had not prevented her, a couple of years later, being returned to Parliament or sitting on its Standing Committee on the Constitution.\nBy a decision of 17 June 1998, the Ministry of Justice refused her request. It pointed out that absolute secrecy applied not only to the content of the police register but also to whether or not a person was mentioned in it. The government considered that the reasons relied on by the first applicant, with reference to section 9A of the Police Register Act, could not constitute special grounds for derogation from the rule of absolute secrecy.\nAppended to the refusal was a letter signed by the Minister of Justice, pointing out that neither the first applicant’s previous access to material indicating that she had been the subject of secret surveillance nor the age of any such information (40 to 50 years old) could constitute a special reason for a derogation under section 9A of the Act. The Minister further stated:\n“As you may be aware, some time ago the government submitted a proposal to Parliament as to the manner in which the Security Police register should be made more accessible to the public. It may be of interest to you to know that a few weeks ago Parliament passed the bill, which means that absolute secrecy will be abolished. The bill provides that the Security Police must make an assessment of the need for secrecy on a case-by-case basis, which opens up new possibilities for individuals to see records that are today covered by absolute secrecy. It is first of all historical material that will be made accessible.”\n11.  On 28 April 1999, following an amendment on 1 April 1999 to Chapter 5, section 1(2), of the Secrecy Ac", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1875", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Turkey.\n9.  On 26 July 1995 the Vorarlberg Federal Police Directorate (Sicherheitsdirektion) issued a residence prohibition against the applicant who was then living in Austria. On 5 March 1996 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) and requested the Administrative Court to grant suspensive effect to his complaint. At the same date he filed an application for re-instatement into the proceedings as the legal time-limit for filing a complaint had expired.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 29 February 1996 the Bregenz District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) issued a provisional penal order against the applicant, imposing a fine under the Aliens Act, as he had not complied without unreasonable delay with the residence prohibition issued against him on 26 July 1995 and had been unlawfully staying in Austria.\n11.  The applicant, assisted by counsel, filed an objection (Einspruch) against this decision.\n12.  On 29 April 1996 the District Administrative Authority issued a penal order (Straferkenntnis) confirming its previous decision and imposing a fine of approximately 200 euros (EUR) on the applicant.\n13.  On 15 May 1996 the applicant appealed to the Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat - IAP). He submitted that he had commissioned his counsel to file a complaint against the residence prohibition but that the latter had accidentally not done so in time. He had now filed a complaint against the residence prohibition with the Administrative Court and had requested that suspensive effect be granted upon this complaint. He argued that until the Administrative Court’s decision upon this latter request he was still allowed to stay in Austria. The applicant also requested that an oral hearing be held in which he, his counsel and a representative of the District Administrative Authority should be heard.\n14.  On 2 October 1996 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s application for re-instatement into the proceedings concerning the residence prohibition and rejected the applicant’s complaint as belated.\n15.  On 14 February 1997 the applicant was expelled to Turkey.\n16.  On 21 May 1997 the IAP summoned the applicant and his counsel to an oral hearing in the administrative criminal proceedings concerning the fine under the Aliens Act scheduled for the afternoon of 11 June 1997. The summons, which indicated that the applicant could either appear in person or send his counsel, was addressed to the applicant’s counsel. It stated that the hearing would be conducted in the applicant’s absence if he failed to appear.\n17.  On the morning of 11 June 1997 the applicant’s counsel informed the IAP that the applicant, in complying with the residence prohibition, had meanwhile moved to Turkey and could therefore not participate in the hearing in the afternoon. Referring to the applicant’s rights under Article 6 of the Convention he requested that the hearing should be adjourned sine die.\n18.  On the afternoon of 11 June 1997 the hearing took place in the absence of the applicant but in the presence of his counsel, who informed the IAP that he had not informed the applicant of the hearing as he considered this to be the IAP’s task. Referring to the applicant’s rights under Article 6 of the Convention, counsel requested again an oral hearing in the presence of the applicant.\n19.  On 18 July 1997 the IAP quashed the penal order insof", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1876", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Cielcza, Poland.\n9.  The realities of the international situation following the end of the Second World War prevented the Republic of Poland from asserting any claims arising out of persecution of its citizens, including as forced labourers, by Nazi Germany.\n10.  In the period immediately following the Second World War, Poland did not conclude a specific agreement with Germany regarding the issue of reparations. It relied on the Potsdam Agreement of 1 August 1945, concluded by the governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.\n11.  On 27 February 1953 the London Agreement on German External Debts (the London Debt Agreement) was concluded by the United States of America, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union. Under this Agreement, consideration of claims arising out of the Second World War by countries that had been at war with, or were occupied by, Germany, and by nationals of such countries, against the Reich or agencies of the Reich was deferred until the final settlement of the issue of reparations.\n12.  On 23 August 1953, the day after a similar declaration by the government of the Soviet Union, the government of Poland declared that it renounced any claims against Germany in respect of war reparations as of 1 January 1954. In a declaration of 27 September 1969 made at the United Nations, the government of Poland clarified that the renouncement of 1953 did not affect individual claims arising out of unlawful acts.\n13.  It was only after the conclusion of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with respect to Germany of 12 September 1990 (the so‑called Two‑Plus‑Four Treaty) and the conclusion of two treaties between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Poland in 1990[1] and 1991[2] that the issue of persons persecuted by the Nazi regime was addressed in the bilateral agreement of 16 October 1991 (see paragraph 28 below).\n14.  The applicant was subjected to forced labour during the Second World War on the territory of occupied Poland. In February and March 1941 he worked on a German farm near Cielcza. Subsequently, from April 1941 to April/May 1944, the applicant worked as a forest labourer in Cielcza. Finally, he was relocated to an area situated 200 kilometres from his habitual place of residence, where he was required to reinforce German defences from May/June 1944 to 26 January 1945. In February 1944 the applicant reached the age of 16.\n15.  On 20 October 1993 the applicant applied to the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation (Fundacja Polsko‑Niemieckie Pojednanie – “the Foundation”) for compensation on account of his forced labour from the funds contributed by the government of the Federal Republic of Germany under the Agreement of 16 October 1991 (see paragraphs 28-29 below). On 2 February 1994 the Foundation’s Verification Commission (Komisja Weryfikacyjna), having regard to a document issued by the social security authorities, established that the applicant had been subjected to forced labour from February 1941 to January 1945 and awarded him 1,050 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation. This payment was granted within the framework of the “primary payments scheme” (wypłaty podstawowe). The issue of deportation was apparently not addressed in the decision. The applicant’s subsequent appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Appeal Verification Commission (Odw", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1877", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in Yugoslavia in 1965 and currently lives in Belgrade.\n5.  In 1989 the applicant, a Yugoslavian citizen, came to Romania and settled there. He lived in Romania for fourteen years and, in 1993, set up a Romanian commercial company whose main activity was roasting and marketing coffee. He also learnt Romanian and cohabited with a Romanian national from 1994.\n6.  On 2 October 2002 the applicant’s girlfriend, who was visiting him in Yugoslavia, gave birth to a child. A few days later the applicant, his girlfriend and the baby returned to Romania.\n7.  On 6 August 2003 the applicant, who had been abroad, came back to Romania unimpeded by the border police. The next day, however, border police officers came to his home and deported him.\n8.  On 12 August 2003 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an application with the Bucharest Court of Appeal against the Aliens Authority and the public prosecutor’s office at the Bucharest Court of Appeal for judicial review of the deportation order against the applicant.\n9.  She submitted that she had not been served with any document declaring the applicant’s presence in Romanian territory to be undesirable. She added that the applicant had been living in Romania since 1989, had been awarded a medal for his role in the anti-communist revolt of 1989, had set up a commercial company, was supporting his family and had not in any way been a danger to national security.\n10.  The only hearing before the Bucharest Court of Appeal was held on 18 August 2003. The representative of the Aliens Authority provided the applicant’s lawyer with a copy of an order of 28 May 2003 of the public prosecutor’s office at the Bucharest Court of Appeal in which, at the request of the Romanian Intelligence Service (Serviciul Român de Informaţii) and in accordance with Government Emergency Ordinance no. 194/2002 on the rules governing aliens in Romania, the applicant had been declared an “undesirable person” and banned from Romania for ten years on the ground that there was “sufficient and serious intelligence that he was engaged in activities capable of endangering national security”. The last paragraph of the order stated that it should be served on the applicant and enforced by the Aliens Authority in accordance with section 81 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 194/2002.\n11.  According to the documents filed in the proceedings by the representative of the Aliens Authority, the Ministry of the Interior had informed the Romanian Intelligence Service, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the border police on 2 and 11 June 2003 that the applicant had been banned from entering the country.\n12.  The applicant’s lawyer requested an adjournment in order to send the applicant a copy of the order of the public prosecutor’s office and take his instructions.\n13.  Although the representative of the public prosecutor’s office supported that request on the ground that it had not been established that the obligation to serve the order on the applicant had been complied with, the Court of Appeal decided to go ahead with the examination of the case. Considering that the evidence already adduced was sufficient, it also dismissed a further request by the applicant’s lawyer for an adjournment in order to produce documents in support of her application.\n14.  Ruling on the merits, the Court of Appeal rejected the application as follows:\n“After analysing the evidence in the case and the parties’ arguments, the Court rejects as ill-f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1878", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the Tula Region.\n5.  In December 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his position.\n6.  On 17 December 1997, according to the applicant, and 18 February 1998, according to the Government, the applicant and three other persons lodged an action against their former employer, a private company, for payment of wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 13 May 1998 the Aleksin Town Court allowed the claim in part.\n8.  The parties did not appeal and the judgment became final.\n9.  On 27 September 1999 the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court granted the applicant’s request for a supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 13 May 1998 and remitted the case for a new examination.\n10.  In February 2000 the applicant asked the Aleksin Town Court to examine his action in separate proceedings. The Town Court granted his request and adjourned the proceedings until 10 April 2000.\n11.   The hearing of 10 April 2000 was adjourned until 21 August 2000 because the defendant did not attend.\n12.  On 21 August 2000 the proceedings were stayed for one month because the applicant asked for additional time to amend his claims.\n13.  On 25 September 2000 the Aleksin Town Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part.\n14.  That judgment was quashed on appeal by the Tula Regional Court on 10 April 2000. The case was remitted for a new examination.\n15.  Of the eleven hearings listed between September 2001 and April 2003, two hearings were adjourned because the judge was on sick leave, seven hearings were adjourned because the defendant did not attend or asked to stay the proceedings and two hearings were postponed at the applicant’s request.\n16.  On 18 April 2003 Aleksin Town Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part.\n17.  The judgment of 18 April 2003 was not appealed against and became final.\n18.  On 11 October 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court of Tula granted the applicant’s action against the Ministry of Finance for outstanding unemployment benefits and awarded him 2,828.32 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 103 euros).\n19.  On 16 April 2002 the Tula Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n20.  On 29 May 2002 the applicant filed a writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance, but the judgment was not enforced.\n21.  On 2 December 2004 the judgment was enforced in full.\n22.  On several occasions the applicant asked the Ministry of Finance for provision of unspecified information. No response followed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1879", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 25 November 1993 the applicant’s brother filed with the Plovdiv District Court a petition requesting the partition of three golden coins inherited by him and the applicant from their late mother. The court opened a case file on 5 April 1994 and apparently served a copy of the petition on the applicant around that date.\n6.  The first hearing was held on 15 June 1994. The court heard the applicant and the petitioner, admitted certain documents in evidence and gave the petitioner leave to call two witnesses.\n7.  A hearing listed for 24 October 1994 was adjourned because the petitioner’s witnesses did not show up, one of them being ill and the other busy.\n8.  The next hearing took place on 19 January 1995. The court heard the applicant, the petitioner and two witnesses called by the petitioner. The applicant asked for leave to call two witnesses. The court granted such leave, but fined the applicant for protracting the proceedings.\n9.  The last hearing was held on 28 March 1995. The court heard two witnesses called by the applicant and admitted a document in evidence. It also heard the parties’ closing arguments.\n10.  In a judgment of 11 July 1995 the Plovdiv District Court allowed the partition of the three coins in two equal shares. It ordered an expert report on the value of the coins. The court held that the applicant’s mother had owned three gold coins, which she had left in his possession, as evidenced by the testimony of two witnesses.\n11.  On 20 October 1995 the applicant appealed against the judgment to the Plovdiv Regional Court.\n12.  The Plovdiv Regional Court held a hearing on 9 January 1996. It did not gather new evidence, heard the parties’ closing arguments and reserved judgment.\n13.  In a judgment of 24 January 1996 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the Plovdiv District Court’s judgment and dismissed the request for the partition of the coins. It held that the lower court’s findings of fact had been based on insufficient evidence.\n14.  On 23 February 1996 the applicant’s brother lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court.\n15.  The Supreme Court held a hearing on 12 September 1996. It noted that both the applicant and the petitioner had been duly summoned, but had failed to show up, and reserved judgment.\n16.  In a judgment of 24 September 1996 the Supreme Court quashed the Plovdiv Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case for retrial. It held that by quashing the Plovdiv District Court’s judgment for evidentiary insufficiency and then dismissing the request for the partition of the coins outright, without gathering further evidence, the Plovdiv Regional Court had made a serious breach of Article 208 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 41 below).\n17.  Following the remittal, the Plovdiv Regional Court listed a hearing for 22 January 1997. The hearing had to be adjourned, because the applicant had fallen ill and could not attend.\n18.  The Plovdiv Regional Court held a hearing on 16 April 1997. It heard the parties’ closing arguments and reserved judgment.\n19.  In a judgment of 10 June 1997 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the Plovdiv District Court’s judgment of 11 July 1995 and decided to proceed to examine the case on the merits, as provided by Article 208 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 41 below).\n20.  Two hearings listed for 8 October 1997 and 21 January 1998 had to be adjourned because the applicant had not been properly summoned.\n21.  A hearing was held on 15 May 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1881", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kráľovský Chlmec.\n5.  On 26 August 1992 the applicant sued a medical institution for damages before the Poprad District Court.\n6.  On 1 September 1992 the District Court sent the action to the defendant for comments.\n7.  Between 11 September 1992 and 5 May 1993 the District Court held several hearings. On the latter date the applicant challenged the judge and requested that the case be transferred to a different court.\n8.  On 26 August 1993 the Košice Regional Court found that the District Court judges were not disqualified.\n9.  On 24 November 1993 the District Court heard the parties and decided to obtain an expert opinion.\n10.  An expert was appointed on 24 March 1994. On 9 September 1994 a different expert was asked to submit the opinion as the first expert was abroad. As the second expert did not proceed with the expert’s report, the District Court appointed a third one on 12 October 1995. The latter informed the court that he was not specialised in the relevant field. A different expert was therefore appointed on 7 November 1995. He submitted an opinion on 2 January 1996.\n11.  On 27 May 1996 the applicant sought to extend her claim. The District Court did not grant her request. It further decided to hear several witnesses.\n12.  On 29 September 1997 the applicant challenged the District Court judges. The District Court judges made a statement concerning this request in November 1997. The applicant’s request for their exclusion was submitted to the Prešov Regional Court on 21 February 1999. The Regional Court dismissed the request on 12 March 1999.\n13.  Subsequently the District Court sought to obtain evidence as suggested by the applicant. In this context two witnesses living in the Czech Republic were to be heard.\n14.  On 21 January 2002 the District Court granted the applicant’s claim in part. The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 7 October 2002 the vice-president of the Prešov Regional Court informed the applicant that her appeal had not yet been decided upon due to the heavy workload of the court.\n16.  On 18 February 2003 the Prešov Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment.\n17.  On 10 July 2003 the District Court allowed the applicant to extend her claim. It adjourned the case with a view to taking further evidence.\n18.  On 12 September 2003 the District Court asked a court in Brno (Czech Republic) to hear a witness.\n19.  On 13 October 2004 the applicant challenged the judge of the Poprad District Court. On 16 December 2003 the Regional Court in Prešov refused to exclude the District Court judge.\n20.  On 2 February 2004 the City Court in Brno submitted the requested evidence to the District Court in Poprad.\n21.  At a hearing held on 3 September 2004 the applicant was acquainted with the evidence which the District Court had obtained. The applicant requested that a new expert opinion should be obtained. The case was adjourned.\n22.  On 13 April 2005 the applicant informed the Court that the proceedings were still pending before the District Court in Poprad.\n23.  On 18 December 2000 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings.\n24.  On 28 June 2001 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been violated. The decision stated that the case was not particularly complex and that the applicant had not contributed to the length of the proceedings in a significant manner. Undue delays i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1882", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  At the material time the applicant was a vagrant, without a permanent place of abode. It seems that he had several convictions for various offences and had served jail time.\n6.  On an unknown date in the end of September or in early October 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for having heavily beaten up an acquaintance of his, Mr S.K. (“the victim”) at a construction site on 26 September 1998, and thus having caused his death on one of the following days.\n7.  On an unspecified later date the investigator in charge of the case questioned Mr L.A., an eyewitness to the incident. The applicant was not present. Mr L.A. died a few days later, in early October 1998.\n8.  On 6 October 1998 the applicant was arrested.\n9.  On 10 October 1998 the investigator interviewed Mr I.Y., a witness. The applicant was not present.\n10.  On 21 October 1998 the applicant was charged with intentionally murdering the victim in an especially cruel manner and with extreme ferocity, while being a dangerous repeat offender, contrary to Article 116 § 1 (6) and (11) of the Criminal Code of 1968, as in force at that time, and placed in pre‑trial detention.\n11.  On 28 October 1998 the investigator questioned Mr Z.T., another eyewitness to the incident. The applicant was not present.\n12.  On 16 November 1998 the applicant was questioned in the presence of an ex officio counsel. It seems that he admitted to having beaten the victim with a wooden board.\n13.  On 26 November 1998 the charges were diminished. The applicant was accused of intentionally causing severe bodily injury to the victim and thus negligently bringing about his death, while being a dangerous repeat offender, contrary to Article 124 §§ 1 and 3 of the Criminal Code of 1968. His pre‑trial detention was continued.\n14.  The Bourgas Regional Prosecutor’s Office subsequently filed an indictment against the applicant with the Bourgas Regional Court.\n15.  The trial took place in the morning of 2 February 1999 at the Bourgas Regional Court. The applicant did not have counsel and was acting pro se.\n16.  The court first heard the applicant, who admitted to having beaten the victim with a wooden board, but stated that the next day he had seen him in good health. He had learned that the victim had died only on 6 October 1998, when arrested by the police.\n17.  The court then questioned two expert witnesses and admitted their reports in evidence. The first expert, a psychiatrist, gave an opinion on the applicant’s mental state at the time of the commission of the alleged offence and on his fitness to stand trial, on the basis of documents in the investigation case file and an examination of the applicant on 12 November 1998. The second expert, a forensic medical doctor, who had carried out an autopsy on the victim’s body on 30 September 1998, gave an opinion on the cause of the death, the extent of the injuries found on the body, the possible timing of their inflicting and the causal link between the injuries and the death.\n18.  After that the court heard the victim’s sons, who testified about their father’s character.\n19.  As Mr I.Y. and Mr Z.T. had not been found at the addresses which they had indicated during the preliminary investigation and had thus not been called at the trial, and as Mr S.V. did not appear despite being subpoenaed, the prosecution requested that their statements made during the preliminary investigation be read out before the court. The applicant agreed. The court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1883", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1964 and is now serving her sentence in Irkutsk.\n8.  On 5 March 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having arranged a contracted murder of two persons in 1995 and 1996. On the following day, pursuant to an order of the Usolye-Sibirskoye district prosecutor, she was remanded in custody for ten days. The order referred to the gravity of the “committed crime” and the applicant’s potential to interfere with the establishment of the truth.\n9.  On 16 March 1998 the prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention pending investigation. On 15 April 1998 the Irkutsk Regional Prosecutor authorised an extension of the applicant’s detention until 27 August 1998. The decision summarised the collected evidence and referred to the need for additional investigative actions.\n10.  On 24 November 1998 a deputy Prosecutor General extended the applicant’s detention until 27 February 1999, noting that further investigation was needed.\n11.  On 16 February and 18 May 1999 the acting Prosecutor General authorised extensions of the applicant’s detention until 27 May 1999 and 5 September 1999 for the reason that the defendants had not completed studying the file. By 5 September 1999 the applicant had spent eighteen months in custody.\n12.  On 26 August 1999 the Irkutsk Regional Court, further to the request by the Regional Prosecutor, extended the applicant’s detention for an additional four months, until 27 December 1999. By way of justification, the Regional Court referred to the substantial volume of the case file (ten binders) and to the fact that the defendants had been charged with particularly serious crimes.\n13.  On 24 December 1999 the case was referred to the Irkutsk Regional Court for trial.\n14.  On 13 January 2000 the Regional Court returned the case for additional investigation.\n15.  On 21 April 2000 the prosecutor’s office received the case file. The Regional Prosecutor granted an extension of the applicant’s detention until 21 May 2000.\n16.  On 29 May 2000 the Regional Court, at the request of the Regional Prosecutor, extended the applicant’s detention until 21 July 2000 on the grounds that the defendants were charged with particularly serious crimes, that the case-file comprised eleven binders and that the defendants could abscond.\n17.  On 21 July 2000 the case was referred for trial for the second time.\n18.  On 31 July 2000 the Regional Court returned the case to the investigators because the applicant had not been afforded sufficient time for studying the file. It ordered that the applicant remain in custody in view of the gravity of the charges against her.\n19.  On 17 October 2000 the Regional Prosecutor’s office received the file and extended the applicant’s detention until 12 November 2000.\n20.  On 4 November 2000 the Regional Prosecutor asked the Regional Court for extension of the applicant’s detention until 12 February 2001 with a view to affording her additional time for studying the case file.\n21.  On 13 November 2000 the Regional Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, granted the request. The entire reasoning read as follows:\n“The present case comprises twelve volumes; [the reading of the case-file] is progressing slowly. [The applicant and two co-defendants] are charged with serious crimes, reading of the file requires a long time. Moreover, [the applicant and two co-defendants] may flee from investigation and justice or exercise pressure on witnesses and other persons; therefore, I conside", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1884", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Stade (Germany).\n9.  On 3 May 1982 he was involved in an accident with a cyclist on the way to school and sustained injuries including a broken left arm. On 22 May 1982 he left hospital. He subsequently entered into negotiations with the cyclist’s liability insurers, who paid him a sum of approximately 12,500 euros (EUR) in respect of any damage he might have sustained. The accident insurers for Hanover City Council, the authority responsible for the applicant’s school, paid him a temporary disability pension (Verletzenrente) until the end of 1983. They also paid him approximately EUR 51,000 in compensation.\n10.  The applicant subsequently instituted proceedings against the City Council’s accident insurers, in the course of which a considerable number of expert reports and medical opinions were produced.\nIn a judgment of 16 November 1989, the Lower Saxony Social Court of Appeal (Landessozialgericht), which itself had asked experts in the fields of orthopaedic surgery, neurology and, at the applicant’s request, hand surgery to produce reports on his medical problems, acknowledged that he had become 20% permanently disabled as a result of the accident and was entitled to a pension on that account with effect from 1 June 1984.\n11.  Since 1 July 1994, after falling on his left arm or hand in January 1993, the applicant has been in receipt of an occupational-disability pension of approximately EUR 800 per month.\n12.  The applicant instituted a second set of proceedings against Hanover City Council’s accident insurers, seeking in particular the award of an increased pension. He submitted that the accident had caused him mental damage and a stomach disorder. In a judgment of 19 February 2001, the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s claim. It based its decision on two reports by experts in neuropsychiatry whom it had appointed during the proceedings, on a large number of other medical reports, some of which had been drawn up shortly after the accident, and on files from other administrative and judicial proceedings concerning the applicant.\n13.  On 18 September 1989, after the negotiations aimed at securing increased payments had failed, the applicant brought an action against the cyclist’s insurance company in the Hanover Regional Court (Landgericht), in particular seeking damages and a monthly pension, among other claims. On 10 June 1991, after holding several hearings and taking evidence about the accident from four witnesses between July 1990 and March 1991, the Regional Court delivered a partial decision. It held that the applicant’s liability for the accident was limited to 20% and that he was entitled to damages for the remaining 80%.\n14.  On 26 November 1992 the Celle Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed an appeal by the applicant. On 29 January 1993 the applicant appealed on points of law. He twice requested an extension of the time he had initially been allowed for filing his grounds of appeal. On 2 June 1993 the applicant’s new representative applied for a third extension until 14 July 1993. On 14 December 1993 the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) dismissed the appeal.\n15.  In March 1994 the proceedings for the assessment of the damages and the pension resumed in the Hanover Regional Court. The applicant was represented by counsel. On 18 April 1994 the court held a hearing.\n16.  On 9 May 1994 it ordered an expert medical assessment. On 25 May 1994 the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1885", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Järvenpää.\n8.  The applicant’s home as well as the office premises of his various companies were searched on 7, 9 and 14 February 1995 and various materials were seized. The search warrants referred to an investigation into debtor’s dishonesty involving the company Lehtikarin Kirjapaino Oy as well as a book-keeping offence. Both offences were suspected to have been committed by the applicant between 5 June 1991 and 25 May 1994.\n9.  On 15 February 1995 the public prosecutor questioned the applicant in connection with other criminal proceedings which were pending against the applicant before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Tuusula in respect of acts allegedly committed in April 1992 relating to the company UYP-Sijoitus Oy (“U.”).\n10.  On 27 April 1995 the estates of three wound-up companies, including U, reported an offence against the applicant for alleged offences of debtor’s dishonesty.\n11.  On 2 April 1996 the applicant was interrogated by the police. On 28 November 1996 he was charged with the offence of debtors’ dishonesty, allegedly committed between 7 and 23 April 1992. The estate of the wound-up company U. was indicated as one of the complainants.\n12.  On 12 February 1997 he received a summons to appear before the District Court on 19 March 1997. The summons had wrongly indicated the Judicial Building in Vantaa as the hearing venue instead of Tuusula. On 1 April 1997 the applicant was brought to the hearing of the District Court of Tuusula, the court having found that the applicant had no legal excuse for not having been present at the first hearing.\n13.  At the hearing on 27 November 1997 the applicant demanded that the charges against him be adequately particularised.\n14.  In a further letter of indictment dated 29 April 1998 the prosecutor presented alternative charges of aggravated tax fraud and aiding and abetting that crime.\n15.  On 8 July 1998 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against bank V. and requested that they be joined to the criminal proceedings. The District Court rejected this request.\n16.  At the hearing on 27 July 1998 the prosecutor, basing himself on a letter of indictment of the same day, specified the charges.\n17.  On 31 December 1998, at its 13th hearing, the District Court issued its judgment. It convicted the applicant of debtor’s dishonesty and sentenced him to eleven months’ unconditional imprisonment. He was ordered to pay some 10,000,000 Finnish Marks (FIM, almost 1,700,000 euros (EUR)) in damages.\n18.  The applicant appealed, appending his own writ of appeal to that of his counsel, P.V. In addition, he lodged numerous further submissions both within and outside the requisite time-limit, the last one in February 2002. Originally, the applicant requested an oral hearing and, in any case, that the Court of Appeal should reduce his sentence. In December 2001 he requested that the case be referred back to the District Court to be decided by a different composition of judges or, in the alternative, that the charges against him be dismissed as one judge had allegedly been partial and he had been refused leave to examine a witness.\n19.  In October 2001 the Court of Appeal, as requested, cancelled P.V.’s appointment and appointed P.I. as the applicant’s new legal aid counsel.\n20.  In its judgment of 15 March 2002 the Court of Appeal rejected his appeal and increased the sentence to a term of imprisonment of one year and two months. Hav", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1886", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Trnava.\n5.  On 30 June 1993 the applicant brought a civil action against his neighbour, Mr P., in the Trenčín District Court (Okresný súd). He maintained that in 1991 P., with his truck, had damaged the applicant’s fence. He sought damages and an order that P. repair the fence and refrain from using the road adjacent to it.\n6.  As his submissions were unclear, the applicant was summoned four times for an informative interview; invited to state his claims in accordance with the applicable procedural requirements; and requested to pay the court fee. In response, the applicant twice restated his action and paid the court fee on 25 August, 25 October and 16 November 1993, respectively.\n7.  The hearing held on 16 December 1993 was adjourned with a view to obtaining an expert report concerning the damage. The report was filed on 18 April 1994.\n8.  Another hearing was called for 13 May 1994 but it had to be adjourned as the applicant did not appear.\n9.  On 30 May 1994 the applicant and P. reached a friendly settlement of the case before the District Court in which P. agreed to repair the fence.\n10.  On 30 May 1994, by a separate decision, the District Court ruled on the fee to be paid to the expert for his report. On 15 December 1994 the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) upheld this decision on the applicant’s appeal.\n11.  On 12 January 1995 the applicant lodged a petition with the District Court for the judicial enforcement of the settlement, arguing that the way in which P. had repaired the fence did not comply with the settlement.\n12.  On 10 August 2000 the District Court dismissed the petition, finding that P. had repaired the fence properly.\n13.  On 30 November 2001, on the applicant’s appeal, the Trenčín Regional Court quashed the decision of 10 August 2000 and remitted the matter to the District Court for re-examination. It found that the District Court had failed to establish the relevant facts adequately and that the evidence before it was not sufficient to justify the conclusion it had drawn.\n14.  On 9 December 2003 the District Court appointed a construction expert to inspect the site and assess whether or not there had been compliance with the settlement. The expert filed his report on 27 January 2004.\n15.  On 29 January 2004, by three separate decisions, the District Court again dismissed the applicant’s petition for judicial enforcement of the settlement; ruled that the applicant did not qualify for an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee; and determined the amount of the fee to be paid by the State to the expert for his report. As to the merits, on the basis of the expert report the District Court concluded that P. had fulfilled his undertakings and that there was no cause for enforcement.\n16.  On 19 February 2004 the applicant challenged the above mentioned decisions of 29 January 2004 by three separate appeals. As to the merits, he argued that the netting used by P. was not the same as the original, and that P. had failed to paint it.\n17.  On 30 June 2004 the Regional Court upheld all three decisions of 29 January 2004 fully endorsing the factual findings and conclusions of the District Court.\n18.  The applicant challenged the length of the proceedings in the above matter by a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution to the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). In the text of the complaint, the applicant impugned the whole length of the proceedings. Howev", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1887", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1961, 1965, 1959, 1950, 1976, 1978 and 1979 respectively, and live in Mersin.\n5.  On 6 July 1993 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the request of the applicants’ predecessor for increased compensation, on 14 July 1994 the Mersin Civil Court awarded him additional compensation of 463,140,750 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 6 July 1993, the date of the transfer of the title deeds to the land.\n7.  On 26 October 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.\n8.  On 17 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicants the amount of TRL 1,794,690,000, interest included.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1888", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Wrocław.\n10.  On 13 March 1996 after a search of the applicant’s flat, he was arrested on suspicion of an attempt to swindle money in VAT refunds.\n11.  On 15 March 1996 the prosecutor issued an order of detention against the applicant on charges of tax fraud and obstructing the conduct of the criminal proceedings against A.S. by inciting witnesses to give false testimony.\n12.  On 1 April 1996 the applicant’s lawyer’s appeal against the decision of 15 March 1996 was dismissed by the Wrocław Regional Court. The court considered that the applicant’s detention was justified by the existence of strong evidence of his guilt, the gravity of charges against him and in order to secure the proper course of the proceedings.\n13.  On 4 April 1996 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor rejected the appeal against the decision of 15 March 1996 filed by the applicant himself, observing that it had been submitted too late.\n14.  On 26 April 1996 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s motions of 28 March and 19 April 1996 to be released, referring to the charges against him and considering that the applicant’s case did not disclose any of the grounds for release provided by Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n15.  On 7 June 1996 the Wrocław Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 31 August 1996. The court relied on the strong probability of the applicant’s guilt, the gravity of charges against him and the high risk of his hindering the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n16.  On 7 June 1996 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 4 April 1996 given by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor. On 14 June 1996 the Wrocław Appellate Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 26 April 1996, considering that the available evidence strongly supported charges against the applicant and having regard to the Wrocław Regional Court’s opinion expressed in the decision of 7 June 1996.\n17.  By a decision of 25 June 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 7 June 1996, pointing out that the applicant’s case disclosed the existence of grounds for detention provided under Section 209 and 217 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n18.  On 5 July 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s lawyer’s appeal against the decision of 7 June 1996 given by the Wrocław Regional Court. The court recalled that the applicant’s appeal against this decision had already been examined. The court referred to the reasoning of its decision of 25 June, observing that no new circumstances in the case had come to light. On 16 July 1996 the Wrocław Appellate Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s and his lawyer’s appeals against the decision of 7 June 1996 given by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor relying on the grounds invoked in the previous decisions.\n19.  By a decision of 7 August 1996 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor, in view of the fact that the investigation in the case had been almost completed, quashed the detention order and replaced it with a bail of 5000 PLN and a prohibition on leaving the country.\n20.  It is not in dispute that neither the applicant nor his lawyer were allowed by law to participate in any of the sessions held by the courts in connection with his applications for release or his subsequent appeals. These sessions were held in camera.\n21.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant ar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1889", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Muurla.\n5.  The applicant was employed by a bank, working in the relevant years 1989-90 in the bank’s new campaign to grant loans and to invest in property abroad.\n6.  The applicant’s suspected offending in respect of credit decisions made without adequate guarantee arrangements, which led to the bank’s winding-up in the beginning of the 1990s, was reported to the police on 23 June 1992. The criminal investigation was begun by the police on 7 July 1992. A total of fourteen reports of offences had been made. The corresponding investigations lasted from 7 July 1992 to 9 December 1994 and from 9 April 1996 ending on 9 May 1996. On 7 August 1992 the police carried out a search at the applicant’s home and seized his assets, at which point he became aware that he was suspected of serious fraud in connection with his activities at the bank.\n7.  The hearing of the case, which involved 33 defendants, began in the Salo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) on 7 March 1995. It included several adjournments and lasted approximately five years in total. The case was heard during a total of 68 days. The judgment was rendered on 24 March 2000 and it ran to almost 900 pages. The applicant was convicted of four counts of aggravated fraud and sentenced to a suspended term of one year and ten months’ imprisonment and a fine.\n8.  On 4 March 2002 the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) gave judgment. It added a fifth count of serious fraud and increased the applicant’s sentence to four years and six months of unconditional imprisonment and a loss of military rank. The court decided to examine the case directly including the part which had been declared inadmissible by the District Court (charge 12), i.e. without returning the case to the District Court, referring to Article 6 of the Convention and the right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed therein. Furthermore, it stated in its reasons (p. 138) that it was taking the length of the proceedings into account as a factor lessening the sentence for all defendants in the case.\n9.  On 30 October 2002 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.\n10.  The applicant submitted an extraordinary appeal against the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, but it was rejected by the Supreme Court on 17 February 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1890", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Košice.\n5.  On 22 October 1997 the applicant’s employer sent him a notice of termination of his employment with immediate effect for an alleged serious breach of work discipline.\n6.  On 9 January 1998 the applicant challenged his dismissal before the Košice II District Court (Okresný súd).\n7.  On 25 November 1998 the District Court decided the case and on 27 May 1999 the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed its judgment on appeal. The case was remitted to the District Court for re‑examination.\n8.  On 9 February 2000 the District Court decided the case again and on 22 June 2000 the Regional Court again quashed its judgment on appeal. It was held that the District Court had failed to establish the relevant facts adequately and that its conclusions were therefore premature. The case was remitted to it for re‑examination.\n9.  On 29 September 2000 the District Court judge in charge of the lawsuit requested that the Regional Court remove her from the case as she felt biased as a result of the applicant’s written submission of 25 March 2000 in which he had expressed doubts as to her impartiality in a gross and offensive manner.\n10.  On 30 November 2000 the Regional Court disqualified the above District Court judge from dealing with the case and on 11 January 2001 it was assigned to a new judge. As the second judge later ceased to be a judge, on 8 January 2002 the case was assigned to a third judge.\n11.  On 2 December 2002 the applicant extended his action by claiming also compensation in respect of wages lost as a consequence of his dismissal.\n12.  On 6 March 2003 the District Court ruled that the applicant’s claim for lost wages necessitated the taking of further evidence and ruled that it would be determined in a separate set of proceedings which was later opened under a new file number (see below). At the same time, the District Court ruled that the termination of the applicant’s employment was void.\n13.  On 22 October 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 6 March 2003 on the defendant’s appeal. No further appeal was available and the ruling concerning the validity of the applicant’s dismissal became final and binding on 18 December 2003.\n14.  In the above part of the proceedings the District Court held 8 hearings whereas the Regional Court held 3.\n15.  On 30 April 2003 the applicant supplemented his claim for lost wages.\n16.  The District Court heard the case on 2 June and 27 June 2005. Following the latter hearing, on the same day, it dismissed the claim.\n17.  On 15 August 2005 the applicant challenged the judgment of 27 June 2005 by an appeal which is still pending.\n18.  On 6 March 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint about the length of his proceedings with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) under Article 127 of the Constitution, as in force from 1 January 2002. He sought an order that the District Court proceed with his action and pay him 200,000[1] Slovakian korunas (SKK) by way of just satisfaction in respect of his non‑pecuniary damage.\n19.  On 27 March 2002 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible.\n20.  On 15 October 2002 the Constitutional Court found that in the proceedings concerning the validity of the applicant’s dismissal the District Court had violated his right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing “without unjustified delay”, and his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing “within a reasonable time”. It f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1891", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Mersin.\n5.  On 20 July 1993 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicant in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicant when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, on 16 June 1994 the Mersin Civil Court awarded him additional compensation in the amount of 343,826,000 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 20 July 1993, the date of transfer of the title deeds.\n7.  On 1 June 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.\n8.  On 17 May 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the applicant TRL 1,336,460,000, interest included.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1892", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Bojnice.\n5.  The applicant’s mother, Mrs D., owned real property. She died in 1982. Her estate was determined by the State Notary Office (Štátne notárstvo) in Považská Bystrica in a decision of 7 October 1982. The inheritance comprised inter alia a share in a complex of agricultural land which was located in Klobušice and was formally divided into several plots. The share of Mrs D. passed to the applicant’s father, Mr D., who himself already owned an equal share in the land.\n6.  In 1983 Mr D. died. His estate was determined by notarial decisions of 18 August 1983 and 4 December 1987. His own share in the above land as well as the share inherited from Mrs D. passed to the applicant and her sister.\n7.  On 22 March 1993 the applicant and her sister, who were represented by a lawyer, made a submission to the Považská Bystrica District Court (Okresný súd) described as a “motion for commencement of inheritance proceedings”. They maintained that the above inheritance decisions were flawed by inaccuracies as regards the definition of the parcels, their acreage and the ownership shares to be inherited. The applicant and her sister asserted in particular that in the original decisions no account had been taken of the fact that Mrs D. and Mr D. both had equal shares in the land and that the decisions were wrongfully based on their having only one of these shares. They sought “additional inheritance proceedings” and the “correction of obvious errors” in the original decisions.\n8.  On 20 January 1994 the District Court took a formal decision to commence inheritance proceedings and authorised a notary public to carry them out.\n9.  On 23 May 1996 the District Court discontinued the proceedings. It interpreted the motion of 22 March 1993 as being formally aimed at determining a “newly discovered inheritance” on the death of Mrs D. It observed that no such new inheritance had in fact been disclosed and concluded that, therefore, there was no case to be determined.\n10.  On 31 July 1996, on appeal by the applicant and her sister, the Banská Bystrica Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed the decision of 23 May 1996 and remitted the matter to the District Court for re‑examination. The Regional Court found that the written version of the decision of 7 October 1982 did not correspond to the oral version as recorded in the minutes of the hearing at which it had been pronounced. The Regional Court instructed the District Court to bring the written version in line with the recorded oral version. The Regional Court observed that even the oral version was not absolutely precise. However, in the Regional Court’s view, once the written version of the decision was so “corrected” and a copy of it was served on the parties, they could appeal against it on the merits.\n11.  The case‑file was subsequently transmitted to a notary public who was designated by the District Court to effect certain procedural steps in the matter (súdny komisár).\n12.  In September 1998 the notary public obtained a report from the Land Registry explaining changes in definition of the land in issue in the context of the preceding land reforms.\n13.  On 20 November 1998 the District Court gave a decision under Article 164 of the Code of Civil Procedure correcting errors in the operative part of the written decision of 7 October 1982 by aligning it with the oral version.\n14.  On 1 February 1999 the applicant and her sister appealed against the decision ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1893", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Chişinău. He is a pensioner.\n5.  In 1998 he lodged with the Râşcani District Court a civil action against a third person (“C.”) seeking compensation for alleged non-compliance with a contract between them.\n6.  Between February and July 1998 the court adjourned the hearings on six occasions due to C.’s failure to appear before it.\n7.  On 21 July 1998, the Râşcani District Court decided to hear the case in the absence of C., while finding that he had been legally summonsed. It upheld the applicant’s action and ordered C. to pay him 1,500 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of approximately 287 euros (EUR) at the time).\n8.  Since neither of the parties appealed against the judgment within the legal time-limit of fifteen days, it became enforceable on 5 August 1998, when an enforcement warrant was issued.\n9.  After that date the applicant complained on numerous occasions to different State authorities about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 21 July 1998. In particular he complained to the Râşcani District Court, the Ministry of Justice and to the Superior Council of Magistrates.\n10.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the judgment was partially enforced, the applicant receiving from the bailiff MDL 500.\n11.  In their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case of July 2002, the Government informed the Court that after the communication of the case, the Chişinău Regional Court had examined an appeal allegedly lodged by C. on 10 December 1998 and had quashed the judgment of 21 July 1998. The Government also argued that the judgment of 21 July 1998 had been served on C. on 27 November 1998.\n12.  The domestic case-file, sent to the Court by the Government, contains an appeal signed by C., dated 10 December 1998 and bearing two entry stamps. The first stamp is of an unknown origin and has the date 10 December 1998 but no entry number. The second stamp is that of the Râşcani District Court and bears the date 15 May 2002 and the entry number 2304.\n13.  The domestic case-file does not contain any evidence as to why the appeal was not examined between 10 December 1998 and 11 June 2002 or to the effect that between those dates defendant C. had made any enquiries about his appeal.\n14.  In his appeal C. disputed the merits of the case and requested an extension of the legal time-limit for lodging the appeal. He argued that he only found out about the judgment of 21 July 1998 on 27 November 1998.\n15.  On 21 May 2002, C. lodged a request with the Chişinău Regional Court asking for a stay of the enforcement proceedings. He also argued that he had found out about the judgment of 21 July 1998 in December 1998.\n16.  Also on 21 May 2002, the President of the Chişinău Regional Court appointed Judge N. Traciuc to take charge of the case and decided that the first hearing was to take place on 4 June 2002.\n17.  On 4 June 2002 Judge N. Traciuc issued a certificate confirming the fact that the case of Istrate v. C. was on the role of the Chişinău Regional Court and that for that reason a stay of the enforcement proceedings of the judgment of the first-instance court had been ordered. The case-file does not contain any formal decision to stay the proceedings.\n18.  On 11 June 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court examined C.’s appeal in the absence of the applicant and upheld it. It quashed the judgment of 21 July 1998 and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings. It did not, however, examine C.’s request for a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1894", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  In 1989 the applicant’s daughter was seriously injured in a road traffic accident. The driver, who had been originally accused and convicted of having negligently caused bodily harm in that accident, was acquitted by a judgment of 20 February 1992. A driver of a different vehicle, who was an employee of the Ministry of the Interior, was subsequently accused of an offence in the context of that accident.\n6.  The applicant submits that, due to misconduct on the part of the State officials, the criminal proceedings lasted an excessively long time and that, until the liability of the drivers involved had been determined, the insurance company refused to compensate her for her daughter’s injuries. As a result the applicant became heavily indebted and she was in a difficult situation.\n7.  On 18 June 1992 the applicant filed a claim for damages with the Ministry of Justice.\n8.  On 25 June 1992 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that her action had been transmitted to the Bratislava I District Court which had jurisdiction to deal with the case. In her action the applicant claimed, with reference to the State Liability Act, compensation from the Ministry of the Interior for damage resulting from the above facts. The applicant also claimed protection of her personal rights and sought compensation for non‑pecuniary damage in this respect.\n9.  On 29 June 1995 the District Court allowed the applicant’s request that the General Prosecutor’s Office be joined as the second defendant in the case.\n10.  In a judgment of 19 September 1996 the District Court decided to deal in a separate set of proceedings with the applicant’s claim for protection of her personal rights. It further dismissed the claim for damages under the State Liability Act of 1969. The court established that the defendants, as specified in the action, lacked standing in the case as the action should have been filed against the State. The judgment was served on 27 November 1996.\n11.  On 12 December 1996 the applicant appealed specifying that her action was aimed against the Slovak Republic, represented by the Ministry of the Interior and the General Prosecutor’s Office.\n12.  On 30 April 1997 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first instance decision to dismiss the claim under the State Liability Act of 1969.\n13.  In a decision of 18 September 1997 the Bratislava I District Court accepted the above specification of the defendant by the applicant.\n14.  On 11 June 1998 the District Court dismissed the claim under the State Liability Act of 1969. It did not find it established that there was a causal link between the actions of the authorities concerned and the alleged damage. In addition, the General Prosecutor’s Office lacked standing to act on behalf of the State as the applicant claimed.\n15.  On 28 July 1998 the applicant appealed.\n16.  A hearing before the Bratislava Regional Court was held on 3 February 1999.\n17.  On 23 March 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request for three Regional Court judges to be excluded from dealing with the case.\n18.  On 26 May 1999 the Regional Court adjourned the case as it had not yet obtained, from a different court, a criminal file relating to the accident in which the applicant’s daughter had been injured. On 5 August 1998 the Ministry of Justice admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, that undue delays had arisen in that context.\n19.  On 23 June 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1895", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Banská Bystrica.\n5.  On 20 February 1992 the applicant filed an action with the Banská Bystrica District Court. She claimed that a joint ownership be terminated in respect of several plots of land and a house.\n6.  On 6 April 1992 the court summoned the applicant’s advocate and asked him to inform the court whether the applicant maintained her claim.\n7.  On 18 June 1992 the court held a hearing where it heard both parties and invited them to submit further evidence. The defendant lodged a counterclaim and the court requested him to specify it.\n8.  On 13 July 1992 and on 2 September 1992 the court asked the State Notary in Banská Bystrica to submit case files concerning three sets of inheritance proceedings in which the applicant had been involved.\n9.  On 30 November 1992 the applicant amended her action and requested that another person should be joined as a defendant in the case.\n10.  The court held hearings on 17 December 1992 and on 19 January 1993 respectively. The latter hearing was adjourned as expert examination had to be taken. On 4 April 1993 the court invited the applicant to submit a geometric plan of the relevant plots.\n11.  In a letter of 21 April 1993, the applicant informed the court that she had brought a criminal complaint against a notary public and requested that the District Court’s proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. On 21 September 1993 she withdrew her request.\n12.  On 27 September 1993 the District Court urged the applicant to submit the geometric plan. The applicant did so on 25 April 1994.\n13.  On 17 May 1994 the applicant amended her action. At a hearing held on 25 October 1994, the court invited her to specify the amended action. On 1 June 1995 the applicant submitted an additional claim challenging the validity of a purchase contract concerning the property in question which had been concluded in 1972.\n14.  On 13 November 1995 the court held a hearing where it accepted the amendment of the applicant’s action. A further hearing scheduled for 27 November 1995 was adjourned due to the absence of a witness.\n15.  On 13 December 1995 the District Court delivered an interim judgment declaring the purchase contract of 1972 void. The defendant appealed on 5 March 1996.\n16.  On 23 April 1996 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court upheld the interim judgment.\n17.  The District Court held hearings on 29 May 1996 and on 16 July 1996 respectively. The defendant requested that the latter hearing should be adjourned as he intended to appoint a new legal representative. The court granted the defendant’s request and invited him to submit a power of attorney within 20 days.\n18.  On 2 September 1996 and on 15 October 1996 respectively the court urged the defendant to submit the power of attorney. On 14 January 1997 the defendant submitted the power of attorney together with his comments on the applicant’s action.\n19.  The court held a hearing on 20 February 1997. On 27 February 1997 the applicant submitted comments on the defendant’s arguments presented at the hearing of 20 February 1997. Subsequently the court invited the defendant to comment on the applicant’s submissions and on the geometric plan submitted by her on 25 April 1994.\n20.  On 30 April 1997 the court urged the defendant to submit his comments. The defendant did so on 23 May 1997. Following the court’s request of 30 September 1997 to comment on the defendant’s submissions, the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1896", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  In September 1995 the Sofia Municipal Council decided to privatise a hotel owned by the Sofia Municipality, and situated in Gorna Banya, Sofia. In July 1996 the Sofia Municipal Privatisation Agency opened a procedure for the privatisation of the hotel through negotiations with potential buyers. At the close of the procedure only one company had submitted a privatisation bid. On 8 May 1997 that company assigned its rights under the privatisation procedure to the applicant company.\n7.  On 10 May 1997 the applicant company entered into a privatisation contract with the Sofia Municipal Council, whereby it bought the hotel. It agreed to pay 425,000 United States dollars (USD) and also agreed to make, during the following five years, investments in the amount of USD 1,500,000. The applicant company also undertook to create forty‑five new jobs. Clause 8(7) of the contract stipulated that the applicant company was barred from disposing of the hotel for five years without the express consent of the Sofia Municipal Council. Clause 10 of the contract, however, stipulated that the applicant company could convey the hotel as non‑cash consideration for shares in a limited liability company, if it held at least 67% of such a company’s shares.\n8.  In a decision of 7 July 1997 the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office, acting pursuant to an article in the weekly newspaper Capital published in its issue of 25 May 1997, and to complaints by employees and leaseholders of hotel premises, ordered the suspension of the performance of the privatisation contract. It relied on Article 185 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974 (“the CCrP”) and on section 119(1)(6) of the Judicial Power Act of 1994 (see paragraphs 37 and 38 below), and reasoned that the privatisation procedure had been tainted by a breach of paragraph 8 of the transitional and concluding provisions of the Transformation and Privatisation of State and Municipally‑Owned Enterprises Act of 1992 (see paragraph 44 below). There were also indications that certain interested parties had not been properly notified of the privatisation terms. The latest valuation of the hotel prior to the privatisation had been conducted under circumstances which called into question the objectivity of the officials involved. These facts could only be elucidated through a criminal investigation. The prosecution authorities were also bound to exercise their powers under Article 27 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1952 (“the CCP”) (see paragraph 40 below). In these circumstances, the performance of the obligations in the privatisation contract would disturb public order, lead to the commission of offences by officials and economic offences, and cause considerable damage.\n9.  The decision was served on the chairperson of the Sofia Municipal Council and on the Sofia Municipal Privatisation Agency, but not on the applicant company.\n10.  The mayor of Sofia appealed against the decision to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office, arguing that the privatisation contract could only be set aside by a court. In a decision of 25 July 1997 the Chief Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the lower prosecutor’s office had correctly found that measures – consisting of the suspension of the performance of the contract – had to be taken to prevent the future commission of offences and that it was bound to seek the annulment of the contract by a court.\n11.  The mayor of Sofia further appealed to the Chief Prosecutor. In a ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1897", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Ms Nada Kostovska, is a national of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, who was born in 1920 and lives in Skopje.\n7.  The applicant and her close family shared a plot of building land with the family of the applicant’s niece and nephew, Mrs M.F.Z. and Mr J.F. Both families have constructed their own family houses on it. A small house and a shed existed on the plot, ownership of which was disputed in the proceedings complained of.\n8.  On 9 March 1982, the applicant and her husband instituted civil proceedings against Mrs M.F.Z. and Mr J.F. for determination of the ownership over the house and the shed and for recognition of the usus rights over the land.\n9.  On 19 June 1984 the Skopje I Municipality Court (Општински Суд Скопје I) partly upheld the applicant’s and her husband’s claim and awarded them ownership title over the house and the shed and the right to use the land.\n10.  On 31 January 1985 the then Skopje District Court (Окружен Суд Скопје) quashed the lower court’s decision and remitted the case for re-examination as the latter had erroneously established the facts and had wrongly applied domestic law.\n11.  On 19 May 1988 the Skopje I Municipal Court partly upheld the applicant’s and her husband’s claim.\n12.  On 8 July 1989 the Skopje District Court quashed this decision and ordered a retrial.\n13.  On 19 November 1991 the Skopje I Municipal Court granted the applicant’s and her husband’s claims.\n14.  On 24 September 1992 the Skopje District Court quashed the decision and remitted the case for re-examination.\n15.  On 28 May 1993 the Skopje I Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s and her husband’s civil action.\n16.  On 25 November 1993 the Skopje District Court upheld the applicant’s and her husband’s appeal and ordered a retrial.\n17.  On 31 March 1994 the Skopje I Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s and her husband’s claim.\n18.  On 28 October 1994 the Skopje District Court upheld the lower court’s decision.\n19.  On 27 March 1996 the Supreme Court (Врховен Суд) upheld the applicant’s appeal on points of law (ревизија) and set aside the decisions of the lower courts.\n20.  After the death of the applicant’s husband, her daughter and son, Mrs L.M. and Mr V.K., joined the proceedings. The inheritance proceedings concerning the property of the applicant’s husband lasted from 9 October 2001 until 20 December 2001 when the Skopje Court of First Instance declared Mrs L.M. and Mr V.K. heirs.\n21.  Following the adoption of the Courts’ Act in 1995 (Закон за судовите), the Skopje I Municipality Court became the Skopje I Court of First Instance (Основен Суд Скопје I) and the Skopje District Court became the Skopje Court of Appeal (Апелационен Суд Скопје).\n22.  On 2 July 1997 the Skopje I Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s and her children’s claim against Mrs M.F.Z. and Mr J.F. The court established that the applicant had built the house and the shed with the permission of Mrs M.F.Z. and Mr J.F. It was supposed to serve a purpose of a home for their late mother.\n23.  On 20 May 1998 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s and her children’s appeal and quashed the lower court’s decision. It instructed the court below to re-assess the evidence and to obtain new evidence; to examine the parties; to clarify in favour of whom the house and the shed had been built; and to establish when and how the applicant had obtained possession over the property at issue.\n24.  After fifteen hearings sched", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1898", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Yakutsk.\n5.  On 1 October 1999 the Yakutsk Town Court of Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic allowed the applicant’s claim against the Yakutsk Town Administration for provision of housing. The Town Court ordered that the administration:\n“...provide Mr Kuksa and his family members with living premises that meet sanitary and technical requirements”.\n6.  The judgment of 1 October 1999 was amended on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic on 14 September 2000. The Supreme Court ordered that the administration:\n“...provide Mr Kuksa and his family members with well-equipped living premises in a stone building constructed after 1994”.\n7.  On 22 December 2000 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, by way of supervisory-review proceedings and upon the applicant’s request, amended the judgment of 14 September 2000 and ordered that the administration:\n“...provide Mr Kuksa with a three-room well-equipped flat in a new stone block of flats”.\n8.  The judgment entered into force on the same day.\n9.  In November 1999 the bailiffs’ service opened enforcement proceedings and in February 2000 charged 17 flats belonging to the Yakutsk Town Administration.\n10.  On 31 May 2000 the Yakutsk Town Court, upon the complaint from the Town Administration, quashed the bailiffs’ charging order.\n11.  After the decision of 31 May 2000 had been quashed on appeal and the case had been remitted for a fresh examination, the Yakutsk Town Court reconsidered the matter and discontinued the proceedings.\n12.  In December 2000 the bailiffs charged 7 flats of the Town Administration and deposited them with the administration’s creditors. The applicant was not among them. The bailiffs also fined the Town Administration for its failure to enforce the judgment in the applicant’s favour. Those decisions were quashed by the Yakutsk Town Court, upon the administration’s appeal.\n13.  On an unspecified date liquidation proceedings were instituted against the Yakutsk Town Administration and in February 2003 the bailiffs sent the writ of execution to the liquidation commission.\n14.  At the time the application was lodged with the Court, the judgment of 1 October 1999, as amended on 22 December 2000, remained unenforced because the Town Administration possessed no available housing or financial resources to purchase a flat.\n15.  On 14 November 2005 the Ministry of Building of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic offered the applicant to purchase a three-room flat at the Ministry’s expense. Four days later the applicant bought a three-room flat and submitted a copy of the contract to the Government of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.\n16.  On 22 November 2005 the Ministry of Finance of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic paid the purchase price to the construction company and  on 6 December 2005 the company provided the applicant with keys to the flat and he and his family members moved into it.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1899", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in the Tula Region.\n5.  In 1986 the applicant took part in the clean-up of the Chernobyl nuclear accident site. As a consequence he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions.\n6.  On 19 March 1997 the applicant lodged an action against the Tula Regional military recruitment office (Тульский областной военный комиссариат) for compensation for health damage.\n7.  On 30 September 1997 the Tula Regional Court, in the final instance, dismissed the action.\n8.  On 24 April 1998 the applicant requested the Tsentralniy District Court to re-open the proceedings on account of newly-discovered evidence and to award him compensation.\n9.  The judge N. was assigned to the case and the first hearing was listed for 3 September 1998.\n10.  Of the seven hearings listed between 3 September 1998 and 6 July 1999, two hearings were adjourned because the defendant did not attend and five hearings were adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings.\n11.  On 28 July 1999 the Tsentralniy District Court awarded the applicant a certain amount in compensation for the health damage claimed.\n12.  On 18 January 2000 the Tula Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. The Regional Court held that the District Court had examined the merits of the applicant’s action, without addressing the request for re-opening. Instead, it should have, first, examined the request for re-opening and then, if such a request was granted, it should have ruled on the merits of the action.\n13.  On 9 March 2000 the Tsentralniy District Court issued a formal decision ordering re-opening of the proceedings and on 15 May 2000 it awarded the applicant partial compensation.\n14.  The judgment of 15 May 2000 was quashed on appeal on 10 August 2000 and the case was remitted for a fresh examination.\n15.  The Tsentralniy District Court received the case-file from the Regional Court on 23 October 2000. Three days later the applicant lodged an amended statement of claims. He subsequently amended his claims on two occasions.\n16.  The hearing listed for 25 December 2000 was adjourned because the applicant could not attend.\n17.  On 2 April 2001 the Tsentralniy District Court granted the applicant’s claim in part.\n18.  On 7 June 2001 the Tula Regional Court adjourned the appellate proceedings because the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation was to examine the legal provisions on which the applicant’s claims were based.\n19.  The applicant unsuccessfully complained to the Tula Regional Judicial Qualification Board, the Tula Regional Court and the Judicial Department of the Tula Region about the excessive length of the proceedings.\n20.  On 17 September 2002 the Tula Regional Court resumed the proceedings, quashed the judgment of 2 April 2001 and remitted the case for a new examination.\n21.  On 6 November 2002 the Tsentralniy District Court received the case-file from the Regional Court and listed a hearing for 3 February 2003.\n22.  Of the twenty hearings listed between 3 February 2003 and 18 April 2005, ten hearings were adjourned because the defendant could not attend and seven hearings were adjourned because the judge was ill or involved in other proceedings.\n23.  On 25 April 2005 the applicant amended his claims and requested the District Court to stay the proceedings until the end of May 2005 because he was ill. The applicant provided the District Court with a medical certificate.\n24.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1900", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 17 July 1991 the Government adopted a decree forbidding any transactions with the immovable property situated in Croatia and belonging to the former Yugoslavia’s federal institutions or legal entities having seat in one of its former federal units (Uredba o zabrani raspolaganja nekretninama na teritoriju Republike Hrvatske – “the Decree”, Official Gazette no. 36/1991). The Decree entered into force on 24 July 1991 and was to remain in force pending the process of succession of the former Yugoslavia.\n6.  In the period between 1993 and 1999 the Decree was challenged on five occasions by various petitioners in abstract constitutional review proceedings. The Constitutional Court refused all the petitions finding that the Decree had not been in breach of the Constitution.\n7.  In the period between July 1991 and April 1994, starting with the decree of 31 July 1991, the Government adopted several successive decrees forbidding transactions with other property that had remained in Croatia and belonging to the legal entities having seat in one of the former Yugoslavia’s federal units. Eventually, on 24 March 1994 Parliament passed an act of the same content (Zakon o zabrani raspolaganja i preuzimanju sredstava određenih pravnih osoba na teritoriju Republike Hrvatske – “the Act”, Official Gazette nos. 29 and 35/1994).\n8.  The applicant was working as a professor at the former Military Academy in Zagreb.\n9.  On 13 and 16 August 1991, the Zagreb Garrison of the Yugoslav People’s Army (“the YPA”), issued two decisions granting the applicant the right to occupy a flat in Zagreb of 99.35 square metres that was owned by the YPA. He was also obliged to give back a flat of 51.56 square metres that had previously been awarded to him by the YPA, in which he had been living with his wife and two children until then.\nThey still live in the last-mentioned flat.\n10.  On 11 September 1992 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking to use the flat granted to him by the above-mentioned YPA decisions.\n11.  On 5 October 1992 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that the YPA decisions had no legal effect since they had been issued contrary to the peremptory rules of the Decree.\n12.  The applicant appealed to the Zagreb County Court (Okružni sud u Zagrebu), which on 2 March 1993 quashed the first-instance judgment for incomplete facts and remitted the case.\n13.  In the resumed proceedings, on 7 March 1995 the Zagreb Municipal Court again dismissed the applicant’s claim repeating its previous findings. The applicant again appealed.\n14.  On 30 December 1996 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.\n15.  The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske). On 18 May 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.\n16.  On 20 November 2000 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the Supreme Court’s decision with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske).\n17.  Before dealing with the applicant’s complaint, the Constitutional Court decided first to examine three petitions for constitutional review (prijedlog za ocjenu ustavnosti) directed against the Decree and the Act – which, in the Government’s view, constit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1902", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Novovoronezh.\n6.  The applicant receives an old-age pension. From April 1998 to April 1999 she received her pension several months in arrears. According to the applicant, inflation during this period meant that the pension paid several months in arrears had lost significant part of its value by the time it was paid.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an action against the Novovoronezh Social-Security Authority for index-linking of her pension in line with inflation.\n8.  On 27 October 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region found for the applicant and ordered the defendant authority to pay the applicant 2,044.87 Russian roubles (RUR) as the pension indexation and RUR 91.79 as a court fee.\n9.  The defendant authority did not appeal against the judgment. On 7 November 2000 the judgment came into force.\n10.  On 21 November 2000 the Town Court issued a writ of execution for the total amount of RUR 2,136.66.\n11.  On 23 November 2000 the Court Bailiffs’ Department of Novovoronezh instituted enforcement proceedings. It invited the Head of the Novovoronezh Social-Security Authority to pay the judgment debt within a fixed time limit. This was not done.\n12.  On 6 December 2000 the bailiff issued an order for collection of the money from the defendant’s bank account. However, according to letter No. 3980 of 10 September 2001 from the Court Bailiffs’ Department, no money had entered the defendant’s bank account since 1 November 2000, which made it impossible to enforce the judgment.\n13.  The applicant’s complaints about the non-enforcement to the Novovoronezh Town Prosecutor and the Voronezh Region Department of the Ministry of Justice were to no avail.\n14.  On 14 December 2000 the bailiff applied to the Novovoronezh Town Court seeking for clarification as to the enforcement of judgments against the Social-Security Authority. By a decision of 17 January 2001 the court rejected this request.\n15.  On 5 March 2001 the Bailiffs’ Department returned the writ of execution to the applicant notifying her that the judgment of 27 October 2000 could not be enforced because of the defendant’s lack of funds.\n16.  The applicant’s further requests for execution of the judgment brought the same negative result communicated to the applicant by the Bailiffs’ Department on 18 October 2001, 30 August 2002, 29 May 2003, 23 June and 26 August 2005.\n17.  On 5 September 2005 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Bailiffs’ Department anew.\n18.  The judgment of 27 October 2000 has not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1903", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Ms Zoya Petrovna Mikhaylova was born in 1944. Ms Anna Vasilyevna Didorchuk was born in 1955. Ms Klavdiya Grigoryevna Khodakova and Ms Galina Vasilyevna Savchenko were born in 1951. Ms Tatyana Alekseyevna Bondarenko was born in 1950. Ms Yelena Mikhaylovna Vaskevich was born in 1961. Ms Anna Nikolayevna Shandurskaya and Ms Yelena Nikolayevna Khlusevich were born in 1962. Mr Aleksandr Petrovich Gaydachuk was born in 1963. Mr Vladimir Vasilyevich Ostapenko was born in 1970. Mr Nikolay Nikolayevich Litvinov was born in 1976. Mr Nikolay Nikolayevich Vaypan was born in 1949. Mr Nikolay Ivanovich Starodubets was born in 1947. Ms Yelena Anatolyevna Zavina was born in 1964. Mr Tofik Kadyr Ogly Ibragimov was born in 1954. Ms Lyusya Ivanovna Ibragimova was born in 1958. All applicants reside in the city of Kirovograd, Ukraine.\n6.  In 2000-2001 the applicants instituted separate sets of proceedings in the Kirovskiy District Court of Kirovograd, seeking the recovery of salary arrears and other payments, from their former employer, the State-owned enterprise, Kirovogradskiy Lyvarnyi Zavod (“the KLZ”), or its subsidiary enterprises. Mr Ibragimov and Mrs Ibragimova filed also applications with the labour disputes commission of the KLZ to recover unpaid salary.\n7.  By a judgment of 27 June 2001, Ms Zoya Mikhaylova was awarded 4,684.81 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears from the KLZ. On 9 October 2001 the Court of Appeal of the Kirovograd Region upheld this judgment. The judgment remains unenforced. On 11 April 2002 the Kirovskiy District Court of Kirovograd rejected the applicant’s complaint against the Bailiffs’ Service for the non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour.\n8.  By a judgment of 11 July 2001, Ms Anna Didorchuk was awarded UAH 2,736 in salary arrears from the KLZ. The judgment remains unenforced.\n9.  By a judgment of 4 April 2000, Ms Klavdiya Khodakova was awarded UAH 1,075.90 in salary arrears from the KLZ subsidiary enterprise “Lyvarne Vyrobnytstvo”. The judgment remains unenforced.\n10.  By a judgment of 7 September 2001, Ms Tatyana Bondarenko was awarded UAH 1,586.82 in salary arrears from the KLZ. In February 2003 the debt was partly (UAH 326) set off against the payment for communal charges. The rest of the judgment remains unenforced.\n11.  By a judgment of 7 September 2001, Ms Yelena Vaskevich was awarded UAH 1,242.07 in salary arrears and compensation for the payment delay from the KLZ. In February and April 2003 the debt was set off against the payment for communal charges. On 6 May 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the full enforcement of the judgment given in the applicant’s favour.\n12.  By a judgment of 20 June 2001, Ms Anna Shandurskaya was awarded UAH 1,324.98 in salary arrears from the KLZ. On 3 March 2004 the judgment was enforced.\n13.  By a judgment of 27 September 2001, Ms Yelena Khlusevich was awarded UAH 1,815.88 in salary arrears from the KLZ. The judgment remains unenforced.\n14.  By a judgment of 20 June 2001, Ms Galina Savchenko was awarded UAH 224.50 in salary arrears from the KLZ. The debtor enterprise maintained that in February 2003 the debt was set off against the payment for communal charges. The applicant challenges this statement. In June 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service returned the writ of enforcement to the applicant because of the lack of funds of the debtor enterprise.\n15.  By a judgment of 30 August 2001, Mr Aleksandr Gaydachuk was awarded UAH 809.74 in sa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1904", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Belogorsk in the Amur Region. She was a shareholder of a private company\n5.  In August 1998 the company’s board initiated bankruptcy proceedings in respect of the company and sold the company’s property.\n6.  On 4 December 1998 the applicant lodged an action before the Belogorsk Town Court against the company’s receiver seeking payment of the value of her share.\n7.  The first hearing was listed for 6 May 1999 because the courthouse of the Belogorsk Town Court was not heated.\n8.  On 22 March 1999 the bankruptcy proceedings in respect of the company were closed and the company wound up.\n9.  In May 1999 the Belogorsk Town Court adjourned the hearing because the parties did not attend.\n10.  The next hearing listed for 22 July 1999 was adjourned upon the applicant’s request because she had to leave Belogorsk. She asked to schedule the hearing for 3 August 1999. The Town Court listed the hearing for 6 April 2000. However, it was also adjourned because the applicant was ill.\n11.  In November 2000 the applicant amended her claims and asked the court to annul the sale contract in respect of the company’s property and the decision of 22 March 1999.\n12.  On 27 November 2001 the Belogorsk Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claim.\n13.  The Amur Regional Court quashed that judgment on 30 January 2002. The case was remitted for a new examination.\n14.  Between February and October 2002, the Town Court listed three hearings of which two were adjourned because the defendant did not attend or the judge was involved in other proceedings.\n15.  On 28 October 2002 the Belogorsk Town Court transferred the applicant’s case to the Commercial Court of the Amur Region.\n16.  On 10 December 2002 the Commercial Court of the Amur Region discontinued the proceedings because it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the applicant’s claim.\n17.  The decision of 10 December 2002 was upheld on appeal on 23 March 2003 by the Appeals Division of the Commercial Court of the Amur Region.\n18.  On 28 July 2003 the Presidium of the Amur Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the decision of 28 October 2002 and remitted the case for a new examination to the Belogorsk Town Court.\n19.  In November 2003 the applicant withdrew her claims, save for one concerning the annulment of the decision of 22 March 1999. She argued that the decision of 22 March 1999 should be quashed because the company still had assets to pay her the value of her share.\n20.  On 1 December 2003 the Belogorsk Town Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the withdrawn claims and on 24 December 2003 it discontinued the proceedings in respect of the claim for annulment of the decision of 22 March 1999. The court held that the claim should be examined by a commercial court.\n21.  On 9 April 2004 the Amur Regional Court quashed the decision of 24 December 2003 and referred the case for a new examination by the Town Court. The Regional Court also issued a “special finding” concerning the excessive length of the proceedings in the applicant’s case. It found that the case had not been dealt with diligently. In particular, it noted the delays between December 1998 and 27 November 2001, between 18 February and 28 October 2002 and after 19 August 2003. The appeal court also held that transfer of the case to the commercial court amounted to “unjustified delays and postponement of hearings on various pretexts, as well as to the [presiding", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1905", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Krasnoarmiysk, the Donetsk region.\n6.  In 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Dimitrivsk Town Court against the Mine Construction Department of the Vuglebud State Joint Stock Company, seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. By decision of 20 June 1997, the court awarded the applicant UAH 8,317.13[1] in salary arrears and other payments.\n7.  On 23 March 2004 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment in his favour had not been executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the debtor’s lack of funds.\n8.  In the years of 1997 – 1999 the applicant was paid UAH 4,868.29[2] in instalments. In June 2004 he was paid UAH 2,725.29[3].\n9.  On 22 August 2005 the applicant was paid the remaining amount (UAH 723.55[4]) of the judgment debt.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1906", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicant is a Russian national who was born in Russia in 1948 and lives in Riga (Latvia).\n12.  In 1970, at the age of twenty-two, the applicant settled in Latvian territory for work-related reasons. Between 1973 and 1980, the year of her divorce, she was married to a man resident in Latvia. In 1973 she gave birth to a son, Jevgeņijs Ševanovs, who has lived with her until the present day.\nIn 1981, having lost the Soviet passport issued to her in 1978, the applicant obtained a new passport. In 1989 she found the lost passport, but did not return it to the relevant authorities.\n13.  In August 1991 Latvia regained full independence. In December 1991 the Soviet Union, the State of which the applicant had hitherto been a national, broke up. The applicant therefore became stateless. In August 1992 her name was entered in the register of residents (Iedzīvotāju reģistrs) as a permanent resident. Her son was subsequently granted the status of “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia.\n14.  In 1994 a Latvian bridge‑building firm offered the applicant a job as a crane operator in Dagestan and Ingushetia, regions of the Caucasus bordering on Chechnya and belonging to the Russian Federation. In view of the difficulties caused by tighter supervision in these regions by the Russian authorities on account of the troubles in Chechnya, the firm advised her to obtain Russian nationality and a formal registration of residence in Russia before signing the employment contract. In May 1994 the applicant consulted a broker who put a false stamp in her first Soviet passport, the one which had been found but not disclosed to the authorities, stating that the registration of her residence in Latvia had been cancelled (pieraksts, or dzīvesvietas reģistrācija in Latvian).\n15.  In June 1994 the applicant was registered as being resident in Shumanovo in the Kursk region of Russia, at her brother’s address. In August 1994 she obtained Russian nationality. In 1995 and 1996 she travelled to Russia, working there for two periods of 100 and 120 days respectively.\n16.  In March 1998 the applicant applied to the Interior Ministry’s Nationality and Migration Directorate (Iekšlietu ministrijas Pilsonības un migrācijas lietu pārvalde – “the Directorate”) for a passport based on the status of “permanently resident non-citizen”. In accordance with the regulations in force, she submitted alongside the application the second Soviet passport issued to her in 1981. On examining the file, the Directorate discovered that she had registered a second residence in Russia and had completed certain formalities on the basis of the old passport which had been mislaid and found again. Accordingly, by decision of 9 April 1998, the Directorate removed the applicant’s name from the register of residents. On the same day the head of the Directorate issued an order for the applicant’s deportation (izbraukšanas rīkojums), requesting her to leave Latvia for Russia by 19 June 1998. The deportation order was accompanied by a prohibition on re-entering Latvia for five years. It was served on the applicant on 11 June 1998.\n17.  After appealing unsuccessfully against the deportation order to the head of the Directorate, the applicant lodged an application with the Riga City Central District Court seeking to have the order set aside. In her memorial she submitted that, as the false stamp in her passport had been put there without her knowledge and she had therefore been unaware of it, she shou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1907", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is presently detained in the Koszalin Detention Centre.\n5.  On 19 June 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed armed robbery acting in an organised criminal group. On 21 June 2001 the Opole District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question, the severity of the penalty that could be expected and the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.\n6.  Subsequently, the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged the applicant’s detention on several occasions reiterating the grounds previously given.\n7.  On 22 February 2002 the Opole Regional Court decided to prolong the detention of the applicant relying, in addition to the earlier grounds, on the danger that given the complexity of the case and number of persons involved, there was a risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence or otherwise obstruct the proceedings.\n8.  On 18 June 2002 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal partly allowed the prosecutor’s request and prolonged the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 30 October 2002. Subsequently, on 5 September 2002 the Court of Appeal further prolonged the detention pointing to the fact that the investigation was in its final stages.\n9.  On 21 December 2002 the applicant was indicted before the Opole District Court. The bill of indictment was directed against twenty‑two co‑accused. The charges against the applicant included leading an organised criminal group, leading participation in several robberies and illegal possessing of firearms.\n10.  On 30 December 2002, the trial court prolonged the applicant’s detention relying on the strong probability that the applicant and 13 co‑accused had committed the offences with which he had been charged and on the severity of the sentence that could be imposed. The court further submitted that only detention would secure the applicant’s appearance at the trial.\n11.  On 14 May 2003 the Regional Court made an application under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego) to the Wroclaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) asking that the applicant’s detention be prolonged beyond the statutory time-limit of two years.\n12.  On 21 May 2003 the Wrocław Court of Appeal granted that application and prolonged the detention of the applicant until 27 November 2003. The Court justified its decision with reference to the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences and the complexity of the case which concerned an organised criminal group and involved several co‑accused.\n13.  At the hearing held by the Opole Regional Court on 22 October 2003 the applicant’s application for release was dismissed.\n14.  On 26 November 2003 the Court of Appeal, upon another application under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prolonged the applicant’s detention until 22 January 2004. It reiterated the grounds previously given for keeping him in custody. The court also considered that, given the severity of the penalty that might be expected, the applicant might obstruct the proceedings.\n15.  That decision was upheld on appeal on 13 January 2004.\n16.  On 16 January 2004 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention upon the Regional Court’s application. The court stressed that, due to the complex nature of the case, the applicant should be kept in custody since the gr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1908", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lived in Istanbul at the material time.\n5.  On 9 September 1996 he was taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. On 18 September 1996 a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial.\n6.  On 13 March 1997 the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant and sixteen others with membership of an illegal organisation, under section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n7.  The first hearing was held on 21 May 1997.\n8.  On 11 March 1998 the defendants’ representatives informed the court that criminal proceedings had been instituted in the Istanbul Assize Court against police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the defendants while they were in detention. The State Security Court requested the Istanbul Assize Court to send it the relevant case file for examination.\n9.  At a hearing on 15 May 1998, the State Security Court asked the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters and the Bakırköy Public Prosecutor’s Office to produce documents and reports relating to certain incidents involving the accused. It also requested documents from two other courts before which separate proceedings against two of the accused were pending. At the next four hearings the State Security Court reiterated these requests, as it had received no response from the courts concerned.\n10.  At a hearing on 18 November 1998, since it had still not received from the Istanbul Assize Court the case file concerning those police officers accused of ill-treating certain defendants, the State Security Court revised its request and asked simply to be informed about progress in the case. It also requested a copy of the final decision once the case had been concluded. It reiterated this request at the next eleven hearings.\n11.  On 14 April 1999 the State Security Court decided to sever the case of one of the defendants and to join it to another case which was pending before a different chamber.\n12.  On 18 June 1999 the Public Prosecutor’s Office submitted its opinion on the merits of the case.\n13.  At the next twenty-three hearings before the Istanbul State Security Court, the applicant’s lawyer made applications for his client’s release pending trial, which the court dismissed in view of the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the material in the case file. At hearings on 14 November 1997 and 11 March 1998, the court again remanded the applicant in custody, noting that his release would entail a risk of his absconding.\n14.  On 8 December 2000, having still not received any information concerning the case against the police officers pending before the Assize Court, the Istanbul State Security Court requested a copy of either the final decision or the indictment.\n15.  On 28 February 2001 the Istanbul Assize Court informed the State Security Court that the case was still pending and produced the indictment.\n16.  On 22 May 2001 the applicant’s lawyer filed a petition with the Istanbul State Security Court requesting the applicant’s release pending trial. He relied on Article 19 § 3 of the Constitution and Article 5 of the Convention. He contended that the court’s continued refusal to grant bail was groundless. On 24 May 2001, not", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1909", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 22 February 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking. The next day he was remanded in custody by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki). His appeal against the remand order was dismissed on 22 March 1996 by the Jelenia Góra Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).\n9.  In March 1996 the prosecutor ordered expert opinions on tool mark identification and microtraces.\n10.  On 16 May 1996 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 August 1996, considering, inter alia, that the number of suspected persons and the translation of certain documents from German into Polish made it impossible to complete the proceedings within the originally fixed three month time-limit. On 5 June 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision.\n11.  On 26 August 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal prolonged his detention until 30 September 1996, referring to the applicant’s connections with certain individuals residing abroad and the expert opinions which had to be obtained.\n12.  On 30 September 1996 the same court prolonged the detention until 31 December 1996. It pointed out that the case was very complex and several items of evidence had to be examined. The court further noted that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence. On 14 November 1996 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision, observing, however, that the need to obtain expert opinions on pyrotechnics and forged documents could not constitute a ground for the prolongation of the applicant’s detention, as it did not relate to the counts of which he was suspected.\n13.  On 19 December 1996 the Wrocław Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention until 22 February 1997, relying, inter alia, on a fear that he would induce witnesses to give false testimony and a risk of absconding if the applicant were to be released. It noted that further expert opinions had to be ordered. The Supreme Court upheld that decision.\n14.  On 17 February 1997 the Supreme Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 April 1997. It found that although the proceedings could have been conducted more speedily, the need to obtain evidence in Germany had significantly affected their length. The court further noted that the applicant and other suspected persons’ frequent petitions contesting decisions concerning their detention contributed to the delay, as they had resulted in transferring the case file to the courts, thus making it impossible for the prosecutor to continue investigations. It finally observed that the risk that the applicant would induce witnesses to give false testimony was serious and there was evidence that he had already attempted to do so.\n15.  On 1 April 1997 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor refused the applicant’s request for release, pointing out that he was suspected of a serious offence and it was quite likely that he would be sentenced to imprisonment. On 17 and 22 April 1997 the Wrocław Appellate Prosecutor (prokurator Prokuratury Apelacyjnej) dismissed the applicant and his lawyer’s appeals, relying, inter alia, on the findings of the investigations that the applicant and his brother had had a leading role in the organisation of a drug trafficking network.\n16.  On 24 April 1997 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor submitted the bill of indictment to the Jelenia Góra Regional Court. It containe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1910", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Martin.\n5.  The applicant concluded contracts concerning the lease of business premises inter alia with the following tenants: an entrepreneur B., an entrepreneur K., a company M., and an entrepreneur M.\n6.  As these tenants failed to pay the rent, the applicant initiated the following proceedings against them.\n7.  On 18 June 1997 the applicant lodged the action with the Bratislava III District Court (Okresný súd). He sought an order for payment of unpaid rent, a contractual penalty for the late payment, and compensation in respect of the costs of the defendant’s eviction.\n8.  On 18 August 1997 the District Court invited the applicant to pay the court fee, which he did on 5 September 1997.\n9.  On 26 September 1997, in summary proceedings, the District Court issued a payment order (platobný rozkaz) in the applicant’s favour. A copy of the order was mailed to the defendant but was returned by the postal service to the District Court on 3 October 1997 with the mention “addressee unknown”.\n10.  On 27 November 1997 the District Court requested information about the defendant’s whereabouts from the Central Registry of Citizens in Banská Bystrica and the Municipal Registry of Citizens in Bratislava, which responded on 8 and 9 December 1997, respectively.\n11.  The District Court subsequently re-mailed a copy of the payment order of 26 September 1997 to the defendant’s address obtained from the above Registries. On 15 December 1997 it was returned with the mention “addressee unknown”.\n12.  On 14 January 1998 the District Court requested that the payment order of 26 September 1997 be served on the defendant by the police. The latter informed the District Court on 23 January 1998 that the defendant was not staying at the address officially registered as her permanent residence and that her current whereabouts were unknown.\n13.  On 30 January 1998 the District Court wrote to the Central Registry of Prisoners asking whether the defendant was currently detained on remand or serving a prison sentence. The Central Registry responded in the negative on 11 February 1998.\n14.  On 12 February 1998 the District Court quashed the payment order of 26 September 1997 under Article 173 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure holding that it had proven impossible to serve a copy of the order on the defendant in person.\n15.  On 26 January 2001 the District Court appointed an ex officio guardian to the defendant as the latter’s whereabouts were unknown and it was not possible to secure her participation in the proceedings.\n16.  On 14 February 2001, following a hearing held on the same day, the District Court granted the action. The judgment became final and enforceable in March 2001.\n17.  The applicant filed the action on 16 May 1996 with the Martin District Court. He sought an order for payment of a contractual penalty for the late payment of rent.\n18.  On 1 December 1998 the defendant lodged a counterclaim.\n19.  On 15 November 2000 the District Court granted the action.\n20.  In a letter of 24 October 2002 the Registry of the Court informed the applicant of the amendment to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic which had entered into force on 1 January 2002 and which provided for a new remedy under the amended Article 127 of the Constitution in respect of delays in court proceedings. The applicant was requested to inform the Court whether he used or intended to use this remedy in view of the requirement to exhaus", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1911", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is presently detained in the Lublin Detention Centre.\n5.  On 17 July 2001 the Opole District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery acting in an organised criminal group. The court also considered that the measure was justified by the severity of the penalty that could be expected and the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.\n6.  Subsequently, the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged the applicant’s detention on several occasions.\n7.  On 5 September 2002 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal, upon the prosecutor’s request, decided to prolong the applicant’s detention relying, in addition to the earlier grounds, on the complexity of the case.\n8.  On 21 December 2002, the applicant was indicted before the Opole Regional Court. The bill of indictment was directed against 22 co‑accused.\n9.  On 30 December 2002 the Opole Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention relying on the strong probability that the applicant and 13 co-accused had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the severity of the sentence that could be imposed. The court further submitted that only detention would secure the applicant’s appearance at the trial.\n10.  On 14 May 2003 the Regional Court made an application under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postepowania karnego) to the Wroclaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) asking that the applicant’s detention be prolonged beyond the statutory time-limit of two years.\n11.  On 21 May 2003 the Wrocław Court of Appeal granted that application and prolonged the detention of the applicant until 27 November 2003. The Court justified its decision with reference to the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences and the complexity of the case which concerned an organised criminal group and involved several co‑accused.\n12.  At the hearing held by the Opole Regional Court on 22 October 2003 the applicant’s application for release was dismissed.\n13.  On 26 November 2003 the Court of Appeal, upon another application under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prolonged the applicant’s detention until 22 January 2004. It reiterated the grounds previously given for keeping him in custody. The court also considered that, given the severity of the penalty that might be expected, the applicant might obstruct the proceedings.\n14.  That decision was upheld on appeal on 13 January 2004.\n15.  On 16 January 2004 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal further prolonged the applicant’s detention. The court stressed that, due to the complex nature of the case, the applicant should be kept in custody since the grounds previously given for his detention were still valid.\n16.  That decision was upheld on appeal on 10 February 2004. The Court of Appeal noted that the exemplary behaviour of the applicant during the proceedings ‑ the fact that he had confessed and had been clarifying important details concerning the alleged crimes - would justify releasing him from detention. Nevertheless, the court found that there were “pragmatic” reasons for keeping him in detention, since he had been simultaneously detained by the Lublin Regional Court in connection with another set of criminal proceedings. If released, the applicant would have been transferred to a detention centre in Lublin, which, in the Court’s view, would make it impossible t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1912", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and, at the time of lodging his application with the Court, was serving a sentence of imprisonment in HM Prison Ranby, Nottinghamshire.\n6.  In October 1995, in response to an increase in the availability of heroin in Bradford, the police commenced “Operation Trafalgar”, to identify and target those responsible. On the basis of intelligence reports the police reached the conclusion that the applicant was the head of a group of Asian drug traffickers operating in the area. Video recordings made of his house and his itemised telephone bill indicated that he was in regular contact with suspected drug dealers from elsewhere in the United Kingdom.\n7.  On 17 July 1996, in accordance with Home Office Guidelines (“the Guidelines”: see paragraphs 16-18 of the Khan judgment, cited in paragraph 12 below) the Chief Constable authorised the use of a covert listening device in the applicant’s house. On 19 July 1996 the applicant was arrested for suspected car theft and a warrant was obtained to search his house for documents relating to motor vehicles. When executing the warrant the police covertly installed listening and recording equipment inside his house. Recordings were made between 19 July and 21 November 1996. The Chief Constable’s authorisation had been obtained for the entire period, except 16 August and 6 September, when the authorisation had lapsed and not been renewed, due to an oversight.\n8.  It was the prosecution’s case at the subsequent trial that the recordings obtained in this way revealed detailed discussions between the applicant and his co-accused demonstrating their involvement in conspiracies to import and distribute Class A drugs, in particular heroin.\n9.  The applicant was arrested, together with a number of alleged associates, and charged with conspiracy to import and supply Class A drugs. He and his co-accused applied to have the prosecution struck out for abuse of process and/or the recordings excluded from evidence. On 14 January 1999 the trial judge ruled against the defendants, observing as follows:\n“I respectfully note the conclusion of the European Commission of Human rights in the case of Michael Govell v. the United Kingdom, adopted 14 January 1998, to the effect that the use of covert listening devices in accordance with the Guidelines is not done in accordance with the law and is thus in breach of Article 8, because in the United Kingdom there is as yet no legally binding publicly accessible body of law regulating such activity. I bear in mind that the Convention is not yet part of our law, but that where possible domestic law should be interpreted in accordance with Convention principles.\nI take into account that in intruding on the privacy of Elahi’s home the police will have committed civil trespass and possibly criminal damage. I take into account that there may have been conduct outside the Home Office Guidelines, in that the authority for the continued use of the listening device may not have been in place between 16 August and 6 September. On the other hand, I bear in mind my finding that the police followed the Guidelines to the letter in all other respects and did not intend deliberately to circumvent the requirement to obtain the Chief Constable’s authority. I take into account that the police acted in good faith throughout in pursuit of the public good in the detection and prosecutio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1913", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Nové Zámky.\n5.  On 18 August 1995 the applicant and her husband entered into a contract for the purchase of a family house and a plot of land from Mr and Mrs D.\n6.  Mr D., who was registered as permanently resident (trvalý pobyt) at the house’s address, undertook in the contract to secure his deregistration by 21 August 1995.\n7.  The applicant and her husband then became the owners of the property and moved into the house. However, Mr D. failed to deregister himself from the relevant register, which was kept by the municipal office (Obecný úrad) of Nové Zámky.\n8.  In a letter of 2 March 2001 in reply to the applicant’s enquiry, the Nové Zámky district prosecutor (Okresný prokurátor) informed her that registration of permanent places of residence was governed by the Registration of Citizens’ Place of Residence Act (Law no. 135/1982, see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below) in conjunction with the Regulation on Enforcement of the Registration of Citizens’ Place of Residence Act (Regulation no. 146/1982). Individuals were obliged to report the taking-up of a new permanent place of residence to the municipal office of the municipality in which that residence was located within three days. Registration of a new permanent place of residence entailed an automatic cancellation of the registration at the previous one. A registration of a permanent place of residence could only be cancelled without registering a new one if the person concerned had lawfully emigrated from Slovakia or if it was discovered that the registration had been based on invalid or forged documents. As Mr D. had not applied for registration of a new permanent place of residence, the Nové Zámky municipal office had no legal authority under the existing legislation to cancel his previous registration at the applicant’s home address.\n9.  On 22 March 2001 the applicant and Mr D. made a joint written declaration to the effect that Mr D. was not resident at the house in question, that he had no right of use in respect of it and that he was not contributing to the costs of its use. Mr D. further declared that he had applied to be deregistered as permanently resident at the house, that his application had been dismissed and that he was homeless and staying in different locations.\n10.  In a letter of 24 May 2001, in reply to her enquiry, the head office of the Police Corps informed the applicant that section 5(1) of a new Registration of Citizens’ Place of Residence Act (Law no. 253/1998 – see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below), which was to come into force on 1 January 2002, could offer a solution to her problem. This legal provision enabled a person to be registered as a permanent resident in a municipality where he or she was born or was habitually resident (kde sa zdržuje), without actually having any specific address there. The letter further stated that the registration of a permanent place of residence at a certain address did not confer a legal right to live there and was merely evidentiary in nature.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant applied for a social contribution towards her dwelling costs (príspevok na bývanie). The number of persons registered as permanently resident at a dwelling was a relevant factor in considering eligibility for such contributions and in calculating the amount to be paid. On 25 April 2001 the Nové Zámky municipal office issued a certificate to the effect that three persons were", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1914", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a Maltese national and lives in Attard, Malta.\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  The applicant is a pharmacist in Malta. From 1971 he was placed on the lists of jurors and remained on them until 2005.\n10.  Between 1971 and 1997, the applicant was called to serve as a juror in three different sets of criminal proceedings. On these occasions, he was called to serve both as a juror and as a foreman of the jury.\n11.  In 1997 the applicant was again called to appear before the Criminal Court to serve as a juror. This time he failed to attend on the requested date and on 14 April 1997 he was fined 100 Maltese liri ((MTL) – approximately 240 euros (EUR)).\n12.  As the applicant failed to pay the fine, on 11 June 1997 the Registrar of the Courts of Malta submitted an application to the Criminal Court. It asked that court to summon the applicant before it and/or to convert the fine imposed into a term of imprisonment.\n13.  At the sitting of 26 June 1997 before the Criminal Court, the applicant raised the plea that the fine imposed on him was unconstitutional and constituted a breach of his fundamental rights. He alleged, in particular, that the sanction was discriminatory in terms of Article 45 of the Constitution and Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 4 § 3 (d), because it subjected him to burdens and duties to which other persons in the same position were not subjected. Moreover, the law and/or the domestic practice exempted persons of the female sex from jury service whereas, de facto, men were not offered this exemption.\n14.  Considering that the applicant’s plea was not merely frivolous and/or vexatious, on 29 September 1997 the Criminal Court referred it to the First Hall of the Civil Court.\n15.  Before the Civil Court, the applicant alleged that the Maltese system penalised men and favoured women, as statistical information showed that during the preceding five years only 3.05% of jurors had been women whereas 96.95% had been men. Moreover, the burden of jury service was not equitably distributed but was placed on a very small proportion of the population: in 1997 the lists of jurors represented only 3.4% of the list of voters. In practice, those who had on one occasion been placed on the lists of jurors would remain on them until they were disqualified, while others who also satisfied all the requirements were de facto exempted from such civic obligation.\n16.  In a judgment of 5 February 1999, the Civil Court rejected the applicant’s claims. It held that in stating that every Maltese citizen who had attained the age of 21 qualified to serve as a juror the law did not make any distinction between citizens. More specifically, there was no distinction between men and women. As to the practice criticised by the applicant, the latter had not substantiated his allegation that there were other persons eligible to serve as jurors who managed to avoid performing their duties. Moreover, the applicant had failed to seek exemption from jury service in accordance with domestic law.\n17.  The Civil Court also observed that the applicant had not proved that he was being treated differently to such an extent that the burdens and obligations imposed on him were greater than those imposed on another person. In particular, it had not been established that people who had been on the lists of jurors as long as the applicant had been removed without a valid ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1915", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Vráble.\n5.  On 23 April 1991 the applicant was dismissed from his job as a sports teacher at a secondary school.\n6.  On 13 September 1991 the Levice District Court found that the applicant’s dismissal was void.\n7.  On 22 November 1991 the applicant again received a notice of dismissal.\n8.  On 13 May 1992 the Levice District Court dismissed the applicant’s action challenging the lawfulness of the dismissal.\n9.  On 15 March 1993 the Nitra branch of the Bratislava Regional Court declared the applicant’s dismissal unlawful.\n10.  In 1993 the applicant claimed payment of the salary which the employer owed him.\n11.  On 12 December 1994 the Levice District Court dismissed the action, but the Nitra branch of the Bratislava Regional Court quashed this decision on 29 November 1995.\n12.  On 23 August 1996 the Levice District Court ordered the defendant to pay the outstanding salary to the applicant.\n13.  On 23 April 1998 the Nitra Regional Court upheld this decision.\n14.  On 19 July 1993 the applicant received a third notice of dismissal from his employer due to redundancy.\n15.  On 25 January 1994 he challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal before the Levice District Court. In the course of February 1994 the applicant supplemented his submission in accordance with the court’s instruction.\n16.  On 12 March 1994 the court asked the applicant to pay the court fee. It also sent the action to the defendant for comments. The applicant paid the fee on 18 March 1994. The defendant’s comments were submitted on 28 March 1994.\n17.  The first hearing was held on 1 June 1994. The case was adjourned due to the defendant’s absence.\n18.  At the second hearing held on 17 August 1994 the court heard the parties.\n19.  Between August and November 1994 the District Court obtained further evidence.\n20.  On 16 January 1995 the Levice District Court dismissed the action. The judgment was served on 1 March 1995 and the applicant appealed on 7 March 1995.\n21.  On 5 April 1995 the applicant paid the fee and the file was submitted to the court of appeal on 20 April 1995.\n22.  On 17 April 1996 the Nitra Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment and returned the case to the District Court. In its decision the Regional Court explicitly stated which evidence needed to be taken with a view to establishing the relevant facts. The file was returned to the District Court on 10 July 1996.\n23.  In the course of August 1996 the District Court obtained further evidence. A hearing was scheduled for 2 October 1996.\n24.  In a submission of 1 October 1996 the applicant challenged the presiding judge. He reiterated his objection at the hearing on 2 October 1996. The request was submitted to the Regional Court which refused to exclude the judge on 31 October 1996. The file was returned to the District Court on 14 November 1996.\n25.  The District Court heard the parties on 6 December 1996. On 10 December 1996 it again dismissed the applicant’s action. On 14 February 1997 the applicant appealed. The file was transmitted to the court of appeal on 13 March 1997.\n26.  On 8 July 1997 the court of appeal scheduled a hearing for 21 December 1998. It asked the defendant to submit further evidence at the hearing.\n27.  On 21 December 1998 the Nitra Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment of 10 December 1996. The court of appeal noted, in particular, that the District Court had disregarded the legally binding opinion set out in its deci", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1916", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Abbas Sertkaya, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Muş. He is represented before the Court by Mr Orhan Tural, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.\n6.  On 12 July 1995 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment accusing the applicant and four other suspects under Article 125 of the Criminal Code, of being involved in seven different instances of setting forests on fire for terrorism purposes, in Bursa in 1994.\n7.  On 19 July 1995 the Istanbul State Security Court held the first trial against the applicant and four other suspects.\n8.  On 6 February 1996 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n9.  On 4 May 1996 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand.\n10.  On 27 February 1997 and 1 July 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court requested that the Bursa and Varto Criminal Courts obtain the statements of witnesses.\n11.  On 22 September 1997 and 11 November 1997 these statements were obtained and sent to the Istanbul State Security Court.\n12.  On 16 November 1999 the Public Prosecutor before the Istanbul State Security Court submitted his observations on the merits of the case. On the same day the applicant was released pending trial.\n13.  On 13 February 2001 the applicant was acquitted of all charges on account of lack of evidence.\n14.  On 21 February 2001 the decision became final in respect of the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1917", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mrs Alla Zakharovna Kirsanova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in the village of Novoselye of the Lomonosovskiy District of the Leningradskiy Region.\n5.  On 28 May 1997 the St-Petersburg City Council (“the City Council”, Администрация Санкт-Петербурга) took a decision to grant the applicant’s family the right to reside in a flat situated in the village of Novoselye. It appears that soon after the applicant moved in, she discovered that the flat had been built with constructional defects.\n6.  On 14 September 1998 the applicant and her family members filed a civil claim against a private company which had built the flat in question in the Lomonosovskiy District Court of the Leningradskiy Region, (“the Lomonosovskiy District Court”, Ломоносовский районный суд Ленинградской области). They demanded compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses allegedly caused by the faulty construction of the applicant’s flat.\n7.  The application and supporting documents reached the Lomonosovskiy District Court on 16 September 1998.\n8.  The date of the first hearing in the case was fixed on 16 February 1999. The applicant submits that the hearing did not take place as the Lomonosovskiy District Court registrar had mailed the summons to the parties only on 15 February 1999 and, as a result, the summons arrived too late. The summons and postal envelopes were submitted to the Court by the applicant. From the postal stamps it follows that the summons were indeed dispatched on 15 February 1999.\n9.  According to the Government, the hearing of 16 February 1999 did not take place due to the parties’ failure to appear. They further submitted that the parties had not excused their absence and that the hearing had been postponed accordingly.\n10.  The hearings scheduled for 2 April, 25 June, 15 October, 19 November 1999 and 14 January 2000 did not take place either.\n11.  The Government submitted that the hearing of 2 April 1999 had not taken place due to the absence of a judge and the hearing of 25 June 1999 had been adjourned because of the non-attendance of the respondents. As regards the hearing of 15 October 1999, the Government submitted that it had been adjourned by reference to decision to change procedural status of the respondents, whilst the hearings of 19 November 1999 and 14 January 2000 had not taken place because of the judge’s involvement in another set of proceedings.\n12.  According to the applicant, the hearings of 19 January and 8 February 2000 were conducted in the absence of the defendant who failed to appear.\n13.  According to the Government, these hearings did not take place due to the parties’ failure to appear.\n14.  On 21 February 2000 the applicant amended her claims to the effect that the City Council became a principal defendant in the case whereas the private company which had built a flat became a third party. The applicant now also demanded the court to annul the City Council decision of 28 May 1997.\n15.  Since the defendant in the case changed, on 3 March 2000 the case was transferred for examination to the Admiralteyskiy District Oktyabrskiy Federal Court of St-Petersburg (“the Admiralteyskiy District Court”, Октябрьский федеральный суд Адмиралтейского района Санкт-Петербурга).\n16.  The case reached the Admiralteyskiy District Court on 24 March 2000.\n17.  On 24 May 2000 the applicant amended her claim again; her family now demanded a new flat instead of the old one and more damages.\n18.  It ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1918", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is now serving his sentence in Irkutsk.\n8.  On 17 September 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having severely beaten a certain Mr D.\n9.  On 19 December 2001 the Nazarovo Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region found the applicant and his co-defendants guilty of grievous bodily injuries, a criminal offence under Article 111 § 3 (a) of the Russian Criminal Code. The applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment in a correctional colony.\n10.  On 23 December 2001 and 24 January 2002 the applicant submitted his statements of appeal. He contended that his co-accused had slandered him, that the forensic report had not reflected the facts as established by the trial court and that the investigation had not been sufficiently thorough. He asked that the conviction be quashed and his lawyer, Ms Struchenko, be invited to the appeal hearing.\n11.  On 25 December 2001 Ms Struchenko submitted her statement of appeal. She pointed to discrepancies between the facts established by the trial court and their description in the judgment and sought re-characterisation of the criminal offence and/or reduction of the sentence.\n12.  On 27 December 2001 the applicant requested the appeal court to examine the case in his absence.\n13.  According to the applicant, neither he nor his lawyer was notified of the appeal hearing. According to the Government, on 20 February 2002 summonses for the appeal hearing were sent to Ms Struchenko’s legal office and to the detention facility where the applicant was held.\n14.  On 5 March 2002 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the conviction in respect of the applicant, reduced the sentences for both of his co-accused and attributed a different legal characterisation to the offence committed by one of them. The applicant and his lawyer were not present at the appeal hearing, whereas his co-accused were both present and represented. According to the Government, the prosecutor was in attendance and made submissions to the appeal court.\n15.  On 30 October 2003 the applicant received a summons for the hearing before the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court that had taken place on 5 March 2002. The summons was dated 27 February 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1919", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1972 and 1968 respectively. They were serving their prison sentences at Bergama prison at the time of the application.\n5.  The applicants were arrested and taken into police custody by police officers at the Anti-terror branch of the İzmir Security Directorate on 7 and 9 September 1996 respectively.\n6.  On 19 September 1996 the İzmir State Security Court ordered the applicants’ remand in custody.\n7.  On 22 October 1996 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court and accused the applicants and fifteen other suspects of membership in an illegal organisation, namely the TIKB (Turkish Revolutionary Communist Union - Türkiye İhtilalci Komünistler Birliği). He requested that the applicants be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.\n8.  On 24 December 1997 the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.\n9.  On 24 November 1998 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1920", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1975 and 1969 respectively and were detained in Gebze prison at the time of their application to the Court.\n7.  On 9 March 1995 the applicants were arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the DEV-SOL (Revolutionary Left).\n8.  The applicants were allegedly subjected to torture while in police custody. In particular, they were blindfolded and they were not given any food for a certain period of time. They were forced to sign certain statements under duress.\n9.  While the applicants were in police custody, on an unspecified date, the Istanbul police held a press conference on the arrest of the members of DEV-SOL, including the applicants. The picture of the applicants standing behind a table on which weapons were exhibited was published in a newspaper.\n10.  On 21 March 1995 the applicants were examined by a medical expert from the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Department, who reported that there were no signs of injury on the applicants’ bodies. The doctor noted that Caferi Sadık Gökçe complained of a pain in his shoulder.\n11.  On the same day, the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court and the 3rd Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court where Caferi Sadık Gökçe admitted to the charges brought against him and confirmed the accuracy of the statements he had made in custody, whereas Rıza Demirel denied his police statements and denied all the charges against him. The court ordered their detention on remand.\n12.  On 13 April 1995 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicants and several other persons, charging the applicants with membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n13.  On 21 September 1995 both applicants maintained before the Istanbul State Security Court that, during their detention, they had been subjected to torture and had been forced to sign statements pre-drafted by the police officers. Subsequently, the Istanbul State Security Court read out the medical reports drafted on 21 March 1995, according to which the applicants did not bear any sign of ill-treatment. On 19 February 1997, 6 February 1998 and 28 April 1999 they repeated their allegation of ill‑treatment before the first-instance court.\n14.  At the end of every hearing the court dismissed the applicants’ request to be released pending trial and ordered their detention on remand having regard to the state of the evidence, the nature of the offence, the content of the case file and the duration of their detention on remand.\n15.  On 11 May 1999 the applicants appealed to the Presidency of the 4th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court and requested their release pending trial, arguing that the court’s order of detention on remand was groundless. On 12 May 1999 their request was dismissed.\n16.  On 24 September 1999 the first-instance court ordered the applicants’ release pending trial.\n17.  On 17 December 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.\n18.  The applicants appealed.\n19.  In April 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and remitted the case to the Istanbul Assize Court, since by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, the State Security C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1921", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh.\n6.  The applicant took part in the liquidation of the consequences of the nuclear accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. He was recognised as handicapped, and therefore entitled to a special social benefit. In 1999-2002 the applicant brought a number of actions against the social security authorities, claiming that the amount of the special benefit had not been properly calculated. The Voronezh Region Novovoronezhskiy District Court decided six cases in favour of the applicant, awarding him compensation for the wrongly calculated amount of the social benefit:\na) by judgment of 30 August 2000 - 10,195 Russian roubles (RUR);\nb) by judgment of 26 February 2001 - 19,066 RUR;\nc) by judgment of 21 May 2001 - 7,524 RUR;\nd) by judgment of 14 December 2001 - 10,032 RUR;\ne) by judgment of 17 June 2002 - 21,227 RUR;\nf) by judgment of 10 October 2002 - 2,508 RUR.\n7.  These judgments were not appealed against and became effective ten days after their pronouncement. However, for a certain period of time they remained unenforced.\n8.  According to the applicant’s submissions of 28 April 2004, the judgment of 30 August 2000 was executed in part. Thus, on 30 October 2003 he received 8,760 RUR. The rest of the amount awarded (1,434 RUR) has not been paid.\n9.  Further, the judgment of 26 February 2001 was executed on 22 September 2003, i.e. with a delay of two years, six months and fifteen days.  The judgment of 21 May 2001 was executed 25 September 2003, i.e. with a delay of two years, three months and 25 days. The judgment of 14 December 2001 was executed on 25 September 2003, i.e. with a delay of one year, nine months, and one day. The judgment of 17 June 2002 was executed by two instalments, on 25 September and on 18 November 2003 the delays were therefore fifteen months and sixteen months and 22 days accordingly. The judgment of 10 October 2002 was executed on 18 November 2003, the delay was thus eleven months and 28 days.\n10.  In their letter of 28 June 2004 the Government contended that by 4 June 2004 all judgments had been executed in full. In support they produced a payment order, dated 4 June 2004, by which the Treasury Department of the Voronezh Region transferred 110,053 RUR to an unidentified bank account at the Voronezh branch of Sberbank. That payment order did not refer to any particular recipient. However, it indicated that the above amount was transferred in relation to the execution of judgments in favour of Chernobyl victims “in accordance with lists nos. 432-433”. Further, the Government produced a copy of three documents entitled “List no. 431”, “List no. 432” and “List no. 433”. It appears that those documents were issued by the social security office of the local administration. They indicated that certain amounts were due to the applicant under a “court judgment”. The document entitled “List no. 431” referred to the amount of 1,434 RUR.\n11.  In 2000 the applicant brought an action against the social security authorities, claiming interests for the delays in the payment of the social benefits. On 25 December 2000 the Novovoronezhskiy District Court allowed his claim, awarding him 10,806 RUR as interests for the delay. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 5 January 2001.\n12.  On 7 October 2002 the President of the Voronezh Regional Court lodged an extraordinary appeal (протест) against this judgment. On 14 October 2002 the Voronezh Region", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1922", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in St. Petersburg.\n5.  On 1 March 1994 a State-owned construction company “Lengidroenergospetsstroy” (промышленное строительно-монтажное объединение «Ленгидроэнергоспецстрой», hereinafter “LenGESS”) and a private investment company “Severo-Zapadniy Soyuz” (АОЗТ ТПК «Северо-Западный Союз», hereinafter “SZS”) signed a contract, pursuant to which the LenGESS undertook to build a block of flats in St. Petersburg and the SZS was to finance the construction in part. By way of consideration, the SZS was to receive title to a certain number of flats in the completed construction. In order to raise funds, the SZS collected money from private investors who were to become the eventual owners of the flats.\n6.  On 21 November 1994 the applicant signed a contract for the purchase of a flat with the SZS.\n7.  On 8 December 1995 the applicant paid the stipulated price in full.\n8.  It appears that, once the block of flats had been built, the LenGESS refused to transfer the stipulated number of flats to the SZS, claiming that the funding raised by the latter had been insufficient. In December 1997, the SZS sued the LenGESS before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St. Petersburg, seeking enforcement of the 1994 contract.\n9.  On 5 May 1999, according to the applicant, or on 19 October 1999, according to the Government, the applicant entered the proceedings before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court as a co-plaintiff against the LenGESS, seeking to obtain title to the flat for which she had paid.\n10.  On an unspecified date the Kuybyshevskiy District Court fixed a hearing for 24 December 1999, it was subsequently adjourned until 28 February 2000.\n11.  On 10 May 2000 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court discontinued the proceedings, finding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim and that the dispute was to be adjudicated by the commercial courts.\n12.  On 29 June 2000 the St. Petersburg City Court accepted the appeals by the SZS, the applicant and the other co-plaintiffs, quashed the decision of 10 May 2000 and remitted the matter to the Kuybyshevskiy District Court for examination on the merits. It also issued a “special finding” (частное определение) concerning the judge of the Kuybyshevskiy District Court to whom the case had been assigned, in which it noted her manifest failure to observe the rules of civil procedure as regards compliance with procedural time-limits.\n13.  On 17 November 2000, 7 February, 23 March and 1 June 2001 hearings before the Kyubyshevskiy District Court were held.\n14.  On 28 September 2001 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St. Petersburg delivered the judgment. The claims of all plaintiffs were dismissed on the ground that they had never paid any sums directly to the LenGESS.\n15.  The applicant, among others, appealed against the judgment of 28 September 2001.\n16.  On an unspecified date the Kuybyshevskiy District Court listed an appeal hearing for 13 November 2001 and sent the case-file to the city court. It appears that the district court had not determined certain issues concerning court fees by 13 November 2001 and for that reason the city court had to adjourn the appeal hearing and send the case-file back to the District Court. A new appeal hearing was fixed for 21 March 2002.\n17.  On 21 March 2002 the St. Petersburg City Court quashed the judgment of 28 September 2001 and remitted the case to the Kuybyshevskiy District Court.\n18.  On an unspecified date the Kuybyshevskiy Di", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1923", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, who is of Georgian origin, was born in 1958 in Georgia and has lived in Riga (Latvia) since 1984. She was a Soviet national until 1991 and now has no nationality.\n10.  In 1982 the applicant, who was living in Russia at the time, married a Soviet civil servant employed by the USSR Ministry of the Interior. In 1984 the couple had a daughter, born in Russia. In the same year the applicant and her family settled in Latvian territory.\n11.  In 1987 the applicant’s husband was granted the right, in a professional capacity, to rent a room in a “duty residence” in Riga. In July 1988 he exchanged the accommodation he had previously been renting in Kazan (Russia) for the right to rent a State-owned flat in Riga. He and his family moved in straight away.\n12.  On 16 March 1990 the applicant cancelled her formal registration of residence (known at the time as пропucкa in Russian and pieraksts or dzīvesvietas reģistrācija in Latvian) in Volzhsk (Russia). On 16 April 1990 the applicant’s husband registered her, without her knowledge or consent, as resident at the family’s new address in Riga. In August 1990 he registered his own residence at that address.\n13.  In the meantime, in May 1990, the applicant lodged a complaint with the relevant local authority concerning her residence registration, arguing that her husband had registered her residence unlawfully without informing her. Consequently, on 15 June 1990, her name was removed from the register in question. Her minor daughter, however, continued to be registered at her father’s address until October 1994.\nIn October 1990 the applicant and her husband divorced.\n14.  In August 1991 Latvia regained full independence. In December 1991 the Soviet Union, the State of which the applicant had hitherto been a national, broke up. The applicant therefore became stateless.\n15.  By a final judgment of 3 February 1993 the Riga City Vidzeme District Court granted the applicant the right to rent the room obtained by her former husband in a “duty residence” in 1987. Shortly afterwards, still in February 1993, the applicant requested the Interior Ministry’s Nationality and Immigration Department (Iekšlietu ministrijas Pilsonības un imigrācijas departaments – “the Department”) to enter her name in the register of residents (Iedzīvotāju reģistrs) as a permanent resident of Latvia. In her request, however, she gave the address at which her ex-husband had unlawfully registered her, rather than the address in Riga at which she then lived. The Government explained that this had been a case of mistaken interpretation of the law on the register of residents, one which had had far‑reaching consequences, having led to the loss of the applicant’s legal status in Latvia.\n16.  The Department granted the applicant’s request. In March 1993 her daughter obtained the same registration as her mother. However, by a decision of 21 July 1993, the Department cancelled the applicant’s registration on the ground that the stamp in her passport was false. The file was immediately forwarded to the Kurzeme district prosecutor who, in a decision of 17 January 1994, decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant. The prosecutor found that the registration stamp was authentic, but had been placed in the passport by the authorities in breach of the relevant regulations. The prosecutor concluded that, although the applicant’s registration of residence was not valid, she could not be charged with forgery or us", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1924", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Wroclaw.\n5.  On 11 July 1999 the applicant’s 27-year-old wife was about to give birth to their child. She was admitted to a hospital of the Wrocław Medical Academy at 8 p.m. As there was no progress in the delivery and the child showed signs of heart distress, on 12 July 1999 at 10 a.m. a decision was taken to perform a caesarean section. Epidural anaesthesia was administered, as a result of which she went into a coma. All resuscitation efforts failed. The applicant’s wife was subsequently transported to the intensive therapy unit, where she died on 31 July 1999.\n6.  A child H. was born by a caesarean section, suffering from serious health problems, mostly of a neurological character. He requires permanent medical attention.\n7.  On 31 July 1999 the applicant, represented by his father, requested that an investigation of the causes of his wife’s death be instituted. His request was complied with on the same day. On 2 August 1999 a post mortem was carried out. A medical opinion prepared immediately thereafter noted, among others, the necessity of obtaining a medical expert opinion as to the circumstances which had led to her death.\n8.  On 11 August 1999 the Wrocław-Krzyki District Prosecutor requested that the medical records of the applicant’s wife should be submitted to the prosecuting authorities.\n9.  On 19 August 1999 the applicant was interviewed by the Wrocław-Krzyki District Prosecutor.\n10.  On 6 October 1999 the Wrocław-Krzyki District Court, at the request of the District Prosecutor, released the physicians who had dealt with the delivery from their obligation to respect professional secrecy in order to obtain their testimony.\n11.  On 15, 17, 18, 19 November 1999 the District Prosecutor questioned medical staff dealing with the delivery and treatment of the applicant’ s wife as to the circumstances of her death.\n12.  In a letter submitted on 15 December 1999 the applicant requested the District Prosecutor to hear additional witnesses. On 17 December 1999 the Wroclaw-Krzyki District Prosecutor questioned three other witnesses.\n13.  On 29 December 1999 the District Prosecutor, having regard to the results of the inquiry, instituted a criminal investigation into a suspected offence of manslaughter, punishable under Article 155 of the Criminal Code.\n14.  On 30 December 1999 the District Prosecutor decided to obtain a medical expert opinion from the Lublin Institute for Forensic Medicine as to the treatment administered to the applicant’s wife.\n15.  On 4 and 10 February and 17 March 2000 the District Prosecutor heard further witnesses.\n16.  In a letter of 10 February 2000 the Lublin Institute of Forensic Medicine returned the case-file, explaining that it would not be able to prepare the opinion. On 30 March 2000 the District Prosecutor decided to obtain a medical expert opinion from the Kraków Institute of Forensic Medicine. Apparently the investigations were later stayed.\n17.  In October 2000 the District Prosecutor resumed the investigations, having obtained an expert opinion prepared by four medical experts of the Kraków Institute of Forensic Medicine.\n18.  By a decision of 31 October 2000 the District Prosecutor discontinued the investigations considering, in the light of the medical records, the testimony of the witnesses and the medical expert opinion, that the medical staff concerned had no case to answer. However, on the applicant’s appeal, the investigations were subsequently r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1925", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Naujoji Akmenė.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 28 February 1996 a criminal investigation was opened into an alleged financial conspiracy involving the applicant. It was closed in December 1998.\n7.  On 1 September 1999 a new criminal investigation was opened into alleged cheating (Article 274 § 1 of the Criminal Code, as applicable at the material time). The applicant was questioned as a suspect on 3 September 1999.\n8.  On 13 October 1999 the applicant was arrested. On 15 October 1999 a judge authorised his detention on remand until 25 October 1999 for fear of his absconding and committing fresh crimes. On 25 October 1999 the applicant’s remand in custody was extended until 25 November 1999, and then until 25 January 2000.\n9.  On 14 December 1999 the applicant was released and placed under house arrest.\n10.  The matter was subsequently joined to seven other cases of cheating (Article 274 of the Criminal Code, as then in force) and obstructing the course of justice by attempting to influence witnesses, victims and other parties to the proceedings (Article 297).\n11.  On 12 June 2000 the prosecution confirmed the bill of indictment. On the same date the case was transmitted to the Mažeikiai Area District Court for trial.\n12.  On 24 August 2000 a judge of that court sent the case back to the prosecution for an additional investigation.\n13.  The prosecution appealed and on 19 October 2000 the Šiauliai Regional Court quashed the decision of 24 August 2000, remitting the case to the first instance court for trial.\n14.  On 8 January 2001 the applicant was committed for trial.\n15.  During the period from 23 January 2001 to 1 October 2002, the court hearings were adjourned ten times in view of the failure of certain witnesses, victims or defence counsel to appear.\n16.  Between 26 November 2002 and 9 July 2003, the trial was adjourned five times as a result of the illness of certain participants.\n17.  On 9 July 2003 a judge of the Mažeikiai Area District Court ordered the applicant’s detention in view of his failure to appear that day. He was accordingly arrested and remanded in custody. On 25 July 2003 the Šiauliai Regional Court quashed the decision, as the applicant had been hospitalised at the material time. He was immediately released. On 28 August 2003 the applicant’s bail was ordered by way of the written obligation not to leave the country.\n18.  Between 24 September 2003 and 26 November 2003, there were two further adjournments in the absence of a witness and the applicant’s defence lawyer.\n19.  On 15 December 2003 a trial judge wrote a letter to the police, explaining that the decision on house arrest of 14 December 1999 had been valid, so that the police should have supervised the applicant’s compliance with the measure.\n20.  Between 7 January 2004 and 8 June 2004, a judge of the Mažeikiai Area District Court conducted seven hearings at which the parties and certain witnesses were questioned. Court orders were issued to ensure the attendance of certain participants.\n21.  Twelve trial hearings were conducted between 17 December 2004 and 16 June 2005.\n22.  In the course of the trial, four different judges took over the examination of the case from each other.\n23.  On 29 June 2005 the applicant was convicted.\n24.  Following the applicant’s appeal against the conviction, the case was transmitted to the Šiauliai Regional Court, which h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1926", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  The applicant was employed with a private commercial company. The company was associated with Mr A. and his son, Mr B., who both held shares in it and were also involved in its management. The company took credits from a bank.\n6.  The applicant provided security for the repayment of the bank credits by pledging in favour of the bank his savings which he had in an account at the bank. In order to secure his potential claims against the company and to provide for his compensation, the applicant and the company concluded two contracts in January and February 1998, respectively.\n7.  Mr A. then sold his share in the company to a third individual. The company subsequently failed to meet its payment obligations towards the bank and became insolvent. The bank consequently seized the corresponding amounts from the applicant's account. The applicant has received no indemnification from the company.\n8.  On 22 February 1999 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the public prosecution service accusing A. and B. of having committed criminal offences of fraud, fraudulent insolvency and usury in connection with the above transaction. At the same time, he requested that his claim for damages be secured under Article 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n9.  In a letter of 11 March 1999 the Trnava District Prosecutor informed the applicant inter alia that the possibility of securing an aggrieved party's claim for damages only existed at the stage of proceedings after a criminal charge had been raised. As by that time no charges had been raised in the present case, the applicant's claim could not be secured.\n10.  The applicant's criminal complaint was examined by the Trnava District Office of Investigation which dismissed it, on 25 June 1999, finding that there was no case to answer. The decision indicated in its reasoning that the applicant had been interviewed and that, in the course of the interview, he had specified the amount of the damage which he had sustained when standing as surety for the above bank credits. The applicant challenged this decision by a complaint (sťažnosť) which was determined by the District Prosecutor on 17 August 1999. The prosecutor's decision contained information about the specific amount of the damage which the applicant had allegedly sustained. The prosecutor quashed the challenged decision as being premature.\n11.  The applicant's criminal complaint was dismissed again on 19 September 1999 and, on his further complaints, on 9 March 2000 and 25 March 2002. All these decisions refer inter alia to the applicant's criminal complaint of 22 February 1999.\n12.  The applicant challenged the decision of 25 March 2002 by numerous further complaints addressed to all levels of the public prosecution service. He alleged in particular that if no charges were brought promptly, there was the risk that the prosecution would become statute‑barred.\n13.  On 6 February 2003 the Prosecutor General transmitted the complaints that had been submitted to him to the Trnava Regional Prosecutor who, in turn, transmitted the respective complaints to the District Prosecutor. The latter was instructed to ensure the commencement of criminal proceedings in the matter because the previous examination of the factual and legal side of the case had not been adequate.\n14.  On 3 March 2003 the District Prosecutor issued an instruction to the investigator under Article 174 § 2 (a) of the Cod", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1927", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant, Mrs Cennet Ayhan, is the widow of Mehmet Emin Ayhan, a medical doctor who was killed by unknown assailants. She was born in 1962 in Eskişehir and is resident in Ankara, Turkey. The second applicant, born in 1961 in Nusaybin and resident in Akçatarla Village, Mardin, Turkey, is the deceased's brother. Both applicants are Turkish citizens.\n10.  The facts of the case are in dispute between the parties.\n11.  Mehmet Emin Ayhan, born in 1954 in Mardin, was a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin. In 1991 he was appointed to the Silvan State Hospital where he worked as a senior physician. Mardin is located in one of the provinces subject to emergency rule at the relevant time and is heavily populated by Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin. On various occasions he openly expressed his left wing political views and his support “for the recognition of the Kurdish identity and for the democratic rights and liberties of the Kurdish society”.\n12.  In early 1992 the Head of the Silvan Security Department telephoned Mehmet Emin Ayhan and asked him if a member of the special police unit could be accommodated at the hospital for some time. Mehmet Emin Ayhan replied that police officers were not members of the hospital staff and did not therefore qualify for accommodation at the hospital. The Head of the Security Department expressed his disappointment in strong language and told Mehmet Emin Ayhan that “his day would come”. He was subsequently harassed by persons unknown over the telephone. When he picked up the receiver no one answered. He was also informed that he was being secretly observed.\n13.  On 10 June 1992 around 9.30 p. m., as Mehmet Emin Ayhan and his wife were returning home, three men were sitting in a coffee house located on the ground floor of their apartment building near the hospital. One of the three men approached Mehmet Emin Ayhan while he was locking the doors of his car. The other two men suddenly took out rifles hidden under their raincoats and shot out the street lights. The third man, who was a few metres away, approached Mehmet Emin Ayhan, fired a handgun and shot him through the neck. He died on the spot. The three men then got into a white Renault Toros which was parked at the side of the street and drove away.\n14.  Members of the security forces arrived at the scene within five minutes. The deceased's widow showed the officers the direction in which the car had left and requested that the streets and houses be searched at once. She also requested orally that the owner of the coffee house be questioned about the identity of the three men. The officers did not follow up these requests.\n15.  A report was drafted on 10 June 1992 at the scene of the incident by four officers from the Anti-Terror Department. This report described the place of the incident and identified the used cartridges found on the ground as having been fired from a handgun and from Kalashnikov rifles. No reference is made in the report to witness statements having been taken. In a second report also dated 10 June 1992 and signed by the same four officers and a fifth officer, it was stated that there were many people present at the scene of the killing when the police arrived. According to the report no one was able to testify as to what happened.\n16.  The deceased's body was brought to the Silvan State Hospital where the Silvan Public Prosecutor conducted an autopsy with the participation of two doctors. One of these doctors, Zeki Tanrıkulu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1928", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Šiauliai.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 29 March 1993 the applicant, a border policeman, was charged with bribery and fraud, allegedly committed with another accomplice. It was suspected that the applicant had demanded and obtained a bribe from a group of 17 Latvian tourists wishing to cross the Lithuanian-Latvian border. Subsequently, the applicant had allegedly demanded money from German and Belarusian tourists. The suspicion was based on written complaints made by these foreigners.\n7.  On 29 March 1993 the applicant was remanded in custody.\n8.  On 31 March 1993 the applicant’s home was searched, and certain items of his property were seized.\n9.  On 7 May 1993 the prosecution confirmed the bill of indictment against the applicant and a co-defendant. In doing so, it stated that the applicant’s guilt on the counts against him had been “proved” by the evidence collected in the course of the pre-trial investigation. Having confirmed the bill of indictment, the prosecution sent the case for trial.\n10.  On 23 June 1993 the applicant was remanded on bail, with the obligation not to leave the country.\n11.  On 28 October 1993 the Joniškis District Court adjourned the hearing until 16 December 1993 as the victims from Germany, Latvia and Belarus had failed to appear.\n12.  On 16 December 1993 the case was further adjourned for the same reason.\n13.  On 3 February 1994 the Joniškis District Court adjourned its examination in view of the applicant’s illness.\n14.  On 17 March, 23 June, 27 October and 28 December 1994 the trial was adjourned in the absence of the representatives of the defendants.\n15.  On 23 February 1995 the Joniškis District Court referred the case to the Šiauliai Regional Court.\n16.  On 6 April 1995 Šiauliai Regional Court quashed that decision, returning the case to the Joniškis District Court.\n17.  On 28 June 1995 the Joniškis District Court adjourned the case in the absence of the co-defendant’s lawyer.\n18.  On 27 September 1995 the Joniškis District Court decided to discontinue the proceedings.\n19.  The prosecution appealed, and on 26 October 1995 the Šiauliai Regional Court quashed the decision, returning the case for a new examination at first instance.\n20.  On 28 November 1995 the case was referred to the Akmenė District Court.\n21.  On 29 May 1996 the Akmenė District Court adjourned the case in the absence of the applicant’s lawyer, the victims and witnesses.\n22.  On 14 August 1996 the case was adjourned in the absence of the victims.\n23.  On 11 December 1996 the Akmenė District Court adjourned the case in the absence of the defendants’ lawyers, the victims and witnesses.\n24.  On 10 December 1997 and 10 February 1999 the case was adjourned on the same grounds.\n25.  On 24 August 1999 the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to conduct the trial without hearing the foreign victims and witnesses. On the same date the Akmenė District Court acquitted the applicant in view of the lack of evidence.\n26.  On 13 September 1999 the prosecution lodged an appeal.\n27.  On 13 January 2000 the Šiauliai Regional Court quashed the judgment of 24 August 1999 because not all the victims had been duly summoned, one victim had not been sent the summons at all, and a number of witnesses had not been informed about the trial hearing of 24 August 1999.\n28.  On 6 June 2000 the Akmenė District Court again adjourned the hearing in view of t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1929", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  In July 1993 the applicant was employed at the refinery “T.” as director of a department. From 1993 to 1997 the conditions of his contract of employment were changed several times. On 30 September 1997 the refinery gave notice to terminate the applicant’s contract.\n8.  On 7 October 1997 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Regional Court a compensation claim against the refinery, in the amount of PLN 19,273, for unlawful termination of his contract. He also claimed reinstatement. By a decision of 3 December of 1997 the Katowice Regional Court considered that it was not competent to examine his case and transmitted it to the Katowice District Labour Court.\n9.  By a judgment of 4 December 1998 the Katowice District Labour Court ordered the refinery to pay the applicant compensation of PLN 5,008.74 for unlawful termination of the employment contract. The compensation corresponded to 3 months’ remuneration. The court dismissed the remaining claims.\n10.  Both parties to the proceedings appealed against the first-instance judgment. By a judgment of 18 November 1999 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed their appeals.\n11.  On 26 November 1999 the applicant requested the Katowice Regional Court to grant legal aid for the purpose of instituting cassation proceedings. He referred to his difficult financial situation and to the fact that he had been unemployed from November 1997 to May 1999 due to the termination of his employment contract by the defendant company. He also submitted that from May 1999 he had been receiving a net salary of PLN 750 and submitted documents to show the period of his unemployment and his earnings. In December 1999 the applicant, having received no response from the Katowice Regional Court, lodged a cassation appeal himself.\n12.  By a decision of 17 January 2000 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed his request for legal aid for the purpose of instituting the cassation proceedings without giving written reasons for its decision.\n13.  On the same day, the Katowice Regional Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal on the ground that it had not been lodged by a lawyer, as required by the law.\n14.  The applicant lodged an appeal against these decisions with the Supreme Court. He also requested the grant of retrospective leave to lodge a cassation appeal out of time. He further asked that court to appoint a lawyer for him in order to assist him in the preparation of his appeal. The applicant argued that the Regional Court had failed to deal within the time-limit with his request for legal aid. This had forced the applicant to lodge the cassation appeal himself. The fact that the cassation appeal had been rejected, combined with the unmotivated refusal of legal aid, had made it impossible to have his interests protected and his arguments properly presented to the cassation court.\n15.  By a decision of 25 May 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal against the decision rejecting the cassation appeal. The court observed that the applicable law clearly provided that a cassation appeal could only be lodged by a lawyer. The Supreme Court further refused to entertain the appeal in so far as it was related to the refusal of legal aid, observing that under the applicable legal provisions an appeal to the Supreme Court against an interlocutory decision of the Court of Appeal was only available against a decision to reject a cassation appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1930", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Białystok, Poland.\n5.  On 22 December 1992 the applicant was involved in a car accident as a result of which one person died. Subsequently, the prosecution service opened an investigation in the case.\n6.  On 31 March 1993 the prosecution service discontinued the investigation. Subsequently, an auxiliary prosecutor appealed and the investigation was resumed.\n7.  On 25 June 1993 the applicant was charged with manslaughter. It appears that the applicant had by then left the country and was not notified of the decision.\n8.  On 30 June 1993 the applicant was indicted before the Białystok District Court.\n9.  On 11 February 1994 the trial court decided to stay the proceedings on the grounds that the applicant’s address could not be established as he had left the country.\n10.  On 29 March 1996 the District Court issued an arrest warrant against the applicant. On 2 July 1996 the applicant was arrested by the police while crossing the Polish border.\n11.  On 8 August 1996 the trial court resumed the proceedings and held a hearing. Subsequently, the District Court held hearings on 19 September and 10 December 1996 and 11 February and 25 June 1997.\n12.  In 1998 the court held hearings on 18 February, 19 April, 1 September and 8 October.\n13.  On 12 October 1998 the Białystok District Court gave judgment. The trial court acquitted the applicant.\n14.  On 16 February 1999 the Białystok Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) examined the appeal lodged by the auxiliary prosecutor. The appellate court quashed the judgment and remitted the case.\n15.  On 26 November 1999 the Białystok District Court held a hearing. In 2000 the trial court held one hearing on 28 January and ordered that an expert opinion be prepared.\n16.  On 10 May 2001 the next hearing was held. At the hearing on 8 June 2001 the applicant pleaded guilty. On the same day the Białystok District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a suspended prison sentence. The judgment is final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1931", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kyiv.\n6.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Moskovskyy District Court of Kyiv against the Kvant Scientific Research Institute (the “KSRI”), a State-owned entity, seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. By decision of 8 October 2001, the court awarded the applicant UAH 3,424.98[1] in salary arrears and other payments. On 26 November 2001 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal changed in part the decision of the first instance court and, in addition to the aforementioned sum, awarded the applicant UAH 1,500[2] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 21 January 2002 the Shevchenkivskyy District Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n8.  In January 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the decision of 26 November 2001. On 6 March 2003 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs’ Service. On 1 July 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the first-instance court and ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to seize the movable property of the KSRI. According to the applicant, this decision has not been enforced.\n9.  On 15 October 2003 the applicant received the amount due to him in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1932", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Linz. He is a chimney sweeper by profession.\n9.  On 4 August 1988 the applicant filed a request for an industrial licence (Konzession) for chimney sweeping in Linz. On 31 March 1989 he filed an alternative request to start chimney sweeping in a specified administrative area (Kehrgebiet). Following a new regulation concerning the division of those administrative areas which entered into force in December 1991, the applicant, on 14 January 1992, modified his request into one for an industrial licence as a chimney sweeper in a different specified administrative area.\n10.  As the Upper Austria Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann) did not deal with his request, the applicant, on 20 July 1992, filed a request for the transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) with the Federal Minister of Economic Affairs (Bundesminister für wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten).\n11.  On 3 June 1993 the Federal Minister allowed his request for transfer but dismissed his application for the industrial licence under the Trade Act (Gewerbeordnung). Referring to the submissions of the competent municipalities, he noted that there was no need for further chimney sweepers in the concerned area.\n12.  On 20 July 1993 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court. He complained in particular that the Federal Minister had not made sufficient investigations for his findings.\n13.  On 20 December 1994 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs-gerichtshof) quashed the decision on procedural grounds.\n14.  On 3 February 1995 the Federal Minister rejected the applicant’s request for a transfer of jurisdiction, finding that, according to the amended Trade Act (Gewerbeordnung), the authority now competent for applications of the applicant’s kind was the Administrative District Authority, namely the Linz Municipal Office (Magistrat). Therefore, the Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann) was competent to rule on any request for transfer of jurisdiction.\n15.  On 19 December 1995 the Administrative Court confirmed this decision.\n16.  As the Municipal Office did not decide on his request, the applicant, on 2 April 1996, filed a request for the transfer of jurisdiction with the Regional Governor.\n17.  On 10 May 1996 the Regional Governor dismissed the applicant’s request.\n18.  Following the information in this decision as to further remedies (Rechtsmittelbelehrung), the applicant on 26 June 1996 filed against this decision a complaint with the Constitutional Court.\n19.  On 30 September 1997 the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint and, upon the applicant’s request, transferred the case to the Administrative Court.\n20.  On 17 April 1998 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s complaint for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies as he had failed to file an appeal with the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs.\n21.  Referring to the erroneous information as to further remedies in the decision of the Regional Governor of 10 May 1996, the applicant requested reinstitution into the proceedings (Wiedereinsetzungsantrag) and at the same time filed an appeal against that decision with the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs\n22.  On 1 July 1998 the Regional Governor allowed the reinstitution into proceedings. On 3 September 1999 the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n23.  Meanwhile, however, the Linz Municipal Office, on 23 January 199", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1933", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Split. He is a pensioner.\n5.  The applicant submitted that his pension had been regularly adjusted in line with the increase in wages according to section 30 of the 1991 Pension Insurance Act (Zakon o osnovnim pravima iz mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja, Official Gazette no. 53/1991 of 8 October 1991).\n6.  On 19 February 1997 the Act on Adjustment of Pensions and Other Benefits from Pension and Invalidity Insurance Funds and on Management of the Pension and Invalidity Insurance Funds (Zakon o usklađivanju mirovina i drugih novčanih primanja iz mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja, te upravljanju fondovima mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja, Official Gazette no. 20/1997 of 19 February 1997 – “the Pension Adjustment Act”) entered into force, derogating, inter alia, section 30 of the 1991 Pension Insurance Act. Section 3 of the new law provided that the pensions were to be adjusted in line with the increase in living expenses.\n7.  On 12 May 1998 the Constitutional Court quashed certain provisions, including section 3, of the aforementioned 1997 legislation as unconstitutional. The Government submitted that, as a result thereof, 427,809 applications had been filed with the Croatian Pension Fund’s regional offices by those seeking adjustment of their pensions in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s decision, that is, in line with the increase in wages.\n8.  On 23 June 1998 the applicant applied to the Croatian Pension Fund, Split Office seeking adjustment of his pension for the period between August 1993 and June 1998.\n9.  Since the Split Office did not render a decision within the statutory time-limit of two months, on 25 August 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal for failure to respond (see paragraph 25 below) with the Croatian Pension Fund, Central Office as if his request had been denied.\n10.  Given that the Central Office also failed to decide on this appeal within the statutory time-limit of two months, on 5 November 1998 the applicant brought an action for failure to respond (see paragraph 26 below) with the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) under the Administrative Disputes Act.\n11.  On 8 December 2000 the Pensions Increase Act (Zakon o povećanju mirovina radi otklanjanja razlika u razini mirovina ostvarenih u različitim razdobljima, Official Gazette no. 127/2000 of 20 December 2000) entered into force. Stating as its aim the implementation of the Constitutional Court’s decision, the Act increased the pensions of those retired before 31 December 1998. On 19 December 2001 the Constitutional Court refused to institute proceedings for abstract constitutional review of the Act.\n12.  On 28 December 2001 the Administrative Court adopted a judgment ordering the Central Office to decide on the applicant’s appeal within 60 days. It also instructed the Central Office to adjust the applicant’s pension for the period between January 1997 and June 1998 in line with the increase in wages, pursuant to the section 30 of the 1991 Pension Insurance Act, but also taking into consideration the increase already provided by the Pensions Increase Act.\n13.  On 5 March 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint challenging the Administrative Court’s judgment and complaining about the length of the proceedings. He argued that the court had instructed the Central Office wrongfully. He also alleged that the Croatian Pension Fund and the Administrative Court had failed to de", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1934", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Celje.\n6.  On 6 August 1993 the applicant was injured in an accident at work.\n7.  On 30 January 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the companies INGRAD and GIPOSS in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,900,000 tolars (approximately 16,200 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 28 July 1997 and 10 January 2002 the applicant lodged eight preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 9 March 1998 and 31 August 2001 he made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the six hearings held between 5 May 1998 and 8 January 2002, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written interim judgment. The interim judgment, holding the applicant’s adversaries jointly liable for the applicant’s accident, was served on the applicant on 8 May 2002.\n8.  At an undetermined time, the applicant’s adversaries appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 2 October 2003 the court dismissed the appeals.\n9.  At an undetermined time GIPOSS lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 24 February 2005 the court dismissed the appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 21 March 2005.\n10.  On 22 March 2005 the applicant’s legal representative informed the court that the applicant had deceased and withdrew the applicant’s claims. He filed a claim for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings.\nOn 12 May and 12 April 2005 the court held hearings.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment concerning the costs and expenses was served on the applicant’s representative on 14 July 2005.\nOn 16 June 2005 the court discontinued the proceedings against INGRAD because bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted against this company.\n11.  On 29 August 2005 the applicant’s representative appealed to the Celje Higher Court against the judgment and the decision.\nThe proceedings are still pending.\n12.  On 6 August 1993 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant was insured with the insurance company ZT.\n13.  On 30 December 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings with the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) against ZT seeking damages in the amount of 322,000 SIT (approximately 1,340 euros) for the sustained injuries.\nOn 3 March and 18 November 1999 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 31 March 1998 and 10 May 2002 the applicant filed eight preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the four hearings held between 18 September 2000 and 6 November 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts.\nAfter the last hearing the applicant and his adversary settled the case outside the court and requested the court to issue a decision on costs and expenses.\nOn 5 December 2002 the court ruled on costs and expenses. The judgment was served on the applicant on 3 March 2003.\nOn 14 March 2003, due to a mistake in the calculation, the court corrected its decision on costs and expenses. The decision was served on the applicant on 17 March 2003 and became final on 3 April 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1935", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Vienna.\n9.  At the time of the events the applicant was a civil servant in the administration of the Vienna Municipality. On 21 June 1988 the applicant’s wife, who was also a civil servant in the administration of the Vienna Municipality, died. During her working life she had paid contributions to the pension scheme established under the Pension Act (Pensionsordnung) and the Pension Allowance Act (Ruhe- und Versorgungsgenuβzulagen-gesetz).\n10.  By decision of 22 August 1988 the Vienna Municipality (Stadtwerke) granted the applicant a survivor’s pension (Versorgungsgeld- und Versorgungsgeldzulage) under the relevant provisions of the Pension Act of 1966, and the Pension Allowance Act. Section 15 of the Pension Act in force at the relevant time provided for a survivor’s pension in the amount of 60 % of the retirement pension of the applicant’s late wife. Hereto was added a proportionate supplementary allowance under Section 6 of the Pension Allowance Act.\n11.  According to the transitory provision contained in Article II of the Pension Act the monthly payments to which the applicant was entitled amounted to one-third of the survivor’s pension from 1 July 1988, two-thirds of the survivor’s pension from 1 January 1989 and the full survivor’s pension from 1 January 1995.\n12.  On 1 January 1995 the fourteenth amendment of the Pension Act of 1966 came into force and Article II became invalid with effect from that day.\n13.  According to Section 15 of the amended Pension Act the survivor’s pension amounted to between 40 and 60% of the retirement pension of the deceased civil servant, the concrete percentage to be calculated on the basis of the retirement pensions of both spouses.\n14.  According to Section 64e of the Amended Pension Act, former Section 15 was still applicable to entitlements to a widow’s pension or a pension of a widower who was incapable of gainful employment and indigent, which had been acquired prior to 1 January 1995.\n15.  On 2 January 1995 the Vienna Municipality reduced the amount of the applicant’s survivor’s pension to 40% of his late wife’s retirement pension.\n16.  On 16 January 1995 the applicant appealed against this decision.\nHe submitted that, had he been a woman in a similar position, former Section 15 of the Pension Act would have applied to him and he would have been entitled to a survivor’s pension in the amount of 60% of his late wife’s retirement pension instead of the 40% which he received now under the amended Pension Act and the Pension Allowance Act. This violated his constitutional right to equal treatment.\n17.  On 16 May 1995 the Appeals Board of the Vienna Municipality (Berufungssenat) dismissed the appeal.\n18.  On 13 July 1997 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof).\n19.  On 8 October 1997 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint for lack of prospects of success.\n20.  On 19 December 2001 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs-gerichtshof) to which the case had been transferred upon the applicant’s request, dismissed the applicant’s complaint.\n21.  It referred, inter alia, to case-law of the Constitutional Court concerning similar provisions of the Pension Act 1965. The Constitutional Court had found that in the light of continuing change in attitudes towards the equality of sexes, an exclusion of a widower from survivor’s payments would, as a rule, constitute a violation of the p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1936", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and resides in the city of Khmelnitskiy, Ukraine.\n6.  At the material time the applicant worked as a lawyer in a private company “Naddnistryanka”.\n7.  On 29 November 1994 the General Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter – the GPO) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for bribing. On 14 December 1994 the Deputy Prosecutor General sanctioned the applicant’s arrest and detention. On 16 December 1994 the applicant was arrested and detained until 24 June 1996.\n8.  While in detention, the applicant was allegedly subjected to psychological pressure by the investigation officers. Prior to interrogation the applicant allegedly was placed in a tiny (2m2) cold room without windows, where he had to stay for several hours. The applicant states that he lost consciousness during interrogations and was interrogated while being seriously ill. In detention and afterwards the applicant suffered from chronic bronchitis and chronic neuritis. The applicant was beaten by one of the cellmates. The applicant maintained that the offender was a former Security Service officer. The applicant further alleges that drugs were added to his meals. According to the applicant, his family members were not allowed to see him in detention. On his numerous complaints about such treatment the applicant received answers that no violations had been revealed during pre-trial investigation in his case.\n9.  After his release the applicant was on a written undertaking not to abscond until 12 April 1999. In 1995-1999 criminal charges in the applicant’s case were several times changed. By 12 April 1999 the criminal case against the applicant was closed. By a prosecutor’s decision of 13 June 1999 the applicant was awarded UAH 6,502.37 (at the material time – EUR 1,568.28) in compensation for material damage.\n10.  In June 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Khmelnitskiy City Court against the Security Service of Ukraine claiming UAH 500,000 in compensation for moral damage. The applicant later raised his claims to UAH 7,000,000. In April 1999 he claimed UAH 15,000,000 in compensation for moral damage from the GPO. These claims were joined and examined together. On 15 December 1999 the Khmelnitskiy City Court found in part for the applicant and ordered the State to pay him UAH 7,635 in compensation for material and moral damage caused by the unlawful criminal action against the applicant and his unlawful detention. On 3 February 2000 the Khmelnitskiy Regional Court upheld this decision and it became final. On an unidentified date the applicant requested the Deputy Chairman of the Khmelnitskiy Regional Court to lodge a supervisory review request (protest) against these decisions. His request was satisfied, the judgment of 15 December 1999 was quashed and the case was remitted for a fresh consideration. On 11 September 2000 the Khmelnitskiy City Court found in part for the applicant and ordered the State to pay him UAH 10,180 (approximately EUR 2,000) in compensation for moral damage for the unlawful criminal action against the applicant, for his unlawful detention and for being on a written undertaking not to abscond. This compensation had to be paid from the funds allocated for maintenance of the GPO. On 19 October 2000 the Khmelnitskiy Regional Court upheld this decision and it became final.\n11.  On 20 February 2001 the GPO suspended the enforcement of the judgment of 11 September 2000. On 15 May 2001 the Deputy Prosecutor Ge", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1937", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Celje.\n6.  On 15 December 1997 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer I had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZM.\n7.  On 11 June 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against I and ZM in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,122,757 Slovenian tolars (approximately 8,850 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 19 June 2000 and 7 April 2003 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions.\nBetween 18 September 2000 and 26 June 2002 he made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the four hearings held between 26 September 2002 and 24 April 2003, one was adjourned at the request of the applicant in order to allow him time to reply to I’s late submissions.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 21 July 2003.\n8.  On 23 July 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 19 May 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 8 September 2005.\n9.  On 13 September 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 13 September 2005 the Celje District Court discontinued the proceedings against I due to its bankruptcy. The proceedings against ZM continued.\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1938", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Orehova vas.\n6.  On 20 May 1995 the applicant was injured at work in a lignite mine. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 4 November 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his employer and ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,950,000 SIT (approximately 8,120.00 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 20 November 1996 and 3 January 2000 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 2 September 1997 and 12 November 1999 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the three hearings held between 26 November 1998 and 20 January 2000 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 24 February 2000.\n8.  On 10 March 2000 the applicant’s employer and ZT appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 6 December 2000 the court allowed the ZT’s appeal in part, amended the judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 27 December 2000.\n9.  During the re-examination proceedings, between 2 February 2001 and 4 April 2001, the applicant made two requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 7 February 2001 and 6 June 2002 he lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the three hearings held between 12 June 2001 and 6 June 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 17 June 2002.\n10.  On 27 June 2002 the applicant appealed the Celje Higher Court.\nOn 18 September 2003, the second-instance court dismissed his appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 8 October 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1939", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mrs Dragica Božić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1943 and currently lives in Sotin, Croatia.\n5.  On 27 September 1991 the Croatian Pension Fund, Sisak Office (Republički fond mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja, Područna služba u Sisku – the Sisak Office) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to a widow’s (family) pension as of 6 August 1991. However, no payments were made until 1 August 1997.\n6.  On 18 September 1997 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in order to recover the pension instalments due.\n7.  On 14 June 1999 the Sisak Office dismissed her request. It found that the payment of her pension was stopped between 6 August 1991 and 31 July 1997 since during that period the applicant had resided in the occupied areas of Croatia and her address had been unknown. On 9 July 1999 the applicant appealed against that decision.\n8.  On 19 June 2000 the Croatian Pension Fund, Central Office (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Središnja služba – the Central Office) quashed the first-instance decision for factual errors and remitted the case.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, the Sisak Office dismissed the applicant’s request on 9 October 2000. The applicant appealed.\n10.  On 9 April 2001 the Central Office again quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.\n11.  On 22 August 2001 the Sisak Office for the third time dismissed the applicant’s request. The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 15 November 2001 the Central Office for the third time quashed the first-instance decision for factual shortcomings and remitted the case. It instructed the Sisak Office to enquire whether the applicant had received a pension from the authorities that had exercised control over the occupied territory.\n13.  In the subsequent proceedings, on 16 May 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal for failure to respond under the Administrative Procedure Act (see paragraph 21 below) since the Sisak Office did not render a decision within the statutory time-limit of two months. Given that the Central Office also failed to decide on this appeal within the statutory time-limit of two months, on 17 December 2002 the applicant brought an action for failure to respond (see paragraph 22 below) in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske). The applicant subsequently withdrew this action since in January 2003 the first-instance decision had been rendered.\n14.  On 29 January 2003 the Sisak Office accepted the applicant’s request in part. It awarded her the pension instalments as of 1 October 1994 and dismissed her request for the instalments due prior to that date. The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 20 May 2003 the Central Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n16.  On 1 July 2003 the applicant brought an administrative action in the Administrative Court challenging that decision.\n17.  On 27 January 2005 the Administrative Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim.\n18.  On 7 March 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court against that judgment. The proceedings are currently pending before that court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1940", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the city of Chernigiv.\n5.  On 3 May 1999 the Chernigiv City Prosecutor’ Office (hereinafter the Prosecutor’ Office) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for abuse of power and forgery of official documents. The prosecution’s case was that the applicant, while acting in his capacity as a private notary, had fraudulently certified a title and real-estate transactions using invalid registration forms.\n6.  On 21 May 1999 the Chernygiv City Prosecutor issued a search warrant in respect of the applicant’s office. The search was carried out the same day. According to the record drawn up on this occasion, the authorities seized at the office notary stamps and documents, a number of accounting records and a metal strong-box.  The latter was opened on 2 July 1999 at the premises of the Prosecutor’s Office. The relevant record stated that there had been found, inter alia, personal items belonging to the applicant.\n7.  On 28 July 1999 an investigator from the Prosecutor’s Office closed the applicant’s case given the lack of any corpus delicti.\n8.  On 20 September 2000 the acting Chernigiv City Prosecutor overruled the investigator’s decision, as it had been proved that the applicant had committed the imputed offence, but ordered the discontinuation of proceedings due to the insignificance of the offence. The applicant challenged this finding, claiming that he had not committed any offence. On 21 December 2000 the Desniansky District Court of Chernigiv (hereafter “the Desniansky Court”) rejected the applicant’s complaint.\n9.  On 26 February 2001 the Presidium of the Chernigiv Regional Court, in the course of supervisory proceedings, quashed the decision of the Desniansky Court and remitted the case.\n10.  On 4 April 2001 the Desniansky Court quashed the City Prosecutor’s ruling of 20 September 2000 and ordered a further pre-trial investigation.\n11.  On 26 May 2001 an investigator terminated the criminal proceedings on substantially the same grounds as in the September 2000 ruling. On 4 July 2001 the Chernigiv City Prosecutor quashed this decision and ordered further inquiries in the case.\n12.  On 4 August 2001 the criminal case was closed due to the insignificance of the offence which had been committed. The applicant’s complaint against this ruling was rejected on 6 November 2001 by the Desniansky Court as being unsubstantiated. In particular, the court indicated that the applicant’s guilt had been proved by the evidence collected in the course of the investigation.\n13.  On 24 January 2002 the Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal (hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) quashed the decision of 6 November 2001 as the local court had failed to specify the evidence in support of its opinion as to the applicant’s guilt. The case was remitted for a fresh consideration.\n14.  On 26 June 2002 the Desniansky Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the ruling of 4 August 2001. The court indicated that the investigation case file contained sufficient evidence to establish that the applicant had forged a certain notary document and wittingly carried out an invalid notarial action. However, having regard to the insignificance of the offence, further criminal prosecution was impractical. As regards the applicant’s submissions concerning the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained by the search of his office, the court found that such complaints could be raised during the trial on the merits and con", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1941", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  The applicant holds a degree in law since 1992 and passed the national bar exam (pravosodni izpit) in 1995.\n7.  On 15 December 1997 he requested the Bar Association of Slovenia (Odvetniška zbornica Slovenije, the “BAS”) to register his name in the Registry of Attorneys (imenik odvetnikov) and thus enable him to start practicing law as an attorney. BAS subsequently asked the applicant to complete his application, which he did on 21 May 1998. In early June 1998, BAS forwarded the applicant’s request to the Ljubljana Regional Bar Assembly (Območni zbor odvetnikov v Ljubljani, the “LRBA”) to obtain an opinion on his moral character.\nOn 6 July 1998 the applicant filed an administrative action before the Administrative Court (Upravno sodišče) on the ground of the silence of the administrative authorities, because he did not receive a decision from BAS.\nOn 23 September 1998 LRBA decided unanimously that the applicant’s past behaviour did not show him worthy of the trust required of an attorney.\nOn 3 November 1998 BAS requested LRBA to provide an explanation for its decision and evidence to support it. BAS further found that while the applicant ran a detective agency, he engaged in practices that were not permitted by a detective licence. It was also established that he was abusive towards BAS’s employees and lodged a complaint with the disciplinary prosecutor of BAS against the president and the secretary of LRBA, thus availing himself of inappropriate means to achieve his goals.\nSubsequently, the Commission of the Bar Association for the Determination of Compliance with the Conditions for Registration with the Directory of Attorneys (the “Commission”) decided to hear the applicant on the matter and invited him twice for a meeting, on 7 and 16 December 1998 respectively. He refused to attend the first hearing because the president of the Commission did not sign the summons with his own hand. As to the second invitation, the applicant informed the Commission that he had no intention of expressing his views on the subject.\nOn 17 December 1998 BAS rejected his request for registration. The decision was apparently served on the applicant on 16 January 1999.\n8.   On 4 May 1999 the applicant amended his administrative action; firstly, he requested the court to find that BAS had not issued a decision within the time-limit required and, secondly, he sought an annulment of the decision.\nOn 30 June 1999 the Administrative Court quashed the BAS’s decision because the facts of the case needed to be more clearly established and remitted the case to BAS.\n9.  On 17 August 1999 BAS appealed to the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 7 February 2001, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment was apparently served on the applicant on 23 February 2001 and the case remitted to BAS.\n10.  BAS failed to issue a decision within the one-month time limit prescribed by law. The applicant twice urged BAS to issue a new decision.\n11.  On 19 September 2001 the applicant brought another administrative action before the Administrative Court in which he complained of the lack of any response from BAS. He also requested the court to find that he had the right to practice law.\nOn 1 October 2001 the Administrative Court conducted a preliminary review of the claim. On 29 October 2001 BAS replied to the applicant’s action and submitted evidence.\nOn 6 November 2001 BAS, after reconsidering the applicant’s req", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1942", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Vienna.\n8.  On 30 October 1998 the applicant, who is a member of parliament for the Green Party, notified the Salzburg Federal Police Authority (Bundespolizeidirektion) under section 2 of the Assembly Act (Versammlungsgesetz) that on All Saints’ Day, 1 November 1998, from 9 a.m. until 1 p.m., he would be holding a meeting at the Salzburg municipal cemetery in front of the war memorial. He noted that the meeting would coincide with the gathering of Comradeship IV (Kameradschaft IV), which he considered to be unlawful.\n9.  The purpose of the meeting was to be to commemorate the Salzburg Jews killed by the SS during the Second World War. The applicant expected about six participants, who would carry commemorative messages in their hands and attached to their clothes. The applicant stated that no other means of expression (such as chanting or banners) which might offend piety or undermine public order would be used.\n10.  On 31 October 1998 the Salzburg Federal Police Authority, relying on section 6 of the Assembly Act and on Article 11 of the Convention, prohibited the meeting on the ground that it would endanger public order and security.\n11.  The authority noted that F.E., also a member of parliament for the Green Party, had informed the Salzburg Federal Police Authority of the allegedly illegal assembly of Comradeship IV in memory of the SS soldiers killed in the Second World War which was to be held at the same time and place, but had refused to give an undertaking that the proposed meeting in memory of the murdered Salzburg Jews would not disrupt that gathering.\n12.  The Salzburg Federal Police Authority noted that Comradeship IV was a registered association. Like a number of other organisations, it traditionally held a commemoration ceremony at the Salzburg municipal cemetery on All Saints’ Day. Such commemorations qualified as popular ceremonies within the meaning of section 5 of the Assembly Act and thus did not require authorisation. The disruption of this and other commemoration ceremonies was likely to offend the religious feelings of members of the public visiting the cemetery and would indisputably be regarded as disrespectful towards the dead soldiers of both world wars and thus as an unbearable provocation. Accordingly, there was a risk of protests by visitors to the cemetery which could degenerate into open conflict between them and those participating in the assembly.\n13.  The Salzburg Federal Police Authority ordered that any remedies used against its decision should not have suspensive effect. Accordingly, the demonstration could not take place.\n14.  On 17 August 1999 the Salzburg Public Security Authority (Sicherheitsdirektion) dismissed an appeal by the applicant.\n15.  It noted that Comradeship IV was a registered association whose members were mainly former members of the SS. For more than forty years they had commemorated SS soldiers killed in the Second World War by gathering on All Saints’ Day and laying a wreath in front of the war memorial at the Salzburg municipal cemetery. In the past few years, a number of organisations had organised protest campaigns with the aim of disrupting the Comradeship IV commemoration ceremony. These protests had led to vehement discussions with members of Comradeship IV and other visitors to the cemetery and had required intervention by the police.\n16.  The Public Security Authority, referring to the submissions of F.E., found that the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1943", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first five applicants were born in 1910, 1935, 1939, 1912 and 1940 respectively. The sixth and the seventh applicant were born on unspecified dates. At the relevant time all the applicants lived in the town of Voronezh.\n7.  The applicants were entitled to pecuniary awards against the State in connection with the late payment of their pensions.\n8.  By judgment of 7 August 2000 of the Novovoronezhskiy Town Court of the Voronezh Region (“the Town Court”) the first applicant was granted 2,117.38 Russian roubles (“RUR”, approximately 84 euros, “EUR”) to be paid by the State. The judgment came into force on 28 September 2000.\n9.  Having examined the claims of the third and the fourth applicant, on 5 September 2000 the Town Court granted them RUR 1,461.78 (approximately EUR 59) and RUR 2,320.81 (approximately EUR 93) respectively against the State. This judgment came into force on 15 September 2000.\n10.  On 18 September 2000 the Town Court granted the second applicant’s claim and awarded her RUR 3,346.63 (approximately EUR 140) to be paid by the State.\n11.  On 25 September 2000 the fifth applicant was successful in a claim before the Town Court against the pension authority. The court granted him RUR 2,318.63 (approximately EUR 97). The judgment came into force on 4 October 2000.\n12.  The awards in respect of the sixth and the seventh applicant were made by the Town Court on 18 and 19 September 2000.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicants applied to bailiffs’ service, requesting to assist in enforcement of the said awards.\n14.  By letter of 30 January 2001 the bailiffs’ service returned the execution writs without enforcement.\n15.  It appears that the above judgments were not enforced at least until 25 May 2004 which is the date on which the respondent Government have filed their observations.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1944", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Šoštanj.\n6. On 24 August 1998 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZM.\n7.  On 8 April 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZM in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 4,136,681 Slovenian tolars (approximately 17,240 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 19 January 2000 and 17 October 2002 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.\nOn 19 January and 16 October 2001 she made requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the two hearings held on 19 February and 5 November 2002, neither was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing, the parties reached a conditional court settlement. On 6 November 2002 ZM revoked the settlement and the court consequently delivered a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 9 December 2002.\n8.  On 24 December 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZM cross-appealed.\nOn 5 May 2004 the court allowed both appeals in part.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 24 August 2004.\n9.  On 21 September 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) and requested that a Supreme Court’s judge stepped down.\nOn 25 January 2005 the President of the Supreme Court issued a decision rejecting the applicant’s request to exclude a judge from the proceedings.\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1945", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Kherson.\n6.  In 2001 and 2002 the applicant instituted two separate sets of proceedings in the Labour Disputes Commission against the State Enterprise “Khersonskyy Sudnobudivelnyy Zavod” (the “KSZ”), seeking recovery of salary arrears. By decisions of 12 February 2001 and 25 April 2002, the Labour Disputes Commission allowed the applicant’s claims and ordered the KSZ to pay the applicant a total of UAH 2,387[1] in salary arrears.\n7.  On 28 February 2001 and 6 June 2002 the Komsomolskyy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kherson instituted enforcement proceedings concerning the decisions of 12 February 2001 and 25 April 2002, respectively.\n8.  On 6 October 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the decisions in her favour had not been executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the debtor’s lack of funds.\n9.  On 20 May 2005 the applicant was paid the amounts due to her in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1946", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Celje.\n6.  On 5 September 1991 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. PUV, the applicant’s employer, had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 30 April 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against PUV in the Celje Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 980,000 tolars (approximately 4,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 9 March 1993 the court upheld, in part, the applicant’s claim.\n8.  The applicant appealed to the Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela Republike Slovenije).\nThe judgment, upholding the applicant’s appeal and remitting the case to the first-instance court for re-examination, was served on the applicant on 8 December 1993.\n9.  On 12 and 30 September 1994 the applicant lodged with the Celje Labour Court (Delovno sodišče v Celju), the renamed first-instance court, preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nNeither of the two hearings held on 15 September and 19 October 1994 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 16 December 1994.\n10.  On 27 December 1994 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče).\nOn 16 May 1997 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 1 September 1997.\n11.  On 29 September 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). PUV cross-appealed.\nOn 29 September 1997 the applicant also sought exemption from paying the court fees.\nOn 22 October 1997 the first-instance court rejected the applicant’s request for exemption.\nOn 28 October 1997 the applicant appealed.\nOn 17 September 1999 the Higher Labour and Social Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and requested that he paid the court fees.\nOn 28 September 1999 the case was transferred to the Supreme Court to decide on the applicant’s appeal on points of law.\nOn 7 December 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and allowed PUV’s appeal in part.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 4 January 2000.\n12.  On 13 August 1992 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. PUV, the applicant’s employer, had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n13.  On 12 December 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT and PUV in the Celje Basic Court, Celje Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Celju, Enota v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 10,016,472 tolars (approximately 41,800 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 1 January 1995 the Celje Distric Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.\nBetween 9 March 1995 and 12 July 2001 the applicant made fifteen requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 16 October 1995 and 18 September 2001 he lodged fifteen preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the seven hearings held between 25 October 1995 and 3 October 2001 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nOn 25 September 1997 the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was transferred to a new judge.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed three medical experts.\nThe judgmen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1947", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 14 December 1998 the Velenje Unit of the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund (“the PDIF”) awarded the applicant an invalidity status of fifth degree for the period after 12 December 1996. On 17 August 1999 the PDIF rejected the applicant’s appeal.\n7. On 22 September 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against the PDIF in the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) contesting, inter alia, the date of the occurrence of the injury.\nBetween 25 October 1999 and 16 September 2002 the applicant lodged three written submissions.\nBetween 17 January 2001 and 8 March 2002 she made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 1 October 2002 a hearing was held and the court delivered a judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 29 October 2002.\n8.  On 4 November 2002 the applicant appealed to the High Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče).\nOn 14 May 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 3 June 2004.\n9.  On 23 June 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 1 March 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 29 March 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1948", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1916 and lives in the village of Kolodeznoye, the Voronezh Region.\n5.  According to the applicant, a number of third persons unlawfully occupied a part of her house.\n6.  On 8 August 1997 she filed a civil action with the Voronezh Region Kashirskiy District Court (“the District Court”) in which she sought the eviction of a number of third persons.\n7.  On 12 August 1997 the statement of claim and supporting documents reached the District Court.\n8.  By decision of 15 January 1998 the District Court accepted the case for examination.\n9.  It appears that a proper resolution of the dispute required questioning of a person living in the town of Yuzhnosakhalinsk. On 10 April 1998 the District Court made such request to the Yuzhnosakhalinskiy District Court.\n10.  According to the Government, the hearings in the case were suspended pending the response.\n11.  On an unspecified date the District Court received the transcripts of the questioning of the witness.\n12.  Having resumed the hearings in the case on 7 April 1999, by judgment of the same date the District Court partly granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the defendants not to prevent the applicant from using her house. The court rejected the claim insofar as the eviction was concerned.\n13.  A copy of the judgment was served on the applicant on 7 September 1999. The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n(b)  Appeal proceedings\n14.  On 8 August 2000 the Voronezh Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) accepted the applicant’s appeal on the ground that the District Court had failed to notify the applicant and her counsel of the hearing in the case and had taken decisions in their absence. The Regional Court quashed the judgment of 7 April 1999 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration at first instance.\n15.  The Regional Court returned the case-file to the District Court on 21 August 2000.\n16.  On 28 November 2000 the judge in charge of the case withdrew from the proceedings on the ground that she had already expressed an opinion on the merits of the dispute.\n17.  By decision of 5 March 2001 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the withdrawal and on 3 May 2001 returned the case to the first instance.\n18.  Thereafter the proceedings were adjourned due to the judge’s illness and the transfer of the case to another judge.\n19.  On 10 January 2002 the applicant amended her claims.\n20.  The next hearing took place on 19 December 2002.\n21.  On that date a prosecutor joined the case, acting for the applicant. The applicant and her counsel failed to attend that hearing.\n22.  The hearings were postponed on 22 January, 19 February, 16 March and 10 April 2003 due to the defendants’ failure to attend.\n23.  On 28 April 2003 the District Court delivered a judgment in the case in which it dismissed the applicant’s claims.\n(b)  Appeal proceedings\n24.  It does not appear that the parties appealed against that judgment.\n25.  On 29 April 2004 the prosecutor, acting for the applicant, brought a supervisory review complaint against the judgment of 28 April 2003.\n26.  The outcome of those proceedings is unclear.\n27.  On several occasions, between 1997 and 2002, the applicant complained about the excessive length of the case to the prosecutors and higher courts, requesting them to speed up the proceedings and to bring criminal proceedings against the judge who sat in her case.\n28.  On 31 May 2001 the applicant received a letter from the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1949", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in Rümmelsheim in Germany.\n6.  In 1993 the applicants engaged company H., represented by Mr H., to build a house for them.\n7.  On 31 May 1995 company H. filed a claim against the applicants with the Bad Kreuznach Regional Court (Landgericht), seeking 242,651.10 Deutschmarks (DEM) in outstanding payments. The claim reached the Regional Court on 2 June 1995.\n8.  On 27 July 1995, following an extension of the time allowed for submissions, the applicants contested the claim. They argued that company H. had failed to fulfil its contractual obligations and that the building had serious construction defects.\n9.  On 27 October 1995, following an extension of the time‑limit, company H. reduced its claim to DEM 202,005.40.\n10.  Between November 1995 and April 1996 both parties – following several extensions of the set time-limits – submitted extensive written statements.\n11.  On 24 April 1996 the presiding judge of the Regional Court instructed the judge rapporteur to prepare the oral hearing.\n12.  On 19 July 1996 the plaintiff requested the Regional Court to schedule a hearing.\n13.  On 20 July 1996 the presiding judge assigned the case to a new rapporteur.\n14.  On 1 August 1997 the Regional Court held an oral hearing.\n15.  Between September and December 1997 both parties submitted further observations.\n16.  On 12 December 1997 the Regional Court instructed the expert W. to prepare an expert opinion on the alleged building defects. It further decided to hear evidence from witnesses.\n17.  On 19 January 1998 the Regional Court dispatched the case file to the expert.\n18.  On 9 February 1998 the applicants requested that the questions to the expert be amended.\n19.  On 10 February 1998 the presiding judge rejected the applicants’ request in order, inter alia, to avoid delays. He further announced that a new rapporteur had been appointed.\n20.  On 20 August 1998 the applicants submitted a document on the progress of the building work (Bautagebuch), totalling 180 pages.\n21.  On 10 November 1998 the presiding judge rejected the applicant’s request to forward the document to the expert.\n22.  On 15 December 1998 the expert submitted his expert opinion.\n23.  On 8 January 1999 the Regional Court served the expert opinion on the parties for comments within six weeks.\n24.  On 13 January 1999 applicants’ counsel withdrew from the case.\n25.  On 15 March 1999 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint (Strafanzeige) against H. for having lied during the proceedings.\n26.  Between 24 April and 26 May 1999 the case file was dispatched to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.\n27.  On 6 July 1999 the applicants submitted a personal statement totalling 122 pages. On 28 July 1999 the presiding judge informed them that these submissions could not be taken into consideration, as they had not been drafted by counsel.\n28.  On 20 August 1999, following several extensions of the set time-limit, the applicants’ new counsel submitted critical comments on the expert opinion. He further requested on several occasions that evidence be taken from the expert in court and that another expert opinion be commissioned.\n29.  On 20 October 1999, following two extensions of the time-limit, the plaintiff submitted further comments.\n30.  On 15 November 1999 the presiding judge transferred the case file to the rapporteur.\n31.  On 9 December 1999 the case file was dispatched to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.\n32.  On 10 February 2000 the case file was dispatched to the Court o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1950", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Ponikva.\n6.  On 25 January 1996 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 4 November 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,304,324 tolars (approximately 9,600 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nAt an undetermined time in 1998, the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court and the case was transferred to a new judge.\nOn 12 November 1997 and 19 January 1998, the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 4 May 1998 and 24 May 2000, the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nOf the six hearings held between 5 May 1998 and 30 May 2000, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed three medical experts.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 13 July 2000.\n8.  On 25 July 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 4 July 2001 the court dismissed both appeals.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 29 august 2001.\n9.  On 14 September 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 4 July 2002 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 10 September 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1951", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1948 and 1938 respectively and live in the town of Yaroslavl.\n5.  The applicants are co-owners of a house situated near a local police and fire station.\n6.  They sued the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”, Министерство внутренних дел РФ) for damages and new housing, alleging that the building and maintenance works which had been carried out by the station seriously damaged a local drainage system and lead to systematic seasonal flooding of their house.\n7.  By judgment of 5 December 2000 the Krasnoperekopskiy District Court of the town of Yaroslavl partly granted their claims and ordered the Ministry to provide the families of the first and second applicant with housing measuring at least 30.6 and 35.56 square metres respectively and consisting of at least two rooms.\n8.  The court also ordered the Ministry to pay the applicants 3,353 Russian roubles (“RUR”) and RUR 26,165 respectively in damages.\n9.  The judgment of 5 December 2000 was upheld by the Yaroslavl Regional Court on appeal on 12 March 2001.\n10.  On 11 July 2001 the applicants instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 5 December 2000, as upheld on 12 March 2001.\n11.  By money transfers of 18 July 2001 and 3 September 2002 the second applicant received RUR 431.60 and RUR 25,733.40.\n12.  By money transfer of 4 September 2002 the first applicant received RUR 3,353.\n13.  Insofar as the judgment ordered the Ministry to grant the applicants free housing, on 28 August 2002 the housing committee of the regional branch of the Ministry of Interior, a body in charge of distribution of flats in residences built at the expense of the Ministry, decided to provide the applicants with two flats, measuring 55.6 and 53.1 square metres respectively.\n14.  On 3 October 2002, once the construction of the block of flats had been finalised, both applicants received permission to move in.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1954", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in İstanbul.\n5.  In 1997 the Bakırköy Municipality expropriated land (plot nos. 154/36 and 154/3) belonging to the applicant in İstanbul. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicant when the expropriation took place.\n6.  On 9 January 1997 the applicant filed two separate actions for additional compensation with the Bakırköy Civil Court of First Instance.\n7.  In respect of plot no. 154/36, the first-instance court, on 16 October 1997, awarded the applicant additional compensation of 1,768,970,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 8,840 euros (EUR)), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 10 January 1997. On 31 March 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. On 21 October 1998 the Municipality’s request for a rectification of the decision was dismissed by the Court of Cassation. This latter decision was served on the applicant on 30 November 1998.\n8.  In respect of plot no. 154/3, the first-instance court, on 20 May 1998, awarded the applicant additional compensation of TRL 6,487,209,968 (approximately EUR 23,000), plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 9 January 1997. On 1 December 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first‑instance court. On 10 June 1999 the Municipality’s request for a rectification of the decision was dismissed by the Court of Cassation. This latter decision was served on the applicant on 2 August 1999.\n9.  In the meantime, on 7 April 1999 the Municipality paid the applicant, in total, TRL 15,972,726,000 (approximately EUR 39,438) covering additional compensation, interest, costs and expenses.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1955", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On an unspecified date in 1990, the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Ankara in order to build the Ankara Central Motorway. The authorities paid him the value of the land, assessed by a committee of experts, when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicant’s request, on 26 December 1994 the Ankara Civil Court awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable.\n7.  On 22 January 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.\n8.  On 4 February 1998 the amount of 3,618,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) was paid to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1956", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On an unspecified date in 1990 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Ankara in order to build the Ankara Central Motorway. The authorities paid him the value of the land, assessed by a committee of experts, when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicant’s request, on 27 June 1995 the Ankara Civil Court awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable.\n7.  On 18 March 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.\n8.  On 18 February 1998 the amount of 4,560,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) was paid to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1957", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Elista, the Kalmyk Republic.\n5.  In the 1980s he took part in a rescue operation on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.\n6.  As of late 1996 the applicant has been in receipt of social benefits in this connection.\n7.  In June 1999 he brought a civil action against the Pension Fund of Elista because it had wrongly calculated his pension.\n8.  On 26 August 1999 the Elista Town Court dismissed the action.\n9.  On 25 November 1999 the Supreme Court of the Kalmyk Republic examined the applicant’s appeal, quashed the judgment of 26 August 1999 and ordered the pension authority to:\n“calculate the [applicant’s] pension based on the salary which he [had] received during his work in [Chernobyl], in the new circumstances, with regard to the salary which he [had] received on his main job, under conversion rates of 6.7 and 6 for the period established in Article 208 of the Civil Code.”\n10.  On 27 January 2000, the Supreme Court supplemented its judgment of 25 November 1999 with an order to:\n“recalculate the [applicant’s] pension for the period from 11 November 1997 to 25 November 1999, to pay the [applicant] the difference between the recalculated pension and the pension actually paid, and to increase the average salary, on the basis of which the pension [was] to be calculated, not only by the conversion rates of 6.7 and 6, but also by the minimum pension increments in accordance with section 11-3 of the Rules on Compensation.”\n11.  Both decisions came into force immediately.\n12.  According to the applicant, the judgment translated into a monthly payment of 8,137.91 roubles (“RUR”, approximately 284 euros, “EUR”).\n13.  The authorities failed to execute the judgment.\n14.  Between July 2000 and April 2001 the applicant complained about the non-execution to a number of authorities.\n15.  The authorities replied that the pension had been recalculated, but it could not actually be paid because the Ministry of Finance had allocated no money for this purpose.\n16.  The arrears of RUR 513,407.62 (approximately EUR 15,126) due to the applicant were transferred to him by two instalments on 29 January and 25 April 2002 respectively.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1958", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and is currently detained at Corradino prison (Malta).\n5.  On 5 April 1991 the applicant, accused together with other persons of various counts of aggravated theft (including theft in various factories and car theft), was arraigned before the Court of Magistrates sitting as a Court of Criminal Inquiry.\n6.  The prosecution concluded the case on the merits on 12 October 1993. It produced further evidence on charges of recidivism on 14 January 1994.\n7.  The legal qualification of the charges was presented on 14 April 1994, on which date the Court of Magistrates started to hear the evidence for the defence.\n8.  In a judgment of 15 February 1995, the Court of Magistrates acquitted the applicant of two of the charges, namely receiving stolen goods and theft of a car. It found the applicant guilty of the remaining six charges of theft and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.\n9.  The applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence. Four of his co-accused appealed, challenging exclusively the reasonableness of their sentence.\n10.  The defendants introduced a number of requests for release on bail, for the examination of new witnesses and for leave to present further submissions. This led to the adjournment of the case on several occasions, in particular on 29 February 1996 and on 13 March 1997, dates scheduled for the delivery of the judgment. The examination of the case was suspended from 14 January until 8 October 1999 because the presiding judge was ill.\n11.  The delivery of the judgment was scheduled first for 9 January, then for 30 October 2001; however, the proceedings were adjourned as some of the accused wished to present further submissions and because the presiding judge had been assigned to a foreign tribunal. By an order of 3 October 2002 the Court of Criminal Appeal adjourned the proceedings sine die awaiting the outcome of the constitutional claim which the applicant had introduced in the meantime (see infra, under B. “The applicant’s constitutional claim”).\n12.  The proceedings were resumed after the determination of the applicant’s constitutional claim, and on 15 January 2004 the Court of Appeal gave its final judgment. It reaffirmed that its role was not to interfere with the first court’s appreciation of the evidence, as long as it was satisfied that the conclusions reached by the Court of Magistrates were lawful and reasonable. In the light of the material before it and having regard to the fact that the applicant had admitted his guilt, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed the first-instance judgment.\n13.  In the meantime, on 5 April 2002 the applicant had filed a constitutional claim with the Civil Court (First Hall). Invoking Article 6 of the Convention and Article 39 of the Constitution of Malta, he complained about the length of the criminal proceedings and alleged that his trial had not been fair.\n14.  In a judgment of 15 May 2003, the Civil Court dismissed the applicant’s claim.\n15.  The Civil Court observed that no delay could be imputed to the prosecution or to the trial court. The case was a rather complex one, as it involved many counts and a number of accused persons. Moreover, the Court of Magistrates had to hear several witnesses and to obtain many documents. Notwithstanding this, most of the requests for bail were decided on 17 April 1991, which was only twelve days after the date of the arraignment. Some of the accused failed to appear at several hearings, thus ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1959", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On an unspecified date in 1990 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Ankara in order to build the Ankara Central Motorway. The authorities paid him the value of the land, assessed by a committee of experts, when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicant’s request, on 27 September 1994 the Ankara Civil Court awarded her additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable.\n7.  On 29 January 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.\n8.  On 9 February 1998 the amount of 2,800,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) was paid to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1960", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On an unspecified date in 1990 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Ankara in order to build the Ankara Central Motorway. The authorities paid him the value of the land, assessed by a committee of experts, when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicant’s request, on 21 December 1993 the Ankara Civil Court awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable.\n7.  On 20 June 1994 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.\n8.  On 4 February 1998 the amount of 3,600,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) was paid to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1961", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On an unspecified date in 1990 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Ankara in order to build the Ankara Central Motorway. The authorities paid him the value of the land, assessed by a committee of experts, when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicant’s request, on 21 April 1994 the Ankara Civil Court awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable.\n7.  On 11 December 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.\n8.  On 28 January 1998 the amount of 313,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) was paid to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1962", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and he is presently detained in Hrubieszów Prison, Poland.\n5.  On 21 September 1999 the applicant was convicted of a driving offence by the Board for Administrative Offences at the Włodawa District Court (Kolegium d.s. wykroczeń). He appealed.\nOn 29 November 1999 the Włodawa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) dismissed his appeal.\n6.  On 9 March 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 12 March 2001 the Włodawa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed several offences of fraud. The applicant had allegedly been corresponding with several men from different countries, passing himself off as a lady wishing to meet them.\n7.  On 3 December 2001 the Włodawa District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention, finding that it was highly probable that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged. The court further found that there was a risk that the applicant might go into hiding or obstruct the proceedings.\nThat decision was upheld on appeal on 17 December 2001.\n8.  On 31 January 2002 the applicant was indicted on charges of fraud against ten Dutch, French and German nationals who had given him money under false pretences, believing that the applicant was a women interested in meeting and visiting them. In the correspondence with the victims the applicant had been using a false name “Narcissus Flower” (Narcyza Kwiatek) and had obtained from them a total of 270 German Marks and 1,600 US Dollars.\n9.  The applicant filed an application for release, but on 11 February 2002 the Włodawa District Court dismissed it reiterating the original grounds for the detention. The court further prolonged his detention, finding that the applicant’s place of permanent residence was far from the trial court and, if released, he would obstruct the proper course of proceedings. Simultaneously, the court dismissed the applicant’s request to be released on bail.\n10.  On 8 March, 6 June and 30 July 2002 the Włodawa District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand. The decisions repeated the same grounds for the applicant’s detention: the reasonable suspicion against him, the severity of the anticipated sentence and the fear that he might go into hiding or otherwise obstruct the proceedings.\n11.  On 5 August 2002 the Włodawa District Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a fine.\n12.  The applicant lodged an appeal.\n13.  On 14 August 2002 the Lublin Regional Court released the applicant on bail. The court found that the original reasons for keeping the applicant in detention had ceased to exist since the applicant had no previous conviction and had a permanent place of residence.\n14.  On 15 July 2003 the Lublin Regional Court partly amended the judgment. It appears that the judgment is final.\n15.  The applicant submits that during his detention his correspondence, in particular that with the Court, was censored by the authorities. In March 2001 the Włodawa District Prosecutor decided to obtain and control the correspondence from the applicant’s post office box - apparently during the investigation stage. The applicant’s appeals against those decisions were dismissed by the Lublin Regional Prosecutor.\n16.  On 4 April 2001 the Registry sent a letter to the applicant addressed to his post office box. The applicant provided the Reg", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1964", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Lublin, Poland.\n8.  On 1 February 1999 the Bielsko-Biała District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that, acting in an organised group, he had committed fraud. The applicant appealed against this decision, but on 19 March 1999 the Bielsko‑Biała Regional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that his detention was necessary to ensure the proper course of the proceedings.\n9.  On 13 April 1999 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), to which the case was in the meantime transferred, further prolonged the applicant’s detention. The court relied in particular on the complexity of the case, the need to obtain expert opinions and the seriousness of the charges against the applicant. In addition, the court considered that there existed a danger that the applicant, if released, would obstruct the process of collection of evidence.\nThe applicant appealed. On 20 May 1999 the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.\n10.  By a decision of 16 June 1999 the Lublin Court of Appeal further prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand. The court considered that the reasons for which the detention had been ordered still existed and that the prosecuting authorities continued the process of obtaining evidence. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on 29 July 1999 by the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) relying on the strong suspicion against the applicant and on the complexity of the case.\n11.  In September 1999 the applicant was indicted before the Biskupiec District Court. The bill of indictment, directed against the applicant and one co‑accused, concerned 16 counts of fraud allegedly committed by them between July and September 1997.\n12.  On 17 September 1999 the Biskupiec District Court prolonged the applicant’s pre-trial detention relying on the strong suspicion against the applicant and the severity of the anticipated sentence. The court further stated that there was a risk of absconding, in particular, with regard to the second co-accused. The applicant appealed but his appeal was dismissed by the Olsztyn Regional Court on 15 October 1999.\n13.  On 14 March 2000 the Biskupiec District Court further prolonged the applicant’s detention. The court found that the grounds for the detention given in previous decisions were still valid. On 31 March 2000 the Olsztyn Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision.\n14.  At an unspecified later date the applicant requested his release. By decisions of 25 April 2000 and of 10 May 2000, the Biskupiec District Court, rejected his requests, considering that the grounds for detaining the applicant still remained valid.\n15.  By a decision of 28 June 2000 the Biskupiec District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 November 2000. The court repeated the reasons given previously. On 14 July 2000 the Olsztyn Regional Court dismissed his appeal against this decision finding that the period of his detention was not excessive.\n16.  The first trial hearings scheduled for 11 and 12 April 2000 were adjourned as the applicant’s lawyer failed to appear before the court. The court appointed another lawyer for the applicant. The trial started on 8 November 2000.\n17.  At the hearing held on 21 November 2000 the Biskupiec District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 January 2001. The court stated that the reasons justifying t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1965", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Netherlands.\n5.  On 1 October 1997 the applicant was detained on remand (voorlopige hechtenis) on suspicion of involvement, together with others, in the robbery of a couple in the Netherlands in the course of which the man had been killed in front of the woman, who had been raped several times and had eventually been killed in Belgium. The criminal proceedings brought against the applicant, in which he stood accused of offences including rape, deprivation of liberty, murder, theft and robbery, came to an end on 5 September 2000 when the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) confirmed the judgment of the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) dated 22 April 1999 in which the applicant had been sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment. In the meantime, requests for his extradition from the authorities of both Germany and Belgium, where the applicant was wanted on suspicion of various serious offences, had been declared permissible on 18 March 1998 and 24 June 1998 respectively.\n6.  The applicant was initially detained in an ordinary remand centre (huis van bewaring). On 16 January 1998, on the basis of information that the applicant appeared to be playing a key role in the preparation of an escape plan involving the taking of hostages, he was transferred to the National Segregation Unit (Landelijke Afzonderingsafdeling) in a Rotterdam detention facility. On 2 February 1998 he returned to an ordinary remand centre, but on 11 May 1998 – following a report that the applicant and another detainee were involved in smuggling a telephone and weapons into the remand centre – he was transferred back to the National Segregation Unit.\n7.  On 25 June 1998, on the advice of the special selection board of the EBI, the Minister of Justice decided to place the applicant in the pre-trial detention unit of the EBI, which is part of the Nieuw Vosseveld Penitentiary Complex in Vught. His detention in the pre-trial unit of the EBI was reviewed and extended by the Minister every six months. On 26 October 2000, on the advice of the EBI special selection board, the applicant's stay in the EBI was extended once again by the Minister. As the applicant's conviction had become final in the meantime, he was transferred to the EBI prison unit. His detention in the EBI prison was reviewed and extended by the Minister every six months. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged each extension decision before the Appeals Board (beroepscommissie) of the Central Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice (Centrale Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing). On 1 April 2001 the Central Council was replaced by the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming).\n8.  In May 2001, after a fight between the applicant and a co-detainee, the applicant was placed under a so-called individual regime, as it was held that his security could not be guaranteed by the institution if he were to come into contact with other detainees. This measure, which resulted in the applicant's being excluded from communal activities and being allowed to participate in activities on an individual basis only, was reviewed and extended every fortnight. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged each decision to extend the measure. The measure was lifted on an unspecified date in May 2002.\n9.  According to a report dated 17 October 2001 further to an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1966", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Skopje, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.\n6.  On 4 October 1985 the police arrested the applicant in her apartment. On 5 October 1985 an investigating judge ordered pre-trial detention. She was released from detention on 17 or 18 December 1985.\n7.  By judgment of the Skopje I Municipal Court (Општински Суд Скопје I) of 11 December 1985, the applicant was convicted of procuring and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. On 11 March 1986 the Skopje District Court (Окружен Суд Скопје) reduced her sentence to two months and thirteen days’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 1 September 1988 the applicant brought before the then Municipal Court of Skopje (Општински суд Скопје) a compensation claim against her tenant, Mrs V.K., the City of Skopje and Mr M.G., a police inspector. She alleged that during her detention in 1985 Mrs V.K. had stolen valuable items from her apartment.\n9.  Of forty-five hearings scheduled between 23 November 1988 and 20 September 1996, seventeen were adjourned as the court had failed to summon the defendants or witnesses proposed (on one occasion the court asked for police assistance); seven hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s request for examination of some witnesses or the defendants (by written requests of 18 December 1994 and 6 November 1995, the applicant asked the court to examine over fifteen witnesses altogether); two hearings were adjourned due to the trial judge’s absence. During this period, the applicant five times unsuccessfully requested the removal of the trial judge and of all judges of the Skopje I Court of First Instance. The proceedings were also three times suspended due to the applicant’s absence from the hearings without any reasons (the court granted her request of 3 July 1990 for reinstatement of the proceedings as her lawyer had withdrawn from the case without notifying her about the hearing). Nine hearings were adjourned on different grounds related to the applicant’s failure to comply with the court’s instructions, lack of proper legal representation or imposition of additional requests.\n10.  On 20 September 1996 another judge took over the case.\n11.  On 6 November 1996 the applicant requested that the State be added as a third defendant in the proceedings. She argued that following the independence of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in 1991 the State had taken over the jurisdiction of internal affairs from the local authorities of the City of Skopje.\n12.  The hearings fixed for 12 November 1996 and 16 January 1997 were adjourned due to Mrs V.K.’s absence. On 20 January 1997 the court requested police assistance to establish Mrs V.K.’s address in order to serve on her the court summons.\n13.  On 13 May 1998 the applicant asked the court to summon Mrs V.K. at the address where she had already on 2 April 1996 received an earlier summons.\n14.  Of nine hearings fixed between 18 February 1999 and 9 June 2000, five hearings were adjourned due to improper summoning of some of the defendants (including, but not limited to Mrs V.K.); two hearings were adjourned as the applicant had failed to reply to the Attorney General’s objection to the State’s status as party in the proceedings; one hearing was adjourned at the applicant’s request; one hearing was adjourned so as the court to decide the City of Skopje’s capacity to stand in the proceedings.\n15.  On 9 June 2000 the Skopje I Court of First Instance upheld the Attorney General’s objection ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1967", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1968, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1994 and 1932 respectively and live in Celje, except the last applicant who lives in Šentvid pri Planini.\n6.  The applicants are the wife, the children and the mother of J.S. who died in an accident at work on 22 July 1997. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 7 July 1998 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 13,093,982 tolars (approximately 54,550 euros).\nBetween 17 July 1998 and 17 October 2002 the applicants lodged ten preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nBetween 4 March 1999 and 3 October 2001 they made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the six hearings held between 5 June 2001 and 12 November 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed an expert in electrical engineering. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 21 January 2003.\n8.  On 22 January 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). The applicants also requested the first-instance court to issue a supplement judgment because it had not yet rendered a ruling on all counts of the applicants’ claim. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 3 September 2004 the first-instance court issued a supplementary judgment. The judgment was served on the applicants on 15 September 2004.\n9.  On 17 September 2004 the applicants appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 16 March 2006 the court allowed all the appeals in part.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 13 April 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1968", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Netherlands.\n6.  On 17 February 1998 the applicant was detained in the Netherlands on the basis of a request for his extradition by the authorities in Germany, where he was suspected of having committed a bank robbery and, during his subsequent flight and pursuit by the police, of having taken several hostages and having shot and killed one person. On 4 November 1998 he was extradited to Germany where, by judgment of 21 May 1999, the Duisburg Regional Court (Landgericht) convicted the applicant of extortion, attempted homicide, homicide and hostage-taking and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n7.  Pending the determination of a request under the Enforcement of [Foreign] Criminal Judgments (Transfer) Act (Wet overdracht tenuitvoerlegging strafvonnissen – “WOTS”) for the applicant to be allowed to serve his sentence in the Netherlands, where he had lived since early childhood, the applicant was transferred to the Netherlands on 4 July 2000.\n8.  On 3 October 2000, in accordance with the provisions of the WOTS, the Hague Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) gave leave for the applicant’s sentence to be executed in the Netherlands and, considering that under the Netherlands sentencing rules a life sentence fitted the nature and seriousness of the offences, the circumstances in which they had been committed and the person and personal circumstances of the applicant, imposed a life sentence. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law against this ruling with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad).\n9.  On 26 June 2001 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the ruling and quashed the decision of 3 October 2000. It held that the Regional Court had failed to examine whether or not, with regard to the possibilities of early or conditional release for persons sentenced to life imprisonment, the applicant’s situation in the Netherlands would be less advantageous than in Germany. It remitted the applicant’s case to the Amsterdam Regional Court for a fresh decision. At the time the application was lodged with the Court, the proceedings before the Amsterdam Regional Court were still pending.\n10.  Following his transfer from Germany to the Netherlands on 4 July 2000, the applicant was initially detained in an ordinary remand centre (huis van bewaring) in Rotterdam. On 5 December 2000 a number of items (a whet stone attachment for a rotary grinder, knotted sheets, a rope and a metal hook) were found in his cell. The applicant was subsequently transferred to the National Segregation Unit (Landelijke Afzonderingsafdeling) in the Nieuw Vosseveld Penitentiary Complex in Vught.\n11.  On 21 December 2000, on the advice of the special selection board of the maximum security institution (Extra Beveiligde Inrichting – “EBI”), the Minister of Justice decided to place the applicant in the EBI, which is part of the Nieuw Vosseveld Penitentiary Complex. His detention in the EBI was reviewed and extended by the Minister every six months. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged each decision to extend before the Appeals Board (beroepscommissie) of the Central Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice (Centrale Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing). On 1 April 2001 the Central Council was replaced by the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming).\n12.  On 27 Ma", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1969", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in the Netherlands.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 1996 the applicant was detained in the Netherlands in connection with a request for his extradition to Turkey, where he was suspected of murder. During his detention, there were serious indications that the applicant’s life was at risk from foreign State or non-State agents.\n7.  Shortly before his release in December 1996 – after a Netherlands court had ruled that the applicant’s extradition to Turkey was not permissible – the prison authorities received indications that the applicant and three co-detainees harboured escape plans. On 25 February 1998, the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the police, alleging that the Turkish authorities planned to kill him.\n8.  On 27 March 1998 the applicant was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention (voorlopige hechtenis) on suspicion of having committed serious crimes within a violent criminal organisation in which he played a leading role. Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant, who was sentenced in first-instance proceedings to twenty years’ imprisonment. On 30 July 2002, following proceedings on appeal, the Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) of ‘s-Hertogenbosch quashed the first-instance judgment, convicted the applicant of several offences and sentenced him to life imprisonment. His subsequent appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) was dismissed on 21 October 2003.\n9.  The applicant was initially detained in an ordinary remand centre (huis van bewaring). Shortly after he was apprehended, and on the basis of information indicating a risk that he would seek ways to escape and also reports that he was in danger of being “liquidated”, he was transferred to the National Segregation Unit (Landelijke Afzonderingsafdeling) in a Rotterdam detention facility.\n10.  On 26 June 1998, on the advice of the special selection board of the maximum security institution (Extra Beveiligde Inrichting – “EBI”), the Minister of Justice decided to place the applicant in the pre-trial detention unit of the EBI, which is part of the Nieuw Vosseveld Penitentiary Complex in Vught. His detention in the EBI prison was reviewed and extended by the Minister every six months. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged each decision to extend before the Appeals Board (beroepscommissie) of the Central Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice (Centrale Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing). On 1 April 2001 the Central Council was replaced by the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles (Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming).\n11.  By letter of 16 July 2001 the applicant was informed that the Minister of Justice had decided to extend his detention in the EBI once again. According to information contained in the proposal of 25 June 2001 to extend the applicant’s stay in the EBI, he had not had any contact with social workers during the previous six months and apparently did not feel the need to have such contact. The proposal, which describes in detail the applicant’s attitude, behaviour and activities in the EBI, does not mention any psychological problems encountered by the applicant caused by his detention in the EBI.\n12.  The letter of 16 July 2001, in its relevant part, reads as follows:\n“From the information available about you, it appears that you must be regarded as likely to try to escape (vluchtgevaar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1970", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In 1994 the applicant concluded a contract with ASITO (an insurance company incorporated in Moldova), according to which she paid an insurance premium in exchange for an annuity.\n6.  Since ASITO failed to pay the annuity at the term, the applicant brought a civil action against it, seeking the payment of the pension to date and requiring the company to abide by the contract.\n7.  On 5 October 2001, the Râşcani District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered ASITO to pay the pension due and to resume the execution of the contract.\n8.  ASITO appealed against this judgment, asking inter alia for the cancellation of the contract concluded with the applicant in 1994 on the ground that the economic situation of the country had become worse and that the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova had changed.\n9.  On 27 February 2002, the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the appeal arguing that the contract of 1994 was legal and valid and therefore had to be upheld by the parties. ASITO lodged an appeal in cassation against this judgment.\n10.  In the meantime, on an unspecified date, the Prosecutor General lodged an “appeal in the interests of the law” with the Supreme Court of Justice. According to the Prosecutor General, the appeal had the purpose of clarifying the controversy surrounding all such contracts and of setting a uniform practice for all the courts.\n11.  On 11 March 2002, the Plenary Supreme Court issued a judgment deciding the dispute between ASITO and the pension beneficiaries in favour of the former. It also ruled that its judgment had no retrospective effect on any already existing judgments and that it could not be used against the parties to those proceedings.\n12.  On 16 April 2002, a panel of the Court of Appeal composed of judges V.D. (president), T.D. and V.B., quashed the judgments of 5 October 2001 and 27 February 2002, and found in favour of ASITO.\n13.  After the delivery of the judgment, the applicant found out that the mandate of Judge V.D., who had presided at the hearing, had expired in 2000 and that he had been dismissed from the position of judge in July 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1971", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Cologne (Germany).\n10.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n11.  On 29 October 1993 four plain-clothes policemen observed the applicant on at least two different occasions take a tiny plastic bag (a so‑called “bubble”) out of his mouth and hand it over to another person in exchange for money. Believing that these bags contained drugs, the police officers went to arrest the applicant, whereupon he swallowed another bubble he still had in his mouth.\n12.  The police officers did not find any drugs on the applicant. Since further delay might have frustrated the conduct of the investigation, the public prosecutor ordered that emetics (Brechmittel) be administered to the applicant by a doctor in order to provoke the regurgitation of the bag (Exkorporation).\n13.  The applicant was taken to a hospital in Wuppertal-Elberfeld. According to the Government, the doctor who was to administer the emetics questioned the applicant about his medical history (a procedure known as obtaining an anamnesis). This was disputed by the applicant, who claimed that he had not been questioned by a doctor. As the applicant refused to take the medication necessary to provoke vomiting, he was held down and immobilised by four police officers. The doctor then forcibly administered to him a salt solution and the emetic ipecacuanha syrup through a tube introduced into his stomach through the nose. In addition, the doctor injected him with apomorphine, another emetic that is a derivative of morphine. As a result, the applicant regurgitated one bubble containing 0.2182 grams of cocaine. Approximately an hour and a half after being arrested and taken to the hospital, the applicant was examined by a doctor and declared fit for detention.\n14.  When visited by the police in his cell two hours after being given the emetics, the applicant, who was found not to speak German, said in broken English that he was too tired to make a statement about the alleged offence.\n15.  Pursuant to an arrest warrant that had been issued by the Wuppertal District Court, the applicant was remanded in custody on 30 October 1993.\n16.  The applicant maintained that for three days following the treatment to which he was subjected he was only able to drink soup and that his nose repeatedly bled for two weeks because of wounds he had received when the tube was inserted. This was disputed by the Government, who stressed that the applicant had failed to submit a medical report to prove his allegation.\n17.  Two and a half months after the administration of the emetics, the applicant underwent a gastroscopy in the prison hospital after complaining of continuous pain in the upper region of his stomach. He was diagnosed as suffering from irritation in the lower area of the oesophagus caused by the reflux of gastric acid. The medical report did not expressly associate this condition with the forced administration of the emetics.\n18.  The applicant was released from prison on 23 March 1994. He claimed that he had had to undergo further medical treatment for the stomach troubles he had suffered as a result of the forcible administration of the emetics. He did not submit any documents to confirm that he had received medical treatment. The Government, for their part, maintained that the applicant had not received any medical treatment.\n19.  In his submissions dated 20 December 1993 to the Wuppertal District Court, the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1972", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 in Estonia and lives in Tartu.\n5.  In 1995 or 1996 the applicant lodged an application with the Public Prosecutor’s Office in which he requested that criminal proceedings be initiated against four persons, including two police officers. The applicant had allegedly been beaten by these men. A prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceedings.\n6.  Subsequently, the same four persons made a report concerning an offence allegedly committed by the applicant. They argued that the applicant had submitted false accusations concerning the beating. On 8 October 1996 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Article 174 § 1 (submitting knowingly false accusations concerning the commission of a criminal offence by another person) of the Criminal Code (Kriminaalkoodeks).\n7.  In the following years, the applicant repeatedly failed to appear at the police prefecture when summoned. On several occasions it proved to be impossible to compel him by force to appear (sundtoomine), as he was not present at the address he had indicated and his whereabouts were unknown. On some occasions, when the authorities found him, he refused to familiarise himself with the charges, to give statements or to sign an undertaking not to leave his place of residence (allkiri elukohast mittelahkumise kohta).\n8.  According to a forensic psychiatric expert opinion given in 2000 on the request of an investigator, the applicant was not mentally unsound but had a paranoid personality disorder. He was considered to be able to give statements, attend court hearings and serve any punishment.\n9.  Also in 2000 a new criminal case was instituted against the applicant, again under Article 174 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The case was joined with the case initiated in 1996.\n10.  In 2000 and 2001 the period of the preliminary investigation was extended repeatedly due to the applicant’s alleged ill-health. On 28 November 2001 he was compelled by the police to appear in the police prefecture. On the next day, he was presented with the formal charges under Article 174 § 1 of the Criminal Code. He refused to make any statements, to familiarise himself with any documents or to sign them.\n11.  On 15 January 2002 the prosecutor approved the summary of charges and the criminal case file was sent to the Tartu County Court (Tartu Maakohus).\n12.  On 17 January 2002 the County Court committed the applicant for trial and maintained the signed undertaking not to leave his residence as a preventive measure against him. The hearing was scheduled for 26 March 2002.\nBy a letter of 24 March 2002 the applicant informed the court that he could not participate in the hearing due to his ill-health. He requested that the hearing be adjourned.\nOn 26 March 2002 the hearing was adjourned due to the absence of the applicant and a new hearing was scheduled for 13 June 2002. The court decided that the applicant should be compelled by the police to appear before it on that date.\nAs the police was unable to find the applicant and to secure his attendance at the court hearing on 13 June 2002, the hearing was adjourned until 30 September 2002. The court again decided that the applicant had to be compelled by the police to appear in court.\n13.  On 30 September 2002 the applicant failed to appear in court. The police had been unable to secure his attendance, as during repeated checks no one had opened the door at his residence. The applicant’s appointed lawyer, the pros", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1973", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  On 20 May 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud by the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (CFECC).\n8.  At the time of his arrest he showed no apparent abnormality in his normal physical state. According to a medical file dating from March 2005 the applicant weighed 133 kilograms.\n9.  According to the reports drawn up on 21 May 2005 by the policemen who arrested him, he attempted to escape, verbally abused them and even attempted to resist by trying to reach for a pistol which he had on him and by throwing away the arrest order when presented with it. It does not appear from those reports that any force was applied to the applicant or that he was injured in any way during his arrest. The applicant denies having resisted arrest.\n10.  It appears from the police reports that the applicant was arrested at approximately 6.45 p.m. According to the applicant, he was arrested at 4.30 p.m.\n11.  It is alleged on behalf of the applicant that after being brought to the CFECC premises he was beaten up by the police officers, as a result of which he lost consciousness. The Government deny that.\n12.  According to a medical report drawn up at 8.34 p.m. on the same date by a doctor from the CFECC, the applicant was unconscious. The doctor noted in the report that, according to the police officers, he had lost consciousness due to “intense emotions”, and recommended that the applicant be seen by a cardiologist. It does not appear from the report that the applicant had been injured in any way during arrest.\n13.  One of his lawyers saw the applicant at approximately 10.20 p.m. at the CFECC and noted in the minutes of arrest (proces verbal de reţinere), which was drawn up by the police officers in his presence, that the applicant was unconscious. At the request of the lawyer an ambulance was called at 11.37 p.m. and at 1.30 a.m. on 21 May 2005 the applicant was taken to the Cardiology Hospital, still unconscious.\n14.  It appears from the medical records from the Cardiology Hospital that the applicant regained consciousness after being brought there, but it is not clear when that happened. According to the medical records, he was suffering from arterial hypertension and a syndrome of confusion of unclear origin. The applicant would not respond to questions and would not react to anything. He also suffered headaches and nausea. There is no information in the medical file concerning his weight at the time of his hospitalisation. The doctors recommended inter alia that the applicant be given a brain scan in order to exclude the possibility of the applicant having had a cerebral stroke. The doctors concluded that a final diagnosis would be possible only after the latter tests had been carried out.\n15.  On 24 May 2005 the applicant was transferred to a Prison Hospital. On 25 May 2005 he was seen by a neurologist, who wrote in the medical file that on 20 May 2005 he had suffered a head trauma followed by loss of consciousness. The neurologist recommended various forms of medical treatment but did not recommend a brain scan. On 26 May 2005 a doctor noted in the medical file that the applicant had pain in his kidneys and red urine. On 2 June 2005 the applicant was examined by a commission of senior doctors from the hospital, who established a final diagnosis of, inter alia, acute head trauma and concussion and recommended, inter alia, that the applicant undergo a psychiatric ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1974", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Romania.\n5.  On 30 September 1997, the applicant was placed in police custody on charges of robbery, and informed that an investigation had been opened against him by the prosecutor attached to the Supreme Court of Justice. On 24 October 1997, the prosecutor committed the applicant for trial before the Bucharest County Court.\n6.  The Bucharest County Court acquitted the applicant in a judgment of 2 December 1998, upheld, on 9 June 1999, by the Bucharest Court of Appeal. However, in a final decision of 21 March 2000, the Supreme Court of Justice reversed the judgment, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment. He was detained from 30 September 1997 to 10 February 1998 and again from 14 April 2000 to 19 February 2001.\n7.  On April 2001, the Procurator‑General, following the applicant’s request, lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice to have the final decision of 21 March 2000 quashed (“recurs în anulare”).\n8.  On 8 October 2001, the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the extraordinary appeal. It quashed the final decision of 21 March 2000, the decision of 9 June 1999 and the judgment of 2 December 1998 and sent the case back to the prosecutor to continue the investigations. It held that the evidence adduced in the case was contradictory and needed further clarification before the case could be tried by the courts.\n9.  In a decision of 10 July 2002, the prosecutor attached to the Supreme Court of Justice closed the criminal investigations against the applicant. On 23 May 2003, the same prosecutor informed the applicant that he had reversed his previous decision and reopened the criminal investigations in the case.\n10.  On 18 March 2004 the prosecutor again committed the applicant for trial before the Bucharest County Court, which acquitted the applicant in a judgment of 15 December 2005.\n11.  The prosecutor attached to the Bucharest County Court appealed against this judgment to the Bucharest Court of Appeal, where the case is still pending today.\n12.  In a judgment of 26 June 2003, the Bucharest County Court dismissed as premature a civil action lodged by the applicant against the State through its Ministry of Finances, seeking damages for his arrest, which he judged to have been illegal. It appears from the file that the applicant did not appeal against this judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1975", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 17 August 1990 the applicant was chosen to be the Mufti of Xanthi by the Muslims who attended prayers at the mosques of that prefectural district. The Greek State appointed another Mufti. However, the applicant refused to step down.\n9.  In 1997 three sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Article 175 of the Criminal Code for having usurped the functions of a minister of a “known religion” on the ground that on 30 October 1997, 20 November 1996 and 21 December 1997 he had issued and signed messages in the capacity of the Mufti of Xanthi.\n10.  The applicant was legally represented throughout the proceedings by lawyers of his own choice. The courts heard a number of prosecution and defence witnesses.\n11.  On 24 March 1999 the single-member first instance criminal court (monomeles plimmeliodikio) of Serres found the applicant guilty in the three sets of proceedings on the ground that he had issued and signed messages in the capacity of the Mufti of Xanthi. The proceedings were joined because they concerned the same offence (decision no. 1407/1999).\n12.  On 2 November 2000 the three-member first instance criminal court (trimeles plimmeliodikio) of Serres upheld the applicant’s conviction. It imposed, as a whole, a sentence of seven months’ imprisonment and converted it into a fine (decision no. 2687/2000). The applicant appealed in cassation. He alleged that this conviction amounted to a violation of Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Convention.\n13.  On 21 March 2002 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ appeal. It considered that the offence in Article 175 of the Criminal Code was committed “when somebody appeared as a minister of a known religion and when he discharged the functions of the minister’s office including any of the administrative functions pertaining thereto”. The court considered that the applicant had committed this offence because he behaved and appeared as the Mufti of Xanthi. It further considered that the applicant’s conviction was not contrary to Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, because the applicant had not been punished for his religious beliefs or for expressing certain views but for usurping the functions of a Mufti. As regards Article 6 of the Convention, the Court of Cassation considered that the applicant was legally represented by lawyers of his own choice throughout the proceedings and that he had exercised all his defence rights (judgment no. 708/2002).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1976", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Braslovče.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 22 July 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident caused by a third person. The perpetrator’s liability was insured with the insurance company T. (“T”).\n8.  On 19 April 1999 the applicant instituted indemnity proceedings in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju), claiming damages in the amount of 25,256,340 tolars (SIT). He requested to be exempted from payment of the court fees.\n9.  On 31 August 1999, 3 January and 14 November 2000 and on 19 January 2001 the applicant filed pleadings and/or submitted fresh evidence and/or requested that a date be set for a hearing.\n10.  On 5 February 2001 the hearing was held and the applicant’s proposal for the appointment of a traffic expert was upheld.\n11.  On 21 March, 21 May and 18 September 2001 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.\n12.  On 9 May 2002 the applicant filed pleadings and submitted new evidence.\n13.  On 6 June 2002 the court requested the Žalec Local Court to consult a case-file in criminal proceedings. On 28 June 2002 the latter replied that the criminal proceedings were still pending before the Higher Court. On 2 June 2002 the Celje District Court repeated its request and on 11 September 2002 it received the criminal case-file.\n14.  On 4 September 2002 the applicant filed pleadings.\n15.  On 18 October 2002 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.\n16.  On 10 January 2003 a hearing was held. The court upheld the applicant’s request to appoint two experts lodged on 23 January 2003. On 2 February 2004 they submitted their expert opinions.\n17.  On 18 February 2004 the applicant filed submissions.\n18.  On 16 March 2004, following the Court’s dismissal of one expert, a new expert was appointed.\n19.  On 23 March 2004 the applicant filed pleadings and on 17 May 2004 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.\n20.  On 9 June 2004 the applicant increased his request.\n21.  On 22 June and 21 September 2004 hearings were held.\n22.  On 8 October 2004 the court delivered a judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part. The judgment was served on the applicant on 23 November 2004.\n23.  On 3 December 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal and requested the District Court to correct the judgment.\n24.  The proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1977", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant resides in the town of Vinnytsa. He is a former employee of the Oil and Gas State Inspection (“the Inspection”) of the State Oil and Gas Committee “Derzhnaftogazprom” (“the Committee”).\n6.  On 12 July 1999 the Committee decided to liquidate the Inspection. According to the Government, the liquidation of the Inspection was not accomplished.\n7.  On 20 August 1999 the applicant was dismissed from his position of the Chief State Inspector of the Vinnytsya Town Department of the Inspection.\n8.  On 25 November 1999 the President of Ukraine liquidated the Committee and established a liquidation commission for this purpose. By order of 14 April 2000, the President appointed the Ministry of Fuel and Gas of Ukraine as the Committee’s successor.\n9.  In November 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya against commission overseeing the liquidation of the Committee, seeking recovery of salary arrears in respect of the period before 12 July 1999 and compensation.\n10.  On 12 December 2000 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered the Committee’s liquidation commission (“the Debtor”) to pay the applicant UAH 1,549[1] in salary arrears and other payments.\n11.  On 9 February 2001 the Shevchenkivskyy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kyiv instituted enforcement proceedings.\n12.  On 19 February 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service submitted to the Debtor’s bank a payment order in respect of the judgment award.\n13.  On 22 February 2001 the bank returned the payment order to the Bailiffs’ Service on the grounds that the Debtor’s account had been closed.\n14.  On 28 February 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service suspended the enforcement proceedings pending the results of an enquiry about other bank accounts which the Debtor might have had.\n15.  On 26 March 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that no other bank accounts of the Debtor had been found.\n16.  On 23 June 2001 the Bailiff’s Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings and returned the execution writ to the applicant on the grounds that it had not been possible to find the Debtor at its address and the latter had no bank accounts.\n17.  The applicant did not challenge the decision of the Bailiffs’ Service of 23 June 2001 before the domestic courts.\n18.  The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1978", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow. He is currently serving his sentence in the YaCh-91/5 prison in Sarapul.\n10.  On 26 September 2001 at around 2 p.m. four teenagers attending a school for children with impaired hearing, while walking in Sokolniki park towards a tram stop, saw two young men fighting. One of the youths was later found dead. It was established that his death had occurred on the aforementioned date. The schoolboys described the event to their teacher. They noted that the alleged offender had been wearing a ponytail and a leather jacket.\n11.  On 14 May 2002, at 12 noon, police officers came to the applicant's flat and asked him to accompany them to the police station. The applicant complied with the request. In the police station he was searched and placed in a cell. At 2 p.m. he was interviewed as a witness. The applicant stated, inter alia, that he did not know the victim and had never heard his name. At 3 p.m. the applicant took part in an identification parade before two of the four schoolboys, Z. and M., who identified him as a person they had seen fighting on 26 September 2001. At 4 p.m. the investigator ordered the applicant's detention. According to the applicant, the detention order was not given to him for his signature. In the order it was indicated that the applicant's mother had been notified about his detention.\n12.  At 6.50 p.m. the investigator started the search in the applicant's flat. The applicant's desktop PC, mobile phone, photo album, notebook, a bag with diskettes, a leather jacket, two pairs of boots and two pairs of jeans were seized in the course of the search.\n13.  Between 8.40 p.m. and 9.45 p.m. the applicant was interviewed as a suspect in connection with the murder committed on 26 September 2001.\n14.  On 15 May 2002 the applicant was transferred to the temporary detention centre IVS Sokolniki.\n15.  On 17 May 2002 the investigator ordered the applicant to be taken into custody as a preventive measure.\n16.  On 21 May 2002 the applicant took part in another identification parade before the other two schoolboys who had also witnessed the fight on 26 September 2001. One of the boys, F., stated he was not sure he had seen the applicant. The other boy, Sh., submitted that he had never seen him before.\n17.  On 24 May 2002 the applicant was charged with murder. On the same date he was interviewed as the accused. He was assisted by an advocate K., appointed by the investigator.\n18.  On 25 May 2002 the applicant was transferred to remand prison SIZO 77/1 in Moscow.\n19.  On 21 June 2002 the advocate K. filed a complaint with the prosecutor concerning the conduct of the investigation. He alleged, inter alia, that the identification parades had been in breach of procedural requirements. In particular, the persons lined up with the applicant had been much older and the applicant had been the only one wearing a ponytail, which significantly decreased the evidential credibility of the identification. He further complained that the investigator had taken no steps to verify the applicant's alibi. In particular, Mrs R., the applicant's neighbour, who claimed to have seen him during the day on 26 September 2001, Mr Kh., the carpenter, who was performing work at the applicant's flat on that date, and Mrs K., the applicant's girlfriend's mother, had not been questioned.\n20.  On 2 July 2002 the Prosecutor allowed the advocate K.'s motion to have Mrs R., Mr Kh. and Mrs K. examined as witnesses. Ho", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1979", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The first applicant was set up in 1951 by disabled Second World War veterans and relatives of soldiers who died in that war with the aim of providing housing to its members. It raised its capital by means of members’ contributions.\n9.  In 1957, by deed no. 4572, the first applicant bought 50,000 sq. m in the area of Aghios Ioannis in Cholargos, for a total of 400,000 drachmas. The Government claimed that the land did not belong to the persons who had sold it to the applicants but to the State. They relied in this connection on a judgment issued in 1968 by the Athens Court of Appeal. The applicants contested this view. They stressed that the 1968 judgment had been delivered after the exchange of their land in 1964 (see paragraph 10 below), namely after they had transferred to the State all their possible claims against the former owners of their land, and that in any event they had purchased this land in good faith and at market value.\n10.  In 1960 the land was requisitioned without compensation for the needs of the Greek Army. After an application by the association, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the requisition was null and void because it was serving permanent and not temporary needs (judgment no. 143/1963). In 1964, as a result of this judgment, the State bought the unlawfully requisitioned land and exchanged it with 100,000 sq. m of land owned by the National Defence Fund in the nearby area of Korakovouni. The area was public woodland outside the boundaries of the urban development plan. According to the applicants, the understanding was that the association would be allowed to develop it after the State had issued the appropriate changes to the local planning regulations. The first applicant paid one drachma per sq. m to cover the difference in value between the old and the new land. The relevant decision approving the contract of sale and exchange was retroactively validated by virtue of the Necessity Act (Law no. 62/1967). The Government asserted that the above price was symbolic and that at the relevant time the market value of the land was 15 drachmas per sq. m. Therefore, they considered that the land in question had been donated to the applicants. The applicants contended that this assertion was false.\n11.  On 6 May 1966 a Royal Decree included the land in the revised urban development plan, following a proposal by the Cholargos District Council and an affirmative opinion by the Supreme Administrative Court sitting in an administrative capacity with the power to give a non-binding advisory opinion.\n12.  In 1974 Legislative Decree no. 303/1974 declassified the land from being reafforestable (άρση αναδάσωσης). Further, the Minister of Agriculture issued a license for building roads and cutting down trees in order to implement the new town plan. In 1975 the applicant association started transferring plots of land to its members and applied to the Cholargos District Council for an altitude study, which was necessary under Greek law for the implementation of the urban development plan. The first building licenses were also issued.\n13.  In 1975 the new Constitution introduced new rules for the protection of the environment (see paragraph 22 below).\n14.  In 1976 the Cholargos District Council rejected the association’s application for an altitude study. Further, the Minister of Agriculture requested that the Minister of Public Works revoke the 1966 Royal Decree whereby the planning zone had been extended to the lan", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1980", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Wesel, Germany.\n6.  On 12 February 1980 the applicant and her husband established a joint bank account with a German bank.\n7.  On an unspecified date, the applicant’s husband withdrew all of the money from their joint account without the applicant’s consent and placed it into another account in a Turkish bank.\n8.  On 23 October 1992 the applicant filed an action with the Aydın Civil Court of first-instance to recover half the money that her husband had withdrawn from their joint bank account.\n9.  On 14 September 1999 the Aydın Civil Court of first-instance dismissed the applicant’s case on the ground that she had failed to substantiate her claims. The court reasoned that the applicant had not furnished any bank document, such as receipts indicating withdrawal of money, capable of supporting her allegations. It also noted that the documents kept by the bank had been destroyed at the end of six years’ retention period and that therefore there was no document available on which to conclude that the applicant was right in her assertions.\n10.  On 27 December 1999 the applicant appealed.\n11.  On 5 April 2000 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request for appeal. It opined that the applicant had failed to prove that her husband had withdrawn all the money from their joint bank account and placed it into another bank account.\n12.  On 16 November 2000 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification.\n13.  On 15 December 2000 the Court of Cassation’s decision was served on the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1981", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Geneva.\n5.  On 14 July 1939, before the applicant’s birth, the State-appointed guardian brought an action against A.H., the applicant’s putative biological father, seeking a declaration of paternity and payment of a contribution towards his maintenance. A.H. admitted that he had had sexual relations with the applicant’s mother but denied paternity.\n6.  On 26 July 1939, after the applicant’s birth, his mother declared on registering the birth that the father was A.H., with whom she had had sexual relations during the period of conception.\n7.  On 30 January 1948 the Geneva Court of First Instance dismissed the action for a declaration of paternity. In the absence of an appeal, the judgment became final.\n8.  In 1958 the applicant, who had been placed with a foster family, met his mother, who informed him that his father was A.H. According to the applicant, he had regular contact with his father and received presents from him and a monthly payment of 10 Swiss francs ((CHF) – 6.40 euros (EUR)) until he reached the age of majority. A.H. and his family denied those allegations. Only A.H.’s legitimate son admitted that he had received a telephone call from the applicant after A.H.’s death.\n9.  Furthermore, A.H. always refused to undergo tests to establish his paternity. In 1976, shortly after his death, a blood-type analysis carried out at the applicant’s request did not rule out his being the latter’s father.\n10.  In 1997 the applicant contacted the Geneva University Institute of Forensic Medicine to have a private paternity test carried out, but his request was refused.\n11.  On 3 December 1997 the applicant successfully applied to renew the lease for A.H.’s tomb until 2016 for the sum of CHF 2,600 (EUR 1,657).\n12.  On 6 May 1999 the applicant applied to the Canton of Geneva Court of First Instance for revision of the judgment of 30 January 1948. In the course of the proceedings he also requested a DNA test on the mortal remains of A.H.\n13.  On 25 June 1999 the Court of First Instance refused the request for a DNA test.\n14.  On 2 September 1999 the Canton of Geneva Court of Justice rejected the applicant’s application on the ground that it was impossible to obtain a declaration of paternity without also amending the register of births, deaths and marriages.\n15.  The Court of Justice argued that the applicant was not entitled to such an amendment of the register as a result of the 1976 revision of the Civil Code abolishing the exceptio plurium constupratorum, a defence which the putative biological father could use in a paternity suit. However, in his application to the Court of First Instance the applicant had sought revision of the 1948 judgment, in which the exceptio plurium had been relied on to the benefit of A.H.\n16.  The Court of Justice noted that before 1978 (when the revised Civil Code had come into force), an illegitimate child who was under ten years of age on 1 January 1978 had had the option of converting a maintenance claim into a civil action (paternity suit) where the exceptio plurium had been raised. However, this was no longer permitted under the revised Civil Code.\n17.  The Court of Justice accordingly held that, even supposing that the applicant had been awarded maintenance in 1948, he was no longer entitled to have the register of births, deaths and marriages amended, firstly because the law had changed, and secondly because he had been born more than ten years before the end", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1982", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Tel-Aviv.\n5.  On 27 August 1993 the applicant was severely injured in a traffic accident in Moscow.\n6.  On 12 May 1995 the applicant lodged a civil action before the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow against the car driver and the car owner, the Moscow branch of Tveruniversalbank, seeking compensation for damage. She claimed 6,700 US dollars (USD) as compensation for the loss of salary, for medical and travel expenses incurred as a result of the traffic accident and USD 15,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. A copy of the statement of claim produced to the Court bears a stamp of the District Court’s registry showing the registration date as 12 May 1995.\n7.  On 5 October 1995 the Chertanovskiy District Court, by an interim decision, ordered a medical examination of the applicant by a panel of experts. It put questions about the current state of the applicant’s health, her previous ailments and their possible causes and an eventual need for medical assistance and care.\n8.  The interim decision of 5 October 1995 was submitted to the Moscow bureau for forensic medical examinations (Бюро судебно-медицинской экспертизы при Комитете здравоохранения города Москвы, hereinafter the “Bureau”).\n9.  On 13 October 1995 the Bureau asked the District Court for the applicant’s medical documents.\n10.  According to the Government, upon receipt of the Bureau’s request, the District Court asked the applicant’s lawyer Mr D. Shteynberg, a member of the Moscow Regional Bar Association, to produce additional medical information. No response followed. On an unspecified date the District Court repeated its request. After Mr Shteynberg had failed to respond for the second time, the District Court issued an interim decision on discontinuation of the proceedings. The court returned the applicant’s statement of claims with attached documents to Mr Shteynberg.\n11.  The applicant indicated that neither she nor her lawyer had received the District Court’s request for additional information and that they had not been notified of the District Court’s interim decision on discontinuation of the proceedings.\n12.  In 2002 the applicant complained to the president of the Chertanovskiy District Court about an excessive length of the proceedings.\n13.  On 18 July 2002 the Chertanovskiy District Court informed the applicant that, according to the registration log for the year of 1995, the applicant’s claim against the bank had never been registered by the District Court.\n14.  In August 2002 Mr Shteynberg inquired of the Bureau whether the expert examination ordered by the decision of 5 October 1995 had been carried out.\n15.  By letter of 19 August 2002, the Bureau responded to Mr Shteynberg that, having received no response from the District Court for additional medical information, it had not carried out any examination.\n16.  On 7 October 2002 the President of the Chertanovskiy District Court reported to the applicant that, according to the registration logs of the Chertanovskiy District Court for the years of 1995 to 2002, the District Court did not have a civil case to which the applicant and the Moscow branch of Tveruniversalbank were the parties.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1983", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  On 17 August 1990 the applicant was chosen to be the Mufti of Xanthi by the Muslims who attended prayers at the mosques of that prefectural district. The Greek State appointed another mufti. However, the applicant refused to step down.\n9.  Fourth sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Article 175 of the Criminal Code for having usurped the functions of a minister of a “known religion” on the ground that on 11 February 1996 and 17 February 1996 he had issued and signed messages in the capacity of the Mufti of Xanthi.\n10.  The applicant was legally represented throughout the proceedings by lawyers of his own choice. The courts heard a number of prosecution and defence witnesses.\n11.  On 11 December 1997 the single-member first instance criminal court (monomeles plimmeliodikio) of Lamia found him guilty in the three first sets of proceedings on the ground that he had issued and signed messages in the capacity of the Mufti of Xanthi (decisions nos. 3913/1997, 3914/1997, 3915/1997). On 1 December 1999 the single-member first instance criminal court (monomeles plimmeliodikio) of Lamia found the applicant guilty in the fourth set of proceedings on the same ground (decision no. 4919/1999). The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 31 May 2000 the three-member first instance criminal court (trimeles plimmeliodikio) of Lamia upheld the applicant’s conviction in the four sets of proceedings. It imposed, as a whole, a sentence of eight months’ imprisonment converted into a fine (decisions nos. 1654/2000, 1655/2000, 1656/2000 and 1657/2000). He alleged that these convictions amounted to a violation of Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Convention.\n13.  On 8 March 2002 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeals concerning the four sets of proceedings. It considered that the offence in Article 175 of the Criminal Code was committed “when somebody appeared as a minister of a known religion and when he discharged the functions of the minister’s office including any of the administrative functions pertaining thereto”. The court considered that the applicant had committed this offence because he behaved and appeared as the Mufti of Xanthi. It further considered that the applicant’s conviction was not contrary to Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention, because the applicant had not been punished for his religious beliefs or for expressing certain views but for usurping the functions of a Mufti. As regards Article 6 of the Convention, the Court of Cassation considered that the applicant was legally represented by lawyers of his own choice throughout the proceedings and that he had exercised all his defence rights (judgment no. 304/2002).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1984", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Mr Sergey Mikhailovich Silin and Mr Konstantin Mikhailovich Silin, are brothers. They were born in 1982 and 1985, respectively, and currently reside in the town of Zaporizhzhya, Ukraine.\n6.  In September 1997 the title to reside in the State-owned flat, where the applicants’ father had resided before his death on 29 December 1996, was transferred to Mr S.\n7.  On 2 December 1997 the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya (“the Leninskyy Court”) against the Zaporizhstal Joint Stock Company, the Zaporizhzhya Town State Administration, and Mr S. The applicants claimed their right to reside in the impugned flat. They maintained that they had been residing in that flat before 1997 and that in October 1997 their possessions had been unlawfully taken out of the flat. On 27 December 1997 the Zaporizhstal Company submitted its objections concerning the applicants’ claims.\n8.  According to the Government, the court scheduled the first hearing for 6 May 1998, following the completion of its preparatory work on the case, which included meetings with the parties and obtaining the documents relevant to the case.\n9.  Out of twenty hearings held between December 1997 and October 2000 fourteen were adjourned due to the absence or at the request of Mr S. or the representative of the Zaporizhstal Company. The hearing of 11 December 1998 was adjourned until 29 January 1999 at the applicants’ request.\n10.  There were no hearings held during the periods of 2 December 1997 – 6 May 1998, 24 July – 27 October 1998, 29 March – 18 June 2000, and 18 July – 5 October 2000. According to the Government, there is no information about the progress of the case between 3 June and 26 October 1999, as the minutes of the court hearings were destroyed due to an external damage caused to the court building. According to the applicants, no hearings took place in that period of time.\n11.  On 29 March 2000 the court, following the motion of the Zaporizhstal Company, allowed the participation of the Housing Department of the Zaporizhzhya Town State Administration as a co-defendant in the proceedings on the ground that the latter was the owner of the flat.\n12.  On 5 October 2000 the court found for the applicants.\n13.  On 21 November 2000 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court, upon the appeal in cassation of the Zaporizhstal Company, quashed the decision of the first instance court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n14.  On 28 March 2001 the applicants requested the Leninskyy Court to order the Zaporizhzhya Town Prosecutor’s Office to provide the court with the copies of the documents concerning their criminal law complaints examined by the prosecutors in September 2000 (see paragraph 18 below). On the same day the court allowed the request and adjourned the proceedings pending the prosecutors’ reply.\n15.  On an unspecified date the prosecutors submitted the documents requested to the court.\n16.  On 6 February 2002 the court, sitting as a panel of three judges, found against the applicants. It held that the applicants had neither resided in the flat nor acquired a right to reside there. The court further held that there had been no personal possessions found in that flat which could have belonged to the applicants. The court also noted that the applicants enjoyed the right to reside in another, originally State-owned flat. The applicants’ mother acquired the latter flat by privatisation.\n17.  On 18 April 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1985", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are German nationals and live in Hamminkeln.\n5.  They are owners of a real estate in Hamminkeln. On 22 October 1985 the Municipality ordered the applicants to pay a contribution amounting to DEM 4,470.52 (approximately 2,285 €) for the construction of a street adjacent to their land. The contribution was based on the Municipality’s decree on contributions for the construction of local public infrastructure (Erschließungsbeitragssatzung). The Municipality repeatedly amended this decree (in 1986, 1889 and 1994 respectively).\n6.  On 7 November 1985 the applicants lodged an administrative appeal (Widerspruch). They contested the amount to be paid and alleged that the street had not been duly constructed. The Municipality should have requested the company which had been commissioned to construct the street to reduce the price on account of the defective construction. Furthermore the applicants referred to Section 133 of the Federal Building Act (Baugesetzbuch) pursuant to which the contribution for a local public infrastructure facility was only due after its final construction (endgültige Herstellung). The street had not been finally constructed because it did not meet the conditions for the final construction of a facility as laid down in the Municipality’s decree on contributions for the construction of local public infrastructure.\n7.  The applicants moreover accused the employees of the Municipality of having acted for their own unjustified enrichment as they commissioned a firm which had evidently offered its service for speculative prices (Spekulationspreise). These allegations led to criminal investigations of the Duisburg Public Prosecutor during which two expert opinions were furnished concerning the construction of the impugned road. The criminal investigations, instituted in 1986, were discontinued in May and August 1989.\n8.  On 13 November 1985 the applicants requested that the execution of the order be stayed (Aussetzung der Vollziehung). The Municipality rejected their motion on the same day. On 19 November 1985 the applicants filed a motion for an interim injunction to stay the execution. On 11 June 1986 the Düsseldorf Administrative Court ordered the stay of the execution. On 20 September 1988 the Münster Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the Municipality’s appeal.\n9.  On 27 October 1988 the applicants lodged a complaint for failure to act (Untätigkeitsklage) with the Düsseldorf Administrative Court pursuant to Section 75 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedures (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung – see “Relevant domestic law” § 20 below) because the Municipality had not yet decided upon their administrative appeal of 7 November 1985. The Administrative Court asked the Duisburg Public Prosecutor to submit the two expert opinions prepared in the course of the criminal investigations against the employees of the Municipality. In February 1989 at the latest the Duisburg Public Prosecutor submitted the expert opinions to the Administrative Court.\n10.  In 1989 the Municipality instituted proceedings to preserve evidence (Beweissicherungsverfahren) before the Wesel District Court. On 12 May 1989 the court ordered an expert opinion on the defects of the road construction. Upon the inquiry of the Düsseldorf Administrative Court on 12 February 1992 the District Court announced that the expert opinion was to be furnished at the end of that year. On 23 November 1992 the expert opinion dated 28 October 1992 was sub", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1986", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Goleniów, Poland.\n5.  On 19 June 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of killing D.L., his fiancée.\n6.  On 20 June 2000 the Świnoujście District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his detention. It considered that placing the applicant in custody was justified by the existence of strong evidence against him and the gravity of the charges. Since he had attempted to flee, his detention was necessary to ensure the proper course of the proceedings.\n7.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged several times by the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). Each time the court repeated the reasons it had previously given.\n8.  On 1 March 2001 the applicant lodged an application for release with the Świnoujście District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy). The prosecutor dismissed the application on 7 March 2001.\n9.  On 26 April 2001 the Świnoujście District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Szczecin Regional Court. The applicant was charged with murder (he had strangled his fiancée) and fraud.\n10.  On 30 January 2002 the Szczecin Regional Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment.\n11.  The Poznań Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case on 14 May 2002.\n12.  The applicant remained in custody.\n13.  On 13 June 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) ordered that the applicant remain in detention until 30 September 2002.\n14.  On 19 June 2002 the court refused his application for release.\n15.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was extended every 3 months by the Szczecin Regional Court, for the same reasons as before.\n16.  The applicant lodged numerous unsuccessful applications for release with the Regional Court.\n17.  On 7 October 2004 the Szczecin Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment. The court stressed the depraved nature of the crime and maintained that there were no mitigating circumstances in the case.\n18.  The Poznań Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment on 29 December 2004.\n19.  On 20 October 2005 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1987", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 28 December 1987 the applicant brought an action against his ex-wife, seeking the division of their matrimonial property.\n6.  In the period between 29 March 1988 and 19 May 1992, ten hearings took place and the opinions of valuation experts were obtained.\n7.  Further hearings took place on 19 September, 28 October and 16 December 1994, 2 February and 23 March 1995. Meanwhile, the expert was invited to submit a new opinion and to complete it subsequently.\n8.  On 20 June 1995 the Buda Central District Court ordered the applicant to pay 675,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) to his ex-wife.\n9.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court, on 8 March 1996, quashed parts of the appealed judgment and remitted those parts to the District Court. Furthermore, it fixed the parties’ respective shares of the property.\n10.  On 27 May 1997, on the applicant’s petition for review, the Supreme Court quashed the second-instance judgment concerning the establishment of the parties’ property shares. Accordingly, this part of the case was also remitted to the District Court.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held hearings on 19 June, 1 September and 27 October 1998; it also appointed another expert. On 21 January 1999 the applicant’s motion for bias was dismissed.\n12.  Further hearings took place on 19 October 1999, 24 January and 6 March 2000. An on-site inspection scheduled for 19 September 2000 had to be postponed, because the applicant did not agree to the defendant’s personal attendance. A new opinion was submitted by the expert on 28 February 2001.\n13.  Another hearing was held on 19 June 2001. The next one scheduled for 10 July 2001 was postponed at the applicant’s request to 23 August 2001.\n14.  On 5 September 2001 the District Court fixed the parties’ respective shares in a real-estate of common ownership, granted ownership of it to the applicant and ordered him to pay compensation and unrealised rent to his ex-wife. The court relied on documentary evidence, the testimonies of the parties and the opinions of two expert architects. On 12 November 2001 the applicant appealed.\n15.  An appeal hearing took place on 1 March 2002. On 22 March 2002 the appellate court appointed an expert, who submitted his opinion on 25 June 2002.\n16.  On 6 November 2002 the Regional Court increased the amount of compensation to be paid by the applicant. It further quashed the part of the District Court judgment which concerned the unrealised rent and discontinued the proceedings in this regard. The judgment acquired legal force.\n17.  On 19 December 2002 the applicant filed a petition for review, alleging that the final decision was unfounded and at variance with the relevant substantive law.\n18.  In a preliminary examination under section 273 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 13 May 2003 the Supreme Court refused to deal with the merits of the petition. It applied section 270 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force in the relevant period, according to which a review of substantive unlawfulness of final decisions was only admissible if a review was considered necessary from the perspective of harmonising or developing the application of the law.\n19.  On 24 September 2003 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request to have the final decision rectified. It held that, in essence, the request was aimed at challenging certain provisions of the final decision which constituted res iudicata ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1988", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Namysłów.\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  On 1 September 1992 the applicant signed a lease contract with a co‑operative. On 22 April 1993 the contract was terminated by the lessor and the applicant was barred from entering the leased premises.\n10.  On 21 July 1993 the applicant brought a civil action against the co‑operative before the Kalisz Regional Court. He claimed that the lease contract had been terminated in breach of its provisions. He further alleged that as a result of the early termination he had suffered serious financial losses. He sought pecuniary damages and reimbursement of amounts he had paid in taxes in connection with the contract.\n11.  The first hearing in the case took place on 16 February 1994. The following two hearings were held on 12 June 1995 and 2 February 1996. An expert was appointed at the latter hearing. The first-instance judgment was given on 30 April 1997.\n12.  On 25 July 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal with the appellate court. On 13 November 1997 the Court of Appeal in Łódź quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. It pointed out that the first-instance court had erred in the assessment of the evidence and that certain facts relevant for the outcome of the case required further clarification.\n13.  The Regional Court, having re-examined the case, dismissed the applicant’s action on 30 June 1998. The applicant appealed on 29 July 1998. On 13 January 1999 the Court of Appeal again quashed the judgment of the Regional Court and remitted the case for re-examination. It stated that the first-instance court had partly failed to assess the evidence which was crucial for the case.\n14.  No hearings were held throughout 1999.\n15.  On 14 January 2000, when the case was still pending before the Regional Court, the applicant extended his claim.\n16.  On 16 February 2000 the Regional Court informed him that as a result of bankruptcy proceedings concerning the defendant co-operative, a motion had been lodged with the competent bankruptcy court to strike it out of the commercial register. The court stated that the final judgment would be given on 28 February 2000. This information notwithstanding, the case was closed only on 20 December 2000, when the Kalisz Regional Court decided to discontinue the proceedings, considering that the defendant co‑operative had been declared bankrupt and had been liquidated.\n17.  The applicant appealed against the decision on 18 January 2001. On 3 April 2001 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed it.\n18.  Parallel to these proceedings, the applicant tried to secure his claim in the bankruptcy proceedings concerning the co-operative. However, his request for the creation of a mortgage on a property of the co‑operative was dismissed on the ground that in the first set of the proceedings the applicant had not obtained any judgment enabling him to secure his claim.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1989", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are Gerard Keegan, an Irish citizen born in 1955, and Moira Keegan, a United Kingdom national born in 1963, husband and wife, and their children, Carl, Michael, Katie and Sophie, United Kingdom citizens born in 1985, 1996, 1997 and 1997 respectively. They were all resident in Liverpool.\n8.  In April 1999 the applicants became tenants of a house owned by Liverpool City Council at 19 New Henderson Street. The property had been vacant for six months and the previous tenant had been Anita or Joseph De La Cruz.\n9.  Meanwhile a series of armed robberies was carried out by a number of armed males: on 29 January 1997, 30 April, and 13 August 1999. On 14 August 1999, the police arrested a certain Heffy, later convicted for the robbery. They also arrested a man who arrived during the arrest. He gave his name as Dean Metcalfe but subsequent investigation revealed that he was Dean De La Cruz, son of Anita De La Cruz. He was not charged and was released. The police were tasked with investigating, and arresting, any further members of the gang and recovering the money from the robberies. The information which came into their possession indicated that Dean De La Cruz had often given 19 New Henderson Street as his address, that saliva taken from a scarf in a car abandoned after a robbery matched that of Dean De La Cruz and that Anita De La Cruz was still on the voters’ register as residing at that address.\n10.  On 18 October 1999 Detective Constable Wilson went before a Justice of the Peace and applied on oath for a warrant to search 19 New Henderson Street for cash stolen during the robberies. He swore on oath that he had reasonable cause to believe that such stolen cash was in the possession of the occupier of the property. A search warrant was issued permitting a search of the premises for the cash.\n11.  On 21 October 1999, at 6 a.m., the police officers gathered at police headquarters. It was intended to search eight properties. Sergeant Gamble and four other officers were detailed to go to 19 New Henderson Street. They were briefed that Dean De La Cruz was linked to the robberies and given a photograph of him. They knew that the robberies had involved the use of firearms. They were instructed to obtain forcible entry at 7 a.m. to coincide with the other searches.\n12.  The police team used a metal ram to make a hole in the door. They experienced some difficulty as a previous tenant had reinforced the door.\n13.  The noise of the battering ram awoke and frightened the applicants. The first applicant came down the stairs and was told by the police who they were and to open the door. The first applicant complied and the sergeant entered and showed his warrant card and explained that he was looking for Dean Metcalfe. A cursory examination of the house took place to verify that no one save the applicants was present. The sergeant apologised to the first and second applicants and arranged for repairs to be made to the front door. The police left at about 7.15 a.m.\n14.  The applicants brought proceedings against the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police for the tort of maliciously procuring a search warrant, unlawful entry and false imprisonment. They alleged that they had been caused terror, distress and psychiatric harm. Medical reports indicated that the applicants were suffering from varying degrees of post traumatic stress disorder.\n15.  On 31 October 2002 the County Court Judge rejected the applicants’ claims. He made a number of fi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1990", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the city of Zaporizhzhya, Ukraine.\n9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  From November 1994 until September 1996 the applicant worked as a lawyer in the Avers Ltd. auditing company (hereinafter – the “Company”), of which she was a shareholder. Her share in the Company’s capital was 30 %.\n11.  On 2 September 1996, the applicant handed an application attested by a notary and dated 12 August 1996 to Mrs. N., director and holder of 70 % of shares in the Company’s capital, notifying the latter of her decision to withdraw from the Company. The same day, Mrs N. together with Mrs L. and Mrs K. held a general meeting of shareholders and decided to admit Mrs L. and Mrs K. to the Company and to expel the applicant. On 12 September 1996, the Executive Committee of the Ordzhenikidzevsky District Council of Zaporizhzhya (hereinafter – the Executive Committee) passed decision no. 756-P about registration of the changes to the statutory documents of the Company by which the applicant was expelled from the Company on the basis of her application of 2 September 1996 and of the minutes of the general meeting of shareholders of the same day.\n12.  On 31 January 1997 the Company decided that the value of the applicant’s share was UAH 2,629.20[1]. The applicant maintained that according to the accounting documents her share had to be UAH 294,180[2].\n13.  On 6 November 1997 the Executive Committee passed decision no. 143 on termination of the State registration of the Company on the basis of the decision of the meeting of shareholders of the Company of 28 October 1997.\n14.  On 23 March 1998 the liquidation commission issued an act on termination of the liquidation procedure of the Company.\n15.  On 20 November 1996, the applicant lodged a claim with the Ordzhenikidzevsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya against the Company to receive compensation for her share in the Company’s assets.\n16.  On 25 November 1996 the court gave a ruling on attachment of the defendant’s car and bank accounts to secure the claim.\n17.  On 11 August 1997 the court also ordered the seizure of the vehicle VAZ 21099 that belonged to the defendant.\n18.  Between December 1996 and 3 April 2003, the first instance court scheduled the applicant’s case for hearing twenty-five times. During the said period only four hearings in the case were held and on twenty-one occasions the hearings were postponed on different grounds. Four times the case was transferred from one judge to another following motions of the applicant or the defendant, or due to expiry of the judge’s term of office. The case was also transferred from one first instance court to another at the request of the applicant. The proceedings were suspended on several occasions at the applicant’s request.\n19.  On 18 December 1997 the director of the Company informed the court that by the order of the Executive Committee the Company had been liquidated.\n20.  On 29 December 1997 the court ordered seizure of office equipment of the Company.\n21.  In January 1998 the bailiff informed the court that there was no property in the Company because it had been liquidated.\n22.  On 26 August 1998 Judge S. upon the applicant’s request sent letters of inquiry concerning the Company’s debtors.\n23.  On 21 February 2003 the tax authorities, in reply to the inquiry of Judge M.B., informed the latter that the Company’s registration had been cancelled in 1999.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1991", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Istanbul.\n7.  The applicant and his brother are the only successors of their mother, who died in 1983. The applicant’s mother was the co-owner of certain plots of land in Eminönü, Istanbul. Following her demise, the applicant had conflicts with his brother regarding the distribution of her estate.\n8.  On 28 December 1994 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against his brother before the Üsküdar Civil Court and claimed pecuniary damage resulting from the unjust distribution of his mother’s estate.\n9.  On 6 March 2003 Üsküdar Civil Court requested the registry records of the title deeds to the land in question from the Eminönü Land Registry.\n10.  On 17 December 2003, in order to establish the prevailing market value of the plots, the court appointed a committee of experts to conduct an evaluation study on location and submit reports to the court.\n11.  On 6 May 2004 the committee of experts conducted this study and submitted a report to the court.\n12.  On 13 May 2004 as the applicant and his brother had reached a settlement, after holding fifty-five hearings, the Üsküdar Civil Court ordered the defendant to pay 500,000,000 Turkish liras to the applicant, together with the interest accruing from 28 December 1994.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1992", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Vilnius.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicant was a police officer. On 14 November 1995 the prosecution initiated criminal proceedings on suspicion of his mishandling official resources.\n7.  On the same date the applicant was arrested and questioned. He was released on bail on 17 November 1995.\n8.  On 28 November 1995 the applicant was charged with abuse of office under Article 285 of the Criminal Code as then in force.\n9.  On 18 December 1995 the prosecution instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for smuggling. Separate criminal proceedings for another episode of smuggling were instituted on 19 December 1995.\n10.  On 20 December 1995 the prosecutor ordered the applicant’s detention on remand on suspicion of his being an accomplice in the alleged smuggling scheme.\n11.  On 28 December 1995 the applicant was charged under Article 312 § 2 of the Criminal Code as then in force (smuggling).\n12.  On 30 December 1995 the applicant was dismissed from his job under the provisions on the status of the police, on account of his being suspected of having committed an act incompatible with his position as a law-enforcement officer (also see paragraph 44 below).\n13.  On 13 February 1996 all criminal cases against the applicant were joined into one set of proceedings.\n14.  On 26 August 1996 the applicant was released on bail, on his written undertaking not to leave the country.\n15.  On 11 December 1996 the charges against the applicant were reformulated. He was charged with exceeding official duties (Article 287 of the Criminal Code as then in force), complicity in smuggling (Articles 18 and 312 § 2) and abuse of office (Article 285).\n16.  On 16 December 1996 several other persons were charged with complicity in the same episodes of smuggling, but the charges against them were separated into a distinct set of proceedings as they had absconded.\n17.  The pre-trial investigation was finalised on 21 December 1996. Five other persons were charged along with the applicant.\n18.  From 21 December 1996 until 12 February 1997 the applicant and his lawyer were granted access to the case file.\n19.  On 21 February 1997 the prosecution rejected the applicant’s request to discontinue the proceedings.\n20.  On 28 February 1997, upon approval of the bill of indictment, the case was transmitted to a court.\n21.  In a directions hearing held on 11 June 1997, the Vilnius Regional Court ordered the case to be returned to the prosecution for further investigative measures to be carried out. It was noted that the charges were not formulated in a clear and precise manner, and that the investigation of the alleged offence of abuse of office had been conducted with certain procedural irregularities. As a result of this decision, the prosecution eventually decided to drop the charge of abuse of office.\n22.  On 10 July 1997 the applicant was again charged with offences under Articles 18 § 6, 287 and 312 § 2 of the then Criminal Code, as well as with an offence under Article 204 thereof (misusing an official title).\n23.  On 1 August 1997 the pre-trial investigation was concluded, and the applicant and his lawyer were given access to the case file until 8 August 1997. The applicant’s co-accused had access until 13 August 1997.\n24.  On 13 August 1997 the prosecution rejected the applicant’s request to discontinue the proceedings.\n25.  On 20 August 1997 the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1993", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the city of Yalta, Ukraine.\n9.  In March 2000 the applicant lodged a claim with the Yalta City Court against the local social welfare department, challenging the refusal of the latter to award her a higher pension. In her claim, the applicant maintained that, under Article 46 of the Constitution and Article 19 of the Law on Pensions, her pension should not be lower than the minimum living standard. Therefore, given that her pension was fixed at UAH 74.70 per month and the minimum living standard was established at UAH 118.30 per month, the applicant claimed a corresponding increase in her pension.\n10.  On 4 April 2000 the court decided against the applicant. The court established in particular that, although Article 19 of the Law on Pensions provided the possibility for a higher pension, it also limited the amount to a maximum sum which the applicant in fact received. The court did not consider the applicant’s argument about the inconsistency of the amount of her pension with the minimum living standard guaranteed by Article 46 of the Constitution.\n11.  The applicant appealed against the judgment of the Yalta City Court to the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. In her cassation appeal the applicant repeatedly claimed that her pension should not be lower than the minimum living standard, as defined in Article 46 of the Constitution, and that the constitutional provisions have supremacy over the provisions of normal laws.\n12.  On 3 July 2000 the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea upheld the decision of the first instance court. The court did not consider the applicant’s appeal from the viewpoint of Article 46 of the Constitution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1994", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 28 February 1995 the Budapest Regional Court ordered the liquidation of a co-operative, of which the applicant was a shareholder.\n6.  On 1 March 1995 the Regional Court appointed a liquidator and invited the creditors, including the applicant, to submit their exact claims.\n7.  On 19 May 1995 the shareholders established a “creditors’ group” in order to enforce their claims jointly.\n8.  On 26 July 1995 the applicant and other creditors challenged the liquidator’s decision to quash an earlier resolution of the co-operative’s president to terminate, in extraordinary dismissal proceedings, certain employment contracts with the co-operative. The proceedings concerning this problem were later separated.\n9.  On 20 January 1996 the court issued a decision on the classification of certain securities or claims held by the members. The creditors’ group appealed. On 4 July 1996 the Supreme Court quashed the decision. The subsequent re-classification was accepted by 485 creditors and refused by 157, and was finally confirmed by the Supreme Court on 18 June 1997.\n10.  On 30 March 1998 the liquidator submitted his final report. It was upheld by the court on 28 July 1999. The report dealt with altogether 1,253 claims, of which 581 were accepted.\n11.  On 7 October 1999 the creditors’ group appealed against the decision upholding the final report. The court rejected this objection. However, on 21 June 2001 the Supreme Court quashed this decision and remitted the question to the Regional Court. In the resumed proceedings, hearings were held on 10 October 2002 and 6 November 2003.\n12.  On 5 December 2003 the objection against the final report was dismissed by the Regional Court. On 12 July 2004 the Supreme Court quashed this decision in its part concerning the closing balance sheet and remitted this issue to the Regional Court.\n13.  A further hearing took place on 5 May 2005.\n14.  On 18 May 2005 the court rejected various objections concerning the liquidator’s decisions. On 9 December 2005 an appeal against this decision filed by the applicant – who had in the meantime become president of the creditors’ group – had not yet been adjudicated.\n15.  Meanwhile, a new final report was filed on 14 July 2005 and a legal-aid lawyer was appointed for the applicant.\n16.  The liquidation proceedings are apparently still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1996", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1937 and 1942, respectively, and live in Virovitica.\n5.  In 1976 the local authorities expropriated the applicants’ property with a view to building a road. The property consisted of 622 square metres of land with a house, shed, garage, toilet, well and fence.\n6.  The proceedings concerning compensation for that property were pending before the competent judicial authority since 1977. Due to a change in legislation, in 1994 the case was transferred to the administrative authorities.\n7.  On 1 December 1995 the Property Affairs Office of the Town of Virovitica (Ured za imovinsko-pravne poslove; “the Virovitica Office”) acting as the first-instance authority granted the applicants compensation for their property in the amount of 158,049 Croatian kunas (HRK), including interests payable as of the date of the decision. On appeal, on 10 December 1996 the Ministry of Justice (Ministarstvo pravosuđa; “the Ministry”) quashed that decision and remitted the case.\n8.  On 5 May 1997 the Virovitica Office gave a new decision awarding the applicants compensation in the amount of HRK 184,763 with interests payable as of the date on which the decision on expropriation became final.\n9.  The Town of Virovitica filed an appeal against that decision, which the Virovitica Office declared inadmissible on 10 June 1997 because it had been submitted outside the statutory time-limit. However, on 2 July 1997 the Office admitted the appeal and reinstated the case. Subsequently, on 14 April 1998 the Ministry reversed the first-instance decision, determining a lower amount of compensation payable to the applicants. Both parties filed administrative actions against that decision.\n10.  On 13 October 1999 the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) quashed the Ministry’s decision of 14 April 1998 and remitted the case. Consequently, on 12 March 2000 the Ministry quashed the first-instance decision of 5 May 1997 and remitted the case to the first administrative instance. It found that the amount of compensation was to be calculated in line with the current market prices of the expropriated property.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings, the Virovitica Office obtained an expert opinion assessing the value of the property and held a hearing. On 20 November 2000 the Virovitica Office gave a new decision determining the amount of compensation payable to HRK 197,097. On 12 March 2001 the Ministry again quashed that decision and remitted the case, ordering the first-instance authority to obtain an additional expert opinion on the value of the property.\n12.  The Virovitica Office accordingly obtained a new expert opinion and held another hearing. On 9 October 2001 it gave a new decision, awarding the applicants HRK 209,352 in view of compensation. On 15 October 2002 the Ministry quashed that decision, finding that the first-instance authority failed to determine the correct amount of compensation.\n13.  On 11 March 2004 the Virovitica Office gave a new decision awarding the applicants HRK 209,107. The applicants appealed and on 11 November 2004 the Ministry quashed that decision yet another time and remitted the case. The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance authority.\n14.  Meanwhile, on 22 April 2002 the applicants filed a motion for review of constitutionality (prijedlog za ocjenu ustavnosti) of certain provisions of the 1994 Expropriation Act. It appears that the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1997", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in the village of Samgorodok, the Cherkassy region, Ukraine.\n6.  In February 2002 the “Agro-Ros” Ltd company instituted two sets of proceedings against the Smilyanskiy District Council and each of the applicants, challenging the decision of the Council to provide the applicants with certain plots of land.\n7.  By two decisions of 12 August 2003, the Cherkassy Regional Commercial Court found against the applicants. On 18 November 2003 the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeals and upheld the decisions of the first-instance court.\n8.  On 16 March 2004 the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine, upon the applicants’ appeals, quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n9.  On 25 May 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine, upon appeal of the “Agro-Ros” Ltd company, quashed the resolutions of the Higher Commercial Court (постанови Вищого господарського суду) on the ground that the findings of the Higher Court had not corresponded to the factual circumstances and had been unfounded and erroneous, and upheld the resolutions of the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1998", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Amasya.\n5.  On 9 June 1993 the applicant began working as a watchman at the Belevi Municipality, attached to the Taşova District in the province of Amasya. Under Turkish law, his employment status was that of a civil servant. On 8 June 1995, relying on three appraisal reports drafted in the past two years, the Municipality terminated the applicant’s employment contract.\n6.  On 12 June 1995 the applicant initiated proceedings against the Municipality in the Samsun Administrative Court and contested the termination of his contract. Furthermore, he requested to be awarded his monthly salary, which was 7,630,000 Turkish Liras (TRL)[1], together with the interest, for the period during which he was unemployed.\n7.  On 27 November 1996 the administrative court dismissed the applicant’s request. He appealed and requested the suspension of the enforcement of the decision.\n8.  By an interim decision of 27 August 1997, the Supreme Administrative Court suspended the enforcement of the administrative court’s decision of 27 November 1996, as well as the Municipality’s decision to dismiss the applicant. The applicant resumed his work at the Municipality.\n9.  On 3 February 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court found that the Municipality had in fact dismissed several employees following the election of a new mayor. It was established that the Municipality had been relying on identical and stereotyped appraisal reports, which did not sufficiently reflect the reasons for their dismissal. Accordingly, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the Samsun Administrative Court.\n10.  On 31 May 2000 the Samsun Administrative Court followed the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court and annulled the decision of the Municipality. The court further ordered that the applicant be reinstated in his job and that his monthly salary and related pecuniary rights be paid to him for the period during which he had been entitled to perform his duties.\n11.  On 13 December 2001 the Council of State rejected the appeal filed by the Municipality. This judgment was served on the applicant on 3 April 2002.\n12.  To date, the Municipality has not made any payment to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-1999", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1955, 1934 and 1968 respectively, and live in Miskolc, Hungary.\n5.  In 1993 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants and other suspects. In the context of a series of complicated economic offences, they were charged with several counts of aggravated fraud, tax fraud, forgery of documents, bribery, fraudulent bankruptcy and accounting crimes. In the ensuing proceedings the applicants were assisted by defence counsel of their choice.\n6.  On 25 November 1996 the first applicant’s bank accounts were frozen in order to secure the eventual confiscation of any criminal profit he might have made. Simultaneously, the applicants’ homes were searched. On 10 June 1997 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court changed the decision of 25 November 1996 and extended the freezing measure to include all of the first applicant’s assets.\n7.  On 23 June 1995 the Miskolc District Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment. The charges concerned altogether eight defendants.\n8.  After having held 30 hearings between 17 June 1997 and 7 July 1998, on 8 July 1998 the Miskolc District Court convicted the applicants of several counts of fraud, tax fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, forgery of documents as well as accounting crimes, while acquitting them of other charges. The first applicant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and to the confiscation of his frozen property in the value of 300 million Hungarian forints; the second and the third applicants were sentenced to three and a half years’ and three years’ imprisonment respectively. In the reasoning of its 76-page judgment, the District Court relied on evidence given by numerous witnesses, several opinions prepared by expert accountants, tax advisers and engineers, and documentary evidence.\n9.  In October 1998 the applicants submitted their initial and, on 14 May 1999, their detailed appeal. Meanwhile, on 6 January 1999 the Heves County Regional Court was appointed to hear the case, for reasons of incompatibility, instead of the competent Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court.\n10.  After having held a hearing on 22 June 1999, on 20 September 2000 the Heves County Regional Court re-characterised part of the offences committed by the applicants, acquitted them of some charges, and reduced the first applicant’s prison term to five years and six months, and the second applicant’s term to three years. For the remainder, it upheld the first-instance judgment.\n11.  On 29 December 2000 the second and third applicants filed a petition for review. On 6 March 2002 the Supreme Court acquitted them of the charge of tax fraud and upheld the remainder of the second-instance judgment in their respect.\n12.  The first applicant’s repeated requests for a retrial were finally refused on 21 May 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2000", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  In April 1991 the second applicant entered Austria on a tourist visa. He made two unsuccessful requests for a residence permit (Aufenthaltserlaubnis) in February 1992 and April 1994 respectively. In May 1996 he made a new request for a residence permit, which was granted in July 1996 for a period of two years for the purpose of family reunification with his wife and baby daughter, both of whom lived in Austria. His leave to remain was subsequently extended for successive two-year periods.\n12.  From 1991 onwards the second applicant worked for the applicant company.\n13.  After the Labour Market Service had advised that an employment permit was required for the second applicant, the applicants lodged a request with the Feldkirch Labour Market Service (Arbeitsmarktservice) on 23 April 1998 for the grant of an employment permit to the applicant company.\n14.  On 4 June 1998 the Labour Market Service refused the request in accordance with s. 4(6) of the Employment of Aliens Act (Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz). It found that the maximum quota fixed for the employment of foreign workers that year in Vorarlberg had been exceeded and none of the exceptional conditions of s. 4(6) of the above Act were met.\n15.  On 18 June 1998 the applicants appealed. They submitted that the second applicant had been living in Austria since 1991 and was a shareholder in the Jenni Montagen OEG company. They claimed that the second applicant had a right to employment in Austria and referred in that connection to the Geneva Refugee Convention, the European Social Charter and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. They further referred to the Association Agreement between the European Union and Turkey and submitted that that treaty had to be applied by analogy to their case.\n16.  On 22 July 1998 the Vorarlberg Labour Market Service dismissed the applicant company’s complaint and rejected the second applicant’s complaint. It noted that only the applicant company as the proposed employer, not the second applicant, had the right to lodge a request for the grant of an employment permit. According to s. 21 of the Employment of Aliens Act an alien only became a party to proceedings concerning the issue of a work permit if his personal circumstances were relevant to the decision or if there was no employer. In the present case, however, neither of these conditions applied. In particular, the Bregenz Labour Market Service had based its decision exclusively on the situation of the labour market, and in particular the fact that the maximum quota for the employment of foreign workers had been exceeded. For that reason, the second applicant was not a party to the proceedings.\n17.  As regards the applicant company’s complaint, it noted that only certain refugees – namely, those who had indefinite leave to remain, were married to an Austrian national or had a child of Austrian nationality – were exempted from the regulations of the Employment of Aliens Act. However, throughout the proceedings it had been common ground that the second applicant was not a refugee. The Association Agreement between the European Union and Turkey was not applicable in the present case as the second applicant was not a Turkish national.\n18.  On 3 September 1998 the applicants filed a complaint with the Administrative Court and requested an oral hearing. They contested the lawfulness of the fixed maximum quota system and the accuracy of the official statistics according t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2001", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the town of Karabulak, Ingushetia. The complaint is also brought in respect of the applicant’s son, Khadzhi-Murat Aslanbekovich Yandiyev, born in 1975.\n10.  The facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicant’s son were partially disputed. In view of this the Court requested that the Government produce copies of the entire investigation file opened in relation to Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev’s disappearance.\n11.  The parties’ submissions on the facts concerning the circumstances of the apprehension and disappearance of the applicant’s son and the ensuing investigations are set out in Sections 1 and 2 below. A description of the materials submitted to the Court is contained in Part B.\n12.  The applicant’s son, Khadzhi-Murat Aslanbekovich Yandiyev, was born on 27 August 1975. Until August 1999 he was a student at the Moscow Sociology University. The applicant submits that he left the University in August 1999 before completing his final year of studies. One of his classmates told the applicant that her son had travelled to Grozny, Chechnya. The applicant believes that he wanted to find his father, who had apparently gone there. She has not heard from her son since August 1999.\n13.  In autumn 1999 hostilities began in Chechnya. After Grozny was captured by federal forces in late January - early February 2000, a large group of Chechen fighters left the city and moved south-west towards the mountains. En route the fighters, and anyone leaving the city with them, encountered mine fields. Many people sustained injuries, especially to their feet and legs. Many of the wounded were treated in a hospital in the village of Alkhan-Kala (also called Yermolovka), which was taken by the Russian military in early February 2000.\n14.  On 2 February 2000 the applicant saw her son on a news broadcast about the capture of Alkhan-Kala by the Russian forces. He was wearing camouflage uniform and was being interrogated by a Russian officer, who was also wearing camouflage.\n15.  The applicant later obtained a full copy of the recording, made by a reporter for the NTV (Russian Independent TV) and CNN who had entered Alkhan-Kala with the federal troops. A copy of that recording and a transcript of the interrogation have been submitted to the Court by the applicant.\n16.  The recording shows the applicant’s son, who is standing near a bus with wounded men. The bus is surrounded by Russian soldiers and the wounded are being removed from the bus. A passing soldier pushes the applicant’s son on his right leg; he winces with pain. He is speaking in a low voice and his words are barely audible. The officer questioning him is speaking in a harsh voice. The following is a translation of the relevant parts of the transcript:\n“Officer: - Turn your face [to me]! Turn it properly. Who are you?\nThe detainee answers something, but the words are not audible.\nOfficer: - What did you say? From Ingushetia? - / The detainee says something about Nazran/ - From Nazran? Where do you live in Nazran?\nAnother serviceman who is standing nearby orders: Hands out of your pockets!\n...The officer takes something - identity documents - from the pocket of the detainee’s camouflage jacket, and inspects them, asking questions. The answers are not audible.\nOfficer: - What is your last name? What is your first and patronymic name?\nThe detainee: - Born on 27 August 1975.\nAnother officer: - Alexander Andreyevich, we need to get the convoy group ready. We h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2002", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Petah Tikva, Israel. The second applicant, the daughter of the first applicant, was born in 2001. She currently lives in Romania.\n6.  The first applicant and his wife, both Romanian and Israeli citizens, have had their permanent residence in Israel since 1997. Their child Iris was born there, in 2001, and acquired Israeli citizenship from birth.\n7.  In September 2001, the family visited Romania. On 11 October 2001, the date scheduled for the return of the family to Israel, only the first applicant left, while the wife and the second applicant remained in Romania.\nSubsequently, the first applicant filed for the return of the child, under the Hague Convention (proceedings described under no. 1 below), while the wife filed for divorce and custody of the child with the Romanian courts (proceedings described under no. 2 below).\n8.  On 22 November 2001, upon arrival in Israel, the father filed a request for the return of his child under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction (“the Hague Convention”). The request was submitted through the Israeli Ministry of Justice to the Romanian Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”) which received it on 26 November 2001. The first applicant claimed that his wife was wrongfully retaining their daughter in Romania, without his consent. He also informed the Ministry that he had heard his wife had filed for divorce with the Romanian courts.\n9.  On 27 November 2001, he asked the Ministry to apply for a stay in the divorce proceedings (see infra, §§ 12-17), for as long as the Hague proceedings were pending.\n10.  On 11 January 2002, the Ministry, acting as the Central Authority for the purpose of the Hague Convention, instituted proceedings on behalf of the first applicant before the Bucharest District Court of the Sixth Precinct.\nBased on the evidence adduced in the case, the district court found that the retention of the child in Romania was illegal, under Article 3 of the Hague Convention. However, it considered that, due to the political situation in Israel, which had worsened constantly since September 2000, there was a great risk that the return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm. Therefore, in a judgment of 15 April 2002, the district court rejected the request for the return of the child under Article 13 (b) of the Convention.\n11.  On 17 December 2002, the Bucharest County Court allowed the appeal lodged by the Ministry and ordered the return of the child on the grounds that the retention was illegal and that the mother had not proved the grave risk that the child would be exposed to, if returned to her father.\n12.  On 21 February 2003, the mother filed an appeal against this decision, allowed by the Bucharest Court of Appeal in a final decision of 5 June 2003.\nThe court rejected the request for return on the ground that, since the date of the commencement of the Hague proceedings, another Romanian court had ruled on the divorce of the parents and had granted sole custody of the child to the mother, in a final decision of 18 September 2002.\nIt also considered that, bearing in mind the child’s age, namely two years and four months, her return would be against her interests in so far as she had effectively been living in Romania, with her mother, since she was 7 months old. Lastly, on the basis of witness testimony, the court found it proved that the father had consented initially", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2003", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in the town of Arkhangelsk.\n5.  The applicant instituted proceedings against the Social Security Department and the Finance Department of the Arkhangelsk Regional Administration (Управление социальной защиты населения и Финансовое управление администрации Архангельской области), seeking to recover unpaid child allowance for the period between June 1998 and December 1999.\n6.  On 16 February 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk (Октябрьский районный суд г. Архангельска) granted the applicant’s claims in so far as they concerned the Finance Department and ordered the latter to pay 2,244.16 Russian roubles (approximately 85 euros at the material time) to the applicant.\n7.  No appeal was lodged and this judgment became final on 26 February 2001.\n8.  On 9 April 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Bailiff’s Office of Arkhangelsk (Служба судебных приставов по Октябрьскому району г. Архангельска) received the execution writ in respect of the judgment.\n9.  By letter of 13 March 2002 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office (прокуратура Архангельской области) informed the applicant that the unpaid child allowances were paid by the Finance Department in turns, depending on the availability of funds.\n10.  On 19 May 2003 the amount due was paid to the applicant by the Social Security Department.\n11.  On 16 September 2003 the Bailiff’s Office terminated the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the judgment had been enforced. As indicated in a letter of the Bailiff’s Office of 13 September 2004, the delayed enforcement of the judgment had been caused by lack of funds.\n12.  On 22 April 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Lomonosovskiy District court of Arkhangelsk (Ломоносовский районный суд г. Архангельска) against the Oktyabrskiy District Bailiff’s Office and the State Treasury, seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for the non-enforcement of the judgment.\n13.  She claimed that the Bailiff’s Office had failed to take the necessary actions to enforce the judgment and requested that damages be recovered from the State Treasury.\n14.  On 23 April 2002 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk refused to deal with her claim for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court found that, since the applicant in her claim insisted that damages be recovered from the State Treasury, she should have applied to the relevant court in Moscow where the office of the State Treasury was situated.\n15.  On 8 May 2002 the applicant filed an appeal against this decision which was received by the court on 13 May 2002. In her appeal she argued that, as long as in her claim she had indicated both the Bailiff’s Office and the State Treasury as defendants, she was free in her choice as to which of the two courts, which had territorial jurisdiction over the defendants, to apply. Since the Oktyabrskiy District Bailiff’s Office was situated under the territorial jurisdiction of the Lomonosovskiy District Court, she had chosen to apply to this court.\n16.  On 14 May 2002 the District Court found that the appeal had been filed out of time and no request for leave to appeal out of time had been made. It advised the applicant to submit such request by 24 May 2002, indicating the reasons for missing the appeal time-limit. Otherwise, her appeal would be returned.\n17.  On 20 May 2002 the applicant submitted such request. In her request she argued that she had not missed the appeal time-limit as the decision of 23 Apr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2004", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and currently lives in Schaanwald.\n5.  On 17 December 1991 investigating judge L. at the Vaduz Regional Court (Landgericht) heard the applicant, who was named Eugen Heeb at that time, on suspicion of fraud (proceedings 8 Vr 17/91). He was questioned in particular about his activities as a member of the board of directors of MGS, a stock company considered to be the centre of a whole network of companies involved in large-scale investment fraud.\n6.  On 4 May and 1 July 1994, respectively, two further sets of proceedings (8 Vr 211/94 and 8 Vr 305/94) concerning charges of investment fraud were opened against the applicant. One set of proceedings concerned investment fraud committed to the detriment of Allgemeine Vermögensverwaltung Frankurt and Ahorn Trust. The other concerned investment fraud committed to the detriment of investors of Merkantus AG and Allied Banking Corporation. On 6 June 1994 the applicant was questioned as a suspect.\n7.  On 6 November 1996, the applicant changed his name to von Hoffen through adoption.\n8.  On 23 January 1997 the Mannheim Public Prosecutor transmitted files concerning investigations on suspicion of investment fraud against the applicant and a number of accomplices, relating partly to the same facts as the investigations opened by the Liechtenstein authorities. On 15 June 1997 a search of the applicant’s premises was carried out at which a number of documents were seized. On 1 July 1997 the applicant was questioned as a suspect. It appears that, subsequently, witnesses were questioned by the police at the investigating judge’s request, and a further search warrant was issued.\n9.  Investigating judge L. at the Vaduz Regional Court issued an arrest warrant against the applicant on 29 February 2000. On the same date a search warrant for the applicant’s private and business premises was issued for the purpose of seizing documents. The proceedings in files 8 Vr 211/94 and 8 Vr 305/94 were joined and extended to include further suspects. In the following two months numerous requests for legal assistance were addressed to the German, Austrian and Swiss authorities.\n10.  In early 2000 proceedings for abuse of authority were opened against investigating judge L. He was accused of having remained inactive for years in several sets of proceedings, including the applicant’s. On 20 March 2000 L. declared himself biased on account of the criminal proceedings pending against him. On 23 March the President of the Vaduz Regional Court accepted judge L.’s withdrawal from the applicant’s case, which was taken over by investigating judge H. Judge L. resigned subsequently and the proceedings against him were discontinued.\n11.  On 11 May 2000 the applicant was arrested in Switzerland and extradited to Liechtenstein on the next day.\n12.  On 14 May 2000 the Vaduz Regional Court ordered his pre-trial detention inter alia on suspicion of aggravated fraud. Referring to the results of the investigations in all three sets of proceedings (8 Vr 17/91, 8 Vr 211/94 and 8 Vr 305/94), the Vaduz Regional Court found that the applicant was suspected of having organised a network of companies involved in large-scale investment fraud. Given that the applicant had been arrested in Switzerland and having regard to the severity of the sentence to be expected, the Regional Court found that there was a danger of the applicant’s absconding. Moreover, there was a danger that he might hide relevant documents or try ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2006", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is an active officer of the Russian navy, third rank captain. He was born in 1963 and lives in Kronshtadt, Leningrad Region.\n7.  The applicant was involved in a dispute with his employer, the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, concerning the amount of compensation of his travel expenses.  On 7 March 2002 the Kronshtadt Garrison Military Court awarded him arrears in the amount of 598 Russian Roubles (RUR) and RUR 202 in compensation of legal expenses. This decision was not appealed against and on 17 March 2002 became final.\n8.  On 21 March 2002 the court issued a writ of execution. The applicant forwarded it with accompanying documents to the State treasury office. On 2 April 2002 the writ was returned to the applicant unexecuted. The treasury office explained that the debtor had no available funds which could be used for paying the judgment debt. The applicant was advised to address the writ of execution to the head office of the Ministry of Finance, which the applicant did on 10 April 2002. However, the judgment remained unexecuted.\n9.  On 2 July 2002 the applicant wrote a new letter to the Ministry of Finance, requesting an explanation as to why the judgment remained unexecuted to that date. On 26 August 2002 the Ministry of Finance informed the applicant that the writ of execution had been transmitted to the Ministry of Defence with a view to prepare a budget call for the respective amount. They also informed the applicant that the Ministry of Finance had no power to enforce the judgment and write off the money from the accounts of the Ministry of Defence without their acceptance.\n10.  On 31 December 2002 the Ministry of Finance transferred to the applicant RUR 598 with reference to the arrears due pursuant to the judgment of 7 March 2002.  On 1 March 2004 the applicant received the rest of the amount awarded by the court (RUR 202).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2007", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The second applicant wished to employ the first applicant as a farm hand.\n12.  On 6 February 1998 the applicants lodged a request with the Bregenz Labour Market Service (Arbeitsmarktservice) for the grant of an employment permit to the second applicant. They submitted that the first applicant, a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and his wife had been resident in Austria since November 1992. Both he and his wife had been granted residence permits (Aufenthaltsbewilligung) that were valid until December 1998. The applicants claimed that the first applicant had a right to take up employment in Austria. They referred in that connection to the Geneva Refugee Convention and the Association Agreement between the European Union and Turkey and submitted that those treaties had to be applied by analogy to their case.\n13.  On 19 March 1998 the Labour Market Service refused the request in accordance with s. 4(6) of the Employment of Aliens Act (Ausländer­beschäftigungsgesetz). It found that the maximum quota fixed for the employment of foreign workers in Vorarlberg had been exceeded and none of the conditions for making an exception under s. 4 (6) of the Act were met.\n14.  On 6 April 1998 the applicants appealed. They reiterated the arguments they had submitted before the Bregenz Labour Market Service.\n15.  On 25 May 1998 the Vorarlberg Labour Market Service rejected the first applicant’s appeal as inadmissible. It noted that only the second applicant as the proposed employer, not the first applicant, had the right to lodge a request for the grant of an employment permit. According to s. 21 of the Employment of Aliens Act an alien only became a party to proceedings concerning the issue of a work permit if his personal circumstances were relevant to the decision or if there was no employer. In the present case, however, neither of these conditions applied. In particular, the Bregenz Labour Market Service had based its decision exclusively on the situation of the labour market, and in particular the fact that the maximum quota for the employment of foreign workers had been exceeded. For that reason, the first applicant was not a party to the proceedings.\n16.  The Vorarlberg Labour Market Service further noted that only certain refugees – namely, those who had indefinite leave to remain, were married to an Austrian national or had a child of Austrian nationality – were exempted from the regulations of the Employment of Aliens Act. The first applicant did not fall into any of those categories. The Association Agreement between the European Union and Turkey was not applicable in the present case as the first applicant was not a Turkish national.\n17.  The Vorarlberg Labour Market Service went on to dismiss the second applicant’s appeal. It observed that the Bregenz Labour Market Service had proposed a replacement for the first applicant within the meaning of s. 4(2) and (3) of the Employment of Aliens Act, but he had not been taken on. In a telephone conversation the Labour Market Service had been informed by a representative of the second applicant that the proposed replacement had not been employed because the relevant post had already been filled. In further submissions the second applicant stated that the replacement had not complied with the requirements of the post.\n18.  The Vorarlberg Labour Market Service concluded that the second applicant had no further interest in employing the first applicant. It observed in particular that the second a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2009", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 20 September 1989 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Ljubljana Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani) against A.D., I.D. and J.D. seeking compensation for damage resulting from the above mentioned incident.\nOn 3 April 1991 the first-instance judgment of 6 June 1990 was quashed on appeal and remitted for re-examination in respect of two of the defendants. However, with respect to one of the defendants, the first-instance judgement was upheld and became final.\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia.\nAccording to the Government, the first-instance court twice requested the applicant to correct his claim, namely on 26 June 1992 and on 26 August 1999. The applicant corrected his claim on 3 July 1992 and, after a further request, on 6 October 1999.\nOn 3 August 1999 the applicant lodged a request for supervision due to the delays in the proceedings.\nIn January 2000 and July 2000 the applicant was twice requested to submit enough copies of the corrected claim to enable the court to serve them on the defendants, which he apparently did by September 2000.\nFollowing the request for the payment of expert fees of 28 November 2001, the applicant, on 6 December 2001, withdrew the proposal for the appointment of a horticultural expert.\nOf the three hearings held on 28 March 2001, 22 June 2001 and 4 April 2003 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant. Hearings scheduled for 20 December 2000, 19 September 2001, 6 February 2002 and 19 April 2002 were adjourned because the summons had not been successfully served on the defendants.\nFollowing the absence of the applicant at the hearing held on 7 June 2002 the (renamed) Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani) suspended the proceedings (mirovanje postopka) and resumed them again on 5 February 2003.\nAt the last hearing the court delivered a judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claim. It was served on the applicant on 2 July 2003.\n7.  On 18 July 2003 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani).\nThe proceedings are still pending.\n 2.  The second set of the proceedings – concerning the removal of a barrier\n9.  On 14 January 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Ljubljana Basic Court against A.D. and S. D. seeking a removal of the barrier which they had allegedly placed on the before mentioned land to prevent the applicant from using it. \nAccording to the Government, none of at least eight hearings scheduled between 2 June 1992 and 14 July 1997 were held since the court did not succeed in serving the writ of a claim and summons on A.D. and/or S. D.\nIn the meanwhile, on 28 June 1994, the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia.\nAccording to the Government, after the court had tried twenty times to serve the writ of claim, the latter was finally served on A.D. on 14 May 1999.\nBetween 25 September 1995 and 22 April 1999 the applicant five times urged the court to speed up the proceedings. He also made a complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to the Slovenian Ombudsman for Human Rights (Varuh človekovih pravic).\nOf the three hearings scheduled between 8 September 1999 and 31 May 2000 none was adjourned on the request of the applicant.\nOn 13 February 2000 the applicant requested a temporary injunction. The court decided on that request on 11 July 2000.\nThe applicant did not attend the hearing called for 11 September 2000 and as a result, the (renamed) Ljublj", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2010", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Šentjur.\n7.  On 5 May 1998 and 8 January 1999 the Pension and Disability Insurance Institute of Slovenia (Zavod za invalidsko in pokojninsko zavarovanje Slovenije, “PDII”) issued decisions concerning the invalidity status of the applicant.\n8. On 25 January 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against PDII in the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani), contesting the above decisions.\nBetween 7 April 1999 and 31 December 2002 the applicant lodged four written submissions and adduced evidence.\nOn 6 September 2001 and 11 February 2002 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 13 November 2000 he requested that the case be heard as a matter of priority, which was rejected by the court.\nOf the three hearings held between 19 June 2002 and 19 March 2003, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 25 March 2003.\n9. On 1 April 2003 the applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče).\nOn 16 April 2004 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal.\nThe judgement was served on the applicant on 5 May 2004.\n10. On 31 May 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 18 January 2005 the court rejected the appeal.\nThe judgement was served on the applicant on 9 February 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2011", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Lublin, Poland.\n5.  On 4 August 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police.\n6.  On 7 August 2001 the Opole Lubelskie District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand in view of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a robbery. The court added that the measure was also justified by the severity of the penalty that might be expected and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, particularly in the light of the fact that the applicant had previously been convicted.\n7.  The applicant appealed against this decision, but on 27 August 2001 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. It reiterated that it was highly probable that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged.\n8.  On 8 August 2001 the applicant started a hunger strike. Due to the deterioration of his state of health he was subsequently transferred to the Warsaw Detention Centre.\n9.  On 24 October 2001 the applicant was indicted before the District Court on charges of 6 offences of robbery and extortion.\n10.  On 29 October 2001 the Opole Lubelskie District Court further prolonged the applicant’s detention. It reiterated the grounds for detention given previously.\n11.  On 31 January and 26 April 2002 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was prolonged. Both decisions repeated the same grounds: the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, the severity of the sentence that might be expected and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n12.  On 29 July and 29 October 2002 the Opole Lubelskie District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention holding that the grounds previously given were still valid and finding that there was a risk that the applicant, once released, might go into hiding.\n13.  On 6 January, 28 April and 30 July 2003 the applicant’s detention was further prolonged by the District Court. The court relied on the same grounds: the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, the severity of the anticipated sentence and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n14.  Subsequently, as the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time-limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the District Court made two application to the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) asking for the applicant’s detention to be prolonged beyond that term. On 31 July 2003 and 28 January 2004 the Court of Appeal granted those requests.\n15.  The applicant’s appeals and numerous applications for release and release on bail were to no avail.\n16.  On 13 April 2004 the Opole Lubelskie District Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.\n17.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment, but on 17 December 2004 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed it.\n18.  On an unspecified later date the applicant’s court-appointed lawyer refused to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf with the Supreme Court as he saw no legal grounds for doing so.\n19.  On 7 February 2003 the Registry of the Court sent the applicant an application form and accompanying documents in reply to his first letter to the Court. The envelope in which this letter was delivered to the applicant bears the following stamps: Warsaw Detention Centre, 19 February 2003 (Areszt Śledczy Warszawa, 19 luty 2003); a handwritten", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2012", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Van.\n6.  On 16 January 1993 the applicant was injured while he was working on the construction site of a hotel.\n7.  On 18 May 1994 the principal public prosecutor at the Marmaris Criminal Court of First Instance (“criminal court”) filed a bill of indictment against A. B. and A. T., the owner-builder and the master-builder.\n8.  On 28 June 1995 the applicant submitted a petition to the criminal court and requested to intervene in the proceedings as an intervening complainant. The criminal court accepted his request.\n9.  On 11 March 1996 and 25 November 1996 the experts who were assigned by the criminal court submitted their reports. In their reports they stated that A.B. and E.C. were respectively by 25% and 75% responsible for the accident.\n10.  Between 25 November 1996 and 25 May 1999 the criminal court examined the documents submitted by various authorities.\n11.  On 25 May 1999 the criminal court convicted the owner-builder and the master-builder, under Article 459 § 2 of the Criminal Code, for having failed to take the necessary measures to prevent the accident which had resulted in injuries to the applicant. The criminal court sentenced them to three months’ imprisonment which was converted to a fine. Thus, E.T. became liable to a fine of 375,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 1 euro (EUR)) and A.B. to a fine of TRL 123,333 (approximately EUR 0, 28). The judgment became final on 6 July 1999.\n12.  On 12 April 1995 the applicant brought an action for damages against the construction company in the Marmaris Civil Court of First Instance (“first-instance court”).\n13.  On 21 November 1995 the applicant requested the first-instance court to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the owner‑builder and the master-builder, pending before the criminal court. The court requested the case-file in the criminal proceedings.\n14.  On 8 October 1996 the first-instance court decided to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings.\n15.  On 26 February 1998 the applicant brought a further action for damages in the first-instance court against the construction company and the hotel in which the construction was taking place.\n16.  On an unspecified date, the first-instance court joined the two cases.\n17.  Meanwhile, by a judgment which became final on 6 July 1999, the criminal court convicted the owner‑builder and the master-builder (see paragraph 11 above).\n18.  Between 12 April 1995 and 18 October 2001 the first-instance court held twenty‑four hearings. During this period, the court requested medical reports on the applicant and documents from various administrative authorities. The court examined the expert reports and heard two witnesses.\n19.  On 18 October 2001 the first-instance court awarded the applicant a certain sum in damages.\n20.  On 27 December 2001 the defendant party appealed to the Court of Cassation against the first-instance court’s decision.\n21.  On 5 November 2002 the 21st Chamber of the Court of Cassation decided to send the case-file to the 13th Chamber of the Court of Cassation, holding that the latter had jurisdiction over the case.\n22.  On 25 March 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance court’s decision and held that the case should be dealt with by the labour courts.\n23.  On 14 October 2003 the Court of Cassation dismissed the defendant party’s request for rectification.\n24.  On 20 January 2004 the first-instance court, acting in its capacity as a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2014", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Siemianowice Śląskie, Poland.\n5.  On 21 August 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having stabbed a certain A.T. during a quarrel and being under the influence of alcohol.\n6.  On 23 August 2001 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that he had attempted to commit a homicide. The court also considered that given the severity of the penalty that could be expected, it was probable that the applicant would interfere with the course of proceedings. At the same time, the court rejected the prosecutor’s assertion that there was also a risk of collusion.\n7.  On 12 November 2001 the District Court further prolonged the detention, referring in particular to the fact that the investigation had not yet ended.\n8.  On 8 February 2002 the applicant was indicted before the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n9.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was subsequently prolonged on 18 February and 5 August 2002 and on 5 January 2003. The trial court justified its decisions by reference to the high probability that the applicant had committed the offence and the gravity of the charges, which might attract a heavy sentence.\n10.  On 14 April 2003 the Katowice Regional Court further prolonged the applicant’s detention relying, in addition to the previous grounds, on the fact that the trial court had not yet completed the taking of evidence.\n11.  The applicant’s numerous applications for release and appeals against decisions concerning prolongation of his detention were to no avail.\n12.  On 23 May 2003 the trial court gave judgment. The court convicted the applicant as charged finding that, given his state of mind at the time of events, he could not be held fully responsible for his actions. The Regional Court sentenced the applicant to six years’ imprisonment.\n13.  On 11 December 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal gave judgment which it quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case.\n14.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was not lifted. The trial court prolonged it on 16 January, 10 May and 13 September 2004 relying on the same grounds as before: the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, the gravity of the charges and the risk that given the severity of the expected penalty the applicant would obstruct the proceedings.\n15.  On 29 September 2004 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. The court considered that the applicant had overstepped the limits of legitimate self-defence and sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment.\n16.  On 27 January 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. It appears that the applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal and that this judgment became final.\n17.  On 27 November 2004 the applicant sent a letter to the Court. The envelope in which the letter was delivered bears the following stamp: Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny Katowice), a handwritten note: censorship, 29 December 2004 (cenzura, 29.12.04) and an illegible signature. The envelope bears signs of having been opened after being sealed: its left side has been cut open and then resealed with sellotape. It appears that the envelope was stamped with the Court of Appeal’s stamp described above after being resealed with sellotape.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2015", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Chisinau.\n7.  In 2000 the applicant lent 10,000 United States dollars (USD) to A. When A. was only able to return USD 2,500, they agreed, together with T. (A.’s wife at the time), to sell their apartment to the applicant in order to guarantee the return, in instalments, of the outstanding debt. The agreement (signed on 10 November 2000) stated that should the instalments be paid, the applicant would sell the apartment back to T.\n8.  Pursuant to that agreement, on 11 December 2000, the applicant concluded a contract for the purchase of the apartment from T. The contract specified the address and surface area of the apartment and confirmed that, before concluding the contract, the applicant had paid the entire price freely agreed on by the parties, namely 96,720 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of USD 7,818 at the time).\n9.  In accordance with the contract, the former owner (T.) was to vacate the apartment by 1 April 2001. When A. failed to pay any instalments, the applicant requested the family to vacate the apartment. They refused to do so and the applicant initiated court proceedings for their eviction. T. lodged a counter-claim, requesting the annulment of the contract of sale because in reality she had only intended to guarantee, through the contract, the return of her husband’s debt to the applicant.\n10.  The Centru District Court found in favour of the applicant on 11 June 2001, rejecting T.’s counter-claim. On 17 October 2001 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment. On 7 February 2002 the Court of Appeal also upheld that judgment. This judgment was final and enforceable.\n11.  T. wrote to a number of State authorities (the President, the Government, the Parliament, etc.) asking them to help re-open the proceedings. On 22 April 2002 Mr V. Mişin, a vice-president of the Parliament, wrote to the Prosecutor General asking him to initiate the re-opening of proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice. The letter was annexed to the case-file.\n12.  On 5 May 2002 the Prosecutor General filed a request for the annulment of all the above-mentioned judgments and for the re-opening of the proceedings. On 10 July 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and ordered a full re-hearing of the case in the first-instance court. The court found that the lower courts had not paid sufficient attention to the fact that the applicant had lent USD 10,000 to T.’s husband and that T. had concluded the contract for the sale of the apartment with the specific intention of guaranteeing the return of the money and not of actually selling it. In its view, “the totality of circumstances mentioned cast doubt on the well-founded character, lawfulness and fairness of the judgments adopted in the case”.\n13.  On 4 December 2002 the Centru District Court found in T.’s favour and declared the contract of sale null and void, rejecting the applicant’s request for eviction. That judgment was upheld on 12 February 2003 by the Chişinău Regional Court and on 8 May 2003 by the Court of Appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2016", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Turkey.\n5.  On 23 September 1994 the applicant was taken into custody within the context of a police operation against the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party).\n6.  On 29 September 1994 the public prosecutor in Izmir filed a bill of indictment with the Izmir Criminal Court of First Instance (asliye ceza mahkemesi) charging the applicant and his co-accused, under Articles 350 and 351 of the Criminal Code, with forging and using an identification card.\n7.  On 26 December 1994 the applicant appeared before the court and made statements.\n8.  Between 7 November 1995 and 23 December 1998 the Izmir Criminal Court of First Instance postponed the hearings due to the absence of one of the applicant’s co-accused, Ş.Z., whose statements had to be taken. The representative of the applicant was present before the court only on 26 January 1996.\n9.  On 23 December 1998, upon the request of the Izmir public prosecutor, the Izmir Criminal Court of First Instance issued a decision of non-jurisdiction, holding that the acts committed by the applicant and his co‑accused constituted the offence defined in Article 342 of the Criminal Code which prohibits forgery of official documents. The case file was then sent to the Izmir Assize Court (ağır ceza mahkemesi).\n10.  On 22 March 1999 the first-instance court issued a summons requiring the applicant to give evidence.\n11.  At the next hearing, on 9 June 1999, the applicant appeared before the court and made statements.\n12.  Between 22 March 1999 and 23 February 2000 the Izmir Assize Court postponed the hearings due to the absence of the applicant’s co‑accused, Ş.Z. and M.A.Z., whose statements had to be taken.\n13.  On 28 December 1999 statements of M.A.Z. were taken by the Çankırı Assize Court and sent to the trial court.\n14.  On 23 February 2000, following the receipt of M.A.Z.’s statements of 28 December 1999, the Izmir Assize Court once again postponed the hearing as the address of Ş.Z. could not be determined.\n15.  On 2 October 2000 the court ordered the detention of Ş.Z. in his absence.\n16.  Until 26 February 2003 the first-instance court postponed the hearings as Ş.Z. could not be found.\n17.  On 26 February 2003 the Izmir Assize Court held that the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his co-accused should be discontinued on the ground that the prosecution was time-barred.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2017", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants Ms Habibe Kır, Ms Feriştah Çenesiz, Mr Hasan Çenesiz and Ms Fatma Ekiz were born in 1926, 1941, 1951 and 1951 respectively and live in Mersin.\n6.  On 17 December 1992 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants in Mersin in order to build a motorway. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots and the relevant amounts were paid to them when the expropriation took place.\n7.  On 28 December 1994, following the applicants’ requests for increased compensation, the Mersin Civil Court awarded them an additional compensation of 131,387,300 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from the date of transfer of title deeds of the plots of land.\n8.  On 14 September 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Mersin Civil Court.\n9.  On 22 June 2000 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways paid the amount of TRL 556,290,000 to the applicants, interest included.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2018", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Asenovgrad.\n7.  On 29 May 1991 he entered into an employment agreement with a local company (the “company”) whereby he undertook to work for it abroad. Several months later, while working for the company in Germany, the applicant fell seriously ill, underwent an operation and was on sick leave for about two months. At the end of his sick leave on 18 October 1991, the applicant found that his employment agreement had been unilaterally terminated by the company. He returned to Bulgaria soon thereafter.\n8.  On 19 May 1992 the applicant initiated an action against the company. He sought damages in the amount of 13,170 German marks (DEM), or their equivalent of 184,389 Bulgarian levs (BGL), on account of the company’s failure to pay out sick leave entitlements, back pay for overtime work and a payment for an insurance policy.\n9.  The Plovdiv Regional Court conducted ten hearings between 2 September 1992 and 23 January 1995, scheduled two to five months apart. During this time it obtained two experts’ reports and questioned witnesses. Of the hearings conducted, one was adjourned from 5 March to 5 May 1993 due to the absence of the applicant, another was postponed from 12 May to 14 September 1994 at the request of the defendant and a third, was adjourned from 14 September to 28 November 1994 because the defendant was hindering an expert from completing his report.\n10.  In a judgment of 2 March 1995 the Plovdiv Regional Court found partly in favour of the applicant. It awarded him BGL 1,032 for sick leave entitlements and dismissed the remainder of his claims. On 22 March 1995 the applicant appealed against the judgment.\n11.  A hearing was held before the Supreme Court on 28 February 1996.\n12.  In a judgment of 16 July 1996 the Supreme Court declared the judgment of the Plovdiv Regional Court null and void and remitted the case to the lower court. It established that the lower court had been sitting in an unlawful composition of three judges rather than of one judge and two jurors.\n13.  At the retrial, the Plovdiv Regional Court conducted nine hearings between 28 October 1996 and 12 June 1998, scheduled one to four months apart. During this time it obtained an expert’s report and questioned witnesses. Of the hearings conducted, one was adjourned from 29 April to 2 May 1997 because the applicant could not be summoned at his address. In addition, between 3 September 1997 and 16 April 1998 three consecutive hearings were postponed because the applicant or his lawyer were ill and at the request of the defendant in order to acquaint himself with the expert’s report.\n14.  In a judgment of 22 December 1998 the Plovdiv Regional Court again found partly in favour of the applicant. It awarded him BGL 24,100 for sick leave entitlements and dismissed the remainder of his claims. On 25 February 1999 the applicant appealed against the judgment.\n15.  The Plovdiv Court of Appeals conducted four hearings between 10 September 1999 and 17 April 2000, scheduled one to four months apart. One of the hearings was adjourned from 10 September to 19 November 1999 because the applicant was ill.\n16.  In a judgment of 3 July 2000 the Plovdiv Court of Appeals quashed part of the judgment of the lower court in respect of the amount awarded to the applicant for sick leave entitlements in Bulgarian levs and rendered a judgment in the case whereby it re-calculated the award in German marks, specifying it to be DEM 1,679 plus inter", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2019", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and resides in the town of Novogrodovka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n6.  In January 2002, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company No. 1/3 - a State-owned enterprise - to recover salary arrears.\n7.  On 28 February 2002 the Novogrodovskiy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Решение Новогродовского городского суда Донецкой области) and awarded him UAH 2,655.70[1]. On 12 August 2002 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region upheld the judgment of the first instance court. On 4 January 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.\n8.  On 16 September 2002 the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Новогродовского городского управления юстиции) initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n9.  In March 2003, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment of 28 February 2002 in his favour. On 9 April 2003 the Town Court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding that no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs’ Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs’ Service had acted properly in enforcing the judgment of 28 February 2002. However, by a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs’ Service had been prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company. The court also stated that, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State held at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced. On 9 June 2003 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region upheld the decision of the first instance court. The applicant appealed against it in cassation. The parties did not submit any further information about these proceedings.\n10.  In February 2003 the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company was reorganised and became a structural subdivision of the Selidovugol Mining Company. As the latter thereby became the debtor, the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Selidovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Селидовского городского управления юстиции).\n11.  In August 2004 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full.\n12.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Selidovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk region against the Selidovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service claiming compensation for material and moral damage inflicted to him by the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 19 December 2004 the court decided on the case but the parties did not inform the Court about the outcome of the proceedings. On 25 January 2005 the court returned the applicant’s appeal against this decision as it was not submitted in compliance with procedural formalities prescribed by law. The applicant appealed against the decision of 25 January 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2020", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Izmir.\n6.  On an unspecified date, police officers at the Istanbul airport arrested two persons in possession of passports containing fake visas. In their statements to the police, these two persons submitted that they had paid 3,000 German marks to the applicant and A.G. in order to have their passports stamped. Consequently, on 29 January 1996 police officers carried out a search at the applicant’s home in the presence of one of his siblings. The police officers seized four passports belonging to the applicant, his sibling and two other persons\n7.  On 6 March 1996 the applicant surrendered to the police. He was then placed in custody.\n8.  On 7 March 1996 the applicant was brought before a single judge at the Izmir Magistrates’ Court who ordered his detention on remand.\n9.  On 14 March 1996 the Izmir Principle Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Izmir Assize Court charging the applicant with the offence of forging passport, in particular arranging for false visa stamps for travelling abroad.\n10.  On 9 May 1996 the Izmir Assize Court heard the applicant and released him on bail.\n11.  On 30 December 1998, following the qualification of the offence as committed by a criminal organisation, the Izmir Assize Court issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae and sent the case-file to Izmir State Security Court.\n12.  On 11 February 1999 the Izmir State Security Court issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae and referred the case to the Court of Cassation for determination of the competent court.\n13.  On 25 March 1999 the Court of Cassation overturned the Izmir Assize Court’s decision of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae and held that the offence in question was within the latter’s jurisdiction. The case-file was therefore sent to the Izmir Assize Court.\n14.  Between 22 March 2001 and 3 December 2003 the Izmir Assize Court held eight hearings. All hearings prior to the seventh one, which was held on 5 June 2003, were postponed on the ground that the address of one of the co‑accused, namely A.G., could not be found. During this period, the Izmir Assize Court sent five letters to the Izmir Public Prosecutor’s Office and requested the latter to find out A.G.’s address.\n15.  On 3 December 2003 the Izmir Assize Court terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant holding that the prosecution was time‑barred.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2021", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in İzmit.\n7.  On 18 November 1981 the General Directorate of National Water Board (Devlet Su İşleri Genel Müdürlüğü) seized and later expropriated three plots of land belonging to the applicant for the construction of a dam. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots and the relevant amount was deposited with a bank in the name of the applicant on 23 June 1982. However, the expropriation order and the document containing the information about the compensation were not served on the applicant.\n8.  On 1 May 1998 the applicant filed an action with the Akyaka Civil Court requesting compensation for seizure without an official expropriation (kamulaştırmasız el koyma). The court established that although the applicant was not notified, a de facto expropriation had taken place.\n9.  After conducting two on-site visits and taking two separate sets of expert reports into consideration, the court established what the then-current value of land would have been had the expropriation not taken place. On 14 October 1999 it awarded the applicant a corresponding in additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate running from 1 May 1998, the date of the applicant's filing of that case. As the compensation amount was based on the then-current value of the land, and not on its 1981 value, the court rejected the applicant's request to run the interest from the date of the seizure.\n10.  On 10 October 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. On 8 February 2001 the same court rejected a request for rectification.\n11.  On 24 October 2001 the due amount was paid to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2022", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and resides in the town of Novogrodovka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n6.  In 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court against the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company No. 1/3 - a State-owned enterprise - to recover compensation for work related injuries and other payments. By decision of 20 March 2000, the court awarded the applicant UAH 18,092.56[1].\n7.  On 18 April 2000 the Bailiffs’ Service suspended the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case. On 12 May 2000 the Novogrodovskiy Town Court ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to resume the enforcement proceedings.\n8.  By decisions of 30 August 2000 and 14 May 2001, in the course of bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor, the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region imposed a ban on the seizure and sale of the debtor’s assets.\n9.  In 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment in his favour. On 3 September 2001 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the bailiff. On 5 November 2001 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region upheld the decision of the first-instance court. On 26 March 2002 the judge of the Novogrodovskiy Town Court adjourned consideration of the applicant’s appeal in cassation for failure to comply with procedural requirements and to pay the court fees. The parties did not submit any information with regard to the outcome of these proceedings.\n10.  In February 2003 the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company was reorganised and became a structural subdivision of the Selidovugol Mining Company. As the latter thereby became the debtor, in February 2004 the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Selidovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Селидовского городского управления юстиции).\n11. The applicant instituted proceedings in the Selidovskiy Town Court against the Selidovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service claiming compensation for material and moral damage caused by a lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 30 June 2005 the Selidovskiy Town Court asked the applicant to pay a court fee. The parties did not submit any further information about these proceedings.\n12.  The judgment of 20 March 2000 has been enforced in part and the applicant was paid UAH 11,903[2], the remaining debt being UAH 6,189.56[3].", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2023", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and resides in the village of Grodovka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n6.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company No. 1/3 - a State-owned enterprise - to recover salary arrears and other payments due to her.\n7.  On 2 August 2001 the Novogrodovskiy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Решение Новогродовского городского суда Донецкой области) and awarded her UAH 2,048.73[1]. On 13 September 2001 the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Новогродовского городского управления юстиции) initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n8.  In November 2001, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. On 23 November 2001 the Town Court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding that no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs’ Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs’ Service had acted properly in trying to enforce the judgment of 2 August 2001. However, by a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs’ Service had been prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company.\n9.  On 11 February 2002 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region upheld the judgment of the first instance court of 23 November 2001. The applicant appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court of Ukraine. The parties did not provide any further information about this set of proceedings.\n10.  In August 2004 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2024", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and currently resides in the town of Novogrodovka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n6.  In 2000 and 2001, respectively, the applicant instituted two sets of proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court against the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company No. 1/3 - a State-owned enterprise - to recover unpaid compensation for health damage.\n7.  On 4 October 2000 the court awarded the applicant UAH 9,999.90[1] in such compensation.\n8.  By another judgment of 10 July 2001 the same court awarded the applicant UAH 32,156.50[2] in compensation for health damage.\n9.  In October 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgments in his favour. On 19 December 2001 the court found against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the bailiff. On 8 April 2002 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. On 6 August 2002 the judge of the Novogrodivskyi Local Court returned the applicant’s appeal in cassation as it had been submitted too late.\n10. In February 2003 the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company was reorganised and became a structural subdivision of the Selidovugol Mining Company. As the latter thereby became the debtor, the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Selidovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Селидовского городского управления юстиции).\n11.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Selidovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk region against the Selidovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service claiming compensation for material and moral damage caused to him by the non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour. On 27 December 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 11 March 2005 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region upheld the first instance court decision. The applicant appealed against these decisions in cassation. Proceedings are still pending.\n12.  The Government informed the Court that the applicant has received UAH 25,779.64; the rest of the debt awarded to the applicant remains unpaid.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2025", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and resides in the town of Novogrodovka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n6.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company No. 1/3 - a State-owned enterprise - to recover salary arrears.\n7.  On 18 December 2002 the Novogrodovskiy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Решение Новогродовского городского суда Донецкой области) and awarded her UAH 1,810.24[1]. On 28 January 2003 the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Новогродовского городского управления юстиции) initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n8.  In February 2003 the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company was reorganised and became a structural subdivision of the Selidovugol Mining Company. As the latter thereby became the debtor, in December 2003 the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Selidovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Селидовского городского управления юстиции).\n9.  In January 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the court decision in her favour. On 11 March 2004 the Town Court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding that no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs’ Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs’ Service had acted properly in taking steps to enforce the decision of 18 December 2002. However, by a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs’ Service had been prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company. The court also stated that, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State held at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced. On 10 June 2004 the Appellate Court of the Donetsk Region upheld the decision of the first instance court of 11 March 2004. The applicant appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court of Ukraine. The proceedings are still pending.\n10.  In August-October 2004 the applicant has received UAH 1,681.03[2], the rest of the debt remains unpaid.\n11.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Selidovskiy Town Court against the Selidovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service claiming compensation for material and moral damage caused by a lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. On 22 November 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 8 April 2005 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region upheld this judgment. On 10 May 2005 the Selidovskiy Town Court provided the applicant a time-limit until 20 May 2005 for lodging her cassation appeal in compliance with procedural requirements prescribed by law. The parties did not submit any further information about these proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2026", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5. Mr Leonid Ivanovych Andrusenko was born in 1953 and currently resides in the village of Konstiantynivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine. Mr Valeriy Volodymyrovych Bondarenko was born in 1956 and currently resides in the town of Krasnogorivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine. Mr Ivan Petrovych Mysnianko was born in 1961 and currently resides in the town of Vugledar, Donetsk region, Ukraine. Mr Oleksandr Mykolayovych Goryachykh was born in 1958 and currently resides in the town of Vugledar, Donetsk region, Ukraine. Mr Volodymyr Grygorovych Leontyev was born in 1940 and currently resides in the town of Vugledar, Donetsk region, Ukraine. Mr Ivan Yegorovich Migunov was born in 1956 and currently resides in the town of Vugledar, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n6.  In 1997 Mr Andrusenko was dismissed from the “Pivdennodonbasska” State-owned mine No.3 (the “PDM No.3”). In February 1998 he instituted proceedings in the Vugledar Town Court claiming to reinstate him in his position. On 10 September 1998 the court rejected his claims. On 19 October 1998 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. On 28 December 1998 the Vugledar Town Court reinstated Mr Andrusenko in his position and ordered the PDM No.3 to pay him compensation in salary arrears. On 22 February 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The case was remitted to Petrovsky District Court of Donetsk for examination on the merits, on the basis of Mr Andrusenko’s request to change the jurisdiction. On 12 July 2000 the Petrovsky District Court found in part for Mr Andrusenko. On 28 September 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. Mr Andrusenko lodged a petition with the Donetsk Regional Court seeking consideration of the merits of his claims, without remitting the case for fresh consideration. On 5 December 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court found in part for Mr Andrusenko and awarded him UAH 17,699.68[1] against the PDM No.3 in salary arrears and other payments. On 28 February 2001 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld this judgment. By a letter of 15 December 2004 Mr Andrusenko informed the Court that the judgment in his favour was enforced in June 2004.\n7.  On 13 November 2001 the Maryinsky District Court ordered the PDN No.3 to provide Mr Andrusenko with 24 tonnes of coal. It also ordered the PDN No.3 to pay Mr Andrusenko UAH 607.72[2] in compensation. By a letter of 15 December 2004 Mr Andrusenko informed the Court that the pecuniary part of the judgment was enforced by January 2003. However, 24 tonnes of coal awarded in the judgment of 13 November 2001 have been never provided to him.\n8.  On 18 January 2002 the Maryinsky District Court ordered the PDN No.3 to pay Mr Andrusenko UAH 244.39[3] in compensation for salary arrears and moral damage. By another judgment delivered on the same date Mr Andrusenko also received UAH 56[4] in salary arrears. By a letter of 15 December 2004 Mr Andrusenko informed the Court that the judgments were enforced by January 2003.\n9.  On 29 October 1999 and 15 November 2000 the Maryinsky District Court of the Donetsk Region awarded Mr Bondarenko UAH 8,542.85[5] and UAH 3,785.74[6], respectively, against his employer, the State-owned Krasnogorivsky Vognetryvnyj Zavod factory (the “KVZ”), in salary arrears. On 8 June 2000 the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region initiated a reorganisation procedure (проц", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2027", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and resides in the town of Novogrodovka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n6.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company No. 1/3 - a State-owned enterprise - to recover salary arrears and other payments due to her late husband.\n7.  On 7 October 2003 the Novogrodovskiy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Решение Новогродовского городского суда Донецкой области) and awarded her UAH 10,317.71[1]. On 17 November 2003 the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Новогродовского городского управления юстиции) refused to initiate the enforcement proceedings because the debtor was located in a different district.\n8.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service for failure to institute enforcement proceedings. On 13 February 2004 the Town Court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding that no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs’ Service. On 22 April 2004 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region upheld this decision. The applicant appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court of Ukraine. The proceedings are still pending.\n9.  On 25 February 2004 the Selidovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Селидовского городского управления юстиции) initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n10.  In August-October 2004 the applicant has received UAH 8,281.50[2], the rest of the debt awarded remains unpaid.\n11.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Selidovskiy Town Court against the Selidovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service claiming compensation for material and moral damage caused by a lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. On 12 October 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 17 January 2005 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region upheld this judgment. On 22 March 2005 the Selidovskiy Town Court returned the applicant’s appeal in cassation as submitted too late. The applicant appealed against this decision. Proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2028", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kyiv, Ukraine.\n6.  In 1994 Mrs S. obtained a loan from the Azhio Bank. In 1995, due to the failure of Mrs S. to repay the loan, the bank sold her flat to Mr S. The latter sold the flat to Mrs Sb., who further sold it to Mr G. On 22 January 1997 the applicant purchased the flat from Mr G.\n7.  In March 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Vatutinskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Vatutinskyy Court”), seeking the eviction of Mrs S. and her minor child from the flat. Mrs S. lodged a counter-claim and requested the court to invalidate all the sales contracts concerning the flat. The parties to these contracts were summoned to participate in the proceedings.\n8.  On 18 December 1997 the court found for the applicant and ordered the eviction of Mrs S. together with her child.\n9.  On 25 February 1998 the defendant requested an extension for lodging an appeal in cassation. On 2 March 1998 the Vatutinskyy Court granted the extension requested on the ground that she had missed the initial deadline through no fault of her own.\n10.  On 1 April 1998 the Kyiv City Court (“the Kyiv Court”) rejected the defendant’s appeal in cassation against the decision of 18 December 1997.\n11.  On 13 April 1999, the Deputy General Prosecutor of Ukraine, following the complaint of the defendant, lodged a request for supervisory review (protest) of the applicant’s case with the Presidium of the Kyiv Court. On 26 April 1999 the Presidium allowed the request, quashed the decisions of 18 December 1997 and 1 April 1998, and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It found that the lower courts misinterpreted the facts and law in the case.\n12.  On 23 November 1999 the Vatutinskyy Court found for the applicant.\n13.  On 24 December 1999 the defendant requested an extension for lodging her appeal in cassation. On 5 January 2000 the Vatutinskyy Court granted the extension requested. It found that ground that the defendant had missed the initial deadline through no fault of her own.\n14.  On 23 February 2000 the Kyiv Court quashed the decision of 23 November 1999 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n15.  On 9 February 2001 the Vatutinskyy Court found against the applicant.\n16.  On 23 February 2001 the applicant appealed in cassation against the decision of 9 February 2001. On 12 March 2001 the Vatutinskyy Court granted the applicant an extension for lodging his appeal, as he had not been informed about the decision of 9 February 2001 in due time.\n17.  On 11 April 2001 the Kyiv Court quashed the decision of 9 February 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration on the ground that the first instance court had considered the case in the absence of Messrs G. and S., Mrs Sb., and the third parties to the proceedings, Mrs A. and Mr K., who had not been informed about the hearings.\n18.  By the decisions of 28 August and 26 September 2001, the Vatutinskyy Court discontinued the consideration of the applicant’s claims and the counter-claim of the defendant because of their failure to attend the hearings on the same dates.\n19.  On 7 March 2002 the applicant appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court of Ukraine against the decision of 28 August 2001, of which he had been informed on 15 February 2002.\n20.  On 20 February 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed the decision of 28 August 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration on the grounds that the Vatutinskyy Court had failed to inform the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2029", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is a resident of Varna. At the time of the events, he lived in Plovdiv.\n8.  On 17 August 1999 a burglary was committed where, inter alia, a television and a video recorder were stolen.\n9.  On an unspecified date a preliminary investigation was opened.\n10.  On 26 August 1999 the apartment where the applicant was living was searched by the police, with the apparent subsequent approval of the Prosecutor's Office. Neither the applicant nor any other representative of the household was present. The search was conducted in the presence of two witnesses, neither of them was indicated to be the residence's manager or a representative of the municipality. Various items were seized among which were three photo cameras, a hi-fi system and a wrench.\n11.  On the same day, 26 August 1999, the applicant was arrested in Plovdiv and taken into police custody. He was then transferred to Pazardzhik.\n12.  On 28 August 1999, under an order issued by an investigator and approved by the Prosecutor's Office, the applicant was placed under twenty-four hours' preliminary detention as of 5 p.m. and held at the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service. The applicant was suspected of having committed the burglary on 17 August 1999 because the stolen television and a wrench, allegedly used to perpetrate the offence, had been found in his apartment. In addition, at the time of his arrest the applicant had apparently attempted to abscond.\n13.  On 29 August 1999 the Prosecutor's Office extended the preliminary detention of the applicant for another two days until 5 p.m. on 31 August 1999.\n14.  On 31 August 1999 the applicant, together with two other individuals, was charged with having committed the burglary of 17 August 1999. He was remanded in custody upon a decision of an investigator which was confirmed later in the day by the Prosecutor's Office. In ordering the remand in custody, the investigator stated that the applicant lacked a permanent address, that he had committed numerous other burglaries, that he might re-offend and that he might abscond as he had apparently done in 1998 when a national arrest warrant had been issued against him.\n15.  On 8 October 1999, under an order issued by an investigator, the charges against the applicant were amended to include another four burglaries and his detention on remand was maintained. In ordering the continued detention, the investigator cited the gravity of the offences with which the applicant had been charged, the likelihood that he might abscond and his personality.\n16.  On 12 November 1999 the applicant appealed against his detention. He maintained that his continued detention was unwarranted as there was no danger that he would abscond or re-offend because, inter alia, he had a permanent address in another city and his brother could pay his bail. The applicant also relied on Article 5 of the Convention in his submissions.\n17.  The Pazardzhik District Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on 18 November 1999. The court found that the applicant had been charged with a serious offence which warranted mandatory detention. In addition, the court concluded that the applicant might abscond because he did not have any personal identity documents, had no permanent address and was apparently residing in an apartment rented by one of his friends. It also found that it was likely that he would re-offend considering the fact that he had perpetrated the offences with which he had been cha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2030", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and resides in the town of Armyansk, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Ukraine.\n6.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company No. 1/3 – a State-owned enterprise – to recover salary arrears.\n7.  On 25 April 2002 the Novogrodovskiy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Решение Новогродовского городского суда Донецкой области) and awarded him UAH 4,087.29[1]. On 5 June 2002 the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Новогродовского городского управления юстиции) initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n8.  By a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs’ Service had been prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company.\n9.  In August 2004 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2032", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and resides in the town of Novogrodovka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n6.  The applicant instituted two sets of proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company No. 1/3 - a State-owned enterprise - to recover salary arrears and other payments due to him.\n7.  On 22 February and 8 May 2002 the Novogrodovskiy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Решения Новогродовского городского суда Донецкой области) and awarded him UAH 8,103.20[1] and UAH 3,128.40[2] respectively. These judgments were sent for enforcement to the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Новогродовского городского управления юстиции).\n8.  In July 2002, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment of 22 February 2002 in his favour. On 25 July 2002 the Town Court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs’ Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs’ Service had acted properly in enforcing the judgment of 22 February 2002. However, by a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs’ Service had been prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company. On 2 September 2002 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region upheld the judgment of 25 July 2002. On 29 January 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.\n9.  In September 2002, the applicant instituted another set of proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment of 8 May 2002 in his favour. On 10 October 2002 the Town Court rejected the applicant’s claim, for the same reasons as before. On 16 December 2002 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region upheld the judgment of 10 October 2002. On 7 October 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.\n10.  In February 2003 the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company was reorganised and became a structural subdivision of the Selidovugol Mining Company. As the latter thereby became the debtor, the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Selidovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Селидовского городского управления юстиции).\n11.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Selidovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk region against the Selidovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service claiming compensation for material and moral damage inflicted to him by the non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour. On 22 November 2004 the court decided on the case but the parties did not inform the Court about the outcome of the proceedings. On 24 January 2005 the court provided the applicant with a time-limit until 15 February 2005 to submit his appeal against this judgment in compliance with procedural formalities.\n12.  By letter of 4 January 2005 the applicant informed the court that on 7 December 2004 the judgments in his favour were enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2033", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The application was initially introduced by Mahmut Nalbant who was born in 1936 and was living in Kırklareli. Following his death on 28 March 2005, his wife and his children (hereinafter “the applicants”) expressed their intention to pursue the application on 15 August 2005. The applicants were born in 1943, 1961, 1963 and 1973 respectively. Selime Nalbant, and Mehmet Nalbant live in Kırklareli and Münevver Bozdemir and Havva Nalbant Tekin live in Tekirdağ.\n7.  In 1927 Mahmut Nalbant’s father arrived as an immigrant from Bulgaria. The applicants allege that in 1934 Mahmut Nalbant’s father was given, together with other people, plot no. 4086 for settlement (iskan). However, the plot of land was not registered in their names in the Land Registry.\n8.  On 13 September 1961 the Land Registry Commission (Tapulama Komisyonu) attached to the General Directorate of Land Registration (Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü) conducted a land registry survey (tapulama tespiti) and considered that the plot of land (“plot no. 4086”) in the Evrensekiz village should be registered in the name of the Treasury.\n9.  On an unspecified date twenty-eight complainants objected to the results of the survey. It is to be noted that Mahmut Nalbant does not figure in the list of complainants. The applicants claimed that he was not notified of this decision.\n10.  On 20 November 1970 the Land Registry Commission declared that it lacked competence rationae materie and transferred the case to the Cadastre Court. The latter sent the case-file to the Land Registry Commission and on 3 September 1971 the Land Registry Commission dismissed the objections of the complainants.\n11.  In 1972 twenty-six persons including Mahmut Nalbant (hereinafter “the plaintiffs”) filed an action with the Lüleburgaz Cadastre Court and requested the latter to set aside the decision of the Land Registry Commission. The date of petition submitted by Mahmut Nalbant is 8 August 1972.\n12.  On 9 November 1978 the proceedings before the Lüleburgaz Cadastre Court commenced.\n13.  On 3 February 1981 the court requested the Kırklareli Land and Settlement Directorate to investigate whether any plots of land were given as settlement in the Evrensekiz village and if so, whether the names of the plaintiffs figured in the registries.\n14.  On 20 May 1981 the Kırklareli Land and Settlement Directorate informed the court that only three families figured in the settlement records as having been given a settlement in the Evrensekiz village.\n15.  On 10 July 1981, 14 October 1981 and 23 November 1981 the Kırklareli Land and Settlement Directorate informed the court that the names of the plaintiffs did not figure in any of the registers relating to settlement.\n16.  On 31 May 1983 the court conducted an onsite inspection. According to the experts’ report of 6 June 1983, the impugned land together with plot no. 3584, 3585 and 3587, was divided into twenty-nine parts, on which the plaintiffs were farming. Mahmut Nalbant was using 16000 square metres of this land.\n17.  On 7 May 1993 the court conducted an onsite inspection. On 14 May 1993 an expert report was submitted to the court.\n18.  On 22 September 1993 the court requested the Land Directorate to send a sketch of the land together with its surroundings.\n19.  On 22 December 1993 the court requested the Land Directorate to submit the files concerning the plot of land together with fourteen neighbouring plots of land. On 28 February 1994 the Land Directorate submitted th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2034", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  By an order of 13 October 1983 the applicant was settled as a tenant, together with his family, in a flat which the State had assigned in 1980 for “use and management” to the State enterprise by which he was employed. He moved in the flat in 1986.\n10.  In a decision of 20 September 1991 the Council of Ministers transformed the enterprise employing the applicant into a State‑owned single‑member limited liability company. On 28 January 1992 the Varna Regional Court ordered the entry of the newly formed company into the register of companies. In a decision of 5 August 1992 the Minister of Industry, acting as a representative of the sole shareholder – the State – transformed the company into a State‑owned single‑shareholder joint‑stock company. The transformation was entered into the register of companies kept at the Varna Regional Court on 15 September 1992.\n11.  In late 1992, after the entry into force, on 3 August 1992, of certain amendments to the Act to Settle the Housing Problems of Long‑Standing Home Purchase Savings Depositors of 1991 („Закон за уреждане на жилищните въпроси на граждани с многогодишни жилищно‑спестовни влогове“ – “the Housing Act of 1991” – see paragraphs 24‑27 below), the applicant applied to purchase the flat. He considered that paragraph 4 of the additional provisions of the Act entitled him to buy the flat at a preferential price. It appears that many of his colleagues had purchased the flats they were renting from their employer under this provision. On 28 December 1992 the board of directors of the applicant’s employer assented to the sale.\n12.  On 4 January 1993 the applicant requested the mayor of Varna to approve the sale, enclosing declarations and documents purporting to establish that he met all the conditions laid down in section 2 of the Act (see paragraph 27 below). In addition, he submitted a letter from his employer’s board of directors, in which it informed the mayor that it had assented to the sale and asked him to validate it. The letter expressly mentioned that the sale was to be effected under paragraph 4 of the additional provisions of the Housing Act of 1991, and indicated the company’s bank account to which the municipality was to transfer the sale proceeds once the applicant had made the payment.\n13.  The mayor failed to reply and on an unspecified date in 1993 the applicant filed with the Varna Regional Court an application for judicial review of his tacit refusal.\n14.  In a judgment dated 30 November 1994 and entered in the court’s register on 5 December 1994, the Varna Regional Court quashed the refusal and instructed the mayor to issue, within one month, an order validating the sale. It held as follows:\n“According to section 111 of the [State Property Regulations of 1975 („Наредба за държавните имоти“ – see paragraphs 33‑36 below)], the sale of State-entity‑owned [„ведомствени“] housing units is effected by the municipal councils under the conditions laid down in section 111(4) of the [Regulations], that is, pursuant to a proposal by the respective State entity, indicating the buyer. In such case, under section 120 of the [Regulations], the municipal council effects the sale on the basis of an order issued by it.\nThe text of section 120 of the [Regulations] is categorical on the point that, provided all conditions for execution of the transaction have been met, the municipal council has no discretion whether or not to do so, but must issue the respective order. Such an order undoubt", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2035", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and resides in the town of Novogrodovka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n6.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskaya Mining Company No. 1/3 – a State-owned enterprise – to recover salary arrears and compensation for damage to his health.\n7.  On 28 March 2002 the Novogrodovskiy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Решения Новогродовского городского суда Донецкой области) and awarded him UAH 4,133.81[1]. This judgment was sent for enforcement to the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service (Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы Новогродовского городского управления юстиции).\n8.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodovskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgment of 28 March 2002 in his favour. On 10 October 2002 the Town Court rejected the applicant’s claim, finding that no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs’ Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs’ Service had acted properly in enforcing the judgment of 28 March 2002. However, by a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs’ Service had been prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company. On 9 December 2002 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 3 October 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.\n9.  In June 2004 the applicant withdrew his writ of execution.\n10.  In August 2004 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2036", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Kyiv.\n6.  The applicant was an editor-in-chief of the Ukrainian daily newspaper Polityka. The periodical has ceased publication.\n7.  On 2 July 1997 the applicant published an article about Mr V. Durdynets, who at that time was the acting Prime Minister of Ukraine. The article was entitled “Durdintsovshchina” (the first article) and described the dismissal of Mr A. Stoginenko, the President of the Black Sea Shipping Company (Чорноморське морське пароплавство, hereinafter the “BSSC”), a State-owned enterprise. The applicant alleged that Mr Durdynets dismissed Mr Stoginenko because of his involvement in financing the Polityka. The relevant extracts from the article were as follows:\n“Who could imagine that a former Komsomol bureaucrat, police pen-pusher and near-political schemer would occupy today one of the highest posts in the Government? The press is what the sinister Premier hates the most, as he fears public opinion. He did not forget that in March this year our newspaper accused him of plotting against Prime Minister Lazarenko. And as soon as he got the chance, he triggered the punitive mechanisms to suppress the independent media. For instance, he accused Alekzandr Stroginenko, the President of the Black Sea Shipping Company, of financing Polityka. Stroginenko’s “error” was that he had concluded a contract with us to issue promotional materials for the BSSC. The newspaper spent tens of thousand dollars from its own pocket, but has not yet received full payment for the published materials.\nWithout waiting for the results of a ministerial inquiry, on Monday before last, the acting Prime Minister, in the absence of both the President, who was in New York, and the Prime Minister, who was hospitalised, summoned the Cabinet of Ministers and forced a decision to dismiss the president of the BSSC.”\n8.  On 16 July 1997 the applicant published an article entitled “Save the barbed wire, citizen Durdinets” (Экономьте колючую проволку, гражданин Дурдинец – the second article), where he stated that Mr Durdinets had personally instructed the General Prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against him. The relevant extracts from the article read as follows:\n“...As we have learned, immediately after the release of the article [Durdintsovshchina], Durdinets summoned the General Prosecutor, Grigory Vorsinov, to his office and, showing him the newspaper, demanded that criminal proceedings for defamation be instituted against the author... Any other person, who considers himself to be defamed or insulted, would go to a court of law to make his case publicly. But Durdinets has no regard for civil rights as he attempts to use his powers as a high ranking governmental official. So it is worth mentioning here the abuse of power, as neither I nor any of our readers can summon Vorsinov to his office, the less so to demand the institution of criminal proceedings against one’s opponent. The acting Prime Minister considers that he can give orders to the General Prosecutor (although the law provides for the independence of the latter), and he does so.”\n9.  On 5 November 1997 the applicant wrote an article under the headline “The Rogue and the General” (“Аферист и генерал” – the third article), which concerned the alleged relationship between General G., at that time the Chief of the Odessa Regional Police Department, and a certain Mr S., who was reported to have been involved in criminal activity. The applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2037", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Sofia. He had a previous criminal record, had been convicted for theft in 1975, 1978, 1982 and 1987 and had served out the respective sentences.\n8.  On 5 July 1993 the applicant was arrested. On the next day, 6 July 1993, he was charged with two robberies of items worth approximately 47,000 old Bulgarian levs [BGL: approximately 2,974 German marks (DEM) at the relevant time]. Two other persons were also arrested and charged as his accomplices.\n9.  Between 6 July and 28 December 1993 the investigator in charge of the preliminary investigation conducted sixteen questionings of witnesses and two confrontations between witnesses whose testimonies were contradictory. On 27 July 1993 an analysis of the applicant’s handwriting was conducted. On 2 August 1993 a psychiatric evaluation of one of the alleged accomplices was performed. On 12 August 1993 a valuator’s expert opinion was requested, which was received on 6 September 1993. The applicant was questioned on 6 and 8 July 1993 and then again on 22 October 1993 when he gave detailed testimony and confessed to the two robberies.\n10.  On 8 December 1993 the applicant was released on bail.\n11.  On 4 and 5 January 1994 the applicant was questioned, the charges against him and his alleged accomplices were amended and the results of the preliminary investigation were presented to them. The case file was then transferred to the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office.\n12.  On 8 March 1994 the applicant was apprehended at the scene of another robbery and was arrested. On the same day, a preliminary investigation into this robbery was opened against the applicant and two other persons.\n13.  On 9 March 1994 the applicant was charged with the robbery of the previous day in respect of items valued at BGL 23,400 (approximately DEM 944 at the relevant time). The applicant was questioned and denied any involvement in the robbery. When questioned, the applicant’s alleged accomplices confessed to the robbery.\n14.  Between 8 and 18 March 1994 an examination of the crime scene was performed, various items were seized, each suspect was questioned twice and four witnesses were interrogated.\n15.  On 25 and 29 March 1994 the results of the preliminary investigation were presented to the applicant and his alleged accomplices. The case file was then transferred to the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office.\n16.  On 13 May 1994 the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office joined the two preliminary investigations against the applicant and his alleged accomplices. The case was then remitted to the investigation stage.\n17.  On 29 July 1994 the results of the preliminary investigation were presented to the applicant and his alleged accomplices. The case file was then transferred to the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office.\n18.  Between 31 August 1994 and 28 February 1996 Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office remitted the case to the investigation stage on five separate occasions due to various deficiencies in the preliminary investigation and for non-compliance with its instructions. On several occasions during this period the applicant and his alleged accomplices were questioned and the charges against them were amended.\n19.  On 23 September 1996 the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office filed an indictment against the applicant and his two accomplices for the continuing criminal offence of robbery, stemming from the three robberies, in respect of items valued at BGL 228,015 (approximately DEM 1,477 at the relevant tim", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2038", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1944 and 1951 respectively and live in Antalya.\n6.  On 10 December 1997 the General Directorate of National Airports expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriation took place.\n7.  On 30 December 1997 the applicants filed an action with the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance requesting additional compensation. On 20 April 1998 the First-instance court awarded them additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate.\n8.  On 21 February 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Antalya Civil Court of First-instance, finding that the amount awarded was too high.\n9.  On 22 December 2000 the Antalya Civil Court awarded the applicants additional compensation of 8,185,550,750 Turkish Liras (TRL) (approximately 5,100 euros (EUR)) plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision, running from 19 December 1997, the date on which the title deed to the land had been transferred. The judgment of the court became final on 18 January 2001.\n10.  On 12 January 2001 the authorities paid the applicants the sum of TRL 21,896,872,000 (approximately EUR 13,700), including interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2039", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 29 December 1999 the applicant's apartment was searched by the police with the apparent approval of the Prosecutor's Office. It was apparently conducted following the receipt of information received as a result of the arrest of several drug addicts earlier in the day. The applicant claimed, which the Government did not challenge, that the search was conducted in the absence of the applicant or an adult representative of the household and only in the presence of two witnesses, neither of them being the residence's manager or a representative of the municipality. Various items were seized, including an unspecified quantity of drugs and three stolen automobile registration documents.\n8.  Following the search of the applicant's apartment on 29 December 1999, the police arrested him and took him into custody for twenty-four hours.\n9.  On 30 December 1999 the applicant was charged with possession of drugs with intent to supply. He was remanded in custody upon a decision of an investigator which was apparently confirmed by the Prosecutor's Office later in the day. In ordering the remand in custody, the investigator found that the applicant might abscond or re-offend considering the fact that he had a previous conviction for drug related offences and had another three preliminary investigations opened against him.\n10.  The applicant appealed against his detention on the same day, 30 December 1999. He argued that that there was insufficient evidence against him and that there was no danger that he might abscond or re-offend. He claimed that he was a drug addict, that he required medical treatment for his addiction, that the drugs found in his apartment were for personal consumption, that he had a permanent address and that he had to care for his disabled mother. The appeal was sent by registered post both to the Pazardzhik Regional Court and the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service. It is unclear when they received it.\n11.  On 1 January 2000 amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force in respect of the legal regime of detention and its justification.\n12.  On 4 January 2000 the applicant's lawyer requested in writing from the Pazardzhik police copies of the orders for the search of his client's home and for his arrest. In a response of 24 February 2000 the police refused to provide him with copies of the documents arguing that the applicant had received copies of the same at the time of the search and arrest.\n13.  In connection with the processing of the applicant's appeal of 30 December 1999, the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service forwarded the applicant's case file to the Pazardzhik Regional Court on 5 January 2000.\n14.  On 7 January 2000 the Pazardzhik Regional Court examined the applicant's appeal of 30 December 1999 and dismissed it. It found that the applicant's claim that he required medical supervision and treatment was unsubstantiated. It further considered that based on the evidence before it there was sufficient evidence that he may have committed the offence with which he had been charged and, taking into account his previous conviction and the existence of another three preliminary investigations against him, that he might abscond or re-offend. The applicant appealed against the decision on an unspecified date.\n15.  On 13 January 2000 the Plovdiv Court of Appeals examined the applicant's appeal. In addition to the arguments presented before the Pazardzhik Regional Court the applicant also claime", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2041", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1927 and 1938 respectively and live in Wrocław, Poland.\n5.  On 22 June 1992 the applicants sued the “Wrocławskie Przedsiębiorstwo Robót Inżynieryjnych Budownictwa Przemysłowego nr 2” (“the defendant company”) before the Wrocław Regional Court, seeking remuneration for the defendant company’s use of an industrial invention of which they were the authors.\n6.  The Regional Court held 3 hearings on the following dates: 21 December 1992; 1 February and 2 April 1993.\n7.  The Wrocław Regional Court held 11 hearings on the following dates: 3 November and 22 December 1993; 29 January 1994; 20 February, 27 July and 23 November 1995; 30 January, 27 February, 10 July and 11 September 1997, and 21 December 1998.\n8.  In the course of the proceedings the Regional Court obtained five expert reports. It appears that two other experts (K.N. and R.B.) returned the case file after 5 months without having prepared a report as ordered by the court.\n9.  The applicant repeatedly complained to the President of the Regional Court and the Wrocław Court of Appeal about delays in the proceedings. On 6 February 1998 the President of the Regional Court and on 27 October 1998 the President of the Court of Appeal acknowledged that there had been delays.\n10.  On 30 June 1998 the applicants and the defendant company concluded an out-of-court settlement in respect of a minor part of the applicants’ claims.\n11.  On 21 December 1998 the Regional Court gave judgment. It dismissed the applicants’ claims and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the claims which had been the subject of the settlement. The applicants appealed against that judgment.\n12.  On 9 April 1999 the Wrocław Court of Appeal held a hearing. On the same day it quashed the judgment of the Regional Court and remitted the case.\n13.  The Regional Court held 6 hearings on the following dates: 22 September, 13 October and 9 November 1999; 7 and 22 April and 1 December 2000. It obtained 3 additional expert reports.\n14.  On 15 December 2000 the Regional Court gave judgment. It allowed the applicants’ claims in part. The defendant company appealed against that judgment. However, on 25 June 2001 it withdrew its appeal. Consequently, on 27 June 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal discontinued the appeal proceedings.\n15.  On 12 July 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal issued an enforcement order in favour of the applicants in respect of the judgment of the Regional Court of 15 December 2000.\n16.  On 22 November 2001 the defendant was declared insolvent.\n17.  On 10 November 2004 the applicants sued the State Treasury before the Wrocław Regional Court, seeking compensation for the excessive length of the proceedings referred to above.\n18.  On 10 February 2005 the first applicant (Mr Daniel Nowak) withdrew his claim. Consequently, on 28 February 2005 the Regional Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the first applicant.\n19.  On 29 September 2005 the Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the second applicant’s claim. It found that he had failed to establish the State Treasury’s liability for damage caused by the excessive length of the proceedings. The second applicant (Mr Bogusław Zajączkowski) appealed. The appeal proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2042", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Poznań, Poland.\n5.  W.M., the applicant’s father died intestate in 1988. In November 1990, P.M., the applicant’s mother, requested the Poznań District Court to declare that she and her three children, including the applicant, were entitled to inherit from W.M.\n6.  In the course of those proceedings, the applicant’s mother, who had made three different wills, died in 1992. Consequently, on 9 March 1992 the applicant requested to join the case concerning the persons entitled to inherit from his mother to the original proceedings.\n7.  The District Court held 6 hearings in 1992.\n8.  The District Court held 4 hearings on the following dates: 27 September 1993; 4 August and 28 October 1994; and 2 October 1995.\n9.  On 11 February 1994 the court ordered that evidence from an expert be obtained. The expert report was served on the parties on 18 March 1994. On 28 October 1994 the court ordered that evidence from a handwriting expert be obtained. The expert report was submitted to the court on 7 June 1995.\n10.  On 16 October 1995 the Poznań District Court gave its decision (postanowienie). It ruled that the estate of W.M. should pass, according to the relevant statute, to the applicant’s mother, the applicant, his sister (B.K.) and W.M.’s granddaughter. In respect of the persons entitled to inherit from the applicant’s mother, the District Court held that her entire estate should pass to the applicant’s sister on the basis of the will made in 1990. The applicant appealed against the District Court’s decision.\n11.  On 27 February 1996 the Poznań Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision on the persons entitled to inherit from the applicant’s mother and accordingly, remitted the case in part. It found that the first-instance proceedings in that respect had been null and void on the ground that M.M. (the applicant’s daughter), who had a legal interest in the case, had not been summoned to participate in the proceedings. The Regional Court upheld the remainder of the first-instance decision.\n12.  In the subsequent proceedings the District Court held 8 hearings on the following dates: 7 January, 26 September and 28 November 1997; 12 May, 21 August and 22 December 1998; and 8 and 22 February 1999.\n13.  On 18 March 1999 the Poznań District Court ruled that B.K. (the applicant’s sister) was the only person entitled to inherit from the applicant’s mother in accordance with the 1990 will. The applicant appealed against the District Court’s decision.\n14.  The Poznań Regional Court held a hearing on 9 November 1999. On 26 November 1999 it quashed the decision and remitted the case.\n15.  On 2 January 2001 the Poznan District Court held the first and the only hearing. On the same day it held in a decision that the only person entitled to inherit from P.M., the applicant’s mother, was M.M. (the applicant’s daughter) in accordance with the will made in 1988. It appears that none of the parties appealed against that decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2043", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Piaseczno, Poland.\n5.  In 1982 the applicant divorced. On 17 March 1983 she initiated before the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) civil proceedings concerning the division of matrimonial property. The estate consisted of a semi‑detached house.\n6.  Afterwards, until February 1991, the court held thirteen hearings.\n7.  Between 18 January 1995 and 7 November 1997 six hearings were held. Subsequently, the District Court ordered that an expert opinion be prepared.\n8.  On 22 April 1998 the court held a hearing and on 5 June 1998 it gave a partial decision.\n9.  On 23 September 1998 and 8 July 1999 the District Court held hearings and decided that another expert opinion should be prepared.\n10.  On 30 January 2001 the court held a hearing.\n11.  On 4 June 2001 the Warsaw District Court gave a decision in which it divided the property in question. The applicant submitted that the judgment became final on 25 June 2001. According to the Government’s submission a party had lodged an appeal which was subsequently withdrawn. On 11 September 2001 the appellate proceedings were finally discontinued.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2044", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Trnava.\n5.  The applicant is the defendant in civil proceedings concerning the dissolution of co-ownership of a real estate. The proceedings were instituted before the Trnava District Court on 27 March 1991.\n6.  In the course of 1991 four hearings were scheduled in the case.\n7.  On 14 February 1992 an expert opinion was submitted and on 4 March 1992 the District Court asked a different expert to submit an opinion. On 10 November 1993 a third expert was asked to submit an opinion.\n8.  Between 17 December 1992 and 11 March 1993 the Bratislava Regional Court dealt with the applicant’s appeal against the decision on an advance on experts’ costs.\n9.  The third expert’s opinion was served on the parties on 15 February 1993.\n10.  Three hearings were held between March and July 1993. During the same period the second expert was asked for an opinion. It was submitted on 31 May 1993. On 30 March 1993 the applicant appealed against the decision on experts’ fees.\n11.  On 5 August 1993 the second and third experts were heard.\n12.  A hearing was held on 11 October 1993.\n13.  On 13 October 1993 the District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay fees.\n14.  On 18 March 1994 the third expert submitted a further opinion at the District Court’s request of 16 December 1993.\n15.  Two hearings were held in May 1994.\n16.  On 22 July 1994 an administrative authority submitted its opinion on possible distribution of the real estate.\n17.  The District Court heard the parties on 17 October 1994. On 17 November 1994 it delivered a judgment by which it dissolved the joint ownership of the estate and distributed it between the owners.\n18.  On 20 April 1995 the appellate court quashed the judgment following the applicant’s appeal.\n19.  Hearings before the District Court were scheduled for 18 October 1995 and 20 November 1995. The applicant and the expert did not appear at the former hearing. Another hearing was held on 13 December 1995.\n20.  On 12 February 1996 the file was submitted to the Regional Court as the applicant had challenged the Trnava District Court judge dealing with the case.\n21.  The file was returned to the District Court on 4 March 1996 after the Regional Court had decided that the judge was not biased.\n22.  On 12 June 1996 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for exemption from the obligation to pay the court fees. On 31 October 1996 the Regional Court overturned this decision.\n23.  On 4 April 1997 an inspection of the property in question took place in the presence of the parties.\n24.  On 17 June 1997 the District Court heard the parties. It decided to re‑visit the site in the presence of the expert, the representative of the competent authority and the parties.\n25.  On 25 September 1997 the judge and the parties re-visited the site.\n26.  On 30 September 1997 the District Court heard the plaintiff. It issued an interim measure prohibiting the plaintiff from re-constructing the property. On 29 May 1998 the Regional Court modified this decision.\n27.  On 22 September 1998 the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of proceedings in which the marital property of the plaintiffs was to be distributed. On 26 February 1999 the Regional Court upheld this decision.\n28.  The marital property of the plaintiffs was distributed by a judgment of 2 July 1999 which became final on 8 March 2001. According to the judgment, each of the plaintiffs owned one half of the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2046", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Sopot, Poland.\n5.  On 15 March 1994 the applicant filed a petition for divorce with the Gdańsk Regional Court. She also sought an interim maintenance award.\n6.  The applicant’s husband failed to appear at a reconciliation meeting on 14 April 1994. The subsequent reconciliation meeting held on 16 May 1994 failed. On that date the applicant’s husband requested the Gdańsk Regional Court that the case be transmitted to the Elbląg Regional Court due to his change of domicile. That request was dismissed on 26 May 1994. The appeal lodged by the applicant’s husband was rejected.\n7.  On 21 September 1994 and on 28 February 1995 the applicant sought an increase of her interim maintenance award. She also requested the court to determine the way in which the spouses would occupy the matrimonial home.\n8.  On 13 June 1995 the Regional Court ordered the defendant to pay PLN 500 per month to the applicant by way of interim maintenance. It also determined the issue of the spouses’ occupation of the matrimonial home. Both parties appealed against that decision. On 31 October 1995 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the contested decision.\n9.  On 5 October 1995 the applicant requested the Elbląg Regional Court to draw up an inventory of the assets located in the matrimonial home. On 13 October 1995 the Elbląg Regional Court transmitted that request to the Gdańsk Regional Court. On 19 April 1996 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed that decision. On 1 July 1996 the Elbląg Regional Court again transmitted the case to the Gdańsk Regional Court, finding that the latter court was competent in the matter of drawing up an inventory.\n10.  On 30 August 1996 the applicant increased her maintenance claims. She also informed the court that the defendant had continuously failed to comply with the interim maintenance order of 13 June 1995 and had prevented the applicant from occupying the matrimonial home as determined by the court in the same decision.\n11.  On an unspecified date in August or September 1996 the applicant’s husband filed an application for an interim maintenance order against the applicant.\n12.  On 16 December 1996 the Elbląg District Court convicted the applicant’s husband of having prevented the applicant from entering their matrimonial home and fined him PLN 200. On 23 April 1997 the Elbląg Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment.\n13.  On 17 October and 6 December 1996 the applicant’s husband requested the court to hear evidence from new witnesses, including some who lived in Germany. On 27 March 1997 the President of the Regional Court requested that two witnesses who lived in Germany be heard by the court in Mannheim pursuant to the relevant agreement on legal co‑operation between Germany and Poland.\n14.  On 8 September 1997 the defendant requested that the judge who was hearing the case should withdraw from it. On 11 September 1997 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed his request. That decision was upheld on appeal on 30 March 1998.\n15.  In the meantime a new judge was assigned to hear the case.\n16.  On 3 December 1997 the Regional Court dismissed the defendant’s application for an interim maintenance award. That decision was upheld on appeal on 30 March 1998.\n17.  On 18 November 1998 the court heard evidence from the applicant and her husband.\n18.  The Regional Court held 20 hearings on the following dates: 26 October 1994; 6 January, 1 March, 26 April and 31 May 1995; 14 February, 6 March, 4 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2047", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1931, 1948, 1954 and 1944 respectively and live in Tirana (Albania) and Varese (Italy).\n5.  The applicants’ father owned a villa with a surface area of 42.70 sq. m and two adjacent plots of land measuring approximately 46.70 sq. m and 48.55 sq. m respectively. From 1946 to 1978 the applicants’ father rented the villa to B.N.’s father.\n6.  On an unspecified date, as the villa was uninhabitable, the State granted the applicants’ father a compulsory loan of 16,204 leks (ALL) for renovation of the villa.\n7.  In 1976 B.N. constructed two additional buildings on the plot of land measuring 48.55 sq. m. By a decision of 23 February 1976 the Tirana District Court allocated the additional buildings to B. N.\n8.  As a result of the applicants’ father’s failure to repay the debt, the villa was nationalised by virtue of decision no. 133 of 14 July 1978. From 1978 onwards B.N.’s family continued to live in the villa as tenants of a State-owned property.\n9.  In 1996, pursuant to the Property Restitution and Compensation Act (“the Property Act”), the applicants lodged a claim with the Tirana Commission on Property Restitution and Compensation (Komisioni I Kthimit dhe Kompensimit te Pronave).\n10.  On 22 May 1996 the Tirana Commission, holding that the nationalisation of the applicants’ father’s villa had been illegal, awarded the applicants the villa (with a surface area of 42.70 sq. m) and the plot of land measuring 46.70 sq. m, subject to the repayment of ALL 1,204 (representing the outstanding amount of their father’s unpaid debt to the State which had led to the nationalisation of the properties). With regard to the plot of land measuring 48.55 sq. m, in view of B.N.’s investment in the additional building, the Commission upheld his right of first refusal on the purchase of the land.\n11.  On an unspecified date in 1997, B.N., the tenant of the villa which had been allotted to the applicants, brought a civil action before the Tirana District Court, claiming property rights over the villa and the adjacent plot of land. Moreover, he alleged that the Commission’s decision of 22 May 1996 should be declared null and void, in so far as it was in breach of section 13 of the Property Act.\n12.  On 15 July 1997 the Tirana District Court declared the Commission’s decision of 22 May 1996 null and void. It found that according to an expert report, the outlays by the State and B.N.’s father on structural changes and annexes to the original building amounted to more than 85% of the property’s original value. The Commission’s decision was therefore held to have been in breach of section 13 of the Property Act.\n13.  On 7 November 1997 the Tirana Court of Appeal, having examined an appeal by the applicants alleging a violation of their property rights, upheld the District Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal.\n14.  The applicants appealed to the Civil Division of the Supreme Court, which on 6 May 1998 quashed the decisions of the above courts. It held that the decisions had been based on an expert report which was illogical and contained incorrect calculations and accordingly sent the case back for rehearing.\n15.  On 11 April 2001 the Tirana Court of Appeal, rehearing the case, declared the Commission’s decision null and void. Relying on a new expert report, it held that the nationalisation of the applicants’ father’s villa had been in accordance with substantive law requirements at the material time and that, consequently, the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2048", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 30 December 1997 the applicant’s wife stopped living with the applicant. She moved to her parents’ house together with her and the applicant’s son who was born on 4 July 1995.\n6.  On 20 March 1998 the applicant sought the determination of his right to meet his son. His wife counter-claimed that the applicant should be prohibited from meeting the boy.\n7.  On 8 June 1998 the applicant requested the Bratislava III District Court to issue an injunction granting him the right to meet his son every weekend.  On 7 July 1998 the District Court dismissed that request. On 29 October 1998 the court of appeal upheld that decision. It noted that the request was premature as no decision had yet been given as regards the custody of the child.\n8.  On 29 June 1999 the Bratislava III District Court granted a divorce to the applicant and his wife. The latter was given custody of their son and the applicant was obliged to contribute to his maintenance.\n9.  On 28 July 1999 the applicant, with reference to the above judgment, informed the District Court that he wished to withdraw his action. His former wife withdrew her counter-claim. The Bratislava III District Court therefore discontinued the proceedings on 21 October 1999.\n10.  In an action filed on 18 January 2000 before the Bratislava III District Court the applicant claimed the right to meet his son.\n11.  A hearing was held on 4 May 2000. On 24 May 2000 the child’s mother counter-claimed that the applicant should be prohibited from meeting their son on the ground that the applicant drank and had behaved in an aggressive manner. At a hearing held on 15 June 2000 the District Court decided to examine jointly the claims of both parents.\n12.  On 13 July 2000 neither the child’s mother nor her lawyer appeared before the District Court. The mother did not appear on 17 August 2000 either, and the District Court imposed a procedural fine on her. On 11 September 2000 the police informed the court that they had been unable to serve a document on the applicant’s former wife in person.\n13.  A hearing was held on 5 October 2000.\n14.  On 16 October 2000 the Bratislava III District Court appointed an expert and instructed her to submit an opinion.\n15.  On 3 November 2000 the court requested the applicant to pay an advance on the expert’s fee. The applicant paid the sum on 21 June 2001.\n16.  On 6 April 2001 the expert asked to be excused from the case as she was ill.\n17.  On 17 April 2001 the District Court excused the expert. At the same time it appointed a different expert and instructed her to submit an opinion within thirty days.\n18.  On 2 July 2001 the new expert asked to be excused as she could not assess the case in an impartial manner.\n19.  On 1 August 2001 another person was instructed to submit an expert opinion. On 12 September 2001 that person informed the court that he no longer worked as a court expert. According to a note of 16 October 2001 drafted by the judge dealing with the case, the person in question was still registered as an expert.\n20.  On 24 September 2001, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, the president of the Bratislava Regional Court admitted that there had been undue delay in the proceedings between November 2000 and the beginning of April 2001. Otherwise, the judge had dealt with the case in an orderly manner, holding hearings at regular intervals.\n21.  On 12 November 2001 a fourth expert was appointed. On 22 March 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2049", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is currently serving a prison sentence.\n5.  On 7 May 2003 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody by an investigating judge of the Novi Sad District Court on suspicion of fraud and murder.\n6.  On 4 November 2003 the district public prosecutor’s office in Novi Sad issued an indictment against the applicant on charges of fraud and incitement to commit murder.\n7.  On 2 April 2004 the three-judge panel of the Novi Sad District Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand for another two months. In its reasoning, justifying this decision, the panel relied on the applicant’s prior convictions as well as his persistent anti-social behaviour. In addition, the panel expressly stated that the applicant had “committed the criminal offences which are the subject of this prosecution” (“počinio kriv. dela koja su predmet ove optužbe”) and concluded that the applicant, if released, would be likely to commit further offences.\n8.  On 16 April 2004 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Serbia, requesting that his detention be terminated or, alternatively, that the remand decision be quashed and the case remitted to the Novi Sad District Court for reconsideration. He argued, inter alia, that, since the impugned decision had prejudged the outcome of the pending criminal case, it had blatantly breached his fundamental right to be presumed innocent as “guaranteed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and, indeed, Article 6 § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”.\n9.  On 22 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Serbia dismissed the appeal, focusing exclusively on the applicant’s prior criminal convictions and the alleged danger that he would commit further offences if released. It did not refer to the applicant’s submission concerning the presumption of innocence.\n10.  On 27 May 2004 the Novi Sad District Court found the applicant guilty of incitement to murder and sentenced him to eight years in prison.\n11.  On 23 September 2004 the Supreme Court of Serbia upheld the judgment of the Novi Sad District Court. As stated by the applicant in a separate case currently pending before this Court (no. 31617/05), his lawyer received that decision on 7 March 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2051", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1977 respectively and were serving their prison sentences in Ordu prison at the time of their applications to the Court.\n9.  On 11 November 1998 the applicants were arrested and taken into custody by police officers at the Anti-terror branch of the Sivas Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the TDP[1].\n10.  On 18 November 1998 they were brought before a judge who ordered their remand in custody.\n11.  On 31 December 1998 the public prosecutor at the Erzurum State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter charging the applicants under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation.\n12.  The first hearing, held before the Erzurum State Security Court on 12 January 1999, in the applicants’ absence, was taken up with procedural matters, such as the measures to be taken for securing the presence of the accused.\n13.  On 5 February 1999 the court heard the applicants. The first applicant stated that he accepted in part the accusations against him. In this respect he maintained, inter alia, that he had wanted to join the armed forces of the TDP and that he was apprehended, together with the co‑accused, on his way to the rural area. The second applicant also stated, inter alia, that he was apprehended, together with the co‑accused, before he had joined the rural cadre of the organisation. He maintained that he was a sympathiser of the organisation and not a member. Both applicants also repudiated the statements they had given to the police, claiming that they had been made under duress.\n14.  In the next hearing held on 2 March 1999 the applicants stated that they had nothing to say. On 23 March 1999 the court heard a witness and one of the co‑accused. The witness stated that he knew only one of the accused and that he had loaned his car to him. The applicants maintained that, in view of the judgment of the European Court on Human Rights concerning State Security Courts, they were boycotting the court and were not going to give any statements.\n15.  In the next hearing held on 20 April 1999, the first applicant submitted that he was neither a member nor a participant in any activity of the organisation in question and that he had been apprehended prior to attending a meeting with members of the organisation.\n16.  In the hearings held on 18 May 1999 and 15 June 1999 the second applicant stated that he had nothing to say. The first applicant requested the rectification of some of his words contained in the previous minutes of the hearings.\n17.  In a hearing held on 13 July 1999 the civilian judge who had been appointed to replace the military judge sat as a member of the trial court for the first time. At this hearing and the next one held on 10 August 1999, the court took some procedural decisions and heard several of the co-accused, including the second applicant who maintained that he had nothing to say.\n18.  In a hearing held on 8 September 1999 the applicants submitted their written submissions in which they challenged, in particular, the veracity of their statements given in police custody.\n19.  On 5 October 1999 before the court two persons filed petitions to intervene as third-parties in the proceedings. The applicants reiterated their previous submissions.\n20.  At a hearing held on 12 October 1999 the court accepted the request for the third-party intervention of two persons. On the same day, the public pros", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2052", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Turkey.\n5.  On 16 July 1993 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership in an illegal organisation, the TDP (Revolutionary Party of Turkey) and of possessing a false identity card. He was held in police custody until 30 July 1993.\n6.  On 30 July 1993 he was brought before a judge who ordered his detention on remand. He asserted that he had not signed any statement and claimed that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody.\n7.  On 15 September 1993 the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter charging the applicant under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation.\n8.  On 25 January 2000 the applicant was released from detention.\n9.  Between 16 July 1993 and 25 January 2000 the Istanbul State Security Court held thirty-six hearings. The applicant requested to be released pending trial several times before the trial court. The Istanbul State Security Court dismissed his request on all occasions, having regard to the state of the evidence, until 25 January 2000.\n10.  On 26 March 1996 the Istanbul State Security Court requested the Forensic Medical Institute to carry out an analysis as to whether the documents, which were submitted as written evidence, were drafted by the applicant and another co-accused, namely M.A.A..\n11.  Until 17 February 2004 the trial court postponed the hearings in order to wait for the Forensic Medical Institute’s report on the issue and to be informed about the prison that M.A.A had been detained.\n12.  On 17 February 2004 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time-limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2053", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The General Directorate of the National Water Board expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicants, for the construction of a dam.\n5.  On 6 October 1998, following the first applicant’s request for increased compensation for the plot no. 484, the Baskil Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded him 14,241,020,000 Turkish liras (TRL) of additional compensation, plus an interest at the statutory rate, as of 22 June 1998.\n6.  On 4 March 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court. On 9 February 2002 and 1 May 2003 TRL 25,281,500 and TRL 901,930 were paid to the applicant respectively.\n7.  On 14 February 2000 the second applicant filed a similar request with the Baskil Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, regarding the plot no. 311.\n8.  On 29 November 2000 the court accepted the applicant’s request for increased compensation and awarded her TRL 46,396,000,000 of additional compensation, plus an interest at the statutory rate, as of 14 February 2000. On 14 February 2000 and 5 April 2001, TRL 172,512,450,000 and TRL 3,976,900,000 were paid to the applicant respectively.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2054", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and resides in the village of Liski, Volyn region, Ukraine.\n6.  In 1993-1994 the applicant worked as a director of a café in the town of Volodymyr-Volynskyy, Volyn region, Ukraine.\n7.  On 14 February 1995 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for plundering State property (Article 84 § 1 of the Criminal Code).\n8.  On 6 June 1995 the applicant was charged with plundering State property in particularly large quantities (Article 86 § 1 of the Criminal Code). The same day she was arrested.\n9.  On 9 June 1995 the applicant was released on bail subject to an undertaking not to abscond (підписка про невиїзд).\n10.  On 26 December 1997 the criminal case was terminated for want of proof of a crime.\n11.  On 13 July 1999 the Prosecutor of Volodymyr-Volynskyy District quashed the decision of 26 December 1997 and sent the case for further investigation.\n12.  By a decision of 5 October 1999, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated partly for want of proof of a crime and partly on the ground that the further prosecution in her case was time-barred. The investigator did not find it proven that the applicant had been involved in plundering, but considered that her actions could be classified as negligence, which was an offence under Article 167 of the Criminal Code in the wording which was in force at the relevant time (see paragraph 27). However, given that the statutory time-limit for prosecuting the applicant for negligence had passed, the criminal case in respect of that charge had to be discontinued as time-barred.\n13.  On 22 October 1999 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor of Volodymyr-Volynskyy District about the decision of 5 October 1999. This complaint was rejected. The applicant appealed to the court.\n14.  On 22 December 1999 the Volodymyr-Volynskyy District Court allowed the applicant’s appeal and quashed the decision of 5 October 1999. The court noted that a criminal case could be terminated on non-exonerative grounds, like a time-bar on further prosecution, only with the consent of the prosecuted person. As the applicant had never agreed to the termination of the case on this ground the investigation should be continued.\n15.  On 29 February 2000, the investigator terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the same grounds as previously.\n16.  On 3 November 2000, the same court, upon the applicant’s appeal, quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n17.  On 4 December 2000 the criminal case against the applicant was terminated for want of proof of a crime. At the same time, in his decree terminating the criminal proceedings against the applicant, the investigator mentioned that the courts had quashed the previous decisions on termination of the criminal case on non-exonerative grounds, because the applicant had not agreed. In the investigator’s opinion the applicant’s consent was not necessary, because even though her conduct could be qualified as a crime of negligence, no criminal proceedings could be instituted, as prosecution was time-barred and she could not be considered as an accused in this respect. The investigator, therefore, decided that:\n“In the actions of Ms Mariya Mykhaylivna Grabchuk there are corpus delicti (є склад злочину), provided for in Article 167 of the CCU [the Criminal Code of Ukraine], that is negligence, of which she herself confessed to be guilty. Nevertheless, taking into account that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2055", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and now lives in the Moscow Region.\n5.  In 1987 the applicant’s employer, the State-owned construction and industrial holding “Mosenergostroy”, seconded him for participation in the clean-up works at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a consequence of exposure to radioactive emissions, on 15 September 1989 the applicant was assigned to the second disability category.\n6.  Until March 1996 the applicant’s former employer had paid him monthly compensation for health damage. In November 1994 the holding was privatised and re-organised into a public company OAO “SPK Mosenergostroy”.\n7.  Between 2 March 1996 and 1 February 2002 the compensation was paid by the Stupino Department of the Pension Fund (now renamed as Department no. 25 of the Pension Fund, hereinafter “the Stupino Pensions Department”).\n8.  Since 1 February 2002 the compensation has been paid by the Social Security Committee of the Stupino District Council in the Moscow Region.\n9.  In 1997 the applicant brought a civil action against his former employer, “Mosenergostroy”, claiming that the amount of the compensation paid had been incorrectly calculated in the period from 1989 to 2 March 1996.\n10.  On 15 April 1997 the Korenovskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region granted his claim in part.\n11.  On 7 July 1997 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment of 15 April 1997 and remitted the matter for a new examination on the ground that the obligation to pay compensation for health damage had been transferred to the social security authorities.\n12.  On 8 September 1997 the Korenovskiy District Court joined the Stupino Pensions Department as a co-defendant to the proceedings.\n13.  On 18 December 1997 the Korenovskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region granted the applicant’s claims against his former employer and established that the applicant had been entitled to monthly payments of RUR 15,035. No award against the Stupino Pensions Department was made because the applicant apparently objected to its being joined as a co-defendant. By interim decision (opredelenie) of 9 December 2000, an arithmetical error in the judgment was corrected.\n14.  In 2002 the applicant asked the Korenovskiy District Court to supplement the operative part of the judgment of 18 December 1997 with a reference to the fact that from 2 March 1996 the Stupino Pensions Department should have been the legal successor to his former employer in respect of payment of compensation for the health damage. The Stupino Pensions Department objected to the applicant’s request, claiming that it had been lodged outside the time-limit and that its granting would determine a matter that fell outside the scope of the judgment of 18 December 1997, namely the issue of its succession to the obligations of the applicant’s former employer.\n15.  By judgment (reshenie) of 5 April 2002, the Korenovskiy District Court amended the judgment of 18 December 1997. It established that from 2 March 1996 the Stupino Pensions Department should have paid compensation to the applicant in lieu of his applicant’s former employer, in the same amount (RUR 15,035), with subsequent adjustment for increases in the minimum monthly wage. The judgment of 5 April 2002 was not appealed against.\n16.  It appears that the Stupino Pensions Department continued to underpay the applicant. He asked the Korenovskiy District Court to clarify the procedure for enforcement of the judgment of 5 April 2002 an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2056", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant, born in 1973, has been living in Austria since 1991 and had a residence and work permit until November 1997. On 27 August 1999 the Vienna Federal Police Authority (Bundespolizeidirektion) issued a five-year residence prohibition against her for illegal employment. The residence prohibition was lifted in 2004 (see below, C.).\n8.  On 20 December 1999 she married an Austrian citizen, Mr M.\n9.  On 8 June 2000 the first applicant gave birth to the second applicant in a hospital in Vienna.\n10.  On 9 June 2000 the Vienna Youth Welfare Office (Amt für Jugend und Familie) ordered that the second applicant should not accompany the first applicant upon her departure from hospital since her unclear personal and financial situation and lack of a residence permit would endanger the child’s welfare.\n11.  On 16 June 2000 the Youth Welfare Office, relying on Section 176a of the Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) requested the Vienna Juvenile Court (Jugendgerichtshof) that custody as regards the care and education of the second applicant be transferred to it. The Youth Welfare Office noted that the first applicant had, at first, incorrectly informed the hospital about her personal data, in particular on her name and residence. According to the Youth Welfare Office she had also expressed the wish to place the child with foster parents. One day after she had given birth, she had changed her mind and wanted to keep the child. Upon inquiries undertaken by the Youth Welfare Office, her real name, the periods of her lawful residence in Austria and her marriage to Mr M. had been discovered. Confronted with these facts, she had been very upset, had refused to give any further information and had insisted on keeping her child. Given her completely unclear situation, the means of existence of the second applicant were at risk and a transfer of custody to the Youth Welfare Office was necessary.\n12.  On the same day, the first applicant left the hospital. The second applicant was placed with foster parents.\n13.  On 11 August 2000 Mr M. instituted proceedings contesting paternity (Ehelichkeitsbestreitungsklage) of the second applicant.\n14.  On 3 December 2000 the Juvenile Court granted the Youth Welfare Office’s request of 16 June 2000.\n15.  It noted in its reasoning that, on 2 August 2000, the first applicant had appeared at the court of her own motion, had given her new address in the 20th District of Vienna and further information on her situation and had insisted to have her son back. She had alleged that she obtained financial support from her husband, although she was no longer living with him.\n16.  Relying on a report by the Youth Welfare Office of 1 September 2000, the court noted that the first applicant had not cooperated with that office. In particular, it had not been possible to arrange a visit at her husband’s address and she had not kept her appointments with the Youth Welfare Office. On 23 August 2000 the first applicant had contacted the Youth Welfare Office and had informed it about her address at the 20th District of Vienna, where she was allegedly supported by a Ms M. That Office’s subsequent visit at Ms M.’s apartment had shown that Ms M. was not prepared to further support the first applicant. Given that she was living with her three children in an apartment of 40 square meters, she could not accommodate the applicant and her son.\n17.  Relying further on a report by the Juvenile Court Assistance Office (Jug", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2057", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Geneva.\n5.  He is a journalist with the Swiss Radio and Television Company. At the material time he was responsible for the current affairs programme Temps présent (“Present tense”).\n6.  On 6 and 11 March 1997, as part of that programme, the Swiss Radio and Television Company broadcast on its channel for French-speaking Switzerland (TSR – Télévision suisse romande) a report by the applicant entitled “Switzerland’s lost honour”, concerning Switzerland’s position during the Second World War.\nThe report began by discussing the history of Switzerland during the Second World War, as supposedly experienced by the people at the time and taught for many years in schools. Switzerland had been portrayed as a brave country which, despite its neutrality, had been on the side of democracy and thus of the Allies. After this recounting of the “myth”, the journalist stated: “There has been a somewhat rude awakening.” The programme continued with severe criticism of Switzerland’s position by prominent figures and with contrasting opinions of Swiss citizens who had lived through the war. The journalist said that historians had made efforts to uncover a significant part of the truth. The programme then described the attitude of Switzerland and its leaders, emphasising their alleged affinity with the far right and their inclination towards rapprochement with Germany. This was followed by an analysis of the question of anti-Semitism in Switzerland and of the country’s economic relations with Germany, focusing on the laundering of Nazi money by Switzerland and on the role of Swiss banks and insurance companies in the matter of unclaimed Jewish assets.\n7.  The programme provoked objections from groups of citizens, who filed complaints under section 4 of the Federal Radio and Television Act (see paragraph 19 below) with the Independent Complaints Authority for Radio and Television (“the Complaints Authority”).\n8.  In the course of its investigation into the complaints, the Complaints Authority interviewed two historians. It subsequently upheld the complaints on 24 October 1997 and asked the Swiss Radio and Television Company to inform it, within ninety days of being notified of its decision, of the measures taken to redress the breach it had found, in accordance with section 67(2) of the Federal Radio and Television Act (see paragraph 20 below).\n9.  The Swiss Radio and Television Company appealed against the decision.\n10.  On 1 December 1998 the Federal Court allowed the appeal, holding that there had been a breach of the right to a hearing, quashed the decision appealed against and referred the case back to the Complaints Authority for a fresh decision.\n11.  On 27 August 1999 the Complaints Authority, after holding a hearing with the parties in private, again upheld the citizens’ complaints.\nIt observed that “where the events in issue are part of history, their presentation by journalists is bound to involve difficulties. Witnesses are increasingly rare. Certain aspects of the social context that might have explained the conduct of the time become blurred ...”\nThe Complaints Authority held that the programme had breached the broadcasting regulations deriving from section 4 of the Federal Radio and Television Act, by which current affairs programmes were bound by a duty to report objectively in such a way as to reflect the plurality and diversity of opinion. It pointed out that the second subsection of section 4 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2058", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Irkutsk.\n5.  On 6 August 1996 the applicant brought a civil action against Ms B. contesting the will of her late husband made in favour of Ms B. Ms B. counterclaimed, seeking to annul the applicant’s title in her late husband’s flat.\n6.  On 6 May 1998 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Irkutsk dismissed the applicant’s claim and found for Ms B. On 30 December 1998 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal.\n7.  Further to the applicant’s complaint to a prosecutor’s office, on 17 May 1999 the Presidium of the Irkutsk Regional Court quashed the judgments of 6 May and 30 December 1998 and remitted the case for a new examination.\n8.  On 23 December 1999 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Irkutsk granted the applicant’s claim in full. The other party did not lodge an appeal and the judgment became final on 5 January 2000.\n9.  On an unspecified date the president of the Irkutsk Regional Court lodged an application for supervisory review. On 1 August 2000 the applicant submitted her observations on the application.\n10.  On 7 August 2000 the Presidium of the Irkutsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 23 December 1999 and remitted the case for a new examination. It found that the first-instance court had failed to examine some of the applicant’s claims and had not elucidated discrepancies in witnesses’ testimony.\n11.  On 14 February 2001 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Irkutsk found for the applicant. It declared the will void and granted the applicant’s request for an extension of the time-limit for accepting the inheritance. Ms B.’s claim for declaring the applicant’s title void, was rejected.\n12.  On 22 June 2001 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal.\n13.  On an unspecified date, acting on a complaint by Ms B., the President of the Irkutsk Regional Court introduced a new application for supervisory review.\n14.  On 30 July 2001 the Presidium of the Irkutsk Regional Court granted the president’s application, quashed the judgments of 14 February and 22 June 2001 and remitted the case for a new examination. The ground for the quashing was the first-instance court’s failure to make good the procedural defects identified in the Presidium’s decision of 7 August 2000.\n15.  On 30 September 2002 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Irkutsk dismissed the applicant’s claims and found for Ms B. Assessing the evidence in the case, the District Court noted, in particular, that Ms L. Uglanova, resident in another city, had not appeared before the court but had submitted a written statement to that effect and explanations on the merits of the claim.\n16.  On 27 December 2002 the Irkutsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 30 September 2002 on procedural grounds and remitted the case for a new examination by the first-instance court.\n17.  On an unspecified date Ms B.’s representative lodged an application for supervisory review with the Irkutsk Regional Court.\n18.  On 7 April 2003 the Presidium of the Irkutsk Regional Court quashed the appeal judgment of 27 December 2002 and reinstated the first-instance judgment of 30 September 2002. It found that the first-instance court had implemented the previous decisions of the Presidium and correctly applied the civil- and family-law substantive provisions; in these circumstances, the appeal court had had no lawful grounds to quash its judgment.\n19.  On 1 September 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2059", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1932 and 1934 respectively and live in Malta.\n5.  The applicants claimed to be the owners of a building in Valletta, Malta. The Government contested this claim, stating that it appeared from the relevant records and from a letter written by the applicants themselves on 29 July 2005 that the premises had simply been acquired by the applicants’ late father, Mr Joseph Camilleri, under a public deed of 19 March 1943. The property had been transferred in perpetual emphyteusis (a contract granting a tenement for a stated yearly rent or ground rent to be paid in money or in kind) with effect from 1 March 1941. The deed in question included a clause stating as follows:\n“As the said house has been requisitioned by the government it is hereby agreed that the period of five (5) years mentioned in this condition (an obligation to carry out improvements) will run from the date on which the keys of the said house shall have been given back by the government to the said Joseph Camilleri.”\n6.  Having taken note of the disagreement between the parties on this point, the Court will nevertheless refer in the present judgment to the building in issue as “the applicants’ building” or “the applicants’ property”.\n7.  On 4 September 1941 the authorities requisitioned the applicants’ building. They allocated the property first to the Department of Education and then to the Ministry of Industry and Agriculture. The building was used as public offices.\n8.  According to the Emergency Compensation Board, the yearly rent due at the time of the requisitioning was 89 Maltese liras (MTL – approximately 213 euros (EUR)). In 1989 the Rent Regulation Board decided that it should be increased to MTL 340.53 (approximately EUR 817) per year. The applicants received this rent regularly and it was still being paid to them at the time the application was lodged (10 September 2005).\n9.  On 13 March 1997 the applicants brought constitutional proceedings before the First Hall of the Civil Court. They argued that the requisitioning and continued occupation of their building amounted to a de facto expropriation. Furthermore, they observed that, even assuming that the measure complained of could be considered to be aimed at controlling the use of property, the authorities should nevertheless have been subject to the ordinary laws governing landlords and tenants. However, when a forced tenancy was established with the authorities, the usual remedies available to ordinary landlords against tenants were excluded, and the landlord-tenant relationship could not be terminated under the usual conditions. Hence, for example, whereas a lease in favour of an individual or a family might terminate in the absence of descendants or relatives entitled to succeed, a government, while its composition might change, remained a government and hence a lessee in perpetuity. In view of the above, the applicants alleged a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.\n10.  In a judgment of 26 November 2003, the Civil Court rejected the applicants’ claim. It observed that, according to the case‑law of the European Court of Human Rights, a deprivation of property could be said to have occurred only where all the legal rights of the owner had been extinguished. In the present case, the applicants were still receiving the rent due and had not been deprived of their right of ownership. Therefore, the requisition of their bui", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2060", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Łódź, Poland.\n5.  In 1983 the Government decided to construct the Polish Mothers' Memorial Hospital (“the hospital”) in Łódź, the largest obstetric and paediatric hospital in the country. At the same time the Citizens' Council (“the Council”) of the hospital was established. It was responsible for fund-raising and oversight of the hospital's construction. The applicant served as a secretary general of the Council.\n6.  On 16 February 1991 the Łódź Regional Prosecutor charged the applicant and three other members of the Council with embezzlement of the hospital funds.\n7.  On 13 July 1992 the Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Łódź Regional Court against the applicant and three other co-accused.\n8.  On 12 November 1992 the Regional Court sent the case back to the prosecution service for additional investigation. The prosecution appealed unsuccessfully against that decision. On 31 December 1992 the Regional Prosecutor discontinued the investigation in respect of certain charges.\n9.  On 14 December 1993 an amended bill of indictment against the applicant and two other defendants was lodged with the Łódź Regional Court. The applicant was charged with embezzlement of funds allocated to the Council.\n10.  The Regional Court held 11 hearings on the following dates: 16 and 17 May, 4 and 5 October 1994; 4 and 17 January, 14 February, 20 March and 12, 26 and 27 April 1995. It heard an unspecified number of witnesses and experts. Seven hearings were adjourned, including two on account of the judge's illness and one at the prosecutor's request. Other hearings appear to have been adjourned due to the failure of certain witnesses to appear.\n11.  On 4 May 1995 the Regional Court acquitted the applicant. The prosecution appealed against that judgment on 22 August 1995.\n12.  A hearing before the Łódź Court of Appeal scheduled for 14 February 1996 was adjourned since one of the judges could not be present. On 15 March 1996 the Court of Appeal quashed the acquittal and remitted the case.\n13.  A hearing scheduled for 10 January 1997 had to be adjourned on account of the illness of H.A. (one of the defendants). On 14 March 1997 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings on that ground. On 13 August 1997 the proceedings were resumed, after the Regional Court had obtained additional medical reports concerning H.A.\n14.  A hearing before the Regional Court scheduled for 6 October 1997 had to be adjourned due to the illness of I.C., one of the defendants. On 18 November 1997 the Regional Court made a severance order in respect of the proceedings against I.C.\n15.  The Regional Court held three hearings on the following dates: 26 March, 25 May and 4 June 1998. Four hearings had to be adjourned due to the applicant's absence. Three of those related to the fact that the applicant had had a heart attack and had to be hospitalised. One hearing was adjourned since the judge was on leave.\n16.  On 27 November 1998 the Regional Prosecutor requested the trial court to discontinue the proceedings. The applicant's lawyer supported that request.\n17.  On 30 December 1998 the Regional Court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant, pursuant to Article 17 § 1 subparagraph 2 of the new Criminal Code, which entered into force on 1 September 1998. It held that the acts with which the applicant had been charged did not constitute an offence under the new Criminal Code.\n18.  The applicant did not appeal again", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2061", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  Between 1944 and 3 May 1961 the applicant was a member of the SIS. On 16 August 1944 he signed an undertaking (Official Secrets Act 1911 - “the 1911 Act”) which applied during and after his SIS service.\n7.  In or around 1951 the applicant became an agent for the Soviet Union when he disclosed secret information to the Soviet authorities. In 1960 he was arrested. In 1961 he pleaded guilty to five counts of unlawfully communicating information contrary to the 1911 Act and was sentenced to 42 years' imprisonment. In 1966 he escaped from prison. He made his way to Berlin and from there to Moscow where he lives to date.\n8.  In 1989 he wrote his autobiography entitled “No Other Choice” (“the Book”) which was described later by the High Court as “his apologia for the course his life has taken”. Substantial parts related to his activities, and were based on information acquired by him as an S.I.S. officer.\n9.  In May 1989 he signed a contract with a Publisher to publish the Book in the United Kingdom. He was paid at that stage an advance on royalties (33, 650 pounds sterling (GBP) net) and a further advance royalty payment (GBP 55,000) was due to him on publication. In September 1990 the Publisher announced the impending publication of the Book and it was published on 17 September 1990.\n10.  By letter of 14 September 1990 to the Publisher, the Treasury Solicitor stated that it would hold the Publisher liable for the applicant's breach of his duty of confidentiality. The Publisher denied the claims but confirmed that it would not make payments without notice to the Crown. The Treasury Solicitor's letter to the Publisher of 23 November 1990 considered the applicant liable for a breach of a fiduciary duty to the Crown: the Publisher rejected these claims.\nII. The High Court\n11.  The Attorney General (“AG”) issued a writ in the High Court on 24 May 1991 seeking from the applicant any financial benefit from publication (royalties already due from the Publisher and any future royalties) arguing that in writing and authorising the publication of the Book, he had acted in breach of the duty of confidence he owed to the Crown as a former member of the SIS. There was no reliance on the 1911 Act, the Official Secrets Act 1989 (“the 1989 Act”) or on the undertaking signed in 1944.\n12.  On 17 June 1991 a statement of claim was submitted.\n13.  On 17 November 1991 an extension of time was given for lodging the defence and this was filed on 6 January 1992.\n14.  By letter dated 3 December 1991 to the applicant, the Legal Aid Area Office refused legal aid and he appealed within the 14 day time-limit. By letter of 7 April 1992 that Office indicated that his appeal had been adjourned pending receipt from him of further information in relation to royalty payments already made to him and it was noted that he had not requested the Treasury Solicitor to release the monies held by the Publisher to fund his defence of the proceedings. In April and May 1992 the applicant requested the Treasury Solicitor to release the monies held by the Publisher to fund his defence, and these requests were refused (in April and July 1992, respectively).\n15.  In May 1992 the Publisher rejected the applicant's request for the payment of royalties due, or at least GBP 20,000, to cover legal costs maintaining that that was a matter between the applicant and the Crown.\n16.  On 20 May 1992 the applicant's sister completed a schedule detailing how the payments received from the Publisher h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2062", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  The applicant's father was the joint owner of real property located in the cadastral area of Kysucké Nové Mesto. He died in 1994.\n6.  On 25 November 1994 the Bratislava IV District Court (Okresný súd) opened inheritance proceedings concerning the estate of the applicant's father. Under the applicable procedural rules, the District Court entrusted the determination of the estate to a notary public.\n7.  On 26 November 1996 the notary issued an inheritance decision (osvedčenie o dedičstve) to the effect that the estate of the applicant's father included a half share in the above-mentioned real property and that the applicant had inherited half of that share. In the absence of an appeal, the decision became final and binding on 12 December 1996.\n8.  On 20 August 1997 the applicant sent a letter to the notary claiming that the decision of 26 November 1996 was incorrect in that it did not deal with all the immovable property which had belonged to her father. She requested “that the inheritance proceedings continue and be completed”. On 22 August 1997 the applicant sent a similar letter to the Bratislava IV District Court. She received no response.\n9.  On 19 May 1999 the applicant lodged a formal application with the Čadca District Court for determination of the part of her father's estate which was not covered by the decision of 26 November 1996 as a “newly discovered inheritance” within the meaning of Article 175x of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n10.  On 8 August 1999 the Čadca District Court of the judicial district in which the property lies transferred the case to the Bratislava IV District Court, which had territorial competence to examine it.\n11.  On 13 March 2000 the Bratislava IV District Court entrusted the determination of the newly discovered estate to a notary public, who held hearings on 11 April and 31 May 2000 and determined the matter by a new inheritance decision on 27 February 2001. In the absence of an appeal, the decision became final and binding on 17 March 2001.\n12.  During the proceedings the applicant lodged numerous complaints with various public bodies about the length of the proceedings and the way in which they were being conducted. She also lodged a criminal complaint and frequently submitted new information and made various suggestions as regards the conduct of the proceedings.\n13.  On 18 March 2000, in response to the applicant's complaint, the President of the Bratislava IV District Court accepted that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings before that court, in particular after the applicant's application of 19 May 1999 had been transferred to it from the Čadca District Court. The President apologised for those delays.\n14.  In a letter of 24 November 2000 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the conduct of the proceedings by the notary had been reviewed by the Slovakian Chamber of Notaries which had found the applicant's complaint of the notary's inactivity to be unsubstantiated. The notary had nevertheless been asked to keep the President of the Chamber informed about the progress in the proceedings. Furthermore, the applicant was advised that, in the present type of proceedings, the burden of substantiating the case lay with the plaintiff. Although it was primarily the responsibility of the applicant, the notary had proactively sought information and documents from cadastral registries and other public offices.\n15.  O", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2063", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Tarxien (Malta).\n5.  Before 1973 the applicant bought a house in Malta, which he had planned to use as a home for himself and his family. In order to purchase this building, he had incurred debts. Subsequently, in 1973 he acquired by donation full ownership of another house, in Paola. The applicant alleged that he then changed his plans and wanted to sell the former house in order to pay off his debts and to move into the house in Paola with his family.\n6.  On 31 March 1984 the house in Paola was seized by the Government under a requisition order issued by the Director of Social Housing under the Housing Act (Chapter 125 of the Laws of Malta).\n7.  On 23 August 1984 the applicant was informed that possession of the house in Paola had been given to a certain Mr G.\n8.  In September 1984 the applicant introduced a judicial protest against the relevant government department. He alleged that the issuing of the requisition order and the allocation of his property to a third party was causing him hardship. In a judicial letter of 8 November 1984, the Director of Social Housing asked the applicant, in his capacity as owner of the house in Paola, to recognise Mr. G. as the tenant of the premises (section 8 of the Housing Act).\n9.  According to the Housing Act, the applicant was entitled to receive a requisition rent for the use of his property. However the applicant alleged that no rent had ever been fixed or offered to him and since the date of the requisition he had received no compensation.\n10.  The applicant subsequently introduced a claim before the Civil Court (First Hall). He alleged that the requisition order and the allocation of his property to a third party was in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1, as incorporated into Maltese law by Act XIV of 1987 (European Convention Act). The applicant has not produced the documents pertaining to these proceedings and has not informed the Court about their outcome.\n11.  On 12 October 1990, while the first proceedings were still pending, the applicant introduced a second claim before the Civil Court (First Hall), alleging a breach of his right to the enjoyment of his property. He requested the Civil Court to issue the orders and directions needed to redress the violation of his fundamental rights, including, if necessary, a declaration that the relevant sections of the Housing Act had been abrogated by the European Convention Act.\n12.  In a judgment of 30 October 1995, the Civil Court declared the applicant's claim incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the European Convention Act, as the facts complained of had occurred before its entry into force on 30 April 1987. The requisition had been effected in accordance with the law which was in force at the time, and no violation of the applicant's fundamental rights could be established.\n13.  The applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court.\n14.  In a judgment of 28 February 2005, the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's claim.\n15.  It considered that the situation complained of was a continuing one and the applicant was accordingly affected by it after 30 April 1987. Therefore, the facts of the case fell within the competence of the domestic courts.\n16.  As to the merits of the applicant's claim, the Constitutional Court noted that the only evidence produced by the applicant was a report of his architect, which stated that the rental value of the house was 120 Maltese Liras (", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2064", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1968.\n8.  The applicant is the father of two children, K. born in 1988 and H. born in October 1990. He and the mother of the children divorced in January 1992, having lived apart since November 1990 and K. having lived with his mother and H. with the applicant. The applicant assumed the care of H. some ten days after her birth. According to an agreement reached in connection with the separation and confirmed by the Social Welfare Board, K. was to remain with the mother and H. with the applicant. The parents had joint custody of the children.\n9.  M. cohabited with the applicant from March to October 1994. Following their separation, she contacted the social welfare authorities, alleging that H. had been sexually abused by the applicant. The child's stories and behaviour had attracted M.'s attention and she had observed H. frequently touching her genitals and masturbating when going to sleep. M. also reported her suspicions to the family day care nurse. The applicant was not informed of the reports.\n10.  On 16 November 1994 during a visit to the day carer's, social welfare officials requested her to monitor H.'s behaviour, which according to her was deviant in that she masturbated before going to sleep. The officials witnessed the same during their visit. On 17 January 1995 they again visited the day carer, who now had kept records of H.'s behaviour. Based on these notes and their own observations, the officials consulted the Family Advice Centre (perheneuvola, familjerådgivningen) and decided to organise H.'s interviews and other examinations owing to a suspicion that she had been sexually abused. The applicant was not informed of those visits.\n11.  On 27 January 1995 when arriving to pick H. up from day care, the applicant was directed to the Family Advice Centre, where he was informed of the suspicion of sexual abuse. While denying the suspected abuse, he consented to an examination of H. but he did not accept that her place of residence should change for the period of examination.\n12.  The applicant was then informed that H. was to stay with her mother, who was her other legal custodian. According to the Government, he commented on H.'s placement by saying that if H. could not stay with him, the best place for her was with her mother. He was also told that if he agreed on H.'s placement with her mother, the social welfare authorities would not issue a public care order. According to the Government, he consented to H.'s placement with her mother. This was contested by the applicant.\n13.  On 2 February 1995 the social welfare authorities were contacted by the applicant's counsel who was told that if the applicant opposed H.'s placement with her mother during the examinations, the alternative was to issue an emergency care order. On the same day counsel withdrew the applicant's alleged consent to H.'s placement with her mother, following which a meeting with the parents was held at the Family Advice Centre on 3 February 1995.\n14.  It is undisputed that from 3 February 1995 there was no consent by the applicant to H.'s placement outside his home. The parties disagree as to whether the applicant consented to H.'s placement with her mother for the period 27 January and 2 February 1995.\n15.  By an emergency order issued on 8 February 1995 the senior social welfare official placed H. in public care with her mother, pursuant to section 18 of the Child Welfare Act (lastensuojelulaki, barnskyddslagen; Act no. 683/19", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2065", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant, Mrs Mary Wainwright, is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1953 and lives in Leeds. The second applicant, her son Mr Alan Wainwright, is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Leeds. He has cerebral palsy and severe arrested social and intellectual development. He was defined as a “patient” within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983 and as such lacked the capacity to bring or defend legal proceedings. His application to the Court was made through the first applicant, who acted as his “litigation friend” throughout the domestic proceedings.\n8.  In August 1996, Patrick O’Neill (the first applicant’s son and the second applicant’s half-brother) was arrested on suspicion of murder and detained on remand at HMP Armley, Leeds. Following a report by a senior prison officer raising suspicions that Mr O’Neill was involved in the supply and use of drugs within the prison, on 23 December 1996 the governor ordered, inter alia, that all Mr O’Neill’s visitors be strip-searched before visits.\n9.  Unaware of the governor’s orders, on 2 January 1997 the applicants attended Armley Prison to visit Mr O’Neill. Until then, neither of them had previously been to a prison. On presentation of their visiting orders, the applicants were requested to join the queue of visitors lined up by a security barrier. As requested, they removed their coats and placed them with their bags on a conveyor belt to be X-rayed. They were then frisked and searched by metal detector. Whilst waiting with other visitors in a corridor to go inside, a number of prison officers approached them and told the applicants to follow them. They were taken across the courtyard from the south gatehouse by four or five prison officers. The second applicant asked his mother what was happening. As they approached the north gatehouse, one of the officers stated that they had reason to believe that the applicants were carrying contraband. When the first applicant asked what this meant, she was told that he was referring to drugs.\n10.  At the north gatehouse, the applicants were taken through another security barrier and up some stairs to the first floor. They were informed that they would be strip-searched and that if they refused they would be denied their visit to Mr O’Neill. The second applicant was beginning to be distressed and the first applicant tried to calm him down. They were then taken to separate rooms for the searches.\n11.  The first applicant was taken by two female officers into a small room which had windows overlooking the road in front of the prison and the administration block beyond it. It was dark outside and the lights in the room were on. There were lights on in the building, which led the first applicant to believe that people were still working in the administration block. Although there were roller blinds on the windows, they were not pulled down. The first applicant was told to take off her jumper and vest. One of the officers searched them whilst the other officer walked around her, examining her naked upper body. She was then instructed to remove her shoes, socks and trousers, which she did. At this point, a third female officer entered the room. This officer asked where the consent forms were, and was told by one of the officers where to find them. In answer to a question from the first applicant, the third officer confirmed that the form was for the second applicant. The first applicant explained that it would", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2067", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  All of the applicants live in Baskil, Turkey.\n6.  On 19 July 1993 each of them brought separate actions before the Baskil Civil Court against the National Water Board. They alleged that their plots of land were illegally seized by the administration for a dam construction without any payment, and requested compensation.\n7.  On 18 November 1993 the court ruled that the cases should be characterised as compensation claims arising from de facto expropriations rather than claims for illegal seizures. The court established that a committee of experts had assessed the value of the expropriated land in advance and that the authorities had paid the resulting amounts to the owners registered in the local land registry. The court ordered the administration to pay the applicants an amount of increased compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate, starting from 1986 when the land was submerged in the waters of the dam.\n8.  On 6 October 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed these judgments, holding that the cases could not be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation. Upon the applicants' request, however, the Court of Cassation reversed its decision and held, on 10 March 1995, that the cases could in fact be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation. It proceeded to quash the judgments of the first-instance court only in respect of the date from which the statutory rate of interest began to run.\n9.  By decisions of 21 December 1995 and 25 January 1986, the Baskil Civil Court ordered the administration to pay the applicants a certain amount of compensation, plus interest running from 1986, despite the earlier rulings of the Court of Cassation regarding the starting date from which interest was to be calculated.\n10.  On 20 November 1996 the Plenary Court of Cassation quashed the judgments of the Baskil Civil Court. The same court rejected the applicants' rectification request on 2 May 1997.\n11.  On 9 October 1997 the Baskil Civil Court ordered the administration to pay the applicants 315,650,000, 297,439,800, 265,571,250, 404,680,000 and 708,190,000 Turkish liras (TRL) respectively, plus interest at the statutory rate running from 19 August 1993, the date on which the land was transferred to the National Water Board.\n12.  On 17 March 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld these judgments. On 2 April 1998 the Court of Cassation's rulings were served on the applicants.\n13.  On 9 December 1998 the administration paid TRL 934,027,000 to Ms Mürvet Fidan, 884,579,000 TRL to Mr Murat Fidan, TRL 790,746,000 to Mr Hikmet Fidan, TRL 1,190,092,000 to Ms Zehra Fidan and TRL 2,041,230,000 to Ms Elif Özbilge.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2068", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the town of Mariinskiy Posad of the Chuvashiya Republic.\n5.  On 24 October 1994 the Mariinskiy Posad Town Court convicted the applicant of destruction of the property and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. That judgment was quashed on 8 August 1996 by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The case was remitted for a fresh examination.\n6.  On 10 February 1998 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued because his guilt had not been proven.\n7.  In 2001 the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance and the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court in tort.\n8.  On 15 May 2001 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow allowed the applicant's action and awarded him 36,012.53 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 1419 euros). The judgment became final on 6 July 2001.\n9.  On 25 July 2002 the Chuvashiya Treasury credited the judgment debt to the account of the applicant's representative.\n10.  In 1997 the applicant asked the Mariinskiy Posad Town Council to provide him with housing because his flat had been destroyed by a fire and, as an unlawfully convicted person, he had the right to free housing.  The Council refused and the applicant appealed to a court.\n11.  On 3 July 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in the final instance, ordered that the Mariinskiy Posad Town Council should provide the applicant, within three months, with a flat that met the requirements of Articles 40 and 41 of the RSFSR Housing Code.\n12.  According to the Government, on 6 June 2001 the Council offered the applicant to move into a one-room flat. The applicant refused because the flat did not meet the requirements of the Housing Code.\n13.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted on 12 July 2001 but the judgment was not enforced because the Council did not have available housing or financial resources to purchase a flat.\n14.  In 2002 the applicant asked a court to award him a sum representing the price of the flat with which the Council had to provide him.\n15.  On 12 March 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed the applicant's request.\n16.  In April 2002 the Council offered the applicant a loan which would have allowed him to pay seventy percent of the purchase price of a flat. The applicant declined the offer.\n17.  In July 2003 the Council offered the applicant a flat with stove heating. A bailiff refused the offer because the flat was in a dilapidated block of flats and did not satisfy the requirements of the Housing Code.\n18.  In April 2004 the applicant was offered another flat which he refused because it had no gas heating and sanitary facilities.\n19.  In the meantime, the applicant asked the Supreme Court to amend the method of enforcement of the judgment of 3 July 2001 and to award him money in lieu of the flat.\n20.  On 27 April 2004 the Supreme Court granted the applicant's request and awarded him RUR 290,400. The Supreme Court noted that the flat offered in April 2004 had not met the requirements of the RSFSR Housing Code.\n21.  Enforcement proceedings were opened on 6 June 2005 and on 22 June 2005 the Council credited the judgment debt to the account of the bailiffs' service.\n22.  According to the applicant, on 8 July 2005 he received the money.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2069", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born 1966 and 1934 respectively, and live in Neryungri in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of the Russian Federation.\n5.  The applicants brought a civil action against the Government, seeking to enforce State promissory notes for purchase of a Russian-made car or to recover the monetary value thereof.\n6.  On 17 March 2003 the Ust-Yanskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic found for the applicants and awarded 112,441.80 Russian roubles (“RUR”) to the first applicant and RUR 107,327.82 to the second applicant against the Ministry of Finance.\n7.  On 23 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (hereinafter – “the Supreme Court”) rejected an appeal by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the judgment.\n8.  The enforcement proceedings were opened on 15 May 2003, but the judgment was not enforced.\n9.  By interim decision of 11 August 2003, Judge R. of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic refused a request by the Ministry of Finance for obtaining the case file for the purpose of initiating supervisory-review proceedings. The Ministry had claimed that the courts had incorrectly applied the substantive law.\n10.  By letter of 20 October 2003, the Supreme Court's President rejected a renewed request by the Ministry of Finance for launching the supervisory-review proceedings.\n11.  On 9 June 2004 the Ministry of Finance introduced a new application for supervisory review of the judgments in the applicants' favour, founded on the same grounds as before.\n12.  On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court's President issued an interim decision on remitting the applicants' cases for examination on the merits to the Supreme Court's Presidium by way of supervisory review. In the procedural part, the interim decision of 11 August 2003, but not the letter of 20 October 2003, was mentioned.\n13.  On 14 October 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, in a five-judge formation presided over by the Supreme Court's President, found that the lower courts had not taken into account certain provisions relating to reimbursement of State promissory notes. On that ground, relying on Articles 388 and 390 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Presidium quashed the judgments in the applicants' favour and dismissed their claim as having no basis in the domestic law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2070", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in the village of Mendeleyevo of the Moscow Region.  In 1986 he took part in the emergency operation at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster.\n5.  On 23 December 1999 the Solnechnogorsk Town Court accepted the applicant's action against the Solnechnogorsk town branch of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (пенсионный отдел по городу Солнечногорску Пенсионного Фонда Российской Федерации) (hereafter – the Fund) and awarded him 217,941.58 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 8,073 euros) in arrears of monthly pension for the period between 29 July 1996 and 31 December 1999. The court held that from 1 December 1999 the Fund should pay the applicant RUR 9,236.05 as his monthly pension and should subsequently adjust that amount to take account of increases in the minimum monthly wage.\n6.  The judgment of 23 December 1999 was upheld on appeal on 24 April 2000 by the Moscow Regional Court.\n7.  Enforcement proceedings were opened, but on 29 May 2001 the Moscow Regional bailiffs' service returned a writ of execution to the applicant, noting that under the new procedure effective from 22 February 2001 the applicant had to submit the writ to the local treasury.\n8.  On 16 November 2001 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs' service. The writ was returned to the applicant and he was advised again to submit it to the local treasury.\n9.  According to the Government, the Social Security Committee of the Solnechnogorsk Town Council asked the applicant to provide it with the writ of execution with the view to enforcing the judgment of 23 December 1999. The applicant responded that he did not have the writ and asked to enforce the judgment.\n10.   On 20 September 2004 the Social Security Committee asked the Solnechnogorsk Town Court to issue it with a writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 23 December 1999. The writ was issued on 26 October 2004.\n11.  On 23 May 2005 the applicant was paid RUR 217,941.58.\n12.  The applicant alleged that the Fund had failed to enforce the judgment of 23 December 1999 in the part concerning monthly pension payments and had reduced those payments to RUR 467.54. On 27 February 2000 the applicant had complained to a court about the Fund's actions.\n13.  On 28 December 2000 the Solnechnogorsk Town Court held that the Fund's actions had been unlawful and confirmed the operative part of the judgment of 23 December 1999. The judgment of 28 December 2000 became final on 22 March 2001.\n14.  The Fund, however, continued to underpay the applicant.\n15.  The applicant sued the Fund seeking an adjustment of the monthly pension awarded by the judgment of 23 December 1999, to take account of increases in the minimum monthly wage.\n16.  On 12 March 2001 the Solnechnogorsk Town Court held that the Fund should adjust the applicant's monthly pension to take account of increases in the minimum monthly wage. No specific amount of increase was determined.\n17.  The judgment of 12 March 2001 became final on 14 June 2001 when the Moscow Regional Court upheld it on appeal.\n18.  According to the applicant, the Fund continued to pay him non-adjusted pension.\n19.  The applicant lodged an action seeking an increase of his monthly pension and payment of arrears which the Fund had not paid him in breach of the judgment of 23 December 1999. In the meantime, in June 2002 the Fund began to pay the applicant RUR 22,035.37 in monthly pension.\n20.  On 12 February 2003 the S", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2071", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Dubna in the Moscow Region.\n5.  On 17 June 2002 the Dubna Town Court allowed the applicant's claim against the Dubna Town Administration for provision of housing. The Town Court ordered that the administration:\n“...provide Mr Tarasov, whose family comprises three members, with a separate well-equipped flat having a living surface of no less than 61 square metres on the basis of a special tenancy agreement...”.\n6.  The judgment was upheld on appeal on 12 August 2002 by the Moscow Regional Court.\n7.  Enforcement proceedings were opened. However, the judgment could not be enforced because the town administration possessed no available housing or financial resources to purchase a flat.\n8.  On 24 February 2005 the Dubna Town Administration signed a contract with the applicant. According to the contract, the administration was to provide the applicant with a flat in 2005.\n9.  On 25 February 2005, upon the applicant's request, the Dubna Town Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings.\n10.  In August 2005 the Dubna Town Administration bought a three-room flat for the applicant. It appears that in September 2005 the applicant moved into the flat.\n11.  In February 2003 the applicant requested a court to amend the method of enforcement of the judgment of 17 June 2002 and to order that the Dubna Town Administration should pay him the value of a flat.\n12.  On 26 February 2003 the Dubna Town Court dismissed the applicant's claim. That judgment was quashed on appeal on 2 April 2003 and the case was remitted for a fresh examination.\n13.  On 26 June and 18 September 2003 the Dubna Town Court allowed the claim. Both judgements were quashed on appeal and the matter was remitted for re-examination.\n14.  On 10 March 2004 the Town Court dismissed the applicant's claim. The judgment became final on 22 June 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2072", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Hundested.\n9.  Subsequent to having suffered severe problems with her jaw, resulting in her being able to open her mouth only 5 millimetres, on 19 April 1988 at a hospital in Hillerød the applicant underwent a jaw operation which entailed implanting Teflon in both her jaw-joints.\n10.  Following the surgery, the applicant's ability to open her mouth was improved. She could thus open her mouth up to 20 millimetres. However, she experienced a lot of complications. Having regard thereto and due to a debate among doctors as to the potential danger related to the use of Teflon, in April 1990, the applicant had it removed.\n11.  She continued to experience problems, and on 20 February 1992, alleging mal‑practice, she complained to the National Patients' Complaints Board (Sundhedsvæsenets Patientklagenævn) which is an impartial public authority which may express criticism of the medical staff or submit particularly serious cases to the public prosecutor with a view to taking the cases to court. In support of her complaint she maintained that subsequent to the operation in 1988 she had suffered from headache, and constant pain in the jaw-joints and the masticatory muscle.\n12.  Before deciding on the issue, the applicant's complaint was sent for preliminary examination with the Medical Officer of Health of Frederiksborg County (Embedslægeinstitutionen for Frederiksborg Amt), the Medio-Legal Council (Retslægerådet) and the National Board of Health (Sundhedsstyrelsen). The Medico-Legal Council submitted their opinion on 5 March 1993 and the National Board of Health submitted their recommendation on 23 November 1993.\n13.  By decision of 16 February 1994 the National Patients' Complaints Board found against the applicant.\n14.  Consequently, on 4 March 1994 the applicant submitted a number of questions to the National Board of Health, which in return requested the Medico-Legal Council to prepare an opinion.\n15.  Also, alleging malpractice, on 7 March 1994 the applicant instituted proceedings before the City Court of Hillerød (Retten i Hillerød) against the County of Frederiksborg (Frederiksborg Amt) being responsible for the hospital. The applicant claimed compensation for her medical costs, loss of working capacity and disablement.\n16.  On 7 April 1994 the applicant's counsel notified the court that he had requested that the National Board of Health submit the case to the Medico‑Legal Council. Also, he enclosed a letter that he had written to the defendant, i.e. the County of Frederiksborg, in which he informed them that he had issued the writ on a slightly incomplete basis owing to lack of time and suggesting that it postpone filing their defence until the reply from Medico‑Legal Council had been submitted.\n17.  By letter of 11 April 1994 the County of Frederiksborg informed the court that it would comply accordingly.\n18.  On 3 June 1994 the Medico-Legal Council submitted their opinion to the National Board of Health.\n19.  Due to the fact that shortly thereafter the applicant submitted various American articles on the issue, the case was re-submitted to the Medico‑Legal Council on 17 June 1994 with further questions. Having received more material from the parties, on 21 September 1994 the Medico‑Legal Council submitted their opinion.\n20.  The National Board of Health issued their opinion on 10 October 1994.\n21.  Also, at some time during 1994, the applicant was awarded anticipatory pension.\n22.  By lett", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2074", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was born in 1963 and the second applicant in 1992. They both live in Plovdiv.\n7.  In 1982 the first applicant married Mr S. They had three children, the last of them was the second applicant.\n8.  Sometime in 1993 divorce proceedings were initiated before the Plovdiv District Court.\n9.  Mr S. then initiated an action against the first applicant challenging the paternity of the second applicant. He submitted his action to the Plovdiv District Court on 4 August 1993, which forwarded it to the Plovdiv Regional Court where it was received and registered on 9 August 1993.\n10.  On an unspecified date, the divorce proceedings were suspended by the Plovdiv District Court pending the outcome of the paternity proceedings.\n11.  The Plovdiv Regional Court conducted nine hearings between 3 November 1993 and 6 June 1995 [1 year, 7 months, 2 days], scheduled two to five months apart. During this period the court heard witnesses, gathered evidence and obtained two experts' opinions. A gynaecological examination and a blood-type test were also conducted. The second applicant joined the proceedings on 21 January 1994.\n12.  Of the hearings conducted, one was adjourned from 3 November 1993 to 21 January 1994 [2 months, 18 days] at the request of the first applicant due to illness, the following two were postponed from 17 May to 30 November 1994 [6 months, 14 days] because a court-appointed expert failed to appear and a fourth hearing, scheduled for 4 April 1995, was postponed to 6 June 1995 [2 months, 2 days] due to the defective summoning of a court-appointed expert.\n13.  In a judgment of 11 July 1995 the Plovdiv Regional Court found in favour of the applicants and dismissed the action of Mr S. as unproven. On 10 August 1995 [30 days] the latter filed an appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Court.\n14.  A hearing was held before the Supreme Court on 1 March 1996.\n15.  In a judgment of 20 March 1996 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Plovdiv Regional Court of 11 July 1995 and undertook to hear the case itself. It ordered that another gynaecological examination be conducted, but delegated the appointment of an expert and the organisation of the said examination to the Plovdiv District Court. At the request of Mr S., the Supreme Court also ordered that a DNA test be conducted, instructed him to deposit the necessary fees and set a date for the parties to give blood samples.\n16.  Mr S. did not deposit the required fees, as instructed by the Supreme Court in its judgment of 20 March 1996.\n17.  At a hearing of 4 December 1996, which Mr S. failed to attend, the Supreme Court once again ordered him to deposit the necessary fees.\n18.  Mr S. once again failed to deposit the required fees and did not attend the next appointment for a DNA test on 7 February 1997.\n19.  Accordingly, the applicants were also unable to give blood samples.\n20.  On 7 October 1997 [gap of 7 months, 29 days] the first applicant petitioned the Supreme Court to find that Mr S. had lost interest in the performance of the medical tests and to proceed with the hearing of the case as it stands. The applicant made a similar request on 13 February 1998, [delay due to failure to pay for the tests is 1 year, 10 months, 25 days] as a result of which the case was transferred to the Plovdiv District Court to organise the gynaecological examination.\n21.  In response to the request of the Supreme Court to organise the gynaecological examination, the Plovdiv Distric", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2075", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Štip, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.\n6.  In 1981 the public undertaking “Elektrostopanstvo” (“the company”) installed a power-distribution pillar on a plot of land, which at that time was the property of the applicant's father. The latter did not object to it. The applicant gained ownership of the land in 1988 as a gift from his father.\n7.  On 26 February 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against “Pogon Elektroistok Štip”, a branch of the company, claiming restoration of the property in his possession and removal of the pillar and the auxiliary installations, as they had been constructed without his (and his father's) consent.\n8.  Between 26 February 1996 and 10 July 1996 the trial court scheduled nine hearings and took the following actions: an on-site inspection; an examination of a witness and an expertise. Within this period, the applicant also extended his claim requesting compensation.\n9.  On 10 July 1996 the Štip Municipal Court upheld the applicant's claim ordering the company to restore the plot of land in the applicant's possession and to remove the pillar and auxiliary installations.\n10.  On 25 February 1997 the Štip Court of Appeal quashed the lower court's decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It held that the branch of the company had not had legal capacity to stand in the proceedings.\n11.  On 5 September 1997 the trial court requested the applicant to clarify his claim. On 9 September 1997 the applicant replied that the proceedings should continue against the company.\n12.  At the hearing held on 27 November 1997 (in the absence of the company albeit properly summoned), the Štip Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant's claim as out on time. It found that the applicant (and his father) had known about the installation of the pillar and that he had failed to bring his claim within the statutory time-limits of three years (subjective term) or ten years (objective term) after the pillar had been fixed on the property.\n13.  On 25 November 1998 the Štip Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision.\n14.  On 15 January 1999 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court an appeal on points of law (ревизија) against the Appeal Court's decision. He argued that the lower courts had erroneously established the facts and had wrongly applied national law.\n15.  On 10 January 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law. It upheld the lower courts' decisions on a different reasoning: by installing the power-distribution pillar in 1981, the company had obtained an encumbrance (право на службеност) over the plot of land to which neither the applicant's father nor the applicant had objected to in 1981 when the pillar was installed or in 1988 when the applicant gained ownership of the property. The judgment was served on the applicant on 11 April 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2076", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was born in 1973 and the second applicant in 1966. Both of them live in Plovdiv.\n7.  On 17 February 1992 the applicants initiated an action against Mr and Mrs T. ('the defendants”) for partitioning a jointly inherited real estate consisting of two apartments (“the real estate”).\n8.  Due to the fact that the defendants lived in Canada at the time, they were summoned to participate in the proceedings through a notice published in the State Gazette on 1 September 1992.\n9.  The Plovdiv District Court conducted eleven hearings between 13 October 1992 and 6 June 1995, scheduled three to five months apart. During this period, the court obtained an expert's report, sought the consent of the Ministry of Finance for terminating the joint ownership and questioned witnesses. The defendants failed to appear at the hearing of 13 October 1992 so it was adjourned to 23 March 1993 in order to allow the court to appoint a special representative to act on their behalf. The appointment was undertaken in spite of the presence at the hearing of the mother of one of the defendants who had a power of attorney to act on their behalf and had retained a lawyer to represent them in the proceedings. The next hearing of 23 March 1993 was adjourned to 1 June 1993 due to the defective summoning of the applicants. The hearing of 1 June 1993 was also not conducted due to the failure of the applicants to appear and was postponed to 22 September 1993. Finally, the hearing of 22 September 1993 was adjourned to 25 February 1994 due to another defective summoning of the applicants.\n10.  In a judgment of 27 June 1995 the Plovdiv District Court found partly in favour of the applicants, allowed the partitioning of one of the apartments to proceed (“the property”) and dismissed the action in respect of the other apartment. The judgment entered into force on an unspecified date.\n11.  At the second phase of the proceedings, the applicants petitioned the courts to assign the property to them against payment of compensation to the defendants, who, in turn, made a counterclaim to the same effect.\n12.  The Plovdiv District Court conducted nine hearings between 9 November 1995 and 24 February 1998, scheduled one to nine months apart. During this period, witnesses were questioned, two experts' opinions were obtained and the approval of the local municipality was sought on two occasions for the plans for reconstructing the property into two separate apartments. Of the hearings conducted, one was postponed from 23 January to 1 April 1996, because the experts failed to present their report on time.\n13.  In a judgment of 19 March 1998 the Plovdiv District Court found in favour of the applicants, assigned to each of them one of two apartments to be created following the reconstruction of the property and ordered them to pay compensation to the defendants for their share of the property. The latter filed an appeal against the judgment on an unspecified date.\n14.  On 1 April 1998 a number of amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure entered into force, which related, among other things, to partition-of-property proceedings and provided for the annulment of all judgments rendered by the courts of first instance in partition-of-property proceedings (see, below, Relevant domestic law).\n15.  The appeal proceedings before the Plovdiv Regional Court started with a hearing on 12 January 1999 at which the court instructed the defendants to deposit additional court fees. It cons", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2077", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Tatranská Štrba.\n5.  On 11 June 1992 the applicant filed an action with the Poprad District Court. He claimed compensation for loss of salary on the ground that he had been unlawfully dismissed from a co-operative.\n6.  On 11 November 1996 the District Court dismissed the action after having held several hearings. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 13 February 1998 the Prešov Regional Court quashed the first‑instance judgment.\n8.  On 11 June 1998 the Prešov Regional Court excluded the District Court judge dealing with the case.\n9.  After having held several hearings and having taken additional evidence, the Poprad District Court dismissed the applicant’s action on 25 May 2001. On 2 July 2001 the applicant appealed.\n10.  On 4 July 2002 the Prešov Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment of 25 May 2001.\n11.  On 27 August 2002 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law against the Regional Court’s decision. On 26 June 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. In its decision the Supreme Court noted that the first‑instance judgment had to be quashed as the District Court had disregarded the legal opinion earlier expressed by the court of appeal by which it was bound.\n12.  On 4 November 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment on the merits of the case. The court ordered the defendant to pay the equivalent of approximately 6,400 euros to the applicant in compensation for loss of salary for the period from 13 February 1992 to 31 December 1997. The defendant appealed on 1 December 2004.\n13.  On 28 April 2005 the Regional Court in Prešov dismissed the appeal as having been lodged out of time. The defendant filed an appeal on points of law.\n14.  On 22 November 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s decision of 28 April 2005 as being erroneous.\n15.  The parties submitted no information about any further developments in the case.\n16.  On 4 December 1992 the applicant filed an action against a co‑operative with the Poprad District Court. He claimed compensation for damage relating to his dismissal from a job.\n17.  On an unspecified date the case file was submitted to the Ministry of Justice. It was returned to the District Court on 26 October 1995.\n18.  Several hearings were held in 1996 and the District Court dismissed the action on 27 November 1996. The judgment was served on 28 February 1997, and the applicant appealed on 13 March 1997.\n19.  On 3 December 1997 the Prešov Regional Court quashed the first‑instance judgment.\n20.  On 11 June 1998 the Prešov Regional Court excluded the District Court judge from dealing with the case at her own request.\n21.  On 28 May 1999 the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the above proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim relating to salary.\n22.  On 4 November 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment on the merits of the case. It ordered the defendant to pay the equivalent of approximately 1,700 euros plus default interest in damages to the applicant. The defendant appealed on 1 December 2004.\n23.  On 22 August 2005 the Regional Court in Prešov dismissed the appeal as having been filed out of time.\n24.  In 2003 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court pursuant to Article 127 of the Constitution. He alleged that the Poprad District Court had violated his constitutional right to a hearing without unjustified delay in the above two sets of proceedings. He also claimed 500,000 Slovakian", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2078", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 23 January 1996 the applicant brought an action in the Budapest Regional Court against the Budapest VII District Municipality, requesting it to find that his personality rights had been infringed by certain employees of the Municipality who had made allegedly untrue statements about him in the press.\n6.  On 26 January 1996 the Regional Court transferred the case to the Pest Central District Court. On 10 October 1996 the applicant extended his action and, on 20 November 1996, he identified further respondents. On 10 January 1997 the District Court requested another court to make available to it the case file of a related case. After the latter had been terminated, the file was sent to the District Court on 22 September 1998.\n7.  The District Court held hearings on 26 April 1999, 2 February, 14 June and 29 November 2000 and 24 June 2002.\n8.  On 30 June 2003 the court invited the applicant to recapitulate his action.\n9.  The hearings scheduled for 2 September and 7 December 2004 were adjourned. Meanwhile, on 6 October 2004 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s motion for bias, filed on 8 October 2003.\n10.  Further hearings were held on 22 March, 27 June and 3 November 2005. The proceedings are still pending at first instance.\n11.  On 25 January 1994 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicant. He was charged with causing unlawful damage (rongálás). He was also prosecuted for making a false accusation (hamis vád) and attempted subornation to perjury (hamis tanúzásra felhívás kísérlete). On 20 July 1994 and 19 September 1995, respectively, bills of indictment were preferred. In another case of false accusation, a bill of indictment was preferred on 21 December 1995. The applicant was entitled to copies of the bills of indictment under section 146(6) of the (Old) Code of Criminal Procedure.\n12.  The Pest Central District Court held hearings on 16 October 1995, 4 January and 20 March 1996. By decisions of 28 February and 21 June 1996, it joined all three cases.\n13.  Following a procedural dispute essentially concerning bias on the part of certain judges involved in the case, which started on 19 November 1997, the Supreme Court eventually assigned the case to the Buda Surroundings District Court on 1 March 1999.\n14.  On 28 July 1999 a further bill of indictment was preferred against the applicant in yet another case concerning 11 counts of false accusation. On 27 January 2000 these proceedings were joined to the existing ones.\n15.  The District Court held hearings on 20 April, 28 August and 17 November 2000, at which apparently only procedural steps were taken. After a hearing on 25 January 2001, at which five witnesses were interrogated, on 31 January 2001 the court acquitted the applicant of all charges save that of subornation to perjury, in respect of which it issued a reprimand. Although one witness, Mr M., whose testimony might have been relevant to this offence, could not be found and three further witnesses summoned had not appeared, the court was satisfied that the applicant’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt by Mr M.’s testimony given during the investigation and by the letters in which the applicant had made the incriminated statement.\n16.  On appeal by the prosecution, on 27 November 2001 the Pest County Regional Court partly amended the first-instance judgment and convicted the applicant of one count of false accusation (an off", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2079", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, Ms D. Rybczyński and Mr T. Rybczyński, brother and sister, are Polish nationals, who were born in 1969 and 1971 respectively and live in Przemyśl. They are represented before the Court by Mr J. Rybczyński, the applicants’ father.\n5.  On 27 April 1993 the applicants filed a civil action for damages with the Przemyśl Regional Court and at the same time requested an exemption from court fees. The proceedings concerned the devastation caused to the applicants’ flat by tenants.\n6.  On 18 May 1993 the court granted the applicants partial exemption from the fees. The applicants appealed and challenged the impartiality of all the judges of the court, since its President was a brother of the husband of one of the defendants. On 24 September 1993 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal exempted the applicants from the payment of court fees and subsequently two judges were excluded from the examination of their case.\n7.  On 15 November 1993 a hearing was held, but it was adjourned until 26 November 1993 upon the defendants’ request.\n8.  On 26 November 1993 the defendants replied to the claim. They stated that they had lived in the applicants’ flat from 1945 to 1992 as Bug River claimants. They denied having devastated the flat and pointed out that the applicants had sued all of the other tenants. At the same time they requested the court to summon 5 witnesses. The hearing held on 26 November 1993 was adjourned upon the defendants’ representative’s motion.\n9.  Between 13 December 1993 and 14 February 1994 four hearings were held, during which the court heard 9 witnesses.\n10.  On 16 March 1994 the applicants extended their claim and demanded compensation for lost profits as a result of the devastation of their flat.\n11.  Between 23 March 1994 and 5 September 1994 three further hearings were held, during which, inter alia, the applicants requested the court to appoint an expert to assess the damage.\n12.  On 11 October 1994 the expert appointed by the Przemyśl Regional Court sent the case file back and stated that she was not able to prepare the opinion due to the applicants’ representative’s obstructive conduct. The case file was sent to another expert, who on 9 November 1994 returned it informing the court about his close personal relations with the husband of one of the defendants and with the applicants’ representative. On 30 November 1994 the court sent the case file to another expert and on 26 May 1995 the requested opinion was submitted. The applicants challenged it.\n13.  At a hearing on 19 July 1995 the court ordered a supplementary opinion and adjourned the hearing upon the defendants’ attorney’s request.\n14.  On 6 November 1995 the expert supplemented his previous opinion.\n15.  On 29 December 1995 a hearing was held at which the court heard the expert and, upon the defendants’ request, ordered another supplementary expert opinion and adjourned the hearing.\n16.  On 26 February 1996 the expert informed the court about his serious illness and asked to be relieved of the obligation to prepare the opinion. Consequently, on 21 March 1996 the case file was sent to another expert who was given a time-limit of 3 months to prepare the opinion. However, on 1 April 1996 he returned the case file informing the court about his close personal relations with the husband of one of the defendants and with the applicants’ representative. In consequence, on 25 April 1996 the case file was sent to another expert, who was ordered to prepare the opinion wi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2080", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1951 and is currently detained in Muret Prison (Haute-Garonne).\n9.  On 22 February 1999 the Lyons Criminal Court sentenced the applicant, who had been represented by counsel at trial, to seven years’ imprisonment and ordered his permanent exclusion from French territory for drug trafficking while classified in law as a recidivist.\n10.  Neither the applicant nor the public prosecutor appealed against the judgment within the ten-day time-limit laid down in Article 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n11.  On 8 March 1999 the public prosecutor asked the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Lyons Court of Appeal to lodge an appeal; the Principal Public Prosecutor did so in a notice of appeal served on 16 March 1999 in accordance with Article 505 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by which the Principal Public Prosecutor has two months from the date of delivery of the Criminal Court judgment in which to lodge an appeal.\n12.  Before the Court of Appeal, the Principal Public Prosecutor – the only appellant – submitted that the applicant should be sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment and permanently excluded from French territory.\n13.  The applicant filed submissions urging the Court of Appeal to declare the appeal inadmissible for non-compliance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the principle of equality of arms in that it had been lodged outside the time-limit applicable to the public prosecutor at the Criminal Court and to himself. He also challenged the finding as to his guilt.\n14.  On 1 July 1999 the Lyons Court of Appeal upheld the judgment as to the issue of guilt and the permanent exclusion from French territory, and increased the sentence to twelve years’ imprisonment, with a minimum term of two-thirds of the sentence. Addressing the applicant’s plea of inadmissibility, the Court of Appeal held:\n“Under Article 505 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Principal Public Prosecutor may lodge an appeal within two months from the date of delivery of the judgment. This opportunity granted to the Principal Public Prosecutor is not at variance with the provisions of Article 6 of the aforementioned Convention where, as in this instance, the right of appeal is also available to the defendant. The appeal by the Principal Public Prosecutor must be declared admissible.”\n15.  The applicant appealed on points of law and filed additional submissions in which he reiterated his argument that Article 505 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not comply with the principle of equality of arms enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention. He also relied on the case-law of the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation, which had ruled that Article 546 of the Code of Criminal Procedure infringed Article 6 of the Convention in that it afforded only the Principal Public Prosecutor the right to appeal against certain judgments concerning petty offences (contraventions).\n16.  In a judgment of 15 March 2000 the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on points of law, holding as follows:\n“In declaring the appeal by the Principal Public Prosecutor admissible, the Court of Appeal stated that the opportunity granted to the latter to lodge an appeal within two months from the date of delivery of the judgment, in accordance with Article 505 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was not at variance with the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights where, as in this instance, the righ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2081", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  The applicant owns a flat in a two-flat house. In 1992 Mr F. and Ms K., a married couple, bought the other flat and thus became co-owners of the house.\n6.  On 24 February 1993 the Szeged District Land Registry registered the couple’s ownership of the flat they had bought. The applicant appealed, claiming to have a right of pre-emption. On 4 November 1993 the Csongrád County Land Registry dismissed her administrative appeal. She sought judicial review.\n7.  On 15 July 1994 the Szeged District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. On 21 February 1995 the Csongrád County Regional Court dismissed her appeal.\n8.  On 11 March 1996 the Supreme Court reversed these judgments, quashed the decision of 4 November 1993 and remitted the case to the District Land Registry.\n9.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 16 September 1996 the District Land Registry restored the original situation (as it had been prior to 24 February 1993).\n10.  In 1995 civil proceedings were instituted against the applicant by the couple. They sought the termination of the common ownership of the house as well as damages. In her counterclaim, the applicant requested the Szeged District Court to award her damages, stating that the plaintiffs had broken into her flat and had carried out works therein, causing major damage. She claimed that these actions amounted to trespass.\n11.  In a partial judgment of 20 March 1996, the District Court ordered the plaintiffs to restore the applicant’s flat to its original state and to pay damages. The court suspended the examination of the issue of termination of common ownership pending the registration of the plaintiffs’ ownership rights by the Land Registry.\n12.  On 10 December 1996 the Csongrád County Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court, ordering that an expert opinion be obtained.\n13.  In the resumed proceedings, on 3 December 1997 the District Court found, relying on the opinion of an expert, that the plaintiffs had been trespassing when they had made alterations in the applicant’s flat and ordered them to restore it to its original state and to pay damages. The issue of termination of common ownership remained suspended.\n14.  On 5 May 1998 the Regional Court partly amended the first-instance judgment by annulling the plaintiffs’ obligation to restore the flat and lowering the amount of damages to be paid to the applicant.\n15.  On 11 November 1998 the Supreme Court quashed the first- and second-instance judgments and remitted the case to the District Court.\n16.  On 10 September 1999 the District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ action and ordered them to restore the flat to its original state, and to pay the applicant damages, plus accrued interest and unrealised rent.\n17.  On 27 April 2000 the Regional Court partly amended the first-instance decision by raising the amount of damages to be paid to the applicant.\n18.  On 5 June 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the parties’ petitions for review. This decision was served on the applicant on 14 September 2002.\n19.  On 10 July 1997 the couple again requested the registration of their ownership, claiming that more than a year had passed since the final decision in the case under (A) above, during which time the applicant had not exercised her right of pre-emption. The couple’s request was dismissed by the first- and second-instance Land Registries.\n20.  On 8 Decem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2083", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in the Lad-Gyöngyöspuszta Social Home, Hungary.\n5.  On 4 November 1999 the applicant was taken by ambulance to the Psychiatric Department of Nagyatád Hospital. Pursuant to section 199 § 2 of the Health Care Act (“the Act”), the Hospital notified the Nagyatád District Court of this fact the next day.\n6.  In the opinion of an expert psychiatrist, dated 8 November 1999, it was observed that the applicant had been committed to hospital because of his erratic, pyromaniac behaviour, and was in a deranged state of mind which warranted his compulsory psychiatric treatment in a closed institution. On the same day the court heard the applicant and ordered his treatment under section 199 § 5 of the Act.\n7.  Between 21 January 2000 and 22 November 2002 the applicant’s compulsory treatment was reviewed by the court at the statutory intervals.\n8.   On 21 January 2003 the District Court again reviewed the applicant’s psychiatric detention. At the hearing he was represented by an ad hoc guardian (eseti gondnok). The judge in charge appointed an expert psychiatrist, specifying that his task was\n“to give an opinion as to whether or not the patient’s (eljárás alá vont személy) admittance to, and prolonged treatment at, the psychiatric department was justified because of his pathological mental status (kóros elmeállapot)”.\nThe expert confirmed the need to continue the applicant’s treatment.\n9.  Based on that opinion, the court ordered the prolongation of the applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment for an indefinite period, the necessity of which was to be reviewed within 60 days. It reasoned as follows:\n“The patient (eljárás alá vont személy) was admitted to the psychiatric department.\nRelying on the evidence taken and the expert opinion, the court has established that the patient’s prolonged psychiatric treatment was justified and lawful.\nThe patient is in need of further therapy; the court has therefore given its decision according to section 198(1) of Act no. 154 [on Health Care].”\n10.  The applicant’s lawyer appealed to the Somogy County Regional Court, arguing that the first-instance decision was unlawful in that its reasoning was substantially deficient. He pointed out that section 198(1) did not provide any substantive ground for prolonging his compulsory treatment, which could only be authorised under sections 200(1) and 188(b) of the Act.\n11.  On 28 February 2003 the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision, finding that it was in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It noted that, according to the expert psychiatrist’s opinion, no change had occurred in the applicant’s condition as to warrant his release, and that his prolonged therapy was justified and necessary. It was satisfied that the first-instance proceedings were in compliance with section 201 of the Act. This decision was received at the District Court for despatch on 11 March, and was served on 17 March 2003.\n12.  On 15 May 2003 the applicant’s lawyer filed a petition for review by the Supreme Court. He reiterated that the reasoning of the first-instance decision was insufficient, and argued that the lower courts’ decision infringed the applicant’s constitutional right to a fair hearing. He pointed out that the Act provided no ground for compulsory psychiatric treatment because of a patient’s “pathological mental status” – a criminal-law notion which had mistakenly been referred to when the e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2084", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Wydminy.\n5.  On 8 February 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed three burglaries. On 10 February 2000 the Giżycko District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 8 May 2000. It found that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant had committed the offences in question and that he would obstruct the proper course of the proceedings. The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged by the District Court on unspecified dates. On 31 August 2000 the bill of indictment was filed with the court.\n6.  On 11 December 2000 the Giżycko District Court convicted the applicant of six counts of burglary and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed against that judgment.\n7.  On 11 April 2001 the Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance judgment and ordered a retrial. The applicant was released on the same day.\n8.  On 19 February 2003 the Giżycko District Court convicted the applicant of five counts of burglary and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.\n9.  On an unspecified date in February 2000 the applicant was charged with homicide. On 20 March 2000 the Giżycko District Court ordered that the applicant be detained for three months in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence at issue. On 30 June 2000 the District Court ordered the applicant’s release. On 15 November 2000 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued.\n10.  On 25 March 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of burglary. On 27 March 2002 the Giżycko District Court ordered his detention on remand until 25 May 2002. It found that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed burglary, having regard to the evidence obtained in the investigation. It also relied on the severity of the likely sentence given the fact that the applicant was a habitual offender. Lastly, it held that there was a risk that the applicant would tamper with evidence.\n11.  On 14 May 2002 the District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 25 June 2002. On 21 June 2002 the applicant’s detention was further prolonged until 25 August 2002. The court relied on the same grounds as given in the original detention order.\n12.  In June 2002 the bill of indictment was filed with the District Court. The applicant was charged with two counts of burglary and intimidation of a witness.\n13.  On 22 August 2002 the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 25 October 2002. His detention was further prolonged on 7 October 2002. On 23 January 2003 the applicant was released.\n14.  On 13 May 2003 the Giżycko District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 3 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.\n15.  The following of the applicant’s letters to the Court bear a stamp “Judge” (Sędzia) and an illegible signature:\na) letter dated 25 September 2000 received by the Court on 2 October 2000. It appears that the envelope in which that letter was sent had been cut open and subsequently resealed with adhesive tape;\nb) letter dated 18 October 2000 received by the Court on 6 November 2000. That letter also bears a stamp “Giżycko District Court. Received 23 October 2000” (Sąd Rejonowy w Giżycku. Wpłynęło 23.10.2000) and an illegible signature. The envelope in which the letter was sent bears a stamp “Giżycko Detention Centre. Received 19 October 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2086", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Arkhangelsk in the Arkhangelsk Region.\n5.  The applicant sued the Financial Division of the Arkhangelsk Regional administration and the social security services of the Arkhangelsk Region for payment of child support benefits, interest thereon and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  On 5 January 2001 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk adjourned the examination of the action and requested the applicant to submit evidence and to clarify her claims. This decision was quashed on appeal by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 5 March 2001. The case was remitted for an examination on the merits.\n7.  On 5 April 2001 the Lomonosovskiy District Court awarded the applicant 490.91 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 19 euros) in arrears in respect of child support benefits and dismissed the remainder of the claims. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 28 May 2001 and became final.\n8.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted but the judgment was not enforced because the Arkhangelsk Regional administration lacked necessary funds.\n9.   On 13 May 2003 the applicant received the sum in full.\n10.  On 2 April 2002 the applicant sued the Arkhangelsk Regional bailiffs' office and the Ministry of Justice for compensation for damage caused by non-enforcement of the judgment of 5 April 2001, as upheld on appeal on 28 May 2001.\n11.  On 9 April 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court disallowed the action because it should have been lodged with a court in Moscow. The decision was quashed on appeal on 27 May 2002 and the matter was remitted for an examination on its merits.\n12.  On 20 June 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's action because the Arkhangelsk Regional administration lacked funds for the enforcement of the judgment concerned and the bailiffs' office was not at fault for non-enforcement. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 22 July 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2088", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1956, respectively, and live in the town of Voronezh.\n5.  On 28 April 1999 the applicants sued the Savings Bank for arrears and an increased interest on their savings deposited with the bank.\n6.  On 9 December 1999 and 21 November 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh issued judgments. Both judgments were quashed on appeal on 2 March 2000 and 15 February 2001, respectively, and the case was remitted for a fresh examination by the District Court.\n7.  On 29 August 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court dismissed the applicants' action. On 18 October 2001 the Voronezh Regional Court, acting on appeal, quashed the judgment of 29 August 2001 and ordered re-examination of the case.\n8.  On 18 December 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court partly accepted the applicants' action, awarded the first applicant 9,350.10 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 342 euros) and the second applicant RUR 25,843.60 (approximately EUR 945) in arrears and dismissed the remainder of their claims.\n9.  On 5 March 2002 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment of 18 December 2001 in the part concerning payment of arrears, which accordingly became final, but remitted the remainder of the claims for a new examination.\n10.  The District Court issued writs of execution and on 20 March 2002 the applicants lodged the writs with bailiffs.\n11.  On 29 April 2002 the President of the Voronezh Regional Court lodged before the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court an application for a supervisory review of the judgments of 18 October and 18 December 2001 and 5 March 2002.\n12.  A supervisory-review hearing was listed for 15 May 2002 and the applicants were summoned.\n13.   The applicants arrived to the courthouse on 15 May 2002. They were invited to a courtroom and asked whether they supported the application for a supervisory review. After the applicants had objected to the review they were asked to leave the courtroom.\n14.  On 15 May 2002 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court, by way of the supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgments of 18 October and 18 December 2001 and 5 March 2002 and upheld the judgment of 29 August 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2089", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the Moscow Region.\n8.  On 17 July 2002 the applicant privately sent a complaint to the deputy Governor of the Moscow Region. He reported on usurpation of a plot of communal land, adjacent to a public street in Iksha, by the private person Ms V. The applicant alleged that Ms A., the head of the Iksha town council, not only had failed to stand up for the rights of other Iksha residents but actively contributed to making the usurpation possible. In particular, Ms A. had allegedly brought about premature retirement of a land surveyor who had objected to the usurpation; she had interfered with the activities of court bailiffs who had come to reclaim the usurped land; she had assisted V. in obtaining title to the land by adverse possession; and she had ostensibly made an exemption for V. from regulations prohibiting planting of vegetables in the protected areas. The letter concluded as follows:\n“Such outrageous conduct of the appointed (not elected!) head of the town council vis-à-vis the town residents, – in full view of everyone – discredits the power that appointed A. and sets an example of breaking the law with impunity provided that you can 'make a deal' with the council head.\nI ask you to state your opinion on A.'s anti-social behaviour and assist [us] in returning the land plot into communal use, notwithstanding her opposition...”\n9.  On 27 September 2002 Ms A. lodged a civil action against the applicant for refutation of information damaging to her honour and dignity and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. She maintained that the applicant's letter had contained untrue facts and insulting value-judgments, which could have damaged her reputation in the eyes of her hierarchical superiors, thereby causing her non-pecuniary damage.\n10.  On 27 January 2003 the Dmitrov Town Court of the Moscow Region granted Ms A.'s defamation action, finding that the applicant had failed to prove the truthfulness of his allegations contained in the letter of 17 July 2002. Assessing the allegedly insulting value-judgments in the concluding paragraphs of the letter, the court held as follows:\n“In addition to failing to substantiate the said allegations with any proof, [the applicant] used expressions which, in their form and contents, are not appropriate in respect of an official, which the plaintiff is...\nAlso, the court considers that the judgments used by the [applicant] in his letter – such as 'A. knows that by law protected areas may not be occupied, but ostensibly makes an exemption for V.', 'such outrageous conduct... discredits the power that appointed A. and sets an example of breaking the law with impunity provided that you can 'make a deal' with the council head', 'A.'s anti-social behaviour' – are not only untrue because the [applicant] failed to prove that these facts had occurred, but also insulting for the Town Council Head; this information, phrased as insults, damages dignity and honour of the plaintiff, and it was sent to a deputy Governor of the Moscow Region, which might have led to belittlement of the plaintiff's authority in the eyes of regional managers...”\n11.  The court bound the applicant to make a rectification by way of a letter to the deputy Governor of the Moscow Region and to pay 300 Russian roubles (EUR 10) to Ms A. for non-pecuniary damage.\n12.  The applicant lodged a statement of appeal, maintaining that his letter had stated his subjective view on the existing problem.\n13. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2090", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The Salvation Army worked officially in Russia from 1913 to 1923 when it was dissolved as an “anti-Soviet organisation”.\n9.  The Salvation Army resumed its activities in Russia in 1992 when a group of Russian nationals held a meeting and adopted the articles of association of the Moscow branch of The Salvation Army.\n10.  On 6 May 1992 the Justice Department of the Moscow City Council of People’s Deputies registered the applicant branch as a religious organisation with status as a legal entity.\n11.  On 12 September 1997 the Moscow Justice Department registered the applicant branch’s amended articles of association.\n12.  On 1 October 1997 a new Law on freedom of conscience and religious associations (“the Religions Act”) came into force. It required all religious associations which had previously been granted the status of legal entities to bring their articles of association into conformity with the Act and to re-register by 31 December 1999.\n13.  On 18 February 1999 the applicant submitted to the Moscow Justice Department an application for re-registration as a local religious organisation.\n14.  On 16 August 1999 the deputy head of the Moscow Justice Department notified the applicant that its request for re-registration was being denied. He advanced three grounds for this refusal. Firstly, it was claimed that, at the meeting of the Financial Council (the governing body of the applicant branch) at which amendments to the founding documents had been adopted, only five members had been in attendance, whereas the Religions Act required that a religious organisation should have at least ten founding members. Secondly, it was alleged that no visas for the applicant branch’s foreign members, or other documents establishing their lawful residence in Russian territory, had been provided. Thirdly, the deputy head referred to the fact that the applicant branch was subordinate to a centralised religious organisation in London and inferred therefrom that the applicant branch was “most probably” a representative office of a foreign religious organisation operating on behalf and by order of the latter. Accordingly, its activities were to be governed by Government Regulation no. 310 (see paragraph 46 below).\n15.  On 7 September 1999 the applicant challenged the refusal before the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow. The Moscow Justice Department submitted its written comments, in which it advanced a new ground for the refusal of registration.\n“... Article 6 of the Charter[1] provides that members of the Branch shall include supporters, soldiers, local officers and officers headed by the Officer Commanding, who is appointed from London. Members of the Branch wear a uniform and perform service, which means that the Branch is a paramilitary organisation.\nPursuant to Presidential Decree no. 310 of 23 March 1995 ‘on measures to secure coordinated actions by State authorities in the fight against fascism and other forms of political extremism in the Russian Federation’, no paramilitary formations may be established in the Russian Federation.\nWe do not consider the use of the word ‘army’ in the name of a religious organisation to be legitimate. The Large Encyclopaedic Dictionary defines the meaning of this word as: 1. The totality of a State’s armed forces ...”\nAs to the remainder, the Moscow Justice Department repeated and elaborated on the grounds for refusal set out in the letter of 16 August 1999.\n16.  On 5 July 2000 the Presnenskiy District Court ga", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2091", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Vienna. He is the managing director (Geschäftsführer) of the M company.\n5.  On 24 January 1994 an officer of the Vienna Employment Office (Landesarbeitsamt) found Mr S, a Polish national, working on the construction site of the M company without employment or work permit.\n6.  Having obtained the applicant's submissions on 11 August 1994, the Vienna municipality (Magistrat), on 10 August 1995, issued a penal order (Straferkenntnis) against the applicant in which it convicted him under ss. 28 and 3 of the Employment of Aliens Act (Ausländerbeschäftigungs-gesetz) of illegal employment of a foreigner and sentenced him to a fine of 10,000 ATS (approximately 700 EUR).\n7.  On 28 May 1996 the Vienna Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat, IAP), having held two public hearings, confirmed this decision. It did not follow the applicant's argument that he was not guilty as he had not known about the illegal employment of Mr S and had ordered a subordinate to observe the legality of the M company's employment policy. The IAP noted that the applicant had failed to set up an effective supervising system and had not shown how and when he had exercised control whether his orders were respected. It concluded that the applicant had not convincingly shown that no fault lay with him within the meaning of section 5 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (Verwaltungsstrafgesetz).\n8.  The applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) on 22 July 1996. On the same day he lodged a further complaint against another penal order of the IAP concerning also illegal employment of foreigners. The Constitutional Court joined these proceedings and, on 24 September 1996, granted the applicant's requests for suspensive effect.\n9.  At the same time, proceedings concerning complaints lodged by another managing director of the M company and the M company itself were pending before the Constitutional Court which involved the review of the constitutionality of a specific provision of the Employment of Aliens Act.\n10.  On 15 October 1998 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant's complaint for lack of prospect of success. It referred to its decision of 2 October 1997 in which it had found that the Independent Administrative Panels in principle qualified as “tribunals” but that the IAP in this case lacked “independence” as the deciding judge was a former civil servant of the federal authority which had issued the impugned decision and was likely to return after his term of office to the federal authority which had issued the impugned decision. The Constitutional Court noted that in the present case there was no concrete indication of lack of independence of the deciding member of the Vienna IAP. Upon the applicant's request, it transferred the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).\n11.  On 26 March 1999 the applicant submitted his amended complaint and submitted that the IAP's decision was unlawful on account of its content and the breach of procedural rules. The Administrative Court instituted preliminary proceedings on 6 April 1999. On the same date it granted suspensive effect to the applicant's complaint. On 17 May 1999 the Administrative Court obtained the IAP's submissions. On 3 September 2002 it dismissed the applicant's complaint. On the same day it also confirmed the applicant's conviction concerning illegal employment o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2092", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the village of Aleksandrovskoye in the Stavropol Region of the Russian Federation.\n5.  On 2 October 1997 the Commercial Court of the Sverdlovsk Region granted the applicant's civil action against the penitentiary facility AB-239 of the Ministry of Justice and awarded the applicant 75,623.60 Russian roubles (RUR) in arrears and RUR 82,838.91 in interest.\n6.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 2 November 1997.\n7.  On 3 March 1998 enforcement proceedings were instituted but the judgment was not enforced because the facility lacked funds. The enforcement proceedings were closed and re-opened on several occasions. The most recent decision by which the enforcement proceedings were discontinued was taken on 30 March 2001.\n8.  On 26 November 2002 the facility paid the applicant RUR 75,623.60. On 12 February 2004 it paid the remainder of the judgment debt, that is RUR 82,838.91.\n9.  On 30 December 2005 the Sverdlovsk Regional Treasury paid the applicant RUR 99,555.58 as compensation for depreciation of the amount of RUR 75,623.60 in the period from June 1997 to November 2002. According to the Government, that compensation was assessed at the annual rate of 24%.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2093", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Yekaterinburg. He suffers from an occupational disease.\n5.  On 15 May 1997 the applicant sued his former employers, private companies, for compensation for health damage.  The Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Yekaterinburg registered his statement of claim and listed the first preliminary hearing for 9 July 1997. Another preliminary hearing was held on 4 September 1997.\n6.  Of six hearings listed between 5 February 1998 and 13 June 2000 two hearings were adjourned because the judge was ill or involved in other proceedings and two hearings were postponed for provision of additional evidence and obtaining statements by witnesses.\n7.  In June 1999 and January 2000 the applicant asked the District Court to order expert medical examinations. The examinations were not ordered because the applicant withdrew his requests.\n8.  On 13 June 2000 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court dismissed the applicant's action as unsubstantiated.\n9.   That judgment was quashed on appeal by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on 1 August 2000. The case was remitted for a fresh examination to the District Court.\n10.  It appears that the District Court received the case-file on 3 October 2000 and listed a hearing for 30 November 2000.  At that hearing the applicant amended his claims and requested the District Court not to perform a medical examination.\n11.  Between 16 January and 5 June 2001 the District Court listed three hearings. All of the hearings were adjourned because the judge was ill or involved in other unrelated proceedings.\n12.  On 5 June 2001 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court ordered a medical examination of the applicant. The court noted that the defendants should bear the expenses of the examination and stayed the proceedings pending completion.  The applicant appealed against that decision, claiming that the examination was not necessary.\n13.  The Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 5 June 2001 on 7 August 2001.\n14.  On 9 July 2002 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court sent the case-file and the applicant's medical records to the Moscow-based Federal expert council on occupational diseases (Федеральный экспертный совет по профзаболеваниям).\n15.  In November 2002 the council informed the applicant that the examination had not been carried out because it had not been paid for.\n16.  The examination was performed on 10 April 2003 by the Russian Academy of the medical sciences.  The expert report was sent to the District Court on 16 April 2003. A month later the District Court received the case-file.\n17.  On 23 May 2003 the case was assigned to another judge and a hearing was fixed for 18 June 2003.  Between 18 June and 4 August 2003 the District Court fixed two hearings which were adjourned because the defendants defaulted and the judge was ill.\n18.  On 4 August 2003 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court dismissed the applicant's claims.\n19.  That judgment was upheld on 2 October 2003 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2094", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  On 22 November 1994 the applicant and her husband bought a flat. In addition, they agreed to lend a certain sum to the seller.  After the applicant had paid for the flat, the seller refused to transfer the title and move out. The applicant and her husband sued her for eviction. The seller counterclaimed and requested a court to annul the contract and to order restitutio in integrum.\n6.  On 4 June 1997 the Moscow City Court, in the final instance, found for the seller.\n7.  In June 1999 the applicant sued the seller for return of the purchase price, repayment of the loan and interest on the amounts outstanding.\n8.  On 5 March 2001 the Timiryazevskiy District Court partly accepted the action.\n9.  The applicant's representative, Mr Martyanov, appealed to the Moscow City Court. He complained that the judgment was unfair and that the District Court had not given the applicant's arguments due consideration.\n10.  The Moscow City Court listed an appeal hearing for 2 August 2001 and sent summonses to the applicant and her representative by post. The representative received the summons on 23 July 2001. The summons was not delivered to the applicant.\n11.  The appeal hearing of 2 August 2001 was adjourned until 20 August 2001 because the parties defaulted. According to the Government, summonses for the hearing listed for 20 August 2001 were mailed to the parties on 13 August 2001. According to the postmark on the envelope, the summons were dispatched on 17 August 2001 and received at the applicant's local post office on 11 September 2001.\n12.  On 20 August 2001 the Moscow City Court adjourned the hearing until 4 September 2001 because the parties did not attend. According to the Government, the Moscow City Court sent summonses to the parties by post on 21 August 2001.\n13.  On 4 September 2001 the Moscow City Court examined the appeal and rejected it. Neither party was present.\n14.  On 4 October 2001 the applicant received a summons for the hearing that had taken place on 4 September 2001. According to the postmark on the envelope, the summons was dispatched on 24 August 2001 and received at the applicant's local post office on 4 October 2001.\n15.  It appears that the judgment of 5 March 2001, as upheld on appeal on 4 September 2001, has remained unenforced because the seller left Moscow and her current place of residence is unknown.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2095", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  In May 1995 the applicant was dismissed from his position as a musical accompanist in the municipal school. On 11 August 1995 he appealed against his dismissal to the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow. He also sought payment of wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n8.  On 4 June 1996 the Butyrskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's claim concerning the reinstatement and ordered that the claim for the wage arrears should be considered separately. The judgment became final on 14 August 1996 when the Moscow City Court upheld it on appeal.\n9.  By way of a supervisory review, on 20 March 1997 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgments of 4 June and 14 August 1996 and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the District Court.\n10.  Between May and October 1998 the Butyrskiy District Court listed six hearings, of which two were adjourned upon the applicant's request and three were postponed due to the defendant's absence.\n11.  On 22 October 1998 the Butyrskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's action. That judgment was quashed on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 16 December 1998. The case was returned for a new examination by the District Court.\n12.  On 9 September 1999 a new judge of the District Court was assigned to the applicant's case. He listed the first hearing for 12 October 1999.\n13.  Of the six hearings fixed between 12 October 1999 and 4 April 2000, three hearings were postponed because the defendant defaulted or asked for an adjournment and two were adjourned to allow the parties to submit additional evidence.\n14.  On 4 April 2000 the Butyrskiy District Court granted the applicant's claims in part. The court ordered that the applicant should be reinstated and paid 20,201.98 Russian roubles (RUR) in wage arrears and RUR 300 for non-pecuniary damage. The District Court, by an interim decision, also decided that the claim concerning calculation of the applicant's wage should be determined in a separate set of the proceedings.\n15.  The judgment of 4 April 2000 was upheld on appeal on 20 June 2000 by the Moscow City Court.\n16.  On 28 September 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgments of 4 April and 20 June 2000 in the part concerning payment of the wage arrears and remitted this matter for a new examination.\n17.  It appears that the District Court received the case-file on 15 February 2001 and fixed the first hearing for 6 March 2001.\n18.  Between 6 March 2001 and 11 January 2002 the District Court listed seven hearings, of which four hearings were adjourned because the defendant defaulted or asked for an adjournment, one was postponed because the parties did not attend and two hearings were adjourned because the applicant amended his claims.\n19.  No hearings were held between 11 January and 18 March 2002 because the judge was involved in other unrelated proceedings.\n20.  Of the three hearings listed between 18 March and 30 April 2002, one hearing was adjourned upon the defendant's request and one was postponed because the parties could not attend.\n21.  On 30 April 2002 the Butyrskiy District Court accepted the applicant's claims for wage arrears and awarded him RUR 768,885.34. That judgment was quashed by the Moscow City Court on 30 July 2002. The case was remitted for a fresh examination to the District Court.\n22.  On 4 April 2000 the applicant was reins", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2096", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Mirnyy, in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.\n5.  On 28 November 2002 the Mirninskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic granted the applicant's civil action against the Ministry of Finance and awarded her 127,825 Russian roubles (“RUR”, approximately 4,055 euros).\n6.  On 25 December 2002 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment on appeal.\n7.  On 18 February 2003 the applicant's representative submitted a writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance.\n8.  At the time the application was lodged with the Court the judgment remained unenforced.\n9.  According to the Government, on 25 November 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, by way of a supervisory review, quashed the judgments of 28 November and 25 December 2002 and dismissed the applicant's claim.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2097", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Nonnweiler, Germany.\n9.  In 1971, the applicant and a company engaged in negotiations with the city of Saarbrücken to obtain a building permit for a plot of land they had bought. In the course of these negotiations, the applicant and the said company undertook to pay 2,535,000 Deutschmarks (DEM) (approximately 1,296,000 Euros (EUR)) of the costs for the provision of the public infrastructure (Erschließung). The applicant also undertook to construct a shopping centre within two years following the grant of the building permit.\n10.  On 1 April 1974 the applicant applied for the building permit with the municipal authorities. He offered to submit a bank security to cover the costs for the provision of the public infrastructure concerning the shopping centre, estimated to amount to some DEM 1,500,000. He also suggested that a contract on this point be signed by him and the city.\n11.  In August 1974, following municipal elections, the city requested the applicant to submit a bank security of DEM 4,500,000 (approximately EUR 2,300,813) to cover the costs for the provision of the public infrastructure for the plot of land as a whole. Upon his refusal to do this, the city refused its consent to his request for a building permit. It also refused to conclude a contract concerning the construction of the shopping centre and the costs for the provision of the public infrastructure.\n12.  On 23 August 1974 the applicant brought an official liability action (Amtshaftungsklage) for compensation in the Saarbrücken Regional Court against the city of Saarbrücken. He complained that the city's sudden decision to request a bank security of DEM 4,500,000, thereby setting up further inequitable conditions for its agreement to the applicant's building project, was a result of informal negotiations between different local political parties before the municipal elections. It constituted a voluntary breach of the principle of continuity in administrative actions.\n13.  On 24 February 1975 the local building authorities refused to grant the applicant the requested building permit. This decision was later confirmed by the administrative courts.\n14.  On 21 March 1975 the Saarbrücken Regional Court dismissed the applicant's official liability action. According to the Regional Court, nothing suggested that the city of Saarbrücken had acted in breach of its obligations as a public organ.\n15.  On 27 June 1975 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with the Saarbrücken Court of Appeal (Fourth Senate).\n16.  In autumn 1976 the applicant's real estate concerned was sold by compulsory auction.\n17.  On 3 February 1978 the Saarbrücken Court of Appeal (Fourth Senate) dismissed the applicant's appeal as ill-founded.\n18.  On 7 February 1980, following the applicant's appeal on points of law, the Federal Court of Justice quashed this decision and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal (Fourth Senate). It requested the Court of Appeal to examine whether the city had discontinued abruptly the contractual negotiations with the applicant for arbitrary reasons, because the city was liable to pay damages to the applicant if it had done so.\n19.  On 23 October 1981 the Saarbrücken Court of Appeal (Fourth Senate) again dismissed the applicant's appeal. It found that, even assuming that the city had breached its duty as a public organ to act in a consistent manner, the applicant had failed to establish that there was a causal li", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2098", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Theodor Klasen, was born in 1933 and lived in Mülheim.\n7.  He worked between 1964 and the beginning of 1974 with asbestos insulators for the T Company in Mülheim. During this period, the workers of this company who were exposed to asbestos dust while working had to clean their clothes themselves. This was done by the applicant's first wife Mrs Gisela Klasen. On 1 April 1974, after the applicant had stopped working for the T Company, an accident prevention regulation (Unfallverhütungsvorschrift) entered into force pursuant to which the company was put in charge of cleaning the working clothes.\n8.  Having contracted a mesothelioma, an asbestosis related disease, Mrs Gisela Klasen applied on 6 March 1991 to the Düsseldorf Health Insurance Association for compensation payments, claiming that her illness was the consequence of the daily cleaning of her husband's work clothes. On 6 August 1991 the Health Insurance Association dismissed her request holding that her activity was not covered by the industrial health insurance, since she had acted on a strictly private basis and not as an employee.\n9.  On 5 September 1991 Mrs Gisela Klasen filed an objection against this decision which was rejected on 13 December 1991 by the Appeals Board of the Health Insurance Association.\n10.  In January 1992 Mrs Gisela Klasen commenced proceedings before the Duisburg Social Court. After her death on 13 September 1992, her husband Theodor Klasen, the applicant, continued the proceedings as legal successor of the deceased. The Social Court decided to await the decision in the precedent which was pending from April 1992 until February 1993 before the Social Court of Appeal and from March 1993 until December 1993 before the Federal Social Court. From March 1993 until October 1993 the proceedings were formally suspended.\n11.  On 17 May 1994 the Duisburg Social Court dismissed the action on the ground that, pursuant to Section 539 §§ 1 and 2 of the Social Security Act (Reichsversicherungsordnung), Mrs Gisela Klasen was not insured against accidents at work. The court found that she had not been an employee herself, nor had she acted like an employee. She had cleaned her husband's clothes on ground of their living together, but not with a view to acting for her husband's employer.\n12.  On 25 January 1995 the Social Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal.\n13.  On 19 March 1996 the Federal Social Court rejected his appeal on points of law. It considered in particular that Mrs Gisela Klasen's death was not the consequence of an occupational disease as the cleaning of her husband's work clothes mainly served the interests of the couple's household and not the employer's interests.\n14.  On 20 June 1996 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint alleging that the social courts' interpretation of Section 539 of the Social Security Act was discriminatory. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant further submitted that the proceedings had lasted too long.\n15.  In December 1997 the Federal Constitutional Court invited the Federal Parliament, the Federal Council (Bundesrat), the Federal Government, the Federal Social Court, the Governing Association of the worker's Health Insurances (Hauptverband der gewerblichen Berufsgenossenschaften) and the parties of the proceedings before the lower courts to submit their written observations on the constitutional complaint. The latest observations were submitted to the Federal Constitutional", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2099", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the village of Timiryazevskoye in the Tomsk Region.\n6.  On 3 December 1997 the applicant sued the Tomsk central district hospital for damages caused by medical malpractice.\n7.  On 1 March 1998 judge F. of the Tomsk District Court was assigned to the case.  Between March 1998 and 22 April 1999 the Tomsk District Court held four hearings.\n8.  At the hearing of 22 April 1999 the applicant notified the District Court that his medical papers could have been forged and asked for an investigation into this issue. His request was granted.\n9.  The investigation was completed on 11 August 1999 and on 7 September 1999 the District Court received the expert report and held a hearing.\n10.  The following hearing was held on 8 December 1999. The applicant successfully asked the District Court to order a medical expert examination. The proceedings were stayed until 8 February 2000.\n11.  Of three hearings listed between 8 February and 22 March 2000, one hearing was adjourned because the applicant defaulted and one was adjourned upon the defendant's request.\n12.  Between July and September 2000 no hearings were listed because judge F. had resigned. Judge A. was assigned to the case. The examination of the case re-commenced.\n13.  On 19 September 2000 the District Court held a hearing. The court again ordered a medical examination and stayed the proceedings.  After the proceedings had been resumed, a hearing was listed for 4 July 2001. It was, however, adjourned because the applicant wanted to amend his claims.\n14.  The following hearing, listed for 4 August 2001, was adjourned due to dismissal of judge A.  On 9 August 2001 the case was re-assigned to judge I.\n15.  From 9 August to 6 November 2001 no hearings were held because judge I. was on leave or the defendant did not attend on the day fixed.\n16.  The hearings listed for 6 and 12 November 2001 were postponed upon the applicant's request.\n17.  At the following hearing of 29 November 2001 the applicant successfully challenged judge I. The case was re-assigned to judge K.\n18.  Of fourteen hearings listed between December 2001 and January 2003, one hearing was adjourned because the defendant did not attend, one was postponed due to the judge's illness, three hearings were adjourned because witnesses defaulted and seven were postponed due to the applicant's illness.\n19.  From 3 February to 7 April 2003 six hearings were held. It appears that each hearing lasted approximately three hours because the applicant did not feel well.\n20.  Of fourteen hearings fixed between 8 and 28 April 2003 five hearings were adjourned because the applicant was ill or wanted to call additional witnesses and study the case-file.\n21.  From May to 22 July 2003 no hearings were held because the judge was on leave.\n22.  Between 22 July and 8 August 2003 the District Court held thirteen hearings. The hearings lasted approximately three hours because the applicant provided the District Court with a medical report according to which he could not effectively participate in a hearing if it lasted more than three hours.\n23.  From 8 August 2003 to 20 January 2004 the Tomsk District Court did not fix hearings due to the defendant's requests and the judge's absence.\n24.  Eighteen hearings were held between 20 January and 19 March 2004. Each hearing lasted approximately three hours because the applicant felt ill and could not effectively participate.\n25.  On 19 March 2004 the Tomsk District Cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2100", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently detained on remand in the Diyarbakır prison.\n5.  On 10 September 1994 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody in Diyarbakır on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation, namely the Hezbollah.\n6.  On 4 October 1994 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and then the investigating judge. The same day the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n7.  In an indictment dated 24 October 1994, the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and twenty seven others, before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, accusing them, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of taking part in its activities. The prosecution requested that the applicant be sentenced pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  On 21 March 2002 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a new indictment against the applicant and some of his co-accused, charging them with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, under Article 146 of the Criminal Code. On 26 March 2002 the two cases were joined.\n9.  State Security Courts were abolished by constitutional amendments introduced on 7 May 2004. Subsequently, the applicant’s case was resumed before the Diyarbakır Assize Court, where the proceedings are still pending.\n10.  Between 4 November 1994 and 23 December 2005 the first-instance court held eighty hearings. In the course of the proceedings the court considered the applicant’s detention on remand regularly, either on its own motion or upon the request of the applicant and each time it ordered his continued detention on remand, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2101", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and was living in Afyon. Following his death on 11 October 2002, his wife and children expressed their intention to pursue the application.\n5.  On 29 November 1996 the General Directorate of the National Water Board expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicant, for the construction of a dam. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicant.\n6.  On 14 December 1999, following the applicant’s request of 17 June 1997 for increased compensation, the Sandıklı Civil Court of General Jurisdiction awarded him 685,037,145 Turkish liras (TRL) of additional compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate, as of 29 November 1996.\n7.  On 18 April 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court. On 21 January 2002 TRL 2,311,730,000 was paid to the applicant.\n8.  On 8 May 2003 the execution office informed the General Directorate of the National Water Board that they still had to pay the applicant the remaining TRL 559,000,000.\n9.  On 25 June 2003 the administration filed an objection against the remaining amount of debt, before the Sandıklı Enforcement Court.\n10.  On 26 February 2004 the court partially upheld the objection of the administration and concluded that TRL 371,393,824 had to be paid to the applicant. The administration’s request to appeal was dismissed by the court on 13 April 2004.\n11.  On 14 May 2004 the General Directorate of the National Water Board paid TRL 261,450,000 to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2102", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Bratislava.\n6.  In 1966 the applicant had a sexual relationship with a woman who gave birth to a daughter, I., on 17 December 1966.\n7.  As the applicant denied that he was the father, the mother brought proceedings in the Bratislava Regional Court (then Mestský súd, now Krajský súd) for a declaration of paternity.\n8.  On 31 January 1967 the mother married another man.\n9.  On 2 February 1970 the Regional Court found that the applicant was the father of I. and ordered him to contribute to her maintenance.\n10.  The Regional Court reached its finding after hearing evidence from several witnesses. It also had regard to comprehensive documentary evidence and took into consideration the results of a blood test, a test known as a “bio-hereditary test” (dedičsko-biologická skúška) and a report prepared by a sexologist.\nIt was established that the applicant had had intercourse with the mother sometime between 180 and 300 days before I.'s birth. In such cases, a presumption of paternity arose under Article 54 of the Family Code as worded at the material time (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below), unless there were important grounds to rebut the presumption. No such important grounds were, however, established.\n11.  The judgment of 2 February 1970 became final and binding and the applicant complied with it, in particular by making maintenance payments. He did not, however, have any contact with I. as the mother was opposed to such contact.\n12.  I. learned of the applicant's existence when she obtained her first identity card. She and the applicant met for the first time shortly before she left secondary school. Subsequently, the applicant started seeing I. and, over time, their meetings became more frequent. The applicant provided I. and, after she married, her family with financial support and developed emotional ties with her and her family.\n13.  In 2004 the applicant and I. had a quarrel over a financial contribution, following which I. proposed that the issue of the applicant's paternity be retested.\n14.  Subsequently, I., the mother and the applicant voluntarily submitted to a DNA blood test with a view to determining whether the applicant was indeed I.'s father. On 18 March 2004, on the basis of that test, an expert drew up a report in which he found that the applicant was not I.'s father. I. and her family subsequently broke off all contact with the applicant.\n15.  The applicant then requested the prosecution service to challenge his paternity under Article 62 of the Family Code. He maintained that he was not I.'s biological father and that the declaration of his paternity had been made in a final court judgment on the basis of expert evidence that corresponded to the state of scientific knowledge at that time. Although methods for establishing paternity had evolved and he had fresh proof that he was not I.'s father, he had no means, ordinary or extraordinary, available to him under the Family Code or the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing the legal position into line with the biological reality.\n16.  On 2 December 2004 the Bratislava V. District Prosecutor interviewed I. in connection with the applicant's motion. She stated, inter alia, that if the applicant did not want her to be his daughter, she had no objection to his denial of paternity.\n17.  The Bratislava Regional Prosecutor and the Prosecutor General informed the applicant in letters of 30 December 2004 and 31 March 2005 r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2103", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Warsaw.\n5.  On 2 December 1998 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a civil action against her former employer in which she requested the annulment of a disciplinary penalty. Subsequently, the applicant was dismissed. In January 1999 she lodged a second claim against her former employer in which she asked for reinstatement.\n6.  On 25 June 1999 the court decided to join both cases.\n7.  The hearings to be held on 10 December 1999 and 12 January 2000 were adjourned.\n8.  Subsequently, hearings were held in September and November 2000.\n9.  The next hearing was held on 21 December 2001.\n10.  In 2002 the Warsaw District Court held hearings on 18 March and 7 October.\n11.  Subsequently, the court held hearings at regular intervals. In 2003 it held in total four hearings. In 2004 eight hearings were held; however, the majority of them were adjourned due to the absence of the defendant or witnesses. On 13 January 2005 the Warsaw District Court held a hearing.\n12.  On 11 February 2005 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a complaint about a breach of her right to have her case heard within a reasonable time. She relied on the 2004 Act. On 17 March 2005 the Regional Court dismissed her complaint. The court examined the course of the impugned proceedings and held that there were no delays for which the District Court could be held responsible. Some delays were caused by the actions of the defendant. The court finally held that the case was complex. The decision was notified to the applicant on 31 March 2005. The applicant was also informed that the domestic law did not provide any appeal against the decision.\n13.  On 11 April 2005 the court held a hearing and on 22 April 2005 it gave judgment. It ordered reinstatement of the applicant and payment of her salary for the period of her unemployment. The defendant appealed.\n14.  On 1 December 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment thus became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2104", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Łask-Kolumna, Poland.\n5.  In 1983 the applicant was injured in a traffic accident. He was subsequently granted a special disability pension from the State Insurance Company (Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeniowy - “PZU”). The applicant was not satisfied with the amount of the pension and on 31 March 1992 he lodged a claim for a reassessment of the amount with the Łask District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The first hearing was held on 21 April 1993.\n6.  The trial court held hearings on 17 May and 28 October 1993. A hearing scheduled for 24 December 1993 was adjourned at the defendant’s request. Subsequently, on 23 March 1994 the court held a hearing.\n7.  On 30 March 1994 the Łask District Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim.\n8.  On 25 August 1994, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case in respect of part of the claims to the Łask District Court.\n9.  On 9 December 1994 the District Court held a hearing.\n10.  Between 3 February 1995 and 15 March 1996 the court held six hearings. A hearing listed for 9 June 1995 was adjourned as the defendant had not been properly summoned. At a hearing held on 30 June 1995 the applicant requested that an expert opinion be obtained. On 9 August 1995 the applicant withdrew his motion concerning matters of evidence. A hearing scheduled for 20 November 1995 was adjourned as the applicant’s lawyer had not been properly summoned.\n11.  On 28 June 1996 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. On 17 March 1997 the court urged the expert to submit the opinion. The expert’s report was submitted to the court on 31 December 1997.\n12.  Subsequently, hearings were held on 6 February and 4 March 1998. The trial court held four further hearings between 8 April 1998 and 8 February 1999. At a hearing held on 8 April 1998 the court proposed that the parties conclude a friendly settlement. The proposal was rejected. A hearing scheduled for 5 June 1998 was adjourned as both parties failed to appear before the court.\n13.  On 12 February 1999 the District Court gave judgment. Both parties appealed.\n14.  On 30 June 1999 the Sieradz Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim.\n15.  The proceedings were terminated by the judgment of the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) of 21 January 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2105", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1912 and lived in Gdynia in Poland. She died in 2002.\n6.  In 1972 the applicant and her husband transferred the ownership of their house and land to their son – Z.J., and kept a lifetime usufruct interest for themselves. Under the terms of the contract Z.J. was supposed to take care of the applicant and her husband and to provide them with food and medical care. However, he had failed to do so. Moreover, on two occasions criminal proceedings against him, for assault on the applicant, had been discontinued (pursuant to the relevant amnesty law).\n7.  On 2 February 1985 the applicant sued Z.J. in the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) for damages for his failure to comply with the terms of the contract.\n8.  On several occasions before 1 May 1993 the applicant modified her claim.\n9.  On 13 July 1993 the Gdańsk District Court held a hearing and ordered an expert to prepare an opinion. On 16 December 1993 it ordered an additional expert opinion to be obtained.\n10.  On 1 February 1994, in reply to the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings, the President of the Gdańsk District Court acknowledged that they were indeed lengthy and promised to supervise their conduct. On 4 March 1994 the court held a hearing.\n11.  The hearings set for 3 June 1994, 5 July 1994 and 6 September 1994 were adjourned.\n12.  The court held hearings on 20 December 1994 and 6 January 1995.\n13.  On 31 January 1995 the Gdańsk District Court gave judgment. The defendant appealed. On 22 December 1995 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.\n14.  On 24 January 1996 the applicant sent a letter to the Minister of Justice. She complained about the slow conduct of the proceedings. On 26 February 1996, in reply to her complaints, the President of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) admitted that the proceedings were indeed lengthy and gave his assurance that he would supervise their conduct.\n15.  On 23 April 1996 the Gdańsk District Court held a hearing. On the same date the court ordered an expert to prepare an opinion. On 31 May 1996 and 2 July 1996 the court held further hearings. On 6 June 1996 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.\n16.  On 4 September 1996 the court ordered yet another expert to prepare an opinion. It was submitted to the court on 6 May 1997.\n17.  On 6 June 1997 the court held a hearing. On 9 June 1997 the case was transferred to the Gdańsk Regional Court as that court had become competent to consider it. On 30 September 1997 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave judgment.\n18.  Upon the applicant’s further appeal, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal gave judgment on 21 April 1998.\n19.  The defendant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). On 25 May 1999 the Supreme Court gave judgment and remitted the case to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal.\n20.  On 29 October 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal held a hearing and ordered an expert to prepare an opinion. It was submitted to the court on 13 January 2000.\n21.  On 11 May 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal held a hearing and gave judgment. The applicant’s legal aid lawyer did not file a cassation appeal. On 9 October 2000 the applicant asked to be granted leave to file an appeal out of time and to be assigned another legal aid lawyer. On 14 November 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal rejected her application. The court considered that in view of the value of the claim, a cassation appeal in the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2106", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Helsinki.\n8.  On 14 December 1992 the tax authority filed a criminal complaint against the applicant and two other persons, suspecting them of debtor’s dishonesty or aiding and abetting the commission of such an offence in relation to transactions between two companies, Osakeyhtiö Six (as of 1997 Fryckman-yhtiö Oy) and Moniplan Oy. On 30 December 1988 Osakeyhtiö Six had sold to Moniplan Oy the shares of its subsidiaries Six-Myynti Oy (later Seroponex Oy) and Aromimauste Oy (later Cenoporex Oy). The above-mentioned contract had later been declared null and void in civil proceedings.\n9.  The criminal proceedings related to several sets of criminal investigations. Of these, the earliest one concerned the applicant’s alleged offence of debtor’s dishonesty. On 22 March 1993 the applicant was interrogated as a suspect by the police.\n10.  On 14 May 1993 the administrator of Cenoporex Oy and Seroponex Oy, which by that stage had been wound-up, requested that charges be brought. On 16 November 1993 the public prosecutor preferred charges against the applicant.\n11.  On 15 December 1993 the applicant and two others were charged before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Helsinki with two counts of debtor’s dishonesty and a further defendant was charged with aiding and abetting. The case was heard on 26 occasions by the court.\n12.  The public prosecutor requested that the case be adjourned at the 3rd – 8th hearings, held between 15 February 1994 and 16 May 1995.\n13.  At the 9th hearing on 19 September 1995 the case was adjourned at the applicant’s request.\n14.  At the next hearing, held on 28 November 1995, the case was again adjourned at the public prosecutor’s request. Subsequently, the applicant, among others, requested adjournments at the 11th – 15th hearings, held between 2 April 1996 and 18 March 1997.\n15.  At the 16th hearing on 10 June 1997 the District Court adjourned the case so as to await the outcome of the taxation proceedings concerning Seroponex Oy and Cenoporex Oy, pending before the County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten) of Uusimaa. The District Court held five more hearings before 11 March 1999, when the County Administrative Court issued its decision in the taxation proceedings.\n16.  Meanwhile, after the 19th hearing, held on 27 May 1998, the presiding judge died and she was replaced by another judge.\n17.  At the 22nd hearing on 18 March 1999 the case was adjourned at the applicant’s request for two months.\n18.  At the 23rd hearing on 23 June 1999 and the 24th hearing on 18 November 1999 the case was adjourned pending the outcome of the taxation proceedings, which were now pending before the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen). On 2 December 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the companies’ final appeals.\n19.  At the 25th hearing on 9 February 2000 the District Court took note of the above decisions and deferred judgment until 13 June 2000.\n20.  On 13 June 2000 the District Court of Helsinki delivered its judgment. The applicant was found guilty of debtor’s dishonesty and sentenced to one and a half year’s imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay damages jointly and severally with other convicted persons.\n21.  The applicant appealed, having been granted a two-month extension of the time-limit for appealing. He claimed, inter alia, that he should have been acquitted in view of the excessive le", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2107", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in France.\n5.  On 5 February 1996 the applicant’s wife filed a divorce petition with the appropriate tribunal de grande instance. In an interlocutory decision of 26 March 1996, the family-affairs judge, finding that the couple were not reconciled, gave the petitioner leave to bring divorce proceedings against her husband and ruled on the interim arrangements. The judge granted parental responsibility for the children, who were born in 1985 and 1988, jointly to their father and mother, decided that they should habitually live with their mother and made provisions for the applicant’s right of visiting contact. The judge also ordered a welfare report together with a medical and psychological examination of all the members of the family. The welfare report, filed on 9 July 1996, revealed that the applicant was present and active as a father and had developed a sound relationship with his children. It recommended that he be granted broad rights of visiting and staying contact.\n6.  On 25 September 1996 the applicant’s wife brought divorce proceedings against him before the same tribunal de grande instance. She alleged that her husband had repeatedly subjected her to acts of violence and that he had chronic alcoholism.\n7.  In a judgment of 4 September 1998, the tribunal de grande instance granted the divorce on grounds of fault by the applicant alone, confirmed the interim arrangements indicated in the interlocutory decision, acknowledged the father’s poor financial situation and exempted him from child maintenance obligations. It ruled as follows:\n“The wife has produced duly substantiated medical certificates attesting to the reality of the acts of violence to which she has been subjected and of which the only plausible origin lies in her husband’s behaviour towards her. Her husband, as she has also shown, suffers from alcoholism, and this may reasonably be said to constitute the primary cause of his behaviour.\nThese acts imputable to the husband constitute serious and repeated breaches of his marital duties and obligations and have led to an irretrievable breakdown in the marriage. It is appropriate to grant the petition and pronounce the divorce on grounds of fault by the husband alone.\n...”\n8.  The applicant appealed against the judgment before the appropriate Court of Appeal, requesting that the divorce be granted on grounds of fault by both spouses and seeking a more extensive right of contact with his children. As to the grounds of divorce, he alleged that he had been subjected to aggressive behaviour and harassment by his wife and disputed her claim that he was an alcoholic. In this connection, he principally requested the exclusion from the case file of a document from his medical records that his wife had, according to him, obtained by fraudulent means and on which she had relied to show that he was an alcoholic. The document in question was an operation report of 2 April 1994 concerning a splenectomy which the applicant had undergone. It had been sent on 20 April 1994 in a letter from Doctor C. (a specialist in digestive surgery) to the applicant’s general practitioner. The applicant claimed, however, that he had never provided his wife with a copy of the document, nor had he released the doctor who signed it from his duty of medical confidentiality in that connection. As to the ancillary arrangements decided by the court below, he considered that the restrictions on his right of contact ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2109", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bratislava. She has a son whose father, a Hungarian national, lives in Miskolc, Hungary.\n6.  On 9 September 1991 the Bratislava 5th District Court (Slovakia) ordered the father to pay child maintenance.\n7.  On 7 June 1994 the applicant, on behalf of her son, filed a petition with the District Court for the judicial enforcement of the maintenance payments. She claimed that, since August 1993, the father had not been paying the maintenance regularly or in full.\n8.  On 31 July 1995 the District Court increased the amount of child maintenance payable by the father retroactively, as from 1 January 1994. The judgment became final and binding on 6 December 1995.\n9.  On 4 March 1996 the District Court forwarded the applicant’s petition for enforcement to the Miskolc District Court (Hungary) under a 1989 treaty between former Czechoslovakia and Hungary. On 29 April 1996 enforcement proceedings were instituted before the Miskolc District Court.\n10.  On 10 October 1996 the Miskolc District Court, having heard the debtor and obtained documents from his employer and the bank handling the transfer of child maintenance payments in foreign currency, informed the Bratislava 5th District Court directly of its finding that the debtor had been making regular payments. Since no reply or acknowledgement was received from the Slovak authorities, the Miskolc District Court attempted service through the Ministry of Justice. Service was finally acknowledged on 21 January 1998.\n11.  On 14 August 2000 the applicant had answered the debtor’s objection lodged in the meantime. She requested the Miskolc District Court to re-examine the amount and regularity of the payments. On 17 November 2000 the court received information from the bank that some payments had been withheld on account of the applicant’s failure to submit a certificate of school attendance, which was required once her son had reached the age of 16.\n12.  In May or June 2001 the Miskolc District Court observed that the applicant’s petition for enforcement concerned amounts due for the period from 1992 to 1996. It informed her that a claim for maintenance concerning any periods preceding the claim by more than six months could only be enforced if she proved that the father had acted in bad faith or that she had had serious and justified reasons for not having petitioned for enforcement earlier. The court invited the applicant to substantiate within 15 days of service of the decision whether either of these conditions was met. The decision was served on the applicant through the Bratislava Regional Court on 3 September 2001. On 19 September 2001 she replied via the Bratislava Regional Court (Slovakia).\n13.  On 26 October 2001 the Miskolc District Court rejected the applicant’s petition for enforcement finding that, despite its above instruction, the applicant had failed to provide the relevant information. The decision was served through the Bratislava Regional Court. On the applicant’s appeal in March 2002, the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court (Hungary) quashed the first-instance order and remitted the case to the Miskolc District Court.\n14.  In the resumed proceedings, on 5 March 2003 the Miskolc District Court declared the decisions of the Bratislava 5th District Court executable. This decision became final on 8 April 2003.\n15.  On 4 July 2003 execution proceedings were instituted against the father. It appears that on 15 August and 12 December 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2110", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On an unspecified date in 1976 the applicant’s neighbour cut several trees on a plot of land which allegedly belonged to the applicant’s mother. Consequently, proceedings aimed at the determination of ownership of the controversial strip of land were initiated. On 15 April 1981 administrative proceedings concerning the ownership of the land were reopened. On 10 June 1983 the administrative organ referred the dispute to a civil court.\n5.  On 29 April 1983 the applicant’s mother died and the applicant became a party to the proceedings.\n6.  On 19 June 1988 the Sucha Beskidzka District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision. Upon the applicant’s appeal, on 17 February 1989 the Bielsko Biała Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed this decision and remitted the case.\n7.  On 22 June 1989 the court stayed the proceedings as the applicant had failed to indicate the addresses of some of the parties to the proceedings.\n8.  The applicant on six occasions unsuccessfully requested the court to resume the proceedings. The proceedings were finally resumed by the Sucha Beskidzka District Court on 8 June 1995.\n9.  On 9 and 27 June 1995 the court held hearings. On 5 June 1996 the proceedings were again stayed. They were resumed on 11 September 1996.\n10.  On 7 and 21 January 1997 the Sucha Beskidzka District Court held hearings. On the latter date the court ordered that an expert opinion be obtained. On 19 November 1997 the court ordered the expert to pay a fine because he had failed to submit his report within the prescribed time‑limit.\n11.  Further hearings were held on 19 December 1997, 23 September 1998 and 2 October 1998.\n12.  On 2 October 1998 the Sucha Beskidzka District Court gave a decision. On 8 April 1999 the District Court rejected the applicant’s appeal for failure to comply with formal requirements.\n13.  On 21 May 1999 the Bielsko Biała Regional Court rejected the applicant’s interim appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2111", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are Moldovan nationals born in 1969, 1972 and 1965 respectively. They all live in Chişinău.\n9.  The applicants were employees of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova (“the Academy”), the State’s highest scientific institution. They lived in separate rooms in a dormitory. The rooms had been allocated to them during their doctorate studies with the Academy between 1990 and 1997.\n10.  Following a Chişinău Local Council decision of 16 May 1996, by which the legal status of the building was changed from a dormitory to an apartment building, the Academy refused to issue occupancy vouchers in respect of the applicants’ apartments and to sign tenancy agreements with them.\n11.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the applicants brought an action against the Academy, seeking the creation of legal tenancies in their favour (see §§ 23 and 24 below). Notwithstanding the initiation of proceedings against the Academy and the fact that it had refused to sign tenancy agreements with the applicants, they continued to live in their flats, although Mr Aurel Lozan was periodically on mission abroad between 2001 and 2003.\n12.  By a judgment of 4 November 1999 the Centru District Court ruled in favour of the applicants and ordered the Academy to grant them legal tenancies. The Academy appealed.\n13.  On 31 January 2000 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the Academy’s appeal, quashed the judgment of 4 November 1999 and dismissed the applicants’ action. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Appeal.\n14.  By a final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 6 June 2000 the applicants’ appeal on points of law was dismissed.\n15.  Following a request from the applicants, on 18 August 2000 the Prosecutor General’s Office lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgments of 31 January 2000 and 6 June 2000.\n16.  By a final judgment of 25 October 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment, quashed the judgments of the Chişinău Regional Court and of the Court of Appeal and upheld the judgment of the Centru District Court of 4 November 1999, ordering the Academy to grant the applicants legal tenancies. This would have permitted the applicants to sub-let their flats.\n17.  Following a request from the Academy, on an unspecified date in 2001 the Prosecutor General’s Office lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of its judgment of 25 October 2000.\n18.  On 25 June 2001 the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment.\n19.  On 4 January and 20 February 2001 the applicants requested the Bailiff to enforce the judgment of 4 November 1999 and to oblige the Academy to grant the applicants legal tenancies.\n20.  On 5 December 2001 the Bailiff made an official report about the failure of the Academy to comply with the judgment of 4 November 1999.\n21.  On 4 December 2003, after the present application had been communicated to the Government, the Academy complied with the judgment of 4 November 1999 and issued the applicants with occupancy vouchers in respect of their flats. The applicants sent written declarations to the Government’s Agent, confirming that the judgment of 4 November 1999 had been enforced and that they did not have any pecuniary and non-pecuniary claims against the Academy.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2112", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Wieluń, Poland.\n5.  On 1 September 1994 the applicant’s husband died in a road accident. He worked as a driver and was killed when a truck in front of him, carrying an inflammable substance, exploded.\n6.  On 27 February 1996 the applicant, on behalf of herself and her three children, lodged a civil action with the Kalisz Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). She claimed compensation for her husband’s death and directed her action, inter alia, against the company that owned the truck and the “Warta” Insurance Company.\n7.  On 9 October 1996 the trial court held the first hearing.\n8.  Subsequently, hearings were held once a year on 8 December 1997, 27 September 1998 and 26 November 1999. In 2000 no hearings were held.\n9.  On 19 December 2001 and 13 February 2002 the trial court held hearings. On the latter date the court stayed the proceedings. They were resumed on 18 August 2003. Subsequently, the court ordered that an expert opinion be prepared. The court scheduled two hearings but they were adjourned.\n10.  On 24 October 2004 the applicant lodged with the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) a complaint about a breach of the right to have her case heard within a reasonable time. She relied on the 2004 Act. On 22 December 2004 the Court of Appeal dismissed her complaint. The court examined the course of the impugned proceedings and held that there were no delays for which the Regional Court could be held responsible. Some delays were caused by the actions of the defendant. The court finally held that the case was complex and required the taking of expert evidence.\n11.  In May and June 2005 the experts submitted their opinions to the court.\n12.  On 20 September 2005 the Kalisz Regional Court gave judgment. It allowed the action and granted the applicant compensation. The defendant lodged an appeal against the judgment.\n13.  On 19 June 2006 the Łódź Court of Appeal held a hearing at which it dismissed the appeal. The judgment is final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2113", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Konin, Poland.\n5.  On 5 October 1990 the applicant’s former wife instituted before the Konin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) civil proceedings in which she requested division of their matrimonial property. The applicant was a party to these proceedings.\n6.  Until 19 January 1993 the court held several hearings and ordered the preparation of expert opinions.\n7.  On 7 September 1993 the court held a hearing. Five further hearings were held prior to 7 December 1993.\n8.  On 13 September 1994 the next hearing was held. In 1994 the District Court held in total four hearings.\n9.  Between 7 January 1995 and 21 December 1995 no hearings were held. In 1996 the court held hearings in February, September and December.\n10.  Subsequently the District Court held hearings at regular intervals. It held three hearings in 1997 and six in 1998.\n11.  Between 4 March and 9 December 1999 no hearings were held.\n12.  In 2000 the court held four hearings. On 24 March 2000 the Konin District Court gave a decision in which it divided the property in question.\n13.  Both parties appealed against that decision.\n14.  On 17 November 2000 the Konin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) held a hearing.\n15.  On 1 December 2000 the Konin Regional Court dismissed the appeals. The reasoned decision was notified to the applicant on 6 February 2001. The decision was final as the domestic law did not provide for a possibility to lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2114", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Dnepryany, the Kherson region. He is a former employee of the State-controlled OJSC “Pivdenelektromash” (“the Company,” ВАТ “Південелектромаш”).\n5.  The background facts for the case are described in the case of Anatskiy v. Ukraine (no. 10558/03, §§ 5-8, 13 December 2005). The circumstances of the present case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 11 January 2000 the Company's labour disputes commission (“the Commission,” комісія з трудових спорів ВАТ “Південелектромаш“) ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 1,519[1] in salary arrears.\n7.  On 19 January 2000 the Novа Kakhovka Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новокаховського міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings for the above decision.\n8.  On 10 January 2002 the Nova Kakhovka Court (Новокаховський міський суд Херсонської області) ordered the Company to pay the applicant an additional amount of UAH 3,193.70[2]. This judgment became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to the Bailiffs.\n9.  On 26 June 2002 the Bailiffs returned the execution writs in respect of the judgment of 10 January 2002 to the applicant unenforced. They stated that the judgment could not be enforced for the debtor's lack of funds. They further advised the applicant of his right to resubmit these writs at any time, but until 26 July 2005. On 18 February 2004 the applicant resubmitted the writs and on 19 February 2004 the Bailiffs initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n10.  As of 15 March 2006, the applicant was no. 4,916 in the creditors' waiting list in respect of the enforcement of the Commission's decision and no. 4,918 in respect of the enforcement of the court judgment. Both of them remain unenforced to present day.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2115", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 11 September 1996 he was injured in a traffic accident. He was found to have suffered light bodily injury.\n7.  On 24 February 1997 the applicant brought proceedings, in the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow, for damages against an individual, who had been found guilty of causing the accident and subjected to administrative liability by a decision of the police of 26 September 1996.\n8.  In letters dated 9 January and 2 July 1998 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice about the lack of any developments in his case.\n9.  On 6 July 1999 the District Court ordered the applicant's medical examination to be carried out by the Moscow City Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations. The decision was not executed.\n10.  On 11 January 2001 the District Court again ordered the applicant's medical examination by the Forensic Medical Examination Bureau of the Public Health Committee of the Government of Moscow. Pursuant to this decision, the examination was carried out from 24 January to 9 February 2001. The experts' report of 9 February 2001 no. 8 stated that it would be possible to answer the questions put by the court only after the applicant's in-patient examination with a view to determine the causation between the accident on 11 September 1996 and his present health condition.\n11.  On 28 June 2001 the District Court ordered the applicant's in-patient examination.\n12.  On 20 January 2003 the District Court ordered the expert assessment of the applicant's state of health and its connection with the accident, to be carried out by the Forensic Medical Examination Bureau of the Public Health Committee of the Government of Moscow.\n13.  Following the applicant's requests the District Court demanded various medical institutions to issue the applicant's medical records needed for the expert assessment.\n14.  On 14 March 2003 the applicant complained to the Moscow City Court about the delay in the proceedings in his case.\n15.  The applicant's expert medical examination ordered by the decision of the District Court of 20 January 2003 was carried out by the Forensic Medical Examination Bureau of the Public Health Committee of the Government of Moscow from 16 March 2005 to 18 March 2005. The experts' report of 18 March 2005 no. 22 confirmed that the applicant had suffered light bodily injury in the accident on 11 September 1996 and that his present health condition had no connection with the accident.\n16.  On 18 April 2005 the applicant submitted additional claims and the court adjourned the hearing to 4 May 2005 in order to allow the defendant to get acquainted with the new claims.\n17.  On 4 May 2005 the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow examined the case and delivered a judgment in which it granted the applicant's claims in part. It ordered the defendant to pay the applicant compensation in respect of the health damage, moral harm and costs.\n18.  The applicant and the defendant appealed against the judgment.\n19.  On 6 June 2005 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2116", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Simferopol.\n6.  On 19 June 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and abuse of power.\n7.  On 23 June 1999 the applicant was placed in the Simferopol Temporary Detention Centre No. 15 (the “Simferopol SIZO”).\n8.  On 9 February 2000 the applicant was released on bail subject to an undertaking not to abscond. According to the applicant, he was released because of his poor state of health.\n9.  On 21 February 2000 the applicant was hospitalised. He was found to suffer from second degree hypertension, hyperpiesia, and other vascular diseases, and underwent medical treatment until 3 March 2000.\n10.  On 23 March 2000 the prosecutors decided to arrest the applicant on the same charges of theft and abuse of power. On 24 March 2000 the applicant was placed in the Simferopol SIZO.\n11.  On the latter day the applicant was examined by a paramedic, a general practitioner and a dermatologist, who all noted in the medical records, submitted by the Government, that the applicant did not have complaints about his state of health. The paramedic noted that the applicant suffered from coronary heart disease and that he had to be further examined by a doctor. The general practitioner noted that the applicant suffered from coronary heart disease and angina of effort. The dermatologist noted that the applicant was healthy.\n12.  According to the same records, on 20 September 2000 the applicant was further examined by a general practitioner and a dermatologist. They both noted that the applicant did not have complaints about his state of health. On 24 March, 24 September, and 27 November 2000 the applicant underwent three X-ray examinations, none of which revealed any pathological changes in his heart or lungs.\n13.  In his letter of 29 March 2000, the applicant requested the President of the Zaliznodorozhnyy District Court of Simferopol to release him on bail, alleging unlawfulness of his detention. The applicant maintained that he suffered from vascular diseases, stomach ulcer, and adenoma of the prostate, and that he required urgent medical treatment, which he could not receive in the Simferopol SIZO. On 17 April, 15 May 2000 the applicant made similar submissions to the General Prosecutor of Ukraine and the President of the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol, respectively.\n14.  On 30 March 2000 the applicant's lawyer challenged before the Zaliznodorozhnyy District Court the decision of 23 March 2000. On 28 April 2000 the court refused to consider the lawyer's complaint on the ground that the criminal case against the applicant had been submitted to the Tsentralnyy District Court for consideration. The Zaliznodorozhnyy District Court further held that its decision was final and was not subject to appeal.\n15.  According to the Government, on 27 November 2000 the applicant requested medical aid and was immediately examined by a doctor, who found that the applicant suffered from a severe respiratory tract infection. The applicant received the necessary treatment, so that on 29 November 2000 the medical examination did not reveal any symptoms of such illness.\n16.  On 1 December 2000 the applicant was released from the Simferopol SIZO.\n17.  On 13 February 2002 the applicant was placed in a hospital, where he underwent an abdominal surgery. According to the medical records of 2003, submitted by the applicant, he suffered from several vascular and stomach diseases.\n18.  The applicant stated that he h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2117", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  On 23 December 1991 the applicant was arrested and charged with murdering in a cruel manner for gain the eighty‑one‑years' old adoptive mother of a friend of his, Mr H.\n11.  On 18 March 1992 he was indicted. The Varna Regional Court held hearings in his case on 20 May, 19 June and 10 July 1992, but on 10 July 1992 discontinued the trial and remitted the case back to the prosecution authorities for the rectification of a breach of the rules of procedure.\n12.  Following an additional investigation, on 25 January 1993 the applicant was indicted again. A hearing listed before the Varna Regional Court for 28 February 1993 was adjourned because the applicant's counsel were absent. After holding hearings on 22 March, 26 April and 14 May 1993, in a judgment of 14 May 1993 that court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to eighteen years' imprisonment.\n13.  Both the applicant and the prosecution appealed to the former Supreme Court. A hearing listed for 4 August 1993 was adjourned because the applicant's counsel were on leave, and took place on 20 October 1993. In a judgment of 10 November 1993 the former Supreme Court quashed the applicant's conviction and sentence and remitted the case for further investigation, holding that the Varna Regional Court had failed to substantiate its findings of fact and had erred in assessing the evidence.\n14.  On 6 January 1994 the case was transmitted to the investigator. He charged Mr H. with aiding and abetting the applicant. After that the case was twice forwarded to the prosecution and twice referred back for further investigation. That investigation was finished on 20 June 1997 and on 15 July 1997 the applicant and Mr H. were indicted.\n15.  Two hearings listed before the Varna Regional Court for 5 November 1997 and 9 February 1998 did not take place. On 9 April 1998 the court granted the applicant's request for the recusal of all prosecutors and judges of that court and sent the case to the Burgas Regional Court. The judge to whom the case was assigned there considered that it should be examined by the Varna Regional Court and sought a ruling on the matter by the Supreme Court of Cassation. In May 1998 the Supreme Court of Cassation held that the case was to be examined by the Varna Regional Court.\n16.  The proceedings before the Varna Regional Court then resumed, but at a hearing held on 6 October 1998 the court referred the case back to the prosecution authorities, finding that there had been procedural breaches which had violated Mr H.'s defence rights. On 19 January 1999 the prosecution authorities in turn referred the case back to the investigator, noting, inter alia, that he had not complied with instructions given as early as November 1996.\n17.  In January 2001 the prosecution authorities decided to stay the proceedings, as Mr H.'s whereabouts were unknown. Upon the applicant's appeal, their decision was quashed on 11 May 2001 by the Varna Regional Court, which held that the excessive length of the proceedings violated the applicant's rights and criticised the prosecution for having stayed them. The prosecution's ensuing appeal to the Varna Court of Appeals was dismissed on 26 June 2001.\n18.  On 9 July 2001 the prosecution authorities referred the case back for further investigation. This investigation was concluded on 15 February 2002 and the case was sent to the prosecution authorities.\n19.  On 19 March 2002 the prosecution authorities dropped the charges against Mr H., finding that t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2118", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Nedeljko Debelić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Rab.\n5.  On 21 December 1998 three individuals, P.M., J.B. and M.C., the owners of a plot of land on the island of Rab, neighbouring another plot of land, allegedly owned by R.Š., instituted proceedings for the determination of land borders (uređenje međa) before the Rab Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rabu) against R.Š. because there was no agreement among them on the matter.\n6.  On 31 March 2000 the applicant filed submissions with the court claiming that he should also be a party to these proceedings because already in 1983 he had bought the plot of land in question from R.Š., although he was not immediately entered as the owner in the land registry. However, he had been in possession of that plot of land ever since. By the Rab Municipal Court judgment of 27 December 1991 the applicant was established as the owner and on 6 March 1998 he applied to the same court to enforce that judgment. The enforcement order to register the applicant as the owner of the plot of land in question into the land registry was issued on 12 March 1998.\n7.  It appears that the Rab Municipal Court did not answer the applicant's request to participate in the proceedings for the determination of the land borders by any formal decision.\n8.  From the transcript of the hearing held on 11 April 2000 it transpires that Ivan Debelić was present at the hearing as the applicant's legal representative and he repeated his previous request that the land borders be determined.\n9.  On 1 June 2000 the court carried out an on the spot inquiry. The applicant was present in person and it was stated that the applicant was the successor of R.Š.\n10.  From the transcript of the inquiry it transpires that the parties could not agree on the determination of the land borders.\n11.  There was also an expert present at the inquiry who gave his report and on the same date the court adopted a decision determining the land borders. The text of the decision states that the land border among the parties was in dispute. That decision was served on the applicant on 24 December 2002.\n12.  In 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. On 13 February 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared his complaint inadmissible for lack of capacity to conduct legal proceedings, establishing that the applicant had not been a party to the proceedings complained of. The relevant parts of the Constitutional Court's decision no. U-IIIA-668/2002 of 13 February 2004 read as follows:\n“2. The present proceedings, conducted before the Rab Municipal Court under the case file no. R.I.25/98, concern determination of the land borders. ... 4. Pursuant to section 69 paragraph 1(2) of the Constitutional Act, the Constitutional Court invited the Rab Municipal Court to file their observations in respect of the constitutional complaint.\nIn their observations the Rab Municipal Court stated: “Ivan Debelić is not the legal representative of Nedjeljko Debelić in the proceedings concerning determination of land borders which had been instituted before that court under case file no. R.I. 25/98. Nedjeljko Debelić has not filed an application for determination of land borders in these proceedings. Furthermore, Nedjeljko Debelić has not been named the respondent party in these proceedings ...”", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2119", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are relatives. They are:\n1) Ruslan Khasmagomedovich Estamirov, born in 1965;\n2) Leyla (also spelled Layla) Khasmagomedovna Yandarova (maiden name Estamirova), born in 1961, the first applicant'sister;\n3) Sovdat Khasmagomedovna Dakayeva (maiden name Estamirova), born in 1970, the first applicant'sister;\n4) Yakha Estamirova, born in 1934, their mother;\n5) Khuseyn Khozhakhmedovich Estamirov, born in 1996, the first applicant's nephew;\n6) Khabirat Khasmagomedovna Zaurbekova (maiden name Estamirova), the first applicant's sister, born in 1960;\n7) Khabira Khasmagomedovna Tatasheva (maiden name Estamirova), the first applicant's sister, born in 1958.\n9.  Until 1999 the applicants were residents of Grozny, Chechnya. The first, the fourth and the fifth applicants now live in the United States of America, where they were granted political asylum. The other applicants live in Ingushetia and in Moscow.\n10.  The facts surrounding the deaths of the applicants' relatives and the ensuing investigation were partially disputed. In view of this the Court requested the Government to produce copies of the entire investigation file opened in relation to the applicants' relatives' deaths.\n11.  The submissions of the parties on the facts concerning the circumstances of the applicants' relatives' deaths and the ensuing investigations are set out in Sections 1 and 2 below. A description of the materials submitted to the Court is contained in Part B.\n12.  The applicants' family lived in the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny at 1 Podolskaya Street. The household consisted of two houses, built by the family over a period of 15 years, since the end of 1980s, and united by a common courtyard. During the hostilities in 1994 - 1996 one house was burnt and the second one was hit by a shell. After 1996 the applicants' family restored one house. They attempted to obtain compensation for the lost property, but failed to comply with the procedural requirements.\n13.  In November 1999 the first applicant, his mother and his four-year old nephew (the fourth and fifth applicants) left Grozny for Ingushetia because of the renewed hostilities. A part of the family remained in Grozny to look after the house and property. They were the first applicant's father, Khasmagomed Estamirov (born in 1933), the first applicant's brother Khozhakhmad (also spelled as Khozhakhmed) Estamirov (born in 1963), his pregnant wife Toita Estamirova (born in 1971) and their son Khasan Estamirov (born in January 1999), and Khasmagomed Estamirov's cousin Said-Akhmed Masarov (born in 1950). The first applicant submits that they tried to convince their father, who was partly disabled, to move to Ingushetia, but he decided to remain in the house, and one of his sons with his family stayed to look after him.\n14.  Some time in February 2000 the first applicant's aunt went to Grozny. She met another relative, the first applicant's uncle Vakhid M., who told her that the family members who remained in Grozny had been killed by the Russian soldiers on 5 February 2000. M., who had suffered a nervous breakdown, told her that he went to the house on 5 February 2000 in the afternoon and found the Estamirov family members dead. The bodies of the first applicant's father and brother were in the courtyard, his uncle's body in the doorway of the house, partly burned. The bodies of the first applicant's sister-in-law, who was at the ninth month of pregnancy, and her one-year old son were in the corner of t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2120", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Igor Volodymyrovych Pivnenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1965 and lives in the town of Oleksandriya, Kirovograd region, Ukraine.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant retired from the army. Upon retirement, the applicant became entitled to compensation for his uniform. As this compensation remained unpaid, in 2002 he instituted proceedings in the Dnipropetrovs'k Garrison Military Tribunal against his former employer, a military unit, seeking recovery of the debt.\n8.  On 14 June 2002 the tribunal found for the applicant (Решение Военного суда Днепропетровского гарнизона) and awarded him UAH 3,377.17[1] for uniform and UAH 51[2] for court fees. The latter sum was paid to him, while the main judgment debt remains unpaid.\n9.  By letter of 20 January 2004, the Dnipropetrovs'k Regional Department of Justice (Дніпропетровське обласне управління юстиції) informed the applicant that the remaining debt could not be paid due to the debtor's lack of funds.\n10.  On 29 July 2004 the Bailiffs' Serivce (відділ державної виконавчої служби Центрально-Міського районного управління юстиції) returned the writ of execution to the applicant on the ground that the judgment could not be enforced due to the debtor's lack of funds.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2121", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The first applicant was born in 1970 and the second applicant in 1997. They live in Montreal (Canada).\n9.  The applicants are a mother (“the first applicant”) and her daughter (“the second applicant”). They explained that the first applicant had arrived in Canada on 25 September 2000, where she was granted refugee status on 23 July 2001 and obtained indefinite leave to remain on 11 March 2003.\n10.  After being granted refugee status, the first applicant asked her brother, K., a Dutch national living in the Netherlands, to collect the second applicant, then five years old, from the Democratic Republic of Congo (“the DRC”), where she was living with her grandmother, and to look after her until she was able to join her.\n11.  At 7.51 p.m. on 17 August 2002 K. arrived at Brussels National Airport with the second applicant. He did not have the necessary travel and immigration papers for his niece or documents to show that he had parental authority and so he tried, unsuccessfully, to persuade the immigration authorities that the second applicant was his daughter.\nHe explained to the Belgian authorities that he had been on a trip to Kinshasa to visit his father’s grave and that the first applicant had asked him to bring the second applicant to Europe in order to join her in Canada. The child had been living with a grandmother who was now too old to look after her and the first applicant’s attempts to bring her to Canada lawfully had failed.\n12.  On the night of 17 to 18 August 2002 the federal police telephoned the first applicant to inform her of the situation and to give her a telephone number where she could ring her daughter. The first applicant explained that she had made an application to the Canadian authorities on behalf of her daughter.\n13.  On 18 August 2002 the second applicant was refused leave to enter Belgium and directions were made for her removal on the ground that she did not have the documents required by the Aliens (Entry, Residence, Settlement and Expulsion) Act of 15 December 1980.\nOn the same day directions were issued for her to be held in a designated place at the border in accordance with section 74/5 of that Act.\nPursuant to that decision the second applicant was detained in Transit Centre no. 127. Her uncle returned to the Netherlands.\nOn the same day a lawyer was appointed by the Belgian authorities to assist the applicant and he applied for her to be granted refugee status.\n14.  On 19 August 2002 the Belgian authorities contacted the immigration department at the Canadian embassy in The Hague to request information on the first applicant’s immigration status in Canada. The immigration department informed them that the first applicant had applied for asylum and indefinite leave to remain in Canada. However, the application for asylum made no mention of the second applicant and so did not extend to her.\nIn the interim, the first applicant lodged an application in Canada for a visa for her daughter.\n15.  On 20 August 2002 a lawyer, Mr Ma., informed the authorities that he had been instructed to replace the lawyer initially assigned to the second applicant and that he was taking steps to secure leave for the first applicant to bring her daughter to Canada.\n16.  On 22 August 2002 the Aliens Office enquired informally of the Dutch authorities whether they would be willing to take over the second applicant’s request for asylum under the Dublin Convention, but they refused.\nIt also asked K. to furnish the addresses of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2122", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Samara. She is a former chief tax inspector.\n8.  On 27 August 1998 the applicant was committed to stand trial on charges of abuse of position and concerted extortion of a bribe.\n9.  On 28 October 1998 the Samara Regional Court delivered its judgment. It found the applicant guilty of fraud committed in concert with another person through use of her official position, an offence under Article 159 § 2 (a) and (v) of the Criminal Code. She was sentenced to a fine of 1,000 minimum wages (approximately EUR 5,000) and prohibited from holding any positions in tax authorities for three years.\n10.  On 17 March 1999 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction on appeal. Counsel for the applicant was present at the hearing.\n11.  As no ordinary appeal lay against the appeal judgment, counsel for the applicant introduced an application for supervisory review with the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. He sought a reversal of the judgments passed in the applicant's case in order to redress the violations of the rights of the defence.\n12.  On 24 February 2000 a deputy president of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation lodged an application for supervisory-review with the Presidium of that court. Although the text of the application has not been made available to the Court, it appears from the Government's submissions that he asked for a recharacterisation of the applicant's offence which, in his opinion, should be qualified as an attempt to commit fraud.\n13.  On 24 May 2000 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined the application for supervisory review. The applicant and her counsel were not summoned to the hearing and did not attend it. The Presidium heard a report by the judge rapporteur and statements by a deputy Prosecutor General who spoke in support of the recharacterisation. The Presidium found that the offence imputed to the applicant had not been brought to completion. On that ground the Presidium recharacterised the applicant's offence as an attempt to commit fraud (Article 159 § 2 (a) and (v) of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 30 § 3). The applicant's sentence remained unaffected.\n14.  On 29 May 2000 a copy of the Presidium's decision was mailed to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2123", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow.\n8.  On 15 December 1997 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of kidnapping committed by a group of persons with the use of violence and of another minor offence. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment.\n9.  On 7 May 1998 the Moscow City Court upheld, on appeal, the applicant's conviction of kidnapping but discontinued the prosecution in respect of the minor offence which had meanwhile become time-barred.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked the Moscow City Court for supervisory review of his conviction. By letter of 26 May 1999, the City Court rejected his request.\n11.  On 3 June 1999 the applicant lodged a request for supervisory review with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.\n12.  On 19 October 1999 a deputy president of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation lodged an application for supervisory-review with the Presidium of the Moscow City Court. In his view, the applicant had been an accomplice to kidnapping rather than the actual doer and he had not resorted to violence.\n13.  By letter of 27 October 1999, the applicant was notified about the introduction of the application for supervisory review. He was also told that he would be informed about the outcome of the proceedings.\n14.  On 11 November 1999 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court examined the application for supervisory review. The applicant was not invited to the hearing. The Moscow city prosecutor spoke before the Presidium in support of the proposed recharacterisation. The Presidium followed the proposal and found the applicant guilty of being an accomplice to kidnapping without the use of violence (an offence under Article 126 § 2 (a) of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 33 § 5). The sentence remained unaffected.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2124", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Warsaw.\n5.  On 10 December 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed armed robbery against a lorry driver. On 11 December 1999 the Żyrardów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand for 3 months. It found that in the light of the evidence obtained, in particular from his accomplices, there was a strong likelihood that the applicant had committed that offence. The court further observed that the applicant had not confessed and found that there was a risk that he might obstruct the investigation. Having regard to the severity of the penalty that could be expected, the court held that keeping the applicant in custody was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. That decision was upheld on appeal on 7 January 2000.\n6.  On 8 March 2000 the Skierniewice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged the applicant’s detention until 10 June 2000, finding that, given that the applicant had been caught in flagrante delicto, there was a strong likelihood that he had committed the offence in question. The court stressed that the applicant had – like his 3 detained co-suspects – given contradictory evidence and had not confessed, which gave sufficient reasons to believe that, once released, he would obstruct the proper course of the proceedings. The applicant’s continued detention was also justified by the severity of the penalty that could be expected. Moreover, evidence from ballistics and fingerprint experts – which was crucial for the determination of the role played by each co-suspect – needed to be obtained.\n7.  On 6 June 2000 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 10 September 2000, reiterating the grounds previously given for his detention. It further held that the gravity of the charges and the severity of the likely penalty justified the prolongation of the most severe preventive measure.\n8.  On 25 August 2000 a bill of indictment was filed with the Skierniewice Regional Court against the applicant and his 3 accomplices. The applicant was charged with attempted armed robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm. The bill of indictment specified that the applicant had been previously sentenced for similar offences. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 23 witnesses.\n9.  On 30 August 2000 the Skierniewice Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 March 2001, repeating the grounds that had been given in the previous decisions. It also held that the value of the goods that the accused had planned to steal and the previous criminal records of some of them made it likely that they would be given a heavy sentence.\n10.  Subsequently, apparently in November 2000, the Skierniewice Regional Court referred the case to the Płock Regional Court, finding that the latter court should deal with the matter. The ensuing jurisdictional dispute was determined on an unspecified later date by the Warsaw Court of Appeal. The latter court ordered that the case be referred to the Warsaw Regional Court since the Skierniewice Regional Court had in the meantime been closed down. On 18 June 2001 the bill of indictment was transmitted to the Warsaw Regional Court.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 22 March 2001, the Płock Regional Court had prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 June 2001, finding that the reasons previously given for holding him in cu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2125", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bad Marienberg, Germany.\n5.  Between December 1993 and 15 October 1998 the applicant was involved in divorce proceedings. On the latter date the proceedings were discontinued as the applicant had withdrawn his petition for divorce.\n6.  On 5 November 1998 the applicant’s wife (“the petitioner”) lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a petition for divorce.\n7.  It appears that the court held over twenty hearings. Some of the hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the petitioner or witnesses. The first hearing therefore was held on 4 February 2000. The court heard in total six witnesses.\n8.  On 7 October 2004 the Regional Court gave judgment. Both parties appealed against the judgment.\n9.  On 4 January 2005 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Court of Appeal a complaint about a breach of the right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. He relied on the 2004 Act. On 28 February 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed his complaint. The court examined the course of the impugned proceedings and held that there had been no delays for which the Regional Court could be held responsible. The court finally held that the case was complex.\n10.  On 24 April 2006 the court rejected the petitioner’s appeal as she had failed to pay court fees.\n11.  The appellate proceedings concerning the appeal lodged by the applicant are pending before the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2126", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1941. They applicants live in Zallikon, Switzerland.\n5.  On 14 September 1994 the applicants lodged with the Kielce Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a civil action for payment. On 21 February 1995 that court decided that the Commercial Law Chamber of the Kielce Regional Court was competent to examine the case. Afterwards, the Commercial Law Chamber declined jurisdiction. Finally, on 7 June 1995 the President of the Kielce Regional Court decided that the case should be examined by the Civil Law Chamber.\n6.  On 7 September 1995 and 24 January 1996 the Regional Court held hearings. Subsequently, it decided that expert opinions should be prepared.\n7.  Between 19 September 1996 and 15 January 1997 the court held four hearings.\n8.  On 4 April 1997 the court decided to commission another expert opinion. Subsequently, it held hearings in September, November and December 1997.\n9.  On 19 January 1998 the court ordered that another expert opinion be prepared.\n10.  On 20 March 1998 the court held a hearing.\n11.  On 23 March 1998 the Kielce Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ action. They appealed against the judgment.\n12.  On 10 November 1998 the Krakow Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal. The applicants lodged a cassation appeal.\n13.  On 28 June 2001 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2127", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Warsaw.\n5.  The applicant’s family owned a plot of land with a surface area of 1,454 sq. m. situated in the centre of Warsaw, at the junction of Jerusalem Avenue and Marszałkowska Street. The applicant is one of the heirs of the owners of that property.\n6.  By virtue of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw (“the 1945 Decree”) the ownership of all private land was transferred to the City of Warsaw.\n7.  On 30 September 1948 the applicant’s family filed an application for the grant of the right of temporary ownership (własność czasowa) of the plot of land pursuant to section 7 of the 1945 Decree (“the 1948 application”). On 14 September 1953 the Board of the Warsaw National Council (Prezydium Rady Narodowej) refused the application and ruled that, consequently, the ownership of all the buildings located on the plot of land at issue be transferred to the State. On 25 January 1954 the Minister of Municipal Administration (Minister Gospodarki Komunalnej) upheld that decision.\n8.  In the meantime, the Law of 20 March 1950 on the Local State Administration entered into force on 13 April 1950. According to section 32 § 2 of that Law, the ownership of all property previously held by the local governments was transferred to the State.\n9.  In 1955 the State constructed the Metropol Hotel on the part of the plot which was formerly owned by the applicant’s family.\n10.  On an unspecified date the plot of land formerly owned by the applicant’s family was divided into two separate parts.\n11.  Following the re-establishment of the local government in Poland, on 27 May 1990 the ownership of the first part of the original plot of land was transferred to the City of Warsaw by operation of the law. That part, with a surface area of 818 sq. m., constituted a part of a larger plot no. 39 with a surface area of 4,163 sq. m. The second part of the plot with a surface area of 636 sq. m remained with the State and was administered by the Warsaw District Office (Starostwo Powiatu Warszawskiego).\n12.  It appears that in July 2002, subsequent to the entry into force of the Law of 15 March 2002 on the status of the Capital City of Warsaw, the ownership of the second part of the original plot was transferred to the City of Warsaw.\n13.  On 29 June 1993 the Board of the Union of Warsaw Municipalities (Zarząd Związku Dzielnic Gmin Warszawy) issued a decision declaring that as of 5 December 1990 the “Syrena” Warsaw Tourist Company was granted the right of perpetual use of the plot of land no. 39 with a surface area of 4163 sq. m located at no. 45 Jerusalem Avenue. On the strength of the same decision the ownership of the buildings attached to that plot, including the Metropol Hotel, was transferred to the “Syrena” company against the payment of a fee. On the relevant date the company was owned by the City of Warsaw.\n14.  On 1 October 1992 S.P., another heir of the applicant’s family and acting on their behalf, filed with the Minister of Planning and Construction (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa) an application for annulment of the administrative decisions refusing the grant of temporary ownership. On 24 March 1993 the Minister quashed the decisions of the Board of the Warsaw National Council of 14 September 1953 and the Minister of Municipal Administration of 25 January 1954. Consequently, the competent administrative authorities were required to rule on the 1948 application", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2128", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Koluszki, Poland.\n5.  Between 1991 and 1993 the applicant was the Head of the Civic Gasification Committee of the “Łódzkie” housing co-operative (Społeczny Komitet Gazyfikacji “Os. Łódzkie”).\n6.  In July 1995 the Board of the Koluszki Commune (Zarząd Miasta i Gminy) requested the prosecution service to initiate an investigation against the applicant for not returning documents concerning the Committee.\n7.  On 16 October 1995 the applicant was charged with having hidden the documents.\n8.  On 2 January 1996 the applicant was indicted before the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n9.  On 9 May and 13 November 1996 the District Court held hearings. On the latter date it gave a judgment in which it found that the applicant had committed the offence. The trial court conditionally discontinued the proceedings. The applicant was given a term of probation of one year and ordered to pay PLN 300 to a charity. The applicant appealed.\n10.  On 23 September 1997 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) held a hearing and on 25 September 1997 it dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n11.  In May 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n12.  On 9 January 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2129", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Gniezno.\n5.  The applicant and her husband married in 1987. Their daughter was born in the same year. At the end of 1988 the husband left the applicant and their daughter.\n6.  On 1 February 1989 the applicant’s husband filed a petition for divorce with the Gniezno District Court. He also sought eviction of the applicant from their matrimonial home. In the course of the proceedings the claimant modified his claims on several occasions.\n7.  On 9 May 1990 the Gniezno District Court ordered the claimant to pay interim maintenance to the applicant. The amount of interim maintenance was increased in the course of the proceedings on several occasions.\n8.  On an unspecified later date the applicant requested that judge P.K. withdraw from sitting in the case. On 4 October 1990 the Gniezno District Court granted the applicant’s request.\n9.  On an unspecified date at the beginning of 1992 the applicant requested that judge M.S. withdraw from sitting in the case. At about the same time, five other judges of that court declared that they wanted to withdraw. On 19 February 1992 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request in respect of judge M.S. It acceded to the requests to withdraw in respect of four judges of the Gniezno District Court. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 17 April 1992 the Poznań Court of Appeal quashed the contested decision and remitted the case. On 14 September 1992 the Poznań Regional Court ordered that two other judges of the District Court, including judge M.S., withdraw from the divorce case. It also ordered that the case be transmitted to the Września District Court for examination. The Regional Court considered that the particular position of the claimant, who was a doctor in the small town of Gniezno, might raise subjective doubts on the part of the applicant as to the impartiality of the judges of the Gniezno District Court.\n10.  On 14 May 1993 the Września District Court exempted the applicant from the court fees.\n11.  In 1995 the applicant was declared to have the so-called “third degree of invalidity” and was granted an invalidity pension.\n12.  On 9 May 1996 a panel of three judges of the Września District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for judge M.J. to withdraw from the case. It found that the applicant’s claims of bias based on alleged delays in the examination of her application for an increase of interim maintenance and lack of supervision of the experts had no bearing on the judge’s impartiality. The panel of the District Court also considered that there had been no links between judge M.J. and the parties to the proceedings which could call into question the impartiality of that judge. The applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Poznań Regional Court on 10 September 1996. The Regional Court endorsed the findings of the District Court.\n13.  On 8 July 1997 the Września District Court dismissed the applicant’s renewed request for judge M.J. to withdraw. It also imposed a fine of PLN 300 on the applicant for the submission of a groundless request. It appears that the applicant appealed against that decision. However, she has not produced a copy of the decision given on appeal.\n14.  On an unspecified date before 1 July 1998 the applicant submitted to the District Court a medical certificate and requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for 1 July 1998 due to her illness.\n15.  On 1 July 1998 the court ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2130", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Brześć Kujawski, Poland.\n5.  On 29 January 1985 the applicant initiated before the Włocławek District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) civil proceeding concerning the division of his late parents’ estate. The estate consisted of two plots of land, 16 hectares in area, and one house.\n6.  Subsequently, the court held hearings and ordered expert opinions.\n7.  In 1993 the court held hearings in June and November. Subsequently, the court ordered expert opinions and in September 1994 it stayed the proceedings. Upon the applicant’s appeal the proceedings were resumed on 5 June 1995. The next hearing was held in July 1996 but subsequent hearings were held at more regular intervals.\n8.  Between September 1997 and March 1999 no hearings were held. During this period, the court ordered an expert opinion which was submitted in April 1998. A hearing scheduled for January 1999 was cancelled and took place in March 1999. Subsequently, the court ordered another expert opinion to be prepared and held the next hearing on 25 April 2000.\n9.  At least on two occasions, in 1996 and 2000, the presiding judge changed and the proceedings had to start from the beginning.\n10.  On 4 May 2000 the Włocławek District Court gave judgment. The court divided up the estate in question.\n11.  A party to the proceedings lodged an appeal against the judgment.\n12.  On 13 February 2001 the Włocławek Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2131", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Mr Halil İbrahim Okkalı (“Halil”), was born in 1983 and lives in İzmir. At the material time he was 12 years old and worked as an apprentice in a garage.\n10.  On 27 November 1995, at around 5.30 p.m., the applicant was taken to the Çınarlı police station in İzmir by his employer, İ.G., who accused him of stealing 15 million Turkish liras (TRL) –approximately 275 United States dollars (USD) – he had asked him to take to the bank. On returning to the garage he claimed that he had been robbed. According to the police report signed at 6 p.m., the employer filed a complaint against Halil.\n11.  At the police station the applicant was questioned by Superintendent İ.D. and Officer M.Y.\nAt 6.30 p.m. the police told the applicant’s father, Mr Mehmet Okkalı (“Mehmet”), what had happened and he went straight to the police station.\n12.  At 7 p.m. Halil’s father and employer reached an agreement. İ.G. withdrew his complaint, and Mehmet signed the following statement:\n“... İ.G. has recovered his money and withdrawn his complaint. I am therefore taking my son from the police station. I have no demand or complaint to make concerning my son. I do not want him to have a medical check-up; my son was well treated at the police station and not ill-treated or tortured ... he was handed over to me in good shape and in good health ...”\n13.  However, once outside the police station, Mehmet saw his son stagger, totter and vomit twice. Back at home, when Halil was undressed, his parents and the neighbours present saw numerous injuries and bruises on his body. Halil then told his father that he had been beaten by his interrogators. Mehmet took Halil to Tepecik Hospital.\n14.  Officer İ.A., from the hospital’s police desk, sent him to the casualty department. In a provisional medical report the doctor who examined Halil made the following observations:\n“The subject is conscious ... He has 10 x 10 cm bruises on his arms and legs and large bruises (30 x 17 cm) on both buttocks ...”\nHalil was admitted to the paediatric ward.\n15.  On 28 November 1995 Mehmet returned to the police station to complain about the ill-treatment inflicted on his son and find out who had questioned him. He was given the name of Superintendent İ.D.\n16.  On the same day Mehmet lodged a complaint against İ.D. and his subordinate officers with the public prosecutor of İzmir (“the prosecutor”). He asked for Halil to be examined by a specialist in forensic medicine.\n17.  On 30 November 1995 the prosecutor interviewed the applicant, who had been discharged from hospital the previous evening. He stated:\n“... at the police station I was beaten by two policemen in the toilets; one was wearing glasses and the other had green eyes. One of them was a superintendent, at least that’s what they told me – I wouldn’t know the difference. I would recognise the officers who beat me ... Later on ... my father and my uncle sorted things out with my boss and came to fetch me from the police station. On the way home I was sick. Then, when we got home and they undressed me, they saw the truncheon marks and took me to Tepecik Hospital ...”\nAs his hand had been injured, Halil had to ‘sign’ the record of his interview with his fingerprint.\n18.  That same day, at the prosecutor’s request, Halil was examined by a doctor from the Forensic Medicine Institute. In his preliminary report the doctor wrote:\n“Halil İbrahim Okkalı has been examined. At this time his ... right forearm is immobilised in a plaster ca", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2133", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1980 respectively and live in Moscow.\n5.  The first applicant is the second applicant's mother. On 19 September 1991, she filed a court action on behalf of her son against the second applicant's schoolmate claiming damages for battery.\n6.  On 24 October 1991 the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court (“the District Court”) initiated proceedings in this connection.\n7.  On 27 February 1998 the District Court examined her action and partly granted it. The court ordered the defendants jointly to pay RUR 1,500.\n8.  Unhappy with the amount of award, the first applicant appealed against the judgment of 27 February 1998 to the City Court on 27 February 1998.\n9.  On 10 June 1998 the first applicant filed supplementary appeal arguments. In June 1998 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 27 February 1998 and remitted the case to the first instance court for a fresh examination.\n10.  The first applicant submits that from September 1998 to February 2000 the hearings in her case were rare, mostly due to the unavailability of judges, and that each time they took place the District Court failed properly to notify her.\n11.  According to the Government, on 10 July 1998 the case was transmitted to a judge of the District Court who scheduled the hearing for 15 September 1998. This hearing was adjourned due to the judge's illness until 27 October 1998. The case was adjourned due to the judge's involvement in a different set of proceedings on 29 December 1998, 29 January 1999 and 24 March 1999.\n12.  On the latter date the first applicant requested a forensic examination to be carried out. The request was granted and the hearing scheduled for 14 May 1999.\n13.  Thereafter the case was adjourned repeatedly due to the judge's involvement in other proceedings, in particular on 20 July, 12 October 1999 and 12 January 2000.\n14.  It appears that on an unspecified date the second applicant attained his majority and by decision of 4 February 2000 the first applicant was replaced in the proceedings by the second applicant. Due to one of the defendant's absence, the case was adjourned until 2 March 2000.\n15.  On 2 March 2000 the District Court ordered another forensic examination and suspended the proceedings accordingly.\n16.  By decision of 9 June 2000, upon the second applicant's motion, the District Court amended the list of question put before the expert body and on 5 July 2000 the case-file was transferred to the expert body.\n17.  On 2 April 2001 the proceedings resumed and the hearing was scheduled for 16 April 2001.\n18.  On 16 April 2001 the District Court examined the case on the merits and ordered the second applicant's school to pay non-pecuniary damages of RUR 10,000 to the second applicant as well as to cover his dental prosthesis expenses.\n19.  The parties appealed against this judgment but some time later the applicants retracted their appeal.\n20.  According to the applicants, the first instance judge erred in fixing the amount of stamp duty in the appeal proceedings for one of the defendants and it took the judicial authorities several months (between June and October 2001) to rectify this mistake.\n21.  The Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 16 April 2001 on appeal on 14 November 2001.\n22.  The judgment of 16 April 2001, as upheld on appeal on 14 November 2001, was enforced in full on 6 June 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2134", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 12 January 1993 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of his membership in an illegal organisation, namely the PKK. On 29 January 1993 he was brought before a judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court who ordered his remand in custody.\n6.  The public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, in his indictment dated 3 March 1993, accused the applicant and fifty other co‑accused of membership and/or aiding and abetting the PKK. The charges against the applicant were brought under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.\n7.  On 11 March 1993 the criminal proceedings against the applicant and fifty other co-accuseds commenced before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. The first hearing was scheduled for 14 April 1993.\n8.  On 14 April 1993 the court heard some of the accused including the applicant, who denied the accusations against him. The court decided to request documents from various authorities with a view to completing the case-file and ordered the co-accused to be ready to submit their defence submissions at the next hearing.\n9.  Between 14 April 1993 and 25 April 2000 the court held hearings at regular intervals. During this time at each hearing the court heard some of the accused and requested documents from various authorities with a view to completing the case-file. In the course of the proceedings, the public prosecutor filed additional indictments against some of the accused and therefore the court sought to obtain additional defence submissions from these persons. In the hearing held on 2 April 1996 the public prosecutor submitted his observations on the merits of the case. The court decided to release the applicant pending trial. Following this date, the court adjourned the hearings partly on account of the failure of some of the co-accused, who were remanded in custody, to appear before the court. On 21 January 1997 and 26 February 1998 the court considered the possibility of disjoining the criminal proceedings if the case‑file could not be completed as regards some of the accused. At its hearing held on 28 April 1998 the court warned that it would decide in the absence of the accused if they were not present at the next hearing. However, no such decisions were taken by the court.\n10.  On 25 April 2000 the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time-limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2135", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1935, 1957, 1980, 1983, 1967 and 1958 respectively, and live in Ankara.\n9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  The applicants are the heirs of Mustafa Çökmez, who owned a 321,76 m² plot of land in Ankara. In 1942 the Ministry of Defence took actual possession of this plot of land and established a military base. According to the applicants, it was not until the land consolidation proceedings that the administration took control of their property. The applicants continued to pay the land tax every year, until the decision of 23 December 1998 by which their title to the land in question was transferred to the State and they lost their title to the land in question.\n11.  In 1981 and 1989 the domestic authorities conducted land consolidation proceedings and revised the local plans. When Mustafa Çökmez died in 1990, the applicants inherited this plot of land and it was registered in their name.\n12.  On 18 April 1990, upon the request of the Ministry, it was noted in the title registry that the administration considered expropriating the land in question. On 24 April 1990 the applicants were informed of the annotation. On 21 August 1990 a group of experts valued the land. Later on the administration renounced its decision to expropriate.\n13.  On 22 March 1991 the applicants brought an action for compensation against the Ministry of Defence before the Ankara Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. They submitted, inter alia, that the Ministry of Defence was in actual possession of the land illegally since they had not conducted expropriation proceedings or compensated them for the damage resulting from the interference. The Ministry of Defence denied the allegations and argued that they had been in actual possession of the land since 1942. They therefore argued that the applicants' action for compensation had to be rejected as being time-barred.\n14.  The court ordered an expert report in order to determine the date of the actual taking possession of the land.\n15.  According to the experts' report dated 3 June 1991, it was established that the applicants' land had been subjected to land consolidation proceedings in 1981 and the Ministry of Defence had started using the land for military purposes on 21 January 1981. It was concluded that one square meter of the applicant's land was worth 4,500,000 Turkish liras (TRL).\n16.  On 9 July 1991 the first-instance court, relying on the experts' report, decided that the Ministry of Defence was in actual possession of the land since 21 January 1981 and therefore the applicants were entitled to receive compensation as regards the unlawful possession of their land. It awarded the sum of TRL 1,447,920,000 of compensation to be paid to the applicants.\n17.  The Ministry of Defence appealed. On 21 April 1992 the Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance court's judgment on the ground that the facts of the case had not been properly established. The case file was sent back to the court of first instance for further examination.\n18.  On an unspecified date, the first-instance court heard witnesses on behalf of the Ministry of Defence and examined the new experts' reports submitted by them which indicated the date of actual taking possession of the land as 1942.\n19.  On 25 April 1996, relying on the new experts' reports and the evidence submitted by the Ministry of Defence, the Ankara Civil Court of General Jurisdiction held that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2136", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the town of Penza.\n5.  According to the applicant, in December 1997 she lodged an action against the electricity supplier, seeking to have her home connected to the electricity supply network and asking for compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  On 17 July 1998 the Leninskiy District Court of Penza found for the applicant. That judgment was quashed on appeal on 1 December 1998 and re-examination of the case was ordered.\n7.  On 15 April 1999 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed the action. The judgment became enforceable on 22 June 1999 when the Penza Regional Court upheld it on appeal.\n8.  On 28 April 2000 the Presidium of the Penza Regional Court, acting upon the applicant's request, quashed the judgments of 15 April and 22 June 1999, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n9.  On 24 August 2000 the Leninskiy District Court partly allowed the applicant's action and ordered that the company connect the applicant's home and pay her 1,000 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 40 euros) in compensation. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 17 October 2000.\n10.  Enforcement proceedings were opened and on 22 January 2001 the applicant received the awarded compensation, but the company refused to connect her home because it did not meet certain technical requirements. Thus, the applicant complained to a court that the bailiffs had failed to enforce the judgment of 24 August 2000, as upheld on appeal on 17 October 2000.\n11.  On 23 January 2001 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Penza held that the bailiffs had been inactive in securing the execution of the judgment in the part concerning provision of electricity. The District Court furthermore informed the applicant of the possibility of lodging a separate civil claim for damages against the local treasury. It appears that the applicant did not lodge such a claim.\n12.  On 29 December 2001 the company connected the applicant's home to the electricity network.\n13.  On 21 March 2002 a Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation introduced an application for supervisory review of the judgments of 24 August and 17 October 2000.\n14.  On 26 April 2002 the Presidium of the Penza Regional Court quashed the judgments of 24 August and 17 October 2000 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. The Presidium held that the District and the Regional courts had incorrectly assessed the facts of the case and misinterpreted the relevant legal norms.\n15.  On 25 June 2002 the Leninskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's claims. On 10 September 2002 the Penza Regional Court upheld the judgment. However, the applicant was not ordered to repay the compensation of RUR 1,000 and her house was not disconnected from the electricity network.\n16.  The applicant lodged an application before the European Court of Human Rights, complaining about a violation of her rights in the course of the abovementioned domestic proceedings. On 19 December 2002 she received an empty envelope from the Court. The applicant complained to the Leninskiy District Court about unlawful actions of the Penza post office.  On 31 January 2003 the District Court instructed her to correct certain defects of her statement of claim by 6 February 2003. That instruction was upheld on appeal on 18 February 2003. There is no indication that the applicant fulfilled the courts' instructions and a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2137", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the town of Sochi, in the Krasnodar Region.\n5.  On 31 July 1998 the applicant sued the Rostov Regional Department of the Federal Treasury and Mrs O. in tort. A stamp on his statement of claims shows that the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of the Rostov Region received the statement of claim on the same day. According to the Government, the District Court received the statement of claim on 5 August 1998 and listed the first hearing for 22 September 1998.\n6.  On 22 September 1998 the hearing was adjourned due to the judge's leave. The following hearing on 28 December 1998 did not take place because of the defendants' absence.\n7.  On 11 February 1999 the District Court ordered an expert study and stayed the proceedings. The experts' report was received by the District Court in September 1999.\n8.  In October 1999 the applicant's representative amended the claims and asked the District Court to resume the proceedings and to question witnesses. The applicant then again amended the claims in November 1999.\n9.  On 25 November 1999 the District Court resumed the proceedings and summoned witnesses.\n10.  Between 25 November 1999 and 3 October 2000 the District Court listed eight hearings, of which three were adjourned because the defendants defaulted and five were postponed because none of the parties attended.\n11.  On 3 October 2000 the District Court adjourned the proceedings because the applicant appeared to have lost interest in the case. The applicant's representative objected to that decision, indicating that neither he nor the applicant had been duly apprised of the hearing dates.\n12.  On 12 July 2001 the District Court quashed the decision of 3 October 2000 and resumed the proceedings, having found no evidence that the applicant and/or his representative had been duly notified of the hearings.\n13.  Upon the applicant's request, on 10 October 2001 the District Court adjourned the proceedings because a similar claim was pending before another court. The proceedings were resumed on 30 September 2002.\n14.  Between 30 September and 20 December 2002 three hearings were adjourned because the parties did not attend.\n15.  On 20 December 2002 the District Court suspended the proceedings by reason of the applicant's repeated failure to appear. The proceedings were then resumed on 23 January 2004 once it had been discovered that the applicant and his representative had not been duly summoned to the hearings.\n16.  Of the ten hearings listed between 20 February and 16 November 2004, four hearings were adjourned due to Mrs O.'s absence, two hearings due to the parties' absence, one upon the applicant's representative's request and two because the presiding judge was on leave.\n17.  On 16 November 2004 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's claim.  On 16 February 2005 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 16 November 2004 and remitted the matter for a new consideration by the District Court.\n18.  The Kuybyshevskiy District Court listed the first hearing for 18 May 2005. Of the three hearings fixed between 18 May and 28 June 2005, two were adjourned because the defendants defaulted and one was postponed upon the defendants' request.\n19.  On 28 June 2005, upon the applicant's request, the District Court ordered an expert study and stayed the proceedings.\n20.  The proceedings were later resumed and on 15 December 2005 the Kyubyshevskiy District Court partly allowed the applicant's a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2138", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Bjelovar.\n5.  On 26 February 1992 the applicant's summer house in Velika Pisanica was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n6.  On 24 February 1995 the applicant together with his wife brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages. They relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.\n7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.\n8.  On 23 February 1996 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.\n9.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.\n10.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 17 February 2004 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings. On 26 April 2004 it declared the applicant's action inadmissible finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter.\n11.  The applicant appealed to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu). It appears that the proceedings are currently pending before that court.\n12.  Meanwhile, on 24 April 2002 the applicant, represented by an attorney, lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of proceedings under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. On 7 July 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicant's complaint. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of the applicant's constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the applicant's case within a year and awarded him compensation in the amount of 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2139", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  The applicant was a student in the Medical Faculty of the Diyarbakır Dicle University at the time of the events giving rise to the present application.\n6.  On 23 March 1995 the applicant was notified by an arrest warrant, which he signed, about the basis and the reasons for his arrest. On the same day he was taken into custody by the police officers from the Anti-Terror Branch of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate (Terörle Mücadele Şubesi) on suspicion of his involvement in the PKK.\n7.  On 5 April 1995 the police officers drafted a report of the re‑construction of events, which was signed by the applicant.\n8.  On 9 April 1995 the applicant gave a statement to the police, where he confessed that he had been involved in certain activities for the PKK.\n9.  On 10 April 1995 he was brought before the judge who ordered his detention on remand.\n10.  On 13 April 1995 the chief public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter charging the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code with carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.\n11.  On 3 June 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, convicted the applicant of the charges against him and sentenced him to death under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. Taking into account the applicant's behaviour during the trial, the death penalty was commuted to a life sentence. It is to be noted that the Diyarbakır State Security Court held thirty hearings and heard nineteen witnesses.\n12.  On 21 February 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır Security Court.\n13.  On 1 March 2000 the decision of the Court of Cassation was pronounced in the presence of the applicant's lawyer.\n14.  On 25 April 2000, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's request for rectification of decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2140", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1928, 1955, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1987 and 1994 respectively. The first applicant lives in Diyarbakır and the remainder of the applicants live in Istanbul. The first applicant is the father, the second applicant is the wife and the remainder of the applicants are the children of Adnan Yıldırım, who was killed on 3 June 1994.\n9.  On 3 June 1994 at about 4.30 a.m. while Adnan Yıldırım was leaving the casino at the Çınar Hotel in the Yeşilyurt area of Istanbul with his two friends Savaş Buldan and Hacı Karay, seven or eight people wearing bullet-proof vests and carrying firearms approached them. They introduced themselves as police officers and forced the three men into three cars.\n10.  The applicants were informed of the incident on that same day. They immediately contacted the Bakırköy public prosecutor and the Yeşilköy police headquarters to find out more about the kidnapping. They were informed that the three persons had not been taken into custody. The same day, the brother of Savaş Buldan filed a complaint with the Bakırköy public prosecutor and complained that his brother and his two friends, Adnan Yıldırım and Hacı Karay, had been abducted by people who had introduced themselves as police officers.\n11.  On 3 June 1994 at about 9 p.m. İsmail Taşcan contacted the Yığılca gendarmerie station within the district of Bolu. He informed the gendarmes that he had seen three bodies in an area near the river where he had gone to fish. At about 9.15 p.m. the gendarmerie arrived at the scene. The positions of the bodies were recorded. No documents or other property were found on the bodies which might establish their identities. The corpses were taken to the Health Centre in Yığılca for further examination.\n12.  On 4 June 1994 a post mortem examination of Adnan Yıldırım's body was carried out by two doctors in the presence of the Yığılca public prosecutor. In the body examination report, it was noted that there was an ecchymosis measuring 1x1 cm and an abrasion on the surface of the knee cap of the second body that was later identified as that of Adnan Yıldırım. It was further recorded that cyanosis was noted on the front part of the body, left leg upper part, left knee, genitals and the head. It was perceived that rigor mortis was fading. According to the report, when the body was touched, the skin peeled - which was most probably due to its damp condition. One bullet entrance hole on right occipital area and burnt hair caused by a close-range shot and a bullet exit hole behind the right ear (which damaged the tissue, internal tissue and bones) were noted. A wide haematoma on the left eye due to trauma caused by a blunt object, fracture of the nose, and blood from the nostrils to the moustache area were also noticed. No other signs or abnormalities were observed either on the back of the body or the genital area. There were no documents to prove identification, nor were there any valuables or money. On the surface of the right hand and wrist a further ecchymosis measuring 1 cm. in width was noted, which was probably caused when the hands were tied with a rope. The doctors further concluded that as the cause of death was clearly cerebral haemorrhage, there was no need to conduct a classical autopsy. The estimated time of death was given as 10 hours before the autopsy was carried out.\n13.  The bullets recovered from the bodies were sent for ballistic examination to the Central Police Forensic Laboratory, which prepare", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2142", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born on 28 April 1951 and currently resides in Kyiv.\n9.  On 29 November 1997 the General Prosecution Service (“the GPS”) detained the applicant on suspicion of forgery committed by a public official (державним службовцем).\n10.  On 30 November 1997 the head of a department of the GPS (“the Head of Department”) ordered that the applicant should be placed in custody since there was a risk that he might abscond and obstruct the investigation of the case.\n11.  On 2 December 1997 the Head of Department ordered the applicant's detention pending trial and his transfer to the Zhytomyr Regional Investigative Isolation Unit (SIZO – Слідчий Ізолятор Житомирської області).\n12.  On 29 June 1998 the GPS decided to release the applicant on bail as it was impossible to provide him with the necessary medical treatment in detention. The applicant was released.\n13.  On 20 October 1998 the GPS, having allegedly found new evidence of the applicant's involvement in unlawful currency transactions and abuses of power, initiated a criminal investigation into the allegations.\n14.  Furthermore, the GPS decided on that date that the applicant should be taken into custody on the ground that he was obstructing the investigation of criminal acts. New charges concerning other serious offences were brought against him. The GPS also ordered his transfer to the Security Service Investigative Isolation Unit (“the SIZO SBU” – Слідчий Ізолятор Служби Безпеки України). On the same date the applicant was placed in the SIZO.\n15.  On 27 November 1998 the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv quashed the GPS's decision of 20 October 1998 and changed the preventive measure to an undertaking by the applicant not to abscond. The applicant was released.\n16.  On 30 November 1998 the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged an application for supervisory review (протест) of the decision of the Pechersky District Court, seeking to have it quashed on the grounds that it was not justified by the evidence in the case file and contravened the relevant legislation.\n17.  The Kyiv City Court allowed the Deputy Prosecutor General's application and quashed on 30 November 1998 the decision of 27 November 1998. On the same date the GPS ordered the applicant's detention pending trial. As a result, the applicant was immediately arrested and transferred to the SIZO SBU.\n18.  On 3 August 1999 the Kyiv City Court decided not to release the applicant from detention, but to transfer him from the SIZO SBU to the Kyiv Regional Investigative Isolation Unit no. 13 (“SIZO no. 13”) owing to the need to provide him with specific medical assistance which could not be provided in the SIZO SBU. The applicant was detained in SIZO no. 13 from 3 August 1999 to 6 June 2000.\n19.  On 6 June 2000 the applicant was transferred to Mensk Penitentiary. Apparently, he started serving his sentence on 8 June 2000, the date of his arrival at Mensk Penitentiary, where he started receiving inpatient treatment in the medical unit.\n20.  On 23 and 26 June 1998 the applicant's wife, Ms Larysa M. Koval, deposited the sum of 500,000 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) in a GPS deposit account as bail with a view to the applicant's subsequent release.[1]\n21.  On 29 June 1998 the Deputy Head of the GPS Department for Investigation of Serious Offences decided to release the applicant on bail as it was impossible to provide him with the necessary medical treatment in detention. That decision was approved by the Deputy Prosecutor General. As a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2143", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant lives in Kocani, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.\n5.  During 1978/1979 the applicant opened two certificates of deposits in foreign currency in the Kocani office of the “Stopanska Banka” Skopje (“the bank”) for a fixed period of 25 months. The terms of the agreement were stated on the cover of the bank account savings card. There was a bank stamp which defined three terms of the deposit: the amount of the savings, the duration of the deposit and the interest rate of 10%. Since the parties did not terminate the agreement after it expired, it was considered that the certificate was extended. Until 1992 the bank continued to pay him interest, but at differing rates.\n6.  On 18 June 1991 the applicant brought a civil claim against the bank for payment of the difference in the interest rate. He claimed that the bank had applied a lower interest rate than agreed.\n7.  On 30 October 1991 the then Kocani Municipal Court (Општински суд Кочани) dismissed the applicant's claim. It found that until the end of October 1982, the applicant had received 10% interest. From October 1982 until the end of June 1986, the bank paid the applicant 11% interest, which was 1% higher than stated at the bank stamp on the bank account savings card. From 1 July 1986 until the end of 1990, the bank paid the applicant interest at a rate lower than 10%. This was in accordance with a bank decision, which was based on an inter-bank agreement which stipulated that domiciliary interest rate was to be calculated on the foreign currency deposits as of July 1986. In pursuance of that inter-bank agreement, the bank paid the applicant domiciliary interest lower than 10%. In absence of a written contract specifying a fixed interest rate and the fact that the applicant accepted the payment of an interest of 11% for a certain period, the court concluded that the parties had agreed on a variable interest rate.\n8.  On 30 December 1991 the applicant appealed against the decision.\n9.  On 20 November 1992 the then Stip District Court (Окружен суд Штип) upheld the applicant's appeal, quashed the lower court's decision and ordered a retrial. It instructed the lower court to establish whether there had been an agreement between the parties or not, i.e. to examine whether the stamp on the bank account savings card could be treated as an agreement.\n10.  On 14 May 1993 the Kocani Municipal Court upheld the applicant's claim. It found that the terms of the certificate of deposit, as stated on the bank stamp, had been agreed upon by the parties and remained valid afterwards.\n11.  On 11 June 1993 the applicant appealed against this decision asking the court to calculate the interest in foreign, not domestic currency. On 15 June 1993 the bank also lodged an appeal.\n12.  On 9 July 1993 the Stip District Court upheld the appeals and ordered a retrial. It found that the lower court had erred in establishing the facts about the period of validity of the certificate of deposit. It also instructed it to obtain an expert opinion to establish whether the interest for the respective period had been paid in foreign currency or not.\n13.  On 24 March 1994 the Municipal Court partially upheld the applicant's claim. It found that the bank stamp had to be considered as an agreement between the parties and ordered the bank to pay the difference in interest. The court dismissed the applicant's claim to calculate this difference in foreign currency.\n14.  On 27 April 1994 the applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2144", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  On 3 November 1975 the applicant’s parents requested a court to declare that they had acquired by prescription ownership of a plot of land which had been in their possession for more than 15 years. It appears that they were summoned by the court to identify the successors of the original owners and to indicate their addresses. The participation of these persons in the proceedings was necessary to preclude them from invoking their rights after the matter had been decided upon.\n10.  As the applicant’s parents had failed to establish the addresses of all the persons potentially concerned, the proceedings were stayed on 31 July 1976. The number of persons potentially affected by the outcome of the proceedings amounted at that time to thirty-eight, some of whom resided abroad.\n11.  On unspecified dates in 1977 the applicant’s parents died and the applicant and her sister inherited their estate.\n12.  Between 1975 and 1990, some of the original owners of the property or their successors died and the number of persons potentially affected by the outcome of the proceedings (as further successors of the original owners) increased.\n13.  On 15 October 1990 the applicant, being unable to identify all the successors of the original owners or to indicate their addresses, requested the Ostrów Wielkopolski District Court to publish a press notice summoning persons potentially interested in the outcome of the case and to resume the proceedings.\n14.  On 17 September 1993 the court decided to appoint a court officer (curator absenti) to represent persons potentially affected by the proceedings but whose addresses were unknown. The court also ordered the publication of a press notice to summon other persons potentially concerned.\n15.  At a hearing held on 29 April 1994 the court found that some of the other persons already involved in the proceedings had died. The court again instructed the applicant to indicate the addresses of their successors. The applicant failed to do so and by a decision of 13 January 1997 the court refused to resume the proceedings.\n16.  On 22 February 1999 the applicant again requested the court to resume the proceedings on the merits. Apparently, by that stage fifty-three persons were potentially interested in the outcome of the proceedings.\n17.  On 25 March 1999 the Ostrów District Court refused to resume the proceedings in view of the applicant’s failure to submit the addresses of all persons potentially affected. The court also decided to discontinue the proceedings, finding that more than three years had elapsed since the date of the last procedural step in the case.\n18.  On 2 April 1999 the applicant appealed against this decision and on 27 October 1999 the Kalisz Regional Court partly allowed her appeal. In particular, the court found that there were no grounds to discontinue the proceedings as some procedural steps had been taken during the preceding three years even though technically the proceedings had been stayed. Nevertheless, the court decided that the proceedings should remain stayed in view of the applicant’s failure to comply with the court order.\n19.  On 3 March 1999 the Ostrów District Court again summoned the applicant to indicate the current address of one of the potential litigants and the legal successors of another.\nIt appears that the applicant did not file with the court the addresses requested and on 2 February 2000 the trial court rendered a decision discontinuing the proceedings. The applicant appeal", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2145", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  He is a lawyer and a board member of the İzmir branch of the Human Rights Association for Oppressed People (Mazlumder).\n6.  On 16 June 1999 the Public Prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court requested the court to issue a warrant authorising the search of the headquarters and branches of the Mazlumder, in order to collect evidence concerning certain acts of the association, allegedly carried out against the “integrity of the country and the secular regime”. On the same day the court issued the search warrant which provided as follows:\n“...In accordance with Article 13 of the Code on the Establishment and Procedures of State Security Courts and Articles 86, 94, 95, 96, 97 and 98 of the Code on Criminal Procedure and in line with the request of the Public Prosecutor, it has been decided to carry out a search of the headquarters and all branches of the Mazlumder, during day time and on one occasion only, for the purpose of collecting evidence.”\n7.  On 18 June 1999 the Public Prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court communicated the court decision to the Ministry of the Interior for execution. On the same day, the Public Prosecutor sent an additional letter which read as follows:\n“Pursuant to Article 86, and the following articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and considering that this is a situation where delay would be prejudicial, the Public Prosecutor’s office has also decided to carry out a search of the homes and offices of the General Director and board members of the association.”\n8.  On the same day the Under-Secretary of State of the Ministry of the Interior sent a letter to the governors of 80 provinces, which read as follows:\n“Pursuant to the Ankara State Security Court’s decision of 16 June 1999 and the Public Prosecutor’s decision of 18 June 1999, in accordance with Article 86 and the following articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in the light of all the information and evidence establishing that the Mazlumder is acting against the integrity of the country and the secular regime, it is requested that a search be carried out of its headquarters and branches, as well as the homes and offices of the General Director and board members, which includes the homes and offices of the board members of the branches.”\n9.  On 19 June 1999 police officers carried out a simultaneous search of all the premises mentioned in the letter of the Under-Secretary of State, including the applicant’s home and law office.\n10.  During the search of his home, the police officers showed the applicant the letter of the Under-Secretary of State. They confiscated two videotapes found in his home and photocopied various documents taken from his office. Following the search of his home, the applicant and his wife signed a search report drafted by the police.\n11.  On 23 November 1999 the applicant filed a petition with Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, alleging an abuse of power by the Public Prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court, the Under-Secretary of State of the Ministry of the Interior and the police officers who carried out the search.\n12.  On 7 February 2000 the Principal Public Prosecutor held that there was no need to act on the petition charging the Under-Secretary of State with an abuse of power, as he had merely assisted the judicial authorities, acting within the powers conferred on him by law.\n13.  On 28 February 2000 the applicant ob", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2146", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1950, 1966, 1972, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1990 and 1993, respectively, and live in Diyarbakır. The first applicant is the wife and the remainder of the applicants are the children of Hakkı Kaya, who has been missing since 16 November 1996.\n9.  On 16 November 1996 at about 3 p.m. Hakkı Kaya and his two friends Mr Ahmet Yaşar and a certain Mehmet (full name unknown) were walking in the city centre in Diyarbakır. While they were in front of the Forest Directorate building, a white Renault estate car, with the registration number 06 EKN 22, approached them. Three men dressed in civilian clothes and carrying walkie-talkies introduced themselves as police officers and carried out an identity check. They then forced Mr Kaya into the vehicle, stating that he had to go to the police station to make a statement.\n10.  On 28 November 1996 the second applicant filed a complaint with the Diyarbakır State Security Court Public Prosecutor’s office and requested the Prosecutor to investigate Hakkı Kaya’s disappearance. On the same day, Hakkı Kaya’s brother, Mr Şefik Kaya, petitioned the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor’s office and requested information about his brother’s whereabouts.\n11.  On 4 December 1996 the police took a statement from Mr Ahmet Yaşar, an eye-witness to Hakkı Kaya’s abduction. In his statement, Mr Yaşar explained that on the day of the incident, while he and his two friends were walking in front of the Diyarbakır Forest Directorate Building, a white Toros estate car with the registration number 06 EKN 22 had approached them. The men in the car carried out an identity check and told Mr Yaşar that he could leave. Mr Yaşar explained that, as everything had happened very quickly, he was unable to give a precise description of these men. He recalled however that one of them was blond, and another had curly hair. He had no idea for whom they were working.\n12.  On 5 January 1997 the Diyarbakır Gendarmerie Commander informed the Diyarbakır State Security Court Public Prosecutor that Hakkı Kaya had not been taken into custody.\n13.  On 17 March 1997 the Diyarbakır State Security Court Public Prosecutor declared a lack of jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s office. The latter commenced an investigation into Mr Kaya’s disappearance and requested the Diyarbakır Security Directorate to search for him. Since that date, the Security Directorate has been sending regular reports to the Prosecutor and checking the customs’ records to see whether Hakkı Kaya has left the country.\n14.  On 27 March 1997 the Human Rights Investigation Committee at the Turkish Grand National Assembly informed the applicants that Hakkı Kaya was not in detention. The Committee further informed the applicants that the car with the registration number 06 EKN 22 was a Fiat Şahin, and not a white Toros estate car as alleged, and it belonged to a certain Y.C., who resided in Ankara.\n15.  On 7 September 1998 the police took Efendi Kaya’s statement. In his statement, Efendi Kaya explained that his father had been missing since November 1996 and that he had not received any news from him since.\n16.  On 28 January 2000 the applicants filed a further complaint with the Public Prosecutor. On 12 June 2000 the police once again took a statement from Efendi Kaya, who repeated his statement of 7 September 1998.\n17.  On 13 June 2000 the police took a statement from Mr Recep Girçek, a neighbour of the Kaya family. In h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2147", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Central Mediterranean Development Corporation Limited, is a Maltese company registered in Valletta.\n5.  On 7 December 1990 the applicant company sued a certain Mrs S. before the Civil Court (First Hall). It claimed that a contract concluded with the defendant should be rescinded and requested to reacquire possession of a plot of land. Its claim was based on the fact that, disregarding the obligations arising from the said contract, Mrs S. had not built a house or a villa on the plot in issue and had failed to pay the agreed annual rent of 44 Maltese liras (MTL – approximately 105 euros (EUR)).\n6.  Mrs S. filed submissions in reply to the applicant’s claim on 18 December 1990 and on 8 January 1991. The case was set down for hearing on 21 February 1991, on which date a number of preliminary pleas were raised. These were determined on 15 March 1991. Subsequently, the parties submitted their pleadings and the case was reserved for judgment until 8 November 1991. The parties were authorised to submit observations but failed to do so. The case was adjourned first until 17 January 1992, then until 26 March 1992. The decision was adjourned twelve times.\n7.  In a judgment of 5 October 1993 the Civil Court upheld the applicant’s claim.\n8.  On 29 October 1993 Mrs. S. appealed against that judgment. The applicant filed submissions in reply on 25 November 1993. On 17 October 1996 the parties presented their oral pleadings and the case was reserved for judgment until 16 January 1997. However, the decision was adjourned on twenty-eight occasions.\n9.  In a judgment of 9 October 2001 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.\n10.  Considering that its case had not been decided “within a reasonable time”, on 13 August 2002 the applicant, invoking Article 39(2) of the Constitution of Malta and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, lodged an application with the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional jurisdiction.\n11.  In a judgment of 14 November 2002 the Civil Court dismissed the applicant’s application. It observed that it did not appear that there had been excessive delays in deciding the case at first instance. The preliminary pleas had been decided on 21 February 1991 and the judgment on the merits had been delivered only one and a half years after the date on which the case was ready for decision. Moreover, the Civil Court had waited four months for the parties to submit their observations. It was true that the proceedings before the Court of Appeal had lasted a longer time. The fixing of the date of the first sitting had taken three years and a decision on the merits of the case had not been given until five years later. However, the reasonableness of this delay had to be examined in the context of the national judicial system, in which, unlike in other countries, the right of appeal was automatic. Every litigant who felt aggrieved by a decision given at first instance could lodge an appeal without having to apply for leave to do so. This obliged the Court of Appeal to examine a large number of cases in detail, bearing in mind that its decision would be the final one, and would therefore not be subject to review by any superior authority. The expenses for bringing an appeal were also relatively low, which constituted another factor encouraging citizens to bring their cases before the Court of Appeal. In the Civil Court’s view, the obligation of the State to organise its judicial system wit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2148", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Częstochowa, Poland.\n5.  On 30 December 1991 the applicant lodged an application with the Minister of Agriculture (Minister Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej), seeking annulment of the Minister’s decision of 3 February 1950 to expropriate the property of the applicant’s father.\n6.  The applicant complained several times to the Minister and the Ombudsman about lack of progress in the proceedings.\n7.  On 22 June 1995 the Minister informed the applicant that his application would be examined in the fourth quarter of 1995.\n8.  On 6 April 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint about the Minister’s inactivity with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny).\n9.  On 15 January 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court ordered the Minister to deal with the applicant’s case within 2 months.\n10.  The Minister failed to do so and, on 16 April 2002, the applicant lodged a further complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court about the Minister’s inactivity. The court examined his complaint on 18 February 2003.\n11.  In the meantime, on 19 April 2002, the Minister stayed the proceedings. He found that it was necessary to obtain a geodetic expert opinion. The Minister upheld his decision on 10 July 2002.\n12.  On 10 March 2004, upon the applicant’s request, the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny) quashed both decisions as inadmissible in law.\n13.  On 27 September 2004 the Minister of Agriculture gave a decision. He found that the decision of 3 February 1950 was not in accordance with law. However, he refused to restore the property to the applicant.\n14.  On 18 October 2004 the applicant made an application to the Minister for the matter to be reconsidered (wniosek o ponowne rozpatrzenie sprawy).\n15.  The Minister upheld his original decision on 6 April 2005.\nOn 28 April 2005 the applicant lodged an application for compensation for the loss of his estate.\n16.  The Minister granted the request on 3 October 2005. The applicant was awarded 146,996 Polish zlotys in compensation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2149", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in London.\n5.  The applicant claimed to be the owner of four tenements in Malta. Before the Court he produced a statement made on 19 July 2006 by a notary public, which reads as follows:\n“I the undersigned Dr. Paul Pullicino, Notary Public, do hereby certify that in virtue of a secret will made on the 4th day of October, 1966, by Charles Edwards, and published by me on the 9th November, 1996, Major Joseph John Edwards [the applicant] was nominated and appointed by his father, the late Mr Charles Edwards as his sole universal heir and Testamentary Executor of his estate to whom he bequeathed 21/25ths undivided parts of tenements situated at numbers 96 to 100 Tonna Street, Sliema, - of which 2/25ths had been inherited by his wife from her late brother Sir Augustus Bartolo and the further 16/25ths purchased by him from her brother's family in the mid 1950's – all of which were owned in common with the remaining 4/25ths undivided and equal parts owned by four further members of the Bartolo family residing somewhere in South America, the administration of which had been passed on to him by their eldest brother Captain Albert Borg Falzon who had been their family administrator until he emigrated from Malta on the 4th June, 1956.”\n6.  In March 1941 the four tenements were requisitioned for the purpose of providing housing for homeless people. The requisition order was served on the applicant's ancestor, Mr Charles Edwards. Further correspondence about the premises was addressed to Mr Charles Edwards, as trustee of the estate of the late Sir Augustus Bartolo.\n7.  On 2 June 1949 a judicial letter was sent to Mr Charles Edwards “as owner” of the premises, demanding recognition of the tenants. He replied that he was only the trustee of the estate and could not therefore recognise the tenants. This position was confirmed in a court application of 14 July 1949.\n8. The top floor of one of the tenements was allocated to Mr P. and his family, while family S. had been allotted the ground floor. The requisition of this tenement, composed of two floors, was contested on the ground that the ground floor provided the only access to a field, which belonged to the same owner and which had not been requisitioned. After these tenants had been recognised, on 16 December 1949 the premises were derequisitioned.\n9. The premises were again requisitioned on 18 July 1957 from Mr Charles Edwards. They were derequisitioned on 5 March 1963.\n10.  On 10 September 1975 a fresh requisition order concerning the same tenement was issued to Mr. Charles Edwards. The authorities instructed that family P. be allotted both floors. The housekeeper, who was in correspondence about the matter with the applicant (Mr Joseph John Edwards), handed over all the keys of the tenement.\n11.  On 14 November 1975 the applicant wrote to the Housing Department asking for reconsideration of the order of 10 September 1975. He reiterated the argument concerning access to the field. The Department acknowledged receipt of this letter but did not reply to it. On an unspecified date in 1976, an amended requisition order, including the field adjacent to the applicant's tenement, was issued.\n12.  The applicant alleged that he had sought the assistance of the Minister of Housing and of the Attorney General in order to restore the situation and that on further meetings with the authorities he had been made to believe that the situation would be remedied. However, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2150", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Germany.\n5.  The applicant was a civil engineer and a partner in a company. He was also acting as an automobile commissioner in his spare time.\n6.  In the course of an operation carried out against the activities of an illegal organisation, namely the Islami Hareket Örgütü (the Islamic Movement Organisation), the applicant was arrested and taken into custody together with Mr A.A. while they were leaving the applicant’s house on 28 November 1995. It appears from the arrest protocol that the police officers were following Mr A.A. who was suspected of being a member of that organisation.\n7.  On the same day, the applicant’s house was searched. According to the search and seizure protocol drafted by the police officers and signed by the applicant and his wife, the police did not find anything illegal or incriminating.\n8. Between 28 November and 11 December 1995, the applicant was interrogated and confronted with a number of suspects. The applicant claims that he was beaten and given electric shocks during this time.\n9.  On 11 December 1995 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Bursa Forensic Medical Department who did not find any signs of ill‑treatment on the applicant’s body. The report mentioned that the applicant complained of a bruise on his left eye and of having been given electric shocks.\n10.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the prosecutor when he denied the accusations against him and claimed to have given his statements in custody under duress. He was then brought before a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court who ordered his detention on remand.\n11.  On 27 December 1995 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, along with two other suspects, accusing him of providing the Islamic Movement Organisation with financial support by forging licences and plates for stolen cars and, subsequently, selling them. The prosecutor requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced for membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  On an unspecified date the criminal proceedings against the applicant and two other accused commenced before the Istanbul State Security Court.\n13.  During the proceedings the applicant refuted the accusations against him. In particular, he challenged the authenticity of the documents in the case file claiming that some of them had been replaced. In support of his argument, he claimed, inter alia, that the search and seizure protocol was torn and that therefore the police had drafted a new one and made him sign under his wife’s name. In his final observations on the merits, the applicant also stated that he had been forced to sign his statements in police custody.\n14.  On 9 September 1996 the applicant was released pending trial.\n15.  On 13 February 1998 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, under Article 169 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. In its decision, the court noted, inter alia, that there was no evidence that the applicant had taken part in any armed or unarmed activity of the organisation in order to be considered a member of that organisation. However, the court was not convinced that the applicant did not know that, through his constant financial relationship with Mr A.A., he had been helping the organisation.\n16.  O", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2151", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Poznań.\n5.  On 12 March 1987 the applicant lodged a motion with the Poznań District Court concerning the inheritance of her mother’s and her father’s estate.\n6.  On 25 April 1987 the Poznań District Court ordered two court files from other proceedings to be joined to the case.\n7.  On 22 March 1988 the Poznań District Court urged the competent court to submit these files.\n8.  On 6 April 1988 the above-mentioned order was complied with.\n9.  On 27 June 1988 the first hearing was held. As witnesses had not been summoned properly, the hearing was adjourned.\n10.  On 14 September 1989 the second hearing was held. As witnesses had not been called properly the hearing was again adjourned.\n11.  On 14 November 1989 the third hearing was held at which it was decided to appoint two experts.\n12.  On 8 March 1990 and 6 April 1992 the experts’ opinions were submitted to the court.\n13.  On 28 May 1992 the Poznań District Court issued a decision as to the entitlement to the inheritance. It ruled that the applicant was to inherit ¼ of her father’s estate and nothing from her mother’s. On 18 November 1993 the applicant requested the Minister of Justice to lodge an extraordinary appeal as to the part of the judgment concerning her mother’s estate.\n14.  On 27 September 1994 the Minister of Justice lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court, arguing that the decision of 28 May 1992 was in manifest breach of law.\n15.  On 27 October 1994 the Supreme Court partly quashed the contested decision and remitted the case to the Poznań District Court. In the course of the proceedings another expert opinion was admitted.\n16.  At the hearing held on 15 February 1995 the court granted the applicant partial exemption from court fees and appointed her a legal-aid lawyer.\n17.  Subsequent hearings were held on 19 May 1995, 21 June 1995, 1 September 1995 and 13 September 1995.\n18.  On 12 October 1995 the court conducted an inspection of the real estate.\n19.  At the hearing held on 3 November 1995 the court decided to impose a fine on a witness who had failed to appear.\n20.  A subsequent hearing was held on 6 December 1995.\n21.  On 19 January 1996 a hearing was held at which one of the parties did not appear. The court ordered him to submit a medical certificate and to appear at the next hearing.\n22.  The hearing held on 21 February 1996 was adjourned due to the absence of other parties to the proceedings. The court ordered them to submit medical certificates and to appear at the next hearing.\n23.  At the hearing held on 12 April 1996 one of the parties to the proceedings failed to appear and was ordered to appear at the hearing on pain of omission of her statements.\n24.  Another hearing was held on 16 May 1996.\n25.  On 21 June 1996 the hearing was adjourned due to the absence of a witness. The court imposed a fine on him.\n26.  On 10 July 1996 a hearing had to be adjourned since it appeared that one of the witness’ whereabouts was incorrect. Another party’s lawyer was ordered to submit relevant information within three days on pain of omission of that information as evidence.\n27.  The next hearing was held on 2 August 1996.\n28.  On 7 January 1997 an expert opinion was ordered. It was submitted on 6 March 1997.\n29.  On 11 March 1997 the court ordered a further expert opinion. It was submitted on 20 October 1997.\n30.  On 10 December 1997 a hearing was held.\n31.  On 30 January 1998 the Poznań District Court issued a decisi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2152", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  The applicant was born in 1976 and, at the time of the introduction of his application, was serving a sentence of life imprisonment in England.\n11.  In February 1994 the applicant was living with his family in Germany, where his father was an Army Corporal serving in the Support Unit of the Rhine Garrison. On 8 February 1994 the applicant was charged with the murder of a young civilian woman who had been working in the Support Unit and whose body had been found in woods near to the army base.\n12.  As a family member residing with a member of the Armed Forces, the applicant was subject to military law (see paragraph 25 below). The German authorities waived jurisdiction pursuant to the NATO Status of Forces Agreement 1951 (see paragraph 21 below).\n13.  On 8 February 1994 the Commander of the Support Unit was appointed to act as the applicant’s Commanding Officer. The latter decided to refer the case to the Higher Authority with a view to the applicant being tried by general court-martial. The Higher Authority submitted the case for trial by general court-martial, and the court-martial was convened by the Commanding Officer (henceforth, “the Convening Officer”). The applicant obtained military legal aid on 10 February 1994.\n14.  In the meantime, the applicant’s father was posted to England and returned there on 24 March 1994. Despite his father’s return, the applicant remained subject to military law as the proceedings had already commenced (see paragraph 26 below). The applicant returned to England in April 1994 where he was detained. His father was discharged from the army in November 1994.\n15.  The applicant was returned to Germany in time for his court-martial which commenced on 21 April 1995. The court-martial board was composed of a President, who was not a permanent president, and six ordinary members. Four of the members were senior officers, all of whom were subordinate in rank to the Convening Officer and the President and one of whom was within the Convening Officer’s chain of command. Two members were civilian civil servants, who came from the United Kingdom solely for the purpose of the trial, and were placed under the Convening Officer’s command while in Germany, although they were not in his reporting chain.\n16.  The applicant’s representative submitted, inter alia, that the trial of a young civilian by court-martial was inherently unfair and oppressive and thus an abuse of process. The atmosphere in a military court would be very different from that of a civilian court and the applicant would not do himself justice. In particular, it was unfair and oppressive that he should be returned to stand trial in Germany after he had spent many months in detention in England and after his father had ceased to be subject to military law. Lastly, if tried by jury, a majority of 10 to 2 votes would be necessary to convict him, whereas a simple majority vote would suffice in a trial by court-martial.\n17.  These submissions were considered by the Vice-Judge Advocate General and were rejected, as was an application for an adjournment to allow proceedings for judicial review to commence. The trial ended with the applicant’s conviction on 3 May 1995. In accordance with the provisions of the Army Act 1995, the verdict of the court-martial was confirmed by a Confirming Officer (see paragraph 28 below).\n18.  The applicant appealed to the Courts-Martial Ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2153", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.   The applicant, Wanda Romaniak, is a Polish national, who was born in 1929 and lives in Głosków.\n8.   On 17 September 1980 M.T. lodged a motion with the Warsaw District Court, claiming dissolution of a co-ownership which he shared with the applicant. The land in question consisted of two adjoining parcels and a building, which had been built as a result of the petitioner’s and the applicant’s financial contributions for the purpose of setting up a business.\n9.   On 3 April 1981 the Warsaw Regional Court issued a decision allowing M.T. to use part of the property pending the outcome of the proceedings. By the same decision, the court prohibited the destruction of any of the facilities in the building.\n10.   Subsequently, hearings were held on 1 September 1982, 8 October 1982, 28 January 1983, 13 February 1984, 9 May 1984, 29 October 1984, 19 December 1984 and 2 April 1985.\n11.   By a partial judgment of 29 April 1985 the Warsaw District Court ruled in favour of the applicant.\n12.   Upon appeal, on 28 April 1986 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the decision of 29 April 1985.\n13.   Between 1986 and 1991 three hearings and one on-site inspection were carried out by the court.\n14.   On 7 July 1990 the Ministry of Justice, following the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings, examined the facts and considered the complaint justified, having found that an expert opinion had not been prepared within the time-limit fixed and that no efforts had been made by the court to discipline the experts. Therefore, the Ministry of Justice took the case under its administrative supervision.\n15.   On 23 April 1992 the Warsaw District Court issued a decision dissolving the co-ownership of the disputed property in favour of the applicant. The applicant was, however, obliged to pay-off the petitioner.\n16.   On 12 October 1992 and on 13 October 1992, the applicant and the petitioner, respectively, lodged appeals against the above-mentioned decision.\n17.   On 6 April 1993 the Warsaw District Court issued a decision forbidding the petitioner from taking down a fence.\n18.   By a judgment of 7 May 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court set aside the decision of 23 April 1992 because of procedural mistakes committed in the proceedings and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re‑examination.\n19.   On 11 October 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court set aside the decision of 6 April 1993.\n20.   On 16 March 1994 a hearing took place before the Warsaw District Court.\n21.   On 18 April 1994 the applicant’s lawyer withdrew from the case.\n22.   On 16 May 1994 new expert evidence was ordered.\n23.   On 15 November 1994 the expert report was submitted to the court.\n24.   On 3 March 1995 a hearing was held.\n25.   On 7 April 1995 the Warsaw District Court stayed the proceedings because K.C., another co-owner of the property, had died and his legal successors had to be identified.\n26.   On 12 September 1995 the information about the legal successors was submitted to the court. On 29 October 1995 the District Court dismissed the request to resume the proceedings. On 15 February 1996 the Regional Court quashed this decision.\n27.   On 19 September 1996 the court decided to stay the proceedings pending the examination of a motion for the acquisition of the property by prescription, submitted by J.C.\n28.   On 25 November 1996 the court held a hearing in order to examine the applicant’s claim for the return of a part of the building already granted to her by previ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2155", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Plovdiv. He was a member of the Board of Directors of a local bank and a director of a private brokerage firm.\n7.  On 1 April 1998 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office charged the applicant and Mr A. (the “accused”) with malfeasance. The charge was later dropped, on an unspecified date, due to lack of a punishable offence.\n8.  The Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office also charged the accused with embezzlement on 8 July 1998 and transferred the case to the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office.\n9.  On the next day, 9 July 1998, the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office imposed on each of the accused bail in the amount of 5,000,000 old Bulgarian levs [approximately 2,560 euros (EUR)].\n10.  The preliminary investigation against the accused continued for the next year with various investigative procedures being conducted in the meantime.\n11.  Sometime in October 1999 the applicant's co‑accused, Mr A., absconded.\n12.  On 5 November 1999 the applicant was detained on remand under an order of the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office.\n13.  The preliminary investigation against the accused was concluded in December 1999.\n14.  At the beginning of January 2000 an indictment for embezzlement of 2,051,819.44 United States dollars was filed against the accused with the Plovdiv Regional Court.\n15.  The criminal proceedings continued at the trial stage where an undisclosed number of hearings were held before the Plovdiv Regional Court.\n16.  In a judgment of 21 June 2005 the Plovdiv Regional Court found the accused innocent of the charges brought against them. It is unclear whether the Prosecutor's Office appealed against this judgment and whether it subsequently entered into force.\n17.  In October 1999 the authorities established that the applicant's co‑accused, Mr A., could not be found and suspected that he had left the country.\n18.  On 5 November 1999 the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office ordered that the applicant be detained on remand despite recognising that he had always punctually and voluntarily attended the investigative procedures conducted during the proceedings. In justifying the detention, the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office referred to intelligence data received from the Plovdiv Regional Police Directorate on 4 November 1999 that the applicant was purportedly planning to abscond. The applicant was detained on the same day.\n19.  On 8 November 1999 the applicant appealed against his detention whereby he challenged the need and justification to amend the measure for securing his appearance in court to detention on remand. In addition, he contested the legal grounds for relying on unverified intelligence data in justifying his detention.\n20.  In a letter of 17 November 1999 the Plovdiv Regional Police Directorate once again informed the Plovdiv Regional Court that on 3 November 1999 it had received intelligence data that the applicant was intending to abscond. It also noted that without authorisation from the Minister of Internal Affairs it could not provide the intelligence data to the Prosecutor's Office.\n21.  A hearing was held before the Plovdiv Regional Court on 22 November 1999 at which the prosecutor informed the court that his office did not have access to the intelligence data of 3 November 1999, because the police had refused to provide it without the prior approval of the Minister of Internal Affairs. The court considered that it was essential for it to obtain the intellige", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2156", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, Messrs Asadov, Mamedov, Aliyev, Jamalov, and Mehdiyev, were born in 1963, 1970, 1965, 1962 and 1968 respectively and live in Baku.\n7.  On 20 December 2001 the applicants founded a public association named “Karabakh Warriors” (“Qarabağ Qaziləri” İctimai Birliyi). This was a non-profit organisation aimed at providing aid to the Karabakh war invalids and protection of their interests.\n8.  After the founders' meeting, the applicants filed an application for the association's state registration with the Ministry of Justice, the government authority responsible for the state registration of legal entities. In accordance with the domestic law, a non-governmental organisation acquired the status of a legal entity only upon its state registration by the Ministry of Justice. While the applicants claimed that they had filed the application in late December 2001, the Government submitted that it had been officially received by the Ministry on 8 February 2002.\n9.  On 15 February 2002 the Ministry of Justice returned the registration documents to the applicants without taking any action, i.e. without issuing a state registration certificate or an official refusal to register the association. In the cover letter, the Ministry noted in general terms that the association's charter did not comply with Article 13.1 of the Law On Non-Governmental Organisations, which set out general requirements for the contents of a charter.\n10.  The applicants redrafted the charter in line with the Ministry's comments and on 12 April 2002 re-applied for the state registration submitting a new version of the charter. Although the applicants expected to receive a response from the Ministry within the statutorily required five-day period after the re-submission of the registration documents, they did not receive anything from the Ministry for the following three months.\n11.  In July 2002, the applicants applied to the Yasamal District Court, complaining that the Ministry “evaded” registering their organisation and asking the court to oblige the Ministry to register it. In the meantime, on 19 July 2002 the Ministry sent a letter to the applicants, informing them that the documents were again returned “with no action taken” by the Ministry. This time the reason for declining the registration was the applicants' failure to list in the charter the terms of service of the association's governing bodies, as required by Article 25.1 of the Law On Non-Governmental Organisations. More specifically, the Ministry noted that the charter did not specify the term of office of the association's Deputy President. The applicants alleged that they had never seen this letter before it was presented to them during the court proceedings.\n12.  On 7 August 2002 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicants' claim, finding nothing unlawful in the actions of the Ministry. The court found that the association's charter had not been drafted in accordance with the requirements of the domestic law. The applicants appealed, claiming that the requirement to specify in the charter the term of office of the association's Deputy President was “absurd” and could not be used as justification for evading registering the organisation. On 11 October 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the district court's judgment. On 12 February 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision.\n13.  In the meantime, the applicants again redrafted the association's charter to take account of the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2157", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant was born in 1948, the second in 1928, the third and the fourth applicants were born in 1932. They all live in the town of Cherepovets, Vologda region, an important steel-producing centre situated about 300 km north-east of Moscow.\n10.  The Cherepovets steel plant (“the steel-plant”) was built in the 1950-s and owned by the Ministry of Black Metallurgy of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). The plant was and remains the largest iron smelter in Russia and the main contributor to the environmental pollution: it is responsible for 95-97 per cent of industrial emissions into the town's air. According to the annual report by the Federal Agency for State Statistics, in 2003 overall emissions from stationary sources of atmospheric pollution were 97 thousand tons for Moscow, a city of more than ten million people, and 349 thousand tons for Cherepovets, which counts less than 350,000 residents. As a result, the concentration of certain dangerous substances in the residential areas around the steel-plant is high above the safe levels, as defined by the domestic legislation.\n11.  In order to delimit the areas in which pollution caused by steel production could be excessive, the authorities established a buffer zone around the steel-plant premises – “the sanitary security zone”. Although this zone was, in theory, supposed to separate the plant from the town's residential areas, in practice thousands of people (including the applicants' families) lived there.\n12.  The apartment buildings in the zone belonged to the plant and were designated mainly for its workers, who occupied the flats as life-long tenants. Since the 1970-s several consecutive State programs have been adopted and implemented in order to reduce the pollution to acceptable levels and/or to resettle the inhabitants of the zone. Despite certain success in reducing the levels of atmospheric pollution and resettling some of the residents of the zone, these programs failed in bringing the atmospheric pollution down to the safe levels, as defined by Russian legislation.\n13.  The zone was first delimited in 1965. It covered a 5,000 metre-wide area around the territory of the plant. By municipal decree no. 30 of 18 November 1992 the boundaries of the sanitary security zone around the plant were redefined. The width of the sanitary security zone was reduced to 1,000 metres from the territory of the plant.\n14.  In 1993 the steel-plant was privatized and acquired by “Severstal” PLC. In the course of privatisation the apartment buildings owned by the steel-plant and situated within the zone were transferred to the municipality.\n15.  In 2002 the municipality challenged its own decree no. 30 of 1992, which had established the zone's boundaries. On 13 June 2002 the Cherepovets Town Court declared decree no. 30 invalid. The Town Court ruled that at the relevant time the municipality had not had jurisdiction to define the width of the zone. The boundaries of the sanitary security zone around the Severstal facilities currently remain undefined.\n16.  For further details concerning the status of the zone and the environmental situation in Cherepovets in general see the judgement Fadeyeva v. Russia (no. 55723/00, §§ 10-19, and §§ 29-43, ECHR 2005‑...).\n17. At the relevant time the applicants lived in the council houses situated within the sanitary security zone, as delimited by municipal decree no. 30 of 1992. They acquired those flats from the local authoriti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2158", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Celje.\n6.  On 8 September 1993 the applicant was injured in a car accident. As a result, he remained permanently disabled in part. The applicant had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 6 August 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,200,733 tolars (approximately 13,350 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 10 October 1996 and 12 January 2000 the applicant lodged nine preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence.\nOn 5 November 1996 and 9 September 1998 he requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOf the three hearings held between 22 January 1998 and 3 February 2000 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed orthopaedic and neurology experts. The experts were given a delay of thirty days to deliver their respective opinions, counting from the day the case-file was served on them. The first expert delivered his opinion in five months and the second expert in over three months. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed orthopaedist.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 23 March 2000.\n8.  On 6 April 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 23 November 2000 the court dismissed the applicant's appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 12 December 2000.\n9.  On 11 January 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 29 November 2001 the court allowed the applicant's appeal, set aside the judgments of the first- and second-instance courts and remitted the case for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 8 January 2002.\n10.  Between 9 January 2002 and 16 January 2003 the applicant lodged five preliminary written submissions.\nOf the four hearings held between 28 March 2002 and 15 May 2003 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant. However, two scheduled hearings were postponed to a later date at the request of the applicant. At least one of them was postponed because the applicant's lawyers were on holidays.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert and gave him a delay of thirty days to deliver his opinion. The opinion was delivered in over two months. The court also took testimonies from the two experts appointed in the first proceedings before the first-instance court.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 5 September 2003.\n11.  On 12 September 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed on 22 September 2003.\nOn 8 June 2005 the court allowed the applicant's appeal in part, dismissed ZT's appeal and increased the damages awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 23 May 2005.\n12.  On 6 July 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court.\nOn 1 December 2005 the court rejected the applicant's appeal on points of law as not allowed. The decision was served on the applicant on 29 December 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2159", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Moscow.\n8.  On 29 October 1998 Ms T., an undercover police agent, called the applicant and said that she wished to buy a dose of heroin. The applicant agreed to procure it and, accompanied by Mr M., met Ms T. in the street. Ms T. handed the applicant banknotes, given to her by police officers S. and R. and marked with a special substance (which was visible only under ultra-violet light). The applicant took the money and went to the house of another person, Mr G. The latter gave the applicant a sachet containing 0.05 grams of heroin. On his return to the meeting place with the purported buyer, the applicant was apprehended by the police officers, who had waited for him in the street.\n9.  The applicant was brought to the local police station where his fingers were examined under ultraviolet light: they bore traces of the substance used by the police to mark the banknotes. Ms T., in the presence of two attesting witnesses, handed the sachet to the police officers, explaining that she had received it from the applicant. The sachet was placed in a container, which was sealed, signed by the attesting witnesses and sent for forensic examination. The applicant was placed overnight in the police station’s detention facility.\n10.  On 30 October 1998 a criminal case was opened and the applicant was charged with drug trafficking. On the same day the prosecutor of the North-Eastern District of Moscow, referring to the circumstances of the applicant’s apprehension, the gravity of the charges against him and the risk of absconding, ordered that he be placed in detention on remand. The applicant was transferred to pre-trial detention facility no. 48/1, Moscow.\n11.  The pre-trial investigation was completed and on 24 December 1998 the case file with the bill of indictment was referred to the Moscow Butyrskiy District Court for trial. On 29 December 1998 an application for release, pending before the Preobrazhenskiy District Court, was forwarded to the Butyrskiy District Court on the ground that the bill of indictment had been transferred to that court and that it should therefore deal with all aspects of the applicant’s case. The applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision, but on 3 February 1999 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal.\n12.  At a preparatory hearing on 13 January 1999 the court ruled that the applicant should remain in custody pending trial, without giving any reasons for that decision.\n13.  On 18 February 1999 the applicant’s father filed a fresh application for release with a court, claiming that the applicant’s very poor state of health was incompatible with his detention conditions and, in particular, with the level of medical assistance available in the pre-trial detention centre.\n14.  On 17 March 1999 the court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial. No reasons for that decision were adduced.\n15.  On 21 April 1999 the applicant’s father filed a new application for release with the district court, referring again to his son’s health problems. According to the applicant’s submissions, the defence repeated this request on 26 and 27 July 1999. The Government claimed that the motion dated 27 July 1999 was received by the court only on 2 August 1999.\n16.  On 27 July 1999 the court decided that a fresh examination of the applicant’s mental health was required. It adjourned the case and decided that the applicant should remain in prison in the meantime. No reasons were giv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2161", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava. He is a journalist and film critic.\n8.  On 27 February 1997 Miloš Forman’s film “The People vs. Larry Flynt” was released to cinemas in Slovakia. Prior to that, the film was promoted, inter alia, by means of a poster placed in the streets. In the poster the main character had the flag of the U.S.A. around his hips and he was depicted as crucified on a woman’s pubic area dressed in a bikini.\n9.  On 26 February 1997 the “Common Declaration of Ecumenical Council of Churches and of the Slovak Bishops’ Conference” was published. The declaration protested against the display of the poster as being a profanation of God. The Movement of Christian Associations of Children subsequently associated itself with the declaration.\n10.  On 11 March 1997 Archbishop Mons. Ján Sokol made the following declaration on the Slovak Television:\n“In these days we are witnessing ‘the humiliation of the crucifix’. In spite of all protests of the Slovak Bishops’ Conference and the Ecumenical Council of Churches aimed at stopping the production and distribution of the poster promoting the film of Miloš Forman: ‘The People versus Larry Flynt’ this poster is present in the streets of our capital Bratislava. It is a defamation of the symbol of the Christian religion. The American Film Association did not allow this blasphemy. It was not allowed in France and Belgium either. How is it possible that it was allowed in Slovakia which professes the tradition of Cyril and Methodius, that is the Christian religion, even in the Constitution? ... Therefore we request the Government, the Parliament, our public officials within the legislature and judiciary to examine the entire issue and take appropriate measures for withdrawal of the posters and the film and to hold accountable those who violated the laws... We hope that our protest will be viewed favourably by the responsible officials and that redress will be made. To all those who endeavour to do so we express our sincere thanks in advance.”\n11.  On 28 March 1997 the weekly Domino Efekt published an article written by the applicant. The weekly was at that time published in 8,000 copies and it mainly concentrated on political commentary and specialised articles on economy, philosophy, natural sciences and culture. It was aimed at intellectually-oriented readers.\n12.  The article was entitled “The falcon is sitting in the maple tree[1]; Larry Flynt and seven slaps to the hypocrite”. In it the applicant criticised Archbishop Ján Sokol[2]. It did not mention that it had been written in reaction to the above TV broadcast of the Archbishop. The article reads as follows:\n“I.  As is generally known, the Earth is a flat board. Even if it is not a flat board, the Sun turns around it. Even if it does not turn, the church dignitary made love to his mother[3].\nII.  The text may go on as follows: ‘Even if he did not make love...’ He did. Proves: (a) Larry Flynt won a Supreme Court trial in the USA. (b) The church dignitary is a ’trtko’[4]. This all will acknowledge who saw him at least on TV.\nIII.  I profoundly hate using the word ‘trtkať’. The indispensable exceptions can be counted on the fingers of Eltsin’s left hand: 1.  ’Trtkaj’ is the nickname of a former professor at the Chair of Journalism at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Comenius University during the period of ‘normalisation’. 2.  ’Trt’ is a rarely used acclamation for [negating something] or the equivalent of the neg", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2162", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Szolnok.\n5.  In 1992 several individuals, including the applicant, signed a contract with a view to building an apartment house in common.\n6.  In the context of an ensuing dispute about the respective contributions, on 2 May 1995 five participants of the building project brought an action against the applicant. On 10 October 1995 they amended their claims.\n7.  On 17 October 1996 the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court appointed the Jászberény District Court to hear the case. On 12 December 1997 the case was eventually transferred to the Kunszent-márton District Court. On 10 February 1998 it was given priority.\n8.  Between 10 March 1998 and 7 October 1999 the court held numerous hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert. On 17 December 1999 it dismissed the action and the applicant's counterclaims.\n9.  On appeal, on 31 May 2000 the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court quashed part of this decision, remitting it to the first-instance court, and upheld the remainder. In the latter respect, on 12 December 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiffs' petition for review.\n10.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, several hearings took place and two expert opinions were obtained between 14 March 2001 and 27 August 2003. On 10 October 2003 the District Court accepted the plaintiffs' action in part, and dismissed the majority of the applicant's counterclaims.\n11.  On appeal, on 9 June 2004 the Regional Court amended the first-instance decision. On 16 December 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2163", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Belgium.\n5.  On 20 March 1998 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by police officers at the Diyarbakır Security Directorate on suspicion of his involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 22 March 1998 the applicant was brought before a judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court who ordered his release pending trial.\n7.  On 4 May 1998 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK. He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.\n8.  On 15 September 1998 the İzmir State Security Court joined the trial of the applicant to the ongoing trial of four other accused. Throughout the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer.\n9.  On 15 December 1998 the İzmir State Security Court, relying on the applicant's statement to the police, the witness testimonies of other suspects as well as other evidence, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 1 July 1999.\n10.  Following the decision of the Court of Cassation the applicant fled to Belgium where he successfully applied for asylum.\n11.  The applicant submitted that on 17 August 2005 he was arrested and taken into custody in Spain on the basis of a Red Notice issued by Turkey via Interpol on the ground of his original indictment in July 1999 and his subsequent case before the Court. He was released the next day since he had been granted asylum by Belgium. The Government denied the existence of any such notice.\n12.  The Government further submitted that the applicant's sentence had been reduced to six years and three months' imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of the new Criminal Code.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2164", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Chişinău. She is an invalid (second degree).\n6.  The applicant and her family (her husband and three children, two of whom were minors at the relevant time) rented an apartment from the State. In 1994 the apartment was seriously damaged due to leakage from water pipes. Two special commissions of the Chişinău Municipality confirmed the damage to the apartment and found that it was not habitable and was in imminent danger of collapse. The applicant’s requests to be offered alternative accommodation as required by law were rejected by the Municipality due to the lack of available apartments. The applicant and her family continued to live in the apartment until December 2000 when they moved to a rented room.\n7.  In April 1995 the applicant brought a civil action against the Municipality claiming the right to receive a new apartment. On 10 October 1995 the Chişinău District Court found for the applicant and ordered the Municipality to provide accommodation for her five-person family (“the 1995 judgment”). The court issued an enforcement warrant no. 2-383/95. On 21 October 1995 the applicant requested the bailiff and the court to enforce the order.\n8.  Because the Municipality refused to comply with the judgment of 10 October 1995, the applicant requested the court to change the means of enforcing the judgment, claiming the monetary value of the apartment.\n9.  On 29 September 1998 the Chişinău District Court issued a new judgment, obliging the Municipality to pay the applicant 146,440 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 24,000 United States dollars at the time) representing the market value of a four-room apartment in Chişinău (“the 1998 judgment”). The court issued a new enforcement warrant under the same number as that issued in 1995 (no. 2-383/95).\n10.  On 27 October 1998 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld that judgment. There was no further appeal and the judgment became final.\n11.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the bailiff did not enforce. Following the applicant’s request, the Chişinău District Court froze the Municipality’s bank account on 13 November 1998, but there was apparently no money on that account. On 9 June 1999 the applicant wrote a letter to the Ministry of Justice, complaining about the non-enforcement of the 1998 judgment. The Ministry of Justice forwarded the letter to the Chişinău District Court.\n12.  Following the applicant’s request one of the Municipality’s buildings was seized for sale at a public auction. However, it was not sold.\n13.  According to the applicant, the 1998 judgment was enforced on 11 January 2002. According to the Government, the date of enforcement was 26 December 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2165", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Čadca.\n5.  The applicant was married to Mr Š with whom she lived in a common household. There were three children of the marriage: L, B and A. The children were born in 1976, 1977 and 1983 respectively.\n6.  In 1993 Š. opened a business. In connection with that initiative, on the applicant's request, the Čadca District Court (Okresný súd) dissolved their matrimonial property regime under Article 148 § 2 of the Civil Code. From that year on the applicant and Š never lived together.\n7.  In 1994 the District Court ordered that Š contribute towards the children's maintenance by making monthly payments. At the same time, it dismissed as premature the parents' respective claims for custody and care of the children.\n8.  In 1995 the applicant set up a commercial limited liability company (company B) of which she is the sole owner and statutory representative.\n9.  In 1996 the applicant and Š set up a commercial limited liability company (company E). They are the sole owners and Š is the statutory representative.\n10.  In 1999, acting in the name and on behalf of company E, Mr Š transferred the ownership of immovable property from the company to L.\n11.  On 3 February 1998 the applicant filed a motion pursuant to Article 50 § 1 of the Family Code with the District Court for an order entrusting her with the care of A prior to the pronouncement of the divorce. She also sought an increase of the amount of Š's monthly contributions towards A's maintenance on the ground that since the judgments of 1994 the situation had changed.\n12.  On 19 May 1998 the District Court entrusted A to the care of the applicant and increased the amount of the maintenance contributions.\n13.  On 31 August 1998, on the applicant's appeal, the Žilina Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed the ruling concerning maintenance payments and remitted this matter to the District Court for the taking of further evidence and re-examination.\n14.  On 2 March 2000 the District Court again determined the amount of the monthly contributions which Š had to make towards the maintenance of A.\n15.  On 31 October 2000, on appeals by both parents, the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 2 March 2000 as the facts of the case had still not been adequately established. The case was remitted to the District Court for re-examination. The latter held hearings on 23 June and 7 September 2004.\n16.  On 26 October 2005 the Regional Court dismissed as unfounded the defendant's challenge against the District Court judge for bias.\n17.  The District Court held another hearing on 1 February 2006. It was adjourned and the proceedings are still pending.\n18.  On 14 May 1998 Š lodged a petition for divorce and requested a judicial determination of the arrangements to be made in respect of A.\n19.  On 28 July 1998 the District Court pronounced the dissolution of the marriage, entrusted A to the care of the applicant and ordered Š to pay, on a monthly basis, an amount of money to the applicant as a contribution towards the maintenance of A. The ruling concerning the divorce and care of A became final and binding on 31 August 1998. The applicant appealed against the maintenance order and sought a higher amount.\n20.  On 30 July 1999 the Regional Court quashed the maintenance order and remitted this issue to the District Court for the taking of further evidence and re-examination.\n21.  On 2 May 2000 the District Court again determined the amount of the monthly contributions w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2166", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently detained on remand in the Edirne F-type prison.\n5.  On 28 November 1992 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Istanbul Security Directorate. On 10 December 1992 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered his detention on remand.\n6.  On 5 January 1993 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicant and twenty-nine others, charging them with membership of an illegal left-wing organisation, contrary to Article 146 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Law on Prevention of Terrorism.\n7.  At the hearing of 22 November 1993 before the Istanbul State Security Court, which included a military judge, the accused protested against the proceedings by shouting slogans in the hearing room. Following the intervention of the security forces, they broke the windows of the court building.\n8.  At the hearings held between 1993 and 1994 the court heard the testimony of several witnesses and took the statements of the accused.\n9.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of State Security Courts were replaced by civilian judges.\n10.  At the end of almost every hearing the court dismissed the applicant’s request to be released pending trial and ordered his continued detention on remand, having regard to the nature of the offence and the content of the case file. At the hearings during which the applicant was absent the court considered his situation of its own motion and ordered his detention on remand, relying on the same reasons.\n11.  At the hearing of 27 March 2000 the court finished taking the final statements of almost all the accused including the applicant and stated that no additional time would be given to those who had not yet submitted their final observations.\n12.  On 30 July 2001 the applicant filed a petition with a different chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, complaining about the court’s order for his continued remand in custody. On 1 August 2001 his objection was dismissed on account of the nature of the offence and the content of the case file.\n13.  By 12 October 2001 fifty-five hearings had been held before the Istanbul State Security Court and the judges on the bench of the court had been changed on six occasions.\n14.  State Security Courts were abolished by constitutional amendments introduced on 7 May 2004. As a result, all of the procedural safeguards provided for by the ordinary criminal procedure henceforth became applicable to all proceedings without exception.\n15.  On 27 October 2004 the Istanbul Assize Court found the applicant guilty of the charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n16.  On 13 July 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the State Security Court on procedural grounds.\n17.  The case is still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court and the applicant is still in detention on remand. The latest hearing was held on 2 December 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2167", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Debrecen.\n5.  In May 1990 a company brought an action in damages against the applicant. On 1 November 1991 the Supreme Court appointed the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court to hear the case. On 22 July 1992 the applicant brought a counter-claim.\n6.  After having held three hearings and having obtained the opinion of an expert, on 2 December 1996 the Regional Court dismissed all claims.\n7.  On 18 February 1998 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, quashed the first-instance decision in its part concerning the applicant's counter-claim and remitted it to the Regional Court.\n8.  On 21 May 1999 the Regional Court held a hearing and appointed an expert.\n9.  On 25 February 2000 the Regional Court ordered the plaintiff to pay the applicant 1,300,000 Hungarian forints plus accrued interest and dismissed the remainder of his claims.\n10.  On appeal, on 22 May 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2168", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 28 October 1991 the applicant brought an action in the Budapest Regional Court seeking the annulment of a contract and the ownership of a real-estate. Between 13 February 1992 and 31 May 1994 the court held eight hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert.\n6.  On 10 November 1994 the proceedings were interrupted on account of the death of one of the respondents. The successors were not identified until 24 February 1999. The court informed the parties of this fact on 9 November 1999, and the proceedings resumed on 4 January 2000.\n7.  Four further hearings took place between 30 May 2000 and 9 March 2001.\n8.  On 8 June 2001 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's action.\n9.  On 21 June 2001 the applicant appealed. Following repeated warnings from the appellate court, his appeal was only lodged in due and proper form on 3 December 2001.\n10.  On 11 December 2002 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n11.  On 7 October 2003 the Supreme Court rejected as inadmissible the applicant's petition for review, without an examination of the merits.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2170", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Banja Luka.\n8.  Between 7 January 1977 and 31 January 1983 the applicant deposited in total 70,140 German marks (DEM) in her savings account at the then State-owned Privredna banka Sarajevo Filijala Banja Luka. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in other successor States of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“SFRY”), such savings are commonly referred to as “old” foreign-currency savings, having been deposited prior to the dissolution of the SFRY. The relevant background information on this subject is set out in detail in the Chamber’s decision on the admissibility of the present application (see Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-XII).\n9.  On 31 December 1991 the balance in the applicant’s account, which included accrued interest, was DEM 235,924 (in the former SFRY, foreign-currency deposits earned high interest).\n10.  On several occasions in 1992 and 1993, the applicant managed to withdraw in total DEM 9,352, regardless of statutory restrictions which had been introduced in the late 1980s.\n11.  On 3 October 1997 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the Banjalučka banka, the legal successor of the Privredna banka Sarajevo Filijala Banja Luka, seeking the recovery of her entire “old” foreign-currency savings and accrued interest.\n12.  On 26 November 1998 the Banja Luka Court of First Instance established that the balance in the applicant’s account indicated above was DEM 295,274, including accrued interest. The court also found that the applicant had DEM 4,896 in another account at the same bank. The Banjalučka banka was ordered to pay the applicant, within 15 days, DEM 300,170 (approximately 153,475 euros (EUR)), default interest on the above amount at the rate applicable in the country of the currency (namely Germany) from 3 October 1997, legal costs in the amount of 9,076 dinars (approximately EUR 290) and default interest on the last-mentioned amount at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment.\n13.  On 5 February 1999 the Banja Luka Court of First Instance mistakenly held that the Banjalučka banka had not appealed against the judgment of 26 November 1998 and accordingly issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju). On 25 February 1999 the Banja Luka Court of First Instance established that an appeal had in fact been submitted. On 4 November 1999 the Banja Luka District Court rejected that appeal and the first-instance judgment of 26 November 1998 therefore became enforceable.\n14.  Meanwhile, the applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Ombudsperson, who referred the application to the Human Rights Chamber (the human rights bodies set up by Annex 6 to the 1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace).\n15.  On 12 January 2000 the Human Rights Chamber found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 arising from a failure to enforce the judgment of 26 November 1998. The Human Rights Chamber held the Republika Srpska responsible and ordered it to ensure full enforcement without further delay.\n16.  After the Banjalučka banka had failed to execute the judgment voluntarily, on 22 March 2000 the competent court sent a fresh writ of execution to the Republika Srpska Payment Bureau (Služba za platni promet Republike Srpske).\n17.  On 28 July 2000 the Supreme Court of the Republika Srpska rejected an appeal on points of law (revizija) against the judgment of 26 November 1998.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2171", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1973 respectively and were detained in Malatya prison at the time of the lodging of their applications with the Court.\n7.  On 1 November 2001 the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of their involvement in the activities of the PKK (The Kurdistan Workers’ Party). On 9 November 2001 the Tunceli Magistrates’ Court ordered their remand in custody.\n8.  The public prosecutor at the Malatya State Security Court in his indictment, dated 7 December 2001, accused the first applicant of membership of the PKK and the second applicant of aiding and abetting that organisation. The charges were brought under Articles 168 and 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.\n9.  On 10 September 2002 the Malatya State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced the first applicant to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment and the second applicant to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and a fine of 177,957,000 Turkish liras.\n10.  The parties did not submit any documents pertaining to the outcome of the criminal proceedings. However, in their submissions on just satisfaction, dated 21 July 2005, the applicants stated that the Malatya State Security Court, pursuant to Law no. 4959 of 29 July 2003 on rehabilitation (topluma kazandırma), had decided not to sentence the applicants (ceza tertibi) and suspended the proceedings. They further submitted that this decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2172", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Omsk.\n5.  In 2001 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Defence to claim damages in respect of an injury he had sustained during his military service in Afghanistan.\n6.  On 22 October 2001 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Omsk (“the District Court”) granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him a lump sum compensation of 513,293 Russian roubles (RUR) and life long monthly payments of RUR 8,217.08. The judgment entered into force on 6 February 2002 after it had been upheld on appeal.\n7.  On 15 February 2002 two writs of execution in respect of each of the awarded amounts were issued and sent to the Omsk Department of the Federal Treasury for payment.\n8.  By letters of 27 March and 21 October 2002 the Omsk Department of the Federal Treasury returned the writs of execution to the applicant without enforcement. It referred to insufficient funds and invited the applicant to submit the writs of execution to the Ministry of Defence.\n9.  In 2003 the applicant filed a new action against the Ministry of Defence, complaining about non-enforcement of the judgment of 22 October 2001, as upheld on 6 February 2002, and seeking the adjustment of the awarded amounts to the minimum monthly wage.\n10.  By judgment of 27 November 2003 the District Court confirmed that the judgment of 22 October 2001, as upheld by the appeal decision of 6 February 2002, had not been enforced in view of the lack of the debtor’s funds, but dismissed the applicant’s claim for increase in payments as unfounded. That judgment was upheld on appeal on 11 February 2004.\n11.  In December 2004 the sum of RUR 513,293 was paid to the applicant, pursuant to the judgment of 22 October 2001, as confirmed by the appeal decision of 6 February 2002.\n12.  Since November 2005 the applicant has been in receipt of monthly payments of RUR 8,217.08, as ordered by the judgment of 22 October 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2173", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  At an undetermined time, he invented a type of fish bait and secured a patent for production of this bait.\nOn 17 September 1992 the applicant and J.Z. made a contract to engage in production of fish baits.\nOn 24 March 1993 the applicant removed some of the production material and tools from J.Z.'s premises where the production had been taking place.\nOn 7 April 1993 J.Z. requested the applicant to sell him the patent for the bait, if he wished to keep their business relationship active.\nOn 16 April 1993 the applicant made an offer to J.Z. to sell him the patent, which the latter refused.\nOn 26 April 1993 the applicant informed J.Z. that he wished to end their business relationship by cancelling the contract of co-operation, but the latter refused.\n7.  On 23 April 1993 J.Z. lodged a nuisance claim in the Ljubljana Basic Court, Ljubljana Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani, Enota v Ljubljani) against the applicant and also sought an interim measure prohibiting the applicant to use or alienate any means for production of fish baits.\nOn 7 June 1993 the court upheld J.Z.'s request for an interim measure in part.\nOn 14 June 1993 the applicant replied to the claim and also appealed against the order issuing the interim measure. J.Z. cross-appealed.\nUntil 14 June 1994 the court held six hearings. On that day, the court partially stayed the proceedings because J.Z. had withdrawn the request for an interim measure in part. The court also allowed the applicant's appeal and annulled its decision of 7 June 1993. J.Z. appealed against this decision to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani).\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.\nOn 21 July 1994 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the appeal concerning the interim measure.\nOn 1 January 1995, following the reform of the Slovenian judicial system, the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani) gained jurisdiction in the case which was still pending in the first-instance court in the part referring to the nuisance claim.\nOn 20 June 1995 the court upheld J.Z.'s nuisance claim. The judgment was served on the applicant on 15 November 1995.\n8.  On 22 November 1995 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court.\nOn 9 July 1996 the court allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n9.  On 10 December 1996 the Ljubljana District Court held a hearing which was adjourned sine die.\nOn 10 February 1997, after the applicant had instituted proceedings against the Republic of Slovenia due to excessive length of proceedings (see below §§ 11-14), the applicant requested that the case be transferred to a new court in order to secure the impartiality of the adjudicator. After his request was dismissed by the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) on 29 October 1997, he sought a recusal of the first-instance court's judge presiding over the case. Also this request was dismissed, ultimately, by the deputy of the President of the Ljubljana District Court on 1 September 1999.\nOn 8 March 2000 the court held a hearing.\nOn 5 April 2000 the applicant filed preliminary written observations and adduced evidence.\nOn 5 April 2000 the court held a hearing and rejected J.Z.'s claim.\n10.  On 14 June 2000 J.Z. appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court.\nOn 7 July 2000 the applicant lodged a reply to the appeal.\nOn 8 January 2002 the court dismissed both appeals.\n11.  On 27 January ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2174", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in the village of Nedelevo.\n6.  Two burglaries were committed in the home of an old lady on 13 and 31 May 1998 as a result of which the burglar, through use of force and coercion, stole a total of 10,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL – approximately 5.13 euros (EUR)). On the latter occasion, the burglar was also armed.\n7.  A preliminary investigation in respect of the second burglary was opened against an unknown offender on 2 June 1998.\n8.  On 24 September 1998 the applicant was charged with the two burglaries and was detained on remand. He was questioned on the same day and confessed to having committed the burglaries.\n9.  On 10 November 1998 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office filed an indictment against the applicant with the Plovdiv District Court accusing him of having committed the two burglaries through use of force and coercion, having stolen a total of BGL 10,000 (approximately EUR 5.13) and for having been armed on the second occasion (Articles 198 § 1 and 170 § 2 of the Criminal Code).\n10.  The Plovdiv District Court conducted five hearings between 4 May 1999 and 10 April 2000.\n11.  In a judgment of 10 April 2000 the Plovdiv District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and imposed a cumulative sentence of four and a half years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the judgment on 21 April 2000.\n12.  The Plovdiv Regional Court conducted three hearings on 17 May, 13 June and 14 September 2000.\n13.  In a judgment of 21 September 2000 the Plovdiv Regional Court partly quashed the lower court's judgment as it found that the applicant had not used force during the burglary of 13 May 1998. It upheld the remainder of the judgment against the applicant.\n14.  No appeal was filed against the judgment of the Plovdiv Regional Court and it entered into force.\n15.  On 24 September 1998 the applicant was detained on remand upon a decision of an investigator which was confirmed by the Prosecutor's Office later on the same day. The grounds for detaining the applicant were that he may abscond, re-offend or obstruct the investigation but no specific facts or evidence in support of the said assessment were cited or relied on in the decision for his detention. On 10 April 2000 the Plovdiv District Court sentenced the applicant to four and a half years' imprisonment.\n16.  At the trial stage of the proceedings the applicant filed six appeals against his detention, dated 2 and 15 July 1999, 8 and 28 September 1999, 20 December 1999 and 12 January 2000. On each occasion, the applicant argued that he had no criminal record and that there was no risk that he would abscond because he had a permanent address and his wife needed his assistance after the birth of their child.\n17.  None of the applicant's appeals were examined or ruled on by the courts despite of the hearings conducted by the Plovdiv District Court in the meantime.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2175", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is the owner of the daily newspaper “der Standard”.\n5.  In the issue of “der Standard” of 1 March 2000 the applicant published an article in the context of criminal proceedings on charges of large scale fraud and embezzlement against a former Member of Parliament of the Austrian Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, “the FPÖ”), Mr Peter Rosenstingl.\n6.  The article whose author, D.G., is a well-known court room reporter, reads as follows:\n“‘I had more important things to do’ –\nEwald Stadler claims he was unaware of Rosenstingl’s loan machinations\nAs expected, no Freedom Party (FPÖ) politicians offered their resignation yesterday in connection with the Rosenstingl trial. (On the contrary: the FPÖ’s long-serving legal counsel has suddenly become Minister of Justice.)\nThere is no way back for the two in the dock, however. Peter Rosenstingl, the former FPÖ member of the National Assembly, is accused of having colluded in aggravating the collapse of the poultry firm belonging to his brother Herbert, known as ‘Chicken’. The public prosecutor has assessed the damage at 240 million schillings. Eleven people in all are said to have played a part in the chicken debacle. One of them may have been the former leader of the Lower Austrian branch of the FPÖ, Bernhard Gratzer.\nHe knew little about it\nOne member of Jörg Haider’s former chicken coop (if this casual expression is permitted) who is still in office took his turn in the witness box yesterday: Ewald Stadler, now a member of the Lower Austrian regional government but at the time the leader of the FPÖ’s parliamentary group. In that capacity he is alleged to have known even before November 1997 that loans and guarantees from the Circle of Liberal Entrepreneurs (RFW) nourished Rosenstingl’s chickens, fed his suppliers and enticed his creditors. In any event, Peter Rosenstingl claims to have ‘handed over all documents’ to Stadler. But Stadler has no recollection of this. ‘As parliamentary group leader I had more important things to do than worry about lists of that kind’, he retorts. In short, the loan machinations apparently passed from him, like a cup, almost without trace.\nStadler claims that he heard about only one loan, in which Rosenstingl had agreed to borrow 3.5 million schillings from RFW funds. Stadler asked for an explanation. Rosenstingl duly ‘served up a cock-and-bull story’ and referred to an investment on favourable terms and with a better rate of interest in his tax consultancy firm, Omikron.\nHe is alleged to have reiterated that version of events in mid-November 1997 at a meeting of the Lower Austrian party executive, in the presence of the federal party leaders. And it was believed. Stadler himself was doubtful and made an early exit.\n‘Whether the federal party was informed or not is a matter on which everyone may now form his or her own view’, the judge summed up exclusively for all the journalists in the courtroom. ‘However, it will not settle the criminal proceedings.’ Irrespective of this, the fraud trial will drag on further today with witness statements.”\n7.  The article was accompanied by a photograph of Mr Stadler and the following text:\n“The former leader of the FPÖ’s parliamentary group, Ewald Stadler, gives evidence defending the party’s ignorance of the co-financing of the Rosenstingl collapse”.\n8.  The criminal proceedings against Mr Rosenstingl received extensive media coverage. Mr Rosenstingl and a number of co-accused were eventually c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2176", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Lipetsk. In 1994 he retired from military service.\n8.  In 2002 he sued the Military Service Commission of the Lipetsk Region (“the Military Commission”), seeking to recover the unpaid pension for the period from February 1994 to November 1998.\n9.  On 15 July 2002 the Pravoberezhniy District Court of Lipetsk granted him claim in full and awarded him 32,947.11 Russian roubles (“RUR”) in respect of the unpaid pension. In November 2002 the Military Commission paid him the amount awarded.\n10.  The applicant lodged a new claim against the Military Commission, seeking to recover damages incurred through belated payment of the pension.\n11.  On 27 January 2003 the Pravoberezhniy District Court granted his claim and awarded him RUR 145,835.69 in damages.\n12.  The Military Commission did not lodge an ordinary appeal against the judgment and it became binding and enforceable on 6 February 2003.\n13.  On 23 February 2003 the bailiffs’ service of the Pravoberezhniy District instituted enforcement proceedings.\n14.  On 20 May 2003 the Military Commission filed an application for supervisory review of the judgment, claiming that the civil-law provisions relating to compensation for damages were not applicable to pensions.\n15.  On 25 September 2003 the Presidium of the Lipetsk Regional Court held a supervisory-review hearing. It held that the first-instance court had correctly established the facts but erroneously applied the substantive law because the damages could only be recovered for the three years immediately preceding the judicial decision. On that ground it quashed the judgment of 27 January 2003 and rejected the applicant’s claim in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2177", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  At the material time the applicant worked as a journalist for Struma, a local newspaper based in the town of Blagoevgrad, reporting on the work of law‑enforcement agencies and investigating crime‑related news. On 16 December 1996 the term of her contract with the newspaper expired and her employment was terminated.\n10.  On 19 September 1994 Struma ran an article titled “Camp head counsellor mistreats twenty‑seven children”. In that article, written by the applicant, the manager of a schoolchildren's summer camp, Mr P.Y., was accused of having beaten and ill‑treated the children in his care.\n11.  On 22 August 1994 Mr P.Y. complained to the Razlog District Prosecutor's Office. The Office conducted a preliminary inquiry in the course of which the applicant was questioned on 12 September 1994.\n12.  On 14 September 1994 the Blagoevgrad District Prosecutor's Office opened an investigation against the applicant.\n13.  On 13 October 1994 the applicant was charged with having defamed Mr P.Y. through a newspaper article containing disparaging facts about him and imputing a crime to him, the said acts being related to Mr P.Y.'s official duties. As a measure to secure her court appearance she was directed not to leave the town without authorisation. She was questioned.\n14.  On 7 and 9 December 1994 and 5 January 1995 the investigator in charge of the case questioned the applicant, Mr P.Y., and seven witnesses.\n15.  On 6 January 1995 he concluded his work on the case and sent the file to the prosecutor, recommending the applicant's committal for trial.\n16.  On 16 January 1995 the Blagoevgrad District Prosecutor's Office remitted the case to the investigator with instructions to append a document establishing Mr P.Y.'s status as an official and a certified list of the schoolchildren who had been at the camp at the time of the incident.\n17.  The prosecutor's instructions were complied with and on 9 February 1995 the applicant was again allowed to consult the case‑file. The case‑file was then forwarded to the prosecution.\n18.  On 6 March 1995 the Blagoevgrad District Prosecutor's Office indicted the applicant.\n19.  The Blagoevgrad District Court set the case down for hearing on 28 September 1995, calling seven witnesses. The panel of the court consisted of one judge and two lay judges.\n20.  The hearing listed for 28 September 1995 did not take place because four of the seven witnesses did not show up and the applicant asked the court for time to retain a lawyer. The court adjourned the case, fined the witnesses who had failed to appear and ordered that they be brought to the next hearing by force.\n21.  A hearing was held on 8 November 1995. All witnesses but one were present. Mr P.Y. intervened as a civil claimant and a private prosecuting party. He asked for leave to call one witness. The court acceded to his request. The applicant and all witnesses present, including the one requested by Mr P.Y., were questioned. Finding that one witness was absent, the court adjourned the case, ordering that he be brought to the next hearing by force.\n22.  On 29 November 1995 counsel for the applicant requested that the next hearing, which had been listed for the following day, 30 November 1995, be adjourned, as he would be representing a client at the Blagoevgrad Regional Investigation Service at that time. On 30 November 1995 the Blagoevgrad District Court decided to adjourn the hearing, because counsel for the applicant and the unquestioned witness were absent", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2178", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Brescia.\n11.  She has lived since 1950 in a house on the outskirts of Brescia, 30 metres away from a plant for the storage and treatment of “special waste” classified as either hazardous or non-hazardous. A joint-stock company, Ecoservizi, began operating the plant in 1982.\n12.  In a decision (delibera) of 4 April 1989, the Lombardy Regional Council granted Ecoservizi a licence to operate the plant for a five-year period. The different forms of waste treatment covered by Ecoservizi’s licence included, for the first time, the “detoxification” (inertizzazione) of hazardous waste, a process involving the treatment of special industrial waste using chemicals.\n13.  On 30 October 1991 the Regional Council authorised Ecoservizi to increase the annual quantity of waste treated at the plant to a total volume of 192,000 cubic metres. In particular, the quantity of toxic waste authorised for detoxification was raised from 30,000 to 75,000 cubic metres.\n14.  On 5 August 1993 the Regional Council approved a number of alterations entailing technological improvements to the facility without any increase in the quantity of waste being treated.\n15.  In a decision of 11 April 1994, the Lombardy Regional Council renewed the operating licence for a five-year period, on condition that Ecoservizi signed a memorandum of understanding with the local authorities in order to limit the plant’s environmental impact; that condition was satisfied on 18 November 1994.\n16.  On 13 December 1994 the Regional Council took note of the signing of the memorandum of understanding and confirmed 30 April 1999 as the expiry date for the operating licence.\n17.  The applicant lodged three applications with the Lombardy Regional Administrative Court in 1994 and 1995 for judicial review of the Regional Council’s decisions of 5 August 1993 and 11 April and 13 December 1994.\nShe challenged the renewal of the operating licence granted to Ecoservizi and, alleging a breach of Law no. 441/1987, argued that the alterations approved by the Regional Council entailed an increase in activity such as to necessitate a fresh licensing procedure, including an assessment of the plant’s environmental impact.\nEcoservizi applied to intervene in the proceedings.\n18.  The applicant also sought a stay of execution of the decision to renew the licence. The court allowed her request in an order of 18 November 1994, chiefly because the memorandum of understanding had not yet been signed, and suspended the implementation of the decision. Ecoservizi appealed.\n19.  On 7 April 1995 the Consiglio di Stato set aside the Regional Administrative Court’s order, holding that the signing of the memorandum of understanding (see paragraph 15 above) had removed the risk of irreparable damage on the basis of which the stay of execution had been ordered.\n20.  In a judgment of 13 April 1996, the Lombardy Regional Administrative Court, having joined all the applicant’s applications, dismissed them. It noted that all her complaints were based on the alleged need for the Regional Council to conduct a fresh licensing procedure. It considered, however, that the size of the facility and its volume of activity had been determined in the Regional Council’s decisions of 1989 and 1991, which had never been challenged by the applicant. However, the alterations approved in the impugned decisions of 5 August 1993 and 11 April and 13 December 1994 did not entail an increase in the plant’s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2179", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Slovenj Gradec.\n10. On 4 and 5 April 1995 a Special Unit (Specialna enota), which was under the direct control of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the MIA”) in cooperation with officers from the Slovenj Gradec Internal Affairs Administration (Uprava za notranje zadeve – hereinafter referred as the “Slovenj Gradec Police”) undertook a large-scale operation against the activities of a criminal organisation presumed to be operating on the territory of the town of Slovenj Gradec.\n11.  On 4 April 1995 the officers twice entered a coffee bar in Slovenj Gradec, called “Pik Bar”, searching for members of the above-mentioned criminal organisation. In parallel to the investigation of the Pik Bar, the police carried out an extensive operation in the town and its surroundings.\n12.  On 5 April 1995 at about 8.30 p.m. the applicant, driving a car, was arrested in Slovenj Gradec by officers of the Special Unit and the Slovenj Gradec Police. He was brought to the Slovenj Gradec Police Station for having allegedly failed to comply with the police orders. He was questioned by the police and released on 6 April 1995 at approximately half past midnight.\n13.  There are two conflicting versions of what occurred during the police procedure and the transport to the police station.\n14.  According to his submissions before the Court and the statements he gave in the relevant domestic proceedings, the applicant was driving through the centre of Slovenj Gradec on the evening of 5 April 1995 when at least two cars overtook him and forced him to stop. Approximately fifteen armed officers, wearing black jackets, arrived at the scene, some of whom approached the applicant. They were shouting and the applicant, still sitting in the car but attempting to step out, put his hands up. At that moment, the officers dragged him out of the car. They pushed him to the ground, tied him up, took off his shoes, dragged him by his legs approximately 25-30 meters along the road into a dark area where they beat and kicked him for some 15 minutes. After someone had said “he’s had enough, he’s had enough”, the applicant was placed in an off-road vehicle and taken to the police station. On the way there, a journey which lasted approximately 30 minutes, two officers, sitting in the front of the car, threatened to kill him and one of them electro-prodded him several times with a stun gun. At the police station, he was put in the room for provisional detention (prostor za pridržanje) where one of the officers untied him at his request. The applicant was questioned and told that he had failed to comply with the police order to stop his vehicle. He was then released.\nIn the meantime, the police also searched the applicant’s car.\n15.  About thirty people were arrested and injured during the two-day operation.\n16.  According to the version of events given by the Government, the police noticed a car moving at high speed. Since the conduct of the driver looked suspicious, the police decided to stop the car, to identify the driver and to perform a preventative search. For this reason, they drove after the car. The driver accelerated, prompting the police to force him to stop.\n17.  When the driver, who was later identified as the applicant, stopped the car, an unspecified number of the Special Unit’s officers confronted him and informed him that this was a police procedure. The applicant jumped towards one of the officers and attempted to hit him. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2180", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, mother and daughters, were born in 1937, 1957 and 1966. Mrs Maria Matica, the mother, died on 3 September 2004 and Mrs Maria-Marieta Matica died on 27 July 2006. Mrs Doina-Meri Matica is their sole heir. She currently lives in Copăceni, Romania.\n5.  On 18 June 1992, the first applicant and V.M., her husband, lodged an action with the Beiuş District Court seeking a declaration that they were the owners of a plot of land and, accordingly, an order for their ownership title to be published in the Land Registry. On 5 October 1992, they supplemented their action, also seeking a declaration that the property deed for the same plot of land issued to third parties was null and void. They claimed that they had purchased, in 1981, the respective plot of land, together with a house that had been built on it.\n6.  On 1 February 1993, the action was partially allowed. However, on 2 July 1993, the Bihor County Court, acting upon the claimants’ appeal, referred the case back to the District Court for a fresh examination, on the ground that the latter court omitted to rule on one of the complaints.\nOf the fourteen hearing held between 14 October 1993 and 27 October 1994, ten were adjourned for the absence of witnesses or of the expert reports, one at the first applicant’s request in order to hire a lawyer and one for deliberations.\nIn a decision of 27 October 1994, the Beiuş District Court remitted to the Oradea Court of Appeal the complaint concerning the nullity of the property deed issued to third parties, and stayed the examination of the other complaints until the validity of the property deed would be decided by the appropriate courts.\n7.  Before the Court of Appeal one hearing was adjourned for the applicants to hire a lawyer and one for problems with the summonsing procedure. After another postponed hearing due to failure in the summonsing procedure, on 15 May 1995 the Oradea Court of Appeal dismissed the action on the ground that the first applicant and her husband had not exhausted the preliminary administrative procedure before lodging their complaints with the courts.\n8.  The first applicant and her husband appealed against this decision, considering that the Court of Appeal was not competent to examine the matter. On 5 June 1996, the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Beiuş District Court.\n9.  Twelve hearings were held before this court, most of them being adjourned due to the absence of any answer to the claimants’ requests of information from the local authorities in support of their claims.\nThe Beiuş District Court dismissed all the complaints formulated by the applicants, in a judgment of 16 July 1998. All parties appealed.\n10.  On 26 March 1999, the Bihor County Court referred the case back to the District Court, on the ground that no specific action had been ordered to the administrative authorities responsible for the deliverance of the property deed, although they were parties to the proceedings.\n11.  On 17 December 1999, the Beiuş District Court re-examined the action and dismissed it.\n12.  On 9 February 2000, V.M. died and the action was continued by his wife and daughters, the applicants.\n13.  On 30 April 2001, the applicants’ appeal was dismissed by the Bihor County Court.\n14.  In a final decision of 3 December 2001, the Oradea Court of Appeal confirmed the solution, upon the applicants’ appeal on points of law.\n15.  Based on the evidence adduced in the case, namely the p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2181", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in the town of Vorkuta in the Komi Republic of the Russian Federation.\n5.  On 8 August 1994 the applicant sued his employer, a mining company, for payment of royalties. The first hearing, fixed for 25 August 1994, was adjourned due to the applicant's absence. The following hearings of 9 December 1994 and 20 January 1995 were also postponed upon his requests.\n6.  On 22 February 1995 the Vorkuta Town Court found for the applicant. However, that judgment was quashed on appeal on 30 March 1995 and re-examination was ordered. The applicant amended his claims.\n7.  On 11 March 1996 the Town Court ordered an expert study. The proceedings were stayed until January 1997 when the Town Court received the expert report.  In April 1997 another expert study was ordered. The applicant again amended his claims.\n8.  On 16 May 1997 the Vorkuta Town Court dismissed the action. That judgment was quashed on appeal on 25 August 1997 and the case was remitted for a fresh examination.\n9.  A judge was assigned to the case in December 1997 and the first hearing was listed for 13 November 1998. However, that hearing was adjourned because the parties defaulted.  The following hearing of 18 October 1999 was postponed upon the parties' request for provision of additional evidence.\n10.  On 22 October 1999 the Town Court ordered an expert examination. The proceedings were resumed on 15 March 2000 after the expert report had been submitted to the Town Court.\n11.  Two hearings, fixed between March and 17 November 2000, were adjourned because the defendant defaulted and the court wanted to call an expert.\n12.  On 17 November 2000 the Vorkuta Town Court ordered an expert study. The proceedings were resumed a week later.\n13.  On 19 February 2001 the Vorkuta Town Court found for the applicant. The judgment was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted for re-examination on 21 May 2001.\n14.  A judge was assigned to the case on 22 August 2001. In September and November 2001 the presiding judge inquired several expert organisations about a possibility to perform expert studies. A hearing was fixed for 17 January 2002. However, it was adjourned for provision of additional evidence by the defendant. The following hearing was fixed for 26 March 2002.\n15.  On 27 March 2002 the Vorkuta Town Court ordered another expert examination. The applicant appealed against that decision, but on 20 May 2002 his appeal was dismissed.\n16.  In May 2002 the Town Court sent the case-file to an expert bureau. A month later the experts asked the Town Court for additional documents. The documents were submitted to the experts in August 2002. In October and November 2002 the experts inquired the Town Court about the fees for their work.\n17.  In February 2003 the Town Court asked the Judicial Department of the Komi Republic to bear the costs of the expert examination. It appears that the expert fees were paid in July 2003.\n18.  In August and October 2003 the Vorkuta Town Court inquired the experts about the progress in their work. On 1 April 2004 the experts informed the Town Court that the expert report had been submitted to it on 19 September 2002.\n19.  In May 2004 the experts once again sent the report to the Town Court. The report contained certain procedural defects and the Town Court asked for corrections. In July and September 2004 the Town Court repeated its request. No response followed.\n20.  From 29 January to 28 April 2005 the applicant lived in U", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2182", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Yaroslavl.\n5.  Between 1991 and 1998 the applicant worked as a senior accountant in the private company Gatchina.\n6.  On 2 July 1998 a local police investigator (Заволжский районный отдел внутренних дел г. Ярославля) initiated criminal proceedings on suspicion of misappropriation of the company's assets by some of its employees.\n7.  On 22 July 1998 an initial interview was held with the applicant in the presence of her counsel.\n8.  The applicant was formally charged on 24 July 1998.\n(b)  The applicant's pre-trial detention and the criminal investigation\n9.  On 22 July 1998 the applicant was remanded in custody pending the investigation.\n10.  On 24 and 31 July 1998 an investigator again questioned the applicant.\ni. The applicant's complaints concerning her detention\n11.  The applicant's repeated complaints concerning her detention were rejected by decision of the Frunzenskiy District Court of the city of Yaroslavl (Фрунзенский районный суд г. Ярославля) on 10 November 1998 and 13 January 1999. The decision of 10 November 1998 was upheld on appeal by the Yaroslavl Regional Court (“the Regional Court” – Ярославский областной суд) on 8 December 1998.\n12.  On 22 June 1999 the applicant was released on the ground that all the investigative measures had been concluded and on health grounds. The investigator imposed a measure of restraint on her in the form of an undertaking not to leave her place of residence.\nii. The applicant's medical examinations\n13.  It appears that while in detention the applicant also repeatedly complained that she was unfit for custody on medical grounds. By decisions dated 14 October 1998 and 1 June 1999 the investigator twice ordered a medical examination of the applicant.\n14.  The examinations took place between 23 October and 11 November 1998 and from 7 June to 1 July 1999 respectively, and found the applicant to be in good health.\niii. The second criminal case against the applicant\n15.  On 13 January 1999 the investigator opened a new criminal case against the applicant, this time for alleged fraud. The two cases against the applicant were joined.\niv. The applicant's access to the case file\n16.  According to the Government, between 1 July 1999 and 29 March 2000 the applicant had access to the case file and availed herself of that opportunity on eight occasions.\n17.  By decision of 29 March 2000 the proceedings were suspended owing to the applicant's state of health. She underwent in-patient treatment in a hospital.\n18.  On 17 July 2000 the proceedings resumed. Over the next month the investigator brought similar charges against two other people and ordered a further medical examination of the applicant.\n19.  From 15 August 2000 the applicant and the other defendants in the case had access to the case file again. It appears that the other defendants and the applicant's counsel completed their study of the case by 20 and 27 November 2000 respectively.\n20.  As regards the applicant, she again underwent in‑patient treatment between 16 August and 1 September 2000 and only started to familiarise herself with the case file on 9 October 2000.\n21.  On 27 November 2000 the investigator, fearing that the applicant might cause delays in the proceedings, set a deadline of 27 December 2000 for the applicant to familiarise herself with the case file.\n22.  In January 2001 the deadline was extended until 24 February 2001.\n(c)  Conclusion of the investigation\n23.  On 28 February 2001 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2183", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant is the owner of the daily newspaper “der Standard”, the second applicant was at the material time the chief editor of its internal politics section.\n5.  In the issue of “der Standard” of 9 October 1998 the second applicant published an article about the Austrian Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs, “the FPÖ”) in its regular section “commentary”. So far as material, it read as follows:\n“Sacrifice of the decent\nThe FPÖ is becoming ever truer to itself and many people are developing an increasingly similar image of it. For any organisation, whether a movement, party or whatever, is moulded by those at the top – how they interact with one another, which people they choose, how they cope with crises. All of this rubs off and has its effects. In the case of the FPÖ leader Jörg Haider this means: people are useful idiots, you can entice them with fine words, appeal to their nobler principles and, indeed, use them as long as they are of service to your own interests.\nDealings within the FPÖ are correspondingly cunning. Haider has never even been soft towards his closest friends and backers and has dropped them as soon as they no longer fitted in with his plans. Friedrich Peter, Mario Ferrari-Brunnenfeld and Krimhild Trattnig are all examples. Others, such as Walter Meischberger or Gernot Rumpold, are allowed all kinds of liberties because they know too much. They have not been damaged either by convictions for tax evasion or by any other slip-ups.\nThe MP Hermann Mentil was not excluded from the FPÖ on that account and was not scorned by his former colleagues because proceedings had been instituted against him for fraud. That is of little consequence to Jörg Haider, especially as he would otherwise have to bar himself from the FPÖ. After all, Haider was convicted in criminal proceedings at first instance because he had ruined a person’s good reputation and prospects for the future. A conviction, in any event, is of a different order from the institution of proceedings. Mentil was in fact dropped because in the Rosenstingl case Haider needs as many sacrificial victims as possible, to show to the public as and when required.”\n6.  The article alluded to Mr Haider’s conviction of 1 October 1998 by the Vienna Regional Criminal Court, which had found him guilty of attempted defamation of a university professor, D., in that he and his then lawyer Mr B., who had at the material time become Minister of Justice, had prepared a video-taped statement for the purpose of having it broadcast by the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation which contained defamatory statements about D. The broadcast had been refused, after a number of TV journalists and other staff of the Broadcasting Corporation had seen the video-tape.\n7.  This background was not mentioned in the above article but “der Standard” had reported on Mr Haider’s conviction in its issue of 2 October 1998. It read as follows:\n“Criminal court convicts HaiderLawyer Böhmdorfer also convicted of defamation\nThe FPÖ federal party leader, Jörg Haider, and his lawyer, Dieter Böhmdorfer, were convicted of attempted defamation on Thursday and fined 167,400 schillings and 257,400 schillings respectively. The convictions relate to their ongoing six-year legal dispute with D. [full name], an Innsbruck-based expert in financial law, who was thwarted in his bid to become President of the Audit Office when Mr Haider embroiled him in a motorway-building scandal. Mr Haider had repeatedly b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2184", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, a member of the Civil Guard (Guardia Civil), was born in 1969 and lives in Valencia. At the material time he was stationed at the Gijón headquarters and had been on sick leave since 5 January 1998.\n9.  On 16 February 1998 he was informed that one of his close relatives had been taken seriously ill. After notifying the duty officers, he set out the same morning for his parents’ home in Tuy (Pontevedra), where he stayed until 24 February 1998.\n10.  On 18 February 1998 members of the Tuy Civil Guard called at his parents’ home to check that he was there. On the same day a sergeant from the same garrison rang the family home in a further check.\nOn 24 February the applicant rejoined his unit in Gijón.\n11.  On 28 February 1998 the applicant was informed by a lieutenant-colonel in the Civil Guard that disciplinary proceedings had been brought against him for a minor breach of regulations, namely absence from his unit without prior leave.\n12.  On 20 March 1998 the applicant’s superior imposed a disciplinary penalty on him consisting of six days’ house arrest pursuant to sections 7(27) and 10 of Law no. 11/1991 of 17 June 1991.\n13.  Later that day the applicant applied for a writ of habeas corpus. His application was dismissed by León military judge no. 43 on 23 March 1998. However, the judge stated in his decision that, since the applicant was on sick leave, the restrictions should be relaxed to allow him to leave the house for medical reasons, to purchase necessities and to attend religious services should he wish to do so.\n14.  The applicant lodged two internal appeals with Gijón headquarters against the decision of 20 March 1998. These were dismissed in two decisions of 11 May and 15 June 1998.\n15.  Subsequently, on 1 July 1998, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Corunna Territorial Military Court in which he alleged that he had been wrongly deprived of his liberty and relied, inter alia, on Articles 17 (right to liberty) and 24 (right to a fair trial) of the Constitution. He argued that the decision to place him under house arrest had infringed his right to liberty (Article 17 § 1 of the Constitution) as in practice it entailed an actual deprivation of liberty.\nHe also complained that the decision to deprive him of his liberty had failed to take into account the rule that penalties should not affect service and gave no indication as to how the sentence was to be served, adding that, as he was on sick leave, he had been forced to stay at home for the duration of the sentence.\n16.  In his observations, State Counsel asked for the appeal to be dismissed.\n17.  The prosecutor submitted in his observations that there had been a violation of the right to liberty (Article 17 § 1 of the Constitution) on account of the failure to determine the conditions of the applicant’s arrest. In particular, there had been no decision on how the sentence was to be served, how its execution was to be supervised or whether it was reasonable. He asked the Military Court to find in favour of the applicant.\n18.  In a judgment of 27 July 1999, the Corunna Territorial Military Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of 20 March 1998 and those of 11 May and 15 June 1998. It ruled that it was unnecessary to include the words “without affecting service” in the administrative order depriving the applicant of his liberty as this was inherent in the nature of the penalty for what was only a minor breach of the regulations.\n19.  Pointing out ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2185", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1933 and 1961 respectively and live in the city of Poltava.\n6.  In May 1996 the Poltava Regional Police Department (hereinafter – the PRPD) instituted criminal proceedings for tax evasion against Mr V., who is, respectively, the son of the first applicant and the brother of the second applicant. On 28 May 1996 the investigator placed Mr V. under an obligation not to abscond.\n7.  On 4 September 1996, following the failure of Mr V. to appear for interrogation and in the absence of information about his whereabouts, an arrest warrant for Mr V. was issued.\n8.  On 6 August 1997 the PRPD investigator issued an order for interception and seizure of the postal and telegraphic correspondence of the applicants (hereinafter – “the interception order”) on the following grounds:\n“The private entrepreneur Mr V., during the period between 1 January 1994 and 1 January 1996, intentionally did not pay taxes to the State budget in the amount of UAH 12,889[1], having caused damage and substantial losses to the State.\nOn 28 May 1996 the preventive measure – obligation not to abscond – was ordered in respect of Mr V., but, having been summoned by the investigator, Mr V. did not come to him, and his whereabouts at the present are unknown. On 4 September 1996 the preventive measure – detention – was ordered in respect of Mr V.\n... Mr V. may inform his mother and brother about his whereabouts, using the postal and telegraphic correspondence.”\nNo time-limit for the interception had been fixed in the order.\n9.  On 11 August 1997 the President of the Zhovtnevyy District Court approved the interception order by having signed it. The applicants maintained that they had learned about this order by chance at the end of 1998.\n10.  On 4 May 1998 the criminal case against Mr V. was terminated as being time-barred.\n11.  According to the applicants, Mr V. had appeared in summer 1998 and met with the investigator in his case. During this meeting he found out about the interception order.\n12.  On 28 May 1999 the PRPD investigator cancelled the interception order on the grounds that the criminal case against Mr V. had been closed and there were no further need to intercept the applicants’ correspondence. This cancellation was approved and signed by the President of the Zhovtnevyy District Court the same day.\n13.  By letter of 19 July 1999, the Poltava Regional Prosecutor’s Office, in reply to their complaint, informed the applicants that the interception of their correspondence had been ordered lawfully and therefore the law-enforcement officers incurred no liability.\n14.  On 14 November 1999, according to the Government, the whereabouts of Mr V. were established by the investigation.\n15.  By letter of 6 January 2000 to Mr V., in reply to his complaints about the criminal proceedings against him, the General Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “the GPO”) noted, inter alia, that the interception order was not well-founded.\n16.  By letter of 1 February 2000, the first applicant was informed that on 15 August 1997 (15 September 1997 according to the Government) a letter addressed to her had been intercepted by the police but, as it contained no information about the whereabouts of Mr V., it was not seized but was forwarded to her.\n17.  On 20 January 2000 the applicants claimed compensation from the Head of the PRPD for the damage caused by ordering the interception of their correspondence.\n18.  By letter of 27 January 2000, the Head of the PRPD infor", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2186", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Orašje, Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n5. On 25 November 1994 the applicant brought a civil action against the company V. (“the employer”) and the insurance company C.O. in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages for a work-related injury in the amount of 96,700 Croatian kunas (HRK).\n6.  The court held hearings on 2 June and 30 November 1999 and 21 February 2001.\n7.  In the period between May 1998 and October 2000 the applicant filed four rush notes urging the court to schedule a hearing and speed up the proceedings.\n8.  On 21 February 2001 the Municipal Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed on 6 March 2001 to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).\n9.  On 26 March 2001 the applicant applied to be exempted from the court fee for the appeal. Since it was the Municipal Court that was competent to decide on the applicant’s request for exemption, the County Court returned the case-file to it with a view to reaching a decision thereon. A hearing before the Municipal Court scheduled for 14 January 2003 was adjourned since the applicant had not received the summons due to his change of address. The next hearing scheduled for 3 June 2003 was adjourned owing to the illness of the judge assigned to hear the case. Lastly, a hearing at which the applicant gave a declaration of his income and assets was held on 13 May 2004. On 24 May 2004 the applicant was served with the decision in his favour exempting him from the court fee for the appeal. The case-file was then sent back to the County Court with a view to deciding on the applicant’s appeal.\n10.  On 5 April 2005 the County Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 25 April 2005. No appeal on points of law (revizija) lay to the Supreme Court against this judgment (see paragraph 14 below).\n11.  Meanwhile, on 23 July 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the civil proceedings.\n12.  On 17 April 2003 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It held that the delay was attributable to the complexity of the case and the applicant’s conduct. It found that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings in that he had applied for exemption from the court fee only after he had appealed against the first-instance judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2187", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in St. Petersburg.\n5.  On 1 March 1994 a State-owned construction company “Lengidroenergospetsstroy” (промышленное строительно-монтажное объединение «Ленгидроэнергоспецстрой», hereinafter “LenGESS”) and a private investment company “Severo-Zapadniy Soyuz” (АОЗТ ТПК «Северо-Западный Союз», hereinafter “SZS”) signed a contract, pursuant to which the LenGESS undertook to build a block of flats in St. Petersburg and the SZS was to finance the construction in part. By way of consideration, the SZS was to receive title to a certain number of flats in the completed construction. In order to raise funds, the SZS collected money from private investors who were to become the eventual owners of the flats.\n6.  On 22 July 1994 the applicant signed a contract for the purchase of a flat with the SZS.  Seven days later she paid the stipulated price in full.\n7.  It appears that, once the block of flats had been built, the LenGESS refused to transfer the stipulated number of flats to the SZS, claiming that the funding raised by the latter had been insufficient. In December 1997, the SZS sued the LenGESS before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St. Petersburg, seeking enforcement of the 1994 contract.\n8.  On 22 June 1998 the applicant entered the proceedings before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court as a co-plaintiff against the LenGESS, seeking to obtain title to the flat for which she had paid.\n9.  On 15 March 1999 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court issued a charging order in respect of the flat at the applicant’s request.\n10.  The Kuybyshevskiy District Court fixed a hearing for 24 December 1999; it was subsequently adjourned until 28 February 2000.\n11.  On 10 May 2000 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court discontinued the proceedings, finding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim and that the dispute was to be adjudicated by commercial courts.\n12.  On 29 June 2000 the St. Petersburg City Court granted appeals by the SZS, the applicant and the other co-plaintiffs, quashed the decision of 10 May 2000 and remitted the matter to the Kuybyshevskiy District Court for examination on the merits. It also issued a “special finding” (частное определение) concerning the judge of the Kuybyshevskiy District Court to whom the case had been assigned, in which it noted her manifest failure to observe the rules of civil procedure as regards compliance with procedural time-limits.\n13.  On 17 November 2000, 7 February, 23 March and 1 June 2001 hearings before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court were held.\n14.  On 22 June 2001 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court lifted the charging order of 15 March 1999. The applicant was not informed of it.\n15.  On 28 September 2001 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St. Petersburg delivered the judgment. The claims of all plaintiffs were dismissed on the ground that they had never paid any sums directly to the LenGESS.\n16.  On 24 October 2001 the applicant learned that on 22 June 2001 the District Court had lifted the charging order. Two days later she requested the Kuybyshevskiy District Court to extend the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of 22 June 2001.  On 12 November 2001 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court refused her request. The decision was upheld on appeal on 21 March 2002.\n17.  The applicant, among others, appealed against the judgment of 28 September 2001.\n18.  The Kuybyshevskiy District Court listed an appeal hearing for 13 November 2001 and sent the case-fil", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2188", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The first applicant, an Austrian national born in 1960 and living in Vienna, is an editorial journalist at the newspaper “Der Standard”. The second applicant is the owner and publisher of this newspaper.\n9.  On 26 October 1997 a group of homosexuals, the “Austrian Forum of Gays and Lesbians” (“Österreichisches Schwulen- und Lesbenforum”, ÖSLF) held a demonstration in St. Pölten, at which the editors of the magazine “Der 13. – Zeitung der Katholiken für Glaube und Kirche” (The 13th – Newspaper of Catholics for Faith and Church) took pictures of participants and published them together with an article written by K. D. in its issue of 13 November 1997. That article reflected a negative and hostile position towards homosexual relationships, suggesting, inter alia, that “they [homosexuals] ought to be disciplined 'gender-specifically' with whips and pizzles! (sie gehören 'geschlechtsspezifisch' mit Peitsche und Ochsenziemer zurechtgewiesen)” and that “nazi-methods should be applied to them!” It read further that “homosexuals now crawl like rats out of their holes and are fed 'lovingly' by politicians and church officials”.\n10.  Subsequently 44 homosexual persons filed a private prosecution (Privatanklage) against the author K. D. for defamation and a compensation claim under the Media Act against the owner and publisher of “Der 13.”\n11.  On 13 July 1998 the Linz Regional Court (Landesgericht) found that certain passages of the article constituted the offence of insult (Beleidigung) under Section 115 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) and ordered the owner and publisher of “Der 13.” to pay compensation to four plaintiffs who could be identified on the pictures. It dismissed the compensation claim as regards the other plaintiffs and acquitted K. D. The court found that K. D. had not mentioned any of those plaintiffs' name in his article and that it could not be established that he had known that his text would be illustrated by these pictures. On pages 14-15 the judgment contained an excursus about the nature of homosexuality, referring to a book called “Lexicon of love (Lexikon der Liebe)” and the results of an opinion survey on this topic. It read, inter alia, that “in truth, homosexuality includes also the lesbian world and, of course, that of animals”, which was followed by a long passage describing in detail examples of same-sex practices among different animals.\n12.  Subsequently, politicians and representatives of the Austrian Forum of Gays and Lesbians publicly criticised the deciding judge K.-P. B. for the text and style of this judgment, which was documented in a number of press releases by the Austrian Press Agency (APA) of 13 July, 1 and 2 September 1998, including an article published by “Der Standard” with the title “The judge and the dear cattle (Der Richter und das liebe Vieh)” on 1 September 1998.\n13.  On 2 September 1998 “Der Standard” published two articles written by the first applicant, whereby the first one referred to the commentary (Kommentar) at issue on page 32, which read as follows:\n“The punishment chamber (Strenge Kammer)\nSamo Kobenter\nIt is strange how often the avowed defenders of western values are inclined to adopt draconian methods when they feel them to be jeopardised by people with different beliefs, ideas or lifestyles. If a writer in some odd rag just says he would like to flog gay people or beat them with bulls' pizzles, that would not normally be worth mentioning, other than to say that everyone ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2189", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 24 March 1993 the applicant brought a civil action against the company T. (“the employer”) in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages for a work-related injury.\n6.  On 3 February 1995 the Municipal Court gave judgment awarding damages to the applicant in the amount of 31,780 Croatian kunas (HRK) and the litigation costs.\n7.  On 21 May 1996 the employer appealed to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).\n8.  On 23 March 1999 the County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court held a hearing on 7 December 1999 at which it requested the applicant to provide the minutes drawn up by the labour inspectorate concerning the incident resulting in his injury or to indicate a person or authority who possessed that document. On 12 June 2000 the court repeated its request.\n10.  On 16 June 2000 and 3 January 2001 the applicant requested the court to invite the employer to produce the above evidence. On 26 June 2001 the court did so.\n11.  At the hearing held on 14 December 2001 the court decided to effect an in situ inspection (očevid) on 15 February 2002 with the assistance of an expert, and invited the applicant to advance the costs. Since the applicant did so only on 19 February 2002, the inspection did not take place.\n12.  On 3 January 2002 the Zagreb Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Zagrebu) decided to open bankruptcy proceedings against the employer. It invited the creditors to report their claims by 28 February 2002 and scheduled a hearing, at which the reported claims were to be examined, for 20 March 2002. In accordance with the Bankruptcy Act, the decision was published in the “Official Gazette” no. 6/02 of 21 January 2002.\n13.  On 8 May 2002 the Zagreb Municipal Court invited the applicant to inform it whether the bankruptcy proceedings had been opened against the employer. On 8 June 2002 the applicant replied in the affirmative and requested that any future communication with the employer be conducted through its bankruptcy manager (stečajni upravitelj).\n14.  On 12 June 2002 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings on account of the pending bankruptcy proceedings.\n15.  On 13 June 2002 the applicant reported his claim to the Zagreb Commercial Court. On 8 January 2004 and 30 June 2005 he filed two rush notes with that court urging the delivery of a decision on his claim.\n16.  On 20 March 2006 the Commercial Court, without issuing a formal decision, replied that in the bankruptcy proceedings against the employer the applicant’s claim had never been examined.\n17.  It would appear that both the civil and the bankruptcy proceedings are formally still pending.\n18.  Meanwhile, on 18 June 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the civil proceedings.\n19.  On 16 December 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It examined the length of the proceedings in their part following the Convention’s entry into force with respect to Croatia. The Constitutional Court held that the delay was attributable to the complexity of the case and the applicant’s conduct. It found that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings in that he had not responded to the Municipal Court’s request of 7 December 1999 for more than six months, that h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2190", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Skopje, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.\n5.  On 10 July 1995 the applicant was laid off by the company “Daka-lift” d.o.o Skopje (“the employer”) where he worked as a lift repairman.\n6. On 11 August 1995 the applicant brought an action against his employer, claiming that he had been unlawfully dismissed. He sought to be re-instated to a post corresponding to his qualifications.\n7. Of seven hearings, including the preparatory one, scheduled between 8 November 1995 and 17 May 1996, one hearing was adjourned at the judge’s request; two hearings were postponed because of late submission of evidence; one hearing was adjourned without any reasons and one hearing was rescheduled at the employer’s request. The applicant attended all the hearings as scheduled. During this period, the composition of the judicial council (судскиот совет) changed once.\n8. On 17 June 1996 the employer requested the court to reinstate the proceedings (враќање во поранешна состојба) as it had failed to appear in court on 17 May 1996 due to a failure of its former representative to inform it about the date of the hearing. On 28 June 1996 the applicant filed an objection against the employer’s request which he had subsequently withdrawn. The hearing of 13 September 1996 was held by another trial judge who had taken over the case.\n9. At the hearing of 27 September 1996 the court examined some witnesses.\n10. On 14 November 1996 the Skopje Court of First Instance upheld the applicant’s claim and annulled the employer’s decision for termination of his employment. The court found that his dismissal had not been made by a competent body. It held that the applicant had worked with the employer continuously for over 20 years and as such the managing board (управен одбор) should have decided his dismissal, instead of its manager.\n11. On 11 March 1997 the employer appealed against the decision.\n12. On 4 June 1997 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the employer’s appeal, quashed the lower court’s decision and ordered a retrial. It found that the lower court had erred in establishing the facts, in particular concerning the applicant’s uninterrupted work with the employer which had undergone several organisational changes over the time.\n13. Of ten hearings scheduled between 21 October 1997 and 5 October 1998, two hearings were adjourned by the trial court to examine the official company’s register concerning the employer; one hearing was postponed due to the trial judge’s absence; two hearings were rescheduled as the court could not locate a witness, whose whereabouts had been provided by the applicant. Within this period, the court heard the applicant and examined some witnesses. The composition of the judicial council also changed once as new lay-judges stepped in the proceedings. The applicant attended all the hearings as listed.\n14. On 5 October 1998 the Skopje Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s claim as the dismissal decision had been adopted by a competent body and the applicant had infringed working discipline. The court established that the applicant had been initially employed by “David Pajic-Daka” Belgrade (“the company”), a company incorporated outside the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which had had a subsidiary office in Skopje. When the company had founded “Daka servis” d.o.o. Skopje, as a separate legal entity incorporated in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the applicant conti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2191", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1930 and 1933 respectively and live in Bucharest.\n9.  The facts of the case specific to each application, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  In 1996 the applicants brought before the Bucharest District Court an action for recovery of possession in respect of property that had been nationalised by Decree no. 92/1950. Situated in Bucharest, at 184-B Calea Griviţei, the property consisted of a house divided into flats and the land on which it was built. At the time, one of the flats was occupied by E.D. under a tenancy agreement entered into with the State in 1986 and extended until 8 April 1999 pursuant to Law no. 17/1994 of 18 April 1994.\n11.  In a final judgment of 2 April 1997, the court allowed the applicants’ action on the ground that the nationalisation of the property had been illegal and ordered the competent administrative authorities to return the property to them. On that date the applicants began to pay the rates and land taxes levied on their property.\n(b)  Steps taken to enter into a tenancy agreement with the tenant E.D.\n12.  On 26 August 1998 the applicants notified E.D. of the judgment of 2 April 1997 through the intermediary of a bailiff and by registered letter with return receipt, in accordance with Law no. 114/1996 of 11 October 1996. In their notice, the applicants requested E.D. to enter into a tenancy agreement with them, as the new owners of the flat that E.D. occupied, and informed her, for the payment of the rent, of the details of a bank account in their names with the Savings Bank.\n13.  In May 1999, after the entry into force of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 40/1999 of 8 April 1999, the applicants visited E.D., who had declined to respond to their request, with a view to entering into a tenancy agreement with her; they were faced with a categorical refusal on the part of E.D.\n(c)  First set of eviction proceedings against E.D.\n14.  On 25 August 1999 the applicants brought proceedings for the eviction of E.D. in the Bucharest District Court. They claimed that E.D. was occupying their property without any right of tenancy and had refused to enter into a tenancy agreement with them or to pay them rent in that connection. They further complained that E.D. had been breeding pigs in the basement of the house, thus damaging it and rendering it insalubrious.\n15.  In a judgment of 9 January 2000, the District Court granted their application and ordered the eviction of E.D. from the disputed property. It found that E.D. had not requested an extension of her tenancy of the flat occupied by her and her family, which she had been entitled to do under Article 2 of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 40/1999 and which would have enabled her to enter into an agreement with the new landlords. The court further observed that the applicants had not complied with the obligation under Article 10 § 1 of the Ordinance to notify the tenant, within a period of thirty days from the entry into force of the Ordinance, through the intermediary of a bailiff and by registered letter with return receipt, of the date and place fixed for the signing of a tenancy agreement.\n16.  Whilst the court observed that, under Article 11 § 1 of the Ordinance, failure by a landlord to comply with those formalities resulted in the extension of the previous tenancy until the signing of a new agreement, it nevertheless considered that this provision was not applicable in the present case in view", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2192", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Łódź.\n5.  On 14 October 1982 the applicant lodged a motion with the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court for the restitution of real property, the peaceful possession of which had been allegedly infringed by the Tuszyn Municipality.\n6.  At hearings held in December 1982 the court informed the applicant that the repossession claim had to be lodged within one year from the date on which possession had been infringed and requested him to lodge a claim for acquisition of the land by prescription. The initial proceedings were stayed pending the examination of this claim.\n7.  On 28 June 1983 the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court confirmed that the applicant had acquired title to the estate and on 3 August 1983 the applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed.\n8.  Upon the Tuszyn Municipality Office’s claim that the land at stake had been in perpetual usufruct and hence there was no point in taking it from the current users, the District Court decided not to resume the proceedings and stayed them to allow the possibility of a friendly settlement of the case to be explored.\n9.  On 23 March 1987 the applicant requested the resumption of the proceedings as a settlement had not been reached.\n10.  On 8 April, 10 May and 7 June 1988 hearings were held.\n11.  On 1 July 1988 the proceedings were stayed due to the intervention of the perpetual user of the land.\n12.  On 17 November 1992 the applicant complained to the President of the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court that her request of 1 June 1992 to resume the proceedings had not received a response from the court. On 18 February 1993 the proceedings were resumed.\n13.  A hearing scheduled for 20 September 1993 was cancelled due to the illness of the judge.\n14.  On 21 October 1993 the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court declared that it lacked competence to examine the case, since the subject matter of the dispute exceeded the limit defined for district courts. It decided to transfer the case to the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court.\n15.  On 15 November 1993 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court declared that it too lacked jurisdiction and returned the case to the District Court.\n16.  On 18 January, 28 February and 6 April 1994 the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court held hearings and heard expert opinions.\n17.  On 18 April 1994 the Tuszyn Municipality Office declared that it did not bear any responsibility for the acts of the State Treasury and that the competent authority to represent the Treasury in the case was the Piotrków Trybunalski District Office.\n18.  On 7 May 1994 the President of the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court, in reply to the applicant’s administrative hierarchical complaint, found the length of the proceedings to be excessive.\n19.  By its decision of 11 May 1994 the Piotrków Trybunalski District Office was summoned to take part in the proceedings, but in a letter of 18 May 1994 it stated that it was not competent to take part and referred to the Tuszyn Management Board as the competent authority.\n20.   On 14 June 1994 the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court delivered a judgment, ordering that the estate be restored to the applicant and dismissing the remainder of her claim against the State Treasury.\n21.  On 25 April 1995 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n22.  On 18 September 1997 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court stayed the enforcement of the judgment until the end of the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2193", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Paris. A member and leader of the “green” political party Les Verts, and former regional councillor and member of the European Parliament, since 1987 he has been mayor of Bègles and Vice-President of the Urban Community of Bordeaux and, since 1997, member of parliament for La Gironde. He has also worked as a journalist – from 1977 to 1992, for example – for the State television channel Antenne 2.\n5.  In October 1999 the applicant took part in the recording of an infotainment programme for television called Tout le monde en parle (“Everyone’s talking about it”), presented by Thierry Ardisson, which was aired on the State television channel France 2 during the night of 23 to 24 October 1999. During the programme Michel Polac, another guest personality, mentioned the Chernobyl nuclear accident of 26 April 1986 and spoke of the emotion he had felt on reading a book dedicated to the victims of the disaster. The applicant replied as follows (extract from the 3 October 2001 judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal):\n“Only a few weeks ago some mushrooms imported into France were found to contain caesium and that is the result of Chernobyl. I was presenting the 1 o’clock news on the day of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986; there was a sinister character at the SCPRI called Mr Pellerin who kept on telling us that France was so strong – the Asterix complex – that the Chernobyl cloud had not crossed our borders.”\n6.  At the time of the Chernobyl disaster Mr Pellerin, a radiologist and qualified senior biophysics teacher, was head of the Central Service for Protection against Ionising Radiation (Service central de protection contre les rayons ionisants – “the SCPRI”). Under the dual authority of the Health and Labour Ministries, one of the SCPRI’s tasks was to monitor contamination levels in France and alert the above ministries in the event of a problem; it was replaced in 1994 by the Office for Protection against Ionising Radiation (Office de protection contre les rayonnements ionisants – “the OPRI”).\nMr Pellerin was placed under investigation on 31 May 2006 for “aggravated deception” by the first investigating judge at the Paris tribunal de grande instance, as part of an investigation opened after persons suffering from thyroid cancer, the Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity (“the CRIIRAD”) and the French Association of Thyroid Disease Sufferers (“the AFMT”) lodged a complaint in March 2001 against a person or persons unknown, together with an application to join the proceedings as civil parties claiming damages, for failure to protect the population against radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident, alleging in particular that official authorities had lied and played down the pollution of the air, soil and foodstuffs.\n7.  By summonses served on 18 and 19 January 2000, Mr Pellerin brought proceedings directly against the applicant in the Paris Criminal Court for public defamation of a civil servant, a punishable offence under sections 29 and 31 of the Freedom of the Press Act of 29 July 1881. He also brought proceedings against the television channel France 2 and its director of publication, Mr Marc Tessier.\nIn a judgment of 11 October 2000, the court found Mr Tessier and the applicant guilty (as principal and accessory respectively), sentenced them each to pay a 10,000 French francs (FRF) fine and, jointly and severally, to pay FRF 50,000 in damages, declared the F", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2194", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Toruń, Poland.\n5.  On 15 November 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed several car thefts.\n6.  On 17 November 2001 the Toruń District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody until 15 February 2002. The court considered that his detention was justified by the existence of substantial evidence against him and the gravity of the charges. It also noted that the applicant had attempted to induce one of the witnesses to change her testimony.\n7.  On 11 February 2002 the court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 15 May 2002. It repeated the reasons previously given and added that the need to obtain additional evidence justified keeping the applicant in custody.\n8.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged several times by the District Court and the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) until 30 March 2003.\n9.  His appeal against the prolongation of his detention was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 15 January 2003.\n10.  On 14 March 2003 the applicant and 22 other persons were indicted on charges of being members of an organised criminal group and having committed numerous car thefts.\n11.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was extended several times by the Toruń District Court and the Gdańsk Court of Appeal, for the same reasons as before.\n12.  On 18 November 2003 the District Court refused the applicant’s application for release.\n13.  On 3 February 2004 the Court of Appeal granted the District Court’s request to prolong the applicant’s detention until 15 May 2004. The court considered that the case was very complex and that it was necessary to examine voluminous evidence. It also found that the detention was justified by the existence of strong evidence against the applicant and the gravity of the charges. There was also the possibility that the applicant would attempt to tamper with evidence. His appeal against that decision was dismissed on 16 March 2004.\n14.  On 11 May and 12 July 2004 the Court of Appeal again granted the District Court’s requests and ordered that the applicant be detained until 30 September 2004. It dismissed the applicant’s appeals against those decisions.\n15.  On 18 August 2004 the District Court released the applicant under police supervision; it also prohibited him from leaving the country. The court considered that the applicant suffered from a personality disorder and depression and that his isolation from the outside world constituted a danger to his life and health. The court based its view on a report by two expert psychiatrists.\n16.  The proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2195", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  The applicant was arrested on 24 January 2002 on suspicion of abetting bribery.\n8.  On 26 January 2002 the Centru District Court issued an order remanding the applicant in custody for a period of thirty days. The court’s reasoning was the following: “the suspect has reached the age at which he may be criminally prosecuted, he is suspected of having committed a serious offence and he is unemployed”.\n9.  On 4 February 2002 the applicant was indicted inter alia for the offence of aiding and abetting bribery, involving large sums of money, which was punishable by up to twenty years’ imprisonment.\n10.  On 14 February 2002, the Centru District Court examined a habeas corpus request lodged by the applicant and a request lodged by the prosecutor to prolong the detention. In his habeas corpus request the applicant argued that he was married, had three children and was employed. The court dismissed the applicant’s request but upheld the prosecutor’s request and prolonged the detention.\n11.  Similar prolongations were ordered up until 23 May 2002, when the investigation was completed and the criminal case file was sent by the prosecution to the Chişinău Regional Court. After that date, the applicant remained in detention without having his detention warrant prolonged. He submitted numerous habeas corpus requests relying inter alia on his medical condition (see paragraph 17 below) and on the impossibility of receiving appropriate medical care in prison due to a lack of specialised doctors and medication, but they were all rejected.\n12.  On 13 February 2003 the applicant complained inter alia that from 23 May 2002 he had been detained without any warrant. His request was dismissed.\n13.  On 19 December 2005 the applicant lodged a habeas corpus request with the Centru District Court arguing inter alia that his detention was incompatible with his medical condition due to the lack of appropriate medical care in prison. He asked to be released from detention.\n14.  On 28 December 2005 Judges Catană, Gordilă and Pitic from the Centru District Court found the applicant’s request well-founded and decided to replace the applicant’s remand in custody with house arrest.\n15.  It appears that at the time of adoption of the present judgment the applicant was still under house arrest.\n16.  From 26 January 2002 the applicant was detained in Remand Centre No. 3 of the Ministry of Justice (Izolatorul Anchetei Preliminare Nr. 3). On several occasions he was hospitalised in the Prison Hospital.\n17.  According to medical certificates submitted by the applicant, and not contested by the Government, he suffered from numerous diseases such as chronic hepatitis, second-degree hydronephrosis (accumulation of urine in the kidney because of an obstruction in the urethra), uric diathesis, increased ecogenicity of pancreatic parenchyma, chronic bilateral pyelonephritis (inflammation of the kidney and pelvis caused by bacterial infection) with functional impairment of the right kidney, hydronephrosis of the right kidney with functional impairment, stones in the urinary tract, somatoform disorder, chronic renal failure, head trauma and generalised anxiety disorder of hypertensive type.\n18.  On numerous occasions he was prescribed treatment in hospital and even surgery on his right kidney. On 21 October 2002 and 22 April 2003 the applicant was consulted by Dr Spânu, an urologist from the Central Republican Hospital, a hos", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2196", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Gołdap, Poland.\n5.  In September 1994 the applicant entered into a contract with the Białystok Poultry Company. Under the terms of the contract, the applicant bought 11,733 chicks from the company which she was to raise for a period of two months. Subsequently, the applicant was to deliver the chickens to the company against a payment of an agreed price. In November and December 1994 the applicant purchased foodstuff from a company in Kętrzyn to feed the birds. Subsequently, about 60% of the chicks died.\n6.  On 1 March 1995 the applicant filed a compensation claim with the Suwałki Regional Court against the company producing the foodstuff. She asserted that her chicks had died as a result of being fed the foodstuff purchased from the company. The defendant company contested its liability for the damage sustained by the applicant. On an unspecified date the applicant increased her claim.\n7.  The first hearing was fixed for 2 June 1995, but the Regional Court adjourned it due to the applicant’s absence. However, it appears that the applicant’s lawyer was present at that hearing. The next hearing was held on 30 June 1995. On 7 September 1995 the Regional Court visited the site. Subsequent hearings were held on 21 December 1995, 8 February and 12 December 1996, 5 May and 23 June 1997, 9 February and 23 March 1998. On 5 January 1998 one of the experts was heard by the Warsaw District Court at the Suwałki Regional Court’s request.\n8.  The Regional Court ordered the preparation of three veterinary reports. On 8 February 1996 it ordered that a second report be drawn up. However, that report was only submitted to the court on 12 November 1996. The preparation of a third report was ordered on 12 December 1996 at the applicant’s request as she had contested the expert findings in the previous reports. The third report was submitted to the court on 23 March 1997.\n9.  On 31 March 1998 the Regional Court delivered its judgment. It awarded the applicant PLN 5,616, which represented 15% of the compensation sought, together with statutory interest. It ordered the applicant to pay PLN 4,320.82 for the outstanding court fee. It also held that the applicant was not required to reimburse the litigation costs of the defendant company.\n10.  On 21 April 1998 the applicant filed an appeal against the Regional Court’s judgment. The defendant company also filed an appeal.\n11.  On 16 July 1998 the Białystok Court of Appeal held a hearing. On 30 July 1998 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment for the most part. It amended it only in respect of the litigation costs of the defendant company. It ordered the applicant to cover a part of those costs (PLN 1,200), having regard to her difficult financial situation.\n12.  On 10 September 1998 the applicant filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal. On 14 March 2000, in reply to her query, the applicant was informed by the Supreme Court that due to the large number of cassation appeals pending before that court a hearing would be held approximately two years from the date of lodging the cassation appeal.\n13.  On 2 February 2001 the Supreme Court held a hearing. It dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal on the same day.\n14.  On 11 June 2001 the Suwałki Regional Court issued an execution warrant on behalf of the applicant. On 27 September 2001 the Bailiff of the Kętrzyn District Court stayed the enforcement pr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2197", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Príbovce.\n5.  On 10 December 1996 an investigator of the Martin District Office of Investigation accused the applicant of an offence of illegal acquisition and possession of arms. The applicant complained. Subsequently the case was transferred to the Regional Office of Investigation in Banská Bystrica.\n6.  On 18 December 1996 a public prosecutor of the Banská Bystrica Prosecution Office dismissed the applicant’s complaint.\n7.  On 20 December 1996 a new accusation of the same offence based on a modified factual background was made against the applicant by the Regional Office of Investigation. The applicant filed a complaint.\n8.  On 21 December 1996 a judge of the Banská Bystrica District Court remanded the applicant in custody as from 20 December 1996.\n9.  On 4 February 1997 the Žilina Prosecution Office dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 20 December 1996.\n10.  On 25 April 1997 the applicant was released from custody.\n11.  On 29 May 1997 the Žilina Regional Prosecutor indicted the applicant before the Žilina Regional Court for having been an accomplice to the attempted offence of illegal acquisition and possession of arms.\n12.  On 11 June 1997 the case was assigned to a different judge as the judge to whom the case had been assigned was an acquaintance of one of the accused.\n13.  On 25 November 1997 and 1 December 1997 respectively the Regional Court judge requested that a previous judgment regarding one of the accused be submitted to him.\n14.  On 16 April 1999 the Regional Court remitted the case to the public prosecutor for further investigation. The public prosecutor appealed.\n15.  On 18 August 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s decision of 16 April 1999 and ordered the first-instance court to proceed with the case.\n16.  The Regional Court summoned all the accused persons, including the applicant, to a hearing scheduled for 12 January 2000. The counsel of one of the accused requested that the hearing be postponed.\n17.  The Regional Court held hearings on 17 February 2000, 10 March 2000, 16 June 2000, 27 July 2000, 13 September 2000, 26 October 2000 and 29 October 2000. Several hearings had to be adjourned due to the absence of witnesses and the illness of one of the accused. From 22 December 2000 until 2 May 2001 the court made requests to establish the whereabouts of a witness.\n18.  On 10 May 2001 the Žilina Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 6 months’ imprisonment, conditionally suspended for 18 months. Both the applicant and the public prosecutor appealed.\n19.  On 30 January 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals. The decision became final and binding on the same day.\n20.  On 17 February 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about a violation of his right to have the case decided without undue delay.\n21.  In a letter of 6 March 2003 a Constitutional Court judge informed the applicant that his motion could not be dealt with as it clearly did not meet the necessary formal requirements. The judge also noted that the statutory two-month time-limit for lodging a complaint with the Constitutional Court had already lapsed as the final decision in the criminal proceedings in issue had been given on 30 January 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2198", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 9 March 1993 the applicant brought an action in the Siófok District Court, claiming his share of the inheritance of his late father’s property (öröklési igény megállapítása). The District Court held hearings on 9 September, 23 November and 16 December 1993, and 3 February 1994. On 24 February 1994 a further claim of the applicant, brought under a head of unjustified enrichment (jogalap nélküli gazdagodás), was joined to the case. A further hearing was held on 5 July 1994. On 10 September 1994 a real estate expert submitted his opinion.\n6.  At the hearing on 20 October 1994, the applicant informed the District Court that the first respondent, his mother, had died on 3 October 1994. Subsequently, on 27 October 1994 the District Court suspended the proceedings, which by then involved several respondents, pending the successor of the first respondent joining the case.\n7.  After the applicant had identified the successors of his late mother, on 14 March 1995 the District Court suspended the proceedings pending the termination of another case instituted on 21 February 1995, in which the applicant had requested the District Court to declare his mother’s will null and void (végrendelet érvénytelenségének megállapítása). The court observed that the outcome of those proceedings would be decisive for the procedural succession. On 19 May 1995 the Somogy County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n8.  On 18 May 1995 the competent bench of the Siófok District Court transferred the case concerning the will’s validity to the Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court. That court held hearings on a regular basis until 14 January 2000. On that date, it dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the validity of the will and discontinued the proceedings in respect of certain other questions (a takarékbetétkönyv kifizetése és a szőlő megművelése tárgyában) still pending before the Siófok District Court. Moreover, on 26 January 2000 it discontinued the proceedings concerning some related compensation claims of the applicant (gyümölcsös megművelésének elmaradása miatti kárigény).\n9.  On 3 October 2000 the Budapest Regional Court upheld in essence the decision of 14 January concerning the will itself. Considering the first-instance decision as a partial judgment, it observed that several secondary claims were not examined, in respect of which the District Court proceedings were to be resumed. Simultaneously, the court quashed the decision of 26 January 2000, as a result of which the District Court was to continue the examination of those compensation claims as well.\n10.  Meanwhile, the applicant had introduced another claim concerning his statutory share of the estate (kötelesrész iránti igény), which was disjoined from the principal question pending before the XX/XXI/XXIII District Court on 14 January 2000 (see paragraph 8 above). On 23 March 2000 the competent bench of this court suspended the examination of the issue pending the outcome of the 1993 inheritance proceedings (see paragraphs 5 to 7 above). On 19 October 2000 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this order.\n11.  Parallel to these events, on 18 April 2001 the XX/XXI/XXIII District Court resumed the proceedings concerning the remaining secondary claims (see paragraph 8 above). It held hearings on 26 April and 3 July 2001. On that day, it dismissed part of the applicant’s claims and disjoined some oth", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2199", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Helsinki.\n5.  On 4 June 1993 an article entitled “Experts have doubts about the impartiality of the child ombudsman. Children are weapons in bitter disputes.” was published in a magazine S. The article, written by a free-lance journalist N., concerned the applicant and her work.\n6.  On 21 October 1993 the applicant instituted criminal proceedings against N., the editor-in-chief of the magazine, F., and the publishing company Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy before the then City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätt) of Helsinki, for public defamation, alleging that the article insulted and defamed her professional experience. On 3 March 1994 the court dismissed the action. It referred to the amendments to the Freedom of the Press Act (painovapauslaki, tryckfrihetslag), according to which the proceedings should have been initiated before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) of Espoo. Apparently the applicant’s counsel failed to lodge new charges in time.\n7.  On 19 November 1996 the applicant instituted criminal-based civil proceedings against N., F. and the publishing company before the District Court of Espoo, requesting compensation for non-pecuniary damage of 150,000 Finnish Marks (FIM, amounting to 25,231 euros (EUR)) for mental distress and suffering due to the allegedly incriminating and insulting nature of the article.\n8.  The defendants lodged a counterclaim, which was served on the applicant on 3 March 1997. She lodged an additional claim on 13 August 1997.\n9.  The defendants served their written submissions on 20 October 1997. On 22 January 1998 the applicant submitted further written submissions.\n10.  On 1 September 1998 the District Court held a preparatory hearing.\n11.  On 29 September 1998 the District Court held the principal trial, which terminated on 5 October 1998 after a hearing, which last three days.\n12.  By its judgment of 6 November 1998 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claims and ordered her to reimburse the defendants’ legal costs. She appealed to the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) of Helsinki.\n13.  On 6 November 1998 the applicant’s counsel requested an extension of the time-limit for the appeal. This was extended to 8 January 1999. On 12 January 1999 the applicant lodged her appeal documents.\n14.  On 15 March 1999 the applicant requested the Court of Appeal to suspend the enforcement of the District Court’s judgment.\n15.  On 7 April 1999 the Court of Appeal dismissed her request.\n16.  On 9 April 1999 the Court of Appeal invited the parties to submit written observations. These were received on 30 April and 3 May 1999.\n17.  On 25 October 2000 the applicant submitted further written evidence.\n18.  On 29 December 2000 the Court of Appeal requested the defendants to submit their observations on the further evidence and the applicant to submit her comments on the new witnesses proposed by the defendants. It informed the parties that there would be an oral hearing and proposed dates in March 2001.\n19.  According to the Government, the dates fixed had to be vacated due to the unavailability of the parties. The hearing took place instead on 4, 7 and 8 June 2001. The parties were told that the judgment would be delivered on 5 October 2001. This however was postponed due to the illness of one of the judges.\n20.  On 2 November 2001 the Court of Appeal revoked the judgment of the District Court, finding a part of the article to be defamatory. It ordered the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2200", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Dortmund, Germany.\n5.  On 25 December 1980 the applicant registered his marriage with Ms A. in Aksaray. Few months later the applicant moved to Germany to work.\n6.  On 30 July 1981 Ms A. gave birth to a child, S. On 28 September 1981, soon after having been informed of the birth of S., the applicant filed an action for rejection of paternity before the Aksaray First Instance Court in Civil Matters. On 5 January 1982, based on the results of a blood test, the Ankara University Forensic Institute concluded that it was likely that the applicant was S.'s biological father.\n7.  On 1 June 1982, in view of the medical report of the forensic institute and considering the facts that the applicant and Ms A. had lived together before the marriage, and that the child was born in wedlock, the court dismissed the applicant's claim.\n8.  On 6 June 1989 the marriage was dissolved by divorce. The court ordered the applicant to pay an allowance of 1,500,000 Turkish liras (TRL) and TRL 2,500,000 for the maintenance of S. and Ms A., respectively.\n9.  On 4 March 1997 a DNA test was carried out in Germany which showed that the applicant was not S.'s biological father.\n10.  On 10 April 1997, relying on the findings of the DNA test, the applicant filed an application before the Aksaray First Instance Court in Civil Matters, requesting a retrial in his action for rejection of paternity. The court ordered another DNA testing.\n11.  In the meantime, on 30 May 1997 Ms A. filed another action before the same court, requesting to increase the allowance that the applicant was ordered to pay for the maintenance of S. On 26 December 1997 the Aksaray First Instance Court in Civil Matters decided to increase the relevant amount to TRL 10,000,000. On 11 May 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld this decision.\n12.  The forensic DNA test carried out in the Biology Department of the Ministry of Justice confirmed the findings of the earlier test. The report of 19 August 1998 concluded that the applicant was not the biological father of S.\n13.  On 20 May 1999 the Aksaray First Instance Court in Civil Matters dismissed the applicant's request to annul the decision dated 1 June 1982 and to have a retrial. It interpreted Article 445 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the effect that the newly obtained evidence must have been existent at the time of the proceedings and must have been inaccessible due to force majeure. However the DNA test was carried out years after the court gave its final ruling in the case. It recalled that, in a similar case dated 1969 the Court of Cassation held that the plaintiff could not request to have a retrial of an action for rejection of paternity, by invoking the results of a blood test, carried out years after the final decision.\n14.  On 6 July 1999 the applicant appealed against the decision of the Aksaray First Instance Court in Civil Matters arguing that the court could not dismiss a case for procedural reasons after examining its merits. Furthermore he contended that the medical report of 5 January 1982 was merely based on assumptions, while the DNA tests carried out in 1997 and 1998 revealed the biological fact that he could not be the father of S.\n15.  On 1 November 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the first instance court, holding that S. should have been a party to the proceedings, as she has attained full age and her rights were competing with those of the mother.\n16.  The pro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2201", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and resides in the town of Novogrodivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant instituted two sets of proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of Donetsk Region against the “Novogrodivska” Mining Company - a State-owned enterprise - to recover salary arrears and compensation due to him.\n6.  On 23 March and 20 April 2001 the Novogrodivskyy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Рішення Новогродівського міського суду Донецької області) and awarded him 2,958.73[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) and UAH 3,114.24[2], respectively. These judgments were sent for enforcement to the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новогродівського міського управління юстиції).\n7.  In May 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the judgment of 23 March 2001 in his favour. On 14 August 2001 the Town Court rejected the applicant's claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs' Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs' Service had acted properly in enforcing the judgment of 23 March 2001. However, by a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs' Service had been prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company. On 5 November 2001 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region dismissed the applicant's appeal. On 23 May 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.\n8.  In October 2001, the applicant instituted another set of proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the judgment of 20 April 2001 in his favour. On 17 October 2001, the Town Court rejected the applicant's claim, for the same reasons as before. On 11 February 2002 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region dismissed the applicant's appeal. On 18 March 2002 the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk Region fixed a time-limit until 30 March 2002 for the applicant to bring a cassation appeal in compliance with the procedural formalities prescribed by law. The parties did not submit any further information about these proceedings.\n9.  On 26 December 2001, the ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital was entrenched in the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.\n10.  In February 2003 the Novogrodivska Mining Company was reorganised and became a structural subdivision of the Selidovugol State Mining Company. As the latter thereby became the debtor, in February 2004 the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Selidivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Селідівського міського управління юстиції).\n11.  By 31 August 2004 the judgments in the applicant's favour were enforced in full.\n12.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Selidivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk region against the Selidivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service claiming compensation for material and moral damage caused to him by the non-enforcement of the judgments in his favour. On 27 December 2004 the court found against the applicant. The applicant appealed against this judgment. The parties did not provide any further information ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2202", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Linz.\n9.  Since 1984 the applicant was the head of the Federal Bacteriological Serological Research Institute (Bundesstaatiche bakteriologisch-serologische Untersuchungsanstalt) in Linz. According to the activity profile submitted by the Government the tasks of the Institute involved\n \n- carrying out of various examinations, namely examinations upon official request under the relevant Health Acts and bacteriological examinations of water quality;\n- research, collection and transfer of data; assistance to the installation and maintenance of a notification system concerning certain infectious diseases; maintenance of a specific network on epidemiological diseases integrating EU and other international networks;\n- participation in international scientific projects and studies;\n- provision of general information and advice, such as advice concerning prevention and transfer of infectious diseases and use of antibiotics;\n- assistance by giving of expert advice in the elaboration of quality standards for microbiological laboratories, of national recommendations in the field of hygiene, medical microbiology and preventive medicine and of epidemic legislation;\n- representation of the competent Ministry's department in national and international expert groups.\n10.  The applicant, as head of the Institute, was responsible for all tasks entrusted to it. Under section 3 of the Civil Servants Act (Beamten-Dienstrechtsgesetz) he was further responsible for certain matters concerning the regulation of its service, namely the arrangement of vacation and grant of special leave, and had the authority to issue decisions (Bescheide) in this regard.\n11.  On 22 November 1999 the Disciplinary Commission at the Ministry for Work, Health and Social Affairs (Disziplinarkommission beim Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Gesundheit und Soziales) found the applicant guilty of having violated his professional duties under the Non-Discrimination Act (Bundes-Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) and sentenced him to a fine of approximately 2,400 euros (EUR). It found that the applicant inter alia had made statements about some of his employees amounting to sexual harassment. On 15 June 2000 the Senior Disciplinary Board at the Ministry for Public Service and Sport (Disziplinaroberkommission beim Bundesministerium für öffentliche Leistung und Sport) partly dismissed the applicant's appeal. It reduced the fine to approximately EUR 1,600. On 4 September 2003 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint.\n12.  In the meantime, on 31 March 2000, the Federal Minister for Work, Health and Social Affairs recalled the applicant from his post with immediate effect (Abberufung mit sofortiger Wirkung) and transferred him to a post with a lower grade, namely a referee post at the Ministry for Work, Health and Social Affairs in Vienna.\n13.  Referring to the applicant's behaviour which was the subject of the pending disciplinary proceedings, the Federal Minister found that the applicant had violated his professional duties, and could no longer be trusted to perform the managerial duties as head of the Institute. She referred to section 38 of the Civil Servants Act according to which a transfer can be ordered ex officio in case of important official interest. At the same time she informed the applicant that the payment of the extra duty allowance (Verwendungszulage) granted to him as head of the Institute was to be discontinued from 1 May 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2203", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Artemivsk, the Donetsk region.\n5.  On 14 August 1997 the applicant was transferred from her position of deputy director of the Joint Stock Company “Artemivska Raiagrotekhnika” (“the Company”) to the position of economist.\n6.  On 17 September 1997 she instituted proceedings in the Artemivsk Town Court (“the Artemivsk Court”) against the Company, seeking reinstatement in the position of deputy director.\n7.  On 20 October 1997 the applicant was dismissed from the position of economist, as she refused to take up her new duties.\n8.  In November 1997 she lodged with the Artemivsk Court a new claim against the Company, seeking annulment of her dismissal, recovery of salary arrears and compensation. The new claim was joined to the initial proceedings.\n9.  On 27 January 1998 the applicant challenged the judge, Mr B., who was dealing with her case, and the Artemivsk Court, alleging that they lacked impartiality, as the Company had produced and installed window grids in the court's new building free of charge. On 30 January 1998 the President of that court, Mr V.L.G., rejected the applicant's motion on the grounds that it did not contain any reasons for the disqualification of the judge.\n10.  By letter of 16 February 1998, the President of the Artemivsk Court requested the Chairman of the Executive Board of the Company to provide the court with a computer. The letter read as follows:\n“The Artemivsk Town Court of the Donetsk Region requests you to provide a computer for the court's use.”\n11.  The letter also contained a handwritten resolution, allowing the request.\n12.  On 2 March 1998 the court found in part for the applicant. It annulled the Company's order of 14 August 1997. On 20 April 1998 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed the decision of the first instance court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n13.  On 16 December 1998 the Artemivsk Court found in part for the applicant. It ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 440.77[1] in salary arrears and other payments. The court further rejected the applicant's claim against her dismissal.\n14.  The applicant appealed in cassation. On 25 January 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 16 December 1998 concerning the pecuniary award and remitted that part for a fresh consideration.\n15.  On 2 April 1999 the Artemivsk Court found against the applicant. On 24 May 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.\n16.  On an unspecified date the President of the Donetsk Regional Court lodged a protest (a request for a supervisory review) with the Presidium of that court, seeking annulment of the decisions of 2 April and 24 May 1999. On 14 July 1999 the Presidium allowed the protest, quashed those decisions and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n17.  On 6 September 1999 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the Artemivsk Court. On 19 October 1999 the President of the court rejected the applicant's motion as unsubstantiated.\n18.  On 6 March 2000 the applicant changed her claim, seeking modification of the reasons for her dismissal, recovery of salary arrears and compensation.\n19.  On 9 March 2000 the Artemivsk Court found in part for the applicant. It ordered that the reasons for the applicant's dismissal be changed and awarded her UAH 8,071.75[2] in salary arrears and other payments. That decision was not appealed against and became final.\n20.  On an unspecified date t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2205", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant, Mr Turko Saidalviyevich Luluyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1979. His application was brought on his own behalf and on behalf of his close relatives: his father Mr Saidalvi Saidsalimovich Luliuyev, born in 1954 (the second applicant); the first applicant's brothers, Mr A.L., born in 1983, and Mr S.L., born in 1995, and his sister Ms Z.L., born in 1989 (the third to fifth applicants); Nura Luluyeva's parents, Ms G.B. and Mr S. G. (the sixth and the seventh applicants); and her brothers, Mr M.G., Mr Kh.G. and Mr S.S.G. (the eighth to tenth applicants), who requested that their names should not be disclosed. The applicants live in Gudermes, Chechnya.\n8.  Nura Said-Alviyevna Luluyeva, born in 1960, lived together with the second applicant and their children (the first, the third, the fourth and the fifth applicants) in Gudermes. She worked as a nurse and a kindergarten teacher; at the time of her abduction she also traded fruit at the local market. The second applicant worked in the law-enforcement bodies and subsequently as a judge; in 2002 he became the chairman of a district court in Chechnya. He has since ceased to work in the judiciary.\n9.  The facts surrounding the abduction and killing of the applicants' relative, Nura Luluyeva, as submitted by the parties, are set out in Sections 1 and 2 below. A description of the materials submitted to the Court is contained in Part B.\n10.  On 3 June 2000 Nura Luluyeva, along with her two cousins, Markha Gakayeva and Raysa Gakayeva, went to the market place at Mozdokskaya Street in the northern part of Grozny.\n11.  Between 7 and 9 a.m. that morning an armoured personnel carrier (APC) appeared at the market. It was accompanied by two other vehicles, an Ural truck and an UAZ all-terrain vehicle. A group of servicemen, wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with machine guns, disembarked from the vehicles. The servicemen detained several persons, mostly women, put sacks over their heads and loaded them into the APC. Nura Luluyeva and her two cousins were among those detained.\n12.  Someone apparently called the police from the Leninskiy temporary District Department of the Interior (Leninskiy VOVD), which was situated only a few hundred metres from the scene. When the police appeared and tried to interfere, the military started shooting in the air with a machine gun, and then drove away. The deputy chief of the district administration was also present at the scene and he attempted to question the servicemen about their official affiliation and their mission at the market, but he was told only that they were “lawfully carrying out a special operation”. Having received this explanation the officials left the site.\n13.  Later in the afternoon the second applicant learned from neighbours about Nura Luluyeva's arrest. At about 3 p.m. he went to the market place and then to the Leninskiy VOVD, which had already been notified of the incident. It was also known that, in addition to Nura Luluyeva and her cousins, at least one other person, Mr Z. Tazurkayev, was detained on the same day.\n14.  From that day the applicants, primarily the second applicant, searched for Nura Luluyeva and her cousins until their bodies were found in February 2001 (see Section 2 below). On numerous occasions the second applicant applied to various authorities, requesting information about their whereabouts. In particular, he contacted the prosecutors at various levels, the Federal Security", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2206", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a limited company (société anonyme), which, in accordance with a resolution of its general meeting of 3 March 2000, is in voluntary liquidation. It was represented by its liquidator Mr Jean-Luc Sauvage, who was appointed by a decision of the Nanterre Commercial Court dated 6 March 2000.\n8.  The company Société des Mines de Sacilor Lormines, a sub-subsidiary of Usinor, was set up in 1978 to take over, by virtue of a transfer decree of 28 March 1979, the concessions and leases of the Sacilor iron-ore mines in Lorraine.\n9.  The applicant subsequently took over other concessions, in particular those of the company Société des Mines du Nord-Est and its subsidiary Société de Droitaumont-Giraumont. It thus held a total of 63 iron-ore mining concessions in Lorraine on the date when it announced that it was to shut down its mining operations. Iron-ore mining had been in constant decline since 1963. The company was forced to discontinue its mining activity because worldwide competition meant that it was no longer profitable to mine iron-ore in Lorraine. The applicant company's iron-ore production had thus fallen from 13,940,000 tonnes in 1978 to 4,300,000 tonnes in 1991. As the demand for the applicant company's phosphoric pig iron had slowly dwindled away, it decided in 1991 to halt production. The closure of the various pits was staggered between 30 June 1992 and 31 July 1993. The applicant company had to stop all extraction operations in July 1993. It underwent privatisation in 1995 and in 1997.\n10.  With a view to the complete cessation of its activity, the applicant company initiated the appropriate procedures for the abandonment and renunciation of its concessions. The abandonment procedure, for the purpose of decommissioning and stabilising disused mining installations, entails the implementation of an order (arrêté) in which the requisite abandonment operations are stipulated by the prefect having territorial jurisdiction. It ends when the authorities are able to confirm that the requirements have been fulfilled. The renunciation procedure terminates the concession with the result that its holder is no longer bound by the special mining regulations and is released from the presumption of liability in respect of any damage which occurs above ground. At the time when the cessation of the company's operations was announced, the abandonment and renunciation procedures were governed by Articles 83 and 84 of the Mining Code and by Decree no. 80-330 of 7 May 1980 concerning mining and quarrying regulations. Law no. 94-588 of 15 July 1994, amending certain provisions of the Mining Code, repealed Articles 83 and 84 and replaced them by Articles 79 and 84. Decree no. 95-696 of 9 May 1995, issued after consultation of the Conseil d'Etat, pertaining to the opening of mines and mining regulations, was adopted for the implementation of those provisions. Lastly, Law no. 99-245 of 30 March 1999 concerning liability for damage resulting from mining and the prevention of mining-related risks after discontinuance, brought about further amendments to mining law (see paragraphs 29 to 33 below).\n11.  Numerous regulatory measures (over twenty) were taken in this connection against the applicant company, which challenged them all in the Administrative Courts of Strasbourg and Nancy. The applicant company also lodged numerous appeals seeking the annulment of refusals by the Minister responsible for mining to accept its renunciation of a numbe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2207", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1970. The second applicant was born in 1965. Both of them are Ukrainian nationals, who live in the city of Kirovograd, Ukraine.\n5.  On unspecified dates the applicants retired from the army. Upon retirement, the applicants became entitled to compensation for their uniforms and travel expenses. As these compensations remained unpaid, they instituted proceedings in the Kirovogradskiy District Court (Місцевий суд Кіровоградського району) against their former employer, a military unit. The first applicant instituted proceedings in 2003 seeking compensation for his uniform and travel expenses. The second applicant instituted proceedings in 2002 seeking compensation for his uniform and moral damage.\n6.  On 10 September 2003 the court awarded the first applicant UAH 1,740.91[1] for the uniform and UAH 360[2] for travel expenses. On 20 February 2003 the court awarded the second applicant UAH 2,532.05[3] for the uniform and UAH 2,000[4] in compensation for moral damage.\n7.  The above judgments have been enforced in part. The first applicant received UAH 360, the outstanding judgment debt being 1,740.91[5]. The second applicant received UAH 3,805.04, the outstanding judgment debt being UAH 732.05[6].\n8.  In January and February 2004, the Kirovograd Regional Department of Justice informed the applicants that the rest of the amounts awarded could not be paid due to the debtor's lack of funds and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was barred by the Law of 26 November 2001 “On the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property” (Закон України “Про введення мораторiю на примусову реалiзацiю майна”).\n9.  On 18 June 2004 the Kirovograd Bailiffs' Service returned the writs of execution to the applicants.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2208", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Cuxhaven, in Germany.\n5.  The applicant is a shareholder of M.T.V Cosmetics Ltd, a company registered under Cypriot law. From 29 January 1992 onwards he has been involved in a number of civil proceedings concerning the above company.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as derived from the minutes of the proceedings, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 29 January 1992 the applicant filed application no. 24/92 before the District Court of Nicosia complaining about the oppressive conduct of the majority shareholders of M.T.V. Cosmetics Ltd and requesting a number of remedies in this respect.\n8.  On 23 December 1992 the court delivered its judgment finding that there had been oppressive conduct and ordering the purchase of the applicant's shares by the majority shareholders at a price determined by an independent valuer. No appeal was filed against this judgment.\n9.  Subsequently, on 26 November 1993 the majority shareholders of the company filed an application (also referred to as application no. 24/92) with the District Court of Nicosia requesting it to issue an order requiring, inter alia, the applicant to transfer his shares to the majority shareholders and to comply with the court's judgment of 23 December 1992.\n10.  Following the filing of an ex-parte application by the majority shareholders, the court issued interlocutory orders prohibiting the applicant from, inter alia, transferring and/or alienating his shares pending the proceedings for the execution of the court's judgment of 23 December 1992.\n11.  Subsequent to an objection put forward by the applicant, the court set aside the interlocutory orders on 28 January 1994.\n12.  On 28 September 1994 the court delivered its judgment dismissing the application of 26 November 1993. It found that the application had no legal basis.\n13.  On 10 October 1994 the defendants filed an appeal no. 9296 with the Supreme Court. A cross-appeal was lodged by the applicant on 10 October 1997. Both the appeal and the cross-appeal were withdrawn on 22 January 1999.\n14.  On 3 February 1994 the majority shareholders (plaintiffs) of M.T.V Cosmetics Ltd filed civil action no. 1056/94  against the applicant before the District Court of Nicosia requesting, in essence, the enforcement of the court's judgment dated 23 December 1992 in application 24/92 (see paragraph 8 above). They requested a number of remedies in this respect.\n15.  On the same date the plaintiffs also filed an ex parte application requesting an interlocutory court order prohibiting the applicant from, inter alia, transferring or alienating his shares pending the proceedings and from interfering with the company's affairs. This application was eventually withdrawn on 11 February 1994.\n16.  The statement of claim was filed on 11 November 1994 and on 5 December 1994 the plaintiffs filed an application concerning the applicant's failure to submit his statement of defence and counterclaim. The application was set for hearing for 12 December 1994. The hearing was then adjourned twice, for two months in total, at the applicant's request for the purposes of filing his statement of defence. On 16 February 1995 the applicant filed his statement of defence and counterclaim and on 24 February 1995 the plaintiffs withdrew their application of 5 December 1994. The reply to the defence and counterclaim were filed on 9 March 1995. On 26 May 1995 the case was set for hearing for 12 Decemb", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2209", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in the city of Kherson, Ukraine.\n5.  On 20 September 1999 the Komsomolskiy District Court of Kherson allowed the applicant's claim against the State-owned enterprise “Khersonskyy Sudnobudivelnyy Zavod” (the “KSZ”), and ordered the latter to pay the applicant UAH 1,070[1] in salary arrears. On 6 October 1999 the Komsomolsky District Bailiffs' Service (the “Bailiffs”) instituted enforcement proceedings.\n6.  By decisions of 16 November 1999, 30 January 2002 and 15 May 2002, the Labour Disputes Commission allowed the applicant's claims and ordered the KSZ to pay the applicant a total of UAH 3283.09[2]. The Bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings on 30 November 1999, 1 March 2002 and 13 June 2002 respectively.\n7.  On 27 December 1999 the Kherson Regional Court of Arbitration instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor and, consequently, all enforcement proceedings were suspended. On 10 January 2001 the bankruptcy case was terminated and the enforcement proceedings were resumed.\n8.  In 2001 a substantial part of the debtor's assets was attached by the Bailiffs; however its sale was barred by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, which banned the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State held at least 25% of the share capital.\n9.  On 6 May 2001, 6 December 2001, 17 May 2002 and 1 March 2004 the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the decisions in his favour had not been executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the debtor's lack of funds.\n10.  On 23 June 2005 the applicant was paid the amounts due to him in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2210", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant, Mr Bård Kaste, and the second applicant, Mr Per Stian Tveten Mathisen, were born in 1970 and 1973 respectively and both live in Oslo.\n5.  On 21 March 2002 the Oslo City Court convicted the first applicant of illegal possession of a firearm and, with two other co-accused, namely the second applicant and “C”, of possessing 48.41 kg of amphetamines and attempting to import those drugs by ferry from Kiel (Germany) to Norway on 9 January 1999. The first applicant was given a prison sentence of fourteen years, the second applicant twelve years and C six years.\n6.  The summary of facts contained in the City Court’s judgment took note of statements made to the Norwegian police by a fourth person, “T.A.”, concerning transportation of the drugs from Rotterdam to Kiel by “Percy” (the second applicant’s nickname) and another person. Before driving his car onto the ferry in Kiel, T.A. was stopped by German customs officials, who found a total of 48.41 kg of amphetamines in a rucksack and a bag in the car boot. Immediately after T.A.’s arrest, Norwegian police officers travelled to Kiel to take part in his questioning. T.A. was tried and convicted in Germany in June 1999.\n7.  In its reasoning in the first applicant’s conviction, the City Court based its decision on circumstantial evidence, notably on his and his cohabitant’s use of a mobile telephone, and its finding that there could be no doubt that the telephone in question, which used two specific pre-paid card numbers, had functioned as a means of communication in the operation and had played a central role in the case.\n8.  On 9 October 2002 the City Court, in separate proceedings, convicted a fifth person, “D” (who had absconded to the United States of America but later returned), in relation to the same offences and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment.\n9.  The first applicant, the second applicant, C and D subsequently appealed to the Borgarting High Court, which decided to join the proceedings. Whereas D appealed only against the sentence, the other appellants appealed against other aspects, including the procedure, the assessment of evidence and the application of the law with regard to the question of guilt.\n10.  In the appeal proceedings before the High Court, the prosecutor requested that D be heard first, before the other defendants, because the giving of testimonies in this order would be the most appropriate in the interests of elucidating the case and ensuring effective administration of justice. The applicants’ respective defence lawyers protested against the order requested by the prosecutor. The High Court considered that, since D was to give evidence on matters of relevance to his sentence, normal practice should be followed, which was to hear first those defendants who had appealed against the lower court’s judgment as a whole. After C, the first applicant and the second applicant had given oral evidence, it transpired that D did not wish to give oral evidence. As to the procedure thereafter, the court record states:\n“The prosecution asked, with reference to Article 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for permission to read out the depositions that the accused [D] had made to the police on 22 May, 24 May and 21 June 2002.\n[D]’s defence counsel, Mr Oscar Ihlebæk, had no objections to this. Mr Marius Dietrichson, defence counsel for [C], wanted the depositions to be read out. Mr Trygve Staff, defence counsel for [the first applicant], did not wish", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2211", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Novoaltaysk in the Altay Region. He is a practising lawyer.\n5.  The applicant is the legal owner of State commodity bonds Harvest-90 (чеки «Урожай-90») having a total nominal value of 64,000 Russian roubles (“RUR”). These bonds were a special money substitute issued by the USSR Government in 1990 in order to finance the purchase of the harvest for further distribution among the population. In additional to a certain nominal value, the bonds gave their bearers an opportunity to purchase goods that had then been in short supply.\n6.  In 2001 the applicant brought a civil action against the Russian Government and Ministry of Finance, seeking to recover the value of his bonds. He argued that in 1991, the bearer of bonds worth 16,000 Russian roubles could exchange them for a Russian-made Vaz passenger car.\n7.  On 6 September 2001 the Novoaltaysk Town Court of the Altay Region granted the applicant's claim and awarded him RUR 455,080 (approximately 17,400 euros).\n8.  On 9 January 2002 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. It held as follows:\n“The [first-instance] court correctly found that, once the State has recognised the obligations [arising from the commodity bonds], they should be discharged in good faith, pursuant to Article 309 of the Civil Code. The court correctly noted that the failure to adopt a federal law governing the procedure for redemption of the State's obligations did not prevent the plaintiff from seeking judicial protection of his legitimate interests. By virtue of Article 310 of the Civil Code, unilateral repudiation of an obligation or unilateral modification of its terms are not permissible, unless the law provides otherwise. At present there is no federal law on unilateral modification of the terms of the obligation. Accordingly, the court correctly applies the norms of the Civil Code.\nPursuant to Article 314 of the Civil Code, if an obligation is to be discharged on a specific day or within a specific period of time, it may be discharged at any moment within that period. The plaintiff's bonds provided for his right to receive four Vaz cars by 1 October 1991. However, this obligation has not been discharged to date. In this connection the court correctly concluded that the plaintiff has the right to pecuniary compensation equivalent to the value of four Vaz cars at the day of the judgment...”\n9.  On 22 June 2002 the applicant submitted a writ of execution and his bank details to the Ministry of Finance for enforcement.\n10.  By letter of 8 October 2002, a deputy Minister of Finance acknowledged receipt of the documents and informed him that the courts had erred in granting his claim and that the Altay Regional Treasury would submit an application for institution of supervisory-review proceedings against the judgments. It appears that that application was rejected by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on an unspecified date.\n11.  On 17 August 2005 the Ministry of Finance applied for a stay of execution of the judgment on the ground that the 2005 Federal Budget Act had suspended payments under the Harvest-90 bonds until 31 December 2005.\n12.  On 6 September 2005 the Novoaltaysk Town Court refused the Ministry's application. It pointed out that judicial decisions were binding on all State authorities and that the suspension of payments from the federal budget was not a ground for staying enforcement of an enforceable judgment. On 19 October 2005 the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2212", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On the night of 2 December 1997 a customer of a bar was brutally beaten up after leaving with a friend to go home. The friend who accompanied him witnessed the start of the attack from a distance. The victim later died from his injuries.\n8.  A preliminary investigation into the murder was opened on the following day.\n9.  On 11 December 1997 the applicant, who had also been in the bar on the night in question, was arrested and questioned by the police. He signed a statement confessing to having beaten the victim, which he subsequently retracted claiming that it was extracted from him under duress.\n10.  On 12 December 1997 the applicant was charged with murder and detained on remand. Immediately thereafter, the applicant was questioned by an investigator. In the presence of a State-appointed attorney and after having been informed of his right not to give testimony the applicant reiterated the statement he had given on the previous day and made a full confession.\n11.  During the preliminary investigation various witnesses were questioned, DNA tests were performed on the applicant's clothes and a crime scene experiment was conducted. Various experts' opinions were also obtained, such as to assess the applicant's physical and mental state, as well as his eyesight. A medical examination of the victim was also conducted. In addition, an agronomical expertise was commissioned to determine what the foliage cover of the trees was at the time of the murder and whether that could have impaired the witness's line of sight. A meteorological expertise was also obtained to assess whether the weather could have had a similar hampering effect.\n12.  On an unspecified date, the Prosecutor's Office filed an indictment for murder against the applicant with the Plovdiv Regional Court.\n13.  Subsequently, the Plovdiv Regional Court remitted the case back to the investigation stage on at least two occasions.\n14.  Revised indictments were entered against the applicant on 13 January and 14 October 1999. The final indictment against the applicant was for murder with extreme viciousness. The prosecution claimed that the applicant had beaten up the victim after he had refused to lend him money to pay his bill in the bar.\n15.  The Plovdiv Regional Court conducted six hearings between 30 January and 3 December 2001.\n16.  In a judgment of 3 December 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court, acting as the court of first instance, acquitted the applicant. According to the minutes, it then ordered his release, but imposed a restriction on him not to leave his place of residence without the permission of the Prosecutor's Office. The court considered that it was unclear whether the applicant's confession was given voluntarily. Assessing it in the light of the other evidence and witnesses' statements, the court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the applicant.\n17.  The Prosecutor's Office appealed against the judgment on 18 December 2001.\n18.  It is unclear how many hearings were conducted before the Plovdiv Court of Appeals.\n19.  In a judgment of 20 September 2004 the Plovdiv Court of Appeals quashed the lower-court's judgment and examined the case on the merits. It found the applicant guilty of murder with extreme viciousness, sentenced him to seventeen years' imprisonment and ordered that he pay damages to the victim's family. In reaching its decision, the Plovdiv Court of Appeals found that the first-instance court had given too much weight to the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2213", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in London.\n5.  On 1 April 1998 the applicant, who is a journalist, distributed a leaflet concerning the conscientious objector Mr O.M.U, outside the Ankara State Security Court. He also handed the leaflet to the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court together with a petition stating that he should be prosecuted for having committed a crime.\n6.  The leaflet, entitled “Freedom to think - an initiative against the crime of thought” contained the press release issued by O. M. U on 1 September 1995. The latter had been previously convicted and sentenced on account of this press release. The relevant parts of the leaflet are as follows:\nPreface and Epilogue:\n“... For the purpose of defending the free expression of every kind of thought, we who have signed as publishers, convey this 'convicted' text to the people, regardless of its contents and the question whether or not we share its contents, even though some of us do not agree with some lines in it...'\nThe press release of O. M. U:\n“Good morning, Today's press conference is not organised by the Izmir Association of the Opponents of War. The responsibility for this conference rests exclusively with me. As you know, the case, which was brought before the Ankara Military Court of the Office of the Chief of Staff where I was allegedly accused of committing the crime of 'inciting others to evade military service', was concluded on 29 August.\n...\nThe army, unable to deal with us through judicial methods, think that they can draw the opponents of war away from the public view. First of all, I am not a deserter; I am a 'conscientious objector'. I neither intend to do military service nor desert. There is no reason to desert, because I defend the principle that people should exercise their right not to do military service without having to go into hiding.\nAs to the papers given by the Recruitment Office...I am going to burn them right now before your eyes...\nI am not a soldier and I never will be. Of course, I am aware that I will be summoned for military service, but until I am summoned, whenever that may be there will be no changes to my lifestyle. They can find me here and take me by force. But I will resist to the end in the barracks, and I am underlining that I will refuse to do military service in any shape or fashion.”\n7.  On 1 April 1998 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court took the applicant's statement in which the applicant reiterated the content of his petition. He maintained that, by publishing and distributing the above-mentioned leaflet, he had committed the same offence for which O. M. U. had been convicted. He contended that he agreed with the contents of the leaflet. He further pointed out that there were judgments of the European Court of Human Rights which referred to conscientious objectors. He claimed that the leaflet was not intended to dissuade people from doing military service or to incite them to desert. He further stated that in the Netherlands conscientious objectors did not do their military service, but were given other jobs. He commented that maybe in the future the same would also be true for Turkey. He concluded that his aim was to obtain the abolition of compulsory military service in Turkey.\n8.  On 4 June 1998 the military public prosecutor at the General Staff Court in Ankara filed a bill of indictment, accusing the applicant of inciting others to evade military service. He requested t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2214", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lived in the village of Novye Atagi, Shali district, Chechnya. In early 2004 she left for the United States of America, where she sought asylum.\n9.  The facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicant's son and husband were partially disputed. In view of this the Court requested the Government to produce copies of the entire investigation files opened in relation to the abduction of Said-Khuseyn and Said-Magomed Imakayev. The submissions of the parties on the facts concerning the circumstances of the apprehension and disappearance of the applicant's son and husband and the ensuing investigations are set out in Sections 1-5 below. A description of the materials submitted to the Court is contained in Part B.\n10.  The applicant lived in the village of Novye Atagi in the Shali district, Chechnya. Her husband, Said-Magomed Imakayev, was born in 1955, and they had three children: Said-Khuseyn, born in 1977, Magomed-Emir and Sedo. The applicant is a school teacher by profession. The applicant's son Said-Khuseyn graduated from medical school in 1999 as a dentist and continued his studies in the Grozny Oil Institute.\n11.  In the morning of 17 December 2000 Said-Khuseyn Imakayev drove to the market in the village of Starye Atagi in a white VAZ-2106 (“Zhiguli”) car, which he used with the written permission of the owner.\n12.  About 6 p.m. on the same day neighbours informed the applicant that they had seen her son being detained by Russian servicemen at a roadblock between the villages of Starye Atagi and Novye Atagi. The applicant and her relatives immediately started looking for him and collected several statements from the witnesses who had seen her son's detention. They initially agreed to testify on condition that their names were not disclosed, but later agreed to submit their names.\n13.  Witness Umayat D. is a resident of Novye Atagi and knew Said-Khuseyn Imakayev from school. On 17 December 2000 he was at the market in Starye Atagi. At about 2 p.m. he met Said-Khuseyn Imakayev, who said he had wanted to buy a jacket but had not found anything. He offered D. a lift back to their village, but D. was driving himself and declined. He later learnt that Imakayev had been detained by Russian soldiers on the road near the bridge over the Argun river.\n14.  Witnesses Zulay T. and Kolita D. are residents of Novye Atagi who were returning home in a bus from the market in Starye Atagi. At about 3 p.m. on 17 December 2000 the two women saw from the bus window a group of military personnel wearing masks and standing around a white Zhiguli car. A young man got out of the Zhiguli. The women alighted from the bus and wanted to help him, but the military started shooting in the air and at the ground, and shouted at them not to approach. They saw the young man being thrown into the military UAZ car (“tabletka”), and one of the servicemen drove the white Zhiguli. They left very quickly, and the witnesses did not note the UAZ number plates. The cars went towards Novye Atagi. Later that day they learnt that the man detained was Said-Khuseyn Imakayev.\n15.  Adam Ts. testified that in the afternoon of 17 December 2000 in Lenin Street, Novye Atagi, he saw a military UAZ and Said-Khuseyn Imakayev's Zhiguli, driven by an unknown man aged 30-35. The car was driving at very high speed. He thought that Imakayev had lent the car to someone, as he sometimes did. Later that day he learnt that Said-Khuseyn Imakayev had been detaine", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2215", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants owned a number of plots of land located in Częstochowa, on Wręczycka Street.\n9.  In 1979 a local land development plan was adopted under which a local health centre was to be built on their land. However, this plan was not implemented and apparently the land was later designated for the construction of small individual houses.\n10.  In 1991 the applicants requested the municipal authorities to reclassify their land so that it could be used for construction purposes. In December 1991 they were granted an initial approval for a development project on their land (decyzja o warunkach zabudowy).\nIn June 1992 they obtained a permit under Article 10 of the Land Administration and Expropriation Act 1985 to divide their plot, which was listed in the local land register as plot no. 1/1, into 15 smaller plots suitable for the construction of individual houses (decyzja o zatwierdzeniu projektu podzialu nieruchomości).\n11.  In 1994 the Częstochowa Municipal Council announced that it was intending to adopt a new land development plan under which part of the applicants’ property was to be used for the construction of a major roadway. On 17 October 1994 the applicants lodged their objections against the proposed amendments. On 27 October 1994 the amendments were adopted by the Council. The applicants’ objections were not taken into consideration.\n12.  On 28 November 1994 the applicants requested that final construction permits (zezwolenie na budowę) be granted to them in respect of certain plots on the basis of the decisions given in 1991 and 1992 (see paragraph 10 above).\n13.  In June 1995 the local State administration obliged the City Hall to draw up a financing plan for local infrastructure investments, including the road network, and to fix time-limits for the purchase from their owners of plots necessary for the implementation of the plans.\n14.  On 4 September 1995 the applicants requested the City Hall to amend further the local plan as amended in 1994 by providing that the projected roadway would, instead of 40, be 18 metres wide, as provided for in the 1991 and 1992 decisions allowing their property to be divided into smaller construction plots.\n15.  In a letter to the City Hall of 6 September 1994, communicated to the applicants for information, the Częstochowa Governor stated that the construction of the roadway would not be provided for in the financing scheme for the local land development plan until at least 2010. Therefore, no purpose was served by blocking the development of the properties concerned.\n16.  Subsequently, in 1995 the local municipality informed the public that it would start proceedings in order to amend the 1979-1994 land development plan in its part concerning the projected roadway.\n17.  On 8 August 1996 the applicants submitted a request to obtain a final construction permit for their plot no. 1/9 on Wręczycka Street. Those proceedings were subsequently stayed, the authorities considering that no decision could be given before the changes to the development plan had been adopted.\n18.  In early 1997 the local municipality made public the proposed amendments to that plan. In April 1997 the applicants lodged their objections against them.\n19.  On 23 April 1997 the applicants asked the Mayor when the Town Council would discuss the new amendments to the plan.\n20.  On 16 June 1997 they were informed that the Town Council would discuss the amendments to the plan at its session to be held on 19 June 1997, but ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2216", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Rezina.\n8.  The applicant is the widow of the former President of the Rezina District Court. On 7 June 1998, after the death of her husband, the applicant lodged several requests with the Ministry of Finances (“the Ministry”) and Ministry of Justice, seeking the lump sum to which she was entitled in accordance with the “Law on the Status of Judges”. When she was refused on the ground of lack of resources, the applicant brought an action against the Ministry.\n9.  On 2 March 1999 the Buiucani District Court awarded the applicant 345,491 Moldovan lei (MDL, the equivalent of 35,987 euros (EUR) at the time), to which it found she was entitled following the death of her husband. The Ministry appealed. By judgments of 11 May 1999 and 17 August 1999 the Chişinău Regional Court and the Court of Appeal, respectively, dismissed the Ministry’s appeals.\n10.  The applicant lodged numerous complaints about the failure of the Ministry to comply with the judgment and pay her compensation. On 13 January 2000 the Ministry paid the compensation.\n11.  Since the applicant considered that the late enforcement of the judgment had significantly reduced the value of her compensation due to inflation, she requested the Ministry to make good the diminished value. The Ministry refused to comply with the applicant’s request and she brought an action against it, seeking compensation for the late enforcement.\n12.  On 14 September 2001 the Buiucani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Ministry to pay her MDL 244,953 (EUR 21,007 at the time) in compensation. The Ministry appealed.\n13.  On 5 February 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the Ministry’s appeal and upheld the judgment of 14 September 2001. The judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court stated specifically that the Ministry’s representative had been present and had addressed the court. Since the Ministry did not lodge an appeal in cassation within fifteen days, the judgment of 5 February 2002 became final.\n14.  On 8 April 2002, 47 days after the expiry of the legal time-limit for lodging the appeal in cassation, the Ministry lodged an appeal in cassation with the Court of Appeal and requested an extension of the legal time-limit for lodging it, without providing any reasons for the failure to observe it.\n15.  On 9 July 2002 the Court of Appeal examined the Ministry’s appeal in cassation. The Court of Appeal requested, ex-officio, a report from the Statistics Department on the level of inflation and relied on it in its judgment. The applicant alleged that she had not been given the possibility either to familiarise herself with the document or to challenge it before the court. The applicant also alleged that she had expressly requested the Court of Appeal to dismiss the Ministry’s appeal in cassation since it had been lodged out of time.\n16.  By a judgment of 9 July 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the Ministry’s appeal in cassation, quashed the judgments in favour of the applicant and reduced the amount of compensation for inflation to MDL 118,848 (EUR 8,766 at the time). The Court of Appeal did not give any reason for accepting the appeal in cassation lodged out of time.\n17.  On 16 September 2002 the Prosecutor General lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgments in favour of the applicant and asked for the reduction of the amount of compensation awarded.\n18.  On 9 October 2002 the Supreme Court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2217", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  In 1993, the applicant arrived in the United Kingdom from Ethiopia and sought political asylum. She was initially provided with accommodation by the social services department of Hammersmith and Fulham Council (“the Council”). On 21 April 1997, the applicant moved into accommodation owned by a housing association. A member of the housing association's staff assisted the applicant to complete her application for housing and council tax benefit which was submitted to the Council in April 1997. This application was successful.\n11.  The applicant was required by law to renew her application for housing and council tax benefit on an annual basis. Because of her lack of familiarity with the benefits system and her poor English, the applicant failed to submit a benefit renewal form to the Council by the required time. In September 1998, the applicant received correspondence from the housing association about her rent arrears. As the applicant did not understand the correspondence, she sought assistance from the Council's advice office. After obtaining this advice the applicant realised that her housing and council tax benefit had ceased. She therefore submitted a prospective claim as well as a backdated claim for both types of benefit to 15 June 1998.\n12.  The prospective claim was successful and the applicant began to receive housing benefit again from 4 October 1998, but on 4 November 1998 the Council rejected the application for backdated benefit because the applicant had failed to show “good cause” why she had not claimed the benefits earlier.\n13.  During the period from 15 June to 4 October 1998 the applicant lost housing benefit of GBP 860.00, and since her rent in any event exceeded the benefit to which she had been entitled, her rent arrears amounted to GBP 1,068.86. The housing association commenced possession proceedings, seeking the applicant's eviction for non-payment of rent, and the Council also brought proceedings based on the applicant's failure to pay council tax of GBP 163.36 for the year 1998/99. On 19 October 1998 a court order was made allowing the Council to deduct GBP 2.60 per week from the applicant's income support of GBP 35.87.\n14.  On 9 November 1998, the applicant's legal advisers wrote to the Council requesting that they reconsider their refusal. However, by letter dated 4 February 1999, the Council informed the applicant that they were upholding their initial decision to refuse council tax and housing benefits.\n15.  The applicant appealed. The case was heard on 10 September 1999 by Hammersmith and Fulham Council Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Review Board (“the HBRB”). The HBRB consisted of three Councillors from the Council. It was advised by a barrister from the Council's legal department. The applicant was represented by Fulham Legal Advice Centre and the Council was represented by a Council benefits officer. The HBRB rejected the applicant's appeal, finding that the applicant must have received some correspondence from the local authority during the period from 15 June to 4 October 1998 concerning the council tax she owed, although no such correspondence was produced to it.\n16.  On 13 September 1999 the housing association's possession proceedings against the applicant concluded with a court order requiring her to pay off the rent arrears at GBP 2.60 a week (in addition to the GBP 2.60 per week for council tax arrears).\n17.  On 6 December 1999, the applicant sought judicial review of the HBRB's d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2218", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.\n5.  On 10 March 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and extortion. He was also suspected of being a member of an organised criminal group.\n6.  On 12 March 1999 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained until 9 June 1999. The court found that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question.\n7.  On 1 June 1999 the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention. It referred to the interests of the pending investigation, such as the need to obtain additional evidence. The court also considered that the applicant, if released, could induce witnesses to give false testimony.\n8.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged several times by the District Court for the same reasons as before.\n9.  On 27 August 1999 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) lodged with the Warsaw District Court a bill of indictment against the applicant and six other persons. They were indicted of several counts of robbery, extortion, and membership of an organised criminal group.\n10.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 6 March, 26 June, 28 September and 30 November 2001. The court considered that keeping the applicant in custody was justified by the existence of strong evidence against him and the gravity of the charges. It was also necessary as he could obstruct the proper course of the proceedings or induce witnesses to give false testimony. The applicant’s appeals against those decisions were dismissed.\n11.  On 16 January 2002 the Warsaw District Court convicted the applicant of several counts of robbery and extortion committed in an organised criminal group. The applicant was sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment.\n12.  The Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the first-instance judgment on 6 February 2003.\n13.  On 28 October 2003 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2219", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Rzeszów.\n5.  In 1992 the applicant, who was a pensioner, received from the Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) a substantial amount of money (over 57,000,000 old Polish zlotys) by way of adjustment of his pension.\n6.  Subsequently, the Social Security Board found that the sum had been awarded to the applicant by mistake and started to deduct money from his pension. The applicant instituted proceedings against the Board. According to the applicant, in 1996 the Rzeszow Court of Appeal allowed his action and found that the Board’s deductions had been illegal.\n7.  On 28 July 1997 the Social Security Board instituted civil proceedings against the applicant in the Rzeszów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) claiming the remaining sum of PLN 10,000.\n8.  Between 7 November 1997 and 24 February 1998 the court held four hearings.\n9.  On 10 March 1998 the court gave judgment in which it allowed the plaintiff’s action. The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n10.  On 9 June 1998 the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) held a hearing at which it dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 6 August 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n11.  On 11 April 2001, sitting in camera, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2220", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a Lithuania national who was born in 1941 and lives in Vilnius.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicant’s parents owned two buildings with the adjacent plots of land in the centre of the city of Kaunas. The property was nationalised following the Soviet occupation of Lithuania in the 1940s. After Lithuania regained its independence in 1990, the applicant’s mother applied for the property to be returned to her in kind, pursuant to the 1991 legislation on restitution of property rights.\n7.  On 14 March 1996 the Kaunas City Council adopted a decision to pay to the applicant’s mother monetary compensation for the family’s former building situated in Šv. Gertrūdos street 6 in the city of Kaunas. The local authorities also decided to return in kind those parts of the building that were not suitable for housing purposes, thereby excluding two flats located in the building.\n8.  Following the death of the applicant’s mother, he applied to a court for the decision of 14 March 1996 to be quashed.\n9.  On 5 February 1999 the Kaunas City District Court accepted the applicant’s action. The court ordered the local authorities to return in kind Flat No. 2 located in the building, and to offer equivalent compensation for Flat No. 1 - by way of another apartment - in accordance with the relevant legislation on the restitution of property rights.\n10.  The Kaunas City Council did not appeal against the decision, which entered into force on 19 February 1999.\n11.  On 20 March 2001 the Kaunas City Council held that the question of an equivalent flat - in compensation for Flat No. 1 - should be decided by the Vilnius City Council as the applicant was a Vilnius resident. By a letter from the Vilnius City Council of 29 March 2002, the applicant was informed that the local authorities could not take a decision in the absence of the relevant governmental provisions on equivalent flats.\n12.  On 26 March 2001 the Kaunas City Council applied for the re-opening of the proceedings. By a final decision of the Supreme Court of 4 March 2002, it was established that there had been no valid basis for re-opening the case.\n13.  On 27 November 2003 the Kaunas City Council adopted a decision to return in kind Flat No. 2. The applicant has not yet carried out the necessary formalities in order to register the flat in his name, as he is dissatisfied with the fact that two tenants continue living there and that he is allegedly unable to request their eviction. He has brought no court action in this respect.\n14.  The applicant also submits that the local authorities have adopted no decision to return in kind another building, situated in Laisvės alėja 18 in the city of Kaunas, and the plot of land adjacent to that building. The Government do not deny the possibility of the applicant’s eventual entitlement, in the form of compensation, to the plot of land in Laisvės alėja 18. However, according to the Government, this question has not yet been resolved in view of the difficulties pertaining to the adoption of a detailed plan of the area by the local authorities, and given the ongoing legal disputes in this connection.\n15.  On 2 November 2004 the applicant applied to the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court, claiming the unlawfulness of the decision to create a car park in Laisvės alėja 18 in Kaunas. At the same time, the applicant claimed that the local authorities had protracted the adoption of the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2221", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The facts of each case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  Mr Thomas William Hobbs is a United Kingdom national, born in 1921 and living in Southampton.\n9.  The applicant’s wife died on 25 February 1998. On 11 October 2000 he contacted the Inland Revenue (“IR”) and applied for widow’s bereavement allowance (“WBA”: see paragraph 21 below) for the years 1998/9 and 1999/2000. He was informed that he did not qualify for the tax allowance, since he was a man and the law provided only for payments to widows.\n10.  Mr Richard was born on 21 May 1957 and lives in Dunfermline. He was widowed on 14 October 1995. There were two children of the marriage, born in 1987 and 1993.\n11.  In around November 1995 the applicant telephoned the IR requesting an allowance equivalent to that received by a widow. The IR told him that he was ineligible for WBA. The applicant applied again by letter dated 19 July 2000, but by a letter dated 3 August 2000 he was informed the WBA was not available for widowers.\n12.  In around June 1997 the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency (“BA”) for social security benefits equivalent to those to which a widow would have been entitled (see paragraphs 29-37 below). His claim was refused by the BA on 18 June 1997. The applicant wrote on 22 June 1997 requesting an appeal against this decision and requesting that the appeal be heard after the Court had decided the lead case on widowers’ benefits. On 8 May 2000 the applicant requested that his appeal be proceeded with. It was rejected on 15 May 2000.\n13.  The applicant began living with another woman in October 1999. In August 2000 he reapplied for widows’ benefits and was refused again on 16 August 2000.\n14.  Mr Walsh was born on 19 July 1955 and lives in London. He was widowed on 1 March 1997. There were two children of the marriage, born on 22 February 1991 and 29 December 1992.\n15.  On 30 May 2000, the applicant applied to the BA for social security benefits equivalent to those which a widow in his circumstances would receive. He was refused by a letter dated 6 June 2000.\n16.  On 3 July 2000 the applicant applied to the IR for a WBA or equivalent. He was refused by a letter dated 11 July 2000.\n17.  The applicant was born on 20 October 1958 and lives in Maidenhead. His wife died on 17 October 1995. There were three children of the marriage, born 18 November 1987, 22 August 1989 and 22 April 1992.\n18.  In his application form, which was lodged with the Court by facsimile under cover of an introductory letter dated 29 September 2000, there was a general complaint about the discriminatory nature of the widow’s social security and taxation systems, in standard paragraphs included in all the widowers’ applications submitted by the applicant’s solicitors. In the section dealing with the particular facts of the applicant’s case, there was no mention of any contact with the IR concerning WBA. An amended application form was sent to the Court under cover of a letter dated 15 March 2001. A paragraph had been added, stating that in or around December 1995 or January 1996 the applicant had made enquiries at his local tax office about entitlement to tax rebates or allowances following bereavement, and had been told that he had no entitlement. Reference was made in the amended application form also to “the decision of the Inland Revenue made in July 1996 which is ongoing”, and on 26 March 2001 the applicant sent the Court a copy of a letter of refusal from the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2222", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Šoporňa.\n5.  The applicant is a self-employed entrepreneur. He owns a meat processing business. In that capacity he had dealings with a State-owned enterprise, T., and in particular with one of its branch offices.\n6.  In early 1994 the applicant brought several actions against the branch office in the Trnava District Court (Okresný súd), the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) and the Trnava Regional Court. He submitted that the defendant owed him money and sought repayment.\n7.  The applicant’s actions were examined in summary proceedings and resulted in the making of a series of payment orders (platobný rozkaz) in March 1994. The defendant was ordered to pay the applicant a total of more than 3.7 million Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) accompanied by late-payment penalties. The orders were later certified as enforceable as from April 1994.\n8.  Having been unable to recover any part of his claim, the applicant filed an insolvency petition against T. The insolvency proceedings are a separate subject-matter of the present application and they are described in detail below.\n9.  T. subsequently went thought the process of privatisation. It was dissolved on 23 June 1994 by a decision of its founder, the Ministry of Agriculture, and all its assets (“the privatised assets”) were transferred to the National Privatisation Agency (Fond národného majetku – “FNM”).\n10.  On 12 July 1994 T. was struck off the register of companies and legally ceased to exist.\n11.  On 14 July 1994 FNM sold the privatised assets to a private limited company S. As a result of this sale, under section 15 of the Large Scale Privatisation Act (Law no. 92/1991 Coll., as amended), all liabilities associated with the privatised assets, including the applicant’s claims, were transferred to S. The latter acknowledged having assumed such liabilities in a letter of 20 July 1994.\n12.  On 8 June 1995 S. rescinded the privatisation agreement because it was unable to pay the purchase price. As a result, all liabilities associated with the privatised assets, including the applicant’s claims, were transferred back to FNM. S. subsequently ceased commercial operations and was eventually struck off the register of companies.\n13.  In June 1996 the applicant submitted his claim to FNM. He observed that at that time FNM held the privatised assets and considered, therefore, that FNM had also assumed the liabilities associated with these assets and was liable to satisfy the applicant’s claim. The applicant reiterated the claim in August and September 1996, but to no avail.\n14.  On 17 October 1996 the applicant commissioned a judicial enforcement officer to enforce the payment orders of March 1994.\n15.  On 18 October 1996 FNM sold the privatised assets to another private limited company P-I. The liabilities associated with the privatised assets were thus transferred to P-I. which acknowledged having assumed the liabilities in a letter to the applicant of 15 November 1996. However, in order to determine their scope, P-I. requested the applicant to provide a detailed summary of his claims.\n16.  On 30 December 1996 the District Court authorised the enforcement of the payment orders of March 1994 against P-I.\n17.  On 3 March 1997 P-I. decided to dissolve the company, to establish two new private limited companies, P. and M., and to divide the assets of P‑I. between the new companies. The debt in respect of the applicant was transferred to company M. Co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2223", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 25 February 1999 the applicant was acquitted of a criminal offence. He initiated court proceedings against the Ministry of Finance claiming compensation for unlawful prosecution.\n8.  On 5 May 2000 the Căuşeni District Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded him 951 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 84 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation for pecuniary damage caused. The claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage was rejected.\n9.  On 6 July 2000 the Chişinău Tribunal awarded MDL 40,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused and upheld the District Court’s award in respect of pecuniary damage.\n10.  On 21 November 2000 the Court of Appeal reduced the award for non-pecuniary damage to MDL 20,000 (the equivalent of EUR 1,917 at the time) and upheld the rest of the judgment. This judgment was final and enforceable.\n11.  On 18 January 2001 the Prosecutor General requested the annulment of all previous judgments and the reduction of the award for non-pecuniary damage, as part of an extraordinary procedure.\n12.  On 21 February 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request and annulled all the previous judgments. It adopted a new judgment whereby it reduced the award for non-pecuniary damage to MDL 2,000.\n13.  That judgment was final and enforceable. It was enforced in August 2002 (the applicant received the equivalent of EUR 84 for pecuniary damage and EUR 150 in respect of non-pecuniary damage).\n14.  The applicant submitted that Government decision no. 59 of 19 January 1998 (see paragraph 15 below) prohibited the forced execution of judgments against State property unless the Ministry of Finance had given its agreement. The Government have not commented on this statement.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2224", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  At the relevant time, the applicant was the head of the financial department of the Kirkovo municipality.\n8.  A preliminary investigation was opened against her on 28 September 1999 and she was arrested. After having fainted, she was released on the same day and was taken for treatment to a medical facility.\n9.  On 30 September 1999 the applicant was once again arrested, charged with misappropriation of funds and abuse of office and detained on remand upon a decision of an investigator, approved by the Kurdzhali Prosecutor's Office.\n10.  On 4 October 1999 the applicant filed an appeal against her detention.\n11.  On 8 October 1999 the applicant was brought before the Kurdzhali Regional Court in the context of the examination of her appeal. The domestic court, by majority, dismissed her appeal as it found that she had been charged with a serious offence which entailed mandatory detention.\n12.  In response to another appeal against her detention, on 21 October 1999 the Kurdzhali Regional Court released the applicant on bail as it found, inter alia, that her son had developed a serious medical condition as a result of his mother's detention.\n13.  On 28 February 2002 an indictment was entered against the applicant with the Momchilgrad District Court for misappropriation of funds and abuse of office.\n14.  In a judgment of 7 May 2004 of the Momchilgrad District Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against her. The judgment entered into force on 20 May 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2225", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 5 February 1997 a murder was committed in the village of Markovo. A preliminary investigation against an unknown perpetrator was opened on the same day.\n8.  On 23 July 1997 another individual, Mr K., was arrested on unrelated charges. He later confessed to having committed the murder on 5 February 1997 and to having shot the victim, but claimed to have been incited to do so by the applicant.\n10.  The applicant was questioned as a witness on 8 August 1997. He admitted to having been present at the time of the murder, but denied that he had incited Mr K. and claimed to have run away fearing that he might also be killed.\n11.  On 11 August 1997 Mr K. was charged with the murder of 5 February 1997 and for unlawful possession of firearms.\n12.  Mr K. gave detailed statements to the investigation in the presence of his lawyer and claimed, inter alia, that it was the applicant who had known the victim, had indicated him as a possible target for a robbery and had insisted that they shoot him in order to avoid subsequent identification.\n13.  On 15 October 1997 the applicant was arrested, detained on remand and charged with being an accomplice to the murder with an avaricious intent and for inciting Mr K. to commit the offence.\n14.  Throughout the criminal proceedings the applicant was represented by counsel. He maintained his innocence, contested the version of events presented by Mr K. and claimed that the latter was solely responsible for the murder.\n15.  On an unspecified date an indictment was filed against the applicant for being an accomplice to the murder of 5 February 1997 with an avaricious intent.\n16.  Three hearings were conducted before the Plovdiv Regional Court between 4 February 1998 and 28 September 1998. On the latter date, the court remitted the case to the investigation stage as it found that the offence should be reclassified as a robbery accompanied by murder, which required additional investigative procedures to be performed. No such were subsequently conducted.\n17.  On 28 December 1998 the charges against the applicant were amended and on 5 January 1999 a revised indictment was filed against him and Mr K. for attempted robbery accompanied by murder.\n18.  Seven hearings were conducted before the Plovdiv Regional Court between 22 March 1999 and 1 February 2000.\n19.  In a judgment of 1 February 2000 the Plovdiv Regional Court found the applicant and his co-accused guilty of attempted robbery accompanied by murder, sentenced each of them to seventeen years' imprisonment and ordered them to pay damages to the victim's family.\n20.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 13 June 2000 the Plovdiv Court of Appeals quashed the lower court's judgment and, for reasons not indicated by the parties, remitted the case to the investigation stage.\n21.  On 26 October 2000 a revised indictment was filed against the applicant and Mr K. for attempted robbery through use of force which resulted in murder.\n22.  The Plovdiv Regional Court started rehearing the case on 13 February 2001 and conducted a total of five hearings until 9 July 2001. The victim's family joined the proceedings as civil claimants on 1 March 2001.\n23.  In a judgment of 9 July 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court found the applicant guilty of being an accomplice to attempted robbery resulting in murder and sentenced him to seventeen years' imprisonment. Mr K. was also found guilty of attempted robbery resulting in murder, as well as for unlawful possession of firearms, and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2226", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The second applicant is the first applicant's uncle.\n7.  The second applicant, who then had a criminal record of two previous convictions, was arrested on 18 July 1997 and questioned in the context of criminal proceedings for theft. He was released on 21 July 1997.\n8.  The first applicant, then having a criminal record of four convictions, was arrested on 19 July 1997 and questioned in the context of another set of criminal proceedings for theft. He was released on 21 July 1997.\n9.  On 22 July 1997 the second applicant was arrested in the context of criminal proceedings for murder of VB, a third person. On the same date the Tauragė District Court ordered his detention on remand for two months on the ground that he might abscond from the investigation and commit fresh crimes.\n10.  On 31 July 1997 the second applicant was charged with murder.\n11.  On 2 August 1997 the first applicant was arrested in the context of criminal proceedings for attempted robbery.\n12.  On 4 August 1997 the Tauragė District Court ordered the first applicant's detention on remand for two months because of the danger of his absconding, committing fresh crimes and obstructing the investigation.\n13.  On 11 August 1997 the second applicant was also questioned in the attempted robbery case.\n14.  On 13 August 1997 a prosecutor charged the first applicant with attempted robbery.\n15.  On 15 August 1997 the Tauragė District Court ordered compulsory psychiatric examination of the second applicant.\n16.  On 19 August 1997 the Klaipėda Regional Court rejected the first applicant's appeal against the detention order.\n17.  On 21 August 1997 the two criminal cases for murder and attempted robbery were joined.\n18.  On 15 September 1997 the Tauragė District Court extended the term of the second applicant's remand in custody until 22 November 1997 on the same grounds.\n19.  On 2 October 1997 the Tauragė District Court extended the first applicant's remand in custody until 2 December 1997 on the same grounds.\n20.  On 21 October 1997 two more criminal cases, concerning unlawful possession of firearms and robbery, were joined to the criminal proceedings against the applicants.\n21.  On 19 November 1997 the Tauragė District Court extended the term of the second applicant's detention until 21 January 1998 on the ground that he may abscond from the investigation, commit fresh crimes and influence witnesses.\n22.  On 27 November 1997 the court prolonged the first applicant's remand in custody for two months on the same grounds.\n23.  On 20 January 1998 the Šiauliai Regional Court extended the term of both applicants' detention on remand until 1 March 1998 because of the danger of their absconding and influencing the investigation.\n24.  On 18, 24 and 25 February 1998 a number of new alleged episodes from other criminal cases, namely in relation to damaging property of another, assault, unlawful possession of weapons, causing bodily harm, aggravated murder, attempted robbery and theft were joined in the criminal proceedings against the applicants.\n25.  On 26 February 1998 the investigation was concluded, and the applicants and their defense counsel had access to the case-file.\n26.  On 27 February 1998 a prosecutor rejected the applicants' request to discontinue the proceedings.\n27.  On 2 March 1998 the bill of indictment was confirmed, and the case was sent to the Klaipėda Regional Court.\n28.  On 15 April 1998 the Klaipėda Regional Court committed the applicants for trial. It further stated ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2227", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Petrozavodsk.\n6.  In March and September 1996 the applicant won two cases in court against her former employer, a State-owned enterprise, and was awarded a sum of money.\n7.  Consequently, enforcement proceedings were instituted by the bailiff and one of the judgments was partly executed.\n8.  On 14 April 1997 the bailiff transmitted the materials relating to the enforcement proceedings to the Liquidation Committee as there were bankruptcy proceedings instituted in respect of the enterprise.\n9.  The enterprise was declared bankrupt in June 1998 and its debts were considered as paid upon termination of the bankruptcy proceedings in March 1999. No money was paid to the applicant due to the lack of funds.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted court proceedings against various public authorities seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for the non-enforcement of the court judgments. She claimed that the judgments had not been enforced due to the bailiff's failure to take timely measures to facilitate their enforcement.\n11.  On 13 June 2000 the Petrozavodsk Town Court of the Republic of Karelia (Петрозаводский городской суд Республики Карелия) ruled in the applicant's favour. The Town Court found that during the period when the enforcement proceedings were managed by the bailiff, i.e. before 14 April 1997, the enterprise carried out economic activities and paid taxes. However, within that period the bailiff failed to take all the necessary measures to facilitate the timely enforcement of the court judgments. The applicant was awarded pecuniary damages in the amount of 53,655 Russian roubles to be paid from the Federal Treasury. Her claims for non-pecuniary damages were rejected.\n12.  On 25 July 2000 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia (Верховный Суд Республики Карелия) upheld the judgment of the Town Court in the final instance.\n13.  On 10 August 2000 the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings on the basis of the court judgment of 13 June 2000. The bailiff ordered the Ministry of Finance (Министерство Финансов РФ) voluntarily to comply with the judgment by 16 August 2000.\n14.  On an unspecified date in 2000, while the enforcement proceedings were still in progress, the President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia (Председатель Верховного Суда Республики Карелия) lodged an application for supervisory review (протест в порядке надзора) of the judgment of 13 June and the decision of 25 July 2000.\n15.  On 6 December 2000 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia (Президиум Верховного Суда Республики Карелия) decided to quash the said decisions on the grounds that they conflicted with procedural and substantive laws. The case was remitted for a new examination at first instance.\n16.  On an unspecified date following the Presidium's decision the bailiff applied to the courts seeking to stay the enforcement proceedings until there was a final decision taken on the merits of the case.\n17.  On 12 January 2001 the Petrozavodsk Town Court of the Republic of Karelia found that in the present circumstances the enforcement proceedings should be terminated rather than stayed.\n18.  By decision of 2 March 2001 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia upheld the decision of the Town Court and decided in the final instance to terminate the enforcement proceedings.\n19.  On 15 March 2001 the Petrozavodsk Town Court of the Republic of Karelia delivere", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2228", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Baku.\n8.  The applicant was an activist of the National Front, an organisation which played one of the key roles in the country's struggle for independence from the Soviet Union. In 1992, when the National Front came into power in the country, he was appointed to a number of high military posts and in 1993 he became the Commander of the Special Police Force.\n9.  After the National Front lost political power in 1993, on 24 May 1994 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand. Upon arrest, allegedly, he was not informed of the charges against him and was refused access to a lawyer. On 7 August 1995 the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court, acting as a court of first instance, convicted the applicant for attempted murder (ten years' imprisonment), abuse of authority at wartime (eight years), intentional abuse of authority (four years), misuse of weapons (two years), negligent approach to military service (two years) and humiliation of a subordinate person (one year and six months), and sentenced him to a total of ten years' imprisonment by merging the sentences.\n10.  On 26 June 1996 the same court, again sitting in first instance, convicted the applicant for “failure to use authority to resist the Armenian occupation of the town of Khojaly and prevent the subsequent mass killing of the civilians fleeing the town”. The court sentenced the applicant to fifteen years' imprisonment, merging his previous ten-year sentence into this new sentence. The imprisonment period was to be calculated from the first day of the applicant's arrest on 24 May 1994. Pursuant to the old criminal procedure law applicable at that time, both Supreme Court judgments were final and not subject to appeal.\n11.  At the time of Azerbaijan's admission to the Council of Europe, the applicant's name appeared in the lists of “alleged political prisoners” in Azerbaijan submitted to the experts of the Secretary General. Azerbaijan had made a commitment to either release or give a re-trial to all persons identified as “political prisoners” by these experts. However, ultimately, the applicant was not regarded as a political prisoner by the experts of the Secretary General (see Cases of alleged political prisoners in Armenia and Azerbaijan, SG/Inf (2001) 34, Addendum I, 24 October 2001, Chapter 2 (III), Case No. 10 (the applicant's name is transliterated as “Fahmin Hadjiyev” in this document)).\n12.  In 2000 a new Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “CCrP”) was adopted. Before its entry into force on 1 September 2000, on 14 July 2000 Parliament passed the Law On the Adoption and Entry into Force of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Azerbaijan (hereinafter the “Transitional Law”), which allowed lodging an appeal under the new CCrP against final judgments delivered in accordance with the old criminal procedure.\n13.  On 29 January 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal against the Supreme Court's judgments of 7 August 1995 and 26 June 1996. By a letter of 13 February 2002, the Court of Appeal informed the applicant that, in addition to the appellate complaint, he also had to file a petition in order to restore the appeal period.\n14.  According to the applicant, he filed such a petition on 7 March 2002. Having not received an answer, he appealed again on 7 June 2002 and yet again on 7 October 2002. In reply to these applications, in its identical letters of 24 October 2002 and 27 November ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2230", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Crikvenica.\n5.  On 28 May 1986 the applicant and her former husband A.P. (“the debtor”) concluded an in-court settlement (sudska nagodba) by which he undertook an obligation to: (a) hand over to her certain items of movable property listed therein (among which some jewellery), and (b) supply her with certain goods (house equipment and furniture). Under Croatian law an in-court settlement is equal, in terms of its effects, to a res judicata judgment and constitutes an enforcement title.\n6.   On 9 January 1989, 9 April 1991 and 2 June 1992, respectively, the applicant also obtained three court judgments against the debtor obliging him to pay her certain amounts of money.\n7.  In the period between 1988 and 1992 the applicant instituted five enforcement proceedings against the debtor before the Crikvenica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Crikvenici) in order to enforce the above settlement and the judgments.\n8.  On 15 May 1991 the Municipal Court decided to join three of those proceedings i.e. those instituted in 1988 (two proceedings) and 1989, respectively (see under A., B. and C. below). The intervention of the bailiff (sudski izvršitelj) of 6 June 1991 (see paragraphs 31 and 43 below) was therefore undertaken with a view to seizing the debtor's movables in order to satisfy the applicants claims in at least two proceedings (those under B. and C.). Likewise, they were both affected by the third party intervention resulting in inadmissibility of the enforcement in respect of some of the movables seized (see paragraphs 32 and 44 below). However, it would appear that the court subsequently separated the three proceedings again.\n9.  The remaining two proceedings complained of (see under D. below) remained separate until 27 March 2001 when the court decided to join them.\n10.  On 2 September 1988 the applicant applied for enforcement of the part of the settlement concerning the handover of movable property. The court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 15 September 1988 ordering the debtor to hand over the movables to the applicant. The writ became final on 7 October 1988.\n11.  Two successive attempts of the bailiff, on 24 October 1988 and 19 June 1990, to seize the movables failed as he was unable to find them in the possession of the debtor. The applicant therefore on 6 December 1993 invited the court to assess the value of the movables and oblige the debtor to pay her their monetary equivalent.\n12.  In order to satisfy her request, on 17 September 1997 the court decided to obtain an expert opinion on the value of the movables and appointed an expert to prepare and submit a report thereon. The expert submitted his report on 22 October 1997 and the court immediately forwarded it to the parties. On 26 June 1998 the applicant objected to the report and invited the court to obtain a new one from another expert.\n13.  On 20 October 1998 the President of the Municipal Court instructed the judge in the case to expedite the proceedings.\n14.  The Government submitted that on 17 May 1999 the police had served the summons on the applicant because she had been refusing to receive it. The applicant submitted that she had never refused to receive the summons and explained that this had been common practice of serving the court's correspondence at the time. Namely, due to budgetary restrictions the court had often asked the police authorities (which were located in the same building as the court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2232", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 13 November 2000 the applicant was arrested in the context of criminal proceedings for robbery and blackmail. His detention was subsequently authorised and extended by a court.\n9.  On 19 November 2001 a prosecutor adopted a decision to censor (cenzūruoti) the applicant's letters in accordance with Article 15 of the Detention on Remand Act. In order to justify the decision, the prosecutor referred to the danger that the applicant might attempt to influence witnesses and victims of the criminal proceedings.\n10.  On 22 April 2002 the Panevėžys City District Court convicted the applicant of robbery and blackmail. The final decision in this regard was taken by the Supreme Court on 24 December 2002.\n11.  A further decision on the censorship of the applicant's correspondence was taken by a prosecutor on 7 February 2003 on the same grounds, in the context of another criminal case concerning a fresh episode of alleged robbery and blackmail.\n12.  On 1 April 2003 the prosecutor decided to discontinue the censorship in that the investigation had been concluded.\n13.  For most of the above period the applicant was held at the Šiauliai Remand Prison - with certain interruptions due to his temporary transfers to other prisons. According to the Government, during the period from 19 November 2001 to 1 April 2003, a total number of 121 letters received or sent by the applicant were censored at the Šiauliai Remand Prison. 113 of these were received from or addressed to the applicant's wife. The remaining 8 letters were received from or addressed to: a) GB, a partner of the applicant's co-suspect; b) SA, the applicant's co-suspect; c) KV, a detainee and the applicant's acquaintance; d) AE and GG, the applicant's acquaintances.\n14.  On 1 September 2003 the Panevėžys City District Court convicted the applicant of a fresh episode of robbery and blackmail. The final decision in this respect was taken by the Supreme Court on 24 February 2004.\n15.  The applicant was again convicted of another crime by the Šiauliai Regional Court on 14 January 2005. He currently serves his sentence at the Marijampolė Prison.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2234", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Wrocław, Poland.\n5.  On 30 November 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police.\n6.  On 2 December 1999 the Wrocław District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had been drug trafficking.\n7.  On 17 February 2000 the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) decided to prolong the applicant’s pre-trial detention. It found that the strong suspicion against the applicant, the severity of the expected penalty, and the need to secure the proper course of the investigation, justified holding him in detention.\n8.  On 17 May and 6 June 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), upon an application by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy), further prolonged the applicant’s pre‑trial detention. It reiterated the original grounds for keeping him in custody and added that the complexity of the case and the large number of co‑accused justified the fear that, once released, the applicant would attempt to influence witnesses or abscond.\n9.  On 17 August 2000 the applicant was indicted before the Wrocław Regional Court.\n10.  On 20 November 2000 the Wrocław Regional Court held a hearing at which it further prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 January 2001. The court gave the following reasons:\n“The majority of the adduced evidence has not yet been taken, and it is impossible to do this by 30 November 2000.”\n11.  At the hearing held on 15 January 2001 the trial court again prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 March 2001 giving the following reasons:\n“The grounds on which the detention on remand was ordered are still valid. At the same time it is impossible to consider all the evidence before the end of the period for which the detention had been previously prolonged; that is by 31 January 2001.”\n12.  At the hearings on 22 June and 20 August 2001, the Wrocław Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention, repeating the justification given in both previous decisions.\n13.  Subsequently, as the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time-limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Regional Court applied to the Wrocław Court of Appeal asking for the applicant’s detention to be prolonged beyond that term. On 14 November 2001 the Court of Appeal granted the request.\n14.  The applicant’s numerous applications for release and appeals against decisions concerning the prolongation of his detention were to no avail.\n15.  On 11 April 2002 the Wrocław Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.\n16.  The applicant apparently did not appeal against this judgment and it became final. On an unspecified later date the applicant was released from prison. It appears that in 2005 the applicant remained in detention in connection with another set of criminal proceedings against him.\n17.  On 31 May 2000 the Registry received the applicant’s first letter to the Court of 4 April 2000. On the top of the first page of the letter there is a handwritten note: censored (ocenzurowano) and an illegible signature. The envelope in which the letter was delivered bears signs of having been opened and then resealed: one side had been cut open and then resealed with adhesive tape. The envelope bears a handwritten note: R[egional] P[rosecutor] Wrocław (P.O. Wrocław) and a stamp: Wrocław Detention Cent", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2235", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Białystok.\n5.  On 8 December 1989 the applicant lodged a motion for the distribution of her parents’ estate with the Białystok District Court.\n6.  On 27 July 1990 the court assigned an expert land surveyor to prepare an opinion on the case. His opinion was submitted on 20 August 1990.\n7.  On 1 October 1990 the court held a hearing which was adjourned in order to establish the assets of the estate.\n8.  On 7 October 1990 the court assigned an expert to establish the value of the estate. He submitted his opinion to the court on 17 December 1990.\n9.  The delivery of the judgment was adjourned until 20 February 1991. On that date the hearings in the case were re-opened.\n10.  Hearings were held on 14 May, 10 and 24 September 1991.\n11.  On 24 September 1991 the court admitted an opinion of an expert in building matters. On 24 October 1991 an inspection of the property was conducted. On 12 November 1991 the expert submitted his opinion.\n12.  On 2 December 1991 the court admitted an opinion of another expert land surveyor, which was submitted on 10 December 1991.\n13.  On 31 December 1991 the court delivered a decision on the distribution of the estate. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 27 March 1992 the second-instance court quashed the decision and remitted it to the District Court for re-examination.\n15.  On 8 October 1992 the court assigned another expert land surveyor.\n16.  On 25 March 1993 the court assigned an expert in building matters.\n17. The court held hearings on 1 and 15 February and 1 March 1994.\n18.  On 1 March 1994 the court admitted another opinion to be prepared by two experts in building matters. The opinion was submitted on 6 June 1994.\n19.  On 15 February 1995 the court decided to admit evidence in the form of an inspection of the property to be carried out in the presence of an expert land surveyor. The inspection was conducted on 26 May 1994. On 23 June 1995 the expert opinion was submitted to the court.\n20.  On 20 December 1995 the court admitted an additional opinion of an expert land surveyor and of an expert in building matters. The opinion was submitted on 21 January 1996.\n21.  On 29 January 1996 the court decided to admit another opinion of an expert land surveyor, which was submitted on 15 February 1996.\n22.  On 28 June 1996 the court assigned an expert in agriculture. His opinion was submitted on 6 September 1996.\n23.  On 4 April 1997 the court admitted a supplementary opinion of the expert in building matters. It was submitted on 13 May 1997.\n24.  A hearing on 22 September 1997 was adjourned in order to hear an expert. Another hearing was scheduled for 27 October 1997.\n25.  On 30 December 1997 the court decided to admit an opinion of yet another expert land surveyor to verify the previous opinion.\n26.  On 25 June 1998 the Białystok District Court delivered a judgment excluding the applicant from the succession. She appealed.\n27.  On 20 October 1998 the Białystok Regional Court dismissed the appeal.\n28.  On 31 May 2001 the Supreme Court refused to accept the cassation appeal for examination.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2237", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Będzin.\n5.  The applicant was a police officer in Zawiercie. The Zawiercie police conducted an investigation into a car theft. On 30 November 1992 the applicant was instructed to verify whether a certain B.Ł. was in possession of the stolen car. The applicant and the previous owner of the car arrived at the house of B.Ł. where her parents returned the car to the owner.\n6.  On 24 December 1992 the Mysłowice District Prosecutor charged the applicant with abuse of power by having intimidated the parents of B.Ł. into returning the car which had been purchased by their daughter. The prosecutor ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of one month. On the same day the Mysłowice District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order. On 30 December 1992 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor ordered the applicant’s release.\n7.  On 14 June 1993 the District Prosecutor altered the charges against the applicant.\n8.  On 21 February 1994 the prosecution service filed a bill of indictment with the Mysłowice District Court. The applicant was charged with abuse of power. The charge related to the applicant’s actions on 30 November 1992, when he had allegedly intimidated the parents of B.Ł. into returning the car purchased by their daughter from the previous owner.\n9.  B.Ł. took part in the proceedings as an auxiliary prosecutor. The trial court held hearings on the following dates: 30 March, 5 September, 17 October, 5 December 1994, 2 March, 12 June, 31 August 1995, and on 1 and 26 March 1996.\n10.  On 6 February 1996 the trial judge who heard the case was replaced by another judge. Consequently, the case had to be heard de novo.\n11.  Hearings scheduled for 10 November 1994, 3 April and 28 December 1995 were adjourned due to the absence of the applicant’s counsel. A hearing scheduled for 19 January 1995 was cancelled at the applicant’s counsel’s request since he had other hearings listed for that day. Hearings scheduled for 15 May and 26 October 1995 were adjourned due to, respectively, the applicant’s illness and the auxiliary prosecutor’s absence. At the hearing on 23 April 1996 the applicant felt unwell and was taken to hospital. He was diagnosed with a heart condition.\n12.  Hearings scheduled for 25 June, 6 August and 6 September 1996 were adjourned due to the applicant’s illness. On the last mentioned date the trial court ordered that the applicant be brought by the police to the next hearing fixed for 27 September 1996. However, the police failed to execute the order since the applicant had objected to his arrest on the grounds of his poor health.\n13.  On 27 September 1996 the trial court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody on the ground that he had unlawfully obstructed the proceedings. The court noted that the applicant had submitted certificates of illness, although he had failed to have them confirmed by the court’s medical expert. On 10 October 1996 the applicant was detained. The detention order was upheld on appeal on 11 October 1996.\n14.  The hearing scheduled for 6 November 1996 was adjourned, since the applicant had complained about the state of his health. The trial court accordingly ordered a report to be prepared in order to determine whether the applicant could participate in the trial. The report, submitted on an unspecified date, concluded that the applicant could take part in the proceedings and that he could receive adequate medical treatment in d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2238", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Warsaw.\n5.  On 7 January 2000 he was arrested and placed in police custody.\n6.  On 9 January 2000 the Wołomin District Court ordered that the applicant be detained for three months on suspicion of having committed fraud as a result of which third parties had disposed of their property, valued at 362,840 zlotys (PLN), to their detriment. The court based its detention order on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence and on the severity of the likely penalty, which gave rise to a fear that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings.\n7.  On an unknown date the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. On 25 January 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his appeal.\n8.  Subsequent decisions as to the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention were taken on 31 March, 27 June, 29 August and 7 December 2000 and on 13 March 2001.\n9.  On 29 May 2001 a bill of indictment against the applicant and one other suspect was lodged with the Wołomin District Court. The applicant was charged with fraud as a result of which third parties had disposed of their property, valued at PLN 362, 840, to their detriment.\n10.  Subsequent decisions as to the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention were taken on 8 June 2001, 23 August 2001, 3 October 2001, 25 October 2001, 6 December 2001, 27 March 2002, 25 June 2002, 30 August 2002 and 25 November 2002.\n11.  In principle, in all the above-mentioned decisions the courts relied on the same grounds for detention as those given in the first detention order. In some the courts also referred to the complexity of the case, the need to conduct further investigation, the probable collusion between the applicant and other suspects (later: the co-accused) and the probable exertion of unlawful pressure on witnesses by the applicant. In particular, the courts indicated that a high risk of collusion existed since one of the suspects still remained at large and his whereabouts had not yet been established.\n12.  The applicant appealed against the decisions extending his detention on several occasions. All of his appeals were dismissed.\n13.  On 23 August 2001 the first hearing was held before the Wołomin District Court. Subsequent hearings were held on 13 September 2001, 3 October 2001, 25 October 2001, 6 December 2001, 19 December 2001, 17 January 2002, 24 January 2002, 22 February 2002, 6 March 2002, 22 March 2002, 3 April 2002, 18 April 2002, 8 May 2002, 28 June 2002, 19 September 2002, 27 November 2002, 18 December 2002, 16 January 2003 and 22 January 2003. At a hearing on 28 June 2002 the Wołomin District Court remitted the case to the Wołomin District Prosecutor so that shortcomings in the investigation could be corrected.\n14.  On many occasions the applicant requested that his detention pending trial be lifted or that a more lenient preventive measure be applied. Each time his request was dismissed. The decisions to that effect were given by the Wołomin District Court (on 9 February 2000, 19 October 2000, 6 November 20000, 21 November 2000, 18 June 2001, 21 July 2001, 1 October 2001, 3 October 2001, 25 October 2001, 25 January 2002 and 1 August 2002) or by the Wołomin District Prosecutor (on 4 April 2000, 8 May 2000, 20 June 2000, 6 September 2000 and 18 May 2001). These decisions relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence and the severity of the likely penalty, which gave rise to a fear that", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2239", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Batumi, Georgia.\n7.  The applicant brought a civil action against a private person. On 21 November 2001 the Batumi City Court allowed his claim and ordered the debtor to pay him arrears in the amount of 2,000 United States dollars (1,595 euros (EUR)[1]) plus 100 Georgian laris ((GEL) – EUR 43.75[2]) for the costs and expenses associated with the court proceedings. The judgment was never appealed against and became binding.\n8.  Since the debtor refused to abide by the judgment, the applicant applied to the Ministry of Justice of the Ajarian Autonomous Republic (“the AAR”), requesting the initiation of enforcement proceedings.\n9.  In a letter of 27 November 2002, the Ministry informed the applicant that, pursuant to section 26 of the Enforcement Proceedings Act, he was to bear the “preliminary expenses associated with enforcement measures”. The letter, however, did not specify which measures were envisaged and what their costs were.\n10.  Being in receipt of only a monthly pension of GEL 45 (EUR 19[3]) at the material time, the applicant was unable to pay for the initiation of enforcement proceedings. He appealed instead to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor’s Office of the AAR, requesting the initiation of criminal proceedings against the debtor (Article 381 of the Criminal Code) and the enforcement of the judgment, but to no avail. The authorities in question replied that it was beyond their competence to interfere with the judicial process.\n11.  Three years later, on 20 January 2004, the applicant applied to the Ajarian Council of Ministers (the executive of the AAR). Explaining that, owing to his lack of means, he could not bear the expenses in advance, the applicant expressed his willingness to pay an enforcement fee after receiving the judgment debt.\n12.  In its reply of 12 March 2004, the Ajarian Ministry of Justice noted that the debtor’s whereabouts were unknown. The Ministry reiterated that the non-payment of the preliminary expenses constituted “an impediment to the enforcement of the judgment”; provided that the applicant had covered the necessary expenses in advance, the bailiff would identify the debtor’s assets, seize them and put them up for auction. As to the enforcement fee of 7% of the judgment debt, the Ministry stated that this could be paid by the applicant after enforcement (section 113 (1) of the Enforcement Proceedings Act).\n13.  As a result of the non-payment of the preliminary expenses, the judgment of 21 November 2001 still remains unenforced.\n14.  The applicant was to inherit the apartment of his deceased brother, where relatives of his brother’s wife were dwelling. Before establishing his rights as an heir, the court satisfied the applicant’s request for interim measures by ordering the appropriate bailiff to attach the impugned apartment and make an inventory of the movable assets inside.\n15.  After being recognised as the heir, the applicant brought a civil action against the relatives, claiming that they had misappropriated household belongings. After a series of remittals, on 3 September 2002 the Batumi City Court partly satisfied the applicant’s claim by ordering the respondents to return some of the belongings thus claimed.\n16.  According to the case file, the judgment of 3 September 2002 was received by the applicant on 24 September 2002 (the receipt form being written in Georgian, a language not understood by the applicant). However, the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2240", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Vienna, Austria.\n7.  On 19 August 1949 the Slovenska Bistrica Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Slovenski Bistrici) convicted the applicant's father in a criminal trial and ordered the forfeiture of his property to the State.\nOn 25 June 1991 the Slovenia declared independence.\nOn 16 September 1991 the District Prosecutor lodged a request for protection of legality with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) seeking a reversal of the 1949 judgment.\nOn 11 November 1991 the Supreme Court allowed the request and quashed the conviction.\n8.  On 22 January 1992, further to the Supreme Court's judgment, the applicant, his mother and his siblings (“the plaintiffs”) instituted proceedings against the Slovenske Konjice Municipality and two companies in the Maribor Basic Court, Slovenska Bistrica Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Mariboru, Enota v Slovenski Bistrici) seeking restitution of the movable and immovable property forfeited to the State by the 1949 judgment.\n9.  On 27 October 1993 the court issued a partial decision upholding the plaintiffs' claim in part. On 20 January 1994, following this decision, the court ordered that the plaintiffs' names be registered in the Land Registry as the owners of the returned property.\n10.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.\n11.  On 29 November 1994 the plaintiffs lodged preliminary written submissions.\n12.  On 1 January 1995 the Slovenska Bistrica Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Slovenski Bistrici) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.\n13.  On 23 February 1995 the court held a hearing and the plaintiffs amended their claim so as to seek restitution of a part of the property also from the newly established municipalities of Zreče and Vitanje.\n14.  On 24 October 1995 the plaintiffs lodged preliminary written submissions.\n15.  On 6 November 1995 the plaintiffs lodged preliminary written submissions and amended their claim. They named the Republic of Slovenia as an additional defendant.\n16.  On 11 December 1995 the court held a hearing and the case was settled in part.\n17.  On 14 November 1995, 12 December 1996, 16 June 1998 and 9 March 1999 the plaintiffs filed supervisory complaints due to the excessive length of the proceedings.\n18.  On 27 June 1996 the applicants lodged preliminary written submissions seeking compensation from the Republic of Slovenia for the property which could not be returned in natura.\n19.  On 7 May 1999 the plaintiffs withdrew their claim in part.\n20.  On 22 June 1999 the court held a hearing and joined the proceedings with another set of proceedings between the same parties. The court requested the plaintiffs to furnish some documents concerning the property sought and its ownership.\n21.  On 16 July and 23 November 1999 the plaintiffs lodged preliminary written submissions and amended their claim so as to seek restitution of property and compensation from the Zreče Municipality and the Republic of Slovenia.\n22.  On 30 November 1999 the court held a hearing and appointed an expert in construction engineering and an expert in agriculture.\n23.  On 7 January 2000 the plaintiffs submitted the list of all the property sought as it existed at the material time.\n24.  On 23 February 2000 the appointed expert in construction engineering delivered his opinion and on 20 September 2000 the expert in agriculture did the same. Upon request of the plaintiffs, the court sought addi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2241", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Chervona Kamyanka, the Kirovograd region.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  In 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) against his former employer, Mine no. 5 of the “Ukrrosobladnannya” State Mining Company (“the Mine no. 5,” шахта №5 ТПВ „Укррособладнання”) for disability benefits and other payments. On 9 October 1998 the court awarded the applicant UAH 15,668.80.[1]\n7.  On 23 October 1998 the court bailiffs commenced the enforcement proceedings for the above judgment, which were subsequently transferred to the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького районного управління юстиції).\n8.  On 13 August 2002 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court (“the Commercial Court,” Господарський суд Луганської області) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against Mine no. 5. On 4 February 2003 the Commercial Court discontinued the bankruptcy proceedings, having approved the friendly settlement between the mine and its creditors.\n9.  In 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Krasnyy Luch Court against the Bailiffs for their omissions in enforcing the court judgment of 9 October 1998. On 13 August 2004 the court dismissed his claims, having found no such omissions. On 1 December 2004 the Krasnyy Luch Court returned the applicant's appeal against the ruling of 13 August 2004 as “not lodged” because of his failure to rectify its procedural shortcomings. The applicant did not appeal against this court decision.\n10.  Between 27 August 1999 and 3 November 2004 the applicant received about half of the judgment debt (UAH 7,328.83[2]) due to him in some twenty instalments.\n11.  The remainder of the debt (UAH 8,340.00[3]) was paid to the applicant in three instalments of 20 December 2004, 15 March 2005 and 12 August 2005.\n12.  On 18 August 2005 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings as completed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2242", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Zreče.\n6.  On 19 March 1993 the applicant was allegedly beaten by local police officers at a bus station and later also at the police station.\n7.  At an undetermined time, he instituted civil proceedings in the Slovenjske Konjice Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Slovenjskih Konjicah) against the Ministry of Interior (“the Ministry”), seeking damages for sustained injuries.\n8.  The judgment of the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) of 27 May 1998 dismissing the applicant's appeal on points of law was most likely served on the applicant at least by July 1998.\n9.  On 19 May 1990 the applicant was allegedly beaten by four policemen.\n10.  On 3 March 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry in the Maribor Basic Court, Maribor Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Mariboru, Enota Maribor) seeking damages in the amount of 1,000,000 Slovenian tolars (approximately 4,170 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 21 May 1992 the court found the case out of its jurisdiction and transferred it to the Ljubljana Basic Court, Ljubljana Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljana, Enota Ljubljana). The applicant's appeal against this decision was rejected on 2 March 1993 for being too late.\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.\nOn 1 January 1995 the Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani) gained jurisdiction in the present case following the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.\nOn 12 October 2000 the court requested the Supreme Court to transfer the case to the Slovenjske Konjice Local Court. On 28 January 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the request and the case was transferred to the Slovenjske Konjice Local Court.\nOn 8 October 2002 and 16 December 2003 the court held hearings. The applicant did not attend the latter hearing and send a written excuse only after the hearing had been held. At his request the court scheduled a new hearing for 29 January 2004. This hearing was adjourned at the request of the applicant until 17 February 2004. At this hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment.\nThe judgment dismissing the applicant's claim was served on the applicant on 27 February 2004.\n11.  On 14 March 2004 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). Two days later, his legal representative lodged a separate appeal.\nOn 28 October 2004 the court allowed one of the appeals, set aside the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n12.  On 8 March 2005 the Slovenjske Konjice Local Court held a hearing and again dismissed the applicant's claim.\nOn 5 April 2005 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.\nThe proceedings are still pending.\n13.  On 30 December 1996 the Slovenjske Konjice Police (Policijska postaja Slovenjske Konjice) instituted proceedings against the applicant in the Slovenjske Konjice Court of Minor Offences (Sodnik za prekrške v Slovenjskih Konjicah) for driving a vehicle while drunk and using a driving licence that had expired. On 15 January 1997 another set of proceeding was instituted against the applicant for driving a vehicle while drunk.\nOn 18 and 22 September 1997, by two separate decisions, the Slovenjske Konjice Court of Minor Offences convicted the applicant and imposed on him a fine, a three-month's ban on driving and payment of court fees. The decisions were served on the applicant on 29 September 1997.\nOn 7 October 1997 the applicant allegedly appealed against both", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2243", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in the town of Lokhvitsya, Poltava region, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant worked as a saleswoman in the “Kram” shop at the State-owned “Lokhvitskiy Spirtkombinat” distillery.\n6.  In July 1998, in accordance with the findings of an inspection, which revealed the shortage of goods, the applicant was dismissed from her position.\n7.  On 21 August 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Lokhvytskiy District Court against her former employer challenging her dismissal.\n8.  On 10 November 1998 the court found the case ready for examination and scheduled the hearing for 27 November 1998.\n9.  On 21 November 1998, following the results of the inspection, a criminal case was instituted.\n10.  On 27 November 1998 the civil proceedings in the applicant's case were suspended until the investigation of the criminal case was completed.\n11.  On 25 March 1999 the criminal proceedings were terminated due to the lack of corpus delicti in the applicant's actions.\n12.  On 14 December 2001 the hearing was adjourned upon the applicant's request.\n13.  On 17 December 2001 the court requested the Lokhvitsky District Prosecutor's Office to provide information about the results of the investigation.\n14.  On 20 December 2001 the court was informed that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been terminated.\n15.  On 14 June 2002 the court heard the merits of the case and adjourned the hearing.\n16.  On 14 June 2002 the applicant modified her claim.\n17.  On 23 July 2002 the court heard the merits of the case and adjourned the hearing in order to allow the defendant to study the new documents submitted by the applicant.\n18.  On 2 October 2002 the court postponed the hearing due to the failure of the defendant's representative to appear.\n19.  On 22 November 2002 the hearing was adjourned due to illness of the defendant's representative.\n20.  On 12 August 2003 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered her reinstatement in the position of a saleswoman. It also awarded the applicant UAH 16,500 in salary arrears and UAH 1,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n21.  On 18 August 2003 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal left the defendant's appeal against the above decision without a course and gave him the time to rectify the procedural shortcomings.\n22.  On 18 December 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It held that the first instance court had failed to examine all the factual circumstances of the case.\n23.  On 1 June 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed the decision of the court of appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The Supreme Court held that the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal was itself competent to consider the merits of the case.\n24.  On 27 July 2005 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal partly changed the decision of 12 August 2003. It rejected the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damage but upheld the remainder of that decision.\n25.  On 14 November 2005 the Supreme Court upheld this judgment.\n26.  In April 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment in her favour remained unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2244", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the village of Vladimirivka, the Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant is an employee of the Pivdennodonbaska State Mine (hereinafter - the SMP Mine). On 24 June 1996 he suffered an industrial injury.\n6.  In October 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Volnovakha City Court against the SMP Mine seeking compensation for the injury. On 16 June 2000 the court found in part for the applicant.\n7.  On 6 December 2000 the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court allowed the protest lodged by the Deputy President of the Donetsk Regional Court and quashed the decision of 16 June 2000. The case was remitted for a fresh consideration to the Vugledar City Court.\n8.  On 7 June 2001 the Vugledar City Court found that the applicant had been injured due to the fault of the SMP Mine and ordered it to pay him UAH 37,465.41[1] in compensation and UAH 800[2] of costs and expenses (рішення Вугледарського міського суду Донецької області). The court also awarded the applicant a monthly allowance of UAH 162.57[3] in compensation for loss of earnings for the period of 8 May – 8 September 2001.\n9.  On 6 August 2001 the Vugledar City Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 7 June 2001.\n10.  According to the Government, the judgment was fully enforced in instalments: during the periods of April – December 2002 and August – December 2003 the applicant received a total of UAH 10,227[4], and in 2004 he received the remaining amount of the judgment debt (UAH 27,238[5]). The last payment took place in May 2004. The applicant was also paid UAH 800 for his legal expenses.\n11.  On 1 June 2004 the Bailiffs' Service terminated the enforcement proceedings as the judgment of 7 June 2001 was enforced in full. The applicant never challenged the Bailiffs' decisions of 1 June 2004. Nevertheless, he maintains that the debtor still owes him UAH 515.27[6].\n12.  In July 2004 the applicant lodged a new claim with the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Donetsk against the State Enterprise “Donetsk Coal Energy Company” (Державне підприємство „Донецька вугільна енергетична компанія”), seeking compensation for the substantial delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 7 June 2001. Within the course of the proceedings the court appointed a forensic accounting expertise to calculate the amount of compensation due to the applicant. In their conclusions of 14 July 2005 the experts mentioned, inter alia, that, out of the total amount of the judgment award, UAH 515.27 remained unpaid.\n13.  On 1 November 2005 the court partly allowed the applicant's claim as, according to the domestic legislation then in force, untimely paid salary had to be recalculated if a price index had increased for more than 1 % during the relevant period of delay in payment. The court also found that the applicant had sustained moral damage as the result of the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. The court awarded the applicant the total of UAH 8,609.88[7], including UAH 500[8] in compensation for moral damage.\n14.  On 28 November 2005 the Voroshilovskiy District Bailiffs' Service of Donetsk instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 1 November 2005.\n15.  On 6 December 2005 the enforcement proceedings were terminated in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On measures to ensure the stable operation of fuel and energy sector enterprises” (Закон України „Про заходи, спрямовані на", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2245", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant had foreign currency accounts in Jugobanka A.D. Skopje that was afterwards re-registered as Foreign Trade Bank Skopje (Банка за надворешна трговија Скопје) (“the bank”), through which it had made the payments to its business partners. In 1991 the applicant made available several letters of credit (акредитиви) as warranty for payments to third parties. The bank allegedly did not comply with the applicant's order to execute them and to transfer the money. The amount of these letters of credit allegedly exceeded $ 200,000.\n5. On 25 June 1992 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings requesting the then Skopje District Commercial Court (Окружен Стопански Суд во Скопје) to order the bank to transfer the money due to its account.\n6. On 30 June 1992 the then District Commercial Court granted the applicant's request. As the bank objected to the order, the subsequent proceedings continued as civil proceedings on the merits of the applicant's claim.\n7. At the hearing held on 26 May 1993, the then Skopje District Commercial Court required an independent expert opinion. On 18 June 2003 the expert opinion was submitted to the court. On 16 July 1993 the applicant objected to the expert opinion.\n8. The hearing listed for 20 September 1993 was adjourned at the applicant's request.\n9. On 20 October 1993 the applicant requested the court to fix a hearing at its earliest convenience.\n10. The hearing scheduled for 8 December 1993 was postponed as the bank's counter-claim of 21 June 1993 had not been forwarded to the court on time.\n11. At the hearing of 31 January 1994 the applicant was requested to clarify its claim. On 22 February 1994 the applicant complied with the order.\n12. The hearing of 7 March 1994 was adjourned and the bank was ordered to submit information concerning the applicant's claim as clarified. The court adjourned the hearing of 18 April 1994 due to the parties' absence.\n13. At the hearing of 6 June 1994 the court ordered the State Forensic Institute (Републички Завод за судски вештачења) (“the Institute”) to draw up an expert report concerning two letters of credit. On 1 July 1994 the Institute asked the court to order the applicant to pay the expert's costs. The expertise scheduled for 1 November 1994 was adjourned as the bank had requested the court to disqualify the expert for bias. On 17 November 1994 the court dismissed the request. On 17 February 1995 the court received the expert opinion.\n14. On 24 March 1995 the then Skopje District Commercial Court launched bankruptcy proceedings against the bank.\n15. On 26 April 1995 the court stayed the civil proceedings.\n16. As the receiver (стечаен управник) in the bankruptcy proceedings had disputed the applicant's claim, on 5 and 6 June 1995 the District Commercial Court, as a bankruptcy court, instructed the latter to institute separate civil proceedings to ascertain its claim.\n17. On 23 February 1996 the applicant requested the court to resume the civil proceedings against the bank. It also asked the court to hold a hearing and to summon the experts who had already provided their opinions.\n18. The court scheduled the next hearing for 16 March 1997. As this date fell on a Sunday, on 12 February 1997 the applicant requested the court to fix a working day.\n19. On the hearing of 16 April 1997 the bank objected to the applicant's capacity to stand as a party and to the experts' opinions.\n20. The hearing fixed for 18 June 1997 was adjourned due to the strike of the cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2246", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1929 and 1959 and live in Maribor.\n6.  They are wife and son of A.G. who died in 1980 and was of German origin.\n7.  M.G., A.G.'s mother, who died on 3 September 1948, owned a house in the centre of Maribor. She bequeathed the house to her son K.G., who was mentally ill, in order to provide for his maintenance. In her will, M.G. acknowledged that A.G. agreed not to claim the house. After the inheritance proceedings had been terminated, K.G. became the owner of the house and A.G. got a life-long right to reside in the house.\n8.  At an undetermined time, K.G. was declared incapacitated due to his mental illness and was put under guardianship. In October 1949 he was sent to a psychiatric institution. On 3 November 1949 the Maribor Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Mariboru) ordered that K.G. should remain institutionalised.\n9.  On 6 December 1948 K.G.'s guardian asked the Maribor Municipality whether they would be interested in purchasing the house, because K.G. had insufficient income to cover his expenses and to maintain the house.\n10.  On 29 August 1949 the Maribor Municipality drafted a contract for the purchase of the house and taking on the responsibility of life-long care and maintenance of K.G. The contract established that the payment for the house would also cover A.G.'s claim against K.G. originating from a loan, which was secured by a mortgage on the house.\n11.  On 7 April 1950 K.G.'s guardian signed the contract before the Maribor Local Court.\n12.  On 14 April 1950 the Maribor Municipality requested A.G. to express his agreement with the contract by way of signing it. At an undetermined time, but apparently shortly after this date, he complied with the request.\n13.  On 4 April 1951 K.G. died.\n14.  At an undetermined time, the applicants instituted non-contentious proceedings against the Maribor Municipality in the Maribor Basic Court, Maribor Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Mariboru, Enota Maribor) seeking restitution of the house. They claimed that the house was nationalised because the contract on its purchase had been closed under duress.\nOn 1 January 1995 the Maribor Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Mariboru) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.\nOn 26 April 1996 the applicants lodged preliminary written submissions.\nOn 23 May 1996 the court held a hearing and heard witnesses.\nOn 30 January 1997 the court dismissed the applicant's request because the applicants failed to prove that the impugned contract had been made under duress.\n15.  On 4 April 1997 the applicants appealed to the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru).\nOn 13 May 1997 the court dismissed the appeal as unfounded.\n16.  On 4 September 1997 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 25 March 1998 the court dismissed the appeal as unfounded. The decision was served on the applicant on 27 May 1998.\n17.  On 11 December 2000 the first applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče).\nOn 21 January 2002 the court declared the application inadmissible as out of time.\n18.  On 3 August 1993 there was a gas explosion in the cellar of the building where the first applicant resided, namely the house claimed by the applicants in the first set of proceedings. At the time of the explosion, the first applicant was in the cellar and sustained injuries. The liability for the explosion laid with the company MP who was responsible ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2247", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in the village of Zhodino, the Minsk Region of Belarus.\n5.  The applicant is a former employee of the municipal enterprise Teplovodokanal in the town of Neryungri (Муниципальное предприятие «Управление «Тепловодоканал» г. Нерюнгри). Before her retirement she filed a claim for salary arrears with the Labour Disputes Board (Комиссия по трудовым спорам) of Teplovodokanal.\n6.  On 19 January, 3 February and 18 May 1998 the Labour Disputes Board found in the applicant's favour and awarded her salary arrears totalling 96,684.67 Russian roubles (RUR). The decisions became final immediately as no appeal lay against them. On the basis of the decisions in the applicant's favour, specific enforcement documents – certificates from the Labour Disputes Board (удостоверения Комиссии по трудовым спорам) – were issued. On 20 May 1998 the applicant forwarded the certificates to the bailiffs' service with a view to execution.\n7.  The decisions of the Labour Disputes Board of 19 January, 3 February and 18 May 1998 were enforced in full by 5 January 2001.  As their execution had been delayed, the applicant filed court claims against her former employer requesting index-linking of the awards.\n8.  On 16 March 2001 the Neryungri Town Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) granted her claims in part and awarded her RUR 30,084. On the same date a writ of execution was issued. Later the applicant appealed against the judgment as she was not satisfied with the amount of the award.\n9.  On 4 May 2001 the bailiffs' service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the writ of execution of 16 March 2001. Three days later the bailiffs' service levied execution on the debtor's account.\n10.   The judgment of 16 March 2001 was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) on 11 July 2001.\n11.  On an unspecified date the bailiffs' service closed the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the salary arrears had been paid to the applicant on the basis of the Labour Disputes Board certificates.\n12.  On 27 April 2002 the Neryungri Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that it had submitted a request for supervisory review of the bailiffs' service's decision to close the enforcement proceedings, since they concerned not the payment of the salary arrears, but their index-linking pursuant to the judgment of 16 March 2001.\n13.  The enforcement proceedings were reopened on 1 March 2006.\n14.  On 9 March 2006 the bailiffs' service transferred the sum of RUR 30,084 to the applicant by postal order.\n15.  The enforcement proceedings were closed on 4 May 2006.\n16.  On 17 May 2006 the post office transferred the sum of RUR 30,084 back to the sender because the applicant had refused to take receipt of it.\n17.  On 7 July 2006 the bailiffs' service again transferred the sum of RUR 30,084 to the applicant by postal order. It appears that the applicant again refused to accept it.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2248", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1933, 1953, 1946 and 1968 respectively and live in Krasnyy Kut, the Lugansk region.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On various dates the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) seeking salary arrears and various payments from the State Open Joint Stock Mining Company “Krasnokutska” (“the Company,” ДВАТ шахта “Краснокутська” ДП ДХК “Донбасантрацит”).\n7.  On 5 March 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 8,906.23[1] in favour of the first applicant.\n8.  On 21 February 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 1,881.63[2] in favour of the second applicant.\n9.  On 14 June 2000 and 8 February 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 1,548.42[3] and UAH 417.53[4] respectively in favour of the third applicant.\n10.  On 21 May 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 2,843.41[5] in favour of the fourth applicant.\n11.  The judgments in favour of the applicants became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) for enforcement.\n12.  On 13 August 2002 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court (“the Commercial Court,” Господарський суд Луганської області) initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and introduced a moratorium on payment of its debts.\n13.  On 4 February 2003 the Commercial Court approved a friendly settlement between the Company and its creditors and discontinued the bankruptcy proceedings.\n14.  The first, the second and the fourth applicant received their judgments debts in several instalments, the final payments being made in August 2005. The third applicant received the debt due to her by the judgment of 1 June 2000 in August 2004 and in August 2005 - the debt by the judgment of 8 February 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2249", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Chervonozavodskoye, Poltava region, Ukraine. She is a widow who raises two daughters.\n5.  The applicant worked as a salesperson in the “Kram” shop at the State-owned “Lokhvitskiy Spirtkombinat” distillery.\n6.  In July 1998, in accordance with the findings of an inspection, which revealed the shortage of goods, the applicant was dismissed from her position.\n7.  On 25 August 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Lokhvytskiy District Court against her former employer challenging her dismissal.\n8.  On 14 November 1998 the court found the case ready for examination and scheduled the hearing for 25 November 1998.\n9.  On 21 November 1998, following the results of the inspection, a criminal case was instituted.\n10. On 25 November 1998 the court postponed the hearing due to failure of the defendant's representative to appear.\n11.  On 27 November 1998 the civil proceedings in the applicant's case were suspended until the investigation of the criminal case was completed.\n12.  On 25 March 1999 the criminal proceedings were terminated due to the lack of corpus delicti in the applicant's actions.\n13.  On 14 December 2001 the hearing was adjourned upon the applicant's request.\n14.  On 17 December 2001 the court requested the Lokhvitsky District Prosecutor's Office to provide information about the results of the investigation.\n15.  On 20 December 2001 the court was informed that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been terminated.\n16.  On 15 January 2002 the hearing was adjourned upon the defendant's request.\n17.  On 14 June 2002 the court heard the merits of the case and adjourned the hearing.\n18.  On 22 July 2002 the applicant modified her claim.\n19.  On 23 July 2002 the court heard the merits of the case and adjourned the hearing in order to allow the defendant to study the new documents submitted by the applicant.\n20.  On 2 October 2002 the court postponed the hearing due to the failure of the defendant's representative to appear.\n21.  On 22 November 2002 the hearing was adjourned due to illness of the defendant's representative.\n22.  On 13 August 2003 the court partly allowed the applicant's claim and reinstated the applicant in her position.\n23.  On 18 August 2003 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal left the defendant's appeal against the above decision without a course and gave him the time to rectify the procedural shortcomings.\n24.  On 18 December 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n25.  On 17 May 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.\n26.  On 11 August 2004 the proceedings before the Lokhvytskiy District Court commenced.\n27.  On 19 August 2004 the court sent requests for information to the Lokhvitsky District Prosecutor's Office and the “Lokhvitskiy Spirtkombinat” distillery.\n28.  On 12 November 2004 the hearing was adjourned due to illness of the defendant's representative.\n29.  On 20 December 2004 the defendant challenged Judge K. who was hearing the case, alleging his lack of impartiality. On the same day this complaint against Judge K. was allowed.\n30.  On 2 February 2005 the newly appointed Judge S. referred the case to the President of the District Court for reassignment. On 23 February 2005 his self-disqualification was allowed.\n31.  On 1 June 2005 the court adjourned the hearing due to the parties' failure to appear.\n32.  On 30 June 2005 the defendan", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2250", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and resides in the town of Novogrodivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant instituted two sets of proceedings in the Novogrodivskiy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivska Mining Company No. 1/3 (Шахта 1/3 „Новогродівська”) – a State-owned enterprise – to recover salary arrears and compensation for damage to his health.\n6.  On 8 and 23 February 2001 the Novogrodovsky Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Рішення Новогродівського міського суду Донецької області) and awarded him, respectively, 2,615.30[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) and UAH 28,513.58[2]. These judgments were sent for enforcement to the Novogrodovskiy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новогродівського міського управління юстиції).\n7.  In July 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the judgment of 23 February 2001 in his favour. On 28 August 2001 the Town Court rejected the applicant's claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs' Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs' Service had acted properly in enforcing the judgment of 23 February 2001. However, by a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs' Service had been prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company. On 1 November 2001 the Court of Appeal of the Donetsk Region dismissed the applicant's appeal. On 7 March 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.\n8.  The judgments in the applicant's favour were enforced by instalments, the last amount being paid on 3 September 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2251", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in the town of Kholmsk of the Sakhalin Region.\n6.  In 1987 the applicant and her sister V. decided jointly to build a residence in the town of Azov on two adjacent land plots allocated to them by a local council. The plots were registered respectively in the applicant's name and in the name of V.'s son Z.\n7.  The construction works started in 1989 and in 1990 the title over the second land plot was transferred to V.\n8.  According to the applicant, in 1992 V. died leaving a will by which she bequeathed her part of the house to the applicant.\n9.  By 1995 the construction works had been nearly completed.\n10.  On 11 October 1995 Z. obtained a decision of the local administration transferring to him the title to the second land plot and moved into the house.\n11.  In response to the applicant's complaints that Z. had forged an official document concerning his share in V.'s inheritance, the local police refused to institute criminal proceedings for the lack of evidence of a crime.\n12.  The local prosecutor also advised the applicant that it would be possible to evict Z. from the house only on the basis of a court decision. It does not appear that the applicant brought proceedings for his eviction.\n13.  In October 1996 the applicant lodged with the Azov Town Court (“the Town Court”) a complaint concerning the decision of the local administration transferring the land title to Z.\n14.  On 23 October 1996 the complaint was registered and accepted for examination.\n15.  By decision of 20 January 1997 the court decided to suspend the proceedings with reference to the need to request the evidence.\n16.  On 31 July 1997 the applicant lodged a separate civil action against Z., requesting the court to confirm her property rights in relation to the part of the house formerly owned by V. with reference to her sister's will, the fact that it was her and her sister's joint possession and that the applicant had borne a major part of the construction expenses. She also asked the court to restore the time limits for acceptance of her share in V.'s inheritance and establish that she had in fact accepted it.\n17.  In response, Z. filed a counterclaim requesting the court to invalidate V.'s will.\n18.  The proceedings concerning the decision of the local administration resumed on 25 August 1997. By decision of 17 November 1997 the court joined the applicant's claims against the local council and Z. in one set of proceedings.\n19.  By the same decision the court also accepted Z.'s waiver of claims against the applicant. The waiver was subsequently declared unlawful and quashed by the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) on 14 January 1999.\n20.  On 22 December 1997 the court decided to request the Kholmsk Town Court to question a number of witnesses. The request was executed and on 9 April 1998 the court received the necessary evidence.\n21.  On 5 May 1998 the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia.\n22.  The hearing of 3 June 1998 did not take place because of Z.'s failure to appear.\n23.  On 29 July 1998 the Town Court dismissed the applicant's claims as unfounded.\n24.  The Rostov Regional Court quashed this judgment on appeal and remitted the case at first instance on 26 August 1998.\n25.  The case was returned to the Town Court and accepted for examination on 8 September 1998.\n26.  The court decided to start the hearings in the case on 20 November 1998. On that date the parties failed to appear and the hea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2252", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Krasnyy Luch, the Lugansk region.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  In 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) against his employer, the State Open Joint Stock Mining Company “Izvestiya” (“the Company,” ДВАТ шахта „Ізвестія”), for salary arrears and other payments. On 14 June 2000 the court awarded the applicant UAH 8,185.11.[1] This judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n7.  On 26 June 2000 the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings for the above judgment.\n8.  On 29 October 2002 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court (“the Commercial Court,” Господарський суд Луганської області) initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and introduced a moratorium on payment of its debts.\n9.  On 28 July 2003 the Commercial Court approved a friendly settlement between the Company and its creditors.\n10.  On 3 December 2004 the applicant received his judgment debt and the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings as completed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2253", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a Netherlands national who was born in 1944; he is an advocate practising in Alkmaar (Netherlands).\n6.  On 19 June 2000 the NCRV, a private organisation holding a public broadcasting license, broadcast a television documentary entitled “Secret mothers” (Verborgen moeders). It featured a woman, one Ms A.K., who claimed to have been the victim of incest committed by her grandfather, her father and two of her brothers.\n7.  Ms A.K. alleged that five pregnancies had resulted. One had been terminated. Of the babies born from the other four, three had been ritually murdered and one had been sold.\n8.  These statements were said to be based on memories which Ms A.K. had repressed but which she had been able to recover with the aid of a therapist, Mr Kieft, who had been treating her for six years.\n9.  The K. family, who denied the truth of Ms A.K.'s allegations, sought the assistance of the applicant.\n10.  The Amsterdam public prosecutor (officier van justitie) opened a prosecution file, charging the NCRV with criminal libel.\n11.  On 14 June 2002 the public prosecution service published a press release in which it was stated that the NCRV had admitted having libelled the K. family and had settled out of court. The prosecution had been dropped subject to the conditions, which the NCRV had accepted, that the NCRV would pay a sum of money to the public prosecution service, publish a retraction and pay the K. family compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and legal costs.\n12.  On 28 November 2001 another private organisation holding a public broadcasting license, the AVRO, broadcast a radio programme featuring an interview with the applicant about the case of the K. family.\n13.  The applicant said, among other things:\n“Here we are faced with a dangerous group of individuals who ... [though] unproved, nonetheless present, er, a horrible crime. I mean, we're talking about five infanticides, we're not talking about nothing. ... all right, three murders, one abortion and one child allegedly sold, whatever, it's a terrible accusation and you can't just do that. That should not go unpunished.”\nThe interviewer explained that the reference was to\n“... alternative therapies such as hypnosis and regression therapy ...”\ngoing on to say:\n“The alternative therapist who was treating [Ms A.K.] at the time was Mr Kieft. He actually does believe in recovered memories, and therefore also in the recollection of incest and of quadruple infanticide.”\n14.  Referring to the intuitive methods used by Mr Kieft, the interviewer stated:\n“So, Mr Kieft can sense and see whether people have been sexually abused.”\nThe applicant responded, saying, among other things:\n“I can't understand how he, how he can do that! To me, that shows how dangerous these therapists are. Someone like that shouldn't, should not be allowed to be a therapist surely? That man, he lives in North Holland province, he should, er, grow cabbages for the market ... He should go and grow cabbages out there, but he should absolutely not be working with with with patients, or with people who who are in emergency situations. I find this very worrying. I consider this very unprofessional. It's possible of course [that] these people are magi (magiërs), that has nothing to do with therapists, nothing to do with doctors. They take people back in regression therapy. Where was that man educated? Where did that man study? I have no idea, and what does he presume to be? That man likens himse", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2254", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  On 11 January 1984 the applicant, while walking on the street under the influence of alcohol, run into another person, I.Š., who sustained injuries.\n7.  On 20 June 1989 I.Š. instituted civil proceedings against the applicant in the Ljubljana Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani) seeking compensation for the loss of income and a monthly rent.\nOn 17 June 1991 the court delivered a judgment, partly upholding I.Š.'s claim.\nOn 13 November 1991 the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) quashed the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nAfter the Ljubljana Basic Court had issued a new judgment in the case, the Ljubljana Higher Court, on 4 November 1992, quashed it again.\nOn 25 November 1993, after the re-examination of the case, the Ljubljana Basic Court ruled in favour of I.Š. The applicant again appealed.\nOn 2 February 1994 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected his appeal.\n8.  On 21 March 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia.\nOn 8 December 1994 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 1 February 1995.\n9.  On 13 March 1995 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\nOn 16 January 1997 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) annulled the lower courts' judgements due to a violation of equal protection of rights guaranteed in Article 22 of the Slovenian Constitution. It found that the courts had, in determining the existence of the applicant's civil liability for damages, relied on final judgments issued in separate proceedings which had deprived the applicant of his right to defend his interests effectively. It ordered a re-examination of the case.\n10.  In the meantime, however, the applicant, on 10 April 1995, lodged a request for re-opening of the proceedings. After two hearings (the first one was adjourned due to the applicant's late submissions) the renamed Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani), on 13 May 1996, upheld the applicant's request and annulled the first-instance judgement of 25 November 1993. That decision was served on the applicant on 12 July 1996.\nOn 13 September 1996 the Ljubljana Higher Court partly upheld I.Š.'s appeal but approved the decision concerning the re-opening. The decision was served on the applicant on 8 October 1996.\n11. On an unspecified date, but apparently prior to April 1998, the applicant lodged criminal charges for the abuse of public office with the Novo Mesto District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Novem mestu) against the judge B.I., who was responsible for the first-instance proceedings prior to their re-opening.\nIn addition, the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) against the State seeking compensation for damage resulting from the allegedly unlawful proceedings.\nOn 21 April 1998 the Ljubljana Local Court sent the case-file to Novo Mesto District Court to enable it to decide on the criminal charges against the judge.\nIt received the case-file back on 15 March 1999.\nOn 11 October 1999 the case-file was sent to the State Attorney's Office which had requested it in respect of the civil proceedings instituted against the State. On 17 January 2000, the Celje District Court decided to discontinue the civil proceedings agai", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2255", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Maribor.\n6.  On 27 February 1988 the applicant, who was a private entrepreneur, was hired by the institution called Dom upokojencev Danice Vogrinec, a retirement home (“the retirement home”), to paint its premises.\n7.  On 20 February 1990 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Maribor Basic Court, Maribor Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Mariboru, Enota Maribor) against the retirement home seeking payment for the work he had carried out.\nOn 15 January 1991, after the court had held four hearings, the applicant's claim was upheld in part.\n8.  On 6 March 1991 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru).\nOn 18 July 1991 the court allowed the applicant's appeal, annulled the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n9.  On 15 October 1991, after a hearing was held, the first-instance court again upheld the applicant's claim in part. Upon the applicant's request a supplementary judgment was issued on 13 December 1991.\n10.  The applicant and the retirement home appealed against both judgments to the Maribor Higher Court.\nOn 4 May 1993 the court allowed the appeals of the applicant and his adversary, annulled the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n11.  Until 28 June 1994, the day the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia, the first-instance court held two hearings. Another hearing was scheduled but did not take place because the applicant's lawyer failed to appear before the court.\nOn 14 October 1994 the court held a hearing.\nThe hearing scheduled for 6 December 1994 was cancelled for an unknown reason.\nOn 1 January 1995 the Maribor Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Mariboru) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.\nOn 10 October 1995 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 16 October 1995 the applicant lodged a request for supervision against the judge presiding over the case, but apparently to no avail.\nOn 17 October 1995 the court declared the case out of its jurisdiction and transferred it to the Maribor District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru).\nOn 9 January 1996 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.\nThere was apparently a dispute between the Maribor Local Court and the Maribor District Court concerning the jurisdiction. In this respect, the Maribor Higher Court decided on 12 January 1996 that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the Maribor District Court.\nOn 16 May and 20 September 1996 the court held hearings.\nOn 6 and 11 November 1996 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.\nOn 22 November 1996 and 10 January 1997 the court held hearings.\nThe judgment of 11 February 1997, dismissing the applicant's claim, was served on the applicant on 14 February 1997.\n12.  On 24 February 1997 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court and the following day he amended his appeal. The retirement home cross-appealed.\nOn 4 June 1998 the Maribor Higher Court allowed both appeals, annulled the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. The decision was served on the applicant on 27 June 1998.\n13.  On 1 October 1998 the Maribor District Court held a hearing.\nOn 10 November 1998 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.\nThe hearing scheduled for 19 Nove", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2256", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Krasnyy Luch, the Lugansk region.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 3 December 1999 and 6 February 2002 the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) awarded the applicant UAH 1,380.34[1] and UAH 397.35[2] respectively in salary arrears and other payments against his former employer, the State Open Joint Stock Company “Krasnolutska Avtobaza” (ДВАТ “Краснолуцька автобаза” ДХК „Донбасантрацит”). These judgments became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) for enforcement.\n7.  The applicant received the debt due to him by the judgment of 3 December 1999 on 1 November 2004 and on 14 February 2005 - by the judgment of 6 February 2002.\n8.  On 14 February 2005 the Bailiffs' Service explained to the applicant that the delays in the enforcement of the judgments in his favour had been caused by the debtor's reorganization, the holding of its assets in a tax lien and the statutory moratorium on the forced sale of State property.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2257", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1974, 1974, 1973 and 1977 respectively and live in Istanbul.\n5.  In connection with an investigation into the activities of an illegal organisation, namely the TKP/ML[1], police officers from the Anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate searched several houses and arrested several suspects, including Selvi Dönmez, Emirhan Yıldız and Leyla Lüle on 26 and 27 March 1998 respectively.\n6.  In the meantime, on 25 March 1998, Meral Şahin, together with another suspect, had been arrested at a café and taken into police custody. The arrest protocol drafted by the police officers and signed by the applicant mentioned that the applicant had resisted arrest.\n7.  On 28 March 1998 the applicants were interrogated by police officers.\n8.  The applicants allege that they were subjected to ill-treatment during their stay in custody[2].\n9.  On 31 March 1998 Leyla Lüle was taken to the Haseki Hospital for an X-ray. No documents or explanations were submitted by the parties in this respect.\n10.  On 1 April 1998 the applicants were examined, together with nineteen other suspects, by a doctor from the Forensic Medicine Department of the Istanbul State Security Court who found no signs of ill-treatment on the body of Meral Şahin. As to the remaining applicants, the doctor noted the following.\n11.  Selvi Dönmez had a hyperaemia[3] of 10 cm on her left arm and an extensive hyperaemia on her thighs.\n12.  Eminhan Yıldız had a scabbed wound of 10 cm on his right wrist.\n13.  Leyla Lüle had two ecchymoses of 20 cm and 3 cm on her back and a 3 cm ecchymose on the left side of her face. The doctor, referring to the X‑ray report, noted that there was no bone pathology.\n14.  On 1 April 1998, the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court where they denied the accusations against them and, in particular, the contents of their statements given to the police. Leyla Lüle and Meral Şahin claimed that they had signed their statements under duress.\n15.  On the same day, Emirhan Yıldız was released. No criminal proceedings were brought against him. The other applicants were brought before a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court together with other suspects.\n16.  Before the court Selvi Dönmez, Leyla Lüle and Meral Şahin repeated their statements to the public prosecutor. Leyla Lüle further maintained that she had been subjected to torture in police custody and showed her bandaged arm to the court. The latter ordered the remand in custody of Leyla Lüle and Meral Şahin and the release of Selvi Dönmez.\n17.  On 2 April 1998, upon their request, Leyla Lüle and Meral Şahin were examined by the prison doctor at the Ümraniye prison. The provisional report issued by the prison doctor referred to the following findings.\n18.  Meral Şahin had a 1x1 cm brown lesion on her back and loss of strength in her right arm. She also complained of pain under her armpits.\n19.  Leyla Lüle had a yellow coloured lesion on her back, ecchymoses on her left leg and loss of strength in her left arm. She had also complained of head and neck pains.\n20.  On 6 July 1998 Leyla Lüle was released pending trial. According to the medical report issued by the Turkish Human Rights Association on 20 September 2000, Leyla Lüle was suffering from lumbar strain[4], cervical strain[5], cubital tunnel syndrome[6] and loss of strength in her shoulders. The report further noted that she also presented symptoms of post traumatic str", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2258", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and was serving his prison sentence in the Sakarya Prison at the time of his application to the Court.\n5.  On 17 July 1997 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody by the Anti-terror branch of the Izmir Security Directorate on suspicion of his involvement in an illegal organisation, namely the DHP (Revolutionary Peoples’ Party).\n6.  According to the search protocol drafted on 18 July 1997 by police officers and signed by the applicant’s father, the police, after obtaining his consent, searched the applicant’s parents’ flat and did not find any incriminating evidence.\n7.  According to the search and seizure protocol drafted on the same day by the police officers and signed by the applicant, the police searched the applicant’s flat and had found inside a book a paper with coded inscriptions and numbers on it. Following the search the applicant was taken back to the police station. However, three police officers remained in the applicant’s flat, until 6.30 p.m., in case other members of the illegal organisation appeared.\n8.  On 18 July 1997 the applicant’s representative requested the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court to give her permission to see the applicant in police custody. On the same day the public prosecutor refused.\n9.  Also the same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Izmir Forensic Medicine Institute. The applicant complained that he had been beaten. However, the doctor found no physical evidence of ill‑treatment.\n10.  On 21 July 1997 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court. Before the public prosecutor the applicant gave information as to his relations with various people but denied that he had been involved in an illegal organisation and that he had taken part in military training in Greece. He claimed that he did not know anything about the code found during the search. He acknowledged that he knew Mr A.T and Mr U.M who had identified him in the police station. He submitted further that he knew Mr A.E.K., Mr M.K, and Mr G.C. because they were in the same prison as his sister. He admitted that Mr A.T and Mr U.M knew him as Kemal Borak but stated that this was not a code name.\n11.  On the same day the applicant was brought, together with two other suspects, before the Izmir State Security Court. He refuted the statements he had given to the police and reiterated his statements made to the public prosecutor. The other suspects claimed that they knew the applicant as “Kemal” and acknowledged their statements given to the police and to the public prosecutor. The court ordered the applicant’s remand in custody.\n12.  On 25 July 1997 the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court, accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the DHP. The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.\n13.  On an unspecified date the Izmir State Security Court commenced the trial against the applicant and two other co-accused.\n14.  At a hearing held on 7 October 1997 the applicant stated that he was not a member of the DHP and that he did not accept the content of the statements he had given to the police since they had been extracted under duress and torture. The statements which the applicant had made to the public prosecutor were read out to him. He rectified ce", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2259", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Rejowiec Fabryczny.\n5.  The applicant was arrested on 20 September 1999 on suspicion of homicide. On 22 September 1999 the Chełm District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody for a period of 3 months in view of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed homicide. It further held that the likelihood that he would be given a heavy sentence justified his detention on remand.\n6.  On 14 December 1999 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged the applicant’s detention until 19 March 2000. It relied on the reasonable suspicion of his having committed the offence in question and the likelihood of a heavy sentence being imposed on the applicant. In addition, it had regard to the need to obtain expert evidence and a psychiatric examination of the suspects.\n7.  On 8 March 2000 the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention until 19 June 2000. It found that in the light of the evidence obtained there was a strong likelihood that the applicant had committed the offence. Furthermore, it relied on the severity of the likely sentence and the need to obtain further expert evidence. On 24 May 2000 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention until 4 September 2000, reiterating the grounds previously given. It appears that his detention was subsequently prolonged on an unspecified later date.\n8.  In the course of the investigation the Regional Prosecutor obtained voluminous evidence and took a series of investigative measures. On 10 July 2000 the prosecution service filed a bill of indictment with the Lublin Regional Court. The applicant was charged with two counts of homicide and armed robbery. There were four other defendants in the case.\n9.  On 20 March 2001 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 19 September 2001. It held that the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that the applicant would be given a heavy sentence confirmed the risk that he might obstruct the proceedings. It further held that the applicant’s detention on remand was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. Lastly, when extending the applicant’s detention, the Regional Court had regard to its caseload.\n10.  On 19 September 2001 the Court of Appeal granted the Regional Court’s application and prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 December 2001. It noted that the period of the applicant’s detention had reached the 2-year statutory time-limit (Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and criticised the trial court for not having indicated any particular circumstances which would justify the prolongation beyond the statutory time-limit. However, it held that the prolongation was justified on account of other significant obstacles to progress in the proceedings, namely the fact that one of the defendants had failed to appear at the hearing which had led to the adjournment of the trial. The Court of Appeal also noted that although the bill of indictment had been filed on 10 July 2000, the trial court listed the first hearing only for 16 May 2001.\n11.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged on 28 November 2001 (until 15 March 2002), on 13 March 2002 (until 30 April 2002) and on 24 April 2002 (until 30 September 2002). In all those decisions the Court of Appeal relied on the same grounds as had been given in the earlier decisions.\n12.  The trial court held 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2260", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1958, 1923, 1949, 1961, 1955 and 1950 respectively and live in Tokat.\n5.  On 21 November 1957 the Koruluk village administration, the Ministry of Treasury and the Forest Directorate requested the annulment of the record in the title deed registry of the applicants’ father’s and other persons’ (hereinafter “the defendants”) ownership of four plots of land (nos. 49, 50, 51 and 52) situated in the village of Koruluk.\n6.  On 4 November 1971, 2 December 1975 and 16 March 1989 the Bafra Cadastre Court gave a decision on the merits of the case. Each of these decisions was in turn quashed by the Court of Cassation.\n7.  In the course of the proceedings several defendants including Mr Esat Namlı, who was the husband of the second applicant and the father of the remaining applicants, died. Shortly thereafter, in 1990, the applicants became parties to the proceedings.\n8.  On 28 November 1996 the Bafra Cadastre Court decided to annul the record in the title deed registry except for a part of plot no. 49 which remained under the name of the defendants.\n9.  On 10 March 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n10.  On 18 December 1998 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ request for rectification of its decision. This decision was not served on the applicants. However, it was sent to the registry of the Bafra Cadastre Court on 4 January 1999.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2261", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are a mother and a daughter. They were born in 1961 and 1990 respectively and live in Vienna (Austria).\n6.  On 12 March 1990 the first applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava V. District Court (Okresný súd) against Mr B., a Hungarian national living in Hungary. She sought rulings declaring that B. was the father of the second applicant, granting her custody over the second applicant, and ordering B. to contribute to the second applicant’s maintenance.\n7.  Before 18 March 1992, the date on which the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovakia, the District Court held 5 hearings and sent a letter rogatory to the Hungarian court in the judicial district where the defendant resided, seeking the defendant’s observations in reply.\n8.  On 22 May 1992 the District Court ordered that a blood test be carried out in order to establish paternity. It subsequently appointed an expert to perform the test and ordered that the first applicant lodge a sum with the court in respect of the expert’s costs.\n9.  On 26 August 1993 the District Court requested the first applicant to state whether she wished to continue the action. On 3 April 1995 the District Court informed her that it was impossible to proceed with the case since the whereabouts of B. were unknown. In response, on 11 October 1995, the first applicant indicated to the District Court the place where she believed the defendant was employed.\n10.  On 31 October 1995 the District Court decided to stay the proceedings. On 10 May and 4 June 1996 it again invited the first applicant to state whether she wished to pursue her claims and asked whether or not she knew the address of the defendant.\n11.  In September 1996 the District Court requested assistance from the Slovakian Ministry of Justice in ascertaining the address of the defendant. The Ministry submitted the address on 3 February 1997.\n12.  On 29 September 1997 the District Court interviewed the first applicant and she confirmed her intention to pursue the action.\n13.  On 5 February 1998 the District Court again ordered that blood tests be carried out and appointed another expert to do so.\n14.  On 30 June 1999, following a hearing held on the same day, the District Court granted the action and on 14 April 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed its judgment on the defendant’s appeal on the ground that the District Court had failed to establish the facts adequately. The case was remitted to the District Court for re-examination.\n15.  On 31 July 2002 the District Court sent a letter rogatory to the court in charge of the case in Hungary, requesting it to obtain and provide blood samples from the defendant.\n16.  On 12 February and 2 July 2004 the District Court imposed fines of, respectively, 5,000[1] and 25,000[2] Slovakian korunas (SKK) on the expert for having failed to produce the DNA report in time.\n17.  On 21 January 2005 the expert submitted his report. He concluded that, with a 99.99% degree of probability, the defendant was the father of the second applicant.\n18.  On 16 February 2005, on the applicants’ motion, the District Court indicated an interim measure ordering that, as from that day, the defendant was to pay SKK 4,000[3] per month towards the maintenance of the second applicant. The defendant appealed.\n19.  On 17 May 2005 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicants modified the scope of their claim for maintenance. The defendant did not attend.\n20.  Between 10 Novem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2262", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Tvrdošín.\n5.  On 27 June 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his job in a private company due to its restructuring. The company failed to pay him his salary and a severance payment.\n6.  On 31 May 1999 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court declared the company bankrupt. On 28 July 1999 the applicant registered his claim against the debtor in the ensuing bankruptcy proceedings.\n7.  On 18 October 2004 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed the declaration of bankruptcy as the debtor’s property was insufficient to cover the claim.\n8.  In July 1997 the applicant started working in a different company. He was dismissed from his job on 28 February 1998 due to the restructuring of the company.\n9.  In 1998 the applicant filed an action against the company claiming arrears of salary and a severance payment. On 11 September 1998 the Banská Bystrica District Court granted the applicant’s claim.\n10.  On 19 January 1999 the applicant filed a motion for execution of the judgment. On 1 February 1999 the Banská Bystrica District Court authorised an executions officer to execute its judgment.\n11.  On 26 March 1999 the executions officer informed the debtor company that execution proceedings had been brought against it and that the sum due would be transferred to the applicant from the debtor’s bank account. On the same day the company’s representative informed the executions officer that the company owned no property and that its business activities had been stopped.\n12.  On 20 April 1999 the applicant concluded a contract with the executions officer concerning the enforcement of the sum due. Article II of the contract provided that the applicant did not have to pay any advance on the costs of the execution to the executions officer.\n13.  On 2 November 1999 the executions officer issued an execution order under which the debtor’s banks were to transfer the relevant sum from the debtor’s account to the bank account of the executions officer. On 9 November 1999 one of the banks replied that the debtor’s deposit was insufficient for covering the debt. On 12 November 1999 the other bank replied that the debtor’s account had been closed.\n14.  On 20 July 2000 the applicant filed a petition with the Slovak Chamber of Executions Officers in which he complained that the executions officer had been inactive in enforcing his claim. In a letter of 23 October 2001 the Secretary to the Slovak Chamber of Executions Officers informed the applicant that the executions officer had acted in compliance with the law. The letter stated, inter alia, that the executions officer had examined the debtor’s financial situation, that he had filed an execution order with the debtor’s banks, and that the sum in issue could not be obtained as the banks had informed the executions officer that the debtor did not own any property.\n15.  On 24 August 2000 the executions officer requested the applicant to pay an advance on the costs of the execution failing which the officer would ask the District Court to discontinue the execution proceedings. In his reply of 11 September 2000 the applicant recalled that, pursuant to the contract of 20 April 1999, he was not obliged to pay any advance on costs.\n16.  On 25 October 2001 the executions officer requested the District Court to discontinue the execution proceedings. On 8 February 2002 the Banská Bystrica District Court discontinued the execution proceedings on the ground that the applicant had f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2263", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Bestwina.\n5.  On 18 April 1991 an action was brought before the Bielsko-Biała District Court in which certain claimants requested the determination of title to land. The applicant was one of the defendants in the proceedings. He requested the court to dismiss the action, claiming that he had title to the disputed land.\n6.  On an unknown date the court decided to adjourn a hearing until information from the land and mortgage register could be provided.\n7.  At a hearing of 27 October 1991 the court decided to conduct an on‑site inspection.\n8.  On 18 October 1991 the applicant requested the exclusion of the judge from the case. On 10 February 1992 the court refused the applicant’s request.\n9.  On 11 May 1992 the applicant requested that the proceedings be stayed pending the completion of criminal proceedings instituted against his neighbours, who, according to the Government’s observations, had been charged with the offence of “distortion”.\n10.  A hearing fixed for 13 May 1992 was adjourned.\n11.  On 18 November 1992 the court refused to stay the proceedings.\n12.  On 28 May 1992 the applicant requested the judge’s exclusion from the case. On 6 November 1992 the court rejected the applicant’s request.\n13.  On an unknown date the applicant requested the exclusion of all judges on the bench from hearing the case. On 6 November 1992 the court rejected the applicant’s request.\n14.  At a hearing on 1 June 1993 the court ordered an expert opinion and an on-site inspection. The inspection was conducted on 16 June 1993 and the expert opinion was submitted on 20 December 1993.\n15.  At a hearing on 22 March 1994 the court requested the expert to supplement his opinion within a one-month time-limit.\n16.  The next hearing was adjourned owing to the failure of the expert to comply with the court order.\n17.  A hearing fixed for 24 May 1994 was adjourned and the claimant was ordered to submit further documentation.\n18.  On 31 August 1994 the court stayed the proceedings owing to the parties’ failure to comply with court orders.\n19.  On an unknown date the claimant requested the court to resume the proceedings. The court refused the claimant’s request as it had been lodged outside the time-limit.\n20.  On 15 December 1994 the court ordered another expert opinion.\nOn 12 May 1995 the court decided to resume the proceedings and to conduct another on-site inspection.\n21.  On 1 June 1995 the applicant applied to the court to have seven more witnesses examined.\n22.  On 2 June 1995 an expert opinion was submitted.\n23.  At a hearing on 4 October 1995 the parties were ordered to submit further documentation.\n24.  On 10 October 1995 the Bielsko-Biała District Court gave a judgment by which it found that one of the claimants was the owner of the land in question. On 27 December 1995 the applicant appealed to the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court. On 16 February 1996 he requested the judge’s exclusion from the case. He also applied to the court to have another five witnesses examined.\n25.  On 26 February 1996 the court rejected the applicant’s requests.\n26.  On 12 March 1996 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court quashed the judgment of 10 October 1995 and referred the case back.\n27.  On 5 June 1996 a hearing was held before the Bielsko-Biała District Court.\n28.  On 21 August 1996 the court conducted an on-site inspection.\n29.  On 22 August 1996 the proceedings were stayed as the claimant had died and his successors had to be identif", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2264", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant, Mrs Darina Solárová, was born in 1952 and resides in Košice. She is the wife of the second applicant, Mr Juraj Solár, born in 1947 and resident at the same address in Košice. The third applicant, Mrs Eva Domiková, was born in 1956 and resides in Brno (the Czech Republic). The third applicant is the sister of the second applicant.\n5.  On 17 August 1998 an aunt of the second and the third applicants died. In her last wills of 6 June 1996 and of 25 May 1998 respectively, she designated the applicants as her heirs in respect of her immovable property.\n6.  On 27 October 1998 a third person claimed that the testator had made a last will in her favour in 1993. The notary public referred her to a civil court with a view to having the issue determined.\n7.  On 27 November 1998 the person concerned filed an action with the Košice II District Court. She challenged the validity of the wills in favour of the applicants. The plaintiff alleged that, in 1993, the testator had made a last will in her favour devising the immovable property to her. She further stated that the last wills of 1996 and 1998 were null and void as at the time when they had been made the testator’s mental faculties had been reduced.\n8.  On 9 December 1998 the District Court judge asked to withdraw from the case. The file was submitted to the Košice Regional Court on 14 January 1999. The Regional Court granted the judge’s request on 27 January 1999. The file was returned to the District Court on 24 February 1999. The case was assigned to a different judge on 20 April 1999.\n9.  On 29 April 1999 the judge communicated the action to the applicants. The applicants submitted their observations on 14 and 24 May 1999.\n10.  A hearing scheduled for 8 September 1999 was adjourned at the request of the plaintiff. Further hearings were held on 5 October 1999 and 15 November 1999. The case was adjourned because of the plaintiff’s absence.\n11.  Between 17 January 2000 and 13 March 2000 the District Court held three hearings at which several witnesses were examined. On 2 March 2001 the court appointed an expert in psychiatry with a view to establishing whether the testator had had testamentary capacity at the relevant time. The parties were ordered to pay an advance on the expert’s costs. On 20 March 2001 the first applicant challenged the decision on the expert’s costs.\n12.  On 8 December 2000 the applicants complained to the President of the District Court about delays in the proceedings. On 1 February 2001 the third applicant requested that a hearing be scheduled in the case.\n13.  On 7 July 2001 the first applicant challenged the District Court judge. On 6 September 2001 the Supreme Court excluded the Regional Court judge concerned from deciding on the first applicant’s motion of 7 July 2001. The case was assigned to a different Regional Court judge. On 22 October 2001 the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision concerning the applicants’ obligation to pay an advance on the costs of the expert. It further decided that the District Court judge was not biased.\n14.  On 26 July 2002 the expert submitted his opinion. The first and the second applicants submitted their comments on 9 September 2002.\n15.  On 3 February and 3 March 2003 the District Court held hearings. The case had to be adjourned in view of the plaintiff’s absence.\n16.  On 31 March 2003 the District Court granted the plaintiff’s claim and declared the last wills of 1996 and of 1998 null and void.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2265", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1973 respectively and were serving prison sentences at Nazilli Prison at the time of their applications to the Court.\n5.  On 23 February 1999 the applicants were arrested and taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-terror branch of the Kuşadası Security Directorate. They were interrogated on 24 and 25 February 1999 respectively.\n6.  On 26 February 1999 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor in Izmir. They were informed of their rights and in particular their right to be assisted by a lawyer, which they waived. The applicants confessed to having committed the offence of which they were accused, namely throwing Molotov cocktails at buildings. They claimed they had acted alone, that they were not involved in any illegal organisation and that they regretted their actions.\n7.  On the same day, the applicants were brought before the Kuşadası Magistrates’ Court where they reiterated their statements given to the public prosecutor. Mr Sancı acknowledged in part the statements he had given to the police. He alleged in this connection that he had been subjected to ill‑treatment in police custody. Mr Aslan acknowledged the contents of his statements made to the police. However, he claimed that he had signed without reading them. The court remanded both applicants in custody.\n8.  On 15 March 1999 the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court accusing the applicants of having thrown Molotov cocktails at the buildings of the Ülkü Ocakları Association, Ziraat Bank, Halk Bank and Yaşar Bank in Kuşadası on 22 February 1999. He requested that they be convicted and sentenced under Articles 169 and 264 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.\n9.  The first hearing, held before the Izmir State Security Court on 10 March 1999 in the applicants’ absence, was taken up with procedural matters such as the measures to be taken for securing the presence of the accused.\n10.  Between 15 April 1999 and 15 July 1999 the court held three hearings during which it heard the applicants, who claimed that they had made their statements in police custody under duress. The court also took various procedural acts.\n11.  At a hearing held on 15 July 1999 the court noted that the testimony of the witness Mr I.E., taken by proxy, had been submitted to it. The applicants asked the court not to take the testimony into account. They further requested that a further on-site inspection be conducted in order to find out whether the offence had been committed at night time. Finally, they asked the court to hear the bank clerks as witnesses. On the same day, the court, finding that the evidence contained in the case file sufficiently elucidated the events, dismissed the applicants’ requests. The prosecutor read out his observations on the merits of the case against the applicants. The next hearing was held on 2 September 1999.\n12.  At the hearing held on 14 October 1999 the military judge sitting on the bench of the Izmir State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge. The court heard the applicants’ final submissions on the merits of the case. On the same day, the Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them in respect of the offences to terms of imprisonment of three years, fifty-five months and twenty days. In its decision, the court took into account the fact that the incident reports drawn up after the event", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2266", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Hajnówka.\n5.  On 15 February 1999 the applicant requested that administrative proceedings be instituted for the purpose of fixing compensation for a partial expropriation of his real property in 1995, involving two small plots designated for the construction of a road.\n6.  On 15 March 1999 the Head of the Hajnówka District instituted such proceedings. On 28 July 1999 the Head of the Hajnówka District fixed an amount of compensation to be paid by the Hajnówka Municipality for these plots. The applicant contested the amount of compensation. On 24 September 1999 the Self-Government Board of Appeal quashed the decision and discontinued the proceedings. It was of the view that no purpose was served by continuing the proceedings. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 5 June 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the contested decision, finding that the conclusion of the Board had no proper legal or factual basis.\n8.  On 29 September 2000 the Podlesie Governor quashed the first-instance decision of 28 July 1999 and refused to pay compensation. The applicant appealed.\n9.  On 14 February 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Governor’s decision. It considered that it was unlawful in that it had infringed the prohibition of reformationis in peius as it applied to administrative proceedings.\n10.  On 23 May 2001 the Podlesie Governor again quashed the decision of 28 July 1999 and remitted the case for re-examination. On 15 October 2001 the Head of the Hajnówka District refused to determine the amount of compensation. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 27 November 2001 the Podlesie Governor quashed the decision given on 15 October 2001 and remitted the case for re-examination.\n12.  On 31 December 2001 the Head of the Hajnówka District again refused to determine the amount of compensation. The applicant contested this decision. On 14 February 2002 the Podlesie Governor upheld it. The applicant appealed against the Governor’s decision.\n13.  On 14 November 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Governor’s decision of 14 February 2002 and remitted the case for re-examination. The court considered that the authorities had entirely disregarded its opinion on issues relevant to the case as well as instructions on how to proceed with the case, as containedin its earlier judgments.\n14.  By a decision of 26 May 2003 the Head of the Hajnówka District fixed at PLN 29,763 the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2267", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 22 April 2000 the applicant, a lawyer and member of the administrative board of the Istanbul Human Rights Association, organised a demonstration in Sultanahmet Square in Istanbul, in the form of a march followed by a statement to the press, to protest against plans for “F-type” prisons.\n6.  At about 12 noon a group of forty to fifty persons brandishing placards and signs gathered in the square, under the leadership of the applicant and Eren Keskin, a lawyer and President of the Istanbul Human Rights Association. The police asked the group to disperse and to end the gathering, and informed them via a loudspeaker that the demonstration, for which advance notice had not been submitted, was unlawful and was likely to cause public-order problems at a busy time of day.\n7.  The demonstrators refused to obey and attempted to continue marching towards the police, who dispersed the group using a kind of tear gas known as “pepper spray”. The police arrested thirty-nine demonstrators, including the applicant, and took them to a police station.\n8.  After an identity check, and in view of her profession, the applicant was released at 12.45 p.m.\n9.  On 26 April 2000 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Beyoğlu prosecutor’s office against the head of the Istanbul security police and the police officers concerned, alleging that she had been ill-treated through the use of pepper spray, unlawfully arrested and prevented from making the public statement scheduled for the end of the demonstration.\n10.  On 29 June 2000 the public prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings on the ground that no offence had been committed.\n11.  On 25 July 2000 the applicant applied to the Beyoğlu Assize Court seeking to have that decision set aside.\n12.  On 25 September 2000 the Assize Court upheld the decision that there was no case to answer.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2268", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and was serving his prison sentence in Ceyhan prison at the time of his application to the Court.\n5.  On 11 August 1995 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody in Mersin on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the TKP/ML-TIKKO[1]. On the same day the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Mersin State Hospital who did not find any signs of ill‑treatment on the applicant’s body.\n6.  On 23 August 1995 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Mersin State Hospital who did not find any signs of ill‑treatment on the applicant’s body.\n7.  On 24 August 1995 the applicant was brought before a judge at the State Security Court who ordered his detention on remand.\n8.  The public prosecutor at the Konya State Security Court in his indictment, dated 20 September 1995, accused the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation. The charges were brought under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.\n9.  In the meantime, on 12 October 1995, the applicant filed a petition with the Mersin public prosecutor (hereinafter: “the prosecutor”) and claimed that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while he was held in police custody. On an unspecified date, the prosecutor instigated an investigation into the applicant’s allegations.\n10.  On 16 October 1995 the criminal proceedings against the applicant and two other accused commenced before the Konya State Security Court.\n11.  On 13 November 1995 the prosecutor took the statement of the applicant. In his deposition, the applicant submitted, in particular, that he had been hung up, subjected to electric shocks and hosed with pressurised water. He further stated that, during interrogation, his hands and feet had been beaten with a hard object. Finally, he gave the names of four detainees who witnessed the incident.\n12.  On 15 November 1995, upon the request of the prosecutor, the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Konya Forensic Medicine Department who noted healed superficial grazes under the armpits and a healed wound of about 1 mm on one of the fingers of the applicant’s right hand. She further found a loss of pigment of 1x2 mm on the applicant’s penis.\n13.  The prosecutor took the statements of two police officers who had interrogated the applicant on 17 November 1995 and 3 December 1997. They both denied the allegations of the applicant. The prosecutor also took the witness statements of three detainees (Mr D.B., Mr Y.A. and Mr M.U.). They all affirmed, in particular, that they saw the applicant bleeding from under his armpits during his stay in custody.\n14.  In the meantime, at the hearing held on 28 November 1995 the first‑instance court heard witnesses on behalf of the applicant. Four witnesses (Mr D.B., Mr Y.A., Mr M.U. and Mr A.Ö) maintained that they had seen the applicant during his detention in the Security Directorate and that he had bruises on his face and armpits. In the course of the criminal proceedings, the Konya State Security Court decided to join the proceedings against the applicant to several other cases brought against other persons who were also accused of membership of the same organisation.\n15.  On 12 June 1997, the Adana State Security Court acquired jurisdiction over the case since the Konya State Security Court had been abolished by Law no. 4210 on 19 May 1997.\n16.  On 4 December 1997 the prosecutor, taking into account the contents of the medical reports dated 11 and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2269", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  At the time of the events giving rise to the application, Mr Resul Sadak was the provincial leader and the other applicants were members of the Peoples’ Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi, hereinafter “HADEP”) in Şırnak, which was a province in the State of Emergency region.\n5.  On 23 September 2000 Resul Sadak, Nihat Osal, Mehmet Çakar, Rustem Bayar[3], Tahir Kutlu, Cengiz Balık, İzzet Belge, Abdurrazak İnan[4], Mehmet Temelkuran, Mehmet Nezir Ayan and Yakup Uyar went to Batman in order to participate in the Batman Provincial Congress of HADEP in two cars belonging to Yakup Uyar and Erdal Güler. On their way back to Şırnak from Batman, they were stopped in Düzova village, in Cizre, and arrested by gendarmerie officers. The applicants were then taken to the Şırnak provincial gendarmerie command.\n6.  On 27 September 2000 at 2 p.m. Erdal Güler was taken into custody. He was kept in custody until 11 a.m. on 1 October 2000.\n7.  On 1 October 2000 the applicants were brought before the Şırnak public prosecutor and the Şırnak Magistrates’ Court (sulh ceza mahkemesi). On the same day, the Şırnak Magistrates’ Court ordered that Resul Sadak, Nihat Osal, Mehmet Çakar, Rustem Bayar1, Tahir Kutlu, Cengiz Balık, İzzet Belge, Abdurrazak İnan2, Mehmet Temelkuran, Mehmet Nezir Ayan and Erdal Güler be detained on remand and that Yakup Uyar be released.\n8. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants on charges of aiding and abetting the PKK contrary to Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713, and illegal possession of firearms and explosives contrary to Article 264 § 5 of the Criminal Code and Article 13 § 2 of Law no. 6136.\n9.  On 12 December 2000 the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered the applicants’ release pending trial.\n10.  In 2002 and 2003 the applicants were acquitted of the charges against them.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2270", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Warszawa.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 9 November 1993 the applicant filed a petition for divorce with the Warsaw Regional Court requesting that a no-fault divorce be granted.\n7.  On 9 January 1994 the court held a reconciliation meeting, but the parties could not reach an agreement.\n8.   On 8 February 1994 the applicant’s wife requested the court to award child maintenance against the applicant.\n9.  On 28 March 1994 the Warsaw Regional Court held the first hearing in the case. The applicant modified his claim and requested that the divorce be based on the fault of both parties.\n10.  On 15 April 1994 the Warsaw Regional Court, by way of an interim order, ruled on the amount of child maintenance to be paid to the applicant’s daughter, born in 1981.\n11.  On 9 May 1994 a hearing was held. On the same date the Warsaw Regional Court issued an interim order determining the manner in which the applicant and his wife should use their house pending a judgment in the case.\n12.  At the hearing of 27 June 1994 the Warsaw Regional Court heard witnesses.\nOn 8 July 1994 the applicant’s lawyer filed pleadings in which he requested the Warsaw Regional Court to admit evidence from a court expert in sexology in order to establish the cause of the breakdown of the marriage. He also requested that the applicant’s medical records concerning his treatment for sexual problems be admitted as evidence. Apparently these requests were dismissed.\n13.  On 11 July 1994 the applicant modified his claim and requested that his wife be declared solely responsible for the breakdown of the marriage.\n14. A hearing was held on 22 August 1994.\n15.  By another interim order of 30 August 1994, the Warsaw Regional Court prohibited the applicant from introducing third persons into his house and registering them there as residents. This decision was taken after the applicant’s new partner and mother of his two children (born in 1990 and 1994 respectively) had moved in. The court refused the applicant’s request for a reduction of child maintenance.\n16.  On 10 September 1994 the applicant appealed against the decision of 30 August 1994.\n17.  On 21 November 1994 the applicant requested an amendment of the decision concerning child maintenance.\n18.  On 29 December 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended the decision of 30 August 1994 finding that the applicant could not be prevented from registering as residents his own children and their mother. On the same date the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s request concerning the amount of maintenance.\n19.  A hearing scheduled for 19 June 1995 was adjourned due to the respondent’s illness.\n20.  On 20 November 1995 the court held a hearing. The respondent requested an increase of the child maintenance award. The court requested the parties to submit information on their financial situation.\n21.  On 5 December 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court increased the amount of maintenance payable to the applicant’s eldest daughter. Both parties appealed.\n22.  On 29 February 1996 the applicant requested the court to supplement the minutes of the hearing of 20 November 1995. His request was refused by the presiding judge as it had been lodged out of time. The applicant’s renewed request of 14 March 1996 was dismissed on 7 May 1996.\n23.  On 25 July 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal increased the amount of child maintenance.\n24.  At the heari", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2271", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Kloštar Ivanić.\n5.  On 1 September 1999 the Ivanić Grad Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Ivanić Gradu) adopted a judgment ordering a certain F.P. to pay some money to the applicant. On 18 May 2000 the applicant sought enforcement of the above judgment.\n6.  The Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) issued an enforcement order on 6 July 2000.\n7.  On 20 November 2000 a court bailiff attempted to draft a seizure list of F.P.’s possessions, but he refused to cooperate.\n8.  On 19 December 2000 the applicant informed the court that F.P. owned a motor vehicle and proposed to seize it. On 17 April 2001 the court invited the applicant to advance the costs of the bailiff’s intervention, which the applicant did on 25 April 2001. On 12 April 2002 the court scheduled another on-site intervention for 3 June 2002, which was unsuccessful because F.P. once again refused to cooperate.\n9.  Pursuant to the applicant’s further motion, on 26 September 2002 the court decided that another on-site intervention would be scheduled after the applicant advanced the costs.\n10.  The applicant asked the court to size F.P.’s passport on 20 February 2003. Following that demand, on 1 July 2003 the court asked the Ministry of the Interior whether F.P. was the owner of a certain motor vehicle. The Ministry replied in negative on 22 July 2003.\n11.  The applicant then on 8 September 2003 asked for another bailiff’s intervention.\n12.  However, on 24 May 2004 the case-file was transferred to the newly-established Zaprešić Municipal Court.\n13.  Since F.P.’s wife presented the evidence that F.P. had paid part of the sum due to the applicant during the bailiff’s intervention on 25 October 2004, the intervention was adjourned with consent of the applicant’s legal representative.\n14.  However, F.P. did not comply with the rest of his obligation and therefore, on 24 December 2004 the applicant asked for another bailiff’s intervention. The intervention took place on 8 March 2005 and a seizure list was drafted.\n15.  On 29 September 2005 the applicant asked the court to schedule a public auction. The auction was scheduled for 22 November 2005.\n16.  The enforcement proceedings still appear to be pending before the first-instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2272", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the town of Krasnyy Luch, Lugansk region, Ukraine.\n5.  In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnolutskyy Town Court against her former employer, the Knyagininska State Mining Company (Шахта «Княгинінська» ДХК «Донбасантрацит»), for salary arrears and compensation for moral damage. On 5 June 2003 the court awarded the applicant 3,300.02[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Краснолуцького міського суду Луганської області).\n6.  In July 2003 the Krasnolutskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n7.  By letter of 2 June 2004, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the debtor's accounts had been frozen, that it was impossible to seize the debtor's property because the debtor was a State enterprise.\n8.  On 25 March 2005 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor enterprise.\n9.  The applicant received UAH 1,187.98; according to her, the rest of the debt remains unpaid.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2273", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the city of Zhytomyr, Ukraine.\n5.  On 12 September 1995 the applicant had a quarrel with his neighbours, Mr and Ms L., which led to a fight. The applicant was arrested by the police and brought to the police station.\n6.  On 13 September 1995 the Zhytomyr District Court fined the applicant 150 000 karbovanets (1.5 UAH)[1] for the administrative offence of swearing in a public place.\n7.  On 22 September 1995 the Zhytomyr District Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant upon the complaint of Mr and Ms L. for inflicting medium bodily harm on Mr L.\nOn 20 December 1995 the police investigator instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for extremely malicious hooliganism (особо злостное хулиганство).\n8.  On 18 January 1996 the applicant was formally charged with the extremely malicious hooliganism and gave a written undertaking not to abscond.\n9.  On 7 February 1996 the investigation was completed and the applicant was given access to the case-file.\n10.  On 20 February 1996 the applicant finished consulting the case-file.\n11.  On 12 March 1996 the investigation was resumed. The proceedings against the applicant for extremely malicious hooliganism were discontinued. Instead, he was charged with inflicting medium bodily harm.\n12.  On 14 March 1996 the investigation was completed and the applicant was given access to the case-file. He finished consulting the case-file on the same day.\n13.  On 19 March 1996 the case was referred to the Zhytomyr District Court.\n14.  On 30 May 1996 the court ordered a forensic examination and adjourned the hearing.\n15.  On 16 July 1996 the court ordered an additional forensic examination and adjourned the hearing.\n16.  On 24 October 1996 the court sentenced the applicant to two years' imprisonment with one year's probation. The court confirmed the obligation not to abscond, i.e. not to leave his place of residence, as a restrictive measure.\n17.  On 26 November 1996 the Zhytomyr Regional Court upheld the decision of the first instance court.\n18.  On 6 June 1997 the Presidium of the Zhytomyr Regional Court quashed the decisions of 24 October and 26 November 1996 under the supervisory review procedure and remitted the case for an additional investigation.\n19.  On 23 June 1998 the General Prosecutor's Office (“the GPO”) closed the criminal case against the applicant and quashed the preventive measure imposed on him. On 26 August 1998 this decision was quashed and the case was reopened.\n20.  On 2 October 1998 the case was again closed and the preventive measure was quashed. On 29 October 1998 the decision of 2 October 1998 was quashed. The applicant maintained that in November 1998 he had requested a permission to visit his sick mother in another town in Ukraine, but had been refused. The case was then closed on 10 January 1999, being finally reopened on 13 January 1999. On 11 March 1999 the applicant once again gave his obligation not to leave his place of residence.\n21.  On 30 October 1999 the case was sent to the Zhytomyr District Court.\n22.  On 4 November 1999 the court found the case ready for examination and scheduled the hearing for 26 January 2000.\n23.  On 26 January 2000 the court heard the merits of the case and adjourned the hearing till 20 March 2000.\n24.  On 20 March 2000 the court postponed the hearing due to the failure of the applicant's lawyer to appear.\n25.  On 4 April 2000 the court heard the merits of the case a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2274", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Lugansk.\n5.  On 8 August 2001 the Leninskyy District Court of Lugansk ordered the State Enterprise “Luganskyy Stankobudivelnyy Zavod” to pay the applicant UAH 2,575.34[1] in salary arrears and compensation for the delay in its payment.\n6.  On 13 September 2001 the Leninskyy District Bailiffs' Service of Lugansk instituted enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On 13 November 2002 the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the decisions in his favour had not been executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the debtor's lack of funds.\n8.  On 19 April 2005 the applicant was paid the amount due to him in full.\n9.  In April 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court of Lugansk against the same company, seeking compensation for its failure to pay him the judgment debt of 8 August 2001.\n10.  On 8 July 2002 the court rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. On 5 September 2002 and 28 January 2003, respectively, the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 8 July 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2275", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation (ORF), a public law foundation (Stiftung öffentlichen Rechts) with its seat in Vienna.\n5.  On 13 July 1999 the applicant broadcast information on the evening news of its regional television channel about the release on parole of K., head of a neo-Nazi organisation called Extra-Parliamentary Opposition True to the People (Volkstreue Ausserparlamentarische Opposition – “VAPO”) who had been sentenced under the National Socialist Prohibition Act (Verbotsgesetz, “the Prohibition Act”). This news item also mentioned his deputy S., who had been convicted under the Prohibition Act in 1995 and had been released on parole five weeks earlier. Its text ran as follows:\n“For years G. K. [full name] was known as the head of the Austrian neo-Nazi scene. But it was only after the strengthening of the Prohibition Act in 1992 that he was charged and sentenced to eleven years' imprisonment. Many other members of the VAPO were put behind bars along with him, among them H.-J. S.[full name] – who has also recently been released. K.[family name], now aged 41, made the headlines even while in prison in Krems, for instance at the first letter bomb trial. His release today, however, took place without much ado. Waiting journalists saw nothing but his belongings packed in boxes.”\n6.  While the third sentence of this text was broadcast, a picture showing S. at his trial in 1995 was broadcast for a couple of seconds.\n7.  The news item was followed by a brief statement of the commentator. He stated that K. had served seven and a half years of his sentence. The Public Prosecutor had opposed his release on parole, but the Vienna Court of Appeal had granted K.'s request, having refused his first request for early release in 1997.\n8.  On 23 September 1999 S. brought proceedings under Section 78 of the Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz), requesting that the applicant be prohibited from publishing his picture without his consent accompanied by any text stating that he had been convicted under the Prohibition Act once the sentence had been executed or once he had been released on parole. In addition he requested a preliminary injunction to that effect.\n9.  In its submissions in reply (Klagebeantwortung) the applicant asserted that it had reported on true facts. As regards the publication of the applicant's picture the applicant referred to the Supreme Court's established case-law that Section 78 of the Copyright Act had to be interpreted in the light of Section 7a of the Media Act (see below). Given that S. was an adult who had been convicted of a crime, it followed from Section 7a (2) of the Media Act that the publication of his picture only violated his legitimate interests if it substantially prejudiced his economic advancement. Even if the claimant's legitimate interests were affected, they had to be weighed against the public interest in the publication. In the present case, the public interest was predominant, given that VAPO was an organisation which aimed at destroying the Austrian constitutional order and that two of its leading members, namely K. and the claimant, had been released from prison within a short period. Other media including two leading daily newspapers had also mentioned S.'s release in the context of reports on K.'s release. Finally, the applicant emphasised that under the relevant broadcasting laws it even had an obligation to impart information on political issues.\n10.  On 11 November 199", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2276", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Derbent, the Republic of Dagestan.\n5.  The applicant at the material time was performing contractual military service in a military unit in the Republic of Dagestan. On 16 December 1999 he was examined by the Military Medical Commission in Kislovodsk (военно-врачебная комиссия ОВГ г. Кисловодск) and found fit for military service. The only illness recorded was mild myopia of the left eye.\n6.  On 21 December 1999, at 9.30 a.m., the applicant was taken by police officers to the Derbent Town Police Station (Дербентское ГОВД) to be questioned, apparently as a witness, in connection with an investigation of an incident of violent hooliganism.\n7.  The applicant submits that during his stay in the police station from 21 to 24 December 1999 he was continuously beaten by up to five police officers who were trying to coerce him to confess of having committed the above offence.\n8.  The police officers punched the applicant in the area of his left ear and neck. They pushed him down on the floor, kicked him and hit him with a chair-leg. During the beatings the police officers threatened the applicant that a harsh sentence would be imposed on him and that they would physically abuse and sodomise him.\n9.  On the second day, the police officers tied the applicant up and started to punch him in his face and body and hit him with a chair-leg. They undressed the applicant and tried to seat him with his naked rear on a bottle which they put on the floor, whereupon the applicant agreed to their demands and wrote a confession letter. Furthermore, it appears that there was no transcript of the applicant's arrest drawn up throughout the whole duration of his stay in custody.\n(b) The applicant's release and medical examination\n10.  On 24 December 1999, at 6.00 p.m., the applicant was handed over to three fellow servicemen who accompanied him to his military unit. Upon arrival in his unit the applicant reported to the chief of the headquarters (начальник штаба). At about 8.00 p.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor of the medical unit. The doctor's report contained, inter alia, the following conclusions:\n“...A scabbed abrasion of skin, 0.5 x 1.0 cm, and a yellow-green bruise are displayed on the left ear. Palpation of the left part of the body is painful. Yellow-green bruises are displayed on the right side and in the middle of the anterior surface of the chest, 4 x 6 cm and 4 x 5 cm. [P]alpation of the anterior surface of the chest is painful. Diagnosis: Soft tissue bruises on the head and body.”\n11.  It appears that on 25 December 1999 the applicant was examined by the head of the medical unit who confirmed the findings made in the doctor's report and entered them into the applicant's medical chart.\n(c) The applicant's complaints in respect of the alleged ill-treatment\n12.  Following the transfer of the criminal case against the applicant to the relevant Military Prosecutor's Office, it appears that the applicant complained orally to the investigator dealing with his case about the ill-treatment in police custody and presented copies of the above medical report and medical chart. It appears, however, that his complaints remained unexamined.\n13.  On 23 March 2000 the applicant's counsel and his father complained in writing to the Derbent Town Prosecutor (прокурор г. Дербента) that, at the time of his arrest, the applicant had on him certain personal belongings which had not been returned to him and requested t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2277", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 14 April 1992 the Imotski Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Imotskom) gave judgment ordering a certain A.B. to pay the applicant the equivalent of 14,000 German marks in Yugoslav dinars.\n6.  On 10 December 1992 the applicant applied for enforcement of the above judgment. Shortly afterwards the court issued a writ of execution by seizure of A.B.'s movable property.\n7.  It appears that before 5 November 1997 (the date of the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia) the court made several unsuccessful attempts to seize A.B.'s movables.\n8.  On 17 July 2000 the court ordered A.B. to disclose his assets (prokazni popis imovine). However, since A.B. failed to comply with that order, on 3 September 2001 the applicant asked that the enforcement be carried out on the A.B.'s bank accounts.\n9.  The court held a hearing on 25 April 2002 concerning the applicant's proposal and on 14 May 2002 sent letters to all banks in the Imotski region asking for information of A.B.'s bank accounts.\n10.  Since the banks' replies lacked certain information, the court again sent letters to the banks on 12 December 2002 asking for further details of A.B.'s bank accounts.\n11.  The hearing scheduled for 2 October 2003 was adjourned because the applicant failed to appear.\n12.  On 12 January 2004 the applicant asked that the enforcement be carried out on A.B.'s account in a bank in Zagreb.\n13.  The court issued a new writ of execution on 13 April 2004.\n14.  On 8 April 2005 the court held a hearing in order to verify compliance with the writ of execution.\n15.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending since neither party informed the Court of the contrary.\n16.  Meanwhile, on 24 June 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining in substance about the length of the above enforcement proceedings. On 4 May 2004 that court replied, without issuing a formal decision, that it lacked jurisdiction since the applicant did not file his complaint against any individual decision issued by a State body.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2278", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the village of Kovsharivka, the Kharkiv Region.\n5.  On 24 July 1997 the labour disputes commission of the Joint Stock Company “Kupyanskiy Lyvarniy Zavod” (“the KLZ”), in which the State held 66.18% of the share capital, ordered the company to pay the applicant UAH 1,017[1] in salary arrears.\n6.  In August 1997 the Kupyansk Town Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On 14 December 2004 the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be enforced due to the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001 and the debtor's lack of funds.\n8.  On 3 February 2006 the decision of 24 July 1997 was enforced in full.\n9.  On 24 September 2003 the Kupyansk Town Court ordered the Joint Stock Company “Kupyanskiy Chavunolyvarniy Zavod”, in which the KLZ held 49% of the share capital, to pay the applicant UAH 920.16[2] in salary arrears.\n10.  On 28 November 2003 the same court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal against the judgment of 24 September 2003 for failure to comply with procedural formalities. On 20 February 2004 the court rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation on the ground that the judgment was not appealed against under the ordinary appeal procedure.\n11.  The applicant did not apply to the Bailiffs' Service for the execution of the judgment of 24 September 2003. It remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2279", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Limbuš.\n6.  On 6 June 1994 the applicant instituted execution proceedings in the Maribor Basic Court, Maribor Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Mariboru, Enota v Mariboru) against Obrtna zadruga Trgokooperant Maribor (“OZTN”) seeking payment of unpaid salaries as determined by court judgments of 31 March 1993 and 27 January 1994.\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.\nOn 12 September 1994 the court allowed the execution.\nOn 16 September 1994 OZTN opposed the execution order and on 21 October 1994 requested that the execution be adjourned.\nOn 1 January 1995 the Maribor Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Mariboru) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.\nOn 19 May 1995 the applicant partially withdrew his action for enforcement because OZTN had paid its debt in part. At the same time he sought payment of additional unpaid salaries.\nOn 25 August 1995 OZTN amended its objection.\nThe court scheduled a hearing for 21 October 1997, but OZTN and its legal representative failed to appear before the court. Therefore, the court adjourned the hearing until 4 November 1997. This hearing was held and then adjourned to give the parties the opportunity to settle the case outside the court.\nThe court held a new hearing on 4 December 1997 which was adjourned until 27 January 1998 because OZTN failed to attend. On the latter date the heading was cancelled. It was adjourned sine die because the judge presiding over the case was absent.\nOn 11 February 1998 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.\nOn 22 December 1998 the court held a hearing and decided to appoint a financial expert to determine the amount due. The court also made an enquiry with the tax authorities.\nOn 19 January 1998 the applicant informed the court that he had paid the advance on costs and expenses of the expert. On 10 March and 19 July 1999 he urged the court to appoint the expert as decided on 22 December 1998.\nOn 31 August 1999 the applicant lodged a request for an injunction to prevent OZTN to sell its property, which was rejected on 9 November 1999.\nOn 28 September 1999 the court held a hearing. OZTN explained that it had not paid its share of the advance on costs and expenses of the expert because it hoped that an out-of-court settlement would be reached in the case.\nOn 13 October 1999 OZTN submitted a proposal for a friendly settlement.\nOn 11 November 1999 the applicant, upon retaining a new representative, rejected OZTN's offer.\nOn 22 November 1999 OZTN informed the court that it had paid the advance on costs and expenses of the expert.\nOn 9 March 2000 the court appointed a financial expert. Initially, she informed the court that she could not take over the production of an expert opinion due to too much work, but she subsequently submitted an expert opinion in this case. On 23 January 2001 the opinion was served on the applicant.\nIn the meanwhile, on 20 January 2000, the applicant requested the court to speed up the proceedings.\nOn 17 May 2001 the case was transferred to a new judge for an unknown reason.\nOn 16 August 2001 the applicant informed the court that he had no objections to the expert opinion and requested the court to decide the case.\nOn 28 November 2001 and again on 28 March 2003 OZTN requested the court to refer the applicant to institute contentious proceedings in order to establish his claim. On 10 September 2002 it requested the court to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2280", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  The applicant was married to A.N. They divorced on 7 October 1991.\n7.  On 7 August 1992 the applicant instituted non-contentious civil proceedings against A.N. in the Ljubljana Basic Court, Ljubljana Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani, Enota Ljubljana) seeking the division of their common property. To this end she submitted a proposal. Upon the request of the court, the applicant submitted an amendment to her proposal on 5 October 1992.\nOn 22 October and 25 March 1993 the court held a hearing where the parties settled the case in part. For the remainder of the property at issue, the court established that there was a dispute over its ownership.\nOn 22 October 1993 the court issued a decision referring the applicant to institute contentious civil proceedings against A.N. in order to determine the ownership of the garage (see below paragraphs 8 through 11). At the same time, the court ordered A.N. to institute contentious civil proceedings against the applicant to establish the size of his share in the apartment the parties owned jointly.\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia.\nOn 1 January 1995 the Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.\nAt an undetermined time, but after 9 February 2000, the Ljubljana Local Court scheduled a hearing in the non-contentious proceedings for 25 May 2001.\nOn 24 May 2001 the applicant informed the court that the parties had settled the remainder of the case and withdrew her proposal of 7 August 1992. Consequently, the court terminated the proceedings on 25 May 2001.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 28 May 2001 and became final on 19 June 2001.\n8.  On 3 December 1993 A.N. instituted contentious proceedings against the applicant in the Ljubljana Basic Court, Ljubljana Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani, Enota Ljubljana). The applicant did not institute proceedings against A.N. of which she informed the court on 15 November 1994.\nOn 1 January 1995 the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.\nOn 13 June 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings against A.N. in the Ljubljana District Court seeking equal share of their common apartment.\nOn 21 October 1996 the applicant requested priority treatment for her case.\nOn 28 November 1996 the applicant requested the court to issue an interlocutory measure prohibiting A.N. to encumber or give up the apartment.\nOn 5 December 1996, upon the request of A.N., the Ljubljana District Court joined both sets of proceedings and issued the interlocutory measure sought by the applicant.\nOn 24 January 1997 the applicant again sought priority treatment for her case. On 11 February 1997 the court informed her that her case did not require a priority treatment.\nBetween 26 March 1997 and 12 November 1997 the court held five hearings. It heard ten witnesses and both parties.\nOn 19 December 1997 the court held a hearing where the parties settled the case in part. The court issued a judgment holding that the applicant owned thirty per cent of the apartment and A.N. the rest. It also ordered A.N. to pay rent to the applicant for the time he had been using the apartment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 15 January 1998.\n9.  On 30 January 1998 the applicant appealed to th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2281", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in the town of Dniprodzerzhynsk.\n5.  On 1 August 1999 the applicant's husband died due to the fault of an employee of the Dniprodzerzhynskelektrotrans Municipal Enterprise.\n6.  On 3 September 2001 the Bagaliyskiy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk ordered the company to pay the applicant UAH 5,825.90[1] in compensation.\n7.  On 26 June 2002 the Zavodskiy District Bailiffs' Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings due to the debtor's lack of funds and the applicant's refusal to take the debtor's property instead of the money.\n8.  On 17 June 2003 the company was declared bankrupt and the liquidation proceedings were initiated against it.\n9.  The judgment remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2282", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Riga, Latvia.\n5.  The applicant was married to Mrs M., a Ukrainian national. They lived in Ukraine. They have a son, N., who was born in 2000. Mrs M. also had another child, M., who was adopted by the applicant in November 2002.\n6.  In January 2003 the applicant left Ukraine and in April 2003 the applicant and Mrs M. divorced.\n7.  On 24 June 2003 Mrs M. wrote a letter to the Head of the Department for Combating Organised Crime of the Ministry of the Interior requesting that the applicant be banned from entering Ukraine. Mrs M. complained, in particular, that in June 2003 the applicant had come to Cannes, France, where their son N. had been on holidays with a nurse, and had threatened to take N. away. She further stated that in his previous marriage the applicant had inflicted grievous bodily harm on his wife.\n8.  On 26 June 2003 the Ministry of the Interior sent a request to the State Committee of Border Control to ban the applicant from entering Ukraine.\n9.  On 27 June 2003 the State Committee for Border Control informed the Ministry that Mr. Hunt was prohibited from entering Ukraine for five years. The applicant learned about this decision shortly afterwards.\n10.  In November 2003 the applicant was informed by Mr T., his lawyer in another civil case, that his former wife had lodged a claim with the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv seeking to deprive the applicant of his parental rights with respect to his natural son N. The applicant could not be present in the court due to the prohibition on entering Ukraine, but was represented before the court by his lawyer, Mr T.\n11.  On 5 December 2003 the first-instance court found for Mrs M. and decided to deprive the applicant of his parental rights. The court based its decision on the fact that the applicant did not fulfil his parental duties properly, in particular he did not participate in bringing up the child, did not contact him and had lost any interest towards him. The court also took into consideration that the applicant had not complained to the local tutelage and supervision board that Mrs M. refused him access to the child. The court disregarded the applicant's argument about the impossibility of participating in the up-bringing of the child due to the prohibition on entering the country, stating that the applicant had not met his son since January 2003.\nAccording to the Government, the domestic courts had been aware that the applicant had deliberately indicated false data on his place and date of birth in official documents and that he had been previously criminally prosecuted and had never been formally acquitted.\n12.  This decision was appealed against by the applicant's representative to the Kyiv City Court of Appeal. In the appeal it was mentioned that the conclusion of the court of first instance that the applicant did not want to meet his son was incorrect, since in her request of 24 June 2003 to the police Mrs M. had clearly mentioned his attempt to see their son in June 2003. It was also mentioned that the applicant had tried to lodge a request with the tutelage and supervision board of the Pechersky Local Administration of Kyiv, but had been informed that his presence was required in order for the request to be examined. The representative complained that the court of first instance heard only witnesses of the opposing party, who had been employed by Mrs M. He noted that the court had not sought to receive first-hand informa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2283", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the town of Gorlivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  On an unspecified date, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno-miskyy District Court against her former employer, the Artemvugillya State Mining Company (Управління по гасінню териконів в/о „Артемвугілля”), to recover salary arrears. On 17 November 1998 the court awarded the applicant 2,864.16[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Центрально-міського районного суду м.Горлівки).\n6.  On 1 February 1999 the Tsentralno-miskyy District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Управління юстиції Центрально-міського району м.Горлівки) initiated the enforcement proceedings. On 28 March 2000 the applicant was paid UAH 665.28. From 20 June 2000 until 8 February 2001 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because of the bankruptcy proceedings instituted against the debtor. On 14 May 2003 the applicant was paid further UAH 333.03.\n7.  On an unspecified date, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno-miskyy District Court of the town of Gorlivka against the Tsentralno-miskyy Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the court judgment in her favour. On 2 December 2003 the court rejected the applicant's claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs' Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs' Service had acted properly in enforcing the judgment of 17 November 1998. The court noted that the debtor's property was in a tax lien and that, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State held at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced.\n8.  On 7 October 2005 the Government submitted that the applicant had further received UAH 261.88 and 677.04 in 2004. The applicant did not contest these submissions. According to the applicant, the rest of the sum due to her remains unpaid.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2284", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 5 October 1995 the applicant filed a civil action seeking damages with the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against the weekly magazine A. (“the respondent”), claiming that it had published a libellous article about him.\n6.  The court held several hearings before 5 November 1997, the date of the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia.\n7.  At the hearing on 1 October 1998 the court heard a witness.\n8.  The hearing scheduled for 19 November 1998 was adjourned for 12 March 1999 when the court heard another witness and an expert.\n9.  At the next hearing on 2 February 2000 the court heard yet another witness and concluded the main hearing. On the same day, it gave judgment dismissing the applicant's claim. The judgment was served on the applicant on 10 April 2000.\n10.  On 14 April 2000 the applicant appealed against the first instance judgment. On 15 October 2002 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed that judgment and remitted the case.\n11.  On 10 December 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining about the length of the proceedings.\n12.  On 22 March 2004 the Zagreb Municipal Court held a hearing and adopted a new judgment granting the applicant's claim in part. The applicant appealed against the judgment and the proceedings are still pending before the second instance court.\n13.  On 17 June 2004 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint of 10 December 2002 as ill-founded. It took into consideration the period of some five years (between the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia and the filing of the constitutional complaint by the applicant), finding that the competent courts had acted expeditiously, while it observed that the proceedings had been somewhat complex.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2285", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Ameisberg.\n5.  On 21 November 1994, while driving his car in reverse gear, he knocked a pedestrian over and drove off.\n6.  On 8 March 1995 the Salzburg District Court (Bezirksgericht) issued a provisional penal order (Strafverfügung), following which the applicant was found guilty under Article 88 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) of having negligently caused bodily harm and under Article 94 of the Criminal Code of having abandoned the victim. The applicant was ordered to pay a fine of 12,800 Austrian schillings (ATS) (approximately 930 euros (EUR)). The applicant objected and the District Court opened ordinary criminal proceedings.\n7.  On 11 July 1995 the court held a hearing in which it examined several witnesses, the applicant and an expert who submitted that the applicant had not necessarily noticed the accident. Subsequently, on 1 August 1995, the court convicted the applicant of having negligently caused bodily harm and acquitted him of having abandoned the victim. It sentenced him to a fine of ATS 3,200 (approximately EUR 230), suspended on probation. The applicant did not appeal.\n8.  Meanwhile, having interviewed the applicant in February 1995, the Salzburg Federal Police Authority (Bundespolizeidirektion) issued a penal order on 17 May 1995 whereby the applicant was found guilty under section 4(2) in conjunction with section 99(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act (Straßenverkehrsordnung) of having failed to inform the next police station about the accident. The applicant was ordered to pay a fine of ATS 4,000 (approximately EUR 290). He appealed on 6 June 1995.\n9.  On 19 February 1996 the Salzburg Independent Administrative Panel (“the IAP” – Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat), having held a public hearing on 12 February 1996 in which it heard evidence from several witnesses in the presence of the applicant's counsel, dismissed the applicant's appeal. It found that the applicant should have looked behind him when he reversed his car and, therefore, was to be blamed for carelessly failing to notice the accident. It further dismissed the applicant's argument that he had been tried twice in respect of the same offence in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, as it found that the administrative offence in issue did not relate to the same conduct as the criminal offences.\n10.  On 9 April 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). On 4 September 1996 he amended his complaint.\n11.  During the period in question the Constitutional Court was in the process of reviewing the lawfulness of specific provisions of the Road Traffic Act. This review was concluded on 9 October 1997, when the Constitutional Court declared part of these provisions unconstitutional.\n12.  Subsequently, on 10 October 1997, the Constitutional Court quashed the IAP's decision of 19 February 1996. This decision was served on the applicant's counsel on 5 November 1997.\n13 Thereafter, on 17 November 1997, the IAP allowed the applicant's appeal of 6 June 1995 in part and reduced the fine to ATS 2,500 (approximately EUR 180). It further ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings. The IAP stressed that there was no breach of Article 4 of Protocol no. 7 to the Convention. In particular, the offence of abandoning a victim under the Criminal Code presupposed intent while the offence under the Road Traffic Act also included negligent behaviour. The offences for which the applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2286", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1953 respectively and live in Kherson. They are former employees of the OJSC “Dnipro” (“the Dnipro,” ВАТ “Дніпро”). At the material time the State owned more than 25% of the Dnipro's shares. The company was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.”\n5.  On 16 October 1996 the State Property Fund (Фонд державного майна України) ordered the creation of the Dnipro's subsidiary company “Energiya” (the “Subsidiary,” ДП “Енергія”). The applicants were reassigned to the Subsidiary.\n6.  On various dates the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Komsomolsky District Court of Kherson (the “District Court,” Комсомольський районний суд м. Херсона) against the Subsidiary for salary arrears and other payments.\n7.  On 16 January and 18 August 2001 and 11 March 2002, the District Court awarded UAH 5,161.07[1], UAH 2,490.74[2] and UAH 1,167.60[3] respectively in favour of Ms Spas.\n8.  On 16 January and 16 July 2001 and 11 March 2002, the District Court awarded UAH 6,381[4], UAH 1,728.79[5] and UAH 602.24[6] respectively in favour of Ms Voyna.\n9.  The judgments given in favour of the applicants were not appealed against, became final and the writs of enforcement were transferred to the Komsomolsky District Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Комсомольського районного управління юстиції в м. Херсоні) for enforcement.\n10.  On 27 April 2001 the Bailiffs attached the Subsidiary's equipment for forced sale. However, the sale was cancelled, as Bailiffs learned that the equipment was formally owned by the Dnipro, held in a tax lien and subject to a moratorium on the forced sale (see paragraph 4 above).\n11.  On 2 November 2001 each applicant received UAH 300[7] of the awards due to them under the judgments given in their favour.\n12.  On 4 April 2002 the Kherson Regional Commercial Court (Господарський суд Херсонської області) declared the Subsidiary bankrupt and ordered its liquidation, which was completed by 25 May 2004.\n13.  The judgments given in favour of the applicants remain largely unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2287", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Krasnyy Luch, the Lugansk region.\n5.  In 2001 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) against his employer, the OJSC “Krasnyy Luch” (“the Company,” ВАТ “Красний Луч”), for salary arrears and other payments. At the material time the State owned 100% of the Company's shares. The Company was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.”\n6.  On 17 January 2002 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded the applicant UAH 1,435.27.[1] This judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n7.  On 5 March 2002 the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings in relation to this judgment.\n8.  The judgment was enforced on 28 February 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2288", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the town of Nizhyn, Chernigov region, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Nizhynskyy Town Court against her former employer, the State-owned “Nizhynsilmash” enterprise (ВАТ «Ніжинсільмаш»), to recover salary arrears.\n6.  On 3 October 2000 the court awarded the applicant 501.49[1] Ukrainian hrivnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Ніжинського міського суду).\n7.  In October 2000 the Nizhyn Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Ніжинського міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings. By letter of 28 January 2002, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that it was not possible to sell the debtor's property as, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced. It also stated that the debtor's property was in a tax lien.\n8.  On 29 May 2003 the judgment was enforced.\n9.  In June 2001 the applicant instituted new proceedings in the same court against the same enterprise to receive further payments and compensation.\n10.  On 11 July 2001 the court found for the applicant and awarded her UAH 275. On 13 December 2001 the Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and awarded the applicant UAH 440.24[2] (Ухвала Апеляційного суду Чернігівської області). On 7 June 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.\n11.  In July 2004 the judgment of 13 December 2001 was enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2289", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  On 18 October 1994 the applicant started working for the company called IP Aplrem (“IPA”). The employment contract was signed on 2 November 1994. On 8 November 1994 the Board of Employees of IPA (delavski svet, “the Board”) found that the director did not have the necessary authority to sign the employment contract and declared the contract void.\n7.  On 24 November 1994 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) against IPA contesting the Board's decision and seeking payment of salaries.\nOn 16 October 1995 the court held a hearing because the respondent did neither appear before the court nor send a reply to the claim.\nOn 4 December 1995 the court held a hearing and requested the respondent to submit some documents.\nOn 31 January and 13 March 1996 the court held hearings.\nAfter the latter hearing, the court issued a partial judgment and upheld the applicant's claim, annulled the contested decision and ordered that the applicant be reinstituted to the post of head of financial department. The determination of the amount of damages was adjourned. The decision was served on the applicant on 19 August 1996.\n8.  On 2 September 1996 IPA lodged an appeal with the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče).\nOn 7 May 1998 the court allowed the appeal in part and ordered that the applicant be reemployed and appointed to a post corresponding to his knowledge and skills. The judgment was served on the applicant on 5 June 1998.\n9.  On 1 July 1998 IPA lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of the second-instance court with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče), which was amended on 3 July 1998.\nOn 22 July 1998 the applicant was withheld from work with reduced pay (čakanje na delo), because the composition proceedings (postopek prisilne poravnave) had started against IPA and the company was reducing the number of employees.\n10.  In the meanwhile, on 1 July 1998, the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court held a hearing with regard to the remainder of the applicants claims. The hearing was adjourned while the proceedings before the Supreme Court were pending.\nOn 8 June 1998 IPA reinstituted the applicant to his post.\nOn 22 December 1998 the court dismissed the appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 18 February 1999.\nOn 7 August 1998 the applicant was made redundant.\nOn 3 March 1999 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court held a hearing and ordered the respondent to calculate the amount of unpaid salaries owed to the applicant.\nOn 15 April 1999 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.\nOn 16 April 1999 the court held a hearing where the applicant amended his claim. Consequently, the hearing was adjourned to give the respondent time to prepare a reply.\nOn 19 May 1999 the court held a hearing and decided to appoint a financial expert to calculate the amount of salaries due. The appointed expert delivered the opinion on 29 June 1999.\nOn 19 July 1999 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.\nOn 20 October 1999 the court held a hearing and, upon request of the respondent, sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert. The expert delivered the amended opinion on 16 November 1999.\nOn 26 January 2000 the court held a hearing and the applicant amended his claim.\nOn 18 February 2000 the court held a hearing and delivered a judgment upholding the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2290", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and resides in the town of Novovolynsk, Volyn region, Ukraine.\n5.  In November 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novovolynskyy Town Court against his former employer, State Mining Company No.1 “Novovolynska” (Шахта №1 „Нововолинська”), for salary arrears and other payments due to him. On 11 December 2000 the court awarded the applicant 34,207.10[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) in compensation for industrial disease and in other payments (Рішення Нововолинського міського суду Волинської області).\n6.  On 12 January 2001 the Novovolynskyy District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Нововолинського міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n7.  By the letters of 19 February and 10 April 2002, and 23 December 2003, the Novovolynskyy District Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that it was not possible to sell the debtor's property as, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001, a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced. It also stated that the debtor's property was in a tax lien.\n8.  In 2001-2004 the court judgment was enforced by instalments, the final amount being paid on 6 December 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2291", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Caralevë, in the municipality of Shtime (Kosovo).\n5.  On 28 April 1993 the applicant married F.M., an Albanian national. The couple had a child, I.B., who was born on 20 January 1997. In 1998 the applicant and F.M. separated.\n6.  F.M., together with her daughter, moved to her parents’ house in Vlora, Albania.\n7.  On 6 May 1999, using forged documents, the applicant’s wife married another person without being divorced from the applicant.\n8.  It appears that on 15 September 1999 the Vlora District Court annulled F.M.’s second marriage. On an unspecified date she married H.I., an Albanian national who resided in Greece.\n9.  During the years that followed F.M.’s third marriage, she frequently travelled to Greece, leaving her daughter for long periods with her parents in Vlora, or taking her to Greece without the applicant’s consent.\n10.  F.M. and her parents prohibited the applicant from having contact with his daughter. Since his separation from F.M., the applicant has been permitted to see his daughter only twice, in September 2000 and May 2003.\n11.  On 24 June 2003 the applicant brought divorce proceedings before the Vlora District Court.\n12.  On 26 June 2003 the applicant requested the Vlora Police District to block his daughter’s passport in view of the fact that his wife was planning to take her to Greece without his consent.\n13.  Despite the applicant’s requests to the Vlora Police District, it appears that his wife took the child to Greece on 15 January 2004, using an official certificate in which the applicant’s daughter had been registered with the name I.M., using F.M.’s surname.\n14.  The applicant’s wife was not present at the hearings. The latter’s father testified before the court that his grandchild was in Greece with her mother, who resided there as an economic refugee.\n15.  On 4 February 2004 the Vlora District Court decreed the parties’ divorce. The court granted custody of the child to the applicant, having regard to the wife’s lack of interest in the child’s life, the instability of her residential arrangements and her long periods of separation from the child.\n16.  On 19 March 2004 the divorce and custody decisions became final.\n17.  On 5 April 2004 the Vlora District Court issued a writ for the enforcement of the Vlora District Court’s judgment of 4 February 2004.\n18.  On 13 July 2004 the Vlora Bailiffs’ Office informed the applicant that it was impossible to enforce the judgment since the child was not in Albania.\n19.  On 15 August 2004 and 13 January 2005 the applicant applied to the Albanian Ministry of Justice to secure the return of his daughter.\n20.  On 11 January 2005, when questioned by the bailiffs, F.M.’s father declared that F.M. and the child were living abroad and that he had no news of their whereabouts. The bailiffs went to F.M.’s home on three occasions between January 2005 and May 2005.\n21.  In May 2005 the Selenice District Police Station informed the bailiffs that F.M. and her daughter were not living in Athens and that F.M.’s father had moved to an unknown address in Tirana.\n22.  In July 2005 the Bailiffs’ Office informed the applicant that in order to comply with the bilateral agreement between Albania and Greece he had to introduce a request and specify the precise address of the child in Greece.\n23.  The applicant sent numerous requests to the Albanian authorities, the Greek Embassy in Albania, the Ombudsperson of Albania (Avokati i Popullit) and th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2292", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 25 June 1987 the Istanbul Municipality decided to expropriate two houses that belonged to the applicant and located in Beyoğlu, Istanbul. The applicant filed an action before the Istanbul Administrative Court to annul the decision of the Municipality. On 22 December 1993 the Administrative Court dismissed his request. A committee of experts assessed the value of the property at 11.590.000 Turkish Liras (TRL), and this amount was consequently paid to the applicant when the expropriation took place.\n7.  On 18 January 1994 the applicant filed an action before the Beyoğlu Civil Court of General Jurisdiction for increased compensation.\n8.  On 28 May 1998 there was a hearing attended by neither the applicant nor his lawyer. Subsequently, the court decided to close the case until the applicant renewed his petition. On 5 June 1998, following the new petition filed by the applicant’s lawyer, the case was resumed.\n9.  Twenty three hearings were held before the Beyoğlu Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, during six of which neither the applicant nor his lawyer were present.\n10.  On 16 July 1998 the court awarded the applicant TRL 615.478.000[1] of additional compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate, as of 22 December 1993.\n11.  Following the applicant’s appeal, on 19 December 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Beyoğlu court. This decision was notified to the applicant on 26 January 2001.\n12.  The applicant requested the Court of Cassation to rectify its decision. On 23 March 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request.\n13.  In his observations dated 30 June 2006, the applicant informed the Registry that he had not yet been paid the award determined by the first-instance court on 16 July 1998.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2293", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Košice. He is a self‑employed entrepreneur. In that capacity he had dealings with a private company S. which included arranging insurance for its vehicles.\n5.  On 6 August 1993 S. brought a civil action against the applicant in the Košice II District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd) claiming a sum of money in connection with their previous business.\n6.  On 11 August 1993 the Košice II District Court found that the action fell within the jurisdiction of the Košice I District Court and decided to transmit the case to the latter.\n7.  On 10 December 1993 the Košice II District Court quashed its above decision of 11 August 1993 on the ground that, according to up-to-date information, the defendant’s business was within its judicial district. The case thus remained with the Košice II District Court.\n8.  On 19 August and 24 October 1994 the District Court requested the defendant to pay court fees and to specify its claim for legal costs. The defendant replied on 30 September and 19 December 1994, respectively.\n9.  On 28 December 1994, in summary proceedings, the District Court issued a payment order (platobný rozkaz) against the applicant for the amount claimed.\n10.  On 19 January 1995 the applicant successfully appealed (protest). The order was ex lege vacated and the matter fell to be determined in ordinary proceedings.\n11.  On 16 June and 25 October 1995 the District Court requested the applicant to pay court fees for his appeal. The applicant replied that he could not pay as he had no money, but he eventually paid on 9 February 1996.\n12.  The District Court held hearings on 24 January and 30 May 1997. Both hearings were adjourned, the former due to the absence of the plaintiff’s lawyer, the latter at the plaintiff’s request since he wished to explore the possibility of settling the case out-of-court.\n13.  On 26 February 1998 the applicant counter‑claimed that the defendant owed him money and sought an order for repayment.\n14.  Another hearing was scheduled for 17 March 1998 but did not take place because the judge was absent for health reasons.\n15.  On 9 June 1999 the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) declared the plaintiff company insolvent and appointed a receiver. As a result, by operation of Article 14 § 1 (d) of the Bankruptcy Code (Law no. 328/1991 Coll., as amended), all actions by and against the plaintiff were automatically stayed. However, under that provision, actions by the insolvent entity could resume if their defendants so required.\n16.  In a letter of 16 June 1999 the District Court informed the applicant that the proceedings had been stayed.\n17.  The proceedings are still stayed.\n18.  The insolvency order was issued on 9 June 1999 and, in the absence of an appeal, it became final on 1 July 1999.\n19.  On 2 August 1999 the Regional Court appointed a new receiver as the original one had resigned due to a conflict of interests.\n20.  The applicant registered his claim (see paragraph 13 above) in the insolvency proceedings.\n21.  On 9 May 2001 the Regional Court held a meeting of creditors (schôdza veriteľov). At the meeting the creditors approved a summary of the insolvency estate and the proposal for its sale. The Regional Court subsequently held a hearing (prieskumné pojednávanie) with a view to establishing the claims of the different creditors in the insolvency proceedings. At the hearing, which the applicant did not attend, the receiver rejected his claim. It", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2294", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Świnoujście.\n5.  On 1 December 1992 the applicant brought an action against his former employer before the Szczecin Regional Court for payment of 88,674 zlotys in compensation for refraining from undertaking any professional activity in competition to that of his former employer. His contract of employment provided for such compensation for a period of six months after the termination of his contract of employment (“the competition clause”).\n6.  Hearings were held on 3 March 1993, 27 August 1993 and 26 October 1993. On 26 October 1993 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed to the Poznań Court of Appeal.\n7.  On 24 March 1994 an appeal hearing was held.\n8.  On 5 May 1994 the Poznań Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case.\n9.  On 20 December 1994 a hearing was held during which the court examined witnesses.\n10.  On 7 February 1995, 4 April 1995 and 16 May 1995 further hearings were held. On 16 May 1995 the court decided to have witnesses examined by other courts for reasons of economy of proceedings. It sent its request to these courts on 27 July 1995. On 12 October 1995 and 10 December 1995 the requested courts examined witnesses.\n11.  On 6 February 1996, 18 March 1996 and 19 November 1996 further hearings were held.\n12.  On 29 January 1997 the Szczecin Regional Court gave a judgment in which it allowed the applicant’s claim in part – it awarded him 44,621 zlotys. Both parties appealed.\n13.  On 31 July 1997 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s action in its entirety. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal.\n14.  On 24 February 1998 the Supreme Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case.\n15.  On 22 October 1998 a hearing was held before the Poznań Court of Appeal during which the parties agreed to enter into negotiations.\n16.  On 28 January 1999 a judicial settlement was concluded and the proceedings were discontinued. According to the settlement, the applicant obtained 61,000 zlotys.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2295", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Gdańsk.\n5.  On 9 July 1996 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand. On 12 August 1996 the Kędzierzyn-Koźle District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) released the applicant.\n6.  On 20 October 1997 the applicant was again arrested by the police in connection with the same criminal investigation. On 21 October 1997 the Częstochowa District Court decided to detain him on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed several offences acting in an organised group of criminals.\n7.  The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) on 6 November 1997. The appeal lodged by his lawyer was dismissed on 20 November 1997.\n8.  On 8 December 1997 the Częstochowa Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s pre‑trial detention reiterating the grounds originally given for his detention and adding that the measure was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.\n9.  On 4 March 1998 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) further prolonged his detention on remand. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) on 24 April 1998.\n10.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was prolonged by the Katowice Court of Appeal on 8 July 1998. The court considered that the severity of the anticipated penalty and the risk of collusion justified keeping him in detention.\n11.  On 11 September 1998 the Supreme Court allowed an application made by the Prosecutor General under Article 263 of the 1997 Code of Criminal Procedure (“1997 Code”) and further prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand. The Supreme Court considered that the reasonable suspicion of his having committed the offences in question and the risk of collusion justified keeping the applicant in detention to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court also considered that the investigation could not be terminated earlier due to circumstances for which the authorities could not be held responsible, such as the complexity of the case and the seriousness of the offences.\n12.  On 31 December 1998 the applicant and 14 co‑accused were indicted before the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n13.  On 11 January 1999 the Częstochowa Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 June 1999 reiterating the grounds previously given for the applicant’s detention.\n14.  On 23 June 1999 the Bygodszcz Regional Court decided to prolong until 30 September 1999 the applicant’s detention on remand. It considered, for the same reasons as previously given, that keeping the applicant in detention was the only means to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The applicant appealed.\n15.  The applicant’s trial started on 24 August 1999 and continued for three days. It appears that the hearing was subsequently adjourned.\n16.  On 27 August 1999 the Bygdoszcz Regional Court examined the applicant’s appeal against its decision of 23 June 1999 and partly allowed it. The court considered that the pre-trial detention of the applicant should be prolonged only until 17 September 1999. It established that in assessing the length of the applicant’s detention with respect to the present case, and for the purpose of the time-limits provided for by Article 263 of the 1997 Code, the period between 9 July and 12 August 1996 should have been added. Accordingly, the Regional Court applied to the Supreme Court asking for the applicant’s detention to be prolon", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2296", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Kraków, Poland.\n5.  On 14 January 1998 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 16 January 1998 the Kraków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed offences of kidnapping, sequestration, attempted murder and theft. The court established that there was a risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence as he had attempted to intimidate the victim and that he might abscond since two other alleged perpetrators had gone into hiding.\n6.  Between 27 March and 11 August 1998 the applicant served a prison sentence ordered in another set of criminal proceedings.\n7.  On 6 April 1998 the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) prolonged the applicant’s detention relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question and on the need to continue the investigation, in particular so that he could undergo a psychiatric examination.\n8.  On 14 July and 27 October 1998 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was further prolonged. The latter decision was taken at a public hearing at which the applicant and his lawyers were present. The court found that keeping the applicant in custody was justified by the strong suspicion that he had committed the offences, the probability that a severe sentence would be imposed and the fact that the third alleged perpetrator was still in hiding.\n9.  The applicant appealed against those decisions arguing that there was no evidence that once released he would obstruct the proper course of the proceedings or abscond. The applicant further asked the court to take into consideration his difficult family situation as his parents needed his support.\n10.  In the meantime, on 13 July 1998, the applicant was indicted before the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n11.  At a hearing held on 16 February 1999, at which the applicant was present, the Kraków Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention. The court found:\n“The fact that [the applicant] has been charged with having committed attempted murder is a sufficient ground for imposing the most severe preventive measure, that is detention on remand.”\n12.  Subsequently, on 14 May and 16 August 1999, the applicant’s detention on remand was prolonged by the trial court. The first decision was taken at a public hearing at which the applicant and his lawyers were present. The court relied on the strong probability that the applicant had committed the offences and the advanced stage of the trial.\n13.  On several occasions the Kraków Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s requests to attend the court’s session at which his appeals against the decisions to prolong his pre-trial detention were examined. The court established that the presence of the applicant was not necessary as he was represented by two lawyers of his choice who could attend the court’s session.\n14.  The applicant’s numerous applications for release and appeals against the decisions to prolong the detention were to no avail.\n15.  In 1999 the trial court held in total thirteen hearings.\n16.  On 10 January 2000 the Kraków Regional Court gave a judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment.\n17.  The applicant lodged an appeal. On 13 April 2000 the Kraków Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case. The court further decided to prolong the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2297", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 31 December 1997 the applicant (hereinafter “NISTAS”) concluded a contract with the State-owned Moldovan Railways Company (Calea Ferată din Moldova, hereinafter CFM). The initial contract provided for the lending of 128 container-wagons by NISTAS to CFM for a five-year period. The contract was later modified by the parties into a leasing agreement. CFM was to pay in instalments for the use of the wagons. The total price of the contract was 4,675,560 United States Dollars (USD).\n8.  Until March 2001 CFM paid regularly. However, it did not pay between March and November 2001. The debt accumulated over this period amounted to USD 705,760 and the applicant claimed that the associated contractual penalties were USD 57,166. This constitutes “the first debt”.\n9.  On 13 October 2001 CFM registered with the National Bank of Moldova the lease contract, as was required by law.\n10.  From November to December 2001 no payments were made. The debt for this period amounted to USD 386,560 and penalties to USD 29,185 (“the second debt”).\n11.  From May to September 2002 CFM again failed to make payments. The debt accumulated over that period amounted to USD 416,943 and penalties to USD 25,263 (“the third debt”).\n12.  NISTAS initiated three sets of court proceedings against CFM, claiming the above debts.\n13.  On 17 January 2002 the Chişinău Economic Court found in favour of NISTAS. It awarded USD 704,000 in respect of the debt, USD 57,024 in penalties and USD 22,830 in court fees.\n14.  This judgment was upheld by the Appellate Chamber of the Economic Court of the Republic of Moldova on 28 February 2002, by the Cassation Chamber of the Economic Court of the Republic of Moldova on 8 April 2002 and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 26 June 2002.\n15.  The latter judgment was final and enforceable and was enforced at an unspecified time before February 2003.\n16.  The Prosecutor General subsequently filed a request for annulment of all the above judgments and asked for the amounts awarded to be reduced.\n17.  On 24 February 2003 the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed all the judgments. It adopted a new judgment whereby it confirmed the award as regards the outstanding debt and reduced to USD 15,000 the award for penalties (a difference of USD 42,024). The court accordingly also reduced the court fees awarded to USD 21,569.\n18.  On 19 June 2002 the Chişinău Economic Court found in favour of the applicant. It awarded USD 386,560 in respect of the debt, USD 29,185.28 in penalties and USD 12,472 in court fees.\n19.  This judgment was upheld by the Appellate Chamber of the Economic Court of the Republic of Moldova on 15 October 2002 and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 27 November 2002.\n20.  The latter judgment was final and enforceable and was enforced at an unspecified time before February 2003.\n21.  The Prosecutor General subsequently filed a request for annulment of all the above judgments and asked for the amounts awarded to be reduced.\n22.  On 24 February 2003 the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice (entirely separately from its judgment on the same day in proceedings A) upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed all the above judgments. It adopted a new judgment whereby it confirmed the award as regards the outstanding debt and reduced to USD 10,000 the award for penalties (a differenc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2298", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Kysucké Nové Mesto. He is a self-employed food products wholesaler.\n5.  In May 1993 an article was published in several papers about a salmonella epidemic suggesting that it had had its origin in dried milk which had been produced by the applicant.\n6.  On 4 August 1993 the applicant brought an action in the Čadca District Court (Okresný súd) for protection of personal integrity against four publishers, the Slovakian Press Agency, two of his business partners and a research institute. He claimed that the published information was untrue in so far as it concerned him and that it caused damage to his business interests. He sought compensation in the amount of 180,000[1] Slovakian korunas (SKK).\n7.  On 9 August 1993 the District Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it decided to transfer the case to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court (Krajský súd) for reasons of jurisdiction.\n8.  On 20 October 1993 the applicant submitted correct addresses for two of the defendants. The decision to transfer the case was then served on these defendants and became final on 24 February 1994.\n9.  On 9 March 1994 the Regional Court requested that the applicant pay court fees which he did on 5 April 1994.\n10.  The Regional Court subsequently sought the defendants’ observations in reply and, on 9 May 1994, the applicant withdrew his claim in respect of one of them.\n11.  On 27 June 1994 the Regional Court held a hearing which was adjourned with a view to obtaining further information including a case file with the Považská Bystrica District Court in a criminal case.\n12.  On 21 September 1994 the applicant extended the action in that he requested that an apology be published and that he be paid SKK 1 million in damages.\n13.  On 29 September 1994 the Regional Court requested the applicant to pay court fees for his extended claim, which he did on 4 October 1994.\n14.  On 6 October 1994 the Považská Bystrica District Court requested that the above-mentioned criminal file be returned to it because it was needed in connection with a different criminal case. The Regional Court returned the case file on 10 November 1994 but requested that it be given back as soon as possible since it was still needed in connection with the applicant’s case. The Regional Court reiterated the request on 8 February 1995 and, in response, it was informed that the case file in question was in fact with the criminal division of the Regional Court on appeal in the second of the criminal cases mentioned above.\n15.  Between 2 June 1995 and 5 June 1996 the Regional Court held 4 hearings 3 of which were adjourned in order to obtain further evidence. On each occasion 3 or more of the defendants had been absent.\n16.  In the meantime, on 14 December 1995 the Regional Court decided to return a part of the court fees to the applicant on the ground that he had reduced the scope of his claim for damages to SKK 500,000.\n17.  On 7 June 1996 the Regional Court delivered a judgment ordering one of the defendants to pay the applicant SKK 90,000, dismissing the action in respect of four defendants and discontinuing the proceedings in respect of the remaining two defendants.\n18.  Both the applicant and the defendant who had been ordered to pay damages appealed on the ground that the operative part of the written judgment did not correspond to the judgment which the court had given orally.\n19.  On 14 November 1996 the Regional Court ordered the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2300", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  The applicant was a civil servant at the Istanbul Municipality.\n7.  On 22 December 1994 he was arrested by police officers from the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of forgery. He admitted to the charges before the police.\n8.  On 26 December 1994 the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul Magistrate’s Court, who ordered his detention on remand.\n9.  On 2 January 1995 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul 7th Criminal Court against the applicant and three co-accused (O.I., M.T. and N.S.), requesting that they be punished for committing forgery under Articles 503 § 1 and 522 of the Criminal Code. The public prosecutor further decided that the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants (Memurin Muhakemeti Kanunu) did not apply to this case as the offence was ordinary.\n10.  On 24 January 1995 the 7th Criminal Court commenced the proceedings. On 3 February 1995 it heard statements from the applicant and two other co-defendants. The applicant denied the charges against him, alleging that his statement in the police station had been extracted from him under duress. At the following hearing on 24 February 1995, the court released the applicant and two co-accused from detention on remand. It further decided to prolong, in absentia, the arrest warrant issued in respect of O.I. as he had absconded.\n11.  On 10 March 1995 the Istanbul public prosecutor launched an investigation concerning the applicant’s alleged abuse of office in relation to the forgery. During the course of the investigation, the public prosecutor decided that he had no jurisdiction over the case as the applicant was a civil servant. Accordingly, he sent the file to the Istanbul Provincial Administrative Council (İstanbul İl İdare Kurulu), pursuant to the provisions of the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants, in order to seek authorisation to prosecute the applicant.\n12.  On 7 December 1995 the Provincial Administrative Council decided not to authorise the applicant’s prosecution.\n13.  On 20 January 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court put aside this decision and ordered that the applicant be tried. Subsequently, on 25 March 1998 the public prosecutor filed another indictment with the Istanbul 11th Criminal Court accusing the applicant of abuse of office.\n14.  On 10 December 1998 the 11th Criminal Court decided to join the case pending before it to the proceedings before the 7th Criminal Court, and sent the case file to the latter.\n15.  In the course of the proceedings, during the ten hearings held between 5 March 1996 and 3 November 1998, the applicant’s lawyer explicitly asked the court to separate his client’s case from the others and to conclude it. The court each time rejected these requests given the search for O.I., and decided to postpone the hearings, awaiting the outcome of the arrest warrant. In particular, at one of these hearings on 25 November 1997, the applicant’s lawyer informed the court that he had heard that O.I. had escaped abroad. He further stated that his client had been victimised as a result of the prolongation of the proceedings.\n16.  On 20 May 1999 the court decided that the criminal proceedings concerning O.I. should proceed separately as he could not be found. The same day the court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment and a fine. The imprisonment was then commuted to a fine and its execution wa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2301", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Hatay.\n5.  On 14 May 1980 the applicant bought a plot of land in Hatay from a third party and registered it in his name in the title deed registry. According to the registry’s record, the land was first owned by the Samandağ Municipality in 1965. In 1968 it was sold to third persons by the Municipality, and thereafter it was purchased from a third party by the applicant.\n6.  In 1976 the Ministry of Construction and Settlement conducted land consolidation proceedings and defined the coastline in the area where the land was located.\n7.  After he bought the land, the applicant constructed a building on it in order to use it as a tourist facility, and in 1995 he opened up and managed a cafeteria, after having obtained the necessary permission from the Samandağ Municipality.\n8.  On 26 June 1995, the Samandağ Municipality, acting on behalf of the Treasury and relying on Law no. 3621 (the Coastal Law, 4 April 1990), requested the Samandağ Civil Court of First Instance to determine whether the applicant’s plot of land was located within the coastline area.\n9.  On 29 June 1995 a group of experts, composed of a geomorphologist, a cartography engineer and an agricultural engineer, appointed by the court, inspected the land and concluded that it was located within the coastline area.\n10.  On 5 July 1995 the Samandağ Municipality filed an action before the Samandağ Civil Court of First Instance, on behalf of the Treasury, requesting the annulment of the applicant’s ownership record in the title deed registry. Furthermore, it requested the court to issue an interim injunction in order to prevent any transfer of that title until the end of the case.\n11.  On 9 September 1996 the applicant filed a petition with the court objecting to the expert report of 29 June 1995. He argued that the expert report, which failed to take into consideration the buildings on the land, could not be taken as a basis for the annulment of the record in the title deed registry. Moreover, he maintained that the Municipality had encouraged the construction of buildings in the surrounding area, by implementing a development plan.\n12.  The court decided to obtain the opinion of another group of experts. On 14 September 1998, following a second inspection, the experts confirmed the first report.\n13.  On 16 December 1999 the Samandağ Civil Court of First Instance upheld the request of the Treasury and decided to annul the record in the title deed registry. It also ordered the applicant to reimburse the legal expenses of the plaintiff.\nThe summary of the court’s reasoning in its final decision is as follows:\n“At the time when the coastline had been determined, Law no. 6785 on urbanism (9 July 1956) was in force. The definition of the coastline found in Article 105 of Law no. 6785 is similar to the description in the Coastal Law (Law no. 3621, 4 April 1990). Article 43 of the Constitution provides that the coasts are under the authority of the State. This assertion is also established by Article 641 of the Civil Code, Article 33 of the Land Registry Law and Article 16 of the Cadastral Law. Thus, coasts cannot be subject to private property rights. As it is stated by the Constitutional Court in its decisions dated 25 February 1986 and 18 September 1991, the construction of buildings on these lands and the use of these buildings in good faith cannot provide a derogation from this rule.\nIn the light of the above, the court decides to annul", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2302", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 22 October 1993 the applicant brought an action in the Bratislava I District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd). He claimed that substitute business premises should be given to him after he had been prevented from using other premises which he had acquired at a public auction.\n6.  On 26 October and 25 November 1993 the District Court invited the applicant to bring the action into line with the applicable procedural requirements and to pay court fees. The applicant responded on 18 November and 7 December 1993, respectively.\n7.  On 21 March 1994 the District Court sought the defendant’s observations in reply. They were submitted on 5 April 1994.\n8.  On 19 December 1994 the District Court held a hearing at which it allowed the applicant’s motion that the original defendant to his action be replaced by the Ministry for Administration and Privatisation of National Property (“the Ministry”). The District Court subsequently sought the Ministry’s observations in reply.\n9.  On 25 May 1995 the District Court held a hearing at which it allowed the applicant’s motion that a new defendant be admitted to the proceedings, the local municipality.\n10.  On 9 April 1996 the District Court requested that the applicant clarify the subject-matter of his action and on 3 June 1996 it held a hearing to establish its scope and legal nature. The applicant’s submissions were then sent to the defendants for comment.\n11.  On 4 December 1997 the parties requested that the District Court adjourn a hearing, which had been scheduled for later that day, because they wanted to settle the case out of court. The hearing was adjourned until 28 January 1998, but no friendly settlement was reached.\n12.  Of the six hearings held between 28 January and 2 September 1998 four were adjourned due to the applicant’s absence or his failure to submit documents.\n13.  On 9 October 1998 the District Court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed to the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd).\n14.  The Regional Court held hearings on 29 April and 13 May 1999. The summonses were sent to the applicant and his lawyer, but neither of them appeared before the court.\n15.  Following the hearing of 13 May 1999, on the same day the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment and the matter became res iudicata. It was found established that following a public auction of 16 June 1991 the applicant had acquired the lease of commercial premises for his business. However, as he had let a third party use these premises without the owner’s consent, the owner had terminated the lease by notice in 1998. In these circumstances the applicant no longer had any right to have the original or other premises. He could possibly still claim damages, but that was not the subject‑matter of the present action.\n16.  The applicant then requested that the case be re-opened. He argued that the power of attorney of his lawyer had expired prior to the conclusion of the appellate proceedings and that this had been overlooked by the court of appeal. The request was dismissed by the District Court on 8 June 2001.\n17.  On 20 June 1994 the applicant petitioned for divorce before the Bratislava III District Court and asked that the court decide on the question of custody of the children, two sons, after the divorce had been pronounced.\n18.  The District Court sought the applicant’s wife’s observations in reply and, on 10 July 1994, appointed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2303", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in St. Petersburg.\n6.  On 5 July 1993 the Investigations Division of the St. Petersburg police department opened a criminal case into extortion committed by an organised criminal group.\n7.  On 5 July 2000 an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant. On 12 July 2000 he was placed on the list of fugitives from justice.\n8.  On 12 December 2000 the applicant was apprehended and placed in custody. He was charged with organisation of, and participation in, a criminal enterprise and unlawful possession of firearms (Articles 209, 210 and 222 of the Russian Criminal Code).\n9.  On 9 February 2001 the prosecutor of the Primorskiy district of St. Petersburg extended the applicant's detention to 12 March 2001.\n10.  On 12 February 2001 the applicant's counsel asked the Primorskiy District Court of St. Petersburg to release the applicant on bail. He submitted that the applicant had a permanent place of residence and employment in St. Petersburg, that he had to provide for his wife and a small child, that he had never attempted to abscond and that the strength of evidence was not sufficient to warrant his detention.\n11.  On 19 February 2001 the Primorskiy District Court refused the application for release. It found that the investigators had had (unspecified) grounds to charge the applicant and to place him in custody, that the preventive measure had been imposed lawfully because the applicant was charged with particularly serious offences and because he had a previous conviction of a particularly serious offence. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 96 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, the dangerousness of the imputed crimes could be the sole ground for placement in custody. The applicant did not appeal against the decision.\n12.  On 13 March and 11 April 2001 the prosecutor of the Primorskiy district granted further extensions of the applicant's detention until 12 and 27 April 2001.\n13.  On 11 April 2001 the applicant's counsel introduced a new application for release, referring to the insufficient evidentiary basis for the charges against the applicant.\n14.  On 26 April 2001 the Primorskiy District Court refused the application for release. It held that the extension of detention had been lawful and justified because the extension order had been issued within the statutory time-limits and because the applicant was charged with particularly grave crimes, whose dangerousness alone was a sufficient ground for his detention. Noting the applicant's positive reference from his workplace and the fact that he had a wife and ailing child as dependants, the court stated that these circumstances would be taken into account as extenuating circumstances during the examination of the merits of the charge.\n15.  On 22 May 2001 the St. Petersburg City Court upheld the decision of 26 April 2001, on an appeal by the applicant's lawyer. The entire reasoning ran as follows:\n“There have been no breaches of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure either when the preventive measure in the form of placement in custody was imposed on [the applicant], or when the detention was extended – the first-instance court has correctly found so in its decision and the appellant does not contest it. [The applicant] is charged with particularly serious crimes. The choice of the preventive measure is justified, as are justified all further extensions of his detention.”\n16.  On 3 May 2001 the applicant was committed for trial before the St", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2304", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and died on 14 November 2004. By letter of 4 April 2005, the applicant's widow informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application.\n5.  In May 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kirovskyy District Court against his former employer, the Makeyivugillya State Mining Company (ДП «Макеїввугілля»), for salary arrears and compensation for moral damage. On 15 August 2003 the court awarded the applicant 13,890.79[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Кіровського районного суду м. Макеївки).\n6.  On 25 September 2003 the Tsentralno-miskyy District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Центрально-міського районного управління юстиції м.Макеївки) initiated the enforcement proceedings. On 21 October 2003 the applicant received UAH 574.75. Later the applicant received UAH 2,666. The rest of the sum due to the applicant remains unpaid.\n7.  In October 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno-miskyy District Court of the town of Makeyivka against the Tsentralno-miskyy Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the court judgment in his favour. On 2 December 2003 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs' Service to seize the debtor's property. By letters of 12 March and 5 May 2004, the Donetsk Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that in January-February 2004 some of the debtor's property and accounts had been seized, and that the court judgment in the applicant's favour would be enforced gradually in accordance with his place in the list of creditors.\n8.  In August 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kirovskyy District Court against the Makeyivugillya State Mining Company claiming compensation for the loss of earnings because of the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 28 October 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 20 December 2004 the court provided the applicant with a time-limit until 9 January 2005 to lodge an appeal in compliance with procedural formalities previewed by law. On 14 July 2005 the Kirovskyy District Court returned the appeal lodged by the applicant's widow. She appealed against this decision. The parties did not submit any further information about these proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2305", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Dniprodzerzhynsk. At the material time he was an employee of the CJSC “Dniprovsky Zavod Mineralnykh Dobryv” (“the Company,” ЗАТ “Дніпровський завод мінеральних добрив”), in which the State owned 40% of the share capital. The company was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.”\n5.  On 10 April 2003 the Bagliysky District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk (Баглійський районний суд м. Дніпродзержинська) ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 3,047.03[1] in salary arrears and various payments. This judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n6.  On 14 April 2003 the Bagliysky District Bailiffs’ Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Баглійського районного управління юстиції в м. Дніпродзержинську) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment.\n7.  On 21 October 2003 the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 10 April 2003 was due to the large number of enforcement proceedings taken against the Company, the holding of its property in a tax lien and a statutory moratorium on the forced sale of State property.\n8.  On 7 April 2004 the Dnipropetrovsk Commercial Court (Господарський суд Дніпропетровської області) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and introduced a moratorium on payment of its debts.\n9.  On 30 May 2005 the applicant received the award due to him less UAH 200[2]. This part of the judgment remains unenforced to the present day.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2306", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Ivanivka, the Lugansk region. He is a former employee of the Ivanivka Machine-Building Plant (“the Plant,” Іванівський верстатозавод). 99.11% of the Plant’s shares are owned by the State.\n5.  On 30 October 2000 the Plant’s labour disputes commission (“the Commission,” комісія з трудових спорів Іванівського верстатозаводу) ordered the Plant to pay the applicant UAH 2,127.24[1] in salary arrears. This decision became final and was transferred to the Antratsit Bailiffs’ Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Антрацитівського районного управління юстиції) for enforcement.\n6.  On 2 November 2001 and 21 January 2004 the Antratsit Court (Антрацитівський районний суд Луганської області) additionally ordered the Plant to pay the applicant UAH 970.13[2] and UAH 535[3] respectively in various payments. These judgments became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to the Bailiffs for enforcement.\n7.  On 1 February 2005 the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the delays in collection of the awards due to him were due to the holding of the Plant’s property in a tax lien, a statutory moratorium on the forced sale of State property and the pending bankruptcy proceedings against the Plant.\n8.  The decision of 30 October 2000 and the judgments of 2 November 2001 and 21 January 2004 remain unenforced.\nII.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2307", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The ten applicants are all citizens of Serbia and Montenegro, which was known at the time of the events in question as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the FRY”).\nThe first two applicants, Dusan and Zoran Markovic, were born in 1924 and 1952 respectively, and applied to the Court on behalf of Dejan Markovic, deceased son of Dusan Markovic and brother of Zoran Markovic.\nThe third and fourth applicants, Dusika and Vladimir Jontic, were born in 1948 and 1978 respectively, and applied to the Court on behalf of Slobodan Jontic, deceased husband of Dusika Jontic and father of Vladimir Jontic.\nThe fifth applicant, Draga Jankovic, was born in 1947 and applied to the Court on behalf of her deceased husband, Milovan Jankovic.\nThe sixth and seventh applicants, Mirjana and Slavica Stevanovic, were born in 1945 and 1974 respectively, and applied to the Court on behalf of Slavisa Stevanovic, deceased son of Mirjana Stevanovic and brother of Slavica Stevanovic.\nThe eighth, ninth and tenth applicants, Milena, Obrad and Dejan Dragojevic, were born in 1953, 1946 and 1975 respectively, and applied to the Court on behalf of Dragorad Dragojevic, deceased son of Milena and Obrad Dragojevic and brother of Dejan Dragojevic.\n10.  The applicants lodged the present application to complain of the outcome of an action in damages which they had brought in the Italian courts in respect of an air strike against the FRY.\n11.  The facts of the case relate to the same events as those considered by the Court in its decision in the case of Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others ((dec.) [GC], no. 52207/99, ECHR 2001-XII). The facts in that case were summarised as follows:\n“6.  The conflict in Kosovo between Serbian and Kosovar Albanian forces during 1998 and 1999 is well documented. Against the background of the escalating conflict, together with the growing concerns and unsuccessful diplomatic initiatives of the international community, the six-nation Contact Group (established in 1992 by the London Conference) met and agreed to convene negotiations between the parties to the conflict. 7.  On 30 January 1999, and following a decision of its North Atlantic Council (NAC), the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) announced air strikes on the territory of the FRY in the case of non-compliance with the demands of the international community. Negotiations consequently took place between the parties to the conflict from 6 to 23 February 1999 in Rambouillet and from 15 to 18 March 1999 in Paris. The resulting proposed peace agreement was signed by the Kosovar Albanian delegation but not by the Serbian delegation. 8.  Considering that all efforts to achieve a negotiated political solution to the Kosovo crisis had failed, the NAC decided on, and on 23 March 1999 the Secretary General of NATO announced, the beginning of air strikes (Operation Allied Force) against the FRY. The air strikes lasted from 24 March to 8 June 1999.\n... 9.  Three television channels and four radio stations operated from the RTS facilities in Belgrade. The main production facilities were housed in three buildings at Takovska Street. The master control room was housed on the first floor of one of the buildings and was staffed mainly by technical staff. 10.  On 23 April 1999, just after 2 a.m. approximately, one of the RTS buildings at Takovska Street was hit by a missile launched from a NATO forces’ aircraft. Two of the four floors of the building collapsed and the master control room was destr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2308", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1930 respectively and live in Nicosia.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as derived from the minutes of the proceedings, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 26 March 1993 the applicants lodged a civil action (no. 2633/93) before the District Court of Nicosia against three persons, requesting damages for trespass that had occurred in April 1989 over certain premises occupied by them, by virtue of a tenancy agreement and used for storing various military clothing and material. The police had stopped the defendants following a trespass complaint but had not brought criminal proceedings against them. On the one hand, the applicants maintained that the defendants had trespassed the said premises and had taken away some of the clothing and material, causing damage to their property. On the other hand, the defendants claimed that they had entered the applicants' premises under the false assumption that these premises were covered by a tenancy agreement they had just concluded.\n7.  Between 26 March 1993 and 9 January 1995 the parties filed their pleadings.\n8.  On 11 January 1995 the case was set for directions for 15 February 1995 and then for hearing for 23 October 1995. The case was then adjourned on the application of one of the defendants until 1 November 1995 and then, until on 14 February 1996, following the failure of the parties to reach an agreement in order to limit the trial issues.\n9.  On 14 February 1996 the case was adjourned until 6 June 1996 following an application by one of the defendants for amendment of their statement of defence.\n10.  On 6 June 1996 the applicants requested an adjournment and in the absence of objection on the defendants' part, the case was fixed for hearing on 4 November 1996. From that date, the court itself adjourned the case twice until 17 April 1997. On that date the defendants requested an adjournment in view of the fact that in the meantime they had filed an application for the amendment of their statement of defence and an application raising a preliminary objection. The applicants objected to the adjournment but since the court also considered that it did not have time to hear the case, it adjourned the case until 13 June 1997. The applicants then requested that the case be fixed on an earlier date since it was an old case but the court stated in reply that this was the only free date and that, in particular, in the month of May it was dealing with actions that had been filed before the present one.\n11.  Until 17 September 1997 the court dealt with the defendants' applications and objections thereto. By an interlocutory decision dated 27 June 1997 the court dismissed the defendants' application raising a preliminary objection and, further, by an interlocutory decision dated 17 September 1997, it granted the defendants leave to amend their defence.\n12.  Following a request by the applicants for a hearing date, the case was set for 27 October 1997. On that date, the hearing was adjourned by the court itself until 28 November 1997. The hearing of the case commenced on that date and was then set for 5 December 1997. On the latter date, it was adjourned at the applicants' request until 15 December 1997, in the light of an application that they had in the meantime filed for the amendment of their statement of claim. Taking into account the fact that the defendants intended to file an objection to the application, the court set the case fo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2309", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Volgograd. He is the director-general and editor-in-chief of the Gorodskiye Vesti newspaper.\n6.  On 2 September 1994 the applicant published an article under the headline “In Blind Frenzy” (“V slepom ugare”). It opened with a verse mocking Jewish last names, which the applicant had overheard “at a meeting of the Russian National Unity [movement] ... organised... by a local neofascist Mr Terentyev”. The applicant wrote that at the meeting the verse had been recited by a woman in the traditional Cossack clothing. He had not approached her then, but later his curiosity was piqued when he saw that verse printed in Mr Terentyev's newspaper Kolokol and he decided to meet that woman.\nThe applicant then related his discussion with the woman who was aggrieved by her precarious living conditions resulting from profound social and economic changes in Russia, and blamed the worsening of her situation on Jews. She confessed to being an avid reader of the Kolokol newspaper which the article described as “a horrible brainchild of the 'Black Hundreds', deceitful beyond belief”. The woman was a local distributor of that newspaper in her village.\nThe article concluded with the applicant's analysis of the current political situation, critical of social parasitism and witch-hunting.\n7.  On 24 September 1994 Mr Terentyev lodged a civil defamation action against the applicant and the Gorodskiye Vesti newspaper in connection with the applicant's description of him as a “neofascist”.\n8.  On 20 December 1994 the Sovetskiy District Court of Volgograd granted the action and ordered that the applicant pay non-pecuniary damages to Mr Terentyev.\n9.  The applicant lodged an appeal. His appeal was supported by the Sovetskiy district prosecutor who submitted, in particular, that the Volgograd regional prosecutor had opened a criminal investigation into the incitement of ethnic hatred by the Kolokol newspaper.\n10.  On 27 February 1995 the Volgograd Regional Court quashed the judgment of 20 December 1994 on the ground that the District Court had not commissioned an expert study of the publication and had not examined the materials of the criminal investigation. The matter was remitted for a new examination.\n11.  On 22 August 1996 the applicant asked the District Court to commission a composite linguistic and social-psychological expert study, to examine ten issues of the Kolokol newspaper printed between August 1993 and August 1994, and to adjourn the proceedings pending investigation of the criminal case against Mr Terentyev.\n12.  On 2 December 1996 the Sovetskiy District Court dismissed, by an interim decision, the applicant's requests. It determined that there was no need to commission a composite study or to examine the past issues of the Kolokol newspaper as long as the expert reports made in the context of criminal proceedings against Mr Terentyev were available.\n13.  On the same day the Sovetskiy District Court gave judgment. It found in favour of Mr Terentyev and awarded him damages against the applicant.\n14.  On 24 April 1997 the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 2 December 1996 on the ground that the District Court had not remedied the defects identified by the Regional Court on 27 February 1995 (it had not commissioned an expert study or examined the materials of the criminal case against Mr Terentyev). The case was remitted for a new exam", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2310", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the town of Novogrodivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 21 April and 13 June 2003 the Novogrodivskyy Town Court ordered the applicant's former employer, the Novogrodivska Mining Company No. 1/3 (Шахта 1/3 „Новогродівська”) – a State-owned enterprise - to pay the applicant 5,010.72[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) and UAH 4,211.75[2] in salary arrears and other payments (Рішення Новогродівського міського суду Донецької області).\n6.  On 5 May and 21 July 2003, respectively, the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новогродівського міського управління юстиції) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgments.\n7.  The Novogrodivska Mining Company was reorganised and became a structural subdivision of the Selidovvugillya Mining Company. As the latter thereby became the debtor, the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Selidivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Селидівського міського управління юстиції).\n8.  In February 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court against the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service, seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgments in her favour. On 11 March 2004 the court rejected her claim, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs' Service. It held that the judgment could not be enforced due to, inter alia, the moratorium on the forced sale of property belonging to State enterprises introduced by the Law of 29 November 2001. On 5 July 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first instance court. The applicant appealed against these judgments in cassation. The parties did not submit any further information about these proceedings.\n9.  In September 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Selidivskyy Town Court against the Selidivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service, seeking compensation for failure to enforce the judgments in her favour. On 14 October 2004 the court rejected her claim, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs' Service. On 14 February 2005 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first instance court. The applicant appealed against these judgments in cassation. The parties did not submit any further information about these proceedings.\n10.  On 14 September 2004 the applicant received UAH 3,996.65[3]. According to her, the rest of the amounts awarded remains unpaid.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2311", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in the town of Krasnyy Luch, Lugansk region, Ukraine.\n5.  In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnolutskyy Town Court against her former employer, the Knyagyninska State Mining Company (Шахта «Княгинінська» ДХК «Донбасантрацит»), for salary arrears and compensation for moral damage. On 29 October 2003 the court awarded the applicant 2,479.19[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Краснолуцького міського суду Луганської області).\n6.  In December 2003 the Krasnolutskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Міський відділ Державної виконавчої служби Красно луцького міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n7.  By letter of 2 June 2004, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the debtor's accounts had been seized but that it was impossible to deal in the debtor's property because the debtor was a State enterprise.\n8.  On 25 March 2005 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor enterprise.\n9.  The applicant received UAH 1,386.34; according to the applicant, the rest of the debt remains unpaid.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2312", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in the town of Bat-Yam, Israel.\n5.  On 26 June 2001 the Commercial Court of the Kherson Region commenced bankruptcy proceedings against the State Enterprise “Khersonskyy Sudnobudivelnyy Zavod”, the applicant's former employer. According to the Government, these proceedings are still pending.\n6.  On 4 December 2002 the Komsomolskyy District Court of Kherson ordered that company to pay the applicant UAH 9,879[1] in salary arrears.\n7.  On 16 January 2003 the Komsomolskyy District Bailiffs' Service of Kherson instituted enforcement proceedings.\n8.  By letter of 11 September 2003, the Kherson Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the judgment in his favour had not been executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor company and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to it had been blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.\n9.  On 6 October 2004 the State Property Fund sold 83.61% of the debtor's share capital to a private company. Under the terms of the sales contract, the latter undertook to pay all the salary-related debts of the debtor company.\n10.  On 22 June 2005 the full amount of the judgment debt was transferred to the deposit account of the Bailiffs' Service. The applicant was invited to submit his bank account details to the Bailiffs' Service. On an unspecified date the applicant received the full amount of the debt.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2313", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Frankenthal.\n7.  On 28 May 1991 the applicant's husband instituted proceedings with the Frankenthal District Court, sitting as a court competent in family matters, with a view to obtain the spouses' divorce.\n8.  On 21 February 1992 the Frankenthal District Court pronounced the spouses' divorce. It ordered the applicant's former husband to pay alimony to their son. Having regard to a marriage contract in which both parties had agreed to manage their property separately and to waive alimony in case of a divorce, it found that the applicant was not entitled to any alimony payments. Contrary to the applicant's allegations, it considered the marriage contract to be compatible with German law, finding that the applicant's pregnancy at the time that it was concluded did not place her at an excessive disadvantage that would automatically make the contract null and void.\n9.  On 12 November 1992 the Palatinate Court of Appeal, following the applicant's appeal, amended the District Court's decision. It obliged her former husband to pay her a monthly alimony of DEM 300 (approximately EUR 153), finding that this was necessary to ensure the upbringing of their child and the applicant's other child from an earlier marriage, who is severely disabled. The Court of Appeal also increased the monthly alimony to be paid to the spouses' son. Referring to the reasoning in the District Court's decision, it also found that the marriage contract was compatible with German law.\n10.  On 2 December 1992 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court.\n11.  On 29 March 2001 the Federal Constitutional Court found that the decision of the Court of Appeal violated the applicant's rights under the German Basic Law. It found that when determining the validity of the marriage contract, the Court of Appeal had not taken into account that the applicant's pregnancy, in addition to the strain of caring for a handicapped child, placed her at an obvious disadvantage towards her former husband when concluding the marriage contract. The matter was thus remitted to the Court of Appeal.\n12.  On 8 November 2001 the proceedings before the Court of Appeal were discontinued following the engagement of the applicant's former husband, in the context of a court settlement, to pay monthly alimony to the applicant, as well as a lump sum with respect to the past.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2314", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a limited liability company with its registered seat in Vienna. It is the owner and publisher of the weekly magazine News.\n8.  On 2 November 2000 the applicant published an article in News in which it reported about pending investigations on suspicion of large scale tax evasion against Mr G., the managing director of a well-known enterprise producing pistols. The article was accompanied by a picture of Mr G.\n9.  The report informed the reader that Mr G.'s premises had been searched in the early hours of 31 October. He was suspected of having evaded taxes of up to 500 million Austrian Schillings (more than 36 million euros). The article stated that News was in the possession of numerous documents (letters from Mr G.'s lawyers, a court file from Luxembourg, costs calculations and lists of clients of the G. company, etc.) concerning this suspicion which it claimed to have obtained through its own intense research. The most important documents were letters from Mr G.'s lawyers from which it followed that an attempt to murder Mr G. had taken place in Luxembourg in 1999, which had not come to the attention of the Austrian authorities or of the media at the time. The attempt had possibly been made at the instigation of one of Mr G.'s business partners who, according to his lawyer, had acted as a trustee for him. The article then assumed that the attempt was somehow linked to Mr G.'s network of companies which had been scrutinised by the tax authorities. It quoted an anonymous tax official as saying that according to the investigations dubious companies with a seat abroad had issued invoices for “organisational services” to the G. company in order to reduce its gains in Austria. Still according to that tax official the complex structure of interrelated companies had been chosen to dissimulate the fact that Mr G. was their owner and to avoid the legal consequences of that fact. The article finally said that Mr G. also had close links with the Austrian Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs), of which it gave a few examples, and that thus, the case also had a political dimension.\n10.  Subsequently Mr G. (“the claimant”) brought proceedings under Section 78 of the Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz) against the applicant company, requesting that the latter be prohibited from publishing his picture in connection with reports both on the pending tax evasion proceedings against him and on the attempted murder.\n11.  On 28 December 2000 the Vienna Commercial Court (Handelsgericht), granting the request in part, issued a preliminary injunction (einstweilige Verfügung) against the applicant company prohibiting it from publishing a picture of the claimant in the context of reports on charges of tax evasion against him, in so far as he was not described as a suspect, but as having committed the offence, until a final decision would be taken in the main injunction proceedings.\n12.  The court noted that, when assessing whether a person was entitled to protection of his or her picture under Section 78 of the Copyrights Act in the context of criminal proceedings, the respective interests had to be balanced in the light of the criteria developed in Sections 7a and 7b of the Media Act (Mediengesetz). The court noted that the applicant was a business magnate. His enterprise was the market leader in equipping police forces with pistols. Although the claimant was well-known in professional circles he was not known to the public at larg", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2315", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the village of Sobolivka, the Zhytomyr Region.\n5.  By three judgments of 18 February, 5 March and 20 May 2003 the Dzerzhynsk Town Court ordered the Sobolivka Village Council to pay the applicant UAH 4,097.01[1] in salary arrears and other payments.\n6.  The Romaniv Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the first judgment on 3 March 2003 and in respect of two other judgments on 26 June 2003.\n7.  On 14 June 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine had not foreseen the order of payment of such judgment debts.\n8.  In January 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the same court against the Bailiffs’ Service for failure to enforce the judgments in her favour. On 5 February 2004 the court rejected her claim, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs’ Service. On 8 April 2004 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court. The courts held that the judgments could not be enforced as there were no procedure regulating the seizure of funds from the accounts of the State Treasury. The applicant’s appeal in cassation is still pending before the Supreme Court of Ukraine.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant received UAH 364.92[2]. The judgments remain to a large extent unenforced (UAH 3,732.09[3]).\nII.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2316", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and resides in the town of Zhovti Vody, Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zhovtovodskyy Town Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region against his employer, a State-owned company, the Zhovti Vody Construction Department (Жовтоводське управління будівництва), in order to receive salary arrears and other payments.\n6.  On 21 December 2000 the court found for the applicant and awarded him 5,329.30[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Жовтоводського міського суду).\n7.  On 19 January 2001 the Zhovti Vody Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Жовтоводського міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted new proceedings in the same court against the same enterprise for further payments and compensation.\n9.  On 20 February 2002 the court found for the applicant and awarded him UAH 2,093.49[2].\n10.  The applicant received UAH 650, but, according to him, the rest of the awards remain unpaid.\n11.  By letter of 4 April 2003, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been stayed because of the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against the debtor by a decision of 27 December 2001 of the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region. The Bailiffs' Service also stated that, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced.\n12.  By the decree of 5 October 2004 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine liquidated the debtor company.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2317", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the Krasnodar Region. She is the mother of Mr Nikolay Ivanovich Tarariyev, a Russian national who was born in 1976 and died on 4 September 2002.\n7.  On 5 October 1996 Mr Tarariyev was involved in a fist fight in which he hit his former girlfriend's boyfriend. The injured man died three days later.\n8.  On 8 October 1996 criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Tarariyev on suspicion of having caused grievous bodily injury that resulted in the victim's death, an offence under Article 108 § 2 of the RSFSR Criminal Code.\n9.  On 6 April 2000 Mr Tarariyev was convicted as charged and sentenced to six years' imprisonment in a correctional colony. On the same day he was taken into custody.\n10.  On 17 May 2000 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the conviction.\n11.  Mr Tarariyev was sent to serve his sentence at correctional facility no. UO-68/9 in the town of Khadyzhensk in the Krasnodar Region (“the Khadyzhensk colony”).\n12.  On 10 January 2001 Mr Tarariyev, who was in a serious condition, was taken into hospital for in-patient treatment. He was diagnosed with Morgagni-Adams-Stokes syndrome and an acute ulcer condition. Doctors prescribed strict bed rest and medicines. On 16 January 2001 Mr Tarariyev's state of health improved slightly.\n13.  On 22 January 2001 he was escorted to Treatment and Prevention Institution no. 5 (14) (lechebno-profilakticheskoye uchrezhdenie no. 5 (14) – “prison hospital”) where he received treatment from 1 to 12 February 2001.\n14.  On 1 or 2 March 2001 Mr Tarariyev was brought back from the prison hospital to the Khadyzhensk colony with acute gastroduodenitis.\n15.  On 6 March 2001 he was examined and diagnosed with chronic gastroduodenitis. Certain medicines and vitamins were prescribed.\n16.  On 2 August 2001 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgments of 6 April and 17 May 2000 under the supervisory review procedure and remitted the case for a new trial.\n17.  On 22 September 2001 Mr Tarariyev was transferred to the Krasnodar detention centre (“the Krasnodar SIZO”).\n18.  On 20 February 2002 Mr Tarariyev fainted in the court room. The court ordered a medical examination of Mr Tarariyev by doctors from the Krasnodar SIZO and Afinskiy District Hospital. It put questions to them about Mr Tarariyev's illnesses and asked whether he needed in-patient treatment and whether he could remain in detention.\n19.  On 22 February 2002 Afinskiy District Hospital sent the following report to the court, signed by the deputy head doctor, the head of department and the doctor in charge:\n“Afinskiy District Hospital no. 3 replies that Mr Tarariyev is undergoing treatment in the department of digestive illnesses in connection with a heart illness (myocarditis) and an acute condition of duodenal ulcer.\nFor treatment and differential diagnosis the patient is to remain in the department for no less than two weeks. [He] cannot be held in an investigations ward or detention facility.”\n20.  On 1 March 2002 Mr Tarariyev was discharged from the hospital to the Krasnodar SIZO. On 6 March 2002 he sought medical assistance and received out-patient treatment. He was diagnosed with stomach and duodenal ulcers, cardioneurosis and chronic gastroduodenitis.\n21.  On 19 April 2002 the Severskiy District Court pronounced a new conviction against Mr Tarariyev and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment in a correctional colony. On 10 July 2002 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2318", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Nova Kakhovka, the Kherson region. He is a former employee of the State-controlled OJSC “Pivdenelektromash” (“the Company,” ВАТ “Південелектромаш”).\n5.  The background facts for the case are described in the case of Anatskiy v. Ukraine (no. 10558/03, §§ 5-8, 13 December 2005).\n6.  On 7 February 2001 the Nova Kakhovka Court (Новокаховський міський суд Херсонської області) ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 3,009[1] in salary arrears. This judgment became final.\n7.  According to the Government, the applicant never submitted the enforcement writ in respect of this judgment for enforcement.\n8.  The applicant presented a copy of the letter of the Nova Kakhovka Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новокаховського міського управління юстиції) of 6 May 2005 advising him that the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 7 February 2001 had been instituted on 26 February 2002.\n9.  Additionally, the applicant presented a copy of the Bailiffs' decision of 1 July 2002, by which they returned him the enforcement writ in respect of the above judgment unenforced. In particular, the Bailiffs referred to the impossibility of the enforcement in view of the debtor's lack of funds, the pending bankruptcy proceedings against it and the holding of its assets in a tax lien.\n10.  The judgment of 7 February 2001 remains unenforced to the present day.\n11.  On 29 December 2002 the Nova Kakhovka Court ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 3,359[2] in salary arrears. This judgment became final and on 13 February 2003 the Bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings in its respect.\n12.  The judgment of 29 December 2002 remains unenforced to the present day.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2319", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Odessa.\n5.  In February 1999 the applicant resigned from her position of the deputy district prosecutor at the Odessa Regional Prosecutors' Office (“the Prosecutors' Office,” Прокуратура Одеської області).\n6.  On 5 May 1999 the Odessa Medical Expert Commission (“the Expert Commission,” Медико-соціальна експертиза Одеської обласної лікарні) recognised the applicant as falling within the third category of invalidity (третя група інвалідності) resulting from occupational disease (diabetes).\n7.  In August 1999 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in the Zhovtnevy District Court of Odessa (“the Zhovtnevy Court,” Жовтневий районний суд м. Одеси) seeking to oblige the Odessa Regional Prosecutor to fill out an insurance form enabling her to obtain a lump sum in professional disability compensation from the State Insurance Company “Oranta” (Національна Акціонерна Страхова Компанія “Оранта”).\n8.  On 6 December 1999 the Zhovtnevy Court ordered the Prosecutor to fill out the form. This judgment was not appealed against and became final on 16 December 1999.\n9.  On 14 January 2000 the Prosecutors' Office withheld the case-file from the Zhovtnevy Court to decide, in accordance with the powers vested in it by law at the material time, whether to lodge a protest against the judgment of 6 December 1999 in supervisory review proceedings.\n10.  On 6 October 2000, following the applicant's complaint about an unjustified lengthy withholding of the case-file, the Prosecutors' Office returned it to the Zhovtnevy Court.\n11.  On 23 October 2000 the Zhovtnevy Court issued a writ of execution and the Zhovtnevy District Bailiffs' Service of Odessa (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Жовтневого районного управління юстиції м. Одеси) initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment.\n12.  On 8 August 2001 the Bailiffs adjourned the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the Prosecutors' Office had lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment of 6 December 1999 with the Supreme Court, in accordance with the transitional provisions of the new law of 21 June 2001, amending the Code of Civil Procedure.\n13.  On 20 September 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the Prosecutors' Office's request for leave to appeal in cassation.\n14.  On 8 February 2002 the Prosecutors' Office instituted civil proceedings in the Suvorovsky District Court of Odessa (“the Suvorovsky Court,” Суворовський районний суд м. Одеси) against the applicant and the Expert Commission, alleging that the applicant's diabetes was not an occupational disease. On 8 April 2005 the Suvorovsky Court rejected the claims of the Prosecutors' Office. This judgment was not appealed against and became final in May 2005.\n15.  In the meantime, on 14 January 2004 the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 6 December 1999 had been lost and advised her to request a duplicate from the Zhovtnevy Court. In 2005 the building of the Prosecutors' Office was set on fire and the documents concerning further course of the enforcement proceedings were lost again.\n16.  On 18 February 2006 the Bailiffs resumed the enforcement proceedings and on 9 March 2006 the Odessa Regional Prosecutor filled out the applicant's insurance form. On 13 March 2006 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as completed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2320", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and resides in the town of Zhovti Vody, Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  On an unspecified date the applicant's late wife instituted proceedings in the Zhovtovodskyy Town Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region against her employer, a State-owned company, the Zhovti Vody Construction Department (Жовтоводське управління будівництва), in order to receive salary arrears and other payments.\n6.  On 19 March 2001 the court found for the applicant's wife and awarded her 4,346.81[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (“UAH”) (Рішення Жовтоводського міського суду).\n7.  On 28 March 2001 the Zhovti Vody Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Жовтоводського міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings. On 28 September 2001 the applicant's wife received UAH 300. On 12 April 2002 she received a further UAH 350. The rest of the awarded amount remains unpaid.\n8.  On 1 May 2002 the applicant's wife died.\n9.  On 22 December 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv against the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine, claiming the salary arrears due to his late wife and compensation for moral damage.\n10.  On 1 February 2003 the applicant was recognised as an heir of his late wife.\n11.  On 11 August 2003 the court found against the applicant on the ground that the company was an independent legal entity for which debts the Ministry was not responsible.\n12.  By letter of 31 December 2003, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been stayed because of the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against the debtor by a decision of 27 December 2001 of the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region. The Bailiffs' Service also stated that, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced.\n13.  By the decree of 5 October 2004 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine liquidated the debtor company.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2321", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants live in Miusinsk, the Lugansk region. The first, the third, the fourth, the fifth and the sixth applicants were born in 1943, 1936, 1940, 1950 and 1934 respectively. The second applicant did not specify the date of his birth.\n5.  On 29 November 2000 the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) awarded the first applicant UAH 286.68[1] against the State Mining Company Novopavlivska (“the Mine,” ДВАТ шахта „Новопавлівська”) in compensation for a delayed salary payment.\n6.  Additionally, between 2001 and 2004 (see annexed table) each of the applicants obtained a judgment of the Krasnyy Luch Court ordering the Mine to provide him with a certain quantity of coal.\n7.  All of the judgments given in favour of the applicants became final and the enforcement writs in their respect were transferred to the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) for enforcement.\n8.  On 8 February 2005 the Bailiffs informed the applicants that pursuant to a decision of the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court (Господарський суд Луганської області) of 14 November 2002, the Mine had been declared bankrupt and subjected to a financial rehabilitation procedure that was to continue until 31 December 2007. The Bailiffs further noted that the Mine was not mining any coal, due to the lack of financing from the State.\n9.  The judgment of 29 November 2000 awarding compensation to the first applicant was enforced on 12 December 2005. The other judgments awarding the applicants coal have not been enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2322", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1959 and 1963 and live in the town of Chernyakhovsk in the Kaliningrad Region. They are businessmen and founders of the Pravo Znat newspaper (“The Right to Know”).\n6.  On 27 April 2001 the applicants' newspaper published an article under the headline “What power costs: part 2” (“Сколько стоит власть-2”). The article gave a detailed account of the wages and benefits received by mid-range employees in the town council. The relevant extract read as follows:\n“For the sake of clarity, let us look at the elements that make up the wages. Let's take, for example, those of the head of the legal department...\nIn total... 5,805 roubles.\nNot bad for a twenty-year-old professional who recently graduated from a teachers' college.”\n7.  Ms P., the head of the legal department, brought a defamation action against the applicants. She submitted that she possessed higher legal education and more than three years of relevant experience, and that the article had harmed her authority in that it had sown doubts as to her professional qualifications.\n8.  On 13 June 2001 the Chernyakhovsk Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region heard the claim and gave judgment. It found that the applicants had been aware of the identity of the head of the legal department and they had intended to expose a specific person, namely Ms P. The court established that Ms P. had been appointed to her position in September 2000 after having completed a course of higher legal education. It found as follows:\n“Having indicated in the article the salary of the head of the legal department and having referred to a twenty-year-old professional just out of college, the [applicants] related inaccurate information, given that Ms P., whom the [applicants] described as having graduated from a teachers' college four years previously, was at the material time the head of the legal department and had higher legal education.\nThe article 'What power costs: part 2' implies that municipal employees receive high wages, paid out of the budget, and cites as an example a young professional with college-level education and no work experience.\nThe court considers that such information damages Ms P.'s professional reputation and honour, in that it was disseminated to a large readership and begs the conclusion that the position of head of the legal department is occupied by an employee who lacks the requisite qualifications and work experience, which undermines the authority of the local administration and of Ms P.”\nThe court ordered the applicants to publish a rectification and pay 300 roubles (RUR, 12 euros (EUR)) each to Ms P.\n9.  On 20 June 2001 both applicants appealed against the judgment of 13 June 2001. They submitted that the information had not been proven to be untrue and that it had not undermined Ms P.'s authority. They also alleged a procedural violation, in that the case had been examined by a formation consisting of one professional judge and two lay judges, one of whom, lay judge Ms Kr., had participated in a previous hearing on 5 February 2001, whereas lay judges could only sit in court once a year and for no longer than fourteen days.\n10.  On 18 July 2001 the Kaliningrad Regional Court confirmed the judgment of 13 June 2001. It upheld the District Court's findings that Ms P. had graduated from a teachers' college, but noted that this had occurred in 1997 and that, by the time of her appointment, she had also completed higher legal education. The court concluded tha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2323", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Obninsk.\n5.  The applicant brought a civil action, seeking an increase of the monthly rate of the disability compensation he was entitled to receive.\n6.  On 6 March 2000 the Obninsk District Court of the Kaluga Region awarded the applicant 244,745.52 Russian roubles (RUR) in arrears for the period from 1 December 1998 to 1 April 2000 and increased the monthly payments to RUR 18,211.72 effective from 1 April 2000. On 1 June 2000 the Kaluga Regional Court upheld the judgment.\n7.  On 4 August 2000 the bailiffs' office opened the enforcement proceedings.\n8.  On 25 September 2000 the bailiffs' office forwarded the writs of execution to the Obninsk Division of the Federal Treasury and closed the enforcement proceedings.\n9.  On 7 December 2001 the Obninsk Town Court clarified that the judgment in the applicant's favour was to be executed by the Obninsk Division of the Federal Treasury.\n10.  In June 2002 the applicant received the entire amount of the arrears due under the judgment of 6 March 2000, that is RUR 244,745.52.\n11.  On 1 November 2002 the applicant received RUR 159,697.62 in arrears resulting from the State's failure to pay, in 2000, the disability compensation in the amount determined by the judgment of 6 March 2000.\n12.  On 2 April 2003 the applicant received RUR 211,820.64 in arrears resulting from the State's failure to pay, in 2001, the disability compensation in the amount determined by the judgment of 6 March 2000.\n13.  On 9 April 2003 the applicant received RUR 211,820.64 in arrears resulting from the State's failure to pay, in 2002, the disability compensation in the amount determined by the judgment of 6 March 2000.\n14.  In October 2003 the applicant started to receive the monthly disability payments in the amount determined by the judgment of 6 March 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2324", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Krasnoperekopsk, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.\n5.  On 27 February 1997 the Krasnoperekopsk Court (Красноперекопський міський суд) ordered the State-owned Construction Company “Budivelne Upravlinnya-50” (the “Company,” Будівельне управління №50 Тресту „Перекопхімбуд” ТБО „Кримбуд” Корпорації „Укрбуд”) to pay the applicant UAH 157,197[1] in damages for a breach of their contract for construction of a house. This judgment became final and the enforcement writ was transferred to the Bailiffs' Service for enforcement.\n6.  On 22 April 1997 the Bailiffs' Service attached the Company's assets to secure the execution of the judgment.\n7.  On 22 July 1997 and 13 July 1998 the applicant received the total of UAH 14,848.[2]\n8.  On 6 August 1997 the State Property Fund of the Crimea (the “Fund,” Фонд державного майна Автономної республіки Крим) leased the Company's production unit to a third party.\n9.  On 28 May 1998 the Ministry of Building and Investments of the Crimea (Міністерство будівництва і інвестицій Автономної республіки Крим) ordered liquidation of the Company and established a liquidation commission for this purpose.\n10.  On 22 October 1998 the liquidation commission adopted the Company's liquidation balance, which certified that the Company lacked assets to pay its outstanding debt to the applicant.\n11.  In January 2001 the applicant challenged the Fund's decision to lease the Company's production unit, alleging that it had infringed his rights as a creditor and the attachment order of 22 April 1997.\n12.  On 2 April 2001 the Kyivsky District Court of Simferopol (the “Kyivsky Court;” Київський районний суд м. Сімферополя) found for the applicant and declared the Fund's decision null and void. On 22 June 2001 the court issued an additional judgment, ordering the Fund to sell a part of the Company's property of a value sufficient to repay the applicant UAH 267,389.56[3] of the judgment debt adjusted to inflation. The Fund appealed, and on 24 October 2001 the Court of Appeal of the Crimea (Апеляційний суд Автономної Республіки Крим) upheld these judgments.\n13.  On 16 May 2002 the Supreme Court overruled the judgments of 2 April, 22 June and 24 October 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n14.  On 21 January 2003 the Kyivsky Court left the applicant's claims without consideration due to his repetitive failures to appear for the hearings. According to the applicant, he had not been duly summoned for the hearings in question. He did not appeal against the court decision of 21 January 2003.\n15.  The Krasnoperekopsk Court's judgment of 27 February 1997 remains largely unenforced to the present day.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2325", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in the town of Dniprodzerzhynsk.\n5.  In 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Labour Disputes Commission against the Agrofos State Enterprise (the “ASE”), seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. By decision of 26 February 2002, the Labour Disputes Commission allowed the applicant's claims and ordered the ASE to pay him UAH 3,429.09[1] in salary arrears and other payments.\n6.  On 18 July 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bagaliyskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk against the ASE, seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. On 23 August 2002 the court left the applicant's claim without consideration for failure to attend the hearings, of which the applicant had been informed in advance. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.\n7.  On 5 September 2002 the applicant lodged similar claims with the same court against the ASE. By decision of 26 September 2002, the court awarded the applicant UAH 3,842.86[2] in salary arrears and other payments.\n8.  On 10 April and 1 October 2002 the Bagaliyskyy District Bailiffs' Service of Dniprodzerzhynsk instituted enforcement proceedings concerning the decisions of 26 February and 26 September 2002, respectively.\n9.  On 5 August 2002 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine liquidated the ASE and established the Joint Stock Company “Dniprovskyy Zavod Mineralnyh Dobryv” (the “DZMD”) – in which the State held 40% of the share capital – as the ASE's successor.\n10.  On 24 March 2003 the applicant lodged with the Bagaliyskyy District Court a criminal law complaint against the Bailiffs' Service. By letter of 2 April 2003, the President of the court denied jurisdiction to consider the applicant's complaint.\n11.  On 2 February 2004 the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the decisions in his favour had not been executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the DZMD and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor company had been blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001. The Bailiffs' Service further informed the applicant that the DZMD's property has been in a tax lien since 1 March 2004.\n12.  On 7 April 2004 the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region commenced bankruptcy proceedings against the DZMD. According to the Government, these proceedings are still pending.\n13.  On 29 April 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Bagaliyskyy District Court against the Bailiffs' Service, seeking compensation for failure to enforce the decisions in his favour. On 29 November 2004 the court rejected the applicant's claim. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.\n14.  On 2 September 2004 the decision of 26 February 2002 was enforced in full. The decision of 26 September 2002 remains to a large extent (UAH 1,059[3]) unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2326", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and resides in the town of Zhovti Vody, Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  On an unspecified date, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zhovtovodskyy Town Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region against his employer, a State-owned company, the Zhovti Vody Building Department (Жовтоводське управління будівництва), in order to receive salary arrears and other payments.\n6.  On 26 January 2001 the court found for the applicant and awarded him 9,001.66[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Жовтоводського міського суду).\n7.  On 9 February 2001 the Zhovti Vody Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Жовтоводського міського управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n8.  On an unspecified date, the applicant instituted new proceedings in the same court against the same enterprise for further payments and compensation.\n9.  On 19 February 2003 the court found for the applicant and awarded him UAH 1,483.83[2].\n10.  The applicant received UAH 650, but the rest of the awards remain unpaid.\n11.  By letters of 3 October and 27 November 2003, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been stayed because of the bankruptcy proceedings initiated against the debtor by a decision of 27 December 2001 of the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region. The Bailiffs' Service also stated that, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced.\n12.  By letter of 6 February 2004, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been resumed and that the judgments in the applicant's favour would be enforced gradually in accordance with his place in the list of creditors. However, according to the applicant, the judgments remain unenforced.\n13.  By the decree of 5 October 2004 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine liquidated the debtor company.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2327", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant company is the owner and publisher of the weekly magazine News and has its registered seat in Vienna.\n8.  In June 2000 the Vienna City Counsel for Cultural Affairs (Kulturstadtrat), Mr Marboe, authorised the performance of Mr Schlingensief's “Container Action” during the Vienna International Festival (Wiener Festwochen). The staging took place in a container where actors figured as asylum seekers in Austria who were successively voted out for expulsion by the public. This container action met severe criticism by the public, inter alia, by members of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ).\n9.  On 30 June 2000 the newspaper Kurier published an open letter to Mr Marboe written by the Austrian artist André Heller, in which he thanked and congratulated Mr Marboe for having allowed Mr Schlingensief's performance. One passage of the open letter read as follows:\n“... It is not to be expected that the Haiders, Böhmdorfers, Westenthalers, Riess-Passers, Mölzers, and whatever else these spiritually depraved political upstarts and their various beer-tent entertainers may be called, will have the slightest awareness of how embarrassing, dastardly and frequently absurd they are. ...\n(German)\n... Man kann von den Haiders, Böhmdorfers, Westenthalers, Riess-Passers, Mölzers und wie diese seelenhygienisch heruntergekommenen Politemporkömmlinge und ihre sonstigen Bierzeltanimateure heißen mögen, nicht die geringste Einsicht in ihre eigene Peinlichkeit, Niedertracht und häufige Absurdität verlangen. ...”\n10.  Subsequently the FPÖ politicians quoted in this letter, except for Mr Mölzer, filed private prosecution proceedings for defamation against Mr Heller, which they withdrew later on.\n11.  On 7 September 2000 the applicant company published the following article on page 46 of its issue no. 36/00:\n“Lawsuit against André Heller\nFPÖ grandees sue critical artist André Heller. They are not 'spiritually depraved', they maintain.\nBöhmdorfer is suing Heller. He is not alone, though: Jörg Haider, Peter Westenthaler and Susanne Riess-Passer have all launched a powerful attack on André Heller with the assistance of the law firm Böhmdorfer-Gheneff Rechtsanwälte KEG.\nThe reason is that the artist André Heller, a critic of the Government, wrote an 'open letter' in the Kurier lavishing praise on the Vienna city councillor for cultural affairs, Peter Marboe (ÖVP). Shortly before this, however, Peter Marboe had allowed Schlingensief's provocative container to be installed outside the Vienna State Opera House as a spectacle for the International Festival – despite bitter opposition from the Kronen Zeitung, a furious Vienna FPÖ and the Minister of Justice, Dieter Böhmdorfer, who threatened prosecution.\nAndré Heller wrote in the Kurier at the time: 'It is not to be expected that the Haiders, Böhmdorfers, Westenthalers, Riess-Passers, Mölzers, and whatever else these spiritually depraved political upstarts and their various beer-tent entertainers may be called, will have the slightest awareness of how embarrassing, dastardly and frequently absurd they are' (end of quotation). Böhmdorfer & Co. will not stand for this humiliation. They have instructed Böhmdorfer-Gheneff KEG, with which the Minister of Justice severed ties in March, to file a peppery lawsuit against Mr Heller.\n'Dastardly'. In the private lawsuit it was stated that the allegations made in Mr Heller's letter were 'untrue' and that the 'unsubstantiated accusation' that Böhmdorfer & Co. were “dastardly” ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2328", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The nineteen applicants, whose names are listed in the appendix, are the descendants of some of the co-owners of a plot of land of approximately 50 hectares in Constanţa, on the Black Sea coast.\n6.  In a judgment of 16 April 1937 the Bucharest Court of Appeal, ruling on an application for partition of real estate consisting of approximately 50 hectares of land on the Black Sea coast and appurtenant buildings, formerly the property of the late Alexandru N. Steflea, noted that some of the heirs had sold their shares of the estate to Nicolae Lupaş, who therefore remained a co-owner of the property in common with twelve other heirs.\n7.  With a view to taking the property out of common ownership, the Court of Appeal divided it into 360 shares, of which 249.6 were allocated to Nicolae Lupaş, the twelve other heirs being assigned either 9/360, 8/360 or 14.4/360 of the property.\n8.  Following a further purchase of shares in the estate, Nicolae Lupaş became the owner of 264/360 of the property, which was now owned in common with eleven other heirs.\n9.  By Decree no. 102 of 20 April 1950 the National Assembly, on a proposal by the Council of Ministers, expropriated the land in question on public-interest grounds, together with an adjoining plot of land belonging to a third party, with a view to building a military base.\n10.  After 1950, once the plan to build a military base had been abandoned, the County Police Inspectorate took possession of a large portion of the land that had belonged to Nicolae Lupaş and the other co-owners, while other parts were transformed following consolidation works on the cliff or were allocated to private individuals to build housing.\n11.  Following proceedings for the recovery of possession of the plot adjoining the land that had belonged to Nicolae Lupaş and the other co-owners, the Constanţa Court of First Instance ruled in a final judgment of 5 December 1994 that Decree no. 102/1950 contravened the 1948 Constitution as in force on the date of the expropriation, and ordered the return of the land to the heir of its former owner. The court held, firstly, that the plan to build a military base had been abandoned shortly after the expropriation and, secondly, that the former owner had not received any compensation for the expropriation of his property.\n12.  In 1998 the applicants Adrian Lupaş, Nicolae Lupaş, Ovidiu Lupaş, Verginiu Lupaş and Ana Teodosiu, as the children and heirs of Nicolae Lupaş, who had died in 1959, brought an action against Mr and Mrs B., alleging that they had illegally taken possession of a plot of land measuring 638 sq. m at 30 Turda Street, on part of the land that had formerly belonged to Nicolae Lupaş. The applicants submitted that the plot in question was part of the land of which Nicolae Lupaş had been allocated a 249.6/360 share by the Bucharest Court of Appeal in 1937 and that the State had never had valid title to it.\n13.  Mr and Mrs B. applied for the case to be struck out on the ground that the applicants lacked the capacity to take proceedings, firstly because the land in question had been expropriated before Nicolae Lupaş's death, and secondly because they had not formally accepted their ascendant's estate. They submitted that the action was in any event inadmissible in that it had been brought solely by Nicolae Lupaş's heirs, without the consent of the heirs of the eleven other co-owners.\n14.  The fourteen other applicants, Nicolae Chirescu, Dan Mihai Banciu, Mihai Anton Ricci", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2329", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Trbovlje.\n6.  On 20 July 1993 the applicant was discharged from the company ABCT as a result of disciplinary proceedings.\n7.  Her appeal of 3 August 1993 was rejected by the board of executives of the ABCT on 17 August 1993. The decision was served on the applicant on 27 August 1993. Her employment with ABCT was thus ended.\n8.  On 30 August 1993 she lodged a request for protection of rights with the then Ljubljana Labour Court (Sodišče združenega dela v Ljubljani). In substance, she was contesting the decision concerning termination of her employment with ABCT.\n9.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.\n10.  Following a reform of the judicial system, the court before which the case was pending was renamed to Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani).\n11.  The hearing scheduled for 14 September 1995 was cancelled at the respondent's request.\n12.  On 18 October 1995 the applicant lodged a request for an interim measure.\n13.  On 19 October 1995 the court held the first hearing and the second hearing was held on 16 November 1995.\n14.  On 27 November 1995 the applicant submitted new evidence.\n15.  On 30 November and 7 December 1995 the court held hearings. The last hearing was adjourned for an indefinite period of time and the case was transferred to the criminal court.\n16.  On 11 December 1995 the court dismissed the applicant's request for an interim measure. The applicant's appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) on 3 January 1996.\n17.  On 13 February 1996 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court decided to stay the proceedings because criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant.\n18.  The applicant appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court which allowed the appeal on 8 May 1997 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for further examination.\n19.  The Ljubljana Labour and Social Court scheduled a hearing for 12 June 1997. This hearing was adjourned at the applicant's request, because she was living abroad at the time.\n20.  On 18 September 1997 the court held a hearing which was adjourned in order to summon witnesses.\n21.  The hearing scheduled for 18 November 1997 was cancelled at the request of the applicant, because her lawyer was defending a minor in a different set of proceedings.\n22.  On 13 and 18 November 1997 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and increased her claim.\n23.  As the hearing held on 27 November 1997 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and alleged new violations. As a result, the court adjourned the hearing to acquire evidence related to the newly raised allegations.\n24.  On 1 December 1997 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.\n25.  On 22 January 1998 the court held a hearing, decided to hear additional witnesses and that it would issue a judgment on the merits.\n26.  On 28 June 1999 the court held a hearing. It decided on its own motion that the case needed further examination and heard some witnesses.\n27.  On 7 July 1999 the respondent informed the court that composition proceedings had been terminated against it and that the applicant did not raise her claims in those proceedings.\n28.  On 23 September 1999 the court held a hearing and dismissed the applicant's complaints. The written judgment was delivered on 9 June 2000.\nOn 19 June 2000 the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2330", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Gliwice, Poland.\n5.  The applicant was the owner of a company in Gdańsk (Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości i Inwestycji w Gdańsku). On 8 April 1999 he was arrested on suspicion of fraud. On 10 April 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his detention on remand.\n6.  On 21 May 1999 the applicant began serving a 3 years and 10 months' prison sentence, which resulted from another conviction.\n7.  On 9 January 2000 the Gdańsk District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment.\n8.  On 18 October 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court upheld the applicant's conviction.\n9.  On 9 May 2002 the applicant was again arrested on suspicion of fraud. On 10 May 2002 the Olsztyn District Court ordered his detention on remand. On 16 September 2002 the Olsztyn District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 3 years' imprisonment.\n10.  Upon the applicant's appeal, the Olsztyn Regional Court amended the first‑instance judgment on 30 January 2003. The applicant filed a cassation appeal. On 1 March 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal as manifestly ill‑founded.\n11.  At the time of lodging his application with the Court the applicant had been detained on remand in the course of criminal proceedings against him. At the same time, as of 21 May 1999 he was serving a prison sentence imposed in the course of another set of criminal proceedings against him.\n12.  On 6 June 2000, the Registry of the Court received the applicant's letter dated 12 April 2000. Both the letter and the envelope bear a stamp “Censored on... judge” and no signature (Cenzurowano dn... sędzia.). The envelope had been opened and then sealed with adhesive tape.\n13.  On 13 February 2001, the Registry of the Court received another letter from the applicant (dated 29 December 2000). It was delivered in an envelope bearing a stamp “Censored on ... judge” and no signature (Cenzurowano dn... sędzia.). It also bears a red stamp “Remand Centre in Gdańsk” (Areszt Śledczy w Gdańsku).\n14.  On 25 June 2001, the Registry of the Court received another letter from the applicant, dated 24 July 2000 (sent on 13 June 2001). It was delivered in an envelope bearing a stamp “Censored on... judge” and no signature (Cenzurowano dn... sędzia.). The envelope had been sealed with adhesive tape. It also bears a handwritten note: “letter admitted to transport sealed with adhesive tape” (list przyjęty do przewozu oklejony taśmą).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2331", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul. He was the president of MÜSİAD[2] at the time of the events.\n7.  On 4 October 1997 the applicant made an opening speech at a consultation meeting with the members of MÜSİAD. The applicant submitted that the meeting was held in private and that no journalists were allowed. During lunch, a journalist, Mr T.Y. approached the applicant and asked a couple of questions. The applicant gave some short answers.\n8.  On 5 October 1997, a daily newspaper “Hürriyet” published an article entitled “Weird criticisms” about the event. The text was as follows:\n“Erol Yarar who braces himself for the leadership of the Islamic section in view of the likelihood of the closure of the Welfare Party, stated that 'the head of he who wants to bring back Article 163 [of the Criminal Code] would be cut off', [and] continued to say that 'what rests with us is to start a democratic independence struggle'. In the consultation meeting of the professions committee, arranged by the Ankara Branch of MÜSIAD, Yarar criticised what he called the 'absolute atheist education' [and] asserted that 'Today, Turkey is debating topics which even the Greek and British occupation forces of Istanbul had not dared to raise although they might have desired to do so'. Yarar who alleged that those who bring up this topic on the agenda of Turkey cannot be believers and that 'attempts to punish even the circumcision festivities as a religious activity must be the work of those without circumcision'.\nYarar who alleged that uninterrupted compulsory education is designed to pave the way for establishing the legal foundation of an absolute atheist life [and] reached to the ongoing preparations for the re-introduction of a new criminal law similar to Article 163. Stating that the most important problem in Turkey was that of the people who while posing themselves as faithful Muslims by saying 'I am a Muslim too', prepared the legal foundation for an atheist life. He went on to state that 'what rests with us in that regard is to start a democratic independence struggle [against] those who would own up to such a draft law, if there is any. It is now our duty to do that'. Yarar then continued to state that 'Today, another problem of Turkey, which is as important as the unrecorded economy, is the unrecorded holders of State power. Holders of State power who do not derive their authority from the Nation, who are afraid of the Nation's will, who fear to express their own real faith to the Nation, who are in fact cowards but seek to oppress the nation through their unrecorded powers and who expect material and political premium from all this. [This] constitutes the single biggest problem of Turkey. But as long as the Nation's resolution to struggle continues, although they may raise their voices from time to time, their voices shall diminish when the Nation strikes back. Then we have a duty. We have to continue our struggle.'\nYarar, emphasising that the new arrangements under preparation would provide for heavy punishment and fines for those who support religious schools and religious meetings, stated that 'the head who wants to control everything through punishment; this is the head [kafa] which has to be changed in Turkey. It is a head which has to be invited to repent. It is a head which we the Nation have to seek to change. After having exhausted all our efforts, if it still does not want to come around to a reasonable point, then it has to be", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2332", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Mysłowice, Poland.\n5.  On 25 September 2000 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed burglary and having handled stolen goods. On 26 September 2000 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that he be remanded in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question while acting in an organised criminal group, the severity of the anticipated sentence and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The latter ground was based on the risk that, once released, he might tamper with evidence. The applicant's appeal against the decision was dismissed on 11 October 2000 by the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n6.  On 15 January 2001 the District Court prolonged the applicant's detention. It reiterated the grounds originally given for keeping him in custody.\n7.  On 12 March 2001 the applicant and 8 co‑accused were indicted before the Katowice District Court. On 18 May 2001 the trial court held the first hearing.\n8.  Subsequently, the applicant's detention was on several occasions prolonged. The relevant decisions were given on, inter alia, 26 June, 28 September and 28 December 2001 and 29 January, 20 May and 10 September 2002. The court considered that the proper course of the proceedings could only be secured by keeping the applicant in detention given the fact that he had been charged with membership of an organised, armed criminal group. Furthermore, the trial court had actively been taking evidence from co‑accused, witnesses and expert witnesses, the process of which could have been disturbed by the applicant's release.\n9.  During the proceedings the applicant made repeated, but unsuccessful, applications for release. He also appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release him and decisions prolonging his detention.\n10.  On 27 September 2002 the Katowice District Court informed the detention centre that it would not make an application to the Court of Appeal to prolong further the applicant's detention on the ground that it had found no exceptional circumstances under Article 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to justify such a request. The applicant, however, was not released as he was still required to remain in pre-trial detention on the charge of armed robbery (see below).\n11.  This set of proceedings is apparently still pending.\n12.  On 13 August 2001 the Katowice District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery while acting in an organised criminal group. The court relied in particular on the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the likelihood that a heavy prison sentence might be imposed on him if found guilty.\n13.  The Katowice District Court and the Katowice Regional Court several times prolonged his detention pending the conclusion of the investigation. The relevant decisions were given on 16 September and 18 November 2002 and on 3 February 2003. The last of those decisions extended the applicant's detention until 31 May 2003. The courts considered that, given that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious offences, voluminous expert evidence needed to be obtained. For that reason, he should be kept in detention in order to secure the proper conduct of the investigation. They also held that that measure was justified by the severity of the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2333", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and he is currently detained in the Gaziantep Prison.\n6.  On 13 March 1993 the applicant was taken into custody by policemen from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Batman Security Directorate on suspicion of his membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Workers' Party of Kurdistan (“the PKK”).\n7.  On 13 April 1993 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge where he repeated his police statements. The judge ordered the applicant's detention on remand.\n8.  On 26 April 1993 the Diyarbakır State Security Court Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against 38 accused persons, including the applicant. He accused the applicant of carrying out activities aimed at breaking up the unity of the State and removing part of the national territory from the State's control. He requested the court to sentence the applicant in accordance with Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  Two further indictments were submitted to the Diyarbakır State Security Court concerning offences which the applicant had allegedly committed in Bitlis and Tatvan. The Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to examine these accusations jointly.\n10.  Between 16 June 1993 and 20 April 1999, the court held 51 hearings, during which the judges dealt with solely procedural matters. They considered the measures that should be taken to secure the presence of the accused persons at the hearings and examined their continued detention. The applicant did not attend many of these hearings in protest against the State Security Courts.\n11.  On 18 June 1999 the constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge. Thereafter, the court held 18 more hearings.\n12.  On 12 March 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court, which was composed of three civilian judges, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to the death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. The death penalty was commuted to a life sentence.\n13.  On 1 October 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2334", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Izmir.\n5.   In 1996 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated land (plot no. 431/4) and a building which the applicant co‑owned. The applicant received an amount determined by a committee of experts at the time of the expropriation.\n6.  On 5 January 1996 the applicant filed an action for additional compensation with the Izmir Civil Court of First Instance. On 27 December 1999 the first-instance court awarded the applicant additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decision. This judgment was quashed by the Court of Cassation on 17 April 2000.\n7.  On 4 December 2000 the first-instance court awarded the applicant additional compensation of 3,275,732,664 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 5,470 euros (EUR)), plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decision, running from 12 January 1996. On 12 March 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment.\n8.  On 29 August 2001 the administration paid the applicant TRL 12,352,710,000 (approximately EUR 10,042) covering the additional compensation, interest, costs and expenses.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2335", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Ms Pelaghia Moisei, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1921 and lives in the village of Recea.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In 2000 the applicant lodged with the Străşeni District Court a civil action against the Savings Bank and the Government. She sought compensation in connection with her deposits in the Savings Bank pursuant to the Parliament's decision of 29 July 1994 to revalue the savings of citizens in the Savings Bank in order to compensate for losses caused by inflation.\n8.  On 23 July 2001 the Straseni District Court found for the applicant and ordered the Government to pay her 7,696.23 Moldovan lei (MDL), (approximately 682 euros (EUR) at the time). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and enforceable 15 days later.\n9.  The court issued an enforcement warrant which it sent directly to the Bailiff for enforcement.\n10.  On 1 November 2001 the applicant's representative lodged a written request with the President of the Chişinău District Court asking for the enforcement of the judgment of 23 July 2001. By a letter of 15 November 2001 the President of that court replied that the enforcement of the decision was impossible because the Ministry of Finance did not have funds and advised the applicant to address the Government, the Parliament and the President of Moldova, because its own requests sent to these institutions remained unheeded.\n11.  On 28 March 2002 the applicant addressed the Ministry of Justice with a request for its assistance in enforcing the judgment. The Ministry forwarded the letter to the newly created Department for the Enforcement of Judicial Decisions (“the Department”). In a letter dated 2 July 2002, the Department informed the applicant that the enforcement warrant in her name for the sum of MDL 7,696 had been forwarded to the Central Treasury of the Ministry of Finance and added that the legislation did not provide for the forced execution of judgments against the State Budget.\n12.  On 19 September 2002 the applicant requested the assistance of the Minister of Finance in enforcing the decision. In a letter of 8 October 2002, signed by the Vice-Minister of Finance, the applicant was informed that the State Treasury, which was responsible for enforcing judgments against the State, had not received an enforcement warrant for the sum mentioned by the applicant. At the same time, it had registered another warrant for the amount of MDL 2,004. The applicant was further informed that the State Budget for the year 2002 did not provide for expenditure related to enforcement of her judgment and that therefore the judgment of 23 July 2001 could not be enforced. The applicant was advised to wait for the adoption of the State Budget for the year 2003 which might provide for such expenditure.\n13.  The Government submitted evidence of the fact that the Ministry of Finance had transferred a lump sum to the Department on 29 April 2003 for the purpose of enforcing a list of enforcement warrants, including the applicant's. The applicant received her money on 27 May 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2336", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a limited company registered in Sweden.\n6.  In 1986 the applicant company sued company X. for breach of contract and requested SEK 609,000 in compensation. The District Court (tingsrätten) in Malmö rejected the claim but, upon appeal, the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) of Skåne and Blekinge awarded the applicant company SEK 442,942. Company X. appealed to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) which, in 1992, quashed the Court of Appeal's judgment and upheld the District Court's judgment. Before the District Court and the Court of Appeal, the applicant company was represented by lawyer A. However, after the oral hearing in the Court of Appeal, the applicant company made it clear that it had lost confidence in A., who accordingly resigned from the case. During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the applicant company was represented by another lawyer.\n7.  On 7 June 1993 the applicant company sued A. before the District Court of Ängelholm, claiming that she had been negligent while representing it before the District Court and the Court of Appeal. In particular, she had failed to invoke a standard contract (“EÅ 85”) as a ground for their claim. It demanded that A. pay it SEK 1,478,054 (approximately EUR 161,000) in compensation. A. contested the allegations and insisted that she had carried out her assignment with proper care. Both parties, in particular the applicant company, submitted extensive pleadings and documents, and the court held three oral preparatory meetings with the parties. Following each of these meetings, more submissions were made by the parties, and efforts were made to find a theme on which the District Court could issue an interim judgment (mellandom). However, these efforts failed. Furthermore, in submissions to the District Court between September and December 1995, both parties revoked their witnesses, leaving only the applicant company's owner and A. to be heard at the main hearing.\n8.  On 22 and 23 January 1996 the District Court held an oral hearing on the merits of the case and, on 23 February 1996, it rejected the applicant company's claim. It gave detailed grounds for its judgment. In its conclusion, the court stated, inter alia, that it found that A. had not been negligent in any of the respects referred to by the applicant company. On the contrary, the examination of the case confirmed that A. had carried out her assignment conscientiously and skilfully.\n9.  On 14 March 1996 the applicant company appealed against the judgment to the Court of Appeal of Skåne and Blekinge. In May 1996 it supplemented its appeal and submitted new evidence which it requested the court to accept. It further requested that the case be remitted to the District Court and that it be granted legal aid.\n10.  In May 1996 the Court of Appeal rejected the request for legal aid, a decision against which the applicant company appealed. Consequently, the entire case file was sent to the Supreme Court which, in October 1996, upheld the decision and sent the case file back to the Court of Appeal. In October and December 1996, the applicant company made further submissions to the court, which were sent to the other party for comments.\n11.  An oral hearing was planned for the middle of April 1997, but it was postponed since A. could not attend.\n12.  In July 1997 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant company's request to have the case remitted to the lower court, but admitted the new evidence which had been produced as", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2337", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Púchov.\n5.  On 17 December 1996 the applicant filed an action against a periodical with the Považská Bystrica District Court (Okresný súd). He sought protection of his personal integrity under Articles 11 et seq. of the Civil Code and claimed damages. He later extended the action to include the editor of the periodical.\n6.  The District Court held hearings on 24 March and 20 August 1997. They were both adjourned, the former with a view to obtaining evidence, the latter in order to decide on the applicant's requests for free legal aid and an exemption from the obligation to pay court fees.\n7.  On 25 November 1997 the District Court dismissed the applicant's request for free legal aid and waiver of court fees. The applicant appealed and challenged the judge for bias.\n8.  A hearing that was listed for 10 December 1997 had to be adjourned because the challenge to the judge had not yet been determined.\n9.  On 9 April 1998 the Trenčín Regional Court (Krajský súd) dismissed the challenge of bias.\n10.  On 26 October 1998 the District Court held another hearing which had to be adjourned because the applicant's appeal against the decision of 25 November 1997 concerning court fees and legal aid had still not been determined. The case file was subsequently transmitted to the Regional Court for a determination of the appeal.\n11.  On 30 April 1999 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 25 November 1997.\n12.  On 6 October 1999 the District Court appointed an ex officio lawyer for the applicant. On 24 November 1999 the lawyer made written submissions in the applicant's name.\n13.  On 12 June 2000 the District Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it dismissed the action. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 4 September 2000 the District Court imposed a fine of 5,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) on the applicant for disorderly conduct. The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 14 January 2003 the Regional Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it quashed the first-instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the periodical on the ground that the periodical lacked the legal capacity to be a party to court proceedings.\n16.  On 12 February 2003 the District Court ruled that in so far as the applicant's claim concerned the remaining defendant, the editor of the periodical, it would be determined in a separate set of proceedings which are not the subject-matter of the present application.\n17.  In the meantime, on 25 July 2002, the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution about the length of the proceedings with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). He directed the complaint against both the District Court and the Regional Court and claimed just satisfaction in the amount of SKK 50,000[2].\n18.  On 3 October 2002 the Constitutional Court appointed an ex officio lawyer for the applicant and on 13 November 2002 it declared the complaint admissible.\n19.  On 9 July 2003 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing “without unjustified delay” in the phase of the proceedings before the Regional Court but not before the District Court. The applicant was awarded SKK 20,000[3] in just satisfaction and reimbursement of his legal costs.\nThe Constitutional Court examined the overall length of the proceedings from their beginning in 1996 until the decision of 14 January 2003. However,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2338", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in born in 1972 and lives in Zielona Góra, Poland.\n6.  On 28 March 2000 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 29 March 2000 he was charged with fraud.\n7.  On 30 March 2000 the Wrocław District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in detention. The court referred to the fact that the applicant was charged with a crime which carried a heavy sentence. It also considered that the applicant could go into hiding and that he might try to avoid the trial.\n8.  On 27 April 2000 the applicant applied for release from detention. On 4 May 2000 the Wrocław District Prosecutor rejected his application. The prosecutor pointed out that the applicant's co-accused was still in hiding. He also considered that the applicant's case did not disclose any of the grounds for release from detention listed in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings. The applicant appealed against this decision but his appeal was dismissed on 19 May 2000 by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor.\n9.  On 28 June 2000 the Wrocław District Court extended the applicant's pre‑trial detention until 29 September 2000. The court considered that the evidence collected in the case sufficiently supported the charges laid against the applicant. It was necessary to collect several pieces of evidence and the charges laid against the applicant carried a heavy sentence. The court was also of the view that the applicant would interfere with the criminal proceedings against him.\n10.  On 28 September 2000 the Wrocław District Court prolonged the applicant's pre-trial detention until 29 December 2000. The court repeated the reasons given in its decision of 28 June 2000.\n11.  On 20 October 2000 the applicant made an application for release to the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor. He requested that his detention be replaced by police supervision and by a court order requiring him to remain in Poland.\n12.  On 23 October 2000 the Regional Prosecutor dismissed the application for release. The prosecutor pointed out that the applicant was a habitual offender and that the evidence collected in the case sufficiently supported the charges laid against him.\n13.  On 28 December 2000 the Wrocław District Court extended the applicant's pre-trial detention until 29 March 2001. The court repeated the reasons given in its decision of 28 June 2000.\n14.  On 2 February 2001 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 28 December 2000.\n15.  On 16 March 2001 the applicant was indicted before the Wrocław District Court. The bill of indictment against the applicant and one co‑accused concerned several counts of fraud to the detriment of several companies allegedly committed by them while running a company owned by the applicant.\n16.  On 28 March 2001 the Wrocław District Court prolonged the applicant's pre‑trial detention until 29 June 2001. The court repeated the reasons given in its decision of 28 June 2000 and added that the applicant would remain in detention in order to “secure the proper conduct of the proceedings”.\n17.  At the hearing held on 12 September 2001 the trial court further prolonged the applicant's detention justifying it by reference to the gravity of the charges and the need to secure the proper conduct of proceedings. At the next hearing held on 15 November 2001 the applicant pleaded guilty to some of the charges against him.\n18.  On 19 December 2001 the applicant's pre-trial detention was prolonged. The court considered th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2339", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Oferta Plus S.R.L., is a company incorporated under Moldovan law.\n7.  The background to this case lies in a series of complex contractual arrangements made in 1997 concerning importation of electricity from Ukraine to Moldova and involving, in addition to the applicant company, a Moldovan State-owned power distribution company called Moldtranselectro, a Ukrainian State-owned power distribution company and a Ukrainian private company. The agreement to which Oferta Plus was a party provided, inter alia, that it would pay the Ukrainian private company for the electricity supplied to Moldtranselectro in United States dollars (USD) and would later be paid back by Moldtranselectro in Moldovan lei (MDL) at the official exchange rate on the day of payment.\n8.  On unspecified dates between 1997 and 1998 the applicant company paid over USD 33,000,000 for the electricity supplied to Moldtranselectro from Ukraine.\n9.  On an unspecified date Moldtranselectro paid the applicant company MDL 189,869,277.\n10.  On 3 March 1998 the Government of Moldova adopted Decision no. 243 by which the Ministry of Finance was authorised to issue nominative Treasury bonds in favour of private companies for the payment of debts arising from the importation of electricity supplied to state institutions.\n11.  On 25 March 1998 Moldtranselectro wrote a letter to the Ministry of Finance asking it to issue a nominative Treasury bond (“Treasury bond”) with a value of MDL 20,000,000 in favour of Oferta Plus.\n12.  On 27 March 1998 the Ministry of Finance issued a Treasury bond valued at MDL 20,000,000[1] in favour of the applicant company, payable by 10 July 1998. The Treasury bond provided that the applicant company had to present it to the Ministry of Finance at least ten banking days before the date of payment. It also provided that Moldtranselectro had to present, by that date, to the Ministry of Finance, documents proving the supply of electricity to state institutions.\n13.  The applicant company presented the Treasury bond to the Ministry of Finance ten banking days before the date of payment. However, the latter refused to pay, on the ground that Moldtranselectro had failed to submit evidence concerning the payment by Oferta Plus for the imported electricity.\n14.  In October 1998 the applicant company initiated civil proceedings against both the Ministry of Finance and Moldtranselectro. The Ministry of Finance defended the action on the grounds set out in paragraph 13 above while Moldtranselectro declined all responsibility.\n15.  On 27 October 1999 the Chisinau Economic Court found in favour of the applicant company and confirmed its right to be paid MDL 20,000,000 by the Ministry of Finance, in accordance with the Treasury bond. It based its judgment on the finding that Oferta Plus had paid for energy supplied to Moldtranselectro from Ukraine in accordance with the agreement between them and that that energy had been consumed by state institutions. The court considered that the fact that Moldtranselectro had failed to comply with its obligation in the Treasury bond was not in itself enough to absolve the Ministry of Finance from its obligation to pay. The court also decided to absolve Moldtranselectro of any responsibility.\n16.  Since an appeal by the Ministry of Finance was dismissed on 25 November 1999 for failure to pay court fees, a warrant for the enforcement of the judgment of 27 October 1999 was issued to the applicant company in November 1999.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2340", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Olsztyn.\n5.  On 5 June 1997 the police started an investigation into the murder of a certain Z.K. It appears that between June and July 1997 the applicant had been arrested in connection with this investigation but was released under police supervision.\n6.  On 7 January 1998 the Biskupiec District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand and subsequently an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant.\n7.  On 12 February 1998 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having killed Mr Z.K. with whom he had been drinking alcohol on the night of the crime.\n8.  On 19 February 1998 the Biskupiec District Court, at a hearing at which the applicant had been present, decided to detain him on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the homicide. The court further found that the applicant, who had been previously placed under police supervision, had violated the conditions of this preventive measure by leaving his place of residence without notification. Therefore, there was a real risk that he might abscond.\n9.  On 26 February 1998 the applicant was indicted before the Olsztyn Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).\n10.  On 6 March 1998 the Olsztyn Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision ordering his pre-trial detention. The court further prolonged the applicant's detention relying in particular on the fact that the applicant had previously been in hiding.\n11.  In November and December 1998 the trial court held hearings. The court ordered that an expert opinion be prepared. Subsequently, the applicant was ordered to undergo psychiatric observation in order to prepare the expert opinion.\n12.  On 18 December 1998 and 14 May 1999 the Olsztyn Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention finding that there was a strong suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. The court further noted that the fact that the applicant had been in hiding in the past justified the need to keep him in custody in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. As regards the session of 14 May 1999, on 12 May 1999 the court informed the prosecutor and the applicant's lawyer that it had been scheduled for 14 May. Nevertheless, the applicant's lawyer failed to appear at the session.\n13.  In October 1999 the trial court held hearings. Subsequently, in November 1999 the court allowed the applicant's motion to obtain evidence by means of a DNA test.\n14.  Afterwards the applicant's pre-trial detention was prolonged on 28 October 1999. The applicant and his lawyer were absent although it appears from the court order given on 27 October 1999 that the lawyer had been notified about the session. The trial court established that the criminal proceedings against the applicant were pending and that most probably they would not finish before the end of 1999. The court then added:\n“The Regional Court cannot find any reason for [releasing the applicant from custody].”\n15.  At the hearing held on 9 November 1999, at which both the applicant and his lawyer were present, the court further prolonged his pre‑trial detention.\n16.  Subsequently, as the length of the applicant's detention reached the statutory time-limit of 2 years as laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego) the Regional Court made applications to the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) asking for the applicant's detention to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2341", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, who is a journalist, was born in 1952 and lives in Lubajny, Poland.\n6.  On 15 September 1998 the applicant published in a daily newspaper, Dziennik Pojezierza, the following article:\n“Turtle speed of the Ostróda judiciary. The governor just a witness.\nTomorrow, on Wednesday 16 September, at 9 o'clock another hearing will begin before the Ostróda District Court in a criminal case against Tadeusz L., deputy mayor of Ostróda and Lech K., legal adviser. The bill of indictment includes charges against them that three years ago, on 28 September 1995, they carried out a burglary in the office of TVK Vectra, a private company which legally worked and leased the office from the Housing Co-operative Jedność.\nThe case has already been pending for two and a half years. For several months, the court has been unable to take evidence from governor Zbigniew Babalski, at that time mayor of Ostróda, the most important witness. On numerous occasions, he was unsuccessfully summoned before Themis. Babalski was sending excuses to the court or did not attend hearings without any explanation.\nFor the first time, and so far the only time, the governor appeared before the court on 28 May. However, he could not be heard because the accused Tadeusz L. was absent, not for the first time, as he was quietly present at that time in the town hall situated ... 100 metres away. It was – according to the observers of the case – another instance of dodging the proceedings in order to delay the date of delivery of a judgment. Protracting the case leads to the likelihood that the case will be discontinued or the accused will be acquitted. A judgment convicting Tadeusz L. would mean an interruption of his very lucrative career in local government.\nIn addition, it is a very annoying and dangerous case for governor Zbigniew Babalski. The evidence taken so far from witnesses clearly shows that the burglary in Vectra took place with his knowledge and approval. On the day of the attempt to take over the TV cable operator he telephoned police and asked for 'assistance with eviction' – misleading the law enforcement officers. The day after the burglary he informed the people of Ostróda – through the TV cable operator he had taken over – that the action was lawful and served the interests of the TV audience.\nIt is not known whether the court will ask the governor to explain these disturbing facts. It is also not known whether the court will finally decide to clarify the role played in the burglary by Grzegorz Kierozalski, at that time the town secretary and today the governor's chef de cabinet. It appears from the evidence given by Henryk K., a locksmith employed by the Municipal Housing Administration, that Kierozalski instructed him to take tools and to force open a door to the Vectra's office. In the view of many former Ostróda councillors, the list of accused in this case is too short by at least half. However, it is not known whether governor Babalski will allow the court to finish this unusual case.”\n7.  On 17 September 1998 the applicant published in the same daily the following article:\n“A gypsy did it, but they are going to hang the blacksmith. A case concerning the burglary in Vectra approaches the end.\nYesterday, on 16 September, the Ostróda District Court finished the taking of evidence in the case concerning the burglary in the office of the Vectra Cable Television in which the accused are Tadeusz L., deputy mayor of Ostróda and Lech K., legal adviser.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2342", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1965 respectively. The first applicant lives in Batman and the second applicant is currently detained in the Gaziantep Prison.\n5.  On 13 March 1993 the applicants were taken into custody by policemen from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Batman Security Directorate on suspicion of their membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Workers' Party of Kurdistan (“the PKK”).\n6.  On 13 April 1993 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge, who ordered the applicants' detention on remand.\n7.  On 26 April 1993 the Diyarbakır State Security Court Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against 38 accused persons, including the applicants. He accused the first applicant of membership of the PKK and requested the court to sentence him under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The public prosecutor further accused the second applicant of carrying out activities aimed at breaking up the unity of the State and removing part of the national territory from the State's control. The prosecutor requested the court to sentence him in accordance with Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  On 18 June 1999 the constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge.\n9.  Between 16 June 1993 and 12 March 2002, the court held 69 hearings. On 12 March 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court, which was composed of three civilian judges, acquitted the first applicant of the charges against him. The court further found the second applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to the death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. The death penalty was commuted to a life sentence.\n10.  On 1 October 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2343", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is a broadcasting company which was established in 1991 and is registered in Bratislava.\n7.  At the relevant time the applicant company broadcast on five frequencies in Slovakia and had a daily audience of more than 400,000 listeners. The principles underlying its operations were democracy and independence.\n8.  At the relevant time Slovenská poisťovňa a.s. (“SP”) was a major insurance company in Slovakia. It was controlled by the State through the National Privatisation Agency (Fond národného majetku – “the FNM”).\n9.  Following the 1994 parliamentary elections, SP’s management board was appointed through a political agreement between the coalition parties then in power. The coalition included the Movement for a Democratic Slovakia (Hnutie za demokratické Slovensko – “HZDS”) and the Slovak National Party (Slovenská národná strana – “SNS”).\n10.  At that time the majority of seats in the bodies under the FNM’s control were held by HZDS appointees.\n11.  On 1 June 1996 SP’s supervisory board removed the individuals appointed by the SNS from the company’s board of directors and appointed a new management team. The outgoing management team did not accept this move.\n12.  On 3 June 1996 the former management team took over the SP headquarters. They were assisted by private security guards and a squad of State police, who had been assigned to this task by the President of the Slovak Police Corps, an SNS appointee. They forced the newly appointed management team to leave the premises, but a few days later the new management, assisted by their own private security service, regained control of the company and its premises.\n13.  The background to this struggle was, essentially, the wish of those involved to participate in SP’s privatisation. The removal of the SNS‑appointed management team caused a serious political crisis at government level.\n14.  At the relevant time Mr K. was Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and Mr D. was State Secretary at the Ministry of Justice. The posts of State Secretaries within ministries were filled through appointments by political parties. They were therefore political posts and did not form part of the civil service.\n15.  After the events complained of, Mr D. was elected as a judge to the Constitutional Court.\n16.  At 6 p.m. on 12 June 1996 the applicant company broadcast the recording of a telephone conversation between Mr K. and Mr D. in its news programme “Journal”.\n17.  The broadcast was preceded by comments by the applicant company’s journalist. The names of the persons involved were mentioned in full. The commentary went as follows:\n“As mentioned in our noon programme, we have managed to obtain a tape recording of a telephone conversation which suggests that [Mr K.], the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, was involved in the events involving Slovenská poisťovňa a.s. Naturally, Radio Twist disapproves of any wiretapping unless it is done under a court order. We consider [the present recording] unlawful and dissociate ourselves from the manner in which it was obtained. But because, in this case, a matter of general interest is involved, one which cannot be concealed ... we seek to carry out our duty to inform the public. At the same time, we would like to ask the competent authorities about the security situation in our country, if wiretapping of ... senior officials is possible. The fact that senior officials are involved in activities concerning the above-mentioned case ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2344", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in the town of Nova Kakhovka, Kherson Region, Ukraine. He is a former employee of the State‑owned OJSC “Pivdenelektromash” (“the Company,” ВАТ “Південелектромаш”).\n5.  The background facts for the case are described in the case of Semenov v. Ukraine (no. 25463/03, §§ 5-8, 13 December 2005).\n6.  On 5 December 2002 the Nova Kakhovka City Court (Новокаховський міський суд Херсонської області) ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 4,393[1] in salary arrears. This judgment became final and the writs of execution were transferred to the Bailiffs' Service.\n7.  By letters of 26 February 2003 and 15 April 2003, the Bailiffs' Service and the Kherson Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been suspended due to the proceedings of financial rehabilitation of the debtor.\n8.  On 11 August 2003 the Nova Kakhovka City Court rejected the applicant's complaint about the allegedly unlawful inactivity of the Bailiffs' Service. The court stated that there was no fault attributable to the defendant.\n9.  On 15 January 2004 the Bailiffs' Service resumed the execution proceedings in the applicant's case. On 23 January and 10 February 2004, it ordered the seizure of the Company's accounts. However, on 27 February 2004 the Kherson Regional Commercial Court, on the trustee's appeal, quashed these decisions because the Bankruptcy Act envisaged the obligatory suspension of enforcement proceedings pending the resolution of a bankruptcy case.\n10.  The judgment in the applicant's favour remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2345", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lived in Ryazan, the Russian Federation. He died on 1 August 2005. By letter of 14 January 2006, Mrs Movsesyan, the applicant's widow, informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application.\n6.  On 26 November 2001 the Pavlograd Court (Павлоградський районний суд Дніпропетровської області) awarded the applicant a lump sum of UAH 9,114.31[1] in various payments and UAH 416.61[2] in monthly disability allowances against his former employers, the State-owned companies “Dniproshakhtobud” (ДВАТ “Дніпрошахтобуд”), “Kryvbasshakhtoprokhodka” (трест “Кривбасшахтопроходка”) and “Rudoupravlinnya Kirova” (ДП “Рудоуправління ім. Кірова”). The judgment came into force and the enforcement writs were transferred to the Bailiffs' Service for enforcement.\n7.  On 12 and 23 April 2002 the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be enforced due to the considerable number of enforcement proceedings taken against the debtors and that the sale of the debtors' assets was blocked by the Law of 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.” Later, liquidation procedure was initiated in respect of two of the three debtor-companies.\n8.  In May 2004 – April 2005 the applicant received, in instalments, the total of UAH 5,275.02[3] of the lump sum award due to him. In September 2005 the remaining part of the award was transferred to the applicant. However, it was returned as unclaimed.\n9.  In November 2002 the applicant received the monthly allowances in arrears due to him by the judgment of 26 November 2001 and since then was receiving them regularly. The June and July 2005 allowances were returned as unclaimed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2346", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Celje.\n6.  In 1992 the applicant was undergoing a military training as a conscript. On 6 November 1992 he was injured while playing football.\n7.  On 3 November 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Defence (“the Ministry”) in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 4,256,002 Slovenian tolars (approximately 17,760 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 13 February 1997 the judge presiding over the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was transferred to a new judge.\nOn 30 September 1997 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 15 December 1997 and 14 January 1998 the court held hearings.\nOn 15 January 1998 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence.\nOn 4 February and 5 June 1998 the court held hearings. The latter hearing was adjourned because the applicant's mother, who was summoned to the court to be heard as a witness, did not appear.\nOn 3 July 1998 the court held a hearing and issued a judgment on the merits. It found the Ministry liable for the injuries sustained in the accident. The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 December 1998.\n8.  The Ministry appealed to the Celje Higher Court.\nOn 15 September 1999 the court dismissed the appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 30 September 1999.\n9.  The Ministry lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 28 June 2000 the court rejected the appeal.\n10.  In the meanwhile, the Celje District Court continued proceedings concerning the damages. On 13 October 1999 it held a hearing and decided to appoint a medical expert.\nOn 27 September 2000 the court held a hearing and appointed a medical expert. On 13 November 2000 the appointed expert delivered the opinion.\nOn 21 November 2000 the applicant submitted preliminary written submissions and increased his claim.\nOn 1 December 2000 the court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim for damages in part, was served on the applicant on 19 March 2001.\n11.  On 28 March 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. The Ministry cross-appealed.\nOn 4 July 2002 the court dismissed both appeals. The judgment was served on the applicant on 28 August 2002.\n12.  On 10 September 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). The Ministry cross-appealed.\nOn 23 October 2003 dismissed both appeals. The judgment was served on the applicant on 26 November 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2347", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Škofja Vas.\n6.  On 15 October 1996 the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) issued a decision in the inheritance proceedings finding the applicant and her mother heiresses of the property of the applicant's deceased father.\n7.  On 27 January 1999 the applicant instituted non-contentious civil proceedings in the Celje Local Court against her brother S.V. seeking the division of the land which they owned jointly.\nOn 22 November 1999 the court held a hearing and decided to appoint two experts, one in construction engineering and the other in agriculture, to assess the value of the real estate at issue.\nOn 26 February and 1 March 2000 the experts submitted their opinions.\nOn 22 February 2000 the applicant lodged a request for an interlocutory measure.\nOn 19 May 2000 the court held a hearing where the applicant withdrew her request concerning the interlocutory measure. The court decided to issue a written judgment. The judgment dividing the real estate was served on the applicant on 5 July 2000.\n8.  On 14 July 2000 the applicant appealed. Her adversary cross-appealed.\nOn 28 March 2002 the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) allowed the appeals, set aside the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination. The decision was served on the applicant on 19 April 2002.\n9.  On 19 April, 16 September and 28 October 2002 the applicant requested the Celje Local Court to set a date for a hearing.\nThe hearing scheduled for 29 November 2002 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nOn 28 May 2003 the court held a hearing.\nThe hearing scheduled for 21 November 2003 was adjourned at the request of the applicant, because the parties retained an expert in an attempt to settle the case out of the court.\nOn 10 January 2005 the parties informed the court that the out-of-court settlement was not reached.\nOn 2 March 2003 the court held a hearing.\nOn 21 August 2006 the parties to the proceeding settled the case outside the court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2348", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kamnik.\n6.  In early 1990s the applicant established a company called Hipec d.o.o., which bought a shop in Domžale, Slovenia. On 25 November 1993 a fire broke out in the building where the shop was located. The shop's premises and their contents were destroyed.\n7.  On 18 August 1995 the applicant and Hipec instituted civil proceedings in the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani) against five companies who had built the premises where the applicant had his shop and had been responsible for the maintenance of the building. They were seeking damages in the amount of 160.770.941,20 tolars (approximately 670.000 euros) for the destruction caused by the fire.\nNone of the thirteen hearings held between 14 February 1996 and 20 September 2000 was adjourned at the request of the applicant. At the hearings, the court heard seven witnesses.\nBetween 23 February 1996 and 14 June 2000 the applicant lodged fourteen preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence. He withdrew the claims against two of the respondents. In this time, the respondents lodged twenty-seven written submissions.\nDuring this time the applicant made seven requests that a date be set for a hearing or that the court continue examining the case.\nIn the course of the proceedings the court appointed a fire-safety expert. Since the originally appointed expert had moved to an unknown address, a new expert was appointed. The court also heard the appointed expert and requested him to submit two amendments to his opinion.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to issue a written judgment. The judgment, dismissing the applicant's claim, was served on the applicant on 22 November 2000.\n8.  On 28 November 2000 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani).\nOn 21 August 2001 the applicant's company Hipec d.o.o. ceased to exist and was deleted from the Register of Companies.\nOn 12 July 2002 the court allowed the appeal in part, set aside a part of the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n9.  On 22 January 2003 the Ljubljana District Court held a hearing in the proceedings pending against three respondents.\nBetween 22 January 2003 and 18 November 2005 the applicant lodged nine preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence. The respondents lodged seven preliminary submissions.\nHe also made a request for priority treatment of his case, which was upheld.\nNone of the seven hearings held between 19 March 2003 and 18 January 2006 was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nIn the course of the proceedings the court appointed a fire-safety expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.\nThe court also appointed a financial expert, who was dismissed at the applicant's request, because the expert had participated in the criminal investigation following the burning down of the building at issue. The court appointed a new financial expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to issue a written judgment. The judgment, dismissing the applicant's claim, was served on the applicant on 16 February 2006.\n10.  On 23 February 2006 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court.\nThe proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2349", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1939 in Croatia. She currently lives in Burlington, Canada.\n7.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Karlovac where she lived until October 1991, when she left for Germany to join her son. Later on both of them went to Canada.\n8.  On 27 September 1995 the Temporary Takeover and Managing of Certain Property Act (“the Takeover Act”) entered into force. It provided that property belonging to persons who had left Croatia after 17 October 1990 was to be taken into the care of, and controlled, by the State. It also authorised local authorities (takeover commissions) to temporarily accommodate other persons in such property.\n9.  After realising that her flat had been occupied by third persons, on 24 September 1996 the applicant brought a civil action against a certain family U. in the Karlovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Karlovcu) seeking their eviction.\n10.  On 27 September 1996 the Commission for Temporary Takeover and Use of Property of the Municipality of Karlovac (Komisija za privremeno preuzimanje i korištenje imovine Općine Karlovac – “the Takeover Commission”) issued a decision authorising a certain M.V. to use the applicant's flat temporarily.\n11.  On 16 November 1996 the Municipal Court invited the applicant to designate the proper respondent. On 31 November 1996 the applicant did so by designating M.V. as the respondent.\n12.  On 13 June 1997 the respondent submitted to the Municipal Court the decision of the Takeover Commission.\n13.  In June 1998 Parliament adopted the Programme for the Return of Refugees and Displaced Persons (“the Programme for Return”), regulating the principles for their return and repossession of their property.\n14.  In August 1998 the Act on Termination of the Takeover Act (“the Termination Act”) entered into force. It incorporated and gave legal force to the provisions of the Programme for Return providing that those persons, whose property had during their absence from Croatia been given for accommodation of others, had to apply for repossession of their property with the competent local authorities – the housing commissions.\n15.  At the hearing held on 15 September 1999 the court enquired with the Housing Commission of the Municipality of Karlovac (Stambena Komisija Karlovac – “the Housing Commission”) whether it had set aside the Takeover Commission's decision of 27 September 1996. On 22 February 2000 the Housing Commission replied to the court in the negative.\n16.  On 10 March 2000 the Municipal Court declared the applicant's action inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that the Termination Act was lex specialis in relation to the Act on Ownership and Other Rights In Rem (“the Property Act”). Accordingly, instead of bringing a civil action the applicant should have applied for repossession of her property to the competent housing commission, as provided by the Termination Act.\n17.  As neither party appealed against the decision, it became final on 31 March 2000. On the same day the applicant applied for repossession of her property to the Housing Commission.\n18.  On 16 October 2000 the Housing Commission decided to set aside the Takeover Commission's decision by which M.V. had obtained the right to use the applicant's property. It also ordered M.V. to vacate the flat within 15 days. M.V. unsuccessfully appealed against that decision to the Karlovac Municipal Court.\n19.  On 4 June 2001 the Housing Commission issued a warrant ordering M.V. to vacate the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2350", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1949, 1960 and 1964 respectively and were serving their prison sentences in Antalya prison at the time of their applications to the Court.\n6.  At the time of the events, the first applicant was the General Secretary and the other applicants were the members of the board of directors of the Turkish Socialist Workers Party (Türkiye Sosyalist İşçi Partisi).\n7.  On 12 December 2000 a demonstration concerning the establishment of F-type prisons turned violent. On the same day the police, in accordance with a search warrant issued by a State Security Court, searched the Party building and found a number of documents and materials.\n8.  On 19 December 2000 the applicants were remanded in custody.\n9.  On 9 January 2001 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed an indictment accusing the applicants of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation and requested that they be convicted and sentenced under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Law no. 3713.\n10.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicants maintained that the materials found during the search could have been placed there by anyone since anyone could have entered into the building. They pointed out that, on the day of the search, there had been a violent demonstration during which the doors and the windows of the Party building had been broken.\n11.  On 15 May 2001 the Ankara State Security Court, referring to the documents and materials seized in the Party building, convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to three years and nine months' imprisonment. The court further barred them from public service for three years.\n12.  The applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation.\n13.  On an unspecified date, the principal public prosecutor submitted his written opinion to the Court of Cassation. This opinion was not communicated to the applicants.\n14.  On 26 November 2001 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. This decision was pronounced, in the absence of the applicants and their representatives, on 28 November 2001.\n15.  On 20 August 2003 the applicants were released from prison.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2351", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Žalec.\n6.  On 9 April 1993 the applicant was seriously injured in a car accident and, as a result, remained permanently disabled. He had previously taken out accident insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 12 October 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking payment of disability allowance in the amount of 1,656,732 Slovenian tolars (approximately 6,900 euros) due to the injuries sustained in the accident.\nOn the basis of, inter alia, the expert opinion and partly paid compensation, the applicant three times modified his claim during the proceedings.\nBetween 24 May 1996 and 21 May 2001 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence.\nOf the three hearings held between 3 September 1996 and 30 May 2001, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.\nAt the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 3 December 2001.\n8.  On 18 December 2001 ZT appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 5 March 2003 the court allowed the appeal and remitted the case in the respective part to the first-instance court for re-examination.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 3 April 2003.\n9.  In the re-examination proceedings, on 4 April 2003 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.\nA hearing was held on 19 May 2003.\nAfter the hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 1 September 2003.\n10.  On 11 September 2003 the applicant appealed.\nOn 10 March 2005 the Celje Higher Court partly upheld the appeal and changed the first-instance court's judgment accordingly. The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 March 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2352", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Žirovnica.\n6.  On 1 June 1994 the Ljubljana Center Municipality (Občina Ljubljana Center) issued a denationalisation decision in favour of deceased I.Z., ordering the return of the ownership of certain real estate that he had owned prior to 1948. The decision was issued on the basis of a request made on 8 March 1993 by A.P. – one of the potential heiresses and a later possessor of the denationalised property of I.Z.\n7.  On 1 March 1995 the Administrative Unit of Ljubljana (Upravna enota Ljubljana, Izpostava Center) – responsible for denationalisation proceedings after the reform of the public administration – reopened the denationalisation proceeding in part.\n8.  A.P. filed an appeal against the decision of 1 March 1995; she also requested that the decision of 1 June 1994 be annulled. The appeal was rejected on 5 January 1996 by the Ministry of Economy (Ministrstvo za gospodarske dejavnosti).\n9.  On 14 February 1996 A.P. instituted administrative dispute against the decision of the Ministry of Economy.\n10.  On 15 July 1997 the applicant submitted an application for joining the proceedings as an intervening party. On 16 August 1997 a copy of A.P.'s claim was served on the applicant.\n11.  On 21 February 2001 the Administrative Court (Upravno sodišče) issued a judgment upholding the claim, annulling the decision of 5 January 1996 and referring the case to the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (Ministrstvo za okolje in prostor). The judgment was served on the applicant on an unspecified date.\n12.  On 19 March 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal against the Administrative Court's judgment.\nOn 26 March 2003 the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče RS) rejected the appeal.\n13.  Subsequently, on 9 October 2003 the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (paragraph 11 above) annulled the decision of 1 March 1995, but rejected A.P.'s request for annulment of the decision of 1 June 1994.\n14. On 3 December 2003 A.P. lodged a (new) request for annulment of the decision of 1 June 1994.\nOn 22 December 2003 the Ljubljana Administrative Unit declared the denationalisation decision of 1 June 1994 void and ordered that the previous ownership regarding the real estate in question be entered into the Land Registry. The request for denationalisation of 8 March 1993 was sent to the competent department of the Ljubljana Administrative Unit which was expected to decide on the request.\n15.  On 16 April 2004, the Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani) issued a decision concerning the change in the Land Registry.\nOn 10 June 2004 the same court rejected the applicant's objection.\nOn 8 December 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) rejected the applicant's appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 27 December 2004.\n16.  It appears that the denationalisation proceedings are still pending before the Ljubljana Administrative Unit (see paragraph 14 above).\n17.  On 19 December 1996 the applicant, who claimed to be an heiress to I.Z., lodged with the Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani) a request to open inheritance proceedings in respect of the real estate restored by the denationalisation decision of 1 June 1994 (see paragraph 6 above).\nOn 6 March 2001 and 25 March 2002, respectively, two apparent relatives submitted an application to join the inheritance proceedings.\nA hearing was held on 7 October 2002.\n18.  On 2 February 2003 the Ljubljana Local Court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2354", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Orsk, Orenburg Region. He is a private entrepreneur.\n6.  In July 1998 the applicant purchased a flat on the ground floor of an apartment building with a view to opening there a shop. In August 1998 he started construction works there with a view of tailoring the flat to commercial needs. On several occasions in 1998-1999 the local administration fined the applicant for unauthorised construction. In 1999 the police instituted criminal proceedings against him in this respect, but in 2000 the court acquitted him. The court found that the applicant had carried out works without a relevant permission. However, in the court's opinion, it did not amount to a criminal offence.\n7.  The flat bought by the applicant belonged to the category of “living premises”, and could not be used for other purposes than providing housing. In order to function as a shop, the flat had to be officially re-classified as “non-residential premises”. With that view the applicant addressed the Orsk Town Administration (the local executive authority) with a request for re-classification of the flat. On 23 March 2000 that request was rejected.\n8.  The applicant challenged the refusal in court. On 8 September 2000 the Orsk Town Leninskiy District Court held in the applicant's favour ordering the local administration to re-classify the applicant's real estate. No appeal followed, and ten days later the judgment became final. On 23 September 2000 enforcement proceedings were instituted.\n9.  On 16 October 2000 the Town Administration issued an order allowing commercial use of the applicant's flat. Following that decision on 4 November 2000 the bailiffs' service discontinued the execution proceedings. However, the applicant was still unable to start his business because certain other formalities were not observed and additional permits were needed. In particular, the local authority had refused to provide the applicant with a certified plan of his flat claiming that the order of 16 October 2000 was not sufficiently clear. The applicant appealed to a court. On 25 May 2001 the Leninskiy District Court rejected his claim, stating that the judgment of 8 September 2000 had been duly executed, and that the bailiff's decision to discontinue the execution proceedings had been lawful. This judgment was upheld by the Orenburg Regional Court on 28 June 2001.\n10.  On 18 October 2001 a prosecutor lodged a supervisory review appeal against the judgment of 8 September 2000. On 10 December 2001 the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court quashed the above judgment. The Presidium held in particular that pursuant to Article 9 of the Housing Code a decision to turn a flat into a commercial facility could only been taken at the regional level, the Town Administration having no authority in that respect. The Presidium also held that the lower court had not examined the opinion of other residents of the apartment building where the applicant's flat was situated. Moreover, the Town Administration had failed to assess possible environmental impact of the functioning of the shop and had not obtained a report from a competent authority. The case was remitted to the first instance court for a fresh examination.\n11.  In the meantime, on 24 October 2001 the Orsk Town Council (Орский городской совет депутатов) adopted a new regulation concerning non-residential facilities. Pursuant to that regulation the permission to re-arrange a flat for commercial purpo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2355", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, a Ukrainian national, was born in 1980 and lives in the village of Pryberezhne, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.\n5.  In 1998 the applicant was seriously injured due to the fault of his teacher. As a result, he became an invalid.\n6.  On 3 July 2000 the Saky Town Court (the “Saky Court”) ordered the State College of Audit and Economics of Kharkiv (the “College”), to pay the applicant a lump sum of UAH 32,178.02[1] and a monthly payment of UAH 519.75[2] in compensation. On 27 September 2000 the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea upheld the decision of the first-instance court. The judgment became final and was enforced in full on 6 March 2001.\n7.  On 6 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the appeal lodged against the above decisions under the new cassation procedure. On 5 March 2004 the panel of three judges of the Supreme Court rejected the request of the College for review of the case in the light of newly discovered circumstances.\n8.  On 28 March 2002 the Saky Court ordered the College to pay the applicant a lump sum of UAH 38,575.35[3] and a monthly payment of UAH 750.20[4] in compensation.\n9.  On 10 May 2002 the Zhovtneviy District Bailiffs' Service of Kharkiv instituted enforcement proceedings.\n10.  In December 2002 the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the judgment could not be enforced due to the lack of State budgetary allocations in respect of the College's expenditure.\n11.  On 11 July 2003 the Bailiffs' Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the debtor lacked funds.\n12.  In April 2004 the applicant received a total of UAH 2,250[5] in payment of the allowance for three months.\n13.  On 4 May 2005 the judgment was enforced in full.\n14.  On 3 June 2003 the Saky Court awarded the applicant UAH 20,757.74[6] against the College in compensation.\n15.  On 26 November 2003 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea upheld the decision of the first instance court. The enforcement proceedings commenced in June 2004.\n16.  On 30 May 2005 the judgment was enforced in full.\n17.  In 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the College, seeking compensation for his medical, hygienic, and food expenses, and for loss of income. On 19 May 2004 the court endorsed the friendly settlement agreement between the applicant and the College, according to which the latter was to pay the applicant a lump sum of UAH 1,770[7] and a monthly payment of UAH 1,435[8] in compensation.\n18.   On 28 January 2005 the judgment was enforced in full.\n19.  In January 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Zhovtneviy District Court of Kharkiv (the “Zhovtneviy Court”) against the Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the judgment of 28 March 2002. On 4 April 2003 the court rejected the applicant's complaint, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs' Service. It held that the judgment could not be enforced due to the lack of State budgetary allocations in respect of the College's expenditure, for which the Bailiffs' Service was not responsible.\n20.  On 17 June 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 4 April 2003 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n21.  On 3 September 2003 the Zhovtneviy Court found against the applicant on grounds similar to those on which it based its decision of 4 April 2003.\n22.  On 3 December 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 3 September 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2356", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1938 and 1933 respectively and live in Krasnyy Luch, the Lugansk region. They are former employees of the State Mining Company Novopavlivska (“the Mine,” ДП шахта „Новопавлівська”).\n5.  On 6 October 1999, 16 and 28 February 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) ordered the Mine to pay UAH 3,626.42,[1] UAH 1,000.96[2] and UAH 1,868.12[3] respectively in salary arrears and various payments to the first applicant.\n6.  On 1 and 23 February 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court ordered the Mine to pay UAH 3,776.36[4] and UAH 1,491.80,[5] respectively, in salary arrears and various payments to the second applicant.\n7.  All of the above judgments became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) for enforcement.\n8.  On 29 May 2002 the Lugansk Regional Commercial Court (“the Commercial Court,” Господарський суд Луганської області) initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the Mine and introduced a moratorium on payment of its debts.\n9.  On 14 November 2002 the Commercial Court declared the Mine bankrupt and ordered its rehabilitation, which was to be completed by 31 December 2007.\n10.  In July 2004 the first applicant received the debts due to him by the judgments of 6 October 1999 and 16 February 2001. As regards the debt due to him by the judgment of 28 February 2001 – the first applicant received it in several instalments, the last payment being made on 27 July 2006.\n11.  On 27 November 2004 the second applicant received the debt due to him by the judgment of 23 February 2001. The debt due to him by the judgment of 1 February 2001 was paid to him in several instalments, the final one being made on 26 July 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2357", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Barnaul in the Altay Region.\n5.  After the dismissal from a position in the Tymovsk locomotive depot, in 1993 the applicant sued her former employer for reinstatement, payment of wage arrears and benefits.  On 7 December 1993 the Tymovsk District Court of the Sakhalin Region pronounced the judgment in her favour. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n6.  The applicant was reinstated but on 5 January 1994 she was transferred to another position. She refused to perform the new duties and on 10 and 31 January 1994 the employer disciplined her. On 2 February 1994 the employer decided to transfer the applicant to another position.\n7.  On 6 May 1994 the applicant challenged the decisions of 5, 10 and 31 January and 2 February 1994 before a court. She also claimed wages for six work days.\n8.  On 24 June 1994 the Tymovsk District Court annulled the decisions of 10 and 31 January 1994 and dismissed the remainder of the claims. The judgment of 24 June 1994 was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted for re-examination.\n9.  The applicant was dismissed from her position on 5 June 1995. Thus, she amended her claims in the pending court proceedings, asking the court also to reinstate her and grant her wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n10.  On 16 August 1996 the Tymovsk District Court partly accepted the action. It annulled the disciplinary decisions but dismissed the claims for reinstatement and wage arrears. The judgment was quashed on 24 September 1996 and the case was again returned for re-examination.\n11.  On 12 February 1997 the Tymovsk District Court ordered the applicant's reinstatement and payment of arrears. On 1 April 1997 the Sakhalin Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n12.  In September 1997 the applicant moved from the village of Tymovsk to the town of Novoaltaysk in the Altay Region and notified the District Court of the change of her place of residence. In July 1998 the applicant moved to the village of Rebrikha in the same region. She maintained the Novoaltaysk address for her correspondence because her daughter continued living at that address. According to the Government, the applicant did not inform the Tymovsk District Court about the changes of her place of residence.\n13.  In November 1998 the applicant received at the Novoaltaysk address a letter of 5 November 1998 signed by a deputy President of the Sakhalin Regional Court. The deputy President informed the applicant that an application for supervisory review of the judgments of 24 September 1996 and 1 April 1997 had been lodged before the Presidium of the Sakhalin Regional Court. The Presidium had fixed a supervisory-review hearing for 13 November 1998. The applicant's presence was not required.\n14.  On 13 November 1998 the Presidium of the Sakhalin Regional Court amended the reasoning of the judgment of 24 September 1996 and ordered a fresh examination by the District Court of the claims concerning the applicant's reinstatement, payment of wage arrears and compensation for damage.\n15.  According to the Government, the Tymovsk District Court fixed hearings but adjourned them because the applicant could not be summonsed. The Government did not indicate any date of a hearing fixed by the District Court between November 1998 and April 2000.\n16.  In 2000 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2358", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On the morning of 8 September 1999 the applicant, who was unemployed at the time, went to the Employment Office to look for new job offers. A considerable number of people, mainly women of Roma origin, had already gathered there and were waiting to enter the Employment Office. The applicant, also of Roma origin, lined up at the back of the queue that had formed in front of the building.\n7.  At around 11.15 a.m. part of the group of persons burst into the Employment Office. A police officer, who was there to enforce public order, managed to force them back outside. As the police officer was walking out of the building he was pushed by several women, who did not include the applicant. One of those women indicated to the police officer that the applicant, still at the back of the queue, had pushed them.\n8.  The police officer approached the applicant and requested to see her identity documents. She refused and after a short, impolite verbal exchange the police officer instructed her to accompany him to the police station so as to perform an identity check. The applicant did not comply and the police officer tried to handcuff her. In accordance with the statements later given by two police officers before the District Court, the applicant then slapped the police officer in the face and threw herself to the ground screaming. Another police officer then came over and assisted the first police officer in removing the applicant from the queue and escorted her to the police station. The time was 11.30 a.m.\n9.  At the police station, the applicant was placed in a cell. She was not allowed to use a phone to contact a next of kin or an attorney.\n10.  Approximately two hours later, the applicant was taken out of the cell and placed in a police car together with the two police officers who had arrested her. They were all taken to the Pazardzhik District Court where they arrived at 2.40 p.m.\n11.  Shortly before the start of the hearing the applicant was requested to sign an assessment of an act of minor hooliganism (акт за констатиране на дребно хулиганство : the “assessment”). The applicant alleged, which the Government challenged, that she did not have time to review the document. She signed the document without making any reservations. The applicant further alleged, which the Government did not expressly dispute, that she was not given a copy of the signed assessment.\n12.  The hearing began at 3 p.m. The applicant represented herself before the Pazardzhik District Court. She was charged with the administrative offence of minor hooliganism.\n13.  The hearing started with the assessment being read out in court. It was claimed that the applicant (1) had created a disturbance in front the Employment Office by pushing the other women in the queue; (2) had acted disruptively in response to the police officer's instructions and had resisted arrest; and (3) had slapped one of the police officer's in the face. When the applicant was asked whether she was aware of the assessment she responded as follows:\n“I am aware of it, actually I am not aware of the assessment of [an act of minor hooliganism]. Now that you read it out though, I understand what all of this is about, but it is not true, I have witnesses.”\n14.  The court proceeded to question the applicant, the two police officers who arrested her and an official from the Employment Office.\n15.  The applicant refuted the accusations against her. She claimed that the police officers had dragged her to the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2359", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Domžale.\n6.  In 1949, the applicants' parents were convicted of “illegal commerce” and sentenced to imprisonment with forced labour. In addition, their property was forfeited to the State.\n7.  On 30 September 1991 the Public Prosecutor's Office informed the applicants that it had lodged a request for protection of legality with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) challenging the 1949 judgment. On 17 October 1991 the court upheld the request in part and annulled the judgment in the part referring to forced labour and forfeiture of property.\n8.  On 18 November 1991 the applicants instituted proceedings for restitution of property in the Ljubljana Basic Court, Ljubljana Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani, Enota v Ljubljani) against the Municipality of Ljubljana Vič-Rudnik and the Republic of Slovenia. They also sought compensation for the forced labour their parents were subjected to.\nOn 22 October 1993 the court delivered a partial decision whereby it ordered the restitution of one of the plots of land claimed by the applicants, which was an unencumbered public property at the time. The decision became final on 9 December 1993.\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.\nOn 19 October 1994 the court delivered another partial decision whereby it awarded compensation in the amount of 5,585,527 tolars (approximately 23,300 euros) to each of the applicants for the remaining confiscated property. The compensation was to be paid by the Municipality Ljubljana Vič-Rudnik.\n9.  The Municipality Ljubljana Vič-Rudnik appealed against the decision of 19 October 1994 to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani). Applicants cross appealed.\n10.  At an undetermined time the Municipality Ljubljana Vič-Rudnik rendered a decision concerning the house claimed by the applicant. This decision made possible the restitution of a part of the property in natura. The Municipality Ljubljana Vič-Rudnik submitted this decision to the Ljubljana Local Court on 15 November 1994.\nOn 1 January 1995 the Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani) gained jurisdiction in the present case as the first-instance court following the reform of the Slovenian judicial system. At the same time, following a reform of the system of local governance, the Municipality Ljubljana became liable for the restitution, instead of the Municipality Ljubljana Vič-Rudnik (“the Municipality”).\nOn 10 February 1995 the Ljubljana Local Court issued a partial decision returning this part of property to the applicants. That property included also a house, except the attics which had been purchased by a company SP and occupied by its employee M.Š.\n11.  The Municipality, the company SP and M.Š. appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court.\nOn 29 November 1995 the Ljubljana Higher Court allowed the appeals lodged against the decisions of 19 October 1994 and 10 February 1995 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination.\n12.  Between 18 January 1996 and 10 March 2006 the applicants lodged eleven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence with the Ljubljana Local Court.\nOf the five hearings held between 2 April 1996 and 2 March 2006 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant. However, one of the scheduled hearings was cancelled at the applicants' request and the scheduling of the next hearing adjourned sine die, because they wished to retain a new lawyer.\nDuring the proceedings", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2360", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1949. The second applicant was born in 1946. The third applicant was born in 1951. The fourth applicant was born in 1961. All the applicants reside in Oleksandriya, the Kirovograd region, and are Ukrainian nationals.\n5.  In 1994 the applicants became minority shareholders of the privatised JSC “Oleksandriysky Myasokombinat” (the “OM”), formerly State-owned enterprise, by investing property bonds issued by the State in the statutory fund of the OM. In total, the applicants had 0.25% of the OM's shares. In particular, the first applicant owned 109 shares (0.15 % of the OM's shares), the second and third applicant each owned 39 shares (0.05% of the OM's shares). The fourth applicant also made some similar minor investments into the OM. He did not specify a number of shares he owned.\n6.  On 17 June 1994 the OM was officially registered as a legal entity with the Kirovograd Regional Council.\n7.  On 21 November 1997 the Kirovograd Regional Directorate of the JSC “Ukrsocbank” (the “USB”) signed a UAH 1,000,000[1] loan agreement with the OM, with its property used as security.\n8.  On 11 December 1997 the ad hoc arbitration court ordered the OM to pay USB a sum of UAH 1,018,493.15[2] in compensation for loan arrears.\n9.  On 12 December 1997 the USB sold the property of the OM to “Eldorado” (a private company).\n10.  In April 1998 five of the OM's shareholders (not including the applicants) T., P., K., M. and S. lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor of the Kirovograd Region seeking annulment of the transactions between the USB, the OM and “Eldorado”, the company that allegedly infringed their property rights. They also petitioned the Prosecutor to act as their legal representative and institute the civil proceedings against the aforementioned companies on their behalf.\n11.  On 2 July 1998 the Kirovograd Regional Arbitration Court rejected the protest lodged by the Prosecutor of the Kirovograd Region against the judgment of the ad hoc arbitration court of 11 December 1997 as being unsubstantiated.\n12.  In June 1998 the Prosecutor of the Kirovograd Region instituted proceedings on behalf of the above-mentioned shareholders T., P., K., M. and S. against the USB and “Eldorado” seeking annulment of the aforementioned property transactions. (Contract on sale of USB's property was appealed against by the State Tax Inspectorate of Kirovograd and this appeal was subsequently joined by the court to the claims lodged by the Prosecutor of Kirovograd Region against OM).\n13.  On 3 July 1998 the Oleksandriya City Court (the “Oleksandriya Court”) allowed the Prosecutor's claims and annulled the secured loan agreement of 21 November 1997 concluded by the OM and the agreement of 12 December 1997 between the USB and “Eldorado”. It also ordered the restitution of property to the OM. In particular, the court found that the real value of the OM's secured property was UAH 12,478,649[3] and did not correspond to the sums paid for it by “Eldorado”. This judgment was not appealed in cassation and became final and binding.\n14.  On 21 September 1998 the President of the Kirovograd Regional Court suspended the execution proceedings of the judgment of 3 July 1998 due to the initiation of supervisory review proceedings in the case upon his protest.\n15.  On 7 October 1998 the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court quashed the judgment of the Oleksandriya Court of 3 July 1998 following a protest of the President of the Kirovograd Regional ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2361", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, Mr Moroz, Mrs Nikulina, Mr Shehali, Mr Mykhailenko, Mrs Shyryayeva, Mr Parhomenko, Mr Dobrovanov, and Mrs Polovets are Ukrainian nationals, who were born in 1926, 1937, 1930, 1934, 1940, 1968, 1926, and 1931, respectively. Mrs Polovets lives in the town of Boyarka and the others live in Kyiv.\n5.  In 1991 the applicants gave the ATEK Company certain amounts of money in order that it could buy cars for them. The company concluded a contract with a third person, pursuant to which the latter undertook to provide the applicants with the cars.\n6.  In July 1994 the Ukrainian Association of Consumers' Organisations, acting in the interests of the applicants, together with thirty other persons, instituted proceedings in the Leningradskyy District Court of Kyiv (the “Leningradskyy Court”) against the company for failure to fulfil its contractual obligations, namely, to provide the applicants and other persons concerned with the cars. The company denied that it had any contractual obligations in this respect.\n7.  On 23 August 1994 the court ordered an expert examination and suspended the proceedings. On 15 November 1994 the expert report was completed and the proceedings were resumed.\n8.  In 1995 the applicants, together with twenty-eight other persons, lodged with the same court their separate claims in respect of the subject matter of the proceedings. The plaintiffs sought the recovery of the amounts which they had paid to the company and compensation.\n9.  On 27 April 1995 the court ruled against the applicants, finding no fault on the part of the company.\n10.  On 12 July 1995 the Kyiv City Court (the “Kyiv Court”) quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It found that the first instance court had failed to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case.\n11.  On 8 April 1996 the court ordered an additional expert examination which was completed on 10 April 1996.\n12.  On 18 June 1996 the Leningradskyy Court found in part for the applicants. On 4 November 1996 the same court adopted a supplementary decision, partly changing the operative part of its judgment of 18 June 1996, which still remained favourable to the applicants. These decisions were not appealed against and became final.\n13.  On 28 February 1997 the President of the Kyiv Court lodged a protest with the Presidium of that court, seeking initiation of supervisory review proceedings in the case. On 25 March 1997 the Presidium allowed the protest, quashed the decisions of 18 June and 4 November 1996, and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It held that the first instance court had failed to establish the legal nature of the contract between the applicants and the company.\n14.  On an unspecified date Mr N., one of the plaintiffs in the case, requested his claims to be disjoined. On 19 November 1997 the Leningradskyy Court allowed his request.\n15.  On 8 December 1997 the Leningradskyy Court found in part for Mr N. This decision was not appealed against and became final.\n16.  On 11 March 1999 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court lodged a protest with the Presidium of the Kyiv Court, seeking initiation of supervisory review proceedings in the case. On 29 March 1999 the Presidium allowed the protest, quashed the judgment of 8 December 1997, and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It mostly reiterated the reasons for its decision of 25 March 1997.\n17.  On an unspecified date Mr N. joined the original proceedings ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2362", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 10 August 1999 the Diyarbakır Provincial Private Administration Office (Diyarbakır Il Özel Idare Müdürlüğü) expropriated the plots of land belonging to the applicant in Diyarbakır. A committee of experts assessed the value of these plots of land and this amount was paid to the applicant when the expropriation took place.\n6.  On 20 October 1999 the applicant brought an action before Diyarbakır Civil Court of First Instance, requesting increased compensation.\n7.  On 22 January 2002 the Diyarbakır Civil Court of First Instance awarded the applicant additional compensation of 118,212,590,355 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 97,861 euros (EUR)) plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decision, running from 8 October 1999.\n8.  On 12 March 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n9.  On 15 March 2002 the administration paid the applicant a total sum of TRL 281,371,870,000 (approximately 237,519 euros (EUR)).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2363", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in İzmit.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 11 June 1991 an auditor initiated an investigation into the alleged falsification of documents carried out in the applicant's pharmacy. On 4 July 1991 the auditor informed the Diyarbakir Public Prosecutor about the outcome of his investigation.\n8.  The Ministry of Finance and Customs filed a complaint against the applicant. Consequently, on 16 June 1993 the Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant for forgery of official documents.\n9.  On 21 June 1993 the Diyarbakır Assize Court scheduled the first hearing for 20 September 1993. It requested the Diyarbakır Security Directorate to find the applicant's address. It also requested the Ministry of Finance to submit all documents that are relevant to the case. The applicant was not present during most of the hearings, however he was represented by his lawyer.\n10.  On 10 May 1994, at the sixth hearing, the Ministry complied with the court's request.\n11.  Following the establishment of the applicant's address, his statement taken by way of rogatory letter was submitted to the case file during the hearing of 28 June 1994. Moreover, at the same hearing the court requested Bismil and Mersin Assize Courts to take the statements of two witnesses. These statements were submitted to the case-file at the following hearing.\n12.  On 28 February 1995 the court sent the case-file to an expert to comment on the allegedly forged documents. During the following seven hearings there was no reply from the expert. The trial judge has therefore rescheduled the hearing without taking any substantial or procedural decision. At the hearing of 14 May 1996 the expert report was submitted to the case file.\n13.  On 19 September 1996 the court referred the case-file to the Forensic Department in order to have their opinion on the matter. After eight hearings, on 27 January 1998, the Forensic Department submitted its report on the allegedly forged documents, but it failed to send back the case-file. On 23 June 1998 the case-file was sent back to the court.\n14.  On 9 February 1999 the court requested a graphology expert at the Forensic Department to determine whether the handwriting and the signatures found on the documents belonged to the applicant.\n15.  On 23 December 1999 the graphology expert submitted his report.\n16.  On 18 January 2000 the Diyarbakır Assize Court found the applicant guilty of the charges and sentenced him to two years and eleven months imprisonment.\n17.  The applicant appealed against the judgement of the Assize Court. On 24 January 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Assize Court. The Court of Cassation pronounced its decision in the presence of the applicant. The final decision was deposited with the Registry of the first instance court on 26 February 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2364", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Zhovti Vody, the Dnipropetrovsk region. He is a former employee of the OJSC “Electron‑Gaz” (“the Company,” ВАТ “Електрон-Газ”). At the material time the State owned 99.96% of the Company's share capital. The Company was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.”\n5.  On 6 October 2000 the Zhovti Vody Court (Жовтоводський міський суд Дніпропетровської області) ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 12,514.76[1] in salary arrears. This judgment became final and the enforcement writ was transferred to the Zhovti Vody Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Жовтоводського міського управління юстиції) for enforcement.\n6.  On 26 December 2002 the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the enforcement of the judgment of 6 October 2000 was delayed on account of the Company's lack of funds. It also stated that the attachment of the Company's property was impeded by the Law of 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.”\n7.  On 7 March 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Commercial Court (Господарський суд Дніпропетровської області) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and on 10 October 2003 ordered its rehabilitation to be completed by 10 October 2004.\n8.  On 21 October 2004 the applicant received the debt due to him by the judgment of 6 October 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2365", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the city of Simferopil, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the ARC”), Ukraine.\n5.  In April 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopil against her employer, the Ministry of Education of the ARC (Міністерство освіти Автономної Республіки Крим), claiming different payments allegedly due to her and compensation for moral damage. On 1 December 2003 the court awarded the applicant 1,184.98[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) (Рішення Центрального районного суду м.Сімферополя) in allowance for the length of service, in health allowance and in compensation for the delays of salary payments. By an additional decision of 1 March 2004, the court rejected the applicant's claim for moral damage. On 22 September 2004 the Court of Appeal of the ARC upheld the judgment of 1 December 2003. The applicant did not appeal in cassation against it.\n6.  By letter of 17 February 2005, the Prosecutor's Office of the ARC, following the applicant's complaint, informed her that the Ministry of Education of the ARC had been closed down and that the writ of enforcement had been forwarded to the liquidation commission.\n7.  By the letter of 3 May 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the judgment of 1 December 2003 had been enforced by instalments, the final amount being paid on 27 April 2006.\n8.  The applicant alleged that she has been persecuted by the police. In particular, the applicant stated that she had been beaten by police officers on 7 December 2003. From the applicant's submissions, it seems that this allegation is related to the situation of her son, who was detained on suspicion of committing a crime. The applicant did not raise this complaint before any relevant State authority.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2366", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 18 March 1999 a truck containing kitchen appliances was stolen while it was parked in a residential neighbourhood. Several hours later, acting on a tip-off, the police apprehended the applicant, who gave flight, and an accomplice while they were unloading the kitchen appliances from the stolen truck.\n6.  On 19 March 1999 the applicant was charged, inter alia, with grand larceny, which constituted a serious intentional offence. The charges against him were amended on 14 and 29 April 1999.\n7.  The preliminary investigation was concluded on 30 April 1999.\n8.  On 7 July 1999 the Varna Regional Prosecutor's Office filed an indictment against the applicant with the Varna Regional Court. The applicant was charged that in collusion with other persons, his co-accused and an unidentified third individual who escaped arrest, attempted to commit grand larceny of the kitchen appliances and to steal the truck.\n9.  The Varna Regional Court started hearing the case on 9 February 2000.\n10.  In a judgment of 28 November 2000 the applicant was found guilty by the Varna Regional Court of larceny of significant value (Article 195 § 2 of the Criminal Code) in respect of the kitchen appliances. The charges of grand larceny, theft of the truck and collusion were dismissed as unproven. The applicant was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and a previous suspended sentence of two years' imprisonment was also enforced. The time spent by the applicant in pre-trial detention was deducted from the sentence to be served. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the judgment.\n11.  In a judgment of 28 August 2001 the Varna Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's judgment and found that the sentence imposed on the applicant was just and fair, considering the offence for which he had been found guilty. On an unspecified date the applicant filed a cassation appeal against the judgment.\n12.  In a final judgment of 8 April 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court's judgment.\n13.  The applicant was arrested on 18 March 1999 on suspicion of having committed grand larceny.\n14.  When he was charged with the offence on 19 March 1999 the applicant was detained on remand under an order issue by an investigator and confirmed by the Prosecutor's Office. The reason given for detaining the applicant was that he had committed the offence soon after having been released on bail on 1 March 1999 in the context of a preliminary investigation concerning a charge of extortion. Those proceedings were subsequently terminated on 18 November 1999 and the imposed bail was lifted.\n15.  When the charges against the applicant were amended by an investigator on 14 April 1999 no specific grounds were given for continuing his detention.\n16.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed his first appeal against his detention, which the Varna Regional Court examined at a hearing on 26 April 1999. The court dismissed it as it found that the applicant's detention was mandatory insofar as he was charged with a serious intentional offence and also that there was a risk that he might abscond or re-offend given his past criminal record, the existence of a suspended sentence against him which would be enforced if he was found guilty in these proceedings and the fact that he had re-offended soon having after been released on bail in the context of the preliminary investigation for extortion.\n17.  When the charges against the applicant were amended by an investigator on 29 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2367", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and resides in the town of Novogrodivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivska Mining Company No. 1/3 (Шахта 1/3 «Новогродівська») - a State-owned enterprise - to recover salary arrears and other payments due to her late husband.\n6.  On 28 May 2001 the Novogrodivskyy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Рішення Новогродівського міського суду Донецької області) and awarded her 23,741.84[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”). The judgment was sent for enforcement to the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новогродівського міського управління юстиції).\n7.  Subsequently, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. On 20 December 2001 the Town Court rejected the applicant's claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs' Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs' Service had acted properly in enforcing the judgment of 28 May 2001. However, by a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs' Service had been prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company. On 14 March 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.\n8.  In August 2002, the applicant instituted another set of proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the judgment in her favour. On 10 October 2002 the Town Court rejected the applicant's claim, for the same reasons as before. On 16 December 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court of 10 October 2002. On 22 October 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.\n9.  In February 2003 the Novogrodivska Mining Company was reorganised and became a structural subdivision of the Selidovugol Mining Company. As the latter thereby became the debtor, in February 2004 the enforcement proceedings were transferred to the Selidivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Селидівського міського управління юстиції).\n10.  The judgment in the applicant's favour was enforced by instalments, the last amount being paid on 31 August 2004.\n11.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Selidivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk region against the Selidivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service claiming compensation for material and moral damage caused to her by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment in her favour. On 24 November 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 21 July 2005 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. The applicant appealed in cassation and the proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2368", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Alapitkä.\n6.  On 5 October 1994 the applicant sustained injuries during an operation on his back. On 14 March 1997 he issued a summons claiming pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and compensation for costs from the Patient Insurance Association (potilasvakuutusyhdistys, patientförsäkrings-förening; later renamed as the Patient Insurance Board (potilasvakuutuskeskus, patientförsäkringscentral)).\n7.  On 18 June 1998 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) found the medical treatment inadequate and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant non-pecuniary damage for pain and suffering and to reimburse his medical expenses and legal costs.\n8.  Both parties appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten).\n9.  On 10 March 1999 the Court of Appeal invited the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs (terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskus, rättskyddscentralen för hälsovården; “the Authority”) to submit its report on the matter.\n10.  The Authority requested medical opinions from Drs N. and M., which were delivered on 28 May 1999 and 25 October 1999, respectively. Considering that the two opinions were partly contradictory, the Authority asked on 24 November 1999 for a third opinion from Professor A. On 10 May 2000, 2 August 2000 and 18 September 2000 the Authority inquired of him whether the opinion would soon be ready. Professor A.’s opinion was finally submitted on 28 December 2000, and on 17 January 2001 the Authority submitted its report to the Court of Appeal.\n11.  In his observations to the appellate court the applicant complained, inter alia, about the delay of the Authority in submitting its report to the Court of Appeal, and invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.\n12.  On 17 October 2001, having held an oral hearing, the Court of Appeal quashed the District Court’s judgment, rejecting the applicant’s claims.\n13.  The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal on 6 June 2002.\n14.  Meanwhile, on 31 October 2000 the applicant sent a petition to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (oikeusasiamies, ombudsman) complaining about the length of the proceedings before the Authority. On 2 January 2002 the Deputy Ombudsman criticised the Authority for unreasonable delay in issuing the requested report. She maintained, however, that the case did not disclose any unlawfulness in violation of section 21 of the Constitution of Finland. The Deputy Ombudsman did not examine the Court of Appeal’s proceedings as the case was at the time still pending before the Supreme Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2369", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  The applicant worked as a prosecutor. On 15 January 1998 he was charged with bribe-taking and on 14 May 1999 the Court of Appeal found him guilty and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. By a final judgment of 3 August 1999 the Supreme Court of Justice acquitted him and ordered his immediate release: he claimed to have been released two days later. The overall period of his detention amounted to 567 days.\n8.  The applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Finance and his employer seeking payment of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage arising from his unlawful prosecution and detention.\n9.  On 25 July 2001 the Rîşcani District Court ruled in his favour and stated that there had been a violation of his right to liberty. The court awarded him 78,055 Moldovan lei (MDL, the equivalent of 6,945 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation for pecuniary damage and MDL 500,000 (EUR 44,490 at the time) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The defendants appealed.\n10. On 6 February 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court partially upheld the appeal, reduced the award of compensation for pecuniary damage to MDL 27,354.77 (EUR 2,401 at the time) and awarded another 87,000 Russian roubles (RUR, the equivalent of EUR 3,251.92 at the time) and 230 American dollars (USD) in respect of costs and expenses incurred during the proceedings. The Regional Court upheld the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The defendants lodged an appeal in cassation.\n11.  By a final judgment of 26 March 2002 the Court of Appeal partially upheld the appeal in cassation and reduced the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage to MDL 75,000 (EUR 6,341 at the time).\n12. On 25 December 2002 the Prosecutor General lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the above-mentioned judgments and for a reduction in the amount of damages.\n13.  On 5 February 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed the above-mentioned judgments. The Supreme Court adopted a new judgment and reduced the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage to MDL 50,000 (EUR 3,261 at the time). It also ordered the re-opening of the proceedings in respect of the amount of compensation for pecuniary damage. On 19 February 2003 the applicant received MDL 50,000.\n14. Following the re-opening of the proceedings, on 24 June 2003 the Rîşcani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and awarded him MDL 27,446.09 (EUR 1,679.69 at the time) in respect of pecuniary damage. The remainder of the judgment provided the same as the judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court of 6 February 2002. On 22 July 2003 the judgment was enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2370", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Helsinki.\n5.  On 28 November 1992 a State-owned bank requested the police to investigate whether a former bank director, P., had committed offences as the bank had advanced loans without acceptable guarantees to such an extent that its solvency was endangered. The bank also requested the police to investigate whether P. or some other person had received unlawful financial inducements or whether blackmail had been involved.\n6.  On 20 August 1993 the bank supplemented its request maintaining that the applicant had possibly committed offences of dishonesty as a debtor, debt fraud or aggravated debt fraud during April-May 1992, as he had allegedly participated in transferring bank shares owned by certain limited liability corporations into his own control, thereby causing one of the corporations’ biggest creditors, the bank, financial losses of approximately 10,000,000 Finnish marks (FIM; equivalent to 1,681,879 euros: EUR).\n7.  On 8 August 1994 the applicant was arrested. On 10 August 1994 he was questioned by the police for the first time. On 12 August 1994 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) ordered his detention on remand since he was suspected of aggravated blackmail and three counts of dishonesty as a debtor. He was released on 27 September 1994.\n8.  On 14 July 1995 the police completed their pre-trial investigation. A summons was served on the applicant on 2 February 1996. It was alleged that the offences had been committed between 2 January 1991 and 1 June 1992.\n9.  On 18 April 1996 the applicant was charged with aggravated fraud and three counts of dishonesty as a debtor. On the same day the Salo District Court upheld the applicant’s claim that he had not been legally summoned to the trial and declared the case against him inadmissible. On 24 September 1996 the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the decision. On 20 October 1997 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) quashed the previous decisions and remitted the case to the District Court. Meanwhile, on 20 August 1997 the District Court also upheld a co-defendant’s claim that he had not been lawfully summoned. On 11 March 1998 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision. On 8 February 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision.\n10.  Meanwhile, at the second hearing on 12 June 1996, the applicant was charged additionally with a count of aggravated fraud and incitement to dishonesty as a debtor. The public prosecutor thereafter added to the charges on several occasions.\n11.  At the third hearing on 27 August 1996, the acting public prosecutor was found by the District Court to be biased and a new prosecutor was assigned to the case.\n12.  On 21 January 1998 the District Court upheld the applicant’s claim that he had not been lawfully summoned (as regards a summons delivered on 6 March 1997 to his wife in Spain) and that the statute of limitations had already expired. On 8 October 1998 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision and remitted the case to the District Court. On 3 November 2000 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 30 March 2000 the District Court noted in its minutes that the parties were in disagreement as regards the question whether the “reasonable time” requirement according to Article 6 of the Convention had been fulfilled, and that the court would decide at a later stage on whether the trial could continue.\n14.  On 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2371", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Dzierżoniόw. He used to run a car repair garage.\n6.  He was a party to various sets of administrative proceedings before the Dzierżoniów District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) relating to planning matters and disputes with his neighbours. He considered that the decisions of the District Office in his cases were incorrect and unlawful as evidenced by the fact that they were regularly quashed by higher administrative authorities. He formed that view, inter alia, on the basis of proceedings in which the District Office had, in a decision of 25 March 1996 (no. BA‑7355‑D/21/10/96), ordered him to demolish a building (a tank) on his property on the ground that it had been erected illegally. Those proceedings, following the applicant's complaints, were discontinued by the District Office on 28 November 1996 in decision no. BA-7355-D/21/24/95-96 in which it held that the building had in fact been erected legally. The applicant also referred to a decision by the District Office of 4 May 1998 refusing him planning permission. On 30 July 1998 the Wałbrzych Governor, reversed that decision following an appeal by the applicant and granted planning permission (decision no. 145/98).\n7.  The Head of the Dzierżoniów District Office was Mr S.L., who was due to stand for election to the district council (rada powiatu) in the local elections scheduled for 11 October 1998. On 21 September 1998 the applicant sent Mr S.L. an open letter calling on him to withdraw from the election. The applicant sent copies of his letter to the Wałbrzych Governor, the Wałbrzych Regional Assembly, the Dzierżoniów Municipal Council, local mayors, the Prime Minister's Office and a number of local newspapers. A thousand copies of the letter were to be made available to local inhabitants. According to the applicant none of the newspapers published the letter.\n“Open letter\n \n \n Mr S.L.\n Head of the Dzierżoniów District Office\nDear Sir,\nI kindly request that you once again reflect on the suitability of your standing for election to the district council in the local elections of 11 October 1998. My open letter is not motivated by spite, but is merely intended to express my concern that persons who represent me should be willing to help others in solving their problems instead of doing them harm. I consider that as the Head of the Dzierżoniów District Office you carried out your duties ineptly and sometimes even maliciously, frequently breaking the law and basing your statements on lies. In order to demonstrate that my opinion is not groundless I refer to the [following] supporting facts:\n[a]  in case no. BA-7355-D/27 a crucial document was lost from the case file by the administrative authority you are in charge of. The public prosecutor's office in Dzierżoniów made an inquiry into this matter;\n[b]  [administrative] decision no. BA-7355-D/27/35/93-96 of 8 March 1996 was issued by the authority you are in charge of on the basis of documents which were forged in the Dzierżoniów District Office;\n[c]  in order to intimidate me the administrative authority you are in charge of instituted proceedings no. 7355-D/21 which resulted in decision no. BA‑7355‑D/21/10/96 requiring the demolition of a building. Subsequently by virtue of decision no. BA-7355-D/21/24/95-96 the proceedings were discontinued, after it was found that the building had in fact been erected lawfully;\n[d]  for a period of eight months you have maliciously and unlawfully refused to g", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2372", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicant is a foundation existing under the laws of Turkey whose purpose is to provide educational facilities at the Greek Orthodox High School in Fener, Istanbul. It operates in accordance with the provisions of the Lausanne Treaty, which afforded protection to old foundations providing public services for religious minorities. It is one of a number of foundations dating from the Ottoman era. After the proclamation of the Republic it fell under Law no. 2762 of 13 June 1935, by virtue of which it obtained legal personality. In 1936, in accordance with section 44 of that Act, the applicant foundation filed a declaration indicating its aims and its immovable property.\n12.  On 10 October 1952 the applicant foundation acquired, by way of donation, title to part of a building situated in Istanbul. That acquisition was based on a certificate issued on 3 October 1952 by the Governor of Istanbul. The relevant part of that certificate read as follows:\n“Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfı is a legal entity authorised to acquire immovable property by virtue of the Foundations Act. It is run by an administrative board consisting of ... Further to a request of 3 October 1952 by the Beyoğlu Land Registry, the present document is issued for the purposes of the transaction concerning immovable property located at ... by virtue of section 2 of the Land Registry Act [Law no. 2644 of 29 December 1934 on the Land Registry – see paragraph 27 below].”\n13.  The immovable property in question was subsequently registered at the Land Registry. The applicant foundation duly paid property taxes in respect of its property.\n14.  Similarly, on 16 December 1958, the applicant foundation acquired, by purchase, co-ownership of another part of the same building. On 15 November 1958 the Governor of Istanbul had issued the certificate required by section 2 of the Land Registry Act, again indicating that “Fener Rum Erkek Lisesi Vakfı [was] a legal entity authorised to acquire immovable property by virtue of the Foundations Act”. The applicant’s title to that property was accordingly registered at the Land Registry and the relevant property taxes were duly paid.\n15.  On 15 July 1992 the Treasury lodged an application with the District Court of Beyoğlu (Istanbul) seeking the annulment of the applicant foundation’s title to the above-mentioned immovable property and the registration thereof in the name of the former owners, by virtue of the established case-law of the Court of Cassation. In support of its application, it argued in particular that the applicant did not have the capacity to acquire immovable property. In addition, given that the property in question was not mentioned in its declaration of 1936, an instrument regarded as the legal foundation constitution (vakıfname) of those establishments in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Cassation, the applicant was not entitled to obtain the relevant title. The Treasury therefore requested that the property be re-registered in the name of its former owner.\n16.  On 19 December 1994, further to a request from the District Court, an expert in cartography and land surveys filed a report on the case. Referring to the case-law of the combined civil divisions of the Court of Cassation, as established on 8 May 1974 (see paragraph 28 below), he observed that foundations belonging to religious minorities as defined by the Lausanne Treaty which had not indicated in their constitution a capacity to acquire immovable prope", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2373", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Łódź.\n8.  On 4 April 1994, at 2.40 a.m. officers of the Polish Border Guards (Straż Graniczna) arrested a certain A.I., a German national of Polish origin, on suspicion of having stolen a car “Mercedes 200E” in which he was travelling to Belarus. The arrest took place after a routine control of his documents on the Polish-Belarusian border. The officers, having learnt that the car had been hired from the company “Sixt-Budget” in Germany, and having found that, according to their records, A.I. had previously several times crossed the Polish-Belarusian border driving different cars, asked the Kołbaskowo Border Guards (a check-point at the Polish-German border) to inquire whether the car was being sought by the German police. It was soon confirmed that since 2 April 1994 the German police had been looking for that car, which had been reported as having disappeared. A.I. was later taken into police custody and brought to the Sokółka District Police Station (Komenda Rejonowa Policji).\n9.  On 5 April 1994, at 8 a.m., the applicant and a certain J.S.-T., a national of the United States of America, reported to the Sokółka District Police Headquarters. They presented a copy of the contract concluded by J.S.-T. with the “Sixt-Budget” company, from which it appeared that she had hired the car in question for the period from 2 to 10 April 1994.\n10.  On the same day the applicant was arrested. Subsequently, A.I., J.S.‑T. and the applicant were questioned by the police as suspects. A.I. was charged with aiding and abetting an unknown person to sell a stolen car. The applicant was charged with aiding and abetting a car theft. J.S.-T. was charged with attempted car theft.\n11.  A.I. did not confess. He stated that he took odd jobs as a driver at the Świecko border station (on the Polish-German border). He admitted that he had intended to bring the car to Belarus but denied knowing anything about the theft of the car. He maintained that a woman, whose first name was “Elżbieta” and for whom he had already worked, had hired him to drive the car in question from Łódź to Belarus, i.e. to the Minsk airport. He had been paid 500 Deutsche marks (DM) for that service. On 3 April 1994, at about 5 p.m. he had met “Elżbieta” in Łódź. She had been accompanied by another woman resembling a Philippine national. She had handed over to him the car, its documents and the keys.\n12.  The applicant did not confess and stated that he had known J.S.–T. for some 8 years. He had met her in Łódź on 3 April 1994. She had come in a “Mercedes” that had been hired. They had decided that they would drive the applicant’s car in Poland and she had left the “Mercedes” in a guarded car park. On the same day A.I. had asked him to lend him his car. The applicant, having first asked J.S.-T. for her permission, had lent him the “Mercedes” hired by her. He had handed the car documents and keys to A.I. Later, he had driven J.S.-T. to her friend, P.M. On 4 April 1994, at about 8 p.m., A.I.’s father had come to the applicant’s home and had told him that A.I. had been arrested when crossing the border since it was suspected that the car in question had been stolen. The applicant had informed J.S.–T. and P.M. of what had happened and the three of them had come to the Sokółka District Police Station to present the car documents and explain the situation.\n13.  J.S.-T. did not confess and stated that, together with P.M., she had flown to Frankfurt am Ma", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2374", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant newspaper published a series of articles in June-September 2001, criticising the authorities of Moldova for their actions in respect of the break-away region of Moldova (“Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” or “MRT”, see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004‑...) and reproducing harsh criticism of the Moldovan Government by certain MRT and Russian leaders.\n6.  The applicant published the articles under the following headlines:\n“The State Duma of the Russian Federation has annexed Moldova and [MRT] to the Union of Russia and Belarus”, “There shall be no meeting...”, “The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledged that the withdrawal of Russian troops from [MRT] may affect stability in the region”, “That’s why NATO is what it is, or a holy place is never empty”, “The black list”, “A Nobel Prize for the leader”, “If the person disappears, there will be no problem?”, “So is it a blockade or WTO conditions?”, “One does not choose one’s neighbours”, “[MRT] is much closer to WTO conditions than Moldova” and “Mission impossible”.\n7.  In these articles, the applicant reproduced, literally or in a summary, or commented upon declarations by Moldovan, Russian and MRT authorities in respect of the negotiation process between Moldova and MRT, as well as economic, (geo-)political, social and other issues. In a number of these articles the actions and declarations of high-ranking Moldovan officials were harshly criticised. The applicant emphasised, however, that it did not call for any violent or unlawful act and, in the impugned articles, expressly qualified such expressions as “to annihilate” (“убрать”) as meaning “political annihilation [of MRT leader]”.\n8.  On 5 November 2001 the Prosecutor General of Moldova initiated court proceedings against the applicant in the Economic Court of Moldova. The applicant was accused of “endangering, through its publications, national security and territorial integrity together with public safety and order in Moldova”, by “lending open support to the unconstitutional regime of the self-proclaimed [MRT], promoting the separatist ideas expressed by its leaders and misrepresenting the essence of legal actions of Moldovan authorities and international organisations in solving the problems of the regions to the East of the Dniester”. The Prosecutor General illustrated his request with two examples of phrases from the impugned articles, namely:\n“The lack of legal balance between the [MRT] and the Republic of Moldova, as a recognised State, allows the latter to approach the negotiations from a position of superiority and dictatorship, which is the main reason for the slow pace of the negotiation process”; “In the circumstances of an ongoing political, diplomatic and economic blockade of MRT by the Republic of Moldova we consider impossible a meeting between the Presidents of MRT and the Republic of Moldova”.\nSince the applicant’s publications, while formally presented as an exercise of the right to inform the public, were contrary to Article 32 of the Constitution and Article 4 of the Press Act (see below) and the applicant had been warned against continuing to violate the law, the court was requested to order the closure of the newspaper.\n9.  On 30 November 2001 the Economic Court of Moldova accepted the claims of the Prosecutor General and ordered the closure of the newspaper. The court recalled the submissions of the parties and cited the applicable domestic law", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2376", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant company, “Intersplav” (hereinafter “the applicant”), is a joint venture enterprise, based in the town of Sverdlovsk in the Lugansk Region, Ukraine.\n9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  The applicant manufactures goods using recycled scrap metal purchased in Ukraine, bearing a 20 % VAT rate. The major part of the applicant’s production is exported from Ukraine at a zero VAT rate. The applicant is thereby entitled to a refund of the VAT due on the price of the scrap metal. Under the Law on Value-Added Tax (see the Domestic Law part below) such a refund should be made within a one-month period following the applicant’s submission of the relevant calculations to the local tax administration. If the refund is delayed, compensation is payable. Both payments (the refund and compensation) are made by the State Treasury upon the submissions of the relevant tax authority.\n11.  Since April 1998, the VAT refund to the applicant has been systematically delayed due to the failure of the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration to confirm the amounts involved. For the same reason, the applicant could not receive compensation for the delayed VAT refund.\n12.  Since 1998, the applicant has complained to the Lugansk Regional Tax Administration and the State Tax Administration about the failure of the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration to issue certificates for the VAT refunds on time. However, these authorities found no illegalities in the actions of the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration, whilst recognising the existence of the State’s debts to the applicant.\n13.  The applicant also complained to the Sverdlovsk Prosecutor and the General Prosecutor’s Office, without any result.\n14.  In its letter of 22 October 2002, the applicant claimed that further obstacles had arisen in running its business, including new discriminatory legislation, transport controls by the police, and judicial proceedings against its employees for defamation instituted by the Tax Administration.\n15.  Since 1998, the applicant has instituted a number of proceedings, more than 140[1] so far, in the Lugansk Commercial Court against the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration and the State Treasury Department in order to receive compensation for the delayed refund of the VAT.\n16.  In the proceedings during 1999-2000, the applicant requested the court to oblige the Tax Administration to confirm the amounts of compensation due to the applicant. The court found for the applicant and ordered the tax administration to issue the requested confirmation for the amounts claimed.\n17.  In the proceedings during 2001-2003, the applicant changed the subject of its claim and requested the courts to award it the amounts of the VAT refund and compensation directly. The Tax Administration and Treasury both opposed the claims; the former on the basis of an alleged lack of competence in VAT refunding, the latter on the basis of the impossibility of refunding any VAT without prior confirmation of such an amount by the Tax Administration. The court found for the applicant and awarded the claimed amounts in its decisions between 2001 and 2004. It confirmed the applicant’s right to compensation for the various delayed VAT refunds.\n18.  The court decisions given between 1999 and 2002 were executed within periods ranging from four days to two years and eight months. The oldest decision that remained unenforced in February 2004, according to the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2377", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Slovenská Nová Ves.\n5.  On 16 November 1993 the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal from a job and withdrawal of a part of his pay by the employer.\n6.  On 3 February 1994 the Bratislava I District Court invited the applicant to pay the court fee. On 6 April 1994 the defendant foundation submitted comments on the applicant’s action.\n7.  As the parties did not attend the hearing scheduled for 7 June 1994, the court adjourned the case until 18 October 1994. Subsequently the applicant appeared before the court and he requested that an interim measure be issued.\n8.  On 31 August 1994 the Bratislava I District Court discontinued the proceedings concerning the interim measure on the ground that the applicant had failed to substantiate his request.\n9.  On 9 September 1994 the court invited the applicant to specify the amount which he claimed. The applicant replied on 9 November 1994.\n10.  On 18 October 1994 the case was adjourned as the parties were absent.\n11.  On 21 October 1994 the court asked the defendant for information about the applicant’s pay. The mail was returned to the court as being undeliverable.\n12.  On 1 December 1994 the case was again adjourned, due to the absence of the defendant. The post had returned the summons to the District Court. As the post had informed the court that the defendant foundation had moved, on 4 January 1995 the court asked two authorities for information about the new seat of the defendant. On 3 February 1995 the court was informed of the defendant’s new address.\n13.  The case was adjourned on 19 January 1995 and on 16 February 1995 as a representative of the defendant foundation had not appeared. The summons had been returned to the court. The representative of the defendant appeared before the District Court on 13 April 1995. He informed the court of his and the foundation’s new address. The applicant did not appear at that hearing. The court informed the representative of the defendant that a fine would be imposed on him if he failed to appear at the next hearing scheduled for 30 May 1995.\n14.  Hearings were held on 30 May 1995 and on 12 September 1995 in the presence of both parties. On 7 November 1995 the case had to be adjourned as the defendant was absent.\n15.  The applicant and a witness were unable to attend the hearing held on 30 January 1996. On the same day the defendant challenged the District Court judge dealing with the case. On 29 February 1996 the Bratislava City Court dismissed the request.\n16.  The defendant failed to appear before the District Court on 11 and 23 July 1996. As the mail sent by the court to both the defendant foundation and its representative could not be delivered, the court made inquiries with a view to establishing the defendant’s address. The three authorities concerned submitted their replies on 16 August 1996, on 11 September 1996 and on 5 November 1996.\n17.  The District Court sent letters to the representative of the defendant foundation in February and in May 1997. All three letters were returned with the indication that the addressee was not at the address indicated in the letters.\n18.  On 15 August 1997 the central register informed the District Court that the representative of the defendant foundation had registered his permanent stay at the address where the court had tried to reach him earlier and which the Ministry of the Interior had indicated to the court on 5 November 1996.\n19.  On 21 Nov", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2378", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in İstanbul.\n5.  On 14 April 1998 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Prevention of Terrorism Department of the Istanbul Security Directorate, on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the TKP/ (ML) TIKKO[1].\n6.  On 15 April 1998 the applicant was interrogated at the Istanbul Security Directorate, where he confessed to being a member of the illegal organisation and taking part in several terrorist incidents. He also maintained that he had left the organisation in 1994.\n7.  On 17 April 1998 the applicant was taken before the public prosecutor, where he confirmed his previous statements. On the same day the applicant was seen by a doctor at the Forensic Institute who noted in his report that there were no signs of blows on his body.\n8.  After having been taken to the public prosecutor’s office, the applicant was brought before a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. He expressed regret that he had been a member of the illegal organisation in the past. He noted, however, that he did not wish to become a “confessor” (itirafçı )[2]. The judge ordered his remand in custody.\n9.  Following the non-jurisdiction decision of the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court, the case file was transferred to the Malatya State Security Court.\n10.  On 28 April 1998, relying on the statements of four witnesses who had also been detained on suspicion of membership of the same organisation, the public prosecutor at the Malatya State Security Court filed an indictment with the court, charging the applicant under Article 146 of the Criminal Code with attempting to undermine the constitutional order. The applicant was accused of participating in four different armed attacks.\n11.  On 28 May 1998 the first hearing was held before the Malatya State Security Court. The court issued rogatory letters, requesting the Çemişgezek and Elbistan Criminal Courts to take the statements of three witnesses.\n12.  At the hearing of 23 June 1998, the court evaluated the witness statements as well as the autopsy and incident reports sent by the Malatya public prosecutor.\n13.  At the hearings of 21 July 1998 and 25 December 1998, the court took the statements of two witnesses who confirmed the applicant’s involvement with the terrorist activities of the illegal organisation. The court also included in the case file the witness statements taken by way of rogatory letters.\n14.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of State Security Courts were replaced by civilian judges. By that time, eighteen hearings had been held by the Malatya State Security Court.\n15.  On 24 February 2000 the applicant, who was brought before the Malatya State Security Court to give his statement for the first time, claimed that, although he had been a member of the organisation for a while, he had not participated in any of the terrorist activities. He maintained that he had merely purchased and transported goods for the organisation. He denied his statements given in police custody, alleging that they had been taken under duress. Moreover, he denied his statements taken by the public prosecutor. He accepted that, at the public prosecutor’s office, he had confessed to being a member of the organisation. However, he argued that the public prosecutor had not asked him about the acts in which he had taken part. The applicant further denied th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2379", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1949, respectively, and live in Seferihisar, İzmir.\n5.  The applicants’ father, Ali Moğul, sold his two houses which were situated in the Seferihisar district to his sons in 1972 and 1973, respectively, by a notary deed. He transferred the possession of the land on which the houses were located to the applicants; however, this land was not registered in the title deeds at that time. The applicants requested that the land be divided into two parts by the Seferihisar Municipality. Subsequently, the Municipality acceded to their request on 25 April 1979.\n6.  On 12 October 1981 the applicants were issued with title deeds for the plots of land numbered 3 and 4 in Seferihisar, following a cadastral survey conducted in the region.\n7.  In 1999, a general survey of coastal districts carried out by the National Property Supervisor defined the applicants’ plots of land and houses as falling within the coastline area.\n8.  On 18 May 2000 the Treasury brought an action against the applicants before the Seferihisar Civil Court of First Instance for the annulment of their title deeds on the ground that their land was located within the coastline area. They claimed that, according to the Coastal Law of 1990, the land in question could not be owned by an individual, but could only be used in the public interest.\n9.  On 29 June 2001 a group of experts, composed of a geomorphologist, a cartography engineer and an agricultural engineer, appointed by the court, inspected the applicants’ land and concluded that it was located within the coastline area.\n10.  On 19 July 2001 the first-instance court upheld the request of the Treasury and annulled the applicants’ ownership in the title deed registry.\n11.  The applicants’ requests for an appeal and rectification of this judgment were rejected by the Court of Cassation on 20 February, 22 May and 5 June 2002.\n12.  On unspecified dates, the Treasury brought further actions against the applicants, for injunctions to prevent any intervention (müdahelenin men-i ve kal davası) by the applicants on the disputed land and the destruction of the adjoining houses. On 15 June 2004 the Seferihisar Civil Court of First Instance accepted this request in relation to the first applicant. This decision has not yet been finalised. The action against the second applicant is still pending before the same court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2380", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant submitted that he was born in 1986 and is currently living in Amsterdam.\n5.  The applicant requested asylum in the Netherlands for the reasons set out below.\n6.  He originally hailed from Mogadishu and belonged to the minority Ashraf population group. In 1991, due to the civil war, his family were forced to leave behind their belongings in Mogadishu and flee to the village of Tuulo Nuh, 25 km from Mogadishu, where they lived in primitive conditions.\n7.  After their flight from Mogadishu, the family were robbed of their remaining possessions. Tuulo Nuh was controlled by the Abgal clan of the Hawiye clan-family. That clan's armed militia knew that the applicant and his family had no means of protection because they belonged to a minority, and for that reason the family were persecuted. Three other Ashraf families were living in Tuulo Nuh; they were treated in the same manner.\n8.  Members of the militia would frequently come to the family home and threaten the applicant and his family. The first time this occurred was when the applicant was about seven years old: the militia threatened the applicant's father, saying that they would set the house on fire if he did not give them money. Whenever the applicant went out he would be harassed and beaten; sometimes when he went to fetch water, the bucket would be knocked over by members of the Abgal. The applicant's mother sold fruit and vegetables on the market. She was repeatedly robbed and ill-treated. Sometimes, when her daily takings had been stolen, the family had to go without food and drink.\n9.  In 1995 the applicant's father was killed by members of the Abgal militia. One evening in December 1998, on one of the occasions when members of the militia came to the house, the family members were locked up and ill-treated – the applicant was hit with a belt and a rifle butt. His brother Ali had his arm broken. Then the militia members took the applicant's mother and sister as well as a female acquaintance outside with them. They left his mother, but took his sister and the acquaintance to a place outside the village where they raped them. They did not release them until the next morning.\n10.  In May 2001 the applicant and one of his brothers were held by members of the militia, ill-treated and forced to unload a lorry from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m.\n11.  In March/April 2002 the applicant's brother, who ran a small grocery shop, was shot and killed in his shop by Abgal militia members. The applicant heard the shots and when he went to look he saw the body of his brother lying on the floor while the militia members looted the shop. The militia knew his brother and saw him as easy prey because, being a member of a minority, he was unable to defend himself.\n12.  About three months later, in June or July 2002, Abgal militia members came to the family home in a car, took the applicant's sister away, raped her and released her late the same night. Although the applicant was at home, he was powerless to intervene because he might have been killed in the process. It was not uncommon for militia members to rape girls. The majority of girls in the village belonged to the large clans and were therefore well protected. Of the families belonging to the Ashraf minority, the applicant's was the only one with a daughter, making her an easy target.\n13.  The last time members of the militia came to the family home prior to the applicant's flight was in March 2003. Eight men came in a Jeep, carrying AK", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2381", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in the town of Bogodukhiv, Kharkiv region, Ukraine.\n5.  In 1980 the applicant was seriously injured while working in the Mushketivska State Mine. As a result, he became an invalid.\n6.  On 22 August 2003 the Bogodukhiv Town Court ordered the Ukrvuglerestrukturyzatsiya State Company to pay the applicant a lump sum of UAH 4,418.63[1] in occupational disability arrears and other payments. It also ordered the Bogodukhiv Town Social Security Fund to pay the applicant a monthly allowance of UAH 405.07[2].\n7.  On 4 November 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal partly changed the decision of 22 August 2003. It awarded the applicant a lump sum of UAH 7,380.56[3] against the company and a monthly allowance of UAH 415.64[4] from the fund, to be calculated from 1 September 2003.\n8.  On 26 November 2003 the Bogodukhiv Town Court sent the writ of execution in respect of the aforementioned judgment to the Voroshilovskiy District Bailiffs' Service of Donetsk.\n9.  On 29 May 2005 the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the Ukrvuglerestrukturyzatsiya State Company had been restructured, and invited the applicant to specify name of the Mine where he worked, in order to determine the debtor's successor in the applicant's case.\n10.  The judgment of 4 November 2003 remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2382", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, a Ukrainian national, was born in 1935. He died on 14 November 2005. In a letter of 16 February 2006, the applicant's wife Mrs Y.P. Parkhomenko informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application.\n5.  In 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnodon Town Court (the “Krasnodon Court”) against the Duvannaya State Mine (the “Mine”), seeking the recovery of occupational disability arrears.\n6.  On 5 May 1995 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Mine to pay the applicant 273,171,500 karbovantsiv[1] (the former transitional currency of Ukraine before September 1996) in occupational disability arrears. On 15 June 1995 the Lugansk Regional Court upheld this decision.\n7.  On 22 December 1995 the same court ordered the Mine to pay the applicant 527,638,000 karbovantsiv[2] in occupational disability arrears.\n8.  By two separate decisions of 25 October 2000, the Presidium of the Lugansk Regional Court, following the protest lodged by the Deputy Prosecutor of the Lugansk Region, quashed the above judgments and remitted both cases for a fresh consideration.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant's claims were joined. On 16 May 2002 the Krasnodon Court rejected them. On an unspecified date the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 16 May 2002 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n10.  On 18 December 2002 the Krasnodon Court found in part for the applicant and awarded him UAH 13,854.11[3] in occupational disability arrears and other payments. On 22 April 2003 the court rejected the Mine's request for leave to appeal against the judgment of 18 December 2002 for failure to comply with procedural formalities.\n11.  On 24 April 2003 the Krasnodon Court submitted two writs of execution for the judgment of 18 December 2002 to the Krasnodon Town Bailiffs' Service for initiation of enforcement proceedings.\n12.  On 12 May 2003 the Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n13.  Pursuant to the order of the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of 23 January 2003 the Mine became a structural division of the Krasnodonvugillya State Enterprise.\n14.  On 27 October 2003 the Krasnodon Court changed the debtor in the enforcement proceedings and ordered the Krasnodonvugillya State Enterprise to pay the applicant the award of 18 December 2002.\n15.  Pursuant to the order of the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of 8 June 2004 the Krasnodonvugillya State Enterprise was reorganized into the Joint-Stock Company “Krasnodonvugillya”.\n16.  On 2 August 2004 the Krasnodon Court changed the debtor in the enforcement proceedings and ordered the JSC “Krasnodonvugillya” to pay the applicant the award of 18 December 2002.\n17.  On 29 September 2005 the Bailiffs' Service requested the applicant to provide them with his bank account information in order to transfer the judgment debt. The applicant did not reply.\n18.  Between 29 September 2005 and 1 February 2006 the whole amount of the judgment debt due to the applicant was transferred to the Bailiffs' Service's account and became available for payment.\n19.  On 7 November 2006 the Bailiffs' Service were informed about the applicant's death. On the same date the enforcement proceedings were suspended until determination of the applicant's heirs.\n20.  As the applicant's heirs failed to lodge with the Krasnodon Court a motion to change a creditor in the enforcement proceedings, the judgment debt owed to the applicant remains with the Bailiffs' Service.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2383", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Split.\n5.  On 1 January 1997 the Act on Restitution of and Compensation for Property Taken during the Yugoslav Communist Regime (“the Denationalisation Act”) entered into force.\n6.  Pursuant to section 22 of the Denationalisation Act, nationalised flats in respect of which third persons had acquired specially protected tenancies (stanarsko pravo), were not to be restored to their former owners. The tenants had a right to purchase the flats from the Fund for the Restitution of and Compensation for Property Taken (Fond za naknadu oduzete imovine) under favourable conditions set out in the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act. At the same time, the former owners or their heirs had the right to financial compensation in respect of the flats. Exceptionally, the former owners or their heirs had a right to restitution in kind of their nationalised flats in respect of which no “tenancy relationship” (stanarski odnos) existed.\n7.  In 1958 a flat in Split owned by the applicant's grandmother was nationalised by the Communist authorities. Subsequently, it was given to a certain D.P. who acquired a specially protected tenancy of the flat. When D.P. died in July 1996 the tenancy was transferred to his wife A.P. She died in October 1996.\n8.  On 27 February 1997 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings before the Office for Property Affairs of the Split-Dalmatia County (Županija Splitsko - Dalmatinska, Gradski ured za imovinskopravne poslove, “the Office”) seeking restitution in kind of the abovementioned flat. He relied on the Denationalisation Act.\n9.  Since the Office did not give a decision within the statutory time-limit of two months, on 6 April 1998 the applicant lodged an appeal for failure to respond (see paragraph 30 below) with the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”).\n10.  As no decision on his appeal of 6 April 1998 had been given within the statutory time-limit of two months, the applicant first filed a rush note with the Ministry on 9 June 1998. On 10 July 1998 he brought an action for failure to respond (see paragraph 31 below) against the Ministry in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske).\n11.  On 17 September 1998 the Office decided to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of concurring administrative and civil proceedings (see below under 2.). On 23 March 1999 the applicant extended his initial appeal of 6 April 1998 to the Ministry to include the decision on the stay of proceedings. Since no decision was given on that appeal either, on 21 June 1999 the applicant filed a rush note with the Ministry and then, on 7 July 1999, extended his initial action for failure to respond (that was pending before the Administrative Court) to include the Ministry's failure to decide on his extended appeal.\n12.  On 28 June 2000 the Administrative Court gave judgment for the applicant and ordered the Ministry to decide, within sixty days, on his appeal against the decision to stay the proceedings.\n13.  Since the Ministry did not do so, on 13 September 2001 the applicant applied to the Administrative Court, requesting it to give its own decision on his appeal, which would entirely substitute for the decision of the Ministry.\n14.  On 27 February 2002 the Administrative Court, sitting as a court of full jurisdiction, delivered a decision dismissing the applicant's appeal against the decision to stay the proceedings. The court held that the principal issue in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2384", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant party, the Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs (Российская консервативная партия пред­при­ни­ма­те­лей), is a nationwide political party established under the laws of the Russian Federation.\nThe second applicant, Mr Aleksandr Anatolyevich Zhukov, was born in 1949 and lives in Smolensk. He stood as one of the applicant party's candidates for the 1999 elections to the State Duma.\nThe third applicant, Mr Viktor Sergeyevich Vasilyev, was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow. He was a supporter of the applicant party.\n9.  On 24 September 1999 the applicant party nominated 151 candidates for the elections to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the lower chamber of the Russian bicameral parliament.\n10.  On 15 October 1999 the Central Electoral Commission of the Russian Federation (Центральная избирательная комиссия РФ – “the CEC”) confirmed receipt of the applicant party's list of candidates. The applicant party paid the election deposit.\n11.  On 3 November 1999 the CEC refused to register the applicant party's list, with reference to sections 24(1), 47 (6) (d), 51 (11) and 91 (2) of the Elections Act. The CEC established that seventeen candidates had submitted substantially inaccurate information about their income and property and struck them off the list. One of them was the number two candidate on the list. On that ground the CEC decided:\n“2. To refuse the registration of the federal list of candidates to the State Duma of the Russian Federation nominated by [the applicant party] because of the withdrawal [выбытие] of the candidate listed as number two in the nationwide section of the accepted federal list of candidates.”\n12.  The applicant party appealed to a court against the CEC's refusal to register it.\n13.  On 10 November 1999 the Civil Division of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, acting as a first-instance court, upheld the CEC's decision to remove from the list the candidates who had made false representations, but declared unlawful the CEC's refusal to register the list in its entirety. The court interpreted the term “withdrawal” in section 51(11) of the Elections Act as meaning only a candidate's voluntary withdrawal of his or her own free will. The court therefore held that the provision should not apply to a situation where one of the top three candidates had been struck off the list by the CEC.\n14.  The CEC appealed against that judgment. The applicant party submitted its observations on the CEC's grounds of appeal.\n15.  On 22 November 1999 the Appeals Division of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of 10 November 1999. The court thoroughly analysed the wording of the Elections Act and agreed that the word “withdrawal” in section 51(11) of the Act should only refer to situations where the candidate's name had been taken off the list of the candidate's own free will or at the request of the candidate's electoral union.\n16.  On the same date the CEC allowed the registration of the applicant party's list of candidates.\n17.  On 26 November 1999 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation lodged an application for supervisory review with the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The prosecutor argued that “withdrawal” was a generic term which applied to any situation where a candidate was struck off the list, be it the expression of will of the candidate himself, of his electoral union, or of the CEC. Hence a can", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2385", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Vouziers.\n5.  By a decision of 17 May 1996 the occupational counselling and redeployment board (“the COTOREP”) gave the applicant a 50 to 79% disability rating and issued her with a card certifying that she found it difficult to remain in a standing position.\n6.  On 6 August 1996, the regional health insurance fund (“the CRAM”) for the North-East region rejected the applicant’s request for a retirement pension as of 1 June 1996 on the basis of her incapacity to work, on the ground that she was not at least 50% disabled.\n7.  On 13 December 1996 the disability claims tribunal upheld the CRAM’s decision.\n8.  The applicant appealed to the national tribunal for claims relating to disability and level of insurance coverage for accidents at work (“the CNITAAT”), submitting a number of medical certificates attesting to her state of health and relying on the COTOREP’s decision of 17 May 1996.\n9.  In a decision of 24 November 1997, the CNITAAT upheld the decision of the disability claims tribunal, stating the following reasons:\n“The rate of disability comprised between 50% and 79% acknowledged for the purposes of issuing the card certifying that it is “difficult to remain in a standing position” is not calculated using the same assessment criteria as the rate applicable in the present case, so this ground of appeal cannot be upheld;\nThe accredited doctor of the national tribunal for claims relating to disability and level of insurance coverage for accidents at work observes the following:\n‘The subject shows signs of preexisting injuries: fracture of the 4th sacral vertebra in 1965, fracture of the left kneecap that was pinned and wired in 1990, fracture of the lower right tibia in 1994.\nNo after-effects in the region of the sacrum are mentioned. The left knee is slightly limited in flexion and shows mild gonarthrosis, and there is lateral calcification of the patella. No after-effects in the left ankle are reported.\nThere is arthrosis of the whole spinal column, with degenerative discopathy at L5‑S1. It is mild arthrosis, not unusual at the subject’s age, with only a slight loss of flexibility of the different segments of the spine. Episodic onsets of sciatica and cervico‑brachial neuralgia are reported in the case history. There are no signs of herniated lumbar disk .\nThere is calcifying periarthritis of the left shoulder, but it does not restrict movement. The same applies to the arthrosis at the base of the right thumb.’\nHe concludes that:\n‘On 1 June 1996 the subject was in a fit state to carry on working without seriously jeopardising her health and, considering her physical and mental fitness for work, did not suffer from a permanent incapacity to work of at least 50%’;\nIn the light of the above medical opinion, the documents in the file and the criteria laid down in Articles L. 351-7 and R. 351‑21 of the Social Security Code, the national tribunal for claims relating to disability and level of insurance coverage for accidents at work decides to uphold the impugned decision ...”\n10.  The applicant lodged a notice of appeal on points of law on 27 May 1998. In further pleadings her lawyer filed with the Court of Cassation on 23 October 1998, she invoked, inter alia, a violation of “the requirements of the rights of the defence” and of “equality of arms in a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6” of the Convention, in that the report by the CNITAAT’s accredited doctor, drawn up solely on the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2386", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Kostyantynivka, the Donetsk region.\n5.  On 30 October 1998 and 27 September 1999 the Mykytivsky District Court of Gorlivka (Микитівський районний суд м. Горлівка) ordered the State Company “Gorlivrozvidka” (“the Company,” ДП “Горліврозвідка”) to pay the applicant UAH 4,298.97[1] and UAH 3,939.61,[2] respectively, in salary arrears and other payments. These judgments became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to the bailiffs' service for enforcement.\n6.  On 17 May 2002 the Mykytivsky District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Микитівського районного управління юстиції в м. Горлівка) informed the applicant that the awarded sums could not be paid to him on account of the Company's lack of funds. It also stated that the attachment of the Company's property was impeded by the Law of 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property.”\n7.  The judgment of 30 October 1998 was enforced in several instalments, the last payment being made on 7 March 2003.\n8.  On 30 November 2004 the applicant received UAH 1,919.03[3] under the judgment of 27 September 1999. The remainder debt is still outstanding to the present day.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2387", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Baku. More commonly known as Sardar Jalaloglu in political circles, he was the Secretary General of the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan. It was one of the opposition parties that considered the presidential elections of 15 October 2003 illegitimate because of alleged falsifications.\n6.  On 16 October 2003 a number of opposition supporters held unauthorised public manifestations at the Azadliq Square in the centre of Baku, protesting the results of the elections. The manifestations ended with public disorder and violent clashes between the crowd and the police. The applicant claimed that he had not personally participated in these manifestations.\n7.  According to the applicant, on 18 October 2003, between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m., several masked police officers, armed with Kalashnikov rifles, appeared at the applicant's house, demanding that he open the door. Before the applicant could do so, three or four of them entered the applicant's apartment through a window. Without presenting an arrest warrant or any other document, the police officers handcuffed the applicant and his guest, N.J. Then the officers dragged them out of the apartment and into a police car. The applicant and N.J. were taken to the Organised Crime Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Mütəşəkkil Cinayətlərə qarşı Mübarizə İdarəsi; hereinafter “the OCU”).\n8.  Thereafter, the applicant was kept handcuffed for about four hours in one of the rooms inside the OCU's building. When the applicant's lawyer arrived and attempted to find out the reasons for the applicant's arrest, the Chief of the OCU told him that the reasons would be given the next day.\n9.  On the same day, the applicant was taken to the basement of the OCU's building, which was used as a temporary detention facility. There, in the office of the warden of the detention facility, he was ordered to strip naked in the presence of several policemen. The policemen checked his body for injuries and did not notice any. He was then placed in a cell with two other detainees until the next morning.\n10.  The next day, on 19 October 2003 between 12 noon and 1 p.m., the applicant was taken to the Investigation Department of the Chief Prosecutor's Office and interrogated in the presence of his lawyer. After the interrogation, he was charged with “organising public disorder” and “use of violence against state officials” for his alleged role in the events of 16 October 2003. According to the applicant, he orally complained to the investigator that he had been ill-treated on the way to the OCU and after being placed in police custody.\n11.  At 4 p.m. on the same day the Nasimi District Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand for three months. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal on 28 October 2003.\n12.  The applicant was taken from the Nasimi District Court back to the OCU where he was kept, until 22 October 2003, in the same cell with two other detainees.\n13.  At around 6 p.m. on 19 October 2003 the applicant was taken to the office of the Deputy Chief of the OCU, where he was told that he would be subjected to “additional interrogation”. The applicant objected, stating that the OCU officers had no competence to interrogate him after his indictment, but his objection was unsuccessful. The interrogation lasted until approximately 10 p.m. and involved questions concerning the activities of members of his political party.\n14.  According to the applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2388", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Krnjak, Croatia.\n7.  The applicant and his family lived in a family house in Krnjak where he also ran a restaurant. The owner of that property was his father, who died in 1992. In January 1999 the applicant was declared his legal heir.\n8.  In August 1995 the applicant and his family left for Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n9.  On 27 September 1995 the Temporary Takeover and Managing of Certain Property Act (“the Takeover Act”) entered into force. It provided that property situated in the previously occupied territories, and belonging to persons who had left Croatia, was to be taken into the care of, and controlled, by the State. It also authorised local authorities (takeover commissions) to entrust such property for temporary use by third persons.\n10.  On 23 May 1996 the Commission for Temporary Takeover and Use of Property of the Municipality of Krnjak (Komisija za privremeno preuzimanje i korištenje imovine Općine Krnjak – “the Takeover Commission”) entitled a certain V.P. to use the applicant's property temporarily, with a view to running the restaurant.\n11.  On 15 September 1997 the applicant applied for repossession of his property to the Takeover Commission. He received no reply.\n12.  In January 1998 the applicant reiterated his request for repossession and sought annulment of the Takeover Commission's decision of 23 May 1996.\n13.  On 4 June 1998 the Takeover Commission replied, without issuing a formal decision, that it had given no decision concerning the applicant's property and that it had no competence to decide on his repossession request.\n14.  In June 1998 Parliament adopted the Programme for the Return of Refugees and Displaced Persons (“the Programme for Return”), regulating the principles for their return and repossession of their property.\n15.  In August 1998 the Act on Termination of the Takeover Act (“the Termination Act”) entered into force. It incorporated and gave legal force to the provisions of the Programme for Return providing that those persons, whose property had during their absence from Croatia been given for accommodation of others, had to apply for repossession of their property with the competent local authorities – the housing commissions.\n16.  According to the above legislation, on 13 August 1998 the applicant applied for repossession of his property to the Housing Commission of the Municipality of Krnjak (Stambena Komisija Općine Krnjak – “the Housing Commission”).\n17.  On 31 August 1998 the Housing Commission informed the applicant about the status and degree of the damage to his property and, on 1 December 1998, invited him to prove the ownership of the property in question. The applicant did so in April 1999, once the inheritance proceedings after his late father had ended in January 1999.\n18.  On 4 October 1999 the Housing Commission set aside the Takeover Commission's decision of 23 May 1996. V.P. appealed.\n19.  On 14 February 2000 the Municipality of Krnjak, acting as the second-instance administrative authority, dismissed V.P.'s appeal. It also ordered him to vacate the house within 15 days following the receipt of the decision and indicated that otherwise it would bring a civil action against him in the competent municipal court.\n20.  Since V.P. failed to comply with the order, on 13 March 2000 the Housing Commission brought an action in the Karlovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Karlovcu) seeking his eviction from the property in question.\n21.  On 16 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2389", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  On 21 May 1999, he signed a contract for services with the National Association of Securities Dealers, a private enterprise (“the Association”).\n6.  On 18 July 2000 he notified the Association of his intention to terminate the contract from 5 August 2000, invoking the Association's non‑compliance with its contractual obligations.\n7.  On 13 November 2000, the applicant lodged with the Bucharest County Court an action against the Association seeking compensation for pecuniary damage caused by the latter's failure to fulfil its contractual obligations.\n8.  Before the County Court, the Association asked to have the contract declared null and void on the ground that the procedure for the validation of the contract had not been carried out in conformity with its own statutes, this having as result the fact that the contract was not legally binding on it. The applicant contested this argument.\n9.  In a judgment of 7 June 2001, the County Court found the contract to be valid and, based on an expert opinion, awarded the applicant 129,648 US dollars (USD) in compensation, USD 8,330 by way of penalties and 96,413,000 Romanian lei (ROL) for court fees.\nAccording to the applicable law, this judgment was enforceable.\n10.  In a final decision of 5 November 2001, the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal lodged by the Association and confirmed the judgment.\n11.  On 22 January 2002, the applicant, who had instituted proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment of 7 June 2001, received ROL 440,000,000 from the Association.\nThis sum is still in the applicant's possession although proceedings for its recovery have been started by the Association in 2005 and are still pending with the domestic courts.\n12.  On 5 December 2001, the Procurator‑General, at the Association's request, lodged an application with the Supreme Court of Justice to have both the judgment of 7 June 2001 and the final decision of 5 November 2001 quashed (“recurs în anulare”) on the ground that the two courts which decided on the case had committed a serious breach of the law when examining the legality of the parties' contract.\n13.  On 18 April 2002, the Supreme Court postponed the pronouncement of the final decision until 29 May 2002.\nThe decision was eventually adopted on 5 June 2002. The Supreme Court allowed the application, quashed the final decision of 5 November 2001 and sent the case back to the Bucharest Court of Appeal for a fresh examination on the merits, on the ground that the two courts had not examined whether the contract was valid and binding on both parties and whether the applicant's initial action could still be allowed in the light of the termination of the contract by the applicant on 5 August 2000.\n14.  In an interlocutory judgment of 13 November 2002, the Court of Appeal asked the applicant to supplement the court fees by ROL 18,231,600 which he did on 10 December 2002.\n15.  In a final decision of 12 March 2003, the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the Association's appeal, quashed the judgment of 7 June 2001 and dismissed the applicant's action on the ground that while the contract was valid, the conditions for engaging the Association's responsibility for paying damages were not met. It also ordered the applicant to pay the Association ROL 32,109,680 in court fees.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2390", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Neckargemünd in Germany.\n5.  From 1972 to 1979 the applicant studied law at the University of Heidelberg.\n6.  From April to May 1979 he wrote a paper (sechs-Wochen-Hausarbeit) on public building law, which formed part of the first state examination.\n7.  In November 1979 the applicant wrote three further examination papers.\n8.  On 6 December 1979 the Lower Saxony Examination Office (Justizprüfungsamt) informed the applicant that his paper on public building law had been given the mark “unsatisfactory” (mangelhaft, 1 point).\n9.  On 31 January 1980 that same office informed the applicant that his other public law paper had been marked “insufficient” (ungenügend, 0 points).\n10.  As a reaction to these poor grades - which could cause failure in the examinations - the applicant developed a severe depression which prevented him from further pursuing the examination proceedings.\n11.  On 25 April 1980 the applicant lodged a motion with the Hanover Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) with the aim of obtaining a re-evaluation of the two examination papers.\n12.  On 27 February 1986 the Hanover Administrative Court rejected the motion as being inadmissible.\n13.  The applicant's appeal to the Lüneburg Administrative Court of Appeal (Oberverwaltungsgericht) remained unsuccessful.\n14.  On 9 February 1987 the Federal Administrative Court refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal on points of law.\n15.  On 2 March 1988 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to accept the applicant's constitutional complaint for adjudication.\n16.  On 30 November 1982 the applicant lodged a compensation claim against the State of Lower Saxony with the Hanover Regional Court (Landgericht).\n17.  On 5 January 1983 the Regional Court, upon the applicant's request and with the defendant's consent, decided to suspend proceedings pending the proceedings before the administrative courts.\n18.  On 14 December 1987 the Regional Court decided not to schedule a hearing before the Federal Constitutional Court had given its decision on the applicant's complaint against the administrative courts' judgments.\n19.  On 20 September 1988 the applicant informed the Regional Court that he had lodged an application against the Federal Constitutional Court's decision with the European Commission for Human Rights and requested that the proceedings remain suspended.\n20.  On 21 December 1988 the Regional Court refused to further suspend the proceedings.\n21.  On 8 March 1989 the Celle Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's complaint against that decision.\n22.  On 17 March 1989 the applicant, once again, requested to suspend the proceedings.\n23.  By letter to the Regional Court of 7 February 1990 the applicant requested that the proceedings should be continued. Referring to expert opinions submitted by fifteen legal scholars, he claimed that the evaluations of his two examination papers were incorrect. Alleging that the poor grades had caused his psychological illness and had thus prevented him from completing his studies and from pursuing a university career, he claimed 463,300 Deutschmarks (DEM) as damages for lost income, a monthly pension and further compensation for immaterial damage suffered by him.\n24.  On 8 June 1990 the Regional Court refused to grant the applicant legal aid.\n25.  On 19 March 1991 the Celle Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's complaint.\n26.  On 16 July 1991 the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsger", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2391", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Yerevan.\n8.  The applicant at the material time was a member of the “Republic” Party («Հանրապետություն» կուսակցություն).\n9.  On 10 May 2002 the “Republic” Party applied to the Mayor of Yerevan for permission to hold a demonstration on Freedom Square in Yerevan on 14 May 2002.\n10.  On 13 May 2002 the Mayor authorised the demonstration as requested.\n11.  The demonstration was held as planned on 14 May 2002, at around 15.00, on Freedom Square. It was jointly organised by the “Republic” Party and six other political parties. The applicant participated in the demonstration.\n12.  Following the demonstration, at around 16.00, the applicant called on participants to hold a procession through the Baghramyan Avenue towards the Parliament building. It appears that a crowd of people followed the applicant in a procession along the Avenue.\n13.  The same day, at 23.10, the applicant was arrested and brought to the Arabkir District Police Station of Yerevan (ՀՀ ոստիկանության Երևան քաղաքի Արաբկիրի բաժին). The record of an administrative offence (վարչական իրավախախտման արձանագրություն) prepared by the police officers stated that the applicant had “organised an unlawful procession and violated the prescribed rules for holding demonstrations and street processions”.\n14.  On 15 May 2002 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (Երևան քաղաքի Կենտրոն և Նորք-Մարաշ համայնքների առաջին ատյանի դատարան) examined the applicant's case. The District Court found that:\n“[The applicant], in violation of the prescribed rules for holding street processions and demonstrations, on 14 May 2002 at around 16.00 o'clock, participated with a group of people in an unauthorised procession. Thus, he has committed an offence envisaged by Article 180.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences [(Վարչական իրավախախտումների վերաբերյալ ՀՀ օրենսգիրք)]. Taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and the personality of [the applicant], the court finds it necessary to impose an administrative penalty in the form of a fine.”\n15.  The District Court imposed a fine in the amount of 500 Armenian drams (AMD) (approx. EUR 1 at the material time). The decision was final and not subject to appeal.\n16.  On 24 May 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Civil Court of Appeal (ՀՀ քաղաքացիական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարան). In his appeal the applicant argued that in accordance with the Constitution he had a right to contest the decision of the District Court before a higher court. He further argued that the interference with his right to freedom of assembly was not prescribed by law, as there did not exist any law which prescribed the rules that the applicant had allegedly violated. Furthermore, he expressly requested the Court of Appeal to name any such law if it existed.\n17.  On 14 June 2002 the Civil Court of Appeal examined the applicant's appeal and found that:\n“On 14 May 2002 at around 15.00 o'clock [the applicant] participated in an authorised demonstration on the Freedom Square in Yerevan. Thereafter, at around 16:00 [the applicant] with a group of people participated in an unauthorised procession through the Baghramyan Avenue, during which he headed the procession [. For this reason] he was brought to the [police station].\nThe fact of the applicant heading an unauthorised procession is characterised as an offence envisaged under Article 180.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, therefore, he must be subjected to admini", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2392", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, a Ukrainian national, was born in 1952 and lives in the city of Zaporizhzhya, Ukraine.\n5.  In 1999 the applicant, a private entrepreneur, concluded a labour contract with the Shevchenkivskiy District State Administration in Zaporizhzhya.\n6.  As the State Administration failed to pay the applicant under the contract, in 2002 she instituted proceedings against it in the Commercial Court of Zaporizhzhya Region, seeking recovery of remuneration and compensation for delay in payment.\n7.  On 15 January 2003 the court awarded the applicant UAH 16,094.52[1] (Рішення Господарського суду Запоріжської області). This judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n8.  On 28 March 2003 the Shevchenkivskiy District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Шевченківського районого управління юстиції м. Запоріжжя) initiated enforcement proceedings. On 3 November 2004 the Bailiffs' Service returned the writ of execution to the applicant on the ground that no funds allowing enforcement of the judgment had been found.\n9.  On 28 May 2003 and 30 December 2004 the applicant received UAH 6,000[2] and UAH 5,000[3], respectively.\n10.  By letters of 5 November and 6 December 2004 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that there were no funds in the debtor's bank accounts and that it was not possible to dispose of the debtor's property because the debtor was a governmental institution.\n11.  On 25 August 2005 the Commercial Court of Zaporizhzhya Region repeatedly ordered the Bailiffs' Service to enforce the judgment in the applicant's favour of 15 January 2003. On 20 August 2005 the Bailiffs' Service refused to institute the enforcement proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.\n12.  The judgment in the applicant's favour remains partly unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2393", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Kremenchuk, the Poltava region.\n5.  On 8 April 2003 the Kryukivsky District Court of Kremenchuk (the “District Court,” Крюківський районний суд м. Кременчука Полтавської області) ordered the Kremenchuk Tax Inspectorate (the “Tax Inspectorate,” Кременчуцька об'єднана державна податкова інспекція) to pay the applicant UAH 113,984.80,[1] the amount of overpaid tax.\n6.  On 29 May 2003 the Kryukivsky District Bailiffs' Service of Kremenchuk (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Крюківського районного управління юстиції м. Кременчука) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment.\n7.  On 4 November 2003 the Tax Inspectorate refused to pay the judgment debt and maintained that it should be due from the State Treasury.\n8.  On 26 December 2003 the Bailiffs requested the District Court to explain how to enforce the judgment of 8 April 2003.\n9.  On 29 December 2003 the District Court found that the judgment debt was to be paid directly from the State Budget and ordered the State Treasury of Kremenchuk (the “Treasury,” Кременчуцьке відділення Державного казначейства України) to pay the award due to the applicant.\n10.  At the request of the Treasury, on 20 May 2004 the District Court gave a new explanation as to the enforcement of the judgment of 8 April 2003. In particular, the court ordered that the payment be made from the banking account of the Tax Inspectorate.\n11.  On 16 March 2005 the Tax Inspectorate informed the Bailiffs that the sum of the tax overpaid by the applicant had been transferred to the State budget and provided the requisites of the respective account managed by the Treasury.\n12.  At the request of the Bailiffs, on 8 August 2005 the District Court modified its explanation of 20 May 2004 and confirmed that the Bailiffs should collect the award due to the applicant from the above Treasury's account.\n13.  On 21 June 2006 the judgment of 8 April 2003 was enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2394", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in the village of Kresty in the Tula Region.\n5.  On 20 October 1993 the applicant sued the Chernskiy District Social Security Services for pension arrears, an increase of his monthly pension and compensation for damage.\n6.  On 16 December 1993 the Chernskiy District Court accepted the action in full. The judgment was quashed on 1 February 1994 and the case was remitted for a fresh examination.\n7.  On 15 June 1998 the Chernskiy District Court partly accepted the applicant's action and decided to determine his claim concerning compensation for damage in separate proceedings.\n8.  The Social Services appealed against the judgment to the Tula Regional Court. The first appeal hearing was fixed for 27 August 1998. However, it was adjourned until 6 October 1998 because the respondent did not attend.\n9.  On 6 October 1998 the Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment of 15 June 1998 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n10.  The case was assigned to the judge Isayev and the first hearing was fixed for 12 May 1999. That hearing was adjourned upon the parties' request until 23 September 1999.\n11.  On 23 August 2000 the Chernskiy District Court received the applicant's amended statement of claims.\n12.  On 24 January 2001 the judge Milyokhin was assigned to the case and on 2 July 2001 he scheduled a preliminary hearing. The following hearing, fixed for 7 August 2001, was adjourned because the representative of the Social Services defaulted.\n13.  At the hearing of 7 August 2001 the applicant successfully amended his claims and asked to invite the Tula Regional Department of the Social Protection of Population to the proceedings.\n14.  The following hearing, fixed for 1 November 2001, was adjourned until 14 December 2001 because the respondent defaulted.\n15.  On 14 December 2001 the Chernskiy District Court stayed the proceedings in the applicant's case to await the outcome of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The Constitutional Court was to give interpretation of the pension legislation applicable to the applicant's case. The decision of 14 December 2001 was upheld on appeal on 12 March 2002.\n16.  On 12 March 2003 the Chernskiy District Court resumed the proceedings and fixed a hearing for 2 April 2003. That hearing was adjourned until 28 April 2003 to allow the respondent to study the case-file. The applicant once again amended his claims at the hearing of 28 April 2003.\n17.  Of the five hearings fixed between 28 April 2003 and 30 November 2005, one hearing was adjourned because the respondent defaulted and three were adjourned upon the applicant's request.\n18.  On 8 December 2005 the Chernskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's action. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Tula Regional Court on 9 February 2006.\n19.  On numerous occasions the applicant unsuccessfully complained about the excessive length of the proceedings in his case to the prosecutor of the Tula Region and the Judicial Qualification Board of the Tula Region.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2395", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are Jehovah's Witnesses. The applicant Mr Konstantin Nikanorovich Kuznetsov is a representative of the Administrative Centre of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia. The other applicants are members of the Chelyabinsk community of Jehovah's Witnesses.\n8.  Between 1997 and 2001 the Chelyabinsk community of Jehovah's Witnesses filed twelve applications for State registration with the regional Department of the Ministry of Justice. Their applications were refused on 17 May 1996, 20 June and 3 November 1997, 21 January, 30 April, 28 June, 15 July and 16 December 1999, 30 June and 17 August 2000, 11 May and 24 September 2001. Each refusal was justified by reference to alleged formal defects in the registration documents.\n9.  The applicants complained to a court. On 24 July 2002 the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk ruled that the refusal of 24 September 2001 had been unlawful. On 28 October 2002 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld this decision and ordered the registration of the Chelyabinsk community of Jehovah's Witnesses. On 31 March 2003 the community was officially registered by the Chief Directorate of the Ministry of Justice for the Chelyabinsk Region.\n10.  In the applicants' submission, Ms Yekaterina Gorina, appointed by the Chelyabinsk Regional Governor as Chairwoman of the regional Human Rights Commission (“the Commissioner”), had attempted on several occasions to initiate criminal proceedings against the Chelyabinsk community of Jehovah's Witnesses on the ground that the community had “lured” young children into their “sect”.\n11.  On 25 May 1999 a senior investigator with the Chelyabinsk town prosecutor's office found no indications of a criminal offence and decided not to open a criminal investigation into the activities of the members of the Jehovah's Witnesses' community.\n12.  Following the Commissioner's intervention, the decision of 25 May 1999 was reversed and an additional inquiry was ordered.\n13.  On 3 March 2000 the deputy Chelyabinsk town prosecutor again dismissed the allegations against the members of the Jehovah's Witnesses' community on the ground that no evidence pointing towards a criminal offence could be found.\n14.  On 6 February 1999 Mr Z., a member of the local community of Jehovah's Witnesses, acting on behalf of the Administrative Centre of the Religious Organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses, negotiated a lease agreement with Mr U., principal of vocational training college no. 85 in Chelyabinsk, in respect of the college auditorium and associated facilities. According to Article 1.1 of the lease agreement, the premises were rented for the purpose of holding religious meetings on Tuesdays between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. and on Sundays between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., outside the normal college teaching hours.\n15.  The lease agreement was intended to run from 7 February to 31 December 1999. It also contained a provision that it would be automatically renewed on the same terms and conditions and for the same period unless either side gave one month's advance notice of its intent to terminate the agreement. No such notice appears to have been given by either party. Thereafter the agreement continued to run for the extended one-year period, but with the lessees only authorised to terminate it subject to two months' notice in writing. There was no reciprocal power for the college to terminate the agreement during the extended period.\n16.  By April 2000 the applicants had been using the college facilities f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2396", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1963, 1955, 1978 and 1958 respectively. The first applicant lives in Krasnyy Luch and the other applicants live in Miusinsk, the Lugansk region.\n5.  On various dates the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Krasnyy Luch Court (Краснолуцький міський суд Луганської області) seeking salary arrears and other payments from the State Mining Company “Miusinska” (ДВАТ шахта “Міусінська” ДП “Донбасантрацит”).\n6.  On 4 August 2003 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 4,154.87[1] in favour of the first applicant.\n7.  On 31 October 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 2,415.99[2] in favour of the second applicant.\n8.  On 27 August 2001 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 1,139.38[3] in favour of the fourth applicant; and\n9.  On 26 November 2002 the Krasnyy Luch Court awarded UAH 4,558.18[4] in favour of the third applicant.\n10.  The aforementioned judgments became final and the enforcement writs in their respect were transferred to the Krasnyy Luch Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Краснолуцького міського управління юстиції) for enforcement.\n11.  On 10 February 2005 the Bailiffs notified the first and the third applicant that the delays in the enforcement of the judgments given in their favour were due to the holding of the debtor's property in a tax lien.\n12.  The judgments given in favour of the first, second and third applicant were enforced on 29 August 2005; the judgment given in favour of the fourth applicant was enforced on 1 November 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2397", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in the town of Кozelshchina, the Poltava Region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 15 September 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of theft and corruption. The prosecution's case was that the applicant, a former manager of the Кozelshchina District Consumers' Cooperative[1] (“Козельщинська райспоживспілка”) was involved in official misconduct, namely stealing from the shops under his management.\n6.  On 24 September 1998 the Prosecutor's Office of the Кozelshchina District of the Poltava Region (hereafter “the District Prosecutor's Office”) ordered the applicant's detention.\n7.  On 8 December 1998 the applicant was released under the obligation not to leave his place of residence.\n8.  On the same day the investigator ordered the applicant's suspension from his duties pending the criminal proceedings. Following this order the applicant's employer, the State-owned Joint-Stock Company “Galeshchinske khlibopryimalne pidpryemstvo” suspended the applicant from his duties of the Head of the Board of the company. On 14 April 2003 the Kobylaky District Court dismissed the applicant's complaint against this prosecution's order. The court stated that this issue did not fall within its jurisdiction and had to be examined in the course of the criminal trial. On 14 May 2003 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal against this decision for lack of jurisdiction.\n9.  On 20 July 1999 the investigation was completed and the applicant was given access to the case-file.\n10.  On 3 September 1999 the case was referred to the Kozelishchinskiy District Court.\n11.  On 29 September 1999 the Poltava Regional Prosecutor's Office, following the applicant's request, withdrew the case from the court and remitted it for further investigation.\n12.  On 1 October 1999 the investigation was suspended as Mr S., another accused in this case, flew from justice.\n13.  On 11 February 2000 Mr S. was found and the proceedings were resumed.\n14.  On 24 February 2000 Mr S. escaped and was again placed on the wanted list. The proceedings were suspended.\n15.  On 2 June 2000 the Deputy Prosecutor of Poltava Region quashed the decision of 24 February 2000 on the suspension of the proceedings and remitted the case for further investigation.\n16.  On 8 June 2000 the investigation was suspended as Mr S. was on the wanted list.\n17.  On 1 August 2000 the proceedings were resumed.\n18.  On 3 August 2000 the criminal case against Mr S. was closed. On the same day the proceedings against the applicant were suspended due to his illness. The proceedings were subsequently resumed on 25 September 2000.\n19.  On 2 October 2000 the investigation was completed and the applicant and his lawyer were given access to the case-file.\n20.  On 4 October 2000 the applicant and his lawyer finished consulting the case-file.\n21.  On 28 October 2000 the case was referred to the Poltava Regional Court.\n22.  On 2 November 2000 the Poltava Regional Court referred the case to the Avtozavodsky District Court.\n23.  On 18 December 2000 the trial proceedings commenced.\n24.  The court postponed the hearing in order to summon witnesses on several occasions: on 18 and 20 December 2000, on 29 January, 5 and 7 February, 26 March, 23 April and 4 July 2001. The hearing was adjourned twice following the applicant's requests – on 7 August and 12 December 2001.\n25.  On 12 December 2001 the hearing was adjourned in order to provide the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2399", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, a Ukrainian national, was born in 1940 and lives in the town of Nova Kakhovka, Kherson Region, Ukraine. He is a former employee of the State-owned OJSC “Pivdenelektromash” (“the Company,” ВАТ “Південелектромаш”).\n5.  The background facts for the case are described in the case of Semenov v. Ukraine (no. 25463/03, §§ 5-8, 13 December 2005).\n6.  On 20 March 2003 the Nova Kakhovka City Court (Новокаховський міський суд Херсонської області) ordered the Company to pay the applicant UAH 4,827[1] in salary arrears. This judgment became final and the writs of execution were transferred to the Bailiffs.\n7.  By letter of 7 July 2003, the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been suspended due to the proceedings of financial rehabilitation of the debtor.\n8.  On 15 January 2004 the Bailiffs' Service resumed the execution proceedings in the applicant's case. On 23 January and 10 February 2004, it ordered the seizure of the Company's accounts. However, on 27 February 2004 the Kherson Regional Commercial Court, on the trustee's appeal, quashed these decisions because the Bankruptcy Act envisaged the obligatory suspension of enforcement proceedings pending the resolution of a bankruptcy case.\n9.  The judgment in the applicant's favour remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2401", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Mr Terril was born on 25 April 1956 and lives in London.\n6.  His wife died on 2 October 1999. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 9 March 2000 and was rejected on 24 March 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widow’s benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.\n7.  Mr Silkstone was born on 27 February 1951 and lives in Lancashire.\n8.  His wife died on 19 October 1998. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 24 November 1999 and was rejected on 28 February 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widow’s benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.\n9.  Mr Blannin was born on 5 October 1948 and lives in Cirencester.\n10.  His wife died on 30 March 1993. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 18 July 2000 and was rejected on 28 July 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widow’s benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.\n11.  Mr Lines was born on 26 January 1954 and lives in Edinburgh.\n12.  His wife died on 20 January 2000. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 13 June 2000 and was rejected on 27 June 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widow’s benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.\n13.  Mr Harrison was born on 28 November 1951 and lives in Staffordshire.\n14.  His wife died on 5 May 1996. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 4 May 2000 and was rejected on 6 June 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widow’s benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.\n15.  Mr Turner was born on 7 November 1955 and lives in Cardiff.\n16.  His wife died on 8 April 2000. His claim for widows’ benefits was made in August 2000 and was rejected on 16 August 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widow’s benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.\n17.  Mr Hyland was born on 7 June 1959 and lives in Kent.\n18.  His wife died on 26 January 1999. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 3 September 2000 and was rejected on 11 September 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widow’s benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2402", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Izmir.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 23 February 1999 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terror branch of the Izmir Security Directorate (Terörle Mücadele Şubesi) on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), contrary to Article 169 of the Criminal Code.\n7.  On 26 February 1999 the applicant was brought before a single judge of the Izmir State Security Court. The applicant denied the veracity of his signed statements taken in detention, alleging that they had been obtained under duress. On the same day, the judge ordered his detention on remand.\n8.  On 3 March 1999 the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant under Article 169 of the Criminal Code with aiding and abetting the PKK by engaging in propaganda for it.\n9.  On 7 April 1999 the State Security Court held its first hearing in the absence of the applicant. The court ordered that the applicant’s detention on remand be continued as he could not be heard.\n10.  On 11 May 1999 the State Security Court held its second hearing in the presence of a military judge. The applicant was heard by the court. He denied having engaged in propaganda and stated that he had been merely watching the crowd shouting slogans. He further denied the statements taken in police custody and before the public prosecutor. He alleged that he had been forced to sign the impugned statements under duress. He asked the court to dismiss the charges and release him. Assessing the evidence against the applicant, the court dismissed his request and ordered his continued detention on remand.\n11.  On 18 June 1999 the Grand National Assembly amended Article 143 of the Constitution and excluded military members from State Security Courts. Following similar amendments made on 22 June 1999 to the Law on the State Security Courts, the military judge hearing the applicant’s case was replaced by a civilian judge.\n12.  On 19 August 1999 the State Security Court held a hearing. The applicant’s representative requested his release. He further asked the court to hear evidence from four witnesses. The court dismissed his requests. Considering the state of the proceedings, the court reasoned that the evidence to be given by the four witnesses would not help to elucidate the facts.\n13.  On 22 September 1999 the State Security Court held another hearing. The applicant’s representative submitted the applicant’s written defence submissions and read them at the hearing. The court ordered that the applicant’s detention on remand be continued.\n14.  On 13 October 1999 the State Security Court composed of three civilian judges convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment under Article 169 of the Criminal Code.\n15.  On 9 October 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. Two days later, this decision was pronounced in the absence of the applicant’s representative.\n16.  As required by law, the decision was deposited with the registry of the Izmir State Security Court for the applicant’s review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2403", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Czestochowa.\n5.  The applicant was arrested on 24 April 2001 on charges of acting in an organised criminal group involved in the commission of armed robberies, offences against life or limb and property and drug trafficking. By a decision of the Katowice District Court of 25 April 2001 the applicant was remanded in custody until 23 July 2001. The court observed that on the basis of the evidence gathered so far (inter alia, evidence from two crown witnesses) there was a strong likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences in question. It also referred to the risk that the further course of the proceedings would be jeopardised if the applicant were released.\n6.  Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was prolonged on several occasions by the Częstochowa Regional Court (decisions of 19 July 2001, 18 October 2001, 29 November 2001) and by the Katowice Court of Appeal (decisions of 17 April 2002, 22 May 2002, 9 April 2003, 4 December 2002, 17 December 2003, 26 May 2004, 22 December 2004). The applicant challenged the decisions prolonging his detention on remand, but they were upheld (decision of the Katowice Regional Court of 30 May 2001; decisions of the Katowice Court of Appeal of 8 May 2002, 15 January 2003, 7 May 2003, 14 January 2004, 29 December 2004).\n7.  The applicant unsuccessfully applied for release and to have the preventive measure imposed on him replaced by a more lenient one (decisions of the Regional and Appeal Prosecutors of 21 May 2001, 11 June 2001, 9 July 2001, 1 October 2001, 3 December 2003 refusing the applicant’s requests; decisions of the Częstochowa Regional Court of 27 March 2003 and 4 September 2003). The courts justified their decisions prolonging the applicant’s detention on remand and their refusals to release him by referring to the complexity of the case, the significant number of accused, the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences concerned and the severity of the likely sentence. These facts gave rise to the courts’ assumption that the applicant, if released, could obstruct the proper course of the proceedings, especially given that some suspects were still at large. The courts were of the opinion that a comprehensive examination of the case required that the investigation be continued and that the applicant’s detention was the only way to secure the proper course of the proceedings.\n8.  On 28 October 2002 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor charged the applicant, in addition to the existing charges, with several counts of obtaining compensation under false pretences from an insurance company, illegal possession of firearms, extortion and drug trafficking.\n9.  On 27 February 2003 a bill of indictment against the applicant was submitted to the Częstochowa Regional Court. The charges on the indictment included extortion, illegal possession of firearms and drug trafficking, committed while acting in an organised criminal group. The bill of indictment numbered 87 pages and the case file numbered 59 volumes. The prosecutor requested the court to hear 75 witnesses, including two crown witnesses. There were 22 accused.\n10.  The first hearing was held on 15 July 2003. 54 hearings were held in the case up until 16 February 2005 and about 70 hearings in total before the first-instance court up until December 2005. Some of the defendants and witnesses repeatedly failed to comply with the court summonses.\n11.  ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2404", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On 23 January 1994 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody by officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters, on suspicion of being involved in the activities of an illegal armed organisation, namely the TKP/ML (Türkiye Komünist Partisi/Marksist Leninist, Turkish Communist Party / Marxist Leninist).\n6.  On 7 February 1994 he was brought before the public prosecutor and then the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. The same day, the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody.\n7.  On 31 March 1994 the public prosecutor filed an indictment charging the applicant and four others with membership of an illegal armed organisation and involvement in activities which undermined the constitutional order of the State.\n8.  At the time of the events, a similar case concerning certain activities of the TKP/ML was pending before the third chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court. Following a jurisdictional conflict between two chambers of the court, on 14 March 1995 the Court of Cassation decided to join the applicant's case to the one pending before the third chamber. Consequently, the number of accused was increased to sixteen people.\n9.  The applicant did not attend a number of hearings.\n10.  In the course of the proceedings, the court held forty-eight hearings. At the end of each hearing the State Security Court rejected the applicant's requests for release pending trial, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file.\n11.  On 12 June 2000 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n12.  On 15 May 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision for procedural reasons. The case was remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court for further examination and the applicant remained in detention. The case was resumed with 15 accused, including the applicant.\n13.  On 8 February 2002 the applicant's lawyer requested the court to release the applicant pending trial due to his poor health. He submitted a medical report certifying that Mr Solmaz was suffering from Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome (a brain disorder caused by thiamine deficiency, usually associated with alcoholism). The court dismissed the lawyer's request, maintaining that the applicant could be treated in prison. Moreover, it held that, considering the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the file, the applicant should continue to be detained pending trial.\n14.  Following an objection by the applicant's lawyer, the court reconsidered its decision of 8 February 2002. On 18 February 2002, relying on a medical report and considering the length of the period which the applicant had already spent in detention, the court ordered his release pending trial. It further held that it was likely that the final decision of the court would be in favour of the applicant.\n15.  State Security Courts were abolished by constitutional amendments introduced on 7 May 2004. Subsequently, the applicant's case was resumed before the Istanbul Assize Court.\n16.  After holding seventeen hearings, on 31 January 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment in accordance with Article 146 of the Criminal Code.\n17.  However, on an unknown date the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2405", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in London. In or around late 1999 the applicant breached an earlier probation order (concerning a charge of deception) and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. It was her first time in prison.\n7.  Her term of imprisonment began in November 1999. She was accorded an unconditional release date of 23 January 2000.\n8.  The applicant suffered from cerebral palsy, a disorder of the central nervous system which can inhibit voluntary muscle control. She used a wheelchair and could only walk a few steps with assistance. She did not have voluntary control of her bladder meaning that on occasion she either could not urinate for several hours or she urinated uncontrollably and required medication to restrain this. The condition did not affect her intelligence but rather her ability to process information so that she required explanations in plain language and sufficient time for full comprehension.\n9.  A short medical report from a general practitioner dated 15 August 2000 noted that the applicant was a patient of the relevant practice and that her condition could have affected her ability to produce a urine sample on demand as voluntary control of the nervous system is always affected by cerebral palsy. While he suggested obtaining a neurologist’s report on these matters, the applicant stated that she could not afford to obtain one.\n10.  The prison psychotherapist’s report of 31 January 2000 noted that the applicant had been referred in December 1999 given her distress and difficulties in coping with her imprisonment. It noted as follows:\n“Largely confined to a wheelchair, [the applicant] manifests obvious physical symptoms of cerebral palsy as well as somewhat less obvious mental ones. [The applicant] possesses an excellent vocabulary and a reasonably well-developed capacity to think logically that places her well in the highest range of mental functioning for those who have the condition from which she suffers. Thus it seems that she often strikes those who meet her as an individual with a normal range of mental functioning but a difficult personality.\nIn fact, [the applicant] experiences problems dealing with any sort of symbolism in language: she is openly vocal about her distaste for what she calls slang. Any explanation given to her needs to be couched in concrete terms devoid of metaphor or simile. Often it may be advisable or necessary to write down an explanation so that she may study it at her leisure in order to take it in fully and remember it. When this procedure is followed, she proves well able to make use of information or advice.\nFrom [the applicant’s] standpoint, these features of her mental functioning often make it difficult for her to think things through completely and thus to envision what the consequences of her actions may be. From the view point of those who deal with her, it often may seem that she is being difficult or uncooperative when it is in reality the case that she simply has not fully grasped the nuances of the subject at hand.\n[The applicant’s] life circumstances seem to have been troubled and unhappy. She has felt it necessary to fight ferociously to consolidate and maintain her independence. Thus the stay in <prison> appears to have been a sobering experience for her. It seems rather graphically to have brought home to her the consequences of some of her own actions – actions for which she previously had been unable to envisage consequences.\nIt is difficult f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2406", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Warsaw.\n5.  On 28 September 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed two armed robberies together with other persons.\n6.  On 4 October 1999 the Gdańsk District Court decided to detain the applicant on remand. The decision was based on the high probability that the applicant had committed the crimes with which he had been charged, which was confirmed by evidence, in particular the testimonies of one of the co-accused. In addition, the court stated that there was a serious risk that the applicant might attempt to influence the co-accused and the witnesses and thus obstruct the proper course of the proceedings, since as an imprisoned person he was entitled in particular to have breaks in serving the penalty and to correspond without any censorship. On 26 October 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court upheld the decision.\n7.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was prolonged on several occasions (on 4 October and 9 December 1999, 8 March and 12 September 2000, 27 March, 26 July and 5 September 2001, 30 January, 24 April, 18 September and 31 October 2002, 28 January, 24 April, 21 June, 9 July, 14 October and 16 December 2003, 23 March and 16 September 2004, 25 January, 25 May, 21 July, 22 September and 6 December 2005, and 2 March 2006). The courts based their decisions on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence concerned, the severity of the penalty he faced and the risk of his collusion and absconding. During the preparatory proceedings the extension of his detention was also justified by the need to obtain further evidence, in particular to obtain expert opinions, to make inquiries at his home, to take evidence from the suspects and to confront them.\n8.  From 15 September 1999 to 10 April 2000 the applicant served a prison sentence imposed on him in separate proceedings.\n9.  The applicant lodged a considerable number of applications for release from detention or for commutation of the preventive measure to a less severe one, on the ground of his poor state of health or other reasons (on 20 September 2000, 20 August and 7 November 2002, 17 February 2003, 27 April, 17 June and 17 October 2004 and 17 July 2005); however, they were dismissed in decisions of 3 October 2000, 27 June 2002, 3 July 2002, 27 February 2003, 25 May 2004, 22 June 2004, 12 October 2004, 10 October 2005, 13 December 2005, and 31 January and 16 March 2006.\n10.  The applicant also challenged the decisions prolonging his detention, but those applications were likewise dismissed on 26 October 1999, 8 August and 3 October 2001, 22 May and 23 October 2002, 6 August 2003, 13 January and 11 July 2004, and 25 January, 14 June, 14 September, 19 October and 28 December 2005.\n11.  During the preparatory proceedings twelve persons (including the applicant) were arrested. The public prosecutor took evidence from 25 witnesses and the suspects were interviewed 32 times. 46 expert opinions were obtained, 17 confrontations and 24 searches of individuals, premises and other places were carried out and identity parades were conducted on eight occasions. Numerous documents were obtained, in particular bills of phone calls made by the suspects, their criminal records and copies of judgments.\n12.  From 10 April 2000 to 10 November 2001 the applicant served a sentence of one year and seven months’ imprisonment imposed on him in separate proceedings.\n13.  The applicant was indicted before the Gdańs", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2407", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in the village of Şipoteni. According to him, he was ill-treated by police on two occasions, in May 2001 and in July 2002.\n7.  The applicant was suspected of theft of farm animals in his village. On 10 May 2001 he was arrested by six police officers (G.A., C.I., C.V., G.O., A.U. and V.B.) at his home. It does not appear from the submissions of the parties that the applicant had any injury on his body before his arrest or that he was injured in any way during the arrest.\n8.  According to the applicant, he was taken to the office of the village police inspector, in the Şipoteni Local Council building, and severely beaten by police officers A.U. and V.B. He was punched, kicked and beaten with a wooden baton on his body and on his head until he lost consciousness. Later he was taken by car to Călăraşi police station where he was handcuffed to a radiator. After regaining consciousness he managed to open the handcuffs and escape.\n9.  The Government contested the applicant's account of events and submitted that after his arrest, he had been taken by car to the Călăraşi police station. However, he jumped out of the car as it was moving and sustained injuries from the impact with the road. He later escaped from the Călăraşi police station.\n10.  Several days later the applicant went to a hospital where he was admitted for treatment. A medical report of 14 May 2001 stated inter alia that:\n“[The applicant] has a yellowish bruise of 6x5 cm around his left eye; swelling of the base of his nose; a scratch of 2x1 cm on the left side of his nose; a scratch of 3x5 cm on his left cheek; a wound of 3x0.4 cm on his skull; a bruise of 20x13 cm on his back; painful chest and ribs; a scratch of 4x3 cm on his shoulder; paralysis of the left side of his face; head trauma and head concussion; perforation of the left tympanic membrane as a result of a barotrauma [an injury caused by rapid and extreme changes in pressure]. The injuries were inflicted by blows with blunt objects, possibly on 10 May 2001. They correspond to light corporal injuries and hospitalisation is recommended.”\n11.  The applicant was in hiding from the police until 10 July 2002, when he was arrested (see paragraph 23 below).\n12.  On 30 September 2002 the applicant complained to the Ombudsman's Office about the alleged ill-treatment and annexed to his complaint a copy of the medical certificate of 14 May 2001. His complaint was forwarded to the Ungheni County Prosecutor's Office (Procuratura Judeţului Ungheni).\n13.  On 6 November 2002 the Ungheni County Prosecutor's Office dismissed the complaint without having conducted any investigation. The applicant challenged the dismissal before the Prosecutor General's Office.\n14.  On 22 November 2002 the Prosecutor General's Office ordered a re-examination of the applicant's complaints.\n15.  On 28 November 2002 the Ungheni County Prosecutor's Office heard police officers V.B. and C.I., who had been involved in the arrest of the applicant on 10 May 2001.\n16.  According to V.B., who was one of the officers accused by the applicant of having ill-treated him, the applicant resisted arrest and jumped out of the car on the way to the Călăraşi police station. Since nobody had beaten him up, his injuries must have been caused during his arrest or when he jumped out of the car.\n17.  According to C.I., the applicant resisted arrest and later ran away from the Călăraşi police station. He had not seen anybody beat him up.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2409", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Opole.\n6.  On 15 March 1995 the applicant left Poland and went to Moscow in order to set up a business. On 31 May 1995 the Opole District Prosecutor issued a warrant to locate the applicant by means of a wanted notice. A detention order for a period of seven days was also issued. The applicant was suspected of, inter alia, obtaining credit by false pretences, forgery of documents and embezzlement.\n7.  The applicant was arrested in Moscow on 30 September 1996. According to his submissions, which were not contested by the Government, on 2 December 1996 the applicant was handed over to Polish police officers at the Moscow airport, put on a plane and transported to Warsaw.\n8.  On 5 December 1996 the applicant was examined by a physician of the Opole Detention Centre. He found the applicant to be in good condition. Because the applicant had complained about bad headaches and, noting that a birth-mark on his leg had changed tint, the physician ordered a specialist examination of the applicant to be carried out and that he should be seen by a dermatologist. The applicant was prescribed analgesics.\n9.  On the same day the applicant underwent a dental examination; several caries were found and it appeared that the applicant’s teeth had been trimmed-down in preparation for the restoration of crowns.\n10.  On 3 January 1997 the applicant visited a dentist and requested porcelain fillings for his decayed teeth. The applicant was informed that under the applicable laws this kind of specialist dental treatment could be offered only upon payment.\n11.  As during his subsequent dental examination the applicant had complained about the hypersensitivity of his trimmed-down teeth, the dentist partly reconstructed the crowns of the teeth.\n12.  In a letter of 25 February 1997 the Opole Regional Prosecutor requested the Head of the Opole Detention Centre to allow the applicant to continue his dental treatment.\n13.  Since the applicant declared that he had no financial means that would allow him to cover the costs of crowns (the treatment received so far had been of a temporary character), on 22 December 1997 the Chief Physician of the Regional Inspectorate of Prison Administration in Opole decided that the applicant should obtain artificial replacements and the related treatment in the hospital of the First Wroclaw Prison. During his stay in the Wroclaw Prison in January 1998 the applicant received two sets of artificial dentures. The costs were covered by the Prison Administration.\n14.  Further dental treatment (correction of artificial dentures, restoration of crowns, dental fillings) was conducted in the Opole Detention Centre.\n15.  The applicant was often examined by various specialists, including an internist, a dermatologist, a psychiatrist, a neurologist, a laryngologist, and a eye specialist. It was established that the applicant suffered from, inter alia, arterial hypertension, gastritis and dizziness. Pharmacological treatment and a special diet were ordered.\n16.  In March 1997 the applicant intentionally injured himself by cutting his forearm and afterwards refused to have the wound stitched.\n17.  In March 1999 the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from uric acid diathesis and was placed for a month in the hospital of the First Prison in Wroclaw. Subsequently, he continued his treatment in the Opole Detention Centre. On 19 June he was examined by a rheumatologist.\n18.  The Government submit that dur", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2411", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and is currently in prison in HMP Longmartin.\n7.  On 26 July 1995 the applicant was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment for armed robbery. On 8 January 1996 he was sentenced to consecutive sentences of 3 years’ imprisonment for escaping lawful custody and of one year for assault. He was eligible for consideration for release on parole on licence on 5 September 2006 and qualifies for automatic release on licence on 5 September 2010.\n8.  On 29 May 1997 he was escorted to the searching area for high risk prisoners following a prison visit. Two officers conducted the strip search. During that search an item fell from the applicant’s anus. The applicant immediately picked it up and re-inserted it into his anus. The officers then ordered the applicant to hand over the object. The applicant refused, stating “I cannot do that”. He was charged with disobeying a lawful order contrary to Rule 47(19) of the Prison Rules 1964 (applicable at the relevant time).\n9.  On 31 May 1997 the hearing of the charge before the prison Governor commenced and the applicant was granted an adjournment to obtain legal advice. On 10 June 1997 he applied to the Governor for legal representation at the hearing. The hearing re-commenced on 12 June 1997. The request for legal representation was refused by the Governor.\n10.  The applicant’s defence was that the item was a suppository. Evidence was adduced that no suppositories had been prescribed to the applicant in the 2 years prior to the incident and that the applicant had not complied with the officers’ order. He was found guilty as charged. He was awarded 5 additional days’ detention together with exclusion from work and forfeiture of privileges for 10 days.\n11.  The applicant applied to the Home Office to have the Governor’s ruling quashed on the basis that he could not have handed over the item as it had already been re-inserted in his anal area. His application was rejected on 1 August 1997. He then complained to the Prisons Ombudsman who gave his opinion and recommendation on 9 August 1997. He was not persuaded that the adjudication had properly investigated the sequence of events during the search: if it was the case that the applicant had already re-inserted the item when he was asked for it, the prison officer’s request to retrieve it may not have been lawful. He recommended that the Governor’s finding be quashed. By letter dated 5 January 1998 the prison service confirmed that the Prisons Ombudsman’s recommendation had not been accepted.\n12.  On 17 April 1998 the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Governor. A hearing took place in the High Court on 21 June 1999. The prison service submitted that effective drugs’ control in prison required that they had to have the power to conduct strip searches including making a request to remove items suspected of being secreted internally. The applicant provided medical evidence to the effect that such removal risked causing harm to him. The High Court rejected the application finding, inter alia, that, depending as it does on the circumstances of the case, an order to a prisoner to remove an item from his anus would not necessarily be unlawful. The applicant did not appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2412", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lived in Surrey.\n8.  At the time of the events in question, he was a soldier serving as a Private with the Grenadier Guards of the British Army, stationed at Alexandra Barracks in Northern Ireland.\n9.  On the evening of 19 December 1997 the applicant was talking with an officer, Captain J, in the foyer of the cookhouse at the barracks. There followed an exchange of words between the applicant and a non-commissioned officer, Sergeant H, who subsequently ordered another non-commissioned officer, Corporal G, to have the applicant locked up overnight. The applicant was not told the offence of which he was accused, but on his arrival at the guardroom he overheard Sergeant H tell the Guard Commander that he had seen the applicant with a bleeding nose and that, when he asked the applicant about it, the latter had told him to “fuck off”.\n10.  The applicant was released the following morning and went to the medical centre. He submitted that his examination established that he had not had a nose bleed the night before.\n11.  On 22 December 1997 at approximately 2 p.m. the applicant was informed that he would have to appear before his company commander. At approximately 4 p.m. he appeared before his company commander, who, in connection with the events of 19 December, charged the applicant with the offence of using insubordinate language to a superior contrary to section 33(1)(b) of the Army Act 1955 and informed the applicant that the case would be heard the following day by the battalion commanding officer (“CO”). He informed the applicant of the facts alleged against him.\n12.  The applicant claimed that he then went to the medical centre and asked for a record of his examination establishing that he had not had a nose bleed on the night in question. He claimed that staff at the medical centre refused to provide the record and the Government disputed this.\n13.  The applicant accepted that he received a version of the information pamphlet entitled “Rights of a Soldier charged with an offence under the Army Act 1955”, although he claimed that it was the pre-October 1997 version and thus out of date.\n14.  On the morning of 23 December 1997 the applicant was asked if he had any witnesses to call at the hearing before the CO. He asked that Captain J and Corporal G be called to give evidence on his behalf. When the applicant arrived at the Regimental Offices later that morning he saw Corporal G being called into the Regimental Sergeant Major’s office. The applicant claimed that Corporal G had been directed not to give evidence in support of his case. The Government argued that it was routine for witnesses to be called into the Regimental Sergeant Major’s office so that the procedure to be followed at the hearing could be explained and they denied that Corporal G had been directed as the applicant alleged or at all.\n15.  The applicant appeared before the CO at 10.30 a.m. on 23 December 1997. The hearing lasted approximately ten minutes. Present in the CO’s office for the hearing were the CO, the battalion adjutant, the regimental sergeant major, Sergeant H and the “accused adviser”, an officer appointed to look after the applicant’s interests, whose identity remained unknown to the applicant and with whom he had not discussed his case. That officer did not speak at any point during the hearing. The applicant was required to stand to attention throughout the hearing and was permitted to speak only when invited to do", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2413", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1969, 1976, 1982, 1981 and 1959 respectively. The first three applicants live in Ankara, whereas the fourth lives in Istanbul and the fifth in Aydın.\n6.  On 28 April 2001 police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Ankara Security Directorate arrested the applicants Gülşen Arslan, Fadime Çelik and Derya Binay at their house. According to the arrest report, the police acted upon a complaint filed by the proprietor of the house, who suspected that the tenants were carrying out some illegal activities on her property. Subsequently, the police also searched the Tohum Cultural Centre and took Cennet Cabat and Tamiş Akpınar into custody. They seized, among other things, large amounts of bulletins, periodicals and leaflets which concerned propaganda against F-type prisons.\n7.  On 29 April 2001, upon the request of the Ankara Security Directorate, the Public Prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court agreed to extend the applicants’ detention in police custody until 1 May 2001.\n8.  On 1 May 2001, upon the Public Prosecutor’s request, a judge at the Ankara State Security Court examined the case file and agreed to extend the applicants’ detention in police custody for three more days.\n9.  On 4 May 2001 the applicants were first brought before the Public Prosecutor and then the investigating magistrate at the Ankara State Security Court, who ordered their detention on remand.\n10.  On 1 June 2001 the Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicants on account of aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation, namely, the TKP/ML (the Turkish Communist Party/ Marxist Leninist).\n11.  On 9 July 2002, during the first hearing held before the Ankara State Security Court the applicants were released pending trial. On 11 November 2002 the court acquitted the applicants.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2414", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, who was born in 1968, is currently in custody in Fresnes Prison.\n5.  In an order of 5 April 2002 an investigating judge at the Versailles tribunal de grande instance committed the applicant for trial in the Yvelines Assize Court on counts of rape classified as a repeat offence, unauthorised entry into the country following expulsion and illegal entry or residence by a foreign national in France.\n6.  On 23 April 2003 the Yvelines Assize Court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to twelve years' imprisonment. On the same day the Assize Court ruled on the civil claims and awarded the victim, who had joined the proceedings as a civil party, the sum of 15,000 euros (EUR) in damages. The prosecution was represented by B.\n7.  Both the applicant and the prosecution appealed.\n8.  On 23 July 2003 the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation assigned the appeal to the Hauts-de-Seine Assize Court. The prosecution was once again represented by B.\n9.  The hearing before the Court of Appeal took place on 1 and 2 June 2004.\n10.  On 2 June 2004 the hearing was adjourned for the first time between 1.15 p.m. and 2.15 p.m. When it resumed, the President of the Assize Court ordered the photograph album in the case file to be shown to the parties, the jury and the other judges, then announced the questions the court and the jury would have to answer. Counsel for the accused objected to the wording proposed. The President called the civil party, the advocate-general, the defence and the accused, and the court then withdrew to deliberate. The hearing resumed at 2.40 p.m. Counsel for the applicant then filed submissions requesting that the court take formal note that unlawful communication within the meaning of Article 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had taken place between certain members of the jury and the advocate-general during the adjournment when the court had withdrawn to deliberate, leaving the jury in the courtroom. The President heard evidence from the applicant's and the civil party's lawyers, the advocate-general and the accused. The court, composed in this instance of only the judges, withdrew to deliberate and then delivered the following judgment:\n“The Court, having deliberated without the jury's assistance,\nHaving regard to the conclusions submitted by Mr G., counsel to Redouane Farhi;\nHaving regard to Articles 315 and 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,\nConsidering that, as the judges composing the court were not personally in a position to confirm what may have happened in their absence, the court cannot put it on the record;\nFurther considering that the evidence adduced and discussed inter partes has revealed no violation of the provisions of Article 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ...”\n11.  In a judgment of 2 June 2004 the Assize Court of Appeal sentenced the applicant to fifteen years' imprisonment and eight years' social and judicial guidance, with the obligation to undergo treatment and not to approach the victim, her mother or her brother. Ruling on the civil claims, it ordered the applicant to pay the victim EUR 15,000 in respect of damage suffered prior to 23 April 2003 and EUR 4,000 in respect of damage suffered thereafter.\n12.  In a subsequent appeal on points of law the applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, asserting that it imposed “an obligation on every national court to check whether, as constituted, it is 'an impartial tribunal' within the meaning of that provision ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2415", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Wrocław.\n5.  On 15 April 1999 the applicant was detained on remand until 14 July 1999 on suspicion of two attempted murders. The court based its detention order on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences, on the severity of the likely penalty, which gave rise to a fear that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings, and on the risk of the applicant’s going into hiding as he had done previously.\n6.  On an unknown date a bill of indictment was lodged. The applicant was charged with two attempted murders and possession of an unlicensed weapon.\n7.  Subsequent decisions on the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention were taken on 10 June 1999, 8 September 1999, 10 December 1999, 9 March 2000, 23 May 2000, 12 December 2000, 14 September 2000, 12 March 2002, 27 June 2002, 13 September 2002, 16 December 2002, 21 March 2003, 27 June 2003 and 16 December 2004.\n8.  In all the above-mentioned decisions the courts relied on the same grounds for detention as those given in the first detention order. In some of them the courts also referred to the complexity of the case, the need to conduct further investigations, the probability of collusion between the applicant and other co-accused and exertion of unlawful pressure on witnesses by the applicant. They also stressed that the applicant had previously gone into hiding.\n9.  The applicant appealed against the decisions extending his detention on several occasions. All of his appeals were dismissed.\n10.  On many occasions the applicant requested release from detention or the imposition of a more lenient preventive measure. His requests were dismissed.\n11.  Hearings were held on the following dates: 9 November 1999, 10 December 1999, 24 February 2000, 9 March 2000, 23 May 2000, 20 June 2000, 21 July 2000, 14 September 2000, 17 October 2000, 16 November 2000, 12 December 2000 and 30 January 2001.\n12.  On 2 February 2001 the Legnica Regional Court changed the legal qualification of the offences and convicted the applicant of attempted robbery endangering the lives others as well as possession of a weapon. It sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment. Both the prosecutor and the applicant lodged appeals.\n13.  On 29 April 2002 the Wrocław Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case.\n14.  A hearing was held on 13 September 2002. A hearing of 18 October 2002 was cancelled due to a lay judge’s absence. A hearing of 15 November 2002 was adjourned since the accused who had been detained had not been transported to the hearing, and a hearing of 17 January 2003 was adjourned since the applicant had challenged the impartiality of the judges. Subsequent hearings were held on 14 February 2003, 21 March 2003, 25 April 2003, 30 May 2003, 27 June 2003, 12 September 2003, 10 October 2003, 21 November 2003, 5 December 2003 and 14 January 2004.\n15.  On 21 January 2004 the Legnica Regional Court gave a judgment. It convicted the applicant of one attempted murder and acquitted him of the other attempted murder and possession of an unlicensed weapon. The prosecutor and the applicant appealed.\n16.  On 5 May 2004 the Wrocław Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case.\n17.  Subsequent hearings were held on 28 July 2004, 7 September 2004, 23 September 2004, 12 October 2004, 26 October 2004, 16 November 2004, 23 November 2004, 7 December 2004, 16 December 2004, 11 January 2005, 25 January 2005, 8 February 2005, 1 Marc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2416", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  On 26 June 2001 the applicant was acquitted of rape by the Râşcani District Court. The District Court examined the parties’ statements, witnesses’ declarations and medical reports. It found, in particular, that the applicant had not had sexual intercourse with the victim without the latter’s consent, since on numerous occasions the victim could have refused intercourse with the applicant and could have alerted a police patrol which had stopped them on the way to the applicant’s apartment. The victim could also have alerted the applicant’s flatmates, who had been in the apartment during the alleged rape, as well as other persons. The District Court also found that the medical reports did not provide a clear answer to the question as to whether the applicant had had intercourse with the victim.\n8.  The prosecutor and the victim appealed. Their appeals merely stated that the verdict of the Râşcani District Court was unlawful and unreasoned.\n9.  On 14 August 2001 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld their appeal, quashed the judgment of the Râşcani District Court and found the applicant guilty of rape. The Regional Court found that the victim’s statements, the witnesses’ declarations and the medical reports indicated that there had been forced intercourse with the victim. It found that the victim had been depressed and forcibly taken to the applicant’s apartment. The court sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. However, the Chişinău Regional Court applied an amnesty law of 10 August 2001 and relieved the applicant from the obligation to serve his sentence. The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation.\n10.  By a final judgment of 30 October 2001, relying on section 335/5 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) in force at the time (see paragraph 13 below), the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s appeal in cassation and quashed the judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court. The Court of Appeal found that the Regional Court had not objectively assessed the evidence and had taken into consideration only the victim’s statements, which appeared to be contradictory and in conflict with other evidence and the circumstances of the case. It also concluded that the victim’s statements that she had been forcibly brought to the applicant’s apartment were contradicted by the witnesses’ declarations. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Râşcani District Court had objectively assessed the evidence and reached the conclusion that the applicant was innocent. It also stated that any doubts should be interpreted in favour of the accused. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Râşcani District Court of 26 June 2001.\n11.  On 20 December 2001 the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgments of the Râşcani District Court and the Court of Appeal. He argued that the Râşcani District Court and the Court of Appeal had unlawfully assessed the evidence and asked the Supreme Court to uphold the judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court of 14 August 2001.\n12.  On 26 February 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Deputy Prosecutor General’s request for annulment, quashed the above-mentioned judgments and upheld the judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court of 14 August 2001. The Supreme Court gave the same reasons for finding the applicant guilty of committing the rape as the Chişinău Regional Court had used in its judgment of 14 A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2417", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Athens.\n7.  Since 1986 the applicant lives and works in Greece. He is married to a Greek woman and possesses a valid stay and work permit.\n8.  On 8 September 1998, at approximately 07.00 p.m., the applicant and two other Syrian nationals accompanied a friend to the Ano Patissia police station in order to report a robbery. Having waited for a long time to be attended to, the applicant started complaining. He alleges that he was then brutally beaten on his head by a police officer, Mr Georgantzis, while another police officer, Mr Giannopoulos, was holding him still. Other police officers to whom he turned for help insulted him and locked him in an empty office for three hours. The applicant alleges that the behaviour of the police officers changed when they realised that he was legally settled in Greece. Then the applicant was allowed to leave the police station. He went immediately to the regional hospital where he was examined by a doctor at approximately 11 p.m. He obtained a medical certificate by Dr. Kremlis, an otolaryngologist specialist, which read as follows:\n“[The applicant] was examined at the out-patients' department of the otolaryngology clinic on 8 September 1998 reporting a recent beating. The patient complains of buzzing, ear-pain and hearing loss in the left ear. From the clinical examination it was found that he has signs of an ecchymosis on the left zygomatic area and signs of blood on the left side of the auditory duct, which came from the injury to the area around the eardrum membrane. The extent of the damage will be determined upon completion of the remaining otoscopy tests, as the present condition does not appear to be severe.”\n9.  Following the incident the applicant suffered from headaches and dizziness. On 16 September 1998 he was diagnosed as suffering from “perforation of the left ear (eardrum)”. A month later a doctor from the same hospital ascertained “an almost complete restoration of the perforation that had been noted a month ago at the tympanic membrane of the left ear”.\n10.  The applicant currently suffers from hearing loss in both ears and vertigo. He has undergone several medical examinations and treatment over the last years. On 30 August 2002 a university medical doctor declared that the applicant's working capacity had diminished by 80% on account of vertigo and impaired hearing; the respective significance of these two factors was not specified. As a consequence, he was unable to accomplish any manual work.\n11.  On 14 September 1998 the applicant reported the incident to the Minister of Public Order.\n12.  On 10 July and 20 November 2000 the Chief of the Greek Police fined Mr Georgantzis and Mr Giannopoulos 100,000 drachmas (293 euros) and 50,000 drachmas (147 euros) respectively. He considered that the above police officers had caused bodily harm to the applicant.\n13.  On 27 October 2000 Mr Georgantzis appealed against that decision but his appeal was dismissed by the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal on 30 November 2001 (decision no. 2602/2001).\n14.  On 9 September 1998 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against Mr Georgantzis and Mr Giannopoulos and also against the chief of the police station, Mr Moukas. Following a preliminary inquiry, the authorities dropped the criminal charges against Mr Giannopoulos and Mr Moukas. On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Georgantzis for causing serious bodily harm. The", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2418", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Novosibirsk.\n7.  Since 1988, the applicant had been receiving an old-age pension. From February 1998, her pension was to be calculated under the Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions. The law introduced a new method for calculating pensions. This method, “a pensioner's individual multiplier” was meant to link the pensioner's pension to his or her previous earnings.\n8.  The authority in charge of the applicant's pension, the Pension Fund Agency of the Zayeltsovskiy District of Novosibirsk, fixed the applicant's multiplier at 0.525. The applicant considered that the agency had misread the law, and that her multiplier should be higher. On an unspecified date in 1999 she challenged the agency's decision in a court. Thus, in her view the net underpayments from February 1998 until December 1999 amounted to 1,627.5 Russian Roubles, without taking into account the raise of the local cost of living index.\n9.  The case came before the Zayeltsovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk. On 21 October 1999 the court held for the applicant. It found that the agency had misread the law: as from 1 February 1998 the multiplier should have been 0.7. Consequently, the agency was ordered to recalculate the applicant's pension accordingly and pay it.\n10.  The agency appealed against the judgment, but on 14 December 1999 the Novosibirsk Regional Court dismissed the appeal, and the judgment came into force. On the same day the court issued a writ of execution where it invited the local branch of the Pension Fund to recalculate the applicant's old age pension, applying the multiplier 0.7, and pay it to the applicant. The enforcement proceedings against the Agency were initiated. The agency recalculated the pension in accordance with the judgment of 14 December 1999 and requested the federal Pension Fund to allocate respective amounts.\n11.  On 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development had passed an Instruction on the Application of Limitations Established by the Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions (hereinafter – “Instruction”). The Instruction clarified how to apply the law.\n12.  Some time thereafter a group of individuals challenged the Instruction before the Supreme Court. On 10 April 2000 the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour was suspended in connection with the proceedings before the Supreme Court. On 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. It found that contrary to what the plaintiffs suggested the Ministry of Labour had not trespassed its authority when it issued the Instruction, and that the Ministry's interpretation of the Pensions Law had been correct. On 25 May 2000 the Cassation Section of the Supreme Court upheld this judgment on appeal.\n13.  On 21 August 2000, the agency asked the District Court to re-open the case due to discovery of new circumstances. They argued that the interpretation of the law on pensions given by the Instruction was different from that of the Zayeltsovskiy District Court. Further, they referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation which confirmed the lawfulness of the Instruction. The agency argued that it had not known about those facts until after the litigation, and that the case should therefore be reconsidered.\n14.  On 16 January 2001, the district court granted the agency's request and reopened the judgment under Article 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under this Articl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2419", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Yefimovich Kot was born in 1937 and lives in Tambov. In 1987 he took part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. On 3 November 2000 he was diagnosed with after-effects of radioactive emissions and granted monthly compensation for the damage to his health.\n6.  On 30 November 2000 the applicant sued the Military Service Commission of the Tambov Region (Военный комиссариат Тамбовской области, hereinafter the “Commission”) for an increase of the compensation to take account of the inflation.\n7.  On 21 February 2001 and 5 March 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov granted his claim and ordered the Commission to increase the future monthly payments to 12,051.48 Russian roubles (“RUR”) and also to pay him RUR 31,579.74 in respect of the previous period.\n8.  On 4 June 2001 the Tambov Regional Court quashed those judgments on appeal, finding that the first-instance court had not taken account of the changes introduced into the Chernobyl Victims Act by the Federal Law № 5 of 12 February 2001. The claim was remitted for a fresh examination.\n9.  The Oktyabrskiy District Court pronounced a new judgment on 13 August 2001. It assessed future monthly payments at RUR 10,000 and the lump sum in respect of the previous period at RUR 60,365.\n10.  On 10 September 2001 the Tambov Regional Court quashed that judgment on appeal on the ground that the first-instance court had incorrectly applied the substantive law and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n11.  By judgment of 27 November 2002, the Oktyabrskiy District Court awarded the applicant RUR 18,077.21 in monthly payments as from 1 December 2002 and RUR 281,437.32 in respect of the previous period.\n12.  On 20 January 2003 the Tambov Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal, and the judgment became enforceable.\n13.  On 23 January 2003 the Commission filed an application for supervisory review. It claimed that the first-instance and appeal courts had erroneously applied civil-law provisions relating to calculation of the minimal wages for the purposes of adjusting the applicant's compensation in line with inflation.\n14.  On 28 January 2003 the President of the Tambov Regional Court stayed the execution of the judgment of 27 November 2002.\n15.  On 26 June 2003 the Presidium of the Tambov Regional Court held a supervisory-review hearing. It determined that the lower courts had erred in applying the substantive law by not having taken into account the amendments introduced into the Chernobyl Victims Act by the Federal Law № 5 of 12 February 2001. On that ground it quashed the judgment of 27 November 2002, as upheld on 20 January 2003, and remitted the matter for a fresh examination.\n16.  On 7 August 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court issued a new judgment, by which the applicant was awarded RUR 6,327.35 in future monthly payments and RUR 18,578.34 in respect of the preceding period. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 18 August 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2420", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1931, 1959 and 1967 respectively and live in Domžale.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 8 July 1970 and 11 March 1971 respectively, four plots of land were sold to the Municipality by H.O., the late wife of the first applicant J.O. and the mother of the second and third applicants, J.O. jr. and A.O.\n8.  On 5 July 1973 and 4 June 1974, respectively, three plots of land were sold to the Municipality by the second applicant (J.O. jr.) and his brother (A.O.), the third applicant.\n9.  On 23 November 1973 and 10 September 1976 two plots of land were sold to the Municipality by J.O.\n10.  On 6 May 1992 the applicants lodged a request for the return of nine plots of land with the Domžale Administrative Unit on the basis of the 1991 Denationalisation Act, claiming that they had signed the contracts of sale under duress which was tantamount to expropriation.\n11.  On 7 June 1993 the Administrative Unit transferred their request to the Domžale Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Domžalah) as the competent authority.\n12.  On 13 July 1994 a hearing was held. The court requested the applicants to complete their request and submit further documents.\n13.  On 28 September and 29 November 1994, 16 February 1995, 23 March, 23 May and 17 July 1995 the court sent a letter to the applicants' lawyer, reiterating its request. The court also informed the new lawyer representing the applicants that it had received no reply.\n14.  On 18 September 1997 the court summoned the applicants to complete their request within 30 days, or else it would reject it or consider it withdrawn.\n15.  On 3 November 1997 the applicants filed the requested document through their representative and enlarged their claim, directing it also against the Slovenian Compensation Corporation (the “SCC”). On 20 January 1998 the latter replied to the applicants.\n16.  Further to their reply, on 10 December 1998, 11 February and 26 April 1999 the court requested the lawyer to submit further documents.\n17.  On 14 May 1999 the applicants through their representative filed the requested documents which were forwarded to the SCC. The latter replied on 5 July 1999.\n18.  On 7 February 2001 the applicants specified the amount of compensation claimed.\nOn 14 February 2001 a hearing was held. Since some of the requested documents were still missing, the applicants' representative obliged himself to reply to the SCC's statements.\n19.  On 20 February 2001 the Municipality of Domžale filed a reply.\nOn 14 September 2001, further to the court's additional request, the applicants' representative filed submissions.\n20.  On 13 December 2001, after a hearing, the Local Court rejected the claim.\n21.  On 28 January 2001 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče).\n22.  On 15 January 2003 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected their appeal. On 6 February 2003 the decision was served on the applicants. That decision became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2421", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, a Ukrainian national was born in 1941 and lives in the town of Zhovti Vody, the Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  In 1998, 2000 and 2001 the applicant instituted three separate sets of proceedings in the Zhovtovodskyi Town Court (hereinafter – the Town Court) against the Joint Stock Company “Electron-Gaz” (the “EG”) – in which the State held 99.9% of the share capital – to recover unpaid salary and compensation. By three judgments of 12 January 1999, 9 June 2000 and 21 February 2001 the court awarded the applicant the total of UAH 8,634.89[1] in salary arrears and other payments.\n6.  On 7 March 2003 the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the EG, which are still pending.\n7.  On 22 September 2003, in the course of bankruptcy proceedings against the EG and following Article 86 of the Code of Commercial Proceedings and Articles 14 and 15 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Restoration of a Debtor's Solvency or the Declaration of Bankruptcy”, the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovsk Region ordered the inclusion of the Town Court's awards given in the applicant's favour, as well as his additional claim for UAH 4,332.05[2], which the EG had recognised as salary arrears due him for 2000 - 2002, into the list of creditors' claims.\n8.  On 17 May 2002 the applicant was informed by the Bailiffs' Service that the judgments in his favour were not executed due to the lack of funds of the debtor and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was barred by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.\n9.  In August 2005 the judgments of 12 January 1999, 9 June 2000 and 21 February 2001 were fully enforced.\n10.  On 7 April 2006 the applicant instituted one more set of proceedings against the same debtor (EG) in the Town Court, seeking, inter alia, compensation of UAH 4,332.05 recognized by the defendant as salary arrears due him for 2000 - 2002. On 5 June 2006 the court partly allowed his claim and ordered the defendant to pay him UAH 3,829.94[3] in salary arrears and UAH 500[4] in compensation of non-pecuniary damage. This decision was not appealed against and became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2422", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant is a company registered under Cypriot law. The second applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Paralimni.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as derived from the minutes of the proceedings, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 23 September 1997 a civil action (no. 11581/97) was lodged against the applicants before the District Court of Nicosia for the payment of the amount of 15,000 Cypriot pounds (CYP), plus interest at a rate of 9 per cent from 31 December 1990 until discharge of the debt. The above amount was allegedly due by the applicants on the basis of a loan which the plaintiff had granted to them and which was evidenced by a bond signed in the customary form. The second applicant had signed the relevant bond as a guarantor.\n7.  On 17 November 1997 the plaintiff filed the notice of appearance.\n8.  On 8 January 1998 the plaintiff filed an application for a summary judgment in view of the applicants' failure to file their defence. On 30 January 1998 the application was fixed for mention for 20 February 1998 and then for proof for 13 March 1998. In the meantime, on 9 March 1998, the applicants filed an objection to the above application. On 13 March 1998 the application was fixed for hearing for 22 May 1998 but was adjourned on that date following a written request which had been in the meantime submitted by the plaintiff. The application was fixed for 28 September 1998 and then for 13 November 1998. It was dismissed on the latter date.\n9.  On 27 November 1998 the applicants filed their defence and on 8 December 1998 the plaintiff applied to the court for the case to be fixed. On the same day the plaintiff filed his reply to the applicants' defence.\n10.  On 14 December 1998 the case was fixed for 27 January 1999. On the latter date it was set for hearing for 1 June 1999. In the meantime, on 25 May 1999, a notice for admission of documents was filed by the plaintiff.\n11.  From 1 June 1999 until 22 November 2000 the case was adjourned three times. On the latter date, it was fixed for programming for 15 December 2000 due to the trial judge's absence. On 15 December 2000 the court fixed the hearing for 8 May 2001 and on that date for 23 October 2001. On the latter date the case was adjourned by the court until 11 February 2002 due to the appointment of a new lawyer by the plaintiff.\n12.  On 11 February 2002 the court set the case for 19 June 2002 since it had continuing hearings in two criminal cases. On the latter date the case was adjourned until 10 December 2002 due to a continuing hearing in a criminal case which the Supreme Court had instructed should be tried on a daily basis.\n13.  In the meantime, on 29 November 2002, the plaintiff filed an ex parte application for summoning witnesses. The court issued an order in this respect on the same day.\n14.  The hearing of the case commenced on 10 December 2002 and was then set for 22 January 2003. On that date it was adjourned until 25 February 2003 at the plaintiff's request for the reason that his lawyer was ill. The applicants' lawyer did not object to the adjournment but requested costs. These were granted by the court.\n15.  The hearing of the case was concluded on 18 April 2003. It appears that, in total, four hearing sessions were held. Judgment was reserved on the above date.\n16.  Furthermore, within this period, both parties filed notices for admission of documents at the hearing and the applicants filed an ex parte application for th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2423", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, born in 1968, lived at the time of the events with her family in Absdorf.\n9.  Following difficulties in the relationship with her husband, the applicant left the common household in March 1991. On 29 March 1991 the applicant's husband instituted divorce proceedings with the Kirchberg/Wagram District Court (Bezirksgericht). The court subsequently, on 15 May 1991, suspended the divorce proceedings as the applicant had meanwhile returned to the common household and had reconciled herself with her husband.\n10.  On 28 May 1991 the applicant, following a violent assault by her husband and his family, left the common household again.\n11.  On 11 July 1991 she filed an action with the Kirchberg/Wagram District Court (Bezirksgericht) for sole custody of the two children from the marriage, F., born in November 1988, and the M., born in 1990, who stayed at their father's. On 26 July 1991 the District Court granted her provisional custody of the M., at that time a nursling. Subsequently, on 2 August 1991, the M. was taken away from the applicant's husband by compulsory means. On 5 August 1991 the applicant requested the provisional custody of F. and further that the District Court withdraw, as an interim measure, F.'s name from her husband's passport. She submitted that she feared that her husband would bring F. to Turkey.\n12.  On 20 August 1991 the applicant's husband requested that the divorce proceedings be resumed. However, in a further hearing before the District Court on 7 November 1991, the parties agreed to suspend the divorce proceedings until the outcome of criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant's husband concerning his violent assaults against her.\n13.  In February 1992 the District Court informed the applicant and her husband that at the moment it would not take any further official measures concerning the custody of their children. It referred in this regard to a report by the Tulln Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) stating that despite the efforts of its social workers and the parties' repeated questioning by the Youth Office no solution could be reached. Both parents claimed custody, objected to visit arrangements in neutral surroundings and were uncertain whether they wished divorce or not. The District Court in particular referred to the Administrative Authority's statement that there were no reasons to change the present situation of separation of the two children.\n14.  On 23 April 1992 the applicant reiterated, in the context of submissions made in another matter with the court, her request of July 1991 for sole custody of F.\n15.  In June 1994, after the criminal proceedings against him had been terminated, the applicant's husband requested that divorce proceedings be resumed. On 25 November 1994 the District Court pronounced the divorce. With final decision of 28 September 1995 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) confirmed the District Court's findings. No decision was taken on the custody of the children.\n16.  On 12 June 1996 the applicant again requested that sole custody of F. be granted to her and that the court issue an injunction prohibiting the father from bringing F. to Turkey. She submitted that her former husband did not sufficiently care for F. and planned to place F. with his relatives in Turkey at the end of the school year. This would adversely affect the child's well-being.\n17.  On 14 June 1996 the District Court, without holding a formal hearing, dismissed the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2424", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the town of Taganrog.\n5.  On 10 July 2000 the Taganrog Town Court (“the Town Court”, Таганрогский городской суд) granted the applicant's claim for recovery of 42,900 Russian roubles (“RUR”) which he had lent to a private company and awarded him the interest of RUR 50,543. The applicant's action in respect of the second defendant, a private person, was rejected.\n6.  The judgment, in its part relating to the award of interests, was quashed by the Rostov Regional Court (“The Regional Court”, Ростовский областной суд) on appeal on 27 September 2000 and remitted at first instance.\n7.  On 14 March 2001 the Town Court rendered a new judgment in the applicant's favour. The court decided that the private company was to pay the applicant RUR 86,937.60 in respect of the accrued interest. In addition the court ruled that the co-defendant, a private person, was to be held vicariously liable for the debts of the private company to the applicant in the total amount of RUR 129,837.60.\n8.  The judgment was not appealed against and on 25 March 2001 it came into force.\n9.  On 6 June 2002 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court, acting upon the protest lodged by its President, quashed the judgments of 10 July 2000 and 14 March 2001 as well as the decision of 27 September 2000 and remitted the case at first instance. In particular, the court noted that the factual findings of the first-instance court had been erroneous and in breach of the relevant procedural rules.\n10.  By judgment of 10 November 2002 the Town Court freshly examined the case and granted the applicant's claims in full. The court ruled that the private company was to pay the applicant RUR 42,900 in respect of the principal debt and RUR 86,937.60 in respect of the accrued interest. The court also decided that the co-defendant, the private person, was to be held vicariously liable for the entirety of the debts of the private company to the applicant in the total amount of RUR 129,837.60.\n11.  The judgment of 10 November 2002 was upheld by the Rostov Regional Court on appeal on 6 February 2003.\n12.  It appears that the applicant was unsuccessful in a few sets of civil litigation against various third persons who had allegedly failed to re-pay their debts. He also tried unsuccessfully to prosecute these persons.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2425", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant lives in Nicosia.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicant is the registered owner of immovable property adjacent to a salt lake in the district of Larnaca. In 1981 the applicant's property was included in a planning zone (Z4) with a building density coefficient applicable for development purposes of only 1 per cent. Subsequently, on 1 December 1990, on the basis of the Law on Town Planning and Residential Land Use and the Larnaca Town Planning Scheme, the property was included in a different zone (Δα2) with a higher building density coefficient of 5 per cent and was classified as a town park.\n7.  On 16 October 1991 the applicant applied to the District Planning Office of Larnaca for a planning permit for the construction of a house that would cover 17 per cent of the relevant plot.\n8.  On 25 November 1991 the District Planning Office rejected her application on the grounds that the coefficient of the proposed construction was higher than that permitted by the Larnaca Town Planning Scheme.\n9.  On 6 December 1991 the applicant lodged a hierarchical recourse with the Ministry of Interior. The applicant was informed by letter dated 29 March 1993 that the Ministerial Council had dismissed her recourse on 18 February 1993 for the same reasons.\n10.  On 28 June 1993 the applicant filed a claim for compensation before the Ministry of the Interior. The applicant claimed damages for the diminution in the value of her property due to the authorities' refusal to grant her a planning permit. Her claim was dismissed by the Ministry on 31 October 1996. In its decision the Ministry noted that, on the basis of the examination of an evaluation of the property prepared by the District Land Office and her application, it found that that there had not been any diminution in the property's value because of the authorities' refusal to grant her a planning permit and consequently, by the application of the Law on Town Planning and the Larnaca Town Planning Scheme. Finally, it noted that the property had been included in a planning zone with a higher coefficient.\n11.  On 3 January 1997 the applicant filed a civil action (no. 55/97) with the District Court of Larnaca against the Attorney-General of the Republic and the Ministry of Interior. The applicant claimed the amount of 24,330 Cypriot pounds (CYP) as damages in respect of the diminution in the value of her property which was caused by the application of the Law on Town Planning and Land Use and/or the Larnaca Town Planning Scheme and/or due to the restrictions imposed. She invoked Article 23 of the Constitution in respect to the latter.\n12.  On 3 January 1997 the applicant also filed her statement of claim. Following the defendants' failure to file their defence within the set fourteen day time-limit, the Registrar sent a notice to the defendants on 16 September 1999 informing them that upon failure to file their defence within fourteen days after the giving of the notice, a decision could be issued in the applicant's favour. By letter dated 5 October 1999 the defendants requested an extension of twenty days. This was granted by the court. On 20 April 1999 the defendants filed an ex parte application requesting an additional extension. The application was set for hearing for 10 May 2000. On that date the court granted the application giving the defendants until 28 June 2000 to file their defence. This was filed on 26 June 2000", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2426", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and resides in the town of Novogrodivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of Donetsk Region against the “Novogrodivskaya” Mining Company 1/3 (Шахта 1/3 «Новогродівська») - a State-owned enterprise - to recover salary arrears and other payments due to her late husband.\n6.  On 1 March 2002 the Novogrodivskyy Town Court found in favour of the applicant (Рішення Новогродівського міського суду Донецької області) and awarded her UAH 2,290.80[1]. The decision was sent for enforcement to the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новогродівського міського управління юстиції). However, the decision was not enforced, allegedly due to the failure of the Bailiffs' Office to act, in not selling the property of the Mining Company.\n7.  In June 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk Region against the Novogrodivskyy Town Bailiffs' Service for failure to enforce the court decision in her favour. On 26 June 2002 the Town Court rejected the applicant's claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs' Service. The court stated that the Bailiffs' Service had acted properly in enforcing the decision of 1 March 2002. However, by a number of decisions of the Commercial Court of the Donetsk Region, the Bailiffs' Service had been prohibited from selling the property of the Mining Company, due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company. Also on 26 December 2001, the ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital was entrenched in the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property. On 2 September 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first instance court. On 12 November 2002 the Novogrodivskyy Town Court of the Donetsk Region rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation against the decision of 26 June 2002 as submitted too late. On 24 December 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this ruling.\n8.  The Government submitted that in October 2004 the debtor requested the Novogrodivskyy Town Court to review the judgment of 1 March 2002 in light of new circumstances. No further information was provided by the parties. In particular, the applicant stated that she was completely unaware of these proceedings.\n9.  According to the applicant, by November 2004 she received UAH 2,014.80; the rest of the debt due to her remains unpaid.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2427", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are brothers, born in 1964 and 1967 respectively. It appears that the first applicant currently resides in Germany, and the second applicant lives in the Irkutsk Region, Russia.\n8.  The facts of the case, particularly those surrounding the period of the applicants' detention in custody, are partially in dispute between the parties.\n9.  The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 10 - 62). The Government's submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 63 - 76). The documentary evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in Section D below (paragraphs 77 - 95).\n10.  Prior to the events described below, the first applicant, an engineer by profession, lived with his wife and two children in Staraya Sunzha, a suburb of Grozny. The second applicant, a school teacher by profession, lived in Kazakhstan and moved to Chechnya in 1999 with his wife and two children.\n11.  In early October 1999 hostilities started in Chechnya between the Russian armed forces and Chechen rebel fighters. The city of Grozny and its suburbs formed the target of wide-scale attacks by the Russian military. In October 2000 a housing agency in Grozny certified the destruction of the first applicant's flat as a result of the hostilities.\n12.  Fearing the attacks, the applicants moved their families and valuables to their parent's house (hereinafter “the house of the Chitayev family”) at 28 Matrosov Street in the town of Achkhoy-Martan. According to the applicants, the items of their property stored in the house had included the first applicant's tape-recorder, a hi-fi system, a video camera and the second applicant's TV set and a video player. Other items of electronics and clothing were also stored in the house. The documents and purchase receipts in respect of the valuables were kept separately in a suitcase. Most items were stored in one of the rooms of the house and in the cellar.\n13.  On 15 January 2000 officers from the Temporary Office of the Interior of the Achkhoy-Martan District (временный районный отдел внутренних дел Ачхой-Мартановского района – “the Achknoy-Martan VOVD”) searched the house at 28 Matrosov Street for firearms. According to the applicants, the search was not officially authorised or documented. The officers took with them a new packaged cordless telephone set with batteries and an antenna.\n14.  On 18 January 2000 the second applicant complained to the head of the Achkhoy-Martan VOVD that the search had been unlawful and asked for the telephone set to be returned. It appears that at the beginning of March 2000, after the applicants' father had submitted a request to the district military prosecutor, the telephone set was returned.\n15.  On 12 April 2000 at about 8 or 9 a.m. several officers of the Achkhoy-Martan VOVD again arrived at the house at 28 Matrosova Street. The applicants and their families were at home at that moment. The officers searched the house, without producing any warrants or official justification for their action. They seized several items of electronic equipment belonging to the applicants, documents for equipment and personal documents of some of the family members. The officers then asked the applicants to come with them to the Achkhoy-Martan VOVD for a few hours to help them to deal with paperwork.\n16.  According to the applicants, once they got into the car, the officers told them that they were under arrest and started to beat th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2428", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Mirna.\n6.  The application concerns two sets of criminal proceedings. In both sets of proceedings, the hearings were closed to the public for the purpose, among others, of protecting the rights of the alleged victims and – as regards some of the hearings – the private life of the applicant.\n7.  On 13 March 1998 an official police report (uradni zaznamek) was prepared concerning the applicant's attitude towards children he had taught in a primary school. It contained a statement given by one of the school teachers which had been obtained in accordance with section 148/2 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Zakon o kazenskem postopku – see paragraph 44 below). The teacher stated that she had not noticed anything strange in the applicant's attitude towards children. She also described an incident where the parents of a boy who the applicant had allegedly abused had come to the school to complain about the applicant's conduct and stated that the applicant had resigned following this incident.\n8.  On 31 August 1998 the Murska Sobota District Public Prosecutor (Okrožno državno tožilstvo v Murski Soboti) lodged a request for a criminal investigation on the basis of reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed two criminal offences of sexual assault on a minor under the age of 15 (spolni napad na osebo, mlajšo od petnajst let). The request was based on findings from the preliminary proceedings.\n9.  On 4 May 1999, after questioning the applicant, the investigating judge of the Murska Sobota District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Murski Soboti) decided to open a criminal investigation, and that decision became final on 12 May 1999.\n10.  An examination of witnesses scheduled for 25 May 1999 was adjourned at the applicant's request.\nOn 3 June 1999, 9 December 1999 and 21 December 1999 the investigating judge examined several witnesses, mostly for the prosecution.\nOn 4 and 18 April 2000 the court examined several defence witnesses.\nOn 21 April 2000 the applicant proposed a re-examination of certain witnesses. The investigating judge, disagreeing with the proposal, requested the interlocutory-proceedings chamber of three judges (zunaj obravnavni senat) at the Murska Sobota District Court to decide on the issue. On 9 June 2000 the chamber dismissed the proposal.\n11.  On 29 June 2000 the applicant was indicted for the criminal offence of sexual abuse of a minor. The indictment became final on 17 August 2000.\n12.  On 30 January 2003 the Murska Sobota District Court held a hearing. The applicant's lawyer requested that the alleged victim, who was a minor, be examined as a witness. The minor was consequently examined by the investigating judge on 13 March 2003.\n13.  The next hearing was held on 8 April 2003. After the hearing, the Murska Sobota District Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. The written judgment was issued on 11 April 2003.\n14.  The applicant appealed on 22 May 2003.\nOn 24 March 2004 the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru) dismissed the appeal.\nConsequently, the first-instance court's judgment became final on 24 March 2004.\n15.  On 13 July 2004 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of legality (zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti).\n On 11 November 2004 the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) rejected the request.\n16.  On 31 January 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\nThe proceedings are pending before the Constitutional Court.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2429", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Krasnoyarsk in the Russian Federation.\n6.  The applicant arrived in the Republic of Latvia as a member of the ex-USSR armed forces located in the territory of Latvia. On an unspecified date in the beginning of the 1990s he and Ms B., a Latvian citizen, started living together in de facto partnership. In 1993 a child was born to the applicant and his partner.\n7.  After the military forces were withdrawn from Latvia, the applicant resided there between 11 June 1993 and 31 March 1994 on the basis of a temporary residence permit. On 31 March 1994, upon the expiry of the residence permit, he left Latvia.\n8.  Between 1994 and 1997 the applicant visited Latvia three times on the basis of a visa. The validity of the last visa expired on 17 November 1997 but the applicant continued to reside in Latvia illegally.\n9.  On 19 February 1998 the applicant was apprehended by the police and taken into custody on suspicion of having committed robbery and criminal proceedings were initiated against him and seven co-accused persons.\n10.  On 20 February 1998 the applicant was brought before a judge of the Ziemeļu District Court of the City of Riga who decided to detain him on remand. The judge filled in a standard form by typing in the date, the names of the court and the applicant and other details of the case. In substantiating the decision, the judge had to choose from and underline the pre-typed text of the standard form. She took into account the severity of the crime the applicant was suspected of, the danger of his possible absconding and the possibility that he could impede the investigation. However, the judge did not underline the pre-typed text as to whether or not a preventive measure should be imposed on the applicant. He did not appeal this decision.\n11.  On 17 March 1998 the applicant was officially charged with robbery.\n12.  On 9 April, 11 June, 10 August and 13 October 1998 a judge of the Ziemeļu District Court of the City of Riga, on the request of the prosecutor in charge of investigation, extended the applicant's detention on remand until 19 June, 19 August, 19 October and 12 December 1998 respectively. The applicant was not brought before the judge. The decisions were drafted using a standard form and repeated from one decision to the next the same grounds in the same words, i.e. the severity of the crime the applicant was charged with, the danger of his possible absconding and the possibility that he could impede the investigation. The applicant did not appeal any of these decisions.\n13.  On 30 October 1998 the prosecutor in charge of investigation and the applicant discussed the possibility of releasing him on bail.\n14.  On 25 November 1998, according to the prosecutor's permission, the applicant and his partner met in order to discuss the details of the applicant's release on bail without reaching any agreement in this respect.\n15.  On 10 December 1998, 11 January, 29 January, 20 February and 19 March 1999 a judge of the Ziemeļu District Court of the City of Riga, on the request of the prosecutor in charge of investigation, extended the applicant's detention on remand until 12 January, 29 January, 20 February, 20 March and 20 April 1999 respectively. The applicant was not brought before the judge. The decisions were drafted using a standard form and repeated, from one decision, the same grounds and in the same words, i.e. the severity of the crime the applicant was charged with, the dan", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2430", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  In 1996 the applicant took out insurance for his summer cottage. In May 1997 the cottage burnt down. The insurer, a private company (hereinafter referred as “the company”), paid only a part of the amount claimed by the applicant. The applicant brought an action against the company claiming the rest. On 5 December 1997 the Moscow Lefortovskiy District Court ordered the company to pay the applicant 86,621 Russian roubles (RUR).\n7.  On 18 December 1997, upon the applicant's request, the Lefortovskiy District Court ordered the seizure of the company's account in a private bank “Yunikbank”. As follows from the extract of that account, provided by the “Yunikbank”, on 29 December 1997 the company had RUR 14,991 on it. There is no indication, however, that the money on that account has ever been seized.\n8.  The judgment of the Lefortovskiy District Court was upheld by the Moscow City Court on 16 January 1998. Following that, the Lefortovskiy District Court issued an execution order against the company. On 26 January 1998 the execution order was sent to the bailiff.\n9.  On 28 January 1998 a bailiff initiated the enforcement proceedings. On 2 February 1998 the bailiff requested from the State Tax Office information about the accounts and assets of the company. The Tax Office informed the bailiff that by 1 October 1997 the company had declared RUR 350,000 in cash and RUR 12,274 on accounts in three private banks. According to the Tax Office, in the last fiscal report the company had also declared RUR 98,507,000 in capital assets, RUR 116,534,000 in intangible assets, and RUR 24,804,000 in receivable accounts.\n10.  On 11 February 1998 the bailiff visited the headquarters of the company indicated in the company's official documents, but no property belonging to the company was found at that address. On the same day the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the defendant had no assets to seize.\n11.  The next day the applicant brought an action against the bailiff. He claimed that the bailiff had failed to take appropriate steps to find and seize the company's property. On 23 February 1998 the Lefortovskiy District Court ruled in the applicant's favour. The court found, in particular, that the bailiff had failed to withdraw the debt from the defendant's account in “Yunikbank”. The court also found that the bailiff had breached a number of procedural rules, in particular, as it had not informed the applicant about the initiation of the enforcement proceedings. The court ordered the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's favour.\n12.  A new bailiff was appointed to deal with the applicant's case. However, he found no money on two of the defendant's accounts, including the one in “Yunikbank”. On 18 March 1998 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued.\n13.  The applicant challenged the discontinuation of the proceedings in court. On 18 May 1998 the Lefortovskiy District Court quashed the bailiff's decision and ordered the re-opening of the enforcement proceedings. The court found, in particular, that the bailiff had failed to establish the real whereabouts of the company and its property. On 24 June 1998 the Moscow City Court dismissed the Senior Bailiff's appeal against that decision.\n14.  On 16 November 1998 the bailiff again discontinued the enforcement proceedings in view of the absence of assets belonging to the defendant. The applicant did not appeal ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2431", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Narva.\n5.  In 1983 the applicant married N. The marriage was dissolved on 7 February 1997.\n6.  On 26 May 1997 N. lodged an action with the Narva City Court (linnakohus), requesting that the joint property, including an apartment, be divided.\n7.  On 30 January 1998, the Narva City Court scheduled a preliminary hearing for 12 February 1998. However, on 11 February 1998 the applicant requested that the hearing be postponed as his lawyer had to participate in a hearing of a criminal case at the same time. The City Court adjourned the hearing.\nA new preliminary hearing was scheduled for 19 August 1998. On the same day, N. requested that the hearing be adjourned because of her lawyer's absence. She requested that the hearing be scheduled for a date after 10 September 1998.\nThe third preliminary hearing took place on 13 October 1999 and a trial hearing on 31 August 2000. On 11 September 2000 the court delivered the judgment by which the marital property was divided. According to the City Court, the apartment was in the ownership of an apartment cooperative (korteriühistu, kooperatiiv). The applicant and N. had possessed a share in the cooperative. The City Court considered the sum they had paid for the share as a part of the joint property.\n8.  On 5 June 2001, after an appeal by N., the Viru Court of Appeal (ringkonnakohus) quashed the rulings of the City Court and referred the case back to it. The Court of Appeal noted, inter alia, that the actual market value of the apartment at the time of the division of the property (as opposed to the construction costs) had to be taken into account for the determination of the value of the property.\n9.  A hearing before the Narva City Court, scheduled for 13 June 2002, was adjourned in order to enable the parties to adduce additional evidence. In September, the parties submitted additional pleadings.\nOn 10 October 2002 the Narva City Court, following a hearing, delivered the judgment. It found that the applicant and N. had not been the owners of the apartment during their marriage. They had owned a share in the apartment cooperative. The City Court decided that the share had to be divided between the applicant and N.\n10.  N. lodged an appeal with the Viru Court of Appeal, which, on 28 January 2003, quashed the City Court's judgment. It found that the apartment had been acquired by the applicant and N. jointly during their marriage. According to an expert opinion the current value of the apartment was 119,337 kroons (EEK) (corresponding approximately to 7,700 euros (EUR)). Proceeding from the above, the Court of Appeal divided the property. According to the judgment, the applicant had to pay EEK 61,698.5 (approximately EUR 3,900) to N.\n11.  On 16 April 2003 the Supreme Court (Riigikohus) refused the applicant leave to appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2432", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1978 and 1980 respectively and live in Istanbul.\n5.  On 29 July 2001 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of having participated in an illegal demonstration which took place in Ümraniye. They were subsequently taken to the Ümraniye Security Directorate.\n6.  According to the arrest reports drafted by the police officers and signed by the applicants on the day of the incident, in Ümraniye a group of fifteen people closed the main street to traffic by blocking the side streets with dustbins, and they initiated a protest rally. They were carrying torches and shouting slogans in support of the PKK[1]. When they noticed that policemen were approaching, they started to run away. The first applicant, who was identified by the police as one of the protesters, was arrested on the spot. The second applicant was arrested following a chase. The police prevented him from being lynched. It was further noted in the arrest report that the second applicant’s lip was injured.\n7.  Following his examination by a doctor at the Haydarpaşa Numune Hospital, the medical report dated 29 July 2001 concluded that the second applicant had an abrasion on his upper lip and a 5-15 centimetre hyperaemia on the right side of his chest. It was noted that it was necessary to consult cardiothoracic and ear, nose and throat specialists.\n8.  Thereafter, the applicants were handed over to the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Istanbul Security Directorate.\n9.  On 31 July 2001, upon the request of the Anti-Terrorism Department, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court prolonged the applicants’ detention in police custody until 2 August 2001.\n10.  On 1 August 2001, the public prosecutor extended the applicants’ detention for three more days.\n11.  The applicants were taken to the Forensic Medicine Institute for medical examinations both in the evening of 3 August 2001 and in the morning of 4 August 2001. The medical reports drafted on these dates concluded that there were no signs of blows on the applicants’ bodies.\n12.  On 4 August 2001 the applicants were taken before the public prosecutor, where they denied all the allegations made against them. They contended that they had been forced to sign police statements without reading their contents. Later on, the applicants were taken before a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. The first applicant contended that, although there were no marks on her body, she had been tortured in police custody. The second applicant maintained that police officers had hit him, pulled his hair and insulted him. He confirmed, however, the outcome of the medical report dated 3 and 4 August 2001. The court ordered their detention on remand.\n13.  On 6 August 2001 another doctor at the Forensic Medicine Institute drafted a report concerning the second applicant. The doctor noted that, in view of the findings in the report of 29 July 2001, she could only draft a final report after the applicant had been examined by chest and ear, nose and throat specialists. Subsequently, the public prosecutor ordered the applicant’s transfer to a hospital for a medical check-up. The report dated 8 August 2001, given by the ear, nose and throat clinic of the Sağlamcılar State Hospital, concluded that he was in good health.\n14.  On 7 August 2001 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment, charging the applicants with aiding and abetting the PKK under Article 169 of the Criminal ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2433", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.\n6.  On 28 November 1995, the applicant, who is a taxi driver by profession, was involved in a traffic accident.\n7.  On 28 February 1996 the applicant was charged with causing the accident. On 2 September 1997 the applicant was served with a bill of indictment.\n8.  The hearing set for 16 March 1998 was adjourned due to the presiding judge’s illness. On 11 July 2001 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) held the first hearing in the case. The hearing set for 20 September 2001 was adjourned due to the witnesses’ absence.\n9.  On 7 December 2001 the court ordered an expert opinion to be obtained. On 30 April 2002 the expert submitted his opinion to the court. The court ordered a supplementary opinion to be obtained.\n10.  The hearing set for 18 September 2002 was adjourned. At the hearing held on 7 November 2002 the Warsaw District Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 6 June 2003 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case.\n12.  Following the remittal, on 23 September 2004 the Warsaw District Court gave judgment. The court sentenced the applicant to one year imprisonment stayed for two years. The applicant appealed.\n13.  The applicant filed a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“2004 Act”). On 16 November 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a decision and confirmed that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy. However, the court did not grant any compensation to the applicant.\n14.  On 29 April 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court held an appeal hearing and gave judgment. The judgment is final.\n15.  On 6 June 2005 the applicant again filed a complaint with the Supreme Court under the 2004 Act alleging that a copy of the final judgment had not yet been served on him. The Supreme Court rejected the complaint, on a later unknown date, as the applicant had never asked to be served with a copy of the final judgment.\n16.  On 21 February 2006 the applicant for the third time filed a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under the 2004 Act. On 29 September 2006 the court refused to deal with the merits of the complaint. The court held that the proceedings had already been terminated and therefore the complaint was groundless.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2434", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Niechorze, Poland.\n6.  On 7 May 1999 the applicant, in connection with a property dispute, filed an action with the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) seeking to have a notarial deed declared null and void. On the same date he made an application for an exemption from the court fees required from him to pursue the proceedings. He declared that the value of the estate in dispute was PLN 40,500 [approx. EUR 10,000].\n7.  On 7 July, 4 October, 13 December 1999, 25 January and 24 February 2000 the applicant made applications for his claim to be secured.\n8.  On 9 March 2000 the Regional Court asked the applicant to supplement his motion and to provide a detailed statement concerning his financial situation.\n9.  On 10 September 1999 the applicant informed the court that the value of the property in question was PLN 1,000,000. On 20 March 2000 the applicant submitted his declaration of means. He stressed that he received a monthly disability pension in the amount of PLN 324.43. In addition, during the summer season he let a shop and bed and breakfast rooms, which brought him yearly PLN 6,075 and PLN 7,000 respectively. His monthly expenditures amounted to PLN 1,300.\n10.  On 2 February 2001 the Regional Court asked the applicant to supplement his motion and to send the relevant documents confirmed by the local tax office.\n11.  On 2 April 2001 the applicant submitted his tax return to the Regional Court. He attested that in addition to his disability pension, his only income in 2000 had been PLN 8,000 (rent) and PLN 967.90 (other sources).\n12.  On 18 May 2001 the court decided to conduct an investigation in order to examine the applicant’s financial situation.\n13.  On 27 July 2001 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s motion for an exemption from court fees. It held that the applicant had failed to provide information concerning his wife’s financial situation (they had been married under the system of separate ownership of property). The court examined the information given in the applicant’s tax return for 2000, and in his wife’s tax return. It further considered that the applicant had some extra income as he was letting the shop and the bed and breakfast rooms. Lastly, the court pointed to the fact that as the applicant had not indicated where he lived, he must be living with his wife with whom he maintained a common household.\n14.  On 23 August 2001 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision. He submitted that he had openly described his financial situation and he had not concealed any extra income. In addition to his monthly disability pension in the amount of PLN 324.43 he received PLN 6,075 and PLN 7,000 as rent from the shop and the rooms let to tourists. Furthermore, the Regional Court had based its decision on conjectures and suspicions as to the extra income received by him and his wife without any reference to the evidence actually collected in the case. Finally, the applicant claimed that his income only allowed him to support himself and his son and that he had not been able to put money aside for the payment of future court fees.\n15.  On 24 October 2001 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal. The court reiterated that the applicant should have put aside money for the payment of court fees. In addition, despite the fact that the applicant had been married under the system of separate ownership of property, he should have provi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2435", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Norsborg.\n5.  On 21 October 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated tax fraud and an aggravated bookkeeping offence in relation to the declaration of value-added tax and employers’ contributions for the period July 1994 – September 1996 by Latem AB, a building company wholly owned by him. He was detained by a decision of the District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm on 23 October 1996 and released from detention on 3 December 1996.\n6.  The applicant was interrogated on several occasions in 1996 and 1997. The preliminary investigation, which concerned 20 companies, was concluded on 25 April 1998. The applicant was notified of the investigation report which covered 7,000 pages. Following submissions by the various suspects, the public prosecutor declared in June 1999 that he expected to bring indictments in the autumn of 1999.\n7.  On 51 occasions thereafter, the public prosecutor requested and the District Court granted extensions of the time-limit for bringing indictments. Eventually, on 28 October 2002 the applicant, together with 16 other suspects, was indicted for aggravated tax fraud and an aggravated bookkeeping offence. The trial commenced on 2 September 2003.\n8.  By a partial judgment of 4 December 2003, the District Court acquitted the applicant of certain charges. By a further judgment of 27 February 2004 the District Court acquitted him of the remaining charges. In the absence of an appeal from the prosecutor, the latter judgment acquired legal force on 19 March 2004.\n9.  On 22 October 1996 the Tax Authority (skattemyndigheten) of the County of Stockholm initiated an audit of Latem AB’s liability for value-added tax and employers’ contributions concerning the above-mentioned period. On 24 June 1997 the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Stockholm, at the request of the Tax Authority, issued an order that assets belonging to the company could be claimed in security for unpaid value-added tax (but not for any tax surcharges that might be imposed on the company). On 5 December 1997 the Tax Authority completed its audit report. By its communication to the company the same day, the company was informed that the Tax Authority was considering, inter alia, imposing tax surcharges on it.\n10.  On the basis of the findings of the audit, the Tax Authority, by decisions of 18 December 1997 and 26 March and 1 April 1998, revised upwards the taxation bases for calculating the relevant taxes by a total of approximately 3 million Swedish kronor (SEK) (value-added tax) and approximately SEK 14.6 million (employers’ contributions). In addition, Latem AB was considered responsible for employees’ taxes based on a total salary amount of approximately SEK 10.6 million. Moreover, as the information supplied by the company in its tax returns was found to be incorrect, the Tax Authority ordered it to pay tax surcharges (skattetillägg, avgiftstillägg) amounting to 20% of the increased tax liability for value-added tax and employers’ contributions.\n11.  The company appealed to the County Administrative Court. Following an oral hearing on 11 November 1999, the court, by six judgments of 29 November 1999, upheld the Tax Authority’s decisions, save for a minor reduction of the taxation base for employers’ contributions for one year.\n12.  On 4 February 2000 the company appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Stockholm. On 12 February 2003, the ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2436", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Tambov. He is permanently disabled as a result of participation in the emergency response operations at the Chernobyl nuclear power station.\n5.  On 27 April 1999 the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov delivered a judgment in which it ordered the Social Security Service to provide the applicant with a car with hand controls. The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable on 12 May 1999.\n6.  It appears that the Social Security Service did not comply with the judgment. For that reason, on 13 June 2000 the bailiff's office issued a charging order in respect of two vehicles purchased by the Social Security Service. On 24 June 2000 the Social Security Service complained against the measure taken by the bailiff's office.\n7.  On 5 October 2000 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov revoked the charging order. That decision was upheld on 1 November 2000 by the Tambov Regional Court.\n8.  Thereafter the Social Security Service submitted a request to the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov to stay the execution of the judgment. However, on 4 April 2001 the District Court dismissed the request.\n9.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiff's office discontinued the enforcement proceedings and returned the writ of execution to the applicant. The bailiff's decision, however, was quashed by the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov on 27 September 2001.\n10.  Subsequently, the Social Security Service once more submitted a request to stay the execution of the judgment until 31 December 2003. On 19 March 2003 the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov granted the request.\n11.  On 21 June 2004 the applicant purchased a car at his own expense; the Social Security Service reimbursed a portion (66,900 Russian roubles (RUR)) of the purchase price equivalent to that of a cycle car.\n12.  According to the Government, the enforcement proceedings were terminated on 8 July 2004.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil action, seeking an increase of the monthly rate of the disability compensation he was entitled to receive.\n14.  In a judgment of 1 June 2001 the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov awarded the applicant RUR 77,826.90 for the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 May 2001 and increased the monthly rate to RUR 10,000, effective as from 1 June 2001. The judgment became enforceable on 14 June 2001.\n15.  In April 2002 the Social Security Service paid RUR 77,826.90 to the applicant.\n16.  On 1 January 2003 the Social Security Service started to make monthly disability payments in the amount of RUR 10,000.\n17.  On 23 March 2003 the applicant received RUR 140,243 in arrears on account of the State's failure to pay, in 2001 and 2002, the disability compensation in the amount determined in the judgment of 1 June 2001.\n18.  On 8 October 2001 the applicant brought an action seeking the adjustment of the unpaid amount awarded to him on 1 June 2001 to take account of inflation.\n19.  On 27 April 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov granted the applicant's claim and awarded him RUR 171,181.36. The judgment became enforceable on 8 May 2002.\n20.  On 1 April 2003 the Social Security Service requested the court to clarify the judgment of 27 April 2002 and to reduce the amount awarded.\n21.  On 9 April 2003 the District Court reduced the award to RUR 93,354.46.\n22.   The judgment of 27 April 2002, as amended on 9 April 2003, was enforced on 13 May 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2437", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Aon Conseil et Courtage S.A. and Christian de Clarens S.A., are two French companies based in Paris. Aon Conseil et Courtage  succeeded to the rights of another company SGAP Expansion, which had in turn acquired them through two other companies, SGAP S.A. and OGIA S.A.\n6.  Christian de Clarens, SGAP and OGIA were engaged in insurance broking, a commercial activity which, by virtue of Article 256 of the General Tax Code as worded until 31 December 1978, attracted value-added tax (VAT). They paid 967,033.21 French francs (FRF), FRF 2,061,836.46 and FRF 93,216.98 respectively in VAT on their 1978 transactions.\n7.  However, Article 13-B-a of the Sixth Directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 17 May 1977 provided an exemption for “insurance and reinsurance transactions, including related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents”. The directive was due to come into force on 1 January 1978.\n8.  On 30 June 1978 the Ninth Directive of the Council of the European Communities dated 26 June 1978 was notified to the French State. It granted France an extension of time – until 1 January 1979 – in which to implement the provisions of Article 13-B-a of the Sixth Directive of 1977. Since such directives have no retroactive effect, the Sixth Directive should nevertheless have been applied from 1 January to 30 June 1978.\n9.  On 2 and 5 October 1978 and 21 and 26 June 1979 Christian de Clarens lodged four applications with the Paris Administrative Court seeking, on the basis of the Sixth Directive of 17 May 1977, a refund of the VAT it had paid.\n10.  On 7 December 1979 SGAP transferred all the assets of its insurance broking arm to a new company, SGAP Exploitation. SGAP nevertheless continued to be registered under the same number at the Trade and Companies Registry while changing its name to SOGEDEP the same day and to SGAP Expansion on 6 January 1988.\n11.  In a judgment of 8 January 1981, the Paris Administrative Court dismissed the four applications lodged by Christian de Clarens.\n12.  An administrative circular was issued on 2 January 1986 which stipulated:\n“... no further action shall be taken to collect sums remaining due at the date of publication of this circular from insurance brokers who have failed to charge value-added tax on their transactions between 1 January and 30 June 1978 and have received supplementary tax assessments as a result.”\n13.  On 1 July 1992 the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal held in the S.A. Dangeville case that Article 256 of the General Tax Code, as worded in the relevant period, was incompatible with the provisions of the Sixth Directive.\n14.  Considering that the French State had acted unlawfully by failing to incorporate into domestic law the provisions of the Sixth Directive within the time allowed, SGAP, OGIA and Christian de Clarens wrote to the authorities on 20 December 1993 to claim compensation for their losses.\n15.  In decisions of 8 February 1994 in the case of SGAP and OGIA, and 4 March 1994 in the case of Christian de Clarens, the Minister for the Budget rejected their requests on the grounds that they were inadmissible by virtue of Article L 190 of the Code of Tax Procedure and that the amount of the loss had to be reduced by the amount of employment tax owed by companies exempted from VAT.\n16.  On 9 April 1994 SGAP, OGIA and Christian de Clarens brought proceedings in the Paris Administrative Court against the French State for failing to incorpo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2438", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Tambov.\n5.  He was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a consequence, he was entitled to certain social benefits.\n6.  In 1998 the administration of Tambov placed the applicant on a special “waiting list” for getting free accommodation.\n7.  As the town administration did not provide him with a flat within three months after placing him on a waiting list, the applicant brought a court action against the administration.\n8.  By judgment of 2 March 1999 the Leninskiy District Court of Tambov ordered that:\n “...the Mayor of Tambov should allocate to the Administration of the Leninskiy District of Tambov well equipped dwelling premises having a living surface of no less than 27 square metres and comprising additional dwelling premises in the form of a separate room for the further allocation to Mr Makarov.\nThe head of the administration of the Leninskiy District of Tambov should provide Mr Makarov, whose family comprises three members, a well equipped flat having a living surface of no less than 27 square metres and comprising additional dwelling premises in the form of a separate room in the boundaries of Tambov”.\n9.  No appeal was brought against the judgment and it entered into force on 13 March 1999.\n10.  Enforcement proceedings were initiated by the bailiffs' service of the Leninskiy District of Tambov. However, the judgment could not be enforced because the town administration possessed no available housing or financial resources to purchase a flat.\n11.  On 12 March 2001, 31 March and 30 October 2003 the bailiffs' service fined the Mayor of Tambov for the failure to provide the applicant with accommodation. Those decisions were quashed by the Leninskiy District Court, upon the mayor's appeal. The District Court held that the Mayor of Tambov could not enforce the judgment due to the lack of available accommodation.\n12.  Following those decisions the bailiff returned the writ of execution to the applicant.\n13.  On 22 January 2004 the writ of execution was again forwarded to the bailiffs' service and new enforcement proceedings were instituted.\n14.  In December 2004 the town administration unsuccessfully applied to a court seeking to change the method of the enforcement of the judgment of 2 March 1999.\n15.  On 24 January 2006 the bailiff fined the town administration for the failure to provide the applicant with a flat. The Leninskiy District Court of Tambov upheld the decision and confirmed that the town administration had taken no steps to enforce the judgment.\n16.  The judgment of 2 March 1999 remains unenforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2439", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the Tyumen Region.\n5.  In 1999 he brought a court action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. He sought to recover the monetary value of the state-issued promissory notes for the purchase of a Russian-made car.\n6.  By judgment of 6 March 2001 the Armizonskiy District Court of the Tyumen Region awarded the applicant 38,368.92 Russian roubles (RUR) and recovered in his favour RUR 673 in compensation for court fee. The District Court specified that those amounts had to be paid by the Ministry of Finance at the expenses of the Treasury of the Russian Federation. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Tyumen Regional Court on 23 July 2001.\n7.  On an unspecified date the President of the Tyumen Regional Court granted the Ministry of Finance's request to file a motion for supervisory review with the Presidium of the Tyumen Regional Court.\n8.  On 22 February 2002 the Presidium of the Tyumen Regional Court, by way of supervisory review, upheld the judgment of 6 March 2001.\n9.  The judgment of 6 March 2001, as upheld on 23 July 2001, remains unenforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2440", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  Vereinigung Bildender Künstler Wiener Secession is an association of artists with its seat in the Secession building in Vienna. The Secession, an independent gallery, is devoted entirely to exhibitions of contemporary art. One of the basic objectives of the association is to present current developments in Austrian and international art, and to cultivate an openness to experimentation.\n8.  Between 3 April and 21 June 1998 the applicant association held an exhibition on its premises. The exhibition, entitled “The century of artistic freedom” (“Das Jahrhundert künstlerischer Freiheit”), was intended as part of the celebrations of the association's 100th anniversary. Among the works to be shown was a painting entitled “Apocalypse”, which had been produced for the occasion by the Austrian painter Otto Mühl. The painting, measuring 450 cm by 360 cm, showed a collage of various public figures, such as Mother Teresa, the Austrian cardinal Hermann Groer and the former head of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) Mr Jörg Haider, in sexual positions. While the naked bodies of these figures were painted, the heads and faces were depicted using blown-up photos taken from newspapers. The eyes of some of the persons portrayed were hidden under black bars. Among these persons was Mr Meischberger, a former general secretary of the FPÖ until 1995, who at the time of the events was a member of the National Assembly (Nationalratsabgeordneter), a mandate he held until April 1999. Mr Meischberger was shown gripping the ejaculating penis of Mr Haider while at the same time being touched by two other FPÖ politicians and ejaculating on Mother Teresa.\n9.  The exhibition, for which admission was charged, was open to the public.\n10.   On 11 June 1998, while the exhibition was in progress, the Austrian newspaper Täglich Alles bristled at the above painting's portayal of “group sexual situations with Bishop Groer and Mother Teresa”.\n11.  On 12 June 1998 the painting was damaged by a visitor, who covered with red paint the part which showed, among others, Mr Meischberger. As a consequence of this incident the entire painted body of Mr Meischberger and part of his face were covered with red paint.\n12.  Several Austrian newspapers reported on this event and also published pictures of the painting.\n13.  On 22 June 1998 Mr Meischberger brought proceedings under section 78 of the Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz) against the applicant association, seeking an injunction prohibiting it from exhibiting and publishing the painting. He further requested compensation in the amount of 20,000 Austrian schillings (ATS – 1,453.46 euros (EUR)). He argued that the painting, showing him in sexual positions with several persons, debased him and his political activities and made statements as to his allegedly loose sexual life (lotterhaftes Intimleben). The black eye-bars did not prevent him from being recognised, because he was shown together with two other FPÖ politicians. He remained recognisable even after the incident of 12 June 1998, which had further increased the publicity given to the painting. Furthermore, there was a danger of recurrence as after the present exhibition the painting was due to be shown at another exhibition in Prague.\n14.  On 6 August 1999 the Vienna Commercial Court (Handelsgericht) dismissed Mr Meischberger's action. It noted that it had initially been intended to show the exhibition in Prague, Bucharest and Luxembourg as well; now the intention was to cl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2443", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Klagenfurt.\n6.  At the time of the events he was the chairman of the Workers' Committee (Zentralbetriebsobmann) of the Carinthian regional hospitals (Landeskrankenanstalten). He was also a member of the Carinthian Regional Parliament (Landtag) and speaker on health matters (Gesundheitssprecher) of the Carinthian regional branch of the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ).\n7.  In the context of a political debate concerning the reform of the regional health system, the Carinthian Regional Government (Landesregierung), in March 2001, commissioned Köck, Ebner and Partners and thereby their managerial director Mr Köck, to draft an expert opinion on the future development of the Carinthian regional hospitals. They were asked in particular to submit proposals as to the possible reduction of costs in this field. While the regional branch of the Austrian People's Party (ÖVP) and the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) voted in favour of this decision, the SPÖ contested the appointment of Mr Köck.\n8.  Before and after this event, the debate on a regional health reform received extensive media coverage in the regional newspapers. In interviews Mr Köck stated that in various medical fields many unnecessary surgical operations were carried out. Furthermore, the probability of dying in hospital as a result of medical negligence was comparatively high. He advocated cutting down superfluous services and closing smaller hospitals and hospital departments. These proposals were heavily criticised by the federal health speaker of the SPÖ.\n9.  At the end of May 2001 Mr Köck co-founded the “hospital investment joint-stock company” (Krankenanstalten Beteiligungs-aktiengesellschaft - “KABAG”) whose purpose was to take over and run hospitals. In interviews with regional newspapers Mr Köck contended that his company would focus on hospitals run by municipalities, private establishments and hospitals of religious orders. He wished to show through this company that hospitals could be administrated from a patient-orientated perspective, run efficiently and be of top quality. Above all the potential of employees could be better used in a private company. He had worked for public hospitals long enough to know how much potential was not being used. He was not yet speculating about the takeover of a hospital in Carinthia as the subject of takeovers had not yet come up there.\n10.   The federal speaker of the SPÖ objected that the founding of this company was incompatible with Mr Köck's function as expert for the Region of Carinthia because the latter function enabled Mr Köck to have access to all relevant data on regional hospitals. This was contested by Mr Köck and the chairman of the FPÖ parliamentary party.\n11.  In its issue of 8 June 2001 the Kärnter Tageszeitung, a regional newspaper, published an article in which it cited the applicant saying:\n“It is outrageous how the alleged hospital guru Köck wishes, on the one hand, to erase whole departments and hospitals from Carinthia, and, on the other hand, to use his newly founded hospital investment company to take over these hospitals in our Region”...\n ...“the Regional Governor Jörg Haider has already once erred enormously by [employing] an alleged technical 'wonder-wizard' who then ended up before the Public Prosecutor's Office”... Arbeiter warns of the “incomprehensible enthusiasm of the Freedom Party for an alleged health guru and 'closing-down preacher' “\n”... “K smashes our good", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2444", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Mińsk Mazowiecki, Poland.\n5.  The investigation against the applicant started on 30 December 1992.\n6.  On 31 August 1993 the Mińsk Mazowiecki District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant and another person with the Mińsk Mazowiecki District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). She was indicted on a charge of fraud.\n7.  The first hearing was scheduled for 18 May 1994. Subsequently the court held 5 hearings at intervals ranging from 1 to 9 months. They were adjourned due to the absence of the co-accused or her counsel.\n8.  At a hearing on 14 January 1997 the court returned the case to the prosecutor for further investigation.\n9.  On 27 June 1997 the prosecutor lodged a new bill of indictment with the District Court.\n10.  The court held hearings on 25 March, 21 May, 19 June and 8 September 1998.\n11.  On 11 September 1998 the court acquitted the applicant.\n12.  On 12 November 1998 the Mińsk Mazowiecki District Prosecutor appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n13.  At a hearing on 29 January 1999 before the Siedlce Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) the prosecutor withdrew his appeal. In consequence, the court decided not to examine it.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2446", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1965 and 1936 respectively and live in Hatay.\n5.  On various dates, the applicants bought plots of land (nos. 1879 and 1878 respectively) near the coast in Hatay. The first applicant opened a wedding hall on the premises. The second applicant ran a cafeteria and a boarding house.\n6.  In 1995 the Samandağ Municipality, acting on behalf of the Treasury, requested the Samandağ Court of First Instance to determine whether the applicants’ plots of land were located within the coastline. A group of experts, composed of a geomorphologist, a cartography engineer and an agricultural engineer, appointed by the court, inspected the applicants’ land and concluded that they were located within the coastline.\n7.  Following the conclusions of the experts’ report, the Treasury filed two separate actions before the Samandağ Court of First Instance, requesting the annulment of the applicants’ title deeds to the lands on the ground that they were located within the coastline.\n8.  On 30 December 1999 and 24 December 1999 respectively, the Samandağ Court of First Instance, after having obtained additional experts’ reports, upheld the request of the Treasury and decided to annul the title deeds of the applicants to the plots of land. In its decisions, the court held that, pursuant to domestic law, coasts could not be subject to private ownership and that, therefore, the applicants could not rely on the argument that they had acted bona fides and on the fact that they had constructed buildings on the site. The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeals on 10 July 2001 and 3 October 2000 respectively.\n9.  On various dates the applicants requested the Court of Cassation to rectify its decision submitting, inter alia, that the right to property was protected under international conventions, the constitution and the domestic law, and that the domestic courts had deprived them of their property rights without proper examination. The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ requests on 17 January 2002 and 19 April 2001 respectively. These decisions were served on the applicants on 18 February 2002 and 24 May 2001 respectively.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2447", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Gdansk.\n5.  On 24 May 1999 the applicant was detained on remand on suspicion of having committed numerous offences, inter alia kidnapping and aggravated robbery.\n6.  The court based its detention order on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and on the severity of the likely penalty, which gave rise to a fear that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings.\n7.  His pre-trial detention was extended by decisions of 15 July 1999, 20 October 1999, 24 January 2000, 27 June 2000, 10 November 2000, 3 January 2001, 26 March 2001, 30 April 2001, 21 November 2001, 25 April 2002, 16 July 2002, 8 July 2003, 20 January 2004, 13 July 2004, 28 July 2004, 6 August 2004, 20 August 2004, 27 August 2004, 3 September 2004, 12 October 2004, 11 January 2005, 19 July 2005 and 27 October 2005.\n8.  In all the above-mentioned decisions the courts relied on the same grounds for detention as those given in the first detention order. In some the courts also referred to the complexity of the case, the need to conduct further investigations, the probability of collusion between the applicant and the co-accused and exertion of unlawful pressure on witnesses by the applicant and the fear that the applicant would go into hiding.\n9.  On many occasions the applicant requested release or that a more lenient preventive measure be applied. Each time his requests were dismissed.\n10.  The applicant appealed against the decisions extending his detention on several occasions. Only one of his appeals was allowed to the effect that the period of extension of his detention was reduced by two months (the Gdańsk Court of Appeal decision of 17 August 2005).\n11.  On 24 January 2000 the prosecution service filed with the Gdańsk Regional Court a bill of indictment. The applicant was charged with twelve offences, including aggravated robbery, kidnapping and illegal possession of a weapon.\n12.  The first hearing planned for 10 April 2000 was adjourned. Subsequent hearings were held on 26 May 2000, 27 June 2000, 7 August 2000, 6 October 2000, 10 November 2000, 3 January 2001, 2 February 2001 and 26 March 2001. The hearing of 17 April 2001 was adjourned. As a consequence of the court’s exceeding the permissible period of the length of intervals between hearings, the proceedings had to be conducted anew.\n13.  Subsequent hearings were held on 6 June 2001, 8 June 2001, 13 June 2001, 3 July 2001, 18 September 2001, 24 September 2001, 10 October 2001 and 15 October 2001. The hearing of 31 October 2001 was adjourned due to a lay judge’s illness. Subsequent hearings were held on 7 November 2001, 13 November 2001, 20 November 2001, 10 December 2001, 14 December 2001 and 17 December 2001. A hearing of 21 December 2001 was adjourned due to the absence of witnesses. The next hearings took place on 27 December 2001, 7 January 2002, 14 January 2002 and 21 January 2002.\n14.  On 28 January 2002 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of nine offences, acquitted him of the remaining three and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment. The applicant and other accused appealed.\n15.  On 9 April 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case as it found that the judges deciding on the case had not been impartial.\n16.  The hearings of 22 August 2003, 7 October 2003, 18 November 2003 and 19 December 2003 were adjourned since the applicant had so requested and since one of the accused had been abse", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2448", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Zvolen. He was a member of the Police Corps (Policajný zbor) of the Slovak Republic.\n6.  On 10 March 1999 the applicant was charged (obvinený) with carrying out business activities without authorisation (Article 118 § 1 and 2 (a) of the Criminal Code (CC)), extortion (Article 235 § 1 of CC) and rape (Article 241 § 1 of CC). The charges were based on the suspicion that the applicant who was disqualified from carrying out business activities by law on account of his status as a police officer had arranged for a third person, Ms P., to run a restaurant on his behalf. He was further suspected of having threatened P. with violence in order to make her give him an amount of money and of having forced at gunpoint a waitress, Ms. M., to have intercourse with him. The blackmail charge was later extended as the applicant was also suspected of having made violent threats against M. in order to force her to be his girlfriend.\nThe applicant was detained, dismissed from the police and tried on the above charges. The details are set out below.\n7.  On 12 April 1999 the Minister of the Interior issued an order (personálny rozkaz) dismissing the applicant from service in the police. The evidence available showed that the applicant had committed the acts of which he was charged. Such conduct grossly violated the service oath and, accordingly, was incompatible with service in the police. The applicant’s administrative appeal (rozklad) was dismissed on 14 June 1999.\n8.  The applicant’s subsequent numerous requests that the Ministry of the Interior review his dismissal in a special procedure outside the framework of ordinary appellate proceedings (mimo odovlacieho konania) and that the proceedings be reopened failed.\n9.  On 29 May 2002 the applicant challenged his dismissal by way of an administrative-law action in the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd). It was declared inadmissible on 1 August 2002 on the ground that it clearly had been filed outside the statutory two-month time-limit, counted from the final administrative decision in the case which was the decision of 14 June 1999.\n10.  On 3 September 2002 the applicant challenged the dismissal order of 12 April 1999 in the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) under Article 127 of the Constitution. It was declared inadmissible on 24 September 2002 as being belated. Moreover, and in any event, the review of the dismissal order fell within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court’s review was merely subsidiary and did not apply to the dismissal order directly. As for the decision of the Supreme Court, it could not be reviewed either because the applicant’s constitutional complaint was not directed against it.\n11.  On 11 March 1999, at 2.40 p.m., the police detained the applicant on the above charges. He was assigned an ex officio lawyer.\n12.  On 12 March 1999 the applicant was brought before the judge of the Zvolen District Court (Okresný súd).\nThe parties disagree as to the exact time when this took place. The Government rely on the minutes of the applicant’s questioning which bear his signature and indicate that he had appeared before the judge at 2 p.m. The applicant now claims that he was presented to the judge at 3.50 p.m., which is after the 24-hour statutory time-limit.\nThe applicant pleaded not guilty. There is no indication that he complained about infringement of the above time-limit. The questioning was concluded at 4.47 p.m. with the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2449", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefits due to her.\n6.  On 25 August 2000 the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of roubles 4,287.36 (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 4 September 2000.\n7.  On 28 November 2000 a writ of execution was issued.\n8.  As the judgment remained unexecuted, on an unspecified date the applicant forwarded the writ to the debtor's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor's account, but the bank refused.\n9.  She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of 25 August 2000.\n10.  On 17 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the Second Circuit of the Central District of Voronezh dismissed the applicant's claims on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of 25 August 2000. On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Central District Court of Voronezh on 10 November 2003.\n11.  On 30 December 2004 the applicant received RUR 1,402.56 in execution of the judgment of the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh of 25 August 2000.\n12.  On 26 January 2005 the applicant received RUR 818,16, and on 14 December 2005 the outstanding balance of RUR 2,066.64 thus completing full execution of the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2450", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1966 and 1968, respectively, and live in the village of Krasnovershka, Kirovograd region, Ukraine.\n5.  In January 1995 the applicants bought a house from the collective agricultural enterprise “Svitanok”. They lived in it with their two minor children until August 1996.\n6.  In August 1996 after returning from vacation the applicants found that their house was occupied by a police officer, Mr S. The latter informed them that the house purchase agreement had been invalidated by a notary. All of the applicants' possessions had been moved to the “Svitanok” enterprise storehouse.\n7.  In March 1997 the applicants instituted proceedings against the notary in the Kompaniyvskyy District Court. On 17 November 1997 the court cancelled the act by which the notary had invalidated the purchase agreement.\n8.  On 18 February 1998 the applicants instituted other proceedings in the same court against Mr S., the “Svitanok” enterprise and the notary asking that Mr S. be evicted from their house and claiming 10,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On an unidentified date the applicants introduced additional claims against the “Svitanok” enterprise for UAH 8,063 in pecuniary damage and UAH 40,000 in non-pecuniary damage.\n9.  In April 1998 the collective agricultural enterprise “Svitanok” initiated proceedings in the Kompaniyivskyy District Court challenging the validity of the house purchase agreement.\n10.  On 14 April 1998 the court stayed the proceedings in the applicants' case on eviction until the question of validity of the purchase agreement had been decided.\n11.  In June 1998 a wedding photo, a coat, a lamp, a wash-basin and some other small items which had been held at the “Svitanok” storehouse were returned to the applicants.\n12.  On 15 December 1998 the court found the purchase agreement invalid. The applicants appealed against this judgment and requested the transfer of their case to another court. On 1 April 1999 the Kirovograd Regional Court quashed the decision of 15 December 1998 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the Kirovogradskyy District Court.\n13.  On 13 December 1999 the applicants requested the Head of the Kirovograd Regional Court to transfer their case on eviction to another court. Their request was satisfied.\n14.  On 2 March 2000 the Kirovogradskyy District Court decided to consider together the case on eviction and the case on validity of the purchase agreement.\n15.  On 24 October 2001 the court disjoined the cases and declined to consider the case on the validity of the purchase agreement because the representative of the ”Svitanok” enterprise had failed twice to appear at a court hearing.\n16.  In June 2002 the house, which was partly derelict, was returned to the applicants.\n17.  In July 2002 and March 2004 the applicants introduced additional claims, requesting reimbursement of the costs of renovation of the house and payment of UAH 20,544.00 and UAH 60,000 in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage respectively.\n18.  On 16 July 2002 the court ordered a technical expert's report on the applicants' house. The expert stated that the court decision was received by him on 7 October 2003.\n19.  On 17 December 2003 the expert carried out his survey. He concluded that it was not possible to live in the house and that it needed major renovation. The cost of such renovation was also determined.\n20.  On 8 June 2004 the Kirovogradskyy District Cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2451", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in the village of Troitskoe in the Ulyanovsk Region.\n5.  On 23 March 2001 the Chernovskiy District Court of Chita partly allowed the applicant's claim against the State enterprise “Stroitelniy Kompleks” (государственное предприятие “Строительный Комплекс”) for recovery of the unpaid amount of compensation for a work-related injury. The court awarded him 7,500 roubles (“RUR”) in respect of the period from 1996 to 1999. The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable on 3 April 2001.\n6.  As the applicant had not been able to attend the hearing, on 6 April 2001 the District Court sent a writ of execution to the Chita bailiffs for enforcement. It appears that some time in May 2002 the applicant was informed for the first time that the judgment had been adopted and that the writ had been sent to the bailiffs.\n7.  In the meantime, on 21 June 2001 the Commercial Court of the Chita Region ordered liquidation of the State enterprise “Stroitelniy Kompleks” because it had gone bankrupt.\n8.  On 31 May 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint concerning the non-enforcement of the judgment with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which forwarded it to the Chita local authorities.\n9.  Having examined the issue, in July 2002 the local authorities discovered that in 2001 the writ of execution had been lost and had never reached the Chita bailiffs' service.\n10.  On 23 July 2002 the District Court sent a duplicate writ of execution to the bailiffs.\n11.  On 9 September 2002 the bailiffs commenced the enforcement proceedings.\n12.  On 20 May 2003 the Chernovskiy District Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings as the debtor company had ceased to exist. The applicant did not appeal against that judgment.\n13.  It appears that the judgment of 23 March 2001 remains unenforced to date.\n14.  In the meantime, on 30 September 2002 the Inzenskiy District Court of the Ulyanovsk Region awarded the applicant the unpaid amounts of compensation for the period from 2000 to 2002, payable by the local social insurance foundation. It appears that this judgment was duly enforced by the national authorities.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2452", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefits due to her.\n6.  On 15 March 2001 the Central District Court of Voronezh granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of 6,945.10 roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 26 March 2001.\n7.  On 23 May 2001 a writ of execution was issued.\n8.  On 20 December 2001 the writ was returned to the applicant by the bailiff's service on account of the lack of funds in the debtor's account.\n9.  The applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the debtor's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor's account, but the bank refused.\n10.  She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of 15 March 2001.\n11.  On 10 November 2003 the Central District Court of Voronezh dismissed by a final judgment the applicant's claims on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of 15 March 2001.\n12.  On 13 December 2005 the judgment of the Central District Court of Voronezh was fully executed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2453", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefits due to her.\n6.  On 15 December 2000 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of 8,637.22 roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 26 December 2000.\n7.  On an unspecified date a writ of execution was issued.\n8.  As the judgment remained unexecuted, on an unspecified date the applicant forwarded the writ to the debtor's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor's account, but the bank refused.\n9.  She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of 15 December 2000.\n10.  On 17 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the Second Circuit of the Central District of Voronezh dismissed the applicant's claims on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of 15 December 2000. On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Central District Court of Voronezh on 10 November 2003.\n11.  In February 2004 the applicant received RUR 993.48 in execution of the judgment of the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh of 15 December 2000.\n12.  On 13 December 2005 she received the outstanding balance of RUR 7,643.74, thus completing full execution of the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2454", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefit due to her.\n6.  On 9 June 2000 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of 2,040.02 roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 20 June 2000.\n7.  On an unspecified date a writ of execution was issued.\n8.  On 26 July 2001 the writ was returned to the applicant by the bailiff's service owing to a lack of funds in the debtor's account.\n9.  The applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the debtor's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor's account, but the bank refused.\n10.  She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of 9 June 2000.\n11.  On 17 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the Second Circuit of the Central District of Voronezh dismissed the applicant's claims on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of 9 June 2000. On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Central District Court of Voronezh on 10 November 2003.\n12.  In February 2004 the applicant received RUR 1,110.36 in execution of the judgment of the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh of 9 June 2000.\n13.  On 13 December 2005 she received the outstanding balance of RUR 929,66, thus completing full execution of the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2455", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in the city of Simferopol, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the ARC”), Ukraine. She is a single mother and has a son who at the time of the accident was eight years old.\n5.  On 24 July 1995 the applicant was knocked down by a trolley bus. She suffered an open craniocerebral injury and a brain contusion. As a result of these injuries the applicant received a status of a disabled person with the lowest degree of disability (третя група інвалідності).\n6.  In January 1996 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralnyy District Court against the Simferopol Trolley-Bus Company, claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to her health caused by the accident. In particular, as a part of pecuniary damage the applicant claimed compensation for medicaments, additional nutrition, sanatorium treatment and transport expenses, and compensation for the loss of earnings.\n7.  On 1 August 1997 the Tsentralnyy District Court awarded the applicant 4,604.17[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) in pecuniary damages and UAH 10,000[2] in non-pecuniary damages.\n8.  On 17 September 1997 the Supreme Court of the ARC (“the SARC”) upheld this judgment.\n9.  On 19 December 1997 the SARC, upon the protest of its Head (initiated by the applicant), quashed the above judgments under the extraordinary review procedure in the part concerning compensation for medicaments, additional nutrition, sanatorium treatment and transport expenses and in the part concerning compensation for the loss of earnings and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n10.  On 21 March 1998 the hearing was postponed because the defendant failed to appear.\n11.  On 20 April 1998 the court hearing took place.\n12.  On 23 June 1998, upon the applicant's request, the case was transferred to the Simferopolskyy District Court.\n13.  On 26 August 1998 the case was transferred to another judge.\n14.  On 4 November 1998 the court ordered a bookkeeping expertise. The expertise was performed by 30 November 1998.\n15.  On 22 December 1998 the hearing was postponed as the parties failed to appear.\n16.  On 20 January 1999 the court hearing took place.\n17.  On 9 February 1999 the court found in part for the applicant. The applicant was awarded UAH 4,259.68[3] in compensation for additional nutrition and UAH 220.62[4] in compensation for transport expenses. The remainder of the applicant's claims was rejected.\n18.  On 29 March 1999 the SARC quashed this judgment in part concerning compensation for the loss of earnings. The court failed to state in the operational part that the quashed part of the case should be remitted for fresh consideration, however, in the text of the judgment it expressly held that during the new examination the first instance court should take into consideration the findings of the SARC.\n19.  On 7 July 2000 the SARC, upon the protest of its Head (initiated by the applicant) quashed the above judgments in the part concerning compensation for additional nutrition and sanatorium treatment under the extraordinary procedure and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n20.  On 16 November 2000 the court ordered a bookkeeping expertise. The expertise was completed by 31 June 2001.\n21.  On 21 May 2001 the judge withdrew from the case.\n22.  On 6 November 2001 and 18 December 2002 two hearings took place.\n23.  On 27 March 2002 the hearing was adjourned because the parties failed to appear. From the materials submitted by the parties", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2456", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1959 and 1952 respectively and live in the village of Vengerovo in the Novosibirsk region of Russia.\n5.  In late 2000 the applicants brought a civil action against the Russian Government and the Savings Bank seeking to enforce State-issued promissory notes for the purchase of a Russian-made car or to recover the monetary value thereof. Upon the judge's request the applicants submitted the original promissory notes to the court.\n6.  On 15 January 2001 the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation acting through the Savings Bank to ensure redemption of the applicants' bonds from the funds of the federal budget for 12,800 Russian roubles (RUR) payable to the first applicant and RUR 18,000 to the second applicant. The judgment stated that following its execution the promissory notes should be handed over to the Federal Government. Apparently, no appeal was lodged against this judgment and it became final and enforceable.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicants submitted their writs of execution to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.\n8.  On 21 May 2003 the Ministry of Finance sent a letter to the applicants stating that the judgment of 15 January 2001 did not comply with the requirements of the legislation. The applicants were also informed that the Ministry of Finance would lodge a request for supervisory review of this judgment and seek suspension of the enforcement proceedings.\n9.  It appears, however, that no supervisory review has taken place and the judgment remained final and binding.\n10.  The applicants brought civil proceedings claiming pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages due to the continued non-enforcement of the judgment of 15 January 2001. On 8 October 2003 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow rejected their claims.\n11.  The Ministry of Finance wrote on 5 June 2006 to the applicants informing them that the judgment of 15 January 2001 would be enforced only after presentation of the original promissory notes, as required by Articles 816-817 of the Russian Civil Code. It appears that these promissory notes remain in the case file kept by the registry of the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow. The judgment of 15 January 2001 remains without enforcement.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2457", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefits due to her.\n6.  On 15 December 2000 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of 9,176.23 roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 26 December 2000.\n7.  On an unspecified date a writ of execution was issued.\n8.  As the judgment remained unexecuted, on an unspecified date the applicant forwarded the writ to the debtor's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor's account, but the bank refused.\n9.  She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of 15 December 2000.\n10.  On 17 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the Second Circuit of the Central District of Voronezh dismissed the applicant's claims on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of 15 December 2000. On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Central District Court of Voronezh on 10 November 2003.\n11.  In May 2003 the applicant received RUR 1,168.80 in execution of the judgment of the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Voronezh of 15 December 2000.\n12.  In December 2003 she received RUR 818.16 and on 15 December 2005 the outstanding balance of RUR 7,189.27, thus completing full execution of the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2458", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefits due to her.\n6.  On 29 September 2000 the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of 2,218.76 roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 3 October 2000.\n7.  On 19 December 2002 a writ of execution was issued.\n8.  As the judgment remained unexecuted, on an unspecified date the applicant forwarded the writ to the debtor's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor's account, but the bank refused.\n9.  She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of 29 September 2000.\n10.  On 17 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the Second Circuit of the Central District of Voronezh dismissed the applicant's claims on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of 29 September 2000. On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Central District Court of Voronezh on 10 November 2003.\n11.  On 30 December 2004 the applicant received RUR 701.28 in execution of the judgment of the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh of 29 September 2000.\n12.  On 26 January 2005 she received RUR 409.8, and on 14 December 2005 the outstanding balance of RUR 1,108.40 thus completing full execution of the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2459", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefits due to her.\n6.  On 17 March 2000 the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of 4,117.63 roubles (RUR ). The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 27 March 2000.\n7.  On 18 April 2000 a writ of execution was issued.\n8.  On an unspecified date the writ was returned to the applicant by the bailiff's service owing to the lack of funds in the debtor's account.\n9.  The applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the debtor's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor's account, but the bank refused.\n10.  She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of 17 March 2000.\n11.  On 17 April 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the Second Circuit of the Central District of Voronezh dismissed the applicant's claim on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of 17 March 2000. On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Central District Court of Voronezh on 10 November 2003.\n12.  On 30 December 2004 the applicant received RUR 2,103.84 in execution of the judgment of the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh of 17 March 2000.\n13.  On 14 December 2005 she received the outstanding balance of RUR 2,103.89, thus completing full execution of the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2460", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1947, 1949, 1952 and 1947 respectively and live in Baku.\n6.  On 4 April 2001 the applicants founded a public association named “Assistance to the Human Rights Protection of the Homeless and Vulnerable Residents of Baku” (“Evsiz və Məzlum Bakılıların İnsan Hüquqlarının Müdafiəsinə Yardım” İctimai Birliyi). This was a non-profit organisation aimed at providing aid to the homeless and protection of their interests.\n7.  On 9 April 2001 the applicants filed a request for the association's state registration with the Ministry of Justice (hereinafter also referred to as the “Ministry”), the government authority responsible for the state registration of legal entities. According to the Government, this request was filed on 12 April 2001. Under the domestic law, a non-governmental organisation acquired the status of a legal entity only upon its state registration by the Ministry.\n8.  On 18 May 2001 the Ministry returned the registration documents to the applicants “without taking any action”, i.e. without issuing a state registration certificate or an official refusal to register the association. In the cover letter, the Ministry noted that the association's charter did not comply with Article 6 of the Law On Non-Governmental Organisations, because it did not include a provision on the territorial area of the association's activity.\n9.  The applicants redrafted the charter in line with the Ministry's comments and on 4 June 2001 filed the second registration request, submitting a new version of the charter. On 10 September 2001 the Ministry responded with another refusal, stating that the charter was once again not in compliance with the requirements of the Law On Non-Governmental Organisations. Specifically, it failed to provide for the terms of office of the association's supervisory board, as required by Article 25.1 of that Law.\n10.  The applicants again revised the charter and on 2 October 2001 submitted their third registration request.\n11.  Having not received any response to their third registration request for several months, on 22 May 2002 the applicants applied to the Yasamal District Court, complaining that the Ministry “evaded” registering their organisation and asking the court to oblige the Ministry to register it. They also demanded moral compensation in the amount of 25,000,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZM).\n12.  On 5 July 2002 the Ministry sent a letter to the court, informing that the documents were again returned “with no action taken” by the Ministry. This time the reason for declining the registration was the applicants' failure to include in the charter the conditions for membership in the association, as required by Article 10.3 of the Law On Non-Governmental Organisations.\n13.  On 15 July 2002 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicants' claim, finding nothing unlawful in the actions of the Ministry. The court found that the association's charter had not been drafted in accordance with the requirements of the domestic law.\n14.  The applicants appealed. On 19 September 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the district court's judgment. On 20 November 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision.\n15.  In the meantime, the applicants once again re-drafted the organisation's charter according to the Ministry's latest comments and on 29 July 2002 submitted their fourth registration request. Having not received a reply within the statutory five-day period, they filed a new lawsuit w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2461", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the town of Netishyn, Khmelnytsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant worked as a guard in the private enterprise “Ekspromt”. She was allegedly dismissed on 1 November 1998.\n6.  On 25 November 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Netishynskyy Town Court against her former employer claiming salary arrears.\n7.  On 22 December 1999, 1 February and 22 February 2000 the hearings in the applicant's case were postponed due to the defendant's failure to appear before the court.\n8.  On 13 June 2000 the defendant failed to appear again. The court decided to consider the case in the absence of defendant. The applicant was heard and the court adjourned the hearing in order to summon witnesses.\n9.  On 23 June 2000 the court heard a witness and adjourned the hearing in order to collect additional evidence.\n10.  On 10 July 2000 the court sent a letter to the defendant informing it that if it failed to appear at court, a sanction would be imposed.\n11.  On 19 September 2000 the court heard another witness and adjourned the hearing.\n12.  On 20 September 2000 the court found in part for the applicant. The applicant was not present in court hearing.\n13.  On 17 October 2000 the applicant requested the court to replace the judge in her case and was informed that the judgment had already been adopted.\n14.  On 27 June 2001 the Khmelnytskiy Regional Court quashed this judgment upon the protest of the Deputy Head of the Khmelnytskiy Regional Court under the extraordinary review procedure and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n15.  On 20 May 2002 proceedings in the case were resumed.\n16.  On 11 June 2002 the proceedings in the applicant's case were stayed pending the consideration of her second labour case (see Second set of proceedings).\n17.  On 12 July 2002 the applicant requested the court to replace judge Kh. in her case. The applicant's representative, Mr L., alleged that judge Kh. adopted particularly unfavourable decisions in Mr L.'s cases.\n18.  On 30 August 2002 the court satisfied the applicant's request “in order to avoid such statements in the future”. On the same date the proceedings were resumed.\n19.  On 28 January 2003 the defendant failed to appear. The hearing was adjourned as the applicant allegedly insisted on the defendant's presence.\n20.  On 15 April 2003 the defendant again failed to appear. The hearing was adjourned.\n21.  On 3 July 2003 the prosecutor inquired with the police about the address of the defendant.\n22.  On 27 August 2003 the prosecutor inquired the Slavuta Tax Inspection about the address of the defendant.\n23.  On 3 September 2003 the hearing in the case was postponed as the parties failed to appear.\n24.  On 10 October 2003 the hearing was postponed as the defendant failed to appear.\n25.  On 20 October 2003 the applicant was heard. The court adjourned the hearing on the applicant's request because of the unsatisfactory state of her health.\n26.  On 23 October 2003 the applicant informed the court that she would be represented by her brother and by a prosecutor's assistant.\n27.  On 6 April 2004 the court heard the parties and adjourned the hearing in order to summon witnesses.\n28.  On 25 May 2004 the hearing was postponed as the defendant's representative and witnesses failed to appear.\n29.  On 1 June 2004 the court heard a witness and adjourned the hearing.\n30.  On 10 June 2004 the court heard the applicant's representative and a witness and adjourned the hearing", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2462", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Waizenkirchen.\n7.  At the time of the events, he was the father of a pupil of a secondary school in Grieskirchen (Bundesoberstufenrealgymnasium) and vice-chairman and recording clerk (Schriftführer) of the parents' association (Elternverein) at this school.\n8.  In protest against the government's cuts in the education budget, the teachers of this school decided, together with the teaching staff of two other schools, to reduce and shorten school trips for the school year 2001/2002. The pupils and some parents, including the applicant, did not agree with these measures.\n9.  The applicant called for a vote by the School Committee (Schulgemeinschaftsausschuss) of the Grieskirchen secondary school on the question whether the class his son was attending, should go on a one week trip to Tuscany or Prague. The School Committee which is composed of three representatives of the teachers, three parents and three pupils and the director of the school, represents parents and pupils in certain school matters.\n10.  The meeting at which the School Committee should have to vote on the question, after having been once postponed because one of the teachers' representatives could not participate, was finally fixed for 22 January 2002.\n11.  On 22 January 2002, before the meeting of the School Committee, the chair of the parents' association on behalf of the parents, the pupils' spokesperson on behalf of the pupils and two representatives of the teachers signed a compromise which provided for only a one-day school excursion per class during the school year 2001/2002 and for compensatory school trips in the autumn of 2003.\n12.  On this day the applicant stated before a journalist of the “Oberösterreicher Rundschau”, a local newspaper for Upper Austria, that this conflict (between the teachers, parents and pupils concerning the boycott measures) was carried out to the detriment of the pupils and that the teachers were applying pressure on the pupils and parents to an intolerable extent and that this amounted in fact to an abuse of their authority.\n13.  On 24 January 2002 the “Oberösterreicher Rundschau” published an article which stated inter alia: “ 'This conflict is carried out to the detriment of the pupils' blusters professor Johannes Ferihumer, representative of the parents and former teacher at the secondary school. 'Not only this: the teachers apply pressure on pupils and parents to an intolerable extent. This amounts in fact to an abuse of their authority. Who is surprised that the school speaker was at the end of her tether.' ”\n14.  The majority of teachers of the Grieskirchen secondary school brought proceedings against the applicant for insult and damage to their reputation before the Peuersbach District Court.\n15.  The Peuersbach District Court heard the applicant, the teachers, the spokesperson of the pupils, the chair of the parents' association and several other witnesses.\n16.  By judgment of 9 October 2002, it ordered the applicant to refrain from repeating the statement that the teachers were applying pressure on the pupils and parents to an intolerable extent and that this amounted in fact to an abuse of their authority. It noted that the statement was an insult and a defamation within the meaning of Article 1330 of the Civil Code. The applicant had to accept the most unfavourable interpretation of this statement which meant that the teachers had used unlawful and unobjective means in order to m", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2464", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine.\n5.  In December 1988, following the appraisal results, the applicant was dismissed from her position in a scientific institute.\nFirst set of proceedings\n6.  In 1988-1994 the applicant instituted several proceedings against her former employer raising numerous issues related to her employment and subsequent dismissal. All of the judgments and decisions adopted upon the applicant's complaints became final in 1989-1994.\n7.  In August 1994 the applicant instituted new proceedings in the Dzerzhynskyy District Court against her former employer asking to modify her labour record, to provide her with a duplicate of her labour record, claiming salary arrears allegedly due to her and raising a number of other issues related to her employment and dismissal. During the consideration of her case the applicant several times changed her complaints and claims, and introduced new ones.\n8.  On 6 December 1995 the court found in part for the applicant.\n9.  On 20 February 1996 the Kharkiv Regional Court quashed this judgment in part and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n10.  On 18 September 1997 the hearing was postponed because the parties failed to appear before the court.\n11.  On 12 December 1997 the hearing was postponed because the defendant's representative failed to appear.\n12.  In 1998 fourteen court hearings took place. Twice they were adjourned because of the defendant's failure to appear and three times because the court requested additional documentary evidence and the judge participated in another hearing. Also on 23 October 1998 the applicant introduced an additional complaint.\n13.  In January-February 1999 four court hearings took place.\n14.  On 22 February 1999 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court found in part for the applicant.\n15.  On 18 May 1999 the Kharkiv Regional Court quashed this judgment in part and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n16.  From May 1999 until July 2001 six hearings were scheduled but none of them took place. On 16 December 1999, 8 June 2000, 28 December 2000 and 27 February 2001 the hearings were postponed because the parties failed to appear and on 2 April 2001 and 3 July 2001 - because the defendant failed to appear.\n17.  On 24 July 2001 the hearing was adjourned following the request of the defendant's representative to obtain additional documents.\n18.  From 31 July until 28 November 2001 eight hearings took place and two were postponed because the defendant failed to appear and because the judge was considering another case.\n19.  On 28 November 2001 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court found against the applicant. The applicant appealed against this judgment.\n20.  On 7 March 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (former Kharkiv Regional Court) satisfied the applicant's request to replace judge K. in her case.\n21.  On 1 April 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 28 November 2001. The applicant appealed against the judgment of 1 April 2002.\n22.  On 12 June and 15 August 2002 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court returned the applicant's cassation appeal and refused to renew the time-limit for its lodging.\n23.  On 17 September 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed these decisions and renewed the above time-limit.\n24.  On 14 November 2003 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court sent the applicant's cassation appeal to the Supreme Court of Ukraine.\n25.  On 30 June 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2465", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  Mr Corcoran was born in 1966 and lives in Merseyside.\n7.  His wife died on 23 August 1999. His claim for widows’ benefits was made in October and November 1999 and was rejected on 10 November 1999 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. He appealed against this decision and the appeal tribunal dismissed his appeal on 17 January 2000 giving reasons in a letter of 19 January 2000. The applicant did not appeal again as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.\n8.  Mr Baker was born in 1959 and lives in Oldham.\n9.  His wife died on 8 July 2000. The applicant made enquiries to the Benefits Agency in or around July/August 2000 and he was told he was not entitled to such benefits. His claim for widows’ benefits was then made on 1 September 2000 and was rejected on 8 September 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.\n10.  Mr Graham was born in 1956 and lives in Lancs.\n11.  His wife died on 6 July 2000. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 14 August 2000 and was rejected on 21 August 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2466", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Dąbrowa Górnicza.\n5.  On 22 February 2000 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 23 February 2000 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that he be detained on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed two burglaries.\n6.  On 28 April 2000 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged the applicant’s detention until 9 July 2000. It held that there was a strong suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged and that keeping him in custody was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld that decision on 24 May 2000. It found, invoking Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the applicant had been charged with two burglaries committed as a recidivist offender and thus he was liable to a statutory maximum sentence of at least 8 years’ imprisonment.\n7.  On 3 July 2000 the Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 22 August 2000. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it also relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty. That decision was upheld on appeal on 2 August 2000.\n8.  On 9 August 2000 the Court of Appeal prolonged his detention until 30 September 2000 pending the outcome of the investigation on the grounds that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question and that he was potentially liable to a severe penalty, which justified the fear that he would obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court also held that due to the close links between the suspects there was a risk that, if released, they might interfere with the course of the investigation. Thus it was justified to keep them in custody pending the termination of the investigation. That decision was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) on 31 August 2000.\n9.  The investigation was terminated on 14 September 2000. On 15 September 2000 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Katowice Regional Court. The applicant was charged with 2 burglaries. The bill of indictment comprised 19 charges (nearly each of them consisted of several counts of burglary) brought against 11 defendants (including the applicant). Five of them were remanded in custody. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 34 witnesses. The case file comprised at that time some 32 volumes. The prosecution had obtained voluminous evidence, including various expert reports.\n10.  On 25 September 2000 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 23 February 2001, relying on the same grounds as in the previous decisions.\n11.  On 13 November 2000 the Regional Court ordered that the case be joined to that of a certain M.K.\n12.  On 15 January 2001 the Katowice Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 15 May 2001. It found that the nature of the offences with which the applicant had been charged, the defendants’ modus operandi and the severity of the likely penalty justified the prolongation of the detention. It further held that there was a risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings, given, inter alia, that he had not confessed. The Regional Court found that the prolongation of the applicant’s detention was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings for the time needed for the examination of the case. It held that no other measures could ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2467", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Miłkowice, Poland.\n 1. The applicant’s detention on remand\n5.  On 26 May 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed fraud and forgery while being a member of an organised criminal group.\n6.  On 27 May 1998 the Legnica District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) detained the applicant and two other co-suspects on remand. The Legnica Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld that decision on 18 June 1998. The courts considered that the applicant’s detention was justified by the existence of strong evidence against him and the gravity of the charges. They also relied on the risk that the applicant might attempt to tamper with evidence.\n7.  On 19 August 1998 the Legnica Regional Court ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 26 November 1998. The court repeated the reasons previously given for the applicant’s detention and noted that the applicant had attempted to influence his co-suspects to change their statements.\n8.  The applicant’s detention was prolonged several times by the Legnica Regional Court for the same reasons as before. The applicant’s appeals against those decisions were dismissed.\n9.  On 2 June 1999 the applicant and 12 other persons were indicted on several counts of fraud and forgery, and participation in an organised criminal gang.\n10.  The applicant remained in detention.\n11.  The first hearing before the Legnica Regional Court was scheduled for 14 September 1999. Subsequently, the court held 34 hearings.\n12.  On 12 April 2000 the Regional Court decided to ask the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) to prolong the applicant’s detention.\n13.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged numerous times by the Legnica Regional Court and the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) for the same reasons as before. The applicant’s appeals against those decisions were dismissed.\n14.  On 8 July 1999 and 7 November 2001 the applicant lodged unsuccessful applications for release with the Legnica Regional Court.\n15.  On 15 February 2002 the Legnica Regional Court asked the Wrocław Court of Appeal to prolong further the applicant’s detention until 30 April 2002.\n16.  On 21 February 2002 the Court of Appeal refused the application. The court noted that the applicant had already been detained for 3 years and 8 months. The court further found that the interests of the trial did not justify keeping him in detention any longer, especially since a large part of the evidence had already been examined and the witnesses heard.\n17.  On 27 February 2002 the Legnica Regional Court released the applicant.\n18.  The Legnica Regional Court on 16 December 2002 convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.\n19.  On 20 November 2003 the Wrocław Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment.\n20.  On 9 August 2001 the applicant sent a letter to the Court, submitting that his correspondence with his defence counsel had been censored. He enclosed a fragment of the envelope of the letter his lawyer had sent him at the detention centre. The envelope bears an official stamp of the legal office: “Kancelaria Adwokacka, adw. Zenon Duda” (Legal Office, Zenon Duda, Barrister). It also bears the stamp “Ocenzurowano, Legnica, dn. 06.08.2001” (Censored, Legnica on 06.08.2001) and an illegible signature.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2468", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Mr Davis was born in 1953 and lives in North Somerset.\n6.  His wife died on 18 September 1998. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 16 May 2000 and was rejected on 19 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. A formal decision was made by the Benefits Agency on 7 August 2000. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.\n7.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Berkshire.\n8.  His wife died on 7 July 1999. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 12 January 2000 and was rejected later in January 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.\n9.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Somerset.\n10.  His wife died on 14 January 1991. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 12 May 2000 and was rejected on 13 June 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.\n11.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Herefordshire.\n12.  His wife died on 4 August 1999. His claim for widows’ benefits was made in mid-April 2000 and was rejected on 1 June 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2469", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  His wife died on 10 May 1994. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on October 1997 and again in February 2000 and was rejected on 29 February 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.\n7.  Mr Clancy was born in 1950 and lives in Cornwall.\n8.  His wife died on 17 November 1997. He tried to claim for benefits in late November 1997 but was told he was not entitled. His actual claim for widows’ benefits was then made on 26 May 2000 and was rejected on 2 June 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.\n9.  Mr Burt was born in 1950 and lives in Edinburgh.\n10.  His wife died on 17 February 1997. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 23 May 2000 and was rejected on 30 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.\n11.  Mr Hill was born in 1939 and lives in Carmathenshire.\n12.  His wife died on 28 March 1993. His claim for widows’ benefits was made on 28 May 1993 but the Benefits Agency did not accept to process his claim. He wrote to the Benefits Agency again on 8 May 2000 and was rejected on 15 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.\n13.  Mr Lewis was born in 1944 and lives in Newport.\n14.  His wife died on 11 July 1995. His claim for widows’ benefits was made in April 1999 and was rejected on 17 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom Law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2470", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Orsa.\n5.  On 28 May 1996 the Tax Authority (skattemyndigheten) of the County of Kopparberg sent a preliminary consideration (övervägande) to the applicant informing him that it was considering disallowing the deduction he had made for the interest he had paid on debts in the amount of 2,000,000 Swedish kronor (SEK), as well as his declared capital gains for the sale of stocks in the amount of SEK 775,000, that he had made in his tax return for 1995. Further, it was considering imposing tax surcharges (skattetillägg) amounting to SEK 147,000 (approximately 15,800 euros [EUR]), i.e. 40% of the increased tax liability on the sum of SEK 1,225,000.\n6.  The preliminary consideration was based on an investigation of a company which had done business with a substantial number of private persons. As concerned the applicant, it appeared that he had borrowed SEK 40,000,000 from the company and commissioned it to buy stocks for the same amount on his behalf. The applicant then sold the stocks back to the company at a fixed date, upon which he had made a capital gain. At the same time, he repaid the loan together with interest to the company. As the capital gain corresponded to the interest, they were set off against each other. In the Tax Authority’s view, the transactions had in reality never taken place and the applicant had simply received two statements of account and a promissory note in order to use them to obtain tax advantages.\n7.  The applicant was requested to submit any comments he might have to the Tax Authority by 22 July 1996, which he did. He claimed that the transactions had taken place and that his tax return should be approved.\n8.  On 27 September 1996 the Tax Authority decided to follow its preliminary consideration. With regard to the imposition of tax surcharges, it found that the applicant had submitted incorrect information about the purported transactions.\n9.  On 3 January 1997 the applicant appealed against the decision, disputing the Tax Authority’s findings. He maintained that there were no grounds for disallowing the deductions or imposing tax surcharges on him.\n10.  On 30 April 1997 the Tax Authority made its obligatory re-assessment of its decision of 27 September 1996 but upheld it. It then forwarded the appeal to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Dalarna.\n11.  On 29 May 2000 the County Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal after having held an oral hearing. It agreed with the Tax Authority’s conclusion that no transactions had in reality taken place between the applicant and the company, for which reason they could not be included in his tax return. Moreover, the court found that the applicant had submitted incorrect information to the Tax Authority and that there were no grounds on which to remit the tax surcharges.\n12.  On 30 June 2000 the applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Sundsvall, maintaining his claims. On 30 January 2002 he made further submissions to the court, stating inter alia that his rights under Article 6 of the Convention had been violated as he had not had access to the same material as the Tax Authority, and since the tax surcharges had been incorrectly imposed on him.\n13.  By judgment of 15 April 2002 the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment in full, without giving any new reasons of its own.\n14.  On 27 May 2002 the applicant appealed to the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2471", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Sosnowiec.\n5.  The applicant was arrested by the police on 17 January 2000. On the same day the Katowice Regional Prosecutor charged him with 23 offences (mostly burglaries). On 18 January 2000 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a number of burglaries. The court found that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings, having regard to the severity of the anticipated penalty. The detention order was subsequently extended by the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 10 April and 5 July 2000.\n6.  On 15 September 2000 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Katowice Regional Court. The applicant was charged with armed robbery, robbery and burglary (21 counts). There were 11 defendants in the case, including the applicant. Five of them were remanded in custody. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 34 witnesses. The case file comprised at that time some 32 volumes. The prosecution obtained voluminous evidence, including various expert reports.\n7.  On 25 September 2000 the Regional Court ordered the applicant’s continued detention until 17 January 2001. It observed, inter alia, that there existed a risk of collusion and that the nature of the offences with which the applicant had been charged justified the continuation of his detention.\n8.  On 13 November 2000 the Regional Court ordered that the case be joined to that of a certain M.K.\n9.  On 15 January 2001 the Katowice Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 15 May 2001. It found that the nature of the offences with which the applicant had been charged, the defendants’ modus operandi and the severity of the likely penalty justified the prolongation of the detention. It further held that there was a risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings, given that he had not confessed. The Regional Court found that prolongation of the applicant’s detention was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings for the time needed for the examination of the case. It held that no other measures could prevent the applicant from attempting to interfere with the proceedings or even from going into hiding.\n10.  The Regional Court listed a hearing for 22 March 2001. However, it had to be cancelled since the applicant and one of the co-defendants had been disorderly and were removed from the courtroom. In addition, one other co-defendant and his counsel failed to appear.\n11.  On 14 May 2001 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 15 October 2001, relying on the same grounds as previously. In addition, it observed that the trial court had not yet commenced an examination of the merits due to reasons that were beyond the court’s control, such as the failure of some of the co-accused or their lawyers to appear before the court or the police’s failure to bring the detained co-defendants for trial. The Regional Court noted that the continued detention of the applicant and some of his co-defendants was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings in the case. That decision was upheld on appeal on 13 June 2001.\n12.  On 8 October 2001 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 17 January 2002. It reiterated the grounds given in its previous decisions. It also", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2472", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Mrs Anita Švarc was born in 1968 and lives in Vuzenica. Ivan Kavnik was born in 1956 and lives in Topolščica.\n6.  On 30 October 1989 the applicants were injured in a car accident in Austria. The accident resulted in the premature birth of their son, who sustained in utero injuries in the accident. The son died in hospital in Slovenj Gradec (Slovenia) on 28 December 1989. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company Wiener Allianz Versicherungs Aktiengesellschaft (“WA”).\n7.  On 27 October 1992 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against WA in the then Celje Basic Court, Velenje Branch (Temeljno sodišče v Celju, Enota v Velenju), seeking damages of 3,237,900 Slovenian tolars for the injuries sustained in the car accident and the non-pecuniary damage sustained following the death of their son.\nOn 4 January 1993 Mr Lojze Ude, a professor at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, delivered an expert opinion in the case at the request of WA. He stated that the Slovenian courts had no jurisdiction to examine the applicants' claims. At the time, Mrs Dragica Wedam-Lukić was a work colleague of Mr Ude.\nOn 6 January 1993 WA lodged preliminary written submissions arguing that the case was not within the court's jurisdiction. They attached the opinion prepared by Mr Ude to the submissions, which were included in the file and served on the applicants.\nOn 25 May 1993 Mr Ude was appointed as a justice at the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče).\nOn 22 February 1994 the Celje Basic Court, Velenje Branch, held a hearing.\nOn 18 and 25 February 1994 the applicants lodged preliminary written submissions contesting Mr Ude's opinion and WA's arguments.\nOn 22 April 1994 a decision dated 22 February 1994, the date on which the hearing was held, was served on the applicants. The court decided that the case was not within its jurisdiction, but made no explicit reference to Mr Ude's opinion.\n 8.  On 4 May 1994 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.\nOn 23 August 1994, on a request by the Celje Higher Court, the first-instance court delivered a supplementary decision concerning the costs of the proceedings.\nOn 1 September 1994 the applicants appealed against the decision concerning costs.\nOn 14 December 1994 the Celje Higher Court dismissed both applicants' appeals.\n9.  On 14 February 1995 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) against the decision of 14 December 1994.\nOn 27 February 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law against the judgment of 22 February 1994 and rejected the appeal against the decision of 23 August 1994 as inadmissible.\n10.  On 22 May 1997 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče). In their appeal, they made no reference to Mr Ude's opinion.\nOn 1 April 1998 Mrs Wedam-Lukić was appointed as a justice at the Constitutional Court.\nOn 24 March 2000 the Constitutional Court declared the appeal inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. Mr Ude was the president of the three-judge bench which examined the admissibility of the case and Mrs Wedam-Lukić was also a member of that bench. The applicants learned of the composition of the panel on 20 April 2000, the date on which the decision was served on them.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2473", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the Orenburg Region.\n6.  In April 2003 the applicant, a retired military officer, sued the Military Department of the Orenburg Region for an increase of his pension and compensation for pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 16 April 2003 the Totskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region allowed the applicant's action and awarded him 20,989.90 Russian roubles (RUR).\n8.  On 11 June 2003 the bailiffs opened enforcement proceedings.\n9.  On 12 August 2003 the bailiffs' service discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the debtor had no available funds. It advised the applicant to apply to the Orenburg regional department of the Ministry of Finance.\n10.  By letter of 10 October 2003, the Orenburg regional department advised the applicant to apply to head office of the Ministry of Finance.\n11.  On 25 December 2003 the Ministry of Finance refused to pay the award and referred the applicant back to the bailiffs.\n12.  On 9 January 2004 the applicant resubmitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs' service. On 15 March 2004 the bailiffs again discontinued enforcement because the debtor had no available funds.\n13.  On 10 March 2005 the Military Department transferred the amount due into the applicant's bank account.\n14.  On 16 May 2005 a prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the head of the Military Department for his failure to enforce the judgment, finding that he had not acted with intent.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2474", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the Perm Region.\n6.  In February 2003 the applicant, a retired military officer, sued the Military Department of the Orenburg Region for an increase of his pension and compensation for pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 5 March 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Court Circuit of the Totskiy District of the Orenburg Region allowed the applicant's action and awarded him 20,989.90 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 608 euros). The judgment was not appealed against.\n8.  On 25 March 2003 the bailiffs' service opened enforcement proceedings.\n9.  On 18 July 2003 the bailiffs' service discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the debtor had no available funds. It advised the applicant to apply to the Orenburg regional department of the Ministry of Finance.\n10.  By letter of 4 September 2003, the Orenburg regional department advised the applicant to apply to head office of the Ministry of Finance.\n11.  On 6 January 2004 the Ministry of Finance refused to pay the award and referred the applicant back to the bailiffs' service.\n12.  On 1 April 2005 the Military Department transferred the amount due into the applicant's bank account.\n13.  On 16 May 2005 a prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the head of the Military Department for his failure to enforce the judgment, finding that he had not acted with intent.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2475", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in the Orenburg Region.\n6.  In May 2003 the applicant, a retired military officer, sued the Military Department of the Orenburg Region for an increase of his pension and compensation for pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 21 May 2003 the Totskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region allowed the applicant's action and awarded him 21,677.10 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 602 euros). The judgment was not appealed against.\n8.  In October 2003 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the bailiffs' service. The bailiffs' service opened enforcement proceedings.\n9.  On 22 December 2003 the bailiffs' service discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the debtor had no available funds.\n10.  On 13 March 2005 the Military Department transferred the amount due into the applicant's bank account.\n11.  On 16 May 2005 a prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the head of the Military Department for his failure to enforce the judgment, finding that he had not acted with intent.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2476", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1948, 1974, 1965, 1964 and 1963 respectively. They were employed by the construction company LK Mässinteriör AB (hereinafter “the company”) between 3 March and 30 July 1999 on a time-wage basis.\n6.  The company, being a member of the Industries, was bound by a collective labour agreement, the Construction Agreement (Byggnads-avtalet), concluded between the Swedish Building Workers’ Union (Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, hereinafter “the Union”) and the Industries. The relevant local branch of the Union in the instant case was the Stockholm branch, Byggettan.\n7.  At the material time, eight employees in the company carried out work covered by the labour agreement. Three of these workers were members of the Union whereas the five applicants were not members of the Union or of any other trade union.\n8.  Under section 3, subsection f 5 of the collective agreement, as it stood at the relevant time, the local branch had the right to inspect on a continuous basis wage conditions by measuring piecework (ackordsarbete) and result work (resultatarbete), as well as monitoring time-based work (tidlönearbete). If inspections were carried out in accordance with the collective agreement, the local branch had the right to reimbursement of the costs involved on the basis of a fee of 1.5% of the worker’s wages. The employer was obliged to deduct this amount from the worker’s wages and to supply the local branch with the information necessary for the inspection work.\n9.  On 12 January 1978 the Industries and the Union concluded an accord pursuant to which a worker organised in a trade union other than the Union could request his or her employer not to deduct the inspection fee, with the result that the Union would no longer have the right to request either information or the payment of a fee in respect of that worker. In a subsequent dispute between the Industries and the Union over the interpretation of the accord, an out-of-court settlement was reached on 29 February 2000 to the effect that it applied to all workers belonging to a trade union other than the Union.\n10.  On 22 May 1991 the company and Byggettan concluded an agreement concerning the inspection work. The agreement gave details of the work and specified, inter alia, that it was the company’s responsibility to provide Byggettan with the wage information and to deduct fees from the wages of the workers and pay them to Byggettan six times a year. The information was to include the place of work, the names and social security numbers of the workers and the working hours and net wages.\n11.  The applicants requested to be exempt from the deductions, which in their case concerned fees for monitoring the wages for hourly work. The company complied with their requests, stopped paying the fees to Byggettan and did not provide it with the above-mentioned wage information concerning the applicants. Byggettan insisted on payment and initiated formal local negotiations. These were held on 23 March and 19 April 1999. However, no solution was reached, either in the local negotiations or in the subsequent central negotiations between the Industries and the Union.\n12.  The Industries eventually brought the case before the Labour Court (Arbetsdomstolen), seeking a declaratory judgment to the effect that the company was not obliged to levy the monitoring fees in question. It argued that the inspection of wages, in so far as it did not concern the technical measuring of piecewo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2477", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 1 May 1999 the applicant concluded a contract with another private company. According to the contract, the applicant would locate assets belonging to the debtors of the second company in exchange for a commission. Since the second company failed to comply with the contract, the applicant brought an action against it seeking damages for breach of the contract.\n8.  On 8 May 2001 the Chişinău Economic Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded it 244,939 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 21,050.46 euros (EUR) at that time).\n9.  On 30 January and 9 October 2002 the Economic Court of the Republic of Moldova and the Supreme Court of Justice respectively dismissed the second company’s appeals and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court, which thus became final.\n10.  On 24 December 2002 the Prosecutor General lodged with the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgment in favour of the applicant.\n11.  On 27 January 2003 the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General’s request for annulment and quashed the judgment. It adopted a new judgment dismissing the applicant’s action.\n12.  Following the communication of the case by the Court, the Government Agent asked the Prosecutor General to lodge a request with the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice in order to quash its judgment of 27 January 2003 and to discontinue the request for annulment proceedings. He considered that the quashing of a final judgment in favour of the applicant following the annulment proceedings had breached the applicant’s rights under the Convention.\n13.  On 2 November 2004 the Prosecutor General complied with the Government Agent’s request. He lodged a revision request relying on section 449 § 1 (j) of the Code of Civil Procedure (the “CCP”, see paragraph 16 below) and indicated that the applicant and the Government intended to conclude a friendly settlement agreement.\n14.  By a judgment of 21 February 2005 the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the Prosecutor’s request for revision on the ground that the parties had not submitted any evidence of the alleged friendly settlement.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2478", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1946 respectively and live in Rybnik, Poland.\n5.  In 1992 and 1993 the prosecutor conducted an investigation in connection with the applicants’ allegedly illegal business activities.\n6.  On 16 December 1993 they were charged with fraud.\n7.  In July 1994 the applicants were indicted before the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).\n8.  On 18 October 1994 the trial court held the first hearing.\n9.  In 1995 the court held nine hearings. Some of them were adjourned or cancelled due to the absence of witnesses. In 1996, 1997 and 1998 the trial court scheduled numerous hearings. However, most of them were either adjourned due to the absence of witnesses or cancelled.\n10.  On 10 December 1998 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. The court convicted the applicants and sentenced them to suspended prison terms of one year and six months and two years respectively.\n11.  The applicants appealed against the judgment.\n12.  The Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held one hearing on 27 April 2000 and on the same date gave judgment. The court quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.\n13.  On 6 September 2000 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) held the first hearing.\n14.  In January 2001 the court decided that the Gliwice Regional Court was competent to examine the case.\n15.  The trial court held hearings in May, July and November 2001. Subsequently, hearings were held at year-long intervals: in October 2002 and September 2003. The hearing in September 2003 was held before the Racibórz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) to which, in the meantime, the case had been transferred.\n16.  The Racibórz District Court held several hearings and on 28 September 2004 it gave judgment. The trial court convicted the applicants but reduced the suspended prison terms to which they had been sentenced.\n17.  The applicants appealed.\n18.  On 2 November 2004 the applicants lodged with the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) a complaint about a breach of the right to have their case heard within a reasonable time. They relied on the 2004 Act on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. On 14 December 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the complaints. The court examined the course of the impugned proceedings only as regards the period between 2002 and 2004 when the case had been pending before the District Court and established that the proceedings had been conducted diligently. It further held that the trial courts could not be held responsible for delays caused by the absence of witnesses or illness of the parties.\n19.  On 21 February 2005 the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed their appeal against the judgment of 28 September 2004. The judgment is final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2479", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is a limited liability company whose main field of activity consisted of building and hiring holiday cottages as well as providing accommodation and travel services. It is owned by Mr Kari Saarenpää and Mrs Eevaliisa Saarenpää, who live in Valkeala.\nThe exemption permit proceedings\n7.  On 22 November 1993 the applicant requested the Kymi County Administrative Board (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelse) to grant it an exemption permit (poikkeuslupa, undantagstillstånd) to erect four cabins and one sauna building on a piece of land called Mustalamminvuori, situated within the Penttimäki property 1:464 in the Repovesi wilderness area in the municipality of Valkeala. The intended cabins were to be located in an area which was not covered by a shore plan (rantakaava, strandplan) adopted in January 1986 upon Mr Kari Saarenpää’s application.\n8.  The County Administrative Board refused the application on 16 December 1994, noting, inter alia, that part of the Penttimäki property was located within an area included in the nationwide shore protection programme (rantojensuojeluohjelma, strandskyddsprogrammet), adopted in December 1990, and that the intended construction would hamper significantly the implementation of a shore plan and the overall settlement of the area.\n9.  The applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Ministry of the Environment (ympäristöministeriö, miljöministeriet, “Ministry”) on 7 December 1995.\n10.  Following the applicant’s further appeal the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) conducted an inspection in situ and held an oral hearing. On 24 March 1997 it quashed the decisions and remitted the matter to the Environmental Centre of South-East of Finland (Kaakkois-Suomen ympäristökeskus, Sydöstra Finlands miljöcentral), which had succeeded the County Administrative Board as the competent first-instance body. The Supreme Administrative Court noted, inter alia, the small-scale nature of the project and found that the intended construction would not hamper significantly the implementation of planning regulations or the overall settlement of the area. The legal conditions for granting the exemption permit had therefore existed.\n11.  On 20 October 1997 the Environmental Centre nevertheless refused the applicant the exemption permit. It considered that it was not expedient to grant an exemption permit as a national park or a nature conservation area might be established in that area.\n12.  Upon the applicant’s appeal, the Ministry granted the exemption permit on 16 November 1998. It referred to the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision of 24 March 1997 and observed that the application could not be rejected on the sole ground that no final decision had been made on the establishment of a nature conservation area. Subsequently, on 24 June 1999 the Valkeala municipality granted the building permit. The last-mentioned decision acquired legal force on 13 July 1999.\nThe prohibition on activity\n13.  On 9 July 1999, however, the Environmental Centre, of its own motion and without hearing the applicant, prohibited any activity which could jeopardise the natural state or landscape of the area. The prohibition on activity (toimenpidekielto, åtgärdsförbud) was enforceable immediately and was to remain in force for two years. The Environmental Centre noted the building permit which had just been granted to the applicant but recalled the decision on the shore protection programme, accordin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2480", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Poznań, Poland.\n5.  On 27 June 1987 the applicant lodged a claim for payment against a certain M.R. with the Poznań District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n6.  The court held a number of hearings and ordered on four occasions that expert evidence be obtained. Expert reports were amended several times.\n7.  On 18 November 1993 the District Court found that it was not competent to deal with the case and referred it to the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n8.  The Regional Court held the first hearing on 18 April 1995.\n9.  On 27 June 1995 the court ordered that an additional expert opinion be obtained. The expert submitted his report on 15 April 1996. It was subsequently modified several times at the court’s request.\n10.  The Regional Court scheduled 12 hearings. Several of them were adjourned because the parties or expert witnesses had failed to appear.\n11.  On 23 December 1999 the court partly granted the claim.\n12.  On 31 August 2000 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) amended the first-instance judgment.\n13.  On 29 November 2000 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal. The court found that the applicant had failed to indicate the grounds for lodging it.\n14.  On 26 April 2001 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2481", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Gdynia, Poland.\n5.  On 8 May 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 9 May 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed robbery, kidnapping and larceny.\n6.  The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 24 May 1999.\n7.  On 25 January 2000 the applicant was indicted before the Gdańsk Regional Court.\n8.  The applicant’s detention was prolonged on 27 January 2000. The court reiterated the grounds originally given for his detention and stressed the gravity of the charges.\n9.  On 10 April 2000 the first hearing took place before the trial court.\n10.  On 18 May 2000 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s application for release. The court considered that the evidence obtained in the case sufficiently justified the charges laid against the applicant. In addition, the gravity of the charges made it probable that a heavy sentence would be imposed.\n11.  Between 27 June 2000 and 17 April 2001 eight hearings took place.\n12.  Subsequently, the Gdańsk Regional Court made a request under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) in which it asked that the applicant’s detention on remand be extended beyond 2 years. On 25 April 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal allowed the request. However, it extended the applicant’s detention only until 31 July 2001 and not until October 2001 as requested by the Regional Court. The appellate court considered that it was probable that the applicant had committed the crimes with which he had been charged. In addition, the case did not disclose any of the grounds for the applicant’s release listed in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings. At the same time, the court of appeal pointed out that the proceedings had already taken a long time and that any extension of his detention on remand beyond a two‑year period should only be allowed for the purposes of taking all necessary procedural steps to conclude the trial.\n13.  Afterwards, hearings were held in June and July 2001.\n14.  On 25 July 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal further extended the applicant’s detention until 30 September 2001. It considered, however, that the proceedings in the applicant’s case had already taken a long time and that the Regional Court had been inefficient in dealing with the case. In this connection, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal pointed out that the trial court had adjourned the case for almost 50 days without giving any reasons. As a result of the adjournment the proceedings had to be recommenced.\n15.  Subsequently, hearings took place before the trial court.\n16.  On 26 September 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal further prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 November 2001 relying on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and on the complexity of the case.\n17.  Between 10 October 2001 and 21 January 2002 fourteen hearings were held.\n18.  On 28 January 2002 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave a judgment. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment.\n19.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was prolonged on several occasions.\n20.  On 9 April 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the applicant’s conviction and remitted the case. At the same time the appellate court prolonged the applicant’s ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2482", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in İzmir.\n7.  On 26 June 2002 the applicant, together with a friend of his, quarrelled with a man in a park. The quarrel had turned into a fight and the applicant stabbed the man in his left leg.\nThe police and the public prosecutor took the statements of the parties, including the applicant. The applicant denied having injured the man. Following their questioning, they were all released.\n8.  On 3 July 2002 the Public Prosecutor at the İzmir Magistrates' Court filed an indictment against the applicant, on account of assault with a knife and occasioning actual bodily harm. The indictment was not notified to the applicant.\n9.  After having examined the case file, on 17 July 2002 the İzmir Magistrates' Court issued a penal order, convicting the applicant and sentencing him to pay 290,805,465 Turkish liras (TRL).\n10.  On 30 August 2002 the penal order was notified to the applicant.\n11.  On 6 September 2002 the applicant challenged the decision of the İzmir Magistrate's Court, before the İzmir Criminal Court of First Instance. He argued that he had been deprived of his right of defence in violation of Article 6 of the Convention.\n12.  On 11 September 2002 the İzmir Criminal Court of First Instance upheld the decision of the Magistrate's Court, maintaining that it was in accordance with the law and procedure.\n13.  On 25 September 2002 the İzmir Public Prosecutor issued a payment order under which the applicant was obliged to pay the relevant amount. He was warned that in case he failed to pay the due amount, the fine would be converted into prison sentence.\n14.  The applicant paid the relevant charge on 26 November 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2483", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  At the time of the events, the applicant, a journalist, was the regional correspondent for Vratza for the national newspapers “Trud” and “Noshten Trud”.\n7.  A newspaper article, contributed by the applicant, was published in “Noshten Trud” in its issue no. 119 of 21-22 June 1995 under the title “Defendants [charged with] kidnapping call for [criminal proceedings against] the police officers who arrested them” (“Подсъдими за отвличане поискаха съд за полицаите, прибрали ги в ареста”).\nThe text of the article read as follows:\n“The lawyers of the five defendants in the case regarding the kidnapping of nurse Mrs G. petitioned the Pleven Military Prosecutor's Office to open a preliminary investigation against three [policemen] from the Vratza District Police Directorate. The [defendants'] case is [currently] being heard by the Vratza District Court.\nPolice officer V. and policemen T. and B. participated in the arrest of the abductors on 23 November [1994], but disguised as drivers of the luxury cars of the local businessman Mr P. The owner of a chain of establishments ... had gone to the police, had claimed that he had been kidnapped and had named his abductors.\n[Later] that night his men [wearing] bullet proof jackets with police insignia and carrying machine guns raided the residence of the alleged abductors. With the consent of the three policemen they took the arrestees to the mountain range near Vratza. [There they held them for] two days and beat them with metal rods after which they took them to the police station. The relatives of the injured and the [abductors'] medical certificates provide evidence as to the rage of their attackers. Charges were brought against the five abductors, among who is Mr A. ... who was recently sentenced to three years' imprisonment in [a related case]. He had been charged with organising the abduction of the nurse and the businessman. His case had been separated from those of the other [accused]. The Vratza District Court ruled that the Pleven Military Prosecutor's Office has three days to decide whether there is enough evidence [to justify] the opening of a preliminary investigation against the [three policemen].”\n8.  On 28 June 1995 policeman B. filed a complaint against the applicant and petitioned the Vratza District Prosecutor's Office to open criminal proceedings against him for libel of an official during or in connection with the exercise of his duties or functions.\n9.  The applicant was summoned by the Vratza District Prosecutor's Office on 29 June 1995 and gave a written statement. He stated that he had simply reported on a request made by the lawyer of the alleged abductors during a hearing in the criminal proceedings before the Vratza District Court whereby he had demanded that the criminal proceedings be initiated against the police officers. The applicant also stated that one of the witnesses in the proceedings before the Vratza District Court had made a similar request to the Prosecutor's Office.\n10.  Subsequently, the Vratza District Prosecutor's Office obtained a copy of the court transcript which showed that one of the witnesses, the father of one of the accused, had given testimony implicating certain policemen in the beating of their son, but had not named policeman B.\n11.  On 19 July 1995 the case file was reassigned to the Sofia District Prosecutor's Office.\n12.  The Sofia District Prosecutor's Office issued instructions to the police on 4 August 1995 to interview the applicant i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2484", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Chernyakhovsk, the Kaliningrad Region.\n5.  On 27 March 2002 the Chernyakhovsk Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region (the Town Court) allowed the applicant's claim against the Chernyakhovsk housing authority of the Ministry of Defence (квартирно-эксплуатационная часть Министерства Обороны РФ г.Черняховска) for provision of accommodation. The Town Court ordered that the housing authority:\n “...provide Mrs Ponomarenko, whose family comprises one member, with another well-equipped dwelling premises for permanent use having a living surface of no less than established standards of living surface for one person (12 square metres), corresponding to the established sanitary and technical standards and well-equipped in accordance with the standards applied in Chernyakhovsk...”\n6.  The Town Court also awarded the applicant 1,000 Russian roubles (RUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 3 April 2002 the housing authority allocated to the applicant a one-room flat. However, she did not accept the flat as it did not meet sanitary standards.\n8. No appeal was brought against the judgment of 27 March 2002 and it entered into force on 9 April 2002.\n9.  On 12 April 2002 the bailiffs' service of the Chernyakhovsk District initiated enforcement proceedings and on 30 April 2002 the defendant executed the judgment of 27 March 2002 as regards the compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n10.  A special commission of the housing authority visited the flat allocated to the applicant on 3 April and concluded, on 12 September 2002, that it was only equipped in part and occupied by another person.\n11.  On 23 May 2003 the housing authority unsuccessfully applied to the Town Court for the re-opening of the proceedings due to the newly discovered circumstances. They claimed that according to the decision of the Government of the Russian Federation of 11 October 2001, the housing premises of the Ministry of Defence had been handed over to the local administration. Therefore it was not possible to enforce the judgment of 27 March 2002.\n12.  On 17 May 2004, following the bailiff's request, the Town Court noted that the housing authority had handed over to the local administration only some housing premises. The court ordered the bailiff to establish which premises were left at the disposal of the housing authority and to provide the applicant with one of them.\n13.  On 21 March and 6 April 2005 the bailiff fined the Head of the housing authority for the failure to enforce the judgment of 27 March 2002.\n14.  On 26 January 2006 the housing authority and the applicant's representative concluded a social tenancy agreement by which a flat was allocated to the applicant. On 9 February 2006 the applicant signed a document by which she accepted the proposed accommodation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2485", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Požega.\n5.  On 13 July 1990 the applicant lent a certain amount of money to T.T. who failed to pay it back within the agreed time-period. On 24 June 1992 the Požega Municipal Court gave judgment ordering T.T. to pay back the money to the applicant.\n6.  As T.T. failed to pay, on 11 February 1998 the applicant submitted a motion for enforcement (prijedlog za ovrhu). On 12 February 1998 the Požega Municipal Court issued an enforcement order (rješenje o ovrsi) with a view to seizing T.T.'s movable property. On 17 March 1998 T.T. filed an appeal against that order, which was dismissed by the Požega County Court on 10 November 1998.\n7.  On 2 December 1998 the Municipal Court decided to register and evaluate T.T.'s movables, including his car.\n8.  On 7 December 1998 T.T.'s wife, D.T., filed an objection with the court, claiming that she was the owner of the car which had been registered as T.T.'s property.\n9.  On 26 July 1999 the Municipal Court instructed D.T. to institute civil proceedings against the applicant, in order to declare the enforcement on the car inadmissible. On 25 August 1999 D.T. filed a civil action against the applicant to that end. The court accordingly stayed the enforcement proceedings. Subsequently, on 27 March 2001 D.T. withdrew her claim and the enforcement proceedings resumed.\n10.  On 27 May 2002 the Municipal Court scheduled an on-site inspection for 20 June 2002 with a view to seizing T.T.'s car. However, the court bailiff failed to seize the car.\n11.  On 26 November 2002 the court scheduled another on-site inspection for 17 December 2002. However, the court decision could not be served on T.T. because he had meanwhile changed his residence.\n12.  Subsequently, on 15 October 2003 the parties concluded a court settlement. On 5 May 2004 the applicant's lawyer withdrew the enforcement request. Accordingly, on 6 May 2004 the Požega Municipal Court issued a decision terminating the enforcement proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2486", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Aleksin in the Tula Region.\n6.  On 18 May 1999 the applicant sued his former employer, a private company, for reinstatement, wage arrears and compensation for damage. The acknowledgment of receipt card indicated that the Aleksin Town Court had received the statement of claim on 21 May 1999. According to the Government, the applicant introduced the claim in August 1999.\n7.  On 5 January 2000 the Aleksin Town Court dismissed the claim. The judgment was quashed on 20 April 2000 by the Tula Regional Court and the case was remitted for a fresh examination.\n8.  In December 2000 the Aleksin Town Court told the defendant company that the first hearing had been fixed for 16 January 2001, and asked it to produce certain employment-related documents. The letter did not contain any indication whether the applicant had been summonsed. According to the applicant, he was not notified of the hearing of 16 January 2001. It appears from the list of events attached to the Government's memorandum that the case-file only contained a copy of summonses sent to the Aleksinskiy District Prosecutor who had been a third party in the proceedings.\n9.  The Aleksin Town Court fixed the following hearing for 9 February 2001. According to the Government, the parties were duly informed thereof. The applicant argued that the summonses had not been served on him.\n10.  On 9 February 2001 the Aleksin Town Court discontinued the proceedings. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:\n“In the preparatory part of the hearing [the court] established that the plaintiff had not asked for an examination of his case in his absence and that he defaulted on the second summons, whereas the representative of the defendant... does not insist on the examination of the case on the merits.\nHaving studied the case-file and heard the prosecutor who considered that the proceedings should be discontinued, the court finds it necessary, under Articles 220, 221 § 6 of the RSFSR Code on Civil Procedure, to discontinue the proceedings.”\nThe decision was amenable to appeal within ten days.\n11.  According to the Government, on 19 February 2001 the Aleksin Town Court sent a copy of the decision to the applicant. The Government produced a copy of the covering letter accompanying the decision. The applicant claimed that he had not received the letter of 19 February 2001.\n12.  In May 2001 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation about the excessive length of the proceedings in his case. The Supreme Court readdressed the complaint to the Tula Regional Court.\n13.  On 12 September 2001 the President of the Tula Regional Court sent a letter to the Aleksin Town Court. The letter read as follows:\n“I am sending you the complaint of Mr Gorbachev which was received from the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. [He complains] about your court's lengthy failure to examine his action... for reinstatement, payment of wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage after the Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment of 5 January 2000 of your court on 20 April 2000. [I ask you] to take immediate measures to determine the dispute.”\nThe applicant received a copy of the letter of 12 September 2001.\n14.  According to the Government, on 24 October 2001 officials of the Aleksin Town Court attempted to serve the applicant with a copy of the decision of 9 February 2001, however, he refused to countersign a record showin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2487", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6. On 17 January 1997 the Skopje Pension and Disability Insurance Fund (“the Fund”), determined the amount of the applicant's pension.\n7. On 30 January 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Fund's Appeal Commission (Комисија за жалби при Фондот за пензиско и инвалидско осигурување на Македонија) on the ground that his pension entitlement had been incorrectly calculated.\n8. On 5 June 1997 the Fund's Appeal Commission dismissed his appeal.\n9. On 1 October 1997 the Supreme Court set aside the Fund's decision and remitted the case to the Appeal Commission, pointing out that the administrative body had incorrectly interpreted and applied the national law.\n10. On 6 March 1998 the Government Appeal Commission (“the Commission”) dismissed the applicant's appeal on the ground that Article 36 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (Закон за пензиското и инвалидското осигурување) (“the Act”) imposed a general ceiling on the amount of pension awards, which determined and had an effect on the highest pension award payable to the applicant.\n11. On 6 October 1999 the Supreme Court upheld his claim and declared the Commission's decision null and void. It held that the applicant's pension had not been calculated correctly and gave instructions as to how the applicant's pension was to be calculated in accordance with the Act.\n12. The Commission took no action further to that judgment despite a submission by the applicant of 2 December 1999 that it should not remain silent.\n13. On 15 December 1999 the applicant applied to the Supreme Court, requesting it to render a judgment in the absence of an administrative decision concerning the amount of his pension. On 23 February 2000 he repeated his request before the court.\n14. On 14 June 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request on the ground that in the meantime, on 10 May 2000, the Commission had rendered a decision concerning his claim and no judgment instead could have been taken.\n15. On 7 June 2000 the applicant challenged the Commission's decision before the Supreme Court as it had again erred in law and had apparently disregarded the court's legal reasoning and instructions given in its judgment of 6 October 1998.\n16. On 29 May 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant's complaint and declared the Commission's decision null and void. It repeated its previous findings about wrong application of the law and instructed the Commission to take into consideration its instructions in the subsequent decision-making.\n17. On 30 August 2002 the Commission rendered a decision which was not in line with the instructions given by the Supreme Court.\n18. On 30 September 2002, the applicant instituted, for the third time, administrative contentious proceedings before the Supreme Court on the same grounds as before.\n19. On 16 April 2003 the Fund and the applicant concluded a court settlement about the amount of the pension. It was concluded that the amount agreed would be retroactively paid to the applicant from the day when he met the criteria for age-retirement and that the difference between the amount actually paid and the amount agreed would be paid by the Fund in two instalments.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2488", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  In 1986 the applicant took part in the emergency operation at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. As a result he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. The applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between his poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. He was consequently granted status of a disabled person and awarded a monthly pension and a special allowance from the State, to be adjusted once a year in line with the minimum subsistence amount (величина прожиточного минимума).\n8.  At a certain moment in 2001 the social security authorities ceased to increase regularly the amounts of pension and allowance, paid to the applicant in connection with his disability. Instead, he started to receive his pension in a fixed amount (3,100 Roubles), which was less than he expected. Presuming that this practice was illegal, the applicant brought proceedings against the regional social security office (“the defendant”) claiming the increase of the monthly allowance and pension in line with the increase of the minimum subsistence amount during the relevant period.\n9.  On 21 January 2003 the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region (“the Town Court”) rendered a judgment ordering the increase of the monthly allowance due to the applicant in line with the increase of the minimal subsistence amount in the Rostov region. In re-calculating the amount of the applicant's pension the court applied the multiplier of 1.92 based on the data provided by the regional committee on statistics. As a result, the monthly pension of the applicant increased to 5,952 Roubles. The court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant the recalculated amount as from 1 January 2002 less the sums already paid.\n10.  The defendant appealed challenging, among other things, the multiplier of 1.92 applied by the first-instance court.\n11.  On 16 April 2003 the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgment of 21 January 2003 in full. The enforcement proceedings were opened.\n12.  On 13 May 2003 the defendant appealed to the Regional Court by way of supervisory review seeking to quash the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on 16 Aril 2003.\n13.  On 30 June 2003 the judge rapporteur refused to initiate the supervisory review proceedings and to remit the case for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court (“the Presidium”).\n14.  On 14 July 2003 the defendant complained to the President of the Regional Court about the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on appeal, and the judge rapporteur's decision of 30 June 2003 rejecting their previous application for supervisory review. They also requested that the enforcement proceedings be suspended pending the examination of the new supervisory review appeal.\n15.  On 6 August 2003 a judge of the Regional Court requested the case-file from the court of first instance. On 24 October 2003 judge B. of the Regional Court initiated the review of the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on 16 April 2003. The decision of 24 October 2003 referred in detail to the arguments adduced by the defendant but offered no explanation as to the grounds for overruling the judge rapporteur's decision of 30 June 2003. The case was transferred to the Presidium for the examination on the merits.\n16.  On 4 November 2003 the applicant was informed about the date and venue of the hearing of his case by the Presidium.\n17.  On 4 December 2003 the Presidium quashed the j", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2489", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  In 1986 the applicant took part in the emergency operation at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. As a result he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. The applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between his poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. He was consequently granted status of a disabled person and awarded a monthly pension and a special allowance from the State, to be adjusted once a year in line with the minimum subsistence amount (величина прожиточного минимума).\n8.  At a certain moment in 2001 the social security authorities ceased to increase regularly the amounts of pension and allowance, paid to the applicant in connection with his disability. Instead, he started to receive his pension in a fixed amount (2,800 Roubles), which was less than he expected. Presuming that this practice was illegal, the applicant brought proceedings against the regional social security office (“the defendant”) claiming the increase of the monthly allowance and pension in line with the increase of the minimum subsistence amount during the relevant period.\n9.  On 21 January 2003 the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region (“the Town Court”) rendered a judgment ordering the increase of the monthly allowance due to the applicant in line with the increase of the minimal subsistence amount in the Rostov region. In re-calculating the amount of the applicant's pension the court applied the multiplier of 1.92 based on the data provided by the regional committee on statistics. As a result, the monthly pension of the applicant increased to 5,376 Roubles. The court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant the recalculated amount as from 1 January 2002 less the sums already paid.\n10.  The defendant appealed challenging, among other things, the multiplier of 1.92 applied by the first-instance court.\n11.  On 16 April 2003 the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgment of 21 January 2003 in full. The enforcement proceedings were opened.\n12.  On 13 May 2003 the defendant appealed to the Regional Court by way of supervisory review seeking to quash the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on 16 Aril 2003.\n13.  On 30 June 2003 the judge rapporteur refused to initiate the supervisory review proceedings and to remit the case for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court (“the Presidium”).\n14.  On 14 July 2003 the defendant complained to the President of the Regional Court about the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on appeal, and the judge rapporteur's decision of 30 June 2003 rejecting their previous application for supervisory review. They also requested that the enforcement proceedings be suspended pending the examination of the new supervisory review appeal.\n15.  On 6 August 2003 a judge of the Regional Court requested the case-file from the court of first instance. On 24 October 2003 judge B. of the Regional Court initiated the review of the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on 16 April 2003. The decision of 24 October 2003 referred in detail to the arguments adduced by the defendant but offered no explanation as to the grounds for overruling the judge rapporteur's decision of 30 June 2003. The case was transferred to the Presidium for the examination on the merits.\n16.  On 4 November 2003 the applicant was informed about the date and venue of the hearing of his case by the Presidium.\n17.  On 4 December 2003 the Presidium quashed the j", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2490", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Berlin.\n5.  From 1960 to 1979 she worked as a ballet dancer for the Erich-Weinert-Ensemble (EWE), a national company of the German Democratic Republic (GDR). In 1979 she terminated her career on stage and worked for the company as a set and costume designer.\n6.  The EWE paid the applicant her wages as a costume and set designer and, in addition, a monthly allowance in the amount of 588 GDR marks (hereafter „the allowance“). The allowance was paid by virtue of the regulation of the Minister of Culture (Anordnung über die Gewährung einer berufsbezogenen Zuwendung an Ballettmitglieder in staatlichen Einrichtungen der DDR) of 1 September 1976. Pursuant to this regulation former members of ballets in the GDR were paid an allowance at the end of their career on stage. The allowance accrued after reaching the age of 35 and having worked for at least 15 years as a dancer. It was paid, irrespective of other earnings, by the former employer. Once the former dancer received an old-age or invalidity pension the allowance was regularly paid by the National Insurance of the GDR (Staatliche Versicherung der DDR).\n7.  After the reunification of the GDR and the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) the EWE which formerly belonged to the National People's Army (Nationale Volksarmee) of the GDR was incorporated into the organisation of the Federal Ministry of Defence of the FRG. The Ministry took over the contracts with the company's staff and continued to pay the applicant her wages and the allowance. The allowance and the retirement pensions were moreover converted and paid in German Marks (DEM).\n8.  On 1 January 1992 the Ministry discontinued all allowance payments to former ballet dancers with reference to Article 9 § 2 in conjunction with Appendix II, Chapter VIII, Section H, paragraph III Nr. 6 of the German Unification Treaty.\n9.  In December 1992 the applicant brought an action with the Berlin Social Court claiming the payment of the allowance.\n10.  On 24 August 1994 the Federal Social Court ruled in a leading judgment that the social courts had no jurisdiction over disputes concerning the allowance. It found that those disputes belonged to the realm of civil – and more specifically – labour law, inter alia because the granting and the amount of the allowance were so closely linked to the contract of employment and in particular to the respective wages.\n11.  On 13 January 1995 the Berlin Social Court referred the applicant's case to the Frankfurt/Oder Labour Court.\n12.  On 15 May 1996 the Frankfurt/Oder Labour Court ordered the Ministry of Defence to pay the applicant DEM 28,224 and the monthly allowance as of January 1996. It pointed out that the wording of the pertinent provision of the German Unification Treaty was ambiguous. The provision could be interpreted as setting 31 December 1991 as the final date to qualify for the allowance or as terminating permanently the allowance payments from that date onwards. However, in view of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations (Vertrauensschutz) the allowance payments could not be permanently discontinued without an explicit and a precise regulation in the German Unification Treaty. Therefore the provision had to be construed as setting 31 December 1991 as the final date to qualify for the allowance.\n13.  On 13 May 1998 the Brandenburg Regional Labour Court quashed the decision of the Frankfurt/Oder Labour Court and rejected the applicant's ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2492", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and was detained in the Hilvan prison, in Şanlıurfa at the time of the application.\n5.  On 11 October 1997 following receipt of information that the applicant was in possession of narcotic substances, police officers from the Siverek Security Directorate arrested the applicant, his son and one of the applicant's employees, İ.Ş., in the applicant's house. During the search of the applicant's house and farm, a certain amount of cannabis was found.\n6.  On 12 October 1997 the suspects were brought before the Siverek Magistrates' Court who ordered their detention on remand.\n7.  On 14 October 1997, the Siverek Magistrates' Court sent the case file to the public prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court holding that the case concerned the prosecution of organised drug trafficking.\n8.  On 24 October 1997 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and the two other suspects. The public prosecutor charged them under Article 403 § 5 of the Criminal Code of being in possession of hashish with the aim of trafficking. İ.Ş. was also charged with the consummation of hashish.\n9.  On 26 May 1998 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant and İ.Ş. The applicant was sentenced to three years and four months' imprisonment.\n10.  On 5 October 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.\n11.  On 24 November 1998 the Diyarbakır State Security Court once again convicted the applicant and his co-accused and sentenced them to six years and three months' imprisonment.\n12.  On 15 April 1999 the Court of Cassation again quashed the first‑instance court's judgment, holding that the applicant's and his co‑accused's defence rights had not been respect as they had not been informed about the date of the hearing.\n13.  On 15 June 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant and his co-accused and sentenced them to six years and three months' imprisonment. It also ordered their release from detention having regard to the time that they had spent in prison.\n14.  On 20 April 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2493", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  In 1986 the applicant took part in the emergency operation at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. As a result he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. The applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between his poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. He was consequently granted status of a disabled person and awarded a monthly pension and a special allowance from the State, to be adjusted once a year in line with the minimum subsistence amount (величина прожиточного минимума).\n9.  At a certain moment in 2001 the social security authorities ceased to increase regularly the amounts of pension and allowance, paid to the applicant in connection with his disability. Instead, he started to receive his pension in a fixed amount (2,800 Roubles), which was less than he expected. Presuming that this practice was illegal, the applicant brought proceedings against the regional social security office (“the defendant”) claiming the increase of the monthly allowance and pension in line with the increase of the minimum subsistence amount during the relevant period.\n10.  On 21 January 2003 the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region (“the Town Court”) rendered a judgment ordering the increase of the monthly allowance due to the applicant in line with the increase of the minimal subsistence amount in the Rostov Region. In re-calculating the amount of the applicant's pension the court applied the multiplier of 1.92 based on the data provided by the regional committee on statistics. As a result, the monthly pension of the applicant increased to 5,376 Roubles. The court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant the recalculated amount as from 1 January 2002 less the sums already paid.\n11.  The defendant appealed challenging, among other things, the multiplier of 1.92 applied by the first-instance court.\n12.  On 16 April 2003 the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgment of 21 January 2003 in full. The enforcement proceedings were opened.\n13.  On 13 May 2003 the defendant appealed to the Regional Court by way of supervisory review seeking to quash the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on 16 Aril 2003.\n14.  On 30 June 2003 the judge rapporteur refused to initiate the supervisory review proceedings and to remit the case for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court (“the Presidium”).\n15.  On 14 July 2003 the defendant complained to the President of the Regional Court about the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on appeal, and the judge rapporteur's decision of 30 June 2003 rejecting their previous application for supervisory review. They also requested that the enforcement proceedings be suspended pending the examination of the new supervisory review appeal.\n16.  On 6 August 2003 a judge of the Regional Court requested the case-file from the court of first instance. On 24 October 2003 judge B. of the Regional Court initiated the review of the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on 16 April 2003. The decision of 24 October 2003 referred in detail to the arguments adduced by the defendant but offered no explanation as to the grounds for overruling the judge rapporteur's decision of 30 June 2003. The case was transferred to the Presidium for the examination on the merits.\n17.  On 4 November 2003 the applicant was informed about the date and venue of the hearing of his case by the Presidium.\n18.  On 4 December 2003 the Presidium quashed the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2494", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1975, 1973 and 1949 respectively and live in Mardin.\n6.  On 5 December 2000, a textile company in Çukurova filed a petition with the office of the Bornova Public Prosecutor, complaining about the fraudulent acts of Fırat Karatay, the first applicant.\n7.  On 4 February 2001 the Bornova Public Prosecutor requested the Bornova Criminal Court of First Instance to issue an arrest warrant, for all three applicants, on suspicion of having committed fraud. On 8 February 2001 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the same court, charging the applicants and four others with embezzlement under Articles 510 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  On 25 April 2001 the third applicant was arrested and placed in detention at the Kızıltepe Prison, by the judge at the Kızıltepe Criminal Court. The judge did not take his statements, but merely informed the applicant of the charges against him and noted his personal data.\n9.  On 14 May 2001, considering the state of the evidence and the nature of the offence, the Bornova Criminal Court ordered the continuation of the third applicant's detention on remand in his absence and demanded his presence for the following hearing.\n10.  In a letter dated 28 May 2001, addressed to the Bornova Criminal Court the third applicant requested to be released pending trial.\n11.  At the hearings of 11 June 2001 and 9 July 2001 the applicant was not brought before the court. The court ordered the third applicant's continued detention on remand reiterating the same reasoning. It further requested his transfer from the Kızıltepe Prison to Buca Prison in order to facilitate his presence before the court. In the meantime, the Kızıltepe Public Prosecutor informed the Bornova Criminal Court that the first and second applicants had been arrested and detained on remand on 7 July 2001 and 1 May 2001, respectively.\n12.  In a letter dated 9 July 2001, addressed to the Bornova Criminal Court the first applicant confessed to his guilt.\n13.  On 25 July 2001 the applicants' lawyer, who was present before the Bornova Criminal Court for the first time, requested the applicants' release pending trial. Taking into consideration the state of the evidence and the nature of the offence, the Bornova Criminal Court dismissed the lawyer's request, and requested the applicants' transfer to Buca Prison.\n14.  At the same hearing the applicants' lawyer requested the court not to transfer the third applicant from one prison to another due to his health problems. Subsequently, the court sent a letter rogatory to the Kızıltepe Criminal Court of First Instance in order to take the third applicant's statements.\n15.  At the hearings of 22 August 2001 and 21 September 2001 the court repeated its previous requests concerning the first and second applicants' transfer to the court and ordered, once again, the continuation of all three applicants' detention on remand.\n16.  On 19 October 2001 the applicants' lawyer complained before the court that although the applicants had been detained on remand for quite some time their statements had still not been taken by the court. He argued that this situation was in breach of the applicants' rights guaranteed under the Convention. Furthermore, in view of the length of their detention and the health problems of the third applicant, he requested the applicants' release pending trial. The court dismissed the lawyer's request in view of the state of the evidence and the nature of the offence. It also ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2495", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  In 1986 the applicant took part in the emergency operation at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. As a result he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. The applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between his poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. He was consequently granted status of a disabled person and awarded a monthly pension and a special allowance from the State, to be adjusted once a year in line with the minimum subsistence amount (величина прожиточного минимума).\n8.  At a certain moment in 2001 the social security authorities ceased to increase regularly the amounts of pension and allowance, paid to the applicant in connection with his disability. Instead, he started to receive his pension in a fixed amount (3,479 Roubles), which was less than he expected. Presuming that this practice was illegal, the applicant brought proceedings against the regional social security office (“the defendant”) claiming the increase of the monthly allowance and pension in line with the increase of the minimum subsistence amount during the relevant period.\n9.  On 21 January 2003 the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region (“the Town Court”) rendered a judgment ordering the increase of the monthly allowance due to the applicant in line with the increase of the minimal subsistence amount in the Rostov region. In re-calculating the amount of the applicant's pension the court applied the multiplier of 1.92 based on the data provided by the regional committee on statistics. As a result, the monthly pension of the applicant increased to 6,880 Roubles. The court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant the recalculated amount as from 1 January 2002 less the sums already paid.\n10.  The defendant appealed challenging, among other things, the multiplier of 1.92 applied by the first-instance court.\n11.  On 16 April 2003 the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgment of 21 January 2003 in full. The enforcement proceedings were opened.\n12.  On 13 May 2003 the defendant appealed to the Regional Court by way of supervisory review seeking to quash the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on 16 Aril 2003.\n13.  On 30 June 2003 the judge rapporteur refused to initiate the supervisory review proceedings and to remit the case for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court (“the Presidium”).\n14.  On 14 July 2003 the defendant complained to the President of the Regional Court about the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on appeal, and the judge rapporteur's decision of 30 June 2003 rejecting their previous application for supervisory review. They also requested that the enforcement proceedings be suspended pending the examination of the new supervisory review appeal.\n15.  On 6 August 2003 a judge of the Regional Court requested the case-file from the court of first instance. On 24 October 2003 judge B. of the Regional Court initiated the review of the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on 16 April 2003. The decision of 24 October 2003 referred in detail to the arguments adduced by the defendant but offered no explanation as to the grounds for overruling the judge rapporteur's decision of 30 June 2003. The case was transferred to the Presidium for the examination on the merits.\n16.  On 4 November 2003 the applicant was informed about the date and venue of the hearing of his case by the Presidium.\n17.  On 4 December 2003 the Presidium quashed the j", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2496", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  The applicant is the owner of a potable and industrial water station in İzmir. By a letter dated 9 July 2001 the authorities from the İzmir Health Directorate informed the Karşıyaka Public Prosecutor about the fact that the applicant's company was not complying with the requirements of the relevant regulation concerning the packaging and marketing of spring and mineral waters.\n6.  On 24 August 2001, in his statements taken by the Karşıyaka Public Prosecutor, the applicant maintained that he had been already told by the authorities that the way he was selling water was in breach of the relevant regulation and that he had consequently closed his business earlier that year.\n7.  On 28 November 2001 the Karşıyaka Public Prosecutor issued an advance payment order of 1,898,208,000 Turkish Liras (TRL) for the applicant, for failure to respect the rule concerning the packaging and marketing of spring and mineral waters, provided in decree law no. 560. The applicant did not pay the fine within ten days as required by the order.\n8.  On 14 December 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the Karşıyaka Magistrate's Court, challenging the decision of the Public Prosecutor. He claimed that he had already made a payment. In his submissions to the court, the Public Prosecutor explained that the payment made by the applicant was for a previous offence, which took place on 26 May 1999.\n9.  On 22 January 2002 the Karşıyaka Magistrate's Court dismissed the objection and issued a penal order, by which it increased the fine to TRL 2,847.312.000, due to the applicant's failure to comply with the advance payment order.\n10.  On 19 February 2002 the applicant filed an objection with the Karşıyaka Criminal Court of First Instance, against the penal order of 22 January 2002, alleging, in particular, a breach of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention.\n11.  On 4 March 2002 the Karşıyaka Criminal Court of First Instance upheld the decision of the Magistrate's Court, holding that it was in accordance with the law.\n12.  The applicant paid the fine on 3 May 2002, 28 May 2002 and 2 July 2002, in three equal instalments.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2497", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  In 1986 the applicant took part in the emergency operation at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. As a result he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. The applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between his poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. He was consequently granted status of a disabled person and awarded a monthly pension and a special allowance from the State, to be adjusted once a year in line with the minimum subsistence amount (величина прожиточного минимума).\n8.  At a certain moment in 2001 the social security authorities ceased to increase regularly the amounts of pension and allowance, paid to the applicant in connection with his disability. Instead, he started to receive his pension in a fixed amount (2,800 Roubles), which was less than he expected. Presuming that this practice was illegal, the applicant brought proceedings against the regional social security office (“the defendant”) claiming the increase of the monthly allowance and pension in line with the increase of the minimum subsistence amount during the relevant period.\n9.  On 21 January 2003 the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region (“the Town Court”) rendered a judgment ordering the increase of the monthly allowance due to the applicant in line with the increase of the minimal subsistence amount in the Rostov region. In re-calculating the amount of the applicant's pension the court applied the multiplier of 1.92 based on the data provided by the regional committee on statistics. As a result, the monthly pension of the applicant increased to 5,376 Roubles. The court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant the recalculated amount as from 1 January 2002 less the sums already paid.\n10.  The defendant appealed challenging, among other things, the multiplier of 1.92 applied by the first-instance court.\n11.  On 16 April 2003 the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgment of 21 January 2003 in full. The enforcement proceedings were opened.\n12.  On 13 May 2003 the defendant appealed to the Regional Court by way of supervisory review seeking to quash the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on 16 Aril 2003.\n13.  On 30 June 2003 the judge rapporteur refused to initiate the supervisory review proceedings and to remit the case for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court (“the Presidium”).\n14.  On 14 July 2003 the defendant complained to the President of the Regional Court about the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on appeal, and the judge rapporteur's decision of 30 June 2003 rejecting their previous application for supervisory review. They also requested that the enforcement proceedings be suspended pending the examination of the new supervisory review appeal.\n15.  On 6 August 2003 a judge of the Regional Court requested the case-file from the court of first instance. On 24 October 2003 judge B. of the Regional Court initiated the review of the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on 16 April 2003. The decision of 24 October 2003 referred in detail to the arguments adduced by the defendant but offered no explanation as to the grounds for overruling the judge rapporteur's decision of 30 June 2003. The case was transferred to the Presidium for the examination on the merits.\n16.  On 4 November 2003 the applicant was informed about the date and venue of the hearing of his case by the Presidium.\n17.  On 4 December 2003 the Presidium quashed the j", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2498", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and currently resides in the town of Vasylkiv, Kyiv Region, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant and her ex-husband are doctors. They have established several NGOs among which are “Lyubava” and “Rodyna” NGOs.\n6.  On 15 April 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant's ex-husband allegedly for the misappropriation of humanitarian aid. On the same day, in the course of these criminal proceedings, the applicant was arrested, her apartment and garages were searched and some of the applicant's property was seized. The police also seized some documents of the “Lyubava” NGO.\n7.  On 16 April 1999 a judge of the Vasylkivskyy Town Court ordered the applicant's detention for three days under the administrative procedure for failure to comply with the orders given to her by the police and the refusal to let the police officers search her apartment.\n8.  On 19 April 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime. According to the applicant, she was interrogated at night and the police officers threatened her, and she was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during interrogations and during her detention.\n9.  On 20 April 1999, allegedly because of her mental problems and the general deterioration of her health, the applicant was brought by the police to a mental hospital. On 21 April 1999 the applicant was released upon a written undertaking not to abscond but stayed in the hospital until 30 April 1999. On 30 April 1999 the written undertaking not to abscond was cancelled. According to the applicant, she was informed thereof only by letter of 23 June 2006.\n10.  On 23 May 2000 the President of the Kyiv Regional Court quashed the decision of 16 April 1999 and closed the case for lack of the evidence of an administrative offence.\n11.  On 20 April 2001 the Vasylkivskyy Town Court awarded the applicant 2,000[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage inflicted by the unlawful decision of the court, UAH 8.68[2] in compensation for the loss of income and UAH 300[3] in compensation for costs and expenses to be paid from the State budget. This decision was upheld on 22 May 2001 by the Kyiv Regional Court in the part concerning compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant's complaint about the pecuniary damage (loss of income) was remitted for a fresh consideration. The court did not pronounce itself on the claim for compensation for costs and expenses.\n12.  On 8 August 2001 the Vasylkivskyy Town Court awarded the applicant UAH 412[4] in compensation for the loss of income, and costs and expenses.\n13.  On 9 October 2001 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgments of the Vasylkivskyy Town Court of 20 April and 8 August 2001.\n14.  On 26 April 2002 the judgments of 20 April and 8 August 2001 were enforced in full.\n15.  The applicant instituted another set of proceedings in the Vasylkivskyy Town Court claiming compensation for the loss of income and non-pecuniary damage inflicted by her unlawful arrest and detention, and the unlawful actions of the police. On 11 October 2001 the court awarded the applicant UAH 15,030[5] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and UAH 950[6] in compensation for costs and expenses. On 19 February 2002 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal (former Kyiv Regional Court) reduced the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage up to UAH 10,030[7]. On 23 September 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld this judgment.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2499", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  In 1986 the applicant took part in the emergency operation at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. As a result he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. The applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between his poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. He was consequently granted status of a disabled person and awarded a monthly pension and a special allowance from the State, to be adjusted once a year in line with the minimum subsistence amount (величина прожиточного минимума).\n8.  At a certain moment in 2001 the social security authorities ceased to increase regularly the amounts of pension and allowance, paid to the applicant in connection with his disability. Instead, he started to receive his pension in a fixed amount (2,800 Roubles), which was less than he expected. Presuming that this practice was illegal, the applicant brought proceedings against the regional social security office (“the defendant”) claiming the increase of the monthly allowance and pension in line with the increase of the minimum subsistence amount during the relevant period.\n9.  On 21 January 2003 the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region (“the Town Court”) rendered a judgment ordering the increase of the monthly allowance due to the applicant in line with the increase of the minimal subsistence amount in the Rostov region. In re-calculating the amount of the applicant's pension the court applied the multiplier of 1.92 based on the data provided by the regional committee on statistics. As a result, the monthly pension of the applicant increased to 5,376 Roubles. The court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant the recalculated amount as from 1 January 2002 less the sums already paid.\n10.  The defendant appealed challenging, among other things, the multiplier of 1.92 applied by the first-instance court.\n11.  On 16 April 2003 the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgment of 21 January 2003 in full. The enforcement proceedings were opened.\n12.  On 13 May 2003 the defendant appealed to the Regional Court by way of supervisory review seeking to quash the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on 16 Aril 2003.\n13.  On 30 June 2003 the judge rapporteur refused to initiate the supervisory review proceedings and to remit the case for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court (“the Presidium”).\n14.  On 14 July 2003 the defendant complained to the President of the Regional Court about the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on appeal, and the judge rapporteur's decision of 30 June 2003 rejecting their previous application for supervisory review. They also requested that the enforcement proceedings be suspended pending the examination of the new supervisory review appeal.\n15.  On 6 August 2003 a judge of the Regional Court requested the case-file from the court of first instance. On 24 October 2003 judge B. of the Regional Court initiated the review of the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on 16 April 2003. The decision of 24 October 2003 referred in detail to the arguments adduced by the defendant but offered no explanation as to the grounds for overruling the judge rapporteur's decision of 30 June 2003. The case was transferred to the Presidium for the examination on the merits.\n16.  On 4 November 2003 the applicant was informed about the date and venue of the hearing of his case by the Presidium.\n17.  On 4 December 2003 the Presidium quashed the j", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2500", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Štip, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.\n 1.  The incident\n(a)  The applicant's version of events\n9. On 16 April 1998, at around 9 p.m., the applicant and his friend F.D., both citizens of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia of Roma ethnic origin, were having a drink in a downtown bar in Štip. On the other side of the bar, two men were gambling. The man who lost pulled out a gun, fired several shots into the air and one into the ground, and asked for his money back. All those in the bar, including the applicant and his friend, tried to leave, but were ultimately unable to do so because of the crowd that had already blocked the exit.\n10. In the meantime, five police officers arrived at the scene of the incident and turned to the applicant and his friend. One of the police officers caught the applicant by his hair and pushed him against the police car, while another officer grabbed his friend's arm and twisted it behind his back. Shortly afterwards, the police took them to the local police station, where they were locked up in two separate cells.\n11. The applicant maintains that around midnight one of the police officers concerned came to the cell where he was being held and told him to bend over. The applicant alleges that the police officer kicked him in his head, which caused bleeding from his mouth. As he fell down on the floor, the police officer grabbed him by his hair and allegedly started hitting him savagely with his fists and a truncheon. The applicant further maintains that another police officer, who was allegedly beating his friend in the other cell, came to his cell later and continued to batter him until 5 a.m. They were then taken to an office, where they were questioned about the incident. After drawing up a report, the police released the applicant and his friend at around 11 a.m. the next day.\n12. Following his release, the applicant went to the Emergency Aid Unit at Štip Hospital and asked for medical assistance. A medical certificate issued on 17 April 1998 by the doctor who had examined him indicated that the applicant had sustained several bodily injuries which were described as slight. In addition, the certificate stated that the applicant had declared that he had been beaten at the police station with a truncheon and kicked all over his body. The medical certificate did not specify the possible origin of the injuries, their timing or the way in which they had been inflicted.\n13. The applicant submitted an excerpt from a newspaper together with his statement concerning the incident in which he had made no allegations of being beaten at the scene in the bar. A photograph of him having a swollen right eye also appeared in the newspaper.\n14. The applicant and his friend have never been charged with any offence in relation to the incident at issue.\n(b)  The Government's version of events\n15. On 16 April 1998, between 9 and 10 p.m., the applicant and F.D. arrived at the café bar Lotus. They joined a group watching people gambling with dice. At around 2 a.m. on 17 April one of the losing gamblers claimed that the dice had been fixed and demanded his money back. An argument started in which the applicant and F.D. participated. When a certain J.N. took out a pistol and fired, F.D. tackled him and the gun fell on the floor. At about 2.30 a.m. the police came to the scene after the shooting incident had been reported to them. Meanwhile, there was a certain disr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2502", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants' dates of birth and their relationship to the three persons who were killed are described as follows:\nYüksel Erdoğan (1943) and Meliha Erdoğan (1942) are the parents and Sinan Erdoğan (1962) and Bahar Sağlam (1970) are the siblings of the late İsmet Erdoğan. Şinasi Yalçın (1970), Hüsnü Yalçın (1952) and Ali Yalçın (1954) are the brothers of the late Elmas Yalçın. Ramazan Erdoğan and Raşidiye Erdoğan are the parents of the late Fuat Erdoğan.\n9.  On 28 September 1994 Fuat Erdoğan, Elmas Yalçın and İsmet Erdoğan were killed in the Arzum café in Beşiktaş, a central district in Istanbul, by police officers from the Anti-Terror Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate. According to a report (ihbar tutanağı) drafted by two police officers on the same date at 3.45 pm, the Security Directorate received an anonymous phone call on the Security Directorate's internal telephone number 139. The caller informed the police that he had seen two men and a woman in Beşiktaş and that one of the men had given a weapon to the woman. He also told the police officer that these three persons were in the Arzum café.\n10.  On the same day, an arrest report (olaylı yakalama ve zaptetme tutanağı) was drawn up by eight police officers from the Anti-Terror Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate. According to this report, after having received the anonymous phone call, the police officers arrived at the Arzum café. They told the suspects, who were on the second floor of the café, that they were police officers and requested them to submit their identity cards. The suspects started shouting and opened fire. The officers then ordered the suspects to surrender and responded to their firing in order to protect themselves. When they realised that there was no more gunfire coming from the suspects they stopped the fire. They then saw that the three suspects were dead and informed the public prosecutor. The identity cards found on the deceased bore different names to those of the applicants' relatives. Furthermore, two firearms, three chargers, six cartridges of 7,65 mm calibre, five empty cartridges of 7,65 mm calibre, twenty empty cartridges of 9 mm calibre and five bullets were found next to two of the corpses. The police officers also found some documents on one of the male corpses.\n11.  On the same day, at 8.10 pm, the Istanbul public prosecutor drew up a report, according to which he arrived at the scene of the incident after having received a phone call from the central police station at 5.10 pm. He maintained in the report that a medical doctor from the Forensic Medicine Institute had been invited to examine the corpses. The medical doctor arrived at the scene of the incident at 7.10 pm and examined the corpses, which were then sent to the morgue of the Forensic Medicine Institute. According to the report, the police officers from the Technical Office of the Istanbul Security Directorate took the fingerprints of the deceased in order to determine their identity. The public prosecutor further ordered that the bullets, cartridges and the two firearms that had been found next to the corpses be handed over to the police officers from the Technical Office of the Istanbul Security Directorate. However, they were given to A.B., one of the police officers who had been involved in the police operation in question.\n12.  On the same day, two police officers took statements from N.A., C.A. and S.A., three persons who ran the Arzum café. N.A. confirmed t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2503", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  In 1986 the applicant took part in the emergency operation at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. As a result he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. The applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between his poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. He was consequently granted status of a disabled person and awarded a monthly pension and a special allowance from the State, to be adjusted once a year in line with the minimum subsistence amount (величина прожиточного минимума).\n8.  At a certain moment in 2001 the social security authorities ceased to increase regularly the amounts of pension and allowance, paid to the applicant in connection with his disability. Instead, he started to receive his pension in a fixed amount (2,851 Roubles), which was less than he expected. Presuming that this practice was illegal, the applicant brought proceedings against the regional social security office (“the defendant”) claiming the increase of the monthly allowance and pension in line with the increase of the minimum subsistence amount during the relevant period.\n9.  On 21 January 2003 the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region (“the Town Court”) rendered a judgment ordering the increase of the monthly allowance due to the applicant in line with the increase of the minimal subsistence amount in the Rostov region. In re-calculating the amount of the applicant's pension the court applied the multiplier of 1.92 based on the data provided by the regional committee on statistics. As a result, the monthly pension of the applicant increased to 5,474.5 Roubles. The court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant the recalculated amount as from 1 January 2002 less the sums already paid.\n10.  The defendant appealed challenging, among other things, the multiplier of 1.92 applied by the first-instance court.\n11.  On 16 April 2003 the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgment of 21 January 2003 in full. The enforcement proceedings were opened.\n12.  On 13 May 2003 the defendant appealed to the Regional Court by way of supervisory review seeking to quash the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on 16 Aril 2003.\n13.  On 30 June 2003 the judge rapporteur refused to initiate the supervisory review proceedings and to remit the case for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court (“the Presidium”).\n14.  On 14 July 2003 the defendant complained to the President of the Regional Court about the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on appeal, and the judge rapporteur's decision of 30 June 2003 rejecting their previous application for supervisory review. They also requested that the enforcement proceedings be suspended pending the examination of the new supervisory review appeal.\n15.  On 6 August 2003 a judge of the Regional Court requested the case-file from the court of first instance. On 24 October 2003 judge B. of the Regional Court initiated the review of the judgment of 21 January 2003, as upheld on 16 April 2003. The decision of 24 October 2003 referred in detail to the arguments adduced by the defendant but offered no explanation as to the grounds for overruling the judge rapporteur's decision of 30 June 2003. The case was transferred to the Presidium for the examination on the merits.\n16.  On 4 November 2003 the applicant was informed about the date and venue of the hearing of his case by the Presidium.\n17.  On 4 December 2003 the Presidium quashed the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2504", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Maykop, the Republic of Adygeya.\n6.  The applicant is a businessman. In 1996 he purchased a saw-mill with the intention of operating it as a going concern.\n7.  In March 1998 the local authority ordered him to shut the saw-mill down because it was situated in the vicinity of sewage disposal installations and threatened the town's sanitation.\n8.  The applicant brought proceedings against the Maykop municipal maintenance company (муниципальное жилищно-коммунальное хозяйство города Майкопа) and the Maykop municipal water supply company (муниципальное унитарное предприятие «Водоканал», hereinafter “the water supply company”), in which he sought an order requiring them to lift the ban on the operation of the saw-mill and damages.\n9.  On 17 December 1999 the Maykop Town Court of the Republic of Adygeya ordered the water supply company not to prevent the applicant from carrying on his activity. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n10.  However, it was not enforced. Instead, the water supply company blocked the road leading to the saw-mill and switched off the electricity supply.\n11.  The applicant was not issued with a warrant of execution until 28 April 2002 pending a decision in another case in which a third party was trying to challenge his title to the saw-mill.\n12.  On 14 May 2002 the enforcement proceedings were set in motion.\n13.  Three months later the bailiff suspended the enforcement proceedings and applied for clarification of the judgment of 17 December 1999.\n14.  On 29 October 2002 the Maykop Town Court held that the judgment of 17 December 1999 had to be enforced exactly as it was worded.\n15.  On 8 January 2003 the bailiff brought the enforcement proceedings to an end. However, the access road remained blocked and the electricity supply was not restored.\n16.  The applicant appealed against the decision to discontinue the enforcement proceedings.\n17.  On 21 February 2003 the Maykop Town Court quashed that decision.\n18.  On 25 March 2003 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Adygeya upheld the above judgment on appeal.\n19.  On 13 January 2006 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.\n20.  On 18 January 2006 the director of the water supply company issued access passes to the applicant and his nominees.\n21.  On 19 January 2006 free access to the saw-mill was restored, and the obstacles preventing the applicant from using it were removed. He was invited to collect the passes, but failed to do so. When the bailiffs went to the applicant's home to serve him with papers concerning the enforcement, they were unable to find him, but were met instead by his father, who refused to look at the papers and explained that the applicant had moved to another city.\n22.  On 26 January 2006 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2505", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in the town of Yakutsk in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.\n5.  On 4 October 2002 the Yakutsk Town Court ordered that the Yakutsk Town Council should provide the applicant with a well-equipped one-room flat. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 19 October 2002.\n6.  On 13 January 2003 the Yakutsk mayor's office took over the functions of the Town Council because the latter had ceased to exist as a legal entity.\n7.  The applicant asked the Yakutsk Town Court to impose on the Yakutsk mayor's office the obligation to enforce the judgment of 4 October 2002. On 26 August 2003 the Yakutsk Town Court dismissed the request because she had not provided any evidence that the mayor's office was the successor to the Town Council. The applicant did not appeal against that judgment.\n8.  On 10 October 2003 the Yakutsk Town Court dismissed the applicant's request for immediate enforcement of the judgment of 4 October 2002. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 17 November 2003.\n9.  On 30 March 2004 the Yakutsk Town Court, upon the applicant's request, amended the judgment of 4 October 2002 and ordered that the Yakutsk mayor's office should enforce it.\n10.  On 28 December 2004 the Yakutsk Town Court once again amended the judgment of 4 October 2002 and ordered that the Yakutsk mayor's office should pay the applicant 700,000 Russian roubles in lieu of the flat. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n11.  On 7 April 2006 the Yakutsk mayor's office credited RUR 700,000 to the bailiffs' account. In June 2006 the bailiffs sent a letter to the applicant informing her about the transaction and asking to provide details of her bank account. According to the Government, the applicant did not respond. The bailiffs also attempted to personally serve the applicant with the letter, but she could not be found at her place of residence.\n12.  On an unspecified date the bailiffs learned the details of the applicant's bank account and on 4 September 2006 they credited RUR 700,000 to it.\n B.  Proceedings concerning restoration of the heating supply\n13.  In 1994 a housing maintenance company cut off the heating in the applicant's flat. The applicant sued the company seeking restoration of the heating supply and compensation for damage.\n14.  On 8 December 1999 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, in the final instance, partly accepted the action. The maintenance company restored the heating.\n15.  The judgment of 8 December 1999 was quashed by way of a supervisory review on 25 October 2001 and the case was remitted for a fresh examination.\n16.  On 18 November 2002 the Yakutsk Town Court awarded the applicant RUR 1,845 in compensation. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 11 December 2002.\n17.  The applicant sued the Yakutsk Town Council claiming compensation for damage caused to her flat due to the absence of the heating.\n18.  On 28 August 2002 the Yakutsk Town Court dismissed the action because the municipal authorities had not been responsible for the damage. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 7 October 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2506", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and was serving his prison sentence in Gebze prison at the time of his application to the Court.\n5.  The applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on 26 December 1993 on suspicion of membership in an illegal organisation, namely the DEV-SOL (Revolutionary Left).\n6.  The applicant claims that he was subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. In particular, he claims to have been beaten, given electric shocks, deprived of food and water, immersed in cold water and subjected to falaka (beating of the soles of the feet).\n7.  On 7 January 1994 the applicant, together with twelve other suspects, was taken to the Istanbul Forensic Institute for a medical examination. The doctor noted that there were no physical signs of ill-treatment on the applicant's body.\n8.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court where he denied the statements he gave to the police and alleged that he had been subjected to torture whilst in custody. Later that day the applicant was brought before a judge who ordered his remand in custody.\n9.  The public prosecutor, in view of the complaints of ill-treatment of the applicant and other suspects arrested in the course of an investigation into DEV-SOL, forwarded the case file to the Istanbul public prosecutor's office. The latter, after having instigated an investigation into the complaints, issued a decision of non-prosecution against two police officers for lack of evidence on 10 May 1994.\n10.  On an unspecified date the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant accusing him of membership in an illegal organisation and committing arson under Articles 168 § 2 and 369 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  The proceedings against the applicant were subsequently joined with the criminal proceedings against nineteen other persons who had been charged with membership of the same organisation.\n12.  On 8 April 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant of membership in an illegal organisation and of throwing Molotov cocktails at various banks. This judgment was quashed by the Court of Cassation on 21 May 1998.\n13.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant repeated several times that he had been ill-treated whilst in custody.\n14.  On 24 December 1998 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant of membership in an illegal organisation and of throwing Molotov cocktails at various banks in 1991. The applicant was sentenced to a total of twenty-one years, one month and fourteen days' imprisonment and to a fine.\n15.  On 18 January 1999 the applicant appealed. He maintained in his petition, inter alia, that the first-instance court had based its judgment on his statements which had been given to the police under duress.\n16.  On 30 September 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. This decision was deposited with the registry of the first-instance court.\n17.  On 10 April 2003 the execution of the applicant's sentence was suspended for six months on health grounds. The applicant was released. On 27 December 2005 the Izmir Assize Court suspended the execution of the applicant's sentence in light of the provisions of the new Criminal Code.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2507", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Plovdiv.\n7.  On 27 July 1993 the applicant, who was a taxi driver, hit a pedestrian with his car. The applicant brought the victim to the nearest hospital, where he died several days later despite the efforts of the medical doctors.\n8.  On 4 August 1993 or 20 October 1993 the applicant was charged with involuntary manslaughter.\n9.  On an unspecified date in the beginning of 1994, after the completion of the investigation, an indictment was submitted to the Plovdiv Regional Court. The relatives of the victim joined the proceedings as civil plaintiffs.\n10.  After a hearing, on 18 March 1994 the court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment, suspended. The court also ordered the suspension of the applicant's driving licence for two years and ordered him to pay damages to the relatives of the victim.\n11.  Upon the applicant's appeal, on 10 June 1994 the Supreme Court quashed the lower court's judgment and referred the case back for re‑examination at the investigation stage, instructing the competent authorities to commission a new expert report in order to clarify certain additional facts.\n12.  The renewed investigation lasted until 5 December 1995 when a fresh indictment was submitted to the Plovdiv Regional Court.\n13.  By judgment of 3 June 1997 the Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment, suspended. The court also ordered the suspension of the applicant's driving licence for one year.\n14.  On 10 June 1997 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation.\n15.  On 14 November 1997 the Supreme Court of Cassation, acting as a court of appeal in a chamber of three judges, dismissed the appeal.\n16.  On 6 May 1998 the applicant filed with the Plovdiv Regional Court a petition for review (cassation), which would have fallen to be examined by a five-member chamber of the Supreme Court of Cassation in the transitional period following the 1998 legislative amendments (see paragraph 20 below).\n17.  On an unspecified date the Plovdiv Regional Court transmitted the petition and the case file to the Supreme Court of Cassation.\n18.  On 24 March 1999 a judge of the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed as time-barred the petition for review (cassation) and ordered the return of the case file back to the Regional Court. The order was made on a standard form which stated that the petition for review had been dismissed as time-barred, without mentioning any dates. The name of the judge who issued the order was not indicated.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2508", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants (see paragraph 1 above) were born in 1961, 1953, 1954, 1962, 1960, 1967, 1956, 1971 and 1965 respectively and live in Istanbul. Mecit Aygün was the chairman and the other applicants were the members of district administrative board of the Peoples' Democracy Party (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi, hereinafter “HADEP”) in Gaziosmanpaşa, a district of Istanbul.\n5.  On 3 February 1998 police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate conducted a search at the Gaziosmanpaşa district office of the HADEP, where they found illegal publications.\n6.  Subsequently, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court initiated an investigation against the applicants.\n7.  On 25 March 1998 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment charging the applicants with aiding and abetting the PKK under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713 alleging that the publications found in the HADEP district office contained articles supporting the activities of the PKK. He further issued a decision of non‑jurisdiction in respect of the charge concerning possession of illegal publications and referred the case to the Istanbul public prosecutor's office.\n8.  At the hearing of 6 November 1998 the public prosecutor's submissions on the merits of the case were read out. The submissions of the public prosecutor were not served on the applicants.\n9.  On the same day, the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to three years and nine months' imprisonment.\n10.  On 10 November 1998 the applicants appealed against the judgment of 6 November 1998.\n11.  On 18 October 1999 the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his opinion on the merits of the applicants' appeal to the Court of Cassation. This opinion was not served on the applicants or their representative.\n12.  On 6 March 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court's judgment.\n13.  On 23 March 2000 the applicants applied to the public prosecutor's office at the Court of Cassation requesting this office to bring the case before the Court of Cassation for rectification of decision. On 25 April 2000 their request was dismissed.\n14.  Subsequent to their convictions, on an unspecified date, the applicants were detained.\n15.  On 21 December 2000 Law No. 4616 on Conditional Release, Deferral of Procedure and Punishments was promulgated\n16.  On different dates in February 2001, the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicants' conditional release pursuant to Law no. 4616.\n17.  Meanwhile, on 5 July 2000 the Istanbul Magistrates' Court acquitted the applicants of the charge concerning possession of illegal publications.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2509", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Ankara. He was the deputy chairman of the pro-Kurdish HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi – People’s Democracy Party) prior to the events giving rise to the present application.\n5.  On 21 July 1999 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Ankara Security Directorate. According to the arrest protocol (yakalama tutanağı) signed by four police officers and the applicant, a search warrant had been issued in respect of the applicant. When the officers saw the applicant, they asked him to show his identity card. The applicant however attempted to escape.\n6.  On 23 July 1999 the deputy director of the Ankara Security Directorate sent a letter to the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court requesting that the applicant’s custody period be extended. The deputy director maintained, inter alia, that the applicant had been taken into custody on 21 July 1999 during the course of a police operation carried out against the PKK and that the police had not yet completed the detailed questioning of the applicant and the gathering of evidence.\n7.  The public prosecutor referred the security directorate’s request to the Ankara State Security Court. On the same day, the single judge of the State Security Court decided to extend the custody period for three days starting from 24 July 1999, including 26 July 1999. The applicant did not appear before the judge.\n8.  On 25 July 1999 two police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Ankara Security Directorate took statements from the applicant. The applicant was questioned, in particular, about his statements made in several television programmes, broadcast on MED-TV, a pro-Kurdish channel, in which he had taken part in his capacity as deputy chairman of the HADEP.\n9.  On 27 July 1999 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court, who questioned him about his statements during the same television programmes. Subsequently, the public prosecutor requested the Ankara State Security Court to order the applicant’s detention on remand.\n10.  On the same day, the single judge at the Ankara State Security Court ordered the applicant’s release from detention, having regard to the nature of the alleged offence and the state of the evidence.\n11.  On 9 August 1999 the public prosecutor requested that the Ankara State Security Court file a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with aiding and abetting members of the PKK on account of his statements made during the television programmes shown on MED-TV.\n12.  On 21 December 2000 new legislation (Law no. 4616) on the suspension of proceedings and the execution of sentences regarding offences committed before 23 April 1999 came into force.\n13.  On 25 June 2002 the Ankara State Security Court decided to defer the imposition of a final sentence on the applicant, pursuant to Law no. 4616. The court held, under Article 1 § 4 of the same law, that the criminal proceedings against him would be suspended and a final sentence would be imposed should he be convicted of a similar offence within five years of this decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2510", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Istanbul. Until 1990, he worked as an electricity meter reader for the Turkish Electricity Institution (“TEK” – Türkiye Elektrik Kurumu). Following the privatisation of electricity distribution, TEK and the AKTAŞ Electricity Company (“AKTAŞ”) signed an agreement. As a result, the unit for which the applicant worked was transferred to AKTAŞ. The applicant was thereafter employed by AKTAŞ on a contractual basis.\n5.  In the meantime, in 1993 TEK was divided into two State-owned companies, namely TEDAŞ (Türkiye Elektrik Dağıtım A.Ş. – responsible for the distribution of electricity) and TEAŞ (Türkiye Elektrik Üretim Şirketi – responsible for electricity production).\n6.  On 21 January 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the agreement between TEK and AKTAŞ. Subsequently, on 31 January 1994 the applicant was dismissed from AKTAŞ.\n7.  On 16 June 1994 the applicant applied to TEDAŞ, the successor of TEK, to be reinstated in his former post. However his request was rejected.\n8.  Contesting the refusal of TEDAŞ to reinstate him in his former post, the applicant initiated proceedings in the Istanbul Administrative Court. He requested to be reinstated in his former post.\n9.  While the proceedings were pending, in 1995 BEDAŞ (Boğaziçi Elektrik Dağıtım A.Ş.) was established as a subsidiary company of TEDAŞ and became responsible for the distribution of electricity in Istanbul.\n10.  On 12 November 1997 the Istanbul Administrative Court found in favour of the applicant and annulled the decision of TEDAŞ refusing to reinstate the applicant.\n11.  TEDAŞ appealed against the judgment, requesting that the execution of the judgment of 12 November 1997 be suspended. On 9 July 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request for suspension.\n12.  On 30 September 1999, in line with the Istanbul Administrative Court’s judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal filed by TEDAŞ. This decision was served on the applicant on 9 December 1999.\n13.  While the proceedings were pending before the Supreme Administrative Court, on 24 February 1999 the Prime Minister agreed to appoint the applicant to a similar post in BEDAŞ. Following this decision, on 29 April 2000 the Director General of BEDAŞ approved the decision of the Executive Board to appoint the applicant to a post in its Cağlayan Branch. This decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 13 May 2000. The applicant did not take up his duties and as a result the proposal was withdrawn.\n14.  On 4 September 2000 the applicant applied to BEDAŞ to be reinstated in his post, but his request was rejected.\n15.  On 2 October 2000 the applicant initiated a second set of proceedings before the Istanbul Administrative Court jointly against TEDAŞ and BEDAŞ. Pursuant to Article 28 § 3 of the Administrative Procedure Code, he requested compensation for the failure of the authorities to comply with the court decision ordering his reinstatement in his former post. He also requested the payment of his monthly salary and related monetary entitlements for the periods during which he had been entitled to assume his duties in accordance with the judgment of the domestic courts upholding his claim to reinstatement.\n16.  On 29 May 2001 the Istanbul Administrative Court held that the applicant should have initiated compensation proceedings or applied to TEDAŞ within sixty days following the notification of the decision of the Supreme Adminis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2511", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lived in Helsinki.\n5.  In March 1985 the applicant underwent knee surgery in Palm Beach, Florida. On 15 June 1985 he was struck on the operated knee by G. Soon afterwards, an infection developed in the applicant’s knee and he became disabled.\n6.  The applicant instituted civil proceedings against G. in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, which on 6 May 1988 ordered G. to pay the applicant 500,000 US dollars (USD) in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.\n7.  On 11 June 1989 G. died. As he had failed to pay the damages, the applicant lodged, on 9 September 1991, an action for damages against G.’s estate before the then Helsinki City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätt), claiming 2,008,500 Finnish Marks (FIM; corresponding to USD 500,000) plus interest. He alleged that his disability in movement and the operations which followed were caused by G.’s blow. On 27 November 1992 the defendant was summoned.\n8.  The City Court held its first hearing on 6 February 1992. At the second hearing on 4 June 1992 the applicant requested an adjournment in order to submit trial documents from the United States. He also asked for witnesses to be heard in the United States.\n9.  At the third hearing on 29 October 1992 the case was adjourned in order to allow the parties to submit questionnaires to the witnesses to be heard abroad.\n10.  At the fourth hearing on 19 November 1992 the case was adjourned in order to hear four witnesses in the United States by way of international legal assistance. The City Court obtained the witnesses’ statements on 30 November 1993.\n11.  The applicant was, however, dissatisfied with the hearing of the witnesses, and requested that they be heard again. At its sixth hearing on 25 February 1994 the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten; formerly the City Court) of Helsinki adjourned the case so that the witnesses could be heard again in Florida.\n12.  At the ninth hearing on 19 September 1995 the applicant asked the court to speed up the proceedings.\n13.  The witnesses’ statements were received by the District Court on 26 January 1996. At the tenth hearing on 19 April 1996 the applicant requested the court to decide on the case. The defendant, however, requested an adjournment, and the applicant did not object.\n14.  At its fifteenth hearing on 23 May 1997 the District Court decided to ask for an expert opinion from the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs (terveydenhuollon oikeusturvakeskus, rättskyddscentralen för hälsovården). The opinion was received on 31 October 1997.\n15.  At the seventeenth hearing on 21 November 1997 the case was adjourned upon the applicant’s request to allow the parties to give their final statements and the applicant to submit a further expert opinion.\n16.  On 26 May 1998 the District Court declared the case closed and adjourned it in order to give a decision.\n17.  At its twentieth hearing on 18 September 1998 the District Court issued its judgment, dismissing the applicant’s claims. It found no causal link between the blow and the infection. It further ordered the applicant to reimburse the defendant’s legal expenses amounting to almost 30,000 euros (EUR).\n18.  On 15 October 1998 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). On 15 December 1999 the appellate court decided to ask for another expert opinion from the National Authority for Medicolegal Affairs. The expert opinion was received on 16 July 2001. Having been gra", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2514", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1972. On 9 February 1993 he arrived in Sweden and, on the following day, he applied for asylum. In essence, he claimed that he had been born and raised in Somalia, and that, when his village had been attacked by the military, he had been forced to flee to Kenya and from there he had continued to Sweden. He had travelled using a Kenyan passport which he had destroyed upon arrival in Sweden.\n9.  In April 1993 the applicant underwent a medical examination which showed that he was infected with the HIV virus and treatment commenced immediately at the Huddinge hospital.\n10.  On 27 October 1994 the Immigration Board (Invandrarverket) rejected his request for asylum but granted him a permanent residence permit on humanitarian grounds due to the serious security situation in large parts of Somalia.\n11.  On 29 December 1995 the District Court (tingsrätten) in Södertälje convicted the applicant of attempted murder and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment and life-time expulsion from Sweden. The judgment gained legal force.\n12.  On 11 March 1999 he was conditionally released from prison and, on 1 July 1999, the Government granted him a temporary residence permit until 1 January 2000, which was subsequently prolonged until 21 February 2002.\n13.  However, on 10 June 2002 the District Court in Karlstad convicted the applicant of battery and assault, attempted aggravated battery and assault, making illegal threats and threatening a civil servant. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. The District Court noted that there was already an expulsion order in force against him, for which reason it dismissed the prosecutor's request with regard to this matter. The judgment was upheld upon appeal by the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) for Western Sweden and, on 10 September 2002, the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.\n14.  On 23 August 2004 the applicant was conditionally released from prison. However, on 20 August 2004, the Government had decided to stay the expulsion until it had considered a request by him, lodged on 27 July 2004, to revoke the expulsion order and grant him a residence permit.\n15.  Having requested and received information from the Migration Board (Migrationsverket), the Swedish Embassy in Nairobi and Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) in Belgium about the applicant's origins and the availability of treatment and medication for persons infected with the HIV virus in Kenya and Somalia, the Government, on 24 February 2005, decided not to revoke the expulsion order and rejected the applicant's request for a residence permit. It found that there was neither any impediment to the enforcement of the expulsion nor any other special reason under the Aliens Act to revoke the expulsion order. Moreover, the Government expressed the opinion that the applicant originated from Kenya.\n16.  On 22 March 2005 the border police responsible for the enforcement of the expulsion of the applicant informed him that they intended to expel him to Somalia, not to Kenya.\n17.  On 24 March 2005, following the Court's indication under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the Government stayed the execution of the expulsion order until further notice.\n18.  On 6 April 2005 the applicant made a new request to the Government to revoke his expulsion order and grant him a residence permit. He maintained that he was from Somalia and that he had no close relatives in Kenya. Moreover, as he had no economic resources, he would no", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2515", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Leksand.\n8.  On 3 May 1993 the Tax Authority (skattemyndigheten) of the County of Dalarna decided to carry out a tax audit of KB Forward, a construction company owned by the applicant and his two brothers. As a result, value-added tax (mervärdeskatt) of more than 7 million Swedish kronor (SEK), including tax surcharges, was levied on the company.\n9.  Unable to pay this sum, the company was declared bankrupt on 16 December 1993, at its own request.\n10.  On 18 March 1994 the public prosecutor opened, on the basis of the findings of the tax audit, a preliminary investigation against the applicant.\n11.  On 3 May 1999 the public prosecutor indicted the applicant for an aggravated bookkeeping offence (grovt bokföringsbrott) or, in the alternative, for having grossly impeded tax supervision (försvårande av skattekontroll, grovt brott).\n12.  By a decision of 25 January 2000, the District Court rejected the applicant's request that the criminal case be dismissed on formal grounds. On 6 April 2000 the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) upheld the District Court's decision and on 18 May 2000 the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.\n13.  By a judgment of 28 March 2001, the District Court acquitted the applicant, whilst acknowledging that the proceedings had been excessively long.  On 18 April 2001, no appeal having been lodged, the District Court's judgment acquired legal force.\n14.  On 20 April 2001 the applicant submitted a claim for pecuniary compensation to the Chancellor of Justice (Justitiekanslern), in which he maintained that the slow handling of his case had constituted a wrongful act or omission within the meaning of the Tort Liability Act (Skadeståndslagen, 1972:207) and that, thus, the Swedish State was liable to pay compensation.\n15.  By a decision of 30 October 2003, the Chancellor of Justice rejected the applicant's claim, disagreeing with the District Court's view on the length of the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2516", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1970 and 1946 respectively and live in the town of Kireyevsk of the Tula Region. They are relatives.\n5.  On 23 October 1992 the second applicant lodged an action against her former husband, claiming division of their marital property, including a country house.\n6.  On 29 December 1993 the Kireyevskiy District Court of the Tula Region ordered the equitable distribution of property. The judgment was quashed on 26 April 1994 and the case was remitted for a fresh examination.\n7.  On 14 June 1994 the Kireyevskiy District Court transferred the case to the Tsentralniy District Court and on 10 July 1995 the Tsentralniy District Court partly accepted the action. On 16 May 1996 the Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n8.  On 10 January 1997 the first applicant entered the proceedings in the capacity of a co-plaintiff. In September 1998 the applicants' amended their claim.\n9.  According to the Government, after September 1998 the District Court listed several hearings which were adjourned because the defendant defaulted and the District Court had to summons additional witnesses.\n10.  In 1999 the applicants complained to the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Tula Regional Judicial Qualification Board about the excessive length of the proceedings. On 13 April 1999 the Tula Regional Judicial Qualifications Board informed the applicants that the excessive length had been caused by the complexity of the case, a large amount of cases pending before the court and the parties' failure to attend hearings. The Board also noted that the presiding judge had been asked to observe the time-limits.\n11.  On 4 December 2000 the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court, by way of a supervisory review, quashed the decision of 14 June 1994 and transferred the case back to the Kireyevskiy District Court for further examination.\n12.  On 25 December 2000 the Kireyevskiy District Court received the case-file. On the same day the applicants asked for a stay in the proceedings because they had complained about the decision of 4 December 2000 to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The proceedings were resumed in February 2001 after the Supreme Court had refused to quash the decision of 4 December 2000.\n13.  By a decision of 18 December 2001 the Kireyevskiy District Court severed the applicants' claims concerning the common household and decided to examine them in a separate set of the proceedings. On 3 April 2002 the District Court dismissed those claims. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 14 April 2002.\n14.  On 23 July 2002 the Kireyevskiy District Court examined the remaining claims and partly accepted the applicants' action. The Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment in the part concerning the division of the country house and remitted the case for a new examination on 14 November 2002.\n15.  The Kireyevskiy District Court fixed a preparatory hearing for 17 March 2003. Of the six hearings listed between 1 April 2003 and 28 April 2004, four hearings were adjourned because the defendant did not attend and two were adjourned upon the applicants' requests awaiting the outcome of the related proceedings.\n16.  On 30 April 2004 the District Court discovered that the defendant had died on 17 April 2004. The proceedings were stayed for determination of a successor. The Kireyevskiy District Court resumed the proceedings on 1 April", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2517", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Irkutsk.\n5.  In October 1993 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of unlawful possession of weapons. On 14 March 1994 he was arrested and spent ten months and three days in custody until his release on a written undertaking not to leave the town.\n6.  On 12 February 2001 the Irkutsk Regional Court acquitted the applicant. On 13 March 2002 the judgment became final.\n7.  The applicant sued the Irkutsk Regional prosecutor's office and the Ministry of Finance for compensation for damage.\n8.  On 7 October 2004 the Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk accepted the action and awarded the applicant 230,099.52 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 6,415 euros) in compensation for damage and RUR 35,000 (approximately 976 euros) in costs for legal representation. The judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 26 November 2004.\n9.  On 5 April 2006 the sum of the judgment award was credited to the applicant's bank account.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2518", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Stavropol.\n7.  The applicant is the editor-in-chief of a regional newspaper “Noviy Grazhdanskiy Mir”. On 4 January 2002 the newspaper published an editorial under the heading “Chernogorov stealthily approaches Stavropol. Thoughts about one decision of the town legislature.” (“Черногоров подбирается к Ставрополю. Размышления по поводу одного решения городской думы”). The article was signed with the pseudonym of V. Nikolayev. Mr Chernogorov was the governor of the Stavropol region and the applicant's competitor in the election to that office in 2000.\n8.  The article lamented the decision by a majority of members of the Stavropol town legislative body to change the procedure of appointment of the town's mayor: the mayor would no longer be elected by the town's residents, but appointed by the town legislature. The publication alleged that the decision had been taken under pressure from Mr Chernogorov:\n“[Members of the legislature] were requested [to make the decision] by the governor himself, who attended the session, accompanied by many of his advisors, to try to persuade those in attendance...\nFrom that moment on, each member of the legislature has been caught in a web of sale-and-purchase transactions. We can only speculate what wonders they will be promised by Chernogorov's representatives. One thing is sure, nobody will offer the legislators more than the governor himself...\nEach member of the legislature will get his share and consume it on the sly.”\n9.  The article concluded with a critical appraisal of the governor as politician and manager:\n“Having miraculously escaped defeat in the governor's election – only because the regional elites failed to reach an agreement and nominate a passable candidate – and having avoided, for the same reason, the formation of a powerful opposition in the regional legislature, our loud and ambitious, but completely incapable governor is about to lay his hands on [the town of Stavropol].”\n10.  On 5 February 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Stavropol Region granted the request of Governor Chernogorov and initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for dissemination of defamatory statements in the mass-media (Article 129 § 2 of the Criminal Code).\n11.  On 6 March 2002 an investigator ordered a linguistic examination of the publication. The examination was performed on 18 March 2002 by Mr B., a professional journalist with degrees in language studies and law, teaching at the Language Studies and Journalism Department of Rostov State University. The expert came to the following conclusion:\n“General conclusion: The text of the article submitted for examination... conveys in a rather harsh and emotional form the author's opinion and his judgments on the role of the Stavropol Region's governor, Mr Chernogorov, in the forthcoming election of the Stavropol town mayor. The text does not contain any words or expressions that are insulting for the governor, with the exception of the controversial description 'incapable'.”\n12.  The expert admitted that certain sentences conveyed a negative attitude towards the managerial abilities of the governor; however, he asserted, the publication did not contain any allegations about violations of laws, including electoral laws, by the governor or any statements damaging his professional reputation. The expert also pointed out, referring to an academic article by the Krasnodar town prosecutor, that ideas, opinions and", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2519", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company is the owner and publisher of the weekly newspaper “Falter”. It has its seat in Vienna.\n6.  In the autumn of 2000 the police officer Mr Kleindienst revealed that he and some colleagues had repeatedly transmitted data from the central police computer to officials of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ). Subsequently criminal investigations were commenced against several persons, amongst them Mr Kabas, leader of the Vienna branch of the FPÖ, on suspicion of having assisted in abuse of authority (Amtsmissbrauch). On 7 May 2002 the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office closed the file against Mr Kabas and criminal proceedings against him were discontinued. In the autumn of 2002 the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht) convicted Mr Kleindienst and the FPÖ official Mr Kreiβl and sentenced them to six months' imprisonment suspended on probation.\n7.  Subsequently, in its issue of “Falter” of 25 September 2002 the applicant company published the following article:\n“Spineless justice\nCOMMENT Informer trial ends with guilty verdicts: shadow cast over public prosecutor's office\nThe “informer affair” – the case about whether FPÖ politicians obtained secret data from the police computer system in return for money over a period of many years – has provisionally come to a close. Josef Kleindienst, the former FPÖ police trade unionist who set the case in motion with a full confession, and the police officer Michael Kreißl, the former right-hand man of the leader of the Vienna branch of the FPÖ, Hilmar Kabas, were given six-month suspended prison sentences. Among other things, they had disclosed official secrets concerning a drugs raid, allowing the Vienna FPÖ the time to publish press advertisements stirring up feelings against “1,000 Nigerians”. The judgments are not yet final.\nThe trial was highly instructive. At the hearing the public prosecutor, Michael Klackl, spoke for the first time of “revealing insight into the handling of sensitive police data” and criticised the “alarming networking between politicians [he presumably did not dare to say FPÖ – ed.] and the police”. Josef Kleindienst, whose detailed statements on the informing system within the FPÖ were nevertheless considered much too “vague” by the Ministry of Justice – headed by Mr Haider's friend Dieter Böhmdörfer – to justify bringing charges against high-ranking FPÖ politicians, was described by the independent criminal judge Kurt Wachsmann in the reasoning of the judgment as a person of “absolute credibility”.\nHow strange. Why, then, were no other high-ranking FPÖ politicians put in the dock? Why were the proceedings against Jörg Haider, Ewald Stadtler, Karl Schnell and 71 other accused FPÖ officials not energetically pursued, even though the “credible” Kleindienst had so heavily incriminated them? Why were the proceedings against the beneficiaries of the informers' services, the politicians, discontinued at a time when not even all the witnesses had been examined? Why did they never have to appear in a public arena before an independent judge, even though they had boasted in Parliament that they had access to secret police files? Could it have been because of political pressure? Because of threats by the FPÖ leadership against public prosecutors, judges and investigators? The public prosecutor's office is not required to justify itself. The notes it keeps in its so-called “journals” are secret.\nThe “informer affair” involves much more than just a few corrupt police of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2520", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Salzburg.\n5.  In the autumn of 1989 the Salzburg Tax Office (Finanzamt) started investigations into a large-scale fraud relating to the “WEB/IMMAG” group.\n6.  On 20 December 1989, the applicant, member of the board of directors and managerial director of one of the concerned companies, wrote a letter to the Salzburg Tax Office and requested that his income tax declaration for the year 1987 be corrected in that the losses declared therein be cancelled.\n7.  Thereupon, the Salzburg Tax Office, on 27 December 1989, informed the applicant that he was suspected of tax evasion and invited him to submit his comments in writing. On 23 January 1990 it further informed the applicant that his letter of 20 December 1989 was considered as “self-accusation” (Selbstanzeige). On 16 February 1990 the applicant transferred the amount of 1,973.07 euros (EUR) for evaded taxes to the Tax Office.\n8.  In the following years the Tax Office conducted extensive inspections into the WEB/IMMAG group together with the Tax Office for the Investigations of Large Enterprises in the course of which investigation reports were published and administrative criminal fiscal proceedings were instituted against a multitude of persons.\n9.  On 19 August 1993 the Salzburg Tax Office heard the applicant. Subsequently, it submitted criminal information against the applicant to the Public Prosecutor's Office (Staatsanwaltschaft) concerning suspicions of tax evasion. The Public Prosecutor's Office received this information on 15 March 1994, together with criminal information against four other suspects related to the WEB/IMMAG group.\n10.  Subsequently, on 4 May 1994 the investigating judge at the Salzburg Regional Court (Landesgericht) instituted criminal investigations (Voruntersuchungen) against the applicant and other accused. It further included these proceedings into already pending proceedings against other accused. This decision was confirmed by the Chamber (Ratskammer) of the Regional Court on 1 February 1995.\n11.  Having received supplementary criminal information from the Tax Office, the investigating judge, in April 1995, summoned the applicant and the other accused to six hearings scheduled in May and June 1995 respectively. The applicant's request that the criminal investigations be stayed was dismissed. On 30 April 1996 the investigating judge forwarded the file to the Public Prosecutor's Office.\n12.  On 13 January 1998 the Salzburg Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant and three co-accused. It charged the applicant with evasion of income tax and participation in evasion of taxes of the WEB/IMMAG group in 1987 and 1988. Proceedings against other accused were separated from those of the applicant's. The applicant's appeals against these decisions remained unsuccessful.\n13.  On 16 May, 4 July, 22 August and 3 October 2000 the Regional Court examined the case. At the end of 2000 the presiding judge of the chamber dealing with the applicant's case retired and a new presiding judge was appointed in July 2001.\n14.  Having held further hearings on 18 and 19 February 2002, the Regional Court convicted the applicant pursuant to section 33 of the Code of Tax Offences (Finanzstrafgesetz) of income tax evasion in the amount of 1,973.07 EUR and partly attempted evasion of other taxes in the total amount of 1,074,891.60 EUR. It sentenced him to a fine of 300,000 EUR of which the payment of 200,0", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2521", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company is the owner and publisher of the weekly magazine Profil. The first applicant works as a journalist for the applicant company.\n5.  In the section of the issue of Profil of 3 September 2001 dealing with society matters the applicant company published, on page 124, a two-page article by the first applicant with the headline “Ouch” and the strapline “Hermann Maier. Austria is limping. Rainer Nikowitz too is suffering from acute phantom pains as a result of the national broken leg.” The article was accompanied by a portrait of Mr Maier together with the caption “Hero Hermann's leg is causing millions of Austrians pain”.\n6.  The article was meant as an ironic essay on the reaction of the Austrian population and media scene to the road-traffic accident in which the Austrian ski-racing champion Hermann Maier had injured his leg some weeks before. In this context the article cited and commented on various statements from Austrian and German newspapers and Hermann Maier's Internet homepage. The article also mentioned one of Maier's competitors, the Austrian ski-racing champion Stefan Eberharter. The relevant passage reads as follows:\n“Even Maier's dear friend Stefan Eberharter had to say something, and he presumably decided against it at the last moment: 'Great, now I'll win something at last. Hopefully the rotten dog will slip over on his crutches and break his other leg too'.”\n“Auch Maiers lieber Freund Stefan Eberharter musste was sagen, und er entschied sich vermutlich im letzten Moment gegen: 'Super, jetzt gwinn ich endlich auch einmal was. Hoffentlich prackt's den miesen Hund mit den Krücken hin, und er bricht sich den anderen Haxn auch noch'.”\n7.  Subsequently, Mr Eberharter brought a private prosecution for defamation against the first applicant and a compensation claim under the Media Act (Mediengesetz) against the applicant company. He submitted that the above passage communicated a negative image of him as it suggested disdainful behaviour towards a colleague. Like all top athletes he earned the majority of his income from public-relations activities for sponsor companies. Because of the article in question he had already been repeatedly questioned about his attitude concerning Mr Maier's accident. If the suggested reproach of most objectionable competitiveness remained attached to him, this would entail a significant loss of value in his standing as a communication medium. His previous correspondence with the applicant company requesting it to publish his comment had remained unsuccessful.\n8.  On 6 December 2001 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht), having held a hearing, convicted the first applicant of defamation under section 111 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) and sentenced him to a fine of 40 daily payments (Tagessätze) of 500 Austrian schillings (ATS) each (making a total of ATS 20,000 [approximately 1,450 euros (EUR)]) suspended for a three-year probationary period. It further ordered the first applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings. It held the applicant company jointly and severally liable for the fine and the costs of the proceedings and further ordered it to pay ATS 10,000 (EUR 726.23) in compensation to Mr Eberharter under section 6 of the Media Act. Lastly, the court ordered the publication of extracts from its judgment.\n9.  The court noted that the offending passage was to be understood in the way it would be perceived by an average reader. The magazine Profil was ai", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2522", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1939 in Tbilisi, Georgia. She was a citizen of the former USSR and continued to hold its citizenship until 31 December 2000; thereafter she became a stateless person. The applicant lives in Moscow.\n8.  On 25 December 2000 the applicant applied to the passport department at the “Filevskiy Park” police station in Moscow for residence registration. She produced her USSR passport, a consent form signed by the flat owner and certified by the housing maintenance authority, an application form for residence registration, a document showing payment of housing maintenance charges and an extract from the residents’ list.\n9.  The Director of the passport department refused to process the application for residence registration. He told the applicant that she could not be registered because she was not a relative of the flat owner.\n10.  The applicant insisted on a written refusal. She was given a printed form on which a checkmark was placed next to the statement “failed to provide a complete set of documents”. It was not specified which documents were missing.\n11.  On 15 January 2001 the applicant challenged the refusal before the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow. She submitted that there had been no legal basis for a restriction on her right to obtain residence registration in the flat, expressly provided to her for that purpose by its owner, and that the registration authorities had no discretion in granting residence registration once the appropriate documents had been produced, as had been the case.\n12.  On 12 February 2001 the Director of the passport department filed his observations on the applicant’s claim. He contended that the applicant did not have Russian citizenship and that she had originally come from Georgia. Georgian citizens were required to have an appropriate visa to enter Russia, which the applicant could not produce, and, in any event, the registration of foreign citizens was a matter for the Ministry of the Interior’s local visa departments.\n13.  On 13 February 2001 the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow ruled on the applicant’s claim. A representative of the flat owner stated before the court that the applicant had been living in the flat since 2000 and that the owner had no objections to her registration. The court dismissed the applicant’s claim, giving two reasons for its decision.\n14.  Firstly, referring to the provisions of the Civil and Housing Codes regulating the joining of family members and other persons to existing municipal-tenancy agreements and emphasising the absence of a family relationship between the applicant and the flat owner, the court ruled that the matter should be examined not as a challenge to the State official’s refusal to grant registration, but rather as a civil action for determination of the applicant’s right to move into the flat.\n15.  Secondly, the court held that the applicant had failed to prove her Russian citizenship or to confirm her intention of obtaining it and pointed out that “a treaty” between Russia and Georgia provided for visa-based exchanges.\n16.  The judgment concluded as follows:\n“Given that the applicant failed to produce information confirming her right to move into the flat in question, information on [her] citizenship and the lawfulness of [her] entry into the Russian Federation, the Court accordingly dismisses her claim.”\n17.  On 5 March 2001 the Dorogomilovskiy District Court of Moscow confirmed certain amendments to the hearin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2523", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Dornbirn.\n7.  Upon criminal information laid by the applicant's wife, the Feldkirch Regional Court, on 9 February 1998, issued an arrest warrant against the applicant and a search warrant of his house. The applicant was suspected of having bodily assaulted and raped his wife, of having threatened her with a firearm, of having sexually assaulted his minor stepdaughter and of being in possession of child pornographic videos. The arrest warrant pointed out that there were reasons to assume that the applicant would react with “massive resistance” upon his arrest and would “try to escape prosecution”.\n8.  On 9 February 1998 at around 23.45 hours six police officers of the special task force (Sondereinsatzgruppe) of the Altach gendarmerie entered the applicant's house. The officers were equipped with bullet-proof vests and shields. Further, they wore masks.\n9.  The applicant submits that before the police entered his house, he had observed two suspicious persons, namely two of the officers, lingering around his parking. He had, therefore, armed himself with a kitchen knife However, when the police entered his house he immediately dropped the knife and held his hands up.\n10.  The police officers forced the applicant to the ground and handcuffed him.\n11.  The applicant submits that he had recognised the police officers on their emblems and had declared at once that he would not do anything and collaborate with the police. An officer allegedly replied to him that he would better do so otherwise he would be “picked off”.\n12.  The applicant was subsequently laid on a table where he was stripped naked, searched for arms and dressed again. According to the applicant he was blindfolded during this time. Upon the shock of his arrest the applicant had urinated in his clothes. The police officers, despite the applicant's repeated requests, refused to let him change his clothes.\n13.  The applicant submits that he was then again forced to the ground where he remained for about 15 minutes while some of the police officers searched his house. According to the applicant he was lying face down while a police officer pressed his knee on the back of his neck. This police officer allegedly told the applicant: “Don't move, otherwise you are dead.” He further submits that it was only when he was lifted up that, without giving any further reasons, he was told that he was arrested.\n14.  The applicant was subsequently taken to the Altach police station where he was questioned until about 3.40 a.m. when he was released and taken back to his house.\n15.  During all of the time of his arrest and detention the applicant remained handcuffed. Upon his request, however, the handcuffs were covered with a garment when leaving the house and were later attached in his front instead behind his back.\n16.  On 10 February 1998 the applicant was again heard by the gendarmerie. On 11 February 1998 he prepared a note for the file in which he described the events at issue. He made, however, no reference to the fact that he had been blindfolded while stripped.\n17.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued on 25 June 1998.\n18.  Meanwhile, on 3 March 1998, the applicant complained to the Vorarlberg Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungs-senat) that the treatment he had suffered during his arrest and at the police station amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Conven", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2524", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a limited liability company, founded in 1989, with its seat in Budapest. It is currently in the process of being wound up.\n6.  In 1991 an action was brought against the applicant company by an entity called Pesterzsébeti Papírgyár Leányvállalat which claimed to be the successor of PV Pesterzsébeti Papírgyár, one of the applicant company’s shareholders. The plaintiff sought inter alia the invalidation of the registration of the applicant company, claiming that the Articles of Association were against the law.\n7.  In its final decision of 28 May 1993, the Supreme Court held that the Articles of Association had been in force until the day of its decision, but were void thereafter. It ordered the winding-up of the applicant company.\n8.  Consequently, on 7 September 1993 the Court of Registration ordered the representative of the applicant company to submit the name, address and authorisation of a liquidation manager (végelszámoló). Despite the representative’s failure to comply with this order, on 30 November 1993 the Court of Registration declared the applicant company’s dissolution as of 28 May 1993, and registered the fact that it was in the process of winding-up.\n9.  On appeal, on 6 June 1995 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, quashed this decision and remitted the case to the Court of Registration, holding that it had delivered its decision despite the representative’s failure to provide the requisite information.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings, on 12 December 1995 the Court of Registration appointed a liquidation manager and declared the retroactive dissolution of the applicant company, as of 28 May 1993. On 6 February 1996 it ordered that corresponding entries be made in the companies register. On 29 October 1996 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 12 December 1995. A further appeal was dismissed on 7 February 1997.\n11.  On 15 June 1998, 14 June 1999 and 19 December 2005, the respective liquidation managers were consecutively replaced.\n12.  Meanwhile, in reaction to various appeals and requests for supplementation or rectification, amendments were made to the order of 28 May 1993 on 16 July, and 1 and 17 September 1999. On 26 January 2000 the judges of the Budapest Court of Registration declared themselves biased. Subsequently, the Pest County Court of Registration was appointed to deal with the case. On 17 April and 30 May 2000 respectively, this court ordered that the decisions of 12 December 1995 and 6 February 1996 be amended. On 21 September 2001 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, dismissed the applicant company’s appeal filed against a procedural order of 12 July 1999.\n13.  On 11 May 2005 the Pest County Directorate of the Tax Authority initiated execution proceedings against the applicant company.\n14.  The winding-up proceedings are still pending.\n15.  In 1991 the applicant company instituted proceedings against several defendants, claiming damages in the amount of 330,000 Hungarian forints, plus accrued interest (“the 1991 proceedings”).\n16.  Moreover, on 7 April 1992 the applicant company brought an action in trespass and for restitutio in integrum of a real property against Pesterzsébeti Papírgyár Leányvállalat (“the 1992 proceedings”). On 23 April 1992 the Budapest XX/XXI District Court transferred this case to the competent Budapest Regional Court. On 28 September 1992 the plaintiff completed its action.\n17.  On 10 March 1993 the Regional Court suspended t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2525", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a trade union, representing mainly train drivers on the United Kingdom's railways. Founded in 1880, it has some 18,000 members and most train drivers are members of ASLEF. It is an independent trade union. The various companies on the United Kingdom rail network do not operate a “closed shop” and railway workers, including drivers, are free to join ASLEF or other unions or not to join a union at all.\n6.  Its Rules provide that its objects include, as well as regulating relations between workers and employers and protecting the welfare of members and the industry, that it “assist in the furtherance of the labour movement generally towards a Socialist society (Rule 3.1(vii) and to “promote and develop and enact positive policies in regard to equality of treatment in our industries and ASLEF regardless of sex, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, creed, colour, race or ethnic origin” (Rule 3.1(viii)).\n7.  In 1978 the Annual Assembly of Delegates(“AAD”) of ASLEF, its governing body, resolved, pursuant to rule 14(a) of ASLEF rules, that \"this AAD being concerned with the rise of Fascist activists and groups instruct the Executive Committee to campaign vigorously to expose the obnoxious policies of political parties such as the National Front.\"\n8.  In February 2002, a Mr Lee (a member of the far-right, lawful, British National Party ('BNP'), previously known as the National Front) applied for membership in ASLEF and was accepted. In April 2002 Mr Lee stood as a candidate in the local elections in Bexley for the BNP.\n9.  On 17 April 2002 an ASLEF trade union officer sent a report to the General Secretary concerning Mr Lee, attaching information that Mr Lee was an activist in the BNP, had handed out anti-Islamic leaflets dressed as a priest and that in 1998 he had stood as a candidate for the BNP in Newham. The report included an article written by Mr Lee for Spearhead (the BNP magazine) and a fax from Bexley Council for Racial Equality stating that Mr Lee had seriously harassed Anti-Nazi League pamphleteers, including taking pictures of them, taking their car numbers, making throat-cutting gestures and following one woman in his car and visibly noting her home address, which matters had been reported to the police.\n10.  On 19 April 2002, an Executive Committee meeting of ASLEF voted unanimously to expel Mr Lee, who was so informed by a letter of 24 April 2002, which stated that his membership of the BNP was incompatible with membership with ASLEF, that he was likely to bring the union into disrepute and that he was against the objects of the union.\n11.  Mr Lee appealed against the expulsion and was informed that a hearing would take place on 13 March 2003. On 20 February 2003, he stated that he would not attend. On 13 March 2003, the Appeals Committee of ASLEF met and rejected his appeal.\n12.  On 18 May 2002, AAD resolved \"that membership of the BNP or similar Fascist organisation is incompatible with being a member of ASLEF as determined under Rule 5-Objects. Therefore any members of BNP who are members of, or apply for membership, of ASLEF shall be removed from membership or refused membership.\" The rules were changed accordingly to read:\nRule 4.1(d):\n“No person shall be admitted into membership of ASLEF if by choice they are members of, supporters of, or sympathisers with, organisations which are diametrically opposed to the objects of the union, such as a fascist organisation.”\n13.  In the meantime, Mr Lee had", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2526", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicants joined together to form the “True Orthodox Church in Moldova” (“the Church”) and applied for registration by the Government on the basis of the Religious Denominations Act (Law no. 979-XII of 24 March 1992). When the authorities refused to register the Church by letter of 29 November 2000, the applicants initiated court proceedings.\n8.  On 30 August 2001 the Court of Appeal accepted their claim and ordered the Government to register the Church. The court also awarded each of the applicants 1,000 Moldovan lei (approximately 85 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered.\n9.  On 29 May 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld that judgment, finding that the Government had not submitted any evidence that the Church would harm public order, health or morals. That judgment was final and enforceable.\n10.  The applicants subsequently made requests for the enforcement of the final judgment. In turn, the Judgments Enforcement Department made requests to the Government to comply with the judgment, to no avail.\n11.  On 12 July 2002 the Religious Denominations Act was amended and the procedure for the registration of religious denominations was simplified. On the basis of these amendments, on 7 August 2002 the applicants asked the “State Organ for the Protection of Religious Denominations” to register the Church. They relied on Article 14 of the above-mentioned law (as amended on 12 July 2002, see below) and on the final judgment in their favour ordering the Church’s registration.\n12.  By letter of 23 August 2002 the State Service for the Protection of Religious Denominations (“the Service”) rejected that request because it “had not received any request for the registration of any religious denomination”. The Service could not register the Church until the relevant State Registry had been established and the necessary documents had been filed with it. On 22 November 2002 the applicants submitted the relevant documents to the Service.\n13.  On 24 August 2004 the Decisions Enforcement Department (“the Department”) sent the enforcement warrant for enforcement to the Service. By its letters of 1 and 11 November 2002 and 14 March 2003 the Department requested the Service to comply with the judgment of 30 August 2001.\n14.  In a letter of 14 March 2003 the Service replied to the Department that the applicants had refused to re-submit documents requested from them and to explain certain parts of the statute of the Church regarding its canonical subordination to foreign churches.\n15.  On 20 March 2003 an officer working for the Department found that the judgment of 30 August 2001 had not been enforced and asked the court to sanction those responsible for the non-enforcement. The officer sent additional requests to the Department and the Buiucani District Court on 16 May, 18 June, 24 October and 6 November 2003, again asking that those responsible for the non-enforcement be punished.\n16.  The Government made three attempts to re-open the proceedings by claiming the discovery of new and relevant information which had not been previously known. These requests were rejected by decisions of the Court of Appeal on 7 May 2003 and the Supreme Court of Justice on 1 October 2003 and 20 October 2004.\n17.  In June 2004 the applicants submitted a new request and a set of accompanying documents, requesting the registration of the Chur", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2527", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Radom.\n5.  On 4 February 1993 the applicant was charged with acting as a procurer of prostitution.\n6.  On 15 October 1993 the Radom District Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Radom District Court.\n7.  The hearing set for 6 June 1994 was cancelled due to the applicant’s absence. Subsequently several hearings were cancelled. In particular, hearings scheduled for 4 July 1994, 22 September 1994, 3 November 1994 and 2 February 1995 were cancelled due to the absence of one of the co‑accused. Seven hearings scheduled between 21 July 1995 and 7 February 1996 were cancelled for various procedural reasons. On 18 July 1996 the court held a hearing.\n8.  Between 20 February 1997 and 25 February 1999 the court held sixteen hearings at regular intervals of six weeks.\n9.  On 23 September 1999, 5 October 1999 and 18 October 1999 the court held further hearings.\n10.  On 25 October 1999 the Radom District Court gave judgment and convicted the applicant as charged. The court also sentenced the applicant to 1 year’s imprisonment stayed for 2 years.\n11.  On an unknown later date the applicant appealed against this judgment.\n12.  On 8 December 2000 the Radom Regional Court held a hearing and gave judgment. The court upheld the first‑instance sentence and dismissed the applicant’s appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2528", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1957 and 1949 and live in Aydın (Turkey) and Australia respectively. The application concerns the killing of the first applicant's brother, Seyit Külekçi, and the second applicant's son, Doğan Altun, the alleged mutilation of their corpses by security forces and the alleged failure to conduct an effective investigation into the applicants' allegations.\n5.  On 14 April 1999 Seyit Külekçi, and Doğan Altun were killed by security forces in the course of an armed clash which occurred in the village of Yeşilalan, Turhal district (province of Tokat).\n6.  According to the scene-of-incident report (olay yeri tespit tutanağı) drawn up and signed by four gendarmerie officers from the Turhal district gendarmerie command, security forces had set up an ambush in Yeşilalan in order to capture members of the TKP-ML/TIKKO (Communist Party of Turkey / Marxist‑Leninist / Turkish Workers and Peasants' Liberation Army). Six members of the organisation arrived in the village and were ordered to surrender. A clash broke out after they opened fire. When the firing ceased the security forces found two corpses. They also found two automatic rifles, four chargers and fifty cartridges next to the bodies. The other four persons fled. It is stated in the report that the security forces used 10 hand grenades, 2,780 Bixi-type bullets, 1,420 G3-type bullets, 2,620 Kalashnikov-type bullets, and other ammunition used for illumination. The gendarmerie officers further drew a sketch-map of the scene of the incident.\n7.   On 15 April 1999 the rifles and the cartridges found after the clash were sent to the Tokat provincial gendarmerie command for a ballistic examination.\n8.  On 14 May 1999, upon the request of the Tokat gendarmerie command, three ballistic experts at the gendarmerie general command conducted a ballistic examination of two rifles and 44 of the cartridges found at the scene.\n9.  Following the incident, officers from the Turhal gendarmerie command took the corpses to their command's yard. The bodies had been identified as those of Seyit Külekçi and Doğan Altun.\n10.  On 15 April 1999 post-mortem examinations were carried out on the deceased in the Turhal gendarmerie command's yard by a medical expert, in the presence of the Turhal public prosecutor. According to the expert's report, Doğan Altun had received nine bullets to his head, shoulders, chest and legs. It was also noted that half of his left ear had been cut off. The medical expert observed that Seyit Külekçi had received eight bullets to his head, shoulders, arms, chest, abdomen and lumbar region. He further observed that both of Seyit Külekçi's ears had been cut off. The expert noted numerous other wounds on the bodies. He concluded that the cause of their deaths was haemorrhaging and damage to the cerebral tissue as a result of wounds caused by firearms. He considered that there was no need to carry out a full autopsy as the cause of death was clear from the findings of the examination. During the post-mortem examination, photographs of the deceased were taken. After the examination the corpses were placed in the Turhal State Hospital morgue.\n11.  On the same day, the gendarmerie officers took the statement of Z.U., an inhabitant of Yeşilalan who was wounded during the armed clash on 14 April 1999. Z.U. maintained, inter alia, that at 9 p.m. terrorists had arrived at the village and asked him to take them to the house of the village headman (muhtar). On their way, shot", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2529", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Moravské Lieskové.\n6.  On 6 April 2000, at around 1.30 a.m., two individuals robbed a gambling house in Liptovský Mikuláš. They were masked with stockings pulled over their heads and entered the club after closing time. They forced the last remaining employee to hand over cash and a stock of cigarettes by threatening him with a starting pistol and an electric paralyser.\n7.  On 6 April 2000, after 6 a.m., the police detained and subsequently charged the applicant and his former classmate and friend, R., with armed robbery within the meaning of Article 234 §§ 1and 2 (b) of the Criminal Code (CC). The applicant who was assigned an ex officio lawyer did not appeal against the charge.\n8.  At his first interrogation R. confessed to having committed the robbery together with the applicant and gave all relevant details. The applicant only confessed to having planned and prepared the robbery. According to him he had withdrawn from the plan at the last minute because he had become anxious. He had driven R. to the scene and had agreed to wait for him in a place agreed upon, but R. had not come to that place.\n9.  In his subsequent interrogation before a judge of the Liptovský Mikuláš District Court (Okresný súd) the applicant repeated the above version. He did not know the person who had committed the robbery with R. and had no explanation as to why R. wished to inculpate him. The applicant added that he had a debt which he intended to pay off from the proceeds of the planned robbery. He and R. had previously wanted to burgle a holiday cottage, but had abandoned the idea after a light had gone on inside. The applicant also stated that he was a self-employed entrepreneur and could settle his debt using money from his business or obtained from his father.\n10.  On 7 April 2000 the District Court remanded the applicant in detention. Testimonies of R. and a witness and other evidence provided a basis for a strong suspicion against the applicant. Even assuming that he had not taken part in the robbery as such, his involvement had in any event amounted to the offence of aiding and abetting under Article 10 § (c) of the CC. As the motive of his actions was his need to obtain money to pay off his debt, it could be presumed that, if released, the applicant would carry on his criminal activities to achieve that objective. This rendered his detention justified under Article 67 § 1 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP). On 12 April 2000 the District Court corrected clerical errors in the decision.\n11.  The applicant filed a complaint (sťažnosť) against his detention arguing that he had no previous convictions and that the weapon had been used by R.\n12.  On 16 May 2000 the Žilina Regional Court (Krajský súd) dismissed the applicant’s complaint observing that the testimony of R. and documentary evidence justified the suspicion that the applicant had been at least an accomplice to the robbery. It was true that he had no previous convictions but, at the same time, it was clear from his own submissions that his objective was to obtain money to discharge his debt. The reasons for detaining him, as established by the District Court, were therefore valid.\n13.  On 19 June 2000 the applicant discharged his lawyer and appointed a new one.\n14.  On 22 June 2000 the applicant was indicted to stand trial in the District Court on charges of conspiracy and robbery (Articles 9 § 2 and 234 §§ 1 and 2 (b) of the CC).\n15.  On 6 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2530", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Goleniów.\n5.  The applicant was charged with attempted burglary. On 22 November 2000 the Myślibórz District Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to 20 months’ imprisonment, taking into account that he was a habitual offender. The applicant appealed. On 6 April 2001 the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n6.  On 20 March 2002 the Myślibórz District Court again convicted the applicant of attempted burglary and sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed. On 8 July 2002 the Szczecin Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment, finding that the correctness of the conviction was borne out by the evidence before the trial court.\n7.  On 26 September 2002 the applicant’s legal-aid counsel refused to file a cassation appeal in his case for lack of appropriate grounds. Throughout the proceedings, except for the retrial, the applicant was represented by a counsel.\n8.  In October 2003 the applicant was arrested and charged with aiding and abetting the sale of stolen goods. He was remanded in custody from 7 October 2003 to 5 February 2004. On 19 March 2004 the Szczecin District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment. It took into account that the applicant was a habitual offender. The applicant appealed against the trial court’s judgment.\n9.  On 13 August 2004 the Szczecin Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant was represented by a counsel. It appears that he did not lodge a cassation appeal against the Regional Court’s judgment.\n10.  The envelope in which the applicant’s letter dated 4 December 2003 was sent to the Court from the Szczecin Detention Centre bears two stamps that read: “censored” (ocenzurowano) and “Szczecin Detention Centre” (Areszt Śledczy, Szczecin). It appears that the envelope was cut open and subsequently resealed with adhesive tape.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2531", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  On 11 October 2000, at the Luzhniki market, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug-dealing by the operative officers I. and K. of the Ramenskiy District police station of Moscow. He was identified by a Mr E. as the person who had sold him heroin. The exact time of the arrest was disputed by the parties. The applicant maintained that he had been apprehended at about noon, the Government claimed that it had happened at 4.30 p.m.\n8.  At 6.50 p.m. the applicant was searched at the police station by the police officer R. in the presence of two lay witnesses (ponyatye). A sachet containing 0.004 g of heroin was found on him.\n9.  A record of the applicant's arrest was drawn up at 11.50 a.m. on the following day. On the same day the investigator ordered the applicant's placement in custody. The decision did not specify the duration of the detention period (see paragraph 51 below for relevant legal provisions).\n10.  On an unspecified date a confrontation between the applicant and Mr E. was arranged. Counsel for the applicant was in attendance. Mr E. confirmed his statement that he had bought heroin from the applicant.\n11.  The applicant alleged that he had been beaten by police officers at the Ramenskiy District police station on 11 October 2000. The Government denied that allegation.\n12.  It follows from the medical certificate of 24 October 2000 issued by the trauma department of clinic no. 8 that on 13 October 2000 at 3.10 p.m. the applicant was brought for a medical examination by the Ramenskiy District police officers. The medical examination revealed “a haematoma in the area of fourth to sixth ribs on the left side, a haematoma in the left side of the lumbar region, an abrasion in the area of the left knee joint”.\n13.  On 18 December 2000 a senior assistant to the Nikulinskiy District prosecutor's office issued a decision not to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant's claim of ill-treatment. The reasoning of the one-page decision was founded on the statements by the police officers R., I. and K. who had taken part in the applicant's arrest and search. They denied that they had exercised any mental or physical pressure on the applicant.\n14.  Counsel for the applicant contested the decision of 18 December 2000 before the deputy Moscow Town prosecutor. They submitted that the medical certificate of 24 October 2000 had been left outside the scope of the inquiry. The Moscow Town prosecutor ordered an additional inquiry.\n15.  On 29 March 2001 the senior assistant issued a further decision not to institute criminal proceedings. The entire reasoning read as follows:\n“During the additional inquiry, the Nikulinskiy District prosecutor's office examined the medical certificate which indicated that on 13 October 2000 [the applicant] had been brought to the medical unit where bodily injuries... had been recorded.\nIt follows from the certificate issued by the head of the Krylatskoye District police station Mr Z. that the applicant did not have any health complaints on his placement in the investigations ward, of which he made a handwritten note in the medical register.\nMoreover, during the additional questioning of [the applicant] by the assistant prosecutor that took place before his placement in custody in the presence of the advocate [the name is unreadable], [the applicant] clarified that the police officers had not exercised pressure on him and that he ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2532", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Moscow.  In January 1995 she was injured in a traffic accident.\n5.  On 3 July 1998 the applicant lodged an action before the Koptevskiy District Court of Moscow seeking compensation for damage from the owner of the car, a private company.\n6.  On 8 July 1998 the Koptevskiy District Court adjourned the examination of the action until 20 July 1998 to allow the applicant to indicate possible evidence and clarify her claims. After she had duly fulfilled the instructions, on 20 July 1998 the Koptevskiy District Court asked the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow and certain hospitals to submit documents related to the traffic accident and the state of the applicant's health. The documents were received on 3 August 1998. In November 1998, following unsuccessful attempts to summons the respondent, the Koptevskiy District Court inquired the tax authorities about the company's legal address.\n7.  In April 1999 the applicant successfully asked for adjournment of the proceedings until May 1999 because she was undergoing treatment in a hospital. On 24 September 1999 she amended her claims.\n8.  On 28 September 1999 the Koptevskiy District Court listed a preparatory hearing for 7 October 1999. That hearing was adjourned until 14 October 1999 because the respondent defaulted. At the following hearing of 9 November 1999 the District Court, upon the applicant's request, charged the respondent's property and inquired the tax authorities about the respondent's bank accounts. On 22 November 1999, in response to the applicant's request, the Koptevskiy District Court charged the respondent's bank accounts.\n9.  On 8, 10 and 15 December 1999 the applicant and her representative successfully asked the District Court to obtain additional evidence and invite a prosecutor to the proceedings. On 15 December 1999 the District Court also lifted the charging order in respect of certain property of the respondent. The decision was upheld on appeal on 10 January 2000.\n10.  The Koptevskiy District Court fixed a hearing for 19 January 2000. That hearing was adjourned because the applicant did not attend. At the following hearing of 22 February 2000 the applicant challenged the composition of the bench and petitioned the District Court for medical and technical expert opinions. The District Court adjourned the examination of the case until 23 March 2000 to allow the applicant to prepare questions to experts.\n11.  Of the three hearings fixed between 23 March and 14 June 2000 two were adjourned because the judge was ill or participated in unrelated proceedings.\n12.  On 14 June 2000 the applicant's representative successfully asked the District Court to stay the proceedings until 1 September 2000 because he could not attend hearings.\n13.  The hearing fixed for 1 September 2000 was adjourned because the judge was ill. At the following hearing of 19 September 2000 the applicant successfully asked the District Court to stay the proceedings until 24 October 2000 to allow her to amend the claims. However, she defaulted at the hearing of 24 October 2000 and the District Court again stayed the proceedings until 5 December 2000.\n14.  At the hearing of 5 December 2000 the applicant submitted the amended statement of claim and asked the court to perform a medical technical examination. The Koptevskiy District Court accepted the applicant's request, ordered the expert examination and appointed an expert bureau to perform it. The examination", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2533", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Bataysk in the Rostov Region.\n6.  In 2004 the applicant sued the Bataysk Town Administration for provision of housing. He had by this time for several years suffered from a grave form of infectious tuberculosis and was entitled to housing according to the relevant provisions of the domestic law.\n7.  On 19 November 2004 the Batayskiy City Court allowed the applicant's claim and ordered the town administration:\n“...to grant Mr. Sypchenko, whose family comprises five members, well-equipped housing according to the sanitary-technical requirements, with a living surface of no less than 70 square meters and a total surface of no less than 90 square meters”.\n8.  On 9 February 2005 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Rostov Regional Court, and entered into force. The decision was to be implemented by way of providing the applicant with an occupancy voucher (ордер на жилое помещение) from the local municipal authority. The voucher served as the legal basis for taking possession of the flat designated therein and for the signing of a tenancy agreement between the landlord, the tenant and the housing maintenance authority.\n9.  On 9 March 2005 the enforcement proceedings were opened. However, the judgment could not be enforced because the town administration allegedly possessed no available housing of the indicated size or financial resources to purchase it.\n10.  Following the Town Administration's request to review the case by way of supervisory review due to the impossibility to enforce it, on 28 March 2005 the Rostov Regional Court decided to obtain the case-file from the Batayskiy City Court and to stay the enforcement proceedings until its examination by way of supervisory review.\n11.  On 17 June 2005 the Rostov Regional Court granted the request for supervisory review lodged by the Mayor of Bataysk and remitted the matter for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court.\n12.  On 7 July 2005 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court amended the judgment of 19 November 2004 as upheld on 9 February 2005. It found that the previous instances had misapplied certain provisions relating to the rules for calculating the living surface and thus awarded the applicant the maximum possible surface per person (12m² per person) instead of applying the minimum standard (9m² per person) without giving any reasons. The Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court ordered the Town Administration:\n“...to grant [the applicant] ... housing... with the living space of no less than 45 square meters”.\n13.  On 18 October 2005 the Mayor of Bataysk issued an order which granted the applicant a social tenancy voucher for a three room flat with a living surface of 50.5 square meters. The applicant contested the order in court, expressing general discontent with the flat. On 15 March 2006 the Rostov Regional Court in final instance dismissed the applicant's complaint.\n14.  On 5 June 2005 the Batayskiy City Court obliged the applicant to sign the social tenancy agreement for the awarded flat. The applicant, however, refused to sign the agreement.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2534", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant, Tønsbergs Blad A/S, is the publisher of the newspaper Tønsbergs Blad. The second applicant, Mrs Marit Haukom, is its former editor-in-chief. She is a Norwegian national who was born in 1952 and lives in the city of Tønsberg in southern Norway.\n7.  Tønsbergs Blad is a regional newspaper covering primarily the city of Tønsberg and eight surrounding municipalities in the County of Vestfold. The newspaper is 100% owned by Orkla Media A/S. It is published six days a week. In 2002 it had a daily average circulation of 33,314, corresponding to a 60% household coverage within its primary circulation area.\n8.  In a meeting held on 21 September 1999 the Standing Committee on Development and Environmental Affairs (a politically appointed body attached to the Municipal Council) of the Tjøme Municipality asked the municipal administration to provide a survey of properties whose owners were suspected of breaching permanent residence requirements. Under section 5(3) of the Concession Act (Lov om konsesjon ved erverv av fast eiendom) of 31 May 1974 (no. 19), such requirements applied to the extent that it was deemed necessary to prevent private properties intended for permanent residential use from being transformed into holiday homes. Provisions to this effect were further contained in Regulation (forskrift) no. 2089 of 14 December 1984, issued under the above-mentioned Act in respect of the Tjøme Municipality, one of the few municipalities in Norway which applied permanent residence requirements for all-year residences. The purpose was to fend off pressures exerted on the local community by the exceptionally high demand for holiday homes in the Tjøme area, an attractive holiday destination for a large number of people residing notably in the Oslo region. There was also a concern that too many residences were unoccupied during off-season periods.\n9.  On 11 October 1999 the municipal administration drew up a list which was entitled “Properties which should be verified in relation to the residence requirements. (Not public)”. It was a tip-off list based on information from inhabitants and local politicians in the Municipality and was presented to the Standing Committee at a meeting open to the public held the following day. The list included the name of Mr Tom Vidar Rygh, who at the time was the Executive Vice-President, the Head of Financial Investments and a member of the Executive Board of Orkla ASA, one of Norway's largest industrial companies.\n10.  The property in question had been acquired in 1987 and Mr Rygh's wife held title to it (a fact that was not deemed significant in the defamation proceedings summarised below). An all-year residence had been erected on the property in 1988 and the Rygh family had used it as their main residence for 10 years until 1998, when they had moved to Oslo because of Mr Rygh's professional situation. Before that, they had been given legal advice that using the property solely for holiday purposes would not conflict with the residence requirements under the relevant national law.\n11.  Mr Terje Wilhelmsen, a journalist, became aware of the process initiated by the Tjøme Municipality and received a copy of the above-mentioned list. He had a close network of contacts within the Municipality. From autumn 1999 he made a number of enquiries to the Municipality on the subject. On 7 June 2000 the journalist interviewed the director of the Municipality's Planning and Building Department (leder for pl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2535", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Gerardus A.M. Geerings, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1977 and lives in Eindhoven.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\nOn an unspecified date, the applicant was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of involvement – together with others – in various (attempted) thefts of lorries containing merchandise and thefts of merchandise from lorries (inter alia, washing machines, laundry dryers and other household appliances, telephones, computer parts, car radios, audiovisual devices and materials, clothes, bags, shoes, camping and sports equipment) committed between 1 August 1996 and 28 October 1997.\n7.  On 23 December 1997 the applicant was summoned to appear before the 's‑Hertogenbosch Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) on 29 January 1998 in order to stand trial on various charges of (attempted) burglary, deliberately handling stolen goods and membership of a criminal organisation. Separate criminal proceedings were brought against a number of co-accused.\n8.  In its judgment of 20 May 1998 the 's-Hertogenbosch Regional Court convicted the applicant of several counts of participation in (attempted) burglary, deliberately handling stolen goods and membership of a criminal organisation. The Regional Court found it established that the applicant had been involved in the theft of 120 laundry dryers from a lorry and a trailer; the theft of a lorry; the theft of large numbers of telephones, computer parts and car radios from a lorry; the theft of 300 CD auto changers, 62 radio cassette players and a speaker sound system from a truck; the theft of large quantities of, inter alia, audio devices, dishwashers, shoes, vacuum cleaners and clothing from lorries and thefts of lorries; the handling of one or more stolen video cameras; the attempted theft of a lorry and the attempted theft of goods from a lorry. It sentenced the applicant to five years' imprisonment less the time spent in pre-trial detention.\n9.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal (gerechtshof). In its judgment of 29 January 1999 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 20 May 1998, convicted the applicant of having participated on 28 or 29 September 1997 in the theft of a lorry and a trailer containing 120 laundry dryers, of having on 25 September 1997 stolen an articulated lorry and a number of printers and of having handled – in the period between 1 August 1996 and 28 October 1997 – a piece of clothing and a video camera in the knowledge that these items had been obtained through crime. It acquitted the applicant of the remainder of the charges, having found that these had not been lawfully and convincingly proved. The Court of Appeal sentenced him to thirty-six months' imprisonment, of which twelve months were suspended for a probationary period of two years. In addition, it declared inadmissible the compensation claim filed by the civil party (benadeelde partij). Finding this claim to be too complicated to be dealt with in criminal proceedings, the Court of Appeal decided that it should be brought before a civil court.\n10.  In the meantime, on 7 January 1999, the public prosecutor had summoned the applicant to appear before the 's‑Hertogenbosch Regional Court on 4 February 1999 in order to be heard in connection with the prosecutor's request for an order for the confiscation of an illegally obtained advantage (vordering tot ontneming van weder", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2536", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6. On 16 November 1994 the applicant retired. On 20 December 1994 the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund (“the Fund”) determined the amount of his pension.\n7. On 31 October 1996 the applicant requested the Fund to re-calculate the amount of his pension on account of newly discovered evidence. He argued that the Constitutional Court had meanwhile repealed some provisions of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (“the Act”) and had created a legal basis for a higher calculation of his pension.\n8. On 25 November 1996 the Fund dismissed his request, holding that the Constitutional Court's decision concerned only persons who had retired as of 1995.\n9. On 1 December 1996 the applicant appealed against the decision.\n10. On 3 February 1997 the Second Instance Commission within the Fund dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n11. In March 1997 the applicant instituted administrative contentious proceedings (управен спор) before the Supreme Court challenging the lawfulness of the Fund's decisions.\n12. On 19 November 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 3 February 1997 as adopted by a body which had not met the statutory requirements to decide in second instance. It referred to the Constitutional Court's decision by which it had abrogated the relevant provisions of the Act in accordance with which the Second Instance Commission within the Fund had been vested with a jurisdiction to decide the appeals against the Fund's first-instance decisions.\n13. On 28 January 1998 the Government Appeal Commission (“the Commission”) (Комисија за решавање во втор степен по предметите од пензинското и инвалидското осигурување) dismissed the applicant's appeal restating the reasons adduced by the Fund in its decision of 25 November 1996.\n14. On 15 September 1998 the applicant instituted administrative contentious proceedings before the Supreme Court against this decision.\n15. On 27 October 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the Commission's decision and remitted the case for re-examination. It held that the Commission had not examined the applicant's request for reassessment of the previous years' salary as submitted by him, but instead had evaluated the impact of the Constitutional Court's decision on the calculation of the amount of his pension.\n16. It appears that on 15 February 2000 the applicant instituted administrative contentious proceedings before the Supreme Court as the Commission had failed to decide his claim.\n17. On 12 June 2000 the Commission upheld the applicant's appeal and decided that the amount of his pension should be increased. It referred to a Supreme Court's decision given in plenary session concerning the calculation of a pension in compliance with the Constitutional Court's decision mentioned above.\n18. On 22 June 2000 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court that the Commission had not decided his initial claim as submitted in his request.\n19. On 7 September 2000 the applicant requested the President of the Supreme Court to join the proceedings and to decide on the merits.\n20. On 5 December 2001 the Supreme Court adopted two separate decisions: it dismissed the applicant's appeal against the Commission's decision of 12 June 2000 and it upheld the appeal for failure of the administrative authorities to decide. It also instructed the Commission to decide the applicant's appeal against the Fund's decision of November 1996, as initially submitted.\n21. On 28 March 2002 the Commission decided the applicant's claim concerning the adju", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2537", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in East Sussex.\n7.  His wife died on 7 April 2000, leaving him with two children born in 1995 and 1997. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 23 May 2000 and was rejected on 25 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.\n8.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Worcestershire.\n9.  His wife died on 11 December 1997, leaving him with two children born in 1989 and 1993. His claim for widows' benefits was made in January 1998 and was rejected on 15 January 1998 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant asked for his claim to be re-opened on 1 May 2000 and it was again rejected on 9 May 2000. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.\n10.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Hertfordshire.\n11.  His wife died on 11 April 2000, leaving him with three children born in 1985, 1986 and 1989. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 9 June 2000 and was rejected on 6 July 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.\n12.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Middlesex.\n13.  His wife died on 3 July 2000, leaving him with two children born in 1986 and 1987. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 21 August 2000 and was rejected on 5 September 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.\n14.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Bedford.\n15.  His wife died on 4 August 2000, leaving him with two children born in 1993 and 1996. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 15 September 2000 and was rejected on 22 September 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2538", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 26 November 1999 Ms S.D. lodged a criminal complaint against S.Ç. and G.D., alleging threatening behaviour. She apparently stated that “a certain Erdoğan, chief of police” had protected the two men.\n6.  On 5 February 2000, at about 5 p.m., the applicant, who had been employed as a doctor by the Istanbul police for fifteen years, received a telephone call from his supervisor, who asked him to come to the office. As he got out of his car in the car park outside the building, the applicant was stopped by three police officers. In front of the members of the public in the courtyard, he was handcuffed and informed that he was under arrest. In the course of his arrest, the applicant told the officers that he was an official police doctor and that there must have been a mistake. He begged them not to handcuff him in front of hundreds of people. He was taken into police custody in the organised crime and arms-trafficking branch.\n7.  Later that day, without having informed him of the accusations against him, the police took the applicant in handcuffs to his workplace and home, where they carried out searches. It appears that he again asked for the handcuffs to be removed so that his children and neighbours would not see him being restrained. He even suggested that the officers go to his home after sunset so that he would not be exposed to public view. The police officers refused and, moreover, forced him to walk 70 metres along the road before arriving at his home. During the search he was allegedly insulted in front of his family. The police also seized his official weapon.\n8.  The applicant further maintained that he had signed the records of the searches while in handcuffs, before being escorted back to the police headquarters. He was made to sit on a chair, blindfolded and still in handcuffs, throughout his time in police custody. As the chair was by the entrance to the toilets, he was jostled whenever anyone came past. He heard staff from the headquarters ask why their doctor was in police custody. He refused to drink or eat.\n9.  On 7 February 2000 a statement was taken from him by the police although he had not been informed of the accusations against him.\n...\n10.  On 5, 6 and 7 February 2000 the applicant was examined by a forensic specialist. The subsequent medical reports did not mention any signs of assault. They stated that he was cooperative and lucid, that his faculties had not been impaired and that he had not reported any particular grievances.\n11.  On 8 February 2000 the applicant was taken to the Bakırköy public prosecutor's office; he was later released without being brought before the prosecutor.\n12.  On 10 February 2000 he was examined by a psychiatrist, who certified him unfit for work for twenty days on account of psychiatric trauma. His sick-leave was extended several times on account of acute depression.\n13.  On 15 February 2000 the applicant lodged a very detailed complaint with the Istanbul Criminal Court concerning his detention in police custody, setting out the circumstances in which he had been arrested, detained and released after three days without any explanation. He asked the court to inform him why he had been taken into police custody.\n14.  Later that day the court replied that he had been questioned in connection with criminal investigation no. 2000/102 because of his relations with suspects.\n15.  On 16 February 2000 the applicant was informed t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2539", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Klaukkala. He is a former partner in a limited partnership company, which was wound-up in 1993.\n5.  On 4 February 1994 the company's estate reported an offence against the applicant. The applicant was first interrogated by the police on 4 July 1995 on suspicion of, inter alia, offences of debtor's fraud, dishonesty and bookkeeping. In June 1997 he was charged on twenty-one counts.\n6.  The Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) held the first hearing on 30 September 1997. In the following 14 hearings it heard 21 witnesses named by the prosecutor and 5 witnesses named by the applicant.\n7.  At the 16th hearing on 4 March 1999 the District Court delivered its judgment. It convicted the applicant of, inter alia, two aggravated debtor's frauds, two offences of debtor's dishonesty and five bookkeeping offences and sentenced him to one year and eight months' imprisonment. He was ordered to pay the company's estate some 723,400 Finnish Marks (FIM; corresponding to 122,000 euros (EUR)) in compensation and to reimburse its legal expenses.\n8.  He appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), requesting an oral hearing. On 16 February 2001 he asked the court to speed up the proceedings and to dismiss the charges because of the length of the proceedings.\n9.  On 25 March 2002, without having held an oral hearing, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's judgment with some minor amendments. His conviction was reduced to eighteen months' imprisonment. It rejected the applicant's further claims with the reasoning that the proceedings had not exceeded a reasonable time.\n10.  On 2 October 2002 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2540", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.\n5.  In 1975 a plot of land located in Warsaw, owned by the applicant's mother, was expropriated for the purpose of building an apartment block. However, the buildings were constructed only on a part of the plot and the rest remained unused.\n6.  On 5 July 1992 the applicant's father and his brother lodged an application for restitution of the expropriated land with the Warsaw District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) under section 69 of the Law of 29 April 1985 on the Land Administration and Expropriation (Ustawa o gospodarce gruntami i wywłaszczaniu nieruchomości). This section stipulated that the former owner (or his legal successor) of the expropriated property could lodge an application for restitution provided that the property no longer served a purpose specified in the expropriation decision. Subsequently, the applicant lodged another application for restitution of the property.\n7.  The applicant's mother died and on 23 May 1994 the Warsaw District Court declared the applicant and his brother to be her only heirs.\n8.  The authorities failed to take any steps until 1994 when they requested information from several other institutions as to the legal situation of the property. It appears that the applicant repeatedly requested information about the course of the proceedings.\n9.  In 1995 the Warsaw‑Bemowo Municipal Office (Urząd Gminy) informed the applicant that the 1975 decision on expropriation was still in force and was final.\n10.  On 25 January 1996 the Head of the Warsaw District Office (Kierownik Urzędu Rejonowego) stayed the proceedings and informed the applicant that he could institute another set of proceedings concerning the division of the property in question.\n11.  Subsequently, the applicant instituted such proceedings in which he sought to divide the expropriated property. It appears that the first decision in this set of proceedings was given on 23 June 1998 dismissing the request. Finally, on 30 September 1998 the Warsaw Self‑Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) discontinued the proceedings.\n12.  On 9 November 1998 the applicant requested the resumption of the proceedings concerning restitution of the property.\n13.  On 7 October 1999 the Mayor of the Warsaw District (Starosta Powiatu Warszawskiego) resumed the proceedings and on the same date he discontinued them considering that the matter was res judicata.\n14.  The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 18 November 1999 the Warsaw Self‑Government Board of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the decision and remitted the case.\n16.  Since the Mayor failed to take any decision the applicant lodged on 1 February 2001 a complaint about his inactivity with the Warsaw Self‑Government Board of Appeal. The Board failed to take any action. On 30 January 2002 the applicant complained about the inactivity of both authorities to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny).\n17.  On 10 June 2002 the Mayor of the Warsaw District gave a decision in which it allowed the applicant's action and returned to him and to his brother the property in question.\n18.  On 18 June 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court examined the applicant's complaint about the inactivity of the administrative authorities and dismissed it, inter alia, in view of the Mayor's decision of 10 June 2002.\n19.  The Warsaw‑Bemowo Mayor (Burmistrz) lodged an appeal against the decision of 10 June 2002 with the Mazowiecki Governor (Woje", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2541", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Starachowice.\n6.  The applicant was serving a prison sentence in Tarnów Mościce Prison following three separate convictions. The overall term of his imprisonment was due to come to an end on 6 January 2002.\n7.  Pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Code applicable to re-offenders, the applicant became eligible for conditional release after having served three-quarters of the overall term of his imprisonment, namely on 6 January 1999. After that date, the applicant requested a court on several occasions to grant him conditional release. However, his requests were denied on grounds of insufficient progress in his rehabilitation. On 20 March 2000 the prison governor requested the Tarnów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) to order the applicant's release (warunkowe przedterminowe zwolnienie) in view of his satisfactory rehabilitation. The Tarnów Regional Prosecutor objected to that request.\n8.  On 22 March 2000 the Tarnów Regional Court gave a decision ordering the applicant's conditional release for a three-year probationary period. It placed the applicant under the court officer's supervision and imposed certain other obligations on him.\n9.  The Tarnów Regional Prosecutor appealed against that decision. The Regional Court did not amend its decision and transmitted the prosecutor's appeal to the Cracow Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny).\n10.  The hearing before the Court of Appeal was scheduled for 12 April 2000 at 8.45 a.m. On that day the Cracow Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Regional Court. No further appeal lay against the decision of the Court of Appeal. In the applicant's submission, the Court of Appeal's decision was delivered at 9 a.m.\n11.  Later on 12 April 2000, a certified copy of the Court of Appeal's decision was sent to the Tarnów Regional Court, which received it on 13 April 2000. On the same day the Tarnów Regional Court ordered the governor of the Tarnów Mościce Prison to release the applicant and served him with a copy of the Court of Appeal's decision. The governor received these documents on 14 April 2000.\n12.  According to the official release certificate, the applicant was released on 14 April 2000. The applicant submitted that he had been released on that date at 4 p.m.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2542", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  At the time of lodging his application with the Court in 2003 the applicant was a retired farmer living in Limassol. He died on 15 April 2005.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant was the owner of three plots of land in the village of Ayios Tychonas in the district of Limassol (plots nos. 148, 137 and 137/1). These plots were classified under the Antiquities Law as being of archaeological importance and were within the ambit of a town planning zone subject to building restrictions for the purpose of protecting antiquities in the area.\n8.  Following two notices of expropriation issued on 21 March 1986 and 15 May 1987 respectively, two orders of expropriation were published on 4 July 1986 (no. 856) and 24 July 1987 (no. 1251) in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus pertaining to the applicant's plots. The applicant was offered the amount of 6,500 Cyprus pounds (CYP) in respect of the first plot and CYP 22,100 for the remaining two.\n9.  On 1 November 1994 the applicant instituted two sets of civil proceedings (by way of reference) before the District Court of Limassol for the assessment of the compensation (proceedings nos. 56/94 and 58/94) in respect of the expropriation of his property.\n10.  In proceedings no. 56/94 the applicant claimed the amount of CYP 36,280 as compensation for the compulsory acquisition of plot no. 148 plus CYP 1,000 for the valuer's fees, interest at a rate of 9% from 21 March 1986 and costs and expenses in respect of the proceedings. According to the acquiring authority's expert the value of the property in question was CYP 3,800.\n11.  The pleadings were completed on 23 October 1995.\n12.  On 6 November 1995 the applicant withdrew an application filed on 14 September 1995 concerning the failure of the acquiring authority to file its defence. On the former date the case was set for mention for 5 December 1995.\n13.  In proceedings no. 58/94 the applicant claimed the amount of CYP 72,385 as compensation for the compulsory acquisition of plots nos. 137 and 137/1 plus CYP 1,500 for the valuer's fees, interest at a rate of 9% from 15 May 1987 and costs and expenses in respect of the proceedings. According to the acquiring authority's expert the value of the property in question was CYP 16,000.\n14.  The applicant filed his statement of claim on 27 February 1995 and the acquiring authority filed its defence thereto on 30 October 1995.\n15.  The proceedings were subsequently joined following an application by the acquiring authority to this effect.\n16.  The evidence that was presented by the expert witnesses of the parties in the proceedings essentially differed with respect to the determination of the market value of the property. On the one hand, the applicant's expert maintained that even if the properties were situated in a specific planning zone, they should be compared to similar plots of land sold outside that zone since the acquiring authority's inclusion in the particular zone brought about a reduction in the value of the land for which he should be compensated. On the other hand, the Government's expert compared the relevant properties to properties within the same planning zone with the same legal and natural features.\n17.  From 6 November 1995 until 25 April 1996 the court fixed the cases for mention four times. On the latter date the parties requested a hearing date. The court fixed the cases for hearing for 18 December 1996. Howeve", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2543", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the town of Rostov-on-Don.\n5.  On 16 May 1997 the Investigation Division of the Novocherkassk Town Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of arbitrary actions. He gave a written undertaking not to leave the town.\n6.  The case was referred for trial to the Novocherkassk Town Court. At the hearing on 26 November 1997 the applicant successfully challenged the presiding judge and the registrar.  On 22 January 1998 the new presiding judge was assigned to the case. At the first hearing on 16 April 1998 the Town Court accepted the applicant's request for additional witnesses and adjourned the proceedings until 15 June 1998.\n7.  Of the seven hearings fixed between 15 June 1998 and 11 January 1999, one was postponed due to the counsel's absence, and five were adjourned because the applicant's co-defendant, Ms F., and witnesses did not attend. On 10 December 1998 the Novocherkassk Town Court ordered the police to bring Ms F. to the hearings.\n8.  On 12 January 1999 the applicant's lawyer challenged the presiding judge, the registrar and the prosecutor. The Novocherkassk Town Court accepted the motion in respect of the presiding judge and appointed a new judge, B. It appears that the first hearing was fixed for 29 April 1999.\n9.  On 11 May 1999 the applicant asked the Novocherkassk Town Court to assign another judge. He argued that the presiding judge B. was a close friend of a police officer who had performed the pre-trial investigation in his case. The Novocherkassk Town Court removed judge B., assigned judge M. to the case and fixed the first hearing for 5 June 1999.\n10.  Of the twenty-one hearings fixed between 5 June 1999 and 25 January 2001, ten were adjourned because Ms F., the victims and witnesses defaulted and eleven were postponed because the accused, including the applicant, their counsel and the witnesses did not attend. According to the Government, the Novocherkassk Town Court issued several decisions authorising the police to ensure Ms F.'s presence at the hearings.\n11.  On 25 January 2001 the presiding judge M. dismissed himself from the trial. The judge held that he had “formed a negative attitude towards the accused and their counsel” because on numerous occasions they had defaulted and had not notified the reasons for their absence. The judge considered that this could influence his impartiality.\n12.  On 20 February 2001 judge Z. was assigned to the case. She fixed the first hearing for 22 March 2001.\n13.  Of the twenty-two hearings listed between 22 March 2001 and 16 April 2002, nine were postponed because the witnesses and victims defaulted and six were adjourned because the accused, the victims and witnesses did not attend.\n14.  The prosecutor asked the Town Court to remit the case for an additional inquiry to correct certain procedural defects made during the pre-trial investigation. On 19 April 2002 the Town Court accepted the request and returned the case-file to the Novocherkassk Town prosecutor's office. The Rostov Regional Court upheld that decision on 16 June 2002, despite the applicant's protest.\n15.  The prosecutor re-opened the investigation on 5 September 2002 and on the same day discontinued the criminal proceedings because the statutory limitation period had expired. The investigator withdrew the applicant's written undertaking not to leave the town.\n16.  On 24 December 2002 the Rostov Regional Court, in the final instanc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2544", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1951, 1947, 1970 and 1971 respectively and live in Rijeka.\n5.  The applicants are heirs of the late A.B. who died on 14 December 1995. The first and the second applicant are his children, and the third and the fourth applicants are his grandchildren (children of his other daughter).\n6.  In the context of inheritance proceedings following A.B.'s death, on 16 August 1996 his former wife, M.K., brought a civil action against the applicants in the Krk Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Krku). M.K. sought her share in co-ownership of a house on the account of certain investments she had made while living in common law marriage (izvanbračna zajednica) with the deceased.\n7.  In the period between the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia and the rendering of the first-instance judgment, the Krk Municipal Court held nine hearings.\n8.  At the hearing held on 17 March 1998 the applicants moved for evidence to be taken in order to prove that A.B. had not lived in a common law marriage with the plaintiff and that he had reconstructed his house independently with his own means. On 22 April and 3 August 1998 the court heard two and six witnesses respectively.\n9.  The Krk Municipal Court then requested certain witnesses to be heard before other courts. In reply, it received minutes of the witness testimonies from the Zadar Municipal Court and the Split Municipal Court.\n10.  On 11 August 1999 the applicants filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that there had been no common law marriage between the plaintiff and the late A.B.\n11.  The next hearing was held on 12 August 1999 at which the court heard nine witnesses.\n12.  At the next hearing held on 25 April 2000 the court heard the second and the third applicant and adjourned the hearing for 10 August 2000, when the first applicant again sought for a number of witnesses to be heard.\n13.  At the next hearings held on 5 June and 13 August 2001 the court heard yet more witnesses and on 3 December 2001 it closed the main hearing.\n14.  On 3 December 2001 the court gave judgment dismissing both M.K.'s action and the applicants' counterclaim. On appeal, on 1 October 2003 the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case finding that it was necessary to establish the plaintiff's citizenship.\n15.  In 2003 the first and the second applicant filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. On 16 January 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared their complaint inadmissible because the County Court had in the meantime, on 1 October 2003, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n16.  In the resumed proceedings, on 4 November 2003 the President of the Krk Municipal Court accepted the applicants' request for withdrawal of the first-instance judge and assigned another judge to hear the case.\n17.  The court held hearings on 12 February 2004 and 17 June 2004.\n18.  On 26 October 2004 the court adopted a decision declaring the plaintiff's action inadmissible, because as a foreign national, she had not obtained the necessary permissions for acquisition of property in line with the domestic legislation. At the same time, the Krk Municipal Court concluded that the applicants' counterclaim had been withdrawn. M.K. appealed against that decision but on 9 March 2006 the Rijeka County Court dismissed her appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2545", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Czeladź.\n7.  She and her husband married in 1973. Their daughter was born in 1976. It appears that the applicant's husband abused alcohol and subjected her to psychological harassment over a long period of time. In the early 1980s that situation led to the applicant's nervous breakdown. She began receiving neurological treatment. In October 1993 she and her daughter left the matrimonial home. Nonetheless, the applicant's husband continued to harass her.\n8.  In November 1995 the applicant applied for a divorce order which was granted in March 1996. The divorce court found that the applicant's husband had been at fault in respect of the breakdown of their marriage.\n9.  In July 1996 the applicant began receiving psychiatric treatment. In January 1997 she was declared to have a “second degree of invalidity” and granted an invalidity pension on account of the state of her mental health. In March 1998 the applicant was declared entirely unfit for work.\n10.  On 26 February 1999 the applicant filed with the Będzin District Court a claim for maintenance in the amount of PLN 600 per month against her former husband. At that time she was in receipt of a gross monthly invalidity pension in the amount of PLN 388.82.\n11.  On 29 March 1999 the District Court gave judgment by default, allowing the applicant's claim in full.\n12.  Subsequently, the defendant filed an objection against the judgment by default. On 20 September 1999 the District Court quashed that judgment and ruled on the applicant's maintenance claim. It ordered the defendant to pay monthly maintenance in the amount of PLN 300 as of 1 April 1999.\n13.  On 25 October 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment. She requested the District Court to exempt her from the court fees and to appoint a legal-aid lawyer in the appeal proceedings. She submitted that she was unable to represent herself during the proceedings due to stress related to her presence in the court. She further submitted that she could not afford a lawyer.\n14.  On 28 October 1999 the District Court dismissed her application for a legal-aid lawyer[1]. It considered that assistance of a legal-aid lawyer was necessary only in complex cases or where a party to the proceedings was incapable of defending his/her interests. However, in the present case those conditions had not been met. It further found that the content of the applicant's submissions to the court supported the finding that she was capable of effectively representing herself.\n15.  On 19 November 1999 the applicant filed an interlocutory appeal (zażalenie) against the decision of 28 October 1999. She referred to the stress caused by her participation in the proceedings. She further submitted that she was receiving psychiatric treatment, had been granted an invalidity pension on account of her mental health and was regularly taking various medicines. Those medicines significantly affected her memory, concentration and the ability to express her thoughts clearly. Furthermore, she submitted that she was not an educated person and that her friends had assisted her in preparation of the court's submissions. Thus, she considered that legal aid was necessary in order to enable her to defend her interests adequately in the proceedings.\n16.  On 7 December 1999 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the interlocutory appeal. It endorsed the reasoning of the District Court. In addition, it held that the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2546", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  On 25 May 2005 the applicant was arrested by the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (CFECC) on charges of embezzlement. He had completed his University studies, did not have a criminal record, was employed and had a permanent domicile.\n8.  On 27 May 2005 the investigating judge of the Buiucani District Court, issued a warrant for his remand in custody for 10 days. The reasons given by the court for issuing the warrant were that:\n“The criminal proceedings were instituted in accordance with the law in force. [The applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious offence for which the law provides imprisonment of more than two years; the evidence submitted to the court was obtained lawfully; the isolation of the suspect from society is necessary; he could abscond from law-enforcement authorities or the court; he could obstruct the finding of truth in the criminal investigation or re-offend”.\n9.  The applicant appealed against this decision arguing inter alia that the suspicion against him was groundless, that he did not have any intention of absconding or obstructing the investigation in any way and that he was ready to co-operate with the investigation body.\n10.  On 1 June 2005, the applicant's appeal was dismissed by a panel of three judges of the Chişinău Court of Appeal.\n11.  On 3 June 2005 the Buiucani District Court prolonged the applicant's detention on remand for a further 30 days. The court reasoned that detention was necessary because:\n“[the applicant] is suspected of having committed a very serious offence, there is a risk that he may put pressure on witnesses or put himself out of the reach of law-enforcement authorities; and there is a continuing need to isolate him from society”.\n12.  The applicant appealed against this decision and submitted the same arguments as advanced in his first appeal.\n13.  On 9 June 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal without relying on any new arguments.\n14.  The applicant's detention on remand was prolonged on the same grounds until 11 October 2005, when he was released from detention.\n15.  The applicant was detained in the remand centre of the CFECC. The room used for meetings between lawyers and detainees had a glass partition to keep them separated.\n16.  The relevant domestic law concerning detention on remand was set out in the Court's judgment in Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 52, 4 October 2005.\n17.  It appears from the photographs submitted by the Government that in the lawyer-client meeting room of the CFECC detention centre, the space for detainees is separated from the rest of the room by a door and a window. The window appears to be made of two plates of glass joined together. Both plates have small holes pierced with a drill; however the holes do not coincide so that nothing can be passed though the window. Moreover, there is a dense green net made either of thin wire or plastic between the glass plates, covering the pierced area of the window. There appears to be no space for passing documents between the lawyer and his client.\n18.  The domestic courts have ruled on complaints about lack of confidentiality in the CFECC lawyer-client meeting room in the cases of Modârcă (application no. 14437/05) and Sarban (cited above). On 2 November 2004 a judge of the Buiucani District Court ordered the CFECC authorities to remove the glass partition separating lawyers from their client", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2547", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In 1994 the applicant married D.M. and in 1995 their daughter S.M. was born.\n6.  In 1998 the applicant started having marital problems, apparently as a result of her contracting HIV.\n7.  On 3 July 1998 S.M. left Zemun, a part of Belgrade where she lived with her parents, to stay with her grandparents for a while.\n8.  In early August of 1998, D.M. brought S.M. back to Zemun.\n9.  Shortly afterwards, however, the applicant's marriage broke down and D.M. ceased living with the applicant. He also took S.M. to his parents' flat, denying the applicant any contact with her.\n10.  On 11 February 1999 the applicant filed a claim with the Fourth Municipal Court in Belgrade (“Četvrti opštinski sud u Beogradu”), seeking dissolution of the marriage, sole custody of S.M. and child maintenance. In addition, she requested interim relief, granting her temporary custody or, in the alternative, regular weekly contacts with S.M. until the conclusion of the civil proceedings.\n11.  On 23 July 1999 the Fourth Municipal Court in Belgrade (hereinafter “the Municipal Court”) ordered the Social Care Centre (“Centar za socijalni rad opštine Stari Grad”) to produce an expert opinion as to which party should be granted custody.\n12.   D.M. (hereinafter “the respondent”) appears to have been informed about the applicant's lawsuit during one of the meetings held at the Social Care Centre in 1999.\n13.  Following the institution of proceedings, the Municipal Court adjourned 15 separate hearings, including the hearings scheduled for 29 October 2003, 7 October 2004 and 19 October 2005, respectively.\n14.  Throughout this time, though mostly in response to the applicant's numerous proposals, the Municipal Court attempted to obtain information as regards the respondent's correct address from various State bodies, including the tax authorities, municipalities, the Ministry of Education and even the Commercial Court.\n15.  Summonses were sent to a number of addresses but each time the respondent could not be served, which led the Municipal Court to conclude, on 17 April 2003, that he was “clearly avoiding receipt” of all court documents.\n16.  On 3 November 2005 the respondent was duly served for the first time, the summons having been sent to Kotor, Montenegro, on which occasion he was both provided with the applicant's claim against him and informed about the next hearing scheduled for 23 December 2005.\n17.  On 21 December 2005 the applicant's lawyer informed the Municipal Court that she could not attend that hearing.\n18.  The applicant maintained that during the proceedings in question the presiding judge had stated publicly that she would either rule in favour of the respondent or dismiss the applicant's claim on procedural grounds. The Government contested this submission.\n19.  In early 2006, the presiding judge was replaced by another and the case itself taken under review by the Municipal Court's Special Committee for Family Relations.\n20.  On 31 March 2003, inter alia, the applicant complained to the President of the Municipal Court, requesting that the presiding judge in her case be removed.\n21.  She claimed that the judge in question had tried to serve the respondent via regular mail only but had failed to attempt to do so through the bailiffs, as envisaged by the Civil Procedure Act (see paragraph 60 below).\n22.  Further, despite the fact that it was up to the courts to establish the respondent's correct address, she pointed out that on 31 March 2003 the judge had or", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2549", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Ploieşti.\n7.  The applicant suffers from haemophilia A which was diagnosed at birth. Haemophilia A is a congenital hereditary disorder characterised by delayed clotting of the blood and severe bleeding following even minor injuries. It requires treatment with the specific coagulant, factor VIII.\n8.  The applicant was working as an official in a local hospital.\n9.  Starting in 1992, the Medical Expert Reports and Occupational Rehabilitation Board (“the Board”) attached to the Ministry of Employment and Social Welfare examined the applicant once a year and issued him each time with a temporary certificate stating that he suffered from a second‑degree disability.\n10.  This certificate served as the basis for obtaining from the County Disabled Persons' Bureau (“the Bureau”) the entitlements provided for by Law no. 53/1992 on special protection for disabled persons – which included free medical assistance, transport and telephone rental – together with tax relief under Law no. 35/1993 in the form of exemption of the disabled person's salary from income tax.\n11.  On 26 October 1998 the Board confirmed the applicant's second‑degree disability by means of a certificate bearing the handwritten endorsement “valid for Law no. 35/1993”. According to the information supplied by the applicant, endorsements of this kind were commonly added by the Board, since the same certificate was used to obtain the entitlements under Law no. 53/1992 and tax relief under Law no. 35/1993.\n12.  In a letter of 15 December 1998 the Bureau informed the applicant that its accounting department had decided to suspend his entitlements under Law no. 53/1992, on the ground that the certificate issued on 26 October 1998 referred only to Law no. 35/1993 and could therefore be used only to obtain the entitlements provided for by that law.\n13.  By letter of 3 February 1999 the Employment Ministry informed the applicant that “in the absence of any provision to the contrary, there [was] no legal impediment preventing persons who [held] a certificate attesting to a degree of disability requiring special protection from enjoying all the entitlements and concessions for which they [were] eligible by law”.\n14.  On 29 October 1999 the Board confirmed the applicant's second‑degree disability. The certificate it issued on that occasion was again marked “valid for Law no. 35/1993”.\n15.  Following a sharp deterioration in his condition owing to his lack of treatment the applicant, in a memorial lodged with the State Secretariat for Disabled Persons on 3 April 2000, challenged the suspension of his entitlements under Law no. 53/1992.\n16.  In a reply dated 6 April 2000 the State Secretariat informed the applicant that no statutory provision barred the aggregation of entitlements under Laws nos. 35/1993 and 53/1992, and that persons suffering from a second-degree disability should be able to benefit from the entitlements available under both laws.\n17.  In an administrative action brought before the Ploieşti Court of Appeal on 30 November 2000 against the Bureau and the State Secretariat for Disabled Persons, the applicant requested recognition of his status as a disabled person requiring the special protection provided for by Law no. 53/1992 and claimed compensation for the pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage caused by the suspension of his entitlements between October 1998 and September 2000 which, he alleged, had resulted in a serious and rapid", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2550", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  Mr Ilia Velikov (“the first applicant”) was born in 1923. He passed away on 27 April 2002. His sons, the second and the third applicants, stated that they maintained the application. Mr Atanas Velikov (“the second applicant”) was born in 1944. Mr Rossen Atanassov (“the third applicant”) was born in 1947. They were represented before the Court by Mr B. Voinov and Mr R. Raykovski, lawyers practising in Sofia\n7.  On 27 May 1968 the applicants bought jointly from the Sofia municipality a five/six-room apartment which had been nationalised in 1949. They made a 20% down-payment and reimbursed the remainder within the following years. During the relevant period the prices of apartments in big cities were fixed by legislation in amounts equal to at least several years' worth of an average salary.\n8.  In 1978 the apartment was divided into two apartments which became the ownership of the second and the third applicants respectively. In 1991 the second applicant transferred his title to his two sons, Alexander and Ilia Velikov.\n9.  In February 1993 the heirs of the pre-nationalisation owner of the whole apartment brought an action against the applicants under section 7 of the Restitution Law (see paragraphs 117-120 below explaining the relevant law and practice). In the proceedings that followed, the courts collected documentary evidence and also heard several witnesses.\n10.  On 17 February 1995 the Sofia District Court declared the 1968 contract null and void as contrary to the law and restored the plaintiffs' ownership rights.\n11.  The District Court found that the 1968 contract had not been signed by the relevant official – the mayor of the relevant district (председател на ИК на общински НС). In the applicants' case the decisions approving the contract had been issued by the deputy mayor of the region of Sofia (председател на ИК на Окръжен/Градски НС), the superior of the competent mayor of the relevant district. However, a superior administrative body could not validly usurp the powers vested in their subordinates in matters that were not subject to appeal. Also, the regional mayor's power to approve sales of apartments had only been introduced by an amendment that had entered into force in 1969, several months after the relevant dates.\n12.  On a final point, the District Court dismissed as unproven the allegation that the first applicant, who had been registered as an “anti-fascist and anti-capitalist veteran” – a registration which at the relevant time carried a number of privileges guaranteed by law – had abused his position to obtain the apartment at issue.\n13.  On 20 January 1997 the Sofia City Court dismissed the applicants' ensuing appeal.\n14.  Upon the applicants' petition for review (cassation), on 27 October 1997 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower courts' judgments while adding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of abuse: information that the first applicant might have been given priority, that he had made statements against persons who had applied to buy the same apartment and that when applying to purchase the apartment in 1968 he had stated that he should be “given his due” as a veteran.\n15.  On 25 November 1997 the restored owners brought an action for rei vindicatio. On an unspecified date in the beginning of 2000 the applicants and their sons vacated the two apartments and the pre-nationalisation owners took possession thereof.\n16.  Since October 2000 the sons of the second applicant have been ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2551", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the town of Cherkessk of the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic.\n5.  According to the applicant, on 13 July 1997 the police instituted administrative proceedings against him for having disobeyed a lawful order of a police officer and arrested him. On the following day the Elista Town Court of the Kalmykiya Republic discontinued the proceedings because there was no indication of an administrative offence. The decision of the Town Court did not contain any reference to the applicant's alleged deprivation of liberty.\n6.  The applicant submitted that after the hearing the policemen brought him back to a police station. They handcuffed him to a heating device, put a plastic bag on his head and severely beat him up.\n7.  On 16 July 1997 an investigator of the Department of Internal Affairs of the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and three other persons on suspicion of participation in a criminal enterprise and ordered their arrest. As it follows from a record of 16 July 1997, the applicant was arrested on the same day at 11.50 p.m. He was also charged with unlawful possession of a weapon.\n8.  On 30 December 1998 the Cherkessk Town Court acquitted the applicant and ordered his immediate release. The judgment became final on 2 February 1999 when it was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic.\n9.  In August 2000 the applicant lodged an action against the Treasury and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation for compensation for non-pecuniary damage incurred through unlawful detention.\n10.  On 11 March 2001 the Cherkessk Town Court accepted the applicant's action and ordered that the Ministry of Internal Affairs should pay the applicant 190,000 Russian roubles (RUR, 7,095 euros) at the expense of the Treasury. The Town Court held as follows:\n“Mr Volkov was unlawfully detained from 16 July 1997 to 30 December 1998, that is for a total of 535 days.\nIt was proven at the court hearing that Mr Volkov sustained non-pecuniary damage and it should be compensated because he was acquitted by a final judgment.\nAccording to paragraph 8 of the Decree of the Plenary Supreme Court of the Russian Federation no. 10 of 20 December 1994 'On certain questions concerning application of the domestic law on compensation for non-pecuniary damage'... the amount of compensation depends on the character and extent of moral and physical suffering caused to the plaintiff, fault of the defendant in each particular case, and other circumstances which merit attention...\nThe court ... takes into account that the amount and extent of moral and physical suffering of a person depend on his subjective perception of the existing situation and considers that, having regard to the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties, it is possible to award the plaintiff 190,000 roubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\nAssessing the moral sufferings caused to the plaintiff, possible consequences of the plaintiff's conviction, and having examined the materials of the criminal case-file, the court considers that the awarded amount is reasonable and fair.”\nThe judgment of 11 March 2001 was not appealed against and became final.\n11.  On an unspecified date the President of the Supreme Court of the Karachayevo-Cherkessiya Republic lodged before the Presidium of the Supreme Court an application for a supervisory review of the judgment of 11 Marc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2553", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Copenhagen.\n7. On 30 January 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the High Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret) against the Ministry of Employment (Beskæftigelsesministeriet), claiming among other things that the Ministry pay him DKK 83,025, equal to approximately 11,000 Euros (EUR), corresponding to the difference between the salary he had received during a seven months so-called “job offer” period and the salary he allegedly should have received in accordance with the collective agreement.\n8.  On 8 May 2002 the High Court decided that the case should commence before the City Court. Having been granted leave to appeal against this decision to the Supreme Court (Højesteret), on 20 December 2002 the latter found for the applicant, and referred the case back to the High Court.\n9.  In a letter of 20 May 2003 to the Ministry of Justice and the Court Administration (Domstolsstyrelsen) the applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had exceeded the reasonable time requirement within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. By letter of 16 June 2003 the Ministry referred the applicant to lodge his complaint before the High Court, where the case was pending. By letter of 18 June 2003 the Court Administration concurred with the Ministry's reply.\n10.  By letter of 8 August 2003 to the division of the High Court dealing with the case, the applicant repeated his complaint and claimed compensation. In reply, on 11 December 2003 the President of the High Court found no reason to grant the applicant compensation inter alia because the High Court had offered that the trial could commence earlier, but that the applicant's counsel had been unable to appear on any of the proposed days.\n11.  By judgment of 6 May 2004 the High Court found against the applicant. It also ordered that the applicant pay defendant's costs to the Ministry of Employment in the amount of DKK 90,000.\n12.  On 1 July 2004 the applicant appealed against the judgment to the Supreme Court (Højesteret), which on 26 April 2006, upheld the High Court's judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2554", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1976 and 1979 respectively and live in Karlovac.\n5.  In 1991 business premises owned by D.P., the applicants' late father, were blown up by unknown perpetrators. Some time later, his car was also damaged beyond repair by an explosive device.\n6.  D.P. instituted civil proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) in 1994, seeking compensation from the State. He relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (Zakon o obveznim odnosima).\n7.  On 17 January 1996 Parliament introduced an amendment to the Civil Obligations Act, which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation. The new legislation was to be enacted within six months.\n8.  Pursuant to the above legislation, the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed D.P.'s proceedings on 5 February 1998. On his appeal, on 31 August 1999 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed that decision and remitted the case.\n9.  D.P. died on 25 February 2000.\n10.  The Municipal Court again issued a decision staying the proceedings on 16 July 2001.\n11.  The applicants and their late mother, acting as D.P.'s heirs, filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 7 May 2002, complaining about the length of the proceedings and the lack of access to a court. They relied on section 63 of the 2002 Constitutional Court Act and Article 29 § 1 of the Constitution.\n12.  On 28 April 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicants' complaint, ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to bring the proceedings to an end within six months and awarded each of the complainants the amount of 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK) wich is approximately euros (EUR) 600.\n13.  The proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court were resumed on 18 May 2004 when it declared the applicants' action inadmissible finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter. The decision was quashed by the Zagreb County Court on 30 December 2004.\n14.  The proceedings are currently pending before the Zagreb Municipal Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2555", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Warsaw.\n8.  Since 1977 the applicant has suffered from severe myopia, the degree of which was established at -0.2 in the left eye and -0.8 in the right eye. Before her pregnancy, she was assessed by a State medical panel, for social-insurance purposes, as suffering from a disability of medium severity.\n9.  The applicant became pregnant in February 2000. She had previously had two children, both born by Caesarean section. As the applicant was worried about the possible impact of the delivery on her health, she decided to consult her doctors. She was examined by three ophthalmologists (Dr M.S., Dr N.S.-B., Dr K.W.). It transpired from the documents submitted by the applicant that Dr M.S. had recommended that the applicant have frequent check-ups and avoid physical exertion. Dr N.S.-B. stated that the applicant should consider sterilisation after the birth. All of them concluded that, due to pathological changes in the applicant’s retina, the pregnancy and delivery constituted a risk to her eyesight. However, they refused to issue a certificate for the pregnancy to be terminated, despite the applicant’s requests, on the ground that the retina might detach itself as a result of pregnancy, but that it was not certain.\n10.  Subsequently, the applicant sought further medical advice. On 20 April 2000 Dr O.R.G., a general practitioner (GP), issued a certificate stating that her third pregnancy constituted a threat to the applicant’s health as there was a risk of rupture of the uterus, given her two previous deliveries by Caesarean section. She further referred to the applicant’s short-sightedness and to significant pathological changes in her retina. These considerations, according to the GP, also required that the applicant should avoid physical strain which in any case would hardly be possible as at that time the applicant was raising two small children on her own. The applicant understood that on the basis of this certificate she would be able to terminate her pregnancy lawfully.\n11.  On 14 April 2000, in the second month of the pregnancy, the applicant’s eyesight was examined. It was established that she needed glasses to correct her vision in both eyes by 24 dioptres.\n12.  Subsequently, the applicant contacted a State hospital, the Clinic of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in Warsaw, in the area to which she was assigned on the basis of her residence, with a view to obtaining the termination of her pregnancy. On 26 April 2000 she had an appointment with Dr R.D., Head of the Gynaecology and Obstetrics Department of the clinic.\n13.  Dr R.D. examined the applicant visually and for a period of less than five minutes, but did not examine her ophthalmological records. Afterwards he made a note on the back of the certificate issued by Dr O.R.G. that neither her short‑sightedness nor her two previous deliveries by Caesarean section constituted grounds for therapeutic termination of the pregnancy. He was of the view that, in these circumstances, the applicant should give birth by Caesarean section. During the applicant’s visit Dr R.D. consulted an endocrinologist, Dr B., whispering to her in the presence of the applicant. The endocrinologist co-signed the note written by Dr R.D., but did not talk to the applicant.\n14.  The applicant’s examination was carried out in a room with the door open to the corridor, which, in the applicant’s submission, did not provide a comfortable environment for a medical examina", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2556", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants were born in 1932 and 1933 respectively and live in Pruszków.\n11.  The applicants owned a plot of land situated in Pruszków, near Warsaw. In 1982 the applicants were informed by the local authorities that, pursuant to a local zoning plan, their land was to be expropriated as a construction of dwelling buildings was planned in its place.\n12.  The applicants requested the Pruszków City Council to be compensated by another plot of land. Their son also filed a request asking that a plot of land be allocated to him. By a letter of 16 May 1986 the Pruszków City Council informed the applicants that their request could not be granted. On 22 April 1987 the applicants' son was informed that his request to be allocated a plot of land within the Pruszków community was viewed favourably by the Social Commision (Komisja Społeczna) but could only be processed after the expropriation of his parents' plot. In 1987 the expropriation procedure commenced. In their letters the local authorities confirmed that after the expropriation of the applicants' land an allocation of a plot of land within the Pruszków community to the applicants' son would become possible.\n13.  Eventually the applicants' land was not expropriated but the applicants consented to a contract of sale. On 8 December 1987 they transferred ownership of their land to the State Treasury represented by the Pruszków City Council. They received the amount.\n14.  Following the sale they repeatedly inquired about the allocation of building land within the municipality but no steps were taken in order for the allocation to become effective and no decision as to the allocation was given.\n15.  In 1990 the applicants' son was informed by the City Council that the allocation of plots of land within the community had been conducted in violation of the law and in disregard of the principles of transparency. Therefore, the entire process was to be reviewed.\n16.  On 26 November 1991 the applicants instituted proceedings against the State Treasury represented by the Pruszków City Council. They requested the Pruszków District Court “to oblige the Pruszków City Council to allot a plot of land to their son, as promised”. The Pruszków District Court transferred the matter to the Warsaw Regional Court which rejected the claim finding that only the administrative authorities had jurisdiction in matters concerning expropriations and granting replacement plots. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision on 10 February 1993.\n17.  On 26 August 1993 the applicant sent a letter of complaint to the Ministry of Justice. On an unspecified date the Ministry of Justice transferred the letter to the Warsaw Regional Court. That court recognised that the applicants' action should be interpreted as an action to revoke the contract of sale with the Pruszków City Council of 8 December 1987 as they had consented to it on the mistaken belief that the City Council would allocate a comparable plot of land to their son. On 15 December 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court decided that, in view of fact that the value of the claim amounted to PLN (old) 10,000,000, a district court should examine the matter. The case was transferred to the Pruszków District Court. Subsequently, the applicants extended their claim and, on 18 August 1994, the Pruszków District Court transferred the case to the Warsaw Regional Court. On 18 October 1994 the case was transferred back to the Pruszków District Court and that court examined the case. On", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2557", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Wrocław.\n11.  After the applicant's husband had died in September 2002, she instituted proceedings in which she claimed her widow pension.\n12.  By a decision of 3 October 2002, the social insurance authority dismissed her request.\n13.  On 4 March 2003 the Wroclaw Regional Court dismissed her appeal against this decision. On 2 September 2004 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal dismissed her further appeal.\n14.  The appellate court observed that the findings of fact made by the social insurance authority were correct. The applicant and her husband had de facto separated in 1994. He had been living since then with another woman. The applicant had not been receiving any maintenance payments from him. When he had fallen ill, she had not been taking care of him and she had been informed of his poor health only in March 2002. The court considered that the lower court had not erred when it assessed the testimony of one witness, who had submitted that the couple had been living together, as not being credible. The appellate court concluded that the legal requirements for granting a widow pension were not complied with.\n15.  The applicant requested that legal aid for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court be granted to her and her request was allowed. The court requested the local Bar Association to assign a lawyer to the case and advocate Z.W. was so assigned on 17 September 2004.\n16.  The copy of the judgment of the appellate court was served on Z.W. on 9 November 2004.\n17.  By a written opinion of one page and a half dated 3 December 2004 Z.W. advised the applicant that, in his view, a cassation appeal against the judgment of the appellate court did not offer reasonable prospect of success. He referred to the written grounds of the judgment of the appellate court by which that court had explained why the applicant had not complied with the requirements of the applicable law, and considered that in the light of the evidence examined by the courts, there were no grounds on which to argue that the second-instance judgment was in breach of the law. Consequently, he did not draw up the cassation appeal.\n18.  The opinion contained the following paragraph:\n“I would like to stress that the judgment of the Wroclaw Court of Appeal of 2 September was served on me on 9 October (sic) 2004 and that the thirty-day time-limit for the lodging of a cassation appeal expires on 9 December 2004.”\n19.  On 6 December 2004 the applicant had a meeting with the lawyer at his office. He gave her his opinion and informed her that he saw no grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal in her case. On the same occasion the applicant was served with the copy of the appellate court's judgment with its written grounds.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2558", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, Mr Viorel Istratii, Mr Alexandru Burcovschi and Mr Roman Luţcan, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1971, 1970 and 1976 respectively and all live in Chişinău.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows (most events happened in the same way and on the same date in respect of all the applicants; whenever facts differ, it is specified in the text).\n8.  On 25 October 2004 the Department for Cross-Border and Information Crime of the Ministry of Internal Affairs opened a criminal investigation against the applicants for fraud in connection with the purchase of plots of land in Chişinău, which allegedly cost the State approximately 15,000 euros (EUR).\n9.  On 12 November 2004 the prosecutor requested warrants for the pre-trial detention of the applicants. On the same day three Buiucani District Court judges issued warrants for the applicants' pre-trial detention for ten days for the following reasons:\n“[Each applicant] is suspected of committing a serious offence for which the law provides a punishment of deprivation of liberty for more than two years; the evidence submitted to the court was lawfully obtained; the isolation of the suspect from society is necessary; he could abscond from law enforcement authorities or the court; could obstruct the finding of truth in the criminal investigation or re-offend”.\n10.  On 15 November 2004 the applicants appealed against the decisions ordering their pre-trial detention, questioning the grounds for that detention. They submitted that they had appeared before the investigating authorities when summoned and had not attempted to interfere in any way with the investigation or to abscond thereafter. Each applicant emphasised that he had no criminal record, had a family, including minor children, and a permanent residence in Chişinău, and had special medical needs. Mr Burcovschi submitted that he was the only breadwinner in his family and that his detention might cause serious hardship for his family, including his elderly mother who suffered from cardiac disease. Mr Luţcan added that he had come to the investigating authority directly from the maternity hospital and that he had not even seen his son, born on the day he was arrested, and could not give any support to his wife and child.\n11.  On 18 November 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the appeals, without responding explicitly to any of the above submissions. It rejected Mr Istratii's appeal for the following reasons:\n“In exceptional circumstances, depending on the complexity of the criminal case and the gravity of the crime and where there is a risk that the accused might abscond or put pressure on witnesses, the period of pre-trial detention during the criminal investigation may be prolonged ... taking into account that Mr Istratii is suspected of committing a particularly serious offence, that there is a risk that he could put pressure on witnesses, could abscond from law enforcement authorities; the separation of the suspect from society remains necessary”.\nIt rejected Mr Burcovschi's appeal for the following reasons:\n“The request to remand Mr Burcovschi was examined within the limits of the law and was correctly accepted on the basis of documents in the criminal file, which was opened in accordance with the law and with the need to remand the suspect”.\nThe Court of Appeal rejected Mr Luţcan's appeal for the following reasons:\n“Mr Luţcan is suspected of committing a serious o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2559", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 22 May 1996 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of having committed a murder, together with the wife of the deceased.\n6.  On 27 May 1996 the Küçükçekmece Magistrates' Court (Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi) ordered the applicant's detention on remand.\n7.  On 6 June 1996 the Bakırköy public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Bakırköy Assize Court charging the applicant and the deceased's wife, K.Y., under Articles 450 § 4, 40 and 64 of the Criminal Code with homicide.\n8.  On 31 July 1996 the Third Chamber of the Bakırköy Assize Court held the first hearing and heard the applicant who denied the charges against him. On the same day, the first-instance court issued a summons requiring M.Y., K.Y.'s son, to give evidence and ordered that the autopsy report on the deceased be submitted to it.\n9.  On 18 September 1996 the first-instance court heard M.Y and read out the autopsy report. On the same day, the applicant requested the first-instance court to order an examination of the blood stains found at the scene of the incident. The court disregarded the applicant's request. The applicant further requested to be released pending trial. The first-instance court dismissed this request, having regard to the content of the case file. The court also issued summonses requiring M.Y. and K.Y.'s other children, Ü.Y. and H.Y., to testify before the court during the next hearing.\n10.  On 6 November 1996 M.Y. once again testified before the first‑instance court. The court further heard M.D., the applicant's wife. On the same day, the deceased's brother, İ.Y., joined the proceedings as a civil party (müdahil). At the end of the hearing, the assize court once again requested Ü.Y. and H.Y. to give evidence and also issued summonses requiring İ.Y.'s wife and brother and a certain H.D. to testify before the court.\n11.  On 9 December 1996 the court heard H.D. and reiterated its orders in respect of İ.Y's brother, Ü.Y. and H.Y.\n12.  On 17 February 1997 the assize court heard S.Y., İ.Y.'s daughter. On the same day, the statements of İ.Y.'s brother taken by the Niksar Criminal Court of First Instance were read out. The first-instance court reiterated its order in respect of Ü.Y. and H.Y.\n13.  On 28 March 1997 H.Y. testified before the first-instance court. The court heard the applicant and K.Y. and issued summonses requiring F.Ç. and Y.Ç, the applicant's witnesses, to give evidence. The court dismissed the request for an on-site inspection.\n14.  On 16 May 1997 the Third Chamber of the Bakırköy Assize Court heard Ü.Y., F.Ç. and Y.Ç. On the same day, the court decided to send the case file to the public prosecutor and requested the latter to file his submissions on the merits of the case.\n15.  On 27 June 1997 the first-instance court heard K.Y. who maintained that the deceased had filed an application for divorce. The court ordered that the file concerning this case be obtained from the relevant court. It further ordered that M.Y. be brought before the court in order to give further evidence.\n16.  On 22 July 1997 the applicant requested the first-instance court to broaden the scope of the investigation. In particular, he requested that two additional witnesses be heard by the court and that the financial links between K.Y., the deceased and the deceased's brother İ.Y. be investigated.\n17.  On 27 August 1997 the assize court reiterated its order that M.Y. be brought before the court ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2560", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and he is currently detained in the Diyarbakır Prison.\n5.  On 12 March 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 10 April 1995 he was brought before a single judge of the Diyarbakır State Security Court who ordered his detention on remand. In the course of the proceedings before the court, the applicant denied the statements that he had signed while he was in police custody.\n7.  On 13 April 1995 the chief public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter charging the applicant and sixteen other suspects, under Article 125 of the Criminal Code, with carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.\n8.  In the course of the criminal proceedings, the Diyarbakır State Security Court held thirty hearings and heard seventeen witnesses.\n9.  On 3 June 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to death under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. Taking into account the applicant's conduct during the trial, the death penalty was commuted to a life sentence.\n10.  On 4 June 1999 the applicant appealed against the judgment of the State Security Court.\n11.  On 21 February 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the State Security Court.\n12.  On 5 May 2000 the Court of Cassation's decision was deposited with the registry of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2561", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Van.\n5.  In 1985 the applicant obtained a contract from the Provincial Administration of Van to carry out repair work in twelve public schools in Başkale in order to render them operational.\n6.  At a later date, however, he noticed that some of the schools had not yet been fully constructed. He applied to the Governor's Office in Van and requested the contract to be annulled. He submitted that the payment agreed on for the repairs was too low, given the amount of work needed to complete the construction of those schools.\n7.  The Governor's Office requested the applicant to start the construction and the repairs, reassuring him that he would be reimbursed for his additional work.\n8.  After having completed the construction, the applicant applied to the Provincial Administration of Van and requested additional compensation of 47,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL). However, his repeated efforts proved fruitless as no payment was made.\n9.  On 17 July 1989 he filed an action with the Van Civil Court and claimed the outstanding amount of TRL 47,273,000 plus interest.\n10.  On an unspecified date, the court appointed an expert to determine the amount of additional payment that the applicant was entitled to recover. However, the expert failed to submit his report.\n11.  In the absence of the expert report, the court ordered on-site visits to the schools in order to establish the additional work carried out by the applicant.\n12.  On 30 September 1999 the members of the court, accompanied by new experts, conducted an on-site examination at the schools.\n13.  On an unspecified date, the experts submitted their calculation of the sums incurred by the applicant for the additional work.\n14.  On 26 April 2000 the Van Civil Court awarded the applicant TRL 47,273,000 plus interest calculated at three different rates depending on the relevant period of time, i.e., 30% per annum running from 17 July 1989 to 1 January 1998; 50% per annum from 1 January 1998 to 1 January 2000; and at the rediscount rate running from 1 January 2000 until the date of payment.\n15.  The applicant appealed. In his petition to the Court of Cassation he complained about the loss that he had suffered as a result of the high rate of inflation during the proceedings before the civil court.\n16.  On 30 November 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the civil court. On 9 April 2001 the same court dismissed the applicant's request for rectification.\n17.  On 23 July 2001 the applicant was paid the total amount of TRL 282,795,000, consisting of the capital plus interest incurred until the payment date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2562", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1937, 1954, 1944, 1944, 1920, 1964, 1959, 1928, 1958 and 1958, respectively, and live in Hatay.\n5.  On various dates, the applicants bought plots of land, near the coast, in Hatay. Some of the applicants constructed houses, others built restaurants and hotels on this land.\n6.  In 1995 the Samandağ Municipality, acting on behalf of the Treasury, requested the Samandağ Court of First Instance to determine whether the applicants' land was located within the coastline area. A group of experts, composed of a geomorphologist, a cartography engineer and an agricultural engineer, appointed by the court, inspected the applicants' land and concluded that it was located within the coastline area.\n7.  Following the conclusion of the experts' report, the Treasury filed actions before the Samandağ Court of First Instance requesting the annulment of the applicants' title-deeds to the plots because of their coastal area location.\n8.  On various dates, the Samandağ Court of First Instance, after having obtained additional expert reports, upheld the request of the Treasury and decided to annul the title-deeds of the applicants. In its decisions, the court held that, pursuant to domestic law, the coast could not be subject to private ownership and that, therefore, the applicants could not rely on the argument that they had acted bona fides or on the fact that they had constructed buildings on the land.\n9.  The applicants' appeals against the judgments of the first-instance court were dismissed by the Court of Cassation. The applicants' requests for rectification of these decisions were also rejected by the Court of Cassation.\nThe details are indicated in the table below:\n \nAPPLICATION NO.\nNAME OF THE APPLICANT\nDATE OF DECISION OF THE FIRST‑INSTANCE COURT\nDATE OF FINAL DECISION OF THE COURT OF CASSATION\nDATE OF NOTIFICATION OF THE FINAL DECISION OF THE COURT OF CASSATION\n36166/02\nBedi Asfuroğlu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2563", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  In 2000 she brought a court action against the social security service of the Zheleznodorozhnyy District of Voronezh and the Financial Division of the Voronezh Regional administration for delays in payment of child support benefits.\n6.  On 3 February 2000 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Voronezh granted the applicant's claim and awarded her 1,919.53 Russian roubles. The judgment entered into force on 14 February 2000.\n7.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted but the judgment was not enforced because the Voronezh Regional administration lacked necessary funds.\n8.  On 13 February 2006 the judgment of 3 February 2000 was enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2564", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and currently resides in the village of Molodezhnoye, the ARC, Ukraine.\n5.  On 1 May 1998 the applicant suffered serious bodily injuries in a traffic accident caused by the negligent driving of a police officer.\n6.  In January 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopil against the Simferopil Branch of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine claiming compensation for material and moral damage caused by the accident. On 6 February 2001 the court awarded the applicant 2,288.93[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) in compensation for material damage and legal aid, UAH 2,100 in compensation for the loss of earnings and UAH 12,000 in compensation for moral damage. On 18 April 2001 the Supreme Court of the ARC upheld this decision in respect of the compensation for material damage and remitted the case for fresh consideration in respect of the compensation for the loss of earnings and for moral damage.\n7.  On 24 January 2002 the Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings for the judgment of 6 February 2001 in that part which was upheld by the Supreme Court of the ARC and became final. On 19 April 2002 the enforcement proceedings were terminated on the ground that the judgment should be enforced directly by the State Treasury.  On 16 August 2002 the judgment of 6 February 2001, as upheld by the Supreme Court, was enforced.\n8.  In the meantime, on 6 February 2002 the Kyivskyy District Court, after fresh consideration of the applicant's claims concerning compensation for the loss of earnings and moral damage, awarded the applicant UAH 1,470[2] and UAH 8,400[3], respectively. On 29 May 2002 the Court of Appeal of the ARC (former Supreme Court of the ARC) upheld this judgment. The applicant appealed against these judgments in cassation. The parties did not submit any further information about these proceedings.\n9.  By a decree of 21 March 2003 the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the State Treasury of Ukraine decided that all judgments which should be enforced at the expense of the State Budget of Ukraine should be enforced by the State Treasury of Ukraine. In May 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv requesting to invalidate this decree as its provisions had not complied with the Law on Enforcement Proceedings. On 25 June 2003 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv found the decree invalid. On 30 October 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. On 29 March 2006 the High Administrative Court of Ukraine rejected the cassation appeal of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine.\n10.  In July 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopil complaining about the decision of 19 April 2002 to terminate the enforcement proceedings and claiming compensation for material and moral damage. On 22 December 2003 the court found that the decision of 19 April 2002 was unlawful. The court however did not allow the applicant's claims for compensation because the judgment of 6 February 2001 in his favour was enforced. On 5 April 2004 the Court of Appeal of the ARC upheld the judgment of 22 December 2003. On 27 September 2006 the High Administrative Court of Ukraine quashed the judgments of 22 December 2003 and 5 April 2004 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the District Court.\n11.  The judgment of 6 February 2002 was enforced by instalments, the final", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2565", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 18 May 1990, the applicants, who are sisters, filed with the Sofia District Court a civil action against Hydrostroy'82 Apartment Construction Cooperative (“HACC”), claiming sums allegedly owed to their late father under a 1988 agreement between him and HACC.\n5.  Under the 1988 agreement the applicants' late father had undertaken to manage and supervise construction works against the payment of fees. He had worked until his death in July 1989 but had not been paid in full. The applicants thus considered that, as his heirs, they were entitled to 24,132 old Bulgarian levs (“BGL”) (the equivalent of approximately 6,000 US dollars (USD) at the relevant time) and submitted a partial claim for BGL 4,333, as is customary in legal practice.\n6.  Between July and October 1990 the case could not proceed because of defective summons. In November 1990 an adjournment was necessary as the applicants had not clarified their claims. Between January 1991 and June 1992 the District Court held nine hearings. The adjournments were ordered because of defective summons, delays in the presentation of expert opinions, withdrawal of experts and alleged dilatory behaviour of the respondent party.\n7.  The hearing listed for 8 October 1992 was adjourned until 16 November 1992 as HACC had not been validly summoned.\n8.  On 9 November 1992 the judge decided to adjourn the hearing until 19 November 1992.\n9.  On 19 November 1992 the hearing was adjourned owing to an anonymous telephone call warning that an explosive device had been installed in the court's building. Such calls were made on each of the next three dates for which the adjourned hearing was listed: 28 January, 23 March and 15 April 1993, which caused additional delay.\n10.  On 17 June 1993 the hearing was adjourned as only one witness had appeared. Witnesses had been called by both parties with a view to establishing the work done on the construction site.\n11.  The hearings listed for 13 October and 24 November 1993 were adjourned as witnesses and expert-witnesses had not appeared. The court fined two of them for their failure to appear without cause.\n12.  At the hearing on 21 February 1994 the court replaced the expert who had failed to appear repeatedly. The case was adjourned.\n13.  The hearing held on 25 April 1994 was adjourned as the court granted the applicants' disclosure order against HACC.\n14.  The hearing listed for 13 June 1994 was adjourned as one of the experts did not appear.\n15.  On 24 October 1994 the court, having heard the experts' opinion, accepted the applicants' request for an additional question to the experts and adjourned the examination of the case until 5 December 1994.\n16.  In view of the experts' opinion who gave an estimate on the value of the construction works and the inflation, at the hearing on 5 December 1994 the applicants sought to increase their claim. The court considered that it was necessary to give them seven days to file such a request in writing and adjourned the hearing until 6 March 1995. The applicants filed a written request increasing their claim to BGL 100,000, the value of the national currency having dropped significantly since 1990.\n17.  On 6 May 1995 the hearing could not proceed owing to defective summons. The final hearing was held on 17 May 1995.\n18.  On 22 May 1995 the District Court delivered its judgment, served on 16 June 1995. It awarded the applicants BGL 15,851 plus interest since 18 May 1990. The court noted that the inflation and deprecia", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2566", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lived until his arrest in St. Petersburg. He is now serving a prison sentence in the Leningrad Region.\n6.  On 18 November 1998 the applicant was arrested by police officers, taken to a police station and allegedly beaten up. He was released on the same day. The applicant says that he complained to a prosecutor about the beatings on 7 December 1998.\n7.  On 14 January 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and taken to police station no. 43 in St. Petersburg, where he alleges he was seriously assaulted by police officers.\n8.  From 14 to 21 January 1999 the applicant was detained in a cell in police station no. 43. On 21 January 1999 he was transferred to detention facility no. IZ-47/1 in St. Petersburg, known as “Kresty”.\n9.   In June 2001 the applicant asked the St. Petersburg City Court to grant him an amnesty and discontinue the criminal proceedings. On 4 July 2001 the City Court refused his request, holding that it was for the trial court to examine whether the applicant qualified for an amnesty.\n10.  On 4 June 2001 the St. Petersburg City Court appointed the applicant's mother to represent him. Following her appointment, she had several meetings with the applicant in the detention facility. Prison warders were always present at the meetings.\n11.  At the trial the applicant was represented by his mother and Ms S., of counsel. They submitted evidence and made a successful application to the St. Petersburg City Court to call additional witnesses and exclude certain items of evidence presented by the prosecution.\n12.  On 20 September 2001 the St. Petersburg City Court found the applicant guilty of several counts of robbery, establishing a criminal enterprise and the aggravated offence of selling criminally acquired property and sentenced him to sixteen years' imprisonment. It based its judgment on the applicant's partial confession in open court, the oral evidence of the co-defendants, victims and witnesses at the trial, expert opinions and real evidence. In determining the sentence, the City Court took into consideration the assistance the applicant had given to the investigating authorities in solving the case and identifying other participants in the criminal enterprise.\n13.  The applicant appealed against the judgment of 20 September 2001, complaining, in particular, that the City Court had not applied an amnesty law.\n14.  On 9 December 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment of 20 September 2001, endorsing the reasons given by the City Court. It also held that the St. Petersburg City Court had lawfully refused to apply the amnesty law of 28 June 2002 to the applicant because of the especially serious nature of his offences.\n15.  From 21 January 1999 to 16 February 2003 the applicant was held in detention facility no. IZ-47/1 in St. Petersburg.\n16.  According to a certificate issued on 11 November 2005 by the facility governor, and produced by the Government, the applicant was held in eleven different cells during the reference period. Each cell measured 8 square metres and had 6 bunks. According to the Government, no information on the number of inmates in the cells was available as the documents had been destroyed. They further submitted that the applicant had at all times had eight hours' sleep.\n17.   The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements or the number of bunks. However, he alleged that he had usually shared the cells with 12 to 14 d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2567", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Saratov. She is the head and legal representative of the farming enterprise “Katyusha” (“the farm”) located in the Saratov Region.\n7.  On 15 March 1991 the applicant on behalf of the farm entered into a lease purchase option agreement with the State road maintenance company “Saratovavtrodor” (“the road company”) in respect of certain constructions, including a twelve-flat house (“the constructions”). The agreement provided, in particular, that the purchase option was to be exercised upon payment of rent equal to the book value of the property.\n8.  On 1 July 1993 the lease purchase option agreement was amended: the Property Management Committee of the Saratov Region (“the property committee”) replaced the original lessor as a party to the agreement. The other terms and conditions of the agreement were not affected.\n9.  On 19 August 1993 the farm credited the required amount to the bank account of the property committee. It thus exercised the purchase option under the lease agreement.\n10.  On 6 July 1999 the property committee brought a civil action against the farm. The committee claimed that the agreement of 1 July 1993 was void ab initio because it had been entered into in breach of the law. The committee sought a judicial declaration of the nullity of the 1993 agreement.\n11.  On 27 September 1999 the Saratov Regional Commercial Court allowed the committee's action against the farm. The court ordered the farm to return all proceeds from the 1993 agreement to the property committee and bear one half of the court fees.\n12.  On 15 December 1999 the Appellate Collegium of the Saratov Regional Commercial Court upheld the judgment of 27 September 1999.\n13.  On 12 January 2000 the applicant's representative filed an appeal on points of law.\n14.  On 15 February 2000 the Federal Commercial Court of the Volga Circuit quashed the judgments of 27 September and 15 December 1999 and made a new determination of the claim. The court ruled that the agreement of 1 July 1993 had not been a new transaction, but rather a novation of the agreement of 16 March 1991 involving the substitution of the lessor. As to the 1991 agreement, it had been concluded before the regulations, on which the first-instance and appeal courts based their judgments, came into force. The Federal Commercial Court dismissed the claim of the property committee.\n15.  The judgment became final and no ordinary appeal lay against it.\n16.  On 13 June 2000 Judge Arifullin, a Deputy President of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation, lodged an application for supervisory review (протест в порядке надзора) against the judgment of 15 February 2000. The application was based on the arguments originally advanced by the property committee in support of its claim and repeated verbatim the judgment of the appeal court of 15 December 1999.\n17.  On 5 September 2000 the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation quashed, by way of supervisory review, the judgment of 15 February 2000 and reinstated the judgments of 27 September and 15 December 1999.\n18.  On 4 December 2000 the bailiffs' service commenced the enforcement proceedings.\n19.  On an unspecified date the applicant applied for State registration of her title to the house which formed a constituent part of the disputed constructions.\n20.  On 9 October 2000 the Saratov Regional Registration Chamber issued an official certificate formalising the applicant's", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2568", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and resides in the town of Krasniy Luch, Lugansk region, Ukraine.\n5.  In November 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings against his former employer, the State “Pryvillya” group of companies (Концерн «Привілля»), challenging his dismissal and claiming salary arrears. After several examinations by different courts, on 7 March 2003 the Antratsytivskyy Town Court reinstated the applicant in his position and awarded him 5,137.51[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) in salary arrears (Рішення Антрацитівського міського суду). The judgment remains unenforced.\n6.  The applicant instituted another set of proceedings against the same defendant in the Krasnoluchskyy Town Court, claiming salary arrears. On 1 November 2000 the court awarded the applicant UAH 56.02[2] (Рішення Краснолуцького міського суду Луганської області). The judgment remains unenforced.\n7.  The applicant instituted several proceedings in the Krasnolutskyy Town Court against another of his former employers, the State “Imeni Izvestiy” mine (ДВАТ шахта імені «Ізвєстій» ДХК «Донбасантрацит»), claiming salary arrears and other payments. On 26 October 2000, 13 February 2002, 10 February 2003 and 30 July 2003, the court awarded the applicant a total of UAH 10,466.47[3].\n8.  By 10 September 2003 and 27 March 2006 the judgments of 26 October 2000 and 13 February 2002, respectively, were enforced in full. The applicant received UAH 2,852.88[4] in enforcement of other judgments; the rest of amounts awarded remains unpaid.\n9.  In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnolutskyy Town Court against the Krasnolutskyy Town Bailiffs' Service, claiming compensation for the failure to enforce the judgments in his favour. On 16 October 2003 the court rejected the applicant's claim, finding no fault had been committed by the Bailiffs' Service, which had acted properly in trying to enforce the judgments. The court further noted that the debtors' property was in a tax lien and that, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced. On 12 February 2004 the Court of Appeal of the Lugansk Region upheld this judgment.\n10.  On 26 June 2003 the “Pryvillya” group of companies was declared bankrupt.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2569", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Llanelli, Wales.\n7.  In 1991 the applicant was employed by Carmarthenshire College (“the College”). The College is a statutory body administered by the State and possessing powers under sections 18 and 19 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 relating to the provision of further and higher education.\n8.  In 1995 the applicant became the personal assistant to the College Principal (“the CP”) and from the end of 1995 she was required to work closely with the newly appointed Deputy Principal (“the DP”).\n9.  In about July 1998, whilst on annual leave, the applicant visited another campus of the College with a male director. She subsequently became aware that the DP had contacted that campus to enquire about her visit and understood that he was suggesting an improper relationship between her and the director.\n10.  During her employment, the applicant’s telephone, e-mail and Internet usage were subjected to monitoring at the DP’s instigation. According to the Government, this monitoring took place in order to ascertain whether the applicant was making excessive use of College facilities for personal purposes. The Government stated that the monitoring of telephone usage consisted of analysis of the College telephone bills showing telephone numbers called, the dates and times of the calls, and their length and cost. The applicant also believed that there had been detailed and comprehensive logging of the length of calls, the number of calls received and made, and the telephone numbers of individuals calling her. She stated that on at least one occasion the DP became aware of the name of an individual with whom she had exchanged incoming and outgoing telephone calls. The Government submitted that the monitoring of telephone usage took place for a few months up to about 22 November 1999. The applicant contended that her telephone usage was monitored over a period of about eighteen months until November 1999.\n11.  The applicant’s Internet usage was also monitored by the DP. The Government accepted that this monitoring took the form of analysing the websites visited, the times and dates of the visits to the websites and their duration, and that this monitoring took place from October to November 1999. The applicant did not comment on the manner in which her Internet usage was monitored but submitted that it took place over a much longer period of time than the Government had admitted.\n12.  In November 1999 the applicant became aware that enquiries were being made into her use of e-mail at work when her step-daughter was contacted by the College and asked to supply information about e-mails that she had sent to the College. The applicant wrote to the CP to ask whether there was a general investigation taking place or whether her e-mails only were being investigated. By an e-mail of 24 November 1999, the CP advised the applicant that, whilst all e-mail activity was logged, the information technology department of the College was investigating only her e-mails, following a request by the DP.\n13.  The Government submitted that monitoring of e-mails took the form of analysis of e-mail addresses and dates and times at which e-mails were sent and that the monitoring occurred for a few months prior to 22 November 1999. According to the applicant, the monitoring of e-mails occurred for at least six months from May to November 1999. She provided documentary evidence in the form of printouts detailing her", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2570", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Agrarian Cooperative “Slobozia Hanesei”, is a Moldovan registered company. It is represented before the Court by Mr G. Botezat, a lawyer practising in Ştefan Vodă.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  According to the statute of the State-owned company “Moldtranselectro” (“M.”), as modified on 7 November 2000, the company is empowered to consolidate the debts accumulated in the energy sector of Moldova and is responsible both for lodging claims against entities indebted to the former (State) energy companies and for paying the debts that those companies owed to third persons. This is regulated by Law no. 336 on the restructuring of the debt of energy sector companies (see paragraph 13 below). In a letter dated 26 February 2002 the National Agency for Energy Regulation (NAER) stated, inter alia, that in accordance with Law no. 336-XIV (“Law no. 336”, see paragraph 13 below) M. had acquired all debts and claims of legal persons in respect of Red Centru, a State-owned energy company which was privatised after 1999.\n9.  The applicant initiated court proceedings against M. and SA Red Centru as a third party. It claimed that SA Red Centru owed it 23,557 Moldovan lei (MDL) since 1999 and that its debts had become the debts of M. by virtue of Law no. 336. On 26 April 2002 the Chişinău Economic Court adopted a judgment by which M. was ordered to pay the applicant MDL 23,557 (1,943 euros (EUR) at the time). The court found that, in accordance with Article 6 of Law no. 336 both the debts of SA Red Centru and the debts owed to it had been transferred to M., as confirmed by an act of verification dated 8 February 2000. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became enforceable on 12 May 2002.\n10.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the Bailiff did not enforce. On 27 May 2002 it wrote to the Decision Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice requesting the execution of the judgment and the seizure of its debtor's property. On 1 September 2002 it wrote to “the Government” requesting the latter to take measures to execute the judgment. The applicant received no answer to any of these requests.\n11.  The judgment of 26 April 2002 has not been enforced to date. On 26 October 2006 the Parliament adopted the Law concerning the improvement of the economic-financial situation of the State Company “Moldtranselectro” by annulling certain obligations (no. 311-XVI). The law annulled a number of penalties resulting from delays in payments by M. towards the State budget.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2572", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Asmart Magomedovna Baysayeva, was born in 1958 and lives in the village of Pobedinskoye, Grozny district, Chechnya.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The applicant lives in the village of Pobedinskoye in the Grozny district. The applicant's husband, Shakhid Baysayev, born in 1939, worked in the neighbouring village of Podgornoye (also referred to sometimes as Sobachevki) as a mechanic with a municipal transport company. The applicant had been married to her husband for 25 years and had five children.\n9.  On 2 March 2000 the applicant's husband left for work at about 6.30 a.m. The road to the village of Podgornoye went through a Russian military checkpoint, at that time known as checkpoint no. 53, near which a military unit had been stationed.\n10.  At about 10 a.m. the same day the applicant heard sounds of shooting and explosions from the road. She went out and saw a convoy of military cars under attack on the road. She later learned that the convoy of the OMON (special police forces) from the town of Sergiyev Posad, Moscow Region, had been under attack. The fighting lasted until about 1 p.m. It was later reported that the troops had been mistakenly ambushed by other detachments of the Russian forces, and in particular by OMON forces from Podolsk and a military unit from the Sverdlovsk Region. As a result of the fighting, more than twenty servicemen were killed and more than thirty wounded. The fighting was followed the same day by a “sweeping” operation (zachistka) in the village of Podgornoye, from where the attack had come.\n11.  During the fighting and for the remainder of that day until nightfall checkpoint no. 53 remained closed and the road to Podgornoye was blocked. The applicant remained about 500 metres away from the checkpoint until about 8 p.m. that day, but was not able to get through to Podgornoye. Her husband did not come home that night. The applicant has not seen her husband since.\n12.  The next day at about 5 a.m. she went to the checkpoint and saw the aftermath of the fighting – burned cars from the convoy, soldiers' bodies and blood stains. On that day and in the days immediately following it the applicant questioned numerous witnesses trying to find out about her husband. She did not keep records of these conversations, as at that time she could not have imagined that it would be useful.\n13.  From the witnesses' statements the applicant learned that the “sweeping” operation in Podgornoye had resulted in a large number of persons – over fifty – being detained by the Russian military. All of them had been taken to the Staropromyslovskiy Temporary District Department of the Interior (VOVD) in Grozny. One of the witnesses told the applicant that he had seen her husband, Shakhid Baysayev, being taken away by the Russian servicemen in the village. The witness described the applicant's husband as being in pain – his appearance suggested that he had been beaten.\n14.  On 4 March 2000 the applicant met with several men who had been detained in Podgornoye on 2 March and later released. They identified the applicant's husband from a photograph and confirmed that he had been detained by the soldiers at checkpoint no. 53 and then taken away. They had not seen him at the VOVD where they had been taken.\n15.  Other witnesses told the applicant that her husband had finished work in Podgornoye and had been returning home, but that the soldiers had not let him th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2573", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Bolshaya Markha in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya).\n6. In 1994 the applicant founded an individual enterprise “Pyramid” (Частное Индивидуальное Предприятие «Пирамида»).\n7.  On 15 March 1999 he signed an agreement with a State-owned maintenance company “Department of housing and communal services of Yakutsk” according to which the applicant's company undertook to perform certain construction works for the company. Upon the completion of the works, the maintenance company refused to pay. Following a financial dispute, the parties signed a friendly settlement, according to which the maintenance company owed the applicant's company 43,517 RUR (~ EUR 1,609).\n8.  This settlement was confirmed by a judgment of the Commercial Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) delivered on 11 June 2002, and became enforceable.\n9.  On 25 March 2003 the bailiffs informed the applicant about the impossibility to enforce the settlement because the maintenance company lacked funds. On 26 March 2003 they closed the enforcement proceedings.\n10.  The applicant contested the bailiffs' decision before the Commercial Court of the Republic of Sakha but on 11 July 2003 his application was left without consideration due to the failure to comply with the procedural requirements.\n11.  Meanwhile the State-owned maintenance company changed its structure and became a municipal maintenance company (Муниципальное учреждение «Дирекция единого заказчика»).\n12.  In March 2004 the applicant retired, liquidated his enterprise and closed its accounts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2574", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Jordan Stoimenov who was born in 1963 and lives in Vinica, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.\n6.  On 30 January 2000 the Ministry lodged with the public prosecutor a criminal complaint against the applicant and four other persons for the unauthorised production of, and trade in, drugs and narcotic substances, which was an offence under section 215 of the Criminal Code.\n7. On 28 January 2000 the Forensic Science Bureau (Управа за криминалистичка техника) (“the Bureau”) at the Ministry drew up an expert report (no. X-121/2000) on the quality of poppy-tar that had been confiscated from Mr I.P. According to this opinion, all 23 cakes of poppy-tar contained substances which indicated that it was opium.\n8. On 30 January 2000 another expert opinion (no. X-122/2000) was issued concerning the quality of 12 cakes of poppy-tar that had been confiscated from Mr M.\n9.  Both expert opinions were given by the same expert at the Bureau, were almost identically worded and provided succinct information about the technique used to determine the composition of the poppy-tar and the conclusion that it was opium. They read, inter alia, as follows:\n“... [S]everal tests were carried out on the samples of the substance. Positive results were received as to the existence of alkaloids... A chromatography analysis was made of the samples to determine the chemical composition of the substance. Samples of several alkaloids from our collection and a sample of opium were used for comparison... The analysis of the chromatogram revealed that it was identical to that of the opium, i.e. that the analysed substance contained several alkaloids... The analysis led to the conclusion that the unidentified substance was opium.”\n10. According to depositions taken on 30 January 2000 in the pre-trial proceedings, the applicant stated, inter alia:\n“... When I was a child, I heard from my grandmother and grandfather that they used to have in their possession poppy-tar which they used for medicinal purposes. Mr D. [the third accused] asked me on several occasions whether they still had any... I went to see Mr M. [the first accused], my uncle, and told him about this. We both searched the cellar in my grandfather's house where my uncle used to live. We found about 12 kg of poppy-tar in a plastic bag... I gave the bag to Mr D... The agreement was to divide the money from the sale of the poppy-tar into three parts if Mr D. sold it. He said that he could sell it for 30,000 German marks (DEM)... Some time later Mr D. said that the poppy-tar was of poor quality, as it had been mixed with soil and had [therefore] been difficult to sell. I asked him to return it if he could not sell it so that I could put it back where it came from. However, Mr D. did not return the poppy-tar... Once I visited his house, but he was not there... Mr M. did not know that there was poppy-tar in the cellar. The idea to search for it was mine and I was incited to do so by Mr D...”\n11. Mr D. stated, inter alia:\n“...Jordan [the applicant] told me that he had some 40-50 year old poppy-tar and asked me if I could find a buyer... He said that the price was DEM 40,000... After a while I met with Mr M.G. [the fourth accused] and asked him whether he could find a buyer for the poppy-tar... A week or two later, Mr M.G. came to my house and told me that he could find a buyer and asked me for a sample... Mr M.G. said the price was too high... I met Jordan and asked him to take the poppy-tar a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2575", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in the town of Korenovsk in the Krasnodar Region. They are former employees of the Architecture and Town Planning Department of the Korenovskiy District Council (hereafter – the Council). The three applicants were employed as engineers, one as a technician and one as a land engineer.\n5.  In January 2001 the applicants were dismissed from their positions.\n6.  The applicants sued the Council for reinstatement and wage arrears for the period from October 2000 to January 2001.\n7.  On 28 March 2001 the Korenovskiy District Court dismissed the applicants' claims for reinstatement but awarded them the amounts listed in the schedule. The judgment became final on 22 May 2001 when the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld it on appeal. The judgment remains unenforced because the Council does not have necessary funds.\n8.  The applicants asked the Justice of the Peace of the 153rd Court Circuit of the Korenovskiy District to award them wage arrears for the period from February to April 2001.\n9.  On 20 June 2001 the Justice of the Peace accepted their action against the Council and awarded them the amounts listed in the schedule. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n10.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted, but the judgment was not enforced because the Council did not have funds.\n11.  On 8 August 2002 the sums awarded by the judgment of 20 June 2001 were credited to the applicants' accounts.\n12.  The applicants lodged an action against the Council, complaining that the Council failed to enforce the judgments of 28 March and 20 June 2001. They sought payment of the amounts awarded under those judgments.\n13.  On 20 November 2002 the Justice of the Peace held that the Council should pay the applicants compensation for the delay in enforcement of the judgment of 28 March 2001 for the period from 22 May 2001 to 20 November 2002 (the amounts awarded are listed in the schedule). The judgment of 20 November 2002 was upheld on appeal on 24 December 2002.\n14.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted but the judgment of 20 November 2002, as upheld on appeal on 24 December 2002, remains unenforced because the Council does not have funds.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2576", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 25 January 1994 the applicant was officially registered as a religious association having legal-entity status under the RSFSR Religions Act of 25 October 1990.\n7.  On 1 October 1997 a new Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations (“the Religions Act”) entered into force. It required all religious associations that had previously been granted legal-entity status to bring their articles of association into conformity with the Act and obtain re-registration from the competent Justice Department.\n8.  On 11 August 1998 the applicant submitted to the Moscow Justice Department an application for re-registration, together with the documents required by law.\n9.  On 1 June 1999 the Moscow Justice Department refused re-registration of the applicant on the ground that its purpose and activities contradicted the requirements of the Religions Act and violated the Criminal Code as there was an on-going criminal investigation against the then president of the applicant. The applicant indicated that the investigation had been subsequently closed in the absence of indications of a criminal offence.\n10.  On 29 December 1999 the applicant submitted a second application for re-registration.\n11.  On 28 January 2000 the deputy head of the Moscow Justice Department informed the applicant that the second application had been refused. He wrote that the applicant had adopted a “new version of the Charter”, rather than “amendments to the Charter”, and had indicated that by the charter, the applicant “may have”, instead of “shall be entitled to have”, attached representative offices of foreign religious organisations. He also claimed that there had been other (unspecified) violations of Russian laws.\n12.  On 10 February 2000 the then president of the applicant sent a letter to the Moscow Justice Department inviting them to indicate specific violations. He relied on the requirement in section 12.2 of the Religions Act, pursuant to which the grounds for a refusal were to be set out explicitly.\n13.  By a letter of 18 February 2000, the deputy head responded to the applicant that the Justice Department was under no obligation to clarify or review charters or other documents and that it could only carry out legal evaluation of the submitted documents and give a decision either to grant or to refuse re‑registration.\n14.  On 30 May 2000, having taken further steps to remedy any supposed defects in the documents, the applicant submitted its third application for registration.\n15.  On 29 June 2000 the deputy head informed the applicant that the application could not be processed because it had submitted an incomplete set of documents. Following a written inquiry of the applicant of 12 July 2000 as to what documents were missing, the deputy head informed the applicant on 17 July 2000 that his Department was not competent to indicate what information was missing and what additional documents were to be submitted.\n16.  On 17 July 2000 the applicant submitted to the Moscow Justice Department a fourth, more detailed application for re-registration.\n17.  On 19 August 2000 the Justice Department informed the applicant that the application would not be processed because it had allegedly submitted an incomplete set of documents. The missing documents were not specified.\n18.  On 10 October 2000 the applicant submitted a fifth, still more detailed application.\n19.  On 9 November 2000 the Justice Department repeated that the applicant had submitted an incomplete se", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2577", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in the village of Lebedyn.\n5.  On 16 August 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Boryspil Town Court against the Boryspil Town Police Department and the State Treasury, seeking compensation. The applicant alleged that Messrs K. and M. had unlawfully attempted to enter and search his flat and insulted him in the presence of his neighbours. Messrs K. and M. took part in the proceedings as third parties. On 30 August 2000 the court found against the applicant. On an unspecified date the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n6.  On 11 September 2001 the Boryspil Town Court found in part for the applicant and awarded him UAH 12,125.09[1] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and court expenses. On an unspecified date the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n7.  On 24 May 2002 the Boryspil Town Court ruled in part for the applicant. It found that two acting police officers, Messrs K. and M., had been ordered by the Boryspil Town Police Department to check the applicant's flat. On 25 April 2000, in the course of execution of the above order, they had unlawfully attempted to enter the applicant's flat and had made abusive statements in his respect. The court held that the State authorities were responsible for the acts of the police officers and ordered the State Treasury to pay the applicant UAH 2,393.09[2] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and court expenses. The court, referring to Article 25 of the Police Act (see paragraph 18 below), further ordered Messrs K. and M. to apologise for their unlawful actions in the presence of the applicant and his neighbours who had witnessed the incident.\n8.  On 1 July 2002 the same court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal for failure to pay court fees and to comply with other procedural formalities. On 9 August 2002 and 2 January 2003, respectively, the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of 1 July 2002.\n9.  On 26 April 2003 the Pecherskyy District Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the monetary award of 24 May 2002.\n10.  On 27 August 2003 the applicant was paid the full amount of the award.\n11.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant submitted to the Boryspil Town Bailiffs' Service a writ of execution for the non-pecuniary part of the judgment.\n12.  On 8 September 2003 the Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the obligation of Mr K. to apologize to the applicant.\n13.  On 3 and 14 October 2003 the Bailiffs' Service fined Mr K. for his failure to comply with the judgment of 24 May 2002.\n14.  On 22 October 2003 the Bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings against Mr K., no reasons having been given for this decision.\n15.  On 23 March 2004 Mr K. retired. His present place of residence is unknown.\n16.  On 25 April 2006 Mr M. together with two other police officers visited the applicant's place of residence. According to the Government, the applicant and his daughter received the apologies from Mr M. for the events of 25 April 2000. The applicant stated that he had been absent during that visit.\n17.  On 14 September 2006 the Trudova Slava local newspaper (газета “Трудова Слава”) published an announcement which read as follows:\n“...[Mr M.], an employee of the MIA [Ministry of Internal Affairs], ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2578", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in the town of Shakhty of the Rostov Region.\n5.  In the 1980s the applicant's father took part in the emergency operation at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. Until March 1996 the Shakhty Town Social Security Service (hereafter - the Service) made monthly payments to the father as a compensation for health damage.\n6.  After the Service stopped payments, the father sued it for arrears and a penalty. On 28 February 1997 the Shakhty Town Court awarded him 30,640,341 Russian roubles (“RUR”) in arrears and the same amount as the penalty.\n7.  On 24 April 1997 the arrears, but not the penalty, were paid.\n8.  After the father's death, on 26 March 1999 a notary public issued the applicant with an inheritance certificate certifying his right to one half of the penalty awarded by the judgment of 28 February 1997. The applicant's grandmother was issued with a certificate confirming her right to the second half of the penalty.\n9.  As the penalty had not been paid, the Shakhty Town Court, upon the applicant's and his grandmother's request, ordered the following increases of the penalty to take account of the inflation:\n- in the judgment of 14 February 2000, by RUR 57,165.71;\n- in the judgment of 13 August 2001, by RUR 29,764.6; and\n- in the judgment of 29 March 2002, by RUR 17,254.96.\nThose judgments were not appealed against and became final.\n10.  On 30 May 2002 the Service paid the penalty in the original amount established in the judgment of 28 February 1997, but not the amounts awarded in the subsequent judgments.\n11.  In 2003 the applicant and his grandmother asked the Shakhty Town Court to reconfirm their right to the sums awarded by the judgments of 14 February 2000, 13 August 2001 and 29 March 2002.\n12.  On 14 March 2003 the Shakhty Town Court held that the applicant and his grandmother each should receive RUR 52,092.63 (approximately 1,540 euros), representing one half of the amounts awarded by the judgments of 14 February 2000, 13 August 2001 and 29 March 2002. The judgment of 14 March 2003 was not appealed against and became final.\n13.  On 20 December 2004 the money due to the applicant and his grandmother under the judgments of 14 February 2000, 13 August 2001 and 29 March 2002, as pronounced by the judgment of 14 March 2003, were paid to them in full.\n14.  On 11 May 2004 the Shakhty Town Court accepted the applicant's action against the Service and awarded him a lump sum of RUR 22,341.78 in pension arrears for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 March 2004 and RUR 3,296.86 in monthly payments. On 26 July 2004 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment.\n15.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted and the Service began payment of the monthly pension in the amount established by the judgment of 11 May 2004. The lump sum of pension arrears was not paid.\n16.  On 30 June 2005 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court, upon an application of the acting President of the Rostov Regional Court and by way of a supervisory review, quashed the judgments of 11 May and 26 July 2004 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n17.  On 24 November 2005 the Shakhty Town Court granted the action and awarded the applicant RUR 6,120.61 in monthly payments and RUR 198,520.64 in pension arrears for the period from 1 July 2000 to 31 October 2005. On 13 February 2006 the Rostov Regional Court, acting on appeal, increased monthly payments to RUR 7,118.91 and the lump sum of pension arrears to RU", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2579", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1951 respectively and live in Karlovac.\n5.  In the period between 11 September 1991 and 13 April 1992 the applicants' restaurant in Karlovac was blown up four times by unknown perpetrators.\n6.  On 11 April 1995 the applicants brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. They relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.\n7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed (prekid postupka) pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.\n8.  On 25 June 2001 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.\n9.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.\n10.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 26 September 2003 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 24 April 2002 the first applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings and the lack of access to a court. On 26 October 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) accepted the first applicant's complaint. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of his constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It awarded him 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the case in the shortest time possible but no later than a year following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 18 November 2004 and its correction on 6 January 2005.\n12.  On 31 May 2004 the Municipal Court found that it no longer had jurisdiction in respect of the applicants' claim for pecuniary damages and thus declared that part of their action inadmissible. On 2 November 2004 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) accepted the applicant's appeal, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.\n13.  In the resumed proceedings, the Zagreb Municipal Court scheduled a hearing for 2 December 2004. Since no one appeared at that hearing on the side of the plaintiffs, the court decided to temporarily suspend the proceedings (mirovanje postupka). The applicants appealed against that decision to the Zagreb County Court. On 11 October 2005 that court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance decision.\n14.  On 7 March 2005 the applicants requested the continuation of the proceedings. Their request was granted and a hearing was held on 19 January 2006. At that hearing the court invited the applicants to specify their claim within 90 days. The applicants did so on 15 April 2006.\n15.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the Municipal Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2581", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in London.\n7.  At the material time, the applicant and her mother, Ms E. Rhodes, lived in Hungary. They ran a shelter for dogs and cats (Csizmás Kandúr Állatotthon és Alapítvány[1]) in the village of Bőny.\n8.  Apparently in the context of an alleged nuisance caused by the animals, in October 2002 the Győr Police Department initiated an investigation for disorderly conduct (garázdaság) against unknown perpetrators. The Police Department was of the view that there was a well-grounded suspicion against the applicant and her mother.\n9.  Not knowing their exact names or address and thus unable to summon them, on 15 October 2002 the Police Department commissioned the locally competent police officer (bőnyi körzeti megbízott), P.Z.H., to establish data about the applicant and her mother and to escort them to the Győr Police Department. Because of the office he held in the village, P.Z.H. had previously been introduced to the applicant and her mother.\n10.  At 7.30 a.m. on 16 October 2002, P.Z.H., who hardly spoke any English, appeared at the gate of the shelter. He rang the bell, and the applicant’s mother received him. Over the closed gate, P.Z.H. told her in Hungarian, without producing a written summons, that the police were conducting a criminal investigation against her and that she was supposed to go with him.\n11.  The applicant’s mother – who is of a British origin but, unlike the applicant, speaks Hungarian – refused to comply with P.Z.H.’s instruction. Following a brief dispute, she turned around and headed for the house across the yard and called her dogs to the gate of the shelter. Observing her reluctant behaviour, P.Z.H. pushed the gate open and entered the garden.\n12.  Since P.Z.H. had heard the applicant’s mother order the dogs, he drew his truncheon in order to keep them at bay.\n13.  The applicant’s mother stepped towards P.Z.H., grabbed his right arm and the truncheon, started to shake him and tried to push him out of the garden through the open gate. Since her attempts failed, the applicant’s mother told P.Z.H. that she would get dressed, collect her documents and go with him. However, having entered the house, she locked the entrance door and refused to open it despite the request of the police officer.\n14.  The applicant was in the house. She heard the argument and saw part of the struggle from the window of the upper floor. She grabbed a camera and took pictures, using a flash, of P.Z.H. from the window. She then hurried down to the ground floor.\n15.  From this point onwards, the Government’s and the applicant’s versions of events differ.\n16.  The Government stated that the applicant stepped out of the house through a side door and continued to take pictures; meanwhile her mother was abusing the police officer verbally. P.Z.H. requested the applicant to show him her passport. The applicant, instead of complying with the order, hit his shoulder and arm three times with the camera. Subsequently, she stepped back towards the house and P.Z.H. followed her. They both entered the house. Once inside, P.Z.H. tried to take the camera out of the applicant’s hand but he failed. Meanwhile, the applicant locked the door from the inside and sat on the key. The police officer attempted to get the key by immobilising the applicant’s arm when her mother appeared, to whom the applicant gave the key.\n17.  The applicant stated that P.Z.H. was banging on the front door, demanding to be let in. The ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2582", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the Rostov Region.\n7.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.\n8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.\n9.  On 13 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 1,500 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.\n10.  On 26 December 2006 the Town Court's judgment became final.\n11.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of EUR 1,500 had been credited into his bank account.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2585", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Riihimäki.\n6.  The applicant was the Administrative Director and a deputy board member in a company initially called ICC, later Cedro Oy (henceforward ICC/Cedro Oy). It bought, sold and rented out computers. It was declared bankrupt on 30 December 1992.\n7.  In the District Court, the public prosecutor charged the applicant with inter alia debtor dishonesty on the grounds that he allegedly had participated, while the company was already in serious financial difficulty, in arranging for the company to be bought essentially with its own money by another company. It was alleged that the applicant put together this plan with two other persons, R. and K., one of whom owned the purchasing company, and that the purpose of the purchase, which made no commercial sense, was to divert money away from the debtors of ICC/Cedro Oy. The indictment concerning count 9 read:\n“On 24 July 1992 Cedro Oy's bank account contained 815,000 Finnish marks [FIM]. Before, the balance was FIM 135,655. For the return sale and the onward sale of the information technology equipment and the leases mentioned in count five, CPT IS Oy credited Cedro Oy's account with FIM 650,000.\nAccording to a mutual agreement between [R., the applicant and K.], [K.], on behalf of Sipoon Finanssi Oy, immediately after CPT IS Oy had sold the worthless Cedro Oy shares for FIM 580,000 to Sipoon Finanssi Oy, owned by [K.], withdrew money from Cedro Oy's bank account leaving FIM 655.\nThe sale by CPT IS Oy of the Cedro Oy shares to Sipoon Finanssi Oy was actually financed by funds belonging to Cedro Oy itself. [K.], on behalf of Cedro Oy, lent FIM 580,000 to the insolvent Sipoon Finanssi Oy ... . Those moneys were used in order to pay for the Cedro Oy shares.\nThe transfer in the bookkeeping accounts of the information technology equipment ... from Cedro Oy back to CPT IS Oy was a condition for the purchase of the Cedro Oy shares. Accordingly, on 24 July 1992, by the joint measures of [R., the applicant and K.], FIM 815,000 was withdrawn to the detriment of Cedro Oy's debtors leaving a balance in the account of FIM 655. Of that amount, FIM 580,000 was withdrawn to the benefit of CPT IS Oy and the remaining over FIM 230,000 to the benefit of [K.]. This took place in accordance with an agreement made by him, [R.] and [the applicant.] There were no acceptable reasons for the withdrawals.\nThe mutual understanding between [the three men] had risen before and in connection with the purchase.”\n8.  On 27 March 1997, while convicting the applicant of two counts of an accounting offence and sentencing him to a suspended term of four months' imprisonment, the District Court rejected the charge of debtor dishonesty on count 9, on the grounds that it had not been shown that there had existed an agreed plan or that the applicant had been aware of the origin of the money used for the purchase. K., who in the pre-trial investigation had testified that there had been such a plan, had retracted his statement in the District Court.\n9.  The prosecutor appealed, charging the applicant again with debtor dishonesty. There was an oral hearing, in which however count no. 9 was not addressed.\n10.  On 22 June 1999, the Court of Appeal of its own motion convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting debtor dishonesty and imposed on him a suspended term of a total of ten months' imprisonment.\n11.  It found that it was undisputed that R. had been the chairman of ICC/Cedro Oy's ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2586", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On an unspecified date the Plovdiv Municipality (the municipality) started clearing the banks and the riverbed of the river “Maritza”, which runs through the city. The procedure involved the uprooting and eradication of trees and plant life, which were blocking the flow of the river.\n7.  The applicant organisation believed that the actions of the municipality were in violation of the domestic environmental protection legislation and that the disorderly uprooting and eradication of the trees and the plant life would disrupt the biological balance of the river.\n8.  On 18 April 2000 the applicant organisation informed the municipality of its intention to hold a public rally on the following day, the 19th, in front of the municipality. The aim of the public rally was to protest against the municipality's actions and to demand that the disorderly uprooting and eradication of the river's plant life be stopped because it was destroying important alluvial trees and the habitat of rare, endangered birds.\n9.  In a letter of 19 April 2000 the municipality informed the applicant organisation that it would not permit the rally to go ahead as planned. The full text of the letter, signed by the secretary of the municipality, read as follows:\n“We inform you that the Plovdiv Municipality does not permit the conducting of the [planned] public rally.”\n10.  Later on the same day, police officers visited the offices of the applicant organisation and obtained signed declarations from its leaders that they were aware of the prohibition and would not organise the rally as planned.\n11.  The applicant organisation did not hold a rally on 19 April 2000 and the clearing the banks and the riverbed of the river “Maritza” continued unabated.\n12.  On 26 April 2000 the applicant organisation appealed against the municipality's prohibition of its public rally. The appeal was filed with the municipality which did not forward it, as required under the applicable legislation, to the domestic courts together with all relevant documents.\n13.  On 7 June 2000 the applicant organisation re-filed its appeal with the Plovdiv Regional Court.\n14.  On 21 June 2000 the Plovdiv Regional Court requested the municipality to provide it with its file and all other relevant documents regarding the public rally planned by the applicant organisation.\n15.  The municipality sent the requested documents to the Plovdiv Regional Court on 22 June 2000 with the exception of the applicant organisation's appeal of 26 April 2000.\n16.  On 5 July 2000 the Plovdiv Regional Court requested that the municipality also provide it with the applicant organisation's appeal of 26 April 2000. On the same day it also instructed the applicant organisation to deposit the required court fee, which the latter did on 9 October 2000.\n17.  On 25 October 2000 the municipality provided the Plovdiv Regional Court with the applicant organisation's appeal of 26 April 2000.\n18.  At a hearing on 24 January 2001 the applicant organisation's appeal was examined by the Plovdiv Regional Court.\n19.  In a judgment of 28 March 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court declared null and void the municipality's prohibition of the public rally planned by the applicant organisation for 19 April 2000. It established that the prohibition had been issued in violation of the provisions of the Meetings and Marches Act, as it had been decided not by the mayor but by the secretary of the municipality. Furthermore, it lacked reference to any of the sta", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2587", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the Rostov Region.\n7.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.\n8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.\n9.  On 7 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 3,000 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Sovetskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don approved the settlement.\n10.  On 19 December 2006 the District Court's judgment became final.\n11.  By letter of 28 December 2006, the applicant informed the Court that the terms of the settlement had been implemented and that he did not wish to pursue proceedings before the Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2589", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in the town of Shakhty of the Rostov Region.\n5.  In the 1980s the applicant's son took part in the emergency operation at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. Until March 1996 the Shakhty Town Social Security Service (hereafter - the Service) made monthly payments to the son as a compensation for health damage.\n6.  After the Service stopped payments, the applicant's son sued it for arrears and a penalty. On 28 February 1997 the Shakhty Town Court awarded him 30,640,341 Russian roubles (“RUR”) in arrears and the same amount as the penalty.\n7.  On 24 April 1997 the arrears, but not the penalty, were paid.\n8.  After the son's death, on 26 March 1999 a notary public issued the applicant with an inheritance certificate certifying her right to one half of the penalty awarded by the judgment of 28 February 1997. The applicant's grandson was issued with a certificate confirming his right to the second half of the penalty.\n9.  As the penalty had not been paid, the Shakhty Town Court, upon the applicant's and her grandson's request, ordered the following increases of the penalty to take account of the inflation:\n- in the judgment of 14 February 2000, by RUR 57,165.71;\n- in the judgment of 13 August 2001, by RUR 29,764.6; and\n- in the judgment of 29 March 2002, by RUR 17,254.96.\nThose judgments were not appealed against and became effective.\n10.  On 30 May 2002 the Service paid the penalty in the original amount established in the judgment of 28 February 1997, but not the amounts awarded in the subsequent judgments.\n11.  In 2003 the applicant and her grandson asked the Shakhty Town Court to reconfirm their right to the sums awarded by the judgments of 14 February 2000, 13 August 2001 and 29 March 2002.\n12.  On 14 March 2003 the Shakhty Town Court held that the applicant and her grandson each should receive RUR 52,092.63 (approximately 1,540 euros), representing one half of the amounts awarded by the judgments of 14 February 2000, 13 August 2001 and 29 March 2002. The judgment of 14 March 2003 was not appealed against and became final.\n13.  On 20 December 2004 the money due to the applicant and her grandson under the judgments of 14 February 2000, 13 August 2001 and 29 March 2002, as pronounced by the judgment of 14 March 2003, were paid to them in full.\n14.  On 11 November 2002 the Shakhty Town Court accepted the applicant's action against the Service and awarded her RUR 23,619.55 (approximately 733 euros). That judgment was upheld on appeal on 23 July 2003 and enforced in full on 16 August 2004.\n15.  In 2002 the applicant sued the Service and the Shakhty Town Council for an increase of her pension, payment of arrears and compensation for damage.\n16.  On 8 May 2003 the Shakhty Town Court partly accepted her action and ordered that the Service should adjust her pension to take account of increases in the minimum subsistence level. The Town Court also awarded her RUR 9,563.92 (approximately 271 euros) in arrears. The judgment became final on 16 July 2003 after the Rostov Regional Court upheld it.\n17.  On 11 December 2003 the Service paid the applicant RUR 9,563.92, but it did not increase her pension in line with the subsistence level.\n18.  In November 2003 the applicant asked the President of the Rostov Regional Court to initiate a supervisory review in respect of the judgment of 8 May 2003. On 30 April 2004 her request was disallowed.\n19.  In 2004 the applicant asked the Shakhty Town Court ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2590", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Şırnak.\n5.  The facts surrounding the arrest and detention of the applicant are disputed between the parties.\n6.  On an unspecified date, the applicant was contacted by two persons in the centre of Şırnak who asked him either to give them money or to help them. They did not specify what they wished the applicant to do. The applicant refused their request. On 11 June 1998, one week after this incident, they again contacted the applicant, asked him to help them and threatened him with death. As the applicant was scared, he followed their instructions. He went near to a cemetery outside the city centre where two armed men appeared. They asked him about the supplies and when the applicant told them that he did not know about the supplies, they beat him. Subsequently, four or five other plain-clothes persons carrying weapons arrived. They tied the applicant’s hands and covered his mouth. One of them had a radio with which he talked to someone whom he addressed as “my commander”. The applicant was then blindfolded, put in a vehicle and taken to the Şırnak provincial gendarmerie command.\n7.  During his detention in the custody of the gendarmerie the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment. In particular he was stripped naked and beaten. He was also deprived of food and water and was prevented from going to the toilet. The applicant was kept in a small and dark cell, threatened with death and insulted. Furthermore, the gendarmerie officers attempted to rape him.\n8.  In the evening of 11 June 1998, the applicant’s son, Mehmet Özen, applied to the Şırnak Security Directorate claiming that his father left home at around 8 - 8.30 a.m. to go to their farm and that he was seen by one of their neighbours, Ömer Katar, at around midday being abducted by an armed group of six or seven persons. On 12 June 1998 an official report was drawn up concerning Mehmet Özen’s claim.\n9.  On 13 June 1998 a similar protocol was drawn up containing Ömer Katar’s statement about the applicant’s arrest. He stated that he had seen the applicant being taken away by seven men who were carrying rifles. Ömer Katar testified that Haci[3] Özen’s hands were tied and that he was being beaten by these men.\n10.  On 15 June 1998 the applicant was brought before a forensic doctor, Mr Veli Gül. The medical report drafted by the doctor at 1.45 p.m. on the same day referred to the following marks on the applicant’s body: a bruise on the right shoulder, scratches and bruises on the front of his right arm, bruises on the right part of his back, bruises of 2 x 2 cm on his waist, bruises on the front of his left arm, a bruise on the back of his left shoulder, bruises of 2 x 2 cm on his left hip and a trauma of 2 x 0,5 cm on his parietal bone. All the bruises on the applicant’s body were described as purple in colour.\n11.  On 23 June 1998 the gendarmerie officers drafted a document allegedly containing the applicant’s statements, according to which the applicant admitted to have willingly acted as a courier for the PKK and have fallen and sustained other injuries while trying to escape from the gendarmerie officers on 15 June 1998, the day of his arrest. The applicant was forced to apply his thumbprint to this document.\n12.  On 24 June 1998 the applicant was examined by the same doctor who noted the presence of the traces of old bruises on his shoulders and arms.\n13.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the Şırnak public prosecutor", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2591", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Križ.\n5.  On 8 March 2000 the Ivanić Grad Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Ivanić Gradu) gave judgment ordering a certain S.R. to pay the applicant 9,600 German marks (DEM). The judgment became final and enforceable on 17 June 2000.\n6.  On 28 November 2001 the applicant sought enforcement of the above judgment. On 7 December 2001 the Sisak Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Sisku) issued an enforcement order. It decided to seize S.R.'s movable property and sell it at a public auction. On 5 March 2002 the applicant informed the court that he advanced the costs of the proceedings.\n7.  The court bailiff attempted to conduct the first on-site inspection on 22 April 2002, but S.R. was not found on the address provided by the applicant. His parents, I. and J.R., informed the bailiff that S.R. had not lived at that address for the past three years.\n8.  The court scheduled another on-site inspection for 3 September 2002. However, the court bailiff could not enter S.R.'s house, because it was locked. On 4 September 2002 the applicant asked the court to set another date for the bailiff's intervention with the assistance of the police and the locksmith. He also requested temporary seizure of S.R.'s passport.\n9.  On 2 October 2002 the court held a hearing. It invited the applicant to again advance the costs and scheduled another on-site inspection for 30 October 2002. The inspection again failed since S.R.'s house was locked. On 4 November 2002 the applicant requested the temporary seizure of S.R's passport.\n10.  The court scheduled yet another on-site inspection for 3 February 2003, with the assistance of the police and a locksmith. On that date, the court bailiff entered S.R.'s house and seized the following movables: two motorbikes, a lawnmower, a welding machine, a TV and a stereo. One day later, the applicant repeated his request for seizure of the passport.\n11.  On 13 February 2003 the debtor's parents as third parties filed an objection against the enforcement on the seized movables, claiming they were the owners of the seized property which could therefore not be the object of enforcement. On 22 May 2003 the court invited the applicant to respond to the objection raised. Eight days later the applicant did so by contesting the third parties' allegations.\n12.  On 9 January 2004 the applicant repeated his request for temporary seizure of S.R.'s passport. Finally, on 2 March 2004 the court dismissed the applicant's motion in this respect. On appeal, on 4 October 2004 the second-instance court upheld the first-instance decision finding that the seizure of the passport was not allowed under the legislation in force.\n13.  On 25 February 2005 the court inquired with the police about S.R.'s place of residence. The police replied that S.R. left for Germany.\n14.  Subsequently, on 25 March 2005 the applicant invited the court to continue with the enforcement on the seized movables.\n15.  On 2 November 2005 the court instructed S.R.'s parents, to institute separate civil proceedings to declare the enforcement on the seized movables inadmissible. The third parties did so and it would appear that those proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2592", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Chişinău.\n8.  On 22 January 1999 he bought a one-room apartment from X for 13,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 1,500 United States dollars (USD) at the time). Since X did not comply with the applicant's request to vacate the apartment, on 8 June 1999 he brought an action against her, seeking her eviction. X brought a counter action against the applicant, seeking the annulment of the sale contract and restitutio in integrum on the ground that the contract had been vitiated by fraud.\n9.  On 16 March 2000 the Centru District Court ruled in favour of X and dismissed the applicant's action. The applicant appealed.\n10.  On 6 July 2000 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the applicant's appeal, quashed the judgment of the Centru District Court, ordered X's eviction from the apartment and dismissed her action. X appealed.\n11.  On 3 October 2000 the Court of Appeal dismissed X's appeal on points of law and upheld the judgment of 6 July 2000. The judgment became final and enforceable.\n12.  On 6 June 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld a Prosecutor General's request for annulment of the judgment in favour of the applicant and ordered the re-opening of the proceedings before the first-instance court.\n13.  On 26 October 2001 the Centru District Court upheld X's action and dismissed the applicant's claims. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 23 January 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the applicant's appeal, quashed the judgment of the Centru District Court of 26 October 2001, ordered X's eviction from the disputed apartment and dismissed her action. X appealed.\n15.  By a final judgment of 18 April 2002 the Court of Appeal dismissed X's appeal.\n16.  On 18 April 2002 the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a request for annulment of the judgments of the Chişinău Regional Court of 23 January 2002 and of the Court of Appeal of 18 April 2002. He asked the court to uphold the judgment of the Centru District Court of 26 October 2001.\n17.  By a judgment of 29 May 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor's request for annulment, quashed the judgment in favour of the applicant and upheld the judgment of the Centru District Court of 26 October 2001.\n18.  Following the communication of the case by the Court, the Prosecutor General lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a revision request in respect of the judgment of 29 May 2002 on the ground that the applicant and the Government intended to conclude a friendly settlement agreement.\n19.  By a judgment of 5 October 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor's request for revision, quashed its judgment of 29 May 2002 and discontinued the annulment proceedings. The Supreme Court did not order payment of any compensation for the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant as a result of the alleged violations.\n20.  On an unspecified date between the quashing of the final judgment in favour of the applicant and the discontinuance of the annulment proceedings X had joined the disputed apartment to another apartment and had substantially reconstructed the newly created apartment. She subsequently sold 1/3 of the joined apartments to a third party. The applicant and the third party have filed actions against each other seeking mainly the recognition of their ownership rights over the disputed apartment. The proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts and the applicant has not been ab", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2593", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  On 11 April 2000 the İzmir State Security Court ordered the confiscation of the applicant's car on the ground that it had been used during the commission of a crime. The applicant did not wish to surrender his car.\n6.  On a unspecified date, the İzmir public prosecutor took a statement from the applicant and on 10 July 2001 he filed a bill of indictment with the İzmir Magistrate's Court accusing the applicant of “not obeying the official authorities' order”. He requested that the applicant be punished, pursuant to Article 526 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code.\n7.  On 17 July 2001 the İzmir Magistrate's Court, without holding a public hearing, issued a penal order pursuant to Article 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It decided over the content of the case file and sentenced the applicant to three months' imprisonment and a fine of 35,591,400 Turkish liras (TRL). The court then commuted the imprisonment to a fine and sentenced the applicant to a total fine of TRL 249,139,300[1].\n8.  On 13 August 2001 the applicant challenged this decision before the İzmir Criminal Court. He requested that the Criminal Court hold a hearing to examine his appeal.\n9.  On 24 August 2001, the İzmir Criminal Court upheld the decision of the Magistrate's Court without a hearing, noting that it was in accordance with the law and procedure.\n10.  The applicant paid the fine in question on 10 December 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2594", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the Rostov Region.\n7.  On 30 April 2000 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.\n8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.\n9.  On 2 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 1,500 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On 13 December 2006 the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.\n10.  On 26 December 2006 the Town Court's judgment became final.\n11.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of EUR 1,500 had been credited into his bank account.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2595", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Velingrad.\n5.  On 11 November 1999 the applicant was arrested and brought before an investigator who decided to remand him in custody on charges of sexual assault allegedly committed against a minor on 20 October 1999, an offence punishable with up to five years' imprisonment under Article 149 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The investigator's decision was confirmed by a prosecutor.\n6.  On 18 November 1999 the investigator conducted searches in the applicant's home.\n7.  On 29 March 2000 the applicant was released.\n8.  In the course of the investigation a number of witnesses, the alleged victim and the applicant were heard and several forensic and medical reports were drawn up.\n9.  On 5 February 2001 the investigator submitted his conclusions to the prosecutor, proposing that the applicant should be indicted for sexual assault.\n10.  On 10 April 2001 the District Prosecutor's Office referred the case back to the investigator instructing him to undertake further investigation as to whether the applicant had raped the same girl on 9 November 1999, as alleged by her.\n11.  Since the alleged victim had changed her address and could not be located, the investigation could not proceed and was suspended on 1 October 2003.\n12.  In October 2003 the case file was transmitted to the district police in Velingrad with instruction to continue seeking the alleged victim's address. It appears that as of September 2006, the date of the latest communication received from the parties, the investigation remained suspended.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2596", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Kamyshin, the Volgograd Region.\n5.  On 26 July 2000 the Kamyshin Town Court of the Volgograd Region (“the Kamyshin Town Court”) allowed the applicant's civil claim for defamation against the Prosecutor's Office of the Volgograd Region and awarded her 300 Russian roubles (“RUR”). The award was payable by the Treasury of the Russian Federation. The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable on 7 August 2000.\n6.  On 28 August 2000 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the bailiffs' service.\n7.  On 30 August 2000 the bailiffs' service returned the writ of execution to the court because it did not have the debtor's address. It asked the court to re-submit a corrected version within ten days.\n8.  On 10 September 2000 the bailiffs' service discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the writ of execution had not been re-submitted.\n9.  On 3 October 2000 the applicant was told that the writ had been returned to the court on 30 August 2000.\n10.  On 20 November 2003, following the applicant's request, the bailiffs' service informed her of the decision of 10 September 2000 to discontinue the enforcement proceedings.\n11.  On 15 April 2005 the amount of RUR 300 was transferred into the applicant's account.\n12.  On 25 June 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the 14th Court Circuit of the Kamyshinskiy District of the Volgograd Region partly allowed the applicant's civil action against the municipal housing maintenance enterprise of Kamyshin (муниципальное предприятие “Жилищное управление“ г. Камышина). It ordered that the municipal enterprise should perform certain maintenance works in the applicant's room within ten days after the judgment becomes final. In particular, it should repair and whitewash the ceiling and paint the floor. The court also awarded the applicant RUR 200 for non-pecuniary damage.\n13.  On 12 September 2003 the Kamyshin Town Court upheld the judgment on appeal; the judgment became enforceable.\n14.  The municipal enterprise performed the maintenance works in accordance with the judgment but did not pay the monetary award.\n15.  On 15 June 2004 the Commercial Court of the Volgograd Region initiated insolvency proceedings against the debtor.\n16.  On 6 August 2004 the court issued a new writ of execution and sent it to the bailiffs' service. Enforcement proceedings commenced and the applicant's name was placed on the list of creditors in the insolvency proceedings.\n17.  By a letter of 9 August 2004, the President of the Kamyshin Town Court informed the applicant that in September 2003 the writ of execution had been handed over to a bailiff who had subsequently lost it.\n18.  On 15 April 2005 the municipal enterprise transferred the amount of RUR 200 into the applicant's account.\n19.  On 16 September 2005 the amount of RUR 5 charged by the bank for the transfers (see paragraphs 11 and 18 above) was reimbursed to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2597", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1930 and 1934 respectively and live in Irkutsk.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 22 December 1986 the Irkutsk regional administration ordered expropriation of the applicants' plot of land, house and certain constructions in the public interest and transferred them to the State enterprise “Vostok”. The actual transfer took place in 1992.\n7.  On 27 January 1993 the first applicant reached an agreement with “Vostok” by which the enterprise undertook to move the applicant's garage and cellar to his new place of residence. By a decision of the same date, the Sverdlovskiy District Court of the Irkutsk Region approved the agreement. It was later invalidated by domestic courts.\n8.  On 22 September 1995 the Sverdlovskiy District Court allowed the applicants' civil claims against “Vostok” and awarded them compensation for the expropriated property. The applicants did not specify the amount awarded. It appears that the judgment became binding and enforceable on 2 October 1995.\n9.  On 1 November 1996 and 13 March 2001 the District Court adjusted the award under the judgment of 22 September 1995 in line with the inflation.\n10.  According to the judgments of 22 September 1995, 1 November 1996 and 13 March 2001, the federal State unitary enterprise “Vostok” (федеральное государственное унитарное предприятие “Восток”) was to pay 72,502.20 Russian roubles (“RUR”) to the first applicant and RUR 4,856.30 to the second applicant.\n11.  On an unspecified date the bailiffs' service opened enforcement proceedings and placed the applicants on the waiting list, along with many others creditors of “Vostok”.\n12.  On 28 January 2002 the Commercial Court of the Irkutsk Region started insolvency proceedings against “Vostok”.\n13.  On 24 February 2004 the bailiff passed the enforcement documents to the company receiver.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicants brought civil proceedings against the Irkutsk City Administration, claiming that the Administration should be liable for the debts of the State enterprise.\n15.  On 3 December 2003 the Kirovskiy District Court of Irkutsk dismissed their claim as having no basis in the domestic law. On 30 January 2004 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n16.  It appears that the judgments of 22 September 1995, 1 November 1996 and 13 March 2001 have not been enforced to date, and that the insolvency proceedings against “Vostok” are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2598", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1953 respectively and live in Velika Gorica.\n5.  In the night between 12 and 13 April 1992 the applicants' house in Slavonski Brod was blown up by unknown perpetrators. Several months later the ruins of the house were set on fire, which resulted in its complete destruction.\n6.  On 11 November 1994 the applicants brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages. They relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.\n7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.\n8.  On 17 July 1996 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.\n9.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.\n10.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 6 and 19 June 2002, respectively, the applicants lodged constitutional complaints under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings and the lack of access to a court. On 17 September 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) gave a single decision accepting their complaints. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of the applicants' constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It awarded them each 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the case in the shortest time possible but no later than a year following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 30 September 2004.\n12.  On 1 July 2004 the Zagreb Municipal Court declared the applicant's action inadmissible finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter. The applicants appealed and on 21 December 2004 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.\n13.  In the resumed proceedings, on 25 July 2005 the Municipal Court gave judgment dismissing the applicants' claim on the merits. The applicants again appealed and the proceedings are currently pending before the Zagreb County Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2599", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On the evening of 14 May 1994 the applicant, at that time aged fourteen, went out with several friends in the centre of Vidin to play electronic games. On the way back he left the main group to see a classmate of his and her sister to their door. After he had walked the girls home at about 9.40 p.m., he ran back to re‑join his friends. The applicant was wearing shorts, a yellow tee‑shirt and a green sleeveless jacket.\n7.  On the same evening, some time after 9.00 p.m., the Vidin police received a report that an ice‑cream booth in the centre of the town had been vandalised by two individuals. A police patrol was dispatched to the scene and arrested the first of them, but the second managed to get away. All patrols in the area were put on alert and ordered to track him down. The description given over the police radio was of a man wearing short pants and a light‑coloured tee‑shirt.\n8.  At that time Mr G.G. and Mr V.E., both trainee police officers, were in the area of the incident, patrolling in Mr V.E.'s private car. Although they were supposed to be accompanied by a supervising police officer, chief sergeant A., they were patrolling by themselves, as sergeant A. had been dispatched elsewhere. Their car was in a street which was not well lit. Seeing the applicant running past the car, they assumed that he was the offender at large. They got out of the car and gave chase. The applicant heard their steps, but, seeing that they had come out of an unmarked rather than a police car, kept on running. It was disputed whether or not Mr G.G. and Mr V.E. had shouted “Stop! Police!” after the applicant. They submitted that they had done so, whereas the applicant and several witnesses stated that they had not heard the officers shouting. The chase continued for about a minute. The applicant ran by a Mr I.P. Shortly afterwards, Mr G.G. caught up with the applicant in front of a beauty parlour and apparently tripped him over. The applicant fell on the ground, face down. Mr G.G. then started hitting the applicant's back and legs with a truncheon and kicking his torso. Soon after that Mr V.E. caught up with them and also started hitting the applicant's back and legs with a truncheon and kicking his torso. The applicant averred that Mr V.E. had sat on his back and had delivered several truncheon blows to his head. The applicant was crying and begging the officers to stop, insisting that he had done nothing wrong. Mr I.P. was an eyewitness to the incident, and so were a Mr P.S. and a Mr V.K.\n9.  Shortly afterwards, chief sergeants A.K. and I.G. arrived at the scene. By that time the physical assault on the applicant had stopped. The applicant was lying on the ground and Mr G.G. and Mr V.E. were standing beside him. The applicant's tee‑shirt was soaked with blood coming from the neck area.\n10.  Chief sergeants A.K. and I.G. helped the applicant get into their patrol car. On the way to the hospital they stopped at a fountain and told him to wash the blood off his neck. The applicant told the officers that he felt pain in his legs and in his right lumbar area.\n11.  The applicant was admitted to the emergency ward of the Vidin Regional Hospital at 10.01 p.m. Upon his admission he stated that he could not see. His blood pressure was measured to be 70/0. It was found that he had a traumatic‑lacerated injury on the back of his head. He was also complaining of severe pain in the area of the right kidney. He was taken to the surgical ward and the injury on his", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2600", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Omsk.\n5.  On 20 July 2004 the Tsentralniy District Court of Omsk accepted the applicant's action against the Omsk Town Council and ordered that the Council should provide the applicant and his family members with a well-equipped flat, taking into account that the applicant had the right to an additional room. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Omsk Regional Court on 25 August 2004.\n6.  On 16 September 2004 enforcement proceedings were instituted.\n7.  On 28 December 2004 the Tsentralniy District Court clarified its judgment of 20 July 2004, noting that the Council should buy a flat at the expense of the federal budget.\n8.  The judgment remains unenforced because the Federal Treasury did not provide the Council with necessary funds.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2601", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Kocaeli.\n5.  On 16 October 1992 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of his membership of the Dev-Sol (the Revolutionary Left) and was taken into police custody.\n6.  On 26 October 1992 he was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered the applicant's detention on remand.\n7.  On 8 January 1993 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and sixteen other co-accused, charging them, inter alia, with membership of an illegal armed organisation and for participating in activities that undermined the constitutional order of the State. The public prosecutor sought the death penalty for the applicant pursuant to Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  In 2004 the State Security Courts were abolished following a constitutional amendment and the applicant's case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.\n9.  On 2 May 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n10.  The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. The case was remitted before the Istanbul Assize Court where it is still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2602", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the Rostov Region.\n7.  On 28 July 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.\n8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.\n9.  On 13 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 3,000 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.\n10.  On 26 December 2006 the Town Court's judgment became final.\n11.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of EUR 3,000 had been credited into his bank account.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2603", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the Rostov Region.\n7.  On 9 June 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.\n8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.\n9.  On 13 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 1,500 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.\n10.  On 26 December 2006 the Town Court's judgment became final.\n11.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of EUR 1,500 had been credited into his bank account.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2604", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Neryungri in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.\n5.  On 11 July 2003 the Neryungri Town Court accepted the applicant's claim against the Government of the Russian Federation and awarded her 72,967 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 2,110 euros) in compensation for a special-purpose settlement order by the terms of which the Government was to provide her with a car in exchange for payments extracted from the applicant's salary and benefits related to her employment in the Far-Northern Region of Russia. The judgment was upheld on appeal on 25 August 2003 by the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.\n6.  The Neryungri Town Court issued the applicant with a writ of execution which she submitted to the Ministry of Finance in November 2003.\n7.  At the time the application was lodged with the Court the judgment of 11 July 2003, as upheld on appeal on 25 August 2003, remained unenforced.\n8.  According to the Government, on 31 March 2006 the Federal Treasury of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic successfully initiated a supervisory review of the judgment of 11 July 2003.\n9.  On 24 August 2006 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic reviewed the judgment of 11 July 2003, as upheld on appeal on 25 August 2003, and ordered that the Ministry of Finance should pay the applicant RUR 33,201.49 (approximately 980 euros) .\n10.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted in respect of the judgment of 24 August 2006. The applicant did not submit any information concerning the outcome of those proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2605", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in the Rostov Region.\n7.  On 6 July 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.\n8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.\n9.  On 13 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 3,000 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.\nIn exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.\n10.  On 26 December 2006 the Town Court's judgment became final.\n11.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of EUR 3,000 had been credited into his bank account.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2606", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 8 August 1992 the applicant's house in Samobor, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n6.  On 23 November 1992 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Samobor Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Samoboru) seeking damages. He relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.\n7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.\n8.  On 2 February 1999 the Samobor Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.\n9.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.\n10.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 8 January 2004 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings.\n11.  On 4 March 2004 the court declared the applicant's action inadmissible finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter. The applicant appealed to the Velika Gorica County Court (Županijski sud u Velikoj Gorici). It would appear that the proceedings are currently pending before that court.\n12.  Meanwhile, on 22 April 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings and the lack of access to a court. On 24 February 2005 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicant's complaint. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of the applicant's constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It ordered the County Court to give a decision in the applicant's case within a year and awarded him compensation in the amount of 7,800 Croatian kunas (HRK).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2607", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 30 May 1992 the applicant's house in Velika Črešnjevica, was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n6.  On 22 February 1995 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages. He relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.\n7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.\n8.  On 15 March 1996 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.\n9.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.\n10.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 17 April 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of proceedings under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. On 24 March 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicant's complaint. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of the applicant's constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the applicant's case within a year and awarded him compensation in the amount of 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK).\n12.  On 12 May 2004 the Zagreb Municipal Court declared the applicant's action inadmissible finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter.\n13.  The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu). It would appear that the proceedings are currently pending before that court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2608", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Istanbul. He was a research assistant in the Institute for Positive Sciences at the Istanbul Technical University (hereinafter: “the University”) at the time of the events.\n5.  On 30 June 1996 the University decided not to renew the applicant's contract as a research assistant. The applicant was notified of this decision on 17 July 1996.\n6.  On 30 July 1996 the applicant filed an action with the İstanbul Administrative Court and requested the annulment, and suspension of the execution, of the University's abovementioned decision.\n7.  The applicant's request for suspension was dismissed by the first instance court on 24 January 1997.\n8.  On 31 October 1997 the Istanbul Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's case.\n9.  On 20 January 1998 the applicant appealed.\n10.  On 1 June 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the first instance court.\n11.  On 12 September 2000 the applicant requested the Supreme Administrative Court to rectify its decision.\n12.  On 6 December 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's request. This decision was served on the applicant on 16 January 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2609", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Estonia.\n6.  In the evening of 1 October 2000, next to a shop in Saue, a man who had been beaten died on the spot as a result of head injuries. On 2 October 2000 the Harju police initiated criminal proceedings. Charges were brought against the applicant and M.K.\n7.  Following the conclusion of the preliminary investigation the criminal case-file was sent to the Harju County Court (maakohus). According to the bill of indictment, the applicant and M.K. had been consuming alcohol in a train from Tallinn to Saue. In Saue they had walked to a shop in front of which they met T.N. They had entered the shop. After having bought beer the applicant and M.K. left the shop together. Outside the shop they had met O.U. and the victim. The former had entered the shop, the latter stayed outside. The victim, being under the influence of alcohol, had had an argument with the applicant and M.K. They had attacked the victim and beaten him, as a result of which he died. When O.U. left the shop and saw his friend on the ground, he approached the applicant and M.K. for clarification. After a brief scuffle O.U. had run away from the applicant and M.K. and again had entered the shop. Witness R.L., the shop assistant, had locked the door of the shop.\n8.  The bill of indictment relied on the statements of U.T., the father of the victim; O.U., the man together with whom the victim had come to the shop; R.L., the shop assistant; T.N., a man who had stayed in the shop during the offence; K.K., a man who had passed by the scene of the offence in a car and had seen two men beating a third one; and K.E., a nearby inhabitant who had heard voices while at home in the evening of the offence. In addition, reliance was placed, inter alia, on the plan and report concerning the scene of the offence, photos, a forensic expert's opinion with annexes, a report on the comparison of K.K.'s statements with the circumstances and a report concerning the confrontation of K.K. and the applicant.\n9.  In August 2001 the criminal case was joined with another case in which the applicant was also accused. Altogether there were five defendants in the criminal case.\n10.  On 19 September 2001 the hearing was adjourned by the County Court.\n11.  At the hearing of 6 November 2001 the prosecutor presented amended charges in the part not relating to the present case. The applicant's lawyer requested that the hearing be adjourned and that all the witnesses and the forensic expert be summoned. She also requested that additional questions be put to the forensic expert. The prosecutor informed the court that witness K.K. had died. The court adjourned the hearing.\n12.  The County Court heard the case on 29 November 2001 and on 4 April 2002.\n13.  At the hearing of 29 November 2001 the applicant's lawyer found that the participation of witnesses O.U., T.N., R.L. and K.E. was necessary. She noted that she had made a request to the effect that the forensic expert be called to the hearing. The court heard the applicant, M.K. and U.T. In addition, the court disclosed the written records of statements made by witnesses K.K. and R.L. during the preliminary investigation, the record concerning the interrogation of M.K., the report concerning the confrontation of the applicant and K.K. and the report on the comparison of K.K.'s statements with the circumstances. The County Court granted the request to call witnesses O.U., T.N. and R.L. and ordered that an additional", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2610", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1944 and 1932 respectively and live in Bjelovar.\n5.  On 1 March 1992 the applicants’ house in Bjelovar was blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n6.  On 1 March 1994 the applicants brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages. They relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.\n7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.\n8.  On 7 June 1999 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.\n9.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.\n10.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 14 January 2004 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 21 May 2002 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of proceedings under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. On 7 July 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicants’ complaint. Relying on the Court’s case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of their constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the applicants’ case within a year and awarded them compensation in the amount of 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK) each.\n12.  On 11 March 2004 the Zagreb Municipal Court declared the applicants’ action inadmissible finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter.\n13.  The applicants appealed to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu). It would appear that the proceedings are currently pending before that court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2611", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the Rostov Region.\n7.  On 5 August 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.\n8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.\n9.  On 13 December 2006 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 3,000 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.\n10.  On 26 December 2006 the Town Court's judgment became final.\n11.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of EUR 3,000 had been credited into his bank account.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2612", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Marki, Poland.\n7.  On the night of 12 June 1997 the applicant and three other men C.M., C.S. and D.S. were standing outside an all-night shop in Marki. The Government submitted that the group had been disturbing public order, drinking vodka and destroying public property. Somebody called the police.\n8.  On 13 June 1997, at about 1 a.m., an unmarked police car arrived with two plain‑clothes police officers G.G. and R.Ł. It was followed by a second police car with two other police officers M.R. and B.S.\n9.  The police officers ordered all present outside the shop to lie on the ground and then handcuffed them.\nAccording to the applicant, while he was lying down, his hands handcuffed behind his back, the police officers, in particular G.G., started to beat him on the head with their fists, kick him and insult him.\nAccording to the Government, the applicant, who was the most aggressive, had hit police officer G.G. with his open hand on the face and had insulted and threatened him. The police then managed to handcuff him.\n10.  The applicant was then placed in one of the police cars and taken to the Warsaw Sobering‑Up Centre (izba wytrzeźwień).\nOn the way there, the applicant submitted that he was again beaten and insulted by G.G. and R.Ł. His repeated requests to take him to a hospital were ignored.\nThe Government stated that the applicant had been “extremely aggressive” also in the police car and that he had “repeated his threats to the officers in a vulgar and offensive way”.\n11.  In the Warsaw Sobering-up Centre the applicant underwent a breath test, which showed 1.92 ‰ of alcohol in his blood. Subsequently, the applicant was taken to the Bródno Hospital in Warsaw and examined by doctors.\n12.  On 14 June 1997 the applicant was examined by doctors at the Praga Hospital in Warsaw.\n13.  The applicant's injuries were described as follows.\n14.  A certificate by a radiologist, Dr E.D., dated 12 June 1997, stated:\n“Dzwonkowski Dariusz, 22 years old. Nasal bone fracture. Fracture of the edge of the right eye socket. ... Suspected fracture of the right jaw ... ”\n15.  A certificate by a laryngologist, Dr M.O., dated 13 June 1997 at 3 a.m., stated, in so far as relevant:\n“...Condition after a head injury. Non-displaced nasal bone fracture. Large haematoma around left eye... Skin abrasion and swelling on the nose and right eye... since the patient reported loss of consciousness, a consultation with a surgeon is recommended.”\n16.  A medical certificate dated 13 June 1997 at 3.50 a.m. read, in so far as relevant:\n“...Condition after an injury to head and right eye. ... Fracture of jaw. Large haematoma and swelling on lower eyelid (right); bloodshot eye; cornea swollen...”\n17.  On 13 June 1997 Dr T.S., an internist, issued a forensic medical certificate, which read, in so far as relevant:\n“Medical examination of Dariusz Dzwonkowski, born on 15 March 1973, residing in Marki, identity card...\nThe examination carried out on 13 June 1997 upon the victim's request. The patient submits that he was beaten on 12 June 1997. Complains of headache, dizziness, pain in legs and hands. As regards the injuries:\n-  intense pain in right crown of the head, haematoma 15 cm in diameter in this area, nose and eye pain;\n-  nasal bone fracture. Fracture of the edge of the right eye socket... Suspected fracture of the right jaw; right eye bloodshot and swollen;\n-  [illegible] scratch on the right thigh 20 cm long – the injury inf", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2613", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Gdynia.\n5.  The applicant was arrested on 7 November 1996 on suspicion of homicide. On 9 November 1996 the Gdynia District Court remanded him in custody for a period of three months in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed homicide. It held that there was a risk that the applicant might induce witnesses to give false testimonies. It further had regard to the gravity of the offence in question. That decision was upheld on appeal on 25 November 1996.\n6.  On 28 January 1997 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 6 May 1997. It invoked the same grounds as originally given for his detention. In addition, the Regional Court referred to the need to hear witnesses and obtain various expert reports.\n7.  On 5 May 1997 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 6 August 1997. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question and the need to take further evidence.\n8.  On 1 August 1997 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant and two co-defendants were charged with homicide and burglary. He was also charged with assault occasioning minor bodily harm. The bill of indictment specified that the applicant was subject to the rules on recidivism. The prosecution requested to hear more than one hundred witnesses.\n9.  On 18 December 1997 the Gdańsk Regional Court ordered that the applicant be held in custody until the first-instance judgment had been given, but not longer than 7 November 1998. It reiterated the grounds previously invoked for the applicant's detention and added that, given the severity of the anticipated sentence, the prolongation of that measure was also justified by the need to secure the proper course of the trial.\n10.  The trial court held 10 hearings on the following dates: 19 February, 11 and 12 March, 6 and 7 May, 29 June, 26 August, 5 and 7 October and 5 November 1998. On 6 November 1998 it convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 9 years' imprisonment. The applicant and the prosecution appealed.\n11.  On 19 January 1999 the Regional Court extended the applicant's detention pending the outcome of the appeal until 31 May 1999. It considered that the severity of the sentence fully justified the continuation of that measure.\n12.  On 5 May 1999 the Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment in respect of the charges of homicide and assault occasioning minor bodily harm and remitted the case.\n13.  On 26 May 1999 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 30 June 1999. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question and the severity of the anticipated penalty.\n14.  On 29 June 1999 the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 30 September 1999, relying on the same grounds as in its previous decision.\n15.  On 14 September 1999 the Gdansk Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 December 1999. It relied on the gravity of the charges and held that the initial reasons for his detention were still valid.\n16.  The Regional Court opened the retrial on 29 December 1999. On the same date it ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 1 April 2000. On 19 June 2000 his detention was prolonged until 30 September 2000.\n17.  On 18 September 2000 the Regional Court extended the applicant's deten", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2614", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Adana.\n5.  Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant by the public prosecutor at the Adana State Security Court under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The applicant was accused of membership of an illegal organisation.\n6.  In the course of the criminal proceedings the applicant was remanded in custody. On 20 March 2001 Adana State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 28 August 2001 the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion to the latter. This opinion was not communicated to the applicant.\n8.  On 20 November 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n9.  In March 2006 the applicant was released from prison following the reduction of his sentence in accordance with the provisions of the new Criminal Code.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2615", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lived in Przemyśl, Poland.\n6.  On 14 August 1997 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 15 August 1997 the Przemyśl District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a homicide.\n7.  Subsequently, the applicant's pre-trial detention was prolonged on several occasions, in particular at the hearing held on 5 November 1998.\n8.  On 21 December 1998 the Przemyśl Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) convicted the applicant of homicide and sentenced him to 25 years' imprisonment.\n9.  On 29 April 1999 the Court of Appeal quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.\n10.  On 2 June 1999 the Przemyśl Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) decided to prolong the applicant's pre-trial detention. The court gave the following reasons:\n“Prolongation of the applicant's detention on remand is justified by the fact that the applicant has been accused of homicide.”\n11.  On 24 February 2000 the Przemyśl Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request for release. The reasons of the decision are as follows:\n“[The applicant] has been accused of having committed [a homicide] and the original reasons for keeping him in detention are still valid.”\n12.  On 3 March 2000 the Przemyśl Regional Court further prolonged the applicant's pre-trial detention. The court found that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary because he had been charged with homicide and the trial court had started the process of obtaining expert evidence.\n13.  On 12 April 2000 the trial court held the first hearing. Subsequently, ten hearings were held.\n14.  On 2 June and 29 August 2000 the applicant's pre-trial detention was prolonged as the courts considered that the necessity to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings and the severity of the anticipated penalty justified keeping him in custody.\n15.  On 14 September 2000 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 29 August 2000.\nThe applicant submits that neither he nor his lawyer was informed about the majority of scheduled court sessions at which his detention on remand was prolonged and that he was not allowed to attend any of these sessions.\n16.  On 28 December 2000 the Rzeszów Regional Court gave judgment. The court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 25 years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n17.  On 17 May 2001 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) amended the impugned judgment. The court sentenced the applicant to 15 years' imprisonment. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n18.  On 28 February 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed his cassation appeal as being manifestly ill-founded.\n19.  On 28 February 2001 the Court's Registry sent to the applicant, who at that time had been detained on remand in the Przemyśl Detention Centre, an application form and accompanying documents in reply to his letter in which he had notified his intention to lodge a complaint with the Court. The Court's envelope delivered to the applicant bears the stamp: Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy w Rzeszowie) and a hand‑written note: censo., 21.03.2001 (cenzu. 21.03.01).\n20.  The envelope from the Chancellery of the Senate of the Republic of Poland of 30 January 2001 bears the same stamp as above and a hand‑written note: censored, 1 [February 20]01 (cenzurowano, 7.02.01) and an illegible signature.\n21.  The applicant also submitt", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2616", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Orenburg.\n5.  In 2000 the applicant sued the communication department of the Ural Military Circuit of the Ministry of Defence for social benefits provided to former military officers by law.\n6.  On 6 December 2000 the Kirovskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg accepted the applicant's action in part and awarded him 3,135.20 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 130 euros). The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n7.  On 19 December 2000 the Kirovskiy District Court issued the applicant with a writ of execution. It also sent a copy of the writ to the defendant.\n8.  In February 2001 the writ of execution was returned to the District Court because the defendant did not have funds to enforce the judgment.\n9.  On 4 April 2001 a bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings.\n10.  On 19 November 2003 the applicant was paid RUR 3,135.20.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2617", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  In February 1994 the Persons and Family Act was amended to require the registration with the Council of Ministers of non-profit organisations which had religious or related activities. Seventy-eight requests for registration were submitted, but only twenty-three organisations were registered. Those turned down were primarily Protestant groups.\n8.  Denial of legal status made it impossible for those organisations to hire public lecture halls or sign contracts in the name of the organisation. The unregistered organisations were unable to open bank accounts or publish journals or newspapers in the name of the organisation and were denied certain tax advantages.\n9.  Among the organisations whose registration was turned down was “Word of Life”, a Christian Evangelical group that had become active in Bulgaria in the early 1990s.\n10.  As a result of the authorities' refusal to register Word of Life, the religious organisation began clandestine activities. Meetings were periodically thwarted by the police followed by media propaganda against the organisation and its members.\n11.  On 20 June 1994, acting on an order from the Sofia's Prosecutor's Office, the police closed a hall used by Word of Life in Sofia and prevented members from using it.\n12.  On 22 June 1994 a Swedish citizen was expelled from Bulgaria because of his participation in a Word of Life course (see Lilja v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 41574/98, 20 November 2003).\n13.  On 23 June 1994 a force of around thirty policemen prevented members of Word of Life from attending a meeting at a hall, because it had purportedly been cancelled.\n14.  On 23 February 1995 the police raided private homes in the town of Veliko Turnovo and a conference hall in the Hotel Etur. They confiscated religious literature, audio tapes and video cassettes, which they displayed at a press conference the next day. No charges were subsequently brought against any members of Word of Life.\n15.  On 20 July and 27 September 1995 the police raided two gatherings of Word of Life followers in private homes. Religious literature was confiscated and the hosts were required to declare in writing that they would no longer organise religious gatherings in their homes.\n16.  Throughout 1994 and 1995 the local Ruse media reported regularly on “unlawful” gatherings and religious activities by Word of Life followers. The media campaign intensified, with the national press joining in, during the summer and autumn of 1995. Press coverage was focused on the River Shipbuilding and Navigation School (Техникум по речно корабостроене и корабоплаване – “the School”) in Ruse because several of the non-academic staff were allegedly followers of Word of Life. The media also waged a personal campaign against some of those individuals by naming and condemning them as followers of the religious organisation. It called for their dismissal and named the applicant as one of the individuals whose employment should be terminated (see, for example, paragraph 22 below).\n17.  As a direct result, the Regional Prosecutor's Office and the National Security Service initiated inquiries into the religious activities of the School's staff members.\n18.  On 18 September 1995 the Regional Prosecutor's Office, in summarising the findings of the National Security Service, found that there were insufficient grounds for opening a preliminary investigation. At the same time it stated that, inter alia, the activities at the School were “not free of criminal culpability", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2618", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1968, 1972, 1964, 1966, 1973, 1962, 1976, 1962, 1963, 1971, 1970 and 1969 respectively. They were detained in the Buca prison, in İzmir, at the time of the events giving rise to the present application.\n5.  On 20 July 1995 the applicants, along with ten other prisoners, were taken from their cells to an area of the prison in order to be brought before the İzmir State Security Court for trial. According to the applicants, while they were waiting to be collected, they were attacked by prison administrators, prison warders and gendarmes using truncheons and wooden planks, because they had objected to being searched. According to the Government the applicants had resisted the search, attached themselves to one another and subsequently fallen down the stairs and injured themselves. The applicants were then taken to the İzmir State Security Court in prison vehicles.\n6.  At the hearing before the State Security Court, the applicants' complained that they had been beaten before being brought before the court. The court noted the applicants' condition and decided to postpone the proceedings on the ground that it was impossible to hold a hearing in such circumstances. It ordered that the applicants be medically examined and that the results be sent to the İzmir public prosecutor's office with a view to the opening of an investigation. A letter to that effect was sent the same day to the public prosecutor.\n7.  A preliminary investigation was instigated by the İzmir public prosecutor's office into the allegations of the applicants. On 20 July and 14 August 1995 the prosecutor took statements from the applicants who reiterated that they were beaten by the gendarmes and the prison wardens.\n8.  On 20 July 1995 a forensic expert examined Ahmet Güven, Kadri Sönmez, Metin Göktepe, Neslihan Göktepe, İzzettin Koç, Kadir Issı, Mehmet Kışanak, Rıdvan Karatay, Ali Kemal Yıldız and Ms Emsihan Karatay in prison.\n9.  In his report, the doctor noted that Emsihan Karatay complained of a pain in her head and her left leg. The doctor decided that the applicant be referred to the orthopaedist at the Izmir State Hospital.\n10.  As regards Neslihan Göktepe, he observed that there were swellings on her head, behind her left ear and an erythema on her back as a result of blows. He also noted a graze on her neck. The doctor concluded that Neslihan Göktepe should be re-examined by a forensic expert at the Izmir Forensic Medicine Institute in seven days.\n11.  In respect of Kadri Issı, the doctor noted erythemas on the upper left part of his back and on his left arm. He further observed a wound and haemorrhage under his left ear. Kadri Issı further complained of pain in the lower right part of his back. The doctor considered that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for fifteen days.\n12.  As to İzzettin Koç, the medical report referred to wounds over his eyebrows and nose and several ecchymoses, erythemas and grazes on his back and his left knee which had been caused by blows. The doctor concluded that the injuries rendered İzzettin Koç unfit for work for ten days and that he would recover within twenty days following a medical treatment.\n13.  As regards Mehmet Kışanak, the doctor observed swellings and erythemas on the upper part of the back, underneath the chin and around the nose and mouth as a result of blows. He further noted an erythema on the applicant's right leg. The doctor concluded that the injuries rendered Mehmet Kışa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2619", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1955, 1953, 1954, 1956, 1937, 1957, 1983 and 1981 respectively and live in Sonkakoski and Sonkajärvi.\n10.  The first five applicants and the late Mr Hannu Matti Lappalainen worked in the Sonkajärvi Police District. Under a collective agreement concluded in 1986, they were entitled to a remote-area allowance, which was added to their salaries as a bonus for working in a remote part of the country. The amounts of the allowance were calculated on the basis of a given area’s remoteness. By a collective agreement concluded on 15 March 1988, the remote-area allowance was abolished. This would have resulted in a reduction of the salary payable to civil servants whose duty station was Sonkajärvi. In order to prevent such a reduction, the collective agreement granted them monthly individual wage supplements from 1 March 1988.\n11.  On 1 November 1990 the Sonkajärvi Police District was incorporated into the Iisalmi Police District by a decision of the Ministry of the Interior (sisäasiainministeriö, inrikesministeriet). Following the incorporation, the applicants’ duty station changed. They also lost their individual wage supplements and the length of their commute allegedly increased by up to 50 km per day as they had to travel from Sonkajärvi to Iisalmi.\n12.  According to the applicants, following their request of 17 October 1990 to that effect, the Kuopio Provincial Police Command (läänin poliisijohto, länspolisledningen) promised that their loss would be compensated.\n13.  On 25 March 1991 the Police Department of the Ministry of the Interior, at the request of the Provincial Police Command, submitted a request for authorisation for the payment of monthly individual wage supplements, amounting to between 500 and 700 Finnish marks (FIM) (84‑118 euros) per person, to those police officers and other personnel whose duty station had been changed from Sonkajärvi to Iisalmi. The request referred to an allegedly analogous case (the Mäntyharju case) in which the Ministry of Finance (valtiovarainministeriö, finansministeriet) had granted a request for individual wage supplements on 29 December 1989. On 3 July 1991 the Ministry of Finance replied that it could not grant such authorisation. It gave no reasons for its refusal.\n14.  On 1 October 1992 competence to decide on wage supplements in respect of local police forces was transferred to the County Administrative Boards (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen).\n15.  On 19 March 1993 the applicants lodged an application requesting that they be compensated for their loss. They referred to the above decision in the Mäntyharju case. They also relied on the principle of equality as laid down in Article 5 of the Constitution then in force (Suomen hallitusmuoto, Regeringsform för Finland; Law no. 94/1919).\n16.  Four years later, on 19 March 1997, the request was rejected by the Kuopio County Administrative Board. It reasoned:\n“The civil servants of the former Sonkajärvi Police District ... have ... requested compensation for the losses arising from the incorporation of police districts, in response to which the Provincial Police Command, endorsing the request, submitted documents to the Police Department of the Ministry of the Interior. By a letter of 25 March 1991, the Ministry of the Interior recommended to the Ministry of Finance the retroactive payment from 1 November 1990 of individual wage supplements to those civil servants whose duty station, after the incorporation, is Iisalmi.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2620", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Turku.\n8.  On 7 September 1995 the public prosecutor charged the applicant and the managing director of company X before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) with two counts of aggravated tax fraud and two counts of tax fraud, as they had allegedly produced false invoices to the Turku County Tax Office (lääninverovirasto, länsskatteverket). They were also charged with an accounting offence (count 9), as they had allegedly entered false data in the accounts of X. The prosecutor claimed that the applicant was responsible for the offences together with the managing director as, even though he did not have an official status in the management of the company, he had in fact participated in its management.\nIn the indictment dated 12 June 1995, count 1, for example, read as follows:\n“Aggravated tax fraud.\nOn 23 November 1993 [the managing director] and [the applicant] together, [the former] as the managing director of [company X] and chairman of the board of directors and [the latter] as a person who was de facto responsible for the management of the company, submitted the company's application for a VAT refund in the amount of FIM 342,760 [some EUR 57,000] as regards November 1993 to the County Tax Office of Turku. The application stated that [company Y] had sold electrical relays to [company X] for FIM 1,900,000 [some EUR 319,000] and the latter company had sold the said products further to an Estonian company for FIM 1,680,000 [EUR 282,000]. The invoice relating to the sales transaction between [company X] and [company Y] was fabricated. By submitting such false information which affected the amount of taxes to the authorities for the purposes of taxation, [the managing director] and [the applicant] have attempted to evade taxes.\nApplicable law: Chapter 29, section 2 of the Penal Code”\nAs a further example, count 2, which concerned the co-defendant H.A., read as follows:\n“Aiding and abetting an aggravated tax fraud.\nBy preparing the invoice in the amount of FIM 1,900,000 referred to in count 1, and by handing it over to [the managing director] and [the applicant] to be attached to the application for a tax refund, [H.A.], on 23 November 1993, intentionally furthered the criminal act committed by [the managing director] and [the applicant].\nApplicable law: Chapter 29, section 2 and Chapter 5, section 3 (1) of the Penal Code”\n9.  The applicant pleaded not guilty, arguing that he did not have such a status in company X and therefore could not be held responsible for the alleged offences. Furthermore, he argued that he had not been involved in compiling the documents and that the transactions concerned had not been forged.\n10.  On 8 February 1996 the District Court found that the business transactions referred to in the relevant invoices were not genuine, that the invoices were false and that the applicant had, together with the managing director, produced false information to the County Tax Office and entered false data in the accounts of X. The District Court referred to the evidence given by the co-accused and the witnesses, finding it proved, inter alia, that the applicant had actually acted in the company in such a position that he was to be held responsible for the offences together with the managing director. Thus, the District Court convicted them both as charged and sentenced them to a suspended term of one year's imprisonment. The co-defendant, H.A., was also convicted as charg", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2621", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 7 August 2000 a mother contacted the police on account of a suspicion that her children, a girl born in 1991 and a boy born in 1993, had been sexually abused by a neighbour, the applicant. On 10 August and 2 September 2000 the siblings were interviewed by a police officer experienced in investigating sexual abuse of children. The applicant was also suspected of having abused two other girls, both friends of the siblings and born in 1991. The girls were interviewed by the police on 11 August and 18 August respectively and again on 3 September 2000. All the interviews were recorded on videotape.\n7.  At the time of the first interviews, i.e. on the morning of 10 August 2000, the applicant had not been informed of the suspicions against him and no defence counsel had yet been appointed for him. Neither the applicant nor his counsel was present during the later interviews. The siblings and one of the other girls underwent a psychological examination in the Family Advice Centre with a view to assessing whether their testimonies during the pre-trial investigation were reliable.\n8.  Meanwhile, on the afternoon of 10 August 2000 the applicant was questioned by the police. Before the questioning he was notified of the suspicions against him and it appears that he did not exercise his right to have his counsel present. The applicant was in detention from that day until 7 September 2000 when travel restrictions were imposed on him. He was accompanied by counsel when questioned again on 17, 18, 19 and 23 August and 6 September 2000. He was questioned alone on 12 January 2001.\n9.  Prior to the close of the pre-trial investigation, in his closing statement the applicant requested, on 7 December 2000, having watched the above-mentioned video recordings, that the siblings be questioned again and that his questions be put to them about how and where they had learnt about the sexual things they had mentioned to him and, in particular, if they had been subjected to sexual acts at a place other than the applicant's home. His request was however refused on 21 January 2001. According to the Government, this was because their mother had refused to allow any further questioning of the children, now aged 7 and 9.\n10.  The applicant was charged before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) with having sexually abused the four children during the summer of 2000. He denied the charges. He however admitted having tapped two of the girls on their buttocks.\n11.  In February 2001 the District Court held an oral hearing during which the applicant, the parents of the siblings and the mothers of the other two girls gave evidence. The children were not heard in person. The videotaped interviews with the children were shown during the hearing. The court also heard evidence from a psychologist on the reliability of the statements of the siblings and of one of the other girls. The applicant did not request that the children give evidence at the hearing.\n12.  The mother of the siblings testified that they had told her about the improper touching in the same manner as they had done on the videotape. When the touching had become known, on 1 August 2000, her son had reacted intensely by crying and slamming doors. He had also suffered from sleeping problems and her daughter had suffered from headaches. Neither of these ailments had occurred before. According to two written opinions of the Family Advice Centre, the siblings' accounts of the events were considered cre", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2622", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, Mr Mark Lombardo, Mr Charles Bonello, Mr Alfred Debono and Mr John Zammit are Maltese nationals who were born in 1966, 1971, 1945 and 1963 respectively and live in Malta.\n5.  The first three applicants are councillors on the Fgura Local Council elected on behalf of the Nationalist Party. The fourth applicant is the editor of the newspaper “In-Nazzjon Taghna”.\n6.  In 2001 a controversy arose between the central government of Malta and the Fgura Local Council over the “Hompesch” Road Project (hereinafter, the “HRP”) in Fgura. The matter was brought before the domestic courts and gave rise to a political discussion in the Local Council.\n7.  On 24 May 2001, during a Local Council meeting, the applicants presented a motion calling for the Council to hold a public consultation meeting on the matter. The Council rejected the motion.\n8.  On 26 July 2001 the Fgura Mayor published an article in the newspaper “In-Nazzjon Taghna”.\n9.  On 7 August 2001 the first three applicants published an article in reply in the same newspaper. A passage of this article read as follows:\n“The Fgura Local Council did not consult the public and is ignoring public opinion on the matter.”\n10.  On 26 November 2001 the Fgura Local Council sued the applicants for libel and defamation in their capacity as authors and editor of the article published on 7 August 2001. It submitted that the defendants had attributed to it specific and unproved facts with the intention of destroying or reducing its reputation.\n11.  The applicants challenged this claim, submitting that the article complained of amounted to fair comment. They claimed that, even though they had put forward a motion to hold a public meeting, the Local Council had failed to hold a public consultation on the matter. In the applicants' opinion, the efforts made by the Council to analyse the controversy did not amount to a public consultation.\n12.  By a judgment of 12 November 2002, the Court of Magistrates found in favour of the Local Council and ordered the applicants in solidum to pay 2,000 Maltese Liri (Lm – approximately 4,800 euros (EUR)) for moral damage.\n13.  The Court of Magistrates considered that the article complained of had been written in the context of a political controversy which had also been discussed in the local press. It stated that there had been a misunderstanding between the labour councillors and the Department of Roads. The labour councillors had proposed that part of Hompesch Road should be one-way. However, according to the article, this proposal had been rejected by the Traffic Control Board, the Public Transport Authority and the General Retailers and Traders Union. The first three applicants, in their capacity as nationalist councillors, wished to bring forward the commencement of the works and had asked the labour councillors to remove the political straightjacket. Finally, the first three applicants had stated that the Local Council had omitted to consult the public and was ignoring public opinion on the HRP.\n14.  However, the Court of Magistrates found that, as highlighted by the plaintiff, a number of measures had been taken in order to submit the project to public scrutiny.\n15.  In particular, both the Minister responsible for roads and the Director of the Department of Roads had expressed themselves publicly to the effect that discussions were being held with the Local Council regarding the matter. Moreover, it was not true, as claimed by the applicants, that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2624", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Helsinki.\n9.  At 6.14 p.m. on Friday 6 September 1996 the applicant received a telephone call from H., who inquired whether he had any cannabis in his possession. The applicant replied in the negative but added that in a couple of days, after having made some inquiries, he might know better.\n10.  At 8.04 a.m. on Sunday 8 September 1996 R. and K. entered Finland in a car in which a quantity of drugs had been hidden. They drove through customs in Turku, south-west Finland, and left for Helsinki. At 8.37 a.m. M. called the applicant and requested him to go and get the drugs because he was unable to do so himself. The applicant accepted.\n11.  At 1.48 p.m. and 8.11 p.m. H. called the applicant again. In the first call H. asked the applicant whether he now had any cannabis. The applicant answered that he could provide it later that day. In the second call it was agreed that H. would call the applicant again in order to arrange a meeting later the same evening. At 10.25 p.m. H. called the applicant and they agreed to meet in front of a restaurant twenty minutes after the call.\n12.  At the material time, the applicant did not know that H. had been in detention on remand from 3 September 1996.\n13.  The parties disagree as to the time of the initial call and as to when the order for narcotics was made. According to the applicant, the first call from H. could have taken place either on Wednesday 4 or Thursday 5 September 1996. That call was the start of the applicant's involvement in the relevant events and the order was placed on 6 September 1996. According to the Government, the order was placed at 8.11 p.m. on 8 September 1996, but the applicant had become involved earlier, during the importation of the drugs into Finland. They did not specify the exact nature or the time of his involvement.\n14.  At 11.10 p.m. on 8 September 1996 the applicant was arrested in front of the restaurant while in possession of 986 grams of cannabis. In a later search of his apartment, a further 13.2 grams of cannabis were found.\n15.  When questioned by the police, the applicant stated that he had earlier that day met two women at a petrol station, in accordance with the instructions of M., a drug dealer. The women had given him the car. He and M. together had unloaded some ten kilograms of cannabis. The applicant had received about one kilogram and had gone to the restaurant, where he had been arrested.\n16.  On 9 September 1996 the Espoo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) authorised the police to obtain telephone metering information concerning the applicant's telephone. On 11 September 1996 the court ordered his detention pending trial.\n17.  During the criminal investigation the applicant told the police about his earlier drug deals, namely the sale of cannabis purchased from M. in 1996, two incidents of exporting cash to the Netherlands in early 1996, the purchase of three mobile telephone connections to be used by M., the introduction of a third party to M. to purchase another mobile telephone connection and for the export of cash to the Netherlands, and giving M. a key to his apartment.\n18.  On 8 October 1996 the applicant was charged with the following offences:\n“I)  aiding and abetting on two occasions the importing of narcotic substances in January and February 1996 [delivering cash to Holland on the order of M.];\nII)  promoting the importation of narcotic substances on three occasions in February-March ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2625", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.\n7.  Following the entry into force of the Law of 11 April 1997 on disclosing work for or service in the State's security services or collaboration with them between 1944 and 1990 by persons exercising public functions (ustawa o ujawnieniu pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z nimi w latach 1944-1990 osób pełniących funkcje publiczne) (the “1997 Lustration Act”) the applicant, who was a member of the Sejm[1] at the time, declared that he had not collaborated with the communist-era secret services.\n8.  On 1 June 1999 the Commissioner of the Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) applied to the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) to institute proceedings in the applicant's case on the grounds that he had lied in his lustration declaration by denying his cooperation with the secret services. On 14 June 1999 the applicant was notified that the lustration proceedings had been instituted.\n9.  On 16 September and 25 October 1999 the court held hearings in camera.\n10.  On 17 December 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first‑instance lustration court, found that the applicant had been a deliberate and secret collaborator with the Security Service (Slużba Bezpieczeństwa, “the SB”) and had therefore lied in his lustration declaration. The court relied, inter alia, on an expert opinion prepared by the Department of Criminology and Chemistry of the State Security Bureau (Zakład Kryminalistyki i Chemii Urzedu Ochrony Państwa) which had confirmed the authenticity of the applicant's signature on a document in his file. The operative part of the judgment was served on the applicant on 3 January 2000. However, the reasoning was considered “secret” and, in accordance with Article 100 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could only be consulted in the secret registry of that court.\n11.  The applicant lodged an appeal. He argued that the SB must have registered him as a secret collaborator without his knowledge or consent. The applicant maintained that his contacts with the Civil Militia (Milicja Obywatelska) and an SB agent whom he had known personally had been purely private and had never taken the form of conscious collaboration. The applicant also requested to call more witnesses, in particular the friend on whom he had allegedly reported to the SB, and that an independent opinion be ordered from an expert who did not belong to an agency of the State Security Bureau.\n12.  On 17 February 2000 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the second‑instance lustration court, dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court established, inter alia, that it was impossible to hear the SB officer who had allegedly recruited the applicant as he had died. The court again informed the applicant that, due to the confidential nature of the case, the written reasoning for the judgment would not be served on him but could be consulted in the secret registry.\n13.  On 20 April 2000 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal (kasacja) with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n14.  On 10 October 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remitted the case to the second-instance court. The Supreme Court found that the applicant's request to call two additional witnesses had been disregarded, which constituted a serious procedural shortcoming.\n15.  On 11 December 2000 the Commissioner of the Public Interest applied to the Warsaw Court of Appeal to ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2627", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Frankenthal. She was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings before the national authorities and courts.\n5.  On 9 December 1987 the applicant was operated at the lymphatic gland by doctor M. In the course of that operation, her cranial nerve was damaged. As a consequence, she could no longer properly move her head and shoulders and suffered from considerable pain and a loss of sensibility of her neck and her right arm and hand. Because of this, the applicant became partially unfit for work in her former job as a cleaning lady. She has not been working since her operation and has been living on social security benefits.\n6.  On 30 March 1989 the applicant, following a suggestion of the defendant's medical malpractice insurance company, had recourse to the arbitration board of the Rhineland-Palatinate Medical Council (Landesärztekammer). On 12 June 1990 expert B., who had been called to give an opinion, found that doctor M. had caused an avoidable paralysis of the applicant's cranial nerve by improper medical treatment. On 1 February 1991 the commission of experts of the arbitration board expressed the opinion that the applicant could not be expected to subject herself to another operation aimed at reconstructing the cranial nerve due to the risk that her state of health might deteriorate following such surgery.\n7.  The medical malpractice insurance company of doctor M. subsequently refused to pay the compensation for non-pecuniary damage and the occupational disability pension claimed by the applicant.\n8.  On 12 March 1991 the applicant brought an action for damages against doctor M. in the Frankenthal Regional Court. She claimed to be paid 12,000 Deutschmarks (DEM) in compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by medical malpractice and a monthly occupational disability pension of DEM 1,800. She further requested the court to establish by declaratory judgment that the defendant was obliged to compensate her for any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage she suffered or would suffer in the future from the incorrect medical treatment.\n9.  On 23 April 1991 the Frankenthal Regional Court decided to grant the applicant legal aid.\n10.  On 17 September 1991 the Frankenthal Regional Court held an oral hearing in which it made a friendly settlement proposal.\n11.  In a further hearing held on 19 November 1991 the applicant rejected the court's friendly settlement proposal which had previously been accepted by the defendant. The Regional Court requested the applicant further to reason her damages claim by submitting documents.\n12.  On 14 January 1992 the Regional Court appointed an expert for neurology, H., to give an opinion about the consequences of the paralysis of the applicant's cranial nerve on her capacity to perform manual work, in particular in her former job as a cleaning lady and in her own household.\n13.  On 25 February 1992 the applicant was medically examined by the expert for neurology, who rendered his report on 26 March 1992.\n14.  On 30 April 1992 the expert for neurology gave another report.\n15.  On 22 September 1992 the Regional Court appointed a further orthopaedic expert to give an opinion on the question of whether the applicant would have been healed if she had subjected herself to another operation aimed at reconstructing the cranial nerve.\n16.  On 25 February 1993 the orthopaedic expert, He., rendered his report.\n17.  On 6 July 1993 the Regional Court held a heari", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2628", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1967 and 1972 respectively. They are serving sentences in Eskişehir Prison, Turkey.\n5.  On 17 November 1999 the applicants, who were detained in Niğde Prison for being members of the IBDA-C (Great East Islamic Raiders-Front), allegedly incited an insurrection against the prison administration. The prison officers together with soldiers intervened in the uprising in order to bring it to an end. During the incident the applicants and the security forces both sustained injuries which were recorded in medical reports. The security forces drew up an incident report after the operation.\n6.  On 18 November 1999 the public prosecutor, prison director and prison officers drew up a damage-assessment report concerning the incident.\n7.  On 22 November 1999 the public prosecutor asked the applicants for their statements. The applicants declared that they wished to make their statements in the presence of their lawyers.\n8.  On 18 and 23 November 1999, the public prosecutor took statements from ten complainants who were prison officers and one complainant who was a soldier.\n9.  On 7 December 1999 the applicants gave their statements to the public prosecutor with their lawyer present. The prosecutor asked the applicants whether they had any arguments against the damage-assessment report. The same day, an on-site investigation was conducted inside the prison.\n10.  On 28 December 1999 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Niğde Criminal Court, accusing the applicants of insulting an officer and of insurrection against the prison administration.\n11.  On 3 January 2000 the Niğde Criminal Court held the first hearing and demanded the presence of the complainants and the four accused, including the applicants, at the following hearing.\n12.  At the second hearing on 21 March 2000, the Niğde Criminal Court ascertained the applicants' identities and asked them to submit their defence. The applicants maintained that they wished to make their statements in the presence of their lawyers. Accordingly, the court sent a letter to the public prosecutor's office requesting that lawyers from the Niğde Bar Association be assigned to the applicants. At the same hearing, the court took statements from the prison officers who were involved in the incident.\n13.  On 29 May 2000, two lawyers who were members of the Niğde Bar were assigned to represent the applicants. However, they did not attend any of the ensuing hearings.\n14.  On 30 May 2000 the court noted that the applicants had been sent to Bandırma Prison for administrative reasons. The court issued a rogatory letter to the Bandırma Criminal Court, requesting that the latter obtain the applicants' statements.\n15.  On 2 November 2000 the Bandırma Criminal Court, acting under powers delegated to it by the Niğde Criminal Court, pursuant to Article 226 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, took statements from the applicants. According to the minutes of the Bandırma Criminal Court, the applicants were reminded of their rights in accordance with Article 135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which also included the right to a lawyer. The applicants stated that they were aware of their rights and would defend themselves.\n16.  The Niğde Criminal Court held six further hearings in the absence of the applicants.\n17.  On 24 October 2000 the Niğde Criminal Court noted that the applicants' statements had been sent to it by the Bandırma Criminal Court.\n18.  On 22 November 2001 the Niğde C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2629", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1925 and lived in Voronezh.\n5.  At the relevant time the applicants were in receipt of a pension from the pension authority (“the authority”, Комитет по социальной защите населения администрации Железнодорожного района г. Воронежа).\n6.  It appears that in 1998 and 1999 there were delays in payment of their pension and in 2000 the applicants brought a court claim against the authority in this connection.\n7.  By judgments of 17 and 20 July 2000 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of the town of Voronezh granted the applicants' claims and ordered the authority to pay the first applicant 1,109.36 roubles (RUR – approximately 42 euros) in damages. The second applicant was granted a compensation of RUR 1,355.46 (approximately 53 euros).\n8.  The judgments came into force on 27 and 31 July 2000 respectively.\n9.  On an unspecified date the District Court issued the writs of enforcement and directed them to the bailiffs for enforcement.\n10.  According to the applicants, in April 2001 the bailiffs returned the writs without enforcement with reference to the lack of funds.\n11.  It appears that the court award in respect of the first applicant was enforced on 7 December 2005. As regards the second applicant, the award was received on 9 December 2005.\n12.  According to the Government, the awards in respect of both applicants were enforced in full on 6 December 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2630", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and resides in the town of Dniprodzerzhynsk, the Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 12 October 2000 the Zavodskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk awarded the applicant 1,804.61[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in salary arrears and in compensation for moral damage against the Dniprodzerzhynskmiskelektrotrans Municipal Company (Комунальне експлуатаційне підприємство «Дніпродзержинськміськелектротранс»).\n6.  The Government submitted that in 2001 the applicant received UAH 895, the rest of the debt amount remaining unpaid.\n7.  The applicant contested this submission and stated that the above amount had been received by him in enforcement of another judgment in his favour adopted on 18 March 1999 against the same debtor.\n8.  On 26 June 2002 the Bailiffs' Service returned the writ of enforcement to the applicant. In particular, it was stated that the applicant had been proposed to take some property items (equipment, an administrative building etc.) from the debtor in enforcement of the judgment in his favour. As the applicant failed to inform the Bailiffs' Service whether he wanted to take any property, the Bailiffs' Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings.\n9.  On 17 June 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Region Commercial Court declared the debtor enterprise bankrupt.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2631", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Ms Aleksandra Nikolayevna Girya was born in 1954. Ms Anna Filipovna Seroshtan was born in 1946. Ms Yuliya Trofimovna Butenko was born in 1941. Ms Svetlana Aleksandrovna Tur was born in 1960. Mr Nikolay Grigoryevich Kovalenko was born in 1945. Ms Raisa Yefimovna Kovalenko was born in 1946. Mr Vitaliy Vasilyevich Stasyuk was born in 1980. Ms Tatyana Ivanovna Stasyuk was born in 1961. Ms Nina Vasilyevna Plavshuk was born in 1948. Ms Svetlana Grigoryevna Denisenko was born in 1960. Ms Nadezhda Ivanovna Glushchenko was born in 1959. Ms Lyubov Ivanovna Shevchenko was born in 1950. All the applicants live in the village of Kovshrovka, Kharkiv region.\n5.  Between 1996 and 2001 the applicants instituted separate sets of proceedings in the Kupyansk Court and the labour disputes commission (hereafter “the Commission”), seeking the recovery of salary arrears and other payments, against their former employer, the Joint Stock Company “Kupyanskyi Liteinyi Zavod” (hereafter “the Company”), in which the State held about 41% of the share capital.\n6.  Ms Aleksandra Nikolayevna Girya was awarded a total of UAH 2,764.78 in salary arrears and compensation for moral damage (decisions of the Commission of 3 September 1997 and 25 September 2000 and judgment of the Kupyansk Court of 25 May 2001). The decisions remain largely unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 1,863 (the equivalent of EUR 264.72).\n7.  Ms Anna Filipovna Seroshtan was awarded a total of UAH 2074.83 in salary arrears (decisions of the Commission given in 1997 and judgment of the Kupyansk Court of 13 August 2001). The decisions remain largely unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 1,590 (the equivalent of EUR 226.54).\n8.  Ms Yuliya Trofimovna Butenko was awarded UAH 1,598 (the equivalent of EUR 227.70) in salary arrears (decision of the Commission of 5 March 2001). The decision remains unenforced.\n9.  Ms Svetlana Aleksandrovna Tur was awarded UAH 1,039 (the equivalent of EUR 148.05) in salary arrears (decision of the Commission given in 1997). The decision remains unenforced.\n10.  Mr Nikolay Grigoryevich Kovalenko was awarded a total of UAH 2,413.45 in salary arrears and compensation for moral damage (judgment of the Kupyansk Court of 3 July 2001). The judgment remains largely unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 1,159 (the equivalent of EUR 165.15).\n11.  Ms Raisa Yefimovna Kovalenko was awarded a total of UAH 3,735.95 in salary arrears (judgment of the Kupyansk Court of 24 May 2001). The judgment remains largely unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 2,220 (the equivalent of EUR 316.31).\n12.  Mr Vitaliy Vasilyevich Stasyuk was awarded a total of UAH 1,543.90 in salary arrears and compensation for delay in payment of the salary (judgment of the Kupyansk Court of 6 June 2001). The judgment remains largely unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 1,236 (the equivalent of EUR 176.11).\n13.  Ms Tatyana Ivanovna Stasyuk was awarded a total of UAH 2,876.04 in salary arrears and compensation for moral damage (judgment of the Kupyansk Court of 6 June 2001). The judgment remains largely unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 1,613 (the equivalent of EUR 229.82).\n14.  Ms Nina Vasilyevna Plavshuk was awarded UAH 946 (the equivalent of EUR 134.78) in salary arrears (decision of the Commission given in 1997). The decision remains unenforced.\n15.  Ms Svetlana Grigoryevna Denisenko was awarded a total of UAH 2,888 in salary arrears (decisions of the Commission of 2 September 1997 and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2632", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the town of Berdyansk, Zaporizhzhia region.\n5.  On 30 May 2000 the Berdyansk Court awarded the applicant UAH 1,423.39 against the JSC “Yuzhgidromash”, a company in which the State owned 25% of the shares (hereinafter “YGM”) in compensation for salary arrears.\n6.  On 7 July 2000 the Berdiansk Bailiffs' Service (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) initiated enforcement proceedings in the case.\n7.  On 26 June 2001 the enforcement proceedings were suspended in view of Order no. 33/5 of 1 June 2001 of the Minister of Justice and the moratorium on the forced sale of the YGM's property.\n8.  On 24 July 2001 the Berdiansk State Tax Administration informed the applicant that all YGM's property was under tax lien.\n9.  On 1 April 2002 the Zaporizhzhia Regional Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the YGM.\n10.  On 12 April 2002 the enforcement proceedings were suspended in view of the above bankruptcy proceedings.\n11.  On 22 March 2004 the enforcement proceedings were resumed and on 2 April 2004 the Bailiffs attached the debtor's property.\n12.  During June 2004 – January 2005 the enforcement proceedings were suspended as the debtor challenged the Bailiffs' acts before the Berdyansk Court.\n13.  On 10 January 2005 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.\n14.  On 16 June 2005 the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv prohibited the forced sale of the YGM property.\n15.  The judgment of 30 May 2000 given in the applicant's favour remains unenforced.\nOther proceedings\n16.  On 12 February 2002 the Berdyansk Court ordered the applicant to pay UAH 443.03 to the communal property enterprise in compensation for unpaid commodity charges. This judgment was upheld by the Zaporizhzhia Regional Court of Appeal. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2633", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1941, 1942 and 1972 respectively and used to live in the hamlet of Plăieşii de Sus, in the district of Plăieşii de Jos, Harghita County.\n9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  On 6 June 1991 a fight started in Plăieşii de Sus between four Roma and a nightwatchman. Following the events, a crowd made up of non-Roma villagers assaulted and beat up two Roma men in a revenge attack, fatally injuring one of them.\n11.  On 8 June 1991 a public notice was displayed on the outer limit of the Roma settlement informing the inhabitants that on 9 June 1991 their houses would be set on fire. The Roma informed the police and village officials. However, the local authorities failed to intervene, preferring instead to “advise” the Roma to leave their homes for their own safety.\n12.  On 9 June 1991 the Roma villagers, including the second applicant, fled their homes and sought refuge in a nearby stable belonging to the local farming cooperative while an organised group of non-Roma villagers destroyed all the Roma houses, including those belonging to the applicants.\n13.  During the following year, the Roma villagers, including the applicants and their families, were forced to live in nearby stables in dreadful conditions, without heating or running water. The applicants only managed to survive with the help of their friends and family.\n14.  The Harghita County Police Department, under the supervision of the Miercurea Ciuc District Prosecutor's Office started an investigation into the events. Some of the Roma from the hamlet who were questioned by the investigation team were able to give the names of possible suspects.\nThe final report concluded that the destruction by arson was caused by the fight on 6 June 1991 and the fact that the Roma were in the habit of putting their animals to graze on land belonging to non-Roma villagers.\n15.  The local authorities are said to have expressed the opinion that the Roma themselves, or the “Gypsies” as they put it, “are to blame for what happened” as “they steal for a living and are aggressive towards other people”.\n16.  On 27 June 1996 the Prosecutor's Office of the Harghita County Court closed the investigation on the ground that the prosecution of the offences was statute-barred. Its decision was upheld, upon the applicants' complaint, in a decision of 9 October 1998 of the Prosecutor's Office at the Supreme Court of Justice.\n17.  The latter also found that the offences had been committed “as a result of serious acts of provocation by the victims” and considered that, given the large number of persons involved, it had been impossible to identify the perpetrators of the attack.\n18.  On 9 September 1991 the mayor of Plăieşii de Jos purchased a dismantled wooden stable in order to provide the Roma with materials for the reconstruction of their homes. The purchase price of 110,400 Romanian lei (“ROL”) was funded by the County of Mureş, following a decision by the Prefect on 13 September 1991. The local authorities also gave the applicants permission to gather wood from a nearby forest. The destroyed houses were rebuilt by the applicants with the help of friends and relatives between 1991 and 1993.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2634", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in the city of Kirovograd, Ukraine.\n5.  On an unidentified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court of Kirovograd against his former employer, the State Kirovograd Store No. 72 for military personnel (Кіровоградський воєнторг № 72) claiming salary arrears. On 11 September 1998 the court awarded the applicant 1,834.92[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH).\n6.  The Government submitted that on 16 October 2003 the debtor in the applicant's case had transferred the amount awarded by the judgment of 11 September 1998 to the Bailiffs Service's bank account. By letter of 30 January 2004 the applicant was requested to provide information necessary for a bank or postal transfer of this amount from the Bailiffs Service's account to the applicant. Since the applicant failed to provide such information the awarded amount remains unpaid to him.\n7.  On 28 October 2001 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court against the Bailiffs' Service claiming compensation for the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 9 November 2001 the court returned the applicant's complaint on the ground that it should have been lodged under the civil procedure. On 21 December 2001 the same court returned the applicant's appeal against the decision of 9 November 2001 for non-compliance with the procedural formalities.\n8.  On 31 January 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court against his former employer, the Kirovograd Store No. 72 for military personnel, claiming compensation for the loss of earnings caused by the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 5 September 2002 the court left the applicant's action without consideration as the parties twice failed to appear in court hearings. According to the applicant, he was informed about this decision only upon his request lodged with the court in December 2003. In February 2004 the applicant appealed against the decision of 5 September 2002. On 2 June 2004 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. On 25 April 2005 the Leninskyy District Court found against the applicant. The applicant submitted that he had learned about this judgment only from the Government's observations submitted to the Court in September 2005. He did not request to renew a time-limit for lodging an appeal against it.\n9.  On 15 September 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court against the Bailiffs' Service, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and the State Treasury claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 11 February 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 7 April 2004 the same court returned the applicant's appeal as he had failed to pay the court fee. On 8 July 2004 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 7 April 2004. The applicant appealed against these decisions in cassation and proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2635", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Gerasdorf.\n5.  The application concerns land consolidation proceedings involving land belonging to some 500 owners, including the applicant's husband.\n6.  In 1986 a valuation schedule (Bewertungsplan) was issued, which became final in October of that year. None of the plots of land belonging to the applicant's husband was considered to be of special value. By decision of 13 November 1986 the provisional transfer of land (vorläufige Übernahme) was ordered.\n7.  In 1990 the Regional Land Reform Board (Landesargarsenat) issued a consolidation plan (Zusammenlegungsplan) for the Gerasdorf community. The applicant's husband did not appeal, while a number of other parties did. Some of these appeals were successful and the case was remitted to the Regional Land Reform Board.\n8.  The applicant's husband died in 1993 and, by court decision of 15 November 1994, the applicant became his principal heir.\n9.  On 20 June 1995 the Regional Land Reform Board amended the consolidation plan making changes, inter alia, as regards one of the applicant's compensatory parcels. The applicant appealed on 21 August 1995, claiming that some of the plots of land which had belonged to her late husband and had been allocated to another party, were of special value since they could be used for gravel production and that her late husband had not been duly compensated. The applicant was represented by counsel in these and the subsequent proceedings.\n10.  On 6 December 1995 the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat) decided to suspend the appeal proceedings pending further amendments of the consolidation plan.\n11.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). On 13 March 1996 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint and transferred the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) which received the file on 7 May 1996. On 7 November 1996 the Supreme Land Reform Board submitted its comments.\n12.  On 26 May 1998 the Administrative Court quashed the Supreme Land Reform Board's decision and ordered it to continue the proceedings.\n13.  The Supreme Land Reform Board resumed the proceedings and carried out a visit on the spot on 30 September 1998. Subsequently, it took an expert opinion concerning the value of the plots of land given up by the applicant's late husband and those received in compensation. On 2 December 1998 the Supreme Land Reform Board, after having held a hearing dismissed the applicant's appeal. It found that the compensation in land she had received fulfilled the requirements of the Regional Agricultural Act. A change in value of land could only be taken into account before the valuation schedule became final. This was not the applicant's case, since the licences allowing gravel production had only been issued between 1995 and 1997.\n14.  On 12 February 1999 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. On 8 June 1999 the latter declined to deal with the applicant's case for lack of prospects of success and transferred the case to the Administrative Court. In 1999 six other complaints also relating to the Gerasdorf land consolidation proceedings were lodged with the Administrative Court. The proceedings in all these cases were joined.\n15.  On 3 July 2003 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. It referred to its case-law relating to Section 18 § 4 of the Regional Agricultural Act (Flurverfass", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2638", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1979. He is currently in accommodation in Paris provided by a non-governmental organisation.\n8.  In 1998, like many other persons, the applicant and his family were displaced from Ethiopia to Eritrea. In Eritrea, the applicant worked as a reporter and photographer, chiefly for the independent newspaper Keste Debena, whose editor-in-chief at the time was Mr Milkias Mihretab. The applicant stated that the latter was well known as a champion of the free press in Eritrea and that his case had been dealt with in Amnesty International’s 2002 report, which referred in particular to the fact that he had been arrested and arbitrarily detained in that country on more than one occasion on account of his work as a journalist. The applicant added that on 27 June 2002 the British Section of Amnesty International had awarded Mr Mihretab its “Special Award for Human Rights Journalism under Threat”.\nThe applicant and Mr Mihretab were arrested in 2000, apparently on account of their professional activities. They were held in Zara Prison for eight months and six months respectively.\nIn that connection the applicant stated that he had been referred to – under the name of “Yebio”, a diminutive form of his pseudonym “Yayneabeba” – on a website dedicated to reform in Eritrea (www.awate.com) as one of the six journalists arrested on 14 October 2000 at the same time as Milkias Mihretab.\n9.  Unlike Mr Mihretab, who fled to Sudan in September 2001, the applicant remained in Eritrea, in Asmara, in order to take care of his widowed mother and his four brothers and sisters. Some time after Mr Mihretab’s departure – on an unspecified date – the police questioned the applicant about him. Police officers searched his home and found photographs which they considered to be compromising. The applicant was arrested and was subjected to ill-treatment, signs of which allegedly persist in the form of cigarette burns and injuries to his back caused by the position in which he was held for about twenty days, lying face down with his feet and hands tied above his back. He was subsequently imprisoned for six months before falling ill and being transferred to hospital, from where he escaped by paying the guards, with the help of relatives of his maternal grandmother who worked there. He then hid in his grandmother’s home in Areza, where he was treated by a doctor. As soon as he had recovered he fled to Sudan where one of his uncles lived. When an Eritrean was shot dead in Sudan he decided to leave the country, as the Eritrean community there believed the killing had been carried out by Eritrean government agents in pursuit of opponents of the government.\n10.  The applicant stated that he had travelled to South Africa and, with the help of a smuggler and using a Sudanese passport (in the name of “Mohammed Eider” or similar), which had been kept by the smuggler, had arrived in Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport in Roissy at around 5.30 a.m. on 29 June 2005 on a flight from Johannesburg. He submitted that he had been held in the airport’s international zone until 1 July 2005 and had thus been unable to apply for leave to enter the country. Eight hours after his arrival he reported to the police station, saying that he was Eritrean and wished to apply for asylum. The police officer asked him to “prove where [he] had come from, claiming that [he] was not Eritrean but Pakistani, and for the first time refused [him] permission to leave the international zone”. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2639", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1972, 1969, 1969 and 1968 respectively and live in Turkey. Between 20 March 1997 and 8 April 1997 they took part in a play, entitled “An Enemy of Justice” (Bir Hak Düşmanı), as actors. The play was staged on eight occasions in a number of towns and cities in Turkey.\n6.  A number of newspapers and TV stations devoted coverage to the play and several provisions of the Criminal Code, which the applicants were supposed to have breached, were cited in some of those newspapers. On 20 April 1997 the daily Hürriyet newspaper ran the headline “The play that led the general to rebel”, referring to an army general having severely criticised the ruling Refah Party and its leader Necmettin Erbakan because of the play staged by the applicants.\n7.  On 24 April 1997 the first, third and fourth applicants were arrested by police officers from the anti-terror Branch of the İzmir police headquarters and placed in custody. The second applicant was arrested and detained the following day. The reason for their arrest was a criminal investigation opened by the prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court in connection with the play. The applicants did not have access to their lawyers while in police custody.\n8.  On 1 May 1997 the applicants appeared before the judge at the State Security Court in Ankara. According to the verbatim records of this meeting, the applicants were accused of the offence of “incitement of the public to an armed uprising against the armed forces”, contrary to Article 149 § 1 of the Criminal Code in force at the time.\n9.  The applicants all stated that there was nothing in the play which could be interpreted as an incitement to an uprising. Nevertheless, the judge ordered their detention on remand, pending the introduction of criminal proceedings.\n10.  On 26 May 1997 the prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed an indictment with that court and charged the applicants and 35 other persons with the above mentioned offence. One of the 35 persons is the playwright. The other 34 people had assisted in the staging of the play in various cities in one way or another.\n11.  According to the indictment, the play was based on the perception that there was a risk of an attack, in the form of a military coup, against Muslims. In one part of the play, a number of Muslims are gathered and discuss possible ways of avoiding that risk. One person suggests that Muslims should establish an armed force as a deterrent, regardless of the existence or otherwise of the risk of a military coup. At the end of the play a military coup takes place and the leader of the Muslims is sentenced to death.\n12.  Criminal proceedings commenced before the First Chamber of the Ankara State Security Court (hereinafter “the trial court”) while the applicants were being held in detention pending the outcome. One of the three judges on the bench of the trial court was a military officer. In their defence petitions submitted to the trial court, the applicants stated, inter alia, that the play was set in an imaginary country called “Zargonya” and had nothing to do with Turkey; the dialogue in the play constituted “artistic events”. The play included a number of expressions and opinions, but it was not possible to regard them as incitement to armed rebellion.\n13.  During the criminal proceedings, the prosecutor requested the trial court to convict the applicants of the offence of “incitement to hatred or hostility on the basis of a distin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2640", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, a limited liability company with its seat in Budapest, was registered in 1991.\n5.  On 21 September 1995 the Hungarian Red Cross brought an action in damages against the applicant.\n6.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts, on 18 November 1999 the Budapest Regional Court delivered an interlocutory judgment (közbenső ítélet), finding that the applicant was liable for the damages sought.\n7.  On 15 February 2001 and 30 April 2003 respectively, the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court and as a review instance, upheld the interlocutory judgment.\n8.  The first-instance proceedings were resumed on 19 November 2003. After several hearings, on 9 June 2004 the Regional Court established the amount of the damages payable. On 15 September 2004 it rectified that decision.\n9.  On 8 March 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal, in a final judgment, increased the amount to be paid by the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2641", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in İstanbul.\n5.  On 18 July 1992 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by police officers at the İstanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 3 August 1992 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court. On the same day, he was also brought before a judge at the İstanbul State Security Court who ordered his remand in custody.\n7.  On 30 September 1992 the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicant and sixteen other co-accused and requested the applicant's conviction under Article 125 of the Criminal Code for his activities aimed at breaking up the unity of the State and removing part of the national territory from the State's control.\n8.  The first hearing, held before the İstanbul State Security Court on 23 October 1992, in the applicant's absence, was taken up with procedural matters, such as the measures to be taken for securing the presence of the accused.\n9.  Between 23 October 1992 and 11 April 2003, the İstanbul State Security Court held hearings at regular intervals. On 26 November 1992 the first-instance court decided to join another case against the applicant to the proceedings. It further decided to join to the proceedings against the applicant several other cases brought against other persons who were also accused of membership of the same organisation. At the end of each hearing, the İstanbul State Security Court considered releasing the applicant pending trial both ex officio as well as upon his requests. At each hearing, the court, taking into account the content of the case file and the state of the evidence, decided to prolong the applicant's remand in custody.\n10.  On 11 April 2003 the İstanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n11.  On 7 June 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court.\n12.  Subsequent to promulgation of Law no. 5190 on 16 June 2004, which abolished the State Security Courts, the İstanbul Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the applicant's case.\n13.  On 30 December 2004 the İstanbul Assize Court released the applicant pending trial.\n14.  According to the information available in the file, the case is apparently still pending on the date on which the present judgment was adopted.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2643", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Velika Gorica.\n5.  On 8 March 1991, while driving in a car as a passenger, the applicant was shot and injured by unknown perpetrator.\n6.  On 24 March 1994 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages for the sustained injuries. She relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.\n7.  On 18 October 1994 the Municipal Court gave judgment accepting the applicant's claim in part. The respondent appealed.\n8.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.\n9.  On 18 June 1996 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings, on 18 September 1997 the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.\n11.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.\n12.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 25 February 2004 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings. It held hearings on 20 June 2004 and 20 January 2005.\n13.  On 3 February 2005 the court pronounced its judgment accepting the applicant's claim in part. Both parties appealed.\n14.  On 6 December 2005 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) dismissed the appeals and upheld the first-instance judgment.\n15.  Meanwhile, on 23 April 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the above proceedings. On 28 June 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicant's complaint. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of the applicant's constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It awarded her 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the case in the shortest time possible but no later than a year following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 20 July 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2644", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1917 and lives in the town of Ternopil.\n5.  In 1989 her husband and son, Mr B.P. and Mr B.I., became members of the Cooperative Society for Construction and Repair “Kooperator” (the “Society”). On 22 May 1990 the Ternopil Town Executive Committee (the “Committee”) transferred two plots of land in Ternopil to the Society for the construction of three houses. By decision of 14 November 1990, the Committee transferred a part of that land to the applicant's husband and son for the erection of a two-flat house. On 27 November 1990 the general assembly of the Society adopted a decision similar to the Committee's decision of 14 November 1990. On an unspecified date the Committee transferred the land, with which Mr B.P. and Mr B.I. had been provided, back to the Society.\n6.  On 2 December 1991 the general assembly of the Society, headed by Mr B.I., decided to terminate the Society's activity. It further decided to transfer the Society's property to its members. In particular, Mr B.P. was granted the left side of a house and Mr B.I. was granted its right side. As it was later established by the domestic courts, in 1991 there was only the foundation of the future house. In December 1991 the Society closed its bank account. The Society's state registration was annulled in September 1995.\n7.  The house was erected by autumn 1994.\n8.  Between 1995 and 1997 Mr B.P. unsuccessfully lodged with the Ternopil Town Council (the “Council”) a number of applications, requesting the Council to grant him a right to use the plot of land on which the left part of the house had been constructed.\n9.  On 17 February 1997 Mr B.P. died. The applicant inherited all his possessions.\n10.  On 8 April 1997 the Council granted Mr B.I. a right to use the plot of land on which the right side of the house had been built.\n11.  In June 1997 the applicant lodged with the Ternopil Town Court an administrative law complaint against the Council for failure to consider the request to grant her a right to use the plot of land on which the left part of the house had been constructed. On 9 July 1997 the court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the Council to consider the merits of the applicant's request at its next session.\n12.  On 23 July 1997 the Council granted Mr M. a right to use the plot of land, on which the left side of the house had been built, for construction purposes.\n13.  In 1996 Mr M. lodged with the Ternopil Regional Prosecutor's Office a criminal law complaint against Mr B.I., accusing the latter of fraud. Mr M. alleged that Mr B.I. had unlawfully attempted to take possession of the left part of the house, which Mr M. had bought from him according to a sales contract of 18 March 1993. On 9 July 1996 the prosecutors initiated criminal proceedings against Mr B.I.\n14.  In 1997 Mr B.I. lodged with the Ternopil Regional Security Service Department a criminal law complaint, accusing Mr M. of fraud. Mr B.I. alleged that Mr M. had falsified the official documents in respect of the left part of the house in order to become its owner. On 13 March 1997 the department initiated criminal proceedings against Mr M.\n15.  On 25 May 1997 both criminal cases were joined. On 15 July 1997 the Ternopil Town Police Department terminated the criminal proceedings on the ground of absence of corpus delicti in the actions of Mr B.I. and Mr M. The police established that Mr M. had not been a member of the Society in 1991. It also found that there were two di", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2645", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1984, 1970, 1964, 1958, 1962 and 1961 respectively and live in Diyarbakır.\n5.  The applicants were active members of HADEP[1] in Diyarbakır at the time of the events giving rise to the present application.\n6.  In 2001, on various dates, the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of their involvement in the activities of an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party).\n7.  The periods spent by the applicants in police custody are as follows:\n \nName\nDate(s) of arrest\nDate(s) of release\nAbdulkadir Baz\n12 August 2001\n21 August 2001\nSedrettin Dinar\n12 August 2001\n21 August 2001\nMahrem Bulut\n4 May 2001\n12 August 2001\n7 May 2001\n21 August 2001 \nMehmet Akbalık\n14 June 2001\n12 August 2001\n15 June 2001\n21 August 2001\nTahsin Aktaş\n12 August 2001\n21 August 2001\nYusuf Sebuk\n19 August 2001\n21 August 2001\n8.  According to official documents, Mahrem Bulut and Mehmet Akbalık were arrested for the first time on the basis of statements of Mr S.D., Mr M.A., Mr B.E., Mr H.I. and Mr T.G., who alleged that the applicants were involved in PKK-related activities. As to the applicants' arrest in August 2001, the case file reveals that the police had been informed that there would be illegal violent acts and demonstrations to celebrate the anniversary of the beginning of the armed struggle of the PKK and that the names of the applicants came up as possible organisers.\n9.  Subsequent to these events, criminal proceedings were instigated against the applicants for membership of the PKK by the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, with the exception of Sedrettin Dinar and Tahsin Aktaş.\n10.  On 11 June 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court acquitted Abdulkadir Baz and Yusuf Sebuk of the charges against them. The criminal proceedings against Mahrem Bulut and Mehmet Akbalık were pending at the time of their application to the Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2646", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1927, 1947, 1952, 1965 and 1950 respectively and live in Kocaeli and Istanbul.\n5.  In 1996 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration Office (Kocaeli İl Özel Idare Müdürlüğü) expropriated plots of land belonging to the applicants. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants.\n6.  Following the applicants' request for increased compensation, on 9 October and 16 October 1998 the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance awarded them additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court's decision in respect of each of the applicants.\n7.  On 3 May, 21 June, 22 June, and 25 October 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance's judgments in respect of Aziz Yıldırım, Aykut Kocaman, Kamil Dağlı and Ahmet Güzel, Bedaettin Bahattin Gülşen[2], Hüsnü Aksoy and Sinan Erbil, respectively.\n8.  By decisions of 30 June 1999, 1 July 1999, 10 September 1999, 25 October 1999 and 26 October 1999, the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants' requests for the rectification of its decisions.\n9.  On 23 March 2000, 22 January and 24 January 2001 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration paid the amounts due to Kamil Dağlı and Ahmet Güzel, Bedaettin Bahattin Gülşen1, Sinan Erbil, Hüsnü Aksoy, Aykut Kocaman and Aziz Yıldırım respectively. Details are indicated in the table below:\n \nNAMES\nOF THE\nAPPLICANTS\n \nAMOUNT OF INITIAL COMPENSATION PAID TO THE APPLICANT\n(In Turkish liras\nDATE ON WHICH THE APPLICANTS INITIATED PROCEEDINGS FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION\nAMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION (INTERESTS AND LEGAL COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED)\n(Turkish liras)\nDATE AND\nAMOUNTS OF PAYMENT (INCLUDING STATUTORY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 30 % ,50 % & 6 0 % PER ANNUM AND COSTS)\n(Turkish liras)\nBedaettin Bahattin Gülşen1\n(plot no. 21/550)\n959,167,500 22.01.2001\n40,918,610,700\n &\n26,499,453,300\nAykut Kocaman\n(plot nos. 13/429 & 13/482)\n \n3,110,000,000\n &\n 3,425,000,000", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2647", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants live in the town of Bataysk of the Rostov Region.\n9.  In 1986 the applicants took part in the emergency operation at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. As a result they suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. The applicants underwent medical examinations which established the link between their poor health and their involvement in the Chernobyl events. Each applicant was consequently granted status of a disabled person and awarded a monthly pension and a special “food allowance” from the State, to be adjusted once a year in line with the minimum subsistence amount (величина прожиточного минимума).\n10.  At a certain moment in 2001 the social security authorities ceased to increase regularly the amounts of the pensions and “food allowances” due to the applicants in connection with their disabilities. Instead, they started to receive their pensions in a fixed amount (2,800 Russian roubles (RUR) per person), which was less than they expected. Presuming that that practice was illegal, the applicants brought proceedings against the regional social security office (“the defendant”) claiming the increase of the pensions and the “food allowances” in line with the increase of the minimum subsistence amount during the relevant period.\n11.  On 21 January 2003 the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region (“the Town Court”) rendered a judgment ordering the increase of the pension and the “food allowance” due to Mr Vasilenko, one of the applicants. In re-calculating the amounts to be paid the court applied the multiplier of 1.92 reflecting the increase of the minimal subsistence amount in the Rostov Region and based on the data provided by the regional committee on statistics. As a result, the amounts to be received by Mr Vasilenko on the monthly basis from the social security office increased to RUR 5,376: RUR 4,800 on account of the disability pension plus RUR 576 on account of the “food allowance”. The court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant the recalculated amounts as from 1 January 2002, less the sums already paid.\n12.  On 22 January 2003 the Town Court rendered a similar judgment ordering the increase of the pensions and “food allowances” in respect of other applicants.\n13.  The defendant appealed against the judgments of 21 and 22 January 2003 challenging, among other things, the multiplier of 1.92 applied by the first-instance court. They also claimed that the law only provided for the increase of the disability pension in line with the cost of living, but not the “food allowance”.\n14.  On 16 April 2003 the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgments of 21 and 22 January 2003 in full, dismissing the arguments of the defendant. The enforcement proceedings were opened.\n15.  On 23 April 2003 the President of the Bataysk Town Court wrote a letter to the Ministry of Labour and Social Development of the Rostov Region requesting statistical information about the cost of living index in the Rostov Region at the relevant period of time.\n16.  On 21 July 2003, upon the request of the defendant, the Bataysk Town Court rectified its own judgment of 22 January 2003 as regards Mr Velichko, one of the applicants. The court held that since Mr Velichko belonged to the “third category of disability” (the mildest form of disability, according to the Russian classification), the amount of his monthly pensions for 2002 should be RUR 2,112. The court held that in 2003 the applicant's pension should amount", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2648", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Istanbul.\n12.  On 12 December 1993 the applicant and five other persons were arrested by police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate in the house of one of the arrestees, M.O., in the course of a police operation carried out against the PKK.\n13.  Between 12 and 27 December 1993 the applicant was detained in the Istanbul Security Directorate. The applicant alleges that, while there, he was blindfolded and forced to listen to the cries of other detainees being tortured. He was threatened with torture and forced to admit that he was a member of the PKK. When he refused to do so, he was stripped naked, immersed in cold water and beaten with a truncheon on various parts of his body, including the soles of his feet. He was then forced to walk on a salt-strewn floor. His hands were tied with a blanket, he was strung up by his arms and subjected to a form of torture known as “Palestinian hanging”. In this position, electric shocks were administered to his genitals, his fingers and feet. He was subsequently coerced into signing a statement, of which he only signed the first two pages. During his detention in police custody the applicant was kept in a cell, deprived of food and water and prevented from sleeping.\n14.  On 27 December 1993 the applicant was examined by a medical expert from the Istanbul branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute who observed two ecchymosises of 2-3 cm in diameter on both sides of the applicant's hips and an allergic dermatitis on his right hand. The doctor concluded that the applicant's life was not endangered and that the injuries rendered him unfit for work for one day.\n15.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. On both occasions the applicant denied the accuracy of the statements that had been taken from him by the police. He contended that he had signed the statements under duress. The judge at the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand. The applicant was then transferred to Sağmalcılar prison.\n16.  On 30 December 1993 the applicant filed a petition with the Istanbul State Security Court. In his petition, the applicant reiterated that he had been tortured while in police custody and that his statements had been taken under duress. He finally requested to be released.\n17.  On 14 January 1994 the applicant was examined by the director of the Eyüp branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute. The medical expert observed the following:\n“... presence of pain in the shoulders, the armpits and the neck, a yellow ecchymosis on the right armpit, an ecchymosis of 3x2 cm on the upper part of the right arm, widespread ecchymotic area and abrasions on both arms and wrists, hyperaemic lesions of 3x2 cm and 2x1 cm on the upper part of the right hand and on the left hand, widespread pain in the hands, widespread ecchymotic area of yellow colour on both gluteal regions on the back, ecchymotic area on the groin, pain in the testicles, pain during defecation, swollen area on the right leg and foot, a yellow ecchymosis and swollen area on the sole of the right foot, pain in the left leg, a yellow ecchymosis on the malleolar region, a yellow ecchymosis and swollen area on the sole of the left foot, several old wounds on both wrists and ankles...”\nThe medical expert considered that the applicant's life was not endangered and that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2649", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Szeged.\n5.  In September 1997 the applicant was dismissed from work. On 12 November 1997 he challenged the employer's decision in court.\n6.  After a hearing on 30 April 1998 before the Budapest Labour Court, on 4 June 1998 the case was transferred to the Pest Central District Court. This court discontinued the proceedings on 21 October 1999, because the applicant, although properly summoned, failed to appear. At his request, the case was continued on 22 February 2000 but was immediately stayed, again at his request. He demanded the continuation of the proceedings on 4 August 2000.\n7.  After a hearing on 26 April 2001, on 2 May 2002 the District Court found that it had no jurisdiction in the case and requested the appropriate designation by the Supreme Court. On 22 May 2002 the Budapest Labour Court was appointed to hear the case.\n8.  After a hearing on 21 January 2003, on 6 May 2003 the Budapest Labour Court found for the applicant, established that his dismissal had been unlawful and awarded him compensation.\n9.  On appeal, on 28 November 2003 the Budapest Regional Court upheld in essence the first instance decision, increased the award, but dismissed the remainder of the applicant's compensation claims.\n10.  On 23 March 2004 the applicant filed a petition for review. On 26 January 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. This decision was served on the applicant on 7 March 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2650", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, who were born on 7 December 1981, 26 October 1979 and 6 May 1979 respectively, live in Samsun.\n5.  The facts of the case as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, are as follows.\n6.  On 15 November 1996 the applicants were arrested in the course of an investigation into activities of an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP/C (Revolutionary Party of Peoples' Liberation/Front), and taken into custody at the Samsun police headquarters. The first and the third applicants were released from custody on 16 November 1996.\n7.  On 18 November 1996 Hakan Kocaoğlu, i.e. the second applicant, appeared before the Samsun public prosecutor and denied that he had been a member of any illegal organisation and had carried out any activity on behalf of any such organisation. He stated that he had merely been a bystander when the first applicant and another person wrote slogans on the walls. The prosecutor ordered the second applicant's release.\n8.  The applicants were medically examined on 18 November 1996. According to the medical reports drawn up by the Samsun Forensic Medical Institute, the applicants' bodies did not bear any signs of ill-treatment.\n9.  On 9 December 1996 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court, accusing the applicants of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP/C.\n10.  The public prosecutor alleged that in March 1996 the first applicant had been standing watch while DHKP/C slogans were being written on the walls of a primary school and on the walls of houses. The second applicant was accused of making “DHKP/C propaganda with the aim of attracting people to join the organisation”. He was also accused of having stood watch while slogans were being written on the walls of a primary school, a block of flats and a maternity hospital in March and May 1996.  The third applicant was accused of having distributed DHKP/C leaflets on 9 October 1995 in a high school and having written DHKP/C slogans on 20 December 1995.\n11.  The prosecutor sought the applicants' conviction and sentence under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713. The prosecutor also asked the court to take into account Article 55 § 3 of the Turkish Criminal Code when sentencing the first and the third applicants. Article 55 § 3 of the Criminal Code provides for a reduction of one third of the sentences to be handed down for persons between the ages of 15 and 18.\n12.  On 23 December 1996 the First Chamber of the Ankara State Security Court (hereinafter “the trial court”), which consisted of three judges, including a military judge, commenced the trial of the applicants together with twelve other co-accused.\n13.  On 10 July 1997 the trial court found the second applicant guilty of membership of an illegal organisation, an offence under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to eight years and four months' imprisonment. The remaining two applicants were found guilty of the offence of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, an offence contrary to Article 169 of the Criminal Code. The first applicant was sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment and the third applicant to three years and nine months. In sentencing the first and the second applicants, the trial court took into account Article 55 § 3 of the Criminal Code and reduced the prison sentences.\n14.  It appears from the verbatim re", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2651", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Mrs Olga Mykolayivna Koval (the first applicant) was born in 1964. Mrs Alla Oleksandrivna Patsyora (the second applicant) was born in 1952. Both applicants are former teachers at a local school and live in the town of Rozdilna, the Odessa Region.\n6.  On 7 October 1999 the Rozdilna Court (Роздільнянський районний суд Одеської області) awarded the first and the second applicants, respectively, UAH 1,248[1] and UAH 2,485.28[2] against the Department for Education of the Rozdilna Municipal Council (hereafter “the Department”) for arrears in some payments additional to their salaries (see, in this respect, Kechko v. Ukraine, no. 63134/00, §§ 9-11, 8 November 2005).\n7.  On 18 October 1999 the court issued writs of execution, which were submitted to the Rozdilna District Bailiffs' Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”).\n8.  In letters of 22 February 2001, the Bailiffs informed the applicants that the judgments in their favour had not been executed because the 1999 State Budget did not preview the expenditure for teachers' social benefits. In the 2000 State Budget teaching programmes were funded only 2.8% of actual needs. The 2001 State Budget likewise did not provide funds for this purpose. The State Administration further stated that such payments could only be made after the adoption of relevant legislation by Parliament.\n9.  On 2 April 2001 the Odessa Regional Department of Justice notified the first applicant that the judgment of 7 October 1999 could not be immediately enforced due to the Department's lack of property that could be attached.\n10.  On 30 July 2001 the Velykomykhaylivsky Court rejected the applicants' complaints against the alleged Bailiffs' inactivity.\n11.  On 14 May 2002 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal, following the second applicant's appeal, upheld this decision. The applicant was present at this hearing. She did not appeal in cassation.\n12.  On 24 May 2002 the Velykomykhaylivsky Court left without consideration the first applicant's appeal against the decision of 30 July 2001 for failure to comply with the formalities as to its content and to pay the court fee and allowed her time until 26 June 2002 to rectify the mistakes. On 3 July 2002 the court returned the appeal without consideration for failure to rectify it.\n13.  On 29 December 2001 the first applicant was paid UAH 160.\n14.  On 14 August 2003 the Bailiffs returned the execution writs of 18 October 1999 to the applicants, stating that the judgments could not be enforced as the State Budget provided no funds for such payments.\n15.  The judgments of 7 October 1999 remain unenforced until present.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2652", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants, a group of individuals and the Foundation for Equality (of whose executive committee the first applicant is also a member empowered to act on its behalf in the present case), wished to hold, within the framework of Equality Days organised by the Foundation and planned for 10‑12 June 2005, an assembly (a march) in Warsaw with a view to alerting public opinion to the issue of discrimination against minorities – sexual, national, ethnic and religious – and also against women and disabled persons.\n8.  On 10 May 2005 the organisers held a meeting with the Director of the Safety and Crisis Management Unit of Warsaw City Council. During this meeting an initial agreement was reached as to the itinerary of the planned march.\n9.  On 11 May 2005 Mr Bączkowski obtained an instruction of the Warsaw Mayor's Office on “requirements which organisers of public assemblies have to comply with under the Road Traffic Act” should the assembly be regarded as an “event” (impreza) within the meaning of Article 65 of that Act.\n10.  On 12 May 2005 the organisers applied to the City Council Road Traffic Office for permission to organise the march, the itinerary of which would lead from the Parliament buildings (Sejm) to Assembly Square (Plac Defilad) in the centre of Warsaw.\n11.  On 3 June 2005 the Traffic Officer, acting on behalf of the Mayor of Warsaw, refused permission for the march, relying on the organisers' failure to submit a “traffic organisation plan” (“projekt organizacji ruchu”) within the meaning of Article 65 (a) of the Road Traffic Act, which they had allegedly been ordered to submit.\n12.  On the same day the applicants informed the Mayor of Warsaw about stationary assemblies they intended to hold on 11 June 2005 in seven different squares in Warsaw. Four of these assemblies were intended to protest about discrimination against various minorities and to support actions of groups and organisations combating discrimination. The other three planned assemblies were to protest about discrimination against women.\n13.  On 9 June 2005 the Mayor issued decisions banning the stationary assemblies to be organised by Mr Bączkowski, Mr Biedroń, Mr Kliszczyński, Ms Kostrzewa, Mr Szypuła, and another person, Mr N. (who is not an applicant), who are active in various non‑governmental organisations acting for the benefit of persons of homosexual orientation. In his decision the Mayor relied on the argument that assemblies held under the provisions of the Assemblies Act of 1990 (Ustawa o zgromadzeniach) had to be organised away from roads used for road traffic. If they were to use roads, more stringent requirements applied. The organisers wished to use cars carrying loudspeakers. They had failed to indicate where and how these cars would park during the assemblies so as not to disturb the traffic, and how the movement of persons and these cars between the assembly sites would be organised.\n14.  Moreover, as a number of requests had been submitted to organise other assemblies on the same day the tenor of which ran counter to the ideas and intentions of the applicants, permission had to be refused in order to avoid any possible violent clashes between participants in the various demonstrations.\n15.  On the same day the municipal authorities, acting on the Mayor's behalf, allowed the three planned assemblies concerning discrimination against women to be held as requested by the applicants.\n16.  On the same day the same authorities permitted six othe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2653", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in İzmir. On 1 June 1994 he bought a house (no. 97, plot no. 632/26) in the Asansör neighbourhood attached to the Konak District in İzmir. According to the title deed records, he paid 30,000,000 Turkish liras (approximately 986 US dollars at the time).\n5.  Following a major rockslide, on 17 July 1962 the Council of Ministers declared the Asansör neighbourhood a natural disaster area. To identify those who had been affected by the natural disaster, a regulation was published in the Official Gazette on 28 August 1968. According to the terms of this regulation, the victims of the natural disaster were given an opportunity to apply to the authorities within a specified time-limit to claim re-housing. At that time, 46 of the 86 families that had been living in the disaster area applied to the administrative authorities and they were provided with new houses in the Esentepe neighbourhood. The houses of these families were subsequently demolished. The owner of house number 97, plot no. 632/26, which was subsequently bought by the applicant in 1994, did not apply to the authorities to claim re-housing.\n6.  On 28 April 1971 the owner of plot no. 632/26 at the time received an eviction order from the İzmir Governor's office.\n7.  On 26 March 1981, at the request of the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, land registry records were amended to indicate that no construction was permitted in the Asansör neighbourhood.\n8.  Between 1982 and 1995 several on-site inspections were conducted and many experts' reports were prepared. All of these reports indicated that the neighbourhood was under an imminent danger of rockslide and prevention measures had to be taken by the owners of the houses and the municipality. It appears from the documents that no preventive measures were taken.\n9.  As stated above (paragraph 4), on 1 June 1994 the applicant bought the house (no. 97) situated on plot no. 632/26. The applicant never lived in this house, and it was vacant in January 1995. According to the documents submitted by the Government, the house was in ruins and it had no historical or architectural value.\n10.  On 7 January 1995 following a heavy rain, rocks fell on house no. 113. On 11 January 1995 the authorities conducted an on-site inspection and prepared a report. The report concluded that eleven houses located in the Asansör neighbourhood, including the one owned by the applicant, required demolition to prevent loss of life. As a result, at the request of the Directorate of Public Works and Settlement, the İzmir Governor's office ordered that the applicant's house be demolished pursuant to Article 13 of Law No. 7269 regarding Natural Disasters. On 12 January 1995 the house was demolished without prior notification to the applicant.\n11.  On 26 April 1995 the applicant filed an action before the İzmir Administrative Court against the İzmir Governor's office. He requested compensation for the unlawful demolition of his house.\n12.  On 12 December 1996 the İzmir Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's case. The court explained its decision by pointing out that the applicant's house had been situated in a neighbourhood that had been declared a natural disaster area by the Council of Ministers on 17 July 1962 following a major rockslide. The court further took note of the fact that on 28 April 1971 the İzmir Governor's Office had sent an eviction order to the previous owner of the applicant's house. In the co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2654", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are all Turkish nationals who live in Diyarbakır.\n5.  In May 1999 the applicants were laid off by the Diyarbakır Sur municipality, with which they had been employed.\n6.  Each of the applicants brought an action in the Diyarbakır Labour Court, claiming outstanding salaries, dismissal indemnities, severance pays and other pecuniary rights.\n7.  On 11 November 1999 the court ruled in their favour and ordered the municipality to pay the following amounts in Turkish lira (TRL), including costs, together with interest running from June 1999:\n8.  In the absence of an appeal the judgments became final on 19 November 1999.\n9.  Within the following months, the applicants initiated enforcement proceedings in order to receive the due amounts. As their efforts proved fruitless, they requested the Diyarbakır Governorship to intervene to facilitate the enforcement of the court's judgments. The Governor's Office informed the applicants that they had requested the municipality to redress their grievances. However, the municipality did not make any payment since it was underfunded.\n10.  At the date of introduction of the current applications, the relevant judgment debts were still outstanding. However, in the meantime, friendly settlement agreements were reached between the following applicants and the municipality on the dates indicated:\n11.  No settlement was reached with the other applicants. However, the municipality deposited certain partial amounts in the relevant account at the local enforcement office, which amounts were made available to some applicants and later paid.\n12.  On 9 November 2004 a settlement agreement was reached by the applicants' representative, Mr Sedat Çınar, and the authorities. The agreement concerned the outstanding legal fees stemming from the labour courts' judgments. Mr Çınar waived all of his rights and claims in connection with his representation of the applicants in the labour cases.\n13.  On 28 March 2005 Mehmet Salih Kömekçi[5], Ahmet Hüseyinoğlu and M. Cihat Aydın initiated fresh claims against the municipality to recover their severance pay.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2655", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is the owner of a farm in Frastranz. On 21 April 1999 he asked the Mayor (Bürgermeister) of Frastanz to grant him a permit for the building of roofing between two buildings in order to create a tool shed on his farm.\n6.  On 12 July 1999 the Mayor, acting as building authority of first instance, dismissed this request as the project was contrary to the relevant area zoning plan (Flächenwidmungsplan). On 22 July 1999 the applicant appealed and submitted in particular that permits had been granted for the building of the other two buildings. He had constructed the roofing at issue at the same time and then sought a building permit for it as in the other cases. He further requested, should it be necessary, that the Municipal Council grant him an exemption permit under Section 22 of the Regional Planning Act (Raumplanungsgesetz). Under this provision a land owner may be exempted under certain conditions from the application of the relevant area zoning plan.\n7.  The Municipal Council (Gemeindeamt) remitted the case back to the Mayor. Having held a hearing on 15 March 2000, the Mayor, on 13 September 2000, again dismissed the applicant's request for a building permit. He referred to the relevant area zoning plan (Flächenwidmungsplan) and further noted that the local council (Gemeindevorstand) had not granted an exemption permit. The Mayor finally observed that for the construction of the two other buildings there had been proceedings for re-designation of the concerned land. The applicant had then promised to demolish the already existing roofing which had been built without the authorities' consent and the relating demolition order had not been challenged by the applicant.\n8.  By a decision of 15 January 2001 the local council dismissed the applicant's request for an exemption permit. It noted that the building project concerned 60 square metres while the relevant provisions of the Vorarlberg Regional Planning Act (Raumplanungsgesetz) provided such an exemption only for a small-sized project of around 25 square meters.\n9.  On 16 January and 11 July 2001 respectively the Municipal Council (Gemeindeamt) dismissed the applicant's appeals of 27 September 2000 against the above decisions.\n10.  The Feldkirch District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshaupt-mannschaft) confirmed these decisions on 28 March and 8 October 2001 respectively.\n11.  On 15 May 2001 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) concerning the refusal of the building permit and requested the court to examine the lawfulness of the underlying area zoning plan. He further requested the Constitutional Court to hold an oral hearing.\n12.  On 20 June 2001 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant's complaint as it had no prospect of success.\n13.  The applicant subsequently filed two complaints with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). In the first complaint, of 24 September 2001, he submitted that the refusal to grant him a building permit had been unlawful as the actual designation of the land concerned was not clear and the underlying area zoning plan was unlawful. In the latter regard, he requested the Administrative Court to institute proceedings for examination of the lawfulness of the area zoning plan with the Constitutional Court after having established the relevant facts. He further submitted that the relevant authorities should have waited for the outcome of the proceedings concerni", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2656", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Celje.\n5.  On 15 September 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of committing “extortion and blackmail” and “causing a public danger”.\n6.  On 17 September 1995 the applicant was brought before an investigating judge of the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju), who opened a judicial investigation against him and remanded him in pre-trial detention.\n7.  During the judicial investigation proceedings, it was reported in several newspaper articles that the applicant had committed a number of criminal acts.\n8.  The judicial investigation against the applicant was discontinued on 2 October 1995 for lack of evidence and the applicant was released on that day.\n9.  On an unspecified date, and in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Act, the applicant lodged a request with the Ministry of Justice for compensation in respect of the damage sustained. On 30 October 1996 the Ministry offered to pay the applicant 75,000 Slovenian tolars (SIT – approximately 310 euros (EUR)), which the applicant did not accept.\n10.  On 16 October 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of the Interior in the Celje District Court seeking compensation in the amount of SIT 4,000,000 (approximately EUR 16,500) for non-pecuniary damage. He also requested to be exempted from payment of court fees.\n11.  On 2 February 1999 the court held a hearing.\n12.  In addition, on 6 July 2000 the applicant was arrested on charges of drug trafficking. He remained in pre-trial detention until 26 September 2000 when the Celje District Court found him guilty as charged.\n13.  A hearing in the civil proceedings scheduled for 28 September 2000 had to be postponed because of the applicant's detention. Subsequently, a hearing was held on 5 December 2000.\n14.  As regards the criminal proceedings, on 10 April 2001 the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) allowed the applicant's appeal against the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. On 9 October 2001 the applicant was acquitted. On an appeal by the public prosecutor, the judgment was upheld by the Celje Higher Court on 9 April 2002.\n15.  Moreover, in 2000 and 2001, the applicant was accused of drug trafficking in two other sets of criminal proceedings. The proceedings were discontinued as the public prosecutor withdrew the bills of indictment.\n16.  On 10 June 2002 the applicant filed written submissions in the civil proceedings which he had instituted on 16 October 1996 before the Celje District Court and increased the amount of his compensation claim.\n17.  The court held a hearing on 15 October 2002. The applicant did not appear at that hearing.\n18.  On 15 November 2002, after a hearing, the Celje District Court handed down a judgment in which it awarded the applicant SIT 1,500,000 (approximately EUR 6,250). Both parties appealed.\n19.  On 11 November 2004 the Celje Higher Court allowed the defendant's appeal and reduced the amount of the award to SIT 1,200,000 (approximately EUR 5,000). That judgment became final.\n20.  On 2 July 1999 the Krško Public Prosecutor's Office requested the Krško District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Krškem) to open a criminal investigation against the applicant and two other individuals for drug trafficking.\n21.  According to the Government, the applicant was not available to the prosecuting authorities during the investigation stage, although ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2657", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1981, 1983 and 1981 respectively and live in Şanlıurfa.\n5.  The applicants were arrested and taken into custody on 19 and 20 February 1999 respectively on suspicion of their involvement in the throwing of Molotov cocktails at various public buildings. On 23 February 1999 the Suruç Magistrates' Court ordered their remand in custody. The applicants were aged sixteen (Mehmet Koşti) and eighteen (the other applicants) at the time of the events.\n6.  On 23 March 1999 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants and four other persons, accusing them of throwing Molotov cocktails at the Suruç primary school and the Suruç public garage on 18 February 1999 and of attempting to throw Molotov cocktail at the Suruç Atatürk primary school with a view to supporting the activities of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party). The charges were brought under Article 168 § 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code.\n7.  On 7 April 1999 the criminal proceedings against the applicants and four other accused commenced before the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n8.  On 12 May 1999 the court heard the applicants who refuted the allegations against them and their earlier submissions given before the police, public prosecutor and the Magistrates' Court. They also challenged the accuracy of the arrest protocol and the report on the reconstruction of the events. The court decided to secure the testimony of those who had attended the arrest and the reconstruction of events and the submissions of the accused who were not detained. It further ordered that the birth date of Hışman Öngör and another accused be determined since they had claimed that they were actually born in 1986.\n9.  Between 12 May 1999 and 22 December 2000, the Diyarbakır Security Court held fifteen hearings where it took various procedural decisions and postponed the trial as the procedure concerning the determination of the age of two accused had not been completed.\n10.  At the hearings held on 22 December 2000 and 20 February 2001 respectively, the court requested the prosecution and the defendants to submit their observations on the merits of the case. On 10 April 2001 the applicants' lawyer requested an extension for the submission of the applicants' observations. This request was accepted by the court.\n11.  Throughout the proceedings the applicants' lawyer repeatedly requested that the applicants be released pending trial. He maintained, inter alia, that they were juveniles and that their acts could not be considered to constitute an offence under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Court. The first instance court dismissed the applicants' requests until 29 May 2001, having regard to the nature of the offence with which they were charged and the state of the evidence.\n12.  On 29 May 2001 the court decided to defer sentencing the applicants and their co-accused, pursuant to Law no. 4616. It therefore ordered the release of the applicants from detention.\n13.  The public prosecutor appealed.\n14.  On 20 September 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2658", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  In 1950, in accordance with Law no. 4753 regarding the distribution of lands to farmers in need, a plot of land measuring approximately 220,000 m2 on Maden Island, in the Ayvalık District of the Balıkesir Province, was sold to R.K. by the State authorities and registered in his name.\n7.  In 1968, pursuant to Law no. 6831, the Forest Cadastral Commission conducted a boundary-marking exercise (tahdit çalışması) on the Maden Island. The purpose of this exercise was to detect the forest areas which had not been included on the cadastral map. The outcome of the evaluation was publicly announced and as no opposition was made, this decision became definitive in 1970. It was concluded that the whole of Maden Island had the characteristics of a forest and it therefore could not be the subject of private ownership. This conclusion was annotated in the title deed registry in 1978.\n8.  In 1985 R.K. signed an agreement with the applicant, promising to sell the land in question.\n9.  Between 1985 and 1987, the Forest Cadastral Commission conducted an evaluation (aplikasyon çalışması) of the area to detect the lands which had lost their characteristics as a forest and to remove their forest status. Its decision was announced on 27 January 1988. It was concluded that the plot of land in question had not lost its characteristics as a forest within the meaning of Article 2 of the Law no.4785.\n10.  On 20 September 1989 the applicant purchased the land in question and registered it in his name.\nThe proceedings brought by R.K. against the Forestry Directorate\n11.  On 10 June 1988 R.K. filed an action before the Ayvalık Civil Court of General Jurisdiction against the Forestry Directorate and the Forestry Ministry, objecting to the Cadastral Commission's decision of 27 January 1988.\n12.  On 15 June 1989 the Ayvalık Civil Court of General Jurisdiction held that it had no jurisdiction to examine the case and transferred the file to the Ayvalık Cadastral Court. The Forestry Directorate appealed against this decision. On 15 December 1989 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on procedural grounds. The case was remitted to the Ayvalık Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. On 30 May 1990 the court declared that it had no jurisdiction to examine the case and transferred the file to the Ayvalık Cadastral Court. The proceedings resumed before the Cadastral Court.\n13.  On 9 December 1992 the Ayvalık Cadastral Court decided to annul the Forest Cadastral Commission's decision of 27 January 1988 and to remove the land's forest status. Furthermore, it ordered that the land be registered in the name of the Treasury.\n14.  Both parties appealed against the decision. On 15 February 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the first-instance court. It held that forests could not be the subject of private ownership and therefore could not be distributed to landless farmers for agricultural purposes. Any property claim over a forest was therefore considered legally invalid. The court found that R.K. was not entitled to request the removal of the land's forest status.\n15.  The case was resumed before the Ayvalık Cadastral Court. On 3 April 1995 the Cadastral Court maintained its initial decision of 9 December 1992.\n16.  The Forestry Directorate and the Forestry Ministry filed an appeal. On 3 April 1996 the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation supported the reasoning o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2659", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1972 and 1962 respectively and live in İzmir.\n5.  In the course of criminal proceedings against them, the applicants were remanded in custody between 7 March 2000 and 30 March 2000.\n6.  Following their acquittal, the applicants applied to the Bergama Assize Court on 13 July 2000 and sought compensation for both non‑pecuniary and pecuniary damage pursuant to Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained.\n7.  On 12 February 2001 the İzmir Assize Court, relying on the experts' report, awarded each applicant 86,801,820 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately EUR 51) for pecuniary and TRL 500,000,000 (approximately EUR 300) for non-pecuniary damage. It further awarded the applicants a certain amount for costs and expenses incurred before the criminal court. The court, however, did not rule on the applicants' request for interest running from the date of their action.\n8.  On 30 November 2001 the Court of Cassation rectified a calculation mistake and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. This decision was not served on the applicants but was deposited with the registry of the first-instance court on 16 January 2002. The applicants failed to provide the date on which they learned of this judgment.\n9.  On 8 May 2002 the applicants applied to the İzmir Provincial Finance Directorate requesting payment of their compensation. The authorities paid the amount due on 11 December 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2660", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants are 97 members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (“the Congregation”)[2], together with Mr Vladimer Kokosadze, Ms Nino Lelashvili, Mr Alexi Khitarishvili and Ms Leila Dzhikurashvili, who are also members of the said congregation and live in Tbilisi. It appears that Mr Vladimer Kokosadze is also the Congregation’s spokesperson.\n10.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n11.  During a religious meeting on 17 October 1999, the Congregation, composed of 120 persons, was attacked by a group of Orthodox believers led by Mr Basil Mkalavishvili (“Father Basil”). Father Basil had been a priest in the autocephalous Orthodox Church of Georgia prior to being defrocked by that denomination on 31 July 1995 following his adhesion to the League of Separatist Priests of Greece. The Synod also accused him of various acts of physical aggression against members of the Orthodox Church, and of insulting the Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia.\n12.  Towards noon on 17 October 1999 one of the applicants, Mr Mirian Arabidze, saw Father Basil’s group, made up of several dozen individuals, arriving at the service entrance of the theatre in which the Congregation was holding its meeting.\n13.  Ms Nunu Gviniashvili, an applicant, has described the fear experienced by members of the Congregation who had previously seen television broadcasts showing acts of aggression by Father Basil and his supporters against Jehovah’s Witnesses.\n14.  The attackers, some of whom wore cassocks, were shouting and advancing with large iron crosses and sticks in their hands. One of the attackers (Ms Lia Akhalkatsi, according to the applicants) was filming their progress. When the attackers reached the back door of the meeting room, several Jehovah’s Witnesses, including Mr M. Arabidze, tried to hold the door closed until the other participants could leave the room by the main entrance. In the meantime, however, some of Father Basil’s supporters had also arrived at the building’s main entrance, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses found themselves trapped between two groups of attackers. Only a few were able to take refuge in the cellar and called the police from their mobile telephones.\n15.  In the meeting room, about 60 Jehovah’s Witnesses were beaten and struck with crosses, sticks and belts.\n16.  Mr Mirian Arabidze was also beaten and, when he fell to the ground, his attacker (Mr Mikheil Nikolozishvili, according to the applicants) told him that he was “going to die for Jehovah!”. The recording of the attack (see paragraph 35 below) shows that several stick-wielding men surrounded the applicant, who immediately covered his head with his hands but fell to the ground under their blows. He was subsequently kicked in the head and back.\n17.  Ms Roza Kinkladze, applicant, was struck on the face, head and back. Ms Natela Kobaidze, applicant, was struck on the face and her lips started bleeding. She also sustained a sprained thumb. Ms Nino Dzhanashvili, applicant, was struck and pushed in the stairs. Having fallen to the ground, she saw Ms Nino Gnolidze, Ms Nino Lelashvili and Ms Nora Lelashvili, applicants, lying on the ground unconscious. Ms Lia Bakhutashvili, applicant, was attacked by three women and a young priest, who kicked her, tore her clothing and pulled her by the hair. The same priest used a cross and a stick to beat applicant Ms Nora Lelashvili, who fainted. Her daughter, Nino Lelashvili, was dragged along the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2661", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Elektrostal in the Moscow Region.\n5.  On 27 April 2002 the applicant sued her former employer, a private company, for reinstatement, payment of wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  On 30 July 2002 the Elektrostal Town Court dismissed the action.  On the same day the applicant lodged before the Moscow Regional Court her statement of appeal against the judgment.\n7.  The Moscow Regional Court accepted the statement of appeal and fixed a hearing for 12 September 2002. According to the Government, on 5 September 2002 the Town Court summonsed the parties for the appeal hearing. The Government provided the Court with a copy of the covering letter of 5 September 2002 sent by the Town Court to the Moscow Regional Court and the parties, including the applicant. The letter indicated that the Town Court had sent the case-file to the Regional Court and that the appeal hearing had been fixed for 12 September 2002, at 10.30 a.m. The Government also submitted copies of receipts issued by the local post office on 5 September 2002 showing that it had accepted for delivery eight registered letters from the Town Court.\n8.  On 12 September 2002 the Moscow Regional Court, in the presence of the defendant's representative, upheld the judgment of 30 July 2002. The applicant did not attend the hearing. According to her, in the evening of 12 September 2002 she discovered the letter with summonses to the hearing of 12 September 2002 in her post box.\n9.  On 3 August 2000 the applicant sued her former employer for provision of free housing. On 21 December 2000 the Elektrostal Town Court dismissed the action. The judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 6 February 2001\n10.  In July 2004 the applicant again sued her former employer for provision of free housing.  On 24 November 2004 the Moscow Regional Court, in the final instance, disallowed the action because the same dispute between the same parties had been already determined by the final judgment of 6 February 2001.\n11.  In 2004 the applicant requested the Elektrostal Town Court to quash the judgment of 21 December 2000, re-open the proceedings due to newly-discovered evidence and re-examine her action.  On 26 April 2004 the Moscow Regional Court, in the final instance, dismissed request because there was no newly-discovered evidence in the case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2662", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 1 December 1994 the applicant took up the post of executive director of the Bulgarian Publishers' Association (“the association”). On 30 September 1996 she was dismissed.\n5.  On 21 November 1996 the applicant filed an action for wrongful dismissal against the association. She sought reinstatement and damages.\n6.  In a judgment of 4 June 1997 the Sofia District Court held that the applicant's dismissal had been unlawful. It accordingly ordered her reinstatement and awarded her damages.\n7.  On 23 June 1997 the association appealed.\n8.  On 26 June 1997 the Sofia District Court instructed the association to pay the court fees for the appeal within a seven‑day time‑limit. These instructions were served on the association on 27 October 1997.\n9.  On 28 November 1997 the Sofia District Court discontinued the proceedings, holding that the association had not paid the fees in due time.\n10.  The decision to discontinue the proceedings was served on the association on 16 March 1998. On 20 March 1998 it appealed against it to the Sofia City Court, arguing that the fees had in fact been paid on time. On 8 May 1998 the Sofia City Court allowed the appeal, agreeing that the fees had been paid within the specified time-limit. On 25 May 1998 the case was returned to the Sofia District Court for further processing.\n11.  On 29 May 1998 the Sofia District Court instructed the association to indicate the grounds of appeal together with the new evidence to be gathered, as well as to present the written evidence on which the appeal was based. These instructions were not served on the association's counsel. According to the applicant, the court's server returned them, noting that the concierge of the building in which the counsel's office was purportedly situated had informed him that the counsel's office was in fact not there. On 1 July 1998 the Sofia District Court ordered the decision to be re‑served on the counsel. It is unclear whether its order was complied with.\n12.  On 19 April 1999 the Sofia District Court rescinded its ruling of 29 May 1998 and decided to process the appeal without further particulars by the association. Accordingly, a copy of the appeal was served on the applicant's counsel the same day and on 29 April 1999 the case was sent to the Sofia City Court.\n13.  On 18 May 1999 the Sofia City Court instructed the association to specify within fourteen days the grounds of appeal and the evidence to be gathered, as compulsory under an intervening amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the applicant, an attempt to serve these instructions on the association on 27 May 1999 failed, because the court's process server did not find it at the specified address. The instructions were served on 2 May 2000.\n14.  On 12 January 2001 the Sofia City Court, finding that the association had not complied with its instructions, discontinued the proceedings. Its decision was served on the applicant on 17 January 2001 and on the association on 5 February 2001. Neither of them appealed against it. Accordingly, the judgment of the Sofia District Court of 4 June 1997 entered into force in February 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2663", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  In 1950, in accordance with Law no. 4753 regarding the distribution of lands to farmers in need, a plot of land measuring approximately 165,000 m2 on Maden Island, in the Ayvalık District of the Balıkesir Province, was sold to C.Ç. by the State authorities and registered in his name.\n7.  In 1968, pursuant to Law no. 6831, the Forest Cadastral Commission conducted a boundary marking exercise (tahdit çalışması) on Maden Island. The purpose of this exercise was to detect the forest areas which had not been included on the cadastral map. The outcome of the evaluation was publicly announced and as no opposition was made, this decision became definitive in 1970. It was concluded that the whole of Maden Island had the characteristics of a forest and it therefore could not be the subject of private ownership. This conclusion was annotated in the title deed registry in 1978.\n8.  In 1985 C.Ç. signed an agreement with the applicant, promising to sell the land in question.\n9.  Between 1985 and 1987, the Forest Cadastral Commission conducted an evaluation (aplikasyon çalışması) of the area to detect the lands which had lost their characteristics as a forest and to remove their forest status. The decision was announced on 27 January 1988. It was concluded that the plot of land in question had not lost its characteristics as a forest within the meaning of Article 2 of the Law no.4785.\n10. On 20 September 1989 the applicant purchased the land in question and registered it in his name.\nThe proceedings brought by C. Ç. against the Forestry Directorate\n11.  On 10 June 1988 C.Ç. filed an action before the Ayvalık Civil Court of General Jurisdiction against the Forestry Directorate and the Forestry Ministry, objecting to the Forest Cadastral Commission's decision of 27 January 1988.\n12.  On 15 June 1989 the Ayvalık Civil Court of General Jurisdiction held that it had no jurisdiction to examine the case and transferred the file to the Ayvalık Cadastral Court. The Forestry Directorate appealed against this decision. On 15 December 1989 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on procedural grounds. The case was remitted to the Ayvalık Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. On 30 May 1990 the court declared that it had no jurisdiction to examine the case and transferred the file to the Ayvalık Cadastral Court. The proceedings resumed before the Cadastral Court on 15 November 1991.\n13.  On 9 December 1992 the Ayvalık Cadastral Court decided to annul the Forest Cadastral Commission's decision of 27 January 1988 and remove the land's forest status. Furthermore, it ordered that the land be registered in the name of the Treasury.\n14.  Both parties appealed against the decision. On 15 February 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the first-instance court. It held that forests could not be the subject of private ownership and therefore could not be distributed to landless farmers for agricultural purposes. Any property claim over a forest was therefore considered legally invalid. The court found that C. Ç. was not entitled to request the removal of the land's forest status.\n15.  The case was resumed before the Ayvalık Cadastral Court. On 3 April 1995 the Cadastral Court maintained its initial decision of 9 December 1992.\n16.  The Forestry Directorate and the Forestry Ministry filed an appeal. On 3 April 1996 the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation supp", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2664", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Sergey Mikhaylovich Petrov was born in 1955 and lives in Moscow. He is a retired military officer.\n6.  In 2001 he brought proceedings against the Military Service Commission of Moscow (Военный комиссариат г. Москвы, hereinafter the “Commission”) for recalculation of his pension as from 1990 to take account of the fact that he served in the extreme north of Russia which made him eligible for a higher pension.\n7.  On 30 April 2002 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant's claim, adjusted his pension by a coefficient 1.5 and awarded him 84,915.42 Russian roubles (RUR) in arrears.\n8.  The Commission did not lodge an ordinary appeal against the judgment and it became binding and enforceable on 10 May 2002.\n9.  On 3 November 2003 the Commission filed an application for supervisory review, claiming that the civil-law provisions on which the court based its judgment were not relevant to the applicant.\n10.  On 18 May 2004 the applicant was informed about the initiation of the supervisory-review procedure.\n11.  On 20 May 2004 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court held a supervisory-review hearing. It held that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law. On that ground it quashed the judgment of 30 April 2002 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. Before the announcement of the judgment the applicant was asked to wait outside the courtroom. At the same time the respondent remained there. The decision of the court was announced to the applicant by the bailiff. The applicant received a copy of the final decision on 13 August 2004.\n12.  The new hearing was scheduled for 16 September 2004. The applicant could not attend the hearing, and on 9 September 2004 asked the court to postpone it.\n13.  On 24 October 2004 the applicant received a letter from the court, which enclosed a copy of the decision of the Tverskoy District Court of 6 October 2004 by which the applicant's action was left without consideration for his failure to appear twice before the court. The applicant claims that the court did not inform him about the new date of the hearing. The applicant filed an appeal, but, since the time-limit for an appeal was up, the court ignored his petition.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2665", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in the town of Shakhty in the Rostov Region.\n5.  On 3 June 2004 the Shakhty Town Court ordered that the Ministry of Finance should pay the applicant 298,650 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 8,420 euros), representing a subvention for buying a flat. On 11 October 2004 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment.\n6.  Following the institution of enforcement proceedings by the Shakhty Town Division of Bailiffs' Service on 16 November 2004, the Ministry of Finance petitioned the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for a revision of the judgment of 3 June 2004 and a stay in the enforcement proceedings. Those requests were dismissed on 25 April 2006.\n7.  On 21 February 2006 the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings because it was necessary to send the writ of execution to another division of the bailiffs' service. A copy of that decision and the writ were sent to the Head of the Main Department of the Federal Bailiffs' Service in Moscow. The applicant and the Ministry of Finance were notified of the decision.\n8.  According to the Government, the enforcement proceedings were closed because a new procedure for enforcement of court decisions against State bodies had been introduced on 1 January 2006. Under the new procedure the applicant was to submit a writ to the Ministry of Finance, however, she did not do it.\n9.  On 23 March 2006 a bailiff of the Second Division of the Tsentralniy District of the Main Department of the Federal Bailiffs' Service in Moscow instituted enforcement proceedings and ordered that the Ministry of Finance should execute the judgment of 3 June 2004 within five days. The bailiff also indicated that the failure to execute the judgment will lead to the imposition of a fine. A copy of that decision was sent to the Ministry of Finance.\n10.  On 20 June 2006 the enforcement proceedings were closed because it was “impossible to enforce” the judgment.\n11.  The judgment of 3 June 2004, as upheld on appeal on 11 October 2004, remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2666", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant worked as the Head of the Architecture and Planning Department of the Municipal Council of Chişinău, one of the branches of the Chişinău Mayor's Office. Between 24 September 2004 and 23 February 2005 he was held in the remand centre of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (CFECC). On 23 February 2005 he was transferred to the Remand Centre No. 3 of the Ministry of Justice in Chişinău (“prison no. 3”, which was subsequently re-named “prison no. 13”). The applicant suffers from “diffuse osteoporosis, discopathy at L3‑L4‑L5‑S1, hernia of the L5-S1 disc, radiculopathy at L5-S1 and sciatic pain”.\n8.  On 23 September 2004 the CFECC opened a criminal investigation against the applicant under Article 327(2)(c) of the Criminal Code for abuse of power in connection with the privatisation of a plot of land. On 24 September 2004 he was taken into custody by CFECC officers.\n9.  On 27 September 2004 the Buiucani District Court issued an order for his detention pending trial for 30 days. The reasons given by the court for issuing the order were as follows:\n“The criminal case was opened in accordance with the law, on the basis of Article 327 § 2 of the Criminal Code. [The applicant] is suspected of committing a serious offence punishable under the law by deprivation of liberty for more than two years; the evidence presented to the court was obtained lawfully and the investigating judge was shown relevant evidence that [the applicant] was indeed a danger to society, was liable to reoffend if at large and to destroy evidence, abscond from justice, obstruct the normal progress of the criminal investigation and influence evidence and witnesses”.\n10.  The applicant claimed that his lawyer had requested access to certain documents from the criminal file in order to challenge the grounds of his detention pending trial but had been denied access.\n11.  In his appeal against his detention pending trial, the applicant submitted, inter alia, that he was ill and required medical treatment in order to prevent a worsening of his state of health and that no evidence had been submitted to the court about the danger of his absconding or influencing witnesses. He submitted that he had a family and permanent residence in Chişinău, a job and no previous convictions. On 1 October 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Buiucani District Court of 22 November 2004. The court gave similar reasons for detaining the applicant pending trial, adding that his state of health was not incompatible with detention.\n12.  On 8 October 2004 the prosecution initiated a new criminal investigation in respect of the applicant under Article 327 of the Criminal Code for abuse of power in connection with the granting of a construction permit to a private company in breach of a municipal decision. The two cases against the applicant were joined on 3 January 2005.\n13.  The applicant requested replacement of his detention pending trial with house arrest. On 19 October 2004 the investigating judge of the Buiucani District Court rejected that request. Recalling general provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding preventive measures, including detention and house arrest, he found that the applicant and his lawyer had not requested that the detention order be rescinded and replaced with alternative", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2667", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1921 and lives in Klosterneuburg.\n6.  He is a lawyer practising in Klosterneuburg and the owner of a parcel of land in the municipality of Königstetten, which is designated as “forest” land in the zoning plan. On parts of this parcel – approximately 1,500 square meters – he runs an organic farm on a part-time basis, breeding sheep and goats. Besides that, he keeps bees and grows herbs.\n7.  On 18 August 1998 the applicant applied to the mayor of Königstetten for a building permit for a shed, to be used as a shelter for sheep and goats in summer and beehives in winter. It is also designed as a refuge for farm workers. He therefore submitted construction plans for the planned shed and a map of the land in question.\n8.  The mayor rejected the applicant's request on 16 February 2000. Relying on a report by an agricultural expert at the Lower Austria Regional Government, he stated that, in view of its shape, size and design, it would not qualify as a farm building and that even if it was an agricultural construction, it could not be erected on the land in question, as the latter had been designated as forest and grassland.\n9.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the municipality of Königstetten on 10 April 2000. On 3 July 2000 the municipality dismissed his appeal on the same grounds.\n10.  Subsequently, on 13 September 2000, the applicant filed an objection (Vorstellung) with the Lower Austria Regional Government and requested it to hear representatives of the District Farmer's Association (DFA, Bezirksbauernkammer) and the Austrian beekeeper association (ABA, Österreichischer Imkerbund) as experts who would prove that the building he intended to erect was necessary for the intended agricultural enterprise.\n11.  The Regional Government quashed the municipality's decision on 10 January 2001 and referred the case back to the municipal council. It stated that the municipality had failed to address all the points of appeal.\n12.  The applicant lodged further grounds in support of his appeal on 19 March, 4 and 24 April 2001. In addition to his comments on the decision of 3 July 2000, he filed requests for the taking of evidence. He also submitted a statement by the Tulln Administrative District Authority and a document he referred to as a business plan.\n13.  On 23 November 2001 the Königstetten Municipality requested the applicant to comment on an expert opinion it had obtained from the Planning Office at the Lower Austria Regional Government (Gebiets-bauamt) on 31 October 2001. It stated that by far the largest part of the land was covered by forest, which would impede serious agricultural activities. With reference to the earlier decisions, it repeated that, judging by its design and shape, the building at issue would be untypical of an agricultural shed and that the applicant could be assumed never to have intended to carry on agricultural activities, but rather to use it for different purposes.\n14.  The applicant commented on the expert opinion on 10 December 2001. Claiming that the authorities had incorrectly established the relevant facts, he contended that the expert opinion was in breach of Austrian law and European Community law. Besides that, the applicant repeated his request to obtain opinions from the DFA, the ABA and a certain organic farming association (Biobauernverband Ernte) in order to prove the feasibility of the business plan and its compliance with the relevant legal criteria. He also filed an app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2668", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 24 February 1997 T., a six-year old boy, described to S., a psychologist, that he had experienced improper touching while in day care and referred to the applicant in this connection. The interview was recorded on videotape in the Family Advice Centre.\n7.  The next day the alleged offence was reported to the police. On 13 March 1997, T. was interviewed again by S., on that occasion in the course of the pre-trial investigation which had been opened. That interview was also recorded on videotape.\n8.  The applicant was questioned on 26 and 27 March 1997. He was not aware of the existence of the above recordings.\n9.  On 7 April 1997 S. submitted a written opinion on the credibility of T.'s statements.\n10.  In his closing argument on an unspecified date the applicant contested the alleged improper touching. He noted that the videotape, which he had become aware of following the submission by S. of the above-mentioned written opinion, and the opinion itself, were indirect evidence, which in the light of the Convention had to be treated with extreme care. He questioned whether the questions put to the boy had not been leading in nature. He also submitted that the boy would have to be heard in court, should charges be brought. He did not request an additional investigation.\n11.  The applicant was charged with having indecently touched the boy when working at a day nursery which the boy attended. The alleged offence had taken place repeatedly over a period of several months beginning in the autumn of 1996.\n12.  The video recording was played back in the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) and the court heard evidence from the applicant, T.'s mother and S., the psychologist who had interviewed the boy. H., a doctor in psychology specialising in criminology and forensic psychology, who had not interviewed the boy herself, was also heard as a witness. Several other witnesses, including the applicant's colleagues and the parents of other children in day care, gave testimony. None of the witnesses made any observations on the alleged acts. The parents gave evidence only on the perceived changes in their children's personality. The psychologist testified only about the reliability of T.'s statements.\n13.  On 29 October 1997 the District Court convicted the applicant of sexual abuse and sentenced him to a suspended term of seven months' imprisonment. It reasoned:\n“...\n14.  The applicant, the prosecution and the complainant appealed, arguing that the lower court had based his conviction on T.'s testimony as given to his mother and also later recorded on videotape. He requested the appellate court to hold that this indirect evidence could not be used in evidence. He also repeated his view that leading questions may have been put to the boy. He stated that his right to examine witnesses had been violated as he had not had an opportunity to put questions to T.\n15.  On 26 June 1998 the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), having held an oral hearing, upheld the conviction but increased the sentence to fourteen months' imprisonment with immediate effect. It found that the technical quality of the videotape, which had been played back in the court, was poor as regards its image and sound reproduction and that the contents of T.'s statements could not be reliably assessed merely on the basis of that recording. The recording however showed that S. had carried out the interview without any preconceived idea of its outcome. The statements of two", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2670", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 16 October 1992 the applicant was arrested by police officers on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation, namely Dev-Sol (Revolutionary Left) and was taken into custody.\n6. On 26 October 1992 an investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody in Gebze Prison.\n7.  On 8 January 1993 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and 16 other co-accused, charging them with membership of an illegal, armed organisation and participation in activities that undermined the constitutional order of the State. The public prosecutor sought the death penalty for the applicant, pursuant to Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  On 11 December 2002 the applicant was released pending trial.\n9.  Following a constitutional amendment in 2004, the State Security Courts were abolished and the applicant's case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. On 2 May 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The Court of Cassation quashed this judgment. The case was remitted to the Istanbul Assize Court, where it is apparently still pending.\n10.  The applicant was detained in Gebze Prison. He had various health problems and underwent several operations. He has submitted medical reports to this effect.\n11.  On 27 July 2001 the applicant was transferred to the Kandıra/Kocaeli F-Type Prison. On his arrival at the prison, the security forces and the prison guards allegedly subjected the applicant to a strip- search, which included an anal inspection. The applicant complained about this incident to the Kandıra public prosecutor.\n12.  On 2 August 2001 the applicant was to be taken to hospital for a routine medical check when he was again allegedly subjected, by force, to an anal and oral inspection. The applicant tried to resist the search, which he thought was degrading. Following this, the security forces drew up a report, stating that the applicant had objected to the search and had therefore not been taken to hospital. The applicant filed a complaint with the Kandıra public prosecutor about this treatment.\n13.  On 16 August 2001 the applicant's lawyer complained to the Directorate General of Sentences and Prisons regarding the incident of 2 August 2001. She submitted that her client had been subjected to a degrading search and had not been taken to hospital for a medical examination. She requested that the applicant be transferred to Bayrampasa Prison in Istanbul in order to facilitate his treatment and to avoid the problems related to transfers and searches.\n14.  In a letter dated 4 October 2001, the Directorate disputed the content of that complaint. They maintained that the applicant had received medical treatment in the infirmary of the Kandıra/Kocaeli F Type Prison, as well as having been taken to the Kocaeli State Hospital on 6 August 2001. They added that the prison authorities were corresponding with a hospital in Istanbul in order to arrange for the applicant's subsequent medical treatment. Lastly, they maintained that a prison change was unnecessary as the applicant could be conveyed to and from the hospital in Istanbul if necessary.\n15.  On 13 February 2002 the applicant's lawyer filed a complaint with the Kocaeli Criminal Court. She stated that her client had been subjected to degrading treatment during a search on 7 February 2002, and had b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2671", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Wrocław, Poland.\n6.  In October 1970 the applicant, at that time a schoolboy, was a victim of an accident at his primary school as a result of which he lost the sight in his right eye. In 1983 a court granted him compensation and a monthly pension in the amount of 2,000 old Polish zlotys.\n7.  On 12 August 1994 the applicant lodged with the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a civil action in which he sought an increase in the amount of the invalidity pension. The applicant submitted that the amount of the monthly pension had not been changed since 1984. After the change in the denomination of the national currency which took place on 1 January 1995 the amount of the applicant's monthly pension was 0.2 Polish zlotys (PLN). He further sought compensation in connection with the further deterioration of his health in the amount of PLN 10,000,000.\n8.  Subsequently, the applicant was exempted from court fees and granted legal aid.\n9.  The trial court held several hearings and on 17 December 1998 it gave judgment. The Regional Court partly allowed the action and awarded the applicant a monthly pension in the amount of PLN 1,220. It ordered the defendant to make back payments of the pension as adjusted to the date of the lodging of the claim. The back payment amounted to PLN 43,000 and the interest to PLN 100,000. The court dismissed the applicant's claim for non‑pecuniary damage (zadośćuczynienie) as time‑barred as well as the remainder of his compensation claims, in particular the claim for pecuniary damage incurred in connection with a new eye operation.\n10.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment with the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny).\n11.  On 18 May 1999 the Court of Appeal partly allowed the appeal in that it quashed the part of the judgment which dismissed the remainder of the applicant's claims and remitted this part of the case. The appeal court found, inter alia, that the first‑instance court had breached the law in deciding, ex officio, not to examine the merits of the applicant's claim for non‑pecuniary damage on the ground that the claim was time‑barred, despite the fact that the issue of prescription had not been raised by the defendant.\n12.  On 21 December 1999 the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), after reconsideration of the case, gave a judgment. It partly allowed the applicant's action and awarded him PLN 8,000 for pecuniary damage. As regards the claim for non‑pecuniary damage, the defendant raised the objection that the limitation period had elapsed. The court dismissed the applicant's claim for that reason.\n13.  The applicant appealed submitting inter alia that the limitation period had not elapsed as his compensation claim related to a further deterioration of his health.\n14.  On 11 April 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. With regard to the claim for non‑pecuniary damage, the court reiterated that an objection that an action was time‑barred could be dismissed only if the application of the limitation period would violate “the principles of co‑existence with others” contained in Article 5 of the Civil Code. According to the judicial practice such an exception had only been granted in exceptional circumstances, which were not present in the instant case. The court also dismissed his appeal in so far as it challenged the amount of pecuniary damage awarded by the Regional Court. The court further withdrew the applicant's ex", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2672", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lived until his arrest in Moscow. He is now serving his sentence in a correctional colony in the Mordoviya Republic of the Russian Federation.\n6.  On 16 December 1999, at approximately 11 a.m., the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. The report of his arrest was drawn up six hours later. He was issued with a copy of the report only in April 2000.\n7.  An investigator informed the applicant of his statutory defence rights. The applicant countersigned a record indicating that he had voluntarily refused legal assistance and decided to answer the investigator's questions. On the same day he was confronted with the victim, the co-defendant and a witness.\n8.  On 17 December 1999 a prosecutor authorised the remand of the applicant in custody, without the latter being present.\n9.  In December 1999 and January 2000 an investigator ordered three expert examinations. According to the applicant, he was notified of these examinations in April 2000.\n10.  On 24 November 2000 the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of robbery and sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment in a high-security colony. The District Court based its judgment on statements by the victim, several eyewitnesses, expert reports and other material evidence. On 23 May 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction, but remitted the decision concerning the colony type for re-examination.  On 3 July 2001 the Zyuzinskiy District Court ordered that the applicant should serve his sentence in a high-security colony.\n11.  From 19 December 1999 to November 2001 the applicant was detained in facilities nos. IZ-77/2 and IZ-77/3 in Moscow.\n12.  According to certificates issued on 19 October 2005 by the acting facility director, and produced by the Government, the applicant was kept in three cells. From 19 to 22 December 1999 he was detained in cell no. 148 which measured 57.4 square metres. From 22 December 1999 to 10 March 2000 he was kept in a 12.7 sq. m cell, no. 85. According to the Government, the information on the number of inmates in cells nos. 85 and 148 was not available as the documents had been destroyed. From 10 March to 28 November 2000 the applicant remained in cell no. 101, which measured 55.2 square metres. Between 22 September and 28 November 2000 that cell housed approximately 58 detainees. The Government, relying on the certificates of 19 October 2005, further submitted that at all times the applicant had had an individual bunk and bedding. However, the facility was not able to produce the applicant's record confirming the latter submission as it had been sent to another detention facility in Moscow.\n13.   The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements. He, however, alleged that he had shared cell no. 85 with five detainees. That cell had five bunks. Cell no. 101 accommodated 70 to 80 inmates. Given the lack of beds, inmates slept in shifts.\n(b)  Sanitary conditions, installations and temperature\n14.  The Government, relying on the information provided by the office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, submitted that all cells were disinfected on a “regular basis”. Inmates were allowed to take a shower once a week. The applicant was provided with bedding. The cells were ventilated naturally through the windows. Each cell also had a ventilating shaft. The Government further argued that the temperature in the cells had been “normal”. Additional window-frames with glass were ins", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2673", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Aksay, Rostov Region.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 13 November 2000 the applicant was arrested by three police officers and taken to Aksay police station, where he was allegedly beaten up. He was detained on remand.\n9.  On 16 November 2000 the applicant was charged with a robbery committed as part of an organised gang. On the same day the Azov District Prosecutor authorised the applicant's pre-trial detention, and the applicant spent nine months in pre-trial detention facility IZ-61/1 in Rostov.\n10.  In July 2001 the applicant wrote a letter, apparently a complaint, to the Rostov Regional Prosecutor's Office and submitted it to the administration of the detention facility for posting.\n11.  On 22 August 2001 the Rostov Regional Court began its examination of the criminal charge against the applicant and his four co-accused. The applicant and his three co-accused contested their pre-trial testimonies as having been given under duress, but the court dismissed the allegations.\n12.  On 30 August 2001 the applicant was found guilty of participation in an organised armed gang and of two armed robberies, and was sentenced to eight and a half years' imprisonment. His accomplices were convicted as well.\n13.  On 17 September 2001 the Rostov Chief Prison Directorate, attached to the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, informed the applicant that the administration of detention facility IZ-61/1 had unlawfully delayed his July 2001 letter to the prosecutor's office by about a month, and that disciplinary proceedings had been taken against those responsible.\n14.  On 19 February 2002 the applicant's conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.\n15.  On an unspecified date the applicant's wife brought a civil claim. On behalf of the applicant she challenged the acts of the police, claiming that her husband had been unlawfully arrested and ill-treated. She claimed damages of 2,900,000 Russian roubles in the applicant's favour. She also requested that the applicant be summoned from the prison to participate in the proceedings in person. On 19 December 2001 the Rostov Regional Court confirmed her standing as a plaintiff in the civil proceedings and decided that the claim should be accepted for examination in the form in which it was lodged.\n16.  On 13 March 2002 the Aksay Town Court held a hearing in the proceedings, the applicant's wife stating the case with the assistance of a human rights NGO. At the hearing they reiterated the request for the applicant to be summoned to the courtroom, but the court ruled that the applicant's presence was not necessary and refused to order his attendance. The court held that it had no jurisdiction to examine the complaint relating to the arrest and detention, as these matters were covered by the rules of criminal procedure, and held that in any event the complaints were unsubstantiated. The court dismissed all the claims as a whole.\n17.  The applicant's wife lodged an appeal, arguing that the court had not specified on what grounds it had dismissed the complaint alleging ill-treatment. She requested an expert examination and a full judicial examination of the circumstances surrounding the applicant's arrest. As a separate ground of appeal she complained about the court's refusal to summon the applicant and to have him heard in person.\n18.  On 17 April 2002 the Rostov Regional", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2674", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7. The applicants, Ms Ayten Kushoglu (alias Ayten Zeynal Ali) and Mr Mehmed Kushoglu (alias Mehmed Sali Ali), have Bulgarian and Turkish nationality. They were born in 1958 and 1956 respectively and live in Malkara, Turkey.\n8.  The applicants were born and lived in Bulgaria until the summer of 1989, when the communist regime in Bulgaria forced tens of thousands of ethnic Turks, among them the applicants, to emigrate.\n9.  Before leaving, on 24 July 1989 the applicants sold their two-storey house in Dulovo to the local municipality. At the relevant time, a person willing to sell real estate could only do so through the intermediary of the local municipality. The price was fixed at 19,288 Bulgarian levs (“BGL”), in accordance with an evaluation made by an expert at the municipality. The applicants received that amount.\n10.  On 12 February 1990 the municipality sold the house to two individuals, Ms A. and Mr N. The price was BGL 21,376.\n11.  On an unspecified date in 1991 the applicants brought an action against the Dulovo municipality for a declaration that the 1989 transaction between them was null and void as being contrary to the law or concluded in circumstances of urgent necessity and under obviously unfavourable terms.\n12.  On an unspecified date in 1993 the applicants brought another action against Ms A. and Mr N. claiming that the contract of 12 February 1990 between the Dulovo municipality as the seller and Ms A. and Mr N. as the buyers was also null and void as being contrary to the law. On that basis the applicants asked the court to order the defendants to “surrender the ownership and the possession” over the disputed house. The proceedings in the above two cases were joined on 19 February 1993.\n13.  On 2 March 1994 the Dulovo District Court gave judgment. It declared inadmissible, as having been submitted out of the relevant one-year statutory time-limit, the applicants' claim that the 1989 transaction had been concluded in circumstances of urgent necessity and under obviously unfavourable terms. It further rejected on the merits the applicants' claims that the 1989 and 1990 transactions were null and void as being contrary to the law.\n14.  Upon the applicants' appeal, on 8 June 1994 the Silistra Regional Court upheld the lower court's judgment. The applicants submitted a petition for review to the Supreme Court.\n15.  On 17 January 1995 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts' judgments and declared with final effect the nullity of the 1989 transaction between the applicants and the municipality. The transaction was null and void as it had been signed on behalf of the municipality by a person lacking the relevant power.\n16.  As to the applicants' claim that the 1990 transaction between the municipality and the third parties was also null and void, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts had not considered all relevant factors and referred this part of the case back to the Regional Court. It also referred for renewed examination the applicants' rei vindicatio claim, stating that it must be considered in the light of the outcome of the dispute about the validity of the 1990 contract.\n17.  On 19 April 1995, in the renewed examination of the remainder of the case, the Silistra Regional Court found that the 1990 contract was valid. It then went on to dismiss the applicants' rei vindicatio claim stating:\n“The binding directions given by the Supreme Court [in its judgment of 17 January 1995] appear to indicate that the outco", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2675", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are siblings. They were born in 1945 and 1944 respectively and live in Tarnowskie Góry, Poland.\n5.  In 1953 a building and a plot of land owned by the applicants were expropriated. The compensation granted pursuant to the expropriation decision was not paid.\n6.  In 1992 the second applicant, Mr F. Kukówka, requested the Katowice Governor (wojewoda) to declare the expropriation decision null and void.\n7.  On 30 March 1993 the Governor refused. The second applicant appealed against this decision.\n8.  On 20 December 1993 the Minister of Construction (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa) dismissed the appeal. The second applicant appealed.\n9.  On 15 June 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) quashed both decisions taken in 1993.\n10.  On 31 January 1995 the Minister of Construction, having re-examined the second applicant's request, declared the 1953 expropriation decision null and void. The applicants' ownership right to the property was entered in the relevant land and mortgage register.\n11.  On 7 April 1995 the second applicant requested the Minister of Construction for compensation for the unlawful use of the property by a State-owned enterprise.\n12.  On 15 January 1996 the Minister of Construction refused the request. The applicant filed a civil action with the Katowice Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki).\n13.  On 22 February 1996 the Katowice Regional Court declared that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case and transferred it to the Warsaw Regional Court.\n14.  The Warsaw Regional Court held hearings on 5 September 1996, 17 October 1996, 6 May 1997 and 21 August 1997.\n15.  On 8 May 1998 the first applicant joined the proceedings as an intervenor (interwenient uboczny).\n16.  On 25 May 1998 the lawyer representing the State Treasury contested an expert's opinion filed in the case.\n17.  On 22 October 1998 a hearing was held.\n18.  On 26 October 1998 the defendant (the State Treasury) requested the court to order an opinion from another expert.\n19.  On 23 April 1999 the court ordered an expert witness to give an opinion. The opinion was submitted on 3 August 1999. The parties submitted their comments on 25 October 1999, 3 November 1999 and 6 December 1999.\n20.  The hearing scheduled for 27 January 2000 was adjourned because the defendant's lawyer had failed to attend. The expert witness had informed the court that he would not be able to attend hearings scheduled before 7 February 2000 because he would abroad.\n21.  The expert witness was heard on 19 March 2000.\n22.  On 27 March 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court delivered a judgment. It awarded the second applicant 103,818 zlotys (PLN) in compensation for damage actually suffered (damnum emergens), together with statutory interest payable from 11 May 1998. The court dismissed the claim for the alleged loss of profits (lucrum cessans).\n23.  On 31 March 2000 the first applicant filed a motion to supplement the judgment. On 22 September 2000 the defendant submitted its comments. On 10 October 2000 the court dismissed the first applicant's motion. She appealed. Her appeal was dismissed on 14 May 2001.\n24.  On 24 July 2000 the first applicant filed a complaint with the President of the Regional Court about the alleged excessive length of the proceedings.\n25.   The written reasons of the judgment of 27 March 2000 were served on the applicants on 16 October 2000. The first applicant and the defendant appealed against the judgment.\n26.  T", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2676", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 3 August 1983 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant. A committee of experts assessed the value of the expropriated land and this amount was paid to him when the expropriation took place.\n6.  Following the applicant's request for increased compensation, on 5 November 1993 the Küçükçekmece Civil Court of First Instance awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate running from the date of the expropriation.\n7.  On 5 November 1993 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court in respect of the commencement date for the calculation of the interest.\n8.  On 21 July 1994 Küçükçekmece Civil Court of First Instance confirmed its previous judgment.\n9.  On 10 October 1994 the Court of Cassation upheld the aforementioned judgment.\n10.  In the meantime, the applicant initiated execution proceedings (icra takibi) against the General Directorate of Highways via the Istanbul Bailiff's Office in order to enforce the payment of the compensation awarded by the first instance court.\n11.  On 6 January 1998 the applicant was paid 6,846,778,000 Turkish liras (TRL).\n12.  On 19 July 1999 the applicant filed an action with the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance and requested compensation for the loss sustained as a result of late payment and inflation, pursuant to Article 105 of the Code of Obligations.\n13.  On 28 December 1999 the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant's request. On 12 May 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the aforementioned judgment.\n14.  According to the letter dated 5 April 2004 from the Istanbul Bailiff's Office, the General Directorate of Highways still owed TRL 625,000,000 (EUR 384) to the applicant.\n15.  Referring to the General Directorate of Highways' letter dated 27 July 2005, the Government claimed that they had paid the total amount due and that the Bailiff's office had struck out the case concerning the enforcement proceedings.\n16.  However, in a letter dated 14 October 2005, the Bailiff's office stated that the General Directorate of Highways still owed 652 New Turkish liras to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2677", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Gföhl.\n6.  On 1 May 1994 the applicant requested the mayor of Gföhl to issue a demolition order for his neighbour's wicker fence. He submitted, in particular, that the fence had not been constructed in accordance with the provisions of the Building Act relating to fire-protection measures. Further, the fence hindered him in the exercise of his right to carry out maintenance works on a wooden fence he had erected on his own land.\n7.  As the mayor had not taken a decision within the statutory time-limit, the applicant lodged a request for transfer of jurisdiction with the Gföhl municipal council on 28 August 2001. On 6 September 2001 the applicant repeated his request of 1 May 2004 for the removal of the neighbour's fence.\n8.  The mayor notified the applicant on 27 September 2001 that, according to his neighbours' statements, the applicant would be allowed to enter their property provided that they were given eight days' notice. The issuing of an administrative decision (Bescheid) would therefore be superfluous. The applicant filed a further request on 30 September 2001, insisting on a decision by the mayor.\n9.  By notification of 4 October 2001 the mayor informed the applicant that, according to his neighbours, the fence had already been removed. He asked the applicant if he still wanted the municipal council to decide on his request for transfer of jurisdiction.\n10.  On 7 October 2001 the applicant wrote to the municipal council saying that he was still waiting for a decision. On 18 October 2001 the Gföhl municipal council, informed the applicant that it did not find it necessary to take a formal decision on the case, as the fence had been removed.\n11.  On 5 November 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal (Vorstellung) with the Lower Austria Regional Government stating that even though the fence itself had been removed, there were still five iron fence posts standing along the common border.\n12.  On 3 May 2002 the Lower Austria Regional Government rejected the appeal, finding that the letter of 18 October 2001 could not be regarded as a formal decision (Bescheid), which is why an appeal was not admissible. An appeal lay only against formal decisions.\n13.  The applicant then lodged an application with the Administrative Court on 23 May 2002 against the administration's failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde).\n14.  On 3 June 2002 the Administrative Court ordered the municipal council to issue a decision within three months. On the municipal council's request, the Administrative Court extended the time-limit to 15 November 2002.\n15.  By decision of 9 October 2002 the municipal council dismissed the applicant's request, holding that the fence had already been removed in October 2001.\n16.  On 21 October 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal (Vorstellung) with the Lower Austria Regional Government claiming that as there were still five posts standing on the neighbours' premises the fence had not been entirely removed.\n17.  Confirming the municipal council's decision, the Lower Austria Regional Government dismissed the applicant's appeal on 23 March 2003. It stated that the fence had been removed and that the wooden fence standing on his own premises was an even greater fire risk than the five iron posts at issue.\n18.  On 11 April 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court. He also requested a public hearing before that court.\n19.  On 24 April 2003 the Administrative Court order", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2678", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was seventy-two years old at the time of the events and had previously suffered from tuberculosis on at least three occasions.\n8.  On 19 December 1996 the applicant visited a café-bar where he drank and became intoxicated. On his way home, at around 6 p.m., he passed by the building of the Bulgarian national television (“BNT”), in front of which there was a demonstration. The applicant was carrying a beer bottle, which he either dropped or threw against the building of the BNT. He then went to a nearby café.\n9.  Two police officers, who were providing security in front of the BNT, approached the applicant in the café. When they saw that he was intoxicated they led him off to the security guards' duty room in the BNT.\n10.  In response to the applicant's request to be informed why he was being detained he was told that it was for disturbing the peace and for throwing objects at the building of the BNT in an attempt to break its windows.\n11.  The applicant was kept in the security guards' duty room of the BNT until 8 p.m. He was then taken to the First District Police Station (Първо районно управление на МВР) for questioning, but, in view of his intoxicated state, was transferred to the Sobering-up Centre of the Sofia Police. The applicant arrived there at around 9 p.m. and remained overnight.\n12.  The applicant was discharged at around 9 a.m. on the next day, 20 December 1996, into the custody of the police and was taken to the Investigative Division of the First District Police Station for questioning.\n13.  At 11:15 a.m. on 20 December 1996 the applicant was given a written reprimand by the police to refrain from disturbing the peace, to drink with caution and not to resist inspections by the police. The applicant refused to be served with the written reprimand.\n14.  The applicant contended, which the Government did not challenge, that he was released from the police station sometime in the afternoon on 20 December 1996.\n15.  The applicant submitted that when he was detained by the two police officers in front of the building of the BNT he may have showed some resistance as he believed he was being wrongly detained. He contended, however, which the Government did not challenge, that while he was being led to the security guards' duty room of the BNT the police officers repeatedly hit him with a truncheon on his hands, kicked him in his ankles and punched him in the back and in the area of his kidneys. The applicant maintained that his injuries were not treated nor tended to by a doctor while he was in detention.\n16.  In their subsequent statements before the Prosecutor's Office, the police officers stated that the applicant was somewhat aggressive when they tried to detain him, but that they did not use any special measures to subdue him.\n17.  After being released on 20 December 1996 the applicant was examined by a doctor and a special medical report for use in legal proceedings was prepared, the relevant part of which stated the following.\n“Preliminary data: The [patient] indicates that on 19.12.1996 at approximately 6 p.m. he was beaten by uniformed police officers.\nThe examination established: On the back of the right hand in the area of the [bracelet] joint it is visible that a linear contusion of the skin exists of reddish-dark colour with a size of 5 cm by 2 cm. On the back of the wrist of the right hand another contusion can be seen with a size of 4 cm by 2 cm. On the back of the left hand in the area of the palm", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2679", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The facts of each case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  Mr Runkee was born in 1938 and lives in Hull.\n8.  He married in 1964. He and his wife had three children, born in 1965, 1966 and 1974. On 15 March 1998 his wife died. She had worked full time for eight years until becoming pregnant and had made full social security contributions.\n9.  The applicant notified the Benefits Agency of his wife's death and of his intention to claim “widowers' benefits” on 31 March 1998. By a letter dated 16 April 1998, the Benefits Agency informed the applicant that because he was not a woman he was not entitled to widow's benefits. The applicant lodged a statutory appeal against this decision on 1 May 1998, but abandoned it when advised that the appeal was bound to fail.\n10.  At the time of his application to the Court, Mr Runkee was in receipt of means-tested statutory benefits, including Income Support and Housing and Council Tax Benefits. Were he a woman, his entitlement to Widow's Pension would have been offset against these benefits, to the extent that, in his present circumstances, he would have received no additional money in respect of Widow's Pension.\n11.  Mr White is a United Kingdom national, born in 1942 and living in Warrington.\n12.  He married in 1960. He and his wife had two children, one of whom was adopted and born in 1955, the other of whom was born in 1968.\n13.  On 8 March 1999 his wife died. She had worked until the birth of her son in 1968 and had made reduced social security contributions.\n14.  The applicant notified the Benefits Agency of his wife's death and of his intention to claim “widowers' benefits” on 10 March 1999. On 21 June and 8 September 1999, Angela Eagle, a Minister from the Department of Social Security, wrote to the applicant's Member of Parliament confirming that as a man he was not entitled to claim widows' benefits.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2680", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Chişinău. She is a second degree invalid.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant owns part of a house in which her neighbour (V.) owns another part. V. re-constructed her part of the house without the prior agreement of the applicant and the applicant's part of the house was seriously damaged as a result.\n8.  On 11 February 1998 the applicant initiated court proceedings claiming damages from V. Relying on an expert's assessment of the damage caused to the applicant's house, on 27 May 1999 the Buiucani District Court awarded her 12,635 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 1,054 euros (EUR) at the time). No appeal was made and the judgment became final and enforceable 15 days later.\n9.  According to the applicant, she wrote to various State authorities requesting the enforcement of the award but it was not enforced. On 10 July 2000 she informed the Buiucani District Court that the judgment of 27 May 1999 had not been enforced and asked it to change the manner of enforcing the judgment by transferring V.'s part of the house to the applicant. She emphasised that her own part of the house had been severely damaged and that the damage had been aggravated with the passage of time, causing a real threat to her life. The applicant relied, inter alia, on Article 359 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 24 below).\n10.  On 13 April 2001 the Buiucani District Court accepted the claim. The new enforcement warrant was submitted to the court on 4 July 2001, following which the bailiff requested V. to comply with the judgment.\n11.  The applicant also requested the Supreme Court of Justice to transfer the examination of her cases against V., including the enforcement of the judgment of 27 May 1999, to another court in view of the inactivity of the Buiucani District Court. On 7 February 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected that request as unfounded.\n12.  On 7 May 2001 the Buiucani District Court adopted an additional judgment, awarding the applicant damages (MDL 6,558) against V. for the late enforcement of the judgment of 27 May 1999. V. appealed. On 12 September 2001 the Chişinău Regional Court quashed that judgment and ordered a full re-hearing.\n13.  On 11 January 2002 the bailiff organised an auction for the sale of the part of the house belonging to V. but nobody offered the minimum asking price set. He then proposed that the court accept the applicant's request to be given title to that part of the house on account of V.'s debt to her.\n14.  On 29 January 2002 the District Court accepted that request.\n15.  In parallel to all the proceedings mentioned above, the applicant initiated administrative proceedings for the annulment of a municipality's decision adopted in 1996 confirming the lawfulness of V.'s re-construction of the house. On 17 November 1999 the Buiucani District Court accepted that request and on 5 July 2000 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld that judgment. On 28 September 2000 the Court of Appeal quashed the two judgments and adopted a new one, rejecting the applicant's claims.\n16.  V. lodged a request for the revision of judgments of 27 May 1999 and 29 January 2002 because the expert report on the damage had been signed by an expert lacking the required training and the District Court had based its judgment of 27 May 1999 on that report. The report stated the level of training of its author, who was registered ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2681", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  In a judgment of 8 February 1990 the Pleven Military Court convicted the applicant of a criminal offence, which had been, according to this court, committed during the applicant's probationary period after his early release from prison, and sentenced him, inter alia, to serve the remainder of the sentence from his prior conviction, which the applicant did, between 21 December 1989 and 20 March 1990. In a judgment of 16 May 1994 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment and ruled that the applicant should not have served the remainder of his prior prison sentence.\n5.  In 1998 the applicant brought proceedings against the Pleven Military Court under section 2(6) the State Responsibility for Damage Act (see paragraph 16 below), seeking 25,0000,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL)[1] as compensation for the time he had spent in custody between 21 December 1989 and 20 March 1990.\n6.  In a judgment of 7 June 1999 the Pleven Regional Court found that the applicant's deprivation of liberty during that period had been unlawful within the meaning of above-mentioned provision and awarded him BGL 1,000,000 in non‑pecuniary damages, together with interest at the statutory rate, from 21 December 1989 until the final settlement of the judgment debt. It dismissed the remainder of the applicant's claim.\n7.  As none of the parties appealed, the judgment entered into force on 17 June 1999.\n8.  The applicant obtained a writ of execution against the Pleven Military Court on 17 June 1999. On the same date he presented it to the chairperson of that court for payment. The chairperson made a copy of the writ and returned the original to the applicant.\n9.  As no payment was made, the applicant complained to numerous State agencies and bodies.\n10.  In a letter of 14 September 1999 the Inspectorate of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the amount owed to him was BGL 6,128,316. Since this was a significant amount for the budget of the Pleven Military Court, the chairperson of that court had made an express request for funding before the Supreme Judicial Council – the body responsible for managing the judiciary's budget. The debt would be paid fully or in part, depending on the amount of the available funding.\n11.  On 17 April 2000 the applicant asked the Pleven Regional Court to issue him a duplicate of the writ of execution, because the original had been stolen. His request was examined at a hearing on 16 June 2000 and the duplicate was issued on 9 August 2000.\n12.  In the meantime, on 23 May 2000, the Supreme Judicial Council allotted to the Pleven Military Court 1,000 new Bulgarian levs (BGN) with a view to paying the debt towards the applicant. On 1 June 2000 the Pleven Military Court paid the applicant BGN 1,000, apparently intended to be imputed to the principal of the debt. However, the remainder of the debt remained outstanding.\n13.  The applicant subsequently complained to various authorities, such as the President of the Republic, the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office, the Ministry of Finance and the Supreme Judicial Council. In a letter of 8 June 2000 the chief secretary of the Supreme Judicial Council informed the applicant that the processing of the payment had been delayed because the amount due was not a usual line item in the judiciary's budget and had to be specifically allotted to the Pleven Military Court.\n14.  In a further letter of 7 December 2000 the administration of the Supreme Judicial Council informed the applicant that on 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2682", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1957 and in 1975 respectively. They are residents of Argun, Chechnya. At present they live in Ingushetia.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The first applicant's son, Shamil Said-Khasanovich Akhmadov, who was born on 17 December 1975, married the second applicant in 1992. They have five children – Layusa, who was born in 1993, Anzhela, born in 1995, Khedi, born in 1997, Magomed, born in 1998 and Fattakh, born in 2000. They lived in the town of Argun, about 10 kilometres east of Grozny, where Shamil Akhmadov worked as a butcher in the market. The first and the second applicants are housewives.\n9.  On 10 March 2001 illegal paramilitaries stormed and briefly occupied the local television station in Argun. Several press agencies also reported that on the same day a Russian military checkpoint in Argun had come under attack and sustained casualties.\n10.  Between 11 and 14 March 2001 the military carried out a “mopping-up” operation (zachistka) in the town, apparently in response to the attacks of the previous day. On 13 March 2001 the Interfax news agency reported that the military commander's office had said that the operation had been aimed at tracking down rebels and criminals, and finding weapons and ammunition. The movement of transport and people was restricted and the roads from Argun to Shali and Grozny closed. The commander's office reported that the operation had produced “tangible results”, including the detention of “individuals who, according to intelligence, may have been involved in the terrorist acts and murders committed [in Argun]”. The number of detainees was not reported.\n11.  Between 12 and 2 p.m. on 12 March 2001 Shamil Akhmadov left his home at 12 Novaya Street in Argun. Several military vehicles, including armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and police UAZ cars, took up positions in the nearby Gudermesskaya Street. The servicemen detained Shamil Akhmadov. The second applicant, who was informed of the events by a neighbour, rushed out to see what was going on. She saw her husband surrounded by a group of servicemen, who put him into an APC. She submitted the following account of the events:\n“On 12 March 2001 ... I went to the dentist's. For the previous two months my husband had remained at home, because he was afraid to travel to Grozny. At first he wanted to accompany me but then decided to stay at home. I went with a female relative, but as soon as I sat in the chair, the dentist's wife rushed into the office and told me that she had seen my husband Shamil being detained in the street. I immediately ran over but was too late to save him.\nHe was at the intersection of the road to Gudermes and the road to the suburbs. I guess he had decided to follow me because the intersection was less than 500 metres from the dental clinic. It's not far from our house, maybe 300-400 metres. That day Shamil was wearing a white T-shirt, black sweatshirt, navy jacket and birch-coloured trousers.\nFrom where I was standing I could see three APCs, one Ural truck and one or two UAZ vehicles. There was a group of armed people, but I do not know exactly how many. They were wearing milk-grey uniforms, some were young and others middle-aged.\nI saw them talking to my husband, but could not make out what they told him. I do not know if he showed them his passport, but I know for sure that he had his passport with him. By the time I had run over, they had alrea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2683", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in İstanbul.\n6.  At the time of the events giving rise to this application, the applicant was the owner of “Dönüşüm Publishing”, a small independent publication firm.\n7.  In 1992 this firm published a book, written by Mr H.Y., entitled “The people's artist and fighter: Yılmaz Güney” (Halkın Sanatçısı, Halkın Savaşçısı: Yılmaz Güney). The book was about the life and political views of the left-wing revolutionary cinema artist Yılmaz Güney. It was reprinted in 2000.\n8.  On 19 October 2000 the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of disseminating separatist propaganda, contrary to section 8 (3) of Law no. 3713 (the Prevention of Terrorism Act).\n9.  The prosecution relied on the following passages of the book:\n“...Sürü (Herd)[1] depicts Kürdistan. In Yol (Road)[2] there was even a street sign showing that the film is about Kürdistan. This scene in particular was sufficient to make the Turkish fascists go mad...”\n“...in the meantime the revolutionary movement evolved in the country and national conscience awakened in Northern Kürdistan...”\n“...Yılmaz Güney is without a doubt a cornerstone in Turkey-Northern Kürdistan cinema...”\n“...According to them it is separatism and degeneracy to defend Kurdish peoples' national and democratic rights and their independence...those who don't want to be degenerate and bloodless must lick the boots of fascism, endure pressures, turn a blind eye to human rights violations [and] applaud the oppression of the Kurdish Nation. According to us they are the real degenerates and bloodless. We shall fight and defend all national and democratic rights, including the right of the Kurdish nation to establish an independent political state...”\n“...Those who introduced those prohibitions in Turkey and in Northern Kürdistan will be held accountable”.\n10.  In his written submissions, dated 29 June 2001, to the State Security Court, the applicant pleaded that the book concerned the life and, in particular, the political views of a famous cinema star and that it was written by Mr H.Y. He maintained that, while he did not share the views of the author, he did not think that publishing the book would constitute an offence. He also argued that the book had been previously published without any charges being brought against him. Finally, he also pointed out, relying on the note of the Istanbul Security Directorate dated 15 November 2000, that no confiscation decision had been given against the book by the authorities.\n11.  On 29 June 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty of the offence, as publisher of the book. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, a sentence which was then commuted to a fine of 1,764,360,000 Turkish liras[3]. In its decision, the court, relying on the passages indicated by the prosecution, noted that the book referred to a certain part of the Turkish territory as Kurdistan, and thus had disseminated propaganda against the indivisible integrity of the State.\n12.  On 4 February 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n13.  The applicant paid the fine on 11 July 2003.\n14.  By an additional judgment (ek karar) dated 7 October 2003, the Istanbul State Security Court, taking into account that Article 8 of Law no. 3713 was abolished pursuant to Law no. 4928, acquitted the applicant and nullified his conviction together with all its con", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2684", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The first two applicants, Mr Renee Ghasuta Ramsahai and Mrs Mildred Viola Ramsahai, are the grandfather and grandmother of Mr Moravia Siddharta Ghasuta Ramsahai (“Moravia Ramsahai”), deceased. They were both born in 1938. They were their grandson’s guardians until he reached his majority at the age of 18. The third applicant, Mr Ricky Moravia Ghasuta Ramsahai, born in 1960, is the father of the late Moravia Ramsahai.\n13.  Moravia Ramsahai was born on 6 December 1979. He died on 19 July 1998.\n14.  On the evening of Sunday 19 July 1998, during the “Kwakoe” festival in the Bijlmermeer district of Amsterdam (a celebration by the Surinamese immigrant community of the abolition of slavery in Suriname 135 years earlier), Moravia Ramsahai forced the owner of a scooter, one Mr Vinodkumar Hoeseni, at gunpoint to give up his vehicle. Having gained control of the scooter, he then made off with it.\n15.  Mr Hoeseni notified two police officers patrolling on foot, who reported the theft to the duty police officer at Flierbosdreef police station by radio. The duty police officer in turn alerted police patrolling in the area. In the meantime Mr Hoeseni and the two police officers had set off in pursuit of Moravia Ramsahai and the scooter but failed to catch him.\n16.  Afterwards it was a matter of controversy between the two police officers and Mr Hoeseni whether Mr Hoeseni had mentioned the fact that Moravia Ramsahai had a firearm. Mr Hoeseni stated that he had given this information but had been misheard. The two police officers stated that they had been unaware of it and so had not been able to pass on this information to the police station.\n17.  Some five minutes later, two uniformed police officers, Officers Brons and Bultstra, patrolling in a marked police car, saw a scooter being driven by a person fitting the description given to them stopping near a high-rise building called “Huigenbos”. They stopped the car and got out. Officer Bultstra ran towards the person whom they had seen riding the scooter, later identified as Moravia Ramsahai, and tried to arrest him. There was a brief struggle from which Moravia Ramsahai was able to extricate himself.\n18.  Officer Bultstra saw Moravia Ramsahai draw a pistol from his trouser belt. Officer Bultstra then dropped a two-way radio which he had been holding in his hand, drew his service pistol and ordered Moravia Ramsahai to drop his weapon. Moravia Ramsahai failed to do so. Officer Brons, the driver of the patrol car, then approached. It was stated afterwards that Moravia Ramsahai raised his pistol and pointed it in the direction of Officer Brons, who also drew his service pistol and fired. Moravia Ramsahai was hit in the neck.\n19.  The confrontation between Moravia Ramsahai and Officers Brons and Bultstra was observed from nearby by only a single witness, Mr Petrus van den Heuvel, who was able to follow the incident from the fifth-floor walkway of the Huigenbos building. However, when he saw pistols being drawn, Mr Van den Heuvel dived for cover behind the parapet; he therefore did not see the shot fired.\n20.  Several other people witnessed the confrontation and the shooting from a distance of at least fifty metres. None of these witnesses subsequently reported seeing Moravia Ramsahai’s pistol.\n21.  At 10.03 p.m. one of the two police officers, later stated to have been Officer Brons, radioed Flierbosdreef police station to say that he had shot someone and asked for an ambulance to be sent.\n22.  When t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2685", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Tampere. He was a principal partner in a construction company, Toprakenne Ky Toive Lehtinen, which was wound-up in 1991.\nOriginal proceedings\n7.  On 6 July 1992 the Tampere District Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätten; later käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) issued a judgment in bankruptcy proceedings involving the applicant's company. Some creditors' claims were reserved for final determination in civil proceedings which had been initiated before the District Court by companies A.N.K., A.H.K. and A.K. On 2 September 1992 the applicant was summoned. On an unspecified date the applicant submitted that he also had monetary claims against the plaintiffs.\n8.  The first hearing was held on 12 October 1992. Having held ten hearings, the District Court issued three judgments on 25 November 1994. It ordered the wound-up estate of the applicant's company to pay some 400,000 Finnish marks (FIM, about 67,275 euros (EUR)) to company A.H.K. and some FIM 180,000 (about EUR 30,274) to company A.K. It dismissed A.N.K.'s claim as unfounded. It also declared the applicant's claims inadmissible.\n9.  On 23 December 1994 the applicant appealed to the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), requesting that the cases be remitted to the District Court for re-examination together with the applicant's counter-claims, which had been remitted to it on 15 December 1994 by the Court of Appeal (see paragraph 20 below). Alternatively, he requested an oral hearing. In his later submission of 20 May 1996 he also challenged the impartiality of one of the District Court judges.\n10.  The Court of Appeal issued three judgments on 28 November 1996. It declined to return the cases to the District Court, noting that the claims against the estate of the applicant's wound-up company had been examined by the District Court prior to the Court of Appeal's decision to remit his and the estate's counter-claims with a view to joining them to the original proceedings. The Court of Appeal also rejected the applicant's request for an oral hearing and his complaint about alleged bias as being manifestly ill-founded.\n11.  On 3 October 1997 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.\n12.  On 2 April 1998 the applicant lodged an application for annulment of those decisions, challenging the impartiality of Justice J.T. of the Supreme Court.\n13.  Having obtained submissions from Justice J.T. and the applicant, the Supreme Court accepted that Justice J.T. had not been impartial and annulled its previous decisions on 9 September 1999. It also declared the requests for leave to appeal admissible for reconsideration.\n14.  On 23 November 1999 the Supreme Court, sitting in a new composition, refused the applicant leave to appeal.\n15.  On 11 June 2001, in reply to the applicant's request, the Supreme Court refused to reopen the proceedings. On 27 May 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's further complaints in the extraordinary proceedings.\nCounter-claim proceedings\n16.  In the context of the examination of the creditors' assets, the applicant filed counter-claims on 26 August 1993 against companies A.N.K., A.H.K. and A.K. before the Tampere District Court. The counter-claims concerned debt and damages claims relating to construction contracts.\n17.  At the fifth hearing of the original proceedings held on 20 September 1993 the District Court declined to examine the counter-claims. It agreed with the three companies that these su", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2686", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Kylänpää.\n7.  On 14 June 1998 the applicant and T.A. were arrested by police officers M.H. and S.H. in the act of committing a theft. The applicant had a hammer in his hand at the time of arrest. Later he was charged with attempted theft and violent resistance to a public official (virkamiehen väkivaltainen vastustaminen, våldsamt motstånd mot tjänsteman).\n8.  At the trial hearing before the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) the applicant admitted the attempted theft but denied the charge of violent resistance to a public official. Both the applicant and police officer M.H. were heard. M.H. testified, inter alia, that the applicant had threatened him and his colleague S.H. with a hammer by waving it above his head when the police officers had interrupted the attempted theft. The applicant, for his part, said that he had seen the police arrive and that he had raised the hammer above his head while leaving the building, before the police officers had ordered him to drop it. He denied any intention to threaten the police officers. T.A. testified that the applicant had tried to escape. S.H. was not heard as a witness.\n9.  On 11 September 2000 the District Court convicted the applicant of attempted theft and violent resistance to a public official, finding M.H.’s statement reliable. The applicant was sentenced to an aggregate punishment of six months’ imprisonment.\n10.  On 11 October 2000 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) requesting an oral hearing in which he, T.A., M.H. and S.H. should be heard in order to clarify his behaviour outside the building where he was arrested and the alleged threatening of the police officers. He did not specify why S.H. in particular should be called as a witness.\n11.  On 28 June 2001 the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, reducing the sentence to three months’ imprisonment. It found an oral hearing manifestly unnecessary, holding that the applicant’s account before the District Court - which he had not contested - and his writ of appeal indisputably proved that he had seen the police officers outside the building. He had then left the building with a hammer raised in the air and had taken some steps towards the police officers. His intention had been to escape. Having seen one of the police officers draw a handgun, he obeyed their orders to drop the hammer when approximately five to six metres away from them. The Court of Appeal held that the question whether the applicant had violently resisted a public official could be reliably resolved on the basis of these undisputed facts without hearing witnesses.\nAs to the merits, it ruled that “the applicant must have understood that he had threatened the police officer with violence by, as he had stated himself, stepping towards him with a hammer in the air. The intention to escape mentioned by the applicant proves that he also intended to threaten the police officer with violence in order to escape from the scene of the crime.”\n12.  On 27 August 2001 the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen). He claimed that according to the domestic legislation (Chapter 26, sections 14 and 15 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (oikeudenkäymiskaari, rättegångsbalken), see paragraphs 14 and 15 below) the Court of Appeal should have held an oral hearing and heard the witnesses. He stressed that the matter turned on the cre", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2687", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in County Down.\n7.  His wife died on 16 November 1998, leaving him with three children born in 1993, 1995 and 1998. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 22 December 1998 and was rejected on 23 February 1999 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant lodged an appeal on 1 April 1999, which was heard and dismissed by the Social Security Tribunal on 20 April 2000.\n8.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Northern Ireland.\n9.  His wife died on 11 June 1996, leaving him with three children born in 1989, 1994 and 1996. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 23 May 1997 and was rejected on 30 November 1998 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant lodged an appeal on 30 November 1998, which was heard and dismissed by the Social Security Tribunal on 20 April 2000.\n10.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Belfast.\n11.  His wife died on 10 February 2000, leaving him with two children born in 1991 and 1998. His claim for widows' benefits was made on 10 February 2000 and was rejected on 14 April 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2688", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Szczecin.\n5.  On 7 March 1996 the Szczecin Regional Prosecutor laid charges of large-scale fraud against the applicant. On 17 April 1996 the prosecutor ordered his detention on remand in connection with those charges. He also issued a search and arrest warrant in respect of the applicant. Subsequently, on an unspecified date the prosecution received information that the applicant had left Poland.\n6.  On 7 October 1996 the prosecutor stayed the investigation due to the fact that the applicant was abroad. On the same day he issued an international search and arrest warrant for the applicant.\n7.  On 29 November 1996 the applicant was arrested in Germany.\n8.  On 19 March 1997 the German authorities extradited the applicant to Poland where he was placed in police custody. On 21 March 1997 the Szczecin District Court ordered his detention on remand on suspicion of large-scale fraud. His detention was subsequently prolonged on 16 September and 30 November 1997.\n9.  On 15 November 1997 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Szczecin Regional Court. The applicant was charged with large-scale fraud to the detriment of the State Treasury. There were two other defendants in the case.\n10.  The Regional Court held hearings on the following dates: 22 January, 26 and 27 February, 2, 24 and 25 March, 20, 21 and 22 April, 16 June, 14 and 20 July 1998.\n11.  In the course of his original trial, the applicant lodged numerous unsuccessful applications for release and appealed – likewise unsuccessfully – against refusals to lift the detention. In his applications, he argued that his detention was excessive and had, for all practical purposes, amounted to serving a prison sentence. He asked the courts to release him either on bail or under police supervision, or to accept a guarantee from a responsible person or persons who would undertake to ensure his presence at trial, or to order him to surrender his passport, or to subject his release to all those conditions.\n12.  On 20 July 1998 the trial court gave judgment. It convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 9 years' imprisonment and a fine. The court further ordered that the period spent by him in pre-trial detention from 29 November 1996 up to the date of his conviction be set off against the sentence imposed.\n13.  On 15 April 1999, on an appeal lodged by the applicant, the Poznań Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. The subsequent proceedings were conducted only against two defendants, including the applicant, as the third defendant had not appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n14.  On 28 December 1999 the Regional Court joined the proceedings in question to the other set of proceedings. The number of defendants increased to three.\n15.  The retrial was to begin on 28 March 2000 but was adjourned since one of the defendants had to undergo a psychiatric examination. The next hearing scheduled for 9 May 2000 had to be adjourned due to the illness of a lay judge. The Regional Court held the first retrial hearing on 20 June 2000. Subsequent hearings were held on 12, 18 and 19 July, 22 August, 20, 21 and 28 September, 17 and 18 October, 28 and 29 November and 20 December 2000.\n16.  In the meantime, on 20 May 1999 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for release on bail or under police supervision, or under guarantee by a responsible person or under the condition tha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2689", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Ankara. At the time of the events, he was the provincial leader of HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi - People's Democracy Party) in Ankara.\n4.  On 18 November 1998 the military judge sitting on the bench of the Ankara State Security Court ordered the applicant's detention in absentia. According to the detention order, the applicant was suspected of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party).\n5.  On 19 November 1998 police officers conducted a search in the Ankara office of HADEP and the applicant was taken into police custody. In the search and arrest protocol, which was signed by the applicant, it was explained that the applicant was taken into custody pursuant to the detention order issued the day before by the Ankara State Security Court. Following his arrest, the applicant was brought before the military judge of the Ankara State Security Court and, on his order, was placed in detention on remand.\n6.  On 26 November 1998 the applicant filed an appeal against the detention order and requested his release.\n7.  On 27 November 1998, having regard to the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence, the Ankara State Security Court -composed of three judges including a military judge- dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n8.  On 8 December 1998 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him with aiding and abetting the PKK under Article 169 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 12 July 1999 the applicant was released pending trial.\n10. On 24 February 2000 the Ankara State Security Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting the PKK and sentenced him to three years and nine months' imprisonment.\n11.  While the proceedings were pending before the Court of Cassation, on 21 December 2000 new legislation (Law No. 4616), which governed the conditional release, suspension of proceedings or execution of sentences in respect of offences committed before 23 April 1999, came into force. Accordingly, on 23 January 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.\n12.  On 2 May 2001 the Ankara State Security Court suspended the proceedings against the applicant. According to Law No. 4616, these proceedings would be resumed only if the applicant were to commit an offence of the same or more serious kind within five years of the court's decision to suspend the proceedings.\n13.  It appears from the documents in the file that no charges have been brought against the applicant during the period of suspension.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2690", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in İstanbul.\n7.  The applicant is a lawyer practising in İstanbul.\n8.  Following her marriage to Hüseyin Ataman on 14 July 1995, the applicant, whose maiden name was “Ersoy” prior to her marriage, had to take her husband's last name pursuant to Article 153 § 1 of the Civil Code.\n9.  On 17 December 1996 the applicant filed an action for rectification of her name before the Ankara Civil Court. She asked to keep her maiden name and requested that her maiden name be adopted as the family name, as also agreed by her husband. The applicant claimed that Article 153 § 1 of the Civil Code contravened Articles 10 and 12 of the Turkish Constitution.\n10.  On 14 May 1997 Law no. 4248 amended Article 153 of the Civil Code and provided married women with the option of combining their maiden name with that of their husband's surname.\n11.  On 3 June 1997 the Ankara Civil Court held that Article 153 § 1 did not allow a married couple, even if they agreed, to bear the maiden name of the woman as the family name. It found that such a provision was contrary to Articles 12 and 17 of the Constitution. Accordingly, considering that the claims of the applicant were well-founded, the court decided to suspend the proceedings and transferred the case-file to the Constitutional Court for examination of the compatibility of Article 153 § 1 of the Civil Code with the relevant provisions of the Constitution.\n12.  On 21 October 1997 the Constitutional Court decided, unanimously, to limit the examination of constitutionality to the first sentence of Article 153 of the Civil Code which states: “Married women shall bear their husband's name”.\n13.  On 29 September 1998 the Constitutional Court held by eight votes to three that Article 153 of the Civil Code was compatible with Articles 10, 12 and 17 of the Constitution.\nIn its decision, the court held, inter alia, the following:\n“The rule according to which married women bear their husband's name derives from certain social realities and is the result of the codification of certain customs that have formed over centuries in Turkish society. According to the reasoning behind family law, the purpose of the rule is to protect women, who are of a more delicate nature than men, to strengthen family bonds, to nurture the prosperity of the marriage, and to preclude bicephalous authority within the same family.\nFor the sake of protecting family unity, the legislature has recognised the primacy of the husband's name over the wife's. Considerations of public interest and policy have been decisive. Moreover, under the new provision women are now allowed to keep their maiden name in front of their surname (...).\nFurthermore, the contention that this provision infringes Article 10 of the Constitution, which prohibits any discrimination on the ground of sex, is not well‑founded either. The principle of equality, within the meaning of Article 10 of the Constitution, does not mean that everyone is subject to the same rules of law. The special characteristics of each person or each group of persons may reasonably justify the application of different rules of law (...)”\n14.  The dissenting judges considered that Article 153 of the Civil Code interfered with the woman's right to protect and develop her material and spiritual entity and that it was incompatible with Article 17 of the Constitution.\n15.  On 16 March 1999 the Ankara Civil Court adhered to the Constitutional Court's judgment and dismiss", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2691", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Belfast.\n7.  His wife died on 31 December 1993, leaving him with two children born in 1984 and 1986. His second claim for widows' benefits was made on 11 May 2000 and was rejected on 24 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.\n8.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Enniskillen.\n9.  His wife died on 11 November 1998, leaving him with two children born in 1985 and 1987. His second claim for widows' benefits was made on 10 May 2000 and was rejected on 18 May 2000 on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.\n10.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Port Talbot.\n11.  His wife died on 16 September 1990, leaving him with a child born in 1990. His second claim for widows' benefits was made on 3 May 2000 and was rejected some time after on the ground that he was not entitled to widows' benefits because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no security benefits were payable to widowers under United Kingdom law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2692", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Karlovac.\n5.  Following her return from Germany in March 1992, the applicant found out that three business premises in her ownership had been blown up by unknown perpetrators.\n6.  On 1 March 1995 the applicant instituted three separate sets of proceedings against the State before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages. She relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.\n7.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts or acts of violence were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject.\n8.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.\n9.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings. On 19 March 2004 it gave three decisions declaring the applicant's actions inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction. On 26 March 2003 the applicant appealed against those decisions to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).\n10.  On 23 June and 22 October 2004 and 18 January 2005, respectively, the County Court quashed the impugned decisions and remitted the cases to the Municipal Court.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 28 January and 25 May 2005, respectively, the Municipal Court gave judgments dismissing the applicant's claims in two of those proceedings. On 4 April and 20 June 2006 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant's appeals and upheld the first-instance judgments. The applicant then appealed on points of law (revizija) and the two cases are currently pending before the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).\n12.  As regards the third set of proceedings, on 23 May 2005 the Municipal Court decided to stay them because the applicant's husband, who was a co-plaintiff in that case, had died.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 15 October 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above three sets of civil proceedings and the lack of access to a court. On 25 November 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) accepted the applicant's complaint. Relying on the Court's case law (Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, ECHR 2002‑II), it found violations of her constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time and of access to a court. It awarded her 12,750 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the proceedings complained of in the shortest time possible but no later than a year following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 10 December 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2693", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the Tula Region.\n7.  The applicant instituted civil proceedings in Moscow, some 300 kilometres from his place of residence. He sued the Russian Ministry of Finance and the Russian Ministry of Defence in connection with military operations in Chechnya in 1995. He claimed, in particular, that his property, including his flat, had been destroyed during an attack by federal forces on the centre of Grozny in January 1995 and sought compensation for pecuniary damage. The applicant submitted that the damage had been inflicted as a result of the use by the State of hazardous devices (источник повышенной опасности), namely weapons and military equipment, and that he was therefore entitled to compensation under the relevant provision of law without having to prove that the defendant had been at fault. The applicant also stated that he had endured mental suffering when forced to live in the zone of active military action, and claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage on that account.\n8.  On 14 December 2000 the Basmanny District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) examined the applicant's claims. It acknowledged that the applicant's property had been destroyed as a result of an attack in 1995, but noted that the applicant had failed to prove that his possessions had been damaged by Russian federal troops rather than by rebel fighters, as both parties to the conflict had used weaponry and ammunition of the same standard. The court also noted that under Articles 1069–1071 and 1100 of the Civil Code of Russia the State was only liable in damages for the unlawful acts of its agents. It further held that the military operations in Chechnya had been launched by presidential and governmental decrees which had been held to be constitutional by the Constitutional Court of Russia and were still in force. Accordingly, the court concluded that the actions of the Russian federal troops in Chechnya were lawful and dismissed the applicant's claim for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n9.  On the same date the applicant lodged a preliminary notice of appeal (предварительная кассационная жалоба) in which he requested the appellate court to quash the judgment and remit his case for fresh consideration. He also expressed his intention to adduce detailed arguments after acquainting himself with the text of the transcript of the first-instance hearing and obtaining a full copy of the judgment. Thereafter the applicant left for his place of residence.\n10.  In a letter of 20 December 2000 the District Court informed the applicant that he could obtain a full copy of the judgment of 14 December 2000 and access to his case file at the court registry.\n11.  On 21 December 2000 the applicant applied in writing to the District Court for a copy of the transcript of the hearing on 14 December 2000, and a document that had been adduced by the defendants at the hearing. According to the applicant, he never received a response to his request.\n12.  On 17 January 2001 the applicant sent another request to the District Court, which also remained unanswered.\n13.  In a letter of 14 February 2001 the District Court forwarded a copy of the judgment of 14 December 2000 to the applicant and notified him that a hearing of his appeal was scheduled for 28 February 2001. The applicant received this letter on 21 February 2001.\n14.  On 27 February 2001 the applicant prepared detailed appeal submissions (кассационная жалоба),", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2694", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Moscow. At the time of his arrest he was a high-ranking police officer, working in the Central Police Division for the Fight against Organised Crime.\n6.  On 4 May 2001 the applicant was summonsed to the Moscow prosecutor's office for questioning. Following that interview he was arrested on suspicion of incitement to bribery and fraud and placed in the temporary confinement ward of the Moscow police department.\n7.  Three days later a deputy Moscow prosecutor authorised the applicant's detention on remand. The detention order indicated that the applicant had been remanded on suspicion of having promised Mr A. that he would discontinue criminal proceedings against N. and to obtain his release from custody in exchange for a bribe. It was alleged that the applicant could re-offend, abscond or obstruct justice.\n8.  On 11 May 2001 the applicant was transferred to detention facility no. 77/1 in Moscow. According to the applicant, police officers visited him on several occasions and pressed him to confess. After he refused to admit his guilt, he was placed in a punishment cell for six days.\n9.  On 19 June 2001 the acting prosecutor of Moscow issued a new order, extending the applicant's detention until 3 September 2001.  The detention was subsequently extended on 27 August 2001 until 25 October 2001. The prosecutor provided similar reasons for both extensions: the applicant was charged with serious criminal offences and, if released, he could abscond and pervert the course of justice.\n10.  In August 2001 the applicant was charged with abuse of position committed with the use of force and weapons. In October 2001 he was additionally charged with unlawful possession of weapons and aggravated bribery.\n11.  On 16 October 2001 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation extended the applicant's detention until 25 December 2001. The grounds for the extension were similar to those in the detention orders of 19 June and 27 August 2001.\n12.  On 8 October 2001 the applicant petitioned the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow for release. He argued that he had positive references, had received awards, had permanent residence in Moscow, was employed and had to take care of his mother, who was seriously ill. He did not intend to abscond or pervert the course of justice and his continued detention was therefore unnecessary.\n13.  On 20 November 2001 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's request for release. The District Court held that, in view of the applicant's personality and the seriousness of the criminal offences with which he had been charged, his arrest and detention had been lawful.\n14.  The decision of 20 November 2001 was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 18 December 2001. The City Court endorsed the District Court's reasoning.\n15.  On 17 December 2001 the Prosecutor General authorised the applicant's detention until 4 April 2002, giving the same reasons as in the previous detention order of 16 October 2001.\n16.  A week later the applicant complained to the Preobrazhenskiy District Court that the extension had been unlawful. He petitioned for release.\n17.  On 31 January 2002 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court held that the extension order of 17 December 2001 had been lawful, taking into account “the seriousness of the offences with which the applicant was charged, his personality and the particular circumstances of the case”. There were no procedural viol", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2695", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 24 May 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of child trafficking and the organisation of a criminal enterprise. Two days later a deputy prosecutor in Moscow authorised the applicant's placement in custody on the grounds that he was charged with serious criminal offences and was liable to pervert the course of justice. The extension order indicated that the applicant had been remanded on suspicion of having assisted several pregnant Russian women to obtain visas and to travel to the United States where they had given birth and put their babies up for adoption in exchange for 100 US dollars (USD). The applicant had allegedly received between USD 10,000 and USD 15,000 for each child.\n7.  In June 1999 the applicant's lawyer appealed to the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow against the detention order of 26 May 1999.\n8.  On 15 July 1999 the District Court dismissed the appeal, having regard to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the risk of his absconding or obstructing the examination of the case if released. It noted that an appeal lay to the Moscow City Court. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer lodged an appeal.\n9.  According to the applicant, the investigation authorities searched his flat and offices a number of times and seized his personal belongings, including a computer and documents.\n10.  On 20 July 1999 the Moscow City Prosecutor extended the applicant's detention until 23 November 1999, noting the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the fact that he did not have a permanent place of residence or work.\n11.  On 17 September 1999 the Tverskoy District Court dismissed the appeal by the applicant's lawyer against that order. It held that the investigators had grounds to extend the applicant's detention, having regard to the following considerations: the applicant's character, in particular, the fact that he did not have a fixed place of residence or work and had no previous convictions; the gravity of the charges; the sentence he was facing and the (unspecified) circumstances of the case. The applicant did not appeal.\n12.  On 8 September 1999 a deputy prosecutor general of the Russian Federation authorised a further extension of the applicant's detention until 24 November 1999 on the ground that it was necessary to take certain investigative measures and that the gravity of the charges and the applicant's character warranted the extension.\n13.  The applicant's appeal against the detention order of 8 September 1999 was dismissed on 1 November 1999 by the Tverskoy District Court, which held that the competent prosecutor had authorised the extension in compliance with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It took into account the applicant's character, the gravity of the charges against him, “the particular circumstances of the criminal offence” and the need to take additional investigative measures and procedural steps. The decision of 8 September 1999 was not appealed against and became final.\n14.  On 16 November 1999 and 14 February 2000 a deputy prosecutor general extended the applicant's detention until 24 February and 24 May 2000 respectively. The reasons for both extensions were similar: the seriousness of the offences, the need to take additional investigative measures and the applicant's character.\n15.  On 16 May and 22 August 2000 the acting Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation authorised extensions of th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2696", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  On 19 March 1999, while travelling with his family to Ukraine, the applicant was stopped in the Moscow Region by officers of the road police. The police discovered that the applicant's car had been brought into Russia on 8 January 1999 and that customs had authorised its circulation on Russian territory for two months only. On the same day the Podolsk Customs Office seized the applicant's car as the object of a breach of customs regulations.\n8.  On 23 March 1999 the Podolsk Customs Office opened a case against the applicant for failure to take the vehicle out of the customs territory of the Russian Federation within the established time-limit, this being an administrative offence under Article 271 § 1 of the Customs Code.\n9.  On 23 July 1999 an expert identified the applicant's car as a Peugeot 305 having a depreciated value of 9,858 Russian roubles (RUR).\n10.  On 30 July 1999 the customs authorities found the applicant guilty of a breach of Article 271 § 1 of the Customs Code and imposed a fine equal to the car's value. The fine was payable within fifteen days of receipt of the decision or, if an appeal was lodged, within fifteen days of the final decision on the appeal.\n11.  On 11 August 1999 the Moscow Customs Directorate rejected the applicant's appeal against the decision of 30 July 1999. An appeal to a court lay against such a refusal.\n12.  On 21 August 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow. According to the applicant, the Podolsk Post Office confirmed that on 31 August 1999 a copy of the complaint had been delivered to the Podolsk Customs Office.\n13.  On 25 August 1999 the customs office forwarded the decision of 30 July 1999 to the bailiffs' service for enforcement through the sale of the car. The applicant was not informed of this.\n14.  On 17 September 1999 the bailiff commissioned a private company to organise the sale of the car.\n15.  After several reductions of the sale price, on 15 December 1999 the car was sold for RUR 3,000.\n16.  On 14 April 2000 the Meshchanskiy District Court heard the appeal. It found that the existence of a breach was not disputed by the parties and that the decision imposing the fine had not become time-barred. The court dismissed the complaint.\n17.  On 10 August 2000 the Moscow City Court upheld, on the applicant's appeal, the judgment of 14 April 2000.\n18.  The applicant complained to a prosecutor's office that the sale of his car had been unlawful as it was effected at the time when his appeal against the customs office's decision was pending.\n19.  On 24 May 2001 the South-Western transport prosecutor's office sent a letter to the head of the Podolsk Customs Office. A deputy prosecutor determined that the decision of 30 July 1999 had been enforced in breach of the Customs Code. Having received, on 24 September 1999, a copy of the applicant's appeal to a court, the Podolsk Customs Office had not forwarded that information to the bailiff or suspended the enforcement proceedings. The deputy prosecutor recommended that similar violations be avoided in the future, yet in the applicant's case he refused to take action because “the State interests had not been harmed”.\n20.  The applicant complained to a court about the bailiff's acts. He submitted, in particular, that he had not been notified of the opening of the enforcement proceedings or informed about the reduction of the sale price and that the c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2697", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first two applicants were born in 1977 and 1975 respectively and live in the town of Noginsk in the Moscow region. The third applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 27 April 2001 the police were called to a flat owned by the third applicant. Upon their arrival, the police officers discovered the first applicant in the flat. He jumped out of the kitchen window and ran away trying to escape. The policemen fired several shots in the air, but the first applicant did not stop. A policeman pursued him, knocked him down to the ground and handcuffed him.\n7.  The first applicant was taken to the Lyublino police station, where he was allegedly beaten up for four hours. He signed a statement confessing to having broken into the flat attempting to commit theft. Mr Kostyukov, appointed to act as the first applicant's counsel, was present when he made that statement.\n8.  An investigator of the Lyublino District Police Department drew up the record of the first applicant's arrest. He indicated that the first applicant had been apprehended at the crime scene, that eyewitnesses, including the victims, had identified him as the perpetrator of the criminal offence, that he had tried to escape and that he had no permanent place of residence.\n9.  On the same day the second applicant was arrested as the first applicant's accomplice to the theft.\n10.  The first two applicants were charged with theft and on 30 April 2001 the Lyublino District Prosecutor, by separate decisions, authorised their placement in custody. The prosecutor noted that the first two applicants were charged with a serious criminal offence carrying a sentence of imprisonment; that they did not have a permanent place of residence in Moscow; that the second applicant was a “citizen of the Republic of Abkhazia” and the first two applicants were liable to abscond and evade justice. The decisions were amenable to appeal, but the first two applicants did not make use of this avenue.\n11.  On 25 June 2001 the first two applicants and their lawyers started reading the case file. An investigator drew up records in which the two applicants and their lawyers made handwritten notes confirming that they had been provided with the entire file and that no time restrictions had been imposed on them.\n12.  On 28 June 2001 the pre-trial investigation was closed, the first two applicants were served with the bill of indictment and the case was set down for trial in the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow. On the same day the District Court fixed the first trial hearing and extended the two applicants' detention. That decision was not appealed against and became final.\n13.  On 25 December 2001 the Lyublinskiy District Court found the first two applicants guilty as charged and sentenced the first applicant to four years and two months' imprisonment and the second applicant to four years' imprisonment. The District Court based its judgment on statements by the victims, including the third applicant, witnesses, expert opinions, documentary evidence and the confession made by the first applicant on 27 April 2001. That judgment was upheld by the Moscow City Court on 3 April 2002.\n14.  In March 2003 the applicants requested a review of the judgment of 25 December 2001, as upheld on appeal on 3 April 2002.\n15.  On 11 September 2003 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court, by way of supervisory review, quashed the judgments of 25 December 2001 and 3 April 2002 and remitted the case to the District", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2698", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  The applicant is the owner of a flat in Zagreb in which lived S.V. under a specially protected tenancy arrangement. S.V.'s wife, M.V., as well as three other persons, A, B and C, were part of the household and their legal position in respect of the flat depended on S.V.'s position.\n6.  On 22 October 1996, the Lease Act (Zakon o najmu stanova), was enacted. It abolishes the specially protected tenancies and regulates the conditions of leasing privately-owned flats, including those previously let under the specially protected tenancy arrangements.\n7.  On 9 June 1997 the applicant filed a civil action against S.V. and his household with the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) challenging the defendants' right to a protected rent as stipulated by the Lease Act. At the same time the applicant filed a separate action against the defendants seeking their eviction from the flat. S.V. died in September 1997 but the above proceedings continued, now with M.V. being the person benefiting from the protected rent arrangement.\n8.  On 12 November 1997 the Municipal Court decided to join the two civil suits.\n9.  A hearing was held on 14 May 1998 following which judgment was pronounced dismissing the applicant's claims. The judgment was served on him on 27 November 1998. The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on 2 December 1998.\n10.  On 12 December 2000 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) pronounced judgment in the case. The Court rejected, as did the Municipal Court, the applicant's claim for eviction of the defendants. As regards the applicant's challenge to the defendants' right to a protected rent the County Court quashed the judgment of the Municipal Court and remitted the case to that court for a new examination.\n11.  To the extent the County Court had rejected his claim for the eviction of the defendants from his flat, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). On 13 October 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint.\n12.  In the meantime the Municipal Court resumed its examination of the remaining part of the civil suit, i.e. the question of the defendants' right to a protected rent. On 9 November 2001 the court performed an on the spot inquiry and an expert opinion was obtained on 19 November 2001. A hearing was held on 25 September 2002 whereas two subsequent hearings scheduled for 20 February 2003 and 4 February 2004 were cancelled.\n13.  On 25 February 2004 the Municipal Court adjourned the proceedings pending the outcome of a civil suit instituted by M.V. before the same court concerning the conclusion of a lease agreement between her and the applicant (see below). The applicant appealed against this decision. On 9 November 2004 the Zagreb County Court rejected the appeal in so far as it concerned M.V. but quashed the decision to adjourn the proceedings in so far as it concerned A, B and C.\n14.  By judgment of 30 September 2005 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant's claims for an increased rent in regard of A, B and C as these defendants were not tenants but only members of the tenant's, M.V.'s, household. The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Zagreb County Court. It appears that the proceedings are at present pending.\n15.  It appears that the proceedings concerning M.V. which were adjourned by the Munic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2699", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a Greek citizen of Russian-Pontic origin who was born in 1978 and lives in Salonika.\n6.  On 23 December 2001, at approximately 10.15 p.m., the applicant was walking towards a cafeteria in Ano Toumba, a district of Salonika, when he saw a police patrol carrying out an identity check on the passengers of a car. The applicant, who knew the passengers, proceeded to ask one of them, Mr Giorgos Kalaitsidis, what was going on.\ni.  The applicant's version\n7.  The applicant submitted that a police officer, who was subsequently identified as Police Sergeant Apostolos Apostolidis, flashed his torch on him and asked him to identify himself. The applicant replied that he wanted to know whether his friend had a problem. The applicant was then asked by another police officer, later identified as Police Constable Zaharias Tsiorakis, to produce his identity card. The applicant replied that he did not have his identity card with him and suggested that they all go to the nearby police station for an identity check, as his identity card had been issued there. Then, allegedly, one of the police officers asked him whether he was “being the tough guy”. The applicant submitted that, seconds later, Tsiorakis wrapped his handcuffs around his fist and then punched him in the mouth. The applicant alleged that this made him feel dizzy and that, as he was falling down, Tsiorakis kicked him twice in the chest and abdomen.\n8.  The applicant asserted that he managed to leave the scene when another acquaintance of his, Dimitrios Kalaitsidis, headed towards the police officers, asking them to stop beating the applicant on the head as the latter was suffering from a head problem. The applicant contended that by that time he had heard three to four gunshots being fired. According to the testimony of Police Officer Apostolidis, the latter fired three warning shots in the air “in a safe way” with the intention of intimidating the applicant as he was escaping from the scene. The applicant then proceeded to the nearby police station, located at a distance of approximately forty metres from where the incident had taken place. On his arrival there, he complained to two policemen about his ill-treatment. The two police officers seized him and dragged him inside the police station. They then handcuffed him and started beating and kicking him in various parts of his body. The applicant asserted that the police officers who had carried out the initial road check were among those ill-treating him. According to the applicant, this went on for approximately thirty minutes, until the officers realised that a high-ranking officer was coming. Upon hearing this, a police officer grabbed a dirty mop and wiped the blood off the floor and the applicant's face, repeatedly uttering the word “drop dead” (ψόφος).\n9.  The applicant passed out and was transferred by ambulance to Aghios Dimitrios Hospital in Salonika, where he remained until 28 December 2001.\n10.  Four other individuals of Kazakh origin, acquaintances of Mr Zelilof, who were also involved in the event, were arrested that night and taken to the police station where the applicant was detained. Among them, Dimitrios and Charalambos Kalaitsidis were charged with assaulting police officers. In their defence pleadings, dated 23 January and 2 April 2002, they stated that they had been the victims of a discriminatory attitude due to their ethnic origin. In particular, Dimitrios Kalatsidis stated that while being transfe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2700", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are members of one family. Mr Maksut Netkaliyevich Tuleshov, born in 1953 (the first applicant), and Mrs Aslganym Kalikovna Tuleshova, born in 1955 (the second applicant), are husband and wife; Mr Viktor Maksutovich Tuleshov, born in 1979, and Mr Sergey Maksutovich Tuleshov, born in 1977, are their sons; Mr Kalik Isayev, born in 1929, is the second applicant's father. They, and three other children of the first and the second applicants, live together in one household in the town of Marx of Saratov Region.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  In 1993 Mr Kh bought a house from company B. It was a former shop at 8 Third Avenue, Marx, which Kh intended to convert into a dwelling. The house was free from any third party claim.\n9.  In 1996 the Marx Town Court of the Saratov Region examined an unrelated commercial dispute between company B and a third party and found that B had failed to perform as stipulated in their contract. The house was listed as pledged property in the contract and the court ordered its sale. Apparently the court was not aware that the house had already been sold to Kh.\n10.  The sale was administered by the court bailiff. The price was set at 13,600,000 roubles (RUR), the pre-redenomination equivalent of RUR 13,600, or approximately 2,800 US dollars. The first applicant offered to buy the house, and on 12 April 1996 the Marx Town Court approved the sale. This decision took effect on 23 April 1996. The first applicant was registered with the real estate registry (Бюро технической инвентаризации) as the owner of the house. Apparently the first applicant was not aware of Kh's right to the house and Kh was not aware of the sale to the first applicant.\n11.  On 22 July 1996 the Marx local administration granted a reconstruction permit by virtue of which the first applicant converted the shop into a dwelling of about 78 square metres. He moved into it with seven members of his family including the other applicants.\n12.  In 1998 Kh seized the Marx Town Court with a property claim in respect of the house and challenged its sale by the bailiff. The first applicant lodged a counterclaim invoking his title to the house.\n13.  On 28 June 1999 the Marx Town Court found that the bailiff had sold the house to the first applicant unlawfully and declared the sale null and void. It annulled the first applicant's title and ordered his and his family's eviction. The first applicant was awarded RUR 13,600 as reimbursement of the house purchase price by company B and the other party to the contract mentioned in paragraph 9 above, and RUR 113,161 of reconstruction costs payable by Kh.\n14.  On the same day the applicants were served with an eviction order.\n15.  The first applicant and Kh appealed.\n16.  Company B and the other party both failed to pay the amount due to the applicant under the judgment (RUR 13,600) as they became insolvent.\n17.  On 27 August 1999 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment as to the substance, but reversed the award of the reconstruction costs because such a claim had never been made by the applicants.\n18.  On 15 November 1999 the Presidium of the Saratov Regional Court quashed on supervisory review the decision of 12 April 1996 by which the sale of the house to the first applicant had been ordered.\n19.  On 9 August 2000 the Marx Town Court, apparently following the first applicant's request for supervisory review, appointed ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2701", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 5 October 1999 the Prosecutor's Office, acting on the victim's complaints and after having collected over forty-five pages of evidence, opened a preliminary investigation against the applicant concerning a series of five burglaries. The prosecutor in charge ordered that the applicant be detained on remand in view of the fact that there were another three preliminary investigations and sixteen enquiries pending against him for various other offences.\n7.  By order of the same day, issued by an investigator and confirmed by a prosecutor, the applicant was charged with the five burglaries and was detained on remand. No specific reasons were cited in the order of the investigator for detaining the applicant, but reference was made to the aforesaid order of the prosecutor to detain the applicant. The applicant was presented with the order and at 4:20 p.m. on the same day signed a statement that he had been informed of its content.\n8.  The applicant was questioned on an unspecified date and confessed to having committed the burglaries.\n9.  The charges against the applicant were amended on 18 October and 15 November 1999. The detention on remand was sustained on both occasions without specific reasons being cited by the authorities.\n10.  On 29 November 1999 the applicant appealed against his detention and argued, inter alia, that he had a permanent address, was planning to marry his pregnant girlfriend and had been in detention since 5 October 1999.\n11.  In a decision of 2 December 1999 the Velingrad District Court dismissed the appeal. Referring to the serious charges against the applicant, the other three preliminary investigations and the sixteen enquiries pending against him, the court considered that, if released, there was a likelihood that he might abscond or re-offend.\n12.  On an unspecified date the charges against the applicant were amended and he was charged with another three burglaries. Also on an unspecified date he confessed to having committed these burglaries.\n13.  The preliminary investigation was completed on 21 December 1999.\n14.  On 10 February 2000 an indictment was filed against the applicant with the Velingrad District Court for a series of eight burglaries.\n15.  A hearing was conducted before the Velingrad District Court on 21 March 2000 at which the applicant confessed to the offences he had been charged with.\n16.  At the next hearing on 19 April 2000 the applicant stated his readiness to endure an appropriate sentence for his offences.\n17.  By judgment of the same day, 19 April 2000, the Velingrad District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment, suspended for a period of five years. In determining his sentence, the domestic court took into account, inter alia, that he did not have a criminal record and that he had confessed. According to the minutes, the court also amended the measure for securing the applicant's appearance in court to bail in the amount of 50 Bulgarian levs [BGN : approximately 25 euros (EUR)], payable within three days, and ordered that he be released after provision of the said recognisance.\n18.  On 20 April 2000 a friend or relative of the applicant deposited the recognizance into the bank account of the Velingrad District Court. It is not clear when the District Court was informed that bail had been provided. The applicant was released on 21 April 2000.\n19.  Neither the applicant nor the prosecution appealed against the judgment and it ente", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2702", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Yekaterinburg in the Sverdlovsk Region.\n7.  In May 1993 the bodies of three persons were found in a street of Yekaterinburg.  On 29 March 1994 the applicant was charged with two counts of manslaughter and unlawful possession of weapons. Ten days later a deputy prosecutor of the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District of Yekaterinburg discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant because he was found to have acted in self-defence and the use of force had been justified.\n8.  On 14 November 1997 the applicant was charged with having severely injured Mr M.\n9.  In February 1998 the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor re-opened the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charges of manslaughter and arms possession and remitted the case for further investigation. On 17 November 1998 an investigator of the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District prosecutor's office dropped two of the three charges.\n10.  In December 1998 the two sets of criminal proceedings were joined and the applicant was issued with the bill of indictment. He was charged with one count of manslaughter, causing severe bodily injuries and unlawful restriction of liberty.\n11.  On 1 February 1999 the applicant was committed for trial and on 1 December 1999 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg listed the first hearing for 17 October 2000.\n12.  At the hearing of 17 October 2000, to which the applicant's lawyer was not called, the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court authorised the applicant's arrest, reasoning as follows:\n“Mr Solovyev is charged with murder, intentional infliction of severe injuries... and unlawful confinement...\nBefore the hearing they [the applicant and his co-defendant] unsuccessfully sought the removal of the presiding judge and influenced participants in the proceedings, including the victim, Mr M., who asked the court not to examine the case because the defendants had not committed any criminal offence against him. They also appealed against the decision by which a court hearing had been fixed.\nMr Solovyev is charged with serious and especially serious criminal offences... When they [the applicant and his co-defendant] had been under a written undertaking not to leave the town, they had attempted to obstruct the thorough and full examination of the case. A prosecutor lodged a request in that connection; having regard to the above-mentioned considerations, the court finds it substantiated and authorises... Mr Solovyev's placement in custody.”\nThe District Court listed the next hearing for 18 December 2000. The decision of 17 October 2000 was upheld on 9 November 2000 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court. The applicant was taken into custody on 17 October 2000.\n13.  At the hearing of 18 December 2000 the applicant and his lawyer sought the removal of the entire bench including the presiding judge. The District Court dismissed those requests and adjourned the proceedings until 1 March 2001 because the victim had come to the hearing in an inebriated state. On 9 February 2001 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld that decision.\n14.  On 1 March 2001 the presiding judge, in an interlocutory decision, extended the applicant's detention and excused himself from the proceedings because he felt offended by the conduct of the applicant's counsel. No reasons or time-limit for the extension were given. The judge noted that the decision was not amenable to appeal.\n15.  On 17 April 2001 a new presiding judge li", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2703", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lived in Moscow.\n7.  The applicant engaged in commerce and at some point in the early 1990s became the president of the Russian Afghan War Veterans Fund.\n8.  In April 1997 the authorities brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and a few other persons on suspicion of several crimes, including masterminding the murder of the applicant's business rivals.\n9.  On 21 January 2000 the Military Court of the Moscow District (Московский окружной военный суд), sitting as a bench composed of one professional judge and two lay assessors, examined the case presented by the prosecution and acquitted the applicant and his co-accused on all charges for lack of evidence of his involvement in the alleged crimes (за недоказанностью участия в совершении преступлений).\n10.  On 26 January 2000 the prosecution lodged an appeal against the judgment of 21 January 2000, arguing that the first-instance court had wrongly assessed the evidence in the case and “failed to adopt measures aimed at achieving a comprehensive, full and objective investigation of all the circumstances of the case, to eliminate the inconsistencies in the prosecution case file and to have regard to all possible versions of events, but had pinpointed nonexistent inconsistencies for which the investigative authority allegedly failed to account”.\n11.  The prosecution suggested that the first instance court ought to have eliminated the inconsistencies in the prosecution case file of its own motion and requested the appeal court to remit the case for re-trial.\n12.  On an unspecified date the parties, including the applicant and alleged victims, filed their own arguments.\n13.  By decision of 25 July 2000 the Military Division of the Supreme Court of Russia (Военная коллегия Верховного Суда Российской Федерации), sitting as a bench of three professional judges, examined and rejected the arguments of the prosecution and the alleged victims and upheld the judgment of 21 January 2000 in full. The court noted that:\n“... Despite the arguments in the prosecution's appeal about the incomplete and one‑sided nature of examination of the case by the court, the judicial investigation was sufficiently thorough and comprehensive.\nAll pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence were examined at the court hearing.\nThe court ruled on all applications by the parties concerning the examination of the evidence, took all necessary measures to remedy the shortcomings of the investigation and eliminate the inconsistencies in the oral statements of the questioned persons, and as regards the questions requiring specialist knowledge decided to carry out and then carried out appropriate expert examinations.\nAt the same time, having evaluated the evidence examined in its entirety, the court came to a reasoned conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to convict and that every means of collecting evidence in the court proceedings had been exhausted. In fact, this was confirmed by the prosecutor (государственный обвинитель), who did not make any application for a fresh investigation in court (судебное следствие) with a view to eliminating of the existing or newly discovered inconsistencies, and the prosecutor who took part in the appeal hearing ...\nThe constitutional principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms in the administration of justice presupposes the separation of the function of consideration of cases from the functions of the pros", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2704", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  In 1948 and 1950 a flat owned by an ancestor of the applicant was nationalised. In 1969 the State sold that flat to Mr and Mrs B. It seems that Mr B. died on an unspecified date prior to 1987.\n5.  On 11 May 1992 the applicant brought an action against Mrs B. and the municipality of Plovdiv under section 7 of the Restitution of Ownership of Nationalised Real Property Act of 1992 (“the Restitution Act of 1992”), seeking a declaration that the sale of the flat had been null and void. He stated that the sale had been made in breach of the law and that Mr B., who had been registered as an “anti-fascist and anti-capitalist veteran” – a title which at the relevant time carried a number of privileges guaranteed by law – had abused his position to obtain the flat.\n6.  At the first hearing, held on 4 August 1992, the Plovdiv District Court admitted written evidence and gave leave to the parties to adduce further evidence.\n7.  At the next hearing, held on 26 October 1992, the court rejected the applicant's request to supplement his statement of claim, admitted written evidence, heard the parties and reserved judgment.\n8.  On 5 November 1992 the court, sitting in private, observed that the claim as initially worded by the applicant was inconsistent and instructed him to clarify his request for relief. It scheduled a new hearing for 4 December 1992. On 30 November 1992 the applicant declared that he claimed the restitution of the apartment under section 7 of the Restitution Act of 1992.\n9.  The hearing scheduled for 4 December 1992 was adjourned as the municipality of Plovdiv had not been properly summoned.\n10.  The Plovdiv District Court held hearings on 20 January, 13 April and 28 December 1993, and 12 April 1994. At the hearing on 13 April 1993 it granted the applicant's request to constitute the heirs of Mr B. as additional defendants. One hearing listed for 21 September 1993 was adjourned because the newly constituted defendants had not received copies of the statement of claim. At the hearings of 28 December 1993 and 12 April 1994 three of the newly constituted defendants, two of whom were residing in Russia, were represented by counsel.\n11.  In a judgment of 8 June 1994 the Plovdiv District Court ordered that the part of the flat which had been acquired by Mrs B. be restituted to the applicant and dismissed the remainder of his claim.\n12.  On 13 July 1994 the applicant appealed. So did the defendants.\n13.  At a hearing held on 3 October 1994 the Plovdiv Regional Court admitted written evidence and reserved judgment.\n14.  In a judgment of 23 February 1995 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the lower court's judgment and dismissed the entirety of the applicant's claim.\n15.  On 11 April 1995 the applicant lodged a petition for review. The Plovdiv District Court tried to serve a copy of the petition on the counsel of the two defendants who were residing in Russia, but she refused to accept the service of process, stating that her power of attorney did not extend to the review proceedings. On 4 January 1996 the Plovdiv District Court agreed that the representative's power of attorney was only valid until the end of the second‑instance proceedings and accordingly ordered that the defendants be served personally in Russia. In view of this, on 12 April 1996 the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice sent a letter rogatory to the Russian authorities, asking them to serve a copy of the petition on the two defendants. It seems that the letter rogatory was ex", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2705", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Tristach.\n5.  On 27 February 1968 the Agricultural Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde) instituted land consolidation proceedings (Zusammenlegungsverfahren) involving the applicant's property. The applicant did not appeal.\n6.  On 26 April 1974 the Agricultural Authority issued the occupation and valuation schedule (Besitzstandsausweis und Bewertungsplan).\n7.  By letter of 26 May 1995 the applicant requested that his property be excluded from the consolidation proceedings.\n8.  By decision of 13 January 1999 the Agricultural Authority notified the parties to the land consolidation proceedings that a valuation plan concerning the electric installations was held at their disposal at the office of the Tristach municipality and could be consulted during two weeks. The applicant appealed on 23 February 1999 against this notification to the Provincial Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat). He submitted in particular that the occupation and valuation schedule had not been duly served on him. Moreover, he noted that his request to exclude his land from the consolidation proceedings had still not been dealt with. He repeated this request and claimed, in general terms, that he did not have any interest in the land consolidation at issue.\n9.  On 1 March 1999 the Agricultural Authority dismissed the applicant's request of 26 May 1995 to exclude his property from the consolidation proceedings. It noted that an exclusion of property was not admissible, once the occupation and valuation schedule had become final. The applicant appealed against this decision, alleging that the occupation and valuation schedule had neither been served on him nor had it been duly published. Moreover, a new valuation would be required in the circumstances.\n10.  On 29 April 1999 the Provincial Land Reform Board dismissed the applicant's appeal. It found that the occupation and valuation schedule had been served in accordance with the relevant procedural rules.\n11.  On 27 May 1999 the Provincial Land Reform Board dismissed the applicant's appeal against the notification of 13 January 1999. It noted that the occupation and valuation schedule had become final. The additional valuation of electric installations had become necessary by a change in law and had been carried out correctly. Further it noted that the question whether a revision of the original occupation and valuation scheme was required was not the subject of the present appeal proceedings.\n12.  The applicant filed complaints with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) against both decisions of the Provincial Land Reform Board. He repeated in essence the arguments he had raised before that Board. The Administrative Court received his complaints on 4 June and 21 July 1999, respectively. Upon the Administrative Court's request the applicant amended his complaint against the Provincial Land Reform Board's decision concerning the electric installations.\n13.  The Provincial Land Reform Board filed observations with the Administrative Court on 18 August and 28 October 1999, respectively.\n14.  On 3 July 2003 the Administrative Court, having joined the applicant's complaints, dismissed them. It confirmed the Provincial Land Reform Board's legal assessment.\n15.  On 13 April 2005 the Agricultural Authority held a hearing concerning the additional valuation of electric installations. It issued a decision on this subject on 19 April 2005.\n16.  On 3 January 2006 the applicant f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2706", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1958, 1972 and 1970 respectively. At the time of the introduction of the application, they were living in Istanbul. They currently live in Germany and Switzerland.\n6.  On 15, 16 and 17 June 1995, as part of a police operation against an illegal organisation, the TKP-ML/TIKKO[2], the applicants were arrested and taken into custody at the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate.\n7.  On 28 June 1995 the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court, where they maintained that they had been interrogated under duress and ill-treated by the police during their ten days in custody. They contended that they had been beaten, punched, hosed, subjected to Palestinian hanging, deprived of sleep, threatened with death and sexually harassed. They added that, whilst being hung, electric shocks were administered to them through cables attached to their genitals.\n8.  On the same day the applicants were examined by a doctor at the Forensic Medicine Institute who noted the following marks on their bodies:\n–Durmuş Kurt: one yellow and one green lesion of 2 x 2 cm on the right shoulder, a lesion of 3 x 0,5 cm on the inner part of the upper arm. The doctor certified him unfit for work for three days.\n–Nurettin Kılıçaslan[3]: four scab-covered lesions of 5 x 0.5 cm which are positioned parallel to each other in the right armpit and a graze of 5 x 1 cm on the right thigh. The doctor certified him unfit for work for three days.\n–Zübeyde Kayar: three scab-covered lesions measuring 4 x 0.5 cm which are positioned parallel to each other in the left armpit. The doctor noted that she had complained of pain and numbness in both arms and hands. He further noted impaired movement in both arms. However, he considered that a final report could only be drawn up once she had been examined by a hospital neurology service. It appears from the case file, however, that the additional examination was never carried out.\n9.  On 21 July 1995 the Istanbul public prosecutor decided that he did not have jurisdiction over the case and transmitted the case file to the Fatih public prosecutor for investigation.\n10.  On 15 November 1995 the Fatih public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the on-duty police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicants whilst in custody, for lack of evidence.\n11.  On 27 November 1996 the International Law and Foreign Relations Directorate of the Ministry of Justice notified the Istanbul public prosecutor that one of the applicants' co-detainees had filed an application with the European Court of Human Rights[4] concerning the allegations of torture during the same custody period. The letter stated that the decision of non-prosecution of 15 November 1995 issued by the Fatih public prosecutor lacked sufficient reasoning, and that a more comprehensive investigation had to be conducted into the allegations of ill-treatment.\n12.  On 16 July 1997 the Fatih public prosecutor sent a report to the Istanbul public prosecutor, summarising the facts and the applicants' complaints that they had been tortured whilst in custody between 15 and 28 June 1995 by officers working at the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate. The Fatih public prosecutor requested the Istanbul public prosecutor to file a bill of indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court, charging five police officers with torture, pursuant to Article 243 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n13.  By", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2707", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In February 1997 the Mukacheve City Prosecutor charged the applicant (a former inspector of the Mukacheve city market) with corruption, and ordered his detention on remand. In August 1997 the applicant was released against his undertaking not to abscond. In December 1997 his case was closed given the lack of any corpus delicti. This decision was subsequently quashed by the Zakarpatye Regional Prosecutor's Office and the investigation was reopened. On 8 August 1998 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were ultimately terminated given the absence of any corpus delicti.\n6.  On 3 September 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Mukacheve District Prosecutor's Office of the Zakarpatye Region, seeking monetary compensation for unlawful prosecution.\n7.  On 30 September 1998 the Mukacheve City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) granted this claim and awarded the applicant UAH 60,000[1]. In assessing the amount of moral compensation, the court took account of medical certificates attesting to the fact that subsequent to his release the applicant had suffered a nervous breakdown. On 10 October 1998 this judgment became final and binding.\n8.  On 18 November 1999 the Zakarpatye Regional Prosecutor lodged an supervisory appeal with the Presidium of the Zakarpatye Regional Court against the judgment of 30 September 1998. On 29 November 1999 the court, sitting in a closed session in the presence of a prosecutor, quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a new consideration.\n9.  On 17 May 2001 the City Court, in the resumed proceedings, allowed the applicant's claim. Having regard to the medical documents, the forensic psychological report and statements from a number of witnesses, the court found, inter alia, that the applicant's nervous breakdown had been caused by his detention, and ordered the Prosecutor's Office to pay the applicant UAH 80,000[2] in moral and material damages. On 27 May 2001 this judgment acquired legal force.\n10.  On 4 September 2001 the Zakarpatye Regional Prosecutor's Office challenged this judgment under the new cassation procedure (see “Relevant domestic law”, paragraph 24 below).\n11.  On 3 October 2001 the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional Article 25 of the Law on the State Budget 2001, which provided that compensation for unlawful criminal prosecutions was to be deducted from the funds allocated to the relevant law-enforcement agencies. The Constitutional Court decided that the relevant amounts should be paid directly from the State Budget held by the State Treasury.\n12.  On 10 December 2001 a judge of the Supreme Court returned the prosecutor's appeal to the City Court, indicating that it had to examine the issue of the reopening of the proceedings on the ground of new circumstances.\n13.  On 24 January 2002 the City Court, on a request from the Zakarpatye Regional Prosecutor, reopened the proceedings in the case due to new circumstances, namely the annulment of the Article 25 of the Law on the State Budget 2001 by the aforementioned decision of the Constitutional Court.\n14.  On 5 April 2002 the City Court partly allowed the applicant's claim, ordering the State Treasury to pay him UAH 10,000[3] in compensation for unlawful prosecution. The court held that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been unlawful but found the claim for moral damages excessive:\n“With respect to the remainder of the claims [the court notes that] the claimant has failed ...to provide any ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2708", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1951 and 1955 respectively and live in Gojanec, Croatia.\n5.  The applicants, a husband and wife, owned a house and a surrounding plot of land in Gojanec, Croatia. On an unspecified date “Croatian Roads”, a public company based in Zagreb, instituted expropriation proceedings before the Varaždin County State Administration, Office for Urban Planning, Environment, Construction and Property Affairs (Ured državne uprave u Varaždinskoj Županiji, Služba za prostorno uređenje, zaštitu okoliša, graditeljstvo i imovinsko-pravne poslove, hereinafter the “Varaždin County Administration”), requesting that part of the applicants' plot of land be expropriated with a view to building a motorway. The applicants opposed this proposal, asking that their estate, namely the house and the surrounding land, be expropriated in its entirety. The applicants argued that with only partial expropriation they, as farmers, would have no further use for the house and the small area around it, since the house and the agricultural land on which it was built represented an inseparable unity. Furthermore, there would be no vehicle access to the courtyard. As farmers, the applicants could not use their property without access for tractors and other vehicles used in agricultural activity.\n6.  In addition, the planned motorway would pass in close proximity to the house, thus causing significant noise pollution due to the high traffic frequency. The motorway and the exit road would pass less then twenty metres and five metres respectively from the house.\n7.  They pointed out that the construction of 4.5-metre plastic noise-protection walls would transform their house and its surroundings into a cage, without efficiently protecting them from noise and pollution. The entire ground floor, the terrace and a part of the attic would be situated only 2 to 3 metres from the protection walls.\n8.  They argued that the value of the remaining property would significantly decrease, since construction of the motorway would deprive them of the living conditions they hitherto enjoyed, such as direct road access, pleasant surroundings, a huge courtyard and low noise exposure, all of which made the property very suitable for agricultural activity. For these reasons the applicants asserted that they had no economic interest in retaining the house and the surrounding courtyard.\n9.  The Varaždin County Administration held three hearings and obtained an expert opinion on the effects of the motorway construction on the applicants' living conditions in the remaining house and courtyard, and another expert opinion on the market value of the agricultural land.\n10.  The applicants contested the proposed level of compensation, asserting that they were entitled to the market value of their expropriated land, and claiming that the market value of land suitable for construction in the area was 180 Croatian Kunas (HRK) per square metre, a figure which was significantly higher than the amount proposed.\n11.  By a decision of 16 April 2003, Varaždin County Administration ruled that part of the applicants' estate, namely an agricultural plot and three plots of land suitable for construction measuring 795 m², 221m² and 507m² respectively, was expropriated with a view to building a motorway. The applicants retained ownership of the house and a surrounding courtyard.\n12.  Compensation was fixed at HRK 105,610.00, based on the sum of HRK 22.00 per square metre for agricultural land, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2709", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Zagreb.\n7.  On 29 April 1999 between 8 and 8.30 p.m. the applicant, together with several other individuals, was collecting scrap metal in Harambašićeva Street in Zagreb.\n8.  Suddenly, two unidentified men approached the group and attacked the applicant. They beat him all over his body with wooden planks, shouting racial abuse. Another two unidentified men, apparently members of the same group, stood close by and kept watch.\n9.  Shortly afterwards, following a report by an unknown person about the ongoing fight, a police patrol was sent to the scene. The police interviewed the persons on the spot and went up and down the nearby streets attempting to find the attackers.\n10.  An ambulance arrived and took the applicant to a nearby hospital. The doctors concluded that no bones had been broken, provided the applicant with painkillers and sent him home to rest.\n11.  During the night the applicant experienced severe pain and the next day he went to another hospital where he was examined again. It was found that as a result of the assault he had sustained multiple rib fractures, in particular of the ninth, tenth and eleventh left ribs. He was kept in hospital for further treatment and discharged a week later, on 5 May 1999.\n12.  According to the applicant, since 1 June 1999 he has been having psychiatric treatment as a result of the incident, he had attended the Zagreb Psychiatric Clinic on at least eighteen occasions, and he had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder characterised by depression, anxiety, panic attacks, fears for his own safety and that of his family, intermittent insomnia and nightmares and, in general, an emotional breakdown.\n13.  On 15 July 1999 the applicant's lawyer lodged a criminal complaint with the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney's Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu “the State Attorney's Office”) against persons unknown. She gave a factual account of the incident and alleged that the applicant had been seriously injured. The applicant offered his own testimony in evidence and proposed that three eyewitnesses be heard. The applicant requested the State Attorney's Office to investigate the incident, identify the perpetrators and institute criminal proceedings against them.\n14.  On the same day the applicant's lawyer sent a letter to the Zagreb Police Department (Policijska uprava Zagrebačka “the police”) in which she informed the police of the incident and requested the information necessary for the institution of criminal proceedings. She repeated her request on 30 August 1999.\n15.  On 31 August 1999 the police informed the applicant's lawyer that the perpetrators had not been identified.\n16.  On 2 September 1999 the applicant's lawyer wrote to the Minister of the Interior (ministar unutarnjih poslova) informing him of the incident and stating that the police had not identified the perpetrators. She requested decisive police action, relying on the relevant domestic and international human rights standards.\n17.  On 29 September 1999 the police interviewed the applicant about the events of the evening of 29 April 1999. The applicant described the two attackers vaguely, stating that due to his short-sightedness he was not likely to be able to recognise them.\n18.  On the same date, the police interviewed B. T., who had been with the applicant on the date in question. He also described the attackers, stating that he had not seen their faces clearly bec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2710", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1930 and 1922 respectively and have been living in Oslo, Norway. The second applicant died on 30 May 2006. On 20 October 2006 Mr Berge informed the Court that he no longer represented the first applicant.\n5.  This is the fifth application brought by the applicants under the Convention in relation to the same case complex, the factual background of which is summarised in Amelia and Einar Riis against Norway (dec.)(no. 23106/02, struck out on 8 July 2004).\n6.  The first applicant is the daughter of a merchant ship owner, the late Mr Kristoffer Olsen (Senior), who died in 1948, and of Mrs Dagny Marie Olsen, who died in 1970. Following her death, the parents' joint estate was subjected to public division (offentlig skifte) by the Oslo Probate Court (skifterett), as the heirs did not take over the estate's debts. The first applicant was one of three heirs to the estate, which comprised major shareholding positions in Luksefjell Ltd and, indirectly, in Dovrefjell Ltd., the family's two principal companies. These formed part of the Olsen & Ugelstad Ltd Shipping Company (founded in 1915 by the first applicant's father and by Mr Rudolf Ugelstad). One of the other heirs, the first applicant's brother, Mr Kristoffer Olsen (Junior) was, under powers delegated to him in 1951 by his mother, the only member of the Olsen family taking part in the leadership of the Shipping Company.\n7.  The division of the estate involved severe and long lasting disputes between the first applicant and her brother.\n8.  Under an agreement of 5 April 1974 (the so-called “Easter Agreement”) between the applicants, on the one hand, and Falkefjell Ltd. and Mr Kristoffer Olsen, on the other hand, Mrs Amelia Riis was to acquire the ship MS Sognefjell from Falkefjell Ltd by 6 May 1974. The first applicant resold the ship to an Indian purchaser, but since an export licence was not obtained until August 1974 the deal did not materialise, by which time the ship's market value had fallen. A dispute ensued as to the implementation of the Easter Agreement, which the first applicant brought before an arbitration tribunal (voldgiftsrett) in October 1974. On 2 May 1975 the tribunal delivered its judgment, finding that Falkefjell Ltd was responsible for a delay from July to October 1974 in the delivery of the ship, indicating certain amounts for compensation (between 6,000,000 and 18,900,000 Norwegian kroner (NOK)) and annulling the Easter Agreement.\n9.  According an agreement between Falkefjell Ltd and Den norske Creditbank (Dnc), MS Sognefjell was pawned as security for a loan to the company and a mortgage bond was transported to the bank for this purpose on 7 June 1975. On 3 December 1975 the bond was deleted.\n10.  In February 1977 the first applicant sought to have the arbitration tribunal's judgment quashed by the ordinary courts. She argued that Falkefjell Ltd had failed to inform her about its difficult financial situation and about having pawned the ship when the case was before the arbitration tribunal. Her action was rejected at first instance, then upheld at second instance, and finally rejected by the Supreme Court on 9 November 1983. Her request for reopening of the proceedings was dismissed in March 1985.\nThe first applicant also brought compensation proceedings against the Dnc, but her suit was rejected by the Oslo City Court (byrett, later renamed tingrett) and the Borgarting High Court (lagmannsrett) and leave to appeal to the Supreme Cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2711", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the village Livadi, Struga, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.\n7.  On 5 March 1993 a Fokker airplane, which was operated by the Macedonian company Palair (“the first defendant”), crashed at Skopje airport during taking off. The applicant was one of the few passengers who survived the accident. He sustained serious physical injuries.\n8. Settlement negotiations between the applicant, the Palair, Fokker Airkraft B.V. (“the second defendant”), Airkraft Financing & Trading B.V. from the Netherlands and Lloyds of London were unsuccessful.\n9. On 17 February 1995 the applicant brought a civil action before the Skopje Court of First Instance (Основен суд Скопје I Скопје) requesting the court to award him compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss sustained as a result of the accident: in particular, he asked the court to order the defendants to compensate him for the loss of his personal belongings, medical expenses, his loss of income and loss for his mental suffering, as well as to pay him a life-time pension given his permanent incapacity.\n10. The first hearing was held on 27 October 1995 and was attended by all parties. It was adjourned on the request of the applicant to allow him to submit additional evidence.\n11. The hearing fixed for 8 December 1995 was adjourned due to the applicant's illness.\n12. At a hearing held on 6 February 1996, the court provided the defendants with evidence previously submitted by the applicant.\n13.  The next hearing of 26 March 1996 was rescheduled on the defendants' request for further time to examine the applicant's submissions. Meanwhile, the applicant changed lawyers. At the hearing of 14 May 1996, the court ordered one of the defendants to provide further evidence.\n14. At a hearing on 27 June 1996, the court ordered a forensic expert examination to establish the applicant's loss of income given that he had a work permit in Switzerland.\n15. Hearings scheduled for 21 November 1996 and 11 February 1997 were adjourned as the parties had not been properly summoned.\n16. At a hearing of 25 March 1997 the applicant had requested an adjournment to allow him to further particularise his claim.\n17. At a hearing held on 9 May 1997, one of the defendants requested a postponement to examine the applicant's more recent submissions.\n18. On 26 June 1997 the court adjourned the hearing: there was no evidence that the forensic expert and the first defendant had been properly summoned.\n19. On 24 October 1997 the court heard the expert. The court further ordered the applicant to further particularise his financial claim and to provide information about a sum of money he had already received from the first defendant.\n20. On 17 November 1997 the applicant requested the Minister of Justice to intervene before the competent court for a speedy resolution of his case.\n21. On 24 January 1998 the applicant complained before the President of the Skopje Court of First Instance that no decision had been taken although all relevant evidence and expert opinions had been obtained. On 14 May 1998 he repeated his grievances before the President of the Skopje Appeal Court.\n22. Adjournments of hearings fixed for 18 December 1997 and 17 February 1998 were afforded in the absence of evidence that the first defendant had been properly summoned.\n23. A hearing fixed for 21 April 1998 was adjourned on the parties' request, as they were pursuing an out-of-court settlement.\n24.  A hearin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2713", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Ohrid.\n6.  On 30 December 1993 the applicant concluded a loan agreement (“the agreement”) (договор за одобрување на кредит) with the “Makbanka-BS” A.D. (“the company”), in accordance with which he received a loan in the amount of DM 40,000 (German Marks) under the following conditions: to repay the loan within three months with 8% monthly interest. The applicant took the loan for the benefit of Mr K.S. who had been ineligible to apply due to his poor financial status.\n7. On the same date, the then Ohrid Municipal Court entered a notice (“the notice”) in the public register, recording a mortgage in favour of the company over a house and a plot of land owned by the applicant.\n8. The principal amount of the loan with interest was paid by Mr K.S. within the three-month period as set forth in the agreement. Despite that fact, the company continued charging 8% interest although the validity of the agreement had not been extended. Until 10 May 1996 the amount was paid by Mr K.S. on behalf of the applicant. After that date, the applicant continued to pay the 8% interest until 26 October 1996 when the loan was completely repaid.\n9. On 29 May 1997 the Ohrid Court of First Instance deleted the notice from the public register after it had received a notification by the company that the loan had been completely repaid.\n10. On an unspecified date in 1997, Mr K.S. brought a civil action against the company and the applicant claiming the difference between the interest actually paid and the domestic rate, following the three-month period. According to the expert opinion given in this case, Mr K.S. and the applicant overpaid in the sum of DM 85, 831. On 28 October 1997 Mr K.S. withdrew the claim against the applicant. On 6 February 1998 the Ohrid Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant's request to intervene in the proceedings as a claimant and ordered his claim to be registered separately. On 16 September 1998 the court's decision became final and the applicant's action was registered as a separate claim.\n11. Mr K.S.'s claim was dismissed on 10 February and 17 October 2000 respectively, by the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. The courts considered that the company had no legal capacity to stand in the proceedings as it had concluded the agreement with the applicant and not with Mr K.S. The courts further found Mr K.S.'s claim ill-founded as he had not been a party to the agreement, even though the applicant had concluded it for his benefit.\n12. It appears that the applicant's claim was dismissed by the trial court's decision of 16 February 2000. On 1 June 2000 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the applicant's appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n13. On 3 April 2001 the Ohrid Court of First Instance dismissed as ill-founded the applicant's claim for unlawful enrichment (неосновано збогатување). It held that the company had lawfully charged 8% interest as the loan had not been repaid in time and accordingly as such the applicant had been liable to pay interest as set forth in the agreement. It concluded, therefore, that the agreement had been implicitly extended without a need for a further express agreement by the parties. The court further declared as withdrawn the applicant's claim against Mr K.S.\n14. On 25 September 2001 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the applicant's appeal and remitted the case for re-examination. It held that the lower court had not proper", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2714", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Gdynia.\n5.  On 28 October 1996 he was arrested on suspicion of having committed armed robbery while acting in an organised criminal gang.\n6.  On 29 October 1996 the Gdańsk District Court remanded the applicant in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It noted that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated penalty.\n7.  Later, several other persons were detained and charged in connection with the same investigation conducted by the Department of Organised Crime of the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor's Office.\n8.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged on several occasions. On 16 January 1997 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged his detention until 28 April 1997. On 16 April 1997 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention until 29 July 1997. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question and the gravity of the charges. It also had regard to the number of suspects and the need to obtain further evidence.\n9.  On 16 July 1997 the Court of Appeal prolonged his detention until 27 October 1997. It considered that there was a risk that the applicant might go into hiding or obstruct the proceedings. It also relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty. Lastly, it held that further prolongation of the investigation was not attributable to the prosecuting authorities, but resulted from the fact that further suspects had been identified and arrested. Furthermore, the prolongation was due to a delay in the preparation of some expert reports and the need to request legal assistance from the German authorities.\n10.  On 17 September 1997 the Supreme Court extended the detention of the applicant and his 5 co-suspects until 31 December 1997. It found that there was a reasonable risk that the suspects might intimidate witnesses, given the nature of the charges against them. It further observed that the investigation could not be terminated on account of the prolonged preparation of an expert report and the need to hear a witness, W.B., who was serving his prison sentence in Germany.\n11.  On 28 November 1997 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with kidnapping, armed robbery, extortion and inflicting grievous bodily harm while being a member of an organised armed criminal group. There were 16 defendants in the case, all charged with numerous counts of armed robbery and extortion.\n12.  On 7 January 1998 the Regional Court prolonged his detention until 21 September 1998. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it relied on the complexity of the case and the number of defendants.\n13.  On 24 February 1998 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held some 56 hearings in the case.\n14.  On 17 September 1998 the Regional Court extended his detention on remand until 21 October 1998.\n15.  On 21 September 1998 the Supreme Court ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 30 January 1999. It found that the fact that the trial had not been terminated could not be attributed to the authorities, given the volume of evidence and the fact that some hearings had to be cancelled as the defendants' counsel or witnesses had", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2715", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1949, 1939 and 1936 respectively and live in Tuusula (Finland), Mijas Costa (Spain) and Nukari (Finland).\n5.  On 31 December 1993 and 18 November 1994 the Finnish Savings Bank – SSP Oy (which later became the Property Management Corporation Arsenal (Omaisuudenhoitoyhtiö Arsenal – SSP Oy, Egendomsförvaltningsbolaget Arsenal – SSP Ab; hereinafter “Arsenal”) instituted civil proceedings against 16 defendants, including the applicants.\n6.  It sought damages amounting to some 275 million Finnish marks (FIM; equivalent to 46.25 million euros (EUR)) plus 16 per cent interest fom 1 December 1994 for allegedly granting credit negligently in 1989-1991 and for subsequent credit losses allegedly caused by the 16 defendants in their capacity as members of the Board, managing director or other delegates in the management of the Savings Bank of Keski-Uusimaa (which in 1992 merged into the Finnish Savings Bank – SSP Oy, later replaced by Arsenal). The first applicant, Mr Riihikallio, was the Chairman of the Board; the second applicant, Mr Ketola, was the Managing Director; and the third applicant, Mr Niemikoski, was a member of the Board.\n7.  The first summons was served on the applicants on 7 January 1994. At the request of several defendants, the District Court extended the time-limit for responding to the claims until 30 September 1994 and, additional claims having been lodged with it in November 1994, again until the end of January 1995. All three applicants denied the claims, maintaining that the amounts of damage allegedly caused had not been sufficiently proved. They demanded that the amounts at least be adjusted to make them reasonable. The court requested the plaintiff’s observations to be filed by 31 March 1995 and, following two extensions, received them on 19 June 1995. They ran to 500 pages and included 12 folders of further evidence. The defendants’ observations in reply were requested by 15 November 1995 and, following an extension, were received on 25 January 1996. On 6 July 1994 and 7 August 1995 the plaintiff requested the seizure of the applicants’ assets.\n8.  From 6 October to 16 October 1995, the District Court held a hearing concerning a claim made by the defendants challenging the plaintiff’s right to lodge its claims, and on the seizure of their assets. On 16 October 1995, the District Court gave judgment on these issues.\n9.  From 26 February to 4 June 1996 the District Court held preparatory oral hearings. At the parties’ request, the case was adjourned. From 19 August to 23 September or October 1996 additional preparatory hearings were held. During this period there were more than 40 days of hearings.\n10.  From 11 November 1996 to 25 or 30 September 1997, the District Court examined the merits, holding over 120 days of hearings. The parties were informed that judgment would be delivered on 30 January 1998. The delivery was subsequently postponed until 31 March 1998 and again until 15 May 1998.\n11.  On 15 May 1998, the District Court gave judgment (running to 1,278 pages). It ordered the second applicant to pay damages of FIM 20 million. The first applicant, together with defendant X, was ordered to share this liability up to FIM 3.5 million. The third applicant, together with defendant Y, was ordered to share the liability up to FIM 2.8 million. Interest would run at 16 per cent from 1 December 1994. All applicants were ordered to pay substantial legal costs to the plaintiff.\n12.  All applicants", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2716", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Skopje.\n5.  On 22 January 1991 the applicant brought before the then Labour Court of First Instance (Основен Суд на Здружен Труд Скопје) a civil action against the employer's decisions of 28 November and 10 December 1990 about his reassignment.\n6. On 25 March 1991 the Labour Court of First Instance upheld the applicant's claim and annulled the impugned decisions as unlawful. It further ordered the employer to reinstate him to a post equal to his qualifications.\n7. On 30 January 1992 the then Skopje District Court (Окружен Суд Скопје) set aside the decision and remitted the case for re-examination. It instructed the lower court, inter alia, to admit in evidence the internal regulations of the employer.\n8. At the hearing held on 21 May 1992, the applicant lodged with the court a separate claim for compensation for the difference in salary (“the compensation claim”) caused by his reassignment. On the same day, the Skopje Municipal Court (Општински Суд Скопје) dismissed the applicant's claims.\n9. On 6 November 1992 the Skopje District Court upheld the applicant's appeal and quashed the earlier decision. It held that the lower court had not complied with its earlier instructions and had requested it, inter alia, to order the applicant to further particularise his compensation claim.\n10. On 19 March 1993 the Skopje Municipal Court adopted a partial decision (делумна пресуда) by which it annulled the employer's reassignment decisions. It further held that the proceedings concerning the applicant's compensation claim would resume after the decision on the reassignment became final.\n11. On 21 October 1993 the District Court of Skopje dismissed the employer's appeal and upheld the lower court's partial decision.\n12. As to the applicant's compensation claim, the court adjourned the hearing of 17 February 1994 as the employer's report about the amount of the difference in salary had not been communicated to the applicant in time. At the hearing of 1 March 1994 the applicant requested the court to order a financial expertise. The expert report was provided on 26 April 1994.\n13. On 15 June 1994 the proceedings were stayed for three months due to the applicant's absence.\n14. On 7 October 1994 the Skopje Municipal Court upheld the applicant's compensation claim and ordered the employer to pay him the sum which had been recommended in the expert report of 26 April 1994. The court referred, inter alia, to the then Labour Relationships Act concerning compensation for damage sustained at work.\n15. On 16 March 1995 the District Court dismissed the employer's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision.\n16. On 30 October 1996 the Supreme Court upheld the employer's appeal on points of law (ревизија), quashed the lower courts' decisions and ordered a retrial. It found that they had incorrectly applied national law concerning the amount of the award.\n17. At the hearing of 3 September 1997 the trial court ordered the applicant to further particularise his compensation claim in compliance with the Supreme Court's instructions. The next hearing of 21 November 1997 was allegedly postponed due to the applicant's failure to comply with the order. No document was provided in support.\n18. The hearing fixed for 29 December 1997 was adjourned as the court had ordered another financial expertise. At the hearing of 11 May 1998 the court requested a further expert study.\n19. The next hearing of 1 December 1998 was adjourned ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2717", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Michalovce.\n7.  The applicant was married. The marriage produced two children: a daughter who was born in 1997 and a son who was born in 2001.\n8.  On 2 November 2002 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against her husband with the Michalovce District Police Department (Obvodné oddelenie Policajného zboru). She accused him of having assaulted and beaten her with an electric cable the previous day. She submitted a medical report by a trauma specialist indicating that her injuries would incapacitate her from work for up to seven days. The applicant also stated that there was a long history of physical and psychological abuse by her husband.\n9.  At an unspecified time between 15 and 18 November 2002 the applicant and her husband went to the District Police Station. They sought to withdraw the applicant's criminal complaint. A police officer, Mr H., advised them that, in order to avoid a prosecution, they would have to produce a medical report showing that after the incident on 1 November 2002 the applicant had not been incapacitated from work for more than six days. The applicant produced such a report on 21 November 2002.\n10.  On 26 November 2002 officer H. decided that the above matter was to be dealt with under the Minor Offences Act (Law no. 372/1990 Coll.) and, under section 60(3)(a) of that Act, decided to take no further action (odloženie veci).\n11.  During the night of 26 to 27 December 2002 a relative of the applicant called the emergency service of the District Police Department to report that the applicant's husband had a shotgun and was threatening to kill himself and the children. The applicant herself made a similar phone call later that night. The phone calls were received by a police officer, Mr B., who instructed a police officer, Mr P.Š., to arrange for a police patrol to visit the premises. The patrol found the applicant in the village of Tušická Nová Ves. The applicant's husband had left the scene prior to their arrival. The policemen took the applicant to her parents' home and invited her to come to the police station the following morning so that a formal record of the incident could be drawn up.\n12.  In the morning of 27 December 2002 the applicant, accompanied by her brother, went to the Trhovište District Police Station, where she spoke to a police officer, Mr M.Š.\n13.  In the morning of 31 December 2002 the applicant and her brother went to the Michalovce District Police Station, where she talked to officer H. She enquired about her criminal complaint of 2 November 2002 and also mentioned the incident of the night of 26 to 27 December 2002.\n14.  On 31 December 2002 between 11 a.m. and 11.15 a.m. the applicant's husband shot their two children and himself dead.\n15.  On 31 January 2003 the Košice Branch of the Police Inspection Service (Úrad inšpekčnej služby Policajného zboru – “the Inspection Service”) charged officer M.Š. with abuse of public authority (Article 158 § 1 (c) of the Criminal Code) on the ground that on 27 December 2002 he had failed to accept and duly register the applicant's criminal complaint and to commence criminal proceedings against the applicant's husband immediately.\n16.  On 3 February 2003 the Inspection Service charged officer P.Š. with dereliction of duty (Article 159 § 1 and 2 (b) of the Criminal Code) on the ground that on the night of 26 to 27 December 2002 he had failed to take appropriate action in response to the emergency calls fr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2718", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Skopje.\n5.  The applicant worked as a supervisor in the technical control department in “Rudnici i Železarnica”- Skopje (“the company”).\n6. On 20 April 1995 the company made the applicant redundant with effect from 28 February 1995. The notice was allegedly served on the applicant on 12 July 1995. On 20 July 1995 the applicant unsuccessfully objected to the redundancy before the managing board of the company.\n7. On 15 August 1995 the applicant brought before the Skopje Court of First Instance (Основен суд Скопје) a civil action for annulment of the dismissal decision and claimed reinstatement. He alleged that between 26 January and 31 May 1995 he had been on a compulsory leave (принуден одмор) so that he could not be laid off. He also claimed that the company had failed to apply the relevant criteria.\n8. Of four hearings scheduled between 17 October 1995 and 17 April 1996, one was adjourned at the applicant's request as his representative had been prevented from attending. The other hearings were adjourned as the company had failed to comply with the court's instruction to submit relevant documents in time.\n9. Of five hearings fixed between 25 October 1996 and 11 March 1998, one was adjourned at the applicant's request, as his representative was absent. During this period, another panel of judges (судски совет) took over to decide the case.\n10. On 11 March 1998 the Skopje Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant's claim as ill-founded. It established that the Law on Reconstruction of Loss-making Undertakings (Закон за преструктурирање на дел од претпријатијата кои во своето работење изкажуваат загуби) (“the Law”), being the lex specialis, had applied to his case and that it had suspended the application of the Labour Relationships Act (Закон за работните односи) concerning employees who had worked with a loss-making undertaking and who had been made redundant. In accordance with section 23 of the Law, an employee is considered as dismissed the day the Government approved the programme for reconstruction (Програма за преструктурирање) of the undertaking concerned. It further held that the company had been established as a loss-making undertaking by Government decision of 24 January 1995 and that the latter had approved the company's programme for reconstruction on 27 December 1994. The court dismissed the applicant's arguments that he had been dismissed contrary to the criteria set forth in collective agreements and in the relevant provisions of the Labour Relationships Act, as they had been derogated by the Law and that the dismissal decision had not been given by an authorised organ. The court accordingly found that the applicant's redundancy was lawful.\n11. On 2 February 1999 the applicant appealed.\n12. On 7 April 1999 the Skopje Court of Appeal (Апелационен суд) dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision. It found that the trial court had correctly established the facts and had properly applied the law. It further stated that the trial court had provided sufficient reasons for its decision and that the applicant had failed to present any evidence in his favour.\n13. On 18 June 1999 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court an appeal on points of law (ревизија) in which he reiterated his earlier complaints. On 21 March 2000 he submitted a copy of the Government's decision of 27 December 1994 as an addendum to the appeal on points of law.\n14. On 21 Marc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2719", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960. He is currently detained in Isparta Prison.\n6.  The applicant was suspected of being involved in an armed robbery. On 1 August 1996 police officers from the organised crime unit of the İstanbul Security Directorate conducted an operation and the applicant was arrested. At the time of his arrest, the applicant was at a real estate office, owned by one of his relatives. Many of his relatives, including his children, were in this office at the relevant time. The applicant was allegedly beaten severely on his neck and back during his arrest. He was subsequently taken to the Security Directorate Building in Gayrettepe, without having a medical examination.\n7.  The applicant was allegedly blindfolded and interrogated in the security directorate building. During his interrogation, it is alleged that the applicant was stripped naked, punched, beaten with a truncheon, and had his testicles squeezed. However, the Government maintained that the applicant's statement was taken in the presence of his lawyer, Mr Gürkan Atabay.\n8.  On 3 August 1996 the applicant was taken to Haydarpaşa Hospital where he was examined by a doctor. According to his report, the doctor found no signs of injury on the applicant's body. The same day, he was placed in detention on remand.\n9.  In September 1996, complaining of a stiff neck and facial paralysis, the applicant went to see the prison doctor. The doctor transferred him to Kartal Hospital.\n10.  On 16 September 1996 the applicant filed a complaint with the public prosecutor and maintained that he had been severely beaten during his arrest.\n11.  Following certain medical tests, on 15 October 1996 the Kartal Hospital delivered its report, in which it was stated that the applicant was suffering from post-traumatic vertebral disorders and that he had an old fracture on his C6 vertebrae.\n12.  On 27 November 1996 the applicant gave a statement to the public prosecutor, and repeated his allegations. He maintained that he had been severely beaten on his neck during his arrest.\n13.  The public prosecutor took statements from the eye-witnesses to the applicant's arrest and the four police officers involved. In their statements taken on 8 January 1997, the applicant's son A.Y., his daughter E.Y, his brother-in-law N.Y. and sister-in-law H.S. explained to the prosecutor that they had seen the police officers beat the applicant heavily on the neck. On 23 June 1997 the prosecutor took statements from two officers, M.B. and M.K., who had been involved in the applicant's arrest. The officers denied the accusations. Subsequently, on 17 July 1997 and 26 August 1997, respectively, O.K. and M.K., the two other police officers involved in the applicant's arrest, gave identical statements to the public prosecutor and denied the allegations.\n14.  Upon the request of the public prosecutor, the İstanbul Forensic Medical Institution prepared a final report concerning the applicant's injuries. In its report dated 23 March 1998, the Forensic Medicine Institute concluded that, although the applicant's injuries did not constitute a danger to his life, he was unfit to work for twenty five days. The fracture on the applicant's C6 vertebrae and the disorders on his vertebras were estimated to be at least three weeks old on 15 October 1996. It was also indicated that it had not been medically possible to determine the exact date of the incident. While drafting this report, the İstanbul Forensic Medicine Institute ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2720", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant is the brother and the second applicant is the wife of Mr Ahmet Anık, who was born in 1959 and killed by members of the security forces on 19 August 1999. The third to eighth applicants are the children of Mr Ahmet Anık.\n5.  The ninth applicant was the father and the tenth applicant is the mother of Mr Abdulkerim Sanrı, who was born in 1981 and also killed by members of the security forces on 19 August 1999. The eleventh and twelfth applicants are the brothers of Mr Abdulkerim Sanrı.\n6.  The facts of the case as presented by the applicants and the Government are based on a number of documents drawn up in the course of the domestic investigation. The following information appears from the parties' submissions as well as from the documents submitted by them.\n7.  Ahmet Anık and Abdulkerim Sanrı (hereinafter “the two village guards”) had been living in the Balveren village and employed by the State as provisional village guards. Their duties included providing guidance to the armed forces about a particular area near their village where there was intense PKK[1] activity.\n8.  The area in question was situated to the south of an asphalt road which ran between the city of Şırnak and the town of Uludere. The two village guards and a team of soldiers from the nearby Milli gendarmerie station would take up positions on Yaylatepe, a hill from where they could maintain the security of the road. The distance between the top of Yaylatepe and the road was approximately 600 metres and a footpath connected the two. From their positions, the soldiers and the two village guards would also observe another footpath which ran in a river bed between Yaylatepe and the Ömerağa hills. This footpath was frequently used by PKK terrorists on their way to and from Northern Iraq. Ömerağa was 1,500 metres to the south-east of Yaylatepe. 2,500 metres to the north-east of Yaylatepe was Elmalı, from where soldiers would monitor the area at night with the help of thermal cameras.\n9.  In the morning the two village guards would walk the short distance of 400 metres from their village to the gendarmerie station where they would report their arrival at 6 a.m. From the gendarmerie station they would walk, together with the soldiers, to Yaylatepe, a distance of two kilometres. At the end of their shift they would return to the gendarmerie station together with the soldiers. If it was dark, they would be driven to their village from the gendarmerie station in military vehicles, otherwise they would walk. For security reasons, no civilians or even village guards would be allowed to remain or enter the area in question or use the asphalt road during the hours of darkness. Any civilians who needed to use the road at night time in case of an emergency would inform the local gendarmerie station beforehand and they would be observed by night vision binoculars and thermal cameras until they were out of the area.\n10. On 24 August 1999 sub-Lieutenant Hakan Paç submitted in his statement taken by the Şırnak prosecutor that he had been in charge of the soldiers and the two village guards, who had taken up positions on Yaylatepe on 18 August 1999. At 8 p.m. he had grouped his men and, upon the arrival of a team of soldiers at 8.45 p.m. who were to take over the command of the hill from him, his men had started walking down the hill. He had stayed behind to ensure that no one was left. In accordance with usual practice, the two village guards had been walking ahead o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2721", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company was founded in 1991 with the aim of constructing a gas supply network for the town of Szentgotthárd.\n5.  On 27 January 1993 the Veszprém District Mining Authority issued a permit for another company, authorising it to construct principal gas pipe sections in two streets in Szentgotthárd. On 8 February 1993 the applicant filed an administrative appeal. On 12 March 1993 the National Mining Authority dismissed the appeal, holding that the applicant had no locus standi. The applicant sought judicial review on 5 April 1993.\n6.  After two hearings, on 20 September 1993 the Veszprém District Court quashed the administrative decisions.\n7.  On appeal, on 7 February 1994 the Veszprém County Regional Court quashed this decision and dismissed the applicant's action. It held that the plaintiff had no locus standi in the case, because it could not prove that – in accordance with section 327(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure – the subject matter concerned its rights or lawful interests. Nor could the applicant company (which itself had not been a party to the administrative proceedings) prove – as required by section 72(1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure – that it had suffered prejudice to its lawful interests.\n8.  On 28 March 1994 the applicant filed a petition for review. The Supreme Court held hearings on 20 and 27 November 1995. On the latter occasion, the applicant declared that another administrative litigation concerning its licence to supply gas was in progress. The Supreme Court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the other case.\n9.  After the second-instance court on 25 September 2003 had finally dismissed the applicant's action concerning the licence, the Supreme Court resumed the proceedings. On 8 January 2004 it upheld the Regional Court's decision. It endorsed the reasoning of the second-instance decision, and refuted the applicant's allegation that it had been deprived of its locus standi without an examination of the merits of the case. In the court's view, the fact that, after having deduced in a detailed analysis that the applicant company had no locus standi in the case, the Regional Court had not embarked on an examination of the underlying administrative dispute did not amount to a denial of justice.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2722", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 21 April 1993, the applicants, acting both in their own names and as representatives of their son S.D.C., then a minor, sued the insurance company R. and Mr V.B. in Naples District Court, seeking to obtain compensation for damage sustained by their son in a road traffic accident.\n6.  Preparation of the case for hearing began on 23 September 1993. Two hearings were initially scheduled for 15 and 17 March 1994 but were adjourned: one of the court's own motion and the other for examination of evidence.\n7.  At a hearing of 8 November 1994, upon the applicants' request, the judge in charge of preparations for trial ordered the transmission of the case file to the District Court of Nola (Naples), which assumed jurisdiction ratione loci.\n8.  The case was set down for a first hearing before that court as late as 29 May 1997. Five hearings scheduled to take place between 4 December 1997 and 26 October 1999 were adjourned: two for examination of evidence, one of the court's own motion, one because S.D.C., who had in the meantime reached his majority, had joined the proceedings in his own name before Nola District Court, and one in order to allow the parties to make their submissions. The hearing of submissions was then scheduled for 11 July 2000. However, finding that the defendant had not been informed of a change in the judge in charge of preparations for trial, the new judge adjourned the case until 18 January 2001. The hearing of submissions finally took place on 31 May 2001 and judgment was reserved.\n9.  In a judgment of 8 October 2001, the text of which was deposited in the court's registry on 10 October 2001, Nola District Court allowed the claims of the applicants and their son.\n10.  On 27 September 2001 the applicants lodged an application with the Rome Court of Appeal under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, complaining of the excessive length of the above-described proceedings. The applicants requested the court to conclude that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and to order the Italian Government to pay compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that they claimed to have sustained. Each applicant sought, inter alia, at least 2,582.28 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR 8,392.42 for non-pecuniary damage.\n11.  In a decision of 28 January 2002, the text of which was deposited in the court's registry on 20 March 2002, the Court of Appeal found that the length of the proceedings had been unreasonable. Dismissing their claim in respect of pecuniary damage on the ground that the applicants had not adduced any evidence in that connection, it awarded each applicant the sum of EUR 1,032.92, determined on an equitable basis, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 620 for costs and expenses. This decision was served on the authorities on 12 July 2002 and became final on 26 September 2002.\n12.  The applicants did not appeal to the Court of Cassation, taking the view that such a remedy was available only in respect of points of law. On 11 April 2003 they brought their case before the Court.\n13.  In the meantime, the applicants had addressed a letter on 16 July 2002 to the Ministry of Justice, seeking payment of the sum awarded by the Rome Court of Appeal.\n14.  On 25 February 2003 the applicants served formal notice on the Ministry of Justice to pay the sum in question, then applied for a garnishee order (pignoramento presso terzi).\n15.  The sum awarded by the Court of Appe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2723", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 18 August 2001 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Peace and Order Department of the Istanbul Security Directorate, on suspicion of being involved in the murder of two sisters.\n7.  According to the applicant's version of the facts, during his questioning by the police, despite his request, he was not provided with the assistance of a lawyer. He was allegedly given electric shocks and beaten on the soles of his feet by police officers.\n8.  In his statements dated 19 August 2001, drafted by the police, the applicant confessed to his involvement in the murder and gave a detailed explanation as to the facts of the incident.\n9.  On 22 August 2001 the judge at the Kadıköy Magistrates' Court authorised the extension of the applicant's detention in police custody for three more days.\n10.  On 24 August 2001, upon the Public Prosecutor's request, the applicant was examined by a doctor from the Kadıköy Forensic Medicine Department. According to the medical report, the applicant had a purple and pink lesion of 15x13 cm under his right foot and two lesions of 3x5 cm and 8x10cm under his left foot. The report concluded that it would be appropriate for the applicant to rest for ten days.\n11.  Later the same day, the applicant was taken to the office of the Kadıköy Public Prosecutor, where he reiterated his earlier confessions and assured him that he had not been ill-treated by the police officers. When he was asked to comment on the medical report dated 24 August 2001, the applicant contended that his feet were in that condition due to the fact that he had been wearing his shoes for too long.\n12.  The applicant reiterated these statements before the judge at the Kadıköy Magistrates' Court, who ordered his detention on remand.\n13.  According to a forensic report dated August 2001, the applicant's fingerprints did not match those found at the crime scene.\n14.  On 18 September 2001 the Kadıköy Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant and joined him as the seventh accused in the murder case which was already pending before the Kadıköy Assize Court.\n15.  On 10 October 2001 the Istanbul Bar Association appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant.\n16.  On 25 October 2001 the applicant appeared before the Kadıköy Assize Court for the first time. He denied all allegations against him. He contended that during his detention in police custody he had confessed to the crime under coercion. Moreover, he maintained that the police had threatened to take him back to the police station if he did not also confess before the Public Prosecutor and the judge at the Magistrates' Court.\n17.  At the hearing on 8 August 2002, the intervening parties, who were the parents of the victims, maintained that they believed that the applicant was innocent.\n18.  On 4 December 2003 the Assize Court convicted the applicant and another accused, sentencing them to life imprisonment; it acquitted the other accused. When convicting the applicant the court relied mainly on his statements given at the police station, before the judge at the Kadıköy Magistrates' Court and before the Kadıköy Public Prosecutor.\n19.  On 6 May 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Assize Court. In its detailed decision, the Court of Cassation held that the applicant's statements, which were taken at the preliminary stage of the proceedings in accordance with the law, provided evidence", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2724", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are all Turkish nationals and live in Diyarbakır.\n6.  Until 4 May 1999 the applicants were employed as manual workers by the Diyarbakır Sur Municipality (“the Municipality”). On that date, the Municipality discharged 153 employees, including the applicants, without paying their wages, a dismissal indemnity or any other pecuniary rights to which they were entitled pursuant to domestic labour law.\n7.  On 2 June 1999 the applicants brought separate actions for compensation against the Municipality before the Diyarbakır Labour Court.\n8.  On 11 November 1999 the court ruled in their favour and ordered the Municipality to pay 743,859,795 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] to Mr Demirhan, TRL 1,000,000,000[2] to Mr Görsav and TRL 774,821,795[3] to Mr Çelik, plus statutory interest running from 2 June 1999. It also ruled that the legal costs and expenses of the proceedings should be borne by the Municipality.\n9.  In the absence of an appeal, the judgments became final on 11 November 1999.\n10.  On an unspecified date, the applicants initiated enforcement proceedings against the Municipality. However, their efforts proved futile as the Municipality refused to comply with the judgments.\n11.  On 15 February 2001 and 21 March 2001 the applicants' representative requested the Diyarbakır Governor's Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs to intervene on their behalf in order to facilitate the enforcement of the court's judgments.\n12.  On 9 May 2001 the Diyarbakır Governor's Office informed the applicants' representative that they had written to the Municipality requesting them to redress the applicants' grievances. However, the Municipality did not make any payment since it was underfunded.\n13.  On 20 June 2002 Mr Mehdi Görsav reached a friendly settlement agreement with the Municipality. The friendly settlement protocol stipulated that the applicant would waive all of his claims, including the principal amount of compensation determined by the Labour Court, interest and all costs and fees, if he were to be paid TRL 1,025,815,000. The protocol also stated the applicant would receive this sum in five instalments. Between 27 June 2002 and 21 November 2002 this amount was paid to the applicant.\n14.  In the meantime, Mr Fırat Çelik initiated enforcement proceedings in order to recover his compensation. However, on 19 December 2002 his case was struck out by the enforcement office since he did not pursue his application.\n15.  By letters dated 6 January 2005 the Municipality invited Mr Fırat Çelik and Mr Nezir Demirhan to receive within seven days the principal amount awarded by the Labour Court. However, the applicants declined the invitation since the sum offered did not cover the interest, costs and fees awarded by the Labour Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2725", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Tbilisi. She was a journalist at the material time.\n6.  In July 2000, the applicant published an article in the newspaper “Meridiani 44” (no. 75 (579), 3-5 July 2000). This article, entitled “The Head of the 'twofold' Ministry does not know where and how much he has saved”, was a continuation of a regular rubric which informed the public of the financial situation of various political figures in the light of their property declarations. The background to the rubric was the problem of corruption in the public service.\n7.  In the article, amongst other politicians and government officials, Mr Givi Lominadze, a Member of Parliament at the material time, was criticized for his declared assets.\n8.  The article began on the first page of the newspaper with a black‑and‑white photograph (12x11 cm) of the parliamentarian's summer house. The following comment was underneath the picture: “The summer house of the Abkhazia exile and Member of Parliament, Mr Givi Lominadze, does not look that modest. So what? The Georgians who have lost Abkhazia deserve to take a breather somewhere ...”\n9.  In the article the applicant cited the words of Grigol Robakidze, a 20th century Georgian writer: “the Government is a sacred phenomenon; there is no place for blackguards there”. She further continued: “the main principle of the relationship between the people and the Government – justice – is breached today; we obey arbitrariness ... Let's have a look now at the financial position of the officials suspected of arbitrariness.”\n10.  The passage of the article describing Mr Lominadze's assets in the light of his latest property declaration was placed on the fifth page of the newspaper:\n“... If Mr B.'s pride is his son, Mr Givi Lominadze – Head of the Parliamentary Fraction “Abkhazia” (although, he might soon forfeit this post) – is proud of his son‑in‑law, Mr P., who is the Head of the President's Security Service (we already spoke about the latter in the previous edition). The son-in-law has probably given a hand to his father‑in‑law, otherwise the latter could hardly have finished for some 25‑35,000 Laris [EUR 11,500-16,170[1]] the construction of the summer house (which, in fact, looks like a palace) in the village of Tsitelsofeli on the banks of Aragvi River.\nYou all know how difficult the everyday life of the refugees from Abkhazia is, and, as it seems, still missing the sea, they want to be close to the water – Aragvi is undoubtedly a gorgeous river.\nMr Lominadze has also managed to purchase an apartment in Tbilisi for the price of GEL 40-45,000 [EUR 18,500‑20,800] (Mr Lominadze gives such approximate, “twofold” prices everywhere). And, with due regard to the price of the Tsitelsofeli summer house, then Mr Lominadze's Tbilisi apartment should be a truly grandiose construction. Or, maybe Mr Lominadze made a mistake and “could not correctly” assess the price of his riverside summer house?!\nIn the list of his real property, Mr Lominadze has also cited the house he inherited in the village of Senaki, valued at GEL 20,000 [EUR 9,240], and the family library, valued at GEL 10,000 [EUR 4,640]. Despite the fact that, last year, the parliamentarian's only income was his salary amounting to GEL 6,300 [EUR 2,900] in total, his savings amount to GEL 7,000 [EUR 3,200]. One can only wonder whether Lominadze and people like him feed on air, without ever spending salaries; how else could they manage to save so much?!”\n11.  Mr L", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2728", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in the village of Savvino in the Moscow Region.\n6.  On 26 December 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated robbery, extortion and abuse of position. He was remanded in custody three days later.\n7.  On 23 January 2002 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of aggravated robbery and abuse of position, acquitted him of the remainder of the charges and sentenced him to eleven years' imprisonment. The judgment became final on 23 April 2002 when the Moscow City Court upheld it on appeal.\n8.  On 6 November 2003 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court, acting on a request from the applicant in supervisory review proceedings, amended the judgments of 23 January and 23 April 2002, reducing the sentence to six years' imprisonment. The applicant was released on parole on 25 March 2005.\n9.  From 29 December 2000 to 28 June 2002 the applicant was detained in facilities nos. IZ-77/1 and IZ-77/3 in Moscow.\n10.  According to certificates issued on 21 December 2005 by the acting director of the facility and produced by the Government, the applicant was kept in cell no. 402, which measured 23.4 square metres. According to the Government, the information on the number of inmates in the cell was not available as the documents had been destroyed. At the same time the Government noted that warders working in the facility while the applicant was detained there had stated that the applicant had shared the cell with five or six other detainees. The Government, relying on the certificates of 21 December 2005, further submitted that the applicant had had an individual bunk and bedding at all times.\n11.  The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements. However, he alleged that the cell had had twelve bunks and had accommodated 25 inmates. Given the lack of beds, inmates had slept in shifts.\n(b)  Sanitary conditions, installations and food\n12.  The Government, relying on the information provided by the acting director of the facility, submitted that the cell received natural light and ventilation through the two windows, which were glazed and measured 0.75 metres in width and 1.1 metres in height. The facility authorities inspected the cell on a daily basis. The Government further argued that the temperature in the cell was maintained at normal levels. The cell was equipped with lamps which functioned day and night. The cell was disinfected once a week. It was equipped with a lavatory pan, a sink and a tap for running water. The pan was separated from the living area by a one‑metre‑high brick wall. Inmates were allowed to take a shower once a week. The Government, relying on the information provided by the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, further stated that the applicant was provided with food three times a day “in accordance with the established norms”. Medical personnel at the facility checked the quality of the food three times a day and made entries in registration logs. The Government submitted copies of the registration logs for certain months in 2001 and 2002. According to the Government, detainees had made no complaints about the quality of the food.\n13.  The applicant disagreed with the Government's description and submitted that the sanitary conditions had been unsatisfactory. There were rats in the cell, which was only dimly lit. The windows were not glazed and the food was of extremely poor quality and in scarce supply.\n(c)  Medical ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2729", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Moscow.  He was an investor in Russian Credit, a private bank which is now insolvent.\n7.  In 1998 and 1999 the applicant won two legal actions against the bank. Unable to recover his investment despite the judgments in his favour, the applicant instituted numerous sets of proceedings against the bank and various authorities involved in its insolvency.\n8.  In April 2000 188,900 of the bank's creditors joined together to form a union, obtained a settlement with the bank and asked the Commercial Court of Moscow to ratify it. 221 creditors disagreed with the settlement. Some of them, including the applicant, lodged their written objections with the court.\n9.  The Commercial Court of Moscow heard the case in four hearings which took place on 10, 11, 14, and 15 August 2000. The court gave notice of the hearings to the 221 creditors who had objected to the settlement, representatives of the creditors' union and representatives of the bank. Since the applicant received the notice only on 14 August 2000, he was able to participate in the last hearing only. According to the applicant, on 15 August 2000 the judge refused to hear his pleadings on the ground that they were essentially the same as those of the other creditors.\n10.  Access to the court building was restricted throughout the proceedings. On 10 August 2000 a policeman standing at the entrance turned away twenty to twenty-five people who wished to enter the courtroom but who did not have a notice to appear or an identity card. On each of the following days about three to five people wishing to attend the hearings were refused access to the court building. At each hearing a number of seats in the courtroom remained free.\n11.  On 15 August 2000 the Commercial Court of Moscow ratified the settlement. The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 9 October 2000 the Appeals Division of the Commercial Court of Moscow upheld the settlement. The applicant participated in the hearing, pleaded his case and submitted written arguments. Disagreeing with the judgment, the applicant appealed on points of law.\n13.  On 1 December 2000 the Federal Commercial Court of the Moscow Circuit dismissed the appeal on points of law. The applicant participated in the hearing, pleaded his case and submitted written arguments.\n14.  Public access to the appeal hearings was also restricted. Both appeal courts ignored the applicant's complaint that the first-instance hearings had not been public.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2730", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Chişinău. She is a pensioner.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant worked for a company in Chişinău. Besides her salary, she allegedly received fees, which were transferred to an account opened for her in the company's name. After retirement, she requested the company to transfer to her account all the fees accumulated (which she estimated at 25,278 United States Dollars (USD)). When the company refused to do so, she initiated court proceedings.\n8.  She asked the court to waive the obligation to pay court fees on the ground of her poor financial situation. In particular, she produced evidence showing that her only income was a monthly State pension of 102 Moldovan lei (MDL), equivalent to 8.7 euros (EUR) which barely allowed her to survive.\n9.  On 28 April 2000 the Râşcani District Court exempted the applicant from the payment of court fees because of her poor financial situation. On 31 January 2001 the court rejected her action and ordered the applicant to pay court fees of MDL 9,600 (EUR 826).\n10.  The Chişinău Regional Court requested pre-payment of additional court fees for examining her appeal. The court reduced those fees by half (from the original MDL 7,200 to MDL 3,600 (EUR 307)) “taking into account the provisions of Article 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the financial situation of [the applicant]”.\n11.  The applicant signed two summonses forms informing the parties about the dates of the next hearings (30 October 2001 and 20 November 2001), which also included the phrase “[Appellant] Malahova A.S. shall pay in court fees 3,600 [MDL]”.\n12.  On 29 October 2001 the applicant requested the court to waive the court fees altogether given her financial situation (her pension was MDL 143 (EUR 12.2) by that time) and the labour-related character of her claim (she argued that her unpaid fees amounted to “other claims related to work activities” and, according to the law, she should be exempted from court fees). She relied on Article 88 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 16 below).\n13.  On 20 November 2001 the court refused to examine her case because she had failed to pay the court fees. It did not analyse her financial situation or respond to her claim that the case concerned payment for work performed and, as such, was not subject to the payment of court fees.\n14.  In her appeal the applicant invoked her inability to pay the court fees and relied on the evidence of her small pension, as well as on the fact that her husband was unemployed and had no income. She relied on Article 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 16 below).\n15.  On 10 January 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision. The court, without referring to the applicant's sources of income or analysing her financial situation other than referring to the documents already in the file, found that the applicant had not presented proof of her inability to pay the court fees. The decision was final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2731", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Kirovograd.\n5.  In March 1996 Mr. D. instituted proceedings against the applicant seeking compensation for expenses of the funeral of his brother, the applicant's husband. On 24 July 1996 the Leninsky District Court of Kirovograd (hereinafter “the Leninsky Court”) allowed this claim in part. On 12 September 1996 the Kirovograd Regional Court upheld this decision.\n6.  On 1 October 1997 the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court, following the protest of the Deputy President of the Supreme Court, quashed all previous decisions in the case and remitted it for a fresh consideration.\n7.  On 22 November 1997 the applicant lodged a counterclaim against D., claiming that she was entitled to property and compensation in connection with the administration of her late husband's estate.\n8.  On 11 December 1997 the Leninsky Court declined to consider the counterclaim because the applicant had failed to pay the court fee.\n9.  On 18 December 1997 the applicant re-lodged her counterclaim.\n10.  On 29 September 1998, on the applicant's request, the case was transferred to the Kirovograd District Court.\n11.  On 20 May 1999 the proceedings were resumed.\n12.  On 10 October 2000, following Mr D.'s modification of his claim, the hearings were postponed until 14 November 2000.\n13.  On 14 November 2000, following the applicant's modification of her claim, the hearings were postponed until 11 December 2000.\n14.  On 21 June 2001 the Kirovograd District Court allowed in part both the original claim and the counterclaim.\n15.  On 17 October 2001 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal (hereinafter “the Regional Court”) modified the judgment as to D.'s claim. It also quashed the judgment in the part concerning the applicant's counterclaim and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n16.  On 27 December 2001 the Regional Court assigned the case to the Kirovsky District Court of Kirovograd (hereinafter “the Kirovsky Court”).\n17.  On 22 March 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal and upheld the ruling of 17 October 2001.\n18.  The proceedings were resumed in the Kirovsky Court in June 2002.\n19.  On 23 March 2003 the proceedings were suspended until examination by the Leninsky Court of the criminal case instituted upon the applicant's request against Mr D. as to the alleged forgery of his brother's (the applicant's husband's) will.\n20.  In April 2003 the applicant lodged with the Kirovsky Court a request to review the judgment of 21 June 2001 in the light of newly disclosed circumstances.\n21.  On 22 December 2003 this request was rejected.\n22.  In April 2004 the applicant lodged a request with the Supreme Court seeking to review the decision of 21 June 2001 in the light of newly disclosed circumstances.\n23.  On 24 March 2004 the Leninsky Court terminated the criminal proceedings against Mr D. as prosecution had become time-barred. On 1 June and 7 December 2004 the Regional Court and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this ruling.\n24.  On 15 April 2004 the Kirovsky Court requested the Leninsky Court about the outcome of criminal proceedings against Mr D.\n25.  On 25 May 2004 the civil proceedings were resumed.\n26.  On 10 December 2004 the case-file was transferred to the Supreme Court for examination of the applicant's request to review the judgment of 21 June 2001 in the light of newly disclosed circumstances.\n27.  On 31 October 2005 the Supreme Court rejected this request.\n28.  Since J", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2732", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is a citizen of Russia and Turkmenistan. He was born in 1977 and currently resides in Moscow.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The applicant was employed as an accountant in the Central Bank of Turkmenistan. On 4 March 2002 the applicant was registered at the Russian Consulate in Turkmenistan as a Russian citizen residing in Ashkhabad, and on 17 March 2002 he was issued a Russian passport (no. 51 N 0956182). In August 2002 the applicant resigned and, with his wife and son, born in 1999, moved to Moscow to apply for a PhD course.\n9.  On 27 September 2002 the Prosecutor General of Turkmenistan sent a request to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation to detain and extradite the applicant on criminal charges. The request was made on the basis of the CIS Convention on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases (the 1993 Minsk Convention). In Turkmenistan the applicant was charged with large-scale embezzlement of state property, committed through abuse of power. In particular, the request stated that in the period between 25 July and 3 September 2002 the applicant had transferred financial assets to the value of 40 million US dollars from the correspondent account of the Central Bank of Turkmenistan in the Deutsche Bank AG (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) to the Russkiy Depozitarny Bank (Moscow), Latekobank and Pareksbank (Riga, Latvia) and to HSBC (Syangan, China). The assets had later been withdrawn from the accounts and not returned to Turkmenistan. Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in Turkmenistan. On 25 September 2002 a warrant for his arrest had been issued by a prosecutor and he had been put on the wanted list.\n10.  On 27 September 2002 the applicant was arrested in Moscow pursuant to an order of the Prosecutor General of Turkmenistan and placed in the temporary detention ward of the Moscow City Department of the Interior (изолятор временного содержания ГУВД г. Москвы).\n11.  On 11 October 2002 the applicant's lawyer, Ms Stavitskaya, submitted a complaint to the Prosecutor General's Office (PGO). She argued that the applicant should not be extradited to Turkmenistan because he was a Russian national. She referred to the relevant provisions of the Russian Constitution, the Citizenship Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) and the 1993 Minsk Convention, none of which allowed extradition of a Russian national to another jurisdiction. The complaint referred to human-rights reports on the situation in Turkmenistan, which gave rise to a well-established fear that torture and other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment would be used against the applicant. She also stated that, as the applicant could not be legally extradited, on account of his Russian nationality, his detention for that purpose was unlawful.\n12.  On 11 October 2002 the Human Rights Centre Memorial (“Memorial”), a Russian NGO, contacted the Prosecutor General about the applicant's detention and possible extradition to Turkmenistan. It referred to the applicant's Russian nationality. It further referred to the situation in Turkmenistan and, in particular, to the absence of fair-trial guarantees and the lack of impartiality and independence of the judiciary. It referred to the facts that in Turkmenistan arrest warrants were signed personally by the President of Turkmenistan and were not subject to any review, that the sentences given in all", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2734", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Grigoriy Yakovlevich Mavrodiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Mykolayiv. He was the only owner and director of the “Primula” private construction enterprise.\n5.  On 24 June 1998 the Odessa Regional Arbitration Court ordered the Chornomorskyi Housing Unit of the Odessa Military District (Квартирно-експлуатаційна частина Чорноморського району Одеського військового округу) to pay the applicant's enterprise UAH 21,350[1] under a construction contract. The judgment became final and the writ of execution was transferred to the Bailiffs' Service for enforcement. However, it was not enforced due to lack of funds on the debtor's current account.\n6.  On 26 December 2001 the Odessa Regional Commercial Court, upon the applicant's request, ordered the enforcement of the judgment of 24 June 1998 by attaching the debtor's property.\n7.  On 14 November 2002 the writ of execution was returned to the applicant as the enforcement proceedings were terminated due to the debtor's lack of funds.\n8.  On 23 December 2003 the Odessa Regional Commercial Court rejected the applicant's request to declare the Ministry of Defence a debtor in the enforcement proceedings. On 18 February 2004 the Odessa Commercial Court of Appeal upheld this ruling.\n9.  In March 2004 the applicant lodged with the Kyiv City Commercial Court a claim against the Ministry of Defence and the Chornomorskyi Housing Unit seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the failure to enforce the judgment of 24 June 1998. On 20 May 2004 the applicant's claim was left without consideration for failure to pay the court fee.\n10.  The judgment given in the applicant's favour by the Odessa Regional Arbitration Court on 24 June 1998 remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2735", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in St Petersburg. The applicant is a lawyer; at the material time he was a member of the St Petersburg United Bar Association (Санкт-Петербургская объединенная коллегия адвокатов).\n6.  On 20 January 1999 the St Petersburg City Prosecutor opened criminal case no. 7806 against Mr Sh., Mr G. and fifteen other persons who were suspected of forming and participating in an organised criminal enterprise and of other serious offences.\n7.  On 7 March 2000 Mr D., an investigator with the Serious Crimes Department in the prosecutor's office, issued a search warrant which read in its entirety as follows:\n“Taking into account that at the [applicant's] place of residence at the address [the applicant's home address] there might be objects and documents that are of interest for the investigation of criminal case [no. 7806], I order a search of the premises at the address [the applicant's home address] where [the applicant] permanently resides and the seizure of objects and documents found during the search.”\n8.  On the same day a St Petersburg deputy prosecutor approved the search and countersigned the warrant.\n9.  The Government claimed that the applicant had not been a party to criminal case no. 7806 and had not represented anyone involved. The applicant maintained that he had been a representative of:\n(a)  Mr S., who had been first a suspect and later a witness in criminal case no. 7806. On 21 February 2000 the applicant had represented Mr S. before the Oktyabrskiy Court of St Petersburg in proceedings concerning a complaint about a decision by the investigator D. The applicant had also been S.'s representative in unrelated civil proceedings on the basis of an authority form of 25 May 1999;\n(b)  Mr Yu., who had been a defendant in criminal case no. 7806 and whom the applicant had represented from 10 July to 25 December 1998;\n(c)  Mr B., who had been the victim in a criminal case concerning the murder of his son. Subsequently that case had been joined to criminal case no. 7806. The applicant had represented Mr B. from 11 February to 23 March 2000;\n(d)  Mr Sh., who had been a defendant in criminal case no. 7806 and whom the applicant had represented before the Court (application no. 29392/02).\n10.  On 9 March 2000 the investigator D., in the presence of the applicant, assisted by police officers from the Organised Crime District Directorate (РУБОП) and two attesting witnesses (понятые), searched the applicant's flat. According to the record of the search, the applicant was invited to “voluntarily hand over... documents relating to the public company T. and the federal industrial group R.”. The applicant responded that he had no such documents and countersigned under that statement.\n11.  The investigator found and seized over twenty documents which the applicant declared to be his own and the central unit of the applicant's computer. According to the record of the search, the applicant had no complaints about the way the search was carried out, yet he objected to the seizure of the central unit because it contained two hard disks and was worth 1,000 United States dollars. The seized documents included, in particular, Mr S.'s power of attorney of 25 May 1999 and extracts of a memorandum in Mr B.'s case.\n12.  On the same date the investigator D. held a formal interview with the applicant in connection with criminal case no. 7806.\n13.  On 17 March 2000 the investigator L. issued an order for the attachment of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2736", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  By a decree of 17 March 1982, a “Mission for coordination, information and action against terrorism” was set up. This “anti-terrorist unit” at the Elysée Palace operated from 1983 to March 1986 within the office of the French President, engaging in telephone tapping and recording.\n5.  In November 1992 a weekly magazine published a handwritten note dated 28 March 1983, under the letterhead of the President's Office, containing indications that telephone lines, in particular those of certain journalists and lawyers, had been tapped.\nIn the same year a list of the people who had been placed under surveillance was published in the press.\n6.  The case aroused considerable media interest and a judicial investigation was opened in February 1993.\nIn the course of the proceedings G.M., deputy director of the French President's private office at the time of the surveillance, was placed under formal investigation on a charge of invading the privacy of others.\n7.  On 25 January 1996, a few days after President Mitterrand's death, the publishers Arthème Fayard published a book entitled Les Oreilles du Président (“The President's Ears”), which had been written by the first two applicants, both journalists, on the subject of the monitoring operations at the Elysée Palace.\n8.  On 1 February 1996 G.M. lodged a criminal complaint, with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party, against Mr Pontaut and Mr Dupuis, accusing them of handling documents obtained through a breach of professional confidence, of knowingly deriving an advantage from such a breach and of handling stolen property. In his complaint G.M. noted that appendix 1 of the book consisted of six “facsimile telephone-tap transcripts” which were identical to documents in the case file and that the other three appendices (list of individuals under surveillance) were also based on information from the file. He further cited thirty-six passages from the work which reproduced officially-recorded statements made to the investigating judge by the individuals under investigation or witnesses.\n9.  In the ensuing judicial investigation the applicants denied having obtained their information illegally. They refused to reveal their sources and claimed that many of the people examined by the judge had since publicly disclosed the content of their statements. As regards the facsimile telephone-tap transcripts and the content of the official records, the applicants argued that they had been circulating among journalists well before the opening of the judicial investigation.\n10.  In a judgment of 10 September 1998 the Paris tribunal de grande instance found that both the facsimiles and the record extracts came from the judicial investigation file, which was only accessible to persons bound by the secrecy of the judicial investigation or by a duty of professional confidence. The court considered that, regardless of how the documents in question had been transmitted, they could not have fallen into the applicants' hands without an offence being committed. In the court's opinion, experienced journalists could not have been unaware of that fact. Observing that all the elements of the offence of handling illegally-obtained items (recel) were sufficiently established, the court found Mr Pontaut and Mr Dupuis guilty of the offence of handling information obtained through a breach of the secrecy of the investigation or through a breach of professional confidence, under Articles 226-13, 226-31, 321-1 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2737", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the town of Kremenchuk.\n5.   On 15 December 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his position at the Instrumentalnyy Zavod Company (hereafter the “Company”).\n6.  On 16 February 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings seeking his reinstatement and compensation for the loss of salary.\n7.  On 4 June 1999 the Kryukivsky District Court of Kremenchuk (hereafter “the District Court”) rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated.\n8.  On 5 August 1999 the Poltava Regional Court (hereafter “the Regional Court”) upheld this judgment.\n9.  On 10 February 2000, at the applicant's request, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court lodged with the Regional Court a protest against these decisions.\n10.  On 29 February 2000 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the decisions of 4 June 1999 and 5 August 1999 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It indicated that the courts had failed to establish all relevant facts, particularly concerning the applicant's productivity and qualifications.\n11.  On 24 October 2000 the District Court rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated.\n12.  On 14 December 2000 the Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration stating that the first instance court had failed to give appropriate consideration to the issue of the applicant's qualifications.\n13.  On 19 November 2001 the District Court rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated.\n14.  On 31 January 2002 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal (the former Poltava Regional Court, hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) quashed this decision and ordered a fresh consideration on the ground that the first instance court's reasoning was insufficient.\n15.  On 15 July 2002 the District Court rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated.\n16.  On 5 November 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim as being out of time. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2738", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the Rostov Region.\n7.  On 28 June 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.\n8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.\n9.  On 25 January 2007 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 3,000 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment and 914.56 Russian roubles in respect of postal expenses in the Strasbourg proceedings. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.\n10.  The amounts indicated in the settlement were credited into the applicant's bank account.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2739", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Serpukhov in the Moscow Region.\n7.  The applicant is in receipt of an old-age pension.\n8.  On 23 June 1997 the Federal Law on Calculating and Upgrading State Pensions (the “Pensions Law”) was enacted. It introduced a new scheme for calculating retirement benefits – the “Individual Pensioner Coefficient” (“IPC”).\n9.  On 1 December 1997 the Ministry of Labour brought in the Regulations on the Implementation of the Pensions Law (“the Regulations”) clarifying the application of the Pensions Law.\n10.  On 1 February 1998 the Pension Fund Agency of Serpukhov (“the Agency”) re-assessed the amount of the applicant's pension according to the Pensions Law interpreted in the light of the Regulations, and decided that the IPC to be applied in her case should be 0.525.\n11.  On 18 June 1998 the Supreme Court of Russia ruled that the Regulations were unlawful.\n12.  On 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour issued the Directive on the Application of Limitations established by the Pensions Law (“the Directive”). The Directive again specified how the Pensions Law should apply.\n13.  By decisions of 24 April, 25 May and 3 August 2000 the Supreme Court of Russia, sitting at three different levels of jurisdiction, confirmed the lawfulness of the Directive.\n14.  In January 2000 the applicant instituted court proceedings against the Agency, claiming that under the Pensions Law she was eligible to an IPC of 0.7.\n15.  On 13 April 2000 the Serpukhov Town Court of the Moscow Region found in the applicant's favour, having established that the defendant had misinterpreted the Pensions Law. In respect of the Agency's argument that it had applied the law in accordance with the Directive, the court noted that the Directive was essentially similar to the Regulations of 1 December 1997, which the Supreme Court had ruled were unlawful. Accordingly, the court ordered the Agency to apply an IPC of 0.7 when calculating the applicant's pension thereby increasing it by RUR 822.5 and awarded her arrears of RUR 4,593.89.\n16.  On 22 May 2000 the Moscow Regional Court dismissed the defendant's appeal, and the judgment of 13 April 2000 became final.\n17.  On 16 June 2000 enforcement proceedings commenced.\n18.  In June 2000 the Agency applied for a review of the judgment of 13 April 2000 owing to the discovery of new circumstances. It claimed that on 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court of Russia had confirmed the lawfulness of the Directive and contended that since it had been unaware of the decision of the Supreme Court when the judgment in the applicant's favour was delivered, that judgment should be reviewed.\n19.  On 16 August 2000 the Serpukhov Town Court granted the Agency's application and re-opened the proceedings.\n20.  On 12 September 2000 following a fresh examination of the case the Serpukhov Town Court dismissed the applicant's claims in full having applied the Directive.\n21.  On 26 September 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment.\n22.  On 6 October 2000 the Serpukhov Town Court stayed the applicant's appeal and invited her to provide a valid explanation for her failure to observe the statutory time-limit of 10 days for appealing against a first-instance judgment, and to pay a court fee in the amount of RUR 87.83. As the applicant failed to fulfil these requirements, on 18 October 2000 the court returned her appeal papers to her.\n23.  On 15 November 2000 the Serpukhov Town Court stayed the applicant's appeal ag", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2740", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the town of Taganrog, the Rostov Region.\n5.  In the 1980s the applicant took part in a rescue operation on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. As of the late 1990s the applicant has been in receipt of social benefits in this connection.\n6.  On 1 December 1998 the Taganrog Town Court (“the Town Court”) granted the applicant's claim for unpaid social benefits and ordered the pension authority to make him monthly payments of 1,850.55 Russian roubles (RUR  approximately 69 euros (EUR)) and a one-time payment of RUR 32,457 (approximately EUR 1,210). This judgment came into force on 17 April 1999. The sums due pursuant to the judgment of 1 December 1998 were paid in full on 8 May 2002.\n7.  By a judgment of 4 October 1999 the Town Court granted the applicant's claim for other unpaid social benefits and ordered the authority to pay him RUR 1,850.55 (approximately EUR 69) monthly and also to make him a one-time payment of RUR 85,650 (approximately EUR 3,172).\n8.  It appears that the judgment was not appealed against by the parties and came into force on 14 October 1999. The respective award was paid in full on 8 May 2002.\n9.  On 29 August 2000 the Town Court examined and granted the applicant's claim to index-link the social benefits in line with the minimum monthly wage using coefficient “1,581”. It does not appear that the parties challenged the judgment on appeal and on 8 September 2000 it came into force. It appears that the authority disagreed with the judgment and refused to enforce it.\n10.  On 6 March 2003 the Regional Court, acting by way of supervisory review upon the application of the President of the Rostov Regional Court under the old Code of Civil Procedure which, in its relevant part, remained in force until 30 June 2003, set aside the judgment of 29 August 2000 and remitted it to the first instance court for a fresh examination on the ground of a serious breach of substantive law.\n11.  It appears that on 5 May 2003 the domestic courts re-examined and eventually rejected the applicant's claim. The respective judgment came into force on 30 June 2003.\n12.  By a judgment of 5 December 2002 the Town Court examined and granted the applicant's claim for damages in respect of delays in the enforcement of the judgment of 29 August 2000.\n13.  The court ordered the authority to make him a one-time payment of RUR 39,446.93 (approximately EUR 1,240) and monthly payments of RUR 8,007.74 (approximately EUR 251) starting from 1 January 2003. This judgment was rectified by the Town Court decision of 29 January 2003 and later approved by the Rostov Regional Court on 19 February 2003.\n14.  It appears that eventually the authority was ordered to pay the applicant RUR 43,102.62 (approximately EUR 1,353) one-time and RUR 8,086.95 (approximately EUR 253) on a monthly basis.\n15.  It appears that the judgment was re-opened and quashed on the ground of new circumstances by the Town Court on 10 October 2003. The court considered that the quashing of the judgment of 29 August 2000 constituted a new relevant fact and quashed the judgment of 5 December 2002 accordingly. Subsequently, the court decided to reject the applicant's claims.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2742", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mrs Tatiana Guţu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1952 and lives in the village of Cojuşna.\n5.  Her minor son M., who was twelve years old at the time of the events, was frequently suspected of committing petty thefts and was taken to the police station on numerous occasions. No criminal proceedings were ever instituted against him because of his age. On several occasions he complained about being beaten up by police officers R.D. and I.B. and his mother lodged criminal complaints against them. On 28 December 2001 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor's Office that on 4 December 2001 her son had been ill-treated by police officers R.D. and I.B., as a result of which he had sustained concussion and multiple bruises.\n6.  On Sunday 30 December 2001 at noon, police officer R.D. came to the applicant's house and demanded that her son accompany him to the police station because he was suspected of being involved in a theft from a neighbour, which had taken place on 29 December 2001. According to the Government, the police officer demanded that both the applicant and her son accompany him to the police station. The applicant refused to let her son go unless he was properly summonsed.\n7.  A quarter of an hour later the same police officer came to her house accompanied by police officer I.B. and two neighbours. Since the gate was locked, the police officers asked one neighbour to climb over and unlock it from the inside.\n8.  One of the police officers announced to the applicant that she was being taken to the police station on a charge of committing the administrative offence of disobeying the lawful orders of a police officer, provided for by Article 174 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”).\n9.  The applicant was taken by the two police officers to the village police station. They did not let her change her clothes or slippers, although she did put on a coat.\n10.  On the way to the police station, according to statements of witnesses, as they appear in the domestic case file, the applicant was attacked by the neighbour who was the victim of the alleged theft and fell down during the altercation. The police officers intervened and handcuffed the applicant. The Government argued that the applicant had attacked her neighbour and that her fall was a result of the altercation.\n11.  When they arrived at the police station she was asked to sign a declaration written by one of the police officers, but she refused. Two witnesses, who came along with them, signed declarations written by the police officers, allegedly without reading them.\n12.  She was then taken by car to the town of Străşeni and placed in a cell at the local remand centre, where she was held from 8 p.m. on 30 December 2001 until 10 a.m. on 31 December 2001.\n13.  While in detention she was not given the opportunity to wash herself or to change her clothes. She was not provided with food or water or with a blanket. She was not questioned, informed about the reasons for her detention or provided with a lawyer.\n14.  On Monday 31 Decembe  2001 the applicant was taken to the Străşeni District Court for the hearing in respect of the alleged offence of disobeying the lawful orders of a police officer in accordance with Article 174 § 1 of the CAO.\n15.  According to the applicant, she was taken to the court wearing her slippers and her clothes, still covered in mud. During the hearing the applicant asked for a lawyer and a pro bono lawyer was provi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2743", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the village of Bukachacha in the Chita Region.\n5.  Since 1986 the applicant suffers from a work-related illness. In 1999 he instituted proceedings against his former employer, a mining company, and the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation (hereafter – the Fund) seeking compensation for damage.\n6.  On 21 September 1999 the Chernyshevskiy District Court of the Chita Region found in the applicant's favour and awarded the applicant 42,126.40 Russian roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n7.  In November 2000 the former employer asked the Presidium of the Chita Regional Court to review the judgment of 21 September 1999. On 9 January 2001 the acting prosecutor of the Chita Region lodged an application for a supervisory review of that judgment.\n8.  On 15 March 2001 the Presidium of the Chita Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 21 September 1999 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The applicant attended the supervisory-review hearing.\n9.  On 16 October 2002 the Chernyshevskiy District Court awarded the applicant RUR 751.44 in compensation for pecuniary damage and RUR 12,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n10.  On 28 March 2003 the Fund asked the Presidium of the Regional Court to re-examine the case by way of supervisory review.\n11.  On 26 June 2003 the Presidium of the Chita Regional Court, by way of the supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 16 October 2002, re-examined the matter and dismissed the applicant's claims in respect of pecuniary damage. The award in respect of non-pecuniary damage remained unaffected. The Presidium noted that the District Court had incorrectly assessed and applied substantive legal norms. The applicant was not summonsed to the hearing.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2744", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Mykolayiv.\n5.  On 26 August 1998 the Voznesensk Court ordered the “Scherbany” private agricultural company (hereafter “the Company”) to pay the applicant his share of UAH 32,112[1].\n6.  Between 12 October 1998 and December 1999 the Voznesensk City Bailiffs' Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) attached and sold three cars belonging to the Company, following which the applicant was paid UAH 7,130.40[2].\n7.  On 26 September 2002 the Voznesensk Court, following the applicant's complaint, declared the Bailiffs' failure to enforce in total the above-mentioned judgment unlawful.\n8.  On 4 November 2003 the Mykolaiv Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that the judgment of 26 August 1998 had not been enforced in full due to the Company's lack of funds. The above-mentioned judgment remains unenforced until present.\n9.  In November 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Bailiffs seeking compensation for damage caused by unreasonable delay in execution of the judgment given in his favour.\n10.  On 15 February 2003 the Voznesensk Court allowed the applicant's claim and awarded him UAH 925[3] in compensation for moral damage. The judgment was not appealed within a statutory one-month time-limit and entered into force on 17 March 2003.\n11.  On 27 March 2003 the Bailiffs opened the enforcement proceedings and on 13 May 2003 the writ of execution was sent to the Voznesensk Department of the State Treasury.\n12.  On 19 September 2003 the writ of execution was returned to the applicant due to the lack of the debtor's funds.\n13.  On 29 December 2003 the Voznesensk Court, upon the applicant's claim, found unlawful the Bailiffs' failure to enforce the judgment of 15 February 2003 and ordered to reinstate the enforcement proceedings.\n14.  On 8 July 2004 the Bailiffs transferred UAH 925 to the applicant's bank account and the enforcement proceedings were terminated on 15 July 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2745", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the town of Ryazan in the Ryazan Region. He is a former military officer.\n6.  In 2002 the applicant sued his military unit for wage arrears for his military service in 1996 when he had taken part in a military operation in Tajikistan.\n7.  On 22 February 2002 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison upheld the action and awarded the applicant 163,732.80 Russian roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n8.  On 3 April 2002 the applicant received a writ of execution and submitted it to the Ryazan Office of the State Treasury. On 26 April 2002, after the Ryazan Office of the State Treasury had refused to execute the judgement, the applicant submitted the writ to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.\n9.  On 30 September 2002 the applicant was discharged from the army.\n10.  On 16 July 2003 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command, by way of a supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 22 February 2002 and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison.\n11.  On 15 September 2003 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison decided not to examine the action as the applicant had defaulted at two hearings.\n12.  On 12 August 2004 the Military Section of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, acting on a supervisory review, found that the applicant had not been duly summonsed to the hearings before the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison, quashed the judgment of 16 July 2003 and the decision of 15 September 2003 and ordered a re-examination of the case by the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command.\n13.  On 15 September 2004 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, re-examined the case, awarded the applicant RUR 56,311.20 and dismissed the remainder of his claims.\n14.  In January 2005 the applicant asked the Military Section of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to initiate a supervisory review in respect of the judgment of 15 September 2004. On 3 May 2005 the request was dismissed.\n15.  In July 2005 the applicant unsuccessfully requested the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to quash the judgment of 15 September 2004 by way of a supervisory review. On 10 August 2005 the Vice President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to institute supervisory-review proceedings in respect of the judgment of 15 September 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2747", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956. He is currently detained in Lannemezan Prison.\n6.  The applicant is a former member of Action Directe, an extreme left-wing armed movement. He was taken into custody in Lyons Prison on 1 December 1987 after two detention orders had been issued by a Lyons investigating judge.\n7.  On 29 June 1989 the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Rhône Assize Court for attempted intentional homicide, armed robbery, and hostage-taking with a view to facilitating or preparing the commission of a criminal offence or committing a serious crime.\nIn a judgment of 14 October 1992 the Paris Assize Court found him guilty of murder, multiple counts of attempted murder and attempted intentional homicide, armed robbery, handling stolen goods, conspiracy, possessing and carrying illegal weapons, forging cheques and using forged cheques, using explosives to destroy or damage immovable or movable property and an explosives offence. It sentenced him to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of eighteen years. On 3 July 1995 the same court sentenced him to thirty years' imprisonment for unauthorised manufacture or possession of explosive substances or devices, theft, criminal damage and terrorism.\n8.  On 25 September 1994 the applicant applied to the Versailles Administrative Court for judicial review of certain provisions of circulars issued by the Minister of Justice on 14 March and 19 December 1986, the former relating to prisoner searches and the latter to prisoners' written and telegraphic correspondence. He submitted that the circulars contained provisions breaching the decrees and laws in force.\nHe complained in particular about the procedure for full body searches as laid down in the technical note appended to the circular of 14 March 1986, arguing that it infringed human dignity and thus contravened Article D. 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further objected to the fact that, with reference to Article D. 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the circular afforded prison staff the possibility of using force to compel prisoners to submit to such humiliating procedures.\nThe applicant also complained that the circular of 19 December 1986 defined “correspondence” as “written communication between two named persons, as distinct from bulletins, letters, circulars, leaflets and printed matter, whose content does not specifically and exclusively concern the addressee”. He argued that that definition, based on the content of the document, was at variance with freedom of correspondence as enshrined both in domestic law – which did not limit the number of letters that could be received and sent by convicted prisoners and other detainees and guaranteed them free choice as to their correspondents – and in Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention. In his view, it thereby introduced restrictions not envisaged by the law and conferred an arbitrary power of censorship on prison governors. He added that by depriving those held in punishment cells of the possibility of corresponding with their friends or relatives and prison visitors, the circular imposed more restrictive conditions than those laid down in Article D. 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which simply provided for restrictions on correspondence.\nThe applicant stated that the management of Fleury-Mérogis Prison had regularly sent him to the punishment block because of his refusal to open his mouth during full body searches in accordance with the first of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2748", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 30 November 1997 the applicant, who at the time was working as a cook in a restaurant, had been drinking alcohol after his shift. After leaving the restaurant, on his way home, he got into an argument with a group of people waiting at a bus stop in the Sarıyer district. He was immediately arrested by a patrolling police officer (H.Ö.), who allegedly kicked and punched the applicant during the arrest. He was taken into custody at the Sarıyer Police Station, where he was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment for a day.\n7.  On the same day, a deputy superintendent and H.Ö drew up a police report. It stated that the applicant had insulted H.Ö, and had pushed and head-butted him in the face, when he had intervened in the incident. It also noted that the applicant had continued to behave aggressively towards police officers at the station and had insulted them.\n8.  Furthermore, the police took statements from three persons who had been at the scene of the incident. They all confirmed that the applicant had got into an argument with the minibus driver at the bus stop. H.Ö had been trying to calm everyone down, when the applicant started swearing at him. H.Ö then tried to handcuff the applicant but he pushed the officer away and head-butted him in the face. The doctor who examined H.Ö on that day recommended that H.Ö be seen by a specialist at Sişli State Hospital. The same witnesses also signed the police report, stating that the applicant had continued to act aggressively at the police station. Specifically, he had thrown himself onto the floor, tried to harm himself and attack the police officers on duty. On account of his continuing truculence, the police officers handcuffed him with the help of witnesses who were at the police station.\n9.  On 1 December 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor who noted no injuries on his body. Later that day, he was brought before the public prosecutor and then the investigating judge, who ordered the applicant's detention on remand. He was remanded in custody in Sağmalcılar prison. On the same day, H.Ö was the subject of a medical report which described the bleeding and swelling of his nose, justifying four days' sick leave. H.Ö filed a complaint against the applicant on account of the insults and physical assault.\n10.  On 3 December 1997, the Sarıyer public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Sarıyer Criminal Court, accusing the applicant of obstructing and insulting a police officer on duty and aggressive drunkenness.\n11.  On 9 December 1997 the applicant was examined by the doctor of the Sağmalcılar prison, who noted the following marks on his body: oedema on the left ankle, scab-covered wounds surrounding both wrists and a scab-covered lesion in the left scapular region. He also complained of pain in his shoulders. The applicant was referred to Sağmalcılar State Hospital.\n12.  On 10 December 1997 a doctor at Sağmalcılar State Hospital noted an oedema on the applicant's left ankle.\n13.  On 14 December 1997 the applicant was examined again by a doctor, who referred him to the orthopaedic clinic of the same hospital because of the oedema and scab-covered lesions on his left ankle, caused by a blunt instrument.\n14.  On 15 December 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the emergency clinic of the hospital, who noted a large swelling on the left ankle caused by the infection of the soft tissue.\n15.  On 16 December 1997 he was e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2749", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 27 March 1999, during a television broadcast, the head of the Department for Combating Organised Crime and Corruption, N. A., accused Valeriu Matei, the then Vice-President of Parliament and President of one of the political parties represented in Parliament, of corruption and, together with a mafia gang, of protecting several companies allegedly involved in criminal activities. He stated, inter alia, that:\n“...Mr Matei should have been arrested as he has committed both a criminal offence and a minor administrative offence... A criminal file concerning protecting criminals will be sent to the Prosecutor's Office and to the court... These companies [which were suspected of being involved in criminal activities] are being protected by the criminal gang headed by M. and by Mr Matei from Parliament...”\n6.  On 30 March 1999 Flux published an article entitled “The anti-corruption war: General N.A. versus President Matei. Nicolae Alexei claims that Valeriu Matei is providing political protection to a mafia clan.”\n7.  The article contained a word-by-word account of the televised broadcast of 27 March 1999 and the newspaper's commentary.\n8.  On 30 April 1999 Valeriu Matei brought a civil defamation action against Flux and argued that a large number of N.A.'s statements published by Flux were untrue and defamatory of him. The title of the article was not among those statements.\n9.  On 20 February 2003, by a final judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the statements complained of by Valeriu Matei were not defamatory of him, inter alia, because Flux had simply reproduced N.A.'s statements. However, it found that the following part of the article's title was defamatory of Valeriu Matei: “N.A. claims that Valeriu Matei is providing political protection to a mafia clan”. The court found that no such sentence had been pronounced by N.A. during the broadcast of 27 March 1999 and that the newspaper had not adduced evidence to prove that Valeriu Matei was a member of a mafia clan. The court ordered the newspaper to pay the plaintiff 3,600 Moldovan Lei (MDL) and to issue an apology within fifteen days. The newspaper was also ordered to pay the court fees.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2750", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in İstanbul.\n5.  On 17 September 1993 the applicant was arrested together with four other suspects in a shop and taken into custody by police officers at the İstanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation. The police found illegal documents, one Kalashnikov rifle, two automatic guns and five other guns in the premises.\n6.  On 1 October 1993 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court. On the same day, she was also brought before a judge at the İstanbul State Security Court who ordered her remand in custody.\n7.  On 31 December 1993 the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and requested her conviction under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713. The applicant was accused of taking part in a number of events, i.e. bombings of shops and cars, aggravated theft and causing bodily injury to third persons.\n8.  On 21 March 1994 the İstanbul State Security Court commenced the trial of the applicant together with twenty-three co-accused.\n9.  In the meantime, another trial against the applicant before the İstanbul Martial Law Court was pending.\n10.  In the course of the criminal proceedings, at the end of each hearing, the İstanbul State Security Court considered releasing the applicant pending trial both ex officio as well as upon her requests. At each hearing, the court taking into account the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case-file, decided to prolong the applicant's remand in custody.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 17 November 2000, the applicant's lawyer challenged his client's continued detention before the district court. He submitted, inter alia, that his client had been detained for seven years and two months and that there was no danger that she could destroy the evidence, which had all been submitted to the case file, or that she would abscond. The District Court dismissed his request on 20 November 2000 on the same grounds as before, namely “having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file”.\n12.  On 17 December 2003 the İstanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced her to life imprisonment.\n13.  The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 1April 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court.\n15.  Subsequent to promulgation of Law no. 5190 on 16 June 2004, which abolished the State Security Courts, the İstanbul Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the applicant's case. The case is still pending before this court.\n16.  On 19 July 2005 the applicant's lawyer challenged his client's continued detention before the District Court. The latter dismissed the request on 22 July 2005 on similar grounds, namely “having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file”.\n17.  On 21 December 2005 the applicant was released pending trial.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2751", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in the Krasnodar Region. He is a retired military officer.\n6.  On 12 May 2004 the Military Court of the Sochi Garrison allowed the applicant's claims against his former military unit and awarded him 215,245.76 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 6,250 euros). The judgment was not appealed against and became final ten days later.\n7.  On 29 May 2004 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the bailiffs' department of the Ministry of Justice.\n8.  The bailiffs' department could not decide which bailiff would have territorial jurisdiction over the military unit deployed in Abkhazia, Georgia. Instead, on 7 July 2004 it sent the writ directly to the debtor. The writ was lost by the post.\n9.  The bailiffs asked the court to issue a duplicate of the writ of execution. On 3 March 2005 the Military Court of the Sochi Garrison issued the applicant with a duplicate.\n10.  On 17 March 2005 the applicant submitted the duplicate to the Sochi department of the Federal Treasury which sent it to the debtor.\n11.  On 13 September 2005 the applicant received the judgment debt.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2752", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  In the 1990s the applicant was a co-owner and the head of a private enterprise “Ekolog” (hereafter – the “Ekolog” company).\n6.  From 1991 to 1994 the “Ekolog” company was a party to several disputes before the commercial courts. The disputes concerned office premises acquired by the “Ekolog” company from a municipal enterprise. On 1 November 1993, 23 May, 11 July and 26 August 1994 the Voronezh Commercial Court, by final judgments, ruled in favour of the “Ekolog” company's adversaries.\n7.  On 20 December 1994 the Voronezh Town Council leased the office premises to Mr B. In February 1995 bailiffs forced the “Ekolog” company to vacate the premises and six months later Mr B. bought them.\n8.  On 4 December 1997 the applicant and the “Ekolog” company lodged an action against the Voronezh Town Council seeking invalidation of the lease of 20 December 1994. The Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh received the statement of claim and judge I. was assigned to the case. The applicant subsequently submitted an amended statement of claim, asking the District Court to invite Mr B. to the proceedings in the capacity of a defendant. She sought compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n9.  Following the applicant's complaint to the Voronezh Regional Court about the excessive length of the proceedings in the case, on 26 August 1999 the President of the Leninskiy District Court informed the applicant that the first hearing was listed for 28 September 1999. That hearing was adjourned until 6 October 1999 because the Council had not received a copy of the statement of claim.\n10.  The following two hearings fixed between 6 October 1999 and 2 June 2000 were postponed owing to the absence of the Council's representative.\n11.  On 23 July 1999 the applicant and the “Ekolog” company sued the Voronezh Town and Leninskiy District Councils for correction of registration logs in respect of the office premises. After the Leninskiy District Court had received the statement of claim, judge I. was assigned to the case.\n12.  The first hearing was fixed for 28 September 1999. As it appears from the list of events attached to the Government's memorandum, the next hearing was listed for 29 November 2000. On that date judge I. accepted amendments to the applicant's statement of claim.\n13.  On 6 December 1999 the “Ekolog” company lodged an action against the Voronezh Town Council seeking the transfer of the lease rights in respect of the office premises. On the same day the applicant asked the Leninksiy District Court to confirm that she had lived in the disputed premises. Both cases were received by the Leninskiy District Court and assigned to judge I.\n14.  On 5 January 2001 the applicant asked the Leninskiy District Court to invalidate certain legal acts issued by the Voronezh Town Council in respect of the office premises.\n15.  On 2 February 2001 judge I. accepted the case file and fixed the first hearing for 24 April 2001.\n16.  In 2001 judge I. resigned and judge Y. took over her cases. On 27 August 2001 judge Y. joined the five sets of the proceedings initiated by the applicant and the “Ekolog” company and listed the first hearing for 3 December 2001.\n17.  Of the three hearings fixed between 3 December 2001 and 24 June 2002, two were adjourned because the defendants had defaulted and one was postponed for the purpose of obtaining information from the commercial courts.\n18.  On 2 October 2002 the Leni", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2753", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Novocherkassk, a town in the Rostov Region. He is a retired military officer.\n6.  In August 2004 the applicant brought proceedings against the Military Service Commission of Novocherkassk (Военный комиссариат г. Новочеркасска – “the Commission”) seeking to recover his pension arrears from January 1995 to March 1998 to take account of the increase of the minimum monthly wage.\n7.  On 15 September 2004 the Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant's claim and awarded him 252,510.91 roubles (RUR) in arrears. The court held that the judgment should be enforced immediately. The Commission missed the statutory time-limit for lodging an ordinary appeal against the judgment, and it became final on 25 September 2004.\n8.  The Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region issued the applicant with a warrant of execution which the applicant submitted to the Commission on 11 October 2004. The Commission, however, did not comply with the judgment of 15 September 2004 and instead filed an application for review of the judgment due to what it considered to be newly discovered circumstances.\n9.  On 10 February 2005 the Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region dismissed the Commission's request.\n10.  In July 2005 the applicant brought proceedings against the Commission in the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don seeking to recover his pension arrears from January 1995 to March 1998 relating to a long-service bonus and inflation.\n11.  On 18 July 2005 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don granted the applicant's claim and obliged the Commission to recalculate the applicant's pension from January 1995 to March 1998 in view of the 25% increase of the salary and the variation of the consumer price index in the Rostov Region between 1 February 1995 and 31 December 2004.\n12.  On 24 October 2005 the amount of RUR 14,038.44 was paid into the applicant's bank account following the judgment of 18 July 2005.\n13.  On 19 September 2005 the Commission filed an application for supervisory review of the judgment of Novocherkassk Town Court of 15 September 2004, referring to the lack of grounds in domestic law for increasing the applicant's pension, and asked for the stay of enforcement.\n14.  On 5 October 2005 the Rostov Regional Court examined the above application and decided to obtain the case file. The enforcement proceedings were suspended. The Rostov Regional Court remitted the supervisory review application for examination on its merits by the Presidium.\n15.  On 12 January 2006 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court held a supervisory review hearing. It concluded that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law and that the matter should have been examined by a district court rather than a town court. On these grounds it quashed the judgment of 15 September 2004 and remitted the matter to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don for a fresh examination.\n16.  On 15 February 2006 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don discontinued the proceedings having considered the dispute at issue to be the same as the one examined by it on 18 July 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2754", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Chistopol, Tatarstan Republic. He is handicapped suffering from a double above-knee amputation.\n6.  In early 1990s the applicant acquired State commodity bonds for purchase of a Russian-made VAZ passenger car.\n7.  After the State had failed to exchange his bonds for a car, in 1999 the applicant brought a civil action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. On 28 February 2000 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic ordered the Ministry of Finance to pay the applicant 67,300 Russian roubles (RUR).\n8.  In April 2000 a writ of execution was submitted to the Bailiffs Service of the Ministry of Justice for a further transfer to the local bailiff office which was competent to enforce the judgment.\n9.  On 17 November 2000 the Bailiffs Office of the Central Administrative District of Moscow requested the applicant to submit details of his bank account.\n10.  In reply to the applicant's complaint about non-enforcement, on 4 December 2000 the Bailiffs Department of the Ministry of Justice told him that he could collect the award from the Bailiff Office of the Central Administrative Circuit of Moscow. On 4 January 2001 the Ministry of Finance informed the applicant that all questions relating to the enforcement of the judgment in his favour had to be addressed to the bailiff service.\n11.  It appears that the applicant wrote to the Bailiffs Office of the Central Administrative District of Moscow in October and December 2001, and in March 2002. He also unsuccessfully sought supervisory review of the judgment of 28 February 2000.\n12.  According to the Government, on 25 May 2001 a certain Mr K., pretending to act on the applicant's behalf, received the award under the judgment of 28 February 2000.\n13.  On 19 June 2006 the monies due to the applicant were transferred into his bank account.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2755", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in the town of Gola Prystan.\n5.  The applicant's relatives owned a house in the same town which stood on a plot of land belonging to the municipality. The applicant's relatives had a right to use this plot of land. The entrance to the plot was situated on the Kirova Street and the house was registered at the address of 14 Kirova Street.  By the decision of the Gola Prystan Town Council (“the Council”) of 10 December 1975, a part of this plot was allocated to a third party for construction of a house, which was completed in 1976. As a result, the original entrance was destroyed and the applicant's relatives ceased to have a direct access to their house from any neighbouring street.\n6.  In 1989 the applicant inherited his relatives' house. He also obtained the right to use the land on which it stood.\n7.  On an unspecified date, he requested the Council to designate a new passage and entrance to that land. On 12 December 1989 the Council decided that the new passage and entrance should be from the Gorkogo Street through the yard of the neighbouring multi-storey apartment house. The address of the applicant's house (14 Kirova Street) remained unchanged.\n8.  The applicant disagreed and lodged several complaints with the local authorities, alleging that he experienced difficulties in accessing his house. In particular, he argued that he could not bring large items to the land and that visitors encountered difficulties in locating his house at its actual address. By letter of 16 September 1994, the Council informed the applicant that he could freely pass through the neighbouring building's yard in order to enter his house and that he could request amendments to the address of the house, if he so wished.\n9.  In March 1991 the applicant lodged with the Gola Prystan Town Court a claim against the Council. He alleged that the latter had unlawfully reduced the size of the land on which his house stood and that he had difficulties in accessing his house. The applicant sought recovery of the part of land which had been taken away from his relatives in 1975.\n10.  On 18 April 1991 the court refused to consider the applicant's claim on the merits. It found that the applicant in fact contested the lawfulness of the Council's decision of 10 December 1975 and, thus, his claim was not to be considered by the courts since he had not exhausted non-judicial remedies available in 1975. Furthermore the applicant was not the owner of the land on which his house stood.\n11.  On 29 May 1991 the Kherson Regional Court upheld in cassation the ruling of the first instance court.\n12.  In 2001 the applicant lodged with the Gola Prystan Town Court a new claim against the Council. He again alleged that the latter had unlawfully taken away a part of the land on which his house stood in 1975 and that it had not paid compensation for the damage which the applicant's family had allegedly sustained as a result of this. The applicant also alleged that he experienced difficulties in accessing and using his house and that the Council unlawfully refused to resolve his problem. The applicant requested the court to order the Council to grant him an official right of passage over his neighbours' land and to set up a five-meter wide passage and entrance to his plot from the Kirova Street. The applicant also sought compensation.\n13.  On 20 February 2001 the court refused to consider the applicant's claim on the merits. It put forward the same", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2756", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Yalova. He worked as a teacher and retired on 3 September 1973. On 31 October 1991 he completed a pre-undergraduate (önlisans) course at Anadolu University.\n5.  On 19 February 1992 the applicant applied to the Directorate of Education in Istanbul (Milli Eğitim Müdürlüğü) and requested to be reassigned to a post as a teacher. Since he had obtained a higher education diploma, he expected to be promoted to a higher grade for each year of work as a teacher, in accordance with Article 36 of the Law on Civil Servants (Law No. 657). This, in turn, would entitle him to a higher pension.\n6.  On 5 May 1992 the Ministry of Education appointed the applicant to the post of primary school teacher in Kartal district of Istanbul. This decision was sent to the Kartal District Governor (Kaymakamlık) on 26 May 1992 but not communicated to the applicant.\n7.  On 7 August 1992 the applicant once again applied to the Istanbul Directorate of Education and found out about the decision of 5 May 1992. On 10 August 1992 he started working as a teacher.\n8.  On 1 October 1992 the applicant's contract was terminated by the Ministry of Education on the ground that when he started to work he was over the age of 65, i.e. the compulsory retirement age in Turkey. Furthermore, the days he worked from 10 August 1992 until 1 October 1992 were not added to the total period of his service. As a result, the applicant could not advance to a higher grade.\n9.  On 17 January 1993 the applicant filed an action before the Ankara Administrative Court and asked for the days he worked in 1992 to be taken into account when calculating the total period of his service. He also stated that the reason for him to start working after he was over the age of sixty-five had been the failure of the authorities to communicate him the decision concerning his assignment.\n10.  On 22 December 1994 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed his request. The applicant appealed on 5 May 1995 but did not pay the necessary appeal fees until 3 August 1995.\n11.  On 27 April 1998 the Council of State quashed the judgment of the Ankara Administrative Court. In the opinion of the Council of State, the applicant should have been considered as a civil servant on the day of the appointment and not on the day of his actually taking up his duties.\n12.  On 7 October 1999 the Administrative Court rendered its decision in which it insisted in its decision of 22 December 1994. The Administrative Court considered that the applicant could only be considered as a civil servant on the day he actually started to work, and not on the day of his appointment. It further stated that awarding the statutory rights (özlük hakları) to civil servants before they begin their service had no legal basis in domestic law. In the light of the aforementioned considerations, the court ruled that the applicant did not have the right to advance to a higher grade. The applicant appealed against this decision on 19 January 2000 but did not pay the necessary court fees until 23 May 2000.\n13.  On 15 November 2002 the Joint Council of the Council of State's Administrative Chambers (Danıştay İdari Dava Daireleri Genel Kurulu) upheld the first-instance court's judgment. This decision was served on the applicant on 17 February 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2757", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in the town of Astrakhan in the Astrakhan Region. They are employees of a private airline company, OAO “Aviakompaniya 'Astrakhanskiye Avialinii'”.\n5.  On the dates set out in the schedule the Justice of the Peace of the 6th Court Circuit of the Sovetskiy District of Astrakhan accepted the applicants' actions against their employer. The employer was to pay them certain amounts in wage arrears and work-related benefits. The judgments were not appealed against and became final.\n6.  On an unspecified date the President of the Astrakhan Regional Court lodged an application seeking a supervisory review of the judgments made in the applicants' favour.\n7.  On 14 August 2002 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgments and remitted the cases for re-examination. The Presidium noted that the Justice of the Peace had erred in application of the “material and procedural law”.\n8.  On 3 October 2002 the Justice of the Peace of the 6th Court Circuit dismissed the applicants' actions in full. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2758", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bitola.\n5.  On 29 May 1995 PTU “Bordo”-Bitola (“the company”) requested the then Bitola District Commercial Court (Окружен Стопански Суд Битола) to issue a payment order against another company (“the defendant”). The order was requested by the applicant, as the company's sole owner and manager.\n6. On 7 June 1995 the Bitola District Commercial Court granted the company's request.\n7. On 26 June 1995 the defendant objected to the order.\n8. On 4 July 1995 the court upheld the defendant's objection and put aside the order. The subsequent proceedings continued as “civil”.\n9. On 31 August 1995 the company requested the court to fix a hearing.\n10. The hearing of 27 September 1995 was adjourned because of the applicant's absence. The court adjourned the hearing held on 4 October 1995 as the defendant's submission had not been communicated to the company in time.\n11. On 12 October 1995 the Bitola District Commercial Court upheld the defendant's objection and dismissed the company's claim as ill-founded.\n12. On 25 October 1995 the company appealed.\n13. On 12 February 1997 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the company's appeal and quashed the lower court's decision because of the latter's failure to establish the facts.\n14. On 14 February 1997 the trial court received the case-file from the second-instance court.\n15. On 7 October 1997 and 30 March 1998 the company requested the Bitola Court of First Instance (Основен суд Битола) to expedite the proceedings.\n16. Five hearings scheduled between 8 April and 19 October 1998, were adjourned, but none at the applicant's request. During this time, the court examined three witnesses proposed by the defendant.\n17. On 19 October 1998 the Bitola Court of First Instance dismissed the company's claim as unsubstantiated.\n18. On 14 December 1998 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the company's appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It further instructed the trial court to re-establish the facts and to order an expert examination of the financial books of the parties.\n19. On 17 December 1998 the case-file was transmitted to the Bitola Court of First Instance.\n20. The appellate court's decision was served on the parties on 20 and 21 January 1999, respectively.\n21. On 28 April 1999 the court ordered the expert examination. On 17 August 1999 the trial court received the expert report.\n22. On 20 October 1999 the court heard the parties' comments on the expert report and ordered an additional expert examination in reply to the company's queries.\n23. On 25 May 2000 the company requested the court to adjourn the hearing listed for 16 June 2000.\n24. The hearing fixed for 14 July 2000 was postponed as the expert had not completed his report. At the company's request, the court ordered another expert study. It also ordered the parties to pay the expert's costs.\n25. On 13 December 2000 the court received the expert report. It was served on the parties on 28 August 2001.\n26. The hearing of 3 October 2001 was adjourned at the parties' request.\n27. On 22 October 2001 the company submitted its comments on the expert report. On 8 November 2001 the expert filed a supplement to his report.\n28. The hearing of 14 November 2001 was adjourned due to the late service of the expert's report on the parties. The hearings of 26 December 2001 and 31 January 2002 were postponed because of the expert's absence.\n29. On 12 February 2002 the court ordered the parties to provide in wr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2759", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the town of Nalchik, in the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic of the Russian Federation. The applicant is a lawyer.\n6.   On 28 November 2002 the Nalchik Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic awarded the applicant 27,780 Russian roubles (RUR) in outstanding child benefits against the Ministry of Labour of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic. It also ordered that starting from 1 December 2002 the Ministry of Labour pay the applicant RUR 70 (about 2.2 euros) a month for each of his three children. The amount was to be increased in line with the statutory minimum wage.\n7.  On 14 April 2003 the lump sum was paid to the applicant.\n8.  On 18 November 2003 the bailiffs' service opened enforcement proceedings in respect of the monthly payments.\n9.  The bailiffs applied to the Nalchik Town Court, asking to clarify the operative part of the judgment of 28 November 2002. On 5 July 2004 the court amended the judgment and specified the names of the children and their dates of birth.\n10.  The Ministry of Labour asked the court to review the judgment of 28 November 2002 on account of newly-discovered facts. They submitted that the applicant had divorced his wife and that the children had stayed with the mother. The applicant thus no longer had the right to child benefits. On 2 December 2004 the Nalchik Town Court dismissed the request as having no basis in the domestic law.\n11.  The applicant challenged the bailiffs' failure to act before a court. On 7 February 2005 the Nalchik Town Court held that the bailiffs had failed to undertake the steps required under the domestic law to secure enforcement of the judgment. On 2 March 2005 the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic upheld the decision on appeal.\n12. On 19 October 2005 the applicant received the child benefits for the period from December 2002 to September 2005, and on 10 April 2006 for the period from October 2005 to April 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2760", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Moscow. He is a retired military officer.\n6.  In 2001 he brought proceedings against the Military Service Commission of Moscow (Военный комиссариат г. Москвы – “the Commission”) for recalculation of his pension in view of the fact that he served in the extreme north of Russia which made him eligible for a higher pension.\n7.  On 12 March 2002 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant's claim and adjusted his pension by a coefficient 1.4 as from 17 September 2001.\n8.  The Commission did not lodge an ordinary appeal against the judgment, and it became binding and enforceable on 22 March 2002.\n9.  On 3 November 2003 the Commission filed an application for supervisory review of the judgment, claiming that the civil-law provisions on which the court based its judgment were not relevant to the applicant.\n10.  On 19 May 2004 the applicant received notification of the initiation of the supervisory-review procedure.\n11.  On 20 May 2004 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court held a supervisory-review hearing. It held that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law. On that ground it quashed the judgment of 12 March 2002 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. Before the announcement of the judgment the applicant was asked to wait outside the courtroom. At the same time the respondent remained there. The decision of the court was announced to the applicant by the bailiff. The applicant received the final decision on 4 August 2004.\n12.  The applicant sought to initiate the supervisory review of the decision of 20 May 2004, but on 25 August 2004 his request was dismissed.\n13.  The new hearing of the case was scheduled for 13 August 2004. Since the applicant was outside of Moscow and could not attend it, his representative asked the court to postpone the hearing until 5 September 2004. However, the court did not reply to this request.\n14.  On 1 September 2004 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow left the applicant's action without consideration for his failure to appear twice before the court. The applicant was never served with the above decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2761", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant association, the Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya (“the Parish”) of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate “Church of 1,000 years of Baptisms in the Kyivan Rus” in the Darnytsky District of Kyiv, is a religious group. On 6 October 2000 it had 29 members, a figure which had increased to 30 by 2005 according to information provided by its representative on 9 February 2005. All the members sit on the Parishioners' Assembly. The head of the applicant association is Mr Volodymyr Makarchykov.\n6.  On 5 April 1989 a group of 25 people, including the head of the Parish, decided to form a religious association under the auspices of the Russian Orthodox Church. On the same date they decided to build a church and name it the “Svyato-Mykhaylivska Church of 1,000 years of Baptisms in the Kyivan Rus'”. The group lodged a request to register the association with the Religious Affairs Council at the Cabinet of Ministers (Рада з питань релігій при Кабінеті Міністрів) and the State Executive Committee.\n7.  On 22 February 1990 the Religious Affairs Council registered the group as a religious association of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Darnytsky District of Kyiv (the “religious association”).\n8.  On 26 February 1990 the Kyiv City Council informed Mr Makarchykov that the religious association had been granted permission to build a church for the use of its members.\n9.  On 4 March 1990 the religious association approved its statute and elected its governing bodies (the Parishioners' Assembly, Parishioners' Council and the Supervisory Board). It decided to admit twelve new members to the Parishioners' Assembly and to elect six of its members to the Parishioners' Council and the Supervisory Board. Mr Makarchykov was elected as a member of the Parishioners' Council and became its chairman.\n10.  On 29 March 1990 the Religious Affairs Council registered changes to the governing bodies of the religious association. Mr Makarchykov was registered as its chairman, F.L.E. as deputy chairman and O.L.V. as a treasurer of the religious association. The Council also registered the changes to the composition of the Supervisory Board.\n11.  From the date of its creation in April 1989 to December 1999 the Parishioners' Assembly membership varied from about 20 to 27 members. In the course of this period the Parishioners' Assembly was actively involved in making important decisions as to the management and administration of the religious association (appointment of Chairman, treasurer, supervisory board, approval of appointment of a priest, approval of the statutes of affiliates, missions and brotherhoods of the church, important financial and logistical matters and issues related to construction of a new church, etc.). Throughout this period My Makarchykov acted as a Chairman of the religious association and frequently as a secretary during the meetings of the Parishioners' Assembly.\n12.  On 22 March 1992 the Parishioners' Assembly passed resolutions for the religious association to change denomination, as it was dissatisfied with the leadership of Archbishop Filaret, the head of the newly registered Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kyiv Patriarchate, and for it to become independent in its organisational, religious and commercial activities. It was also decided that it should act under the religious guidance of the Archbishop of the Finnish Orthodox Church in canonical issues.\n13.  On 19 November 1992 the Parishioners' Assembly adopted a new sta", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2762", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  He is the grandson of Ayşe Saide Ergun, who was one of the joint owners of a 255,951 m² plot of land in Çorlu. The applicant's share corresponds to 4,000 m² of the land in question. The applicant's right of succession is established by four different court decisions dated 7 March 1973, 12 July 1974, 5 January 1982 and 12 February 1996. However, the title of the land in question was registered, among others, in the name of Ayse Saide Ergun.\n7.  On 6 April 1988 the Ministry of Defence informed the Çorlu Municipality that the land in question was going to be expropriated. It communicated to the Municipality the names of the owners who were mentioned on the title deed and requested the relevant tax declarations, in order to determine their addresses. However, only the original owners' first names and the first names of their fathers appeared on the title deed.\n8.  In its letter of 22 April 1988 the Municipality was only able to submit the tax declarations in respect of some of the owners. They informed the Ministry that since they had not been communicated sufficient information on the identity of some of the owners, they were unable to find their tax declarations.\n9.  The village headman, the title registry office, the birth registration office, the gendarmerie and the police department in Çorlu also informed the Ministry that they had been unable to ascertain the addresses of the owners, as their last names and their birth registrations were not communicated to them.\n10.  On 3 May 1988 it was announced in a local newspaper that the property in question had been expropriated. It was also noted that a committee of experts would be assessing its value on 5 May 2005. On the said date the committee of experts assessed the value of the land at 255,951,000 Turkish liras (TRL).\n11.  On 26 December 1988 and 10 January 1989 the Municipality announced the expropriation of the land over loudspeakers, throughout the town. On 28 December 1988 it was announced, in another local paper, that the compensation for expropriation was deposited in a bank account, in the name of the owners, including that of the applicant's grandmother. In January 1989, the same notification was published also in a national newspaper. In all these publications only the original owners' first names and the first names of their fathers were mentioned.\n12.  On 30 July 1991 the property in question was registered in the name of the Treasury.\n13.  On 10 November 1996 the applicant and some of the heirs, who were the joint owners of the land in question, became aware of the expropriation of their property.\n14.  On 23 November 1996 the applicant, together with four other heirs, filed an action for additional compensation before the Çorlu Civil Court of First Instance, against the Ministry of Defence.\n15.  The Ministry requested the court to dismiss the case for failure to comply with the statutory time-limit. The plaintiffs argued that the authorities failed to notify them of the expropriation of their property. They contended that the notifications were deprived of any legal effect as they were made in the name of their deceased ancestors.\n16.  In November 1997 a group of experts, appointed by the court, inspected the land and concluded that the total amount of additional compensation that had to be paid to the plaintiffs was TRL 44,450,601,360. The applicant's share amounted to TRL 2,247,668,465.\n17.  On 18 February 1998 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2764", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the town of Novyy Bug, Mykolayiv region. He is a farmer.\n5.  On 22 July 1993 and 23 June 1995 the Novyy Bug City and District Councils, respectively, rejected the applicant's requests for an additional plot of land for his farm.\n6.  On 6 December 1999 the applicant applied to the Novyy Bug City and District Councils in order to obtain a plot of land of 22 hectares from public lands reserved for farming.\n7.  By letters of 5 and 20 January 2000, without examination of these requests by the sessions of respective Councils, the applicant was informed that his requests were rejected on the ground that there was no available land designated for that purpose.\n8.  On 11 February 2000 the applicant challenged the above-mentioned Councils' refusals before the Mykolayiv Arbitration Court.\n9.  The court issued a ruling prohibiting the distribution of the public reserved lands before examination of the applicant's claim on the merits.\n10.  On 11 February and 24 March 2000 the Novyy Bug City Council and the Novyy Bug District Council, respectively, rejected the applicant's request of 6 December 1999.\n11.  On 4 April 2000 the Mykolayiv Arbitration Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered to provide him with a plot of land of 22 hectares indicated on the plan of the public reserved lands of the Novyy Bug City Council. The court ordered the Mykolayiv Department of the Institute of the Land Tenure (Миколаївська філія Інституту землеустрою) to provide the applicant in kind with that plot. The Novyy Bug City Council was ordered to issue the act for permanent use of the mentioned plot by the applicant. By the same judgment, the decisions of the Novyy Bug City Council and the Novyy Bug District Council of 11 February and 24 March 2000 were found null and void. The court also ordered to issue the execution writ, thus the judgment became final and binding immediately upon its adoption.\n12.  On 14 April 2000 the Novyy Bug District Council issued land certificates to K.R.P. and S.M.A. (private persons) in respect of the plot of 22 hectares, which had been allocated to the applicant under the judgment of 4 April 2000.\n13.  On 2 July 2000 the Deputy President of the Mykolayiv Arbitration Court rejected as unsubstantiated the Novyy Bug City and District Councils' request for supervisory review of the judgment of 4 April 2000.\n14.  On 14 November 2000 the President of the Mykolayiv Arbitration Court quashed the decisions of 4 April 2000 and 2 July 2000 on the ground of new circumstances and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n15.  On 11 June 2001 the Higher Arbitration Court quashed this decision of the President of the Mykolayiv Arbitration Court and upheld the judgment of 4 April 2000.\n16.  On 13 November 2001 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of the Novyy Bug City Council lodged under the new cassation procedure. On 5 February 2002 the Odessa Commercial Court of Appeal rejected the Novyy Bug City Council's appeal against the judgment of 4 April 2000 as having been lodged out of time.\n17.  On 19 July 2001 the Novy Bug City Bailiffs' Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”), following the decision of the Higher Court of Arbitration, instituted enforcement proceedings.\n18.  On 3 September 2001 the Head of the Bailiffs' Service drew up a report in which was certified the lack of public reserved lands designated for farming, and on 10 October 2001 terminated the enforcement proceedings.\n19.  On 22 March 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2765", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 12 October 2000 the applicant company's premises were expropriated and demolished. The applicant company sued the Khabarovsk Town Council for compensation for the expropriated property. On 3 May 2001 the Commercial Court of the Khabarovsk Region allowed the claim and awarded it 5,335,963 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 208,000 euros) against the Khabarovsk Town Council.\n6.  On 11 April 2003 the Appellate Division of the Commercial Court of the Khabarovsk Region upheld the judgment on appeal. The judgment became enforceable.\n7.  On 22 May 2003 the bailiffs' service opened enforcement proceedings. They were subsequently stayed at the debtor's request until 21 June 2003.\n8.  On 29 July 2003 the Federal Commercial Court of the Far-Eastern Circuit upheld the judgment of 3 May 2001 in the final instance.\n9.  On 8 September 2003 the Commercial Court of the Khabarovsk Region stayed the enforcement proceedings until 23 September 2003.\n10.  On 23 September 2003 the Khabarovsk Town Council challenged before a court the bailiff's order to write the debt off its bank account. It also asked the court to stay the enforcement proceedings pending examination of the complaint. On 25 September 2003 the Commercial Court of the Khabarovsk Region granted the request for a stay of the enforcement proceedings.\n11.  On 17 December 2003 the Appellate Division of the Commercial Court of the Khabarovsk Region held in the final instance that the bailiff's order had been lawful. On 31 December 2003 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant company received RUR 260,000.\n13.  The Khabarovsk Town Council, for a third time, applied to a court for a stay of the enforcement proceedings because it had no available funds. On 23 August 2004 the Commercial Court of the Khabarovsk Region allowed the Council's request and ordered a stay of the enforcement proceedings until 31 December 2004.\n14.  On 17 January 2005 the applicant company and the Khabarovsk Town Council concluded a remission-of-debt agreement. The Town Council undertook to pay the applicant company RUR 4,000,000 by 20 January 2005. The applicant company agreed to make a charitable contribution of the outstanding amount of RUR 1,075,963 for the purposes of town development. The agreement continued as follows:\n“[The applicant company] undertakes to withdraw and not to resubmit the writ of execution no. 0009949, issued pursuant to the judgment [of 3 May 2001], and renounces all other pecuniary claims against the Khabarovsk Town Council relating to the demolition of [the applicant company's premises] and to the circumstances established by the above court judgment.”\n15.  On 19 January 2005 the applicant company received RUR 4,000,000.\n16.  On 26 January 2005 the applicant company withdrew the writ of execution. On 8 February 2005 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the judgment of 3 May 2001 had been fully enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2766", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Yalova.\n6.  In 1975 the Ministry of Defence decided to expropriate a plot of land (plot no. 976), measuring 808 m2 in the Karaköprü area in Şanlıurfa which belonged to the applicant. On 29 September 1975 the amount of compensation for the expropriation was blocked in the Diyarbakır Central Bank, but the applicant never received this sum.\n7.  On 10 May 1977 the applicant filed an action with the Şanlıurfa Civil Court of General Jurisdiction and requested increased compensation.\n8.  On 1 April 1979, while the case for increased compensation was pending, the Ministry of Defence informed the Şanlıurfa Land Registration Office that they renounced their decision to expropriate the land in question. The applicant did not pursue her case and in 1982 the first-instance court decided to discontinue the proceedings.\n9.  In 1988 the Ministry of Defence brought an action before the Şanlıurfa Civil Court of General Jurisdiction and requested the transfer of the title deed to plot no. 976 to the Treasury. On 28 December 1988 the court accepted the request. The applicant was not notified of the proceedings or of the judgment delivered by the first-instance court. On 15 February 1989 the court's decision was announced in a newspaper. Subsequently, on 4 May 1989 the plot was registered in the name of the Treasury.\n10.  On 28 December 1998, after having learned about the transfer of the title deed of plot no. 976 to the Ministry of Defence, the applicant brought an action before the Şanlıurfa Civil Court of General Jurisdiction and requested compensation for the unlawful seizure of her property. She submitted, inter alia, that she had not been notified of the case lodged by the Ministry of Defence in 1988 or of the judgment delivered by the first-instance court. She argued that the transfer of her title deed was therefore unlawful. In reply, the Ministry of Defence argued that as they had been in actual possession of the land since 1974, the applicant's action for compensation had to be rejected as being time-barred.\n11.  During the proceedings, the first-instance court ordered an expert report in order to determine the value of the land in question. On 15 September 1999 the first-instance court held an on-site inspection. It was observed that the Ministry of Defence had surrounded the plot in question with a fence. On 20 September 1999 a committee of experts submitted a report to the first-instance court. In their report, the experts determined that the value of plot no. 976 would be 34,934,046,448 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 73,000 euros (EUR)).\n12.  On 19 April 2000 the Şanlıurfa Civil Court of General Jurisdiction dismissed the applicant's case. It found that the Ministry of Defence had been in actual possession of plot no. 976 since 1974 and therefore held that the case was introduced out of the statutory time‑limit as provided in Article 38 of the Expropriation Act (Law no. 2942).\n13. On 26 September 2000 the Court of Cassation found the applicant's grounds for appeal unfounded and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The applicant's request for rectification was further rejected on 15 November 2000.\n14.  On 10 April 2003 the Constitutional Court annulled Article 38 of Law no. 2942.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2768", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant resides in Kharkiv, Ukraine.\n5.  On an unidentified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the Poltavskyy District Court against the Makarenko Scientific and Research Company (Науково-дослідницьке господарство ім. Макаренка), which was at the material time owned by the State, claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 29 May 2001 the court awarded the applicant 19,344.85[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) (Рішення Полтавського районного суду Полтавської області).\n6.  On 19 September 2001 the Poltava District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Полтавського районного управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n7.  By letters of 10 and 14 May 2002 the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that it was not possible to sell the debtor's property as, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced.\n8.  On an unidentified date before July 2003 the enterprise was privatised.\n9.  On 14 November 2003 the judgment of 29 May 2001 was enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2769", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1929, 1931, 1927, 1935 and 1940 respectively. The first applicant resides in Ankara, the second, third and fourth applicants reside in Muğla and the last applicant resides in Denizli.\n5.  The applicants are the owners of a plot of land of 330,000 square metres (plot no. 1416), in the district of Milas, in Muğla.\n6.  On 14 October 1978 the land was officially designated as a first degree conservation area (birinci derece sit alanı) by the High Committee of Ancient Buildings and Monuments attached to the Ministry of Culture, following the discovery of the ruins of an ancient city, Bargylia, in the region. Subsequently, construction of buildings in this area was prohibited pursuant to the Law on Ancient Buildings (Law no. 1710).\n7.  On 24 June 1987 and 8 February 1990, Law no. 3386 and Regulations no. 20427 came into force respectively. According to the Law and the Regulations, lands designated as conservation areas could be exchanged for lands owned by the Treasury.\n8.  On 17 July 1987 the applicants applied to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and requested that their land be exchanged for two plots of land in Muğla which belonged to the Treasury.\n9.  On 2 May 1988 their request was dismissed as one of the plots that the applicants requested was unavailable for exchange.\n10.  In 1990, 1993, 1995 and 1997 Jale Musluoğlu[3] filed several petitions with the Ministry, on behalf of the owners of plot no. 1416 and requested that their land be exchanged for land belonging to the Treasury. No action was taken by the authorities until 1997.\n11.  On 11 November 1997 the applicants concluded an agreement with the authorities and plot no. 1416 was exchanged for several plots of land owned by the Treasury. However, the agreement was not approved by the Minister of Finance.\n12.  On 10 July 1998 Jale Musluoğlu1 filed a petition with the Ministry of Finance. However, she received no reply to her petition.\n13.  On 3 November 1998 the applicants filed an action before the Ankara Administrative Court. They alleged that the failure of the Ministry to approve the agreement of 11 November 1997 meant disapproval and requested the annulment of that decision.\n14.  On 8 February 1999 the Ankara Administrative Court issued a decision of lack of territorial jurisdiction and sent the case-file to the Aydın Administrative Court.\n15.  On 27 September 2000 the Aydın Administrative Court dismissed the applicants' case. The court noted that, according to the Regulations no. 20427, the plots belonging to the Treasury which were to be exchanged for should be located within the borders of the same district as the individuals' plots. It further noted that the three plots of land which were to be exchanged for the applicants' land were located in another district of the Muğla province and, therefore, considered that the Ministry's decision not to approve the agreement had been lawful.\n16.  On 25 April 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. It noted that the Regulations no. 20427 had been amended on 19 February 1992 and that, according to the amended text, the plots belonging to the Treasury which were to be exchanged for should be located within the borders of the same province.\n17.  On 3 October 2002, the case-file was sent to the Muğla Administrative Court since, in the meantime, an administrative court was established in this province.\n18.  On 18 July 2003 the Muğla Administrative Court abid", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2770", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Pabianice.\n6.  On 11 April 1994 the applicant's wife filed an action for divorce, dated 8 April 1994, with the Łódź Regional Court. She submitted that the parties had married in 1989, that the marriage had not been a happy one from the beginning, that the applicant was unworthy of any trust, that he had been battering her and that he was generally unable to fulfil the role of husband and father. She claimed maintenance for their daughter X. and custody of the child.\n7.  On 14 April 1994 she requested the Pabianice District Prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of sexual abuse of their daughter X. The minutes of her deposition read:\n“We have been married since 1989. In 1990 our daughter X. was born.\nIn April 1994, after a conversation I had with the child, I started to think that my husband could have been, for some time, sexually abusing her, of which I hereby inform the prosecuting authorities. I would like to stress that after I had acquired this information I moved out of our apartment to my sister's place ... It will be for several days only and afterwards I will move in with my parents in W. It seems to me to be a good decision as the child should be, at least for some time, separated from her father. At the same time, I realise that it would be nearly impossible to conduct any interview with my child, regard being had to her age...”\n8.  In an undated subsequent opinion, apparently prepared on the basis of a psychological examination of the child carried out on 14 April 1994 in the presence of her mother and maternal grandmother, E.K., a psychologist, described the child's stage of development and concluded:\n“On 14 April 1994 an attempt was made to obtain from X. an account of the events concerned in the case. This attempt failed insofar as it was aimed at obtaining a verbal statement. It can, however, serve as a basis for a description of the child's psychological situation. (...) I think that any further attempt to interview X. would not make any sense. Moreover, it would be detrimental to her development. A child of this age is unable to make any confabulations, without there being a concrete factual basis for what she says. (...) Information obtained from third parties and observation of the child seem to suggest that it is likely that she has been a victim of sexual abuse:\n- inflammation of sexual organs (medical records);\n-secrets shared with her father rewarded by sweets or toys in order to remain unknown to other persons and to the mother; ...\n-reluctance to have sexual organs washed;\n-pains in the legs, bruises on the legs;\n-bizarre play and behaviour.\nThe fact that so many such manifestations occur makes it possible to consider that the charges may be truthful.\nIn my view the child's father should be interviewed. It is also recommended that the child be examined once again, not before September.”\n9.  Later on, the child was interviewed by E.K. on 9 January 1995. Her mother was not present during the examination. X. was also requested to make drawings representing her family and to play with dolls representing herself, her father and her mother.\n10.  In an opinion dated 17 January 1995, E.K. explained various techniques she had used during this meeting, suited to the child's age. She stated that during the second meeting the child had evoked events which seemed to suggest that she had been sexually abused by her father; that, given her ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2771", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant is a public prosecutor. According to Law no. 902-XII of 29 January 1992 the local authorities are obliged to provide public prosecutors with an apartment within one year of their commencing employment. In 1999 the applicant filed an official request with the local council for an apartment. The local council replied that due to the lack of funds allocated from the central budget, no new apartments had been built and the provisions of the law could not be enforced.\n8.  In March 2000 the applicant brought a civil action against the local council. On 25 May 2000 the Chişinău District Court ordered the local council to provide him with an apartment. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and enforceable 15 days later.\n9.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the bailiff failed to enforce. Because the local council did not comply with the judgment of 25 May 2000 and with other judgments, it was fined 1,800 Moldovan lei (MDL) by a decision of 9 February 2001 of the Chişinău District Court. According to the Government, the same court fined the local council MDL 2,700 on 17 February 2001 on account of its continued failure to enforce the judgment. The applicant disputes that the second fine was ever imposed.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant wrote to the Ministry of Justice, complaining about the non-enforcement of the judgment. In a letter addressed to the applicant on 26 December 2000, the Ministry of Justice assured the applicant that everything possible was being done to enforce the judgment.\n11.  On 23 December 2001 the applicant wrote another letter to the Ministry of Justice. That letter was forwarded to the Chişinău District Court. The applicant also wrote letters on numerous occasions to the Prime Minister and the President of Moldova.\n12.  The judgment of 25 May 2000 has still not been enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2772", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant worked for “Social Amnesty”, an NGO specialising in offering legal help to persons deprived of their liberty. He claims that as a result of his activities he became the target of persecution. In two sets of proceedings he was charged with a number of serious fraud offences. The applicant is a second degree invalid and has been diagnosed with “mosaic schizophrenia”.\n8.  On 23 October 2000 the applicant was arrested. On 6 November 2000 he was transferred to the remand centre of the Ministry of Justice (also known as prison no. 3, subsequently re-named prison no. 13) in Chişinău. He spent certain periods of time in the Pruncul detainee hospital. He was convicted of a number of crimes but is still remanded on other charges.\n9.  According to the applicant, the conditions of detention were inhuman. In particular, he referred to the overcrowding in the cells (which occasionally meant 2-3 detainees for each 2m2 of space), accompanied by the fact that detainees with infectious diseases such as tuberculosis were kept together with other detainees, especially during hunger-strikes; the presence of parasitic insects; the lack of proper ventilation and access to daylight; the rudimentary sanitary conditions which left no room for privacy; the loud radio that was constantly on between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. together with the very poor quantity and quality of food served. Before 27 May 2005 electricity and cold water were only available for several hours a day. The applicant described his food ration for one day as consisting of 100 grams of porridge with water twice a day and a soup consisting mostly of water for lunch, with an additional 400 grams of bread for the whole day. In support of his complaint regarding the overcrowding in the cell he gave the example of his transfer to cell no. 11 on 2 August 2001, which he shared with five other persons despite the fact that only two bunk beds were available. He claimed that he had to sleep on the floor due to the insufficiency of beds and had access only to electric light for six hours a day. Another example was his detention in cell no. 17a, which accommodated 10 persons in an area of 12m2.\n10.  The applicant referred to the report of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) for 2004 (see paragraph 47 below) and the report of the Ministry of Justice regarding the conditions of detention in prison no. 13 (see paragraph 43 below).\n11.  According to the applicant, he complained to various authorities about his conditions of detention. This was disputed by the Government. The applicant submitted replies from the Penitentiaries' Department and the Public Order Department at the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which dealt, inter alia, with the applicant's conditions of detention. In addition, he submitted copies of his complaints to the Government and the administration of prison no. 3, in which he also complained about the conditions of detention. In its letter of 29 December 2003 the Penitentiaries' Department conceded that prison no. 3 was “periodically overcrowded”, which led to an increase in the spread of pediculosis and skin disease. The presence of parasitic insects was also confirmed, although no complaints had been received in this respect from detainees. In 2002-2003 a major disinfection ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2773", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Szczecin, Poland.\n6.  In 1987 the applicant married I.P. In 1984 and 1988 respectively, K., his daughter, and R., his son, were born. In spring 1992 I.P. filed for a divorce.\n7.  On 11 May 1993 the Szczecin Regional Court issued an interim contact order. According to its terms, the applicant was allowed to visit the children on Wednesdays and Fridays for 2 hours and to spend 2 weeks with them in summer.\n8.  On 16 September 1994 the Szczecin Regional Court dissolved the applicant's marriage. The court held that the applicant's ex‑wife was responsible for the breakdown of their marriage. It also awarded parental rights to both parents. It also limited the applicant in the exercise of his rights: it ordered that K. and R.'s permanent residence be with their mother. The applicant was allowed to co‑decide about the children's education, health and place of residence. The court specified access arrangements as determined in the interim contact order of 11 May 1993.\n9.  On an unknown date in October 1994 the applicant filed a motion with the Szczecin District Court for enforcement of the access arrangements. On 11 October 1994 the District Court dismissed his application. On 9 January 1996 the applicant again applied to the District Court complaining that his ex‑wife was not respecting the access arrangements.\n10.  On 17 May 1996, upon the applicant's motion, the Bailiff of the Szczecin District Court refused to enforce the judgment of 16 September 1994. He stated that pursuant to Articles 1050 and 1051 of the Civil Procedure Code custody arrangements should be enforced by a court.\n11.  On 18 June 1996 the Szczecin District Court, referring to the children's best interest, dismissed the applicant's application for enforcement of his visiting rights. Upon the applicant's appeal, on 2 October 1996, the Szczecin Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the District Court for re‑examination. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to have access to his children and that the District Court should have examined the case from the perspective of enforcing his rights. In case the mother obstructed the access arrangements, the District Court should consider imposing a fine on her pursuant to Article 1050 § 1 of the Civil Procedure Code.\n12.  On 24 June 1997 the applicant asked the District Court to expedite the proceedings.\n13.  On 11 September 1997 the Szczecin District Court ordered the mother to make R. available for contact. The court attached a penal order: in case of failure to comply with that decision I.P. was to pay a fine of PLN 300 [approx. EUR 75]. The court further discontinued the enforcement proceedings as regards contacts with K.\n14.  On 6 January 1998 the applicant informed the District Court that I.P. was still failing to comply with the decision of 11 September 1997. He further asked the court to impose a fine on her. The District Court examined his motion on 19 February, 24 March and 10 June 1998. On the latter date the District Court dismissed the motion.\n15.  On 23 June 1998 the Szczecin District Court informed the applicant that he could see R. on 29 June 1998 in the Szczecin Consultation Centre (Ośrodek diagnostyczno‑konsultacyjny). On 29 June 1998 the visit took place.\n16.  On 12 September 1998 the court informed the applicant that he could meet his son in the Psychiatric Consultation Centre (Poradnia i pogotowie umacniania zdrowia psychicznego). It is n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2775", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in the village of Zović and lives in Bitola.\n6.  On 13 September 2000 his brother (“the plaintiff”) brought a civil action against him for a declaration that he owned one half of a plot of land and a house (“the property”).\n7.  A hearing on 9 April 2001 was adjourned because the applicant had not been duly summoned.\n8.  At a hearing on 20 April 2001 the court ordered the plaintiff to provide further particulars of his claim. It further sought to obtain a deed of gift dating from 1984.\n9.  According to the Government, at a hearing on 24 May 2001 the court granted the plaintiff's request to carry out an on-site inspection (увид) and to examine witnesses. The applicant arrived late at the hearing, but was informed of the place and time of the next hearing. The Government submitted a barely legible copy of the record, which had been signed by the applicant.\n10.  At the on-site inspection on 5 June 2001, the trial court heard evidence from two witnesses concerning the history of the property. The record indicates that the applicant was absent, even though he had been duly summoned.\n11.  A hearing fixed for 12 July 2001 was adjourned at the applicant's request.\n12.  At a hearing on 14 September 2001 the plaintiff's counsel stated that his client had suffered a stroke and was not medically fit to give a statement. The court ordered him to submit a medical report and on a later date in September 2001, the plaintiff's counsel submitted a medical report certifying that his client was not medically fit to give a statement.\n13.  On 8 November 2001 the composition of the bench changed and the hearing restarted.\n14.  At a hearing on 22 November 2001 the applicant disputed the plaintiff's legal capacity to bring the proceedings. He stated, inter alia:\n“... [A]fter reviewing the file, I have concerns as to the validity of the plaintiff's letters of authority... We propose that the court assess his capacity...”\n15.  According to the court record, the court ruled that the next hearing would be held on 29 November 2001 on-site in order to assess the plaintiff's health and the validity of his signature on the letter of authority. It further noted that those present should consider the announcement of the next hearing as equivalent to service of a court summons. The applicant and his counsel both attended the hearing.\n16.  On 29 November 2001 the court held a hearing at the scheduled time, but in the court room instead of on-site. The court heard evidence from the plaintiff and established the validity of the letter of authority. It further read the record of the on-site inspection of 5 June 2001 and the witnesses' statements. It noted that the applicant was absent, even though he had been duly summoned. Following the hearing, the trial court gave a decision declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of the property and ordered the applicant to recognise his title. It based its findings on a court decision of 1962 by which the plaintiff had been declared heir of the property. It further established that he had lived in the house and had had actual possession (владение) of the property since. The trial court based its decision on considerable evidence: an expert opinion; a record of the on-site inspection; statements of witnesses; and other physical evidence.\n17.  On 8 January 2001 the applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that he had been deprived of the opportunity to participate in the proceedings. He said that he had been preve", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2776", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Novosibirsk.\n5.  On 25 December 2002 the Mirninskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the applicant's action against the Ministry of Finance and awarded her 138,967 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 4,243 euros) in compensation for a special-purpose settlement order by the terms of which the Government was to provide her with a car.\n6.  On 17 February 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment on appeal.\n7.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted, but on 3 July 2003 the Moscow bailiffs' office returned a writ of execution to the applicant instructing her to lodge it with the Ministry of Finance. On 2 September 2003 she complied with the instructions.\n8.  On 14 August 2004 the Ministry of Finance paid the applicant RUR 61,427.04.\n9.  On 1 October 2004 the Ministry of Finance motioned the President of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic to review the judgments of 25 December 2002 and 17 February 2003.\n10.  On 23 December 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgments of 25 December 2002 and 17 February 2003 and dismissed the applicant's action. The Presidium noted that the District and Regional courts had incorrectly assessed and applied substantive legal norms.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2777", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  At the time of the described events Mr Pridatchenko (born in 1965), Mr Sychev (born in 1970), and Mr Frolov (born in 1969) were active military officers. Mr Manatov (born in 1970) was a retired military officer. On different dates they sued their actual or former employers, respective military units, in courts. The applicants claimed payment of their salaries, various service-related benefits due to them, provision of free housing, compensation of travel expenses, compensation of damages, etc. In all cases the courts ruled in their favour (at least in part of their claims) making monetary awards. However, for some time the judgments in their favour remained unenforced.\n8.  On 16 November 2001 the Sertolovo Garrison Military Court granted in part the applicant's claims concerning free housing due to him under the military service contract. The court also awarded the applicant 2,015 Russian roubles (RUR) for legal costs. That judgment was not appealed against and became final on 27 November 2001.\n9.  On 26 November 2001 the Sertolovo Garrison Military Court granted the applicant's claims concerning the amount of compensation of his travel expenses awarding him arrears in the amount of RUR 93,731.70, plus RUR 15 for legal costs. That judgment was not appealed against and became final on 13 December 2001.\n10.  On 8 February 2002 the Sertolovo Garrison Military Court at the applicant's request held unlawful the refusal to dismiss the applicant from military service and awarded him RUR 2,015 for legal costs. That judgment was not appealed against and became final on 19 February 2002.\n11.  On 8 February 2002 the court issued a writ of execution on the basis of the judgment of 26 November 2001. The applicant forwarded it with accompanying documents to the State treasury office of the Leningrad Region. On 16 July 2002 the writ was returned to the applicant unexecuted. The treasury office explained that the debtor had no available funds which could be used for paying off the judgment debt. The applicant was advised to address the writ of execution to the head office of the Ministry of Finance in Moscow, which he did on 23 August 2002. However, the judgment remained unexecuted.\n12.  On 2 September 2002 the court issued two writs of execution on the basis of the judgments of 16 November 2001 and 8 February 2002 (concerning the legal costs awarded to the applicant). The applicant forwarded them with accompanying documents to the State treasury office of the Leningrad Region. On 10 September 2002 the treasury office returned the unexecuted writs to the applicant referring to the lack of funds on the debtor's account. The applicant was advised to address the writs to the head office of the Ministry of Finance, which he did on 12 September 2002. However, the writs remained unexecuted.\n13.  On 28 April 2003 the Ministry of Finance allocated from the State budget to the Ministry of Defence RUR 93,746.70 in the applicant's name with reference to the writ of execution issued on 8 February 2002 on the basis of the judgment of 26 November 2001.\n14.  On 23 September 2003 the Ministry of Finance allocated from the State budget to the Ministry of Defence RUR 2,015 in the applicant's name with reference to the writ of execution issued on 2 September 2002 on the basis of the judgment of 16 November 2001.\n15.  On 29 September 2003 the Ministry of Finance allocated from the State budget to the Ministry of Defence RUR 2,015 in the applicant's name with reference", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2778", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  In August 2000 the applicant was dismissed from his position as a senior tax inspector (старший державний податковий інспектор) of the Moskovsky District Tax Inspectorate of Kyiv (the “Moskovsky Inspectorate,” Державна податкова інспекція у Московському районі м. Києва). On 6 September 2000 he instituted civil proceedings in the Moskovsky District Court of Kyiv (Московський районний суд м. Києва) seeking his reinstatement, compensation for lost income and moral damage. Subsequently the proceedings were transferred to the Vatutinsky District Court of Kyiv[1] (the “District Court,” Ватутінський районний суд м. Києва).\n6.  On 2 August 2001 the District Court ordered the applicant's reinstatement and awarded him 4,040.41 Ukrainian hryvnyas (“UAH”)[2] in compensation for lost income and UAH 600[3] in compensation for moral damage. Pursuant this judgment, the applicant was reinstated and paid the compensation equivalent to his one-month income.\n7.  On 26 September 2001 the applicant resigned from the civil service.\n8.  On 5 November 2001 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal,” Апеляційний суд м. Києва) upheld the judgment of 2 August 2001 in part ordering the applicant's reinstatement and recalculated the amount of compensation due to him. In particular, the Court of Appeal awarded the applicant UAH 6,031.65[4] in compensation for lost income and UAH 200[5] in compensation for moral damage.\n9.  On 30 November 2001, due to the mergers of the city administrative districts, the Moskovsky Inspectorate was liquidated and replaced by the Golosiyivsky District Inspectorate (the “Golosiyivsky Inspectorate”; Державна податкова інспекція у Голосіївському районі м. Києва).\n10.  On 7 March 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the requests for leave to appeal in cassation submitted by the Moskovsky (Golosiyivsky) Inspectorate and the applicant's representative.\n11.  On 20 December 2001 the District Court issued an enforcement writ for the judgment of 5 November 2001 indicating the Moskovsky Inspectorate as the debtor.\n12.  On 21 December 2001 the applicant submitted the writ to the Golosiyivsky District Bailiffs' Service (the “Bailiffs”; Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Голосіївського районного управління юстиції м. Києва).\n13.  On 8 January 2002 the Bailiffs initiated the enforcement proceedings and on 31 January 2002 submitted an invoice to the National Bank (Національний Банк України).\n14.  Having received no response from the National Bank, on 12 April and 9 July 2002 the Bailiffs requested the District Court to issue a duplicate enforcement writ. Having received a duplicate writ without a seal on 12 August 2002, the Bailiffs returned it to the District Court for validation. On 26 March 2003 the District Court informed the applicant that it had never received the returned duplicate writ.\n15.  On 13 May 2003 the Bailiffs requested the District Court to issue another duplicate writ. On 4 June 2003 the District Court fulfilled this request, indicating the Moskovsky Inspectorate as the debtor.\n16.  On 6 August 2003 the Golosiyivsky Inspectorate paid the applicant UAH 6,031.65[6] in compensation for lost income due to him by the judgment at issue (97% of the judgment debt).\n17.  On 14 August 2003 the State Treasury (Відділення Державного Казначейства у Голосіївському районі м. Києва) rejected the Bailiffs' request to pay the remainder award of UAH 200[7] (3% of the debt) in compensation f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2779", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Penza.\n7.  On 15 October 1996 the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of murder. On 6 June 1997 the criminal proceedings were terminated and she was released.\n8.  On 17 October 2001 a new set of criminal proceedings was initiated against the applicant and another person. This time she was suspected of fraud.\n9.  On 13 December 2001 the applicant was put on a list of persons wanted by the police.\n10.  On 5 January 2002 the applicant was arrested. The reasons for her arrest indicated in the arrest warrant included preventing her from committing further offences, absconding from the investigation and interfering with the course of justice.\n11.  On 8 January 2002 the investigation authorities charged her, as a principal offender, with fraud and remanded her in custody pending trial for the reasons that, having been earlier placed on the wanted list, she might abscond and interfere with the course of justice. Later the investigation authorities decided to carry out a psychiatric examination of the applicant. On 19 February 2002 she was transferred from the remand prison to a psychiatric hospital. The preventive measure was changed from detention to an obligation not to leave the place without permission.\n12.  On 22 March 2002, after the psychiatric examination, the prosecutor ordered to re-detain the applicant on the ground of the gravity of charges.\n13.  On 1 April 2002 the investigator applied to the prosecutor for extension of the applicant's detention on the grounds that she was charged with having committed grave offences, had no permanent residence in Penza and “did not take voluntarily any measure to compensate the damage caused to the victims”. The prosecutor extended the applicant's detention until 17 April 2002.\n14.  On 8 April 2002 the applicant and the co-accused were informed that the preliminary investigation was complete. On 10 April 2002 they began studying the case file.\n15.  On 17 April 2002 the investigator applied to the prosecutor for extension of the applicant's detention until 5 May 2002 on the ground of the gravity of charges. The prosecutor granted the extension until 5 May 2002.\n16.  On 29 April 2002 the investigator applied to the prosecutor for extension of the applicant's detention until 5 June 2002 in order to let her study the case file. The investigator stated that she should remain in detention because of the gravity of the charges and lack of permanent residence in Penza and that, if released, she might abscond and put pressure on the victims and witnesses.\n17.  On 30 April 2002 the prosecutor extended the applicant's detention until 5 June 2002.\n18.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed an application for release pending trial on the grounds, inter alia, of her state of health and two dependent children.\n19.  On 6 May 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Penza dismissed the application. The court held:\n“The offence the accused is charged with belongs to the category of “serious” [offences]. Taking into account the social danger of the offence, the preventive measure applied to [Ms] Melnikova is lawful and well-grounded. At present, there are no reasons to change it.”\n20.  The applicant appealed.\n21.  On 31 May 2002 she finished studying the case file.\n22.  On 5 June 2002 the case was transmitted to court.\n23.  On the same date the Penza Regional Court quashed the decision of 6 May 2002 and remitted the case for a fresh examination by the s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2780", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n5.  On 7 May 1996 the Commercial Court in Leskovac (Privredni sud u Leskovcu) ordered “Jedinstvo”, a company based in Lebane, to hand over 87,480 kilograms of common salt to the applicant, and pay its legal costs in the amount of 2,850 Yugoslav Dinars (“YUD”).\n6.  This judgment became final by 8 June 1996.\n7.  On 21 June 1996 the applicant filed an enforcement request in respect of the judgment.\n8.  On 24 June 1996 the Commercial Court in Leskovac (“the Commercial Court”) issued an enforcement order against the respondent company (“the debtor”).\n9.  On 17 October 1996 the Commercial Court adopted a decision stating that the debtor could not deliver the specified amount of common salt and, instead, ordered it to pay to the applicant YUD 218,700.\n10.  In the meantime, the debtor was transformed into four separate companies - “Holding Jedinstvo”, “Caričin grad” and “8. novembar”, all based in Lebane, and “Agrar” based in Bošnjaca (“the debtors”).\n11.  On 21 December 1998 the Commercial Court ordered the debtors to pay the applicant YUD 218,700 with statutory interest as of 30 October 1996, plus another YUD 4,850 for legal costs, and ruled that they had jointly assumed the financial obligations of the initial debtor.\n12.  On 12 February 1999 and 17 September 1999, the Commercial Court and the High Commercial Court in Belgrade (Viši privredni sud u Beogradu), respectively, rejected the debtors' requests for a stay of the enforcement proceedings.\n13.  On 23 December 1999 the applicant filed a submission with the Commercial Court, seeking the expedition of these proceedings.\n14.  Mr Marko Momčilović subsequently became the applicant's owner and authorised representative.\n15.  Throughout this time and during the years that followed, the applicant proposed different means of enforcement, including bank account seizures as well as the auctioning of the debtors' movable and, if needed, immovable assets. It emphasised that, where appropriate, police assistance should be sought.\n16.  On 11 July 2001, 25 March 2002 and 14 November 2002, respectively, the applicant filed requests to this effect with the Commercial Court and urged that the proceedings be expedited.\n17.  On 21 February 2004 the applicant sent a complaint, by post, to the Court of Serbia and Montenegro, stating, inter alia, that the debtors still had sufficient assets to pay their outstanding obligation, as the Commercial Court would have otherwise been “only too glad” to declare the enforcement impossible (“sud bi [inače] jedva [do]čekao da [to] konstatuje i obavesti nas kako je nemoguće sprovesti izvršenje”). This complaint, however, appears not to have reached the Court of Serbia and Montenegro.\n18.  By 18 March 2004 the debtors paid the applicant a total of 838,148.06 Serbian Dinars, the domestic currency having been renamed in the meantime.\n19.  On 22 November 2004 and 30 November 2004 the applicant complained to the Commercial Court, on 15 December 2004 to the High Commercial Court in Belgrade, and on 2 July 2001 and 15 December 2004 to the Supreme Court of Serbia (Vrhovni sud Srbije), respectively.\n20.  On 21 January 2005 the President of the Commercial Court informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been hindered by the debtors' employees as well as the police. While the former physically prevented the bailiffs from conducting an inventory of the debtors' movable assets, on sev", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2781", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Badacsony.\n5.  In the context of a 1993 dispute concerning a loan given to the applicant by a savings bank, in 1995 execution proceedings were instituted against the applicant.\n6.  On 21 January 1999 the applicant filed an action with the Tapolca District Court requesting that the execution be halted or limited. On 8 March 2000 the District Court suspended the execution. On 14 November 2000 the Veszprém County Regional Court dismissed the applicant's motion for bias.\n7.  Hearings took place on 17 April and 18 September 2001, and on 14 March, 9 May, 11 July, 3 October and 28 November 2002.\n8.  On 13 February 2003 the District Court decided to discontinue the execution but dismissed the applicant's other related claims. On 16 June 2003 he appealed concerning the latter issues.\n9.  On 28 January 2004 the Somogy County Regional Court quashed that part of the decision of 13 February 2003 which had been appealed.\n10.  On 13 April 2004 the Veszprém District Court was appointed to rehear the case. On 17 May 2004 the applicant modified his action. For reasons of competence, the District Court forwarded the file to the Regional Court on 3 June 2004. On 10 September 2004 the Regional Court changed this decision and referred the case back to the District Court.\n11.  Hearings were held on 11 November and 16 December 2004, and on 20 January, 15 February and 8 March 2005.\n12.  On 24 March 2005 the District Court partly found for the applicant.\n13.  On 31 August 2005 the Somogy County Regional Court quashed this decision.\n14.  In the resumed proceedings, on 1 December 2005 the District Court held a hearing. On 9 December 2005 it appointed an expert who presented his opinion on 17 February 2006. According to the information in the Court's case file, the proceedings are apparently still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2782", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in the town of Gorlivka, Donetsk region.\n5.  On 18 April 2002 the Tsentralno-Miskiy Court of Gorlivka awarded the applicant UAH 8,888.37[1] against the State-owned coal-mine Lenina (hereinafter “the Lenina Mine”) in compensation for social benefits arrears and ordered the Social Security Fund to pay the applicant UAH 143.88[2] monthly as of 1 April 2001. This decision became final on 20 May 2002.\n6.  On 29 July 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment of 18 April 2002. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.\n7.  On 6 September 2002 the Kalininsky Bailiffs' Office of Gorlivka (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) initiated the enforcement proceedings in the case.\n8.  On 28 December 2002 the Lenina Mine was re-organised into a structural division of the State-owned company “Artemvugillya”, which on 18 August 2004 was re-organised into the State-owned Donetsk Mining Company.\n9.  On 22 September 2005 the applicant was paid the total amount of social benefits arrears awarded him under the judgment of 18 April 2002.\n10.  To the extent that the judgment of 18 April 2002 concerned the monthly payments to the applicant by the Social Security Fund, it was enforced in due time.\n11.  On 29 April 2003 the Kalininsky District Court of Gorlivka (hereinafter “the Kalininsky Court”) ordered the State-owned coal-mine Gayevogo (hereinafter “the Gayevogo Mine”) to pay the applicant UAH 4,168.25[3] in compensation for salary arrears. This decision became final on 25 June 2003.\n12.  On 27 June 2003 the Bailiffs initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n13.  Between February 2003 and February 2005 the Donetsk Commercial Court on three occasions initiated and terminated the bankruptcy proceedings against the Gayevogo Mine.\n14.  On 3 February 2005 the Kalininsky Court rejected the applicant's claim for compensation against the Gayevogo Mine and the Bailiffs for failure to enforce the judgment of 29 April 2003.\n15.  On 1 April 2005 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. The applicant's cassation appeal was left without consideration for failure to comply with the formalities prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.\n16.  On 17 August 2005 the applicant was paid the total amount awarded to him under the judgment of 29 April 2003.\n17.  In June 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State Pension Fund seeking reassessment of his pension. On 6 December 2004 the Kalininsky Court found against him. The applicant did not appeal against this decision. In 2005 a similar claim was left without consideration for failure to comply with the procedural formalities.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2783", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is the chairman of the association “Civil Society for Bulgarian Interests, National Dignity, Union and Integration – for Bulgaria” („Гражданско общество за български интереси, национално достойнство, единение и обединение – за България“ – “the association”).\n7.  The association was founded on 19 December 1996 in Plovdiv. At a meeting on that date the founders adopted its articles and elected its management bodies. The applicant was elected as its chairman.\n8.  The association's articles read, as relevant:\n“1.  [The association] is a Bulgarian patriotic non‑profit organisation. It shall be DEMOCRATIC in form and NATIONAL in content.\nOBJECT: mass, historically and morally enlightening, societal and political, cultural and educational, scientific and research, sport and technical, publishing, advertising, charitable and all other types of activities and services which are allowed (not prohibited) under the [Persons and Family Act of 1949] in respect of non‑profit associations. 2.  [The association] is founded with the aims of: uplifting the Bulgarian spirit; protecting the Bulgarian interests and creating a wealthy, prosperous and patriotic nation; elevating, developing and preserving the Bulgarian national dignity; uniting the Bulgarian identity within and outside the boundaries of the promised Bulgarian land, under the flag of historical truth; protecting and restoring the coat of arms of the Bulgarian Kingdom as a coat of arms of Bulgaria. 3.  [The association] is for the creation of a people's court to judge those responsible for the gravest economic, spiritual, moral and demographic crisis of the Bulgarian society, Bulgarian banking and Bulgarian statehood since 9 September 1944, in particular the period 1994, 1995, 1996 and the following years. ... 4.  [The association] is for a wide discussion ... of the illegal trampling and repealing of our first constitution after our liberation in 1878, the most democratic Constitution of Tarnovo and the imposition of the present [Constitution]...\n[The association] is for the reinstatement (possibly with amendments) of the unlawfully abolished 'CONSTITUTION OF TARNOVO'...\n[The association] is for ... changing the form of government of Bulgaria, for the returning of H.M. KING SIMEON II to the motherland and the throne. ... 8.  ... The core of the [association's] activity shall be the spiritual unification of all Bulgarians, contacts with and consolidation of the Bulgarian Diaspora, establishment of sincere relations with ... all Bulgarians outside Bulgaria, and, in the international relations – point one shall be: abolition (opening) of the border between Bulgaria and Macedonia...”\n9.  On an unspecified later date the association submitted to the Plovdiv Regional Court an application for registration.\n10.  The Plovdiv Regional Court refused the application in a judgment of 6 June 1997. It held:\n“[According to] clause 2 of [its articles], [the association] intends to protect and restore the coat of arms of the Bulgarian Kingdom as a coat of arms of Bulgaria. According to clause 3 of the articles, the association is for the establishment of a 'people's court to judge those responsible for the gravest economic, spiritual, moral and demographic crisis of the Bulgarian society, Bulgarian banking and Bulgarian statehood since 9 September 1944, in particular the period 1994, 1995, 1996 and the following years'. Clause 4 of the articles provides for a debate on the repealing of the Cons", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2784", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lived in the town of Volnyansk, Zaporizhzhia region. He died on 29 December 2004. On 24 August 2006, the applicant's daughter Mrs Valentina Ivanovna Svistun informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application.\n5.  In November 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the agricultural collective enterprise “Ukraina” seeking to withdraw his share (пай) estimated by him as an equivalent of UAH 22,000 (approximately EUR 3,200).\n6.  On 25 April 1997 the Volnyansky District Court (hereinafter “the District Court”) found for the applicant.\n7.  On 15 July 1997 the Zaporizhzhia Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n8.  On 15 April 1998 the District Court, upon its own initiative, ordered a forensic accounting examination in the case for specifying the value of the applicant's share.\n9.  On 7 April 1999 the hearings were resumed.\n10.  Between June 1999 and March 2001 all hearings scheduled were adjourned eleven times due to the expert's failure to attend the hearings, two times due to the absence of the court's secretary and eight times due to the absence of the respondent's representative.\n11.  On 8 November 2001 the Volnyansky District Court found against the applicant.\n12.  On 25 March and 11 October 2002 the Zaporizhzhia Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2785", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  The applicant was teaching biology and chemistry and was the headmaster of V.N. Elementary School in Zagreb. By its decision of 22 December 1995 the Ministry of Education and Sport (Ministarstvo prosvjete i športa) relieved the applicant of his post of headmaster and dismissed him from work on account that he had reached the retirement age.\n6.  On 3 January 1996 the applicant brought an action in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) against that decision.\n7.  On 9 October 1997 the Administrative Court declined its jurisdiction in the matter, and on 6 May 1998 forwarded the case to the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).\n8.  On 4 September 1998 the Municipal Court invited the applicant to supplement his claim, which the applicant did within the time-limit indicated. The court held hearings on 20 November 2000 and 5 February 2001.\n9.  On 17 December 2001 the Municipal Court, considering that it lacked jurisdiction in the matter, made an application to the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) with a view to resolving the negative conflict of jurisdictions.\n10.  On 22 January 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that the Administrative Court was competent to hear the applicant's case.\n11.  Following the transfer of the case back to the Administrative Court, on 31 October 2002 that court ruled in favour of the applicant. It quashed the impugned decision of 22 December 1995 and remitted the case to the Ministry.\n12.  Since the Ministry failed to give a new decision within the statutory time-limit of 30 days, on 5 November 2003 the applicant requested the Administrative Court to do so (see paragraph 16 below). In their reply to his request, the Ministry submitted that it was no longer competent to issue such a decision owing to the change in legislation governing primary education. On 6 May 2004 the Administrative Court, acting as a court of full jurisdiction, issued a decision entirely substituting for that of the Ministry. It dismissed the applicant's request by accepting that the Ministry no longer had competence in the matter. However, it found that in those circumstances the Ministry should have forwarded the case-file to a body authorised under the new legislation to issue such a decision – the school board of the V.N. Elementary School. The Ministry did so on 26 June 2006.\n13.  It appears that the case is currently pending before the school board.\n14.  Meanwhile, on 8 March 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings. On 1 July 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant's complaint. It examined only the length of the proceedings in their part between the introduction of the applicant's request to the Administrative Court on 5 November 2003 and the lodging of the constitutional complaint. The Constitutional Court dismissed the constitutional complaint finding that the proceedings had lasted only four months and three days.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2786", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Matosinhos.\n6.  When the applicant and his wife, H., separated, the Oliveira de Azeméis District Court, in a judgment of 10 July 1996, awarded parental responsibility for the couple’s daughter Rita to the child’s mother. The applicant was granted contact rights.\n7.  On 19 October 1998 H. brought proceedings before the Oliveira de Azeméis District Court seeking to have the applicant’s contact rights withdrawn. She alleged, in particular, that Rita did not wish to see her father and that since July 1998 she had shown signs of emotional distress after each visit to the applicant. The applicant objected to the request.\n8.  On 17 February 1999 the public prosecutor, acting in the child’s interests as required by the law, requested the judge to order a social inquiry report regarding Rita’s parents and a medical examination of the child. In an order of 22 February 1999 the judge acted on the prosecutor’s recommendation and asked the Institute for Social Reintegration (“the Institute”) to carry out the social inquiry. The judge refused a request by the applicant for H. to undergo a psychiatric expert examination, taking the view that it was not “appropriate”. On 11 March 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. The judge decided to adjourn consideration of the appeal until the court gave its final judgment. The applicant then lodged a complaint with the President of the Oporto Court of Appeal seeking to have his appeal considered immediately. In a note dated 12 April 1999 which he addressed, in accordance with the law, to the President of the Court of Appeal, the judge of the Oliveira de Azeméis District Court confirmed his earlier decision to adjourn consideration of the appeal. The applicant was informed of this note on 14 April 1999. On 26 May 1999 the President of the Court of Appeal rejected the complaint.\n9.  On 17 February 2000 the applicant objected to the participation, as the representative of the public prosecution service, of the public prosecutor attached to the Oliveira de Azeméis District Court. He submitted that the official concerned had been removed from the case concerning the award of parental responsibility by his superior, the Oporto Regional Attorney‑General. In the applicant’s view, he should therefore withdraw from the current proceedings.\n10.  The judge requested the Regional Attorney-General to take a decision in that regard. On being informed of the request, the public prosecutor indicated in a document dated 3 March 2000 that he did not wish to comment on the matter, preferring to await the recommendation of the Regional Attorney-General. The applicant was not informed of the public prosecutor’s position.\n11.  On 30 March 2000 the Regional Attorney-General informed the judge of the Oliveira de Azeméis District Court that he had initially removed the prosecutor attached to that court from the case concerning the award of parental authority because criminal proceedings had been instituted against him following a complaint by the applicant. As the criminal proceedings had been terminated in the meantime, he had seen no further reason to keep the official concerned off the case concerning Rita. For that reason he had annulled his earlier decision. The Regional Attorney‑General appended several documents to his information note. The applicant was not informed either of the note or of the appended documents.\n12.  By an order dated 16 May 2000 the judge, re", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2787", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and currently lives in Leipzig, Germany.\n5.  On 16 August 1996 the applicant's apartment in the city of Odessa, Ukraine, was sold by Mr O. (the applicant's nephew), who allegedly acted under a written authority issued by the applicant, to Mrs S. (a private person). The applicant continued to live in the flat until an unknown date in 1999, when he left Ukraine and took up residence in Germany.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed a criminal complaint against Mr O., stating that he had stolen his passport and forged his signature on the written authority to sell the apartment.\n7.  On 1 October 1996 an investigator of the Malinovsky District Police Station of Odessa (Малинівський районний відділ внутрішніх справ, hereafter “the Police Station”) instituted criminal proceedings against Mr O. for forgery and fraud.\n8. On the same date Mrs S. sued the applicant before the Malinovsky District Court of Odessa (hereafter “the Malinovsky Court”) seeking his eviction from the apartment at issue.\n9.  On 4 October 1996 the applicant filed with the Malinovsky Court a counterclaim against Mrs S. seeking to have the sales contract for the flat declared null and void for fraud.\n10.  On 18 November 1996 an expert with the Criminalistic Expert Unit of the Odessa Police Department (Експертно-Криміналістичне Управління УМВС України в Одеській області, hereafter “the Expert Unit”), in the course of the criminal investigation against Mr O., issued an opinion in which he stated that the signature on the written authority had been executed by a person other than the applicant.\n11.  On 22 November 1996 the Malinovsky Court requested from the Police Station a copy of the expert's report of 18 November 1996.\n12.  On 17 January 1997 the Malinovsky Court held the first hearing, which was adjourned because of the failure of Mr O. (a witness in this case) failure to appear.\n13.  On 6 February 1997 the Malinovsky Court requested the Odessa Institute of Forensic Expert Examinations (Одеський Науково-Дослідний Інститут Судових Експертиз, hereafter “the Institute”) to carry out an expert examination of the applicant's signature on the authority.\n14.  On 23 April 1997 the applicant amended his statement of claim, adding a claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n15.  On 8 May 1997 an expert with the Institute submitted her report, stating that there was a possibility that the authority had been signed by the applicant with a disguised handwriting.\n16.  The hearing scheduled for 19 May 1997 was adjourned on account of Mrs S.'s lawyer failure to appear.\n17.  On 21 May 1997 the applicant challenged the presiding judge before the President of the Malinovsky Court. On 25 May 1997 this challenge was accepted and another judge was appointed to hear the case.\n18.  Of the eighteen hearings listed between 2 July 1997 and 29 December 1998 six were adjourned due to Mrs S. and her lawyer's failure to appear, and one due to the applicant's absence. On an unspecified date during this period the applicant's case was transmitted from the Malinovsky Court to the Illichevsky District Court of Odessa (hereafter “the Illichevsky Court).\n19.  On 29 December 1998 the Illichevsky Court decided to suspend the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against Mr O. The applicant appealed against this decision.\n20.  On 23 February 1999 the Odessa Regional Court (hereafter “the Regional Court”) found that the appeal had been lodged", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2788", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in the town of Chervonograd, L'viv Region.\n5.  On 26 November 1998 the Chervonograd Court ordered the State‑owned mining company “2 Velykomostivska” to pay the applicant UAH 16,960[1] in compensation for damage to his health. This judgment became final and the writ of execution was issued on the same day.\n6.  In December 1998 the Chervonograd Department of Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in the case.\n7.  During 2000 the applicant was paid UAH 400[2].\n8.  On 1 November 2001 the applicant was paid UAH 600[3].\n9.  On 21 February 2003 the applicant was paid UAH 14,950[4]\n10. The judgment of 26 November 1998 was enforced in full on 27 February 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2789", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant was born in 1948 and lived in the village of Kalinovskaya, Naurskiy District, Chechnya. She was killed on 21 May 2003 in her house, along with three other members of her family. The second applicant is the first applicant's daughter. She was born in 1976 and currently resides in Germany, where she sought asylum.\n8.  The facts of the case are partly disputed by the parties. In view of that, the Court requested the Government to submit copies of certain documents in relation to the applicants' complaints. The submissions of the parties are summarised below in Part A. A summary of the documents submitted by the Government is set out in Part B and a summary of other relevant documents in Part C below.\n9.  The first applicant lived in the village of Kalinovskaya in the Naurskiy District in Chechnya, together with her husband, Ramzan Iduyev, and her children, Idris Iduyev, I. and X (the second applicant).\n10.  The first applicant was an active political figure in the Republic and participated in anti-war protests. From 1994 to 1996 she worked with the Russian NGO Committee of Soldiers' Mothers.\n11.  The applicants submitted that on 24 January 2000 Russian soldiers had entered the first applicant's house to conduct a passport check. The first applicant and her son Idris Iduyev explained that their passports had been submitted to the local authority for renewal. This explanation had apparently been accepted and the soldiers had left.\n12.  On 25 January 2000 at about 6 a.m. about 20 men in military uniforms, some wearing balaclava masks, entered the house. Four men, apparently the same ones who had been in the house the previous day, said that they were carrying out a passport check and ordered the first applicant, whom they had addressed by name, to go with them to the local police department to find out about her passport. The first applicant's son Idris Iduyev was also ordered to go.\n13.  The first applicant and her son were taken to the Naurskiy District Temporary Department of the Interior (VOVD). After about two hours they were transferred to the Chernokozovo detention facility, where the first applicant and her son were separated.\n14.  The first applicant submitted that upon arrival in Chernokozovo she had been forced to watch other detainees being ill-treated. About 60 men were made to run naked, with their clothes folded in their arms, along a corridor about 50 metres long while the soldiers beat them.\n15.  The first applicant was forced to stand with her face to the wall, with her hands raised against the wall until the evening. The hall was unheated, with broken windows, and it was very cold. She was not allowed to sit or lie down. In the evening she was taken to a cell.\n16.  Cell no. 2, where the first applicant was detained, was very small. It contained four metal beds and a toilet. Three to ten women were kept there at different times, and sometimes the detainees had to sleep in turns. The cell was very dirty and the stench from the toilet was unbearable. Once a day the detainees were given four litres of water per cell and one bowl of food for three persons in dirty crockery.\n17.  During her detention the first applicant was humiliated constantly as a woman and as a person of Chechen origin. The guards told her that she would not leave the place alive, that she would go insane or kill herself. The applicant was pushed and hit with rifle butts on many occasions. On one occasion, around 3 February 2000, the g", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2790", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in the town of Severodvinsk in the Arkhangelsk Region.\n6.  On 23 August 2001 police officers forced entry to the applicant's flat. They arrested the applicant on suspicion of manslaughter, handcuffed and allegedly boxed and kicked him. The applicant and his wife were taken to the Severodvinsk Town Police Department where the police officers allegedly coerced the wife and compelled her to incriminate the applicant as having committed murder. However, she refused to testify and was released on the same day.\n7.  A prosecutor authorised the applicant's placement in custody. Between 23 August and 1 September 2001 an investigator interrogated the applicant a number of times. Each interrogation was allegedly accompanied by beatings.\n8.  The applicant informed the investigator that his daughter could confirm his alibi and motioned to have her questioned. The motion was dismissed. The investigator notified the applicant that he had to pay for the services of a legal aid lawyer. Afraid of being unable to afford the costs, the applicant refused legal aid. As it appears from the file, he subsequently retained counsel.\n9.  The applicant was transferred to detention facility no. 29/4 in Arkhangelsk.  On 16, 17 and 18 January 2002 the investigator ordered the applicant's transfer to the Severodvinsk Town temporary detention ward for participation in certain investigative actions. According to the applicant, warders refused to provide him with food on those days.\n10.  The applicant asked to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen who had assaulted him after the arrest. On 29 October 2001 a senior investigator of the Severodvinsk Town Prosecutor's office dismissed the request on the ground that the allegations of ill-treatment were in fact false. The senior investigator noted that a prison doctor had examined the applicant after the arrest and had found no injuries.\n11.  According to the applicant, he was not afforded sufficient time to study the case file before the case was set down for trial.\n12.  On 19 March 2002 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated robbery and manslaughter and sentenced him to seventeen years' imprisonment.\n13.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed. They argued that the Regional Court had unlawfully admitted certain items in evidence and incorrectly assessed evidence, including expert opinions, statements by the applicant's daughter and wife given in open court and testimony by certain witnesses.\n14.  On 17 October 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the applicant's conviction of aggravated robbery, sentenced him to four years' imprisonment, quashed the remainder of the conviction and remitted the matter for fresh examination.\n15.  After receiving the file from the Supreme Court, the Arkhangelsk Regional Court ordered that the case be returned to the Arkhangelsk Regional Prosecutor for an additional investigation. That decision was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court. On 16 May 2003 the Prosecutor discontinued criminal proceedings against the applicant on the manslaughter charge.\n16.  In 2001 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of criminal slander. On 17 December 2002 the Severodvinsk Town Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment.\n17.  On 2 January 2003 a local newspaper published an article in which a journalist described the criminal", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2791", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Ankara.\n6.  He worked in a construction yard in Russia for a Turkish Company, YAPITEK Construction, Industry and Commerce Limited Corporation (hereinafter “the company”), from 14 October 1996 until 9 May 1998.\n7.  On 28 June 1999, the applicant brought a case against the company before the Ankara Labour Court. He claimed that the company had made him stay and wait for four months in Turkey where he had returned for a holiday. However, he was neither sent back to Russia nor given work in Turkey. He submitted that no payment had been made to him concerning his salary for this period and that he had not been notified of the termination of his contract. He requested the court to rule on his unpaid salary and compensation for the length of his service (kıdem tazminatı) and the lack of any dismissal notice (ihbar tazminatı), together with interest.\n8.  On 1 July 1999 the court made the first examination on the case file and decided to hold a hearing on 5 October 1999, before which date the company was required to submit its replies, with any evidence.\n9.  The defendant did not appear at the hearings of 5 October and 18 November 1999 although the summons had been duly served.\n10.  On 27 January 2000 the court took evidence from two of the witnesses whom the applicant wished to have examined, who were his co-workers at the construction yard. The applicant's lawyer stated that they would ensure that a third witness would be present at the next hearing.\n11.  On 21 March 2000 the court heard the third witness. At the end of the hearing, the court decided to obtain an expert report and, accordingly, sent the case file to the expert after the necessary fee had been deposited by the applicant.\n12.  The first expert report dated 12 April 2000 stated that the company was liable to pay the applicant compensation for his length of service, for non-notification of the termination of his contract and for his unpaid salary. The amounts due were also assessed in the report.\n13.  On 28 April 2000 the applicant's lawyer objected to the report, claiming that the amounts were insufficient and requesting that it be reviewed by another expert.\n14.  On 4 May 2000, the court decided to obtain an additional expert report from the same expert once an additional fee had been deposited by the applicant. Accordingly, a second report was prepared by the same expert and submitted to the court. This report stated that the claim made by the applicant's representative was valid in respect of the amount of compensation for his length of service. This should have been in the sum of 787.5 US dollars. The applicant's lawyer challenged that report and requested a further assessment, to be made by another expert.\n15.  The applicant's representative did not attend the hearing on 20 June 2000. The court decided to discontinue the proceedings unless a request for resumption was put before it. Upon the request by the applicant's lawyer, the case was reinstated on 26 June 2000 and a hearing was scheduled for 13 July 2000.\n16.  On 13 July 2000 the court decided that, if the necessary fees were deposited by the applicant within three days, an order would be sent to the defendant requesting payslips showing that the applicant had been paid a salary for five months after he had returned to Turkey. The company would be warned that, unless these payslips were provided, it would be assumed that no salary had been paid. The hearing was postponed t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2792", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  At the time of the events, the applicant was a corporal in the Hakkari Mountain Commando Brigade of the Turkish Land Forces.\n7.  On 29 January 2002 the brigadier general (tuğgeneral) filed an indictment against the applicant with the Hakkari Military Disciplinary Court which was attached to the Hakkari Mountain and Commando Brigade. He accused the applicant of insulting his subordinates, of deliberately hiding the truth from his superiors and of giving abusive commands to his subordinates which did not concern military service. In particular, the applicant was accused of forcing his subordinates to make his bed, or do his personal shopping and laundry. On 6 February 2002, the Hakkari Military Disciplinary Court, which was composed of a major (binbaşı), a captain (yüzbaşı) and a sergeant major (başçavuş), found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to “room arrest” for 110 days.\n8.  On 19 February 2002 the applicant appealed.\n9.  On 5 March 2002 the Van Supreme Disciplinary Court attached to the General Command of the Gendarmerie gave a decision of non-jurisdiction regarding the first charge and sent the case file to the Military Court attached to the General Command of the Gendarmerie for reconsideration. It acquitted the applicant of the second charge. However, it established that he had given abusive orders to his subordinates. It therefore upheld the decision of 6 February 2002 in respect of the third charge. As a result, the applicant was ordered to serve 40 days' “room arrest”.\n10.  On 16 April 2002 the applicant petitioned the Minister of Defence for a referral of his case to the office of the public prosecutor at the Military Court of Cassation, by means of an appeal against the decision of the Van Supreme Disciplinary Court. He complained, in particular, of a breach of Articles 5 § 1 and 6 §1 of the Convention.\n11.  On 7 June 2002 the Chief Magistrate of Military Justice, acting on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, dismissed the applicant's petition.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2793", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In 1991, immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Tocono, the Chişinău Municipal Council and the Ministry of Education took the initiative to create the first private high school in Moldova (“the school”). In view of the lack of legislation regulating private education, the Government issued Decision no. 473 of 29 August 1991, in which they confirmed that Tocono was the school's sole founder and that the school was to be financed from the local budget, donations, fees and money invested by Tocono.\n6.  In the autumn of the same year the school, called the Experimental High School, was opened.\n7.  On 9 December 1991 the Government issued Decision no. 685 amending the previous decision and naming as co-founders of the school five other legal entities which had invested in it.\n8.  Between 1991 and 2001 the school existed without State registration, owing to the lack of any legislation governing that area.\n9.  In 2001, after the enactment of legislation concerning private education, the school was required to obtain State registration.\n10.  On 10 December 2001, following a request by the school's head teacher, the Government issued Decision no. 1375, repealing Decision no. 685. On 20 December 2001 it was published in the Official Gazette and entered into force.\n11.  On 28 December 2001, Tocono and a group of teachers from the school, who had joined forces to create a foundation called “Professorii Prometeişti”, registered new articles of association for the school in accordance with the new legislation. The new articles stated that there were only two founders - Tocono and Profesorii Prometeişti- and that the school would thenceforth be called S.R.L. Prometeu. The same day the newly created entity was issued with a State registration certificate.\n12.  On 10 June 2002, following a request by the school's former co-founders, the Government issued Decision no. 718 repealing Decision no. 1375.\n13.  On 25 June 2002 four of the former co-founders mentioned in Decision no. 685 brought an action against the Chamber of State Registration and against S.R.L. Prometeu, seeking to have the registration of the new entity S.R.L. Prometeu declared null and void on the ground that they should also have been included as co-founders of the school in accordance with decision No. 685.\n14.  On 11 December 2002 the Court of Appeal dismissed the action. It found, inter alia, that at the date of registration of the new school (28 December 2001), Decision no. 685 had no longer been in force.\n15.  The plaintiffs lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice.\n16.  On 30 April 2003 a panel of the Supreme Court of Justice, composed of judges V.M., I.P. and V.B., upheld the appeal, quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and ruled in favour of the former co-founders. It observed, inter alia, that the request for registration of S.R.L. Prometeu had been lodged with the Registration Chamber on 13 December 2002, when Decision no. 685 of 9 December 1991 had still been in force. It also decided to exclude the Profesorii Prometeişti Foundation from the list of founders of the school.\n17.  The applicants did not learn of the composition of the panel until the day of the hearing. They alleged not to have known at the time of the hearing that, three years earlier, Judge V.B.'s son had been expelled from the school for misbehaviour, truancy and bad grades, an expulsion carried out by the head teacher of the school and by teachers who formed part of the Profe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2794", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently detained on remand in Kandıra prison.\n5.  On 17 July 1996 the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of having committed robbery.\n6.  On 25 July 1996 the Büyükçekmece Magistrates' Court ordered his detention on remand.\n7.  On 9 August 1996 the Bakırköy public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Bakırköy Assize Court, charging the applicant with robbery and homicide under Articles 448, 450, 497 of the Criminal Code and Article 13 § 1 of Law No. 6136.\n8.  On 21 February 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed another indictment, charging the applicant with attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 23 October 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court decided to join the two cases against the applicant.\n10.  On 27 January 2000 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court submitted his opinion concerning the merits of the case, reiterating his view in the indictment that the applicant should be convicted under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  On 14 March 2003 the Bakırköy Assize Court also decided to join the two cases.\n12.  The applicant requested to be released pending trial several times, both before the Bakırköy Assize Court and the Istanbul State Security Court. The courts dismissed his requests on each occasion, having regard to the state of the evidence, the nature of the offence and the possibility of his fleeing.\n13.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.\n14.  According to the information in the Court's case file, the criminal proceedings are apparently still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2795", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Smederevo.\n6.  In 1998 the applicant married P.V. and later that year their daughter A.V. was born.\n7.  Initially, the applicant lived with P.V.'s parents in Krupanj while P.V. remained in Belgrade in order to finish his studies.\n8.  In 2001 the applicant and P.V. started having marital problems, apparently as a result of this separation.\n9.  On 24 February 2001 the applicant and A.V. moved to her parents' house in Smederevo, where they stayed for a period of four months and wherefrom the applicant filed a claim with the Municipal Court in Krupanj (Opštinski sud u Krupnju), seeking the dissolution of her marriage, custody of A.V. and child maintenance.\n10.  On 19 July 2001 the Municipal Court in Krupanj (“the Municipal Court”) issued a partial judgment, dissolving the marriage. The proceedings, thereafter, continued in respect of the child custody/maintenance sought by the applicant.\n11.  On 10 April 2002 the Mental Health Institute (Institut za mentalno zdravlje) recommended that custody be granted to the applicant and held that P.V. was “incapable of adequately taking into account” the needs of A.V., including and especially her need for communication with the applicant.\n12.  On 25 February 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant. In so doing, inter alia, it granted her custody of A.V. and ordered P.V. to pay 10% of his monthly salary as child maintenance.\n13.  On 17 December 2004 the District Court in Šabac (Okružni sud u Šapcu) upheld the ruling of the Municipal Court. P.V. was apparently served with this judgment some two months later, which is when the Municipal Court's judgment became enforceable.\n14.  On 9 March 2006 the Supreme Court of Serbia (Vrhovni sud Srbije) confirmed the decision of the District Court in Šabac (“the District Court”), at third instance.\n15.  Given that, as of 29 June 2001, A.V. was staying with P.V. and his parents in Krupanj (see paragraph 39 below), on 11 March 2005 the applicant requested enforcement of the final judgment rendered in her favour.\n16.  On 18 March 2005 the Municipal Court accepted this request. It ordered P.V. to surrender A.V. to the applicant within three days, warned him that he would otherwise be fined, and stated that, should the fine fail to bring about compliance, A.V. would be taken forcibly, in co-operation with the local Social Care Centre (Centar za socijalni rad).\n17.  On 11 April 2005 the District Court upheld this decision.\n18.  On 28 April 2005 the Municipal Court scheduled a hearing for 25 May 2005, on which occasion P.V. was supposed to surrender A.V. to the applicant. This hearing, however, was never held because P.V. informed the Municipal Court that he was unable to attend and the applicant thereafter apparently decided not to appear.\n19.  The next hearing was held on 8 June 2005. Both the applicant and P.V. attended, as did a psychologist from the Social Care Centre. P.V. again failed to surrender A.V. to the applicant. The psychologist stated that A.V. should not be removed forcibly but should instead be gradually prepared for the custody transfer. On the same occasion, P.V. apparently agreed to facilitate the applicant's contact with A.V. immediately following the hearing. This meeting between the applicant and A.V., however, never materialised, which is why the Municipal Court fined P.V. in the amount of 20,000 Dinars (“RSD”), at the time equivalent to approximately 242 euros (“EUR”). On 20 June 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2796", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 16 October 1981, at a time when Turkey was ruled by martial law following the military “coup” of 12 September 1980, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of an illegal armed organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way).\n7.  He was detained for forty-seven days. During his interrogation, which allegedly involved ill-treatment, he confessed to having been involved in various illegal activities of the Dev-Yol. On 2 December 1981 the Ankara Martial Law Court (Sıkıyönetim Mahkemesi) ordered his detention on remand and transferred him to the Mamak Military Prison.\n8.  On 26 February 1982 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Martial Law Court against the applicant and 722 other defendants. The prosecutor accused the applicant, inter alia, of membership of the Dev-Yol, whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime. The prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the – then in force – Criminal Code.\n9.  In a judgment of 13 March 1985, the Martial Law Court convicted the applicant of membership of the Dev-Yol. It sentenced him to five years' imprisonment under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. One of the judges dissented, opining that the evidence against the applicant was insufficient.\n10.  Both the defendants and the prosecutor appealed to the Military Court of Cassation. While the appeal was pending, the applicant was released from prison on 14 November 1988.\n11.  In the meantime, martial law was terminated. Following the promulgation of the Law of 27 December 1993 abolishing the jurisdiction of the martial law courts, the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) acquired jurisdiction over the case.\n12.  On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant's conviction. It re-qualified the offence under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code, which entailed a more severe sentence. It transmitted the case to the Ankara Assize Court, which held its first hearing on 6 May 1996.\n13.  On 16 July 2002 the Assize Court handed down its verdict on the applicant and numerous other accused.\n14.  On 28 May 2004, however, the Court of Cassation quashed the verdict, holding that the court should have taken into account some recent legislative amendments affecting the situation of some of the accused including the applicant. It remitted the case to the assize court, before which the proceedings are still pending.\n15.  On 3 October 2006 the Ankara Assize Court convicted the applicant, under Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code, of attempting to undermine the constitutional order and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed against this judgment and the proceedings are still pending before the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2798", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Mykolayiv.\n5.  In 1990 the applicant's mother instituted civil proceedings in the Central District Court of Mykolayiv (the “District Court;” Центральний районний суд м. Миколаєва) against Mr S. (a private person), the co-owner of her house, seeking to divide adjacent land. In the course of the proceedings, the courts found that the disputed land consisted of two plots. One plot (“Plot A”) had been allotted for the joint use of the house owners by the Mykolayiv City Council (the “Council”). The other plot (“Plot B”) was used by the house owners without any authorisation.\n6.  In 1993 the applicant, having acquired the title to his mother's part of the house, succeeded her as the plaintiff in the proceedings.\n7.  In March 1995 the District Court informed the Council that the house owners used Plot B without authorisation and requested it to resolve the issue. On 4 April 1995 the Council gave the house owners joint title to Plot B.\n8.  In November 1996 the proceedings were suspended in connection with a second set of proceedings instituted in July 1996 (see the detailed description of these proceedings in section B below). In 2001 the proceedings were resumed, however, in October 2001 suspended again on account of Mr S.'s death. On 3 September 2002 the proceedings were resumed, as Mr S.'s heirs - Mr G.S. and Ms L.S. – were admitted to the proceedings as defendants.\n9.  On 2 October 2002 the District Court gave a decision on the merits of the dispute, having divided the land between the parties and having obliged them to abstain from installing fences or other constructions between the divided plots of the land. The court also ordered the defendants to pay the applicant 41.26 hryvnyas (“UAH”)[1] in compensation of fees and expenses.\n10.  On 3 December 2002 the Regional Court modified this judgment, having relieved the parties from the obligation to abstain from installing constructions and having decreased the amount of compensation due to the applicant to UAH 9.08.[2]\n11.  On 23 December 2003 the Supreme Court gave a final decision in the case, having rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation.\n12.  In July 1996 Mr S. instituted civil proceedings against the Council and the applicant seeking annulment of the Council's decision of 4 April 1995, vesting in him and the applicant a joint title to Plot B, and claiming damages.\n13.  On 7 August 1997 the District Court left Mr S.'s complaint without consideration on account of Mr S.'s repetitive failures to appear at the hearings. This decision was not appealed against and became final on 18 August 1997.\n14.  On 12 December 1997 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed this decision following a “protest” introduced by its President for want of evidence that Mr S. had been duly notified of the hearing dates and remitted the case to the District Court for consideration on the merits.\n15.  On 30 October 1998, following the applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings, the President of the Regional Court reprimanded the President of the District Court for lack of action in facilitating prompt consideration of the case and, inter alia, ensuring attendance of the hearings by the parties.\n16.  On 17 January 2000 the District Court annulled the Council's decision of 4 April 1995 and rejected Mr S.'s claims for damages. On 16 February 2000 the Regional Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh conside", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2799", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Yerevan.\n5.  On 25 June 1998 the applicant was drafted into the army and assigned to military unit no. 33651, situated next to the border with Azerbaijan.\n6.  On 3 December 1998 the applicant, together with five fellow servicemen, was placed on watch in position no. 24.\n7.  On 4 December 1998 one of the six watchmen, serviceman H., was found dead in a nearby trench, having been killed by a machine-gun shot. At the time of the killing, only three of the remaining five watchmen were in the area of position no. 24, namely the applicant and servicemen T. and A. The latter two were apparently cutting wood together not far from the position. It appears that the applicant had been seen to have an argument with H. earlier that day.\n8.  On 4 March 1999 servicemen T. and A. were brought to a military police station. On 5 March 1999 the applicant was also brought to the same police station. The military police officers started to beat them, seeking to force them to confess to serviceman H.’s murder. According to the applicant, they told the police officers that serviceman H. must have been shot from the other side of the border, to which the officers replied that it had already been established that serviceman H. had been killed at close range, and continued to beat them.\n9.  The applicant was initially punched and kicked. The police officers then began to hit him with rubber clubs. The applicant lost consciousness on several occasions but was revived and continued to be beaten. After a while the police officers began to squeeze the applicant’s fingertips with pliers. The same torture techniques were applied to servicemen T. and A.\n10.  On 5 March 1999 serviceman T. confessed to the investigator that he had witnessed how the applicant had taken his machine gun and shot H. Since serviceman A. was with serviceman T. at the time of the murder, he was coerced into making a statement to the effect that serviceman T. had told him that he had witnessed the murder.\n11.  The police officers subsequently continued to torture the applicant, forcing him to confess to the murder. According to the applicant, this continued for over a month. He was unable to walk and talk properly, and all his fingertips were swollen.\n12.  On 16 April 1999 the applicant was interrogated as a suspect by the investigator examining the case, to whom he confessed that he had accidentally shot serviceman H.\n13.  On 17 April 1999 the applicant was formally charged with premeditated murder and questioned as an accused by the investigator; during this interview he repeated his confession. Thereafter he was taken to the crime scene, where he made the same statement in front of a video camera and the relevant record was drawn up. On the same date the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention.\n14.  According to the applicant, immediately after their release from the police station on an unspecified date, servicemen T. and A. informed the Military Prosecutor of Armenia (ՀՀ զինվորական դատախազ) in writing that they had been coerced into slandering the applicant.\n15.  On 19 June 1999 the applicant and servicemen T. and A. were subjected to medical examinations, during which various injuries to their fingers and A.’s head were noted.\n16.  On 11 August 1999 a confrontation was held between the applicant and serviceman T., during which the latter confirmed his earlier testimony against the applicant.\n17.  On an unspecified date, the applicant’s cr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2800", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was placed in preliminary detention on 3 July 1998 under an order of an investigator on the suspicion of having raped a minor on the previous day, 2 July 1998. The arrest was undertaken on the basis of a complaint filed by the victim whereby she had identified the applicant as one of the persons who had raped her. On the same day, the preliminary detention of the applicant was extended until 6 July 1998 by order of a prosecutor.\n7.  Based on the complaint filed by the victim and the evidence collected by the police, a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicant on 6 July 1998. On the same day, he was charged with aggravated rape of a defenceless minor perpetrated on two occasions on 2 July 1998 together with another two individuals. By virtue of the same order, confirmed by the Prosecutor's Office later in the day, the applicant was detained on remand. He was presented with the aforesaid order and countersigned it on the same day.\n8.  On 13 and 15 July 1998 the applicant filed appeals against his detention, which were examined and dismissed by the Pazardzhik Regional Court by decision of 20 July 1998. The court found that because the applicant was charged with a serious intentional offence there was a risk that he might abscond.\n9.  The charges against the applicant were amended on 14 May and 24 June 1999. On both occasions the detention on remand was maintained on the grounds of the applicant's personality and the seriousness of the offence.\n10.  On 28 June 1999 the preliminary investigation was concluded with a proposal that an indictment be filed against the accused.\n11.  The Pazardzhik Regional Prosecutor's Office amended the charges against the applicant on 29 June 1999.\n12.  The Pazardzhik Regional Prosecutor's Office entered an indictment against the applicant on 7 July 1999 charging him with being an accomplice to the rape of a minor using threats or force (Article 152 § 3 (1), in conjunction with § 2 (1) and § 1 (2) of the Bulgarian Criminal Code).\n13.  On an unspecified date the victim joined the proceedings as a civil claimant.\n14.  On 10 or 11 August 1999 the applicant appealed against his detention claiming, inter alia, that he had a permanent address and that the worsening financial situation of his family would preclude any possibility that he might abscond. With a resolution of 10 September 1999 the Pazardzhik District Court decreed that the appeal would be examined at the next court hearing.\n15.  At a hearing on 4 October 1999 the Pazardzhik District Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. It considered that there were no new circumstances following his previous appeal of July 1998, that he was still charged with a serious intentional offence and, therefore, that there was still a risk that he might abscond, attempt to intimidate the victim and the other witnesses, and obstruct the discovery process in the proceedings. The lack of employment of the applicant was considered a contributory element to the risk that he might abscond. The court did not consider the length of the detention to be a reason onto itself which might justify a reassessment of the justification of the applicant's deprivation of liberty.\n16.  On 10 November 1999, on appeal by the applicant of 6 October 1999, the Pazardzhik Regional Court upheld the lower court's decision on similar grounds.\n17.  On 6 December 1999 the applicant filed another appeal against his detention.\n18.  At the court hearing on the same day, the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2801", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1967 and 1993 respectively and are resident in Luxembourg.\n6.  On 6 November 1996 the Family Court of the province of Huamanga (Peru) pronounced the adoption of the second applicant, then aged three years and previously declared abandoned, by the first applicant. The judge listed the various stages of the adoption procedure which had been completed in accordance with the legal conditions. By the judgment the child acquired the status of daughter of the first applicant, ceased to belong to her blood family and henceforth bore the forenames and names J.M.W.L. In accordance with the legal conditions and the agreement drawn up between the technical secretariat for adoptions in Peru and the Luxembourg-Peru Association, the latter was declared responsible for monitoring the child and, if necessary, for the legalisation of the adoption in Luxembourg.\n7.  The judgment of the Family Court of the province of Huamanga was declared enforceable – according to the certificate issued by that court on 14 December 1996 – and entered in the civil status register of Ayacucho‑Huamanga.\n8.  In May 1997 the first applicant, who lived alone in Luxembourg with the adopted child, gave birth to a daughter. On 13 November 2006 her lawyer stated that she was now the mother of four children attending school and still lived in Luxembourg.\n9.  On 10 April 1997 the applicants brought proceedings against the Attorney General's Department before the Luxembourg District Court. They requested the court to declare that the Peruvian judgment was enforceable in the Grand Duchy as though it were a judgment ordering full adoption delivered by the competent Luxembourg court; they stated that the purpose of the application for enforcement was to ensure that the child could be registered in the civil status register in the Grand Duchy, acquire the nationality of her adoptive mother and be granted definitive leave to remain in Luxembourg.\n10.  On 11 February 1998 the District Court declared the application for enforcement admissible as it had been properly submitted by originating summons. In that regard, the court stated the following:\n“An application for enforcement of a foreign judgment is a principal legal claim different in nature from the application that gave rise to the foreign judgment. The court dealing with the application for enforcement does not examine the merits of the application submitted to the foreign court, but confines itself to verifying that the decision satisfies the relevant international procedural requirements. The application for enforcement of an adoption judgment, which is different in nature from the application to adopt, is not subject to the objection procedure in [the relevant article] of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which applications to adopt may be made by petition ...”\n11.  The court decided that a court dealing with an application for enforcement of an adoption judgment delivered by a foreign court must first of all ascertain whether the foreign court was competent by reference to the rules determining its jurisdiction. On that point, the court concluded that the adoption had been pronounced by the court that was competent according to Article 370 of the Luxembourg Civil Code.\n12.  As for the law applicable to the merits of the case, the court first of all recalled the positions taken by the parties to the proceedings.\nThus, the Attorney General's Department maintained that the court should ascertain whet", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2802", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicants, Mr Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Boychenko and Mr Vladislav Vladimirovich Gershkovich, are Russian nationals, who were born in 1953 and 1971 respectively and live in Moscow.\n4.  On 14 May 1993 the Ministry of Finance of Russia issued “Series III” domestic hard currency bonds (облигации внутреннего государственного валютного займа III серии). On 15 January 1999 the first applicant acquired bonds of a total nominal value 200,000 United States dollars (USD) and the second applicant acquired bonds of a total nominal value USD 2,010,000.\n5.  On 14 May 1999 the bonds matured and the applicants presented them for redemption.\n6.  On 11 June 1999 the applicants were informed that Vnesheconombank acting as the Government's agent refused to redeem the bonds, referring to a letter of the Ministry of Finance of 14 May 1999 No. 11-02-09 advising the holders of Series III bonds to refrain from presenting the bonds for redemption for a period of six months in the light of the unfavourable economic situation in the country. In the same letter the Ministry undertook to negotiate restructuring of the debt during this period.\n7.  On 29 November 1999 the Government of Russia issued Order No. 1306 which provided for the existing Series III bonds to be converted into new bonds of two types with four and eight year maturity periods.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicants brought civil proceedings against the Government, the Ministry of Finance and Vnesheconombank seeking recovery of the nominal value of the bonds and damages. They also asked the court to defer the payment of the court fees.\n9.  On 22 March 2000 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow awarded the applicants the nominal value of the bonds and dismissed the claim for damages. The first applicant was awarded USD 200,000 and the second applicant was awarded USD 2,010,000.\n10.  On 6 June 2000 the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the judgment.\n11.  On 17 July 2000 the applicants submitted writs of execution to Vneshtorgbank.\n12.  On 20 July 2000 Vneshtorgbank refused to comply with the writs of execution, referring to an application for supervisory review of the judgments which was to be lodged by the Prosecutor of Moscow. The applicants' request to see the application was refused.\n13.  On 10 August 2000 the Prosecutor of Moscow lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgments.\n14.  On 28 September 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court granted the application. The Presidium quashed the judgment of 22 March 2000 and the appeal decision of 6 June 2000 on the grounds that the courts had erred in interpretation of the law and failed to rule on the issue of payment of court fees, and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n15.  On 6 April 2001 the Presnenskiy District Court examined and dismissed the applicants' claim in full.\n16.  On 22 May 2001 the Presnenskiy District Court delivered an additional judgment ordering the applicants to pay court fees.\n17.  On an unspecified date the applicants' appeal against the judgment was dismissed.\n18.  On 21 November 2002, following a request by the applicants, the Prosecutor of Moscow lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgments.\n19.  On 24 December 2002 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court examined the application and upheld the judgment of 6 April 2001. In the same proceedings it quashed the judgment of 22 May 2001 concerning the payment of court fees an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2803", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lived until his arrest in Moscow.\n6.  On 8 March 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed franchise fraud, that is, having organised a financial pyramid scheme in which more than one hundred persons had been enrolled and which had caused fraud losses of over 23,000,000 Russian roubles. Three days later a prosecutor authorised the applicant's placement in custody on the ground that he was charged with a serious criminal offence and did not have a permanent place of residence and work in the Omsk Region, thus being liable to abscond and pervert the course of justice.\n7.  On 6 May and 2 July 1999 the Omsk Regional Prosecutor extended the applicant's detention until 8 July and 8 September 1999 respectively, having regard to the gravity of the charges.\n8.  On 3 September and 29 November 1999 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, invoking the same grounds as in the previous detention orders, authorised the extension of the applicant's detention until 8 December 1999 and 8 March 2000 respectively.\n9.  On 25 February and 26 June 2000 the acting Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation authorised further extensions of the applicant's detention until 8 July and 8 September 2000 respectively. The reasons for both extensions were similar: the gravity of the charges and the applicant's liability to abscond and pervert the course of justice.\n10.   According to the Government, on 11 July 2000 the pre-trial investigation was closed and three days later the applicant began studying the case file. However, as appears from a report issued on 5 July 2000 by a senior investigator from the Omsk Regional Police Department, the applicant was provided with the case file on 11 May 2000. According to the same report, the applicant had “intentionally procrastinated in reading the material in the case file” because between 15 May and 1 June 2000 he had read from 26 to 42 pages each day and in June 2000 he had read from 2 to 50 pages each day. He was warned that such behaviour was not permissible. The applicant countersigned the report and made a handwritten note stating that he had been able to study the file from two to five hours each day, had made notes and had copied documents with which he had not been issued.\n11.  The Government submitted a detailed schedule showing the times and dates when the applicant had consulted the file and the volumes and pages of the file which he had studied. As appears from the schedule, in July and August 2000 the applicant studied from 20 to several hundred pages each day. On 17 August 2000 the applicant made a handwritten note in the schedule which reads as follows:\n“I have read the entire case file. I ask you to provide me with a copy of a record certifying that the pre-trial investigation has ended and that the defendants and counsel have finished reading the file in accordance with Articles 201-203 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure.”\n12.  On 15 August 2000 the Omsk Regional Prosecutor asked the Omsk Regional Court to extend the applicant's detention for an additional six months because the applicant needed additional time to read the case file. The prosecutor also noted that the applicant and his co-defendants had participated in an organised criminal offence, had been charged with serious criminal offences, and had influenced other defendants, witnesses and victims. They were liable to abscond and pervert the course of justice.\n13.  On ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2805", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Kalach, the Voronezh Region.\n5.  In 1999 she brought a court action against the Welfare Office of the Kalacheyevskiy District of the Voronezh Region and the Finance department of the administration of the Voronezh Region for delays in payment of child benefits. The court requested the applicant to pay a court fee of 99 Russian roubles (RUR).\n6.  By a judgment of 17 January 2000 the Kalacheyevskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant RUR 2,148.20. No appeal was lodged against the judgment and it acquired legal force ten days later. On an unspecified date the Kalacheyevskiy District Court issued a writ of execution, but on 26 July 2001 the bailiffs' service of the Tsentralnyy District of Voronezh discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the debtor did not have sufficient funds.\n7.  On 25 July 2004 the applicant applied to the bailiffs' service for the reopening of the enforcement proceedings. On 20 December 2004 the bailiffs' service returned the writ of execution to the applicant without enforcement as the debtor did not have sufficient funds.\n8.  On 24 January 2005 the applicant brought a court action against the bailiffs' service for failure to execute the judgment of 17 January 2000. By a decision of 16 March 2005 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Voronezh dismissed her complaint. On 19 July 2005 the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the decision of 16 March 2005, upon the applicant's appeal, and referred the case back to the first instance court for fresh examination. By a decision of 5 October 2005 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Voronezh again dismissed the applicant's complaint against the bailiffs' service. On 12 December 2006 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the decision of 5 October 2005.\n9.  In the meantime, in October 2005, the applicant received RUR 1,402.56 following the judgment of 17 January 2000.\n10.  On 12 May 2006 the applicant received the outstanding debt of RUR 745.64 due to her under the judgment of 17 January 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2808", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is presently detained in Wołów Detention Centre.\n6.  On 21 March 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery.\n7.  On 22 March 2000 the Oława District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand. It considered that the applicant's detention was justified by the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence and the gravity of the charges. It also relied on the risk that the applicant might induce witnesses to give false testimony or obstruct the proceedings against him by other means. On 20 April 2000 the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant's appeal against that decision.\n8.  On 21 June 2000 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 21 September 2000. The court considered that there was a significant risk of the applicant obstructing the proper course of the proceedings or going into hiding.\n9.  The applicant's detention was subsequently prolonged on 21 September and 21 December 2000. The court repeated the reasons previously given for the applicant's detention and considered that it was necessary to obtain evidence from an expert psychiatrist.\n10.  On 19 March 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) again prolonged his detention until 30 April 2001.\n11.  On 20 April 2001 the applicant was indicted before the Wrocław Regional Court. He was charged with having committed two robberies in January and February 1999.\n12.  The applicant's detention was further prolonged by the Wrocław Regional Court several times, for the same reasons as before.\n13.  On 6 March 2002 the Wrocław Court of Appeal allowed the Regional Court's request to extend the applicant's detention until 19 September 2002. Subsequently the court prolonged his detention until 19 December 2002 and, thereafter, until 19 March 2003. The applicant's appeals against those decisions were dismissed.\n14.  His applications for release of 22 September and 12 November 2002 were likewise dismissed.\n15.  On 5 March 2003 the Court of Appeal, at the prosecutor's request, prolonged the applicant's detention until 19 June 2003.\n16.  On 15 April 2003, at a hearing, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request for release, for the same reasons as before. The court found that there were “no grounds for release” provided by Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n17.  On 29 April 2003 the applicant again unsuccessfully asked the court to release him from detention.\n18.  On 10 June 2003 the Wrocław Court of Appeal allowed the Regional Court's application to prolong the detention until 19 September 2003\n19.  On 16 September 2003 the Wrocław Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 12 years' imprisonment.\n20.  On 29 June 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant's sentence of 4 years' imprisonment in respect of the robbery committed in February 1999. The appeal court quashed the remainder of the impugned judgment in so far as it concerned the applicant's conviction for armed robbery committed in January 1999 and for which the applicant was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment. The court remitted this part of the case.\n21.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against the part of the Court of Appeal's judgment which had become final. It appears that the proceedings ended on an unspecified later date.\n22.  On 31 January 2006 the Wrocław Regional Court gave a judgment with regard to the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2809", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Lublin.\n5.  On 2 May 1990 the applicant asked the Rzeszów District Court to declare that she had been the beneficiary of an inheritance from a certain M.K. on the basis of a will made before a notary on 24 February 1975.\n6.  On 27 September 1990 the other party to the proceedings, a certain W.B., lodged her own inheritance claim and asked the same court to declare that she had received an inheritance from her sister – M.K. – on the basis of the above-mentioned will made before a notary on 21 November 1988.\n7.  On 12 November 1990 a hearing was held. The applicant asked for the annulment of a will made on 21 November 1988 in favour W.B.\n8.  On 15 March 1991 a psychiatric opinion (opinia sądowo‑psychiatryczna) concerning the testator's state of health between 1975 and 1988 was obtained.\n9.  At hearings scheduled between 1 October 1992 and 1 February 1993 evidence was heard from over 20 witnesses.\n10.  On 29 October 1994 the court obtained a second psychiatric opinion prepared by an expert from the Lublin Medical Academy (Akademia Medyczna).\n11.  On 10 February 1995 the Rzeszów District Court asked the Poznań Medical Academy for an expert report to be prepared by the Institute of Psychiatry –  the so-called “institute opinion” (opinia instytucjonalna).\n12.  On 20 April 1995 the Poznań Medical Academy informed the Rzeszów District Court about the state of preparation of the report.\n13.  On 10 July 1995 the Poznań Medical Academy informed the Rzeszów District Court that, due to the holiday season, it was not possible to prepare the above-mentioned “institute opinion”. It asked the Rzeszów District Court whether it would accept an expert opinion given by two experts in psychiatry.\n14.  On 21 July 1995 the President of the Rzeszów District Court agreed.\n15.  The opinion was submitted on 8 May 1996.\n16.  The fourth expert's report in the case was submitted on 24 September 1997.\n17.  At a hearing held on 23 December 1997 the Rzeszów District Court gave a decision. It was served on the applicant's lawyer on 27 January 1998.\n18.  On 24 February 1998 the applicant appealed.\n19.  The appeal was dismissed by the Rzeszów Regional Court on 12 May 1998. The decision was served on the applicant on 15 June 1998.\n20.  On 14 July 1998 the applicant's lawyer lodged a cassation appeal. It was referred to the Supreme Court on 29 October 1998.\n21.  On 13 March 2001 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation appeal as no important legal issue arose in the case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2810", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 19 June 2002 Flux published on its first page the title of an article due to appear in a future issue together with a summary of the article. The title of the summary was “The red millionaires” and it was accompanied by a big picture of the leader of the Communist Party parliamentary group, Victor Stepaniuc, wearing a top hat.\n6.  The summary read as follows:\n“The Communists want to sell off piece-meal the Anenii Noi canned food plant\nThe Anenii Noi plant is the only undertaking in the region which is still alive. The rest of the plants have been sold off piece-meal. Since the Communists came to power, a campaign to liquidate this plant has commenced. Certain members of the Parliament of Moldova wish to dismantle it and sell it off piece-meal. Sources from the plant told our newspaper that the member of Parliament M.A., who is responsible for Anenii Noi County, with the support of the main creditors ... is behind this dirty affair. Having great influence and parliamentary immunity, he wants to fill his pockets following the sale of the plant.\nAt present the plant is not operating and is making substantial losses, and this situation is being used to maximum advantage by this MP. Since the plant is not operating and is not profitable, the shareholders want to liquidate it. The problem is that the plant could operate if the shareholders did not hinder the plant's staff.\n(A detailed article about this affair will be published in the Friday issue on page 5)”.\n7.  The next day, on 20 June 2002, Mr Stepaniuc brought civil defamation proceedings against the newspaper and against the author of the article. He argued, inter alia, that:\n“... the defendants disseminated information which is defamatory of me as a citizen, an MP and as the leader of the Communist Party parliamentary group ...\n... the article, which is accompanied by my picture, contains the following defamatory statements: 'The Communists want to sell the Anenii Noi canned food plant off piece-meal' ... 'Since the Communists came to power, a campaign to liquidate this plant has commenced. Certain members of the Parliament of Moldova wish to dismantle it and sell it off piece-meal'.\nBy publishing this article, the defendants, acted in bad faith, misinforming public opinion about my actions in my capacity as MP and also about the activity of the Communist Party parliamentary group which I represent, accusing us of destroying an enterprise which is part of the national economy.”\n8.  On 21 June 2002 Flux published the article announced in its 19 June issue. The article was based on the account of V.N., the deputy Chief Executive Officer of the Anenii Noi canned food plant, and reported on events concerning alleged attempts by a Communist parliamentarian (M.A.), to have the plant declared bankrupt and sold off. It stated, inter alia, that the parliamentarian had made use of the Tax Authority and other State bodies for that purpose and that he (M.A.) had told V.N. that his actions were supported by the Communist Party parliamentary group. According to V.N., three other plants from the region had already been declared bankrupt and sold off in the same manner.\n9.  On 1 August 2002 Judge I.M., who was also President of the Buiucani District Court, ruled in favour of Mr Stepaniuc, relying on the following grounds:\n“From the content and meaning of the article [of 19 June 2002] it is clear that Flux and the author made defamatory and false accusations against Mr Stepaniuc, in particular t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2811", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  In 1972 the State Treasury transferred to the applicants a property situated in Krosno. There was no adequate access by road to the property at that time, but the State authorities declared that an access road would soon be constructed. However, the authorities did not undertake any action to ensure proper access to the applicants' property. In particular, a right of way through neighbouring properties was never created.\n5.  In 1983 the applicants brought a civil action to have a right of way established by way of a judicial decision. On 31 December 1986 the Krosno District Court allowed their request. Their neighbours appealed.\n6.  On 27 October 1987 the Krosno Regional Court quashed the judgment of the first‑instance court and remitted the case for re‑examination, finding that the first-instance court had failed to assess the evidence properly.\n7.  By a judgment of 23 October 1990 the Krosno District Court again granted a right of way to the applicants. The neighbours brought a new appeal. On 20 June 1991 the Krosno Regional Court quashed the contested judgment and again remitted the case for re-examination.\n8.  On 3 November 1997 the Krosno District Court allowed the applicants' claim. The Krosno Regional Court dismissed the neighbours' appeal on 6 October 1998. The neighbours brought a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court.\n9.  The Supreme Court refused to entertain their appeal on 22 June 2001. This decision was served on the applicants on 13 September 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2812", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Ms Janina Rafińska, is a Polish national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Ostrowite.\n6.  The applicant and her husband divorced. On 8 July 1994 L. R. (the applicant's husband) lodged a motion with the Rypin District Court for the division of their marital property. He further asked the court to exempt him from court fees.\n7.  On 29 July 1994 the court decided to examine the case together with a case concerning the dissolution of the co-ownership of a farm belonging to the applicant, L. R., K. R. (their son) and K. K. Subsequently, on 8 March 1999 the court decided to examine in separate proceedings the case concerning the division of the marital property.\n8.  On 7 April 1999 the first hearing in the case was scheduled for 27 April 1999. On the latter date the hearing was adjourned and the parties were requested to submit their requests regarding the evidence to be taken.\n9.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant challenged a judge sitting in the case. The challenge was dismissed on 8 June 1999.\n10.  The hearing that was to be held on 14 October 1999 was adjourned and the parties were obliged to submit again their requests as to the evidence to be taken.\n11.  On 14 October 1999 the following hearing was scheduled for 27 January 2000. However, on the latter date the hearing was adjourned until 17 February 2000 in order to hear the testimonies of the parties. During the court's hearing of 17 January 2000, the parties were heard. None of them submitted any additional requests for evidence to be taken. The proceedings were completed and the judgment was scheduled to be delivered on 2 March 2000.\n12.  However, on 2 March 2000 the trial was resumed and the hearing was adjourned until 21 March 2000 in order to admit additional witness evidence. On 21 March 2000 the parties were heard and the trial was terminated. The court decided to deliver the judgment on 4 April 2000. However, on the latter date the trial was resumed once again in order to admit an opinion of an expert on the composition of the property. On 6 April 2000 the applicant appealed against the decision to admit the expert's opinion. This appeal was dismissed on 10 May 2000.\n13.  On 8 August 2000 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.\n14.  On 19 December 2000 the court admitted the opinion and the parties' observations on it.\n15.  On 5 January 2001 the Rypin District Court delivered its judgment on the division of the property.\n16.  On 8 March 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment. The court requested her to pay court fees.\n17.  On 6 April 2001 the applicant requested the court to exempt her from court fees. Her motion was allowed on 10 May 2001.\n18.  On 10 May 2001 the Włocławek Regional Court dismissed the appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2813", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was born in 1925, the second applicant was born in 1933 and the third applicant was born in 1928. They live in Novosibirsk.\n7.  The applicants receive old-age pensions. The Law of 21 July 1997 on the Calculation and Upgrading of State Pensions (“the Pensions Act”) introduced, from 1 February 1998 onwards, a new method for calculating pensions. The idea behind this method, based on what is known as an “individual pensioner coefficient”, was to link the pension to the pensioner's previous earnings.\n8.  The authority in charge of the applicants' pension, the Pension Fund Agency of the Zheleznodorozhniy District of Novosibirsk (“the Agency”), fixed the applicants' coefficient at 0.525. The applicants challenged the Agency's decision in the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Novosibirsk. They argued that their coefficient should be 0.7.\n9.  On 13 August 1999 the District Court found for the applicants, considering that the Agency had misinterpreted the Pensions Act. In particular, it held as follows:\n“The opinion of [the Agency] ... is unfounded because Article 4 [of the 1997 Pensions Act] specifically indicates that the individual pensioner coefficient ... is fixed at the rate of 0.7. [The Agency] has no grounds to interpret this provision of the law arbitrarily or not to enforce it.”\nThe District Court decided that the Agency was to recalculate the applicants' pensions using a coefficient of 0.7 from 1 February 1998.\n10.  The Agency appealed against the judgment. On 19 October 1999 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment, which became enforceable on the same day. The judgment was never executed.\n11.  On 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development (“the Ministry”) issued an Instruction on the “Application of Limitations” established by the Pensions Act (“the Instruction”). The Instruction clarified how to apply the Pensions Act.\n12.  Some time thereafter a group of individuals challenged the Instruction before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. On 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. It found that, contrary to what the complainants had suggested, the Ministry of Labour had not acted ultra vires in issuing the Instruction, and that the Ministry's interpretation of the Pensions Act had been correct. On 25 May 2000 the Cassation Division of the Supreme Court upheld this judgment on appeal.\n13.  From 1 August 2000, following changes to the pension regulations, the first applicant's pension was calculated based on a coefficient of 0.7125.\n14.  On 30 August 2000 the Agency lodged an application with the District Court for the reconsideration of the applicants' case owing to newly discovered circumstances.\n15.  On 7 February 2001 the District Court examined the Agency's request. It noted that the Instruction had been upheld by the Supreme Court and held as follows:\n“As it can be seen from [the Instruction], the decision of the RF Supreme Court of 24 April 2000 and the decision of the Cassation Division of the RF Supreme Court of 25 May 2000, the limiting coefficient of 0.7, which was established by [the Pensions Act], ... does not apply to [an 'individual pensioner coefficient'].\nThe existence of the interpretation [of the Pensions Act] by the Ministry of Labour constitutes a significant circumstance.\nIn accordance with ... Article 333 of [the CCivP] the ground for reconsideration of judgments ... on the basis of newly discovered circumstances shall be a significa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2814", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Noginsk, the Russian Federation.\n6.  The applicant owns an apartment in Simpheropil (Ukraine), in which she has never resided. In 1994 the applicant rented this apartment to a certain Ms N., who let Ms T., to move into the apartment in her stead. The applicant has unsuccessfully tried to secure Ms T.'s conviction for fraud and wrongful appropriation of her property. In 2002 Ms N. was convicted of several crimes, including fraud against Ms T.\n7.  In December 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for eviction of Ms T. These proceedings ended on 28 November 1997, when the court decided to leave the applicant's submissions without consideration. This decision was not appealed against and became final.\n8.  On 2 December 1997 Ms T. instituted civil proceedings in the Zaliznychny District Court of Simpheropil (“the District Court”; Залізничний районний суд м. Сімферополя) against the applicant, claiming that the latter had sold her the impugned apartment through Ms N. and seeking to be declared its lawful owner.\n9.  On 24 February 1998 the applicant lodged a counter-claim, seeking Ms T.'s eviction and various compensations. Subsequently, the applicant amended her claims twice.\n10.  Between February 1998 and October 2001 the District Court scheduled sixteen hearings. Eight of them were adjourned at Ms T.'s requests or on account of her absences. Two other adjournments were attributable to the applicant (an absence and a request). No hearings were scheduled between 12 May 1999 and 12 December 2000 as the District Court had delegated the questioning of the applicant to the Noginsk City Court (the Russian Federation) and was waiting for its response.\n11.  On 3 October 2001 the District Court dismissed Ms T.'s claims, ordered her eviction and partly allowed the applicant's compensation claims, having awarded her 3,270.96 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1]. Both parties lodged appeals.\n12.  On 18 February 2002 the Court of Appeal of the ARC (the “Court of Appeal”; Апеляційний суд Автономної Республіки Крим) quashed the judgment of 3 October 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n13.  In March 2002 – December 2005 the District Court scheduled seven hearings, none of them being adjourned on account of the applicant's conduct. Between February 2003 and November 2005 no hearings were scheduled.\n14.  On 6 December 2005 the District Court ordered Ms T.'s eviction and partly allowed the applicant's compensation claims, having awarded her UAH 13,919.90[2]. On 26 December 2005 Ms T. lodged an appeal.\n15.  On 1 February 2006 the Court of Appeal returned the case-file to the District Court for rectification of errors.\n16.  On 22 March 2006 the District Court rectified the errors and sent the case-file to the Court of Appeal.\n17.  On 12 July 2006 the Court of Appeal dismissed Ms T.'s appeal. There is no information on whether any party lodged an appeal in cassation.\n18.  The applicant claims that the judgment remains unenforced to the present date, however, she did not provide any documents in evidence that enforcement proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2815", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Bitola.\n5.  The applicant worked in a private company Megaplast (“the employer”) as a manual worker on a hydraulic compressing machine between 1 December 1995 and 23 November 1996 when an accident happened in which the machine crushed her left hand. As a result, two fingers were amputated.\n6. On 27 May 1997 the applicant brought before the Bitola Court of First Instance a civil action for damages for the injuries sustained in the accident.\n7.  On 29 May 1997 the court provided the applicant with a warning letter requesting her to pay the court fees.\n8.  On 24 April 1998 the applicant requested the court to fix a hearing.\n9.  On 29 May 1998 the court held a preparatory hearing (подготвително рочиште) during which the employer declared its intention to submit a counter-claim (противтужба) for compensation for the pecuniary loss caused in releasing the applicant's fingers from the machine and for loss of income. The court stated that it would schedule a hearing after the employer lodged its counter-claim.\n10. On 24 June 1998 the employer submitted the counter-claim and observations in reply to the applicant's claim.\n11. On 19 March 1999 the court ordered an expert examination.\n12. On 31 March 1999 the court carried out an on-site inspection. On 14 April 1999 the expert submitted his report. On 21 April 1999 another expert drew up a further report.\n13. On 14 December 1999 a medical examination was completed concerning the severity of her injuries and the degree of pain sustained by her.\n14. A hearing fixed for 2 March 2000 was adjourned at the employer's request. The court ordered witnesses to be summoned for examination.\n15. At a hearing of 20 March 2000 the trial re-started as a different panel of judges (судски совет) had taken over the case. The court adjourned the hearing as the witnesses were not properly summoned and the employer disputed the expert reports.\n16. Hearings dated 20 April and 19 May 2000 were postponed because the witnesses and the experts were incorrectly summoned. At the latter hearing, the composition of the panel of judges was changed.\n17. On 15 June 2000 the trial again re-started as the composition of the panel of judges changed. The court examined two witnesses, the parties concerned and one of the experts. It adjourned the hearing so that the expert would submit an additional report based on the employer's comments.\n18. On 7 July 2000 the Bitola Court of First Instance partially upheld the applicant's claim and awarded non-pecuniary damages in foreign currency to be converted into Macedonian denar. It also dismissed the employer's counter-claim.\n19. On 10 July 2000 the applicant requested the court to exempt her from paying the court fees (судска такса) because of lack of funds.\n20. On 17 November 2000 the employer appealed. On 8 May 2001 the file was transferred to the court of appeal for consideration. In the meantime, the trial court had ordered the parties to pay the court fees. On 23 April 2001 it ordered the Public Payment Office (Завод за Платен Промет) to transfer the amount due from the employer's account.\n21. On 5 April 2001 bankruptcy proceedings were instituted against the employer. On the same date they were completed.\n22.  On 7 June 2001 the Bitola Court of Appeal quashed the lower court's decision concerning the amount of the award and remitted that part for fresh consideration. It endorsed the reasons given by the trial court, but considered it unla", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2816", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Shali, Chechnya.\n7.  The submissions by the parties are summarised below in Part A. The documents submitted by the parties, notably the criminal investigation file provided by the Government, are summarised below in Part B.\n8.  The applicant lives in Shali, a town about 40 km to the south-east of Grozny, in her own house at 97 Suvorova Street. Her son Ruslan Alikhadziyev, born in 1961, lived at the same address, together with his wife and four minor children. Their other relatives also lived at the same address.\n9.  From 1997 to 1999 the applicant's son Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev was the speaker of the Chechen Parliament (“the Parliament of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria”). The applicant submitted that in 1999, following the resumption of hostilities, her son had not taken part in them and had tried to organise peace talks.\n10.  On 17 May 2000 Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev was at home with the applicant, who had been sick. At about 11.15 a.m. several armoured personnel carriers (APCs) of the Russian forces arrived at the house. About 20 armed servicemen in camouflaged uniform surrounded the house and neighbouring buildings, while two helicopters were hovering above the district. Masked men in camouflage entered the applicant's house and ordered all those present to lie face down on the floor. After that they put handcuffs on the applicant's son and forced him into an APC. During the arrest no documents were produced and no reasons for the arrest were explained.\n11.  Together with Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev, five of the applicant's neighbours were taken away from at their homes: three men from the D. family, who lived at 88 Suvorova Street; B., who had come to repair a car at the D. family's house; and M., who lived at 98 Suvorova Street. Those five men were released the following day and told the applicant what had happened after their arrest.\n12.  They testified in writing that initially four of them had been placed in one APC, together with Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev, while M. was in the second APC. They were blindfolded, and a black bag was placed on Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev's head. The APCs travelled in the direction of Grozny.\n13.  Once they passed the village of Germenchuk, they stopped and M. was transferred into the same APC as the other five men. The detainees were forbidden to talk. After a while Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev asked a masked officer to loosen his handcuffs because his hands had gone numb, but his request was refused. After a while he asked a second time. The officer checked his hands and also took his watch, documents and money from his pocket. After an hour or two of travelling they arrived at a place where they were ordered to descend.\n14.  The detainees remained blindfolded and were led into some underground premises. There they were ordered to squat along the walls. Each of them was hit on the head with an iron rod and told to keep silent. Three of the detainees, but not Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev, were called one by one for questioning, which took place outside the cellar, in a sort of barn. The questioning was carried out by several servicemen in camouflage and masks who did not identify themselves. The detainees were asked similar questions about their identity, whether they had taken part in the hostilities and what they knew about Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev.\n15.  After the questioning they were taken to another cellar, where they were permitted to take off the blindfolds. The five neighbours were all tak", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2817", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Jastrebarsko.\n5.  On 3 February 1994 the police authorities impounded the applicant's vehicle suspecting that it had been stolen.\n6.  On 25 November 1994 the Osijek Municipal State Attorney's Office gave a decision by which it refused to institute criminal proceedings against a certain M.S. – a person from whom in 1992 the applicant had bought the car – and dismissed the criminal complaint relating thereto. It however failed to decide on returning the vehicle to the applicant.\n7.  Meanwhile, on 23 June 1994 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking recovery of the impounded vehicle or, alternatively, pecuniary damages. Subsequently, on 9 November 1999, the applicant withdrew the first claim maintaining the one for damages.\n8.  On 10 October 1997 the Municipal Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant's claim. The applicant appealed.\n9.  On 11 May 1999 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance judgment for misapplication of substantive law and remitted the case.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court held hearings on 5 November 1999, 5 September 2001, 7 March 2003 and 11 March 2004. The hearings scheduled for 16 March 2001 and 2 July 2002 were adjourned owing to the illness of the judge assigned to hear the case, and to the applicant's absence, respectively.\n11.  On 11 March 2004 the parties reached an in-court settlement (sudska nagodba) whereby the State was to return the vehicle to the applicant, pay her 30,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in respect of pecuniary damages, cover the costs of the proceedings in the amount of HRK 13,664 and pay the statutory default interest on these amounts accruable from the date of settlement, all within eight days. Under Croatian law an in-court settlement is equal, in terms of its effects, to a res judicata judgment and constitutes an enforcement title.\n12.  Since the State failed to perform the assumed obligations, on 15 September 2004 the applicant applied to the Zagreb Municipal Court for enforcement of the part of the above settlement concerning payment of damages and costs of proceedings. The case was later on transferred to the Jastrebarsko Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Jastrebarskom).\n13.  On 15 February 2005 the Jastrebarsko Municipal Court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o ovrsi), which was carried out on 5 April 2005.\n14.  The applicant's vehicle has not been returned to her. The Government submitted that she had never attempted to enforce that part of the in-court settlement. The applicant, however, submitted that, relying on the settlement, she had attempted to retrieve her vehicle from the police authorities but had been sent from one location to another, at none of which her car could be found.\n15.  Meanwhile, on 16 July 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above proceedings. On 29 September 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed her complaint finding that the delay was attributable to the complexity of the case and the applicant's conduct. In particular, it found that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings in that she had failed to attend the hearing of 2 July 2002. As to the conduct of the Municipal Court, the Constitutional Court observed that there had ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2818", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Kaluga, the Russian Federation.\n6.  On 10 July 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Kirovsky District Court of Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine (the “District Court”; Кіровський районний суд м. Дніпропетровська) against Ms M., his relative, claiming part of an intestate house she had received after the death of their relatives. Subsequently the applicant amended his claims seeking additional monetary compensation.\n7.  Between July 2000 and July 2001 the District Court scheduled twelve hearings, two of them being adjourned on account of the applicant's conduct (amendment of claims and failure to appear). Six hearings were adjourned on account of the defendant's failures to appear, or at her requests. Three hearings were adjourned in connection with various court matters.\n8.  On 24 July 2001 the court heard the case in Ms M.'s absence and allowed the applicant's claims. Ms M. appealed.\n9.  On 11 December 2001 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”; Апеляційний суд Дніпропетровської області), having heard both parties, upheld this judgment.\n10.  On 13 March 2002 Ms M. appealed in cassation.\n11.  On 20 February 2003 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 24 July 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the District Court on the ground that Ms M. had not been duly informed of the time of the last hearing in the case.\n12.  In June 2003 – November 2004 the Court scheduled seventeen hearings, two of them being adjourned on account of the parties' failure to appear, and two – on account of the applicant's conduct (one absence and one request). Eight hearings were adjourned on account of Ms T.'s absences or at her requests. In August 2003 the District Court fined Ms T. for her repetitive failures to appear. On two occasions hearings were adjourned in connection with various court matters.\n13.  On 15 November 2004 the District Court allowed the applicant's claims as to the house and dismissed his claims for compensation.\n14.  On 14 December 2004 Ms M. lodged an appeal.\n15.  On 21 February 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed Ms M.'s appeal.\n16.  On 17 March 2005 Ms M. lodged a cassation appeal.\n17.  On 26 June 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed Ms M.'s request for leave to appeal in cassation.\n18.  As of 20  February 2007 the enforcement proceedings were pending against Ms M.\n19.  In the course of the years, the applicant lodged numerous unsuccessful petitions with various Russian and Ukrainian authorities seeking to expedite the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2819", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the village of Novodonetskoye, Donetsk region.\n5. On 31 May 2002 the Dobropillya Court awarded the applicant against the State-owned coal-mine “Pioner” UAH 26,051[1] in compensation for work-related damage to his health. On 29 August 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal reduced the award to UAH 24,438[2].\n6.  On 7 October 2002 the Dobropillya Office of the Bailiffs' Service instituted the enforcement proceedings.\n7.  Between June 2003 and June 2004 the applicant was paid the judgment debt owed to him.\n8.  The judgment of 29 August 2002 was enforced in full on 7 June 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2820", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Novosibirsk.\n7.  The applicant receives an old-age pension. The Law of 21 July 1997 on the Calculation and Upgrading of State Pensions (“the Pensions Act”) introduced, from 1 February 1998 onwards, a new method for calculating pensions. The idea behind this method, based on what is known as an “individual pensioner coefficient”, was to link the pension to the pensioner's previous earnings.\n8.  The authority in charge of the applicant's pension, the Pension Fund Agency of the Sovetskiy District of Novosibirsk (“the Agency”), fixed the applicant's coefficient at 0.525. The applicant challenged the Agency's decision in the Sovetskiy District Court of Novosibirsk. He argued that his coefficient should be 0.7.\n9.  On 26 August 1999 the District Court found for the applicant, considering that the Agency had misinterpreted the Pensions Act. In particular, it held as follows:\n“... the vague wording of the Article [Article 4 of the 1997 Pensions Act] permits the law to be interpreted in two ways, and this has resulted in the unfounded reduction of calculated pensions and in pensioners' complaints.”\nThe District Court decided that the Agency was to recalculate the applicant's pension using a coefficient of 0.7 from 1 February 1998.\n10.  The Agency appealed against the judgment. On 11 November 1999 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment, which became enforceable on the same day. The judgment was never executed.\n11.  On 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development (“the Ministry”) issued an Instruction on the “Application of Limitations” established by the Pensions Act (“the Instruction”). The Instruction clarified how to apply the Pensions Act.\n12.  On 24 January 2000 the Agency lodged an application with the District Court for the reconsideration of the applicant's case owing to newly discovered circumstances. They asked the court to take account of the Instruction, which supported their arguments that had been rejected by the court during the initial examination of the case. They pointed out that the Ministry was empowered to give an official interpretation of laws.\n13.  Some time thereafter a group of individuals challenged the Instruction before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. On 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. It found that, contrary to what the complainants had suggested, the Ministry of Labour had not acted ultra vires in issuing the Instruction, and that the Ministry's interpretation of the Pensions Act had been correct. On 25 May 2000 the Cassation Division of the Supreme Court upheld this judgment on appeal.\n14.  From 1 August 2000, following changes to the pension regulations, the applicant's pension was calculated based on a coefficient of 0.7125. After 1 May 2001 the coefficient was fixed at 0.9.\n15.  On 6 June 2001 the District Court examined the Agency's request. The Agency submitted at the hearing that the Instruction had been upheld by the Supreme Court. The applicant argued that the Instruction was subordinate to the Pensions Act, that it was not a newly discovered circumstance and that the Agency had missed the statutory time-limit for requesting the reconsideration.\n16.  The District Court noted that the Instruction had been issued after the judgment in the case had become enforceable, that the Pensions Act itself had not changed and that the Instruction had been required because of the “different interpretation o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2821", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1928 and 1936 respectively and live in Novosibirsk.\n7.  The applicants receive old-age pensions. The Law of 21 July 1997 on the Calculation and Upgrading of State Pensions (“the Pensions Act”) introduced, from 1 February 1998 onwards, a new method for calculating pensions. The idea behind this method, based on what is known as an “individual pensioner coefficient”, was to link the pension to the pensioner's previous earnings.\n8.  The authority in charge of the applicants' pension, the Pension Fund Agency of the Zheleznodorozhniy District of Novosibirsk (“the Agency”), fixed the applicants' coefficient at 0.525. The applicants challenged the Agency's decision in the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Novosibirsk. They argued that their coefficient should be 0.7.\n9.  On 13 August 1999 the District Court found for the applicants, considering that the Agency had misinterpreted the Pensions Act. In particular, it held as follows:\n“The opinion of [the Agency] ... is unfounded because Article 4 [of the 1997 Pensions Act] specifically indicates that the individual pensioner coefficient ... is fixed at the rate of 0.7. [The Agency] has no grounds to interpret this provision of the law arbitrarily or not to enforce it.”\nThe District Court decided that the Agency was to recalculate the applicants' pensions using a coefficient of 0.7 from 1 February 1998.\n10.  The Agency appealed against the judgment. On 19 October 1999 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment, which became enforceable on the same day. The judgment was never executed.\n11.  On 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development (“the Ministry”) issued an Instruction on the “Application of Limitations” established by the Pensions Act (“the Instruction”). The Instruction clarified how to apply the Pensions Act.\n12.  Some time thereafter a group of individuals challenged the Instruction before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. On 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. It found that, contrary to what the complainants had suggested, the Ministry of Labour had not acted ultra vires in issuing the Instruction, and that the Ministry's interpretation of the Pensions Act had been correct. On 25 May 2000 the Cassation Division of the Supreme Court upheld this judgment on appeal.\n13.  On 30 August 2000 the Agency lodged an application with the District Court for the reconsideration of the applicants' case owing to newly discovered circumstances.\n14.  On 7 February 2001 the District Court examined the Agency's request. It noted that the Instruction had been upheld by the Supreme Court and held as follows:\n“As it can be seen from [the Instruction], the decision of the RF Supreme Court of 24 April 2000 and the decision of the Cassation Division of the RF Supreme Court of 25 May 2000, the limiting coefficient of 0.7, which was established by [the Pensions Act], ... does not apply to [an 'individual pensioner coefficient'].\nThe existence of the interpretation [of the Pensions Act] by the Ministry of Labour constitutes a significant circumstance.\nIn accordance with ...article 333 of [the CCivP] the ground for reconsideration of judgments ... on the basis of newly discovered circumstances shall be a significant circumstance which was not and could not have been known to a complainant. ...\nTherefore there are grounds for reconsideration of the judgment of the district court of 13 August 1999 owing to newly discovered cir", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2822", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir, is an Icelandic national who lives in Reykjavík.\n6.  On 5 March 1998 the applicant was born at the National and University Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the NUH) in Reykjavík, which was a State hospital. Soon after her birth it became clear that she was severely handicapped both physically and mentally. Her disability is assessed at 100%.\n7.  In July 1998 the applicant's parents complained to the Medical Director of Iceland, who in October 1999 concluded that the child had not been given improper treatment.\n8.  The applicant's parents, who were represented by a lawyer, then brought proceedings on her behalf against the State of Iceland in the Reykjavik District Court. Their arguments can be described as twofold. Firstly, a mistake had been committed in the delivery room in that the doctors had reacted too late to hypoxia despite its having been diagnosed directly on the mother's arrival there. Secondly, paediatricians had made a mistake when attending to the child immediately after birth. The parents alleged that a catheter inserted into the child's umbilical artery had been abnormally bent to a U-shape and left that way for approximately 32 hours. This had been capable of causing the damage that had occurred to the child's health. Instead the doctors should have partially withdrawn the catheter until it straightened out or, if that was not possible, inserted it into a limb.\n9.  The respondent requested the District Court to dismiss the applicant's claim, maintaining that the damage she had suffered to her health was a result of hypoxia during pregnancy, before the mother's arrival at the labour ward of the NUH, and that no additional damage could be linked to any possible mistakes on the part of hospital staff. The applicant was already in a serious condition when delivery was performed by caesarean section, by which time hypoxia had already caused arterial thrombosis. The position of the catheter had therefore not caused the damage to the applicant's health.\n10.  The District Court, sitting with one professional judge and two lay judges, one of whom was a paediatrician and the other a gynaecologist and obstetrician, heard extensive evidence from all the hospital personnel involved and from experts.\n11.  By a judgment of 24 April 2002, the District Court rejected the first claim described above but upheld the second claim and found the State liable to pay compensation to the applicant. It awarded her 28,522,474 Icelandic Crowns (ISK) in compensation (ISK 20,684,948 for pecuniary damage and ISK 7,756,856 for non-pecuniary damage), plus interest, as well as certain sums for legal costs, to be held by her parents on her behalf. Its reasoning on the merits included the following passages:\n“By reference to the foregoing the court concludes that proof has not been adduced to show that the plaintiff's disability was solely due to her illness following thrombosis of the aorta and the renal arteries. On the other hand, there is a significant probability that her illness following the said thrombosis at least contributed to the serious brain damage she suffered, which caused her disability and non-financial loss. Whether the plaintiff had already suffered brain damage, and the extent to which her illness may have added to that damage, is impossible to ascertain.\nIn view of the plaintiff's difficult situation as regards proof and of the rules of evidence that must be regarded as having been forme", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2823", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Tyumen, the Tyumen Region. He is of Chechen origin.\n5.  In 1993 he bought a two-room flat measuring 44.4 square metres in Groznyy, the capital of the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation. As a result of a military operation in Chechnya the applicant's housing was destroyed.\n6.  On 4 July 2003 the Russian Government adopted a Decree laying down the procedure for payment of compensation to citizens who had lost their housing or property situated on the territory of the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The Decree established a fixed compensation in the amount of 300,000 Russian roubles (RUR) for any destroyed housing.\n8.  On 4 November 2003 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen granted the applicant's claim against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and awarded him RUR 300,000 for the loss of housing. The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on 20 November 2003.\n9.  On 27 November 2003 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Tyumen issued a writ of execution.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant and his representative requested the authorities to initiate criminal proceedings against the officials of the Ministry of Finance for the failure to enforce the judgment of 4 November 2003.\n11.  In 2005, following the request by the Department of Investigation and Administrative Practice of the Federal Bailiffs' service, the applicant and his representative went to Moscow and submitted written explanations as regards their complaints against the officials of the Ministry of Finance.\n12.  On 7 December 2005 the judgment of 4 November 2003 was enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2824", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in the town of Lytkarino in the Moscow Region. They receive old-age pensions.\n5.  On 1 February 1998 the Law on the Calculation and Adjustment of State Pensions (hereafter “the Pensions Act”) introduced a new method of calculation of retirement benefits based on what is known as the “individual pensioner coefficient” (“the IPC”). The IPC was the ratio between an individual's wages at the time of retirement and the national average wage. The IPC was meant to maintain a link between pensions and previous earnings.\n6.  The applicants considered that the Lyuberetskiy District Division of the Pension Fund (hereafter “the Fund”) had incorrectly calculated their pensions and they sued the Fund for an increase of their pensions in accordance with the Pensions Act.\n7.  On 12 April 2000 the Lytkarino Town Court found in the applicants' favour. The Town Court held that the Fund had misconstrued the law and that the applicants' pensions should be recalculated and increased in line with an IPC of 0.7 starting from 1 February 1998. On 30 May 2000 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n8.  On 31 May 2000 the Fund requested the Lytkarino Town Court to reopen the case owing to a newly-discovered circumstance. The Fund claimed that on 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development had issued an Instruction on the Application of Limitations established by the Pensions Act. The Instruction clarified how the Pensions Act should be applied. The Fund further indicated that on 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation had dismissed the complaint by a group of individuals challenging the Instruction. The Supreme Court found that the Ministry of Labour had acted within its competence when it had issued the Instruction, and that the Ministry's interpretation of the Pensions Act had been correct. The Fund contended that since it had been unaware of the Supreme Court's decision of 24 April 2000 at the time of the judgment of 12 April 2000, the judgment would have to be reconsidered.\n9.  On 16 October 2000 and 5 February 2001 the Lytkarino Town Court dismissed the Fund's request. The Town Court held as follows:\n“The Supreme Court's judgment [of 24 April 2000] did not invalidate any other decision which had served as a basis for the judgment of the Lytkarino Town Court of 12 April 2000. By that judgment the Supreme Court held that the Instruction of the Ministry of Labour complied with the requirements of the law. But that Instruction existed and was in force at the time the Town Court examined the case and issued the judgment in question. The fact that the Supreme Court gave a detailed analysis of the Instruction, and that it could have been taken into consideration by the Lytkarino Town Court when it issued the judgment, does not lead to the conclusion that the disputed judgment [of 12 April 2000] should be quashed. The Lytkarino Town Court was competent to review the disputed actions of [the Fund] in compliance with the law.”\nBoth decisions were quashed by the Moscow Regional Court on 8 November 2000 and 26 February 2001, respectively, and the case was remitted for a fresh examination.\n10.  On 18 April 2001 the Lytkarino Town Court granted the Fund's request and reopened the proceedings. The Town Court applied Article 333 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure according to which judgments could be reconsidered in the event of discovery of significant circumstances whi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2825", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Skopje.\n5.  He was employed by the State Land Bureau (Геодетска Управа/ Државен Зaвод за Геодетски Работи) (“the employer”). On 29 September 1994 he sustained grievous bodily injuries while on duty: trying to jump over a fence, he fell down and broke his spine and elbow. Until June 1997 he was several times hospitalised and underwent four spinal operations.\n6. On 21 October 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for damages against the employer before the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”).\n7.  At a hearing of 8 January 1997 the court ordered the examination of two witnesses. As their whereabouts fell within the territorial competence of the Ohrid Court of First Instance, the trial court requested the latter to carry out the examination.\n8. On 4 March 1997 the trial court examined one of the witnesses. The hearing was postponed as the Ohrid Court of First Instance had failed to examine the other witness.\n9. On 22 April 1997 the trial court heard the applicant and adjourned the hearing because of the failure of the Ohrid Court of First Instance to examine the other witness. A hearing scheduled for 16 June 1997 was adjourned for the same reason.\n10. On 18 June 1997 the Ohrid Court of First Instance provided the trial court with a record of the witnesses' examination. Between 13 January and 17 May 1997 the trial court had requested the Ohrid Court of First Instance to carry out the examination on three occasions.\n11. On 30 September 1997 the trial court suspended the proceedings because of the applicant's absence.\n12. On 25 November 1997 the applicant requested the trial court to resume the proceedings.\n13. On 16 February 1998 the trial court ordered the re-examination of one of the witnesses. It further requested the employer to submit the Working Posts' Regulation (Акт за систематизација на работите и работните задачи) (“the Regulation”).\n14. On 26 March 1998 the trial court re-examined one of the witnesses and adjourned the hearing, as the employer had not submitted the Regulation. It postponed a hearing fixed for 14 May 1998 as the Regulation had not been provided yet. The trial court further allowed the applicant's request for an expert examination in relation to the non-pecuniary damage and ordered the Psychiatric Hospital “Bardovci” in Skopje (the “Hospital”) to carry out the examination. The Hospital provided its expert report on 28 August 1998.\n15. On 22 October 1998 the applicant requested an additional expert examination concerning the anguish suffered which was allegedly omitted in the previous expert report. The trial court granted his request and ordered the employer to provide information as to whether the applicant had been medically insured.\n16. A hearing fixed for 24 November 1998 was adjourned as the additional expert report had not been provided.\n17. On 16 February 1999 the trial court partly upheld the applicant's claim and awarded him 3,834,960 Macedonian denars (MKD) together with interest.\n18. On 4 October 1999 the Deputy Solicitor General appealed before the Skopje Court of Appeal on the basis that the amount of the award had been excessive; that the lower court had erroneously established the facts, in particular that the employer had not issued a special work-instruction for a particular job at the time of the accident; and that the substantive law had been incorrectly applied.\n19. On 23 December 1999 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2826", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Strelci.\n5.  He worked in a mine “Tajmiste” which was affiliated with the then socially-owned enterprise (општествено претпријатие) Rudnici i Železarnica Skopje (“the employer”). In 1987 the applicant was seriously injured in an accident. Following that incident, he unsuccessfully requested a disability pension.\n6. On 1 June 1992 the applicant submitted a request to the employer for the termination of the employment. On 4 June 1992 the employer granted his request and adopted a dismissal decision. The dismissal became effective as of 15 June 1992. On 2 November 1992 the applicant requested the employer to reinstate him.\n7. On 23 November 1992 the applicant brought a civil action for annulment of the dismissal against the employer. He also claimed reinstatement.\n8. On 23 December 1992 the then Kičevo Municipal Court (Општински суд) upheld the applicant's claim. On 21 April 1993 the then Skopje District Court (Окружен суд) quashed the decision and instructed the lower court to determine whether the applicant had complied with the time-limit for the submission of his claim.\n9. At a hearing of 4 June 1993, the trial court examined three witnesses proposed by the applicant. On 23 December 1993 the composition of the panel of judges changed. As the trial restarted, the court re-examined the witnesses.\n10. On 30 June 1993 the Kičevo Municipal Court dismissed the applicant's claim as ill-founded. On 24 November 1993 the Skopje District Court set aside that decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It further instructed the lower court to determine whether the applicant had objected to the dismissal decision before the executive board of the employer (“the executive board”) and whether he had complied with the statutory time-limit to institute court proceedings.\n11. At a hearing of 28 February 1994 the composition of the panel of judges changed again.\n12. On the same date, the Kičevo Municipal Court upheld the applicant's claim. On 18 May 1994 the District Court upheld the employer's appeal and overturned the decision rejecting the applicant's claim as time barred. On 27 June 1995 the Supreme Court quashed the decision and referred the case back to the District Court. On 7 December 1995 the latter set aside the first instance decision to determine whether the applicant had been served with the dismissal decision.\n13. On 4 March 1996 the trial court rejected as inadmissible the applicant's claim as he had failed to object to the dismissal decision before the executive board. On 10 September 1996 the Bitola Court of Appeal (Апелационен суд) quashed that decision as it remained undetermined whether the dismissal decision had been served on the applicant.\n14. On 25 November 1996 the Kičevo Court of First Instance (Основен суд) upheld the applicant's claim and annulled the dismissal decision. It found that the applicant had not been served with the dismissal decision. On 19 May 1997 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the employer's appeal, quashed the decision and ordered a retrial.\n15. The trial court adjourned a hearing fixed for 25 September 1997 because of the witnesses' absence. At a hearing of 3 November 1997, the trial court heard in evidence the witnesses proposed by the applicant. On the same date, the court rejected the applicant's claim as inadmissible. The decision was repealed by the appellate court on 30 January 1998.\n16. The trial court adjourned a hearing fixed for 18 May ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2827", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Novosibirsk.\n7.  The applicant receives an old-age pension. The Law of 21 July 1997 on the Calculation and Upgrading of State Pensions (“the Pensions Act”) introduced, from 1 February 1998 onwards, a new method for calculating pensions. The idea behind this method, based on what is known as an “individual pensioner coefficient”, was to link the pension to the pensioner's previous earnings.\n8.  The authority in charge of the applicant's pension, the Pension Fund Agency of the Kirovskiy District of Novosibirsk (“the Agency”), fixed the applicant's coefficient at 0.525. The applicant challenged the Agency's decision in the Kirovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk. She argued that her coefficient should be 0.7.\n9.  On 31 August 1999 the District Court found for the applicant, considering that the Agency had misinterpreted the Pensions Act. In particular, it held as follows:\n“... Article 4 [of the 1997 Pensions Act] fixes an individual pensioner coefficient at the maximum rate of 0.7. This rate is subject to changes hereafter by a federal law at the adoption of a federal law on the budget of the RF PF [Pension Fund] for a next financial year.”\nThe District Court decided that the Agency was to recalculate the applicant's pension using a coefficient of 0.7 from 1 February 1998 “until a change in the legislation”.\n10.  The Agency appealed against the judgment. On 7 October 1999 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment, which became enforceable on the same day. The judgment was never executed.\n11.  On 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development (“the Ministry”) issued an Instruction on the “Application of Limitations” established by the Pensions Act (“the Instruction”). The Instruction clarified how to apply the Pensions Act.\n12.  On 23 August 2000 the Agency lodged an application with the District Court for the reconsideration of the applicant's case owing to newly discovered circumstances. They asked the court to take account of the Instruction, which supported their arguments that had been rejected by the court during the initial examination of the case.\n13.  Some time thereafter a group of individuals challenged the Instruction before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. On 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. It found that, contrary to what the complainants had suggested, the Ministry of Labour had not acted ultra vires in issuing the Instruction, and that the Ministry's interpretation of the Pensions Act had been correct. On 25 May 2000 the Cassation Division of the Supreme Court upheld this judgment on appeal.\n14.  On 16 January 2001 the District Court examined the Agency's request. The District Court noted that by virtue of Article 333 of the Code of Civil Procedure enforceable judgments may be reconsidered owing to newly discovered circumstances which could not have been known at the time when the judgment had been delivered. The court further noted that the Instruction had been upheld by the Supreme Court which, therefore, had found it lawful to interpret article 4 of the Pensions Act so that the rate of 0.7 should not apply to an “individual pensioner coefficient”.\n15.  In a decision of 16 January 2001 the District Court granted the Agency's application, under Article 337 of the Code of Civil Procedure, quashed the judgment of 31 August 1999, as upheld on 7 October 1999, and ordered a fresh examination of the case. It stated that it", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2828", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a company governed by Italian law with its registered office in Brembate di Sopra (Bergamo).\n6.  On 10 March 1992 the applicant company brought proceedings against M.R. and the I. company in the Alemmo San Salvatore (Bergamo) Magistrate's Court, seeking damages for the harm sustained in a road traffic accident, which the applicant company assessed at 1,495,090 Italian liras ((ITL) – 772.14 euros (EUR)).\n7.  Preparation of the case for hearing began on 28 April 1992. On 29 September 1992 the applicant company requested an adjournment and on 19 January 1993 it filed pleadings. Of the eight hearings scheduled between 15 June 1993 and 4 October 1995, six involved the examination of witnesses and the parties, one was adjourned at the applicant company's request and the last was adjourned of the court's own motion. On 24 January 1996 the defendants requested an expert inquiry and the Magistrate's Court reserved its decision. By an order made in camera on the same date the court rejected the request. On 20 March and 6 November 1996 the parties made their submissions. On 5 March 1997 judgment was reserved.\n8.  By judgment of 30 April 1998, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 29 May 1998, the Magistrate's Court upheld the applicant company's claim.\n9.  On 6 September 2001 the applicant company brought an action in the Venice Court of Appeal under Law no. 89 of 24 March 2001, known as the “Pinto Act”, complaining that the length of the proceedings described above had been excessive and seeking just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained.\n10.  By decision of 29 November 2001, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 27 December 2001, the Court of Appeal found that a reasonable time had been exceeded but dismissed the claim for compensation since the applicant company had failed to prove that it had sustained any damage.\nIn respect of pecuniary damage, the Court of Appeal observed that the applicant company had not claimed to have sustained any such harm and that, accordingly, no sum could be awarded under that head.\nAs to non-pecuniary damage, the Court of Appeal asserted that, although legal entities could sustain damage of that nature as a result of unreasonably lengthy proceedings, such damage could exist only where certain types of loss had been incurred and, in order to be quantified, required specific proof which had not been supplied in this case.\nThe Venice Court of Appeal ordered the applicant company to pay the State ITL 2,450,000 (EUR 1,265.31) for the costs of the proceedings.\n11.  The applicant company appealed on points of law, contending that once it had been found that a reasonable time had been exceeded, legal entities were not required to adduce proof of damage which clearly gave rise in itself (in re ipsa) to loss.\n12.  By judgment of 4 February 2003, the text of which was deposited with the registry on 15 April 2003, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal and ordered that the costs be shared between the parties.\nAccording to the Court of Cassation, the Pinto Act did not recognise any damage arising in re ipsa but required that proof be provided in accordance with section 2 of the Act. Such an approach, moreover, was consistent with the Court's case-law under Article 41 of the Convention.\n13.  By letter of 30 January 2003 the applicant company informed the Court of the outcome of the domestic proceedings and requested it to resume the examination of its applicat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2829", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Odessa.\n5.  In September 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Central District Court of Odessa (the “District Court”; Центральний районний суд м. Одеса)[1] against the Publishing House “Chornomorya” (the “Company”; Видавництво “Чорномор'я”), seeking his reinstatement as a typographer and various compensations in connection with his allegedly unlawful dismissal. Subsequently, the Company and Mr L., its lawyer, brought libel proceedings against the applicant, claiming to have been defamed by certain of his submissions before the court. The applicant lodged a counterclaim for libel, alleging that certain submissions were defamatory. All of these complaints were joined.\n6.  On 26 April 1996 the District Court reinstated the applicant in his position, partly allowed his compensation and other claims, and dismissed all claims for libel brought by both parties.\n7.  On 1 October 1996 the Odessa Regional Court (the “Regional Court”; Одеський обласний суд)[2] quashed the judgment of 26 April 1996 in respect of the libel claims and remitted them for a fresh consideration to the District Court. As regards the applicant's reinstatement and compensation awards, the judgment was upheld and became final.\n8.  On 26 June 1997 the District Court partly allowed the Company's and Mr L.'s libel claims and dismissed the applicant's counterclaim. The applicant appealed in cassation.\n9.  On 25 November 1997 the Regional Court upheld, in its final decision, the judgment of 26 June 1997 to the extent that the applicant's claims had been dismissed. The court further quashed the judgment concerning the claims of the applicant's opponents and dismissed them.\n10.  On various dates the applicant, seeking to obtain higher compensation for his wrongful dismissal, petitioned the State authorities to re-open the proceedings.\n11.  On 21 April 1999, following a protest lodged by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court on the applicant's behalf, the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 26 April 1996 concerning the compensation claims and remitted the case for a fresh consideration in that respect.\n12.  On 21 November 2000 the District Court found no reason to change the amount of compensation payable to the applicant. The applicant appealed. On 6 March 2001 the Regional Court quashed this judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the District Court.\n13.  Between March 2001 and May 2004 the applicant amended his compensation claims on three occasions by indexing their amount. In the same period the District Court scheduled 21 hearings, the adjournment of three of them being attributable to the applicant. Other reasons for adjournments included the judge's sickness, the defendant's requests and the ordering of an accountant's opinion. No hearings were scheduled between September 2001 and June 2002, as the applicant had lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment of 1 October 1996 under the newly instituted cassation procedure. This appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17 May 2002.\n14.  On 14 May 2004 the District Court partly allowed the applicant's claims and awarded him UAH 2,406.10[3] in additional compensation. Both parties appealed. On 4 November 2004 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment.\n15.  On 3 December 2004 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the above judgments. On 22 March 2006 the Supreme Court rejected, by a final decision, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2830", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Rožňava. He is a businessman.\n7.  In 1991 the applicant acquired, at an auction held in the context of denationalisation of State property, real property located in the centre of Rožňava town. The opening price at the auction had been fixed at 245,000 Czechoslovak korunas (Kčs) in accordance with the relevant price regulation. The applicant purchased the property for Kčs 560,000.\n8.  The applicant took out a bank loan with a view to paying the purchase price. Subsequently, in the course of 1992, he took out further loans including one for 190,000 Slovakian koruans (SKK) for the purpose of reconstructing the buildings.\n9.  In 1993 the District Court in Spišská Nová Ves determined that the applicant had acquired the above real property in association with his partner Mr T., and that they each owned one half of the property. As a result, Mr T. started running his business in the re-constructed part of the premises. Since he was not able to benefit from the use of a part of the premises, the applicant submitted that he was unable to pay the instalments to the bank.\n10.  On 17 February 1997 the Rožňava District Court ordered the applicant and a third party who had guaranteed the applicant's debt to pay a sum to the creditor bank. The judgment became final on 20 August 1997. On 11 August 1997 the Rožňava District Court issued a payment order against the applicant and the guarantor ordering them to pay different parts of the debt. The payment order became final on 4 November 1997.\n11.  On 12 March 1998 the Rožňava District Court, at the creditor's request, authorised an executions officer to execute the above decisions. The creditor bank agreed to the recovery of the debt by selling the applicant's share in the above real property. Both executions were carried out simultaneously as they concerned the same persons.\n12.  The applicant submitted that the executions officer and the applicant's brother had reached an agreement under which the latter would start paying off the debt and that no sale of the property would be ordered.\n13.  On 8 June 1998 the applicant filed an objection to the execution on the ground that he had requested the re-opening of the proceedings concerning the ownership of the property. On 16 June 1998 the District Court dismissed the objection.\n14.  On 24 July 1998 the executions officer ordered the sale of the applicant's share in the real property in issue. On 18 August 1998 the applicant requested that the execution be adjourned. On 17 September 1998 the District Court dismissed the request.\n15.  On 14 October 1998 the executions officer informed the applicant that an expert had valued the whole property at SKK 390,590 on 30 September 1998.\n16.  Both the applicant and the creditor bank objected to the valuation. In particular, in a letter of 19 October 1998 the bank's representatives referred to an expert opinion of 11 January 1992 elaborated for the purpose of the applicant's loan request. In it the expert had valued the property, in accordance with the relevant price regulations including Regulation No. 465/1991, at Kčs 656,679. The bank's letter further stated that the value of real property had increased several times in the meantime and that the applicant had reconstructed the property. Reference was made to the loan of SKK 190,000 and the relevant bills. The property was situated in the centre of the town whereby its value was increased.\n17.  The executions officer ask", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2831", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Wołów.\n5.  On 14 June 1999 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of, inter alia, murder and causing grievous bodily harm.\n6.  On 16 June 1999 the Stalowa Wola Regional Court ordered that the applicant be detained on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences. The court found that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings, having regard to the severity of the anticipated penalty.\n7.  In the subsequent decisions prolonging the applicant’s detention, the courts referred to the complexity of the case, the need to conduct further investigations and to take further evidence including psychiatric opinions. The court held that no other measures could prevent the applicant from attempting to exert unlawful pressure on witnesses.\n8.  Between 14 June 1999 and 1 March 2000 twenty-four witnesses were heard and eight expert opinions were submitted to the court, including with respect to the post-mortem examination. Several scene-of-crime inspections were conducted. The applicant was heard on two occasions.\n9.  On 1 March 2000 the prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court. The applicant was charged with numerous offences, including murder, attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm, possession of an unlicensed weapon and failure to pay child maintenance. The prosecutor requested that fifty-three witnesses be heard and sixty-one documents be produced in court.\n10.  Between 10 March 2000 and 6 September 2000 eleven hearings were held.\n11.  On 6 September 2000 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court gave a judgment. It convicted the applicant as indicted except for one charge – the failure to pay child maintenance. The applicant was sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. On 4 December 2000 the applicant appealed.\n12.  On 15 February 2001 the Rzeszow Court of Appeal upheld the judgment insofar as it concerned one of the charges (handling stolen goods), sentencing the applicant to one year’s imprisonment and counting towards the sentence the period from 14 June 1999 to 13 June 2000. The court quashed the remaining part of the sentence and remitted the case. It found that the written grounds for the judgment were inadequate, which made it impossible to follow and assess the reasoning of the lower court.\n13.  On 30 March 2001 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court remitted the case to the prosecution in order to remedy shortcomings in the bill of indictment.\n14.  On 1 August 2001 the prosecutor lodged a new bill of indictment with the court. The applicant was charged with four offences including murder, attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm and possession of an unlicensed weapon. Another forty-eight witnesses were called.\n15.  Between 10 September 2001 and 12 February 2002 the Regional Court held ten hearings.\n16.  On 12 February 2002 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court delivered a judgment. It convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The applicant and the prosecutor appealed.\n17.  On 27 June 2002 the Rzeszow Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case, finding that the lower court had applied the wrong legal provisions to the facts under examination.\n18.  Between 10 September 2002 and 25 March 2003 the Regional Court held fifteen hearings.\n19.  On 25 March 2003 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court gave a judgment. I", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2832", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, Bimer S.A., is a company incorporated in the Republic of Moldova. From the moment of incorporation its shares were owned by Moldovan, American and Bahamian investors, it therefore qualified as a company owned by foreign investors and thus benefited from special incentives and guarantees under the Law on Foreign Investments (see paragraph 24 below).\n8.  On 10 June 1994 Presidential Decree No. 195 (“the Decree”) was promulgated. It made possible the creation and operation of duty free shops at land, water and air-border crossings. According to the Decree, the duty free shops were entitled to sell imported goods without having to pay customs tax (see paragraph 23 below).\n9.  On 12 June 1997 the applicant company signed a contract with the Leuşeni Customs Office, at the border between Moldova and Romania, providing for the opening of duty free shops on the territory of the customs zone. The contract did not contain any provisions as to its duration. It was approved by the Head of the Customs Department of the Government and by the Minister of National Security.\n10.  On 3 July 1998 and on 2 December 1998 the company obtained two licences to operate a duty free shop and a duty free bar, within the shop, at the Leuşeni Customs Office. The licences were issued in accordance with the Decree and they did not contain any provisions as to their duration. Subsequently, the applicant company bought the necessary equipment, built the premises of the shop and bar and started operating them.\n11.  On 24 April 2002 the Moldovan Parliament made an amendment to the Customs Code by which duty free sales outlets were thenceforward restricted to international airports and on board aircraft flying international routes (see paragraph 25 below).\n12.  On 18 May 2002 the Customs Department ordered the closure of all duty free outlets which were not located in international airports or on board aircraft flying international routes (“the order”).\n13.  On 12 June 2002 the applicant company, together with other companies similarly affected, lodged a court action against the order with the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Moldova.\n14.  The applicant argued inter alia that the grounds relied on by the Customs Department in closing down its duty free shop and bar were not enumerated in the exhaustive list of grounds for closing down such shops provided for in section 56 of the Customs Code.\n15.  Moreover, in the light of section 46 of Law No. 780 (see paragraph 26 below), the new amendments to the Customs Code could not have retroactive effect and could be interpreted only as limiting the opening of duty free shops in the future, and not as closing down those already open.\n16.  According to the applicant, the order conflicted with section 40 of the Law on Foreign Investments (see paragraph 24 below), which stipulated that the activity of a company owned by foreign investors could be terminated only by a governmental decision or a court order, and only when the company had seriously breached Moldovan legislation and its articles of incorporation.\n17.  The applicant further argued that according to section 43 of the Law on Foreign Investments (see paragraph 24 below), in the event of the adoption of new, less favourable legislation, companies owned by foreign investors were entitled to rely on the old legislation for a period of ten years. The ten-year period began to run from the date of enactment of the new legislation. Moreover, the second paragraph ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2833", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the town of Novogrodivka, Donetsk region.\n5.  On 9 April 1999 the Novogrodivka Court ordered the State-owned mining company “1/3 Novogrodivska” (hereinafter “the Company”) to pay the applicant UAH 1487,17[1] in salary arrears and compensation for damages. The writ of execution was issued on the same day.\n6.  On 19 August 1999 and 20 February 2001 the applicant was paid, respectively, UAH 169,86 and UAH 200 (total of UAH 369,86[2]).\n7.  On 30 August 2000, 14 May 2001 and 23 December 2002 the Donetsk Commercial Court, in the course of bankruptcy proceedings, prohibited attaching the Company's property and accounts.\n8.  In January 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Novogrodivka Department of the State Bailiffs' Service for its alleged inactivity.\n9.  On 3 March 2003 the Novogrodivka Court rejected this complaint. The court found that no fault was attributable to the bailiffs as the judgment at issue was not executed due to the bankruptcy proceedings pending against the Company. It also found that the Law of 29 November 2001 “On the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property” was applicable to the case.\n10.  On 5 June 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. On 31 August 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal.\n11.  On 13 January 2004 the Company was replaced by the State-owned company “Selidivvugillia” as debtor in the enforcement proceedings and the writ of execution in the applicant's case were transferred from the Novogrodivka to the Selidove Department of the State Bailiffs' Service.\n12.  On 25 November 2004 the amount of UAH 1,083.31[3] was transferred to the applicant's bank account.\n13.  The judgment of 9 April 1999 remains partly unenforced, the outstanding debt being UAH 34[4].", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2834", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Düsseldorf.\n5.  The applicant is the mother of E, born on 16 July 1984. Her husband, the father of E, died in 1986. In 1987 the applicant got acquainted with R, his wife G and their four children, who were also living in Dresden. The applicant and R started an intimate relationship which was tolerated by G. During that period, E was regularly taken care of by R and G. In November 1989 the applicant and R moved to Duisburg while E stayed in Dresden with G and the other children. The applicant and R regularly spent the weekends in Dresden with G and the children.\n6.  In 1991 R and G moved with their children and E into a house in Ratingen while the applicant stayed in an apartment in Duisburg.\n7.  In June 1991 the applicant concluded an agreement with R and G concerning E's care. The agreement indicated that E should continue to live with R and G as she had already done for three years. Subsequently, the relation between the applicant, R and G deteriorated and the applicant's attempts to visit E led to conflicts between them.\n8.  In November 1991 the applicant filed an action with the Ratingen District Court (Amtsgericht) and requested that R and G be ordered to return E. In an expert opinion submitted on 20 July 1993 the court-appointed expert O., having examined the applicant, E, R, G and three of their children, considered that E repudiated the applicant and any relation to her family of origin. The expert considered that E had not formed any solid relations within the foster family and that the foster parents did not support her in her psychological development. The child's problems had not been caused by the fact that her mother, who had originally deserted her, now laid claims on her, but by the fact that the child had been torn into the adults' conflicts. She felt compelled to completely identify with the foster family and to suppress any individual emotions. This was aggravated by the fact that the foster family rejected the applicant, which was clear to the child even if it was not openly discussed within the family. The expert concluded that E was completely unable to cope with the current situation and that her stay with the foster family highly jeopardised her welfare. As there was no indication that R and G would change their attitude even if offered expert support, they were unfit to act as E's foster parents. The expert strongly recommended that E should be taken from the foster family and placed in a therapeutic environment where her return to her mother could be prepared.\n9.  On 11 May 1994 the Ratingen District Court rejected the applicant's action and ordered that E should remain with the foster family (“Verbleibensanordung” pursuant to section 1632 § 4 of the Civil Code, see relevant domestic law, below). It considered that E suffered from severe personality disorders which originated from the fact that her mother had left her in 1989. In order to prevent E's absolute dislocation, she should stay with the foster family and undergo out-patient psychological treatment.\n10.  On 22 August 1994 the Düsseldorf Regional Court (Landgericht) rejected the applicant's appeal. After having heard E, the court estimated that the foster parents had become E's reference persons. E had indicated that she wished to stay with the foster parents whom she called “mum and dad” and that she regarded the applicant merely as the person who had given birth to her. The court held that a break with ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2835", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Yuzhne, Odessa region.\n5.  In February 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Ministry of Education and Science (hereinafter “the Ministry”) alleging that she had won in the “Best School Textbook” competition organised by the Ministry. However, the prize had not been paid to her. The applicant claimed material and moral damages.\n6.  On 20 May 2002 the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv allowed the applicant's claim and ordered the Ministry to pay her UAH 2,015.34[1].\n7.  On 2 December 2002 the Shevchenkivsky District Bailiffs' Service (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) instituted the enforcement proceedings.\n8.  As the Ministry failed to execute the judgment, the Bailiffs sent the writ of execution and payment order to the State Treasury. However, the payment order and the writ were returned to the Bailiffs without execution due to the lack of funds on the Ministry's accounts.\n9.  On 11 October 2002 the Bailiffs ordered the attachment of the Ministry's accounts. However, the State Treasury refused to execute this order referring to internal instructions prohibiting such actions.\n10.  In their submissions of 13 June 2005 the Government stated that during 2004-2005 the Bailiffs with their letters on several occasions informed the applicant that the amount due was allocated and that in order to receive payment she had to provide information concerning her bank account.\n11.  The applicant informed the Court that she had provided the Bailiffs with the information required.\n12.  To date, the amount due to the applicant under the judgment of 20 May 2002 was not paid.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2836", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Syktyvkar in the Komi Republic.\n5.  On 28 January 2004 the Syktyvkar Town Court upheld the applicant's action against the Syktyvkar Town Council and ordered that the Council should:\n“...provide Mr Nevolin Valentin Georgiyevich, whose family comprises one member, with well-equipped living premises in Syktyvkar, having a living surface of no less than 9 square metres that meet sanitary and technical requirements”.\n6.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final. Enforcement proceedings were instituted.\n7.  In July 2004 the applicant was offered a room in a hotel. He refused the offer. On 7 September 2004 bailiffs fined the Council because it had failed to enforce the judgment of 28 January 2004. On 25 February 2005 the Council offered the applicant a flat which he agreed to accept. However, in May 2005 the Council withdrew the offer because the flat was occupied.\n8.  On 24 May 2005 the Council offered the applicant and his mother a two-room flat which they agreed to accept and moved into. The enforcement proceedings were closed.\n9.  On 16 January 2005 the applicant lodged an action against the Syktyvkar Town Council and municipal housing maintenance authorities seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the fact that for years he had been forced to live in a dilapidated house.\n10.  On 9 February 2005 the Syktyvkar Town Court dismissed his claim against the Council but accepted the action against the housing maintenance authority and awarded him 1,000 Russian roubles. That judgment was upheld on appeal on 24 March 2005 by the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2837", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in the city of Donetsk.\n5.  On 21 July 2001 the Voroshylivsky District Court of Donetsk (hereinafter “the Voroshylivsky Court”) awarded the applicant UAH 2,698[1] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by criminal proceedings unlawfully instituted against her.\n6.  On 21 August 2001 the Voroshylivsky Court sent the writ of execution to the Kalininsky District Bailiffs' Service of Donetsk. However, the writ was returned without execution as the State Budget did not provide for such payments.\n7.  During 2002, the State Treasury on several occasions informed the applicant that the above-mentioned court ruling could not be enforced as the State Budget did not provide for such payments.\n8.  On 13 January 2003 the Voroshylivsky Court sent the writ of execution to the Pechersky District Bailiffs' Service of Kyiv, which on 15 September 2003 transferred it to the State Treasury.\n9.  In their submissions of 10 July 2006 the Government stated that during 2004-2006 the Pechersky District Bailiffs' Service with their letters on several occasions informed the applicant that the amount due was allocated and that in order to receive payment she had to provide information concerning her bank account.\n10.  The applicant informed the Court that she had received such a letter only once, in September 2004, following which she had immediately provided the information as required.\n11.  To date, the amount due to the applicant under the ruling of 21 July 2001 was not paid.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2838", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Novosibirsk. She receives an old-age pension.\n5.  On 1 February 1998 the Law on Calculation and Adjustment of State Pensions (hereafter “the Pensions Act”) introduced a new method of calculation of retirement benefits based on what is known as the “individual pensioner coefficient” (“the IPC”). The IPC was the ratio between an individual's wages at the time of retirement and the national average wage. The IPC was meant to maintain a link between pensions and previous earnings.\n6.  The applicant considered that the Zayeltsovskiy District Division of the Pension Fund (hereafter “the Fund”) had incorrectly calculated her pension and in March 1999 she sued the Fund for an increase of her pension in accordance with the Pensions Act.\n7.  On 22 November 1999 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk found in the applicant's favour. The District Court held that the Fund had misconstrued the law and that the applicant's pensions should be recalculated and increased in line with an IPC of 0.7 starting from 1 February 1998. The District Court also awarded the applicant 3,004.08 Russian roubles (RUR) in pension arrears. On 25 January 2000 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment.\n8.  On 21 August 2000 the Fund requested the Zayeltsovskiy District Court to reopen the case owing to a newly-discovered circumstance. The Fund claimed that on 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development had issued an Instruction on the Application of Limitations established by the Pensions Act. The Instruction clarified how the Pensions Act should be applied. The Fund further indicated that on 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation had dismissed the complaint by a group of individuals challenging the Instruction. The Supreme Court found that the Ministry of Labour had acted within its competence when it had issued the Instruction, and that the Ministry's interpretation of the Pensions Act had been correct. The Fund contended that since it had been unaware of the Supreme Court's decision of 24 April 2000 at the time of the judgment of 22 November 1999, the judgment would have to be reconsidered.\n9.  On 31 January 2001 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court granted the Fund's request, quashed the judgment of 22 November 1999 and reopened the proceedings. The District Court applied Article 333 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure according to which judgments could be reconsidered in the event of discovery of significant circumstances which were not, and could not have been, known to the party concerned. The District Court found that the Instruction could serve as such a circumstance. The decision of 31 January 2001 was final and not amenable to appeal.\n10.  On 12 February 2001 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court, after the fresh examination of the case, dismissed the applicant's action in full. On 5 April 2001 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2839", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Novovolynsk.\n5.  In July 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Novovolynsk Court (Нововолинський міський суд Волинської області) against his former employer, the State OJSC “Chervonogradske GMU” (“the Company”; ДВАТ «Червоноградське гірничо-монтажне управління») for various payments.\n6.  On 6 October 1999 and 17 December 1999 the court awarded the applicant a total of 3,355.37 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1].\n7.  On 21 January 2000 the Chervonograd Bailiffs Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Червоноградського міського управління юстиції Львівської області) initiated the enforcement proceedings for collecting the above amount.\n8.  On 20 August 2005 the applicant received UAH 1,409.80[2].\n9.  The remaining judgments debt is outstanding on account of the Company's lack of funds and the holding of its assets in tax lien.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2840", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  On 23 August 1996 the applicant was charged with aggravated smuggling. The prosecution's case was that he had arranged for an aircraft to be sold to a Russian company in breach of the relevant customs rules.\n6.  On 25 December 1996 an investigator of the Kharkiv Regional Department of the Security Service (Управління Служби Безпеки України по Харківській області hereafter “the USBU”) informed the applicant that the pre-trial investigation had been completed and granted him access to the case-file.\n7.  On an unknown date in early February 1997 the investigator drew up the bill of indictment and submitted it to the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office (Харківська обласна прокуратура, hereafter “the Prosecutor's Office”) for approval. On 14 February 1997 the Prosecutor's Office decided that further investigations were necessary and remitted the case to the USBU.\n8.  By July 1997 the investigator had questioned over 40 witnesses.  On 25 July 1997 he declared the pre-trial investigation completed, and allowed the applicant to consult the case-file.\n9.  On 12 August 1997 the Prosecutor's Office sent the case-file together with the bill of indictment to the Kiyevsky District Court of Kharkiv (Київський районний суд м. Харкова, hereafter “the Kiyevsky Court”) for trial proceedings.\n10.  The trial commenced on 16 October 1997.\n11.  On 1 December 1997, after eight hearings, the Kiyevsky Court remitted the case for further investigations. On 20 January 1998 the Kharkiv Regional Court rejected the prosecution's appeal against this ruling. On 24 June 1998 the Presidium of the Kharkiv Regional Court dismissed a protest (extraordinary appeal) of the Deputy Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Region against these decisions.\n12.  On 30 March 1998, in the context of the additional investigation ordered by the Kiyevsky Court, the applicant's charges were amended to include a forgery by an official.\n13.  On 1 June 1998 the additional investigation was completed and the applicant was given access to the case-file. On 3 June 1998 the investigator sent the bill of indictment to the Prosecutor's Office for approval. On 24 June 1998 the Prosecutor's Office remitted the case for further investigations.\n14.  On 10 July 1998 the investigator requested the Russian authorities to question several witnesses living in Moscow. On 26 August 1998 some of those witnesses were questioned and the minutes were provided to the Ukrainian authorities. A similar request for the Russian authorities to question witnesses living in Khabarovsk, filed on 20 October 1998, was not acted on.\n15.  On 4 November 1998 the investigator ordered an expert examination of the whether the aircraft was fit to fly.\n16.  On 25 December 1998 the investigator informed the applicant that the pre-trial investigation in his case was completed. Between that date and 1 July 1999 the applicant and his co-accused Mr I. had access to the case‑file.\n17.  On 20 April 1999 the applicant was additionally charged with abuse of power.\n18.  On 1 July 1999 the Prosecutor's Office approved the bill of indictment and transmitted the case to the Kiyevsky Court.\n19.  In the period to 5 July 2001 the court held 20 hearings, examined several motions of the applicant, Mr. I and the company which had bought the aircraft, which had joined the proceedings as a civil claimant. Between 15 and 22 June 2001 the proceedings were suspended due to the applicant's illness.\n20.  On 6 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2841", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, husband and wife, live in Dniprodzerzhynsk.\n5.   In August 2000 the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Zavodsky District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk (Заводський районний суд м. Дніпродзержинська) against their employer, the municipally owned Public Transportation Company (“the PTC”; Комунальне експлуатаційне підприємство “Дніпродзержинськміськелектротранс”) for salary arrears and compensation for a delay in the payment of salary.\n6.  On 31 August 2000 the court awarded 4,004.55 hryvnyas (UAH)[1] to the first and UAH 3,323[2] to the second applicant in salary arrears and compensation.\n7.  Subsequently the applicants lodged similar claims and on 4 April 2001 the court additionally awarded UAH 2,511.83[3] to the first and UAH 1,539.94[4] to the second applicant in salary arrears and compensation.\n8.  The judgments became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to the Zavodsky District Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs”; Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Заводського районного управління юстиції в м. Дніпродзержинську) for enforcement.\n9.  On 29 October 2001 the Bailiffs informed the applicants that the PTC lacked funds and that no buyers were interested in acquiring its assets.\n10.  In January 2002 the Bailiffs proposed that the PTC's property (trams, technical equipment and an administrative building) be transferred to the creditors.\n11.  Having received no positive response from the applicants, on 26 June 2002 the Bailiffs returned the enforcement writs to them unenforced.\n12.  On 17 June 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Commercial Court (Господарський суд Дніпропетровської області) declared the PTC bankrupt and ordered its liquidation.\n13.  The PTC paid the salary arrears due to the applicants in several instalments. However, the compensations for a delay in the payment of salary awarded by all four judgments in the amounts of UAH 639.38[5] in favour of the first and UAH 673.94[6] in favour of the second applicant remain outstanding.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2842", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kostroma.\n6.  On 22 September 2002 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma allowed the applicant's action against the Kostroma Regional Government and awarded him 178,752 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 5,500 euros) as financial aid for housing construction. The District Court found that the applicant was entitled to 29.4 square metres of surface, and that the average market price per square metre in Kostroma was RUR 6,080.\n7.  On 20 November 2002 the Kostroma Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The judgment became enforceable.\n8.  The applicant submitted a writ of execution to the bailiffs' service. On 4 March 2003 the bailiffs' service opened enforcement proceedings.\n9.  On 26 March 2003 the bailiffs' service discontinued the enforcement proceedings because, according to the domestic law, the writs against the regional governments were to be submitted to the Federal Treasury.\n10.  The applicant submitted the writ of execution to the local office of the Federal Treasury. On 3 April 2003 the Federal Treasury refused to pay the award and referred the applicant back to the bailiffs' service.\n11.  On 7 April 2003 the bailiffs' service for a second time opened enforcement proceedings. On 6 June 2003 it discontinued the proceedings.\n12.  In November 2003 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury. On 18 November 2003 the Federal Treasury refused to pay the award because it did not consider itself liable for the debts of the Kostroma Regional Government. The applicant challenged that decision before a court.  On 10 November 2004 the Kostroma Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claims in the final instance as having no basis in the domestic law.\n13.  The applicant re-submitted the writ of execution to the bailiff's service. On 27 November 2003 the bailiffs' service for a third time opened enforcement proceedings.\n14.  On 27 September 2004 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the debtor had no available funds.\n15.  The judgment of 22 September 2002 has remained unenforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2843", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Virovitica.\n5.  At some time in 2002 an investigation was opened before the Virovitica County Court (Županijski sud u Virovitici) concerning an allegation of indecent act against a minor (a girl of twelve). On 22 April 2003 the applicant was heard by an investigating judge. He was informed of his right to be legally represented, but chose to represent himself. On 3 May 2002 the alleged victim, M.V., gave evidence before an investigating judge in the presence of a psychologist. The applicant, who at this stage was not represented by a lawyer, was not present. The Government submitted a copy of the court's summons sent to the applicant. The transcript of the hearing before the investigating judge shows that the applicant was not present, without further comments on the reasons for his absence. The transcript of M.V.'s testimony reads as follows:\n“One day my parents sent me to see Tomo Kovač [the applicant] to get cigarettes and our bicycle, which we had lent to Tomo. I went to Tomo's house. I was wearing underwear, tights, trousers and a T-shirt. I do not remember exactly when all this happened. When I arrived at Tomo's house I spent some time in his father Feri's workshop. Then Tomo came and took me to his flat. His wife Danijela and their son Željko were there. Tomo told me straight away that we had to go into a room and that he was going to examine me. I did not want to go into the room and Tomo hit me twice with a wooden spoon on my hands and shoulder. His wife, Danijela, told him not to hit me and Tomo hit her hands with the spoon too. Tomo also hit his son, Željko. Then he took me by the hand and led me to the room, where we were alone. He took off my trousers, tights and underwear and threw me on a bed. I was lying on my back and Tomo was touching me with his hand on the upper part of my body over my T-shirt. Afterwards he also touched my genitals, and he did that for some time. Then he told me that I should not tell anyone about it. I cannot say how long it lasted. Tomo then told me to get dressed, which I did, and then we left the room and went back to the kitchen, where we joined Danijela and Željko. Tomo had touched my genitals with his hand, but he had not put his finger inside me. When we returned to the kitchen, Tomo gave me some money and told me to buy myself something and go home. He also said that he would not give me the cigarettes because I might lose them on my way home. Then I went back home on my parents' bike. When I got back home my parents asked me if I wanted to have dinner but I refused and went to bed. I did not tell my parents anything [about what had happened to me] that evening or the next day. The next day when I was at school my mother and Tomo came to take me out of school. My mother took me to the police station to make a statement about what had happened at Tomo's. I told the police that Tomo had touched me because that was what had really happened. I attend fifth grade of a special school and am a very good pupil. I cannot read or write but I can count to ten. At first I did not tell my parents what happened at Tomo's, because I was afraid of them and I did not dare tell them about it.”\nIt was also noted that contact with M.V. had been established with difficulty.\n6.  On 29 November 2002 the Bjelovar State Attorney's Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo Bjelovar) filed a bill of indictment against the applicant charging him with an act of indecency agai", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2845", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the town of Novovolyns'k, Volyn' region.\n5.  On 12 November 2002 the Novovolyns'k Court ordered the State-owned mine No. 5 “Novovolyns'ka” to pay the applicant UAH 28,422[1] in compensation for damage to his health. This judgment became final and the writ of execution was issued on the same day.\n6.  On 25 December 2002 the Novovolyns'k Office of the Bailiffs' Service (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On 1 April 2003 the debtor company was reorganised and joined to the State-owned “Volyn'vugillya” company, which became the debtor in the enforcement proceedings.\n8.  Between November 2003 and April 2005 the applicant was partially paid the judgment debt owed to him.\n9.  On 13 April 2005 the remainder of the debt was transferred to the applicant's bank account and the enforcement proceedings were discontinued on the same date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2846", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Sevastopil.\n5.  At the material time the applicant worked as the supervisor of the technical division (начальник технического отдела) at the Navy Communication Devices Repair Plant (“the Company,” “771 Ремонтный завод средств связи Черноморского флота” военной части №31060)[1] belonging to the Government of the Russian Federation and located in Sevastopil, Ukraine.\n6.  On 16 January 1992 the applicant was dismissed for his failure to meet the requirements of his post.\n7.  On 24 January 1992 he instituted civil proceedings in the Nakhimovskyy District Court of Sevastopil (“the District Court”; Нахімовський районний суд м. Севастополя), seeking his reinstatement and compensation for the loss of income (“the reinstatement proceedings”).\n8.  On 27 April 1992 the applicant instituted additional civil proceedings in the same court, alleging that the Company had been miscalculating his monthly salary between October 1991 and January 1992 (“the salary proceedings”).\n9.  On 29 July 1992 the Crimean Regional Court (Кримський обласний суд) gave the final judgment in the reinstatement proceedings ordering the applicant's reinstatement and awarding him 3,134.20 karbovantsi[2] in compensation.\n10.  On 7 April 1993, the Crimean Regional Court gave the final judgment in the salary proceedings finding for the applicant and recalculating the salary due to him for the months of October 1991 – January 1992.\n11.  In view of the salary recalculation, the reinstatement proceedings were subsequently re-opened. On 10 June 1993 the compensation due to the applicant was increased to 10,960.52 karbovantsi[3]. On 21 July 1993 the Crimean Regional Court upheld this judgment and it became final.\n12.  On 28 April 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 10 June and 21 July 1993 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration, following a protest, instituted by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court upon the request of the applicant, who sought higher compensation for the loss of income.\n13.  On 20 April 2001 the District Court rejected the applicant's claims for higher compensation.\n14.  On 5 June 2001 the Sevastopil City Court (“the City Court”; Севастопольський міський суд) quashed this judgment on appeal in cassation and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n15.  On 21 January 2002 the District Court found that the proper amount of compensation due to the applicant was 4,922.40 karbovantsi[4], but ordered not to pay this sum to the applicant as the Company had already paid the award fixed by the quashed judgment of 10 June 1993.\n16.  On 16 April 2002 the City Court quashed this judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The applicant appealed in cassation against this ruling, contending that the City Court should have decided the merits instead of remitting the case for a fresh consideration.\n17.  On 4 September 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation against the ruling of 16 April 2002.\n18.  On 13 March 2003 the applicant complained to the President of the District Court about lack of action in his case.\n19.  On 15 April 2003 the District Court notified the applicant that his case had been mistakenly transferred to the finished cases archive.\n20.  On 28 May 2004 the District Court ruled against the applicant.\n21.  On 11 November 2004 the City Court quashed this judgment and awarded the applicant 8.21 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[5]", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2847", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Vinnytsya.\n5.  In 1992 the applicant requested the State Cooperative Association “Zakhidelevatoragrospetsbud” (the “Association”; Державно-кооперативне об'єднання по агропромисловому будівництву “Західелеваторагроспецбуд”), his employer at the material time, to grant him and his family priority in the allocation of housing to employees. Subsequently his request was allowed on account of the fact that his father had fought and perished in World War II.\n6.  In January 1997 the Association attributed the applicant apartment no. 43 in a new building being constructed by several investors, including the Association. However, in September 1997 the Association transferred this apartment to another investor, as the value of its contribution into the construction project had been reassessed at a lower level.\n7.  On 1 March 1998 the Association transferred its assets to the State Company “Vinelevatorbud” (the “Company”; Державне підприємство “Вінелеваторбуд”) and ceased carrying out any business. However, the liquidation formalities were not completed.\n8.  On 9 December 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Staromisky District Court of Vinnytsya (the “District Court”; Староміський районний суд м. Вінниця) against the Association, asserting his rights to apartment no. 43.\n9.  Between December and June 1998 the court adjourned five hearings on account of the Association's absence, and one on account of the court's relocation to another building.\n10.  On 8 June 1998 the District Court allowed the applicant's claims and allocated him apartment no. 43, having found that the re-distribution of the apartment between the investors was flawed and that the applicant's family were entitled to priority allocation of housing. The Association lodged an appeal in cassation.\n11.  On 14 July 1998 the Vinnytsya Regional Court (the “Regional Court”; Вінницький обласний суд)[1] quashed this judgment, having found that the analysis of facts and law by the District Court was insufficient and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh consideration.\n12.  On 1 October 1998 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claims, having found that the re-distribution process was not in breach of applicable law. The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation.\n13.  On 1 December 1998 the Regional Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh consideration. In particular, it found that the District Court's analysis was insufficient.\n14.  Between January and April 1999 the District Court held two hearings, one of them being adjourned on account of the parties' failure to appear.\n15.  On 22 April 1999 the District Court found that, since the applicant was entitled to priority housing, the Association should have redistributed another apartment to the investors. The court further obliged the Association to provide the applicant with an apartment of equal value at its own expense. This judgment was not appealed against and became final in May 1999.\n16.  On an unspecified date the Staromisky District Bailiffs' Service initiated the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 22 April 1999 and requested the District Court to provide instructions as to the execution of the judgment, given that the Association had transferred all its assets to the Company.\n17.  On 30 September 1999 the District Court found the Company to be the Association's successor in respect of the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2848", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Gorodok.\n5.  On 1 June 1998 the applicant was dismissed by her employer, the Gorodok State Administration (“the Administration”; Городокська районна державна адміністрація) from her position as a senior logistics specialist (головний спеціаліст організаційного відділу секретаріату) on account of her failure to meet the requirements of the post.\n6.  On 30 June 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for reinstatement in the Yarmolynets City Court (the “Yarmolynets Court”; Ярмолинецький районний суд Хмельницької області).\n7.  On 5 April 1999 the court left the applicant's claim without consideration on account of her failures to appear for the hearings. The applicant did not appeal against this decision within the statutory time-limit.\n8.  On 24 October 2000 following the applicant's petition, the Khmelnytsky Region Deputy Prosecutor instituted a protest, seeking to re-open the proceedings on account of the court's failure to inform the applicant of the date of the last hearing.\n9.  On 24 November 2000 the Presidium of the Khmelnytsky Regional Court (the “Regional Court”; Хмельницький обласний суд)[1] found the protest substantiated, quashed the decision of 5 April 1999 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the Yarmolynets Court.\n10.  On 6 September 2001 the Yarmolynets Court dismissed the applicant's reinstatement claims. It found, however, that the dismissal record was incorrect, as in fact the applicant had not passed the probationary period. Accordingly, the court awarded the applicant 5,000 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[2] in non-pecuniary damage. Both parties appealed.\n11.  On 4 December 2001 the Regional Court upheld the judgment, but reduced the amount of compensation to UAH 1,000[3]. The applicant appealed in cassation.\n12.  On 11 May 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation against the court decisions of 6 September and 4 December 2001.\n13.  On 4 February 2002 the Gorodok Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs”; Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Городоцького районного управління юстиції) initiated enforcement proceedings for the judgment of 4 December 2001.\n14.  On 19 September 2002 the applicant was paid UAH 50[4].\n15.  On 3 February 2003 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the debtor's lack of funds.\n16.  In January 2003 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings against the Bailiffs complaining about their failure to collect the judgment debt due to her. These proceedings ended on 22 February 2005 by a ruling of the Regional Court, upholding the decision to leave the applicant's complaint without consideration. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.\n17.  On an unspecified date the enforcement proceedings were re-opened and on 14 December 2004 the applicant was paid the remaining award of UAH 950[5].", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2849", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Sofia.\n6.  On 15 September 1994 the applicant, who had several convictions and had served a number of prison terms, was charged with the theft of construction material from a warehouse. It was alleged that he had been one of the members of a group that had committed thefts.\n7.  The applicant did not appear when summoned for questioning and on 26 July 1995 he was arrested and remanded in custody, by order of an investigator or a prosecutor. He remained in detention throughout the investigation proceedings and the trial.\n8.  On 10 March 1997 the Sofia City Court acquitted the applicant. He was released on 17 March 1997.\n9.  Upon the prosecutor's appeal, the acquittal was upheld by the Supreme Court of Cassation on 11 December 1997. The Supreme Court of Cassation found, inter alia, that at the outset there had been clearly insufficient proof of the applicant's involvement in the thefts. In particular, a police officer had testified that the only reason for suspecting the applicant had been the presence of his name on an internal police list of nicknames as the person behind the nickname “Kolio Transki”.\n10.  On an unspecified date in 1998 the applicant brought an action against the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, seeking damages in respect of his pre-trial detention. He relied on section 2 (1) and (2) of the State Responsibility for Damage Act (see paragraphs 22-25 below).\n11.  The applicant sought non-pecuniary damages for the suffering caused by his pre-trial detention, which had lasted one year, seven months and twenty-one days. In his initial claim he sought 11,000,000 “old” Bulgarian levs (“BGL”). In the course of the proceedings he increased the claim to BGL 47,000,000 (the equivalent of approximately EUR 23,600), including interest, which in his view was to be calculated as from 26 July 1995, the date of his arrest.\n12.  The Sofia City Court delivered its judgment on 9 February 1999. It held that the State was liable to pay all damage suffered by the applicant as a result of his “unlawful pre-trial detention” and the “unlawful bringing of charges” against him.\n13.  The court stated, inter alia:\n“[The Chief Prosecutor's Office] has not exercised the necessary supervision over the Sofia City prosecutors and the investigation authorities which, during a period of [more than two years], mounted an unjustified criminal prosecution against [the applicant] on charges of theft ...They remanded him in custody, imposing the harshest measure of judicial control, which resulted in [the applicant] spending nineteen months and fifteen [sic] days in detention...[The applicant] has undoubtedly suffered non-pecuniary damage... ”\n14.  As to the amount, the court considered that the length of the detention should be taken into consideration and rejected as unproven the applicant's contention that his health had deteriorated as a consequence of his detention. Deciding on an equitable basis, the court awarded to the applicant BGL 2,000,000 in non-pecuniary damages (the equivalent of approximately EUR 1,050) plus interest from the date on which the applicant had been acquitted with final effect, 11 December 1997. The court dismissed the remainder of the applicant's claim for damages.\n15.  The court further applied section 10 § 2 of the State Responsibility for Damage Act (see paragraphs 20 and 21 below) and ordered the applicant to pay BGL 1,800,000 (the equivalent of approximately EUR 940) in court fees.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2850", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kostroma.\n5.  On 11 May 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma upheld the applicant's action against the Kostroma Town Council and ordered that the Council should:\n“...provide Mr Lykov Mikhail Petrovich and his family members - a wife, Ms Lykova Olga Aleksandrovna, a son, Mr Lykov Sergey Mikhailovich and Ms Shelepo Tatiana Pavlovna, with well-equipped living premises that meet sanitary and technical requirements, taking into consideration the right to an additional living surface of one separate room”.\n6.  The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Kostroma Regional Court on 21 July 2004.\n7.  On 20 August 2004 enforcement proceedings were instituted. The judgment remained unenforced because the Council had no available housing or financial resources to purchase a flat.\n8.  The Kostroma Regional Administration asked the Federal Treasury to provide it with financial resources for purchasing a flat measuring 82 square metres to which the applicant and his family members were entitled under the judgment of 11 May 2004. In December 2004 a sum of 738,000 Russian roubles was credited to an account of the Regional Administration. Having regard to the average market property price in the town of Kostroma, in 2005 the Regional Administration was only able to purchase a flat measuring 57.3 square metres.  The applicant was offered that flat, but he refused to accept it because he was entitled to a bigger flat under the judgment of 11 May 2004.\n9.  In January 2006 the applicant's mother-in-law, Ms Shelepo, died. Bailiffs asked the Sverdlovskiy District Court to clarify its judgment of 11 May 2004, having regard to Ms Shelepo's death. On 14 August 2006 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dismissed the request.\n10.  On 21 August 2006 the bailiffs offered the applicant the same flat which had been purchased in 2005. The applicant again dismissed the offer, noting the size of the flat and its dilapidated state.\n11.  On 7 September 2006 enforcement proceedings were closed and the writ of execution was returned to the applicant because he had rejected the bailiffs' offer.\n12.  On 14 November 2006 the Sverdlovsk District Court of Kostroma quashed the decision of 7 September 2006. The District Court held that under the judgment of 11 May 2004, as upheld on appeal on 21 July 2004, the applicant was entitled to a well-equipped flat measuring 82 square metres and satisfying sanitary and technical requirements. The applicant had been twice offered the smaller flat which “had not satisfied technical and sanitary requirements, had been in poor state, had been in need of the renovation and, thus, had required, substantial financial resources”. The District Court also noted that Ms Shelepo's death had not effected the applicant's and his family's entitlement to a flat. The judgment of 14 November 2006 was not appealed against and became final.\n13.   In December 2006 the enforcement proceedings were re-opened. In March 2007 the Kostroma Town Council informed the applicant that it possessed two flats, i.e. the one which had been bought in 2005 and had already been offered to the applicant, and another one which measured 75.6 square metres. The applicant could choose any one of them. He again rejected the offer arguing that his was entitled to a flat of a bigger living surface.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2851", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is presently serving a prison sentence in Požega Penitentiary.\n5.  On 24 April 2001 the Požega Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Požegi) convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced her to eight months' imprisonment. The court also ordered her to pay 44,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in damages to the injured party. The first-instance judgment was upheld by the Požega County Court (Županijski sud u Požegi) on 21 November 2001.\n6.  The applicant served the sentence in Požega Penitentiary from 10 January until 29 August 2003, when she was conditionally released. Her conditional release expired on 10 September 2003.\n7.  On 22 November 2001 the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) convicted the applicant on eight counts of fraud, sentenced her to four years' imprisonment and confiscated HRK 210,782 from her, which it attributed to the proceeds from her criminal activity. The court also ordered her to pay HRK 359,416.17 in damages to various injured parties. The sixth count of the applicant's conviction was identical to the offence for which the applicant had been sentenced by the Požega Municipal Court on 24 April 2001. The judgment was upheld on 8 July 2003 by the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu), sitting as an appellate court.\n8.  On 6 April 2005 the applicant started to serve her sentence.\n9.  On 21 October 2005 the applicant lodged an application for a retrial, claiming that she had been sentenced twice for the same offence. On 15 February 2006 the Zagreb Municipal Court granted the application. On 12 April 2006 the Zagreb Municipal Court acquitted the applicant on the charge of fraud in respect of which she had already been convicted by the Požega Municipal Court and upheld her other convictions of 22 November 2001 the court sentenced her to three years' imprisonment and confiscated HRK 166,782 from her on account of her criminal activity.\n10.  The medical documentation submitted by the applicant shows that since 1996 she has been suffering from chronic hepatitis (Hepatitis C) with a very high level of viremia (presence of viruses in the blood). She has unsuccessfully undergone interferon treatment. Due to the effects of that disease her liver is damaged and her general health condition is very bad. People with hepatitis C usually suffer from constant exhaustion; pain in the abdomen, joints and muscles; general sickness and weakness; and often depression. A low-fat diet is required in order to reduce liver damage. The disease is potentially fatal. On an unspecified date the applicant also contracted hepatitis A. In addition to that, she suffers from endometriosis.\n11.  During her first stay in Požega Penitentiary, from 10 January to 29 August 2003, the applicant was put on a low-calorie diet as a punishment for her attempts to complain about the conditions in the prison. She was first given the job of handling dissolvent without any protection and later made to work full time on shovelling pebbles. As a consequence, she collapsed and was transferred to the prison hospital (Bolnica za osobe lišene slobode, hereafter “the hospital”) where she spent about two and half months. She was transferred in a van, accompanied by a driver, a nurse and a policewoman. The transfer took several hours and they had several coffee breaks and a lunch break, during which they left the applicant in a closed van, without food or water and with the windows shut.\n12.  In the hospital the applicant share", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2852", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are brothers. They were born in 1967 and 1965 respectively and lived in Chechnya.\n7.  The facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicants' brother, Ayubkhan Magomadov, and of the first applicant, as presented by the parties, are set out in Part A. A description of the materials submitted to the Court is contained in Part B.\n8.  The applicants lived with their family in the village of Kurchaloy in Chechnya. Their brother, Ayubkhan Magomadov, born in 1969, lived in the same house. He played for the local football team and in 1998 received the “Best Football Player of the Kurchaloy District” award.\n9.  The applicants submitted that on 2 October 2000 their house and their neighbours' house had been searched by an armed unit of the Federal Security Service (FSB), which had arrived in five UAZ vehicles and several armoured personnel carriers (APCs). No documents authorising the search were presented. Ayubkhan Magomadov was arrested in his house by men in military uniforms. They drove him away and he has not been seen since.\n10.  Immediately after Ayubkhan Magomadov's arrest the family started to look for him. They applied to various law-enforcement authorities in Chechnya and in Moscow, asking for information about him. They have submitted to the Court copies of letters addressed to the Chechnya Prosecutor's Office, the Chechnya Department of the FSB and the Chechnya Department of the Interior, as well as the Prosecutor General, the Chief Military Prosecutor, the director of the FSB and the Minister of the Interior. The relatives received very little substantive information in reply. On several occasions they received copies of letters stating that their complaints had been forwarded to other authorities.\n11.  On 12 October 2000 the head of the criminal police of the Oktyabrskiy Temporary Department of the Interior (VOVD) in Grozny (начальник криминальной милиции временного отдела внутренних дел Октябрьского района г. Грозного), Major I., issued a certificate stating that on 2 October 2000 Ayubkhan Magomadov had been detained in Kurchaloy on suspicion of having committed a serious crime. The suspicion had been dispelled, and Mr Magomadov had been released on 3 October 2000 at 8.30 a.m., after the end of the curfew.\n12.  The applicants' mother submitted that when she had requested to see the register of detainees in the Oktyabrskiy VOVD for the relevant dates, she had been refused permission.\n13.  On 6 November 2000 the Chechnya Department of the FSB informed the applicants' mother that the officers of the Kurchaloy District department of the FSB had not participated in the operation of 2 October 2000. At the same time the letter stated that on 2 October 2000 the head of the district department of the FSB, following a request from the Oktyabrskiy VOVD, had met with an “operative group” at the checkpoint between the villages of Oktyabrskoye and Novaya Zhizn. The letter further explained that Ayubkhan Magomadov had visually resembled a “wanted fighter” and that because of that the servicemen of the Ministry of the Interior “had invited him to the Oktyabrskiy VOVD in Grozny to clarify some questions of interest to them”. The letter stated that the FSB had no information about the whereabouts of Ayubkhan Magomadov and advised his mother to apply to the Oktyabrskiy VOVD.\n14.  On 17 November 2000 the Ingushetia Prosecutor's Office forwarded the applicants' mother's complaint about her son's detention to the Kurchaloy Distric", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2853", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 27 June 1997 the applicants' daughter, Esra Yiğit, then aged seven months, underwent surgery at the Dicle University Medical Faculty Hospital for a congenital hip dislocation. During the operation, she had a cardiac arrest and lapsed into a coma.  On 13 July 1997 Esra Yiğit came out of the coma, but she was unable to move her arms and legs. On 15 July 1997 she was admitted to the neurosurgery department and was diagnosed as suffering from “hypoxic brain syndrome”. On 21 July 1997 she was discharged from the hospital.\n5.  On 13 May 1998 the applicants filed a compensation claim with the Rectorate of the Dicle University for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the alleged negligence of the medical staff who performed the operation. No response was given to the applicants within the sixty day period prescribed in the Code of Administrative Procedure.\n6.  On 11 August 1998 the applicants filed an action with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court, requesting compensation. They also requested legal aid for the court fees.\n7.  On an unspecified date Mehmet Yiğit obtained a certificate from the office of the headman (muhtarlık) attesting to his indigence.\n8.  On 26 August 1998 Mehmet Yiğit further applied to the Office of the District Governor in Ergani, requesting an official certificate as to whether he owned property in Ergani.\n9.  On the same day, the Office of the District Governor, the Directorate of Land Registration and the Ergani Municipality drafted attestations stating that Mehmet Yiğit did not own any immovable property in Ergani.\n10.  On 27 August 1998 the Ergani Revenue Department informed the District Governor's Office that it had no records indicating that Mehmet Yiğit paid tax.\n11.  On an unspecified date the Diyarbakır Administrative Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds. The domestic court stated that the applicants could lodge a new case within one month following the rectification of the defects in their application.\n12.  On 19 October 1998 the applicants applied to the Diyarbakır Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, requesting exemption from paying the court fees. The court granted their request.\n13.  On 23 October 1998, after rectifying the procedural shortcomings in their first petition, the applicants lodged another case with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court. In their petition, they repeated their request for legal aid for the court fees.\n14.  On 17 November 1998 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court dismissed the applicants' request for legal aid. The court held that, since the applicants were represented by a lawyer, they could not be considered to be in need of legal aid. (The applicants had had a contingency fee arrangement with their lawyer.) In its decision, the court referred to the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.\n15.  On 1 December 1998 and 4 February 1999, the Diyarbakır Administrative Court notified the applicants that they were required to pay 180,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] in respect of the court fees.\n16.  On 8 March 1999 the applicants lodged a petition with the administrative court requesting the annulment of the decision dated 17 November 1998. In their petition, they stated, inter alia, that they did not have sufficient means to pay the court fees and that the rejection of their request for legal aid was in violation of their right of access to a court.\n17.  On 16 April 1999 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2854", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Považská Bystrica.\n9.  The applicant was the director of the Police Department in the Považská Bystrica District. His application relates to criminal proceedings instituted against him, the circumstances of which are described below.\n10.  According to the applicant, at 6 a.m. on 17 December 1997 several armed policemen in masks burst into his flat without his consent. The policemen presented a police investigator's decision to the applicant and his wife. It was dated 17 December 1997 and accused them, together with several others, of extortion. The investigator suspected the accused of having forced the owner of a limited liability company to transfer his shares in the company and his car to a third party.\n11.  According to the Government, the police had come to the applicant's door and entered the apartment with the applicant's permission. The purpose of their visit had been to deliver the investigator's decision to the applicant and his wife.\n12.  The applicant was brought to the Regional Office of Investigation in Žilina. The applicant's wife was allowed to take their daughter to the kindergarten and she too was subsequently escorted to the Regional Office of Investigation, where she and the applicant were questioned. The applicant was held in a cell until 5 a.m. on 18 December 1997 when a public prosecutor ordered his release.\n13.  On 19 December 1997 an officer of the Police Interventions Department in Žilina wrote a report on the visit to the applicant's apartment on 17 December 1997. It indicated that the purpose of the visit had been fulfilled and that the applicant had been escorted to the Regional Office of Investigation. It had not been necessary to use any coercive measures, no one had been injured and no damage had been caused.\n14.  On 4 February 1998 the applicant filed a complaint about the incident of 17 December 1997. It was transferred to the Inspection Department of the Police Corps within the Ministry of the Interior.\n15.  On 5 March 1998 the applicant stated to the investigator that the police had entered his apartment without a search warrant after he had opened the door. They had delivered an envelope to him and had looked around the apartment without his consent.\n16.  On 22 April 1998 the applicant's wife was questioned. She stated that she had been in bed when the police arrived. After her husband had opened the door she had heard him asking the policemen what had happened and what they wanted. She had gone to the door and seen four policemen in the corridor, two of whom were wearing masks. She was asked to sign a document. Subsequently, the masked policemen had left with her husband and two officers in plain clothes had remained in the apartment with her, before accompanying her to the kindergarten. The officers had then taken her to the Regional Office of Investigation. No force had been used. She said that she had not heard her husband give the policemen permission to enter the apartment.\n17.  The investigator took statements from three policemen who had gone to the applicant's apartment on 17 December 1997. On 15 April 1998 Officer B. of the police interventions unit stated that the applicant had asked to be allowed to read the charge and to get dressed. The officers of the criminal police had therefore asked him whether they could enter the apartment. According to Officer B., the applicant had replied in the affirmative. Two members of the criminal police and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2855", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Katowice. He is currently detained in Racibórz Prison.\n5.  On 2 June 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having assisted an offender who was being sought pursuant to a “wanted” notice. He was subsequently brought before the Jastrzębie Zdrój District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) and charged with having intentionally impeded the apprehension of an arrestable offender. The actual offender had been charged with homicide. The prosecutor applied to the Jastrzębie Zdrój District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) for the applicant to be detained pending the investigation.\n6.  On 4 June 1999 the District Court, after hearing evidence from the applicant, remanded him in custody for 3 months in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he had been charged. The court also considered that, given that the applicant had not confessed and that the evidence given by him contradicted the material gathered by the prosecution, there was a fear that he would induce witnesses to give false testimony or would otherwise obstruct the proper course of the proceedings.\n7.  The applicant’s appeal against the detention order, as well as his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent repeated applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeals, he argued that the charge against him was based on unreliable and contradictory evidence. He referred to his personal circumstances, in particular his age (he was 63 at that time).\n8.  In the course of the investigation, on 30 September 1999, the applicant was charged with attempted homicide and 2 counts of armed robbery. The decision setting out the charges against the applicant was further amended on four occasions.\n9.  Between 17 August 1999 and 15 November 2000 the courts prolonged the applicant’s pre-trial detention on 6 occasions. The relevant decisions were given, respectively, by the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 17 August and 19 October 1999, the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 24 November 1999, 23 February and 15 November 2000 and the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) on 25 May 2000. The Supreme Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 2 December 2000.\n10.  In all those decisions the courts relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. They attached importance to the serious nature of those offences and the likelihood of a heavy sentence being imposed on the applicant. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation, especially the need to verify evidence from the suspects and witnesses, justified holding him in custody.\n11.  In the course of the proceedings, the courts informed the prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer about the dates of the sessions concerning the review of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. Nevertheless, the applicant’s lawyer failed to appear at the sessions.\n12.  The representatives of the prosecution participated in all court sessions relating to the prolongation of the applicant’s detention and were invited to state their position as to the necessity of keeping the applicant in custody.\n13.  In the meantime, the relevant penitentiary court had ordered that the applicant serve a sentence of imprisonme", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2856", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  The applicant owns a plot of land with a surface area of 2,183 square metres, located in the municipality of Milanówek, near Warsaw. It is listed in the local land register under entry No. 29735.\n7.  On 20 March 1993 the applicant and his neighbours lodged their objections to a proposed new land development plan to be adopted by the municipality.\n8.  On 30 March 1993 the municipal council of Milanówek adopted the local land development plan. The applicant's objections were not taken into consideration. Under the plan, the applicant's land was designated for agricultural purposes. A road and a hospital were to be constructed on his land after expropriation.\n9.  The applicant and his neighbours complained of this decision to the Mazowsze Governor, arguing inter alia that the plan breached their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They submitted that the local land development plan had been prepared in a manner which failed to take properly into consideration and reconcile the various interests of the municipality and the local owners. As a result, the plan was unreasonable and did not comply with the standards of good land administration.\n10.  They transferred the complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court, after being informed that it alone was competent to examine the matter.\n11.  By a judgment of 25 September 1995, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the complaint, considering that there were no indications that the municipal authorities had failed to take into consideration and properly weigh the various competing interests involved in the preparation of the local land development plan. It noted that the restrictions on ownership imposed by land development measures were not per se incompatible with the nature of ownership guaranteed by the Civil Code.\n12.  In 1997 the applicant and 36 other inhabitants of Milanówek requested the Mayor to amend the 1993 plan in order to avoid the loss of various investments they had made in their land after the implementation of the plan's projects. This request apparently remained unanswered.\n13.  In a letter of 4 April 2000 the Municipal Office, in reply to a query submitted by the applicant and other persons, stated that the municipal authorities were under no obligation to provide any compensation for owners whose property was to be expropriated in the future. They were also informed that the validity of the 1993 plan had been prolonged for a further two years under the amendment to the Local Planning Act 1994 adopted in 1999.\n14.  On 7 July 2001 the Mayor of Milanówek refused the applicant's request for an initial approval of a development project on his land (decyzja o warunkach zabudowy), considering that the project would be incompatible with the local land development plan. The applicant wished to have a house built on his land while, under the plan, it was designated for the construction of a road and a hospital.\n15.  The applicant appealed against this decision to the Mazowiecki Governor. In a reply of 19 July 2001, he was informed that the appeal should be lodged with the Local Government Board of Appeal and that the construction of the road in Milanówek would not be budgeted before 2010 at the earliest. The applicant addressed the Appeal Board.\n16.  On 21 November 2001 the Local Government Board of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal on the ground that his construction project was incompatible with", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2857", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962.\n6.  On 9 October 1994 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the Anti-Terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate in the course of a police operation carried out against the illegal organisation the TKP/ML-TIKKO (the Turkish Communist Party/Marxist Leninist - Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army).\n7.  On 21 October 1994 the applicant was brought before a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered his detention on remand.\n8.  On 15 November 1994 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and ten other persons. The public prosecutor charged the applicant with membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 1 February 1995 the Istanbul State Security Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case (no. 1994/183).\n10.  On 13 October 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a further bill of indictment against the applicant, accusing him of attempting to undermine the constitutional order, contrary to Article 146 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  Between 1 February 1995 and 27 August 1999, the Istanbul State Security Court held 28 hearings in the case. Throughout these hearings, the applicant and his representative requested that the applicant be released pending trial. They contended that the length of the applicant’s detention on remand was excessive and that he suffered from health problems. The court dismissed the requests on each occasion, holding that the applicant’s detention pending trial should continue having regard to the nature of the offence with which he was charged, the state of the evidence and the date of the remand decision.\n12.  On 27 August 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court decided to disjoin the proceedings against the applicant from case no. 1994/183 and to join them to a case brought against him in 1997 (no. 1997/359).\n13.  On 8 August 2001, at the end of the 21st hearing, the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial, having regard to the content of the case file, the state of the evidence and the date of the remand decision.\n14.  Between 1997 and 2004, the Istanbul State Security Court postponed the hearings in case no. 1997/359 as it had not received from German authorities an investigation file concerning a homicide allegedly committed by the applicant in Germany.\n15.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. Subsequently, the Istanbul Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the case.\n16.  On 23 February 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charge under Article 146 of the Criminal Code, but convicted him of membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. It sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.\n17.  On an unspecified date, the applicant appealed.  While the proceedings were pending before the Court of Cassation, on 18 June 2005 the applicant died.\n18.  Subsequently, on 19 October 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court decided to discontinue the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2858", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1965, 1973, 1967, 1971, 1966 and 1970 respectively. The first applicant was in Mardin prison and the remaining applicants were in Diyarbakir prison at the time of their applications to the Court.\n5.  The applicants were all arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of Hezbollah. They were subsequently remanded in custody.\n6.  However, at the request of the Governor of the State of Emergency Region and the public prosecutor, pursuant to Article 3 (c) of Law-Decree no. 430, which allowed them to take further measures within the framework of the state of emergency, a single judge at the State Security Court authorised the applicants’ return from prison to the Anti-terror branch of the relevant Security Directorate for further interrogation for a duration not exceeding ten days.\n7.  All the applicants save for the first applicant returned to prison before the ten day period was over. In respect of the first applicant, a single judge at the State Security Court extended, on 5 August 2002, his detention at the Security Directorate for another ten days. The applicant’s lawyer objected. His objection was accepted by the State Security Court and the first applicant returned to prison.\n8.  The details are indicated in the table below:\n \nAPPLICATION NO.\nNAME OF THE APPLICANT\nDATE OF REMAND IN CUSTODY\nDATE OF TRANSFER TO THE SECURITY DIRECTORATE\nDATE OF RETURN TO PRISON\n33412/01\nEkrem Zerey\n26/07/2002\n26/07/2002\n09/08/2002\n30229/02\nRıfat Demir\n07/12/2001\n08/12/2001\n10/12/2001\n30229/02\nMehmet Garip\nÖzer\n07/12/2001\n08/12/2001\n10/12/2001\n30229/02\nAhmet Şahin\n07/12/2001\n08/12/2001\n10/12/2001\n30263/02\nAhmet Durmaz \n07/12/2001\n08/12/2001\n17/12/2001\n30263/02\nDavut Şahin\n07/12/2001\n08/12/2001\n17/12/2001", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2860", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Poznań.\n7.  On 12 March 1993 she lodged an application with the Poznań District Court. She sought interest on the sum of money awarded to her by the court on 30 September 1991. The proceedings were related to other proceedings concerning the division of the matrimonial property of the applicant and her former husband, in particular their apartment. Apparently the apartment had been vested to the applicant's former husband by a judgment of 1992. Other sets of proceedings concerned their mutual liabilities in this regard.\n8.  Hearings were held on 25 May 1993 and 31 August 1993. Subsequently, the applicant extended her claim.\n9.  On 5 October 1993 the court decided to transfer the case-file to the Regional Court. On 15 January 1994 the Poznań Regional Court transferred the case-file back to the Poznań District Court.\n10.  On 9 May 1994 the applicant requested the court to adjourn the hearing scheduled for 10 May 1994.\n11.  On 29 July 1994 and 21 November 1994 the applicant's lawyer submitted pleadings setting out details of the claim.\n12.  Subsequent hearings were held on 27 September 1994, 24 January 1995, 27 March 1995, 24 April 1995, 17 May 1995 and 19 June 1995.\n13.  On 26 June 1995 the Poznań District Court delivered a judgment. It allowed the applicant's claim in part. On 2 September 1995 the applicant appealed.\n14.  On 1 December 1995 the Poznań Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case.\n15.  A hearing of 10 April 1996 was adjourned to 18 October 1996. A hearing of 18 October 1996 was cancelled because a judge sitting in the case was ill. Subsequent hearings were held on 20 December 1996 and 11 March 1997. It appears that the files of cases related to the present proceedings, requested by the parties on 11 March 1997, had not been submitted to the court. They were eventually submitted on 13 May 1997 and 6 March 1998.\n16.  Subsequent hearings were held on 29 May 1998, 8 November 1999, 10 January 2000, 10 February 2000 (adjourned), 31 August 2000 and 12 October 2000.\n17.  On 7 December 2000 the Poznań District court delivered a judgment. It allowed the applicant's claim in part. On 10 April 2001 the applicant appealed.\n18.  On 7 September 2001 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment was final.\n19.  On 9 March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Poznan Court of Appeal about the excessive length of two sets of proceedings, including the one complained of in the present case (further referred to as “the first set of proceedings”). She invoked section 18 of the 2004 Act (see domestic law part below) and requested the court to find that the length of the proceedings, which had lasted eight and four years respectively, had been unreasonable. She further submitted that she had lodged a complaint about the length of the proceedings with the European Court of Human Rights.\n20.  On 21 April 2005 the Court of Appeal rejected the complaint without examining its merits. The court found (referring to the second set of proceedings) that the complaint had not been lodged while the impugned proceedings were still pending. The court further noted that the [second set of] proceedings had terminated in 2000, which was before the applicant had lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, the applicant had not complied with the provisions of sections 5 or 18 of the 2004 Act and her complaint had to be rejected. The court did not ref", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2861", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Rzeszów.\n7.  The applicant, who was an advocate, made a declaration under the provisions of the Lustration Act 1997 that she had never secretly collaborated with the communist secret service. She only admitted that between 1945 and 1953 she had been working at the Security Office (Urząd Bezpieczeństwa) in Rzeszów as an office assistant, but in 1953 she had left the job.\n8.  On 14 April 1999 the Commissioner of Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) applied to the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), acting as the first‑instance Lustration Court (sąd lustracyjny), to institute proceedings in the applicant's case under the Lustration Act (ustawa lustracyjna) on the ground that the applicant had lied in her declaration by denying her collaboration with the secret services after 1953. (This security service was known as Urząd Bezpieczeństwa, but after 1956 it was called Slużba Bezpieczeństwa.)\n9.  On 31 May 1999 the applicant was notified that lustration proceedings had been instituted concerning her declaration (oświadczenie lustracyjne).\n10.  On 9 September 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first-instance court, held a hearing in the applicant's case. The Commissioner of Public Interest requested the court to conduct a public hearing and the applicant supported this motion. She was questioned by the court and commented on the evidence at the court's disposal. The file of the case was composed of the applicant's lustration declaration, copies of certain documents contained in the applicant's file compiled by the communist secret police and of the Commissioner's application for lustration proceedings to be instituted. Towards the end of the hearing, both the Commissioner and the applicant declared that they had no request for further evidence to be taken by the court. The court closed the hearing.\n11.  However, on 13 September 1999 the applicant requested the court to take further evidence. She submitted various documents concerning her professional career, her character and morality.\n12.  On 15 September 1999 the court re-opened the hearing and admitted the applicant's documents to the case file. It then closed the hearing again.\n13.  On 16 September 1999 the court sent the applicant the operative part of its judgment of 15 September 1999, by which it had found that the applicant had submitted an untrue lustration declaration because she had been an intentional, secret collaborator of the communist secret services after 1953. It further informed the applicant that the written grounds of the judgment had been prepared under Article 100 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that she could consult them in the office of its secret registry (kancelaria tajna). As she had not appointed legal representation, the full written grounds could only be read by herself, to the exclusion of all other persons, except the Commissioner of Public Interest.\n14.  The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 8 November 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the second‑instance lustration court, dismissed her appeal and upheld the first‑instance judgment.\n16.  On 22 November 1999 the same court informed the applicant that the written grounds of that judgment had been prepared under Article 100 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that she could consult them at the office of the court's secret registry.\n17.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court, which held a heari", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2862", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1943, 1945 and 1951 respectively and live in Budapest.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 1 December 2002 the Romanian Prime Minister made an official visit to Budapest and gave a reception on the occasion of Romania’s national day, which commemorates the 1918 Gyulafehérvár National Assembly when the transfer of hitherto Hungarian Transylvania to Romania was declared.\n8.  The Hungarian Prime Minister decided to attend the reception and made that intention public the day before the event.\n9.  The applicants were of the opinion that the Hungarian Prime Minister should refrain from attending the reception, given the Gyulafehérvár National Assembly’s negative significance in Hungarian history. Therefore, they decided to organise a demonstration in front of the Hotel Kempinski in Budapest where the reception was to be held. They did not inform the police of their intentions.\n10.  In the afternoon of 1 December 2002, approximately 150 people, including the applicants, assembled in front of the hotel. The police were also present. There was a loud noise, whereupon the police decided to disband the assembly, considering that it constituted a risk to the security of the reception. The police forced the demonstrators back to a park next to the hotel where, after a while, they dispersed.\n11.  On 16 December 2002 the applicants sought judicial review of the action of the police and requested the Pest Central District Court to declare it unlawful. They asserted that the demonstration had been totally peaceful and its only aim had been to express their opinion. Moreover, the applicants pointed out that it had obviously been impossible to inform the police about the assembly three days in advance, as required by Law no. III of 1989 on the right of assembly (the “Assembly Act”), because the Prime Minister had only announced his intention to attend the reception the day before.\n12.  On 6 February 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicants’ action. Concerning the circumstances of the event, it noted that the demonstration had been disbanded after a minor detonation was heard.\n13.  The District Court also noted that the three-day time-limit for informing the police of a planned assembly could not possibly be observed if the demonstration had its roots in an event that had occurred less than three days beforehand. In the court’s view, the possible shortcomings of the Assembly Act could not be remedied by the courts. Therefore, the duty to inform the police about such meetings applied to every type of demonstration, including spontaneous ones. The court also noted that there might be a need for more precise and sophisticated regulations in respect of such events but said that this was a task for the legislator, not the courts.\n14.  The court also found that the duty to inform the police in advance about assemblies held in public served to protect the public interest and the rights of others, namely, the free flow of traffic and the right to freedom of movement. It observed that the organisers of the demonstration had not even attempted to notify the police. The District Court went on to say:\n“... under the relevant provisions of the domestic law in force, the fact that an assembly is peaceful is not by itself enough to dispense with the duty to inform the police. ... The court has not dealt with the issue whether or not the assembly wa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2863", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The applicant worked as a deputy Head of the Botanica Police Section in Chişinău. On 13 November 2001 an investigation was initiated against him for unlawfully releasing two suspects from detention on remand.\n9.  On 12 March 2002 the Chişinău Prosecutor's Office discontinued the investigation, finding that the charges had been based solely on the statements of two witnesses who had subsequently withdrawn them, declaring that they had made the statements as a result of ill-treatment by the police. Their statements were not supported by other evidence. On the same day the prosecutor informed the applicant of the decision by sending a letter to apartment no. 140, to where the applicant had recently moved. He sent a copy of his decision to the Chişinău head prosecutor “for information and control”. However, the applicant was dismissed from his position.\n10.  The applicant initiated court proceedings seeking his reinstatement and the payment of salary arrears for the entire period of his involuntary absence from work. On 25 April 2002 the Court of Appeal accepted his claim. The court found that the criminal investigation against the applicant had not established his guilt and had been discontinued. It also found that the applicant had not prejudiced the proceedings against the released prisoners, one of whom was later found not to have committed any crime and the other re-arrested. His case is still pending.\n11.  On 13 October 2003 the applicant was employed as an officer of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (CFECC).\n12.  On 19 November 2004 he was allegedly summoned by his superiors and pressured into arresting Mr Sarban, the secretary of the Chişinău Municipality. On the same day the applicant arrested Mr Sarban.\n13.  On 20 December 2004 a video recording of the applicant's statement in connection with Mr Sarban's arrest was broadcast on television. The applicant stated that the criminal investigation against Mr Sarban had been invented for political purposes and that there had been no lawful reason for initiating it (see Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, § 18, 4 October 2005).\n14.  According to the applicant, on 21 December 2004 the Head of the Internal Security Department of the Prosecutor General's Office requested the Chişinău Prosecutor to forward the criminal case file against him.\n15.  On 29 December 2004 the Prosecutor General re-opened the criminal investigation, finding that its discontinuation in March 2002 had been unlawful because it had not been based on a proper assessment of all the circumstances, that discrepancies in the evidence had not been entirely resolved and that the alleged facts had not been shown to be true. No order was given to open an investigation against the officer who had discontinued the investigation against the applicant.\n16.  On 8 February 2005 the applicant was requested to appear as a suspect before a prosecutor at the Prosecutor General's Office. The relevant letter was sent to apartment no. 121, where the applicant had not lived since early 2002. On 14 February 2005 a prosecutor reported that it had been impossible to serve the summons on the applicant since nobody had been at home, so it had had to be pinned to the front door. On 13 April 2005 another summons was issued and on 14 April 2005 a similar report was drawn up, both in respe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2864", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Beograd. The second applicant is a joint stock company with its seat in Beograd.\n5.  On 11 October 1991 the second applicant directly instituted enforcement proceedings in the Novi Sad Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud u Novom Sadu) against a certain company V.\n6.  On 30 October 1991 the court issued an enforcement order. Since V. filed an objection, the case was transformed into civil proceedings.\n7.  The second applicant amended its claim on four occasions: on 4 May and 19 November 1993, 9 February and 12 October 1994.\n8.  On 15 February 1995 the court gave a judgment in the second applicant’s favour, accepting its claim in part. On 6 October 1995 the court gave a supplementary judgment (dopunska presuda) in the case.\n9.  On 30 May 1996 the Beograd High Commercial Court (Viši Trgovinski sud u Beogradu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case because of factual shortcomings.\n10.  By this time, four different judges had been assigned to hear the second applicant’s case, the last change of judges having occurred on 23 January 2003.\n11.  On 11 November 2004 the court appointed an expert, ordering him to prepare his opinion within 30 days. This expert submitted his opinion on 14 October 2005.\n12.  The court subsequently held hearings on 30 November 2005, 25 January and 13 February 2006. The hearing scheduled for 20 December 2005 was adjourned because the second applicant failed to appear.\n13.  On 13 February 2006 the court closed the main hearing and gave a judgment dismissing the second applicant’s claim.\n14.  On appeal, on 3 November 2006 the Beograd High Commercial Court again quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n15.  In the resumed proceedings, on 8 December 2006 the Novi Sad Commercial Court stayed the proceedings because, meanwhile, on 22 March 2006 the Zrenjanin Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud u Zrenjaninu) had opened bankruptcy proceedings against the second applicant.\n16.  The proceedings resumed on 16 February 2007, when the Novi Sad Commercial Court declared that it no longer had territorial jurisdiction in the matter and sent the case file to the Zrenjanin Commercial Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2865", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1919, 1948, 1949, 1953 and 1956 respectively and live in different cities in Turkey.\n5.  The applicants’ predecessor, Mr Hasan Fehmi Doğan, was the owner of a plot of land in Manavgat. On 27 November 1959 he filed an action with the Manavgat Civil Court against certain third persons, whom he claimed were unlawfully occupying his land. He requested that the allegedly unlawful interference be halted.\n6.  As cadastral work by the authorities started in the area in 1965, the court decided on 16 July 1965 that it no longer had jurisdiction and transferred the case to a court with special jurisdiction in the subject, the Land Registry Court (Tapulama Mahkemesi) in Manavgat.\n7.  The cadastral work divided the land into six parcels, the ownership of which was separately disputed between the applicants’ predecessor and the occupiers. In 1967, the Land Registry Court joined all six cases.\n8.  Throughout the proceedings, the applicants’ predecessor on the one hand maintained that the new plots corresponded to the single piece of land already registered in his name. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed that the land records could not possibly relate to those plots as they had purchased the whole piece of land in dispute from its previous, lawful owner.\n9.  On 27 March 1987 the Land Registry Court ruled in favour of the applicants’ predecessor and ordered the six parcels to be registered in his name.\n10.  On 25 October 1988, however, the Court of Cassation quashed this judgment on the grounds that there had been an insufficient factual examination of the case.\n11.  On 27 June 1989 the Land Registry Court resumed the proceedings. On 31 July 1990 it decided to abide by the Court of Cassation’s decision. Accordingly, it conducted a broader factual examination.\n12.  Notwithstanding that decision, the same court held a hearing on 9 October 1990 and scheduled a new hearing to decide (apparently for a second time) whether or not to abide by the Court of Cassation’s ruling.\n13.  At the next hearing held on 4 December 1990, the Land Registry Court gave a fresh decision to abide by the Court of Cassation’s ruling.\n14.  Between 3 September 1991 and 17 July 2002 hearings were held every two to three months. However, several hearings were presided over by different judges.\n15.  At the hearing on 3 September 1991, the court decided to conduct an on-site inspection (keşif) on 11 November 1991.\n16.  On 17 March 1992 a new judge was appointed to the court for the second time in four months. As he was unfamiliar with the case, he postponed the inspection. Until the end of 1992, the judge sitting on the bench of the court was changed three more times and the hearings were mainly devoted to the new judges’ gaining familiarity with the dispute.\n17.  Despite the fact that the court scheduled an on-site inspection several times, it was deferred for various reasons, including the lack of the necessary court stamps in the court’s registry to notify experts and witnesses, the parties’ failure to pay certain fees, the applicants’ failure to bring their witnesses to the inspection site, the parties’ mutual failure to attend the inspection, the judge’s annual leave, the lack of pertinent witnesses, unsuitable weather conditions, the ailing condition of a local witness, the court’s search for suitable new witnesses, the court’s shortage of time due to its hearing backlog and, finally, the defendants’ disorderly behaviour and contempt of cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2866", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1950 respectively.\n6.  F and M are the father and the mother of D, a girl born on 10 June 1984. On 4 June 1991 she was admitted to the child psychiatric department of a hospital for a six-week period for observation. During the observation she mentioned that she had played “finger games” with her father. According to the parents, D had referred to hobby crafts. It appears that the psychologist and the social welfare authorities interpreted this as sexual petting.\n7.  D received treatment at the hospital from 5 August 1991 to 12 August 1994, following which she went to live in a substitute family. The applicants were allegedly refused access to D during her hospitalisation.\n8.  Meanwhile, on 18 November 1991 the Social Welfare Board (sosiaalilautakunta, socialnämnden) decided to place D in public care on account of a suspicion that she had been sexually abused. The applicants unsuccessfully challenged the public care decision in the administrative courts. It appears that the Supreme Administrative Court rendered its decision in 1995.\n9.  The social welfare officials allegedly told the applicants that the girl would return to live with them if they assumed responsibility for the situation and acknowledged the abuse. Although the applicant father was allegedly not guilty of any abuse, on 23 October 1991, he admitted the abuse to the social welfare officials and a psychiatrist in order to have D return home. He did not describe the nature of the abuse. On 7 May 1992 he withdrew his admission as he felt that he could not bear having this lie on his conscience for the rest of his life.\n10.  In 1995 the applicants lodged an application with a view to having the public care terminated. In the course of those proceedings, on 21 March 1995, the Social Welfare Board reported to the police the alleged sexual abuse committed in 1990-91. As to the fact that several years had passed since the initial suspicion had arisen, the Board explained that it had refrained from taking criminal action in order to afford the applicants an opportunity to seek therapy. If the therapy had proved successful, the public care could have been terminated and D could have returned to live with the applicants. The Board apparently considered that the applicants' therapy had proved unsuccessful.\n11.  As noted above, the alleged sexual abuse was reported on 21 March 1995. On 19 October 1995 the applicant father was questioned by the police. He denied any abuse. D, now aged 11, was not questioned during the pre-trial investigation. Nor was the father asked whether he wished to have questions put to the girl. The investigation was completed on 17 February 1997.\n12.  On 27 January 1998 the public prosecutor brought charges against the father for sexual abuse of a minor and for sexual intercourse with a descendant (lapseen kohdistuva haureus ja sukurutsa jälkeläisen kanssa, otukt med barn och blodskam med avkomling).\n13.  In its written submission of 5 June 1998 to the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) the Social Welfare Board claimed compensation on behalf of D. It also submitted a written medical opinion by Dr S.V., a psychiatrist, according to which the hearing of D before the court would harm her development. It appears that Dr S.V. had not seen D since 1992 or 1993.\n14.  On 26 August 1998 the applicant father was summoned to the District Court hearing. On 17 September 1998 he submitted his written submission, denying the cha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2867", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the region of Klaipėda.\n6.  The applicant worked as a police officer. On 8 July 1997 he was arrested and charged with bribery. On 10 July 1997 the applicant was released on bail.\n7.  The preliminary investigation was completed on 15 September 1997, and the bill of indictment was served upon the applicant on 24 September 1997.\n8.  On 29 January 1998 the Klaipėda Regional Court convicted the applicant of abuse of office (Article 287 of the Criminal Code as then in force).\n9.  The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 18 March 1998.\n10.  On 23 June 1998 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case for additional pre-trial investigations. The Supreme Court noted that the charges against the applicant had been vague. In particular, the charges of bribery indicated in the bill of indictment had been reclassified during the proceedings to an abuse of office. As a result, the applicant’s defence rights had been unduly restricted. Moreover, the Supreme Court considered that the investigation had been incomplete and it pointed to the need to examine the applicant’s allegation that he had acted in accordance with an order of the Minister of Interior, no. 004, classified as “secret”.\n11.  On 25 September 1998 the preliminary investigation was completed.\n12.  On 12 October 1998 the prosecution finalised the bill of indictment, whereby the applicant was charged with an abuse of office.\n13.  On 11 January 1999 the Klaipėda District Court decided to commit the applicant for trial. However, the hearing scheduled for 19 April 1999 was adjourned at the request of defence counsel due to his engagement in another case.\n14.  The parties were again summoned for a hearing on 25 November 1999, but defence counsel requested an adjournment due to his holidays.\n15.  The next hearing, called for 18 January 2000, was adjourned because of the failure of a number of witnesses to appear before the court.\n16.  On 23 February 2000 several witnesses again failed to report. Moreover, defence counsel requested an adjournment in order to clarify the use of classified information, inter alia, order no. 004, which was part of the criminal file. The hearing was therefore adjourned and, on 1 March 2000, the Klaipėda City District Court requested the Supreme Court to interpret the procedural law relating to the use of classified materials. No formal answer from the Supreme Court was received however, and on 8 May 2000 the Klaipėda City District Court summoned the parties to a hearing on 8 June 2000.\n17.  The hearings scheduled for 8 and 30 June 2000 were adjourned since several witnesses failed to appear before the court.\n18.  On 29 August 2000 the Klaipėda City District Court acquitted the applicant, finding no evidence of a crime. The court noted, inter alia, that it had not examined order no. 004 as no instructions in this respect had been received from the Supreme Court. The prosecution appealed.\n19.  From 26 February to 13 March 2001 a break was announced in the appeal proceedings to allow defence counsel time to prepare questions for an anonymous witness who the court intended to hear.\n20.  On 5 June 2001 the Klaipėda Regional Court dismissed the prosecution’s appeal. In its decision, the court referred to order no. 004 and noted that, although it had not examined that order specifically in the context of the present case, the judges were familiar with its content.\n21.  On 20 Nove", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2868", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The first applicant is a child born out of wedlock in 1999.\n7.  On 9 June 1999 the first applicant and her mother (“the second applicant”) filed a civil suit against D.K. (“the respondent”), a very popular local singer, before the Fourth Municipal Court in Belgrade (“the Municipal Court”) in order to establish paternity and obtain child maintenance.\n8.  Between 20 September 1999 and 22 January 2002, nine hearings were scheduled, five of which were held and another four adjourned. During that time, though duly summoned, the respondent failed to appear in court on at least two occasions.\n9.  On 5 November 1999 and in compliance with an order issued by the Municipal Court, the Blood Transfusion Institute conducted blood tests, having taken samples provided by the three parties, and found that the probability that the respondent was the father of the first applicant was 97.14% and, as such, “highly likely”.\n10.  From 10 January 2001 to 12 February 2002, on six separate occasions, DNA testing was attempted but each time, unlike the applicants, the respondent, though duly summoned, failed to appear at the clinic where the appointment was scheduled.\n11.  On 26 February 2002 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicants. In so doing, it established the respondent's paternity, partly granted the child maintenance requested and issued an interim maintenance order. In its reasoning, inter alia, the court relied on the findings of the Blood Transfusion Institute, as well as the respondent's failure to appear at the clinic in order to undergo a DNA test. Finally, it noted that the relevant legislation did not provide for a possibility to subject the respondent to a DNA test against his will and held that there was no evidence that would have justified the rejection of the applicants' claims.\n12.  On 22 October 2002 the Municipal Court adopted a supplementary judgment, granting the applicants' request for statutory interest.\n13.  On 12 August 2002 the respondent filed an appeal with the District Court in Belgrade (“the District Court”).\n14.  On 19 November 2002 the District Court quashed the judgments of the Municipal Court and remitted the case for a retrial. In its reasons, inter alia, it stated that the respondent had apparently been unable to attend the scheduled DNA tests but that he would now be willing to do so. The court added that the facts of the case concerning child maintenance also required further clarification.\n15.  From 12 February 2003 to 26 November 2003, another six hearings were scheduled before the Municipal Court, five of which were adjourned and only one held. During that time, though duly summoned, the respondent failed to appear in court on at least three occasions.\n16.  From 8 May 2003 to 22 July 2003, on three separate days, DNA testing was attempted but each time, unlike the applicants, the respondent, though twice duly summoned, failed to appear at the clinic where the appointment was scheduled.\n17.  On 26 September 2003 the applicants complained about the delay to the Ministry of Justice.\n18.  On 27 October 2003 the President of the Municipal Court informed the applicants that he had instructed the presiding judge in their case to proceed expeditiously.\n19.  On 26 November 2003 the Municipal Court again ruled in favour of the applicants. In so doing, it established the respondent's paternity, partly granted the child main", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2869", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Cologne in Germany.\n5.  The applicant is the manager of the M GmbH (the “M-Company”). He held registered shares of the V-Holding AG (the “target company”), an insurance company which was seated in Berlin.\n6.  On 1 and 2 December 1997, respectively, the shareholder's meetings approved the merging of the target company into the E-Versicherungsgruppe AG (the “acquiring company”), which was seated in Hamburg. The shareholders of the target company were to receive shares in the acquiring company.\n7.  On 25 February 1998 the merger of the two companies was announced pursuant to section 19, subsection 3 of the Law of Reorganisation (Umwandlungsgesetz, see relevant domestic law, below) in the Official Bulletin of the Municipality of Hamburg (Amtlicher Anzeiger der Stadt Hamburg). The applicant maintains that he was unaware of this publication.\n8.  Meanwhile, on 28 January 1998 a shareholder of the target company lodged a motion with the Berlin Regional Court (Landgericht) with the aim of being allocated an additional number of shares. Having been informed that he did not have such a claim under the applicable law, the shareholder withdrew his request on 15 July 1998.\n9.  On 5 March 1998 the M-Company, which was represented by counsel, lodged a motion against the acquiring company before the Hamburg Regional Court with the aim of obtaining compensation (bare Zuzahlung) for the alleged loss of value of the shares incurred by the merger pursuant to section 15 of the Law of Reorganisation. The company further requested the Regional Court to order the defendant party to submit the date of the most recent announcement of the merger in the public bulletin. Finally, the company requested the Hamburg court to transfer the case-file to the competent court in case it should lack jurisdiction.\n10.  On 12 March 1998 the Hamburg Regional Court informed both parties that, pursuant to section 306 § 1 of the Law of Reorganisation, the court at the seat of the target company, which was not Hamburg, appeared to be locally competent. The Regional Court invited both parties to submit their comments within four weeks. This letter was served on the M-Company on 20 March 1998.\n11.  By telefax of 21 March 1998 the plaintiff maintained that the Hamburg Regional Court should be regarded as having jurisdiction. In case the Regional Court should not follow this opinion, the plaintiff alternatively requested to transfer the case-file to the Berlin Regional Court.\n12.  The applicant's counsel further declared that he lodged all requests in the pending proceedings also on behalf of the applicant, as it was not clear whether the shares were owned by the M-Company or by the applicant personally.\n13.  On 9 April 1998 the acquiring company requested an extension of the time-limit until 27 April 1998 with regard to the upcoming Easter holidays.\n14.  On 14 April 1998 the Hamburg Regional Court, without having heard the applicant, granted the requested extension. The applicant's counsel was informed of this decision by court-letter dated 15 April 1998.\n15.  By letter dated 24 April 1998, which reached the Hamburg Regional Court on 27 April 1998, the acquiring company maintained that, according to the relevant provisions, the Berlin Regional Court as the court at the seat of the target company was locally competent. It further pointed out that the action had been lodged out of the statutory time-limit of two months following the final a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2870", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and was serving his sentence in Aydın prison at the time of his application to the Court.\n5.  On an unspecified date an arrest warrant was issued in respect of the applicant because of his alleged involvement with the PKK, an illegal armed organisation. After receiving an anonymous phone call, police officers arrested the applicant on 2 July 1997 at around 02.00 a.m. The police also searched the house where the applicant stayed. The search and seizure protocol drafted by the police officers and signed by the applicant indicates that he consented to the search.\n6.  The applicant alleged that he was arrested and taken into custody on 30 June 1997 from his house in the Eskiizmir district and that while he was in custody he was subjected to various forms of torture. In particular, he submitted that he was beaten, sworn at, threatened, blindfolded, given electric shocks and hosed with pressurized water. He further claimed that his mother fainted when the police officers started to beat him at his home at the time of his arrest.\n7.  According to the medical report drawn up on 2 July 1997 at around 11.40 a.m. the applicant complained of blows to his chest. The doctor found that the applicant had a 1 cm graze on the right side of his forehead and a hyperaemic region (redness) in the middle of his chest.\n8.  The applicant was interrogated by the police officers at the Anti-terror branch of the Izmir Security Directorate on 3 July 1997.\n9.  According to the medical report drafted on 3 July 1997 the applicant complained of blows to his chest. The doctor found that the applicant had a 1 cm graze on the right side of his forehead and a hyperaemic region (redness) in the middle of his chest and a graze of 1 cm on his right leg.\n10. On 3 July 1997 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court. The applicant stated to the prosecutor, inter alia, that Agit (code name) threatened him and told him to collect money for the PKK while he was working as a musician at wedding ceremonies and that he had to give money from his own pocket. He further gave information about some people and denied knowing Mr M.K, Mr F.Ö, Mr S.T or Mr F.K. He stated that if he did some things it was because he was forced to do so and that he was a victim. When he was asked about his previous statements given to the police, he claimed that these statements were his true statements.\n11.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the Izmir State Security Court. The applicant reiterated, inter alia, that he was threatened and forced by Agit and some other PKK militants to collect money and to conduct a one minute silence to Kurdistan martyrs during wedding ceremonies. He submitted that he was not a member of the organization. He acknowledged his previous statements given to the public prosecutor and denied his statements given to the police. He claimed that they were not his and that he had just signed them. The court ordered his remand in custody.\n12.  The applicant alleges that during his transfer to prison he was beaten and sworn at by the soldiers.\n13.  On an unspecified date, the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 169 of the Criminal Code.\n14.  On an unspecified date, the criminal proceedings against the applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2871", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, Pedro Katunda Kambangu, is an Angolan national who was born in 1968. At present he lives in Houston, the United States.\n8.  The applicant arrived in Lithuania on 2 March 1998 with a transit visa valid until 4 March 1998. On the latter date the immigration police ordered the applicant to leave Lithuania by 9 March 1998.\n9.  On 10 March 1998 the applicant was arrested while trying to cross the border between Lithuania and Belarus. He alleged that his passport had been stolen, and that he had intended to go to the Embassy of Angola in Moscow to obtain a new passport. The applicant was arrested for violating the Lithuanian immigration rules requiring possession of a valid passport for foreign travel. From 10 to 12 March 1998 he was held in police custody in Vilnius.\n10.  According to the applicant, on 12 March 1998 he was moved from Vilnius to the Pabradė Aliens Registration Centre (“ARC”) on the ground that he was staying in Lithuania illegally. The applicant alleged that the conditions of his stay at the ARC amounted to a deprivation of liberty. In particular, he was not allowed to leave the ARC, save for the purpose of leaving the country, and was subjected to an overall strict disciplinary regime. The Government argued that the applicant himself had requested the accommodation at the ARC, and that he was allowed, “in case of necessity”, to leave the premises of the ARC, if accompanied by a guard.\n11.  On 22 June 1998 the applicant applied for asylum.\n12.  The applicant's complaints about his continued stay at the ARC were dismissed by the Higher Administrative Court on 11 October 1999, and by the Court of Appeal on 7 December 1999. The courts contended that the applicant's stay at the ARC did not amount to a deprivation of liberty.\n13.  Having obtained a new passport from the Embassy of Angola in Moscow, the applicant left the ARC on 21 January 2000 upon having expressed his wish to leave the country. It appears that he voluntarily left the country on 21 January 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2872", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lived in Belgorod.\n7.  The applicant received an old-age pension. The Law of 21 July 1997 on the Calculation and Upgrading of State Pensions (“the Pensions Act”) introduced, from 1 February 1998 onwards, a new method for calculating pensions. The idea behind this method, based on what is known as an “individual pensioner coefficient”, was to link the pension to the pensioner's previous earnings.\n8.  The authority in charge of the applicant's pension, the Pension Fund Agency of Belgorod (“the Agency”), fixed the applicant's coefficient at 0.525. The applicant challenged the Agency's decision in the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Belgorod. She argued that her coefficient should be 0.7 from 1 February 1998.\n9.  On 1 July 1999 the District Court found for the applicant, considering that the Agency had misinterpreted the Pensions Act. It decided that the Agency was to recalculate the applicant's pension using a coefficient of 0.7.\n10.  The Agency appealed against the judgment. On 19 October 1999 the Belgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment, which became enforceable on the same day. The judgment was never executed.\n11.  On 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development (“the Ministry”) issued an Instruction on the “Application of Limitations” established by the Pensions Act (“the Instruction”). The Instruction clarified how to apply the Pensions Act.\n12.  On 12 January 2000 a Deputy Prime Minister wrote a letter to the Prosecutor General. She complained that throughout the country courts had been deciding in pensioners' favour based on a manifestly wrong interpretation of the Pensions Act, and that the Pension Fund was unable to meet the unforeseen expenses. She asked the Prosecutor General to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider one such judgment to create a pilot case.\n13.  Some time thereafter a group of individuals challenged the Instruction before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. On 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. It found that, contrary to what the complainants had suggested, the Ministry of Labour had not acted ultra vires in issuing the Instruction, and that the Ministry's interpretation of the Pensions Act had been correct. On 25 May 2000 the Cassation Division of the Supreme Court upheld this judgment on appeal.\n14.  On 25 May 2000 the Agency lodged an application with the District Court for the reconsideration of the applicant's case owing to newly discovered circumstances on the basis of the Instruction, which supported their position. They argued that the Instruction had been upheld by the Supreme Court.\n15.  On 14 September 2000 the District Court examined the Agency's request. The Agency maintained that the interpretation of the Pensions Act in the Instruction was a newly discovered circumstance which warranted the quashing of the judgment. The applicant submitted that the Agency had missed the statutory time-limit for requesting the reconsideration.\n16.  The District Court held as follows:\n“... the court considers that the application by the Pension Fund Agency of Belgorod is to be granted for the following reasons:\nOn 29 December 1999 the RF Ministry of Labour and Social Development issued an instruction on the application of the Federal Law on the Calculation and Upgrading of State Pensions. The lawfulness of the instruction was subject to examination by the RF Supreme Court ... which established its compliance with the provisions o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2873", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1951, 1952 and 1974 respectively and live in the town of Novovoronezh, the Voronezh Region.\n5.  It appears that in 1998 and 1999 there were delays in payment of the applicants' pension and in 2000 they brought a court claim against the authority in this connection.\n6.  By judgment of 4 August 2000 the Novovoronezhskiy District Court of Voronezh granted the claim and ordered the authority to pay the first applicant 1,687.78 Russian roubles (RUR – approximately 55 euros (EUR)), the second applicant RUR 2,053.57 (approximately EUR 75) and the third applicant RUR 1,262.96 (approximately EUR 40) in damages.\n7.  On 14 August 2000 the judgment came into force and the District Court issued writs of execution and forwarded them to the bailiffs.\n8.  According to the information submitted by the Government, the court decision was enforced in full on 2 December 2005, which is five years, three months and nineteen days after its entry into force.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2874", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a lawyer and a former officer of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB). At the time of the events giving rise to the application, he was the subject of an unrelated criminal investigation conducted by the Chief Military Prosecutor concerning the period of his service in the FSB (criminal case no. 1). From March 2003 the applicant was under an obligation not to leave his permanent place of residence without the permission of the prosecution or the court.\n8.  On 22 October 2003 in the evening the applicant was returning from a meeting with the officials of the police department of the town of Dmitrov, in the Moscow Region, where he was assisting his client as a lawyer. The applicant's car was stopped by the traffic police on a road. The police searched his car, nothing suspicious being discovered there. A few minutes later the policemen repeated the search, now in the presence of two attesting witnesses. This time a handgun with ammunition was discovered on the back seat of the applicant's car. The applicant was questioned about this gun; he asserted that it did not belong to him. He also informed the policemen that he was a lawyer and showed his lawyer's identity card. At about 7 p.m. the police opened a criminal investigation into these facts (criminal case no. 2). The applicant was placed in Dmitrov detention centre.\n9.  In the morning of 24 October 2003, at the investigator's request, the Dmitrov Town Court ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention on the grounds that he was suspected of committing a criminal offence punishable under Article 222 of the Criminal Code (unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition) by up to six years' imprisonment and that there was a risk that he might abscond, interfere with the course of justice or continue his criminal activities. The court also stated that at the time of his arrest the applicant was already the subject of another criminal investigation in the context of criminal case no. 1.\n10.  The applicant appealed, stating, inter alia, that the Town Court, in finding the detention to be lawful, had failed to give any reasons for its finding. The applicant further alleged that the gun had been planted by the police and maintained that he would never keep a loaded gun in a car which he used to drive his children to school every morning. He also noted that he had five under-age children and that there was therefore no reason to believe that he would go into hiding. He further submitted that he represented clients in forty pending cases and that his arrest would be prejudicial to their interests. Finally, the applicant pointed out that the special procedure for authorising the detention of lawyers had not been followed in his case. He asked the Regional Court to examine his appeal in his presence.\n11.  On 27 October 2003 the Dmitrov Town Court, after a preliminary examination of the facts of the case, authorised the opening of criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with the discovery of the gun in his car on 22 October 2003. On the same day the applicant's lawyer lodged an appeal against the detention order of 24 October 2003. In the grounds of appeal he stated, inter alia, that the applicant, as a lawyer, could not have been arrested and then placed in custody without a preliminary court decision authorising his criminal prosecution.\n12.  On 31 October 2003 the applicant was formally charged under Article 222 § 1 of the Criminal Code", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2875", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Batman.\n6.  On 22 May 1994 the applicant was arrested in the course of an armed clash between members of the security forces and terrorist militants.\n7.  On 27 May 1994 the applicant's statements were taken by police officers.\n8.  On 30 May 1994 he was brought before the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. The public prosecutor questioned him in relation to his involvement in terrorist acts. On the same day, the applicant was brought before a single judge of the Diyarbakır State Security Court who ordered his detention on remand.\n9.  On 13 June 1994 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. The charges were brought under Article 125 of the now defunct Criminal Code.\n10.  On 20 January 1995 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held a hearing in the presence of a military judge. The applicant admitted that he was a member of an illegal organisation, namely the ARGK[1].\n11.  At the hearing on 30 January 1995 before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, the applicant stated that he was a “guerrilla” of the ARGK and apologised to his people and party for not being worthy of the organisation since he had failed to carry out the acts that he had undertaken. He however denied the veracity of the statements which he had given to the police officers.\n12.  Between 3 April 1995 and 30 October 1995 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held four hearings and issued decisions to the effect that the case-files concerning other criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant should be obtained from the other courts.\n13.  On 8 December 1995 the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to join two cases concerning different accusations against the applicant. It further decided to wait for the arrival of the case-files. The number of accused who were tried together with the applicant attained thirteen in total.\n14.  Between 24 January 1996 and 14 May 1997 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held eight hearings and postponed each of them with a view to remedying certain procedural shortcomings in respect of the applicant's co-accused.\n15.  The applicant attended the hearing of 3 July 1997 and claimed that he was under pressure in the prison and that he was hindered from appearing before the court. He did not specify who prevented him from appearing before the court. The court again postponed the hearing with a view to determining the address of one of the applicant's co-accused.\n16.  The applicant and his co-accused did not attend the hearing of 14 August 1997.\n17.  The Diyarbakır State Security Court postponed the hearings of 22 October 1997, 10 December 1997, 12 February 1998 and 19 March 1998 pending the arrest of one of the applicant's co-accused. The court also asked the public prosecutor to submit his observations on the merits.\n18.  On 21 May 1998 the public prosecutor submitted his observations on the merits of the case and sought the conviction of the applicant for the offence under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. The applicant asked for time to prepare his defence.\n19.  The applicant did not attend the hearings of 16 July 1998, 10 September 1998 and 5 November 1998. At the hearing held on the latter date, the court decided to inform the accused that their defence submissions would be assumed to have been given if they", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2877", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Istanbul. He is the son of Mr Emin Yıldırım, a draper by trade, who died on 7 February 1996 after suffering a brain haemorrhage.\n8.  On 7 January 1996, at about 11 p.m., shots were fired in the direction of the local gendarmerie post in the Çermik district (Diyarbakır). Two non-commissioned officers (NCOs) serving at the post, A.B. and F.Ö., went out on patrol under the command of Officer Akgün. They noticed Mr Emin Yıldırım's drapery shop, with three customers inside, Ö.Y., H.Y. and B.N.\n9.  According to the Government, Officer Akgün agitatedly asked the customers whether they had heard the shots being fired and hurled abuse at the 67-year-old Emin Yıldırım for having his shop open so late. Two police officers, A.Ö. and Ö.Ş., alerted by the din, witnessed the incident.\nAccording to the applicant, Officer Akgün not only agitatedly questioned those present in the drapery shop but also violently beat Emin Yıldırım.\n10.  The following day, Emin Yıldırım went to see E.T., the Çermik district governor, handing him a complaint against Officer Akgün which he had had typed (see paragraph 15 below).\nHowever, the district governor, being anxious for the protagonists to settle their differences, allegedly kept hold of the complaint.\n11.  On 9 January 1996 E.T. summoned Emin Yıldırım and Officer Akgün to his office. Emin Yıldırım was accompanied at the meeting by H.A., the mayor of Çermik. It appears that during the conversation Emin Yıldırım complained of a headache. For his part, Officer Akgün is said to have apologised, explaining that he had been drunk on the night of the incident; Emin Yıldırım then forgave him and withdrew his complaint. At that point, E.T. allegedly tore up the letter of complaint he had kept.\n12.  On 3 February 1996 Emin Yıldırım was admitted to Diyarbakır General Hospital in a coma. A computed tomography brain scan revealed a severe haemorrhage in the left frontoparietal region.\nAn explanatory note attached to the back of the scan image referred to the haemorrhage as “chronic”, in other words resulting from bleeding over a prolonged period.\nA life-threatening clinical presentation emerged from subsequent examinations. Two days later, Emin Yıldırım underwent an operation to drain a haematoma, performed by a neurologist, Ö.H.\nOn 7 February 1996 he was transferred to Dicle University Hospital, where he died the same day.\n13.  Later on 7 February 1996 an autopsy was carried out by a single forensic medical examiner, L.E., under the authority of the Diyarbakır public prosecutor. Dr L.E. subsequently drew up a report, which began by referring to the content of the medical records kept at Diyarbakır General Hospital.\nAccording to the report, a superficial examination of the skull revealed a haematoma and an ecchymosis slightly below the surgical scar in the left frontal lobe; in the same area, there was a hole where the skull had been opened up. An intracranial examination revealed a subdural haematoma in the left frontoparietal lobe, multiple areas of brain-tissue degeneration at the base of the left hemisphere, severe cerebral oedema and a swollen cerebellum.\nAccording to the forensic medical examiner, a blow sustained “about a month earlier” could well have been the cause of death.\n14.  According to the mayor of Çermik, H.A., the complaint that Emin Yıldırım had handed to the district governor (see paragraph 10 above) was found in the deceased's pockets. On 8 February 1996 H.A. s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2878", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 6 April 1999 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by police officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of the PKK (the Workers' Party of Kurdistan).\n6. On 13 April 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and two others, accusing them, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of participating in separatist activities. The public prosecutor sought the death penalty for the applicant pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n7.  On 25 September 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant of as charged and sentenced him to death, which sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. The judgment was ex officio subject to appeal.\n8.  On 17 January 2002 the Principal Public Prosecutor submitted his written opinion to the 9th Division of the Court of Cassation, in which he had argued that the Court of Cassation should quash the applicant's conviction on account of the severity of the sentence imposed on the applicant. He opined that the applicant should have been sentenced pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code, which punishes membership of an illegal organisation, instead of Article 125.\n9.  On 20 April 2002 the Court of Cassation held a hearing, differed with the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor, and upheld the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court. The applicant's representative did not attend this hearing. The decision was pronounced in the absence of the applicant and his representative on 1 May 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2879", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1948, 1955 and 1976 respectively, and live in Oradea.\n5.  In 1950, the two-floors building and appurtenant land situated in Bucharest, W. Filderman no. 1, the property of the applicants' parents, was seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation.\n6.  On 13 April 1999 the applicants' action for recovery of possession of immovable property was upheld in part by an enforceable judgment which acknowledged that the nationalisation of the building had been unlawful and ordered the administrative authorities to return the building and appurtenant land to the applicants, with the exception of a studio flat at the second floor, sold by the applicants' parents in 1945.\n7.  In spite of having the judicial recognition of their property right, the applicants were not able to recover possession over flat no. 1 because the State had sold it together with the appurtenant land to the tenants, under Law no. 112/1995.\n8.  On 11 October 1999 the applicants requested the court to find that the sale by the State was null and void. They considered that, as the nationalisation had been unlawful, the State was not the rightful owner and consequently it could not lawfully have sold any part of the building.\n9.  On 12 September 2000 the Bucharest Tribunal, by a final decision, dismissed the request for the rescission of the sale contract on the ground that the applicants brought the action for the recovery of possession after the sale of flat no. 1 by the State and that the tenants had made the purchase in good faith. The tribunal had not granted any compensation to the applicants.\n10.  On 28 June 2001 the Bucharest Court of First Instance admitted by a final decision the applicants' action to have acknowledged their right of property regarding the whole building.\n11.  On 13 February 2002 the applicants claimed compensation for the sale of flat no. 1 under the Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. At present, they have not received any compensation.\n12.  On 16 May 2002 the Bucharest Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed the applicants' action for the recovery of possession of flat no. 1, considering that although the applicants were the rightful owners, the sale was performed in good faith and therefore the tenants could not be evacuated.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2880", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Nicosia.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as derived from the minutes of the proceedings, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 14 August 1997 the applicant married a Romanian citizen. On 28 September 1998 he filed a petition for divorce (no. 382/98) with the Family Court of Nicosia.\n7.  On 16 October 1998 the applicant filed an ex parte application for leave to publish the divorce petition in an English daily newspaper. Leave was granted by the court on 19 October 1998.\n8.  On 24 November 1998 the court fixed the case for mention for 21 December 1998 and instructed the counsel of the applicant's former wife (hereinafter “the respondent”) to file her defence by that date. This was filed on 2 March 1999.\n9.  On 15 December 1999 the respondent filed an application raising certain preliminary points of law to be tried before the main petition. The application was set for 21 December 1999 and then for 31 January 2000. In the meantime, on 27 January 2000, the applicant filed an objection to the application.\n10.  From 31 January 2000 until 23 October 2000 both the main divorce and interim proceedings were adjourned eight times. Two of these adjournments were by the court itself: from 15 May 2000 until 22 May 2000 and from 23 September 2000 until 23 October 2000. It appears that the remaining adjournments were by the parties' mutual agreement.\n11.  During the above period, on 21 July 2000, a deportation order was issued against the respondent by the immigration authorities. On 4 September 2000 the respondent filed an administrative recourse before the Supreme Court (first instance administrative jurisdiction) challenging the order, requesting an interim application for the suspension of the deportation order in order to be able to attend the divorce proceedings and testify before the Family Court and a declaration recognising her right to have her residence permit renewed.\n12.  On 23 October 2000 the respondent withdrew her application of 15 December 1999 and upon agreement by both parties the hearing of the divorce petition was adjourned until 19 December 2000.\n13.  The hearing of the petition commenced on 19 December 2000 and was completed on 13 March 2001. Three hearing sessions were held with one adjournment at the request of the respondent's lawyer.\n14.  In the meantime, on 5 March 2001, the Supreme Court delivered an interlocutory judgment and rejected the respondent's recourse. The Supreme Court noted that the respondent's residence permit had expired on 7 September 1998 and that since then she had been staying in Cyprus without a permit. Nonetheless, she had not been deported pending the proceedings in another recourse she had filed against the administrative authorities' decision not to grant her another permit. This recourse had been rejected by the Supreme Court on 5 July 2000 and this was the reason that the deportation order of 21 July 2000 had been issued. Furthermore, the Supreme Court observed that to grant the respondent her application for an interim order for the suspension of the deportation order would in essence result in the grant of permission to stay, which was outside the competence of the Court. The right of any person, whether Cypriot or alien, to be present at proceedings before a court, was not related to the question of permission to stay. The applicant, in her recourse, had linked the two, but the need for her to be present at the trial bef", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2881", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Belgorod.\n7.  The applicant is a former employee of the Belgorod Customs Office (Белгородская таможня), where he occupied the post of Deputy Head of the Investigations Department (заместитель начальника отдела дознания).\n8.  On 28 October 1999 the applicant was arrested and detained. Some time thereafter the investigating authority instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of bribery, under the number 999161.\n9.  On 14 July 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment.\n10.   On 30 January 2001 the Supreme Court of Russia examined and dismissed the applicant's appeal against the judgment of 14 July 2000.\n11.  The applicant was taken into custody on 28 October 1999.\n12.  On 31 October 1999 the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor (Белгородский транспортный прокурор) authorised the applicant's detention on remand.\n13.  The applicant contested the lawfulness of his detention on remand before the courts on 11 November 1999.\n14.  By decision of 23 November 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Belgorod (Октябрьский районный суд г. Белгорода) found the applicant's detention on remand to be lawful.\n15.  On 29 November 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision.\n16.  On 29 December 1999 the Belgorod Regional Court (Белгородский областной суд) dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n(b)  Detention order of 24 December 1999 and related proceedings\n17.  On 24 December 1999 the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor and the South-Eastern Transport Prosecutor authorised the extension of the investigation and of the applicant's detention on remand for one month until 28 January 2000.\n18.  On 30 December 1999 the applicant contested the lawfulness of the extension of his detention on remand before the courts.\n19.  On 20 January 2000 the Western District Court of Belgorod (Федеральный суд Западного округа г. Белгорода) upheld the extension of the applicant's detention on remand.\n20.  On 27 January 2000 the applicant and his defence counsel lodged an appeal against this decision, raising the same arguments.\n21.  On 1 March 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court dismissed the appeal of the applicant and his defence counsel as groundless and upheld the order of 24 December 1999 and the decision of 20 January 2000.\n(c)  Detention order of 24 January 2000 and related proceedings\n22.  By order of 24 January 2000 the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor and the South-Eastern Transport Prosecutor authorised the extension of the applicant's detention on remand for a further month until 28 February 2000.\n23.  On 8 February 2000 the applicant complained of the unlawfulness of the extension of his detention on remand before the courts.\n24.  On 18 February 2000 the Western District Court of Belgorod confirmed the extension of the applicant's detention on remand.\n25.  This decision was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 29 March 2000.\n(d)  Detention order of 28 February 2000 and related proceedings\n26.  On 28 February 2000 the Belgorod Transport Prosecutor and the South-Eastern Transport Prosecutor extended the applicant's detention until 28 March 2000.\n27.  The applicant contested the decision in court.\n28.  On 31 March 2000 the Western District Court of Belgorod rejected this appeal.\n29.  The applicant, with the assistance of his defence counsel, appealed against these decisions.\n30.  On 26 April 2000 the Belgorod Regional Court, ruling in fina", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2882", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant lives in Sisak.\n7.  On 6 October 1989 the applicant concluded a life-long assistance contract (ugovor o doživotnom uzdržavanju; “the contract”) with Mrs Z. C. The contract stipulated that the applicant was to inherit Z.C.'s flat, movables and foreign currency savings, provided that she took care of her until her death.\n8.  On 27 June 1996, after the death of Z.C., her husband and relatives (“the plaintiffs”), including her nephew Mr B.H., instituted civil proceedings against the applicant in the Sisak Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Sisku) seeking annulment of the contract. They claimed that the applicant had not fulfilled her obligations arising out of the contract and that it should therefore be declared void.\n9.  During the first-instance proceedings, the applicant requested withdrawal of all judges of the Sisak Municipal Court and of the Sisak County Court (Županijski sud u Sisku) claiming that the plaintiffs were close relatives of one of the Sisak County Court's judges, Mrs L.H. In particular, B.H. was the husband of L.H., who was at that time the acting president of the Sisak County Court. The applicant claimed that the president of a court personally distributed files to the judges within the court and that L.H. inevitably had an influence on the appointment of the judge in her case. Moreover, she argued that the Sisak County Court was a small court, where all judges knew each other and that this would certainly undermine the impartiality of the judge assigned to hear the case.\n10.  The applicant therefore requested her case to be transferred to another court outside the Sisak County Court's territorial jurisdiction.\n11.  On 6 March 1997 the Sisak Municipal Court forwarded the applicant's request to the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), interpreting it as a request for transfer of jurisdiction (svrsishodna delegacija nadležnosti) pursuant to section 68 of the Civil Procedure Act.\n12.  On 17 April 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request in respect of the Sisak Municipal Court as ill-founded, finding no indication that it might be biased. It further found that it was premature to decide on the transfer of jurisdiction of the Sisak County Court, because at that time the proceedings were only pending before the first-instance court.\n13.  On 1 July 1999 the Sisak Municipal Court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and declared the contract void.\n14.  On 8 November 2001 judge L.H. ceased to perform the duties of the acting president of the Sisak County Court. She remained the president of the civil division of that court, a position which she had held since 1 May 1998. Under the legislation in force at the material time, the president of a court having several divisions has the administrative duty to assign cases to judges within the division.\n15.  The first-instance judgment appears to have been served on the applicant only in late 2001. On 23 October 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Sisak County Court. In her appeal, the applicant requested that the case be reassigned to another County Court for decision.\n16.  On 25 April 2002 the Sisak County Court ruled on the merits of her case, dismissing the applicant's appeal and upholding the first-instance judgment. The court had not forwarded the applicant's renewed request for transfer of jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. Instead, it concluded that such request was ill-founded, as the Supreme Court had already reached a de", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2883", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Barnaul, the Altay Region.\n5.  On an unspecified date in 2002 the applicant, acting as a participant of rescue operation on the site of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in the 1980s, applied to a local council, requesting them to grant him a flat.\n6.  Having faced a refusal, the applicant filed a suit in court.\n7.  By judgment of the Industrialnyy District Court of Barnaul of 14 October 2002 the local authorities were ordered to grant the applicant a flat of at least 18 square metres. It became final on 27 November 2002.\n8.  On 16 December 2002 the writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.\n9.  It appears that on 13 January 2005 the local authorities, acting in agreement with the applicant and with his financial participation, purchased a three-room flat of 28 square metres for the applicant.\n10.  The contract has been registered on 14 January 2005.\n11.  Four days later, on 18 January 2005, the local authorities transferred the money for the flat to the seller's account.\n12.  According to the Government, the judgment of 14 October 2002 should be considered as fully enforced on the latter date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2884", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On 19 July 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody by officers from the anti-terror branch of the Ankara Security Directorate in the course of an operation carried out against an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP/C (Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front).\n6. On 31 July 1995 the applicant was brought before a judge who ordered his detention on remand.\n7.  On 16 August 1995 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant as well as twelve other persons with membership of an illegal organisation, an offence defined in Article 168 § 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code.\n8.  On 5 June 1997 the Ankara State Security Court convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting the members of the DHKP/C, an offence defined in Article 169 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment.\n9.  The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n10.  On 17 April 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the Ankara State Security Court’s judgment.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant was released from detention.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2885", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The application was initially introduced by Mehmet Kurnaz who was born in 1956 and was living in Antalya. Following his death on 22 December 1997, his parents, brothers and sister (hereinafter: “the applicants”) expressed their intention to pursue the application on 30 June 1998. The applicants were born in 1927, 1929, 1954, 1950 and 1958 respectively and live in Antalya.\n10.  Mehmet Kurnaz was a member of the United Socialist Party (Birleşik Sosyalist Partisi) at the time of the events in question. The applicants claimed that he was in poor health as a result of the ill-treatment he had received during his previous periods of police custody.\n11.  Between 22 May and 19 June 1986 Mehmet Kurnaz was treated at the Faculty of Medicine of Ege University (hereinafter: “Ege Hospital”) for pain in his left leg. The doctors noted that he suffered from an obstruction of the popliteal artery in his left leg and that this could have resulted from an application of pressure to the leg.\n12.  On 12 February 1987 Mehmet Kurnaz was diagnosed as suffering from Buerger’s disease. On 16 February 1987 he was operated on (femorotibial posterior bypass) at Ege Hospital.\n13.  On 21 August 1995 Mehmet Kurnaz applied to the İzmir branch of the Human Rights Association of Turkey for treatment. The medical report issued in respect of Mehmet Kurnaz noted that he suffered from Leriche syndrome, chronic renal insufficiency and hypertensive heart disease. It was recommended that Mehmet Kurnaz immediately begin medical treatment, preferably while interned at a hospital, and that he remain in a stress-free and calm environment. In this same report it was also mentioned that Mehmet Kurnaz had stated that he had been subjected to various types of ill-treatment during his six periods of detention in custody between the years 1973 and 1982. As regards Mehmet Kurnaz’s medical history, it was noted that he suffered from popliteal artery thrombosis and as a result had undergone bypass operations in 1985 and 1986. In 1994 Mehmet Kurnaz was diagnosed as suffering from chronic renal insufficiency. His medical history also referred to the fact that he had smoked a packet of cigarettes a day over twenty years.\n14.  On 1 September 1995 Mehmet Kurnaz was remanded in custody. On the same day he was brought before the Antalya Forensic Medicine Institute for a medical examination. The doctor noted that there were no physical signs of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body.\n15.  On 11 September 1995 he was transferred to Buca prison.\n16.  On 21 September 1995 Mehmet Kurnaz was wounded with a blow to his head during a prison riot and was hospitalised for treatment. The applicants claim that he was deliberately attacked by prison officers and gendarmes. The Government deny this.\n17.  On 21 September 1995, at around 16.25 p.m., Mehmet Kurnaz was admitted to İzmir Atatürk State Hospital. According to the provisional medical report issued the same day, he had sustained facial trauma, ecchimoses and oedema and in particular had a cut of 4 cm on his left frontal lobe and 5 cm on his left parietal lobe.\n18.  Mehmet Kurnaz remained in hospital until 25 October 1995. The applicants alleged that he had been chained to his bed during this time.\n19.  According to the investigation conducted by three public prosecutors at the İzmir prosecutor’s office (hereinafter: “the prosecutors”), the events had unfolded as follows; detainees awaiting trial for alleged membership of an illegal armed organisatio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2886", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Erzurum.\n5.  On an unspecified date, the Land Registry Commission issued a decision on plots of land in the Taşbulak village in the Hınıs district in Erzurum registering them as property of the Treasury. The decision included the applicant's plot of land.\n6.  On 14 January 1985 the mayor of Taşbulak village filed an action with the Hınıs Cadastre Court and requested the annulment of the Land Registry Commission's decision.\n7.  On an unspecified date, the applicant filed a similar action with the Hınıs Cadastre Court. In his petition he stated that the plot of land in question had been registered in his father's name in 1946.\n8.  On 3 October 1986 the Hınıs Cadastre Court decided to join the cases.\n9.  On 21 May 1987 the First Instance Court held its first hearing and heard the parties.\n10.  Between 21 May 1987 and 19 October 1999 the court held fifty three hearings. During this period, the court examined the documents furnished by the parties concerning their ownership allegations and ordered on-site visits to be carried out on the plots of lands. However, the court postponed carrying out on‑site visits on the plots of lands due to bad weather conditions or the absence of experts. Despite the court's letters to the Directorate of Agriculture and Land Registry to secure the presence of the experts, they failed to appear for the on-site visits.\n11.  The proceedings before the Hınıs Cadastre Court are still pending. The on-site visits to the plots of land have not yet been carried out.\n12.  On 20 August 1990 the mayor of the Dikili village in Hınıs district filed an action with the Hınıs Civil Court of First-instance against the Uyanık village. The action concerned a dispute over a plot of land.\n13.  On 27 June 1991 the applicant intervened in the action and alleged that his father was the owner of the plot of land in question. The Suvaran village also intervened in the proceedings.\n14.  On 28 May 1992 the First Instance Court sent a letter to the Cadastre Registration Office and requested the determination of the borders of the Uyanık and Dikili villages.\n15.  On 9 July 1992 the court ordered an on-site visit to be carried out on the plot of land. In this connection it sent a letter to the Directorate of Agriculture and Cadastre and requested the latter to secure the presence of experts for the on-site visit.\n16.  Between 9 July 1992 and 18 November 1999 the court held thirty‑nine hearings. During this period, the court postponed the conduct of on-site visits on account of bad weather conditions or the absence of the experts.\n17.  On 18 July 1996 during the hearing before the court the applicant requested the court to carry out an on-site visit to the plot of land and to secure the presence of the experts.\n18.  On 3 October 1996 the court postponed an on-site visit. It noted that the District Gendarmerie Command had sent a letter and informed the court that an on-site visit could not be carried out for security reasons in the area.\n19.  On 28 June 2001 the Hınıs Civil Court of First Instance issued a decision of non-jurisdiction in respect of the applicant's action and decided to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Hınıs Cadastre Court. The court further decided to strike out the case in respect of the Dikili and Suvaran villages since they had failed to pursue their claim. The applicant appealed.\n20.  On 11 December 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal. This decision became", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2887", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1979. At the time of his application to the Court, he was incarcerated in the Batman E-type Prison.\n4.  On 16 December 1994 police officers from the Batman Security Directorate arrested the applicant on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdish Workers’ Party), and placed him in custody.\n5.  During his detention, the applicant signed statements and confessed to being a member of the PKK and to collecting money for that organisation.\n6.  On 30 December 1994 the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor attached to the Batman Magistrates’ Court. During his questioning, he repeated his statement made to the police. On the same day the Batman Magistrates’ Court ordered his detention on remand.\n7.  On 11 January 1995 the prosecutor filed an indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court charging the applicant and thirteen co‑accused with membership of an illegal armed organisation.\n8.  On 17 January 1995 the applicant was brought before that court, which ordered that his detention on remand be continued.\n9.  At the first hearing held on 16 March 1995, the applicant denied all the charges made against him. He submitted that his statements to the police had been taken under duress, and that he had been forced to repeat the same statements before the Batman Magistrates’ Court and the Batman Public Prosecutor’s Office. The court rejected his request for release pending trial.\n10.  His requests for release pending trial were rejected by the Diyarbakır State Security Court at each of the hearings. The court examined the applicant’s continued detention on its own motion every one and a half months or two months. In ordering his continued detention, the court relied on the nature of the offences charged, the content of the case file, the state of the evidence, and the stage reached in the proceedings, without giving detailed reasoning.\n11.  At the first hearing, the court requested the following: (i) oral statements of the police officers who had interrogated one of the accused, (ii) a forensic examination of one of the accused, Mr Ferhan Arasan, in order to establish his real age, (iii) defence statements of the accused who were on conditional release, to be taken by a criminal court in the area where they resided, and finally (iv) witness statements and police records on certain allegations made by one of the accused, Mr Mehmet Emin Güngör, regarding the bombing of his house by unknown perpetrators.\n12.  At the following two hearings, the court heard some of the accused and adjourned the proceedings pending a forensic report on Mr Ferhan Arasan’s age.\n13.  During the following ten hearings, held between 7 September 1995 and 7 November 1996, the court repeatedly ordered the taking of statements of two of the accused who were on conditional release and the preparation of a forensic report.\n14.  At the fourteenth hearing, held on 19 December 1996, the court ordered the presence of several of the accused (including the applicant) at the following hearing, and adjourned the proceedings pending submission of the forensic report.\n15.  Over the course of the following twenty-four months the court held thirteen hearings without obtaining new evidence in respect of the applicant, except for one hearing, held on 8 July 1997, at which the applicant and the other accused were questioned as to whether they had any information about the bombing of Mr Mehmet Emin Güngör’s house. Duri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2888", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 18 August and 16 September 1987 and 16 May 1990 the applicant concluded three contracts with the General Directorate for Water and Infrastructure (İSKİ) (“the General Directorate”) and undertook the construction of parts of the water infrastructure in İstanbul.\n5.  Subsequent to the failure of the General Directorate to pay the applicant the relevant fees, on 10 October 1995 the applicant filed an action with the 4th Chamber of the Istanbul Commercial Court and requested the court to order the payment of 10,279,231,935 Turkish liras (TRL), alleging that the General Directorate had failed to comply with the contract of 16 May 1990.\n6.  In 1999 the General Directorate filed a cross-action with the 7th Chamber of İstanbul Commercial Court requesting a sum of TRL 7,650,721,062, claiming that this sum had been overpaid to the applicant.\n7.  On an unspecified date, the 7th Chamber of İstanbul Commercial Court decided that the case before it should be joined with the case before the 4th Chamber of the same court.\n8.  On 14 July 1999 the 4th Chamber of İstanbul Commercial Court requested the 7th Chamber of the same court to submit the file of a case (file no. 1999/724) which was related to the case before it.\n9.  Between 14 July 1999 and 3 November 2000 the 4th Chamber of İstanbul Commercial Court repeatedly requested the 7th Chamber to send the aforementioned file.\n10.  On 3 November 2000 a copy of the file no. 1999/724 was submitted to the 4th Chamber of the İstanbul Commercial Court by the applicant.\n11.  On the same day the first-instance court awarded the applicant the claim in full, plus interest at the rediscount rate, running from the date of lodging of the case. The court dismissed the General Directorate’s cross‑action.\n12.  On 14 January 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n13.  On 23 October 2002 the Court of Cassation dismissed the request for rectification of decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2889", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Šiauliai.\n7.  In accordance with an agreement on the division of their mutual property with her former husband, approved by a court decision on 27 September 1995, the applicant was entitled to a number of shares in two companies owned by the husband.\n8.  On 17 May 1996 the applicant brought a civil action, requesting that the value of the shares in one of the companies be awarded to her.\n9.  On 6 September 1996, during the hearing of the applicant’s case, the Šiauliai City District Court discovered some evidence of crime, allegedly committed by the director and the chief accountant of those companies. In particular, they were suspected of embezzlement and fraud (Articles 274 § 2 and 275 § 1 of the Criminal Code as then in force). The court considered that, in these circumstances:\n“it was not possible to assess the value of [the applicant’s] claims; therefore, her civil action should be referred for an examination in the framework of the criminal proceedings.”\n10.  On 10 October 1996 the applicant was afforded the status of a victim in those proceedings.\n11.  On 18 November 1996 she was granted the status of a civil claimant in the criminal proceedings.\nShe was further granted the status of a civil claimant on 18 November 1996.\n12.  On 20 January 1997 several other criminal procedures against the director were joined in one set of proceedings.\n13.  On 25 June 1997 an expert examination was ordered. It was completed on 17 October 1997.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the institution of further criminal proceedings against the director and other employees of the companies, alleging that they had falsified certificates as to the number and value of the shares which had belonged to her former husband. On 5 December 1997 the prosecutors dismissed her request.\n15.  On 13 January 1998 the bill of indictment against the director of the companies and three other co-accused was approved. The original charges of embezzlement and fraud were supplemented with accusations of forgery and negligent accountancy (respectively, Articles 207 § 1 and 322 of the Criminal Code as then in force).\n16.  On 17 February 1998 the accused were committed for trial.\n17.  Hearings scheduled for 7 April and 18 May 1998 were adjourned at the request of the defendants.\n18.  On 18 June 1998 the court ordered a further expert examination. It was completed on 29 December 1999.\n19.  On 27 March and 12 June 2000 the trial was adjourned due to the illness of the defendants.\n20.  Hearings scheduled for 6 and 7 September, 25 October, 27 November and 14 December 2000 and 23 January 2001 were partially adjourned because certain witnesses failed to appear before the court. The court questioned those witnesses present and ordered the police to bring the remaining witnesses to the next hearing.\n21.  On 21 February 2001 the hearing was adjourned due to the illness of the judge.\n22.  On 27 May 2001 the hearing was again adjourned due to the failure of certain witnesses to appear.\n23.  On 30 May 2001 the hearing was further adjourned since one of the defendants had failed to appear due to illness.\n24.  On 27 June 2001 another expert examination was ordered at the request of the prosecution.\n25.  In a letter to the prosecution of 4 October 2001, the Šiauliai City District Court noted that the proceedings had lasted an unduly long time due to deficiencies in the pre-trial investigation.\n26.  On 29 January 2002 the Šiauliai ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2890", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and was detained in Diyarbakır prison at the time of his application to the Court.\n5.  On 8 November 1993 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party).\n6.  On 26 November 1993 he was brought before a judge who ordered his detention on remand.\n7.  On 29 November 1993 the applicant filed an objection against the decision of 26 November 1993.\n8.  On 7 December 1993 the Diyarbakır State Security Court dismissed the applicant’s objection.\n9.  On 23 December 1993 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and ten other persons. The applicant was charged under Article 125 of the Criminal Code with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.\n10.  On 28 December 1993 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held the first hearing in the case against the applicant and the other co-accused (case no. 1993/663).\n11.  Between 28 December 1993 and 16 January 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held fourteen hearings, approximately once every two months on the merits of the case. During this time, at each hearing the court heard some of the accused and requested documents from various authorities with a view to completing the case file.\n12.  Meanwhile, on 4 October 1994 the first-instance court decided to join another case (case no. 1993/821) to case no. 1993/663.\n13.  On 26 March 1996 the public prosecutor submitted his observations on the merits of the case. The first-instance court requested the applicant and some of the other co-accused to make their defence submissions.\n14.  Between 26 March 1996 and 16 September 1997 the Diyarbakır State Security Court adjourned the hearings as some of the accused had failed to file their defence submissions.\n15.  In the meantime, on 3 July 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to join another case (case no. 1994/433) to case no. 1993/633.\n16.  On 21 October 1997 the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided to join a third case (case no. 1996/512) to case no. 1993/663.\n17.  Between 21 October 1997 and 3 March 1998 the first-instance court heard the accused of the joined case and collected evidence in their respect.\n18.  On 3 March 1998 the court requested the public prosecutor to submit his observations on the merits of the case.\n19.  On 22 July 1998 the public prosecutor amended the indictment concerning the applicant and charged him under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation.\n20.  On 15 September 1998 the applicant’s lawyer contended that the applicant had been employed in Alanya at the time of the alleged offence and requested the first-instance court to conduct a further investigation with a view to confirming the veracity of his claim. The court accepted the applicant’s request and ordered the Alanya gendarmerie command to obtain evidence in that respect.\n21.  On 29 December 1998 the court adjourned the hearing as it did not receive the requested information from the Alanya gendarmerie command.\n22.  On 2 February 1999 the first-instance court withdrew its order of 15 September 1998.\n23.  On 2 March 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court requested the accused to file their defence submissions. On an unspecified date, the applicant made his submission", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2891", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1922 and 1951 respectively and live mainly in Esbo. The first applicant owns a secondary residence in the municipality of Lumparland on the Åland Islands.\n7.  The secondary property is also used by the second applicant, who is her son and only heir. According to the applicants, they use the property for holiday purposes as well as renting it to tourists and for business meetings. There is a dog yard on the neighbouring property.\n1st examination\n8.  In the summer of 1991 the applicants applied to the then South Åland Municipal Health Board (“the Health Board”; Södra Ålands hälsonämnd), requesting that the owners of the neighbouring property (“the neighbours”) be ordered to move the dog yard away from their common boundary on the grounds that the noise gave rise to a private nuisance. On 12 September 1991 the Health Board decided not to take measures as it considered that no private nuisance existed.\n9.  On 17 October 1991 the applicants appealed. The then Åland Provincial Administrative Court (Ålands länsrätt) received the Health Board’s statement and the neighbours’ reply to the appeal on 18 November 1991. It received the applicants’ rejoinder on 30 January 1992. On 14 May 1992 the court upheld the Health Board’s decision.\n10.  On 23 June 1992 the applicants appealed further. The Supreme Administrative Court (högsta förvaltningsdomstolen, korkein hallinto-oikeus) received the Health Board’s statement and the neighbours’ reply to the appeal on 14 August 1992 and 15 September 1992 respectively. Meanwhile, on 23 July 1992 the applicants submitted additional information to the court and on 20 November 1992 they filed a rejoinder. On 11 March 1993 the court invited a statement from the building inspector (byggnadsinspektören) of Lumparland. It was received on 28 April 1993. The applicants filed their comments including an expert opinion on 30 April 1993. On 24 June 1993 the court, finding that the dogs’ barking amounted to a private nuisance such that the neighbours were under an obligation to put right or limit the disturbance, sent the case back to the Health Board.\n2nd examination\n11.  On 9 September 1993 the Health Board ordered the neighbours to provide the dog yard with walls made out of sound-absorbing material and to build an exercise yard to be used by puppy litters during the summer season. The decision did not indicate a time-limit for the required measures.\n12.  On 2 November 1993 the applicants appealed, primarily requesting that the neighbours be ordered to move the dog yard. They also considered the measures ordered by the Health Board insufficient and requested the court to indicate a time-limit for the measures. The same day the Provincial Administrative Court invited the Health Board’s statement, which was received on 2 December 1993. On 28 January 1994 it invited the applicants’ rejoinder, which was received on 14 February 1994. On 10 June 1994 the court, finding that the measures ordered by the Health Board were insufficient and that a time-limit should be set for the neighbours’ compliance with the order, sent the case back to the Health Board.\n13.  On 5 July 1994 the neighbours appealed. The next day the Supreme Administrative Court invited the applicants’ reply to the appeal, which was received on 2 September 1994. On 5 September 1994 it invited the Health Board’s statement, which was received on 5 October 1994. The next day it invited the neighbours’ comments, which were received on 3 N", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2892", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Uşak.\n5.  On 2 July 1999 Mr A.Ç. filed a criminal complaint with the Hatay public prosecutor against Mr M.Y. to whom he had sold his vehicle with registration number 04 M 3070. He alleged that, during the sale, Mr M.Y. used fake identity papers and gave him fake bonds in return for his vehicle.\n6.  On 4 August 1999 the applicant bought a vehicle with a registration number 64 AF 984 from Mr M.O. to use in the course of his professional activities and registered it under his name in the Traffic Registry.\n7.  On 20 September 1999 the Hatay public prosecutor found that the vehicle which had been sold by Mr A. Ç to Mr M.Y. was subsequently sold to the applicant with a fake registration number. The prosecutor therefore ordered the confiscation of the vehicle.\n8.  On 28 September 1999 the Hatay public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against Mr M.Y. for fraud and for forging false identity papers. The charges were brought under Article 503 § 1, 522 and 350 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 8 October 1999 the criminal proceedings against Mr M.Y. commenced before the Hatay Criminal Court and the applicant intervened in the proceedings as a third party together with three other people.\n10.  On 17 July 2000 the applicant requested the restitution of his car. This request was rejected by the court on 18 July 2000 on the ground that the ownership of the car was in dispute.\n11.  On 18 October 2000 the first-instance court declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Hatay Assize Court.\n12.  On 31 October 2000 the proceedings before the Hatay Assize Court commenced.\n13.  In the hearing held on 11 January 2001, the court dismissed the requests of restitution of both the applicant and Mr A.Ç. on the ground that the ownership of the car was in dispute.\n14.  On 26 June 2001 the court decided that the car could be returned to the applicant for his use pending the criminal proceedings. It set the amount of TRL 5,000,000 as a deposit. The applicant was unable to request the return of the car since he could not pay the deposit.\n15.  On an unspecified date, the applicant requested the court to allow the car to be returned to him, pending criminal proceedings, without a deposit.\n16.  On 19 September 2002 the court ordered the return of the car to the applicant, pending criminal proceedings, without a deposit. The car was examined for any damage sustained during its seizure before being delivered to the applicant on 2 October 2002.\n17.  The criminal proceedings are still pending before the Hatay Assize Court since, despite an arrest warrant, Mr M.Y. has still not been found.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2893", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are:\n(1) Yusup Said-Aliyevich Musayev, born in 1940;\n(2) Suleyman Anarbekovich Magomadov, born in 1957;\n(3) Tamara Saidovna Magomadova, born in 1953;\n(4) Malika Alviyevna Labazanova, born in 1955;\n(5) Khasan Magomedovich Abdulmazhidov, born in 1940.\nThey are residents of Grozny, Chechnya.\n8.  The submissions of the parties on the facts concerning the circumstances of the applicants' relatives' deaths and the ensuing investigations are set out in Part A below. A description of the materials submitted to the Court is contained in Parts B and C below.\n9.  The applicant's families lived in a settlement referred to by local residents as Novye Aldy, located administratively in the Oktyabrskiy and Zavodskoy districts of Grozny.\n10.  In October 1999 hostilities resumed in Chechnya between the Russian forces and the Chechen fighters. Grozny and its suburbs came under heavy bombardment. From late December 1999 northern parts of the city came under the control of the Russian forces. At the end of January the central parts of the city were taken over by the Russian troops. The first applicant submitted that from 23 January 2000 their district in the south of the city was no longer shelled, because the Russian troops had been stationed about 500 metres away, in Okruzhnaya Street. According to the first applicant, there were no Chechen fighters in Novye Aldy, because there were no large administrative buildings which they could have used as defence positions.\n11.  In the winter of 1999 to 2000 the first applicant and several members of his extended family remained in Grozny. The first applicant lived at 116 Voronezhskaya Street. Several of his relatives lived in the neighbourhood. According to the applicant, most of the over 6,000 persons who had lived in Novye Aldy before the hostilities fled, and only a few hundred remained, mostly elderly people.\n12.  The first applicant submitted that on 4 February 2000 the Russian forces had entered Novye Aldy. Armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and other military vehicles were stationed at crossroads, and the settlement was surrounded and blocked from all sides. Large groups of military servicemen went from one house to another, checking documents and inspecting the cellars and lofts of the buildings. According to the first applicant, they behaved in an orderly and polite fashion. In the evening the soldiers left, having warned several inhabitants to stay inside and to beware of a certain military unit which might come the following day.\n13.  Early in the morning on 5 February 2000 the first applicant heard shots from automatic guns in the neighbourhood. He was at his cousins' house at 122 Voronezhskaya Street with his three cousins, Khasan Musayev, Aindi Akhmadov and Umar Musayev.\n14.  Another of the applicant's cousins, Abdurakhman Musayev, rushed into the courtyard and told them that early in the morning he had gone with his two nephews, Suleyman Musayev and Yakub Musayev, to fetch some water from a well. On their way back with a sledge loaded with several water cans they were stopped by a group of Russian soldiers who ordered them to approach. Abdurakhman Musayev, who had been walking behind his nephews, managed to escape unseen. He was very worried about their safety. Abdurakhman and Umar Musayev went outside to look for them. This was the last time they had been seen alive.\n15.  Soon afterwards their neighbour Aba M., who was about 80 years old, came into the courtyard with her 13-year-", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2894", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Geretsberg.\n5.  On 24 June 1999 the Braunau District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) charged the applicant with drunken driving. The applicant, represented by counsel, submitted observations on 13 July and 8 September 1999.\n6.  On 21 September 1999 the District Administrative Authority issued a penal order (Straferkenntnis) finding the applicant guilty of drunken driving contrary to Sections 5 § 1 and 99 § 1 (a) of the Road Traffic Act (Strassenverkehrsordnung). As to the alcohol level the authority had regard to the results of a breathalyser test and to the corroborating results of a blood alcohol analysis carried out the following day. It imposed a fine of 16,000 Austrian schillings (approximately 1,160 euros) on him with 14 days' imprisonment in default.\n7.  The applicant appealed on 12 October 1999.\n8.  On 9 December 1999 the Upper Austria Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) held a hearing at which it questioned the applicant and the two police officers who had carried out the breathalyser tests and a further witness.\n9.  By decision of 21 December 1999 the Independent Administrative Panel, having held a hearing, dismissed the applicant's appeal. It found that the applicant had driven his car on 15 June 1999 at 8 p.m. having a proportion of alcohol in his breath exceeding the statutory level. He admitted to having consumed alcohol in the afternoon. Having run out of petrol, the applicant had left the car and had gone to the next petrol station. Upon his return, he had been requested by two police officers to undergo breathalyser tests. The tests, carried out at 8.52 and 8.54 p.m. respectively, had yielded results of 0.84 and 0.86 mg alcohol/litres. The Independent Administrative Panel dismissed the applicant's request to take an expert opinion in order to show that the difference in these results was due to his having consumed one and a half litres of beer when he went to fetch petrol and that he had, before that, not been driving his car in a state of drunkenness. Having regard to the instructions for use of the breathalyser at issue, the Independent Administrative Panel noted that the difference in the two test results was not significant.\n10.  In any case, it found that the applicant's defence was not credible as he had stated at his first interrogation to have parked his car at 8 p.m. and had explicitly answered the police officers' question whether he had consumed alcohol after that in the negative. It was only in his written submissions of 13 July that he had claimed to have consumed more beer after 8 p.m. The bill submitted by the applicant did not support his defence as the innkeeper had stated that he had given the applicant this bill two weeks after the incident on his explicit request. He had not remembered the applicant and could not confirm whether he had actually consumed beer at his inn at the relevant time.\n11.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) on 3 February 2000. He complained in particular about the refusal of his request to take an expert opinion. On 3 April 2000 the Independent Administrative Panel submitted observations in reply. The applicant made further submissions on 3 May and 21 June 2000.\n12.  On 7 August 2003 the Administrative Court, having deliberated on 4 July 2003, dismissed the applicant's complaint as being unfounded. It found in particular that the In", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2896", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Donetsk.\n5.  In 1983 the applicant, who at the time was a minor, had an accident at a summer camp belonging to the Velyka Novosilka fertilizer factory (“the Factory”; Великоновоселківський міжгосподарський комбікормовий завод) and sustained permanent disability.\n6.  On 9 March 1994 the applicant sued the Factory for damages, alleging that the accident in 1983 had been caused by the negligence of the camp's staff.\n7.  On 15 November 1994 the Budyonivsky District Court of Donetsk (the “District Court”; Будьонівський районний суд м. Донецькa) ordered a medical assessment of the applicant's injuries. On 23 November 1994 a commission of five experts established that the applicant suffered from a 100% disability and needed special care.\n8.  On 5 August 1997 the District Court found in favour of the applicant, awarding him a lump sum in damages and monthly payments to cover his special care needs. The Factory challenged the judgment on the ground that, although the camp had been a part of its assets at the time, it was directly managed by the Velyka Novosilka Trade Union of Agricultural Workers (the “Trade Union”; Великоновосілківський районний комітет профспілки працівників агропромислового комплексу), which therefore should assume all liability for the accident.\n9.  On 27 April 1995 the Donetsk Regional Court (the “Regional Court”; Донецький обласний суд)[1] granted the appeal, quashed the judgment of 5 August 1997 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n10.  On 27 November 1995 the District Court allowed the applicant's claim, awarding him damages against the Trade Union. The Trade Union appealed.\n11.  On 11 January 1996 the Regional Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n12.  During its further consideration of the case, the District Court ordered another expert examination of the applicant's health. On 27 March 1996 a commission of four experts found that the applicant's special care needs had not substantially changed since the last assessment.\n13.  On 5 August 1997 the District Court awarded the applicant damages against the Trade Union.\n14.  On 25 September 1997 the Regional Court upheld this judgment and it became final.\n15.  In October 1997 the enforcement proceedings were initiated in respect of the judgment of 5 August 1997.\n16.  On 27 February 1998 the District Court Bailiff (судовий виконавець) informed the applicant that the judgment remained unenforced on account of the debtor's lack of funds.\n17.  On 7 October 1998 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court lodged a protest (an extraordinary appeal) against the rulings of 5 August and 25 September 1997 with the Presidium of the Regional Court.\n18.  On 28 October 1998 the Presidium granted the protest and remitted the case for a fresh examination, indicating that the liability of the Trade Union had not been sufficiently established.\n19.  On 9 November 1998 the Regional Court decided to assume first-instance jurisdiction over the applicant's claims.\n20.  In December 1998 the enforcement proceedings were terminated on account of re-opening of the judicial proceedings.\n21.  On 26 March 1999 the Regional Court decided again that the Factory was responsible for the actions and omissions of the camp's staff, and ordered it to pay the applicant compensation for his pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n22.  On 28 April 1999 the Supreme Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2897", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1954, 1946 and 1977 respectively and live in the village of Gekhi, Urus-Martan District, Chechnya.\n8.  The facts of the case as submitted by the parties are summarised in section A below (paragraphs 9 - 55). A description of documents submitted by the Government is contained in section B below (paragraphs 56 - 59).\n9.  The first two applicants are a married couple. They have four children, two of whom – Ali Musayev, born in 1972, and Umar Musayev, born in 1977 – lived together with their parents in a household comprising two houses in Gekhi. The third applicant was married to Ali Musayev.\n10.  On 8 August 2000 a Russian armoured personnel carrier (APC) was attacked and blown up in the vicinity of Gekhi and the military responded with a “sweeping” operation in the village.\n11.  During this operation an armed man, who was being pursued by soldiers, entered the applicants' house and hid in one of the rooms. According to the Government, the man was A., a member of an illegal armed group. The servicemen strafed the house, using machine-guns and grenade-launchers. Two daughters and a grandson of the first two applicants, the second applicant, the third applicant, Ali Musayev and Umar Musayev were inside the house at the time. A two-year-old grandson of the first two applicants was in a car parked in the courtyard.\n12.  A. was killed when the military threw nine grenades into the house and shelled it from the APC. The servicemen then wrapped the corpse in a blanket and put it into Ali Musayev's car, a white Zhiguli. They then searched the house. Umar Musayev, who had been feeling ill that day and was lying in bed, was blindfolded and ordered to step out of the house and lie down.\n13.  Major S., an officer in command, seized the identity papers, car documents and car key belonging to Ali Musayev, who was then forced into the car. Umar Musayev was put into an APC which had no visible vehicle number. They were both taken away.\n14.  The first applicant later found out that the APC number was 108 and belonged to the Main Intelligence Department of the Ministry of Defence of Russia (Главное разведывательное управление Министерства Обороны РФ).\n15.  Following their detention, Ali and Umar Musayev were brought to a temporary operational headquarters of the military commander's office situated near Gekhi. According to the first applicant, who referred to unnamed witness statements, Ali Musayev was beaten there by federal officers.\n16.  Thereafter the Musayev brothers were brought to the Urus-Martan Temporary Office of the Interior (временный ОВД Урус-Мартановского района, “the VOVD”) and questioned. The first applicant submitted, with reference to the witnesses' accounts, that after the interrogation her sons and three other persons apprehended in Gekhi that day had again been brought to the temporary operational headquarters. At 5 p.m. the military released the other three persons, but not Ali and Umar Musayev, of whom there was no further news.\n17.  Between 8 and 10 August 2000 federal troops sealed off the village of Gekhi. On the latter date, after restrictions were lifted, the first applicant went to Urus-Martan and notified the head of the district administration (глава администрации) of the detention of her sons.\n18.  She then went to the district military commander's office (районная военная комендатура) where she noticed her elder son's car in the courtyard. The first applicant applied to military commander G. w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2898", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in St Johann am Walde.\n5.  On 21 December 1995 the applicant, by failing to grant the right of way, caused a traffic accident in which the driver of another car was injured.\n6.  On 16 April 1996 the Mattighofen District Court (Bezirksgericht), having held the trial at which it heard the applicant, the victim and a motor vehicles expert, found the applicant guilty of negligently causing bodily harm (Article 88 §§ 1 and 4 of the Criminal Code – Strafgesetzbuch) and acquitted him of the charge of having abandoned the victim (Article 94 § 1 of the Criminal Code). No appeals were made and the judgment became final.\n7.  On 8 February 1996 the Braunau District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) issued a provisional penal order (Strafverfügung) finding the applicant guilty of having failed to stop after the traffic accident of 21 December 1995 and of having failed to inform the next police station (Section 4 §§ 1 (a) and 2 in conjunction with Section 99 § 2 (a) of the Road Traffic Act – Straßenverkehrsordnung). It imposed a fine of 1,600 Austrian schillings (ATS – approximately 116 euros) on him with 72 hours' imprisonment in default.\n8.  The applicant raised an objection (Einspruch) on 29 February 1996. He referred to the proceedings before the Mattighofen District Court which were at that time still pending. Once these proceedings were terminated the applicant informed the District Administrative Authority accordingly, arguing that further administrative criminal proceedings against him relating to the same set of facts violated the ne bis in idem principle. He requested that these proceedings be discontinued.\n9.  On 12 September 1996 the District Administrative Authority issued a penal order (Straferkenntnis) confirming its previous decision. It noted that, in contrast to the criminal proceedings before the courts, the conduct at stake was the failure to inform the police and not the failure to assist the victim.\n10.  The applicant appealed. Referring to the Court's judgment in Gradinger v. Austria (23 October 1995, Series A no. 328‑C) he asserted that the two sets of proceedings were based on the same conduct. He further argued that his defence, which had been accepted in the court proceedings, was that he had not even noticed the accident. He explicitly waived his right to a hearing.\n11.  On 21 October 1996 the Upper Austria Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat), without a hearing, dismissed the applicant's appeal. It noted that the offence of abandoning the victim under Article 94 of the Criminal Code required intent, and therefore presupposed that the suspect was aware of having caused an accident in which a person had been injured. In contrast, negligence was sufficient for the commission of the offences under Section 4 §§ 1 (a) and 2 of the Road Traffic Act. Had the applicant paid the required attention he would have noticed the accident. In coming to this conclusion, the Independent Administrative Panel had regard to the findings of the criminal court, namely that the applicant had noticed the approaching vehicle before turning to the left into the street. A diligent driver would therefore have been required to check in the rear mirror whether his manoeuvre had been safe.\n12.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) on 19 November 1996. He submitted in particular that the conviction violated the ne bis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2899", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the city of Simferopol.\n5.  On 29 August 1997 the Transport Prosecutor of the Crimea (hereinafter “the Prosecutor”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on charge of a violation of labour legislation (Article 135 of the Criminal Code of 1960).\n6.  On 17 October 1997 the Prosecutor issued an indictment. The applicant was obliged not to leave the place of his permanent residence.\n7.  On 14 November 1997 the Prosecutor brought against the applicant an additional charge for abuse of power (Article 165 of the Criminal Code of 1960).\n8.  On 8 December 1997 the case was assigned to the Tsentralny District Court of Simferopol (hereinafter “the District Court”).\n9.  On 18 September 1998 the District Court, following the request of the applicant's representative, remitted the case for additional investigation.\n10.  On 2 November 1998 the Prosecutor issued a new indictment under Articles 135 and 165 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  On 30 November 1998 the proceedings were resumed before the District Court.\n12.  On 30 August 1999 the District Court, upon its own initiative, remitted the case for additional investigation.\n13.  On 1 October 1999 the Higher Court of the Crimea, following the protest of the Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Crimea, quashed this ruling and remitted the case to the first instance court.\n14.  On 11 November 1999 the proceedings were resumed before the District Court.\n15.  On 6 January 2000 the District Court, following the request of the applicant's representative, ordered a forensic medical examination of Mrs K., a victim in the case.\n16.  On 10 July 2000 the Crimea Medical Forensic Centre returned the case-file without conducting the examination prescribed as Mrs K. refused to appear before the medical commission.\n17.  On 15 September 2000 the District Court, following the request of the applicant's representative, ordered an additional forensic medical examination in the case.\n18.  On 24 November 2000 the case-file, together with an expert statement, was returned to the District Court.\n19.  On 16 March 2001 the District Court acquitted the applicant.\n20.  On 29 May 2001 the Higher Court of the Crimea returned the case-file to the District Court as the cassation appeal of Mrs K. had not been served upon the other parties to the proceedings and the cassation appeal of the Prosecutor did not comply with the procedural formalities.\n21.  On 14 August 2001 the proceedings were resumed before the Court of Appeal of the Crimea (former the Higher Court of the Crimea, hereinafter “the Court of Appeal”).\n22.  On 22 January 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 16 March 2001 and sentenced the applicant to two years of correctional work for abuse of power (Article 271 of the Criminal Code of 2001).\n23.  On 4 April 2002 the Supreme Court, upon the applicant's cassation appeal, quashed the decision of 22 January 2002 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration by the court of appeal.\n24.  On 11 June 2002 the Court of Appeal, upon its own initiative, ordered a forensic technical examination in the case.\n25.  On 5 August 2002 the proceedings were resumed before the Court of Appeal.\n26.  On 17 September 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 16 March 2001 of the District Court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration by the first instance court.\n27.  On 25 November 2003 the District Court sentenced the applicant to one year of correctional labour fo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2900", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 3 October 1999 an individual was found bleeding in front of a discotheque with a broken jawbone. The applicant had previously had a confrontation with that person in the discotheque and both had been seen leaving at approximately the same time.\n7.  The victim's father filed a complaint with the police on an unspecified date naming the applicant as one of the perpetrators of the beating.\n8.  On 5 October 1999 a police enquiry or a preliminary investigation was opened into the incident. In a decision of the same day, the Slivnitsa Prosecutor's Office brought charges against the applicant and another individual for median bodily injury (Article 129 of the Criminal Code) and ordered their arrest. A police report of the same day considered them to have absconded as they had not been found at their known addresses. The applicant claimed, however, that the police never visited his official residence nor sent him a notice inviting him to appear for questioning. Thus, he claimed not to have been informed of the proceedings or that the authorities were looking for him.\n9.  On 22 November 1999 the applicant was placed on the national most‑wanted list.\n10.  The applicant claimed, which the Government did not expressly challenge, that during this period he presented himself to the authorities and was charged with offences stemming from two other preliminary investigations which were being conducted against him at the time. In spite of being on the national most-wanted list, the authorities did not arrest him.\n11.  In a decision of 30 May 2000 the Slivnitsa Prosecutor's Office suspended the criminal proceedings until the arrest of the applicant.\n12.  The applicant claimed that after he found out that criminal proceedings for median bodily injury had been initiated against him he presented himself voluntarily at the Slivnitsa police station on 26 June 2000, accompanied by his attorney. He was detained immediately, separated from his attorney and, soon thereafter, transferred to the Slivnitsa Investigation detention facility. The fact that the applicant had presented himself to the police on his own accord was reflected in a police report of the same day. The applicant was not allowed further access to his attorney on that day.\n13.  On the next day, 27 June 2000, the applicant was charged with median bodily injury.\n14.  While in detention, the applicant was questioned on two occasions without his attorney, even though he requested her presence. He refused to give any statements to the authorities.\n15.  On unspecified dates, two witnesses were questioned by the authorities of which the applicant was not informed.\n16.  The preliminary investigation against the applicant was concluded on 16 May 2002. The resulting report of the investigator, which proposed that the criminal proceedings be discontinued due to insufficient evidence that the applicant was the perpetrator, was presented to the latter on 18 August 2002.\n17.  On the next day, 19 August 2002, the Slivnitsa Prosecutor's Office terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the grounds that the accusation was not proven (Article 237, § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure).\n18.  The applicant filed an appeal against his detention on the day he was detained – 26 June 2000. He claimed that there was no risk that he would abscond because he lived together with his family at a known registered address and had voluntarily presented himself to the authorities. The applicant also ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2901", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Sevastopil.\n5.  In 1996 the applicant, at the material time an employee of the National Maritime Institute (the “Institute”; Морський гідрофізичний інститут Національної Академії Наук України), provided services of a typist and a linen-keeper on board the Institute's ship, which was chartered by the private company “Sata” (the “Company”; Мале приватне підприємство “Сата”) for international sea voyages. Pursuant the contract between the Institute and the Company, the latter was responsible for the payment of trip allowances (іноземна валюта взамін добових) to the crew.\n6.  On 14 January 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Sevastopil (the “District Court”; Ленінський районний суд м. Севастополя) against the Institute, seeking salary and trip allowance arrears in the amounts of 414.66 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] and 1,422 U.S. dollars (USD)[2] respectively. The Company was summoned to participate in the proceedings on the defendant's side.\n7.  On 11 March 1997 the District Court, having heard the case in the Company's absence, allowed the applicant's claims in full, having awarded her the salary arrears from the Institute and the trip allowance arrears from the Company. This decision became final.\n8.  On 19 September 1997 the Presidium of the Sevastopil City Court (the “City Court”; Севастопольський міський суд), following a “protest” lodged by its President, quashed the judgment of 11 March 1997 in respect of the trip allowance award by way of supervisory review procedure and remitted the case for a fresh consideration in that respect. Particularly, the Presidium found that the District Court had insufficiently explored the contractual relationship between the parties and their payment obligations towards the applicant in the light of the applicable law.\n9.  On 25 November 1997 the District Court, having held one hearing for which only the applicant appeared, ordered the Institute, as her employer, to pay her the full amount claimed. The Company had not been summoned to participate in the proceedings.\n10.  On 20 January 1998 the City Court quashed this judgment on the Institute's appeal in cassation and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It found that the District Court again had insufficiently explored the contractual relationship between the parties and that it should have summoned the Company to participate in the proceedings. The court further considered that it was not necessary for it to assume first-instance jurisdiction over the case, as the matter was not complex.\n11.  On 5 March 1998 the City Court returned the case-file to the District Court. The District Court summoned the Company to participate in the proceedings as a co-defendant and between April and May 1998 scheduled three hearings, two of them being adjourned on account of a co-defendant's absence.\n12.  On 12 May 1998 the District Court heard the case in the Company's absence and found the Company liable to pay the applicant USD 1,422 in trip allowance arrears converted into the national currency. In its reasoning the court referred to the provisions of the freight contract and partial payments made by the Company to this end. The Company appealed, but its appeal was returned as “not lodged” on account of its failures to comply with procedural formalities. The judgment became final.\n13.  On an unspecified date the Company paid the applicant UAH 300[3] of the award due.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2902", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Ostermiething.\n5.  In the early hours of 5 October 1997 the applicant drove a car through a village. Police officers required him to stop by giving a sign with a red light. The applicant disregarded their sign and drove on, obliging the police officers to step aside.\n6.  On 21 November 1997 the Ried im Innkreis Public Prosecutor's Office charged the applicant with resisting the exercise of official authority (Widerstand gegen die Staatsgewalt) under Article 269 § 1 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) in that he had prevented the police officers from carrying out a traffic control by driving towards them with his vehicle, thus threatening them with bodily harm.\n7.  On 12 December 1997 the Ried im Innkreis Regional Court (Landesgericht), having held a trial, acquitted the applicant of the above charge. As neither party appealed, the judgment became final.\n8.  By letter of 29 January 1998 the Braunau District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) charged the applicant with failure to comply with a request to stop for the purpose of a traffic control contrary to Section 97 § 5 of the Road Traffic Act (Straßenverkehrsordnung).\n9.  The applicant submitted his defence on 4 February 1998, asserting in particular that the conduct of proceedings for the said traffic offence violated Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, given that he had been acquitted of the offence of resisting the exercise of official authority in respect of the same act.\n10.  On 11 March 1998 the District Administrative Authority issued a penal order (Straferkenntnis) against the applicant finding him guilty of the offence under Section 97 § 5 in conjunction with Section 99 § 3 (a) of the Road Traffic Act, and imposed a fine of 4,000 Austrian schillings on him (approximately 290 euros) with 6 days' imprisonment in default. Furthermore, it ordered the applicant to pay a contribution to the costs of the proceedings.\n11.  Upon the applicant's appeal, the Upper Austria Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) held a hearing on 17 September 1998 at which it heard the applicant and the three police officers concerned.\n12.  By decision of 15 December 1998 the Independent Administrative Panel dismissed the applicant's appeal. It noted that the applicant admitted to having disregarded the police officers' request to stop. It dismissed his argument that his conviction under the Road Traffic Act violated the ne bis in idem principle. The offence under Section 97 § 5 of the Road Traffic Act concerned a simple omission, namely the failure to comply with a request to stop for the purpose of a traffic control whereas Article 269 § 1 of the Criminal Code required the use of dangerous threat or force. It followed from the court file and from the police officers' statements that the applicant had been acquitted of resisting the exercise of official authority, as it had not been shown that he had driven towards the police officers and thus threatened them with bodily harm. In sum, the two offences were distinct and the applicant's acquittal under Article 269 § 1 of the Criminal Code did not hinder his conviction under Section 97 § 5 of the Road Traffic Act.\n13.  On 8 February 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). The Independent Administrative Panel submitted observations in reply on 24 March 1999.\n14.  On 19 June 2000 the Constitutional Court dismissed the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2903", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Chekhov in the Moscow region. He is the pastor of the “Christ's Grace” Church of Evangelical Christians (Церковь евангельских христиан “Благодать Христова”).\n7.  On 9 September 2002 the applicant applied to the Chekhov Town Council for permission to hold a service in public between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 22 or 29 September 2002.\n8.  On 20 September 2002 the deputy head of the Chekhov Town Council refused permission. In particular, he stated that the Chekhov Town Council had on many occasions informed the applicant that it was not possible to hold services in public areas in the town (squares, streets, parks, etc.). The applicant was advised to hold services and other religious rites at the registered seat of the church or on other premises owned or used by the church members.\n9.  On 26 September 2002 the applicant challenged the refusal of the Town Council before a court. He alleged violations of the rights to freedom of religion and assembly.\n10.  On 11 October 2002 the Chekhov Town Court of the Moscow Region examined the applicant's claim and dismissed it. The court found that, pursuant to the domestic law, public worship and other religious rites were subject to an authorisation by a municipal authority. It further ruled as follows:\n“The contested refusal is lawful because it is justified. As the Church of Evangelical Christians practices a religion that is different from the religion professed by the majority of the local residents, and having regard to the fact that in the Chekhov district there are more than twenty religious organisations of different denominations, a service of worship in a public area held by one of them may lead to ... the discontent of individuals of other denominations and public disorder.\nIn these circumstances, the contested acts of the Chekhov Town Council cannot be deemed to impair the rights of the 'Christ's Grace' Church of Evangelical Christians as they do not prevent it from holding services in religious buildings or on other premises intended for that purpose.”\n11.  The applicant appealed. On 4 November 2002 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment of 11 October 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2904", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, Belmondo Cobzaru, is a Romanian national, born in 1973. He lives in the town of Mangalia (Constanţa).\n8.  On 4 July 1997 at around 7.30 p.m. the applicant and his girlfriend Steluţa M. arrived at the flat which they were sharing and which belonged to Steluţa. The applicant then left the flat for about 20 minutes to get some money, as he and Steluţa were planning to go out that evening. However, when he came back, he found the door locked. He asked his neighbours whether they had seen Steluţa, but was told that nobody had seen her. Fearing that she might have attempted to take her life, as she had already done in the past, the applicant forced open the door of the flat in the presence of his neighbour, Rita G. He found nobody there, so decided to go to the police to enquire about her fate. As he was leaving the apartment block, he met Steluţa's brother-in-law, Crinel M., accompanied by three men armed with knives, who attempted to attack him, but from whom he managed to escape.\n9.  On 4 July 1997 at around 8 p.m. Crinel M. called the police and lodged a complaint against the applicant. According to the complainant, the applicant had tried to break into Steluţa's flat, but had run away when Crinel M. appeared. The complaint was certified by the police officer Dumitru CA.\n10.  Dumitru CA sent a police patrol to conduct an on-site investigation into the facts complained of by Crinel M. The report drafted by the police patrol concluded that there were no traces of rummaging or violence in the flat. Rita G., who was present during the investigation, stated that the applicant had broken into the flat in her presence, fearing that Steluţa might have committed suicide.\n11.  A short time after he escaped from Crinel M., that is, between 8 and 9 p.m., the applicant learned that the police were looking for him and went to the Mangalia City Police Department, accompanied by his cousin Venuşa L.\nHe reported to the police officer on duty, Dumitru CA., that some individuals had attempted to beat him up as he was leaving his flat, and that although he had managed to escape, he was still afraid that Crinel M. might beat him up. After he presented his identity card, he was told to wait. Other policemen were also present.\n12.  At around 10 p.m. police officers Gheorghe G., Curti D. and Ion M. came back from the on-site investigation they had carried out at Steluţa's flat. Gheorghe G. grabbed the applicant by his hair and pulled him upstairs to an office. Gheorghe G. and Curti D. punched him in the head until his nose started to bleed, and he was thrown to the ground and kicked. A newspaper was placed on the back of his neck and he was hit with a wooden stick. Four plainclothes officers observed the assault, but took no steps to prevent or halt it. The police told the applicant that the fact that his father was the local leader of a Roma association would not help him and forced him to sign a statement according to which he had been beaten up by Crinel M. and other individuals. Then he was told to leave and to come back the next day. The police kept his identity card.\n13.  The applicant left, but as he was feeling very weak, he stopped and sat in front of the police station. Gheorghe G. came out and told him to go home. Seeing that the applicant was in bad shape, Venuşa invited him back with her and offered him a coffee. The applicant showed her the bumps on his head and the other marks of the blows to his back.\n14.  Later that evening th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2905", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Krasnokamsk, the Perm Region.\n5.  On 23 May 1999 the applicant's son, born in 1981, was drafted into military service. On 17 October 1999 he was killed during military operations in Chechnya. In 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings for damages against the Ministry of Defence. She claimed that her son was sent to participate in military operations in breach of statutory provisions since he had only served for four months while it was only permitted to send for military operations servicemen who had served no less than 12 months.\n6.  On 13 July 2001 the Krasnokamskiy Town Court granted the claim and awarded the applicant damages in the amount of 50,000 roubles (RUR) and costs in the amount of RUR 10. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n7.  On 1 October 2001 a writ of execution was issued.\n8.  On 9 November 2001 the applicant sent the writ of execution to the Moscow Department of Federal Treasury of the Ministry of Finance.\n9.  On 29 November 2001 the Moscow Department of Federal Treasury returned the writ to the applicant and advised her that it should be sent directly to the Ministry of Finance.\n10.  On 18 December 2001 the applicant sent the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance.\n11.  On 15 February 2002 the applicant sent a complaint to the Minister of Finance concerning non-execution of the judgment in her favour.\n12.  In the reply of 30 May 2002 the applicant was informed that the Ministry of Finance forwarded the writ of execution to the Ministry of Defence. However the latter did not take necessary measures in order to execute the payment under the writ.\n13.  On 27 March 2003 the applicant sent a complaint to the Minister of Defence concerning non-execution of the judgment in her favour.\n14.  On 25 June 2003 the sum awarded on 13 July 2001 was paid to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2906", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Moscow. At the material time the applicant was a district councillor.\n7.  On 21 August 2003 the non-governmental organisation “City-wide public council for the protection of citizens' rights in town planning and for the protection of the environment” decided to hold an assembly of Krylatskoye district residents at the Zashchitnikov Neba Square in Moscow. The purposes of the assembly were:\n(1)  to protest against the Moscow mayor's failure to respond to the resolution of the assembly held in May 2003;\n(2)  to protest against the planned construction of several luxurious blocks of flats in the place of facilities for sports and children;\n(3)  to cast a vote of no confidence in the city authorities and call for their resignation;\n(4)  to discuss matters of local self-governance.\n8.  On 25 August 2003 the applicant, together with three other co-organisers of the assembly, informed the Prefecture of the Western Administrative District of Moscow – the residential district of Krylatskoye being in its jurisdiction – of the date, time, place and purposes of the assembly. The assembly was scheduled to take place from 6.30 to 8.30 p.m. on Thursday, 4 September 2003, with the participation of about a hundred persons.\n9.  On 29 August 2003 the prefect of the Western Administrative District of Moscow issued a decision to accept the notice and instructed the police to ensure public safety during the assembly.\n10.  The applicant and co-organisers informed residents of the Krylatskoye district about the planned assembly by way of bill-posting.\n11.  On 3 September 2003 the prefect cancelled his previous decision of 29 August 2003 “in connection with the operative information of law-enforcement authorities about an expected outbreak of terrorist activities in the Krylatskoye district and with a view to ensuring the safety of the district's residents”. The police were instructed “to take measures to prevent the assembly planned for 4 September 2003 at the Zashchitnikov Neba Square from being held”.\n12.  On 4 September 2003 a few dozen residents gathered on the Zashchitnikov Neba Square and the applicant was among them. No loud speakers were deployed and no attempts were made to start a general discussion. Nevertheless, the police dispersed the crowd by force.\n13.  On 5, 6 and 7 September 2003 (Friday to Sunday) the “Day of the City” was celebrated throughout Moscow. The programme for the festivities had been approved by the Moscow Government's resolution of 12 August 2003 and included sixty-one events. The events – such as the “World-wide Tea Festival”, the opening ceremony, “Parade of the Festivals”, the European champions' road running cup, the Moscow cup of the automobile all-round competition, the children's artistic and sport performance, sound and light show, students' parade, and many others – took place in major public thoroughfares. The applicant submitted media reports showing that no scheduled events had been cancelled and that the public festivities had been attended by thousands of people.\n14.  The applicant left the Zashchitnikov Neba Square in a private car at about 8 p.m. At a nearby crossing the police blocked his car and, holding the driver at gun-point, took the applicant out of the car by force and escorted him to Krylatskoye district police station (ОВД района «Крылатское»).\n15.  According to the administrative-arrest record of 4 September 2003, the applicant was arrested for refusing to ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2907", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Poltava. He is a former manager of the State Company “Znamya” (the “Company”; Державне підприємство «Виробниче об'єднання «Знамя»).\n5.  In 1996 the applicant was convicted and sentenced for embezzlement of the Company funds and his conviction became final. Since then the applicant has unsuccessfully attempted to have the proceedings re-opened and the conviction repealed.\n6.  In August 1996 the Poltava Regional Prosecutors' Office, acting on behalf of the Company, brought a civil claim against the applicant for compensation of damage caused by his offence.\n7.  The hearings began in March 1998. Until February 2000 the court scheduled some thirteen hearings with intervals ranging from one week to six months. Seven hearings were adjourned on account of the applicant's absences or requests and four hearings on account of the absence of both parties. According to the applicant, most of his absences were attributable to defective notifications about the date of a hearing. The Government did not comment on this issue.\n8.  On 17 February 2000 the District Court allowed the claim and awarded the Company 96,682 hryvnyas[1] against the applicant. The applicant appealed.\n9.  On 20 May 2000 the District Court returned the applicant's appeal as “not lodged” on account of his failure to pay the court fee. The applicant appealed, seeking to be exempted from the payment.\n10.  On 12 October 2000 the local municipal council exempted the applicant from paying the court fee and on 16 November 2000 the Regional Court declared his appeal admissible.\n11.  On 7 December 2000 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 17 February 2000.\n12.  Between January 2001 and May 2002 the District Court scheduled three hearings (in April and November 2001 and March 2002). One hearing was adjourned on account of the judge's sickness and two other hearings on account of the parties' failure to appear.\n13.  On 22 May 2002 the District Court left the claim without consideration due to the parties' second failure to appear for the hearings. This decision was not appealed against within the statutory time-limit and became final.\n14.  On 11 December 2002 the Prosecutor's Office applied to the District Court for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of 22 May 2002 maintaining, that it had not been informed of this decision within the time-limit for lodging an appeal. The application was granted on 17 January 2003.\n15.  On 15 May 2003 the Regional Court allowed the appeal and re-opened the proceedings, having found that the parties had not appeared as the District Court had not duly notified them about the dates of the hearings. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the decision to re-open the proceedings.\n16.  On 20 September 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal.\n17.  Between October 2004 and July 2005 the District Court scheduled three hearings (one in May and two in July 2005).\n18.  In July 2005 the plaintiff dropped the claims and on 14 July 2005 the proceedings were terminated.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2908", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, who is a sociologist by training, was employed as an expert by the Criminological Studies Council at the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office (see paragraph 27 below). He was a close friend of Mr N.D., a prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Prosecutor's Office, who had become widely known for his public accusations against the Chief Prosecutor, Mr N.F., and for his assertions that the Chief Prosecutor and his entourage were harassing him and exerting improper pressure on him, and who committed suicide on 24 April 2000, leaving a note which said that the Chief Prosecutor should resign.\n6.  Following this event, the applicant was considering resigning from his position. For this purpose, he had prepared two draft resignation letters, which he kept in a drawer of his office desk. However, he eventually decided that he would not resign.\n7.  On 11 May 2000 the applicant sent a letter to the daily newspaper Trud, the weekly newspaper Capital, and the Supreme Judicial Council. In that letter he made a number of allegations against the Chief Prosecutor, Mr N.F. He averred that the latter had groundlessly discontinued criminal proceedings against high-ranking persons from the executive branch, and had exploited the Prosecutor's Office for the purpose of reprisals against political opponents of the ruling party and his own opponents. The applicant also claimed that the Chief Prosecutor had created a fearful and morbid working atmosphere in the Prosecutor's Office by acting rudely and insultingly towards his subordinates, even, as rumour had it, occasionally physically assaulting them. He further claimed that, according to certain rumours, the Chief Prosecutor had heavily beaten his former wife and a female judge. According to the same rumours, the Chief Prosecutor was mentally ill and suffered from paranoia, for which he had undergone treatment in a psychiatric hospital. According to the applicant, all these rumours had to be verified by the Supreme Judicial Council. The applicant also alleged that the Chief Prosecutor had deliberately tried to wreck the Criminological Studies Council by harassing members of its staff. The applicant further averred that the Chief Prosecutor and his entourage, who had repeatedly uttered threats against the late Mr N.D., were responsible for the latter's death. According to the applicant, that event had to be investigated with a view to determining whether the Chief Prosecutor had incited Mr N.D.'s suicide, which was a criminal offence. Finally, the applicant submitted that he had intended to resign because of the bad atmosphere in the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office, but had eventually decided that the more proper thing to do was to continue performing his work and opposing the nuisance generated by the Chief Prosecutor from within.\n8.  The letter was published in the 13 May 2000 issue of Trud under the heading “[N.F.] finished [N.D.] off” and the subheading “Fear and evil reign in the Prosecutor's Office”. The 13 May issue in fact came out during the evening of 12 May, in accordance with the practice of Trud's publishers.\n9.  At approximately 9 p.m. on Friday 12 May 2000 S.D., a prosecutor from the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor's Office, ordered the police officer who was on duty at the entrance of the Courts of Justice building in Sofia to let him enter in order to seal off the applicant's office. A few minutes later he came back and handed the police officer a written order to not a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2909", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Udachnyy, a town in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of the Russian Federation.\n5.  The applicant brought a civil action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, seeking to recover the monetary value of state promissory notes for purchase of a Russian-made car.\n6.  On 2 April 2003 the Mirninskiy District Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) found for the applicant and awarded him 138,967 Russian roubles.\n7.  By a decision of 14 May 2003 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) rejected an appeal by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the judgment. On the same date the judgment of 2 April 2003 acquired legal force but it has never been enforced.\n8.  On 16 July 2004 a judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) referred the case to the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya), upon the defendant's application for supervisory review.\n9.  On 12 August 2004 the Presidium quashed the judgment of 2 April 2003, as upheld by the decision of 14 May 2003, and dismissed the applicant's claim in full. In so deciding, the Presidium noted that the courts had failed to take into account the provisions of the Federal Law on State Promissory notes of 1 June 1995, as amended on 2 June 2000, which extended the period of redemption of the state promissory notes until 31 December 2004. In the Presidium's assessment, that failure amounted to a substantial violation of the material law warranting a re-examination of the case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2910", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Bruntál.\n6.  On 26 September 1996 a certain S. brought proceedings for damages against the applicant in connection with a traffic accident which had occurred on 5 March 1996.\n7.  On 21 October 1996 the Bruntál District Court (okresní soud) granted his action and delivered a payment order against the applicant who filed a protest (odpor) on 3 November 1996 alleging that S. was responsible for the accident.\n8.  On 28 March 1997 the Ostrava Regional Court (krajský soud) dismissed the applicant's challenge of the District Court's judge for bias.\n9.  On 5 February 1998 the District Court appointed an expert in the price and valuation of motor vehicles. On 27 March 1998 the expert drew up his opinion.\n10.  In the meantime, on 9 March 1998, S. had died.\n11.  On 30 December 1998 the applicant requested the District Court to suspend the proceedings in order to bring the case to the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud), for a preliminary ruling on the constitutionality of a certain provision of the Code of Civil Procedure which was allegedly in contradiction with certain provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Listina základních práv a svobod).\n12.  On 20 January 1999 the District Court dismissed his request. It further allowed S.'s heirs' request to modify their action. On 30 April 1999 the Regional Court upheld this decision. On the same day, the court dismissed the applicant's challenge of the District Court's judge for bias.\n13.  On 17 August 1999 the District Court adjourned the proceedings pending the outcome of inheritance proceedings.\n14.  On 2 September 1999 the court resumed the proceedings and ordered the applicant to pay the damages claimed plus 16% default interest as of 1 November 1996. The court based its finding that the applicant was responsible for the accident on the parties' statements, the police file concerning the traffic accident and other documentary evidence. The court did not grant the applicant's request to suspend the proceedings pending the outcome of proceedings for damages which he had brought against the police officers who had investigated the accident.\n15.  On 11 October 1999 the applicant appealed against this judgment.\n16.  In a letter of 3 September 2000 the applicant informed the Regional Court that he could not take part in a hearing scheduled for 26 September 2000. He asked the court that his letter be read out if the appellate proceedings continued.\n17.  On 26 September 2000 the Regional Court upheld the District Court's judgment. It also dismissed an application by the applicant for leave to appeal on points of law (dovolání) against its decision.\n18.  On 27 February 2001 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) alleging, inter alia, a violation of Articles 37 § 2 (the right to legal assistance) and 37 § 3 (equality of the parties) and 38 § 2 (the right to a public hearing without delay and the right to comment on submitted evidence) of the Charter.\n19.  On 14 May 2001 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's appeal inadmissible for failure to exhaust statutory remedies by appealing on points of law. It referred to Article 239 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure[1].", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2911", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was the mother and the second applicant was the brother of Mr Angel Dimitrov Iliev (“the victim”), who was of Roma origin and twenty-eight years old at the time of his death.\n7.  On the evening of 18 April 1996, in the town of Shumen, the victim was attacked by seven teenagers (“the assailants”) and beaten severely. He was also stabbed several times by one of the assailants.\n8.  The victim was taken to a hospital after the attack but died on the following morning, 19 April 1996.\n9.  As later submitted by the assailants, the attack was motivated by the victim's Roma ethnicity (see paragraphs 12-13 and 18-21 below).\n10.  All of the assailants were detained and questioned by the police on the day of the attack, 18 April 1996. With one exception, all were juveniles.\n11.  The assailants were all released after questioning, with the exception of G.M.G. (“the first assailant”), who was seventeen years old at the time. A knife had been found on him and two of the other assailants, N.R. and S.H., had implicated him as the person who had wielded the weapon. The first assailant was remanded in custody on suspicion of murder.\n12.  On 19 April 1996 the assailants were again questioned by the police. N.R. and S.H. confirmed their statements to the effect that the first assailant had wielded the weapon. Thereupon, a preliminary investigation was opened against him and he was charged with murder stemming from an act of hooliganism (see paragraph 56 below). He was then questioned, but declined to give a statement other than to confirm that the knife found on him was his own.\n13.  D.K., who was fifteen years old at the time, gave a statement on 19 April 1996, the relevant part of which reads:\n“...[We have been meeting] with the boys regularly for the past several months. We agree in advance where and when we will meet the next time, because we do not go to the same school... We hate junkies and [do not] take drugs... we [also] do not drink alcohol, either when we see each other or when we are apart... We talk about films, music and have [stated] on many occasions that we hate Gypsies – we call them “soot” (сажди) and “mangals” (мангали)... Blacks, Gypsies, Turks, all foreigners I hate. As for the Turks and the Gypsies[,] it is known that a high percentage of criminal offences are [committed] by Gypsies and Turks. At home I have heard my father talk about them that way...\nLast night... we met... as we had previously agreed. [It was a] simple gathering without any aim or idea of what we would do... We went for a walk in the city [park]... We [then] headed towards the train station... [Then] down towards the road... We passed by the bridge... and were walking [close to] the tracks. We were just passing and I [do not know] who noticed the Gypsy first... [The Gypsy] was about ten metres away, we were on one side of the road and he was on the other. We started walking after him... The first to catch up with him was [the first assailant] and the Gypsy asked him if he had [the time]. I do not think that anyone of us knew the Gypsy. [The first assailant] told him “I have, I have” and knocked his head against the wall. [He] held the Gypsy by the jacket from behind [so] that when he hit him the first time he did not [collapse] because [the first assailant] was holding him [up]. [The first assailant] turned him around immediately and knocked him [once] again [against] the wall. I think he hit him on the head again. [S.H.] went over... and kic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2912", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lived in Simferopol.\n5.  On 9 December 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for fraud and forcible assertion of a private right (самоправство). He was suspected of having circumvented the divorce proceedings by way of forging his ex-wife's signature on the petition for divorce and substituting her in the court proceedings with another woman. This had allegedly been done with a view to obtaining the sole ownership of the matrimonial estate.\n6.  On 15 December 1998 the applicant was arrested (затриманий) and placed in police custody.\n7.  On 16 December 1998 the Alushta Town Prosecutor (Прокурор міста Алушта) ordered the applicant's detention on remand (взяття під варту).\n8.  On 21 December 1998 the applicant's ex-wife was admitted to the proceedings as a victim (потерпіла).\n9.  On 13 January 1999, ruling on a request for release, that had been filed by the applicant's lawyer, the Alushta Town Court (Алуштинський міський суд) decided to release the applicant on an undertaking not to abscond (підписка про невиїзд).\n10.  On 21 January 1999 an investigator of the Alushta Town Police Department (слідчий СВ Алуштинського МВ УМВС в АР Крим, hereafter “the investigator”), assigned to deal with the case, adjourned the proceedings until 11 February 1999 due to the illness of the applicant.\n11.  For some time in April 1999 the applicant was put on the list of wanted persons due to his failure to respond to the investigator's summonses.  Between 14 June and 8 July 1999 the proceedings were suspended due to the applicant's failure to appear for questioning.\n12.  On 9 July 1999 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant was given access to the case file. In the course of the investigation the police investigator interviewed ten witnesses and obtained an expert's opinion on the question whether the applicant had forged the victim's signature on the petition for divorce.\n13.  The applicant commenced studying the case file on 19 July 1999. For a certain period in August 1999 he was on a wanted list due to his failure to appear for scheduled access to the case file.\n14.  On 20 October 1999 the judge of the Yalta Town Court (Ялтинський міський суд) committed the applicant for trial on charges of fraud and forcible assertion of a private right.\n15.  The hearing scheduled for 22 October 1999 was adjourned due to the illness of the applicant's lawyer.\n16.  The Yalta Town Court cancelled the hearings fixed for 17 November and 10 December 1999 on account of the victim's and witnesses' failure to appear.\n17.  On 24 February 2000 the Prosecutor's Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Прокуратура Автономної Республіки Крим, hereafter “the POARC”) informed the applicant that, in response to his complaint, the police investigator who had dealt with his case at the pre-trial stage had been reprimanded for delaying the investigation.\n18.  The hearing scheduled for 29 March 2000 was adjourned on the applicant's request.\n19.  The Yalta Town Court could not hold a hearing fixed for 19 April 2000 because the judge was on mission elsewhere.\n20.  On 11 May 2000 the Yalta Town Court decided that further pre-trial investigations were necessary and remitted the case to the Alushta Town Prosecutor.\n21.  Between 20 and 29 June 2000 the proceedings were suspended due to the applicant's failure to appear and the victim's temporary stay in Germany.\n22.  On an unknown date in June 2000 the polic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2913", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Konotop, Sumy region.\n5.  On 15 October 1998 the Konotop Court, following the request of Mrs P.G., instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on a charge of minor bodily injuries.\n6.  On 17 February 1999 the applicant brought similar counter-charges against Mrs P.G. and Mrs P. V.\n7.  On 17 November 2000 the Konotop Court acquitted the applicant, Mrs P.G. and Mrs P.V.\n8.  On 19 December 2000 the Sumy Regional Court (herinafter “the Regional Court”), upon Mrs P.G.'s cassation appeal, quashed this decision in part concerning the applicant's acquittal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The Regional Court held that the first instance court had failed to examine all the factual circumstances of the case.\n9.  On 23 March 2001 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced her to six months' imprisonment and UAH 200[1] fine (suspended as time-barred).\n10.  On 26 April 2001 the Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration on the ground that the instance court erred in calculation of the statutory time-limit for the sanction.\n11.  On 13 June 2001 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced her to six months' imprisonment and UAH 200 fine (suspended as time-barred).\n12.  On 11 October 2001 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal (hereinafter “the Court of Appeal”) upheld this decision.\n13.  On 19 February 2002 the Supreme Court quashed all previous decisions on the ground of serious procedural violations by the first instance court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n14.  On 29 November 2002 the Konotop Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced her to 180 hours of public work (suspended under the Amnesty Act). It also ordered the applicant to pay Mrs P.G. UAH 977[2] in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n15.  On 18 February and 15 July 2003 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2914", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Ismayilli.\n6.  The applicant worked as a director of the Ismayilli Region Forestry (İsmayıllı meşə təsərrüfatı), which was an enterprise under the control of the Azerbmeşe Production Union (“Azərbmeşə” İstehsalat Birliyi), a state authority responsible for administration of forests. In May 2001 he fell ill for a short time and was hospitalised from 21 May to 7 June 2001.\n7.  On 23 May 2001, while the applicant was in hospital, he was dismissed from his job by an order of the Azerbmeşe Production Union.\n8.  On 23 May 2001, on the same day that the applicant was dismissed from his job, the Azerbmeşe Production Union was liquidated by the Presidential Decree on Establishment of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of the Republic of Azerbaijan.\n9.  The Statute of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (“Ministry of Environment”), approved by a presidential decree of 18 September 2001, vested it with the duty to implement activities in the field of use, restoration, creation and protection of forests.\n10.  In accordance with the Cabinet of Ministers' resolution of 16 October 2001, enterprises and organisations previously under control of the liquidated Azerbmeşe Production Union, including the Ismayilli Region Forestry, were transferred to the Ministry of Environment.\n11.  In the meantime, the applicant filed a lawsuit against the Ministry of Environment, as the legal successor of the Azerbmeşe Production Union, arguing that his dismissal had been unlawful. By a judgment of 20 August 2001, the Narimanov District Court upheld the applicant's claim. The court noted that Article 79 § 1 of the Labour Code prohibited an employer from dismissing an employee from his job during his or her temporary inability to work, which included temporary illness and hospitalisation. The court ordered the applicant's reinstatement in his job as the director of the Ismayilli Region Forestry. The court also granted the applicant's request to leave the issue of material and moral compensation open.\n12.  No appeals were filed against the judgment of 20 August 2001 and it entered into legal force.\n13.  On 12 December 2001 the Minister of Environment issued an order on liquidation of regional forest authorities, including the Ismayilli Region Forestry.\n14.  On 31 January 2002 the Narimanov District Court issued a writ of execution which, on 14 February 2002, was sent to the Ministry of Environment through the Narimanov District Department of Judicial Observers and Enforcement Officers (Nərimanov rayon Məhkəmə Nəzarətçiləri və Məhkəmə İcraçıları şöbəsi; hereinafter the “Narimanov Department of Enforcement Officers”).\n15.  On 20 February 2002 the Ministry of Environment informed the Narimanov Department of Enforcement Officers that, upon the reorganisation of the Ministry, the Ismayilli Region Forestry had been liquidated on 12 December 2001 and that, therefore, it was not possible to reinstate the applicant in his previous job.\n16.  By a letter of 25 February 2002, the Ministry of Environment also informed the applicant of the impossibility of the judgment's execution.\n17.  On 10 May 2002 the writ of execution was returned to the Narimanov District Court.\n18.  On 1 May 2003 the applicant was hired as an economic manager (təsərrüfat müdiri) at the Ismayilli Enterprise for Forest Protection and Restoration (İsmayıllı Meşə Mühafizəsi və Bərpası Müəssisəsi) of the Ministry of Environment. On 1 Decembe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2915", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1925 in Bucharest and lives in Le Cannet (France).\n5.  In 1952, under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation, the State took possession of a building located at 16 Negustori Street in Bucharest which belonged to the applicant's parents, Romanian citizens and members of the Jewish faith.\n6.  On 18 September 1998 the applicant lodged an action to recover possession of the property with the Bucharest District Court. The action was directed against Bucharest local council, the Rental Property Administration Department (Departamentul de administrare a fondului locativ) and the State company Titan, which managed such properties. He alleged that, under Decree no. 92/1950, property belonging to certain social categories had been exempt from nationalisation and that his parents had belonged to one such category.\n7.  In a judgment of 24 June 1999 the court allowed the action on the ground that the State had taken possession of the property without any valid title. It ordered the defendants to restore the building and the adjoining land to the applicant.\n8.  Following an appeal by the Bucharest mayor's office acting on behalf of the local council, the Bucharest County Court upheld the decision of the first-instance court in a judgment of 6 December 1999.\n9.  The mayor's office lodged a further appeal with the Bucharest Court of Appeal, which in a final judgment of 21 June 2000 declared the appeal inadmissible for failure to give reasons.\n10.  In a decision of 25 September 2000 the mayor of Bucharest ordered the return of the building to the applicant.\n11.  On 9 November 2000 the applicant, accompanied by a bailiff, went to the building with a view to taking possession and found that it was occupied by the United States Peace Corps under a lease concluded with the State company Locato, which managed the buildings placed at the disposal of diplomatic missions in Romania.\n12.  On 14 November 2001 the applicant brought an action against Locato and the United States Peace Corps seeking the setting-aside of the lease and an order requiring the Peace Corps to vacate the building.\n13.  In a judgment of 30 May 2001 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the action. It observed that in 1992, by a government decision, ownership of the building had been transferred from the Bucharest mayor's office to the company managing the buildings used by diplomatic missions in Romania. That company had been letting the building to the United States Peace Corps since 1993. The latest lease, which had been concluded on 12 January 1999 and set the rent at 4,907 United States dollars (USD) per month, was due to expire on 31 March 2002. Taking the view that Locato had proper authority to manage the building, the court held that the disputed lease was valid.\n14.  In a judgment of 5 November 2001 the Bucharest County Court, on an appeal by Mr Hirschhorn, set aside the impugned decision and allowed the applicant's action. The County Court observed that in its final judgment of 24 June 1999 the Bucharest District Court had held that the State had appropriated the building without any valid title. Taking the view that the State could not dispose of a property which did not belong to it, the court set aside the lease and ordered the eviction of the tenant organisation. Locato appealed on points of law.\n15.  On 21 December 2001 the bailiff was authorised by the Bucharest District Court to evict the tenant organisation under the decision of 5 November 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2916", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Lensk, a town in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of the Russian Federation.\n5.  The applicant brought a civil action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, seeking to recover the monetary value of state promissory notes for purchase of a Russian-made car.\n6.  On 3 April 2003 the Lenskiy District Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) found for the applicant and awarded her 91,500 Russian roubles.\n7.  By a decision of 5 May 2003 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) rejected an appeal by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the judgment. On the same date the judgment of 3 April 2003 acquired legal force but it has never been enforced.\n8.  On 1 September 2004 the President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) referred the case to the Presidium of the Supreme Court, upon the defendant's application for supervisory review.\n9.  On 23 September 2004 the Presidium quashed the judgment of 3 April 2003, as upheld by the decision of 5 May 2003, and dismissed the applicant's claim in full. In so deciding, the Presidium noted that the courts had failed to take into account the provisions of the Federal Law on State Promissory notes of 1 June 1995, as amended on 2 June 2000, which extended the period of redemption of the state promissory notes until 31 December 2004. In the Presidium's assessment, that failure amounted to a substantial violation of the material law warranting a re-examination of the case.\n10.  The applicant submitted that she had not been properly notified of the session of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) of 23 September 2004 and therefore she could not attend it. The defendant's representative had attended the hearing and presented his arguments. According to the Government, the applicant had been informed of the date and the time of the hearing by a letter of 13 September 2004. The applicant submitted that she had become aware of the decision of 23 September 2004 on 8 November 2004 when she had received it by post. She provided the Court with an envelope sent by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) postmarked on 8 November 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2917", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Tunceli, south-east Turkey.\n5.  The applicant, without submitting any documents, submitted the following:\n6.  On 6 November 1992 he was taken into custody by police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul police headquarters in the course of which he was subjected to “torture”.\n7.  On 20 November 1992 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand. Criminal proceedings were initiated against him before the 3rd Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court.\n8.  On an unspecified date, the 3rd Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 168 of the Criminal Code of membership of an illegal organisation.\n9.  On 21 December 2000 Law no. 4616, which governed conditional release, suspension of proceedings and execution of sentences in respect of offences committed before 23 April 1999, came into force. The Law stipulated that persons who had committed offences under Article 168 of the Criminal Code were not eligible for parole. Thus, the applicant could not benefit from Law no. 4616.\n10.  The following information appears from the parties' submissions and from the documents submitted by them:\n11.  On 21 July 1993 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the 1st Chamber of that court (hereinafter “the trial court”) against B.G. who is the owner of a monthly review entitled Emeğin Bayrağı (“The Flag of Labour”). The public prosecutor charged B.G., in his capacity as owner and editor of the review, with disseminating propaganda against the indivisibility of the State on account of an article published in the review in July 1993, entitled Yeni Bir Maraş: Sivas Katliamı (“A New Maraş: The Sivas Massacre”)[1]. The charges were brought under Article 8 § 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).\n12.  On 28 September 1993 B.G. stated before the trial court that the author of the article was Ziya Ulusoy, i.e. the applicant. The trial court subsequently heard the applicant who confirmed that he was indeed the author of the impugned article.\n13.  The relevant passages of the article may be summarised as follows:\n“... Today, there is a dirty war which continues with the most violent methods in Kurdistan. The State carries on a war with the aim of genocide against the Kurdish people and its leaders. While the legitimate movement of the Kurdish nation aims at political freedom, the State reinforces Turkish chauvinism in order to quieten and weaken the voice of this war. The funerals of the soldiers who die during this war are used to create a racist and chauvinist mass movement... These movements occupy the agenda along with the Kurdish national movement... This State, which aims to oppress the Kurdish workers and the national freedom movement with blood and gunpowder, used the fundamentalist Islamists and the Hizbullah against you yesterday. Today, it again uses the fundamentalist Islamist masses under the leadership of Hizbullah against Alevis, progressive and democratic people and Turkish intellectuals without making a distinction between Kurdish and Turkish. This massacre, during which houses and offices were burned and more than forty people were killed, is a new Maraş. Don't remain silent in the presence of the massacre, demand that it be accounted for by your actions”.\n14.  On 26 November 1993 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2918", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant club was founded on 3 February 1988 in Tbilisi. Subsequent to the last changes in its corporate structure, on 10 February 1999, the Vake District Court in Tbilisi incorporated the applicant as a branch of a German limited liability company, “BAUML GmbH”.\n6.  Under contracts of 11 May and 5 December 1990, the applicant engaged Mr Giorgi Kinkladze (“the footballer”) as a professional player until 30 June 1993.\n7.  On 11 July 1992 the applicant and the football club Dinamo FC, both members of the Georgian Football Federation (“the GFF”), entered into an agreement on the footballer's transfer to Dinamo FC. It was arranged that the footballer would play for the new club after the latter had paid the applicant 1,000,000 Soviet roubles (the equivalent of 6,000 euros (EUR), according to the applicant). In addition, if the footballer was later transferred abroad, the applicant was to receive 50% of the international transfer fee owed to Dinamo FC. If Dinamo failed to fulfil that obligation, the agreement between it and the footballer would become null and void.\n8.  On 13 August 1992 Dinamo FC paid the applicant the sum agreed in roubles and the domestic transfer took effect.\n9.  Under a contract of 11 July 1995, Dinamo FC transferred the footballer to Manchester City FC for a lump sum of USD 1,750,000 (EUR 1,380,000[2]). In the event of the footballer's further transfer by the English club for a fee in excess of USD 3,000,000 (EUR 2,370,000), Dinamo FC was entitled to receive 10% of the excess amount. Subsequently, Manchester City FC indeed transferred the footballer to AFC Ajax, and Dinamo FC thus received around GBP 1,250,000 (EUR 1,820,000) from the English club.\n10.  Having received the lump-sum transfer fee from Manchester City FC, Dinamo FC never remitted to the applicant the percentage agreed under the contract of 11 July 1992. Seeking to obtain the amount owed to it, the applicant complained to the GFF.\n11.  On 2 January 1997 the Disputes Committee of the GFF decided that Dinamo FC owed the applicant USD 875,000 (EUR 691,000), corresponding to one half of the transfer fee paid by Manchester City FC. Dinamo FC was ordered to pay this sum in three instalments.\n12.  On 14 April 1997 the applicant referred the matter to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (the “FIFA”) requesting its intervention to secure enforcement by the GFF of its decision of 2 January 1997.\n13.  The FIFA reminded the GFF on 28 April, 12 June, 29 July and 28 August 1997 of its obligation to enforce decisions and thus to settle the dispute between the Georgian clubs, warning that non-compliance with FIFA directives might result in disciplinary proceedings against the GFF.\n14.  On 1 September 1997 the GFF Emergency Committee decided that Dinamo FC was liable to pay the total amount of USD 875,000 (EUR 691,000) to the applicant immediately and that, in case of failure to comply with this decision, Dinamo FC would be relegated to the Second Division of the Georgian Championship. That sanction would not, however, release the debtor from its obligation to fulfil its financial commitments vis‑à-vis the applicant. In addition, the GFF warned both clubs that they were barred, under the GFF and FIFA Statutes, from referring the dispute to a court of law.\n15.  Following the applicant's complaints, on 16 April and 6 June 1998, that the dispute had still not been settled, the FIFA again notified the GFF, requesting the enforcement of the latter's d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2919", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, who are brothers, were born in 1939 and 1936 and live in Pisarovina and Korčula, respectively.\n5.  On 5 September 1974 the applicants brought a civil action against a certain J.P. and the Town of Korčula in the Korčula Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Korčuli) seeking to be declared owners of a plot of land on which a stone-pit has been located.\n6.  Following a remittal, on 5 September 1994 the Korčula Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Korčuli) decided to close the main hearing.\n7.  Afterwards, the applicants urged the Municipal Court several times to deliver the judgment, and filed several complaints with the Ministry of Justice.\n8.  On 10 April 2002 the court sent its judgment dated 5 September 1994 to the parties. The applicants, who were declared to be the owners of a part of the disputed land, received the judgment eight days later. The respondents appealed.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 19 March 2002 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above proceedings. On 7 July 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) found a violation of their constitutional rights to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded them each 8,100 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and ordered the Dubrovnik County Court to give a decision on the appeal in the shortest time possible but no later than six months following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 20 July 2004.\n10.  On 7 October 2004 the Dubrovnik County Court (Županijski sud u Dubrovniku) accepted the appeal of the respondents, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n11.  The proceedings are currently again pending before the Korčula Municipal Court as the first-instance court.\n12.  On 14 June 1995 the Ministry of Economy (Ministarstvo gospodarstva) concluded an agreement with the company B.M. (“the company”) granting it a concession for exploitation of minerals and stone on the land in the above dispute (“the concession agreement”).\n13.  On 16 April 1997 the competent administrative authority granted the company a permit (lokacijska dozvola) for the planned exploitation.\n14.  In November 2001 the company started works on the property.\n15.  On 21 June 2002 the applicants brought an administrative action in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) challenging the concession agreement and the obtained permit. They also requested that the works be stopped pending the civil proceedings determining ownership of the property.\n16.  On 26 June 2002 the Administrative Court invited the applicants to specify the decisions they were challenging and to submit their copies.\n17.  On 1 August 2002 the applicants completed their action by specifying the impugned decisions but failed to submit their copies.\n18.  On 20 November 2002 the Administrative Court declared the applicants' action inadmissible, finding that they had failed to complete their action as requested on 26 June 2002.\n19.  After the beginning of the exploitation works, on 21 November 2001 the second applicant brought an action in trespass (actio negatoria) in the Korčula Municipal Court against J.P. as the shareholder of the company B.M., the town of Korčula and the State. He also applied for an interim measure (privremena mjera) to halt the exploitation works.\n20.  On 2 June 2004 the Municipal Court dismissed the second a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2920", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 14 December 1993 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party).\n5.  On 28 December 1993 the Batman Magistrates' Court ordered his detention on remand.\n6.  On 25 January 1994 the public prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court against the applicant and twelve other people, charging him with carrying out activities aimed at breaking up the unity of the State and removing part of the national territory from the State's control. He requested the court to sentence the applicant in accordance with Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n7.  On 27 December 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code of membership of the PKK and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment.\n8.  On 10 November 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court in respect of the applicant and a certain R.K., holding that the applicant should have been convicted of membership of the PKK and for throwing explosives, under Articles 168 § 2 and 264 of the Criminal Code. The case against the applicant and R.K. was referred to the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n9.  On 3 November 1998 the first-instance court convicted the applicant under Articles 168 § 2 and 264 of the Criminal Code. It sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months' imprisonment for membership of the PKK and to five years, six months and twenty days' imprisonment for having thrown explosives.\n10.  On 15 June 1999 the Court of Cassation once again quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.\n11.  On 26 September 2000 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. However, it acquitted the applicant of the charge under Article 264 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  On 22 February 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal, holding that it had not been submitted within the statutory time-limit.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2921", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Pskov, the Pskov Region.\n5.  In 1986 he took part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result he suffered from the extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. On unspecified dates the applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between his poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. The applicant was awarded social benefits, to be paid monthly.\n6.  On 13 August 2002 the Pskov Town Court of the Pskov Region granted the applicant's claim against the Welfare Office of the administration of Pskov (Управление Социальной защиты населения администрации г. Пскова) for increase of food allowance. The court awarded the applicant 1,089.60 Russian roubles (RUR) to be paid monthly and ordered the defendant to adjust the forthcoming payments proportionally to the increase of the minimum subsistence level.\n7.  On 24 September 2002 the judgment of 13 August 2002 acquired legal force, after it had been upheld on appeal by the Pskov Regional Court.\n8.  In December 2003 the defendant filed an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 13 August 2002, as upheld on 24 September 2002, with the Pskov Regional Court.\n9.  On 24 May 2004 the Presidium of the Pskov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 13 August 2002 in part concerning the future adjustments of the allowance and upheld the remainder of the judgment.\n10.  By a judgment of 23 December 2003 the Pskov Town Court of the Pskov Region granted another of the applicant's actions against the Welfare Office of the administration of Pskov for adjustment of the food allowance. The court increased the monthly payments to RUR 1,231. The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on 5 January 2004.\n11.  The Welfare Office of the administration of Pskov failed to execute the judgments of 13 August 2002 and 23 December 2003.\n12.  In February 2006 the local authorities contacted the applicant with a view of reaching an agreement in the matter. However, the applicant refused to accept the terms of the agreement.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2922", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1955, 1945, 1970, 1963, 1973, 1950, 1950, 1930, 1955, 1955, 1965 and 1958 respectively and all live in Şırnak.\n6.  On 13 September 1999 the applicants Halit Aşan, Abdullah Aşan, M.Sıddık Aslan, Zeki Aslan, Adil Aşan, Übeyt Yacan, Şahbaz Aslan, Sülayman Aslan, Bazi Aşkan and Ahmet Aşan were arrested by gendarmes and taken into custody at the Beytüşşebab Provincial Gendarmerie Headquarters. The arrest protocol prepared by the gendarmes stated that the arrestees had been suspected of aiding and abetting an illegal terrorist organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party).\n7.  On 17 September 1999 the Beytüşşebab Public Prosecutor requested the Magistrates' Court to extend the period of the applicants' detention in custody. The Magistrates' Court extended the period of their detention for ten days.\n8.  Between 15 and 19 September 1999, these applicants were questioned by three gendarmes in relation to their involvement in terrorist activities.\n9.  In the morning of 18 September 1999, the applicants Zeki Aşan and Zübeyir Aşan were arrested on suspicion of aiding and abetting the PKK and possessing drugs. They were also placed in custody at the Provincial Gendarmerie Headquarters.\n10.  On 21 September 1999 Zeki Aşan and Zübeyir Aşan were also questioned by the gendarmes in relation to their involvement in the PKK.\n11.  On 13 September 1999 and 22 September 1999, the applicants underwent medical examinations at the Beytüşşebab Health Centre at the request of the Beytüşşebap District Gendarmerie Command. The medical reports issued for the applicants by the Health Centre referred to the following findings prior to and subsequent to their detention in custody:\n12.  The medical reports of 13 September 1999 and 22 September 1999 on Halit Aşan stated that no physical injuries such as scars, bruises, ecchymoses, haematoma or anything else had been identified, other than an old surgical scar.\n13.  The medical report of 13 September 1999 on Abdullah Aşan stated that there was an old surgical scar and that the patient was possibly suffering from chronic bronchitis. It further stated that no physical injuries such as scars, bruises, ecchymoses, haematoma or anything else had been identified.\n14.  The medical report of 22 September 1999 indicated that Abdullah Aşan had difficulty in moving his arms and shoulders and that he had tenderness on his back, calf and thigh. It further stated that no physical injuries such as scars, bruises, ecchymoses, haematoma or anything else had been identified, other than an old surgical scar.\n15.  The medical report of 13 September 1999 on Mehmet Sıddık Aslan stated that no physical injuries such as scars, bruises, ecchymoses, haematoma or anything else had been identified, other than an old surgical scar.\n16.  The medical report of 22 December 1999 stated that no physical injuries such as scars, bruises, ecchymoses, haematoma or anything else had been observed on the applicant. It was also noted that the applicant had a problem with his vision, pain in his lumbar region and felt exhausted.\n17.  The medical report of 13 September 1999 on Zeki Aslan stated that no physical injuries such as scars, bruises, ecchymoses, haematoma or anything else had been identified, other than an old injury scar on one arm which was tender when touched.\n18.  According to the medical report dated 22 September 1999, one ear and the left shoulder were tender and the applicant had difficulty in moving h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2923", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the town of Ryazan.\n5.  The applicant is a retired serviceman. On unspecified dates in the past, he had taken part in peace-keeping operations in former Yugoslavia.\n6.  On an unspecified date, the applicant instituted proceedings against military unit no. 03611, seeking to recover the unpaid daily allowances owed to him for his participation in the above operations.\n7.  In the proceedings before the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison (Рязанский гарнизонный военный суд) the representative of the military unit fully accepted the applicant's claim.\n8.  He submitted that it was impossible to pay the sum owed to the applicant, since there was no mechanism developed for payment of daily allowances to servicemen who had been commissioned abroad. Furthermore, no funds were available for this purpose.\n9.  On 11 December 2001 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison granted the applicant's claim and ordered the defendant to pay him 377,776.12 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 14,100 euros at the material time).\n10.  The court found that the applicant could not be deprived of the right to receive the sum owed to him because of the absence of an appropriate mechanism of payment. No appeal was lodged and this judgment became final on 24 December 2001.\n11.  On 5 February 2002 the Military Court issued an execution writ.\n12.  On an unspecified date, the applicant submitted the execution writ to the Ryazan Regional Branch of the Federal Treasury.\n13.  It appears that the Federal Treasury informed the applicant that it was impossible to enforce the judgment as there were no budgetary funds available on the defendant's account for this purpose. He was advised to apply to the Ministry of Finance for the latter to recover the amount due from the Ministry of Defence.\n14.  On 16 September 2002 the applicant forwarded the execution writ to the Ministry of Finance.\n15.  On 6 November 2002 the Moscow Military Circuit Court, acting as a supervisory review instance upon the application by the President of that Court, quashed the judgment of 11 December 2001 as unlawful and unfounded and remitted the case at first instance for a fresh examination.\n16.  It does not appear that the applicant and his counsel were notified of the supervisory review proceedings in advance or that they were able to take part in them.\n17.  According to the Government, in April 2003 the Military Court rejected the applicant's claims. This judgment was upheld on appeal by the Moscow Military Circuit Court by two decisions dated 16 May, 10 and 17 June 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2924", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1944 and 1948, and live in Penza. At the material time the first applicant was a trade-union leader, the second applicant a journalist. They also co-chaired the Penza Regional Voters' Association “Civic Unity” (Grazhdanskoye yedinstvo).\n8.  On 15 August 2000 the Co-ordination Council of the Penza Regional Voters' Association Civic Unity adopted at its meeting the draft text of an open letter, entitled “Media coverage of the reforms of President Putin in the Penza Region” (“Informatsionnoye obespecheniy reform Prezidenta V.V. Putina v Penzenskoy oblasti”).\n9.  On 16 August 2000 the text was discussed at a round table attended by the applicants, the editors-in-chief of local newspapers and journalists. The draft was amended and elaborated. The discussion concluded with the adoption of the open letter by the Co-ordination Council of Civic Unity and managers of the independent media in the Penza Region to the President of the Russian Federation, the Security Council of the Russian Federation, the Journalists' Union of Russia, the plenipotentiary representative of the President for the Volga Federal District, and the Minister for Press and Information of the Russian Federation. The open letter was signed by the applicants and four editors-in-chief.\n10.  On 24 August 2000 the Novaya birzhevaya gazeta newspaper published the open letter on its front page. The relevant extracts of the letter, translated from Russian, read as follows:\n“We (authors of the open letter) subscribe to various political views but are unanimous in our support of the President's drive to curb corruption in the country, bring order to the economy, and assert the rule of law and democratic standards in all sectors of society. We have gathered at the round table because of our common concern for the fate of the President's reforms in the Penza Region. The Penza Region is gradually transforming into a private holding controlled by Governor V. Bochkaryov and his close circle ... [emphasis added, see below]\nToday we (the independent media) embarrass the regional authorities because we openly disagree with the selfish and destructive policy of the governor and his team, we publish materials denouncing bribe-takers and officials who abuse their position ...\nOnce again, as in early 1991 when the [Communist] Party's nomenclature feared their imminent dismissal, the regional authorities have started reprisals against the independent media. Journalists are subjected to threats and beatings, our publications are prohibited from being printed and distributed in the region ...\nOn the other side – the independent media, whose attempts to stand for the rule of law, human rights, to talk about bringing order to the economy and to expose corruption are routinely suppressed by the governor and his acolytes ...”[1]\n11.  The remainder of the open letter harshly criticised the Governor of the Penza Region personally and contained allegations of serious wrongdoings.\n12.  On 3 February 2001 twelve members of the Penza Regional Government lodged a civil action with the Leninskiy District Court of Penza for the protection of their honour, dignity and professional reputation and for compensation for non-pecuniary damage allegedly sustained as a result of the publication of the open letter. They named the applicants and other signatories to the letter, as well as the newspaper that published it, as co-defendants.\n13.  On 3 March 2001 the original plaintiffs were join", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2925", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1947, 1943 and 1986 respectively and live in Novigrad.\n5.  On 2 February 1998 the applicants brought a civil action against the State and the hospital R. in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking non-pecuniary damages for the death of the first and the second applicant's son and the third applicant's brother.\n6.  The court held hearings on 4 June 1998, 18 January, 10 June and 2 September 1999. The applicants withdrew their action in respect of the State. Meanwhile the insurance company C.O. intervened in the proceedings.\n7.  The next hearing was held on 10 July 2003.\n8.  On 29 April 2004 the court gave judgment awarding the damages sought in part. Following an appeal by the respondents, on 21 March 2006 the Zagreb County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 10 December 2002 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint concerning the length of proceedings under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. On 17 September 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted the applicants' complaint, finding a violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarding them each compensation in the amount of 4,400 Croatian kunas (HRK).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2926", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1969 and currently lives in Switzerland.\nBackground to the case\n8.  The applicant, convicted of membership of an illegal organisation, was serving his prison sentence in the Ümraniye E-Type Prison in Istanbul at the time of the events.\n9.  In December 2000 a large number of prisoners, including the applicant, started a hunger strike to protest against the F-Type prisons. On 19 December 2000 the security forces conducted an operation in several prisons to stop the protests. In the course of these operations, numerous prisoners and members of the security forces were wounded and 32 persons died. Following these events, on 22 December 2000 the applicant was transferred from Ümraniye E-Type Prison to the Kocaeli Kandıra F-Type Prison, together with several other prisoners. The Government stated that the applicant showed resistance to the security forces during the operation in the Ümraniye E-Type Prison. In a medical report issued by the Kocaeli Kandıra F-Type Prison doctors on 22 December 2000, it was noted that the applicant had scars on the right side of his jaw and nose; bruises on his eye lids, a round hyperaemic oedema on his head measuring 3 cm and sensitivity on his abdomen. The report concluded that the applicant was unfit to work for one week. The applicant maintained that he was beaten on admission to the Kandıra F-Type Prison.\nThe applicant's detention in the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison\n10.  On 23 February 2001 the applicant was transferred to the Tekirdağ F‑Type Prison. On admission to the prison, he was allegedly strip searched and beaten and his hair and moustache forcibly cut. He also stated that he was put in a cell alone and was forced to listen to loud music. According to the applicant, as he refused to stand up and shout his name during the daily headcounts, he was subjected to ill-treatment by the prison guards, in particular falaka (beating on the soles of the feet).\n11.  On 24 February 2001 and 3 March 2001, respectively, the applicant was examined by the prison doctor, who did not find any signs of ill-treatment on the applicant's body.\n12.  On 4 March 2001 the applicant's lawyer filed a petition with the Tekirdağ public prosecutor's office and complained about the ill-treatment which the applicant had suffered in the Tekirdağ prison. He also requested that the applicant be examined by a forensic doctor.\n13. The Tekirdağ public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the applicant's allegations. Upon the order of the public prosecutor, on 8 March 2001 the applicant was examined once again by the prison doctor, who reported that there were no signs of ill-treatment on his body. On the same day, the Tekirdağ public prosecutor took a statement from the applicant. Before the prosecutor, the applicant explained that, on admission to the Tekirdağ Prison, the prison personnel had shaved his hair and moustache by force and that he had been stripped naked. He further maintained that he had been placed in a single cell and subjected to falaka twice.\n14.  On 14 March 2001 the public prosecutor issued a decision of non‑prosecution relying on the medical reports dated 24 February, 3 March and 8 March 2001, according to which there was no sign of ill-treatment on the applicant's body.\n15.  On 6 April 2001 the applicant filed an appeal against the decision of the public prosecutor.\n16.  On 19 April 2001 the Kırklareli Assize Court rejected the applicant's appeal.\n17.  Following the introduction of the pr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2927", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 22 March 1994 the applicant was granted a lease by the Istanbul Municipality to run a car park on a plot of land by the coast in the Kadıköy district of Istanbul.\n6.  On 14 and 27 July 1999 and 24 March 2000 the National Estate Directorate attached to the Istanbul Revenue Office issued three orders requesting the applicant to pay compensation for occupying the car park between 1 March 1998 and 31 December 1999.\n7.  On 11 August 1999, 29 September 1999 and 14 April 2000 respectively the applicant filed three separate cases with the Istanbul Administrative Court against the Istanbul Revenue Office, requesting that the orders be annulled. The first case concerned the period between 1 March and 31 December 1998, the second case concerned the period between 1 January and 1 August 1999 and the third case concerned the period between 1 August and 31 December 1999.\nAs regards the first two proceedings\n8.  On 25 May 2000 the Istanbul Administrative Court annulled the orders dated 14 July 1999 and 27 July 1999. The administrative authority appealed. Subsequently on 17 December 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the respective judgments of the Istanbul Administrative Court.\n9.  On 24 June 2005 the Istanbul Administrative Court followed the reasoning set out in the Supreme Administrative Court's decision and dismissed the cases. The applicant appealed.\n10.  On 13 March 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the respective judgments of the Istanbul Administrative Court once again.\n11.  On 13 November 2006 the Istanbul Administrative Court decided to annul the respective compensation orders.\n12.  According to the information in the case file based on the latest submissions by the parties, both actions are apparently still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.\nAs regards the third set of proceedings\n13.  On 23 February 2001 the Istanbul Administrative Court annulled the compensation order dated 24 March 2000. The administrative authority appealed and subsequently on 4 February 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the Istanbul Administrative Court.\n14.  On 18 April 2006 the Istanbul Administrative Court followed the reasoning set out in the Supreme Administrative Court's decision and dismissed the case. According to the information in the case file, this action is still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2929", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Volgograd, the Volgograd Region.\n6.  The applicant brought court proceedings claiming an increase in the monthly disability allowance she was entitled to receive. On 24 May 1999 the Kirovskiy District Court of Volgograd awarded the applicant 21,245.46 Russian roubles (RUR) in arrears and increased the allowance to RUR 1,214 as of 1 May 1999.\n7.  On 15 June 2000 the District Court awarded the applicant RUR 91,039.35 as compensation for late payment of the allowance. On 1 September 2000 the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court reduced that amount to RUR 1,500.  On 29 January 2001 the District Court awarded the applicant RUR 1,790.17 as compensation for the depreciation of the award under the judgment of 24 May 1999 due to inflation.\n8.  On 13 June 2001 the District Court increased the monthly allowance to RUR 4,070.89 as of 10 January 2001 and awarded the applicant RUR 20,538.16 in allowance arrears for the period from 1 July 2000 to 31 May 2001, and RUR 2,000 as compensation for late payment of that increased allowance.\n9.  The above-mentioned judgments were enforced on 25 December 2002.\n10.  On 20 February 2002 the District Court adjusted the allowance amount due to the applicant and awarded her RUR 10,162.80.\n11.  On 16 July 2003 the District Court awarded the applicant RUR 11,104 in arrears for the period from 15 February 2002 to 30 June 2003 and increased the monthly allowance to RUR 3,175 effective as of 1 July 2003. On 27 August 2003 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the judgment. On 2 September 2005 the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court quashed those judgments.\n12.  The awards under the judgment of 20 February 2002 and that of 16 July 2003 were paid to the applicant on 22 November and 15 December 2005, respectively.\n13.  The applicant brought civil proceedings claiming compensation for depreciation of the awards under the judgments of 13 June 2001 and 20 February 2002. On 7 December 2005 the District Court dismissed her claims. On 9 February 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court quashed the judgment and ordered a re-examination of the case. Apparently, the proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2930", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  All the applicants, but the fifth, were members of a motor cycle club named “Screwdrivers”, which was based in Hamar and was, at the time of the events giving rise to the proceedings described below, the “Hang-Around Club” of the Hells Angels. On 8 November 1997 it became a Prospect Club of the latter and, as from 8 May 1999, a “Chapter”. The fifth applicant was a member of Hells Angels in Oslo.\n8.  On 18 March 2002 the applicants, along with two other defendants, B. and M., were indicted (count I) under Article 148 (1) (second alternative) of the Penal Code for having instigated fire or explosion capable of causing loss of human life and extensive material damage and resulting in death, or for aiding and abetting in this. On Wednesday, 4 June 1997 at around 11.45 pm in Drammen, they had, after having planned the operation, blown up parts of the club house in 25, Konnerud Street, of another motor cycle club, named Bandidos. A Volkswagen Transporter had been placed in the latter's courtyard, loaded with explosives that were detonated. The force of the explosion had been such that metal and rubber parts of the vehicle had hit and killed the driver of a passing car. The building in question had in part subsided and a massive fire had broken out, putting at risk the lives of three persons inside the building. The building had burned down to the ground and a neighbouring property had been severely damaged, several vehicles had been totally or largely destroyed. The total damage had amounted to at least NOK 2,000,000. Moreover, the applicants were indicted (count II) under Article 161(1) and (2) for the acquisition, confection or storage of explosives, or for aiding or abetting thereto, with the knowledge that the explosives had been intended to be used for the commission of the offence described under count I above, during the period before 4 June 1997. Furthermore, the applicants were indicted (count III) under Articles 291 and 292 for aggravated offences of serious material damage in respect of 25, Konnerud Street and a number of properties adjacent to or in the vicinity thereof, amounting to NOK 285,386,387 (approximately EUR 40 million).\n9.  By a judgment of 10 June 2002, the Drammen City Court (tingrett) acquitted the first, second and third applicants of counts I and II but convicted them of count III and sentenced each of them to 3 years' imprisonment. The fourth applicant was acquitted of count II but convicted of counts I and III and sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment. For each of them the time spent in pre-trial detention was to be deducted. The fifth applicant was acquitted of all the charges.\n10.  The two co-defendants, B. and M., were convicted of all the charges and were sentenced respectively to 10 and 5 years' imprisonment.\n11.  On 1 July 2002 the Borgarting High Court (lagmannsrett), sitting with three judges, including Judge G., rejected an appeal by the fourth applicant against a decision of 10 June 2002 by the City Court to prolong his provisional detention. The decision included the following reasons:\n“The City Court has ordered detention of [the fourth applicant] on the ground of danger of evasion, see Article 171 (1) no. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the defence counsel's first supporting letter concerned imprisonment on this ground. The High Court found it correct to assess whether there were grounds for imprisonment on the basis of law enforcement considerations pursuant to Article 172, and notified th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2931", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kursk.\n6.  On 19 July 2000 the Kurskiy Vestnik newspaper published an article by the applicant entitled “Twelve chairs from the Governor's suite of furniture, or How yet another million dollars from the regional budget vanished into thin air” (“Двенадцать стульев из гарнитура губернатора, или Как 'испарился' из областного бюджета еще один миллион долларов”). The article gave an account of the misappropriation of budgetary funds allocated for the purchase of furniture and renovations, and Governor Rutskoy's calm reaction to these events. The relevant parts read as follows (translated from Russian):\n“A normal governor in that situation [having received information about the misappropriation of substantial sums from the budget] would certainly clutch his head in horror and start inquiring how the taxpayers' money had disappeared and who was at fault. He would fire those responsible and seek the assistance of the police, the prosecutor's office and the courts in order to make good the loss to the regional budget...\nThat would be the logical conduct of a normal governor. But our [governor], having received a letter from the head of the audit department..., wrote the following instruction by hand...”\n7.  The article then quoted the instruction given by Governor Rutskoy, recommending to his aides that they re-evaluate the work that had been carried out so as to cover up the discrepancy between the amount allocated and the expenses incurred. The article ended in the following manner:\n“I do not know what others think, but my view is as follows: a governor who gives such advice is abnormal (ненормальный). Let me clarify, lest I face judicial proceedings: I am talking about the conduct of a [State] official, not Mr Rutskoy's personality, which is none of my business.”\n8.  On 1 August 2000 Governor Rutskoy lodged a civil action for defamation against the applicant and the newspaper's editors. He considered certain facts in the applicant's article to be untrue and damaging to his honour, dignity and professional reputation and claimed 250,000 Russian roubles (RUR) in non-pecuniary damages. In particular, the Governor considered the following words from the final paragraph of the article to be insulting: “... a governor who gives such advice is abnormal... I am talking about the conduct of a [State] official...”\n9.  On 19 October 2000 the Leninskiy District Court of Kursk allowed the defamation action in part. The court was satisfied that the facts contested by Governor Rutskoy were shown to have been true by the applicant. As regards the final sentence, it found as follows:\n“The extract from the article which reads '... a governor who gives such advice is abnormal' represents the opinion of the article's author, however, this opinion is expressed in an insulting manner.\nThe court cannot agree with [the applicant's] arguments that in using the word 'abnormal' he was referring to the Governor's conduct and not to his personality. A subsequent clarification by the author which reads '...I am talking about the conduct of a [State] official, not Mr Rutskoy's personality' does not eliminate the ambiguity of perception, including [the perception of] an insulting meaning, as the purpose and structure of the main clause suggested that 'abnormal' referred precisely to the word 'governor' and not to his behaviour...\nThe court considers that the violation of the plaintiff's right to a good name, honour, dignity an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2932", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Tbilisi.\n7.  The applicant worked as an officer at a regional branch of the Customs Department (hereafter “the old customs office” of “the Department”), an agency of the Ministry of Finance.  Due to the structural reorganisation of the Department on 30 June 1995, he was released by an administrative order of 5 August 1995, together with some other people. This order noted that the discharged officers were to be transferred to another, newly established regional customs office (“the new customs office”).\n8.  On 5 August 1995 the applicant requested the Department's authorisation to take up his duties at the new customs office. No reply was forthcoming. For the next six years, he complained on numerous occasions before various governmental agencies about the inability to continue his service.\n9. In a letter of 21 March 2001, the Department informed the applicant that, after its reorganisation on 30 June 1995, staff had been significantly reduced and, in so far as he had continuously been absent from the old customs office without authorisation, the administration had decided not to employ him any longer. The lawfulness of such a decision, the letter noted, was assured by the provisions of the Labour Code (“the LC”), the sole legislative act which regulated civil servants' labour disputes at that time. The applicant was invited to visit the Department's human resources office, in order to obtain the order for his dismissal and the work log.\n10.  On 23 May 2001 the applicant sued the Department for unfair dismissal, requesting reinstatement to his position and compensation for loss of salary.\n11.  In a first instance judgment of 22 November 2001, the Isani-Samgori District Court in Tbilisi found in the applicant's favour. However, in an appellate decision of 15 April 2002, the Tbilisi Regional Court rejected his action as time-barred. The appellate court first noted that, in so far as the Civil Service Act of 31 October 1997 had not been enacted at the time of the applicant's dismissal, only the provisions of the LC had been applicable to the dispute. Given the fact that the applicant had continuously been complaining before various authorities, except for the courts, about his inability to pursue his duties as a customs officer, the appellate court found that he had been well aware of the alleged breach of his rights since his dismissal took effect in 1995. In such circumstances, it concluded that the applicant had failed to comply with the one-month time-limit for lodging an employment action, as required by Article 204 § 1 of the LC.\n12.  In May 2002 the applicant lodged a cassation claim, in which he called into question the appellate court's assessment of the circumstances of the case and certain evidence. It appears from the case file that the respondent Department did not submit any reply to that claim.\n13.  On 12 June 2002 the Civil Affairs Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia (“the Chamber”) at an oral hearing attended by the applicant, started the examination of the case but, due to the absence of the Department's representative, adjourned it. The Chamber also decided to dispense with an oral hearing in the further proceedings.\n14.  On 13 June 2002 the applicant, complaining about the absence of an oral hearing, requested the President of the Supreme Court to change the Chamber's composition. In a decision of 18 June 2002, the Chamber dismissed this request as unsubstantiated.\n15.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2934", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Budapest (Hungary). He is a businessman with commercial activities in Hungary and Slovakia.\n7.  On 30 September 1999 the applicant was charged in Slovakia with the offence of blackmail within the meaning of Article 235 of the Criminal Code. The charge was based on the suspicion that the applicant had participated in an operation that involved posing as police officers, luring two individuals from a restaurant, attacking them with a handgun, wounding and tying one of the victims up, taking him to another place and coercing him into revealing information about two other persons.\n8.  On 15 November 1999 the applicant appeared before the investigator of his own accord and was arrested (see below).\n9.  On 19 January 2000 the applicant and four others were committed to stand trial in the Dunajská Streda District Court (Okresný súd) on charges related to the above incident.\n10.  On 3 March and 18 April 2000, respectively, the Dunajská Streda District Court and, on appeal, the Trnava (Slovakia) Regional Court remitted the case to the prosecution service for further investigation.\n11.  On 24 August 2000 the inquiry in the applicant's case was joined to another inquiry that was being undertaken with respect to a murder allegedly committed by the applicant's co-accused.\n12.  On 11 September 2000 the applicant was again committed, in the Regional Court, to stand trial on the above charge.\n13.  On 24 November 2003 the Regional Court ruled that, for reasons of procedural economy, the applicant would be tried in the Dunajská Streda District Court, separately from the other accused. The case was transmitted to the latter court on 29 October 2004.\n14.  On 14 April 2005 the Supreme Court confirmed, on an application by the Dunajská Streda District Court, that the latter court would try the applicant at first instance.\n15.  The proceedings are still pending.\n16.  On 16 November 1999, following his arrest the previous day, the Trnava District Court remanded the applicant in custody under Article 67 § 1 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that he was a foreign national and that there was a well-founded risk that, if left at liberty, he would escape or go into hiding in order to avoid prosecution. The applicant did not exercise his right of appeal (sťažnosť) and the decision became final and binding.\n17.  On 22 November 1999 the applicant requested release on bail. The request, which was initially granted, was finally dismissed by the Regional Court, on appeal, on 13 January 2000.\n18.  On 3 March 2000 the Dunajská Streda District Court again granted the applicant bail, but the decision was quashed by the Regional Court, on appeal, on 18 April 2000.\n19.  The applicant lodged another request for release on 13 July 2000, but made a formal motion to withdraw it on 31 July 2000.\n20.  On 25 July 2000 the applicant made a separate request for release on bail. The request was dismissed, on appeal, by the Regional Court on 31 October 2000.\n21.  On 24 November 2000 the prosecution service requested extension of the applicant's detention until 8 June 2001. The extension was authorised, on appeal, by the Regional Court on 11 January 2001.\n22.  On 20 February 2001 the applicant lodged a request for release on bail with the Dunajská Streda District Court. He resubmitted the request to the Trnava District Court on 7 May 2001 and supplemented the grounds of the request on 28 May 2001. He argued that his detenti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2935", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1970 and 1967 respectively and live in Rajamäki. They have a son, born on 2 May 1999.\n7.  The parents chose the name “Axl Mick” for their son. On 8 July 1999 the Hyvinkää Population Registration Authority (maistraatti, magistraten) refused the applicants' application to register this forename under section 32b, subsections 2(1) and 3(2), of the Names Act (nimilaki, namnlagen – see paragraph 16 below) as this form of spelling did not comply with Finnish naming practice.\n8.  The applicants appealed to the then Uusimaa County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten, later replaced by the Helsinki Administrative Court (hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen)). They argued that the name “Axl” was common in Denmark and Norway, and it was also used in Australia and the United States. It was pronounceable in the Finnish language and was not incompatible with Finnish naming practice. There were at least three persons with that name registered in the Population Information System (väestötietojärjestelmä, befolkningsdatasystemet) of Finland. Furthermore, they might move abroad later.\n9.  The State representative appointed by the State Provincial Office (lääninhallituksen määräämä asiamies, ombudsman förordnad av länssyrelsen) was invited to submit an opinion to the County Administrative Court. In his opinion, the name should have been accepted for registration since owing to increasing international contacts and cooperation, registration of a name could not be refused on the sole basis that it was contrary to domestic naming practice.\n10.  In its submissions to the court the Advisory Committee on Names (nimilautakunta, nämnden för namnärenden) considered that the proposed name was incompatible with Finnish naming practice and that the applicants had not adduced adequate reasons for choosing it.\n11.  In response to these observations, the applicants maintained that they should be allowed to name their son “Axl” as the Population Registration Authority had registered various other forenames, such as “Minja”, “Tertta”, “Jonina” and “Dersim”, which, in the applicants' view, were modified forenames and contrary to Finnish naming practice in these forms.\n12.  The Helsinki Administrative Court dismissed their appeal on 3 October 2000. The court referred to the Names Act, by which a name could be accepted, even if incompatible with domestic naming practice, where a person had a connection with a foreign State on the basis of nationality, family relations or some other special circumstance and the proposed forename accorded with the naming practice of that State. The name could also be accepted for other valid reasons (see paragraph 16 below). The court concluded that the arguments submitted by the applicants were insufficient to allow the forename to be registered.\n13.  In their application to the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) the applicants claimed that it was open to interpretation whether the name “Axl” was contrary to the Names Act. They contended that some priests and population registration authorities would have accepted the name. Furthermore, at least three Finnish persons already had that name. In their view the name “Axl” should have been accepted for their son because it had been accepted for other persons. The name fulfilled the criteria of the Names Act in that it was clearly a male name and could not cause any harm to their son. Further, they had us", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2936", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Gdynia.\n5.  On 21 April 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. On 22 April 1999 the Gdańsk District Court remanded him in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed several offences of armed robbery.\n6.  Later, several other persons were detained and charged in connection with the same investigation conducted by the Department of Organised Crime of the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor's Office. In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged several times.\n7.  On 13 December 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's and his eight co-suspects' detention until 31 March 2001.\n8.  On 7 March 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 May 2001. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the severity of the anticipated penalty. The Court of Appeal further held that the detention on remand was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings given the nature of the charges and the relations between the suspects, who had acted in an organised group. It also considered that the prolongation of detention was justified by the need to obtain DNA evidence in order to corroborate evidence previously obtained.\n9.  On 15 May 2001 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with several dozen counts of armed robbery which had been committed in an organised armed criminal group. The bill of indictment listed 120 charges brought against 19 defendants, who were all detained on remand. The case file comprised 114 volumes. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 366 witnesses.\n10.  On 23 May 2001 the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 31 October 2001. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it referred to the complexity of the case, the significant number of defendants and the number of witnesses to be heard in the trial.\n11.  On 24 October 2001 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention until 31 March 2002, relying on the same grounds as in its earlier decisions.\n12.  The trial began on 28 December 2001. However, as of 22 April 2002 the reading out of the bill of indictment by the prosecution had still not been concluded. Initially, the trial court held three hearings per month.\n13.  During the hearing held on 30 January 2002 the trial court ordered the removal of the applicant and two other defendants from the court room. They disrupted the trial by screaming when the prosecutor was reading the bill of indictment, notwithstanding a warning from the presiding judge. Similarly, during the hearings held on 27 May and 14 October 2002 the trial court ordered the applicant's removal on the ground that he had disrupted the trial.\n14.  On 13 March 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant and his seven co-defendants be held in custody until 30 September 2002. It considered that the trial could be terminated by the last-mentioned date. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, the Court of Appeal found that the prolongation of detention was justified under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the particular complexity of the case. It further observed that the delays in the trial were partly attributable to some of the defendants who had attempted to d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2937", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Sebastian Kliza, is a Polish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Mikołów, Poland.\n5.  The applicant was arrested on 26 January 2001 on suspicion of having committed a series of armed robberies as a member of an organised criminal group. On 28 January 2001 the Tychy District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that he be detained pending the outcome of the investigation.\n6.  On 9 April 2001 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged his detention until 17 July 2001. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. It also stressed that his detention was justified by the need to obtain further evidence.\n7.  On 9 July 2001 the Katowice Regional Court prolonged his detention until 17 October 2001. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. The court further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation justified holding him in custody. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. It also relied on the risk that he might tamper with evidence.\n8.  On 8 October 2001 the Katowice Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 17 January 2002. It repeated the grounds previously given for his detention.\n9.  On an unspecified date in January 2002, the applicant was indicted before the Tychy District Court. The bill of indictment comprised 44 charges of armed robbery committed by an organised criminal group. The charges in the bill of indictment concerned 4 co-accused.\n10.  During the proceedings the applicant's detention was extended on several occasions. On 15 January 2002 the Tychy District Court prolonged his detention until 17 July 2002. On 8 July 2002 the court ordered that the term should be prolonged until 17 October 2002. On 16 October 2002 it ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 17 January 2003. It referred to the grounds for detention listed in the previous decisions.\n11.  On 2 January 2003 the Tychy District Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 26 January 2003. It repeated the grounds that had been given in the previous decisions and added that the case was complex, given the number of accused and victims. It further observed that the trial had not yet begun for reasons beyond the trial court's control.\n12.  On 22 January 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), on an application from the trial court, prolonged the applicant's detention until 26 June 2003. It repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's detention. It also found that there were no special grounds, as specified in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that would justify lifting the detention and imposing a less severe measure.\n13.  On 25 June 2003, on an application from the Tychy District Court, the Katowice Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention until 26 October 2003. The court relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. The court also considered that, given the severity of the likely sentence and the fact that the applicant had been charged with acting in an organised criminal group, there was a risk that he would obstruct the proper course of the proceedings. It also acknowledged the delay in the proceedings and asked the trial court to expedite the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2938", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in the city of Kharkiv.\n6.  In 1998 the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. Since then the applicant has undergone outpatient treatment at the City Psychoneurological Healthcare Centre no. 3 (hereafter “the Healthcare Centre”).\n7.  In March 2001 the applicant was convicted of theft and hooliganism and sentenced to one and a half year’s imprisonment suspended on probation.\n8.  On 12 April 2002 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody at the Kominternovskyy District Police Station on suspicion of hooliganism and theft.\n9.  On 15 April 2002 the police investigator assigned to the applicant’s case charged him with hooliganism and theft. On the same day, considering that there were serious suspicions against the applicant, that he had a previous conviction for similar offences and was on probation and that there was a serious risk that the applicant would commit further offences or escape trial, the judge of the Kominternovskyy District Court of Kharkiv (hereafter “the Kominternovskyy Court”) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n10.  On that same date the applicant was examined at the City Hospital no. 13. He was found to be suffering from schizophrenia but fit for detention on remand.\n11.  On 16 April 2002 the applicant was brought to the Kharkiv Regional Pre-trial Detention Centre SIZO no. 27 (hereafter “the SIZO”) from the police station. On his admission the applicant was received by the SIZO medical department for observation and assessment. The prison psychiatrist diagnosed him as suffering from schizophrenia, but certified him fit for detention at the SIZO.\n12.  The applicant was admitted to a psychiatric ward of the medical wing of the SIZO. On 17 and 25 April 2002 he was visited by a prison therapist who prescribed him cardiovascular and systemic medication.\n13.  On 30 April 2002 the investigator asked the Healthcare Centre for information on whether the applicant had been known to be suffering from a mental disease. On 5 May 2002 the Healthcare Centre confirmed that the applicant had been under psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia since 1998. Relying on this information, on 13 May 2002, the investigator ordered an inpatient forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant to determine his sanity at the time of the offence.\n14.  The applicant was transferred to the Psychiatric Hospital no. 15 (hereafter “the Hospital”), where he was examined from 17 to 29 May 2002. On the latter date forensic experts drew up a report, which included the following findings:\n“...Psychiatric status\nThe patient is available for verbal contact. However such contact is highly formal. Mimics and movements are spontaneous and incongruous. He cannot understand or appreciate the purpose of the examination or the situation in general. The patient is restless, euphoric, fidgety, talkative but incoherent in his speech. .... The patient ... roars with laughter and grimaces, sticking his tongue out. ... Sometimes he starts asking in a whisper whether he will be released, but having received the answer, asks the same question again. ... If asked about his experience after the arrest, the patient becomes restless, somewhat confused, the expression on his face becomes blank. ... His memory and intelligence cannot be tested for lack of productive contact... Sometimes he becomes tense, restless and quarrelsome....\nConclusion 2.  It is at present impossible to determine the que", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2939", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the city of Zhytomyr.\n5.  From 1988 to 2001 the applicant worked as a teacher at the Zhytomyr Orphanage (Житомирський обласний будинок дитини; hereafter “the Orphanage”).\n6.  On 27 September 2001 the Bogunsky District Court of Zhytomir (hereinafter “the Bogunsky Court”) ordered the Orphanage to pay the applicant a total of UAH 3,483.60 (an equivalent of EUR 508.25) in compensation for salary and social benefits arrears (see, in this respect, Kechko v. Ukraine, no. 63134/00, §§ 9-11, 8 November 2005).\n7.  In a letter of 10 October 2003, the Zhytomyr Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that the judgment in her favour could not be enforced due to the debtor's lack of funds. It also pointed out that the 2003 State Budget did not preview the expenditure for teachers' social benefits and that the Zhytomyr Regional State Administration applied to the Ministry of Finance for a loan for the payment of the debt to the applicant.\n8.  The judgment of 27 September 2001 remains unenforced.\n9.  In November 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Orphanage seeking her reinstatement and compensation for the loss of salary. On 31 May 2002 the Bogunsky Court rejected this claim as unsubstantiated. On 12 September 2002 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. On 12 February 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2940", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant, Mr Petro Mykhaylovych Lozynskyy, was born in 1964; the second applicant, Mr Viktor Fedorovych Ashurkov, was born in 1955; the third applicant, Mrs Mariya Vasylivna Lozynska, was born in 1965. All the applicants are Ukrainian nationals and reside in the Bashtansky District of the Mykolayiv region.\n5.  On 13 November and 18 December 2000 the Bashtanka Court, in three separate judgments, ordered a private JSC “Peremoga” (hereafter “the JSC”) to pay the applicants, respectively, UAH 2335, 1798 and 1552[3].\n6.  On 8 June 2001 the Bashtanka Court, upon the applicants' complaint, declared unlawful the failure of the Bashtanka Bailiffs' Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) to enforce the judgments of 13 November and 18 December 2000. The court established that the Bailiffs had taken no steps to enforce the judgments. In particular, no measures had been undertaken to attach and sell the debtor's property.\n7.  During 2002 the Bailiffs attached and sold the JSC's property, following which the applicants were paid UAH 1,059, 910 and 1,368, respectively.\n8.  As on 28 April 2004 the Mykolayiv Commercial Court declared the JSC insolvent, the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings and transferred the writs of execution to the liquidation commission.\n9.  The judgments' debts owed to the applicants were paid in total in September 2005.\n10.  By decisions of 21 September and 1 October 2001 the Bashtanka Court awarded each applicant UAH 590[4] against the Bailiffs for non-pecuniary damage caused by the failure to execute the judgments given in their favour against the JSC.\n11.  On 8 January 2002 the Bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments of 21 September and 1 October 2001.\n12.  On 16 September 2004 the writs of execution were returned to the applicants unenforced due to the debtor's lack of funds.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2941", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  He worked as Manager-in-Chief of the State company “Inspectorate for the Transport of Freight and Passengers”, a subdivision of the Ministry of Transportation (“the employer”).\n7.  In October 2001 the applicant was dismissed from his job. He brought a court action against the Ministry challenging the lawfulness of his dismissal.\n8.  On 7 November 2001 the Centru District Court ordered the applicant's reinstatement. He was reinstated but was dismissed again on the following day.\n9.  He brought another action against the Ministry, asking for his reinstatement and payment of his salary for the entire period of his involuntary absence from work.\n10.  On 21 December 2001 the Centru District Court found for the applicant and ordered the Ministry to reinstate him. It also awarded the applicant 3,800 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 323 euros (EUR) at the time).\n11.  That judgment was upheld by the Chişinău Regional Court on 13 February 2002 and by the Appellate Court on 23 May 2002.\n12.  On 22 December 2001 the Centru District Court issued an enforcement warrant which it sent to the Ministry for enforcement. Since the Ministry failed to comply with the warrant within the time-limit set by the court, it was warned and twice given additional time to comply.\n13.  On 5 February 2002 the applicant asked the Prosecutor General's Office to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the refusal of the Minister of Transport, as head of the Ministry, to comply with a final court judgment. In the reply sent to the applicant on 18 February 2002 he was informed that there was no reason for the prosecution to intervene since it was the court's function to supervise the enforcement. The applicant also complained to other authorities (the prosecution service, the President), to no avail.\n14.  On 8 February 2002 the Centru District imposed a fine of MDL 900 on the Minister of Transport for failing to comply with its judgment. The court also awarded the applicant his salary for the period of his involuntary absence from work between 21 December 2001 and 8 February 2002, amounting to MDL 2,219 (EUR 195).\n15.  On 27 February 2002 a bailiff confirmed the Ministry's non-compliance with the judgment of 21 December 2001.\n16.  On 28 February 2002 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice about the non-enforcement of the judgment. On 22 March 2002 the Ministry of Justice informed him of the previous attempts to enforce the judgment and of a new request by the bailiff to have the Minister of Transport fined.\n17.  On 9 April 2002 the Centru District Court imposed a fine of MDL 1,350 on the Minister of Transport at the bailiff's request. The court also awarded the applicant his salary for the period of his involuntary absence from work after 8 February 2002, amounting to MDL 3,360 (EUR 195). According to the applicant, the Minister never paid any of the fines imposed by the court.\n18.  On 12 September 2002 the applicant was reinstated and on 18 September 2002 he received MDL 9,925, representing his salary arrears. On 1 October 2002 he was reimbursed for the legal expenses incurred during the trial and on 31 October 2002 he received the last sum due to him.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2942", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Sosnowiec, Poland.\n6.  On 21 August 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police.\n7.  On 22 August 2001 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had been involved in drug trafficking and drug production as a member of an organised gang.\n8.  On 20 December 2001 the applicant's pre-trial detention was prolonged by the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The court relied on the severity of the sentence that might be imposed and held that keeping the applicant in detention was justified by the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.\n9.  The applicant's appeal against this decision was dismissed on 29 January 2002.\n10.  On 8 April 2002 the Regional Court further prolonged the applicant's detention reiterating the grounds originally given for his detention and adding that the measure was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.\n11.  Subsequently, on 24 July and 25 September 2002, the Katowice Court of Appeal prolonged the detention of the applicant and 12 co‑accused. The court considered that the strong suspicion against the accused of having committed serious offences while acting in an organised gang made it probable that they would obstruct the course of the proceedings. It found that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the accused might induce them to obstruct the proceedings. With regard to the applicant, the court underlined the risk of a heavy sentence being imposed on him.\n12.  On 22 November 2002 the applicant and 15 co-accused were indicted before the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court.\n13.  On 27 November 2002 the pre-trial detention of the applicant and 14 other persons was further extended. The Katowice Regional Court considered the risk of the accused tampering with evidence high, basing itself on the fact that they had been charged with being members of an organised criminal gang.\n14.  The applicant's request of 5 May 2003 to lift his pre-trial detention was dismissed on 9 June 2003.\n15.  As the length of the applicant's detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego) the District Court made several applications to the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) for the applicant's detention to be prolonged beyond that term. On 6 August 2003 the Court of Appeal granted the application. The court noted, however, that although the bill of indictment had been lodged eight months previously, the trial court had not yet started to examine the merits of the case. As regards the need to prolong the applicant's detention, the court noted as follows:\n“...The [Regional Court] rightly pointed to Articles 249 § 1 and 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to justify the continuation of the detention on remand in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, and there is no need to discuss that further.\nIt should be underlined that, given the number of co-accused and the type of offences they had been charged with, the present case is particularly complex. Therefore, it is necessary to prolong further the detention in order to carry out the proceedings, in particular to take evidence from 16 accused and 11 witnesses...\nIt should also be noted that, as t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2943", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Milanówek.\n6.  Since 1991 the applicant has owned a plot of land located in the municipality of Milanówek, near Warsaw. It is listed in the local land register under entry no. 31737.\n7.  Under the local land development plan adopted in 1981, which was in force in 1991 when the applicant acquired the land concerned, it was situated in an area described as “the agricultural area without the right to construction, reserved for a future zone designated for recreational purposes”. The 1981 plan remained in force until 1993.\n8.  On 30 March 1993 the Municipal Council of Milanówek, in a public procedure provided for by relevant planning legislation, adopted a resolution by which the local land development plan was accepted. The applicant's land was included in an area in which a ring-road and a hospital were to be constructed in the future.\n9.  The applicant and his neighbours lodged a complaint against the Council's resolution with the Mazowsze Governor, arguing inter alia, that the plan breached their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They submitted that the local land development plan had been prepared in a manner which failed to take into consideration and to reconcile various interests of the municipality and the local owners. As a result, the plan which had been adopted was unreasonable and did not comply with standards of good land administration.\n10.  They were informed that the Supreme Administrative Court was competent to examine their complaint.\n11.  By a judgment of 25 September 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the complaint, finding that there were no indications that the municipal authorities had failed to take into consideration and properly weigh the various competing interests involved in the preparation of the local land development plan. It noted that restrictions on ownership imposed by the land development measures were not per se incompatible with the nature of ownership as guaranteed by the Civil Code.\n12.  On 8 February 1999 the applicant requested that an initial approval for a development project on his land be issued.\n13.  On 27 March 2000 the applicant submitted to the Mayor of Milanówek a request that his land either be acquired by the municipality or that he be given another plot of land.\n14.  In a letter of 12 April 2000 the Municipal Office informed the applicant that his request of 8 February 1999 had not been examined as he had failed to submit an appropriate plan with it. He was further informed that the validity of the 1993 plan had been prolonged by Parliament for two more years, until the end of 2001.\n15.  On 12 May 2000 the Marshal of the Mazowsze Region informed the applicant that the construction of the roadway was undoubtedly in the interests of the inhabitants of Milanówek, but that no funding would be provided for it in the financing scheme for the regional land development plan until at least 2010.\n16.  On 17 July 2000 the applicant renewed his request for an initial approval for a development project on his land. He wished to have a house built on it.\n17.  On 1 September 2000 the Mayor of Milanówek refused his request, finding that the project as submitted by the applicant was incompatible with the local land development plan.\n18.  The applicant appealed, submitting that there were no immediate plans to build the road, there was no financing earmarked for it in the relevant public budgets, and that his right to the p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2944", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Yenakiyeve.\n5.  In 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his former employers, the State-owned mines “Yenakiyivska” and “Poltavska”, seeking compensation for damage to his health.\n6.  On 12 February 1999 the Yenakiyeve Court (Єнакіївський міський суд) ordered the mine “Poltavska” to pay the applicant a lump sum of 10,922.79 hryvnyas (UAH)[1]. On 22 March 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court (the “Regional Court”; Донецький обласний суд) amended this judgment, having additionally awarded the applicant arrears in monthly allowances for the period of October 1996 – October 1999.\n7.  On 22 March 1999 the Regional Court ordered the mine “Yenakiyivska” to pay the applicant the total UAH 10,263.24[2] in monthly allowance arrears.\n8.  After the above decisions had become final and the enforcement proceedings had been instituted in their respect, the applicant unsuccessfully requested the judicial authorities to re-open the proceedings, seeking higher compensation.\n9.  According to the Government, the judgments debts were fully paid to the applicant in several instalments, last payments having been made in September 2003. To this end, the Government presented copies of the decisions to terminate the enforcement proceedings taken on 19 and 26 September 2003 by the Bailiffs (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Єнакіївського міського управління юстиції) in respect of the mines “Yenakiyivska” and “Poltavska” respectively.\n10.  The applicant maintained that he had received only a part of the judgments debt due to him. He did not, however, specify the outstanding amount and provided no information on whether he had challenged the Bailiffs' decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings.\n11.  After the case had been communicated to the Government, the applicant additionally submitted a number of documents concerning his other disputes and proceedings against various parties, however, he neither described the relevant facts, nor articulated any separate complaints in their respect.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2945", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Prievidza.\n6.  On 4 August 1999 the applicant was charged with conspiracy and extortion under Articles 9 § 2 and 235 §§ 1 and 2 (b) of the Criminal Code. The charge was based on the suspicion that, acting as part of an organised group and posing as a police officer, the applicant had lured an individual into a car, driven him to another place and forced him at gunpoint to pay an amount of money. Two days later, following his arrest (see below), a lawyer was officially assigned to the applicant.\n7.  Between September and December 1999 the investigators assigned to the case heard evidence from and organised a confrontation between the accused, the victim and a witness and obtained other evidence.\n8.  On 7 January 2000 the Nitra District Prosecutor indicted the applicant to stand trial in the Nitra District Court (Okresný súd) on the above charge.\n9.  On 21 January 2000 the District Court remitted the bill of indictment to the prosecution service for further investigation. It found that the facts had not been established adequately, in particular because it had been overlooked that, at the time of the alleged offence, the applicant had still been on probation following a conviction for an extremely serious offence (obzvlášť závažný trestný čin). It had equally been overlooked that the applicant was also facing prosecution for another extremely serious offence. These facts had to be examined and taken into account in the present case.\n10.  On 22 June 2000 an investigator interviewed the applicant again.\n11.  On 17 July 2000 the prosecutor filed the indictment again, classifying the applicant as an “extremely dangerous recidivist” as defined by Article 41 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  The applicant requested on 24 July and 21 December 2000 and 30 May 2001 the replacement of his officially assigned lawyers on the ground that he had lost confidence in them. New lawyers were assigned to him on 16 October 2000, 23 April 2001 and 13 September 2001 respectively. The applicant finally appointed a lawyer of his choice, in November 2001.\n13.  On 4 June 2001 the applicant's co-accused requested that the case against him be dealt with separately from that against the applicant on the ground that the applicant had deliberately been protracting the proceedings.\n14.  On 6 June 2003, after he had been released from detention (see below), the applicant informed the District Court that he could not take part in the proceedings as he was receiving psychiatric treatment. He sent similar letters to the District Court on 13 October 2003 and 14 February 2005. In a letter of 30 October 2003 to the District Court the applicant's psychiatrist confirmed that the applicant was receiving treatment but considered that there was nothing to prevent him from taking part in the proceedings.\n15.  Consequently, on 4 March 2005, the District Court appointed a psychologist to report on the applicant's mental health. The report was submitted on 26 May 2005 with the conclusion that the applicant was fit to take part in and able to comprehend the meaning of the criminal proceedings against him.\n16.  In the course of the proceedings the District Court held hearings on 13 December 2000, 12 September and 15 October 2001, 23 January, 6 March and 29 May 2002, 22 January 2003, 29 November 2004 and 2 March 2005. Further hearings were listed for 30 March and 9 May 2001 and 22 September 2003. The first of these did not take place as one of t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2946", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Legnica, Poland.\n6.  On 29 November 1999 the applicant lodged a claim for rectification of an entry in a local land register with the Legnica Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). She sought to be considered as the sole owner of the real estate that she had inherited from her late father and which had been erroneously recorded as the joint property of the applicant and her husband. On an unknown date she made an application for an exemption from court fees required from her to take the proceedings (PLN 7,500). On 15 December 1999 the Regional Court dismissed her application.\n7.  The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision.\n8.  On 30 December 1999 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed her appeal. As she had failed to pay the court fees her claim was returned to her on an unknown later date.\n9.  The applicant subsequently lodged a second claim for rectification of the entry in the local land register. On 10 February 2000 the Legnica Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay, within seven days, a court fee of PLN 9,750.\n10.  On 15 February 2000 the applicant made an application to be exempted from court fees. The applicant maintained that she received a monthly disability pension of PLN 1,075. In addition, she had some extra income as she was a self‑employed lawyer. However, she had a loan to pay off and a household to support since she was divorced. She further claimed that her income only allowed her to support herself and her daughter and that she had not been able to put money aside for court fees.\n11.  On 13 March 2000 the Legnica Regional Court dismissed her application. The court held that the applicant's financial situation was sound since she received a monthly disability pension of PLN 1,075. In addition, the income from her law firm in November amounted to PLN 19,563. The court further held that the applicant could not be considered indigent since she was a practising lawyer. Lastly, the applicant should have set aside money for the litigation.\n12.  On 24 March 2000 the applicant filed an interlocutory appeal against this decision. The applicant submitted that the PLN 19,563 mentioned in her tax return constituted her gross income for the period of eleven months. She further claimed that having to pay the full amount of court fees would entail a substantial reduction in her standard of living. Lastly, she argued that Article 113 of the Civil Procedure Code provided a possibility for an exemption from court fees for a person who could demonstrate that payment of such fees would entail a substantial reduction in his or her standard of living. This exemption was not only applicable to the less well-off.\n13.  On 26 May 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court held that while the applicant's gross income from her law firm in November amounted to PLN 19,563 her net income in that month had been PLN 2,664. Considering the fact that she also received a monthly disability pension, she could have put aside money for the payment of court fees.\n14.  On 26 May 2000 the court ordered the applicant to pay court fees of PLN 9,750, failing which her claim would be rejected. The applicant again asked to be exempted from court fees, repeating her earlier arguments.\n15.  On 31 August 2000 the Legnica Regional Court dismissed her application. The court held that the applicant received a monthly disability pension of PLN 1,320 and al", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2947", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Kryvyy Rig. He was an employee of the “Kryvbaszalizrudkom” OJSC (“the Company”; ВАТ “Кривбасзалізрудком”). The “Ukrrudprom” State Company (ДВАТ «Укррудпром») owned 100% of the Company's share capital.\n5.  In March 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kryvyy Rig (Дзержинський районний суд м. Кривий Ріг), seeking his reinstatement as an overman (гірничий майстер) and compensatory redress for allegedly unlawful dismissal.\n6.  On 2 November 2001 the court ordered the applicant's reinstatement and partly allowed his claims for compensation, having awarded him 12,231.37 hryvnyas (UAH)[1]. The Company appealed, but reinstated the applicant.\n7.  On 4 June 2002 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the applicant's reinstatement, however, recalculated the compensation and awarded him UAH 7,038.38[2]. The judgment was not appealed against in cassation within the statutory time-limit and became final.\n8.  On 30 July 2002 the Zhovtnevy District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Жовтневого району м. Кривий Ріг) instituted the enforcement proceedings.\n9.  On 30 August 2002 the enforcement proceedings were stayed on account of the pending bankruptcy proceedings against the Company.\n10.  On 26 April 2004 the enforcement proceedings were resumed, as the bankruptcy proceedings had been discontinued.\n11.  In May 2004 the judgment given in the applicant's favour was enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2948", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kozubnik, Poland.\n6.  On 24 February 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police.\n7.  On 28 February 2001 the Żywiec District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had been involved in drug trafficking and drug production as a member of an organised gang.\n8.  On 21 May and 18 August 2001 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court decided to prolong the applicant's pre-trial detention. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion against the applicant and on the severity of the penalty that might be imposed, which made it probable that he would obstruct the proceedings.\n9.  In 2001 the applicant on at least four occasions unsuccessfully requested the prosecutor to release him from detention.\n10.  On 20 December 2001 the applicant's pre-trial detention was prolonged by the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The court relied on the severity of the sentence that might be imposed and held that keeping the applicant in detention was justified by the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.\n11.  On 13 February and 17 April 2002 the Regional Court further prolonged the applicant's detention reiterating the grounds originally given for his detention and adding that the measure was necessary given the complexity of the case.\n12.  The applicant's appeals against both decisions were dismissed on 27 March and 22 May 2002 respectively.\n13.  Subsequently, on 24 July and 25 September 2002, the Katowice Court of Appeal prolonged the detention of the applicant and 12 co‑accused. The court considered that the strong suspicion against the accused of having committed serious offences while acting in an organised gang made it probable that they would obstruct the course of the proceedings. It found that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the accused might induce them to obstruct the proceedings. With regard to the applicant, the court underlined the risk of a heavy sentence being imposed on him.\n14.  On 22 November 2002 the applicant and 15 co‑accused were indicted before the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court.\n15.  On 27 November 2002 the pre-trial detention of the applicant and 14 other persons was further extended. The Katowice Regional Court considered the risk of the accused tampering with evidence high, basing itself on the fact that they had been charged with being members of an organised criminal gang.\n16.  The applicant appealed against this decision but on 8 January 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal.\n17.  As the length of the applicant's detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego) the District Court made several applications to the Katowice Court of Appeal for the applicant's detention to be prolonged beyond that term. On 8 January 2003 the Court of Appeal granted the application. The court justified its decision with reference to the reasonable suspicion that the accused had committed the offences and the complexity of the case which concerned an organised criminal gang. The court also held that the measure was justified by the severity of the sentence to which the accused were liable and by the risk that they would interfere with the course of the proceedings.\n18.  On 17 Ma", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2949", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Kryvyy Rig.\n5.  On 19 July 1994 the applicant, who worked in the system of public education at the material time, became permanently disabled following injury to his back and legs. The injury was recorded as a work accident and since February 1995 the applicant was receiving monthly disability allowances from the Ternivsky Department of Public Education (the “Department”; Тернівське районне відділення народної освіти).\n6.  On 17 July 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kryvyy Rig (the “District Court”; Жовтневий районний суд м. Кривий Ріг) seeking a higher allowance.\n7.  On 4 March 1998 the Department lodged a counter-claim seeking to establish that the applicant's trauma was not work-related.\n8.  Between September 1997 and December 2001 the District Court scheduled some thirty hearings, with intervals ranging from two weeks to four months. On numerous occasions the hearings were adjourned on account of the parties' conduct (requests for adjournments or absences). According to the court records, five such adjournments were attributable to the applicant, twelve – to the Department, and eight – to both parties. Two hearings were adjourned in connection with court matters.\n9.  On 7 December 2001 the District Court left the applicant's claim and the Department's counter-claim without consideration on account of the parties' repeated failure to appear.\n10.  According to the applicant, he learned about this decision only in May 2002, from the District Court's response to his request for expedition of the proceedings. The applicant submitted to the Court a copy of this request dated 23 April 2002 and a copy of the District Court's response of 23 May 2002, in which the court was informing the applicant that his claims had been left without consideration on 7 December 2001. The applicant further noted that on 11 January 2002 the District Court had summoned him for a hearing for 4 February 2002. To this end he submitted a copy of a summons of 11 January 2002, which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:\n“The Zhovtnevy District Court of Kryvyy Rig summons you as a plaintiff for 10 p.m. on 4 February 2002 in connection with the case for compensation of damage...”\nThe applicant explained that he attended this hearing together with his witness Mr U., but it was adjourned on account of the Department's failure to appear. He presented a copy of Mr U.'s statement confirming he had appeared for the hearing of 4 February 2002.\n11.  According to the Government, the applicant learned about the decision of 7 December 2001 no later than on 24 December 2001, when he visited the District Court and requested certain documents from his case-file. They further noted that by the summons of 11 January 2002 the District Court had intended to invite the applicant to collect the documents he had requested. To this end, the Government presented a statement signed by Judge K. of the District Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2950", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Klaipėda.\n6.  At birth the applicant was registered as a girl with a clearly female name under the rules of the Lithuanian language.\n7.  The applicant submitted that from an early age he had become aware that his “mental sex” was male, thus acknowledging the conflict between his mental and genital gender.\n8.  On 18 May 1997 the applicant consulted a microsurgeon about the possibilities of gender reassignment. The doctor proposed that the applicant first consult a psychiatrist.\n9.  From 4 to 12 November 1997 the applicant attended Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital for tests on his physical and psychological condition.\n10.  On 16 December 1997 a doctor at the Vilnius University Hospital of Santariškės confirmed the applicant’s chromosomal sex as female, and diagnosed him as a transsexual. The doctor also advised that the applicant consult a psychiatrist.\n11.  On 23 January 1998 the Vilnius University Hospital of Raudonasis Kryžius opened a medical file on the applicant. The applicant gave his name in a masculine form under the rules of the Lithuanian language, and his medical file referred to him as being of male gender. An entry of 28 January 1998 in the medical file included a recommendation that the applicant pursue hormone treatment with a view to eventual gender reassignment surgery. Thereafter, a two-month course of hormone treatment was officially prescribed for the applicant. Moreover, it was recommended that the applicant consult a neurosurgeon, who subsequently performed breast removal surgery on him (see paragraph 19 below).\n12.  On 12 November 1998 the applicant, using his original name and surname, wrote a letter to the Ministry of Health seeking clarification of the legal and medical possibilities for gender reassignment. He stated that he was determined to undergo this procedure.\n13.  On 17 December 1998 an official of the Ministry of Health replied that a working group had been set up by the Minister of Health with a view to analysing the questions pertaining to gender reassignment, and that the applicant would be duly informed about the conclusions of that group.\n14.  Before the Court, the applicant claimed that he had received no further communication from the Ministry of Health.\n15.  On 13 May 1999 a doctor at Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital confirmed that the applicant, referred to by his original name, had attended the hospital from 4 to 12 November 1997, and that he had been diagnosed as a transsexual.\n16.  The applicant submitted that in 1999 his general medical practitioner had refused to prescribe hormone therapy in view of the legal uncertainty as to whether full gender reassignment could be carried out, leading to the new identity of a transsexual being registered in accordance with domestic law. Thereafter the applicant continued the hormone treatment “unofficially”, as it was considered at that time that such treatment should be followed for two years before the full surgical procedure could be performed.\n17.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the applicant requested that his name on all official documents be changed to reflect his male identity; that request was refused.\n18.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the applicant enrolled at Vilnius University. Upon the applicant’s request, the university administration agreed to register him as a student under the male name chosen by him (bearing the initials P.L.). The applicant asserted before the Court that the decision of the U", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2951", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Istanbul. She is the widow of Mr Cengiz Aksakal (“C.A.”), who died on 12 November 1980.\n6.  On 12 September 1980 martial law was declared in Turkey following military intervention by the army.\n7.  On 18 October 1980 C.A., who was a teacher in the village of Veliköy, in the province of Artvin, surrendered to the police during a military operation and was taken into custody. He was suspected of belonging to the illegal organisation Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). He spent the first three days in custody at the headquarters of the gendarmerie in Veliköy and the following five at the headquarters of the gendarmerie of the district of Şavşat. C.A., who was in good health at the time of his detention in both locations, was not questioned.\n8.  On 26 October 1980 he was transferred to Artvin, where he was interrogated in a sports hall until the following 2 November. On that date, he was imprisoned in the martial law detention facility (sıkıyönetim gözetim evi).\n9.  After having been taken ill on 3 November 1980, C.A. was admitted to hospital in a pre-comatose state. On 5 November 1980, he was transferred by ambulance to Trabzon Hospital where he died on 12 November.\n10.  According to the autopsy report drawn up on 13 November 1980, the following marks were found on the body of the deceased:\n“Abrasions measuring 3 x 3 cm, going from the outside towards the inside of the eighth and ninth ribs, the scabs of which were coming off; on the right wrist and on the inside of the wrist, a purple mark in the form of two parallel bracelets 1.5 cm wide and on the mark, two wounds, the scabs of which were coming off; on the left wrist, the same mark, 1.5 cm wide; on the left side of the penis, a wound without a scab; on the left foot, a wound with a scab measuring 2 x 1 cm, with, underneath, a bruise measuring 3 x 3 cm; four wounds with scabs under the left knee, a wound with a scab measuring 5 x 1 cm inside the left tibia ...; bruising on the top and lateral surface of the right foot.”\n11.  Since the cause of death could not be established on the basis of this information, a conventional autopsy was performed. An examination of the skull and ribcage revealed “ecchymosis measuring 3 x 4 cm at the back, a large haematoma inside the cervical cavity; an infection of the lungs ...” A post-mortem examination was deemed necessary.\n12.  In her complaint lodged with the public prosecutor on 28 January 1981, the applicant stated:\n“Two soldiers, accompanied by the village schoolmaster came to our house on the day before the religious holiday. They took my husband away saying that the lieutenant wanted to talk to him. He was held at the village gendarmerie for approximately four days. During that time, I was able to visit him and he was well. He was then transferred to the gendarmerie in the district of Şavşat; I was no longer able to visit him. I was told that he remained there for six days and was then taken to Artvin .... When they returned his body to me, I noticed abrasions and signs of injuries. His tongue was as big as that of an animal, three of his teeth were broken, ... there were marks of torture all over his body. Before being arrested, he had been in good health.”\n13.  According to the administrative investigation report (idari tahkikat raporu) of 15 February 1981 signed by three officers, during the course of a military operation on 18 October 1980 C.A. had been arrested after having obeyed an order to surrende", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2953", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Brzeg.\n5.  On 21 May 1999 the Brzeg District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) issued a “wanted” notice in respect of the applicant and several other men in connection with an investigation into allegations made by six women, some of whom were minors, that a group of several men had raped them, threatened them, beaten them and forced them to take drugs. The warrant for arrest was issued after the prosecution service had established that the applicant had gone into hiding and that the police had unsuccessfully attempted to arrest him.\n6.  On 21 July 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 27 July 1999 the Opole District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences of repeated group rape with aggravated cruelty and false imprisonment while acting in an organised criminal gang. The court also found that, given that he had absconded in the past, there was a risk that the applicant might go into hiding again and try to influence the victims.\n7.  The applicant appealed against the decision but his appeal was dismissed on 11 August 1999 by the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n8.  On 18 October 1999 the Opole Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention relying on the reasonable suspicion of his having committed the offences and on the complexity of the investigation which had not yet been terminated by the prosecutor.\n9.  On 13 December 1999 the court decided that the applicant's detention should be prolonged. It considered that, in addition to the strong suspicion against the applicant, the severity of the sentence that might be imposed and the risk of his tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses justified holding him in custody. In addition, the court relied on the risk that, given that he had absconded in the past, he might go into hiding again. The court also observed that only detention on remand would secure the applicant's appearance at the trial.\n10.  On 16 December 1999 the applicant was indicted before the Opole Regional Court. It appears that the first hearing was held on 26 April 2000. In 2000 the trial court held in total 13 hearings.\n11.  Subsequently, the applicant's detention was prolonged by decisions of 12 June and 13 November 2000 and 15 May 2001. The decisions were based on the reasons given for detention on previous occasions.\n12.  Afterwards, as the length of the applicant's detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Regional Court applied to the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) asking for the applicant's detention to be prolonged beyond that term. On 28 June 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal allowed the application and prolonged his pre‑trial detention. The Court of Appeal based its decision on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious offences and on the risk that he might interfere with the course of justice. The court further considered that the complexity of the case constituted a special circumstance justifying his remaining in custody.\n13.  On 7 November 2001 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal again decided to prolong the pre-trial detention of the applicant, finding that the initial reasons for the detention were still valid. Furthermore, the court examined the course of the proceedings before the Opole Regional Court and agreed that th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2955", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Brzeg, Poland.\n5.  On 21 May 1999 the Brzeg District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) issued a “wanted” notice in respect of the applicant and several other men in connection with an investigation into allegations made by six women, some of whom were minors, that a group of several men had raped them, threatened them, beaten them and forced them to take drugs. The warrant for arrest was issued after the prosecution service had established that the applicant had gone into hiding and that the police had unsuccessfully attempted to arrest him.\n6.  On 21 July 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 27 July 1999 the Opole District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences of repeated group rape with aggravated cruelty and false imprisonment while acting in an organised criminal gang. The court also found that, given that he had absconded in the past, there was a risk that the applicant might go into hiding again and try to influence the victims.\n7.  The applicant appealed against the decision but his appeal was dismissed on 11 August 1999 by the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n8.  On 18 October 1999 the Opole Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention relying on the reasonable suspicion of his having committed the offences and on the complexity of the investigation which had not yet been terminated by the prosecutor.\n9.  On 13 December 1999 the court decided that the applicant's detention should be prolonged. It considered that, in addition to the strong suspicion against the applicant, the severity of the sentence that might be imposed and the risk of his tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses justified holding him in custody. In addition, the court relied on the risk that, given that he had absconded in the past, he might go into hiding again. The court also observed that only detention on remand would secure the applicant's appearance at the trial.\n10.  On 16 December 1999 the applicant was indicted before the Opole Regional Court. It appears that the first hearing was held on 26 April 2000. In 2000 the trial court held in total 13 hearings.\n11.  Subsequently, the applicant's detention was prolonged by decisions of 12 June and 13 November 2000 and 15 May 2001. The decisions were based on the reasons given for the detention on previous occasions.\n12.  Afterwards, as the length of the applicant's detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Regional Court applied to the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) asking for the applicant's detention to be prolonged beyond that term. On 28 June 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal allowed the application and prolonged his pre‑trial detention. The Court of Appeal based its decision on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious offences and on the risk that he might interfere with the course of justice. The court further considered that the complexity of the case constituted a special circumstance justifying his remaining in custody.\n13.  On 7 November 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal again decided to prolong the pre-trial detention of the applicant, finding that the initial reasons for the detention were still valid. Furthermore, the court examined the course of the proceedings before the Opole Regional Court and ag", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2956", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Dzhankoy, Ukraine.\n5.  On 24 July 1997, when the applicant, a minor at the time, was playing in the yard near home and climbed the concrete wall surrounding the Dzhankoy State Boarding School (the “School”; Джанкойська республіканська загальноосвітня школа-інтернат), a concrete slab from the wall, weighing 1,500 kg, fell on him. The applicant survived, but became permanently and severely disabled.\n6.  According to the applicant, between 1997 and 1999 his parents lodged numerous unsuccessful requests for investigation into the accident, however, he did not submit any relevant documents predating 7 June 1999.\n7.  On 7 June 1999 the Dzhankoy Prosecutors' Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings into the accident, which decision was subsequently quashed by the Dzhankoy Court (Джанкойський міський суд). Between June 1999 and May 2001 the criminal proceedings were terminated and resumed on several occasions. The last decision terminating the proceedings was given by the Prosecutors' Office on 15 May 2001. The applicant did not challenge this decision before the domestic courts.\n8.  According to an expert assessment ordered in the course of the investigation, the wall had been designed in breach of relevant technical standards, which fact, augmented by lack of regular renovations, caused the fall of the slab. The investigation further established that the wall had been built in 1980s without a planning permission or other relevant documents and that the School's staff performed some ad hoc renovation works on it. However, the investigation was terminated on the ground that it was not possible to establish either the constructor or the owner of the wall, since the wall did not feature in either the School's or the city records. These records listed, instead, a non-existent fence of wood and wire-net belonging to the School. Furthermore, a criminal investigation against the constructor would have been time-barred.\n9.  In October 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Zhankoy Court against the School and the Ministry of Education of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea, seeking compensation for damages caused by his injury.\n10.  On 25 January 2001 the Court suspended the proceedings at the request of one of the parties in view of the re-opening of the criminal proceedings. In May 2001, after the criminal proceedings were terminated, the court resumed the hearings.\n11.  Between December 2000 and November 2001 the court scheduled some eleven hearings, three of them being adjourned on account of the absence of a School representative, and one in view of the judge's sickness.\n12.  On 20 November 2001 the Dzhankoy Court rejected the applicant's claims as being unsubstantiated. In particular, it confirmed that the wall surrounding the School did not belong to it and therefore the defendants bore no liability for its maintenance.\n13.  On 13 February 2002 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea (the “Court of Appeal”; Апеляційний суд Автономної Республіки Крим) quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first instance court. The court ordered to take additional measures for establishing the parties responsible for the construction and maintenance of the wall.\n14.  Between June and December 2002 the City Court scheduled some six hearings, two of them being adjourned on account of the defendant's absence, and one – on account of ab", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2957", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant, Fehime Ete (hereafter referred to simply as “the applicant”), was born in 1960 and lives in Siirt.\n5.  On 21 October 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of aiding members of an illegal armed organisation. She was remanded in custody on 24 October 2001.\n6.  However, at the request of the Governor of the State of Emergency Region and the public prosecutor, pursuant to Article 3 (c) of Law-Decree 430, which allowed them to take further measures within the framework of the state of emergency, a single judge at the Van State Security Court authorised, on 25 November 2001, the applicant's transfer from prison to the Diyarbakır gendarmerie command for further interrogation for a duration not exceeding ten days. This period was extended by the same court for another ten days on 5 December 2001. The objection lodged by the applicant's lawyer against this decision was dismissed on 7 December 2001.\n7.  Between 25 November and 12 December 2001, the applicant was held in the Diyarbakır and Siirt gendarmerie command. On 12 December 2001 the applicant was returned to prison.\n8.  The subsequent criminal proceedings brought against the applicant ended with her acquittal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2958", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 31 March 1994 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Sol (Revolutionary Left).\n6.  On 9 April 1994 the applicant was brought before the Istanbul State Security Court and remanded in custody. He was placed in Ümraniye Prison.\n7.  On 2 May 1994 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and nine other persons. The public prosecutor charged the applicant with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, an offence defined under Article 146 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  Subsequently, the case brought against the applicant was joined with another case pending before the Istanbul State Security Court.\n9.  Following the riots in the Ümraniye Prison to protest against F-Type prisons, in December 2000 the applicant was sent to Kandıra F-type Prison.\n10.  On 25 December 2000 in connection with the incidents that took place in the Ümraniye Prison, the judge at the Üsküdar Magistrate's Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand in absentia. In the detention order, it was stated that the applicant was accused of homicide, armed riot against prison administration and damaging prison property.\n11.  On 12 January 2001 the applicant was brought before the Kandıra Magistrate's Court and the detention order dated 25 December 2000 was read out to him. He was also reminded that he could appeal against this decision before the Üsküdar Assize Court.\n12.  On 23 March 2001 the Üsküdar public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Üsküdar Assize Court against the applicant and 398 other persons on account of the incidents in Ümraniye Prison. The prosecutor requested the court to convict the accused persons under Articles 264, 304, 450, 456 and 457 of the Criminal Code of homicide, of having started a riot in the prison and of damage to public property.\n13.  In the meantime, on 9 February 2001, the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant's release pending trial within the context of the proceedings brought against him with the charge under Article 146 of the Criminal Code. However, he was not released as his detention on remand had been ordered on 25 December 2000 in connection with the incidents in the Ümraniye Prison.\n14.  On 14 February 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the Üsküdar Magistrates' Court. In his petition, he maintained that, although his release had been ordered by the state security court, he was not released and that he assumed that the reason for his continued detention was the Üsküdar Magistrate's Court's detention order. The applicant contended that he was not aware of the reasons for this order and requested to be brought before a court and to be released.\n15.  On 6 July 2001 the Üsküdar Assize Court held its first hearing and ordered the release of the applicant –together with twelve other accused- pending trial.\n16.  On 7 July 2001 at around 8.30 p.m. the applicant was released from prison.\n17.  In 2004 the State Security Courts were abolished following a constitutional amendment and the applicant's case before the Istanbul State Security Court was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.\n18.  On 27 October 2004 the Istanbul Assize Court held that, since the applicant was a minor when the crimes in question had been committed, the cas", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2959", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, Sıddık Onay and Zinnet Onay, were born in 1985 and 1948 respectively and live in Diyarbakır. The second applicant is the mother of the former.\n5.  When the first applicant (“the applicant”) was 17 years old, on 25 May 2002 at about 2 p.m. he was arrested at his home by police officers from the Department of Peace and Order attached to the Diyarbakır Security Directorate, on suspicion of involvement in various incidents of bag snatching in Diyarbakır.\n6.  According to the report drafted by the police, the arrest took place on 26 May 2002 at 9.50 p.m. on the street outside his residence. The report stated that the police had acted upon the information of a certain M.D., a fellow detainee, who had cited the applicant's name during his interrogation in relation to the bag snatching in Diyarbakır. The report also stated that the applicant's mother had been informed of the arrest and detention.\n7.  On 26 May 2002 the applicant was given a medical examination at the Forensic Medicine Institute. A subsequent medical report revealed that there were some blade cuts on his left arm which were three or four days old but, apart from those injuries, no signs of possible ill-treatment were noted. The applicant was then taken into custody at the Peace and Order Department.\n8.  On 27 May 2002 at 3.30, 4.15, 4.45, 5.10, 5.35 and 6 p.m., the applicant and M.D. were taken to on-site inspections. A lawyer assigned by the Diyarbakır Bar Association was present during these inspections, when the applicant gave detailed statements as to how he and M.D. had planned and committed the offences.\n9.  Around 6.15 p.m. the same day, he was again given a medical examination. The medical report drafted on that occasion recorded no signs of beatings or the use of physical force on the applicant's body. The same day, at the request of the police, the public prosecutor, without seeing the applicant, extended his custody period by two more days under Article 128 § 2 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the report drafted by the police at 6.25 p.m. on that day, the applicant was handed over to the Juvenile Department of the Security Directorate.\n10.  On 28 May 2002 at 10.30 a.m., the applicant was brought for a further medical examination. The medical report prepared on that day noted two bruises of 10 x 2 cm on his right upper arm and a bruise of 5 x 1 cm on his left upper arm just below his shoulder, which were estimated to be two or three days old; some old cutting scars on his arms and chest were also noted. The applicant was given a second medical examination at 4.15 p.m. on the same day. The second medical report confirmed the findings of the first report. These reports both stated that the medical examinations had been performed upon the request of the Peace and Order Department.\n11.  On 29 May 2002 the Juvenile Police took the applicant for a medical examination. The forensic medical report prepared on that occasion recorded the old cutting scars on the applicant's body, but no signs of the use of recent physical force were noted.\n12.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor. In his statement to the public prosecutor, made in the presence of another duty lawyer, the applicant denied the charges against him. The lawyer claimed that the applicant had been ill-treated whilst in police custody and that he still bore the signs of that treatment. He requested that the applicant be referred to the forensi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2960", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a Ukrainian-Kazakh company located in the city of Zaporizhzhya.\n5.  In 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Joint Stock Company “Dniprovsky Metallurgical Kombinat” (hereinafter “the JSC”), in which the State held 98.81 % of the shares, for failure to pay under a contract for delivery of iron ore.\n6.  On 29 August 2000 the Arbitration Court of the Dnipropetrovs'k Region awarded the applicant UAH 1,139,560.09[1] in compensation against the JSC for failure to comply with the contractual obligations. The court also attached the defendant's accounts. It issued two orders in this respect: one for the recovery of property worth a total of UAH 800,541.26[2] and another for the recovery of the sum of UAH 339,018.83[3].\n7.  On 5 September 2000 the Bailiffs' Service initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n8.  Between 2000 and 2005 numerous bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against the JSC by at least eight companies:\n-  On 28 August 2000 by the “Kryukivsky Vagonobudivnyy Zavod” – terminated on unspecified date;\n-  On 7 March 2001 by the “Afilia” company – terminated on 16 October 2001 as the JSC paid the debt;\n-  On 19 October 2001 by the “Kristal” company – terminated on 18 March 2002 as the plaintiff failed to have the bankruptcy announcement published;\n-  On 19 March 2002 by the “Intermet” company – terminated on 28 January 2003 as the JSC paid the debt;\n-  On 29 January 2003 by the “Nezalezhnist” company – terminated on 18 September 2003 as the plaintiff withdrew his claim;\n-  On 22 September 2003 by the “Ukrstalkonstruktsiya” company – terminated on 27 May 2004 as the plaintiff failed to have the bankruptcy announcement published;\n-  On 27 May 2004 by the “Rolikon” company – terminated on 16 May 2005;\n-  On 17 May 2005 by the “Tsesiya” company – the bankruptcy proceeding are pending to date.\n9.  The respective court's rulings on opening these bankruptcy proceedings ordered suspension of the enforcement proceedings against the JSC and introduction of the moratorium on a payment of debts to its creditors.\n10. Between 30 November 2000 and 18 April 2005 the Arbitration Court of the Dnipropetrovs'k Region (as of June 2001 - the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovs'k Region) rejected the applicant's numerous requests to initiated bankruptcy proceeding against the JSC as such proceedings were already pending upon other companies' requests.\n11.  On 11 July 2001 the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovs'k Region, upon the applicant's request, modified the modalities of enforcing the judgment of 29 August 2000. In particular, it decided to attach the debtor's property.\n12.  On 23 August 2001 the Bailiffs' Service resumed the enforcement proceedings and suspended them due to the application of the moratorium.\n13.  On 4 February 2002 the Commercial Court of the Dnipropetrovs'k Region rejected the applicant's request to initiated bankruptcy proceeding against the JSC. On 15 May 2002 and 24 April 2003 the Higher Commercial Court and the Supreme Court, respectively, rejected the applicant's cassation appeal.\n14.  On 6 February 2004 the State Property Fund sold the State-owned shares of the JSC to private persons. Under the terms of the sales, the latter undertook to pay all the outstanding debts of the JSC.\n15.  The judgment of 29 August 2000 in the applicant's favour remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2961", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and resides in the town of Shakhty, Rostov region, Russia.\n6.  At the material time the applicant lived in Ukraine.\n7.  In 1979, as a result of an accident, for which a State-owned mine was deemed liable, the applicant had her arms amputated.\n8.  On 23 September 1980 the Sverdlovskyy District Court awarded the applicant 80 Soviet roubles in life monthly compensation from the “Sverdlovskantratsyt” mining enterprise (Виробниче об'єднання «Свердловськантрацит»). The applicant had been receiving these payments until 2001.\n9.  In 2000 the applicant moved to Russia.\n10.  On 11 September 2000, following the applicant's request to review the amount of compensation due to her, the Sverdlovskyy Town Court awarded the applicant a lump sum of 2,748.60[1] and 152.28[2] Ukrainian hryvnas in monthly payments from the State Krasnodonsko-Sverdlovske Mine Liquidation Department (Краснодонсько-Свердловське управління по ліквідації шахт).\n11.  In October 2001 the court sent the writs of enforcement to the Voroshylovskyy Bailiffs' Service. The applicant informed the Court that her written requests about the course of the enforcement proceedings remained unanswered.\n12.  By letters of 28 November and 9 December 2003, the Ministry of Fuel and Energy, and the Donetsk State Administration, respectively, informed the applicant that, since April 2001, the monthly payments were to be made by the Social Security Fund. However, at the time of the accident the applicant was not employed by the mine, and the legislation in force did not foresee social security payments in such cases.\n13.  In their submissions of 11 December 2006 the Government stated that on 5 December 2001 the payment order for the lump sum of UAH 2,748.60 had been submitted to the Department of the State Treasury in Donetsk Region. On an unspecified date this amount was transferred to the Bailiffs' Service banking account since the applicant's whereabouts were allegedly unknown.\n14.  The applicant informed the Court that in November 2006 she had been requested to provide her bank account details with a view to transfer her an above amount. The parties did not inform the Court whether the judgment of 11 September 2000 had been finally enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2962", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is currently detained in the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison.\n6.  On 6 February 1993 the applicant was taken into custody within the context of a police operation carried out against an illegal organisation, namely the TKP/ML – TIKKO (the Turkish Communist Party-Marxist Leninist - Turkish Workers and Peasants' Liberation Army).\n7.  On 15 February 1993 the applicant was brought before a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court who ordered his detention on remand.\n8.  On 8 April 1993 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against nine persons, including the applicant who was charged with membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 19 April 1994 the case brought against the applicant and his co-accused before the 2nd Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court was joined with another case which had been pending before the 3rd Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court.\n10.  During the subsequent forty-eight hearings between 17 May 1993 and 12 June 2000, the Istanbul Security Court, relying on the state of the evidence, the nature of the offence, and the duration of his detention, refused to release the applicant.\n11. In the meantime, on 8 July 1997 the applicant escaped from prison. On 17 September 1997 he was arrested and sent back to prison.\n12. On 12 June 2000 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment.\n13.  On 15 May 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 12 June 2000 and remitted the case file to the first-instance court.\n14.  On 28 December 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant's release pending trial.\n15.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. Subsequently, the 11th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the case.\n16.  While these proceedings were pending under file no. 2001/225, on  2 July 2004 the applicant was taken into police custody in connection with a new crime. On 6 July 2004 he was detained on remand.\n17.  On 9 July 2004 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed a new bill of indictment with the 11th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court, charging the applicant under Article 146 of the Criminal Code with attempting to undermine the constitutional order. The proceedings commenced before the 11th chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court under file no. 2004/225.\n18.  On 31 January 2005 the 11th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court rendered its judgment in case no. 2001/225 in respect of some of the accused. It disjoined the case against the applicant and decided to join it to the new proceedings brought against the applicant pending before the same court under file no. 2004/225.\n19.  On 2 February 2005 the 11th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court decided to join the case (file no. 2004/225) to another pending before it (file no. 2004/191).\n20.  During the subsequent hearings, the Istanbul Assize Court rejected the applicant's release requests having regard to the state of the evidence, the nature of the offence and the risk of the applicant absconding.\n21.  According to the information in the case file, the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the 11th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court under file no. 2004/191. The applicant is currently in detention on re", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2964", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in the city of Mykolayiv.\n5.  The applicant is a former employee of the State-owned enterprise “Mashproekt” (hereinafter “MP”). In June 1999 staff of this enterprise refused to issue upon the applicant's request a certificate about his work and salary, which he required for the re-calculation of his retirement pension.\n6.  On 14 December 1999 the Leninsky District Court of Mykolayiv (hereinafter “the District Court”) ordered MP to provide the applicant with the requested certificate. In particular, the court ordered MP to certify that as of 30 March 1978 the applicant worked as the head of one of MP's departments. This judgment became final on 19 January 2000.\n7.  On 24 February 2000 the Leninsky Bailiffs' Office of Mykolayiv (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) instituted the enforcement proceedings. On 29 March 2000 the proceedings were terminated.\n8.  On 2 August 2000 the District Court ordered the Bailiffs to resume the enforcement proceedings.\n9.  On 23 August 2002 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings as the director of MP had sent a letter to the applicant.\n10.  In September 2002 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint against this decision.\n11.  On 18 January 2005 the District Court quashed the Bailiffs' decision of 23 August 2002 and ordered resumption of the enforcement proceedings.\n12.  On 30 May 2005 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.\n13.  On 18 November 2005 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as on 17 November 2005 MP provided the applicant with the certificate.\n14.   On 13 November 2006 the Head of the Bailiffs quashed the decision of 18 November 2005 on the ground that the certificate provided to the applicant did not comply with the requirements ordered by the judgment of 14 December 1999.\n15.  The judgment of 14 December 1999 remains unenforced.\n16.  In January 2002 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint against the director of MP seeking to be admitted to his work position.\n17.  On 8 February 2002 the District Court left the applicant's claim without consideration as the issue should be examined within the civil proceedings.\n18.  On 3 April 2002 the Mykolayiv Regional Court of Appeal (hereinafter “the Court of Appeal”) quashed this ruling and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n19.  On 17 February 2003 the District Court left the applicant's administrative complaint without consideration and explained that the applicant should lodge a claim within the civil proceedings.\n20.  On 23 April 2003 and 5 July 2004 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this ruling.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2965", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Turkey.\n5.  The applicant was wanted by the police on suspicion of membership of the illegal organisation, the DHKP-C (Devrimci Halk Kurtuluş Partisi-Cephesi; the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front).\n6.  According to the applicant, on 2 August 1996 he was taken into police custody by plain clothes police officers, who kicked and punched him during the arrest. They then handcuffed the applicant, put him in a taxi and took him to the headquarters of the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate in the Aksaray District.\n7.  The arrest report, dated 2 August 1996 and signed by the applicant, stated, that the police had received information that the applicant would meet with another member of the DHKP-C at an address in the Kadıköy District of Istanbul. Four police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch waited for him at that address. When they saw the applicant, they identified themselves as police officers. The applicant tried to run away and the officers had to use force to arrest him.\n8.  At the headquarters of the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate, the applicant was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment. In particular, he was allegedly stripped naked, blindfolded and subjected to Palestinian hanging and falaka. Electric cables were attached to his sexual organs and his toes, and electric shocks were administered to him. His testicles were squeezed and a firearm was inserted into his anus. The applicant was also hosed down with cold water.\n9.  On 12 August 1996 the applicant was examined by a doctor who noted the following marks on his body: a completely-healed 5 cm abrasion on the side of the left wrist, three grazes of 1 x 4 - 5 cm on the right wrist, a completely-healed 5 cm long graze on the left shoulder, two abrasions of 1 cm in diameter under the right knee. The doctor further opined that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for two days.\n10.  On 15 August 1996 the applicant was taken before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court. He contended that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his custody period and that his statements had been taken under duress. The public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court referred the applicant to the Forensic Medicine Institute for a medical examination. The applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert who noted the same marks on the applicant's body as the doctor who had examined him on 12 August.\n11.  The Istanbul State Security Court subsequently ordered the applicant's detention on remand.\n12.  On an unspecified date, the Fatih public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment of the applicant.\n13.  On 7 and 25 November 1996, 9 December 1996 and 13 August 1998 the Fatih public prosecutor took statements from four police officers who were on duty at the headquarters of the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate at the relevant time and were involved in taking the applicant's police statement.\n14.  On 31 December 1998 the Fatih public prosecutor sent a report to the Istanbul public prosecutor and summarised the facts and complaints concerning the investigation. The Fatih public prosecutor requested the Istanbul public prosecutor to file a bill of indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court, charging the four police officers with inflicting torture under Article 243 § 1 of the Criminal Cod", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2966", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1958, 1950 and 1949 respectively and live in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  All the applicants worked for the Ministry of Transport and Communications (“the employer”). They were promoted in 1997 but their salaries were not increased accordingly in the years 1997-98. When the employer refused to increase their salaries, the applicants initiated court proceedings.\n8.  On 4 December 2000 the Centru District Court awarded 5,074 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 469 euros (EUR) at the time) to the first applicant and MDL 5,280 (the equivalent of EUR 488 at the time) to the second applicant. On 26 December 2000 the same court awarded MDL 5,388 (the equivalent of EUR 498 at the time) to the third applicant. No appeals were lodged and the judgments became final and enforceable 15 days later.\n9.  The applicants complained to a number of State authorities, asking for assistance in having the judgments in their favour enforced. They received a number of replies, including that of the Ministry of Justice of 24 May 2001, which readdressed the complaint to the Centru District Court, requesting it to take “all measures provided by the law”. On 31 May 2001 the vice-president of that court informed the first applicant that the enforcement warrant had been sent to the State Treasury and that enforcement was impossible owing to the lack of money in the employer's account. A number of other authorities, including the Centru District Court, the Ministry of Justice, the President's Office and the Human Rights Centre were asked by the applicants to assist in ensuring the enforcement of the judgment. These complaints were either forwarded to the employer or to the court, with instructions to ensure the enforcement of the judgment. The applicants were informed of the lack of money in the employer's debt settlement account, which had been frozen for enforcement purposes, and that the budget had not been modified to provide for the enforcement of the judgment. The applicants were also informed that 70 similar judgments against the employer were awaiting enforcement.\n10.  The applicants submitted to the Court a copy of a Government decision of 17 January 2002, which ordered the Ministry of Finance to allocate to the employer MDL 483,700 from the Government reserve fund, to cover reorganisation expenses. That money was to be returned to the reserve fund from the employer's 2002 budget. In another Government decision, dated 5 June 2002, the employer was allowed to buy an apartment in Chişinău for its Minister, funded by the development fund.\n11.  The domestic court fined the employer several times during 2002 for failing to enforce its judgments.\n12.  In September 2002 the enforcement warrants were partly enforced. The first applicant received MDL 3,940, the second applicant received MDL 4,145 and the third applicant received MDL 4,172. The remainder (equivalent to EUR 67, EUR 82 and EUR 91 respectively) was withheld as income tax.\n13.  The applicants brought a new action for compensation for the pecuniary damage caused by inflation and for non-pecuniary damage, which they left to the court's discretion.\n14.  By its final judgments of 4 February 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice found that the judgments in the applicants' favour had been belatedly enforced, and awarded MDL 5,074 (the equivalent of EUR 334 at the time) to the first applicant and MDL 6,715 (the eq", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2967", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  After having been excluded in 1994 from a State-run apartment building association, the applicant brought an action against it, seeking the restitution of the money she had invested in a three-roomed apartment.\n8.  On 29 April 1996 the Râşcani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the building association to pay her 23,733.80 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 4,550 euros (EUR) at the time).\n9.  The building association appealed unsuccessfully against the judgment on two occasions and, by a final judgment of 4 November 1997, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 29 April 1996.\n10.  In December 1997 and May 1998 the applicant received MDL 3,071.10 and MDL 1,970, respectively.\n11.  Following several complaints about non-enforcement of the judgment lodged by the applicant with the Ministry of Justice, on 5 September 2000 and on 19 January 2001 the Ministry of Justice requested the Bailiff to take all the necessary steps to enforce the judgment.\n12.  The final judgment of 4 November 1997 has not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2968", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in the town of Dzerzhyns'k, Donetsk region.\n5.  On 3 October 2000 the Dzerzhyns'k Court awarded the applicant against the Gagarina coal mine (owned by the Artemvugillya State Company) UAH 107,684 (EUR 22,518) in social benefits arrears and UAH 1,946 (EUR 407) in monthly payments as of 3 October 2000.\n6.  On 9 November 2000 the Mykytivsky District Bailiffs' Service (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) instituted the enforcement proceedings and on the same day suspended them in respect of the social benefits arrears due to the bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor pending before the Donetsk Commercial Court.\n7.  On 15 November 2000 the enforcement proceedings in the applicant's case were resumed and joined to the other enforcement proceedings against the debtor.\n8.  On 5 April 2002 the Mykytivsky District Court of Gorlivka rejected the applicant's claim against the alleged Bailiffs' inactivity. On 14 October 2002 and 10 June 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this decision.\n9.  On 25 February 2003 the Ministry of Fuel transformed the debtor into a subdivision of the Artemvugillya Company.\n10.  On 18 September 2003 the applicant was paid UAH 15,000.\n11.  On 21 July 2004 the applicant was paid UAH 1,000.\n12.  On 18 October 2004 the applicant was paid UAH 1,617.\n13.  On 19 November 2004 the applicant was paid UAH 68,916.\n14.  On 23 December 2004 the applicant was paid the remainder of the debt - UAH 21,345.\n15.  As to the judgment of 3 October 2000 in part of monthly payments of UAH 1,945 to the applicant, the writ of execution was issued on the same day and the Bailiffs transferred it to the Industrial Accidents Insurance Fund (Фонд соціального страхування від нещасних випадків на виробництві і професійних захворювань). The monthly payments are transferred to the applicant without delays.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2969", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1926 and at the material time lived in Limassol. She died on 23 December 2004.\n6.  The deceased applicant was the owner (half-a-share) of a plot of land with a house on it in the village of Pelendri in the district of Limassol. The said house was the applicant's home.\n7.  By letter dated 22 May 1997 the applicant's lawyer at the time informed the Minister of Communications and Works that the applicant had found out, by chance, that the works planned to take place in her village would entail the compulsory acquisition of her house and its demolition. He further noted that the authorities had been misinformed that no one had been living in the house. He emphasised that the applicant would not consent to the loss of her home and would challenge any administrative act for its compulsory acquisition.\n8.  On 25 July 1997 a notice of compulsory acquisition of the applicant's property was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus (administrative act no. 908). The compulsory acquisition was for the purpose of the construction, improvement, alignment and surfacing of a public road. The notice stated as follows:\n“Notification is hereby given that the immovable property described in the Schedule set out below is essential for the following purpose of public benefit, namely for the creation and development of roads in the Republic and its compulsory acquisition is imperative for the following reasons, namely the construction, improvement, alignment and surfacing of the road.”\nOn the same day a requisition order was issued under the Requisition of Property Law of 1962 (as amended) and published in the Official Gazette (no. 930):\n“Because the immovable property described in the Schedule set out below ... is essential for the following purposes of public benefit, namely for the creation and development of public roads in the Republic or for any of these purposes and its requisition is imperative for the following reasons, namely the construction, improvement, alignment and surfacing of the Pelendri main road”\nThe initial duration of the order was for one year. It was subsequently extended until 23 July 1999 by publication in the Official Gazette of 12 June 1998 and until 22 July 2000 by publication in the Official Gazette of 18 June 1999.\n9.  By letter dated 29 July 1997 the applicant lodged an objection to the compulsory acquisition and requisition of her property with the Ministry of Communications and Works.\n10.  The applicant's objection was dismissed and on 15 May 1998 a compulsory acquisition order issued under the Compulsory Acquisition Law 1962 (Law 15/1962 as amended) was published in the Official Gazette (no. 576). The order referred to the earlier notice of compulsory acquisition.\n11.  On 14 July 1998 the applicant lodged a recourse before the Supreme Court (first instance administrative jurisdiction) seeking the annulment of the compulsory acquisition order. She claimed, inter alia, that the impugned administrative act would result in her forced displacement from her village and her ancestral roots.\n12.  In a letter dated 17 February 1999 sent by the Limassol District Officer to the Director General of the Ministry of Communications and Works, the former stated that a plot of State land had been found in the applicant's village and that an exchange had been proposed to the applicant and her family on the basis of the valuations that would be carried out by the Land Registry concerning the valu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2970", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the village of Lopatinskiy in the Moscow Region.\n5.  It appears that the applicant was a labour inspector in the Voskresensk supervisory district of the State labour inspectorate of the Moscow Region (Государственная инспекция труда в Московской области).\n6.  On 29 December 1999, acting upon a complaint from a third party that the applicant was exacting a bribe from him, the authorities carried out an operation in the course of which the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody.\n7.  In a decision of the same date an investigator of the Voskresenk Town Prosecutor's Office of the Moscow Region referred to the materials obtained from the police and brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and her colleague on suspicion of bribery.\n8.  On 31 December 1999 the applicant was released from custody. It does not appear that she challenged her arrest and detention before the domestic courts.\n9.  On 29 June 2000 the time-limits for preliminary investigation were extended until 29 September 2000.\n10.  By a decision of 14 September 2000 the investigator suspended the investigation because of the applicant's treatment at a hospital. On 25 October 2000 the investigation resumed. The applicant submits that she was unaware of the said decisions and was fully available.\n11.  On 31 October 2000 the investigator charged the applicant with bribery and several counts of abuse of power as a public servant and imposed on her an undertaking not to leave her place of residence.\n12.  It appears that on 27 April 2001 the bill of indictment was sent to the Voskresensk Town Court (“the Town Court”) together with the case file.\n13.  The Government submitted that the criminal case reached the court on 23 May 2001.\n14.  On 17 May 2001 the prosecutor seized the applicant's property. There is no indication that the applicant challenged this decision in a court.\n15.  In a decision (постановление) of 5 June 2001 the Town Court pointed out several shortcomings in the conduct of the investigation and remitted the case to the investigator.\n16.  On 25 July 2001 the Moscow Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed this decision upon the prosecutor's appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n17.  The case file reached the Town Court on 23 August 2001.\n18.  The court decided to hold the next hearing in the case on 24 October 2001. Since most of the witnesses failed to appear, the court adjourned the hearing until 1 November 2001 and decided to secure attendance of the witnesses by force.\n19.  On 5 November 2001 the Town Court again remitted the case to the prosecutor for an additional investigation.\n20.  This decision was upheld on appeal on 19 February 2002.\n21.  On 5 June 2002 the applicant was apparently furnished with a new bill of indictment and from 10 June to 3 July 2002 she and her counsel had access to the case file.\n22.  On 22 June 2002 the case file was returned for examination on the merits to the trial court.\n23.  The case file reached the Town Court on 25 July 2002.\n24.  In a decision of 29 July 2002 the court decided to hold the first hearing in the case on 12 August 2002. Since the authorities failed to serve the bill of indictment on the applicant's co-defendant in a timely fashion, the hearing of 12 August 2002 was delayed until 2 September 2002.\n25.  In a decision of 2 September 2002 the court scheduled a hearing for 21 October 2002. Apparently the applicant failed to appear on ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2971", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Baku.\n7.  By an order of the Narimanov District Executive Authority (“NDEA”) of 2 June 1993, the applicant was issued, under the state housing policy, an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) to a three-room apartment in a state-owned residential building in Baku. The applicant did not move into her new apartment at that time, because the construction of the building had not been completely finished and the tenants had to undertake the repair works in their respective apartments at their own expense.\n8.  In 1997, pursuant to an oral agreement, the applicant allowed R., an acquaintance of hers, to use the apartment temporarily, free of charge. Under the arrangement reached by the parties, R. was to use the apartment in exchange for certain repair works that he would perform using the materials provided by the applicant. In addition, R. agreed to vacate the apartment whenever the applicant made such a demand.\n9.  Some unspecified time later, in breach of the existing oral agreement, R. allowed his relative H. and his family (hereinafter to be collectively referred to as “H.”) to move into and live in the apartment. H. were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Agdam, a region under control of Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.\n10.  When the applicant found out that her apartment was occupied by people unknown to her, she requested that they vacate it. However, H. refused to do so, stating that they had no other place to live. The applicant filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to evict H. from the apartment.\n11.  On 29 March 2000 the Nizami District Court granted the applicant's request. The court found that, prior to moving into the disputed apartment, H. had been living in the Barda Region and in the Khatai District of Baku where they had been registered as IDPs. They did not dispute the fact that they had settled in the apartment in 1997. The court further found that the applicant was the lawful tenant of the apartment and, as such, had a right to demand H. to vacate it. The court ordered that H. be evicted. H. appealed.\n12.  On 30 September 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed the district court's judgment. The court held that NDEA's order to issue an occupancy voucher to a partly constructed building had been in breach of the requirements of the domestic law. The court further held that the applicant had not concluded a social tenancy agreement concerning the apartment and, therefore, she could not have a valid claim to it. The court therefore quashed the first-instance court's order to evict H. from the apartment.\n13.  The applicant filed an appeal in cassation. On 13 December 2002 the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment and partially upheld the applicant's request. The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal erred in judging on the validity of the applicant's occupancy voucher. It held that the applicant's tenancy rights were undisputed and that the proceedings only concerned H.'s right to remain in the applicant's apartment. The Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal's decision in this part.\n14.  The Supreme Court further ruled that H. should vacate the applicant's apartment. However, taking into account the fact that H. could not return to their permanent place of residence in Agdam and, in the meantime, had no other place in which to reside, the Court held that the execution of its decision should be po", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2972", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The application is brought by the estate of a Swedish national, Mr Alfred Nitschke, who was born in 1940 and died on 13 January 2003.\n5.  From 1988 until its bankruptcy in 1997, Mr Nitschke owned 49 % of the company Restaurang Takåsen AB (hereinafter referred to as “the company”). He was a member of the board of directors and authorised to sign for the company as well as being responsible for the daily functioning of the company. The other shares (51%) were owned by Stockholms företagskrogar AB.\n6.  On 3 November 1994 the Tax Authority (skattemyndigheten) of the County of Stockholm sent an audit report (granskningspromemoria) to Mr Nitschke, informing him that, following a tax audit of the company, it was considering altering the tax returns for the tax assessment years 1993 and 1994 for the company, as well as for Mr Nitschke, and imposing tax surcharges on them. On the basis of information from the audit, the Tax Authority concluded that Mr Nitschke had to be considered the executive of the company, due to his influence therein, and that his taxable income for both years should be increased because he had omitted to inform the Tax Authority about certain income from the company in the form of salary payments and benefits involving free lunches and the free use of a company car. Moreover, the Tax Authority had found that Mr Nitschke had let the company pay for a boat mooring at a marina, as well as for a computer and stereo which he had bought for private use and kept in his home.\n7.  Mr Nitschke replied to the Tax Authority, disputing its findings and demanding that he be taxed in accordance with his tax returns and that the tax surcharges be remitted. He stated that he was not the executive of the company, as he was a minority owner, but that it was the executive of Stockholms företagskrogar AB who controlled the company and that the book-keeping was carried out by that company's accountant. He further claimed that he had never eaten lunch at the restaurant since he was too busy serving lunches to the guests. Moreover, he only used the company car for carrying out work-related matters as he owned a car for private use. The mooring had been rented for the company to cater for islands in the archipelago, and he underlined that he did not own a boat himself. Also, as the company did not have proper office space, he kept the computer and stereo in a room of his house which he only used as an office. The stereo was used in the restaurant and when the company organised parties, and the computer was used to produce lunch menus, price lists, etc.\n8.  On 8 December 1994 the Tax Authority upheld its findings in the audit report for the tax assessment year 1993. It increased Mr Nitschke's income assessment to 240,363 Swedish kronor (SEK) and imposed tax surcharges amounting to 40 % of the tax liability on that sum (SEK 34,735, approximately EUR 3,800). Further, on 23 December 1994, it increased Mr Nitschke's income assessment for the tax year 1994 to SEK 70,260 and imposed tax surcharges on him amounting to SEK 12,992 (approximately EUR 1,400), again on the basis of the findings in the audit report.\n9.  On 20 February 1995 Mr Nitschke requested the Tax Authority to reassess its decision as he maintained that his tax returns were correct and that he should be taxed in accordance with them. He further developed his reasons for disputing the Tax Authority's findings on each of the points where his income had been altered.\n10.  On 21 April 1997", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2973", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In 1991 part of the production facilities of the cooperative “Maritza” were spun off and the cooperative “Rodina” (“the cooperative”) was established. The applicant was appointed to be its executive officer.\n6.  On unspecified dates, a tax audit was performed of the activities of the cooperative for the period from June 1991 to June 1992, which established that certain funds were missing.\n7.  On 15 February 1993 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicant for embezzlement and failure to exercise supervision over the activities of subordinates responsible for managing and accounting of funds, which resulted in the cooperative suffering losses in the amount of 14,587 old Bulgarian levs (approximately 918 German marks on that date).\n8.  On 16 January, 9 April and 8 August 1994 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office sent reminders to the investigator in charge of the case to conclude the investigation as quickly as possible because the period for its completion had long since expired.\n9.  On 21 May 1997 the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office requested the case file from the investigator, which it obtained on an unspecified date. It established that, in spite of the express instructions to that effect, absolutely no investigative procedures had been conducted in the case. The Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office remitted the case on 1 July 1997.\n10.  Five witnesses were questioned on 22 and 23 February 2000.\n11.  On 2 March 2000 the applicant was questioned and charged with embezzlement and failure to exercise supervision over the activities of subordinates responsible for managing and accounting of funds, which resulted in the cooperative suffering losses in the amount of 14,587 old Bulgarian levs (approximately 7 euros on that date). A restriction was also imposed on her not to leave her place of residence without the authorisation of the Prosecutor's Office.\n12.  Another ten witnesses were questioned between 6 March and 16 April 2000, an accounting expert's report was commissioned on 22 May 2000 and the applicant was further questioned on 20 and 26 June 2000.\n13.  The case file was then forwarded to the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office, which on 3 November 2000 remitted the case with instructions for further investigative procedures to be conducted.\n14.  Another witness was questioned on 12 December 2000 and a supplementary accounting expert's report was commissioned on the 27th.\n15.  On 12 April 2001 the charges against the applicant were amended and she was again questioned.\n16.  On 19 February 2002 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office requested the case file from the investigator, which it obtained on an unspecified date\n17.  On 27 March 2002 the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office again remitted the case with further instructions for concluding the investigation.\n18.  On 16 April 2002 the cooperative joined the criminal proceedings against the applicant as a civil claimant.\n19.  The findings of the investigation were presented to the applicant on 29 April 2002, which were then forwarded to the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office on an unspecified date.\n20.  In a decision of 11 May 2002 the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant due to lack of sufficient evidence of an offence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2974", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was formerly a member of the Bulgarian Communist Party (“BCP”), in which he held the position of Secretary of the Central Committee of the BCP (1976-1986) and was a Member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the BCP (1977-1988). He was also a Member of the National Assembly (1974-1990), the Minister for Industry and a Member of the Council of Ministers (1984-1986) and the Bulgarian Ambassador to Norway (1989-1990).\n6.  The applicant contended that following the democratic changes of 1989 the authorities started to systematically intimidate and harass both him and his family. In particular, despite continuing to have immunity as a Member of the National Assembly, his family residence had been searched, an inventory of all their possessions had been made and several restrictions had been placed on their real property. Fearing further intimidation, reprisals and possible unjustified prosecution by the authorities the applicant left the country on 14 April 1990. Thereafter he resided in Vienna, Austria.\n7.  Preliminary investigation No. 3/92 was opened on 9 July 1992 by the Chief Prosecutor's Office against all the members of the Bureau of the Council of Ministers and the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the BCP for the period between 1981 and 1989. A total of twenty-two persons were charged, on an unspecified date, that during the said period they had participated in the adoption of decisions to provide financial assistance or extend loans, totalling 243,537,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL), to (a) foreign countries, in respect of the Government, and (b) foreign political parties, in respect of the BCP. The decisions in question had been adopted by the Bureau of the Council of Ministers, the Secretariat or the Politburo of the Central Committee of the BCP. These persons, including the applicant, were charged under Article 203, in conjunction with Articles 201, 202 and 282, of the Criminal Code for having misappropriated, in concert, the aforementioned funds. It was contented that, in breach of their official duties, they had facilitated the misappropriation with the aim of obtaining an advantage for a third party, thereby causing considerable economic damage to the country's economy. In view of the very large sums involved, the offence was qualified as being very serious.\n8.  In respect of the applicant, the initial charges against him were also under the above quoted provisions of the Criminal Code. It was contended that between 1981 and 1986 in his capacity of an official, Political Secretary of the BCP, and in concert with another ten officials, members of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the BCP, he had misappropriated public funds and property (BGL 8,171,347; 200,000 convertible Bulgarian levs; 2,175,500 United States dollars; 8,000 tonnes of wheat; the value of organising a summit; sixty airplane tickets; 20,000 tonnes of oil; properties given to Ethiopia; training of fifty officials from Mozambique, thirty officers and thirty cadets from Ghana; and, training, accommodation and employment for thirty Turkish nationals), which had been entrusted to him for safekeeping and management and which represented a very serious offence and for a very large amount. In addition, it was claimed that in order to facilitate the aforesaid offence the applicant had perpetrated another offence – that in his capacity as an official, Secretary of the Central Committee of the BCP, he had violated his obligations as", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2975", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Belgorod.\n7.  On 23 October 2002 the applicant filed an application with the Ministry for the Press, Television and Radio Broadcasting and Mass Communications (hereafter “the Ministry”), for registration of a newspaper entitled Letters to the President (Письма Президенту).\n8.  By letter of 23 January 2003, the deputy head of the Ministry's Department for Registration and Licensing informed the applicant that, judging by its title, the newspaper could be perceived as an official bulletin published by a competent State authority. As that was likely to mislead potential readers, the applicant was advised to “obtain the approval of the competent authorities”.\n9.  The applicant replied to the deputy head and to the Minister, insisting that either the newspaper be registered or an official refusal be issued.\n10.  On 3 July 2003 the applicant challenged the Ministry's failure to act before the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. He claimed that he had satisfied the legal requirement to be the founder of a newspaper and that the Ministry's procrastination was unlawful.\n11.  On 9 July 2003 the applicant received the Ministry's official refusal to register the newspaper, based on two grounds. First, it was said that the information in the application was “inconsistent with the real state of affairs” (сведения, не соответствующие действительности) because the newspaper purported to cover a broader range of subjects than its title suggested. Second, the Ministry considered that only the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation could consent to the publication of letters to the President or be a founder of a newspaper with such a title.\n12.  On 15 July 2003 the applicant amended his claim, seeking to have the Ministry's refusal overturned.\n13.  On 3 September 2003 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the refusal on the following grounds:\n“... The court considers it possible to agree with the argument [of the Ministry] that the title of a newspaper denotes its specialisation which [in this case] could be perceived by the readership as an official publication founded by a competent State body ... which prepares the President's direct answers to incoming letters from citizens.\nThe court considers that the above fact may give rise to incompatibility of the actual specialisation of the publication under the title Letters to the President with the current legislation. In this connection the court concludes that the Ministry's argument as regards the specialisation of the newspaper in question is a sufficient ground to refuse its registration ... under section 13(1)(2) of the Mass Media Act, which does not violate [the applicant's] rights to found a newspaper and to choose its title ...”\n14.  On 22 December 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of the district court, endorsing the above reasoning. The court also held:\n“...the [first-instance] court rightly concluded that [the applicant] had failed to comply with the time-limit for bringing court proceedings without a valid excuse. Having received on 23 January 2003 the refusal to register his newspaper, he lodged his claim before a court only on 3 July 2003 ...\nThe expiry of the three-month time-limit for lodging such claim is an independent reason for rejecting the applicant's claims (Article 256 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure).”", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2976", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov.\n5.  In 1993 the applicant and his wife brought proceedings for determination of ownership in respect of a plot of land.\n6.  On 18 April 1996 the District Court dismissed the action and, on 19 June 1997, the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd) upheld the judgment on appeal (odvolanie).\n7.  On 20 October 1997 the applicant and his wife appealed on points of law (dovolanie). In the course of the proceedings on this appeal procedural matters such as, for instance, the court fees and legal aid, were determined repeatedly at all levels of jurisdiction. The appeal on points of law concerning the merits of the case is still pending.\n8.  On 28 May 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). He complained of unjustified delays in the proceedings on the appeal on points of law and requested a legal-aid lawyer. The Constitutional Court dismissed the latter request on 30 June 2004, finding that, in so far as the applicant had substantiated his financial situation, there was no ground for granting it.\n9.  On 24 September 2004 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had failed to comply with the statutory requirement to have legal representation.\n10.  On 14 December 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings seeking modification of a certificate of employment. He argued that the period of his employment was in reality one day longer than as shown in the certificate.\n11. The action was dismissed by the District Court on 18 February 1999 and, on appeal, by the Prešov Regional Court on 3 December 1999.\n12.  On 28 January 2002 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) quashed the judgment of 3 December 1999 on an appeal by the applicant on points of law and remitted the matter to the Regional Court for a new determination of the appeal against the judgment of 18 February 1999.\n13.  On 25 November 2002 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 18 February 1999. The applicant appealed again on points of law.\n14.  On 16 December 2004 the Supreme Court declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible since it met none of the existing statutory admissibility criteria.\n15.  On 23 May 1997 the applicant brought an action against his landlord, a housing co-operative, in the District Court. He first claimed that his rent should be reduced and later modified the claim in that he reclaimed a part of the rent paid. A further attempt by the applicant to modify the claim was declared inadmissible.\n16.  On 2 October 2001 the District Court granted the action by ordering the defendant to pay an amount of money to the applicant. The applicant appealed, arguing that the District Court had overlooked the modification of his claim.\n17.  On 28 February 2002 the Prešov Regional Court declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that the applicant lacked grounds for appeal, since his claim had been granted in full. The applicant appealed on points of law.\n18.  On 24 January 2005 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings on the appeal on points of law on the ground that, despite a previous request and warning, the applicant had failed to bring it in line with the applicable procedural requirements.\n19.  On 15 March 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about delays in the proceedings and requested a legal-aid lawyer. The Constitutional Court dismissed the legal-aid request, finding tha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2977", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Kamińsk.\n5.  In 2001 the police conducted an operation to disband several organised criminal gangs that were acting in and around Warsaw, stealing luxury cars with a view to selling them in the countries of the former Soviet Union. There were about five such groups, cooperating closely with each other and closely connected with Poland's most dangerous armed criminal groups: the Pruszków mafia and the Wołomin mafia.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on 18 December 2001 on suspicion of forming and leading an organised criminal gang, carrying out multiple robberies with extreme brutality, committing a series of thefts and handling stolen property. He was remanded in custody by a decision of the Warsaw District Court of 20 December 2001.\n7.  At that time the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor was conducting an investigation in respect of more than fifty other members of the criminal gangs mentioned above. Forty-two of them were held in custody. The investigation was complex and time-consuming, given that the criminal gangs collaborated closely with many persons who were to be questioned by the prosecutors, for example, receivers of stolen goods, persons hiding stolen cars or persons tracking cars which were to be stolen, among others.\n8.  In addition, the prosecutor opened an investigation in respect of several police officers from Warsaw and surrounding towns on charges of corruption and helping the criminal groups' members to evade the law.\n9.  On 5 December 2002 a bill of indictment against the applicant and fifty-nine other co-accused (members of five cooperating criminal gangs) was lodged with the Warsaw District Court. The evidentiary material was presented in 99 case files. The applicant was charged with forming and leading a criminal gang, carrying out multiple robberies, committing a series of thefts and handling stolen property on a large scale. The criminal gang, of which the applicant was the leader, was known for its brutality and ruthlessness and for the illegal trafficking of firearms.\n10.  On 6 January 2003 the Warsaw District Court held the first hearing. The following hearings were held by the District Court on: 23, 30 May, 23, 24 June, 1,4,7,8 July, 13, 18, 22, 25 August, 5, 12, 15, 19 September, 10, 20, 21, 23, 24, 31 October, 17 November, 5, 22 and 23 December 2003; 5, 26 January, 16, 17, 19, 20 February, 8, 9 March, 1, 9 April, 14, 18, 21, 25 May, 3, 7, 14, 23 June, 5 July, 10, 25, 31 August, 3, 6 September, 7, 8, 15 October, 2, 9 November, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 18 December 2004. In total, sixty hearings were held by the District Court.\n11.  During the trial the District Court examined a wide range of evidentiary material, ordered medical expert opinions on the accuseds' mental health and expert opinions in the field of dactyloscopy, conducted inquiries in the accuseds' respective neighbourhoods, inspections of the crime scenes and garages where the stolen cars had been hidden and assessments of the accuseds' assets. The proceedings involved taking evidence from a considerable number of witnesses and victims and from one key witness.\n12.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was prolonged several times upon the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor's request by the District Court. The decisions were issued, inter alia, on 15 March, 17 June, 13 December 2002, 12 December 2003, 6 March, 22 June, 28 September, 5 November 2004, 16 March, 15 July and 30 September 2005. In its decisions the court underlin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2978", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Seewen, Switzerland.\n5.  On 17 May 1982 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody. On 8 July 1982 he was remanded in custody.\n6.  On 6 December 1982 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter, accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation. He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n7.  On 19 February 1985 the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-four years' imprisonment. This judgment was quashed by the Military Court of Cassation on 10 April 1990.\n8.  On 27 November 1990 the applicant was released from detention.\n9.  Subsequent to promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Courts, the Diyarbakır Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the applicant's case.\n10.  On 13 July 1998 the Diyarbakır Assize Court ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired. At the time of this decision the applicant was not represented by a lawyer before this court. However, this judgment was erroneously notified to Mr S.D. (the legal representative of another co-accused, who bore the same name and surname as the applicant, during the proceedings before the Diyarbakır Martial Law Court) and became final on 12 March 1999.\n11.  The applicant inquired about the developments in his case on 16 May 2000. As the judgment was in his favour, the applicant did not lodge an appeal with the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2979", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in the Isle of Man. He grew raspberries there and had a lucrative contract with the shop Marks & Spencers, but lost it in 1990 when the local environmental health officer let it be known to the shop that the applicant was packing raspberries in his kitchen. The applicant and his wife sued the Department of Local Government and the Environment ('DOLGE') for mis-statement and were awarded over GBP 16,000 in damages by the Manx High Court on 1 April 1993. The applicant did not consider that this was enough, and, wishing to appeal, instructed a new (Manx) advocate, a Mr Carter, then a partner in a firm of advocates called Carter Jones McDonald ('CJM').\nMr Carter advised that there was merit in an appeal, and applied for legal aid on his client's behalf in April 1993: this application was rejected on 25 May 1993. The applicant's Petition of Appeal from the first instance judgment was rejected the next day because it had been filed two days late. Mr Carter advised (via letter and at a meeting) that it would not be unduly difficult to apply for an extension of time in which to lodge the appeal, but that, in the circumstances, the best course of action was for the applicant to cut his losses and to accept an offer put forward by DOLGE. The applicant accepted this advice and, on 17 June 1993, DOLGE's offer of GBP 20,000.\n4.  CJM issued proceedings against the applicant for payment of their fees on 7 December 1993. An advocate instructed by the applicant to defend the claim failed to file a Defence in the prescribed period, and judgment was entered for CJM on 5 January 1994. After taxation of CJM's costs, judgment was issued on 2 March 1995 for a total of GBP 929.80. Mr Carter then applied for execution of the judgment and on 9 October 1995, the applicant's property was placed under arrest by the Coroner. The applicant appealed on 30 October 1995 and on 7 November 1995 Mr Carter wrote to the Coroner and the applicant requesting that no further steps be taken in respect of the enforcement of the execution against the applicant until specifically instructed. It appears that the execution remained suspended until the judgment of 17 November 2003 detailed below.\n5.  After a delay occasioned by their difficulty in obtaining legal aid, the applicant and his wife brought proceedings on 26 March 1996 against CJM in negligence, claiming that CJM's actions and omissions in April-June 1993 had deprived them of the opportunity to pursue their appeal against the first instance decision in their case against DOLGE. These proceedings are referred to hereafter as “the CJM proceedings.” In them, the applicant and his wife were represented throughout by leading Counsel from England, who had been granted a special temporary licence as a Manx advocate. The proceedings were heard by Acting Deemster Hall, succeeded by Acting Deemster Newey.\n6.  The summons issued on 26 March 1996 was not served on CJM until 20 March 1998, the time for service of the summons having been extended by the High Court on 27 February 1997. After the applicant filed a motion for judgment in default of defence on 22 June 1998, it appears a first defence was served out of time on 7 July 1998. A second defence was served on 16 September 1998. After the service of this second defence, a motion filed by the applicant for judgment in default was dismissed by consent on 17 September 1998. On 25 January 1999 the defendants filed a motion for a split trial ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2980", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1963 respectively. The first applicant is currently detained in the Bolu F-Type Prison and the second applicant is detained in the Edirne F-Type Prison.\n5.  On 24 and 28 October 1993 respectively the applicants were taken into custody by police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the TKP‑ML (Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist-Leninist).\n6.  On 8 November 1993 a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicants' detention on remand.\n7.  On 6 January 1994 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants and eight other persons. The applicants were charged with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, contrary to Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Law on the Prevention of Terrorism (Law no. 3713).\n8.  On 27 January 1994 the 4th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court held the first hearing in the case.\n9.  On 27 November 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court submitted his opinion on the merits of the case against the applicants, requesting that they be convicted of the original charge.\n10.  On 3 June 2002 the applicants again requested to be released pending trial before the first-instance court. On the same day, the court dismissed their request.\n11.  On 4 June 2002 the applicants filed an objection against the decision of 3 June 2002.\n12.  On 5 June 2002 the 5th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court dismissed the applicants' objection, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case-file.\n13.  Between 27 January 1994 and 23 October 2002 the 4th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court held 44 hearings. At the end of each hearing, the first-instance court, relying on the state of the evidence and the nature of the offence, refused to release the applicants.\n14.  On 23 October 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to life imprisonment.\n15.  On 5 May 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 23 October 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2981", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On 6 September 1995, on the occasion of World Peace Day, the applicant spoke at a panel discussion which was organised by the United Socialist Party in Mersin.\n6.  The applicant's speech read as follows:\n“We have gathered here for peace. Hello to all who support fraternity for peace. In a system where the imperialist and socialist worlds exist, wars continue and the bloodiest war is in our country. We have reacted against the Serbian brutality over the Bosnian people. However, some of us ignored this dirty war which is against the human dignity. We have observed the consequences of an unjust and dirty war in the country. This war has continued for 11 years as the rights of the Kurdish people have not been recognised. 20,000 persons died as a result of this dirty war. 118 villages were burned down. Kurdish people were thrown out of their villages, off their land. The Kurdish problem exists in Turkey. Turks should also recognise this problem. Turkey is now at a critical point. Solution of the Kurdish problem in a just, democratic and peaceful way has now become a reality in everybody's mind. Then, why do they still want to continue this dirty war? This war caused the displacement of the Kurdish people from their land. Is this war only the problem of the Kurdish people? Is this week of peace only for the Kurdish people? No, it is a problem for the Turkish people, too. While the Kurdish people have been crying for peace for a week, isn't this a problem of the Turkish working class? Isn't the problem of the killing of the children of the Kurdish and Turkish peoples a problem of the Turkish working class? One third of the budget, which is 446 trillion Turkish liras, is used in the east and south-east. All this happens at which price? It is at the price of tears.\nWe, the Turks, Kurds, Alevis and Sunnis, are all against the war. We want peace. We want the lives of Kurds to be also protected by the Constitution. We want peace for the fraternity of the peoples.”\n7.  On an unspecified date, the public prosecutor at the Konya State Security Court initiated an investigation against the applicant.\n8.  On 29 January 1996 the applicant made a statement before the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court. He contended that he had made the speech in question and that he had not committed the offence of incitement to hatred and hostility by making distinctions on the basis of race and region. He maintained that he had talked about the fraternity of the peoples, the peace and the war which should end.\n9.  On 6 February 1996 the public prosecutor at the Konya State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with making separatist propaganda in contravention of Article 8 § 1 of Law no. 3713.\n10.  On 10 April 1996 the applicant reiterated his statements of 29 January 1996 before the Ankara State Security Court. He asserted that he had expressed his opinions and that his speech had not contained any element which could constitute an offence.\n11.  On 2 July 1996 the Konya State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 312 § 2 of the Criminal Code of incitement to hatred and hostility by making distinctions on the basis of race and region. The applicant was sentenced to one year's imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 Turkish liras (TRL). The first-instance court held that the struggle in the region was directed against the PKK and its acts of terrorism and tha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2982", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Batman.\n6.  On 10 April 1997 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of her involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party). The police officers drew up an arrest protocol in which they noted that they had found a false identity card on the applicant and seized it for the investigation.\n7.  Following the Batman public prosecutor's order, the applicant's detention period was extended.\n8.  On 15 April 1997 police officers took statements from the applicant. She confessed to being a member of the PKK and stated that she had been involved in armed clashes with the security forces.\n9.  On 16 April 1997 the applicant's statements were taken by the Batman public prosecutor to whom she again confessed to being a member of the PKK and stated that she had been involved in political education and propaganda activities for the organisation.\n10.  On the same day she was brought before a single judge at the Batman Magistrates' Court who took her statement and ordered her detention on remand.\n11.  On 2 May 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant under Articles 125 and 40 of the Criminal Code with carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory and aiding and abetting an illegal organisation.\n12.  Between 5 May 1997 and 18 April 2000, the Diyarbakır State Security Court held nineteen hearings and heard a number of witnesses. During these hearings, the applicant renounced her statements taken during her detention in police custody. Witnesses heard by the court stated that the applicant was an active member of the PKK and that she had been involved in armed clashes with the security forces.\n13.  On 18 April 2000 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced her to death under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. Taking into account her confessions before the court, the death penalty was commuted to a life sentence of imprisonment.\n14.  On 19 December 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the first instance court. It reasoned that the decision was justified as the evidence in the case file was capable of proving that the applicant was an active member of the PKK, which was an armed illegal organisation and carried out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.\n15.  On 24 January 2001 the Court of Cassation's decision was pronounced in the absence of the applicant's representative.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2983", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant association is dedicated to animal protection, campaigning in particular against animal experiments and battery farming.\n5.  In response to various advertisements produced by the meat industry, the applicant association made a television commercial lasting fifty-five seconds, consisting of two scenes.\nThe first scene showed a sow building a shelter for her piglets in the forest. With soft music playing in the background, the voiceover referred, among other things, to the pigs’ sense of family. The second scene showed a noisy hall with pigs in small pens, gnawing nervously at the iron bars. The voiceover compared the conditions in which pigs were reared to concentration camps, and added that the animals were pumped full of medicines. The film concluded with the exhortation: “Eat less meat, for the sake of your health, the animals and the environment!”\n6.  Permission to broadcast the commercial on the channels of the Swiss Radio and Television Company (Schweizerische Radio- und Fernsehgesellschaft) was refused on 24 January 1994 by the company responsible for television advertising (the Commercial Television Company (AG für das Werbefernsehen), now called Publisuisse SA) and, at final instance, by the Federal Court, which dismissed an administrative-law appeal by the applicant association on 20 August 1997.\nIn respect of the applicant association’s complaint under Article 10 of the Convention, the Federal Court found that the prohibition of political advertising laid down in section 18(5) of the Federal Radio and Television Act pursued various aims; in particular, it was designed to prevent financially powerful groups from obtaining a competitive political advantage, to protect the formation of public opinion from undue commercial influence, to bring about a certain equality of opportunity among the different forces of society, and to contribute towards the independence of radio and television broadcasters in editorial matters.\n7.  On 13 July 1994 the applicant association lodged an application with the European Commission of Human Rights under former Article 25 of the Convention.\n8.  The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).\n9.  In a decision of 6 April 2000 the Court declared the application partly admissible.\n10.  In a judgment of 28 June 2001 the Court held that the refusal by the relevant Swiss authorities to broadcast the commercial in question infringed the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention (see VgT Verein gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland, no. 24699/94, ECHR 2001‑VI).\nThe Court found that the measure taken had been “prescribed by law” and had pursued a legitimate aim for the purposes of Article 10 § 2.\nAs to whether the measure had been “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of that provision, the Court noted, in particular, that it had not been established that the applicant association itself constituted a powerful financial group pursuing the aim of restricting the broadcaster’s independence, unduly influencing public opinion or endangering equality of opportunity among the different forces of society. On the contrary, it had simply intended to participate in an ongoing general debate on the protection and rearing of animals. Accordingly, in the Court’s opinion, the authorities had not demonstrated in a “relevant and sufficient” manner why the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2984", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Koper.\n6.  The applicant was a director of the company named Kovinar Hrpelje p.o. (“Kovinar”).\nOn 21 January 1992 the applicant was first suspended for having grossly abused his position in the company. He was eventually dismissed. The applicant instituted several proceedings against Kovinar in this respect.\nOn 17 October 1994 bankruptcy proceedings were instituted against Kovinar. The applicant took part in these proceedings, which terminated on 15 January 2003. On 17 January 2003 Kovinar ceased to exist.\n7.  In the meanwhile, on 1 March 1995, the applicant had started working as an army officer for the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia. He was employed as an instructor in an army training centre. However, no contract of employment was made, because the applicant refused five times to sign the contract. As a result, the de facto employment relationship was terminated by a decision of the Ministry of Defence on 6 November 1995.\n8.  On 18 March and 16 April 1992 the applicant instituted three sets of proceedings in the Koper Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela v Kopru) against Kovinar. The applicant sought the annulment of Kovinar's decisions concerning his suspension and dismissal, payment of unpaid salaries, damages for wrongful dismissal and damages for illegal dismissal. The court decided to examine the cases jointly.\nOn 24 September 1992 the Court of Associated Labour of the Republic of Slovenia (Sodišče združenega dela Republike Slovenije) transferred the case to the Nova Gorica Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela v Novi Gorici).\nOn 28 January 1993 the court delivered a judgment upholding the applicant's claims in part.\n9.  Both parties appealed against this decision to the Court of Associated Labour of the Republic of Slovenia.\nOn 20 May 1993 the latter allowed both appeals in part, because the first-instance court had failed to rule on one of the applicant's requests, and remitted the case in part to the first-instance court. Following this decision, the part of the first-instance court's judgment referring to the illegal dismissal became final. As a consequence, Kovinar called the applicant back to work.\n10.  On 22 September 1993 the Nova Gorica Court of Associated Labour upheld the applicant's claim concerning the annulment of the dismissal and dismissed the claims for compensation and continuation of his employment.\n11.  Both parties appealed against this decision to the Court of Associated Labour of the Republic of Slovenia.\nOn 21 April 1994 the court dismissed the applicant's appeal and allowed Kovinar's appeal in part.\n12.  On 16 June 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court.\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention took effect with respect to Slovenia.\nOn 5 September 1995 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant's appeal on points of law in part and remitted the case in this respect to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n13.  On 27 November 1995 the Koper Labour Court, Nova Gorica Unit (Delovno sodišče v Kopru, Oddelek v Novi Gorici) (the renamed Nova Gorica Court of Associated Labour), was informed that bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted against Kovinar. Therefore, on 29 November 1995 the court decided to stay the proceedings while the bankruptcy proceedings were pending.\nOn 4 November 1997 the applicant instituted a new set of proceedings in order to establish his claim in the bankruptcy ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2985", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966. Before 1999 she was a resident of Grozny, Chechnya, which she left for Ingushetia. She left Russia on an unspecified date and currently lives in Belgium.\n7.  The submissions of the parties with regard to the facts concerning the circumstances of the applicant's relatives' deaths and the ensuing investigation are set out in Part A below. A description of the documents submitted to the Court is contained in Part B.\n8.  The applicant submitted that prior to 1999 she and her family had lived in the Novaya Katayama settlement[1] in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny.\n9.  In October 1999 hostilities resumed in Chechnya between the Russian forces and the Chechen fighters. Grozny and its suburbs came under heavy bombardment. The Staropromyslovskiy district, situated in the northern and central parts of the town, was bombarded from the air and by artillery. The applicant submits that most residents of the district left for safer areas. Following heavy fighting, from December 1999 the Russian forces started to regain control over the city from the north, and by the end of January 2000 the central parts of the city were finally taken.\n10.  In January 2000 the applicant and her four children were staying in Ingushetia, while her brother Said-Magomed (usually referred to as Magomed) Goygov (aged 31) and her mother Maryam Goygova (aged 59) remained in Grozny.\n11.  On 19 January 2000 the applicant went to Grozny to find out about her relatives. She was not allowed to pass through the military checkpoint at the entrance to the city and spent the night in a neighbouring settlement. On the following morning, on 20 January 2000, the applicant again arrived at the checkpoint.\n12.  There the applicant met a local resident, identified by her as A., who told her that at the crossroads of Neftyanaya Street and the 4th Neftyanoy Lane there was the body of an old lady in a handcart. He told her that on 19 January 2000 the old lady had been wounded by shrapnel and that three men had tried to take her out of Grozny. They had walked up to the 8th Lane, where there was a group of soldiers and three armoured personnel carriers (APCs), one of which had been damaged. The soldiers had stopped them, beaten the men and led them away. They had shot the woman in the cart, and then A. had seen shots being fired, so he presumed that the men had also been shot. From his story the applicant deduced that the woman was her mother and that her brother, Magomed Goygov, could have been among the three men.\n13.  At the roadblock on the border of the Staropromyslovskiy district the applicant talked to the military and asked them to let her pass. She identified them as belonging to the 205th detachment of the 58th army. One of them whom she believed was in charge, named Oleg, refused to let her go further. When the applicant stated that she was looking for her mother, he replied that they had taken revenge for their dead comrades whose mothers had also wanted to see them alive. Later the applicant submitted that Oleg's hands had been covered with a bandage and that another local resident, a woman named Lena, had told her that she had heard him complaining that he had injured his hands “beating those bastards”.\n14.  A. helped the applicant to get through the military roadblock and accompanied her to the crossroads, where they found the cart containing the body of the applicant's mother. She had a shrapnel wound in the abdomen and a gunshot woun", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2986", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Barnaul, the Altay Region.\n5.  On 20 December 1998 police searched the applicant's house.\n6.  On 20 June 2000 the Industrialnyy District Court of Barnaul found, upon the applicant's complaint, that the search had been unlawful. The judgment was not appealed against and acquired legal force ten days later. On 8 May 2001 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court rejected the Prosecutor's application for supervisory review and upheld the judgment of 20 June 2000.\n7.  On 18 December 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Barnaul granted the applicant's action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for compensation of non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the unlawful search and awarded the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles. By a decision of 24 March 2004 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. On 29 July 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court issued a writ of execution.\n8.  On 15 October 2004 the applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance, but on 10 November 2004 the Ministry of Finance returned it to the applicant on the ground that he had failed to submit a duly certified copy of the judgment of 18 December 2003 and a payment request with indication of his bank account.\n9.  On 6 December 2004 the applicant re-submitted the enforcement materials to the Ministry of Finance. However, on 12 January 2005 the Ministry of Finance returned them to the applicant for the reason that the date of delivery of the judgment had been indicated incorrectly.\n10.  On 8 February 2005 the enforcement documents were once again forwarded to the Ministry of Finance.\n11.  The date on which the judgment was enforced is disputed by the parties. According to the Government, the judgment was fully enforced on 2 May 2005. From the applicant's submissions it follows that he had received the amount awarded by the judgment of 18 December 2003 on 2 May 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2987", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1959 and was a resident of Grozny, Chechnya. She currently lives in Ingushetia.\n7.  The submissions of the parties with regard to the facts concerning the circumstances of the attack on the applicant and the ensuing investigation are set out in Part A below. A description of the documents submitted to the Court is contained in Part B.\n8.  In April 2004 the applicant produced a detailed account of the attack on her. She submitted that, prior to 1999 she lived at 201 Pugacheva Street in the Tashkala settlement[1] in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny. She lived in a private house together with her husband and five children, born in 1980, 1982, 1986, 1987 and 1997. In September 1999 the applicant's four elder children went to Ingushetia to stay with relatives, while the applicant, her husband and their youngest child remained in Grozny to look after the house and property.\n9.  In October 1999 hostilities resumed in Chechnya between Russian forces and Chechen fighters. Grozny and its suburbs came under heavy bombardment. Staropromyslovskiy district, situated in the northern and central parts of the city, was bombarded from the air and by artillery. The applicant submits that most residents of the district left for safer areas. Following heavy fighting, as of December 1999 the Russian forces started to regain control over the city from the north, and by the end of January 2000 the central parts of the city were finally taken.\n10.  At the end of October 1999 the applicant and her family also moved to Ingushetia to flee the bombardments. There they rented housing in the village of Nesterovskaya. In Nesterovskaya the applicant met her neighbour from Grozny, Larisa (also known as Satsita) D.\n11.  On 20 January 2000 the applicant saw a programme on the all-Russian ORT TV station about the situation in Grozny. The report allegedly stated that the Tashkala settlement had been brought under full control of the federal forces and that civilians had started to return. The applicant and Larisa D. decided to go to Grozny to check up on their houses. In addition the applicant wanted to retrieve the documents relating to her children.\n12.  On the morning of 21 January 2000 the applicant and Larisa D. set off for Grozny. The applicant took her passport and 500 roubles (RUR), of which she paid RUR 100 for the bus trip to the outskirts of Grozny. They spent the night of 21 to 22 January with the applicant's relatives in Grozny. On 22 January 2000 at a military roadblock where about 20 other women were waiting to be let through, they met another neighbour from Tashkala, Nura T., who had also seen the news about the return of civilians. At that time the applicant did not know Nura's family name. Nura joined them, and the three of them went to Tashkala on foot.\n13.  When they reached the applicant's house, they saw that the house had been destroyed. The applicant was unable to find the documents. The women consoled her and they went to Larisa D.'s house, also situated in Pugacheva Street. They had walked another block when they noticed, 60-90 metres further along the street, a group of 30-40 soldiers and three or four armoured personnel carriers (APCs). The soldiers were taking valuables out of the houses and stacking them into the APCs. The applicant and the other two women were aware of stories about soldiers killing witnesses to looting and became very scared. They immediately turned around and were about to walk away, bu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2988", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is a Chilean national who was born in 1968 and lives in Bergen, Norway. He has worked inter alia as a kindergarten assistant for about 8 years.\n7.  The applicant has two sons L. and A. (born respectively on 11 June 1994 and 24 February 1996) with Ms H.T., a Norwegian national, with whom he entered into a relationship in 1992/1993 and cohabited from mid 1994 until the end of that year. In 1995 (before A. was born) the applicant and H.T. reached an agreement whereby he had certain access rights to L.\n8.  Since around 1997 he has cohabited with Ms G.A.D. and her adolescent son.\n9.  A dispute arose as to the applicant's access to L. and A. On 9 June 1997 H.T. reported him to the police for allegedly having sexually abused L. She based her allegations on statements made by L. The mother gave statements to the police and L. was interviewed by a judge without anything significant emerging in the case. In July 1998 the State Prosecutor discontinued the investigation, which decision the Director of Public Prosecutions confirmed on appeal in October 1998.\n10.  In the year 2000 the applicant brought judicial proceedings before the Bergen City Court (byrett), claiming a right of access to his two sons (sections 44 and 44A of the Children Act 1981). On 7 December 2000 the City Court refused a request by H.T. to have an expert witness appointed.\n11. By a judgment of 18 April 2001 the City Court granted the applicant access every other week-end and for approximately half of the holiday periods and devised a plan for stepping up access. To give the above immediate effect, the City Court issued an interlocutory order.\nIn reaching the above conclusions, the City Court rejected the accusations made by the boys' mother that the applicant had sexually abused L. It observed that according to H.T. there were only 10 occasions on which the applicant had been on his own with his son, namely in that they had been in a room with the door shut in H.T.'s apartment. In her view it was most probable that the abuse had occurred on these occasions, though she did not have concrete evidence to this effect. The City Court found it excluded on the evidence before it that the applicant had sexually abused L. It attached decisive weight to the fact that the applicant's access to his son had taken place each time under the supervision of at least one other person and that on the 10 occasions on which he and the son had been on their own in the latter's room, it was for a very short time and in a situation where the child's mother could have entered the room at any moment. The visits in question took place more than a year and a half ago - a very long period for a small child - before April 1997 when the son had made the statements that aroused the mother's suspicions that the applicant had sexually abused L. Finally, the City Court had regard to the fact that the physiological and psychiatric examinations carried out did not support the allegation that abuse had occurred. It found that the allegation had been the result of manipulation and fabrication by the mother as part of a strategy to obstruct the applicant's access. There was reason to assume that this had already had damaging effects on L., who had stated that he did not wish to live or to be with his father. The boy had become a go-between in a conflict between adults. The City Court stated that the applicant was more suitable than the mother to assume the daily care.\n12.  On 10 October 2001 H.T.'s ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2989", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1962. Before 2000 she was a resident of Grozny, Chechnya, which she left for Ingushetia. She currently resides in Norway.\n7.  The submissions of the parties with regard to the facts concerning the circumstances of the events of 19 January 2000 and the ensuing investigation are set out in Part A below. A description of the documents submitted to the Court is contained in Part B.\n8.  In July 2004 the applicant produced a detailed account of the attack on her. She submitted that prior to 1999 she and her family lived at 10 Skvoznoy Lane in the Katayama settlement in the Staropromyslovskiy district in Grozny.[1] The applicant has a daughter who was born in 1982. They lived in Kazakhstan until 1990 and then moved to her parents' flat in Grozny. In 1993 the applicant removed her daughter from Chechnya after the school which she attended came under attack.\n9.  In October 1999 hostilities resumed in Chechnya between the Russian forces and the Chechen fighters. Grozny and its suburbs came under heavy bombardment. Staropromyslovskiy district, situated in the northern and central parts of the town, was bombarded from the air and by artillery. The applicant submitted that most residents of the district left for safer areas. The applicant, who stayed because of her poor health, spent the winter of 1999-2000 hiding from bombardments in the cellars, along with the few other remaining residents of the district. Following heavy fighting, as of December 1999 the Russian forces started to regain control over the city from the north, and by the end of January 2000 the central parts of the city were finally taken.\n10.  On 19 January 2000 a massive attack by the federal forces on their district began. The applicant and five other persons were hiding in a garage located in 4th Neftyanoy Lane and when the shelling intensified they ran to a nearby cellar. While running, the applicant was wounded in her leg. When the shelling subsided, several military servicemen appeared and ordered everyone out of the cellar. The applicant and others walked out, with their hands on their heads. The soldiers told them that they had an order to kill everyone and that those who remained in the city had assisted the fighters (“boyeviki”).\n11.  The applicant submitted that the soldiers had not listened to their explanations and refused to look at their identity documents. They had ordered the inhabitants to return to the cellar and, once the residents went downstairs, threw tear-gas grenades into it. The people in the cellar wept and asked them to stop, and finally the soldiers ordered them to come out again, one by one. The applicant, who was wounded, could not walk by herself and was assisted by a Chechen man. Two Russian women and another Chechen man walked out first and were shot at the entrance to the garage by machine-gun fire. The soldiers then shot at the third woman and at the applicant and her helper, whose body eventually covered hers.\n12.  The applicant lost consciousness and, when she awoke, she realised that the others were dead. She was wounded in the chest and was bleeding from the mouth. When night fell, the applicant walked over to a neighbouring street where the Khashiyev family lived (see Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, 24 February 2005). They gave her first aid and allowed her to stay in their shed. They said that they were expecting a second check [by security forces] and were afraid to let her into th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2990", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1937, 1945 and 1942, respectively. The first and second applicants live in Kaakamo and the third applicant in Kittilä.\n8.  The applicants are fishermen operating in the maritime area at the mouth of the Kemi River by the city of Tornio. They fish small fish and rear salmon in private waters in the flow area of the Kemi River. The second applicant fishes also in waters leased from the State.\n9.  In 1971 Finland and Sweden concluded the Frontier Rivers Agreement (Suomen ja Ruotsin välinen rajajokisopimus, gränsälvsöverenskommelsen mellan Finland och Sverige; SopS 53-54/1971), which included provisions on the right to fish in the Tornio River and its channels. The Fishing Regulation (kalastussääntö, fiskestadgan) was annexed to the Frontier Rivers Agreement. The Fishing Regulation was amended in 1979 and 1987 whereby the Finnish-Swedish Frontier Rivers Commission (rajajokikomissio, gränsälvskommissionen), established under the Frontier Rivers Agreement, was given the right to preserve certain fish species, or prohibit or restrict fishing using certain equipment or gear, if this was deemed necessary in order to safeguard future fish stocks. The fish to be protected in the area was the wild salmon of Tornio River.\n10.  In June 1987 Finland and Sweden decided to discontinue the application of the Fishing Regulation. Subsequently, an Act for the Fishing in the Tornio River Fishing Area (kalastuksesta Tornionjoen kalastusalueella annettu laki; lag om fiske i fiskeområden i Torne älven; 494/1997, “the Tornio Fishing Act”) was passed. According to section 3 of the said Act the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland (“the Ministry”) was authorised to restrict fishing, inter alia, if this was deemed necessary in order to safeguard future fish stocks.\n11.  By virtue of the Tornio Fishing Act, the Ministry issued Decision no. 496/1997 (“the 1997 Decision”), prohibiting all salmon and trout fishing throughout the year and all fishing with stationary gear during the period from 1 May until 5 July. The restrictions extended to the maritime area of the Kemi River belonging to the city of Tornio, i.e. the fishing waters used by the applicants.\n12.  The local fishing association of Kaakamo–Ruottala challenged the lawfulness of the 1997 Decision before the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen). In its judgment of 15 January 1999, the court declined to examine the merits of the appeal, finding that the 1997 Decision was not in the nature of an administrative decision resolving or dismissing a case and subject to appeal.\n13.  By Decision no. 319/1998 (“the 1998 Decision”), the Ministry continued the fishing prohibition and restriction.\n14.  Despite the above-mentioned decisions, the applicants continued fishing using stationary gear. They considered the decisions unlawful as, in their view, there were only implanted salmon in their fishing waters.\n15.  On an unspecified date the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicants for breaching the Tornio Fishing Act. On 21 December 2001 the Tornio District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) dismissed the charges, ruling that the 1998 Decision violated the applicants' constitutional right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions as wild salmon existed only accidentally in their fishing waters. Thus the 1998 Decision was contrary to the Tornio Fishing Act and the Constitution. By virtue of section 107 of the Consti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2991", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kežmarok.\n6.  The applicant and her husband held a joint tenancy of a three-room flat owned by a cooperative in Poprad.\n7.  Owing to differences with her husband, the applicant left the flat together with her two children in 1992. They started living in a two-room flat owned by the Poprad Municipality. It was leased by the applicant's father, who suffered from a long-term illness and died on 21 January 1994. The applicant and her two children, born in 1979 and 1982 respectively, continued to live in the flat. The applicant paid the rent.\n8.  In a decision which became final on 7 November 1994 a court granted a divorce order in respect of the applicant and her husband. Their children were placed in the applicant's custody.\n9.  On 6 February 1995 the applicant and her former husband reached an agreement whereby the latter would continue using the flat in which they had formerly lived together. On 6 March 1995 the cooperative which owned the flat and of which the applicant was a member approved a request for the flat to be exchanged for a one-room flat in Kežmarok. The applicant's former husband lived in the flat in Kežmarok until his death on 1 August 1995. His and the applicant's son inherited membership rights in respect of the cooperative which owned the flat in Kežmarok, including the right to use it. The applicant later started leasing the flat with a view to improving her financial situation.\n10.  After her father's death the applicant requested to be registered as permanently residing in the flat where she had lived since 1992. In a letter of 19 July 1995 the mayor of Poprad replied that the position was unclear. It had to be determined, in particular, whether the tenancy had passed to the applicant pursuant to Article 706 § 1 of the Civil Code after her father's death.\n11.  On 4 August 1995 the Poprad Municipal Office informed the applicant that she had formally ceased to be a tenant of the flat which she had used with her former husband on 6 February 1995 – that is, after the death of her father. The right to use her father's flat had not passed to the applicant after the former's death as the requirements of Article 706 § 1 of the Civil Code had not been met.\n12.  On 3 September 1996 the Poprad Municipal Office included the applicant on a list of persons seeking the tenancy of a flat. No municipal flat could be put at the applicant's disposal at that time as other persons were above her on the list.\n13.  As the applicant had refused to move out, on 30 August 1996 the Poprad Municipal Housing Company sought a judicial order for her eviction.\n14.  On 31 October 1996 the Poprad District Court ordered the applicant to move out of the flat within 30 days after its judgment had become final. On 29 October 1997 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The courts established that the applicant had not become a tenant of the flat originally used by her father since, at the time of the latter's death, she had been registered as a user of a different flat, in which she had lived with her former husband. The requirements of Article 706 § 1 of the Civil Code had not been met. After her father's death the applicant had lived in the flat in issue without any justification. In addition, the District Court held that the applicant could live in the flat in Kežmarok which her son had inherited from her former husband. The plaintiff had rightly sought the protection of its ownersh", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2992", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Vác.\n5.  The facts of the case as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 17 July 1997 the applicant's employment with the Vác Health Care School was terminated. He challenged the school's decision before the Budapest Labour Court. On 7 February 2001 the Labour Court dismissed his action. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 14 September 2001 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 29 January 2003 the review bench of the Supreme Court finally dismissed his action. The applicant requested its re-opening, but to no avail.\n8.  In December 1999 the applicant, transporting medical equipment in his lorry, was halted at the Belarus border. While he was completing the necessary documents, the contents of his lorry were robbed. Purportedly in order to clarify the events, the Belarus authorities took the applicant into custody for approximately two weeks, after which he was allowed to return to Hungary.\n9.  On 23 September 2001 the applicant initiated a civil action in the Vác District Court against a Belarus official who had participated in the above events.\n10.  On 6 February 2003 the District Court informed the applicant that his case had been registered as a claim for compensation. In view of the fact that the case file had meanwhile been lost, it requested him to reproduce certain documents.\n11.  On 4 April 2003 the applicant again submitted his action.\n12.  On 20 April 2003 the District Court ordered the applicant to state his financial situation with a view to determining his request for legal aid. On 20 May 2003 the applicant submitted the necessary documents.\n13.  The case is still pending before the District Court.\n14.  In 1993 the applicant's luggage was lost during his flight to Canada. The applicant unsuccessfully requested the airline to compensate him.\n15.  On 23 September 2001 the applicant brought an action in compensation against the company. On 6 February 2003 the Vác District Court informed the applicant that that case file had been lost and requested him to reproduce certain documents.\n16.  The case is apparently is still pending before the District Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2993", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Schaan, Liechtenstein.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 24 August 1996 the company Hilti and Hilti Handles AG, owned by the applicant, initiated the liquidation of the Hungarian company S., since the latter had been reluctant to pay its outstanding debts amounting to 1,250,000 German Marks (approximately 639,114.85 euros).\n8.  On 17 September 1996 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claim and terminated the liquidation proceedings, since the debtor had contested both the existence and the amount of its debts and the applicant had not been able to prove that company S. was insolvent.\n9.  On appeal, on 7 November 1997 the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court.\n10.  On 10 March 1998 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and invited the applicant to submit all relevant documents proving the insolvency of company S. Upon the applicant's request, the Regional Court extended the time-limit. On 6 May 1998 the applicant submitted the information requested.\n11.  On 2 November 1998 the Regional Court ordered the liquidation of the company S. On 7 January 1999 the latter merged with company C.\n12.  On 8 January 2001, under the same file-number, the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, quashed the first-instance decision. It observed that the debtor had merged with company C. and held that, without the examination of the latter's solvency, its liquidation should not have been ordered.\n13.  On 13 March 2001 the Regional Court invited the applicant to declare whether his company wished to maintain its claim. The suit was maintained.\n14.  In the resumed proceedings, on 18 April 2001 the Budapest Regional Court found that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the case and transferred it to the Zala County Regional Court.\n15.  On 8 October 2001 the Regional Court ordered the liquidation of company C. Subsequently, the Regional Court withdrew this decision because of procedural shortcomings.\n16.  On 30 May 2002 the Regional Court again ordered the liquidation of company C. and appointed a liquidator. The company appealed.\n17.  On 1 April 2003 the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, dismissed the appeal. On 9 September 2003 the Regional Court accepted the liquidator's closing balance sheet.\n18.  On 29 April 2005 the Regional Court ordered, in simplified proceedings (egyszerűsített felszámolási eljárás), the liquidation of company C. It established that the debtor's assets were insufficient to cover the expenses of the liquidation proceedings and the applicant's claim.\n19.  On 28 May 2005 the Regional Court dissolved company C., which was consequently deleted from the company register on 18 July 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2994", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant was a victim of a work accident in 1984. He was rendered 100% unfit to work and was found to be in the first degree invalidity category. The employer, The National Institute of Vineyards and Wine (“the NIVW”), was obliged by law to pay him monthly invalidity benefit. After the introduction of the new national currency the amount of benefit was set at approximately 18 euros (EUR) per month and had risen to approximately EUR 50 per month by 2003. He also receives a small State pension.\n8.  From 1996 the NIVW stopped paying the compensation and the applicant accumulated a significant debt to public utility companies. He initiated court proceedings to oblige the employer to resume payment of the benefit and to recover benefit for the entire period due. According to the Government, the employer did not have sufficient information about the applicant during the period 1996-2001 and this was the reason for discontinuing the payments. The applicant submitted a copy of his complaint to NIVW regarding the discontinuation of the payments dated January 1998 and the NIVW's two letters in response, according to the last of which (March 1998) the payment of the benefit had been suspended because of lack of funds. The applicant also complained to various authorities in 2000 about the NIVW's failure to pay. In a letter dated 2 August 2000 the deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food Processing assured the applicant that his benefit would soon be paid.\n9.  On 11 April 2001 the Ciocana District Court accepted the applicant's claims and awarded him 23,921 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of EUR 2,076 at the time) in respect of compensation due to him to that date. It ordered the NIVW to pay the court fees. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and enforceable 15 days later. The court then issued a warrant for the enforcement of the judgment.\n10.  On 20 February 2002 the NIVW was declared insolvent and an Administrator was appointed for the period of its liquidation. The applicant submitted that the organisation was, in fact, in the process of restructuring and was not liquidated, as evidenced by official documents signed by the NIVW's administrator. He also claimed that the NIVW had continued to pay staff salaries and had even purchased new equipment. He referred to a decision of the Court of Audit (no. 2, 2001), according to which the NIVW had been given a credit in the amount of 2,890,000 United States dollars (USD) by the Ministry of Finance from its own loan from the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development and that this money had been used to purchase wine production equipment. By July 2000 the NIVW had obtained revenue from this new equipment amounting to approximately EUR 14,500. The applicant also referred to another decision of the same court (no. 20, 2004) according to which in 2003 the NIVW had received from the State budget MDL 785,000 to finance research and specialised education.\n11.  From June 2002 until October 2002 the NIVW paid the applicant a total of MDL 8,000.\n12.  On 30 October 2002 the applicant initiated new court proceedings requesting the recalculation of the compensation due (because inflation had decreased the value of the earlier award) and also payment of an additional MDL 49,178 (EUR 3,630 at the time) in damages for the late and partial pay", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2995", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in Miskolc.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 27 November 1990 the liquidation of the Diósgyőr Machine Factory Ltd. (“the Factory”) was ordered by the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court. However, during the liquidation procedure, the Factory remained partly active, in order to minimise losses.\n7.  Between April 1991 and January 1994, the predecessor of the applicant was a supplier of the Factory. As the Factory was unable to pay for the services already rendered – the outstanding fees amounted to 8,528,183 Hungarian Forints (approximately 32,421 euros) – the applicant became a creditor in the liquidation proceedings.\n8.  On 31 August 1994 the Factory's liquidator prepared the closing balance sheet. The liquidator was of the view that the satisfaction of all the creditors in cash was impossible. Instead of payment in cash, it therefore offered shares in the Factory, but the applicant declined the proposal.\n9.  On 21 February 1995 the applicant objected (kifogás) to the closing balance sheet and insisted on payment in cash.\n10.  On 4 July 1995 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court accepted the closing balance sheet. On appeal on 29 May 1997, the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, quashed this decision due to procedural shortcomings. It found, inter alia, that the Regional Court had not dealt with the applicant's objection. The Supreme Court held that the liquidator was under an obligation to attempt to sell the shares of the Factory first and then satisfy the creditors from the sums received. The Supreme Court's decision arrived at the Regional Court on 15 July 1997.\n11.  On 10 December 1997 the Regional Court ordered the liquidator to prepare a new closing balance sheet.\n12.  On 19 January 1998 the liquidator informed the Regional Court that the sale of the shares was only possible well below their nominal value. The liquidator also informed the Regional Court about the ongoing negotiations with possible investors and requested an extension of the time-limit for the preparation of the closing balance sheet. The Regional Court registered the liquidator's request.\n13.  On 17 September 1998 the liquidator announced that its attempt to sell the shares had been unsuccessful and requested the Regional Court to accept an amended closing balance sheet.\n14.  On 18 February 2000 the liquidator informed the Regional Court about an update to the closing balance sheet.\n15.  On 22 January 2001 the applicant initiated negotiations with the liquidator. At a meeting held on 20 February 2001, the liquidator acknowledged that it had satisfied some of the creditors more favourably than the applicant, but had only done so to keep the Factory at least partly active.\n16.  On 23 January 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Regional Court about the lack of a final decision in the case.\n17.  On 29 March 2001 the applicant raised an objection before the Regional Court, asking the court to terminate the liquidation proceedings.\n18.  On 1 July 2004 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint without examining its merits.\n19.  Subsequently, on 2 April 2001 the applicant lodged another complaint with the Regional Court and requested the appointment of an expert auditor in order to establish whether the liquidator had breached its duties.\n20.  On 12 October 2004 the Regional Court dismissed the ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2996", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant, Mr Ján Judt, was born in 1944 and lives in Zvolen. The second applicant, Mr Miroslav Judt, is the son of the first applicant. He was born in 1983 and lives in Zvolen.\n5.  On 6 June 1997 the first applicant's wife filed a petition for divorce and for determination of parental rights and obligations in respect of their son, the second applicant. The plaintiff claimed custody of the second applicant.\n6.  On 25 June 1997 the District Court in Zvolen scheduled a hearing for 15 July 1997; it sent the petition to the first applicant for comments. On the same day the court appointed a guardian – the Zvolen District Office, Department of Social Affairs - to defend the interests of the second applicant in the proceedings. The court made an inquiry about the parents' income.\n7.  On 30 June 1997 the first applicant asked for the hearing to be postponed as he had planned a holiday abroad with his son.\n8.  On 15 July 1997 the court adjourned the case until 4 September 1997 because of the parties' absence.\n9.  On 21 August 1997 the first applicant informed the court that he was unable to attend a hearing scheduled for 4 September 1997.\n10.  On 4 September 1997 the plaintiff excluded the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement. The case was adjourned until 7 October 1997.\n11.  On 1 October 1997 the first applicant apologised for his absence from the hearing scheduled for 7 October 1997. He explained that he hoped that the relations between him and the plaintiff would improve. The case was adjourned until 28 October 1997. The first applicant was to be summoned under the threat of imposition of a fine or his being brought by the police. The court made inquiries as to the relations within the family. It received replies on 24 October 1997. The authority appointed as guardian recommended the second applicant's examination by a child-psychiatrist.\n12.  On 28 October 1997 the court heard the parties.\n13.  On 28 November 1997 the first applicant filed a petition for an interim measure granting him the custody of his son and obliging the mother to contribute to the boy's maintenance.\n14.  On 2 December 1997 the court heard witnesses as proposed by the first applicant. The case was adjourned with a view to determining the financial situation of the parents and obtaining the opinion of an expert. On 3 December 1997 the court requested the parents to pay an advance on the costs of the expert.\n15.  On 16 December 1997 the first applicant challenged the District Court judge for bias. On 7 January 1998 the case file was submitted to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court which, by a decision of 9 February 1998, dismissed the request.\n16.  In March 1998 the District Court made inquiries about the parents' situation.\n17.  On 24 March 1998 the District Court granted a divorce to the plaintiff and the first applicant. The court established that there were serious conflicts between the spouses and that neither of them was interested in maintaining their marriage. The decision on the divorce became final on 1 May 1998.\n18.  By an interim measure forming a part of the judgment of 24 March 1998 the court placed the second applicant in the custody of the first applicant and ordered the plaintiff to contribute to the child's maintenance pending a final determination of the parents' rights and obligations. The court held that the statements of the parents were inconsistent and that the testimony of their son was not convincing. It therefore considere", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2997", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  In 1990 the applicant and other plaintiffs filed an action for the settlement of accounts between certain individuals with whom she had built a block of flats. On 11 September 1990 the Buda Central District Court discontinued the proceedings. On appeal, on 19 December 1990 the case was remitted to the first-instance court.\n6.  After numerous hearings in the resumed proceedings, on 24 April 1996 the District Court found in part for the applicant. On appeal, on 6 March 1998 the Budapest Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings, numerous hearings took place between 11 February 1999 and 2 December 2004. The court also obtained the opinion of an expert.\n8.  On 19 April 2005 the District Court found in part for the applicant. This decision was amended by the Regional Court on 22 February 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-2998", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Belgrade, Serbia.\n5.  On 23 March 1960 an apartment building owned by the applicant's father was nationalised by the Yugoslav communist authorities.\n6.  On 1 December 1960 the Palilula municipal authorities declared that one specific flat in the apartment building was to remain the property of the applicant's father.\n7.  Following his father's death, the applicant inherited the legal title to this flat. He could not, however, effectively enjoy it because the flat was subjected to a special “protected tenancy regime” and, as such, physically occupied by other persons whose rent was controlled by the public authorities.\n8.  In 1992 a new Housing Act made it possible, under certain conditions, for the owners of such flats to regain effective possession (see paragraphs 39-41 below).\n9.  On 19 January 1993 the Housing Department of the Palilula Municipality (Odeljenje za komunalno-stambene poslove opštine Palilula) accepted the applicant's eviction request and ordered the same Municipality to provide the “protected tenant” in question with adequate alternative accommodation by 31 December 1995, at the latest.\n10.  On 17 August 1994 the Housing Department of the Palilula Municipality adopted another decision to the same effect (360-440/93-II-01). In so doing, it confirmed its ruling of 19 January 1993 and explicitly ordered the protected tenant's eviction by 31 December 1995.\n11.  On 1 December 1994 the Housing Department of the City of Belgrade (Sekretarijat za komunalne i stambene poslove grada Beograda) rejected the appeal filed by the Municipal Attorney-General's Office (Javno pravobranilaštvo opštine Palilula) and the decision of 17 August 1994 thereby became final.\n12.  On 4 August 2006 the Housing Department of the Municipality of Palilula offered the original protected tenant's legal heir, Ms B.K., specific alternative accommodation but then went on to note that a “priority list” would nevertheless have to be considered.\n13.  Ms B.K. stated that she had continued living in the flat, following the former protected tenant's death, together with her son, her daughter-in-law and their minor child. She added that the flat offered was some 20 square meters smaller than the one she currently lived in, and stated that it was not located in the city centre.\n14.  On 10 August 2006 the Housing Department of the Municipality of Palilula reaffirmed its offer but Mr S.K., Ms B.K.'s son, stated that the flat in question was inadequate in terms of its overall size as well as the number of rooms available. He added, however, that he and his family would provide the municipality with their final answer within ten to fifteen days.\n15.  In 1996 the applicant filed a civil claim against the Municipality of Palilula with the First Municipal Court in Belgrade (Prvi opštinski sud u Beogradu). He sought compensation for the pecuniary damage sustained due to his continuing inability to use/lease the flat in question.\n16.  On 2 September 1996 the First Municipal Court in Belgrade (“the Municipal Court”) ruled partly in favour of the applicant.\n17.  On 30 June 1997 the District Court in Belgrade (Okružni sud u Beogradu) quashed this decision on appeal and ordered a retrial.\n18.  On 26 June 2001 the Municipal Court ruled against the applicant.\n19.  On 27 December 2001 this judgment was upheld by the District Court in Belgrade (“the District Court”).\n20.  On 18 March 2002 the applicant filed an appeal on points of la", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3000", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1963, 1958 and 1966, respectively, and live in Beograd.\n5.  On 23 May 2001 the applicants were dismissed from their work.\n6.  On 6 June 2001 they instituted civil proceedings in the Beograd Third Municipal Court against their former employer, seeking reinstatement and salary arrears.\n7.  Sometime after the respondent State's ratification of the Convention on 3 March 2004, the applicants' case was assigned to another judge.\n8.  The next hearing in the case was held on 26 October 2004, when the court decided to hear several witnesses.\n9.  The hearing scheduled for 23 December 2004 was adjourned by the judge. Subsequently, the case was yet again assigned to another judge and the next hearing was scheduled for 9 September 2005, but did not take place because the witnesses had not been duly summoned.\n10.  The next hearing, scheduled for 23 November 2005, was adjourned because the summoned witnesses failed to appear.\n11.  On 24 February 2006 the court held a hearing and heard the applicants and a witness. The applicants requested the court to obtain an additional expert opinion concerning the amount of their salary arrears. The court held two more hearings – on 31 March and 15 May 2006.\n12.  On 18 May 2006 the court ordered the applicants to advance the costs of the proposed expert opinion and to suggest an expert. The applicants did so on 1 June. At the next hearing held on 16 June 2006, the court ordered that the expert opinion be obtained. The appointed expert submitted the opinion on 5 October 2006.\n13.  The court held further hearings on 13 October and 15 November 2006. The respondent then filed a request for a transfer of jurisdiction, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 6 December 2006.\n14.  The court held further hearings on 2 and 16 February and on 16 March 2007. On the last mentioned date the court gave judgment, accepting the applicants' claim. The applicants appealed against the decision on costs and the proceedings are currently pending before the second-instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3001", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Chisinau.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant initiated court proceedings against a private individual. On 6 October 2000 the Centru District Court awarded him 2,000 United States Dollars (USD). No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and enforceable fifteen days later. He obtained an enforcement warrant, which the bailiff did not enforce.\n8.  In response to a request of the Centru District Court dated 22 December 2000, the Chişinău Land Register stated that the debtor did not have any real estate registered in Chişinău.\n9.  On 14 February 2001 a bailiff established that the debtor did not live at the address indicated by the applicant and that, accordingly, it was impossible to enforce the judgment.\n10.  On 6 March 2001 the debtor's wife paid the applicant USD 1,000.\n11.  On 16 March 2001 the Centru District Court ordered the local police to determine the debtor's whereabouts. On an unknown date a copy of the decision was sent to the local police station. On 3 February 2004 the police decided to take steps to locate the debtor. According to the police, the debtor cannot be found.\n12.  The judgment of 6 October 2000 has not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3002", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1936 and 1940 respectively and live in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 27 January 1994 the room in which the applicants lived was declared uninhabitable. A report issued on 5 December 1996 by the Epidemiology and Hygiene Centre of the Ministry of Health confirmed that water leaked through the damaged roof into the room and caused damp. It requested the local authorities to respond appropriately to the situation.\n8.  In 1999 the applicants initiated court proceedings. On 23 April 1999 the Centru District Court adopted a judgment in the applicants' favour (“the 1999 judgment”), ordering the Chişinău municipality to allocate them “accommodation in accordance with the number of family members”. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final 15 days later.\n9.  On 11 May 1999 the applicants submitted the enforcement warrant to the bailiff, who did not enforce it. The municipality responded to all the requests of the bailiff and of the applicants by stating that it could not enforce the judgment in view of the lack of available apartments. It was fined several times (the equivalent of 120 euros (EUR), it is unclear whether the fines were paid) but the judgment was not enforced.\n10.  In 2002 the Decisions Enforcement Department (“the Department”) requested a court to return the enforcement warrant to the applicants without enforcement. On 28 September 2002 the Centru District Court accepted that request. On 28 September 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed that decision because the applicants had not been informed of it. The bailiff's request was remitted for a new examination and on 22 December 2004 it was rejected by the Centru District Court as unfounded. That decision was upheld by the Chişinău Court of Appeal on 16 March 2005.\n11.  In 2003 the applicants requested a court to set a time-limit for the enforcement of the 1999 judgment. On 16 July 2003 the Centru District Court set a two-month time-limit but no enforcement followed.\n12.  Also in 2003 the applicants requested a court to change the means of enforcing the 1999 judgment by ordering the Chişinău municipality to pay them the price of a two-room apartment or to register their title to such an apartment in one of the newly built houses belonging to the State and to compensate them for the damage caused by the non-enforcement. On 28 November 2003 the Centru District Court rejected that request, finding that such requests could only be examined as part of separate proceedings. On 17 March 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by the applicants.\n13.  The applicants initiated separate proceedings asking for compensation for damage caused by the non-enforcement and for registration in the land register of their title to a two-room apartment. In two judgments of 16 December 2004 the Centru District Court rejected both requests as unfounded. These judgments were upheld by the Chişinău Court of Appeal on 26 April 2005. Both courts exempted the applicants from paying the court fees on account of their difficult financial situation. The applicants appealed and asked for an exemption from the payment of court fees for their appeal, in view of their difficult financial situation. They also claimed that they had paid the major part of the price of the apartment (9,550 Soviet roubles) at the beginning of the 1990s.\n14.  By a letter of 11 May 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice informe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3003", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Belgrade.\n5.  In 1992 the applicant was dismissed from the job which he held in a local construction company.\n6.  On 16 June 1992 he filed a claim with the Third Municipal Court in Belgrade (Treći opštinski sud u Beogradu), seeking reinstatement.\n7.  On 16 June 1993 the Third Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant.\n8.  On 22 September 1993 the District Court in Belgrade (Okružni sud u Beogradu) quashed this judgment and ordered a retrial.\n9.  From 23 December 1993 to 15 September 1999, the Third Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant on six separate occasions, but each time the District Court quashed those judgments on appeal and ordered a retrial.\n10.  On 10 November 2000 the Third Municipal Court again ruled in favour of the applicant. It also ordered the respondent company to reinstate him until the adoption of a final decision in the proceedings.\n11.  On 17 August 2001 the District Court quashed this judgment and ordered a retrial.\n12.  On 22 February 2002 the Third Municipal Court revoked its provisional reinstatement order of 10 November 2000.\n13.  On 28 September 2004 the applicant requested his salary arrears.\n14.  At the hearing held on 8 October 2004, the applicant complained about the delay and sought the removal of the presiding judge.\n15.  On 18 October 2004 the President of the Third Municipal Court rejected the applicant's request.\n16.  On 4 February 2005 the applicant apparently failed to appear at the hearing scheduled for that date.\n17.  On 30 May 2005 the Third Municipal Court invited the parties to take part in a mediation procedure and suspended the reinstatement suit.\n18.  On 29 November 2005 a mediator was appointed.\n19.  By April 2006, five mediation hearings were scheduled and/or adjourned.\n20.  On 2 June 2006 the entire case file was apparently forwarded to respondent State's Agent.\n21.  On 17 June 2004 and in respect of the above proceedings, the applicant filed a separate civil claim against the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, seeking compensation for the breach of his “right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, as guaranteed under Article 6 of the Convention”.\n22.  On 6 December 2005 the First Municipal Court in Belgrade (Prvi opštinski sud u Beogradu) rejected the applicant's claim as inadmissible.\n23.  On 24 July 2006 the District Court in Belgrade quashed this decision on appeal and ordered a retrial. In its reasoning, inter alia, it recognised the applicant's right to have his labour case resolved within a reasonable time and referred to Article 6 of the Convention as legally binding. Finally, the District Court noted that as of 3 June 2006 Serbia was the sole successor of the former State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, meaning that there were no procedural obstacles for the continuation of the applicant's case.\n24.  On 2 October 2006 the First Municipal Court suspended the proceedings, stating that the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro had ceased to exist in the meantime. Although he was entitled to file an appeal against this decision, there is no evidence in the case file that the applicant actually did so.\n25.  In accordance with the Third Municipal Court's order of 10 November 2000, on 6 March 2001 the respondent company reinstated the applicant (see paragraph 10 above).\n26.  The applicant maintained that the respondent company had in the meantime encountered serious financial difficulties, which is why it was “no lon", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3004", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  The applicant sued the local social welfare authority (Комитет по социальной защите населения администрации Советского района г. Воронежа) claiming readjustment of her old-age pension. On 23 February 2001 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh granted her claim and awarded her 2,562.44 Russian roubles. No appeal was brought against the judgment, and it became final and enforceable ten days later.\n6.  On 5 March 2001 the bailiff initiated enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiff terminated the proceedings because the defendant had not had sufficient funds to pay the judgment debt.\n8.  On 2 December 2005 the monies due to the applicant were transferred into her bank account.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3005", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the Moscow Region.\n6.  The applicant was the chairman of the Tajik Consumers' Union (“Tajikpotrebsoyuz”).\n7.  In May 1992 the Tajik opposition, comprising a coalition of Islamic groups and Islamic fundamentalists, seized power from the Tajik Supreme Soviet, which led to civil war. In November 1992 the Supreme Soviet elected Mr Rakhmonov as its chairman and head of State. Mr Rakhmonov was supported by armed forces of the People's Front. The applicant was the leader of the People's Front in the Hissar region of Tajikistan.\n8.  In 1994 Mr Rakhmonov was declared winner in the Presidential election. The applicant supported the opposition candidate, Mr Abdulajanov.\n9.  On 27 June 1997 Mr Rakhmonov signed a “peace and accord” agreement with the representative of the United Tajik Opposition. On 1 August 1997 the Majlisi Oli (Parliament) of Tajikistan passed the Amnesty Act which provided for discontinuation of criminal proceedings against the participants in the political and military conflict after 1992. Pending criminal cases, in which convictions had not been yet handed down, were to be discontinued, and no new cases were to be opened.\n10.  On 3 November 1998 a force led by Mr Khudoyberdiev and Mr Abdulajanov launched an offensive in Leninabad province. The Government began a counter-offensive, joined by the United Tajik Opposition's forces. By 10 November 1998 the Government had retaken control of the province after intense fighting. The applicant declared that he had not taken part in the offensive; he had been ill and had stayed in Tashkent.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant's youngest son was convicted for participation in the offensive and sentenced to seventeen years' imprisonment. A search warrant was issued against the applicant who had fled to Russia together with his family.\n12.  On 30 June 2003 an investigator in charge of particularly serious cases in the Tajikistan Prosecutor General's Office charged the applicant with criminal offences allegedly committed between November 1992 and February 1997. The charges included kidnapping, manslaughter, participation in an anti-Government organisation, participation in an armed group with a view to attacking Government institutions, subversive activities, high treason and conspiracy to seize State power.\n13.  By a separate decision of the same date, the investigator held that the applicant should be taken into custody and that his name should be put on the list of fugitives from justice. The decision was approved by the acting Prosecutor General of Tajikistan.\n14.  On 13 August 2003 the applicant was arrested in Moscow. On the same day the Tajikistan Prosecutor General's Office sent a request for the applicant's extradition to its Russian counterpart which was received on 18 August 2003.\n15.  On 21 August 2003 the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant's detention on the basis of Articles 97, 99 and 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding as follows:\n“Having heard the parties to the proceedings, the court finds the [prosecution's] request justified because the criminal-procedure laws governing application of measures of restraint have been complied with and the case file contains sufficient grounds showing that no measure of restraint other than deprivation of liberty may be applied to the accused. Mr Nasrulloyev is charged with serious and particularly serious crimes carrying a penalty of no less than two y", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3006", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Mr Elenkov, who was born in 1972 and lives in Sofia, is a Christian and a follower of the Protestant Church in Bulgaria. In 2000 he decided to set up Glas Nadezhda EOOD, through which he would apply for a broadcasting licence for a religious radio station. He obtained support for this initiative from many domestic and foreign religious figures of various denominations, as well as from the Directorate of Religious Denominations at the Council of Ministers.\n6.  On 1 June 2000 the Council of Ministers announced that a number of frequencies for local radio broadcasting would be made available to private operators in several cities. Ten such licences were available for Sofia.\n7.  On 16 August 2000 Glas Nadezhda EOOD applied to the State Telecommunications Commission (“the STC” – see paragraphs 24 and 25 below) for a broadcasting licence for a radio station with Christian religious programming for the Sofia City Region. In support of its application it presented, inter alia, a business plan, a programme project, a programme concept, a programme profile, and a programme scheme. It was apparent from these that it intended to broadcast mainly Christian religious programming.\n8.  In line with the established procedure, the application was forwarded to the National Radio and Television Committee (“the NRTC” – see paragraph 27 below). After deliberating on the application on 26 September 2000, the Committee refused in a decision of 2 October 2000, which was not notified to Glas Nadezhda EOOD, to grant a broadcasting licence. It stated, without adding further detail, that although the company had submitted all the requisite documents, its programme documents did not correspond to points 3.4, 3.5 and 4.3 of the NRTC's criteria for licensing regional over‑the‑air radio operators, and only partly corresponded to points 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1 and 4.2 (see paragraph 28 below). Furthermore, Glas Nadezhda EOOD had no prior experience of creating programmes in the region.\n9.  In accordance with the established procedure (see paragraph 26 below), this decision was sent to the STC.\n10.  In a decision of 2 November 2000 the STC refused to grant a broadcasting licence to Glas Nadezhda EOOD. It stated that its refusal was based on the NRTC's decision of 2 October 2000.\n11.  Glas Nadezhda EOOD lodged an application for judicial review of the STC's decision with the Supreme Administrative Court. It submitted that, since it was not clear whether the NRTC's decision was subject to direct review, the court should first examine its lawfulness before ruling on the lawfulness of the STC's decision. Glas Nadezhda EOOD further argued that it had produced all of the requisite documents, each of which corresponded to the NRTC's criteria. The fact that no reasons had been given on how, in the NRTC's view, these documents failed to meet the criteria, was in breach of the rules of procedure and the requirement that administrative decisions be reasoned. On the contrary, all of the NRTC's criteria had been complied with. The decisions had also been in breach of the substantive law and did not correspond to the latter's object and purpose. In a supplementary memorial Glas Nadezhda EOOD made detailed submissions in respect of each of its alleged failures to comply with the relevant NRTC criteria.\n12.  In a judgment of 12 March 2001, a three‑member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the application. It held that the NRTC's decision was subject to review in separate", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3007", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Łódź.\n5.  On 22 May 1991 the applicant filed a claim for payment against his former employer with the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). On 2 December 1991 the court gave judgment. Upon the applicant's appeal the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacjny) remitted the case on 22 April 1992.\n6.  On 19 August 1993 the Regional Court held the first hearing in the case. Subsequently, hearings were held on 19 October 1993, 10 March and 26 April 1994.\n7.  In 1995 the court held two hearings, on 14 February and 13 June, and ordered the preparation of an expert opinion.\n8.  On 15 March 1996 the Łódź Regional Court gave a preliminary judgment.\n9.  On 14 August 1996 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case.\n10.  On 16 June and 14 October 1997 the Regional Court held further hearings. On 28 October 1997 the Łódź Regional Court gave judgment. It was upheld by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 10 March 1998.\n11.  On 9 June 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal. On 16 December 1999 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) held one hearing and gave judgment in which it dismissed the cassation appeal.\n12.  On 16 March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 18 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). On 10 May 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as it was inadmissible in law.\n13.  On 13 June 2005 the applicant lodged a claim for damages under section 16 of the 2004 Act read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code. He sought compensation for the alleged mistakes in the examination of his claims and for the protracted length of the proceedings.\nOn 30 September 2005 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed the claim. His appeal against the judgment was dismissed by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 18 May 2006. The applicant submitted that he had not lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. The Government maintained that such an appeal was pending before the Supreme Court.\n14.  In his letter of 30 March 2003 the applicant submitted additional complaints about another set of civil proceedings for reinstatement.\n15.  On 29 June 1999 the applicant appealed to the Olsztyn District Court against a decision to dismiss him from work.\n16.  On 19 October 2000 the Olsztyn District Court gave judgment. On 15 January 2001 the Olsztyn Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant filed a cassation appeal. On 27 February 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal for failure to comply with procedural requirements.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3008", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Rumia. The application was lodged on his behalf by his common-law wife, Ms Teresa Rohde, who submitted a duly signed written authorisation from the applicant.\n5.  On 6 September 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. On 7 September 1999 the Gdańsk District Court remanded him in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a number of armed robberies in an organised criminal group. It held that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the investigation by, inter alia, inducing witnesses to give false testimony and relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty. Consequently, it found that remanding the applicant in custody was the only preventive measure which could secure the proper conduct of the investigation.\n6.  On 18 November 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 6 March 2000. It relied on the reasonable suspicion of the applicant having committed the offences in question and the need to take further investigative measures.\n7.  On 16 February 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 30 June 2000. It held that his continued detention was justified by the serious nature and the scale of the offences in question. Furthermore, it had regard to the need to obtain evidence from many sources.\n8.  On 20 June 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 6 September 2000. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it observed that the applicant's detention was justified by the complexity of the investigation and the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed.\n9.  On 17 August 2000 the Supreme Court extended the applicant's detention until 15 December 2000. It found that the strong suspicion against the applicant of having committed the serious offences in question, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the need to obtain further evidence warranted holding him in custody.\n10.  Meanwhile, several other persons were charged and detained in connection with the same investigation conducted by the Department of Organised Crime of the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor's Office.\n11.  On 13 December 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 March 2001. It reiterated the original grounds given for his detention. Taking into account the nature of the offences, the Court of Appeal added that the fact that the charges against all nine suspects were closely interrelated gave substance to the risk that, once released, they might obstruct the proceedings. It also referred to the particular complexity of the case. Furthermore, it noted that the prolongation of the investigation was due to the fact that new suspects had been identified in the course of the investigation.\n12.  On 7 March 2001 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's and his 9 co-suspects' detention until 31 May 2001. It held that the original grounds given for the applicant's detention were still valid and that the need to obtain DNA evidence justified the continuation of that measure.\n13.  On 15 May 2001 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with several counts of armed robbery which had been committed in an organised armed criminal group. The bill of indictment listed 118 charges brought against 19 defendants, who all were detained on remand. The case file comp", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3009", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1921 and lives in Cupcini.\n7.  In 1949 the applicant’s parents were persecuted by the communist authorities. Their property was confiscated and they were exiled to Siberia.\n8.  In 1989 they were rehabilitated.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant brought an action against the Edineţ Department of Finances, seeking compensation for the confiscation of his parents’ property.\n10.  On 24 March 2004 the Edineţ District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay him 97,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 6,284 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment was not appealed against and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.\n11.  On 6 May 2004 a Bailiff received the enforcement warrant.\n12.  On 28 January 2005 the Bailiff sent the enforcement warrant to the President of Edineţ County, without having enforced it.\n13.  The judgment of 24 March 2004 has not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3010", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  In July 1994 the applicant concluded a contract with ASITO (a private insurance company incorporated in Moldova) whereby she paid an insurance premium in exchange for a fixed annuity of  500 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 122.55 United States dollars (USD) at the time) in addition to her pension (“annuity”). She started receiving her annuity in August 1996. In January 1999 ASITO stopped paying it, invoking a change in the interest rate of the National Bank of Moldova.\n8.  On 4 March 1999 the applicant brought an action against ASITO, seeking the payment of the annuity to date and requiring the company to abide by the contract.\n9.  On 21 June 1999 the Râşcani District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered ASITO to pay her the pension arrears in the amount of MDL 3,421.50 (the equivalent of 282.32 euros (EUR) at the time). ASITO lodged an appeal with the Chişinău Regional Court, which dismissed it on 25 April 2000. ASITO did not appeal and the judgment became final and enforceable.\n10.  On 29 May 2000 the applicant lodged a request with the Râşcani District Court seeking enforcement of the judgment in her favour. The latter did not reply, but sent the enforcement warrant to a Bailiff only on 17 May 2002.\n11. In the meantime, since in its judgment of 21 June 1999 the Râşcani District Court had ruled only on the payment of the pension arrears, on 24 November 2000 it issued an additional judgment in favour of the applicant and ordered ASITO to abide by the contract and to resume the monthly payments. That judgment became final.\n12. Between 2000 and 2002 the applicant lodged other complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgments in her favour with the Râşcani District Court, the Bailiff, the Ministry of Justice and the Superior Council of Magistrates. On 8 May 2002 the Ministry of Justice requested the Râşcani District Court to take all necessary steps, including the sanctioning of the persons responsible, in order to enforce the judgments in favour of the applicant and to inform her about the outcome of the enforcement proceedings. The applicant did not receive any further reply; nor were any sanctions imposed on the debtor company or its employees.\n13.  The final judgment of 25 April 2000 and the additional judgment of 24 November 2000 were enforced on 5 September 2003.\nII.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3011", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1920 and lives in Edineţ.\n7.  In 1949 the applicant was persecuted by the communist authorities. His property was confiscated and he was exiled to Siberia for fifteen years.\n8. In 1989 he was rehabilitated.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 2003 he brought an action against the Edineţ Department of Finances, seeking compensation for the confiscation of his property.\n10.  On 25 September 2003 the Edineţ District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay him 80,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 5,198 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment was not appealed against and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.\n11.  On 27 October 2003 a Bailiff received the enforcement warrant.\n12.  On 28 January 2005 the Bailiff sent the enforcement warrant to the President of Edineţ County, without having enforced it.\n13.  The judgment of 25 September 2003 has not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3012", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 31 October 2002 Ţara published an article entitled “While ignoring the legislation on fair competition, the Stepaniuc clan is taking away the property of others by blackmail”. It reported by partly citing and partly summarising a letter addressed to the President of Moldova by a transport company, which used to operate several bus lines linking Chişinău with other towns. The article read, inter alia, as follows:\n“The other day Ţara received a document with a very interesting content. It is a letter addressed to President Vladimir Voronin by the managers of company F. located in Ialoveni. According to its authors, the company ... had been providing transport services and employing some 150 employees ... High-ranking individuals from the top of the power structure asked them to yield the Chişinău-Ialoveni route on the ground that “ours also need to work”. As a result, the company's revenues decreased and 32 people were left without employment. That is what the letter says.\nWe are not sure that things happened exactly like that; however, Ţara and other newspapers have written about some strange goings-on with the Chişinău-Ialoveni route.\n... the following passages from the letter are translated from Russian: 'The elections (of 25 February 2001) came. Knowing how we have been treated by the [former government], we supported the Communist Party, provided them on a daily basis with 3-4 transportation units and generated publicity in their favour using our own money. We were very glad that the truth had triumphed, and that from then on we would work only in accordance with the law, as they had promised in their election campaign. However, it appears that those were only empty words ...\nAt the end of June 2002, Victor Stepaniuc, the leader of the Communist Faction of Parliament, telephoned A.C., the Minister of Public Transport and Roads, and asked that F.'s bus lines be taken away from it and given to [two other companies], whose owners were Victor Stepaniuc's nephew and son-in-law.'\nDue to lack of space we will limit the details of the letter and will summarise it: the minister complied. The ensuing complaints were fruitless ... and F.'s buses were replaced with [other buses]. Cover was also provided, according to the authors, by the Traffic Police. The whole thing was conducted by Victor Stepaniuc's son-in-law.\nThe authors' last hope lies with the President of the Country and they ask him to put an end to the abuses and punish the corrupt public officials. We wonder when somebody will write to the President about similar abuses within the distribution network of the Chişinău Tobacco Company, where Victor Stepaniuc is presently getting ahead by eliminating his competitors using Bolshevik methods.”\n6.  On 21 November 2002 Ţara published another article entitled “Bolshevik habits. The Stepaniuc clan spreads its tentacles”. It stated, inter alia, the following:\n“The article of 31 October 2002 ... has not provoked any reaction from any State authority. I wonder why the Communist authorities do not react to serious allegations made by the media ...\nIn that article I wrote about irregularities in the field of public transport caused by companies G. and T. headed by the son-in-law and nephew of Victor Stepaniuc, the leader of the Communist Faction from Parliament. ...\nOur newspaper was visited recently by other drivers from Chişinău Bus Depot No. 1 with similar complaints. After failing to obtain satisfaction from the courts, the people come ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3013", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in  1958 and lives in Wałcz.\n5.  On 7 March 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police.\n6.  On 9 March 2003 the Wałcz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had stolen two “Bosh” cutting tools worth PLN 700 from his neighbours, damaged their door frame and a letter box and uttered threats against his neighbour, Mrs. H.M. The court also referred to the fact that the offences with which the applicant had been charged had been committed within 5 years of his previous conviction. The applicant was also charged with having robbed an individual of PLN 6. However, this charge was subsequently dropped by the prosecutor.\n7.  On 18 April 2003 the applicant's request to change the preventive measure against him was dismissed.\n8.  On 19 May 2003 the applicant was indicted before the Wałcz District Court.\n9.  On 5 June 2003 the Wałcz District Court prolonged the applicant's detention. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, on the fact that he had been previously convicted and on the risk that the applicant might try to influence witnesses given the violent nature of the offences with which he had been charged and the fact that the witnesses were known to the applicant and lived in his neighbourhood. The court also considered that there was a risk that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant even though the charge of robbery had been dropped. The Court noted that the applicant was a habitual offender and that there was a risk that he would abscond. The court concluded that only the detention of the applicant would secure the proper conduct of the proceedings and that the conditions for applying police supervision had not been met.\n10.  A hearing scheduled for 28 August 2003 was cancelled apparently due to the fact that the applicant went on a hunger strike and had to be transferred to a prison hospital.\n11.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant's detention was further prolonged. The court essentially repeated the reasons given on 5 June 2003 and further found that the applicant's mental and physical health was not incompatible with detention.\n12.  The applicant appealed against this decision, contending that the court's assessment that he would interfere with the course of the proceedings was unfounded. He pointed out that, for many months after the proceedings against him had been initiated, he had been living next to the main witness, Mrs H.M., seeing her several times a day, and he had not attempted to influence her to withdraw the charges. He further raised complaints about his health and the inadequate medical care in the detention centre.\n13.  A hearing scheduled for 17 September 2003 was adjourned as some of the witnesses had failed to appear.\n14.  On 29 September 2003 the Koszalin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court considered that the applicant's argument that since he had not tried to influence witnesses previously he would not do so in the future could not constitute a ground for release. It further dismissed the applicant's complaints about his state of health as unfounded. The court finally observed that the trial had not yet started because of the applicant's decision to go on hunger strike.\n15.  On 2 December 2003 the trial court held the first hearing in the applicant's case.\n16.  On 16 January 2004 a further request of the applicant to be released from d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3014", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Łęczna.\n5.  On 18 October 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a number of offences in an organised criminal group.\n6.  On 20 October 2000 the Lublin District Court remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant's detention was subsequently prolonged by the courts on 16 January 2001, 17 March 2001, 7 August 2001, 10 October 2001 and 9 January 2002.\n7.  On 10 April 2002 the Lublin Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant and his 3 co-accused be kept in custody until 18 June 2002. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. The Court of Appeal also found that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings, given the serious nature of the charges and the fact that they concerned an organised criminal group. It further relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty and the complexity of the case.\n8.  On 11 June 2002 the prosecution filed with the Lublin Regional Court a bill of indictment against the applicant. The applicant was charged, inter alia, with acting in and leading an organised armed criminal group, ordering murder, extortion and supplying drugs.\n9.  On 14 June 2002 the Lublin Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 30 September 2002, referring to the severity of the anticipated penalty.\n10.  On 25 September 2002 the Lublin Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 3 February 2003. In addition to the grounds invoked in the detention order of 14 June 2002, the Court of Appeal relied on the complexity of the case and the number of charges.\n11.  On 29 January 2003 the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant and 3 of his co-accused be held in custody until 30 June 2003. It invoked the same grounds as in its earlier decision.\n12.  On 25 June 2003 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 30 October 2003. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it held that the volume of evidence and the need to proceed smoothly with the trial justified the applicant's continued detention.\n13.  On 22 October 2003 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention until 31 January 2004. It observed that holding the applicant in custody was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, having particular regard to the security of anonymous witnesses who had been heard in the proceedings. It also considered that the case was particularly complex within the meaning of Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n14.  The applicant's detention was subsequently prolonged by the Court of Appeal on 30 December 2003 (until 19 March 2004) and 17 March 2004 (until 5 June 2004). The court invoked the same grounds as in its earlier decisions.\n15.  On 2 June 2004 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 5 September 2004. Having regard to the organised character of the alleged criminal activities, it held that the applicant's detention was necessary in order to prevent him and the other co-accused from interfering with the proceedings. On 11 August 2004 the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 5 December 2004. It relied on the same grounds as previously.\n16.  The trial court held about 59 hearings. On 3 December 2004 the Lublin Regional Court delivered a judgment. It convicted the applicant of most of the charges and acquitted him of o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3015", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Cuconeştii-Noi.\n7.  In 1949 the applicant was persecuted by the communist authorities. His property was confiscated and he was exiled to Siberia for ten years.\n8.  In 1989 he was rehabilitated.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 2004 he brought an action against the Edineţ Department of Finances, seeking compensation for the confiscation of his property.\n10.  On 27 February 2004 the Edineţ District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay him 100,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 6,333 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment was not appealed and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.\n11.  On 4 April 2004 a Bailiff received the enforcement warrant.\n12.  On 28 January 2005 the Bailiff sent the enforcement warrant to the President of Edineţ County, without having enforced it.\n13.  The judgment of 27 February 2004 has not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3016", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Gdańsk.\n5.  On 31 March 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. On 1 April 1999 the Gdańsk District Court remanded him in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery. It held that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant might abscond and attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimonies.\n6.  On 24 June 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 30 September 1999. It found that the prolongation was justified by the need to obtain and secure evidence from many sources and interrogate a number of other persons who could be charged together with the applicant.\n7.  On 15 September 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention until 31 December 1999. It found that it was highly probable that he had committed the offence in question. It also relied on the need to obtain various expert reports. Lastly, it held that the severity of the anticipated penalty justified the prolongation of the applicant's detention.\n8.  Later, several other persons were detained and charged in connection with the same investigation conducted by the Department of Organised Crime of the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor's Office. The applicant was charged with the commission of 35 robberies and armed robberies.\n9.  On 8 December 1999 the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be kept in custody pending investigation until 30 March 2000. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. In that respect, it referred to evidence given by A.Ł., a member of the same criminal group, who acted as a witness against the other suspects. The Court of Appeal further relied on the need to obtain and secure evidence, in particular from experts in ballistics, biology and fingerprints. It stressed that it was also necessary to carry out a reconstruction of the crime and to confront the suspects with each other. It also considered that the scale and nature of the offences in question justified the applicant's continued detention.\n10.  On 30 March 2000 the Supreme Court prolonged the applicant's detention pending investigation – which had meanwhile exceeded the one-year time-limit set for detention pending the investigation under Article 263 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – until 30 June 2000. It considered that the case was “particularly complex” given the volume of evidence and the number of charges against the numerous suspects. It also held that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant and other suspects might obstruct the investigation.\n11.  On 24 May 2000 the Supreme Court ordered that that term should be prolonged further until 15 December 2000. It reiterated the previous grounds given for the applicant's detention and added that the case was very complex, given that six further suspects had in the meantime been charged and detained in the case and that several other potential suspects were still being sought.\n12.  Further prolongations of the applicant's detention pending the investigation were ordered by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 13 December 2000 (up to 31 March 2001) and 7 March 2001 (up to 31 May 2001). In its decision of 13 December 2000, the Court of Appeal reiterated the original grounds given for his detention. Taking into account the nature of the offences, the Court of Appeal added that the fact that the charges against all n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3017", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant who was born in 1923 and lives in Terebna.\n7.  In 1949 the applicant and her parents had been persecuted by the communist authorities. Their property was confiscated and they were exiled to Siberia. In 1989 they were rehabilitated.\n8.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant brought an action against the Edineţ Department of Finances, seeking compensation for the confiscated property.\n9.  On 24 December 2003 the Edineţ District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay her 63,885 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 3,901 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment was not appealed against and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.\n10.  On 23 February 2004 a Bailiff received the enforcement warrant.\n11.  The judgment has not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3018", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, who was born in 1949, is a lawyer practising in Salzburg. He is the owner and general manager of the second applicant, a holding company which is, inter alia, the sole owner of the limited liability company Novamed.\n6.  On 30 August 2000 the Salzburg Regional Court (Landesgericht), upon a request for legal assistance (Rechtshilfeersuchen) by the Naples Public Prosecutor’s Office, issued a warrant to search the seat of the applicant company and Novamed. Both companies have their seats at the first applicant’s law office.\n7.  The court noted that in the course of pending criminal proceedings concerning, inter alia, illegal trade in medicaments against a number of persons and companies in Italy, invoices addressed to Novamed, owned 100% by the applicant company, had been found. It therefore ordered the seizure of all business documents revealing contacts with the suspected persons and companies.\n8.  On 10 October 2000 the search of the seat of the applicant company, which is also the first applicant’s law office, was carried out by eight to ten officers of the Economic Crimes Department of the Salzburg police (Wirtschaftspolizei) and data-securing experts (Datensicherungsexperten) of the Federal Ministry of the Interior.\n9.  One group of officers searched the law office for files concerning Novamed or Bicos in the presence of the first applicant and a representative of the Salzburg Bar Association. All documents were shown to the first applicant and the representative of the Bar Association before seizure.\n10.  Whenever the first applicant objected to an immediate examination of a document seized it was sealed and deposited at the Salzburg Regional Court as required by Article 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozeßordnung – see paragraph 33 below). All seized or sealed documents were listed in a search report which was signed by the applicant and the officers who had carried out the search.\n11.  Simultaneously, another group of officers examined the first applicant’s computer systems and copied several files to disks. According to his statement before the Independent Administrative Panel (see paragraph 25 below), the IT specialist who normally serviced the computer systems was called upon to provide some technical assistance but left again after about half an hour. The representative of the Bar Association was informed about the search of the computer systems and was also temporarily present. When the officers had terminated the search of the computer systems, they left without drawing up a search report and, apparently, also without informing the first applicant about the results of the search.\n12.  Later the same day the police officers involved in the search of the applicants’ electronic data drew up a data securing report (Datensicherungsbericht). Apart from a number of technical details concerning the first applicant’s computer systems, the report states that a complete copy of the server was not made. The search was carried out using the names of the companies involved and the names of the suspects in the Italian proceedings. A folder named Novamed containing ninety files was found plus one further file containing one of the search items. All the data were copied to disks. In addition, the deleted items were retrieved and numerous files which corresponded to the search items were found and also copied to disks.\n13.  On 13 October 2000 the investigating judge opened the sealed documents in the pres", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3019", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Kraków, Poland.\n5.  On 16 January 1998 the Cracow District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered the applicant's detention on remand, on charges of attempted murder. The court also issued a wanted notice in respect of the applicant.\n6.  On 25 February 1998 the applicant was arrested and placed in custody.\n7.  On 2 March 1998 the Cracow District Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 25 May 1998. The court referred to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question and the need to continue the investigation.\n8.  On 19 March 1998 the Cracow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant's appeal against this decision. The court referred to the reasons given by the District Court. It also stressed that the applicant's detention had been necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n9.  On 21 May and 14 July 1998 the applicant's pre-trial detention was further prolonged. The court found that keeping the applicant in custody was justified by the strong suspicion that he had committed the offence in question and the severe sentence that might be imposed on him. In addition, the court referred to the fact that the applicant had been sought by means of a wanted notice.\n10.  The applicant appealed against this decision. He asked the court to consider imposing alternative measures - such as bail or police supervision -to secure the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings. He further claimed that he needed to take care of his disabled parents and his child.\n11.  On 13 July 1998 the applicant was indicted before the Cracow Regional Court.\n12.  On 30 July 1998 the Cracow Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the first-instance decision. The court referred to the reasons given by the Regional Court. It further stressed that in view of the applicant's going into hiding at the initial stage of the proceedings, it was justified to keep him in custody to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n13.  On 27 October 1998 and 16 February 1999 the applicant's detention was again prolonged by the Regional Court. On the latter date, the court found:\n“The fact that [the applicant] has been charged with attempted murder is a sufficient ground to impose the most severe preventive measure, that is detention on remand.”\n14.  The applicant's detention was further prolonged on 14 May and 16 August 1999. The court relied on the strong probability that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged and the advanced stage of the trial.\n15.  On 15 September 1999 the Cracow Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision to prolong his detention.\n16.  It appears that in 1999 the trial court held in total thirteen hearings.\n17.  At the hearing held on 27 December 1999 the Regional Court again prolonged the applicant's detention.\n18.  On 10 January 2000 the Cracow Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. The court also prolonged the applicant's detention.\n19.  The applicant lodged an appeal. On 13 April 2000 the Cracow Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.\n20.  On 27 July 2000 the Regional Court held the first hearing at which it prolonged the applicant's detention. The court referred to the reasons given previously, in particular to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3020", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1960 respectively and live in Tampere.\n6.  The first applicant’s husband and the second applicant’s father, Mr Pentti Aho, died of cancer on 14 May 1992. He had been in receipt of sickness pension since 1981 and in 1986 he had been diagnosed with cancer of the larynx. He had been smoking cigarettes from 1941 to 1986.\n7.  On 6 May 1988 Mr Pentti Aho instituted proceedings against two companies, British American Tobacco Nordic Oy (former Suomen Tupakka Oy) and Oy Rettig Ab (hereinafter “the tobacco companies”), claiming compensation for the cancer caused by smoking cigarettes. Essentially he based the claim on false and illegal marketing and on violations of a ban on selling harmful products.\n8.  On 16 June 1988 the Helsinki District Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätten) held its first hearing. Upon the parties’ request the case was adjourned until 6 October 1988. Subsequently the case was adjourned on several occasions. The District Court received oral evidence from about 30 witnesses, many of whom were medical specialists, including Professor X who claimed that medical science had not been able to prove that there was a causal link between tobacco smoking and cancer. At the 15th hearing on 28 January 1992, the plaintiff requested a postponement pending the outcome of a criminal case before the Espoo District Court, which was to be examined in April 1992. The request was, however, refused.\n9.  On 6 February 1992 the Helsinki District Court rejected the action. As to the plaintiff’s request for a postponement, it found that the action was based on facts different from those presented in the criminal case. Having regard also to the fact that the compensation claim had been pending for several years, the District Court found that it should be decided without further delay. Noting that the selling of tobacco was not prohibited, it found that the sale of the product itself did not give rise to liability for damages. Nor did the District Court find that the marketing of tobacco products, having regard to the plaintiff’s awareness of tobacco-related health issues, could give rise to any liability for damages. It ordered the parties to bear their own legal costs.\n10.  On 6 March 1992 the plaintiff lodged his appeal. He died on 14 May 1992.\n11.  On 26 February 1993 the estate, consisting of the applicants, continued the claim on his behalf. The applicants also renewed their request for the examination of the appeal to be postponed until the Espoo District Court had given judgment in the criminal proceedings. The Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) acceded to the request. It resumed the examination of the case on 21 July 1997.\n12.  The compensation claim, the above-mentioned criminal case and another criminal case concerning perjury were examined jointly by the Court of Appeal.\n13.  By its judgment (no. 3967) of 31 December 1998 the Court of Appeal, without holding a hearing, rejected the appeal. However, it did not endorse the District Court’s reasoning. It found that the tobacco companies had sought to mislead customers by failing to inform them of the possible detrimental effects of tobacco on health. Notwithstanding that this did not as such result in a right to damages for the customer, it affected the assessment of whether the tobacco companies had been negligent. In the present case the Court of Appeal found that there had been negligence. However, it did not find a causal link between", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3021", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Gdynia. The application was lodged on his behalf by his wife, Mrs Beata Szydłowska, who submitted a duly signed written authorisation from the applicant.\n5.  On 17 March 2000 the Gdańsk District Court remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of attempted armed robbery. It held that there was a reasonable risk that he would tamper with evidence. It also relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty. At the same time the applicant was detained on remand in respect of another, separate set of criminal proceedings (no. IV K 174/98).\n6.  On 6 June 2000 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 17 September 2000. On 12 September 2000 the Regional Court extended that period until 15 December 2000. It relied on the complexity of the investigation, the need to obtain expert evidence and the severity of the anticipated penalty. It further found that detention on remand was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings and prevent the applicant from interfering with witnesses. On 5 December 2000 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 17 March 2001, invoking the nature of the charges.\n7.  The applicant was detained in connection with an investigation conducted by the Department of Organised Crime of the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor's Office, in which several other persons had already been detained and charged.\n8.  On 7 March 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 May 2001. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the severity of the anticipated penalty. The Court of Appeal further held that detention on remand was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the nature of the charges and the relations between the suspects who had acted in an organised group. It also considered that the prolongation of detention was justified by the need to obtain DNA evidence in order to corroborate evidence previously obtained.\n9.  On 15 May 2001 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with robbery and armed robbery which had been committed in an organised armed criminal group. The bill of indictment listed 118 charges brought against 19 defendants, who were all detained on remand. The case file comprised 114 volumes. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 366 witnesses.\n10.  On 17 May 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 31 October 2001, finding that it was necessary in order to prevent him and his co-defendants from evading justice or tampering with evidence. It also referred to the complexity of the case stemming from the number of defendants and witnesses to be heard.\n11.  On 13 September 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court refused the request of the applicant and two other defendants (J.N. and R.O.) to grant a severance order with a view to hearing their cases separately, and thus expediting the proceedings. Similar requests were refused on 23 January 2003 and 15 April 2003.\n12.  On 16 October 2001 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 17 March 2002, finding that the grounds previously given for remanding him in custody were still valid.\n13.  The trial began on 28 December 2001. However, as of April 2002 the reading out of the bill of indi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3022", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, Mrs Nina Deordiev and Stanislav Deordiev, were born in 1953 and 1976, respectively, and live in Orhei.\n7.  On 22 December 1995 the Orhei Local Council (the “Local Council”) rented out an apartment to the applicants giving them the possibility to buy it at a reduced price. Since the applicants had left the country in 1999, the Local Council terminated their lease and concluded a similar contract with a third party, who subsequently purchased the apartment from the Local Council.\n8.  Between 2001 and 2003 the applicants, the Orhei Local Council and the third party were involved in a legal dispute over the apartment and on 9 June 2003 the applicants obtained a final and enforceable judgment from the Court of Appeal in their favour. In its judgment the Court of Appeal annulled the decision of the Local Council to let and sell the apartment to the third party. The Court of Appeal stated, inter alia, that in order to avoid delay in the enforcement of the judgment, the third party should be evicted without being allocated alternative housing. During the proceedings, the applicants presented a certificate from the Local Council indicating that the third party was the owner of a 100 square metre house. Another certificate confirmed that the disputed apartment had been the applicants' only accommodation.\n9.  On 8 July 2003 a Bailiff received the enforcement warrant.\n10.  On an unspecified date in July 2003 the third party asked the court to stay the enforcement proceedings since he had allegedly lodged a request for revision of the judgment of the Court of Appeal.\n11.  On 17 July 2003 the Orhei District Court issued a judgment and ordered the stay of the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the third party had initiated revision proceedings. The applicants appealed against the order, arguing that the third party had not lodged any request for revision.\n12.  On 29 October 2003 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' appeal, relying on the same grounds as the District Court. The applicants allege that they were not summoned to attend the hearing.\n13.  On 14 November 2003 the applicants complained about the non-enforcement to the Orhei District Court and a Bailiff. They also mentioned that the third party had not initiated revision proceedings either with the Court of Appeal or with the Supreme Court of Justice.\n14.  Following several complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgment lodged by the applicants with the Ministry of Justice, the latter informed them that the judgment in their favour would be enforced as soon as the revision proceedings initiated by the third party had been terminated.\n15.  On 18 November 2003 the applicants lodged a request with the Orhei District Court asking for a copy of the third party's request for revision, which had served as the ground for the stay of the enforcement proceedings. The District Court did not answer their request.\n16.  On 21 November 2003 the applicants lodged a request for revision of the order of 17 July 2003 on the ground that the third party had not initiated any revision proceedings and that the stay of the enforcement proceedings had been unlawful.\n17.  Although the applicants had been summoned to attend the hearing on their request for revision scheduled for 14 January 2004, the Chişinău Court of Appeal examined the request on 24 December 2003 and dismissed it as unsubstantiated without giving any reasons. The applicants appealed. They also complai", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3023", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Edineţ.\n7.  Following the applicant's unlawful detention for three days and then his acquittal, on an unspecified date in 2002 he brought an action against the Edineţ Department of Finances, seeking compensation for wrongful prosecution.\n8.  On 3 December 2002 the Edineţ District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay him 11,739 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 850.04 euros (EUR) at the time). On the same date the District Court issued an enforcement warrant. The judgment was not appealed against and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.\n9.  On 11 June 2003 a Bailiff of the Edineţ District sent the enforcement warrant to a Bailiff of the Râşcani District.\n10.  In May 2006, after the case had been communicated to the Government, the judgment was enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3024", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Plovdiv.\n5.  On 23 July 1984 the applicant and his wife divorced.  Thereafter, the applicant's former wife issued proceedings against him, requesting the partition of their common property, which included a flat, a garage, a car, and several pieces of jewellery and numerous other chattels.\n6.  In accordance with the relevant law, partition proceedings have two stages. During the first phase the court has to establish the co-owners, identify the items of common property which are to be partitioned and determine the share of each co‑owner. During the second phase the court effects the partition.\n7.  The partition claim was submitted to the Plovdiv District Court in December 1984.  On 8 May 1985 its examination was stayed to await the outcome of a separate suit between the applicant and his former wife concerning their shares in their common property. Those proceedings ended in 1987 by final judgment establishing that the applicant's share was 9/16 of the joint marital property and his former wife's - 7/16.\n8.  The partition proceedings resumed in March 1988.  The court held three hearings and gave judgment on 15 June 1988, allowing the partition of the flat, the car, the jewellery and the other chattels. The court determined the parties' shares as established in the 1985-1987 proceedings (see the preceding paragraph).  On 5 December 1988 the District Court rectified its judgment noting that the partition also concerned the garage.\n9.  The applicant's former wife appealed. By judgment of 6 September 1988 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the lower court's judgment in so far as it concerned several chattels.  On 30 January 1989 the applicant requested the reopening of the first phase of the partition proceedings. On 4 May 1989 the Supreme Court partially granted the request. It is unclear whether the Regional Court eventually examined the remitted part of the matter, which concerned the partition of an iron, an alarm clock, four blankets, two bed sheets, two pillows and three cotton curtains.\n10. Without awaiting the outcome of the appeals that concerned the first phase of the partition proceedings, the Plovdiv District Court commenced their second phase. Between October 1988 and April 1991 the Plovdiv District Court held nine hearings. Several adjournments were caused by defective summonses.\n11.  In a judgment of 22 April 1991 the Plovdiv District Court allotted the flat, part of the jewellery and of the other chattels to the applicant and allotted the car, the garage and the rest of the jewellery and the chattels to the applicant's former wife. Each party was ordered to make payments to the other in respect of levelling away differences in their shares and also for improvements and expenses.\n12.  On 24 May 1991 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Plovdiv Regional Court. He challenged the evaluation of the flat and the jewellery and the amounts he and his former wife had been ordered to pay to each other. The court delivered its judgment on 10 December 1991. It granted the appeal partly, reducing the amount owed by the applicant.\n13.  Upon the applicant's petition for review, on 31 December 1992 the Supreme Court quashed parts of the lower courts' judgments and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n14.  The case was transmitted to the Plovdiv District Court.  On 4 March 1993 the applicant sought to bring in the same proceedings claims for damages against his former wife. On 15 May 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3025", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Baku.\n6.  The applicant was a co-founder and director of a public association named “The Journalist Inquiry Centre” (“Jurnalist Araşdırmaları Mərkəzi” İctimai Birliyi), established on 15 July 2001. This was a non-profit organisation aimed at promoting the profession of a journalist and freedom of mass media in Azerbaijan.\n7.  On 12 September 2001 the association's founders filed a request for its state registration with the Ministry of Justice (hereinafter also referred to as the “Ministry”), the government authority responsible for the state registration of legal entities. In accordance with the domestic law, a non-governmental organisation acquired the status of a legal entity only upon its state registration by the Ministry.\n8.  According to the Government, by a letter of 11 October 2001 the Head of the Department for State Registration of Legal Entities of the Ministry of Justice replied to the applicant that the association's charter contained a number of deficiencies and requested the founders to revise the charter accordingly (the Government submitted a copy of this letter). According to the applicant, the founders did not receive such a letter and, in fact, did not receive any formal reply from the Ministry for more than one year and four months.\n9.  In the meantime, the founders made certain amendments to the association's charter. On 12 September 2002 they re-submitted their registration request together with the new version of the association's charter. In the cover letter for this request, the applicant noted that the founders had made an original request one year earlier but, despite two follow-up letters of 25 September and 2 November 2001 and a meeting with the Ministry official, they had not received any formal reply from the Ministry.\n10.  In January 2003 the applicant filed a lawsuit against the Ministry with the Yasamal District Court, complaining of the Ministry's failure to take any action within the ten-day time-limit specified by law.\n11.  While the examination of the lawsuit was pending, on 27 January 2003 the Ministry returned the registration documents to the applicant “without taking any action”, i.e. without issuing a state registration certificate or an official refusal to register the association. In the cover letter, the Ministry noted that the association's charter did not comply with Articles 3.1 and 10.3 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations. Specifically, the charter did not provide for the internal procedure to challenge a decision to terminate membership in the association. Moreover, the official name of the association allegedly did not mention its organisational legal form. It appears that the Ministry's letter of 27 January 2003 referred to the deficiencies in the association's original charter, although these deficiencies had already been rectified in the revised version of the charter submitted to the Ministry on 12 September 2002.\n12.  On 10 February 2003 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicant's claim, finding nothing unlawful in the actions of the Ministry. The court found that the association's charter had not been drafted in accordance with the requirements of the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations and, therefore, the Ministry's refusal to register the association had been lawful.\n13.  The applicant appealed. On 24 June 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance court's judgment. On 16 October 2003 the Supreme Cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3026", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the Stavropol Region.\n7.  By a judgment of 5 December 2000 following a guilty verdict delivered by a jury, the Stavropol Regional Court convicted the applicant and his co‑defendant of murder, robbery and the illegal acquisition, storage and carrying of arms. The applicant was sentenced to sixteen years' imprisonment and confiscation of property and ordered to pay pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the victim.\n8.  The applicant, who was being held in custody, appealed against the judgment to the Supreme Court of Russia. He submitted, inter alia, that the judgment had been based on evidence which had not been thoroughly examined, that the investigating authority had failed to verify his co‑defendant's statements by way of a scene-of-crime reconstruction, that the court had dismissed his request for examination of additional witnesses, that no psychiatric and psychological examination had been conducted and that he had had no motive to commit the murder and robbery. He requested the appeal court to quash the judgment and order a fresh examination of the case.\n9.  On 21 February 2001 the Supreme Court examined the applicant's appeal. It heard a public prosecutor who requested that the judgment should be upheld. The applicant, who had not been apprised of the hearing, was not present. He was not represented by counsel at the hearing.\n10.  By a decision of 21 February 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment. It found that the trial court's presiding judge had conducted the trial impartially and ensured that the case had been thoroughly examined. There had been no need for a scene-of-crime reconstruction by the investigating authority, as the evidence collected in the case had been sufficient. The applicant's unsuccessful request for examination of evidence had not concerned evidence which could have had a significant impact on the outcome of the case. The applicant's submission that he had had no motive to commit the murder and robbery could not serve as a ground for quashing a jury-based judgment, and the applicant had been informed of this by the trial court. The applicant's complaint about the authorities' failure to order a psychiatric and psychological examination had not been based on law, as neither the investigating authority nor the trial court had had doubts about the applicant's mental health and no request for such an examination had been made before or during the trial.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3027", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod.\n6.  He is currently serving his sentence in correction facility UZ‑62/12 in the village of Sherstki, located in the Tonshaevskiy District of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region.\n7.  The facts of the case, which are partly disputed between the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 25 January 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated robbery with violence.\n9.  From 11 February 2000 to 17 July 2000 he was detained in detention facility SIZO 32/1 (later renamed SIZO 52‑1) in Nizhniy Novgorod.\n10.  Throughout his detention in SIZO 32/1 the applicant was held consecutively in the following cells:\n- Cell no. 9/70, measuring 37.2 sq. m, intended for 22 inmates;\n- Cell no. 17/210, measuring 15.2 sq. m, intended for 8 inmates;\n- Cell no. 2/12, measuring 39.5 sq. m, intended for 22 inmates;\n- Cell no. 2/11, measuring 43.4 sq. m, intended for 24 inmates;\n- Cell no. 4/29, measuring 39 sq. m, intended for 22 inmates;\n- Cell no. 4/27, measuring 57.1 sq. m, intended for 34 inmates.\n11.  Notwithstanding the Court's specific enquiry, the Government did not indicate the number of inmates actually held in the above cells at the material time. However, they submitted that the applicant had at all times had an individual bunk bed and bedding.\n12.  The applicant, on the other hand, maintained that the number of inmates in the above cells varied between 50 and 70, and occasionally increased to 90 men. Due to the shortage of beds inmates had to take turns to sleep, which left them with no more than four hours of sleep daily. For the rest of the time they had to stand around in the cell because there was not enough room even to sit down. No separate bedding was provided for individual detainees and the applicant had to share bedding as well as the bed itself.\n13.  In support of his statement the applicant submitted a testimony by Mr O., who was detained in SIZO 32/1 in 2003 and who alleged that the cells were still severely overcrowded at the time of his detention.\n14.  The windows in all the cells were permanently covered with dense-mesh metal blinds. In addition, there was a metal sheet fixed at a distance of about one metre outside each window. The surface area of the sheet exceeded that of the window, so that it screened off most of the daylight.\n15.  With regard to the artificial lighting in the cells, the Government submitted a copy of the inspection report of 20 January 2000 for SIZO 32/1. According to the report, the level of artificial light in all the cells, including all those in which the applicant was subsequently detained, was between 100 and 115 lux (the minimum regulatory standard being 100 lux).\n16.  According to the applicant, the cells were insufficiently lit, which led to a deterioration of the inmates' eyesight. He relied on written statements by Mr O. (see paragraph 13 above) and by Ms B., who was detained in SIZO 32/1 in April 2001. Both inmates also complained about the inadequate light in the cells.\n17.  According to the Government, the cells were equipped with an automatic ventilation system and central heating. They submitted a copy of the inspection report of 14 February 2000 for SIZO 32/1, which stated that the temperature in all the cells of the facility was between +19ºC and +23ºC, and that the humidity was between 47 and 56%. This, they claimed, lay within the standard range required by the health regulations.\n18.  The applicant disagreed with the G", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3028", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1930 and 1940 respectively and live in Zagreb.\n5.  On 29 January 1974 the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) received a death certificate of a certain M.K. and at the hearing held on 28 February 1974 her will was pronounced. The applicants were among her heirs. However, another party claimed that M.K. had made another will on a date posterior to the one of the will which had been pronounced.\n6.  Until 5 November 1997 a number of hearings were held, but the proceedings were not concluded. The last hearing was held on 3 October 1995. After 5 November 1997 (i.e. the date when the Convention was ratified by Croatia) the first hearing was held on 22 April 2003, and then again on 15 May 2003.\n7.  On 21 May 2003 the Split Municipal Court stayed the inheritance proceedings and instructed the applicants and two other persons to institute civil proceedings against a third person in connection with the dispute among them arising in respect of the inheritance proceedings. However, despite the fact that the proceedings were stayed, on 20 August 2003 another hearing was held when it was decided that the attorney, who allegedly assisted M.K. in drafting her second will, be heard. Since the attorney resided in Zagreb, she was heard by the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) on 11 May 2004.\n8.  It appears that the applicants appealed against the decision staying the proceedings and on 13 July 2004 the case file was therefore transferred to the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) as the appellate court.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 23 January 2004 the applicants filed a constitutional complaint about the length of proceedings. On 14 February 2005 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants' right to a trial within reasonable time and awarded each applicant Croatian Kunas (HRK) 10,600 in compensation. It also ordered the Split County Court to adopt its decision in the shortest time possible but no later than six months from the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette.\n10.  On 8 April 2005 the Split County Court upheld the first instance decision by which the inheritance proceedings had been stayed.\n11.  In the civil proceedings instituted according to the Municipal Court's instruction (see paragraph 7 above) on 9 May 2005, another party filed a constitutional complaint about the length of these proceedings and on 12 March 2007 the Constitutional Court ordered the Split Municipal Court to adopt its decision in the shortest time possible but no later than six months from the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette.\n12.  The inheritance proceedings are sill pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3030", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, who are all siblings, were born in 1939, 1927, 1934, 1931, 1924, 1949 and 1949, respectively. They live in Tirana and Vlora.\n6.  During the communist regime several plots of land owned by the applicants’ parents had been confiscated by the authorities without compensation. The property measuring in total 132 hectares was situated in the Vlora region on the southern Albanian coast.\n7.  On 30 March 1994, pursuant to the Property Act, the applicants lodged a request with the Vlora Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties (Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave, “the Vlora Commission”) seeking the allocation of the original property to them.\n8.  On 27 August 1996 the Vlora Commission assigned to the applicants jointly, as co-owners, 14 hectares (2 hectares per person) of the property (“relevant property”). The decision was signed by four out of the seven members of the Vlora Commission.\n9.  Notwithstanding this, and based on the Commission’s decision, on an unspecified date the applicants registered the relevant property with the Vlora Land Registry.\n10.  On 28 December 1998 they applied to the Vlora Commission requesting the issuance of a new document complying with formal legal requirements, namely, a document duly signed by all of the Commission’s members.\n11.  On 6 January 1999, by document no. 76, the President of the Vlora Commission replied to the applicants, informing them that the Commission had already confirmed their title in its decision of 27 August 1996. In any event, pursuant to the laws in force at the material time, competence for any formal correction of the Commission’s documents lay with the courts.\n12.  On 25 November 1996 the Ministry of Tourism, by decree no 20/2, (“the decree”), leased a plot of land (part of the applicants’ property) to A.L., for tourism purposes.\n13.  On 29 December 1997 the applicants brought an action before the Tirana District Court to quash the decree.\n14.  On 17 February 1998 the Tirana District Court annulled the decree on the ground that the transaction concerned private property.\n15.  On 16 June 1998 the Tirana Court of Appeal quashed the District Court’s decision and upheld the validity of the decree, stating that the Commission’s decision of 27 August 1996 had been invalid in that it had not complied with formal requirements. Consequently, the applicants could not claim title to the relevant property.\n16.  On 10 June 1999, following an appeal by the applicants, the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 16 June 1998 on the ground that it had been illogical and sent the case back to the Court of Appeal for re-hearing.\n17.  On 10 November 1999 the Tirana Court of Appeal, following a re-hearing, rejected the applicants’ action on the ground that it had been lodged with the District Court after the one-month time-limit stipulated by law had expired.\n18.  On 17 January 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment.\n19.  Meanwhile, on 9 October 1997 the Vlora Commission allocated to K.B. - A.L.’s mother - as compensation, the same plot of land that the Ministry had previously leased to her son.\n20.  On an unspecified date K.B donated the land to her son.\n21.  Following a request by A.L., by order no. 3 dated 11 June 1999, the Vlora Land Registry cancelled the applicants’ title to this plot of land and registered A.L. as the owner.\n22.  On 13 December 1999, following a civil action brought by A.L., the Vlora District Cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3031", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in born in 1952, 1949, 1926, 1950 and 1980 and live in Eger, Novaj and Budapest, respectively.\n5.  Under the rules of Act no. 2 of 1993, the shareholders of agricultural co-operatives became entitled to claim from the local “land distribution committees”– which consisted of lay members elected by the shareholders – the reallocation of plots of arable land to them, at a value corresponding to that of the land which had been surrendered by the original owners to the co-operatives under the socialist legislation.\n6.  The applicants, all in this legal position, filed their respective claims with regard to the “Novaj 0124” plot, situated in the Eger historical wine region, within the statutory 60-day time-limit counted from the entry into force of the Act on 23 January 1993. The distribution committee had an obligation under the procedural law to proceed with such claims within a deadline of two months running from the expiry of that time-limit. However, it was not until 17 February 1995 that it organised a meeting of the claimants of plot no. 0124.\n7.  The decisions adopted at the meeting were susceptible to administrative remedies. On appeal, on 19 December 1995 the Heves County Agricultural Office, a State authority, quashed the decisions and instructed the committee to resume the proceedings. The complainants' procedural appeals against the remittal were dismissed by the Heves County Regional Court and the Supreme Court on 28 June 1996 and 7 September 1998, respectively.\n8.  However, at that point neither the distribution committee nor its legal successor – the Agricultural Office itself – resumed the administrative proceedings.\n9.  Meanwhile, in September 1996 the Heves County Public Prosecutor's Office challenged the legality of the decision of 19 December 1995. On 17 January 2000 the Supreme Court finally discontinued these proceedings, since the prosecution's motion was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure.\n10.  Once the legality proceedings had been terminated, the Fejér County Agricultural Office was appointed, at some time in 2002, to process the Novaj land distribution. The applicants filed an administrative appeal against the decisions of this body, arguing that the individuals who had in the meantime been granted land belonging to plot no. 0124 had not been so entitled.\n11.  Although the applicants' administrative appeal was largely unsuccessful, the actual owners nevertheless sought judicial review.\n12.  On 30 August 2002 the Fejér County Regional Court quashed the administrative decisions adopted in the case hitherto and ordered the Heves County Agricultural Office to resume its proceedings. It held that the case had been unlawfully assigned to the Fejér County Office.\n13.  On 12 April 2005 the Heves County Agricultural Office adopted certain decisions in the case. The administrative appeals against these decisions were to no avail. According to the information provided by the parties and the elements available in the case file to date, the judicial review of these decisions before the Nógrád County Regional Court has not yet ended.\n14.  Criminal proceedings which the applicants had sought against various officials involved in the case were to no avail.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3033", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, father and daughter, were born in 1929 and 1957 respectively and live in Budapest.\n5.  On 11 May 1995 the applicants filed an action for the invalidation of a contract in the context of a real-estate dispute.\n6.  The Budapest II/III District Court held numerous hearings and obtained the opinions of four experts. The applicants' action was gradually extended to include altogether 28 respondents, three of whom died in the meantime. Pending the identification of their successors, the proceedings had to be interrupted on three occasions, for respectively 7, 12 and 5 months.\n7.  On 25 January 2002 the District Court gave judgment and invalidated the disputed contract, but dismissed the remainder of the action.\n8.  After several hearings, on 19 October 2004 the Budapest Regional Court amended the first-instance decision in a final judgment.\n9.  The District Court rectified and completed the decision of 25 January 2002 on 12 September 2005.\n10.  Because one of the plaintiffs did not comply with the final decision, enforcement proceedings commenced before the Budaörs District Court in 2005. This procedure was interrupted on 6 September 2005, since the enforced relocation of a fence would have cut off the debtor from her source of water. The District Court informed the applicants that they should seek a court injunction obliging the debtor to remove her water pipe. The applicants did so on 19 February 2006.\n11.  After three hearings, on 19 April 2007 the Budaörs District Court found for the applicants. The debtor appealed to the Pest County Regional Court. According to the information provided by the parties and the elements available in the case file to date, the case has not yet ended.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3034", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1946 and lives in St-Petersburg. The second applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  At the material time, the applicants were owners of a house in Chişinău and the land adjacent to it. Their neighbour, T., built an unauthorised house extension on the land belonging to the applicants.\n8.  In 1995 the Centru local executive (Pretura sectorului Centru) in Chişinău issued several decisions requiring the demolition of the unauthorised construction. In 1996 it also cancelled T.'s original building authorisation as it had been issued unlawfully. T. initiated court proceedings; the applicants were involved as third parties since their property rights were directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings. They enjoyed full procedural rights.\n9.  On 10 December 1996 the Centru District Court found in favour of T. and ordered the local authorities to annul their decisions and confirm the lawfulness of the construction.\n10.  On 16 May 1997 the Chisinau Regional Court quashed that judgment, rejected T.'s action and upheld the administrative decisions for the demolition of the building.\n11.  On 15 January 1998 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 16 May 1997 and upheld the judgment of 10 December 1996.\n12.  On 30 September 1998 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Prosecutor General's request for annulment, quashed the judgment of 15 January 1998 and upheld the judgment of 16 May 1997. That judgment was final and enforceable.\n13.  On 4 December 1998 the local authority issued a new decision for the demolition of the unauthorised construction.\n14.  The applicants subsequently made numerous requests for the enforcement of the final judgment. Each time the local authority replied that the enforcement was not possible, either due to weather conditions, the lack of necessary equipment or the new judicial proceedings initiated by T.\n15.  T. made several attempts to reopen the proceedings by using extraordinary means of appeal and claiming that his wife and daughter had not been party to the proceedings. These requests were rejected as inadmissible by court decisions in 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2006. The enforcement proceedings were twice suspended by court orders pending the outcome of these proceedings: for six months in 2003 and for nine months in 2005.\n16.  Following the communication of the present application to the Government, in July 2006 the judgment of 30 September 1998 was enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3035", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Cimişlia.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  From 1986 the applicant was employed by the Bureau of Architecture, Projects and Production of the Chief Architect of Cimişlia Region (“the Cimişlia Bureau”), a State service. In 1993 the Bureau adopted new by-laws, which were approved by the Ministry of Architecture and Construction. Under these by-laws, the Bureau was registered as an independent legal person with the rights of a State company and governed by the Regulations of State companies. It was created within the organs of local public administration and on the basis of municipal property but was financed exclusively from the income it generated from selling a variety of services to the local administration and to the population.\n8.  On 16 December 1999 Lăpuşna County Council decided to merge several bureaux, including the Cimişlia Bureau, into one service at the County level. The Lăpuşna Bureau thus became the legal successor of the Cimişlia Bureau in which the applicant had worked. Before this merger, the Cimişlia Bureau decided to reduce the number of personnel employed and as a result the applicant was made redundant by an order of 29 December 1999.\n9.  On 12 January 2000 he acknowledged the dismissal notice in writing, as requested by law. In accordance with the relevant labour legislation, he requested redundancy payments (namely redundancy compensation worth one month's average salary, his average monthly salary during the three months when he would be looking for a new job, payment for unused leave for 1999 and payment of his salary for December 1999 and part of January 2000).\n10.  The employer refused to pay because it had set aside no money for redundancy payments. According to a certificate issued by the Cimişlia employment office on 9 June 2000, the applicant had been unemployed from 21 January 2000 to the date of the issue of the certificate.\n11.  The applicant initiated court proceedings, claiming redundancy payments, namely one month's salary on dismissal, the continuing payment of his salary for the three subsequent months when he would be looking for another job and monetary compensation for untaken leave. On 5 July 2000 the Cimişlia District Court partly accepted his claims. He appealed and the Cahul Regional Court quashed that judgment, ordering a full re-hearing of the case.\n12.  On 27 April 2001 the Cimişlia District Court rejected all his claims as unfounded.\n13.  On 14 August 2001 the Cahul Regional Court upheld that judgment. It found, among other things, that the applicant had missed the two-month deadline for making his claim against the Cimişlia Bureau, since the decision to reorganise the bureau had been published in January 2000 and the complaint had been lodged in May 2000.\n14.  Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had missed the above-mentioned time-limit, on 26 April 2002 the Court of Appeal examined the substance of his appeal and upheld the judgment of the Regional Court. The court reasoned that no compensation was due because the Cimişlia Bureau, in which the applicant had worked, was self-financed; it had not set aside any resources for compensation but had distributed all the money obtained from its activity to its employees, after paying taxes. Since it had been an independent legal person, its legal successor, the Lăpuşna Bureau, could not be held liable for any outstanding debts. The co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3036", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In 1997 a criminal investigation was initiated in respect of the applicant. She was detained in the remand centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs between 18 June and 15 July 1998. She was again detained between 30 September and 31 October 1998 in the remand centre of the Ministry of Justice. The applicant allegedly complained to the prison authorities about the harsh conditions of detention in the remand centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.\n8.  By its final judgment of 20 May 1999 the Court of Appeal acquitted her of all the charges against her.\n9.  The applicant initiated civil proceedings claiming damages for unlawful detention and related acts on the part of the prosecution and the courts.\n10.  On 26 December 2001 the Ciocana District Court found in her favour and awarded her 12,258 Moldovan lei (MDL, equal to 1,065 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation for the pecuniary damage suffered and MDL 100,000 (EUR 8,688) for non-pecuniary damage.\n11.  On 19 March 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld that judgment.\n12.  On 22 August 2002 the Court of Appeal partly quashed that judgment, reducing the compensation for non-pecuniary damage to MDL 10,000 (EUR 752). It upheld the award of compensation for the pecuniary damage suffered. That judgment was final and enforceable.\n13.  The Prosecutor General requested the annulment of all previous judgments and the reduction of the award for non-pecuniary damage, as part of an extraordinary procedure. On 19 March 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected that request.\n14.  On 21 November 2003 the Ministry of Finance transferred the amount corresponding to the compensation due to the Decisions Enforcement Department. According to that department, the applicant received the money on 26 February 2004. The applicant had submitted the enforcement warrant to the department on 23 October 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3037", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Košice.\n5.  On 15 December 1999 the applicant brought an action against his former employer, a private company, in the Košice District Court (Okresný súd). He sought a judicial order for payment of compensation in respect of outstanding wages, leave pay, severance pay and a food allowance. The action was filed under the number 12C 1730/99.\n6.  On 4 January 2000 the District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees. On the same day, it requested the defendant to submit observations in reply. The defendant company replied on 10 February 2000 submitting, inter alia, that the reason why it had not paid the amounts claimed was lack of means.\n7.  On 24 February 2000 the District Court requested the applicant to comment on the defendant's observations in reply which the applicant did on 20 March 2000.\n8.  In letters of 20 March and 25 July 2000 and 29 January 2001 the applicant demanded that, in view of the defendant's admission, the District Court determine the matter promptly.\n9.  On 14 September 2000 the District Court held a hearing at which the defendant expressly acknowledged the existence and amount of its debt. However, it remained to be clarified whether the amount was gross or net. The hearing was adjourned, the defendant being invited to submit copies of the applicant's salary records. The defendant submitted them on 2 October 2000.\n10.  On 3 April and 16 October 2001 the District Court held further hearings. At the former hearing the applicant withdrew a part of the claim on the ground that the defendant had paid a part of his outstanding wages. Following the latter hearing, on the same day, the District Court determined the action. It first of all discontinued the proceedings in respect of the part of the claim that had been withdrawn. It then granted the remaining part of the claim for outstanding wages. The District Court finally ruled that the claim for leave pay, severance pay and a food allowance would be determined in a separate set of proceedings.\n11.  The statutory thirty-day time-limit for finalising the written version of the judgment of 16 October 2001 was extended by decision of the president of the District Court and it was finally sent to the parties on 13 December 2001. In the absence of an appeal, the judgment became final and binding on 31 January 2002.\n12.  The applicant subsequently commissioned a judicial enforcement officer (súdny exekútor) to enforce the order for payment of the outstanding wages. On 13 June 2002 the officer notified the defendant officially that the enforcement proceedings had commenced.\n13.  On 8 February 2002 the case file concerning the separate set of proceedings opened pursuant to the judgment of 16 October 2001 was assigned to a new judge and on 3 October 2002 it was registered under a new file number 19C 1131/02.\n14.  Following another request by the applicant that the case be determined swiftly, the District Court scheduled hearings for 12 December 2002 and 18 March and 29 April 2003. They were adjourned owing to the absence of the defendant's representative, who submitted an apology on 4 March 2003.\n15.  On 13 January 2004 the District Court held another hearing at which the defendant acknowledged the outstanding claims. Following the hearing, on the same day, the District Court granted the remainder of the action. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and binding on 29 March 2004. The applicant s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3038", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  V.T. was born in 1948; D.T. was born in 1952. Both live in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. V.T. is the director of a commercial bank (“the Bank”); D.T. is a lawyer working for the Bank; they are not related. According to the Bank's Statute, the President is situated below the Directing Committee in the Bank's organisational structure and that Committee takes the final decision on whether or not to make an important loan.\n7.  In spring 2005 a private firm owned by N.A. and his brother applied for a loan from the Bank. The loan application was accepted by the Bank's Directing Committee on 27 September 2005.\n8.  On 12 October 2005 officers of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (“the CFECC”) arrested D.T., who was receiving money from N.A., on suspicion of conspiring with V.T. to attempt to take a bribe.\n9.  In the arrest report filed an hour later, the officer described the finding of “clear evidence of the crime” on D.T., which was later explained to be 15,000 United States Dollars marked by CFECC for the purposes of proving the bribe-taking from N.A.\n10.  At the moment of his arrest, D.T. declared that N.A. had been repaying a debt, as confirmed by a receipt.\nWhen signing the arrest report, D.T. wrote:\n“[D]uring my arrest, between 18 and 22 hours on 12 October 2005, my briefcase ... was in the possession of the CFECC officers and the following disappeared from it: USD 4,000 and a receipt signed by N.A. confirming that he had borrowed money from me in the amount of USD 15,800.”\n11.  On the same day and less than an hour after D.T.'s arrest, V.T. was also arrested in another part of the city. The reason given in the arrest report was: “a witness can testify that this person has committed a crime”. It appears that no member of the Bank's Directing Committee has been arrested or questioned in relation with the present case. The prosecution later gave details, according to which the money handed by N.A. to D.T. had been specially marked to provide evidence of bribe taking. The money was to be split between D.T. and V.T., but the latter did not obtain his share because of D.T.'s arrest immediately after having received the bribe.\n12.  On 14 October 2005 the Buiucani District Court issued a warrant for the pre-trial detention of V.T. The reasons given were:\n“V.T. is suspected of having committed a serious crime which is punishable by more than two years' imprisonment; the evidence submitted was obtained lawfully. In view of the gravity of the deed of which the suspect, who presents a high social risk, is accused, the need to protect public order, the risk of his putting pressure on witnesses who will give evidence in the case and who are employees of the bank and subordinates of the accused, the need to prevent the two accused from agreeing on a common position, to exclude the possibility of fabricating evidence, which obviously exists at the beginning of the criminal investigation, as well as the risk of the accused's absconding, which would prevent the normal flow of the investigation, the suspect's isolation is necessary”.\n13.  In the case of D.T. on the same date, the court gave almost identical reasons for detention, the differences amounting to a finding of a general risk of influencing witnesses and to a risk of absconding to territories outside the control of the State.\n14.  Both applicants appealed, invoking the insufficient reasons given by the Buiu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3039", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Trnava.\n5.  The applicant's family owned real estate to which the applicant now has the title. It is located in the municipality of Drietomá.\n6.  In 1957 a road was built near the property to provide access to a neighbour's property. In 1986 the road was modified.\n7.  After the road had been built, changes were made to the Land Registry maps and records in order to designate the road as a separate plot under a separate number and with a separate ownership regime.\n8.  Since then the applicant has turned numerous times to the municipal authorities in Drietomá and to all levels of the Land Registry authorities. He claimed that the road had been constructed without the requisite permits; that it served solely the interests of his neighbour, which was unjust; and that it was partly located on his land without valid title, in violation of his property rights. The applicant requested, unsuccessfully, that the legal position be complied with both in the Land Registry records and in reality; that the road be removed; and that he be paid damages.\n9.  In a letter of 8 June 1995 the supreme Land Registry body (Úrad geodézie, kartografie a katastra) informed the applicant that his problem could not be solved through the administrative procedure aimed at “restoring original legal borders” (obnovenie hraníc pôvodného právneho stavu) as this procedure only applied to uncontested situations. It was understood that in the applicant's case there was a dispute concerning the border between his property and the road. Such a dispute could only be resolved by a court and the applicant was advised to assert his claims there.\n10.  In letters of 9 October and 6 November 1997 the Trenčín district office (Okresný úrad) informed the applicant that the Land Registry had no power to change boundaries of plots and that, in so far as the applicant was seeking such changes, he should bring his claims to the courts.\n11.  In a letter of 15 December 1997 the Trenčín regional office (Krajský úrad) informed the applicant that the current Land Registry maps and records in respect of his property had been drawn up and defined in the 1960s and were considered completed. On 1 January 1998 an amendment to the relevant legislation, the Land Registration Act (Law no. 162/1995 Coll.), would enter into force, and would provide for a new administrative procedure aimed at “determination of boundaries” (určenie priebehu hranice). If the applicant believed that the existing Land Registry maps and records interfered with his property rights, from 1 January 1998 he could seek protection of such rights through this procedure.\n12.  On 14 January 1998 the applicant brought an action against the district office and the Drietomá municipal office (Obecný úrad) in the Trenčín District Court (Okresný súd). He sought a judicial order against the district office, which was in charge of the relevant Land Registry records, requesting it to rectify these records by bringing them into line with his ownership claim.\n13.  On 22 January 1998 the District Court instructed the applicant to provide further and better particulars and advised him that, pursuant to sections 48 to 51 of the amended Land Registration Act, since 1 January 1998 boundary disputes fell within the jurisdiction of Land Registry authorities.\n14.  On 17 February 1998 the District Court discontinued the proceedings, observing that at that time land boundary disputes fell to be determined at f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3040", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Žilina.\nA  Action\n5.  On 13 May 1996 the applicant brought a civil action in the Žilina District Court (Okresný súd). In her capacity as a self-employed entrepreneur, she submitted that she had bought a cash register from another entrepreneur, that the cash register was faulty and that, therefore, she had repudiated the contract. She sought an order for payment of 24,750 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) by way of restitution of the purchase price.\n6.  On 7 June 1996, in summary proceedings, the District Court issued a payment order (platobný rozkaz) for the amount claimed.\n7.  The defendant then challenged the order by way of a protest (odpor), as a result of which the order was ex lege vacated.\n8.  On 23 March 1999 the District Court appointed an expert to draw up a report concerning the alleged defects in the cash register. On 1 March 2000 the District Court appointed a second expert since it had turned out that the first expert was not licensed to carry out the type of analysis needed.\n9.  On 19 April 2000 the expert report was drawn up and the District Court then sought the parties' observations on it.\n10.  In 2001 and 2002 the District Court sought further information from the parties and repeatedly requested them to make the cash register available for testing.\n11.  Between 16 September 1996 and 5 March 2003 the District Court held 4 hearings.\n12.  Following the last-mentioned hearing, on the same day, the action was dismissed. The District Court found it established that the cash register did not function correctly and that this was caused by the applicant connecting it to an electrical outlet different from the one specified in the operating instructions. In other words, the applicant had failed to establish that the malfunction was due to defects in the cash register.\n13.  On 24 March 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal contesting both the factual findings as well as the legal conclusions of the District Court.\n14.  On 13 November 2003 the Žilina Regional Court (Krajský súd) heard the appeal following which, on the same day, it overturned the judgment of 5 March 2003. Disapproving the District Court's factual findings, the Regional Court granted the action in full. It was true that the cash register had not been connected exactly in accordance with the operating instructions. However, as concluded by the expert, the connection complied with all applicable technical norms and it was not the cause of the malfunction. The burden of proving the cause of the failure and establishing who was responsible for it rested with the defendant. The defendant had the cash register in his possession, had failed to deliver it to the court and had put up no other relevant defence to the action. Having been served on the parties, the judgment became final on 29 January 2004.\n15.  On 22 January 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). She directed the complaint against the District Court, contesting the length of the proceedings before it and claiming SKK 145,000[2] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n16.  On 19 February and 2 July 2003, respectively, the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible and found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing “without unjustified delay” under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution. The applicant was awarded SKK 20,000[3] by way of just satisfact", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3041", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 18 June 1996 the applicant’s wife filed for divorce.\n6.  After several hearings, on 12 March 1999 the Budapest II/III District Court dissolved the parties’ marriage, and ordered the applicant to pay maintenance for the couple’s daughter in the amount of 386,260 Hungarian forints (HUF), which included arrears. The court allowed no suspensive effect for any appeal on the maintenance decision. The use of the couple’s flat was granted to the wife alone.\n7.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held three hearings and obtained the opinion of a real-estate valuation expert. On 7 November 2000 the court amended the first instance decision, holding that the applicant was entitled to compensation in the amount of 2.75 million Hungarian forints, which corresponded to his share of the flat. It ordered that this liability be taken into account when the District Court, in the resumed proceedings, would eventually decide on the division of the matrimonial property.\n8.  On 27 April 2001 execution was ordered. On 17 October 2001 the applicant was evicted from the family flat. On 15 November 2001 his car was attached, apparently in order to recover maintenance still owed.\n9.  The proceedings in respect of the remainder of the parties’ common property were resumed before the District Court on 9 October 2002. Between 5 May 2003 and 25 January 2007 numerous hearings took place, and the case was extended to include several further respondents.\n10.  According to the information provided by the parties and the elements available in the case file to date, the case has not yet ended.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3042", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Gdańsk.\n6.  On 21 October 1987 the applicant's mother lodged an action against E.A. for establishment of paternity and child maintenance with the Gdańsk District Court. The hearings in the case were adjourned on several occasions as E.A. had left the country and failed to appear in court. Although the applicant's mother provided the court with E .A.'s address abroad, the court maintained that the address was unknown.\n7.  The first hearing in the case was held on 5 February 1988, the subsequent one on 18 November 1988. Two hearings were held in 1989 and seven hearings in 1990.\n8.  On 4 April 1991 the Gdańsk District Court delivered a judgment in the applicant's favour. The judgment was not challenged and became final.\n9.  On 18 June 1997 the Minister of Justice lodged an extraordinary appeal against the judgment.\n10.  On 25 September 1997 the Supreme Court remitted the case for re‑examination on the grounds that serious procedural shortcomings had been committed by the court examining the case, namely that it had not conducted a thorough investigation to establish the address of the defendant.\n11.  The Gdańsk District Court resumed the proceedings in 1998. In 1999 no hearings were held. On several occasions the applicant and her mother reported to the Academy of Medicine in Gdańsk to have blood samples taken. E.A. refused to do so.\n12.  On 31 August 2000 a legal-aid lawyer was appointed to represent the applicant.\n13.  On 3 November 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claims.\n14.  On 28 February 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court remitted the case for re-examination on the grounds of errors in the assessment of evidence committed by the lower court.\n15.  In 2002 the parties were several times summoned to appear at the Academy of Medicine for examination, but the appointments were postponed on several occasions upon the court's requests. It also transpires from the file that at least on one occasion the District Court failed to inform the applicants about the date of examination.\n16.  On 8 June 2002 the District Court admitted an opinion of experts in forensic medicine.\n17.  On 10 April 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant's action. The applicants appealed.\n18.  On 12 September 2003 the Regional Court admitted an opinion of an expert in graphology.\n19.  On 29 December 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court remitted the case for re-examination on the grounds of shortcomings in the assessment of evidence.\n20.  Since the defendant resided in Germany, on 13 April 2004 the President of the Gdańsk Regional Court requested a German court to take evidence in the case. On 6 September 2004 and 26 October 2004 the President of the Gdańsk Regional Court requested the German court to expedite the proceedings. It submitted a reply on 14 December 2004.\n21.  In December 2004 the applicant turned eighteen and reached the legal age of majority.\n22.  On 17 January 2005 the court asked the applicant whether she wished to pursue the claim. She confirmed her wish to pursue the case.\n23.  On 17 February 2005 the District Court admitted evidence from experts in dactyloscopy and graphology. The reports were served on the applicant on 21 March 2005.\n24.  On 11 April 2006 the District Court delivered a judgment, dismissing the applicant's action for establishment of paternity and child maintenance. The applicant appealed.\n25.  On 30 June 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's claims.\n26", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3044", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 11 March 1996 the applicant brought an action in the Pest Central District Court, seeking the judicial review of a resolution adopted by the community of owners of the building in which her flat was located (közgyűlési határozat).\n6.  The District Court held hearings on 9 October 1997, 5 February, 10 June and 2 November 1998, 7 September 1999, 16 March, 23 May and 12 September 2000, 22 March 2001, 20 June and 1 October 2002 and 8 April 2003.\n7.  On 15 September 2003 the District Court appointed an expert. On 13 October 2003 it replaced him. On 29 December 2003 the new expert submitted his opinion, which was completed on 23 August 2004.\n8.  The District Court held further hearings on 23 March and 17 June 2004, 19 January, 27 April, 7 September, 25 November 2005, 21 April, 10 May, 23 June, 1 and 29 September, 18 December 2006 and 23 February 2007.\n9.  According to the information provided by the parties and the elements available in the case file to date, the case has not yet ended.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3045", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Debrecen.\n5.  On 4 March 1996 the applicant filed an action with the Debrecen District Court claiming compensation from the co-owners of a block of flats on whose plot of land she had been renting a commercial kiosk, because they had cut her establishment off from the water and electricity supply.\n6.  On 19 November 1996 District Court adopted a partial decision. On appeal, on 21 May 1997 the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court quashed this decision and discontinued that part of the case.\n7.  Subsequently, in the period up to 3 June 2004, the District Court held hearings at regular intervals; however, the proceedings were repeatedly interrupted on account of the deaths and succession formalities of certain respondents. The court also obtained the opinion of an expert.\n8.  On 21 July 2004 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's motion for bias, lodged because of the extreme protraction of the proceedings. The Regional Court observed that, procedurally, the case was very complicated, because there were more than 120 parties. Moreover, because of succession formalities in the meantime and unsuccessful attempts to serve the documents in the case on the parties, the chance of holding a hearing in due and proper form had been very slim, and the proceedings had been interrupted on account of the death of one of the respondents.\n9.  A first-instance decision was adopted on 15 February 2007. According to the information provided by the parties and the elements available in the case file to date, the case, currently involving 137 respondents, has not yet ended.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3046", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 13 December 2001 the applicant newspaper published an article based on a story by Mrs Z. Samson about her daughter (the second applicant). The article described the second applicant's problems with her neighbour, G.C., former Minister of Construction.\n7.  G.C. initiated court proceedings claiming damages for defamation. He did not specify which parts of the article he found to be defamatory. Before the first-instance court adopted its judgment, the applicant newspaper published an apology to G.C. at the request of the second applicant and G.C.\n8.  On 17 October 2002 the Buiucani District Court partly accepted G.C.'s claim due to the publication of the apology and ordered the newspaper to publish a retraction on the same page as the original article and to pay damages and court fees in the total amount of 1,404 Moldovan lei (MDL), equivalent to 105 euros (EUR).\n9.  The court found that the following “information” from the article did not “coincide with the truth”:\n“a former State official builds himself castles”, “the neighbours say that he rents them to earn a fortune”, “the ex-Minister of Construction G.C. decided to get rich off the back of the misery of others”, “through various methods he forced the elderly who lived in the same neighbourhood as [the second applicant] to leave their houses in exchange for paltry sums of money”, “he told [the second applicant] that he would achieve his aim at any price” and that “he would make her life impossible”.\n10.  The article also made the following statements, none of which was found to be untrue by the courts:\n “one of G.C.'s 'attractive little houses' was built next to [the second applicant's] house” and “towered above it”; “in order to extend his assets G.C. destroyed [the second applicant's] shed”; “the fact that [G.C.] owns three apartments does not mean that he cannot get a fourth”.\nThe article also discussed [the second applicant's] lack of faith in the ability of the justice system to protect her against a much wealthier neighbour. A picture of the second applicant's and G.C.'s house was published. The article ended with G.C.'s opinion on the matter which he had given by phone and a summary of several documents he sent by fax which suggested that the second applicant had breached some of her obligations under the law.\n11.  The court found that the repeated mention of G.C.'s former position as a minister increased the harm caused to him and found that there was no proof that he had used his former position in any illegal way.\n12.  On appeal, the applicant newspaper argued that the statements made were value-judgments not susceptible of proof. It also complained that the court had taken a proactive approach in favour of G.C. in identifying of its own motion specific expressions as defamatory even though G.C. had not singled any out. Moreover, it pointed out that there had been no reaction to the fact that Mrs Z. Samson had confirmed in court her statements.\n13.  On 14 January 2003 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the judgment, rejecting a number of the newspaper's arguments and finding that “...the information in the article was a ground for an eventual proposal for the dismissal of [G.C.]”. The argument that the article reproduced the opinions of G.C.'s neighbours was rejected because the newspaper had published them. The court also assumed that two statements (namely, “he told [the second app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3047", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant was summoned to appear at a prosecutor's office in Chişinău on 14 June 2004. Upon arrival he was arrested on suspicion of having murdered, in 1993, Mr I.O., whose mother became Speaker of Parliament in 2001.\n8.  On 15 June 2004 the prosecutor asked the Buiucani District Court to issue a warrant for the applicant's arrest. In his request the prosecutor alleged that the applicant had committed the crime with which he was charged.\n9.  On 17 June 2004 the Buiucani District Court issued an order for the applicant's pre-trial detention for thirty days. The applicant and his lawyer were not given access to the file which had been submitted to the court to justify his arrest. The court gave the following reasons for its decision:\n“In initiating the criminal proceedings the procedure was followed. [The applicant] is accused of a serious crime for which the criminal law provides a punishment of deprivation of liberty for more than two years. [The applicant] is unemployed and has a Romanian passport – facts which confirm the existence of a danger of absconding from law-enforcement authorities. Moreover, the accused would be given a real possibility to obstruct the criminal investigation by influencing witnesses if he were to be released. In these circumstances, the accused's detention is at this moment absolutely necessary.”\nThe applicant did not appeal against that decision.\n10.  On 12 July 2004 the prosecutor asked for a prolongation of the applicant's detention, stating that many procedural acts still had to be carried out, such as a confrontation with a co-accused (U.) and a verification of the whereabouts of another person, and that the applicant could abscond.\n11.  On 13 July 2004 the Buiucani District Court extended the applicant's detention for a further thirty-day period, based on the reasons given by the prosecution.\n12.  In his appeal, the applicant submitted that during the first 30 days of his detention no procedural act had been carried out with his participation, which contradicted the prosecutor's claim that his detention was necessary to enable such acts to be carried out. Moreover, the co-accused with whom a confrontation was planned (U.) had also been detained during that period and yet no confrontation had taken place. The applicant stated that he had a permanent residence in Moldova and three children to support and suffered from a neurological disease requiring specialised medical treatment.\n13.  On 20 July 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal. The court found that the lower court had observed the correct procedure and had adopted a lawful decision based on the circumstances of the case. According to the applicant, he and his lawyer had not had access to any part of his criminal file.\n14.  On 27 July 2004 the applicant made a habeas corpus request, submitting that there was no reason for his pre-trial detention. The crime he was charged with had been committed eleven years earlier and he could easily have left Moldova had he had anything to do with that crime. He appeared before the investigators in response to their first summons and had always pleaded his innocence. The applicant asked for a milder preventive measure such as bail or house arrest to be ordered in his case, emphasising that house arrest offered virtually the same guarante", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3049", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Częstochowa.\n5.  The applicant was arrested on 26 April 2001. On 28 April 2001 the Częstochowa District Court remanded her in custody on suspicion of fraud, forgery and making unlawful threats. It held that there was a risk that the applicant would attempt to influence the witnesses, given the significant differences between her statements and those of the victims and witnesses. Furthermore, the District Court relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty. Lastly, it found that other preventive measures would be insufficient to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n6.  On 8 June 2001 the Częstochowa District Prosecutor ordered that the investigation in the applicant's case be conducted in conjunction with an investigation carried out by the Department of Organised Crime of the Katowice Regional Prosecutor's Office. That investigation concerned the operation in Częstochowa of an organised criminal group led by a certain M.M.\n7.  On 19 July 2001 the Częstochowa Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 26 October 2001. It relied on the risk that the applicant would obstruct the investigation and on the severity of the anticipated penalty.\n8.  On 18 October 2001 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 10 December 2001, having regard to the evidence obtained in the investigation. It found that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would attempt to obstruct the proceedings, in particular by influencing witnesses, since she had not confessed. Furthermore, the Regional Court found that the prolongation of the applicant's detention was justified by the fact that the investigation concerned a significant number of suspects. Lastly, it found that there were no special circumstances, as specified in Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that would justify her release. The applicant appealed against that decision.\n9.  On 14 November 2001 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the impugned decision. It held, however, that there were no grounds indicating that there was a risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings. It further pointed out that the Regional Court had erred in holding that such risk could flow from the fact that the applicant had not confessed, since such a view infringed the applicant's defence rights. On the other hand, the Court of Appeal found that the applicant's continued detention was justified under Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That provision established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant might induce her to obstruct the proceedings[1].\n10.  On 29 November 2001 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 26 April 2002.\n11.  Since on 26 April 2002 the applicant's detention pending investigation had reached the statutory time-limit of one year, further prolongation of her detention was ordered by the Katowice Court of Appeal. On 17 April 2002 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention until 10 June 2002. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it had regard to the evidence given by the State's witnesses and the fact that not all of the accomplices had been arrested. The Court of Appeal also relied on the need to obtain further expert evidence and the complexity of the case.\n12.  On 22 May 2002 the Court of Appeal ruled that the applicant and some of her co-suspects be kept in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3050", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Tychy.\n5.  On 17 January 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking committed as part of an organised crime group.\n6.  On 19 January 2001 the Katowice District Court remanded the applicant in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence or induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n7.  The applicant's appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against some of the decisions extending his detention and his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeals he relied, inter alia, on his personal circumstances, in particular a difficult family situation in that a family break-up was imminent. He also argued that his confessions to offences of which he was suspected had not been taken into consideration.\n8.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was extended on several occasions, namely on an unknown date, on 16 July 2001 (to 17 October 2001), 12 October 2001 (to 31 December 2001), 28 December 2001 (to 30 April 2002), 17 April 2002 (to 31 July 2002), an unknown subsequent date, and 25 September 2002 (to 30 November 2002). In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion, supported by evidence from witnesses, that the applicant had committed the offences in question. They attached importance to the seriousness of those offences and to the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on the applicant. These facts gave rise to the courts' assumption that the applicant, if released, might obstruct the proper course of the proceedings, especially given the fact that some of the suspects were still at large.\n9.  On 22 November 2002 the Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Katowice Regional Court. The applicant was charged with drug trafficking and membership of an organised crime group. There were 15 defendants in the case, all charged with numerous counts of drug trafficking committed as an organised crime group.\n10.  On 6 August 2003 the case was transferred to the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court since all judges from the Katowice Regional Court had been excluded from examination of the case.\n11.  On 13 November 2003 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held 28 hearings in the case, at regular intervals.\n12.  During the court proceedings the courts further extended the applicant's pre-trial detention, namely on 27 November 2002 (to 17 January 2003), two unknown subsequent dates, 17 December 2003 (to 31 August 2004) and 23 June 2004 (to 31 December 2004). The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's continued detention. They relied especially on the complexity of the case and the large number of co‑accused.\n13.  Between 22 January 2004 and 24 March 2004 the applicant was serving a term of imprisonment imposed by the Warsaw Regional Court in a different criminal case.\n14.  On 16 December 2004 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to five years and six months' imprisonment and to a fine.\n15.  The applicant ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3051", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Vitalie Colibaba, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1978 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  On 21 April 2006 the applicant was arrested on charges of assaulting a police officer.\n7.  On 25 and 27 April 2006 the applicant was allegedly tortured by police officer I.M. and two other police officers in order to extract a confession from him. According to the applicant, his hands and feet were tied together behind his back and a metal bar from a coat hanger was passed under his arms. The metal bar was placed on two chairs and his body was suspended for more than forty minutes. His hands had been covered with cloth so that no traces of rope would remain on them. Loud music was played so that his cries would not be heard. While being suspended in this manner, his head was covered with a coat and he was beaten with a chair on the back of his head. These acts of brutality were accompanied by verbal and psychological aggression. The Government contested the allegations of ill-treatment.\n8.  The same day, after being taken to his cell, the applicant attempted to commit suicide by cutting his veins. However, his attempt was not successful and he was taken to hospital.\n9.  On 27 April 2006 the applicant was allowed for the first time to have contact with his lawyer, but only in the presence of police officers. The applicant complained to the lawyer that he had been tortured.\n10.  According to the applicant, as a retaliatory measure for his complaint to the lawyer, the same evening he was again tortured. He was hit on the head with a two-litre plastic bottle full of water and also punched and kicked. The Government disputed these allegations.\n11.  On 28 April 2006 the applicant's lawyer lodged with the Buiucani prosecutor's office a criminal complaint concerning the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant.\n12.  On 29 April 2006 the applicant was taken by the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated him to the Centre of Forensic Medicine, where he underwent a medical check-up in their presence. His lawyer was not present and, according to the applicant, the medical examination only lasted several minutes and was superficial.\n13.  The medical report issued by the Centre of Forensic Medicine was dated 28 April 2006 and concluded that besides the injury caused by his attempted suicide, the applicant did not have any other signs of violence on his body.\n14.  On 30 April 2006 the Buiucani prosecutor's office ordered that police officer I.M. be removed from the applicant's case on account of the latter's complaint alleging ill-treatment. The police officer was prohibited even from accompanying the applicant to and from the detention centre. The removal was justified by the need to ensure the objectivity of the investigation into the applicant's complaints.\n15.  On 2 May 2006 the applicant's lawyer requested the prosecutor of the Buiucani District to authorise the applicant to undergo, inter alia, neurological, ophthalmological, psychiatric and other medical examinations. He requested that the medical examinations be carried out by independent doctors in the presence of the applicant's relatives. This request was refused.\n16.  On 3 May 2006, following complaints by the applicant's lawyer, Amnesty International organised action in support of the applicant by publishing on their Russian internet site a description of the applicant's case and an appeal to people from all over the world to write to the Prosecutor General of Moldova, the Mo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3052", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Baku.\n7.  The applicant worked as a head physician (director) of the Republican Maternity Hospital. In December 1993 the Ministry of Healthcare dispatched an “attestation commission” to the applicant's hospital in order to evaluate the applicant's work performance. In its evaluation report, the attestation commission found that the applicant had been incompetent in administering the hospital's affairs and had committed a number of breaches of her job duties. Based on the commission's evaluation report, by an order of the Minister of Healthcare of 30 December 1993, the applicant was dismissed from her job.\n8.  The applicant sued the Ministry for unlawful dismissal, demanding reinstatement in her position and compensation for lost earnings. On 9 September 1994 the Nasimi District Court found that the attestation commission's report had been largely unsubstantiated. Accordingly, the court held that the applicant's dismissal had been arbitrary and ordered her reinstatement as the head physician of the Republican Maternity Hospital. The court also awarded the applicant 87,045 Azerbaijani manats (AZM) as a compensation for lost earnings.\n9.  The Ministry of Healthcare did not file any appeals against this judgment and it entered into force. On 14 September 1994 the writ of execution was sent to the Ministry. The Ministry, however, took no action to comply with the judgment. Despite further warnings from the Nasimi District Judge on 13 and 27 October 1994, the Ministry failed to take any steps to execute the judgment.\n10.  Following the Ministry's continuous failure to comply with the judgment, on 10 January 1995 the Nasimi District Court instituted criminal proceedings against the Minister of Healthcare and referred the case to the Nasimi District Prosecutor's Office for investigation.\n11.  On an unspecified date in early 1995, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court filed a protest against the judgment of 9 September 1994, referring the case for supervisory review by the Presidium of the Supreme Court. On 10 March 1995 the Presidium of the Supreme Court upheld the Nasimi District Court's judgment of 9 September 1994.\n12.  On 29 May 1996 the Ministry of Healthcare applied to the President of the Supreme Court with a request to reopen the proceedings and refer the case to the Plenum of the Supreme Court for review. By a letter of 12 August 1996, the President of the Supreme Court rejected this request, noting that the law precluded the parties from filing any appeals for supervisory review in employment-related disputes after a period of one year from the judgment's entry into force.\n13.  Meanwhile, the Nasimi District Prosecutor's Office, dealing with the investigation of the criminal case against the Minister of Healthcare, was continuously unable to secure the Minister's participation in the investigation process. Despite a number of summonses sent to him, the Minister did not appear before the investigator for interrogation. Accordingly, on 10 June 1995, 10 November 1995, 12 January 1996, 17 March 1996, 20 June 1996, 20 January 1997 and, finally, on 23 July 2001 the investigator of the Nasimi District Prosecutor's Office issued similarly-worded decisions on suspension of the criminal proceedings on the ground of inability to interrogate the Minister due to the latter's continuous failure to appear before the investigator.\n14.  While the enforcement proceedings were pending, on 27 December 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3053", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the Moscow Region.\n6.  On 7 August 2000 a criminal case was opened into smuggling of consumer goods.\n7.  On 17 January 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of participation in a criminal enterprise, smuggling, customs duty evasion and fraud.\n8.  From April to November 2005 the applicant was granted access to the materials in the case file.\n9.  On 29 November 2005 the case was referred for trial before the Avtozavodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod. According to the Government, the case materials comprised 113 binders; charges had been brought against five individuals who had acted in conspiracy; the witnesses' list included seventy-six prosecution witnesses from several cities in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, China and Italy, as well as twenty-five witnesses and experts for the defence.\n10.  On 16 December 2005 the Avtozavodskiy District Court held the preliminary hearing and fixed the opening trial date for 28 December 2005.\n11.  On 23 March 2006 the Avtozavodskiy District Court ordered that the case be returned to the Prosecutor General's Office for correcting defects in the indictment against the applicant. That decision was set aside by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 2 May 2006, which referred the case back to the District Court.\n12.  On 29 May 2006 the trial resumed but it was subsequently stayed from 23 June to 24 July 2006.\n13.  On 31 January 2007 the applicant was released on bail.\n14.  According to the information provided by the parties and the elements available in the case-file to date, the criminal proceedings are still pending before the trial court.\n15.  On 19 January 2005 the Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow remanded the applicant in custody on the ground that he was charged with serious and particularly serious offences and could abscond or interfere with the investigation, without citing specific reasons for these findings. On 7 February 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal.\n16.  On 15 March, 12 May, 12 July and 13 October 2005 the Lefortovskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention. Each time it referred, using a summary formula, to the gravity of the charge against the applicant and to “grounds to believe that he would abscond or interfere with the criminal proceedings”. On 19 April, 7 June, 22 August and 9 November 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension orders on appeal.\n17.  In the decisions of 19 April and 7 June 2005 the City Court found as follows (the same paragraph featured in both decisions):\n“[The applicant] is charged with crimes, including particularly serious crimes, punishable with more than two years' imprisonment. The factual circumstances of the offence imputed to [the applicant] call for the assumption that, once released, he would flee from the investigation and trial, re-offend or otherwise interfere with the criminal proceedings. In these circumstances, the [first-instance] court's finding that any other, non-custodial preventive measure may not be applied to [the applicant], appears justified.”\n18.  The City Court's decision of 9 November 2005 also contained the following passage:\n“The argument by the defence that the [first-instance] court did not take into account absence of any objective evidence of [the applicant's] involvement in the commission of the imputed offence, is without substance because, in extending the applicant's detention, the [first-instance] court did not make any fi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3054", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Leeds.\n6.  Between 1 January 1989 and 1 August 1994, he worked as a police officer and, in this capacity, acted as a “runner”[1] for the Kennemerland Regional Criminal Intelligence Service (Regionale Criminele Inlichtingendienst; “RCID”).\n7.  On 26 January 1994 the Minister of Justice (Minister van Justitie) and the Minister of the Interior (Minister van Binnenlandse Zaken) informed the Lower House of Parliament (Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal) of the disbandment in December 1993 of the North-Holland/Utrecht Interregional Criminal Investigation Team (Interregionaal Recherche Team; “IRT”) on account of deployment of controversial criminal investigation methods in the fight against organised crime (for further details, see Van Vondel v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 38258/03, ECHR 2006). This triggered off a parliamentary inquiry (parlementaire enquête) into criminal investigation methods used in the Netherlands and the control exercised over such methods.\n8.  On 6 December 1994 the parliamentary commission of inquiry on criminal investigation methods (parlementaire enquêtecommissie opsporingsmethoden; “PEC”) was instituted. It was composed of nine Lower House parliamentarians.\n9.  The PEC conducted an extensive inquiry, which lasted for about one year. Between January and May 1995 documents were collected and examined and preliminary interviews with more than 300 persons were held. The PEC had subsequent informal, confidential “private conversations” (besloten gesprekken) with a total of 139 persons – of which verbatim records were drawn up – in order to broaden its understanding of the issues involved, to select the persons and experts to be heard in public, and to prepare these public hearings. On the basis of these documents, interviews and conversations, the PEC made a selection of persons whom it wished to hear. Those interviews and “private conversations”, which were all held on a voluntary basis, were of a confidential nature and the PEC gave an undertaking that, unless consent was given by the person concerned, it would not use any direct citations.\n10.  Between 6 September and 9 November 1995, the PEC held 93 public hearings during which 88 persons gave evidence, including the applicant who was heard twice. These public hearings were directly broadcast on national television. It did not hold any witness or expert hearings in camera.\n11.  The PEC presented its final report containing its findings and recommendations on 1 February 1996. It concluded that there was a crisis in the field of criminal investigation which comprised three main elements, namely the absence of adequate legal norms for investigating methods used in respect of organised crime, a criminal investigation system that was not functioning properly in that it involved too many separate organisations with little or no co-ordination of their activities, resulting in unclear decision-making as regards competences and responsibilities, and problems with power structures in that the prosecution department did not always have or exercise sufficient authority over the police.\n12.  The PEC report has had a great impact on the organisation of criminal investigation in the Netherlands and has formed the basis of a number of changes to the Netherlands Code of Criminal Procedure, including the Preliminary Judicial Investigations (Review) Act (Wet herziening gerechtelijk vooronderzoek) and the Special Investigative Powers Act (We", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3055", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Samara.\n6.  The applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. She was issued with a certificate confirming her participation in the emergency operations. As a holder of the certificate she was entitled to certain monthly payments.\n7.  In February and March 2000 the Social Security Department of the Oktyabrskiy District of Orsk (Управление социальной защиты населения Октябрьского района г. Орска, hereinafter “the social security service”) paid to the applicant the arrears for the period from November 1999 to March 2000.\n8.  On 13 April 2000 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Orsk held that the social security service had unlawfully defaulted on the monthly payments from November 1999 to February 2000. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 24 April 2000.\n9.  In April 2000 the social security service discontinued the payments. The applicant sued the social security service.\n10.  On 20 August 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Orsk held that the social security service had unlawfully refused to pay. The applicant held a certificate confirming her participation in the emergency operations in Chernobyl and was entitled to receive the payments. On 25 September 2001 the Orenburg Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it became enforceable.\n11.  On 14 December 2001 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs.\n12.  On 17 December 2001 the bailiffs opened enforcement proceedings.\n13.  On 27 February 2002 the applicant received 11,762 Russian roubles (RUB).\n14.  On 11 July 2002 the bailiffs directed that the social security service pay the judgment debt by 20 August 2002. The social security service did not comply.\n15.  The judgment remains unenforced in part. According to the Government, the debt amounts to RUB 13,002.20.\n16.  On 22 June 2002 Judge R., the President of the Orenburg Regional Court, lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgments of 13 April 2000 and 20 August 2001, as upheld on 25 September 2001.\n17.  On 30 September 2002 the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court chaired by Judge R. quashed the judgments of 13 April 2000 and 20 August 2001, as upheld on 25 September 2001, and remitted the cases for a fresh examination before the District Court. It found that the District Court had erred in the assessment of the facts and application of domestic law. In particular, it had not verified whether the certificate confirming the applicant's participation in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster was valid.\n18.  On 29 November 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court held that the discontinuation of the monthly payments had been lawful and dismissed the applicant's claims. It found that the certificate confirming the applicant's participation in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster had been issued by an unauthorised person and was void. Consequently the applicant was not entitled to monthly payments.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3056", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  Following her dismissal from work on 7 November 1994 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) on 16 December 1994 against her former employer seeking her reinstatement and the salary arrears. Since the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia on 5 November 1997, the court held five hearings and obtained an expert opinion. The expert opinion received by the court on 13 February 2002 could not be served on the applicant because she had changed her address without notifying the court.\n6.  On 5 February 2003 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act. On 7 July 2003 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) accepted the applicant's complaint, finding a violation of her constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to give a decision in the applicant's case within six months following its publication in the Official Gazette and awarded her compensation in the amount of 7,500 Croatian kunas (HRK). The decision was published on 22 July 2003.\n7.  In its judgment of 4 February 2004 the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed the applicant's claim as ill-founded. That judgement was served on the applicant on 1 April 2004. Following an appeal, on 13 September 2005 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n8.  In the fresh proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court a hearing was held on 3 March 2006. The hearing scheduled for 23 May 2006 was adjourned because the summons sent to the applicant had been returned. At the next hearing held on 6 November 2006 the applicant extended her claim to another defendant. The proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3057", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Blidcha, the Kyiv region.\n5.  In September 2000 the applicant, a teacher at the Blidcha secondary education school (hereinafter “the School”; Блідчанська загальноосвітня школа), learned that his teaching hours, and, accordingly, his remuneration, were reduced as compared to the previous academic year.\n6.  Seeking to restore his teaching hours and his remuneration, the applicant lodged two civil actions against the School with the Ivankivsky District Court (“the District Court,” Іванківський районний суд Київської області): civil action no.  2-384/2001 (“the reinstatement action”) and civil action no. 473/2001 (“the unlawful transfer action”).\n7.  On 10 January 2001 the applicant lodged an action alleging that he had been unlawfully dismissed from his previous job and seeking reinstatement and compensation for lost income.\n8.  On 8 August 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claims as lodged outside the one-month statutory time-limit for lodging reinstatement actions. In its judgment, the court referred to 24 November 2000 as the date of lodging (the date of instituting the unlawful transfer action, see section C below).\n9.  On 7 December 2001 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Regional Court,” Апеляційний суд Київської області) upheld this judgment.\n10.  On 29 March 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation.\n11.  On 24 November 2000 the applicant lodged an action complaining that he had been unlawfully transferred to a position with lower remuneration.\n12.  On 29 November 2000 the District Court gave the applicant a time-limit to rectify the shortcomings in his statement of claim. In particular, the court instructed him to clarify his claims and pertinent factual circumstances. On 12 December 2000 the applicant submitted an addendum to his statement of claim.\n13.  On 22 December 2000 the District Court returned the applicant's submissions as “not lodged” on account of his failure to rectify the shortcomings in his statement of claim. The applicant appealed in cassation.\n14.  By letter of 16 January 2001, the District Court returned the applicant's appeal in cassation, having noted that the decision of 22 December 2000 was final and not subject to appeal.\n15.  The applicant complained to the Regional Court about the District Court's blocking his appeal in cassation. On 3 April 2001 the Deputy President of the Regional Court instructed the District Court that the decision in question could be appealed against.\n16.  Following these instructions, the District Court transferred the applicant's appeal in cassation to the Regional Court. On 29 May 2001 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 22 December 2000 and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh consideration. The Regional Court found that the District Court had failed to indicate the shortcomings, not rectified by the applicant's addendum of 12 December 2000.\n17.  On 1 August 2001 the District Court refused to initiate proceedings in respect of the applicant's claims. It stated that the applicant's pending reinstatement proceedings (action no. 2-384/2001 described in section B above) raised the same issues of fact and law. The applicant appealed.\n18.  On 21 September 2001 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 1 August 2001 and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh consideration. The Regional Court found that the applicant had lodged the actio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3058", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Lviv.\n5.  In 1981 the applicant was convicted of speculating in gold and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. In 1992 his conviction was annulled as unlawful. Subsequently the applicant instituted civil proceedings, seeking various kinds of compensation for his unlawful conviction and punishment.\n6.  On 24 February 1998 the Khust Court (Хустський районний суд Закарпатської області) awarded the applicant 3,350.55 hryvnyas (UAH)[1] against the Ministry of Finance (“the Ministry”; Міністерство фінансів України) in compensation for his loss of income while in detention.\n7.  This judgment became final and on 3 June 1998 the bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings. They submitted the enforcement writ to the Ministry of Finance, which redirected it to the State Treasury (Державне Казначейство України).\n8.  On 18 November 2003 the enforcement writ was returned to the applicant unenforced.\n9.  On 13 May 1999 the Khust Court awarded the applicant UAH 7,281.70[2] against the Khust State Treasury Department (“the Khust Treasury”; Відділ Державного казначейства в Хустському районі Закарпатської області) in compensation for the gold confiscated from him following his conviction. This decision became final.\n10.  On 12 November 2002 the Khust Treasury informed the applicant that it could not make the payment without the command of the bailiffs. In connection with this, the Khust Treasury had transferred the applicant's request for enforcement and a copy of the judgment to the bailiffs and had requested the Khust Court to transfer the enforcement writ thereto.\n11.  On 5 March 2003 the Khust Court informed the applicant that it had never issued the enforcement writ as the applicant personally had never requested the court to do so.\n12.  The judgment of 13 May 1999 remains unenforced.\n13.  On 2 April 2002 the Lychakivsky District Court of Lviv awarded the applicant UAH 2,000[3] against the State Treasury in moral damages for a delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 24 February 1998.\n14.  This decision became final in October 2002 and on 9 December 2002 the enforcement proceedings were instituted. On several occasions the Treasury informed the applicant that the judgment award could not be paid on account of the lack of budgetary allocations.\n15.  On 26 January 2004 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Regional Court”; Апеляційний суд Львівської області) gave the applicant, who sought to obtain a higher amount of compensation, leave to appeal against the judgment of 2 April 2002 out of time.\n16.  On 15 March 2004 the Regional Court, following the applicant's appeal, reviewed the facts of the case in their entirety and quashed the judgment of 2 April 2002. The court rejected the applicant's claims against the Treasury as lacking statutory basis under domestic law. On 25 September 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation.\n17.  The applicant made several unsuccessful attempts to institute civil proceedings against various authorities, seeking compensation for the delays in the enforcement of the judgments in his favour.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3059", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in St Petersburg.\n6.  On 7 August 2000 a criminal case was opened into smuggling of consumer goods.\n7.  On 25 June 2002 the Investigations Department of the Federal Security Service (“FSB”) declared the applicant to be a suspect in the criminal case. His whereabouts, however, could not be established. On 12 July 2002 the applicant's name was put on the list of fugitives from justice.\n8.  On 23 November 2003 the applicant was arrested by the Chinese police in Guangzhou, China, where he lived with his family.\n9.  On 26 November 2003 the applicant was extradited to Russia where he was taken into custody by the FSB. He was charged with several counts of aggravated smuggling.\n10.  From April to November 2005 the applicant was granted access to the materials in the case file.\n11.  On 29 November 2005 the case was referred for trial before the Avtozavodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod. According to the Government, the case materials comprised 113 binders; charges had been brought against five individuals who had acted in conspiracy; the witnesses' list included seventy-six prosecution witnesses from several cities in Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, China and Italy, as well as twenty-five witnesses and experts for the defence.\n12.  On 16 December 2005 the Avtozavodskiy District Court held the preliminary hearing and fixed the opening trial date for 28 December 2005.\n13.  On 23 March 2006 the Avtozavodskiy District Court ordered that the case be returned to the Prosecutor General's Office for correcting defects in the indictment against the applicant. That decision was set aside by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 2 May 2006, which referred the case back to the District Court.\n14.  On 29 May 2006 the trial resumed but it was subsequently stayed from 23 June to 24 July 2006.\n15.  On 31 January 2007 the applicant was released on bail.\n16.  According to the information provided by the parties and the elements available in the case-file to date, the criminal proceedings are still pending before the trial court.\n17.  On 26 November 2003 the Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant's detention on the grounds that he was charged with a particularly serious offence and could abscond, or interfere with, the investigation. On 10 December 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order, following an appeal by the applicant's counsel.\n18.  On 23 January, 5 April and 4 August 2004 the Lefortovskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention. Each time the District Court referred to the gravity of the charge against the applicant and to unspecified grounds to believe that he would abscond.\n19.  Further extensions were granted by the Moscow City Court on 24 November 2004, 25 March and 5 May 2005. By way of justification, the City Court invoked the gravity of the charges against the applicant and noted that the applicant had been in hiding from 2002 to 2004 [sic] and that two other co-defendants had also absconded. The extension order of 5 May 2005 specified that the applicant should remain in custody “until the defendants and their counsel had finished studying the case file, the prosecutor had referred the case for trial and the trial court had decided on the measure of restraint”.\n20.  The applicant's appeals against the extension orders were rejected.\n21.  On 29 November 2005 the applicant was moved to remand centre no. IZ-52/1 in Nizhniy Novgorod.\n22.  On 16 December 2005 th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3060", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1933. The second applicant was born in 1935. They live in Lynn, MA, the United States of America.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicants sued the Social Security Office of the Oktyabrskiy District of Rostov-on-Don (“the social security office”) for pension arrears for the period from 1 February 1998 to 31 March 1999.\n7.  On 20 October 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don granted the applicants' claims. The court awarded 2,050.16 Russian roubles (RUB) to the first applicant, and RUB 1,862 to the second applicant.\n8.  On 26 November 1999 the Oktyabrskiy District Court ordered that the social security office pay RUB 1,025.08 to the first applicant and RUB 931 to the second applicant in respect of pension arrears for the period from 1 April 1999 to 1 November 1999.\n9.  On 26 January 2000 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgments of 20 October 1999 and 26 November 1999 on appeal. The judgments became enforceable.\n10.  On an unspecified date the President of the Rostov Regional Court lodged an application for supervisory-review of the judgments of 20 October and 26 November 1999, as upheld on 26 January 2000.\n11.  On 15 March 2001 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court found that the District Court had incorrectly applied domestic law, quashed the judgments of 20 October and 26 November 1999, as upheld on 26 January 2000, and dismissed the applicants' claims.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3061", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the penitentiary institution FGU IK-3, situated in the Kharp township of the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region.\n7.  At the time of the events described below the applicant was one of the leading executives of Yukos, a large oil company. On 20 June 2003 a public prosecutor opened an investigation on suspicion of fraud committed in the course of the privatisation of a State-owned company in 1994 by a group of top managers of Yukos and affiliated companies. In the following months some of them were arrested and charged, including Mr Khodorkovskiy, the former head of Yukos; others, in fear of prosecution, left Russia.\n8.  On 2 July 2003 the applicant was admitted to a hospital in connection with his chronic diseases. On the same day, while in the hospital, the applicant was arrested by the prosecuting authorities as a suspect in the above criminal case. He was taken from there to a pre-trial detention centre.\n9.  On 3 July 2003 the prosecution charged the applicant and two other persons with fraud and non-compliance with a court order. The prosecution asserted that in 1994 the applicant had deceived the State: he had bought a stake in a large mining company at a privatisation tender, but had not made a return investment in the company even though that was an obligation for the winning bidder. Furthermore, the applicant had later disobeyed a judgment ordering him to return the stake in the company to the State.\n10.  The applicant’s lawyers objected to the arrest and maintained that the applicant’s detention was incompatible with his state of health. On the same day, 3 July 2003, the prosecution requested the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow to remand the applicant in custody.\n11.  The detention hearing was supposed to start on 3 July 2003 at 4.30 p.m. The applicant asked the court to adjourn the hearing in order to allow his lawyers to participate in it. The court dismissed this request on the ground that the lawyers had been properly informed about the detention hearing two hours before but had failed to appear. The court decided to hear the detention request in private.\n12.  According to the applicant’s lawyers, they learned about the time of the detention hearing one hour and forty minutes before it began. When they arrived at the courthouse they could not participate in the hearing because the judge had locked the room and refused to open it.\n13.  Having heard the applicant and the prosecution, the court decided to detain the applicant. The court decision did not specify the period of detention. With regard to the absence of the lawyers from the hearing, the court noted as follows:\n“The court finds unfounded and cannot accept [the applicant’s] motion to adjourn [the decision] until [his lawyers] may take part in the proceedings. The documents submitted by the investigating authorities prove that [the lawyers] were informed about the time and place of the hearing in advance, namely at 2.52 p.m. on 3 July 2003 [they] were informed that at 4.30 p.m. on 3 July 2003 [the Basmanniy District Court] would examine [the investigating officer’s request for a detention order]. In reality, the hearing ... began at 5.50 p.m. on 3 July 2003, but [the lawyers] have still not arrived, nor have they presented valid reasons for their absence...”\n14.  The defence appealed against the detention order, but on 23 July 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld it. The applicant’s lawyers were pres", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3062", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Plovdiv.\n5.  On 20 June 1997 the applicant and five other persons were charged with theft and questioned. The charges concerned the theft from a warehouse of 310 kg of nickel worth approximately 3,000 US dollars. The applicant was ordered not to leave his place of residence without authorisation from the Prosecutor's Office.\n6.  On 20 June, 17 July and 3 September 1997 witnesses were questioned. On 29 July 1997 the investigator carried out a confrontation between the applicant and another co-accused. Between July and October 1997 he ordered a fingerprint expert report, a report on the value of the stolen objects and a psychiatric expert report. The reports were submitted in October 1997. On 24 October 1997 the proceedings were terminated with respect to one of the co-accused on grounds of his mental disease.\n7.  In April and May 1998 the investigator made modifications to the charges. The applicant and the other accused persons were informed of the new charges and questioned. On 10 April 1998 another psychiatric expert report on the mental condition of the co-accused Mr M. was ordered. The report was submitted on 27 April 1998.\n8.  The results of the preliminary investigation were presented to the applicant on 26 May 1998. The case file was transmitted to the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office on 29 May 1998.\n9.  On 21 July 1998 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor's Office submitted to the Plovdiv District Court a bill of indictment against the applicant and two other persons (Mr D. and Mr G.). The prosecutor also issued a decision terminating the proceedings against the other persons involved. Mr G.'s ensuing appeal was never examined.\n10.  The first hearing of the Plovdiv District Court, scheduled for 5 October 1998, was adjourned because Mr D., one of the co-accused, had not received a copy of the bill of indictment prior to the hearing.\n11.  The hearing listed for 16 November 1998 was adjourned because one of the co-accused, Mr. G., had fallen ill and three witnesses had not been duly summoned.\n12.  The hearing scheduled for 11 January 1999 failed to take place because the applicant's counsel had to attend another court hearing and the co-accused Mr D. had not retained a lawyer.\n13.  The hearing listed for 25 February 1999 was adjourned because the co-accused Mr D. had fallen ill.\n14.  A hearing was held on 30 April 1999. The court heard Mr D. and a witness. The court granted the accused persons' requests for the collection of evidence.\n15.  On 30 June 1999 the court admitted expert evidence and adjourned the hearing because the one of the co-accused persons, Mr D., had been admitted to hospital.\n16.  On 30 September 1999 the court heard witnesses and admitted expert evidence. Upon the request of all parties, the prosecutor and the accused persons, the court ordered a new report on the value of the stolen objects.\n17.  On 15 December 1999 the court, sitting in private, adjourned the hearing listed for December 1999 because a lay judge had been busy with other matters and could not attend.\n18.  The hearing listed for 22 March 2000 failed to take place because Mr D.'s counsel had not been summoned and did not appear. The court also observed that the expert report had been prepared by two experts instead of three and ordered the rectification of this deficiency.\n19.  The hearing scheduled for 19 May 2000 was adjourned because of a change in the composition of the court. Pursuant to Article ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3063", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Novomoskovsk. In the early nineties the applicant worked in Russia, however, since 1992 she had a Ukrainian citizenship stamp in her U.S.S.R. passport, which she exchanged for a Ukrainian passport in 1999.\n5.  In 1995 the applicant left Russia, moved into her Novomoskovsk house purchased in 1987, and sought to privatize an adjacent plot of land. In September 1996, having received a privatization certificate, she found out that part of the plot she considered to be entitled to, had been privatized by her neighbour, Mrs N.P.\n6.  On 10 February 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against Mrs N.P., seeking partial annulment of her privatization documents.\n7.  On 19 March 1998 the Novomoskovsk Court (Новомосковський міський суд Дніпропетровської області) dismissed her claims as lodged outside the applicable statute of limitation. The applicant appealed.\n8.  On 23 April 1998 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court (“the Regional Court”; Дніпропетровський обласний суд)[1] quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It found that the Novomoskovsk Court had insufficiently analysed the circumstances concerning the application of the statute of limitation. It further instructed the court to examine particular documentary and other evidence and to summon the City Council's Executive Committee (Виконавчий комітет Новомосковської міської ради), which had issued the privatization documents.\n9.  In October 1998 Mrs N.P. lodged a counter-claim, seeking to annul the applicant's privatization certificate. She maintained that the applicant had not received Ukrainian citizenship until 1999 and so, under the applicable law, had not been entitled to privatize land before that time.\n10.  On 18 January 2001 the Novomoskovsk Court accepted Mrs N.P.'s argument, having dismissed all of the applicant's claims and having allowed all those of Mrs N.P. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 5 March 2001 the Regional Court quashed this judgment. It found that the Novomoskovsk Court had misinterpreted applicable substantive law and breached a number of procedural requirements. Particularly, it had failed to examine a number of relevant documents and witnesses, as well as to substantiate the dismissal of the applicant's claims against Mrs N.P.\n12.  On 4 January and 12 November 2003 the applicant amended her claims.\n13.  On 15 July 2004 the Novomoskovsk Court partly allowed both parties' claims. In particular, it ordered the Executive Committee to change the planning scheme and record each party's ownership over the land, which she actually used. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 9 December 2004 the Regional Court quashed this judgment, having found that the Novomoskovsk Court had exceeded its procedural authority in deciding to design a planning scheme, which power was vested in the municipal authorities. Furthermore, the court still had failed to examine certain of the documents of relevance to the proceedings. The applicant appealed in cassation.\n15.  As of June 2006 the proceedings were pending before the cassation court.\n16.  In the course of the proceedings, the first-instance court scheduled some 33 hearings. Most of them were scheduled with intervals ranging from several weeks to five months. On two occasions the intervals between the hearings exceeded six and nine months respectively (28 January 1999 – 12 August 1999 and 3 April 2002 – 21 January 2003). Thirteen hearings were adjourned on acc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3064", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lived in Sevastopol.\n7.  In June 2003 the applicant, who at that time was on probation after receiving a sentence for burglary, was arrested and placed in police custody (затриманий) on suspicion of another count of burglary. The date of his arrest is in dispute between the parties. The applicant contended that this occurred on 17 June 2003, whereas according to the Government he was apprehended on 18 June 2003.\n8.  On 18 June 2003 the applicant was questioned by the police, in the course of which he admitted that he had participated in the burglary of a house belonging to the sister of his alleged accomplice, Mr Zh.\nOn 20 June 2003 the Balaklavsky District Court of Sevastopol (Балаклавський районний суд м. Севастополя, hereafter “the District Court”) extended the term of the applicant's police custody up to a maximum of ten days.\n9.  On 27 June 2003 the District Court ordered the applicant to be placed in pre-trial detention on the grounds that the offence he was suspected of had been committed while he was on probation in connection with a prior suspended sentence and that if at large the applicant would abscond and thereby obstruct justice.\n10.  On an unspecified date in August-September 2003, the applicant was committed for trial before the District Court. In the trial proceedings, he was represented by his mother Ms S., and he retracted the confession statements he had given during his detention in police custody, claiming that these had been given under duress.\n11.  During a hearing on 11 September 2003 the applicant informed the trial court that he felt unwell and thus could not participate in the hearing. The presiding judge called an ambulance to assess the applicant's medical condition.\n12.  On 29 April 2004 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged. It rejected the applicant's argument that his confession statements had been given under duress and found that a certificate issued by the Sevastopol City Hospital, according to which the applicant had been treated in that hospital on 21 June 2003 for bruises on his legs, could not be regarded as conclusive evidence of police brutality, as the applicant himself had failed to give any explanation before the court as to how he had come by those injuries.\n13.  On 22 March 2005, following an appeal by the applicant, the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд м. Севастополя, hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment of 29 April 2004 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The court indicated, inter alia, that the first-instance court had addressed the issue of the applicant's alleged ill-treatment in police custody, although he had never complained before the court that he had suffered any ill-treatment by the police. Without giving any reasons, the Court of Appeal also ordered that the applicant should remain in detention.\n14.  On 23 November 2005 the District Court convicted the applicant of burglary and sentenced him to three years and seven months' imprisonment. It based this conviction on the confession statements given by the applicant and Mr Zh. during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings, the victim's oral evidence in court, and statements given by two other witnesses in the course of the pre‑trial investigation. It rejected as unfounded the applicant's allegation that he had been ill-treated by the police.\n15.  The applicant appealed against the judgment of 23 November 2005, asking for a reduc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3065", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  In June 1992 eight persons brought a civil action in the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) against the applicant company (then called “Moderni interijeri”), challenging their dismissal from work. The plaintiffs also sought that a preliminary measure be issued.\n5.  In its judgment of 21 December 1992 the Zadar Municipal Court granted the claim, but the judgment was quashed by the Zadar District Court (Okružni Sud u Zadru) on 6 October 1993 and the case was remitted to the Zadar Municipal Court.\n6.  In the fresh proceedings the Zadar Municipal Court again granted the claim on 27 September 1994. It also granted the requested preliminary measure. On 17 May 1995 the judgment on the merits was reversed in part by the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) and it became final. Furthermore, the decision concerning the preliminary measure was quashed and to that extent the case was remitted to the Zadar Municipal Court for fresh decision.\n7.  Both the applicant company and the plaintiffs filed appeals on points of law against the appellate judgment on the merits. In accordance with the applicable procedural rules the appeal shall be lodged with the Municipal Court which conducted the case at the first instance and then forwarded with the case-file, for a decision on the merits, to the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).\n8.  After receiving the appeals on points of law the Municipal Court firstly forwarded the case-file to the Supreme Court. However, it was returned to the Municipal Court with an instruction that it first decide on the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary measure. On 20 January 1998 the Municipal Court issued a decision noting that this request had been withdrawn. The case-file was then again forwarded to the Supreme Court.\n9.  On 22 November 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals on points of law.\n10.  The applicant company then filed a constitutional complaint alleging that the lower courts had erred in their application of relevant laws, that its right to property and free entrepreneurship had been violated. On 29 September 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) dismissed the complaint. The decision was served on the applicant company's representative on 21 October 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3066", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, Mr Srbislav Marčić (the “first applicant”), Mr Stevan Kostić (the “second applicant”), Mr Slavko Pešić (the “third applicant”), Mr Radoslav Pesić (the “fourth applicant”), Mr Časlav Stošić (the “fifth applicant”), Mr Sreten Stojanović (the “sixth applicant”), Mr Budimir Stajić (the “seventh applicant”), Mr Petar Pesić (the “eighth applicant”), Mr Slađan Stanisavljević (the “ninth applicant”), Mr Branko Dinić (the “tenth applicant”), Mr Saćip Demić (the “eleventh applicant”), Mr Dragan Živković (the “twelfth applicant”), Mr Dragan Nikolić (the “thirteenth applicant”), Mr Zoran Stanojević (the “fourteenth applicant”), Mr Mile Milenković (the “fifteenth applicant”), Ms Branka Mirčić (the “sixteenth applicant”) and Ms Ljiljana Petrović (the “seventeenth applicant”) were all, at the relevant time, citizens of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro who lived in Vladičin Han, Surdulica, Relince, Suva Morava, Suva Morava, Prekodolce, Prekodolce, Vranje, Vladičin Han, Žitorađe, Prekodolce, Vladičin Han, Ravna Reka, Suva Morava, Surdulica, Vladičin Han and Vladičin Han, respectively.\n5.  In the 1980s all the applicants, except for the twelfth, sixteenth and seventeenth, were employed with “Mehanizacija”, an organisational unit (osnovna organizacija udruženog rada) of a State-owned company called “Erozija”, based in Vladičin Han, Serbia.\n6.  The father of the twelfth applicant and that of both the sixteenth and seventeenth applicants also worked for the same employer but they died in 1994 and 2001 respectively.\n7.  On an unspecified date the aforementioned employees issued civil proceedings against “Mehanizacija” before the Labour Court (Osnovni sud udruženog rada) in Vranje, seeking the payment of salaries which they had earned while working on a project in Iraq.\n8.  On 10 March 1988 the Commercial Court (Okružni privredni sud) in Leskovac opened insolvency proceedings (stečajni postupak) in respect of “Mehanizacija” (“the debtor”), its decision being published in the Official Gazette of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia dated 8 April 1988.\n9.  Several days prior to this date, the same court appears to have instituted separate insolvency proceedings in respect of “Erozija”.\n10.  On 20 October 1988 the Labour Court informed the Commercial Court about the plaintiffs' claims which had been specified in US Dollars (“USD”).\n11.  On 15 October 1990 the Commercial Court recognised these claims as follows: USD 5,240.80 in respect of the first applicant; USD 4,980.80 in respect of the second applicant; USD 2,269.30 in respect of the third applicant; USD 3,244.95 in respect of the fourth applicant; USD 4,935.55 in respect of the fifth applicant; USD 839 in respect of the sixth applicant; USD 4,872.95 in respect of the seventh applicant; USD 4,181.20 in respect of the eighth applicant; USD 5,055.85 in respect of the ninth applicant; USD 5,003.55 in respect of the tenth applicant; USD 2,838.10 in respect of the eleventh applicant; USD 5,173.25 in respect of the twelfth applicant's father; USD 4,186.80 in respect of the thirteenth applicant; USD 4,768.40 in respect of the fourteenth applicant; USD 4,800.00 in respect of the fifteenth applicant; and USD 3,447.50 in respect of the father of the sixteenth and the seventeenth applicants.\n12.  On 27 December 1990, taking into account the currency exchange rate and the available assets converted into cash (deo unovčene stečajne mase za raspodelu), the Commercial Court adopted a form", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3067", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Bátonyterenye.\n5.  In November 1991 criminal proceedings were instituted against him.\n6.  On 18 May 1993 the Balassagyarmat District Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment in the case, which concerned eleven other individuals. The applicant was charged with fraud and two counts of violating foreign exchange regulations.\n7.  Between 21 March 1995 and 4 February 2003, the Eger District Court held hearings over 79 days. It heard evidence from several experts and more than 100 witnesses. On the last-mentioned date, it acquitted the applicant.\n8.  On appeal by the prosecution, on 11 December 2003 the Heves County Regional Court upheld the applicant's acquittal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3068", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 19 May 1997 the applicant's ex-partner filed an action against him, claiming the division of the common ownership of their property. Between 18 December 1997 and 12 June 2001, the Buda Central District Court held numerous hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert.\n6.  On 10 October 2002 the court gave a partial decision, holding that the plaintiff had a ¼-share in the parties' flat. This decision was served on the applicant on 27 November 2002.\n7.  On 13 December 2002 the applicant filed an appeal, which was dismissed on 6 January 2003 by the District Court for being out of time.\n8.  On 28 January 2003 the applicant filed a request for the reinstatement of the proceedings, which was dismissed on 18 March 2003 by the Budapest Regional Court for being out of time.\n9.  Subsequently the applicant lodged a request for the re-opening of the proceedings in their previously unsuccessful part.\n10.  On 10 September 2003 the District Court suspended the examination of the remainder of the case pending the outcome of the re-opening proceedings.\n11.  On 24 February 2004 the request for re-opening was dismissed. On 31 August 2004 the Regional Court rejected the applicant's appeal.\n12.  On 10 May 2005 the examination of the remainder of the case was resumed before the District Court. On the same day, the parties concluded an in-court agreement, which was approved and declared final immediately.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3069", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 13 June 1996 the applicant was arrested on charges of smuggling. He was detained until 10 June 1997.\n6.  On 26 May 1998 the applicant and his 11 accomplices were charged by the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Public Prosecutor's Office with having participated in a gang of smugglers involved in illegally importing merchandise (mainly perfumes and sweets) worth over 100 million Hungarian forints, from Austria to Hungary.\n7.  On 17 December 1998 the Customs Authority seized a large amount of merchandise, mainly spirits and cosmetics, held by the applicant.\n8.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts, on 18 June 2004 the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court held a public hearing, which the applicant's lawyer attended, and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his accomplices, observing that their conduct was no longer punishable subsequent to Hungary's accession to the European Union. The court ordered that the seized goods should be returned to the applicant. He states, however, that the Customs Authority had meanwhile sold the merchandise. The decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on 8 November 2004.\n9.  On 1 April 2005 the applicant filed an action against the State for compensation on account of his pre-trial detention. On 7 June 2005 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the action, in a procedural decision, observing that it had been introduced outside the six-month statutory time-limit which had run from the pronouncement of the final decision on 18 June 2004.\n10.  On 24 November 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal quashed this decision, holding that the applicant's claims had to be examined on their merits.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 1 March 2006 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claims as being statute-barred.\n12.  On 26 September 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld this decision. Examining the applicant's claims from the perspective of the Codes of Criminal and Civil Procedure and Articles 5 § 5 and 13 of the Convention, the Court of Appeal was satisfied that the final decision had been pronounced on 18 June 2004 and that the applicant's claims were consequently statute-barred.\n13.  On 26 April 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3070", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1963. The second and third applicants were born in 1964. They live in Poznań.\n6.  The company “Trust” Ltd. in which the applicants own all of the shares owned an estate of 6 hectares situated in Poznań. In 1995 the company requested the local administration to give a decision on the division of the estate, a decision necessary to proceed with construction on the land.\n7.  Eventually, on 15 November 1999 the Municipal Office gave a decision by which the division of the estate was approved. Certain plots of land were designated for construction purposes and others for open space and garages. A number of plots were designated for construction of “internal estate roads”. This decision became final on 30 November 1999.\n8.  Subsequently, the applicant company, relying on the provisions of the Land Administration Act 1997, requested the Mayor of Poznań to determine the compensation due for the plots designated for road construction. It submitted that under the relevant provisions of that Act plots designated, by virtue of decisions on the division of properties into smaller plots, were expropriated ex lege on the date on which such decisions became final.\n9.  By a decision of 15 March 2000 the President of the Poznań City dismissed the application to have the compensation determined, holding that the roads to be built on the estate concerned had not been provided for in the local land development plan. Hence, in the November 1999 decision they had been designated as “internal roads” which would serve the inhabitants of a housing estate the construction of which the company had been planning. Not having been provided for in the local land development plan, these roads did not belong to the category of public roads. Under the provisions of the Land Administration Act 1997, as amended in January 2000, only plots designated for the construction of “public roads” were to be expropriated ex lege, and only in respect of such expropriated plots could compensation be sought. In the applicants' case, the plots in question were designated for internal roads; they had therefore not been expropriated and, consequently, no compensation could be determined.\n10.  The applicants appealed. They argued that the roads to be constructed on the housing estate were to be public, for all practical purposes. They were to be open to all roads users, including all means of public and private transport. The term “internal roads” used in the contested decision did not exist in the Land Administration Act 1997 as applicable in November 1999. This Act had been amended after this decision had been given and it was only in its amended text that it was clearly stated that compensation was due only for “public” roads (see paragraphs 30‑31 below).\n11.  The fact that the plots concerned were referred to in the decision of November 1999 as designated for the construction of “internal” roads was an unlawful attempt to deprive them of a public character and to exempt them thereby from the operation of that Act insofar as it provided for ex lege expropriation of plots designated for road construction. Most importantly, it was an attempt to evade the obligation to pay compensation for such plots.\n12.  The applicants further argued that the fact that these roads had not been provided for in the local land development plan was immaterial, given that the decision of 15 November 1999 had obviously been given in such a way as to be consistent with the lo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3071", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Pruszków, Poland.\n6.  The applicant was involved in a conflict with her sister and her sister's common‑law husband, with whom she had shared a flat. On 28 December 2004 the applicant was questioned by the police on suspicion of stealing her sister's microwave and harassing her. The applicant informed the police that she was undergoing psychiatric treatment.\n7.  On 31 December 2004 the Warsaw Prosecutor asked the court to assign a legal-aid lawyer to the applicant in view of her mental condition.\n8.  On 4 April 2005 the Warsaw District Court ordered the applicant to undergo a six-week psychiatric examination in order to determine whether she could be held criminally responsible in respect of the above mentioned offences of theft and harassment. On 15 April 2005 the applicant's legal-aid lawyer lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision. He submitted that the applicant herself had already stated that she had been undergoing psychiatric treatment for eight years. There was no reason for the applicant to be placed in a psychiatric hospital. If the court had doubts as to the applicant's condition it could obtain additional evidence from the applicant's existing medical records. On 29 April 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed this appeal.\n9.  On 5 May 2005, following a knife attack on her sister, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and domestic violence.\n10.  On 7 May 2005 the Warsaw District Court heard evidence from the applicant and ordered her pre-trial detention until 4 August 2005. The court noted that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question. In addition, the court relied on the risk that she would induce witnesses to give false testimony or commit another offence. On 9 May 2005 the applicant was admitted to the Warsaw Detention Centre.\n11.  On 12 May 2005 the applicant was charged with domestic violence.\n12.  On 20 May 2005 the Regional Psychiatric Hospital (Wojewódzki Szpital Psychiatryczny) informed the District Prosecutor that the applicant could report there on 12 or 13 September 2005 for an examination. On 22 June 2005 the court asked the hospital to schedule an earlier date for the applicant's admission, as the applicant was in pre-trail detention. In reply, the hospital informed the court that the applicant could be admitted on 18 or 19 July 2005.\n13.  On 4 July 2005 the prosecutor asked the Warsaw District Court to prolong the applicant's detention in view of the fact that she was to undergo a psychiatric examination.\n14.  On 15 July 2005 the Warsaw District Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 3 November 2005. The court referred to the fact that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which she had been charged. In addition, it appeared that the applicant might induce witnesses to give false testimony.\n15.  On 16 August 2005 the applicant's lawyer made an application for release. He stressed that there had been no reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence. Furthermore, the court had already obtained evidence from witnesses. Finally, from a medical point of view the applicant should not have been kept in detention. On 24 August 2005 the court dismissed the application. On 29 August 2005 the applicant's lawyer lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision. He stated that applying pre‑trial detention in the applicant's cas", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3072", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Chişinău. He is the director of Tantal SRL, a company offering security services.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 12 July 2005 the applicant's company was informed by a client (a petrol supply company) of damage caused to the latter by one of the applicant's employees' having stolen fuel and damaged a fuel pump. On 20 July 2005 the applicant responded by revealing the results of an internal inquiry, which had established that one of the applicant's employees responsible for guarding the relevant petrol stations, G.N., had confessed to the above actions, but had refused to pay for the damage. The applicant proposed to send the relevant information to the local police and the client.\n8.  On 25 November 2005 G.N. made a complaint to the General Directorate for Fighting Organised Crime (“GDFOC”), a subdivision of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, about threats to him and his family by “persons at the office of the Tantal company” who, from 5 July 2005, had threatened him with violence in order to obtain money from him. When he refused, he was coerced into signing a receipt which showed that he had borrowed money from T.G., another employee of the applicant's company. Finally, G.N. complained that he had been illegally detained between 7 and 11 July 2005 at one of the detention centres. The complaint was registered by GDFOC officer O.\n9.  On 26 November 2005 officer M. from the prosecutor general's Office ordered the opening of a criminal investigation into the allegations made by G.N. and the creation, for that purpose, of a team of twenty investigators from two departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The order described the applicant and T.G. as the alleged perpetrators.\n10.  On 29 November 2005 the applicant was arrested. The reason given for the arrest was “the victim directly identified the suspect as the perpetrator of the crime; there is reason to believe that the suspect may exert pressure on the victim and witnesses”. From that date until 9 March 2006 the applicant was detained in the GDFOC remand centre, except for a few days when he was on bail (see paragraph 11 below).\n11.  The prosecutor asked a court to remand the applicant in custody, accusing the applicant of unlawfully detaining and blackmailing G.N. in order to obtain 1,000 United States dollars (USD) from him. On 2 December 2005 the Buiucani District Court rejected that request. The court found that the prosecutor had not provided sufficient evidence to prove the existence of grounds for detaining the applicant. It further found that G.N.'s detention in July 2005 had been sanctioned by the deputy prosecutor of Chişinău and could not therefore be considered unlawful detention; that no evidence had been adduced to substantiate the danger of the applicant's exerting pressure on the victim or witnesses; and that the applicant had a permanent residence, a job, and supported a child. Nonetheless, the court ordered the applicant's house arrest for ten days.\n12.  On 7 December 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal quashed that decision, finding that the court had incorrectly applied the law, which did not allow any preventive measure other than remand in custody of persons accused of especially serious crimes. However, the court accepted the applicant's request for release on bail, which was set at 50,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (3,300 euros (EUR) at the time). He paid that", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3073", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is registered in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The State company “Vibropribor” (“SCV”) was created on 14 May 1995 and was registered in the State Register of Companies.\n8.  On 3 July 1996 the “Vibropribor” joint-stock company (“V.”) was registered by the State Register of Companies. V. was the result of the reorganisation of SCV into a joint-stock company, based on a founding contract between the Department of Privatisation (“the Department”) and two private companies.\n9.  In 1998 the Department initiated court proceedings for the annulment of the contract for the founding of V., alleging that it had been concluded in violation of the law, and for restitutio in integrum. On 14 September 1998 the Economic Court of Moldova rejected that request as unfounded. That judgment was upheld by the Appeals Chamber of the Economic Court on 24 May 1999 and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 29 September 1999. That judgment was final.\n10.  The Department requested the re-opening of the proceedings, invoking an incorrect assessment of the facts and law in the previous judgments.\n11.  On 22 February 2001 the Economic Court rejected that request on res judicata grounds.\n12.  On 25 June 2001 the Appeals Chamber of the Economic Court accepted the request, ordering the liquidation of V. and restitutio in integrum. That judgment was final.\n13.  In execution of this judgment, on 23 August 2001 the Department ordered the creation of a liquidation commission which was charged, inter alia, with determining V.'s debts toward third parties and debts owed to V. and with the payment of V.'s debts following the Department's approval.\n14.  In 2002 the Prosecutor General requested the Supreme Court of Justice to re-open the proceedings and to quash the 1998-1999 judgments.\n15.  On 11 March 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice accepted that request and quashed the judgments of 14 September 1998, of 24 May 1999 and of 29 September 1999. The court adopted a new judgment, declaring null and void the contract for the founding of V. The court found that the two private founding companies had not fulfilled their obligations by failing to transfer their contributions to V.'s capital. As a result, V.'s registration in the State Register of Companies was annulled on 18 May 2002 and SCV was registered instead (“the new SCV”), stating in its statute that the company was created on the basis of “Vibroaparat” company (which existed before V.'s creation). The new SCV's address mentioned in the statute was 10 Gagarin str. in Chişinău.\n16.  On 3 April 2002 the Department requested a revision of the final judgment of 25 June 2001. On 24 April 2002 the Appeals Chamber of the Economic Court accepted that request and changed the formulation of the judgment from an order for the liquidation of V. to a declaration that V. had not been lawfully founded and that all its assets should be returned as they were on 3 July 1996. The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 11 March 2002 as the basis for the change of formulation, since that judgment had annulled the contract for the founding of V.\n17.  On 20 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected a request for the revision of its judgment of 11 March 2002.\n18.  On 8 August 1997 the applicant issued a credit to V. in the amount of 3,472,965 Moldovan lei (MDL). As established by the prosecutor's office in subsequent criminal proce", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3074", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in born in 1975 and lives in Wyględy, Poland.\n5.  On 2 April 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police. On the same date the applicant was charged by the Warsaw District Prosecutor with having helped to sell two stolen cars while acting in an organised criminal gang. The applicant was instructed that it was open to him to make a request under Article 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to be served with the written reasons for the decision to charge him.\n6.  On 4 April 2003 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged. The court held that keeping him in custody was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings as there was a fear that the applicant would influence witnesses.\n7.  On 18 June 2003 the District Prosecutor lodged a request to prolong the applicant's detention. In his motion he indicated 138 investigative actions that would be taken with respect to 23 suspects. The District Court on 27 June 2003 accordingly prolonged the applicant's detention, relying in particular on evidence obtained from one of the co-accused.\n8.  In his subsequent application of 19 September 2003 for an extension of the applicant's detention the prosecutor relied on extensive evidence that had already been obtained from 7 witnesses and an expert witness. The application was granted on 30 September 2003.\n9.  On 29 December 2003 the Warsaw District Court further prolonged the applicant's pre-trial detention.\n10.  On 6 November 2003 the Warsaw District Prosecutor decided to supplement the charges against the applicant, adding several other offences relating to the handling of stolen cars. The applicant was again informed of his right to request the written reasons for the decision, but he failed to make a request.\n11.  On 26 March 2004 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), on the application of the appellate prosecutor, decided to prolong further the applicant's detention. In addition to the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences, the court relied on the complexity of the case, the severity of the penalty that might be imposed and the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.\n12.  On 25 June and 28 December 2004 the Warsaw Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention. It reiterated the grounds previously given for keeping him in custody. It further pointed to the particular complexity of the case, which explained the length of the investigative phase of the proceedings. The court in particular relied on the evidence gathered by the prosecutor and referred in its decision to the statements given by the witnesses and co-accused which were included in the case file.\n13.  On 3 December 2004 the prosecutor decided to sever the charges against the applicant and 16 co-accused and to deal separately with his charges.\n14.  On 22 December 2004 the applicant was indicted before the Warsaw District Court. The applicant was accused of having committed 12 offences, in particular handling stolen cars and forging licence plates while acting in an organised criminal gang.\n15.  Subsequently, his detention on remand was prolonged on 18 March 2005. The applicant's numerous applications for release and his appeals against the detention decisions were to no avail.\n16.  The trial started on 18 April 2005. Afterwards, heari", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3075", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Chişinău. He is the Chief Executive Officer of Megadat.com SRL, a company which is the applicant in the case Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova, no. 21151/04, and the leader of an extra-parliamentary opposition party.\n7.  On 31 May 2006 the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (“the CFECC”) initiated criminal proceedings based on an alleged misappropriation of an office building belonging to company X in 2002.\n8.  On 22 September 2006 the applicant was declared a suspect in the criminal proceedings. In a decision of the same date, it was alleged that, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Megadat.com SRL, he had bought from bank M. the office building, which had earlier been transferred to the bank by company X as payment for a loan which it could not repay. According to the CFECC, the office building was bought by Megadat.com at a price which was lower than the market price of the building at the time.\nThe CFECC alleged that the offence was committed by the applicant in collusion with his father, who was the president of company X's board of directors at the time. The applicant's father allegedly managed to convince the board to mortgage the building to bank M. and to indicate in the mortgage agreement a value lower than the market value. Later, when company X found itself unable to repay the loan, also allegedly due to the actions of the applicant's father, the latter used his position as president of the board of directors to convince the other members of the board to transfer the building to the bank in lieu of money, thus avoiding a public auction. In such a way, bank M. took possession of the building at a reduced price.\nLater, the applicant, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Megadat.com SRL, bought from bank M. the office building at a price below its market value, thus creating a loss of 1,988,130 Moldovan lei (MDL) for company X.\n9.  The decision of 22 September 2006 set out the above accusations against the applicant and his father without, however, relying on any evidence.\n10.  On 28 September 2006 the applicant was arrested and a request for his detention for ten days was addressed to the Buiucani District Court. The request reiterated all the allegations against the applicant and his father contained in the decision of 22 September 2006 (see paragraph 8 above) and alleged, inter alia, that the applicant could attempt to influence witnesses since between 1999 and 2002 he and his father had threatened E.S., currently a witness in the case against them.\n11.  A detention warrant for a period of ten days was issued by the investigating judge M.D. on the same day. The reasons for remanding the applicant in custody were the fact that he was accused of a serious offence, that there was a risk of the co-accused colluding, that there was a risk of the applicant destroying evidence and that there was evidence that he had attempted to influence a witness.\n12.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the order arguing that there was no reasonable suspicion to believe that he had committed an offence. The accusation against him was based on the fact that Megadat.com SRL had bought an office building from a bank at a price set by the bank. All the contracts concerning the matter were valid and nobody had ever challenged them. No other facts which would give rise to a reasonable suspicion had been established. Moreover, not only had the prosecutors failed to prove the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3076", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is currently detained in Rustavi No. 1 Prison.\n6.  Under a contract of 18 January 2001, the Ministry of State Property Management (“the Ministry”) undertook to transfer to the applicant 90 % of the shares of the “Georgian State Insurance JSC” (“the company”), on condition that he, amongst other obligations, increased the company’s initial capital to 480,000 Georgian laris (EUR 218,000[1]) within a month of signing the contract.\n7.  On 14 March and 7 May 2001, the Ministry requested an up-date of the progress made in the performance of the contractual obligations. The applicant replied by submitting documents, according to which the amount of USD 250,000 (EUR 207,000), initially placed with a Canadian bank, had been transferred to the company’s account opened with a Georgian bank.\n8.  Following the recommendation of the Georgian National Bank (a State agency), the Prosecutor General’s Office (“the PGO”) examined the applicant’s financial operations. In a decision of 26 January 2004, a senior prosecutor of the PGO, having established the authenticity of the bank records submitted by the applicant, refused, pursuant to Article 28 § 1 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), to institute criminal proceedings for an alleged falsification of those documents. (The applicant did not submit a copy of that decision to the Court.)\n9.  On 28 April 2004 the Prosecutor General personally opened a criminal case regarding the misappropriation of 90 % of the State’s shares by fraud and the falsification of bank documents, offences envisaged respectively by Articles 180 § 3 (b) and 362 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”). (The parties did not submit a copy of that decision.)\n10.  On 5 May 2004 the applicant was charged and taken into custody.\n11.  Initially, the applicant was placed in a “quarantine cell” at Tbilisi No. 1 Prison. According to him, the cell was filthy, dilapidated, infested with vermin, and without ventilation or natural light. Shortly afterwards, the applicant was transferred to an ordinary cell in the same prison where there were 24 beds for the 57 inmates held there. The detainees were obliged to take turns to sleep. The cell was unsanitary and the food putrid.\n12.  On 8 May 2004 the Krtsanisi-Mtatsminda District Court in Tbilisi dismissed the applicant’s request for release, remanding him in custody for three months. An oral hearing was held. In its reasoning the court stated:\n“the collected evidence...discloses a reasonable suspicion that the accused has committed the incriminated offences...The evidence has been gathered in conformity with procedural norms...Due regard should be had to the fact that the applicant is charged with serious crimes...The case materials substantiate the suspicion that he might interfere with the establishment of the truth...In view of the prospect of a severe punishment, [he] may abscond...”\n13.  In his appeal of 9 May 2004, the applicant complained that the imposition of detention on remand had been justified solely by the gravity of the charges and the severity of the sentence. In his view, the prosecution had not put forward any specific evidence or arguments supporting any actual risk of him colluding or absconding. The applicant claimed to have been actively cooperating with the prosecution authority even prior to his arrest by always appearing, whenever summoned for interviews, and by producing all the requested evidence which, in fact, had become the bas", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3077", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the vicinity of Gradiška.\n6.  On 8 May 1992 she married Z.G. The couple had two children, a daughter born in 1992 (“A”) and a son born in 1994 (“B”).\n7.  Following an alleged episode of domestic violence, in the beginning of 2001 the applicant left her husband. She succeeded in taking A whereas Z.G. kept B.\n8.  On 15 May 2001 the applicant requested the Social Work Centre in Gradiška (“Social Work Centre”) to award her custody of the children, pending the resolution of attempts at reconciliation. The Social Work Centre did not decide upon this request until 28 February 2003 (see paragraph 11 below).\n9.  On 30 May 2002 the applicant initiated proceedings before the Gradiška Court of First Instance seeking a divorce from Z.G. and custody of the children. On 23 December 2002 she sought interim measures in respect of custody, but she did not receive any response in this connection.\n10.  In a judgment of 19 February 2003, the Gradiška Court of First Instance granted the applicant a divorce and awarded her custody of A and B. Z.G. appealed.\n11.  On 28 February 2003 the Social Work Centre granted the applicant provisional custody of A and B pending the entry into force of the judgment of 19 February 2003. It relied on section 91(1) of the Family Act 1979 which was no longer in force (see paragraph 40 below). The decision was immediately enforceable.\n12.  On 12 March 2003 the applicant initiated proceedings for the enforcement of the decision of 28 February 2003. On 18 March 2003 the Social Work Centre forwarded the decision to the Department for General Administration (Odjeljenje za opštu upravu; another municipal body) for enforcement. Following a lengthy exchange of letters with the Social Work Centre and an initial refusal to enforce the decision, on 30 July 2003 the Department for General Administration accepted to enforce it.\n13.  On 28 April 2003 the applicant complained to the Human Rights Chamber, a domestic human-rights body (case no. CH/03/14055).\n14.  On 18 August and 26 September 2003 the Department for General Administration carried out two unsuccessful attempts to enforce the decision of 28 February 2003.\n15.  On 6 November 2003 the Human Rights Chamber found a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision reads, in the relevant part, as follows:\n“64. The Chamber finds in these circumstances that the proceedings failed to meet the standard of speed and efficiency required under Article 8 of the Convention in order to secure the applicant's right to respect for her family life. The Chamber emphasises that it is essential in this field, if the family life of parents and children is to be respected, that the remedies available and the system for enforcing them should be clearly established by law, that the authorities involved should be properly aware of the law and that they should avoid undue delay and in particular deal promptly with appeals and other requests which come before them and respect applicable time limits. It is particularly unacceptable that family life should be jeopardised by interdepartmental disputes over administrative responsibilities, as has occurred here.\n... 69. ... Since the applicant's rights have been violated by inter alia the fact that the decision of the Social Work Centre granting her provisional custody of the children has not been enforced yet, the Chamber considers it appropriate to order the respondent Party to take ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3078", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants' parents owned a plot of land with a house in Warsaw. Pursuant to the provisions of the 1945 Decree on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw (Dekret o własności i użytkowaniu gruntów na obszarze m. st. Warszawy) they were expropriated and the ownership of the property passed to the Warsaw municipality.\n6.  On an unspecified date between 1965 and 1967 the applicants' parents requested to be granted a right of perpetual use of the expropriated land. On 30 October 1968 the District Board of the local council dismissed their request.\n7.  On an unspecified date in 1975 the applicants' father died. On 18 April 1975 the ownership of the property in question passed from the Warsaw municipality to the State Treasury.\n8.  By a letter of 18 November 1977, the Office of the City of Warsaw consented to the sale of the property to a third party.\n9.  Pursuant to the order of the District Mayor (Naczelnik Dzielnicy), the land and the building were put up for sale and, on 19 April 1985, two‑thirds of the property was sold to a certain B.K.\n11.  On 10 October 1987 the applicants obtained a partial restitution of their property. A right of perpetual use of one-third of the land and ownership of one‑third of the building situated on that property were awarded to them.\n12.  On 5 February 1990 the applicants requested that the remaining two‑thirds of the property be restored to them. In their letter to the District Office (Urząd Dzielnicowy) they complained that the local authorities, being aware of the applicants' claims to the property, had deliberately sold the property, taking an unfair advantage of the fact that the inheritance proceedings following the applicants' parents' death had not been terminated yet.\n13.  By a letter of 20 April 1990 the authorities indicated that since two‑thirds of the original plot had been sold to third parties before the entry into force of a certain statute in 1985, only one-third of the plot could be restored to the applicants. Thus, restitution of the remaining two‑thirds of the property was impossible and, in accordance with the 1985 law, any compensation claims had expired on the date of entry into force of this law.\n14.  On 7 May 1990 the applicants again requested the District Office to consider their claims. They challenged the lawfulness of the sale of the two‑thirds of the property as the District Office had at that time been aware of their outstanding claims.\n15.  By a letter of 15 October 1990 the Town Office, Division of Architecture and Land Management (Urząd Miasta Stołecznego Warszawy, Wydział Architektury i Gospodarki Gruntami, reiterated the position of the District Office.\n16.  The applicants sent numerous letters of complaint to various authorities, including the Supreme Administrative Court. Following an inquiry of that court, the Regional Office in its letter of 16 April 1991 explained that the matter was under consideration and apologised for the delays in its examination, which were due to a serious backlog of cases and understaffing.\n17.  The Supreme Administrative Court regarded the applicants' subsequent complaints as a complaint about the inactivity of the administrative authorities and the failure to issue an administrative decision. By a judgment of 11 October 1991 the court obliged the District Mayor to issue a decision concerning the remaining two-thirds of the property. The court found that, when deciding on the return of the one‑third of the property, the authorities ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3079", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and currently lives in Babušnica. On 25 April 2005 he was formally certified as unemployed by the respondent State's authorities.\n6.  The applicant was the President of the Babušnica branch of the Demo-Christian Party of Serbia (Demohrišćanska stranka Srbije) and a member of the Central Board (Glavni odbor) of the same political party.\n7.  In August of 2002, during an election campaign, an article written by the applicant, entitled “A Despotic Mayor” (Nasilnički predsednik), appeared in issue no. 1, page 10, of a newsletter called Narodne lužnicke novine. In the relevant part, this piece read as follows:\n“The citizens of the Municipality of Babušnica have not had a Mayor for quite some time now because the former Mayor [P.J.] has been expelled from JUL [a political party] and has thus lost his mandate by virtue of law ... Despite the official Opinion of the Ministry of Justice and Local Self-Government that he cannot continue being the Mayor in accordance with the Local Government Act ... [P.J.] ... considers it no sin to stay on ... [in this capacity] ... because he is ... indispensable for ... [the Municipality's] ... future development and prosperity ...\nWhy is [P.J.] pushing so hard to remain as the fictitious Mayor of Babušnica, committing at the same time, as he is, legal infractions amounting to crimes ... Perhaps he needs the position of Mayor to defend his personal integrity which has been seriously threatened by the criminal complaints filed against him, indicating that he had abused his authority as the Director of a State-owned company called Lisca in order to acquire enormous material gain? ... [P.J.] ... well knows that ... [as a former Mayor] ... his position as the Director of ... Lisca, where he is suspected of having committed certain criminal offences, would also be seriously jeopardised. He understands that ... [as an ordinary citizen] ... he would no longer ... [carry any weight] ... with the local [police chiefs and others] ...\nTherefore, ... in his 'JUL euphoria', in line with the slogan “money talks” [para vrti gde burgija neće] and for his own existential needs, [P.J.] has continued with his near-insane spending of the money belonging to the citizens of the Municipality [sumanuto troši novac građana Opštine] on ... sponsorships ... [and] ... gala luncheons ... not understanding that his time is up and that his place is in the political dustbin ...”\n8.  In response to the publication of this article, on 12 September 2002, the Mayor filed a private criminal action (privatna krivična tužba) against the applicant with the Municipal Court in Babušnica (“the Municipal Court”).\n9.  On 11 June 2003 the Municipal Court found the applicant guilty of criminal defamation (kleveta) and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of 15,000 dinars (“CSD”) plus CSD 11,000 for costs, which was at that time equivalent to approximately 400 euros (“EUR”) in all. The fine, however, was suspended and was not to be enforced unless the applicant committed another crime within a year of the judgment becoming final.\n10.  In the operative part of this decision (u izreci presude) only the following text was found to amount to defamation, namely to be “untrue” and, as such, “harmful to the honour and reputation” of the Mayor (Mr P.J.):\n“Therefore, ... in his 'JUL euphoria', in line with the slogan “money talks” [para vrti gde burgija neće] and for his own existential needs, [P.J.] has continued with his near-i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3080", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  At the relevant time the first applicant was Chief of Staff of the Ministry of the Interior. He owned an apartment together with his wife until 1980, when they donated it to their son. Thereafter, the first two applicants lived as tenants in a State-owned apartment.\n7.  On 27 November 1985, the first applicant was granted the tenancy of another State-owned apartment which belonged to the housing fund of the Ministry of the Interior. The apartment had four rooms and covered 132 square metres.\n8.  On 15 January 1986 the first and the second applicants purchased the apartment from the Ministry. For the purposes of the transaction, the first applicant submitted declarations stating that he lived with his wife, their granddaughter and the second applicant's mother.\n9.  On 27 January 1992 the first and second applicants transferred the apartment to their son's family (the third and fourth applicants).\n10.  On 3 June 1992 the Ministry of the Interior brought a rei vindcatio action against the applicants claiming that the 1986 transaction was null and void as being contrary to the relevant provisions on the sale of housing.\n11.  On 7 October 1992 the Sofia District Court held its first hearing in the case. Noting deficiencies in the claim, the court instructed the plaintiff, the Ministry of the Interior, to amend it.\n12.  The Ministry did not comply with that instruction until April 1993, which caused the adjournment of the hearings listed for 2 December 1992 and 4 March 1993.\n13.  The examination of the case thus began on 7 July 1993. Although the fourth applicant had not been properly summoned, her lawyer gave his consent for the hearing to proceed.\n14.  The hearing listed for 3 November 1993 was adjourned, as the Ministry of Finance, whose participation was mandatory in such cases, had not been summoned.\n15.  At a hearing held on 2 February 1994 the Ministry of the Interior requested an adjournment to enable them to submit documents pertaining to the 1986 sale.\n16.  The hearing was resumed on 14 April 1994. The plaintiff introduced an amendment to the claim and sought an order requiring the first two applicants to appear personally and reply to questions regarding their housing situation at the time they had obtained the apartment in question. The court issued that order and adjourned the hearing.\n17.  On 1 June 1994 the first applicant could not be questioned as he had been taken ill. On 8 July 1994 he was questioned by another judge in the town where he was undergoing medical treatment.\n18.  The Sofia District Court resumed the examination of the case on 20 September 1994, when the parties made their final submissions. The court reserved judgment.\n19.  By a judgment of 4 November 1995 the District Court found, inter alia, that the apartment at issue had been larger than permitted by law for a family like that of the first and second applicants. The relevant rules provided that the term “family” could only include the spouses, their minor children and the spouses' parents, if they lived together. At the relevant time, however, the children of the first and the second applicants had reached the age of majority. Their granddaughter could not be considered as a member of the family for the purposes of the housing regulations. Also, it was unclear whether the second applicant's mother had actually lived with the first and second applicants. In these circumstances the family had had two members and had only been entitled to one room. It foll", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3081", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company is a private limited company (osaühing), registered in Estonia.\n5.  On 19 October 1998, T., the lawyer of K., lodged a request with the Saare County Court (maakohus) for securing a claim by K. against A. and P. According to K., she had been in the possession of six shares (corresponding to 50 per cent of the share capital) of Kallas AS, a public limited company, which had been unlawfully transformed into the applicant company, Saarekallas OÜ. The defendants had been entered in the commercial register as members of the management board of the company. K. submitted that P. intended to sell the company's buildings at 26 and 26a Pikk Street in Kuressaare. She requested the court to enter a notation in the Buildings Register prohibiting the disposal of the buildings concerned.\n6.  On the same date the County Court granted the request.\n7.  On 26 October 1998 the applicant company appealed against the interlocutory measure.\n8.  On 23 November 1998 the County Court annulled the interlocutory measure, as the plaintiff had not lodged the claim with the County Court within a one-month period. This decision became final on 4 December 1998.\n9.  On 14 December 1998 the Tallinn Court of Appeal (ringkonnakohus) took a decision concerning the appeal against the interlocutory measure. It noted that, although the appeal was well-founded, there was no need to quash the challenged decision as it had already been annulled.\n10.  On 11 December 1998, K.'s lawyer lodged a claim against the applicant company with the County Court. The plaintiff alleged that she had been a shareholder of Kallas AS, which had been transformed into the applicant company. However, she had not been entered on the list of shareholders of the applicant company after the transformation. She alleged that the P. was about to sell the buildings belonging to the applicant company and that this would be in breach of her rights. She requested that the management board of the applicant company be obliged to transfer to her a share in the value of 5,000 Estonian kroons (EEK) and that a notation prohibiting the disposal of the buildings at 26 and 26a Pikk Street be entered in the Buildings Register.\n11.  On 14 December 1998 the County Court again ordered that a notation prohibiting the disposal of the buildings at 26 and 26a Pikk Street be entered in the Buildings Register in order to secure K.'s claim.\n12.  The County Court scheduled ten preliminary hearings from 30 March 1999 to 9 May 2000. They were adjourned for various reasons: because of the negotiations between the parties to settle the case, the plaintiff's requests to require documents from the applicant company, the parties' or their representatives' absence, the plaintiff's applications to amend the object of the action and to bring additional claims.\n13.  On 9 May 2000 the judge hearing the case made a ruling concerning her withdrawal. The County Court had received copies of several petitions whereby the applicant company's statutory representatives had requested that criminal proceedings be initiated against the judge concerned and the chairperson of the Saare County Court, since they had, allegedly, continuously committed serious crimes against the petitioners, involving denial of human existence, violence and crimes against human rights.\n14.  On 3 July 2000 another judge of the County Court made a ruling concerning her withdrawal, since the representatives of the applicant company had made several petitio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3082", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and is presently serving a prison term in Šibenik Prison.\n6.  Following a series of criminal convictions for drug abuse, the applicant was sent to serve the sentence in Lepoglava State Prison (Kazneni zavod Lepoglava) on 11 November 2002. On 29 July 2004 he was transferred to Gospić Prison.\n7.  While the applicant was serving a prison term in Lepoglava State Prison, the prison authorities instituted disciplinary proceedings against him on an unspecified date. The hearings were held on 10 and 13 October 2003. Both the applicant and his counsel were present at the hearings. The applicant and four witnesses gave evidence in person. In the Head of the Disciplinary Proceedings' decision of 14 October 2003 it was established that on 19 July 2003 the applicant had held closed the door of cell no. 9 and had thus prevented a member of the prison staff from entering the cell and performing his duties. The applicant's conduct was found to be in breach of section 145 § 3(10) of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act (Zakon o izvršavanju kazne zatvora) and he was sentenced to seven days' solitary confinement suspended for three months. The decision was served on the applicant on 17 October 2003 at 2.45 p.m. It was also served on his counsel on an unspecified date. The applicant's counsel lodged an appeal against the decision on Monday, 20 October 2003.\n8.  In a decision of 27 October 2003 the Varaždin County Court judge responsible for the execution of sentences declared the appeal inadmissible as being out of time. The judge held that the time-limit for an appeal was forty-eight hours and that the time-limit had expired on 19 October 2003 at 2.45 p.m. despite the fact that this day had been a Sunday. The time-limit could not be extended to the first working day, since it had been fixed in hours.\n9.  During his stay in Gospić Prison the prison authorities opened disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. The prison authorities found that on 16 August 2004 the applicant had attempted to smuggle illegal drugs into the prison via a letter sent to him by his girlfriend, which constituted a disciplinary offence under section 145 (3)(11) of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act. In his decision of 2 November 2004 the Head of Disciplinary Proceedings imposed on the applicant a disciplinary measure consisting of a restriction on his movement inside the prison and frequent contacts with the outside world for a period of three months, including a ban on receiving postal parcels, starting from 2 November 2004.\n10.  In an appeal of 16 November 2004 the applicant, inter alia, alleged that he had not attended the final hearing before the prison disciplinary authorities because his lawyer had not been present. The applicant also alleged that the notes of that hearing had not been served on him. He further stated that his counsel would elaborate on these issues in a separate appeal. On 16 November 2004 counsel lodged a separate appeal whereby he contested the findings of the applicant's guilt and the severity of the disciplinary measure imposed. On 18 November 2004 the Gospić County Court judge responsible for the execution of sentences dismissed the appeal. The decision analysed in some detail the evidence presented in the disciplinary proceedings but made no mention of the procedural defects complained of by the applicant.\n11.  The applicant submitted that he had firstly been put in cell no. 5 in Unit 1. However, later o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3083", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1969 and his home address is in Svetliy village, Moldova. He is currently serving a sentence in prison UY-400/5 in the town of Donskoy (Tula Region) Russia.\n8.  On 16 September 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for robbery.\n9.  In his initial submissions the applicant stated that he had been arrested on 16 September 1998. After the application was notified to the respondent Government, however, he said that he had in fact been arrested on 29 August 1998. He further alleged that he had been beaten by police officers, both on his arrest and on 19 September 1998. According to the applicant, on 22 September 1998 he had been taken by car by two police officers, purportedly in connection with the investigation, to a forest where he was forced out of the car, hung by handcuffs from a tree and given a beating. The officers had then put a plastic bag over his head, removing it only when he started to suffocate, and forced him to confess to the offence. Then he had been given a further beating and had passed out. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in the boot of the car which was approaching the remand prison. The applicant submitted that the police officers had ruptured one of his kidneys and broken five ribs and his nose.\n10.  The Government submitted that on 18 September 1998 the applicant had been placed in a temporary detention centre in Naro-Fominsk pursuant to a warrant for his administrative arrest. He had been released on 24 September 1998 but rearrested the same day on suspicion of robbery.\n11.  On 27 September 1998 an order was made for his detention as a preventive measure. According to the applicant, he received a further beating from police officers on that date.\n12.  On 9 October 1998 the applicant was transferred to remand prison IZ-49/4 in Mozhaysk. During a medical examination conducted the same day he complained about pain in his groin which he ascribed to the beating received in the temporary detention centre a month before. The doctor stated that owing to the time that had elapsed since the alleged assault no traces of injury could be found.\n13.  On 4 December 1998 the Prosecutor's Office refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant's complaint of 21 October 1998 on the ground that there was no indication of a crime having been committed. The decision stated:\n“On 26 October 1998 the Prosecutor's Office received an application from [Mr] Mironov, who alleged that [investigating] officials had exerted physical and moral pressure on him as a result of which he had incriminated himself.\nThe written statement of the head of the Naro-Fominsk temporary detention centre indicates that on 9 October 1998 [Mr] Mironov complained about pain in the left side of his back. However, the examination revealed no injuries. On 4 November 1998 he complained of a headache caused by a car accident. From [the statement] it follows that from 18 September to 9 October 1998 [Mr] Mironov made no complaints concerning his health.\nInvestigator [V.] stated that he had instituted criminal proceedings against [Mr] Mironov [on charges of robbery] on 16 October 1998. He could not remember who had effected the arrest. An identification parade had been held and other investigative actions taken on the same day. [Mr] Mironov had voluntarily made statements concerning the circumstances of the case. He had changed his statements after he was transferred to remand priso", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3085", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Velika Gorica.\n5.  The applicant's husband, A.B., died on 13 October 1997. In the inheritance proceedings after her husband's death the applicant and their daughter were declared the only heirs, and A.B.'s estate was distributed between them in equal parts by a decision of the Velika Gorica Municipal Court of 10 November 1997.\n6.  However, on 29 November 1997 K.D. brought a civil action in the Velika Gorica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici) against the applicant and her daughter, claiming that he was A.B.'s illegitimate son and seeking one third of A.B.'s estate.\n7.  On 27 February 1998 the applicant lodged a counterclaim seeking firstly that K.D. be declared unsuitable to inherit and secondly that her personal property acquired during her marriage to A.B. be excluded from their joint matrimonial property and exempted from A.B.'s estate. In respect of the latter, she argued that, since she herself and her daughter were the only heirs known to her and were also living together, she had not sought to have her personal property acquired during her marriage to A.B. excluded from their joint property and exempted from A.B.'s estate in the course of the inheritance proceedings because the only parties to those proceedings had been herself and her daughter, with whom she had been on good terms and who was also the applicant's only heir. Therefore, she had seen no reason to divide her property from her daughter's, bearing in mind that the establishing of her separate property might be a lengthy and costly undertaking.\n8.  At a hearing held on 16 June 1998 the applicant made her statement, the relevant parts of which read as follows:\n“... the defendant states that in 1968 a woman with a small child attacked her in the street and started to insult her. When she came home she asked her husband about the woman and he told her that it had been his past and that she had nothing to do with it ... he also told her that a paternity claim had been lodged against him in a court of law, but that he had not been the father of the child ...\nThe defendant states that she had no knowledge of the Zagreb County Court judgment no. P2-2954/65 [establishing her husband's paternity of the plaintiff] ... and that during his illness her husband had never even hinted that he had had any other child other than their daughter Jadranka ...”\n9.  In its judgment of 25 May 1999 the Velika Gorica Municipal Court upheld K.D.'s claim and declared the applicant's counterclaim inadmissible. It can be seen from the judgment that no arguments concerning the merits of the applicant's counterclaim had been heard before the court. The court found that the applicant had been prevented from seeking the exemption of her personal property from the inheritance because she had failed to file an objection to that effect in the course of the inheritance proceedings. The relevant parts of the first-instance judgment read as follows:\n“... the [applicant's] counterclaim ... in the part seeking that her property rights be established over the estate which was subject to the inheritance proceedings in respect of the late Ante Biondić, is not admissible.\nIt is undisputed between the parties that the inheritance proceedings were conducted in respect of the late Ante Biondić and that a decision on inheritance no. O-522/97, identifying the inheritance and the heirs of the late Ante Biondić, was adopted and became final on 10 November 1999.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3086", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant a Russian limited liability company having its registered office in Irkutsk.\n6.  On 26 August 1997 a limited liability company PKG “SVL” (“the SVL company”) signed a fuel supply agreement with the Primorskiy Regional Department of Housing Maintenance and Fuel Supplies (Департамент по жилищно-коммунальному хозяйству и топливным ресурсам администрации Приморского края, hereinafter “the housing department”).\n7.  As the housing department did not pay for the fuel, the SVL company sued it for arrears and penalty.\n8.  On 23 July 1998 the Commercial Court of the Primorskiy Region awarded the SVL company 8,701,895.73 Russian roubles (RUB) in arrears and RUB 6,330,764.07 in penalty against the housing department.\n9.  On 22 April 1999 the Commercial Court of the Primorskiy Region ordered that the housing department pay the SVL company an additional penalty of RUB 2,958,526.20.\n10.  On an unspecified date the housing department paid the SVL company RUB 4, 351,143.95.\n11.  On 20 January 2000 the Commercial Court of the Primorskiy Region awarded the SVL company RUB 3,907,856.05 by way of penalty against the housing department.\n12.  The SVL company submitted three writs of execution to the bailiffs’ service. The bailiffs opened joint enforcement proceedings. They established that the housing department owed in total RUB 9,882,908.24 to the SVL company.\n13.  On 8 October 2000 the SVL company sold the debt to the applicant company. The bailiffs recognized the applicant company as the successor of the SVL company in the enforcement proceedings.\n14.  On 8 June 2001 the prosecutor’s office of the Leninskiy District of Vladivostok opened criminal proceedings against persons unknown on suspicion that the writs of execution had been a forgery. On 16 July 2001 the writs were taken away from the bailiffs and attached to the criminal case-file.\n15.  On 19 December 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings. On 27 March 2003 the Commercial Court of the Primorskiy Region held that the decision of 19 December 2001 had been unlawful and quashed it.\n16.  By letter of 5 November 2003, the Ministry of the Internal Affairs informed the applicant company that the criminal case into forgery of the writs of execution had been opened unlawfully. On an unspecified date in 2004 the criminal proceedings were discontinued and the writs of execution were returned to the applicant company.\n17.  On 18 October 2004 the Federal Commercial Court of the Far-Eastern Circuit changed the debtor and ordered that the outstanding debt of RUB 9,882,908.24 should be payable by the Primorskiy Regional Government.\n18.  On 18 November 2004 the bailiffs’ service opened enforcement proceedings against the Primorskiy Regional Government.\n19.  On 23 December 2004 the Commercial Court of the Primorskiy Region allowed the debtor’s request to stay the enforcement proceedings until 1 May 2005. On 19 May 2005 the Federal Commercial Court of the Far-Eastern Circuit upheld the decision on appeal.\n20.  On 26 February 2006 the applicant company withdrew the writs of execution from the bailiffs’ service. On 23 March 2006 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued and the writs were returned to the applicant company. On the same day it received RUB 221,826.81.\n21.  On 22 June 2006 the applicant company submitted the writs to the financial department of the Primorskiy Regional Government. On 20 September 2006 it received RUB 9,661,081.43.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3087", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Between 5 July and 27 December 1991 the applicant worked as a manager of a joint stock company (“the employer”). On 7 February 1992 he was dismissed by the employer’s disciplinary commission, a decision which was confirmed by the executive board on 17 March 1992.\n5. On 23 March 1992 the applicant brought an action against the employer to annul his dismissal and for his reinstatement as a manager.\n6. On 16 June 1992 the then Štip Municipal Court (Општински Суд Штип) dismissed his claim.\n7. On 25 January 1993 the then Štip District Court (Окружен Суд Штип) upheld his appeal of 19 November 1992 and remitted the case for a re-examination.\n8.  Of nine hearings scheduled before the first-instance court, none was adjourned at the applicant’s request.\n9. On 29 December 1993 the then Municipal Court dismissed his claim. That decision was upheld by then District Court’s decision of 30 March 1994 dismissing his appeal of 10 February 1994.\n10. On 30 May 1994 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (ревизија) which was granted by the Supreme Court’s decision of 20 December 1995. On 22 February 1996 the then District Court again upheld the first-instance decision of 29 December 1993.\n11. On 17 April 1996 the applicant submitted a fresh appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court. On 20 November 1997 the Supreme Court quashed both the first- and second-instance decisions and remitted the case for a renewed examination. It ruled that the lower courts had erroneously established that the employer’s meeting of shareholders (собрание на акционери) and the strike board (штрајкувачки одбор) had discharged the applicant as the employer’s manager prior to the disciplinary commission having given the dismissal decision (see paragraph 4 above). According to the minutes of their meeting of 27 December 1991, they had only voted against him, but had left the matter to be decided by the disciplinary commission.\n12. On 29 May 1998 the applicant requested the removal of the first-instance judge for bias. On 3 June 1998 the President of the Štip Court of First Instance dismissed that request as unsubstantiated.\n13. According to the information submitted by the parties, none of the six hearings fixed by the first-instance court was adjourned at the applicant’s request.\n14. On 17 December 1998 the Štip Court of First Instance annulled the 1992 dismissal order finding that it was not given by an authorised body. However, it dismissed the applicant’s claim for his reinstatement to a post corresponding to his qualifications since bankruptcy proceedings had been meanwhile launched against the employer. The employer’s receiver (стечаен управник) could decide the reinstatement issue.\n15. On 29 December 1999 the Court of Appeal quashed this decision as incoherent and ordered a retrial arguing that the lower court had erred in establishing the facts concerning the body competent to decide on the dismissal.\n16. After three hearings being fixed, on 24 April 2001 the Štip Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s claims finding that: he was discharged as the employer’s manager by the executive board on 27 December 1991; under an application for disciplinary proceedings submitted by the strike board, the newly appointed manager requested the disciplinary commission to dismiss him for having committed serious work-related violations, which was actually done by the commission’s decision of 7 February 1992; and the executive board dismissed his objection by de", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3088", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in the town of Obninsk in the Kaluga Region.\n6.  The applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a consequence, he was entitled to disability settlement structured in monthly payments.\n7.  The applicant sued the Obninsk Pension Fund (Управление Пенсионного Фонда РФ по г. Обнинску) for increase in the monthly payments and for arrears. On 14 October 1999 the Obninskiy District Court of the Kaluga Region increased the monthly payments to 15,749.44 Russian roubles (RUB) and awarded the arrears in the sum of RUB 295,381.72. On 13 April 2000 the Kaluga Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n8.  In 2003 the applicant sued the Obninsk Town Social Security Service (“the social security service”) for arrears and increase in the monthly payments. On 28 April 2003 the Obninsk Town Court awarded the applicant a lump sum of RUB 208,427.40 in arrears and increased the monthly payments up to RUB 30,000. On 7 July 2003 the Kaluga Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it became enforceable.\n9.  On 11 December 2003 the applicant received the lump sum. It follows from a certificate from the social security service that on 9 November 2004 it owed the applicant RUB 114,004.48 in monthly payments.\n10.  By letter of 29 April 2005, the Kaluga Regional prosecutor's office informed the applicant that the social security service's debt amounted to RUB 171,000.\n11.  On 21 March 2006 the Obninsk Town Court quashed the judgment of 28 April 2003 at the applicant's request on account of a newly-discovered circumstance and remitted the case for a new examination.\n12.  On 5 March 2007 the Obninsk Town Court recalculated the amount of the monthly payments due from 2002 and awarded the applicant RUB 3,715,846.50 in arrears for the period from 2002 to 2006 against the Ministry of Finance. It also increased the monthly payments to RUB 129,395.22 starting from 1 January 2007. On 3 May 2007 the Kaluga Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n13.  On 19 February 2004 the Obninsk Town Court allowed the applicant's action against the Kaluga Regional Office of the Ministry of Finance (Министерство финансов РФ в лице Управления федерального казначейства по Калужской области) and awarded him a lump sum of RUB 6,838.57, monthly food allowance of RUB 676.52 and annual payments of RUB 1127.53. On 19 April 2004 the Kaluga Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n14.  On 15 May 2004 the Obninsk Town Court sent the writ of execution to the applicant.\n15.  In accordance with the Instruction on payment of social benefits issued by the Ministry of Finance on 28 January 2005, the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the social security service.\n16.  On 7 November 2005 the social security service returned the writ of execution to the applicant and advised him to apply to the Kaluga Regional Office of the Ministry of Finance.\n17.  The applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Kaluga Regional Office of the Ministry of Finance. By letter of 11 November 2005, the Kaluga Regional Office of the Ministry of Finance refused to pay and referred the applicant to the Ministry of Finance.\n18.  On 17 January 2006 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance.\n19.  On 3 April 2006 the Oninsk Town Court quashed the judgment of 19 February 2004 at the applicant's request on account of a newly-discovered circumstance and remitted the case.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3089", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1958. Formerly a resident of Grozny, Chechnya, he is currently living in Ingushetia.\n7.  The facts of the case are partially in dispute between the parties. Their submissions are summarised below in Part A. A summary of the documents submitted by the parties is set out in Part B and a summary of other relevant documents in Part C below.\n8.  The applicant is married and has three children. He and his family lived in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny, in a settlement referred to by the local residents as Karpinka. The applicant submitted the following account of the events.\n9.  On 23 January 2000 the applicant and his extended family were in the basement of a neighbours' house at Krasnovodskaya Street, because their house at 21 Volodarskaya Street had been burnt down. At approximately 2 p.m. a group of servicemen of the troops of the Ministry of the Interior came to the basement to carry out an identity check. The applicant and seven other men from the same basement and from a nearby building were rounded up by the soldiers and taken to the garages in the neighbourhood. The applicant's wife and sisters went there and unsuccessfully sought his release.\n10.  Later that day the applicant and other detainees were taken to the encampment of a tank division near a place called Solyonaya Balka, situated 2-3 kilometres from Karpinka. The applicant and other detainees were made to sit on the ground near the tanks. The soldiers threatened to kill them in retribution for the death of General Mikhail Malofeyev, who had been killed in Grozny several days earlier. The applicant and others were briefly spoken to by General Troshev, the military commander of the Russian forces in Chechnya, who was at the encampment to collect the General's body. He told them that after the identity check, and on condition that their documents were in order, they would be released.\n11.  However, later that day the applicant and other detainees were placed together in an anti-tank pit in the ground in the open field and left there overnight. The soldiers beat and kicked the applicant and other detainees, and while they were in the pit, threw rocks and poured cold water over them. The temperature that night was about minus 3 degrees Celcius. Around midnight the applicant and other detainees were allowed to sit near a campfire and were given some food.\n12.  On 24 January 2000 the detainees were driven to the Khankala military base, the headquarters of the United Group Alignment (UGA) in Chechnya. They were ordered into a small lorry used for transporting prisoners (“avtozak”). The applicant was hit by a rifle butt by a soldier when boarding the lorry. Upon arrival at Khankala, they were moved into another lorry where the applicant spent approximately twenty-four hours.\n13.  According to the Government, the applicant was apprehended on 23 January 2000 under suspicion of having participated in an attack on federal servicemen which had occurred on 4 October 1999 in the village of Chervlenaya, in the Shelkovskoy District of Chechnya. As a result of the attack, fifteen servicemen were killed and twenty-eight were wounded. The attack was investigated under criminal case file no. 14/03/0547-99/49064.\n14.  The Government submitted that the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment between 23 and 25 January 2000 could not be verified, because all records had been destroyed and because it was impossible to identify and question the military service", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3090", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  Details of the applicants’ names and places of residence are set out in the Annex.\n12.  According to documents available on the website of the Roma and Travellers Division of the Council of Europe, the Roma originated from the regions situated between north-west India and the Iranian plateau. The first written traces of their arrival in Europe date back to the fourteenth century. Today there are between eight and ten million Roma living in Europe. They are to be found in almost all Council of Europe member States and indeed, in some central and east European countries, they represent over 5% of the population. The majority of them speak Romany, an Indo-European language that is understood by a very large number of Roma in Europe, despite its many variants. In general, Roma also speak the dominant language of the region in which they live, or even several languages.\n13.  Although they have been in Europe since the fourteenth century, often they are not recognised by the majority of society as a fully fledged European people and they have suffered throughout their history from rejection and persecution. This culminated in their attempted extermination by the Nazis, who considered them an inferior race. As a result of centuries of rejection, many Roma communities today live in very difficult conditions, often on the fringe of society in the countries where they have settled, and their participation in public life is extremely limited.\n14.  In the Czech Republic the Roma have national-minority status and, accordingly, enjoy the special rights associated therewith. The National Minorities Commission of the Government of the Czech Republic, a governmental consultative body without executive power, has responsibility for defending the interests of the national minorities, including the Roma.\nAs to the number of Roma currently living in the Czech Republic, there is a discrepancy between the official, census-based, statistics and the estimated number. According to the latter, which is available on the website of the Minorities Commission of the Government of the Czech Republic, the Roma community now numbers between 150,000 and 300,000 people.\n15.  According to information supplied by the Czech Government, the special schools (zvláštní školy) were established after the First World War for children with special needs, including those suffering from a mental or social handicap. The number of children placed in these schools continued to rise (from 23,000 pupils in 1960 to 59,301 in 1988). Owing to the entrance requirements of the primary schools (základní školy) and the resulting selection process, prior to 1989 most Roma children attended special schools.\n16.  Under the terms of the Schools Act (Law no. 29/1984), the legislation applicable in the present case, special schools were a category of specialised school (speciální školy) and were intended for children with mental deficiencies who were unable to attend “ordinary” or specialised primary schools. Under the Act, the decision to place a child in a special school was taken by the head teacher on the basis of the results of tests to measure the child’s intellectual capacity carried out in an educational psychology centre and was subject to the consent of the child’s legal guardian.\n17.  Following the switch to the market economy in the 1990s, a number of changes were made to the system of special schools in the Czech Republic. These changes also affected the education of Roma pupils. In 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3091", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Tirana.\n6.  The relevant domestic proceedings concern an application for the restitution of land.\n7.  In pre-war Albania the applicant’s late father had owned a bakery in Tirana and a plot of land measuring 6,000 square metres In 1960 the Albanian authorities demolished the building and expropriated the land.\n8.  On 27 September 1994 the Tirana District Court restored the applicant’s property rights over his late father’s property pursuant to the Property Restitution and Compensation Act 1993 (hereinafter, the Property Act). The decision became final and binding at the latest on 11 October 1994.\n9.  As it was unable to return the original property, the Tirana City Council decided on 30 April 1996 that the applicant had a right to receive compensation in kind for the original property. It allocated him a piece of land situated two kilometres from the centre of Tirana and measuring 5,000 sq. m. The land was divided into two plots measuring, respectively, 1,650 sq. m. (hereinafter, the smaller plot) and 3,350 sq. m. (hereinafter, the larger plot).\n10.  By decision no. 621 of 20 June 1996 the Tirana Commission on the Restitution of Properties and Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the “Tirana Commission”) upheld the Tirana City Council’s decision.\n11.  On 15 August 1996 the applicant’s title to the land was entered in the Tirana Land Register.\n12.  In 1996 and 1997 a series of possession orders concerning the two plots of land were issued by the Tirana City Council and the Tirana District Court. However, the applicant was unable to recover possession from the occupants.\n13.  On 10 September 1997 he concluded a preliminary contract to sell the smaller plot.\n14.  F.Z., a former member of an agricultural cooperative, had previously been granted under Law no. 7501 of 19 July 1991 the right to use the smaller of the two plots allocated to the applicant.\n15.  On an unspecified date she brought a civil action in the Tirana District Court claiming full title over the smaller plot under Law no. 8053 of 21 December 1995. She also asked the District Court to set aside the Commission’s decision of 20 June 1996 in so far as it related to that plot.\n16.  On 10 October 1997 the Tirana District Court set aside the Commission’s decision relating to the smaller plot on the grounds that the Commission had first to award compensation to the user and to the former owner of the land.\n17.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Tirana Court of Appeal claiming full title to the plot. He argued that, when the Commission reached its decision, the plot was State property that was available for allocation to former owners in lieu of compensation. He added that F.Z. was merely a user of the land at the time.\n18.  On 2 June 1998 the Tirana Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal, quashed the District Court’s decision as being defective in law and upheld the validity of the Commission’s decision concerning the applicant’s title.\n19.  On 17 December 1998 the Supreme Court (Administrative Division) deciding on the merits, upheld the applicant’s rights over the smaller plot of land that had been allocated as compensation for the original property. The judgment became final and binding on an unspecified date.\n20.  On an unspecified date, while the enforcement proceedings were in progress, F.Z. lodged an application with the Supreme Court for supervisory review (Rekurs në interes të ligjit) of the merits of the Sup", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3092", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Rybnik.\n5.  On 24 October 2002 he was arrested and charged with armed robbery. On 26 October 2002 the Rybnik District Court remanded the applicant in custody on reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery. The District Court had particular regard to evidence provided by an anonymous witness. It also held that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings justified the applicant's detention, given the severity of the anticipated penalty. It further considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would interfere with the proceedings.\n6.  On 26 November 2002 the Gliwice Regional Court upheld the detention order.\n7.  On 14 January 2003 the Gliwice Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 22 April 2003. It relied on the same grounds as originally invoked. It added that since new witnesses were being sought the investigation could not be completed within three months.\n8.  The applicant appealed against that decision. He submitted that the evidence in the case was insufficient to charge him with armed robbery and contested the Regional Court's finding that he would obstruct the proceedings.\n9.  On 19 February 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. It found that the circumstances of the case and the evidence gathered to date did not give substance to the risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings. However, it concurred with the Regional Court that the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question and the severity of the anticipated penalty justified his detention.\n10.  In the meantime, on 6 February 2003 the applicant was additionally charged with incitement to armed robbery.\n11.  On 4 April 2003 the prosecution made a severance order with a view to expediting the proceedings, and thereafter one of the three suspects was to be tried separately.\n12.  On 7 April 2003 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gliwice Regional Court against the applicant and one of his accomplices. The applicant was charged with armed robbery and incitement to armed robbery.\n13.  On 15 April 2003 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 22 October 2003. That decision was upheld on appeal on 14 May 2003.\n14.  On 18 June 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully requested the trial court to refer the case back to the prosecution with a view to supplementing the evidence.\n15.  On 14 October 2003 the Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 22 January 2004. It found that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would interfere with the proceedings, having regard to the nature of the charges and the severity of the anticipated penalty. On the same date the trial court released the applicant's co-accused under police supervision. It noted that the co-accused, unlike the applicant, had pleaded guilty and had made full statements. Thus, in the court's view, the co-accused's release was justified on account of the above considerations and the fact that there was no risk that he would obstruct the proceedings. That decision was upheld on appeal on 12 November 2003.\n16.  On 20 January 2004 the trial court ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 22 April 2004. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it noted that the trial could not be terminated earlier due to the volume of evidence to be heard. On 11 February 2004 the Court of Appe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3093", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Chişinău. He is an engineer. In 1997 he was the head of a Moldovan State-owned power distribution company called Moldtranselectro.\n6.  The background to this case lies in a series of complex contractual arrangements made in 1997 concerning importation of electricity from Ukraine to Moldova and involving, in addition to Moldtranselectro, a Ukrainian State-owned power distribution company, a Ukrainian private company and a Moldovan private company called Oferta Plus (see Oferta Plus SRL v. Moldova, no. 14385/04, § 7, 19 December 2006). The agreement to which Moldtranselectro was a party provided, inter alia, that Oferta Plus would pay the Ukrainian private company for the electricity supplied to Moldtranselectro in United States dollars (USD) and would later be paid back by Moldtranselectro in Moldovan lei (MDL) at the official exchange rate on the day of payment.\n7.  On unspecified dates between 1997 and 1998 Oferta Plus paid more than USD 33,000,000 for the electricity supplied to Moldtranselectro from Ukraine.\n8.  On an unspecified date Moldtranselectro paid Oferta Plus MDL 189,869,277.\n9.  On 3 March 1998 the Government of Moldova adopted Decision no. 243 by which the Ministry of Finance was authorised to issue nominative Treasury bonds (“Treasury bonds”) in favour of private companies for the payment of debts arising from the importation of electricity supplied to state institutions.\n10.  On 25 March 1998 Moldtranselectro wrote a letter to the Ministry of Finance asking it to issue a Treasury bond with a value of MDL 20,000,000 in favour of Oferta Plus. The letter was signed by the applicant in his capacity as head of Moldtranselectro.\n11.  On 27 March 1998 the Ministry of Finance issued a Treasury bond valued at MDL 20,000,000 (USD 4,240,702 as of 27 March 1998) in favour of Oferta Plus, payable by 10 July 1998. The Treasury bond provided that Oferta Plus had to present it to the Ministry of Finance at least ten banking days before the date of payment. It also provided that Moldtranselectro had to present, by that date, to the Ministry of Finance, documents proving the supply of electricity to state institutions.\n12.  Oferta Plus presented the Treasury bond to the Ministry of Finance ten banking days before the date of payment. However, the latter refused to pay, on the ground that Moldtranselectro had failed to submit evidence concerning the payment by Oferta Plus for the imported electricity.\n13.  In October 1998 Oferta Plus initiated civil proceedings against both the Ministry of Finance and Moldtranselectro. The Ministry of Finance defended the action on the grounds set out in paragraph 12 above while Moldtranselectro declined all responsibility.\n14.  On 27 October 1999 the Chisinau Economic Court found in favour of Oferta Plus and confirmed its right to be paid MDL 20,000,000 by the Ministry of Finance, in accordance with the Treasury bond. It based its judgment on the finding that Oferta Plus had paid for energy supplied to Moldtranselectro from Ukraine in accordance with the agreement between them and that that energy had been consumed by state institutions. The court also decided to absolve Moldtranselectro of any responsibility.\n15.  Since an appeal by the Ministry of Finance was dismissed on 25 November 1999 for failure to pay court fees, a warrant for the enforcement of the judgment of 27 October 1999 was issued to Oferta Plus in November 1999.\n16.  On 14 February 2000 Ofert", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3094", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lived in Puhoi.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant deposited money in three different accounts in the Savings Bank ('the Bank'), which was, during Soviet times, State-owned.\n8.  In 1994 Parliament adopted Decision no. 201-XIII on the indexing of citizens' savings in the Savings Bank of Moldova” (“the 1994 decision”) whereby persons who had reached the age of 60 by 1 January 1994 and who had savings in their accounts in the Bank on 2 January 1992 were entitled to recover a part of their deposits at the rate of one Moldovan leu (MDL) for one Soviet rouble for the first thousand roubles deposited in each account.\n9.  On 16 February 1995 the Government adopted Decision no. 108, whereby it created a Commission charged with establishing the amount of compensation to be transferred by the Ministry of Finance (“the Ministry”) by the 25th day of each month to the Bank for compensation purposes, on the basis of the allocations made for that purpose in the State budget for the relevant year.\n10.  The applicant had more than a thousand roubles in each of his three accounts in the Bank and he claimed accordingly MDL 3,000 (the equivalent of 750 United States dollars (USD)). On 7 June 2000 he received MDL 570 after the Ministry of Finance (“the Ministry”) transferred money to the Bank for compensation purposes. He continued to request the remaining amount and to complain to various authorities.\n11.  On 8 November 2001 he initiated court proceedings against the Bank and the Ministry to recover the remaining amount and seeking compensation for the late payment (since the value of the money was depreciating because of high inflation) and for non-pecuniary damage caused by having to wait for the payment (the applicant was recognised as second-degree disabled and had a monthly State pension of MDL 89). Both defendants accepted that the applicant had a right to obtain the outstanding amount of compensation, and stated that the delay in paying was due to the failure to include in the State budget the allocations for that purpose. According to the Ministry, during 1995-1997 it transferred to the Bank 26% of the money necessary to pay the compensation in full to all those affected by the 1994 decision. However, the State budget did not allocate any further funds during 1998-2000, while an additional 7% of the total amount was allocated in the budget for the year 2001. The applicant did not receive any compensation in 2001.\n12.  On 4 March 2002 the Centru District Court partly accepted the applicant's claim. It found that the main responsibility for the delay in paying his outstanding compensation lay with the Ministry, which had not transferred the necessary money to the Bank. It ordered the Bank to pay the applicant MDL 266 and the Ministry to pay him MDL 2,163, which constituted the remaining amount due under the 1994 decision (a total of MDL 2,429, or EUR 210 at the time). The court rejected the claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage because there was no law dealing with such claims.\n13.  In an appeal, the applicant expressly requested the court, on the basis of Article 4 of the Constitution, to apply directly Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention as regards the absence of domestic remedies.\n14.  On 7 May 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the judgment of 4 March 2002, rep", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3095", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1949, 1953, 1919 and 1957 respectively. The first two applicants live in Hagimus; Mr V. Gusovschi lives in Tighina and Mr A. Gusovschi is interned in a psychiatric hospital in Chişinău. Ms V. Gusovschi is a second-degree invalid and Mr A. Gusovschi a first-degree invalid.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicants have been in conflict with various local and regional authorities and with their neighbours.\n8.  In September 1999 the applicants' house was disconnected from the natural gas system owing to their failure to pay the full price of the gas used. On 29 May 2000 Mr S. Gusovschi initiated court proceedings against the system's operator “Moldova-Gaz” and the Prefect of Tighina County seeking the re-connection of the house to the gas system and payment of damages.\n9.  On 26 December 2000 the Tighina Regional Court accepted his claims. On 18 April 2001 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and ordered a re-hearing of the case because one of the defendants had not been summoned to court.\n10.  It appears that the courts allowed the other three applicants to join Mr S. Gusovschi's case as co-plaintiffs.\n11.  On 28 January 2002 the Tighina Regional Court struck the case out of its list because of the failure by the applicants to appear at several of its hearings.\n12.  On 14 November 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and ordered a re-hearing of the case, finding that the applicants had not been summoned to court and that the proceedings had been protracted.\n13.  On an unknown date the applicants asked for the transfer of the case to another court. On 6 February 2003 the Tighina Regional Court forwarded the request to the Supreme Court of Justice, which rejected it on 5 March 2003.\n14.  On 17 March 2004 the Tighina Court of Appeal rejected their claims as unfounded. On 19 May 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed that judgment and ordered a full re-hearing of the case. On 8 September 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice refused to re-examine its judgment of 19 March 2004.\n15.  On 27 October 2004 the applicants sought the removal of one of the judges of the Tighina Court of Appeal. On 9 November 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected this complaint.\n16.  On 26 January 2005 the Tighina Court of Appeal rejected most of the applicants' complaints, finding that they had persistently refused to submit the necessary documents to the defendant in order to allow the re-connection to the natural gas system in accordance with the law. Moreover, no evidence had been adduced of any damage caused to the applicants. The court also found that the proceedings had lasted a considerable period of time before the courts and it therefore accepted the applicants' main claim and ordered the re-connection of their house to the natural gas system, subject to the submission of the relevant documents by the applicants.\n17.  On 30 March 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld that judgment, which became final.\n18.  In numerous separate proceedings the applicants requested the opening of criminal investigations against a number of persons, most of them being their neighbours who had allegedly damaged the applicants' property and had attempted to drive them away from the village. Several complaints concerned the alleged failure of the local police, the prosecution and other authorities to react to their complaints about unlawful acts committed by the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3096", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, all siblings, were born in 1921, 1916, 1927, 1928, 1934 and 1943 respectively and live in Kavaja and Durrës, Albania.\n6.  During the communist regime several plots of land and two shops owned by the applicants’ father were confiscated by the authorities without payment of compensation. The property, measuring in total 46,000 sq. m (the land) and 150 sq. m (the shops) (“the relevant property”), was situated in the Kavaja region.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicants lodged an application with the Kavaja Property Restitution and Compensation Commission (Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave – “the Commission”) under the Property Act, seeking to have the relevant property returned to them.\n8.  On 7 June 1995 and 20 September 1996, respectively the Kavaja Commission upheld the applicants’ title as joint owners of two shops and a plot of land measuring 15,500 sq. m. Not being able to restore the relevant property in its entirety, the Commission ruled that 10,000 sq. m of the relevant property was to be returned to the applicants and that they were entitled to compensation, under the Property Act, in respect of the remaining 5,500 sq. m of land and the shops. Moreover, it decided not to rule on the adjacent plot of land measuring 30,500 sq. m, since agricultural property was outside its jurisdiction: rather the District Land Commission was the competent body pursuant to the Land Act (Law no. 7501 of 19 July 1991).\n9.  On an unspecified date, in compliance with the Kavaja Commission’s decision of 20 September 1996, the applicants took possession of the plot of land measuring 10,000 sq. m.\n10.  Notwithstanding the applicants’ requests, to date, the authorities have failed to comply with the parts of the Commission’s decisions of 7 June 1995 and 20 September 1996 relating to the payment of compensation in respect of the shops and the plot of land measuring 5,500 sq. m.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicants lodged an application with the Kavaja Land Commission (“the Land Commission”), attached to the Kavaja Municipality, claiming property rights in respect of the plot of land measuring 30,500 sq. m.\n12.  On 11 November 1998 the Land Commission upheld the property claims of the applicants Sh. Ramadhi, R. Kapedani and R. Ramadhi (“the first three applicants”) and dismissed those of the applicants Xh. Ramadhi, D. Ramadhi and N. Ramadhi (“the last three applicants”) on the ground that the latter were not eligible to claim property rights over agricultural land, in so far as they were not resident in the area where the land was located.\n13.  The first three applicants entered their ownership of the property in the Land Register. According to the ownership certificates, the applicants’ titles nos. 462, 460 and 461 corresponded to the plots of land registered in the Register as nos. 89/15, 89/16 and 89/17 respectively.\n14.  On 7 April 1999 the Land Commission, further to a request by the Ministry of Justice, declared the first three applicants’ titles void on the basis that the decision of 11 November 1998 conflicted with substantive laws.\n15.  On 25 November 1999 the first three applicants initiated proceedings in the Durrës District Court, claiming property rights over the relevant property.\n16.  On 4 February 2000 the Durrës District Court annulled the Land Commission’s decision of 7 April 1999 and ordered the Land Commission to examine de novo the first three applicants’ claim to be given title to the plot of la", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3098", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Ştefan Vodă.\n7.  In March 1999 the applicant's apartment was burgled. The police caught the burglars and recovered most of the stolen goods, which were deposited at the Ştefan Vodă Police Station as evidence.\n8.  In 1999 the applicant's goods were stolen from the police station.\n9. On 24 July 2000 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”), seeking compensation for the stolen goods.\n10.  By a judgment of 26 September 2003 the Căuşeni District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Ministry of the Interior to pay her 183,752 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 11,960 euros (EUR) at the time). The judgment was not appealed against and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable. The District Court issued an enforcement warrant which was received by a Bailiff on 5 November 2003.\n11.  On 26 April 2004 a Bailiff informed the applicant that on 14 November, 25 November, 8 December 2003 and 20 February 2004 the Ministry had been ordered to comply with the judgment. The Bailiff also informed her that administrative proceedings had been instituted against the Minister of the Interior for non-enforcement of the final judgment in favour of the applicant.\n12.  On 27 May 2004 the Ministry informed the applicant that it had not received the enforcement warrant and that the enforcement would be possible only after having received funds for that purpose.\n13.  On 29 December 2004 the applicant received MDL 30,993 (EUR 1,825), on 26 January 2005 she received MDL 7,336 (EUR 450) and on 19 September 2005 she received MDL 72,700 (EUR 4,722). On 13 December 2005 the applicant received the last part of the judgment debt of MDL 72,723 (EUR 4,767).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3099", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Kherson.\n5.  In April 1997 the applicant instituted criminal proceedings against Mr V.S., accusing him of fraud and forgery. She contended that in 1995 she had prepared a notarially recorded power of attorney in his name with an intention to authorize him to sell her apartment. However, she had not handed the original document to him and left for Russia, where she had worked until 1997. Having returned to Kherson, she had learned that Mr V.S. had sold her apartment to a certain Mr D.D., who had subsequently exchanged it for Mrs L.Ch.'s house.\n6.  Subsequently, an expert established that the particular copy of the power of attorney, which had been used by Mr V.S. for concluding the sale agreement, contained the applicant's forged signature.\n7.  On 30 April 1997 the criminal proceedings were suspended, as Mr V.S.'s whereabouts were unknown and he was placed on the national “wanted” list.\n8.  In April 1997 the applicant also instituted civil proceedings against Mrs L.Ch., Mr D.D., and Mr V.S., claiming restitution of the apartment.\n9.  On 30 June 1997 the Suvorovsky District Court of Kherson (Суворовський районний суд м. Херсона) allowed the applicant's claim. This judgment became final.\n10.  On 28 November 1997 the Presidium of the Kherson Regional Court (“the Regional Court”; Херсонський обласний суд)[1] quashed the judgment of 30 June 1997 following a supervisory protest of the Deputy Regional Prosecutor and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n11.  On 30 August 2000 Mr D.D. and Mrs L.Ch. lodged a counterclaim, maintaining that Mr V.S. had been duly authorized to sell the apartment.\n12.  On 5 September 2000 the Suvorovsky Court dismissed the applicant's claim and allowed the counterclaim. It recalled that the applicant had not officially revoked the authorization to sell her apartment, which had remained on the notary register, and so the forgery of a particular copy of the power of attorney had not made the sales agreement null and void. This judgment became final.\n13.  On 18 December 2000 the Regional Court quashed this judgment following a supervisory protest introduced by the Deputy Regional Prosecutor and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n14.  On 15 November 2002 the Suvorovsky Court dismissed the applicant's claim and allowed the counterclaim, having found that it could not invalidate the sales agreement solely on the basis of an expert opinion that a copy of the power of attorney had been forged. The applicant appealed pursuant a newly introduced appeal procedure.\n15.  On 5 March 2003 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. On 17 March 2003 the applicant appealed in cassation.\n16.  On 19 November 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation.\n17.  In the course of the proceedings, the first-instance court scheduled some fifty hearings. Some twenty of them were adjourned on account of the defendants' absences. Some seven adjournments were attributable to the applicant's absences or her requests for adjournments. Four hearings were adjourned on account of both parties' absence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3100", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Šentrupert.\n6.  On 25 August 1992 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 14 April 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 7,682,846 Slovenian tolars (approximately 32,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nOn 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia.\nBetween 12 October and 27 December 1994 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and twice requested the court to set a date for a hearing.\nOn 1 January 1995 the reform of the Slovenian judicial system took effect and the case was transferred to the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju).\nBetween 2 November 1995 and 28 April 1997 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions. In the same period he also made two requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nTwo hearings were held, on 29 November 1995 and 9 June 1997.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last-mentioned hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 1 July 1997.\n8.  On 11 July 1997 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodiče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 10 June 1998 the court allowed the applicant's appeal in part, dismissed ZT's appeal and remitted the case in part to the first-instance court for new fact-finding and reassessment of evidence. The judgment was served on the applicant on 5 October 1998.\n9. O 30 October and 2 November 1998 respectively, the applicant and ZT lodged appeals on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 28 December 1999 the Supreme Court allowed ZT's appeal on points of law in part and dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court upheld the judgment of the second-instance court in part remitting the case to the first-instance court. The judgment was served on the applicant on 10 February 2000.\n10. Between 15 May and 13 December 2000 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions with the Celje District Court as regards the remitted part of the case.\nThree hearings were held between 5 June 2000 and 15 January 2001.\nDuring the renewed proceedings, the court appointed another medical expert.\nAt the last-mentioned hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 9 April 2001.\n11.  On 20 April 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. He also requested that the first-instance court correct its judgment.\nOn 25 April 2001 the latter corrected its judgment of 15 January 2001.\nOn 23 June 2001 the applicant appealed against the corrected judgment to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 23 October 2002 the Celje Higher Court dismissed all the appeals. The judgment was served on the applicant on 27 November 2002.\n12.  On 3 December 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court.\nOn 11 November 2003 the court dismissed the applicant's appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 5 December 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3101", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1961. She was a resident of the village of Alkhan-Kala (also known as Yermolovka) in the Grozny District, and currently lives in Grozny, Chechnya. 1.  Background to the case\nThe applicant and her husband, Mr Sultan Isayev, born in 1961, lived in the village of Alkhan-Kala in the Grozny District. They have four children. The applicant is a bookkeeper and her husband was a welder by profession. He served in the Soviet army and became a commander of a tank platoon. From the middle of the 1990s he worked in construction as a bricklayer, and as a mechanic. In the 1990s Mr Sultan Isayev underwent two surgical operations, on his bowels and for appendicitis, and was in need of another one, on his spine, but could not afford it.\n8.  In early October 1999 the Russian Government launched a counter-terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic.\n9.  In November 1999 the applicant and her family went to Ingushetia, where they stayed in the village of Voznesenskoye. Mr Sultan Isayev's parents remained in Alkhan-Kala in their house at 65 Zheleznodorozhnaya Street.\n10.  On 27 April 2001 the applicant's husband returned to Alkhan-Kala to visit his parents and stayed at their house, as he had regularly done before. The applicant and their children remained in Voznesenskoye, and therefore she did not witness the events relating to her husband's arrest.\n11.  On 29 April 2001 the Russian military conducted a special (“sweeping”) operation involving several armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and military helicopters in the village of Alkhan-Kala.\n12.  On 29 April 2001 Mr Sultan Isayev went to visit his parents' neighbours, the Magomadovs, at 63 Zheleznodorozhnaya Street. Together with the owner of the house, they were taking a steam bath in the Magomadovs' bathhouse, a small building located in the courtyard of the house.\n13.  Mr Sultan Isayev's father was in his house at 65 Zheleznodorozhnaya Street, when at about 1.30 p.m. he saw around eight or ten heavily armed soldiers in the street. He was standing at the open gates of his house and asked them if they wanted to check inside. In reply they ordered him to get inside and fired in front of his feet. He obeyed and noticed that the soldiers then proceeded to the Magomadovs' house down the street, where his son was. Mr Sultan Isayev's father described the events as follows:\n“Having entered my house, I began watching through the window into the street. Two APCs drove up to the same house where my son was bathing... About ten more people came out of the APCs; two of them stayed in the street and the rest went into the courtyard. There were about fifteen people. About half an hour later they came out quickly, and I saw two civilians, that is, the owner of the house, Mr Sherip Magomadov, who was dressed, and my son, who was half-naked, being shoved into the APC.\nIn the hands of a senior [serviceman] I noticed two or three passports. I recognised the dark blue cover of my son's passport among them.\nWhen they drove off, I immediately ran to the house where my son had been, and there I saw the broken door to the bathhouse and my son's clothes – his jumper, shirt, trousers and shoes. The owner of the house wasn't there; things were strewn all over the place, on the floor.”\n14.  The applicant submitted several statements by neighbours who confirmed that about twenty armed soldiers who had arrived in two APCs had burst into the Magomadovs' house and detained the owner and Mr Sultan Isayev, wh", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3102", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in the village of Nikolskoye, the Uglegorskiy District of the Sakhalin Region.\n5.  In August 2000 the applicant’s housing was destroyed as a result of an earthquake. The Administration of the Uglegorskiy District of the Sakhalin Region (“the Administration”) established a list of people who had lost housing in order to provide them with housing certificates. The applicant was not put on that list.\n6.  On 27 September 2002 the Uglegorskiy Town Court of the Sakhalin Region (“the Town Court”) recognised the applicant’s right to a housing certificate and ordered the Administration to put her on the list for housing certificates. The judgment was not appealed against and acquired legal force ten days later. On 20 January 2003 the applicant was put on the list for housing certificates, but she has never received one.\n7.  On 27 May 2003 the applicant brought a new court action against the Administration. She sought to receive a monetary compensation for the purchase of housing instead of a housing certificate.\n8.  By a judgment of 29 December 2003 the Town Court ordered the Administration to pay the applicant 389,600 Russian roubles. The court also held that since the applicant had been awarded money for the purchase of housing she lost her right to a housing certificate. The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force ten days later.\n9.  Enforcement proceedings initiated by the bailiffs’ service of the Uglegorskiy District on 22 January 2004 were suspended by the Town Court on 28 October 2004 and 25 February 2005 on account that the Administration had applied for a supervisory review of the judgment of 29 December 2003.\n10.  On 29 June 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the application for supervisory review lodged by the Administration.\n11.  On 22 August 2005 the Town Court ordered the bailiff’s service to reopen the enforcement proceedings.\n12.  The judgment of 29 December 2003 was fully enforced on 22 June 2006.\n13.  On 18 July 2006 the Government informed the Court that on 22 June 2006 the applicant and the Administration had concluded an agreement to settle the case. The Government submitted a copy of the agreement duly signed by the parties. It bore an official stamp of the Administration. Its relevant part, as translated from Russian, provides as follows:\n“Subocheva Olga Zakharovna ... and the Administration of the Uglegorskiy District of the Sakhalin Region represented by its head, Mr Osipov Leonid Mikhaylovich, reached an agreement in respect of the judgment of 29 December 2003 on the following terms: 1. In view that the judgment of the Uglegorskiy Town Court of 29 December 2003, by which the Administration of the Uglegorskiy District was to pay Mrs Subocheva a monetary award in the amount of 389,600 roubles, had been enforced ( payment order no. 1245 of 22 June 2006), Mrs Subocheva Olga Zakharovna withdraws her application from the European Court of Human Rights together with any claims for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the non-enforcement of the judgment of the Uglegorskiy Town Court. Furthermore, Mrs Subocheva declares that she has no more claims against the Administration of the Uglegorskiy District in respect of the above application. 2. The present agreement is to be approved by the European Court of Human Rights in the framework of the proceedings no. 2245/05. ...”\n14.  On 26 December 2006 the applicant submitted that she intended ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3103", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is a freelance journalist who lives in Vienna. From 1992 to 1995 he was the editor of the official magazine of the Vienna Jewish community.\n7.  In the beginning of 1995 the Academy of the Austrian Freedom Party (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs) published an article in its yearbook, written by P., a professor of political sciences at Münster University. The article was entitled “Internationalism against nationalism: an eternal mortal enmity?” and alleged that the Jews had declared war on Germany in 1933. Moreover, it trivialised the crimes of the Nazi regime.\n8.  In February 1995 the applicant published a commentary on this article in the magazine of the Vienna Jewish community. It was entitled “Freedom Party's 1995 yearbook with (neo-)Nazi tones”. He criticised P. in harsh terms for using Nazi terminology and disseminating ideas which were typical of the “Third Reich”. More specifically, he accused P. of reviving the old Nazi lie of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy and of confounding the roles of perpetrators and victims.\n9.  Subsequently, P. brought defamation proceedings under Article 111 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) against the applicant. The Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) acquitted the applicant. Its judgment was upheld on 4 May 1998 by the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht), which found that the applicant's criticism constituted a value judgment which had a sufficient factual basis in the numerous quotations from P.'s article. Having regard to the publication of P.'s article in the yearbook of a political party and given the highly sensitive topic, the applicant's criticism, though harsh, was not excessive.\n10.  Two years later, in April 2000, the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office brought proceedings against P. on charges under the National Socialism Prohibition Act (“the Prohibition Act” – Verbotsgesetz). Relying on numerous quotations from P.'s article in the Freedom Party's 1995 yearbook, the public prosecutor argued that the article constituted a national-socialist activity within the meaning of section 3g of the Prohibition Act. Shortly before the date scheduled for the trial, P. committed suicide.\n11.  On 8 June 2000 the weekly Zur Zeit, a right-wing magazine whose chief editor M. was the former Chairperson of the Freedom Party's Academy, published a two-and-a-half-page article with the headline “The deadly terror of virtue” (“Tödlicher Tugendterror”). It referred to the applicant's criticism of P.'s article in 1995 and alleged that the applicant's comment had unleashed a manhunt which had eventually resulted in the death of the victim. It referred to the applicant and a number of other persons, mostly politicians of the Austrian Socialist Party or the Green Party and also a number of journalists, a historian and a professor of political sciences, as members of a “hunting society” which used the Prohibition Act as a tool to attack persons close to the Freedom Party and had ultimately chased one victim to his death. The article was accompanied by pictures of the members of the alleged “hunting society”, including a picture of the applicant.\n12.  The applicant brought defamation proceedings under Section 6 of the Media Act (Mediengesetz) against the publishing company owning Zur Zeit.\n13.  On 20 March 2001 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court found that the article fulfilled the elements of defamation and ordered the defendant company to pay the applicant compensat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3104", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the village of Bratskoye, Nadterechny District, Chechnya.\n7.  The facts of the case as submitted by the parties are summarised in section A below (paragraphs 8-54). A description of the documents submitted by the parties is contained in section B below (paragraphs 55-84).\n8.  The applicant is a co-owner of real estate in the village of Bratskoye. The other co-owner is the applicant's brother, Mr Dzhabrail Abulkhanovich Khamidov, who is not a party to the proceedings before the Court. In reply to the Registry's specific query in that respect, the applicant's representative stated in a letter of 14 February 2004 that the applicant's brother did not intend to participate in the proceedings before the Court, that the applicant had participated in the domestic proceedings by himself (see below) and that in any event the applicant had furnished the Court with a general power of attorney granted to him by his brother. The document in question confirms the applicant's right to represent his brother before the Court if necessary.\n9.  Prior to the events described below, the applicant and his brother registered a limited liability company called Nedra (общество с ограниченной ответственностью «Недра») and, together with their families (hereafter “the applicant's family”), ran a bakery business. According to the applicant, this business was their main source of income.\n10.  The estate (hereafter “the applicant's estate”) comprises a plot of land of 1.5 hectares transferred to the Nedra company under an indefinite lease, a house of 251.3 square metres owned by the applicant, a house of 186 square metres owned by his brother and industrial buildings and equipment, including a mill, a bakery and storage facilities with a total surface of 2,000 square metres assigned to the Nedra company.\n11.  In late 1996, as alleged by the Government, or in early 1998, as alleged by the applicant, he and his family left their estate as they were constantly threatened by Chechen rebel fighters, who then moved in.\n12.  At the beginning of September 1999 the fighters left and the applicant and his family returned to their estate. According to the applicant, they found quarters that had been built by the fighters on the plot of land using the applicant's building materials, but the houses, industrial premises and equipment had remained intact and they restarted their business.\n13.  In early October 1999 the Russian Government launched a counter-terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic. Fearing possible attacks, the applicant and his relatives left the village.\n14.  On 13 October 1999 the Tambov consolidated police units of the Ministry of the Interior (Тамбовский сводный отряд милиции МВД РФ – “the police units”) moved onto the applicant's estate.\n15.  On 19 October 1999 the applicant and his family tried to return, but the police units denied them access to the estate.\n16.  On 4 November 1999 the applicant requested the Nadterechny Temporary Office of the Interior (временный ОВД Надтеречного района – “the VOVD”) to vacate his houses and industrial premises.\n17.  By a letter of 19 December 1999 the VOVD refused the applicant's request. The letter stated that they would only vacate the buildings after the termination of the hostilities in the region and the withdrawal of the Russian troops. As to the alleged damage to the applicant's property, the letter advised him to lodge a compensation claim with a court.\n18.  Since,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3105", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Skopje.\n5.  On 3 December 1986 the then Municipality of Centre, Skopje (“the Municipality”) expropriated a house, two separate rooms and a plot of land (“the property”) which had been in the applicant's and her mother's possessions. The expropriation award (“the award”) was to be agreed upon by the parties concerned. After that decision had been set aside, on 27 May 1987 the Municipality decided the case again stating that the award would be determined in separate proceedings. On 11 July 1987 that decision became final. On 21 October 1987, after three attempts to settle before the Municipality had failed because of, apparently, the applicant's absence, the case was referred to the competent court to determine the award. These proceedings started on 16 November 1987.\n6. Between 16 November 1987 and 26 December 1996 the first-instance court fixed thirty-nine hearings of which: fourteen hearings were adjourned because of incorrect summons; nine hearings were postponed due to the applicant's absence; and thirteen hearings were adjourned at the latter's request. During this time, two expert reports were drawn up concerning the value of the property. In 1995 the Skopje Court of First Instance established the applicant and her brother as heirs of their mother's claim who died in 1989. The impugned proceedings continued thereafter with the applicant and her brother as claimants.\n7. On 26 February 1997 the Municipality made an offer of compensation, which the claimants rejected on 7 April 1997. On 21 April 1997 the latter proposed another amount allegedly corresponding to the market value of the property.\n8.  On 19 May 1997 the first-instance court granted the applicant's request for an additional expert valuation of the property. It adjourned a hearing listed on 24 September 1997 and ordered the valuation. On 30 October 1997 the applicant requested the court to appoint another expert arguing that the expert's fee determined by the State Forensic Institute (“the Institute”) on 24 October 1997 was excessive.\n9. Hearings of 25 February, 6 May and 3 June 1998 were adjourned since the Municipality's representative had been either absent or had failed to place an offer of compensation.\n10. On 6 July 1998 the applicant requested another expert report concerning the property's value. This report was communicated to the court on 28 April 1999. On 14 May 1999 the court returned it to the Institute as incomplete. On 24 June 1999 the Institute requested the court to order the applicant to pay expert's fee for the additional opinion.\n11.  A hearing fixed on 7 February 2000 was adjourned at the Municipality's request in order to study the expert report. Hearings scheduled for 7 April and 5 June 2000 were postponed, also at the Municipality's request.\n12. Hearings of 4 October 2000 and 20 June 2001 were adjourned due to the expert's absence. Hearings fixed for 17 September and 7 November 2001 were adjourned because of absence of the first-instance judge. On a hearing of 26 December 2001, the court heard evidence from the parties and the experts who had drawn up the report.\n13. On 1 February 2002 the Skopje Court of First Instance upheld the claimants' claim awarding them 2,814,500 Macedonian denars (MKD) (approximately 46,150 euros) plus interest, to be paid by the City of Skopje. This decision was served on the parties in August 2002.\n14. On 22 August 2002 the City of Skopje appealed. On 11 September 2002 the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3106", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Celje.\n6.  On 12 January 1997 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 24 September 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 5,887,277 Slovenian tolars (approximately 24,500 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 18 February 1998 and 27 September 1999 the applicant made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nBetween 4 September 1998 and 19 September 2000 he lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\nThree hearings were held between 15 February 2000 and 26 October 2000.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the last-mentioned hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 21 December 2000.\n8.  On 3 January 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 4 July 2001 the court dismissed both appeals.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 3 October 2001.\n9.  On 2 November 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). The applicant also made a request for the withdrawal of one of the judges.\nOn 25 February 2002 the president of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request for the withdrawal.\nOn 11 December 2002 the court allowed the applicant's appeal on points of law in part and increased the amount of the damages awarded. The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 January 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3107", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Celje.\n6.  On 13 October 1994 the applicant was severely injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 2 June 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 11,306,960 Slovenian tolars (approximately 47,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 22 July 1998 and 21 November 2000 the applicant lodged seven preliminary written submissions.\nHe made two requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nFour hearings were held between 5 October 1998 and 8 January 2001.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed three experts. The court also sought an additional opinion from one of the appointed experts.\nAt the last-mentioned hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 9 April 2001.\n8.  On 19 April 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 26 June 2002 the court upheld ZT's appeal in part and reduced the procedural costs which had been awarded.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 28 August 2002.\n9.  On 20 September 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 22 January 2004 the court dismissed the applicant's appeal.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 17 February 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3108", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Krasnoyarsk.\n6.  On 14 September 1999 the applicant, at the material time a prosecutor with the Krasnoyarsk Environmental Protection Prosecutor’s Office, was arrested under suspicion of instigating a murder. On the same day the police conducted a search at the applicant’s home and seized certain documents. On 23 September 1999 he was placed in pre-trial detention in SIZO‑1 in Krasnoyarsk (referred to in certain documents as IZ 24/1, hereafter SIZO‑1). The applicant was released on bail on 26 October 2000.\n7.  In November-December 2000 certain newspapers and television programmes described the applicant as a “criminal” in affirmative terms and disseminated allegedly negative information about him.\n8.  On 12 March 2001 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court examined the charges against the applicant. During the trial the court allegedly refused to summon certain defence witnesses. The court found the applicant guilty of instigating a murder and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. On the same date the applicant was taken into custody.\n9.  On 30 January 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment.\n10.  On 16 April 2002 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony IK-272/3, a penitentiary facility in Irkutsk, to serve his sentence.\n11.  In 2005 the applicant was granted early release on parole. He left prison on 11 July 2005.\n12.  On 23 September 1999, after the applicant’s arrest, he was examined by a medical panel which, on the basis of the applicant’s own explanations, noted that he suffered from ischaemic heart disease, exertional angina, hypertension, myopia and chronic bronchitis.\n13.  On 11 April 2000 he developed acute hypertension and was transferred to the prison hospital of the facility UP 288/18. On arrival at the hospital he was diagnosed with second-degree hypertension, cardiac ischaemia, cardiac angina, high‑degree myopia, second-degree encephalopathy and a second to third-degree prostate adenoma. The applicant followed a course of treatment with antihypertensive medicines, nitrates, Inosine[1], aspirin and supplements. On 28 May 2000 the applicant was discharged from the hospital with a diagnosis of second-degree hypertension, second-degree atherosclerotic cardiosclerosis, first-degree encephalopathy, aggravated high-degree myopia, a second to third-degree prostate adenoma and a number of related conditions, and was transferred back to SIZO‑1. The applicant was advised to continue constant treatment with antihypertensive medicines, nitrates and aspirin.\n14.  On 31 October 2000, after the applicant had been released on bail, he underwent a full inpatient medical examination in the hospital of the Krasnoyarsk research centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He was diagnosed with repeated cerebral blood supply disturbance (stroke), third‑degree hypertension, cardiac angina, cardiac ischaemia, a first-degree prostate adenoma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and a wide range of related conditions. In the hospital the applicant received treatment for his hypertension and cardiac disease, including medicines in the form of pills and injections, physiotherapy and inhalations which, according to the medical report, improved his condition.\n15.  During his treatment the applicant had several consultations with a neurologist and an ultrasonic encephalogram. The notes made by the neurologist recorded the applicant’s complaints of headaches, a feeling of pressure on the eyes", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3109", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Stryy, the Lviv region. She is a former director of a municipal preschool educational establishment (“the Establishment,” Дитяча дошкільна установа №1 санаторного типу).\n5.  In May 1996 the applicant was dismissed, following the City Council's (Стрийська Рада народних депутатів Львівської області) decision to liquidate the Establishment.\n6.  In June 1996 the applicant lodged a civil action against the Municipal Education Department (Відділ освіти виконавчого комітету Стрийської міської ради), seeking her reinstatement and compensation for unlawful dismissal. Subsequently, the applicant also challenged the legality of the decision to liquidate the Establishment. The Drogobych Court (Дрогобичський міський суд Львівської області) decided to examine the two complaints jointly and held some three hearings before September 1997.\n7.  No procedural actions are reported to have taken place between September 1997 and December 2000.\n8.  Between December 2000 and October 2001 the court scheduled some seven hearings, one of them having been adjourned on account of the applicant's absence, and two – on account of the absence of the defendant.\n9.  On 12 October 2001 the court dismissed the applicant's claims, having found that the liquidation of the Establishment and the applicant's dismissal had been carried out in compliance with applicable law.\n10.  On 12 November 2001 the applicant appealed.\n11.  On 11 March 2002 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Львівської області) upheld the judgment of 12 October 2001.\n12.  On 6 June 2002 the applicant appealed in cassation.\n13.  On 14 February 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3110", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Yerevan.\n5.  In 2003 a presidential election was held in Armenia with its first round taking place on 19 February. The applicant acted as an authorised election assistant (վստահված անձ) for the main opposition candidate in the election. At the second round of the election, which took place on 5 March, the applicant was a member of one of the district election commissions. Following the election, the applicant participated in a series of rallies of protest organised in Yerevan by the opposition parties.\n6.  The applicant alleged, and the Government did not dispute, that at the beginning of April police officers of the Central District Police Station of Yerevan (ՀՀ ոստիկանության Երևան քաղաքի կենտրոնական բաժին) came to the applicant's home while he was absent. Having found out about this, the applicant went to the police station to inquire about the reasons for their visit. At the Police Station, the Deputy Head ordered the applicant to stop participating in the demonstrations.\n7.  On 7 April 2003 at 17h00 a demonstration was held in the centre of Yerevan on the occasion of Mother's Day. The demonstration took place on the Mashtots Avenue next to the Research Institute of Ancient Manuscripts (Մատենադարան). It appears that the demonstration was of a political nature and criticism of the Government and of the conduct of the presidential election was voiced.\n8.  The applicant alleged, and the Government did not dispute, that the demonstration was organised by women and was attended by about 30,000 people, the majority of whom were female. Traffic was suspended by the traffic police on the relevant stretch of the Avenue prior to the commencement of the demonstration. The applicant did not as such participate in the demonstration since most men, including himself, were observing it from a distance, standing on both sides of the Avenue. Their task was to encourage the women and to prevent possible provocations.\n9.  According to the applicant, at around 17h30 he went home. On his way home, about 100-150 metres away from the site of the demonstration, he was approached by two persons in civilian clothes, who showed police identity papers and took him to the Central District Police Station.\n10.  At the Police Station, the arresting police officers drew up a record of the applicant's arrest (արձանագրությաւն բերման ենթարկելու մասին) in which it was stated that the applicant had been “arrested at around 17h30 on the Mashtots Avenue for obstructing traffic and behaving in an anti-social way at a demonstration”.\n11.  One of the arresting police officers reported to the Head of the Police Station (ՀՀ ոստիկանության Երևան քաղաքի կենտրոնական բաժնի պետ) that:\n“... on 7 April 2003 we were on duty at the Mashtots Avenue, where a demonstration was being held and a great number of people were gathered. While on duty, we noticed one person who was obstructing traffic, behaving in an anti-social way and inciting others to follow his example. This person was brought to the Police Station...”\n12.  The applicant was subjected to a search during which no illegal items were found. A relevant record was drawn up.\n13.  The police officers questioned the applicant. The applicant made a written statement (արձանագրություն բացատրություն վերցնելու մասին) in which he submitted that he had participated in a demonstration three days before. Having found out about the demonstration of 7 April 2003, he had also gone there. He further", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3111", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Odessa.\n5.  In October 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Malynivsky District Court of Odessa (“the Malynivsky Court,” Малинівський районний суд м. Одеса) against Ms T. V., her sister, seeking to divide their house and adjacent land. Subsequently the proceedings were transferred to the Kyivsky District Court of Odessa (“the Kyivsky Court,” Київський районний суд м. Одеса).\n6.  Between 1993 and 2000 some six expert assessments were carried out to develop proposals for dividing the house and the land.\n7.  On 12 December 2000 the Kyivsky Court rejected the applicant's claims. The court found that it was not possible to divide the property to the satisfaction of the parties. This decision became final.\n8.  On 6 June 2001 the Presidium of the Odessa Regional Court (“the Regional Court”)[1] quashed this judgment, following a supervisory protest, lodged by its Deputy President, and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. Ms T. V. lodged a counter-claim, proposing an alternative scheme for dividing the house and the land.\n9.  On 5 December 2001 the Kyivsky Court partly allowed the claims of both parties, having divided the house and the land between them. Ms T. V. appealed, seeking to re-divide the house. Neither party sought to re-divide the land, and the judgment of 5 December 2001 in this part became final.\n10.  On 20 June 2002 the Regional Court amended the judgment of 5 December 2001, having re-divided the house between the parties. This judgment became final on 17 January 2003, after the Supreme Court had rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation.\n11.  In July 2002 Ms T. V. requested the Kyivsky Court to explain how to reconcile the land-division scheme ordered by the judgment of 5 December 2001 with that of the house division pursuant the judgment of 20 June 2002. In its explanatory decision of 9 August 2002, the court re-divided the land to remove the inconsistencies with the house-division scheme. The enforcement proceedings were instituted.\n12.  The applicant appealed against the explanatory decision of 9 August 2002.\n13.  On 30 March 2004 the Regional Court found that, by re-dividing the land, the Kyivsky Court had altered the final judgment of 20 June 2002 and thereby exceeded its jurisdictional authority. The court therefore quashed the explanation of 9 August 2002.\n14.  On 13 April 2004 Ms T. V. requested the Regional Court to re-open the proceedings and review its decision of 20 June 2002 “in the light of newly disclosed circumstances” (the quashing of the explanatory judgment of 9 August 2002).\n15.  On 18 May 2004 the Regional Court re-opened the proceedings and on 16 June 2004 re-divided the land to accommodate for the house-division scheme established on 20 June 2002.\n16.  On 12 July 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation against the judgments of 5 December 2001 and 20 June 2002 and against the decision of 16 June 2004 to re-divide the land.\n17.  On 6 December 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation against the aforementioned judgments, finding that on 17 January 2003 they had already been subject to cassation review. However, the Supreme Court remitted the case for a new consideration “in the light of newly disclosed circumstances”, having quashed the decision of 16 June 2004. In particular, it found that this decision had been taken by an incompetent judicial panel, since one of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3112", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Grozny.\n8.  The facts of the case as submitted by the parties are summarised in section A below (paragraphs 9-61). A description of the documents submitted by the Government is contained in section B below (paragraphs 62-66).\n9.  The applicant is the father of Aslanbek Kukayev, born in 1976, who at the material time was an officer of the special police unit of the Chechen Department of the Interior (отряд милиции особого назначения при Управлении внутренних дел РФ по Чеченской Республике – “the Chechen OMON”) and lived in Grozny, together with his parents.\n10.  In early October 1999 the Russian Government launched a counter-terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic.\n11.  The facts surrounding Aslanbek Kukayev's abduction are disputed by the parties.\n(a)  The applicant's account of events\n12.  The applicant did not witness his son's detention, and the following account is based on eyewitness statements submitted by him, including those of two police officers, Mr G. and Mr Dzh., and a civilian, Mr A.\n13.  On the morning of 26 November 2000 the applicant's son, along with another police officer, D., left home to report for duty at the headquarters of the Chechen OMON in the town of Gudermes. They were both wearing camouflage uniforms and had their OMON officers' identification cards.\n14.  At around 12 noon the applicant's son and D. were passing through Grozny central market in D.'s white VAZ 2106 Zhiguli car. At the same time federal servicemen were carrying out a special (“sweeping-up”) operation in the vicinity of the marketplace. According to Mr G.'s statement, the military personnel belonged to a “mobile detachment” (мобильный отряд) stationed in the central part of Grozny.\n15.  The servicemen blocked D.'s vehicle and then took Aslanbek Kukayev and D. away in the direction of the headquarters of the federal military detachment Don-100. Some time later the soldiers seized the Zhiguli car, which subsequently disappeared. The applicant submitted that the car had later been seen on several occasions at the Khankala federal military base.\n16.  At around 1 p.m. the applicant's son, D. and several other police officers of Chechen origin detained during the operation, including Mr Dzh., were put into a GAZ 66 truck with an emblem representing a rampant horse on its doors, which then drove off. According to Mr Dzh., the servicemen who apprehended them were hostile and offensive.\n17.  The truck having reached Ordzhonikidze Avenue in the centre of Grozny, the officer in charge ordered that Aslanbek Kukayev and D. be taken out of the truck. Mr Dzh. saw the applicant's son and D. being escorted by six federal servicemen towards the former Grozny Educational College building. The vehicle then drove on.\n18.  Several policemen of Chechen origin were detained during the “sweeping-up” operation at Grozny central market on 26 November 2000. Some of them were released later that day, including Mr Dzh. Aslanbek Kukayev and D. disappeared after being apprehended.\n19.  According to the applicant, on 27 November 2000 the central Russian television broadcaster announced that a number of members of illegal armed groups had been apprehended during a “sweeping-up” operation in the vicinity of Grozny central market. The applicant also enclosed information which he had obtained from the Internet site of Human Rights Watch to the effect that on 26 November 2000 the federal troops had carried out a “sweeping-up” oper", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3113", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Barnaul.\n6.  On 12 October and 15 December 1999 and on 4 February 2000 the applicant was charged with unlawful business activities, tax evasion and fraud, respectively. Three criminal cases against the applicant were initiated.\n7.  On 4 February 2000 the applicant was remanded in custody.\n8.  On 9 August 2000 the three criminal cases against the applicant were joined.\n9.  From 10 December 1999 to 15 March 2001 the prosecutor's office of the Tsentralnyy District of Barnaul extended the preliminary investigation seven times in view of the complexity of the case.\n10.  On 29 June 2001 the bill of indictment against the applicant was issued.\n11.  On 17 September 2001 the case was transmitted to the Tsentralniy District Court of Barnaul.\n12.  On 6 March 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court of Barnaul convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment.\n13.  On 15 May 2003 the Altayskiy Regional Court commuted the term of imprisonment to three years and ten months and upheld the remainder of the judgment.\n14.  The applicant was released on 23 May 2003.\n15.  Following his arrest on 4 February 2000 the applicant was detained in a temporary detention centre in Barnaul (Изолятор временного содержания г. Барнаула). Thereafter, the applicant was transferred to the pre-trial detention centre no. IZ-17/1.\nIn the course of the preliminary investigation the applicant was returned to the temporary detention centre several times in order to participate in investigative measures. The applicant submitted, and the Government did not dispute, that he had spent seventy-nine days in total in the temporary detention centre. The parties did not specify the dates when the transfers to the temporary detention centre had taken place.\n16.  It is clear that from 4 to 20 February 2000 the applicant was held in the temporary detention centre in a cell measuring 20 sq. m. The applicant submitted that he shared the cell with thirty inmates, that there had been no beds in the cell and that the inmates had to sleep on the floor.\n17.  According to the Government, the exact number of detainees per cell could not be established because the registers had since been destroyed. The Government also submitted that the applicant's cell had been equipped with beds.\n18.  From 21 February 2000 to 23 May 2003 the applicant was held in the pre-trial detention centre no. IZ-17/1 in Barnaul.\n19.  The parties submitted the following information concerning the cells where the applicant had been held.\n(a)  Measurements of the cells and number of inmates per cell\n(i)  Cell no.  208\n20.  Relying on a certificate issued on 18 November 2005 by the pre-trial detention centre governor, the Government submitted that the applicant had been held in cell no. 208 from 21 February 2000 to 17 March 2000 and from 23 March 2000 to 15 June 2000. The cell measured 24.5 sq. m; was equipped with six beds and accommodated up to seven inmates. According to the certificate, at that time the pre-trial detention centre, which is designed to accommodate 1,135 persons, housed 2,600 to 2,790 inmates.\n21.  The applicant submitted that the cell measured 12 sq. m and had been severely overcrowded.\n(ii)  Cell no. 205\n22.  The Government submitted that from 15 June 2000 to 25 July 2000 the applicant had been held in cell no. 205. The cell measured 32.1 sq. m; it was equipped with eight beds and accommodated up to nine inmates. According to the same ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3114", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Celje.\n6.  On 2 July 1995 the applicant was injured in a car accident. She had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  The applicant and ZT agreed on the appointment of a medical expert to assess the extent of the applicant's injuries. The appointed medical expert established that the applicant had sustained 45 per cent permanent invalidity as a result of the accident. ZT paid the applicant damages corresponding to 35 per cent of the invalidity level.\n8.  On 13 October 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking payment of damages corresponding to the unpaid 10 per cent of the invalidity level in the amount of 677,040 Slovenian tolars (approximately 2,800 euros).\nBetween 20 October 1999 and 30 August 2002 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions.\nOn 20 October 1999 she also made a request that a date be set for a hearing.\nThree hearings were held between 4 June 2001 and 18 September 2002.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert. The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert.\nAt the last-mentioned hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim, was served on the applicant on 30 December 2002.\n9.  On an unspecified date ZT appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).\nOn 18 March 2004 the court dismissed ZT's appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 28 April 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3115", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Lisburn, Northern Ireland.\n7.  On 19 May 2000 the applicant’s husband was murdered. On 18 August 2001 the applicant was charged with aiding and abetting Mr G, her former lover, to murder her husband. She was released on bail pending trial to her home where she lived with her three children, who were 6 years of age at the time (triplets). Neither the police nor the prosecution objected. The trial judge permitted the applicant to remain on bail throughout the trial: no objection was formulated by the prosecution. She continued to reside at home with her children.\n8.  On 20 November 2002 the jury unanimously convicted Mr G of murder but failed to agree on a verdict on the applicant. The trial judge granted her bail pending the prosecution’s decision whether to prosecute her further. The prosecution did not object to bail and she remained at home with her children. Subsequently, the prosecution elected to prosecute the applicant again but did not object to her remaining on bail.\n9.  The applicant’s second trial began on 17 February 2003. The second trial judge also allowed bail, no objection being made by the prosecution. On 20 March 2003 she was, by a majority verdict of the jury, convicted of murder. The trial judge sentenced her to life imprisonment and committed her to custody. The period of imprisonment that the applicant had to serve before she could have been considered for release was set at fifteen years. Leave to appeal was rejected by a single judge of the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland.\n10.  On 9 July 2004 the full Court of Appeal allowed her appeal. It found that the second trial judge had misdirected the jury as to the state of mind necessary to make the applicant an accessory to murder. While the prosecution case had been that the applicant had facilitated the killing of her husband by Mr G knowing that he intended to kill and intending that Mr G should do so, that was not the matter put by the second trial judge to the jury: that trial judge had directed the jury as follows:\n“If you’re satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that [the applicant] participated in a joint venture with [Mr G], realising that in the course of that venture [Mr G] might use force with intent to kill or to cause really serious injury to her husband and Mr G did so, then she would be guilty of murder.”\nThe Court of Appeal found that that ruling effectively opened to the jury the possibility of convicting the applicant for murder on the basis of matters not part of the prosecution case and not canvassed during trial and, notably, on the basis that the applicant had engineered a meeting between her husband and Mr G without any firm intention that he be killed. The Court of Appeal quashed her conviction and, having heard further submissions, ordered that she be returned upon a fresh indictment for murder before the Crown Court.\n11.  The applicant applied for bail and the prosecution did not object. The summary form of order of the Court of Appeal of 9 July 2004 indicates that her application was refused and that she was to remain in detention until retrial. In her application form and subsequent observations the applicant stated that there were two grounds for that refusal: she had been convicted by a jury of murder on 20 March 2003 and any retrial would take place soon. In correspondence, she submits that the reasoning of the appeal court was not committed to writing, that her representative’s contemporane", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3116", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 19 July 2001 the Parliament of Moldova amended the 2001 Budget Act to allow the Customs Department to postpone by up to three months the levying of taxes on fuel imported into Moldova. In the evening of the same day, the leader of the communist majority in Parliament (Mr V. Stepaniuc) met with the deputy Speaker of Parliament (Mr V. Mişin) for a meal in the restaurant of a luxury hotel in Chişinău. According to the applicant newspaper, sources which preferred to remain anonymous confirmed that the meal had been paid for by “L.”, a major importer of fuel into Moldova.\n7.  On 24 July 2001 the applicant newspaper published an article entitled “On L.'s money, communists V. Stepaniuc and V. Mişin had a big-time party (chiolhan) at 'Jolly Allon'”. The article, which included pictures of the two MPs next to the text, informed readers about the changes to the Budget Act and about the profits which those changes would bring to a few big fuel importers who had links with the Customs Department, thus allowing unfair competition. The article claimed that the postponement of tax payments constituted a form of credit by the State without interest or guarantees and rejected the explanation for the amendment given by a member of Parliament.\nOne paragraph in the article read:\n“One needs to note that, in the evening of the same day, at the 'Jolly Allon' (...) hotel, the communists V. Stepaniuc and V. Mişin, putting aside all proletarian decency [pudoare], had a big-time party on the money of the sharks from 'L.'. Could this party be a simple coincidence? We do not know.”\nThe article went on to expose the legislative plans of the communist party and the resulting benefits to big fuel importers at the expense of ordinary workers.\n8.  On 8 July 2002 Mr Stepaniuc, the leader of the Communist parliamentary faction which had, at the time, 71 votes out of a total of 101 in Parliament, lodged an action against the applicant newspaper, identifying the paragraph cited above as defamatory. He did not pay any court fee when lodging his complaint, nor did he appear in court at any stage of the proceedings or delegate any person to represent him.\n9.  On 1 August 2002 Judge I.M., the then President of the Buiucani District Court, found that the applicant had essentially stated that Mr Stepaniuc “had voted for laws in the interest of some private companies and then had a party on their money”. It denounced the use of pure rumour as a basis for journalism and found that the applicant newspaper had acted in bad faith. The court took note of the “vehement attack” on Mr Stepaniuc, the large readership of the newspaper and the “degree of moral and psychological suffering” caused. In addition, the court found that Mr Stepaniuc's position as a member of Parliament and leader of a parliamentary faction “increased the degree of moral damage” which led to the imposition of maximum liability.\n10.  The court accepted Mr Stepaniuc's claim and ordered the applicant newspaper, pursuant to Articles 7 and 7 § 1 of the Civil Code, to publish an apology and to pay the plaintiff the maximum damages allowed by law and the court fees (a total of 3,690 Moldovan lei (MDL), equal to 278 euros (EUR) at the time). According to the applicant newspaper, the court had conducted one hearing which lasted less than 15 minutes and no questions had been put to the applicant newspaper.\n11.  In its appeal the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3117", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Bijela Brda.\n5.  On 9 April 1984 the applicant brought a civil action in the Beograd Third Municipal Court against a certain N.D., seeking repayment of a loan.\n6.  Having heard the applicant in person at a hearing on 20 June 2002, on 5 November 2002 the court gave a judgment accepting the applicant's claim. On 26 November 2003 the Beograd District Court quashed that judgment for factual shortcomings and remitted the case. In its decision, the District Court instructed the first-instance court to hear and confront the parties, as well as to hear the other witnesses proposed by the applicant with a view to establishing, inter alia, whether the loan had been made to N.D. or to his father, whether a part of it had in the meantime been repaid and whether the claim was time-barred.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings, the court held a hearing on 16 November 2004, which the applicant did not attend although duly summoned. On that occasion, his lawyer informed the court that the applicant was in poor health and needed surgery. Therefore, the applicant would not be able to attend court hearings, but maintained all his claims, as previously stated in his oral and written submissions to the court.\n8.  On 1 April 2005 the applicant submitted a medical certificate, stating that he suffered from paranoid psychosis with signs of hypochondria, and that he was unable to attend court hearings.\n9.  The court appears to have held further hearings on 17 June and 7 October 2005, both attended by the applicant's lawyer. It also obtained an expert opinion on 27 May 2005.\n10.  The court subsequently ordered the applicant's lawyer to inform it of the exact date and place where the applicant would be medically treated. It further contacted the medical institution which had issued the certificate of 1 April 2005, requesting its opinion on whether the applicant's health allowed him to be a party to the proceedings. It would appear that none of the court orders has ever been complied with.\n11.  At the hearing held on 26 September 2006 the applicant's lawyer specified the claim, whereas the respondent submitted that, if the applicant was ill, the court could not continue the proceedings.\n12.  The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3118", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  In a real estate dispute, on 2 January 1996 Mr B. brought an action against the applicant.\n6.  Between 23 April 1996 and 5 July 2001, the Budapest II/III District Court held altogether 14 hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert.\n7.  At the hearing of 9 October 2001 the respondent introduced his counter-claim, claiming the division of common property. Further hearings took place on 7 March and 11 June 2002.\n8.  From 4 February 2004 the case was stayed pending the parties' attempt to reach an agreement.\n9.  Further hearings were held on 21 June, 28 September and 3 December 2004. On the latter date the case was again stayed at the parties' request.\n10.  The parties requested the resumption of the proceedings on 6 June 2005, a stay on 18 July 2005, and the scheduling of a hearing on 5 January 2006. However, since they did not appear at the hearing on 9 March 2006, the case was again stayed. After the expiry of the statutory six-month time-limit, the case ceased to exist on 9 September 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3119", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  In May 1999 the applicants were laid off by the Diyarbakır Sur municipality, with which they had been employed.\n5.  Each of the applicants brought an action in the Diyarbakır Labour Court, claiming outstanding salaries, dismissal indemnities, severance pay and other pecuniary rights.\n6.  In November 1999 the court ruled in their favour and ordered the municipality to pay the applicants certain amounts in Turkish liras (TRL), including costs, together with interest running from June 1999.\n7.  In the absence of an appeal the judgments became final on 19 November 1999.\n8.  In the following months, the applicants initiated enforcement proceedings in order to receive the due amounts. As their efforts proved fruitless, they requested the Diyarbakır Governorship to intervene in order to facilitate the enforcement of the court's judgments. The Governor's Office informed the applicants that it had requested the municipality to redress their grievances. However, due to lack of funds, the municipality did not make any payment.\n9.  At the date of introduction of the present applications, the relevant judgment debts were still outstanding. Thereafter, on an unspecified date, Hatip Bozyıl received his full award of 724 New Turkish liras (YTL) and friendly settlement agreements were reached between the following applicants and the municipality on the dates indicated:\n- Ramazan Fidancan on 6 February 2002;\n- Muhyettin Babayiğit on 11 April 2002;\n- Ali Rıza Babayiğit on 27 October 2004;\n- Talat Tunç on 21 May 2002;\n- Hüseyin and Mehmet Şirin Kamik on 30 December 2003; and\n- Fahri Açan on 13 May 2005.\n10.  No settlement was reached in respect of the other applicants. However, the municipality deposited certain partial amounts in the relevant account at the local enforcement office, which amounts were made available to some of the applicants and paid later.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3120", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Antalya.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 7 October 1999 the applicant was taken into custody for his suspected involvement in terrorist activities. On the same date the Magistrates' Court of Antalya ordered his detention pending trial.\n7.  At a hearing held on 25 November 1999, the State Security Court of Izmir ordered the applicant's release.\n8.  On 29 June 2000 he was acquitted of all charges.\n9.  On 10 August 2000 he applied to the Antalya Assize Court, seeking compensation pursuant to Law no. 466. That Law provides, inter alia, for an award of damages to any person who has been unlawfully deprived of his or her liberty, or who, after being lawfully detained, was not subsequently committed for trial or was acquitted after standing trial.\n10.  The applicant claimed a total of 6,050,000,000 Turkish Liras[1] (TRL) in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, comprising lost wages as a construction worker, legal costs and fees and moral damages.\n11.  On 13 June 2002 the court handed down a judgment awarding the applicant an unspecified sum of money.\n12.  Upon separate appeals by the applicant as well as the Treasury, the Court of Cassation quashed that ruling on 12 May 2003 and remitted the file to the Antalya Assize Court for a more comprehensive examination.\n13.  The assize court resumed the proceedings by broadening the scope of its examination of the damage which the applicant had suffered. On 23 September 2003 the court gave a second judgment, which the Court of Cassation quashed on 18 October 2004. Once again the Court of Cassation directed the court to conduct a more thorough research into the applicant's entitlement to damages.\n14.  On 18 February 2005 the assize court handed down its third ruling, awarding the applicant 781 New Turkish liras.[2] The parties appealed separately.\n15.  The applicant learned through his verbal contacts with the assize court's registry that on 6 February 2006 the Court of Cassation had upheld the latter judgment with certain rectifications.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3121", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Izmir.\n5.  The facts of the case, as presented by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  Until 1987 the applicant worked as a primary school teacher in Izmir.\n7.  On 30 March 1983 he was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.\n8.  From 30 March 1983 to 30 September 1987, he was suspended from his post on account of the criminal proceedings against him.\n9.  In 1984 the Diyarbakır Martial Court convicted the applicant under Article 141 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment.\n10.  By a decision of 30 September 1987, the Ministry of National Education dismissed the applicant from his employment. It reasoned that the applicant was no longer eligible for the civil service since he failed to fulfil the requirements of the post as prescribed by Article 48 § A-5 of Law no. 657.\n11.  On 12 April 1991 Article 141 of the Criminal Code was repealed by Law no. 3713 (the Anti-Terror Law).\n12.  On 4 December 1991 the Izmir Assize Court ordered the removal of the applicant's conviction under Article 141 of the Criminal Code.\n13.  On 15 September 1992 the applicant filed a petition with the administrative authorities and requested his reinstatement to his previous post.\n14.  On 31 December 1993 the applicant was reinstated to the post of primary school teacher at a primary school in Konak.\n15.  On 8 February 1994 the applicant filed a petition with the principal of the primary school. He requested to be given the rights and earnings which he was denied during his suspension and dismissal periods.\n16.  The principal of the primary school transmitted the applicant's petition to the Konak District National Education Directorate.\n17.  By a decision dated 11 April 1994, the Ministry of National Education dismissed the applicant's request.\n18.  On 9 May 1994 the Konak District National Education Directorate informed the applicant about the Ministry's decision.\n19.  On 30 May 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Izmir Administrative Court, seeking compensation for the damage he had suffered as a result of his allegedly unlawful suspension and dismissal. He further requested to be granted the rights and salaries of which he had been deprived during those periods.\n20.  On 20 December 1996 the Izmir Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's claim. It reasoned that the decision of the administrative authorities concerning his reinstatement to his previous post would not enable him to claim the rights and earnings which were denied him during the suspension and dismissal periods.\n21.  On 6 April 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's request for appeal. It opined that the reinstatement of the applicant did not give him the right to recuperate rights and earnings for the suspension and dismissal period.\n22.  On 31 August 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court's decision was served on the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3122", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Manisa, Turkey.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  In 1991 the applicant sat a competition for admission to the civil service. Following his success in the competition, the General Directorate of Higher Education Credit and Hostels Institution (“the General Directorate”) (T.C. Yüksek Öğrenim ve Yurtlar Kurumu Genel Müdürlüğü) conducted a pre-employment background investigation. It found that the applicant had not mentioned his criminal record in his application form.\n7.  On 14 January 1992 the General Directorate decided that the applicant was not eligible for appointment to a vacant post on account of the negative findings in the pre‑employment investigation. In particular, in 1980 the applicant had been convicted of issuing threats against one of his teachers and had been sentenced to four months and twenty days' imprisonment, which had then been converted into a fine.\n8.  On 7 February 1992 the applicant brought an action in the Ankara Administrative Court requesting the annulment of the General Directorate's decision of 14 January 1992.\n9.  On 26 October 1993 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the action. The applicant appealed.\n10.  On 18 December 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Ankara Administrative Court's judgment holding that the applicant was suitable for employment.\n11.  On 22 December 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the General Directorate's request for rectification of its decision.\n12.  On 10 March 1999 the Ankara Administrative Court abided by the Supreme Administrative Court's decision. It found that the applicant had fulfilled all the requirements of the vacant post in question as prescribed under Law no. 657. It therefore ruled that the applicant was eligible to become a civil servant.\n13.  On 8 June 1999 the General Directorate appealed.\n14.  On 31 October 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal.\n15.  On 30 May 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request for rectification of the decision.\n16.  On an unspecified date, the applicant brought a new action in the Ankara Administrative Court against the General Directorate requesting compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage which he allegedly had suffered as a result of the decision dated 14 January 1992.\n17.  On 28 December 1999 the Ankara Administrative Court awarded the applicant a certain amount of compensation for pecuniary damage but rejected his request for non-pecuniary damage. The court further decided that legal costs should be shared by the parties, given that it partially acceded to the applicant's claims for compensation.\n18.  On 26 April 2000 the General Directorate appealed the Supreme Administrative Court judgment, arguing that the applicant had not suffered any damage and that therefore the legal costs should be borne by him.\n19.  On 30 May 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Ankara Administrative Court's ruling was in conformity with law and procedure.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3123", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Sarajevo.\n6.  In 1987 he was granted an old-age pension from the pension fund of the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n7.  In 1992 the applicant left his home in Sarajevo, in what is today the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and moved to what is today the Republika Srpska. While he was internally displaced, he received his pension from the Republika Srpska.\n8.  Upon his return to Sarajevo in 2000, the applicant unsuccessfully sought to receive his pension from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n9.  On 28 February 2002 he complained to the Human Rights Chamber.\n10.  On 6 January 2003 the Human Rights Chamber joined the applicant’s case (no. CH/02/9364) and those of Mr Kličković and Ms Pašalić (nos. CH/02/8923 and CH/02/8924) and adopted a single decision. It was read out at a public hearing on 10 January 2003. Having been taken by the full Chamber, the decision became final immediately.\nThe Human Rights Chamber held that the applicant (together with Mr Kličković and Ms Pašalić) was discriminated against in his enjoyment of the right to social security as guaranteed by Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The reasons were set out in the decision which reads, in the relevant part, as follows:\n“8. In the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (hereinafter “SFRY”), civilian pensions were administered by the six Socialist Republics under their own respective laws and institutions. In addition, the state-level Law on Basic Rights of Pension and Disability Insurance (OG SFRY no. 23/82, 77/82, 75/85, 8/87, 65/87, 87/89, 54/90, and 84/90) granted equal minimum rights to every SFRY citizen and regulated the rights of persons who moved from one Republic to another. 9. Following changes brought about by the armed conflict, pensions in Bosnia and Herzegovina came to be administered by three separate funds: the Social Fund of Pension and Disability Insurance of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter the “Sarajevo Fund”), the Bureau of Pension and Disability Insurance Mostar (hereinafter the “Mostar Fund”), and the Public Fund of Pension and Disability Insurance of Republika Srpska (hereinafter the “RS Fund”). The Sarajevo Fund and Mostar Fund subsequently merged, following a November 2000 decision by the High Representative, into the Federation PDI Institute (hereinafter the “Federation Fund”), which has been operational since 1 January 2002. Presently there is one pension fund in the Federation and one in the Republika Srpska, and all legislation directly concerning pension systems is made at the Entity level. 10. The basic calculation schemes for determining rights to pension and disability insurance are different in each entity. One result of this has been significantly lower pensions in the Republika Srpska. In March 2002, the average pension in the Federation was 190 [Bosnian markas (BAM)], and the average pension in the Republika Srpska was 120 [BAM]. The minimum pension payment prescribed by law in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is 140 [BAM], while the minimum pension in the Republika Srpska is 80 [BAM].\n11. The system of pension insurance in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as inherited from the former SFRY, has been based on the “pay/go” principle that salary contributions from current workers support the current pensioners. Thus, money that comes into the system as contributions is immediately paid out as pension", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3124", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 7 March 1999 around 150-200 people demonstrated in Maraşal Çakmak street. 45 people were arrested, including the applicant, and taken into police custody.\n6.  According to the arrest protocol drafted by two police officers and signed by the applicant, the police officers received information that a Molotov cocktail had been thrown at a building. When they arrived at the scene of the incident they saw that a fire had been extinguished. The locals told them that two suspects had been chased in the direction of Karaoğlan Street. A few blocks further on, the police found the applicant on the floor being beaten up by a group of people.\n7.  According to the identification protocol, drawn up the same day at Yenibosna police station, the applicant was apprehended as he was being lynched by a mob. This protocol bears the signature of two police officers, the applicant and another person, Mr H.A. The names of four other people appear on the protocol without their signatures.\n8.  The applicant refused to give a statement to the police officers who wanted to interrogate him. The applicant's lawyer was present.\n9.  The applicant alleged that he was ill-treated during the arrest and throughout his detention in police custody. In his letter of 10 November 1999 to the Court, the applicant submitted that he was first apprehended by a group of people who stole his money, beat him up and ill-treated him, and later arrested by police officers who also ill-treated him while he was in custody.\n10.  On 7 March 1999, at around 9.30 p.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor at a State Hospital. The doctor noted that he had a graze of 2x1 cm on his left elbow, a graze of 3 cm on his right arm and two grazes of 1 cm below his right knee. The doctor further noted that the applicant also had two 5x10 cm ecchymoses on the right side of his scapula (shoulder bone) and multiple grazes and ecchymoses between his scapulas.\n11.  On 8 March 1999 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Bakırköy Forensic Medicine Department, who mentioned that the applicant complained of having being beaten and sworn at. The doctor noted that he had a freshly-ecchymosed region with small red spots over an area of 22x20 cm on the right scapula, a bump of 2-3 cm on the head and a 2x3 cm bloody graze below the right knee. He further found that the applicant had an oedema of 3x5 cm on the grazed region of his right elbow and a fresh ecchymosis of 2x4 cm on the grazed region of the left arm. Finally, relying on the medical reports of 7 and 8 March 1999, the doctor concluded that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for seven days.\n12.  That same day, 8 March 1999, the applicant appeared before the Bakırköy Magistrates' Court where he denied the accusations against him. In particular, he denied that he had been the victim of an attempted lynching and claimed that suspicious-looking persons had stolen his wallet. His lawyer was present at the hearing. The court ordered his remand in custody.\n13.  The applicant objected to the court's decision to remand him. In his petition addressed to the Bakırköy Assize Court, the applicant submitted, inter alia, that he had been caught by several people who had stolen his wallet. He had been handed over to the police during a demonstration which he had come across while going to his sister's house. He also stated that there had been no direct intervention by the police. The ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3125", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and currently lives in Babušnica, Serbia. At the relevant time, he was employed as a tax inspector and has, as of 2000, been the Vice President of the local branch of the Demo-Christian Party of Serbia (Demohrišćanska stranka Srbije).\n6.  On 21 October 2002 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Babušnica convicted the applicant of criminal defamation (kleveta) and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of 6,000 Yugoslav Dinars (“YUD”) plus an additional YUD 25,000 in costs.\n7.  In the operative part of this judgment the court established: (i) that on 8 March 2001 the applicant had taken part in a “public gathering” (javni skup) in the Babušnica Municipal Hall; (ii) that this “gathering” was attended by the Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbia, the Deputy Minister for Justice and Local Self-Government, as well as more than 80 municipal councillors and other leading local figures; and (iii) that on this occasion the applicant had publicly stated that Mr P.J., at that time the Mayor of Babušnica, “was not the right person for this job”, given that he had already “embezzled 500,000 German Marks” (jer je proneverio 500 000 DM). The court then concluded that this statement was “untrue” and, as such, capable of “damaging the reputation and honour” of Mr P.J., a well-known and respected local businessman and public servant (društveno-politički radnik), and proceeded to find the applicant guilty as charged.\n8.  In its reasoning, inter alia, the Municipal Court relied on two witnesses who, “though members of different political parties”, had heard the applicant state that the Mayor had “embezzled” 500,000 German Marks” in 1996, as director of a major State-owned company, but dismissed, as unconvincing, the testimony of at least four others who had stated that the applicant had said that the Mayor had “deprived” (oštetio) the State of the same amount in revenue. The court further held that the official minutes of the meeting in question, containing language to the same effect, were of “no greater probative value” because they were composed by a person who was himself merely a “witness”, and, finally, that a criminal complaint filed against the Mayor for tax evasion in 1996 had not ultimately resulted in his conviction (see paragraphs 16 and 17 below).\n9.  On 31 December 2003 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Pirot rejected the applicant's appeal and, on the same facts, found him guilty of the crime of insult (uvreda), rather than criminal defamation (kleveta), holding that the meeting at issue could not be deemed a “public gathering” within the meaning of the Serbian Criminal Code. The sentence imposed by the Municipal Court, however, was upheld in its entirety and thereby became final.\n10.  On an unspecified date in 2004, the Mayor filed a separate civil compensation claim with the Municipal Court in Babušnica, seeking 300,000 Serbian Dinars (“RSD”) for the mental anguish suffered due to the applicant's statement referred to above.\n11.  On 23 September 2004 the Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the Mayor, without having heard him in person, and, in so doing, ordered the applicant to pay RSD 120,000 in compensation, together with default interest, plus costs in the amount of RSD 33,400. At that time, this was equivalent to approximately 2,077 Euros (“EUR”), or, in more concrete terms, the applicant's total net salary for the previous six months.\n12.  In its reasoning, the court relied on th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3126", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Şırnak.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 11 February 1994 the applicant's stores and goods were burned and destroyed in the course of an armed clash between members of the State Security Forces and militants from the PKK (the Workers' Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation), in the Silopi district of the province of Şırnak.\n7.  On 14 February 1994 the applicant filed a declaratory action before the Silopi Magistrates' Court for an assessment of the damage he had suffered as a result of the clash and the fire.\n8.  On the same day the Silopi Magistrates' Court appointed an expert to determine the damage.\n9.  On 16 February 1994 the expert submitted a damage assessment report to the court. The expert noted in his report that his conclusions were based on the applicant's claims since the receipts for some of the goods had been burned as a result of the fire.\n10.  On 26 December 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court against the Ministry of Interior and requested compensation for the damage he had suffered.\n11.  On 30 December 1994 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court dismissed the action on the ground that the applicant had failed to apply to the Ministry of the Interior with his claim. The court reasoned that, under Article 13 of Law no. 2577, an action of this kind could be filed only after the administrative authorities had refused the litigant's request.\nb)  Second set of proceedings\n12.  On 1 February 1995 the Ministry of the Interior received the case file from the Diyarbakır Administrative Court. The Ministry did not respond to the applicant's request for compensation within the 60-day period prescribed by Law no. 2577.\n13.  On 3 April 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court and requested compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the destruction of his stores.\n14.  On 7 May 1998 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court awarded the applicant compensation based on his annual tax return in 1993. It held that the expert report on the applicant's damage should not be taken into consideration since the assessment of the damage was based on the applicant's claims alone.\n15.  On 19 August 1998 the applicant appealed.\n16.  On 10 April 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Diyarbakır Administrative Court's judgment. It held that the lower court had erred in its assessment of the damage sustained by the applicant as it had disregarded the damage to the goods in the stores.\n17.  In a judgment dated 16 June 2005, the Diyarbakır Administrative Court, complying with the Supreme Administrative Court's ruling, partially acceded to the applicant's request for compensation. The applicant appealed against this judgment as well and, according to the information in the case file, the proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3127", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Freiburg, Switzerland.\n6.  On 15 July 2000, in the early hours of the morning, the applicant was injured by gunfire during arrest. He received a single bullet to his lower left leg. He was sixteen years old.\n7.  A report of the incident was drafted on the same day at 4.30 a.m. by the police officers involved in the incident and signed by all the suspects, with the exception of the applicant who had been taken to hospital. According to this report, at around 2.30 a.m. the police officers had received information from police headquarters that a group of masked persons had been seen writing on walls and tampering with cars on Tufan Street in the district of Kartal. On arrival at the scene, the police officers had seen graffiti on the walls and, at that moment, someone had started to shoot at them from a dark alley on the opposite side of the street. The police officers and reinforcement police teams which had arrived in the meantime had chased the suspects for about one hour. The suspects had eventually been cornered on an empty plot of land at number 6 Spor Street. Despite being ordered to surrender, the suspects had continued to shoot before entering a tent. Following a clash, the applicant had been injured and immediately taken to Kartal Hospital for treatment. The other suspects had resisted arrest. The incident report stated that the police officers had found masks, illegal documents, knives and spray paint in the tent. It also mentions that a cap gun (a toy gun that creates a loud sound akin to a gunshot and a puff of smoke when the trigger is pulled) had been found in the applicant's possession.\n8.  Between 15 and 17 July 2000 the applicant received medical treatment at Kartal State Hospital. According to the medical report of 17 July 2000 the applicant had suffered a fracture of the fibula (small bone located on the outside of the lower leg). The bullet trajectory was established as having entered from the back of the leg and exited from the front.\n9.  On 17 July 2000 the applicant was examined by a doctor who noted no physical signs of ill-treatment on his person apart from the gunshot wound.\n10.  In the meantime, on 16 July 2000, the Istanbul Criminal Police Laboratory conducted a ballistics examination of the cap gun and eight cartridges. The experts found, inter alia, that the 99 mm. semi automatic cap gun fired noise and gas caps and that the cartridges submitted corresponded to the gun. However, they asserted that with some modifications, the gun could shoot real cartridges. They submitted that the cap gun in question was no different from a real gun in terms of both its size and mechanical structure and that it was impossible to distinguish it, at first glance, from a real gun, even for those who were familiar with guns.\n11.  On 17 July 2000 forensic experts at the Istanbul Criminal Police Laboratory examined samples taken from the hands and palms of the applicant and the other suspects. They found no traces of gunpowder. However, they noted that in certain cases it was possible for traces of gunpowder on hand and palm extracts to go undetected depending on the type of gun and powder used, the way a gun was handled and whether the suspects' hands had been previously washed.\n12.  On the same day, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court heard evidence from the applicant, who denied knowing the other suspects and writing graffiti. He claimed, inter alia, that he", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3128", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant entered the employment of the Council of Ministers on 1 March 1991 as an “Adviser” in its “Local administration and regional policy” department. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of “Chief Adviser” in the same department. The applicant's employment obligations included, inter alia, (a) providing expert advice relating to the preparation of draft legislation and (b) preparing opinions on such texts. He was also involved in providing technical assistance for organising national and municipal elections.\n8.  The applicant's employment contract was initially for an indefinite term. With an amendment of 22 February 1997 it was changed into a fixed term contract set to expire on 31 March 1997. The term of the said agreement was extended twice, the final term having been until 30 June 1997. The applicant's remuneration under the last agreement was 302,500 old Bulgarian levs (approximately 349 German marks at the relevant time).\n9.  Following the expiration of the applicant's employment agreement on 30 June 1997 he continued going to work and fulfilling his employment obligations without any objections from his employer. The applicant considered therefore that his contract had been transformed into an employment agreement for an indefinite term (see paragraph 17 below).\n10.  On 29 July 1997 the applicant was served with an order, dated 28 July 1997, for terminating his employment agreement as of 30 July 1997. The order was signed on behalf of the Minister of State Administration, instead of the Chief Secretary of the Council of Ministers, which was the competent officer, according to the applicant, in employment matters. The basis for terminating the employment agreement was the expiration of its term.\n11.  On 21 September 1997 the applicant addressed a request to the Prime Minister petitioning him to reconsider the dismissal and to reappoint him. He received no response to his request.\n12.  On 26 March 1998 the applicant initiated an action under the Administrative Procedure Act. He petitioned the court to declare the order for his dismissal null and void and to award him compensation for loss of income.\n13.  The administrative proceedings went through two levels of jurisdiction. With a final decision of 30 October 1998 the extended panel of the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant's action. The courts found that the order for his dismissal was not an administrative act of the type that could be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act and that he should have initiated a civil action instead.\n14.  In the meantime, on 14 July 1998 the applicant initiated civil proceedings. He petitioned the courts to recognise the continued existence of an employment agreement, to declare the order for his dismissal null and void, to order that he be granted access to his workplace and to award him compensation for loss of income during the time he had been denied such access.\n15.  With a final decision of 19 October 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected all but one of the applicant's claims – for loss of income during the period he was denied access to his workplace. In respect of the other claims, the courts found that the applicant should instead have initiated an action for unfair dismissal under Article 344 of the Labour Code (the “Code”) and should have done so prior to the expiration of the six‑month statutory deadline on 30 January 1998. The courts recognised that prior to the judgment of the Const", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3129", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the city of Dniprodzerzhynsk.\n5.  On 29 January 2003 the Pavlograd Court awarded the applicant UAH 19,381.50[1] in industrial disease benefits arrears against the State-owned mining company “Geroyiv Kosmosu”, which on 3 March 2003 was joined to the State-owned Holding Company “Pavlogradvugillya”.\n6. On 2 April 2003 the Pavlograd Bailiffs' Service (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) instituted the enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On 29 April 2004 the Pavlograd Court assigned the “Pavlogradvugillya” as the debtor in the enforcement proceedings.\n8.  On 23 September 2004 the Pavlograd City Court rejected the applicant's complaint against the Bailiffs. The court indicated, inter alia, that the award could not be paid due to the debtor's lack of funds. The scope of action for the Bailiffs was also limited by the funds allocated from the State Budget to the Ministry of Fuel and Energy for payment of the industrial benefits.\n9.  On 25 October 2004 the debtor company was privatised.\n10.  On 27 December 2004 the judgment debt was paid to the applicant and the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3130", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a Ukrainian joint venture based in Kyiv, with legal personality under Ukrainian law.\n5.  In June 1995 the Governor of the Tyumen Region of the Russian Federation submitted a proposal to the President of Ukraine to co-fund a joint venture for strengthening and further improvement of trade links between Ukraine and the Tyumen Region. The Governor also suggested that Ukraine should transfer title to a building in Kyiv to the future company, so that it could be used as its head office.\n6.  In September 1995 the applicant company was founded by six companies, including the Ukrresursy State Enterprise.\n7.  On 20 August 1996 the applicant's articles of association were amended, the number of co-founders having increased to seven entities, including the Ukrresursy State Enterprise and the State Property Fund of Ukraine (“the Fund”). The Fund was stated to be acting on behalf of the Ukranaftoprodukt State Enterprise (“Ukranaftoprodukt”). Each founder was declared to hold 14.28% of the applicant's share capital. While six companies were to pay equal amounts of money for their shares (USD 71,542[1]), the Fund undertook to transfer to the applicant company a title to the building valued at USD 71,542[2], and belonging, as was stated in the articles of association, to Ukranaftoprodukt.\n8.  On 30 August 1996 Ukranaftoprodukt, acting on the Fund's instructions, transferred title to an administrative building in Kyiv to the applicant. Ukranaftoprodukt continued to use the building as its premises.\n9.  According to the applicant's amended articles of association, it was established mainly for the purposes of obtaining profit for the shareholders and for the creation of an infrastructure for the cooperation between Ukrainian and Tyumen companies pursuant to intergovernmental decisions aiming at improving effectiveness of business links and implementation of joint programmes, such as the sale of oil, gas, wood, agricultural products; legal advice; organisation of exhibitions; other commercial activities necessary for achieving the goals of the company. The applicant company enjoyed all the rights of a separate legal entity. The applicant's shareholders were entitled to take part in its management, to receive a part of its profit, to be informed about its activities etc. The property of the applicant company consisted of the objects and money transferred to its share capital by the shareholders, as well as the funds received by the applicant from other sources. The shareholders did not enjoy separate rights over the objects transferred to the applicant as their contributions.\n10.  In October 1998 the Kyiv City State Administration (“the City Administration”) instituted proceedings in the Higher Arbitration Court of Ukraine against the Fund, Ukrnaftoprodukt and the applicant company, seeking recovery of title to the building, claiming that it owned the building and alleging that the title to the latter had been transferred to the applicant ultra vires.\n11.  On 29 December 1998 the court invalidated the transfer of 30 August 1996 and ordered Ukrnaftoprodukt to give the building back to the City Administration. The court found that that the building belonged to the Kyiv City Administration and that the Ukrnaftoprodukt had not been entitled to transfer it to the applicant.\n12.  Ukranaftoprodukt lodged a request for review of the decision of 29 December 1998 with the panel of the Higher Arbitration Court for the review of judgments, rulings", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3131", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Amsterdam.\n7.  On 30 March 2000 the Amsterdam Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) convicted three accused, Messrs K., Van S. and H., of arms trafficking. In the criminal investigation into the offences at issue, the Amsterdam police had stated that an arsenal of weapons had been found by chance: the caretaker of a building situated on the Nachtwachtlaan in Amsterdam had contacted the police when water was leaking from one of the flats in the building, whose occupants were absent. With the aid of two locksmiths, the police had gained entry to the flat and in the subsequent search for the source of the leak, the weapons had been found.\n8.  The accused lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Regional Court.\n9.  On 12 and 13 September 2000 the daily newspaper Sp!ts published two articles, written by the applicant and his colleague Ms S., in which doubts were expressed about the amount of coincidence allegedly involved in the finding of the weapons. The article of 13 September 2000, entitled “Chance Hit or Perfect Shot?” (“Toevalstreffer of loepzuiver schot?”), quotes an unnamed policeman of the Amsterdam force as commenting in respect of the flooding, “That is what we made out of it. Sometimes you just need a breakthrough in an investigation” (“Dat hebben we er maar van gemaakt. Soms heb je net even een doorbraak nodig in je onderzoek”).\n10.  In the proceedings on appeal against K., Van S. and H., the applicant and Ms S. were summonsed to appear as witnesses at the request of the defence. At the first hearing before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) on 22 September 2000 in the cases against Van S. and K., the applicant – who was assisted by counsel – stated inter alia that he knew that the policeman, whom he had quoted verbatim in the article of 13 September 2000, had been involved in a previous investigation against K. When the applicant was asked whether that policeman was also involved in the investigation of the flat or was aware of that investigation, he invoked his right of non-disclosure (verschoningsrecht). Counsel for the defence argued that both the individual interest of the accused – on whom a custodial sentence had been imposed as a result of the investigation carried out by the police – and the interest of criminal justice in the Netherlands outweighed the applicant's interest in not disclosing his source. The Advocate General also expressed as his opinion that the applicant could not invoke a right of non-disclosure. He stated in addition that the source, if his name was made known, had nothing to fear from either the police or the public prosecution service.\n11.  After having deliberated, the Court of Appeal considered that, if the statement made by the police officer to the applicant was correct, this might affect the conviction of the accused. It also affected the integrity of the police and judicial authorities. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal held that the applicant was to reply to the question whether his source had been involved in the investigation of the flat and had been aware of that investigation. The President of the court further reminded the applicant that the court was empowered to order his detention for failure to comply with a judicial order (gijzeling). Upon this, the applicant replied that his source had both been aware of, and involved in, the investigation of the flat.\n12.  Asked by counsel for the accused to reveal the identity", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3132", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Sukhodolsk, Lugansk region.\n5.  On 31 March 1997 the Krasnodon Court awarded the applicant's husband UAH 27,669 from his former employer, the State Mining Company “Duvannaya”, in compensation for health damage inflicted by a work accident.\n6.  In May 1998 the applicant's husband died.\n7.  On 27 June 2000 the Presidium of the Lugansk Regional Court, upon the prosecutor's protest lodged under the extraordinary review procedure, quashed the judgment of 31 March 1997 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The outcome of these proceedings is unknown.\n8.  On 21 August 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnodon Court against the State Mining Company “Duvannaya” claiming compensation for health damage allegedly due to her late husband.\n9.  Between September 2000 and November 2001 seven out of nineteen hearings were adjourned due to the respondent's representative failure to appear before the court.\n10.  On 18 March 2002 the Krasnodon Court found against the applicant.\n11.  On 4 July 2002 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal (former Lugansk Regional Court) upheld this judgment.\n12.  On 2 August 2002 the applicant lodged with the Krasnodon Court her appeal in cassation. She was requested by the court's secretary to pay the postal expenses for sending her case-file to the Supreme Court.\n13.  On 27 November 2002 the Supreme Court returned the case-file to the Krasnodon Court as the applicant also challenged the ruling of 27 June 2000, which was not attached to the case-file.\n14.  On 24 October 2003 the Supreme Court returned the case-file to the Krasnodon Court as its ruling of 27 November 2002 was not fulfilled. The Supreme Court further explained that the ruling of 27 June 2000 could not be appealed within the pending proceedings.\n15.  On 30 October 2003 the case-file was sent back to the Krasnodon Court.\n16.  On 12 April 2004 the Krasnodon Court allowed the applicant until 27 May 2004 to rectify the shortcomings of her appeal in cassation. Following the applicant's request, the time-limit was extended until 25 June 2004.\n17.  On 2 August 2004 the case-file was transferred to the Supreme Court.\n18.  On 6 November 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3133", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk.\n5.  On 22 September 1998 criminal proceedings, instituted against the applicant on suspicion of tax evasion, were discontinued on exonerative grounds.\n6.  In December 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnogvardiysky District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the Krasnogvardiysky Court,” Красногвардійський районний суд м. Дніпропетровська), seeking compensation from the State budget for moral damage inflicted by the allegedly unlawful actions of the investigating authorities.\n7.  On 10 September 1999 the Krasnogvardiysky Court rejected the applicant's claims as unsubstantiated. On 1 November 1999 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court (“the Regional Court,” Дніпропетровський обласний суд)[1] quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n8.  On 2 February 2000 the Krasnogvardiysky Court awarded the applicant 3,000 hryvnyas (UAH)[2] in moral damage without specifying the debtor. This judgment was upheld by the Regional Court on 21 February 2000 and became final. The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a supervisory review of the two rulings, seeking a higher amount of compensation.\n9.  On 16 March 2000 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Treasury (Управління державного казначейства у Дніпропетровській області) transferred the judgment of 2 February 2000 to the State Treasury (Державне казначейство України) for enforcement. The State Treasury did not pay the debt and requested the Prosecutors' Office to lodge a supervisory review request (a protest) against the court rulings of 2 and 21 February 2000. On 14 September 2000 the Deputy Regional Prosecutor (Заступник прокурора Дніпропетровської області) lodged a protest with the Regional Court alleging that no compensation should have been awarded.\n10.  On 18 October 2000 the Presidium of the Regional Court dismissed the protest and upheld the previous two rulings. The Deputy Prosecutor General lodged a protest with the Supreme Court against all three court rulings.\n11.  In its final decision of 16 May 2001, the Supreme Court upheld the rulings at issue and amended the judgment of 2 February 2000 to specify that the debt was to be paid by the Zhovtnevy District Treasury of Dnipropetrovsk (“the Zhovtnevy Treasury,” Відділення Державного казначейства у Жовтневому районі м. Дніпропетровська). The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to lodge a cassation appeal against this final decision, seeking a higher amount of compensation.\n12.  On 12 July 2001 the Zhovtnevy District Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Жовтневого районного управління юстиції в м. Дніпропетровську) initiated the enforcement proceedings in respect of the amended judgment of 2 February 2000.\n13.  On 5 October 2001 the Bailiffs imposed a fine on Ms G., the Head of the Zhovtnevy Treasury, for her failure to ensure the enforcement of the judgment in due time. Ms G. appealed to the Zhovtnevy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the Zhovtnevy Court,” Жовтневий районний суд м. Дніпропетровська).\n14.  On 11 December 2001 the Zhovtnevy Court allowed Ms G.'s appeal, having found that the judgment had not been enforced on account of a failure in the statutory mechanism and the lack of budgetary allocations. The applicant's appeal against this judgment was returned as “not lodged” in view of his failure to rectify its procedural shortcomings.\n15.  On 1 April 2002 the Bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3134", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Armagh. She is the widow of Trevor Brecknell.\n7.  On 19 December 1975, loyalist gunmen arrived at Donnelly’s Bar, Silverbridge, in County Armagh and fired a machine gun at persons outside the bar. Two men entered the bar. One sprayed the room with automatic gunfire and the other threw a bomb into the premises. Trevor Brecknell, Patrick Donnelly and Michael Donnelly (aged 14) were killed and six other people received serious injuries. The applicant was at the time in hospital following the birth of her daughter and was informed of her husband’s death by the hospital chaplain and her doctor.\n8.  The emergency services and the police were alerted to the incident within a short time. While the dead and injured were being removed from the scene, soldiers of the Royal Scots Regiment were stoned upon their arrival and had to withdraw. As a consequence of the hostile reception, police decided not to investigate the scene until first light.\n9.  On 20 December, detectives and scene of crime officers attended the scene. Items were taken for forensic examination, including 9mm spent cartridge cases. A number of persons who had been in the bar on the previous night were spoken to and later statements were taken from a substantial number of the customers who had been there during the incident. The Government believed that all had been spoken to but that some would only give detectives an oral account.\n10.  The bodies of the deceased were identified and post mortems held.\n11.  A claim of responsibility for the incident was subsequently made by the Red Hand Commandos, an illegal loyalist paramilitary organisation.\n12.  The Government stated that despite the efforts of the police it was not possible to identify any particular suspect. No one had witnessed the arrival of the gunmen on the night of the attack. While a Ford Cortina car had been seen moving away from the location after the attack no one was able to identify this vehicle as belonging to the gunmen or as being used by them as a getaway vehicle. Although conversations with customers in the bar had led to a photofit picture being compiled this did not lead to anyone being connected with the incident. The view of the investigating officer at the time was that extreme loyalist elements from the Portadown area were likely to be responsible. It was believed that some persons in this category were arrested and interviewed but without any positive outcome. A report was prepared for the Director of Public Prosecutions who, in the absence of any evidence linking individuals to the incident, did not direct any prosecution to be brought.\n13.  On 26 November 1976 an inquest was held into the deaths of the three deceased persons.\n14.  The applicant was first contacted by the police three days after the murder. The investigating officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (“RUC”) who returned her husband’s personal effects told the applicant that the police knew who was responsible for the attack but that they all had alibis that they were playing pool in Markethill at the time of the murder. There was no further contact by the RUC with the applicant concerning the case at this time.\n15.  The investigation into the attack on Donnelly’s Bar did not close and became active again in 1978, when a Catholic priest Father Hugh Murphy was abducted by loyalist paramilitaries intending to use him as a hostage vis-à-vis the IRA. The police arrested a reserve police constabl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3135", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Granemore, County Armagh.\n7.  At about 10.40 p.m., shortly after closing time, on 6 June 1976, a police officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary (“RUC”) drove a car, stolen by RUC Reserve Constable Laurence McClure, up to the Rock Bar, a public house. The applicant was leaving the bar at that time. He was shot twice in the stomach by McClure, who then placed a 10lb gelignite bomb against the door of the pub. The detonator exploded but the bomb failed to explode. At the later trial a reserve police constable, William McCaughey, stated that shots were fired by his companions at the injured man on the ground and then he fired a number of shots through the window of the bar. Bullet strike marks were later found around the darts board inside the bar, where there had been seventeen people. No-one else was physically injured.\n8.  The applicant was taken to hospital in an ambulance and police attended the scene, sealing off the area while an army technical officer examined the explosive device and ensured that it was in a safe condition. A Scene of Crime Officer examined the scene, took possession of material associated with the bomb and a gun recovered from a burnt out car found approximately one mile away, which police linked to the attack. Photographs of the bar were taken and maps prepared.\n9.  The investigation did not close and became active again in 1978, when a Catholic priest Father Hugh Murphy was abducted by loyalist paramilitaries intending to use him as a hostage vis-à-vis the IRA. In the course of the investigation, the police arrested McCaughey, who, in the course of questioning, revealed his part in the abduction of the priest and in a variety of other loyalist paramilitary incidents. McCaughey made allegations incriminating himself and police officer McClure in respect of the Rock Bar attack. McClure was arrested and admitted involvement. Two further serving police officers, Ian Mitchell and David Wilson, also admitted involvement in, or prior knowledge of, the attack on the bar. McCaughey admitted firing the shot which wounded the applicant.\n10.  The applicant was aware that charges were pending against four police officers. He had been contacted by the police in April 1980 and summoned to appear in Belfast Crown Court on 23 April 1980. He was subsequently advised of various date changes and then that the case was postponed and that he would be contacted. In fact the hearing took place on 30 June 1980. The applicant had not been informed and learned about the outcome on the radio.\n11.  Three men, McCaughey, McClure and Mitchell, faced charges of attempted murder of the applicant, wounding the applicant with intent contrary to section 18 of the Offences against the Persons Act 1961, attempted murder of the persons inside the bar, causing an explosion contrary to section 2 of the Explosives Substances Act 1883, possession of explosive substances with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury and possession of firearms and ammunition with intent. The three officers pleaded not guilty to the charges of attempted murder; McClure and Mitchell pleaded not guilty to wounding the applicant. The Director of Public Prosecutions (“the DPP”) entered a nolle prosequi in respect of those charges which accordingly were not proceeded with. No reasons were given for this decision. The only person facing a charge concerning the applicant was McCaughey, who received a term of seven years for w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3136", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant newspaper was registered in Chişinău. The second applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  On 16 January 2004 the applicant newspaper published an article titled “Luxury in the Land of Poverty”, signed by the second applicant. The article examined the relationship between the State authorities and a private investment fund, D.H., which had been founded by and was managed by D.P., a private company. The focus was on the Government's practice of purchasing luxury cars without making any details public. It recalled two purchases of cars in 2003, including from D.H., for a total estimated value of 1,250,000 euros (EUR). Only after the press published details was the Government forced to acknowledge that this deal had taken place.\n8.  The article continued by examining a more recent purchase of 42 new luxury cars from D.H. for an amount exceeding EUR 1 million. The article criticised the deal's lack of transparency, because it had not been published in the Official Gazette. It went on to describe the manner in which the cars had been distributed to the governors of 32 regions of Moldova and raised the issue whether that was a means for the Government to ensure that those governors, 31 of whom were communists as was the President of Moldova, would thereby have a better ability to spread communist propaganda in their regions ahead of the elections which were to be held a year later. The article cited the leader of a political party, who declared that rumours in the Government suggested that the price paid for each car was some EUR 7,000 more than its list price. No explanation was given by the authorities as to why luxury cars were needed if much cheaper new cars could be purchased for a fraction of the price. The article ended with an accusation of corruption at the highest State level, for which no one was going to be punished, and said that if the voters did not mete out justice at the forthcoming elections then only God's justice could be hoped for.\n9.  On 23 January 2004 D.H. and D.P. brought an action for defamation against the applicants. At the same time, they asked for an injunction against the applicants' publishing any material about the leadership of D.H. and D.P. without their permission and for the sequestration of the applicant newspaper's property to an amount equal to their claim (500,000 United States dollars (USD) and 20,000,000 Moldovan lei (MDL)). The plaintiffs paid court fees of MDL 180. On the same day the Buiucani District Court ordered that the applicant newspaper's assets be frozen as requested.\n10.  On 6 February 2004 the bailiff enforced the warrant by sequestrating the applicant newspaper's office equipment and freezing its bank account.\n11.  The second applicant received several threatening phone calls and on 23 June 2003 she was attacked outside her house by unidentified persons and suffered a blow from a metal bar to her arm and head. The applicant newspaper and other media linked the attack with two investigations undertaken by the journalist, namely an investigation into a luxury car offered as a gift by the President of D.H. to the Minister of Internal Affairs and the article examined in the present case.\n12.  In its submissions to the trial court the applicant newspaper relied on the existence of an important public interest in view of the fact that the transaction had been made with public money but had not been carried out through a public tender organised by the National Age", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3137", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Petru Popovici, known as Micu (“the applicant”), is a Moldovan national who was born in 1962. He is presently serving a life sentence in Rezina prison.\n6.  In 2000 and 2001 the applicant and a group of ten other persons were accused of being members of a criminal gang and of having committed numerous offences, including ten murders and thirteen attempted murders. The applicant was arrested and placed in detention on 12 November 2001.\n7.  On 22 October 2002 seven members of the gang were finally convicted by the Supreme Court and sentenced to terms of imprisonment varying between ten years and life sentences. The applicant and three other co-accused (R., S. and G.D.) were tried separately.\n8.  The applicant was charged with founding and heading the criminal gang. In his capacity as founder and head of the gang he was charged with the attempted murder of five persons; the murder of three persons; the unlawful deprivation of liberty of three persons and possession of firearms. He was also charged in his personal capacity with use of false documents; possession and use of firearms; blackmail; theft and possession of drugs.\n9.  During the proceedings before the first-instance court the prosecution dropped the charges concerning two attempted murders.\n10.  In March 2003 the Secretary of the Superior Security Council of Moldova, Mr Valeriu Gurbulea, gave an interview to a Russian language newspaper in which he declared, inter alia:\n“Людьми главы самой крупной преступной группировки - Мику - предпринимались самые энергичные попытки его освобождения из под стражи, и только личное вмешательство Президента пресекло эти попытки.”\n“The men of the leader of the most important criminal gang, Micu, made very energetic attempts to get him released from detention, and only the personal involvement of the President cut short those attempts.”\n11.  On 7 October 2003 the Chişinău Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant of all the charges for lack of evidence. The Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant of all the charges and ordered his release from custody. It also acquitted co-accused G.D., but convicted co-accused R. and S. In its judgment the court stated, inter alia:\n“...\n[The applicant] is accused of, between January 1998 and February 2000, together with R. and S., founding a criminal gang and heading it....\nIn his capacity as founder and head of the criminal gang, he is accused of the murder of three persons, attempted murder of five persons, deprivation of liberty of three persons and purchase and possession of firearms. He is also accused of purchase and possession of firearms and drugs in his personal capacity at the time of his arrest on 12 November 2001, use of false documents, blackmail and theft.”\nBoth during the investigation and the court proceedings [the applicant] pleaded his innocence.\nConcerning the charge of founding and heading the criminal gang, the court stated:\n“[The applicant]'s indictment is of a declarative nature and is based on suppositions but not on any convincing evidence. The prosecutor did not adduce any new evidence during the [court] proceedings.\nThe co-accused R. and G.D. and the [seven persons convicted by the Supreme Court on 22 October 2002] did not make any statements during the investigation which would incriminate [the applicant] in founding and heading the criminal gang..., purchasing firearms, ammunition and cars, renting apartments and financing the gang.\nThe charges against [the applicant]", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3138", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Berlin.\n6.  He is a journalist on the German weekly magazine Stern. From 1 August 1999 until 31 July 2004 he was assigned to Brussels to report on the policies of the European Union and the activities of the European institutions.\n7.  On 27 February and 7 March 2002 Stern published two articles by the applicant based on confidential documents from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The first article reported on allegations by a European civil servant concerning irregularities in the European institutions. The second concerned the internal investigations OLAF had carried out into those allegations.\n8.  A rumour began to circulate within OLAF that the applicant had paid 8,000 euros (EUR) or German marks (DEM) to a European civil servant in exchange for this information.\n9.  On 12 March 2002 OLAF, suspecting the applicant of having bribed a civil servant in order to obtain confidential information concerning investigations in progress in the European institutions, opened an internal investigation to identify the person who had disclosed the information to the applicant.\n10.  The minutes of an OLAF Supervisory Committee meeting held on 9 and 10 April 2002 stated in particular:\n“The members of the Supervisory Committee noted that the journalist’s articles were not at all aggressive in tone but hinted at the real situation, as was often the case with individuals. They were surprised that OLAF’s press release referred to a payment for such information. Consequently, they wished to be informed whether such a payment had been made and whether any serious evidence existed in this regard.”\n11.  In a letter of 24 March 2003 written in the course of his inquiry into a complaint (no. 1840/2002/GG) filed by the applicant against OLAF, the European Ombudsman indicated that the suspicions that the applicant had bribed an OLAF official had originated from “information from reliable sources, including members of the European Parliament”.\n12.  On 30 September 2003 OLAF issued a press release entitled “OLAF clarification regarding an apparent leak of information”. The press release was worded as follows:\n“On 27 March 2002, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) issued a press release announcing that it had opened an internal investigation under Regulation 1073/1999 into an apparent leak of confidential information included in a report prepared within OLAF. It stated that according to information received by the Office, a journalist had received a number of documents relating to the so-called ‘... affair’, and that it was not excluded that payment might have been made to somebody within OLAF (or possibly another EU institution) for these documents. OLAF’s enquiries have not yet been completed but to date, OLAF has not obtained proof that such a payment was made.”\n13.  On 30 November 2003 the European Ombudsman issued his decision. He had already submitted a draft recommendation to OLAF on 18 June 2003. The decision, which essentially reproduced the conclusions set out in the draft, stated in particular:\n“... 1.7  ... by publishing this press release, OLAF has not adequately implemented the Ombudsman’s draft recommendation. Instead of withdrawing the allegations of bribery, OLAF simply states that ‘to date’ it has not found sufficient evidence to support these allegations. The wording of this press release thus implies that OLAF considers it possible that evidence supporting these allegations could still emer", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3139", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Trnava.\n5.  On 31 March 2000 the applicant brought an action against the Western Slovakia Electricity Company in the Trenčín District Court (Okresný súd). He submitted that he had sustained damage as a result of a fire caused by the meters for measuring electricity consumption which belonged to the defendant. The applicant claimed that the defendant was responsible for this damage and sought compensation.\n6.  On 18 June 2001 the District Court requested that the applicant provide further and better particulars, especially a specification of the amount of damages claimed. The applicant responded on 9 July 2001.\n7.  On 10 July 2001 the District Court asked the applicant to pay court fees. The applicant responded by demanding an exemption from the obligation to pay court fees on account of his financial situation.\n8.  On 31 January 2002 the District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees.\n9.  On 26 March 2002 the District Court requested the defendant's observations in reply.\n10.  The District Court listed hearings for 3 March and 28 April 2004. The former was cancelled on request of the defendant who was unable to appear and the second was adjourned until 16 June 2004 in order to enable the applicant to identify the defendant in accordance with the applicable formal requirements. The hearing of 16 June 2004 was adjourned with a view to obtaining expert evidence.\n11.  In the meantime, on 14 May 2004, the District Court authorised a change in defendants.\n12.  On 11 February 2005 the District Court appointed an energy expert to draw up a report on the case. On 29 March 2005 the expert informed the court that he was not licensed to provide an opinion on the matter. The District Court requested clarification of this from the Ministry of Justice which maintains the register of sworn translators and experts.\n13.  In a letter of 25 March 2005 the Ministry informed the District Court that the expert had a valid licence. The District Court subsequently requested the expert to produce the report and warned that he could be sanctioned if he failed to do so. On 7 July 2005 the expert submitted a decree of 9 May 2002 showing that his licence had been withdrawn.\n14.  On 20 July 2005 the District Court appointed a new expert who filed a report on 5 October 2005.\n15.  On 20 December 2005 and 19 January 2006, respectively, the District Court ordered the defendant to pay an advance on the expert's fees and requested the parties' observations on his report. The parties submitted the observations in February 2006.\n16.  On 17 March and 20 June 2006, respectively, the District Court ruled on the expert's fees and requested the parties to state whether they wished to call the expert as witness. They replied on 21 July 2006.\n17.  On 24 June 2006 the applicant requested leave to extend the scope of the action. The District Court dismissed the request on 3 August 2006.\n18.  On 13 December 2006 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicant submitted that he wished to modify his statement of claim and that he would do so in writing within 10 days. The defendant requested that the court demand a report from the manufacturer of the metering installations in question. The hearing was adjourned until 21 February 2007.\n19.  On 15 and 27 December 2006, respectively, the applicant submitted his modified statement of claim and the defendant put forward the questions to be put to the manufa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3140", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  The applicant was a member of the executive board of the İzmir Branch of the Human Rights Association (“the Association”) at the time of lodging his application to the Court.\n6.  On 10 July 2001 the İzmir Governor sent a letter to the Association requesting that the membership of thirteen persons be annulled as they were considered to be involved in illegal activities.\n7.  On 6 August 2001 the Association replied to the Governor, maintaining that they would not execute the request since none of these thirteen persons had convictions which would ban them from founding or becoming a member of an association, as provided by Article 4 §§ 2 and 3 of the Law on Associations (Law No. 2908).\n8.  On 8 August 2001 the İzmir Public Prosecutor took the applicant's statement and informed him that a prosecution had been initiated against him for non-compliance with Article 4 of Law No. 2908 and that no court proceedings would be initiated if he paid a fine of 142,366,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] within ten days. The applicant did not pay the fine within ten days as required by the payment order.\n9.  Subsequently, on 3 December 2001 the İzmir public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and the other members of the executive board of the İzmir Branch of the Human Rights Association. The public prosecutor requested that the accused be sentenced to a fine under Article 75 of the Law on Associations and Article 119 of the Criminal Code for their failure to comply with the İzmir Governor's request. The bill of indictment was not notified to the applicant.\n10.  On 26 December 2001 the İzmir Magistrates' Court, without holding a hearing, found the applicant and other co-accused guilty as charged and, by a penal order (ceza kararnamesi), sentenced them to a fine of TRL 213,548,400[2] per person. In doing so, the court relied on the “simplified procedure” stipulated in Article 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relatively minor offences.\n11.  The applicant and the other co-accused filed an objection with the İzmir Criminal Court against the decision of 26 December 2001.\n12.  On 6 February 2002 the İzmir Criminal Court dismissed the objection, without holding a hearing.\n13.  On 13 February 2002 a payment order was issued in respect of the applicant. The applicant paid the due amount in three instalments on 12 March, 9 April and 9 May 2002 respectively.\n14.  Subsequently, on 16 December 2002 one of the co-accused, Mr N.B., applied to the Ministry of Justice, requesting the Minister to refer the case to the Court of Cassation by way of a written order (yazılı emir).\n15.  On 29 January 2003 the Minister of Justice issued a written order and instructed the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation to ask the Court of Cassation to set aside the judgment concerned.\n16.  On 14 April 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the İzmir Criminal Court dated 6 February 2002 and the case file was remitted to the İzmir Magistrate's Court.\n17.  On 14 May 2003 the İzmir Magistrates' Court held a preparatory hearing and included the case in its list. It further decided to summon all of the defendants, including the applicant, to its next hearing.\n18.  On 14 July, 7 August and 22 October 2003 respectively, the court held three hearings. The applicant did not attend any of them.\n19.  At its last hearing held on 22 October 2003, the Magistrates' Court held that it lacked juris", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3141", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Derry. He was the brother of Colm McCartney.\nA  The attack at Altnamachkin and the initial investigation\n7.  On the night of 24 August 1975, Colm McCartney, the applicant's brother and Sean Farmer were driving home from the All-Ireland Gaelic football semi-finals in Croke Park, Dublin. Both men were found shot dead on the Cortamlet Road, Altnamachin, in South Armagh. Colm McCartney had been shot four times, Sean Farmer six times. According to the later inquest, the time of death was about 11.35 pm. The car was found burnt out half a mile from the murder scene.\n8.  Prior to their deaths, at about 10.45 pm a police patrol in an unmarked car had been stopped at what was believed to be a bogus checkpoint (“VCP”) manned by armed men in military style uniforms on the A25 several hundred yards from where the bodies were found. A short conversation took place between the three RUC officers and a person holding a torch dressed in full military combat uniform. The officers noticed a second person also dressed in military uniform lying in a ditch apparently giving cover with a rifle. The scene at the checkpoint roused suspicions, inter alia, due to the lack of other vehicles, the accent of the person who stopped them and the length of hair of the man in the ditch. After being allowed through the checkpoint, the officers requested clarification by radio as to the presence of any army checkpoints in the vicinity. They were informed that none were operating. The police patrol drove to a police station, where, requesting army support, they decided to investigate further.\n9.  At about 11.30 pm a local resident who had been walking his dog noticed a vehicle stopped on Cortamlet Road. He saw the interior light of the car come on and a door on the passenger side open. Three or four gunshots were heard. The witness saw a light from a lamp lying on the road. He then heard the sound of someone running along the road and a man's voice shouting \"Stop, stop,\" several times. This was followed by a flash and a bang. He heard a wild scream and everything went quiet. Fearing for his safety, the witness hid behind a tree. He heard further shooting, five to ten shots. After some minutes, he heard a car engine being started and the car, brownish with a black vinyl roof, drove past him without its lights on. He went to a neighbour who returned with him to the scene where they found two bodies. They contacted the police.\n10.  At first light, a Detective Constable visited the scene and inspected the bodies which were some 50 metres apart. He arranged for the scene to be examined, photographed and mapped. The bodies were identified.\n11.  The police visited the McCartney and Farmer families that day. On the same day, Colm McCartney's car was found gutted by fire half a mile from the scene. It was subsequently established by ballistics examinations that three firearms had been used and that the weapons had been used in other incidents.\n12.  The police believed that the murders had been carried out by an extreme loyalist paramilitary organisation, reacting to a murder of a local Protestant. They had little doubt that the men who stopped the police patrol had been directly connected with the murders if not in fact the actual murderers.\n13.  A report was submitted by the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions on 17 February 1976.\n14.  An inquest occurred on 23 July 1976. It appears that the local resident who witnessed the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3142", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is a registered association of landowners (pozemkové spoločenstvo). It is a legal person with its registered office in Trenčín. It was entered in the official register with effect from 30 December 1996. Mr K. Rehák, its president, lodged the application on the applicant's behalf.\n7.  Under the communist regime in Czechoslovakia owners of land were in most cases obliged to put their land at the disposal of State-owned or cooperative farms. They formally remained owners of the land but in practice had no possibility of availing themselves of the property.\n8.  Some of the land in question was, for various reasons, not cultivated by the farms. It was the State policy to promote the use of such land for gardening. For that purpose allotment gardens (záhradkové osady) were established, mainly in the vicinity of urban agglomerations. Individual plots of land were put at the disposal of persons belonging to the Slovakian Union of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners (Slovenský zväz záhradkárov), who were allowed to cultivate the land as a pastime activity for their individual needs.\n9.  In the context of Czechoslovakia's[1] transition to a market-oriented economy following the fall of the communist regime, Parliament adopted the Land Ownership Act 1991 (for further details concerning the relevant law and practice see point II below), the purpose of which was to mitigate certain wrongs and to improve the care of agricultural and forest land.\n10.  Under the Land Ownership Act 1991 the plots of land on which allotment gardens had been established were not to be restored in natura to the original owner where ownership of the land had passed from the original owners to the State or a legal person. In such cases the original owners were entitled to compensation in kind or in pecuniary form. In this category of cases the legislator gave precedence to legal certainty for the existing users of the property, as the use of land for gardening was considered to be of greater public interest than restoring the land in natura to its original owners.\n11.  In the second category of cases, where the original owners maintained their ownership rights, albeit in name only (nuda proprietas), the Land Ownership Act 1991 established conditions enabling the owners to enjoy their property rights to a greater extent. In particular, it provided for the land to be let to the existing users, with a notice period expiring on the date when the temporary right to use the land came to an end. The tenants were, however, entitled to have the lease extended by ten years unless an agreement to the contrary was reached between the parties. The landowners were also entitled to request, within three years of the coming into effect of the 1991 Act, the exchange of their property for a different plot of land owned by the State.\n12.  The above approach, permitting the owners to recover full possession of their land after the expiry of the ten years for which the tenants had the right to have the lease extended, was modified with the adoption of Act 64/1997. As a result, owners have only a limited possibility of terminating the lease, mainly on the grounds of the tenants' failure to comply with their obligations. The position of the tenants has been strengthened in that they are entitled to acquire ownership of the land they use for gardening. As to the owners, Act 64/1997 gives them the right to obtain either a different plot of land or pecuniary compensation.\n13.  In introd", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3143", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Dunakeszi.\n5.  In the context of a supply contract, on 23 December 1994 Kiss és Kolláth Bt. – a limited partnership managed by the applicant, of which he is also a shareholder – filed an action against another company claiming a certain amount of money.\n6.  After seven hearings, on 19 September 1997 the Pest Central District Court dismissed the applicant's claim. The second-instance court quashed this decision on 11 February 1999.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings, on 26 March 2003 the District Court held several hearings, obtained the opinion of an expert and again dismissed the applicant's claims.\n8.  On appeal, on 23 September 2004 the Budapest Regional Court reversed this decision and awarded the applicant 4.4 million Hungarian forints (HUF), plus accrued statutory interest. The court dismissed the applicant's other claims for interest. It relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of the expert and the testimony of witnesses.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3144", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, who is a French national of Polish origin, was born in 1950 and lived in Brzeg.\n9.  The applicant moved to Poland in about 1984. He was in employment for a number of years and consequently was affiliated to the general social security scheme. The relevant law governing it did not exclude the participation of foreign nationals in the general social security scheme.\n10.  On 20 January 1997 the applicant and his wife, who is a Polish national, jointly bought a farm. They took possession of it on 20 November 1997. At about that time the applicant terminated his employment and decided to make his living from the farm.\n11.  On 2 December 1997 the applicant requested the Częstochowa branch of the Farmers' Social Security Fund (Kasa Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia Społecznego) to admit him to the farmers' social security scheme.\n12.  On 16 December 1997 his request was refused on the ground that he was not a Polish national, a condition stipulated in the Farmers' Social Security Act of 20 December 1990 (“the 1990 Act”; ustawa o ubezpieczeniu społecznym rolników). As a result, the applicant did not have social security cover in the event of sickness, occupational injury and invalidity. In addition, he could not pay contributions towards his old-age pension.\n13.  In a decision given on the same date, the applicant's wife was admitted to the farmers' scheme.\n14.  The applicant appealed against the decision given in his case. He submitted that as a self-employed farmer he was exposed to the risk of work-related accidents. Furthermore, he argued that since he had acquired the farm he had terminated his previous employment and that the farm was intended to provide for his livelihood. The applicant also submitted that when previously employed he had been covered by the general social security scheme despite his foreign nationality. As a result of the refusal, he could not pay his social security contributions, so the relevant time would not be taken into account when calculating his future retirement pension.\n15.  He also submitted that he had been informed about an obligation to join the scheme by way of a clause in the notarial deed whereby he had acquired the farm. In addition, the applicant stated that he had been living in Poland for 18 years and that he had had a permanent residence permit for 15 years. He also referred to his Polish origin and his willingness to pay the relevant contributions to the scheme.\n16.  On 30 March 1998 the Częstochowa Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal, finding that the applicant could not be admitted to the farmers' social security scheme as he did not have Polish nationality. On the other hand, it observed that in the event of a serious occupational injury the applicant could be granted a one-off compensation payment as provided in section 10(1)(2) of the 1990 Act. As regards access to health services, the Regional Court noted that the applicant, as a foreign national permanently residing in Poland, would be provided with such access by a law which was to come into force on 1 January 1999.\n17.  The applicant appealed against that judgment. He submitted that the refusal to admit him to the social security scheme for farmers on the basis of his nationality was discriminatory. He alleged a breach of the principle of equality, relying on the Constitution and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“the ICESC”).\n18.  On 22 December 1998 the Katowice Court of Appeal dis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3145", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Mihai Ursu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1970 and lives in Peresecina.\n6.  On 31 March 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having murdered, in 1993, Mr I.O., whose mother became Speaker of Parliament in 2001.\n7.  Between 2 April and 3 August 2004 he was remanded on the basis of monthly detention orders issued by the Buiucani District Court. The detention orders set out as grounds for his detention the fact that he had been suspected of having committed a serious offence punishable by more than two years' imprisonment; moreover, the isolation of the suspect from society was considered necessary because he might abscond and obstruct the criminal investigation by influencing the witnesses.\n8.  In his appeals against the detention orders, the applicant argued, inter alia, that his detention was not necessary since there were no objective reasons to suspect him, that during his detention no investigation measures had been carried out and that he suffered from epilepsy and needed specialist medical treatment.\n9.  All his appeals were dismissed on the ground that the circumstances warranting his detention had not changed. On 6 July 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal reduced the duration of the detention order from thirty days to twenty days on the ground that “during the previous month no investigation measures were carried out ... the suspect did not have a criminal record, he has a family and minor children, a house, a job and serious health problems.”\n10.  On 3 August 2004 the Prosecutor's Office submitted the applicant's case file to the competent court. After that date the applicant continued to be detained without any detention order.\n11.  On 21 December 2004 a habeas corpus request lodged by the applicant was rejected and he continued to be detained in pre-trial detention until 6 July 2006, when he was convicted and sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3146", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 5 April 1988 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and her alleged accomplices. On 20 August 1990 the Budapest Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment charging them with larceny. Subsequently, the Pest Central District Court held five hearings.\n6.  Between 15 March 1993 and 30 September 1994 the applicant was not available for trial. Subsequently the District Court held seven hearings. In the period between 26 August 1998 and 13 August 1999, the applicant was again unavailable for trial.\n7.  From 5 May 2000 until 5 March 2003, the Pest Central District Court held seven hearings.\n8.  On 21 May 2003 the court ordered the applicant's examination by an expert psychiatrist. Since the applicant did not comply voluntarily, it could not take place before 21 November 2003.\n9.  On 31 March 2004 the applicant was acquitted.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3147", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Kosice.\n5.  The applicant is a sports journalist. On 18 November 1997 a local daily newspaper published an article containing negative remarks about the applicant's professionalism, ethics and education.\n6.  On 26 January 1998 the applicant brought a libel action in the Košice II District Court (Okresný súd) against the chief editor of the daily and “his office”. He sought a judicial order that the defendants publish a correction of the libellous information. In the course of the action there have been several corporate and personal changes on the side of the defendants causing ambiguity as to their standing to be sued in the case.\n7.  On 25 March and 18 May 1998, respectively, the District Court invited the applicant to submit further information and to pay the court fee. The applicant complied on 2 April and 26 May 1998, respectively.\n8.  On 21 December 1998 the applicant amended the action and submitted a further specification of who the defendants were.\n9.  On 22 March 1999 the District Court ruled that the modification of the scope of the action was impermissible. On 30 December 1999 the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) overturned this decision on the applicant's appeal and approved the modification.\n10.  Between 1 October 1998 and 2 October 2001 the District Court held 3 hearings that were adjourned due to the absence of the defendant. Another 2 hearings were scheduled but did not take place because the judge was absent for health reasons.\n11.  On 21 August 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). He contended that the length of the proceedings in his action was excessive and claimed 935,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK) in damages.\n12.  On 16 April 2003 the Constitutional Court found that there had been a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing “without undue delay” (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution) and within a “reasonable time” (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention) in his action. The Constitutional Court ordered that the District Court proceed with the matter promptly; pay the applicant SKK 40,000[2] by way of compensation in respect of non‑pecuniary damage; and reimburse the applicant's legal costs. The subject‑matter of the proceedings was neither legally nor factually complex. The applicant had caused no delays and what was at stake for him called for special diligence. However, for almost 3 years, the District Court had proceeded with the case inefficiently.\n13.  Between 12 December 2002 and 1 February 2005 the District Court took several decisions ascertaining who the defendants in the action were and correcting clerical errors in those decisions. The applicant challenged these decisions by way of appeals (odvolanie) and appeals on points of law (dovolanie). The latter were declared inadmissible on 25 August and 21 October 2005 as, in the circumstances, no such remedy was available.\nIn this period, the District Court sought information from the Registry of Inhabitants concerning the address of one of the defendants and requested that court mail be served on him by the police.\n14.  According to the applicant, in the meantime the newspaper in question ceased to exist.\n15.  On 23 January 2006 the District Court requested the applicant to identify the defendants of his action in accordance with the applicable procedural requirements and the current state of affairs. He responded on 2 February 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3148", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Whitecross, County Armagh. She was the mother of John Reavey, Brian Reavey and Anthony Reavey.\n7.  On the evening of 4 January 1976, John Reavey, Brian Reavey and Anthony Reavey, sons of the applicant, were at home watching television. Between 6.05-6.10 p.m., three gunmen entered the house and shot all three brothers. Brian was shot three times in the back and once in the legs; John was hit by 14-16 9mm bullets in the neck and body: the autopsy report concluded that death would have been rapid in both cases. Anthony was hit six times in the legs. When the gunmen had gone, Anthony made his way to a neighbour's house to give the alarm. He later died of a brain haemorrhage in hospital on 30 January 1976, the autopsy report concluding that the wounds that he had received had played no part in his death.\n8.  On the same night, three other Catholics, Barry O'Dowd, Declan O'Dowd and Joseph O'Dowd were shot and killed in County Down, about twenty minutes after the attack on the Reaveys (see application no. 34622/04).\n9.  Shortly after the events, police arrived at the scene and secured it. An ambulance removed the bodies.\n10.  Detectives arrived at the scene at 7.25 pm.\n11.  At 7.40 pm officers went to a vehicle on fire and on its being extinguished took the remains to a garage for inspection. Scene of crime officers examined the scene, recovering a number of spent cartridge cases and bullet heads and one live round, which were sent for examination.\n12.  Forensic examination established that four weapons had been used in the attack, three of which had been used in previous incidents. Police believed the murders were carried out by the Ulster Volunteer Force (“UVF”), a proscribed loyalist paramilitary organisation.\n13.  House to house inquiries were carried out in the area and along the suspected escape route, and liaison made with officers involved in other killings of Catholics in the area. Nothing of evidential value was obtained. A number of known loyalist activists were arrested and interviewed about the murders but no admissions were made. The police sent a report to the DPP on 4 March 1976. As no person had been identified as a perpetrator no-one was charged.\n14.  Inquests were held on 28 January 1977. Open verdicts were returned.\n15.  The investigation did not close and became active again in 1978, when a Catholic priest Father Hugh Murphy was abducted by loyalist paramilitaries intending to use him as a hostage vis-à-vis the IRA. The police arrested a reserve police constable, William McCaughey, who, in the course of questioning, revealed his part in the abduction of the priest and in a variety of other loyalist paramilitary incidents. McCaughey made allegations that a police officer was involved in the Reavey murders. This officer was arrested and questioned. He was charged with serious offences, resigned from the police and was subsequently convicted.\n16.  McCaughey's revelations gave rise to investigations in eleven specific cases, some of which were linked in terms of the identities of those involved, the modus operandi or by virtue of the ballistic examinations of weapons used. Nine suspects were arrested in total, including five police officers and all were eventually charged with offences.\n17.  One of those implicated was a police officer John Weir who was named as having been involved in the murder of a shopkeeper called Strathearn in Ahoghill in April 1977: he was convicted for th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3149", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Sopot.\n5.  The applicant was arrested on 24 October 2000 on suspicion of armed robbery. On the same day the Gdańsk District Court remanded the applicant in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery. That suspicion was supported by evidence obtained in the course of the investigation. The District Court further held that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the investigation and go into hiding. It also had regard to the severity of the anticipated penalty.\n6.  Later, several other persons were detained and charged in connection with the same investigation conducted by the Department of Organised Crime of the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor's Office.\n7.  On 9 January 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 March 2001. It found that the grounds previously relied on were still valid. In addition, it held that the prolongation of his detention was justified by the need to obtain evidence, including expert reports, from many sources.\n8.  On 15 March 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 31 May 2001. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would induce the witnesses to give false testimonies.\n9.  On 15 May 2001 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with one count of armed robbery which had been committed in an organised armed criminal group. The bill of indictment listed 118 charges brought against 19 defendants, who were all detained on remand. The case file comprised 114 volumes. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 366 witnesses.\n10.  On 17 May 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court ordered that the applicant be detained until 31 October 2001, finding that it was necessary in order to prevent him – and his other 12 detained co-defendants – from evading justice or tampering with evidence. It also referred to the complexity of the case stemming from the number of defendants and the number of witnesses to be heard.\n11.  On 16 October 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 March 2002, considering that the grounds originally given for remanding him in custody were still valid. In respect of the danger of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses, the Regional Court held, having regard to evidence given by a witness R.G., that some of the defendants had attempted to induce witnesses to give false testimonies.\n12.  The trial began on 28 December 2001. However, as of April 2002 the reading out of the bill of indictment by the prosecution had still not been concluded. Initially, the trial court held three hearings per month.\n13.  During the hearing held on 30 January 2002 the trial court ordered the removal of the applicant and some other defendants from the court room because of their disruptive behaviour.\n14.  Further prolongation of the applicant's detention were ordered by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 27 March 2002 (up to 30 September 2002) and on 26 September 2002 (up to 24 October 2002). In both those decisions, the Regional Court considered that the applicant's detention was the only measure which could prevent him from interfering with the proceedings.\n15.  It appears that the applicant refused to participate in the hearing held on 16 September 2002.\n16.  Since on 24 October 2002 the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3150", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Beograd.\n5.  On 16 July 2001 the applicant, along with fourteen other individuals, instituted civil proceedings against his former employer seeking payment of certain sums of money.\n6.  On 13 August 2003 the Beograd Fourth Municipal Court declared the action inadmissible because the plaintiffs' lawyer had failed to submit a full list of plaintiffs and their addresses, a specification of their claims and a power of attorney.\n7.  On appeal, on 28 April 2004 the Beograd District Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case. It found that the plaintiffs' lawyer had supplied the requested documents and that the case was suitable for examination on its merits.\n8.  On 16 November 2004 the applicant filed a complaint with the Supreme Court concerning the length of the proceedings. The Supreme Court forwarded that complaint to the president of the Beograd Fourth Municipal Court, who, having reviewed the case file, informed the applicant that the next hearing in his case was scheduled for 22 December 2004.\n9.  At the hearing held on that date, the court decided to split the claims made by the various plaintiffs into separate proceedings and another judge was appointed to hear the applicant's case. The newly appointed judge ordered the joinder of the applicant's case to the initial case file, but was unable to obtain that file until 11 June 2005.\n10.  The court apparently held hearings on 19 January, 11 April, 6 June, 3 July and 23 October 2006.\n11.  On 5 April 2007 the first-instance court gave judgment in the case and, according to the information provided by the parties to date, the proceedings are currently pending before the second-instance court following the applicant's appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3151", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1975 and 1963 respectively and live in İzmir. They were members of the executive board of the Izmir Branch of the Human Rights Association (“the Association”) at the time of lodging their applications to the Court. The applications stemmed from two separate sets of criminal proceedings initiated against them.\n5.  On 10 July 2001 the Izmir Governor sent a letter to the Association requesting that the membership of thirteen persons be annulled as they were considered to be involved in illegal activities.\n6.  On 6 August 2001 the Association replied to the Governor, maintaining that they would not execute the request since none of these thirteen persons had convictions which would ban them from founding or becoming a member of an association, as provided by Article 4 §§ 2 and 3 of the Law on Associations (Law No. 2908).\n7.  On 8 November 2001 and 13 November 2001, respectively, the İzmir Public Prosecutor took the applicants' statements and informed them that a prosecution had been initiated against them for non-compliance with Article 4 of Law No. 2908 and that no court proceedings would be initiated if they paid a fine of 142,366,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] per person within ten days. The applicants did not pay the fine within ten days as required by the payment order.\n8.  Subsequently, on 3 December 2001 the İzmir public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicants and the other members of the Board. The public prosecutor requested that the accused be sentenced to a fine under Article 75 of the Law on Associations and Article 119 of the Criminal Code for their failure to comply with the İzmir Governor's request. The bill of indictment was not notified to the applicants.\n9.  On 26 December 2001 the Izmir Magistrates' Court, without holding a hearing, found the applicants and other co-accused guilty as charged and, by a penal order (ceza kararnamesi), sentenced them to a fine of TRL 213,548,400[2] per person. In doing so, the court relied on the “simplified procedure” stipulated in Article 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relatively minor offences.\n10.  The applicants and the other co-accused filed an objection with the Izmir Criminal Court against the decision of 26 December 2001.\n11.  On 6 February 2002 the İzmir Criminal Court dismissed the objection, without holding a hearing.\n12.  The applicants paid the due amounts.\n13.  Subsequently, on 16 December 2002 the first applicant applied to the Ministry of Justice, requesting the Minister to issue a written order (yazılı emir) and refer the case to the Court of Cassation.\n14.  On 29 January 2003 the Minister of Justice issued a written order and instructed the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation to ask the Court of Cassation to set aside the judgment concerned.\n15.  On 14 April 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Izmir Criminal Court dated 6 February 2002 and the case file was remitted to the Izmir Magistrates' Court.\n16.  On 14 May 2003 the İzmir Magistrates' Court held a preparatory hearing and included the case in its list. It further decided to summon all of the defendants, including the applicants, to its next hearing.\n17.  On 14 July, 7 August and 22 October 2003 respectively, the Court held three hearings. The applicants did not attend any of them.\n18.  At its last hearing held on 22 October 2003, the Magistrates' Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because, following the p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3152", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Amsterdam.\n7.  In 1967 her parents built a holiday home without planning permission on land situated in Zutendaal (Belgium). According to the applicant, however, the house was built in 1962.\n8.  Following her mother’s death, a deed of partition was drawn up on 6 January 1986 between the applicant (who, inheriting from her mother, became the remainderman of half of the property) and her father. That deed, which specifically mentions the existence of the building, was registered with the Mortgage Registrar at the Ministry of Finance and a registration fee was paid.\n9.  The applicant’s father died on 21 August 1993 and she became the full and sole owner of the entire property. On inheriting the property, the applicant specifically declared in the notarised deed of distribution that the plot was a holiday home. The deeds were registered with the local authorities and the applicant paid the inheritance tax. From then on, the applicant paid an annual property tax (précompte immobilier) and second‑residence tax on the holiday home. According to the applicant, it went without saying that her father had also paid the relevant taxes on the house.\n10.  The applicant carried out renovations on the house costing 50,000 euros (EUR) and had the trees on the adjoining land felled.\n11.  In 1994 the partly government-controlled Flemish water-supply company carried out works to connect the house to the drainage and water-supply systems. There was no reaction from the local authorities at that time.\n12.  On 27 January 1994 a report was drawn up by a police officer who noted that trees had been felled on the property in breach of Article 81, paragraph 3, of the Flemish forestry decree of 13 June 1990.\n13.  On 22 February 1994 a report was drawn up by a police officer who noted that the holiday home had been erected in 1967 without planning permission and that it was located in a forested area in which no such permission could be issued. The report also noted that the exterior and roof of the house had been renovated.\n14.  On 8 August 1994 the applicant voluntarily reported to the police to make a statement, which was placed on record.\n15.  By a decision of 11 October 1994, the municipal council (collège des bourgmestre et échevins) asked the planning inspector to issue an opinion on any remedial action to be taken. By a letter of 19 June 1995, the planning inspector applied to the public prosecutor for the site to be restored to its original condition.\n16.   Two reports dated 26 March 1996 and 8 January 1997 mention that the police had sought to question the applicant again but had found it difficult to contact her and that she was temporarily unable to travel for health reasons.\n17.  At the request of the Tongeren public prosecutor, the applicant was questioned in Amsterdam on 25 March 1997 by a Dutch police officer. A report was drawn up on that occasion.\n18.  On 18 May 1998 the public prosecutor asked the local police to confirm whether or not the building in issue still existed.\n19.  A report of 16 June 1998 established that the situation had not changed.\n20.  The Tongeren public prosecutor issued the applicant with a summons to appear in court on 12 May 1999, firstly, for having maintained a holiday home, erected without planning permission, between 27 January 1994 and 28 April 1999 and, secondly, for having felled approximately fifty pine trees in breach of the above-mentioned Flemish forestry decree. Ac", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3153", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Kraków.\n5.  On 10 June 1997 the Mayor of the City of Kraków (Prezydent Miasta Krakowa) issued a building permit to the applicant's neighbour. The applicant appealed, submitting that, according to the construction project, the proposed building would encroach on her land. She also requested that the construction work be stopped.\n6.  On 22 August 1997 the Kraków City Office instituted administrative demarcation proceedings at the applicant's request in order to establish a boundary between the two properties.\n7.  On 28 July 1997 the Governor of the Kraków Region (Wojewoda Krakowski) upheld the decision of 10 June 1997. On 28 August 1997 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.\n8.  On 5 September 1997 the Construction Supervision Department of the Kraków City Office (Wydział Nadzoru Budowlanego Miasta Krakowa) conducted an inspection on the applicant's neighbour's building site.\n9.  On 12 December 1997 the administrative demarcation proceedings were discontinued by the Kraków City Office as the parties had not reached a settlement as to the boundary in dispute.\n10.  On 2 April 1998 an inspection on the applicant's neighbour's building site was again conducted by the Construction Supervision Department of the Kraków City Office.\n11.  On 3 April 1998 the applicant's neighbour was summoned to appear at the Kraków City Office on 9 or 14 April 1998. The applicant's neighbour failed to appear on the dates indicated. He eventually appeared at the Kraków City Office on 4 May 1998.\n12.  On 28 April 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of 10 June 1997 and 28 July 1997 as it found that the building permit had been issued contrary to the law and that it was necessary to establish the disputed boundary before deciding on whether to grant a permit.\n13.  On 5 March 1998 the applicant informed the Kraków Regional Office (Urząd Wojewódzki w Krakowie) that, in spite of the Supreme Administrative Court judgment of 28 April 1998, the construction work was being carried out on the disputed land.\n14.  On 28 May 1998 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Kraków Regional Office, claiming that no steps had been taken by the authorities to prevent the construction work being carried out by her neighbour.\n15.  On 30 July 1998 the Kraków Regional Office informed the applicant that it had not been obliged to stop the construction work prior to the Supreme Administrative Court's judgment. The applicant was also informed that following the judgment, failure by her neighbour to comply with it would result in the Kraków City Office being obliged to take appropriate measures.\n16.  On 2 September 1998 the Kraków City Office decided to stay the proceedings concerning the applicant's neighbour's construction work in view of the fact that the issue of the boundary between the lands had not yet been settled.\n17.  The proceedings concerning the suspension of the construction work are still pending.\n18.  On 4 October 2002 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court a complaint, under section 17 of the Supreme Administrative Court Act of 11 May 1995, about inactivity on the part of administrative organs. She submitted that, in spite of the Supreme Administrative Court judgment, the Kraków Regional Office had taken no steps to halt the construction work on the disputed land.\n19.  On 2 June 2004 the Kraków Regional Administrative Court (which had taken over the jurisdiction o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3154", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a company based in Šabac.\n5.  On 15 June 2000 the Municipal Court (“Opštinski sud”) in Bačka Palanka formally confirmed an agreement reached between the applicant and one of its business partners, an agricultural cooperative called “Zadrugar” (hereinafter “the debtor”), whereby the latter agreed to pay the former a total of 3,248,567 Yugoslav Dinars by 31 July 2000. In addition and as security for this undertaking, a mortgage in favour of the applicant was established concerning a particular plot of land, at that time listed in the land register as being under the debtor's ownership.\n6.  On 21 March 2002 the applicant filed an enforcement request with the same Municipal Court, claiming that the debtor had failed to comply with the above agreement.\n7.  On 28 March 2002 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant's request. It ordered the valuation and sale of the land in question, as well as the payment of interest on the applicant's claim.\n8.  On 6 June 2003 the municipal authorities in Bačka Palanka reviewed the property status of the real estate in question.\n9.  On 28 August 2003, having apparently noted that this land was perhaps not owned by the debtor, the Municipal Court issued an amended enforcement order, stating, inter alia, that the applicant's claim should be settled through the process of evaluation and auctioning of a number of other plots at that time listed in the land register as being owned by the debtor.\n10.  On 22 September 2003 the Municipal Court stayed these proceedings until the debtor's ownership of this property had been formally established by the Land Registry (Republicki geodetski zavod).\n11.  On 20 February 2004 the Bačka Palanka Division of the Land Registry (Služba za katastar nepokretnosti) decided to suspend the proceedings concerning the debtor's title until the resolution of a separate, already pending, civil case concerning the same property.\n12.  It would appear that this civil case, brought by the State, was resolved by 29 September 2004 and that the applicant's co-ownership of the land in question was recognised.\n13.  On 21 October 2004 the applicant requested that the enforcement proceedings, stayed by the Municipal Court, be continued.\n14.  On 9 December 2003 the Commercial Court (“Trgovinski sud”) in Novi Sad ruled in favour of the applicant in another case, ordering the same debtor to pay a total of 2,336,720.80 Serbian Dinars (“CSD”), with interest, plus costs. By 9 January 2004 this judgment became both final and enforceable.\n15.  Based on the above judgment and in response to the applicant's request of 26 February 2004, on 28 October 2004 the Municipal Court in Bačka Palanka issued an enforcement order against the debtor for the above payment, plus interest as of 18 July 2003, as well as another CSD 172,234.40 for costs together with interest as of 9 January 2004. For this purpose a number of plots deemed to be owned by the debtor were to be evaluated and auctioned, with the applicant's claim being met from the proceeds.\n16.  On 12 November 2004 the Municipal Court in Bačka Palanka decided to join the two sets of enforcement proceedings.\n17.  On 1 December 2004 it formally accepted the expert's opinion and valued the land in question.\n18.  On 13 December 2004 the Municipal Court scheduled a public auction for 2 February 2005.\n19.  On 27 December 2004 the Attorney General (Republički javni pravobranilac) requested, inter alia, that the State itself be allowed to take part ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3155", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1915 and lives in Nyíregyháza.\n5.  On 12 January 1996 the applicant brought an action against her neighbours with a view to terminating their common ownership of a house.\n6.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert, on 25 November 1996 the Nyíregyháza District Court dismissed the action, holding that no physical division was possible, whereas a buyout or the auctioning of the house would cause the respondents disproportionate damage.\n7.  On 17 September 1997 the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n8.  On 13 May 1998 the Supreme Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the second-instance court.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, on 29 August 2000 the Regional Court ordered the respondents to buy out the applicant's share of property.\n10.  On 26 February 2003 the Supreme Court upheld this decision. Its judgment was served on the applicant on 17 June 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3156", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 12 October 2005 the applicant was arrested and charged with assisting the President of a commercial bank in extorting a bribe from a company in order to give it a loan.\n8.   On 16 January 2006 the applicant was transferred to the remand centre of the Ministry of Justice no.29/13 (also known as Prison no. 13, former Prison no. 3) in Chişinău.\n9.  On 3 February 2006 the Buiucani District Court prolonged the applicant's detention for a period of twenty days. The court found that\n“... the criminal investigation is in its final phase; the final charges are to be submitted and the accused is to have access to the file. Taking into account the serious nature of the crime of which he is accused, the damaging effect of the deed and that, once aware of the contents of the file, the applicant could influence witnesses, destroy evidence and abscond from law enforcement authorities and the court, the court considers justified the prosecutor's request for prolonging the period of detention and rejects the lawyer's request for bail.”\nOn 9 February 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision.\n10.  The applicant made a separate complaint regarding the initial period of his detention, until 3 February 2006 (the case of Ţurcan and Ţurcan v. Moldova, application no. 39835/05). In the present application, he relies on the events subsequent to that date.\n11.  On 20 February 2006 the case file was submitted to the trial court. On 6 March 2006 the first hearing took place, during which the applicant submitted a habeas corpus request. He relied on Article 186 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 15 below) and on the cases of Baranowski v. Poland (no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000‑III) and Ječius v. Lithuania (no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000‑IX), and claimed that, following the referral of the case to the trial court on 20 February 2006, his detention did not have a legal basis. He also complained about the inhuman conditions of his detention in Prison no. 13 and referred to the findings of the European\nCommittee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in respect of that remand centre.\n12.  The Buiucani District Court rejected his request because\n“[the applicant is] accused of a serious crime and the court does not find at the present time any ground for changing or annulling the preventive measures”.\n13.  On 28 September 2006 the Buiucani District Court accepted the applicant's request for release, relying on new relevant circumstances of the case, namely that most evidence had already been examined in court or recorded by the prosecution and that the applicant's health had worsened, and surgery was needed. On 31 October 2006 the same court gave the applicant permission to undergo medical treatment abroad.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3157", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lived in Chişinău. He did not have a family and lived alone.\n6.  In 1987 the applicant was found guilty of criticising the Soviet authorities and of expressing the view that Moldova had been occupied by the Soviet Union and that it should reunite with Romania. On the basis of a medical report ordered by the Soviet courts, he was declared mentally unsound and sent for forced treatment in a psychiatric hospital in eastern Ukraine. He was held there for one year, after which he was released and obliged to continue out-patient treatment in Chişinău.\n7.  In 1990 the sentence against the applicant was quashed and he was acquitted.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant learned that he could obtain compensation for his illegal conviction and detention in a psychiatric hospital and that there was no time-limit for filing such an action.\n9.  In September 2004 he initiated civil proceedings against the Ministry of Finance, claiming compensation. He argued, inter alia, that after the forced medical treatment administered to him in 1987-1988 he had started to experience health problems, in particular he had lost his memory, had become emotionally frozen and unstable and therefore had been forced to live on a very small disability allowance.\n10.  During the proceedings the Ministry of Finance questioned his fitness to plead before courts in view of his medical background.\n11.  The applicant disagreed with the defendant, but fearing that his action would not be examined, agreed to submit to a medical examination in order to prove the contrary.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant underwent a medical examination by a specialised commission; however, the commission could not reach a conclusion. In a document dated 25 February 2004 it concluded that it would be impossible to reach a conclusion without a thorough examination of the applicant under conditions of hospitalisation.\n13.  On 14 March 2005 Judge V.G. of the Râşcani District Court examined the possibility of committing the applicant for an in-patient examination. As the applicant agreed to be hospitalised, the court ordered on the same date an in-patient medical examination to be conducted by the Central Psychiatric Hospital, Department of Judicial Investigations.\n14.  On 4 April 2005 the applicant went to the hospital, where, to his surprise, he was deprived of all his belongings and hospitalised together with persons of unsound mind with limited freedom of movement. According to him, the hospital was no longer heated in April, and since the clothes he was provided with were too thin for the season, he caught a cold and developed acute bronchitis. Two days after his hospitalisation he asked to be released in order to go home, change clothes and buy medicines for his cold. However, the doctors did not authorise him to leave the ward in which he was hospitalised.\n15.  It appears from the applicant's medical record that during his stay in the hospital he was not visited by anyone. According to him he could not complain to anyone about his detention and could not even make a telephone call or complain by other means to persons outside the hospital.\n16.  He was seen by doctors for only several minutes per day, during the routine morning round. The rest of the day he was at the mercy of the paramedical staff who usually forced patients to carry out public utility work around the hospital. He was not obliged to work because of his age and poor physical con", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3158", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant Bernard O'Dowd, who was born in 1923 and lives in Drumnee, County Meath, Ireland, was the father of Barry O'Dowd and Declan O'Dowd. The second applicant Michael Gabriel O'Dowd, who was born in 1951 and lives in Bleary, was the son of Joseph O'Dowd.\n7.  On the evening of 4 January 1976, the first applicant was hosting a family get-together at his home in Ballydougan, County Down. At about 6.30 p.m. three masked gunmen forced their way into the house. Barry O'Dowd, Declan O'Dowd and Joseph O'Dowd were shot and killed. The first applicant was hit by nine bullets but survived. About thirty shots were fired during the incident. No organisation claimed responsibility for their deaths. The same night an attack was launched on the home of another Catholic family in Armagh, in which John and Brian Reavey were killed and Anthony Reavey was injured.\n8.  The three men were believed to have made their getaway in a Morris 1300 car, 3315XZ, stolen earlier from Robert Street, Lurgan.\n9.  The emergency services – police and ambulance – arrived within a short time. Detectives and Scene of Crime Officers commenced investigations. Post-mortems were held. House to house inquiries were conducted in the area and along the suspected getaway route with negative results. Nineteen spent bullet cases were recovered at the scene and the weapon used was identified as one used in four other attacks. Numerous witnesses were interviewed, including members of the family who were interviewed at length. Ronan O'Dowd stated that he had observed two men standing beside a red car, possibly a “1300”, close to the house, both men were masked and had “walkie talkie” radios. Cathal O'Dowd stated that he had observed a blue coloured “Viva” car near the house that afternoon.\n10.  Several days before the attack, Ronan O'Dowd had seen masked men running up a lane adjacent to the house, in what the applicants believed was a dummy run for the attack. The family also recollected seeing officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (“RUC”) and Ulster Defence Regiment (“UDR”) in fields near the house the day before the attack, which was an unusual occurrence.\n11.  Police inquiries revealed that a red Morris 1300 had been stolen from Lurgan on 4 January 1976; it was found burnt out on 5 January 1976. Inquiries in Lurgan proved negative. No further information was received on the “Viva” car.\n12.  Three men were arrested by the police on 5 January 1976 and questioned about the murders. They were released on 8 January 1976 and no charges were preferred.\n13.  On 20 January 2006, the first applicant stated that one man who had entered the house was similar in appearance to a man whom he named. The man was arrested, questioned but eliminated from the inquiry following verification of his alibi.\n14.  In May-June 1976, the police questioned the first applicant and asked him to identify a weapon. He identified the weapon as one used in the attack. He was told that it was linked to Robin Jackson, a prominent loyalist paramilitary and to a number of other loyalist attacks.\n15.  An Inquest held on 11 February 1977 returned open verdicts.\n16.  After 1976 there were no further developments in the O'Dowd murders until 1999 when John Weir made allegations of police involvement in a range of loyalist terrorist incidents including the attack on the O'Dowds.\n17.  In the course of an investigation in 1978, the police had arrested a reserve police constable, William McCaughey, who, in the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3159", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Montreuil (France). The applicant's brother, Vedathan Gülşenoğlu, was a nineteen year-old university student at the material time.\n5.  On 22 March 1994 Vedathan Gülşenoğlu participated in a demonstration in Istanbul during which he allegedly threw Molotov cocktails at a bank. He was arrested, along with another person named İ.M., by three traffic police officers, who had been on duty in the neighbourhood.\n6.  According to the police officers, Vedathan Gülşenoğlu and İ.M. had been taken to the Kasımpaşa police station in a taxi, without being searched or handcuffed. According to İ.M., both he and Vedathan had had to cover their heads with their jackets.\n7.  At the police station, Vedathan Gülşenoğlu and İ.M. were kept in separate rooms. A few minutes later a shot was heard. Vedathan Gülşenoğlu was shot in the back of his head by A.B., one of the traffic police officers who had arrested him. He was taken to the Taksim hospital, where he died while being prepared for surgery.\n8.  On the same day, a police officer took a statement from A.B., who explained that while he was on duty in the Kasımpaşa neighbourhood, a large group of demonstrators had gathered and thrown Molotov cocktails at several banks. When he saw three demonstrators, one holding a gun, running away, he had taken out his gun and started chasing them with other police officers. The demonstrator holding a gun had escaped down a side street but they had caught the two others, Vedathan Gülşenoğlu and İ.M., and taken them to the police station. When he had tried to search Vedathan Gülşenoğlu in the station, the latter had taken out a gun and pointed it at him. There had been a struggle during which a bullet had been fired from his gun.\n9.  On the same day, the body was examined by a doctor in the presence of the public prosecutor. The doctor's report observed two sutured injuries of 2 x 1 cm. on the right parietal lobe and on the left occipital lobe and fractures on the cranium. The report further indicated that Vedathan Gülşenoğlu had been reported dead following the explosion of a bomb which he had been holding in his hand. To determine the exact cause of death, the body was sent for a classical autopsy.\n10.  On 23 March 1994 the autopsy was performed by four forensic medicine experts from the Cerrahpaşa Faculty of Medicine. The doctors indicated that the cause of death was a fracture of the cranium and cerebral haemorrhage due to a gunshot wound. The doctors delivered their final report on 9 May 1994, which stated that the gun had been fired from a long distance and that there was a bullet entry hole on the left side of the occipital lobe.\n11.  Again on 23 March 1994, the Istanbul provincial criminal police laboratory carried out a ballistic examination of two weapons, a 7.65 mm calibre Browning-type, which allegedly belonged to Vedathan Gülşenoğlu, and a 9 mm Parabellum-type, belonging to officer A.B, as well as a cartridge found at the site of the incident. The report indicated that the cartridge had been fired from A.B.'s weapon.\n12.  On the same day, statements were taken from the other traffic police officers who had arrested the applicant's brother and İ.M. They all contended that there had been a struggle between Vedathan Gülşenoğlu and A.B. and that the former had been shot during this struggle.\n13.  On 25 March 1994 a scene of incident report was drafted, which was signed by the Beyoğlu public prosecutor and eight police", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3160", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1967, 1979, 1971, 1963, 1979, 1973 and 1972 respectively and live in Istanbul.\n5.  Upon receipt of intelligence reports that on 5 August 2000 a group of demonstrators would gather in the İstiklal Street in Istanbul to read a press declaration and block the tram line to protest against F-type prisons, police officers and members of the “Rapid Intervention Force” (çevik kuvvet) were deployed in the area. At noon, the applicants, together with thirty-nine others, gathered in İstiklal Street to make a press declaration to protest against F-type prisons. The police asked the group to disperse and to end the gathering and informed them that the demonstration was unlawful since no advance notice had been submitted to the authorities. The demonstrators refused to obey and attempted to march along İstiklal Street, chanting slogans and reading out a press declaration. Subsequently, at about 12.30 p.m. the police dispersed the group, allegedly by using truncheons and tear-gas. The applicants were arrested along with thirty-nine other persons. The applicants Sema Gül and Semiha Kırkoç were subsequently taken to the Taksim Hospital.\n6.  The doctor who examined Sema Gül noted the following:\n“There are bruises on both arms and a swelling on the left foot.”\nAs regards Semiha Kırkoç, the doctor noted the following:\n“There is a 4 cm long laceration on the left parietal region...”\n7.  There were no medical reports in respect of the remaining applicants.\n8.  The incident report dated 5 August 2000 stated that the security forces had to use force to disperse the group as they refused to obey the warnings. It was further indicated that one police officer was wounded during the incident.\n9. The applicants were subsequently taken to Beyoğlu central police directorate and Karaköy police station, where they were kept for one day.\n10.  The next day, they were released upon the order of the Beyoğlu public prosecutor.\n11.  On an unspecified date, the applicants filed a petition with the Beyoğlu public prosecutor against the police officers who had carried out the arrest. In their petition, they complained, inter alia, of the unlawfulness of their arrest and the excessive use of force by the police officers during and after the arrest.\n12.  On 5 January 2001 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution in respect of the police officers who had been on duty at the relevant time. In his decision, the public prosecutor considered that the force used by the security forces was in line with Article 16 of the Law No. 2559 on the Duties and Powers of the Police and had not been excessive. In the public prosecutor's opinion, the injuries sustained by the complainants had been caused by the use of force which was proportionate.\n13.  The applicants filed an objection against the public prosecutor's decision.\n14.  On 25 June 2001 the Istanbul Assize Court dismissed the applicants' objection.\n15.  Meanwhile, on 14 August 2000, the Beyoğlu public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Beyoğlu Criminal Court. The public prosecutor accused the applicants under Article 28 § 1 of Law no. 2911 of taking part in an illegal demonstration without prior authorisation and not dispersing despite the police officers' warning.\n16.  On 19 September 2005 the Beyoğlu Criminal Court acquitted the applicants. The court held that making a press statement was a constitutional right and that prior authorisation was not needed to use this ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3161", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Edirne.\n5.  At the material time, the applicant was the owner and editor of a local newspaper published in Trabzon, the Özgür Karadeniz (“The Free Black Sea”).\n6.  On 15 January 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.\n7.  On 20 January 1995 he was brought before a judge who ordered his detention on remand.\n8.  On 10 March 1995 the public prosecutor at the Erzincan State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, along with twenty-one other persons. The applicant was accused of membership of an illegal organisation, the DHKP-C (the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party- Front). According to the indictment, following his arrest, the applicant's house was searched by police officers who found illegal periodicals, newspapers, books and a bullet. The public prosecutor also alleged that the applicant had published a newspaper containing propaganda in support of the DHKP-C, participated in illegal demonstrations, put up posters, distributed leaflets supporting the DHKP-C and carried out activities in the Karadeniz University for the recruitment of new members for the illegal organisation.\n9.  On 13 March 1995 the applicant was transferred to the Erzurum special type prison.\n10.  On different dates in 1995, five other criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant before various courts, with charges of disseminating separatist propaganda and incitement to hatred and hostility through the medium of his newspaper.\n11.  The cases against the applicant and his co-accused were subsequently joined before the Erzincan State Security Court.\n12.  Following promulgation of the Law no. 4210, which abolished the Erzincan State Security Court and established the Erzurum State Security Court, in 1997 the Erzurum State Security Court acquired jurisdiction over the case and the case-file was sent to it.\n13.  On 27 November 1998 the Erzurum State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP-C. The court found that two articles published in Özgür Karadeniz on 15 November 1994 and 1 March 1995 contained separatist propaganda and incitement to hatred. It further found it established that the applicant had participated in illegal demonstrations, put up posters, distributed leaflets supporting the DHKP-C and carried out activities in the Karadeniz University for the recruitment of new members for the illegal organisation. The court sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months' imprisonment.\n14.  On 18 November 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 27 November 1998 in respect of the applicant.\n15.  On 29 May 2004 the applicant was conditionally released from prison.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3162", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1958 and was a resident of Grozny, Chechnya. She currently resides in Ingushetia.\n7.  The submissions of the parties on the facts concerning the circumstances of the applicant’s relatives’ deaths and the ensuing investigation are set out in Part A below. A description of the relevant materials submitted to the Court is contained in Part B.\n8.  The applicant and her family lived in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny in their own house at 166 Derzhavina Street.\n9.  In October 1999 hostilities resumed in Chechnya between the Russian forces and the Chechen fighters. Grozny and its suburbs came under heavy bombardment. The Staropromyslovskiy district, situated in the northern and central parts of the town, was bombarded from the air and by artillery. The applicant submitted that most residents of the district had left for safer areas. Following heavy fighting, as of December 1999 the Russian forces started to regain control over the city starting from the north, and by the end of January 2000 the central parts of the city were finally taken.\n10.  In the winter of 1999-2000 the applicant, her father Abdul-Vagap Tangiyev (born in 1926), her mother Khirzhan Ibragimovna Gadaborsheva (born in 1932), her uncle Ismail Ibragimovich Gadaborshev (born in 1924) and her sister Khanifa Gazdiyeva remained in their house in Grozny. In December 1999 they were joined there by five neighbours, all women, because their house had a large cellar where they could take shelter during shelling.\n11.  The applicant, her sister and a neighbour submitted written accounts of the events of December 1999 and January 2000. According to them, the district had first come under heavy bombardment on 22 November 1999, when one of the women who had been staying with them in the cellar had been killed. On the same day the applicant’s mother had been slightly wounded by shrapnel. After that the shelling intensified, and the applicant and her family were unable to leave the town.\n12.  After 23 December 1999 the shelling became very intense, and the persons who had been staying in their cellar decided to move somewhere safer. On 26 December 1999 most of them moved to a nearby five-storey building with a larger cellar in Pugacheva Street. The applicant’s father, uncle and one neighbour remained in their house to look after the property and cattle. In the evening of the same day the applicant heard the noise of tank engines in the streets. She said that they had been relieved because they had expected an end to the shelling.\n13.  In the morning of 27 December 1999 the applicant’s uncle met a group of Russian servicemen on the way from his house to the Pugacheva Street and told them that a group of forty to forty-five civilians had taken refuge in the cellar of that house. The servicemen then came into the cellar and checked the identity documents of the men, most of whom were about 50 years old. The soldiers then took up battle positions in the neighbourhood.\n14.  In the morning of 28 December 1999 the applicant noted that their house in Derzhavina Street was partially destroyed. When she and her mother arrived there, they found her father and a neighbour, who had remained in the cellar throughout the day upon orders of the soldiers who had been stationed around the house.\n15.  On 28 and 29 December 1999 servicemen came to the cellar of the apartment block at Pugacheva Street where the applicant was staying and ordered the men, under threat, to hel", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3163", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Neustift.\n5.  In December 1999 the Neustift community (Gemeinde) requested a permit from the Rohrbach District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshaupt-mannschaft) to enlarge its canalisation system. At a hearing scheduled on 4 May 2000 the applicant, who had not been summoned as a party, filed objections and submitted that the project would interfere with his property rights as it would affect the drainage system on his real estates.\n6.  On 15 June 2000, after having heard an official expert on water construction technology and biology, the Administrative Authority granted the requested permit. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Upper Austrian Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann).\n7.  In the subsequent proceedings the Regional Governor ordered the expert to supplement his opinion which was then submitted to the applicant for comment.\n8.  On 25 January 2001 the Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann) dismissed the applicant's appeal. Referring to the supplemented expert opinion, the Regional Governor found that the project at issue would not affect the drainage system on the applicant's premises.\n9.  On 16 March 2001 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).\n10.  Having held an oral hearing, upon the applicant's request, the Administrative Court dismissed this complaint on 31 March 2005. It noted that the breach of the applicant's right to being summoned to be heard as a party before the District Administrative Authority had been remedied in the course of the proceedings. The applicant had been given an opportunity to submit comments and objections before the second instance and had thus been heard as a party. As to the remaining complaint concerning the alleged interference of the project with his property, the Administrative Court found that the applicant's general submissions could not disprove the conclusive findings of the expert. This decision was served on the applicant's counsel on 26 April 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3164", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1961, 1974, 1971, 1974, 1967, 1962 and 1967 respectively. The first two applicants live in İzmit. The third applicant lives in Germany and the remainder of the applicants reside in İstanbul.\n5.  On 11 January 1998 around 350-400 people gathered at the Ümraniye Sarıgazi Cemevi[1] to commemorate the death of members of the TKP‑ML/TIKKO.[2] The commemoration turned into a violent clash between some of the participants and the security forces. Thirty-five people were arrested, including the applicants. The applicants were first taken to Sarıgazi Gendarmerie. Later on the same day they were transferred to the İstanbul Provincial Gendarmerie Command as there was not enough space at the Sarıgazi Gendarmerie.\n6.  On various dates between 11 January and 14 January 1998 two gendarmes at Sarıgazi Gendarmerie, Mr E.G. and Mr Ö. K. took the applicants’ statements with the exception of Ercan Başkan who stated that he wished to give his statement before a prosecutor.\n7.  On 15 January 1998 the applicants were released pending trial.\n8.  On various occasions between 12 and 15 January 1998 the applicants were medically examined.\n9.  On 12 January 1998 the applicant was examined by a doctor, Dr O.A. at Sarıyer State Hospital who noted that he had a slight ecchymosis on his nose and an ecchymosis of 5x4 cm on his right tibia.\n10.  On 15 January 1998 the applicant was examined by another doctor, Dr Ç.A. at Sarıyer State Hospital. This doctor noted that he had an ecchymosis on his right tibia and right femoral region and a number of old ecchymoses on various parts of his back. Dr Ç.A. mentioned that the applicant complained of pain in his chest.\n11.  On the same day, the Üsküdar Forensic Medicine Department (hereinafter: “FM department”), relying on the aforementioned medical reports, concluded that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for a week.\n12.  On 13 January 1998 the applicant was examined by Dr O.A. who noted grazes on the skin of his right knee joint.\n13.  On 15 January 1998 the applicant was examined by Dr Ç.A. who found no signs of ill-treatment on his body.\n14.  On the same day, the FM department, referring to the aforementioned medical reports, concluded that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for three days.\n15.  On 13 January 1998 the applicant was examined by two doctors at Şişli Etfal Hospital. The first doctor noted an ecchymosis of 10x10 cm and 3x3 cm as well as pain and sensitivity on the right and the left of his lower back respectively. The second doctor found widespread ecchymoses on the right side of the back.\n16.  On 15 January 1998 the applicant was examined by Dr Ç.A. who found no signs of ill-treatment on his body.\n17.  On the same day, the FM department, taking into account the medical reports dated 13 January 1998, concluded that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for a week.\n18.  On 13 January 1998 the applicant was examined by Dr O.A. who noted a graze on the skin of the left knee joint.\n19.  On 15 January 1998 the applicant was examined by Dr Ç.A. who found no signs of ill-treatment on his body.\n20.  On the same day, the FM department, referring to the medical report of 13 January 1998, concluded that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for 3 days.\n21.  On 12 January 1998 the applicant was examined by Dr A.T. who noted that he had pain in his right periorbital region (around the eyes) and left leg. The doctor found a slight ecchymos", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3165", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On various dates each of the applicants received one or more final judgments awarding payments from a State-owned mining company (see appendix for details) and instituted enforcement proceedings to collect the payment.\n5.  The judgments given in favour of the second and the third applicant were enforced on 24 December 2004 and 7 August 2006, respectively.\n6.  The judgments given in favour of the other applicants remain fully or partly unenforced on account of the debtor-companies' lack of funds.\n7.  Some of the applicants attempted to claim compensation against various State entities for the delay in the enforcement of the judgments given in their favour, however, these attempts have been to no avail.\n8.  After the institution of the Convention proceedings, the second and the seventh applicants died. Their widows, Mrs Lidiya Mikhaylovna Volokhova and Mrs Galina Aleksandrovna Vashchenko, informed the Court that they wished to pursue the applications of their late husbands.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3166", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Vinnytsya.\n5.  On 17 November 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his position as a department manager (начальник бюро) of the Vinnytsya State Optical Mechanical Plant (“the Company,” Вінницький державний експериментальний оптико-механічний завод).\n6.  On 17 December 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Vinnytsya (“the Leninsky Court,” Ленінський районний суд м. Вінниця), seeking his reinstatement and compensation for unlawful dismissal. On 3 June 1998 the Leninsky Court stayed the proceedings until resolution of another dispute between the applicant and the Company.\n7.  On 27 March 2001 the applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed, as the aforementioned dispute had been resolved to his satisfaction. On 28 May 2001 the applicant complained to the Vinnytsya Regional Deparment of Justice (Управління юстиції Вінницької області) that the Leninsky Court had never responded to his request of 27 March 2001.\n8.  On 6 June 2001 the Leninsky Court informed the applicant that on 26 January 1999 it had discontinued the consideration of his claims because of his repetitive failures to attend the hearings. In July 2001 the applicant appealed against this decision.\n9.  On 19 September 2001 the Leninsky Court granted the applicant an extension for lodging his appeal, having noted that the applicant had not been informed about the decision of 26 January 1999 in due time.\n10.  On 4 December 2001 the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal,” Апеляційний суд Вінницької області) quashed the decision of 26 January 1999 on the ground that the Leninsky Court had not duly summoned the applicant to attend the hearings and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the Zamostyansky District Court of Vinnytsya (“the Zamostyansky Court,” Замостянський районний суд м. Вінниця).\n11.  On 29 July 2002 the Zamostyansky Court dismissed the applicant's claims. On 27 August 2002 the applicant appealed against this judgment.\n12.  On 17 December 2002 the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 29 July 2002. In March 2003 the applicant appealed in cassation.\n13.  On 18 March 2003 the Zamostyansky Court rejected the appeal for having being lodged out of time. The applicant appealed against this decision.\n14.  On 14 May 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 18 March 2003. In June 2003 the applicant appealed in cassation against the decisions of 18 March and 14 May 2003.\n15.  By omission of the court personnel, the applicant's cassation appeal was transferred to the Supreme Court only in June 2006.\n16.  On 28 November 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3167", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1948 in the Lerik Region, Azerbaijan, and currently lives in The Hague, the Netherlands.\n7.  Until 1988 the applicant was the deputy director of a transport warehouse in the city of Lenkoran, Azerbaijan. In 1988 he joined a political party and began his political career. When the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh broke out, he joined the national army and became one of its commanders. In the summer of 1993, at the time of the outbreak of a civil and political confrontation in the country, he returned from Nagorno‑Karabakh to his native Lenkoran.\n8.  In June 1993 the applicant put forward a proposal for an autonomous political formation in the south of Azerbaijan which would, in addition to Lenkoran itself, incorporate several adjacent regions. The central authorities considered this idea unacceptable. On 7 August 1993 the applicant, together with his supporters, proclaimed the creation of the so-called “Talysh-Mugan Autonomous Republic” (“Talış-Muğan Muxtar Respublikası”) within the Republic of Azerbaijan. The applicant was elected its “President”. At the same time, he attempted to take charge of the military units located in Lenkoran, as well as to depose and arrest some regional public officials appointed by the central authorities. Following this, certain public disorder evolved, during which several people were killed.\n9.  At the end of 1993, the applicant was arrested and detained in the detention centre of the Ministry of National Security. The investigation against him led to accusations of, inter alia, high treason and use of armed forces against the constitutional institutions of the State.\n10.  In September 1994 the applicant, along with three other detainees, absconded from the detention centre. The applicant went into hiding until August 1995 when he was finally caught and arrested for the second time.\n11.  According to the applicant, at all times while in pre-trial detention, he was subjected to various forms of ill-treatment. He was not allowed to see a doctor. Under the threat of his wife's arrest and criminal prosecution, he was compelled to give self-incriminating testimony. His close friends and relatives, including his wife and son, were also subjected to persecution and physical ill-treatment by the authorities. Fearing further persecution, his wife and son left the country and sought asylum in the Netherlands.\n12.  The applicant's criminal case was examined by the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court (Ali Məhkəmənin Hərbi Kollegiyası) sitting in first instance. He was tried together with six other accused persons. On 12 February 1996 the applicant was convicted of high treason (twelve years' imprisonment with confiscation of property), misappropriation of official power (two years' imprisonment), illegal deprivation of liberty (three years' imprisonment), unauthorised possession of weapons (five years' imprisonment), absconding from custody (two years' imprisonment), and creation of illegal armed units (death penalty with confiscation of property). By way of a merger of sentences, the applicant was sentenced to death and confiscation of property. Being a decision of the highest tribunal, this judgment was final and was not subject to appeal at the material time.\n13.  Following the conviction, in June 1996 the applicant was transferred to the 5th Corpus of Bayil Prison designated for convicts sentenced to death. Despite the existence of the death penalty as a form of pun", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3168", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 12 March 2003 the first applicant obtained a judgment of the Tarashcha Court (Таращанський районний суд Київської області) against the OJSC “Tarashcharayagropostach” (ВАТ “Таращарайагропостач”), awarding him 2,424.55 hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments.\n5.  On 19 March 2001 the second applicant obtained a judgment of the Oleksandriya Court (Олександрійський міський суд Кіровоградської області) against the OJSC “ATP-13506” (ВАТ АТП-13506), awarding him UAH 2,765.02[2] in salary arrears.\n6.  These judgments were not appealed against, became final and the enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the judgments debts.\n7.  On several occasions the bailiffs notified the applicants that they were unable to collect the full amounts of the awards, referring to the fact that financial assets of the debtor-companies were insufficient. They further explained that other assets could not be sold, as the State owned more than 25% of the debtor-companies' share capital. The companies were therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property”. The first applicant attempted to challenge the alleged inactivity of the bailiffs and to institute criminal proceedings against the debtor-company's chief executive officer, however, his attempts were to no avail.\n8.  By 10 June and 12 August 2005 the judgments given in favour of the second and the first applicant, respectively, were enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3169", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1951 respectively and live in Istanbul. The first applicant was the editor-in-chief of a weekly newspaper, Yedinci Gündem, and the second applicant was its owner.\n5.  In August 2001, in the tenth issue of the newspaper, an article which contained an interview with Cemil Bayık, who was one of the leaders of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party), was published. The relevant parts of the interview read as follows:\n“Three years have passed since the PKK declared a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed and to contribute to the peace process. Subsequently, the PKK withdrew its armed forces out of Turkey to maintain peace. However, the state did not take any steps for democratisation or to solve the Kurdish problem.\n...\nThe case brought against our leader Abdullah Öcalan is a case against the Kurdish people. Therefore, it is not our Prime Minister who wishes to be tried before the European Court of Human Rights, but it is our people. The law was violated in İmralı and, consequently, the death penalty imposed on Öcalan and on our people is not legitimate. All things considered, it is natural that our people have expectations from the European Court of Human Rights, the court of Europe which defends democracy, human rights and the rule of law.\n...”\n6.  On 10 September 2001 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants. By referring to the above-mentioned paragraphs of the interview, the public prosecutor accused the applicants of having allowed the publication of the declarations of an illegal armed terrorist organisation. The charges were brought under Article 6 §§ 2 and 4 of the Law on the Prevention of Terrorism (Law no. 3713), additional Article 2 of the Press Law (Law no. 5680) and Article 36 of the Criminal Code.\n7.  On 27 December 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court, composed of three civilian judges, convicted the applicants as charged and fined them 2,034,900,000[1] Turkish liras (TRL) and TRL 4,069,800,000[2] respectively. The first instance court further ordered temporary closure of the newspaper for a period of fifteen days.\n8.  The applicants appealed. On an unspecified date, the chief public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion on the merits of the applicants' appeal. The opinion was not notified to the applicants.\n9.  On 21 May 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 27 December 2001.\n10.  On 24 June 2002 the president of the Istanbul State Security Court sent the final judgment to the public prosecutor's office at the Istanbul State Security Court and requested that the order for the newspaper's closure be executed.\n11.  On 15 July 2002 two police officers executed the order of closure by way of notification of the order in question to the first applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3170", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On 23 January 1975 the applicant bought part of a plot of land (plot no. 98) in the Çankaya District of Ankara. In implementation of a reconstruction plan (imar şuyulandırılması), on 21 January 1981 a part of the applicant's plot (173.92 sq. m.) was joined to another plot which had been used by the Ministry of Defence since 1962. This plot was given the number 5965/1 and registered in the applicant's name.\n6.  Since this land was occupied by the Ministry of Defence, the applicant filed various petitions requesting the Ministry to expropriate it. On 6 September 1989 the Ministry informed the applicant that her land would be expropriated in the coming years.\n7.  On 10 November 1999, relying on Article 38 of Law no. 2942, the Ministry of Defence lodged an application with the Ankara Civil Court of General Jurisdiction for the annulment of the title deed of the applicant to plot no. 5965/1 and its registration in the Treasury's name. In response, the applicant lodged an application with the same court for compensation for the de facto expropriation. On an unspecified date, the case files were joined.\n8.  Before the court, the Ministry of Defence submitted that it had occupied the disputed plot of land since 1962 and that, therefore, it should be registered under its name pursuant to Article 38 of Law no. 2942. In reply, the applicant stated that the date of de facto expropriation in respect of her plot of land was 21 January 1981 and that, therefore, Article 38 of Law no. 2942 was not applicable in her case.\n9.  On 19 December 2000 the Ankara Civil Court of General Jurisdiction annulled the title deed of the applicant and ordered that the land be registered in the name of the Treasury. The court dismissed the applicant's request for compensation on the ground that it was time-barred. It held that the Ministry of Defence had had de facto possession of the property in question since 1962, and that the applicant should have brought a case within twenty years from this date in accordance with Article 38 of Law no. 2942.\n10.  On 4 June 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The applicant's request for the reversal of its decision was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 12 October 2001. The applicant was notified of this decision on 22 November 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3171", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1929. Mrs Arapova died in 2006. Mr Arapov lives in Voronezh. He decided to pursue the application of his late wife Mrs Arapova.\n5.  From April 1998 to April 1999 the applicants received their old-age pensions, totalling approximately 377 and 430 Russian roubles (RUB) per month, several months in arrears.\n6.  On 14 July 2000 each applicant lodged an action against the Sovetskiy District Social Security Authority of Voronezh for index-linking of their delayed pension payments in line with inflation.\n7.  On 1 November 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh granted the applicants' claims and awarded the applicants RUB 977.50 (Mrs Arapova) and RUB 1,117.61 (Mr Arapov). Both judgments came into force on 12 November 2000.\n8.  The District Court issued writs of execution and forwarded them to the Sovetskiy District Bailiff's Service of Voronezh for execution.\n9.  In April 2001 the Bailiff's Service returned the writs of execution to the applicants advising them to apply to the local office of the Federal Treasury. The Treasury refused to execute the judgments.\n10.  In 2001-2003 the applicants applied to the Bailiff's Service on numerous occasions. The Bailiff's Service refused to accept the writs of execution because the defendant did not have funds.\n11.  It was not before November 2005 that the writs of execution were accepted for payment by the Sovetskiy District Social Security Authority of Voronezh.\n12.  The money awarded by the judgments was transferred to the applicants' bank accounts on 2 December 2005, and received by the applicants on 5 December 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3172", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Gostivar.\n5.  On 24 March 1992 preliminary investigations were opened against the applicant. Five hearings were held during these proceedings. On 18 June 1992 the public prosecutor lodged an indictment against him on account of “grievous offences against the general safety” because on 19 October 1991, while employed in a supervisory position at a power supply company and contrary to safety requirements, he did not cut the power supply from the grid of the power line on which Mr B. was carrying out some repair works, causing the latter's death.\n6. Between 4 September 1992 and 8 October 1993 the then Gostivar Municipal Court (Општински суд) (“the trial court”) scheduled eight hearings in the course of which it obtained three expert reports, heard evidence from the applicant and witnesses, and carried out an on-site examination.\n7. On 8 October 1993 the trial court upheld the indictment and sentenced the applicant to one year's imprisonment.\n8. At the public hearing held on 23 March 1994, the then District Court of Skopje (Окружен суд) (“the Appeal Court”) upheld the applicant's appeal of 17 November 1993 and quashed that decision finding that the lower court had erroneously established the facts and wrongly assessed the evidence.\n9. The Government stated that out of seven hearings scheduled between 25 April 1994 and 2 March 1995, two hearings were adjourned at the applicant's request. No copy of the minutes was submitted in support of this assertion. During this period, the trial court examined the applicant and witnesses and carried out another on-site inspection.\n10. On 2 March 1995 the trial court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to one year and two months' imprisonment. This decision was served on him on 12 June 1995. Both parties appealed.\n11. At a public hearing of 14 May 1995, the Appeal Court quashed this decision, holding that the lower court had erred in its assessment of the facts, in particular that it had overlooked the expert reports concerning the impact of weather conditions and other circumstances related to Mr B.'s death.\n12. On 4 September 1996 the trial judge withdrew from the case at his own request.\n13. The Government stated that the hearings of 28 March and 24 April 1997 and 10 December 1999 were postponed for reasons imputable to the applicant. No copy of the minutes was submitted in support of this claim.\n14. On 13 October 1999 the trial court received another expert report which had been drawn up at the public prosecutor's request. A hearing of 26 November 1999 was adjourned despite the applicant's presence.\n15. A hearing listed for 21 January 2000 was adjourned due to the applicant's request for exclusion of the public prosecutor. This request was dismissed at a later date.\n16. The proceedings resumed with hearings of 1 and 13 March 2000, at which the trial court examined the experts and witnesses.\n17. On 22 March 2000 the trial court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment. On 18 September 2000 the applicant appealed.\n18. At a public hearing held on 21 February 2001 the Appeal Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a renewed examination. It ruled that the lower court had erred in ordering an alternative expert report, given that it had not established that the existing expert reports were inconsistent. It accordingly instructed the trial court to arrange a confrontation of all the experts and to reassess the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3173", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1978, 1977, 1979, 1983, 1980 and 1978 respectively and live in Antalya.\n5.  On 27 April 2001 the applicants were taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate. According to the arrest and search protocols, the applicants were arrested in the course of a police operation carried out against an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP‑C (the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front) as they were considered to be involved in the activities of this organisation at the university.\n6.  On 29 April 2001 the deputy director of the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate requested the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court to extend the applicants' custody period for two days. The public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court granted the requested extension.\n7.  On 1 May 2001 the Diyarbakır Security Directorate requested the Diyarbakır State Security Court to extend the custody period for a further six days. The single judge of the State Security Court duly extended the custody period for six days starting from 1 May 2001.\n8.  On 3 May 2001 the applicants made statements before the police.\n9.  On 4 May 2001 the applicants were brought before a doctor, who noted that there were no signs of ill-treatment on their bodies.\n10.  On the same day, the applicants made statements before the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court and subsequently, a single judge of the state security court, who ordered that Ertuğrul Saraçoğlu, Göksel Avcı, and Ali Kemal Mart be detained on remand and the other applicants be released. Before the judge, one of the applicants, Göksel Avcı alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in custody.\n11.  On 8 May 2001 the applicants' representative filed an objection with the court requesting that Ertuğrul Saraçoğlu, Göksel Avcı and Ali Kemal Mart be released. In his petition, the representative maintained, inter alia, that the applicants had been subjected to different types of ill-treatment while in custody. He alleged that the applicants had been beaten, deprived of food and water, that their testicles had been squeezed and electric shocks had been administered.\n12.  On 11 May 2001 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicants with membership of the DHKP-C under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713.\n13.  On 4 July 2001 the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered the applicants' release pending trial, holding that the relevant evidence had been collected and that the applicants were students and had to take their exams at the university.\n14.  The applicants maintained before the trial court that they had signed their statements under duress while in police custody. Göksel Avcı reiterated his allegation of ill-treatment.\n15.  On 24 January 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court acquitted the applicants of the charges against them.\n16.  On 21 March 2002 the judgment of the first-instance court became final as neither the public prosecutor nor the applicants filed an appeal against it.\n17.  On 24 April 2002 three of the applicants, namely Ali Kemal Mart, Göksel Avcı and Ertuğrul Saraçoğlu, together with another person M.D., who had also been in police custody with the applicants between 27 April and 4 May 2001, initiated proceedings before the Diyarbakır Assize", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3174", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  From June 1998 to April 1999 she received her old-age pension several months in arrears.\n6.  The applicant lodged an action against the Levoberezhniy District Social Security Authority of Voronezh for index-linking of her delayed pension payments in line with inflation.\n7.  On 24 November 2000 the Levoberezhniy District Court of Voronezh granted the applicant's claim and awarded her 1,101.02 Russian roubles. The judgment came into force on 5 December 2000.\n8.  The applicant's requests for execution of the judgment were to no avail on the ground that the defendant did not have funds.\n9.  The judgment was enforced on 2 December 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3175", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Marmaris.\n6.  In 1984 the applicant concluded a construction contract with Mr G.D. whereby the applicant was to own 40 % of the flats constructed by Mr G.D. on her land.\n7.  On 10 July 1985 Mr G.D. and the applicant's legal representative signed an additional contract and decided to sell the flats to Emlak Bank. Subsequently on 29 January 1986 the applicant filed an action with the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance against Mr G.D. She maintained that her legal representative had no right to sign such a contract and accordingly requested the annulment of the contract dated 10 July 1985 and the reimbursement of 132,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL).\n8.  On 31 May 1990 the 5th Chamber Ankara Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 19 June 1991. However, upon the request of the applicant, on 26 December 1991 the Court of Cassation rectified its decision of 19 June 1991. The case was accordingly remitted to the first-instance court.\n9.  In the meantime, the applicant brought another case against Mr G.D. before the 12th Chamber Ankara Civil Court of First Instance and requested liquidation of partnership. On 26 December 1994 the court ordered Mr G.D. to pay TRL 88,260,073 to the applicant. This judgment became final on 17 May 1996.\n10.  On 28 May 1998 the 5th Chamber of the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance ordered Mr G.D. to pay TRL 59,000,000, plus interest at the statutory rate, applicable at the date of the court's decision, running from 29 January 1986. The court dismissed the applicant's request for the payment of a further TRL 63,000,000 since it considered that this amount had already been calculated and included in the case before the 12th Chamber of the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance.\n11.  On 10 June 1999 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first‑instance court.\n12.  On 1 December 1999 the Court of Cassation dismissed the parties' request for rectification.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3176", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lived in Izmir.\n7.  On 29 December 1995 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front). He was fourteen years' old at the time.\n8.  On 5 January 1996 the applicant was brought before the İzmir State Security Court and he was placed in detention on remand.\n9.  On 15 October 1996, taking into account the applicant's age at the time of the offence, the İzmir State Security Court held that he could not have been aware of the nature and consequences of the offence and decided that there was no need to impose a penalty on him.\n10.  On 20 August 1997 the applicant applied to the Bergama Assize Court and sought compensation for both non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage pursuant to Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained.\n11.  On 31 March 1998 the Bergama Assize Court awarded the applicant 59,925,000 Turkish Liras (TRL) for pecuniary damage and TRL 150,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.\n12.  On 28 December 1998 the Court of Cassation held that the applicant, who was a student at the time of the events, had not submitted any documents or reasons which could support his pecuniary damage claims. It therefore quashed the judgment of the first instance court.\n13. On 28 January 1999 the proceedings resumed before the Bergama Assize Court. The court decided to hold a hearing on 5 March 1999. The applicant and his representative were summoned to attend the hearing. On 21 February 1999 the applicant's representative submitted a petition to the Court and stated that the applicant should be awarded adequate compensation. Neither the applicant nor his representative attended the hearing which was held before the Bergama Assize Court on 5 March 1999. On 10 March 1999 the Bergama Assize Court awarded the applicant TRL 150,000,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and dismissed his claims for pecuniary damage. The court held that the applicant, who was a student at the time of the events, had not been in paid employment. It further decided not to apply default interest to the sum awarded for non-pecuniary damage.\n14.  On 25 April 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the aforementioned judgment[1].\n15.  On 21 June 2007 the applicant's parents were paid 150 New Turkish liras (YTL)[2].", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3178", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Gaziantep.\n6.  On 14 January 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terror branch of the Izmir Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party).\n7.  On 23 January 1995 he was brought before a single judge of the Izmir State Security Court who ordered his detention on remand.\n8.  On 13 February 1995 the principal public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter charging the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code with carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.\n9.  On 2 December 1998 the Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to death under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. Taking into account the applicant's behaviour during the trial, the death penalty was commuted to a life sentence.\n10.  On 17 April 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Izmir State Security Court.\n11.  On 26 April 2000 the Court of Cassation's decision was pronounced in the absence of the applicant's representative.\n12.  On 1 June 2000 the Court of Cassation's decision was deposited with the registry of the First Instance Court.\n13.  On 21 December 2000 Law no. 4616, which governed the conditional release, suspension of proceedings or execution of sentences in respect of offences committed before 23 April 1999, came into force. The law stipulated that parole would not be applicable to persons who had committed offences under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. Thus, the applicant could not benefit from Law no. 4616.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3179", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1973 and 1974 respectively. The first applicant lives in İzmir. By a letter dated 28 August 2006 the Court was informed that the second applicant was purging his sentence in Bolu prison.\n5.  The applicants were arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK, on 25 and 26 July 1993 respectively. They were remanded in custody on 5 August 1993.\n6.  On 31 August 1993 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment against twenty-one persons, including the applicant. He accused the applicants of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of aiding and abetting that organisation. The charges included, in particular, bombings of various public and private establishments between July 1992 and June 1993.\n7.  The first hearing, held before the Diyarbakır State Security Court on 3 September 1993, in the applicants' absence, was taken up with procedural matters such as the measures to be taken for securing the presence of the accused.\n8.  Between 3 September 1993 and 23 January 1996, the first-instance court held hearings on a regular basis during which the judges dealt mostly with procedural matters. It also heard the accused and their representatives who were present on the date of the hearings. At the end of each hearing, the court considered releasing the applicants pending trial both ex officio as well as upon their requests. At each hearing, the court, relying on the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case-file, decided to prolong their remand in custody.\n9.  During this time the court also heard two witnesses, on 25 November 1993 and 13 January 1994, who stated that they did not know any of the accused or whether they had any organisational link with the armed organisation. On 28 March 1995 the public prosecutor submitted his observations on the merits. On 7 November 1995 the court decided, upon the request of the accused, to hear a witness, Mr O.B. who was being tried before another court. In the hearing held on 19 December 1995, the court heard Mr O.B. who stated, inter alia, that he knew the second applicant from school. He claimed that the applicant used to talk about the PKK but that he did not know anything about him being a member of or participating in the activities of that organisation. Upon this statement the second applicant maintained that he was not a member of the organisation as was confirmed by the witness and that it was normal to talk like that at school. At this hearing the prosecutor reiterated his observations of 28 March 1995.\n10.  In a hearing held on 23 January 1996 the first applicant's representative submitted his observations on the merits. The court also heard the accused. On the same day, the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to life imprisonment.\n11.  On 14 July 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in respect of fourteen of the accused, including the applicants.\n12.  The case was sent back to the Diyarbakır State Security Court where the proceedings against the applicants commenced on 29 July 1997.\n13.  Between 29 July 1997 and 15 May 2001, the first-instance court held hearings on a regular basis during which the judges dealt with procedural matters and adjourned many hearings, since one of the co-accused could not be found and the statements of another one residing in Germa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3180", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Artur Warsiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Bytów.\n5.  The applicant was charged with drug trafficking and detained on remand from 6 April 2002 to 21 May 2004. He was detained in the Słupsk Detention Centre.\n6.  On 28 May 2003 the Słupsk Regional Court found the applicant guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 30 December 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal amended the judgment and sentenced the applicant to two years and four months' imprisonment. The judgment is final.\n8.  On 3 October 2002 the applicant sent a letter to the European Court of Human Rights. It was received by the Court on 21 October 2002. It bears a stamp “censored on” (cenzurowano dnia ...), a handwritten date “2 October” and an illegible signature. The envelope also bears a stamp of the Słupsk Regional Court.\n9.  On 4 December 2002 the applicant sent another letter to the European Court of Human Rights. It was received by the Court on 17 December 2002. It bears a stamp “censored on”, a handwritten date “4 December” and an illegible signature. The envelope also bears a stamp of the Słupsk Regional Court.\n10.  It also appears that both envelopes had been cut open and resealed with adhesive tape.\n11.  The applicant submitted a photocopy of an envelope sent to him on 24 October 2002 by the Court. It bears a stamp “censored on”, a handwritten date “31 October 2002” and an illegible signature. The envelope also bears a stamp of the Słupsk Regional Court. The applicant claimed that he had received the letter in an opened envelope.\n12.  The applicant also produced a photocopy of an envelope sent to him on 22 November 2002 by “Amnesty International”. It bears a stamp “censored”, a handwritten date “28 November 2002” and an illegible signature. The envelope also bears a stamp of the Słupsk Detention Centre, with a date of receipt (25 November 2002) and a stamp of the Słupsk Regional Court.\n13.  Lastly, the applicant submitted a photocopy of an envelope sent to him on 28 November 2002 by “Transparency International - Polska”. It bears a stamp “censored”, a handwritten date “3 December” and an illegible signature. The envelope also bears a stamp of the Słupsk Detention Centre, with a date of receipt (2 December 2002) and a stamp of the Słupsk Regional Court.\n14.  On 12 June 2003 the applicant sent a letter to the Słupsk Regional Court in which he complained about censorship of his correspondence.\n15.  On 30 June 2003 he received a letter from the President of the Słupsk Regional Court informing him that, according to the information obtained from the Criminal Department of the Słupsk Regional Court, the applicant's correspondence had not been censored. He further stated that the applicant's correspondence had been stamped “censored” by mistake.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3181", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  On 17 March 1999, after 27 years of military service, the applicant was transferred to the reserve. As he did not obtain a two-roomed apartment from the Ministry of Defence (“the Ministry”) to which he was entitled, he brought an action against it.\n8.   By a final judgment of 23 November 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the Ministry to provide him with a two-roomed apartment.\n9.  Since the Ministry did not have apartments available, on an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant lodged an action with the Centru District Court seeking a change in the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 23 November 2000. In particular, he claimed money from the Ministry in lieu of an apartment.\n10.   On 18 May 2001 the Centru District Court decided to change the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 23 November 2000 and ordered the Ministry to pay the applicant 83,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of 7,133 euros (EUR) at the time). The Ministry appealed.\n11.   On 4 July 2001 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld the appeal, quashed the judgment of 18 May 2001 and discontinued the proceedings aimed at modifying the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 23 November 2000.\n12.   Following a request from the applicant, the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged a request for annulment of the judgment of 4 July 2001. The request for annulment was upheld by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 5 June 2002 and the judgment of 18 May 2001 therefore became final.\n13.  On 25 June 2002 the applicant requested the Centru District Court to issue an enforcement warrant.\n14.  On 19 July 2002 a bailiff requested the Ministry to comply with the judgment in favour of the applicant.\n15.  On 13 September 2002 the Ministry replied that the judgment could not be enforced because of lack of money.\n16.  On 21 January 2003 a bailiff issued a payment order in respect of the Ministry in the amount of MDL 83,000. On 18 April and 25 July 2003 the bailiff informed the applicant that the Ministry had refused to comply with the requests to enforce the judgment and therefore administrative proceedings had been instituted against those responsible for non-enforcement of the final judgment.\n17.  By a judgment of 26 February 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal discontinued the administrative proceedings against the Minister of Defence. It found that although the judgment in favour of the applicant had not been enforced, the Minister was not to be held responsible for the Government's failure to allocate money for that purpose.\n18.  Between 2002 and 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully lodged complaints about the non-enforcement of the judgment.\n19.   On 15 March 2005 the applicant was paid MDL 83,000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3183", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Kyzyl in the Tyva Republic of the Russian Federation. He is a journalist working for the State television and radio broadcasting company Tyva (GTRK Tyva).\n8.  In 1999, the elections to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, the lower chamber of Russian Parliament, were scheduled to take place on 19 December. In the Tyva Republic, Mrs G. Salchak was the leading candidate of the Otechestvo party, and Mr I. Loktionov of the Edinstvo movement. The elections to the federal Parliament coincided with the elections to the Great Khural, the Parliament of the Tyva Republic.\n9.  On 15 December 1999 the Tyva television channel broadcast a live show “Elections-99” with the participation of election candidates Mr P.A., Mr V.S. and Mr A.M. The applicant was the presenter. The editor took a question from a viewer by phone, wrote it on a piece of paper and handed it over to the applicant who read the question to the participants. According to the applicant, the question was:\n“Why was the flag of the Tyva Republic torn off the car with loud-speakers campaigning in support of G. Salchak? This is the first time this has happened in our Republic!”\n[“Почему сорвали флаг Республики Тыва с радиомашины в поддержку Г. Салчак? Это впервые такое в нашей республике!”]\nThe participants gave their answers to the question.\n10.  On 16 December 1999 the electoral bloc of the Edinstvo political movement brought a defamation action against the applicant and the broadcasting company. The statement of claim was signed by Mr A.O., the head of the regional campaign headquarters of the political movement. According to the statement, on 15 December 1999 the applicant had asked the show participants for their reactions to the fact that the representatives of the campaign headquarters had torn the Tyva flag off the campaigning car and stamped on it.\n11.  On 20 January 2000 the applicant and the broadcasting company filed their observations with the court. They submitted that only individuals, but not legal entities such as the Edinstvo political movement, could incur non-pecuniary damages.\n12.  On 5 April 2000 the original statement of claim was replaced by five identically worded statements filed by individual members of the campaign headquarters of the Edinstvo political movement, including Mr A.O., who also acted as the representative of three other plaintiffs.\n13.  The case was heard by the Kyzyl District Court of the Tyva Republic. Before the court the applicant maintained that he had read out the question exactly as it had been noted down on the piece of paper which was produced for the court's examination. The applicant also added that at first the participants had not understood the meaning of the question and that he had had to clarify that the incident in question had taken place earlier on that day in front of the headquarters of the Edinstvo movement.\n14.  On 19 July 2000 the District Court gave judgment. It found that no video recording of the show was available, and it relied on witness statements to establish the exact wording of what the applicant had said:\n“The case file materials include a note which contained the viewer's question phrased as follows: 'Why was the flag of the Tyva Republic torn off the car with loud-speakers campaigning in support of G. Salchak? This is the first time this has happened in our republic!' (case file, page 12).\nAs the court has established, three", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3184", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  On 5 May 2000 the Dzerzhynskiy District Court of Kharkiv (Дзержинський районний суд м. Харкова) awarded the applicant 4,489.02 hryvnyas (UAH)[1] against her former employer, the Frunzenskiy District Municipal Renovation Company (Державне комунальне ремонтно-будівельне підприємство з ремонту житлового фонду Фрунзенського району м. Харкова) in salary arrears and other payments.\n6.  This judgment was not appealed against, became final, and the enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the judgment debt.\n7.  On 16 June 2000 the Kharkiv City Council (Харківська міська рада) ordered liquidation of the debtor-company and on 22 September 2000 the enforcement writ was transferred to the liquidation commission.\n8.  On various occasions the applicant complained to the State authorities about the failure of the debtor-company to pay her the judgment debt and was informed that the collection of the debt was not possible on account of the debtor-company's lack of funds. The judgment remains unenforced to the present date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3185", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1968. The second applicant was born in 1973. They are husband and wife and live in the town of Sovetskaya Gavan in the Khabarovsk Region.\n6.  In 1994 the first applicant arrived in Russia on the basis of a valid visa and married the second applicant. In 1996 the second applicant gave birth to a daughter. In November 1996, after his visa had expired, the first applicant was deported to China.\n7.  In 1999 the second applicant gave birth to a son.\n8.  In 2001 the first applicant obtained a work visa valid until 1 August 2002 and resumed his residence in Russia. The visa was later extended until 1 August 2003.\n9.  In November 2002 the first applicant went to the Khabarovsk department of internal affairs (hereinafter “the Khabarovsk police department”) to lodge an application for a residence permit. The Khabarovsk police department did not have the necessary forms; therefore, the first applicant could not lodge his application. It was only on 11 July 2003 that the forms became available.\n10.  On 24 July 2003 the first applicant applied for a residence permit for a second time. The Khabarovsk police department refused to examine the application and returned the documents to the first applicant.\n11.  The first applicant challenged the refusal before a court. On 22 October 2003 the Sovetskaya Gavan Town Court found that the refusal to examine the application had been unlawful. It ordered that the Khabarovsk police department examine the first applicant's application for a residence permit.\n12.  On 22 July 2004 the Khabarovsk police department rejected his application by reference to section 7 (1) of the Foreign Nationals Act (see paragraph 33 below). No further reasons were provided.\n13.  The applicants challenged the refusal before a court. They complained, in particular, that the Khabarovsk police department had not given any reasons for the refusal. The first applicant had never been charged with any criminal offence or engaged in any subversive activities. The applicants also claimed that the refusal had interfered with their right to respect for their family life and had caused them non-pecuniary damage.\n14.  On 4 November 2004 the Tsentralniy District Court of Khabarovsk found that the decision of 22 July 2004 had been lawful and rejected the applicants' claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It found that the Khabarovsk police department had received information from the Federal Security Service that the first applicant posed a national security risk. That information was a State secret and could not be made public. There is no indication in the judgment that the information had been made available for judicial scrutiny.\n15.  The applicants appealed. On 18 January 2005 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 4 November 2004. It reiterated that, according to the information from the Federal Security Service, the first applicant posed a national security risk. That information was a State secret and was not subject to judicial scrutiny.\n16.  On 4 March 2005 the Khabarovsk police department rejected a new application for a residence permit. It found that the first applicant was unlawfully residing on Russian territory, that he had taken no steps to make his stay legal, and that he would therefore have to leave Russia. The refusal of a residence permit did not hinder his family life.\n17.  It appears that the applicants did not challenge the refusal of 4 March 2005 before a court. Instead th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3186", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1976 and 1933 respectively and live in the village of Hnaberd, Aragatsotn Region.\n5.  On an unspecified date, the applicant Melkonyan (hereafter, the second applicant) instituted proceedings against a third person, M., seeking pecuniary damages.\n6.  On 18 November 1999 the Aragatsotn Regional Court (Արագածոտն մարզի առաջին ատյանի դատարան) granted his claim and ordered M. to pay 925,000 Armenian drams (AMD) (approx. 1,710 euros (EUR)).\n7.  On 28 January 2000 the Department for the Enforcement of Judicial Acts (DEJA) (Դատական ակտերի հարկադիր կատարումն ապահովող ծառայություն) instituted enforcement proceedings. On the same date, the DEJA placed a seizure order on M.'s property, including land and cattle.\n8.  On 22 March 2000 the seized property was put on a public auction which took place on 22 August 2000. This property was bought by the second applicant.\n9.  On an unspecified date, seven members of M.'s family instituted proceedings against the DEJA. They claimed that the confiscated property had been jointly owned by them, but the DEJA had failed to sever M.'s share when confiscating the property in question. They sought to annul the relevant acts and measures taken in the course of the enforcement proceedings, including the public auction. They also instituted proceedings against the second applicant, seeking to lift the seizure order over the property in question.\n10.  On 23 July 2002 the Aragatsotn Regional Court dismissed their claim concerning the lifting of the seizure.\n11.  On 23 August 2002 the second applicant sold a part of the land in question jointly to the applicant Nikoghosyan (hereafter, the first applicant) and a third person, A.\n12.  On 12 September 2002 the first applicant and A. received a certificate of joint ownership in respect of the land.\n13.  On 4 October 2002 the Aragatsotn Regional Court granted the claim of M.'s family members against the DEJA, finding that their property rights had been violated by the enforcement proceedings since the DEJA should have severed and confiscated M.'s share in the property jointly owned by him and his family members instead of confiscating the entire property. The Regional Court annulled the acts and measures taken in the course of the enforcement proceedings. No appeal was lodged against this judgment.\n14.  On 11 October 2002 the Civil Court of Appeal (ՀՀ քաղաքացիական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարան) quashed the judgment of 23 July 2002 and lifted the seizure.\n15.  On 29 November 2002 the Court of Cassation (ՀՀ վճռաբեկ դատարան) upheld this judgment. 2.  The proceedings concerning the annulment of the sales contract of 23 August 2002 and the certificate of joint ownership of 12 September 2002\n16.  On an unspecified date, the members of M.'s family instituted proceedings against the applicants and A. seeking to annul the sales contract of 23 August 2002 and the certificate of joint ownership of 12 September 2002.\n17.  On 25 April 2003 the Aragatsotn Regional Court granted their claim and annulled these documents.\n18.  On an unspecified date, the applicants lodged an appeal.\n19.  On 30 May 2003 the Civil Court of Appeal, based in Yerevan, posted a summons addressed to both applicants, notifying them that the appeal hearing on the case would take place on 10 June 2003 at 11 a.m. in Yerevan\n20.  The envelope which contained the above summons had three postmarks: one dated 30 May 2003 and put in Yerevan, and two dated 12 and 17 June 2003, both put in Aragatso", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3187", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Athienou.\n5.  On 8 March 1989 the applicant applied for the vacant post of First Officer of Town Planning. On 8 June 1989 the Public Service Commission (hereinafter “the Commission”), responsible for the recruitment of officers in the public service, decided to appoint the applicant to the post. However, before the decision was communicated, it was suspended and then, on 14 August 1990 the applicant was informed that the Commission had decided to withdraw the proposal for the filling of the above post.\n6.  The applicant filed a recourse (recourse no. 795/90) for the annulment of this decision before the Supreme Court (first instance administrative jurisdiction).\n7.  On 3 December 1992 the Supreme Court declared the above decision null and void. It found that the decision to withdraw the proposal for the filling of the post had been ultra vires since it had had the clear purpose of preventing the applicant's appointment to that post.\n8.  The Government lodged an appeal (no. 1720) before the Supreme Court (revisional administrative jurisdiction).\n9.  In the meantime, the Commission in a decision dated 8 March 1993 noted that if the appeal was unsuccessful the procedure for filling of the post of First Officer of Town Planning would have to be re-examined and any possible decision of the Commission that the applicant was qualified would be binding also for the procedure for the post of Director of Town Planning.\n10.  On 5 October 1994 the appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the first instance judgment.\n11.  The composition of the Commission changed and the new Commission members requested the Law Office of the Republic for advice concerning the procedure to be followed in the light of the Supreme Court's judgment of 5 October 1994.\n12.  The Attorney-General of the Republic provided the Commission with an advisory opinion in two letters dated 22 December 1995 and 4 January 1996.\n13.  On 5 January 1996 the Commission, considering that it was bound both by the Supreme Court's judgment of 5 October 1994 and the advisory opinion given by the Attorney-General, appointed the applicant to the post of First Officer of Town Planning retrospectively as from 1 July 1990. This was in spite of the fact that in its decision it noted that it disagreed with the former Commission that the applicant had the required qualifications for the post. In the relevant letter dated 9 January 1996 the applicant was informed that he would be compensated for the period from 1 July 1990 until the date he took over his new duties for the difference between the salaries. Following a successful recourse before the Supreme Court, the date of commencement of his new appointment was set as 1 July 1989. The applicant claimed that only one third of the due salaries had been paid to him.\n14.  On 16 February 1996 the applicant's appointment was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic.\n15.  In 1996 the Cyprus Association of Town and Country planning and two other candidates for the post of First Officer of Town Planning filed three recourses (nos. 348/96, 349/96 and 365/96) before the Supreme Court (first instance administrative jurisdiction) against the Government, through the Commission, seeking the annulment of the applicant's appointment. The recourses were filed on 25 April 1996, 30 April 1996 and 20 November 1996 respectively. The applicant took part in the proceedings as an interested party.\n16.  The Govern", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3188", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Kemerovo. She was employed by a State enterprise FGUP PO «Progress» (Федеральное государственное унитарное предприятие ПО “Прогресс”). In 1970 she sustained a work-related injury resulting in the loss of her right hand, and became disabled. She became entitled to a disability allowance payable by the employer. As no payments ensued, the applicant brought proceedings for arrears.\n5.  On 13 February, 5 August 1998 and 9 February 1999 the Kirovskiy District Court of Kemerovo awarded the applicant 26,510; 7,193 and 13,696 Russian roubles (RUB), respectively. It appears that partial payments in execution of those judgments were made between 1998 and 2002. The respective enforcement proceedings were terminated on 31 January, 24 May 2001 and 21 February 2002.\n6.  By judgment of 15 November 2000, the District Court awarded the applicant RUB 20,279. The Kemerovo Regional Court upheld the judgment on 19 December 2000.\n7.  On 11 September 2001 the District Court awarded the applicant RUB 20,000. The Regional Court upheld the judgment on 30 October 2001.\n8.  In June 2004 the applicant was informed that the judgment debts would be paid to her after the claims of the priority creditors had been met.\n9.  It appears that partial payments in execution of the judgments of 15 November 2000 and 11 September 2001 were made in 2002 and 2005. The respective enforcement proceedings were terminated on 26 August 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3189", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  On 9 June 1993, the applicant was placed in police custody for five days under the accusation of having murdered his partner. On 14 June 1993, the prosecutor attached to the Giurgiu County Court ordered the applicant's remand in custody.\n7.  On 22 October 1993, the prosecutor attached to the Giurgiu County Court committed the applicant for trial for aggravated murder, under Article 176 (a) of the Criminal Code.\n8.  On 4 April, 10 October, 28 November 1994, 9 January, 13 February and 15 May 1995, in the presence of the applicant and D.U., his chosen defence counsel, the County Court heard evidence from witnesses. On 10 October 1994 the applicant also gave evidence. On 15 May 1995 the County Court heard evidence from the prosecutor, the civil party and D.U. It then allowed the applicant to address the court last.\n9.  In a judgment of 29 May 1995 the County Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated murder and sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment. It based its judgment on the witness testimonies, the applicant's declarations and behaviour and the medical reports concerning the death of the victim. On 16 February 1996 the sentence was confirmed, upon the applicant's appeal, by the Bucharest Court of Appeal which heard evidence from the applicant and I.C., his defence counsel.\n10.  The applicant appealed in cassation before the Supreme Court of Justice alleging that he had not committed the murder and that, therefore, the evidence had been wrongly interpreted by the courts.\n11.  The applicant was sent to the Prison Hospital from 4 August to 5 October 1995, from 4 April to 25 April 1996 and again from 8 to 22 August 1996. He underwent several surgical interventions there. In 1996 he was diagnosed with a perianal tumour but refused further surgery.\nDue to a severe problem with his eyes, the doctors who examined the applicant recommended his release.\n12.  During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the applicant's health was in constant decline. Therefore, he was absent from most of the hearings held in the case, but allegedly requested repeatedly that the proceedings be suspended because of his illness.\n13.  It appears from the non-definitive decisions that the applicant was represented either by a court-appointed counsel or by a lawyer of his choice for most of the hearings.\n14.  On 17 February 1997, after having examined the applicant and having noted, in particular, that he had lost 20 kg in six months, the prison doctors recommended that the applicant undergo an expert examination by the Forensic Institute. On 10 March 1997, the same doctors recommended the applicant's release.\n15.  He was hospitalised again between 8 January and 30 May 1997. In March 2007, he was transferred under escort to the Bagdasar public Hospital in Bucharest where he underwent a colostomy. He claims that he was handcuffed to the bed.\n16.  On 23 April 1997, the doctors recommended his release from custody due to his severe medical condition.\n17.  On 15 May 1997, the Forensic Institute concluded that the applicant had to follow a three-month course of treatment, which would prevent him from participating in the proceedings.\n18.  On 27 May 1997 the Supreme Court suspended the trial due to the applicant's health condition, as revealed by the Forensic Institute's report adduced in the case. It also ordered the applicant's release, which took place on 30 May 1997.\n19.  The Supreme Court reques", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3190", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is of Roma ethnic origin and lives in Nea Zoe, in Aspropyrgos (western Attica), in a Roma settlement.\n6.  On 28 January 2002, between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., the Police Directorate of western Attica, on the initiative of Aspropyrgos police station, conducted a large-scale police operation in the Roma settlement of Nea Zoe. The operation was aimed at arresting persons who, according to information obtained by the police, were involved in drug trafficking. Thirty-two police officers and one judicial official took part in this operation, in the course of which eleven Roma dwellings were searched and four individuals arrested.\n7.  The applicant, who was two and a half months pregnant, was in the settlement at the time of the operation.\n8.  The applicant and other Roma women were rounded up by the police for a body search. According to her statement, whilst the police operation was taking place the applicant waited her turn to be searched by the police who were searching other residents of the settlement. She noticed that certain police officers were taunting a disabled Roma who was a relative of hers.\n9.  As she moved to approach the police officers, she was forcefully pushed back by one of them while another one kicked her in the back, in spite of the fact that she had shouted that she was pregnant. As a result of the kick, the applicant felt an intense pain in the abdominal area and started bleeding. Although the bleeding was obvious to all the police officers present, the applicant was not taken to hospital. Not having any personal documents – as she was at the time an unregistered stateless person – and being alone, she felt she could not go to the hospital on her own for fear of being refused treatment.\n10.  The next day she informed members of the Greek Helsinki Monitor that she had been kicked by a police officer and that she was bleeding. One of them then rushed her to Elena Venizelou Maternity Clinic, where she was admitted immediately. She underwent a number of medical tests.\n11.  On 1 February 2002 the applicant suffered a miscarriage and was kept under medical supervision until 5 February 2002, when she was discharged from the hospital.\n12.  According to the version of events given by the Government, the police officers who participated in the police operation of 28 January 2002 did not use force against civilians. Neither the four persons arrested nor any other individual who was in the settlement during the operation had been assaulted or subjected to racial abuse. The presence of a judicial officer guaranteed the police officers' proper conduct.\n13.  According to the medical report drawn up at the end of the examination, “the applicant was admitted to the hospital on 29 January 2002, 10 weeks pregnant, with haemorrhaging from her uterus (risk of spontaneous abortion). On 2 February 2002 there was a complete expulsion of the foetus and on 4 February 2002 her uterus was cleaned”.\n14.  On 1 February 2002 counsel for the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Athens public prosecutor against the police officer who had allegedly used violence against the applicant and whose identity was unknown to her. In the complaint the applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party seeking damages, asked to be examined by a forensic doctor and named three persons who could testify as witnesses. She also included the address and telephone numbers of her lawyers.\n15.  On 10 February 2002 the Athens public prosecutor sent", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3193", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Zaporizhzhya.\n5.  On 25 April 1993 the applicant's son, who was a Russian national and served in the Russian Army, died because of an accident while on duty. The Russian State Military Insurance Company paid his wife and child, who resided in Russia, the insurance settlement to which they were entitled under the Russian law.\n6.  In 2001 the applicant lodged several requests with the Zaporizhzhya Regional Enlistment Office and the Ukrainian State Insurance Company “Oranta” (the “Oranta Company”), seeking the insurance settlement allegedly due to him under the Treaty on Payment of Pensions to Military Servicemen and Their Families and on State Insurance of Military Servicemen of the Member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States of 15 May 1992 (the “CIS Treaty of 15 May 1992”, see Relevant domestic law), which had entered into force in respect of Ukraine on that day. By letters of 9 July and 1 August 2001 respectively, the Oranta Company and the Enlistment Office rejected the applicant's requests on the ground that his son had served in the Russian Armed Forces and, thus, the applicant was not entitled to receive an insurance settlement under Ukrainian law.\n7.  In 2002 the applicant sought the insurance settlement by the Russian State Military Insurance Company. By letter of 27 September 2002, that company refused his request and informed the applicant that the amounts due to him because of the death of his son were to be paid by the Oranta Company pursuant to the CIS Treaty of 15 May 1992.\n8.  In December 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Komunarskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya against the Oranta Company, seeking the recovery of the insurance settlement which the latter allegedly had to pay him because of his son's death. He also sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant argued that he was entitled to receive the insurance settlement in respect of his son on the ground that he, the applicant, resided on the territory of Ukraine, which had undertaken, pursuant to the CIS Treaty of 15 May 1992, to make such payments if a military serviceman had died while on duty in the Armed Forces of one of the CIS Member States.\n9.  On 10 April 2002 the court ruled against the applicant. This judgment was upheld by the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal on 18 July 2002 and the Supreme Court on 8 January 2003.\n10.  The courts found that under Ukrainian law the applicant was not entitled to receive the insurance settlement payable in similar cases to the relatives of Ukrainian military servicemen. The courts held that according to the CIS Treaty of 15 May 1992, read in conjunction with the decision of the Economic Court of the Commonwealth of Independent States (the “CIS Economic Court”) of 20 March 1997, such a payment should have been made by the Russian Federation, in the Armed Forces of which his son had served.\n11.  In 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya against the Zaporizhzhya Regional Enlistment Office, seeking the recovery of a special pension, which he was allegedly entitled to receive under the Law of Ukraine on Social and Legal Protection of Military Servicemen and Their Families of 20 December 1991 (the “Law of 1991”), read in conjunction with the provisions of the CIS Treaty of 15 May 1992, because of his son's death. He relied on the same reasons as in respect of his claim against the Oranta Company.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3194", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Kharkiv, Ukraine.\n5.  At the material time the applicant was the director and allegedly the owner of the Passage private company, which provided currency exchange services. On 16 August 1996 the tax police inspected one of the departments of the company, seized some documents and cash assets, and imposed financial sanctions.\n6.  On 28 April 1998 the applicant was invited to the Kharkiv State Tax Police Inspectorate (Податкова міліція Державної податкової інспекції м. Харкова) to retrieve the documents that had been removed by the tax police. According to the applicant, at 9 a.m., when he entered the office of S., the Head of the Tax Police Inspectorate, and asked when the documents in question would be returned, the latter started to beat him and broke the tape recorder which the applicant had in his pocket. According to the applicant, several people were present at the time in S.'s office. The latter allegedly told his subordinates not to let the applicant out until 11 a.m. At 11 a.m. the applicant left the Tax Police premises.\n7.  On the same day the applicant complained about these events to the Anti-corruption Department of the Kharkiv Regional State Tax Inspectorate (Відділ по боротьбі з корупцією Державної податкової інспекції в Харківській області). The applicant was sent for a medical examination and his complaint was transferred to the Prosecutor's Office.\n8.  On 29 April 1998 the medical examination revealed that the applicant had suffered minor injuries, and in particular that he had bruises on his abdomen. No head injury was identified.\n9.  From 30 April to 23 May 1998 the applicant was a patient in the neurosurgery department of Hospital No. 4. He was diagnosed with concussion and numerous bruises were found on his head.\n10.  On 11 June 1998 a further forensic medical examination concluded that the applicant was suffering from moderately severe physical injuries (including a head injury) which had caused a temporary disability.\n11.  On 18 August 1998 the financial sanctions against the Passage company were rescinded.\n12.  According to a forensic medical expert opinion of 1 September 1998, the applicant's medical treatment from 30 April to 8 June 1998 was for a head injury, which could have been inflicted on 28 April 1998 or later. It further stated that, since according to the medical examination of 29 April 1998 the applicant had not had a head injury, it was impossible to establish a link between the incident of 28 April 1998 and the applicant's medical treatment for a head injury.\n13.  On 2 September 1998 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor's Office (прокуратура м. Харкова) refused to institute criminal proceedings against Mr S. for want of corpus delicti. In particular, S. and Sh. and P. (employees of the Tax Police who had been present in the office during the events in question) and Zh. (a security officer) testified that the applicant had not been subjected to any kind of physical pressure. S. and Sh. submitted that the applicant had tried to record his conversation with S. and when the latter had asked the applicant to give him the tape recorder, the applicant had dropped it on the floor and stepped on it. G. (an associate of the applicant, who had accompanied him to the Tax Police office) testified that he had seen the applicant through the window being beaten by S. It was established that it had not been physically possible for G. to have seen the events in question; in any ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3195", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is an active officer of the Russian army in the rank of captain. He lives in St Petersburg.\n6.  On 4 February 2004 the Military Court of the Sertolovo Garrison granted the applicant's action against his military unit and awarded him 304,487 Russian roubles (RUB) in wage arrears. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 17 February 2004.\n7.  On 29 March 2004 the applicant sent a copy of the judgment to the military unit. According to the acknowledgment-of-receipt card, the military unit received the letter on 29 April 2004.\n8.  The applicant complained about non-enforcement to the local department of the Ministry of Defence. By letter of 25 May 2004, the local department of the Ministry of Defence instructed the military unit to pay the judgment debt.\n9.  The judgment has not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3196", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mrs Súsanna Rós Westlund, was born in 1964 and lives in Hafnarfjördur.\n6.  The present case has its background in a real estate sale by the applicant to Mr G. in 1999, relating to a property at Grenimelur 36 in Reykjavik. The relevant sales agreement of 27 August 1999 referred to a summary report describing the property, which included the following statement: “The house has recently been renovated on the outside, except for windows and glass. New roof tiles. Garage renovated windows partly. Wooden parquet flooring in need of repair. Great location in the west part of Reykjavik. Leakage in cellar has not been remedied. Seller will have that done.”\n7.  In March 2000 G. complained to the real estate agent that he had discovered a leak from the roof of the house and that the repair which had previously been done to the roof had covered only parts of it. Many new or newly discovered flaws on the property could be traced back to the leak in the roof. Moreover, G. claimed compensation from the applicant.\n8.  Following a report issued on 26 September 2001 by a court appointed expert, G. brought compensation proceedings before the Reykjavik District Court, claiming a discount on the purchase amount due to defects as well as compensation for the damage to the property.\n9.  After holding an oral hearing, at which the applicant was represented by a lawyer and both parties were heard and evidence was presented, including a report by a court appointed expert, the District Court, sitting with one professional judge and two expert judges, by a judgment of 16 April 2003, found in favour of G. and against the applicant. It ordered the applicant to pay G. 1,739,000 Icelandic krónur (ISK), plus default interest as from 26 September 2001, and ISK 600,000 for legal costs (value added tax included).\nThe District Court’s judgment included, inter alia, the following reasons:\n“The plaintiff [G.] received the property in the summer of 1999. The plaintiff noticed a leak in the house in the beginning of the year 2000, after a winter with bad weather. The engineers report verified that there had been a leak on the roof. In accordance with the summary report for the sale of the house, where the property is described in writing, which also was available at the signing of the contract for sale, it is stated that there are new roof tiles on the roof. As has been verified throughout this process this was not the case. Furthermore it is not the understanding of the court that the plaintiff should have seen this fault during routine inspection of the house or should have seen whether the tiles were new. It has also been stated in the engineers report that the roof leaked and has caused damages to windows and window frames. It is therefore the understanding of the court that the defendant [Súsanna Rós Westlund] guaranteed that the roof tiles were new, and that the plaintiff should have been able to trust that the roof would not leak, even if the house is an old one.\nBy selling the property without the proper qualities, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff in accordance with the general rule of 2. paragraph, chapter 42 of the laws then valid nr. 39/1922 regarding liquid assets.”\n10.  On 2 June 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against the District Court’s judgment, challenging the latter’s conclusions that she was liable to pay G. compensation or, in any event, claiming that the amount be reduced. G. was then given until 16 Ju", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3197", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region.\n5.  In 2003 and 2004 the applicant sued the local Social Security Committee for unpaid allowances and commodity benefits.\n6.  By judgment of 1 July 2003, the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region awarded her 19,315.50 Russian roubles (RUB) for the period from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003. On 2 September 2003 the judgment became final. The applicant received the monies on 8 June 2005.\n7.  By judgment of 27 February 2004, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 16,765.50 for the period between 1 July and 31 December 2003. On 9 March 2004 the judgment entered into force. The applicant received the monies on 3 August 2005.\n8.  On 15 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,973.57. It appears that the judgment was not enforced.\n9.  On 7 May 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 9,494.54 for the period from 1 January to 31 March 2004 and increased her monthly allowance to RUB 5,664.85 from 1 April 2004 with subsequent indexation. On 17 May 2004 the judgment entered into force. The applicant received the lump sum on 11 November 2005.\n10.  On 4 June 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 1,772.30 in arrears, increased her monthly commodity benefits to RUB 679.78 from 1 April 2004 and ordered the Social Security Committee to adjust the applicant's annual disability allowance starting from 2005 in line with inflation. It appears that the judgment was not enforced.\n11.  On 6 October 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 12,659.40 for the period from 1 April to 31 July 2004. On 18 October 2004 the judgment entered into force. The applicant received the monies on 11 November 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3198", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Sancraiu de Mureş.\n6.  In 1953 the applicant was called up for military service. However, because of his father’s opposition to the collectivisation of farmland, he was not allowed to undergo military training. Instead, he was assigned to a number of military units, including the Vatra Dornei unit, as a building worker. His military service ended in 1955.\n7.  In 1961 the Labour Department, an administrative body grouping together the military units specially created for conscripts who were barred from military training, was abolished.\n8.  Law no. 309 of 22 May 2002 (“Law no. 309-2002”) recognised as forced labour the work performed in the military units coming under the authority of the Labour Department, and provided for compensatory measures including a monthly allowance, free medical treatment and exemption from the television licence fee.\n9.  On 22 August 2002 the applicant applied to the county pensions and social insurance fund (“the county fund”), claiming the benefits available under Law no. 309-2002. In a decision of 19 December 2002 the county fund refused the application on the ground that the applicant had not performed his military service in a military unit coming under the authority of the Labour Department.\n10.  On 5 May 2003 the applicant brought proceedings against the county fund before the Targu Mureş Court of Appeal, seeking to have the decision of 19 December 2002 set aside and to be recognised as having performed forced labour during his military service.\n11.  In a judgment of 2 June 2003 the Court of Appeal found in the applicant’s favour and ordered the county fund to issue a new decision awarding him the benefits provided for by Law no. 309-2002. On the basis of the entries in the applicant’s military service record book, the Court of Appeal concluded that he had worked on various building projects with the Vatra Dornei military unit and had been discharged from service as an “untrained combat soldier”.\n12.  The county fund appealed to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the HCCJ”).\n13.  At the applicant’s request, the HCCJ referred to the Constitutional Court an objection raised by the applicant as to the constitutionality of Article 1 of Law no. 309-2002. The applicant alleged that, in making a distinction between persons who had performed the same kind of forced labour during their military service, the provision in question was in breach of Article 16 of the Constitution and of the European Convention on Human Rights. He considered this difference in treatment to be unjustified since it was based solely on the hierarchical structure to which the conscript’s military unit had belonged.\n14.  The Constitutional Court dismissed the objection in a judgment of 1 April 2004, which included the following passage:\n“The definition of the categories of persons who are eligible for certain measures in compensation for the duress and hardship they underwent in the past ... is a matter for the legislature alone, provided that no privileges or discrimination are engendered between persons belonging to the same category and in identical situations. Article 1 of Law no. 309-2002 does not give rise to any privileges or discrimination contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution.”\n15.  In a judgment of 8 June 2004 in which it found in favour of the county fund, the HCCJ quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remitted the case for further preparation, with a view to ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3199", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in St Petersburg.\n5.  He brought a court action against the Finance and Control Committee of the Omsk Regional administration to recover the monetary value of the promissory notes issued by the Omsk Region.\n6.  By a judgment of 24 July 2000 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg granted the applicant's claim and awarded him 32,613.33 Russian roubles (RUB). The sum included the main debt of RUB 23,200, the interest in the amount of RUB 9,357.33 and legal costs of RUB 56. The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on 4 August 2000.\n7.  On 9 August 2000 the applicant sent the writ of execution to the bailiffs' service of the Omsk Region and on 4 October 2000 the bailiffs initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n8.  On 23 November 2000 the applicant received the main debt under the judgment of 24 July 2000 in the amount of RUB 23, 200.\n9.  By a judgment of 3 February 2004 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg awarded the applicant RUB 7,407 as a penalty for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 24 July 2000. No appeal was lodged against the judgment and it acquired legal force on 16 February 2004. On 18 February 2004 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg issued a writ of execution.\n10.  On 24 February 2004 the Finance and Control Committee was reorganized into the Ministry of Finance of the Omsk Region and its accounts in the credit institutions were closed.\n11.  On 16 March 2004 the applicant forwarded the writ of execution for the judgment of 3 February 2004 to the bailiffs' service.\n12.  The enforcement proceedings in respect of both judgments were discontinued on 21 April 2004 and the writs of execution were returned to the applicant who had been advised to apply to a court in order to define the debtor's legal successor and to resubmit the writs of executions to the bailiffs. According to the Government, the applicant failed to do so.\n13.  On 12 May 2005 the Ministry of Finance of the Omsk Region transferred to the applicant the remainder of the court award of 24 July 2000. The judgment of 3 February 2004 was fully enforced on 21 February 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3200", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Bulgaria.\nThe criminal proceedings against the applicant\n6.  In the early hours of 7 October 1993 a taxi driver was murdered and his car was stolen. The applicant was arrested by the police on the same morning while cleaning the taxicab from blood stains. A preliminary investigation for murder was opened against the applicant on the same day.\n7.  The preliminary investigation lasted from 7 October 1993 to 10 February 1994 during which period the investigation authorities questioned on several occasions the applicant and various witnesses, conducted crime scene experiments and commissioned a number of expert reports such as a medical, fingerprint, economic, psychiatric, chemical and compound-analysis report.\n8.  The findings of the preliminary investigation were presented to the applicant on 7 March 1994.\n9.  An indictment was submitted to the Sofia City Court on 22 June 1994 against the applicant for the murder of the taxi driver and for the theft of the taxicab and several items from another individual.\n10.  The Sofia City Court conducted eight hearings between 2 November 1994 and 12 March 1996. The victim's son joined the proceedings as civil claimant. In the course of the proceedings, the court examined the applicant and various witnesses, some of which were foreign language speaking, and commissioned several expert reports, such as a physicochemical, chemical, ballistics, psychiatric and economic. One of the members of the court's panel was changed midway in the proceedings which led to a rehearing of the case, as well as a re-examination of witnesses and experts. There were also unsuccessful attempts to locate two witnesses who had left the country in 1993.\n11.  In a judgment of 12 March 1996 the Sofia City Court found the applicant guilty of premeditated murder with hooligan motives, committed with extreme viciousness and in a manner particularly cruel to the victim, as well as of the theft of the taxicab and several items from another individual. The court imposed the death penalty as joint punishment for the offences and ordered the applicant to pay damages to the victim's family.\n12.  The applicant appealed against the above judgment on 14 March 1996 arguing that the Sofia City Court had wrongly applied the law, that the facts were inconclusive and that the sentence was unjustified. His appeal was forwarded to the second-instance court more than a year later on 14 April 1997.\n13.  The Supreme Court of Cassation conducted three hearings between 13 June 1997 and 12 March 1998.\n14.  In a judgment of 17 April 1998 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court's judgment, but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment as it found it to be more lenient for the applicant. In reaching its decision, the court re-examined all the evidence before it and addressed the arguments of the applicant.\n15.  On 25 May 1998 the applicant filed a petition for review (cassation appeal) essentially repeating his arguments before the second-instance court.\n16.  Of the six hearings held before the extended panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation between 16 December 1998 and 19 February 2001 three were adjourned at the applicant's request.\n17.  In a final judgment of 12 March 2001 the extended panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the lower-courts' judgements. In reaching its decision, the court concurred with", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3201", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in St Petersburg.\n8.  The applicant is a member of the National Bolsheviks Party.\n9.  On 14 December 2004 a group of about forty members of the National Bolsheviks Party occupied the waiting area of the President’s administration building in Moscow and locked themselves in an office on the ground floor.\n10.  They asked for a meeting with the President, the deputy head of the President’s administration Mr Surkov, and the President’s economic advisor Mr Illarionov. Through the windows they distributed leaflets with a printed letter to the President that listed his ten alleged failures to comply with the Constitution and contained a call for his resignation.\n11.  The intruders stayed in the office for one hour and a half until the police broke down the blocked door. They did not offer any other resistance to the authorities.\n12.  On 16 December 2004 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s detention on the ground that he was suspected of a particularly serious criminal offence, had no permanent residence in Moscow and was a Dutch national. It considered that there was a risk of his re-offending, absconding, interfering with the investigation or intimidating witnesses.\n13.  The applicant appealed, complaining that the District Court had not cited any facts to justify the necessity of ordering his detention. On 3 February 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified.\n14.  On 21 December 2004 the applicant was charged with an attempted violent overthrow of State power (Article 278 of the Criminal Code) and intentional destruction and degradation of others’ property in public places (Articles 167 § 2 and 214).\n15.  On 8 February 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant’s detention until 14 April 2005, referring to the gravity of the charge. The applicant had no permanent residence in Moscow and there were reasons to believe that he might abscond or interfere with the investigation.\n16.  The applicant’s counsel appealed. He asked the court to release the applicant, taking into account that he had no criminal record, had positive references and was of frail health. On 9 March 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal.\n17.  On 16 February 2005 the applicant’s charge was amended to that of participation in mass disorders, an offence under Article 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n18.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor requested the court to extend the applicant’s detention until 14 August 2005. On 14 April 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant’s detention until 14 July 2005 for the following reasons:\n“There are no reasons to vary the preventive measure. Taking into account the gravity of the charges and [the applicant’s] individual situation, the court considers that there are sufficient indications that [the applicant], once released, might abscond.\nAt the same time, bearing in mind that the parties to the criminal proceedings have already started studying the case file, the extension asked for by the prosecution appears to be excessive and must be limited to three months. This period will be sufficient for all parties to the proceedings to study effectively the entire case file.”\n19.  On 14 April 2005 the applicant’s counsel appealed. He asked the court to apply a more lenient preventive measure, taking into account that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3202", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On the night of 16 August 1999 the applicant and five other men were drinking in a bar, “U Rysia”, in Suwałki. Around midnight a fight broke out outside the bar. Two police officers, K.T and R.Z., saw the fight. They parked their car and approached the fighting men. They saw that one man was lying on the ground (later it turned out that it was the applicant), while two others were kicking and beating him. As the police officers were in plain clothes they showed their police identification cards and ordered the men to stop fighting.\n7.  Subsequently, several other police cars and an ambulance arrived. There were fourteen police officers at the scene. The arrival of the policemen caused some persons to run away, whereas the applicant himself went into the bar. The applicant refused to go to the hospital, claiming that he was not injured. He was also verbally aggressive towards the police officers. Police officer K.T. attempted to apprehend him and a struggle ensued. Two other police officers, M.S. and M.K., then tried to overpower the applicant, but to no effect as he was very aggressive. The police officers resorted to the use of truncheons. The applicant was handcuffed and placed in a police car. As he refused to get in the car he was again hit with a truncheon on his legs. He was then driven to a sobering-up centre in Suwałki. Upon his arrival, the applicant was allegedly still aggressive and therefore was again hit with a truncheon.\n8.   Detention Card (karta pobytu) no. 1186/99, which contains the record of the applicant's presence at the Suwałki sobering‑up centre, provides, inter alia, the following description of his medical condition:\n“recent truncheon marks on the skin of the head and the back”\n9.  The Detention Card also provides that at the time of the applicant's arrival at the centre his breath test showed a blood alcohol level of 2.01 ‰.\n10.  On 17 August 1999 the applicant was examined by a medical doctor. In his report the doctor wrote:\n“Numerous bruises are observed, in particular: on both sides of the head and left part of the neck, bruises in the shape of stripes on the right of the chest, right shoulder, right shoulder blade, round bracelet bruises on both wrists, most probably from handcuffs and round bruises above wrists, single bruises in the shape of stripes on the left buttock, thigh and the lower leg. “\n11.  The applicant and five other men (“K.P”, “S.S.”, “A.P.”, “R.W.”, and “K.K.”) arrested with him on the night of 16 August 1999 reported the incident to the prosecution authorities. On 17 August 1999 and 18 August 1999, K.P. and S.S. respectively lodged complaints with the Suwałki District Prosecution Office (Prokuratura Rejonowa w Suwałkach). They alleged that they had been beaten by the police officers during the arrest on 16 August. On 18 August 1999 an investigation was instituted. Subsequently, on 23 August 1999 the applicant presented himself at the Prosecution Office and lodged a complaint about the police. He complained that upon his arrival at the sobering-up centre he had been dragged out of the police car, pushed on the ground and beaten and kicked by the police officers. He claimed that during the whole incident he had been handcuffed. Three further victims of the alleged police ill-treatment lodged their complaints with the Suwałki District Prosecutor on the following dates: A.P. on 20 August, R.W. on 23 August and K.K. on 24 August.\n12.  During the course of investigation proceedings the Pros", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3204", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965. He is currently detained in the Edirne F-type Prison.\n5.  On 6 February 1993 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody by officers from the Anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of involvement in the activities of an illegal armed organisation, the TKP/ML-TIKKO (the Turkish Communist Party/Marxist Leninist -Turkish Workers and Peasants' Liberation Army).\n6.  On 15 February 1993 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and then the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. On the same day the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody pending trial.\n7.  By an indictment dated 5 April 1993, the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and nineteen other defendants before the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing them, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of involvement in activities which undermined the constitutional order of the State. The prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  In the course of the proceedings, the State Security Court rejected the applicant's requests for release, taking into account the nature of the alleged offence and the state of the evidence.\n9.  On 12 June 2000 the applicant was convicted as charged by the Istanbul State Security Court and sentenced to life imprisonment.\n10.  On 15 May 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant's conviction for procedural reasons. The case was remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court for further examination and the applicant remained in custody.\n11.  On 7 May 2004 State Security Courts were abolished following a constitutional amendment and the applicant's case was transmitted to the Istanbul Assize Court. In the course of the proceedings, the domestic courts rejected the applicant's requests for release, taking into account the nature of the alleged offence and the documents in the case file. The applicant challenged these decisions under Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Code; however, the domestic courts rejected all his requests.\n12.  On 31 January 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n13.  On 20 March 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Assize Court and the case file was remitted to Istanbul Assize Court.\n14.  On 4 October 2006 the applicant was released pending trial. According to the information in the case file, as submitted by the parties, the case is still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3206", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Adana.\n5.  In 1995 the applicant's daughter joined the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party), an illegal organisation. The applicant alleges that, since then, the police have raided her house and harassed and threatened her many times.\n6.  The applicant claims that on 19 November 1999, around midnight, three persons who introduced themselves as police officers from the anti‑terrorism branch of the Adana Security Directorate had entered her house, stuffed her scarf in her mouth and beaten, threatened and sexually harassed her. She alleges that the officers had finally raped her by inserting a truncheon in her vagina and that she had passed out following the rape.\n7.  On 22 November 1999 the applicant went to the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (hereinafter “the foundation”) where she gave a description of the ill-treatment she had received at the hands of the police officers and complained in particular of pain in the genital area and vaginal bleeding. However, as the obstetrician was unavailable at the time, the applicant was given an appointment for 30 November 1999. She was nonetheless examined by a doctor who noted that there was a severe sensitivity on the applicant's abdomen.\n8.  The applicant claimed that on 28 November 1999 her house was raided again by police officers. She was told that they would kill her and her children if she were to lodge an official complaint about the previous incident. They then allegedly broke the picture frame in which the applicant kept her daughter's photograph and one of them had put a gun to the applicant's head and had taken her money.\n9.  On 30 November 1999 and 2 December 1999 the applicant was examined by Dr A.Ö. (the obstetrician) at the foundation. The doctor observed a perineal hernia and cysto‑rectocele on the applicant's genital organs. She further observed that the applicant's uterus was bigger and harder than normal. The doctor noted that, given the lapse of time, it would not be possible to see any marks of rape on the body. She also noted that, indeed, there were no such traces.\n10.  On 30 November 1999 the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist at the foundation who diagnosed that she was suffering from an acute stress syndrome and major depression. The doctor opined that the applicant's psychological problems were linked to the trauma she had allegedly experienced.\n11.  On 3 December 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor's office in Adana, requesting the prosecution of the three plain-clothed police officers at the anti-terrorism branch of the Adana Security Directorate. The applicant gave a description of the events of 19 and 28 November 1999 which she claimed had been perpetrated by the same three police officers. As regards the details, the applicant submitted that one of them had spoken to her in Kurdish only and had said that he was from Urfa. The applicant further noted that the police officer who had pointed a gun at her stomach was tall, thin and had thinning hair. Finally, the applicant maintained that she had been harassed by police officers since 1995, but she had been too afraid to lodge an official complaint.\n12.  On the same day, the Adana public prosecutor took statements from the applicant in which she reiterated her allegations of ill-treatment and complained about the police officers from the anti-terrorism branch.\n13.  On 7 December 1999 the applicant was examined by three doctors from the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3207", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Izmir.\n5.  The applicant was the representative of the Izmir branch of a political journal, namely the “Bread and Justice” (Ekmek ve Adalet) magazine.\n6.  In April and May 2002, the Istanbul State Security Court declared several issues of this journal illegal and ordered their confiscation.\n7.  On 21 May 2002 police officers conducted a search in the branch building, where they found some books, cassettes, magazines and compact discs, which they believed to be illegal.\n8.  On an unspecified date, the Izmir public prosecutor took a statement from the applicant and, on 15 July 2002, he filed an indictment with the Izmir Magistrates' Court accusing the applicant of “not obeying the official authorities' order” under Article 526 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 6 September 2002 the Izmir Magistrates' Court, without holding a hearing, issued a penal order pursuant to Article 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and sentenced the applicant to three months' imprisonment and a fine. The imprisonment measure was then commuted to a fine and the applicant was sentenced to a total fine of 381,682,144 Turkish liras (“TRL”)[1].\n10.  On 21 November 2002 the applicant challenged this decision before the Izmir Criminal Court. On 3 December 2002 that court dismissed the applicant's appeal without a hearing. The applicant was notified of this final decision on 12 December 2002.\n11.  Because the applicant failed to pay her fine, on 21 January 2003, the Karşıyaka public prosecutor transformed the fine into a sentence of imprisonment. The applicant was imprisoned in April 2004 and was later released on probation due to good conduct.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3208", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lived in Pula.\n5.  The applicant was an employee of a glass factory in Pula. On 20 July 1988 the factory granted the applicant and his family a flat for their use in Pula, consisting of a kitchen, one room and a communal toilet and measuring 30.60 square metres.\n6.  On 3 June 1991 Parliament enacted the Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act (Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo), which regulated the sale of publicly-owned flats previously let under protected tenancies, giving the right to holders of such tenancies of publicly-owned flats to purchase them from the provider of the flat under favourable conditions.\n7.  Under that Act the applicant as the buyer and the Pula Municipality as the seller concluded a contract for the sale of the said flat on 8 May 1996. A copy of the contract was submitted for approval by the State Attorney's Office. On 28 May 1996 approval was given.\n8.  In a decision of 21 September 1998 the Pula Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Puli) recorded the applicant's ownership of the flat in the court's land register. A copy of this decision was sent for information to the Istra County State Attorney's Office in Pula (Državno pravobraniteljstvo Istarske županije u Puli).\n9.  On 29 March 2000 the Istra County State Attorney's Office brought a civil action against the applicant and the Pula Municipality in the Pula Municipal Court, seeking annulment of the sale contract in question. They argued that the applicant could not have obtained a protected tenancy of the flat because the glass factory where he had worked had had no right to dispose of the said flat and that such a right had been vested in the Pula Municipality alone. The Municipal Court accepted these arguments and in its judgment of 22 February 2001 annulled the sale contract. The judgment was upheld by the Pula County Court (Županijski sud u Puli) on 15 December 2003. The relevant parts of its judgment read as follows:\n“The Boris Kidrič Glass Factory's decision of 20 July 1988, granting the first plaintiff Shani Gashi the right to use a flat in Pula at 19 M. Oreškovićeva Street, , consisting of one room, a kitchen and a communal toilet, clearly and expressly shows that the flat in question as regards its size and equipment is to be considered an unsuitable flat (neuvjetan stan) – provisional accommodation (nužni smještaj).\nThe question whether the first plaintiff actually acquired the flat in question as provisional accommodation cannot be assessed separately in the proceedings at issue; instead we have to accept the presumption that it was so, which the first plaintiff knew or should have known, owing to which he could not acquire a protected tenancy of the flat in question since under section 8 of the Housing Act (Official Gazette nos. 51/1985 and 42/1986) in force at the time, a protected tenancy could not be acquired in respect of flats and premises used as provisional accommodation, as correctly established by the court of first instance in the impugned judgment.\nSince the main condition for sale of a flat under the Protected Tenancy (Sale to Occupier) Act (Official Gazette nos. 43/1992, 69/1992, 25/1993, 2/1994 and 44/1994) is that the buyer is a holder of a protected tenancy of the flat which is the subject of the sale, the first-instance court correctly found that the contract in question concluded between the first and the second plaintiff on 8 May 1996 was null and void under section 52", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3209", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. The applicant was born in 1977. He is currently serving a life sentence in Penitentiary no. 47 in the town of Zhvyrka, Lviv Region.\n5.  The applicant was arrested on 7 December 1999.\n6.  On 8 December 1999 the Pridnirpovsky District Court of Cherkassy (Придніпровський районний суд м. Черкаси) sentenced him to ten days' administrative detention (адміністративний арешт) for swearing in public, an act which the court qualified as petty hooliganism, an offence under Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The detention period was calculated to run from 7 December 1999.\n7.  On 9 December 1999 the applicant confessed to having participated in the murder of a certain K. On the same day he was placed in police custody.\n8.  On 10 December 1999 a prosecutor from the Cherkassy Regional Prosecutor's Office (Прокуратура Черкаської області) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for murder.\n9.  On 11 December 1999 the Prosecutor of the Cherkassy Region (Прокурор Черкаської області, hereafter “the Regional Prosecutor”) ordered the applicant's pre‑trial detention. The reasons given by the prosecutor for issuing the order were that:\n“.. the [applicant] has committed a serious offence and may attempt to evade the investigation and trial, and to obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case.”\n10.  From 11 to 17 December 1999 the investigator (слідчий) appointed to deal with the case charged the applicant and his three co-defendants with further counts of murder, armed robbery, arson and participation in a criminal gang.\n11.  On 31 January 2000 the Regional Prosecutor decided to extend the length of the applicant's detention on remand for up to a maximum of five months on the ground that he was suspected of particularly serious criminal offences. Citing the same reason, on 28 April 2000 the Regional Prosecutor extended the length of the applicant's detention up to a maximum of six months.\n12.  On 31 May 2000 the investigator declared that the pre-trial investigation was complete and granted the defendants access to the case file.\n13.  On 19 July 2000 the Regional Prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and sent it with the case file to the Cherkassy Regional Court (Черкаський обласний суд, hereafter “the Regional Court”) in readiness for the trial proceedings.\n14.  On 2 October 2000 the Regional Court found that the investigator's conclusions were contradictory and did not correspond to the charges that had been brought against the applicant. It remitted the case for further investigations and decided – without stating any reasons – that the applicant should remain in pre-trial detention.\n15.  On 25 October 2000 the Regional Prosecutor's Office resumed the pre‑trial proceedings in the applicant's case.\n16.  On 21 November 2000 the additional pre-trial investigations were completed and the applicant and his co-accused were allowed to consult the case file. Their consultations continued – with a short interruption on 7‑8 February 2001 – until 23 February 2001. On the latter date the Regional Prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and submitted the case to the Regional Court for trial.\n17.  On 28 March 2001 the Regional Court remitted the case to the Regional Prosecutor's Office on the ground that the case file was incomplete.\n18.  On 29 March 2001 the case file was resubmitted to the court in readiness for the trial proceedings.\n19.  On 25 December 2001, following an adversarial trial during which the applicant was ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3210", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On 12 December 2000 an unauthorised demonstration in Kızılay, Ankara against F‑Type prisons turned into a violent clash between some of the participants, a group of Turkish nationalists and the security forces. The demonstrators caused severe material damage to cars and a shop, and eight police officers were injured during the incident.\n6.  The applicant claims that she had been on her way to her sister's law office when she saw armoured police vehicles firing high pressure water jets and a group of people throwing stones at others in the vicinity. She had had to enter the ÖDP (Liberty and Solidarity Party) building in order to protect herself from the police and the demonstrators.\n7.  After a while, police officers, who had previously obtained a search warrant, entered the ÖDP building and arrested around fifty persons who were inside at the time, including the applicant. During the arrest, the applicant claims to have been insulted and beaten, in particular, hit with truncheons on the legs, and that one of the policemen sexually harassed her. The same police officer punched the applicant in her right eye after she had been placed in the police vehicle.\n8.  On the same day, the applicant, along with several other people, was examined by a forensic doctor, who noted the following with respect to the applicant:\n“A bruise of 2 cm. in diameter on the left parietal bone, widespread bruises under the right eye and on the zygoma, a laceration on the lower lip and 3 ‑ 4 cm. abrasions on the pretibial bones have been observed. The injuries render Eser Ceylan unfit for work for seven days.”\n9.  On 13 December 2000 the applicant was examined again by a forensic expert who noted that there were no traces of battery on the applicant's body other than those mentioned in the report of 12 December 2000.\n10.  On the same day the applicant was taken to the Ankara public prosecutor's office. Before the public prosecutor, the applicant complained about the sexual harassment and beatings to which she had been subjected during the arrest and requested that the police officers who committed these offences be punished.\n11.  On the same day, the applicant, along with seventy other persons, appeared before the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance. They were charged with taking part in an unauthorised demonstration. The applicant reiterated that she had been beaten and sexually harassed during her arrest. She gave a description of the events with details about the perpetrators. The court ordered the applicant's release.\n12.  On 15 December 2000 the judge of the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance sent a letter to the Ankara public prosecutor's office, stating that almost all of the defendants in the case had complained of ill-treatment by the security forces and requested that the necessary measures be taken.\n13.  Following receipt of the letter of the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance, the Ankara public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the circumstances of the events.\n14.  On 30 January 2001 the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the police officers who had been on duty at the relevant time. In this connection, he maintained that the complainants had taken part in a demonstration against F-type prisons. Although before intervening and making arrests the police had given the demonstrators a warning and had ordered them to disperse, the demonstrators had resisted the police", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3211", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1974 and 1972 respectively and live in Şırnak.\n5.  The applicants were taken into police custody on 27 June 1992 and 24 May 1992 respectively on suspicion of their membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party). On 9 July 1992 and 8 June 1992 respectively, the applicants were brought before the investigating judge, who ordered their detention on remand.\n6.  On 1 September 1992 the Diyarbakır State Security Court Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against 49 accused persons, including the applicants. He accused the applicants of carrying out activities aimed at breaking up the unity of the State and removing part of the national territory from the State's control. The prosecutor requested the court to sentence the applicants in accordance with Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n7.  On 12 June 1998 the applicants were released pending trial. On an unspecified date in 1998 the second applicant went abroad.\n8.  On 3 July 1998 the Diyarbakır State Security Court, composed of three judges including a military judge, delivered its judgment. The court found the applicants guilty of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation and sentenced them to three years and nine months' imprisonment, pursuant to Article 169 of the Criminal Code. The applicants appealed.\n9.  In the meantime, on 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of the State Security Courts were replaced by civilian judges.\n10.  On 14 October 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n11.  On 30 December 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court, composed of three civilian judges, recommenced the trial of the applicants. The court further decided to summon all the accused, including the applicants, to the next hearing to submit their views on the Court of Cassation's decision.\n12.  During the proceedings, the court repeatedly summoned the applicants; however, the second applicant did not respond. As a result, on 24 December 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court decided that the file concerning the second applicant be separated and given another file number. It further found the first applicant guilty of membership of a terrorist organisation and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 of the Criminal Code.\n13.  On 10 April 2003 the Court of Cassation held that the first applicant's prison sentence should be recalculated and quashed the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n14.  On 30 September 2003 the Diyarbakır State Security Court recalculated the first applicant's prison sentence and decided that he should be sentenced to eight years and four months' imprisonment. This decision became final on 26 February 2004.\n15.  On 7 May 2004 State Security Courts were abolished following a constitutional amendment and the second applicant's case was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.\n16.  On 14 July 2006 the court ordered an arrest warrant for the second applicant. According to the information in the case file, the trial is still pending before the Diyarbakır Assize Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3212", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Šmarje pri Jelšah.\n6.  On 8 January 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident which occurred when the applicant was at work. The applicant's employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 13 May 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,608,038 Slovenian tolars (approximately 10,870 euros – EUR) for the injuries sustained.\nBetween 1 September 1997 and 27 September 1999 the applicant made six requests that a date be set for a hearing.\nOn 5 January 2000 he lodged preliminary written submissions.\nDuring the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert.\nAt the first hearing, held on 29 February 2000, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 13 April 2000.\n8.  On 21 April 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZT cross-appealed.\nOn 22 November 2001, the Celje District Court issued a supplement to the judgment (dopolnilna sodba). On 20 December 2001 the applicant also appealed against the supplement to the judgment.\nOn 8 August 2002 the Celje Higher Court allowed the applicant's and ZT's appeals in part. The court reduced the damages awarded in the first-instance proceedings and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination as regards the costs of the proceedings. The judgment was served on the applicant on 1 October 2002.\n9.  On 7 October 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nHe also requested that a judge should withdraw from the proceedings. On 5 July 2004 the President of the Supreme Court rejected the request.\nOn 1 September 2005 the court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law. The judgment was served on the applicant on 17 October 2005.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 16 September 2002, the first-instance court had issued a decision concerning the costs of the proceedings. The applicant's appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Celje Higher Court on 7 January 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3213", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in the town of Saransk in the Mordoviya Republic.\n5.  In 1990 the applicant obtained a State special-purpose commodity bond (облигация государственного целевого беспроцентного займа). By its terms the Government undertook to give her a Russian-made VAZ passenger car.\n6.  It appears that in 1993 the applicant requested the State to comply with its obligation, but it could not be fulfilled for want of cars.\n7.  After the change in legislation in 1995 and 1996, the applicant became entitled to compensation in the amount equal to the car value, as described in the bond and determined in co-ordination with car manufacturers at the moment of redemption.\n8.  It appears that in August 1998 the applicant received partial compensation.\n9.  In November 1999 she sued the Government for the full market value of the car.\n10.  By judgment of 25 April 2002, the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saransk awarded her 50,400 Russian roubles (RUB) against the Ministry of Finance. On 4 June 2002 the Supreme Court of the Mordoviya Republic upheld the judgment.\n11.  On 19 June 2002 the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings. On 1 July 2002 the bailiff returned the writ of execution to the applicant. On the same date, the applicant re-submitted it to the Ministry of Justice. Upon the Ministry's instructions, on 17 July 2002 the applicant forwarded her writ to the Treasury Department in Moscow.\n12.  By letter of 26 August 2002 the Treasury returned the writ to the applicant, indicating that it should be submitted to the Ministry of Finance. The applicant sent the writ to the Ministry on 10 October 2002\n13.  On 6 December 2002 the Ministry informed the applicant that it would not enforce the judgment because supervisory-review proceedings had been pending.\n14.  The applicant received the monies due to her on 28 April 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3214", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1939, 1940, 1940, 1937 and 1972 respectively. On 30 January 2007 the second applicant died. By letter of 12 April 2007, Mrs Svetlana Ivanovna Shashkova, the second applicant's widow, informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application.\n5.  The first applicant was employed by a subsidiary of the State‑controlled “Pivdenelekromash” OJSC (“the Company,” ВАТ “Південелектромаш”) until her dismissal on redundancy in 2005. The other applicants were employed by the Company itself.\n6.  Between January 2001 and May 2004 (see appendix for details) each applicant obtained one or more final judgments from the Nova Kakhovka Court (Новокаховський міський суд Херсонської області), awarding him or her salary arrears or other payments against his or her employer.\n7.  The writs of enforcement in respect of these judgments were transferred to the Nova Kakhovka City Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Новокаховського міського управління юстиції), which initiated the enforcement proceedings. On different occasions the bailiffs informed the applicants that the collection of the debts was impeded by pending bankruptcy proceedings against the Company.\n8.  In March 2006 the judgment given in favour of the first applicant and two of the three judgments given in favour of the second applicant were enforced in full. Other judgments remain fully or partially unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3215", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1955, 1973 and 1962 respectively and live in Istanbul.\n5.  The applicants signed contracts with third persons before the notary public to acquire de facto possession (zilyedlik) of a plot of land in Gökçeada.\n6.  On 10 May 1990, 27 August 1991 and 18 May 1992 respectively, the applicants filed three separate actions with the Gökçeada Civil Court of General Jurisdiction and requested that their title to the plot in question be registered in the Land Registry records.\n7.  On 11 September 1991 and 16 March 1992 respectively the first‑instance court partially accepted the requests of the first and third applicants. Subsequently, on 28 April 1992 and 6 November 1992 respectively, the Court of Cassation quashed these judgments, holding that the Gökçeada Civil Court of General Jurisdiction had failed to carry out the necessary examination in order to determine the nature of the plot. The cases were remitted to the first-instance court.\n8.  On 12 October 1992 and 15 March 1993 the first-instance court once again partially accepted İsmail and Nejdet Şencan's claims. On 21 June 1993 the Gökçeada Civil Court of General Jurisdiction also partially accepted the second applicant's claim. In its judgments, the first-instance court held that the fact that the land in question appeared as “meadowland” in the tax registration records did not mean that it could not be the subject of private ownership.\n9.  On 18 April 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the three judgments of the first-instance court and held that the first-instance court should have taken into account the tax registration records and accepted the applicants' claims only in respect of the parts of the plot which were used for agriculture. It further held that meadowlands could not be subject to private ownership. The cases were remitted to the Gökçeada Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.\n10.  On 26 September 1994 all three cases were joined.\n11.  On 13 June 1995 the first-instance court again partially accepted the applicants' claims. In its judgment, the court stated that the plot in question was not designated as “meadowland” in the land registration records and that, therefore, it could be subject to private ownership.\n12.  On 24 June 1996 the Court of Cassation once again quashed the judgment of the first-instance court, holding that according to the documents in the case-file, the plot in question was meadowland and that therefore the applicants could not have their title registered.\n13.  On 31 July 1996 the Gökçeada Civil Court of General Jurisdiction issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the Gökçeada Cadastre Court.\n14.  On 5 June 1997 the Gökçeada Cadastre Court rendered its judgment and partially accepted the applicants' claims.\n15.  On 20 May 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the cadastre court.\n16.  On 16 April 1999 the Gökçeada Cadastre Court abided by the Court of Cassation's decision, holding that according to the tax registration records the land in question was meadowland and that it could not be subject to private ownership. The court further held that the land should be officially designated as a second degree conservation area.\n17.  On 21 March 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n18.  On 6 April 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants' request for rectification. This decision was served on the applicants' representative on 30 April 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3216", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in born in 1951 and lives in Mykolayv.\n5.  In 1991-1996 the applicant was employed with a private company N., which provided maintenance services for student dormitories of the Ukrainian State Marine Technical University (Український державний морський технічний університет, hereafter “the USMTU”). In 1996 the USMTU, following a year's litigation with N., terminated their contract and re‑employed most of N.'s former employees, but not the applicant.\n6.  In May 1996 the applicant sued N. and the USMTU for unfair dismissal. On 26 July 1996 the Tsentralny District Court of Mykolayv (Місцевий суд Центрального районну м. Миколаєва, hereafter “the District Court”) approved a settlement between the parties and discontinued the proceedings.\n7.  On 4 September 2001 the District Court, at the applicant's request, reopened the proceedings on the ground of new circumstances. In the course of the proceedings the applicant dropped her claims against N.\n8.  On 24 September 2001 the District Court, composed of a single judge, Mr A., granted the applicant's claim against the USMTU and ordered her immediate reinstatement. The USMTU appealed.\n9.  On 27 February 2002 the Mykolayv Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Миколаївської області, hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh consideration by a different judge.\n10.  The case was again considered by Judge A., who on 12 July 2002 rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. The applicant filed an appeal. On 25 September 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment rejecting the applicant's claim. The question of the competence of Judge A. to re-examine the case on the merits was not addressed in this decision.\n11.  The applicant appealed in cassation arguing, inter alia, that her case had been heard by a judge who was not competent. On 19 February 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed her appeal, finding that no procedural or substantive breaches had occurred before the lower courts.\n12.  In October 2002 the USMTU applied to the District Court for permission not to comply with its order of 24 September 2001 to reinstate the applicant. On 24 December 2002 the District Court found that the impugned order had lost its validity on 27 February 2002, when the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment on the basis of which it had been issued. The court also invited the USMTU “to resolve the issue of [the applicant's] dismissal”. The applicant appealed.\n13.  On 13 March 2003 the Court of Appeal excluded from the judgment the reference to the need to resolve the issue of the applicant's dismissal and upheld the remainder of the District Court's findings. On 19 May 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal in cassation.\n14.  On 26 December 2002 the applicant was dismissed from the USMTU. She brought a claim for reinstatement and loss of earnings. On 23 April 2003 the District Court rejected her claim, noting that the applicant had been employed with the USMTU pursuant to the reinstatement order of 24 September 2001, which had lost its validity on 27 February 2002.\n15.  The applicant's appeals were dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 22 July 2003 and by the Supreme Court on 31 October 2003.\n16.  On 27 August 2003 the applicant brought proceedings against the USMTU in which she claimed that her salary had not been paid to her in full. On 1 December 2003 rejected this claim as unsubstantiated. On 13 February", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3217", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1955, 1948, 1942 and 1958 respectively and live in Şanlıurfa.\n5.  On 22 November 1984 Law no. 3083 came into force. Article 5 of this law provided the possibility of leasing State land to farmers who were in need and who fulfilled certain eligibility criteria (“right holders”). In particular, Article 24 § 1 of Law no. 3083 provided that those who had been convicted of certain offences were not entitled to benefit from this law (see paragraph 16 below).\n6.  Following the promulgation of Law no. 3083, the applicants applied to the Commission that was responsible for the determination of farmers who were eligible to be right holders under the Law in question and requested to be provided with land in Ceylanpınar in the south-east of Turkey. They were subsequently identified as right holders and leased land from the Directorate General for Agricultural Reform (Tarım Reformu Genel Müdürlüğü) (“the Directorate General”) for an indefinite period on payment of a rent. The applicants earned their living by cultivating these fields.\n7.  On 25 March 1997, after conducting a “security investigation”, the Directorate General annulled the right holder status of the applicants.\n8.  On 2 May 1997 the applicants lodged separate cases with the Gaziantep Administrative Court and requested that the decision of 25 March 1997 be annulled. They maintained that they had paid their rent periodically until 1997. They also contended that there was no valid reason to terminate their lease contract. They maintained in this connection that although criminal proceedings had been initiated against them in the eighties for being members of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party), they had all been acquitted of the charges against them.\n9.  On 29 May 1997 the Gaziantep Administrative Court requested the Directorate General to submit the documents in respect of the decision dated 25 March 1997.\n10.  On 5 September 1997 the Gaziantep Administrative Court ordered the Directorate General once again to submit further information and the documents in relation to the security considerations of the administration.\n11.  On 4 November 1997 the Directorate General replied that the Minister of Agriculture had refrained from submitting these documents as they concerned the security of the State. In this respect, they relied on Article 20 § 3 of the Law on Administrative Procedure. The observations of the Directorate General were communicated to the applicants on 13 October 1997, 10 December 1997, 15 December 1997 and 19 December 1997 respectively. According to the Government, the applicants did not submit any observations in reply.\n12.  On 24 February 1998 the Gaziantep Administrative Court dismissed the applicants' cases. The court held that the decision dated 25 March 1997 which annulled the applicants' right holder status and the refusal of the Directorate General to submit the relevant documents had been in accordance with the domestic legislation. A member of the Gaziantep Administrative Court dissented from the judgments of the court, arguing that the administrative authorities had failed to demonstrate the reason for the annulment of the right holder status of the applicants.\n13.  The applicants appealed.\n14.  On 10 November 2000, 14 September 2000, 26 October 2000, 10 November 2000 and 16 November 2000 respectively the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgments of the Gaziantep Administrative Court.\n1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3218", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 11 August 1994 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan).\n7.  During an on-site inspection the applicant showed the location of a firearm to the security forces.\n8.  On 29 August 1994 the applicant was brought before a single judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court who ordered his detention on remand.\n9.  On an unspecified date, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, along with ten other persons. The applicant was accused of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. The public prosecutor alleged that the applicant had been involved in a bombing with a certain H.Y.\n10.  On 25 November 1994 the applicant denied the allegations against him before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. On the same day, the applicant's lawyer asked the first-instance court to request information as to whether criminal proceedings were initiated against H.Y. regarding the alleged bombing. The Diyarbakır State Security Court accepted the request and requested the public prosecutor at this court to submit information.\n11.  On 30 March 1995 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court informed the latter that there was a non-prosecution decision in respect of H.Y.\n12.  On 26 October 1995 the applicant's lawyer requested the Diyarbakır State Security Court that the applicant be released pending trial. His request was dismissed.\n13.  On 8 February 1996 the applicant's representative once again requested that the applicant be released pending trial. He maintained, inter alia, that according to the expert report drawn up in respect of the firearm belonging to the applicant, this gun had never been used in any illegal activity and that there was no other evidence against the applicant. His request was dismissed.\n14.  Between 8 February 1996 and 15 April 1999 the applicant requested to be released pending trial several times, reiterating that there was no evidence against him.\n15.  On 15 April 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant for membership of the PKK under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment.\n16.  The applicant appealed. In his appeal petition, he requested not to be convicted, invoking Repentance Law no. 4450, which provided for amnesty to members of terrorist organisations, claiming that he had surrendered his weapon to the security forces and provided information about the PKK.\n17.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge.\n18.  On 10 February 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the first- instance court's judgment in respect of the applicant and another accused, İ.B., holding that the first-instance court should consider their requests under Law no. 4450. It then remitted the case-file to the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n19.  On 13 April 2000 the Diyarbakır State Security Court requested the Ministry of the Interior to submit an opinion as to whether the applicant and İ.B. could benefit from Law no. 4450.\n20.  On 10 August 2000 the Minis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3219", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Korolev, a town in the Moscow Region.\n5.  In 1990 the applicant underwent surgery on her right hand in a local hospital. The applicant alleges that the operation was unsuccessful because of the negligence of the medical personnel, with the result that her ability to move her right hand was impaired.\n6.  On 24 April 1994 the applicant brought proceedings against the hospital, seeking compensation for harm inflicted on her as a result of medical negligence.\n7.  Following an order of the court, on 10 April 1995 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination at the Forensic Examination Bureau of the Moscow City Health Department (“the Bureau”).\n8.  On 14 December 1995 the Koptevskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) dismissed the applicant's civil action as unfounded. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 12 February 1996.\n9.  Following a request by the applicant, on 5 December 1996 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 14 December 1995, as upheld on 12 February 1996, by way of supervisory review, and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the first-instance court.\n10.  On 2 February 1998 the District Court ordered another forensic examination to be performed by the Bureau and stayed the proceedings pending its results. However, on an unspecified date the Bureau informed the District Court that it could not proceed with the examination, because it had already conducted the initial forensic examination in the applicant's case.\n11.  On 23 April 1998 the District Court ordered another forensic examination to be performed by the Forensic Medical Examination Centre of the Russian Ministry of Health (“the Centre”).\n12.  On 12 May 1998 the Centre informed the District Court that the examination was rather costly and required an advance payment. However, since both parties to the proceedings refused to make an advance payment, on an unspecified date the case file was returned to the District Court.\n13.  Following a request by the applicant, on 21 October 1998 the District Court put further questions to the Bureau. The applicant was requested to provide the Bureau with her medical documents. The proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the examination.\n14.  On 21 October 1998 the applicant asked the Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics to issue her with her medical file, but the request was refused.\n15.  On 22 July 1999 the applicant's medical file was obtained from the above Institute by the District Court. The case file does not contain any information on whether the Bureau provided the District Court with answers to the further questions raised by the applicant.\n16.  Following a request by the applicant, on 6 September 1999 the District Court again ordered the new forensic examination to be performed by the Centre.\n17.  Between 5 January and 10 February 2000 the Centre carried out a new forensic examination.\n18.  On 29 March 2000 the District Court resumed the proceedings and scheduled a hearing for 25 April 2000. However, on 25 April and 8 June 2000 the District Court postponed the hearing until 8 June and 29 June 2000 respectively, because the applicant's lawyer was busy and could not attend. On 29 June 2000 the hearing was postponed until 6 July 2000, because the respondent's representative could not attend.\n19.  On 6 July 2000 the District Court ordered an additional forensic examination to be performed by t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3220", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Shakhtаrsk, the Donetsk region.\n5.  On 20 October 2000 the Shakhtаrsk City Court (Шахтарський міський суд Донецької області) awarded the applicant 4,815.28 hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and compensations from his former employer, the Municipal Communal Service Department (“the Company,” Шахтарське міське госпрозрахункове управління комунального господарства).\n6.  This judgment was not appealed against, became final and the enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the judgment debt.\n7.  On 7 April 2003 the Company was declared bankrupt and subsequently liquidated.\n8.  The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to seek compensation from the Bailiffs for their failure to enforce the judgment.\n9.  The judgment remains unenforced to the present date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3221", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Edirne.\n6.  On 7 February 1996 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Edirne Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the DHKP-C (Devrimci Halk Kurtuluş Partisi-Cephesi; the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front).\n7.  In a letter of 8 February 1996 the Edirne Security Director asked the Chief Public Prosecutor to grant permission to keep the applicant and four other arrested persons in police custody until 12 February 1996. The security director reasoned that the police needed time to question the detainees in detail so that they could apprehend other members of the DHKP-C. On the same day, the Chief Public Prosecutor granted the leave requested until the end of the working day on 11 February 1996.\n8.  On 10 February 1996 police officers took statements from A.İ. and Ü.U. who had been victims of illegal acts committed by members of the DHKP-C. In particular, Ü.U. named the applicant as the perpetrator of the petrol bomb (Molotov cocktail) attack on his lorry.\n9.  During his detention in police custody the applicant later alleged that he was subjected to various forms of ill-treatment and forced to sign certain statements under duress.\n10.  Following his release from police custody, on 12 February 1996, the applicant underwent a medical examination at the Edirne Forensic Institute. The medical report stated that there was no sign of injury or physical violence on the applicant's body.\n11.  On 12 February 1996 the Chief Public Prosecutor questioned the applicant in connection with the acts allegedly committed by him and his statements made at the Security Directorate. The applicant submitted that the police officers had targeted him because he had previously been convicted for a similar offence and had been kept in prison for five months. The applicant maintained that he had been forced to sign a prepared statement under duress in which he admitted to having carried out illegal activities on behalf of the DHKP-C.\n12.  On 12 February 1996 the applicant's father filed an application with the Chief Public Prosecutor's office in Edirne inquiring into the whereabouts of his son. He complained that he had not been able to see or learn about the fate of his son since his detention by the police officers on 8 February 1996 and that he was worried about his son's life.\n13.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the Edirne Magistrates' Court (Edirne Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi), which ordered his detention on remand. He allegedly raised his complaint concerning the alleged ill-treatment before the court. He stated that he had been tortured while in custody and denied the accusations during the trial before the Istanbul State Security Court (“SSC”). He did not, however, give details of the alleged ill-treatment, but merely asserted that he had been threatened by the officers and had signed documents without being aware of the contents.\n14.  On 11 March 1996 the Chief Public Prosecutor attached to the Istanbul SSC filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant and four other co‑accused with membership of an illegal armed organisation, notably the DHKP-C, and aiding and abetting members of the said organisation. The charges against the applicant were brought under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3222", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Maribor.\n7.  On 10 May 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against a company, SCT, and the Ministry of Transport and Communications (“the MTC”) in the Maribor Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Mariboru) seeking compensation and restitutio in integrum in respect of damage caused by the construction of a motorway near real estate he owned.\n8.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia. Thereafter, the (renamed) Maribor District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru) held four hearings in the case. The hearing held on 18 September 1995 was adjourned sine die in order for the applicant to submit further submissions. The next hearing scheduled for 27 January 1997 was called off at the applicant’s request due to a change in his legal representation. Subsequently, the hearing held on 9 April 1997 was adjourned sine die since the parties were given sixty days to reach an out-of-court settlement. On 20 October 1997 the applicant informed the court that the settlement had not been reached. The next hearing, held on 23 September 1998, was adjourned until 11 November 1998 (see paragraph 11 below) in order for the applicant to reply to the MTC’s late submissions. However, due to another change in his legal representation, the applicant failed to submit his reply.\n 9.  During the proceedings, the court appointed three experts in construction science. The first expert, appointed on 10 August 1994, withdrew on 23 August 1994. The following day, the court appointed the second expert, who submitted a report on 22 December 1994. The third expert was appointed on 22 January 1998 and submitted a report on 23 May 1998.\n10.  Between 22 January 1997 and 29 September 1998 the applicant submitted four preliminary written submissions.\n11.  At the hearing held on 11 November 1998 the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 7 January 1999.\n12.  On 20 January 1999 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru). In his appeal, the applicant referred, inter alia, to the building permits obtained by the MTC in 1990 and 1991, which allegedly obliged the MTC to compensate the damage caused as a result of the construction work on the motorway.\nOn 5 June 2001 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and remitted the respective part of the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n13.  On 24 August 2001 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against the second-instance judgment. The appeal was dismissed by the Constitutional Court on 25 April 2002 due to non-exhaustion.\n14.  Meanwhile, in the remitted part of the proceedings, the applicant lodged, between 2 October 2001 and 11 May 2004, six preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence.\n15.  On 15 October 2001 the court held the first hearing in the remitted proceedings, which was then adjourned sine die. Although the reasons for the adjournment were not stated in the records of the hearing, it appears that the applicant asked the court to allow him a sixty-day time-limit to prepare his answer to the MTC’s preliminary written submissions of 11 October 2001 which he had received only at the hearing. He further asked the court to adjourn the hearing until the Constitutional Court had decided on his constitutional appeal (paragraph 13 above). At the same time he also made a request for the wi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3223", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Jesenice, Slovenia.\n7.  On 18 February 1995 the applicant's alleged common law partner (izvenzakonski partner), S.A.K., died.\n8.  On 21 March 1995 the Jesenice Local Court (Okrajno sodišče na Jesenicah) received the coroner's certificate (smrtovnica). S.A.K. was survived by three daughters – one of them, K.Š., was also a daughter of the applicant.\n9.  On 12 June 1995 the applicant was given notice of the court's intention to hold a hearing and an invitation to attend it. The hearing took place on 28 June 1995. It appears from the records of the hearing that the applicant participated in the proceedings on her own behalf – as the potential heir – and also represented her juvenile daughter.\n10.  The second hearing fixed for 21 January 1998 was cancelled at the applicant's request.\n11.  At the third hearing, held on 28 February 1998, the court stayed the inheritance proceedings and instructed the applicant to institute separate civil proceedings with a view to determining the legal nature of her relationship with S.A.K.\n12.  Consequently, on 9 March 1998 the applicant lodged a claim with the Jesenice Local Court, which, due to lack of jurisdiction, referred the case to the competent Kranj District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Kranju).\nThe first hearing, scheduled for 13 September 1999, was called off at the request of the applicant. The Kranj District Court afterwards held three hearings between 10 February 2000 and 5 December 2000.\nBetween 13 September 1999 and 3 November 2000 the applicant lodged five preliminary written submissions.\nAt the hearing on 5 December 2000 the court issued a judgement rejecting the applicant's claim. The court found that she could not be considered S.A.K.'s common law partner at the time of his death and thus had no inheritance rights in respect of his estate.\nThe applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) in January 2001. On 6 March 2002 the court dismissed her appeal. The Ljubljana Higher Court's judgment was served on the applicant on an unspecifed day in March 2002.\n13.  Subsequently, the inheritance proceedings continued before the Jesenice Local Court. The latter issued a decree of distribution (sklep o dedovanju) on 12 February 2003. Relying on the judgments of 5 December 2000 and 6 March 2002 (paragraph 12 above), the court did not include the applicant as one of S.A.K.'s heirs. The decision was served on the parties to the proceedings on 28 February 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3224", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1971, 1946 and 1948 respectively and live in Geneva.\n9.  In 1971 Mariannick Faucherre (the second applicant) and her husband had a daughter, Isabelle Chantal Emonet (the first applicant). The couple divorced in 1985 and the second applicant's former husband died in 1994.\n10.  Since 1986 Mariannick Faucherre has been living with Roland Emonet (the third applicant), who is divorced and has no children. The three applicants lived together between 1986 and 1992, when the first applicant left to live with the man she had married. The couple divorced in 1998.\n11.  In March 2000 a serious illness left the first applicant paraplegic. She kept her own home, but needed to be cared for by her mother and the third applicant, whom she regarded as her father. By agreement between the three applicants, it was therefore decided that the third applicant should adopt the first applicant so that they could become a real family in the eyes of the law.\n12.  On 14 December 2000 the third applicant filed an adoption request with the Canton of Geneva Court of Justice, enclosing two letters attesting to the other two applicants' agreement.\n13.  On 8 March 2001 the Court of Justice pronounced the adoption.\n14.  On 15 June 2001 the cantonal civil status authorities informed the second applicant that the adoption had the effect of terminating her legal parent-child relationship with the first applicant and that the latter would take on her adoptive father's surname, as she was henceforth his daughter. The first two applicants objected to the termination of the mother-daughter relationship between them and requested that it be restored.\n15.  In a letter of 23 July 2001 the cantonal civil status authorities announced that they were standing by their decision, which was based on Article 267 of the Swiss Civil Code (see “Relevant domestic and international law”, paragraph 20 below). Under the provisions of that Article previously existing parent-child relationships were severed on adoption, save in respect of the spouse of the adoptive parent. Mariannick Faucherre and Roland Emonet, however, were simply cohabiting.\n16.  On 3 September 2001 the President of the Geneva Department of Justice, Police and Transport formally rejected the request for restoration of the mother-daughter relationship. The applicants applied to the administrative court seeking to have that decision quashed and requesting a declaration that the adoption had not severed the mother-child relationship and that the adopted child could keep her name. On 17 December 2001 the applicants instituted parallel proceedings in the Court of Justice to have the adoption order set aside. The court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the present application.\n17.  On 25 June 2002 the administrative court partly allowed the application, setting aside the decisions of 23 July and 3 September 2001 in so far as they severed the mother-daughter relationship, and ordering the cantonal civil status authorities to restore that relationship.\n18.  On 2 September 2002 the Federal Office of Justice, having been informed of that decision, referred the matter to the Federal Court.\n19.  On 28 May 2003 the Federal Court allowed the appeal and invited the cantonal civil status authorities to record the adoption in the civil status register. In its judgment the Federal Court considered whether there was an omission in the Civil Code with regard to the adoption by a cohabitant of his or h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3225", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Cornu.\n5.  In 1950, the real estate made up of two apartments and the appurtenant land situated in Bucharest, Regina Maria blvd. nos. 36-38, the property of the applicant's parents, was seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation. The applicant continued to live in a flat situated in building no. 38 as a tenant of the State.\n6.  On 15 January 1996 the applicant claimed restitutio in integrum of building no. 38 and compensation for building no. 36. On 15 June 2000, the Bucharest Town Council rejected her demand. The applicant contested the decision before the courts.\n7.  On 2 March 2001, the Bucharest District Court upheld the applicant's action by a final judgment, declaring void the decision of the Town Council and ordering the administrative authorities to return to the applicant the real estate no. 38, made of three buildings and appurtenant land of 208 m².\n8.  In 2001, on an unknown date, the applicant claimed from the administrative authorities the restitution in kind of 450 m² of land appurtenant to buildings nos. 36 and 38. By a decision of 12 July 2002, the Bucharest Town Council allowed the application and granted restitutio in integrum of the appurtenant land of 314 m² for no. 36 and 136 m² for no. 38.\n9.  In spite of obtaining judicial recognition of her property right, the applicant was not able to recover possession of flats nos. 1 and 2 of building no. 38 because on 30 September 1996 the State had sold them to the tenants, under Law no. 112/1995, together with the land appurtenant to each flat.\n10.  On 6 February 2002, the applicant requested the court to find that the sale by the State was null and void. She considered that the State did not have a right of property, that it had not observed the legal provisions of Law no. 112/1995 and that the purchasers were in bad faith.\n11.  On 1 February 2005, the Bucharest Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed the request for the rescission of the sale contracts on the ground that the State had complied with the provisions of Law no. 112/1995 and that the tenants had made the purchase in good faith.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3226", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 1993, a detained member of the PKK (Workers' Party of Kurdistan) confessed to the authorities that a number of lawyers, among whom was the applicant, had been operating as undercover members of the organisation. Upon his confession, the public prosecutor attached to the State Security Court of Diyarbakır initiated a criminal investigation.\n7.  On 23 November 1993 the applicant was taken into custody, where he denied any association with the PKK.\n8.  On 20 December 1993 he was brought before a judge, who ordered his release pending trial.\n9.  On 22 December 1993 the prosecutor filed an indictment, charging the applicant, together with twenty-two other lawyers, with being a member of the PKK. The specific charges against him included the transmission of messages, documents and money among the incarcerated PKK members, the sheltering and healing of a wounded PKK militant and the delivery of 2 kilograms of heroin belonging to the PKK from Diyarbakır to Istanbul. The prosecutor subsequently charged nine other persons with similar crimes. Their cases were also joined to that of the applicant.\n10.  With a hearing on 17 February 1994, the State Security Court of Diyarbakır began the trial. At the same hearing, it ordered the release of all the accused who had not been already released by then.\n11.  On 19 September 1996 the prosecutor filed his observations on the merits.\n12.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge.\n13.  On 21 December 2000 Law no. 4616 governing conditional release, discontinuation of proceedings and suspension of the execution of sentences for offences committed before 23 April 1999 came into force.\n14.  On 22 February 2001 the court held that all of the accused were eligible, under the new legislation, for the discontinuation of the proceedings against them. Accordingly, it discontinued the proceedings against the applicant, to be resumed only if he were to be convicted of an offence of the same or a more serious kind within a five-year period.\n15.  On 22 February 2006 the five-year period expired and, no information from the applicant to the contrary having been submitted, the suspended criminal case against the applicant would appear to have been definitively dropped.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3227", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  By a charter of 12 September 1991, the applicant company chartered a Cypriot-owned vessel called the Cape Maleas (“the vessel”). The charter party was on an amended New York Produce Exchange time-charter form, and was for a time-charter voyage to the south Iranian ports. The duration of the voyage was stated to be fifty days and the purpose to carry general cargo, steels and commercial containers.\n7.  By agreement between the parties, namely the applicant company and the owner of the vessel, Seabeach Shipping Ltd, on 18 September 1991 the charter party became subject to “Addendum No. 1”. This provided that the applicant charterer could load 2,500 cubic metres of “IMCO 1” cargo. “IMCO 1” denotes cargo which falls within the “Class 1 – Explosives” category of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code.\n8.  The applicant company ordered the vessel to proceed to the port of Burgas in Bulgaria and, on 8 October 1991, further cargo commenced loading. This consisted of general cargo but also arms, ammunition and military spare parts which fell within the “IMCO Class 1” category (“the arms cargo”).\n9.  The applicant company’s agent in Burgas drew up bills of lading in respect of the cargo, including the arms cargo (“the bills of lading”). These bills of lading described the arms cargo as “special equipment”, followed by a reference to a numbered contract. The port of discharge for the “special equipment” was specified as Tartus in the Syrian Arab Republic. The shipper was stated to be “Socotrade” and the consignee as “to order”.\n10.  The applicant company’s agent in Burgas also prepared a manifest of cargo. Like the bills of lading, this described the arms cargo as “special equipment”, and gave the port of discharge as Tartus. The applicant company at all times intended that the arms cargo should be discharged at the port of Bandar Abbas in Iran. The vessel sailed from Burgas at 7 p.m. on 21 October 1991 and was ordered to proceed to Setúbal in Portugal in order to load further cargo. In order to reach Setúbal from Burgas, the vessel had to transit through the Bosphorus.\n11.  On 22 October 1991, at about 3.30 p.m., the vessel was about to commence transit through the Bosphorus. Before entering the Straits the master of the vessel requested the assistance of a pilot for navigation through the Bosphorus. The vessel was flying the international signal flag to indicate that it carried dangerous cargo.\n12.  As a result of information received by the Turkish customs authorities from a Turkish vessel which had recently arrived from Bulgaria, the Turkish authorities believed that the arms cargo on board the vessel was bound for Cyprus, from where it would be smuggled into Turkey.\n13.  According to the Turkish authorities, the vessel was first sighted when it was ten miles outside the Straits. After the vessel had entered the Straits, a pilot went on board and invited the master to declare any hazardous materials which were on board. The master duly did so, and the vessel proceeded for a few minutes through the Straits before the pilot instructed the master to stop the engines.\n14.  The Turkish coastguard and other Turkish authorities boarded and seized the vessel. Since the waters were rough at the point where the vessel was stopped, it was towed by a military boat to the Turkish port of Büyükdere. All parties to the case subsequently proceeded on the basis t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3228", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are members of “EĞİTİM-SEN” (Eğitim ve Bilim Emekçileri Sendikası – The Education Workers’ Trade Union), a trade union which is a member of “KESK” (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – The Confederation of Public Employees’ Trade Unions).\n6.  In 2001 the Turkish Parliament prepared a draft bill to amend the Act on Trade Unions. While this bill was being discussed in the Parliament, “KESK” decided to organise meetings in Ankara to protest the bill. The aim was to draw public attention to and achieve the withdrawal of this bill, which in their view did not meet international standards.\n7.  In the meantime, on 18 December 2000, the Governorship of Ankara had issued a circular, providing guidelines on meetings and demonstrations organised in the city of Ankara, in accordance with the Law on Meetings and Demonstration Marches (Law no. 2911). According to this circular, the meeting place chosen by KESK was not among the permitted areas.\n8.  On 7 June 2001 Nurettin Aldemir, Şehrinaz Artar, Ömer Buzludağ, Sami Evren and Ali Rıza Özer, and on 25 June 2001 Arzu Doğan, Tacettin Yağdıran and Elif Akgül, gathered in Kızılay together with other persons.\n9.  On both occasions, while the president of “KESK” was reading out press statements, police officers warned the demonstrators that their action was contrary to the law and that they had to disperse. The demonstrators blocked the main street of the Kızılay district (Atatürk Avenue) and attempted to march towards the Prime Minister’s Office. The police officers then intervened and used truncheons, sticks and tear gas with a view to dispersing the crowds. Some of the demonstrators attacked the security forces using pavement stones and sticks which caused the injury of seven police officers and the destruction of a police vehicle. The applicants were also wounded during the incidents.\n10.  On 7 June 2001 Şehrinaz Artar and Ömer Buzludağ were examined by a doctor from the Hacettepe University Hospital. The doctor noted an ecchymosis of 2x2 cm on the left eyebrow of Şehrinaz Artar. As regards Ömer Buzludağ, he noted an abrasion of 3 cm on his right eyebrow. Nurettin Aldemir, Sami Evren and Ali Rıza Özer did not submit any medical evidence to the Court in support of their subsequent allegations of ill-treatment.\n11.  On 25 June 2001 Arzu Doğan was examined by a forensic medical expert from the Ankara Forensic Medicine Institute who observed an ecchymosis on her lip, a hyperaemic graze on her left wrist and superficial abrasions on her right wrist and arm. The expert concluded that the injuries rendered Arzu Doğan unfit for work for one day.\n12.  On the same day, Tacettin Yağdıran was examined by a forensic medical expert from the Ankara Forensic Medicine Institute. The doctor observed a sutured injury on the occipital lobe of his head and a haematoma under the injury, and considered that his injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for seven days.\n13.  Also on the same day, Elif Akgül was examined by a doctor from the Ankara Forensic Medicine Institute. The doctor observed abrasions on the skin on the left scapula and on the back, and a haematoma of 2x2 cm on the right frontal lobe. He concluded that the injuries rendered Elif Akgül unfit for work for five days.\n14.  On an unspecified date, the applicants filed a complaint with the Ankara public prosecutor’s office against the Ankara Governor, the director of the Ankara Security Directorate, the director of the Rapid Interv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3229", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Palarikovo.\n5.  The applicant was employed in a private joint-stock company, R. The employer published a daily newspaper ND. The applicant was assigned to the post of head of the newspaper’s secretariat.\n6.  On 29 November 2000 R. abolished the applicant’s post and on 8 January 2001 it sent him a notice terminating his employment.\n7.  R. subsequently sent the applicant another notice terminating his employment with immediate effect. The applicant was required to leave his job and has not worked for R. ever since.\n8.  The termination of the applicant’s employment with immediate effect was declared null and void in a separate set of proceedings which are not the subject-matter of the present application.\n9.  In 2004 R. ceased publishing ND, started to discontinue other activities and relocated. R now exists on paper only.\n10.  On 11 June 2001 the applicant brought an action against R. in the Bratislava I District Court (Okresný súd) to have the termination of his contract of employment in January 2000 declared null and void. He later submitted a claim for damages.\n11.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant supplemented his statement of claim and submitted new evidence on numerous occasions.\n12.  On 11 January 2002 the District Court requested the defendant’s observations in reply. The defendant submitted them on 28 August 2002.\n13.  On 5 November and 10 December 2002 the District Court held hearings. Following the latter hearing, on the same day, it ruled that the termination of the applicant’s employment was null and void. The defendant appealed to the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd).\n14.  On 30 December 2002 the applicant requested that the defendant be ordered to pay him a part of his claim for damages by way of an interim measure. The request was dismissed on 30 January 2003 and the applicant appealed.\n15.  On 25 June 2003 the Regional Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it quashed the judgment of 10 December 2002 and upheld the decision of 30 January 2003 concerning the refusal of an interim measure.\n16.  Between 11 November 2003 and 28 May 2004 the District Court held 4 hearings. During this period the applicant on two occasions requested interim measures ordering the defendant to pay a part of his claim for damages. His request of 18 November 2003 was dismissed on 11 December 2003 and the proceedings in respect of his request of 24 March 2004 were discontinued on 31 March 2004.\n17.  On 18 November 2003 the applicant challenged the District Court for bias. The challenge was dismissed by the Regional Court on 2 December 2003.\n18.  On 28 May 2004 the District Court again declared the applicant’s dismissal null and void. The defendant appealed.\n19.  On 26 July 2004 the applicant requested an interim measure to freeze the defendant’s assets pending the outcome of the proceedings. He argued that the defendant had ceased publishing the newspaper ND and had started dissipating its assets in order to avoid criminal prosecution (see below) and to prevent enforcement of the final judgment in the present proceedings. The applicant lodged another request for an interim measure on 18 August 2004.\n20.  On 8 September 2004 the District Court dismissed the request as unsubstantiated.\n21.  A hearing of the defendant’s appeal against the judgment of 28 May 2004 was scheduled for 14 April 2005 but had to be adjourned due to the absence of the president of the Regional ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3230", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Lemešany.\n5.  On 10 November 1995 eleven individuals brought a civil action against the applicant in the Prešov District Court (Okresný súd). They claimed that he was using their plot without a title and that he was causing damage to it. They sought an order for vacation of the plot and damages.\n6.  Between 16 April 1996 and 29 April 1997 the District Court held 3 hearings, obtained documentary evidence from third parties and inspected the land in question.\n7.  On 14 March 1997 the plaintiffs modified the action in that they also sought restoration of the plot in the status quo ante or, alternatively, damages in a higher amount.\n8.  Between 10 July 1997 and 15 November 1999 the District Court appointed three construction experts in succession to draw up a report analysing the possibility of restoring the plot. The first expert was discharged shortly after his appointment at his own request as he was on friendly terms with one of the plaintiffs. The second expert was discharged after almost 2 years and 2 months after he was fined for having failed to produce the report despite repeated reminders. The third expert eventually submitted the report on 19 December 2000.\n9.  In the meantime, on 18 September 1997, the applicant was ordered to pay an advance on the costs of the expert report. The order was upheld on the applicant's appeal on 28 November 1997.\n10.  On 21 December 2000 the District Court ruled on the expert's fees and, on 3 May 2001, the ruling was upheld following the applicant's appeal.\n11.  Between 23 April 2002 and 19 February 2003 the District Court held 4 hearings and took various procedural steps.\n12.  On 7 August 2002 the applicant lodged a counterclaim in which he maintained that he had acquired the title to the plot at issue by way of prescription. He later modified the counterclaim by contending that he had in fact improved the plot and sought compensation for the improvement.\n13.  On 10 July 2003 the District Court requested the applicant to provide further and better particulars of his counterclaim, which the applicant did on 31 July 2003.\n14.  On 8 September 2003 the District Court ruled that the applicant would not be exempted from the obligation to pay the court fee for lodging his counterclaim. Without further substantiation, the District Court based the ruling on the observation that the applicant had been awarded just satisfaction by the Constitutional Court (see below). On 16 August 2004 the ruling was upheld on the applicant's appeal, albeit on different grounds.\n15.  On 14 December 2004 the plaintiffs' lawyer informed the court that one of the plaintiffs had died and that his heir wished to continue the action in his stead.\n16.  In February 2005 the District Court requested the current plaintiffs to amend their claim so as to reflect the fact that one of the original plaintiffs had died and to indicate the questions which they wished to be put to a hygiene expert. They responded on 1 March 2005.\n17.  In March 2005 the matter was assigned to a new judge.\n18.  On 18 April 2005 the District Court held a hearing which was adjourned at the parties' request as they wished to settle the case.\n19.  On 26 September 2005 the District Court held a hearing following which, on the same day, it dismissed both the 1995 action and the applicant's counterclaim of 2002. It was found that the plot in question belonged to the plaintiffs and that the applicant was using it bona fide", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3231", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Wrocław.\n5.  On 12 March 1994 the applicant filed a claim for payment against a contractor before the Wrocław Regional Court, Commercial Law Division.\n6.  On 21 February 1995 the case file was transferred to the competent Civil Law Division of the same court.\n7.  On 12 October 1995 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the claim and the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.\n8.  The judgment was quashed on 27 March 1996 by the Wrocław Court of Appeal and the case remitted for re-examination.\n9.  On 24 October 1997 the Wrocław Regional Court again disallowed the applicant's action and his subsequent appeal was dismissed on 14 May 1998 by the Wrocław Court of Appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 10 December 1998.\n10.  On 22 December 1998 the President of the Wrocław Court of Appeal, in reply to the applicant's hierarchical complaint, stated that the length of the proceedings was excessive.\n11.  On 11 January 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal through his legal-aid lawyer appointed on 21 December 1998. He maintained, inter alia, that he had not been informed by the courts in due time about the possibility of having a legal-aid lawyer appointed to his case.\n12.  On 11 May 2001 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation appeal, having found that there was no need of interpretation of provisions which did not give rise to serious difficulties, no flagrant breach of law and no grounds for nullity of proceedings.\n13.  On 1 June 2001 the afore-said decision was served on the applicant.\n14.  On 22 October 2004 the applicant lodged a claim for damages under section 16 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code. He sought compensation in the amount of PLN 10,000.\n15.  The complaint was rejected on 29 November 2004 by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds. The court further noted that even if the claim had not been dismissed for formal shortcomings it would have been in any event inadmissible as time-barred.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3232", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1925 and 1927, respectively, and live in Lublin, Poland.\n5.  On 21 May 1993 the applicants' neighbours were granted a permission to construct a shop on the ground floor of their house. The applicants appealed but the decision was upheld on 19 July 1993.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 1994 the applicants applied to have the decision declared null and void. They submitted that the decision had been issued in violation of the local zoning plan and that the shop had been causing them nuisance.\n7.  On 11 April 1994 the Minister of Planning (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa) dismissed their application. The applicants appealed.\n8.  On 22 February 1995 the Chief Building Inspector (Główny Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned decision.\n9.  The Chief Building Inspector informed the applicants in his letters of 30 December 1995, 30 January, 28 February and 26 March 1996 that the proceedings could not be terminated yet and that he had fixed new time-limits. The Inspector explained that the main reason for the delay had been the necessity to obtain an expert opinion, which had been ultimately submitted on 9 April 1996.\n10.  On 18 April 1996 the Chief Building Inspector refused to annul the decision of 21 May 1993. The Inspector informed the applicants that the decision was final and that they could lodge a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny).\n11.  On 4 June 1996 the first applicant lodged a complaint against the decision with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n12.  On 23 April 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court held a hearing and rejected the applicant's complaint as it had been lodged in breach of procedural requirements. The court established that the applicant should have first lodged an appeal with the Chief Building Inspector asking him to reconsider the case. The court further advised the applicant that since the procedural mistake had occurred due to his being wrongly advised by the Inspector in the decision of 18 April 1996, he could apply for leave to appeal out of time.\n13.  On 25 May 1998 the first applicant appealed to the Inspector to reconsider the case and applied for leave to lodge an appeal out of time.\n14.  On 4 June 1998 the Chief Building Inspector granted leave to appeal out of time, examined the appeal, and upheld his decision of 18 April 1996.\n15.  On 30 September 1998 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of 4 June 1998.\n16.  On 5 October 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the complaint.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3233", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Tirana.\n6.  In 1991 the applicant, an American and Albanian national, and the Albanian Government established a joint-venture company for a period of ten years. It was called “Marini-Albplastik” and specialised in the production of plastic materials. The company’s memorandum, dated 11 March 1991, was validated by a decision of the Council of Ministers on 23 April 1991. The new company was duly registered in the Commercial Register.\n7.  The assets of the company consisted of a factory with its equipment, of a total value of 1,500,000 Albanian leks (ALL –approximately 12,497 euros (EUR)), which had previously belonged to a State-owned company named Mandimpeks. The applicant’s investment in the company consisted of capital amounting to 1,100,000 United States dollars (USD – approximately EUR 834,098), to be used for the renovation of the factory and the future purchase of new technology. The parties would each hold 50% of the shares.\n8.  On 30 May 1991, in order to comply with the obligations entered into in the memorandum, the applicant, on behalf of Marini-Albplastik, signed a contract for the purchase of new technology for the production of plastic materials with Edil-Plastic, an Italian company. A lump sum of USD 228,000 (approximately EUR 173,000) was paid by the applicant. A second amount of money was to be invested subsequent to the first stage of the factory’s renovation.\n9.  When 60% of the renovation of the factory had been carried out, the State terminated the company’s activities and requested the applicant to propose new terms of cooperation. The applicant objected. Subsequently, in a decision of 3 April 1993 the Council of Ministers annulled its decision of 23 April 1991 and unilaterally rescinded the agreement establishing the Marini-Albplastik company.\n10.  On an unspecified date, in order to obtain redress, the applicant applied to the State Arbitration Commission (Arbitrazhi i Shtetit), which was the competent body at the material time to deal with disputes involving State joint-ventures.\n11.  On 7 May 1993 the State Arbitration Commission upheld the validity of the Marini-Albplastik company’s memorandum. Moreover, it ordered the State to pay the applicant ALL 41 million (approximately EUR 341,608) for the loss of profit incurred as a result of the cessation of the company’s activities during 1992 and ALL 68,400 (approximately EUR 569) to cover bank interest on the USD 228,000 investment. Furthermore, it ordered the State-owned company to finish the reconstruction work at the factory by 30 October 1993. Lastly, the State Arbitration Commission dismissed the applicant’s request to have his share of the investment refunded, on the ground that it was part of the assets of the company.\n12.  The State appealed against the above-mentioned decision to the Plenary State Arbitration Commission (Mbledhja e Përgjithshme e Arbitrarëve të Arbitrazhit Shtetëror). On 7 July 1993 the latter upheld the part of the decision of the State Arbitration Commission ordering the State to comply with its obligation to pursue the activities of the joint venture, but quashed the part of the decision awarding the applicant compensation for bank interest and loss of profit and remitted the case to the State Arbitration Commission for a fresh calculation of the loss of profit. The first part of the decision of 7 May 1993 became final on the same date.\n13.  On 5 November 1993 the State Arbitration Commissi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3234", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1932, 1944 and 1942 respectively. Mr Pejaković and Mr Kusić live in Bosnia and Herzegovina, whereas Ms Pejić lives in Belgium.\n6.  Prior to the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“SFRY”) the applicants deposited foreign currency in their bank accounts at the then Privredna banka Sarajevo Filijala Banja Luka (Mr Pejaković), Jugobanka Sarajevo Ekspozitura Gradiška (Mr Kusić) and Jugobanka Sarajevo Ekspozitura Brčko (Ms Pejić). In Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in other successor States of the former SFRY, such savings are commonly referred to as “old” foreign-currency savings (for the relevant background information see Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-...).\n7.  Following several unsuccessful attempts to withdraw their funds, the applicants instituted proceedings, seeking the recovery of their entire “old” foreign-currency savings and accrued interest.\n8.  By a decision of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 4 November 1999, the Banjalučka banka (the legal successor of the Privredna banka Sarajevo Filijala Banja Luka) was ordered to pay Mr Pejaković 18,952.59 German marks (DEM)[1], default interest on the above amount at the rate applicable in Germany to overnight deposits from 1 January 1998, legal costs in the amount of 250 convertible marks (BAM)[2] and default interest on the last-mentioned amount at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment. The judgment entered into force on 7 March 2001. On 6 June 2001 the Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju). On 18 January 2002 the judgment debt became a public debt pursuant to section 20 of the Opening Balance Sheets Act 1998.\n9.  By a decision of the Gradiška Court of First Instance of 5 July 2000, the Kristal banka (the legal successor of the Jugobanka Sarajevo Ekspozitura Gradiška) was ordered to pay Mr Kusić 38,779.48 pounds sterling (GBP)[3], 5,758.18 US dollars (USD)[4] and 193,609.28 Australian dollars (AUD)[5], default interest on the above amounts at the annual rate of 9% from 29 January 1993 and legal costs in the amount of BAM 6,500[6]. The judgment entered into force on 8 September 2000. On 28 March 2001 the Gradiška Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution. On 17 April 2002 the judgment debt became a public debt pursuant to section 20 of the Opening Balance Sheets Act 1998.\n10.  By a decision of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 28 May 2001, the Kristal banka (the legal successor of the Jugobanka Sarajevo Ekspozitura Brčko) was ordered to pay Ms Pejić DEM 227,445.47[7], USD 3,964.17[8], 1,765.11 Dutch guilders[9] and 13,735.84 French francs[10], default interest on the above amounts at the rate applicable to overnight deposits from 1 January 1998 until 5 August 1999 and at the statutory rate thereafter, legal costs in the amount of BAM 4,360[11] and default interest on the last-mentioned amount at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment. The judgment entered into force on 28 July 2001. On 19 October 2001 the Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution. On 17 April 2002 the judgment debt became a public debt pursuant to section 20 of the Opening Balance Sheets Act 1998.\n11.  On 14 December 2001, 29 May 2002 and 17 February 2004 Mr Kusić converted a part of his savings (AUD 26,436.35[12], AUD 5,903.99[13] and GBP 1,536.40[14] respectively) into privatisation coupons pursuant to sec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3235", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1971 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Peqin High Security Prison.\n7.  From 1996 onwards the applicant has been suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia. For many years he has received in-patient treatment in various psychiatric hospitals in Albania.\n8.  On 23 August 2002 three persons died, including two children aged 10 and 13, and others were injured as a result of explosives placed in the applicant’s sister’s family’s flat.\n9.  On 24 August 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, who, on the same day, was arrested and charged with one count of voluntary homicide, inter alia, of children and one count of illegal possession of explosives. The applicant was placed in the pre-trial detention facility of Durrës Police Commissariat, where he shared a cell with an unspecified number of prisoners.\n10.  On 27 May 2003, on the basis of a medical report which concluded that at the time of the commission of the offence the applicant’s mental disorder was in a period of remission, the Durrës District Court ruled that the applicant was able to stand trial. Subsequently, the court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n11.  On 4 June 2003 the applicant’s counsel lodged an appeal with the Durrës Court of Appeal, claiming that the proceedings had been unfair since the experts’ report had been biased and unsubstantiated. He asked the court to order a new medical report in order to establish his state of health.\n12.  On 4 September 2003 and 2 March 2004 respectively, the Durrës Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s decision. Moreover, the domestic courts dismissed the applicant’s request for a fresh medical examination. They held that the first medical assessment had been performed by impartial professionals and had complied with procedural safeguards.\n13.  Since December 2003 the applicant has been transferred to three different prisons to serve his sentence, namely Tirana Prison no. 302, Tepelene Prison and Peqin Prison, where he is currently being held. He has shared cells with other inmates who were in good health and has received the same treatment as them, notwithstanding his state of health. He has also regularly visited Tirana Prison’s hospital, where he has been treated as an in-patient.\n14.  Given the applicant’s increasingly disturbed state of mind, on 7 January 2005 his counsel initiated proceedings before the Tirana District Court seeking his release or transfer to a medical facility on the ground that his detention conditions were inappropriate to his state of health and put his life at risk. The applicant’s counsel requested the court to order that the applicant be examined by psychiatric experts. The request was based on medical reports issued by practitioners who had treated the applicant in the period from March to April 2003.\n15.  On 11 April 2005 the Tirana District Court dismissed the request as unsubstantiated since the medical reports submitted by the applicant’s counsel failed to prove that the conditions of his detention posed any threat to his life or state of health.\n16.  On 27 September 2005 and 17 February 2006 the Tirana Court of Appeal and Supreme Court respectively upheld the District Court’s decision. According to the applicant, the Supreme Court’s decision was not served on him until 3 April 2006.\n17.  On 25 June 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant on the ground", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3237", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are siblings. They were born in 1973 and 1976 respectively and live in Bratislava.\n5.  The applicants' parents are divorced. Their father had been ordered by the Bratislava III District Court (then Obvodný súd, at present Okresný súd) to contribute to their maintenance.\n6.  The father's obligation to contribute to the first applicant's maintenance ended when the first applicant finished his secondary studies and commenced his military service.\n7.  After his military service, the first applicant commenced his university studies and applied for a fresh maintenance order against his father. Jointly with the first applicant, the second applicant applied for an increase of her maintenance.\n8.  The applicants' father then filed a separate action to have his maintenance obligation terminated.\n9.  These two actions were determined in two separate sets of proceedings which are described below, the applicants' action being the main subject matter of the present application.\n10.  As a consequence of the ongoing and still unresolved maintenance dispute the applicants found it difficult to provide for themselves during their studies. The second applicant finally had to abandon her post-secondary education in order to allow the first applicant to finish his studies.\nThe second applicant later became a mother and was no longer completely free in her choice of school since she had to combine her studies with her family situation and commitments. Since a public sector college was not an option given her situation, she is currently studying at a private college where she has to pay an annual tuition fee of 45,000 Slovakian korunas[1] (SKK).\n11.  On 30 September 1994 the applicants' mother filed a motion against their father for a fresh maintenance order in respect of the first applicant and for an increase of the payments towards the maintenance of the second applicant.\n12.  On 30 November 1994 the applicants submitted powers of attorney in favour of their mother and provided further and better particulars specifying, inter alia, that the claim was in their own name but that they were acting through the intermediary of their mother.\n13.  On 4 July 1996 the District Court held a hearing at which it allowed the applicants to continue the action directly in their own names. Further hearings were scheduled for 13 March and 3 April 1997. The former had to be adjourned due to the absence of the parties. The latter was adjourned to enable the applicants to amend their statement of claim, which they did on the same day.\n14.  On 29 December 1998 the applicants requested that the proceedings be dealt with. On 20 May 1999 the District Court requested them to submit information concerning their school attendance and their mother's income.\n15.  On 19 February 2001 the District Court requested information from the employers of the applicants' mother and father concerning their respective incomes.\n16.  On 20 March 2001 the District Court held a hearing at which the parties requested a three-week adjournment in order to explore the possibility of settling the case. The hearing was adjourned sine die.\n17.  On 9 April 2001 the applicants' lawyer informed the District Court that the attempts to settle the case had failed and requested that the proceedings be resumed and a hearing fixed promptly. She reiterated the request on 10 September 2001.\n18.  Another hearing was held on 9 October 2001 and was adjourned sine die, the defendant being ordered to produ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3238", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Gaziantep.\n6.  In 2000 the applicant retired from his work at the Municipality. On 28 August 2000 the town council calculated the applicant's pension benefits at 11,981,741,000 Turkish liras[1] and ordered its payment.\n7.  On 18 May 2001 the applicant applied to the execution office, requesting the payment of his pension benefits, plus interest at the rate of 95%. The Municipality objected to the applicant's interest request.\n8.  On 5 June 2001 the applicant filed an action before the Islahiye Enforcement Court to annul the Municipality's objection.\n9.  On 6 December 2001 the court partially upheld the applicant's request. It ordered the Municipality to pay the applicant's wages and indemnities, plus interest at the statutory rate running from 15 September 2000. It upheld the applicant's request in respect of severance benefit which had to be paid together with interest at the highest annual bank deposit rate.\n10.  In the absence of an appeal the judgment became final on 20 December 2001.\n11.  The execution authority made several unsuccessful attempts to attach the Municipality's property in order to secure the payment of the debt.\n12.  On 1 August 2002 the applicant sent a letter to the President of the Republic, complaining about the Municipality's failure to pay his pension benefits.\n13.  On 9 September 2002 the President's Office forwarded this letter to the Ministry of the Interior for an inquiry into the matter.\n14.  In reply, the Mayor of Islahiye explained in his letter of 11 October 2002 that the Municipality's outstanding debts to 60 retired staff exceeded its budget. He maintained that the Municipality had therefore offered to make the payments in instalments. However, the applicant had refused this offer.\n15.  On 6 January 2003 the applicant requested the Gaziantep Governor's Office to intervene on his behalf in order to facilitate the execution of the Enforcement Court's decision.\n16.  According to the information in the case file, as submitted by the parties, the relevant judgment debt is still outstanding.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3239", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Prievidza.\n5.  On 14 September 1995 the applicant brought an action against her former husband in the Trnava District Court (Okresný súd) seeking the division and distribution of their matrimonial property. She submitted that following their divorce in 1993 the defendant had taken possession of all their property and that she had been forced to leave their household and was living in a sub-leased flat.\n6.  Between 1996 and 2002 the District Court held 7 hearings. The action was assigned, in turn, to 4 different judges.\n7.  On 30 October 2002 the District Court appointed an expert to draw up a report on the property to be divided.\n8.  On 20 December 2002 the applicant raised objections as to the expert’s qualifications. The District Court dismissed them and ruled on the expert’s fees on 5 and 17 February 2003, respectively. The decision of 5 February 2003 was upheld on the applicant’s appeal on 31 July 2003.\n9.  On 4 January 2004 the District Court sent a reminder to the expert who finally filed the report on 14 January 2004. The applicant subsequently filed her comments and objected that not all items in the matrimonial regime had been included in the expert’s report. On 26 April 2004 the District Court asked the applicant to complete her comments and the defendant and the expert responded to them on 12 and 13 May 2004, respectively.\n10.  On 19 August 2004 the District Court again ruled on the expert’s fees. In this period it also took steps with a view to establishing the applicant’s material situation.\n11.  On 25 November 2004 the applicant informed the District Court that the defendant had died on 29 October 2004 in a traffic accident.\n12.  On 10 January 2005 the District Court held a hearing which was adjourned in order to obtain information about the proceedings on the settlement of the defendant’s estate.\n13.  On 24 January 2005 the notary who was conducting the inheritance proceedings as an official of the court informed the District Court of the state of the inheritance proceedings.\n14.  On 1 April 2005 the District Court stayed the proceedings in the applicant’s action pending the outcome of the inheritance proceedings.\n15.  On 26 August 2005 the notary issued an inheritance decree (osvedčenie o dedičstve) dividing and distributing the estate among the late defendant’s three children. It became final on the same day.\n16.  On 8 December 2005 the District Court requested the defendant’s heirs to submit their observations in reply to the action. On 15 February 2006 the District Court ordered that the request be served on two of the heirs by the police. The requests were returned on 10 March 2006 as undeliverable.\n17.  In April and July 2006 the District Court made inquiries with a view to establishing the address of the two heirs and ensuring the service of court correspondence on them.\n18.  In May and September 2006, respectively, the District Court appointed official representatives (opatrovník) to act on behalf of the missing heirs and to receive official correspondence in the proceedings.\n19.  On 9 October 2006 the District Court held a hearing at which the applicant submitted that the defendants to the action were her late husband’s three children and two siblings with whom she had no contact.\n20.  In October and November 2006 and April 2007 the District Court made further inquiries with a view to establishing the addresses of some of the defendants. In January 2007 it appointed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3240", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Białystok, Poland.\n5.  In 1940 the applicant's father had been arrested by NKVD (Soviet People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs) and was sent with his family to Kazakhstan. The applicant's mother died in 1940 and her father died in London in 1967. In 1946 the applicant and her siblings returned to Poland.\n6.  On 6 October 1948 the property belonging to the applicant's parents was taken over by the State.\n7.  In 1990 the applicant and her sister were designated jointly as their father's heirs.\n8.  On 29 November 2001 the applicant applied to the Podlaski Governor (Wojewoda Podlaski) to have the 1948 decision annulled and her parents' property returned to her. The case was transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture for consideration.\n9.  Subsequently, the applicant wrote to the Minister and other authorities complaining that the property had not been returned to her.\n10.  On 28 November 2003 she complained to the Minister about his inactivity. As she received no reply to her complaint, on 5 December 2003 the applicant, represented by a lawyer, lodged a complaint about the Minister's inactivity with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny).\n11.  Following her complaint, on 5 January 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court requested the Minister to provide it with the case file within thirty days. It appears that the Minister did not comply with this order. However, the Minister started examining the merits of the applicant's case and made several requests to various authorities asking them for documents.\n12.  On 20 May 2004 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny), to which the case was transferred, informed the applicant that despite its repeated requests the Minister had not complied with the order to provide the case file. The applicant was advised that she could therefore apply for a fine to be imposed on the Minister.\n13.  On 4 June 2004 the Minister gave a decision in which he stayed the proceedings. The applicant lodged an appeal in which she asked for the decision to be reconsidered and the proceedings to be resumed.\n14.  On 23 June 2004 the applicant followed the Regional Administrative Court's advice and applied to have a fine imposed on the Minister.\n15.  On 3 August 2004 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint about the Minister's inactivity. The court found that since the Minister had stayed the proceedings the inactivity had ceased to exist. The applicant's lawyer lodged a cassation appeal against this decision with the Supreme Administrative Court. However, it was rejected on 8 October 2004 as the applicant's lawyer failed to pay court fees for the appeal.\n16.  After the decision of 3 August 2004, the applicant withdrew her application for the imposition of a fine, and on 17 September 2004 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court discontinued the relevant proceedings.\n17.  On 6 April 2005 the Minister resumed the proceedings.\n18.  On 18 November 2005 the Minister of Agriculture gave a decision. He annulled the 1948 decision and returned a part of the property to the applicant.\n19.  On 7 December 2005 the Doroszki Agriculture Co-operative, which has been using the land in question, joined the proceedings as a party and lodged an appeal against the decision.\n20.  On 22 May 2006 the Minister upheld its decision of 18 November 2005. The Doroszki Agriculture Co-operative lodged an appeal ag", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3241", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  The applicant is the grandmother of a minor P.E. born in 1990. After the death of her daughter, her son-in-law, P.V., did not allow her to see P.E.\n6.  On 10 January 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings against P.V., seeking permission to see her granddaughter regularly.\n7.  On 3 December 1999 the Ordzhonikidzevsky District Court of Kharkiv (hereafter “the Ordzhonikidzevsky Court”) allowed the applicant's claim in part.\n8.  On 18 January 2000 the Kharkiv Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n9.  On 7 July 2000 Ordzhonikidzevsky Court found against the applicant.\n10.  On 5 September 2000 the Kharkiv Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n11.  On 20 June 2001 the Frunzensky District Court of Kharkiv allowed the applicant's claim in part.\n12.  On 9 January 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and terminated the proceedings and left the applicant's claim without consideration as she had not used the possibility of extrajudicial settlement of the dispute before the Tutelage Board. The applicant was informed that she could re-lodge her claim after exhausting this possibility.\n13.  On 14 August 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, thereby terminating the proceedings. The applicant received the copy of this ruling by regular mail on 7 October 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3242", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Flushing. The applicant foundation, also based in Flushing, operates a mosque in Flushing serving Muslim believers belonging to the local Moroccan community.\n9.  On 2 December 1999 the applicant foundation applied, via the District Employment Services Authority (Regionaal Bureau voor de Arbeidsvoorziening), for a work permit (tewerkstellingsvergunning) under the Foreign Nationals (Employment) Act (Wet Arbeid Vreemdelingen), which would allow it to appoint the applicant as its imam.\n10.  On 30 October 2000 the General Directors of the Employment Services Authority (Algemene Directie voor de Arbeidsvoorzieningen), to whom the application had been forwarded, gave a decision refusing such a permit. It was considered that since the job vacancy had not been reported, it had to be assumed that there was an adequate supply of priority labour (i.e. nationals of member States of the European Union or the European Economic Area, or others with equivalent status as regards residence and the right to work, possessing the requisite qualifications). In addition, it had not been shown that the applicant would earn the statutory minimum wage. Furthermore, it had not been demonstrated that the applicant foundation had made sufficient efforts to fill the position with priority labour available on the labour market, for example by advertising the position in the local and national press.\n11.  The applicants lodged an objection with the General Directors of the Employment Services Authority on 29 November 2000. It was stated, among other things, that the applicant had already been admitted to the Netherlands in November 1998, so that section 8 (1) (d) of the Foreign Nationals (Employment) Act did not apply to him, and that it was well known that there was a severe shortage of imams in the Netherlands.\n12.  The General Directors of the Employment Services Authority gave their decision on 19 September 2001. It was found that the applicant foundation had not investigated the labour market at the time when the application for a work permit was made, and that moreover the vacant position had not been reported to the Employment Services Organisation (Arbeidsvoorzieningsorganisatie) at least five weeks before the date of the application. The applicant had previously been admitted to the country to work as a teacher of religion, not as an imam, and although the applicants had submitted a draft contract of employment naming a sufficient monthly wage it was not stated that this wage was linked to the statutory index. The information supplied by the applicants as to the alleged shortage of suitably qualified persons on the Netherlands and European Union labour markets was not persuasive. Finally, two training establishments for imams existed in the Netherlands; it had not been shown that the applicant foundation had tried to recruit its imam from one of these.\n13.  The applicant appealed to the Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague on 16 October 2001 and submitted his grounds of appeal on 29 November 2001. So did the applicant foundation, as a “third party” with an interest in the decision. It was stated, among other things, that already in September or October 1999 the applicant foundation had made unsuccessful attempts to find a suitable imam through the Labour Exchange (Arbeidsbureau). Given the unreasonable length of time taken up by the pending proceedings (by this time, nearly two years already) an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3243", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region.\n5.  He sued the local Social Security Committee for unpaid allowances.\n6.  By judgment of 24 August 2000, the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant 2,602.39 Russian roubles (RUB). The judgment became final on 4 September 2000. The applicant received the monies on 2 December 2005.\n7.  On 1 July 2003 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 19,315.50. On 2 September 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant received the monies on 9 June 2005.\n8.  By judgment of 5 April 2004, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,973.57. The judgment became final on 15 April 2004. It appears that it remains without enforcement.\n9.  On the same day, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 16,765.50 and adjusted his monthly allowance to RUB 5,664.84. On 15 April 2004 the judgment became final. According to the Government, the applicant received the monies on 25 August 2005. However, they did not submit any evidence or documents in that respect. The applicant submitted that he had not received the monies.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3244", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first two applicants, a married couple, were born in 1935 and 1944 respectively and live in Klippan. The third applicant was a limited liability company wholly owned by the first two applicants.\n5.  On 28 October 1992 the company concluded a contract with a municipal energy company, Drefviken Energi AB, concerning deliveries of wood-powder fuel.\n6.  On 3 December 1992 a bank, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken, and two other investors granted the company loans to construct a plant for the production of wood-powder fuel. The bank's loan, amounting to 5.8 million Swedish kronor (SEK), was to be paid in instalments. In December 1992 and January 1993, 3.8 million SEK of the loan was paid to the company.\n7.  In March 1993, at a first testing of the completed plant, it was discovered that certain modifications had to be made. In March and April, the company therefore requested the bank to pay the remaining 2 million SEK of the loan. However, the bank refused to do so.\n8.  In April 1993, Drefviken Energy AB cancelled the fuel delivery contract, apparently due to the fact that the company had not concluded the construction of the plant and it was therefore very doubtful whether it would be able to deliver the agreed amounts of fuel for the 1993/94 season.\n9.  Subsequently, the company tried to find other customers and reiterated its request to the bank to receive the remainder of the loan. It was paid to the company on 28 June 1993.\n10.  The bank's payment, together with an additional loan from another investor, enabled the company to uphold a limited production capacity for a time. However, on 7 September 1994 it was declared bankrupt.\n11.  The bank instituted proceedings against the first and second applicants, claiming their joint liability for 1.1 million SEK of the company's loan in accordance with the personal guarantees they had signed. On 24 February 1995, in a different action, the applicants and a company named Boket Konsult AB (hereinafter “Boket”) claimed compensation from the bank in the amount of 37 million SEK for the damage allegedly caused by the bank's initial refusal to pay the last instalment of the loan. They claimed that that refusal had violated the terms of the loan contract and, in any event, that the bank had incurred liability for damages due to negligence, since the project in question had depended on the loan being paid out on demand.\n12.  On 3 October 1995 the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) ordered that the proceedings should be examined jointly by the District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm.\n13.  Throughout the subsequent proceedings, the parties lodged several supplementary arguments and procedural requests and submitted documentary evidence to the court. The parties asked for and were granted extensions of the time-limits set by the court on several occasions. It further appears that the judge in charge of the proceedings was replaced on several occasions.\n14.  An oral preparation with the parties was held by the District Court on 18 September 1995. By a decision of 10 June 1996, the court rejected the bank's request for the applicant company's and Boket's action to be dismissed due to lack of standing. A further oral preparation, scheduled for 16 December 1996, was cancelled due to the illness of the applicants' and Boket's counsel. In February 1997, the applicants and Boket asked the court to rule on the alleged breach of contract in a partial judgment. An oral preparation was held on 7 April 1998. On 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3245", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, a former judge of the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal, was born in 1938 and lives in the city of Kirovograd.\n5.  On 5 February 2004 the applicant retired, following a respective decision of the Verkhovna Rada.\n6.  In November 2002 the applicant lodged a claim with the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv against the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Justice and the State Treasury, seeking payment of salary arrears and life‑long judicial benefits (long-service bonus and welfare benefits).\n7.  On 16 December 2002 the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv allowed the applicant's claim and ordered the Ministry of Finances and the State Treasury of Ukraine to pay the applicant UAH 8,459.36[1].\n8.  On 9 July 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this judgment and it became final.\n9.  On 11 August 2003 the Bailiffs' Office of the Pechersky District of Kyiv informed the applicant that he had to address the State Treasury of Ukraine directly.\n10.  On 10 November 2003 the State Treasury informed the applicant that there were no funds available in the budget to enforce the judgment of 16 December 2002.\n11.  On 5 November 2004 the applicant received the sum awarded to him by the judgment of 16 December 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3246", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Nicosia.\n8.  The applicant was born out of wedlock. Her biological mother abandoned her outside the house of a woman who gave her to Mrs Maria Phinikaridou. The latter brought her up. Although estranged from her biological mother, the applicant did not lose all contact with her. In December 1997, when the applicant was fifty-two years old, her biological mother, just before dying, told her the name of her biological father in the presence of the applicant's son. Her mother died in January 1998.\n9.  On 24 June 1999 the applicant lodged an application with the Nicosia Family Court requesting judicial recognition of paternity on the basis of section 20(2) of the Children (Relatives and Legal Status) Law 1991 (hereinafter “the Children Law”). The respondent, whom the applicant claimed was her father, objected to the application and denied paternity. Without going into the merits of the paternity claim, he maintained that the applicant's claim was time-barred under section 22(3) of the above-mentioned Law. The applicant claimed, in reply, that the aforementioned section and, in addition, section 25(1) of the same Law setting in motion the period of limitation on the date of entry into force of the Law rather than on the date when she acquired knowledge of her father's identity, were unconstitutional. In particular, she argued that they were contrary to Articles 15 § 1 (the right to respect for private and family life), 28 (the principle of equality and non discrimination) and 30 § 1 (the right of access to a court) of the Constitution. The applicant contended that she had been prevented from having recourse to court and from determining through judicial proceedings whether or not she was the respondent's daughter. She had also been placed in a disadvantageous position with regard to other litigants who happened to acquire information concerning their father within the statutory time-limit.\n10.  On 15 September 1999 the respondent applied to the court for trial of the preliminary matter of whether the applicant's claim was statute-barred. On 30 October 2000 the applicant lodged an application requesting the court to refer the question to the Supreme Court.\n11.  On 17 May 2001 the Nicosia Family Court, following the agreement of the parties, decided to refer the issue of constitutionality of section 22(3) to the Supreme Court under Article 144 of the Constitution.\n12.  In its judgment of 23 November 2001 the Supreme Court, by a majority (Judges Artemides, Nicolaides, Kallis, Iliades, Kramvis and Gavrielides), held that sections 22(3) and 25(1) of the Children Law complied with the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Convention. In particular, the Supreme Court noted the following:\n“The applicant's lawyer suggests that the violation of Articles 15 and 30 of the Constitution is caused by the fact that the applicant learnt the identity of her natural father in 1997. It was, consequently, objectively impossible to lodge the application for her recognition within the three-year period from the date the Law came into force. Therefore, as he concludes, Article 30 § 1 of the Constitution is also violated because the applicant is deprived of access to court to assert her statutory right, a right which originates directly from Article 15 of the Constitution, which protects private and family life. A further suggestion of the applicant's lawyer, concerning unfavourable discrimination caused by t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3247", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are the wife and daughter of Mr Atanas Velichkov Nikolov. Mr Nikolov died on 1 October 1994 as a result of assault and battery by two police officers on 27 September 1994.\n7.  At about 2 p.m. on 27 September 1994 the twelve members of the rapid response force of the Shumen Regional Police Department were training just outside town. They spotted at a distance Mr Nikolov, aged sixty‑two at the time, and Mr N.R., who were testing a home‑made metal detector. The leader of the team, lieutenant I.I., assumed that the two were treasure‑hunters and sent a party to verify his suspicion. Two police officers approached Mr N.R., while two others, chief sergeants B.I. and H.T., moved towards Mr Nikolov. None of the officers was in uniform. Chief sergeants B.I. and H.T. reached Mr Nikolov as he was trying to hide a hoe in nearby bushes. Surprised by the sudden appearance of the two men, Mr Nikolov did not throw the hoe away, but held it in front of him, taking a defensive posture. Chief sergeant B.I. brusquely pulled it out of his hands and threw it to a safe distance. Each of the officers then proceeded to deliver blows to Mr Nikolov's head. They then brought him to the ground, handcuffed him, and took him to their colleagues. A car was called and Mr Nikolov and Mr N.R., who had also been apprehended, were taken to the premises of the Shumen Regional Police Department. At about 3 p.m., while waiting to be questioned on the precinct premises, Mr Nikolov fainted. An ambulance was subsequently called and he was taken to hospital, where it was found that he had slipped into a coma.\n8.  After an unsuccessful operation to evacuate a subdural haematoma, Mr Nikolov died on 1 October 1994. A medical report drawn up in the course of the criminal proceedings opened pursuant to his death concluded that the cause of death was a severe cranial and cerebral trauma and internal brain haemorrhage.\n9.  On 2 October 1994 criminal proceedings were opened into the incident by the Shumen Regional Investigation Service. The offence was provisionally characterised as murder under Article 115 of the Criminal Code of 1968 (“the CC”) (see paragraph 39 below).\n10.  On 3 October 1994 the investigator in charge of the case questioned chief sergeants B.I. and H.T. Mr N.R. was also questioned on the site of the incident in the presence of a medical doctor. The investigator took a number of pictures of the site.\n11.  Most of the other witnesses were interviewed in October 1994 and in March and May 1995. Several expert reports were drawn up.\n12.  Chief sergeants B.I. and H.T. were charged and questioned again on 27 April 1995. They were released on bail.\n13.  The two officers who had arrested Mr N.R. were likewise charged and questioned on 2 May 1995.\n14.  On 12 May 1995 the investigator in charge of the case drew up his final report, concluding that chief sergeants B.I. and H.T. should be tried for wilfully inflicting grievous bodily harm on Mr Nikolov and thus having negligently caused his death, contrary to Article 124 § 1 of the CC (see paragraph 37 below). He also concluded that the two officers who had arrested Mr N.R. should be tried for inflicting light bodily harm on him. He noted, inter alia, that all of the officers had denied any wrongdoing, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, had drawn no lessons from their act and had shown no signs of remorse. He also noted that chief sergeant B.I. and one of the officers who had assaulted Mr N.R. had been cha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3248", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  On 10 September 1998 the Leningradsky District Court of Kyiv instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for defamation.\n6.  On 4 February 2000 the same court found the applicant guilty.\n7.  On 3 August 2000 the Kyiv Court quashed this decision and terminated criminal proceedings on exonerative grounds.\n8.  In July 2001 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Department of the State Treasury in the Svyatoshynsky District of Kyiv (hereafter “the Department”) seeking compensation for moral damage caused by the criminal proceedings.\n9.  On 16 January 2002 the Solomyansky District Court of Kyiv (hereafter “the Solomyansky Court”) allowed the applicant's claim and awarded her UAH 3,360 (EUR 600) in compensation.\n10.  On 28 March 2002 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this judgment and it became final. On 21 May 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal.\n11.  The writ of execution was issued on 26 June 2002, and the applicant submitted it to the Svyatoshynsky Bailiff's Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) on 23 July 2002.\n12.  On 25 July 2002 the Bailiffs suspended the opening of enforcement proceedings as the writ did not contain the debtor's bank requisites. The decision also indicated that the judgment of 16 January 2002 could not be enforced as it did not comply with the Law on the State Budget.\n13.  On 4 October 2002 the Solomyansky Court submitted to the Bailiffs a rectified writ.\n14.  On 27 January 2003 the Bailiffs attached the Department's bank account.\n15.  On 1 April 2003 the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings due to the respondent's lack of funds. The applicant was not informed about this decision in due time.\n16.  On 20 August 2003 the Svyatoshynsky District Court of Kyiv (hereafter “the Svyatoshynsky Court”) allowed the applicant's complaint against the Bailiffs' inactivity and found that the termination of the enforcement proceedings was unlawful.\n17.  On 26 September 2003 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.\n18.  On 10 December 2003 the Svyatoshynsky Court ordered to change the debtor in the case to the Central Office of the State Treasury.\n19.  On 18 December 2003 the Pechersky Bailiff's Service initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n20.  On 21 January 2004 the applicant was paid the judgment debt and the enforcement proceedings were terminated.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3249", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a private small-scale trading company which has its registered office in Yerevan.\n5.  On 29 January 2001 the Tax Inspectorate conducted an inspection of the applicant company's accounts. As a result of this inspection, on 2 April 2001 the Ministry of State Revenue (ՀՀ պետական եկամուտների նախարարություն) made an assessment, according to which the applicant company's tax arrears amounted to 3,797,281 Armenian drams (AMD) (approx. 5,400 euros (EUR)), including surcharges and fines prescribed by the relevant tax laws.\n6.  On an unspecified date, the Yerevan City Prosecutor's Office (Երևան քաղաքի դատախազություն) and the Tax Inspectorate of the Myasnikyan District of Yerevan (Երևանի Մյասնիկյանի տարածքային հարկային տեսչություն) instituted proceedings against the applicant company, claiming that it had failed to meet its tax obligations in an appropriate and timely manner and seeking to recover the above tax arrears.\n7.  On 13 July 2001 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (Երևան քաղաքի Կենտրոն և Նորք-Մարաշ համայնքների առաջին ատյանի դատարան) decided against the applicant company.\n8.  On an unspecified date, the applicant company lodged an appeal with the then Commercial Court of Appeal (ՀՀ տնտեսական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարան). The applicant company also requested that payment of the court fee (known as State fee) be deferred. In his request, the manager of the applicant company submitted, inter alia, that the company was experiencing financial problems and that he was the company's sole employee.\n9.  On 31 August 2001 the Commercial Court of Appeal granted the applicant company's request for deferral and admitted the appeal.\n10.  Following the reform of the court system introduced in Armenia on 11 September 2001 which brought about the establishment of the Commercial Court (ՀՀ տնտեսական դատարան), the applicant company's case was transferred to be examined by that court.\n11.  On 5 November 2001 the Commercial Court decided to leave the authorities' claim unexamined on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to appear. In its decision, the Commercial Court levied a court fee on the Tax Inspectorate in the amount of AMD 189,864.05 (approx. EUR 370).\n12.  It appears that the proceedings were resumed on an unspecified date.\n13.  On 24 December 2001 the Commercial Court decided, at the prosecutor's request, to take measures aimed at securing the claim, freezing the applicant company's property and monetary assets in the amount of AMD 3,797,281.\n14.  On an unspecified date, the applicant company lodged a counterclaim with the Commercial Court, seeking to have the 2 April 2001 assessment ruled unlawful. The applicant company requested that the payment of the court fee be deferred on the same grounds as before.\n15.  On 18 January 2002 the Commercial Court granted the applicant company's request for deferral of payment of the court fee and allowed the applicant company's counterclaim, referring to Articles 21 (d) and 31 (c) of the Law on State Fees («Պետական տուրքի մասին» ՀՀ օրենք).\n16.  On 3 December 2002 the Commercial Court decided to join both claims and to examine them together.\n17.  On 20 January 2003 the Commercial Court granted the authorities' claim and dismissed that of the applicant company. The court decided to levy on the applicant company a total of AMD 3,797,281 of tax arrears, including profit tax arrears of AMD 193,400 plus a surcharge of AMD 11,352.9 (approx. EUR 310 and EUR 18 respectively), Val", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3250", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Štip.\n6.  On 11 November 1996 the applicant, a farmer who reared cows, concluded an insurance agreement (полиса за осигурување) (“the agreement”) with an insurance company (“the defendant”) against a risk of the cows' death under which the latter would be liable to pay the damage, irrespective of the time of the death, if it was caused by reasons other than illness. On 23 November 1996 one of the applicant's cows died. Since the defendant refused to pay for the loss, on 30 January 1997 the applicant brought a claim against the defendant before the Štip Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”).\n7. On 1 March 1997 the trial judge's wife was employed with the defendant as an assistant to the manager of its branch office.\n8. On 30 January 1998 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant's claim.\n9. The applicant appealed, arguing, amongst other things, that the first-instance court had arbitrarily given weight to evidence in favour of the defendant and that it had refused to examine witnesses as to the cause of death.\n10. On 17 June 1998 the Štip Court of Appeal quashed the court of first instance's decision, instructing it to hear evidence from the vet who had examined the cow in order to determine the cause of the death.\n11. On 28 March 2000 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant's claim, reiterating its earlier findings.\n12. On 20 June 2000 the applicant appealed, arguing that he had never received a copy of the general terms of the contract, and that the cause of death had not been properly established. He also contended that that judge was biased since his wife had started working with the defendant just after the proceedings had started. He asked for the trial judge to be removed if the Court of Appeal were to quash the lower court's decision and remit the case\n13. On 27 November 2000 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal, finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and the reasons given by the lower court. It did not make any comments on the applicant's allegations that the trial judge was biased.\n14. The decision was served on the applicant on 24 April 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3251", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Łowicz.\n5.  The applicant was charged with armed robbery and, on an unspecified date, remanded in custody.\n6.  On 10 November 2005 the Rawa Mazowiecka District Court sentenced the applicant to eight years and six months’ imprisonment.\n7.  The applicant lodged an appeal.\n8.  On 5 May 2006 the Łódź Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment and dismissed the appeal as manifestly ill-founded.\n9.  The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal.\n10.  On 30 September 2005 the Court received a letter from the applicant. The envelope bore the stamp “Censored on 19 September 2005” (Ocenzurowano dnia 19.09.2005), an illegible signature and the stamp of the Rawa Mazowiecka District Court (Sąd Rejonowy Rawa Mazowiecka). The envelope was sealed with adhesive tape. The letter of 11 September 2005 which was in the envelope likewise bore the stamp: “Censored on 19 September 2005” and an illegible signature.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3252", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 30 September 1999 at about 12.15 p.m. the applicant attended the funeral of a prisoner, who had been allegedly killed in an operation by the security forces at the Ulucanlar Prison in Ankara.\n6.  According to the incident report dated 30 September 1999, the police gave a warning and asked the group to disperse. However, the demonstrators refused to obey the warnings. They continued shouting slogans and marched towards the Karacaahmet Cemetery. The police had to intervene and arrested thirty-nine people, including the applicant.\n7.  On the same day, at 1.30 p.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor at Haydarpaşa Numune Hospital. In his report, the doctor noted the following:\n“Sensitivity on the left lumbar region and on the lower part of the left hemithorax has been observed.”\n8.  At 7.30 p.m. the same day, the applicant's statement was taken in the hospital by two policemen. In this statement, the applicant explained that he was retired. He maintained that, while he was sitting in a café, he had heard that there was a funeral and decided to participate; therefore he joined the group. He was however caught between the demonstrators and the police and fell on the ground. He denied being involved in the demonstration.\n9.  On 30 March 2000 the applicant's lawyers filed a complaint with the Üsküdar public prosecutor's office against the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant during his arrest.\n10.  On 27 April 2001 the Üsküdar public prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution. In his decision, the public prosecutor referred to the applicant's police statement, in which he maintained that he had been injured as he had fallen during the police intervention. The public prosecutor further stated that the police intervention and the force used during the intervention was lawful and proportionate in the circumstances of the case.\n11.  On 4 December 2001 one of the applicant's lawyers filed an objection against the public prosecutor's decision. In the petition, it was contended that the public prosecutor had failed to conduct an adequate investigation as he had failed to order a medical examination of the applicant and had not heard the applicant or other witnesses.\n12.  On 8 January 2002 the Kadıköy Assize Court dismissed the applicant's objection.\n13.  On 1 October 1999 the Üsküdar public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Üsküdar Criminal Court against thirty‑nine persons, including the applicant. The prosecutor accused the applicant and the other co-accused under Article 32 of Law No. 2911 of taking part in an illegal demonstration.\n14.  In the hearing held on 20 December 1999, the applicant stated before the Üsküdar Criminal Court that he had heard that a press declaration would be made outside the Cemevi[1] concerning a prisoner who had been killed in Ankara. He therefore took a bus to go to Üsküdar Cemevi and, as he stepped down from the bus, he was arrested by the police. The applicant also stated that he had been beaten during his arrest and denied his police statement.\n15.  On 16 April 2001 the Üsküdar Criminal Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to one year and six months' imprisonment and a fine.\n16.  On 27 March 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Üsküdar Criminal Code, following the adoption of the New Criminal Code on 1 June 2005.\n17.  On 25 May 2006 the Üsküdar Criminal Court decided to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3254", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in London.\n7.  The applicant joined the British Army in 1990. In 1999 he was serving as a gunner with the 12th Regiment of the Royal Artillery and was stationed in Germany.\n8.  On 1 November 1999 a woman alleged that she had been raped and on 2 November the applicant was arrested, along with two other soldiers, by the service police. The service police interviewed the applicant on 4 November 1999 and it appears that he was assisted by a lieutenant from Army Legal Services. On that date he also signed a certificate acknowledging that he had been informed of his right to have the assistance of an “accused advisor” during any summary hearing before his commanding officer (“CO”).\n9.  On 5 November 1999 he was charged by his CO, pursuant to section 70 of the Army Act 1955 (“the 1955 Act”), with indecent assault contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. It appears that his two co-accused were charged with rape. The charge was read; the CO said that the matter was to be referred to a higher authority given the seriousness of the charge; the applicant was asked if he had anything to say and he replied that he had not. He was given a four-page document immediately before that hearing, which document was taken back from him immediately thereafter.\n10.  A certificate dated 6 November 1999 and signed by the applicant has been submitted: it confirms that the applicant received the pamphlet “The Rights of a Soldier Charged with an Offence under the Army Act 1955” and that he had had the opportunity to be advised by an officer of his choice. On the same date, the CO referred the case to the Higher Authority and remanded the applicant in close arrest. A short note by the CO (“referred to Higher Authority”) constitutes the sole record before the Court of that hearing.\n11.  On 16 November 1999 the applicant was transferred to the Military Correctional Training Centre (“the MCTC”) in the United Kingdom.\n12.  Twelve “8-day delay” reports were completed during the applicant's pre-trial detention. The first, dated 12 November 1999, was signed by his CO in the 12th Regiment of the Royal Artillery and the reasons for detention were recorded as being “undesirable that he should remain at [large]”. All subsequent reports (dated 19 November, 25 November, 3 December, 13 December, 20 December and 29 December 1999 and dated 4 January, 12 January, 20 January, 28 January and 7 February 2000) were signed by the CO of the MCTC and recorded two reasons for his continued detention: it was considered that he was likely to suborn witnesses and that, given the “nature and prevalence of the alleged offence under investigation” it was “undesirable in the interests of discipline that he should be at large or consort with his comrades.” The final report dated 7 February 2000 recorded for the first time an additional charge against the applicant pursuant to section 70 of the 1955 Act: rape contrary to section 1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.\n13.  Six “16-day arrest” forms were also completed (pursuant to Rule 22 of the Investigation and Summary Dealing (Army) Regulations 1997) on 19 November, 3 December and 20 December 1999 and on 4 January, 20 January and 7 February 2000. The CO of the MCTC signed these forms and recorded that the applicant had been brought before him to consider any representations the applicant may have had concerning his arrest status and that he had been informed of his right to apply to the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3255", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Bursa. At the time of the events he was employed by S.İ and M.U.\n5.  In 1997 the applicant was injured in an occupational accident and lost the third and fourth fingers of his left hand.\n6.  On 22 December 1997 the applicant filed an action for compensation before the Bursa Civil Court of First Instance against S.İ., M.U and two other individuals who were allegedly responsible for the accident.\n7.  On 16 June 2000, an expert report assessing the extent of the damage suffered by the applicant was submitted to the court.\n8.  On 12 September 2000 the applicant lodged another case with the same court, claiming further damages. These two procedures were later joined.\n9.  On 16 January 2002 the Bursa Civil Court of First Instance decided that it did not have jurisdiction to examine the applicant's case.\n10.  On 20 February 2002 the defendants appealed against this decision.\n11.  On 23 May 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision.\n12.  On 31 July 2002 the case was resumed before the Bursa Labour Court.\n13.  The first hearing was held on 21 November 2002. The court requested a report regarding the applicant's disability.\n14.  On 30 June and 20 October 2003, the court postponed the scheduled hearings as the report requested on 21 November 2002 had not yet been submitted.\n15.  On 11 March 2004 the report was submitted to the court. At the same hearing the court requested all the medical reports regarding the applicant. Furthermore, it requested that the applicant be re-examined by the Social Security Hospital.\n16.  The court held eight hearings after 11 March 2004, the last of which was on 19 October 2006.\n17.  According to the information in the case file, as submitted by the parties, the proceedings are apparently still pending before the Bursa Labour Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3256", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Birštonas.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 23 December 1995 the applicant was arrested while crossing the Lithuanian border. He was suspected of attempting to smuggle untreated mink furs. The furs were forfeited as evidence in the context of the criminal case.\n7.  On the basis of a decision taken by the prosecution, on 14 March 1996 the furs were auctioned – being goods prone to deterioration - for 882,173 Lithuanian litai (LTL, or about EUR 255,495[1]). The money received from the auction was transferred to the State budget.\n8.  On 30 January 1997 the applicant was acquitted by the Klaipėda Regional Court in view of the lack of any elements of a crime. The court did not rule on the issue of the forfeited evidence.\n9.  The applicant brought an appeal, requesting that this issue be resolved. However, on 26 March 1997 the Court of Appeal refused to deal with it, ruling that, since the furs had been sold, the handling of the proceeds from the sale was no longer within the jurisdiction of the criminal courts.\n10.  The applicant then brought an application before the Vilnius Regional Court, requesting compensation for the forfeited furs. On 8 October 1997 that court ruled that the question should be determined in civil proceedings.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil action, claiming the LTL 749,847 (about EUR 217,171), i.e. the proceeds minus the auction expenses.\n12.  On an unspecified date, he brought a separate civil action, claiming the sum allegedly paid for the furs at the Copenhagen Fur Centre, corresponding to USD 327,542.57 or, at the then exchange rate, LTL 1,310,170 (EUR 379,451).\n13.  On 7 November 1997 the Klaipėda City District Court found that the tax authorities were obliged to pay the applicant LTL 749,847 (EUR 217,171). On 25 March 1998 that decision was quashed on procedural grounds by the Klaipėda Regional Court. The court held that the applicant should have applied to a Vilnius civil court. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 28 September 1998.\n14.  On 25 March 1998 the applicant re-applied, this time submitting his action to the Vilnius Regional Court and claiming the full proceeds of the auction sale - LTL 882,173 (about EUR 255,495).\n15.  On 28 January 2000 the court refused to admit the applicant's claim because he should have applied to the newly-created administrative courts (operational since May 1999). However, on 2 March 2000 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 28 January 2000, returning the case for a fresh examination by the Vilnius Regional Court by way of the civil procedure.\n16.  On 21 April 2000 the Klaipėda Regional Court decided to adjourn the examination of the applicant's claim pending the examination of his claim for the auction proceeds.\n17.  On 28 July 2000 the Vilnius Regional Court accepted the applicant's suit for the whole proceeds of the auction, awarding him LTL 882,173 (about EUR 255,495) against the Inland Revenue.\n18.  Upon appeal by the tax authorities, on 17 October 2000 the Court of Appeal quashed the lower court decision on the ground that the Ministry of Justice should have been the defendant in the proceedings. The case was remitted to the first instance court.\n19.  On 28 February 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision, stating that both the Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Justice should have been the defendants in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3257", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant lives in Torri di Quartesolo, Italy.\n7.  In 1991 the applicant married a Polish national K.P. In 1992 K.P. gave birth to their first daughter A. In 1996 the second daughter, B, was born. The family lived in Italy.\n8.  In summer 1999 K.P. took A and B on holiday to Poland. Subsequently, she failed to return to Italy with the children and they remained in Poland.\n9.  In September 1999 K.P. filed with the Poznań Regional Court an application for divorce.\n10.  On 6 September 1999 the applicant applied to the Polish Ministry of Justice – designated as a central authority under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of the International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”) – for assistance in securing the return of the children.\n11.  On 11 October 1999 the Venice Court for Minors allowed an application submitted by the applicant and made an interim order granting him custody of A and B.\n12.  On 9 November 1999 the Poznań District Court made an interim order requiring A and B to remain in Poland during the proceedings concerning the application for their return.\n13.  On 14 November 1999 the applicant asked the Poznań District Court to grant him visiting rights.\n14.  On 17 November 1999 the Poznań District Court allowed the application and granted the applicant visiting rights. In particular, the court granted him the right to visit his children four times a month and to take them outside the flat in which they lived. K.P. appealed against this decision but her appeal was dismissed on 14 December 1999. However, she interfered with the applicant's visiting rights and in the course of the next three months he had to be assisted on three occasions by police officers in order to enforce his visiting rights.\n15.  On 19 November 1999 the Poznań District Court dismissed K.P.'s request that the case concerning the return of the children be either joined to the divorce case or stayed. The court gave the following reasons for its decision:\n“Pursuant to Article 16 of the Hague Convention after receiving notice of a wrongful removal or retention of a child within the meaning of Article 3, the judicial or administrative authorities of the Contracting State to which the child has been removed or in which it has been retained shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child is not to be returned under this Convention. That is why the court has informed the Regional Court that it is necessary to stay proceedings in the divorce case.”\n16.  At the hearing held on 26 November 1999 the court decided to order an expert opinion.\n17.  On 11 January 2000 the Poznań Family Consultation Centre (Rodzinny Ośrodek Diagnostyczno-Konsultacyjny) submitted to the Poznań District Court an expert opinion in reply to the court's inquiry whether the well‑being of A and B would be threatened by their return to their father in Italy. The opinion ended with the following conclusions:\n“1.  The well-being of [A and B] will not be threatened if they are returned to Italy together with their mother. Reuniting the children only with their father would result in repeating an abnormal situation prevailing at the moment. Moreover, in view of the age of the children, and in particular the age of [B], depriving them of the permanent presence of their mother would lead to the inability to fulfil their development needs concerning the mother; 2.  the possibility of leaving the children in the custody of their mother in Polan", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3258", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, Mrs Elena Bulava and Mr Nicolai Bulava, a married couple, were born in 1957 and 1954, respectively, and live in Soroca.\n7.  They were employees of a State-owned water-supply company (“the company”). Between 2000 and 2004 the company was at a standstill on several occasions and the applicants were not paid their salaries. They brought several actions against the company for the payment of their salaries.\n8.  By final judgments of 26 March and 29 September 2003 the Soroca District Court ordered the company to pay Mrs Bulava 1,820 Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately 118.86 euros (EUR) at the time).\n9.  By a final judgment of 22 March 2004 the Soroca District Court found that the company's failure to comply with the judgments of 26 March and 29 September 2003 in favour of the applicant violated her rights and ordered the company to pay the applicant MDL 8,981 (approximately EUR 576.75 at the time), which represented a penalty of 5% of MDL 1,820 for each day of default and MDL 1,820 for non-pecuniary damage. A bailiff received the enforcement warrant on 18 May 2004.\n10.  By a final judgment of 29 March 2004 the Soroca District Court ordered the company to pay her MDL 2,452 (approximately EUR 161.5 at the time). A bailiff received the enforcement warrant on 20 April 2004.\n11.  By a final judgment of 15 July 2004 the Soroca District Court ordered the company to pay the applicant MDL 5,460 (approximately EUR 369.2 at the time). A bailiff received the warrant of execution on 10 August 2004.\n12.  By a final judgment of 13 September 2004 the Soroca District Court ordered the company to pay the applicant MDL 13,286 (approximately EUR 897.38 at the time). A bailiff received the warrant of execution on 13 October 2004.\n13.  By a final judgment of 10 July 2003 the Soroca District Court ordered the company to pay Mr Bulava MDL 10,938.50 (approximately EUR 682.25 at the time). A bailiff received the warrant of execution on 3 February 2004.\n14.  By a final judgment of 26 April 2004 the Soroca District Court ordered the company to pay him MDL 4,360 (approximately EUR 306.83 at the time). A bailiff received the warrant of execution on 11 May 2004.\n15.  By a final judgment of 13 September 2004 the Soroca District Court ordered the company to pay the applicant MDL 13,375 (approximately EUR 903.39 at the time). A bailiff received the warrant of execution on 5 October 2004.\n16.  By a letter of 27 December 2004 a bailiff informed the applicants, inter alia, that the assets of the company which had been seized by the bailiff remained unsold after auction. The applicants were also informed by the bailiff that the judgments would be enforced as soon as the company had assets.\n17.  On 12 May 2005 the applicants informed the Court that all the judgments in their favour had been enforced on 29 April 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3259", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the village of Bağıvar, Diyarbakır.\n6.  The applicant and her husband, Mehmet Özdemir lived in the village of Bağıvar, Diyarbakır. They have eight children. The applicant submits that her husband was a member of HADEP (People's Democracy Party) at the material time.\n7.  In 1995 the Diyarbakır State Security Court tried and acquitted Mehmet Özdemir of the charges of aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK (The Kurdistan Workers' Party).\n8.  On 5 August 1997 Mehmet Özdemir was arrested and taken into police custody where he remained until he was released pending trial on 9 August 1997. Criminal proceedings were initiated against him on the ground that he was aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation. These proceedings ended with Mehmet Özdemir's acquittal on 23 January 1998.\n9.  The applicant alleged that, prior to his disappearance, her husband had been harassed by security forces. She claimed in this connection that he had been arrested a few times and subjected to severe torture.\n10.  The applicant also alleged that her house had been raided by security forces about twenty days prior to her husband's disappearance. She maintained that after this event her husband had left home to stay with his relatives in Diyarbakır for fifteen days. However, she later learned that during this time her husband had once again been arrested, interrogated and subsequently released. The applicant stated that her husband had told her that he had been instructed by a police officer to report his whereabouts every day. She alleged that her husband had phoned the number given to him twice but that no one had responded.\n11.  The applicant did not witness the abduction of her husband. She was informed by an eye-witness who told her that, on 26 December 1997, two armed men, dressed in civilian clothes, with walkie-talkies had entered the coffee house where Mehmet Özdemir was sitting with his friends and told him to come with them. They had taken him outside to a white taxi. Mehmet Özdemir had not initially resisted the men, but when he saw a third person sitting in the back of the car, he had started to struggle and had been eventually forced into the car.\n12.  The applicant stated that, since the eye-witness was illiterate, he had been unable to write down the registration number of the taxi.\n13.  On 29 December 1997 the applicant lodged a petition with the public prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court requesting information as to the whereabouts of her husband who, she stated, had been arrested by policemen in civilian clothes at a coffee house. On the same day, this petition was stamped. This stamp read “taken into custody by Security Directorate”. However, the stamp bears no signature of a public official.\n14.  On 7 January 1998 the applicant lodged a petition with the disappearance bureau of the Diyarbakır public prosecutor's office. In this petition she submitted, in particular, that her husband had been arrested on 26 December 1997, at around 3.30 p.m., by four armed policemen, in civilian clothes, at a park near the Diyarbakır vegetable market. She further stated that her petition of 29 December 1997 had been stamped stating that her husband was in custody, but that later she had been informed orally that her petition was stamped by mistake and that her husband was not in custody.\n15.  The Diyarbakır public prosecutor (“the prosecutor”) commenced an inve", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3260", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Gdańsk, Poland.\n5. On 16 July 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. On 17 July 2004 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 16 October 2004. It found that there were reasonable grounds – in particular, evidence from witnesses – for suspecting him of the offence charged. The court further noted that the applicant was liable to a statutory maximum sentence of at least 12 years’ imprisonment. It also found that there was a risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence.\n6. On 11 October 2004 the Gdańsk District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 16 January 2005. It considered that the reasons for keeping him in detention were still valid and the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation justified holding him in custody. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. It also found that there was a risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence, given the nature of the charges against him and the fact that he had acted with other co-accused.\n7. The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged by the District Court on unspecified dates. The courts’ decisions were based on Article 258 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which lists grounds for pre-trial detention, such as, the risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding or a justified fear that an accused will attempt to induce witnesses or co-defendants to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper course of proceedings by any other unlawful means.\n8. On 27 October 2005 the Gdańsk District Court convicted the applicant of two counts of robbery and sentenced him to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n9. On 26 September 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the impugned judgment.\n10. The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal.\n11. The applicant’s letter to the Court dated 24 November 2004 bears a stamp marked “censored” (cenzurowano), “the prosecutor” (prokurator) followed by an illegible signature. It appears that the envelope in which that letter was sent had been cut open and subsequently resealed with adhesive tape. According to the postmark the letter was posted on 8 December 2004.\n12.The application form submitted by the applicant and dated 13 January 2005 bears a stamp marked “censored” (cenzurowano), “the judge” (sędzia) followed by an illegible signature. The envelope bears a stamp confirming that the applicant’s letter was received for dispatch by the prison administration on 18 January 2005. However, according to the postmark the letter was not posted until 31 January 2005. It also appears that the envelope was cut open and subsequently resealed with adhesive tape.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3261", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Lublin. He is currently detained in Włodawa Prison.\n5.  On 25 March 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed armed robbery. He was subsequently brought before the Lublin District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) and charged with armed robbery. The prosecutor applied to the Lublin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) for the applicant to be detained pending investigation.\n6.  On 27 March 1998 the District Court remanded him in custody for three months on the ground of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he had been charged. The court also considered that his detention was justified by the existence of substantial evidence against him and the seriousness of the charges. It also gave as a ground for detention the risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence.\n7.  On 23 April 1998, following an appeal by the applicant, the Lublin Regional Court upheld that decision.\n8.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was extended on three occasions. The relevant decisions were given by the Lublin Regional Court on 19 June 1998 and by the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 23 September and 21 December 1998.\n9.  In their detention decisions the courts attached importance to the fact that the reasons for the applicant's pre-trial detention, as set out in the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), had not changed. They referred to the serious nature of the offences and the complexity of the case. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation justified his continued detention.\n10.  In the course of the proceedings, the courts informed the applicant's lawyer about the dates of the sessions (posiedzenie) concerning the review of the applicant's pre-trial detention. The applicant's lawyer did not appear at the sessions.\n11.  On 18 March 1999 the applicant was indicted before the Lublin Regional Court. He was charged with two counts of armed robbery committed on 23 March and 25 March 1998. The bill of indictment concerned four defendants and, in all, twenty-seven charges were brought against them. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from fifty-seven witnesses. Further, the bill of indictment included 157 items of evidence to be disclosed at the hearing.\n12.  On 27 July 1999 a fifth defendant was indicted in the same proceedings before the Lublin Regional Court.\n13.  At a hearing session held on 28 September 1999, at which the applicant's lawyer was not present, the Lublin Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 27 March 2000, giving as grounds for extending detention the compelling evidence against the applicant and the strong likelihood that he had committed the offence with which he had been charged. It also stressed that a lengthy sentence of imprisonment might be imposed on him. That decision and the reasons for it were upheld on appeal on 20 October 1999 at a hearing which the applicant's lawyer did not attend.\n14.  The trial started on 29 November 1999.\n15.  At a hearing held on 11 September 2000 the Lublin Regional Court decided to restart the trial following an objection by the applicant that the intervals between the court's hearings had been too long.\n16.  During the court proceedings the authorities further extended the applicant's detention pending trial on many occasions.\n17.  The relevant decisions were give", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3263", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  The applicant is the owner of a daily newspaper, Günlük Evrensel, published in Istanbul.\n7.  Günlük Evrensel released its first issue on 23 July 2001. On the same day, the state of emergency regional governor in south-east Turkey banned the newspaper's entry and distribution in the provinces under his jurisdiction, namely, Diyarbakır, Tunceli, Hakkari and Şırnak. The governor considered that the newspaper was pursuing the same editorial line as another newspaper called Yeni Evrensel, the entry and distribution of which had also been banned on 4 January 1999.\n8.  The governor's decision to ban Günlük Evrensel, which contained no reasons, was served on the newspaper's Diyarbakır representative on 23 July 2001. The representative acknowledged its receipt on the same day and the ban took immediate effect.\n9.  While banned in the state of emergency region, the newspaper was freely distributed elsewhere in Turkey.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3264", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1940, 1944 and 1933 respectively and live in Istanbul.\n5.  In 1995 Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration Office (Kocaeli İl Özel İdare Müdürlüğü) expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants in order to expand the Kocaeli organised industrial zone. A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants following the expropriation.\n6.  On 23 October 1996 the applicants brought an action in the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance requesting additional compensation. The applicants argued that the plot of land in question should have been considered as urbanised land (arsa) instead of rural land. Three on-site inspections were conducted and three separate expert reports were received by the court. The applicants requested the court to dismiss two experts who took part in the preparation of a report, alleging that these experts were not impartial since they were civil servants. During the hearing on 22 December 1997, the applicants stated that they agreed to base the additional compensation on the lowest amount submitted in the expert reports. On 29 December 1997 the First Instance Court decided that the plot of land in question should be classified as urbanised land and awarded the applicants a certain amount of additional compensation. When deciding on the amount of additional compensation, the court relied on the outcome of another action which qualified the same plot of land as urbanised land.\n7.  On 16 June 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on the ground that the expert reports were not sufficient basis for a judgment.\n8.  On 4 November 1998 the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance challenged the decision of the Court of Cassation (direnme kararı). The case file was transferred to the Grand Chamber of the Court of Cassation for Civil Law Matters (Hukuk Genel Kurulu).\n9.  On 23 December 1998 the Grand Chamber of the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 4 November 1998.\n10.  On 9 May 2000 the Gebze Civil Court of First Instance decided that the plot of land was of rural nature. In reaching this decision, the court conducted four more on-site inspections and relied on four additional expert reports, where the experts observed that the plot was not reserved for habitation under any urban plan (imar planı) of the Municipality or the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement; it was not situated within residential areas; and there was no annotation in the land registry that this plot was to be used for tourism purposes. Instead, the plot was classified as “field” in the Land Registry. Following the on‑site inspections, the experts decided that the plot should be classified as rural land. Against this background, the court awarded the applicants an additional compensation of 22,568,437,760 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 13,080 euros (EUR)) plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 15 October 1996 for Mr Ali Erdem and from 22 October 1996 for the other applicants.\n11.  On 19 September 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.\n12.  On 26 January 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the request for rectification.\n13.  On 20 February 2001 the Kocaeli Provincial Private Administration Office paid the applicants the total sum of TRL 72,198,960,506 (approximately EUR 41,850) interest included.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3265", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  In 1995, a general civil disobedience movement, called the “Initiative for freedom of expression” (IFE) commenced following the trial of the famous writer, Yaşar Kemal, who was prosecuted for his article published in the German magazine “Der Spiegel”. One thousand and eighty intellectuals protested against Yaşar Kemal's prosecution by re-publishing his articles and other banned articles in a book entitled 'Freedom of Expression'. The aim of the IFE was the amendment of the provisions of the Turkish legislation concerning freedom of expression.\n7.  The members of the IFE continued their campaign by gathering in front of the Istanbul State Security Court building once a month and distributing leaflets, which included shortened versions of previously banned articles.\n8.  On 23 July 1999 the applicant distributed the leaflet entitled “Freedom of Thought - No. 38” in front of the Istanbul State Security Court Building. This leaflet was a reproduction of the leaflet entitled “Freedom of Thought - No. 9”, which contained statements made by Osman Murat Ülke, who is a conscientious objector. The same day, the applicant filed a complaint against himself with the Public Prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court and maintained that he should be prosecuted for re-publishing the leaflet entitled “Freedom of Thought-No. 9”, banned by the General Staff Military Court.\n9.  On 5 October 1999 the military public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant in the General Staff Military Court, and charged him with seeking to dissuade persons from serving in the military contrary to Article 155 of the Turkish Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 58 of the Military Criminal Code.\n10.  During a hearing held on 23 November 1999, the applicant refused to answer any questions posed by the military court as regards the merits of the case. He maintained that the trial of a civilian by a military court breached Article 6 of the Convention, which guaranteed the fairness of proceedings. He argued that the military court could not provide him with a fair trial by an independent court and that such a prosecution would be against the Constitution. He further stated that Article 155 of the Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to seek to dissuade persons from serving in the military, was contrary to Article 10 of the Convention. The applicant maintained that he should have been tried by an ordinary criminal court. In this respect, he alleged that by republishing a previously banned article, he had breached Article 162 of the Criminal Code which provides that re‑publication of banned materials is an independent felony and that its perpetrator is subject to the same punishment as the author of the impugned article.\n11.  The applicant further put forward a plea of unconstitutionality, stating that Article 155 of the Turkish Criminal Code breached Articles 90 and 152 of the Constitution. The Military Court, considering that the applicant's submissions were unsubstantiated, refused his request.\n12.  On 1 February 2000 the court recalled that Osman Murat Ülke had been convicted in 1997 for breach of Article 155 of the Criminal Code for holding a press conference at the Izmir War Resisters' Association. Accordingly it held that by re-publishing those statements, the applicant had acted with the intention to break the law. The court further quoted the following statements from", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3266", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Mr Wiesław Pietrzak (“the first applicant”), was born in 1943. The second applicant, Mrs Halina Pietrzak (“the second applicant”), was born in 1951. They are married and live in Gdańsk.\n6.  The first applicant owns a plot of land and a house situated on it located in the suburbs of Gdańsk. The major part of his property is classified as agricultural land. There are some other houses in the area, but a significant part of it is used for allotments.\n7.  It appears that the first applicant’s father acquired the property in question in 1972. At that time, the property was classified as agricultural land and lay outside the perimeters of Gdańsk. Subsequently, with the enlargement of the city, the property became located in the vicinity of a residential and allotments area.\n8.  In 1973 and 1977 the first applicant’s father was twice refused planning permission on the ground that the plot had not been designated for construction of a house.\n9.  In April 1975 a local development plan for the area was adopted. The first applicant’s plot was designated for the construction of a road.\n10.  On an unspecified later date the first applicant acquired the property at issue.\n11.  On 28 May 1988 the Gdańsk Municipal Council adopted a local development plan which stipulated that a road was to be constructed on the first applicant’s plot.\n12.  On 24 December 1987 and 15 November 1991 the Gdańsk Municipality informed the first applicant that his property was designated in the relevant local development plan for the building of a new road. Accordingly, the property could not be used for the purposes of constructing a new house or planting an orchard.\n13.  On 12 February 1992 the first applicant requested the Mayor of Gdańsk to acquire his property as it had been designated for the building of a road. On 22 June 1992 the Mayor transmitted that request to the Head of the Gdańsk District Office (Kierownik Urzędu Rejonowego) which was competent to decide on it. It appears that the request was never examined.\n14.  On an unspecified date in 1992 the first applicant petitioned the Ombudsman. On 14 July 1992 the Ombudsman informed him that, following a number of similar complaints concerning the legal status of so-called “frozen properties” (i.e. properties which were designated in a local development plan for public use at an undetermined future date), he had requested the Minister of Local Planning and Construction to adopt a general solution to the problem. In particular, the Ombudsman called for a provision in the local planning bill which would impose an obligation on the local authorities to acquire “frozen properties” or offer an alternative plot to the owners concerned.\n15.  On 29 June 1993 the Gdańsk Municipal Council adopted a general local development plan. The plan maintained the provision that a road was to be constructed on the applicant’s plot. Prior to the adoption of the new plan, the Minister of Agriculture and the Gdańsk Governor had authorised the change of use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes.\n16.  On 20 August 1993 the applicant inquired with the Gdańsk Municipality about the conditions for construction of a temporary building (zabudowa tymczasowa) on his property. On 6 October 1993 he was informed about the relevant conditions for properties designated in local development plans for future public use. He was also informed that he could continue using the property for agricultural purposes or, alternat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3268", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On the night of 14 October 1991 a car was stolen from an unsecured car park. Early in 1992 a preliminary investigation in respect of the theft was opened against an unknown perpetrator.\n8.  On 28 May 1992 the first applicant was stopped by the police while driving the car of his parents – the second and third applicants. The police established a discrepancy between the numbers on the chassis of the vehicle and those in the registration documents of the vehicle which had been issued by the Pazardzhik Traffic Police on 17 July 1973. They seized and impounded the car in order to check its registration documents and ownership. The first applicant was questioned regarding the discrepancy in the car’s registration documents both on the above date and on 4 June 1992.\n9.  The investigating authorities commissioned a technical examination of the seized vehicle. In a report of 14 April 1993 the technical expert concluded that the number plate on the chassis of the car was not the original, but had been changed.\n10.  On 8 June 1993 the first applicant was charged with being an accessory to the theft of the car on 14 October 1991. He was questioned on the same day and then released. A restriction was imposed on the first applicant, not to leave his place of residence without the consent of the Prosecution Office.\n11.  No further investigative procedures were conducted in the course of the preliminary investigation.\n12.  On 3 April 1995 the first applicant complained to the Pazardzhik District Prosecution Office about the length of the criminal proceedings. He did not receive a response.\n13.  Subsequently, the first applicant lodged similar complaints with the Pazardzhik District Prosecution Office, the Pazardzhik Regional Prosecution Office, the Plovdiv Appellate Prosecution Office and the Chief Prosecutor about the length of the criminal proceedings. He did not receive a response to any of them.\n14.  Sometime in 1998 the investigator in charge of the preliminary investigation died, while the assistant investigator retired. The first applicant’s case was never reassigned to another investigator.\n15.  Sometime in September 1999 the first applicant lodged another complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings with the Supreme Cassation Prosecution Office. In response, the Plovdiv Appellate Prosecution Office was instructed to investigate the first applicant’s complaint.\n16.  In a decision of 20 October 1999 of the Pazardzhik District Prosecution Office the preliminary investigation was discontinued in respect of the first applicant as unproven. The restriction on the first applicant not to leave his place of residence without the consent of the Prosecution Office was removed.\n17.  The criminal proceedings continued, against an unknown perpetrator, until 27 September 2004 when the Pazardzhik District Prosecution Office terminated them due to the expiry of the statute of limitations for the offence. In its decision, the Prosecution Office expressly noted that no investigative procedures had been conducted in the proceedings after 8 June 1993, the date on which the first applicant was arrested and charged.\n18.  The car was seized and impounded by the police on 28 May 1992 in order to check its registration documents and ownership. No protocol of seizure was prepared and the second and third applicants were not given a receipt or any other document evidencing the impounding of the vehicle.\n19.  The car remained impounded by the police for the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3269", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Nice, France. Before 1999 the applicant was a resident of the village of Starye Atagi in Chechnya. He also submitted the complaint on behalf of his close relatives: his mother, Malika Zubayrayeva, brother Khasan (also spelled Khasin) and sisters Aset and Petimat Zubayrayeva, who are not applicants in the present case.\n7.  The facts of the case were partly disputed by the parties. Accordingly, the Court requested the Government to submit copies of the criminal investigation file. The submissions of the parties are summarised below in Part A. A summary of the documents submitted by the Government is set out in Part B below.\n8.  In October 1999 the applicant applied for asylum in Belgium. He said that he had served in the national security service of the self-proclaimed “Chechen Republic of Ichkeria”.\n9.  The applicant’s parents, brothers and sisters remained in Chechnya. His family lived in their house at 103 Nagornaya Street in the village of Starye Atagi.\n10.  The applicant’s mother, Malika Zubayrayeva, testified that in the early hours of 17 September 2000 the family had been woken by loud screams. A large group of men in camouflage uniforms and, in some instances, masks, whom she identified as belonging to the Russian special services (“spetsnaz”), entered the house and forced all the inhabitants outside. They were not allowed to get dressed and no reasons were given for their intervention. According to her, the intruders wore insignia of the Russian army and spoke Russian without an accent.\n11.  According to the applicant, the inhabitants of the house were lined up in the courtyard facing the wall and their passports were collected. The servicemen read out the names in the passports one by one. One of the applicant’s brothers, Magomed, was not at home that night and the men asked about his whereabouts. The applicant’s father Salaudi (also spelled Salavdi) Zubayrayev replied that he was not at home. The intruders hit the applicant’s other brother, Khasan Zubayrayev (born in 1977), with a rifle butt on the head and led the applicant’s father away. They then forced the women into one of the rooms. In the meantime others opened all the rooms in the house and searched them. They collected valuables and family photographs.\n12.  Once the armed men had left, the women went outside and found Khasan in the courtyard. The body of the applicant’s father was found about 100- 200 metres from the house. He had been shot in the back of the head with an automatic rifle.\n13.  On the same night and in similar circumstances four other persons were killed in Starye Atagi: Musa Abubakarov (aged about 70), Zaur Demilkhanov (who was born in 1982), Vakha Elmurzayev (aged about 70) and Isa Elmurzayev (aged about 30).\n14.  The applicant submitted that on 18 September 2000 the Russian television news had announced that several persons, including the applicant’s father, had been killed the previous night in Starye Atagi by religious extremists – the “wahhabists”.\n15.  The Government submitted that in the early hours of 17 September 2000 a group of unidentified persons armed with automatic weapons had entered the village of Starye Atagi and murdered five men, all of whom had been shot with automatic weapons. The Government stressed that all the persons killed had been loyal to the federal authorities, and openly expressed their negative opinion of “wahhabists.” The Government also stressed that one of the persons ki", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3270", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is disabled and uses a prosthesis.\n8.  On 19 March 1999 the applicant become intoxicated in a bar and quarrelled with another customer (the “victim”). After leaving the establishment, he punctured the tires of the victim’s car with his knife. The victim and some of his friends chased the applicant, who tried to hide in a small shop. A scuffle ensued, which resulted in the applicant inflicting three stab wounds to the victim in the area of the neck.\n9.  Later on the same day, 19 March 1999, a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicant for attempted murder. He was charged on the next day.\n10.  The preliminary investigation concluded sometime in May 1999.\n11.  On an unspecified date, an indictment for attempted murder was entered against the applicant with the Plovdiv Regional Court.\n12.  In a judgment of 29 October 1999 the Plovdiv Regional Court found the applicant guilty of attempted murder, sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay damages to the victim. The court found that the applicant, who was drunk at the time of the events and could not remember everything, had not acted in self-defence when he stabbed the victim three times in the neck because there was insufficient evidence that a direct and imminent threat towards him existed at the time. The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n13.  In a judgment of 9 March 2000 the Plovdiv Court of Appeals dismissed the applicant’s appeal, but found that there were mitigating circumstances and reduced his sentence to four years’ imprisonment. On an unspecified date, the applicant filed a cassation appeal.\n14.  In a judgment of 23 July 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the second-instance court and remitted the case as it found that the Plovdiv Court of Appeals had insufficiently examined the applicant’s claim that he had acted in self defence.\n15.  In a judgment of an unspecified date, the Plovdiv Court of Appeals again dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance court’s judgment, allegedly on similar grounds to those contained in its judgment of 9 March 2000. The applicant did not to file a cassation appeal against the second judgment of the Plovdiv Court of Appeals.\n16.  The applicant was detained sometime on 19 March 1999 and was held overnight.\n17.  At 10.30 a.m. on 20 March 1999 the applicant was remanded in custody upon a decision of an investigator, which was confirmed later in the day by the public prosecutor’s office. The justification for detaining the applicant was:\n“Article 152 § 1 of [the Criminal Code] – a serious intentional offence has been committed”.\n18.  Subsequently, the applicant filed three unsuccessful appeals against his detention.\n19.  His first appeal was filed with the Plovdiv Regional Court on 29 March 1999. It was examined ten days later on 8 April 1999 when the court dismissed it on the grounds that he had been charged with a serious intentional offence and could obstruct the investigation, because it was still ongoing.\n20.  Following the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, the applicant filed another appeal against his detention on 4 June 1999 with the public prosecutor’s office. The applicant argued that there was no danger that he would abscond, re-offend or obstruct the investigation especially as the latter had already been concluded. In addition, he noted that he was finding the detention difficult because of his disability. The appeal was not pro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3271", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Hamelin.\n5.  In 1986 the applicant started to study food chemistry at the Braunschweig University. He obtained a certificate in mathematics in a re-examination in the second term. In his intermediate examination, accomplished in his 7th term of studies, he failed examinations in chemistry. A re-sit was scheduled for 12 October 1989.\n6.  On 11 October 1989 the applicant was attacked and robbed by two masked and armed men. He subsequently underwent psychological treatment for post-traumatic disorders.\n7.  On 19 December 1989 the applicant applied for compensation under the Victims Compensation Act (Opferentschädigungsgesetz, see “Relevant domestic law” below). On 8 August 1990 the Braunschweig Pension Office (Versorgungsamt) found that the applicant was suffering from “psychological reactive disturbances” (psychoreaktive Störungen) and that his earning capacity was reduced by 20% (Minderung der Erwerbsfähigkeit). It established that he did not qualify for a pension because the Victims Compensation Act only provided for a pension in cases where the earning capacity was reduced by at least 25%.\n8.  In September 1990, following his failure to pass a re-examination at the Braunschweig University, the applicant broke off his studies. He subsequently started and finished in July 1994 the study of food technology at the Lippe/Lemgo University of Applied Sciences.\n9. On 11 April 1992 the applicant requested the withdrawal of the decision of 8 August 1990 and the recognition that his earning capacity was reduced by more than 20%. A medical report was issued by Dr S. on 1 July 1992.\n10.  On 21 November 1992 the applicant asked for the proceedings to be suspended until he started to work again. On 6 May 1993 the applicant’s representative requested a review of the decision of 8 August 1990.\n11.  On 4 February 1994 the Pension Office Medical Service submitted a medical opinion.\n12.  On 15 July 1994 the Hildesheim Pension Office rejected the applicant’s request.\n13.  On 25 July 1994 the applicant lodged an administrative appeal against the decision. On 9 May 1995 the applicant was informed that, in the light of a fresh report, the Pension Office intended to set aside the decision of 8 August 1990. On 26 June 1995 the applicant’s representative asked for the percentage as regards the reduction of earning capacity to be increased.\n14.  On 18 September 1995 the Hildesheim Pension Office quashed the order of 8 August 1990.\n15.  On 26 February 1996 the Lower Saxony Regional Pension Office (Landesversorgungsamt) rejected the applicant’s administrative appeal.\n16.  On 6 March 1996 the applicant filed an action with the Hanover Social Court against the order of the Regional Pension Office and the order of the Hildesheim Pension Office dated 18 September 1995.\n17.  Upon request by the Hanover Social Court two further medical statements were rendered by Dr H. and a Dr K. on 7 June 1996 and 22 August 1996 respectively. On 26 September 1996 the Social Court appointed another expert, Dr M., to provide a new medical report. On 18 January 1997 he submitted his report.\n18.  Between April and December 1997 three further neurological statements were delivered by Dr B. on behalf of the defendant Land.\n19.  In his written submissions of 4 April 1997 the applicant suggested that a new medical report should be prepared. On 18 December 1997 the court asked the applicant to submit possible further written statements by the end ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3274", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 6 June 1990 two girls, who were mentally challenged, were raped in the town of Pazardzhik on several occasions in the course of the day.\n8.  A preliminary investigation was opened on the next day, 7 June 1990, against an unknown assailant. On 12 October 1990 the Pazardzhik District Prosecutor’s Office suspended the investigation as the victims could not assist in identifying the offenders or the places where the offences had taken place.\n9.  The preliminary investigation was resumed on 12 November 1990 against the applicant and another two individuals (the “co-accused”).\n10.  On 28 February 1994 the applicant was charged that, together with the co-accused, he had raped the two girls.\n11.  On an unspecified date another person was also charged that, together with the applicant and the co-accused, he had raped the two girls.\n12.  On 21 July 1994 an indictment for rape against the applicant and the co-accused was submitted to the Pazardzhik District Court, which was revised in 2003 following further investigation.\n13.  The Pazardzhik District Court conducted two hearings on 24 March and 23 April 2004, both of which were adjourned due to the defective summoning of some of the parties and the victims.\n14.  On an unspecified date the criminal proceedings were discontinued apparently because the time-limit for prosecution under the statute of limitations had expired.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3275", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Poznań.\n5.  The applicant was charged with forgery of the wills of several persons in order to inherit from them, acting in co-operation with others. On 18 January 2001 he was detained on remand.\n6.  On 23 April 2004 the Szamotuły District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to 8 year's imprisonment.\n7.  On 15 January 2005 the Poznań Regional Court quashed the judgment of the District Court on the ground of serious procedural shortcomings. The proceedings are pending. Apparently the applicant was released pending trial.\n8.  The applicant produced photocopies of several envelopes containing letters sent to him during his detention on remand (no sender was indicated on the photocopies submitted). The envelopes bear a stamp “censored on” (ocenzurowano dnia...), a handwritten date and an illegible signature:\n1) the envelope marked “censored on 25 April 2002”;\n2) the envelope marked “censored on 26 April 2002”, bearing also a stamp of the Szamotuły District Court Criminal Division;\n3) the envelope marked “censored on 14 May 2002”;\n4) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 27 May 2002, marked “censored on 14 June 2002”;.\n5) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 14 June 2002, marked “censored on 21 June 2002”;\n6) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 25 October 2002, “censored” on 4 December 2002;\n7) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 2 December 2002, marked “censored on 23 December 2002”;\n8) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 20 December 2002, “censored” on 3 January 2003;\n9) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 7 February 2003, marked “censored on 12 February 2003”;\n10) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 15 February 2003, marked “censored on 28 February 2003”;\n11) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 4 March 2003, marked “censored on 11 March 2003”;\n12) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 18 March 2003, marked “censored on 24 March 2003”;\n13) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 23 June 2003, marked “censored on 27 June 2003”;\n14) the envelope marked “censored on 8 July 2003”;\n15) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 31 July 2003, marked “censored on 5 August 2003”;\n16) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 4 August 2003, marked “censored on 8 August 2003”;\n17) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 24 September 2003, marked “censored on 6 October 2003”;\n18) the envelope marked “censored on 30 October 2003”;\n19) the envelope marked “censored on 23 December 2003”;\n20) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 12 February 2004, marked “censored on 16 February 2004”;\n21) the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored on 16 February 2004”;\n22) another envelope with an illegible post office stamp, marked “censored on 16 February 2004”;\n23) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 23 February 2004, “censored on 26 February 2004”;\n24) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 10 March 2004, “censored on 18 March 2004”;\n25) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 16 March 2004, marked “censored on 24 March 2004”;\n26) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 26 March 2004, marked “censored on 5 April 2004”;\n27) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 1 April 2004, marked “censored on 6 April 2004”;\n28) the envelope marked “censored on 28 April 2004”;\n9.  The following envelopes containing letters from the applicant's lawyer bear a stamp “censored on” (ocenzurowano dnia...), a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3276", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Komorowice.\n6.  In 1986 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand on a charge of stealing 4 tons of coal. The subsequent criminal proceedings against him ended in 1991, when he was finally acquitted.\n7.  On 22 January 1992 the applicant lodged with the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) an action for compensation for unlawful detention in 1986.\n8.  On 22 August 1994 the court held the first hearing, which was however adjourned.\n9.  At the second hearing held on 31 August 1995 the court dismissed the applicant's action.\n10.  On 7 September 1995 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision. However, the case file was transferred to the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) only on 21 May 1999.\n11.  On 14 July 1999 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.\n12.  August 1999 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n13.  On 6 February 2002 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed both judgments and remitted the case to the Regional Court.\n14.  The Wrocław Regional Court held the first hearing on 24 September 2002. Subsequently, on seven occasions, the composition of the court changed so the proceedings had to start from the beginning.\n15.  On 16 March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n16.  On 29 April 2005 the Wrocław Court of Appeal allowed the complaint and granted the applicant PLN 2,000 in compensation (approximately EUR 514). The court analysed the course of the impugned proceedings in the light of the criteria which the Court itself applies and concluded that the Regional Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay.\n17.  On 14 October 2005 the Wrocław Regional Court gave judgment. The court allowed the applicant's action and granted him PLN 27,000 in compensation for his unlawful detention in 1986. The applicant appealed.\n18.  On 19 April 2006 the Wrocław Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.\n19.  The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal and the judgment became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3277", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Ms Remka Kačapor (“the first applicant”), Ms Huljka Kačapor (“the second applicant”), Ms Aziza Elezović (“the third applicant”), Ms Senada Dolovac (“the fourth applicant”), Ms Šaha Rizović (“the fifth applicant”) and Ms Muška Crnovršanin (“the sixth applicant”) are all citizens of Serbia who were born in 1972, 1956, 1967, 1969, 1951 and 1950, respectively, and currently live in the Municipality of Novi Pazar.\n6.  Between 1993 and 2002 the applicants, at that time employed with a “socially-owned company” (društveno preduzeće; see paragraphs 71-76 below), Vojin Popović-Domaća radinost, were all “placed” by their employer on a “compulsory” paid leave scheme “until such time” when this company’s business performance could be “improved sufficiently”.\n7.  Whilst on leave, in accordance with the relevant domestic legislation, the applicants were entitled to a significantly reduced monthly income, as well as the payment by their employer of their pension, disability and other social security contributions.\n8.  By 11 November 2002 all applicants had been dismissed. At the same time, however, their employer apparently agreed to pay them 10,000 Dinars (“RSD”) each, as well as to cover their respective social security contributions in exchange for their undertaking not to seek their monthly paid leave benefits.\n9.  It would appear that the applicants’ employer honoured its former commitment but failed to fulfil the latter. The applicants, therefore, brought six separate civil claims before the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Novi Pazar.\n10.  On 16 April 2003 the Municipal Court in Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the Municipal Court”) ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered her former employer to pay her:\ni.  the monthly paid leave benefits (naknadu za vreme plaćenog odsustva) due from 1 May 1993 to 16 June 1996 and 25 June 1998 to 31 May 2001, indexed in accordance with the relevant domestic regulations, plus statutory interest; and\nii.  RSD 8,650 (approximately 140 euros [EUR]) for her legal costs; as well as\niii.  coverage of her pension and disability insurance contributions (doprinosi za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje) due for that period.\n11.  This judgment became final on 23 June 2003.\n12.  On 5 February 2004 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment, proposing that it be carried out by means of a bank transfer and the auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable and immovable assets.\n13. On 28 April 2004 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.\n14.  On 7 February 2005 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered her former employer to pay her:\ni.  the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 April 2000 to 11 November 2002 (RSD 59,672 in all - approximately EUR 745), plus statutory interest; and\nii.  RSD 20,250 (approximately EUR 252) for her legal costs.\n15.  This judgment became final on 10 March 2005.\n16.  On 9 May 2005 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment, proposing that it be carried out by means of a bank transfer and the auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable and immovable assets.\n17.  On 6 September 2005 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.\n18.  On 27 January 2005 and 26 May 2005 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered her former employer to pay her:\ni.  the monthly paid leave benefits due from 30 August 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3278", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, Mr Gheorghe Ceachir, who was born in 1931, and Mr Ion Ceachir, who was born in 1940, live in Chişinău and Bălţi, respectively.\n7.  In 1949 the applicants' parents were persecuted by the communist authorities. Their property was confiscated and they were exiled to Siberia.\n8.  In 1989 they were rehabilitated.\n9.  On 2 August 2002 the applicants brought an action against the Ministry of Finance (“the Ministry”), seeking compensation for the confiscation of their parents' property.\n10.  On 27 May 2003 the Râşcani District Court ruled in favour of the applicants and ordered the Ministry to pay each of them compensation in the amount of 150,500 Moldovan lei (MDL) (8,988 euros (EUR) at the time). It also issued an enforcement warrant. The Ministry appealed.\n11.  On 14 August 2003 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of 27 May 2003. The representative of the Ministry did not attend the hearing.\n12.  On 29 August 2003 the Ministry lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice an appeal on points of law, dated 28 August 2003.\n13.  Relying on Articles 437 and 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the “CCP”) (see Relevant domestic law below), on 15 September 2003 the Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Justice returned the Ministry's appeal on points of law on the ground that the latter had failed to pay court fees. He also informed the Ministry that it could lodge a renewed appeal on points of law after having remedied previous omissions and after having complied with other legal requirements.\n14.  On 1 October 2003 the bailiff of the Râşcani Judicial Decisions Enforcement Department received the enforcement warrant of 27 May 2003 and on 7 October 2003 he requested the Ministry to enforce it.\n15.  On 18 November 2003 the Ministry informed the bailiff that it had lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of 14 August 2003 and that it would comply with the enforcement warrant only after the examination of the appeal on points of law by the Supreme Court.\n16.  In the meantime, on 13 November 2003 the Ministry allegedly sent a letter to the Supreme Court of Justice and argued that according to the law “on the State duty” (privind taxa de stat) it was exempted from paying court fees during the examination of the appeal on points of law.\n17.  On 8 December 2003 the Ministry lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a new appeal on points of law against the judgment of 14 August 2003. Its content was identical to that of 29 August 2003 and bore the same date on which it had been drafted by the Ministry – 28 August 2003. The Ministry did not request the reinstatement of the running of the legal time-limit for lodging the new appeal on points of law, nor did it mention the issue of court fees.\n18.  On 20 May 2004 the applicants lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice their observations on the Ministry's appeal on points of law and argued, inter alia, that it had been lodged out of time.\n19.  On 26 May 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Ministry's appeal on points of law, quashed the judgments of 27 May and 14 August 2003 and ordered a retrial of the case by the Sângerei District Court. The Supreme Court specifically mentioned in its judgment that the Ministry had lodged the appeal on points of law on 8 December 2003.\n20.  On 4 October 2004 the Sângerei District Court partially upheld the applicants' action and ordered the Ministry to pay each of them compensation of MDL 36,250 (EU", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3279", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Cahul. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicant worked for a State-owned theatre in Cahul (Teatrul Republican Muzical-Dramatic 'B.P. Haşdeu', “the employer”).\n7.  On 22 October 1996 she was dismissed and initiated court proceedings to have that dismissal annulled. On 5 February 1997 the Cahul District Court ordered her re-instatement. Following the employer's refusal to abide by the court order, she complained to the Ministry of Culture (“the Ministry”) on 6 February 1997. On 20 March1997 the Ministry assured her that the employer would abide by the judgment, failing which it would take action.\n8.  The applicant was re-instated on 31 March 1997. Notwithstanding that fact, another person continued to be mentioned in the staff lists as chief accountant. On 3 June 1997 the Regional Court quashed the lower court's judgment. It delivered its reasoned decision six months later.\n9.  On 3 June 1997 the applicant was again dismissed from her job. She continued to complain to various authorities, including the Ministry. On 26 August 1998 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the Regional Court's judgment of 3 June 1997 and upheld the judgment of 5 February 1997. On 15 September 1998 the order of 3 June 1997 dismissing the applicant was annulled; at the same time she was again dismissed.\n10.  The Prosecutor's Office initiated court proceedings in the applicant's interest, seeking the annulment of the dismissal order of 15 September 1998. On 16 September 1998 the Deputy President of the Cahul District Court informed the regional prosecutor about the employer's persistent resistance and the resulting failure to properly enforce the judgment of 5 February 1997. Moreover, the prosecutor was informed of the applicant's further dismissal on 15 September 1998. In the light of these events, the court requested the prosecutor to open a criminal investigation against the employer's director.\n11.  The applicant continued to complain about the incomplete enforcement of the judgment of 5 February 1997. On 13 January 1999 she was informed by the Cahul District Court of an administrative fine imposed on the theatre director on 16 September 1998, and of the request to open a criminal investigation against him. The employer submitted to the court another order, dated 26 March 1999, annulling the applicant's dismissal of 15 September 1998. On 6 April 1999 a bailiff confirmed that the applicant had not been de facto re-instated in the specific prior position. On 26 May 1999 the President of the Cahul District Court requested the prosecutor to open a criminal investigation against the theatre director for failure to enforce the judgment of 5 February 1997.\n12.  On 17 July 1999 the applicant was dismissed from the post of superior accountant. On the same date the court informed the Ministry of the employer's persistent refusal to enforce the judgment of 5 February 1997. On an unknown date the employer presented a new order, dated 2 April 1999, in accordance with which the position of “chief accountant” no longer existed. On 27 July 1999 the court again asked the prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings against the theatre director. It also informed the Ministry of the employer's failure to enforce the court judgment in the applicant's favour in a proper manner. The Ministry drew the employer's attention to the need to abide by the judgment.\n13.  On 8 December 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3280", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Ząbki.\n5.  In 2001 the police conducted an operation to disband several organised criminal gangs that were acting in and around Warsaw, stealing luxury cars with a view to selling them in the countries of the former Soviet Union. There were about five such groups, cooperating closely with each other and closely connected with Poland's most dangerous armed criminal groups: the Pruszków mafia and the Wołomin mafia.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on 18 December 2001 on suspicion of thefts, robberies committed with extreme brutality and membership of a criminal gang. He was remanded in custody by the decision of the Warsaw District Court of 20 December 2001.\n7.  At that time the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor was conducting an investigation in respect of more than fifty other members of the criminal gangs mentioned above. Forty-two of them were held in custody. The investigation was complex and time-consuming, given that the criminal gangs collaborated closely with many persons who were to be questioned by the prosecutors, for example, receivers of stolen goods, persons hiding stolen cars or persons tracking cars which were to be stolen, among others.\n8.  In addition, the prosecutor opened an investigation in respect of several police officers from Warsaw and surrounding towns on charges of corruption and helping the criminal groups' members to evade the law.\n9.  On 5 December 2002 a bill of indictment against the applicant and fifty-nine other co-accused (members of five cooperating criminal gangs) was lodged with the Warsaw District Court. The evidentiary material was presented in 99 case files. The applicant was charged with membership of a criminal gang, carrying out multiple robberies and thefts committed with extreme brutality. The criminal gang, of which the applicant was a member, was known for its violence and ruthlessness and for the illegal trafficking of firearms.\n10.  On 6 January 2003 the Warsaw District Court held the first hearing. The following hearings were held by the District Court:\nIn 2003, on: 23 and 30 May; 23 and 24 June; 1, 4, 7, and 8 July; 13, 18, 22, and 25 August; 5, 12, 15, and 19 September; 10, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 31 October; 17 November; 5, 22, and 23 December 2003;\nIn 2004, on: 5 and 26 January; 16, 17, 19, and 20 February; 8 and 9 March; 1 and 9 April; 14, 18, 21, and 25 May; 3, 7, 14, and 23 June; 5 July;10, 25, and 31 August; 3 and 6 September; 7, 8, and 15 October; 2 and 9 November; 7, 8, 10, 13, and 18 December 2004. In total, sixty hearings were held by the District Court.\n11.  During the trial the District Court examined a wide range of evidentiary material, ordered medical expert opinions on the accuseds' mental health and expert opinions in the field of dactyloscopy, conducted inquiries in the accuseds' respective neighbourhoods, inspections of the crime scenes and garages where the stolen cars had been hidden and assessments of the accuseds' assets. The proceedings involved taking evidence from a considerable number of witnesses and victims and from one key witness.\n12.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was prolonged several times by the District Court. The decisions were issued, inter alia, on 15 March, 17 June, 13 December 2002; 23 May, 25 August, 17 November, 5 December, 15 December 2003; 20 February, 7 June, 6 September, 9 November, 18 December 2004; 16 March, 15 July, 30 September, 14 November 2005; 13 February, 8 May and 2 August 2006. In its dec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3281", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Rawicz.\n6.  On 28 April 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted robbery and threats to kill, committed in an organised criminal group carrying out robberies, extorting money by threats and drug trafficking.\n7.  On 23 May 1995 the Poznań District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. The subsequent decisions of the court of 27 May and 26 June 1995 further extending his detention (by the latter until 27 July 1995) were based on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and on the severity of the likely sentence. It was also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence or induce witnesses to give false testimony.\n8.  The applicant was released from a detention centre on 25 July 1995 by the Poznań District Court's decision and assigned a probation officer with the obligation to report to the latter on a weekly basis. He failed however to do so. Following his release he went into hiding and the criminal investigation against him had to be suspended. Subsequently an arrest warrant was issued by the authorities.\n9.  On 15 January 1999 the applicant was again arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and of leading a criminal group organised along military lines. Subsequently the criminal investigation was reopened and conducted jointly with the proceedings concerning offences allegedly committed by the applicant after his release in 1995.\n10.  By a decision of the Poznań District Court of 17 January 1999 he was detained on remand.\n11.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged on several occasions by the Poznań Regional Court's decisions of 5 May, 13 July, 20 December 1999, 12 July, 12 August 2000 and 9 July 2001, and by the Poznań Court of Appeal's decisions of 10 October 2000 and 4 October 2001. In all the afore-said decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. They attached importance to the grave nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of a very complicated investigation, especially the need to verify evidence from suspects and witnesses and to obtain fresh evidence from experts, justified holding him in custody. The courts further stressed that there was a serious risk of the applicant going into hiding, in particular having regard to the fact that he had been sought pursuant to a wanted notice before his arrest.\n12.  The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against all these decisions, arguing that the charges against him were based on unreliable and contradictory evidence.\n13.  He further requested to have the preventive measure replaced by a more lenient one, but his motions were dismissed on 6 April 1999 by the Poznań Regional Prosecutor and on 13 October 1999 and 8 January 2001 by the Poznań Regional Court.\n14.  On 9 July 1999 the Poznań Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Poznań Regional Court. The applicant was charged with leading an organised criminal group involved in drug trafficking, extortion of money, armed robberie", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3282", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Będzin.\n6.  On 30 October 2000 the applicant was arrested by the customs authorities in Malmö after 5 kilograms of heroin had been found in her car. On 10 April 2001 the Malmö District Court convicted the applicant of drug-trafficking and sentenced her to 20 months' imprisonment. On 5 January 2002 she was released from a prison in Sweden.\n7.  On 15 December 2000 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor instituted an investigation concerning drug-trafficking from Poland to Sweden by the applicant and other persons, acting in connection with a request for legal assistance submitted by the Swedish and Norwegian prosecution authorities.\n8.  On 16 October 2002 the applicant was arrested in Katowice. On the following day the Katowice Regional Prosecutor served on her the statement of charges. The applicant was charged with supplying significant amounts of heroin to the market between February 2000 and October 2000 in Poland, Czech Republic, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. She was also charged with acting in an organised criminal group of drug traffickers. During her questioning by the prosecutor, she confessed that she had attempted to smuggle heroin to Sweden and responded to all questions put by the prosecutor.\n9.  On 18 October 2002 the Katowice District Court remanded the applicant in custody until 16 January 2003 on reasonable suspicion that she had committed the offences referred to above. It held that there was a risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings by influencing witnesses since she had not confessed. The court also took into account that the applicant had been charged with acting in an organised criminal gang and had regard to the severity of the anticipated penalty.\n10.  On 8 January 2003 the Katowice District Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 31 March 2003. It found that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence, having regard to the number of suspects involved. It also relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty, given the organised character of the criminal activities, their scale and the amount of drugs involved. Lastly, it referred to the need to continue the process of gathering evidence.\n11.  In her appeal the applicant submitted that her continued detention was not necessary to secure the proper conduct of the investigation. She argued that she had already given evidence and that she had had no contacts with the witnesses or other suspects, so the risk of tampering with evidence did not exist in her case. Her appeal was dismissed on 5 February 2003.\n12.  On 19 March 2003 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor lodged with the Katowice District Court a motion for the prolongation of the applicant's detention until 30 June 2003.\n13.  On 25 March 2003 the Katowice District Court notified the applicant's counsel of the hearing scheduled for 26 March 2003 at which the prosecution's motion would be examined.\n14.  On 26 March 2003 the Katowice District Court held a hearing (posiedzenie) on the prolongation of the applicant's detention.\n15.  According to the Government, before the hearing had begun the applicant's counsel consulted the prosecution's motion without authorisation from the judge.\n16.  During the hearing the applicant's counsel applied for access to the investigation file. The Regional Prosecutor stated that his motion for prolongation of the detention constituted an integral part of the file", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3283", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Rzeszów.\n6.  The applicant read law from 1981 to 1986. Subsequently, he did his four-year advocate training and in 1992 he began to practise as an advocate.\n7.  The applicant submits that from 1984 onwards he had often gone abroad to visit his family and to work.\n8.  On one occasion, after his return from abroad, the applicant met with his old colleague, W.C., who had offered his help in connection with a letter which had allegedly arrived from abroad and could have caused problems for the applicant. The applicant was not aware that W.C., who claimed to be working as a teacher, was in fact an officer of the Security Service (Służba Bezpieczeństwa).\n9.  In spring 1987 the applicant became aware of that fact. He then threw W.C. out of his flat and cut off all contacts with him. There were three witnesses to that event, T.L., B.M. and M.S.\n10.  On 11 April 1997 the parliament passed the Law on disclosing work for or service in the State's security services or collaboration with them between 1944 and 1990 by persons exercising public functions (ustawa o ujawnieniu pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z nimi w latach 1944-1990 osób pełniących funkcje publiczne) (the “1997 Lustration Act”). Persons falling under the provisions of the Lustration Act, i.e. candidates or holders of public office such as ministers and members of parliament, were required to declare whether or not they had worked for or collaborated with the security services during the communist regime. The provisions of the Act extended to, inter alia, judges, prosecutors and advocates.\n11.  Following the entry into force of the 1997 Lustration Act the applicant declared that he had not been an intentional and secret collaborator of the communist-era security services.\n12.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the Commissioner of Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) applied to the Warsaw Court of Appeal to institute proceedings in the applicant's case on the grounds that he had lied in his lustration declaration by denying his collaboration with the security services. The Commissioner heard W.C. as a witness.\n13.  On 30 May 2000 the Warsaw Court of Appeal instituted lustration proceedings in the applicant's case. On 5 June 2000 the applicant was informed that the lustration proceedings had been instituted and that he could consult the case file in the court.\n14.  On 8 May 2001 the court held a hearing partly in camera. It examined some archived classified documents.\n15.  On 16 June 2001 the court held a hearing partly in camera at which it examined the applicant's personal record (teczka osobowa). The applicant stated that he would not make any statements and would not answer any questions put to him by the court. He requested the court to call W.C. and M.R. as witnesses.\n16.  The court held hearings in camera on 27 June, 25 September and 25 October 2001. Witness W.C. summoned by the court failed to appear.\n17.  On 25 October 2001 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first-instance lustration court, found that the applicant had been an intentional and secret collaborator with the Security Service and had therefore lied in his lustration declaration. The operative part of the judgment was served on the applicant on 20 December 2001. At the same time, the reasoning was considered “top secret” and, in accordance with Article 100 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could only be consulted in th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3284", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Baku.\n6.  The applicant was one of the founders of an association named “Humanity and Environment” (“İnsan və Mühit” İctimai Birliyi), established on 6 September 1999.\n7.  On 30 September 1999 the founders applied to register the association with the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”), the government authority responsible for the state registration of legal entities. In accordance with the domestic law, a non-governmental organisation acquires the status of a legal entity only upon its state registration by the Ministry.\n8.  On 11 February 2000, approximately four and a half months after the date of application for registration, the Ministry returned the registration documents to the founders without taking any action, that is without issuing either a state registration certificate or an official refusal to register the association. The Ministry noted that the association's charter did not comply with Article 1 of the Law on Public Associations of 10 November 1992.\n9.  The founders redrafted the charter in line with the Ministry's comments and on 24 July 2000 reapplied for state registration, submitting a new version of the charter. On 28 December 2000 the Ministry responded with another refusal, stating that the charter provisions concerning the association's members were not in compliance with Article 10 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations (Public Associations and Funds) of 13 June 2000 (“the NGO Law”).\n10.  The applicants again revised the charter and on 28 August 2002 submitted their third registration request.\n11.  Having not received any response to their third registration request, on 25 October 2002 the founders lodged an action, complaining that the Ministry “evaded” registering their organisation within the time-limits specified by law and asking the court to oblige the Ministry to register it. They also demanded compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 2 December 2002 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the founders' claim, finding nothing unlawful in the actions of the Ministry. The court found that the association's charter had not been drafted in accordance with the requirements of the domestic law. The founders lodged an appeal against this judgment with the Court of Appeal.\n12.  In the meantime, on 6 December 2002 the Ministry again returned the registration documents to the founders. This time the reason for declining the registration was the founders' failure to include in the charter the conditions for terminating membership of the association, as required by Article 13 of the NGO Law.\n13.  On 22 May 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Yasamal District Court. On 5 November 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' judgments dismissing the founders' claim.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3285", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  Mr Atanasov (“the first applicant”) was born in 1957 and lives in Pazardzhik. He is the son-in-law of Mr Ovcharov (“the second applicant”) who was born in 1936 and lives in Aleko Konstantinovo.\n7.  Between 1993 and 1994 the second applicant was the head of a farm cooperative.\n8.  On 12 August 1993 the farm cooperative, represented by the second applicant, acquired a tractor (“the first tractor”) at an auction organised by another cooperative.\n9.  On 31 August 1993 the first applicant acquired a similar, cheaper tractor (“the second tractor”) at a second auction organised by the same cooperative. Immediately after the auction the first applicant, assisted by the second applicant, took possession of a tractor. However, they apparently took the first tractor.\n10.  The farm cooperative took possession of the second tractor on 6 September 1993.\n11.  On 15 November 1993 an invoice was issued to the first applicant for the purchase of the second tractor. Subsequently, the first applicant requested the seller to reissue the sales invoice so that it indicated that he had in fact acquired the first tractor.\n12.  Sometime around 11 February 1994 the farm cooperative discovered that it had a different tractor from the one it had purchased. Soon thereafter it complained to the authorities of the alleged fraud perpetrated by the applicants.\n13.  On 16 May 1994 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicants.\n14.  On 29 March 1996 the applicants were charged with fraud and malfeasance. The charges against the first applicant were amended on 28 February 1997 to include the offence of using a falsified document to obtain another's chattel with the aim of misappropriating it.\n15.  On 7 April 1997 the Pazardzhik district prosecutor's office entered an indictment against the applicants with the Pazardzhik District Court for malfeasance fraud and use of a falsified document.\n16.  Between 2 June 1997 and 18 February 2000 the District Court conducted ten hearings. During this period the judge in charge of the proceedings was changed on three occasions for undisclosed reasons. At the hearing on 18 February 2000 the District Court established that there had been procedural violations at the stage of the preliminary investigation, discontinued the proceedings and remitted the case to the investigation authorities.\n17.  The preliminary investigation against the applicants continued and there were no significant developments until 2004.\n18.  On 29 June and 20 July 2004 the applicants filed separate requests with the Pazardzhik Regional Court under the procedure envisaged in the new Article 239a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 34 below) and petitioned the court to order the termination of the preliminary investigation against them.\n19.  In decisions of 12 July and 22 July 2004 the Regional Court referred the case to the Pazardzhik regional prosecutor's office either to discontinue the preliminary investigation or to enter indictments against the applicants. In its decision of 12 July 2004 the court established that no investigative procedures whatsoever had been undertaken since 18 February 2000, when the District Court had remitted the case to the investigation authorities.\n20.  Following a delay by the prosecutor's office to rule on the matter, the applicants lodged their requests again on 19 October 2004.\n21.  In a decision of 28 October 2004 the regional prosecutor's office discontinued the preliminary investigation against th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3286", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and is presently serving a prison sentence in Lepogalva State Prison.\n5.  Following the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant, he was apprehended on 31 July 2001 and placed in pre-trial detention in Zagreb County Prison (Okružni zatvor Zagreb), where he had stayed until 24 February 2003. After that date, having being convicted of murder, attempted murder, forgery and robbery, he was sent to serve the remainder of his sentence of thirty years and six months' imprisonment in Lepoglava State Prison.\n6.  According to medical documentation submitted by the parties, the applicant suffers from kidney stones, varicose veins, liver damage and a number of spinal ailments such as scoliosis (curvature of the spine), lordosis (inward curve of the lower back), discopathy (cervical disc injury) and discarthrosis (structural and functional failure of the discal joint).\n7.  The applicant's medical record, kept in Lepoglava State Prison, and additional medical documentation submitted by the parties provides the following information:\n8.  A copy of a medical report drafted at Zagreb Prison Hospital on 24 January 2002 specifies that the applicant was suffering from one stone in his right ureter (ureters are ducts that carry urine from the kidneys to the urinary bladder) measuring about 3-4 millimetres, and two stones in his left kidney, each measuring about 1.5 centimetres. It was recommended that the applicant be given painkillers and be seen by a urologist.\n9.  After being incarcerated in Lepoglava State Prison the applicant was seen by a prison doctor for his kidney and spinal ailments on five occasions during the period from 28 February to 28 May 2003. The applicant was regularly given urological tea for his kidney ailment and, in addition, on each occasion he was given various spasmolytics to prevent or relieve spasms. For the pain associated with his spinal ailments, the applicant was prescribed painkillers, including two different types of soothing gels. On 28 May 2003 the applicant was seen by a urologist in Varaždin, who found a stone in the applicant's left kidney and recommended his hospitalisation.\n10.  From 29 May to 4 July 2003 the applicant was hospitalised in Zagreb Prison Hospital, where a medical report was drafted, specifying that the applicant was suffering from three stones in his left kidney, measuring 1 centimetre each. It was recommended that surgery be carried out. The report notes that the applicant had been put on the waiting list of the Rebro Hospital in Zagreb and that the exact date of the operation was yet to be determined.\n11.  From his return to Lepoglava State Prison in July 2003 until 26 September 2005 the applicant was seen by the prison doctor on sixty-five occasions; on twenty of these he was given spasmolytics for the pain associated with his kidney ailment. He was also regularly given urological tea as well as painkillers for his spinal ailment.\n12.  The applicant was again hospitalised in Zagreb Prison Hospital from 26 to 30 September 2005. A medical report of 30 September 2005 specifies that the kidney stones from which the applicant was suffering required surgery, although not urgently, as they could not be treated by ultrasound waves (lithotripsy).\n13.  From his return to the prison until 31 March 2006 the applicant was seen by the prison doctor on twenty-nine occasions. Within that period he was given spasmolitycs for the pain associated with his kidney ailm", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3287", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants live in Kostyantynivka, in the Donetsk region.\n5.  On various dates between 1997 and 2002 (see appendix for details) the first to fifteenth applicants received final rulings (court judgments, labour commission's decisions) awarding salary arrears and other compensation against the State-owned factory “Avtosklo” (Виробниче об'єднання завод „Автоскло”) and instituted enforcement proceedings to recover the debts.\n6.  On 22 August 2000 a new State-owned company, the “Tehkbudsklo” (Державне підприємство „Технобудскло”), was created in the course of the “Avtosklo” factory restructuring.\n7.  On various dates in 2002 (see appendix for details) the fifteenth to the twentieth applicants received final court judgments awarding salary arrears and other compensation against the “Tekhbudsklo” company and instituted enforcement proceedings to collect the debts.\n8.  On various dates the bailiffs informed the applicants that the collection of the debts in their favour was impeded by the companies' lack of funds and the statutory moratorium on forced sale of the State property.\n9.  On 18 February 2002 and 1 November 2005 the Donetsk Commercial Court (Господарський суд Донецької області) declared bankrupt the “Avtosklo” and the “Tekhbudsklo” companies respectively and ordered their liquidation.\n10.  On 19 April and 1 November 2005 the enforcement proceedings concerning “Avtosklo's” and “Tekhbudsklo's” debts respectively were terminated on account of the initiation of the companies' liquidation.\n11.  The labour commission's decisions and the court judgments given in the applicants' favour remain unenforced to the present date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3288", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first three applicants were born in 1934, 1943 and 1952 respectively, and the fifth, sixth and seventh applicants were born in 1962, 1974 and 1976 respectively. The date of birth of the fourth applicant is unknown. The applicants live in the village of Arshty in the Sunzhenskiy District of the Republic of Ingushetia. This district borders on the Chechen Republic.\n8.  The facts of the case as submitted by the parties are summarised in section A below (paragraphs 9-60). A description of the documents submitted by the Government is contained in section B below (paragraphs 61-104).\n9.  The first applicant is the mother of Khalid Khatsiyev, born in 1969, and of the third and fourth applicants. The second applicant is the mother of Kazbek Akiyev, born in 1970, and of the fifth and sixth applicants. The seventh applicant was married to Kazbek Akiyev.\n10.  Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev were married and had two and four children respectively. At the material time both men lived in Moscow and went to Arshty in August 2000 to help their families with seasonal agricultural work.\n11.  The facts surrounding the death of the applicants’ two relatives are disputed by the parties.\n(a)  The applicants’ version\n12.  The applicants did not witness the events described below and the following account is based on eyewitness statements submitted by them.\n13.  In August 2000 the residents of Arshty were cutting grass. The work was done collectively by all villagers in small groups of five to six people.\n14.  On 6 August 2000 about a hundred people divided into small groups were working in the surrounding hills. One of the groups was formed by Khalid Khatsiyev, Kazbek Akiyev, their cousin Ilyas Akiyev, and three men who had come to Arshty as internally displaced persons from Chechnya – Baymurza Aldiyev, Aslambek Imagamayev, and Aslambek Dishniyev.\n15.  Aslambek Imagamayev stated that while working they had seen several helicopters bombing a forest area near the village of Bamut in Chechnya, about ten kilometres away from them.\n16.  Around 1.00 or 1.30 p.m. the group in which the applicants’ relatives were working had decided to go home for lunch, when two military helicopters appeared from the direction of Bamut and started circling low above the field. Aslambek Imagamayev identified them as MI-24s. One of the helicopters fired a burst from an aircraft machine-gun at a spot situated 40-50 metres from the men. They were scared and, throwing down their scythes, ran to a white Niva car and drove down the hill in the direction of Arshty. Baymurza Aldiyev and Aslambek Imagamayev claimed that the helicopters had flown away but then reappeared and the men saw them right above the car, hovering at low altitude. They stopped the vehicle and ran for cover in different directions.\n17.  The helicopters launched non-guided missiles and strafed the Niva car with aircraft machine-guns with the result that its back tyres were flattened. They then chased the men. One of the helicopters fired a missile at the place where Khalid Khatsiyev and Kazbek Akiyev were hiding. They were both killed and Ilias Akiyev, who was nearby, was wounded by shrapnel in his leg.\n18.  Aslambek Imagamayev stated that he had run through the forest to tell the villagers what had happened. He stated that he had heard the helicopters shooting for some time. Baymurza Aldiyev testified that he had run towards the river and had hidden there in a bush. He estimated that the attack on the Niva car", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3289", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  All 184 applicants (see Annex) reside in Ukraine.\n5.  Between 1997 and 2004 the applicants or their relatives (except Mrs Y. V. Naumets) instituted separate sets of proceedings in the local domestic courts, seeking the recovery of salary arrears and other payments from the State-owned company “Atomspetsbud” (Державна будівельно-промислова компанія «Атомспецбуд»), which carried out construction work at Chernobyl within the zone that had been compulsorily evacuated. The courts found for the litigants and awarded them the amounts claimed; nevertheless, the judgments remained unenforced in full or in major part (see Annex).\n6.  By an order of the Ministry of Energy dated 27 June 2002, the debtor company was liquidated and a liquidation commission established. As a result, the State Bailiffs' Service terminated the existing enforcement proceedings and all the writs of enforcement were forwarded to the liquidation commission as creditors' claims. The commission also recognised other debts owed to some of the applicants as creditor's claims[1].\n7.  Furthermore, some of the applicants inherited the judgment awards against the debtor company (see Annex).\n8.  The company's liquidation proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3290", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region.\n6.  The applicant is a Chernobyl pensioner. She sued the Welfare Office for the unpaid allowances.\n7.  On 15 July 2003 the Novovoronezhskyy Town Court of the Voronezh Region (“the Town Court”) awarded her the unpaid disability allowance over the period between 1 July 2002 and 31 July 2003 in the amount of 22,109.75 Russian roubles (RUB). The judgment entered into force on 25 July 2003. It was enforced in full on 9 June 2005.\n8.  By a judgment of 15 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant the unpaid food and disability allowances over the period between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2003 in the amount of RUB 4,329.72 and RUB 643.85 respectively. The judgment acquired legal force on 25 March 2004. It appears that it has not been enforced to date.\n9.  On 15 March 2004 the Town Court recovered in the applicant's favour the unpaid disability allowance over the period between 1 August 2003 and 31 December 2003 in the amount of RUB 13,971.50. The judgment became final on 25 March 2004. It was fully enforced on 3 August 2005.\n10.  By a judgment of 6 May 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant the unpaid disability allowance over the period between 1 January 2004 and 31 March 2004 in the amount of RUB 9,494.54. The court also increased the monthly disability allowance to RUB 5,664.85 as of 1 April 2004 and held that it had to be index-linked in accordance with legislation. On 17 May 2004 the judgment acquired legal force. On 10 June 2004 the Welfare Office ordered to increase the applicant's monthly disability allowance to RUB 5,664.85. On 11 November 2005 the applicant received RUB 9,949.54.\n11.  On 9 September 2004 the Town Court recovered in the applicant's favour the unpaid food allowance over the period between 1 January 2004 and 31 March 2004 in the amount of RUB 1,139.34 and the unpaid annual disability allowance for 2004 in the amount of RUB 1,132.96. The court also increased the applicant's monthly food allowance to RUB 679.78 as of 1 April 2004 and ordered to index-link it in accordance with legislation. The court further held that as of 2005 the Welfare Office was to pay the applicant an annual disability allowance and to index-link it in accordance with legislation. The judgment entered into force on 20 September 2004. It appears that it has not been enforced to date.\n12.  On 29 September 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 12,659.40 for the unpaid disability allowance over the period between 1 April 2004 and 31 July 2004. On 11 October 2004 the judgment acquired legal force. It was fully enforced on 11 November 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3291", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 in Dashkesan, Azerbaijan, and currently lives in Russia.\n6.  The applicant was a unit commander in the Azerbaijani Army. On 7 October 1994 he was arrested in Ganja, Azerbaijan, due to his alleged participation in the coup d'Etat organised by S. Huseynov.\n7.  On 31 July 1996 the Supreme Court, sitting as a court of first instance for especially serious crimes, convicted the applicant for high treason, use of armed forces against the citizens and constitutional government authorities, creation of illegal armed units, and illegal possession of weapons. He was sentenced to thirteen years' imprisonment and confiscation of property. This judgment was final and not subject to appeal under the rules of criminal procedure applicable at that time.\n8.  Upon Azerbaijan's admission to the Council of Europe, the applicant's name was included in the lists of the “alleged political prisoners in Azerbaijan” submitted to the experts of the Secretary General.\n9.  Pursuant to a presidential pardon decree of 18 October 2002, the applicant's sentence was reduced by half.\n10.  Pursuant to another presidential pardon decree of 28 August 2003, the applicant was released from serving the remainder of his sentence. As the applicant was no longer imprisoned, no final opinion was adopted by the experts of the Secretary General on whether he could be considered as a political prisoner.\n11.  In 2000 a new Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) and new Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan were adopted. Before the new CCrP's entry into force on 1 September 2000, on 14 July 2000 Parliament passed a transitional law allowing the lodging of an appeal under the new CCrP against the final judgments delivered in accordance with the old criminal procedure rules (“the Transitional Law”).\n12.  On 11 August 2004 the applicant, using the opportunity granted to him by the Transitional Law, filed a cassation appeal against the judgment of 31 July 1996 with the Supreme Court. On 17 August 2004 the Supreme Court refused to accept the appeal due to the applicant's failure to enclose a copy of the challenged judgment.\n13.  On 4 October 2004 the applicant again filed the cassation appeal, which was registered by the Supreme Court on 6 October 2004. In his appeal he noted that, although he had been pardoned and released from imprisonment, his conviction for high treason remained intact. He argued that his trial by the first-instance court had been unfair. He also argued that, under the new Criminal Code the actions for which he had been convicted could not be qualified as “high treason”. He asked the court to quash the judgment of 31 July 1996.\n14.  According to the Government, on 15 October 2004 the Supreme Court “informed the applicant that the appeal hearings concerning his case would be held on 7 December 2004”. According to the applicant, he did not receive any such summons and, in general, did not receive any information concerning his case for several months.\n15.  On 27 January 2005 the applicant wrote a letter to the Supreme Court inquiring about the status of the proceedings. He also requested to add an issue concerning the confiscation of property to his appeal. In reply, by a letter dated 15 February 2005, the Head of the Registry of the Supreme Court informed the applicant that the court had not received from him any documents in this respect.\n16.  On 5 April 2005 the applicant was sent a copy of the Supreme Court decision concerning", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3292", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Togliatti, Samara Region.\n6.  In May 1999 the applicant was injured in a road accident; in particular, his arm was broken. Immediately after the accident he was taken to hospital, where he was given first aid. Several days later his arm was amputated.\n7.  In October 1999 the applicant brought proceedings for damages against the hospital before the Nikolaevskiy District Court of the Ulyanovsk Region. He claimed that the hospital’s medical staff had failed to provide him with appropriate medical care and that their negligence had led to the loss of his arm.\n8.  On 2 April 2001 the court examined the case in a public hearing at which the applicant, his representative and the defendant were present. It heard the parties and witnesses and examined other evidence.\n9.  At the close of the hearing the court read out the following operative part of the judgment:\n“On 2 April 2001 the Nikolayevskiy District Court, composed of ..., having examined in an open court session a civil case which originated in an application by Biryukov Ryakib Ismailovich against the Nikolaevskaya [Hospital] for compensation for bodily harm, on the basis of Article 1064 of [the Civil Code of the Russian Federation] and being governed by Articles 14, 50, 191, 194-97 of [the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic],\ndecided:\nTo reject the claims by Biryukov Ryakib Ismailovich against the Nikolaevskaya Central District Hospital of the Ulyanovsk Region for compensation for bodily harm.\nAn appeal or a protest against the judgment to the Ulyanovsk Regional Court can be lodged with the Nikolayevskiy District Court within ten days.”\n10.  A copy of the reasoned judgment was served on the applicant on 6 April 2001. It stated that, according to Article 1064 of the Civil Code, harm inflicted on the person or property of an individual is to be reimbursed in full by the person who inflicted the harm. After a description of the evidence examined by the court, the judgment contained the court’s finding that there had been no malpractice on the part of the hospital staff and no causal link between the treatment and the amputation of the applicant’s arm. For those reasons the applicant’s claims were rejected.\n11.  The applicant appealed, inter alia, on the grounds that the district court had not read out the full text of the judgment at the hearing.\n12.  On 3 July 2001 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court examined the case on appeal at a public hearing. Having heard the parties, it dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment. It noted that by reading out the operative provisions of the judgment at the hearing and providing the applicant with a copy of the reasoned judgment within the established time‑limit the district court had fully complied with the Code of Civil Procedure, notably Article 203.\n13.  According to the Government, the Regional Court read out the operative provisions of its decision at the hearing in the applicant’s presence and later served a copy of its reasoned decision on the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3293", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1949.\n7.  The applicant lived with her family in an apartment in Baku. On 18 November 1999 her apartment was damaged by fire caused by the occupants of the neighbouring apartment. The neighbouring apartment was owned by A., a police officer. According to the applicant, her apartment became unfit to live in and she and her family had to move out and find temporary accommodation.\n8.  On 15 January 2001 the applicant brought an action against A., seeking monetary compensation of an amount equivalent to 10,000 US dollars for damage caused to her apartment. The Sabunchu District Court instituted civil proceedings.\n9.  It appears that for several years after this the Sabunchu District Court fixed dates for several hearings, all of which were postponed either due to the defendant’s failure to appear or for other unspecified reasons.\n10.  On 12 August and 29 September 2003 the applicant sent two similar letters to the President of the Sabunchu District Court, complaining of the court’s failure to conduct the proceedings in a timely manner.\n11.  On 23 June 2004 and 15 December 2004 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice and the Ombudsman about the Sabunchu District Court’s failure to examine her case.\n12.  On 16 February 2005 she wrote a letter addressed to the President, Chief Prosecutor, President of the Supreme Court, President of the Court of Appeal, Chairman of the Milli Majlis and other authorities, complaining about the length of proceedings in the first-instance court.\n13.  It is unclear whether the applicant received any replies to her letters.\n14.  In the meantime, on an unspecified date in August 2004 the Sabunchu District Court sought an expert opinion on the damage caused to the applicant’s apartment by the fire. On 27 August 2004 the expert issued an opinion, according to which the damage was estimated at 2,537,000 Azerbaijani manats (AZM).\n15.  On 31 January 2005 the Sabunchu District Court held a hearing and delivered its judgment, partially upholding the applicant’s claim and awarding her AZM 2,637,000. This amount included compensation for damage of the amount estimated by the expert, as well as compensation for court fees paid by the applicant. According to the applicant, she received the full text of the judgment on 31 May 2005.\n16.  The applicant lodged an appeal, claiming that the amount awarded was too low and did not reflect the actual damage caused. On 13 July 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. Following an appeal in cassation by the applicant, on 6 October 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3294", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1930 and 1922, respectively, and have been living in Oslo, Norway. The second applicant deceased on 30 May 2006. The first applicant is living in Monaco.\n5.  This is one of several applications brought by the applicants under the Convention in relation to the same case complex, the factual background of which is summarised in Amelia and Einar Riis against Norway (dec.)(no. 23106/02, struck out on 8 July 2004).\n6.  On 29 June 1990 the second applicant, on the first applicant's behalf, instituted proceedings (case no. 90-2020 A/01) against the State seeking 8,000,000 United States Dollars (USD) in compensation of pecuniary damage allegedly caused by the Ministry of Finance by having blocked the bankruptcy against the Reksten companies when these had announced their insolvency in April 1975.\n7.  The above suit was lodged on 29 June 1990, after a first action lodged on 7 March 1989 had been dismissed (avvist) by the Oslo City Court on 10 November 1989 and the Eidsivating High Court had upheld the dismissal on 20 February 1990.\n8.  On 17 March 1992 the City Court informed the parties that an oral hearing was scheduled for 17 and 18 November 1992, which hearing took place after the City Court had refused a request by the second applicant to postpone it. At that hearing, which was devoted to an issue of statutory limitation, he abandoned his intention to intervene in the case.\n9.  On 26 November 1992 the City Court advised the parties that there was insufficient basis for adjudicating the case. On 1 February 1993 the City Court proposed to the parties to adjourn the proceedings pending the outcome of a request for the reopening of other civil proceedings against a bank. Their request was refused by a final decision of 23 April 1993.\n10.  On 6 December 1993 the communications resumed between the first applicant's lawyer, Mr T. Engelschiøn, and the City Court. After repeated requests for a hearing date, the City Court on 16 March 1995 scheduled a hearing for 15 April 1996.\n11.  After a number of communications between the parties and the City Court in December 1995, on 10 January 1996 Mr Engelschiøn asked the City Court to adjourn the case pending the final outcome of separate compensation proceedings brought by the first applicant against Falkefjell Ltd. and Mr Kristoffer Olsen, in which the City Court had found for the latter and the first applicant had appealed (for details of the latter proceedings, see A. and E. Riis v. Norway, no. 9042/04, §§ 11-36, 31 May 2007).\nOn 7 March 1996 the City Court informed the parties that the proceedings in the present case were adjourned for one year (Article 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure).\n12.  On 16 January 2001 the City Court invited the parties to give their views on a question of dismissal of the case, no communications having taken place since 7 March 1996. It referred to Article 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which a case which had been adjourned was to be discontinued unless the resumption of the proceedings had been demanded by one of the parties within a period of two years.\n13.  In response the first applicant stated in a letter of 28 February 2001 that, unless adjournment be granted until a final decision in the other case (see paragraph 11 above), she would demand resumption of those in the present case. After hearing the views of the Attorney General (Civil Matters), the City Court decided to stay the proceedings until 10 November 2002. On ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3295", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Sofia.\n6.  In May 1994 the applicant's mother, Mrs Stoyanova, sixty-three years old and suffering from Altzheimer's disease, was admitted to the Sofia nursing home for elderly persons. The home was located on a busy boulevard in Kniazhevo, a neighbourhood of Sofia. Mrs Stoyanova was placed in the hospital unit, which was staffed with several medical doctors and nurses. According to a medical opinion on Mrs Stoyanova's health at that time, her memory and other mental capacities progressively deteriorated. She needed constant supervision and the nursing home staff had been instructed not to leave her unattended. In the following months, the applicant visited his mother regularly and on occasion accompanied her for medical visits outside the nursing home.\n7.  During his visit on 2 December 1995, the applicant noticed spots on his mother's skin and reported it to the nurse on duty.\n8.  The applicant visited again on 4 December 1995, at about 6.30 p.m., but was informed that his mother was missing. Earlier that day his mother had been sent to consult a dermatologist outside the home, accompanied by Mrs V., a medical orderly. According to the explanation given to the applicant, upon their return, at around 11.30 a.m., the medical orderly had left Mrs Stoyanova alone in the yard and had not found her there several minutes later. The nursing home staff had looked for Mrs Stoyanova in the area but in vain.\n9.  The staff alerted the police approximately two hours after the incident. On the same day, and again on 11 December 1995, the police heard several witnesses to the events and recorded their statements. Some of them explained that they had searched the area immediately upon learning of Mrs Stoyanova's disappearance.\n10.  On 8 December 1995, Mrs Stoyanova was recorded as a person sought by the police in the region of Sofia and on 22 December 1995 her data were entered in the national list of missing persons. On 11 December 1995 the Sofia police issued a press release containing information about Mrs Stoyanova's physical appearance and an appeal to the public to report any relevant information. It appears that the description of Mrs Stoyanova's appearance contained errors. On 13 December 1995 the area in the proximity of the nursing home was searched unsuccessfully using a police dog. The police also checked the identity of patients admitted to psychiatric clinics during the relevant period. They also verified information according to which, in January 1996, a woman resembling the applicant's mother had spent a night in a monastery. In February 1996 an announcement was broadcast on national television.\n11.  In the days following his mother's disappearance the applicant himself did what he could to find her. He contacted all those who had last been in contact with her, published calls for witnesses in several newspapers and posted announcements carrying his mother's photograph.\n12.  The applicant's mother has not been found to date. In 1998 a District Court issued a decision declaring Mrs Stoyanova missing and appointed the applicant as her representative.\n13.  On 5 July 1996 the applicant filed a complaint with the Sofia District Prosecutor's Office alleging that the administrative and medical staff of the nursing home had been responsible for his mother's disappearance.\n14.  Nothing was done in the case until December 1997, despite the applicant's numerous complaints to all levels of the prosecu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3296", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Olsztyn, Poland.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 12 September 2000 the applicant instituted before the Olsztyn Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) civil proceedings against Ms J.R. and Mr G.M. in which he claimed payment for construction work he had carried out. The applicant requested that his claim be considered in a summary procedure (postępowanie nakazowe).\n7.  On 10 October 2000 the court allowed the action and issued a payment order against the defendant. The defendant appealed.\n8.  Subsequently, all the judges of the Olsztyn Regional Court asked to be excluded from trying the case as the defendant was married to one of the judges. The case was thus transferred to the Warsaw Regional Court where it was filed under case no. XV GC 375/01.\n9.  The court held the first hearing on 8 October 2002. The next hearings were held on 20 February and 28 November 2003.\n10.  On 27 May 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment in which it allowed a part of the applicant's action.\n11.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.\n12.  On 22 August 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about a breach of the right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. He relied on the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n13.  On 24 August 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held the first hearing.\n14.  On 3 October 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings. The court established that the Regional Court had been inactive for many months which led to the unjustified protraction of the proceedings. However, the inactivity occurred before the entry into force of the 2004 Act and thus could not be taken into consideration.\n15.  The proceedings on the merits of the applicant's civil action are pending before the appeal court.\n16.  In July 1999 the applicant lodged civil proceedings for payment with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) against the limited liability company “Auto Żoliborz”.\n17.  On 31 January 2003 the court gave a judgment. The applicant appealed.\n18.  On 7 May 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.\n19.  On 24 May 2005 the Warsaw District Court gave a judgment.\n20.  The appeal lodged against this judgment was rejected on 18 October 2005 as it had been lodged out of time.\n21.  On 17 May 2001 the applicant initiated another set of civil proceedings against Mr A.S. and Mr J.C.\n22.  On 17 May 2001 the Olsztyn District Court gave a judgment in which it partly allowed the applicant's action. The applicant appealed.\n23.  On 3 March 2003 the Olsztyn Regional Court partly allowed the appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3298", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Częstochowa.\n5.  On 29 July 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the City Council. He claimed that his neighbour, who lived upstairs, had carried out illegal construction work as a result of which the walls of the applicant's flat had begun to crack.\n6.  On 16 November 1999 an on-site inspection was conducted by the authorities.\n7.  On 27 November 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the authorities with the Principal Construction Inspector (Główny Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego).\n8.  On 1 December 1999 the District Construction Inspector discontinued the proceedings. It was found that the work had been carried out in conformity with the law. The applicant appealed to the Regional Construction Inspector.\n9.  On 16 December 1999 the applicant's complaint about inactivity was transferred to the Regional Construction Inspector. It appears that the proceedings concerning this complaint remained dormant until 19 February 2002.\n10.  On 25 February 2000 the Regional Construction Inspector quashed the decision of 1 December 1999 and remitted the case.\n11.  On 1 August 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint about inactivity with the Minister of the Interior.\n12.  On 7 August 2000 his complaint of 1 August 2000 was transferred to the Principal Construction Inspector.\n13.  On 1 September 2000 his complaint was transferred to the Regional Construction Inspector.\n14.  On 19 February 2002 the Regional Construction Inspector found the complaint about inactivity, not specifying which one, well-founded and fixed a new time-limit for the authorities to take all necessary action.\n15.  On 15 May 2002 the District Construction Inspector issued a decision. It found that the work had been brought into conformity with the law. The applicant appealed.\n16.  On 17 June 2002 the applicant again lodged a complaint about inactivity.\n17.  On 24 June 2003 the Regional Construction Inspector quashed the decision of 15 May 2002 and remitted the case. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.\n18.  On 8 July 2003 the Principal Construction Inspector found the applicant's complaint about inactivity of 17 June 2002 well-founded and fixed a new 30 days' time-limit for the authorities. However the administrative authorities do not appear to have complied with the time‑limit.\n19.  Eventually, as it transpires from the submissions of the applicant as well as from the observations submitted by the Government, on 21 September 2005 the Regional Administrative Court gave a judgment on the merits of the applicant's case. It further transpires that the applicant failed to lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court. Hence, the judgment of 21 September 2005 became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3299", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lived in Łódź, Poland.\n6.  On 14 June 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.\n7.  On 15 June 1998 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody until 14 September 1998. The court notes that the applicant was suspected of having committed a serious offence and that there was strong evidence against him. There was also the risk that he might attempt to intimidate witnesses, abscond or go into hiding. The court also stressed the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed on him.\n8.  On 24 June 1998 the Łódź District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) dismissed the applicant’s request for release. The decision was upheld by the Łódź Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) on 7 July 1998. The prosecutor relied on the fact that the applicant, shortly before his arrest, had been wanted by the police in another case and that he had no permanent place of residence.\n9.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended pending trial several times by the Łódź Regional Court. Each time, the court repeated the reasons previously given for the applicant’s detention and, further, relied on the need to take expert evidence. The court requested that an expert opinion be prepared by the end of November 1998.\n10.  On 18 December 1998 the Łódź District Prosecutor indicted the applicant for attempted murder.\n11.  On 2 June 1999 the trial began, the bill of indictment was read and the court began hearing statements from the applicant. In the course of giving explanations the applicant felt unwell and the hearing was adjourned.\n12.  The applicant’s state of health did not prevent him from participating in the proceedings. The next hearing was held on 2 September 1999. Subsequent hearings were held at regular intervals ranging from one to four months. Several hearings were adjourned for different reasons, such as the absence of one of the judges, the need to examine the victim’s place of residence and to request expert opinions on biological and chemical examination of tracks.\n13.  On 5 June 2000 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) convicted the applicant of attempted murder and sentenced him to 12 years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed on 15 September 2000.\n14.  On 22 January 2001 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the prosecutor for further investigation. The applicant remained in custody.\n15.  On 30 March 2001 the prosecutor refused an application for release by the applicant. He found that there were no reasons for releasing him.\n16.  The applicant’s detention was extended by the Regional Court on 23 March, 22 June, 17 August and 16 November 2001. Appeals by the applicant against those decisions, and requests for release, were dismissed.\n17.  On 6 July 2001 the prosecutor lodged a new bill of indictment with the Łódź Regional Court and accused the applicant of attempted murder.\n18.  The Regional Court held five hearings at regular intervals.\n19.  On 30 January 2002 the Łódź Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment.\n20.  On 22 October 2002 the Łódź Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment.\n21.  On 12 December 2002 the applicant’s officially appointed lawyer refused to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf because he had found no grounds for doing so.\n22.  The applicant died on 6 April 2006. On 30 January 2007 the Governme", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3300", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Lons-le-Saunier.\n8.  She has been a nursery school teacher since 1985 and, since 1990, has been in a stable relationship with a woman, Ms R., who is a psychologist.\n9.  On 26 February 1998 the applicant made an application to the Jura Social Services Department for authorisation to adopt a child. She wanted to investigate the possibility of international adoption, in particular in Asia, South America and Madagascar. She mentioned her sexual orientation and her relationship with her partner, Ms R.\n10.  In a report dated 11 August 1998 the socio-educational assistant and paediatric nurse noted the following points among others:\n“Ms B. and Ms R. do not regard themselves as a couple, and Ms R., although concerned by her partner's application to adopt a child, does not feel committed by it.\nMs B. considers that she will have to play the role of mother and father, and her partner does not lay claim to any right vis-à-vis the child but will be at hand if necessary.\n...\nMs B. is seeking to adopt following her decision not to have a child herself.\nShe would prefer to explain to a child that he or she has had a father and mother and that what she wants is the child's happiness than to tell the child that she does not want to live with a man.\n...\nMs B. thinks of a father as a stable, reassuring and reliable figure. She proposes to provide a future adopted child with this father figure in the persons of her own father and her brother-in-law. But she also says that the child will be able to choose a surrogate father in his or her environment (a friend's relatives, a teacher, or a male friend ...).\n...\nCONCLUSION\n“On account of her personality and her occupation, Ms B. is a good listener, is broad-minded and cultured, and is emotionally receptive. We also appreciated her clear-sighted approach to analysing problems and her child-raising and emotional capacities.\nHowever, regard being had to her current lifestyle: unmarried and cohabiting with a female partner, we have not been able to assess her ability to provide a child with a family image revolving around a parental couple such as to afford safeguards for that child's stable and well-adjusted development.\nOpinion reserved regarding authorisation to adopt a child.”\n11.  On 28 August 1998, in her report on the interviews she had had with the applicant, the psychologist examining her application recommended in the following terms that authorisation be refused:\n“ ...\nMs [B.] has many personal qualities. She is enthusiastic and warm-hearted and comes across as very protective of others.\nHer ideas about child-rearing appear very positive. Several question marks remain, however, regarding a number of factors pertaining to her background, the context in which the child will be cared for and her desire for a child.\nIs she not seeking to avoid the “violence” of giving birth and genetic anxiety regarding a biological child?\nIdealisation of a child and under-estimation of the difficulties inherent in providing one with a home: is she not fantasising about being able to fully mend a child's past?\nHow certain can we be that the child will find a stable and reliable paternal referent?\nThe possibilities of identification with a paternal role model are somewhat unclear. Let us not forget that children forge their identity with an image of both parents. Children need adults who will assume their parental function: if the parent is alone, what effects will that have on", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3301", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.\n5.  On 20 October 1994, J.B. (the applicant's neighbour) lodged a claim for payment against the applicant with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n6.  On 8 December 1994 the court held a hearing and ordered J.B. (“the plaintiff”) to submit a copy of the statement of claim.\n7.  On 3 March 1995 the court stayed the proceedings as the plaintiff had failed to comply with its order.\n8.  Subsequently, on 17 May 1995, J.B.'s husband – M.B. – sued the applicant in the Warsaw District Court seeking payment.\n9.  On 4 July and 26 September 1995 the court held hearings.\n10.  At a hearing on 21 November 1995 the court heard evidence from one witness. On 28 December 1995 the court heard evidence from M.B.\n11.  On 20 November 1996 the court resumed the proceedings which had been stayed on 3 March 1995.\n12.  On 25 November 1996 the court decided to join both cases.\n13.  On 24 February 1997 the court notified the housing co-operative - Osiedle Młodych – that it would be in their interest to join the proceedings.\n14.  On 23 April 1997 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from one witness.\n15.  On 10 June 1997 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge. On 7 July 1997 the court dismissed her challenge.\n16.  On 29 July 1997 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. On 24 March 1998 an expert submitted his report to the court.\n17.  At a hearing held on 2 June 1999 the plaintiffs withdrew their statement of claim in respect of the applicant. On the same date the court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3302", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Gdańsk.\n5.  On 16 April 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed robbery.\n6.  On 17 April 2002 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody until 16 July 2002 on reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. The court also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was justified by the existence of strong and substantial evidence, in particular testimonies of a victim and witnesses. It also gave as a ground for detention the severity of the likely sentence. Further, the court considered that, given the risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence, in particular intimidate witnesses, keeping him in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.\n7.  On 13 May 2002, following an appeal by the applicant, the Gdańsk Regional Court upheld that decision.\n8.  The applicant's further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful.\n9.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was extended on four occasions. The relevant decisions were given by the Gdańsk District Court on 15 July and 15 October 2002, and later on 15 January and 10 April 2003.\n10.  In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant's detention. They also attached importance to the need to extend the investigation in the light of new charges against the applicant, and to obtain fresh evidence, in particular evidence from experts.\n11.  On 25 March 2003 the applicant was indicted before the Gdańsk District Court. He was charged with robbery and illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The bill of indictment concerned five defendants and, in all, twelve charges were brought against them. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from around forty witnesses. Further, the bill of indictment included fifty items of evidence to be produced at the hearing.\n12.  On 5 June 2003 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently scheduled sixteen hearings in the case. Four of them were cancelled for various reasons.\n13.  In particular, it appears that no hearing took place between 14 August 2003 and 15 January 2004. Hearings scheduled for 9 October and 11 December 2003 were cancelled due to, among other things, the failure to bring the co-accused to trial from prison, and the fact that a hearing scheduled for 6 November 2003 had to be cancelled because a trial judge was on mission.\n14.  During the court proceedings the court ordered several expert opinions.\n15.  In the meantime, the authorities further extended the applicant's detention pending trial on many occasions.\n16.  The relevant decisions were given on the following dates.\n17.  At a hearing on 9 October 2003 the Gdańsk District Court extended the applicant's detention until 15 January 2004. Subsequently, on 11 March 2004 it extended his detention until 15 April 2004. Since on 16 April 2004 the applicant's detention had reached the statutory time-limit of two years laid down in Article 263§ 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), further extension of his detention was ordered by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). On 23 March 2004 it extended his detention until 30 June 2004. The next decision was given by the Gdańsk Court o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3303", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Olsztyn.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:\n6.  On 30 June 2000 a wanted notice with a detention order was issued in respect of the applicant.\n7.  On 28 August 2000 the applicant was arrested on the strength of the above-mentioned order and on 1 September 2000 the decision as to his detention was given by the Olsztyn District Court. He was charged with numerous counts of major financial fraud (several counts of massive-scale bank fraud, deceiving private companies and other financial offences) committed while acting in an organised criminal group.\n8.  The applicant's detention was subsequently extended by the following decisions: the Olsztyn District Court decisions of 7 November 2001, 7 February 2002, 21 February and 20 May 2003; and the Olsztyn Regional Court's decision of 9 February 2001.\n9.  The courts repeatedly relied on the strong probability that the applicant had committed the offences that he had been charged with and that there was a real risk that he would receive a severe sentence, thereby giving rise to a presumption that he would obstruct the proper conduct of proceedings. They also referred to the risk of absconding, deriving from the fact that the applicant had been sought pursuant to a wanted notice.\n10.  The applicant challenged his detention. He lodged appeals against the Olsztyn District Court decisions of 20 May and 24 July 2003, which were dismissed by the Olsztyn Regional Court on 6 June and 8 August 2003 respectively.\n11.  He also lodged numerous requests for release from detention, which were dismissed by the Olsztyn District Court decisions of 19 December 2001, 11 January and 13 February 2002, 10 January, 21 February, 27 March and 16 May 2003.\n12.  Furthermore, the applicant requested the application of a more lenient preventive measure to replace his detention. That request was refused by the Olsztyn District Court decision of 28 April 2003.\n13.  Until March 2002 the trial court effectively held eight hearings. The court conducted extensive evidentiary proceedings; a considerable number of witnesses was heard, evidence was obtained from documents, searches and other sources.\n14.  On 5 March 2002 the Olsztyn District Court found the applicant guilty of fraud. It acquitted him of the charge of membership of a criminal organisation, and imposed a sentence of five years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed. Seven hearings were subsequently held by the second-instance court.\n15.  On 1 October 2002 the Olsztyn Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n16.  On 24 July 2003 the Olsztyn District Court again found the applicant guilty of financial fraud and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment.\n17.  On 20 July 2004 the Olsztyn Regional Court conditionally released the applicant from serving the remaining part of the sentence, which was due to end on 28 August 2005.\n18.  On several occasions between 2003 and 2004 the applicant requested information as to whether a confirmation that the detention order of 30 June 2000 had been served on him was kept in the case file. On 6 June and 10 August 2004 he was informed by the Vice-President of the Regional Court that no such confirmation had been found.\n19.  While the applicant was detained, his correspondence was censored on several occasions.\n20.  A letter dated 23 November 2001, which was sent to the applicant by his lawyer, bears a “c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3304", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, who were born in 1954, 1957, 1961, 1965, 1960, 1956, 1959, 1964 and 1958 respectively, live in Ankara, Izmir, Istanbul and Çorum. They were members of the executive and auditors boards of the Pir Sultan Abdal Cultural Association (“the Association”), a non‑governmental organisation with its headquarters in Ankara.\n5.  On 15 November 2000 officers from the Ankara governor's office carried out an inspection at the headquarters of the Association. They found that the members of the executive board had failed to establish a membership registration book and that the members of the auditors board had failed to conduct a periodical inspection of the Association, in breach of Articles 62 and 29 of the Law on Associations (Law no. 2908).\n6.  On 21 November 2000 officers from the Ankara Security Directorate also conducted an inspection of the registers of the association and discovered a number of defects. The Security Directorate then requested an investigation against the members of the executive and auditors boards of the association.\n7.  On an unspecified date, the Ankara public prosecutor imposed a fine of 92,510,000[1] Turkish Liras (TRL) per person on the members of the executive and auditors boards of the Association.\n8.  On 15 January 2001 a payment order was served on the members of the executive and auditors boards who, however, did not pay the fine within the statutory ten-day time-limit.\n9.  Subsequently, on 17 April 2001 the Ankara public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicants, along with seventeen other persons who were also members of the executive and auditors boards of the Association. The public prosecutor requested that the accused be sentenced to a fine, under Article 86 of the Law on Associations and Article 119 § 5 of the Criminal Code, for their failure to comply with Articles 29 and 62 of the same Law.\n10.  On 11 September 2001 the Ankara Magistrates' Court (sulh ceza mahkemesi) found the applicants and the other co-accused guilty as charged and, by issuing an order (ceza kararnamesi), sentenced them to an increased fine of TRL 136,890,000[2] per person.\n11.  On 8, 9, 12 and 22 October 2001, the applicants filed objections against the decision of 11 September 2001. In their petitions, the applicants maintained that they had been deprived of the opportunity to make defence submissions and that, therefore, they did not receive a fair trial.\n12.  The Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance (asliye ceza mahkemesi) dismissed the applicants' objections on the following dates:\n-11 October 2001 in respect of İlhami Erseven, Bekir Aslan, Süleyman Çetinkaya and İsmail Kaya;[3]\n-15 October 2001 in respect of İsmail Öztorun;\n-22 October 2001 in respect of Kenan Atakul and Hikmet Yıldırım; and\n-30 October 2001 in respect of Ellez Duman.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3305", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region.\n5.  The applicant sued the local Social Security Committee for the unpaid allowances.\n6.  By judgment of 25 October 2000, the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant 3,546.56 Russian roubles (RUB). The judgment became final on 21 December 2000. On 30 October 2002 the applicant received RUB 1,409.72.\n7.  By judgment of 27 June 2003, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 19,315.50. On 19 August 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment. The monies were paid to the applicant on 17 December 2004. On 30 May 2005 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 3,204.51 as compensation for inflationary losses caused by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 27 June 2003. It appears that the judgment of 30 May 2005 was not enforced.\n8.  By judgment of 29 December 2003, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 16,765.50. On 8 January 2004 the judgment became final. The monies were paid to the applicant on 3 August 2005. On 27 September 2005 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 3,696.79 as compensation for inflationary losses caused by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 29 December 2003. It appears that the judgment of 27 September 2005 was not enforced.\n9.  On 2 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,973.57. On 12 March 2004 the judgment became final. It appears that the judgment was not enforced.\n10.  On 5 May 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 9,494.52 and increased her monthly disability allowance to RUB 5,664.84. On 17 May 2004 the judgment became final. The lump sum was paid to the applicant on 11 November 2005. On 10 January 2006 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 1,499.48 as compensation for inflationary losses caused by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 5 May 2004. It appears that the judgment was not enforced.\n11.  On 3 June 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 1,772.30 and increased her monthly commodity allowance to RUB 679.78. On 15 June 2004 the judgment became final. It appears that the judgment was not enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3306", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Kırşehir.\n5.  The facts of the case as presented by the applicant and the Government are based on a number of documents drawn up in the course of the domestic proceedings. The following information appears from the parties’ submissions as well as from the documents submitted by them.\n6.  On 17 February 1994 a warrant was issued for the applicant’s arrest on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front-Revolutionary Left (Devrimci Halkın Kurtuluşu Partisi/Cephe-Dev Sol; THKP/C-Dev Sol). He was arrested on 14 July 1994 and taken into police custody.\n7.  On 17 July 1994 a police chief at the Istanbul Security Headquarters drafted a report which stated that the applicant had refused to respond to the questions put to him. This report was forwarded to the prosecutor’s office at the Istanbul State Security Court. In another report prepared by the police the same day, the applicant was quoted as having stated that he would only talk to the prosecutor, but that in any event the allegations against him were baseless.\n8.  According to a medical report drafted on 17 July 1994 by the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute, the applicant had ecchymosed areas, measuring 4x2 cm and 4x7 cm, both under his armpits and on his shoulders. Another ecchymosed area, measuring 2x2 cm, was also observed on his right shoulder. The report stated that the injuries were of a nature which would prevent the applicant from working for a period of three days.\n9.  The same day the applicant was brought before the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court, who questioned him and recorded his statement. In this statement the applicant denied having had any involvement in any illegal organisation. He also informed the prosecutor that he had refused to sign a statement prepared by the police in which the name Dev-Sol was mentioned. The applicant was brought before the duty judge, who questioned him further and ordered his pre-trial detention. Before the judge the applicant repeated his denial of any involvement with any illegal organisation.\n10.  On 27 July 1994 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed an indictment, accusing the applicant of membership of the above-mentioned illegal organisation. The prosecutor requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The prosecutor stated that the documents in the case files in respect of a number of persons who were being tried for membership of the same organisation proved that the applicant had also been a member. The prosecutor further alleged that a handwritten autobiography belonging to the applicant, which had been submitted to the illegal organisation, proved that he was one of its members.\n11.  On 1 August 1994 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were joined to the ongoing trial of twenty-four persons accused of offences related to the illegal organisation. Subsequently, the trial was conducted by the Ankara State Security Court’s First Chamber (hereafter “the trial court”).\n12.  On 19 January 1995 the applicant submitted a letter to the trial court, stating that “pressure” had been exerted on him by the police to force him to accept the accusations. In his letter the applicant denied having given the organisation his autobiography, and maintain", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3307", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kirov.\n5.  In 1986 the applicant took part in the cleaning up operation after the nuclear accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. He was subsequently registered disabled, becoming entitled to various social benefits, including the right to obtain a loan on preferential terms (льготный кредит) and free housing from the State.\n6.  According to the Government, the applicant lived in a four-room flat with six other members of his family. The flat measured 52 square metres. In 1996 this flat was officially categorised as a “communal dwelling” which gave the applicant the right to claim free housing from the State.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested Sberbank (a bank controlled by the State – hereafter “the bank”) to provide him with a preferential loan to purchase housing for himself and his family. However, he did not obtain the loan. Apparently there had been no agreement between the State and the banks regulating the allocation of such credits to Chernobyl victims.\n8.  In 1997 the applicant brought proceedings against the State and the bank, seeking to obtain a preferential loan, as provided by the Law on the welfare of Chernobyl victims (“the Chernobyl Law” – see “Relevant domestic law” below).\n9.  On 19 November 1997 the Leninskiy District Court of Kirov decided the case in his favour. It found that the applicant, as a Chernobyl victim, had the right to a preferential loan under section 14 (20) of the Chernobyl Law, but the Ministry of Finance had not yet signed an agreement with banks on the procedure for issuing such loans. The District Court ordered the Ministry of Finance to secure the applicant's right to the loan. That judgment was not appealed against and became final on 1 December 1997. The writ of execution was forwarded to the bailiff in Moscow, and on 27 July 1999 enforcement proceedings were commenced.\n10.  In the meantime, on 13 July 1999 the Ministry of Finance informed the applicant that the judgment of 19 November 1997 could not be enforced since the law relating to the federal budget did not allow the allocation of preferential loans to Chernobyl victims.\n11.  Later that year, referring to the lack of progress in the enforcement proceedings, the applicant requested the court to modify the operative part of the judgment of 1997. He sought to obtain compensation of 50% of the amount he needed to buy a flat. On 24 November 1999 the Leninskiy District Court modified the judgment of 19 November 1997 ordering the State to compensate the applicant for the cost of the flat he would buy.\n12.   On 27 December 1999 the applicant purchased a three-room flat in a house under construction from a developer. He paid 203,200 Russian roubles (RUB) for that flat.\n13.  On 10 April 2001 the Kirov Regional Court quashed the decision of 24 November 1999 and remitted the case to the district court for fresh examination. There is no information as to whether the applicant's request concerning the modification of the original judgment of 19 November 1997 was eventually satisfied.\n14.  On 10 October 2000, referring to the provisions of the Chernobyl Law, the applicant brought proceedings against the municipality of Moscow seeking an order to oblige them to provide him with a flat in Moscow. On 15 January 2001 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed his claim. On 14 May 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the district court's decision.\n15.  On 8 August 2001 the applicant brou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3308", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Portorož.\n6.  In 1984 the applicant was injured in a car accident caused by an employee of a company TOP Portorož, subsequently renamed Clothes Cleaning Company Lucija (“the Lucija”). Allegedly since the accident, the applicant has suffered from a mental illness.\n7.  On 15 April 1988 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Lucija in the Koper Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Kopru) seeking damages for the injuries sustained.\n8.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia. By then, the court had scheduled four hearings. At least two of them were adjourned due to the applicant.\n9.  Subsequently, the hearing held on 7 July 1994 was adjourned until 15 July 1994 due to the parties' attempt to reach an out-of-court settlement. Since no settlement had been reached, the court held a hearing on 15 July 1994 and appointed a medical expert to determine the extent to which the applicant's illness had resulted from the injuries sustained in the accident.\n10.  On 24 October 1994 the expert informed the court that the applicant had refused the examination.\n11.  The hearing scheduled for 25 November 1994 was cancelled at the applicant's request.\n12.  Further to the reform of the judicial system in Slovenia, the renamed Koper District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Kopru) held a hearing on 25 September 1995. The hearing, as it appears from the minutes, was adjourned due to the applicant's husband's continuous disturbance of the proceedings.\n13.  On 27 September 1995 the applicant requested the judge to stand down. On 28 November 1995 the request was rejected as manifestly ill-founded by the President of the Koper District Court.\n14.  The hearing scheduled for 22 December 1995 was adjourned until 22 January 1996 at the applicant's request.\n15.  On 10 January 1996 the applicant lodged an application with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) complaining that the Koper District Court had been conducting the proceedings unlawfully. On 15 January 1996 the applicant was advised by the Koper District Court to appoint an advocate to represent her instead of her husband. Subsequently, on 18 January 1996, the applicant's husband informed that court that the applicant would not attend further hearings until her application was examined by the Supreme Court. On 15 April 1996 the Supreme Court, treating the application as a request for withdrawal of the judge, sent it to the Koper District Court. On 17 June 1996 the request was rejected as manifestly ill-founded by the President of that court.\n16.  Meanwhile, on 22 January 1996 the Koper District Court held a hearing. Since none of the parties appeared at the hearing, the court stayed the proceedings (mirovanje postopka). The court tried several times to serve the decision on the applicant by regular mail, which was returned stamped with a comment “away”, and through the court process server. On 10 April 1997 the decision was finally served on the applicant.\n17.  On 10 June 1997 the applicant's request to resume the proceedings was upheld by the court. The Lucija lodged an appeal, a copy of which was, after at least two unsuccessful attempts, served on the applicant on 25 August 1997. On 23 December 1997 the Koper Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Kopru) rejected the appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 29 January 1998.\n18.  On 9 February 1998 the court held a hearing and decided to appoint a new medical expert.\n19.  On ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3309", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1948, 1936 and 1939 respectively and live in Şanlıurfa.\n5.  The applicants were co-owners of a plot of land located in Karaköprü, Şanlıurfa, registered under parcel no. 740 in the land registry.\n6.  On 13 April 1989, the Governorship of Şanlıurfa decided to expropriate the applicants' land, together with other plots. The expropriation aimed at allocating the plots to the Ministry of Defence for military needs.\n7.  In 1991 the Ministry of Defence seized the land without compensating the applicants.\n8.  On 24 September 1996 Mr Gög and Mrs Kolsuzoğlu, with co‑claimants, filed a compensation claim against the Ministry for the de facto expropriation (case no. 1996/857). They submitted that the Ministry had been occupying their land since 1991 without a formal expropriation.\n9.  On the same day and complaining about the same situation, Mrs Agbayır also filed a claim together with other co-claimants (case no. 1996/855).\n10.  The applicants initiated both cases with partial claims, reserving their right to request additional compensation should the expert valuations exceed their partial claims.\n11.  In both cases the Ministry argued that it had been occupying the land since the mid-1970s and that the claims were time-barred. The Ministry relied on Article 38 of the Expropriation Act, Law no. 2942, pursuant to which all claims for de facto expropriations were subject to a 20-year prescription period running from the seizure of the land.\n12.  On 4 December 1996 the court conducted on-site examinations. The experts appointed by the court valued the land in which both Mr Gög and Mrs Kolsuzoğlu each held a 1/13 (one thirteenth) share at 52,517,752,560 Turkish liras (TRL), and that in which Mrs Agbayır held a 1/3 (one third) share at TRL 162,555,120,000.\n13.  Accordingly, on 27 December 1996, the Şanlıurfa Civil Court handed down two judgments awarding the applicants their respective partial claims in full, i.e., TRL 80,000,000,000 to Mrs Agbayır (case no. 1998/21) and TRL 26,000,000,000 to Mr Gög and Mrs Kolsuzoğlu (case no. 1998/23).\n14.  On appeal, the Court of Cassation quashed both judgments, directing the civil court to broaden the scope of its examination regarding the value of the land.\n15.  Complying with this ruling, the Şanlıurfa Civil Court restarted the proceedings. As its further examinations resulted in the same valuations, it gave two judgments on 27 October 1998, awarding the applicants the same amounts as before.\n16.  The court also ordered the plot in dispute to be registered in the name of the Treasury. In addition, it made a factual finding with respect to the year in which the seizure had taken place. Reasoning that the witness statements brought by the applicants prevailed over the documents submitted by the Ministry, the court was convinced that the seizure had happened in 1991.\n17.  On 3 December 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld both judgments.\n18.  On 17 May 1999 the relevant amounts, together with their statutory interest, i.e. TRL 165,577,780 (case no. 1998/21) and TRL 53,812,780 (case no. 1998/23), were paid to the applicants.\n19.  As the applicants had reserved their right to additional compensation, they initiated subsequent claims to recover the difference between the amounts awarded and the values assessed by the experts and recognised by the court. In this respect, Mrs Agbayır applied, with a co‑claimant, to the Şanlıurfa Civil Court on 20 July 1999, requesting the balance of TRL 27,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3310", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1980 and 1982 respectively and live in the town of Nizhniy Novgorod.\n7.  Between 4 and 24 November 1999 the first applicant had the status of witness in a murder case conducted jointly by the police and the prosecution.\n8.  It appears that these authorities repeatedly summoned her to give evidence to the Nizhegorodskiy District Department of Internal Affairs (Нижегородское районное управление внутренних дел – “the police station”).\n9.  It also appears that at some point during the investigation suspect B. stated that the first applicant had been in receipt of the murdered person's belongings.\n10.  According to the first applicant, investigator Zh. summoned her to appear on 25 November 1999 at 12.30 p.m. The Government submitted that the first applicant was summoned by policeman K. and not by investigator Zh.\n11.  The applicants submitted the following account of events. The Government did not make any specific comments in this respect.\n12.  The first applicant arrived at the police station on time and was questioned. The interrogation was initially conducted by policemen Kh. and K. and took place at office no. 63 of the police station.\n13.  The policemen requested the first applicant to acknowledge that she had received property belonging to the murdered person. When the first applicant refused to do so, they started shouting and threatened to bring criminal proceedings against her. They took her soccer scarf and administered several blows with the scarf to her face.\n14.  Then K. left the office and Kh. stayed there with the first applicant in private. He locked the door from the inside and went on with physical and psychological coercion. Kh. fettered the first applicant's hands with thumbcuffs and administered blows to her head and cheeks. He raped her using a condom and then forced her to perform oral sex with him.\n15.  Kh. was interrupted by noise in the corridor and knocking on the door. The first applicant was allowed to go to the lavatory and tidy herself up.\n16.  At around 2 p.m. the first applicant was confronted with suspect B. In his presence, she yet again denied her involvement in the murder.\n17.  Thereafter Kh. and K. fettered the first applicant's thumbs and repeatedly hit her in the stomach. They put a gas mask over the first applicant's face and made her suffocate by shutting off access to air. Kh. and K. also ran electricity through wires connected to the first applicant's earrings. The above actions were coupled with attempts to obtain a confession.\n18.  It appears that eventually the first applicant admitted having received the property in question and agreed to write her confession down on paper. Since the first applicant was in an agitated state and failed to write properly, she had to try twice. The confession was addressed to a local district prosecutor.\n19.  Kh. and K. then suggested that the first applicant's mother should bring the notebook containing the phone numbers and addresses of the applicant's friends and acquaintances.\n20.  The first applicant called her mother and at 4.40 p.m. the latter and the second applicant came to the police station and brought the required notebook. The first applicant's mother and the second applicant stayed in a lobby near office no. 63.\n21.  At 5 p.m. S., an investigator from a local prosecutor's office, came to office no. 63. He learned from the first applicant that she was a CSKA Moscow soccer fan and started to insult her and administer bl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3311", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 6 November 1996 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant.\n6.  On 3 March 1997 the Budapest Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with having negligently caused a traffic accident.\n7.  After having held three hearings and obtained the opinions of two experts, on 11 October 2001 the Pest Central District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment, suspended for one year, and a fine.\n8.  On appeal, on 12 February 2004 the Budapest Regional Court acquitted the applicant, after having obtained the opinion of another expert.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3312", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant Muhyettin Osmanoğlu was born in 1942 and lives in Diyarbakır. He is the father of Atilla Osmanoğlu, who was born in 1968. Atilla was allegedly detained by the police on 25 March 1996 and subsequently disappeared.\n8.  The facts of the case are disputed by the parties and will be set out separately.\n9.  The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below. The Government's submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below. The documentary evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in Section D.\n10. The applicant is a retired civil servant. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application he and his family lived in Diyarbakır, where his son Atilla ran the wholesale grocery shop owned by the applicant. Prior to living in Diyarbakır the applicant and his family had lived in the nearby town of Hazro, where he worked as a civil servant. In February 1992 the applicant and his family moved to Diyarbakır after an officer threatened his son. In 1994 the applicant was detained for 28 days and was subjected to ill-treatment during his detention. He was subsequently acquitted of the charges against him.\n11.  At approximately 11 a.m. on 25 March 1996 the applicant arrived at the shop and saw two men escorting Atilla out of the shop. One of the men was blonde, tall and beardless with an “American-style haircut”. The second man was thickset, of average height and with dark skin. The men were armed and carried walkie‑talkies.\n12.  The two men told the applicant that they were police officers and that they were taking his son to police headquarters so that he could submit a bid for a contract to provide canteen services at police headquarters. The men also took with them a box of sugar and a kilo of tea. When the two men told the applicant that they would return Atilla in about half an hour and Atilla confirmed this, the applicant decided not to intervene. The applicant saw Atilla being led to a car that contained two other occupants. Neighbouring shop owners also witnessed the two men taking Atilla with them.\n13.  The same two men had previously visited the shop, stating that they had come from the canteen, and had asked Atilla to go with them. When Atilla had refused to go, the two men had sat in the shop for about an hour and had made three telephone calls, which Atilla said he did not understand as the men had spoken in code. Atilla had been worried about the incident when he had related it to the applicant that evening.\n14.  When Atilla did not return on the evening of 25 March 1996, the applicant thought that he had been detained in custody. The following day he applied to the governor's office and also to the chief prosecutor's office at the State Security Court. He applied again to the same prosecutor on 29 March and on 1, 9 and 19 April. On 16 May 1996 the applicant applied once again to the governor's office.\n15.  The applicant received a reply to his petition of 1 April 1996 from the prosecutor at the State Security Court, who stated that his son's name did not feature in the custody records.\n16.  In June 1996 the applicant was summoned before the Diyarbakır State Security Court in connection with his petitions. The statement and the complaint he made were filed under preliminary file number 1996/4041. In relation to his petition to the governor's office, the applicant was told to contact the murder desk at Diyarbakır police headquarters. The applicant applied by letter t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3313", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1980 and 1981 respectively.\n7.  The first applicant arrived in Belgium at Brussels National Airport on flight SN 211 from Freetown (Sierra Leone) on 27 December 2002, carrying a Lebanese travel document stating that he was a Palestinian refugee. He was refused entry to Belgium as he did not have the necessary visas. The carrier which had provided the flight was informed that, pursuant to section 74(4) of the Aliens (Entry, Residence, Settlement and Expulsion) Act of 15 December 1980, it was responsible for paying the costs of his return to his country of origin.\n8.  On the same date the first applicant requested recognition of his refugee status, maintaining that his life was in danger in Lebanon, and was issued with a document certifying that he had applied for asylum.\n9.  Also on the same date, 27 December 2002, a decision to keep the first applicant in a designated place at the border was taken on the basis of section 74/5(1)(2) of the Act of 15 December 1980. Pursuant to that decision, the first applicant was taken to Transit Centre no. 127 on the premises of Brussels National Airport.\n10.  A decision refusing asylum was taken on 31 December 2002 by the Aliens Office and served on the first applicant on the same date. The first applicant lodged an appeal with the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons.\n11.  On 21 January 2003 the Commissioner General's Office upheld the decision refusing asylum; it pointed out the inconsistencies between the various accounts given by the applicant in question and concluded that on the evidence he had no reason to fear that he was in personal danger in Lebanon.\n12.  An application for judicial review of the decision of 21 January 2003 of the Commissioner General's Office and an application to stay its execution were lodged with the Conseil d'Etat on 19 February 2003. At the hearing before the Court, the parties explained that those applications were declared inadmissible in 2005 on the ground that the first applicant was no longer on Belgian territory and the continued examination of his case was thus devoid of purpose.\n13.  This applicant arrived in Belgium at Brussels National Airport on a flight from Freetown on 24 December 2002 at 5.12 a.m. As he did not have a transit visa allowing him to travel onwards to London, steps were taken to refuse him entry to Belgian territory and the carrier which had provided the flight was requested to take him, or have him taken, back to the country of origin or to another State where he could be allowed entry. The second applicant was rerouted to Beirut, via Budapest.\n14.  When he underwent a check in the transit zone on the same date this applicant stated that he did not wish to go to Beirut and requested recognition of his refugee status, maintaining that his life was in danger in Lebanon. He was issued with a document certifying that he had applied for asylum.\n15.  Also on the same date, 24 December 2002, a decision to keep the second applicant in a designated place at the border was taken on the basis of section 74/5(1)(2) of the Act of 15 December 1980. Pursuant to that decision, the second applicant was taken to Transit Centre no. 127.\n16.  A decision refusing the application for asylum was taken by the Aliens Office on 6 January 2003. That decision was served on the same date on the second applicant, who lodged an appeal with the Office of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Per", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3314", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Smolensk.\n5.  On 2 July 1996 the applicant obtained a judgment in his favour by which a private company was obliged to reimburse the applicant's share in the company's capital stock. On 4 November 1996 the applicant also obtained a court order, which obliged the above company to pay him salary arrears.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of Justice challenging the efficiency of the State Bailiff's Service in the enforcement proceedings and claiming damages.\n7.  By a judgment of 27 August 2001 the Promyshlenniy District Court of Smolensk acknowledged that the lack of activity of behalf of the bailiffs made the enforcement of the judgment of 2 July 1996 and the court order of 4 November 1996 impossible and obliged the Ministry of Justice to pay the applicant 27,403.47 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages and interest at the annual rate of 25%. On 12 March 2002 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 27 August 2001 on appeal.\n8.  On 9 April 2002 the warrant of execution was issued to the applicant, which he submitted to the State Bailiffs' Service on 6 May 2002. However, on 14 May 2002 the Bailiffs' Service returned the warrant of execution to the applicant and informed him that he should submit it to the Federal Treasury.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant submitted the warrant of execution to the Federal Treasury. However, on 14 June 2002 the Federal Treasury returned the warrant of execution to the applicant for the following reasons: the judgment of 27 August 2001 did not indicate which of the debtor's accounts the sum adjudicated by the court should be debited to, the copy of the judgment was not duly certified and the warrant of execution contained no indication as to the deadline for its submission.\n10.  On 24 June 2002 the applicant again attempted to submit the warrant of execution to the Federal Treasury. However, on 7 October 2002 the Federal Treasury once again returned the warrant of execution to the applicant, because it contained certain corrections, whereas it should have been filled out accurately.\n11.  The judgment of 27 August 2001 has remained unenforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3315", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1959 and is currently serving his prison sentence in the Jēkabpils Prison.\n7.  On 18 November 2000 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of rape of a minor female, aged fourteen, and unauthorised acquisition, storage and conveyance of narcotic substances.\n8.  On 21 November 2000, on the application of a police officer in charge of the investigation of the applicant's case, a judge of the Zemgale District Court of the City of Rīga, taking into consideration the oral submissions of the police officer and the applicant's lawyer, decided to detain the applicant on remand. The judge filled in a standard form by writing in the date, her name, the applicant's name and other details of the case. In substantiating the decision, the judge had to select and underline the pre-typed text of the standard form which she considered to be relevant to the case. She took into account the severity of the crime of which the applicant was suspected, his personality, the danger of his absconding and the possibility that he could impede the investigation. It was not indicated in the decision until which date the applicant should remain in detention. According to the copy of the decision, the applicant was not present. He did not appeal against the decision.\n9.  On 15 December 2000 the applicant's case was transferred to the Rīga Court Regional Prosecutor's Office.\n10.  On 10 January 2001, on the application of a prosecutor of the Rīga Court Regional Prosecutor's Office, a judge of the Zemgale District Court of the City of Rīga, taking into consideration the oral submissions of the prosecutor, extended the applicant's detention on remand until 15 March 2001. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer appeared before the judge. In substantiating the decision, the judge took into account the severity of the crime with which the applicant was charged, his four previous convictions, the danger of his absconding and re-offending and the possibility that he could impede the investigation. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.\n11.  On 5 March 2001, on the application of a prosecutor of the Rīga Court Regional Prosecutor's Office, a judge of the Zemgale District Court of the City of Rīga, considering the oral submissions of the prosecutor, the gravity of the crime with which the applicant was charged, the fact that he had a criminal record, the danger of his absconding and continuing criminal offences, prolonged the applicant's detention on remand until 15 May 2001. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer appeared before the judge. The applicant appealed against this decision, asserting that the case-file contained no proper evidence of his guilt.\n12.  On 24 April 2001, according to the materials in the case file, the Riga Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal, finding that his detention was lawful inter alia under Article 77 of the Law on Criminal Procedure. The court considered that the gravity of the crime with which the applicant was charged and the fact that he had four previous convictions confirmed the existence of a risk of his absconding, re-offending and perverting the course of justice. The applicant was present at the hearing. The decision was not subject to a further appeal.\n13.  On 31 May 2001 the final bill of indictment was presented to the applicant. He was charged with rape of a female minor, aged fourteen, and unauthorised acquisition, storage and conveyance of narcotic substances ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3316", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 2 November 1990 the applicant brought, on behalf of her minor daughter, a paternity claim against the child's purported father, a man of German nationality and residence. She also sought the payment of maintenance.\n6.  After several hearings, on 23 November 1992 the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court requested, as a measure of international legal assistance, the German authorities to carry out a blood group test on the respondent. The result was received by the court on 25 May 1994. On 9 January 1995 a medical expert opinion based on these results was submitted to the court.\n7.  On 18 April 1995 the court requested the German authorities to perform a chromosome test on the respondent. Despite repeated reminders, the requested samples did not arrive until 24 February 1999. On 7 April 1999 a further medical opinion based on the results was submitted to the court.\n8.  On 18 May 2000 the District Court found for the plaintiff, established the respondent's paternity and ordered him to pay maintenance.\n9.  On 19 December 2001 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this judgment in a final decision. Subsequently, administrative proceedings were set in motion in order to establish the daughter's family name.\n10.  As the father proved unwilling to comply voluntarily with the court decisions, on 16 December 2002 the applicant requested the Pest Central District Court to initiate enforcement proceedings against him.\n11.  On 3 June 2003 the case file reached the Ministry of Justice for further action.\n12.  On 8 December 2003 the Department of Private International Law within the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the competent German authority (“Bundesverwaltungsamt”) had ordered the father to settle his debts.\n13.  A first payment was effected by the father in April 2004. It appears that the payments were stopped in August 2006 because the daughter had reached 18 years of age in September 2006, and a dispute then arose as to whether the obligation to pay maintenance continued because the daughter was still a full-time student.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3317", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Zielona Góra.\n6.  In 1994 the applicant was charged with assault and battery. On 21 December 1999 the Zielona Góra Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) convicted the applicant as charged. The conviction was upheld by the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 30 January 2001. On 12 February 2002 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant's further cassation appeal.\n7.  On 1 September 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of homicide. On 3 September 1998 the Zielona Góra District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered the applicant's detention on remand on a charge of murder.\n8.  During the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged on two occasions.\n9.  On 20 May 1999 the applicant was indicted before the Zielona Góra Regional Court. The Regional Court extended his detention on remand on several occasions. The court referred to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged. It further stressed that holding the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. These decisions were upheld on appeal. The applicant made several unsuccessful applications for release.\n10.  On 20 March 2001 the Poznan Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's detention. The court relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion against the applicant and on the likelihood that a heavy sentence of imprisonment might be imposed on him. The Court of Appeal also examined the course of the proceedings and established that they had been lengthy. It instructed the trial court to concentrate on scheduling more hearings and on taking other procedural measures to terminate the trial promptly. The court, nevertheless, stated that the applicant had been solely responsible for the duration of the trial as the Regional Court had to examine his allegation that he had acted in self-defence.\n11.  Between 12 April 2001 and 12 February 2004 the applicant was serving a prison sentence following his conviction in another set of criminal proceedings.\n12.  On 27 April 2001 the Zielona Góra Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 25 years' imprisonment.\n13.  On 27 August 2001, 23 November 2001 and 22 February 2002 the Zielona Góra Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention. All of these decisions were upheld on appeal.\n14.  On 20 December 2001 the prosecutor filed an appeal against the first‑instance conviction.\n15.  On 16 May 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal quashed the first‑instance conviction and remitted the case to the Regional Court.\n16.  On 19 August 2002, 20 May 2003 and 7 September 2004 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention. In its identically reasoned decisions the court referred to the likelihood that the applicant would receive a lengthy sentence. It also pointed out that there were no particular circumstances militating in favour of his release, as defined in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n17.  Between 23 November 2004 and 17 December 2004 the applicant was serving a prison sentence as a result of his conviction in another set of criminal proceedings against him.\n18.  On 10 December 2004 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention. It considered that the need to ensure the proper course of the proceedings and the likelihood that the applicant would receive a lengthy sentence justified the prolongation of his detention. The court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3319", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Bielsko-Biała.\n5.  On 31 August 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, causing bodily harm and possession of a firearm and ammunition without a licence.\n6.  On 2 September 1998 the applicant was questioned and confronted with the victim. During the confrontation the applicant was hit on the head by the victim. He alleges that the police officers did not react to this incident. However, it appears from the record of the confrontation that an ambulance was called and the applicant was taken to hospital where he was treated.\n7.  Later on the applicant was also confronted with the victim's partner, who had been in the apartment where the attempted murder had taken place. Both the victim and his partner recognised the applicant as one of the assailants.\n8.  On 3 September 1998 the Cieszyn District Court remanded the applicant in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence or try to influence witnesses to give false testimonies. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n9.  On 5 September 1998 the applicant requested that the detention order be lifted and less severe preventive measures be applied.\n10.  On 18 September 1998 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request, stating that detention was the only preventive measure that could ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n11.  On 21 October 1998 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court referred the applicant for psychiatric observation.\n12.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was extended on 15 June and 18 November 1999. In all their detention decisions the authorities relied on the original grounds given for the applicant's detention, and underlined that the grounds for his pre-trial detention were still valid.\n13.  On 26 January 1999 the applicant was questioned by the prosecutor.\n14.  On 8 February 1999 the Cieszyn district prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court. The applicant was charged with attempted murder, causing bodily harm and possession of a firearm and ammunition without a licence.\n15.  On 26 May 1999 the trial court held the first hearing, during which the applicant and the co-accused were heard. It subsequently held eight hearings in the case.\n16.  During the court proceedings the authorities further extended the applicant's detention. The court repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's continued detention.\n17.  On 28 February 2000 the Regional Court held the last hearing and gave judgment (the applicant was present). The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment and ten years' deprivation of his civil rights.\n18.  On 15 July 2000 the applicant's counsel lodged an appeal with the Katowice Court of Appeal, while the applicant himself appealed on 20 July 2000. They maintained in particular that the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court had gone beyond the proper margin of discretion in the assessment of evidence and had reached wrong conclusions as to the facts. They requested that the first-instance judgment be rectified or quashed.\n19.  On 11 October 2000 the Katowice Court of Appeal decided not to allow the applicant to participate in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3320", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Wrocław.\n5.  The applicant was arrested on 25 March 2003. On 27 March 2003 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court ordered his detention on remand on suspicion of theft and burglary. It observed that there was a risk that the applicant would obstruct the investigation by exerting pressure on witnesses or tampering with other evidence. The court also invoked the severity of the anticipated penalty.\n6.  On 23 April 2003 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Prosecutor ordered the seizure of the applicant's car with a view to securing the payment of any fine which might be imposed on him. It appears that the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. However, he has provided no further information about its outcome.\n7.  On 17 June 2003 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 25 September 2003, relying on the same grounds as given in its original decision.\n8.  On 18 September 2003 the District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 25 December 2003. It invoked the risk that he would obstruct the investigation, having regard to the fact that the alleged offences had been committed jointly with other persons. It also noted that certain evidence and a psychiatric report concerning the applicant had not yet been obtained.\n9.  On 28 November 2003 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court. The applicant was charged with 8 counts of theft and burglary. The bill of indictment specified that the applicant was subject to the rules on recidivism in view of his previous convictions.\n10.  On 18 December 2003 the District Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 24 March 2004, invoking the same grounds as previously. The applicant appealed. On 17 February 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his appeal. It observed that under Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the severity of the anticipated penalty could alone constitute a sufficient basis for the applicant's continued detention. On the other hand it agreed with the applicant's argument that the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings had not been substantiated by any concrete arguments.\n11.  On 23 February 2004 the bill of indictment was transmitted to the Warsaw District Court which, following an administrative reform, had become competent to hear the case.\n12.  On 11 March 2004 the Warsaw District Court extended the applicant's detention until 30 June 2004. It found that the anticipated heavy sentence was related to the number of charges and the fact that the applicant was a recidivist offender. It further noted that the prolongation of his detention was justified by administrative restrictions on the number of detained defendants who could be brought to court at any given time.\n13.  The trial started on 14 June 2004. On the same date the District Court ordered the applicant's continued detention until 30 September 2004.\n14.  On 26 August 2004 the District Court refused the applicant's request for release. It further extended his detention until 30 December 2004. Having regard to the likelihood that the applicant would be given a heavy sentence (cf. Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), the court found that his continued detention was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The applicant appealed. On 19 October 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld the decision. It relied on the fact that the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3321", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, an Iraqi Kurd, was born in 1976 and now lives and works as a doctor in London.\n10.  In December 2000 the applicant fled the Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq when, in the course of his duties as a hospital doctor, he treated and facilitated the escape of three fellow members of the Iraqi Workers’ Communist Party who had been injured in an attack. He arrived at Heathrow Airport on 30 December 2000 and immediately claimed asylum.\n11.  The immigration officer contacted the Oakington Reception Centre (“Oakington”, see paragraphs 23-25 below) but there was no immediate room there, so the applicant was granted “temporary admission” (see paragraphs 20-21 below) to stay at a hotel of his choice and return to the airport the following morning. On 31 December 2000 he reported as required and was again granted temporary admission until the following day. When the applicant again reported as required, he was, for the third time, granted temporary admission until 10 a.m. the following day, 2 January 2001.\n12.  On this last occasion, when the applicant reported as required, he was detained and transferred to Oakington.\n13.  When being taken into detention, the applicant was handed a standard form, “Reasons for Detention and Bail Rights”, indicating that detention was used only where there was no reasonable alternative, and setting out a list of reasons, such as risk of absconding, with boxes to be ticked by the immigration officer where appropriate. The form did not include an option indicating the possibility of detention for fast-track processing at Oakington.\n14.  On 4 January 2001 the applicant met at Oakington with a lawyer from the Refugee Legal Centre, who contacted the Home Office to enquire why the applicant was being detained and to request his release. On 5 January 2001, when the applicant had been detained for seventy-six hours, the lawyer was informed over the telephone by an immigration officer that the applicant was being detained because he was an Iraqi who fulfilled the Oakington criteria. The lawyer then wrote to the Home Office requesting the applicant’s release on the grounds that it was unlawful. When refused, the applicant applied for judicial review of the decision to detain him, claiming it was contrary to domestic law and Article 5 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention.\n15.  The applicant’s asylum claim was initially refused on 8 January. The following day he was released from Oakington and again granted temporary admission pending the determination of his appeal. On 14 January 2003 his appeal was allowed and he was granted asylum.\n16.  In the proceedings for judicial review of the decision to detain the applicant, Collins J on 7 September 2001 (R. (on the application of Saadi and others) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWHC Admin 670) found that the Secretary of State had such a power to detain under the Immigration Act 1971 (see paragraph 19 below). However, relying on the Court’s judgment in Amuur v. France (25 June 1996, § 43, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III), and what he considered to be a “sensible reading” of Article 5 § 1 (f), he found that it was not permissible under the Convention to detain, solely for purposes of administrative efficiency, an asylum-seeker who had followed the proper procedures and presented no risk of absconding. Even if the detention did fall within Article 5 § 1 (f), it was disproportionate to detain asylum-seekers for the purpose of quickly processing", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3322", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 4 December 1995 the applicant complained to the Budapest III District Municipality about the nuisance her neighbour was causing by using her flat as a hairdressing salon. On 5 March 1996 the Municipality dismissed the neighbour’s request for leave to use the flat in question as a hairdressing salon. The decision was upheld by the Budapest Administrative Office on 2 May 1996. The neighbour sought judicial review. The applicant, as a person whose lawful interest was at stake, was party to these and the ensuing administrative proceedings, under section 3(4) of the Code of Administrative Procedure as in force at the material time.\n6.  On 29 April 1997 the Pest Central District Court quashed the administrative decisions and remitted the case to the first instance administrative authority.\n7.  On 28 August 1998 the District Municipality issued the permit requested by the neighbour. On 3 February 1999 the Budapest Administrative Office quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first instance administrative authority.\n8.  The District Municipality again issued the permit in question on 31 May 1999. On 24 September 1999 the Budapest Administrative Office quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first instance administrative authority.\n9.  On 23 April 2001 the District Municipality discontinued the administrative proceedings. On 19 July 2001 this decision was quashed by the Budapest Administrative Office.\n10.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 29 October 2001 the District Municipality prohibited the neighbour from continuing to use the flat as a hairdressing salon. On 4 January 2002 this decision was upheld by the Budapest Administrative Office.\n11.  The neighbour sought judicial review. On 4 November 2003 the applicant’s intervention in these proceedings was allowed.\n12.  On 26 February 2004 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the prohibition, observing that the administrative authorities had never actually completed the principal proceedings concerning the neighbour’s request for leave to use the flat as a hairdressing salon.\n13.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 10 June 2005 the District Municipality issued the leave requested. On 28 June 2005 the applicant filed an appeal which was dismissed on 1 August 2005.\n14.  On 21 September 2005 the applicant sought judicial review under section 327(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the information currently in the case file, the proceedings are still pending; a hearing took place on 12 December 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3323", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1985, 1988 and 1951, respectively, and live in Székesfehérvár. Mr Krisztián Csősz and Mr Márk Adrián Csősz are the sons of Mr Barnabás Csősz, and the heirs of the latter's late wife (their mother), Mrs Virgília Csőszné Dőry, who was a plaintiff in the proceedings described below.\n6.  Due to an injury, Mr Krisztián Csősz developed a deformation of his left leg. In 1994 and 1995 he underwent repeated orthopaedic surgery at Pécs University Teaching Hospital. Despite these efforts, his left leg remained some 5 cm shorter than the other, causing him a certain disability.\n7.  On 17 April 1996 Mr Krisztián Csősz and his parents, Mr Barnabás Csősz and Mrs Virgília Csősz, filed an action in compensation against the University. They claimed that Mr Krisztián Csősz's disability was due to medical malpractice and that they had not been properly informed of the possible risks of the surgery proposed. On 21 May 1996 the University's insurer joined the proceedings as an intervening party.\n8.  After three hearings, on 4 November 1998 the Baranya County Regional Court gave an interim decision, holding that the respondent was liable to pay compensation in the case, on account of the inadequate information given to the patient's parents prior to the surgery. The court relied on the opinion of an expert institution (the Semmelweis Medical University Institute of Forensic Medicine) dated 26 November 1996 and its supplement on 25 June 1997. It also based the decision on the supervisory expert opinion of the Forensic Committee of the Council of Medical Science (“ETT IB”) dated 3 March 1998, which contained a review of the medical documentation of the case and the conclusion that the treatment applied had been carried out lege artis medicinae, and a supplement dated 2 September 1998, the latter having been prepared in reply to a motion introduced by the applicants.\n9.  On appeal, on 11 May 2000 the Supreme Court's appellate bench quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first instance court. It held that further evidence was to be taken in respect of the information given to the patient's parents prior to their consent to the surgery.\n10.  On 26 June 2000 Mrs Virgília Csősz died and was succeeded in the proceedings by her two sons.\n11.  On 9 March and 20 April 2001 the Regional Court held hearings. On 26 April 2001 it dismissed the action, holding that the surgery had not been unadvised in the circumstances, that it had been carried out respecting the rules of the medical profession and that the information provided to the patient's parents had been adequate. The court relied on the existing opinions of the expert institutions, documentary evidence and the testimonies of witnesses as to the oral information provided to the patient's parents about the risks.\n12.  On 14 May 2003 the Supreme Court's appellate bench dismissed the applicants' appeal. It accepted the first instance court's reasoning concerning the adequacy of the treatment provided, which it endorsed as follows:\n“[...] it had to be determined whether the requirement of maximum carefulness and circumspection was respected. Relying on the expert's opinion and on the supervisory opinion of the ETT IB, the first instance court reached the well-founded conclusion that this requirement was met in respect of the elected surgery, of the choice of the series of operations. ...\n[...] altogether, to carry out the operation did not mean a greater risk than its omission.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3324", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Bytom.\n5.  On 21 October 2002 the applicant was arrested. By a decision of 24 October 2002 the District Court in Wodzisław Śląski remanded him in custody on charges connected with organised crime. It had regard to evidence gathered by the prosecuting authorities which indicated that the applicant had committed the offences concerned. The applicant appealed, to no avail.\n6.  The same court subsequently extended the applicant's detention by decisions of, inter alia, 10 July and 7 October 2003 and 7 March 2004, until, respectively, 15 October 2003, 19 January and 19 July 2004. The court relied on the evidence gathered in the case which pointed to the likelihood of the applicant's guilt. It was also of the view that the applicant, if released, could hinder the proper course of the investigations and judicial proceedings by exerting pressure on witnesses and by colluding with his co-accused. It noted that many persons appeared to have been involved in the commission of the offences concerned and that it was therefore necessary to obtain a considerable amount of evidence. It also had regard to the applicant's criminal record.\n7.  On numerous other occasions the prosecuting authorities refused to release the applicant, relying on the same arguments and referring to the evidence gathered in the investigation.\n8.  On an unspecified number of occasions the applicant was allowed to see his wife during his detention. Between 15 December 2002, the date on which the applicant's wife gave birth to a son, and 21 November 2003 the applicant saw her and his son on at least three occasions.\n9.  On 30 September 2003 the prosecuting authorities lodged a bill of indictment with the Wodzislaw Śląski District Court. The applicant was charged with multiple counts of fraud.\n10.  On 11 December 2003 the court ordered that the applicant should serve a prison sentence imposed on him by a final judgment given in another criminal case concurrently with the present detention.\n11.  Hearings in the case were held on 7 January, 18 February and 25 October 2004. On the latter date the applicant was convicted as charged.\n12. The applicant submitted envelopes of two letters sent to him by the Court on 15 January 2004 and 30 March 2004. The envelope of the first letter bears the stamp “Censored (cenzurowano) – the Wodzisław Śląski District Court – Date”, signed with an illegible signature. The envelope of the second letter bears the full official stamp of the Wodzisław Śląski District Court and a handwritten note “censorship” (cenzura), accompanied by a handwritten date, 9 April 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3325", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In 1985 the applicant published the photograph 'Soroca Castle' in the album Poliptic Moldav. He received author's fees for that photograph.\n8.  In 1996 the Government adopted a decision regarding national identity cards using, inter alia, the photograph taken by the applicant as a background for the identity cards issued by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Moldova (“the Ministry”). The applicant was not consulted and did not agree to such a use of the photograph.\n9.  In 1998 he requested the Ministry to compensate him for the infringement of his rights caused by the unlawful use of the photograph he had taken, as well as to conclude a contract with him for the future use of the photograph.\n10.  When his request was rejected, the applicant initiated court proceedings against the Ministry on 10 November 1998. On 24 March 1999 the Chişinău Regional Court partly allowed his claims and found that he had been the author of the photograph which had been used without his agreement. The court awarded him 4,050 Moldovan lei (MDL), equivalent to 568 United States dollars (USD). The court also obliged the Ministry to publish an apology but rejected the applicant's request that the Ministry be ordered to conclude a contract with him for the future use of the photograph.\n11.  The applicant appealed. He submitted, inter alia, that the reason why he had not asked for the withdrawal of the identity cards already issued in infringement of his rights and for new identity cards using the photograph taken by him not to be issued in the future was that this would have incurred unreasonably high costs for the Ministry and would have caused unnecessary problems for identity card holders. He had therefore requested the conclusion of a contract with the Ministry.\n12.  On 16 September 1999 the Court of Appeal quashed the lower court's judgment and rejected the applicant's requests.\n13.  On 22 December 1999 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the Court of Appeal's judgment and upheld the judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court as regards the award to the applicant, while rejecting his request for an apology to be published. The court also ordered a re-examination of the case as regards the conclusion of a contract with the applicant for the future use of the photograph since, in its opinion, he had such a right.\n14.  From 1 May 2000 the Ministry ceased using the photograph taken by the applicant as a background for identity cards.\n15.  In a new set of proceedings the applicant requested compensation for the financial loss caused by the continued unlawful use of his photograph between the date of the judgment, 24 March 1999, and 1 May 2000. Since more than 260,000 identity cards had been issued during the relevant period, he claimed 10% of the amount paid by the identity cards' owners to the State (MDL 2,403,137). He also claimed compensation for infringement of his moral rights (MDL 200,000).\n16.  On 6 November 2001 the Chişinău Regional Court awarded the applicant MDL 180,000 in compensation for pecuniary damage and MDL 3,600 for non-pecuniary damage, while rejecting his request to oblige the Ministry to conclude a contract with him.\n17.  On 26 March 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and rejected the applicant's claims. The court found that, while the applicant's authorship of the relevant photograph ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3326", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Ziębice.\n5.  On 23 January 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed several burglaries.\n6.  On 26 January 2001 the Ząbkowice Śląskie District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It further considered that there was a fear that he would induce witnesses to give false testimony or would otherwise obstruct the proper course of the proceedings. It also stressed that a heavy penalty might be imposed on him.\n7.  On 15 February 2001, following an appeal by the applicant, the Świdnica Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld that decision.\n8.  His further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent, repeated applications for release were also unsuccessful. In his applications and appeals, he maintained that, given his bad health, detention was putting a severe strain on him. He also relied on his family's situation.\n9. On 20 February 2001 the Ząbkowice Śląskie District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) refused the applicant's motion for release as unsubstantiated. His appeal against the decision was to no avail.\n10.  On 22 March 2001 the applicant was indicted before the Ząbkowice Śląskie District Court. He was charged with fifteen counts of attempted or actual burglary and three counts of receiving stolen goods. The bill of indictment concerned four defendants. In all, fifty-two charges were brought against them. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from some forty-seven witnesses.\n11.  On 23 March 2001 the applicant lodged with the Ząbkowice Śląskie District Court an application for release. He relied on his family situation.\n12.  On 26 March 2001 the Ząbkowice Śląskie District Court refused the applicant's application. The court stated that the reasons for his detention were still valid and that there was a fear that the applicant would attempt to influence witnesses or co-defendants. It referred to the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed on the applicant, as he had been charged with an offence attracting a statutory maximum sentence of at least 8 years' imprisonment. The court did not accept the applicant's argument that since the date of his arrest his children had been living below the poverty line. It observed that the applicant's wife had a job and a steady income.\n13.  On 10 April 2001 the Ząbkowice Śląskie District Court asked the director of the detention centre where the applicant was being held for an opinion concerning the applicant's state of health.\n14.  On 17 April 2001 the applicant lodged a motion to hear evidence from seven witnesses.\n15.  On 18 April 2001 the authorities of the Kłodzko Detention Centre stated that the applicant could be held in detention and that his detention did not impose any threat to his health.\n16.  On 19 April 2001 the Ząbkowice Śląskie District Court extended the applicant's detention until 23 July 2001. The court gave the following reasons for its decision:\n“The reasons for his [the applicant's] detention are still valid. There is still a fear that he will attempt to influence [witnesses or co-defendants]; in addition there is a likelihood that a severe penalty will be imposed on the [applicant], because he has been charged with an offence for which he may be liable to a statutory maximum sentence of at least 8 years' imprisonment. Special reasons ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3327", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Söke.\n5.  At the time of the events the applicant was employed as an electrician in a private company.\n6.  On 2 August 1991 the scaffolding on which the applicant was working collapsed and resulted in the applicant’s total disability.\n7.  On 16 September 1991 the applicant brought an action for damages in the Söke Labour Court.\n8.  On 3 February 1994 the Söke Labour Court partially upheld the applicant’s claims and awarded 10,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) for pecuniary damage and TRL 30,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage, plus interest at the statutory rate, running from the date of the incident.\n9.  The defendant appealed.\n10.  On 11 October 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Söke Labour Court. It found that the Labour Court had incorrectly calculated the amount of compensation and interest.\n11.  The Söke Labour Court rendered its second judgment on 12 September 1995, awarding the same amounts as before.\n12.  On 23 January 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment. It held that, although the Söke Labour Court had decided to conform to the Court of Cassation’s previous decision, it had reached the same conclusion as before.\n13.  On 29 November 1996 the applicant lodged an additional claim with the same court, requesting further damages. These two cases were later joined.\n14.  The Söke Labour Court issued its third judgment on 12 June 1997. It upheld the applicant’s additional claim lodged on 29 November 1996 and granted TRL 1,574,919,236 for pecuniary damage and TRL 30,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage, plus interest at the statutory rate, running from the date of the judgment and from the date of the incident respectively.\n15.  The defendant appealed.\n16.  On 21 October 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the Labour Court’s decision for the third time on the same ground as before.\n17.  On 3 November 1998 the Söke Labour Court issued its fourth judgment, dismissing the applicant’s pecuniary damage claims as a whole. In its reasoning, the court held that the Court of Cassation’s assessment method was inapplicable to the incident. It also pointed out that its previous decision regarding the applicant’s non-pecuniary damage claims had become final on 3 February 1994 as the defendant had not challenged it.\n18.  The applicant appealed.\n19.  On 4 May 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the first instance court’s decision on the ground that it had not calculated the applicant’s damage in compliance with the principles stated in its judgment of 11 November 1994.\n20.  On 17 May 2001 the Söke Labour Court awarded the applicant TRL 1,579,135,521 for pecuniary damage plus interest at the statutory rate, running from the date of the judgment.\n21.  Both parties appealed.\n22.  On 8 November 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the Söke Labour Court’s judgment for the fifth time, criticising the method of calculation applied by the Labour Court.\n23.  On 16 February 2006 the Labour Court awarded the applicant 1,579 New Turkish liras (YTL) for his pecuniary damage claims, plus interest at the statutory rate, running from the date of the judgment.\n24.  The applicant appealed.\n25.  On 12 June 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the Söke Labour Court’s judgment in full without giving any reasons of its own.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3329", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in İstanbul.\n6.  On 31 March 1983 the applicant bought a plot of land (plot no. 2464) in Şarköy, measuring 690 m2. On 22 January 1984, following an official cadastre measurement, the applicant's land was found to measure 564 m2. The remaining 126m2 was registered as belonging to the neighbouring plot no. 2463, owned by Mr A.Ö.\n7.  On 15 November 1993 the applicant brought proceedings against A.Ö. in the Şarköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, challenging the accuracy of the new measurement and requesting that the disputed land be re-registered in her name.\n8.  The Şarköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction held thirty hearings between 15 November 1993 and 13 July 1999.\n9.  An on-site inspection was conducted on 13 July 1994 to which the applicant objected.\n10.  On 31 January 1995 the applicant referred to another proceeding that had taken place before the Şarköy Magistrate Court which was linked to her case and requested the Şarköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction to examine the case file no. 1983/183. At the next hearing held on 4 April 1995 the applicant notified the court that the case-file brought from the archives was wrong as she had quoted the wrong reference number previously.\n11.  The correct file which was requested from the archives again could not be submitted to the court until 23 September 1997 due to, inter alia, the flooding of the archives.\n12.  On 18 December 1997 the court decided to hold a second on-site inspection, the conduct of which was delayed to 23 June 1999 mainly due to adverse weather conditions.\n13.  On 13 July 1999 the Şarköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction declared lack of jurisdiction as the on-site inspection revealed that the value of the plot of land in dispute was lower than 2,000,000 Turkish liras. The court held that, if the applicant still intended to pursue her claim, she should institute the proceedings before the Şarköy Magistrate's Court.\n14.  On 21 July 2003, almost four years after the decision of the Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, the applicant applied to the Şarköy Magistrate's Court.\n15.  On 21 January 2004 the court granted the applicant's request and decided that the disputed land should be registered in her name.\n16.  On 24 September 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.\n17.  The defendant requested the rectification of this decision. His request was rejected by the Court of Cassation on 13 January 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3330", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and was serving a prison sentence in Diyarbakır prison at the time of his application to the Court.\n5.  On 4 April 1993 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party). According to the arrest report, the applicant resisted the arrest and the police officers had to use force to apprehend him.\n6.  On 19 April 1993 the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, where he denied the allegations against him. The judge ordered the applicant's detention on remand.\n7.  On 29 April 1993 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Sağmalcılar State Hospital who noted that there was a restriction in the functioning of the right shoulder and elbow.\n8.  On 4 May 1993 a doctor from the Eyüp Forensic Medicine Institute drew up a report, according to which there were numerous ecchymoses and lesions on the various parts of the applicant's body and there was a reduced functioning of the right arm.\n9.  In a further report dated 9 July 1993, it was concluded that the injuries on the applicant's body rendered him unfit for work for ten days.\n10.  On 5 May 1993 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, along with twenty‑seven other persons, charging him with membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  On 12 July 1993 the applicant maintained before the Istanbul State Security Court that his statements had been taken under torture while in police custody. At the end of the hearing, the court concluded that the applicant's representative could file a complaint with the authorities about the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment.\n12.  On 22 January 1997 the public prosecutor proposed to alter the charge against the applicant to treason against the integrity of the State, a capital offence under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n13.  Between 12 July 1993 and 6 March 2000 the first-instance court held forty-six hearings. The applicant did not attend twenty-eight of them.\n14.  On 6 March 2000 the applicant submitted his final defence submissions to the court. In his petition, the applicant denied the charges against him. Repeating his allegations of torture, the applicant maintained that he had been hung from his arms during his police custody.\n15.  On the same day, the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to the death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. The death penalty was commuted to a life sentence. In its judgment, the first-instance court did not list the applicant's statements taken by the police as evidence, having regard to the doctors' reports. It nevertheless convicted the applicant holding that other evidence corroborated his statements to the police.\n16.  The applicant appealed. In his petition, he maintained that the judgment of the first-instance court was based on his police statements which had been taken under torture.\n17.  On 21 March 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 6 March 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3331", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in İstanbul.\n5.  On 8 September 1999 at 5.15 a.m. the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party). According to the arrest protocol, the police officers had to use force to apprehend the applicant since he resisted the arrest. The applicant refrained from signing this document. The applicant alleged that, contrary to what was indicated in the arrest protocol, he had been arrested on 5 September 1999.\n6.  Following his arrest, the applicant was blindfolded, put in a car and threats were uttered against him. After being driven around for some time, still blindfolded, he was taken to the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate. There, the applicant was allegedly punched, kicked, beaten on the head and the back with a truncheon and threatened with death. He also alleged that his testicles were squeezed.\n7.  On 8 September 1999 at 7.10 a.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor in the Haseki State Hospital who noted an ecchymosis of 9 x 3 cm on the left of the lower part of his abdominal region. The doctor concluded that there were marks of physical violence on the applicant's body and considered that he should be examined by an urologist. On the same day at 7.25 a.m. the applicant was examined by an urologist who found, by using the technique of palpation, that the applicant's testicles were painful and sensitive.\n8.  On 9 September 1999 the applicant was again examined by a general practitioner in the Haseki State Hospital who considered that the applicant should be taken to an internist. According to the report drawn up by the doctor, the applicant was brought to him as he was on a hunger strike in police custody. The applicant was then taken back to the Security Directorate.\n9.  On 11 September 1999 the applicant was again examined by a general practitioner in the Haseki State Hospital who noted that the applicant was brought before him because of hunger strike. The doctor considered that the applicant should be examined by an internist. On the same day, the applicant underwent a blood test.\n10.  On 12 September 1999 the applicant was examined by a doctor in the Haseki State Hospital who noted that there was no sign of physical violence on his body.\n11.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court. In his statement, he maintained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody and that, therefore, he had started a hunger strike. Subsequently, on the same day, the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. Before the judge, the applicant maintained that he had been kept in police custody for about one week and that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during custody. He further denied the accusations against him. The judge ordered the applicant's release as there was no strong evidence demonstrating that he had committed the offences of which he was accused.\n12.  On 14 September 1999 the applicant filed a complaint with the Büyükçekmece public prosecutor's office against the police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Security Directorate, who had allegedly ill-treated him. In his petition, the applicant maintained that he had been arbitrarily deprived of his liberty between 5 and 8 S", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3332", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul.\n7.  On 12 February 1993 the applicant started working as a judge in Tufanbeyli district in Adana.\n8.  On 14 August 1995 the General Command of the Gendarmerie submitted a formal complaint to the judicial inspection board attached to the Ministry of Justice concerning the applicant's behaviour. A disciplinary investigation into the allegations was conducted by a judicial inspector.\n9.  On 1 March 1996 the judicial inspection board notified the applicant in writing that a disciplinary investigation had been carried out under Section 82 of Law no. 2802 into a number of acts which he had allegedly committed and which were considered incompatible with his status as a judge. The letter set out the charges against the applicant and he was requested to submit his defence in writing.\n10.  The charges, five in all, included the accusation that the applicant had undermined the honour and dignity of the judiciary as well as respect for his own position as a judge (the first charge). The other four charges related, inter alia, to reported incidents of his conflictual behaviour towards his colleagues and to his failure to respect the dress code of the profession and working hours.\n11.  The judicial inspector drafted a report dated 27 March 1996, according to which there was no evidence to justify opening an investigation into the first set of charges. However, he stated that evidence had been obtained that the applicant had behaved in a conflictual way with his colleagues and that he shaved only once a week, came late to work and did not wear a tie. This report was submitted to the judicial inspection board of the Ministry of Justice. The Government submitted that the judicial inspector heard evidence from the Governor, the public prosecutor, the applicant and his colleagues.\n12.  On 29 April 1996 the Minister of Justice approved the transfer of the whole case file to the Supreme Council of Judges and Public Prosecutors (“the Supreme Council”) with a view to the consideration of possible disciplinary measures under Section 87 of Law no. 2802.\n13.  With regard to the first set of charges concerning the accusation that the applicant had undermined the honour and dignity of the judiciary as well as respect for his own position as a judge, the applicant was accused of introducing himself at various social events as being “of Kurdish origin” and of behaving in a manner which displayed his sympathy for the PKK[1]. It was stated that the applicant had said: “If they throw me out of the judiciary, I will go to Germany to join the organisation.” It was further alleged that the applicant talked to Kurdish-speaking citizens in Kurdish in order to gain their sympathy. He was also accused of regularly reading a legal publication of the PKK, Özgür Ülke, until it was banned and of watching Med TV a PKK-controlled television channel, via a satellite, antenna at his home.\n14.  In respect of the remaining sets of charges, the applicant was accused of quarrelling on various occasions with the public prosecutor, of shaving only once a week, of not wearing a tie at work and of coming to work late.\n15.  In his written submissions to the Supreme Council, the applicant denied the accusations against him, maintaining that they were false, inaccurate and incomplete or had been misinterpreted. He assumed that the evidence against him consisted of statements given by his colleagues and other civil servants. He alleged th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3333", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Teykovo, Ivanovo Region.\n5.  The applicant is entitled to welfare payments for her children.  In 2001 she brought civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments for 1998 – 2000.\n6.  By default judgment of 21 November 2001 the Teykovo Town Court of the Ivanovo Region awarded 11,151.90 Russian roubles (RUB) in her favour. Ten days later the judgment became final and a writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs.\n7.  In June 2002 the welfare authority paid a part of the applicant's court award in the amount of RUB 1,928.63.\n8.  In 2003 the applicant brought a fresh claim, seeking to have her court award linked to the rate of inflation.\n9.  On 24 March 2003 the Teykovo Town Court awarded her RUB 1,854.39. The judgment became final ten days later and enforcement proceedings were commenced accordingly.\n10.  In 2004 the applicant lodged a court complaint against the bailiffs concerning their failure to enforce the judgments of 21 November 2001 and 24 March 2003 in time.\n11.  On 30 March 2004 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Ivanovo rejected the applicant's claims as groundless, having found that the delays in the enforcement proceedings had not been imputable to the bailiffs.\n12.  On 12 May 2004 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment on appeal.\n13.  Thereafter the applicant unsuccessfully applied for a supervisory review of the judgment of 30 March 2004 and the decision of 12 May 2004.\n14.  On 4 June 2004 the welfare authority paid the applicant another part of the judgment debt in the amount of RUB 4,207.92.\n15.  On 21 December 2004 the welfare authority paid the applicant the remaining part of the judgment debt in the amount of RUB 6,869.74.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3334", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the city of Khmelnitskiy.\n5.  The applicant is a former military serviceperson. She retired in June 2001.\n6.  On 22 April 2003 the Khmelnytsky City Court ordered the military unit A-0264 to pay the applicant UAH 2,207[1] in salary arrears. This judgment became final on 23 May 2003.\n7.  On 16 January 2004 the Pershotravnevy Bailiffs' Office of Chernivtsi (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) returned the writ of execution to the applicant due to the lack of funds on the debtor's bank account.\n8.  On 5 April 2004 the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Chernivtsi rejected the applicant's claim against the alleged inactivity of the Bailiffs.\n9.  On 13 February 2006 the Bailiffs re-opened the enforcement proceedings and on 20 February 2006 joined them to other enforcement proceedings pending against the debtor.\n10.  On 28 July 2006 the Bailiffs returned the writ of execution to the applicant due to the lack of funds on the debtor's bank account.\n11.  The judgment of 22 April 2003 remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3335", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Sidorovka, in the Rostov region of the Russian Federation.\n6.  On 18 May 1999 the Rovenky Court (Ровеньківський міський суд Луганської області) awarded the applicant 8,895.36 hryvnyas (UAH) against his former Ukrainian employer, the State-owned OJSC Mine “Dzerzhynskogo” (Державне відкрите акціонерне товариство «Шахта ім. Дзержинського»), in disability benefits and other payments.\n7.  This judgment was not appealed against, became final, and enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the debt.\n8.  The debt was paid to the applicant in numerous small instalments, the last payment of UAH 363.46 having been made on 17 June 2005.\n9.  As explained by the bailiffs' service, the enforcement of the judgment had been delayed on account of numerous reasons, including a prolonged reorganization of the debtor, insufficient funds and a tax lien imposed on its property, as well as a statutory moratorium on the forced sale of the State property.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3336", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933. He died on 2 July 2005. In a letter of 10 March 2006 the applicant's son, Mr Yuriy Mikhaylovych Fedortsi, informed the Court that he wished to pursue the application.\n5.  In December 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against the Moskovska State Mine (ДП “Шахта Московська”, hereafter “the Mine”) seeking recovery of occupational disability allowance arrears.\n6.  On 22 February 2000 the Shakhtarsk Town Court (Шахтарський міський суд, hereafter “the Shakhtarsk Court”) found in part for the applicant and awarded him 2,108.64 Ukrainian Hryvnas[1] (UAH) in compensation for allowance arrears. Considering this sum insufficient, the applicant appealed.\n7.  On 20 March 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court (Донецький обласний суд) partially quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n8.  On 24 May 2000 the Shakhtarsk Court allowed the applicant's claim in part and awarded him UAH 3,616.63[2] in compensation for allowance arrears. The applicant again appealed.\n9.  On 11 September 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 24 May 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n10.  On 21 November 2000 the Shakhtarsk Court raised the applicant's award up to UAH 3,980.16[3]. This judgment was not appealed against.\n11.  In 2001 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court (Верховний Суд України) a request for leave to appeal against the judgment of 21 November 2000 under the new cassation procedure. On 18 September 2001 the panel of three judges of the Supreme Court rejected his request.\n12.  On 14 December 2002 the Shakhtarsk Town Bailiffs' Service (Відділ держаної виконавчої служби Шахтарського міського управління юстиції, hereafter “the Shakhtarsk Bailiffs' Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the Shakhtarsk Court's judgment of 21 November 2000.\n13.  On 24 July 2001 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy (Міністерство палива і енергетики) decided to wind up the Mine.\n14.  On 28 August 2001 the Shakhtarsk Bailiffs' Service remitted the applicant's writ of execution and enforcement case-file to the Mine's liquidation commission.\n15.  On 3 December 2002 the applicant was paid the court award in full. On the same date the enforcement proceedings were terminated.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3337", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Andrey Gabdrakhmanovich Karimov, is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1968 and lives in the Yastrebki village, the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea (the “ARC”).\n5.  On 11 December 1996 the Prosecutor of the Chervonogvardiysky District of the ARC (the “Prosecutor of the ARC”) initiated a criminal investigation after the discovery of a corpse of an unidentified person near the Chervonogvardiysky village of the ARC. Subsequently, that person was thought to be someone called Sasha.\n6.  On 14 December 1996 the Chervonogvardiysky District Prosecutor's Office (the “CDPO”) detained the applicant on suspicion of having murdered Sasha.\n7.  On 17 December 1996 the Chervonogvardiysky District Prosecutor charged the applicant with murder. He also decided to detain the applicant on remand as there was a risk of him absconding and impeding the investigation in the case.\n8.  On 25 December 1996 the jurisdiction over the investigation into the murder was transferred to the Nyzhnyogirsky District Prosecutor's Office (the “NDPO”).\n9.  On 7 March 1997 the Nyzhnyogirsky District Prosecutor issued a bill of indictment against the applicant charging him with murder under the influence of alcohol.\n10.  On 7 April 1997 the case was remitted to the court for examination on the merits of the charges brought against the applicant.\n11.  On 2 June 1997 the Nyzhnyogirsky District Court of the ARC (the “Nyzhnyogirsky Court”), composed of the President of that court judge K., sentenced the applicant to eight years' imprisonment following his conviction for murder. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against this decision with the Supreme Court of the ARC.\n12.  On 17 July 1997 the Supreme Court of the ARC quashed the judgment of 2 June 1997 and remitted the case for additional investigation due to a lack of corroborating evidence of the applicant's guilt. It also ruled that the applicant, who suffered from mental retardation (oligophrenia) was not legally represented in the course of criminal investigation brought against him.\n13.  On 10 November 1997 the person called Sasha re-appeared and was questioned by the NDPO.\n14.  On 20 November 1997 the NDPO released the applicant on condition that he did not leave his place of residence.\n15.  On 28 November 1997 the prosecution was terminated due to the absence of corpus juris delicti in respect of the applicant's acts. The investigation also revealed that the applicant stole two ducks from Ms M. (a private person) for a total value of UAH 30. The investigation into theft of private property was also terminated due to the “change of circumstances”.\n16.  On 10 March 1998 the NDPO stayed the criminal investigation in the case due to their inability to identify the person who had committed the murder.\n17.  On 21 February 2000 the Deputy Prosecutor of the ARC quashed the decisions of 28 November 1997 and 10 March 1998 and remitted the case to the CDPO for a preliminary investigation in accordance with the territorial jurisdiction. It also resolved that the applicant should be involved in the proceedings as being suspected of murder.\n18.  On 22 February 2001 the Prosecutor's Office of the ARC terminated the criminal investigation due to the absence of any corpus juris delicti in respect of the applicant's acts.\n19.  On 21 January 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Nyzhnyogirsky Court seeking compensation for damage caused by his unlawful prosecution, detention and conviction.\n20.  The G", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3338", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and resides in the town of Gorlivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  According to the applicant, in 1997 he instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Court of Gorlivka against his former employer, the Lenin State Mining Company (шахта ім. Леніна м. Горлівки), claiming compensation for damage to his health. On 6 July 2001 the court awarded the applicant a lump sum of 43,241.61[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) and monthly payments of UAH 834.31[2] (рішення Центрально-міського суду м. Горлівки). This judgment became final on 3 December 2001.\n6.  On 23 January 2002 the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Bailiffs’ Service of Gorlivka (відділ Державної виконавчої служби Управління юстиції Центрально-міського району м. Горлівки) initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n7.  By letters of 17 April, 14 May, 27 December 2002 and 21 November 2003, the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that it was impossible to sell the debtor’s property because, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced.\n8.  On 27 February 2003 the applicant was paid UAH 11,546.43. According to the Government, in 2005 the applicant had been paid UAH 1,475.64 in addition to the aforesaid sum. No document in support of this statement has been submitted.\n9.  The applicant disagreed, stating that he had been paid UAH 11,546.43 only.\n10.  Both parties agreed that the court judgment remains partly unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3339", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Kyiv, Ukraine.\nFirst set of proceedings\n5.  In April 1994 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Irpin Town Court (Ірпінський міський суд Київської області) against her former husband seeking to divide their property. The latter lodged a counterclaim. On 18 August 1995 the court divided the property between the applicant and her former husband.\n6.  On 6 February 1996 the Kyiv Regional Court (Київський обласний суд)[1] quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n7.  On 23 December 1997 the Irpin Town Court adopted another judgment on the division of property between the applicant and her former husband. The court further rejected the remainder of principal and counter claims.\n8.  On 10 March 1998 the Kyiv Regional Court quashed this judgment and, because of the complexity of the issues involved, took over the case. In its ruling the court stated inter alia that by partially rejecting the principal and counter claims the Irpin Town Court in fact had left unsettled the matter of property right over the house which was a part of the disputed property.\n9.  In the course of the aforesaid proceedings a number of forensic examinations have been ordered by the courts. In particular, in their rulings of 22 October 1996 and 22 April 1999 the courts, ordering additional examinations, noted inter alia that “inasmuch as long period of time ha[d] lapsed since the previous forensic examination[s]” they, accordingly, were out-of-date and did not correspond to the actual state of things.\n10.  By its letter of 16 July 2001 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal remitted the case back to the first instance court for examination. The court did not provide any reasoning for this remittal except for a general reference to Article 31 of the Judiciary Law, which, at the material time, set forth the competence of a court of appeal.\n11.  On 19 February 2002 the Irpin Town Court divided the property between the applicant and her former husband. In particular, the court held that the applicant did not have any property rights regarding the house, in which she lived with her former husband.\n12.  On 2 July 2002 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment.\n13.  On 20 January 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.\nSecond set of proceedings\n14.  In April 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Irpin Town Court against her former husband complaining that he had evicted her from the house in which they lived. She also sought to move in the house in question. On 26 June 2003 the court found against the applicant and held that the house in question was owned by the applicant's former husband and a certain M. Moreover, in March 2003 the applicant's former husband had sold his part of the house to D. Therefore, the applicant had no property rights over the house in question and there were no legal grounds to move her in. On 21 October 2003 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. On 29 August 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3340", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1927. He died on 23 May 2005. In a letter of 17 January 2006, the applicant's wife Mrs Yelisaveta Vadymivna Prypiyalo (Ratushna) informed the Court that she wished to pursue the application.\n5.  In August 1972 the Prosecutor of the Cherkassy District (Прокурор Черкаського району) brought proceedings against the applicant's late mother claiming that her house in the town of Smila should be expropriated as having been built without proper authorisation of the competent local authorities. On 9 March 1973 the People's Court of the Cherkassy District (Народний суд Черкаського району) allowed this application. On 11 April 1973 this judgment was upheld on appeal.\n6.  On 27 December 1989 the Supreme Court of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialistic Republic (Верховний Суд УРСР), acting as a supervisory instance, quashed the above judgment and remitted the case for rehearing.\n7.  After several rounds of court proceedings on 30 January 1992 the Smiliansky Town Court (Смілянський міський суд) dismissed the prosecutor's application and found the expropriation of the house concerned unlawful. On 4 March 1992 the Cherkassy Regional Court (Черкаський обласний суд) rejected the appeal of the Smila Town Council and upheld this judgment.\n8.  As the expropriated house was rented by the Smila Town Council to third persons, the applicant brought proceedings for their eviction. This claim was eventually dismissed by the Cherkassy Regional Court on 7 June 1995.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings against various municipal and State authorities claiming damages incurred by the unlawful expropriation of the disputed house.\n10.  On 6 March 1998 the Sosnivsky District Court (Соснівський районний суд, hereafter “the Sosnivsky Court”) rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. On 13 March 1998 the Cherkassy Regional Court upheld the applicant's appeal, quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the Sosnivsky Court for a fresh consideration.\n11.  On an unspecified date the Cherkassy Regional Court withdrew the case from the Sosnivsky Court and examined it in the first instance.\n12.  On 22 October 1999 the Cherkassy Regional Court partly allowed the applicant's claim, awarding him UAH 12,839.36[1] in compensation for the unlawful expropriation of the house, to be paid by the Cherkassy Regional Department of the State Treasury of Ukraine (Управління державного казначейства України в Черкаській області).\n13.  On 16 February 2000 the Supreme Court of Ukraine (Верховний суд України) upheld this judgment.\n14.  On 15 June 2000 the Sosnivky District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ державної виконавчої служби Соснівського районного управління юстиції) instituted the enforcement proceedings.\n15.  On 10 July 2000 the applicant brought proceedings in the Sosnivsky Court challenging the inactivity of the bailiff, assigned to deal with his enforcement case.\n16.  By letter of 22 December 2000, the Deputy Head of the Cherkassy Regional Department of Justice (Черкаське обласне управління юстиції) informed the applicant that the judgment of 22 October 1999 could not be executed due to the lack of funds in the State budget.\n17.  On 31 January 2001 the Sosnivsky Court rejected the applicant's complaint against the bailiff as being unsubstantiated.\n18.  On 7 March 2001 the Cherkassy Regional Court upheld this judgment.\n19.  By letter of 27 June 2002, the Head of the Cherkassy Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3341", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1962, 1966, 1956 and 1954 respectively and live in Pécs.\n5.  On 22 September 1993 Mr and Mrs Glöckler brought an action against Mrs and Mr Zoltán Weich and the latter’s brother, Mr László Weich. In the context of a real estate dispute, the plaintiffs sought the invalidation of a donation contract executed between the respondents.\n6.  On 7 December 1993 Mr László Weich died. The proceedings were subsequently interrupted. The deceased respondent’s successor, Mr Zoltán Weich, was only identified by the parties in a submission made to the court on 8 September 1995.\n7.  After three hearings, on 13 May 1996 the Pécs District Court found for the plaintiffs.\n8.  On 5 March 1997 the Baranya County Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, on 14 April 1999 the District Court again found for the plaintiffs, after having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert.\n10.  On appeal, on 21 September 1999 the Regional Court reversed the first-instance decision and dismissed the plaintiffs’ action.\n11.  On 27 March 2001 the Supreme Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the second-instance court.\n12.  In the resumed second-instance proceedings, on 11 September 2001 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 14 April 1999. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court’s review bench on 13 January 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3342", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Kaišiadorys.\n10.  He formerly worked as a prosecutor in the Kaišiadorys region.\n11.  The applicant submitted that in late 1998 and early 1999 he had been approached by AZ, a person previously unknown to him, through VS, a private acquaintance. AZ had asked him to secure the acquittal of a third person and had offered him a bribe of 3,000 United States dollars (USD) in return. The applicant had initially refused but had later agreed after AZ had reiterated the offer a number of times.\n12.  The Government submitted that VS and AZ had approached the applicant and negotiated the bribe with him on their own private initiative, without having first informed the authorities. They alleged that AZ had suspected the applicant of having accepted bribes in the past.\n13.  On an unspecified date AZ, who was in fact an officer of a special anti-corruption police unit of the Ministry of the Interior (Specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba – “the STT”), informed his employers that the applicant had agreed to accept a bribe.\n14.  On 26 January 1999 the STT applied to the Deputy Prosecutor General, requesting authorisation to use a criminal conduct simulation model (“the model” – see paragraph 32 below). The request stated:\n“Senior Commissioner [GM], Head of the Operational Activities Division of the [STT], having had access to information concerning [the applicant’s] criminal conduct, has established that [the applicant] takes bribes since he has agreed to assist a defendant, [MN], in return for payment.\nIn implementing the criminal conduct simulation model, which is intended to establish, record and put an end to [the applicant’s] unlawful acts, an STT official [AZ] will hand over 12,000 litai, or the equivalent in foreign currency if required.\nImplementation of [the model] will require [AZ] to simulate criminal acts punishable under Articles 284 and 329 of the [Criminal Code].\nWith reference to section 11 of the Operational Activities Act ..., the undersigned requests the Deputy Prosecutor General to authorise the criminal conduct simulation model for a period of one year.\nThis request is based on the information obtained during the preliminary inquiry.”\n15.  On 26 January 1999 the STT sent a letter to the Deputy Prosecutor General outlining the model as follows:\n“[STT] officials have collected operational information attesting that [the applicant] takes bribes.\nIn implementing the criminal conduct simulation model, which is intended to establish, record and put an end to [the applicant’s] unlawful acts, an STT official [AZ] will simulate the offences of offering a bribe and breaching currency and securities regulations.\nIn view of the above, and in accordance with section 11 of the Operational Activities Act, I hereby request you to authorise the criminal conduct simulation model and thus to exempt [AZ] from criminal responsibility for the offences under Articles 284 and 329 of the [Criminal Code] which are intended to be simulated.\n[The model] will be implemented by STT officials on the basis of a separate operational action plan.\nImplementation of [the model] will be financed by STT resources.”\n16.  On 27 January 1999 the Deputy Prosecutor General gave the required authorisation by countersigning and placing his official seal on the letter in question. This document constituted the final version of the model.\n17.  On 28 January 1999 the applicant accepted USD 1,500 from AZ.\n18.  On 11 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3343", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Üröm.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicant is a retired truck driver. Between 1982 and 1989 he worked for an Italian company, but as the employee of Hungarocamion, a Hungarian transportation company. The Italian company paid Hungarocamion a certain monthly sum corresponding to the work performed by the applicant. For his part, the applicant received the salary from Hungarocamion stipulated in his employment contract.\n7.  Since he allegedly did not receive the whole sum transferred by the Italian company to Hungarocamion, the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the Italian company. The Italian courts partly found for him on 19 March 1997 and, finally at second-instance, on 10 May 2001.\n8.  Meanwhile, on 30 April 1993 the applicant brought an action against Hungarocamion before the Budapest Labour Court, alleging that the respondent had not transferred to him all the money which it had received from its Italian partner as his salary.\n9.  On 2 February, 31 August and 26 October 1994 the Labour Court held hearings.\n10.  Upon the applicant’s request, the Labour Court suspended the proceedings on 10 November 1994 in view of the applicant’s Italian court case. The proceedings only resumed on 7 February 2000 at the applicant’s request.\n11.  On 15 February 2000 the Labour Court invited the applicant to submit the certified translation of the documents produced in the Italian proceedings. The applicant complied with this order on 24 May 2000.\n12.  On 30 May and 10 October 2001, 9 January, 17 April and 11 September 2002, 28 May and 10 September 2003, the Labour Court held hearings.\n13.  On 24 September 2003 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action, finding that the respondent’s salary policy had been in compliance with the law in force at the relevant time. The Labour Court relied on documentary evidence and testimony given by witnesses and the parties.\n14.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision on 6 May 2004.\n15.  On 4 July 2004 the applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 13 April 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3344", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1919, 1941, 1947 and 1955, and live in Etes, Bátonyterenye, Salgótarján and Etes, respectively.\n5.  In a real estate dispute, on 23 June 1994 Mr S. and others brought an action for a servitude (szolgalom) against the applicants.\n6.  After three hearings, the preparation of an expert opinion and the identification of a plaintiff's successor, on 18 June 1998 the Salgótarján District Court found for the plaintiffs. On appeal, on 12 November 1998 the Nógrád County Regional Court quashed this decision.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings, on 4 March 1999 the plaintiffs changed their action and claimed ownership. Subsequently, the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of an underlying land register procedure. The latter ended on 8 January 2001. On 23 April 2001 the plaintiffs' representative requested the resumption of the principal case.\n8.  The proceedings resumed on 6 June 2001. After several hearings and the opinion of an expert, on 2 December 2003 the District Court dismissed the action.\n9.  On appeal, on 11 May 2004 the Regional Court changed this decision and granted the plaintiffs the servitude they sought.\n10.  On 20 September 2004 the applicants requested the re-opening of the case. On 27 April 2005 the Regional Court admitted their request.\n11.  In the reopened proceedings, on 8 December 2005 the District Court established that the plaintiffs' adverse possession of the servitude in question had not taken place. It ordered the servitude to be deleted from the land register.\n12.  On appeal, on 25 April 2006 the Regional Court changed this decision and upheld its decision of 11 May 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3345", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1934 and 1937 respectively and live in Budapest.\n5.  In 1981 the applicants, as a courtesy, permitted their neighbour to connect his house to the pipeline supplying their house with water. However, in 1992 they wished to terminate the courtesy use of their water system.\n6.  In the resultant litigation, which started on 27 March 1992, the Vác District Court dismissed the applicants' action on 4 March 1993. This decision was quashed by the Pest County Regional Court on 11 November 1993.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings, the opinion of an expert was obtained on 26 January 1996. On 23 April 1996 the District Court invited the respondent to bring another action with a view to having a servitude registered in his favour. He did so on 8 May 1996. The cases were joined on 10 October 1997.\n8.  After several hearings, on 23 February 1999 the District Court dismissed both the applicants' claim to have the neighbour's water connection removed and the latter's claim to establish a servitude. It ordered the neighbour to pay a fee for the use of the applicants' land.\n9.  On appeal, on 5 October 2000 the Pest County Regional Court upheld this decision in essence, but modified the amount of the fee payable. On 29 October 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants' petition for review. This decision was served on 25 March 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3346", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  In a judgment of 14 September 1995 the Karlovo District Court found the applicant guilty of theft and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment, suspended for a period of three years. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n8.  In a judgment of 21 May 1997 the Karlovo District Court found the applicant guilty of theft and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment. As the conviction concerned an offence committed during the three-year operational period of the applicant's sentence in case no. 14/95, the court also ordered the applicant to serve the suspended sentence of one year's imprisonment. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n9.  In a judgment of 16 February 1999 the Plovdiv District Court found the applicant guilty of theft. Combining the applicant's sentence for this offence with his sentence of one year's imprisonment in case no. 88/96, the court sentenced him to a total of three years and two months' imprisonment for both offences.\n10.  The court also ruled as follows:\n“On the basis of Article 25 § 2 of the Criminal Code [the court] deducts [from the sentence to be served] the period, during which [the applicant] was detained, calculated from 7 June 1996 to 27 December 1998”.\n11.  No appeal was lodged by either the applicant or the public prosecutor's office and the judgment became final.\n12.  On 7 June 1996 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody in connection with case no. 50/97.\n13.  On an unspecified date towards the end of 1998 the applicant appealed against his continued remand in custody in that case.\n14.  A report from Plovdiv Prison dated 16 December 1998, which detailed the different periods of the applicant's deprivation of liberty up to that point, was presented to the Plovdiv District Court. The said periods were indicated to have been the following:\n(a)  in case no. 14/95 – the one-year prison sentence had been served between 1 August 1997 and 10 April 1998, which included days the applicant had worked towards reducing his prison sentence;\n(b)  in case no. 88/96 – the applicant was still serving the one-year prison sentence that had begun on 10 April 1998 and at the date of the report had effectively served eleven months and fifteen days, which included days he had worked towards reducing his prison sentence; and\n(c)  in case no. 50/97 – the applicant had been remanded in custody from 7 June 1996 until 1 August 1997, whereafter Plovdiv Prison considered his detention on remand to have been suspended.\n15.  In a decision of 17 December 1998 in case no. 50/97 the Plovdiv District Court revoked the order for the applicant's continued remand in custody in that case and granted him bail. Release was made conditional on the applicant providing a recognizance and subject to there being no other grounds for his continued deprivation of liberty.\n16.  The applicant deposited the monetary guarantee on 21 December 1998 and was released on 27 December 1998.\n17.  The applicant obtained a certificate from Plovdiv Prison dated 7 April 1999, which indicated that between 7 June 1996 and 27 December 1998 he had accumulated the equivalent of three years, two months and two days of time served, which included days he had worked towards reducing his sentences. The different periods of the applicant's deprivation of liberty were noted to have been the following:\n(a)  in case no. 14/95 – the one-year prison sentence had been served between 1 August 1997 and 10 April 1998, which included days he had w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3347", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Magadan, the Magadan Region.\n5.  In 2000 she was run over by a car of the Fire Service of the Magadan Region. As a result she became disabled.\n6.  On 11 September 2001 the Magadan Town Court (“the Town Court”) granted the applicant's claim against the Fire Service and awarded her 100,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment entered into force on 26 September 2001. On the same date the Town Court issued a writ of execution.\n7.  On 4 October 2001 the Bailiffs' Office of Magadan initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n8.  On an unspecified date the defendant informed the bailiff that an appeal had been lodged against the judgment of 11 September 2001. The bailiff requested the Town Court to postpone the execution of the judgment pending the proceedings before the appeal court. On 21 December 2001 the Town Court rejected the bailiff's request, as in the meantime the Magadan Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgment of 11 September 2001. On 8 January 2002 the decision of 21 December 2001 became final.\n9.  On 11 February 2002 the bailiff submitted the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury for enforcement. However, on 4 March 2002 the Federal Treasury returned the enforcement materials to the bailiff on the ground that the debt had to be recovered from the administration of Magadan.\n10.  On 17 June 2002 the Fire Service informed the applicant that the judgment would be enforced by monthly payments. According to the schedule, the final payment was to take place in December 2006. The applicant rejected the proposal and requested to enforce the judgment in full.\n11.  On 21 June 2002 the bailiff terminated the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the writ of execution had been forwarded to the Fire Service and that the latter would make monthly payments to the applicant.\n12.  On 11 July 2002 the Prosecutor of Magadan contested the decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings.\n13.  On 19 July 2002, the bailiff quashed the decision of 21 June 2002, upon the Prosecutor's request, and reopened the enforcement proceedings.\n14.  On 16 April 2003 the Town Court found that the debtor had no sufficient funds to honour the judgment debt and granted the Bailiff's request to postpone the enforcement of the judgment until 31 December 2003. On 27 May 2003 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 16 April 2003.\n15.  Between 18 November 2002 and 23 June 2003 the applicant received RUB 17,500.\n16.  On 7 June 2004 the bailiff terminated the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the debtor had no sufficient funds.\n17.  On 13 August 2004 the Town Court quashed the decision of 7 June 2004, upon the applicant's appeal. The court found that the bailiff had failed to take necessary measures for the enforcement of the judgment of 11 September 2001. The decision entered into force on 31 August 2004.\n18.  On 13 September 2004 the Town Court resubmitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs.\n19.  On 16 October 2004 the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the debtor had no sufficient funds. The applicant was advised to submit the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury.\n20.  On 10 December 2004 the applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the Federal Treasury.\n21.  On 31 December 2004 she received the outstanding debt of RUB 82,500 due to her under the judgment of 11 September 2001.\n22.  On 15 August 2005 the Town Co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3348", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 18 January 1999 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicant for robbery. On the same day, the applicant was charged with the offence and remanded in custody upon a decision of an investigator which was confirmed by the public prosecutor's office. It was alleged that the applicant, together with another individual, had robbed an individual of 17,480,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL; approximately 8,964 euros (EUR)) and in the process had used force and rendered the victim unconscious. In ordering that the applicant be remanded in custody the investigator referred to, inter alia, the personality of the detainee, the gravity of the offence and, in general terms, the likelihood that he might abscond or re-offend.\n8.  The applicant filed an application for release on 27 January 1999, which was dismissed by the Pazardzhik District Court on 3 February 1999. The court found, inter alia, that the applicant was charged with a serious intentional offence, which warranted mandatory detention, and that it was likely that he might commit offences against some of the witnesses, thereby obstructing the investigation. In conclusion, no evidence warranting an exception to the requirement of mandatory detention was found to exist.\n9.  On 1 March 1999 the applicant filed another application for release arguing, inter alia, that in the course of the preliminary investigation it had been established that the amount which he had allegedly taken from the victim had been only BGL 5,000,000 (approximately EUR 2,564) because the latter had been robbed on more than one occasion on the day in question.\n10.  The applicant's application for release was dismissed by the District Court on 15 March 1999, which found, inter alia, that the applicant was charged with a serious intentional offence, which warranted mandatory detention, that he might obstruct the investigation and that due to his lack of income he was likely to re-offend. In conclusion, no evidence warranting an exception to the requirement of mandatory detention was found to exist.\n11.  On 29 March 1999 the applicant filed his third application for release claiming, inter alia, that there was no evidence that he would abscond, re-offend or obstruct the investigation, that he suffered from jaundice and that his health was deteriorating as a result of his detention.\n12.  The applicant's application for release was dismissed by the District Court on 23 April 1999, which found, inter alia, that the applicant had been charged with a serious intentional offence, which warranted mandatory detention, that he was in good health and that there were indications that he might commit offences against some of the witnesses, thereby obstructing the investigation. In conclusion, no evidence was established to exist warranting an exception to the requirement of mandatory detention.\n13.  The applicant contended that the charges against him were amended on 9 June 1999, which the Government did not challenge.\n14.  The preliminary investigation against the applicant was partially terminated on 30 June 1999. The only outstanding charge against him concerned common robbery of BGL 17,480,000 (approximately EUR 8,964).\n15.  The applicant filed his fourth application for release on 1 July 1999, which was examined by the District Court on 27 July 1999. The court found in favour of the applicant and released him on bail of 200 new Bulgarian levs (approximately EUR 102). It found, inter alia, that the applicant had no", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3349", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Ali Acikgöz, is a citizen of Turkey who was born in 1945 and lives in Austria.\n7.  On 5 April 1987 the applicant was involved in a serious car accident in which one person died.\n8.  Consequently, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and, on 7 April 1987, the Kranj Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Kranju) ordered him to pay a bail of 5,000 DEM.\n9.  During the investigation, the investigating judge acquired forensic expert reports and examined a witness.\n10.  On 13 April 1988 the Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant for causing the accident by negligent driving. On 14 November 1991 the Kranj Basic Court dismissed the applicant's objection against the indictment.\n11.  On 30 December 1991 the applicant assigned a new lawyer to represent him in the proceedings and informed the court about his address in Austria.\n12.  On 30 June 1992, a hearing was cancelled due to the applicant's absence. Subsequently, the court examined several witnesses in the presence of the applicant's representative.\n13.  On 20 October 1992 the applicant's lawyer proposed that the next hearing be held in the absence of the applicant.\n14.  On 28 March 1994, further to the court's request, the applicant's lawyer informed the court that he had lost contact with the applicant. On 30 March 1994 the court asked the local police to inquire about the applicant's address. The police did not reply.\n15.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia.\n16.  On 1 February 1995 the Kranj District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Kranju) gained jurisdiction in the case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system. The case was assigned to a judge, who did not deal with it.\n17.  On 26 August 1996 the case was assigned to a new judge.\n18.  On 14 November 1996 the Kranj District Court inquired about the applicant's address. The lawyer knew that the applicant had moved to Turkey but was not aware of his new address. It appears that the applicant notified his lawyer about his address on 30 December 1996.\n19.  On 14 May 1998 the applicant was summoned for a hearing through an assistance of the Ministry of Justice. On 27 October 1998 a hearing was held in the absence of the duly summoned applicant. The only witness examined at the hearing referred to his testimony given in the earlier stages of the proceedings and was not asked any further questions. No other evidence was taken at the hearing. The court subsequently convicted the applicant. A written judgment was served on him on 17 November 1998.\n20.  On 19 November 1998 the applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani).\n21.  On 19 October 1999 the Ljubljana Higher Court acquitted the applicant. The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 December 1999.\n22.  On 31 December 1999 the applicant asked the Kranj District Court to reimburse him the bail (see paragraph 8 above) together with the default interest and sought reimbursement of the costs and expenses he had incurred in the proceedings.\n23.  On 23 February 2000 the Kranj District Court ordered the reimbursement of the costs and expenses.\n24.  On 10 March 2000 the Kranj District Court, relying on section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see paragraph 30 below), ordered the reimbursement of the bail, but refused to reimburse the interests.\n25.  On 15 March 2000 the applicant appealed against that decision.\n26.  On 11 May 2000 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3350", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1976, 1973 and 1955 respectively and live in Barnaul, the Altay region.\n5.  In 1988 and 1990 the applicants obtained several state bonds entitling them to 4 % annual interest and to recovering of their value at the State Savings Bank at any time. After the applicants' unsuccessful attempts to receive the payment of the bonds, the following civil proceedings were initiated.\n6. On 7 October 2002 the Tsentralnyi District Court of Barnaul in the Altay region partly granted Mr Gladyshev's claim against the Government of Russia for pecuniary damages and interests and awarded him 104,690 Russian roubles (RUB).\n7. On 27 November 2002 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment with minor changes.\n8. On the respondent's request to review the judgment due to the wrong assessment of evidence by the courts and the failure to indicate the organisation which was due to transfer the award, a supervisory review was initiated, and, on 10 February 2004 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court quashed the judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim.\n9. On 6 November 2002 the Novoaltayskiy City Court partly granted Mr Mogilnikov's claim against the Government of Russia for pecuniary damages and interests and awarded him RUB 90,788.\n10. On 5 February 2003 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment.\n11. On the respondent's request to review the judgment due to the wrong assessment of evidence and misapplication of the domestic law, a supervisory review was initiated and on 2 December 2003 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court quashed the judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim.\n12. On 21 November 2002 the Novoaltayskiy City Court partly granted Mrs Voronina's claim against the Government of Russia for pecuniary damages and interests and awarded her RUB 98,961.\n13. On 15 February 2003 the Altay Regional Court upheld the judgment.\n14. On the respondent's request to review the judgment due to the wrong assessment of evidence and misapplication of the domestic law, a supervisory review was initiated and on 21 October 2003 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court quashed the judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3351", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Prilep.\n6.  In a number of administrative proceedings, the applicant challenged the lawfulness of administrative decisions related to the construction and operation of a petrol station that was located a few metres from his home. He also brought criminal charges against the state officials who took the relevant decisions and against the manager of the petrol station.\n 1.  The incident\n(a)  The applicant’s version of events\n7. On 30 January 2001 at 8.20 p.m. the applicant, accompanied by his wife and Mr P.N., went to the Prilep police station to report the possibility of a fire and explosion at the petrol station as a result of alleged improper handling of petrol stocks at the time. Upon their arrival, they had parked their car in front of an access ramp on the street in front of the police station. At the warden’s request, the applicant had moved his car to a car park situated behind the “Lipa” hotel. After the applicant had entered the police station, the same officer had pushed him backwards. In his initial submission, the applicant stated that a gun had also been pointed at his head. Seven or eight police officers had arrived at the scene and had assaulted him, grabbing him by his arms, legs and hair and throwing him against the stairway. They had continued hitting and beating him all over his body. During the beating, the police officers had used offensive language.\n (b)  The Government’s version of events\n8. The Government submitted that the applicant had parked his car in front of the entrance of the Prilep police station on a street on which no traffic and parking had been allowed. They further maintained that he had failed to move his car despite having been ordered to do so by the police officers on duty. The applicant had then entered the police station without identifying himself. He had ignored the officers’ verbal order that he leave the building. He had actively resisted when police officers took him out of the station.\n9. A medical certificate (“the first certificate”) issued on 30 January 2001 at 9.15 p.m. indicated that the applicant had sustained several bodily injuries which did not qualify as grievous. A tranquilliser was prescribed. That certificate did not specify the possible origin of the injuries, their timing or the way in which they had been inflicted.\n10. After communication of the case, the applicant obtained another medical certificate issued on 11 May 2006 by the Prilep Hospital which described the applicant’s injuries, noted on the first certificate, in the following terms: slight redness on the right temple, a scratch on the right ankle and a toe. In addition, it was noted that his right elbow and the left side of his hip were tender.\n11.  After communication, the applicant also obtained a forensic expert report of 23 May 2006 concerning his post-incident trauma. That report, which was based on the medical records and the applicant’s statement, indicated that, after the incident, the applicant had a bruise on his left elbow, a scratch on his left shinbone and bruises on his face below his left eye and on his left hip.\n12.  No court decision about the incident at issue has been given against the applicant.\n13. On 30 January 2001 the applicant asked the Sector to investigate the incident. On 23 August 2001 the Sector drew up a report giving a factual account of the incident. It established that the applicant had been taken out of the building after he had ign", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3352", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and resides in the village of Blagodatne, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  In April 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Volnovakhskyy District Court against his employer, the Donetskugol State Mining Company (ДП «Донецьквугілля»), for different payments due to him. On 22 June 2004 the court awarded the applicant 38,524.28[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) (рішення Волновахського районного суду).\n6.  In September 2004 the Voroshylovskiy District Bailiffs' Service of Donetsk (відділ державної виконавчої служби Ворошиловського районного управління юстиції м. Донецька) initiated enforcement proceedings.\n7.  In December 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Voroshylovskyy District Court of the Donetsk Region against the Bailiffs' Service for the non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour. On 5 April 2005 the court found for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs' Service to enforce the judgment in question.\n8.  Between August 2005 and March 2006 the judgment of 22 June 2004 was enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3353", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1941, 1952 and in 1951 respectively. They live in the town of Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region.\n6.  The applicants are Chernobyl pensioners. They brought court actions against the Welfare Office of Novovoronezh seeking to recover the unpaid allowances.\n7.  On 16 June 2003 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region (“the Town Court”) awarded the first applicant 26,623.96 Russian roubles (RUB). On 11 September 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgment. It was fully enforced on 7 June 2005.\n8.  On 17 February 2004 the Town Court awarded the first applicant RUB 23,109.10 in arrears relating to a disability allowance and rejected her claims for an increase of the disability allowance. On 1 April 2004 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 17 February 2004 in so far as it had rejected the first applicant's claim for an increase of the allowance and held that as of 1 January 2004 she was entitled to a monthly disability allowance of RUB 9,267.76, to be index-linked in future. The Regional Court upheld the remaining part of the judgment of 17 February 2004 concerning the arrears. The judgment of 17 February 2004, as modified on 1 April 2004, was enforced in full on 4 August 2005.\n9.  On 16 March 2004 the Town Court recovered in the first applicant's favour RUB 4,329.72 in arrears relating to a food allowance and RUB 643.85 in arrears relating to an annual disability allowance. The judgment acquired legal force on 26 March 2004. It has not been enforced to date.\n10.  On 7 December 2000 the Town Court awarded the second applicant RUB 6,744.70 in arrears relating to a disability allowance. On 27 November 2002 the judgment was enforced in full. On 17 February 2003 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgment of 7 December 2000, by way of supervisory review, and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the first instance court. On 9 April 2003, after a fresh examination, the Town Court ordered the second applicant to return the sum awarded to her by the judgment of 7 December 2000. The court furthermore decided that she was entitled to a food allowance in the amount of RUB 860.18. The parties did not appeal against the judgment and it entered into force on 19 April 2003. It has not been enforced to date.\n11.  On 9 June 2003 the Town Court awarded the second applicant RUB 24,197.28. On 10 July 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. It was fully enforced on 17 December 2004.\n12.  On 17 February 2004 the Town Court allowed the second applicant's claim for recovery of RUB 21,002.82 in arrears relating to a disability allowance and dismissed her claim for an adjustment of the allowance. On 6 April 2004 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 17 February 2004 in so far as it concerned the arrears but quashed the judgment in so far as it had rejected the claim for an adjustment of the allowance and held that as of 1 January 2004 the second applicant was entitled to a monthly disability allowance in the amount of RUB 6,532.34. The judgment of 17 February 2004, as modified on 6 April 2004, was fully enforced on 25 August 2005.\n13.  On 15 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the second applicant RUB 4,329.72 in arrears relating to her food allowance and RUB 643.85 in arrears relating to her annual disability allowance. The judgment entered into force on 25 March 2004. It has not been enforced to date.\n14.  On 17 May 2004 the Town Court awarded the se", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3354", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Novosibirsk. He is currently serving a sentence in correctional facility IK-18 of the Novosibirsk Region.\n7.  On 6 April 1993 the applicant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 10 June 1996 the applicant swallowed a piece of electrode and was admitted to the surgical unit of medical penitentiary institution LIU-10, Novosibirsk («лечебно-исправительное учреждение № 10», hereafter LIU-10). He had a chest X-ray and was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis of the upper lobes of the lungs in the active phase. The applicant was treated with ethambutol[1] and isoniazid[2].\n9.  On 28 May 1998 the applicant was discharged from LIU-10 to Prison UF-91/21, Novosibirsk («УФ-91/21», hereafter UF-91/21) with a diagnosis of infiltrative tuberculosis resulting in fibrosis and dense foci in the upper lobes of the lungs.\n10.  On 12 April 2000 the applicant was again placed in LIU-10 on account of suspected relapse of tuberculosis. After a medical examination he was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis of the upper lobes of the lungs with dense foci and prescribed with streptomycin, isoniazid, rifampicin[3], ethambutol, pyrazinamide, methionine, diasoline, vitamin B6 and sodium thiosulfate. On 3 May 2000 the applicant stated in writing that he refused to take the prescribed treatment. According to the Government, the course of treatment continued.\n11.  Having been granted amnesty, the applicant was released from LIU‑10 on 16 August 2000.\n12.  According to the Government, on his release from detention the applicant failed to apply for registration to the centre for prevention of tuberculosis (“the prophylactic centre”). The applicant submitted that his attempt to register at the prophylactic centre had been futile as he had had no valid permanent residence registration.\n13.  On 4 June 2001 the applicant was placed on the list of the prophylactic centre of Krasnozersk Hospital and diagnosed with focal tuberculosis of the upper lobes of the lungs in the resorption and induration phase.\n14.  On 29 June 2001 the applicant presented himself at the prophylactic centre. He underwent a medical examination and was issued with a certificate confirming that he was fit to work as an operator of agricultural machinery.\n15.  On 28 October 2001 the applicant was arrested on charges of infliction of bodily injuries and incarcerated in the temporary detention facility of the Krasnozerskiy District Department of the Interior of the Novosibirsk Region. Upon the arrest he was not given blood tests for hepatitis C.\n16.  On 29 October 2001 the applicant complained to his guards that he was spitting blood. They escorted him to the prophylactic centre of Krasnozersk Hospital. The applicant had a chest X-ray and was diagnosed with clinical recovery from tuberculosis resulting in infrequent calcifications. No medical evidence of haemoptysis (coughing blood) was found.\n17.  On 14 November 2001 the applicant was transferred to remand centre SIZO No. 2, Kuybyshev, the Novosibirsk Region, and underwent a medical examination there.\n18.  On 26 February 2002 the Krasnozerskiy District Court of the Novosibirsk Region convicted the applicant and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.\n19.  On 8 April 2002 the Novosibirsk Regional Court amended the judgment on appeal and reduced the sentence to seven years’ imprisonment.\n(b) Detention in prison UF-91/13\n20.  On 26 April 2002 the applicant was transferred to serve his sen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3355", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in the town of Rossosh, in the Voronezh Region.\n6.  Between 1979 and 1992 the applicant and his wife, then residents of Grozny, Chechnya, opened several savings accounts with the Grozny branch of the Chechen Savings Bank, which was an integral part of the USSR Savings Bank.\n7.  In May 2000 the applicant issued civil proceedings against the Savings Bank of Russia and the Ministry of Finance in the Gagarinskiy District Court, Moscow, claiming damages for the fall in the value of his savings and those of his deceased wife, default interest and compensation of the deposits and non-pecuniary damage.\n8.  By a judgment of 16 January 2001 the Gagarinskiy District Court granted the applicant's claims in part. The court confirmed the fact that between 1979 and 1992 the applicant and his wife had made deposits with the Grozny branch of the USSR Savings Bank and held that under governmental decree of 19 April 2000 no. 352 the applicant was eligible for compensation in the amount of 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB), approximately 30 euros (EUR) for reimbursement of expenses for the burial of his wife. Accordingly, the court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant the said amount “from the funds allocated for that purpose in the State budget for the year concerned”. The court further noted that the remainder of the applicant's claims had no basis in national law and rejected them accordingly.\n9.  On 4 July 2001 the judgment of 16 January 2001 was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court and became final and enforceable.\n10.  On 19 February 2001 the applicant was issued with a writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 16 January 2001.\n11.  According to the applicant, in November 2001 he submitted the said judgment and the writ of execution to the Lukoyanov branch of the Savings Bank of Russia for enforcement, but was refused. Thereafter he applied to the bailiffs' service of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region.\n12.  On 7 January 2002 the applicant moved and settled in the Voronezh Region, having notified the bailiffs of his new address.\n13.  On 15 January 2002 he received a letter from the Lukoyanov branch of the Savings Bank of Russia dated 9 January 2002, which invited him to receive in person the amount due pursuant to the judgment of 16 January 2001.\n14.  According to the applicant, he was unable to go to the Lukoyanov branch of the Savings Bank of Russia, as he lived 1,200 km away.\n15.  On 13 February 2002 the bailiffs' service of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region returned the execution documents to the applicant. They also enclosed a letter from the Lukoyanov branch of the Savings Bank of Russia dated 11 February 2002 which stated that in connection with the warfare in the Chechen Republic and the loss of documents relating to deposits made there, the Savings Bank of Russia had taken a decision to terminate any transactions relating to deposits made with the Chechen Savings Bank until further notice. It continued that a list of former depositors of the Chechen Savings Bank was being drawn up, and that compensation would be paid to those registered on that list after the Government of Russia had taken a decision to that effect, and the Savings Bank of Russia had reached agreement with the Ministry of Finance. The letter concluded that the compensation would be paid to the applicant after the aforementioned documents had been adopted. With reference to this letter the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement procee", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3357", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Štip.\n5. On 17 November 1986 the applicant and three other persons instituted civil proceedings before the then Štip Municipal Court (Општински Суд Штип) for annulment of a care agreement (“the agreement”) (договор за доживотна издршка) concluded on 7 December 1979 between the applicant’s late father and his step-mother (“the defendant”). They maintained that the applicant’s late father had been in a fit condition and that he had sufficient financial means to take care of himself and that, accordingly, there had been no need for the agreement under which, the defendant had been granted four hundred golden liras, a priceless ancient icon and a land.\n6. On 25 June 1987 the Štip Municipal Court partially upheld the applicant’s claim and annulled the agreement. It declared, inter alia, that the icon would be included in the applicant’s late father’s inheritance, but it dismissed the claim concerning the golden liras. That decision was served on the applicant on 3 March 1988.\n7. On 14 March 1988 both parties appealed.\n8. On 29 September 1989 the then Štip District Court (Окружен суд) dismissed the appeals and upheld the lower court’s decision.\n9. On 25 September 1990 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s appeal on points of law (ревизија) submitted on 19 December 1989. It remitted the case for a renewed consideration since the first-instance court had not given sufficient reasons for its decision.\n10. The proceedings resumed on 19 June 1991. Of four hearings fixed before the first-instance court, none was postponed upon the applicant’s request.\n11. On 14 October 1992 the Štip Municipal Court gave the same decision as on 25 June 1987 in which it established that the applicant’s father had been amongst the richest people in his village; that he had been in a fit condition and that, by entering into the agreement, the defendant had acquired considerable interest (значителна имотна корист) which had not been in compliance with the then State order (општествено уредување). It dismissed the applicant’s claim concerning the golden liras since there had been no evidence that the applicant’s father had been in possession of any.\n12. On 25 December 1992 the applicant appealed. On 6 February 1993 he submitted observations in reply to the defendant’s appeal, together with an addendum to his appeal.\n13. On 8 October 1993 the Štip District Court set aside the first-instance court’s decision since it had not complied with the Supreme Court’s instructions.\n14. The proceedings resumed on 25 January 1994. Eight hearings were held before the first-instance court, of which none was adjourned upon the applicant’s request.\n15. On 8 December 1994 the Štip Municipal Court partially upheld the applicant’s claim. It declared that only the icon be included in his late father’s inheritance and dismissed the claim for annulment of the agreement. It further reiterated its earlier findings as to the golden liras. The decision was served on the applicant on 13 October 1995.\n16. On 16 October 1995 the applicant appealed.\n17. On 20 March 1996 the Štip District Court overturned the decision and decided the case itself. It declared the agreement null and void, but considered it as having been concluded as a gift contract (договор за подарок). It upheld the remainder of the first-instance court’s decision.\n18. On 2 July 1996 the defendant filed an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court.\n19. On 9 December 1998 the Supre", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3358", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 6 December 2002 Flux published an article entitled “The Sabbath of the parvenus”. It reported the alleged overnight enrichment of the Speaker of Parliament, the President of the Parliamentary Communist faction and the son of the President of Moldova. The idea of the article was that before becoming public figures they had all been simple citizens without any significant fortune; however, their fortunes had considerably increased after the Communist Party had won the elections and they had become public figures.\n6.  The summary reads as follows:\n“The other day I was editing a news item concerning the two luxury cars used by the Speaker of Parliament, E. O., and I became more and more convinced that the term 'parvenu' had Moldovan origins. Our political scene is full of examples.\nFor example, the first thing done by E .O. after becoming Speaker of Parliament, was to solve her housing problem. By abusing her position she was able to lay her hands on a huge apartment in downtown Chişinău, paid for by public money. Who was E. O. before becoming Speaker? A modest baker with a modest work history. Who is she now? A big boss! She cannot fit into a BMW and so she also needs a Mercedes Benz. Let's take another example.\nWho was Victor Stepaniuc before becoming an MP? A simple schoolteacher in the village of Costeşti with a modest IQ and a little bit hysterical. Who is he now? He is not only a Sulla of the Parliament, namely a dictator without whose approval even the flies do not fly in the Parliament building, but also a prosperous businessman. He is an agent at the Chişinău tobacco factory, he has made enormous profits from the sale of cigarettes, he owns buses, he controls the Chişinău-Ialoveni bus route, and in general he looks like a genuine Moldovan dandy with a silk tie, Italian suits, German shoes and dirt under his nails.\nWho was O. V. before his father Vladimir Voronin became the President of Moldova? A novice businessman specialised in the milking of profits from sugar plants in the north of the country. Who is he now? He is the most prosperous businessman in the country. He is the majority shareholder of bank F., the owner of construction company M, has contracts with the State worth millions and does business with Chişinău tobacco factory. He is a star and a VIP of the financial press and is held up as an example to young businessmen....”\n7.  On 12 December 2006 Mr Stepaniuc, the leader of the Communist parliamentary faction which had, at the time, 71 votes out of a total of 101 in Parliament, lodged an action against the applicant newspaper. He did not pay any court fee when lodging his complaint, nor did he appear in court at any stage of the proceedings or delegate anyone to represent him. He argued, inter alia, that:\n“...the defendants disseminated false and defamatory information about me ...\n... Both in the title and in the body of the article I am described as follows: 'a dictator without whose approval even the flies do not fly in the Parliament building, but also a prosperous businessman. He is an agent at the Chişinău tobacco factory, he has made enormous profits from the sale of cigarettes, he owns buses, controls the Chişinău-Ialoveni bus-line, and in general he looks like a genuine Moldovan Dandy with a silk tie, Italian suits, German shoes and dirt under his nails.'\nNone of these accusations is true and they are nothing more than dirty slander.”\nMr Stepaniuc asked the court to declare the above statements defamator", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3359", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Mr Iacob Guja, was born in 1970 and lives in Chişinău. At the material time he was the Head of the Press Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office.\n9.  On 21 February 2002 four police officers (M.I., B.A., I.P. and G.V.) arrested ten persons suspected of offences related to the parliamentary elections; one of them was also suspected of being the leader of a criminal gang. Later the suspects were released from detention and complained to the Prosecutor’s Office of ill-treatment and illegal detention by the four police officers. As a result of their complaint, a criminal investigation was initiated against the police officers on charges of, inter alia, ill-treatment and unlawful detention.\n10.  In June 2002 the four police officers wrote letters, which they signed jointly, to President Voronin, Prime Minister Tarlev and the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Mr Mişin, seeking protection from prosecution. They set out their views on the criminal proceedings and complained that the actions of the Prosecutor’s Office were abusive. They asked for the legality of the criminal charges that had been brought against them to be verified. On 21 June 2002 Mr Mişin forwarded the letter he had received, with an accompanying note, to the Prosecutor General’s Office. The note was written on the official headed paper of the Parliament and was not marked as being confidential. It stated as follows:\n“Dear Mr Rusu,\nA question arises after reading this letter: is the Deputy Prosecutor General fighting crime or the police? This issue is made even more pressing by the fact that the policemen concerned are from one of the best teams in the Ministry of the Interior, whose activity is now being blocked as a result of the efforts of employees of the Prosecutor General’s Office. I ask you personally to intervene in this case and solve it in strict compliance with the law.”\n11.  In January 2003 Mr Voronin visited the Centre for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption where he discussed, inter alia, the problem of the undue pressure some public officials were putting on law-enforcement bodies in respect of pending criminal proceedings. The President made a call to fight corruption and asked law-enforcement officers to disregard any attempts by public officials to put them under pressure. The declarations of the President were made public by the media.\n12.  On an unspecified date the criminal proceedings against the police officers were discontinued.\n13.  A few days after Mr Voronin made his call to fight corruption, the applicant sent to a newspaper, the Jurnal de Chişinău, copies of two letters (“the letters”) that had been received by the Prosecutor General’s Office.\n14.  The first was the note written by Mr Mişin (see paragraph 10 above). The second had been written by Mr A. Ursachi, a deputy minister in the Ministry of the Interior, and was addressed to a deputy prosecutor general. It was written on the official headed paper of the Ministry of the Interior and was not marked confidential. It stated, inter alia:\n“... Police Major M.I. [one of the four officers, see paragraph 9 above] was convicted on 12 May 1999 ... of offences under Articles 116 § 2 [illegal detention endangering life or health or causing physical suffering], 185 § 2 [abuse of power accompanied by acts of violence, the use of a firearm or torture] and 193 § 2 [extracting a confession by acts of violence and insults] of the Criminal Code and sentenced to a fine of 1,440 Moldovan ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3360", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Lubin.\n6.  In February 2003 the police instituted an investigation against the applicant. He was suspected of poisoning several pheasants which belonged to his wife’s alleged lover. Subsequently, the applicant was also suspected of uttering threats towards his wife and the person with whom she was allegedly in a relationship.\n7.  On 4 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of uttering threats. On 6 March 2003 the Nowa Sól District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) heard the applicant and remanded him in custody until 4 June 2003. The court noted that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question. In addition, the court relied on the risk that he would induce witnesses to give false testimony.\n8.  On 26 March 2003 the Nowa Sól District Prosecutor obtained information from the psychiatric hospital in Wschowa that the applicant had undergone treatment there.\n9.  On 25 April 2003 two psychiatrists gave an opinion on the applicant’s mental health. They concluded that the applicant had previously been successfully treated in the Cibórz psychiatric hospital and that he was suffering from acute psychotic disorders. He should be placed in a psychiatric hospital for further observation.\n10.  On 9 May 2003 the prosecutor asked the director of the detention centre where the applicant was detained whether the applicant’s stay in custody might endanger his health. The director replied that the applicant was under constant medical care.\n11.  On 2 June 2003 the District Court ordered the applicant to undergo a six‑week psychiatric examination in order to determine whether he could be held criminally responsible in respect of the above‑mentioned offence. The court also extended the applicant’s detention for three more months. The court referred to the reasons given previously. In addition, it relied on the risk that the applicant might commit yet another offence.\n12.  On 3 September 2003 the court again extended the applicant’s detention until 4 December 2003. The court repeated the grounds given previously. It further stressed that the applicant was undergoing medical observation.\n13.  The applicant was admitted to a hospital on 12 August 2003 and released on 26 September 2003. On 11 November 2003 two psychiatrists issued a joint medical opinion. They concluded that the applicant suffered from an organic delusional disorder. In view of the fact that there was a reasonable suspicion that he might commit another crime, they recommended his detention in a psychiatric hospital.\n14.  On 27 November 2003 the prosecutor lodged a request for discontinuation of the investigation because of the applicant’s mental condition. He further requested that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital.\n15.  On 3 December 2003 the applicant’s detention was again extended.\n16.  On 5 January 2004 the Nowa Sól District Court gave a decision and discontinued the proceedings against the applicant. The court found it established that the applicant had committed the offence in question. However, he should not have been held criminally responsible as he was suffering from an organic delusional disorder. It further referred to the expert’s opinion and ordered that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital in Kościan.\n17.  On 2 March 2004 the court extended the applicant’s detention until 4 May 2004. It stressed that the psychiatric hospital had not yet finalised a date for the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3361", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicant was born in 1946. He is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment at the Nicosia Central Prison.\n12.  On 9 March 1989 the applicant was found guilty by the Limassol Assize Court on three counts of premeditated murder committed on 10 July 1987, under, inter alia, section 203(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code (Cap. 154). On 10 March 1989 the Assize Court sentenced him to mandatory life imprisonment in respect of each count. The applicant had planted an explosive device under a car and detonated it, causing the death of Mr P. Michael and his two children, aged 11 and 13. The applicant had been promised the sum of 10,000 Cypriot pounds by someone who he has not identified for the murder of Mr P. Michael.\n13.  In its judgment passing sentence on the applicant, the Limassol Assize Court observed that the prosecution had invited the court to examine the meaning of the term “life imprisonment” in the Criminal Code and, in particular, to clarify whether it entailed imprisonment of the convicted person for the rest of his life or just for a period of twenty years as provided by the Prison (General) Regulations of 1981 and the Prison (General) (Amending) Regulations of 1987 (hereinafter “the Regulations”), adopted under section 4 of the Prison Discipline Law (Cap. 286). If the court found that the latter was applicable, then the issue of whether the sentences should be imposed consecutively or concurrently would arise and the prosecution would propose consecutive sentences.\n14.  The Assize Court relied primarily on the findings of the Nicosia Assize Court in 1988 in the case of The Republic of Cyprus v. Andreas Costa Aristodemou, alias Yiouroukkis (judgment of 5 February 1988, case no. 31175/87) and accordingly stated that it was not competent to examine the validity of the Regulations or take into account any possible repercussions they could have on the sentence. The Assize Court held that the term “life imprisonment” used in the Criminal Code meant imprisonment for the remainder of the life of the convicted person. In view of this, the court did not consider it necessary to examine whether the sentences it imposed would run concurrently or consecutively.\n15.  In particular, in its judgment the Assize Court stated the following:\n“The Law on the basis of which the accused has been found guilty on three counts of premeditated murder, provides that:\n‘Whosoever shall be convicted of premeditated murder shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.\nIt follows, therefore, that for the offence in question life imprisonment is imposed by the court as a mandatory sentence.\nMr Kyprianou, on behalf of the Prosecution, has invited the court to examine the meaning of life imprisonment and decide whether it means imprisonment of the convicted person for the rest of his life or whether it means, as provided by the Prison (General) Regulations of 1981 and the Prison (General) (Amending) Regulations of 1987 (hereinafter “the Regulations”) as provided by Regulation 2 of the Prison (General) Regulations of 1981 and the Prison (General) (Amending) Regulations of 1987 (hereinafter “the Regulations”), adopted under section 4 of the Prison Discipline Law (Cap. 286), imprisonment for a period of twenty years. Mr Kyprianou has suggested that in the event that the court concludes that life imprisonment is interpreted as being for twenty years, an interpretation which, if we understood him correctly, he claimed as the correct one, then the issue as t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3362", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Cracow.\n1   Civil proceedings for dissolution of co-ownership\n5.  On 28 October 1994 a housing co-operative filed with the Cracow District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a claim for dissolution of co-ownership of five plots of land. The applicant is one of the co-owners of the land in question and has his family house there. There were 182 parties to the proceedings at the time when they were first instituted. This number has since increased to 417.\n6.  On 16 October 1997 the Cracow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) decided to join the case in question to a related case involving a claim for the ascertainment of the ownership right to the same land, and to examine them together.\n7.  On 1 March 1999 the President of the Cracow District Court appointed an expert in geodesy. On 19 July 1999 the court admitted his expert report as evidence. On 1 July 2002 the President of the Cracow District Court requested that the original report be updated. The additional expert report was furnished in June 2003.\n8.  On 20 November and 18 December 2003 respectively the court decided to exclude two judges from dealing with the case. Moreover, on 18 December 2003 the Cracow District Court decided of its own motion to stay the proceedings due to the deaths of several of the parties, the need to ascertain the shares of their legal heirs and to summon new parties.\n9.  On 13 April 2006 the Cracow District Court resumed the proceedings since the successors of the deceased parties had been summoned to participate. However, in the same decision the court decided to stay the proceedings due to new circumstances, namely the deaths of other parties.\n10.  On 15 December 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint about the unreasonable length of proceedings under the Act of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n11.  On 14 February 2006 the Cracow Regional Court dismissed the complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act did not have retroactive effect and, consequently it examined the applicant’s claim only in respect of the period between the entry into force of the 2004 Act on 17 September 2004 and the date on which the complaint had been lodged by the applicant. The Cracow Regional Court found that the proceedings remained stayed due to the objective obstacle posed by the deaths of several of the parties and the delays caused by their legal heirs in submitting inheritance titles. The domestic court also emphasised that there was a considerable and ever-changing number of parties to the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3363", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, a Slovak citizen born in 1921, lived in Košice.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 10 December 1991 the applicant filed an action with the District Court in Prešov. He claimed the transfer of ownership of real property under the Land Ownership Act 1991.\n8.  In the course of 1992 the District Court scheduled three hearings and ordered an expert opinion. In 1993 two hearings were held. The District Court obtained an expert opinion. After an inspection of the site, it asked the expert for additional information. The parties submitted their comments on the expert opinions.\n9.  On 21 January 1994 the District Court found that the applicant was the owner of the property in issue. On 15 November 1994 the Regional Court in Košice quashed that judgment.\n10.  In the first half of 1995 the District Court obtained further evidence. It held hearings on 31 July and 16 October 1995. On 19 October 1995 it dismissed the applicant’s action. On 10 June 1996 the Regional Court in Košice quashed that decision as being erroneous.\n11.  After having obtained additional evidence and having scheduled two hearings, the District Court delivered a new judgment on 28 May 1997. It found that the applicant was the owner of the property and decided to determine separately the remaining claim, namely that the defendants should vacate the property.\n12.  On 28 July 1997 the defendants appealed. The file was submitted to the court of appeal on 1 October 1997. On 16 April 1998 the applicant claimed that the first-instance judgment of 28 May 1997 should be rectified.\n13.  On 21 April 1998 the Regional Court in Prešov ordered the District Court to determine, within twenty days, the applicant’s ownership claim in respect of a house which the first-instance judgment did not cover. The District Court determined that issue in the applicant’s favour in a judgment given on 20 May 1998. The defendants appealed. On 27 August 1998 the Regional Court in Prešov confirmed the first-instance decision in respect of the house. It dismissed the applicant’s claim in respect of the remaining real property.\n14.  On 10 November 1998 and 1 December 1998 respectively the applicant and the defendants appealed on points of law. On 30 March 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s above decision dismissing a part of the applicant’s claim.\n15.  One of the defendants died on 1 August 1999. On 20 September 1999 the Regional Court in Prešov held a hearing. On 20 December 1999 it upheld the first-instance decisions of 28 May 1997 and 20 May 1998 by which the ownership right in respect of the real property in issue was transferred to the applicant. On 6 March 2000 one of the defendants filed an appeal on points of law.\n16.  On 6 June 2000 the file was submitted to the Supreme Court. On 15 May 2001 the case was returned to the District Court as the defendants alleged that their names were incorrectly mentioned in the judgments of 20 May 1998 and 20 October 1999. After it had obtained relevant documentary evidence, the District Court concluded that rectification of its judgment was not required. It returned the case to the Supreme Court on 8 July 2002.\n17.  On 28 November 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Regional Court of 20 December 1999 to the extent that it concerned the transfer of ownership of a part of the real property. The Supreme Court noted, in particular, that the Regional Court had disregarde", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3364", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Bogusław Pyrak, is a Polish national who was born in 1940 and lives in Brochów, Poland.\n6.  The applicant was the president of the Agricultural Co‑operative in Troszyn Nowy. In 1993, upon being notified of the commission of an offence, the Gostynin District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) opened an investigation regarding the alleged embezzlement of the co-operative’s funds.\n7.  On 22 April 1994 the applicant was subjected to police supervision and bail.\n8.  On 11 July 1995 the Gostynin District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Płock Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The applicant was indicted on charges of embezzlement of the co‑operative’s property in the amount of approximately 80,000 PLN [approx. EUR 20,000].\n9.  On 5 January 1996 the Płock Regional Court returned the case to the prosecution authorities in order to rectify omissions in the investigation. The prosecutor appealed. On 29 February 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed this decision and ordered the Regional Court to proceed with the case.\n10.  The first hearing was held on 3 June 1996.\n11.  Due to the fact that correspondence sent to the applicant was returned indicating that the applicant had left his place of abode for an indefinite period of time, on 10 February 1997 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be detained on remand. The court found that the applicant’s detention was necessary in order to ensure his appearance in court, as he had failed to appear at hearings scheduled for 9, 17, 22 and 27 January 1997. The decision did not specify the period of the applicant’s detention.\n12.  The applicant appealed. He maintained that he had informed the court that he would not be able to attend hearings and that his absence had been caused by an operation which he had had to undergo. On 4 March 1997 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the Regional Court and remitted the case for reconsideration. The Court of Appeal observed that the applicant had been hospitalised between 10 and 17 February 1997. He had had a myocardial infarction and had undergone heart surgery. It further held that in view of the applicant’s state of health, the Regional Court should reconsider its decision to place him in detention.\n13.  On 7 April 1997 A.M., an expert cardiologist, submitted his medical report. He had examined the applicant twice and concluded that the applicant could participate in hearings. However, according to A.M. placing the applicant in pre-trial detention could aggravate his state of health and therefore such a measure should only be applied under medical supervision.\n14.  On 24 April 1997 the court obtained a medical report from another doctor - J.K. (a specialist in forensic pathology and anatomical pathology). The expert considered that it was highly unlikely that the applicant had had a myocardial infarction in February of that year.\n15.  On 5 June 1997 the Płock Regional Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody for a period of six months because he had obstructed the proceedings. The court further refused to accept a personal surety submitted by a member of the upper house of the Polish Parliament Senator J.S. The applicant appealed. He stressed that he had complied with the requirements of police supervision and had reported every week to the police station in Iława. He had also paid the bail. On 4 July 1997 the Court of Appeal quashed that decision. It found that keeping the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3366", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Kyiv, Ukraine.\n5.  On 7 July 2002 at 11 p.m. the applicant, with K. and M., had a fight with a taxi driver, B., and damaged his car. The taxi driver informed an operator at the taxi call centre that he had been assaulted. Two more taxis, which at that time were nearby, arrived and the taxi drivers tried to stop the fight. Another fight broke out, at the end of which the applicant and K. were thrown to the ground and held face down. M. ran away. In the meantime police arrived and arrested the applicant and K.\n6.  They were brought to the Kyiv City Drug-Addiction Clinic (Київська міська наркологічна лікарня) where on 8 July 2002 at 1.25 a.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor, who concluded that the applicant was drunk and noted, inter alia, that he had some scratches on his forehead and a bruise to his eye. The applicant and K. were subsequently taken to the Solomyanskyy District Police Station (Територіальне відділення міліції Солом’янського районного управління ГУ МВС України в м.Києві).\n7.  According to the applicant, the police officer, R., demanded that the applicant sign a statement admitting that he had been involved in an assault. When the applicant refused to do so, he was allegedly beaten with a truncheon.\n8.  When the applicant complained of a headache and nausea, around 6 p.m. an ambulance was called for him. The applicant was found to have sustained numerous injuries to his face, head and ears. His body and especially his back had numerous bruises from blows, possibly from sticks. The ambulance doctor further concluded that the applicant had symptoms of concussion. According to the ambulance medical report, the applicant told the doctors that he had been beaten up by taxi drivers. The doctors recommended that the applicant be hospitalised.\n9.  On 8 July 2002 at 9 p.m. the applicant was released from the police station. The applicant’s mother called an ambulance to the police station and at 10 p.m. the applicant was hospitalised with a closed cerebral trauma, concussion and numerous bruises on his back. The applicant told doctors that he had been beaten up by the police officers during his arrest.\n10.  On 9 July 2002 the ambulance doctor informed the police that the applicant and K. had been hospitalised. According to the doctor, the applicant and K. had said that they had been beaten up by the police. The police officer, S., noted this and reported it to the head of the Solomyanskyy District Police Station. His report was added to the evidence in the criminal case against the applicant (see below).\n11.  On the same day an expert medical examination performed at the applicant’s request, revealed that the applicant had had minor physical injuries (numerous scratches and bruises and concussion), some of which could have been inflicted by a rubber truncheon. The applicant told the expert that unknown persons had beaten him with sticks on the night of 7‑8 July 2002.\n12.  On 15 July 2002 the applicant left the hospital. According to the applicant, he was forced to leave, though he was not fully recovered; he stayed at home afterwards for two more weeks.\n13.  On 10 July 2002 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for hooliganism.\n14.  On 5 February 2003 the applicant was charged with the above crime.\n15.  On 17 March 2003 the preliminary investigation was completed and the case was referred to the court for examination.\n16.  On 5 August 2003 the Solomyans", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3367", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Stavropol.\n6.  A private company sued the applicant on a claim of unjust enrichment not related to his salary. It submitted a document showing that the applicant had received money from the company. The applicant counterclaimed that the document had been void.\n7.  On 20 June 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol rejected the applicant’s claim, partly allowed the company’s claim and ordered that the applicant repay 295,176 Russian roubles (RUB) to the company.\n8.  By a supplementary judgment of 28 June 2002, the Leninskiy District Court ordered that the applicant pay the court fee of RUB 4,371.77.\n9.  On 18 September 2002 the Stavropol Regional Court quashed the judgments and remitted the case.\n10.  On 10 October 2002 the Leninskiy District Court allowed the applicant’s claim. It declared the voucher void, confirmed the applicant’s title to the disputed money, ordered that the company pay the applicant RUB 4,916 in legal costs and expenses and ordered that the applicant pay the company RUB 112.\n11.  In its grounds of appeal the company complained that the first-instance and appeal courts had erred in the establishment of the facts.\n12.  On 27 November 2002 the Stavropol Regional Court reversed the award of RUB 112, rejected the company’s claims in full, and upheld the remainder of the judgment.\n13.  On 16 June 2003 the company filed an application for supervisory review of the judgments of 10 October and 27 November 2002. It reiterated its argument that that the first-instance and appeal courts had erred in the establishment of the facts and asked the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court to quash their judgments and to remit the case to the first-instance court.\n14.  On 28 July 2003 the applicant filed comments on the application for supervisory review. He maintained his claims and asked the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court to reject the application.\n15.  On 4 August 2003 the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court quashed the judgments of 18 September, 10 October and 27 November 2002 because the courts had incorrectly established the facts. It reinstated the judgment of 20 June 2002. Counsel for the applicant was present at the hearing.\n16.  On an unspecified date the applicant repaid RUB 295,176 to the company.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3368", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Lignon (in the Canton of Geneva).\n6.  The facts of the case, as presented by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant arrived in Switzerland on 10 June 1996 as an asylum seeker.\n8.  On 17 June 1996 she was placed in an accommodation centre for asylum seekers in the Canton of Aargau.\n9.  On 12 March 1997 she was moved to the “Thorfeld 2” accommodation centre in Buchs (Aargau).\n10.  On 4 April 1997 the applicant gave birth to a stillborn baby, the father of whom was a Swiss national. The autopsy established that the fœtus had died two days before delivery, at twenty-six weeks and two days. At the request of the midwife, the applicant, who was in a state of shock, was taken from the “Thorfeld 2” accommodation centre to the hospital in the Canton of Aargau. When asked by the midwife, both the applicant and the baby’s father said that they did not want to see the baby’s body.\n11.  On the same day the social worker (Sozialarbeiter) and the registrar of births, marriages and deaths (Zivilstandsbeamter) of the municipality of Buchs were informed of the child’s birth. Believing that it was not compulsory in the case of a child stillborn at the start of the twenty-seventh week of pregnancy to be buried with an attendant ceremony, they ordered a burial without a ceremony, in the absence of the applicant. They based their decision in particular on the fact that the parents had not expressed a wish to see the body before the autopsy and took the view that, given her mental state, the applicant was not fit to attend the burial.\n12.  On 8 April 1997, after having been placed in a wooden coffin by a firm of undertakers, the child’s body, on instructions from the municipality social worker, was carried in a delivery van to the cemetery of the municipality of Buchs for burial in a communal grave for stillborn babies (Grabstelle für Totgeburten).\n13.  It appears that the applicant left the hospital that same day (see the decisions of the Canton of Aargau Higher Court of 14 May 1999, paragraph 23 below).\n14.  On 10 April 1997 a member of the psychiatric services department took the applicant to the cemetery to lay flowers.\n15.  According to the Government, the applicant was informed on 15 April 1997 that it would be possible to organise a funeral for her child at a later date. In her statements of 1 July 1997 (see paragraph 19 below) the applicant disputed that assertion.\n16.  On 22 April 1997 she went to the cemetery and, accompanied by the priest, placed various stones and laid flowers at the site at which her child had been buried.\n17.  On 13 May 1997 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against persons unknown at the district office (Bezirksamt) of Aarau and joined the proceedings as a civil party. Criminal proceedings were brought against the social worker and the registrar of births, marriages and deaths of the municipality of Buchs for misuse of official authority, disturbing the repose of the dead and, in the alternative, removal of property within the meaning of Article 141 of the Swiss Criminal Code. The applicant submitted that her child’s body had been unlawfully removed from her and that it had been carried in an inappropriate vehicle without the authorisation required for this kind of transport. In this context, she complained of a violation of her personal freedom guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and, in her submission, protecting the feelings of an individual vis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3369", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Novosibirsk.\n5.  She is entitled to welfare payments for her child (child benefits). In 2000 the applicant brought proceedings against the regional welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments with indexation.\n6.  On 19 July 2000 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk awarded the applicant 1,520.77 Russian roubles (RUB) in arrears. It appears form the parties' submissions that by the same judgment the District Court also awarded the applicant RUB 1,055 on account of indexation. The judgment was not appealed against and entered in force on 30 July 2000. The enforcement proceedings were commenced accordingly.\n7.  On 23 August 2002 the applicant received RUB 351.98. On 31 March 2003 the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings referring to the lack of funds at the defendant's disposal.\n8.  On 14 January, 8 April, 2 June 2005 and 9 February 2006 the applicant received several payments from the authorities which, taken together with the previous payments, amounted to RUB 1,812.98.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3370", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the village of Zidki, Kharkiv region, Ukraine.\n5.  In December 2000 the applicant, a teacher by profession, brought proceedings against the Department of Education of the Leninskyy District of Kharkiv (Ленінський районний відділ освіти м. Харкова, hereafter “the Department”) claiming salary arrears, various teachers’ allowances allegedly due to her and a compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  On 4 January 2001 the Zmiyivskyy District Court (Зміївський районний суд, hereafter, “the Zmiyivskyy Court”) found against the applicant. The applicant appealed. On 13 February 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Court (Харківський обласний суд) quashed this judgment in part concerning the teachers’ allowances and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The remainder of the judgment was upheld.\n7.  On 31 May 2001 the Zmiyivskyy Court found in part for the applicant and awarded her 1,386.06[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for teachers’ allowances. This judgment was not appealed against within the statutory time-limit and thus became final and enforceable.\n8.  By a separate procedural decision of the same date the Zmiyivskyy Court rejected the applicant’s request to institute proceedings before the Constitutional Court (Конституційний Суд України) on compliance of the 1999 Law on Secondary Education with the Constitution of Ukraine.\n9.  On 3 July 2001 the Zmiyivskyy Court corrected an arithmetical mistake in its judgment of 31 May 3001 and changed the amount of the applicant’s award to UAH 1,499.29[2].\n10.  On the same date the Department filed an appeal against the judgment of 31 May 2001. On 10 July 2001 the Zmiyivskyy Court declared this appeal inadmissible as being lodged out of time. On 3 December 2001 the same court found inadmissible the Department’s appeal against the decision of 10 July 2001 as it had been signed by an unauthorised person. The Department appealed.\n11.  On 19 February 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Харківської області, the former Kharkiv Regional Court as renamed on 29 June 2001) quashed the decision of 3 December 2001 and remitted the question of the admissibility of the appeal against the decision of 10 July 2001 for a fresh consideration. The applicant filed an appeal in cassation against this decision.\n12.  On 28 May 2002 the Supreme Court (Верховний Суд України) upheld the decision of 19 February 2002. On 13 September 2002 the Supreme Court refused the applicant’s request to review this matter on the ground of new circumstances.\n13.  On 26 June 2003 the Zmiyivskyy Court again declared the Department’s appeal inadmissible as being signed by an unauthorised person.\n14.  On 14 October 2003 the applicant requested leave to lodge an appeal under the new cassation procedure against the first instance judgment of 4 January 2001 and appeal decision of 13 February 2001 whereby her claims for salary arrears and moral damages were rejected and the Zmiyivskyy Court’s judgment of 31 May 2001 in which her claims for allowances had not been allowed in their eternity.\n15.  On 15 April 2004 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal under the new cassation procedure.\n16.  On 3 August 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service of the Leninsky District of Kharkiv (Відділ державної виконавчої служби Ленінського районного управління юстиції м. Харкова, hereafter, “the Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the Zmiyivskyy Court’s ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3371", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant, Mr Serge July, was born in 1942 and lives in Paris. He was the publication director of the national daily newspaper Libération. The second applicant, the private limited company SARL Libération, was represented by Mr July, who was its manager at the time.\n7.  On 19 October 1995 Mr Bernard Borrel, a French judge who at the time had been seconded as technical adviser to the Djiboutian Minister of Justice, was found dead 80 km from the city of Djibouti. His half-naked and partially burnt body was lying some 20 m below a remote road. In early November 1995 the investigation by the local gendarmerie concluded that he had committed suicide by self-immolation.\n8.  In November 1995 a judicial investigation was opened in Toulouse “to establish the cause of death”, and the judge’s body, on its repatriation to France, was interred in Toulouse. In February 1996 an autopsy was carried out on the judge’s remains and its conclusion, notified to his widow on an unspecified date, was that he had committed suicide after dowsing himself in petrol.\n9.  In February 1997 the widow of the deceased judge, disputing that finding, filed a complaint as a civil party against a person or persons unknown for premeditated murder. In April 1997 a judicial investigation was opened on that basis. In July 1997 a private forensic report, commissioned by the civil party, concluded that in view of the total absence of burn residue in the judge’s lungs, he must already have been dead when his body caught fire. The judicial investigation was subsequently transferred to Paris, where the case was assigned in late October 1997 to two investigating judges at the Paris tribunal de grande instance, namely Ms Moracchini, assisted by Mr Le Loire.\n10.  In March 1999 the investigating judges visited Djibouti without the civil parties.\n11.  While Mrs Borrel was challenging the suicide conclusion towards which the judicial investigation seemed to be heading, a witness – a former member of the Djiboutian Presidential Guard who had found asylum in Belgium – came forward in December 1999 and lent support to the theory of premeditated murder, implicating the former chief of staff of the President of Djibouti, the then incumbent President Ismaël Omar Guelleh. His testimony proved highly controversial and was widely reported in the press and other media. In January 2000 the investigating judge, Ms Moracchini, interviewed this witness in Brussels, after which he challenged her impartiality, alleging that she had put pressure on him to withdraw his testimony. Lastly, in early March 2000, the investigating judges, accompanied by the director of the Paris Institute of Forensic Medicine and the Deputy Public Prosecutor of Paris, paid another visit to Djibouti in order to stage a reconstruction at the scene, without the civil parties being present. They had requested to attend but had been refused visas. In the context of the judicial investigation in respect of the premeditated murder charge, three judges’ unions, including the Union of Prosecutors and Judges (Union syndicale des magistrats – “the USM”), had applied on 2 February 2000 to be joined to the case as civil parties. For that purpose, the Chairman of the USM, Mr Valéry Turcey, sent a letter to Ms Moracchini and attached the USM’s decision taken by a vote of 28 January 2000 to apply for civil-party status in the proceedings. The decision was signed by Mr Riolacci, in his capacity as a member of the USM’s national c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3372", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  The applicant used to work as a public prosecutor. In 1998 the police charged him with blackmail and abuse of office. They alleged that the applicant had extorted several cars from the managers of a car repair shop, threatening to harass their business with criminal investigations. Thus, according to the prosecution, in 1997 the applicant was given a car in exchange for the discontinuation of the investigation into the allegedly illegal activities of the shop. Some time later he received from them another car of the same model. In 1998 he was given a new car which was more expensive than the previous one. The prosecution also accused the applicant of illegal possession of firearms, namely a gas handgun found at his place during the search.\n8.  On 2 October 1998, the police arrested the applicant and detained him in remand prison IZ–48/1, Matrosskaya Tishina, in Moscow. On admission to the prison, the applicant was put in cell no. 210. The rest of the time he spent in four other cells, namely cells nos. 212, 260, 739 and 740.\n9.  On 8 February 1999, the applicant was put into cell no. 212. The parties’ descriptions of this cell differ.\n10.  According to the applicant, the environment in this cell was so poor that he developed a skin rash.\n11.  According to the Government, that cell measured 18.8 square metres and had six bunk beds. The cell had cold running water, a sink, and a toilet partitioned off from the rest of the cell. The prisoners’ food met quality standards established by regulations. There was no infection in the cell. The prisoners had an hour’s daily exercise. Once a week they had a bath and received fresh bedding.\n12.  On 11 February 1999, the applicant was moved to cell no. 260. The parties’ descriptions of this cell differ too.\n13.  According to the applicant, this cell measured about 30 square metres and housed between eighteen and twenty-nine prisoners at different times (or twenty-five on average). Because the cell was overcrowded, during most of the seven months he was there the applicant had to share his bunk bed with other prisoners. But even on those few occasions when he had the bed to himself, he could not sleep because the lights and TV were always on, the ventilation was always off, and the prisoners talked day and night. Metal shutters covered both windows, keeping fresh air out. The toilet was not partitioned off from the rest of the cell and was in front of the guards’ peephole.\n14.  According to the Government, that cell measured 38.9 square metres and had eighteen bunk beds. The cell had cold running water, a sink, and a toilet partitioned off from the rest of the cell. The prisoners’ food met statutory standards of quality. There was no infection in the cell. The prisoners had an hour’s daily exercise. Once a week they had a bath and received fresh bedding.\n15.  Following the admissibility decision the applicant produced a written statement by Mr M., who had been detained in cell no. 260 between September 1997 and December 1999. He confirmed the applicant’s account of the conditions of detention there, namely that periodically the cell held up to twenty-nine people.\n16.  On 19 May 1999, the applicant was moved to cell no. 739, then to cell no. 740. These were hospital cells, and the applicant was put there while being treated for a broken leg.\n17.  According to the Government, the area of the cells was 21.6 square metres and 24.5 square metres c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3373", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the city of Sevastopol, Ukraine.\n5.  At the material time the applicant was a military officer. In November 1998, on an order from his superior, a commanding officer of the A-3009 military unit, he was appointed to a lower post and imposed disciplinary sanctions for various infractions.\n6.  In June 1999 the applicant brought proceedings in the Sevastopolskiy Garrison Military Court (Військовий суд Севастопольського гарнізону) against his commanding officer claiming that he had been sanctioned unfairly. The applicant sought moral damages.\n7.  After several round of courts proceedings, on 20 August 2001 the Navy Military Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Військово-Морських Сил України, hereafter “the Navy Court”), acting as a first instance court, found that the disputed disciplinary sanctions had been imposed on the applicant contrary to the relevant military regulations and awarded him 5,000[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) against the military unit for moral damages. Considering this sum insufficient the applicant appealed in cassation. On 10 January 2002 the Supreme Court (Верховний Суд України) upheld this judgment.\n8.  On 5 November 2001 the Nakhimovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service (Відділ державної виконавчої служби Нахімовського районного управління юстиції м. Севастополя, hereafter “the Nakhimovskiy Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings.\n9.  After having attempted, in vain, to withdraw the awarded sum from the account of the military unit concerned, on 21 June 2002 the bailiffs returned the writ of execution to the applicant because of the debtor’s lack of funds. The applicant never resubmitted it to the Bailiff’s Service.\n10.  In September 2002 the applicant attempted to bring administrative proceedings against the Nakhimovskiy Bailiffs’ Service for its alleged inactivity. On 26 September 2002 his application was found inadmissible by the Nakhimovskiy District Court of Sevastopol (Нахімовський районний суд м. Севастополь) on the ground of the applicant’s failure to pay court fees and to specify his claims.\n11.  The applicant filed, to no avail, a number of criminal complaints against his commanding officer with various prosecutors and courts.\n12.  The Government stated that in late 2005 the commanding officer on several occasions invited the applicant to visit the A-3009 military unit in order to collect the money due to him under the Navy Court’s judgment. The letters to this effect were sent to the applicant’s last known address. The applicant denied having received those letters, stating that his new address was known to the authorities. In particular it was indicated in his letters to the Court, the copies of which were sent to the Agent of the Government by the Court Registry.\n13.  On 26 December 2005 the A-3009 military unit paid UAH 5,000 in cash to the applicant’s pension account. The Government did not produce any document related to this event. As the applicant objected to an unauthorised transaction in his account, the bank transferred this amount back to the account of the military unit.\n14.  On 14 March 2006 the military unit A-3009 opened an account in the applicant’s name in the Oshchadbank Bank. According to the copy of bank receipt produced by the Government the reason for this transaction was specified as a “transfer of compensation for moral damage in accordance with a court decision of 20 August 2001 to Mr Mitin”.\n15.  In early 2004 the applicant was di", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3374", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Arkhangelsk.\n6.  On 23 November 2002 the applicant, a taxi driver, had driven Mr P. and Ms I. to their destination. According to Mr P., an argument broke out between him and the applicant upon arrival at the destination and the applicant injured him with her car. According to the applicant, Mr P. assaulted her and attempted to break the car door and windscreen. She denied that she had injured him and claimed that he had been in good health when she had left.\n7.  On 8 August 2003 the Severodvinsk Town Court of Arkhangelsk Region convicted the applicant of reckless driving resulting in an injury and sentenced her to one year's imprisonment conditional on one year's probation. The court based its findings on the version of events presented by Mr P. and rejected statements by witnesses K., Ko. and S., who had supported the applicant's version of events.\n8.  On 17 August 2003 the applicant lodged a statement of appeal. She contended, in particular, that the court had not been impartial as it had based its findings only on the contradictory statements of Mr P. and Ms I., and had disregarded her version which was supported by many witnesses' statements.\n9.  According to the Government, both the applicant and her lawyer were informed of the appeal hearing. The Government submitted the following documents:\n(a)  a copy of the summons of 20 August 2003 which was addressed to the applicant, the victim, counsel for the applicant and for the victim and to the prosecutor;\n(b)  an extract from the registry correspondence log, indicating the dispatch of the summons to the applicant's home address;\n(c)  an extract from the court delivery log, indicating that the summons had been delivered to the advocates' office of which counsel for the applicant was a member.\n10.  The applicant submitted that she had never received the summons. As regards her counsel, the summons had indeed been received by one of his colleagues but not by him personally.\n11.  On 9 September 2003 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court examined the case on appeal. The court heard submissions by the judge rapporteur and prosecutor, who asked the court to reject the appeal. Neither the applicant nor her counsel was present at the hearing. The Regional Court upheld the judgment of 8 August 2003.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked the District Court to grant her access to the case file. She submitted that on 11 November 2003 a judge of the District Court had refused the request on the ground that the conviction had become final, but she did not provide any documentary evidence in support of this.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3375", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in the village of Yasonovskiy, Lugansk Region, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant is a former employee of the Frunze State Mine (ДОАО шахта ім. Фрунзе, hereafter “the Mine”). He is suffering from an occupational disease.\n6.  In 1994 a medical commission established that due to his occupational disease the applicant had permanently lost 25% of his ability to work.\n7.  As during his employment with the Mine the applicant had served in several different capacities, on 13 June 1997 he brought proceedings against his former employer, seeking to have identified the work which had caused his occupational disease. He also sought recovery of his occupational disability allowance arrears.\n8.  On 9 July 1997 the judge of the Rovenkovskiy Town Court (Ровеньківський міський суд, hereafter “the Town Court”), dealing with the applicant's case, ordered an additional medical examination to determine the degree of his disability.\n9.  On 12 December 1997 the Lugansk Bureau of the Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations (Луганське обласне бюро судово-медичних експертиз) confirmed the applicant's previous diagnosis and the fact that he had lost 25% of his ability to work.\n10.  On 6 March 1998 the Town Court terminated the proceedings as the parties had reached a friendly settlement under which the Mine was to pay the applicant 947.50 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in compensation.\n11.  On an unspecified date in 1998 the applicant requested a supervisory (наглядове) review of the above decision, stating that he had agreed to the friendly settlement under unlawful pressure from the trial judge.\n12.  On 23 December 1998 the Presidium of the Lugansk Regional Court (Луганський обласний суд, hereafter “the Regional Court”), acting upon an extraordinary appeal (протест в порядку нагляду) of the Deputy President of this court, quashed the decision of 6 March 1998 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It was found that the first-instance court had not examined the possible consequences of this decision for the parties.\n13.  Of seven hearings scheduled for the period between February 1998 and February 2000 one was adjourned at the applicant's request and four were cancelled on account of the applicant's and his lawyer's absence from the courtroom. This delayed the proceedings for a total of seven months.\n14.  On two occasions during this period the Mine's representative failed to appear. During this period the applicant filed one successful and three unsuccessful challenges to the impartiality of the presiding judge.\n15.  On 29 February 2000 the Town Court, having heard the parties and examined the case file, allowed the applicant's claims in part. The applicant appealed, considering that the sum of the disability allowance arrears which had been awarded to him was insufficient.\n16.  On 1 March 2001 the Regional Court quashed this decision on the ground that the first-instance court had failed to give due consideration to all the applicant's claims and that the amount of his allowance had been calculated wrongly. The case was remitted for a fresh hearing.\n17.  Of five hearings fixed for the period from June to September 2001 four were quashed due to the failure of the Mine's representative to appear.\n18.  On 27 July 2001 the Supreme Court (Верховний Суд України), in response to the applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings, urged the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Луганської області,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3376", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Until 1987 the applicant occupied a flat with his wife. In that year he moved out. On 28 June 1989 they divorced. On 16 September 1989 the applicant's former wife died.\n5.  On 12 February 1990 the applicant issued proceedings against his son and daughter in the Plovdiv District Court. He requested partition of his deceased former wife's estate. The estate allegedly consisted of the above‑mentioned flat, a garage, a car and a number of chattels.\n6.  On 7 March 1990 the proceedings were stayed to await the outcome of an already pending suit between the applicant and his former wife. This suit, in which, after her death, the applicant's former wife had been replaced by their son and daughter, concerned her claim to exclusive title to the flat. The suit ended in July 1991 with a ruling that the flat was joint marital property of the applicant and of his former wife. Accordingly, in August 1991 the partition proceedings were resumed.\n7.  At the invitation of the court, in September and November 1991 the applicant gave further particulars of his claims.\n8.  Out of seven hearings listed for various dates between December 1991 and September 1992, three were adjourned on account of improper summoning of the respondents and a further two because of their absence.\n9.  The Plovdiv District Court gave judgment on 16 September 1992, allowing the partition of the flat and of a number of chattels, but refusing the partition of the car and of certain other chattels. The court also determined the share of each of the co‑owners.\n10.  All three litigants appealed to the Plovdiv Regional Court.\n11.  In a judgment of 25 January 1993 the Plovdiv Regional Court allowed the applicant's appeal, additionally allowing the partition of the car and of certain other chattels. It dismissed the respondents' appeal in so far as it concerned the flat, but allowed it in respect of certain chattels, excluding them from the partition. It decided to proceed on the merits and determine each party's share of the car and of the chattels whose partition it had additionally allowed.\n12.  After holding a hearing on 10 March 1993, in a judgment of 17 March 1993 the Plovdiv Regional Court allowed the partition of the car, but not of the additional chattels. It determined the parties' shares of the car and ordered an expert report on its value.\n13.  The Plovdiv District Court listed a hearing for 9 June 1993. However, the applicant's son was absent and the expert report had not been filed in due time before the hearing. The court accordingly only took note of the applicant's and his daughter's requests to be allotted the entire flat and of the applicant's claims for indemnification for the exclusive use of the flat and of the car by his son and daughter, as well as for wear of the car, and adjourned the case.\n14.  A hearing was held on 19 October 1993. The court admitted two expert reports in evidence. The applicant's son challenged the reports and requested a fresh one. The court agreed and adjourned the case.\n15.  The next hearing took place on 9 December 1993. The applicant's son was absent; so was one expert.\n16.  On 11 March 1994 the applicant asked the court to provisionally allow him to use the flat, arguing that because of his low income it was very hard for him to pay the rent for a flat which he was leasing.\n17.  The court held a hearing on 22 March 1994. The applicant's son did not show up. The court admitted the new expert report in evidence. The applicant repeated hi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3377", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  On 7 April 1925 the Greek State expropriated an area of land measuring 534,892 m², located on the outskirts of the town of Salonika (Mikra district), for the purpose of building an airport. This area, which now falls within the jurisdiction of Kalamaria Town Council, included plots of land which belonged to the applicants' ascendants.\n13.  The amount of expropriation allowance was set by judgments nos. 1321/1926 and 703/1929 of the Salonika Court of First Instance, no. 9/1930 of the Salonika Appeal Court and no. 116/1931 of the Court of Cassation.\n14.  By judgment no. 293/1936 of the President of the Salonika Court of First Instance, the applicants' ascendants were recognised as being entitled to the compensation in question. However, the State refused to pay it. The airport was ultimately constructed elsewhere.\n15.  On 22 June 1967, by a joint decision of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works (no. E.17963/8019), the State went ahead with expropriation of the above-mentioned area, which included the disputed plots of land, with a view to building housing for workers. As the decision did not fulfil a public-interest aim, it was revoked on 6 July 1972.\n17.  On 14 May 1987 the Salonika prefect modified the development plan (ρυμοτομικό σχέδιο) for the area in which the applicants' plots of land were located, which he designated as a “green area” and “sports and leisure zone”. This decision was confirmed by a decision of the Minister of the Environment and Public Works dated 31 July 1987 and by a presidential decree of 22 August 1988.\n18.  On 28 June 1994 the applicants or their ascendants applied to the Salonika Prefecture requesting that the development plan in force be amended to have the encumbrance affecting their land removed. The prefecture did not reply.\n19.  On 20 November 1994 the applicants or their ascendants applied to the Supreme Administrative Court, seeking to have set aside the authorities' implicit refusal to remove the encumbrance affecting their land.\n20.  On 11 January 1996 the Kalamaria Town Council filed its observations on the case. A hearing was held on 26 March 1997.\n21.  On 20 October 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court granted the applicants' request. In particular, it found that, having failed for a long time to proceed with the expropriation of the land in question in furtherance of the project provided for in the development plan, the authorities were duty bound to lift the encumbrance on the disputed properties. The Supreme Administrative Court sent the case back to the authorities, asking them to take the necessary measures to make available the applicants' land (judgments nos. 4445/1997, 4447/1997 and 4448/1997). Those judgments were finalised and certified as authentic on 25 February 1998.\n22.  The applicants estimate that the current value of the land in issue is about 24,000,000 euros (EUR).\n23.  On 30 September 1998 Kalamaria Town Council lodged a third-party appeal (τριατανακοπή) against the above-mentioned judgments by the Supreme Administrative Court with regard to the applicants nos. 1‑9, 12-19, 23, 26-31, 33-40, 42-44, 46-49 and 58, who had applied to the Supreme Administrative Court in the proceedings which resulted in judgments nos. 4445, 4447 and 4448/1997. This form of appeal, open to persons who have been neither parties to nor represented in proceedings, enables them to contest a decision which adversely affects them. Where the third-party appeal – which does not have", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3378", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  In their capacity as doctors, the applicants are members of the National Health System (Εθνικό Σύστημα Υγείας) and are employed by the public hospital “O Evangelismos”.\n12.  On 28 April 1994 they applied to the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal seeking to have set aside the hospital's refusal to pay them an allowance for overtime work, set at 1/65th of their basic salary. The sole purpose of this application was to challenge the lawfulness of the disputed administrative decision.\n13.  Initially scheduled for 11 March 1996, the hearing was postponed seven times, one of these being at the applicants' request. It was eventually held on 22 November 1999. On 16 December 1999 the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal set aside the disputed administrative decision (decision no. 2684/1999).\n14.  On 18 April 2000 the hospital lodged an appeal against that decision. Initially scheduled for 18 January 2001, the hearing was held on 18 October 2001, after four postponements. On 7 March 2002 the Third Division of the Supreme Administrative Court sent the case for examination by that court's seven-judge bench on account of the importance of a question concerning the way in which the document in dispute had been published (judgment no. 763/2002).\n15.  On 6 February 2003, following the postponement of one hearing, the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal's decision. It held that the ministerial decree on which the applicants based their claim to receive an allowance for overtime work had not been published in due form and was therefore without foundation (judgment no. 307/2003).\n16.  It appears from the case file that, in the meantime, the applicants had on several occasions brought actions in the administrative courts, seeking payment of various amounts in respect of allowances for overtime work allegedly owed by the public hospital in question. The total sum claimed by each applicant in this connection varied between 15,000 and 20,000 euros (EUR). It appears from the case file that these actions were dismissed by the domestic courts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3380", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in St Petersburg.\n7.  On 20 March 2002 an investigation against the applicant and another person (Mr R.) was opened on suspicion of extortion and corruption. The applicant and R. were police officers. On the following day the applicant was arrested and taken into custody.\n8.  On 29 March 2002 the applicant was charged with an attempt to receive a bribe in a particularly large amount, an offence under Articles 30 § 3 and 290 § 4 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 8 May 2002 the applicant was dismissed from the police.\n10.  On 29 May 2002 the charge against the applicant was amended to that of aggravated fraud, an offence under Article 159 §§ 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  On 20 June 2002 a deputy prosecutor of the Frunzenskiy District approved the bill of indictment and submitted the case for trial.\n12.  On 28 June 2002 the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg examined counsel’s requests concerning evidence and witnesses and fixed the trial date for 25 October 2002.\n13.  On 25 October 2002 the hearing was adjourned owing to absence of lay judges. The applicant asked the court to hear the case in a single-judge formation, in order to expedite proceedings. R. insisted on the presence of lay judges. The trial was adjourned until 20 December 2002.\n14.  On 20 December 2002 the District Court decided to sit in a single-judge formation and granted the defence’s request for additional time required for viewing photo and video recordings. The trial was postponed until 6 March 2003.\n15.  At the hearing of 6 March 2003 the District Court determined that the trial could not proceed because the defendants had not been afforded an opportunity to view photo and video recordings. It adjourned the hearing until 24 April 2003.\n16.  The hearings fixed for 24 April and 16 June 2003 were adjourned because the case file was with the City Court. On 21 August 2003 the hearing was adjourned owing to absence of counsel for Mr R. On 3 November 2003 the trial hearing was adjourned because the judge had fallen ill.\n17.  On 18 December 2003 the District Court began examination of the merits of the case. The victim was interrogated.\n18.  On 22 December 2003 a witness for the prosecution was examined. As the other witnesses did not appear, the hearing was adjourned until 5 February 2004.\n19.  Of three hearings listed in February 2004, two were postponed. On 2 March 2004 counsel for the applicant and Mr R. did not appear.\n20.  On 1 and 8 April 2004 the District Court examined two witnesses for the prosecution and read out depositions by five other witnesses who had not appeared.\n21.  Of six hearings fixed between 20 April and 17 June 2004, three were adjourned because the judge was ill.\n22.  On 22 June 2004 the District Court ordered an expert examination of audio and video materials and refused the applicant’s petition for release.\n23.  On 30 June 2004 the judge, presiding over the trial, was dismissed and the case was assigned to another judge. On 14 September 2004 the Frunzenskiy District Court, sitting in a new single-judge formation, ordered to start the trial from the beginning.\n24.  On 25 October 2004 the victim and a witness were examined.\n25.  Between 16 December 2004 and 30 May 2005 five hearings were listed and then adjourned because of the absence of witnesses, counsel for R. or R. himself. A further hearing was scheduled for 5 September 2005.\n26.  On 12 October, 2 and 28 November 2005 hearings took place.\n27", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3381", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Pskov.\n5.  He is a Chernobyl pensioner.\n6.  On 10 February 2003 the Pskov Town Court of the Pskov Region (“the Town Court”) granted his claim against the Welfare Office and recovered arrears in respect of disability and food allowances in the amount of 22,742.64 Russian roubles (RUB) and in the amount of RUB 1,713 respectively. The Town Court held that as of 1 January 2002 the applicant had been entitled to a certain increase in his disability allowance, and that as of 1 July 2002 he had been entitled to yet another increase in disability and food allowances. The Town Court further held that as of 1 February 2003 the applicant was entitled to a monthly disability allowance in the amount of RUB 4,540.52 and to a monthly food allowance in the amount of RUB 544.80. Furthermore, the Town Court held that in future, the monthly disability and food allowances had to be increased in line with the minimum subsistence amount if its index of growth attained an inflation rate of 6%. The judgment acquired legal force on 21 February 2003.\n7.  According to the Government, the judgment of 10 February 2003 was enforced in full. The final payment under that judgment was made in November 2006.\n8.  The applicant submitted that the judgment of 10 February 2003 remained without enforcement in the part concerning the payment of a monthly food allowance.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3382", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1938, 1938 and 1964 respectively and live in Istanbul. The first two applicants are the parents and the third applicant is the wife of Mr Taşkın Usta, who was shot dead by police officers at a flat in the Kadıköy district of Istanbul on 17 April 1992.\n6.  According to the facts established by the Kadıköy public prosecutor, on 16 April 1992 following the receipt of an anonymous phone call stating that THKP‑C militants were preparing an assault, police officers of the anti‑terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate arrived, at around 11.00 p.m., in Çiftehavuzlar Cezmi Or Street, in the Kadıköy district of Istanbul. After securing the surroundings of an apartment building, the police officers knocked on the door of a flat on the 12th floor of the building, in the presence of the building manager and asked the suspects to open the door in order to check their identities. One of the suspects opened the door an inch and closed it immediately stating that he would bring the identity papers. The suspects then proceeded to hang the flag of the illegal organisation from the window of the flat and to shout slogans. They also set fire to some furniture in the flat. At that point the police were unaware of the number of suspects. An ambulance was brought to the scene. The suspects were told to surrender themselves and to open the door of the flat.\n7.  However, the occupants of the flat refused to do so and opened fire. At this point, a team headed by Mr R.A., decided to enter the flat by force. At 2.30 a.m. the police tried to open the steel front door using an explosive material called cortex. A clash broke out between the three suspects, including Taşkın Usta and the police officers Mr R.A., Mr A.D., Mr I. S., Mr A.T, Mr A.U., Mr M.B.A, Mr A.Ç and Mr A.T. as a result of which Taşkın Usta and two other suspects died and Mr. I.S. was injured.\n8.  The police officers then searched the flat and found nineteen different types and calibres of pistols, two hand grenades, cartridge clips, silencers, wigs, twenty-four percussion bombs, three wirelesses and a number of cartridges. Following the ballistic examination of the guns, it appeared that one of the pistols had previously been extorted from a night guard, K.T., in Eyüp district.\n9.  The Kadıköy public prosecutor started an investigation into the events surrounding the circumstances in which Taşkın Usta and the two other suspects met their death. He took statements from all police officers who were on duty on the day of the incident.\n10.  On 18 April 1992 an autopsy was carried out on the deceased by forensic experts at the Istanbul Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty. According to the report, the body of Taşkın Usta bore forty-five bullet entry wounds, thirteen of which were fatal. The report concluded that nine of the shots had been fired at a long range but that a further examination needed to be conducted on the clothes of the deceased in order to determine the shooting range of the others. The report also stated that, according to the toxicology report, no foreign substance, such as alcohol or drugs, had been found in Taşkın Usta’s blood sample. The cause of death was determined as a fractured skull and ribs, internal bleeding and cerebral haemorrhage.\n11.  In a ballistics report dated 28 April 1992, prepared by the criminal police laboratory following the examination of the pistols and cartridge cases collected from the scene, it appeared that the 141 Parabellum ty", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3383", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, Mr Miklavž Knez, Mr Andrej Jakša, Mr Igor Levstek, Ms Silvija Oblak and Mr Aleksander Majdič are Slovenian nationals, who were born in 1929, 1932, 1931, 1912 and 1922, respectively, and live in Ljubljana, except Mr Aleksander Majdič, who lives in Bled.\n7.  On 11 December 1946 the Ljubljana District Court convicted Mr T. K., who was a legal predecessor of Mr Miklavž Knez and Mr Andrej Jakša, and sentenced him to 10 years' deprivation of liberty with forced labour, forfeiture of his property and of the property belonging to the company I. K. (Mr T. K. and Mr Miklavž Knez were partners in the company I. K.) to the State. Mr T. K. was also stripped of his civil and political rights for three years. On 31 January 1947 that judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court.\n8.  On 13 November 1991, after the independence of Slovenia and the change of the political regime, the Public Prosecutor filed a request for protection of legality against the criminal judgment. On 19 December 1991 the Supreme Court quashed the conviction.\n9.  On 7 September 1992 Mr T. K. lodged a request for compensation for wrongful conviction with the Ministry of Justice.\n10.  On 18 January 1993 the newly incorporated company T. K., claiming to be the legal successor of the company I. K., instituted proceedings against a company PEKO and another party in the then Kranj Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Kranju), seeking restitution of or compensation for the property forfeited by the company I. K.\n11.  The company T. K. also filed a motion for a temporary injunction in order to protect the property of the company PEKO in the process of privatisation. At an undetermined time, the requested temporary injunction was granted. 2.  Proceedings to which Mr Miklavž Knez and Mr Andrej Jakša are parties\nRequest for restitution of, or compensation for, the forfeited property\n12.  On 14 February 1994 fourteen individuals, including Mr T. K. and the applicants Mr Miklavž Knez and Mr Andrej Jakša, joined the company T. K. in the above-mentioned proceedings. They also informed the court that they had reached an out-of-court settlement with the second adversary party to the restitution proceedings.\n13.  On 3 April 2001 the claimants modified their restitution claims and, inter alia, included the Republic of Slovenia among the adversary parties.\n14.  Between 13 December 2002 and 11 February 2005 the court held seven hearings, at which it obtained two expert opinions, clarified the locus standi of the parties to the proceedings and identified the exact nature and scope of the property claimed.\n15.  On 22 May 2006 the court rejected all claims for restitution of or compensation for the forfeited property.\n16.  On 18 October 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) set aside the judgment of 22 May 2006 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n17.  The proceedings are pending.\n18.  On 24 October 1994 the company T. K. and its partners lodged a request with the Ministry of Justice in order to claim compensation for loss of profits following the forfeiture of the company's property. On 11 January 1995 the Ministry rejected their request.\n19.  On 25 January 1995, the company T. K., Mr T. K. and the applicant Mr Miklavž Knez instituted proceedings against the Republic of Slovenia in the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani), seeking compensation in the amount of 1,286,943,751.05 Slovenian tolars (“SIT”) (10,397,865 US dol", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3384", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants’ legal predecessors owned a plot of land with a surface area of 3,625 sq. m. located in the municipality of Warszawa‑Włochy, listed in a land register under entry no. 29552. In 1993 the applicants inherited this property as co‑owners. The property was designated, by an administrative decision given on an undetermined date, apparently prior to 1993, for agricultural use.\n6.  By a letter of 30 October 1991 the first applicant was informed by the Warszawa‑Ochota Muncipal Office that the starting date for the development foreseen by the draft land development plan for the municipality had not yet been yet fixed, but that it was most likely that work would begin after 1995.\n7.  According to the relevant local development plan, which was adopted in 1992 and later amended in 1995, the entire property had been designated for construction of a major roadway, connecting the municipality with Warsaw, and various commercial buildings. As a result, the applicants could continue to use their property for gardening or agricultural purposes, but could not carry out any development. A number of owners lodged objections against this plan, which were ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court.\n8.  In June 1992 the applicants requested the municipality to specify the use to which their property would be put under the land development plan and to indicate time‑limits for the works to begin. They also requested the municipality to acquire the property from them. This offer apparently remained unanswered.\n9.  On 13 May 1999 the applicants made an enquiry with the municipality as to the development plans in respect of their property.\n10.  In a reply of 14 June 1999 they were informed that their property remained covered by the development plan adopted in 1992 under which it was designated for construction of a roadway and for various commercial buildings.\n11.  On 12 November 2001 the applicants renewed their request for the municipality to acquire their plot. This was refused on 21 December 2001.\n12.  On 27 December 2001 the applicants complained to the municipal authorities that the local land development plan had not been implemented and that no time‑frame for its implementation had been foreseen, even tentatively. As a result, they could not carry out any development of the property and had been left in a prolonged state of uncertainty as to its future fate. It could not be used for leisure purposes as it was situated in a rather unattractive area. They had been contacted by many potential buyers who, having learnt about the lack of possibilities to develop the land immediately, had lost interest in buying the property. Their requests that the municipality acquire their land had been unsuccessful. As a result of the legal situation of the property, their ownership had been stripped of all economic value.\n13.  On 7 January 2002 the applicants were informed by the Municipal Office that their land would be acquired in the future by a company which would construct the roadway foreseen under the 1992 development plan.\n14.  On 11 April 2002 the applicants requested, for the first time, that an initial approval of a development project (decyzja o warunkach zabudowy) be issued for the construction of a small house on their land.\n15.  In a reply of 20 May 2002 the Warszawa‑Włochy Municipal Office informed them that such a decision could not be issued as it would not be compatible with the local land development plan adopted in 1992.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3385", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Warsaw.\n5.  On 25 March 1987 the applicant filed for a no-fault divorce.\n6.  On 22 April 1987 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) held a reconciliation session with the participation of the applicant and his wife.\n7.  On 11 May 1987 the applicant modified his petition and requested that the divorce be granted on the grounds of his wife’s fault.\n8.  The Warsaw District Court held two more reconciliation sessions. On 30 December 1987 it decided on the applicant’s contact rights with his minor child.\n9.  On 8 March 1988 the Warsaw District Court ordered the applicant to undergo a psychiatric observation.\n10.  Forty-five hearings were scheduled between November 1988 and March 1997. However, twenty-four of them were adjourned and one was cancelled. Two hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s stay in a psychiatric hospital for observation. Two hearings were adjourned in connection with the examination of the applicant’s challenge to the impartiality of the presiding judge. One hearing was adjourned at the parties’ request. One hearing was adjourned because the applicant’s wife was abroad. Eighteen hearings were adjourned due to the absence of one of the parties. Finally, one hearing was cancelled since the presiding judge was ill.\n11.  On 16 May 1990 the Warsaw District Court issued an order determining the use of the matrimonial home and payment of child maintenance.\n12.  On 7 June 1993 the court referred the spouses for counselling at the Family Diagnostic and Consultation Centre (Rodzinny Ośrodek Diagnostyczno-Konsultacyjny).\n13.  On 26 March 1997 the Warsaw District Court granted a divorce on the ground of the fault of both spouses. The court also ruled on custody rights and child maintenance. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 6 November 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.\n15.  Following amendments to the applicable law, the Regional Court assumed jurisdiction to examine the case. The total number of hearings held in the renewed proceedings has not been specified by the applicant. It appears that the applicant lodged two challenges to the impartiality of a judge. They were dismissed by the Warsaw Regional Court on 10 and 25 September 2002 respectively.\n16.  On 29 January 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court granted a divorce on the ground of the fault of both spouses. The applicant appealed.\n17.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked for an exemption from court fees in the appeal proceedings. On 23 April 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court refused his request. On 9 June 2004 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision and asked for a full or partial exemption from court fees. It appears that the applicant was asked to complete his appeal and that, ultimately, he was granted the exemption sought.\n18.  On 9 February 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment.\n19.  On 14 March 2005 the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings under the Act of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n20.  On 12 May 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act did not have retroact", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3387", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church of the village of Sosulivka in the Chortkiv Region (Tserkva Sela Sosulivka), is a religious group belonging to the patriarchate of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church («Українська греко-католицька церква села Сосулівка Чортківського району Тернопільської області»). The head of the applicant association is its priest, Father Roman Gamratsey.\n6.  In accordance with a decision by the Ternopil Regional State Administration (“Ternopil Regional Administration”) on 26 June 1997, the applicant was entitled to use church premises situated in the village of Sosulivka in the Ternopil Region (“церква Покрови Пречистої Діви Марії у с. Сосулівка”) for religious ceremonies. It was required to share the premises with another church of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate (“UOP KP”; “Української Православної Церкви Київського Патріархату”). In accordance with paragraph 3 of the decision, the Chortkiv District State Administration of the Ternopil Region (“Chortkiv District Administration”) was to conclude separate agreements on the use of the church premises and its property with religious denominations, specifying particular times, procedures and conditions for their use. The decision itself did not provide specific details on how the premises and property were to be used.\n7.  On 10 July 1997 the applicant concluded agreement on the use of the church premises with the Chortkiv District Administration and agreed to share it with the UOP KP on the conditions specified in this agreement. The agreement contained no details as to how the premises were to be used. The applicant also alleged that the UOP KP continued to use the premises without any agreement with the Chortkiv State Administration and impeded its own use of the premises.\n8.  On 6 October 2000 the applicant requested the Ternopil Regional Administration to transfer the church premises to it for its sole use and its religious needs. It also informed the Ternopil Regional Administration that the UOC KP had refused to comply with the decision of 26 June 1997 and the agreement concluded with the Chortkiv State Administration on 10 July 1997. In reply, on 20 December 2000 the Department of Religious Affairs of the Ternopil Regional Administration informed the applicant that disputes over the use of religious premises that had been transferred to religious organisations in accordance with agreements on their use were within the competence of the State Bailiffs Service (section 14(3) of the Enforcement Proceedings Act).\n9.  On 5 February 2001 the applicant lodged complaints with the Higher Arbitration Court against the Ternopil Regional Administration, seeking a transfer of the use of the church premises, as specified in the agreement with the Chortkiv District Administration. In particular, the applicant stated that the church sharing the premises had failed to comply with the decision of 26 June 1997. It further stated that under section 17 of the Freedom of Consciousness and Religious Organisations Act, the State as the owner had to manage the sharing and use of the church premises on the basis of agreements with the occupiers.\n10.  On 19 February 2001 a judge of the Higher Arbitration Court rejected the applicant's complaint on the ground that it should have been lodged with a court of general jurisdiction, not an arbitration court dealing with commercial matters. In particular, he referred to the fact that the applicant had c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3388", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Milan.\n10.  The applicant, who entered Italy at some unspecified time between 1996 and 1999, held a residence permit issued for “family reasons” by the Bologna police authority (questura) on 29 December 2001. This permit was due to expire on 11 October 2002.\n11.  On 9 October 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in international terrorism (Article 270 bis of the Criminal Code), among other offences, and placed in pre-trial detention. He and five others were subsequently committed for trial in the Milan Assize Court.\n12.  The applicant faced four charges. The first of these was conspiracy to commit acts of violence (including attacks with explosive devices) in States other than Italy with the aim of spreading terror. It was alleged that between December 2001 and September 2002 the applicant had been one of the organisers and leaders of the conspiracy, had laid down its ideological doctrine and given the necessary orders for its objectives to be met. The second charge concerned falsification “of a large number of documents such as passports, driving licences and residence permits”. The applicant was also accused of receiving stolen goods and of attempting to aid and abet the entry into Italian territory of an unknown number of aliens in breach of the immigration legislation.\n13.  At his trial the prosecution called for the applicant to be sentenced to thirteen years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s lawyer asked the Assize Court to acquit his client of international terrorism and left determination of the other charges to the court’s discretion.\n14.  In a judgment of 9 May 2005, the Milan Assize Court altered the legal classification of the first offence charged. It took the view that the acts of which he stood accused did not constitute international terrorism but criminal conspiracy. It sentenced the applicant to four years and six months’ imprisonment for that offence, and for the forgery and receiving offences. It acquitted the applicant of aiding and abetting clandestine immigration, ruling that the acts he stood accused of had not been committed.\n15.  As a secondary penalty, the Assize Court banned the applicant from exercising public office for a period of five years and ordered that after serving his sentence he was to be deported.\n16.  In the reasons for its judgment, which ran to 331 pages, the Assize Court observed that the evidence against the applicant included intercepts of telephone and radio communications, witness statements and numerous false documents that had been seized. Taken together, this evidence proved that the applicant had been engaged in a conspiracy to receive and falsify stolen documents, an activity from which he derived his means of subsistence. On the other hand, it had not been established that the documents in question had been used by the persons in whose names they had been falsely made out to enter Italian territory illegally.\n17.  As regards the charge of international terrorism, the Assize Court firstly noted that a conspiracy was “terrorist” in nature where its aim was to commit violent acts against civilians or persons not actively participating in armed conflict with the intention of spreading terror or obliging a government or international organisation to perform or refrain from performing any act, or where the motive was political, ideological or religious in nature. In the present case it was not known whether the violent ac", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3389", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Czarne.\n5.  On 11 February 1998 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of murder, involvement in drug trafficking and illegal possession of a firearm. On 13 February 1998 the Kołobrzeg District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question and having regard to their seriousness. It further considered that there was a risk that he would obstruct the proper conduct of the investigation and influence witnesses and other members of the criminal group to which he belonged.\n6.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended several times.\n7.  On 4 August 1998 the applicant was indicted before the Koszalin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). As the bill of indictment did not meet the formal requirements a second bill of indictment was served on 22 August 1998. The bill of indictment comprised charges of murder, drug trafficking and illegal possession of a firearm and concerned four accused.\n8.  From 13 November 1998 until 2 January 1999 the applicant served a prison sentence imposed on him in other criminal proceedings.\n9.  From 17 February 1999 to 10 August 1999 the court held eight hearings during which it heard evidence from sixty-six witnesses, as the applicant and the co-accused asked for all the witnesses to be heard during the hearing and for their testimony not merely to be read from the investigation file.\n10.  The hearings scheduled for 10 September 1999 and 12 October 1999 were postponed due to the illness of a lay judge (ławnik) and the absence of one of the lawyers.\n11.  On 13 October 1999 the court decided to hear the case from the beginning because of the inability of the lay judge to continue to sit in the case. From 13 October 1999 to 13 January 2000 the court held thirteen hearings. In a number of hearings witnesses failed to appear.\n12.  On 13 January 2000 the court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment and forfeiture of his civic rights. He appealed.\n13.  On 28 March 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Kołobrzeg District Procurator (Prokurator Rejonowy) for further investigation.\n14.  On 14 October 2002 a new bill of indictment was lodged. It comprised the above-mentioned charges.\n15.  The Koszalin Regional Court proceedings were reopened on 10 December 2002.\n16.  On 28 April 2003 the Koszalin Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 31 July 2003. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. The court further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation justified holding him in custody. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. It also relied on the risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence. It referred to the attempt by the applicant and one of the co-defendants to influence the process of taking evidence.\n17.  From 14 January 2003 to 31 May 2004 the court held thirty-eight hearings and evidence from one hundred and forty-three witnesses was obtained. When witnesses failed to appear, the court imposed fines on them.\n18.  During the proceedings the applicant’s detention was extended on several occasions. The court repeated th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3390", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1982 respectively and live in Izmir.\n5.  On 28 April 2001 the applicants were taken into police custody.\n6.  On 30 April 2001 the applicants were brought before the investigating judge, who ordered their detention on remand.\n7.  On 3 May 2001 the Izmir State Security Court public prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicants He accused the first applicant of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, and the second applicant of being a member of an illegal organisation.\n8.  On 13 September 2001 the Izmir State Security Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to ten months’ imprisonment and a fine.\n9.  On 6 December 2001 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion on the merits of the appeal. He advised that the appeal be rejected and that the first-instance judgment be upheld.\n10.  On 24 January 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance court’s judgment on the ground that the applicants should have been sanctioned under Article 169 of the Criminal Code for aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation.\n11.  On 16 May 2002 the Izmir State Security Court adhered to the reasoning of the Court of Cassation and convicted the applicants pursuant to Article 169 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  On 13 November 2002 the Principal Public Prosecutor submitted his written opinion on the merits of the case and stated that the Court of Cassation should uphold the judgment of the State Security Court.\n13.  On 28 November 2002, the Court of Cassation, in conformity with the opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor, upheld the first instance judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3393", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Gulia, a village with an 80% Roma population in the commune of Dolhasca, Suceava county.\n6.  On 3 April 2001 the deputy mayor, four police officers from the Dolhasca Police Force and their chief, six public guards from Dolhasca and a driver, left in three cars to enforce a by-law against owners whose cattle were grazing on public pasture. Three of the public guards were wearing black uniforms with hoods and carrying truncheons. At around 8 pm, on their way back to Dolhasca Police Station, they entered C.C.’s bar in Gulia to check the owner’s documents. A conflict arose between the authorities and the 20‑30 Roma gathered in front of the bar. The parties’ submissions differ as to the sequence of events.\n7.  F.L., a villager of Roma origin, was just leaving the bar as the police entered. Sergeant D.T. asked him whether he was a “Gypsy (ţigan) or Romanian”. When F.L. answered that he was a Gypsy, the deputy mayor asked the police officers and the public guards to teach him and the other Roma “a lesson”. The police and public guards started beating F.L. and other Roma who happened to be in the vicinity of the bar.\n8.  The applicant, who had just bought something from a nearby shop, ran away with other children, but was tripped up by D.T. who started beating, kicking and hitting him on the back of his head and pushed him into a ditch. The applicant told D.T. that he had just undergone head surgery and that the beating could endanger his life. D.T. continued beating him until the applicant lost consciousness. Several persons, including the applicant’s schoolmates witnessed the incident. The deputy mayor and police officers were heard shouting racist remarks.\n9.  The officials left the premises, leaving the applicant unconscious on the ground. A.S., V.D. and I.C., witnesses to the incident, carried him to his parents’ home.\n10.  The deputy mayor entered C.C.’s bar with a police officer and complained about the insalubrious conditions in the premises and that C.C. allowed people to drink excessively.\n11.  C.C. asked his customers to leave the bar. During the discussions with the authorities, C.C. and his wife urged their customers, who were gathered in front of the bar, to antagonise the officials. The customers became aggressive. The police officers surrounded the deputy mayor in order to protect him. The officials returned quickly to their cars and left the premises immediately. The deputy mayor’s car, which was the last to leave, was attacked by the locals with bats.\n12.  On the evening of 3 April 2001 the applicant was taken by his parents to Sfânta Maria Hospital in Iaşi.\n13.  On 6 April 2001 he was examined by a doctor from the Iaşi Forensic Institute. The certificate issued recorded the following:\n“- On the exterior upper side of the left elbow: a discontinuous excoriation of 1,2x1 cm with red haematic crust.\n- The space between the scapula and the vertebras: purple transversal linear ecchymoses, ranging from 9x3,2 cm to 5,52x2,8 cm, two on the right side, one on the left side.\n- On the exterior side of the right arm: one red transversal linear ecchymosis of 5,5x2 cm.\n- The subject states that he is experiencing pain in the right parietal epicranius but there are no visible exterior post‑traumatic lesions...\nConclusion\nStoica Constantin presents with ecchymoses, thoracic concussion and excoriation, inflicted by a linear blunt instrument, which could date from 3 April 2001.\nHe needs three to ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3394", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Sztum.\n5.  On 20 October 2000 the Otwock District Court remanded the applicant in custody, relying on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed aggravated murder and robbery. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the fact that the applicant was a recidivist offender. Finally, the court found that there were no special grounds, as specified in Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which would justify lifting the detention and imposing a less severe preventive measure.\n6.  The applicant’s appeal against the detention order and his further appeals against some of the decisions extending his detention as well as his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful.\n7.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended by the Warsaw Regional Court on 4 January, 9 April and 5 July 2001. In all their detention decisions the courts repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention. It also noted that certain items of evidence and a psychiatric report on the other co-accused had not yet been obtained.\n8.  On 31 July 2001 the prosecution lodged a bill of indictment with the Warsaw Regional Court. The applicant was charged with robbery and murder.\n9.  The Warsaw Regional Court held hearings on 12 April and 20 August 2002.\n10.  During the court proceedings the authorities further extended the applicant’s detention pending trial on 16 August 2001, 25 March 2002, 27 August 2002, 13 November 2002 and on an unknown subsequent date. The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s continued detention. The court found that his continued detention was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n11.  On 27 August 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. He was also deprived of his civic rights for a period of five years. The court further ordered that the period spent by the applicant in pre–trial detention from 20 October 2000 up to the date of his conviction was to be deducted from the sentence imposed.\n12.  The applicant appealed. He was kept in detention pending the outcome of his appeal for three months.\n13.  On 26 November 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal heard the applicant’s appeal. It quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for retrial. It ordered that the applicant’s detention should continue.\n14.  In the retrial proceedings the Regional Court held hearings on 7 and 22 May, 14 and 29 July, 8 August, 25 September, 23 October and 1 December 2003, 2 February, 4 June, 19 July, 8 October, 22 October and 16 November 2004.\n15.  In the retrial proceedings the applicant made numerous, unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against decisions extending his detention. The relevant decisions on the extension of his detention were given by the Warsaw Regional Court on 17 February, 22 May, an unknown subsequent date, 23 October and 1 December 2003, 8 March, an unknown subsequent date and 22 July 2004. On 22 October 2004 the applicant was released and placed under police supervision.\n16.  On 25 October 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court acquitted the applicant of all the charges.\n17.   On 22 February 2006, upon the prosecution’s appeal, the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3395", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Miechucino, Poland.\n6.  In 1992 the applicant donated his agricultural property to his son. In 1996 the public notary prepared an amendment to the contract concerning the transfer of certain items of property (agricultural equipment) to the applicant's son. On 24 June 1997 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) confirmed that the amendment was invalid.\n7.  On 5 July 2001 the applicant sued his son, J.P., before the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) for restitution of the items of property in question. The applicant indicated that the value of the claim was almost 200,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). He also asked to be exempted from court fees.\n8.  On 18 September 2001 the Regional Court refused to exempt the applicant from court fees. The court gave the following reasons for its decision:\n“The applicant submitted that his only income was a disability pension in the amount of PLN 552.21 [approx. EUR 138]. He further claimed that he did not own any real estate or any other assets, except for a car. However, he had been paying for it in instalments: PLN 159.50 [approx. EUR 40] monthly. The plaintiff estimated the amount of his monthly expenses for his flat at PLN 200 [EUR 50].\nFrom the documents submitted by the applicant it appears that the sum he spends monthly on his flat, and the loan for the car customised for a disabled person, amounts to PLN 359.5. After he pays for the flat and the loan, the plaintiff has PLN 192.5 left [approx. EUR 48]. According to the court, it is not enough to cover his maintenance costs such as food, clothes and medication...\nThis leads the court to the conclusion that the plaintiff has other additional resources and he can afford to pay the court fees in question. Consequently, considering that the plaintiff failed to indicate all his assets, the court dismisses his application for an exemption from court fees.”\n9.  On 30 October 2001 the applicant filed an interlocutory appeal against this decision. He also filed a new motion for an exemption from court fees.\n10.  The Gdańsk Regional Court rejected the applicant's interlocutory appeal as it had been lodged outside the prescribed time-limit. On 19 April 2002 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld this decision.\n11.  On 21 May 2002 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to supplement his motion for an exemption from court fees.\n12.  In reply the applicant stressed that his financial situation had not changed and was still very bad. His disability benefit had increased by PLN 2, as shown by a pay slip he had attached.\n13.  On 17 June 2002 the Gdańsk Regional Court rejected the applicant's second motion for exemption from court fees. The court held that it had already considered the applicant's financial situation and found that it had not justified an exemption.\n14.  The applicant filed an interlocutory appeal. He submitted that he was 63 years old and in poor health. He was not even able to buy the necessary medication as his monthly disability pension amounted to PLN 556. For these reasons he believed that he should be exempted from court fees.\n15.  On 16 October 2002 the Gdansk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's interlocutory appeal against this decision. The court repeated the reasons given by the Regional Court.\n16.  On 12 November 2002 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay PLN 11,305.5 [approx. EUR 2,826] for lodging his statement of claim on pain of having it returned.\n17.  As the applicant f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3396", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Bag.\n5.  In 2000 the applicant divorced her husband. The ex-spouses had an agreement about the placement of their son with the applicant. However, on 20 August 2002 the ex-husband took the son with him on a trip and did not return him to the applicant. Despite several enforcement fines imposed on the father, the applicant’s custody was restored only on 27 March 2006.\n6.  Meanwhile, on 11 October 2002 the father introduced an action requesting custody of the child.\n7.  On 20 April 2005 the District Court, after having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert, adopted a decision, changing the child’s placement and granting custody to the father. On appeal, on 1 September 2005 the Regional Court quashed this decision.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings, on 23 June 2006 the District Court, after having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert, again found for the father.\n9.  On 8 February 2007 the Regional Court upheld this decision and ordered the applicant to surrender the child to the father. This decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 12 March 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3397", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region.\n6.  He sued the Welfare Office of Novovoronezh and the local department of the Federal Treasury for unpaid social benefits and obtained seven judgments in his favour.\n7.  On 25 October 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region (“the Town Court”) awarded the applicant 1,064.55 Russian roubles (RUB) in arrears relating to a disability allowance and RUB 815.16 in arrears relating to a food allowance. The judgment entered into force on 5 November 2000. On 30 September 2003 the applicant received RUB 1,064.55. It appears that the remaining part of the judgment debt has not been paid to the applicant.\n8.  On 19 December 2002 the Town Court held that as of 1 January 2001 the applicant had been entitled to a monthly disability allowance in the amount of RUB 3,449.31 and recovered in his favour arrears in the amount of RUB 14,337.48. On 6 February 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgment. It was fully enforced on 17 December 2004.\n9.  On 31 May 2005 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 3,565.57 in penalties for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 19 December 2002. The judgment entered into force on 14 June 2005. It has not been enforced to date.\n10.  On 9 June 2003 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 26,649.69 in arrears relating to a disability allowance. On 10 July 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. It was enforced in full on 17 December 2004.\n11.  On 31 May 2005 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,421.33 in penalties for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment of 9 June 2003. The judgment acquired legal force on 14 June 2005. It has not been enforced to date.\n12.  On 16 February 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 23,131.68 in arrears relating to a disability allowance. On 22 April 2004 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. It was enforced in full on 24 August 2005.\n13.  On 6 May 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 13,099.83 in arrears relating to a disability allowance. The court furthermore held that as of 1 April 2004 the applicant had been entitled to a monthly disability allowance in the amount of RUB 7,815.92, to be index‑linked in accordance with legislation. On 17 May 2004 the judgment entered into force. It was enforced in full on 11 November 2005.\n14.  On 27 February 2006 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 8,385.82 in penalties for the delayed enforcement of the judgments of 16 February and 6 May 2004. The judgment acquired legal force on 10 March 2006. It has not been enforced to date.\n15.  On 15 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,973.57 in arrears relating to a food allowance and to an annual disability allowance. The judgment acquired legal force on 25 March 2004. It has not been enforced to date.\n16. On 26 August 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 1,772.30 in arrears relating to a food allowance and to a disability allowance. The court furthermore held that as of 1 April 2004 the applicant had been entitled to a monthly food allowance in the amount of RUB 679.78 and as of 2005 he was entitled to an annual disability allowance in the amount of RUB 1,132.97, both to be index-linked in accordance with legislation. The judgment acquired legal force on 6 September 2004. It has not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3398", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1944 and 1946 respectively and live in Ufa, the Republic of Bashkortostan.\n5.  The applicants are entitled to a supplementary allowance to their pensions as former municipal officials. In 2001-2002 the allowance was not paid to them. The applicants brought several sets of proceedings against the local social security office to recover the underpayments. The Penzhinskiy District Court of the Koryakskiy Autonomous Region granted the applicants' claims.\n6.  Thus, on 14 January 2002 the first applicant was awarded 26,754 Russian roubles (RUB); on 4 February 2002, RUB 20,037.72; on 5 September 2002, RUB 19,317.35; on 26 November 2002, RUB 18,655.80; and on 7 April 2003, RUB 18,037.16. The judgments were not appealed against and became final ten days after the delivery.\n7.  On 14 January 2002 the second applicant was awarded RUB 39,516.77; on 4 February 2002, RUB 29,449.32; on 5 September 2002, RUB 25,852.39; on 12 September 2002, RUB 11,694.56; and on 7 April 2003, RUB 26,259.90. The judgments were not appealed against and became final ten days after the delivery.\n8.  In January 2003 all the judgments, except for the judgments of 7 April 2003, were enforced. According to the applicants, the judgments of 7 April 2003 were enforced in July 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3399", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Koška.\n5.  On 8 October 1996 the applicant brought a civil action against a certain artisan B.P. in the Pula Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Puli) seeking payment.\n6.  The court held hearings on 12 November (in the applicant's absence) and 19 December 1997, 28 January 1998, 3 September and 4 October 1999, 3 February, 3 March and 5 December 2000 and 9 January and 7 May 2001.\n7.  The hearings scheduled for 15 July 1998 and 16 November 1999 were adjourned on the applicant's request. Those scheduled for 14 December 1999 and 14 March 2001 were also adjourned.\n8.  The hearing scheduled for 31 October 2000 was adjourned since the parties attempted to reach an in-court settlement (sudska nagodba).\n9.  At the hearing held on 7 May 2001 the Municipal Court gave judgment accepting the applicant's claim in part. The respondent appealed on 24 December 2001 and on 1 February 2002 his appeal was together with the case-file forwarded to the Pula County Court (Županijski sud u Puli).\n10.  On 13 October 2003 the Pula County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings, the Pula Municipal Court held hearings on 2 March and 22 November 2004 and 21 February 2005.\n12.  At the hearing held on 7 March 2005 the court gave new judgment accepting the applicant's claim in part.\n13.  On 16 January 2006 the Pula County Court dismissed the respondent's appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.\n14.  On 24 March 2006 the applicant applied to the Pula Municipal Court for enforcement of the above judgment by garnishment of funds from the debtor's bank accounts. On 29 March 2006 the court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o ovrsi) garnishing temporarily the funds on all debtor's bank accounts. After having received the relevant information from the banks, on 9 May 2006 the court invited the applicant to specify, within eight days, from which savings account the funds should be seized. Since the applicant did not do so within the prescribed period, on 3 July 2006 the court issued a decision discontinuing the enforcement proceedings. The decision became final on 16 July 2006.\n15.  Meanwhile, on 7 June 2006 the applicant instituted new enforcement proceedings before the same court seeking execution of the same judgment. However, in these proceedings he sought to satisfy his claim, alternatively, by garnishment of funds from the debtor's bank account or by seizure and sale of his movable property. On 9 June 2006 the court issued a writ of execution. On 27 November 2006 the court scheduled the intervention of the bailiff (sudski ovršitelj) for 17 January 2007. A day before the intervention the applicant asked for postponement of enforcement. The request was granted and the enforcement postponed until 8 May 2007. Afterwards the court continued the proceedings and on 15 June 2007 served the writ of execution to the debtor's bank with a view to seizing the funds and transferring them to the applicant's account. Following the applicant's request of 19 July 2007 to continue with the seizure of the debtor's movables, the court scheduled the bailiff's intervention for 19 November 2007. The bailiff effected the in situ inspection as scheduled but found no movable property susceptible to seizure.\nIt appears that the proceedings are still pending.\n16.  On 30 December 1996 the applicant brought a civil action against his former employer the company P. in the Pula Municipal Court se", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3400", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 9 December 1998 a woman was raped in the city of Pazardzhik. She lodged a complaint on the same day and identified the applicant as the perpetrator.\n8.  A search of the room where the applicant’s uncle lived, which was purportedly the place where the applicant had had sexual intercourse with the victim, was performed on an unspecified date.\n9.  The applicant was arrested on 10 December 1998.\n10.  On 11 December 1998 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicant for the offence of rape perpetrated by the use of force and after threatening the victim, an offence for which he had already been convicted. He was also placed in pre-trial detention.\n11.  On 14 December 1998 the applicant was charged with one count of rape and remanded in custody.\n12.  The applicant’s uncle was questioned on 15 December 1998.\n13.  On 1 April 1999 the district prosecutor’s office entered an indictment against the applicant with the Pazardzhik District Court on one count of rape.\n14.  It is unclear how many hearings were conducted before the District Court.\n15.  On 1 January 2000 amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 (“the CCP”) regarding the detention regime entered into force.\n16.  On 17 February 2000 the District Court remitted the case to the investigation stage. It found that it could not render a judgment because it had established that the applicant had had sexual intercourse with the victim on two separate occasions on the day in question and that the case could therefore involve two counts of rape rather than one. However, the indictment against the applicant concerned only one count of rape and it was apparently unclear to which instance of sexual intercourse it referred. The District Court considered that this ambiguity in the indictment might violate the applicant’s right to mount a proper defence and remitted the case to the investigation for correction of this discrepancy.\n17.  The applicant contended that no investigative procedures were conducted after 2003. The Government did not dispute that contention.\n18.  On an unspecified date a revised indictment was entered against the applicant with the District Court.\n19.  As at the date of the applicant’s last communication to the Court of 15 July 2006 the case was still pending before the District Court.\n20.  The applicant was arrested at 5.30 p.m. on 10 December 1998 and detained for twenty-four hours.\n21.  He was placed in pre-trial detention on 11 December 1998 by an order issued by an investigator. The applicant’s detention was confirmed later on the same day by the Pazardzhik district prosecutor’s office, which extended the period of preliminary detention to three days.\n22.  On 14 December 1998, by an order issued by an investigator and confirmed by the Pazardzhik district prosecutor’s office, the applicant was charged with one count of rape and remanded in custody. When remanding the applicant in custody the investigator cited, inter alia, his previous convictions and the ongoing investigation against him.\n23.  On 21 December 1998 the applicant lodged his first appeal against his detention. It was dismissed by the District Court on 28 December 1998 on the ground, inter alia, that the applicant was charged with a serious offence and, more generally, that he might abscond, obstruct the investigation or reoffend.\n24.  On 17 February 1999 the Pazardzhik regional prosecutor’s office extended the deadline for completing the preliminary investigation by thirty days and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3401", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region.\n6.  He sued the Welfare Office of Novovoronezh and the local department of the Federal Treasury for unpaid social benefits and obtained five judgments in his favour.\n7.  On 30 June 2003 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region (“the Town Court”) awarded the applicant 19,315.50 Russian roubles (RUB) in arrears relating to a disability allowance. On 7 August 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment. It was enforced in full on 17 December 2004.\n8.  On 31 May 2005 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 3,204.51 in penalties for the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 30 June 2003. The judgment acquired legal force on 14 June 2005. It has not been enforced to date.\n9.  On 24 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 16,765.50 in arrears relating to a disability allowance. The judgment entered into force on 5 April 2004. It was enforced in full on 3 August 2005.\n10.  On 26 September 2005 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 3,412.28 in penalties for the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 24 March 2004. The judgment acquired legal force on 7 October 2005. It has not been enforced to date.\n11.  On 1 April 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,329.72 in arrears relating to a food allowance and RUB 643.85 in arrears relating to a disability allowance. The judgment acquired legal force on 12 April 2004. It has not been enforced to date.\n12.  On 8 June 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 9,494.52 in arrears relating to a disability allowance and held that as of 1 April 2004 the applicant had been entitled to a monthly disability allowance in the amount of RUB 5,664.84, to be index-linked in accordance with legislation. The judgment entered into force on 18 June 2004. However, the authorities failed to backdate the increase as of 1 April 2004 and continued to underpay the applicant until August 2004.\n13.  On 30 November 2004 the Town Court examined the applicant's complaint about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 8 June 2004 and recovered RUB 15,824 for the debt accrued as a result of the underpayment between April and August 2004. The judgment of 30 November 2004 entered into force on 14 December 2004.\n14.  The judgments of 8 June and 30 November 2004 were enforced in full on 22 December 2005.\n15.  On 27 February 2006 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 3,165.25 in penalties for the delayed enforcement of the judgments of 8 June and 30 November 2004. The judgment became final on 10 March 2006. It has not been enforced to date.\n16.  On 8 June 2004 the Town Court recovered in the applicant's favour the unpaid food allowance in the amount of RUB 1,139.34 and the unpaid annual disability allowance in the amount of RUB 632.97. The court furthermore held that as of 1 April 2004 the applicant had been entitled to a monthly food allowance in the amount of RUB 679.78, to be index-linked in accordance with legislation. The court also held that as of 2005 the applicant was entitled to a disability allowance, to be index-linked in accordance with legislation. The judgment entered into force on 18 June 2004. It has not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3402", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in Kemerovo. Mrs Braga died on 17 May 2007.\n6.  On 23 December 1999 the Tsentralniy District Court of Kemerovo granted the applicants’ claim against the Kemerovo Town Council and held that the Council should provide Mrs Braga with a two-room flat, Mrs Kiryushkina with a two-room flat and Mr Timofeyev with a one-room flat.\n7.  On 16 March 2000 the Kemerovo Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n8.  By letter of 5 April 2000, the Kemerovo Town Council informed the bailiffs that the applicants had been placed on the waiting list. By letter of 5 May 2000, the Council told Mrs Kiryushkina that there existed a waiting list for enforcement of judicial decisions requiring provision of flats and that the applicants had been assigned numbers 61 to 63 on the waiting list.\n9.  The applicants applied to the District Court, seeking to have the operative part of the judgment amended so as to receive the market value of the flats.\n10.  On 23 May 2001 the Tsentralniy District Court refused their application because the enforcement proceedings were still pending and because they had in the meantime advanced by thirty positions on the waiting list. On 19 July 2001 the Kemerovo Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal.\n11.  By letter of 9 November 2001, the Kemerovo Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicants that the enforcement proceedings had not been carried out in accordance with the Enforcement Act and that the bailiffs had been directed to remedy the violations.\n12.  On 2 June 2005 the applicant Mr Timofeyev received a one-room flat in Kemerovo under a social-tenancy agreement. On 23 June 2006 he privatised the flat and registered his title to it.\n13.  On 10 March 2005 the Town Council offered the applicants Mrs Braga and Mrs Kiryushkina two vacant two-room flats in Kemerovo. They did not accept the offer, indicating their wish to receive new flats. On 30 September 2005 two one-room flats in a new block of flats were offered to them but they refused the offer because the flats had only one room each. On 22 May 2007 Mrs Kiryushkina agreed to move into a two-room flat. Following the death of Mrs Braga, on 29 May 2007 her son agreed to a one-room flat.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3403", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 22 September 1997 the applicant was convicted on several counts of fraud and sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment and a fine. On 28 October 1998 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the conviction, finding that the applicant’s guilt had not been proved.\n7.  The applicant sued the Ministry of Finance for damages incurred through the unlawful criminal prosecution.\n8.  On 4 April 2001 the Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow granted his claim in part and awarded him 23,400 Russian roubles, payable by the Ministry of Finance within one month. On 13 June 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n9.  On 11 October 2001 a writ of execution was issued.\n10.  On 11 March 2003 the applicant sent a complaint to the Ministry of Finance about non-enforcement of the judgment. No reply was received.\n11.  On 18 March 2006 the Ministry of Finance paid the judgment debt to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3404", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1974 and 1962, respectively, and live in Izmir. They were members of the executive board of the Izmir Branch of the Human Rights Association (“the Association”) at the time of lodging their applications to the Court. There were two different sets of criminal proceedings brought against the applicants; however, it should be noted that the first applicant's case concerned only the first set of proceedings, regarding the Association members with prior convictions.\n5.  On 10 July 2001 the Izmir Governor sent a letter to the Association requesting that the membership of thirteen persons, including the second applicant, be annulled as they were considered to be involved in illegal activities. In this letter it is said that, although the second applicant had been taken into police custody on 30 April 1999, she had subsequently been released as it had not been established that she had any connection with the illegal TKP/ML-TIKKO (the Turkish Communist Party / Marxist-Leninist–Turkish Workers' and Peasants' Liberation Army).\n6.  On 6 August 2001 the Association replied to the Governor that they would not comply with the request since none of these thirteen persons had prior convictions which would ban them from founding or becoming a member of an association, as provided by section 4 §§ 2 and 3 and section 16 of the Associations Act (Law no. 2908).\n7.  On 17 October and 31 October 2001 respectively, the Izmir Public Prosecutor informed the applicants that a prosecution had been initiated against them for non-compliance with section 4 of Law no. 2908, but that no court proceedings would be initiated if they paid a fine of 142,366,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] per person within ten days. The applicants did not pay the fine within ten days as required by the payment order.\n8.  Subsequently, on 3 December 2001 the Izmir Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicants and the other members of the Board. The public prosecutor requested that the accused be fined under Section 75 of the Associations Act and Article 119 of the Criminal Code for their failure to comply with the Izmir Governor's request. The bill of indictment was not notified to the applicants.\n9.  On 26 December 2001 the Izmir Magistrates' Court, without holding a hearing, found the applicants and the other co-accused guilty as charged and, by a penal order (ceza kararnamesi), fined them TRL 213,548,400[2] per person. In doing so, the court relied on the “simplified procedure” stipulated in Article 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relatively minor offences.\n10.  The applicants and the other co-accused lodged an objection with the Izmir Criminal Court against the decision of 26 December 2001.\n11.  On 6 February 2002 the Izmir Criminal Court dismissed the objection without a hearing.\n12.  The applicants paid the amounts due.\n13.  Subsequently, on 16 December 2002 one of the co-accused, Mr N.B., applied to the Ministry of Justice, requesting the Minister to refer the case to the Court of Cassation by way of a written order (yazılı emir).\n14.  On 29 January 2003 the Minister of Justice issued a written order and instructed the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation to ask the Court of Cassation to set aside the judgment concerned.\n15.  On 14 April 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Izmir Criminal Court dated 6 February 2002 and the case file was remitted to the Izmir Magistrates' Court.\n16.  On 14 May 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3405", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Bytča.\n6.  On 22 April 1992 the applicant and another individual brought an action against twenty-four other individuals in the Žilina District Court. They sought a ruling declaring them to be the owners of agricultural land in Štiavnik.\n7.  On 25 May and 19 August 1992 the District Court requested the plaintiffs to provide further information, which they did on 9 June and 27 August 1992, respectively.\n8.  On 29 September 1992 the plaintiffs withdrew the action in respect of five defendants.\n9.  On 2 February 1993 the District Court held a hearing.\n10.  In March 1993 the plaintiffs appointed a new lawyer who withdrew the action in respect of three further defendants and identified one new defendant.\n11.  On 12 August 1993 the District Court approved the withdrawal of the action against several defendants and the extension of the action to include a new defendant.\n12.  On 8 November 1993 the District Court held a hearing at which twelve of the defendants failed to appear. The plaintiffs modified their statement of claim and extended the action to include another individual. The hearing was adjourned with a view to hearing the absent defendants and obtaining further information.\n13.  In November 1993 and March 1994 the plaintiffs submitted further information.\n14.  On 1 and 11 March 1994 three defendants were heard through the intermediary of a court in the judicial district where they lived.\n15.  In June, October and November 1994 the District Court requested an advance on the costs of the inspection of the property and further information.\n16.  On 8 December 1994 the plaintiffs’ lawyer informed the court that she was unable to obtain a document that it had requested.\n17.  In October 1995 the District Court requested that another defendant be heard thought the intermediary of the court in the judicial district where she lived. The minutes of the hearing were filed on 15 January 1996.\n18.  On 15 May 1996 the District Court held a hearing at which it was learnt that one of the defendants had died.\n19.  In May, June and November 1996 the District Court requested the plaintiffs on three occasions to clarify who the actual defendants were. Their lawyer applied twice for an extension of the time-limit for replying.\n20.  On 21 January 1997 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to respond to the court’s requests for information. On 12 March 1997 the plaintiffs appealed. They were subsequently requested on two occasions to submit the reasons for their appeal.\n21.  On 5 September 1997 the plaintiffs’ lawyer informed the court that the applicant’s co-plaintiff had died.\n22.  On 16 October 1997 the plaintiffs submitted the reasons for the appeal.\n23.  On 21 November 1997 the District Court sought the defendants’ observations in reply to the appeal.\n24.  In February and May 1998 the District Court requested the death certificate of the applicant’s co-plaintiff and invited the son of the deceased co-plaintiff to indicate whether he wished to continue the action in her stead. He responded in the affirmative.\n25.  In September 1998 the plaintiffs informed the court that the identification of the land in dispute had changed following the change in the real property referencing system.\n26.  On 22 August 2000 the District Court quashed its own decision to discontinue the proceedings and resumed them.\n27.  On 3 October 2000 the District Court held a hearin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3406", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Trebnje.\n6.  On 24 September 1946 the Ljubljana Division Military Court (Divizijsko vojaško sodišče v Ljubljani) convicted the applicant’s uncle and legal predecessor, Mr A.Z., of the offence of collaboration with the “Black Hands” organisation during the Second World War. He was sentenced to 10 years’ deprivation of liberty with forced labour and forfeiture of property to the State. The applicant’s uncle lodged an appeal with the Military Court of the IVth Army (Vojaško sodišče IV. armije), which was dismissed on 25 October 1946. Following the conviction, the immovable assets belonging to the applicant’s uncle were expropriated by a ruling of the Grosuplje District Court (Okrajno sodišče v Grosupljem), rendered on 22 November 1946.\n7.  The applicant’s uncle died on 4 September 1949, bequeathing his movable assets to his sister, the applicant’s mother. She died in 1973, leaving her property to the applicant and his brother and sister.\n8.  In 1991, after the establishment of independence of the Republic of Slovenia and the change of the political regime, the applicant’s aunt requested the retrial of her brother, the applicant’s uncle. On 19 March 1993 the Ljubljana Basic Court, Ljubljana Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani, Enota v Ljubljani) acceded to her request and re-opened the criminal proceedings. Following the withdrawal of all charges by the Prosecutor General, on 2 September 1993 the court terminated the proceedings and quashed the conviction. The decision became final on 19 September 1993.\n9.  On 3 December 1993 the applicant initiated proceedings against the Grosuplje Municipality before the Ljubljana Basic Court, Grosuplje Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani, Enota v Grosupljem), in order to obtain restitution of or compensation for the immovable assets forfeited by his uncle, invoking the Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions. The forfeited property consisted of the following items: four houses, several plots of land, a hayrack and other farm outbuildings.\n10.   On 1 April 1994 the applicant modified his request and included the Republic of Slovenia as an additional defendant in the restitution proceedings. He also urged the court to start processing his case.\n11.  On 5 December 1994 the court cancelled a scheduled hearing and adjourned it sine die.\n12.  The applicant again modified his request and included the Municipality of Ivančna Gorica and the Municipality of Dobrepolje among the defendants.\n13.  On 21 April 1995 the court held a hearing, at which it decided to appoint an expert in building construction and an expert in agriculture.\n14.  On 1 March 1996 the applicant again modified his request in order to include among the defendants also the Farmland and Forest Fund of the Republic of Slovenia (Sklad kmetijskih zemljišč in gozdov, “the Fund”). He also lodged a request for a temporary injunction, and urged the court to deal promptly with the case.\n15.  On 19 March 1996 the court held another hearing, at which it decided to grant the requested temporary injunction. It also ordered the Fund to return three plots of land to the applicant. The Fund appealed.\n16.  The court upheld the appeal and changed its decision of 19 March 1996. That decision became final on 31 May 1996.\n17.  On 9 August 1997 the Act on the Temporary Suspension of Certain Provisions of the Denationalisation Act and of the Act on the Implementation of Penal Sanctions entered into force. It had the effect", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3407", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  In 1997 the Government of Moldova submitted to Parliament a bill “On the Privatisation Programme for 1997-1998”. Parliament adopted the Act in 1997. The annex to the Act listed the State property to be privatised, which included the four-star “Dacia” hotel. The Act established that the Department for the Privatisation of State Property (“the Department”) would organise the privatisation of the property listed in the annex.\n7.  The Department created an Auction Commission. In December 1998 the Auction Commission published an advertisement for privatisation of the hotel and set a reserve price of 20 million Moldovan lei (MDL) (2,006,782 United States Dollars (USD)). In order to be allowed to participate in the auction, each participant was required to deposit MDL 1 million in the Department’s account.\n8.  The applicant company’s predecessor, “Selikat-Mix” (“S.”), participated in the auction and on 23 January 1999 was announced as the winner, having offered MDL 20,150,000. In order to be able to pay that amount, S. concluded a contract with an Austrian company, “Kungan Overseas Corp.”, for a loan of USD 2.2 million. According to the terms of the contract, S. was to repay the loan within one year and to pay 15% interest during that time. Failure to repay the loan would result in a penalty of 0.2% of the outstanding debt for each day of delay (subject to any eventual prolongation of the period of repayment), while a failure to pay the interest would result in a penalty of 0.1% of the outstanding debt for each day of delay.\n9.  At S.’s request, on 29 January 1999 the Auction Commission decided to extend the period for the payment of the auction price until 17 February 1999.\n10.  On 8 February 1999 S. obtained a certificate from the National Bank of Moldova confirming the credit agreement with “Kungan Overseas Corp.”. It transferred MDL 20,150,000 to the State budget within the new deadline established by the Auction Commission. On 18 February 1999 it concluded a contract with the Department for the purchase of the hotel.\n11.  In June 1999 S. was re-registered as “Dacia S.R.L.” (the applicant company). On 13 September 1999 the applicant company purchased from the Chişinău municipality the 0.21 hectares of land on which the hotel was situated, for MDL 50,840 (EUR 4,395).\n12.  According to the applicant company, in the years following the purchase of the hotel large sums of money were spent on its renovation and the purchase of new furnishings and equipment.\n13.  In 2000 the Prosecutor General’s Office initiated a criminal investigation into the alleged unlawfulness of the hotel’s privatisation. It established that no criminal act had been committed and closed the investigation on 30 August 2000.\n14.  On 31 January 2003 “Kungan Overseas Corp.” assigned its credit rights in respect of the loan to the applicant company to the Belgian company “Vikol NV” (V.). On 18 February 2003 the applicant company pledged the hotel and the land as a guarantee for the loan from V. In view of the applicant company’s failure to repay the loan, V. claimed in court the right to become the hotel’s owner.\n15.  On 23 June 2003 the Regional Economic Court in Chişinău accepted that claim and ordered the transfer of the hotel to V. The State Chancellery requested the annulment of that order. On 25 July 2003 the Chişinău Regional Economic Court annulled the order of 23 June 2003 in lig", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3408", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Dębica.\n5.  On 9 July 1998 demarcation proceedings involving the applicant’s land were instituted by the Head of the District Office of the Town of Dębica (Kierownik Urzędu Rejonowego Miasta Dębica).\n6.  On 1 January 1999 an administrative reform was introduced in Poland and the Mayor of the Czarna District (wójt gminy Czarna) became the competent body for examination of the demarcation proceedings. However, the District Office of the town of Dębica neither informed the Mayor about the proceedings nor transferred the case file to the Mayor.\n7.  On 16 August 2002 the Czarna District Office received another motion for instituting demarcation proceedings involving the applicant’s land. The motion was transferred to the Mayor of the Czarna District.\n8.  On 14 October 2002 a second set of demarcation proceedings concerning the same piece of land was instituted by the Mayor of the Czarna District. Acting under Article 31 section 1 of the 1989 Geodetic and Cartographic Act (ustawa z 1989 r. Prawo geodezyjne i kartograficzne) the Mayor appointed a geodesist, Mr C.B., to conduct the demarcation proceedings. None of the parties to the proceedings informed the Mayor that the same proceedings had already been instituted in 1998.\n9.  On 24 January 2003 the Czarna District Office received the applicant’s request for the adjournment of the demarcation proceedings because of his state of health. The appointed geodesist agreed to adjourn the proceedings and fixed the new date for 10 February 2003.\n10.  By letter of 31 January 2003 the Mayor of the Czarna District informed the applicant that due to the necessity of obtaining some additional information, the proceedings in respect of the applicant’s motion for a stay of the demarcation proceedings and the exclusion of the geodesist C. B. had been adjourned until 11 February 2003.\n11.  On 11 February 2003 the Czarna District Office received the applicant’s request for the adjournment of the demarcation proceedings fixed for 10 February 2003 because of the applicant’s medical appointment at a hospital in Kraków. The applicant also requested that the conduct of the demarcation proceedings be adjourned until spring time. He submitted that, given his health problems, he could not take part in any demarcation proceedings conducted in winter.\n12.  Further, by letter of 12 February 2003 the Mayor of the Czarna District informed the applicant that due to the necessity of obtaining some additional information, the proceedings in the applicant’s case had been adjourned once again until 4 March 2003.\n13.  On 14 February 2003 the applicant lodged a request with the Self-Government Board of Appeal to have the decision of 14 October 2002 declared null and void. The applicant submitted that the institution of the demarcation proceedings in 2002 was illegal as the same proceedings had already been instituted in 1998 and had not yet been terminated.\n14.  On 24 February 2003 the Self-Government Board of Appeal refused to examine the applicant’s request of 14 February 2003 as it found that such a request was not available to the applicant.\n15.  On 7 March 2003, the applicant applied to the Self-Government Board of Appeal asking for a re-examination of his request of 14 February 2003.\n16.  On 9 April 2003 the demarcation proceedings that had been instituted on 9 July 1998 were discontinued at the request of another party. The applicant appealed to the Self-Government Board of Ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3409", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Ferney-Voltaire, France.\n7.  On an unspecified date he arrived in Poland. He married K.P., a Polish national, on 15 March 2001. They initially lived in Kraków, but on 3 July 2001 they moved to France. Their two children were born in September 2001 and October 2002 respectively. The applicant is an artist and runs a small business in France which provides the only support for the family.\n8.  On 21 March 2001 a certain B.M., an administrator of the building in which the applicant's wife had a flat, brought a private prosecution against the applicant for slander (zniewaga) under Article 216 § 1 of the Criminal Code. He alleged that the applicant had addressed him in obscene language in Polish. Subsequently, the private prosecution proceedings were commenced in the Kraków–Śródmieście District Court.\n9.  It appears that following the applicant's departure for France the court sent him summonses in connection with the private prosecution but received no response.\n10.  On 15 July 2002 the District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody for a period of three months. It further ordered that a wanted notice (list gończy) be issued with a view to locating and detaining him. It invoked, inter alia, Articles 258 § 1(1) and 259 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP”).\nThe District Court held as follows:\n“The accused Franck Ladent has no permanent abode in Poland, [and] does not reside in any place known to the court, and is thus obstructing the proper conduct of the proceedings in the present case and the delivery of a proper judgment within a reasonable time. The need to issue a detention order in respect of the accused is required to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\nGiven that the accused Franck Ladent is evading justice he should be sought by means of a wanted notice.”\nThe court ordered the police to execute that decision and to serve a copy of it on the applicant immediately after his arrest and to inform him that he could appeal. The information that a wanted notice had been issued in respect of the applicant was subsequently entered in a central criminal register.\n11.  On 8 October 2002 the District Court stayed the proceedings against the applicant on the ground that his whereabouts were unknown.\n12.  At the end of 2002 the applicant and his family went on holiday to Kraków. At an unspecified time on the evening of 3 January 2003 they arrived at the Słubice border check-point on their journey back to France by car. During a routine passport check the applicant was asked to get out of his car by the border guard officers.\n13.  The applicant was arrested at 8.15 p.m. on the basis of the detention order and the wanted notice issued on 15 July 2002. He was questioned by the officers but could not understand anything they said and refused to sign any documents. In his submissions to the European Court, he said that various requests he made through his wife, such as to be allowed to contact the French Embassy or his family and to be provided with an interpreter or a lawyer, were refused. After about two hours he was informed that he was being arrested but was not told why. He was detained at the Słubice Border Guard detention centre.\n14.  While the applicant was being questioned his wife and their two children, the first aged 3 and the second 16 months at the time, had to stay in the car with the engine on as the temperature outside was -10oC.\n15.  On", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3410", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1955, 1935 and 1950 respectively and live in Hatay.\n5.  On various dates, the applicants bought plots of land (nos. 1233, 1230 and 1162 respectively) near the coast in Hatay. They each built a house there[1].\n6.  In 1995 the Treasury filed an action before the Samandağ Court of First Instance, requesting the annulment of the applicants’ title deeds to the land on the ground that they were located within the coastline.\n7.  On 16 December 1999 (nos. 40/02 and 41/02) and 9 December 1999 (42/02), the Samandağ Court of First Instance, relying, particularly, on expert reports, upheld the request of the Treasury and annulled the title deeds of the applicants to the plots of land. In its decisions, the court held that, pursuant to domestic law, coasts could not be subject to private ownership and that, therefore, the applicants could not rely on the argument that they had acted bona fides or on the fact that they had constructed buildings on the site.\n8.  On various dates the applicants appealed. In their petitions they submitted, inter alia, that the right to property - a human rights norm - was protected under the constitution and the domestic law, and that the domestic courts had deprived them of their property rights without proper examination and without a payment of compensation. On 3 October 2000 their appeals were dismissed by the Court of Cassation.\n9.  On various dates the applicants requested the Court of Cassation to rectify its decision. The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ requests on 2 May 2001 (nos. 40/02 and 42/02) and 19 April 2001 (no. 41/02). These decisions were served on the applicants on 6 June 2001 (nos. 40/02 and 42/02) and 23 May 2001 (no. 41/02).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3411", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first and second applicants were born in 1951 and the third applicant was born in 1948. They live in Turkey.\n6.  The applicants are the heirs of Mr Salih Ekrem Pekinel and Mr Abdurrahim Pekinel, who were their father and uncle respectively (“ancestors”). The applicants’ ancestors (muris) were allegedly the owners of 2,258,000 square metres of land, along with six other persons (“co‑owners”), in the Maltepe village of the Menemen district in the Izmir province.\n7.  On 13 October 1961 the Land Registry Commission (Tapulama Komisyonu) attached to the General Directorate of Land Registration (Tapu ve Kadastro Genel Müdürlüğü) conducted a land registry survey (tapulama tespiti) and registered a plot of land (“plot no. 726”) in the Maltepe village as being owned by eight people - the applicants’ ancestors and the other co-owners.\n8.  In 1964 the Treasury challenged this land registry survey. It claimed that the land in question had been used as meadowland (mera) and that therefore it had not been correctly surveyed by the Commission.\n9.  On 22 May 1974 the land register was amended by the Land Registry Commission and the Treasury was registered as the owner of plot no. 726.\n10.  On 29 July 1974 six persons (“the plaintiffs”) filed an action with the Menemen Cadastre Court, requesting that the decision of the Land Registry Commission be set aside. They claimed that the land in question had been registered with their title and that it belonged neither to the Treasury nor to the applicants’ ancestors and the co-owners.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicants’ ancestors filed a counter-claim that they held a share in plot no. 726. They requested that the former records at the land registry, which proved their right of ownership in respect of plot no. 726, be confirmed. They based their arguments on the land registry records of December 1884, which indicated that the land in question was owned by their father, Salih Paşa.\n12.  On 14 April 1979 Mr Abdurrahim Pekinel and, on 28 November 1982, Mr Salih Ekrem Pekinel died. The applicants were designated as their heirs.\n13.  On 7 July 1986 the Menemen Cadastre Court rendered its judgment. It held as follows:\n“The land registry record of 1884 concerning plot no. 726 in Maltepe village was modified. ...\nThe same record was also modified regarding plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy village. The record concerning this plot became final since there was no objection. ...\nAccording to the initial records, the size of the land was 1,103,163 square metres, whereas the size of plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy was found to be 3,619,600 square metres. It was established that the land’s borders were unclear in the records and thus open to enlargement. According to the case-law of the Court of Cassation and Article 42 of the Law on Cadastre, if the borders mentioned on records were uncertain and suitable for enlargement, the total amount indicated in these records should be taken into consideration.\n...\nFollowing the finalisation of the land registry record concerning plot no. 1 in Seyrekköy, both the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs in the counter-claim acquired land from this plot.”\n14.  The Menemen Cadastre Court further found that the land in question was public property because it had been used as meadowland. Thus it could not be the subject of a determination by the Land Registry Commission. The court concluded that plot no. 726 in the Maltepe village belonged neither to the plaintiffs nor to the applicants’ ancestors and", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3412", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Kranj.\n6.  On 26 August 1949, in the framework of criminal proceedings, the applicant’s father J.D. was sentenced, inter alia, to forfeiture of his property to the State. On 26 December 1949 that judgment was executed by the decision of the Kranj Local Court.\n7.  On 30 October 1991, after the establishment of independence of the Republic of Slovenia and the change of the political regime, the Supreme Court partly granted the request for protection of legality (zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti) filed by the Public Prosecutor in respect of the criminal judgment of 26 August 1949 and acquitted J.D. of some of the charges.\n8.  As for the remaining part of the conviction, including the part relating to forfeiture of property to the State, the applicant and his brother filed a request for reopening of the criminal proceedings, which was granted by the Ljubljana Basic Court, Ljubljana Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Ljubljani, Enota v Ljubljani) on 19 November 1993. Further to the withdrawal of charges by the Public Prosecutor, the Ljubljana Basic Court on 15 December 1993 discontinued the criminal proceedings and set aside the judgment of 26 August 1949.\n9.  On 27 December 1993 the applicant then requested the Kranj Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Kranju) to set aside also the decision of 26 December 1949, executing the initial criminal judgment and forfeiting the property to the State, and to enter the transfer of ownership of the forfeited property back to J.D. in the land register.\n10.  In addition, on 7 June 1994, the J.D.’s heirs, including the applicant, started proceedings against the Republic of Slovenia for restitution of the property forfeited to J.D. before the Kranj District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Kranju). They requested that all the forfeited immovable property be returned in natura.\n11.  On 9 March 1995 the Kranj Local Court granted the applicant’s request for the annulment of the execution decision of 26 December 1949, but not for the entry of the transfer of ownership of the forfeited property in the land register. The applicant lodged an appeal, which was dismissed on 6 August 1996 by the Kranj Local Court as lodged out of time.\n12.  On 9 February 1996, in reply to a summons by the Kranj District Court, the applicant informed it that he objected to the institution and continuation of the proceedings for the restitution of forfeited property, started on 7 June 1994 by a group of heirs of J.D., claiming that the restitution of the property could already be carried out on the basis of the decision of the Kranj Local Court of 9 March 1995 alone, which had quashed the decision on execution of the sentence of forfeiture of property.\n13.  On 13 February 1996 the applicant requested cancellation of the scheduled hearing, which was granted by the court.\n14.  On the same date the applicant also lodged a request for the designation of another court to decide on the case, which was rejected by the Supreme Court on 12 June 1996.\n15.  On 16 March 1998, the applicant again requested the land register to enter the transfer of ownership back to J.D. on the basis of the decision of Kranj Local Court of 9 March 1995, which had quashed the decision on execution of the sentence of forfeiture of property of 26 December 1949. On 26 August 1998 the Kranj District Court rejected his request, stating that property in cases such as the applicant’s could only be returned in the non-contentious proceedings provided", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3413", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Łόdź, Poland.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 10 June 1992 Mr Andrzej Kern, at that time the Deputy Speaker of the Sejm, notified the Regional Prosecutor that a certain Mr Gąsior and Mrs Izabela Malisiewicz-Gąsior had kidnapped his 17-year-old daughter, M.K. However, Mr Gąsior and Mrs Malisiewicz‑Gąsior submitted that the allegation was false as M.K. had in fact run away from home and had only been accompanied by their son Maciej who had been her boyfriend for a long time. M.K. had previously run away from home on several occasions because of conflicts with her parents.\nOn the same day the Łódź Regional Prosecutor initiated an investigation into the allegations of kidnapping against Mr Gąsior and Mrs Malisiewicz‑Gąsior. On 10 and 11 June 1992 the prosecutor issued a warrant authorising the search of their flat and the tapping of their telephone. They were arrested and remanded in custody. In August 1992 the case was taken over by the Poznań Regional Prosecutor who discontinued the criminal proceedings against them, finding that the allegations of kidnapping had been groundless. Disciplinary proceedings were brought against both prosecutors who had instituted the criminal proceedings.\n8.  On 29 June 1992 Mr A. Kern had made a statement on public television in which he said that his daughter had been kidnapped and asked for assistance in finding his child.\n9.  The case concerning the alleged kidnapping of M.K. received wide coverage in the media.\n10.  The applicant owns a publishing house named “Westa-Druk” which publishes the weekly magazine “Angora”.\n11.  On 16 August 1992 the applicant published in “Angora” an interview with Mr Michał Plisecki, a lawyer who at the material time represented Mr Gąsior and Mrs Izabela Malisiewicz-Gąsior in the criminal proceedings concerning the alleged kidnapping. The article was entitled: “If it had been quiet” and was in the form of questions put by a journalist and answers given by Mr M.P. The article, in so far as relevant, read as follows:\n“‘A[ngora]’:-I have brought you fresh news from Łódź: the arrest warrant against [Maciej Gąsior] has been quashed, the children however have not come back home. M.P. [Michał Plisecki]:- I do not want to – publicly – go into the details concerning the issuing and quashing of the arrest warrant. Allow me not to comment on it because I would have been forced to use very blunt language. I would refer to another issue: if it is true that [M.K.’s] parents - after an unsuccessful attempt to place her in a psychiatric clinic –left her alone, under the care of her grandmother somewhere in the countryside, then should I – as a parent – be shocked by such behaviour? There is no other conclusion from the above fact: they simply do not love her. It is not that they do not understand her, because this is proved by their behaviour as a whole, but that the wish to separate [M.K.] from the world is in the interests of those people. Mr Kern’s statement that he suspected that his daughter had been spying on him while she was dating Maciej and in particular the statement by the mother of [M.K.] that her daughter had been serving as a mattress for Maciej – this is terrifying! That was probably the reason why the Member of Parliament Mr Kołodziejczyk, who represents the interests of all citizens, decided to apply to the family court to solve the tragic problem of [M.K.] and th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3414", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Bratislava.\n6.  On 24 March 1992 the applicant claimed restitution of real property before the Považská Bystrica District Court. He relied on the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act.\n7.  The District Court held a number of hearings and took extensive evidence. In a judgment of 11 August 1995 it ordered the defendant to restore the property to the applicant.\n8.  On 6 November 1996 the Regional Court in Banská Bystrica quashed the first-instance judgment.\n9.  After several hearings the District Court delivered its second judgment on 13 January 2000. It granted the applicant’s claim. The defendant appealed. On 30 November 2001 the court of appeal quashed that judgment.\n10.  In a third judgment, delivered on 26 February 2004, the District Court ordered the defendant to restore the property to the applicant. The Regional Court quashed the judgment on 10 May 2005.\n11.  In a fourth judgment delivered on 21 November 2005 the District Court partly granted the applicant’s claim. On 10 February 2006 one defendant appealed. The file was transferred to the court of appeal on 16 February 2006.\n12.  On 26 September 2006 the Regional Court in Trenčín upheld the relevant part of the first-instance judgment. The decision to grant the applicant’s claim in part became final on 16 November 2006.\n13.  On 25 January 2007 the applicant petitioned an executions officer for execution of the District Court’s judgment of 21 November 2005 in conjunction with the Regional Court’s judgment of 26 September 2006.\n14.  On 17 May 2007 the District Court in Žilina authorised the officer to execute the judgments.\n15.  On 8 June 2007 the debtor objected to the notification of the execution as being unclear. The executions officer submitted the objection to the District Court in Žilina. The execution proceedings are pending.\n16.  On 8 December 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court in Považská Bystrica had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court admitted that the case was complex from both a factual and legal point of view.\n17.  The applicant by his conduct had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings. In particular, he had been asked three times to specify his claim and to submit relevant documents. Between 8 December 1994 and 19 April 1995 the parties had attempted to reach an agreement. The applicant had failed to appear before the court on 15 September 1992, 15 December 1997, 10 and 25 May 1999 and 10 January 2000. On 16 October 2002 the applicant had requested that a third party be allowed to join the proceedings; on 3 February 2003 he had extended his claim.\n18.  Finally, the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had not dealt with the case in an effective manner. The District Court had remained inactive between 17 December 1992 and 25 June 1993 as well as from 11 August 1995 to 1 July 1996. It had delivered three judgments on the merits which the court of appeal had quashed on the ground that the District Court had not sufficiently established the relevant facts and had made procedural mistakes. The overall length of the proceedings was unacceptable in the circumstances.\n19.  The Constitutional Court granted SKK 80,000 (the equivalent of EUR 2,115 at that time) as just satisfaction to the applicant. It ordered the District Court in Považská Bystrica to proceed with the case without further delay and to reimburse the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3415", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant in the first application (no. 15339/02), Ms Khalimat Khuseyevna Budayeva, was born in 1961 and lives in Tyrnauz, in the Elbrus District of the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya (KBR), Russia (the first applicant).\n8.  The applicant in the second application (no. 21166/02), Mrs Fatima Khuseynovna Atmurzayeva, was born in 1963 and lives in Tyrnauz (the second applicant).\n9.  The applicant in the third application (no. 20058/02), Ms Raya Meliyevna Shogenova, was born in 1953 and lives in Nalchik in the KBR (the third applicant).\n10.  The applicant in the fourth application (no. 11673/02), Ms Nina Nikolayevna Khakhlova, was born in 1955 and lives in Tyranuz (the fourth applicant).\n11.  The applicants in the fifth application (no. 15343/02), Mr Andrey Aleksandrovich Shishkin and Mrs Irina Ilyinichna Shishkina, were born in 1958 and 1955 respectively and live in Tyrnauz (the fifth and the sixth applicants).\n12.  The facts of the case are partially in dispute between the parties. Their submissions on the circumstances in which a mudslide swept through the town of Tyrnauz in 2000 are set out in Section A below. The manner in which these events affected the individual applicants is set out in Section B. A description of the materials submitted to the Court by the applicants is given in Section C.\n13.  The town of Tyrnauz is situated in the mountain district adjacent to Mount Elbrus, in the central Caucasus. Its population is about 25,000 inhabitants. The general urban plan of the town was developed in the 1950s as part of a large-scale industrial construction project. Two tributaries of the Baksan River passing through Tyrnauz, the Gerhozhansu and the Kamyksu, are known to be prone to causing mudslides.\n14.  The first documentary evidence of a mudslide in the Gerhozhansu River dates back to 1937. Subsequently mudslides were registered almost every year; occasionally they hit the town, causing damage. The heaviest mudslides registered prior to 2000 occurred on 1 August 1960, on 11 August 1977 and on 20 August 1999. According to the Government, the series of mudslides of 18-25 July 2000 were the strongest and most destructive of all.\n15.  The inhabitants and authorities of Tyrnauz are generally aware of the hazard, and are accustomed to the mudslides which usually occur in the summer and early autumn.\n16.  The first technical research into a scheme to protect Tyrnauz from the mudslides was carried out in the 1950s, and by 1959 a number of proposals had been made. The scheme chosen by the authorities following a comparative feasibility study provided for the construction of a feed-through mud retention collector. Construction work began, but in 1960 this was disrupted by an exceptionally strong mudslide, and the project had to be corrected and extended accordingly. The construction of the collector was finished in 1965 and operated successfully for 35 years, apparently providing sufficient defence against the mudslides. In 1977 a technical review was carried out following a particularly strong mudslide which seriously damaged some sections of the collector, and it was considered necessary to carry out repair work. The collector was fully repaired by 1982.\n17.  In addition, in early 1999 the local authorities put into operation a mud retention dam in the river gorge of Gerhozhan, upstream from the mud retention collector. The dam was intended to enhance the protection of Tyrnauz from mud and debris flows. It measured 160 m x 38 m x 4", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3416", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a businessman. At the relevant time he, inter alia, owned and operated a flour‑mill. The criminal proceedings against him related to his business activities.\n5.  On 13 September 1995 the prosecution authorities opened an investigation against the applicant for having provided banking services (collecting money deposits) without the requisite licence, contrary to Article 252 § 1 of the Criminal Code of 1968 (“the CC”). On 9 October 1995 the applicant was charged with the above offence and bailed.\n6.  On 15 December 1997 the charges were amended and the applicant was accused of having committed the above offence in concert with others.\n7.  On 20 December 1997 the investigator finished his work on the case and sent the file to the Pleven District Prosecutor’s Office with a recommendation to bring the applicant to trial.\n8.  In the beginning of 1998 a prosecutor of the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office took over the case and on 25 February 1998 sent it back for further investigation.\n9.  After that the case file was transferred several times on undisclosed grounds as follows: on 22 December 1998 to the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office, on 4 January 1999 to the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office, on 4 February 1999 to the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office and on 16 April 1999 to the Pleven Investigation Service.\n10.  On 3 June 1999 the applicant complained to the Pleven Appellate Prosecutor’s Office about the excessive length of the proceedings. The complaint was filed through the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office, which forwarded it in February 2000. On 10 February 2000 the Pleven Appellate Prosecutor’s Office ordered that the investigation be continued under the supervision of the Pleven District Prosecutor’s Office.\n11.  The Pleven District Prosecutor’s Office took over the case on 22 March 2000 and shortly after that sent it back for additional investigation.\n12.  Between 15 March and 12 April 2001 the investigator interviewed seven witnesses.\n13.  On 26 November 2001 he sent the file to the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office, proposing that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be discontinued.\n14.  The prosecutor to whom the case was assigned expressed her wish to withdraw. On 31 January 2002 the head of the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office rejected her request. Upon her appeal, on 22 February 2002 the Pleven Appellate Prosecutor’s Office upheld this decision. However, on 18 June 2002 the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office quashed both decisions and sent the case to the Pleven District Prosecutor’s Office.\n15.  On 26 June 2002 the Pleven District Prosecutor’s Office sent the case back for further investigation.\n16.  On 5 July 2002 the investigation authorities sent the case to the Pleven District Prosecutor’s Office, which on the same day transmitted it to the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office. The prosecutor to whom the case was assigned apparently did not undertake any actions on it.\n17.  On 20 April 2004 another prosecutor of the Pleven Regional Prosecutor’s Office sent the case back for additional investigation.\n18.  In the meantime, on 25 March 2004 the applicant filed a request with the Pleven Regional Court under Article 239a of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974 (see paragraphs 31‑33 below), asking to be either brought to trial or to have the proceedings against him discontinued. Accordingly, on 15 April 2004 the Pleven Regional Court, having found that the length of procee", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3417", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1947 and 1949 respectively. They are married and had two sons: Lom-Ali Aziyev, born in 1973, and Umar-Ali Aziyev, born in 1974. They all lived in an apartment situated on the second floor of a block of flats at 49 Tukhachevskogo Street, Grozny.\n7.  During the night of 24 September 2000 the applicants and their sons were asleep at home. At around 1.20 a.m. a group of eight armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and carrying torches entered the applicants’ flat, having broken down the door. The men did not identify themselves. The applicants claimed that the men were members of the Russian military, since they spoke Russian and could move around freely in Grozny during the curfew.\n8.  The men kicked the first applicant and beat him with machine guns. They aimed their guns at both applicants and ordered them to be silent.\n9.  Thereafter the men proceeded to the applicants’ sons’ room. Without producing any documents to authorise their actions, the men searched the room and arrested Lom-Ali and Umar-Ali Aziyev. As the applicants’ younger son resisted, he was knocked off his feet, handcuffed and blindfolded. Then the men took away the Aziyev brothers, who only had their underwear on and were barefoot. One of the men also took a pair of shoes and a tape recorder. The second applicant’s attempts to obstruct the detention of her sons failed as the men threatened her with firearms. According to the applicants, the men assured them that they would check their sons’ identities and release them immediately afterwards.\n10.  In the morning the applicants found their sons’ identity documents on a bedside table in the room. The room was in a mess and a sofa was broken.\n11.  The applicants submitted that the neighbours had told them later that on that night armed men wearing masks, with torches, had been standing on all the landings of their building, between the first and the ninth floors. One of the women neighbours told them that she had been asked about the Aziyev brothers and that she had replied that they were “good boys”.\n12.  In support of their statements, the applicants submitted two written accounts signed by five of their neighbours from the building, including Mr R., and one account from a man who lived in the building opposite theirs, about 30 metres away. They confirmed the applicants’ submissions and stated that in the early hours of 24 September 2000 the doors of two flats in that building had been broken down by a group of men wearing training shoes and armed with automatic rifles. They asked the neighbours about the Aziyev family, with whom the neighbours were on good terms. One of the neighbours saw the group of armed men walking afterwards towards the military roadblock at the intersection of Tukhachevskogo and Kaspara Streets.\n13.  The applicants have had no news of their sons since.\n14.  The Government did not dispute the circumstances of the Aziyev brothers’ detention as presented by the applicants. They submitted that during the night of 24 September 2000 unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with automatic weapons had arrested the brothers L.-A. and U.-A. Aziyev at 49 Tukhachevskogo Street, apartment no. 79, and taken them away to an unknown destination. The same persons had caused physical injuries to the first applicant.\n15.  On 24 September 2000, in the morning, the first applicant was taken by his neighbours to Hospital no. 9 and underwent a medical exa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3418", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Bludenz, the second applicant was born 1940 and lives in Bürs.\n5.  The applicants are owners of a painting company in Bürs. The first applicant is also the sole owner of another company.\n6.  On 15 July 1997 the Bregenz District Administrative Authority informed the applicants of its suspicion that they had illegally employed C., a Turkish citizen, on 19 June 1997. It invited the applicants either to comment in writing or to make an appointment with the authority for an oral justification within two weeks.\n7.  On 11 September 1997 the applicants replied to the District Administrative Authority by referring in essence to the Association Agreement between the European Community and Turkey (decree no. 1/80 of the Association Council). Stating that C. had therefore been employed in conformity with European Law standards, they objected to the allegations made by the Administrative Authority.\n8.  On 4 December 1997 the applicants again filed submissions. Referring to comments by the Regional Employment Office, they repeated their position that C.’s employment had been in conformity with EU law at the relevant time.\n9.  On 22 March 1999 the Bludenz District Administrative Authority imposed a fine of 15,000 Austrian schilling (ATS), equivalent to 1,090.09 Euro (EUR), on each of the applicants for breach of the Employment of Foreigners Act (Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz).\n10.  On 23 March 1999 the same authority imposed a further fine (10,000 ATS equivalent to EUR 727) on the first applicant, after having informed him about its suspicion on 1 September 1998 that he had illegally employed C. on 26 August 1998 for the first applicant’s company.\n11.  On 6 and 7 April 1999 respectively the applicants filed appeals to the Vorarlberg Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungs-senat, IAP), submitting that the District Authority’s decisions were contrary to the mentioned Association Agreement between the European Community and Turkey and furthermore in breach of the Employment of Foreigners Act.\n12.  Having held an oral hearing on 17 June 1999, the IAP dismissed the applicants’ appeal on 9 November 1999. It found that C. did not have a work permit (Arbeitserlaubnis) or an exemption certificate (Befreiungs-schein) at the relevant dates. Therefore he was not entitled to work, neither under Austrian nor under European Law.\n13.  On 17 January 2000 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. They submitted, inter alia, that the wording of the relevant provision of the Association Agreement lacked sufficient clarity and precision and would therefore be in breach of Article 7 of the Convention. Moreover they alleged that the IAP would not meet the criteria of a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 as its members acted both as judge and prosecutor.\n14.  On 6 March 2000 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicants’ complaint for lack of prospect of success and referred it to the Administrative Court.\n15.  On 29 June 2000 the latter requested the applicants to supplement their complaint.\n16.  On 17 August 2000 the applicants made submissions concerning allegedly inadequate interpretation of law.\n17.  According to the Government, the Administrative Court invited the IAP to file observations on each of the three complaints. It appears that the authority submitted comments, which were sent to the applicants’ counsel on 7 November 2000. According to the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3419", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Kaliningrad.\n6.  On 19 March 1997 the applicant was convicted of assault and battery and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment.\n7.  On 29 March 1999 the Kaliningrad Regional Court quashed the judgment of 19 March 1997 on supervisory review and discontinued the criminal case against the applicant for the lack of corpus delicti in his actions.\n8.  On 11 October 2000 the Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad awarded the applicant 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB) against the Ministry of Finance in compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of wrongful conviction and unlawful detention. It also ordered that the Ministry of Finance reimburse the legal fee paid by the applicant in the amount of RUB 500.\n9.  On 27 December 2000 the Kaliningrad Regional Court increased the award to RUB 20,000.\n10.  On 26 March 2001 the Presidium of the Kaliningrad Regional Court, acting on supervisory review, increased the award to RUB 50,500. The judgment became enforceable on the same day. On 9 August 2001 the court issued a writ of execution.\n11.  On 17 October 2001 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the local office of the Ministry of Finance which forwarded the writ to the central office of the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance received it on 30 October 2001.\n12.  On 6 June 2002 the Ministry of Finance returned the writ to the applicant because he had not indicated his bank details and had not submitted a certified copy of the judgment of 26 March 2001.\n13.  On 27 July 2002 the applicant resubmitted the writ to the Ministry of Finance. On 17 September 2002 the Ministry returned the writ to the applicant for the same reasons as before.\n14.  On 26 September 2002 the applicant submitted the writ to the local bailiffs’ service. On 17 October 2002 the bailiffs forwarded the writ to the Moscow bailiffs’ service. On 1 January 2003 the Moscow bailiffs’ service returned the writ to the applicant and advised him to submit it to the Ministry of Finance.\n15.  On 9 January 2003 the applicant for a third time submitted the writ to the Ministry of Finance.\n16.  The applicant received the award on 20 March 2003.\n17.  On 24 September 2001 the Leningradskiy District Court awarded the applicant RUB 60,753 against the Ministry of Finance as compensation for the loss of salary during his detention, plus reimbursement of the legal fees. The judgment became enforceable ten days later.\n18.  On 17 October 2001 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the local office of the Ministry of Finance which forwarded it to the Ministry of Finance.\n19.  On 31 January 2002 the Leningradskiy District Court issued a duplicate writ and sent it to the local bailiffs’ service. On 10 September 2002 the bailiffs opened enforcement proceedings.\n20.  On 16 October 2002 the bailiffs forwarded the writ to the Moscow bailiffs’ service.\n21.  By letter of 23 May 2003, the Moscow bailiffs’ service informed the applicant that the writ had been returned to the Leningradskiy District Court on 28 November 2002 for corrections in the debtor’s name and address.\n22.  On 30 May 2003 the applicant asked the Leningradskiy District Court to issue a duplicate writ of execution. The court issued a duplicate writ on 21 July 2003.\n23.  On 31 July 2003 the applicant submitted the writ to the Ministry of Finance.\n24.  The applicant received the award on 17 November 2003.\n25.  On 19 June 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3420", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Voronezh.\n7.  On 24 May 1998 the applicant’s wife was injured in a road accident. She is incapacitated and the applicant is her guardian.\n8.  On 13 October 1998 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh convicted the driver of reckless driving and infliction of serious bodily injuries. The court found that the applicant was entitled to compensation.\n9.  On 27 October 1998 the applicant sued the driver on his own behalf and on behalf of his wife for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n10.  On 19 March 1999 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh disallowed his claims because he had not paid the court fee and had not submitted documents showing that he could act on behalf of his wife.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant resubmitted his claims.\n12.  On 22 June 1999 the Kominternovskiy District Court for a second time disallowed his claims because the applicant had not paid the court fee and had not submitted supporting documents.\n13.  On 13 August 1999 the applicant for a third time resubmitted his claims.\n14.  On 27 September 1999 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court decided that the applicant should be exempted from the court fee.\n15.  On 28 September 1999 the Kominternovskiy District Court accepted the applicant’s claims and scheduled the first hearing for 18 January 2000.\n16.  On 18 January 2000 the court adjourned the hearing until 6 April 2000, following the applicant’s request that his case be examined with the participation of lay judges.\n17.  The hearing of 6 April 2000 was adjourned because counsel for the respondent did not appear.\n18.  On 13 April 2000 the hearing did not take place because the representative of the guardianship and wardship authority who had been invited to give an expert opinion on the merits of the case failed to appear.\n19.  On 3 May 2000 the court again adjourned the hearing.\n20.  On 15 September 2000 the court held a hearing.\n21.  On 18 September 2000 the Kominternovskiy District Court delivered its judgment, awarded the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for non-pecuniary damage, and severed the claim for pecuniary damage. The applicant did not appeal. The judgment became enforceable on 28 September 2000.\n 2.  Supervisory review and second examination of the case\n22.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 18 September 2000.\n23.  On 7 May 2001 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court granted the applicant’s request for supervisory review, quashed the judgment on the ground that the District Court had omitted to examine the claim for pecuniary damage, and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the District Court.\n24.  The Kominternovskiy District Court scheduled the first hearing for 27 July 2001.\n25.  The hearings of 27 July, 10 September, and 15 November 2001, 10 and 23 April, 20 and 31 May 2002 were adjourned because counsel for the respondent or the representative of the guardianship and wardship authority failed to appear, or because the parties asked for an adjournment for the preparation of additional evidence or obtaining the attendance of additional witnesses.\n26.  On 7 June 2002 the Kominternovskiy District Court held a hearing and delivered judgment. It awarded the applicant RUB 24,059 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n27.  On 23 June 2002 the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3421", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Pécs.\n5.  On 4 September 1998 the Nagyszokoly Municipality brought an action against the applicant before the Tamási District Court, seeking the annulment of a real estate sales contract. The District Court held several hearings and obtained the opinion of two experts.\n6.  On 29 May 2000 the court discontinued the proceedings and transferred the case to the Tolna County Regional Court, because the increased value of the applicant’s counterclaims brought the dispute within the jurisdiction of that court.\n7.  After two hearings, on 5 October 2000 the Regional Court found for the plaintiff. On 2 November 2000 the applicant appealed.\n8.  On 15 October 2002 the Supreme Court’s appeal bench upheld the Regional Court’s judgment. This decision was only served on the applicant on 18 July 2003. On 19 November 2003 she submitted a petition for review.\n9.  On 1 September 2004 the Supreme Court’s review bench dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s petition for review as being incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure. It applied section 270(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force at the material time, according to which a review of the substantive unlawfulness of final decisions was only admissible if it was considered necessary for the harmonisation or development of the application of the law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3422", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 lives in Voronezh.\n5.  She is entitled to welfare payments for her child. In 1999 the applicant brought proceedings against the regional welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.\n6.  On 14 February 2000 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant 8,736.32 Russian roubles (RUB). The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on 25 February 2000. The enforcement proceedings commenced.\n7.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings referring to the lack of funds at the defendant’s disposal.\n8.  On 29 July 2005 the applicant received the amount due to her pursuant to the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3423", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Novocherkassk, a town in the Rostov Region. He is a retired military officer.\n6.  On 10 August 2004 the applicant brought proceedings against the Military Service Commissariat of Novocherkassk (Военный комиссариат г. Новочеркасска – “the Commissariat”) seeking to recover his pension arrears from January 1995 to March 1998 to take account of the increase of the minimum monthly wage.\n7.  On 15 September 2004 the Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him 261,343.87 roubles (RUB) in arrears. On the applicant’s request the court held that the judgment should be enforced immediately since it concerned the applicant’s main source of income and was of considerable importance for the applicant’s financial situation. The Commissariat did not appeal against the judgment and on 25 September 2004 it became final.\n8.  On 12 October 2004 the applicant’s representative submitted the copy of the judgment and the writ of execution to the Social Welfare Office of the Military Commissariat of the Rostov Region.\n9.  On 24 February 2005 the enforcement proceedings were opened. In the same month the applicant was informed that the sums awarded to him could not be paid as the Commissariat was conducting an examination of his case.\n10.  On 19 September 2005 the Commissariat filed an application for supervisory review of the judgment of the Novocherkassk Town Court of 15 September 2004, referring to the lack of grounds in domestic law for increasing the applicant’s pension, and asked for a stay of enforcement.\n11.  On 9 December 2005 the Rostov Regional Court examined the above application and remitted the case for examination on its merits by the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court.\n12.  On 22 December 2005 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 15 September 2004 and remitted the case to the Oktyabrskiy District Court for a fresh consideration. It concluded that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law and that the matter should have been examined by a district court rather than by a town court.\n13.  On 20 March 2006 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don dismissed the applicant’s claim.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3424", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Opatija.\n5.  On 23 October 2002 the applicant brought a civil action in the Opatija Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Opatiji) against D. K. and J. K., seeking termination of a contract for lifelong maintenance (ugovor o doživotnom uzdržavanju). She enclosed a copy of the contract in question, drawn up on 3 August 1993, and its annex of 30 November 1999. The contract stipulated that the defendants were to care for the applicant until her death in order to acquire all her property post mortem. She also asked that two witnesses, E. P. and Š. T., be heard. The defendants submitted receipts for monthly payments for the applicant’s maintenance and asked that four witnesses be heard.\n6.  At the hearing held on 6 February 2003 the Municipal Court heard evidence from the parties and after that, in the presence of the applicant’s counsel, scheduled the next hearing for 17 March 2003. The applicant’s counsel fell ill and had to be hospitalised pending urgent surgery. On 11 March 2003 he sent a fax to the Municipal Court excusing himself from the hearing scheduled for 17 March and asked for an adjournment of the hearing. However, the Municipal Court proceeded with the hearing and heard two witnesses, Lj. M. and Š. M., the parents of one of the defendants. It also scheduled a further hearing for 23 April 2003 and ordered that two other witnesses, also called on behalf of the defendants, be heard. Neither the applicant nor her counsel were notified of the hearing.\n7.  The counsel did attend the hearing of 23 April 2003, which he had learned about by chance when at the Opatija Municipal Court on that day for other reasons. The Municipal Court heard two witnesses for the defendants, A. A. and I. P., as scheduled, but refused the proposal of the applicant’s counsel that five other witnesses be heard. The relevant parts of the transcript of the hearing read as follows:\n“Counsel for the plaintiff asks that the plaintiff’s neighbours M. C., S. R., V. G., N. I. and N. Z. be heard as witnesses about the circumstances of the applicant’s daily life and the care she has received from them in the past two years and in particular in the period of four months following her release from a hospital, when she was immobile.\n...\nCounsel for the plaintiff withdraws his request that E. P. be called as a witness since, according to the plaintiff, that person is not able to attend a hearing at the court.\nThe judge decides that evidence is not to be heard from Š. T., E. P., M. C., S. R., V. G., N. I. and N. Z. and no further evidence is to be presented.”\nThe Municipal Court proceeded by closing the proceedings and pronouncing its judgment, dismissing the applicant’s claim. The relevant part of the judgment read as follows:\n“In view of the above, the court considers that the factual background has been fully established on the basis of the parties’ testimony and in particular in the contract for lifelong maintenance and its annex and the enclosed receipts for payment. For that reason the court declined to hear evidence from the witnesses called on behalf of the plaintiff, because these witnesses cannot tell the court anything of influence on its judgment, save for the fact that they, owing to the plaintiff’s age, have been increasingly assisting her on a daily basis. For precisely that reason the court is not relying on the evidence heard from the witnesses Lj. M., Š. M. and A. A.”\n8.  A subsequent appeal by the applicant was di", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3425", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Khabarovsk.\n5.  Since 1975 the applicant and his family had been living in a dilapidated dwelling. In 1995 the police refused to certify his residence at that address.\n6.  On 12 July 1999 the Industrialniy District Court of Khabarovsk granted the claim by the applicant and three family members against the Khabarovsk Town Council and held that the Town Council should provide them with one or more comfortable flats having an aggregate surface of no less than 12 sq. m per each family member. On 28 September 1999 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n7.  On 26 November 1999 enforcement proceedings were instituted. On 10 March 2000 the proceedings were suspended for six months at the request of the Town Council. On 28 February 2001 a further suspension was granted for an indefinite period of time until such moment as a flat of no less than 48 sq. m had become available. The latter decision was quashed on 30 December 2002.\n8.  On 27 January 2003 the Town Council offered three flats to the applicant and his family members. They rejected the offer on the ground that two of the flats did not meet the sanitary standards.\n9.  The applicant and his family members asked the court to amend the operative part of the judgment and order the Town Council to pay them the market value of the flat(s). On 23 May 2003 the Industrialniy District Court rejected their request, finding that they had unreasonably refused the three flats which the Town Council had offered them. On 1 July 2003 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal.\n10.  On 8 September 2003 the Khabarovsk Town Council asked the court to discontinue enforcement proceedings on the ground that the applicant and his family had unreasonably turned down their offer. On 22 September 2004 the Industrialniy District Court rejected the Town Council’s request. It found that, pursuant to the experts’ report of 27 January 2004, the flats offered by the Town Council did not meet the sanitary and technical requirements. On 2 November 2004 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal.\n11.  On 23 July 2005 the Town Council made a new offer of two flats to the applicant and his son. The son accepted the offer but not the applicant because the flat was in a state of disrepair.\n12.  On 11 August 2006 the applicant accepted the flat after the repairs had been carried out.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3427", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants live in various towns of Leningrad and Pskov Regions of Russia.\n5.  The applicants, all former or active military servicepersons, were entitled to certain service-related benefits, to be paid by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. In 2002 they sued the military authorities claiming the arrears related to those benefits.\n6.  On the dates set out in appendixes nos. 2, 3 and 4 the domestic courts granted the applicants' claims and ordered the military authorities to pay them the respective amounts. Some of the awards were denominated in Russian roubles (RUB), whereas others were denominated in United States dollars (USD).\n7.  On various dates the courts issued writs of execution. The applicants forwarded them with accompanying documents to the treasury office. However, the writs were returned to the applicants unexecuted. The treasury office explained to some of the applicants that the Ministry of Defence (the debtor) had no funds available. The applicants then addressed the writs of execution to the Ministry of Finance. However, the judgments remained unexecuted.\n8.  In March-April 2003 some of the applicants wrote letters to the Ministry of Finance and other State bodies seeking the enforcement of the judgments. The Ministry of Finance replied that they had no power to execute the judgments and transfer the money from the accounts of the Ministry of Defence without the consent of the latter. The Ministry of Defence informed the applicants that the judgments could not be executed since no funds had been allocated for that purpose.\n9.  On the dates set out in appendix no. 2 the applicants listed therein received the amounts due pursuant to the execution writs. They submitted copies of banking receipts as evidence in that respect.\n10.  The applicants listed in appendix no. 3 were awarded various sums of money denominated in USD, to be converted into RUB at a rate applicable on the date of the judgment. However, the payments were made to them at a rate applicable on the date of the execution, which was lower. As a result, they received lesser amounts in RUB than they had expected. The applicants claimed that the judgments in their favour were thus not executed in full. They submitted copies of banking receipts and information on the official exchange rates (those of the Central Bank) on the relevant dates.\n11.  Mr Sedykh, Mr Kositsyn and Mr Oleg Zakirov were also awarded various amounts denominated in USD (see appendix no. 4). Mr Sedykh was awarded a sum in USD at a rate applicable on the date of execution. The judgments in favour of Mr Kositsyn and Mr Oleg Zakirov did not indicate the exchange rate applicable for the payment. The applicants claimed that the judgments in their favour were not executed in full referring to the same arguments as the applicants listed in appendix no. 3 (see paragraph 10 above). According to the Government the judgments in favour of the applicants listed in appendix no. 3 and in favour of Mr Sedykh, Mr Kositsyn and Mr Oleg Zakirov were fully executed.\n12.  On 21 January 2003 the lawyer of the above two applicants addressed the writs of execution to the Ministry of Finance. According to the official stamp of the Ministry, they were received on the same day.\n13.  On 27 August 2003 the Ministry of Finance returned the documents along with the writ of execution to Mr Nikolaychuk on the ground that his lawyer had not submitted all the necessary supporting documents. According to the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3428", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are members and/or sympathisers of the Christian Democratic People’s Party (“the CDPP”), a parliamentary political party in the Republic of Moldova which was in opposition at the time of the events.\n6.  Towards the end of 2001 the Government of Moldova made public its intention to make the study of the Russian language compulsory in schools for children aged seven and over.\n7.  This initiative prompted vehement criticism from the opposition and generated a heated public debate.\n8.  On 26 December 2001 the parliamentary group of the CDPP informed Chişinău Municipal Council of its intention to hold a meeting with its supporters on 9 January 2002, in the Square of the Great National Assembly, in front of the Government buildings. It stated that the meeting would relate to the introduction of the compulsory study of Russian in schools. It relied on section 22 of the Status of Members of Parliament Act (see paragraph 35 below) which, according to the CDPP, did not require members of Parliament to obtain prior authorisation for meetings with their supporters.\n9.  By a decision of 3 January 2002 the Municipal Council classified the gathering to be held on 9 January 2002 as a “demonstration” within the meaning of sections 4, 8, 12 and 13 of the Assemblies Act (see paragraph 36 below) and authorised the parliamentary group of the CDPP to hold it in the Square of the National Opera. It did not give any reasons for the change of location.\n10.  Later, on 23 January 2002, the Municipal Council addressed a letter to the Ministry of Justice, informing it that there was a discrepancy between the provisions of the Status of Members of Parliament Act and those of the Assemblies Act and that it did not know which to apply. It stated, inter alia, that a number of reputable lawyers supported the idea that the CDPP members of Parliament had the right to hold meetings with their supporters in the Square of the Great National Assembly without obtaining prior authorisation, in accordance with the provisions of sections 22 and 23 of the Status of Members of Parliament Act. It cited in that connection the opinion of an Ombudsman who considered that, since section 23 of the Status of Members of Parliament Act proclaimed the right of MPs to raise demands on the spot for action to remedy a breach of the law, the CDPP members of Parliament were entitled to raise their demands for the cessation of the alleged breaches concerning the introduction of compulsory Russian lessons in front of the Government building, as it also housed the Ministry of Education. Accordingly, the Municipal Council requested the Ministry of Justice to ask Parliament for an official interpretation of the legislation in question.\n11.  On 26 January 2002 the Municipal Council issued a decision which stated, inter alia:\n“Having regard to the fact that the provisions of the domestic legislation are contradictory in respect of the demonstrations organised by the CDPP and that the opinions of legal experts are contradictory, and bearing in mind the considerable social impact of a possible decision regarding the matter and the consequences it might entail, the Municipal Council has formally requested the Ministry of Justice to ask Parliament for an official and urgent interpretation of the relevant legislation. ... The Municipal Council’s decision of 3 January 2002 is hereby suspended until Parliament has given its official interpretation.”\n12.  In the meantime, on 9 January 2002, t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3429", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the Sverdlovsk Region.\n5.  In 1987 she took part in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result she suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions.\n6.  In 1996 the applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between her poor health and the involvement in the Chernobyl events. She was awarded a monthly allowance, to be increased on a regular basis in line with the minimum subsistence amount.\n7.  In 1999 the applicant sued the local social security authority (Управление социальной защиты населения г. Заречного – “the defendant”) requesting to increase her monthly allowance and backdate the increase. The applicant considered that the amount of the allowance had been determined incorrectly.\n8.  On 23 December 1999 the Beloyarsk District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region granted the applicant’s claim and ruled that her monthly allowance had been wrongly calculated. The court did not specify the exact amount of the monthly allowance to be paid to the applicant form then on. However, it ordered the defendant to recalculate the allowance due to the applicant and gave instructions on the recalculation. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 3 January 2000. The enforcement proceedings commenced.\n9.  On an unspecified date in the beginning on 2000 the defendant recalculated the applicant’s allowance and backdated the increase. According to the defendant’s calculations, the monthly allowance due to the applicant pursuant to the judgment of 23 December 1999 amounted to 4,175 Russian roubles (RUB) and the underpayments of the allowance for the period of July 1996-February 2000 amounted to RUB 149,173.25.\n10.  In March-August 2000 the applicant was receiving RUB 4,175 per month. However, starting form September the monthly allowance paid to the applicant was reduced to RUB 2,500.\n11.  On 10 July 2000 the bailiff notified the defendant that the judgment of 23 December 1999 was not enforced in full since the applicant had not yet received RUB 149,173.25 (the underpayments). In their reply of 25 July 2000 to the bailiff the defendant referred to the lack of funding.\n12.  According to the Government, in August 2002 RUB 202,611.27 were transferred to the local social security authority to make the payments to the Chernobyl victims. In September 2002 the applicant received RUB 6,731.51 from the defendant.\n13.  In 2003 the applicant brought proceedings against the defendant complaining that the monthly allowance paid to her after September 2000 was lower than stipulated in the judgment of 23 December 1999. She also sought to increase the allowance in line with the minimum subsistence amount and to recover the arrears due to her.\n14.  On 18 June 2003 the Zarechniy District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region awarded the applicant RUB 302,655.77 as underpayments for the period of July 1996-May 2003. It also held that the allowance payable to the applicant starting form June 2003 should amount to RUB 13,144.56. On 30 September 2003 the judgment was upheld on appeal.\n15.  On 23 December 2004 the applicant received RUB 60,644.56 on account of the enforcement of the judgment of 18 June 2003. In June 2005 she started receiving monthly allowance in the amount indicated in the judgment. On 6 July 2005 the applicant received RUB 473,341.53. That amount covered the rest of the judgment debt and the underpayments of the allowance which ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3430", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Slovenské Darmoty, Slovakia.\n5.  On 15 June 1992 some of his relatives brought an action against the applicant seeking termination of their common ownership of a house. The applicant brought counterclaims which he subsequently modified several times.\n6.  In the course of the first-instance proceedings, the applicant challenged, in vain, the Budapest II/III District Court for bias, arguing that the President of the court – who was not sitting on the bench hearing the case – and the plaintiffs’ lawyer were sisters-in-law.\n7.  At the hearings on 20 October 1992 and 14 March 1996 Judge E., who was in charge of the case, instructed the plaintiffs to complete their action in a comprehensive form. Subsequently, the case was assigned to Judge H.\n8.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of three experts, on 3 May 1999 the District Court ordered the auction of the property at issue and determined the parties’ respective shares of the sale price.\n9.  The applicant appealed to the Budapest Regional Court. In the course of the second-instance proceedings, his two further motions for bias – submitted against the Regional Court’s bench hearing the case – were unsuccessful.\n10.  After having obtained a further expert opinion, on 12 December 2000 the Regional Court upheld in essence the District Court’s judgment. It finally set the minimum price for the house in question at 27 million Hungarian forints (HUF).\n11.  On 25 February 2002 execution was ordered. The house in question was auctioned for HUF 41.8 million on 25 April 2002.\n12.  On 26 November 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review. The decision was served on the applicant in February 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3431", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in St Petersburg.\n7.  Since 2002 the applicant has suffered from a mental disorder. On several occasions he was placed in Hospital no. 6 in St Petersburg for in‑patient psychiatric treatment. In 2003 he obtained the status of a disabled person. The applicant lived with his mother; he did not work and received a disability pension.\n8.  In May 2003 the applicant’s grandmother died. The applicant inherited a flat from her in St Petersburg and a house with a plot of land in the Leningrad region.\n9.  On 27 July 2004 the applicant was placed in Hospital no. 6 for in‑patient treatment.\n10.  On 3 August 2004 the applicant’s mother lodged an application with the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St Petersburg, seeking to deprive the applicant of legal capacity. She claimed that her son was inert and passive, that he rarely left the house, that he spent his days sitting on a couch, and that sometimes he behaved aggressively. She indicated that her son had recently inherited property from his grandmother; however, he had not taken the necessary steps to register his property rights. This indicated that he was incapable of leading an independent social life and thus needed a guardian. It appears that the applicant was not formally notified about the proceedings that had been brought in respect of him.\n11.  On 10 August 2004 the judge invited the applicant and his mother to court to discuss the case. However, there is no evidence that the invitation ever reached the applicant. The court also requested the applicant’s medical records from Hospital no. 6.\n12.  On 12 October 2004 the judge of the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St Petersburg commissioned a psychiatric expert examination of the applicant’s mental health. The examination was assigned to the doctors of Hospital no. 6, where the applicant had been undergoing treatment. The judge formulated two questions to the doctors: firstly, whether the applicant suffered from any mental illness; and, secondly, whether he was able to understand his actions and control them.\n13.  On 12 November 2004 an expert team from Hospital no. 6 examined the applicant and his medical records. The report prepared by the expert team may be summarised as follows. After graduating from college, the applicant worked for a short time as an interpreter. However, some time later he became aggressive, unsympathetic and secluded, and prone to empty philosophising. He abandoned his job, started attending religious meetings and visiting Buddhist shrines, lost most of his friends, neglected his personal hygiene and became very negative towards his relatives. He suffered from anorexia and was hospitalised because of this.\n14.  In August 2002 he was placed in a psychiatric hospital for the first time with a diagnosis of “simple schizophrenia”. In April 2003 he was discharged from hospital; however, later that same month he was admitted again because of his aggressive behaviour towards his mother. In the following months he was placed in hospital two further times. In April 2004 he was discharged. However, he “continued to live in an antisocial way”. He did not work, loitered in the flat, prohibited his mother from preparing him food or from leaving the flat or moving around, and threatened her. She was so afraid of the applicant that she once spent a night at friends of hers and had to complain to the police about her son.\n15.  The final part of the report concerned the applicant’s ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3432", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1979 and live in Ivanovo.\n7.  On 1 February 1998 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants on suspicion that they had beaten up and robbed a passer-by. On 4 February 1998 their detention pending trial was ordered.\n8.  By a final judgment of the Ivanovo Regional Court of 18 June 1998 the applicants were convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. On 3 December 1999 the judgment was quashed and the case remitted to the police for a fresh investigation. The fresh examination of the case ended with the applicants’ being convicted of aggravated robbery by the Regional Court’s judgment of 4 May 2000, which was varied by the same court on 23 March 2001 by reclassifying the applicants’ actions as affray and theft. The applicants were released from prison in 2001 and 2002.\n9.  Mr Korobov and Mr Savelyev were held in pre-trial detention facility IZ-37/1 in Ivanovo in seven different cells from 4 February to 14 July 1998, from 14 December 1999 to 23 May 2000 and from 3 to 5 April 2001. Mr Tsyplov was kept in the same detention facility in six different cells from 4 February to 13 July 1998 and from 28 December 1999 to 23 May 2000.\n10.  According to the applicants, they were kept in cells measuring 20 to 25 sq. m, in which 32 inmates were held at the same time. According to Mr Savelyev, he was also held in cells measuring 15 and 19 sq. m which had 10 and 12 beds and held 24 and 27 detainees respectively. It follows from the applicants’ information that there was 0.6 to 0.7 sq. m per person in their cells.\n11.  According to the Government, the number of detainees was equal to the number of beds. It therefore follows from the Government’s detailed information on the surface area and the number of beds in each cell that there was from 1 to 2.2 sq. m per person in the applicants’ cells at any given time.\n12.  According to the applicants, the cells had no proper ventilation. Being surrounded by heavy smokers, Mr Korobov, who did not smoke, was forced to become a passive smoker. The windows had no glass on them and in winter the prisoners had to cover them with blankets. It was very cold in winter and stuffy in summer. The floor was concrete. The toilet was not separated from the rest of the area and the detainees themselves had to partition it off with a curtain. There was fungus in the cells. They were infested with cockroaches, bugs and lice. No bedding was provided and the applicants had to obtain it from their families. The food was of poor quality.\n13.  According to the Government, the minimum duration of the detainees’ daily exercise outside their cells was one hour. They could have a shower once a week and were given individual bedding, though between 1998 and 2000, owing to a shortage of funds, they were allowed to obtain missing items of bedding from their families. Ventilation, lighting and heating complied with the relevant standards. In winter the heating was sometimes cut off for short periods, not exceeding twelve hours, owing to malfunctioning of the municipal heating system. The cells were cleaned daily and disinfected weekly. All the inmates underwent a medical examination on arrival. There were no complaints about insects in the cells at the material time. The toilet in each cell was separated by a brick partition between 1.2 and 1.8 m high. It was not completely separated, in order to prevent suicides and sexual offences. The windows in the cells had gl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3433", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, a gynaecologist, was born in 1956 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  In the course of an investigation into the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal armed organisation, the applicant’s name was mentioned by a few detainees suspected of membership of that organisation and a convicted confessor (itirafcı)[1] as having provided assistance to that organisation.\n6.  On 19 October 1999, at around 6.30 p.m., the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody at his medical practice. The applicant claims that he was arrested in a humiliating manner, in front of his staff and patients, and that he was sworn at and beaten in the police car.\n7.  On 20 October 1999 the applicant’s house and medical practice was searched. The applicant claims that the police officers continued to swear, threaten and humiliate him on this occasion.\n8.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s detention in police custody was first prolonged, on 21 October 1999, for an additional two days by the prosecutor and later prolonged, on 23 October 1999, for an additional three days by a judge at the State Security Court.\n9.  The applicant alleges that, while he was in police custody, he was ill‑treated. In particular, he complains of having received electric shocks, of having been suffocated, and of having been beaten and threatened. He also alleges that, during the first three days of his detention, he had been deprived of food and medication and prevented from sleeping.\n10.  On 25 October 1999 the applicant was heard first by the public prosecutor and later by a judge at the İzmir State Security Court. The latter ordered his release from custody.\n11.  Following the applicant’s complaint, the İzmir public prosecutor instigated an investigation into the events. On 26 November 1999 the İzmir public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the police officers at the anti‑terror branch of the İzmir Security Directorate. In its decision the prosecution noted that none of the persons put forward as witnesses by the applicant were able to confirm the applicant’s version of events, that the applicant was unable to identify the alleged perpetrators and that none of the medical reports, dated 19 October 1999, 23 October 1999 and 25 October 1999 save for one dated 11 November 1999, i.e. fifteen days after the events, noted any physical findings of ill-treatment. The applicant did not object to this decision.\n12.  The criminal proceedings brought against the applicant before the İzmir State Security Court for aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation ended on 23 May 2000 with his acquittal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3434", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Ivanovo.\n7.  On 6 January 2000 the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of having committed robbery. By a final judgment of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ivanovo of 26 June 2000 he was convicted of robbery and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. On 20 July 2000 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the judgment.\n8.  From 8 January 2000 to 2 August 2000 the applicant was held in pre‑trial detention facility IZ 33/1 in Ivanovo, also referred to as SIZO 33/1. He was first held in cells no. 50 and no. 53 and then, from 10 May 2000, in cell no. 42.\n9.  The parties’ descriptions of the conditions of detention in IZ 33/1 were different.\n10.  The applicant’s cell held thirty-five detainees instead of the eight for whom it was designed. As the number of detainees exceeded the number of beds the detainees slept in turns, having five hours’ sleep at most. Cells were poorly lit and ventilated and were infested with bed-bugs and lice. In many cells the floor was made of concrete. Unhygienic conditions promoted the fast spread of skin and other diseases. Food and medical care were below standard.\n11.  On 12 March 2004 the applicant’s lawyer obtained statements from two individuals, M and T, who were detained in SIZO 33/1 at the same time, from January 2000 to June-July 2000.\n12.  According to M, thirty-five persons were held in cell no. 82, in which there were 14 bunks. Therefore the detainees slept in turns. The floor was made of concrete. There were bed-bugs and lice. All the detainees were infected with scabies more than once. The only access to medication was if supplied by families. Bedding was also supplied by families. Three shower cubicles were made available for thirty-five detainees for a maximum of twenty minutes.\n13.  According to T, there were 14 bunks in a cell while the number of people was two or three times higher. Therefore people slept in turns. Medication was supplied by families. The cell was infested with bed-bugs and lice. The 20 to 25 minutes allowed for a shower was insufficient.\n14.  Following the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of his detention, the prosecutor’s office of the Ivanovo Region examined his allegations. Its letter no. 17-81-2000 of 16 October 2000 stated as follows:\n“... In connection with significant overcrowding of the detention facility [IZ 33/1] at present, particularly during a period before July 2000, not all prisoners were provided with an individual bunk and bedding. At the same time, all prisoners under the age of 18 were provided with an individual bunk and bedding...”\n15.  The prosecutor’s office further stated that food complied with standards. The medical centre was sufficiently supplied with medicines. The premises were regularly disinfected. The conditions of detention were subject to the regional prosecutor’s monthly inspections to ensure their compliance with statutory standards.\n16.  According to the Government, cell no. 50 measured 29.4 square metres and had 12 beds, cell no. 53 measured 22.6 sq. m and had 10 beds and cell no. 42 measured 20.46 sq. m and had 16 beds.\n17.  The average number of detainees in the facility was 1311 while its maximum accommodation capacity was 1030 detainees. The average living space per person was about 3.14 sq. m. The statutory standard of four sq. m. per person could not be complied with during the period in question for reasons beyond the prison administration’s control. The exact number ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3435", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Tudor Vacarencu, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1945 and lives in the village of Sociteni.\n5.  In the 1970s the applicant bought from the local authorities a house that had been confiscated by the Soviet authorities from a third person after the Second World War. In 1993 the former owner claimed the house back and in accordance with Law no. 1225-XII, the local council recognised his property right over the house. The applicant was evicted from the house.\n6.  At the same time, the local council promised the applicant alternative accommodation, a promise which was not kept.\n7.  In March 2000, the applicant brought civil proceedings against the local council demanding compensation instead of the promised house.\n8.  On 14 November 2000, the Ialoveni District Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the local council to pay him 52,797.00 Moldovan Lei (MDL) (approximately 5,000 euros (EUR)).\n9.  The Local Council appeals were dismissed by a final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 5 June 2001.\n10.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the bailiff failed to enforce.\n11.  In May 2002, the judgment of 5 June 2001 was quashed following revision proceedings and the proceedings reopened. The reopened proceedings ended with a final judgment of 13 July 2004, by which the local council was obliged to provide the applicant with accommodation. That judgment has not been enforced to date.\n12.  It appears from the documents submitted by the parties that the applicant has alternative accommodation in a neighbouring village, where he lives with his family.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3436", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Passau, Germany.\n5.  In 1990 the applicant brought an action for the invalidation of a will. A first-instance decision was adopted on 20 March 1995.\n6.  Finding for the applicant, the Budapest Regional Court gave a second instance decision on 26 October 1995.\n7.  In review proceedings, the Supreme Court amended the final decision on 23 January 1997.\n8.  In 2001 the respondent requested the re-opening of the case.\n9.  On 23 April 2002 the Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court dismissed the request.\n10.  On 7 March 2003 the Budapest Regional Court quashed this decision and ordered the District Court to resume its proceedings which, according to the information in the case file, have been pending ever since.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3437", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In 2001 the applicant became fully blind in both eyes because of glaucoma.\n6.  On 7 January 2002 he asked the Labour-Expert Medical Commission specialising in eye diseases in Plovdiv (“the LEMC”) to certify him as a disabled person.\n7.  In a decision of 5 September 2002 the LEMC found that as a result of his illness the applicant was completely incapable of seeing with either eye and had thus 100% lost his ability to work for the rest of his life. It determined that the start date of the disability was 12 December 2001, the date on which he had first been examined by a medical commission specialising in eye diseases.\n8.  On 11 September 2002 the applicant applied to the Regional Department of Social Security in Plovdiv for a disability pension and an attendance allowance.\n9.  In a decision of 1 October 2002 the head of the pensions division of the Regional Department of Social Security in Plovdiv set the amount of the applicant’s disability pension and his attendance allowance, setting the start date as 11 September 2002, the date of the applicant’s application.\n10.  The applicant appealed, arguing that the start date should have been set as 12 December 2001, when his disability had first been conclusively determined. In a decision of 28 January 2003 the director of the Regional Department of Social Security in Plovdiv dismissed the appeal. He found that the LEMC had determined the start date of the applicant’s disability as 12 December 2001. The applicant had applied for a pension on 11 September 2002, that is, more than six months after the accrual of his right, whereas under Article 94 of the Social Security Code of 1999 (see paragraph 29 below) pensions were granted from the date of accrual of the right to a pension, but only if the person concerned had applied within six months of that date. If this time‑limit was missed the pension was granted from the date of application, which in the instant case was 11 September 2002.\n11.  The applicant sought judicial review, arguing, inter alia, that the missing of the six-month time-limit had not been his fault, but a result of the slow pace at which the LEMC had processed his case. In a judgment of 22 July 2003 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the director’s decision, agreeing that the applicant’s failure to comply with the time‑limit had not been due to his oversight, but to the fact that he had only obtained the decision of the LEMC after that time‑limit had expired.\n12.  The Regional Department of Social Security in Plovdiv appealed on points of law to the Supreme Administrative Court. In a final judgment of 9 August 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment, fully agreeing with its reasoning.\n13.  On 22 March 2005 the applicant brought an action against the National Social Security Institute. He relied on section 1 of the State Responsibility for Damage Act of 1988 (see paragraph 24 below) and sought 2,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) in non-pecuniary damages for the frustration he had experienced as a result of the unlawful decisions of the social security authorities.\n14.  In a judgment of 1 July 2005 the Plovdiv District Court awarded the applicant BGN 500 in non-pecuniary damages. It held, inter alia, that the action had been properly brought against the National Social Security Institute, which was the authority responsible for social security matters.\n15.  Both the applicant and the National Social Security Institute appealed. The National Social Securi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3438", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  In May 1989 a private individual brought an action against Mr M.M. before the Pest Central District Court, asking the court to establish that she was the owner of certain movable property and real estate.\n6.  Between May 1989 and November 1992, the District Court held eleven hearings, heard several witnesses and appointed a real-estate expert.\n7.  On 5 November 1992 the plaintiff requested the District Court to hold a hearing. Subsequently, the District Court appointed a forensic psychiatric expert, in order to examine the defendant’s mental state. The expert submitted her opinion on 23 June 1993, establishing that the defendant’s capacity to conduct legal acts was limited.\n8.  On 2 July the District Court ordered the competent authority to appoint an ad hoc guardian for the defendant.\n9.  On 9 December and 18 January 1994 the District Court held hearings. On 19 January 1994 the ad hoc guardian was discharged from his duties.\n10.  On 28 February 1994 the defendant died. On 7 March 1994 the District Court established that the proceedings were interrupted.\n11.  On 28 April 1995 the applicant entered the proceedings as the defendant’s heir.\n12.  On 24 October 1995, 4 July 1996, 21 November 1996, 23 January 1997, 14 March 1997 and 14 May 1997, the District Court held hearings and heard witnesses.\n13.  On 16 June 1997 the plaintiff modified her action.\n14.  On 15 September 1997, 25 November 1997, 23 March 1998, 26 June 1998 and 3 November 1998, the District Court held further hearings and heard witnesses.\n15.  On 1 February 1999, upon the District Court request, the plaintiff submitted a preparatory paper which contained a question to be answered by the real-estate expert.\n16.  On 19 February 1999 and 22 February 1999, the District Court appointed real-estate and movable property experts. The real-estate expert attempted to carry out an on-site inspection. Since the applicant failed to appear, the inspection had to be repeated on 28 September 1999. The real-estate expert submitted her opinion on 4 October 1999.\n17.  Subsequently, the case was transferred to another judge of the District Court.\n18.  On 8 October and 11 November 1999 the parties filed observations.\n19.  On 22 March 2002 the District Court informed the parties that they could submit further written observations on the expert’s opinion. On 30 May 2002 the District Court held a hearing. Both parties submitted preparatory documents to the District Court.\n20.  On 26 July 2002 the District Court ordered the real-estate expert to supplement her opinion. The expert complied with the order on 25 November 2002.\n21.  On 8 April and 24 June 2003 the District Court held a hearing. On 23 April 2003 the District Court requested the movable property expert to supplement his opinion. Since the expert failed to comply with the Court’s request, it fined him. On 29 August 2003 the District Court, upon his request, released the expert from his mandate. On 9 September the plaintiff requested the District Court to appoint another movable property expert.\n22.  On 23 August 2003 the District Court appointed another expert who submitted his opinion on 24 January 2004.\n23.  On 16 September 2003 and 18 February, 30 March and 25 October 2004, 14 February, 11 April and 20 May 2005 the District Court held hearings.\n24.  On 30 May 2005 the District Court delivered its decision. The plaintiff appealed.\n25.  On 6 April 2006 the Budapest Regional Cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3439", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  On 18 December 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder, extortion, robbery and drug trafficking committed while acting as part of an organised criminal group.\n7.  On 23 December 2003 the Warsaw District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. The court indicated that the evidence gathered in the case, in particular the witnesses’ testimonies, showed that there was a strong probability that the applicant had committed the crimes he was suspected of. It attached importance to the serious nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. It further considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence, induce witnesses to give false testimony or go into hiding. In this connection the court stressed that an order for the applicant’s arrest had been issued on 4 September 2000.\n8.  The applicant’s appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against some of the decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeals, he argued that his lengthy detention violated the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n9.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on several occasions, namely on 15 March 2004 (to 17 August 2004), 2 August 2004 (to 17 December 2004), 10 December 2004 (to 2 July 2005) and 7 June 2005 (to 31 October 2005). In all their detention decisions the authorities relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention. The courts stressed that due to the complexity of the case and the large volume of evidence the preparatory proceedings had still not been completed.\n10.  On 17 October 2005 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court. There were 57 defendants in the case, all charged with numerous counts of attempted murder, extortion, robbery, drug trafficking, theft, illegal possession of firearms, battery and forgery committed in an organised criminal group. In the bill of indictment the prosecutor requested the court to hear evidence from 435 witnesses, including 5 key witnesses, and to take another 627 pieces of evidence listed therein.\n11.  During the court proceedings the authorities further extended the applicant’s detention pending trial on several occasions, namely on 6 October 2005 (to 18 December 2005), 6 December 2005 (to 28 April 2006), 25 April 2006 (to 31 October 2006), 27 October 2006 (to 28 February 2007), 23 February 2007 (to 23 July 2007), 17 July 2007 (to 12 December 2007) and on 19 November 2007 (to 19 March 2008). The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s continued detention. They relied especially on the complexity of the case and the large number of co-accused.\n12.  On 3 April 2006 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held some 85 hearings in the case. The proceedings before the Warsaw Regional Court are still pending.\n13.  On an unspecified date in September 2006 the applicant made a written request to the Warsaw Regional Court for the appointment of a new lawyer on the ground that he did not “trust” G.R, his court-appointed defence", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3440", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Subotica.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 9 March 1994 the Municipal Court in Sombor (Opštinski sud u Somboru) ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered S.B., her former husband, to pay her a monthly maintenance allowance in the amount of 25% of the minimum salary in Serbia, starting from 10 December 1993, plus the arrears of that allowance which had already accrued, together with statutory interest.\n8.  By 31 May 1994 this judgment had become final.\n9.  On 9 September 1996 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment and specified that the amount of maintenance due was 5,226 Yugoslav Dinars plus statutory interest. She proposed, in particular, that this enforcement be carried out through the auctioning of the debtors movable assets.\n10.  On 12 September 1996 the Municipal Court in Sombor (“the Municipal Court”) accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.\n11.  On 26 September 1996 S.B. filed a complaint against this order, stating that it was not clear how the applicant had calculated the exact amount of the maintenance sought.\n12.  On 3 February 1998 the Municipal Court instructed S.B. to institute separate civil proceedings wherein he could request that the proposed enforcement be declared “inadmissible” (nedopušteno).\n13.  On 13 April 1998 S.B. filed a claim to this effect.\n14.  On 27 November 1998 the Municipal Court ordered the stay of the enforcement proceedings until the conclusion of the separate civil suit.\n15.  On 23 December 2002 the Municipal Court resumed the enforcement proceedings ex officio, having found, inter alia, that as of 30 June 1999 the separate civil suit had itself been suspended pending the outcome of another case.\n16.  On 25 February 2003 S.B. again requested that the enforcement proceedings be stayed, given the subsequent re-opening of the separate civil suit.\n17.  On 25 July 2003 the Social Care Centre appointed a temporary guardian to act on behalf of the applicant, who had in the meantime been stripped of her legal capacity.\n18.  On 2 December 2003 the applicant’s guardian requested that the enforcement proceedings be continued and stated that the separate civil claim filed by S.B. had been dismissed.\n19.  On 6 April 2004 the Municipal Court rejected the request for the stay of the enforcement proceedings filed on 25 February 2003.\n20.  On 14 April 2004 S.B. lodged a complaint against this decision.\n21.  On 25 October 2006 the Municipal Court noted, in an internal document, that the entire enforcement file had, by mistake, been placed in another case file, which was why the complaint of 14 April 2004 had not yet been considered.\n22.  On 26 October 2006 the three-judge panel of the Municipal Court rejected this complaint and upheld the decision of 6 April 2004.\n23.  On 1 March 2007 the bailiffs attempted to enter S.B.’s home in order seize his movable assets. They were, however, apparently unable to do so as the “premises were locked”.\n24.  On 27 April 2007 S.B. informed the bailiffs that he had, in the meantime, fully covered his debt to the applicant.\n25.  On 17 May 2007 the applicant withdrew her enforcement request filed with the Municipal Court, stating that S.B. had paid his debt with costs and interest.\n26.  On the same date the applicant signed a separate statement to the same effect.\n27.  On 23 May 2007 the President of the Municipal Court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3441", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Timişoara. The second applicant, the mother of the first applicant, was born in 1921 and died on 3 September 2004. In a letter of 4 June 2007 the first applicant, as the only successor of her mother, informed the Court that he wished to pursue the application.\n5.  On 9 September 1991 the applicants lodged an action with the Timişoara Court of First Instance seeking rectification of the Land Registry and, accordingly, registration of their ownership right with regard to a plot of land. Of the twenty one hearings held between 2 October 1991 and 19 June 1997 five were adjourned at the applicants’ request, including between 11 February 1992 and 18 January 1993, between 2 March 1993 and 6 July 1994, and between 11 October 1994 and 27 February 1996, when the proceedings were stayed during criminal investigations against one of the defendants. On 19 June 1997 the Timişoara Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants’ action.\n6.  On 28 April 1998 the Timiş Regional Court upheld the applicants’ appeal and quashed the judgment of the First Instance Court, sending the case back for retrial. The court considered that, as the land had been sold during the appeal proceedings, the new owner should be involved in the lawsuit. This ruling was upheld on 22 October 1998 by a final decision of the Timişoara Court of Appeal.\n7.  After retrial, on 10 January 2000 the Timişoara Court of First Instance rejected the applicants’ action as groundless. On 19 July 2000 the Timiş Regional Court confirmed this decision.\n8.  On 10 November 2000 the Timişoara Court of Appeal allowed the applicants’ appeal, quashed the two preceding judgments and referred the case back to the First Instance Court for a fresh examination, on the ground that the two courts had omitted to rule on two complaints and with regard to another defendant.\n9.  On 21 December 2001 the Timişoara Court of First Instance re-examined the action and dismissed it. Of the eighteen hearings held between 12 December 2000 and 21 December 2001 one was adjourned at the applicants’ request.\n10.  On 2 July 2002 the applicants’ appeal was upheld by the Timiş Regional Court, which ordered rectification of the Land Registry, declared null and void the subsequent sale contracts and ordered the administrative authorities to restitute the plot of land in kind.\n11.  On 10 December 2002 the Timişoara Court of Appeal by a final decision allowed the opposing parties’ appeal and therefore annulled the judgment of 2 July 2002 considering, inter alia, that the courts cannot act as a substitute for the administrative authorities set up by the Real Property Act (Law no. 18/1991) to deal with claims for return of land.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3442", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is a privately owned commercial company, Regent Engineering International Limited, registered in Victoria (the Seychelles). The company’s actual address is in London (United Kingdom). It was represented before the Court by its director, Mr Yuriy Portnik, who resides in London.\n7.  In December 1998 COM s.r.o. (“COM”), a limited liability company registered in Prague (Czech Republic) instituted proceedings in the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Ukraine (Міжнародний комерційний арбітражний суд при Торгівельно-Промисловій палаті України – “the Arbitration Tribunal”) against an open joint-stock company, Oriana, seeking an award for breach of contract. In particular, COM claimed that Oriana, a company registered in the city of Kalush (Ivano-Frankivsk Region), with 99.9% of its shares owned by the State, had failed to comply with its contractual obligations concerning the processing of raw materials.\n8.  On 23 December 1998 the Arbitration Tribunal made an arbitration award (case AC no. 142y/98) ordering the Oriana company to pay COM the amount of 2,466,906.47 United States dollars (USD) in compensation.\n9.  On 19 July 1999 COM lodged an application with the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Arbitration Court (“the Regional Arbitration Court”) seeking a ruling that COM was a creditor in relation to the Oriana company, on the basis of the 23 December 1998 award.\n10.  On 2 August 1999 the Kalush State Bailiffs’ Service of the Ministry of Justice (“the Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings against Oriana in order to collect the debt from it as ordered by the Arbitration Tribunal. These enforcement proceedings were joined to the other enforcement proceedings that were pending against Oriana.\n11.  On 16 October 1999 the Regional Arbitration Court rejected the applicant company’s request to initiate bankruptcy proceedings against Oriana.\n12.  On 18 and 21 October 1999 the Bailiffs’ Service initiated the attachment of the property owned by Oriana. On 13 December 1999 the Bailiffs’ Service quashed the decision on the attachment of Oriana’s assets.\n13.  On 14 December 1999 the property owned by Oriana was attached again. On 16 December 1999 the Bailiffs’ Service decided to sell some of the property that had been attached (the Oriana company’s polymerisation workshop).\n14.  On 20 September 2000 COM again requested the Regional Arbitration Court to institute bankruptcy proceedings against Oriana. It also sought a ruling including it on the list of Oriana’s creditors.\n15.  Between 1999 and 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service took a number of measures to obtain payment of the debts accumulated by Oriana. In particular, it sent payment orders to the debtor’s bank, seized its assets, prohibited the unauthorised sale of property belonging to Oriana and attempted to sell some of the company’s property in order to pay its debts. It also attached the Oriana company’s bank accounts and its shares (including the shares which Oriana owned in the Lukor company).\n16.  At the same time, the enforcement proceedings were suspended several times because Oriana contested the bailiffs’ actions before the courts and because its numerous creditors filed applications with the court seeking an insolvency order in respect of the company.\n17.  On 18 September 2002 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Commercial Court (formerly the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Arbitration Court) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against O", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3443", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1917 and lives in the city of Odessa.\n5.  In January 1998 the applicant and a Mr L. lodged a claim with the Zhovtnevy Court against a Mr G. in respect of a shed which he had built in their common yard.\n6.  On 28 September 1998 the applicant extended the claim to include the Odessa City Council.\n7.  On 2 November 1998 the Zhovtnevy Court joined the proceedings with a set of proceedings brought by Mr G. against the City Council.\n8.  Between 24 December 1998 and 17 December 1999 five out of thirteen hearings were adjourned due to the authorities’ representatives’ failure to appear before the court, and five due to the absence of both the applicant’s advocate and the authorities’ representatives. The applicant’s representative Mrs S. was present at all hearings.\n9.  On 30 December 1999 the Zhovtnevy Court allowed Mr G.’s claim and found against the applicant.\n10.  On 15 February 2000 the Odessa Regional Court, following the applicant’s cassation appeal, quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The hearings resumed on 5 October 2000.\n11.  Between 5 October 2000 and 21 May 2002 seventeen out of thirty one hearings were adjourned due to the authorities’ representatives’ failure to appear before the court.\n12.  On 27 May 2002 the Zhovtnevy Court again allowed Mr G.’s claim in part and found against the applicant.\n13.  On 26 June 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal.\n14.  On 26 November 2002 the hearings were resumed before the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (hereinafter “the Court of Appeal”). Two out of three hearings were adjourned due to the authorities’ representatives’ failure to appear before the court.\n15.  On 30 May 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 27 May 2002.\n16.  On 17 June 2003 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the decision of 27 May 2002.\n17.  On 29 August 2003 the applicant requested the first instance court not to send her cassation appeal to the Supreme Court as the case-file was not duly prepared. Her request was rejected, and various appeals against the rejection were rejected.\n18.  On 22 February 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal against the judgment of 27 May 2002, thereby terminating the proceedings. This decision was sent to the applicant on 26 April 2006.\n19.  In November 2003 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings against the Public Prosecutor of Odessa seeking to find unlawful the refusal to lodge a protest against the decision of the Odessa City Council of 29 March 1994 on the use of the plot of land adjacent to her house.\n20.  On 25 February 2005 the Prymorsky District Court of Odessa rejected the applicant’s complaint.\n21.  On 31 May 2005 and 21 June 2006 the Court of Appeal and the Higher Administrative Court, respectively, upheld this decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3444", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Kherson.\n5.  On 24 May 1999 the applicant was attacked by Ms P., Ms F., Ms M. and Ms B, who were all minors. She sustained various injuries.\n6.  In November 1999, in the course of criminal proceedings pending before the Komsomolskyy District Court of Kherson (hereafter “the Komsomolskyy Court”), the applicant lodged against the four defendants a claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 15 March 2000 the Komsomolskyy Court found Ms P., Ms B., and Ms F. guilty of aggravated hooliganism and sentenced them to three, one and one years’ imprisonment, respectively. By the same decision the applicant’s compensation claim was allowed in part and the statutory representatives of the convicted were ordered to pay the applicant UAH 16,578[1].\n8.  On 16 May 2000 the Kherson Regional Court quashed the decision of the first instance court on the ground that the sentence was too lenient.\n9.  On 3 August 2000 the Komsomolskyy Court again found the defendants guilty and sentenced them to four, three and three years’ imprisonment, respectively. By the same decision the court amnestied Ms B. and Ms F. It also awarded the applicant UAH 13,578[2] in compensation.\n10.  On 3 October 2000 the Kherson Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the grant of amnesty, but quashed the decision of 3 August 2000 concerning the compensation award and remitted that part for a fresh consideration by a civil court.\n11.  On 5 April 2001 the Presidium of the Kherson Regional Court, following the protest of its President initiated by the applicant, quashed the decisions of 3 August and 3 October 2000 to the extent that they concerned the conviction of Ms B. and Ms F. as the amnesty had been applied wrongly. The Presidium remitted that part of the case for a fresh consideration.\n12.  On 26 July 2001 the Komsomolskyy Court released Ms B. from detention. On an unspecified date the proceedings against Ms B. were disjoined on the grounds that she had absconded.\n13.  On 17 August 2001 the Komsomolskyy Court found Ms F. guilty of aggravated hooliganism and sentenced her to two years and two months’ imprisonment. The court applied an amnesty to her. It also ordered Ms P. and the statutory representative of Ms F. to pay the applicant UAH 1,580 in compensation for pecuniary and UAH 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage (UAH 11,580[3] in total).\n14.  On 16 October 2001 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 17 August 2001 concerning the award in respect of pecuniary damage and remitted that part for a fresh consideration to a civil court.\n15.  On 28 November 2001 the applicant’s representative lodged a cassation appeal against the judgments of 17 August and 16 October 2001 requesting the court, in particular, to examine the compensation claim in the criminal proceedings and to increase the amount awarded.\n16.  On 23 May 2002 the panel of three judges of the Supreme Court allowed in part the cassation appeal and quashed the decision of 17 August 2001 concerning the award in respect of non-pecuniary damage. That part of the case was also remitted for a fresh consideration to a civil court.\n17.  On 4 October 2002 the Komsomolskyy Court found Ms M. guilty of aggravated hooliganism and sentenced her to three years’ imprisonment. It refused to deal with the applicant’s compensation claim because her representative had failed to appear before the court.\n18.  Following the decisio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3445", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Chelyabinsk.\n6.  On 13 May 2002 the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 2 of the Sovetskiy District of Chelyabinsk granted the applicant’s claim against the Chelyabinsk Tank Institute for compensation for the purchase of teaching aids. The applicant was awarded 9,600 Russian roubles (“RUB”). According to the Government, the Tank Institute is a State institution for higher education owned by the Ministry of Defence and funded from the federal budget.\n7.  On 12 August 2002 the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the Tank Institute. By letter of 15 December 2002, the applicant was informed that the writ had not been received.\n8.  The applicant brought a further claim against Tank Institute, seeking adjustment of the award for inflation and recovery of the interest for the period of non-enforcement.\n9.  On 15 August 2003 the Justice of the Peace granted the claim and additionally awarded him RUR 8,350.22 in respect of the period from 13 August 2002 to 15 August 2003.\n10.  On 3 November 2003 a court bailiff issued decision to discontinue enforcement proceedings because the Tank Institute had no assets from which recovery could be made.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3446", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  In 1990 the applicant’s mother was allegedly tricked into selling her house. On 19 February 1996 the local administration seized the plot of land on which the house was situated from the applicant’s mother, and on 20 February 1996 allocated it to the buyer of the house, Mr L. Subsequently, Mr L. sold the house to Mr Ch., and the title to the plot of land was transferred to him.\n6.  On 18 April 1996 the applicant, on behalf of her incapable mother, challenged the decision of 20 February 1996 before a court claiming that the title to the plot of land in question belonged to her mother. However, on 29 April 1996 the proceedings were suspended until the outcome of another set of proceedings to which the applicant was a party.\n7.  On 5 July 1996 the proceedings were resumed.\n8.  On 11 July 1996 the Novosilskiy District Court of the Orel Region dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 19 August 1996 the Orel Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a new examination.\n9.  In the meantime the applicant’s mother died, and on 11 November 1996 the proceedings were suspended pending the determination of her legal successor. On 8 September 1997 the court designated the applicant as her mother’s legal successor and resumed the proceedings.\n10.  On 19 November 1997 the Korsakovskiy District Court of the Orel Region dismissed the applicant’s claim. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n11.  At the request of the Prosecutor of the Orel Region submitted in the interests of the applicant, on 25 February 1999 the Presidium of the Orel Regional Court quashed the judgment of 19 November 1997 by way of supervisory review, because of numerous violations of the procedural rules set out in the domestic legislation, and remitted the case for a new examination.\n12.  As regards the four hearings scheduled between 6 April 1999 and 8 July 1999 two were adjourned due to the absence of the defendants, one was adjourned because the applicant did not attend and one was adjourned at the latter’s request.\n13.  On 8 July 1999 the hearing was adjourned until 24 September 1999 due to the parties’ absence.\n14.  On 24 September 1999 the Korsakovskiy District Court disallowed the action, because the applicant had repeatedly defaulted. However, on 8 December 1999 the Orel Regional Court quashed the above decision on appeal, having found that the applicant had not been duly summoned for the hearings of 8 July and 24 September 1999, and remitted the case for a new examination.\n15.  On 29 March 2000 the Korsakovskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 21 June 2000 the Orel Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a new examination.\n16.  As regards the five hearings scheduled between 11 September 2000 and 17 April 2001 three were adjourned because the defendants did not attend, one was adjourned because one of the defendants had not been notified of the hearing and one was adjourned because the court considered it necessary to examine additional evidence.\n17.  On 3 May 2001 the Korsakovskiy District Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and annulled the decision of 20 February 1996 concerning the allocation of the plot of land to Mr L., the registration of the latter’s title to the disputed plot of land, the sale contract between Mr L. and Mr Ch. and the registration of the latter’s title to the plot of land at issue. On 14 May 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3447", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Mr Koretskyy was born in 1955, Mr Tolochko and Mr Lobytskyy were born in 1975, and Mr Gorbal was born in 1978. All the applicants live in Kyiv.\n5.  On 7 June 2000 the applicants and two other persons founded an association named “Civic Committee for the Preservation of Wild (Indigenous) Natural Areas in Bereznyaky[1]” (“Громадянський Комітет за збереження дикої (корінної) природи Березняків”, the “Civic Committee”). Mr Koretskyy was elected as the Civic Committee’s head.\n6.  On 27 July 2000 the applicants filed an application for the State registration of the Civic Committee together with a copy of its articles of association with the Kyiv City Department of Justice (the “City Department”).\n7.  The Civic Committee’s articles read, in so far as relevant, as follows: 1. General provisions\n“1.1. The Civic Committee ... (hereafter – the Committee) is a voluntary association of citizens, non-governmental organisations, and other legal entities, which unite their efforts in joint activities [aiming at the] preservation of wild (indigenous) natural systems in cities and towns. 1.4. The activities of the Committee are to be carried out on the territory of Kyiv. The Committee may have representative offices in other cities and towns of Ukraine.\n...” 2. Principles of the Committee’s activities\n“2.1. The Committee’s activities shall be based on the principles of:\na) democracy;\nb) legality;\nc) self-government;\nd) equality of members;\ne) openness;\nf) combination of local actions with global thinking;\ng) active creative initiative of the broader community.” 3. Aim of the Committee\n“3.1. The Committee was founded with the aim of protecting natural systems from their complete destruction in the process of urbanisation and from their replacement by artificial biomes in the process of urban development and growth. 3.2. The aim of the Committee is to preserve the remaining indigenous natural areas on the territory of the contemporary residential area of Bereznyaky.” 4. Tasks and areas of activities of the Committee\n“4.1. The Committee ... shall have the task of taking concrete action to raise awareness among urban planners, members of bodies of local self-government, and the general public about ... the difference between indigenous natural systems and artificial natural systems in cities and towns, of the possible consequences of the loss of samples of natural ecosystems, as well as [the task of] coordinating joint activities of public authorities, non-governmental organisations, and the general public [aimed at] the prevention of such consequences, the result of which should be the preservation of indigenous biomes as natural samples. 4.2. According to [its] aim and tasks the Committee shall perform its activities in the following areas:\na) collection of information concerning the indigenous nature of Bereznyaky;\nb) collection and study of world experience of coexistence of cities and natural systems;\nc) creation and development of a publicly accessible electronic database;\nd) cultural, educational, publishing, and informational activities;\ne) lobbying of issues connected with the preservation of natural ecosystems with the national and local authorities;\n...” 5. Rights of the Committee\n“5.1. ... the Committee shall have the right:\na) to take part in civil law relations, to acquire pecuniary and non-pecuniary rights;\n...\nd) to [disseminate] propaganda, and [carry out]cultural and educational activities;\n...\nh) to set up entities and organisations, t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3448", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Viktor Vasylyovych Ponomaryov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1953 and lives in the village of Rogan, Kharkiv region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 18 February 1991 the applicant was dismissed from the State-owned farm KhTZ.\n6.  After numerous unsuccessful attempts to receive salary and other payments arrears due to him from the farm, in February 1999 the applicant lodged a civil claim against the farm seeking the above payments and compensation for the delay in their payment.\n7.  In January 2001 the defendant was transformed into the Sad Joint-Stock Company (hereafter “the Company”) in which 25% of shares belonged to the State.\n8.  On 5 October 2001 the Chuguyiv Town Court (hereafter “the Chuguyiv Court”) awarded the applicant 42,086[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears, compensation and other payments from the Company. The judgment was not appealed against within the one-month statutory time-limit and became final on 5 November 2001.\n9.  On 30 November 2001 the Company lodged an appeal against the judgment of 5 October 2001.\n10.  On 10 December 2001 the bailiff service initiated enforcement proceedings.\n11.  By a ruling of 10 December 2001 the Chuguyiv Court left the appeal of the Company unexamined for failure to comply with procedural requirements, namely having been lodged outside the statutory time-limit without a request for renewal, failure to pay a court fee and shortcomings in the form and content of the appeal. The Company was given ten days to bring its appeal into compliance with relevant procedural law.\n12.  By a ruling of 10 January 2002, following the Company’s failure to comply with the court’s ruling of 10 December 2001, the Chuguyiv Court returned its appeal unexamined.\n13.  On 18 November 2002 the enforcement proceedings were suspended due to the insolvency proceedings against the Company initiated by the Commercial Court of Kharkiv on 25 October 2002.\n14.  On 12 December 2002 the State’s share in the Company was reduced from 25 % to 19.99 %.\n15.  By a letter of 18 December 2002, the Ordzhonikidzevsky District Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the defendant Company had no funds in its account and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Forced Sale of Property Moratorium Act of 26 November 2001.\n16.  On 4 March 2003 the Commercial Court of Kharkiv region approved a friendly settlement between the Company and its creditors and discontinued the insolvency proceedings.\n17.  On 24 March 2003 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.\n18.  On 30 January 2004, on a complaint by the applicant, the Ordzhonikidzevsky Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against bailiff V. for fraud in relation to the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant’s favour.\n19.  On 10 February 2004 the defendant Company again lodged an appeal against the judgment of 5 October 2001. It also requested that the time-limit for the appeal be renewed, on the ground that at the time of the impugned judgment of the first-instance court it had been in a difficult economic situation and had been using all its funds to pay off debts to avoid insolvency and, therefore, it had not been able to afford the court fees for an appeal.\n20.  On 20 February 2004 the Chuguyiv Court allowed the Company’s request for renewal of the time-limit and issued a ruling in which it repeated the Company’s grounds for the request and added that “the court considers it necessary ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3449", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the village of Chulman in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of the Russian Federation.\n7.  The applicant brought an action against the Government, seeking to enforce State promissory notes for purchasing of a Russian-made car or to recover the monetary value thereof.\n8.  On 15 November 2002 the Neryungri Town Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic found for the applicant and awarded her RUB 138,967 against the Treasury. On 20 January 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (hereinafter the “Supreme Court”) upheld the judgment on appeal.\n9.  On 26 February 2003 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the Government of the Russian Federation. On 4 March 2003 the writ was forwarded to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.\n10.  According to the Government, in October 2003 the Supreme Court stayed proceedings on all claims concerning State promissory notes until such time as the Constitutional Court had decided on the reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Presidium of the Supreme Court. The reference concerned compatibility of the law governing redemption of State promissory notes with the Russian Constitution.\n11.  On 21 December 2004 the Ministry of Finance asked the court for an extension of the time-limit for filing an application for supervisory review of the judgment in the applicant’s favour.\n12.  On 28 March 2005 a judge of the Neryungri Town Court granted the Ministry’s request, finding as follows:\n “Pursuant to Article 376 of the Code of Civil Procedure, final court judgments may be appealed against before the supervisory-review instance within one year after they became final. In the present case ... this procedural time-limit expired on 20 January 2004. However, as the court has established, on 23 October 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic did indeed suspend proceedings on the claims lodged by owners of State promissory notes for purchasing of cars against the Government of Russian Federation (the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation) in connection with the reference for a preliminary ruling..., which fact is confirmed by the Supreme Court’s letter of 5 November 2003.\nHaving regard to the above, pursuant to Article 112 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court may only extend a time-limit if the party can show valid reasons for having missed it. The court finds that the above reasons exposed by the [Ministry of Finance] were valid.”\n13.  On 7 July 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 15 November 2002, as upheld on 20 January 2003, and dismissed the applicant’s claims. According to the applicant, she was not informed of the hearing. The Government produced a copy of summons addressed to several persons, including the applicant. In quashing the judgment, the Presidium noted that the lower courts had not taken into account certain provisions relating to reimbursement of State promissory notes and thereby committed a breach of substantive law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3450", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Sochi.\n6.  In 1989 the applicant’s employer granted him the right to use room no. 28 in a hostel. However, he could not move in because another person, Mrs H., was living there. The applicant applied to a court for an eviction order.\n7.  On 25 June 2002 the Tsentralniy District Court of Sochi found for the applicant and held that he should move into room no. 28, whereas Mrs H. and her family should move to a new flat which would be provided by the Sochi Town Council and the municipal enterprise “REO Obshchezhitiy g. Sochi” (the entity in charge of operation and maintenance of Sochi dormitories). On 13 August 2002 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n8.  On 5 September 2002 a writ of execution was submitted to the Sochi Bailiffs’ Service. According to the Government, on an unspecified date the bailiffs fined the municipal enterprise “REO Obshchezhitiy g. Sochi” for the failure to execute the judgment.\n9.  The director of the municipal enterprise “REO Obshchezhitiy g. Sochi” informed the bailiffs that, pursuant to the Sochi Mayor’s letter of 6 June 2002, the task of managing flats in municipal hostels had been assigned to the municipal enterprise “Kvartirno-pravovaya sluzhba goroda” (city service for housing and legal matters).\n10.  Given that it was not clear which entity was responsible for execution of the judgment, the bailiffs asked the District Court for a clarification. Further to their request, on 13 February 2003 the District Court clarified the judgment of 25 June 2002, indicating the following order of enforcement. First, the Sochi Town Council would provide a flat to Mrs H., then Mrs H. would be evicted from room no. 28 in the hostel, and, finally, the applicant would move into that room.\n11.  The applicant complained to a court that the bailiffs had made no steps to enforce the judgment. On 27 May 2003 the District Court held that the bailiffs should take all necessary legal measures to enforce the judgment.\n12.  The applicant then asked the court to amend the method of enforcement and recover a sum of money from the Sochi Town Council equivalent to the market price of one room. On 3 February 2004 the District Court granted his application, finding that during more than one and a half years the Town Council had taken no measures to provide Mrs H. with a flat. The District Court held that the Town Council should pay the applicant RUB 256,727. A representative of the Town Council did not attend the hearing or lodge an appeal against the decision.\n13.  On 16 March 2004 a bailiff issued a decision for the above amount to be paid from the bank account of the Town Council. On the same day the Town Council asked the court to reverse its decision of 3 February 2004 on account of newly-discovered circumstances. It claimed that it had not been previously aware of the fact that on 21 January 2004 the applicant had refused, in writing, to move into room no. 28. On 30 March 2004 the District Court granted the Town Council’s application and remitted the matter for a new examination.\n14.  By letter of 15 February 2005, the Sochi Mayor ordered the head of the municipal enterprise “Kvartirno-pravovaya sluzhba goroda” to take measures for immediate enforcement of the judgment of 25 June 2002.\n15.  On 12 December 2005 the District Court amended the operative part of the judgment of 25 June 2002. It held that Mrs H. and her family should be evicted from room no. 28 and resett", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3451", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Vizinga in the Komi Republic.\n6.  From 14 June 2001 to 31 July 2003 the applicant was employed in the military commander’s office in the Chechen Republic. On the commander’s orders, he took part in counter-terrorist operations. For his participation he was paid an additional compensation of 55,807.70 Russian roubles (RUB) for a period of eighty-five days.\n7.  The applicant applied to a court, claiming that the additional compensation should be paid for the entire duration of his employment in the military commander’s office. He submitted original employment contracts and orders signed by the military commander.\n8.  The military commander’s office did not send a representative to take part in the proceedings and asked the court to hear the case in his absence.\n9.  On 25 August 2003 the Military Court of the Rostov-on-Don Garrison accepted the applicant’s claim and awarded him RUB 444,965.37 against the military commander of the Chechen Republic.\n10.  No appeal having been lodged against the judgment, it became enforceable ten days later.\n11.  On 6 September 2003 the applicant obtained a writ of execution and submitted it to the Ministry of Finance.\n12.  On 23 August 2005 a representative of the military commander’s office asked the Military Court of the Rostov-on-Don Garrison to quash the judgment of 25 August 2003 on account of newly discovered circumstances. He claimed that it had been founded on “unreliable evidence” (недостоверные доказательства).\n13.  By decision of 20 October 2005, a judge of the Military Court of the Rostov-on-Don Garrison set aside the judgment of 25 August 2003 on account of newly discovered circumstances. The parties did not make available a copy of that decision to the Court. According to the applicant, it did not specify why the evidence in the original judgment was considered “unreliable”. The Government indicated that it was unreliable because “the applicant’s calculations of the indebtedness [had] had no legal effect”.\n14.  In the re-opened proceedings the applicant’s claims were rejected in full. Copies of these judgments were not made available to the Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3452", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1920 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 26 July 1978 the applicant brought an action before the Bakırköy Court of First Instance against her stepmother, Ms S.C. and her stepbrother, Mr L.C. (hereinafter all three referred to as “the parties”) and requested the annulment of their title deeds to several plots of land in the Ezine district of Çanakkale. The applicant claimed that her father had made a bogus sale of the plots of land to her stepmother and stepbrother in order to prevent her from inheriting them. The court ruled in favour of the applicant. This decision was quashed by the Court of Cassation on the ground that the Bakırköy First Instance Court lacked competence ratione loci to decide the case. The case was transferred to the Ezine First Instance Court on 18 February 1981. The latter considered that it lacked competence ratione materiae and sent the case file to the Ezine Cadastral Court on 22 September 1983.\n6.  In the meantime, in 1980, a cadastral survey was conducted in the Ezine district and plots nos. 220, 221 and 223 were registered under the name of the Finance Ministry on the ground that no one was able to prove ownership of them. The applicant, her stepbrother and the Forestry Directorate lodged an objection with the Cadastral Commission. The applicant and her stepbrother claimed that the aforementioned plots corresponded to plot nos. 3, 4, 26, 5, 6, 25 and 112, which were registered under their father’s name in the Land Registry on 23 January 1951, 4 May 1965 and 7 April 1972. The Commission considering that it lacked competence ratione materiae, transferred the case file to the Ezine Cadastral Court on 23 January 1981.\n7.  In the meantime, Ms S.C. and the Forestry Directorate brought separate actions with the Ezine Cadastral Court regarding the ownership of these plots.\n8.  On various dates the aforementioned cases were joined under the same case file before the Ezine Cadastral Court.\n9.  In the meantime, Mr L.C. died and his legal heirs joined the proceedings. On an unspecified date, Ms S.C. informed the court that she had sold all her shares in the disputed plots of land to her grandson Mr T.C.\n10.  On 8 October 1997 the court ruled that plots nos. 221, 223 and a part of plot no 220 were forest and should therefore be registered under the name of the Forestry Directorate. It also decided that the remaining plot of land should be registered under the name of the applicant’s father.\n11.  On 1 June 1999 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court in so far as it concerned a part of plot no. 220 (approximately 53,750 m2). In this connection it noted, particularly, that the area in question contained forty to seventy year old red pine trees, that it appeared as forest in the State map and that the plot in question had been previously the subject of criminal proceedings which had resulted in a conviction. The remainder of the judgment was quashed on the ground that the information contained in the case file was insufficient to make a ruling on ownership of these plots.\n12.  On 23 December 1999 the case was remitted to the first‑instance court.\n13.  On 15 January 2002 the first-instance court ruled that an area of 53,750 square metres was forest and should therefore be registered under the name of the Treasury and that  100,000 square metres of land within plot nos. 220 and 221 should be registered, jointly under the name of the parties. It further d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3453", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Izmir.\n5.  The applicant was the representative of the Izmir branch of a political journal, namely the “Bread and Justice” magazine.\n6.  On 29 April 2003 the police conducted a search in the journal’s office, and found certain books and magazines which they suspected to be illegal. These publications were confiscated.\n7.  On an unspecified date, the applicant was summoned to the police station to give a statement concerning the ongoing investigation. She was accompanied by her lawyer during her interrogation.\n8.  On 19 June 2003 the Izmir public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Izmir Magistrates’ Court. He accused the applicant of “failure to obey the order of an official authority”, under Article 526 § 1 of the Criminal Code, on the ground that some of the materials gathered from her office had been previously declared illegal by a decision of the Istanbul State Security Court. The indictment was not served on the applicant.\n9.  On 14 July 2003 the Izmir Magistrates’ Court, without holding a hearing, issued a penal decree and found the applicant guilty as charged. It sentenced her to three months’ imprisonment. The court then commuted the applicant’s sentence to a fine of 606,874,000 Turkish liras[1]. In doing so, the court relied on the “simplified procedure” stipulated in Article 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relatively minor offences.\n10.  On 15 October 2003 the applicant challenged this decision before the Izmir Criminal Court. In her petition, the applicant complained that her defence rights had been breached as she was never heard by the domestic court. It was also noted in the petition that, when the applicant was summoned to the police station to give a statement, she had been accompanied by her lawyer during the interrogation.\n11.  On 17 October 2003 the Criminal Court dismissed the objection without holding a hearing. The applicant was notified of this final decision on 27 October 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3454", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Jesenice.\n6.  On 20 August 1994 the applicant’s mother, A.K., died.\n7.  On 7 October 1994 the Jesenice Local Court (Okrajno sodišče na Jesenicah) received the coroner’s certificate (smrtovnica).\n8.  On 22 March 1995 the applicant was given notice of the court’s intention to hold a hearing in the inheritance proceedings and received an invitation to attend it.\n9.  The court held hearings on 5 April and 25 October 1995.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 5 July 1995, the applicant lodged written submissions.\n11.  On 16 June 1997 the court issued an interim decision concerning the inheritance of A.K.’s               ownership certificate (lastninski certifikat).\n12.  On 27 June and 5 September 2000 hearings were held. They were adjourned so as to allow the heirs to reach an agreement in respect of the inheritance. The subsequent negotiations were apparently unsuccessful.\n13.  On 8 November 2000 the applicant lodged written submissions.\n14.  At the hearing held on 14 November 2000 the court decided to stay the proceedings and instructed the parties to institute separate contentious proceedings with a view to determining the extent of A.K.’s estate which was disputed by the heirs.\n15.  On 5 February 2001 one of the heirs lodged a civil claim with the Kranj District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Kranju) in accordance with the Jesenice Local Court’s instructions (paragraph 14 above). On 27 October 2003 the civil proceedings ended with an agreement between the heirs and the inheritance proceedings subsequently continued.\n16.  In the meantime, on 19 December 2000 the Jesenice Local Court rejected the applicant’s request for interim measures. In addition, on 15 March 2001 the Jesenice Administrative Unit (Upravna enota Jesenice) issued a decision indicating that the farmland which was part of A.K.’s estate was not under the special protection which would prevent its division. The Jesenice Local Court received that decision on 18 May 2001.\n17.  On 28 November 2003 the Jesenice Local Court issued a decree of distribution (sklep o dedovanju) dividing the remainder of A.K.’s estate (see paragraph 11 above) between her four daughters. The decree was served on the applicant on an unspecified date in December 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3455", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Poznań.\n7.  On 17 June 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody for three months on three counts of armed robbery. It considered that that measure was indispensable in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, having regard to the serious nature of the offences in question and the likelihood of a custodial sentence.\n8.  The first hearing took place on 28 December 2001. Since that date almost 180 hearings have been scheduled and nearly 400 witnesses heard. Many hearings have been adjourned.\n9.  On 21 September 2005 the court decided that, because of the lengthy illness of a judge rapporteur, a new bench should be appointed. This meant that the proceedings had to be restarted.\n10.  On 24 November 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) severed the bill of indictment and ordered that cases against fifteen other co‑accused be tried in separate proceedings.\n11.  The proceedings are still pending.\n12.  On 30 January 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint about the undue length of the criminal proceedings under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) and requested just satisfaction of PLN 10,000.\n13.  On 23 March 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his complaint on the ground that since the date of entry into force of the 2004 Act no undue delays in the proceedings could be discerned, the proceedings having been conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time. The court observed that the 2004 Act had entered into force on 17 September 2004 and could not be applied to the proceedings before that date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3457", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant company, Megadat.com SRL, is a company incorporated in the Republic of Moldova.\n7.  At the time of the events the applicant company was the largest Internet service provider in Moldova. According to the applicant company, it held approximately 70% of the market of Internet services. While agreeing that the applicant company was the largest Internet service provider in the country, the Government disputed the ratio of its market share without, however, presenting any alternative figures.\n8.  The applicant company had two licences issued by the National Regulatory Agency for Telecommunications and Informatics (“ANRTI”) for providing Internet and fixed telephony services. The licences were valid until 18 April 2007 and 16 May 2007 respectively and the address 55 Armenească Street was indicated in them as the applicant company’s official address.\n9.  The applicant company had three offices in Chişinău. On 11 November 2002 its headquarters was moved from its Armenească Street office to its Ştefan cel Mare Street office. The change of address of the headquarters was registered with the State Registration Chamber and the Tax Authorities were informed. However, the applicant company failed to request ANRTI to modify the address of its headquarters in the text of its licences.\n10.  On 20 May 2003 the applicant company requested a third licence from ANRTI indicating in its request the new address of its headquarters. ANRTI issued the new licence citing the old address in it, without giving any reasons for not citing the new address.\n11.  On 17 September 2003 ANRTI held a meeting. According to the minutes of the meeting, it found that ninety-one companies in the field of telecommunications, including the applicant company, had failed to pay an annual licence fee and/or to present information about changes of address within the prescribed time-limits. ANRTI decided to invite those companies to eliminate the irregularities within ten days and to warn them that their licences might be suspended in case of non-compliance.\n12.  On unspecified dates the ninety-one companies, including the applicant company, were sent letters asking them to comply within ten days of the date of receipt of the letter. They were also warned that their licences might be suspended in case of non-compliance in accordance with section 3.4 of the ANRTI Regulations. The applicant company was sent such a letter on 24 September 2003.\n13.  Following ANRTI’s letters, only thirty-two companies, including the applicant company, complied with the request.\n14.  On 29 and 30 September 2003 the applicant company lodged documents with ANRTI indicating its new address, together with a request to modify its licences accordingly, and paid the licence fee.\n15.  On Friday 3 October 2003 ANRTI informed the applicant company that it had some questions concerning the documents submitted by the applicant company. In particular, it had a question concerning the lease of the applicant company’s new headquarters and about the name of the applicant company. ANRTI informed the applicant company that the processing of its request concerning the amendment of its licences would be suspended until it had submitted the requested information.\n16.  On Monday 6 October 2003 ANRTI held a meeting at which it adopted a decision concerning the applicant company. In particular, it reiterated the content of section 15 of the Law on Licensing and of section 3.5.7 of the ANRTI Regulations, according t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3458", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1933 and 1945 respectively and live in Istanbul. They are the parents of Mr Bayram Duran, aged 26, who died in a police station in Istanbul on 16 October 1994, as a result of having been beaten by four police officers.\n5.  On 12 October 1994 a certain M.Y. filed a complaint with the police maintaining that a man had threatened his son and taken his money.\n6.  On 15 October 1994 M.Y. saw Bayram Duran on a bus and told the bus driver to go to the police station. Once in front of the police station, M.Y. asked the police officers to arrest Bayram Duran, maintaining that the latter was the person who had threatened his son. Subsequently, at around 11 a.m. Bayram Duran was arrested on suspicion of having committed robbery (gasp).\n7.  On 16 October 1994 at around 5 a.m. Bayram Duran was found dead at the Gazi police station.\n8.  On the same day, at 12.35 p.m. a “scene of incident and examination of the corpse” report was drafted and signed by the Gaziosmanpaşa public prosecutor, a medical expert, the director of the Gaziosmanpaşa police headquarters and four other persons. According to the report, there was no sign of ill-treatment or bullet wound on Bayram Duran’s body. The medical expert concluded that an autopsy was necessary to discover the cause of death. The report also contained details concerning the detention conditions, according to which the cell where Bayram Duran had been found dead had not been cleaned for around one week. There were several cigarette butts on the floor and spider webs on the walls. Furthermore, a sketch plan of the cell where Bayram Duran was found dead was drawn.\n9.  On the same day, the Gaziosmanpaşa public prosecutor took statements from the police officers who were on duty. The officers all contended that Bayram Duran had not been tortured or subjected to ill‑treatment while in custody and that they had found him dead in his cell when they had gone there to offer him a cup of tea.\n10.  On 17 October 1994 an autopsy was carried out on Bayram Duran’s body. In the autopsy report drafted on 14 December 1994 and signed by four doctors from the hospital at the Cerrahpaşa University, the cause of death was identified as cardiac failure. The forensic experts found a haemorrhage of 3 x 8 cm in the left scapular region. They nevertheless considered that the haemorrhage had not directly caused Bayram Duran’s death.\n11.  On 29 December 1994 the Gaziosmanpaşa public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute in respect of Bayram Duran’s death. Basing his decision on the autopsy report of 14 December 1994, the public prosecutor noted that the cause of death was not the haemorrhage.\n12.  On 21 February 1995 the first applicant, Ali Duran, filed an objection with the Beyoğlu Assize Court against the decision of 29 December 1994. He maintained that the content of the autopsy report was inadequate as, inter alia, it did not specify how the haemorrhage in Bayram Duran’s body could have been caused. He further contended that the public prosecutor had questioned only the police officers before rendering his decision. Ali Duran finally submitted that his son had been tortured to death and that the decision not to prosecute constituted a violation of his right to life.\n13.  On 30 May 1995 the Beyoğlu Assize Court requested the Gaziosmanpaşa Magistrates’ Court to hear evidence from the first applicant and a witness and to conduct an examination of the case.\n14.  On 15 September 1995 the Gaziosman", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3459", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Comrat. She acts on behalf of her deceased husband, Mr Petru Grădinar (“G.”).\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  G. was in conflict with a number of officers of the Comrat police and was allegedly persecuted by those officers for criticising them and helping alleged victims of police abuse. In 1993 G. was allegedly abducted by the local police and a ransom was requested. Having been kept for 15 days in the woods, he was released and on 24 December 1993 lodged a complaint against several officers of the local police, including D., the Deputy Chief of the Comrat police. A criminal investigation was opened but was discontinued for lack of evidence.\n8.  On 11 March 1995 M., a subordinate of D., made a complaint against G. for resisting the legitimate orders of the police. On the same day G. made a complaint against D., M. and another officer for abusing their power by beating him up at his home and requested the opening of a criminal investigation. The judge examining the two cases closed the first one for lack of evidence. The criminal investigation into G.’s complaint was discontinued some time later.\n9.  On 4 May 1995 the personnel of the local police station wrote a letter to various authorities in support of the three officers and against D.C. (one of the three accused in the present case). The Prosecutor General found that many of the statements by the police officers in that letter were unfounded and tendentious and contained gratuitous accusations against G., D.C. and the prosecutor who had opened the criminal investigation. There was mention of talk among the officers about possibly resorting to “illegal methods of fighting” the suspects.\n10.  On 16 September 1995 a burnt-out car was found in a forest near Comrat. The police found the remains of a person in the boot of the car. A criminal investigation was opened and led to the conclusion that the victim was D. Three persons became the prime suspects: the C. brothers (D.C. and G.C.) and G.\n11.  According to the prosecution, the following events led to the murder of D. on the night of 15 to 16 September 1995. In 1994 D. had opened a criminal investigation against G.C. for “aggravated hooliganism”. The C. brothers and G. were in serious conflict with D. On 15 September 1995 D. visited a bar in Comrat, where he met with the C. brothers and G., was insulted by them and was hit outside the bar. They agreed to meet at around 4 a.m. at a roundabout to finish the dispute.\n12.  When they met at 4 a.m., the C. brothers and G. beat D. and then forced him into the back of his police car and drove to a forest, followed by G. in his own car. In the forest, they continued beating D. and then loaded him into the boot of his car, sprayed petrol all over it and set the car on fire.\nThe applicant disputed this version of events.\n13.  On 20 May 1997 the Chişinău Regional Court acquitted all three suspects. On 21 October 1997 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.\n14.  On 5 December 1997 a bomb exploded near G.’s house but nobody was hurt. G. lodged a complaint and requested measures of protection. The criminal investigation initiated at his request could not identify the bombers and was closed in February 1998. The Ministry of the Interior refused to apply measures of protection to him because he had not received any threats and there was no reason to expect a repeat of the bombing.\n15.  On 12 Jan", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3460", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 9 April 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody.\n6.  On 11 April 2001 the applicant’s detention in police custody was prolonged for an additional period of two days, without his presence, by the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n7.  On 13 April 2001 the applicant’s detention in police custody was prolonged for an additional period of six days, without his presence, by the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n8.  On 18 April 2001, before the additional six-day period had expired, the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court who ordered his release.\n9.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant for membership of an illegal organisation are still pending before the Diyarbakır Assize Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3461", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Mr Ljubo Sirc, is a Slovenian and British national, born in 1920 and living in Glasgow (United Kingdom) and in Ljubljana (Slovenia).\n9.  Before the Second World War, the applicant’s family owned large amounts of various types of real estate located in Kranj and in Ljubljana. In 1941, the Sirc textile factory located in Kranj was taken over by the German occupying forces.\n10.  Following the end of the Second World War, the 1945 Yugoslav Act on the Treatment of Property which Owners were Obliged to Abandon during the Occupation or of Property appropriated by the Occupying Forces or their Collaborators (“the 1945 Act”) provided for immediate restitution of confiscated property or payment of compensation to the previous owners. The applicant’s father submitted several requests for restitution and the factory land was returned to him, together with some movable assets.\n11.  On 12 August 1947 the Supreme Court convicted the applicant, the applicant’s father and several others, including the Dean of the Law Faculty, of offences of collaboration with Western powers in the so-called “Nagode” political trial.\n12.  The applicant was sentenced to death (later commuted to 20 years’ imprisonment) and his father to 10 years’ imprisonment. Both were sentenced to forfeiture of their property to the State. At the time of the trial, the Sirc property consisted mostly of restitution or compensation claims.\n13.  According to the applicant, the sentence was enforced in two different ways. On the one hand, some assets were officially listed as appropriated by the State. These included approximately 15,000 m2 of factory land, returned machinery and items corresponding to more than two-thirds of the claims for the return of the remaining machinery filed under the 1945 Act, the Sirc family house with a small garden, a house in Ljubljana, shares in the Trbovlje coal-mining company, personal possessions and some 9,000 m2 of agricultural land belonging to the applicant’s mother.\n14.  On the other hand, the remaining assets such as items corresponding to outstanding claims introduced under the 1945 Act for restitution of, or compensation for, finished textiles, Russian and Turkish cotton and one-third of the unreturned machinery became State property under the “general formula” of the forfeiture order.\n15.  The applicant’s father and the applicant were imprisoned from 1947 until 1950 and 1954, respectively. Soon after his release in 1950, the applicant’s father died, leaving his entire estate to the applicant. Soon after his own release, the applicant fled to the United Kingdom.\n16.  As to the compensation for assets removed from the factory by the German occupying forces, the Sirc family and the Federal Republic of Germany concluded a settlement on 17 March 1964 in Berlin for 1,000,000 German marks (DEM).\n17.  In 1989, the applicant returned to Slovenia. 2.  Request for restitution and compensation under the 1978 Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions and the adoption of the 1991 Denationalisation Act\n18.  On 31 January 1991 the Supreme Court ordered retrials of those convicted in 1947, including the applicant. On 5 April 1991, following the withdrawal of charges by the Public Prosecutor, the Ljubljana first instance court terminated the proceedings and quashed the convictions.\n19.  On 3 June 1991, on the basis of the 1978 Act on Implementation of Penal Sanctions as amended in 1990 (“the 1978 Act”), the applicant lodged a request with the Minis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3462", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Rzeszów.\n5.  In 1987 the applicant’s wife filed a petition for divorce. The divorce was granted shortly afterwards.\n6.  On 24 November 1987 the applicant lodged a claim for the division of matrimonial property with the Łańcut District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n7.  On 31 December 1988 the Łańcut District Court gave a decision and divided the property.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed.\n9.  On 7 November 1989 the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) remitted the case.\n10.  On 10 March 1998 the Łańcut District Court again gave a decision.\n11.  On unspecified dates both parties appealed.\n12.  On 11 September 1998 the Rzeszów Regional Court dismissed both appeals.\n13.  On 23 October 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n14.  On 14 May 2001 the Supreme Court refused to hear the applicant’s cassation appeal.\n15.  The applicant submitted that as a consequence of the prolonged proceedings in his case he had been deprived of his property and had to live in a Welfare Home (Dom Pomocy Społecznej).\n16.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings against his wife who apparently had failed to comply with the final decision on the division of their property.\n17.  On 6 May 1999 the Łańcut Bailiff informed the applicant that the enforcement had proved ineffective.\n18.  On 10 May 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Łańcut District Court against the actions taken by the bailiff (skarga na czynności komornika). He submitted that those actions had been incorrect, because the money obtained from the debtor had been distributed wrongly. He also complained about the ineffectiveness of the enforcement.\n19.  On 21 July 1999 the Łańcut District Court dismissed his complaint. It held that the order of distribution had been in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. As regards the ineffectiveness of the enforcement, the court held that no valuable objects had been found in the debtor’s house which could be sold and used to satisfy the debt.\n20.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed.\n21.  On 21 July 1999 the Rzeszów Regional Court dismissed his appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3463", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5. The first six applicants were born in 1926, 1936, 1969, 1963, 1972 and 1965 respectively and live in Malta. The second applicant introduced his application in his capacity as sole heir of the late Carmelo Zammit, while the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants are acting before the Court in their capacity as heirs of the late John Parnis England. The seventh applicant, W.J. Parnis England Limited, is a company registered in Valletta, Malta.\n6.  On 3 August 1960 the applicants and/or their ancestors acquired the right of perpetual emphyteusis (a contract granting use of a “tenement”, that is, a house, apartment or other building, for a stated yearly rent or ground rent to be paid in money or in kind) over a piece of land, located within the limits of two Maltese cities, Birkirkara and Msida. This land, known as “Tal-Hriereb”, measured approximately 23,606 square metres (sq.m).\n7.  Under the contract of emphyteusis, the applicants and/or their predecessors undertook to pay the annual ground rent and to spend 7,500 British pounds (GBP, approximately 11,137 euros (EUR)) on improvements to the land. They were given the right to redeem the direct dominium (the right of the dominus on the tenement let out on emphyteusis) at the capitalisation rate of five per cent, which amounted to 8,669.80 Maltese liras (MLT - approximately EUR 20,807).\n8.  On 1 August 1961 the Governor of Malta declared that part of the land in question, measuring approximately 7,531 sq.m, was required for a public purpose. The acquisition of the land was to be made by outright purchase. The applicants and/or their predecessors held under title of emphyteusis most of the land affected by the expropriation (approximately 7,066 sq.m). The amount of ground rent payable on the area of land expropriated amounted to MTL 260.12 (approximately EUR 624) per year. In accordance with domestic law they lost possession of the said land fourteen days from the date of publication of the notice of the intention to expropriate the property.\n9.  In a Notice to Treat of 16 May 1964 and 20 May 1964 respectively the Commissioner of Lands offered the applicants in their capacity as empyhteutae, jointly with the persons having the direct dominium (hereinafter, the “dominus”), GBP 631 (approximately EUR 1,515) for the land expropriated. The dominus and the applicants refused this offer.\n10. On 1 June 1964 they jointly lodged replies to the Notice to Treat rejecting the amount offered and claiming that the compensation should be calculated on the basis of an annual ground rent of twelve shillings and six pence (approximately EUR 0.92) per 4,3911 sq.m (one square cane) less three shillings and four pence (approximately EUR 0.24) per 4.3911 sq.m which was the original ground rent to which it had been subjected. They also claimed that the directum dominium alone was worth approximately GBP 8,738 (approximately EUR 12,974).\n11.  On 6 November 1964 the case was brought before the Land Arbitration Board (hereafter the “LAB”) to establish the amount of the compensation due.\n12.  The first sitting was held on 9 December 1964. Within the following year seven adjournments took place for various reasons, inter alia: to allow a lawyer to be instructed; the illness of the applicants’ lawyer (on 24 February 1965, adjourned to 31 March 1965); the ordering of an on‑site inspection; giving the parties time to submit replies; the LAB taking time to consider the oral submissions made; and because the merits of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3464", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a medical practitioner, employed by a public hospital in Vienna and has also a private surgery. She is a member of the Vienna Medical Association (Ärztekammer), a public law body established under the Medical Practitioner’s Act (Ärztegesetz) with compulsory membership. As a member of that association she is also compulsory affiliated to the pension and invalidity fund (Wohlfahrtsfonds) of that Medical Association under the relevant provisions of the Medical Practitioner’s Act.\n6.  On 28 April 2000 the Administrative Committee (Verwaltungsausschuss) of the pension and invalidity fund issued an order against the applicant for payment of compulsory contributions for 1999. It applied the statutory rate of contribution of 15.8% as fixed in the statutes of the pension and invalidity fund.\n7.  On 9 May 2000 the applicant appealed. She submitted that the calculation was incorrect and that the obligation to pay contributions was unconstitutional.\n8.  On 20 July 2000 the Appeal Committee (Beschwerdeausschuss) of the Medical Association dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It stated that the calculation had been correct and that the other issues raised by the applicant were too general or outside the competence of the Appeal Committee.\n9.  On 1 September 2000 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. She complained that the decision was arbitrary and breached her right to peaceful enjoyment of her property. She submitted that Section 112 of the Medical Practitioners Act, which allowed for exemption from the liability to pay contributions to the pension and invalidity fund, did not sufficiently allow for private initiatives in ensuring an adequate pension. Also the provisions of the Medical Practitioners Act which provided for compulsory membership and compulsory affiliation to the pension and invalidity fund were in breach of EU-law and a preliminary ruling on that issue should be obtained by the European Court. On 22 May 2002 she supplemented her complaint.\n10.  On 26 June 2002 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint for lack of prospect of success. It stated that, at the most, questions of ordinary law could arise in the applicant’s case, but no issues of constitutional law or the law of the European Union. Insofar as the applicant had alleged that the ordinary law applied by the administrative authorities was unconstitutional, the Constitutional Court, referring to its case-law, considered this allegation unfounded.\n11.  The applicant filed a request for transfer of the case to the Administrative Court and, on 21 August 2002, the Constitutional Court did so.\n12.  On 8 January 2003 the Administrative Court invited the respondent authority to file observations, which it did on 25 January 2003. On 11 April 2003 the applicant replied.\n13.  On 23 May 2003 the Administrative Court quashed the appeal decision of 20 July 2000 and remitted the case back to the Appeal Committee. It found that on one point, namely as regards deductible expenses, the Appeal Committee’s decision had not been sufficiently reasoned.\n14.  On 15 October 2003 the Appeal Committee decided again, dismissing the appeal.\n15.  On 5 December 2003 the applicant filed a further complaint to the Administrative Court, she also requested that a public hearing be held and that suspensive effect be granted. However, at this stage of the proceedings the applicant failed to reiterate her request for referral to the Europea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3465", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Ashdod, Israel.\n6.  On 9 January 1998 the applicant arrived in Russia. On crossing the border, he omitted to report a certain sum of cash in his customs declaration and the customs office seized his money. The applicant appealed to a court.\n7.  On 30 July 1999 the Khostinskiy District Court of Sochi set aside the seizure order and ordered the Treasury to repay the applicant the equivalent in Russian roubles of the 1,600 United States dollars (USD) seized. On 9 September 1999 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal.\n8.  At the applicant's request the District Court amended the operative part of the judgment on 15 February 2001 and ordered the Treasury to pay USD 1,600 into the applicant's bank account in Israel.\n9.  On 10 April 2001 the District Court issued a writ of execution and sent it to the bailiffs' service in Moscow. On 30 October 2001 the Moscow bailiffs sent the writ back to Sochi, for reasons which are unclear.\n10.  After the judgment in his favour had remained unenforced for more than a year, the applicant complained to the Court (application no. 15021/02).\n11.  On 18 November 2004 the Court delivered judgment in the above case. It noted the Government's acknowledgment that the writ of execution had been lost in the process of being transferred from the Moscow bailiffs to the Sochi office. However, in the Court's view, the logistical difficulties experienced by the State enforcement services could not serve as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt; the applicant's complaints concerning the non-enforcement of the judgment should have prompted the competent authorities to investigate the matter and to ensure that the enforcement proceedings were brought to a successful conclusion. The Court found a violation of the applicant's “right to a court” under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Wasserman v. Russia, no. 15021/02, §§ 38‑40 and 43-45, 18 November 2004).\n12.  The Court granted the applicant's claim for the interest on the judgment debt. It rejected, however, the claim for the outstanding amount on the ground that “the Government's obligation to enforce the judgment at issue ha[d] not been yet extinguished and the applicant [was] still entitled to recover this amount in the domestic enforcement proceedings” (see Wasserman, cited above, § 49). It also made awards in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses (§§ 50-53).\n13.  In the meantime, on 17 February 2004, a duplicate of the writ was issued and presented to the Ministry of Finance for enforcement.\n14.  In its observations on the applicant's claim (see below), the Ministry of Finance mentioned that on 21 June 2004 payment of the outstanding amount into the applicant's account in Israel had been authorised.\n15.  By letter of 17 May 2005 the Ministry of Finance informed the applicant that it would not enforce the judgment because the District Court's decision of 15 February 2001 had misspelled one letter in his patronymic name and because the writ of execution had incorrectly designated the debtor as the “Chief State Directorate of the Federal Treasury” (the correct name of the entity does not contain the word “State”).\n16.  By decision of 5 October 2005 the District Court corrected the spelling mistake in the decision of 15 February 2001.\n17.  On 3 October 2006 the sum of USD 1,569 was credited ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3466", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Troyes, France.\n5.  On an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant brought an action to recover her property from a third person. On 1 November 2001 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd granted her claim in full and awarded her, inter alia, 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of the non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  On 11 September 2002 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the above judgment on appeal. The judgment was enforced in full.\n7.  On 9 August 2003 the other party to the proceedings lodged an application for a supervisory review of the judgment of 1 November 2001, as upheld on appeal on 11 September 2002.\n8.  On 29 October 2003 a judge of the Volgograd Regional Court examined the above application and decided to remit the case for examination on the merits by the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court. He presented the case to the Presidium as the judge rapporteur.\n9.  On 13 November 2003 the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court held a supervisory-review hearing. It held that the lower courts had erroneously applied the substantive law. On that ground it quashed the judgment of 1 November 2001, as upheld on appeal on 11 September 2002, in the part concerning the award in respect of the non-pecuniary damage. Both the applicant and the defendant attended the hearing and made submissions to the court. The decision was delivered by four judges. The judge rapporteur did not take part in the deliberations or voted on the case.\n10.  On 12 January 2004 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd obliged the applicant to repay RUB 5,000 which she had received by virtue of the judgment of 1 November 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3467", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in was born in 1967 and lives in the village of Khotyn, Rivne region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 28 April 1996 the Bereznivsky District Prosecutor’s Office (Березнівська районна прокуратура) opened a criminal investigation into the murder of the applicant’s wife. On the same day the applicant was arrested.\n6.  On 7 May 1996 the applicant was charged with the murder of his wife.\n7.  The applicant was released on 20 February 1997 subject to a written undertaking not to abscond. On 31 March 1999 the Bereznivsky District Prosecutor’s Office dropped the charges against the applicant on the ground of lack of evidence.\n8.  On 31 January 2000 the Rivne Regional Court (Рівненський обласний суд) found Mr K. guilty of the murder concerned. On 15 June 2000 the Supreme Court (Верховний Суд України) upheld the judgment of 31 January 2000. In a separate ruling, issued on the same day, the Supreme Court informed the Prosecutor General (Генерального прокурора) that there had been procedural irregularities in the criminal proceedings against the applicant.\n9.  The applicant brought proceedings for compensation for unlawful criminal prosecution. On 11 September 2001 the Bereznivsky District Court of the Rivne Region (місцевий суд Березнівського району Рівненської області, hereafter “the Bereznivsky Court”) granted this claim and awarded him 50,000[1] Ukrainian Hryvnias (UAH) against the State in compensation for moral damage. The court judgment contained an instruction to the applicant to present a copy of it to the local department of the State Treasury (Державне казначейство) for enforcement. This judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n10.  According to the Government the applicant did not comply with the above instruction of the Bereznivsky Court.\n11.  The applicant stated that he did submit a copy of the judgment to the State Treasury for enforcement. In support of this statement he provided the Court with a copy of a letter of 27 September 2001 in which the Bereznivsky District Department of the State Treasury (Відділення державного казначейства у Березнівському районі Рівненської області) informed the Bereznivsky Court that the State Budget for 2001 did not include funds which could be used to pay the applicant.\n12.  On 5 and 22 April 2005 respectively the Bereznivsky District Department of the State Treasury sent copies of the judgment concerned to the Bereznivsky District Bailiffs’ Service (Відділ державної виконавчою служби Беренівського районного управління юстиції Рівненської області) and the Central Department of the Bailiffs’ Service (Відділ примусового виконання Департаменту державної виконавчої служби), stating that the lack of budget funds prevented it from honouring this judgment and inviting the Bailiffs’ Service to open enforcement proceedings in its respect.\n13.  On 16 May 2005 the Central Department of the Bailiffs’ Service found that a copy of the court judgment, without a writ of execution, was an insufficient ground for initiating the enforcement proceedings.\n14.  On 25 December 2006 the same department of the Bailiffs’ Service refused to accept the writ of execution issued by the Bereznivsky Court because it did not contain the exact address of the State Treasury and had been submitted by the applicant outside the three-year time limit provided by law for compulsory execution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3468", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and currently resides in Kirovograd.\n5.  In January 2001 the applicant, a former military serviceman brought proceedings against A-0981 military unit, where he had served before retirement, seeking recovery of redundancy pay and compensation for his uniform. On 12 February 2001 the Military Court of Cherkassy Garrison (Військовий суд Черкаського гарнізону) found for the applicant and awarded him a total of 2,935 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1].\n6.  On 20 March 2001 the military unit concerned paid the applicant UAH 2,420[2].\n7.  On 17 May 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service of the Leninskiy District of Kirovograd (Відділ державної виконавчої служби Ленінського районного управління юстиції м. Кіровограда, hereafter “the Leninskiy Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of UAH 515[3], the outstanding amount of the court award.\n8.  Although the property and accounts of the military unit were frozen by the Leninskiy Bailiffs’ Service the funds obtained were insufficient for the payment of the amount due to the applicant.\n9.  On 26 March 2003 the Leninskiy Bailiffs’ Service forwarded the applicant’s writ of execution together with the enforcement case-file to the Bailiffs’ Service of the Oleksandrivskiy district of Kirovograd region (Відділ державної виконавчої служби Олександрівського районного управління юстиції Кіровоградської області, hereafter “the Oleksandrivskiy Bailiffs’ Service”).\n10.  According to a bank transfer order produced by the Government, on 30 November 2004 the Oleksandrivskiy Bailiffs’ Service sent UAH 2,073[4] via postal transfer to an unspecified recipient or recipients. This sum corresponds to the total amount of the remaining debts owed to the applicant and Mr Mayadnnyk, the applicant in case no. 20826/02.\n11.  On 1 December 2004 the Oleksandrivskiy Bailiffs’ Service terminated the proceedings in the applicant’s enforcement case on the grounds that the judgment of 12 February 2001 had been executed in full. The applicant stated that he had not been informed of the transfer and had not received any money as a result of it.\n12.  On 21 June 2007 the Oleksandrivskiy Bailiffs’ Service made a postal transfer in the applicant’s name of the remaining amount. On the same day the applicant collected this money.\n13.  On 4 March 2003 the applicant brought proceedings against the Leninskiy Bailiffs’ Service claiming moral damages for its alleged inactivity and compensation for the devaluation of the sum awarded to him. On 28 July 2003 the Leninsky District Court of Kirovograd (Ленінський районний суд м. Кіровоград, hereafter “the Leninskiy Court”) granted this claim in part and awarded the applicant UAH 1,000[5] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage incurred as the result of the Leninskiy Bailiffs’ Service’s failure to perform in time its duties set forth in the Law of 21 April 1999 “on Enforcement Proceedings”.\n14.  On 30 October 2003 the Leninskiy Court granted the Leninskiy Bailiffs’ Service leave to appeal out of time against this judgment. On 13 November 2003 the Leninskiy Bailiffs’ Service filed an appeal. Having sought and received the applicant’s written comments on this appeal, on an unspecified date the Leninskiy Court referred it to the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Кіровоградської області).\n15.  On 9 February 2004 the Leninskiy Bailiffs’ Service opened the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 28 July 2003 and immediately terminat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3469", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  In November 2001 the applicant, a retired military officer, brought proceedings against the Military Service Commission of Moscow (Военный комиссариат г. Москвы – “the Commission”) for recalculation of his pension as from 1993 to take account of the fact that he served in the extreme north of Russia which made him eligible for a higher pension.\n6.  On 3 December 2002 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant’s claim, adjusted his pension by a coefficient 1.4 and awarded him 221,913.54 Russian roubles (RUB) in arrears.\n7.  The Commission did not lodge an ordinary appeal against the judgment and it became binding and enforceable on 16 December 2002.\n8.  On 26 December 2002 the defendant enforced the judgment in a part concerning the lump sum of RUB 221,913.54. The monthly pension payments were calculated based on a coefficient of 1.4 in accordance with the judgment of 3 December 2002 during the period from December 2002 until August 2004.\n9.  On 3 December 2003 the Commission filed an application for supervisory review, claiming that the civil-law provisions on which the court based its judgment were not relevant to the applicant.\n10.  On 18 May 2004 the applicant was informed about the initiation of the supervisory-review procedure.\n11.  On 20 May 2004 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court held a supervisory-review hearing. It held that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law. On that ground it quashed the judgment of 3 December 2002 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. Before the announcement of the judgment the applicant was asked to wait outside the courtroom. At the same time the respondent remained there. The decision of the court was announced to the applicant by the bailiff. The applicant received a copy of the final decision on 6 August 2004.\n12.  On 28 February 2005 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claim for recalculation of his pension. At the same time, the court rejected the Commission’s claim for recovery of the sum already paid to the applicant in arrears pursuant to the judgment of 3 December 2002, since such recovery was not possible under the domestic law. On 10 June 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3470", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the town of Kamyshin in the Volgograd Region.\n5.  On 23 April 2002 the Tsentralny District Court of Volgograd allowed the applicant’s claim for housing aid and awarded her 209,550 Russian roubles (RUB) against the Ministry of Finance. The District Court found that the applicant was entitled to thirty-three square metres (sq. m), and that the average price per sq. m in the region at the relevant time was RUB 6,350.\n6.  The parties did not appeal against the judgment and it became final on 4 May 2002.\n7.  On 28 May 2002 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the local office of the Ministry of Finance.\n8.  By letter of 24 October 2002, in response to the applicant’s query about the state of enforcement proceedings, the Ministry advised her that an application for supervisory review of the above judgment had been lodged.\n9.  On 15 November 2002 the applicant submitted the writ to the bailiffs’ service.\n10.  On 6 December 2002 the bailiff returned the writ to the District Court because it had failed to set out its period of validity. On 17 January 2003 the District Court sent the corrected writ to the bailiff.\n11.  On 28 February 2003 the bailiff opened enforcement proceedings. He discontinued them on 12 May 2003 because the bailiffs’ service was not competent to enforce judgments against the State. He advised the applicant to submit her writ of execution to the Ministry.\n12.  On 26 June 2003 the applicant requested the District Court to rectify an error in the writ. On 1 July 2003 the District Court forwarded the rectified writ to the applicant. It was marked “duplicate”.\n13.  On 22 July 2003 the applicant submitted it to the Ministry.\n14.  On 9 September 2004 the District Court sent the Ministry a new version of the writ, without the note “duplicate”. It explained that the court secretary had marked the previous writ as “duplicate” by mistake. On 15 September 2004 the applicant also submitted to the Ministry the rectified writ, without the “duplicate” mark. She referred to the District Court’s explanations of 9 September 2004. The Ministry received the applicant’s writ on 22 September 2004.\n15.  By letter of 8 October 2004, the Ministry requested the applicant to explain why she had submitted a duplicate of the writ.\n16.  On 30 December 2004 the applicant received the sum of money awarded to her under the judgment of 23 April 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3471", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6. At around midnight on 2 August 1998, a group of Roma, who were leaving a restaurant where they had attended a Romani circumcision celebration, were involved in a fight with Z.S., a wrestling champion who worked as a fitness instructor for the police force. Z.S. reported the incident to the local police and around ten police officers went to the restaurant in search of the alleged attackers. When they entered the restaurant, they allegedly started to assault the guests.\n7. According to the applicants, they were beaten with truncheons, punched and kicked. The fifth applicant said that he was grabbed by the hair and beaten all over his body; he was then handcuffed and taken to the police station where he was subjected to severe ill-treatment. The second applicant also complained that he had been beaten, despite his wife’s attempts to protect him. The second and fourth applicants said that they were taken to a police station where they were kept for several hours and beaten by the police officers, who repeatedly insulted them on account of their ethnic origin.\n8. The third applicant was seven months pregnant when she was beaten in the restaurant. Following the raid, the police were asked to arrange for her to be taken to hospital, but refused. She somehow managed to get to the hospital, but the doctors refused to examine her when they found out that her assailants had been police officers. She said that she was severely distressed and in pain throughout the night. The following day, she was examined in the same hospital, but no injuries or problems were detected.\n9. It was alleged that twenty other Roma asked for medical help that night, but they were all turned down as they could not pay for treatment.\n10. The next day, in response to an earlier police summons, the first applicant went to the police station where he was allegedly beaten for two hours and insulted on account of his ethnic origin. He said that some six police officers had hit him with a truncheon, and punched and kicked him. A gun had been held to his head, at which point he had falsely confessed to his involvement in the fight with Z.S.\n11. The applicants, in support of their application before the Court, provided photographs of bruises on their backs, heads and buttocks.\n(b)  The Government’s version of events\n12. At around 11.40 p.m. on 2 August 1998 the police officers on duty received a telephone call saying that four Roma, who had attended a circumcision party in a restaurant, had stopped a car and physically attacked the driver (Z.S.). Three police officers went to the scene. After Z.S. had identified the first applicant as being among the attackers, the police officers requested him to leave the group and get into the police car. Although the police officers did nothing to provoke the group, some fifty to eighty Roma started to throw stones and bottles causing facial injuries to one of the officers. The police car was also damaged. As the police officers were prevented from arresting the first applicant, who had fled the scene, and as they feared for their own safety, they radioed for backup. One of the officers fired two shots in the air to disperse the crowd. A patrol of five more officers arrived at the scene. Another two shots were fired in the air.\n13. As these attempts to restore order proved unsuccessful, the police officers used batons. After the crowd had been broken up, the police took various people, including the second and fifth applicants, to the pol", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3472", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kirovograd.\n5.  In January 2001 the applicant, a former military serviceman brought proceedings against A-0981 military unit, where he had served before retirement, seeking recovery of redundancy pay and compensation for his uniform. On 12 February 2001 the Military Court of Cherkassy Garrison (Військовий суд Черкаського гарнізону) found for the applicant and awarded him a total of 5,386 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) [1].\n6.  On 20 March 2001 the military unit concerned paid the applicant UAH 3,828[2].\n7.  On 17 May 2001 the Bailiffs’ Service of the Leninskiy District of Kirovograd (Відділ державної виконавчої служби Ленінського районного управління юстиції м. Кіровограда, hereafter “the Leninskiy Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of UAH 1,558[3], the outstanding amount of the court award.\n8.  Although the property and accounts of A-0981 military unit were frozen by the Leninskiy Bailiffs’ Service the funds obtained were insufficient for the payment of the amount due to the applicant.\n9.  On 26 March 2003 the Leninskiy Bailiffs’ Service forwarded the applicant’s writ of execution together with the enforcement case-file to the Bailiffs’ Service of the Oleksandrivskiy district of Kirovograd region (Відділ державної виконавчої служби Олександрівського районного управління юстиції Кіровоградської області, hereafter “the Oleksandrivskiy Bailiffs’ Service”).\n10.  According to a bank trasnsfer order produced by the Government, on 30 November 2004 the Oleksandrivskiy Bailiffs’ Service sent UAH 2,073[4] via postal transfer to an unspecified recipient or recipients. This sum corresponds to the total amount of the remaining debts owed to the applicant and Mr Kolesnik, the applicant in case no. 20824/02.\n11.  On 1 December 2004 the Oleksandrivskiy Bailiffs’ Service terminated the proceedings in the applicant’s enforcement case on the grounds that the judgment of 12 February 2001 had been executed in full. The applicant stated that he had not been informed of the above postal transfer and had not received any money as a result of it.\n12.  On 21 June 2007 the Oleksandrivskiy Bailiffs’ Service sent to the applicant the remaining amount of the court award by postal transfer. On the same day the applicant collected this money.\n13.  On 4 March 2003 the applicant brought proceedings against the Leninskiy Bailiffs’ Service claiming moral damages for its alleged inactivity and compensation for the devaluation of the sum awarded to him.\n14.  On 28 July 2003 the Leninskiy Court granted this claim in part and awarded the applicant UAH 1,000[5] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage incurred as the result of the Leninskiy Bailiffs’ Service’s failure to perform in time its duties set forth in the Law of 21 April 1999 “on Enforcement Proceedings”.  The Leninskiy Bailiffs’ Service appealed.\n15.  On 2 March 2005 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Кіровоградської області, hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment of 28 July 2003 and remitted the case for rehearing.\n16.  On 6 June 2005 the Leninskiy Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint due to his recurrent failure to appear in the court. On 27 September 2005 the Court of Appeal granted the applicant’s appeal against this decision, quashed it and remitted the case for fresh consideration. On 6 December 2005 the Supreme Court (Верховний Суд України) declared the Leninskiy Bailiffs’ Service’s appeal agains", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3473", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Szczecin.\n5.  On an unspecified date in 1993 two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant were instituted before the Szczecin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The applicant was charged with armed robbery. On 10 May 1994 the respective proceedings were joined.\n6.  On 26 October 1999 the Szczecin District Court gave judgment and convicted the applicant.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal.\n8.  On 16 February 2000 the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) remitted the case.\n9.  According to the applicant’s submissions, the court refused to send him copies of the relevant documents concerning the impugned proceedings. Because of this, he could not submit detailed information about the dates of hearings and the reasons for their adjournment.\n10.  On 28 February 2005 the Szczecin District Court again gave judgment and sentenced the applicant to three years and six months’ imprisonment.\n11.  According to the Government’s submissions, the first-instance judgment was upheld by the Regional Court on appeal and the proceedings terminated in July 2005.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with acting as part of an organised criminal group. The applicant has failed to produce any documents concerning this set of proceedings; he only stated that he had been convicted by a judgment of the Kraków Court of Appeal on 4 April 1996.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). He sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings in his case had been excessive and requesting an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN - approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).\n14.  On 13 January 2005 the Szczecin Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings, finding that there had been some periods of unjustified inactivity (lasting from several months to some three years) on the part of the Szczecin District Court. It awarded the applicant PLN 5,000 (approx. EUR 1,222) in just satisfaction. Referring to the amount of just satisfaction, the court relied on the fact that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings because he “had lodged numerous letters with the court” and “because of his state of health a number of hearings had to be adjourned”.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3474", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Poznań.\n5.  The applicant was detained pending trial from 18 January 2001 to 18 January 2005. During this period he corresponded with his lawyer.\n6.  The following envelopes sent to the applicant by his lawyer were marked “censored” in handwriting, stamped with the stamp of the Gorzów Wielkopolski Regional Prosecutor’s Office and signed in an illegible manner:\n1) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 5 February 2001, “censored” on 2 February 2001,\n2) the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored” on 23 March 2001,\n3) the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored” on 19 April 2001,\n4) the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored” on 26 April 2001,\n5) the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored” on 10 May 2001,\n6) the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored” on 31 May 2001,\n7) the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored” on 26 June 2001,\n8) the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored” on 8 June 2001,\n9) the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored” on 8 August 2001,\n10) the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored” on 31 May 2001,\n11) the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 10 August 2001 “censored” on 16 August 2001,\n12)  the envelope bearing a post office stamp of 16 August 2001 “censored” on 21 August 2001,\n13) the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored” on 7 September 2001,\n14) the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored” on 27 September 2001,\n15) the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored” on 5 October 2001,\n16)  the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored” on 11 October 2001,\n17) the envelope bearing no post office stamp, “censored” on 17 October 2001.\n7.  The applicant also submitted three other envelopes. Two of them bear a note “no censorship” (“bez cenzury”) followed by the stamp of the Office of the Prosecutor and an illegible signature. They also bear post office stamps of 22 March 2001 and 6 June 2001, respectively. The third one bears a stamp of the Office of the Prosecutor, a hand-written date of 15 March 2001 and an illegible signature with no information as to whether the contents had been censored.\n8.  The applicant submitted one of the “censored” envelopes to the District Court. On 24 February 2003 the District Court informed the Regional Prosecutor’s Office about the incident. On 14 March 2003 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office issued an explanatory note (“notatka służbowa”) stating that in spite of the word “censored” written on the envelope, the applicant’s correspondence had not been censored and a note “censored” on the envelope had probably been made by mistake.\n9.  The applicant continued to inform the authorities about the alleged censorship of his correspondence.\n10.  On 16 January 2004 the Regional Prosecutor who had put her signature on the envelopes (J.W.) made a declaration (“oświadczenie”) stating that she had never censored the applicant’s correspondence.\n11.  On 17 November 2003 the applicant requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against the Regional Prosecutor (J.W.) alleging censorship of his correspondence with his lawyer.\n12.  By a letter of 23 January 2004 the Regional Prosecutor informed the applicant that his request had been treated as a hierarchical complaint and that it had been found unsubstantiated.\n13.  On 18 February 2004 the applicant notified the police authorities of the offence committed by the Regional Prosec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3475", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Warsaw. 1.  Administrative proceedings\n(a)  Proceedings in which the applicant sought to have the expropriation decision declared null and void\n7.  In 1945 a factory owned by the applicant’s legal predecessor was de facto taken over by the State in the context of a countrywide campaign of nationalisation of industry. It was subsequently run by a State‑owned enterprise.\n8.  Pursuant to a decision given on 5 July 1966, the Ministry of Infrastructure stated that the factory and the land on which it was situated had become the property of the State under the provisions of the 1958 Act on Regulation of Legal Status of Properties Managed by the State.\n9.  In 1991 the applicant’s mother lodged an application with the Ministry of Industry to have the expropriation decision declared null and void under Article 156 of the Code of Administrative Procedure.\n10.  In March 1994 the applicant’s mother died. The applicant joined the proceedings as her legal successor.\n11.  In 1996 the Ministry found that it lacked competence to deal with the case and referred it to the Ministry of Construction. In January 1997 the case was referred to the Ministry of Housing as the Ministry of Construction had ceased to exist. In October 1997 that Ministry forwarded the case file to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for a decision.\n12.  On 27 October 1997 the applicant complained to the Supreme Administrative Court about the failure of the administration to rule on his 1991 application.\n13.  On 18 January 1997 the Minister of Internal Affairs declared that he was competent to deal with the case.\n14.  On 22 January 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court, having examined the applicant’s complaint, ordered the Minister of Internal Affairs to issue a decision concerning the case within one month from the date of the service of its judgment.\n15.  On 27 July 1999 the Minister of Internal Affairs, having gathered various documents concerning the legal status of the property, declared that the 1966 expropriation decision was null and void as it had been given in flagrant breach of the laws applicable to properties de facto taken over by the State.\n16.  On an unspecified date before August 1999 the State-owned enterprise was transformed into an independent public company, Izolacja, the structure and functioning of which were governed by the provisions of the Commercial Code. The State however retained a minority shareholding in the company. In August 1999 the Izolacja company, which was running the factory as the legal successor of the former State-owned enterprise, requested that the case be re‑examined. Subsequently, the Ministry summoned the parties to submit their further pleadings and documents.\n17.  On 17 April 2000 the Minister, having re-examined the case, upheld its previous decision and declared that the expropriation decision was null and void.\n18.  The public company in possession of the factory requested that the enforcement of this decision be stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings in which it had appealed against the decision of the Minister to the Supreme Administrative Court. On 12 September 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed this request. On 16 November 2000 the applicant’s request to have this decision set aside was dismissed by the same court.\n19.  On 12 January 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of 17 April 2000.\n(b)  Proceedings in which the applicant challenged the tran", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3476", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  According to reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch between June and August 2004 twenty-three businessmen were arrested in Andijan (Uzbekistan). In September 2004 twenty of their employees were detained in Tashkent. Another group of thirteen businessmen were arrested in Andijan in February 2005. All of them were accused of involvement with an organisation by the name of Akramia, charged with criminal offences and committed for trial.\n8.  The Uzbek government claimed that Akramia was an extremist religious group. They maintained that in his writings the group's leader, Akram Yuldashev, had called for the formation of an Islamic state in Uzbekistan and for the ousting of the legitimately elected State representatives. They also claimed that Akramia was a branch of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which was categorised as a terrorist organisation in Uzbekistan. In contrast, Akram Yuldashev always insisted that he had no interest in politics. He maintained that he had never called for the overthrow of the authorities or for the creation of an Islamic state. His writings did not touch upon political issues, but rather on general moral themes. A circle of sympathisers had formed around him, who tried to follow his view of Islam in their own lives. Akram Yuldashev's supporters argued that there was no such thing as an organised group known as Akramia. The name “Akramia” was derived by an Uzbek court in 1999 from Akram Yuldashev's first name. Furthermore, Akram Yuldashev and his supporters denied having any links with Hizb-ut-Tahrir.\n9.  The verdict in respect of the twenty-three businessmen was expected on 11 May 2005. However, its pronouncement was postponed. A group of supporters who gathered in front of the court building to protest the businessmen's innocence and demand justice were arrested on 11 and 12 May 2005.\n10.  In the early hours of 13 May 2005 armed men attacked a number of military barracks and government buildings in Andijan, killing and injuring several guards, and seizing weapons and a military vehicle. They broke into the city prison, where they freed the businessmen and hundreds of remand and convicted prisoners, and later occupied a regional government building on the main square and took a number of hostages.\n11.  At the same time thousands of unarmed civilians gathered in the main square, where many spoke out to demand justice and an end to poverty. In the early evening the security forces surrounded the demonstrators and started to shoot indiscriminately at the crowd. The demonstrators attempted to flee. According to witnesses, hundreds of people – including women and children – were killed. The Uzbek authorities deny responsibility for the deaths, blaming them on Islamic “extremist” organisations, such as Akramia and Hizb-ut-Tahrir, who were intent on overthrowing the government and creating an Islamic state in Uzbekistan.\n12.  Hundreds of people suspected of involvement in the 13 May events were detained and charged. The charges included “terrorism” and premeditated, aggravated murder – capital offences – as well as attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and organising mass disturbances. At least 230 people were convicted and sentenced to between twelve and twenty-two years' imprisonment for their alleged participation in the unrest. All trials except one were closed to the public. The defendants' relatives and international observers were denied access to the courtroom. The Organisation for Security and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3477", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  On 23 October 2002 the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv (hereinafter “the Dzerzhinsky Court”), upon the applicant’s claim, ordered the Department of the State Pension Fund in Dzerzhinsky District of Kharkiv (Дзержинське районне відділення Пенсійного Фонду України у м. Харків, hereinafter “the Pension Department”) to recalculate in Ukrainian hryvnas the applicant’s salary, which he received in 1985-1989 in Soviet roubles, in order to establish the correct amount of his pension according to the Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of 13 January 1993 (hereinafter “the Decree”). The defendant was also obliged to pay the applicant the recalculated amount as his regular pension.\n6.  This judgment became final on 23 November 2002 and the writ of execution was issued on 24 November 2002.\n7.  On 25 February 2003 the Bailiffs’ Office in Dzerzhinsky District of Kharkiv (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) issued the warrant for the enforcement of the judgment by 4 March 2003.\n8.  On 8 April 2003 the Bailiffs re-issued the warrant.\n9.  As the Pension Department twice submitted calculations of the applicant’s pension which were not based on the Decree, on 17 June and 28 August 2003 the Bailiffs fined the officials of the Pension Department for failure to enforce the judgment.\n10.  In December 2003 the applicant and the Bailiffs requested the Public Prosecutor of the Dzerzhinsky District of Kharkiv (hereinafter “the Public Prosecutor”) to institute criminal proceedings against the officials of the Pension Department for intentional non-enforcement of the judgment of 23 October 2002.\n11.  On 13 April 2004 the Public Prosecutor rejected this request for want of proof of a crime.\n12.  On 4 March 2005 the Dzerzhinsky District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against this decision.\n13.  On 23 April 2004, upon the applicant’s request, the Dzerzhinsky Court issued a ruling explaining the judgment of 23 October 2002. It indicated the coefficients that should be used by the Pension Department in order to recalculate the applicant’s pension according to the Decree.\n14.  The Pension Department did not appeal against this ruling within the statutory time-limit and the same court, by rulings of 14 June and 21 September 2005, returned the Department’s belated appeal without considering it.\n15.  During 2004-2005, following numerous written requests by the Bailiffs, the Pension Department submitted recalculations of the applicant’s pension, which were not based on the ruling of 23 April 2004.\n16.  On 6 February 2006 the bailiff personally handed to the official of the Pension Department the ruling of 23 April 2004 and requested him to enforce it by 13 February 2006. The bailiff drew up a written report.\n17.  On 10 February 2006 the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Pension Department, lodged with the Supreme Court a cassation appeal against the rulings of 14 June and 21 September 2005.\n18.  On 13 February 2006, following the request of the Public Prosecutor, the Bailiffs suspended the enforcement proceedings.\n19.  On 22 March 2006 the Head of the Bailiffs quashed this decision on the ground that lodging a cassation appeal in itself could not suspend the enforcement of the final judgment.\n20.  On 24 March 2006 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.\n21.  On 5 and 19 May 2006 the Bailiffs fined the officials of the Pension Department for failure to enforce the judgment of 23 October 2002 and the rulin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3478", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in the city of Kyiv, Ukraine.\n6.  On 14 August 2001 the applicant and Mr Kh. had a meeting with an acquaintance of the applicant, Mr S. According to the applicant, they left the city in Mr S.’s car and at some point they had an argument about the recovery of a debt that escalated into a fight. Mr Kh. hit Mr S. with an empty bottle and then the applicant stabbed the latter with a knife several times. According to the applicant, he had used his pocket knife and had done so solely in self-defence. Mr S. subsequently escaped.\n7.  The applicant and Mr Kh. took Mr S.’s personal documents, money and car keys, moved his car to the side of the road and left.\n8.  Mr S. was picked up bleeding on the side of the road by Mr and Mrs Sh., who took him first to a police post and then, escorted by police, to a hospital.\n9.  On 15 August 2001 the applicant was arrested.\n10.  On 16 August 2001 a lawyer, chosen by the applicant’s mother, was appointed to defend the applicant.\n11.  On 17 August 2001 the Boryspilskyy District Court of the Kyiv Region decided to keep the applicant in custody.\n12.  According to the applicant he was beaten by the police and forced to confess. He maintained that he had lodged complaints about this fact with the prosecutor’s office, but received no reply.\n13.  On 5 October 2001 the victim, Mr S., was questioned by the investigator.\n14.  On 18 October 2001 Mr S.’s lawyer requested that Mr S. not take part in confrontations due to his worsened state of health.\n15.  On 26 October 2001 the forensic medical examination concluded that the victim had about fifteen knife wounds on his chest and neck, including one deep wound in the right side of the chest, the latter being classified as a grievous bodily injury and the other wounds as light bodily harm.\n16.  On 30 October 2001 the investigator refused the applicant’s request for a confrontation to be organised with Mr S. on the ground that the latter was ill.\n17.  On 5 December 2001 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal held a hearing of the case. Mr S. participated at the beginning of the hearing, but during the break he felt unwell and was given urgent medical treatment. Mr S.’s lawyer requested that the court continue the examination of the case in Mr S.’s absence.\n18.  On 18 December 2001 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of first instance, sentenced the applicant and Mr Kh. to ten and eight years’ imprisonment respectively for attempted murder and robbery with violence. The court noted the version of events as presented by the applicant and Mr Kh. (see paragraphs 6 and 7 above). The court further established that the applicant and Mr Kh. had conspired to kill and rob Mr S. They had prepared the knife and empty glass bottle in advance and used them in the attempted murder. Since there were no other witnesses to the crime, the court based its findings about the way the crime had been committed and about the conspiracy to kill on the statements made by Mr S. during the pre-trial investigation:\n“Having passed the village of Bortnichi, Zh. [the applicant] asked him [the victim] to stop the car, and he did so. When the car had stopped he heard Zh. shouting “Stun” and felt a strong blow to the back of his head, and when the glass shattered around he realised that Kh. had hit him on the head with a bottle. At that moment Zh. started hitting him with something sharp in the chest, neck and head, and the pain caused him to lose consci", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3479", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant, Mrs Regina Juozaitienė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Kaunas. The second applicant, Mr Jonas Bikulčius, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Kaunas.\n8.  In the late evening of Friday 24 July 1998 the first applicant’s son, Dalius Juozaitis, and the second applicant’s son, Darius Bikulčius, were found dead in a car with single gunshot wounds to their backs. The deaths had occurred as the police tried to chase a Ford Escort (hereinafter “the car”) driven by a private individual, RM, the applicants’ sons being the passengers in the car. RM was not killed during the incident.\n9.  On 25 July 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against RM for manslaughter in regard to the deaths of the applicants’ sons (Article 109 of the Criminal Code as then in force) and for resisting the orders of the police (Article 201). The applicants submitted their civil claims and were recognised as complainants in those proceedings.\n10.  On 15 March 1999 the Kaunas City District Court convicted RM of resisting the lawful orders of the police, an offence under Article 201-1 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  The following account of the incident can be reconstructed from the evidence admitted by the court in those proceedings. On 24 July 1998, after 10.30 p.m., the police received a telephone call from a private individual, informing them about a car driving in the streets of Kaunas in breach of various road-traffic regulations.\n12.  Officers AM and AR submitted that they had been patrolling in police car no. 548 when they had heard the information about the Ford Escort on the police radio and had unsuccessfully tried to stop it at around 11 p.m. Officers AM and AR had followed the car, but had soon lost sight of it. AR submitted to the court that, to his knowledge, two passengers and a driver had been in the car.\n13.  The information about the car being driven in a dangerous manner was transmitted through the control centre to other patrol officers on duty, and two more policemen, NB and EP, in police vehicle no. 424, were involved in the chase.\n14.  They were joined by three more policemen, RZ, SG and JM, patrolling in police vehicle no. 427. These officers submitted to the court that they had received information about the car via the police radio at around 11 p.m. and had followed the order to arrest the driver. They had therefore arrived as reinforcements and had joined car no. 424 in chasing the Ford Escort, which was fleeing at about 130 to 140 kilometres per hour.\n15.  The two police cars had their light and sound signals turned on, and tried to block the Ford Escort, while orders to stop were given over the loudspeakers. However, the car tried to escape, attempting to push the police vehicles off the road.\n16.  RZ fired two warning shots into the air, but the car only accelerated.\n17.  A moment later, the driver of the car lost control of the vehicle, hitting the fence of a building. The car was brought to a halt. Police vehicle no. 427 stopped several metres behind the car, and vehicle no. 424 moved to its left, trying to block its way. Suddenly, the car started moving backwards, damaging police vehicle no. 427. The policemen left their vehicles and ran towards the car, shouting and gesturing at the driver to surrender. The Ford Escort turned right, hitting officer RZ, and began to drive away. An expert medical examination later confirmed that RZ had suffered slight bodily injuri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3480", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  In a final decision of 28 June 1993, the Bucharest County Court convicted the applicant of fraud, sentenced her to six years’ imprisonment and awarded damages to the victim. The court did not address the argument that the offence had been pardoned by Decree no. 11/1988.\n6.  On 5 August 1993 the applicant was placed in detention, where she remained until 22 July 1994.\n7.  In a final decision of 3 October 1995, the Supreme Court of Justice acting on an application of the Procurator General (recurs în anulare), quashed the final decision of 28 June 1993 and ended the criminal trial against the applicant on the ground that the offences committed had been pardoned. It upheld the remainder of the decision.\n8.  On 6 March 1998 the applicant lodged an action with the Bucharest County Court, under Articles 998-999 of the Civil Code, seeking compensation from the State for the damage caused by the “severe miscarriage of justice which had led to her illegal detention for almost one year”. She claimed 200,000,000 Romanian lei (ROL).\n9.  The case was tried by ten courts, corresponding to three levels of jurisdiction. The courts examined the case either under Article 504 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings (“CCP”) or under the Civil Code. In her pleas the applicant invoked the Civil Code supplemented by the CCP provisions above.\n10.  In a final decision of 28 January 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the applicant’s action. It considered that the facts of the case allowed for the application of Article 504 of the CCP as interpreted by the Constitutional Court’s decision no. 45 of 10 March 1998 (see paragraph 18 below). However, it considered, for the first time, that the applicant should have brought her claims within one year from the date on which her conviction had been quashed (Article 505 of the CCP). As she failed to do so, her action was time-barred.\n11.  On 17 February 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice delivered an attestation informing the applicant that her action had been rejected as time‑barred.\n12.  On 7 November 2003 the applicant obtained a copy of the final decision of 28 January 2003, after several unsuccessful attempts and complaints lodged with the Ministry of Justice and the Supreme Court of Justice concerning the unreasonable delay in the drafting of the court decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3481", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Lensk in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic of the Russian Federation.\n6.  In 2003 the applicant brought an action against the Government, seeking to recover the monetary value of a State promissory note for purchasing of a Russian-made car.\n7.  On 4 March 2003 the Lenskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic found for the applicant and awarded her 138,967 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation and RUB 2,802.32 in reimbursement of the court fee, payable by the Ministry of Finance.\n8.  On 21 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (hereinafter – “the Supreme Court”) dismissed the appeal by the Ministry of Finance and upheld the judgment. The Supreme Court rejected the Ministry’s argument that the first-instance court had unlawfully refused to apply the Commodity Bonds Act governing redemption of promissory notes for purchasing of cars.\n9.  On 15 May 2003 the Ministry of Finance lodged an application for supervisory review before the Presidium of the Supreme Court. It claimed that the courts had unlawfully refused to apply the provisions of the Commodity Bonds Act and the 2001 State Programme for Redemption of Promissory Notes. It is unclear whether any procedural decision was taken on that application.\n10.  On 28 June 2004 the Ministry of Finance introduced a new application for supervisory review, invoking the same arguments. According to the Government, the proceedings on the applicant’s claim had been previously “suspended” on 23 October 2003 because the Supreme Court had sent a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court had been requested to decide on compatibility of the Commodity Bonds Act with the Constitution.\n11.  On 7 October 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court granted the Ministry’s application for supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 4 March 2003, as upheld on 21 April 2003, and dismissed the applicant’s claim in full. In so deciding, the Presidium noted that the courts had failed to take into account the provisions of the 2001 State Programme for Redemption of Promissory Notes which had extended the period of redemption until 31 December 2004. In the Presidium’s assessment, that failure amounted to a substantial violation of the material law warranting re-consideration of the case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3482", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Donetsk. At the material time he was a tax inspector.\n5.  On 4 July 1997 the Kyivsky District Court of Donetsk (hereinafter “the District Court”) fined the applicant UAH 225 under an administrative procedure for a corruption offence. The applicant was consequently dismissed from his position.\n6.  On 17 November 1997 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed this judgment and terminated the proceedings.\n7.  On 22 May 2000 the District Court awarded the applicant UAH 500 in compensation for moral damage to be paid by the State Treasury of Ukraine.\n8.  This judgment was not appealed and became final on 2 June 2000.\n9.  In June 2000 the Kyivsky Office of the Bailiffs’ Service in Donetsk initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n10.  On 22 October 2004 the writ of execution was transferred to the Pechersky Office of the Bailiffs’ Service in Kyiv, which on 7 December 2004 refused to open the enforcement proceedings and transferred the writ to the Department of the Bailiffs’ Service of the Ministry of Justice (hereinafter “the Department”).\n11.  On 24 January 2005 the Department refused to open the enforcement proceedings on the ground that it fell outside of its competence.\n12.  Since May 2005 the enforcement proceedings are pending before the Donetsk Department of the Bailiffs’ Service.\n13.  The judgment of 22 May 2000 remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3483", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 13 March 1998, the applicant and his friend S. D., both of Roma ethnic origin, were stopped by two police officers near the village of Balvan on suspicion of having stolen two sheep. The police officers, without asking any questions, immediately started to beat him and his friend on their heads and bodies with their truncheons, which caused bleeding from the applicant’s mouth and nose. They were then put into the police car and driven to the village of Tarinci, where the theft had allegedly occurred. One of the police officers called over the owner of the sheep in order to confront him with the applicant. The police officer started to swear at him and said: “All gypsies will remember me forever. I can sacrifice you all.” The applicant was handcuffed and beaten by police officers with truncheons and by the owner of the sheep, who was using the branch of a tree.\n7. Around 9 p.m. the applicant and his friend were taken to the police station, where they were made to lie on the ground in front of the door and beaten by five police officers. Once inside the police station, they were tied to a bench in the hall and beaten up again. As the applicant was terribly thirsty, he asked for some water, but the reply was “there is no water for gypsies!” They remained tied to a bench all night; they were released in the morning.\n8. After his release on 14 March 1998, the applicant went the same date to the Emergency Aid Unit of Štip Hospital (the “hospital”), where a plaster cast was put on his broken left arm. As he had no money to pay for the medical assistance, he used his cousin’s medical identity card and therefore his name, instead of the applicant’s name, appeared in the hospital’s register. In the hospital’s register, the injuries were described as “fracturae”.\n(b)  The Government’s version of events\n9. On 11 March 1998, after 9 p.m., the applicant and his two friends, S. D. and D. R., hired a taxi in Štip and went to the village of Tarinci with the intention of stealing sheep from K. P. They told the taxi driver that they were going to collect two sheep from a relative and sell them in Vinica.\n10. On arrival in the village, the applicant and his friends broke into the cellar of K. P.’s house, stole two sheep, put them in the taxi and then headed for Vinica. In Vinica, they went to the Roma quarter and tried to sell the sheep for 8,000 denars. They refused an offer of 6,000 denars and headed back towards Štip with the sheep in the taxi.\n11. At about 11 p.m. the police stopped the taxi in the vicinity of the village of Dolni Balvan in a routine check. Their suspicions were aroused by contradictory explanations given by the occupants of the car about the sheep. The police requested information on the radio as to any reported theft.\n12. At about 10.50 p.m. K. P. had reported the theft of his two sheep. A police van arrived and the taxi driver was instructed to follow it to Tarinci. At about 11.30 p.m., they arrived in Tarinci. The applicant and his friends were instructed to unload the sheep. K. P. arrived at the scene and began to swear; he hit the applicant with a stick several times on the upper body and claimed that the applicant had stolen livestock and property from him before. The police ordered K. P. to stand back and prevented any further blows to the applicant.\n13. At 11.45 p.m. the police took the applicant and his friends back in the police van to Štip. The applicant, his friends and the taxi driver were interviewed. The applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3484", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Donetsk.\n5.  On 7 November 2000 and 28 February 2003 the Kuybyshevsky District Court of Donetsk (hereinafter “the Kuybyshevsky Court”) ordered \nthe State-owned mining company “Zhovtnevy Rudnyk” (Z.) to pay the applicant, respectively, UAH 3,641[2] and 4,403[3] in salary arrears.\n6.  On 18 December 2000 and 22 April 2003 the Kuybyshevsky Bailiffs’ Office of Donetsk instituted enforcement proceedings.\n7.  In October 2004 the execution writs were transferred to the Voroshylivsky Bailiffs’ Office of Donetsk.\n8.  In May 2003 Z. was liquidated and the State-owned company “Donetskvugillya” assumed its debts.\n9.  In December 2004 “Donetskvugillya” was divided into three State-owned companies “Donetska Vugilna Energetychna Kompaniya”, “Donetska Vugilna Koksova Kompaniya” and the coal-mine “Gorkogo”.\n10.  During January – September 2005 the applicant was paid UAH 2,456[4] under the judgment of 7 November 2000 and UAH 2,781[5] under the judgment of 28 February 2003.\n11.  According to the ruling of 31 March 2006 of the Kuybyshevsky Court, “Donetska Vugilna Energetychna Kompaniya” was assigned as a debtor.\n12.  In the remainder, the judgments given in the applicant’s favour are still unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3485", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Visby, Sweden. At the time of the events he was living in Romania.\n6.  On 4 February, 20 and 29 March 1993 the Romanian police took a statement from the applicant in connection with criminal complaints lodged against him by his business partners concerning alleged fraud.\n7.  On 13 April 1993 criminal proceedings against the applicant were opened and he was placed in police custody on charges of fraud through his business transactions.\nThe next day, the prosecutor attached to the Supreme Court of Justice ordered the applicant's remand in custody.\n8.  On 1 November 1993 the prosecutor attached to the Supreme Court of Justice committed the applicant for trial before the Bucharest County Court.\n9.  On 6 December 1993 the Bucharest County Court held the first hearing in the case. The applicant's lawyer asked for a rescheduling in order to prepare the defence. Several other hearings were scheduled for the taking of evidence. On several occasions the County Court postponed the case due to shortcomings in the summoning procedure.\nOn 15 November 1994 a witness's testimony was heard, in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer.\n10.  In a judgment of 29 November 1994, the County Court convicted the applicant of fraud, sentenced him to four years' imprisonment and awarded civil damages to the victims. It also ordered the applicant's expulsion, after having served the sentence, given his Swedish nationality.\n11.  On 11 May 1995 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the applicant and remitted the case to the County Court for a new trial on the merits. It found that the court of first instance had not clarified all the relevant facts and that it had not examined all the charges against the applicant, as formulated by the prosecutor on 1 November 1993.\n12.  Between 27 June 1995 and 21 January 2000 some forty hearings were scheduled before the Bucharest County Court, the case being repeatedly adjourned for failure to properly summon the parties, the absence of the parties or the absence of the prosecution file. On 30 April 1997 the case was adjourned in order to allow the applicant to hire a new lawyer.\nThe applicant filed motions for bias against the judges of the County Court on 20 November 1996, 18 June and 13 August 1997. They were all dismissed.\n13.  On 21 January 2000 the Bucharest County Court, after reassessing the evidence adduced in the case, again convicted and sentenced the applicant to four years' imprisonment, with an obligation to pay civil damages.\n14.  On 16 October 2000, upon an appeal by the applicant, the Bucharest Court of Appeal ended the trial, as the criminal charges against the applicant had become time-barred. After reassessing the evidence and based on its findings, the Court of Appeal recalculated the amount of civil damages to be awarded to the victims.\n15.  In a final decision of 12 March 2002, the Supreme Court of Justice, after reassessing the evidence in the case, dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant against the decision of 16 October 2000.\n16.  On 25 October 2002 the Procurator‑General lodged an application with the Supreme Court of Justice to have the part of the final decision of 12 March 2002 concerning the expulsion order quashed (recurs în anulare).\nIn a final decision of 7 April 2003, the Supreme Court allowed the extraordinary appeal, quashed the part of the final decision of 12 March 2002 concerning the expulsion order and set asid", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3486", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant settled in Bulgaria in 1992. On 9 April 1996 he married the second applicant there. Shortly after the marriage he was granted a permanent residence permit. Their daughter, the third applicant, was born in Bulgaria on 24 May 1996. Before 2005 the first applicant worked as a driver for a limited liability company in Plovdiv.\n6.  On 8 June 2005 the Regional Director of Internal Affairs in Plovdiv made an order for the first applicant’s expulsion. He also deprived him of the right to reside in Bulgaria and excluded him from Bulgarian territory for a period of ten years, “on the ground that [he] present[ed] a serious threat to national security and in view of the reasons set out in proposal no. S‑6923/ 08.06.2005 by the head of the security department of the Plovdiv Regional Directorate of Internal Affairs”. The Director’s decision relied on section 42(1) and (2) and section 42a(1) of the 1998 Aliens Act, taken in conjunction with section 10(1)(1) and (1)(3) (see paragraphs 18 and 20 below). No factual grounds were given, in accordance with section 46(3) of the Act (see paragraph 23 below). The order further provided that the first applicant was to be detained until it could be enforced. Finally, it stated that it was subject to appeal to the Minister of Internal Affairs, but not subject to judicial review, in line with section 46(2) of the Act, and that it was immediately enforceable, in accordance with section 44(4) of the Act (see paragraphs 19 and 22 below).\n7.  At 6.30 a.m. on 9 June 2005 the first applicant was summoned to a police station in Plovdiv, where he was served with the order and detained with a view to his expulsion. He was deported to Turkey the same day, without being allowed to get in touch with his wife and daughter or a lawyer.\n8.  Once in Turkey, the first applicant hired a lawyer in Bulgaria with the help of his wife – the second applicant –, and on 16 June 2005 appealed to the Minister of Internal Affairs. He said that he had had an established family life in Bulgaria for many years and complained that while being held at the police station on 9 June 2005 he had not been informed why he was considered a threat to national security. Nor had this become apparent from the decision to expel him, which had merely referred to the legal grounds on which it was made. The first applicant further complained that he had not been apprised of the proposal which served as the basis for the decision. All of this amounted to a failure to give reasons, in breach of the rules of administrative procedure.\n9.  In a letter of 30 June 2005 sent to the first applicant’s former address in Bulgaria, the head of the complaints department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs informed him that the Minister had dismissed the appeal in a decision of 29 June 2005, because the impugned order had been made by a competent authority, in due form, in compliance with the applicable substantive and procedural rules and in conformity with the aim of the law.\n10.  On 20 July 2005 the first applicant sought judicial review of the Minister’s order by the Supreme Administrative Court. He argued that no reasons had been given for the order, depriving him of any protection against arbitrariness because he had been unable to discover which actions on his part had been deemed a threat to national security. He also argued that the measures against him had interfered with his family life. However, the authorities had disregarded this and had ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3487", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Mr Aleksandr Dorozhko, the applicant in application no. 14659/04 (“the first applicant”), was born in 1960. Mr Vyacheslav Pozharskiy, the applicant in application no. 16855/04 (“the second applicant”), was born in 1981. Both of them are currently serving prison sentences.\n5.  The applicants were arrested around midnight on the night of 8 to 9 November 2002. They were initially suspected of having caused grievous bodily harm and of temporary unauthorised use of other persons’ movable property (cars). Subsequently, the applicants were also charged with robbery.\n6.  On 20 November 2002 the Tallinn City Court (linnakohus) refused to extend the applicants’ detention. The second applicant was released. The first applicant, however, was not released by the police; he was kept under arrest and declared under suspicion of an offence of threatening behaviour. On 22 November 2002 the City Court authorised his further detention.\n7.  In the meantime, on 20 November 2002, the police chief inspector I. P. ordered that a team of investigators be set up for the criminal case concerned. The team consisted of I. P. himself as the head of the team and three other senior police inspectors: L., G. and K.\n8.  In the submission of the Government, the further criminal investigation was practically solely carried out by police investigator L., while only a few procedures were performed by investigators G. and K. The criminal case file did not contain any indication that I. P. personally performed any investigative actions or that he issued any instructions or guidelines to the members of the team.\n9.  Nevertheless, the first applicant was informed by the Tallinn Police Prefecture and the Public Prosecutor’s Office during the pre-trial investigation, in response to his complaints, that I. P. was a member of the team of investigators set up for the criminal case concerned and he had the powers to conduct all investigative activities.\n10.  On 14 March 2003 the Lääne County Court (maakohus) authorised the second applicant’s detention until 14 May 2003 in different criminal proceedings not related to the present case.\n11.  In the meantime, on 3 February and again on 29 April 2003, after the Public Prosecutor’s Office had amended the charges, the applicants were committed for trial by the Tallinn City Court. The case was heard by a court composed of a professional judge, E. P., and two lay judges. The hearings before the City Court took place on several dates.\n12.  At a City Court hearing on 30 May 2003 the first applicant said in his closing statement that because he had refused to cooperate with the police investigators B., I. P. and K., the charges against him had been changed. He also said that although a judge had ordered his release, police investigators I. P. and K. had not released him from the police cell but had detained him again on suspicion of threatening behaviour.\n13.  On 30 May 2003 the City Court convicted the applicants of robbery and temporary unauthorised use of other persons’ movable property. The first applicant was also convicted of an offence of threatening behaviour. The first applicant was sentenced to nine years’ and the second applicant to seven years’ imprisonment.\n14.  The applicants and the first applicant’s lawyer appealed against the judgment. The applicants in their appeals challenged, inter alia, the impartiality of the City Court’s judge E. P., as her husband, I. P., had headed the team of investigators which had been set up for", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3488", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  On 28 August 2000 the applicant was detained on suspicion of having committed a crime punishable under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (attempted kidnapping by a group). A report on his detention stated that eyewitnesses, including victims, had identified him as the perpetrator and that other grounds existed for suspecting him of having committed the crime.\n8.  On 30 August 2000 an investigator ordered him to be detained pending trial pursuant to Article 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigator took into account the dangerousness and seriousness of the offence, the risk of the applicant’s absconding and obstructing the investigation, and the need to examine his implication in other similar crimes. Next day, the order was upheld by the acting prosecutor of the north-east administrative district of Moscow.\n9.  On 7 September 2000 the applicant was charged on several counts, including the use of violence dangerous to life against a State official in the performance of his duties, attempted aggravated kidnapping by an organised group and conspiracy to murder. The investigation established that the applicant had entered into agreement with P., the head of an organised criminal group acting in Moscow and the Moscow Region, and had commissioned him in January and then in February 1999 to beat F. and T., who had occupied senior positions in the Customs office. F. had been beaten up by three persons, the identity of one of whom had not been established by the investigation, with baseball bats in the porch of his apartment block; he had suffered open craniocerebral trauma as a result. T. had been beaten up and had received knife wounds. The investigation also established that later in 1999 the applicant had commissioned the same organised group to kidnap Sh., for the purpose of blackmail. Each time the applicant had paid P. remuneration. He had allegedly acted on the instructions of a person whose identity had not been established by the investigation. As well as these three criminal cases joined into one case, the latter was joined with one more case of infliction of bodily harm involving the same organised group.\n10.  On 23 October and 1 November 2000 the investigator ordered that the term of the applicant’s pre-trial detention be extended. He stated, inter alia, that it was necessary to carry out a range of investigation measures in order to establish the identity of other persons involved in the kidnapping of Sh. and to ascertain the applicant’s participation in that crime, to finalise the preparation of the charges and to enable the applicant to examine the materials of the case file. The requests contained the circumstances of the crimes, as established by the investigation, and the description of evidence collected by the investigation. On 26 October 2000 the prosecutor of the north-east administrative circuit of Moscow approved the order of 23 October 2000 and extended the term of the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 24 November 2000. The investigator’s order of 1 November 2000 was supported by the prosecutor of the north-east administrative circuit of Moscow and the prosecutor of Moscow and was approved, on 8 November 2000, by a deputy prosecutor general, who extended the term of the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 24 February 2001.\n11.  The applicant’s advocate challenged the detention as unlawful and unjustified. By a decision of 28 November 2000 a ju", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3489", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  All forty-three applicants are Ukrainian nationals who live in the Lugansk Region. They are represented by Mr Nikolay Kozyrev.\n5.  The forty-two applicants (see Annex) are/were employees or relatives of employees of State-owned mining companies. During 1999 - 2003 the Krasny Luch Court rendered decisions the applicants’ favour concerning the recovery of salary and/or social benefits arrears, which were enforced in full in 2004 - 2005 with the exception of the judgment in favour of Mr Korniyenko, which remains unenforced (see Annex for details).\n6.  Some of the applicants attempted to claim compensation against the Bailiffs’ Service for the delay in the enforcement of the judgments given in their favour, however, these attempts have been to no avail.\n7.  After the institution of the Convention proceedings, Mr Boiko Vladimir Ivanovich, Mr Bakushev Valentin Ivanovich, and Mr Butorin Viktor Nikolayevich died. Their widows, Mrs Boiko Valentina Iosifovna, Mrs Bakusheva Tamara Trofimovna, and Butorina Irina Nikolayevna, informed the Court that they wished to pursue the applications of their late husbands.\n8.  The 43rd applicant, Mrs Melnikova Inessa Gennadiyevna, is a former employee of the collective agricultural enterprise “Krasnoluchsky” (KSP). The decision given by the Krasny Luch Court on 26 December 2001 ordering KSP to pay her UAH 3,519 in salary arrears was enforced in full on 4 April 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3490", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Skopje.\n6.  On 21 January 1997 a vacancy announcement for a permanent post of teacher in a school in Skopje (“the school”) was advertised in a daily newspaper. The applicant was among the candidates who applied for the post. Among the post requirements specified by the vacancy announcement was a VII/I level of education.\n7. On 30 January 1997 the school recruited Ms V.M. for the post advertised.\n8. After unsuccessfully challenging that decision before the school’s internal bodies, the applicant brought a civil action before the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) requesting annulment of the school’s decision to appoint Ms V.M. as a teacher. He claimed that Ms V.M. did not meet the post requirements concerning the level of education.\n9. On 10 March 1998 the first-instance court accepted the applicant’s claim and annulled the school’s decision recruiting Ms V.M. It found that the successful candidate had a VI/I level of education and, accordingly, did not meet the post requirements as set forth in the vacancy announcement. It also ordered the school to make a new choice from among the candidates who met the post requirements (“the order”). Lastly, it ordered the school and Ms V.M. jointly to reimburse the applicant the trial costs (“the costs order”).\n10. On 9 November 1998 the Skopje Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision and dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that the first-instance court had wrongly applied the law, in particular the Primary Education Act (Закон за основнотo образование) in force at the time, under which an individual with a VI/I level of education could be recruited for the type of post involved. Moreover, that court found that the school’s decision of 10 January 1997 ordering recruitment (одлука за потреба за засновање на работен однос) had confirmed that a VI/I level of education was required for recruitment. It concluded that the mere factual error made in the vacancy announcement, which called for a VII/I level of education, did not have any impact on Ms V.M.’s statutory right to apply for and to be appointed to the vacant post.\n11. On 28 February 2001 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law (ревизија). It overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and confirmed the first-instance court’s decision that the selected candidate had not fulfilled the post requirements as advertised.\n12. On 21 May 2001 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings. On 10 July 2001 the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the enforcement court”) ordered the school to enforce both orders included in the first-instance court’s decision.\n13. On 5 December 2001 the school appealed. On 23 April 2002 the enforcement court partly upheld the school’s appeal, setting aside the order. It noted that the school had in the meantime (on 25 April 2001) made a new selection, reappointing Ms V.M. to the vacant post. The court dismissed the appeal concerning the costs order.\n14. On 6 November 2002 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant. It found that a candidate had been recruited following a new procedure. As to the applicant’s argument that the successful candidate had not met the requirements for the post, the Court of Appeal, in the context of enforcement proceedings, found the challenge ill-founded, and instructed the applicant that if he wished to challenge the appointment, it was open to him to brin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3491", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lived in Tver.\n7.  On 18 July 2000 the investigating authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and another person. They suspected them of drug trafficking. On the same date the applicant was detained.\n8.  On 21 July 2000 he was released.\n9.  On 23 November 2000 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were severed from the proceedings against the other accused.\n10.  On 24 November 2000 a public prosecutor charged the applicant in absentia and ordered his arrest and detention. The applicant was charged with the purchase of 0.5263 grams of heroin on two occasions and its subsequent sale.\n11.  On 27 November 2000 the applicant was put on a list of persons wanted by the police.\n12.  On 14 April 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on the basis of the prosecutor’s order of 24 November 2000. The order to take him into custody was served on the applicant but he refused to countersign it.\n13.  On 25 April 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint with a court about his arrest on 14 April 2001. Although a letter of 28 May 2001 from the court confirmed that a judge had received the complaint, it appears that the complaint was not examined.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s mother filed a complaint claiming that his detention was unlawful.\n15.  On 6 May 2001 the prosecutor of the Moskovskiy District of Tver dismissed the complaint on the following grounds:\n“The preventive measure was applied to [Mr] Fursenko on valid grounds. At present there are no reasons to change the preventive measure.”\n16.  On 11 May 2001, 27 days after the arrest, the investigating authorities served the charges on the applicant and questioned him.\n17.  Having finished the investigation, on 14 May 2001 the investigating authorities referred the bill of indictment to the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver for trial.\n18.  On 23 May 2001 the Moskovskiy District Court of Tver joined the criminal proceedings against the applicant to criminal proceedings against another accused and ordered that the preventive measure should remain unchanged.\n19.  On 18 June 2001, in the course of the first court hearing, the applicant asked for leave to appoint his mother as a representative. The application was granted.\n20.  In the hearing the applicant also asked for the case to be referred back for additional investigation, and for his release pending trial. He also complained of a number of procedural irregularities. The Moskovskiy District Court of Tver did not grant either of the applications. The court held, inter alia:\n“In the course of the hearing [Mr] Fursenko applied for the case to be referred back for additional investigation, ... asked for the preventive measure to be modified and for an obligation not to leave his place of residence to be imposed instead of detention...\n[Mr] Fursenko is charged with a particularly grave offence; ... the preventive measure is applied having regard to the personality of [Mr] Fursenko, who was previously convicted of a grave offence; no exceptional circumstances preventing [Mr] Fursenko from being isolated were presented to the court. ...\nBreaches of the terms for questioning the accused committed at the preliminary investigation may not be accepted as a ground for altering the preventive measure in respect of [Mr] Fursenko, who is charged with a particularly grave offence.”\n21.  The applicant appealed on the grounds, inter alia, that the preventive measure had", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3492", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  The applicant was a party to a civil dispute with her former husband over a flat which they occupied under a tenancy agreement. The Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow twice rendered judgments unfavourable to the applicant but the Moscow City Court quashed them on appeals and remitted the case for fresh examinations.\n8.  The new hearing of the case was set for 14 May 2002. The Nagatinskiy District Court was composed of Ms F. (presiding judge), Ms B. and Mr S. (lay assessors). Prior to that, on 6 March 2001 in accordance with Section 5 of the Lay Assessors Act the acting President of the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow assigned the above two lay assessors to sit with judge F.\n9.  Before the court started to examine the claims, the applicant challenged the composition of the bench. She alleged a breach of rules on the appointment of lay assessors in that the lay assessors Ms B. and Mr S. had not been drawn by lot contrary to the requirements of the Federal Law on the Lay Assessors of the Federal Courts of General Jurisdiction (Федеральный Закон «О народных заседателях федеральных судов общей юрисдикции в Российской Федерации»). However, the applicant’s motion of challenge was rejected. No breach of the rules governing the calling of lay assessors was established.\n10.  At the next hearing of the case on 18 June 2002 the lay assessors Ms B. and Mr S. were absent.\n11.  On 1 July 2002 the presiding judge F. in accordance with Section 9 of the Lay Assessors Act “drew lots” among the lay assessors Ms B. and Mr S. assigned to her on 6 March 2001 by the acting President of the Nagatinskiy District Court, and chose both of them for sitting at the hearing of the applicant’s case.\n12.  On 1 July 2002 the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow composed of Ms F. (presiding judge), Ms B. and Mr S. (lay assessors), dismissed the applicant’s action.\n13.  The applicant appealed against the judgment. In her grounds for appeal the applicant again raised the issue of the lay assessors being appointed in breach of rules set forth in the Lay Assessors Act. In particular, she submitted that the case file did not contain the record of selection of the lay assessors Mr S. and Ms B.\n14.  On 30 January 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The applicant’s argument about the lack of record of the selection of lay assessors in the case file was found in itself insufficient for quashing of the judgment on appeal. The court did not go into further examination of the applicant’s allegation.\n15.  The applicant subsequently produced documentary evidence showing that in the course of 2002 the lay assessor Mr S. sat in court in unrelated civil cases with the judge F. on 5 and 30 April, 14, 23 and 24 May, 5, 19 and 27 June, 1 July, 1, 11 and 12 November, 19 and 30 December. The applicant also produced documentary evidence showing that in the course of 2002 the lay assessor Ms B. sat on the bench with the judge F. in unrelated cases on 4 March, 14 May, 5 and 27 June, 1 July, 4 and 17 October.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3493", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in the city of Grozny in the Chechen Republic.\n7.  At the material time the applicant and her family lived in Grozny, in a private household comprising two houses at 76 Voronezhskaya Street.\n8.  On 12 May 2001 the applicant’s son Isa Kaplanov, born in 1965, his wife, Melina Mezhidova, the applicant’s son-in-law, Ruslan Sadulayev, born in 1962, her daughter Lidia Kaplanova and their neighbour Movsar Musitov (also spelled Musaitov), who had come to visit them, were at home. The applicant was away and therefore her account of the events of that date was based on eyewitness statements of her family members.\n9.  At about 10.00 a.m. a group of approximately 20 federal servicemen arrived at the applicant’s household in six armoured personnel carriers (APCs). The identification number of one of the vehicles was 40-42, whilst the other carriers had no such numbers on them. The servicemen in camouflage uniforms were armed with AK-47 machine guns, SVD carabines and pistols. They had masks on, except for two officers in command. Those two officers had portable radio transmitters. All the servicemen spoke Russian without any accent. Ten of them entered the courtyard of the applicant’s household whilst ten others stayed near the APCs.\n10.  The servicemen broke down the door of one of the houses, in which there were the applicant’s son, her son-in-law and Movsar Musitov, and searched the house, without presenting any documents to authorise their actions. According to the applicant, during the search the soldiers asked if the three men had drugs, arms or US dollars. They also allegedly demanded gold and money.\n11.  The applicant’s daughter and Isa Kaplanov’s wife, who were in the other house at that moment, heard the noise, ran out to the courtyard and saw five or six servicemen there and several other soldiers inside the house with their relatives. The servicemen prevented the women from entering that house. They were hostile and aggressive. Some time later the servicemen left the house and forced Isa Kaplanov, Ruslan Sadulayev and Movsar Musitov outside. They ordered the three men to stand against the wall and checked their passports.\n12.  According to the applicant, the servicemen spent about 30 minutes in her courtyard and then left, having taken her son, her son-in-law and Movsar Musitov away. They told the applicant’s daughter that they would check the three men’s identities and release them. The servicemen then put the applicant’s relatives and Movsar Musitov into the APCs and drove off in the direction of the centre of Grozny. The applicant submitted that the only road to the centre of Grozny had been blocked by a federal military check-point, but the APCs openly passed through it.\n13.  The applicant further relied on Movsar Musitov’s statements to the effect that the three men had been taken to the Staropromyslovskiy District Temporary Department of the Interior of Grozny (Старопромысловский временный отдел внутренних дел г. Грозного – “the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD”) and interrogated. The interrogators did not introduce themselves or disclose what public bodies they represented. The three men were allegedly told that there was a report stating that they had been detained at the Staropromyslovskiy military check-point for insulting federal servicemen.\n14.  The applicant’s two relatives and Movsar Musitov spent a night in a cell, along with another person. On 13 May 2001 at about 11.30 a.m. Isa Kaplano", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3494", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the town of Novovoronezh in the Voronezh Region.\n5.  The applicant was entitled to a disability allowance and commodity benefits. She sued the local Social Security Committee for the unpaid allowance and benefits, and claimed their re-adjustment.\n6.  By judgment of 16 July 2003, the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region awarded the applicant 22,109.75 Russian roubles (RUB) for the period from 1 July 2002 to 31 July 2003. On 14 October 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant received the money due to her on 7 June 2005. On 5 September 2005 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 5,552.02 as compensation for inflationary losses caused by the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 16 July 2003, as upheld on 14 October 2003. It appears that the compensation award has not been paid to the applicant.\n7.  By judgment of 5 January 2004, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 13,971.25 for the period from 1 August to 31 December 2003. This judgment became final on 15 January 2004. It was enforced on 4 August 2005.\n8.  On 15 April 2004 the Town Court increased the applicant’s monthly allowance to RUB 5,664.84 and awarded her RUB 9,494.52 in arrears for the period from 1 January to 31 March 2004. The judgment became final on 26 April 2004. It was enforced on 25 August 2005.\n9.  On 30 September 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 9,494.52. On 11 October 2004 the judgment became final. The applicant received the money on 25 August 2005.\n10.  By judgment of 15 November 2005, the Town Court awarded RUB 5,700.35 as compensation for inflationary losses in respect of the sums awarded to the applicant on 5 January, 15 April and 30 September 2004. It appears that the compensation award has not been paid to the applicant.\n11.  By judgment of 16 February 2004, the Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 4,973.57. The judgment became final on 26 February 2004. Apparently, it remains without enforcement.\n12.  On 6 September 2004 the Town Court awarded RUB 2,272.30 to the applicant and increased her monthly commodity benefits to RUB 679.78. The judgment became final on 17 September 2004. It appears that on 16 July 2004 the applicant received RUB 500 in execution of that judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3495", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in İstanbul.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 5 July 1993 Başbağlar village in Erzincan was raided by terrorists. They burned numerous houses and killed 33 villagers. The applicant, who was living in the neighbouring village, was suspected of having participated in the so-called “Başbağlar Massacre”.\n7.  The applicant and twenty other individuals were charged under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  On 24 January 1996 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. On 18 February 1997 the İzmir State Security Court ordered his release pending trial.\n9.  On 23 October 1997 the applicant was acquitted.\n10.  On 12 February 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint under Law no. 466 with the Bakırköy Assize Court against the Treasury, requesting 1,000,000,000[1] Turkish liras (TRL) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRL 4,000,000,000[2] for non-pecuniary damage by way of compensation for unjustified detention between 24 January 1996 and 18 February 1997.\n11.  The Bakırköy Assize Court appointed one of its members as judge rapporteur (naip hakim) to investigate the case and draft a report. The applicant was heard by the judge rapporteur on 8 June and 12 October 2000. He stated that he did not have a regular job at the time but was unofficially working for a dairy merchant six months a year, collecting cheese from local farmers, and in return was paid TRL 100,000,000[3] per month.\n12.  On 6 November 2001 the Bakırköy Assize Court found that the applicant’s unjustified detention on remand for 384 days qualified for compensation. In its judgment, the court took note of all the complaints set out by the applicant’s lawyer, as well as the content of the judge rapporteur’s report and the written submissions of the public prosecutor. The court further referred to the minimum wage at the time and the expert report which had estimated the applicant’s income loss to be TRL 168,114,000[4]. The court concluded in line with the expert report and awarded the applicant TRL 168,114,000 for pecuniary damage. Considering the applicant’s economic and social position, the seriousness of the charges brought against him and the time that he had spent in detention as well as the intensity of his emotional suffering, the court additionally awarded the applicant TRL 1,000,000,000[5] for non-pecuniary damage.\n13.  The applicant’s lawyer appealed and claimed that the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage was insufficient reparation for the wrongful detention of the applicant and the subsequent suffering that he had endured. He further maintained that, considering the length of the proceedings, the compensation for pecuniary damage awarded by the court was not sufficient either. He also complained about the lack of interest on the compensation.\n14.  On 4 March 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision on the ground that the defendant had not been notified of the applicant’s claim and had not been invited to submit replies.\n15.  The case was resumed before the Bakırköy Assize Court. On 18 September 2002 the judge rapporteur heard the applicant who repeated his previous statements and was paid TRL 100,000,000 per month. A new expert report estimated the applicant’s income loss, on the basis of the net minimum wages[6] in force at the time, to be TRL 113,266,974[7].\n16.  On 21 October 2002 the Bakırköy Assize Court awarded the applicant TRL 113,26", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3496", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in the village of Naumovka in the Tomsk region in the vicinity of a radiochemical plant of the Siberian Chemical Industrial Complex (hereinafter “the plant”), owned and operated by the State.\n6.  On an unspecified date in July 1997 the applicants sued the plant for compensation for the damage to their health caused by its activity. They also sought an injunction banning the burial ground disposal of nuclear waste. On 27 July 1997 the Seversk Town Court of the Tomsk Region registered the statement of claim and listed the first hearing for 3 November 1997.\n7.  As the Town Court was situated in the area with restricted access, the court asked the applicants to provide personal information necessary to prepare a pass for them.\n8.  The applicants did not appear at the hearing of 3 November 1997. Their representatives were present. The Town Court ordered an expert examination. On 9 December 1997 the Tomsk Regional Court quashed the decision because it had been taken in the applicants’ absence.\n9.  On 28 April 1998 the applicants provided their personal information and were issued with a pass by the Seversak Town Administration.\n10.  At the hearing of 15 May 1998 the applicants modified their claims. They challenged the exploitation licence granted to the plant by the Tomsk Regional Government and claimed compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Tomsk Regional Government was cited as co-defendant and the hearing was adjourned until 14 July 1998.\n11.  On 14 July 1998 the applicants did not appear and the hearing was adjourned until 31 August 1998.\n12.  On 31 August 1998 only two plaintiffs came to the court and the hearing was adjourned until 21 October 1998.\n13.  On 21 October 1998 the applicants again modified their claims and asked the court to call witnesses. The hearing was adjourned until 24 November 1998.\n14.  Hearings were held on 24 November and 7 December 1998.\n15.  On 7 December 1998 the Seversk Town Court of the Tomsk Region ordered the Ministry of Public Health to perform an expert examination at the defendant’s request and stayed the proceedings. On the same day the case file was sent to the Ministry of Public Health.\n16.  On 29 January 1999 the Tomsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 7 December 1998 on appeal.\n17.  During the following three years the Town Court sent ten warnings to the Ministry of Public Health, asking it to perform the examination or, if it was not possible, to return the case file to the court.\n18.  On 22 April 2002 the Ministry of Public health returned the case file to the Town Court, stating that it had not been possible to perform the examination because the defendant had not paid for it. On the same day the Town Court resumed the proceedings.\n19.  At the hearing of 26 June 2002 the applicants withdrew their claims against the Tomsk Regional Government and amended their claims against the plant. The hearing was adjourned until 4 July 2002.\n20.  The Town Court held hearings on 4 and 15 July 2002. On 15 July 2002 the Seversk Town Court of the Tomsk Region dismissed the applicants’ claims as unsubstantiated.\n21.  On 5 November 2002 the Tomsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3497", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kiskunhalas.\n5.  In July 1995 the applicant, together with six other individuals, filed a criminal report against Mr C., accusing him of fraud. In the ensuing criminal proceedings, the applicant, acting as a civil party, pursued compensation claims.\n6.  Until the termination of the investigations on 13 August 1996, 51 witnesses were heard and several items of physical evidence were collected.\n7.  A bill of indictment was preferred on 3 March 1997. The defendants, of whom by then there were eight, were charged with twenty-nine counts of fraud. On 14 January 1999 the President of the Kecskemét District Court gave the case priority.\n8.  After 45 hearings, on 13 April 2005 the District Court gave judgment. It convicted, inter alia, Mr C. and obliged him to pay the applicant, one of the eleven civil parties in the case by then, three million Hungarian forints in compensation. The judgment was served on 18 June and became final on 27 June 2005. However, since Mr C. had meanwhile become insolvent, the applicant could not recover the damage he had sustained.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3498", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Iaşi.\n5.  On 23 November 1999 the prosecutor attached to the Piteşti Court of Appeal issued an arrest warrant against the applicant, who was accused of tax evasion.\n6.  The applicant was apprehended on 5 September 2000 and was placed in police custody for a period of thirty days. The Piteşti District Court, to which the applicant was first brought on 28 September 2000, repeatedly extended his pre-trial detention, until the end of the proceedings before it.\n7.  The District Court gave judgment on 19 February 2002. On the basis of the depositions made by the applicant, four co-defendants and twenty-one witnesses, the court convicted the applicant under several heads of tax evasion and forgery, and sentenced him to six years and six months’ imprisonment with an obligation, under Article 113 of the Criminal Code, to undergo medical treatment for his mental disorder as identified by the medical reports adduced in the case. The court ordered that the medical treatment be administered through the prison hospitals, while the applicant was in detention, and continue after his release until his complete recovery. It also upheld the order for the applicant’s detention.\n8.  In a decision of 25 June 2002, the Argeş County Court allowed appeals against the judgment and, based on the evidence in the case and the defendants’ depositions, reduced the applicant’s sentence to five years and six months’ imprisonment. It upheld the remainder of the District Court’s judgment.\n9.  This decision was confirmed, upon an appeal on points of law by the defendants, in a final decision of 8 October 2002 of the Piteşti Court of Appeal.\n10.  On 20 September 2000 the applicant’s lawyer filed a request with the prosecutor for the applicant’s psychiatric evaluation. The Argeş Forensic Medicine Institute examined the applicant and concluded, on 2 October 2000, that he had been mentally competent for legal purposes both when the alleged offences had been committed and at the date of the evaluation.\nThe applicant contested the conclusion of the report.\n11.  On 18 December 2000 the “Mina Minovici” Forensic Medicine Institute in Bucharest confirmed the Argeş Forensic Institute’s report, after having examined the applicant. It also recommended that, pursuant to Article 113 of the Criminal Code, the applicant be required to undergo medical treatment for his mental disorder both during the detention and after his release.\n12.  On 29 November 2000 the applicant underwent a full medical examination at the Argeş Forensic Medicine Institute. The medical commission concluded that the applicant’s mental disorder did not render him unfit for detention.\n13.  According to the detailed medical record from the period of pre-trial detention, submitted by the Government, the applicant was hospitalised seven times in prison hospitals. He was mainly diagnosed with thrombophlebitis, venous insufficiency and a mental disorder. Each time he was discharged, the doctors recommended treatment for his various illnesses, periodical re-evaluations and medical check-ups when needed.\nDuring this interval he was seen twenty-seven times by the prison doctors, on 23 and 30 October, 6, 13 and 27 November, 11 and 20 December 2001, 11 February, 17 June, 1, 8, 20, 22 and 29 July, 5, 12, 16, 19 and 26 August, 2, 9, 20, 23 and 30 September, and 7, 13 and 19 October 2002.\nRecords indicate that medicine was systematically administered for his venous insufficiency and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3499", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1986 and is currently in detention on remand in the Uşak Prison in connection with an offence unrelated to the present case.\n5.  On 28 November 2003 at about 11.30 p.m. the applicant, who was 17 years old at the time, was arrested by police officers on suspicion of being involved in the armed robbery of a small grocery shop. The police found the applicant while he was asleep in an empty swimming pool near the shop, which had been robbed that night.\n6.  On 29 November 2003 he was examined by a doctor at Urla State Hospital. His medical report recorded no signs of physical violence on his body, but noted that the applicant was drugged and sleepy. It concluded that there was nothing to prevent the applicant from being taken into custody.\n7.  On the same day the applicant was once again examined by a doctor. The medical report described the applicant as sleepy, unresponsive and physically weak. The same day, the police requested the presence of a duty lawyer from the Izmir Bar Association for the applicant, who was to be brought before a public prosecutor.\n8.  The applicant and his lawyer were both present before the public prosecutor. However, the prosecutor could not take a statement from the applicant as he was asleep. The applicant was then brought before the investigating judge, but he could only stand up with the help of his co-accused. His lawyer maintained that, in the circumstances, it would not be appropriate or lawful to take a statement from the applicant. However, the judge rejected this objection and continued with the interrogation. The judge noted that there were no previous statements made by the applicant to the police or the prosecutor. The applicant occasionally woke up and answered the questions; he denied that he had committed the robbery. The lawyer repeated that the applicant was not in a fit state to understand the charges against him and that the taking of his statement would violate the law. However, the applicant’s co-accused accepted the charges. He admitted that he and the applicant had drunk beer and taken tablets before the incident and stolen some chocolates, cigarettes, coca-cola, sausages and biscuits from the shop. The investigating judge remanded the applicant and his co-accused in custody. The applicant was accordingly sent to the Buca Prison, where he was kept together with adults.\n9.  On 2 December 2003 the applicant’s lawyer challenged the detention before the Izmir Criminal Court. In her petition, referring to Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, she submitted that the applicant was incapable of understanding the charges against him and that he had not been given adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence as she was unable to communicate with him. She further stated that the applicant was a minor and, according to Article 37 (b) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the detention of a minor should be a preventive measure of last resort. She also maintained that Article 10 § 5 of the Law on the Establishment, Duties and Procedures of Juvenile Courts (Law no. 2253), required that the applicant be placed in a hospital or in residential social care, instead of being detained in prison.\n10.  On 3 December 2003, the Izmir Assize Court rejected these objections, having regard to the content of the case file, the nature of the offence attributed to the applicant and the state of the evidence.\n11.  On 12 December 2003, the public prosecutor filed a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3500", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  On 8 December 1995 S.M., a powerful businessman, lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant, who, between March and October 1995, had asked for 20,000 US dollars (USD) for his sick wife, and instead had used the money to buy a Mercedes and a BMW car. The applicant claimed that he was working for the Protection and Guard Service (Serviciul de Protecţie şi Pază), a state body with attributions in the field of national security, but later on the investigation showed that on 5 April 1995 he had been released from duty.\nSimilar complaints of fraud were made by other alleged victims of the applicant.\n7.  The applicant was arrested on 11 January 1996 and brought to the Bucharest District Police Detention Centre. The next day the prosecutor ordered his pre-trial detention in the same police facility.\nIn a statement made on 12 February 1996 the applicant informed the prosecutor that he had psychiatric problems that made him unfit for detention and therefore asked to undergo psychiatric tests (see paragraph 23 below).\n8.  On 4 April 1996 the Bucharest District Court rejected a request by the prosecutor for an extension of the applicant’s detention. On 8 April 1996 the applicant was released from custody.\n9.  On 12 June 1996 the prosecutor ordered the applicant to be remanded in custody. On 14 June 1996 he was arrested again and placed in police detention.\n10.  On 24 July 1996 the Bucharest County Court quashed the District Court’s decision of 4 April and extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention.\n11.  He was released again on 18 December 1997.\n12.  The parties’ submissions concerning the conditions of detention differ significantly.\n13.  According to the applicant, during the first four weeks of his detention he was beaten by masked police officers and by inmates, on the orders of the investigators.\n14.  He was woken up in the night and interrogated, under threat of death. He was forced to bend over with his hands handcuffed behind his knees. The investigators would then hang him with his head downwards from a truncheon passed between his hands and legs. He was beaten on his feet with his shoes on until he lost consciousness.\n15.  He was subject to the same treatment every two to four days.\n16.  He used to be taken to the first-floor offices and beaten over the back and head with 1.5 metre-long metal-reinforced wooden truncheons, while the investigators verbally abused him.\n17.  On an unspecified date an inmate called “Nelu” raped the applicant, with the help of other inmates and encouraged by the investigator. He also broke the applicant’s teeth with his fist when the applicant refused to open his mouth.\n18.  His inmates urinated on his food and forced him to eat it.\n19.  The applicant told his wife about the ill-treatment and she informed his lawyer, who managed to have the applicant moved to a different cell but the applicant was again subjected to ill-treatment by his new inmates. He was forced to squat and do push-ups all night long under the supervision of an inmate. If he refused to obey, the next day he would be beaten. He was not allowed to use the toilets but was beaten when he urinated in the cell.\n20.  According to the applicant, the treatment inflicted by the investigators was far worse than that he suffered at the hands of his inmates. Once he was punched in his liver by the police until he almost lost consciousness.\n21.  The Government denied that any ill-trea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3501", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a Moldovan incorporated company based in Chişinău.\n6.  Moldovahidromaş (M.) was a State-owned company which owned a subsidiary Hidrotehnica (H.). In 1992 H.’s staff attempted to create a separate company on the basis of H.’s assets. The contract for the creation of H. was eventually annulled by a final court judgment of 22-23 October 1992. M. retained ownership of H. as a result.\n7.  The applicant company was created as a result of the privatisation of M. in 1994 and thereafter. During the privatisation, the new owners bought the entire company from the State, including its subsidiary H.\n8.  In 2002 the Prosecutor General, at the request of H.’s staff, asked for annulment of the final judgment of 22-23 October 1992. On 24 April and 24 July 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice annulled that judgment and ordered the registration of H. as an independent company.\n9.  Relying on the Court’s judgment of 27 February 2007, the applicant company requested annulment of the judgments of 24 April and 24 July 2003. On 19 July and 2 August 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice annulled those two judgments, reinstating the applicant company in its rights. On 8 August 2007 the State Registration Chamber made changes to the State registry of companies and issued the applicant company a certificate, confirming its ownership of its subsidiary SA Hidrotehnica.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3502", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Birmingham. The facts of the case as submitted by the parties are as follows.\n7.  In July 1998 the applicant and his wife became joint tenants of a three-bedroom family house owned by Birmingham City Council (“the local authority”). They were also secure tenants under the provisions of the Housing Act 1985 (see paragraph 20 below).\n8.  The marriage broke down early in 2001 and the applicant’s wife moved out of the house with the two children. On 5 April 2001, following a contested hearing at which the applicant was not represented, the court made a three-month non-molestation order and an ouster order requiring the applicant to leave the house, which he did. Mrs McCann and the children moved back into the house, but moved out again when on 14 April the applicant turned up at the house, used a crowbar to force entry and allegedly assaulted Mrs McCann and her friend. Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant following this incident, but resulted in an acquittal when no evidence was put forward.\n9.  On 18 April 2001 Mrs McCann submitted to the local authority an application to be rehoused on grounds of domestic violence. On 8 August 2001 she returned the keys to the local authority with a note saying that she was giving up the tenancy. She and the children moved into another council house which had been allocated to them in accordance with the local authority’s domestic violence policy. The local authority visited the house and found that most of the fixtures had been removed so that in excess of 15,000 pounds sterling would be required to make it habitable. Thereafter, as far as the local authority was concerned, the property was uninhabited.\n10.  In November 2001 the applicant returned to the house and did a considerable amount of work to renovate it. His relationship with Mrs McCann improved and she supported his application for an exchange of accommodation with another local-authority tenant, as the three-bedroom house was too big for him but he still required a home in the area so that his children could visit.\n11.  That application, dated 4 January 2002, was completed at the local-authority housing office. On the same day, a housing officer, having realised that the property was not in fact empty, and having taken legal advice, visited Mrs McCann and asked her to close the tenancy by signing a notice to quit. The County Court judge who heard the local authority’s claim for possession found as a fact that Mrs McCann was not advised and had no understanding that the notice to quit would have the effect of extinguishing the applicant’s right to live in the house or exchange it for another local‑authority property (see paragraph 19 below). Approximately one week later Mrs McCann wrote to the local authority seeking to withdraw the notice to quit, but it nonetheless remained effective.\n12.  The applicant was informed that the tenancy had come to an end, and he was given notice to vacate. On 11 June 2002 the local authority’s Allocations Officer Review Panel decided, inter alia, that in accordance with the domestic violence policy, the applicant would not be granted the right to accede to the former tenancy of the house and that, in any event, the applicant, who had no dependants living with him, would not qualify for a dwelling originally allocated to a qualifying family which had been rehoused.\n13.  On 11 October 2002 the local authority brought possession proceedings against ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3503", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Germany.\n5.  The applicant alleges that she was arrested by Turkish soldiers near Awaşin River in Northern Iraq within the context of a cross-border military operation conducted by the Turkish Army in the area on 5 or 6 October 1997.\n6.  According to the seizure protocol the applicant was arrested in a cave between the Ayranlı and Meşelik regions of Şemdinli, Hakkari on 15 October 1997. The official documents in the case file also mention that she was unarmed and carried a backpack which contained a first aid kit and photos and documents relating to the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal armed organisation[2].\n7.  On 24 October 1997 the applicant was handed over to gendarmes at the Hakkari Gendarmerie Command. According to the search report drafted on that day, twenty-six photographs, a notebook, some handwritten documents, a suture needle, eleven syringes and two lancets were found in her possession.\n8.  On the same day the applicant was questioned by two gendarmes in the presence of an interpreter. The applicant refused to sign the document allegedly containing her statements.\n9.  On the same day the applicant was examined by a doctor, Mr A.Y., an obstetrician, who found no signs of ill-treatment on her body. This doctor also performed a gynaecological examination. The report issued by the doctor described the applicant as aggressive and presenting signs of mild depression. The report indicated whether or not the applicant was a virgin.\n10.  On 26 October 1997 the applicant was examined by another doctor, Mr M.G. who found no signs of ill-treatment on her body.\n11.  Afterwards the applicant was brought before a judge at the Van State Security Court, where she gave a statement with the aid of an interpreter. She refused to answer a number of questions and stated that she had been arrested twenty-two days before in Awaşin. The applicant retracted the statements she had made in custody, claiming that they were confused statements written by the gendarmes themselves. The court remanded her in custody.\n12.  On 28 October 1997 the public prosecutor at the Van State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). In this respect, the prosecutor stated that the applicant had been in possession of medical supplies used by members of the PKK and that in photographs found on her she was with the leader of the PKK and other terrorists. He requested that she be sentenced and convicted under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n13.  The first hearing, held before the Van State Security Court on 4 November 1997 in the applicant’s absence, was taken up with procedural matters, such as the measures to be taken to secure the presence of the accused and of a translator, Mr E. A.\n14.  In a hearing held on 4 December 1997 the applicant appeared before the court where she refused to give information about herself save for her date of birth and her mother’s name. A translator was present at the hearing. The applicant was not represented by a lawyer. She stated that she had been arrested on 6 October 1997 and not on 15 October 1997. She further submitted that she did not know where she had been caught but that it must have been somewhere called Awaşin near a river. The applicant did not respond to questions asked by the court. When asked about the documents and photographs found in her poss", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3504", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972. He is serving a prison sentence in the Košice-Šaca prison.\n5.  On 23 July 1996 the applicant’s father, a former police officer, attacked the applicant’s sister with a knife. She suffered moderate injuries to her left arm. When the applicant began to defend his sister, the father turned to attack him. The applicant suffered several injuries to his arms. During the struggle the applicant seized a machete from his father and inflicted a number of blows on him. The applicant’s father died of a haemorrhage shortly thereafter.\n6.  On 24 July 1996 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant. A lawyer was appointed to defend him. Between August and November 1996 several expert opinions were obtained and a number of witnesses were heard.\n7.  On 27 November 1996 the investigator transmitted the case to the Košice Regional Prosecutor’s Office, with the proposal that the applicant be indicted for murder.\n8.  On 13 December 1996 the Košice Regional Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the proceedings, concluding that the applicant had acted in self-defence. This decision became final on 24 December 1996.\n9.  On 5 March 1997 the General Prosecutor filed a complaint in the interest of the law against the above decision. On 16 April 1997 the Supreme Court upheld the complaint and quashed the decision of 13 December 1996. The Supreme Court sent detailed instructions to the Regional Prosecutor’s Office on the action to be taken with a view to establishing the relevant facts. The case was returned to the police investigator.\n10.  Between 24 June 1997 and 11 November 1997 the investigator took action at regular intervals with a view to establishing the facts of the case. This included questioning of a number of witnesses and obtaining expert opinions and documentary evidence. The applicant’s counsel was notified of and had the option of attending the questioning of witnesses.\n11.  In the meantime, on 18 August 1997 and 9 September 1997 the applicant requested that a different lawyer be appointed to defend him, as he had lost confidence in the lawyer who had been appointed on 24 July 1996. On 8 September 1997 the applicant asked the police investigator to notify him of all steps taken in the criminal proceedings, so that he could attend and defend his rights in person. On 11 September 1997 the investigator replied to the applicant that the law did not require his presence during the interrogation of witnesses. The applicant would be summoned whenever his presence was required under the relevant provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 16 September 1997 different counsel was appointed to assist the applicant.\n12. On 25 September 1997 the applicant consulted the file. On 1 October 1997, in the presence of his counsel, he submitted his comments on several witness statements.\n13.  On 12 December 1997, after the applicant had perused the file, the Regional Prosecutor indicted the applicant before the Regional Court in Košice.\n14.  On 18 December 1997 the Regional Court judge asked for permission to withdraw, as he had known the victim. On 19 December 1997 the case was transferred to a different judge.\n15.  On 3 March 1998 the Regional Court returned the case to the Regional Prosecutor. The decision stated that the prosecuting authority had failed to comply in full with the instructions set out in the Supreme Court’s decision of 16 April 1997.\n16.  On 14 April 1998 the Regional Prosecutor lodged a complaint, subm", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3505", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Omsk.\n7.  In May 2000 the applicant lent a sum of money to a private person, Mr M. The amount of the debt was linked to the exchange rate of the United States dollar. Mr M. failed to repay the full amount in due time, and on 19 April 2001 the applicant brought a civil action against him. The applicant sought to recover 141,800 Russian roubles (RUB) on account of the outstanding debt, plus statutory interest for the period of delay (проценты за неисполнение денежного обязательства). The amount of statutory interest was calculated on the basis of the refinancing rate of the Central Bank of Russia.\n8.  In the domestic proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer. Mr M., the defendant, claimed that he had returned RUB 45,000 to the applicant. However, he acknowledged the remainder of the principal debt, and accepted the calculations of statutory interest.\n9.  On 15 January 2002 the Kirovskiy District Court of Omsk partially granted the applicant’s claim. The court found that a part of the debt (RUB 45,000) had already been paid to the applicant. Given the exchange rate of the United States dollar at that moment, the court awarded the applicant RUB 106,500 (equivalent to 3,970 euros (EUR)) on account of the outstanding debt, plus RUB 34,611 (equivalent to EUR 1,290) as statutory interest under Article 395 of the Civil Code for 491 days of delay in paying the outstanding debt. To calculate the interest the court applied the annual refinancing rate of the Central Bank of Russia, which amounted to 25% at the time.\n10.  The applicant appealed. In the points of appeal he contested the finding of the first-instance court that a part of the principal debt had been returned to him.\n11.  On 27 February 2002 the Omsk Regional Court examined the appeal and dismissed it. The issue of statutory interest was not raised by the parties during the appeal proceedings. However, the court proprio motu reduced the amount of statutory interest awarded to RUB 10,000 (EUR 373), stating as follows:\n“In addition to the principal debt the court ordered recovery of statutory interest, in accordance with Article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.\nAt the same time, in the opinion of the court of appeal, the amount of interest – 34,611 roubles 44 kopeks – is disproportionate to the consequences of the breach of the obligation and is excessive.\nConsequently, the appeal court (кассационная инстанция) deems it necessary, pursuant to Article 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, to reduce the amount of the penalty to 10,000 roubles.”\nThe overall amount awarded to the applicant was therefore reduced to RUB 116,500. That decision became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3506", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  The applicant was a member of a public association, the National Bolshevik Party. On 15 November 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ordered its dissolution. On 19 January 2006 the Federal Registration Service of the Ministry of Justice refused an application for registration of a political party by the same name. Party members challenged the refusal before the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow.\n8.  On 13 April 2006 fifteen party members, including the applicant, came to the Taganskiy District Court for a hearing concerning the refusal to register the National Bolshevik Party. The applicant alleged that near the court building they had been attacked by a group of forty people and had had to defend themselves. According to the Government, the party members, including the applicant, had assaulted passers-by with gas guns and rubber truncheons.\n9.  According to the Government, on 15 May 2006 the applicant was arrested in an attic where he was hiding. He was armed with a gas gun and offered resistance to the police. On the same day he was confronted with a witness, who identified him as one of the perpetrators of the assault.\n10.  According to the applicant, on 15 May 2006 he had attended an assembly of members of the National Bolshevik Party which was held on the premises of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. At about 8 p.m. the police broke down the door and arrested the applicant together with three other participants in the assembly. They did not offer any resistance to the police. The applicant's account of the events was confirmed by affidavits by two members of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.\n11.  On 16 May 2006 the applicant was charged with participation in mass disorders, involving the use of gas guns, assault and battery, an offence under Article 213 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  On 17 May 2006 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow remanded the applicant in custody. It referred to the gravity of the charge, “his active role in the imputed offence”, and the risk of absconding and reoffending.\n13.  In their appeal submission the applicant and his counsel complained that the District Court had disregarded such pertinent facts as the absence of a criminal record, the applicant's permanent residence and employment and positive references. The conclusions that the applicant might flee or reoffend were hypothetical and were not supported by relevant facts.\n14.  On 31 May 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, sufficiently reasoned and justified.\n15.  On an unspecified day the investigator applied to the Tverskoy District Court for an extension of the applicant's detention until 16 September 2006. He argued that there was a need for a further investigation and that it was “not opportune” to release the applicant.\n16.  On 14 July 2006 the Tverskoy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 16 September 2006. The decision read as follows:\n“The court considers that there are no reasons to refuse the investigator's request [for an extension]. It follows from the case file that [the applicant] is charged with a criminal offence punishable by more than two years' imprisonment and classified as serious under [criminal] law, he has previously been criminally prosecuted and the criminal proceedings against him were discontinued on non-exonerating grounds. The court takes into accoun", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3507", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\nMr Mikhail Vladimirovich Dedovskiy born in 1969,\nMr Alexandr Mikhaylovich Matrosov born in 1968,\nMr Viktor Viktorovich Vidin born in 1978,\nMr Stanislav Lvovich Bukhman born in 1974,\nMr Igor Anatolyevich Kolpakov born in 1975,\nMr Dmitriy Vladimirovich Gorokhov born in 1980, and\nMr Aleksey Shamilyevich Pazleev born in 1974.\n7.  At the material time all the applicants were serving a prison sentence in correctional colony no. AM-244/9-11 in the village of Chepets of the Cherdynskiy district of the Perm Region (also known as facility no. IK-11, hereinafter “the colony”).\n8.  In April 2001 a group of eight officers of a special-purpose unit, Varyag, of the Directorate of Correctional Facilities AM-244 (now renumbered as VK-240, отдел специального назначения «Варяг» Управления лесных исправительных учреждений АМ-244/ВК-240), under the command of Mr B., arrived at the colony for the purpose of “rendering practical assistance in maintaining the detention regime”.\n9.  Upon their arrival Mr B. and Mr P., the deputy colony director for security and operational activities, devised a plan which included the following measures: searches of the living premises, including the premises of the strict-security department (отряд со строгими условиями содержания), the punishment ward (штрафной изолятор) and cell-like premises (помещения камерного типа); body searches of detainees, including on their return from work; and supervision of the detainees’ compliance with the regime regulations. The officers of the unit wore balaclava masks and carried rubber truncheons during the implementation of the plan.\n10.  The applicants alleged that the unit officers had beaten detainees with truncheons and kicked and punched them. Specific allegations concerning each applicant are outlined in chronological order below.\n11.  On coming back from work to the colony living premises Mr Dedovskiy learnt from other detainees that the unit officers were performing a search. The officers wore camouflage and balaclava masks. During the search they hit Mr Dedovskiy on his back four or five times with a truncheon without any apparent reason and verbally assaulted him. On leaving the search premises he received more truncheon blows.\n12.  Later in the day, when going to dinner, Mr Dedovskiy, among other detainees, was told to squat down and waddle “duck-style” to the canteen.\n13.  On coming back from work to the colony Mr Matrosov was told to submit to a strip-search. Mr P., the deputy colony director, divided all the detainees into groups of five and told them to run into the search room. Inside the room Mr Matrosov was ordered to look at the floor and comply with all instructions. Any delay in fulfilling an order was met with punches to the stomach and head. Once the strip-search was completed, Mr Matrosov was thrown half-naked out into the courtyard.\n14.  On coming back from work to the colony, the unit officers hit Mr Vidin on his head, neck and spine with a truncheon during their search. As a result, he could not work for an extended period of time owing to pain in his head and spine. He attempted to seek medical assistance but the medical department was closed.\n15.  Later in the day, when going to dinner, Mr Vidin, among others, was told to squat down and waddle to the canteen. On entering the canteen and while eating the unit officers hit him in the small of his back.\n16.  At the roll-call Mr Bukhman was beaten for having answered a unit officer’s questio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3508", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in the town of Novogrodivka, the Donetsk Region.\n5.  On 30 June 1998 the Novogrodivka City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) awarded the applicant UAH 2,550[1] against the Rosiya coal-mine (a State-owned enterprise) by way of compensation for delays in the payment of his occupational disease benefits. On 10 July 1998 the judgment became final and was sent to the Novogrodovka City Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) for compulsory enforcement.\n6.  On 20 February 2003 the City Court rejected the applicant’s further claim against the same coal-mine in December 2002. On 5 May 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. On 21 Mai 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation.\n7.  In early 2004 the applicant complained to the City Court about the Bailiffs’ alleged inactivity. On 30 April 2004 the City Court rejected the applicant’s complaint stating, inter alia, that no fault was attributable to the Bailiffs, who had undertaken all necessary measures to secure the execution of the June 1998 judgment, and that its non-enforcement was due to the moratorium on the forced sale of the property of State-owned enterprises. The City Court also indicated that the enforcement proceedings were further impeded by the decision of 25 February 2003 of the Ministry of Fuel and Energy (which controlled 100% of the Rosiya coal-mine) to wind up the enterprise and to transfer its assets to the Selidovvugillya State Company. The latter entity was designated as the judgment debtor by decision of the City Court of 12 December 2003.\n8.  On 25 November 2004 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as the judgment in the applicant’s favour had been enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3509", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Simferopil.\n5.  On 22 May 1992 the applicant was employed by a private company (“the Company”). No written documents concerning conditions of the employment were produced at the material time.\n6.  On 1 July 1992 a contract was signed between the applicant, Mr I., the sole owner of the Company, and Mr G., referred to in the contract as the Company director. Pursuant this contract the applicant was entitled to 30% of the Company’s profits, which could be invested into the Company. The contract referred to the applicant as a co-founder of the Company. Subsequently the Company was re-organized, three individuals - the aforementioned Mr G. and Mr I., and a certain Mrs G. having been registered as its co-founders.\n7.  In January 1997 the applicant resigned. According to a contract, signed on 1 August 1997 by him and Mr G., the Company was to pay the applicant the equivalent of 7,930 dollars (USD) in monthly instalments over a four-year period as the share of profit owed pursuant to the contract of July 1992.\n8.  In 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Kyivskiy District Court of Simferopil (the “District Court;” Київський районний суд м. Сімферополя) complaining that in December 1997 the Company had discontinued the monthly payments under the contract of August 1997. According to the applicant, the proceedings at issue were instituted on 14 March 1998. According to the Government, they were instituted on 28 April 1998. According to the text of the District Court judgment of 18 May 2000, which is the only case-file document referring to the date of the institution of the proceedings, they were instituted on 21 April 1998.\n9.  Between August 1998 and September 1999 the court scheduled ten hearings, two of them being adjourned on account of the absence of the applicant’s representative, one on account of the parties’ absence, and one on account of court business.\n10.  On 16 September 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims, having found that the contracts of July 1992 and August 1997 were null and void. In particular, the court observed that labour legislation at the material time distinguished between ordinary open-ended employment agreements (трудовий договір), which could be concluded orally, and special written employment contracts (контракт), which, to be valid, had to comply with a number of formalities prescribed by law. The court held that the applicant had been hired on the basis of an oral employment agreement, since the contract of July 1992 lacked a number of essential clauses and had not been executed in accordance with necessary formalities. Furthermore, the contract falsely referred to the applicant as the Company co-founder and to Mr G. as the Company director. The court further found that the annulment of the contract of July 1992 entailed the annulment of the contract of August 1997, which referred to it, and that, furthermore, Mr G. needed the consent of the other co-founders to execute it.\n11.  On 6 December 1999 the Supreme Court of the Crimea (the “Court of the Crimea;” Верховний суд Автономної Республіки Крим)[1] quashed the judgment of 16 September 1999 on the applicant’s appeal in cassation and referred the case to another District Court judge. In its reasoning, the court stated that the District Court had failed to carry out a comprehensive investigation into the facts and to ensure their proper assessment. In particular, it had failed to ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3510", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Mykolayovych Nadtochiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977 and resides in the city of Chernigiv, Ukraine.\n5.  On 21 February 2000 the applicant brought a car (Audi-100) registered in Lithuania into the customs territory of Ukraine. When crossing the border he undertook an obligation to re-export the car before 21 February 2001.\n6.  On 25 September 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.\n7.  On 15 December 2000 the applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for murder.\n8.  On 5 June 2002, in the applicant’s absence, the Chernigiv Customs Office drew up a report on an infringement of customs regulations due to the applicant’s failure to bring the above car outside the customs territory of Ukraine (section 113 of the Customs Code). In the report, the Customs Office indicated the applicant’s place of detention.\n9.  On 17 July 2002 the Customs Office sent the applicant’s case to the Novozavodsky District Court of Chernigiv. In the covering letter they requested the court to consider the issue of the applicant’s liability for a violation of section 112 of the Customs Code (loss of goods placed under customs control).\n10.  On 12 August 2002 the court considered the case in the applicant’s absence. The court found the applicant guilty of having failed to re-export the car and of having lost it in violation of section 112 of the Customs Code. The court ordered the confiscation of the vehicle, but given that the car’s location was unknown, it replaced the confiscation with payment of UAH 9,833.57 (about EUR 1,525.15) which corresponded to the value of the car, in accordance with section 149 § 3 of the Customs Code. In its decision, the court also indicated the applicant’s actual place of detention and noted that the applicant had not expressed a wish to be present at the court’s hearing, even though a notification about the time and place of the hearing had been sent to him. However, according to an information letter by the Deputy Head of the State Department for Enforcement of Sentences (Державний департамент України з питань виконання покарань) in reply to the Government Agent’s request, the applicant’s prison file contained no evidence that the applicant had received any summons to or notification about the above proceedings, while they were pending.\n11.  The applicant was informed about the above court decision by the prison administration, which received a copy of the decision on 23 August 2002.\n12.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant was released on probation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3511", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1940 and 1937 respectively and live in Odessa.\n5.  In 1994 and 1995 the applicants made contributions to “U.”, a trust fund (“the Trust Fund”), which invested them in the construction of apartments by “M.”, a construction company (“the Construction Company”), co-founded by the municipal authorities and other unspecified shareholders. Initially each applicant was assigned a specific apartment. However, subsequently the investment contract between the Trust Fund and the Construction Company was annulled and the latter entered into a contract with another company, following which those apartments had been reassigned to other persons.\n6.  On 28 May 1996 and 10 June 1996 the first and the second applicant respectively brought actions against the Trust Fund and the Construction Company before the Suvorovsky District Court of Odessa (Суворовський районний суд м. Одесса) alleging breach of contracts. On 24 June 1996 these actions were joined.\n7.  On 12 August 1996 the court found that the Trust Fund had complied with its obligations vis-à-vis the applicants. It further held that the Construction Company was in default, declared each of the applicants an owner of an apartment and awarded them default interest and non-pecuniary damages. On 21 August 1996 the court amended its judgment, having specified the concrete apartments to be assigned to the applicants.\n8.  On 29 October 1996 the Odessa Regional Court (Одеський обласний суд)[1], following the Construction Company’s appeal, quashed the part of the judgment relating to the monetary award and remitted the respective claims for a fresh consideration. As regards the applicants’ entitlement to ownership of the apartments, the judgment was upheld and became final.\n9.  On 5 February 1997 the Presidium of the Regional Court, following a protest (an extraordinary appeal) of its President, quashed the previous decisions to the extent that they upheld the applicants’ ownership and remitted these claims for a fresh consideration. On several occasions the applicants unsuccessfully attempted to have this decision repealed. In particular, they requested the Constitutional Court to interpret provisions of applicable legislation, this request having been rejected in November 2000.\n10.  In the meantime, in March 1998 the Construction Company’s registration was annulled and its founders were obliged to carry out liquidation formalities. In May 2000 the Construction Company’s director, his deputy and the chief accountant were convicted of several criminal offences in connection with the company management.\n11.  On 25 September 2001 the applicants lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of Ukraine against the decision of 5 February 1997 following the newly introduced cassation procedure.\n12.  On 10 January 2002 the Supreme Court rejected their request for leave to appeal in cassation.\n13.  Between April 2002 and April 2004 the proceedings were suspended on account of lack of information about the location of the defendant entities.\n14.  Between 14 July and 29 November 2004 no hearings were scheduled on account of the second applicant’s illness.\n15.  On 16 March 2005 the District Court decided to leave the applicants’ claims without consideration referring to their repeated failures to appear before the court. The applicants appealed.\n16.  On 22 December 2005 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 16 March 2005 for want of evidence that the applicants had been duly not", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3512", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 7 August 2001, the applicant co-piloted a British Airways flight from Newcastle to Gardermoen Airport outside Oslo. There were three other crew members on board, including Ms C. (1st Cabin Crew). All four crew members were to stay overnight at an airport hotel before flying back to the United Kingdom the next day.\n6.  On 1 November 2002 the Eidsvoll District Court (tingrett) convicted the applicant of having raped C and sentenced him to 2 years’ and 6 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay her NOK 75,000 for non-pecuniary damage and NOK 160,000 for pecuniary damage.\n7.  On an appeal by the applicant, the Eidsivating High Court (lagmannsrett), sitting with a jury, held a fresh hearing in the case. The jury answered the questions relating to the charges in the negative (no reasons are given by a jury).The professional judges decided to pass judgment on the basis of the jury’s verdict and acquitted the applicant by a judgment of 20 March 2003.\n8.  Ms C. maintained the claim that the applicant was civilly liable to pay compensation under the Damage Compensation Act 1969. The High Court, consisting of the professional judges, considered the claim the next day. By two votes to one the High Court concluded, in the same judgment, that the applicant was liable and ordered him to pay NOK 74,000 in compensation for pecuniary damage and NOK 25,000 for non-pecuniary damage.\n9.  The High Court’s judgment included the following account and reasoning:\n“The High Court jury was asked one main question, which concerned forcible coitus. The jury answered the question in the negative. Thereafter the jury was asked one main question as to whether the accused was guilty of obtaining, by gross negligence, sexual relation by violence or threatening behaviour. There was additionally put a supplementary question as to whether the sexual relation mentioned in the main question constituted coitus. The jury answered the main question in the negative. The court bases the judgment on the jury’s verdict.\n[The applicant] is therefore acquitted of the indictment raised against him.\nThe victim’s assistant counsel stated, after the jury’s verdict had been made known, that the compensation claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage would be maintained. The victim has claimed an amount up to NOK 74,000 in compensation for pecuniary damage and up to 75,000 NOK for non-pecuniary damage. The accused has pleaded that he should be released from the claim.\nDespite the fact that [the applicant] has been acquitted of having, with intent or gross negligence, raped [Ms C.], under Norwegian law, she has not thereby lost her possibility to claim compensation under the civil law on tort for the harmful act that she claims has taken place. Because other and weaker requirements of proof apply for establishing that an act has occurred under the civil law on tort than when there is question of imposing criminal liability for the same act, an award of compensation for pecuniary/non-pecuniary damage would not in itself amount to setting aside the acquittal.\nThe compensation issue shall be determined under the Damage Compensation Act 1969.\nIf the victim has been exposed to an infringement or misconduct as described inter alia in Article 192 of the Penal Code, compensation for pecuniary damage resulting from the infringement or misconduct may be awarded under sections 3-1 and 3-3 of the Damage Compensation Act. In section 3-5 it is further stipulated that a person who with intent o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3513", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in St Petersburg.\n7.  In 1998 a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of theft, an offence under Article 158 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The applicant signed an undertaking to appear.\n8.  On 2 February 2000 the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to probation of an unspecified duration. Counsel for the applicant appealed.\n9.  On 5 July 2000 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the conviction but relieved the applicant from punishment by virtue of the Amnesty Act of 26 May 2000 (cited in paragraph 45 below).\n10.  In early 1999 a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of his having stolen, in January 1999, car parts valued at 200 Russian roubles (RUB, less than 8 euros). The prosecutor preferred the charge of theft aggravated by repetition and substantial damage, an offence under Article 158 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  On 19 April 2000 the Primorskiy District Court ordered the applicant’s retrieval and arrest for the following reasons:\n“On 2 February 2000 [the applicant] received a copy of the bill of indictment in this criminal case. He was summoned, by a phone call, to the court hearing at 10 a.m. on 18 April 2000, but he did not appear at that time.\nDue to [the applicant’s] absence the examination of the case was adjourned until midday on 19 April 2000 to find out whether there had been any valid reasons for his absence. At about 4 p.m. on 18 April 2000 [the applicant’s] mother called the court on the phone and said that she and her son had been advised belatedly by her relatives – who had taken the phone call – about the court hearing on 18 April, and that was the reason why her son had not appeared at the court. [The applicant’s] mother also told [the registry] that [the applicant] had no illness preventing him from appearing before the court and no medical certificate. During that conversation [the applicant’s] mother was informed that the court hearing was scheduled for midday on 19 April 2000.\nAt the court hearing at midday on 19 April 2000 [the applicant] failed to appear once again. The case was rescheduled for 4 p.m. on 19 April 2000. At about 4 p.m. [the applicant’s] mother again telephoned the court and said that, although she and her son had known about the scheduled court hearing, he would not appear before the court unless the summons was sent by mail. Under these circumstances the court has reasons to believe that [the applicant] is absconding from justice, that he refuses to appear before a court and interferes with timely examination of the case. In this connection the court considers it necessary to order retrieval of [the applicant] and vary the measure of restraint to that of placement in custody.”\n12.  On 23 April 2000 the applicant was taken into custody.\n13.  Counsel retained by the applicant’s mother asked the Primorskiy District Court to commission an expert examination of the applicant’s mental health and to release him pending trial.\n14.  On 10 May 2000 the District Court held as follows:\n“According to the available case file materials, [the applicant] was repeatedly, on three occasions between 18 and 19 April 2000, summoned to a court hearing and failed to appear without a valid reason. [The applicant] is charged with an offence which is classified as a serious crime, and in such cases a custodial measure may be imposed for the sole reason of the dangerousness of th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3514", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  Between 1991 and September 1997 the applicant and her minor son born in 1984 were officially registered as residents in a municipal hostel rented by the Municipal Post Office, the applicant’s employer, for its employees. Throughout this period, the Post Office, in fact, never provided the applicant with a room in this hostel, citing lack of available premises. The applicant and her son were allowed to occupy two beds in a hostel for single individuals managed by “D.H.”, another company. After the expiration of the residency registration, in October 1997 the applicant found an unoccupied room in the Post Office’s hostel and moved there with her son.\n6.  On 28 November 1997 the Post Office brought eviction proceedings against the applicant (and her minor son) before the Starokyivsky District Court of Kyiv (Старокиївський районний суд м. Києва).\n7.  On 10 December 1997 the Starokyivsky District Court of Kyiv, citing the lack of territorial jurisdiction, referred the case to the Leningradsky District Court of Kyiv (Ленінградський районний суд м. Києва). The latter, in turn, on 22 March 1998, transmitted the case to the Minsky District Court of Kyiv (“the District Court” Мінський районний суд м. Києва)[1].\n8.  On 4 June 1998 the applicant lodged a counter-claim, asserting her right to occupy the room in the Post Office’s hostel.\n9.  In 1999 the Kyiv State Administration decided to convert the Post Office’s hostel into a municipal apartment building enabling its occupants to apply for life-long tenancies.\n10.  On 20 January 2000 the District Court ordered the applicant’s and her son’s removal to the “D.H.’s” hostel and dismissed her counterclaim. The court found, in particular, that the applicant had never obtained proper authorisation to occupy the room in the Post Office’s hostel. On 29 March 2000 the Kyiv City Court (“the City Court”; Київський міський суд)[2] upheld this judgment on the applicant’s appeal in cassation, it became final and enforcement proceedings were instituted.\n11.  On 25 September 2000 Deputy City Prosecutor ordered suspension of the enforcement proceedings.\n12.  On 25 December 2000 the Presidium of the Kyiv City Court quashed the previous judgments following the protest introduced by the Deputy City Prosecutor and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh consideration. The court found, in particular, that “D.H.” should have been summoned to the proceedings, as it was unclear whether the applicant had any right to reside in its hostel.\n13.  On 25 December 2001 the District Court rejected the Post Office’s eviction claim, at the same time having refused to recognize the applicant’s right to occupy the room in its former hostel. It found that, although the applicant had no proper authorisation to move into the room at issue, she could not be evicted, as her status of a “D.H.” hostel resident had never been regularized and she had no alternative lodging. Both parties appealed.\n14.  On 2 April 2002 the City Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration, having found, in particular, that the first-instance court had failed to instruct the applicant that, in view of the City Administration’s decision to convert the hostel into an apartment building, she could request to be issued with an authorisation for life-long tenancy.\n15.  On 20 December 2002 the applicant amended her claims, seeking, in particular, to obtain authorisation", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3515", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lived in Novogrodivka.\n5.  On 2 April 1999 the Novogrodivka City Court awarded the applicant UAH 1,753[1] in salary arrears and compensation for delay in payment of salary against the Novogrodivska coal-mine (a State-owned enterprise).\n6.  The applicant was unsuccessful in the proceedings against the State Bailiff Service for in respect of its allegedly unlawful inactivity.\n7.  On 24 February 2004 the Novogrodivka City Department of the State Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the Novogrodivska coal-mine had been replaced by the Selydivvugillya State Company in the enforcement proceedings.\n8.  As of 26 October 2004, the applicant had received UAH 1,530[2] out of the total award of UAH 1,753.\n9.  In August 2005 Mrs Khokhlova informed the Court that after the case had been communicated to the respondent Government she had received the remainder of the sum.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3516", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Mrs Iryna Mykhaylivna Petrova (“the first applicant”) was born in 1960. Mrs Olena Saveliyivna Chornobryvets (Zhuravlyova) (“the second applicant”) was born in 1963. Both applicants are judges of the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal and live in Kirovograd.\n5.  In November 2002 the applicants lodged claims with the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv against the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Justice and the State Treasury, seeking payment of salary arrears and life-long judicial benefits (long-service bonus and welfare benefits).\n6.  On 16 December 2002 the court allowed the applicants’ claims and ordered the Ministry of Finances and the State Treasury of Ukraine to pay the applicants, respectively, UAH 6,529.03 and UAH 8,459.36.\n7.  On 9 July 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this judgment and it became final.\n8.  On 11 August 2003 the Bailiffs’ Office of the Pechersky District of Kyiv informed the applicants that they had to address the State Treasury of Ukraine directly.\n9.  On 26 November and 19 December 2003 the State Treasury informed the applicants that there were no funds available in the State budget to enforce the judgment of 16 December 2002.\n10.  On 5 November 2004 the applicants received the sums awarded to them by the judgment of 16 December 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3517", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Khmelnytskyy.\n5.  On 5 February 1999 the applicant lodged an administrative complaint with the Khmelnytskyy Court (Хмельницький міський суд) seeking moral damages from the State for allegedly unlawful actions of the law-enforcement authorities in connection with a criminal prosecution discontinued in 1998.\n6.  After several reconsiderations of the claim, on 19 July 2001 the Khmelnytskyy Court awarded the applicant 3,000 hryvnyas (UAH).\n7.  On 16 October 2001 the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court (Апеляційний суд Хмельницької області) decreased the amount of compensation to UAH 140. The operative part of the decision indicated that it immediately gained binding effect and that the award was payable upon the applicant’s presentation of the decision to the local department of the State Treasury.\n8.  On 1 February 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation against the decision of 16 October 2001. Since then the applicant has unsuccessfully sought re-opening of the proceedings and award of higher compensation.\n9.  On 9 November 2001 the Khmelnytskyy Court issued the applicant with an enforcement writ in respect of the judgment of 19 July 2001 as amended by the decision of 16 October 2001.\n10.  On 27 February 2002 the applicant submitted the writ to the Khmelnytskyy State Treasury Department (“the Khmelnytskyy Treasury”; Відділення державного казначейства у м. Хмельницькому).\n11.  On 19 March 2002 the Khmelnytskyy Treasury informed the applicant that they decided to return the writ unenforced, as, in particular, the payment due to him had to be made by the National Bank (Національний банк України) to the order of the Bailiffs’ Service.\n12.  In June 2002 the applicant challenged the failure of the Khmelnytskyy Treasury to ensure enforcement of the judgment in his favour by way of lodging an administrative complaint with the Khmelnytskyy Court. In his submissions he noted that the Treasury in fact had never returned him the enforcement writ and so he had not been able to submit it to the Bailiffs’ Service. On 4 September 2002 the court dismissed his complaint as unsubstantiated. On 26 November 2002 the Regional Court further dismissed the applicant’s appeal and on 25 March 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation.\n13.  In the meantime, on 16 August 2002 the Khmelnytskyy Court transferred, of its own motion, the writ of enforcement in respect of the judgment in the applicant’s favour to the Pecherskyy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kyiv (“the Pecherskyy Bailiffs”; Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Печерського району м. Києва).\n14.  On 28 August 2002 the Pecherskyy Bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings and invoiced the National Bank for UAH 140. The invoice contained the name of “Lukyanchuk” instead of “Lukyanchenko” as the beneficiary. On 3 September 2002 the National Bank transferred the payment in favour of Mr Lukyanchuk to the Pecherskyy Bailiffs’ deposit account and the relevant handwritten entry mentioning Mr Lukyanchuk as the beneficiary was introduced into the Pecherskyy Bailiffs’ record book.\n15.  On 16 September 2005 the applicant requested the Khmelnytskyy Court to issue him with a duplicate enforcement writ, noting that having never received the unenforced writ back from the Khmelnytskyy Treasury he had been unable to locate it and claim the judgment award.\n16.  On 17 October 2005 the Khmelnytsk", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3518", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 30 July 1999 the Sevastopil Military Court (Військовий суд Севастопільського гарнізону) ordered the Military Unit A-3009 (Військова частина А-3009) to pay the applicant, a retired officer, 1,599.42 hryvnyas (UAH) in compensation for his uniform. This judgment was not appealed against, became final and the enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the judgment debt.\n5.  On numerous occasions the bailiffs informed the applicant that they were unable to enforce the judgment on account of the lack of budgetary allocations.\n6.  On 17 May 2005 the judgment debt was paid to the applicant.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Nakhimovsky District Court of Sevastopil (Нахімовський районний суд м. Севастополя) seeking indexation of the award, which was due to him under the judgment of 30 July 1999, default interest and non-pecuniary damage on account of the delay in payment.\n8.  On 10 October 2006 the court awarded the applicant UAH 1,375.50 in indexation of the judgment award and dismissed the remainder of his claims. This judgment was not appealed against, became final, and enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the judgment debt. As of August 2007 this judgment remained unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3519", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Vorkuta, in the Republic of Komi.\n6.  On 30 October 1996 police apprehended the applicant on suspicion of having committed theft from a garage, together with Sh. Upon arrival at the police station the applicant and Sh. admitted the charges. The applicant told the police the location of the garage they had robbed. It appears from the records of the applicant’s arrest and first questioning that his right to have legal assistance provided by the state or of his own choosing was explained to him. However, he declined the offer initially and said that he would appoint a counsel to defend him during the trial.\n7.  On 1 November 1996 the applicant was remanded in custody.\n8.  On 28 February 1997 the prosecution authorities referred the criminal case to the Vorkuta Town Court of the Republic of Komi (“the Town Court”) for trial.\n9.  On 9 December 1997 the Town Court found that during the pre-trial investigation the applicant had been deprived of an opportunity to appoint legal counsel of his own choosing. In the Town Court’s view, the applicant’s defence rights had not been respected and the charges against him had been based to a large extent on his self-incriminating testimony. Furthermore, the Town Court established that the applicant had been in custody for a year and that he had contracted tuberculosis. In those circumstances it decided to release the applicant on the undertaking not to leave his place of residence, and returned the case to the prosecution authorities for further investigation. The Town Court ordered that all investigative measures, including questioning the applicant, should be conducted in the presence of the applicant’s legal counsel.\n10.  In July 1998 the investigating authorities discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant in the absence of any corpus delicti. However, in November 1998 the Deputy Prosecutor of Vorkuta ordered them to be re-opened.\n11.  On 18 December 2000 the Town Court examined the applicant’s case. The applicant was represented by K., a counsel appointed by him. The applicant and Sh. denied all charges. They submitted that they had confessed to theft to protect Sh.’s brother. The applicant refused to give any further testimony, relying on his right not to incriminate himself.\n12.  The Town Court heard testimonies by a victim, several witnesses and the investigator in charge of the case, who stated that the applicant had been assisted by a lawyer throughout the proceedings, except at times when he had refused to call one. Each time his refusal had been noted in the records of questioning and endorsed by the applicant. The Town Court held that the applicant had admitted the charges and that other evidence examined in the trial proved his guilt. It dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s complaint that he had been questioned on occasion with no counsel present, finding that according to the records of questioning sessions signed by the applicant, he had declined to call a lawyer.\n13.  On the same date the Town Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, but ordered the sentence to be lifted under the Amnesty Act of 26 May 2000. On 26 January 2001 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi (“the Supreme Court”) upheld the conviction on appeal.\n14.  On 22 December 1998 the applicant brought a court action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, seeking to recover lost wages an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3520", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Mr Dominik Korzeb and Mr Marcin Korzeb, are brothers. They were born in 1979 and 1981 respectively and live in Ostrów Mazowiecka.\n6.  The first applicant, Dominik Korzeb, was arrested on 17 July 2001 on suspicion of having raped a minor, broken into a shop in a State school, and caused damage to State property. On 23 July 2001 the Ostrowia Mazowiecka District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody.\n7.  That decision was justified by a reasonable risk that he would abscond, especially since he had already gone into hiding and had been sought under a “wanted” notice. The court also relied on a serious risk that the applicant would attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n8.  The other applicant, Marcin Korzeb, was arrested on 20 June 2001 on suspicion of having been an accomplice to the offences allegedly committed by his brother and two other persons. On 22 July 2001 the Ostrów Mazowiecka District Court remanded him in custody.\n9.  In the course of the investigation, the applicants’ pre-trial detention was extended on several occasions by virtue of decisions of the Ostrołęka Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) of 9 August and 22 October 2001, and of 23 January 2002. In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicants’ detention.\n10.  The applicants’ appeals against the decisions extending their detention and all their subsequent numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release them were unsuccessful. In their applications and appeals, they argued that the charge against them had been based on unreliable and contradictory evidence. They also relied on their personal circumstances, in particular the need to care for their elderly mother who had twice attempted to commit suicide since the applicants’ detention.\n11.  On 4 April 2002 the Ostrów Mazowiecka District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) lodged a bill of indictment with the Ostrołęka Regional Court. The applicants were charged with rape, criminal damage to State property and burglary.\n12.  On 26 June 2002 the case of a co-defendant, who had meanwhile been apprehended, was joined to the applicants’ case.\n13.  From 20 May to 9 June 2003 the first applicant, Dominik Korzeb, was serving a prison sentence imposed on him in unrelated criminal proceedings.\n14.  During the court proceedings the authorities further extended the applicants’ detention by decisions of the Ostrołęka Regional Court of 24 April and 23 July 2002, a further decision of an unspecified date, 19 December 2002, another decision of an unspecified date, and lastly, its decision of 29 May 2003. In the latter decision the court extended Dominik Korzeb’s detention until 16 July 2003 and Marcin Korzeb’s detention until 19 June 2003. The court reiterated the grounds previously given for the applicants’ continued detention. In addition, the court justified the measure in question by the need to obtain a psychiatric report on Marcin Korzeb and to apprehend one further suspect who was still at large.\n15.  On 20 June and 17 July 2003, respectively, the length of the applicants’ detention on remand reached the statutory two-year time‑limit laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego). From that time on, the detention of Dominik Korzeb was extended by decisions of the Warsaw Court of Appeal of 1 August 2003 (upheld by ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3521", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul. At the time of her application to the Court, she was incarcerated in the Kartal Special Type Prison.\n5.  On 4 February 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Sol (Devrimci Sol – Revolutionary Left).\n6.  On 16 February 1995 the applicant was detained on remand.\n7.  On 21 February 1995 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and charged her with membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  On 28 April 1995 the Second Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court held the first hearing in the case (case no.1995/76).\n9.  On 31 October 1995 the first-instance court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial. However, the applicant was not released since on 9 October 1995 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court had filed a new bill of indictment which resulted in a second case against the applicant before the First Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court (case no. 1995/348). The applicant was charged with attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 of the Criminal Code.\n10.  On 3 September 1996 these two cases were joined under case no. 1995/348 before the First Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court.\n11.  The applicant requested to be released pending trial at various times before the trial courts. The courts dismissed her requests either without giving any reason or having regard to the nature of the offence, the content of the case file and the state of evidence.\n12.  On 31 October 2002 the First Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court once again dismissed the applicant’s request for release pending trial.\n13.  On 4 November 2002 the applicant filed an objection against the decision of 31 October 2002.\n14.  On the same day the Second Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court dismissed her request.\n15.  On 18 February 2003 the first-instance court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.\n16.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, state security courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was thereby transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. According to the information in the case file based on the latest submissions by the parties, the case is still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3522", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Istanbul. He is the father of Hakan Kasa, who was killed by a number of police officers on 13 August 1993.\n6.  The facts of the case as presented by the applicant and the Government are based on a number of documents drawn up in the course of the domestic investigation. The following information is taken from the parties’ submissions as well as from the documents submitted by them.\n7.  On 12 July 1993 police officer Mehmet Bulut was shot in the shoulder in a marketplace in Istanbul. The injury was not fatal. The perpetrators managed to escape and the police officer’s pistol went missing during the incident. The police began a search to find the perpetrators and to recover the pistol.\n8.  At around midday on 13 August 1993 the police received an anonymous telephone call from a man who stated that there were a number of armed persons in a café on the 11th floor of a shopping mall in the Beyoğlu district of Istanbul who were behaving suspiciously.\n9.  According to an incident report drawn up and signed by twenty-two members of the anti-terrorist police on 13 August 1993, a police team carried out reconnaissance in the café and determined that the information given by the anonymous caller had been correct. Armed police officers then secured the area in and around the shopping mall and a special police team, wearing bulletproof vests, entered the building.\n10.  When the members of the special police team were on the 11th floor and were walking towards the café, a man and a woman outside the café drew their pistols and opened fire at them. The two persons failed to cease firing and surrender despite warnings from the police officers. As a result, the police officers returned fire and an armed clash ensued which resulted in the deaths of the two persons.\n11.  While the police officers were dealing with the two persons, firing began from inside the café. The officers asked the people inside the café to stop and surrender. Nevertheless, when they failed to comply with that request, the officers returned fire. When the firing finally ceased from inside the café, the officers entered the café and saw three men lying on the floor behind a fridge. The members of the special police team then informed their superiors and the prosecutor. A search team was sent to the café.\n12.  A stick of dynamite was found during the search subsequently carried out in the café and was defused by bomb-disposal teams. It was destroyed the following day. It was also established that the five persons were all dead. Each of the five deceased had a pistol next to their right hands. The identities of the five deceased persons were established from the identity cards found in their pockets.\n13.  The woman killed outside the café was identified as 22-year-old Selma Çıtlak. The man killed next to her was identified as 21-year-old Mehmet Salgın. The three men inside were 16-year-old Sabri Atılmış, 32‑year-old Nebi Akyürek and the applicant’s 18-year-old son Hakan Kasa. A large number of bullet cases and deformed bullets were also found in and around the café. These were secured for the necessary examinations to be carried out.\n14.  The following information appears from the report prepared on the same day by a prosecutor who had gone to the scene after having been informed by the police at 1.30 p.m. The prosecutor, who was accompanied by a doctor from the Forensic Medicine Institute, arrived at the scene at 2 p.m.\n15.  Following th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3523", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company is a Turkish company specialising in international highway transportation.\n6.  On 1 June 1992 at Trieste port the Italian police discovered thirty kilograms of heroin stashed in a lorry which had been hired by the applicant company for the purpose of transporting walnut logs from Turkey to Italy. The driver of the vehicle escaped. As soon as they found out about the incident the applicant company informed the Istanbul Police Headquarters and submitted all the documents in their possession concerning the transportation.\n7.  On 31 December 1992 the applicant company’s licence for international highway transportation was extended until 31 December 1994.\n8.  On 23 June 1994 the Ministry of Transport (“the Ministry”) revoked the applicant company’s licence pursuant to Article 53 (g) of International Highway Transportation Regulations, on account of the incident in Italy.\n9.  On 12 July 1994 the applicant company brought an action before the Ankara Administrative Court (“the Administrative Court”) and requested the annulment of the Ministry’s decision of 23 June 1994. It also requested the Administrative Court to grant an interim decision to suspend the execution of the Ministry’s decision.\n10.  The Ministry submitted written defence arguments, together with a number of supporting documents, to the Administrative Court on 12 August 1994. The Administrative Court forwarded the Ministry’s written defence arguments to the applicant company. The documents attached to the Ministry’s written defence arguments, however, were not forwarded to the applicant company but were placed in the case file of the Administrative Court.\n11.  On 31 August 1994 the applicant company submitted observations in response to those of the Ministry. In their observations the lawyers for the applicant company referred to a number of documents which had been appended to the Ministry’s written defence arguments of 12 August 1994 but which had not been communicated to them.\n12.  The applicant company’s request for the interim measure was refused by the Administrative Court on 14 September 1994.\n13.  On 13 April 1995 the Administrative Court dismissed the case. In the proceedings the applicant company had submitted that the drug trafficking had been carried out by the driver of the hired vehicle and that the company could not, therefore, be held responsible for the driver’s actions. In its decision the Administrative Court held, inter alia, that since the impugned transportation had been undertaken by the applicant company under its licence, it was responsible for the transportation and therefore the Ministry had acted lawfully when revoking the licence.\n14.  An appeal lodged by the applicant company on 13 October 1995 was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court on 8 October 1997.\n15.  On 19 October 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant company’s request of 6 February 1998 for a rectification of the decision. That decision was served on the applicant company on 11 December 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3524", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Antalya.\n5.  On 23 March 1993 a certain H.I. lodged a criminal complaint with the Marmaris public prosecutor against the applicant and a certain S.K., accusing them of forging a bond. The prosecutor initiated an investigation and questioned the applicant on 17 May 1993.\n6.  Once the preliminary investigation was completed and the necessary evidence was obtained, a prosecutor in Ankara filed an indictment with the Ankara Assize Court (hereinafter “the trial court”) on 21 April 1995 and requested that the applicant and S.K. be punished in accordance with Article 342 § 1 of the Criminal Code for the offence of forgery.\n7.  Thirteen hearings were held by the trial court between 1 May 1995 and 12 September 1997 in the absence of the applicant. At each of these hearings the trial court noted the authorities’ failure to locate the applicant’s address. According to the applicant, the reason for his absence from those hearings was that he had not been informed about the trial. On 13 May 1996 the applicant’s co-accused S.K. was acquitted for lack of sufficient evidence. The trial court decided to continue the proceedings against the applicant.\n8.  A lawyer representing the applicant attended the 14th hearing on 21 November 1997 but, as the applicant was unable to pay his fees, the lawyer discontinued representing him. On 26 March 1998 the authorities were able to find the applicant and question him. In the course of the questioning the applicant denied the accusations against him. He attended the 18th hearing, held on 28 May 1998.\n9.  During the 19th hearing, held on 22 June 1998, the trial court acquitted the applicant for lack of sufficient evidence. On 16 September 1998 the public prosecutor appealed against the acquittal. On 11 November 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision and referred the case to the trial court for a new trial.\n10.  On 11 April 2000, during its first hearing in the new trial, the trial court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to one year and eight months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 22 October 2001 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written observations to the Court of Cassation. These observations were not communicated to the applicant. On 13 February 2002, after having held a hearing, the Court of Cassation upheld the trial court’s decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3525", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Fałkowo, Poland.\n6.  On 24 December 1998 the applicant and his wife attended a dinner organised by their neighbours. An argument broke out between the applicant and his neighbour. They left the room and began struggling in the kitchen. Subsequently, they stopped the tussle and the applicant returned home. Apparently, a few minutes later, when the neighbour was on his way to a church, the applicant assaulted him and beat him unconscious.\n7.  On 25 December 1998 the applicant was arrested on charges of aggravated assault and placed in the Gdańsk District Detention Centre (Rejonowy Areszt Śledczy).\n8.  On the same date the applicant’s wife gave a statement to the police. She stated that she had attended the dinner, but she had not known anything about the struggle in which her husband had taken part, as she had stayed in the room with the other women. She had found out about it only after her husband had been arrested by the police.\n9.  On 26 December 1998 the applicant’s wife confirmed her previous statement.\n10.  The applicant’s wife applied for permission to visit the applicant in prison. On an unknown date the Sopot District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) refused her request.\n11.  On 4 February 1999 the applicant applied for permission to be visited by his wife. On 19 February 1999 the Sopot District Prosecutor refused this request. The prosecutor held that on account of the fact that the applicant’s wife had been called as a witness by the prosecution no such permission could be granted.\n12.  Meanwhile, on 11 February 1999 the applicant’s wife again gave a statement to the police. Having been duly informed of her rights, she refused to testify against her husband in the case.\n13.  On 18 March 1999 the prosecutor allowed the applicant’s wife to visit the applicant in prison.\n14.  On 23 March 1999 the applicant’s wife visited him in prison. However, they could communicate during the visit only by internal phone and she was not allowed to bring their four-year old son.\n15.  On 27 May 1999 the applicant requested the Gdańsk District Court to allow his wife to visit him. On 30 May 1999 he lodged a complaint with the District Court against the decision to refuse his wife permission to visit him.\n16.  On 23 June 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) informed the applicant that he should not be allowed to have any personal contact with his wife as she was a witness in the proceedings against him. However, the court stressed that the applicant could be visited by adults who were not witnesses in his case and by his four-year old son. The court further noted that the next hearing was set for 16 August 1999. If the applicant’s wife testified on that date she would be allowed to visit him in prison.\n17.  On 29 June 1999 the applicant asked the Regional Court to indicate a person who could accompany his son to the detention centre. The court in reply informed the applicant that he should indicate such a person. As the applicant failed to do so, his son did not visit him in prison.\n18.  On 8 July 1999 the President of the Regional Court informed the applicant that his wife was not allowed to visit him in the detention centre since she had testified twice in the investigative stage of the proceedings and those testimonies were relevant to the offences with which the applicant had been charged. The date of the hearing in the applicant’s case had been set for 20 May 1999 and his wife ought to h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3526", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Szczecin.\n5.  On 27 June 1995 the applicant lodged a statement of claim with the Goleniów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n6.  On 26 October 1995 the Goleniów District Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case and referred it to the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n7.  On 12 December 1995 the applicant was ordered to rectify certain procedural shortcomings in her claim in order to fulfil the formal requirements set out in Polish law. She complied with the court’s order in December 1995.\n8.  At a hearing on 22 March 1996 the defendant lodged a counterclaim. On an unknown date in April 1996 the applicant submitted her reply to the counterclaim.\n9.  Between 12 February and 14 November 1997 the court held five hearings.\n10.  On 1 December 1997 the Szczecin Regional Court delivered its judgment.\n11.  On 5 December 1997 the applicant lodged a notice of appeal. On 27 March 1998 she was served with the court’s statement of reasons.\n12.  The case was referred to the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) in August 1998. On 7 March 2000 the court partly amended the judgment and remitted the case in part.\n13.  On 12 June 2000 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) against the judgment of the Court of Appeal.\n14.  On 14 February 2002 the Supreme Court, sitting in camera, refused to entertain the cassation appeal as it did not raise any issue of general importance.\n15.  On 20 June 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal remitted the case to the Szczecin Regional Court.\n16.  On 23 May 2003 the Szczecin Regional Court held a hearing. A hearing scheduled for 6 April 2004 was postponed because the judge was ill.\n17.  On 15 June 2004 a hearing was held.\n18.  On 29 June 2004 the Szczecin Regional Court delivered its judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal against it.\n19.  On 23 November 2005, by a final judgment of the Poznań Court of Appeal, the applicant’s appeal was dismissed.\n20.  On 16 March 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). The Supreme Court referred the case to the Szczecin Court of Appeal.\n21.  The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Szczecin Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n22.  On 24 June 2005 the Szczecin Court of Appeal gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Szczecin Regional Court, finding that there had been periods of unjustified inactivity in 1995 and 1996, then between January and March 1998 and between June and November 2002. It awarded the applicant PLN 3,000 in just satisfaction. The court observed that the claim for just satisfaction in the amount of PLN 10,000 was excessive.\n23.  The court did not take into consideration the delays that had occurred before the Szczecin Court of Appeal (between August 1998 and 7 March 2000), nor did it consider the period between 12 June 2000 and 14 February 2002, when the case was pending before the Supreme Court.\n24.  On 5 January 1995 a certain “S-P” Company Ltd instituted civil proceedings for repossession against the applicant. Between 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3527", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Raciborz. He is currently detained in the Racibórz Remand Centre.\n5.  On 15 December 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of committing 11 crimes, including forming and running a criminal gang, and detained on remand pursuant to a decision given by the Gliwice District Court on charges of repeated robbery and membership of an organised gang. On 19 January 2005 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order, stating that the application of the most severe preventive measure was justified by the existence of strong evidence of his guilt, in particular testimonies of co-suspects and witnesses. Furthermore, having regard to the fact that the applicant was domiciled in the Netherlands and had been arrested on the basis of a wanted notice, the court concluded that there was a justified fear that the applicant might go into hiding and obstruct the proper course of the proceedings. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the fact that the applicant had a previous criminal record.\n6.  On 15 February 2005 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Katowice Regional Court. The applicant was charged with setting up a criminal gang and running its activity, several accounts of aggravated theft with the use of violence, attempted robbery with the use of violence and burglary committed following his relapse into crime. The prosecutor requested that 14 witnesses be heard and the testimonies of a further 8 witnesses be read out and 39 pieces of evidence be taken.\n7.  On 15 March 2005 the applicant’s detention was prolonged for three months. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed on 13 April 2005 by the Katowice Court of Appeal. The decision was based on strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by the evidence from witnesses. The courts attached importance to the grave nature of those offences and to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, especially the need to verify evidence from suspects and witnesses and to obtain fresh evidence from witnesses, justified holding the applicant in custody.\n8.  On 19 July 2005 the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release, considering that he had previously tried to evade justice by absconding and that the evidence against him sufficiently supported the charges laid against him.\n9.  On 2 August 2005 the Wodzislaw Division of the Gliwice Regional Court refused to release the applicant, relying on the high likelihood that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged. The court referred to the evidence gathered so far in the proceedings and to the fact that one of the accused had acknowledged that he had committed the offences in question. It also noted that before his arrest the applicant, having absconded, had been sought pursuant to a wanted notice. The court further noted that he lived abroad, which made it likely that he would abscond again.\n10.  On 31 August 2006 the court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 December 2006 relying on the fact that the applicant had tried to exert pressure upon two other accused and, if released, he could hinder the proper conduct of the proceedings. The decision was upheld on 27 Se", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3528", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is serving his prison sentence in the Ankara Sincan F-type prison.\n5.  In March 2000, the applicant, who was accused of murder, armed robbery and membership of an illegal organisation, namely the TKP-ML (Türkiye Komünist Partisi / Marksist Leninist, Turkish Communist Party / Marxist Leninist), was placed in detention on remand in the Nevşehir prison.\n6.  On 19 December 2000 the applicant was transferred to the Ankara Sincan F-type prison.\n7.  On 2 January 2001 the Disciplinary Board of the F-type prison (“the Board”) found the applicant guilty of having damaged prison property and, pursuant to Article 157 of the Regulations on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences (“the Regulations”), prohibited him from receiving visitors for a period of three months. According to the Board’s decision, on 24 December 2000 the applicant had broken the ventilation in his ward and written the name of an illegal organisation on his wall. The decision of the Board was reviewed and upheld by the Ankara State Security Court, in accordance with Article 116/5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court delivered its decision on the basis of the case file. It also referred to the applicant’s statement in which he had admitted committing these acts in protest against the general situation in F‑type prisons. The penalty was enforced between 25 January 2001 and 25 April 2001.\n8.  On 13 March 2001 the Board once again imposed a disciplinary sanction on the applicant and prohibited him from receiving visits for two months. According to the Board’s decision, on 15 February 2001, following a meeting with his lawyer, the applicant had refused to be searched by prison officers and had shouted slogans. In his defence submissions, the applicant admitted that he had resisted the prison officers when he was ordered to take off his shoes. On 28 March 2001 the Board’s decision was reviewed and upheld by the Ankara State Security Court. The applicant filed an objection with the public prosecutor against this decision under Article 162 of the Regulations. On 2 May 2001 the public prosecutor rejected the applicant’s request. The penalty was enforced between 27 April and 27 June 2001.\n9.  On 17 May 2001 the Board found the applicant guilty of having damaged prison property, possessing a sharp cutting instrument made from a prison bed, and having an excessive amount of money in his possession. It accordingly prohibited him from receiving visitors for a period of three months. In the meantime, Law no. 4675 entered into force, which stipulated that decisions delivered by Disciplinary Boards were to be reviewed by the Enforcement Judge. Accordingly, on 21 June 2001, the decision of 17 May 2001 was reviewed. The judge upheld the Board’s decision, on the basis of the case file and taking into account the applicant’s statement. This decision was served on the applicant on 3 July 2001 and the penalty was enforced between 31 July and 30 October 2001.\n10.  On 21 May 2001 the applicant received a reprimand for having chanted slogans in the prison. The Board held that the applicant should be warned that he would receive heavier penalties if he continued committing similar offences.\n11.  On 18 and 22 May 2001 respectively, the prison guards prepared two incident reports according to which the applicant had damaged public property by breaking the loudspeaker in his cell and had incited other inmates to disturb orde", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3529", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Tomasz Piotrowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Łódź.\nCriminal proceedings against the applicant and his detention on remand\n5.  On 30 April 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aiding and abetting robbery committed by an organised criminal group. On that day the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged. The court also considered that there was a risk that he might obstruct the proceedings since evidence given by him was contradictory to the material gathered by the prosecution. It referred to the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on the applicant and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n6.  On 18 July 2003 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) extended the applicant’s detention until 30 September 2003. It relied on the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on the applicant and the complexity of the case. It also stressed that his detention was justified by the need to obtain further evidence, in particular to obtain expert reports, to take evidence from witnesses and to arrest all members of the criminal group.\n7.  On 26 September 2003 the Łódź Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 February 2004. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged. It referred to the complexity of the case and the need to obtain further evidence, in particular to obtain expert reports and take evidence from witnesses. It further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings justified holding him in custody.\n8.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by the Łódź Regional Court on 23 January 2004. The court repeated the grounds given in its previous decisions.\n9.  On 9 March 2004 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Łódź Regional Court. The bill of indictment comprised eighty-three charges brought against seventeen defendants. The applicant was charged with several counts of aiding and abetting robbery committed by members of an organised criminal group.\n10.  On 16 March and 1 December 2004 the Łódź Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention. The court relied on the grounds stated in the previous decisions.\n11.  On 26 April 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention until 31 August 2005. On 10 August the court ordered that the term should be extended further, until 31 December 2005. On 29 December 2005 it ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 31 March 2006. The next decision was given on 22 March 2006; it extended the applicant’s detention until 30 June 2006.\n12.  The court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. It also referred to the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on him and to the complexity of the case.\n13.  On 28 June 2006 the Łódź Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 31 August 2006. The court repeated the grounds given in the previous decisions.\n14.  In the course of the investigation and the court proceedings the applicant made numerous, but unsuccessful, applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release him and against decisions extending his detention.\n15.  Betwee", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3530", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 15 March 1996 the applicant sued a limited company before the Bratislava II District Court. He claimed royalties for a furniture line which he had designed.\n6.  On 12 February 1997 the District Court granted the applicant’s request that a second company should be joined to the proceedings as a defendant. On 23 May 1997 the Regional Court in Bratislava upheld that decision.\n7.  As the first defendant was declared insolvent, the applicant withdrew his claim against it on 2 June 1998. That company was subsequently deleted from the companies register.\n8.  On 18 September 1998 the Bratislava II District Court decided to transfer the case to the District Court in Žilina. On 30 November 1998 the Supreme Court decided that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the Bratislava II District Court.\n9.  Between 22 April 1999 and 2 October 2001 the District Court scheduled eleven hearings. The defendant’s representative failed to appear on seven occasions.\n10.  On 2 October 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim.  On 12 December 2001 the applicant appealed.\n11.  On 16 October 2003 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment. The court of appeal held that the applicant was entitled to remuneration for the design in question. Further evidence was to be taken with a view to determining the amount.\n12.  Between 5 March 2004 and 15 April 2004 the file was examined by the Constitutional Court.\n13.  On 26 April 2004 the case was assigned to a different judge of the District Court.\n14.  On 16 July 2004, the District Court appointed an expert. As the expert stated that he was not competent in the area concerned, a different expert was appointed on 27 August 2004. On account of the latter’s health problems, a third expert was appointed on 22 November 2004. The third expert informed the District Court that he was not qualified to determine remuneration for artistic design, and for this reason a fourth expert was appointed on 22 April 2005. That expert informed the court that she was not authorised to prepare an opinion on the point in issue. On 7 November 2005 the Bratislava II District Court appointed a fifth expert with a view to having determined the remuneration due to the applicant. On 7 December 2005 that expert replied that he was not entitled to give an opinion on the point in issue. On 9 January 2005 the court asked the second expert, who had earlier stated that he was suffering from health problems, whether he could submit an opinion. He replied in the negative.\n15.  On 10 July 2006 the judge made a note in the file indicating that it had been impossible to find an expert in intellectual property who was qualified to determine royalties for the design of office furniture.\n16.  On 19 July 2006 the District Court asked five companies for information on royalties paid to furniture designers. It repeated the request on 26 September 2006.\n17.  In November and December 2006 the court sent a similar request to the Slovak Chamber of Architects, the School of Creative Arts, the Slovak Design Centre and the Slovak Fund of Creative Arts. In March 2007 and April 2007 the court urged the School of Creative Arts to submit the information.\n18.  On 14 June 2007 the District Court held a hearing. The applicant was asked to submit documentary evidence concerning the use by the defendant of the furniture line designed by him. The applicant submitted the evidence o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3531", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Łódź.\n5.  On 19 January 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted burglary and assault causing bodily harm.\n6.  On 21 January 2004 the Sieradz District Court remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant was released from detention on 8 July 2004.\n7.  On 20 September 2004 the Sieradz District Court acquitted the applicant of attempted burglary and convicted him of assault. It sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n8.  On 8 December 2004 the Sieradz Regional Court upheld the District Court judgment. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal.\n9.  On 16 August 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed his cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded.\n10.  It transpires from the case file that in the period from 12 June 2006 to at least 4 July 2006 the applicant was again remanded in custody in connection with another set of criminal proceedings against him.\n11.  On 12 June 2006 the applicant sent a request for an application form to the Court. On 29 June 2006 the Court received his request.\n12.  On 4 July 2006 the Court sent a letter to the applicant containing a copy of the Convention, an application form and two information sheets. The envelope from this letter bears a stamp marked “censored”. The envelope also bears two stamps of the Łódź Detention Centre with the dates 14 July 2006 and 21 July 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3532", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 12 November 1990 the applicant and a Mr S.V. were arrested in Sofia on suspicion of having stolen a car. They were charged by a military investigator, who was competent because at the time Mr S.V. was an army private, and placed in pre‑trial detention.\n6.  In the beginning of 1991 Mr S.V. managed to escape during a transfer from one detention facility to another. In May 1991 the applicant was released on bail.\n7.  On 24 July 1991 the applicant was arrested in Gabrovo on charges of theft. The case was assigned to the Pleven Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office on account of Mr S.V.’s being in the army. There it was joined to other cases pending against Mr S.V., some of which also concerned the applicant.\n8.  On 5 February 1993 the proceedings were stayed as Mr S.V.’s whereabouts were unknown. According to the applicant, Mr S.V. had settled in Greece, but during the following years had come back to Bulgaria every summer without ever having been stopped or bothered by the authorities, and had even renewed his identity documents.\n9.  In 2001 the applicant enquired about the state of the proceedings against him. He was informed that Mr S.V. had not been found yet and that the proceedings were still stayed.\n10.  On 27 July 2001 the investigation was taken up by the Pleven Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office. On 10 August 2001 this Office disjoined the cases against the applicant and assigned them to the Sofia, Varna, Plovdiv and Gabrovo District Prosecutor’s Offices, in accordance with their territorial competence, and to the Sofia Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office.\n11.  On 28 June 2002 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the investigation against the applicant because the relevant limitation period has expired. On 28 August 2002 the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office discontinued its investigation for the same reason.\n12.  On 5 March 2002 the Gabrovo District Prosecutor’s Office dropped certain charges against the applicant and indicted him for a number of others. The case was heard by the Gabrovo District Court, which convicted the applicant in a judgment of 4 November 2002. It seems that applicant did not appeal. Certain other charges against the applicant were dropped by the Gabrovo District Prosecutor’s Office on 28 October 2003.\n13.  It is unclear whether the cases against the applicant handled by the Varna District Prosecutor’s Office and the Sofia Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office have been discontinued or are still pending.\n14.  On 4 April 2001 the applicant was taken to the Lovech Prison to serve a sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment imposed in 2000. Later this sentence was aggregated with several other punishments meted out in separate proceedings. He was released on 29 January 2003.\n15.  During his stay in prison, the applicant was not allowed to write to his lawyer representing him in various criminal proceedings and in the proceedings before the Court in sealed envelopes, or to talk to her on the telephone. His mail, including the letters to and from his lawyer, was systematically opened and checked. This was confirmed by a letter written on 15 November 2006 by the head of the “Execution of Punishments” directorate of the Ministry of Justice and produced by the Government before the Court. The letter said that pursuant to section 33(1)(c) of the 1969 Execution of Punishments Act (see paragraph 18 below) prisoners’ correspondence was subject to monitoring by the prison administrati", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3533", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Sofia.\n5.  The applicant’s late father owned a house, a garage and an outhouse with some adjoining land in Sofia. By a mayor’s order of 28 March 1989 the above property was expropriated for the construction of a school. The expropriated property was valued at 16,878.20 old Bulgarian levs (BGL). The order, based on section 98(1) of the 1973 Territorial and Urban Planning Act (“the TUPA” – “Закон за териториалното и селищно устройство”) provided that the applicant was to be compensated with a flat and his father was to be compensated with another flat and a garage. Both flats were to be situated in a building which the municipality intended to construct.\n6.  By a supplementary order of 15 June 1990, based on section 100 of the TUPA, the mayor indicated the exact flats and the garage with which the applicant and his father were to be compensated, specifying the building in which they would be located and, in the case of the flats, also their precise surface area.\n7.  On an unspecified date the municipal authorities opened blocked housing savings accounts with the State Savings Bank in the name of the applicant and his father. An amount equivalent to the estimated value of the expropriated real estate (BGL 16,878.20) was deposited in the housing savings account of the applicant’s father. The latter transferred BGL 8,878 into the applicant’s housing savings account. As the value of the flats and garage offered in compensation was higher than that of the expropriated property, the applicant and his father had to make top-up payments on unspecified dates in the amount of BGL 92,000. The nominal sum was increased considerably owing to the high inflation rate during the relevant period.\n8.  In 1991 the municipal authorities took possession of the expropriated property and the buildings were pulled down. However, the construction of the school never started.\n9.  While awaiting the construction of the flats the applicant, his family and parents were settled in a municipal council flat. The flat was much smaller than the total surface area of the flats offered in compensation and was situated in a building owned by the municipality which was in a poor state of repair.\n10.  The applicant’s father died in 1992. In December 1999 his mother died, whereupon he became the sole owner of all the “future” real property allocated in compensation for the 1989 expropriation.\n11.  The construction of the building in which the flats and the garage were to be located did not start as planned.\n12.  The applicant made numerous complaints to the municipal authorities, to no avail. By a letter of 5 July 1999 the municipal company Sofinvest EOOD informed the applicant that the construction had not yet started and that no funding was available.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 20 March 1995, the applicant requested the mayor to rescind the expropriation order in accordance with section 102 of the 1951 Property Act. On 9 November 1995 the mayor refused on the ground that the house had been demolished and the expropriated plot had been cleared for groundwork. According to the relevant legislation in force, the expropriation order could only be rescinded if the land had not been cleared for groundwork. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Sofia City Court. In a judgment of 10 June 1998 the Sofia City Court upheld the mayor’s refusal for the same reason.\n14.  On 10 November 1998 the applicant filed a request with the local governor seek", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3534", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  In the 1970s and early 1980s the applicant worked as a journalist and senior inspector at the propaganda department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.\n5.  In 1982 the applicant left Bulgaria and settled first in Switzerland and then in the United States of America.\n6.  In 1983 the Sofia Military Court, whose judgment was upheld the same year by the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court, tried the applicant in his absence and convicted him of treason and espionage. He was sentenced to nineteen years’ imprisonment and forfeiture of all his assets, and was stripped of his Sofia residence.\n7.  In 1987, following the applicant’s return to Bulgaria in 1986, the General Assembly of the Criminal Chambers of the Supreme Court set these judgments aside and the remitted the case for a fresh examination. In 1988 the Sofia Military Court, whose judgment was upheld the same year by the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court, re‑convicted the applicant of treason and espionage, and sentenced him to sixteen years’ imprisonment. It also deprived him of the right to reside in Sofia and forfeited all his assets. The applicant was kept in custody between April 1986 and December 1989.\n8.  In April 1990 the General Assembly of the Criminal Chambers of the Supreme Court set the above judgments aside and acquitted the applicant.\n9.  On 14 May 1990 the applicant filed an action under the 1988 State Responsibility for Damage Act (see paragraph 28 below). He named as defendants the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the General Investigation Service, the Sofia Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office, the Supreme Military Prosecutor’s Office, the Sofia Military Court, the Supreme Court, the Sofia Prison and the Sredetz Municipal Council, all of which had allegedly participated in various ways in the repression against him. He claimed compensation for the pecuniary (including lost pay, lawyers’ fees, the value of the confiscated chattels and flat, and the loss of enjoyment of these properties) and the non‑pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the criminal proceedings against him, the confiscation of his property and his detention.\n10.  The Sofia City Court examined the case in twenty‑one hearings, held between September 1990 and March 1994 at one‑ to three‑month intervals. Thirteen of them took place before 7 September 1992 – the date on which the Convention entered into force in respect of Bulgaria.\n11.  In examining the case the court heard a number of witnesses and several experts who drew up reports on the value of the flat and the chattels confiscated from the applicant. At the request of the applicant, some of the reports were updated to take account of the increase of the price of the flat and of the chattels due to the high inflation in the country between 1990 and 1994. The applicant removed or added defendants on five occasions. At the close of the proceedings the defendants were the Supreme Court, the Chief Prosecutor’s Office, and the Ministries of Justice, Finance and Defence. He also twice increased the value of his claims. On two occasions the court instructed him to itemise and specify his claims with regard to each defendant.\n12.  Nine hearings (five before 7 September 1992 and four after that date) were adjourned owing to various problems attributable to the authorities, such as the failure to properly summon or serve documents on defendants, or to obtain expert reports in time.\n13.  One hearing, listed for 15 February 1993, was adjourned because", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3535", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a practising lawyer. He has been a member of the Sofia bar since 1994. His office is located in the centre of Sofia.\n6.  On 23 November 2000 a Mr R.S. lodged a complaint with the Second Regional Police Department in Sofia. He alleged that the previous day, 22 November 2000, he had been abducted by several persons working for his former employer, a company called MIG Group AD. He had been taken to a certain Mr K.G., an employee of that company, who had threatened him and his family with violence on account of his failure to repay certain money which he owed to the company. He had later been taken to the applicant’s office, where he had been coerced into signing written promises to pay money, as well as a contract to hand over his car. All these documents had been drafted by the applicant.\n7.  On 24 November 2000 Mr R.S.’s complaint was referred to the First Regional Police Department in Sofia, which on 29 November 2000 opened a criminal investigation against an unknown perpetrator on allegations of extortion contrary to Article 214 § 1 of the 1968 Criminal Code.\n8.  At about midday on 29 November 2000 the police brought Mr K.G. and two other individuals in for questioning. The applicant, who was the legal counsel of MIG Group AD, was informed of Mr K.G.’s arrest. He called the police officer in charge of the case, offering to assist by going to the police station.\n9.  The applicant went to the police station at about 2 p.m. on 29 November 2000. Once on the premises, he was taken to a room where he saw several other persons called for questioning, and was apparently not allowed to leave. However, no warrant was issued for his arrest, whereas at 4 p.m. the police decided to detain Mr K.G. and the two other individuals for twenty‑four hours.\n10.  Between 6.30 p.m. and 7 p.m. the same day the officer in charge of the investigation interviewed the applicant as a witness. The applicant said that he knew Mr R.S., because he had been an employee of MIG Group AD. However, he said that he had not seen him on 22 November 2000 and completely denied the allegations that on that day Mr R.S. had been coerced into signing certain documents in the applicant’s office. He also said that he had a computer in his office and that Mr K.G. was a client of his. After the interview the applicant was allowed to leave the police station.\n11.  At 8 p.m. the same day several police officers sealed the door of the applicant’s office and left a guard in front of the door.\n12.  The applicant alleged that shortly after that his mobile telephone was tapped, as evidenced by the constant noise on the line. The Government denied this, saying that the investigation case file did not contain a single document relating to such tapping. In support they produced an inventory of all documents in the file.\n13.  At 2.40 p.m. the next day, 30 November 2000, the police officer in charge of the case organised a confrontation between the applicant and Mr R.S., in their capacity as witnesses, with a view to eliminating the discrepancies between their versions of the events of 22 November 2000. Both stuck to their original accounts. The confrontation ended at 2.45 p.m.\n14.  At 4 p.m. on 30 November 2000 the police officer in charge of the case applied to the Sofia District Court for a search warrant for the applicant’s office. He said, without giving further particulars, that on the basis of the available evidence there were grounds to believe that objects and documen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3536", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Saint-Didier-au-Mont-d’Or.\n6.  On 30 May 1995 the Lyons Central Health Insurance Office (caisse primaire centrale d’assurance maladie) filed a criminal complaint stating that an investigation it had carried out in 1993 had revealed that the price charged for prosthetic knee joints by the Clinique du Parc, of which the applicant was the manager, appeared abnormally high, especially in relation to the price charged in the public sector. It added that the prostheses were directly delivered to the operating theatre at the Clinique du Parc but were billed by a company named Clinique Service, also managed by the applicant, with a systematic increase of 15% for the prostheses and 18.5% for the ancillary equipment, the increased price alone being charged to the Health Insurance Office. The Health Insurance Office therefore had doubts about the Clinique Service company, suspecting that its sole activity consisted in overbilling in this way.\n7.  In the course of the investigation, complaints about similar acts were filed by various other health insurance funds or payment agencies.\n8.  The preliminary investigation found, among other things, that the Clinique Service company had been established in particular to alleviate cash-flow problems resulting from the delay in reimbursement of health care under the third-party payment system. Under this system, in order to be fully reimbursed by the social security scheme for the health care provided, Clinique du Parc had to wait for the invoice from the prosthesis supplier, which meant a delay of several days, if not weeks.\n9.  It also transpired that Clinique Service used the same premises and staff as the Clinique du Parc, that its sole customer was the Clinique du Parc and that its manager, the applicant, was also the manager of the Clinique du Parc together with his brother.\n10.  In an order of 28 August 2000 the applicant and his brother were committed to stand trial in the Lyons Criminal Court, being charged in particular with having deceived the social security scheme and the relevant health insurance offices through fraudulent practices including the operation of a bogus company in order to secure reimbursement.\n11.  The applicant submitted, as part of his defence, that the offence of professional collusion (compérage) was covered by an automatic amnesty and that a prosecution for the same actions characterised as fraud could not succeed, since only the special provisions concerning the characterisation of professional collusion were applicable.\n12.  In a judgment of 30 March 2001 the Lyons Criminal Court held that the prosecution had lapsed as the offence of professional collusion was covered by an automatic amnesty, and that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the claims of the civil parties (the health insurance offices that had lodged the criminal complaint against the applicant) whose interests had been harmed as a result of the acts covered by the automatic amnesty. It further held that the offence of fraud was not made out. The applicant was accordingly acquitted.\n13.  Within the ten-day time-limit laid down in Article 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the civil parties appealed against the judgment of 30 March 2001.\n14.  Although the public prosecutor at the Criminal Court had declined to appeal within the ten-day time-limit laid down in Article 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Principal Public Prosecutor lodged an appeal against", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3538", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  In 1992 the applicant was working for a pharmaceuticals company.\n5.  In March 1992 the Elin Pelin Investigation Service opened a preliminary investigation into the attempted theft of ten barrels of chemicals from the company premises. In April and May 1992 the applicant and two other employees were charged.\n6.  On 2 July 1992 the investigator finished his work on the case and sent the file to the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office. On 15 July 1992 that Office dropped the charges against the applicant’s co‑accused and on 24 July 1992 indicted the applicant.\n7.  At a hearing held on 27 October 1992 the Elin Pelin District Court found indications that the applicant’s co‑accused might have been involved in the commission of the offence and referred the case back for further investigation.\n8.  Following additional inquiries, on 23 March 1993 the investigator charged the applicant and the two other employees anew and on 31 March 1993 sent the file to the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office.\n9.  On 3 May 1993 the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office again dropped the charges against the applicant’s co‑accused. Upon the appeal of the applicant, on 7 June 1993 the Sofia Regional Prosecutor’s Office confirmed this decision. Upon the applicant’s further appeal, on 9 August 1993 the Chief Prosecutor’s Office found that the facts of the case had not been sufficiently elucidated, quashed the decision and referred the case back for further investigation.\n10.  Following an additional investigation, in December 1993 the applicant and the two other employees were charged anew and in January 1994 the file was sent to the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office.\n11.  On 3 February 1994 the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office referred the case back to the investigator, finding that the facts had not been sufficiently elucidated and that the applicant and one of his co-accused had been questioned in the absence of their counsel.\n12.  After addressing these omissions, on 7 March 1994 the investigator sent the file to the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office.\n13.  On 14 March 1994 the Elin Pelin District Prosecutor’s Office dropped the charges against the applicant’s co‑accused and on 27 June 1994 indicted the applicant.\n14.  The Elin Pelin District Court examined the case in six hearings which took place between October 1994 and November 1995. It heard a number of witnesses. Three of the hearings were adjourned because certain witnesses, despite being duly subpoenaed, failed to appear. One hearing failed to take place because the prosecutor was absent and one was adjourned to allow the applicant to call additional witnesses.\n15.  In a judgment of 30 November 1995 the Elin Pelin District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to one year and three months’ imprisonment, suspended.\n16.  Both the applicant and the prosecution appealed.\n17.  The Sofia Regional Court, after adjourning one hearing upon the request of the applicant’s counsel, who had not had enough time to prepare due to the late arrival of the file in the court’s registry, examined the appeal at a hearing held on 26 February 1996.\n18.  On 27 February 1996 the Sofia Regional Court quashed the lower court’s judgment and remitted the case to the preliminary investigation stage. It found that the lower court had failed to apprise the applicant of his rights to defend himself and to request the recusal of the judges. It also found that the value of the chemicals had not", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3539", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 17 August 1999 a burglary was committed and, among other items, a television and a video recorder were stolen.\n8.  A preliminary investigation was opened against two other suspects on 17 August 1999 and against the applicant on 28 August 1999. On the same day the applicant confessed to having committed five burglaries with his accomplices between 29 January and 20 August 1999.\n9.  On 31 August 1999 the applicant was charged with committing burglary on 17 August 1999 with his accomplices.\n10.  The applicant gave another four statements to the investigator confessing to the other burglaries and providing additional information on how they had been perpetrated.\n11.  On 17 September 1999 the preliminary investigation into the burglary of 17 August 1999 was joined to the preliminary investigations into the other four burglaries.\n12.  On 7 October 1999 the charges against the applicant were amended to include the other four burglaries.\n13.  The preliminary investigation was concluded on 15 October 1999 and on 21 December 1999 the Pazardzhik district public prosecutor’s office issued an indictment against the applicant and his two accomplices for the five burglaries.\n14.  The Pazardzhik District Court conducted eleven hearings in the case, the last of which was held on 30 September 2004.\n15.  The Court has not been informed of any subsequent developments in or of the outcome of these proceedings.\n16.  On 26 August 1999 the police, with the approval of the public prosecutor’s office, searched the apartment in which the applicant and one of his accomplices had been living. The applicant had been renting the said apartment under a lease dated 2 March 1999.\n17.  The search and seizure protocol indicates that the search was conducted in the presence of two witnesses. Various items were seized including three cameras, a hi-fi system, a dining set, gloves and a wrench.\n18.  On 28 August 1999, under an order issued by an investigator and approved by the public prosecutor’s office, the applicant was arrested and detained for twenty-four hours beginning at 5 p.m. The grounds for his detention were that he was suspected of having committed the burglary on 17 August 1999 because the stolen television and a wrench that had allegedly been used to perpetrate the offence had been found in his apartment, and he had attempted to abscond.\n19.  On 29 August 1999 the public prosecutor’s office extended the applicant’s preliminary detention for another two days until 5 p.m. on 31 August 1999.\n20.  The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention as part of the decision of 31 August 1999 to charge him and his accomplices with the burglary on 17 August 1999 (see paragraph 9 above). That decision was issued by an investigator and was confirmed later in the day by the public prosecutor’s office. In ordering the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the investigator referred to his alleged lack of a permanent address, the fact that he had committed a number of other burglaries and, in general terms, the risk that he might abscond, re-offend or obstruct the investigation.\n21.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was confirmed in the decision of 7 October 1999 to amend the charges against him (see paragraph 12 above). That decision was issued by an investigator without any indication that it was subsequently confirmed by the public prosecutor’s office. In ordering the applicant’s pre-trial detention, the investigator referred to the lack of a permanent address, the fact ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3541", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1946, 1953, 1966 and 1972 respectively. They are currently detained in Mostar Prison in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n7.  On different dates the applicants were convicted of war crimes perpetrated against Bosniac (at the time, Bosnian Muslim) civilians during the 1992-95 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were committed to Zenica Prison on 16 August 2004 (Mr Rodić), on 4 February 2005 (Mr Pušara), on 10 May 2005 (Mr Knežević) and on 12 October 2004 (Mr Baković). Zenica Prison is the only maximum-security prison in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (a constituent Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina). Its population is mostly made up of Bosniacs (approximately 90 per cent).\n8.  On 7 March 2005 Mr Pušara asked to be transferred to Foča Prison, in the Republika Srpska (the other constituent Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina), in order to be closer to his family. On 28 March 2005 the Ministry of Justice of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Federation Ministry”) informed him that a prison transfer between the two Entities was not allowed.\n9.  On 2 May 2005 at 6 p.m. offensive graffiti referring to Mr Rodić and Mr Baković were discovered in the prison canteen. Those responsible for the graffiti were never identified.\n10.  On 19 May 2005 the Federation Ministry informed Mr Knežević also that a prison transfer between the two Entities was not allowed.\n11.  On 4 June 2005 at 9 p.m., following the screening of a video which showed a 1995 killing of Bosniacs from Srebrenica, another prisoner, N.F., lured Mr Pušara into his cell and punched him in the eye with a clenched fist. On 7 June 2005 Mr Pušara was treated in a civil hospital in Zenica. According to an official report, the attack was ethnically motivated, the attacker had a piece of glass in his hand and the consequences could have been more serious had it not been for the intervention of another prisoner.\n12.  On 5 June 2005 at 4 p.m. another prisoner, J.H., attacked Mr Baković in the prison canteen. The prison guards intervened after Mr Baković had received several blows to the head. He was treated in a civil hospital in Zenica on the same day.\n13.  On 8 June 2005 the applicants declared a hunger strike in order to attract public attention to their situation. They were immediately placed in the Zenica Prison hospital unit.\n14.  On the same day, the Disciplinary Board of Zenica Prison sentenced N.F. and J.H. to twenty days’ solitary confinement in connection with the incidents of 4 and 5 June 2005.\n15.  On 10 June 2005 the Federation Ministry set up an ad hoc commission of independent experts (“the ad hoc commission”) with a view to investigating the incidents of 4 and 5 June 2005.\n16.  On 15 June 2005 the Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the State Ministry”) ordered the applicants’ transfer to Istočno Sarajevo Prison, in the Republika Srpska, for security reasons.\n17.  On 19 June 2005 the ad hoc commission issued its final report. It referred to prison records showing that the prison management had been aware of the need to protect the applicants from the time of their arrival in Zenica Prison. The prison management confirmed to the ad hoc commission that special measures had indeed been considered, but that it had been unable to introduce any such measures because of the lack of prison staff, the lack of space (80 prisoners more than the prison’s official capacity), the lack of another maximum-security prison in the Federation of Bo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3542", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 13 August 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The person responsible for the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.\n7.  On 29 December 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 14,330,442 Slovenian tolars (SIT) (approximately 62,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.\n8.  Between 1 July 1998 and 18 April 2000 the applicant made seven requests that a date be set for a hearing.\n9.  Between 20 October 1999 and 23 September 2002 he lodged eleven preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.\n10.  On 21 September 2000 the court appointed four medical experts to prepare expert reports in the case.\n11.  Three hearings were held between 21 September 2000 and 17 October 2002.\n12.  On 17 October 2002 the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 18 November 2002.\n13.  On 28 November 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and requested that the first-instance court to correct its judgment.\n14.  On 8 July 2003 the first-instance court corrected its judgment as regards legal costs.\n15.  On 23 December 2004 the Celje Higher Court delivered a judgment allowing the applicant’s appeal in part and amending the first-instance court’s judgment accordingly.\nThe judgment was served on the applicant on 10 January 2005.\n16.  On 19 January 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 7 December 2006 the court delivered a judgment. It partly upheld the applicant’s appeal on points of law and changed the second-instance court’s judgment accordingly. The Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 18 January 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3544", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1957 and 1958 respectively and live in the village of Goyty, the Urus-Martan District, the Chechen Republic.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicants and their two sons, Lecha Betayev, born in 1981, and Ibragim Betayev, born in 1983, lived together in their three-room family house at 52 Kagermanova Street in the village of Goyty.\n8.  On the night of 25 to 26 April 2003 the applicants and both their sons were at home. The applicants were sleeping in one room and their sons in separate rooms.\n9.  At about 1.30 a.m. a group of around twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the Betayevs’ house. Some of them stayed outside, while others forcibly entered the house. All but three of them were wearing balaclava masks. They did not identify themselves and offered no explanation for their visit. Their commander had no mask on, and the applicants observed that he had fair hair, blue eyes, a straight nose and Slavic features. The applicants inferred that the armed men were federal military or security servicemen because they spoke Russian without an accent and their uniform was similar to that of the federal armed forces.\n10.  The servicemen went to all rooms at once and three of them entered the room where the applicants were sleeping. They turned on the light and shouted at the applicants while pointing their machine guns at them. The first applicant tried to get up, but one serviceman hit him on the shoulder with the butt of his machine gun to push him down. Then he grabbed the first applicant by the collar of the shirt, pulled him down and ordered him to lie face down on the floor. The first applicant obeyed. The second applicant was told to face the wall and stand still without turning her head.\n11.  The applicants could hear from the next room that Ibragim Betayev was asked his full name and replied. The first applicant could also see that Lecha Betayev was woken up, ordered to get out of bed and then taken outside by two servicemen. The applicants and their sons were not requested to show their identity papers.\n12.  One of the servicemen, who appeared to be in charge of the others, told the first applicant that one of his fellow Chechen villagers had reported that the first applicant had had a machine gun and a radio station at home. The first applicant replied that he had not had any weapon. The servicemen started searching the house; the applicants were not presented with a search warrant and no witnesses were asked to observe the scene.\n13.  During the search the first applicant was permitted to sit on the bed, but was ordered not to turn his head and not to follow the search.\n14.  The servicemen searched the house, including the attic, the courtyard and the sheds outside, turning everything upside down. They were going to take up the floor of the house, but the first applicant asked them not to do so because, given the poor condition of the house, it might have been problematic, and the commander decided not to. The search took about one hour; after that the applicants heard the noise of an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”) revving up outside. Two or three minutes later the man who was in charge of the other servicemen told them that they were leaving. He ordered the applicants to remain in the house, threatening to shoot if they went outside before the servicemen had left.\n15.  Only then did the applicants discover that Lecha and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3545", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are:\n(1) Mrs Satsita Utsayeva, born in 1954;\n(2) Mr Aslambek Utsayev, born in 1948;\n(3) Mrs Khava Muslimova, born in 1986;\n(4) Mrs Belita Dadayeva[1], born in 1952;\n(5) Mrs Yakhita Taysumova, born in 1985;\n(6) Mrs Zulay Abdulazimova, born in 1943;\n(7) Mrs Birlant Tovmerzayeva, born in 1943;\n(8) Mrs Larisa Tovmerzayeva, born in 1968.\n8.  They are Russian nationals and residents of the village of Novye Atagi, Shali district, Chechnya.\n9.  The facts of the case are linked to the application Imakayeva v. Russia (no. 7615/02, ECHR 2006‑... (extracts)), in that the four relatives of the applicants in the present case were detained together with the husband of Marzet Imakayeva, Said-Magomed Imakayev, on 2 June 2002 in the village of Novye Atagi (see below). The facts of the present case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  The applicants submitted that the village of Novye Atagi had been under the firm control of the Russian military since early 2000. Military checkpoints had been established at all roads leading into and out of the village.\n11.  The applicants submitted that early in the morning of 2 June 2002 a convoy including at least six armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and at least one other military vehicle - a UAZ all-terrain car - conducted a “sweeping” operation in the village of Novye Atagi. The local residents noted the hull numbers of three APCs: 569, 889 and 1252, and partially of the UAZ vehicle as “344”. The hull numbers of the other vehicles were obscured. The servicemen went to six houses during the operation and detained five men. The applicants submitted numerous affidavits about the events of 2 June 2002, produced by the family members of the detained and the neighbours. They also submitted a hand-drawn map of the village, indicating the location of the roadblocks and of the houses of the five persons detained on 2 June 2002.\n(a) Detention of Islam Utsayev\n12.  The first and second applicants are husband and wife. They were residents of Grozny, but have lived for several years at 22 Nizhnya Street, Novye Atagi, as internally displaced persons. Their son Islam Utsayev, born in 1976, had lived with them in Novye Atagi since 1999. He had previously been a student at the Grozny University philological faculty, but in October 1999 he was seriously injured during a rocket attack on the Grozny central market. Following that injury he underwent several operations and left the university. He worked as a car mechanic and supported his parents, who were unemployed. The couple's second son had died during the hostilities of 1994–1996, and a third son had been detained by security services and ill-treated in 2001, following which he suffered from poor health. The third applicant is Islam Utsayev's wife.\n13.  On the morning on 2 June 2002 the first two applicants, Islam Utsayev and his wife (the third applicant), their other son Bislan U. and his wife Liza Kh., were at their home at 22 Nizhnya Street. At that time the third applicant and Liza Kh. were both pregnant. It was still dark outside and the family was sleeping when, at about 5.30 a.m., an APC knocked down the fence and drove into the courtyard. A group of about twenty heavily armed servicemen in uniform entered the house and woke up the family. Four of the servicemen were masked, the rest were not. The applicants described them as “contract soldiers”, aged between 30 and 40. They had Slavic features and spoke unaccented Russian. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3546", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1)  Ms Rumani Sulimovna Gekhayeva, who was born in 1947 and lives in the village of Ulus-Kert, the Shatoyskiy District, the Chechen Republic;\n2)  Ms Zlikhat Ismailovna Dugayeva, who was born in 1950 and lives in the village of Rubezhnoye, the Naurskiy District, the Chechen Republic;\n3)  Ms Subani Saydkhasanovna Akhyadova, who was born in 1965 and lives in the village of Dachu-Borzoy, the Chechen Republic;\n4)  Ms Zubidat Saydkhasanovna Gekhayeva, who was born in 1971and lives in the village of Chechen-Aul, the Chechen Republic; and\n5)  Ms Aynet Saydkhasanovna Malsagova[1], who was born in 1975 and lives in the village of Dachu-Borzoy, the Chechen Republic.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicants are members of one family. The first applicant is the mother of Ms Kurbika Zinabdiyeva, who was born in 1968. The third, the fourth and the fifth applicants are sisters of Kurbika Zinabdiyeva. The second applicant is the mother of Ms Aminat Dugayeva, who was born in 1988.\n8.  Since childhood Kurbika Zinabdiyeva had suffered from chronic brain conditions, a brain tumour and epilepsy, and was often bedridden due to migraines and sickness.\n9.  At the material time Kurbika Zinabdiyeva was assisting her mother, who worked as a house painter. Aminat Dugayeva, then fifteen years old, was attending the 9th grade of secondary school. Kurbika Zinabdiyeva lived with the first applicant at 12 Shkolnaya Street, the village of Ulus-Kert. Aminat Dugayeva had come to visit and was staying with them.\n10.  On the night of 15 to 16 May 2003 the first applicant, Kurbika Zinabdiyeva and Aminat Dugayeva slept at home. The first applicant slept in a separate room while the two other women shared another room. At about 3 a.m. the first applicant heard the noise of a vehicle engine coming from outside. Kubrika Zinabdiyeva woke up and looked out of the window; she told the first applicant that “Russians” were around their house. The women opened the door and saw around twenty men wearing blue uniforms and balaclava masks at their doorstep. One of them ordered the women not to move in Russian. The first applicant and her daughter inferred that the men belonged to the Russian military.\n11.  The servicemen ordered both women to lie on the floor. They wrapped adhesive tape around the first applicant's head so that her face, eyes, nose and mouth were fully covered; she could see nothing and could barely breathe. Her wrists and ankles were also tied up with adhesive tape. Some time later the first applicant heard one of the servicemen order another one to check on her to see whether she was still alive, and the tape was then slightly loosened. However, it was still hard for her to breathe and she was making a wheezing noise. One of the servicemen shouted at her, threatening to shoot her unless she kept quiet. After that the first applicant heard their footsteps disappearing and the vehicles leaving.\n12.  The first applicant remained lying tied up on the floor for some forty minutes until neighbours and the head of the village administration arrived. They had all seen the military coming and had heard the noise and the shouting from the first applicant's house. Before approaching the first applicant they checked that no bomb had been planted under her, and then they untied the tape and released her. Having been freed from the restraints, the first applicant and her neighbours searched the ho", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3547", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk.\n5.  On 26 February 1988 the applicant sustained grievous bodily injuries as a result of a traffic accident. On 3 March 1989 the Pavlograd Court (Павлоградський районний суд Дніпропетровської області) found Mr K. responsible for the accident and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. The sentence was conditionally suspended. By the same judgment, the court left the applicant’s claim for compensation without consideration on the ground that the defendant had paid her the claimed amount of his own accord.\n6.  On 9 March 1992 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Pershotravensk Court (Першотравенський районний суд Дніпропетровської області) against Mr K., seeking compensation for the damage caused to her health as a result of the accident. Subsequently the applicant modified the amount of her claim for compensation on several occasions. In the course of the proceedings five expert assessments were ordered by the courts to assess the damage sustained by the applicant.\n7.  The Pershotravensk Court considered the case on three occasions and delivered judgments on 8 September 1992, 11 July 1994 and 26 February 1999, which were overturned by the decisions of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court (Дніпропетровський обласний суд)[1] of 19 May 1993, 26 September 1994 and 17 May 1999, respectively.\n8.  In its decision of 17 May 1999 the Regional Court decided to transfer the case to the Pavlograd Court for a fresh examination.\n9.  On 4 February 2000 the Pavlograd Court found in part for the applicant and awarded her a lump sum of 4,129.50 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) and a monthly allowance of UAH 55.06 for an unlimited period of time in compensation for loss of earnings. The court also awarded her UAH 24 in compensation for travel expenses and rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation for medical expenses.\n10.  On 17 April 2000 the latter judgment was quashed by the decision of the Regional Court. It held that the first-instance court had made wrong calculations and had failed to establish whether the applicant’s injuries could have resulted in any recognised degree of disability. It decided to remit the case to the Industrialny District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (Індустріальний районний суд м. Дніпропетровська) for a fresh examination.\n11.  On 21 December 2000 the latter court found in part for the applicant and ordered Mr K. to pay her a lump sum of UAH 2,946.83 and a monthly allowance of UAH 61.32 for an unlimited period of time in compensation for loss of earnings. The court also awarded the applicant UAH 744 in compensation for medical and travel expenses.\n12.  On 5 February 2001 the Regional Court, following the defendant’s appeal in cassation, quashed the judgment of 21 December 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the same court. The regional court held that the first-instance court had failed to take into account the conclusions contained in its decision of 17 April 2000.\n13.  On 28 December 2004 the Industrialny Court awarded the applicant a lump sum of UAH 7,502.32 and a monthly allowance of UAH 161.60 in compensation for the damage to her health and loss of earnings; UAH 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage; and UAH 1,653.64 in compensation for medical, travel, and legal costs and expenses.\n14.  On 28 January 2005 Mr K. appealed against the judgment of 28 December 2004.\n15.  By separate decisions of 30 March and 13 July 2005, the same court awarded", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3548", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  In 1986, while being employed by the Municipal Cargo Department of the Ministry of Automobile Transport (Київське міське управління вантажного автомобільного транспорту), the applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the Chernobyl disaster site. Subsequently the applicant was employed by “A.T.E.”, an automobile transportation company.\n6.  On 30 March 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Radyansky District Court of Kyiv (Радянський районний суд м. Києва)[1] against the Municipal Department of Automobile Transport (Київське міське територіальне виробниче об’єднання автомобільного транспорту) claiming compensation for health damage sustained in Chernobyl. On 10 January 1995 the court decided to leave the applicant’s claims without consideration for having been lodged against an improper defendant. On 15 March 1995 the Kyiv City Court (Київський міський суд)[2] quashed this ruling and remitted the case for an examination to the first-instance court.\n7.  On 14 July 1995 the first-instance court found in part for the applicant. On 27 September 1995 the Kyiv City Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n8.  On 28 February 1997 the first-instance court found against the applicant. On 9 April 1997 the Kyiv City Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n9.  On 19 September 1997 the first-instance court found in part for the applicant. This judgment became final.\n10.  On an unspecified date the Kyiv Department of Justice (Управління юстиції в м. Києві) initiated an investigation into the absence of the verbatim record of the hearing of 19 September 1997 from the case-file. In January 1998 they informed the applicant that contrary to the requirements of applicable law the verbatim record had never been finalised.\n11.  On numerous occasions the applicant sought the issuance of the writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 19 September 1997. However, he was informed by the Department of Justice that the writ could not be issued due to the investigation.\n12.  On 6 April 1998 the Kyiv City Court quashed the judgment of 19 September 1997 upon the supervisory protest of its President lodged under the extraordinary review procedure and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n13.  On 2 October 1998 the court replaced the defendant in the case by the “A.T.E.”.\n14.  On 23 October 1998 the first-instance court found against the applicant.\n15.  On 18 November 1998 the Kyiv City Court quashed this judgment following the applicant’s appeal in cassation and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n16.  On 3 February 1999 the Radyansky Court decided to transfer the case to the Starokyivsky District Court of Kyiv (Старокиївський районний суд м. Києва). On 14 April 1999 the Kyiv City Court, upon the protest of its Vice-President, quashed this ruling under the extraordinary review procedure and remitted the case back to the Radyansky Court.\n17.  On 8 June 1999 the Radyansky Court replaced the defendant in the case by the Kyiv City Department of the Social Security Fund.\n18.  On 15 July 1999 the Radyansky Court ordered the Kyiv City Bureau of Court Experts (Київський науково-дослідний інститут судових експертиз) to carry out an assessment of the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant.\n19.  On 25 May 2000 the Bureau delivered its assessment to the court.\n20.  On 8 June 2000 the Radyansky Court foun", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3549", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1)  Mr Umtazh Supyanovich Ibragimov, born in 1938;\n2)  Ms Tamara Saidovna Ibragimova, born in 1953;\n3)  Ms Zulikhan Umtazhovna Ibragimova, born in 1974;\n4)  Ms Yakha Umtazhovna Ibragimova, born in 1985;\n5)  Mr Magomed Umtazhovich Ibragimov, born in 1987; and\n6)  Ms Ayznat Umtazhovna Ibragimova, born in 1988.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Rizvan Umtazhovich Ibragimov, born in 1977, and of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants. At the material time the Ibragimovs lived at 26 Bezymyannaya Street, Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic. Their house had burned down, and the family lived in a refurbished cattle shed consisting of two rooms. Since 1999 Rizvan Ibragimov had been working as a construction worker in the town of Malgobek, Ingushetiya. In December 2002 he came to visit his parents in Urus-Martan because he needed to complete some formalities with the military commissariat.\n8.  On the night of 28 to 29 December 2002 the Ibragimovs were sleeping at home, except for the third and fourth applicants. The first applicant was sleeping in the front room, while the second, fifth and sixth applicants and Rizvan Ibragimov slept in the next room. They were sleeping on the floor because all their furniture had been burned in the fire.\n9.  At about 2 a.m. a group of five men in camouflage uniforms forcibly entered the house. Three of them were wearing balaclava masks. They did not produce identity papers or any documents to justify their actions and gave no explanations. The applicants assumed that they were federal military or security servicemen because they spoke Russian without accent, their faces as far as the applicants could see had Slavic features and also because of their arrival during curfew hours, which was only possible with the military commander’s permission.\n10.  Three servicemen walked straight to the back room, and two others stayed in the front room. The first applicant was told to stay still on his bed and a machine gun was pointed at him. One serviceman then announced that it was an “identity papers check”. Another serviceman in the back room pointed at Rizvan Ibragimov and ordered him to get dressed. The first applicant handed a pullover to the serviceman to pass to Rizvan Ibragimov, but the serviceman threw it aside. Rizvan Ibragimov was asked where his identity papers were; when he answered that they were on the windowsill, the servicemen took them, with his driving licence. Two servicemen took Rizvan Ibragimov out to the courtyard. He did not put up any resistance. The second applicant was crying and asking the servicemen who they were and where they were taking her son. The first applicant was also asking them to what authority they belonged and where to make enquiries. The servicemen did not answer but told the first and second applicants to remain inside the building. When the first applicant tried to follow them into the courtyard, one of the servicemen ordered him to stop, threatening to shoot.\n11.  The first applicant nonetheless followed the servicemen, but one of them squatted down, put a bullet into his gun and told the first applicant that he would shoot. Having realised the seriousness of the threat, the first applicant stopped.\n12.  More than ten armed men in camouflage uniforms were standing in the courtyard, all of them unmasked but wearing bullet-proof jackets. More m", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3550", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicants are:\n1)  Ms Aset Alikovna Sangariyeva, who was born in 1974;\n2)  Mr Abubakar Khamidovich (also spelled Khamitovich) Gaytayev, who was born in 1971;\n3)  Mr Adam Khamidovich (also spelled Khamitovich) Gaytayev, who was born in 1977;\n4)  Mr Israil Khamitovich Gaytayev, who was born in 1964;\n5)  Ms Khaza Gaytayeva, who was born in 1939;\n6)  Mr Mansur Musayevich Gaytayev, who was born in 1995;\n7)  Mr Muslim Musayevich Gaytayev, who was born in 1997;\n8)  Ms Makka Musayevna Gaytayeva, who was born in 2001;\n9)  Ms Roza Musayevna Sangariyeva, who was born in 2003.\n7.  The first applicant was married to Mr Musa Gaytayev, who was born in 1972. The fifth applicant is the mother of Musa Gaytayev and of the second, third and fourth applicants. The first applicant and Musa Gaytayev are the parents of the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth applicants.\n8.  In 1999-2000 Musa Gaytayev worked as an ambulance driver for a state hospital and the Red Cross in Alkhan-Kala, Chechnya. In 2000 he was arrested in company with all the medical personnel of the Red Cross working in Alkhan-Kala. Between April and June 2000 he was detained in Chernokozovo and other detention facilities. At some point he was released on the basis of an amnesty law but was not given his identity papers back.\n9.  At the material time Musa Gaytayev lived with his family in a house which was a part of the family household located at 11 Svobody Street in the village of Martan-Chu, Urus-Martan District in the Chechen Republic. He worked as a carpenter in a construction yard run by the fourth applicant. By 2003 he was due to be issued with new identity papers by the local department of the interior.\n10.  On the night of 23 to 24 January 2003 the applicants and Musa Gaytayev were sleeping at home. At about 2 a.m. around twenty men parked two “Ural” trucks about 150 metres away and came to the house on foot. They were all in camouflage uniform and some were also wearing balaclava masks; they were armed with machine guns. The applicants inferred that the men belonged to the Russian military. The servicemen knocked at the door and demanded access to carry out a check. As soon as the applicants opened the door, the men rushed into the rooms without identifying themselves or giving any explanations and forced all the adult male members of the Gaytayev household outside, into the courtyard. The second applicant was ordered to lean against the wall while standing barefoot in the snow; the third applicant was told to lie down. Their documents were checked; some of them were seized, including the identity papers of the second and third applicants and their vehicle documents. At the same time the servicemen apprehended Musa Gaytayev and, pushing his relatives aside, took him away. He was barefoot, wearing a leather jacket and sports trousers. When the servicemen were leaving, the third applicant asked them to give his documents back, but was hit with the butt of a gun for his pains.\n11.  On the same night another of the applicants’ relatives, Magomed Gaytayev, a cousin of Musa Gaytayev, was also apprehended. At the material time he worked as a police officer in Gudermes and was in possession of a duty pistol and a machine gun. Although he produced an official authorisation for the weapons to the servicemen, they seized both the pistol and the machine gun.\n12.  The fourth applicant, who slept in the buil", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3551", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Makiyivka.\n5.  On 1 December 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Tsentralno‑Misky District Court of Makiyivka (Центрально-міський суд м. Макіївка) against the Makiyivka Municipal Medical Association (Макіївське міське медичне територіально-педіатричне об’єднання), seeking reinstatement in the position of a speech therapist and compensation for the loss of income.\n6.  On 21 January 1999 the court found against the applicant. The applicant appealed in cassation.\n7.  On 11 March 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court (Донецький обласний суд)[1] quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration on the grounds that the first-instance court had failed to examine all the material circumstances of the case.\n8.  On 18 January 2000 the case-file was destroyed by fire in the court building. In April 2000 the proceedings were renewed.\n9.  Between April 2000 and January 2001 the Tsentralno-Misky Court scheduled some twenty-four hearings. Three of these hearings were adjourned on account of the defendant’s failure to appear, two on account of the applicant’s absences and six hearings were adjourned on account of the absence of witnesses, mostly the defendant’s employees. On some five occasions the court adjourned the hearings following the court’s decision to allow the applicant’s demands to summon witnesses and request additional documents from the defendant.\n10.  On 12 January 2001 the Tsentralno-Misky Court found against the applicant. The applicant appealed in cassation.\n11.  On 15 February 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 12 January 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration, having found that the first-instance court had failed to comply with a number of procedural requirements, in particular, those concerning renewal of the proceedings after the loss of the case-file. Further, the court held that still not all relevant circumstances had been explored.\n12.  Between April and December 2001 the first-instance court scheduled eleven hearings, some seven of them being adjourned following the court’s decision to allow the applicant’s demands that the defendant provides additional documents.\n13.  By letter of 24 September 2001 the court reprimanded Mrs M., the defendant’s chief officer (головний лікар), for repetitive failures of its representative to provide the documents needful for the resolution of the case. In particular, the court noted that the defendant had been repeatedly providing incomplete, inaccurate or irrelevant records, causing the court to adjourn the hearings, and obliged her to ensure the provision of a number of missing documents. The court further requested the chief officer to ensure the appearance of the defendant’s employees summoned by it as witnesses.\n14.  In October and November 2001 Mrs M. submitted to the court clarifications concerning various inaccuracies in the records provided earlier.\n15.  On 5 December 2001 the Tsentralno-Misky Court rejected the applicant’s claims, having found that she had been dismissed in accordance with applicable law. On 21 December 2001 the court provided expanded reasoning for its conclusions, responding to the applicant’s arguments, which it had not dealt with in its previous judgments. The applicant appealed.\n16.  On 18 February 2002 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 5 December 2001. The applicant appealed in cassation.\n17.  On 4 January 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3552", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Ms Tatyana Nikolayevna Kislaya, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1950 and resides in the city of Lugansk, Ukraine.\n5.  On 21 June 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Lugansk (Ленінський районний суд м. Луганська) against her former employer, the “Lugansky Verstatobudivny Zavod” State-owned plant («Луганський верстатобудівний завод») “the enterprise”, challenging her dismissal and disciplinary measures against her and claiming various payments.\n6.  On 1 March 2001 the court found against the applicant. The applicant appealed in cassation.\n7.  On 7 May 2001 the Lugansk Regional Court (Луганський обласний суд)[1] upheld this judgment on appeal in cassation by the applicant and it became final.\n8.  On 17 August 2001 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court of Ukraine pursuant the newly introduced cassation procedure.\n9.  On 13 December 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the above judgments and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first-instance court.\n10.  On 20 May 2002 the Leninsky Court annulled disciplinary measures imposed on the applicant, ordered her reinstatement and awarded her the total of 2,364 hryvnyas (UAH) in various payments. Both parties appealed.\n11.  On 18 November 2002 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 20 May 2002 to the extent that it concerned the monetary award and remitted this part of the case for a fresh consideration. The part of the judgment concerning the reinstatement of the applicant was upheld, became final and was enforced by the end of May 2003.\n12.  On 5 March 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 18 November 2002.\n13.  On 27 February 2004 the Leninsky Court awarded the applicant the total of UAH 11,733.92 in various payments. Both parties appealed.\n14.  On 21 June 2004 the Regional Court reduced the monetary award due to the applicant to UAH 4,971.82. This judgment immediately became enforceable.\n15.  On 27 November 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation.\n16.  In the course of the proceedings, the first-instance court scheduled some thirty hearings. Some fifteen of them were adjourned on account of the defendant’s failures to appear or following its requests for adjournments. Three hearings were adjourned for various other reasons.\n17.  On numerous occasions the bailiffs referred to the pending bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor as the reason for a delay in the enforcement of the judgment given in the applicant’s favour. On 24 December 2004 the applicant was paid UAH 364 and on 23 February 2006 received the remainder of the award.\n18.  On 22 December 2003 the applicant was dismissed again. On 12 January 2004 she instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky Court challenging her dismissal and claiming compensation.\n19.  On 15 June 2005 the court ordered the applicant’s reinstatement and awarded her UAH 2,517.96 in compensation. The part of the judgment concerning the reinstatement of the applicant immediately became enforceable and was enforced by 8 February 2006. On 29 September 2005 this judgment was upheld by the Regional Court and became enforceable.\n20.  On 1 December 2006 the judgment was further upheld by the Supreme Court.\n21.  On 12 June 2007 the applicant received the payment due to her by the judgment of 15 June 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3553", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Smolensk.\n7.  The applicant’s 6 year old son, Sergey, suffered from a serious congenital heart disease. On 8 February 1995 he died during heart surgery in a State-owned clinic. The applicant requested the Smolensk town prosecutor’s office to investigate her son’s death. She suspected that he had died as a result of medical negligence. On several occasions the case was opened and then closed by the prosecutor’s office on the ground that no fault on the part of the doctors had been established. The conclusions of the investigative authorities relied, in particular, on the results of the forensic examination carried out after the death of Sergey Marusev. The applicant challenged the refusal to prosecute the doctors in court, but to no avail. On 12 February 1997 the Zadneprovskiy District Court of Smolensk (“the District Court”) upheld the prosecution’s decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings. That judgment was upheld by the Smolensk Regional Court on 11 March 1997.\n8.  On 23 August 1995 the applicant brought a civil action for negligence against Dr M., who had performed the operation, and Hospital no. 1 of Smolensk, in which the operation had been carried out (“the hospital”). She sought compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n9.  On 23 December 1996 the District Court rejected her claim, holding that her son had died of natural causes. On 11 February 1997 that judgment was upheld by the Smolensk Regional Court.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to examine her case by way of supervisory review (see the “Relevant Domestic Law” part below).\n11.  On 23 February 1999 the Vice-President of the Supreme Court brought an extraordinary appeal (протест), pointing to numerous errors of fact and law in the lower courts’ decisions. On 18 March 1999 the Presidium of the Regional Court examined the case, allowed the extraordinary appeal and quashed the impugned judgments of 23 December 1996 and 11 February 1997. The case was remitted to the first-instance court.\n12.  According to the Government, on 21 March 1999 the District Court received the case file from the Supreme Court. The judge invited the parties to an informal preliminary meeting, which took place on 11 May 1999. The first hearing was held on 20 May 1999. The judge decided to summon additional witnesses and the case was adjourned to 8 July 1999.\n13.  On 9 July 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action, holding that the defendants could not be held responsible for the death of Sergey Marusev. On an appeal by the applicant, on 21 October 1999 the Regional Court quashed that judgment, pointing out that the first-instance court had failed to assess important medical aspects of the case. It also recommended that certain additional steps be taken. The case was remitted to the first-instance court.\n14.  On 17 November 1999 the District Court again dismissed the applicant’s action. On 28 December 1999 the Regional Court overruled the first-instance court and remitted the case to it for a fresh examination. The Regional Court noted that the first-instance court had failed to take certain procedural steps, breached procedural rules and failed to establish and analyse all the pertinent facts of the case.\n15.  On 19 January 2000 the District Court received the case file from the Regional Court. According to the Government, after having received the case file th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3554", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Tõrva.\n6.  The applicant was charged with economic offences, committed between 1995 and 2001, whereby damage exceeding 190 million Estonian kroons (EEK) (approximately 12 million euros (EUR)) had been caused.\n7.  On 13 December 2001 the Tartu County Court (maakohus) authorised the applicant’s detention until 3 March 2002.\n8.  On 25 January 2002 the County Court agreed to release the applicant on bail set at EEK 1,000,000 (EUR 64,000). According to the court order the applicant was prohibited from leaving his permanent or temporary place of residence unless authorised by an investigator, prosecutor or court (Section 71-1 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kriminaalmenetluse koodeks)). The prosecutor’s appeal against the applicant’s release was dismissed by the Tartu Court of Appeal (ringkonnakohus) on 5 February 2002.\n9.  The County Court started the examination of the charges against the applicant in September 2002.\n10.  On 15 October 2003 the prosecutor requested the County Court to revoke the bail and to order the applicant’s custody. It appears that the applicant, who had suffered from a head injury, had failed to appear at a hearing and that his lawyer had submitted a medical certificate to the court. According to the certificate, the applicant’s head wound had healed. Although the applicant had troublesome pain in his head and neck, following concussion, the doctor found it difficult to assess whether he could participate in a court hearing. Apparently the County Court dismissed the prosecutor’s request to take the applicant into custody.\n11.  On 29 March 2004 the applicant did not appear at a hearing scheduled for that date. His lawyer presented the court with a medical certificate according to which the applicant had paid a visit to his doctor at 8.30 that same morning. The applicant had provided to his doctor another medical certificate, issued on 24 March 2004 in Germany, according to which he had been diagnosed with concussion and had had a head wound requiring stitching. The applicant’s doctor had prescribed that he stay at home for a fortnight and avoid strain. She had confirmed that he would not be able to participate in a court hearing on 29 March 2004.\n12.  The prosecutor presented the court with a copy of a fax according to which the applicant had left Estonia on 24 March and had returned to the country on 27 March 2004. She was of the opinion that by leaving the country without authorisation the applicant had breached the conditions of his bail and that it was therefore necessary to take him into custody.\n13.  The applicant’s lawyer argued against the custody. He conceded that the applicant had been in Germany – where his parents were living – for three days. However, as he had not been placed under house arrest, he had not been in breach of the bail conditions.\n14.  By a decision of 30 March 2004 the County Court granted the prosecutor’s request and ordered the applicant’s detention. The court noted that in addition to the period referred to above, the applicant had left the country from 25 October to 28 October 2002 and on 17 January 2004. The court concluded that bail was not a sufficient measure to ensure his presence at the hearings and that it was necessary to take him immediately into custody.\n15.  On 31 March 2004 the applicant was arrested at his home and taken into custody.\n16.  On 2 April 2004 both the applicant and his lawyer appealed against the County Cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3555", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk.\n5.  After the death of his father, the applicant inherited 38/100 of a house and the right to use the adjacent plot of land.\n6.  On 14 May 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Babushkinsky District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (Бабушкінський районний суд м. Дніпропетровська), “the Babushkinsky Court”, alleging that Mrs N., the co-owner of the house, perpetually abused her land use rights and seeking to divide the plot of land between them.\n7.  On 22 August 1996 the court ordered an expert assessment to determine the manner in which to divide the plot and suspended the proceedings. On 6 May 1997 an expert report, containing several possible solutions, was delivered to the court.\n8.  On 7 August 1997 the court ordered an additional expert assessment and in October 1997 suspended the proceedings pending its outcome. The following hearing in the case was scheduled for 23 June 1998.\n9.  On 15 January 1999 the applicant amended his initial claims, additionally seeking recognition of his right to a part of the cellar and of the waste funnel. In April 1999 the court decided to disjoin the applicant’s new claims, however, eventually they were decided within the framework of the initial proceedings.\n10.  On 13 April 1999 Judge R. replaced Judge M., who had been initially dealing with the applicant’s case, as the latter’s term of office had expired. The case was adjourned until 13 October 1999.\n11.  On 27 December 2000 the court decided to divide the land according to one of the options proposed by the experts. The applicant appealed in cassation, alleging that that option was unsatisfactory.\n12.  On 2 April 2001 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court (Дніпропетровський обласний суд), “the Regional Court”,[1] quashed the judgment of 27 December 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n13.  On 29 January 2003 the court discontinued proceedings in the case on the ground that the parties had failed to use the non-judicial means of settlement of their dispute. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 15 April 2003 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 29 January 2003 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n15.  On 24 December 2003 the court divided the land according to another option suggested by the experts and dismissed the applicant’s claims concerning the waste funnel and the cellar as lodged outside the statute of limitation. The defendant appealed.\n16.  On 1 April 2004 the Regional Court rejected the defendant’s appeal and the judgment of 24 December 2003 became enforceable.\n17.  After the expiration of the statutory period for lodging cassation appeal, when the judgment in the case had become final, Ms K., who had acquired the house from the defendant, unsuccessfully sought renewal of the time-limit for lodging cassation appeal. The last decision concerning this request was taken on 10 September 2004.\n18.  Between September 1997 and 24 December 2003 the trial court scheduled the total of some twenty-seven hearings with intervals from three weeks to ten months. Some sixteen of these hearings were adjourned, ten adjournments being attributable to the defendant’s absences.\n19.  In May 2004, following the applicant’s request, the bailiffs’ service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 24 December 2003. In November 2005 the applicant sold his part of the house and requested that the enforcement proceedings were discontinued. On 22 Nove", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3556", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Lysychansk.\n5.  On 18 October 2000 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Lysychansk Court (Лисичанський міський суд Луганської області) against the Lysychansk Thermo-electric Plant (Лисичанська ТЕЦ), awarding him 13,270 hryvnyas (UAH) in salary arrears and other payments.\n6.  This judgment was not appealed against, became final and the enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the judgment debt.\n7.  On numerous occasions the bailiffs notified the applicant that they were unable to collect the full amount of the debt, citing insufficiency of the debtor’s funds and referring to the bankruptcy proceedings pending against it. They further explained that, since the State owned more than 25% of the debtor’s share capital, it was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of the State Property”.\n8.  On 19 January 2005 the bailiffs took a decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings, having determined that the applicant had received the full amount of the judgment debt due to him.\n9.  According to the applicant, fraction of the amount due to him remained outstanding.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3557", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Andrei Deak, is a Romanian national who was born in 1956 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  The applicant married C.D. (hereinafter referred to as “the mother”), also a Romanian national, in January 1998. In July 1998 their son C.A. (hereinafter referred to as “the child”) was born.\n7.  In November 2000 they divorced and according to the divorce agreement between them, endorsed by a final court judgment, the mother was to have custody of the child, while the applicant obtained a right of access of 82 days per year and was to pay a monthly allowance.\n8.  In September 2002 the mother travelled to England to commence studying for a Master degree in Business and Administration and left the child in Romania with her parents.\n9.  In November 2002 the mother married a British national. She later returned to Romania and on 23 December 2002, without informing the applicant, took the child with her to London.\n10.  The applicant found out about the child’s removal from Romania to the United Kingdom in January 2003.\n11.  On 6 February 2003 he instituted proceedings in London before the High Court of Justice, Family Division (“the High Court”), under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”). The child and the mother were located by the British authorities; however, their place of residence was not disclosed to the applicant.\n12.  A directions hearing was held on 27 February 2003 before the High Court at which the parties were requested to file observations on the question whether the removal of the child from Romania was wrongful under Romanian law within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention. The judge in charge of the case also directed that the matter be set down for final hearing on 11 April 2003.\n13.  On 11 April 2003 the parties received permission to file further evidence.\n14.  By the time of the next hearing, on 9 May 2003, the High Court was presented by the applicant with documentary evidence emanating from the Ministry of Justice, the Romanian President’s Office, the Child Protection Authority and the Ombudsman, according to which the child’s removal was wrongful under Romanian law. However, the court was not convinced and, in accordance with Article 15 of the Hague Convention, requested a Romanian court decision on the matter.\n15.  On 11 June 2003 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Bucharest Third District Court (“District Court”) seeking a ruling that the child’s removal from Romania had been illegal.\n16.  On 16 July 2003 the applicant introduced a new application before the same court seeking a ruling that the child’s removal was contrary to Article 3 of the Hague Convention because he also had custody rights over the child.\n17.  On 1 September 2003 the District Court held the first hearing in respect of the applicant’s first action; however, as a result of the mother’s request for an adjournment, the proceedings were adjourned until 8 December 2003.\n18.  On 29 September 2003 the Romanian Ministry of Justice wrote to the High Court in London, informing it that the Romanian courts had exclusive competence in issuing decisions in accordance with Article 15 of the Hague Convention.\n19.  On 30 September 2003 the District Court in Bucharest held the first hearing in respect of the second action and adjourned the case on the grounds that the applicant had failed to sign the application and that the mother had failed to s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3558", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Gdańsk.\n5.  On 9 August 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud and placed in pre-trial detention. The grounds for this decision are unknown, since the applicant has not produced a copy of it.\n6.  On 3 November 2006 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) extended the applicant’s detention until 9 February 2007. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court further found that there was a risk that the applicant might go into hiding, given that earlier he could not be found at his place of permanent residence.\n7.  The applicant submitted that he unsuccessfully appealed against decisions extending his detention.\n8.  The applicant maintained that during his arrest he was treated in a degrading manner by police officers and that he was subjected to threats. On 19 February 2007 the Gdańsk District Prosecutor instituted an investigation into the applicant’s complaints against the police officers. The investigation is still continuing.\n9.  The applicant submitted that during his detention his correspondence was censored by the authorities. He produced five envelopes. All the envelopes bear a stamp that reads: “Censored, date ..., Prosecutor” (Ocenzurowano, dnia ... Prokurator). Those envelopes contained letters from:\n1) the Penitentiary Association “Patronat” (Stowarzyszenie Penitencjarne “Patronat”), a non-governmental organisation, acting, inter alia, on behalf of prisoners and former prisoners, sent on 30 August 2006;\n2) the Supreme Court, sent on 26 September 2006;\n3) the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, sent on 27 September 2006;\n4) the Ministry of Justice; sent on 27 September 2006;\n5) the Ombudsman, sent on 28 September 2006.\n10.  The applicant produced one envelope that indicates as the addressee of the letter the Governor of Sztum Prison and bears a stamp that reads: “Censored, date ..., Prosecutor” (Ocenzurowano, dnia ... Prokurator). A hand-written note indicates case file no. IC 119/05.\n11.  One envelope bears traces of having been opened - its sides were cut open and resealed using self-adhesive tape.\n12.  The applicant submitted that a letter addressed to him by the Court had been opened and read by the authorities. In a note sent to the applicant from Sztum Prison (Zakład Karny) on 21 December 2006, he was informed that on 29 November 2006 a letter from the European Court of Human Rights to the applicant had been delivered by the District Prosecutor’s Office. The note further states that the letter had clearly been damaged.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3559", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Drwalew, Poland.\nThe facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 20 November 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, false imprisonment and other related offences. It was alleged that the applicant had committed those offences with two accomplices and while acting as a member of an organised criminal gang.\n7.  On 22 November 1996 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. The decision was justified by the gravity of the charges against the applicant, a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question, the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed and the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n8.  The investigation, which was conducted by the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki), lasted until the beginning of April 1998. Originally, the proceedings had involved twelve suspects and twenty-five various charges against them. At the beginning of 1998 the charges against six persons, including the applicant, were severed from the case and the investigation against the remaining suspects was discontinued.\n9.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended several times by decisions of the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) of 17 February and 16 May 1997 and a decision of the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) of 12 August 1997. In all their review of detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on the original grounds for the applicant’s detention.\n10.  On 20 November 1997 the length of the applicant’s detention reached one year, which at the material time was the maximum statutory time-limit for detention during investigation. On that date the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy), upon an application by the Prosecutor General (Prokurator Generalny) under Article 222 § 4 of the 1969 Code of Criminal Procedure (“the 1969 Code”), extended the applicant’s detention beyond the statutory period. The Supreme Court considered that the fact that a witness had partly changed his testimony coupled with the need to confront a number of witnesses with each other constituted “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of Article 222 § 4 of the 1969 Code and justified the extension of the applicant’s detention.\n11.  On 19 January 1998 the Supreme Court ordered a hearing to be held on 29 January 1998 to review the applicant’s detention. Only the State Prosecutor (Prokurator Krajowy) was informed about this decision. The applicant’s lawyer was not summoned.\n12.  On 29 January 1998, having heard the arguments of the State Prosecutor, the Supreme Court decided to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention, relying on the need to carry out additional acts of investigation since one of the witnesses had partly changed his testimony.\n13.  On 15 April 1998 the applicant was indicted before the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on charges of aggravated robbery and false imprisonment. The bill of indictment comprised twenty-five different charges, including attempted murder, brought against six defendants. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from more than 180 witnesses, including several anonymous witnesses, and to examine several expert reports.\n14.  On 26 October 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court made an application under Article 263 § 4 of the so-called “New Code of Criminal Procedure” of 1997 (“the 199", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3560", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Jelenia Góra.\n5.  On 10 June 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed homicide. On 12 June 1999 the Wrocław District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question, the seriousness of the charges against him and the risk that he might tamper with evidence or go into hiding.\n6.  On 2 September 1999 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) extended the applicant’s detention until 30 September 1999. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. The court made reference to the measures already taken in the investigation and indicated, in detail, the evidence that still had to be taken. Consequently, it decided that it was necessary to extend the applicant’s detention. The court also referred to the likelihood of a lengthy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant and the complexity of the case.\n7.  On 28 September 1999 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 December 1999. It repeated the grounds previously given for his detention.\n8.  On 7 December 1999 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention until 31 December 1999. On 28 December 1999 it extended that period until 15 January 2000. It emphasised that the grounds originally given for his detention were still valid.\n9.  On 14 January 2000 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 June 2000. It repeated the grounds that had been given in the previous decisions and added that further detention would not be excessively burdensome for the applicant or his family.\n10.  On 5 June, 19 June and 11 December 2000 and 9 April 2001 the court held hearings.\n11.  On 19 June, 11 December 2000 and 9 April 2001 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention. It repeated the grounds previously given for keeping him in custody.\n12.  On 21 May 2001 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court applied under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Proceedings to the Wrocław Court of Appeal for the applicant’s detention to be extended beyond the statutory time-limit of two years. On 29 May 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal granted the request and extended the applicant’s detention until 20 September 2001. It held that there was a strong suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged and that the nature of the offences justified the continuation of his detention. In addition, it stressed that the case was particularly complex.\n13.  On 20 September 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 30 November 2001. It repeated the grounds given in the previous decisions.\n14.  On 4 October 2001 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. He appealed. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on four occasions.\n15.  On 12 September 2002 the Wrocław Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment. At the same time the Court of Appeal extended his detention.\n16.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). On 3 December 2003 the Supreme Court allowed the cassation appeal, quashed the appellate court’s judgment and remitted the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3561", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Bielsko-Biala.\n5.  On 18 December 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed, inter alia, several counts of fraud, receiving stolen goods, bribery, forgery, deception, drug trafficking and inciting to theft while acting in an organised criminal group. On 20 December 2001 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his detention. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and on the risk that, as a former police officer, he might tamper with evidence. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant.\n6.  On 13 February 2002 the charges against the applicant were severed from the main proceedings instituted against several suspects. The case was referred to the Bielsko-Biala District Court.\n7.  On 15 March 2002 the Bielsko-Biała District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 18 June 2002. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation and the complexity of the case. It also stressed that his detention was justified by the need to obtain further evidence, in particular to obtain expert reports, to take evidence from witnesses and suspects and to confront witnesses and suspects.\n8.  The detention order was subsequently extended by the Bielsko-Biała District Court on 14 June, 25 June and 27 September 2002. The court repeated the grounds given in the previous decisions.\n9.  On 11 December 2002 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention until 31 May 2003. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and co-accused. Moreover, the court found that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings, having regard to the fact that he had formerly been a police officer. It also referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and to the complexity of the case.\n10.  On 4 October 2002 the applicant requested access to the case file.\n11.  On 17 December 2002 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) refused the applicant access to the case file. He relied on the risk that the applicant might attempt to tamper with evidence. Furthermore, the prosecutor stated that the applicant would be granted access to the case file later in the proceedings, at the close of the investigation.\n12.  On 6 March 2003 the Katowice Prosecutor of Appeal upheld the impugned order, finding that the applicant’s defence rights had been limited only temporarily and that the refusal of access to the case file was necessary for the proper conduct of the investigation.\n13.  On 20 May 2003 a bill of indictment was lodged. However, the court decided to return the case to the prosecution authorities for additional investigation.\n14.  On 30 May 2003 the Bielsko-Biala District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 31 August 2003. The court repeated the grounds given in the previous decisions.\n15.  On 18 June 2003 a new bill of indictment was lodged. It listed 21 charges laid against members of an organised criminal group.\n16.  On 29 August 2003 the Bielsko-Biała District Court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3562", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Ms Marianna Cieślak, is a Polish national who was born in 1923 and lives in Bobolice.\n5. The applicant’s mother-in-law died on 6 October 1975. During the proceedings for division of inheritance, on 30 October 1980 the Mayor of Warsaw’s Wola District (Naczelnik Dzielnicy Warszawa Wola – hereafter, “the Mayor”) expropriated part of the land belonging to the applicant’s family.\n6.  On 22 February 1981 the applicant’s husband inherited the plot of land in Warsaw. On 17 August 1988, after his death, the applicant became the co-owner of the land.\n7.  The applicant instituted proceedings for annulment of the Mayor’s decision. On 22 March 1991 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) decided that the expropriation decision had been taken in flagrant infringement of the law.\n8.  On 29 February 1996 the Warsaw Governor’s Office (Urząd Wojewódzki) quashed the Mayor’s decision and dismissed an application by the Polish Allotment Association (Polski Związek Działkowy) for expropriation of the land. The Association appealed. On 20 January 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Warsaw Governor’s Office’s decision.\n9.  On 10 March 1995 the applicant and two other plaintiffs lodged with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a claim for repossession of the expropriated land. The case was transmitted to the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n10.  On 21 November 2000 the Regional Court gave a preliminary judgment (wyrok wstępny). It decided that the property should be returned, and the parties should retain possession of the land until financial claims had been completed. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 18 January 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the Regional Court’s judgment on the right to retain possession until the completion of financial claims.\n12.  On 25 February 2004 the Regional Court gave judgment. It decided that the property should be returned. The Polish Allotment Association appealed.\n13.  On 20 December 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. On 15 June 2006 it issued a writ of enforcement.\n14.  On 22 January 2005 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Court of Appeal a complaint under the provisions of the 17 June 2004 Act on complaints about a breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004.\n15.  On 23 March 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act had legal effect from its date of entry into force. It found that during the relevant part of the proceedings there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the domestic court. In that connection, the court held that there had been no breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time in the period after 17 September 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3563", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  On 28 July 1997, at around 10 p.m., the applicant was on his way home when he saw a street fight and stopped to watch it. The police from Balçova police station arrived at the scene and arrested three or four adolescents who took part in the fight and the applicant.\n6.  At the station, three police officers, one of whom was in civilian clothes, decided to hit the youngsters’ hands with a truncheon so as to teach them a lesson. When it was his turn, the applicant asked the police officers not to hit his hands as he had recently undergone surgery. Therefore, the police officers decided to subject him to falaka (beating of the soles of the feet). The applicant was also beaten up. Afterwards, he was released without any formalities. He was seventeen years old.\n7.  The applicant hid the incident from his family but his feet were swollen and he had difficulty walking. The applicant’s father immediately took him to the Casualty department of Dokuz Eylül University Hospital for a medical examination on 29 July 1997, at around 11 p.m. According to the report drafted by Dr S.Y., the applicant had a blue-purple coloured ecchymosis of 2x3x2 cm on the sole of his left foot.\n8.  The Government deny that the applicant was ever taken to Balçova police station or subjected to ill-treatment.\n9.  On 30 July 1997 the applicant filed a petition with the İzmir public prosecutor’s office, gave a detailed description of the alleged ill-treatment and subsequent events and requested to be immediately transferred to the Forensic Medical Institute for a medical examination.\n10.  On 30 July 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the İzmir Forensic Medical Institute who noted sensitivity and light reddish and purplish ecchymosis on the soles of his feet. The doctor concluded that the applicant had sustained soft tissue trauma. He considered that the injuries, which would heal in fifteen days, rendered the applicant unfit for work for three days.\n11.  On the same day the applicant applied to the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey for treatment. He was examined by a general surgeon and an orthopaedist, both of whom noted, inter alia, ecchymosis, oedema and sensitivity on the applicant’s feet. The next day, on 31 July 1997, the applicant saw a psychiatrist who considered that he was suffering from minimal anxiety. No drugs were prescribed.\n12.  On 18 August 1997 the applicant lodged an official complaint with the İzmir public prosecutor’s office and requested the prosecution of the impugned police officers for having committed the offence of torture, in breach of, inter alia, Article 3 of the Convention. In his petition the applicant repeated the description of the events and the alleged ill-treatment.\n13.  On 22 September 1997 the prosecutor questioned the applicant and his father. The applicant repeated his allegations.\n14.  On 13 January 1998 the applicant was able to identify from photographs Mr B.Y. and Mr M.Y. as two of the three police officers who had ill‑treated him on 28 July 1997.\n15.  On the same day, the prosecutor gave a decision of incompetence ratione materiae and transferred the investigation file to the İzmir Governor’s Office.\n16.  On 18 and 27 February 1998 Mr L.B., in his capacity as investigator (muhakkik), heard the applicant and his father. They both repeated their allegations.\n17.  On 20 March 1998 Mr L.B. questioned the accused police officers, who denied the allegations against", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3564", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  On 26 March 1997 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody. He was accused of having thrown a Molotov cocktail at a building. He was remanded in custody on 27 March 1997.\n6.  On 2 April 1997 the İzmir public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the İzmir Assize Court, accusing the applicant of extortion and of preparing a bomb. He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under Articles 495 § 1 and 264 § 6 of the Criminal Code.\n7.  On 18 September 1997 the applicant was released pending trial.\n8.  On 28 June 1999 the İzmir Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him, in total, to six years, eleven months and ten days’ imprisonment, and to a fine.\n9.  On 7 May 2001, the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion to the latter. He considered that the judgment of the first-instance court should be upheld. This opinion was not communicated to the applicant.\n10.  On 26 September 2001 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n11.  On 24 October 2007 the President of the 6th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation informed the Court of Cassation that, in accordance with domestic law, the principal public prosecutor was not present at the deliberations of the Chamber.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3565", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Katowice.\n5. On 28 June 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.\n6.  On 30 June 2000 the Tychy District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his detention on remand.\n7.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on 28 September, 18 December 2000 and on 26 March 2001.\n8.  On 8 June 2001 the bill of indictment was lodged.\n9.  On 25 June 2001 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) extended the applicant’s detention until 15 January 2002. The court relied on a strong suspicion that he had committed the offence in question, which was supported by evidence. It attached importance to the grave nature of the offence and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on him. In addition, keeping him in custody was necessary to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings. Lastly, the court stressed that there were 3 co‑accused and 26 witnesses involved in the proceedings.\n10.  On 16 November 2001 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held 7 hearings in the case.\n11.  On 7 January 2002 the Katowice Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 15 May 2002. The court repeated the reasons given previously. Upon an appeal by the applicant, the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld that decision on 6 February 2002.\n12.  On 6 May 2002 the Regional Court again extended the applicant’s detention. The court stressed that he was likely to receive a particularly severe sentence.\n13.  On 23 May 2002 the Katowice Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment. On 10 July 2002 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal. He was kept in detention pending appeal for the 10 subsequent months.\n14.  On 6 March 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment.\n15.  On 18 June 2003 the applicant’s lawyer filed a cassation appeal (kasacja) with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n16.  On 24 May 2004 the applicant informed the Registry that his cassation appeal had been rejected by the Supreme Court.\n17.  At the time of lodging his application with the Court the applicant was detained in the course of criminal proceedings against him.\n18.  On 1 February 2002 the Registry of the Court received a letter from the applicant dated 28 January 2002. The envelope bears a stamp “censored on...” (ocenzurowano dn....) and an illegible signature.\n19.  On 28 May 2002 the Registry of the Court received the application form from the applicant (dated 16 May 2002). It was delivered in an envelope bearing a stamp “censored on...” (ocenzurowano dn....). It also bears an illegible signature and a handwritten date, 20 May 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3566", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Lustenau. Her father is an Austrian national of Turkish origin. In February 1998 she entered Austria on a temporary visa, valid until 30 June 1998.\n5.  Following a report by the Dornbirn Aliens Police (Fremdenpolizei), on 28 January 1999 the Dornbirn District Administrative Authority issued a provisional penal order (Strafverfügung) of 1,000 Austrian schillings (ATS) – equal to 73 Euros (EUR) and 24 hours’ imprisonment in default against the applicant for illegal sojourn.\n6.  Subsequently, on 11 February 1999, she filed an objection (Einspruch) against that decision with the Dornbirn District Administrative Authority.\n7.  On 22 March 1999 the applicant, upon the District Administrative Authority’s request, filed a statement in which she specified that she had entered Austria with a valid visa on 26 February 1998. As proceedings for a residence permit were underway, she was in her view allowed to stay until the decision had become final. In addition she claimed that, according to certain EC directives and the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence and in line with the ECJ’s constant case-law, she was legally residing in Austria, since her father had Austrian citizenship.\n8.  The Aliens Police submitted their observations on 16 August 1999, which were served on the applicant’s counsel on 23 August 1999. They stated that neither European Law nor domestic provisions could justify the applicant’s sojourn in Austria, which was in fact in breach of section 31 of the Aliens Act.\n9.  On 21 December 1999 the applicant filed further observations.\n10.  On 1 December 2000 the District Administrative Authority, having regard to the applicant’s objection and the above investigations, maintained its view and imposed a penal order in the amount of ATS 1,000 with 30 hours’ imprisonment in default. It found that although the applicant had entered with a valid visa, it had expired, following which her stay in Austria was in breach of the Aliens Act.\n11.  On 19 December 2000 the applicant filed an appeal with the Independent Administrative Panel (IAP). She alleged, inter alia, that the first-instance decision did not comply with EC law.\n12.  Having held an oral hearing, on 25 June 2001 the IAP , dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It referred to the Aliens Act, which exhaustively stipulated the conditions under which a foreigner’s residence could be deemed to be legal. Upholding the first-instance decision, it concluded that the applicant had disregarded her visa’s validity period, following which her sojourn was unlawful.\n13.  Subsequently, on 13 August 2001, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court.\n14.  On 10 October 2001 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the case on account of its lack of prospects of success and transferred it to the Administrative Court.\n15.  The IAP submitted its observations to the Administrative Court on 25 October 2001.\n16.  On 19 November 2003 the Administrative Court, relying on section 33a of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungsgerichts-hofgesetz), declined to deal with the applicant’s case, finding that it did not raise important legal issues. On 1 December 2003 that decision was served on the applicant’s counsel.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3567", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are of Romani origin and live with their families on the area of Psari, near Aspropyrgos, a municipality in the western part of the Attica region.\n6.  On 24 June 2004, the Minister Delegate of Health, accompanied by the Secretary General of his ministry, visited the Roma camp in Psari. He had been informed, among other things, of the non-education of Romani children. On 2 August, the representatives of “European Roma Rights Centre” and of “Greek Helsinki Monitor” met with the Minister Delegate for National Education and Religious Affairs. Following this meeting, the Minister Delegate published a press release highlighting, among other things, the importance of integrating Romani children into the national education process.\n7.  The 2004-2005 school year began on 10 September 2004. On 17 September 2004, the Secretary of the Department of Education of Expatriate Greeks and Intercultural Education visited the Roma camps in Psari, in the company of two representatives of the Greek Helsinki Monitor, to register all the Romani children of schooling age. To this end, they visited the two primary schools of the municipality (the 10th and 22th primary schools of Aspropyrgos). The respective school directors encouraged Romani parents to enrol their children in primary school. The Greek Helsinki Monitor subsequently informed the competent authorities of the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, who gave no follow-up.\n8.  The applicants confirm that on 21 September 2004, they visited the premises of the Aspropyrgos primary schools, with other Romani parents, to register their children. The directors of two schools had refused to enrol their children on the grounds that they had not received instructions to this effect from the relevant ministry. They had informed the parents concerned that upon receipt of the necessary instructions, they would invite them to complete the necessary formalities. Never afterwards were the parents invited to register their children.\n9.  According to the document no. Φ20.3/747 delivered on 5 June 2007 by the First Bureau of Primary Education in West Attica, at the request of the State Legal Council, the applicants presented themselves to the director of the 10th primary school of Aspropyrgos to gather information on registering their children. The director reportedly showed them the documents necessary to register their children. According to the same documents, on 23 September 2004, the Departmental Director of Education of the Attica region convened an informal meeting with the competent authorities of the municipality of Aspropyrgos to address the problem of additional enrolment of students of Romani origin and the capacity of Aspropyrgos’ primary schools. On one hand, it was decided that the students who had reached the age of first schooling would be accommodated into the existing premises of the 10th and 11th primary schools in Aspropyrgos. On the other hand, the meeting considered that integration of children who had reached an age higher than that of preliminary education into normal classes would be detrimental from a psychopedagogical point of view: the difference of age would not permit them to have an effective schooling. On this basis, the informal meeting decided to provide two additional preparatory classes in preparation for the integration of these students into ordinary classes.\n10.  On 13 and 18 September and on 2 October 2004, the Greek Helsinki Monitor referred to the Ombud", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3568", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Chişinău. He is a pensioner.\n6.  On an unspecified date he brought civil proceedings against the Straseni Local Council claiming compensation of 195,500 Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately 14,000 euros (EUR)) for the alleged illegal confiscation by the Soviet authorities of his family’s house back in 1949.\n7.  On 26 December 2002, after having exempted the applicant from the duty to pay court fees, the Straseni District Court examined the merits of the case and dismissed it as manifestly ill-founded.\n8.  On 7 May 2003 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the same grounds. It did so also after exempting the applicant from the duty to pay court fees.\n9.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law and requested, inter alia, to be exempted from the obligation to pay court fees, on account of his poor financial situation. He presented evidence showing that after the payment of all commodities, only MDL 2 were left from his monthly pension.\n10.  On 12 August 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice refused to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law on the ground he had failed to pay court fees. It stated that exemption from the obligation to pay court fees was impossible at the stage of an appeal on points of law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3569", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1957 respectively and live in Istanbul.\n5.  On 3 and 15 March 1981 the applicants were arrested.\n6.  On 26 May 1981 the Ankara Martial Law Court ordered their detention on remand.\n7.  On 16 June 1981 the public prosecutor attached to the Adana Martial Law Court filed a bill of indictment against 343 persons, including the applicants, and charged the latter with membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Devrimci Yol - the Revolutionary Way).\n8.  On 17 June 1986 the Adana Martial Law Court convicted the applicants as charged.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicants appealed.\n10.  On 20 March 1991 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and remitted the case to the Ankara Martial Law Court, since in the meantime the former court had been abolished.\n11.  On an unspecified date in 1991 the applicants were released pending trial.\n12.  Subsequent to the promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, the Ankara Assize Court acquired jurisdiction in the applicants’ case.\n13.  On 18 June 2001 the Ankara Assize Court convicted Süleyman Eryılmaz under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to death. This sentence was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. Regarding Ferit Çengelli, the first-instance court ordered that the criminal proceedings against him be terminated on the ground that the statutory time‑limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired.\n14.  The judgment of the Ankara Assize Court was automatically referred to the Court of Cassation insofar as it concerned Süleyman Eryılmaz, since the latter’s sentence exceeded 15 years’ imprisonment.\n15.  On 24 July 2002 the applicants allegedly learned about the outcome of the proceedings before the Ankara Assize Court through a friend.\n16.  By a letter dated 7 February 2003, the applicants’ former lawyer informed the Court that the judgment of 18 June 2001 had been served on Ferit Çengelli on 3 February 2003 upon his request, and that the proceedings against Süleyman Eryılmaz were still pending before the Court of Cassation. (From the case file it appears that the State had attempted to serve the judgment on Ferit Çengelli earlier, but had mistakenly sent it to the wrong address.)\n17.  According to the documents submitted to the Court by the respondent Government, on 30 October 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the Ankara Assize Court’s judgment of 18 June 2001 insofar as it concerned Süleyman Eryılmaz and remitted the case to the Ankara Assize Court.\n18.  According to the information in the case file, the case against Süleyman Eryılmaz is still pending before the Ankara Assize Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3570", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Leskovac, Serbia.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 6 December 1988 the applicant, a labour inspector (inspektor rada), was declared redundant by the Municipality of Leskovac, which decision entered into force on 29 December 1990.\n8.  On 22 February 1991 the applicant therefore filed a claim with the Labour Court (Osnovni sud udruženog rada) in Vranje, seeking reinstatement or severance pay as provided for in the relevant domestic legislation.\n9.  Following a remittal, on 3 September 1991 this court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Leskovac.\n10.  Between 2 June 1992 and 5 January 1998 a total of fourteen separate decisions were adopted by the Municipal Court, at first instance, the District Court (Okružni sud) in Leskovac, on appeal, and the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Srbije) at third instance.\n11.  Following a remittal, on 16 March 1998 the Municipal Court again ruled in favour of the applicant.\n12.  On 5 June 1998 the District Court upheld this judgment on appeal and it thereby became final.\n13.  On 18 March 1999 the Municipal Court issued a separate decision, ordering the enforcement of this judgment.\n14.  On 21 November 2000, however, the same court accepted the respondent’s request for the re-opening of the labour dispute.\n15.  On 21 February 2001 and 23 May 2002 the District Court and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld this decision.\n16.  On 21 November 2002 the Municipal Court therefore re-opened the proceedings in question.\n17.  The hearing scheduled for 21 April 2004 was adjourned because of the presiding judge’s illness.\n18.  On 3 March 2005 the President of the Municipal Court appointed another presiding judge to deal with the case, the reason being that the applicant had, in the meantime, filed a criminal complaint against the former.\n19.  On 18 April 2005 and 18 May 2005 two separate hearing were held.\n20.  On 24 May 2005 the Municipal Court appointed a financial expert and ordered him to calculate the amount of salary arrears sought by the applicant.\n21.  On 5 April 2006 the Municipal Court appointed another financial expert to carry out this order.\n22.  On 19 July 2006 the Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant. It awarded him most of the salary arrears and severance pay requested, but refused his claim for reinstatement since he had reached retirement age in the meantime.\n23.  On 1 December 2006 the District Court quashed this judgment on appeal and remitted the case to the Municipal Court.\n24.  On 24 January 2007 the Municipal Court again ruled partly in favour of the applicant.\n25.  On 26 April 2007, however, the District Court rejected the applicant’s claims in their entirety.\n26.  On an unspecified date thereafter the applicant filed an appeal on points of law. According to the information made available to the Court by the parties to date, the case is apparently still pending before the Supreme Court.\n27.  It would appear that throughout the above proceedings the applicant had represented himself.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3571", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  Between 1994 and 1996 the applicant, in his capacity as the President of Bank B., facilitated the sponsoring of the Government by the bank in the production of a book promoting the image of Romania abroad. On 14 March 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his job.\n7.  On 24 September 1996 the company O.P. filed a criminal complaint against the applicant, accusing him of abuse of authority (abuz în serviciu, under Article 248 of the Criminal Code) and misappropriation of funds (deturnare de fonduri, under Article 302 of the Criminal Code) in relation to the above-mentioned sponsorship contract.\n8.  On 6 November 1996 the prosecutor attached to the Bucharest District Court took a statement from the applicant in connection with the allegations above.\n9.  On 14 November 1996 the prosecutor decided not to start criminal proceedings as the facts in the case did not disclose the commission of a crime.\nOn the same date, the applicant was informed of the decision.\n10.  On 26 September 1997 Bank B. filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for fraud (înşelăciune, under Article 215 of the Criminal Code) and abuse of authority (under Article 248 of the Criminal Code) in the handling of the same sponsorship contract mentioned above.\n11.  On 9 January 1998 the applicant made a statement to the prosecutor.\n12.  Witnesses’ and co-defendants’ depositions were taken in November 1996, November and December 1997, January, February, August and December 1998, and March and December 1999.\n13.  On 2 February 1998 a criminal investigation for fraud was started in respect of the applicant.\n14.  On 17 February 1998 the prosecutor attached to the Supreme Court of Justice enquired about French companies that had been involved in the publication of the book. He asked for evidence to be taken on commission (comisie rogatorie) by the prosecutor attached to the Paris Tribunal de Grande Instance. The request was reiterated on 13 October 1998. The documents were received from France on 13 November 1998.\n15.  On 12 October 1998 the prosecutor attached to the Supreme Court of Justice overturned the prosecutor’s decisions of 14 November 1996 and 2 February 1998. He considered that as long as the decision of 14 November not to prosecute had not been overturned, the prosecutor could not have legally started the criminal prosecution on 2 February. He ordered the opening of a criminal prosecution for fraud through contracts.\n16.  On 3 November 1999 the prosecutor attached to the Supreme Court of Justice changed the legal classification of the offence from fraud to abuse of authority.\n17.  On 9 December 1999 the applicant was questioned by the prosecutor at the Supreme Court of Justice for the first time in connection with the new classification of the offence. On the same day the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody until 7 January 2000 on the prosecutor’s order.\n18.  On 15 December 1999 the applicant (in the presence of the lawyer of his choice) was informed of the content of his criminal file.\n19.  On 16 December 1999 the prosecutor attached to the Supreme Court of Justice issued an indictment for abuse of authority.\n20.  The case was registered with the Bucharest County Court. Thirteen hearings took place before this court, from five of which the applicant was absent for medical reasons. On four other occasions the court postponed the oral hearings for various reasons, including requests made by ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3572", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Ploieşti.\n5.  The Ploieşti police started an investigation into allegations that the applicant had stolen petroleum products from his employer, an oil company.\n6.  On 6 June 2002, the applicant was apprehended by the police.\nOn 7 June 2002 the prosecutor attached to the Prahova County Court issued an arrest warrant against the applicant for thirty days, until 6 July 2002. The prosecutor’s order gave the following reasons for seeking the applicant’s arrest:\n“the offence is punishable by more than two years’ detention, and [the applicant’s] continued liberty represents a threat to ordre public.”\n7.  On 4 July 2002 the applicant was brought before the County Court in order to have the lawfulness of his committal for trial and of his pre-trial detention verified. The applicant’s lawyer requested that the detention order be set aside and the applicant released, arguing, in particular, that the arrest warrant was unlawful and that the measure of placing the applicant in pre‑trial detention had been taken automatically and too easily, as there was no evidence that he had committed the offence in question.\n8.  On 4 July 2002 the Prahova County Court, considering that the reasons justifying the initial measure remained unchanged, ordered the applicant’s detention in custody for thirty more days, namely until 5 August 2002. It noted that its decision was subject to appeal at the same time as the judgment on the merits of the case.\n9.  Four more hearings took place before the County Court. Each time the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended for similar reasons to those of 4 July 2002, until the judgment on the merits was delivered. No further grounds were given by the County Court.\n10.  On 9 October 2002 the Prahova County Court convicted the applicant of aggravated theft and imposed a one-year suspended sentence.\n11.  The applicant was released from custody on 10 October 2002.\n12.  The Supreme Court of Justice dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld the County Court’s judgment in a final decision of 7 July 2003.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 8 August 2002, the applicant was dismissed from his job in application of the Labour Code, as his detention had exceeded sixty days. He found a new job on 12 December 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3573", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  During the period with which the application is concerned, Ms Duca was the manager of a private company. In 1998 two employees of the company applied to the Chişinău District Court for a declaration of their status as founders of the company. In 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice, in a final decision, dismissed their application.\n8.  In 1999 the plaintiffs in the above proceedings lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant on charges of large-scale theft and forgery of public documents. On 11 August 1999 the Chişinău District Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on the above charges.\n9.  On 1 November 2002 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. On 12 December 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court partially quashed the judgment of the first instance court. The proceedings ended with the final judgment of the Court of Appeal of 18 February 2003, acquitting the applicant.\n10.  During the proceedings the applicant was detained twice: first, on remand, between 21 December 2001 and 24 April 2002 and secondly, after being convicted, between 1 November 2002 and 12 December 2002.\n11.  According to the applicant, during her first detention the prison authorities interfered constantly with her correspondence with her lawyers.\n12.  Following her acquittal, the applicant introduced a civil action against the Government in accordance with Law No. 1545 (see the “Relevant Domestic Law”), claiming compensation of 461,800 euros (EUR) for the illegal acts of the investigation organs, the prosecution and the courts.\n13.  On 1 September 2004 the Râşcani District Court found in favour of the applicant and awarded her a lump sum of 150,000 Moldovan lei (the equivalent of EUR 10,289 at the time). It stated inter alia that:\n“On 11 August 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant....\n...\n[account of the proceedings]\n...\nOn 18 February 2003 the Court of Appeal acquitted her on the ground that no criminal offence was ever committed. Thus, the applicant was illegally charged on four occasions. She was under an obligation not to leave the city, being thus limited in her freedom of movement for 778 days. She was illegally detained in prison for 169 days and 7 hours, of which 111 days were spent in the Remand Centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.\nIt is obvious that while being charged illegally with a criminal offence, the applicant and her family endured mental suffering.\nMoreover, the applicant’s lawyer declared that she was detained in inhuman conditions in the Remand Centre of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which was confirmed by the CPT report of 2001.\nThere is no doubt that these circumstances intensified her moral suffering.”\n14.  On 1 December 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the judgment.\nCOMPLAINT\nThe applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the interference by the prison authorities with her right to respect for her correspondence with her lawyers.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3574", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Székesfehérvár.\n5.  In the context of her dismissal from employment with the State Railways, on 29 April 2003 the applicant brought an action before the Székesfehérvár Labour Court claiming outstanding wages. She requested legal aid. On 9 October 2003 the case was transferred to the Budapest Labour Court. However, a legal-aid lawyer was appointed for the applicant only on 22 March 2004.\n6.  On 1 September 2004 the lawyer submitted the applicant’s recapitulated action.\n7.  On 5 and 12 May and 29 September 2005 hearings took place. On the latter date, a partial decision was adopted.\n8.  On 8 May 2006 the remainder of the applicant’s claims was partially accepted. On 25 September 2006 the applicant appealed.\n9.  On 11 July 2007 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first instance decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3575", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Savona, Italy.\n5.  On 19 January 1998 the applicant entered Romania with a tourist visa valid until 2 February 1998 and started business activities. In February 1998, when the applicant requested extension of the visa, the authorities asked for proof of residence in Romania that she could not provide.\n6.  In February-March 1999 the authorities refused the applicant’s request for extension of her visa as out of time. They told her that she needed to “know people” who could help her receive a new visa.\n7.  On 29 April 2000 the applicant was questioned by two officers from the Bucharest police to whom she claims she gave a bribe of 100,000 Old Romanian Lei (ROL) to let her go.\n8.  On 4 May 2000 at 8.30 a.m. the applicant was again stopped by officers from the Bucharest police when she was on her way to the Italian consulate. The officers took her identity papers and verified her data. After a one-hour wait the applicant was taken to Police Precinct no. 19 for additional checks.\n9.  From Precinct no. 19 she was taken by three officers to the Passport Bureau, where she explained that her visa had not been extended before its expiry because she had not had a valid residential tenancy contract. The person in charge asked her to return the next day to have her situation regularised.\n10.  The applicant was made to wait in the police car with one of the officers while the other two officers checked her passport. After the check they returned to Precinct no. 19, where after a one-hour wait the applicant was taken to the basement and body-searched by a female police officer while her bag was searched by another officer. She was informed that that was the standard procedure for any person who entered the police headquarters.\n11.  After the search, the applicant was questioned by two officers from the Passport Bureau and then taken again to their headquarters. Her fingerprints and photograph were taken and she was put in a room where the commander of Precinct no. 19 was writing on a paper that he was hiding from the applicant with his hands.\n12.  The commander informed the applicant, who requested an explanation, that she was not allowed to ask questions, to read or to know anything, and that she had to sit in a corner and wait. He then told her to stop crying, because the treatment she was subjected to was not even comparable to that inflicted on Romanians arrested by the Italian police.\nThe applicant replied that, unlike the great majority of Romanians in Italy, she had come to invest money in Romania and not to steal or commit crimes. She also said that the Italian police respected procedures, human rights and in particular the presumption of innocence, which was not the case in Romania, where foreigners were badly treated.\n13.  The applicant’s bag was searched again by another officer who entered the room. He took ROL 750,000 from her purse, the cost of a visa stamp that was applied on the applicant’s passport valid from 5 to 12 May 2000. He made an inventory of the bag and reported that the applicant had a mobile phone and ROL 2,250,000.\n14.  At around 4.30 p.m. the same day the applicant was taken for questioning to a different passport bureau. After a one-hour wait in the police car outside the building, she was informed that the questioning could not take place as the person in charge was absent, but that she would be taken to a hotel in Otopeni for the night.\n15.  Instead of being taken to a ho", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3577", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Aykhal, a town in Yakutia.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  In 1991 the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme for buying a car. The State failed to provide the car, and the applicant had to apply to a court.\n7.  On 19 August 2003 the Mirninskiy District Court of Yakutia awarded the applicant 138,967 Russian roubles (“RUB”) against the Ministry of Finance. On 6 October 2003 the judgment became binding, but was not enforced immediately.\n8.  On 23 October 2003 the district court mailed the writ of enforcement to the bailiff’s service. The bailiff’s service considered that the judgment should be enforced by the Ministry of Finance, and on 27 November 2003 returned the writ to the court. On 5 April 2004 the applicant collected the writ from the court and mailed it to the Ministry of Finance.\n9.  On 12 August 2004 the Ministry of Finance applied for a supervisory review of the judgment.\n10.  On 28 October 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Yakutia allowed the Ministry’s application and quashed the judgment. According tothe applicant, he received a copy of this decision on 19 March 2005.\n11.  On 7 September 2005 the Ministry paid to the applicant RUB 50,247.98 under the State program of redemption of in-kind debentures.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3578", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Mrs Valentina Nikolaeva Bevacqua, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1974 and at the relevant time lived in Sofia. In 2003 or 2004 she moved to Italy. The application is submitted by the first applicant on her own behalf and also on behalf of her son S. (“the second applicant”), a minor, who was born in 1997.\n6.  The first applicant married Mr N. in 1995 and gave birth to S. in January 1997.\n7.  Later, the relations between the spouses soured, Mr N. became aggressive and on 1 March 2000 the first applicant left the family home with her son and moved into her parents’ apartment. On the same day the first applicant filed for divorce and sought an interim custody order, stating, inter alia, that Mr N. often used offensive language, battered her “without any reason” and did not contribute to the household budget.\n8.  On 7 March 2000 a judge at the Sofia District Court examined the case file and fixed the date of the first hearing for 11 April 2000, without examining the request for an interim order.\n9.  During the first two months following the separation, Mr N. visited his son every day and took him to his apartment on weekends, with the first applicant’s consent.\n10.  On 11 April 2000 the District Court could not proceed with the examination of the divorce case as Mr N. had been taken ill and did not appear.\n11.  On 6 May 2000 Mr N. did not bring S. home after a walk. He telephoned the first applicant and told her that his son would live with him. For the next six days he refused the first applicant’s requests for meetings or telephone conversations with her son.\n12.  On 9 May 2000 the first applicant complained to the prosecuting authorities. The relevant prosecutor apparently gave instructions that Mr N. should be summoned and served with an official warning. That was not done until 22 June 2000.\n13.  On 12 May 2000 the first applicant went to see her son at the kindergarten and took him to her home. In the evening Mr N. telephoned and then appeared outside the first applicant’s home. He was shouting and banging on the door, thus frightening the child and the first applicant. Mr N. eventually managed to enter the apartment, when the first applicant’s father came home. He allegedly hit or pushed the first applicant in the presence of her parents and the child. At one point Mr N. seized his son, but the first applicant was trying to hold him. The child was screaming. Eventually, Mr N. left with the child.\n14.  On 18 May 2000 the first applicant visited a forensic doctor who noted a small bruise on her face and a bruise on her hip.  On 25 May 2000 she filed a complaint with the District Prosecutor’s Office and enclosed the medical certificate.\n15.  The first applicant also sought the help of a non-governmental organisation assisting female victims of domestic violence. She was offered the possibility to stay with her son in a hostel for such victims in Bourgas. On 25 May 2000 the first applicant collected her son from the kindergarten and travelled with him to Bourgas. She spent four days at the hostel there without disclosing her whereabouts to Mr N.\n16.  Mr N. complained to the local Juveniles Pedagogic Unit (see paragraph 43 below), stating that the first applicant had abducted their son. The first applicant was summoned by the police. On 31 May 2000 she returned to Sofia and met the district juveniles inspector. She explained that she had been the victim of violence and that her son’s health was in danger ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3579", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants live in the village of Tsa-Vedeno, the Vedeno District, in the Chechen Republic. The first applicant was married to Mr Ramzan Kukuyev, born in 1966. They are the parents of the second, third and fourth applicants.\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  The Kukuyev family lived, along with Ramzan Kukuyev’s parents and his four brothers and their families, in a household comprising several houses in Tsa-Vedeno. Ramzan Kukuyev had worked as a construction worker; the first applicant was a housewife. On 16 April 2000 Ramzan Kukuyev joined the Chechen home guard organised by the Russian authorities. On 30 March 2001 he left the service on medical grounds. At the material time Ramzan Kukuyev was unemployed.\n10.  In the morning of 3 May 2001 the federal military commenced a “sweeping” operation in the village of Tsa-Vedeno.\n11.  Between 5 and 6 a.m. on 3 May 2001, when the first applicant and her husband were asleep at home, a group of about forty servicemen entered their house. Two or three of them were wearing masks. The servicemen did not introduce themselves and ordered Ramzan Kukuyev to show his identity papers. The latter produced his papers and a medical certificate confirming that he was unwell and was not fit for work.\n12.  The military then forced all male members of the Kukuyev family into the courtyard while keeping the women inside. The Kukuyev men were ordered to take off their shirts and were body searched. The military also searched the household. According to the first applicant, they broke things belonging to the house and took away a TV set, some clothes and a blanket.\n13.  Thereafter the servicemen forced Ramzan Kukuyev, his brother and two cousins into armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and took them away. The first applicant attempted to follow them but the servicemen threatened her with firearms. The then four-year-old fourth applicant ran after her father, but one of the soldiers threw her aside with the result that she fell and broke her collar bone.\n14.  Ramzan Kukuyev, along with other residents of Tsa-Vedeno arrested during the “sweeping” operation, was taken to a federal military base on the outskirts of the village.\n15.  According to a resident of Tsa-Vedeno detained on 3 May 2001, in the evening the military ordered detainees to stand in a row. Some of the detainees, including Ramzan Kukuyev, were ordered out of the line. They were blindfolded and taken to a military helicopter. The helicopter and the servicemen then left in the direction of the town of Shali. Since then Ramzan Kukuyev’s whereabouts have been unknown.\n16.  In the applicants’ submission, fifteen men from Tsa-Vedeno were apprehended during the “sweeping” operation on 3 May 2001. Some of them were released later the same day; several others were released and delivered by a military helicopter to the outskirts of Tsa-Vedeno four days later. Ramzan Kukuyev, his cousin and another resident of Tsa-Vedeno disappeared following their detention.\n17.  The events of 3 May 2001, including the detention and disappearance of Ramzan Kukuyev, were reported by a number of human rights NGOs, and in particular by Human Rights Watch in its report “Last seen...: continued ‘disappearances’ in Chechnya” (April 2002) and by the Memorial Human Rights Centre in June 2003.\n18.  According to the Government, at about 11 a.m. on 3 May 2001 unidentified persons in masks and camouflage uniforms armed with ma", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3580", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow. He was the director of a diamond manufacturing and export company (“the company”).\n7.  On 9 July 1999 a criminal case (no. 144129) was opened against the applicant. He was suspected of having smuggled diamonds by using forged export contracts, an offence under Article 188 § 4 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  On 18 August 1999 the applicant was arrested. On 20 August 1999 a prosecutor remanded him in custody.\n9.  On 16 September 1999 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s request for release on bail. On 7 October 1999 the Moscow City Court upheld the refusal on appeal.\n10.  On 14 October 1999 a deputy Prosecutor General extended the applicant’s detention until 9 January 2000. On 16 December 1999 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the extension order because, in the court’s view, the applicant’s “character” justified the detention. On 17 January 2000 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal.\n11.  On 30 December 1999 a deputy Prosecutor General extended the applicant’s detention until 18 May 2000. On 19 April 2000 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the extension order, finding that the order had been “lawful and justified”, but without giving further grounds in support of this finding.\n12.  On 16 May 2000 a deputy Prosecutor General extended the applicant’s detention until 18 August 2000. On 4 August 2000 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the extension order, finding that it had been lawful and justified. On 27 December 2000 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal.\n13.  On 16 August and 18 September 2000 the acting Deputy Prosecutor General extended the applicant’s detention until 18 September and 18 November 2000 respectively. On 26 September 2000 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the extension orders, finding that they had been justified on account of the applicant’s “character” and the absence of “gross violations” of the criminal-procedure laws. On 9 January 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal, referring to the applicant’s “character” and the gravity of the charges against him.\n14.  On 17 November 2000 the Prosecutor General extended the applicant’s detention until 18 February 2001. On 31 January 2001 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s challenge to the extension order, finding that the applicant’s “character” and the gravity of the charge rendered his detention lawful and justified. On 23 April 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal.\n15.  On 9 December 2000 the applicant was additionally charged with offences under Articles 188 § 3 (smuggling), 191 § 2 (unlawful trade in precious stones), and 327 (forgery of official documents) of the Criminal Code.\n16.  On 28 December 2000 fifteen counts of smuggling, unlawful export of precious stones and forgery of documents were severed into a new criminal case, which was given the number 9307.\n17.  On 18 February 2001 the investigation into the remaining charges in the framework of case no. 144129 was stayed. On 26 February 2002 the investigation resumed and has since been pending.\n18.  On 12 January 2001 the applicant was given access to the case file. Further to the prosecution’s requests, on 16 February and 16 April 2001 the Moscow City Court exten", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3581", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in the village of Rakitnyy in the Rostov Region.\n5.  In 1998 the applicant brought court proceedings against the Social Security Service of the Zernogradskiy District of the Rostov Region (“the Social Security Service”) claiming old-age pension arrears.\n6.  By judgment of 27 May 1999, the Zernogradskiy District Court awarded the applicant 3,770.46 Russian roubles (RUB) in pension arrears for the period from August 1998 to April 1999 and RUB 469.21 in monthly payments as from May 1999. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 6 June 1999.\n7.  On 7 December 1999 the District Court issued the applicant with writs of execution which he submitted to the bailiffs but they refused to enforce the judgment.\n8.  In April 2001 the payment of the applicant’s pension was entrusted to the Zernogradskiy District Agency of the Pension Fund (“the Agency”). In July 2001 the applicant sued the Agency and the Social Security Service for pecuniary damages on account of their failure to enforce the judgment of 27 May 1999.\n9.  By judgment of 31 July 2001, the District Court established that the judgment of 27 May 1999 had not been enforced and ordered the Agency to pay the applicant RUB 24,998.55 in pension arrears for the period from August 1998 to July 2001, adjusted in line with the increases in the level of pensions during this period. The District Court revoked the enforcement writs issued in December 1999.\n10.  The Agency appealed. It appears that the sole ground of its appeal was that it should not have been held responsible for the period of time when the payment of the applicant’s pension had been entrusted to the Social Security Service. On 10 October 2001 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment.\n11.  On 15 January 2002 the amount of RUB 24,998.55 was transferred to the applicant’s account.\n12.  On 30 April 2002 the President of the Rostov Regional Court lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 31 July 2001, as upheld on 10 October 2001. The applicant challenged the above application relying on the Brumarescu judgment and alleging that the quashing of the judgment in his favour would violate Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.\n13.  On 23 May 2002 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court set aside the judgment of 31 July 2001, as upheld on appeal, on the ground that it had infringed the rules of civil procedure by re-awarding the applicant the sums due under the judgment of 27 May 1999 and thereby re-considering the issues resolved by that final judgment. The Presidium also noted that the courts had failed to set out detailed calculations of the awarded sums and their conclusions in that part had been unsubstantiated. It remitted the case for a new examination by the District Court.\n14.  By judgment of 9 October 2002, the District Court granted the applicant’s claims in part. The Regional Court reversed the judgment on 27 November 2002 and remitted the case to the District Court.\n15.  By judgment of 25 March 2003, the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. It noted, among other things, that the Agency had paid the applicant the sums due under the judgment of 31 July 2001 and that those sums had not been claimed from him.\n16.  On 14 May 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. It endorsed the District Court’s reasoning and noted that the amounts paid to the applicant under the judgment of 31 July 2001 could not be claimed from him under the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3583", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Khabarovsk, the Khabarovsk Region.\n5.  In 2000 the applicant sued the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of Finance for an unfounded criminal prosecution. On 15 December 2000 the Yelizovskiy District Court of the Kamchatka Regional Court awarded the applicant damages. This judgment became binding on 22 March 2001, but was not enforced immediately.\n6.  The applicant mailed enforcement papers to the bailiff’s service having territorial jurisdiction over the Ministry of Finance’s head office. The service returned the papers and explained that they should be mailed to the Treasury.\n7.  The applicant mailed the papers to the Treasury, but the Treasury returned them because of several defects: the copy of the judgment was not certified, the writ of enforcement contained no time-limit, and the name of the court indicated in the papers mismatched that indicated in the seals.\n8.  The applicant removed these defects and on 23 May 2002 resubmitted the papers. On 19 November 2002 the judgment was enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3584", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a limited liability company registered in Moscow.\n6.  On 2 September 1992 the applicant company purchased an aircraft from the Kharkiv State Aviation Industrial Enterprise (Харківське державне авіаційне підприємство, hereafter “the Enterprise”) for 5 million United States dollars (USD). By February 1993 this amount had been paid in full to the Enterprise. On 19 April 1993 the applicant company and the Enterprise signed an aircraft acceptance certificate, entailing, according to the applicant company, the transfer of ownership. On 20 April 1993 a Ukrainian crew – including the chief pilot Mr I. – flew the aircraft to Russia.\n7.  Until April 1994 the aircraft underwent test flights at the Ramenskoye airfield, located in the Moscow region. On 5 April 1994 and for unspecified reasons, the aircraft was flown back to Ukraine where it landed at the Enterprise’s airfield.\n8.  In the meantime, namely on 30 March 1994, a Ukrainian Customs officer had drawn up a report that customs rules had been violated. According to this report, when the aircraft had crossed the Ukrainian-Russian border in April 1993, it had been declared by officials of the Enterprise as temporarily exported for test flights whereas it had in fact been exported by way of sale to the applicant company.\n9.  On 27 May 1994 the Ukrainian Customs authorities instituted criminal proceedings for the attempted smuggling of the aircraft to Russia. On an unspecified date the case was transmitted to the Kharkiv Regional Department of the Security Service (Управління Служби Безпеки України по Харківській області, hereafter “the USBU”).\n10.  By rulings of 3 December 1994 and 13 November 1995, the USBU investigator decided to classify the aircraft as material evidence (визнав речовим доказом) and attached it to the case file pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.\n11.  On 14 December 1995 the Deputy Head of the Investigative Unit of the USBU decided to put the aircraft up for sale by issuing a formal order to this effect (ухвала про долю речового доказу).\n12.  By letter of 17 January 1995 the Acting Head of the Investigative Unit of the USBU informed the applicant company that the aircraft had been acquired by the Ministry of the Interior (hereafter “the Ministry”) for amount of USD 25,000.\n13.  On an unspecified date the USBU investigator charged Mr I. with smuggling. In August 1996, the same charge was brought against the Enterprise’s Deputy Director General Mr N. and – in July 1997 – also against the Enterprise’s Director General. The charge against the latter was subsequently dropped for lack of any corpus delicti.\n14.  By letter of 6 September 1997, the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation requested the Prime Minister of Ukraine to expedite the criminal proceedings relating to the aircraft at issue.\n15.  On 16 August 1997 the case was sent to the Kyivsky District Court of Kharkiv (hereafter “the Kyivsky Court”) for trial proceedings. On 16 October 1997 the Kyivsky Court allowed the applicant company to join the criminal proceedings as a civil claimant. On an unspecified subsequent date the Ministry joined the proceedings as a civil respondent.\n16.  At a preparatory hearing on 1 December 1997 the Kyivsky Court held that further investigations were required and remitted the case to the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office (hereafter “the Prosecutor’s Office”), which filed an appeal against this decision.\n17.  On 20 January 1998 the Kharkiv Regiona", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3585", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1953, 1985, and 1982 respectively and live in Krasnodar.\n5.  In 1999 the applicants lost their home in Volgodonsk in a terrorist bomb attack.\n6.  On 1 November 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Krasnodar ordered the local authority to provide the applicants with a flat. On 19 December 2002 this judgment became binding.\n7.  On the applicants’ request, on 19 February 2003 the court modified the operative part of the judgment and specified that the flat should measure at least 72 m².\n8.  The local authority applied for a supervisory review of the judgment, and the enforcement of the judgment was twice stayed: from 1 April to 4 August 2003 and from 23 October to 13 April 2004.\n9.  On 19 May 2004 the applicants submitted the writ of enforcement to the bailiff’s service, and on 10 September 2004 the applicants received a flat of 82.28 m².", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3586", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Uman.\n5.  In summer 2000 Mr Y. Z., the applicant’s acquaintance, issued the applicant with a power of attorney to represent his interests in connection with criminal proceedings instituted against several individuals, who had stolen his shoes and cash. In this capacity the applicant participated in Mr Y. Z.’s discussions with relatives of Ms Y. V., one of the suspects, who were seeking to negotiate a settlement. Subsequently the relatives of Ms Y. V. accused Mr Y. Z. and the applicant of extorting money from them to pay the law enforcement authorities to discontinue proceedings against Ms Y. V.\n6.  On 20 July 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Y. Z. on suspicion of soliciting a bribe. These proceedings were joined with those concerning the larceny of his possessions.\n7.  Within the framework of these proceedings, on 1 September 2000 the applicant was charged of being an accomplice to Mr Y. Z. On an unspecified date he was placed under an undertaking not to abscond.\n8.  In October 2000 the investigation was completed and the applicant was committed to trial before the Uman Court (Уманський міський суд).\n9.  On 6 February 2001 the Uman Court ordered a forensic expert assessment at the applicant’s request and suspended the proceedings pending its outcome. The court further remanded the applicant in custody, finding that he might interfere with the investigation.\n10.  On 21 June 2001 the expert assessment was produced to the court.\n11.  On 9 November 2001 the Uman Court convicted the applicant and Mr Y. Z. of fraud and soliciting a bribe, sentencing the applicant to four years’ imprisonment and exempting him from prison under amnesty. On the same day the applicant was released from detention under an undertaking not to abscond.\n12.  On 15 January 2002 the Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Черкаської області) quashed the judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n13.  On 13 November 2002 the Uman Court remanded the applicant in custody.\n14.  On 17 January 2003 the Uman Court remitted the case for additional investigation and released the applicant under an undertaking not to abscond. The prosecution appealed.\n15.  On 18 March 2003 the Regional Court quashed the ruling of 17 January 2003 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for consideration on the merits.\n16.  On 6 June 2003 the Uman Court convicted Mr Y. Z. and the applicant of fraud and soliciting a bribe, sentenced them to three years’ restriction of freedom and exempted them from prison under amnesty.\n17.  On 23 December 2003 the Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for additional investigation, citing numerous procedural omissions in the course of investigation and trial. In particular, the court pointed out that no formal criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicant and so the charges brought against him within the framework of proceedings against Mr Y. Z. were unlawful. It further found that the applicant had been placed in custody without sufficient grounds, that the trial court had failed to take due note of several of his requests and that the case file contained unsigned procedural documents. On the same date the court issued a separate ruling bringing the above-mentioned omissions to the attention of the Cherkasy Regional Prosecutor and the President of the Cherkasy Regional Council of Judges. The court ordered that the applicant rema", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3587", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Tambov.\n5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant was entitled to social benefits. Considering himself underpaid, he brought four actions against a social-security authority.\n6.  On 19 June 2000 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov awarded the applicant 16,951.58 Russian roubles (“RUB”). This judgment became binding on 4 September 2000 and was enforced on 19 February 2004.\n7.  On 14 March 2001 the district court awarded the applicant RUB 56,632.25. This judgment became binding on 26 March 2001 and was enforced on 19 February 2004.\n8.  On 16 May 2001 the Tambov Regional Court awarded the applicant RUB 10,926.87. This judgment became binding immediately and was enforced on 7 March 2003.\n9.  On 28 May 2002 the district court awarded the applicant RUB 20,651.78. This judgment became binding on 13 June 2002. On 26 June 2003 it was quashed on supervisory review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3588", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  The applicant was a member of a public association, the National Bolshevik Party. On 15 November 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ordered its dissolution. On 19 January 2006 the Federal Registration Service of the Ministry of Justice refused an application for registration of a political party by the same name. Party members challenged the refusal before the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow.\n8.  On 13 April 2006 fifteen party members, including the applicant, came to the Taganskiy District Court for a hearing concerning the refusal to register the National Bolsheviks Party. The applicant alleged that near the court building they had been attacked by a group of forty people and had had to defend themselves. According to the Government, the party members, including the applicant, had assaulted passers-by with gas guns and rubber truncheons.\n9.  On 11 July 2006 the applicant was arrested. The arresting officer indicated in his report that the victims had identified the applicant as one of the perpetrators of the assault.\n10.  On 12 July 2006 he was charged with participation in mass disorders, involving the use of gas guns, assault and battery, an offence under Article 213 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  On 13 July 2006 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow remanded the applicant in custody. It referred to the gravity of the charge, “his role in the imputed offence”, his record of administrative offences and his frequent absences from his registered place of residence. It also found that his accomplices whose identity had not been established were at large. The court concluded from that that the applicant might abscond or reoffend.\n12.  On 8 September 2006 the Tverskoy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 16 November 2006. The court referred to the gravity of the charge, the possibility of his absconding or reoffending and the need for a further investigation. In particular, it was necessary to perform a psychiatric examination on a co-accused.\n13.  In his appeal submission the applicant complained that the court’s conclusions were hypothetical and were not supported by relevant facts. The applicant had permanent residence in Moscow, attended university and had positive references. There was no risk of his absconding or reoffending.\n14.  On 4 December 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, sufficiently reasoned and justified.\n15.  On 15 November 2006 the Tverskoy District Court ordered a further extension of the applicant’s detention until 11 January 2007. At the hearing the applicant asked to be released on bail or under the personal guarantee of a member of the Russian Parliament. However, the court did not examine the possibility of a more lenient preventive measure. The extension order read as follows:\n“The court takes into account that [the applicant] has no criminal record, lives with his parents at his registered place of residence in Moscow, is successfully pursuing studies at [a university in Moscow], and has positive references. However, as he is charged with a serious criminal offence punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, the court considers that he may abscond or interfere with the investigation if released. The preventive measure should accordingly be maintained.”\n16.  On 25 December 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal.\n17.  On 11 Janua", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3589", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1994 and lives in Mykolayiv.\n5.  After the death of the applicant’s mother in 1995, Mr Bereslavskiy, the applicant’s maternal grandfather, and his wife were appointed her legal guardians.\n6.  In 1996 the family of Mr V.P., the applicant’s father, decided to sell two family apartments, one of them co-owned by the applicant and the other one by two other minors, O.D. and S.D., and to purchase a house. Mr V.P. obtained permission of the tutelage board to sell the applicant’s share in an apartment, having promised in exchange to assign to the applicant a comparable share of the house to be purchased. A similar permission was obtained in respect of the shares owned by the other two minors in the other apartment.\n7.  On 15 July 1996 the apartment formerly co-owned by the applicant was sold to Ms S.L.. On 9 October 1996 Ms S.L. sold it on to Mr V.Kh. and Mrs A.Kh. The apartment formerly co-owned by O.D. and S.D. was also sold. However, the newly purchased house was registered solely in the name of Mrs N. P., one of the P. family members.\n8.  On 15 September 1997 the Leninsky District Prosecutor of Mykolayiv (Прокурор Ленінського району м. Миколаїва) instituted civil proceedings with the Zhovtnevy District Court of Odessa (Жовтневий районний суд м. Одеса)[1] on the applicant’s behalf, seeking annulment of the sales contracts in respect of the apartment formerly co-owned by her. Subsequently, the prosecutor orally modified his claims and sought compensation for the applicant’s share in the apartment.\n9.  Mr Bereslavskіy took part in the proceedings as the applicant’s statutory agent. Four members of the P. family (the former co-owners of the applicant’s apartment) and Ms S.L., its first buyer, were summoned to the proceedings as defendants. Mr V.Kh. and Mrs A.Kh. were summoned as “third parties” (треті сторони). Subsequently the proceedings were joined with the proceedings brought by the Kominternivsky District Prosecutor of Odessa (Прокурор Комінтернівського району м. Одеса) on behalf of O.D. and S.D. with similar claims concerning the sale of the other apartment.\n10.  Between September 1997 and May 1999 the District Court scheduled some twenty hearings with intervals ranging from several days to four months. Ten of these hearings were adjourned on account of the absence of one or more of the individuals taking part in the proceedings, excluding the applicant. Two hearings were postponed on account of various court matters.\n11.  On 27 May 1999 the District Court found that the annulment of the sales contracts in respect of the applicant’s apartment would lead to the infringement of interests of the bona fide purchasers and ordered the four former owners of the apartment to pay the applicant 16,342.99 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for her share in the apartment. Mr V.P. appealed in cassation.\n12.  On 20 June 2000 the Odessa Regional Court (Одеський обласний суд)[2] quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It found that the District Court had failed to examine a number of material circumstances of the case and that the claim concerning compensation instead of the annulment of the contracts had never been properly formalised.\n13.  On 16 November 2001 the District Court imposed a fine on Mr V.Kh and Mrs A.Kh. for their repetitive failures to appear for the hearings.\n14.  On 27 February 2002 the District Court discontinued proceedings in respect of the claims brought on behalf of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3590", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Chernivtsi.\n5.  On 24 August 1998 the applicant had a quarrel with Mr B. and three other persons, which led to a fight in the course of which the applicant wounded Mr B. in the face with a gas pistol.\n6.  On 11 September 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for inflicting grievous bodily harm.\n7.  On 19 March 1999 the investigative authorities decided that the applicant had acted within the permissible limits of self-defence and terminated the proceedings.\n8.  On 15 May 1999 the Prosecutor of Razdolnensky District of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the ARC”), quashed the decision of 19 March 1999 and reopened the proceedings.\n9.  On 8 August 1999 the applicant was charged with having exceeded the limits of self-defence. On the same day he was placed on the wanted list. According to the applicant, he never left his place of residence in Chernivtsi (about 1,000 km from the ARC), and the authorities had been well aware of his permanent address. However, they failed to contact him concerning the criminal investigation.\n10.  On 13 March 2000 the charges against the applicant were amended: he was accused of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm.\n11.  On 20 October 2000, when the applicant was visiting the ARC, he was placed under an undertaking not to abscond.\n12.  On 1 November 2000 the investigation was completed and the case was referred to the Razdolnensky District Court of the ARC (Раздольненський районний суд Автономної республіки Крим).\n13.  On 8 February 2001 the court questioned the accused, the victim and witnesses, ordered an additional forensic medical examination and adjourned the hearing.\n14.  The next hearing was scheduled for 10 April 2002. This hearing was adjourned at the request of the applicant’s advocate. The following hearings were scheduled for 25 April and 17 June 2002 respectively. After the adjournment of the hearing of 17 June 2002 at the applicant’s request, the next hearing was scheduled for 4 November 2002.\n15.  On 4 November 2002 the court transferred the case file to the investigative authorities and ordered them to carry out a reconstruction of the crime.\n16.  On 4 April 2003 the reconstruction of the crime was carried out and the case was transferred back to the court for consideration.\n17.  Between September and December 2002 the court scheduled four hearings, none of which took place. Two hearings were adjourned on account of the absence of the applicant’s advocate, one on account of the absence of the prosecutor and one on account of the absence of two witnesses. The next hearing was scheduled for 4 February 2004.\n18.  On 4 February 2004 the court ordered an additional medical forensic examination.\n19.  On 24 March 2005 the results of the examination were produced to the court. The next hearing was scheduled for 26 September 2005. This hearing was adjourned at the prosecutor’s request.\n20.  On 27 September 2005 the court ordered an additional medical and ballistic assessment. On 11 November 2005 the designated expert institution refused to make the assessment, referring to the unavailability of qualified experts.\n21.  On 7 December 2005 the court ordered the assessment at a different facility. On 10 March 2006 the case file was sent to the expert facility. The next hearing took place in May 2006.\n22.  On 13 June 2006 the court terminated the criminal proceedings as the charges against the applicant had become time-barre", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3591", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is currently imprisoned in the city of Zhytomyr, Ukraine.\n6.  On 27 January 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murdering a taxi driver, M., and of several other crimes committed in 2001 (“the 2001 crimes”) and was placed in a cell at the Kyiv Kharkivsky District Police Department.\n7.  The same day the applicant requested Mr O. Kh. as his lawyer in the case. This was allowed and the lawyer attended the initial questioning of the applicant.\n8.  On 28 January 2001 the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer by Mr G., an investigating prosecutor at the Kyiv Kharkivsky District Prosecutor’s Office (“the Kharkivsky Prosecutor’s Office”).\n9.  On 1 February 2001 Mr M., a police officer at the Kyiv Kharkivsky District Police Department (“the police department”), who was in charge of investigating the death of a taxi driver, Kh., in the summer of 1998, questioned the applicant with a view to establishing his possible involvement in that crime. The crime was classified as infliction of grievous bodily harm causing death, for which legal representation of a suspect was not obligatory. The applicant signed a waiver of his right to counsel. The applicant was then questioned and confessed that he and Mr S. had murdered Kh. in the summer of 1998 (“the 1998 crime”). On the same day that criminal case was transferred to the Kharkivsky Prosecutor’s Office on the ground that the applicant’s actions could be classified as murder and the investigation of such a crime was within the competence of the prosecutor’s office.\n10.  On 2 February 2001 the criminal cases in respect of the 1998 and 2001 crimes were joined.\n11.  On the same day, the applicant participated in a videotaped on-site reconstruction of the 2001 crimes. According to the minutes of this investigative action, which was attended by the applicant, his lawyer, two attesting witnesses, investigating prosecutor G. and police officer M., who had questioned the applicant on the previous day, the applicant made statements concerning the circumstances of the 2001 crimes, but denied his involvement in the 1998 crime.\n12.  On 2 February 2001, after the reconstruction had been conducted, the applicant signed a waiver in respect of his counsel, O. Kh., on the ground that the latter had prevented him from confessing to the 1998 crime. According to the applicant, while the waiver bore the date of 2 February 2001 it had actually been signed on a later date under coercion from the police officers and the case investigator.\n13.  Following the reconstruction of 2 February 2001, the applicant’s lawyer, O. Kh., sought a meeting with the applicant. However, his oral requests, as well as written requests of 6 and 7 February, were rejected by investigating prosecutor G.\n14.  On 7 February 2001 the applicant, who was represented by a newly‑appointed counsel, K., participated in a videotaped on-site reconstruction of the 1998 crime and confessed that he had committed it with Mr S.\n15.  On 8 February 2001 the lawyer O. Kh. complained to prosecutor V. that investigating prosecutor G. had not replied to his request for a medical examination of the applicant, would not permit him to visit the applicant and had tried to force the applicant to request replacement of his lawyer.\n16.  On 9 February 2001 O. Kh. was informed that he had been removed from the case and was furnished with the investigator’s decision to that effect dated 2 February 2001. The decision ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3592", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1978. She lived in Vienna, Austria.\n7.  On 20 February 2007 the applicant was arrested upon arrival at Domodedovo airport in Moscow. She was told that on 24 September 2006 the Belarus authorities had placed her name on the list of fugitives from justice, suspecting her of involvement in human trafficking.\n8.  The applicant was taken to the Domodedovo transport police department. No arrest record was compiled.\n9.  On 21 February 2007 counsel for the applicant complained to the transport prosecutor's office about the absence of an arrest record and failure to provide the applicant with food, drink and access to a toilet. It is unclear whether any response was received.\n10.  On 27 February 2007 the first deputy head of the central police station of Minsk faxed a letter to the head of the Domodedovo transport police department, asking him to keep the applicant in custody. He enclosed a warrant for the applicant's arrest sanctioned by the Minsk town prosecutor on 30 August 2006.\n11.  On the same day the acting Moscow Regional Prosecutor sent the following letter to the head of the Domodedovo transport police department:\n“Owing to the fact that the Moscow Police Department for Air and Water Transport has no temporary detention ward, I request you to hold [the applicant] in the Domodedovo transport police department until such time as a judicial decision on application of a custodial measure has been issued.”\n12.  Also on the same day, counsel for the applicant complained to a court that the applicant had already spent six days in detention without a judicial order and asked for her release.\n13.  On 2 March 2007 the Domodedovo Town Court of the Moscow Region refused to deal with the complaint on the ground that no criminal proceedings against the applicant were pending in Russia. On 3 April 2007 the Moscow Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal.\n14.  On 5 March 2007 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the same complaint. It found that the letter from the Minsk police officer constituted a lawful basis for the applicant's detention within the meaning of the Minsk Convention until such time as the formal extradition request had been received by the Prosecutor General's Office. The District Court further determined that it was not competent to examine the application for release because it lacked territorial jurisdiction. On 28 March 2007 the Moscow Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal.\n15.  On 7 March 2007 the Prosecutor General's Office received a request for the applicant's extradition from the Belarus authorities.\n16.  Counsel for the applicant complained to a court about unlawful actions of the Moscow transport prosecutor, who had permitted the applicant's detention in excess of forty-eight hours without a judicial decision, on the basis of a non-procedural communication from the Belarus authorities of 27 February 2007.\n17.  On 22 March 2007 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the complaint against the transport prosecutor. It found that the Belarus authorities' letter of 27 February 2007 constituted a request for the applicant's arrest pending an official request for extradition within the meaning of the Minsk Convention. The decision on the applicant's extradition and the application of a custodial measure was to be taken by the Prosecutor General's Office rather than by the Moscow transport prosecutor. In these circumstances, the transport prosecutor had acted law", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3593", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Lugansk.\n5.  In 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Kamyanobrodsky District Court of Lugansk (Кам’янобродський районний суд м. Луганська) against the Procurement Service of the Lugansk City Council Executive Committee (“the Procurement Service,” Госпрозрахунковий відділ служби забезпечення при управлінні контролю Луганського міськвиконкому) seeking reinstatement to the position of human resources inspector (інспектор з кадрів) and various compensatory payments.\n6.  On 24 November 1998 the court rejected the applicant’s reinstatement claim, but awarded her 438.95 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in salary arrears.\n7.  On 4 March 1999 the Lugansk Regional Court (Луганський обласний суд)[1] upheld the judgment to the extent that the applicant was awarded salary arrears, and the judgment in this respect became final. The court remitted the remainder of the applicant’s claims for fresh consideration.\n8.  On 2 July 1999 the Kamyanobrodsky District Court ordered the applicant’s reinstatement and additionally awarded her UAH 650 in compensatory payments.\n9.  On 29 July 1999 the Lugansk Regional Court upheld the reinstatement order and remitted the case for fresh consideration in respect of the monetary claims.\n10.  On 5 November 1999 the Kamyanobrodsky District Court awarded the applicant UAH 542.52 (instead of UAH 650).\n11.  On 10 November 1999 the Kamyanobrodsky District Court additionally awarded the applicant UAH 1,356.30.\n12.  The judgment was enforced in the part relating to the reinstatement. However, the Procurement Service was in the process of liquidation, and on 16 December 1999 the Leninsky District Bailiffs’ Service (“the Bailiffs’ Service,” Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Ленінського районного управління юстиції м. Луганська) transferred the writs of execution to the liquidation commission, having failed to collect the amounts owed to the applicant.\n13.  On 17 January 2000 the applicant was made redundant as a result of the liquidation of the Procurement Service.\n14.  On 28 March 2000 the Mayor of Lugansk (міський голова) informed the Bailiffs’ Service that the Procurement Service had been liquidated without successors.\n15.  In January 2001 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Lugansk (Ленінський районний суд м. Луганська) against the Procurement Service and the Lugansk City Council Executive Committee (“the Executive Committee,” Луганський міський виконавчий комітет), seeking to oblige them to enforce the judgments given in her favour and to provide her with various additional compensatory payments.\n16.  On 30 August 2001 the court partly allowed the applicant’s claims and awarded her UAH 2,019.51 in compensation from the Procurement Service, having found that its liquidation process had not been finalised. The court rejected the applicant’s claims against the Executive Committee. It found that the Committee bore no liability for the debts of its Procurement Service, as they were registered as two separate legal entities.\n17.  On 14 February 2002 the Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal and it became binding for execution. On 19 February 2004 it was further upheld by the Supreme Court on appeal in cassation.\n18.  On 14 March 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n19.  On 9 January 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings, having transferred all the writs of execution to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3594", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Arkhangelsk.\n5.  The applicant lived in a council house under the threat of collapse. As the local authority had failed to resettle the applicant, he brought a civil action.\n6.  On 18 December 2001 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk held for the applicant and ordered the authority to:\n“provide [the applicant’s] family of four with a well-equipped at of at least 48 m² meeting sanitary and technical standards.”\nThis judgment became binding on 21 January 2002.\n7.  On the applicant’s request, on 21 June 2002 the district court changed the mode of execution, and ordered the authority to pay to the applicant the price of a new flat. This decision was quashed on appeal, and after a rehearing, the award was increased. On 17 April 2003 the funds were credited to the bailiff’s account.\n8.  On 28 April 2003 the authority provided the applicant with a flat of 43.1 m², and the applicant agreed to move in. The authority asked the court to order it to pay to the applicant the price of the 4.9 m² shortfall in order to settle the judgment debt, but the applicant objected, and the court dismissed this request.\n9.  On the bailiff’s request, on 28 April 2005 the district court reverted the mode of execution from monetary to in-kind, and since the applicant had already received the flat, the bailiff closed the enforcement proceedings. On 6 February 2006 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court ordered the enforcement proceedings to resume because the flat received by the applicant was smaller than originally awarded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3595", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Listvennoye, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the ARC”).\n5.  On 16 August 1995 criminal proceedings were instituted in which the applicant was accused of having negligently caused a traffic accident resulting in a human death.\n6.  On 13 November 1995 the applicant was placed under an undertaking not to abscond.\n7.  On 22 November 1995 the applicant was committed for trial.\n8.  On 14 May 1996 the Sovetsky District Court of the ARC (Совєтський районний суд Автономної республіки Крим) found that during the pre-trial proceedings the rights of the defence had not been respected and ordered an additional investigation.\n9.  On 12 May 1997 the applicant was committed for trial.\n10.  On 22 August 1997 the judge remanded the applicant in custody.\n11.  On 2 October 1997 the applicant was arrested and placed in custody. The applicant requested release, removal of the trial judge and the transfer of his case to another court.\n12.  On 25 November 1997, following the applicant’s request, the case was remitted to the Nyzhniegirsky District Court of the ARC (Нижнєгірський районний суд Автономної республіки Крим).\n13.  On 20 January 1998 the Nyzhniegirsky District Court remitted the case for an additional investigation and ordered the applicant’s release under an undertaking not to abscond.\n14.  On 11 February 1998 the Supreme Court of the ARC (Верховний суд Автономної республіки Крим) allowed an appeal by the prosecution against the above decision and remitted the case to the Nyzhniegirsky District Court for a fresh consideration.\n15.  On 18 May 1999 the Nyzhnyegirsky District Court acquitted the applicant of the charges. The court found that the expert opinions produced by the prosecution were insufficient to prove the applicant’s guilt. On the same day the court issued a separate ruling to the effect that the police accident report of 13 August 1995 produced to the court had been forged.\n16.  On 22 June 1999 the Supreme Court of the ARC quashed the judgment and the separate ruling of 18 May 1999 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh consideration.\n17.  In July 1999 the applicant requested suspension of the proceedings on the ground that he had lodged requests with the competent authorities to challenge the ruling of 22 June 1999 by way of a supervisory protest. The proceedings were suspended. By September 1999 the applicant’s requests for a supervisory protest were rejected.\n18.  In July 2000 the hearings resumed.\n19.  On 3 November 2000 the Nyzhniegirsky District Court remitted the case for an additional investigation.\n20.  On 15 February 2001 the Supreme Court of the ARC quashed this decision and remitted the case to the Kirovsky District Court (Кіровський районний суд Автономної республіки Крим) for examination on the merits.\n21.  On 26 March 2001 the Kirovsky District Court found the applicant guilty as charged. The applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. However, in accordance with the Amnesty Act of 1998, he was released from punishment. The court also lifted the applicant’s undertaking not to abscond.\n22.  On 12 July 2001 the Supreme Court of the ARC dismissed an appeal by the applicant.\n23.  On 21 February 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected a request by the applicant for leave to appeal in cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3596", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are:\n1)  Mr Supian Khasanovich Elmurzayev, born in 1963;\n2)  Ms Zina Elmurzayeva, born in 1933;\n3)  Mr Khasan Katayevich Elmurzayev, born in 1933;\n4)  Mr Isa Khasanovich Elmurzayev, born in 1954;\n5)  Mr Aslambek[1] Khasanovich Elmurzayev, born in 1967;\n6)  Ms Zura Ismailovna Elmurzayeva, born in 1964;\n7)  Mr Beslan Musayevich Elmurzayev, born in 1984;\n8)  Mr Movsar Musayevich Elmurzayev, born in 1986;\n9)  Ms Larisa Shekhmirzayevna (Shakhmirzayevna) Mukhtarova, born in 1978;\n10)  Ms Mariam Aptiyevna Elmurzayeva (Mukhtarova), born in 1999;\n11)  Mr Magomed Aptiyevich Elmurzayev (Mukhtarov), born in 2001;\n12)  Ms Ayshat Khasanovna Elmurzayeva, born in 1976.\n5.  The applicants live in the village of Martan-Chu, the Urus-Martan District, the Chechen Republic.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The second and third applicants are the parents of Mr Apti Khasanovich Elmurzayev, born in 1969, Mr Musa Khasanovich Elmurzayev, born in 1956, and of the first, fourth, fifth and twelfth applicants. The sixth applicant was the wife of Musa Elmurzayev; they are the parents of the seventh and eighth applicants. The ninth applicant was the wife of Apti Elmurzayev; they are the parents of the tenth and eleventh applicants.\n8.  At the material time several members of the Elmurzayev family lived at 23 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street in Martan-Chu. Their household consisted of three separate buildings with a common courtyard. Musa Elmurzayev's and the first applicant's families each occupied one building. Apti Elmurzayev and his family shared the third building with the second, third and twelfth applicants. Other applicants lived nearby in the same village.\n9.  Prior to 1999 Apti Elmurzayev worked as the head of the administration of the village of Martan-Chu and Musa Elmurzayev worked as his deputy. For some time in 1999 Apti Elmurzayev attended an Arabic school in the town of Gudermes, but then dropped out. Since the beginning of the hostilities in Chechnya Apti and Musa Elmurzayev had no regular employment.\n10.  On an unspecified date in May or June 2002 Apti Elmurzayev was questioned by local law enforcement agencies about his studies of the Arabic language in Gudermes. He was not charged with, or accused of, any wrongdoing.\n(b)  Abduction of Apti Elmurzayev\n11.  At about 2 or 3 a.m. on 9 July 2002 a group of men wearing masks and camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns arrived at the Elmurzayevs' household and walked into its courtyard. About ten of the armed men climbed over the fence and entered Musa Elmurzayev's house. Without identifying themselves or producing any warrant, the armed men searched the house, turning everything upside down. According to the applicants, those men belonged to the Russian military because they spoke Russian without an accent. The servicemen asked Musa Elmurzayev to wake up his younger brother Apti, who lived in a separate building. Then four servicemen entered Apti Elmurzayev's house and searched his room. One of them pointed a machine gun at the ninth applicant. The servicemen allowed Apti Elmurzayev to get dressed, then tied his hands and blindfolded him with adhesive tape and took him to the door. One of the men told the ninth applicant that he would shoot her if she followed them. The servicemen and Apti Elmurzayev left; the ninth applicant managed to step outside the house and saw them walking in the direction of Urus-Martan.\n12.  At some point ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3597", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the town of Dudinka in the Taymyr (Dolgano-Nenetskiy) Autonomous District in the Krasnoyarsk Region.\n6.  On 4 June 1997 the Dudinka Town Court reinstated the applicant in his position as the head of a permanent commission of the Taymyr District Legislative Assembly and awarded him wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. That judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 5 November 1997.\n7.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted, but on 16 December 1997 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, Mr Davydov, suspended the enforcement proceedings and notified the Dudinka Town Court of his decision.\n8.  On 20 September 2001 the applicant lodged an action with the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow against the deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. He argued that the decision to suspend the enforcement proceedings had been unlawful. He also sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n9.  On 20 November 2001 the Tverskoy District Court held a hearing. Both the applicant and his representative were present. The hearing was adjourned until 13 December 2001.\n10.  The applicant’s representative attended the hearing on 13 December 2001. At the same hearing the Tverskoy District Court pronounced judgment, dismissing the applicant’s claims.\n11.  The applicant’s representative appealed against the judgment to the Moscow City Court. He complained that the judgment was unfair and that the District Court had not given the applicant’s arguments due consideration.\n12.  According to the Government, on 13 March 2002 the Moscow City Court sent a letter to the applicant notifying him that an appeal hearing had been listed for 10 April 2002. The Government provided the Court with a copy of that letter. The letter was not signed and bore a handwritten note indicating that it had been sent on “13 March 2001”. According to the applicant, neither he nor his representative was informed about the hearing of 10 April 2002.\n13.  On 24 April 2002 the Moscow City Court, in the presence of the representative of the Prosecutor General’s office, upheld the judgment of 13 December 2001. According to the applicant, he and his representative were not summonsed to the hearing of 24 April 2002. They learned about it in May 2002 when they received the judgment of 24 April 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3598", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Makiyivka.\n5.  On 25 August 1997 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and two other individuals on suspicion of murder. On the same date the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody.\n6.  In December 1997 the applicant was committed for trial.\n7.  On 19 March 1998 the Chervonogvardiysky District Court of Makiyivka (Червоногвардійський районний суд м. Макіївка) remitted the case to the investigative authorities for additional investigation.\n8.  On 31 August 1998 the additional investigation was terminated and the case was referred back to the District Court.\n9.  On 21 May 1999 the District Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment.\n10.  On 20 July 1999 the Donetsk Regional Court (Донецький обласний суд)[1] quashed the judgment and remitted the case for additional pre-trial investigation.\n11.  On 15 December 1999 the additional investigation was terminated and the case was referred to the District Court.\n12.  On 2 June 2000 the District Court remitted the case for additional investigation.\n13.  In September 2000, after the additional investigation was terminated, the case was referred back to the District Court.\n14.  On 27 October 2000 the District Court again remitted the case for additional investigation.\n15.  In February 2001 the case was referred to the Regional Court to act as a first-instance court.\n16.  On 24 July 2001 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment.\n17.  On 11 July 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment.\n18.  Throughout the course of the proceedings some thirty-two hearings were scheduled by the trial court. Some twelve of them were adjourned on account of one or more of the five witnesses’ failures to appear. Two hearings were adjourned in view of the authorities’ failure to bring the applicant, who was kept in custody, before the court. On seven occasions the hearings were postponed on account of the judge’s ill health.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3599", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Victor Saviţchi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1954. He worked as an inspector in the Făleşti County Economic Police Force. On 3 August 2000 he was arrested on a charge of taking a bribe of 4,000 United States dollars (USD) in exchange for a favour concerning a case he was dealing with.\n6.  The arrest in flagrante delicto was filmed by two cameras from different angles. Both videos were included in the domestic criminal file and were sent to the Court by the Government.\n7.  One of the videos shows a group of police officers wearing plain clothes enter a room, which looks like a small bar, where the applicant is drinking beer with the briber. At the sight of the police officers, the applicant dips his fingers into a mug of beer, after which he is immediately grabbed and restrained by four police officers. Since the applicant attempts to bend down, three police officers hold his hands behind his back while another one holds his head up. Subsequently, another police officer joins the other four. Another police officer approaches the applicant and checks the pockets of his trousers. The applicant is splashed with beer and water, apparently in an attempt to calm him down, and one of the police officers restraining him comments that he is attempting to bend down. Finally, he is forcibly cuffed and seated on a chair. After approximately four minutes of struggle, the applicant calms down. After approximately five minutes, one of the police officers announces to the others that he has stopped filming because the cassette has run out.\n8.  The second video starts immediately after the police officers grab and restrain the applicant. A man holding a camera can be seen kicking the applicant in the region of his chest. It appears that the man kicking the applicant is the police officer who was filming the other video (see the preceding paragraph). Immediately after this scene the image changes to a wall; however, sounds resembling two blows are heard in the background. After approximately twenty seconds the same person kicks the applicant twice in the posterior. Another police officer approaches the applicant and does something to him; however, only his back can be seen. Later the applicant, who continues to struggle, is splashed with beer and water, apparently in an attempt to calm him down. One of the police officers restraining him comments that he is attempting to bend down. After being forcibly seated on a chair, the applicant calms down and a police officer examines his hands with a special lamp to detect the presence of a special dust with which the bribe money has apparently been treated. Subsequently, his pockets are examined and USD 4,000 is extracted from the pocket of his shirt. The money appears to have been marked with a special dust and every banknote bears the inscription “Bribe Savitchi 2000”. The applicant claims that the money is not his and that he has no idea how it got into his pocket. He argues that in that pocket he had documents and a pen which mysteriously appeared on the table.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the General Prosecutor’s Office about his alleged ill-treatment by the policemen who arrested him on 3 August 2000.\n10.  On 24 November 2000 the General Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen, on the ground that the applicant’s complaint was ill-founded. The decision dismissing the applicant’s complaint stated, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3601", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1975 and 1978 respectively and live in Istanbul.\n6.  On 1 September 2001 at about 7 p.m. the applicants went to the Milli Egemenlik Park in Bakırköy (Istanbul) to attend a meeting, namely the so-called “peace festivities” organised by the Bakırköy branch of the Republican People’s Party (Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi). While they were about to enter the park, the applicants were stopped and searched by the police. The officers found fifty-three copies of a bulletin in a black plastic bag. As the applicants appeared suspicious, the police officers arrested them. The applicants were allegedly beaten up, insulted and threatened with death during their arrest. In particular, two police officers applied pressure to their necks from behind and made them lie down. Following the arrival of two more police officers, they dragged both applicants along the ground, kicked and slapped them and put them in a police car. Once in the car, the police officers continued to punch and slap them, hit them with wooden sticks, insult and threaten them. One of the police officers first sat on the head of Sevil Ulaş and then hit her against the roof of the car. When the applicants asked where they were being taken, one of the officers said: “We are taking you to a stream where your corpses will be found”.\n7.  However, according to the arrest and seizure report drafted by two police officers, the applicants were arrested because they had been acting suspiciously. The report further stated that the applicants had resisted the police officers, and had self-inflicted certain scratches and bruises on their bodies during the incident. In particular, Umar Karatepe had hit his elbow on the wall of the park and Sevil Ulaş had bruised her left elbow whilst resisting getting into the police car. The applicants refused to sign this report.\n8.  On the same day at about 8 p.m. the applicants were taken to the Bakırköy State Hospital for a medical examination. The doctor who examined the applicants drafted a provisional report. She observed that the first applicant had two scratches on his right elbow and a bruise on his back. As for the second applicant, the presence of a bruise on her left elbow was noted.\n9.  On 2 September 2001, at about 1 a.m., the applicants were taken to the Bakırköy State Hospital once again. The same doctor examined the applicants and reiterated her earlier findings in her report. Following this medical examination, the applicants were released.\n10.  On 3 September 2001 the Bakırköy Forensic Institute delivered its final report in respect of the applicants. It was stated that the first applicant had several bruises and scratches on his body. In particular, the doctor noted the presence of bruises measuring 3x1 cm, 0.5x0.5 cm, 2x1 cm and 0.5x0.3 cm on the right elbow, a scratch of 2 cm below the bruises described above, an ecchymosis of 6x3 cm on the inner part of the right arm, an ecchymosis of 1x2 cm in the middle inner part of the right biceps, a scratch of 3 cm on the right waist area, two ecchymosis of 1,5x1 cm and 0,3x0,3 cm on the inner middle part of the left biceps and a bruise of 2x2 cm on the inner part of the left elbow.\n11.  In respect of the second applicant, the doctor noted the presence of a 3x3 cm swelling in the right occipital temporal region. The report further concluded that both applicants were unfit to work for three days.\n12.  Again on 3 September 2001 the applicants filed a criminal complaint with the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3602", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant owned and ran a company. On an unspecified date before 1998 the factory owned by the company burned down. Subsequently, the applicant was involved in a number of proceedings in connection with serious financial difficulties which had been caused by the fire.\n6.  On 19 August 1999 the Opole Regional Court in part dismissed and in part rejected the applicant’s compensation claim against the State Insurance Company, in connection with an insurance contract. On 14 September 1999 the applicant filed an appeal against this judgment with that court.\n7.  On 21 September 1999 he requested the court to grant him full exemption from court fees. He referred to the fact that he had been partially exempted, by a decision of 30 September 1998, from the obligation to pay court fees. He submitted that his financial situation had further deteriorated since then. This request apparently remained unanswered.\n8.  On 25 November 1999 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.\n9.  On 1 February 2000 the applicant, represented by a privately hired lawyer, lodged with that court a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court. On 21 February 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal rejected the cassation appeal, finding that it failed to comply with the relevant formal requirements.\n10.  On 16 March 2000 the applicant requested that a legal‑aid lawyer be assigned to the case for the purpose of preparing an appeal to the Supreme Court against that decision.\n11.  On 20 March 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the request. This decision did not contain any grounds or reference to its legal basis. The applicant appealed. On 10 April 2000 the Wrocław Court of Appeal rejected his appeal, holding that no appeal lay against the contested decision. It was only possible to submit an appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision rejecting a cassation appeal.\n12.  On 25 April 2000 the applicant appealed against the decision of 10 April and reiterated his request that a legal‑aid lawyer be assigned to represent him.\n13.  On 8 May 2000 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, pointing to the fact that the applicant had already hired a lawyer privately. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 26 May 2000 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal, prepared and lodged by a lawyer, holding that no appeal was available in law against the contested decision.\n15.  By a judgment of 7 April 2000, the Opole Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim against the BGŻ Bank by which he had sought that a bank enforcement title against him, arising from the fact that after the fire he had defaulted on a bank loan, be declared null and void.\n16.  On 6 June 2000 the applicant requested the court to exempt him fully from the obligation to pay court fees in the appellate proceedings, referring to the fact that he had been partially exempted, by a decision of 30 September 1998, from the obligation to pay them.\n17.  On 28 June 2000 the court, by a decision which did not contain grounds, granted the applicant partial exemption from court fees.\n18.  On 1 September 2000 the applicant requested the court to assign a legal-aid lawyer to the case, referring again to his very difficult financial situation.\n19.  By a decision of 4 September 2000 the court refused to assign a legal‑aid lawyer to the case. This decision did not contain any grounds. On 19 September 2000 the applicant appealed against it.\n20.  By a decision of 26 September 2000 the Wrocław Court of Ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3603", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company was established in 1995 and has its registered office in Yerevan. The second applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Yerevan.\n5.  The second applicant first became involved in TV broadcasting in January 1991 when he established the A1+ television company, the first independent television company in Armenia. Initially, A1+ operated as a collector, producer and disseminator of news and information. Information was gathered from and sent to all districts of Armenia, as well as foreign television broadcasting companies via satellite communication.\n6.  In 1994 A1+ acquired a State television licensed frequency on which it broadcast during assigned periods. According to the second applicant, in 1995 A1+ experienced difficulties with the State regarding its broadcasts: telephone calls were received from public officials on a daily basis threatening to deprive A1+ of its assigned broadcasting hours and criticising the contents of A1+ programmes perceived to be directed against Government policy. A1+ was informed that the broadcast frequencies were granted by the State in order to defend and further State interests rather than to criticise State authorities. During the run-up to the presidential election, A1+ refused to broadcast only pro-Government material. As a result, its State broadcasting operation was suspended in May 1995.\n7.  In 1995 the second applicant established and registered the applicant company. The applicant company was set up as an independent broadcasting company outside State control. Later the second applicant created the A1+ television company within the structure of the applicant company. On 1 January 1996, in preparation for broadcasting, the applicant company opened a school to train personnel, such as journalists, cameramen and technicians, who were later employed by the applicant company and other television companies. On 25 August 1996 the applicant company started television broadcasting, sharing capacity and content with Moscow “REN” TV, a Russian television company. Over time, the volume of the content produced by the applicant company increased significantly.\n8.  On 22 January 1997 the applicant company was granted a licence by the then Ministry of Communication (ՀՀ կապի նախարարություն) permitting it to install a television transmitter in Yerevan and to broadcast within the decimetric wave band via its A1+ television channel. The licence was granted for a period of five years.\n9.  In September 1999 the applicant company established “Hamaspyur”, a network of nine private licensed regional television companies, broadcasting 24 hours a day. According to the applicants, the television network was widely recognised as one of the few independent voices in television broadcasting in Armenia. The primary focus was upon the dissemination of independent, well-processed news information and analysis. The content of the broadcasts included international and domestic news analysis (30%), advertising (32%) and various entertainment programmes.\n10.  In 2000-2001 legislative changes were introduced in the sphere of television and radio broadcasting. The Television and Radio Broadcasting Act («Հեռուստատեսության և ռադիոյի մասին» ՀՀ օրենք – “the Broadcasting Act”), passed in October 2000, established a new authority, the National Television and Radio Commission (Հեռուստատեսության և ռադիոյի ազգային հանձնաժողով – “the NTRC”), which was entrusted with regulating the licensing and monitoring the activities of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3604", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov.\n5.  The applicant was employed by the District National Committee (Okresný národný výbor) in Bardejov. In 1988 he was dismissed for breach of discipline. Subsequently courts at two levels of jurisdiction declared the dismissal unlawful. Their decisions became final on 2 August 1991.\n In 1990, while the above proceedings were pending, the national committees ceased to exist ex lege and their liquidation was formally completed on 31 July 1991. The national committees were replaced by district offices (okresné úrady) which were not, strictly speaking, the legal successors to the former.\n6.  On 2 September 1991 the Bardejov District Office terminated the applicant’s contract of employment on the ground that the district national committee which had formerly employed him had ceased to exist. The applicant challenged this decision. He argued, in particular, that the government regulations on the liquidation of the former national committees were unlawful, that he had become an employee of the Bardejov District Office after his dismissal in 1988 was declared unlawful on 2 August 1991, and that the District Office had paid his salary until the end of 1991. He claimed compensation for damage caused by the termination of his contract of employment.\n7.  On 6 March 1996 the Košice Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment dismissing the action.\n8.  The proceedings described below relate to the applicant’s subsequent attempts to obtain redress for the termination of his contract of employment. 2.1  Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 27 May 1996 (the Bardejov District Court file no. 4C 451/96)\n9.  On 27 May 1996 the applicant sued the Bardejov District Office for a severance payment in respect of his dismissal in 1991. He further claimed a certificate of employment.\n10.  On 11 October 1996 the Bardejov District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay a court fee. On 11 September 1998 it asked him for further particulars of his claim.\n11.  On 30 May 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of three claims which the applicant had withdrawn. It further decided to examine the remaining claim concerning a severance payment separately (see proceedings no. 4C 52/03 described below).\n12.  The applicant appealed.\n13.  On 28 February 2002 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the three claims. That decision became final on 28 January 2003. The Regional Court further rejected the remainder of the appeal as no appeal lay in respect of a procedural decision to examine a claim in separate proceedings.\n14.  On 23 December 2002 the applicant appealed on points of law against the Regional Court’s decision. The District Court, which processed the appeal on points of law prior to its submission to the Supreme Court, requested further information from him on 27 January 2003.\n15.  After obtaining the relevant information the District Court appointed a lawyer on 21 February 2005 to represent the applicant in the cassation proceedings. On 22 March 2005 the District Court again invited the applicant to give further details of his appeal.\n16.  On 11 August 2005 the Supreme Court declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible as none of the statutory grounds permitting the use of that remedy had been established. 2.2  Proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim for a severance payment (", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3605", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Paşcani.\n5.  On 24 March 1992 the Paşcani Court of First Instance allowed the applicant’s action and recognized his property right, together with his brothers, for a land of 8,64 ha situated in the Stolniceni-Prăjescu village. That judgment became final.\n6.  On 17 March 1993 the district administrative authority acknowledged the applicant’s property right and ordered the local authorities to allow him to take possession of 8,64 ha of agricultural land. The local authorities had not performed the task and therefore the applicant brought administrative proceedings.\n7.  On 18 November 1994 the Iaşi Court of Appeal, by a final decision, ordered the local authorities to provide the applicant and his brothers with a land of 8,64 ha in the Stolniceni-Prăjescu village.\n8.  On 10 November 1998 the applicant and his two brothers were given the possession of 5 ha of land in the Stolniceni-Prăjescu village, namely 0,9 ha intra muros and 4,1 ha extra muros. However, on 4 June 2001 the local authorities annulled these transfers, on the grounds that they had been illegal and that third persons had already been given these lands.\n9.  On 27 October 2000 the district administrative authority acknowledged again the applicant’s property right.\n10.  On 5 February and 19 March 2007 the Stolniceni-Prăjescu Town Council informed both district and central authorities that they needed to assign land to several persons, including the applicant. As the land in question was in possession of a local company, the Town Council requested the transfer of this land into its own name for subsequent allocation to the entitled persons.\n11.  The judgment of 18 November 1994 remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3606", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Skopje.\n5. The applicant worked as General Manager of a bank, “K.B.” (“the bank”).\n6. On 25 April 1996 the Governor of the National Bank (“the Governor”) issued an order preventing the applicant from working as the bank’s General Manager and from exercising other duties associated with special responsibilities for an indefinite period of time (“the order”). The order was based on findings as to the applicant’s unlawful business conduct and irregularities in the bank’s operation under his management. On 22 May 1996 the Council of the National Bank (“the Council”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the order.\n7. On 12 September 1996 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law (управен спор) submitted on 29 May 1996 and annulled the Council’s decision. It found that the position of general manager of a bank was not associated with special responsibilities and accordingly the order should not have been issued in respect of the applicant.\n8. On 13 November 1996 the Constitutional Court upheld the applicant’s actio popularis and declared section 52 § 14 of the National Bank Act, under which the Governor had been entitled to take other measures (apart from those explicitly mentioned) if necessary, unconstitutional.\n9. On 18 June 1997 the Constitutional Court declared the provisions of the National Bank Act, in accordance with which the Council decided upon appeals against the Governor’s decisions, unconstitutional. It found that the Governor’s participation in and chairing of the Council when the latter decided against his decisions given at first instance had been contrary to the constitutional principle of two-instance decision-making.\n10. On 9 June 1997 the plenary session of the Supreme Court (општа седница) granted the public prosecutor’s request for the protection of legality (барање за заштита на законитоста) and quashed the Supreme Court’s decision of 12 September 1996. The court referred in its decision to the National Assembly’s authentic interpretation of section 70 of the Banks and Savings Institutions Act (Закон за банки и штедилници), according to which the manager of a bank was to be considered “a person with special responsibilities”.\n11. On 4 February 1998 the Supreme Court, relying on the Constitutional Court’s decision of 18 June 1997, accepted the applicant’s appeal and annulled the Council’s decision of 22 May 1996.\n12. As the Council allegedly remained inactive, the applicant requested the Supreme Court to decide his case on the merits instead of the Council.\n13. On 1 September 1998 the Council, sitting without the Governor, dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the latter’s decision. On 18 November 1998 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request to decide his case on the merits instead of the Council.\n14. On 7 July 1999 the Supreme Court granted the applicant’s appeal and annulled the Council’s decision. It found that the Council had established the facts incompletely and violated procedural rules.\n15. On 26 August 1999 the Council dismissed the applicant’s appeal again.\n16. On 6 September 1999 the applicant lodged a fresh appeal with the Supreme Court.\n17. On 2 December 1999 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal and annulled the Council’s decision of 26 August 1999 and the order of 25 April 1996. It found that the Governor and the Council had wrongly established that the applicant had abused the monetary system. On ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3607", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Sveti Ivan Zelina Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Svetom Ivanu Zelini) against her former employer, Zelina Agricultural Enterprise (Poljoprivredni kombinat Zelina), challenging her dismissal from work and seeking payment of her salary for the period of her unemployment. The first-instance judgment of 5 December 2000, granting the applicant's claims, awarded the applicant 42,161.47 Croatian kunas (HRK) together with statutory default interest.\nThe judgment was upheld by the Velika Gorica County Court (Županijski sud u Velikoj Gorici) on 15 January 2003.\n6.  Meanwhile, in a decision of 17 June 2002 the Zagreb Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Zagrebu) opened bankruptcy proceedings against the applicant's former employer and invited all creditors to submit their claims to the bankruptcy administrator, appointed to the case by the Zagreb commercial Court, within thirty days. This was published in the Official Gazette no. 81/02 of 9 July 2002.\n7.  Examination hearings before the Zagreb Commercial Court were held on 24 September 2002 and 3 March 2003.\n8.  On 10 March 2003 the applicant lodged her claim, recognised by a final judgment, with the Zagreb Commercial Court before which the bankruptcy proceedings against her former employer had meanwhile been opened. The applicant argued that, since the civil proceedings she had instituted against her former employer before the ordinary courts (that is to say the competent municipal and county courts) had been pending, she considered that her claim had been adequately secured. In this connection she pointed to the provision obliging the regular courts to discontinue civil proceedings concerning any debtor against whom bankruptcy proceedings had been opened in the meantime.\n9.  On 16 April 2003 the Zagreb Commercial Court declared the applicant's request inadmissible as lodged out of time. It found that the examination hearing (ispitno ročište) had been held on 24 September 2002 and that after the expiry of three months from that date no further claims could be lodged in the bankruptcy proceedings. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:\n“In the bankruptcy proceedings against Zelina Agricultural Enterprise ... examination hearing was held and concluded on 24 September 2002.\nThe above-mentioned creditor submitted her claim on 15 April 2003, outside the three-month period following the first examination hearing.\nSince the claim was submitted too late, that is to say after the period of three months following the first examination hearing, it is to be dismissed pursuant to section 176 paragraph 4 of the Bankruptcy Act.”\n10.  In her appeal lodged on 30 April 2004 the applicant stressed, inter alia, that the bankruptcy administrator had failed to comply with her duty under section 173 paragraph 2 of the Bankruptcy Act to include the applicant's claim in the list of claims of all the current and former employees of the debtor company and to submit it for her signature.\n11.  On 8 July 2003 the High Commercial Court (Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske) upheld the first-instance decision. In so far as relevant it held as follows:\n“Under section 54 paragraph 3 of the Bankruptcy Act, in a decision on opening of bankruptcy proceedings a bankruptcy panel is obliged to invite all creditors to submit their claims to the administrator within a fixed time-limit, in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3608", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Novosibirsk. She receives an old-age pension.\n7.  On 1 February 1998 the Law on Calculation and Adjustment of State Pensions (hereafter “the Pensions Act”) introduced a new method of calculation of retirement benefits based on what is known as the “individual pensioner coefficient” (“the IPC”). The IPC was the ratio between an individual’s wages at the time of retirement and the national average wage. The IPC was meant to maintain a link between pensions and previous earnings.\n8.  The applicant considered that the Zayeltsovskiy District Division of the Pension Fund (hereafter “the Fund”) had incorrectly calculated her pension and in March 1999 she sued the Fund for an increase of her pension in accordance with the Pensions Act.\n9.  On 11 August 1999 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court of Novosibirsk found in the applicant’s favour. The District Court held that the Fund had misconstrued the law and that the applicant’s pension should be recalculated and increased in line with an IPC of 0.7 starting from 1 February 1998. On 16 September 1999 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld that judgment.\n10.  On 4 October 1999 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court issued a writ of execution and the Zayeltsovskiy District Division of the Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings. Two weeks later the District Court, upon the Fund’s request, stayed the enforcement proceedings because the Fund had lodged an application for a supervisory review of the judgment of 11 August 1999. The enforcement proceedings were resumed on 31 January 2000. However, the judgment of 11 August 1999 remained unenforced.  On 5 April 2000 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court again accepted the Fund’s request and adjourned the enforcement proceedings.\n11.  In April 2000 the applicant lodged an action against the Zayeltsovskiy District Division of the Bailiffs’ Service, complaining about their inactivity. On 22 September 2000 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s action.\n12.  On 21 August 2000 the Fund requested the Zayeltsovskiy District Court to reopen the case owing to a newly discovered circumstance. The Fund claimed that on 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development had issued an Instruction on the Application of Limitations established by the Pensions Act. The Instruction clarified how the Pensions Act should be applied. The Fund further indicated that on 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation had dismissed a complaint by a group of individuals challenging the Instruction. The Supreme Court found that the Ministry of Labour had acted within its competence when it had issued the Instruction, and that the Ministry’s interpretation of the Pensions Act had been correct. The Fund contended that since it had been unaware of the Instruction and the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 April 2000 at the time of the judgment of 11 August 1999, the judgment would have to be reconsidered.\n13.  On 12 January 2001 the Zayeltsovskiy District Court granted the Fund’s request, quashed the judgment of 11 August 1999 and reopened the proceedings. The District Court applied Article 333 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure according to which judgments could be reconsidered in the event of discovery of significant circumstances which were not, and could not have been, known to the party concerned. The District Court found that the Supreme Court’s judgment of 24 April 2000 could serve as such a c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3609", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Kosta Khetagurova, a village in Karachay-Cherkessia.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  In 1990 the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme for buying a car. The State failed to provide the car, and the applicant had to apply to a court.\n7.  On 19 December 2002 the Mirninskiy District Court of Yakutia awarded the applicant 138,967 Russian roubles against the Ministry of Finance. On 5 February 2003 the judgment became binding, but was not enforced.\n8.  On 15 July 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Yakutia allowed the Ministry’s supervisory-review complaint, and quashed the judgment on the ground that the district court had misinterpreted material law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3610", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the village of Zheshart in the Komi Republic.\n7.  On 24 January 2000 policemen of the Ukhta Town Police Department arrested the applicant pursuant to an international arrest warrant issued by the Khanlarskiy District Prosecutor’s Office of Azerbaijan. Azeri authorities suspected the applicant of theft and abuse of position. The applicant was placed in the Ukhta Town temporary detention unit.\n8.  On the same day the Ukhta Town Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of involuntary manslaughter.\n9.  The applicant was apprised of his rights as a defendant, including the right to have the assistance of a lawyer and interpreter free of charge. He waived his right to interpretation services, insisting that he spoke Russian fluently, but he accepted the assistance of legal aid counsel Ms G.\n10.  On 4 February 2000 the applicant’s detention was authorised and he was transferred to detention facility no. IZ-7/2 in Sosnogorsk.\n11.  The Ukhta Town Prosecutor extended the applicant’s detention a number of times, relying on the gravity of the charges against him. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the extension orders before the Sosnogorsk Town Court.\n12.  On 7 May 2001 the Ukhta Town Court found the applicant guilty of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. On 9 November 2001 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic upheld the conviction.\n13.  On 26 November 2004 the applicant was released on probation.\n14.  From 24 January to 4 February 2000 the applicant was held in the Ukhta Town temporary detention unit.\n(a)  Number of inmates per cell\n15.  According to extracts from a registration log drawn up by the administration of the detention unit, and produced by the Government, from 24 January to 3 February 2000 the applicant was kept in cell no. 12 which measured 10.4 square metres and usually accommodated 3 to 4 inmates. On 3 and 4 February 2000 the applicant stayed in cell no. 8 which measured 10.1 square metres. On 3 February 2000 he shared that cell with two other detainees and on 4 February 2000 he was detained alone. The Government, relying on inspection certificates of 12 May and 30 November 2000, 16 April 2001 and 14 December 2005, argued that the design capacity of the cells had not been exceeded, although due to the large number of detainees it had been impossible to provide them with personal space in accordance with hygiene standards. The Government further submitted that cell no. 12 had had four sleeping places and at all times the applicant had had an individual bunk. The Government produced copies of black-and-white photos of the cell showing two single-tier metal bunks.\n16.  The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements. He alleged, however, that he had shared cell no. 12 with eight detainees. That cell had had two single-tier metal bunks and inmates had to take turns to sleep.\n(b)  Sanitary conditions, installations, temperature and water supply\n17.  The Government, relying on the inspection certificates (cited above) and identical reports drawn up by warders in 2005, submitted that all cells were equipped with a lavatory pan, a tap, a sink and ventilation shaft. The lavatory pan was placed in the corner of the cell, near the door. The Government produced photos showing that the “lavatory pan” mentioned by them had in fact been a hole in the floor of the cell which had been separated from the living", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3611", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Kumanovo.\n6. On 28 July 1992 the applicant, through his representative (who continues to represent him in the proceedings before the Court) brought a civil action against the State and the Kumanovo Veterinary Inspectorate (“the Inspectorate”) for damages in relation to the slaughter of sheep infected by a contagious disease (brucellosis).\n7. Between 23 September 1992 and 2 November 1993 the first-instance court scheduled thirteen hearings. None of them was adjourned on account of the applicant.\n8. On 2 November 1993 the then Kumanovo Municipal Court (“the first-instance court”) dismissed the applicant’s claim after it had heard statements from him and a veterinary inspector who had examined the sheep. On 1 April 1994 the then Skopje District Court upheld that decision. By a decision of 25 October 1994, given upon an appeal on points of law (ревизија) by the applicant dated 31 May 1994, the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It instructed them to assess the value of the sheep slaughtered.\n9. Four hearings listed for between 16 November 1995 and 17 January 1996 were adjourned due to the Inspectorate’s failure to provide information about the value of the sheep. The applicant attended all the hearings.\n10. On an unspecified date, the first-instance court ruled partially in the applicant’s favour. On 9 January 1997 the Skopje Court of Appeal accepted an appeal by the defendants and ordered a retrial concerning the accepted part of the applicant’s claim.\n11. On 11 April 1997 the applicant further specified his claim, requesting compensation for loss of income (“the new claim”). The new claim was dismissed by the first-instance court on 18 April 1997.\n12. On 21 May 1997 the first-instance court accepted the applicant’s claim. On 18 February 1998 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the defendants and confirmed the lower court’s decision. On 21 April 1998 the State lodged an appeal on points of law. By a decision of 21 October 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions and remitted the case for a renewed examination.\n13. None of seven hearings listed between 15 March and 28 November 2000 was rescheduled at the applicant’s request. During that time, the first-instance court requested the Inspectorate to provide information about the marked value of the sheep three times. It further requested a copy of the applicant’s request for compensation that had allegedly been submitted before the relevant administrative authorities. In reply, the court was informed that there was no such request in the case file and that it should order the applicant to provide it.\n14. On 28 November 2000 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim, having established that he had failed to lodge a request for compensation with the relevant administrative authorities in good time. It established the following facts: on 20 June 1991, the Inspectorate ordered the slaughter of twenty-one sheep. On 5 July 1991 only ten sheep were slaughtered (the others were allegedly slaughtered by the applicant). The report drawn up after the slaughter indicated that the applicant would not be compensated as he had not complied with the order. On a later date, other sheep belonging to the applicant were slaughtered. On 26 November 1991 the applicant was compensated for the sheep slaughtered on the later date, but not for those put down on 5 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3612", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Radoviš.\n5.  On 25 December 1984 the applicant brought a compensation claim against his employer (“the employer”) for unpaid salary, subsistence and annual-leave allowance for the period between 24 June and 31 December 1983. During that time, he was seconded to different posts in the construction sector in Iraq.\n6. On 17 September 1987 the then Štip Labour Court of First Instance (Основен суд на здружен труд Штип) partially upheld the applicant’s claim. On 9 December 1987 the then Skopje Labour Court of Macedonia (Суд на здружен труд на Македонија, Скопје) upheld the parties’ appeals and remitted the case for re-examination.\n7. On 19 November 1991 the then Štip Labour Court of First Instance partially upheld the applicant’s claim and ordered the employer to pay him the amount due. On 12 May 1992 the then Štip District Court (Окружен суд во Штип) quashed that decision and remitted the case for a renewed examination.\n8.  On 28 April 1994 the then Radoviš Municipal Court (Општински суд во Радовиш) dismissed the applicant’s claim. That decision was quashed by the then Štip District Court’s decision of 12 January 1995.\n9. On 26 December 1995 the then Radoviš Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 7 November 1996 the Štip Court of Appeal (Апелационен суд Штип) upheld the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case for re-examination. It found that the lower court had not complied with its previous instructions.\n10. The hearing fixed for 28 October 1997 was postponed due to the absence of his representative who had not been summoned, notwithstanding the applicant’s presence,.\n11. On 10 November 1997 the Radoviš Court of First Instance (Основен суд во Радовиш) (“the first instance court”) dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that he had been remunerated in accordance with the then employer’s internal regulations. It also held that all four expert reports obtained in the course of the proceedings had been inconsistent and unreliable.\n12. On 20 April 1999 the Štip Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s appeal and ordered a retrial. It ordered, inter alia, an alternative expert examination.\n13. On 13 April 2000 another expert gave his opinion setting out the exact figures of the amount due to the applicant.\n14. On 15 May 2000 the first instance court ruled partially in favour of the applicant. The Štip Court of Appeal set aside that decision on 24 January 2001.\n15.  On 22 May 2003 the first instance court partially upheld the applicant’s claim. Sums were awarded both in foreign and national currency. On 26 December 2003 the Štip Court of Appeal accepted the employer’s appeal and overturned the first instance court’s decision as to an award of interest. It upheld the remainder of the decision.\n16. On 4 March 2003 the first instance court rejected as inadmissible the employer’s appeal on points of law as the value of the dispute had been below the statutory threshold.\n17. On 18 May 2004 the State Public Prosecutor’s Office brought before the Supreme Court a request for the protection of legality (барање за заштита на законитоста) as the award indicated in the national currency had been wrongly calculated. On 26 February 2005 the Supreme Court accepted that request and quashed the lower courts’ decisions.\n18. On 22 December 2005 the proceedings resumed before the first instance court. On 2 February 2006 they were suspended as insolvency proceedings had been opened against the employer. Af", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3613", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1953 and currently lives in St Petersburg.\n8.  The applicant was born and lived in Ashkhabad, Turkmenistan. He is of Russian ethnic origin and has family members in Russia. In Turkmenistan he headed a limited liability company called Argamak, which was engaged in the construction business and trade.\n9.  According to the applicant, between 1997 and 1999 Argamak performed works under a government contract. The applicant submitted that certain officials from the Ministry of Finance of Turkmenistan had refused to honour their obligations under the contract and to pay for the work performed unless the applicant paid a bribe in the amount of 10,000 United States dollars (USD). The applicant further submitted that in May 2000 he had applied to the Ministry of the Interior’s Department for Economic Crime and complained about two inspectors from the Ministry of Finance, S. and D. Both inspectors, according to the applicant, were of Turkmen ethnic origin. The Department for Economic Crime allegedly supplied the applicant with specially marked banknotes and S. was detained during the transfer of the money. Following a criminal investigation, the case against S. and D. was referred to a court, which after two days of hearings ordered an additional investigation. It appears that the applicant participated as a witness. The applicant, who submitted that he did not speak Turkmen, was not provided with an interpreter, although the proceedings were conducted in Turkmen. The applicant was not aware of the outcome of the criminal case.\n10.  After May 2000 the applicant allegedly came under pressure from the law-enforcement bodies. According to him, officers of those bodies threatened him with revenge and demanded that he change his position in the criminal case. The applicant submitted that in October and November 2000 he had been called in for questioning at the transport police department for organised crime about 25 times, that is, almost every day. He also received threats from D. and the relatives of S. Also in October and November 2000 the applicant was allegedly questioned on several occasions by the Turkmenistan State Security Committee about his economic activities and was asked to become an informant. When the applicant refused he received further threats.\n11.  As a result, the applicant submitted that he feared for his life and for the lives of his relatives. The applicant felt that he had become a target, in particular because he belonged to the Russian minority, and decided to leave Turkmenistan.\n12.  On 1 December 2000 the applicant applied for Russian citizenship at the Russian embassy in Ashkhabad. The applicant submitted that all the required documents had been collected and registered at the embassy and that he had received notification that his case file had been registered as no. 22850.\n13.  On 15 December 2000 the office of the Russian Federal Migration Service at the embassy in Turkmenistan supplied the applicant with a document entitled “Permission to Repatriate from Turkmenistan to Russia and the Granting of Migrant Status”. The document was based on the bilateral treaty on resettlement.\n14.  On 28 December 2000 the applicant received an exit visa from Turkmenistan valid for three months. On 21 January 2001 the applicant travelled to the United Arab Emirates on a private invitation.\n15.  On 13 May 2001 the applicant was issued with an entry visa by the Russian embassy in the United Arab Emirates, with ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3614", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Yalta.\n5.  In November 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Yalta Court (Ялтинський міський суд) seeking to oblige the Yalta Council’s Executive Committee (Виконавчий комітет Ялтинської міської ради) to provide his family of five residing in a one-bedroom apartment with larger housing. In his statement of claim the applicant noted, in particular, that he had been placed on the special waiting list for disabled war veterans, which entitled him to obtain suitable housing within two years of the placement.\n6.  On 4 May 2001 the court ordered the Executive Committee to provide the applicant’s family with an apartment meeting the standards established by Articles 48 and 50 of the Housing Code of Ukraine (Житловий кодекс України). By way of reasoning, the court dismissed the defendant’s allegations that no municipal housing was available at the time. The court observed in this regard that the applicant’s statutory right to obtain housing within two years of the date of the placement on the waiting list was unconditional.\n7.  On 19 September 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld this judgment following cassation review and it became final.\n8.  On 17 December 2002 the Yalta Bailiffs (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Ялтинського управління юстиції) initiated enforcement proceedings, having given the Executive Committee the time-limit of 17 January 2003 to comply with the judgment.\n9.  In summer 2003 the enforcement proceedings were terminated on account that vacant municipal housing was lacking.\n10.  On 23 March 2006 the Executive Committee decided to allocate a newly-constructed two-bedroom apartment and a one-bedroom apartment formerly belonging to a hostel to the applicant’s family.\n11.  According to the applicant, the two-bedroom apartment at issue lacked necessary facilities, such as sanitary equipment and electric outlets. The apartment, which formerly belonged to a hostel, was unsuitable for establishing a permanent residence.\n12.  According to the Government, the apartments at issue complied with applicable housing norms, which had been certified by competent commissions. On 27 October 2006 the applicant registered his residence in the new two-bedroom apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3615", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Novosibirsk. She receives an old-age pension.\n7.  On 1 February 1998 the Law on Calculation and Adjustment of State Pensions (hereafter “the Pensions Act”) introduced a new method of calculation of retirement benefits based on what is known as the “individual pensioner coefficient” (“the IPC”). The IPC was the ratio between an individual’s wages at the time of retirement and the national average wage. The IPC was meant to maintain a link between pensions and previous earnings.\n8.  The applicant considered that the Zheleznodorozhniy District Division of the Pension Fund (hereafter “the Fund”) had calculated her pension incorrectly and in August 1999 she sued the Fund for an increase of her pension in accordance with the Pensions Act.\n9.  On 8 December 1999 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Novosibirsk found in the applicant’s favour. The District Court held that the Fund had misconstrued the law and that the applicant’s pension should be recalculated and increased in line with an IPC of 0.7 starting from 1 December 1999. On 23 December 1999 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld that judgment.\n10.  According to the Government, on 15 June 2000 the Fund recalculated the applicant’s pension in compliance with the judgment of 8 December 1999.\n11.  On 7 August 2000 the Fund requested the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court to reopen the case owing to a newly discovered circumstance. The Fund claimed that on 29 December 1999 the Ministry of Labour and Social Development had issued an Instruction on the Application of Limitations established by the Pensions Act. The Instruction clarified how the Pensions Act should be applied. The Fund further indicated that on 24 April 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation had dismissed a complaint by a group of individuals challenging the Instruction. The Supreme Court found that the Ministry of Labour had acted within its competence when it had issued the Instruction, and that the Ministry’s interpretation of the Pensions Act had been correct. The Fund contended that since it had been unaware of the Instruction and the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 April 2000 at the time of the judgment of 8 December 1999, the judgment would have to be reconsidered.\n12.  On 15 August 2000 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court granted the Fund’s request, quashed the judgment of 8 December 1999 and reopened the proceedings. The District Court applied Article 333 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure according to which judgments could be reconsidered in the event of discovery of significant circumstances which were not, and could not have been, known to the party concerned. The District Court found that the Supreme Court’s judgment of 24 April 2000 could serve as such a circumstance. The decision of 15 August 2000 was final and not amenable to appeal.\n13.  On the same day the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court, after a fresh examination of the case, dismissed the applicant’s action in full. On 7 December 2000 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment.\n14.  On 1 July 2004 the applicant received a letter from the Fund. The letter read as follows:\n“In response to your inquiry on 21 June 2004 [we] inform you that by its judgment of 8 December 1999 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court ordered that the Zheleznodorozhniy District Division of the Pension Fund in Novosibirsk should recalculate your pension starting from 1 December 1999.\nOn 8 December 1999 a writ of execu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3616", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Rischon Le Zion, Israel.\n5.  The applicant had been receiving an old age pension until her departure to take up permanent residence in Israel in December 1997. Before her departure, she was paid, at her written request, six months’ pension in advance prior to the termination of such payments in accordance with section 92 of the Pensions Act.\n6.  In January 1999 the applicant and her husband wrote a letter to the Pension Fund of Ukraine requesting the resumption of their pension payments. In a letter of 15 March 1999, the Pension Fund informed them that under section 92 of the Pensions Act an old-age pension was not paid to citizens residing permanently abroad and there were no legal grounds for resuming payment of their pensions.\n7.  On 13 August 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv (hereafter – “the Pechersky Court”) against the Pension Fund. This complaint was transferred to the Kievsky District Court of Odessa within whose jurisdiction the applicant had resided prior to emigration.\n8.  On 25 February 2004 that court found against the applicant, after establishing that the Pension Fund had acted in accordance with the law.\n9.  On 13 September 2006 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court. The applicant appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court.\n10.  On 16 November 2006 the Supreme Court transferred the applicant’s appeal to the Highest Administrative Court in accordance with the rules on jurisdiction. The proceedings are still pending.\n11.  The applicant held an account in the Savings Bank. At the beginning of the 1990s her deposit, which was in karbovanets, significantly depreciated as a result of hyperinflation.\n12.  In 1996 the Ukrainian authorities implemented a monetary reform intended to replace the former monetary unit, the karbovanets, with a new currency, the Ukrainian hryvna (українськa гривня, UAH), at an exchange rate of 100,000 karbovanets for 1 hryvna.\n13.  On 21 November 1996 the Ukrainian Parliament enacted the Ukrainian Citizens’ Deposits (State Guarantee of Reimbursement) Act (Law no. 537/96). Pursuant to section 3 of that Act, the applicant’s deposit was indexed at a ratio of 1 karbovanets to 1.05 hryvnas. Section 7 established a system for the indexed savings to be repaid progressively, taking into account the account holder’s age, the amount on deposit and other criteria. Each year the Government brings in regulations specifying the categories of account holders entitled to receive compensation in the coming year.\n14.  In April 2000 the applicant wrote a letter to the Savings Bank of Ukraine requesting the repayment of the entire indexed deposit. On 31 May 2000 the Bank replied that by law indexed deposits had to be paid gradually in accordance with the procedure laid down in the relevant legislation.\n15.  On 20 September 2001 the applicant lodged a claim with the Pechersky Court against the Savings Bank seeking recovery of her indexed deposit in full.\n16.  On 22 January 2002 the Pechersky Court rejected her claim.\n17.  On 24 April 2002 it sent its decision of 22 January 2002 to a court in Israel to be officially served on the applicant. It appears that this was not done.\n18.  According to the applicant on 24 December 2001 and 10 January 2002 the applicant wrote letters respectively to the Kyiv City Court and to the Supreme Court requesting information about the results of the exam", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3617", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in October 1984 and currently lives in Bulgaria.\n11.  In November 1990, at the age of six, the applicant lawfully entered Austria together with his parents and two siblings. Subsequently, he was legally resident in Austria. His parents, who were lawfully employed, acquired Austrian nationality. The applicant attended school in Austria.\n12.  In late 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. He was suspected of, inter alia, having broken into cars, shops and vending machines; having stolen empties from a stock ground; having forced another boy to steal 1,000 Austrian schillings from the latter’s mother; having pushed, kicked and bruised this boy; and of having used a motor vehicle without the owner’s authorisation.\n13.  On 8 March 1999 the applicant was granted an unlimited settlement permit (Niederlassungsbewilligung).\n14.  On 7 September 1999 the Vienna Juvenile Court (Jugendgerichtshof) convicted the applicant on twenty-two counts of aggravated gang burglary and attempted aggravated gang burglary (gewerbsmäßiger Bandendiebstahl), forming a gang (Bandenbildung), extortion (Erpressung), assault (Körperverletzung), and unauthorised use of a vehicle (unbefugter Gebrauch eines Fahrzeugs), offences committed between November 1998 and June 1999. He was sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment, thirteen of which were suspended on probation. The sentence was accompanied by an order to undergo drug therapy.\n15.  On 11 February 2000 the applicant was arrested and further criminal proceedings were opened against him relating to a series of burglaries committed between June 1999 and January 2000. The applicant and his accomplices were suspected of having broken into shops or restaurants, where they stole cash and goods. On 11 February 2000 the Vienna Juvenile Court remanded him in custody.\n16.  On 25 May 2000 the Vienna Juvenile Court convicted the applicant on eighteen counts of aggravated burglary and attempted aggravated burglary, and sentenced him to fifteen months’ imprisonment. When fixing the sentence the court noted the applicant’s confession as a mitigating circumstance, and the number of offences committed and the rapid relapse into crime after the last conviction as aggravating circumstances. It also observed that the applicant, though still living with his parents, had completely escaped their educational influence, had repeatedly been absent from home and had dropped out of school. It further noted that the applicant had failed to comply with the order to undergo drug therapy. Consequently, the suspension of the prison term imposed by the judgment of 7 September 1999 was revoked. Following the Vienna Juvenile Court’s judgment, the applicant served his prison term.\n17.  On 3 January 2001 the Vienna Federal Police Authority (Bundespolizeidirektion), relying on section 36(1) and 2(1) of the Aliens Act 1997 (Fremdengesetz), imposed a ten-year exclusion order on the applicant. Having regard to the applicant’s convictions, it found that it was contrary to the public interest to allow him to stay in Austria any longer. Considering the applicant’s relapse into crime after his first conviction, the public interest in the prevention of disorder and crime outweighed the applicant’s interest in staying in Austria.\n18.  The applicant, assisted by counsel, appealed. He submitted that the exclusion order violated his rights under Article 8 of the Convention as he was a minor who had come to Austria", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3619", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1947 and currently lives in Nicosia.\n8.  At the material time she was living alone in her family house in the village of Ayia Triada, Yialloussa, in the Karpas region of northern Cyprus. She was a teacher at the Greek-Cypriot elementary school in that village.\n9.  The parties disagree as to the facts of the case.\n10.  In December 1994 the applicant went to spend the Christmas holidays with members of her family in southern Cyprus. On 13 January 1995 she was transported by a Red Cross bus with other “enclaved” Greek-Cypriots to the Ledra Palace crossing point in Nicosia. From there they were due to be taken to Ayia Triada by a bus driven by a Turkish settler.\n11.  At the barricade, which was guarded by Turkish and/or “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) police and customs officers, the applicant and the other five or six enclaved Greek-Cypriot women who were on the bus with her were searched. When the customs officers asked to search the applicant again, she refused, claiming that she had already been searched and nothing had been found. She was then taken to a small room near the barricade and was told that she would be searched by police officers. The applicant continued to refuse to submit to another search. The officials then tried to force the applicant into a small private car. She resisted and started shouting. The officials covered her mouth with their hands and started hitting her on her arms and feet in order to force her into the car. They pushed her in the car headfirst and then took hold of her legs. They managed to put her in the car with her legs upwards and feet pointing towards the roof.\n12.  She was subsequently taken to a building that appeared to be a police station. There her bag was thoroughly searched and whenever she tried to see what the officers were doing she was hit on the head and shoulders by a person whom she was able to identify from the discussions held among the officials present as a member of the Turkish secret service. She was then taken to an adjacent room where she was interrogated and mocked. When the interrogation was over, the bag was returned to her empty. The officers also kept part of her money – 120 Cyprus pounds (CYP) of the CYP 300 she had on her.\n13.  Afterwards, the officers took her in the same car to the bus that would have taken her to Ayia Triada. As she did not feel well, she asked to be allowed to return to southern Cyprus. However, the officers started to hit her once again and forced her into the bus. One of the women on the bus told them to “let her go or you will kill her”.\n14.  Upon her return to Ayia Triada, the applicant asked to be taken to a female Turkish-Cypriot doctor in nearby Yialoussa but her request was refused. The next day a Greek-Cypriot took the applicant to the above-mentioned doctor. The doctor offered her medical treatment but refused to certify the existence of bruises on her body.\n15.  During the nights that followed stones were thrown at her house.\n16.  On 18 January 1995 the applicant was visited at the school of Ayia Triada by representatives of Doctors of the World, to whom she showed the bruises she had on her legs, hands and head. In its relevant parts, the report of Doctors of the World reads as follows:\n“Although [Eleni Foka] knew we were coming and had agreed to meet us, nevertheless when she first saw us she became very nervous. Her respiration increased, and she seemed to have trouble breathing. We reassured", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3620", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are Cypriot citizens, born in 1941, 1964, 1966, 1972, 1975, 1974 and 1971 respectively. They all reside in Paralimini, Cyprus.\n8.  The first applicant is the father of Solomos Solomou, a Greek Cypriot who died on 14 August 1996. The remaining applicants are the first applicant’s children and Solomos Solomou’s siblings. Solomos Solomou was not married and did not have any children.\n9.  The parties disagree as to the facts of the case.\n10.  On 14 August 1996 Solomos Solomou attended the funeral of a man who had been killed during a demonstration against the Turkish occupation of part of Cyprus. With other persons, he entered the UN buffer zone near the spot of the killing. A road passed the buffer zone at that point, leading to checkpoints guarded by the Cypriot National Guard on the southern side and by officials of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) on the northern side. At the Turkish checkpoint there were two military sentry boxes, one on either side of the road leading into the occupied territory. There was also a Turkish flag on a pole situated just behind the Turkish sentry box. Near the sentry box there was a Turkish observation post on a two-storey house.\n11.  Notwithstanding the efforts of the United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and the United Nations Civil Police (UNCIVPOL), some demonstrators, including Solomos Solomou, entered the buffer zone. Solomos Solomou and a handful of other demonstrators ran to the Turkish side of the buffer zone, pursued by UNFICYP personnel. Solomos Solomou crossed the barbed wire at the Turkish ceasefire line and entered the occupied territory. He was pursued by a British soldier from UNFICYP, who attempted to pull him back.\n12.  Solomos Solomou broke free from the British soldier and attempted to climb the pole where the Turkish flag was flying. He was unarmed, was not acting in a manner which could have been considered threatening and was smoking a cigarette. While he was approximately three metres up the pole he was hit by five shots fired by at least three persons from the Turkish side and was fatally injured. He died almost instantly. The Turkish forces then opened fire in an indiscriminate manner, wounding two members of UNFICYP, a civilian in the buffer zone and a civilian who was standing behind the Cypriot Government’s ceasefire line.\n13.  In order to support their version of facts, the applicants produced the following evidence:\n(a) five statements from eyewitnesses (Lance Bombardier Sanders, Garda O’Reilly, Sergeant Hayward, Sergeant Whiley and Garda Brennan – see paragraphs 15-20 below);\n(b) a collection of photographs prepared by the Cyprus police (see paragraph 31 below);\n(c) a video film of the shooting (see paragraph 31 below);\n(d) a pathologist’s report (see paragraph 29 below).\n14.  As to the identity of the perpetrators, the evidence pointed, in particular, to three persons: a man in civilian clothes who fired from the balcony of the Turkish observation post; a man in uniform standing near the Turkish check point; and a third man in Turkish uniform who fired from a distance of approximately 10 metres.\n15.  Before the Court, the applicants produced a number of statements from eyewitnesses. The relevant parts of these statements read as follows.\n16.  Statement of Lance Bombardier Michael John Sanders from UNFICYP:\n“... Between two and three hundred Greek-Cypriot demonstrators were in the buffer zone and approached our formation. These people ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3621", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1977, 1944, 1951, 1974 and 1979 respectively. The first applicant lives in Ayia Napa and the remaining applicants live in Paralimni. The first applicant is the widow, the second and third applicants are the parents and the fourth and fifth applicants are the sisters of Mr Anastasios (Tassos) Isaak, a Greek Cypriot, who died on 11 August 1996.\n8.  The deceased, Anastasios Isaak, participated in a demonstration organised by the Cyprus Motorcycle Federation (CMF) that took place on 11 August 1996 at several points of the United Nations (UN) buffer zone east of Nicosia, including the area of Dherynia. The demonstration, details of which are in dispute between the parties, was the subject of a report by the UN Forces in Cyprus (UNFICYP) (report of 15 August 1996) and by the UN Secretary General (report S/1196/1016 of 10 December 1996).\n9.  The demonstration was organised by the CMF and was aimed at protesting against the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus. On 2 August 1996 a group of over one hundred Cypriot and other European motorcyclists set off from Berlin and made their way through Europe to Cyprus. Tensions arose when the authorities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) announced that in the event the demonstration took place, they would be organising “counter-rallies” with the participation of the Turkish extremist “Grey Wolves” group and that they would fire at Greek-Cypriot demonstrators. Throughout the relevant period the Government of Cyprus and the competent authorities monitored developments and were in constant consultation with the UN. On 11 August 1996, in the morning, following an urgent appeal by the UN Secretary General, a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the President of the Republic and it was decided to cancel the final part of the rally. Consequently, the President of the Republic made a special plea to the motorcyclists to disperse peacefully.\n10.  Notwithstanding that plea, on 11 August 1996, a group of motorcyclists and other civilians acting spontaneously proceeded to various points along the UN buffer zone. In the meantime, the Cypriot police had taken tight security measures in order to prevent the motorcyclists from entering the buffer zone.\n11.  Anastasios Isaak was part of the above-mentioned group. He had joined the rally with a friend on his motorbike.\n12.  At about 2.30 p.m. the motorcyclists, including Anastasios Isaak, arrived at the Dherynia roadblock, where they left their motorcycles and proceeded to cross the National Guard ceasefire line on foot, after breaking through the police and UN cordon. The demonstrators, who were unarmed, entered the buffer zone.\n13.  Behind the ceasefire line of the Turkish forces, a mob gathered, comprised of Turkish-Cypriot and Turkish civilians, many of them carrying hunting rifles and air guns, iron bars, wooden sticks, batons, stones and catapults. There were also many Turkish soldiers and “TRNC” policemen armed with automatic and other military weapons. According to the report by UNFICYP, the Turkish forces allowed about 1,000 persons in buses to pass through their 3 km military zone and assemble there. Some of them belonged to the “Grey Wolves” organisation.\n14.  Between approximately 3 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. many stones were thrown on both sides. Shots were fired against the Greek-Cypriot demonstrators, some of whom suffered injuries as a result.\n15.  Between 3.30 and 4 p.m. the mob in the occupie", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3622", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Bursa.\n5.  On 17 October 1996 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of complicity in an armed robbery and homicide in Bursa.\n6.  On 27 October 1996 he was detained on remand.\n7.  On 4 November 1996 the Bursa public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Bursa Assize Court, charging the applicant and three others with the murder of M.T. and armed robbery.\n8.  On 21 November 1997 the Bursa Assize Court acquitted the applicant and two of his co-accused. The fourth accused, A.Ş., was convicted. The first-instance court ordered the applicant’s release from prison.\n9.  The Bursa public prosecutor, M.T.’s father, who had joined the proceedings before the Bursa Assize Court, and A.Ş. appealed.\n10.  On an unspecified date the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion (tebliğname) on the merits of the appeal. This opinion was not served on the applicant.\n11.  On 28 April 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 21 November 1997, holding that the first-instance court had failed to collect certain relevant evidence. The case was remitted to the Bursa Assize Court.\n12.  On 29 June 2001 the Bursa Assize Court once again acquitted the applicant and two of his co-accused after gathering the evidence mentioned in the Court of Cassation’s decision. In its judgment, it held that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant had committed the offences in question.\n13.  The Bursa public prosecutor, M.T.’s father and A.Ş. again appealed. On an unspecified date the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion (tebliğname) on the merits of the appeal. This opinion was not served on the applicant.\n14.  On 19 March 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 29 June 2001. This decision was recorded in the records held by the Registry of the Bursa Assize Court on 17 April 2002.\n15.  On 6 August 2002 the applicant brought an action in the Bursa Assize Court for compensation under Law no. 466 for his detention between 17 October 1996 and 2  November 1997.\n16.  On 20 August 2002 the court held a hearing and appointed one of its members as judge rapporteur to investigate the case and draft a report. There is no indication that the applicant and/or his legal representative were duly notified of this hearing. The rapporteur held investigatory sittings between 30 September 2002 and 23 December 2002. There is no indication that the applicant and/or his legal representative were summoned to be heard by the rapporteur during this time.\n17.  On 24 December 2002 the Bursa Assize Court held a hearing and, relying on the expert report and the documents contained in the case file, awarded the applicant 195,680,000 (TRL) (approximately EUR 116) for pecuniary damage and TRL 3,000,000,000 (approximately EUR 1,791) for non-pecuniary damage. In determining the award of pecuniary damage, the court referred to the minimum wage at the time and the applicant’s loss of income during his incarceration. With respect to non-pecuniary damage, it took into account the applicant’s socio-economic position, the seriousness of the charges brought against him, the time he had spent in detention and the intensity of his emotional suffering. It further awarded the applicant an amount for costs and expenses incurred before the criminal court. However, it dismissed his request for interest running from the date of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3623", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963. He is currently serving a sentence in a correction facility in Nizhniy Tagil, Sverdlovsk Region.\n6.  On 19 August 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.\n7.  On 20 August 1999 the local prosecutor remanded him in custody. The duration of the applicant’s detention was extended on several occasions; the applicant unsuccessfully challenged those orders.\n8.  On 30 June 2000 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and robbery and sentenced him to nineteen years’ imprisonment.\n9.  On 29 March 2001 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh consideration.\n10.  On 23 August 2001 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court remitted the case for an additional investigation to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Sverdlovsk Region. The case was then twice more sent to the court and remitted for an additional investigation, being finally referred to the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Tagil for examination in August 2002.\n11.  On 27 September 2002 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court, following adversarial proceedings in the course of which several witnesses, including co-defendants, gave evidence and forensic expert reports were examined, convicted the applicant of murder and theft and imposed a sentence of thirteen years’ imprisonment for murder and five years’ imprisonment for theft, the final sentence being determined by way of partial accumulation as fifteen years’ imprisonment. During the proceedings before the first-instance court the applicant was represented by a court-appointed lawyer.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the judgment of 27 September 2002.\n13.  On 20 December 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant appeared before the appeal court via videoconference from the detention facility. He was not represented by a legal-aid lawyer. According to the case file, the prosecutor was present in the courtroom but did not make any submissions. The court put only one question to the applicant during the hearing: it asked whether the applicant wished to amend his appeal.\n14.  In July 2003 the applicant lodged a request for supervisory review proceedings. On 5 December 2003 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court left this request without consideration, for the applicant’s failure to respect procedural formalities stipulated by law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3624", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.\n5.  At the material time the applicant was a serviceman about to retire. Under domestic law the command had to provide retirees with housing, but none was given to the applicant, and the applicant applied to a court.\n6.  On 6 June 2002 the Military Court of Rostov-on-Don held for the applicant and ordered the applicant’s command to “provide [him] with housing in accordance with legislation in force”. This judgment became binding on 7 August 2002, but was not enforced immediately.\n7.  On the command’s requests, the court several times extended the time-limit for the enforcement: from 19 November 2002 to 19 February 2003, from 5 August 2004 to 5 September 2004, from 11 October 2004 to 11 November 2004.\n8.  On 15 June 2004 the command offered to the applicant a at in Taganrog, but he refused from it because he wished to receive a at in Rostov-on-Don.\n9.  On 31 March 2005 the applicant received a at in Rostov-on-Don.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3625", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kingisepp, Leningrad Region.\n6.  On 8 March 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion.\n7.  In 2001 the applicant complained several times to a local prosecutor about the alleged unlawfulness of his detention. It appears that he never received any reply.\n8.  On 19 November 2001 the preliminary investigation was completed.\n9.  On 29 November 2001 the investigator allegedly interrupted the examination of the case file by the applicant and his lawyer. Numerous complaints by the applicant in this respect to the prosecutor’s office were of no avail.\n10.  On 19 April 2002 the Kingisepp Town Court, following adversarial proceedings in the course of which many witnesses including co-defendants and victims gave evidence, convicted the applicant of extortion and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment.\n11.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed against this judgment. On 11 December 2002 the Leningrad Regional Court, having heard the applicant and his lawyer, upheld the judgment of 19 April 2002. According to the applicant, in the courtroom he was kept in a metal cage measuring two or two and a half square metres with ten other defendants, and had no room in the cage to take out his notes and use them.\n12.  Between 8 and 25 March 2001 and between 26 February and 30 May 2002 the applicant was held in the temporary detention unit of the Kingisepp police department (Изолятор временного содержания г. Кингисеппа) in cells nos. 10 and 11. The applicant stated that cell no. 10 had measured fifteen square metres and had held eight to ten inmates; and cell no. 11 had measured eight square metres and had held four inmates. The detainees had never had exercise outside. The applicant was not allowed to take a shower between 8 and 25 March 2001; between 26 February and 30 May 2002 he took a shower only three times. The ventilation never worked, the windows were covered with metal shutters, and the detainees were not provided with bedding or mattresses. The applicant and other detainees had to use the toilet in front of their cellmates, and they did not have a table to eat at. According to the applicant, these detention conditions led to deterioration of his eyesight and caused hypertension and bronchitis. Furthermore, the detainees never had daily outdoor exercise.\n13.  The Government confirmed that the inmates had been prevented from taking showers because of maintenance work. No further information on conditions of detention in the temporary detention unit of the Kingisepp police department was provided by the Government.\n14.  The applicant produced written statements by Mr L. and Mr R., who had been detained in cell no. 10 in the Kingisepp police department in 2002 and 2004 respectively. They confirmed the applicant’s account of the conditions of detention there, namely that the cell measured fifteen square metres and held eight inmates; that the sanitary conditions were terrible and that no shower or daily outdoor exercise had been provided.\n15.  From 25 March 2001 to 25 February 2002, and then from 30 May 2002 to 8 January 2003, the applicant was held in pre-trial detention facility IZ-47/1, Saint Petersburg, in different cells.\n16.  The applicant asserted that the cells had been overcrowded. All the cells had measured approximately 8.5 sq m, had had six beds and had accommodated from eight to thirteen inmates. In particular, in cells nos. 428a and 679 the applicant had been kept with twelve ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3626", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Tsalipat Shamilovna Isigova, who was born in 1954;\n2) Ms Aminat Abdurakhmanovna Isigova, who was born in 1976;\n3) Ms Khalisat Dayevna[2] Umkhanova, who was born in 1948;\n4) Ms Taisiya Magomedovna Musayeva, who was born in 1970;\n5) Mr Arbi Zelimkhanovich Umkhanov, who was born in 1997.\n7.  On 2 July 2001 the federal armed forces carried out a large-scale “sweeping” operation (“zachistka”) in the village of Sernovodsk in Chechnya. According to the Government, interior troops of the Ministry of the Interior participated in the operation.\n8.  The applicants submitted numerous NGO and press reports on these events as well as statements by other villagers about the general circumstances of the sweeping operation and the detention of their relatives.\n9.  According to the applicants, a similar operation took place in the nearby village of Assinovskaya on 3 July 2001, where about 300 persons were detained.\n(b)  Detention of Apti Isigov\n10.  The first applicant is the mother of Apti Isigov, who was born in 1978. The second applicant is the first applicant's daughter and Apti Isigov's sister. They live at 34 Pervomayskaya Street in Sernovodsk. According to the applicants, at the material time Apti Isigov was planning to enrol in a law faculty in Moscow.\n11.  According to the first applicant, at about 12 noon on 2 July 2001 an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”) pulled up in front of their house. The first applicant noted that the APC identification number was Ch025. Several armed men in camouflage uniforms rushed into the courtyard, where the applicant's son Apti Isigov and his cousin Rustam Isigov, who lived in the same house, had been waiting for them with their passports in hand. The first applicant submitted that the documents were in order. Nevertheless, the soldiers had collected the passports without looking at them, pulled the Isigov cousins' shirts over their heads and forced them into the APC. In reply to the first applicant's question about the reasons for their arrest, the servicemen stated that they had orders to detain every man aged between 15 and 50.\n12.  The soldiers then searched the house and, according to the first applicant, took some money and household items.\n13.  Rustam Isigov later recalled that the APC into which they were put had stopped in a neighbouring street and they had been ordered to get out and to climb into a military truck. He had noticed a serviceman with five or six passports in his hand nearby. There were several people inside the truck, both detainees and servicemen. One of the servicemen had ordered Apti Isigov to climb into the far corner of the truck and to cover himself with a piece of canvas attached to the side. Apti had obeyed.\n14.  The detainees had then been taken to a passport checkpoint situated in a field near the village, where the basement of an unfinished building stood. Rustam Isigov and other detainees had been ordered out of the truck. Apti was ordered to stay in the vehicle but got out and sat on the ground with the rest of them. He was frightened and Rustam Isigov had tried to calm him down, even though the detainees were not allowed to talk. About 15 minutes later a man in camouflage uniform had arrived, had looked through a passport he had been holding and had ordered Apti Isigov to climb back into the truck.\n15.  The first applicant referred to the statements of other witnesses she had managed to collect which stated that Apti Isigov had then been brought ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3627", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Melitopil.\n5.  In September 1994 the applicant, as a retired military officer, was granted the social tenancy of two family apartments in a newly erected building, the construction of which had been partly sponsored by the municipal authorities and his former military detachment.\n6.  On 17 October 1995 the applicant lodged a claim with the Melitopil City Court (Мелітопольський міський суд Запорізької області) alleging that the apartments in question had been provided to him in an uninhabitable condition; he had renovated them at his own expense and was therefore entitled to receive pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. In the course of the proceedings the applicant adjusted the amount of his claim on some twenty occasions. Military Detachment A-0325 (Військова частина А-0325), the Executive Committee of the Melitopil City Council (Виконавчий комітет Мелітопольської міської ради), the Construction Company “Melitopilbud” (Акціонерне товариство «Мелітопільбуд») and the Melitopil Housing Service (Виробничо-житлове ремонтно-експлуатаційне об’єднання) were summoned into the proceedings as defendants. Subsequently the military detachment was substituted by the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine (Міністерство Оборони України).\n7.  On 28 May 1997 the Melitopil City Court ordered an expert assessment of the state of the apartments. No hearings were scheduled between May 1997 and May 1998 on account of the pending expert assessment.\n8.  On 16 March 1999 the court rejected the applicant’s claim. In particular, the court found that the applicant had not shown that the apartments in question had defects which were such as to make them uninhabitable. Moreover, having being aware of the state of the apartments before moving in, the applicant had not taken the opportunity to request alternative housing. Furthermore, he had never properly documented the defects he had repaired and the expenses he had borne.\n9.  On 29 April 1999 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court (Запорізький обласний суд)[1] quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration, having found that the trial court had insufficiently explored the circumstances of the case.\n10.  On 27 March 2002, following the applicant’s allegations about deterioration of his family members’ health on account of the state of the apartments, the Melitopil City Court ordered a medical expert assessment.\n11.  On 17 February 2003 the Melitopil City Court rejected the applicant’s claim on similar grounds as in the judgment of 16 March 1999. Moreover, the court found that the claim had been lodged outside the statute of limitation.\n12.  Between October 1995 and February 2003 the Melitopil City Court scheduled a total of fifty hearings, forty of which were set up after September 1997, the date, when the Convention entered into force in respect of Ukraine. Some fifteen of them were adjourned on account of the failure of one or more of the defendants to appear or following a defendant’s request for adjournment. Some five hearings were adjourned to allow the court and the defendants to familiarise themselves with adjustments of the applicant’s claims. Three hearings were adjourned on account of the applicant’s requests for adjournments. Seven adjournments were initiated by the court for various reasons.  Most hearings were scheduled at intervals from several days to two months. On four occasions the intervals between hearings were between four and six months.\n13", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3628", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Saratov.\n5.  The applicant was employed by a municipal company (the “company”). After his dismissal, the company issued a certificate indicating the applicant’s average monthly salary (the “certificate”). On the basis of that certificate, the local Social Security Committee calculated his disability allowance (пенсия по инвалидности).\n6.  The applicant considered that this certificate had to be amended to take account of the pay he had received in 1998 as a juror. His company refused to amend the certificate.\n7.  In April 1999 the applicant sued the company and the local Social Security Committee. He sought amendment of the certificate, payment of the allowance arrears accrued in 1999 and compensation in the amount of an average monthly salary for a delayed return of his employment record (трудовая книжка). It appears that he subsequently amended his claims and asked the court to order that the amended certificate should also mention amounts awarded to him under judgments dated 17 June 1999 and 19 January 2000. According to the applicant, he submitted a copy of the above judgments to the District Court on an unspecified date.\n8.  By judgment of 23 March 2000, the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saratov ordered the company to provide the Social Security Committee with the amended certificate indicating the pay received by the applicant in 1998 as a juror. By the same judgment, the District Court ordered the Committee to re-calculate the applicant’s allowance. The District Court rejected the remainder of the applicant’s claims as follows:\n“...the claim for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage should be rejected because no proof of such damage has been adduced...”\n9.  On the same date, the applicant asked the District Court to issue an additional judgment under Article 205 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 27 below). He considered that the District Court had omitted to list in the amended certificate the amounts awarded to him under the above-mentioned judgments of 17 June 1999 and 19 January 2000. This request was not accompanied by a copy of those judgments. It appears that this request was lost by one of the District Court’s employees.\n10.  On 18 April 2000 the applicant also asked the District Court to rule on his earlier claim for compensation for the delayed return of his employment record.\n11.  In reply to the applicant’s complaint, by letter dated 13 November 2001 the President of the District Court informed the applicant that the case file contained no request for an additional judgment; no decision on such request had been taken.\n12.  On 27 November 2001 the District Court fixed a new time-limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of 23 March 2000, having regard to the fact that between March 2000 and September 2001 the applicant had been in a mental institution.\n13.  On 27 December 2001 the Saratov Regional Court amended the judgment of 23 March 2000 on appeal, indicating that the adjustment would be effective from 29 March 1999. As regards the applicant’s claim for compensation, the Regional Court held as follows:\n“...the court upholds the judgment as regards the claim ... [relating to] the retention of the employment record because there had been no proof that the Social Security Committee had unlawfully retained it or that any damage had been caused to the applicant...\nThere is no proof that the administration of the municipal company unlawfully retai", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3629", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants alleged that in the 1990s the Ministry of Defence operated an Electronic Test Facility (“ETF”) at Capenhurst, Cheshire, which was built to intercept 10,000 simultaneous telephone channels coming from Dublin to London and on to the continent. Between 1990 and 1997 the applicants claimed that the ETF intercepted all public telecommunications, including telephone, facsimile and e-mail communications, carried on microwave radio between the two British Telecom’s radio stations (at Clwyd and Chester), a link which also carried much of Ireland’s telecommunications traffic. During this period the applicant organisations were in regular telephone contact with each other and also providing, inter alia, legal advice to those who sought their assistance. They alleged that many of their communications would have passed between the British Telecom radio stations referred to above and would thus have been intercepted by the ETF.\n6.  On 9 September 1999, having seen a television report on the alleged activities of the ETF, the applicant organisations requested the Interception of Communications Tribunal (“the ICT”: see paragraphs 28-30 below) to investigate the lawfulness of any warrants which had been issued in respect of the applicants’ communications between England and Wales and Ireland. On 19 October 1999 an official of the ICT confirmed that an investigation would proceed and added:\n“... I am directed to advise you that the Tribunal has no way of knowing in advance of an investigation whether a warrant exists in any given case. The Tribunal investigates all complaints in accordance with section 7 of the [Interception of Communications Act 1985: ‘the 1985 Act’, see paragraphs 16-33 below] establishing whether a relevant warrant or relevant certificate exists or had existed and, if so, whether there has been any contravention of sections 2 to 5. If ... the Tribunal concludes that there has been a contravention of sections 2 to 5, the Tribunal may take steps under sections 7(4), (5) and (6). In any case where there is found to have been no contravention, the Tribunal is not empowered to disclose whether or not authorised interception has taken place. In such instances, complainants are advised only that there has been no contravention of sections 2 to 5 in relation to a relevant warrant or a relevant certificate.”\n7.  By a letter dated 16 December 1999 the ICT confirmed that it had thoroughly investigated the matter and was satisfied that there had been no contravention of sections 2 to 5 of the 1985 Act in relation to the relevant warrant or certificate.\n8.  By a letter dated 9 September the applicants complained to the DPP of an unlawful interception, requesting the prosecution of those responsible. The DPP passed the matter to the Metropolitan Police for investigation. By a letter dated 7 October 1999 the police explained that no investigation could be completed until the ICT had investigated and that a police investigation might then follow if it could be shown that an unwarranted interception had taken place or if any of the other conditions set out in section 1(2)-(4) of the 1985 Act had not been met. The applicants pointed out, in their letter of 12 October 1999, that the vague, albeit statutory, response of the ICT would mean that they would not know whether a warrant had been issued or, if it had, whether it had been complied with. They would not, therefore, be in a position to make submissions to the police after the ICT", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3630", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Balatonakarattya.\n5.  On 26 October 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Budapest Regional Court against the Military Engineering Institute and six individuals. He sought to have it established that the defendants had violated his patent rights in that they had utilised without licence one of his inventions when creating a military defence tool for armoured vehicles. The applicant was represented by his patent agent.\n6.  On 17 April 1997 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. In May 1997, the applicant had his patent cancelled, being of the view that it followed from the decision of the Regional Court that it could only be reviewed if he first abandoned his patent protecting the invention. Subsequently, he appealed against the Regional Court’s decision, maintaining that the defendants had used his invention without licence.\n7.  On 6 January 1999 the appellate bench of the Supreme Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings the defendants filed a preparatory paper with the Regional Court on 9 November 1999.\n9.  On 7 April 2000 the Regional Court, establishing that the defendants’ invention had been based on a different technical solution than that of the applicant and, that, therefore, the former had not illegally used the latter’s invention, again dismissed the action. The applicant appealed.\n10.  In 2003 the appellate bench of the Supreme Court appointed a technical expert, the Expert Committee of the Hungarian Patent Office, which submitted its opinion to the court on 2 February 2004. On 8 March 2004 the applicant submitted a counter-opinion prepared by other experts.\n11.  The appellate bench of the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance decision on 31 March 2004. The courts relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of the technical expert and the parties’ testimony. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court.\n12.  On 15 October 2004 the review bench of the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s petition inadmissible, without examining the merits, since it was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n13.  In April 2004 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Budapest Prosecutor’s Office, alleging that the documents submitted by the defendants during the proceedings had been forged. On 18 April 2005, after a remittal, the Prosecutor’s Office terminated the investigation in the absence of any crime, which decision was upheld by the Chief Prosecutor’s Office in June 2005.\n14.  In 2004 the applicant brought an official liability action against the Budapest Regional Court before the Pest County Regional Court, alleging that the Budapest Regional Court’s wrong decision had forced him to abandon his patent rights in 1997.\n15.  On 10 October 2005 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that the applicant had erred in accepting a non-final decision ─ against which he appealed ─ as a binding legal opinion and, therefore, the Budapest Regional Court was not responsible for his alleged loss. The applicant appealed.\n16.  On 13 April 2006 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 9 November 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition. The courts relied on documentary evidence and th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3631", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In 1948 the applicant’s legal predecessor, her father, Roman Pawłowski, lodged an application under Article 7 of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on real property in Warsaw for temporary ownership of a plot of land situated in Warsaw at Szczęśliwicka Street 43. This application remained unanswered.\n6.  In 1981 the Bydgoszcz District Court declared that the applicant had acquired one-half of the estate of her late father and had thereby become his legal successor.\n7.  On 20 December 1988 the applicant reiterated her father’s request submitted in 1948 and requested that possession of the plot be restored to her. In 1990 she again requested the authorities to issue a decision.\n8.  In 1993 the Board of Association of Districts of Warsaw City (Zarząd Związku Dzielnic-Gmin Warszawy), by a decision of 17 June, declared that ownership of the property concerned had been acquired by the City of Warsaw Taxi Enterprise. The applicant appealed, pointing out that the decision was unlawful because her request had already been pending before the authorities at that time.\n9.  On 23 February 1995 the Land Administration Division of the Warsaw Municipality found that it was not competent to examine the case. The case file was subsequently transmitted, on an unknown later date, to the Board of Warsaw City.\n10.  On 12 June 2001 the Board of Warsaw City (Zarząd Miasta st. Warszawy) examined the request and dismissed it in its part concerning a surface area of 2,205 square metres. Apparently the plot had been divided, on an unspecified earlier date, into two parts, the other part covering 478 square metres, with the State Treasury listed as its owner in the local land register. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 21 September 2001 the Local Government Board of Appeal quashed the decision of 12 June 2001 and remitted the case for reconsideration.\n12.  On 11 October 2001 the applicant complained to the Local Government Board of Appeal about the second-instance authority’s failure to issue a decision regarding the plot of 478 square metres. In March 2002 she reiterated her complaint.\n13.  On 8 July 2002 the applicant complained to the Supreme Administrative Court about the authorities’ failure to give a decision on the merits of the case.\n14.  By two decisions dated 25 June 2002, the Local Government Board of Appeal found that the applicant’s complaints about the excessive length of the proceedings were unfounded.\n15.  On 22 March 2002 the Local Government Board of Appeal found that the decision by which the City of Warsaw Taxi Enterprise had acquired ownership of the part of the property concerned was unlawful and had to be quashed. Warsaw City appealed.\n16.  On 7 January 2003 the Warsaw Municipal Office (Urząd Miasta st. Warszawy) stayed the proceedings, having regard to the fact that the proceedings to establish the owner of the property were pending.\n17.  On 28 February 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the authorities’ failure to give a decision, having regard to the fact that on 7 January 2003 the proceedings had been stayed. Hence, it could not be said that the authorities had failed to act in the case. Subsequently, the proceedings were resumed.\n18.  On 22 March 2003 the applicant complained to the Local Government Board of Appeal about the first-instance authority’s failure to issue a decision. On 18 May 2004 the Board gave a decision by which it ordered the Mayor to give a decision within one month.\n19.  On 2 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3632", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1980 and, at the time of lodging his application, he had been serving a custodial sentence at Pravieniškės prison.\n7.  On 19 February 2003 the Kaišiadorys District Court convicted the applicant - together with an accomplice - of attempted drug dealing in large quantities (Articles 16 § 2 and 232-1 § 5 of the Criminal Code as then in force). The court established that the offence had been disclosed using a “Criminal Conduct Simulation Model” (“the model”), which had been authorised by the Prosecutor General on 29 May 2002.\n8.  The court found that on 4 June 2002 V, a policeman acting as an undercover agent under the model, had met the applicant and, during their conversation on various topics, asked where he could get psychotropic drugs. The applicant had said that he could procure and sell samples to the policeman straight away, and more thereafter if the samples were good. The samples would cost between 15 to 21 LTL per gram, depending on the quantities required. He refused to lower the price for the first transaction, but suggested that it might be cheaper thereafter if V needed a regular supply. However, the officer replied that he could not wait and they agreed to telephone each other on the matter. V had to undergo a hospital intervention. Thereafter it was the applicant who contacted V, suggesting a meeting so that he could provide V with drug samples. On 21 June 2002, the applicant sold V some drugs.\n9.  On 23 June 2002 V had telephoned the applicant, requesting more drugs for a total sum of USD 3,000. On 25 June 2002 the applicant provided V with 250 grams of amphetamines. He said that he had around 5 kilos of drugs (amphetamines) and that the price would be lower next time. The applicant and his accomplice were arrested immediately. The applicant pleaded guilty to the attempted drug offence.\n10.  The court questioned V as an anonymous witness, outside the courtroom via an audio relay. His identity was not disclosed in order to protect him and the proper functioning of the police drug squad. At that stage the defence did not put any questions to V. After his testimony had been read out by the trial judge, the defence formulated some supplementary questions which were put to him by the judge and answered. The other evidence examined by the court included the transcripts of the conversations between V and the applicant, the testimony of another police officer who acted as V’s back up during the operation, their supervising officer, the testimony of the applicant and his co-accused and an expert’s conclusions.\n11.  The documents relating to the authorisation of the model were classified as secret and were not disclosed to the defence because they would have disclosed the identity of the police officers involved and the operational methods of the drug squad. The Government contended that the applicant was not, however, denied access to information about the execution of the model. In their submissions to the Court, the Government provided further information about it. The police had information about the applicant’s continued large scale drug dealings in Lithuania and abroad under the nickname of “Malina”. Two police officers were authorised to contact the applicant and his associates and, should their suspicions prove to be founded, they were authorised to procure drugs from him. The steps to be taken and the equipment to be used to obtain proof were set out in the model, which was authorised for a yea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3633", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Gdynia. He is currently detained in the Gdańsk Remand Centre.\nCriminal proceedings against the applicant and his detention during the judicial proceedings\n5.  The applicant was arrested on 12 January 1999 on suspicion of having committed homicide together with eight accomplices, and of illegal possession of arms.\n6.  On 14 January 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody until 12 April 1999 in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed homicide and the risk that he would obstruct the investigation.\n7.  The applicant’s detention was extended by several decisions of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The applicant’s appeals and applications for release and applications to vary the preventive measure were unsuccessful. In their decisions the courts relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, on the serious nature of the offences and the risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings. They basically relied on the same grounds as originally invoked each time they dismissed his applications for release or his requests to vary the preventive measures applied. In its decision of 16 June 1999 extending the applicant’s detention, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal added that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would abscond.\n8.  On 29 July 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. It appears that during the proceedings the applicant served another prison sentence, because the first-instance court counted the periods of his pre-trial detention, that is to say from 12 January 1999 until 25 May 1999 and from 26 December 2002 until 29 July 2003 (eleven months and sixteen days), towards the prison sentence.\n9.  On 23 July 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 30 September 2003.\n10.  The applicant and other co-accused lodged appeals against the first‑instance judgment.\n11.  The applicant remained in detention pending his appeal.\n12.  On 16 December 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. It found that the trial court had incorrectly assessed evidence and had made numerous procedural mistakes. The Court of Appeal also pointed to the fact that the reasoning of the first-instance judgment had been “grossly brief and superficial”.\n13.  On 11 January 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 11 April 2005. The detention was further extended on several occasions (on 23 March, 23 June and 22 December 2005 and on 30 May and 28 September 2006). At least three of the six above-mentioned decisions extending the detention were upheld following appeals by the applicant.\n14.  On 6 May 2005 the case file was sent back to the first-instance court.\n15.  On 25 August 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court made a severance order and considered that the applicant’s case should be dealt with separately.\n16.  The proceedings are still pending and the applicant remains in detention.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3634", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Pabianice. She owns a semi‑detached house located in a residential area. A tailoring workshop employing about 20 people was located in the other half of the building.\n6.  On 14 September 1993 the applicant made an application to the City Council for a ban on the operation of the workshop or at least for measures to be taken to reduce the level of noise it generated.\n7.  On 11 June 1994 the Director of the Pabianice District Office, to which the application of 14 September 1993 must have been transferred, issued a decision in which it found that the workshop was operating without the required permission. He obliged the owner of the workshop to take steps to remedy the situation, inter alia by obtaining an environmental impact assessment of the workshop and by carrying out adaptation works.\n8.  On 30 January 1995 the Governor of Łódź approved a “[t]echnical project on protection of the environment against noise”, and obliged the owner to comply with the project and to submit an evaluation of the noise level.\n9.  On 7 February 1995 the Governor of Łódź approved the location of the workshop on condition that the owner complied with the requirements set out in the decision of 30 January 1995.\n10.  On 15 March 1995 the Director of the Construction Supervision Department of the Town Office gave instructions as to the way in which the works to adapt the workshop should be conducted. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 4 April 1995 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Governor of Łódź in which she complained that she had not been allowed to participate in the proceedings. She submitted that she should have been treated as a party to them and that she had not received an answer to her application of 14 September 1993.\n12.  On 11 May 1995 the applicant made an application to the Minister of Environment for the proceedings – which must have been discontinued on an unspecified earlier date – to be reopened in order to enable her to participate as a party to the proceedings in order to have her arguments taken into consideration.\n13.  On 17 May 1995 the Governor of Łódź stayed the appeal proceedings against the decision of 15 March 1995 until the request for reopening of 11 May 1995 had been considered. The workshop’s owner appealed.\n14.  On 7 August 1995 the General Inspector of Construction Supervision quashed the decision of 17 May 1995.\n15.  On 20 October 1995 the Governor of Łódź stayed the appeal proceedings against the decision of 15 March 1995. The workshop’s owner appealed.\n16.  On 15 December 1995 the General Inspector of Construction Supervision upheld the decision of 20 October 1995. The applicant appealed.\n17.  On 25 February 1997 the applicant made an application to the Governor of Łódź requesting, inter alia, that the decisions of 7 August 1995 and 15 December 1995 be quashed and that the operation of the workshop be stayed until a decision was made on the merits of her request of 1993.\n18.  On 14 November 1997 the Minister of Environment quashed the decisions of 7 August 1995 and 30 January 1995. In the written grounds he stated that the noise pollution inside the applicant’s home was not a matter of environmental protection, so that there was no legal basis for the proceedings to be instituted. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.\n19.  In a letter of 12 January 1998 to the Director of the Pabianice District Office the applicant requested that the appeal proceedings", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3635", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Ms Tibor Ipolyné Daróczy, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In 1950 the applicant married Mr Tibor Ipoly Daróczy. According to birth certificate no. 1786/1927 Mr Daróczy was entitled to bear the two above-mentioned forenames from the very moment of his birth.[1] Her husband signed the marriage certificate as “Tibor Daróczy”. The applicant chose to bear her husband’s name by putting the suffix “-né” referring to the marriage (házasságra utaló toldás) after the first given name (Tibor) of her husband. In accordance with the widespread custom in Hungary, the latter only used his first given name even in official contexts. The applicant’s married name was registered as Tiborné Daróczy on the marriage certificate.\n8.  The official before whom the marriage took place did not observe that the name chosen was against the law since, at the material time, a woman could only choose to bear the whole name of her husband, including all the given names. In the present case, the applicant’s correct married name should have been Tibor Ipolyné Daróczy.\n9.  The mistake was not revealed in 1954 when identity cards were introduced in Hungary. The applicant’s renewed identity card issued in 1974 also contained the name Tiborné Daróczy. The applicant used this name in all official and private business. In particular, her social security card and tax identification certificate were issued in the name Tiborné Daróczy.\n10.  In 1984 Hungary introduced electronic data recording. In the new State Registry (Állami Népességnyilvántartó) the applicant’s name was automatically entered in the manner prescribed by law, as Tibor Ipolyné Daróczy. However, she did not receive any official notification of this fact. In 1994 she and her husband were entered on the electoral register (választói névjegyzék) under the names Tibor Daróczy and Tiborné Daróczy. This database relied on the general State Registry.\n11.  In 1996 the applicant’s husband died. The applicant then used the name Tiborné Daróczy with the prefix “özv.” indicating that she was a widow.\n12.  In 2004 the applicant lost her identity card. Based on the State Registry, the Registry Office issued a new card which indicated her name as the widow of Tibor Ipoly Daróczy (özv. Tibor Ipolyné Daróczy). On 13 January 2005 the applicant obtained an official certificate containing this name. The certificate’s only function was to enable her to access her bank account since her new identity card contained a name that was different from the one she had used when opening the account. The text of the certificate expressly stated that it had been issued for one-time use.\n13.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Ministry of the Interior, seeking permission to bear the name Tiborné Daróczy. In November 2004 the Ministry informed her that, since her husband’s official name was Tibor Ipoly Daróczy, she was entitled and obliged to bear that name in its entirety as a widow, and that it was not possible to change it to another form. Her name is at present registered as Tibor Ipolyné Daróczy.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3636", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Belgrade.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 16 October 1990 the owner of the flat in which the applicant lived filed a civil action with the First Municipal Court (Prvi opštinski sud) in Belgrade, seeking her eviction.\n8.  In his claim, the plaintiff maintained that the applicant had lost “the status of a protected tenant” (nosilac stanarskog prava odnosno zakupac stana na neodređeno vreme), as provided for under the relevant domestic legislation.\n9.  On 4 April 1994 the First Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant.\n10.  On 20 October 1994 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade quashed this judgment in view of the unlawful composition of the trial chamber at first instance and sent the case back for a retrial.\n11.  From 16 May 1995 to 28 February 2002, the First Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant on two separate occasions but each time its judgments were quashed on appeal by either the District Court or the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) and were remitted.\n12.  On 2 September 2002 the First Municipal Court ruled again in favour of the applicant.\n13.  On 29 April 2003 the District Court quashed this judgment on appeal. It noted, once more, the unlawful composition of the trial chamber at first instance and ordered a retrial before the Municipal Court.\n14.  On 29 January 2004 the applicant complained to the President of the First Municipal Court, stating that the presiding judge in her case, despite repeatedly ruling in her favour, kept committing procedural errors on the basis of which higher courts always had grounds to order a retrial.\n15.  On 16 March 2004 the President of the First Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and assigned another judge to deal with her case.\n16.  From 20 April 2004 to 6 July 2006, the First Municipal Court scheduled another twelve hearings. Only three of those, on 15 September 2005, 11 May 2006 and 6 July 2006, were held as scheduled, while the others appear to have been adjourned on various grounds. In particular the hearings scheduled for: (i) 20 April 2004 and 6 April 2005 were adjourned because of the presiding judge’s need for additional time in order to review the case file; (ii) 27 September 2004 because of the absence of the presiding judge; (iii) 24 November 2004, 28 November 2005 and 24 February 2006 because of several witnesses who had either not been served properly or had failed to appear in court; and (iv) 25 June 2004, 2 February 2005 and 26 May 2005 because of the need to obtain additional written evidence and/or hear additional witnesses.\n17.  The next hearing in the case was held on 5 September 2006.\n18.  On 11 September 2006 the First Municipal Court decided that the proceedings should not be joined with a related case filed by the applicant separately.\n19.  On 17 October 2006 the First Municipal Court ruled again in favour of the applicant. In so doing, it recognised the plaintiff as the owner of the flat in question, but, at the same time, held that the applicant, being a protected tenant, had a right to continue living therein.\n20.  On an unspecified date the applicant, as well as the plaintiff, appealed against this judgment. The applicant, in particular, maintained that she should have been recognised as the owner of the flat in question.\n21.  On 30 May 2007 the District Court rejected both appeals and upheld the judgment rendered at first i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3637", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 15 November 2002 Flux published an article entitled “The criminal case file of Eugenia Duca, like five kilograms of waste paper”. It reported on the evolution of a high-profile criminal case against a business woman, who was convicted at the time but was later acquitted and compensated for illegal prosecution and detention, and published in italicised script extracts from an open letter sent by her daughter to the President of the country, President of the Parliament, Prime Minister, Council of Europe, OSCE Mission in Moldova and other organisations. In the letter she complained of alleged abuses committed by the prosecution and by the judiciary against her mother. The letter contained, inter alia, the following sentence:\n“On 10 July 2001, the Deputy Prosecutor General V.S. (subsequently dismissed for dubious affairs), signed the indictment in Eugenia Duca’s criminal case... and sent it to the Râşcani District Court without her even having seen it.”\n6.  On an unspecified date Mr V.S., who in the meantime was demoted, brought civil proceedings for defamation against the newspaper, arguing that the statement about his dismissal for dubious affairs was not true and that it was defamatory of him.\n7.  On 12 February 2003 the Buiucani District Court ruled in favour of Mr V.S., finding the statement that Mr V.S. had been dismissed for dubious affairs to be untrue and defamatory. It also found that V.S. was employed at the time at the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Appeal and ordered the newspaper to issue an apology within fifteen days and pay V.S. 2,700 Moldovan lei (178 euros (EUR)).\n8.  The applicant newspaper appealed against this judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the article was in fact a dissemination of statements made by Ms Duca’s daughter in her open letter. Relying on Jersild v. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 298, the applicant newspaper argued that it could not be punished for disseminating statements made by third parties.\n9.  On 29 April 2003 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. It did not examine the arguments advanced by the applicant newspaper concerning the dissemination of statements made by others. The applicant newspaper lodged an appeal on points of law and submitted that the expression “dubious affairs” had been a value judgment.\n10.  On 19 November 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that Mr V.S. had been dismissed from his position by a decision of the Parliament without any reasons being given. It did not examine the applicant newspaper’s arguments about the dissemination of statements made by a third person.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3638", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1947, 1953, 1953 and 1953 respectively and live in Łódź.\n5.  On 7 December 2001 the Consumer Protection Association (Związek Obrony Konsumentów) acting on behalf of the applicants lodged a claim for payment with the Warszawa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n6.  In a letter of 22 May 2003 the applicants’ legal adviser complained about the delay in the proceedings and asked for a hearing date to be fixed.\n7.  On 15 December 2003 the court held the first hearing.\n8.  From January to March 2003 the court held 2 hearings.\n9.  On 10 February 2004 the Warszawa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) declared the defendant insolvent. Consequently, at a hearing held on 4 March 2004 the trial court stayed the proceedings ex lege.\n10.  The proceedings were resumed on 9 May 2007.\n11.  On 11 May 2007 the Warszawa Regional Court discontinued the proceedings in the case.\n12.  On 4 February 2005 the Consumer Protection Association acting on behalf of the applicants lodged a complaint with the Warszawa Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n13.  The applicants sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Warszawa Regional Court had been excessive. They asked for an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 2,500).\n14.  On 15 March 2005 the Warszawa Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. The court found that the 2004 Act produced legal effects as from the date of entry into force (17 September 2004), its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been remedied. It acknowledged that there had been a delay at the initial stage of the proceedings but found that this situation had ceased to exist when the 2004 Act entered into force.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3639", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr. Sergey Matveyev, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Arkhangelsk.\n7.  In the 1980s the applicant and his spouse, Mrs Matveyeva, organised short-wave radio broadcasts from their home.\n8.  On 1 May 1981 their broadcasting was terminated by the authorities. A number of searches were conducted in their flat.\n9.  On 12 May 1981 criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Matveyev.\n10.  On 11 August 1981 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of the Arkhangelsk Region convicted Mr Matveyev of forgery of a postal stamp and of having used it to send personal correspondence free of charge, and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. The District Court held, in particular:\n“The court finds untenable the argument of the accused [Mr] Matveyev that the postal stamp he took from the radio-technical school ... could not be used for sending correspondence free of charge [since it] was invalid according to Price List no. 125 “Postal Rates and Services”, adopted by the USSR Ministry of Communication and to Decree of the State Committee on Pricing no. 517 of 25 June 1980 [in force from] 1 October 1980 [Прейскурант № 125 «Тарифы и услуги связи», утвержденный Министерством связи СССР введенный в действие с 1 октября 1980 г. и Постановление Госкомцен СССР от 25 июля 1980 г. № 517].\nAt the time of theft of [the] postal stamp and the subsequent sending of letters with [the use of] the stamp [Mr] Matveyev did not know about the above-mentioned documents and his intent was directed at sending his [personal] correspondence free of charge, [which he did] repeatedly as corroborated by the ... evidence.”\n11.  On 25 September 1981 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant served the sentence and was dismissed from his job with a State enterprise.\n12.  On 6 October 1999, in supervisory review proceedings, the Presidium of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court reversed Mr Matveyev’s conviction for forgery of a stamp, finding that it had been wrongful as there was no indication that a crime had been committed. The Presidium held:\n“The letter of the Head [of the Arkhangelsk postal service] of 10 July 1981 contained in the case file makes clear that the stamp “To be sent free of charge” was used by the postal enterprises for correspondence between radio associations until 1980. [After] the entry into force on 1 October 1980 of Price List no. 125 “Postal Rates and Services”, correspondence free of charge between short-wave radio broadcasters was permitted only on the basis of postal receipt cards... [T]herefore, the stamp was no longer valid.\nHaving regard to the fact that ... the stamp [could not be used to obtain profit unlawfully], the criminal case should be closed.”\n13.  In 2001 Mr Matveyev brought proceedings seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of his wrongful conviction.\n14.  On 20 December 2001 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk dismissed the claim on the ground that at the time of the conviction there had been no provision in domestic law for claiming such damages.\n15.  On 21 January 2002 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n16.  On an unspecified date the applicant applied for the proceedings to be reopened on account of newly discovered evidence.\n17.  On 24 December 2002 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk dismissed the application.\n18.  On an unspecified date the applicant applied for supervisory review of the judgment of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3640", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Novoaltaysk, a town in the Altay Region.\n5.  The applicant brought three civil actions against the Government and Ministry of Finance seeking to liquidate Soviet commodity bonds and saving certificates.\n6.  On 10 August 2001 the Novoaltaysk Town Court awarded the applicant 227,540 Russian roubles (“RUB”). This judgment became binding on 24 October 2001, but was not enforced.\n7.  On 25 December 2001 the town court awarded the applicant RUB 347,406. This judgment became binding on 24 April 2002, and was enforced on 20 September 2007.\n8.  On 25 December 2001 the town court awarded the applicant RUB 168,944.21. This judgment became binding on 24 April 2002. On 7 December 2004 it was quashed in supervisory-review proceedings. Nevertheless, on 2 June 2006 the sum due was by mistake paid to the applicant. The Ministry of Finance sought to recover the mistakenly paid sum, but on 14 November 2007 the Altay Regional Court decided that the applicant could keep the money as compensation for the judgment’s lengthy non-enforcement.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3641", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Peshtera.\n5.  On 11 January 1990 the Pleven district public prosecutor’s office opened criminal proceedings against the applicant for theft, embezzlement and other offences allegedly committed in 1989 and the beginning of 1990. On an unspecified date the applicant was formally charged.\n6.  At a later date the case was transferred to the Sofia district public prosecutor’s office.\n7.  Subsequently, the scope of the investigation was widened to include thefts and other offences allegedly committed by the applicant after January 1990.\n8.  On an unspecified date it was established that almost the entire case file, which had consisted of thirty-two volumes, had been lost. Efforts were made to reconstruct the case file as far as possible.\n9.  On 9 April 1999 the Sofia district public prosecutor’s office terminated the investigation on unknown grounds.\n10.  That decision was quashed by the Sofia city public prosecutor’s office on 8 July 1999.\n11.  The decision of 8 July 1999 also contained instructions to the investigator as to the necessary investigative steps.\n12.  Between 1999 and 2002 the investigator examined several witnesses and commissioned an expert opinion by an economist to establish the value of the chattels allegedly stolen or appropriated by the applicant.\n13.  On 11 April 2005 the Sofia district public prosecutor’s office terminated the proceedings on the ground that the prosecution of most of the offences was time-barred and that it had not been established that the applicant had committed the remaining offences.\n14.  In connection to these and other proceedings, the applicant was in pre-trial detention or in prison between May 1991 and August 1993, between 25 November and 7 December 1993 and between May 1994 and an unspecified date in 2002, 2003 or 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3642", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Grozny.\n8.  At the material time the applicant lived with his family in his own house at 148 Klyuchevaya Street in the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny, in the residential quarter referred to by the local residents as Ivanovo. The applicant has two sons and two daughters. The oldest son, Magomed Umarov, born in 1975, was a fourth-year student at the Grozny Oil Institute. In November 1999 the applicant and his family left Grozny because of the shelling and lived in railway carriages in a camp for internally displaced persons in Ingushetia. In February 2000 the applicant’s mother died and he and his family came back to Chechnya to bury her. They then remained in Grozny.\n9.  On 27 May 2000 at around 6 a.m., when the applicant and his family were asleep at home, a group of men in camouflage uniforms arrived in a Ural military vehicle at 148 Klyuchevaya Street. In his submissions before the Court the applicant also referred to statements of his neighbours to the effect that there had been another car in the street – a UAZ vehicle with the number 469. The men were armed with automatic firearms and some of them were masked. According to the applicant, they were federal servicemen, whilst the Government claimed that they were “unidentified persons”.\n10.  The men entered the applicant’s house, having broken down the door. According to the applicant, the first man who entered the house was tall and had a bright complexion and blue eyes. The applicant found out later that the man’s name was Yuriy. The men spoke Russian without an accent. They threatened the applicant’s wife and daughters with firearms, swore at them and beat the applicant. They also searched the house. The men then dragged the applicant out to the courtyard, kicked him and beat him with rifle butts. There were about 30 masked men in the courtyard. The applicant enclosed statements of his wife and daughter corroborating his account of the events.\n11.  Magomed Umarov slept in an extension to the house located in the same courtyard. He rushed out into the courtyard, screaming “Why are you beating him?” According to the applicant, the men seized him, beat him and threw him into the Ural truck in which they had arrived. The vehicle had no registration plates. The men then left. Magomed Umarov was not allowed to dress or to put shoes on. Later that day the men returned and collected his son’s passport and student identity card issued by the Grozny Oil Institute. The applicant has had no news of his son since then.\n12.  The applicant’s brother immediately took him to Grozny hospital no. 3 where he underwent a medical examination and was diagnosed with bruises on his face, chest and feet and the fracture of two ribs. The applicant received first aid at the hospital and was then released.\n13.  In the meantime the applicant’s neighbours noted that the Ural truck in which Magomed Umarov had been taken away bore the inscription “Maestro”. According to the applicant, the inscription indicated that the vehicle belonged to the Temporary Department of the Interior of the Staropromyslovskiy District (временный отдел внутренних дел Старопромысловского района – “the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD”). The Government claimed that the vehicle referred to by the applicant had not been listed among those belonging to the federal forces.\n14.  The applicant’s relatives and neighbours went to the Staropromyslovskiy VOVD and to the local military commander’s offic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3643", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the city of L’viv, Ukraine.\n5.  On 19 April 1999 the Shevchenkivsky District Administration of the L’viv City Council appointed the applicant as tutor of her disabled sister, P.\n6.  On 6 October 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Shevchenkivsky District Court of L’viv [Шевченківський районний суд м. Львова] against M., seeking rescission of a purchase contract of an apartment, concluded between him and P. Subsequently it was established that the apartment in question had been resold to G. and the latter, accordingly, was joined to the proceedings as a co-defendant.\n7.  On 1 November 1999 the court ordered the forensic psychiatric examination of P. It also ordered attachment of the disputed apartment.\n8.  On 21 April 2000 the expert report was submitted. According to this report, when concluding the above contract P. lacked legal capacity to act.\n9.  On 17 October 2000 the court ordered an additional forensic psychiatric examination.\n10.  On 18 December 2000 the second expert report confirmed the conclusions of the first examination.\n11.  On 5 April 2001 the court ordered a repeated forensic psychiatric examination. The applicant appealed against this ruling.\n12.  On 7 May 2001 the L’viv Regional Court upheld the ruling in question. In particular, it pointed out that ordering another expert examination was necessary in so far as the previous ones were not comprehensive.\n13.  On 9 July 2001 the third expert reached the same conclusions as the previous ones.\n14.  On 23 November 2001 the court ordered an expertise of the apartment’s value.\n15.  On 26 December 2001 the expert report was submitted. According to this report, the disputed apartment cost 17,478[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH).\n16.  On 4 January 2002 the Shevchenkivsky District Court of L’viv allowed the applicant’s claim, invalidated the contracts at issue and awarded G. compensation in the amount of the apartment’s value. The applicant appealed.\n17.  On 25 March 2002 the L’viv Regional Court of Appeal [Апеляційний суд Львівської області] (hereinafter “the Court of Appeal”) upheld the judgment of the first instance court. The applicant appealed in cassation.\n18.  On 12 November 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine, pointing out a number of the lower courts’ shortcomings, quashed the judgment of 4 January 2002 and the decision of 25 March 2002, and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first instance court.\n19.  On 26 May 2004 the Lychakivsky District Court of L’viv [Личаківський районний суд м. Львова] (hereinafter “the District Court”), to which the case was transferred, allowed the applicant’s claim in part, invalidated the contracts at issue and awarded UAH 4,000[2] to be paid to M. by the applicant, and the same amount to be paid to G. by M.\n20.  On 4 October 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It found, in particular, that such category of cases as the instant one should have been examined by a panel of judges whereas the impugned judgment had been rendered by a single judge.\n21.  On 26 September 2005 the District Court allowed the applicant’s claim, invalidated the contracts in question and awarded UAH 4,000 to be paid to M. by the applicant, and the same amount to be paid to G. by M.\n22.  On 6 October 2005 G. lodged an appeal against this judgment.\n23.  On 12 January 2006 the case-file was sent to the Court of Appeal.\n24.  On 3 April 2006 the Cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3644", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in the village of Makhkety, the Vedeno District, in the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The applicant was married to Mr Magomed Khumaidov, born in 1977. They had a daughter, Ms Seda Khumaidova, born in 2002. The couple and their daughter, as well as Magomed Khumaidov’s father, Mr Kharon Khumaidov, born in 1932, lived at 28 Klubnaya Street, the village of Makhkety.\n8.  At about 11 a.m. on 13 February 2002 a group of armed men wearing military camouflage uniforms and masks forcibly entered the Khumaidovs’ house. The applicant concluded that they were federal servicemen.\n9.  The Khumaidovs were inside the house at the time. The servicemen did not produce identity papers or any documents justifying their actions. They searched the house and apprehended the applicant’s husband and father-in-law without any explanations. Although Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov were only wearing trousers and shirts, they were not allowed to take their overcoats. The men forced them into a military UAZ vehicle that had no registration numbers and took them to a base of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) in the village of Khatuni.\n10.  A number of residents of Makhkety witnessed the detention of the first applicant’s husband and father-in-law.\n11.  On 29 July 2002 a national newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported the above events in an article ‘Streamlined production of enemies’.\n12.  According to the Prosecutor’s Office of Russia, it was established that at about 11 a.m. on 13 February 2002 unknown armed men wearing military camouflage uniforms had arrived at the Khumaidovs’ household and kidnapped Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov. The whereabouts of the missing men was unknown.\n13.  Immediately after the detention of Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov the applicant and other relatives arrived at the FSB base in Khatuni, enquired about the Khumaidovs and attempted to provide them with warm clothes. Several FSB officers who had the names or nicknames Damir, Shamil, Dima and Timur Yarulin spoke to them. They refused to take the clothes but promised that the Khumaidov men would be released soon. Later the same officers told that Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov had been sent to the federal military base in Khankala, but refused to give further explanation.\n14.  From 13 February 2002 onwards the applicant repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies, including prosecutors at various levels, federal and regional departments of interior, administrative authorities of the Chechen Republic, the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms and the Representative for Rights and Freedoms in Russia. She was supported in her efforts by Human Rights Watch (“HRW”) and the SRJI. In their letters to the authorities the applicant and the NGOs described in detail the circumstances of the detention of Magomed and Kharon Khumaidov, referred to the fact that a number of eyewitnesses had seen the Khumaidov men taken to the federal base in Khatuni, and asked for assistance and details of the investigation. In most cases their enquiries remained unanswered, or only formal responses were given, by which the respective requests were forwarded to various prosecutors’ offices for examination.\n15.  In April 2002 the applicant spent a fortnight near the FSB base in Khatuni. Her attempts to get information about her missing relatives proved unsuccessful, as the federal servicemen refused to answer her queries", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3645", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1921 and lives in Grozny, the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The applicant lives with her family in a private house at 17 Zabolotny Lane in the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny. In the winter of 1999–2000 most members of the applicant's family left Grozny because of the hostilities, which had begun in early October 1999. The applicant's youngest son, Yakub Iznaurov, who was born in 1966, remained in Grozny in order to look after the applicant who was unwell and could not travel. He had previously lived with his family in the Republic of Kalmykia, but came back to Grozny several years before the events described below to stay with his mother because of her state of health.\n8.  Yakub Iznaurov was married and had five minor children. In November 1999 Yakub Iznaurov's wife and children left for the Republic of Ingushetia with the rest of the applicant's family.\n(a)  The applicant's account of the events\n9.  According to the applicant, the federal armed forces regained control over the northern and central parts of Grozny by the end of December 1999 and January 2000, respectively. The applicant further submitted that the southern part of the city, in which her house was situated, was taken over by the federal forces by 4 February 2000. On that day Russian servicemen warned those living in the applicant's street that a “sweeping” operation (“zachistka”) would take place there the next day.\n10.  On 5 February 2000 at around 10 a.m. a group of about 50 servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at Zabolotny Lane and started checking the houses one by one. They left their military vehicles and armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) at the end of the lane and proceeded along the street. They did not introduce themselves or produce any documents in justification of their actions.\n11.  Having been notified of the “sweeping” operation, the residents of Zabolotny Lane gathered in front of the applicant's house, because there was a big cellar in the basement of the house in which they used to hide from shelling during the winter. The federal soldiers ordered the men to undress and show their shoulders, arms and knees, in order to enable the servicemen to check if there were any signs of them having used firearms. When the soldiers did not find any suspicious signs, they ordered the male residents to show their identity documents.\n12.  A soldier who was checking Yakub Iznaurov's passport noted that his permanent place of residence was in the Republic of Kalmykia. The serviceman asked the applicant's son why he had come to Grozny and whether he had come to Chechnya to fight against the Russian forces. Without listening to Yakub Iznaurov's explanations, he then called his superior, who ordered to that Yakub be taken away for “clarification of the circumstances”.\n13.  The applicant and other neighbours from the street tried to intervene and explain that Yakub had not been involved in any unlawful activities and that he had been staying with the other residents in the basement during the winter, but the servicemen kept saying that they would release him after the check. They then placed the applicant's son in a military vehicle without registration plates. There was another man, M. D., together with his five-year-old son, in the car. The vehicle moved towards the settlement of Novye Aldy, and the applicant and other residents followed it.\n14.  The vehicle having stopped near the tram rails, the soldiers ordered the men out. They then brough", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3646", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lived until his arrest in the town of Yakhroma in the Moscow Region.\n7.  On 18 August 1995 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of unlawful possession of weapons.  He was arrested on the following day. It appears that the applicant immediately obtained legal representation and also appointed Ms B. to act as his public defender. The Taldomskiy District Prosecutor’s office additionally charged the applicant with aggravated robbery and extortion.\n8.  On 13 September 1995 the Taldomskiy District Prosecutor, relying on the gravity of the charges against the applicant and his liability to reoffend, authorised his placement in custody. His detention was extended a number of times, having regard to the gravity of the charges.\n9.  On 29 December 1995 the Sergiyevo-Pasad Town Court of the Moscow Region authorised the applicant’s release on a written undertaking not to leave the town. Two months later the Dmitrov Town Prosecutor revoked the undertaking and authorised the applicant’s arrest.\n10.  The applicant was served with the bill of indictment on 30 July 1996. Two days later he was committed to stand trial in the Dmitrov Town Court of the Moscow Region. On 2 August 1996 the Volokolamsk Town Court of the Moscow Region authorised the applicant’s release under his own recognisance.\n11.  On 27 November 1997 the Dmitrov Town Court stayed the proceedings due to the applicant’s illness.  In 1997 and the beginning of 1998 on a number of occasions the applicant underwent treatment in a psychiatric hospital.\n12.  On 26 January 1998 the Dmitrov Town Court found that the applicant had not attended hearings on 19 and 26 January 1998 and had failed to provide any excuse. It remanded the applicant in custody. According to the Government, the applicant was not detained because he had notified the Town Court that he had been treated in a psychiatric hospital.\n13.  On 23 April 1998 the Dmitrov Town Court ordered that the applicant be submitted to a psychiatric examination. A psychiatric expert opinion was lodged with the Town Court on 29 May 1998. However, the experts did not give answers to certain questions and on 25 September 1998 the Town Court revoked the applicant’s undertaking not to leave the town and ordered that he be placed in custody and be transported to the Serbskiy Psychiatric Centre for an additional psychiatric evaluation. It appears that the applicant was placed in custody on 28 September 1998. The additional psychiatric evaluation was completed on 8 December 1998.\n14.  According to the Government, on an unspecified date the criminal proceedings were stayed because another criminal case had been brought against the applicant.\n15.  On 1 March 2000 the Dmitrov Town Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The judgment became final on 25 May 2000 when the Moscow Regional Court upheld it on appeal.\n16.  On 4 January 2001, acting upon an application by the President of the Moscow Regional Court and by way of a supervisory review, the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgments of 1 March and 25 May 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The Presidium did not rule on the detention issue. The applicant remained in custody.\n17.  The Dmitrov Town Court received the case file on 21 February 2001. According to the Government, on 6 March 2001 the Town Court listed the first trial hearing and ordered that the m", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3647", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Shakhty in the Rostov Region.\n7.  On 19 and 23 December 2000 the applicant was examined by two medical commissions and found to be in good health and fully fit for military service.\n8.  On the basis of the medical reports, the decision was made to call the applicant up for two years of mandatory military service in the Ministry of Internal Affairs forces.\n9.  The applicant was assigned to serve in military unit no. 5464 in Kislovodsk. In the unit he was allegedly harassed and ill-treated by senior conscripts and the unit sergeant on account of his Moldovan ethnic origin.\n10.  According to the applicant, in late January 2001 he attended a drivers’ training course. In the car park the commander told the applicant and three other conscripts to take the back axle of a ZIL lorry to another place. The applicant injured his spine and later on the same day he was also severely beaten and kicked by senior conscripts for failing to bring the axle close enough to the lorry. On the course the following morning he asked for medical assistance, but the commander refused his request. The applicant did not complain about these events to a prosecutor or any other official.\n11.  On 8 February 2001 the applicant was transferred to military unit no. 6794 in Astrakhan (later renumbered as no. 3025). According to the applicant, a medical officer noted his complaint of pains in his knees, but did not prescribe any treatment. It subsequently transpired during an inquiry that the applicant had complained about recurrent pains in his knees to his superior, Lieutenant D., who had exempted him from physical exercise (see paragraph 20 below).\n12.  In March 2001 Junior Sergeant Ch., the platoon commander, made the applicant and other servicemen do 350 knee bends outdoors as punishment for their failure to scrub the barracks spotless. Lieutenant D. was present but did not contradict the order. After several hundred knee bends, the applicant collapsed and other soldiers took him by the armpits and dragged him into the medical unit.\n13.  Between 6 and 26 March 2001 the applicant received emergency treatment in military unit no. 52218, and then in unit no. 3057 until 17 April 2001. He could not stand on his own and crawled out of bed propping himself up on the bedposts.\n14.  Between 17 April and 23 May 2001 the applicant was treated in the neurosurgery clinic of the Rostov-on-Don State Medical University. When he was discharged he was diagnosed with a “closed injury of the spine combined with an impairment of blood circulation at the level of the lower thoracic part of the spinal cord” and found unfit for work.\n15.  On 5 June 2001 the medical commission of military unit no. 3057 examined the applicant at the request of the commander of unit no. 6794 and diagnosed him with “consequences of an acute interruption to the blood flow to the spinal cord in the form of cicatrical-commissural epiduritis, arachnoiditis with a disturbance of the flow of cerebrospinal fluid and minor impairment of sensitivity in the lower extremities”. It also established that the condition had been “acquired during military service” and discharged the applicant as “partially fit for military service”.\n16.  On 28 June 2001 the applicant was discharged on account of his disability.\n17.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s mother complained to the military prosecutor of Rostov-on-Don of an abuse of power committed by Lieutenant D. and Junior Sergeant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3648", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Astrakhan.\n5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant is entitled to social benefits. As the authorities had failed to provide the benefits in full, the applicant brought four civil actions.\n6.  On 3 June 2003 the Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan awarded the applicant arrears, fixed a new amount of periodic payments, and ordered that in future this amount should be adjusted for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on 1 August 2003, and was enforced in September–October 2003.\n7.  On 3 June 2004 the district court awarded the applicant arrears. This judgment became binding on 20 August 2004, and was enforced in January–July 2005.\n8.  On 30 August 2004 the district court ordered a local authority to provide the applicant with a decent at. This judgment became binding on 28 September 2004. From November 2004 to May 2005 the enforcement proceedings were stayed pending supervisory-review proceedings requested by the local authority. In October 2005 the local authority offered the applicant a at, but he refused it considering it too small to house his family. On a bailiff’s request, on 7 February 2006 the district court specified that the at was not meant for the applicant’s family members. In July 2006 the local authority offered the applicant another at, and on 28 September 2006 he accepted it.\n9.  On 24 October 2005 the district court awarded the applicant arrears and upgraded periodic payments. This judgment became binding on 7 November 2005, and was partly enforced in December 2005. In March–April 2006 the bailiff twice returned the writ of enforcement to the applicant, because the judgment had to be executed by the social authority directly. On the applicant’s request, on 6 February 2007 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court quashed the judgment on supervisory review and ordered a rehearing.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3649", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Rab.\n5.  While working with a circular saw on 16 May 1994 the applicant sustained an injury in the workplace resulting in the loss of two fingers. The injuries were of such a degree that on 29 March 1995 the applicant had to retire and was awarded a disability pension.\n6.  On 22 September 1995 the applicant brought a civil action against the company, S., in the Rab Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rabu) seeking damages in connection with the above accident. The applicant subsequently designated company J. as the respondent because he considered it to be the legal successor of company S., which had gone bankrupt and had been erased from the companies’ register in 1996.\n7.  In a judgment of 15 May 2000 the Rab Municipal Court declared the applicant’s action inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction and referred the case to the Rijeka Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Rijeci). The applicant appealed and on 4 October 2000 the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) quashed the first-instance decision and referred the case to the Crikvenica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Crikvenici) as the competent court.\n8.  On 25 October 2002 the Crikvenica Municipal Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. The judgment was quashed upon an appeal lodged by the applicant on 29 January 2003 by the Rijeka County Court and the case was remitted to the court of first instance.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 28 March 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the above proceedings. On 13 April 2005 the Constitutional Court found a violation of his constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded him 5,200 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and ordered the Crikvenica Municipal Court to give a decision in the case in the shortest time possible but no later than twelve months following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court’s decision was published on 2 May 2005.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings, on 10 February 2006 the Crikvenica Municipal Court again gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant again appealed and on 5 July 2006 the Rijeka County Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.\n11.  On 5 September 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 21 February 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3651", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On an unspecified date in 1995, the applicant instituted civil proceedings for debt against Mr N. and a company run and owned by the latter (“the company”). He claimed that he had bought a vehicle (“the vehicle”) for 54,000 German marks (“DM”) for the benefit of the company and that, in return, he had received from Mr N. another vehicle and DM 10,000. The remaining balance was DM 24,000.\n5. On 26 September 1995 the then Bitola Municipal Court (Општински суд Битола) (“the first-instance court”) issued an injunction preventing Mr N. from selling the vehicle.\n6. On 27 November 1995 the first-instance court ruled partly in favour of the applicant and ordered Mr N. and the company (“the debtors”) jointly to pay him DM 24,000 together with interest (домицилна камата). In addition, it ordered the debtors to pay the applicant’s costs. On 28 February 1996 the then Bitola District Court (Окружен суд Битола) confirmed that decision. It also declared it final in respect of Mr N. as he had not challenged it.\n7. On 25 September 1997 the Supreme Court upheld an appeal by the applicant on points of law (ревизија) and quashed the lower courts’ decisions in respect of the company only. It held that they had not decided the applicant’s claim as submitted, in that they had ignored his request to have his claim converted into the national currency.\n8. On 29 April 2004 the first-instance court upheld the applicant’s claim and ordered the debtors (Mr N. and the company) jointly to pay the applicant 636,384.00 Macedonian denars (equivalent to DM 24,000) together with default interest (затезна камата) calculated as of 11 August 1995. On 13 September 2004 that court ordered the debtors to reimburse the trial costs incurred by the applicant. On 4 November 2004 those decisions became final.\n(b) Enforcement proceedings\n9. On 1 April 1996 the first-instance court granted the applicant’s request for enforcement of the decision of 27 November 1995. The debt was to be honoured by an inventory and public sale of Mr N.’s property or by its transfer from the company’s bank account. On 13 May 1996 that court refused the company’s objection and declared the order against Mr N. final as he had not challenged it. That decision was confirmed by the then Bitola District Court’s decision of 10 June 1996.\n10. On 17 June 1996 the first-instance court ordered the then Payment Exchange Office (Завод за платен промет) to enforce its order by transferring the amount due from the company’s account to the applicant’s. On 2 July 1996 the first-instance court ordered enforcement of the applicant’s claim by means of an inventory and public sale of the debtors’ movable property, including the vehicle. That decision was set aside by the Bitola Court of Appeal on 24 October 1996.\n11. After establishing that there were insufficient funds in the company’s account, on 26 December 1996 the first-instance court ordered continuation of the enforcement proceedings. A public sale of the vehicle was fixed for 24 March 1997. On 25 March 1997 a third party challenged that decision since it had obtained possession of the vehicle on the basis of a sales contract concluded with the company.\n12. On 14 April 1997 the first-instance court granted the applicant an enforcement title over the vehicle and ordered the third party to transfer the vehicle into the applicant’s possession. On 3 June 1997 the Bitola Court of Appeal dismissed appeals by the debtors and the third party and confirmed the above decisio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3652", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Cambridgeshire.\n6.  His wife died on 6 May 1997 leaving four children, the last born in 1987.\n7.  On 25 June 2000 the applicant applied for benefits equivalent to those to which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment and Widowed Mother’s Allowance, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). He was informed on 29 June 2000 that the Benefits Agency was unable to accept his application as a valid claim because there was at that time no legislation providing an equivalent of the widows’ benefits concerned to widowers. He was told that he had no right of appeal since his claim had not been considered by a decision maker.\n8.  On 1 October 2000 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance to the Inland Revenue for the years 1997‑1999. On 20 October 2000 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in domestic law allowing widowers to claim this benefit.\n9.  The applicant received child benefit in the sum of GBP 150.20 per month.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3653", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Ankara.\n7.  On an unspecified date, the National Intelligence Service (Milli İstihbarat Teşkilatı, hereinafter MIT) began to record the telephone conversations of S.K., a Greek attaché working at the Consulate of Greece in Izmir and allegedly a member of the Greek Intelligence Service (EIP). The authorities noticed suspicious telephone conversations between S.K. and the applicant and initiated an investigation concerning the applicant.\n8.  On 18 February 1998 a military prosecutor and MIT officers searched the applicant’s shop in Istanbul. According to the preliminary investigation report, several photographs of military bases, two maps (one of which was marked as “top secret”) and telephone and credit cards were found in the shop. V.A.Ö. was present when MIT officers carried out a search in the applicant’s shop and told them that the photos of the military bases did not belong to him but to the applicant. The latter was then taken into custody on suspicion of transmitting official and confidential information to Greek intelligence service members. He was brought before a doctor, N.A., who noted that he was in good health. During his custody period, the applicant was allegedly subjected to ill‑treatment by the MIT officers.\n9.  On 20 February 1998 the applicant was brought before the 3rd Army Corps Command Military Court. Before this court, he maintained that he had met someone who worked at the Consulate of Greece in Istanbul and that he had sold this person books and silver accessories. He received money from this person for what he had sold. The applicant further contended that this person asked him to provide military information about Turkey. The applicant denied the allegation that he had given confidential information to this person. He stated that the maps and the photographs found in his shop did not belong to him.\n10.  On the same day, the court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. He was then examined by N.A. who once again noted that there was no trace of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body. The applicant was then remanded in the Davutpaşa Military Prison. He filed an objection to the detention order.\n11.  On 23 February 1998, following his objection to the findings contained in the previous medical reports, the applicant underwent a third medical examination in prison. According to the prison doctor’s report, the applicant had ecchymoses on both arms, which were possibly three to four days old.\n12.  On 5 March 1998 the applicant filed a further objection to the detention order. On the same day the Navy Command Military Court dismissed his objection.\n13.  On 19 March 1998 the General Staff Military Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the General Staff Military Court, charging the applicant under Article 56 § 1 (D) of the Military Criminal Code and Articles 133 § 1, 31, 33 and 36 of the Criminal Code, with disloyalty to national defence by way of espionage.\n14.  The applicant maintained before the General Staff Military Court that he had been coerced by MIT officers into signing a statement while in custody. He claimed that he had sold the shop to V.A.Ö. and that the photographs and maps did not belong to him. He requested that V.A.Ö. be heard by the court. He further contended that the search in the shop was illegal and that he had not been informed of the charges against him by the officials who had conducted the search. The applicant reiterated that he had so", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3654", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Budapest. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 21 February 2003 the applicant, at the material time Vice-President of the Workers’ Party (Munkáspárt) – a registered left-wing political party – was a speaker at a lawful demonstration in the centre of Budapest. The demonstration took place at the former location of a statue of Karl Marx, which had been removed by the authorities. On his jacket, the applicant wore a five-pointed red star (hereinafter “the red star”), 5 cm in diameter, as a symbol of the international workers’ movement. In application of Article 269/B § 1 of the Criminal Code, a police patrol which was present called on the applicant to remove the star, which he did.\n7.  Subsequently, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for having worn a totalitarian symbol in public. He was questioned as a suspect on 10 March 2003.\n8.  On 11 March 2004 the Pest Central District Court convicted the applicant of the offence of using a totalitarian symbol. It refrained from imposing a sanction for a probationary period of one year.\n9.  The applicant appealed to the Budapest Regional Court (Fővárosi Bíróság).\n10.  On 24 June 2004 that court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. The reference – received at the CJEU on 28 July 2004 – concerned the interpretation of the principle of non-discrimination as a fundamental principle of Community law.\n11.  In its order for reference, the Regional Court observed that in several member States of the European Union, such as the Italian Republic, the symbol of left-wing parties is the red star or the hammer and sickle. Therefore, the question arose whether a provision in one member State of the European Union prohibiting the use of the symbols of the international labour movement on pain of criminal prosecution was discriminatory, when such a display in another member State did not give rise to any sanction.\n12.  On 6 October 2005 the CJEU declared that it had no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Regional Court. The relevant part of the reasoning reads as follows:\n“11.  By its question, the national court asks, essentially, whether the principle of non-discrimination, Article 6 EU, Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ L 180, p. 22) or Articles 10, 11 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed on 7 December 2000 in Nice (OJ C 364, p. 1), preclude a national provision, such as Article 269/B of the Hungarian Criminal Code, which imposes sanctions on the use in public of the symbol in question in the main proceedings.\n...\n13.  By contrast, the Court has no such jurisdiction with regard to national provisions outside the scope of Community law and when the subject matter of the dispute is not connected in any way with any of the situations contemplated by the treaties (see Kremzow, paragraphs 15 and 16).\n14.  It is clear that Mr Vajnai’s situation is not connected in any way with any of the situations contemplated by the provisions of the treaties and the Hungarian provisions applied in the main proceedings are outside the scope of Community law.\n15.  In those circum", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3655", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Berlin. He is currently detained in the Sztum Remand Centre.\n6.  On 16 September 2004 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) issued a European Arrest Warrant against the applicant. He was suspected of being a member of an organised criminal group, taking hostages and depriving a third person of his liberty.\n7.  On 22 October 2004 the applicant was arrested in Berlin.\n8.  On 3 December 2004 the Berlin Court of Appeal (Kammergericht) ordered that the applicant be extradited to Poland.\n9.  On 13 December 2004 the applicant crossed the German-Polish border and was transported to the Gdańsk Detention Centre.\n10.  The applicant’s detention was repeatedly extended, by several decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court and the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). In their decisions the courts relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, on their serious nature and on the risk that the applicant could obstruct the proceedings.\n11.  Appeals by the applicant against the decisions to extend his detention were unsuccessful. The Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed them on 12 July 2006 and 10 January 2007 respectively.\n12.  On 14 June 2006 the Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with six offences, including setting up and leading an organised criminal group, aiding and abetting kidnap for ransom, kidnapping two persons and depriving them of liberty in a particularly cruel manner. The bill of indictment comprised forty-four charges against twenty defendants.\n13.  At a hearing held on 21 December 2006 the proceedings were severed and they were continued in respect of the applicant and another co‑accused.\n14.  On 6 June 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 12 December 2007. It relied on the serious nature of the offences with which the applicant had been charged and stressed that their serious nature constituted sufficient grounds to assume that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings. In the court’s view, the risk of obstruction did not have to be confirmed by any particular behaviour of the applicant. The court also held that the extension of the pre-trial detention for a period exceeding two years was justified by “the particularly complicated circumstances of the case” and “the need to carry on the investigation”.\n15.  On 4 December 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention for a further three months, until 12 March 2008. The court reiterated the reasons given on the previous occasions and, relying on the fact that a European Arrest Warrant had been issued against the applicant, added that there had been a serious risk that the applicant might abscond. The court examined the course of the trial and found that the reason the proceedings had not been terminated was the high complexity of the case, and that the Regional Court had conducted the proceedings with no delays.\n16.  The applicant appealed and, on 9 January 2008, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the challenged decision, holding that the anticipated severe sentence had at that time been of secondary importance and that the main reason justifying keeping the applicant in detention was the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings and tamper with evidence.\n17.  On 5 March 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal again extended the applicant’s detention unti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3656", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Kazimierza Wielka.\n6.  The applicant works as a teacher in Kazimierza Wielka. In 1998 he was also a member of the Municipal Electoral Commission (Miejska Komisja Wyborcza w Kazimierzy Wielkiej).\n7.  In August 1998 the applicant wanted to publish an article in the local newspaper (Gazeta Kazimierska) on alleged financial irregularities in the municipality. As the newspaper had been closed down, the applicant published the article himself. On 5 October 1998 he distributed it in the form of leaflets.\n8.  In his article entitled “Information Bulletin: What the president of the City Council and the City Council Board have to hide”, he referred to six municipality officials. He stated that Z. J. and H. O. had been so busy interfering with the employment policies of the local schools that they had not had time to administer the municipal educational funds properly. As a consequence teachers and employers of the municipal educational institutions had not received allowances (for protective clothing) which under relevant legal provisions they should have received. In addition, the physical education teachers had received lower salaries without a certain 25 % allowance. In the applicant’s opinion the teachers did not claim this allowance as they had been afraid to lose their jobs. When the applicant had informed the mayors - T. B., K. S. and the president of the City Council Board W. M. - about the financial irregularities, he had been dismissed from his post. He had eventually been reinstated.\n9.  The applicant further claimed that the municipality had received subsidies from the State to provide transport for children to schools. However, the schools had been required to pay an additional contribution to the municipality. The applicant maintained that H. O. had known about this situation but had failed to take appropriate action. In addition she had not acted for the benefit of the school employees. Parties which had been organised for city council members had been wholly financed from public funds.\n10.  Lastly, the applicant stated that he was not surprised that W. M. had not replied to an inquiry from the Supreme Control Chamber (Najwyższa Izba Kontroli) as the municipal budget surplus had probably been used to pay bonuses and per diem allowances for the council members.\nHe concluded:\n“I encourage the readers to reconsider whether between 1994 and 1998 the city was governed by the right people; whether these people can be offered yet another term of office in the October elections.\nWhether during those four years they have indeed acted honestly for the common well-being of the Kazimierza Wielka community or in their own personal interests.\nCan these people be trusted again with the city council mandates?”\n11.  On an unknown later date the Social Democrat group in Kazimierza Wielka (representing W. M., H. O. and K. S.) instituted proceedings against the applicant under section 72 of the Local Election Act. The applicant had not been aware of that fact.\n12.  On 8 October 1998 the applicant’s mother was informed that the applicant was supposed to appear before the court next day at 11 a.m. She could not inform the applicant as he was in Krakow on 8 and 9 October.\n13.  On 9 October 1998 the Kielce Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) held a hearing and gave a decision. It ordered the applicant to publish in the local newspaper Słowo Ludu an apology and a statement that he had included untrue information in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3657", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Lukavac.\n6.  On 16 August 1999 the local police searched the applicant and found a hand grenade on him. The police acted on a tip-off because the applicant had a history of violent outbursts, including the killing of his first wife.\n7.  On 24 January 2000 he was charged with possessing a prohibited weapon.\n8.  On 14 November 2001 the Gračanica Municipal Court found the applicant not guilty by reason of insanity (paranoid schizophrenia) and imposed a hospital order on him under Article 63 of the Criminal Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1998 (“old Criminal Code”). The decision entered into force on 28 January 2002.\n9.  On 28 June 2002 he was placed in Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex.\n10.  On 4 July 2003 the Gračanica Municipal Court reviewed the necessity of the applicant’s continued confinement pursuant to Article 480 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 1998 (“old Code of Criminal Procedure”). It decided on the basis of reports prepared by Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex that the applicant’s condition did not allow for his discharge.\n11.  On 11 November 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Chamber concerning the lawfulness of his detention.\n12.  On 3 March 2004 the Gračanica Municipal Court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Social Work Centre in Gračanica pursuant to Article 420 of the Criminal Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 2003 (“new Criminal Code”).\n13.  On 23 November 2004 the Social Work Centre in Gračanica established that the applicant’s mental disorder no longer warranted his confinement and ordered his conditional discharge. He was released from Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex on 8 December 2004.\n14.  In the light of the applicant’s release, on 26 June 2007 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”), the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber, held that it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the applicant’s case.\n15.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in a care home in Fojnica.\n16.  On 31 March 1999 he threatened Z.B. with a knife on the premises of the Social Work Centre in Goražde.\n17.  On 16 April 1999 he was charged with threatening behaviour.\n18.  On 17 June 1999 the Goražde Municipal Court found the applicant not guilty by reason of insanity (schizophrenia) and imposed a hospital order on him under Article 63 of the old Criminal Code. The decision entered into force immediately.\n19.  On 21 June 1999 the applicant was placed in Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex.\n20.  On 26 November 2001 the Goražde Municipal Court established that the applicant’s mental disorder no longer warranted his confinement and ordered his conditional discharge. He was released on 9 January 2002.\n21.  On 17 January 2002 the Goražde Municipal Court recalled the applicant to Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex, after he had been found to be abnormally aggressive by Sarajevo Psychiatric Hospital.\n22.  On 21 January 2003 the applicant complained of the unfairness and outcome of the criminal proceedings (which had ended on 17 June 1999) to the Human Rights Chamber.\n23.  On 20 January 2004 the Goražde Municipal Court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Social Work Centre in Goražde pursuant to Article 420 of the new Criminal Code.\n24.  Relying on section 22 of the Mental Health Act of t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3658", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant party is a political party.\n11.  On 20 November 2003 the Central Electoral Commission (“the CEC”) announced the final results of the votes in the regularly scheduled parliamentary election of 2 November 2003, according to which seven parties had cleared the 7% legal threshold required by Article 105 § 6 of the Electoral Code (“the EC”, see paragraph 44 below). The opposition party, the Saakashvili‑National Movement, took third place with 18.04% of the vote (giving them 32 seats in Parliament), followed by the applicant party with 12.04% of the vote (20 seats) and the United Democrats, a coalition led by the President of the Parliament, Ms N. Burjanadze, with 8.79% of the vote (15 seats).\n12.  On account of numerous instances of ballot fraud reported by election observers, the Saakashvili‑National Movement and the United Democrats refused to accept the election results. With general support from the population, they called for President Shevardnadze’s resignation. When the newly elected parliament convened for its first session on 22 November 2003, the opposition forces broke into the parliament building, disrupted the President’s inaugural speech and ousted the members of parliament (MPs).\n13.  On 23 November 2003 Mr E. Shevardnadze resigned and Ms N. Burjanadze became the interim President of Georgia, as provided for by the Constitution. Those events were later referred to as the “Rose Revolution”.\n14.  As the parliament elected in November 2003 had been ousted by the revolutionary forces, the interim leadership recalled the previous parliament elected in 1999 (see Article 50 § 4 of the Constitution, paragraph 42 below) until such time as a new parliament was elected.\n15.  On 25 November 2003 the Supreme Court of Georgia annulled the CEC vote tally of 20 November 2003 in the part concerning the election results under the proportional system. The results in single-seat constituencies remained in force.\n16.  On 28 November 2003 the Chairman of the CEC, who had been appointed by ex-President Shevardnadze, resigned. On 30 November 2003 the interim President dismissed five members of the CEC who had been appointed by the ex-President, and Parliament elected a new Chairman of the CEC on the basis of a candidature proposed by the interim President.\n17.  In view of the partial annulment of the election results of the initial parliamentary election of 2 November 2003 by the Supreme Court on 25 November 2003, on 2 December 2003 the CEC Chairman issued Ordinance no. 167/2003 which, under Article 106 § 4 of the EC, set the date of the repeat parliamentary election (“the repeat election”) for 25 January 2004. On the same day, however, the CEC Chairman applied to the interim President of Georgia (Decree no. 50/2003), requesting that a later date be set for the election, arguing that it would hardly be possible to ensure its proper administration within such a short time frame. This application was finally granted on 9 January 2004 and the repeat election was scheduled for 28 March 2004 by the interim President.\n18.  The applicant party challenged CEC Ordinance no. 167/2003 in court, claiming that the CEC had erroneously relied on Article 106 § 4 instead of Article 105 § 17 of the EC when setting the date for the repeat election. By a judgment of 8 December 2003, the Tbilisi Regional Court dismissed the claim, reasoning that the applicant party lacked victim status. That judgment was quashed on 26 December 2003 by the Supreme Court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3659", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1926, 1923, 1924, 1930, 1935, 1912 and 1957 respectively. They live in Istanbul and Ankara.\n9.  According to information in the case file, a plot of land measuring 45,000 sq. m (45 dönüm)[1] in the village of Kefken, Kandıra, close to the forest and the Black Sea, was registered in the land register (plot no. 135) in August 1911 in the name of Tevfik Beyzade Hurşit Bey, an ascendant of the applicants.\n10.  On 9 July 1960 a plot of land measuring 102 500 sq. m, in the village of Kefken, Kandıra, close to the forest and the Black Sea, was registered in the land register (plot no. 135) by the cadastral commission[2] in the names of Tasfire Güneş, Reşat Güneş, Saffet Güneş and Turan Güneş, the heirs of Tevfik Beyzade Hurşit Bey. Following the death of Reşat Güneş in 1977, of Tasfire Güneş in 1978 and of Turan Güneş in 1982, the respective shares were transferred to their successors and registered in the land register: Nihal Ayser Turgut, Tevfik Güneş and Turgay Güneş are the heirs of Reşat Güneş; Nermin Solmaz Güneş and Ayşe Ayata are the heirs of Turan Güneş. Hurşit Güneş had inherited shares from Turan Güneş and Tasfire Güneş as the son of the former and husband of the latter.\n11.  On 3 January 1962 the Ministry of Forestry brought proceedings before the Kandıra Cadastral Court (“the court”) to have the cadastral commission’s assessment of the applicants’ title to the land[3] declared void on the ground that the land was part of the public forest estate.\n12.  On 5 January 1962 the Treasury in turn brought proceedings of the same kind[4] before the court and sought registration of the land as property belonging to the Treasury.\n13.  On 23 May 1965 the court declined jurisdiction under section 28 of the Land Registry Act (Law no. 509) and referred the matter to the Land Registry Directorate (“the Directorate”). On an unspecified date in 1966 the Directorate referred the matter back to the court.\n14.  In 1966, by judgment no. 1966/11-1967/66, the court allowed the Ministry of Forestry’s application. In the reasons for its judgment, it considered essentially that the disputed land was part of the public forest estate and that therefore, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Turkish Constitution, it could not be privately owned.\n15.  By a judgment of 18 June 1968 the Court of Cassation partly upheld the first-instance court’s judgment in respect of Turan Güneş and Reşat Güneş and remitted the remainder of the case to the same court.\n16.  At a hearing before the court, Turan Güneş stated that he had, in the meantime, filed an application with the Administrative Court for the delimitation of the land at issue to be set aside and accordingly asked the court to stay proceedings in the pending case until the Administrative Court had delivered a decision on the matter.\nThe Administrative Court subsequently dismissed the application to have the matter set aside. On 29 December 1969 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the administrative court and on 12 January 1974 dismissed an application for rectification lodged by Turan Güneş. The judgment became final.\n17.  By a judgment of 29 June 1972, considering that the land at issue was part of the public forest estate, the court decided that it could not be privately owned and declared the title deed void.\n18.  On 4 July 1974 the Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance judgment, holding as follows:\n“Following the amendment of section 1 of Law no", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3660", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Warsaw.\n5.  On 18 December 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed assault causing death and dealing in stolen goods.\n6.  On 19 December 2003 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. It relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and on the risk that he might induce witnesses to give false testimony. Further, the court referred to the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on the applicant.\n7.  In the course of investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended by the Ostrołęka Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 4 March 2004, 11 May 2004 and 10 December 2004. In its decisions, the court relied on the likelihood that the applicant had committed the offence while acting with numerous co-suspects in the ambit of the activities of an organised criminal group. Further, it referred to the need to obtain evidence, in particular: to take evidence from numerous witnesses and suspects and to confront a key witness with the injured persons.\n8.  On 29 September 2004 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to one year and four months’ imprisonment by the Wyszków District Court for failure to pay maintenance and threatening behaviour, charges which has been examined in separate sets of proceedings. The court offset the sentence against the period of pre-trial detention.\n9.  On 23 June 2005 the applicant and twenty three suspects were indicted before the Ostrołęka Regional Court. The bill of indictment against the applicant comprised charges of assault causing death and dealing in stolen goods, committed in the ambit of the activities of an organised criminal group. However, the applicant was not charged with being a member of such a group.\n10.  The applicant’s detention was extended by the Ostrołęka Regional Court on 9 May 2005, 8 December 2005, 9 June 2006, 11 September 2006, 11 June 2007 and on 17 October 2007. The court repeated the grounds given in previous decisions. The court also stated that the reasons for the applicant’s detention were still valid and relied on the likelihood that a severe prison sentence would be imposed on him.\n11.  The applicant appealed against decisions extending his detention. The appeals were dismissed on 1 July 2005, 20 January 2006, 11 July 2006 and 20 October 2006.\n12.  On 1 February 2006 the court ordered that the cases of 8 of the accused be dealt with in separate proceedings.\n13.  On 16 March 2006 and 23 March 2006 the cases of two of the co‑accused were earmarked for separate proceedings.\n14.  In the meantime, on 9 September 2005, on 27 March 2006 and on 19 March 2007 the applicant lodged unsuccessful applications for release. The court stated that the reasons for his detention were still valid.\n15.  Between 13 March 2006 and 4 June 2007 seventy-one hearings took place.\n16.  On 11 June 2007 the Ostrołęka Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n17.  The case is pending before the Warsaw Appellate Court (Sąd Apelacyjny).\n18.  The applicant failed to lodge a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time with the domestic court, under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3661", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Kraków, Poland.\n6.  On 15 January 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of homicide.\n7.  On 16 January 1997 the applicant was brought before the Kraków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The court remanded him in custody on charges of assault occasioning death. The court held that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. In addition, the detention was necessary to ensure the proper course of the proceedings. The court also referred to the likelihood that a severe sentence could be imposed on the applicant.\n8.  During the investigation the applicant’s detention was extended twice. The last of the relevant decisions was given on 9 July 1997 by the Kraków Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) and extended the applicant’s detention until 31 August 1997. The courts considered that the grounds originally given for his detention were still valid.\n9.  Between January and August 1997 the applicant made several applications for release. In particular, he asked to be released on bail. All those applications were dismissed, both at first instance and on appeal. The applicant stressed that in view of the witness testimonies his detention lacked any reasonable basis. In addition, his son had just started school and it was necessary for him to have regular contact with his father.\n10.  Neither the applicant nor his lawyer participated in any of the sessions in connection with his applications for release.\n11.  On 28 August 1997 the Krakow Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). The applicant was indicted on charges of participation in a fight resulting in homicide and using false documents. The bill of indictment included four other persons. The prosecutor stated that evidence from sixty-one witnesses needed to be obtained.\n12.  At a session held on 18 November 1997 the Kraków Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 April 1998. The court relied on the gravity of the charges against the applicant. It further stressed that the charges concerned five persons. In addition, extradition proceedings were pending against one of the accused. The court still needed to obtain evidence from sixty-one witnesses including three anonymous witnesses. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was present at this session. An appeal by the applicant against this decision was dismissed on 18 December 1997 by the Kraków Court of Appeal. The court referred to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. In addition, the applicant’s arguments that he needed to take care of his family had been groundless since before his arrest he had not lived with them.\n13.  The trial began on 23 March 1998. Between 23 March 1998 and 13 July 1998 the Krakow Regional Court held thirteen hearings.\n14.  At hearings held on 14 April 1998 and 25 June 1998 the Kraków Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 June and 13 July 1998 respectively.\n15.  On 13 July 1998 the Kraków Regional Court gave judgment and sentenced the applicant to seven years’ imprisonment. It also extended the applicant’s detention until 31 December 1998. It pointed out that in view of the behaviour of the applicant and the other co-accused it had been necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n16.  On 1 October 1998 the applicant appealed agai", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3662", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Leeds.\n6.  His wife died on 19 March 1997. The couple had two children, born in 1981 and 1984 respectively.\n7.  In May 2000 the applicant enquired about widow’s benefits. On 17 May 2000 the Benefits Agency informed him that there was at that time no legislation providing an equivalent of the widows’ benefits concerned to widowers. He was told that he had no right of appeal since his claim had not been considered by a decision-maker.\n8.  On 19 May 2000 the applicant asked for the matter to be considered by a decision-maker.\n9.  On 20 May 2000 the applicant applied for benefits equivalent to those to which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment, a Widowed Mother’s Allowance and thereafter a Widow’s Pension, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). On 26 May 2000 the benefits agency refused the applicant’s claim because he was not a woman, but informed him that he was entitled to appeal.\n10.  On 11 June 2000 the applicant appealed. On 15 June 2000 the decision maker reconsidered the decision and upheld the previous decision. The applicant appealed this decision. On 27 September 2000 the Social Security Appeals Service dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n11.  On 6 October 2000 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance (“WBA”) to the Inland Revenue for the years 1996-1998. On 25 October 2000 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in domestic law allowing widowers to claim this benefit.\n12.  The applicant received child benefit in the sum of GBP 70.20 per month.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3663", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Ankara.\n8.  In the parliamentary elections of 3 November 2002, as a member of the People's Republican Party (CHP), he was elected MP for the Konya constituency to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (“the National Assembly”).\n9.  Prior to his election he practised as a lawyer in Konya and, in the course of his professional activities, two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against him, one for insulting a lawyer and the other for insulting a public official.\n10.  As an MP he enjoyed parliamentary immunity.\n11.  On 23 December 2002 the Karapınar public prosecutor applied to the General Directorate of the Ministry of Justice to have the applicant's parliamentary immunity lifted for the purposes of the criminal proceedings against him for insulting a lawyer.\n12.  On 17 January 2003 the General Directorate of the Ministry of Justice transmitted the request to the Prime Minister's Office.\n13.  On 11 April 2003 the Konya Assize Court (“the Assize Court”) adopted a decision suspending the criminal proceedings against the applicant for insulting a public official, by virtue of Article 83 of the Constitution (on parliamentary immunity) and Article 253 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n14.  On 4 December 2003 the Assize Court transmitted the case file to the Ministry of Justice with a view to having the applicant's parliamentary immunity lifted.\n15.  On 23 December 2003 the Department of Criminal Affairs of the Ministry of Justice referred the question to the Prime Minister.\n16.  The Prime Minister's Office transmitted the case file to the National Assembly's joint committee (“the joint committee”).\n17.  On 28 May 2004, after noting that the applicant had requested the lifting of his immunity, the joint committee decided, in view of the nature of the charges, to stay the proceedings against him for insulting a public official until the end of his term of parliamentary office. It transmitted its decision to the plenary Assembly of the National Assembly (“the plenary Assembly”).\n18.  When the plenary Assembly met on 8 December 2004 the joint committee's report was read and appended to the minutes of the meeting.\n19.  On 15 December 2004 the applicant challenged the joint committee's decision. In his pleadings he made the point that parliamentary immunity had not been introduced to render Members of Parliament unaccountable or immune from punishment, but to allow them to discharge their duties wholly independently and dispassionately. Unlike non-liability, he argued, immunity was by nature a relative and temporary privilege. However, the scope of the immunity, the procedure for lifting it and the shortcomings in its implementation had undermined due respect for the National Assembly. The applicant added that it was unacceptable, in a society governed by the rule of law, that an institution originally meant to help MPs to discharge their duties should be transformed into a personal privilege.\n20.  On an unspecified date examination of the matter of the lifting of the applicant's parliamentary immunity in the proceedings concerning the insulting of a lawyer was referred to the joint committee under Rules 131 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly. The National Assembly decided to stay the proceedings until the dissolution of the 22nd Parliament.\n21.  On 31 January 2005 the applicant challenged that decision.\n22.  His file was then sent before the plenary Assembly.\n23.  O", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3665", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Essex.\n5.  His wife died on 27 February 2000 having no children.\n6.  On around 4 April 2000 the applicant applied for benefits equivalent to those to which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment and a Widow’s Pension, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). He was informed on 25 April 2000 that the Benefits Agency was unable to accept his application as a valid claim because there was at that time no legislation providing an equivalent of the widows’ benefits concerned to widowers. He was told that he had no right of appeal since his claim had not been considered by a decision-maker.\n7.  In or around September 2000 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance (“WBA”) to the Inland Revenue for the years 2000-2001. On 5 October 2000 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in domestic law allowing widowers to claim this benefit.\n8.  On 24 November 2000 the applicant re-applied for WBA and on 28 November 2000 the Inland Revenue replied confirming its decision and asking the applicant if he wished to appeal.\n9.  On 30 November 2000 the applicant made a further claim for WBA which was rejected on 25 December 2000.\n10.  On 3 January 2001 the applicant wrote to the Inland Revenue asking for his appeal claim to be left open pending a domestic decision on the matter.\n11.  The applicant received incapacity benefit in the sum of GBP 240.80 per month.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3666", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Rustavi.\n6.  On 6 December 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police and charged with the offence of the unlawful possession of drugs.\n7.  On 8 December 2003 the Vake-Saburtalo District Court in Tbilisi remanded the applicant in custody for three months. The court endorsed the prosecutor’s argument that, in view of the applicant’s prior conviction for which he had been on probation, there was a reasonable suspicion that he might abscond pending the new set of proceedings.\n8.  On 19 February 2004 the prosecution brought against the applicant and two other persons additional charges of conspiracy to commit the unlawful possession of arms, robbery and murder.\n9.  On 4 March 2004 the Tbilisi Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 5 May 2004.\n10.  On 29 April 2004 the investigator in charge of the case, notifying the applicant and two other accused persons that the investigation had been terminated, invited them to study the case materials. The applicant contested the termination of the investigation, requesting that additional witnesses be examined. In a decision of 29 April 2004, the investigator, reasoning that the applicant could have made such a request earlier, dismissed it as an attempt to prolong the proceedings.\n11.  On 5 May 2004 the authorised period of the applicant’s detention expired without the court ordering its extension.\n12.  On 13 May 2004 the applicant complained to the competent prosecution authority that his detention had been unlawful since 5 May 2004. He also challenged the termination of the investigation as premature.\n13.  In a decision of 16 May 2004, the Vake-Saburtalo district prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint of 13 May 2004 as unsubstantiated. As regards the alleged unlawfulness of detention since 5 May 2004, the prosecutor reasoned that the time during which the accused studied case materials did not, under the relevant procedural law, count towards the detention term. In so far as the applicant and his representatives had started studying the case materials on 30 April 2004, this fact being proved by the relevant records of the investigator, the applicant’s detention thereafter could not be said to be unlawful.\n14.  On 8 July 2004 the Vake-Saburtalo district prosecutor sent the criminal case, along with the bill of indictment, to the Supreme Court of Georgia for trial. According to the indictment, the three accused persons and their lawyers had been examining the case materials between 30 April and 7 July 2004.\n15.  On 26 October 2004 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court, reiterating, inter alia, that no judicial decision had authorised his detention since 5 May 2004. As to the prosecutor’s reasoning that the time spent on studying the case materials had not counted towards the detention term, the applicant, relying on numerous factual details, first submitted that his lawyer had fully examined the file on 30 April and 1 May 2004, in two and a half hours. He further argued that, even if the investigator’s formal records were to be trusted, then the examination of the file should be considered to have ended on 28 June 2004. Since his case had been referred for trial only on 8 July 2004, the applicant claimed to have been kept in unlawful detention for at least ten days. In the light of the above arguments, he requested to be released immediately.\n16.  On 27 October 2004 the Supreme Court, having examined the admissibility", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3667", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Baku. The applicant’s surname was “Hajiyev” before he formally changed it to “Hajibeyli” on 29 April 2005.\n6.  The applicant was a politician and a member of the opposition. On 29 April 2000 the Democratic Congress of Azerbaijan, a political block uniting a number of opposition political parties, held a demonstration in Fuzuli Square in Baku. Earlier, the Baku City Executive Authority (“BCEA”) had refused to grant authorisation to hold the demonstration in Fuzuli Square, suggesting instead that the demonstration be held in another location further from the city centre. However, contrary to the BCEA’s decision, the organisers of the demonstration refused to change their plans and decided to gather their followers in Fuzuli Square.\n7.  Soon after the start of the demonstration, police units began arriving in the square with the aim of dispersing the crowd. It appears that the police and the crowd engaged in a series of violent clashes. According to the applicant, the police used excessive force. The applicant himself was beaten by the police in the square and taken to a police station.\n8.  On 30 April 2000 the applicant was charged with the administrative offence of obstructing the police and, on the same day, the Nasimi District Court sentenced him to ten days’ “administrative detention” in accordance with Article 174 of the Code of Administrative Offences.\n9.  At around the same time, the Nasimi and Yasamal District Prosecutor’s Offices instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the demonstrators’ obstruction of the police. On 2 May 2000 the case was transferred to the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office.\n10.  On 4 May 2000 the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant, together with ten other persons, with obstructing state officials by the actual or threatened use of force, an offence under Article 189-1 § 2 of the former Criminal Code, which was in force before 1 September 2000.\n11.  On the same date the investigator issued an order for the applicant’s detention on remand in connection with this criminal charge. Under the former Code of Criminal Procedure such a decision could be taken by an investigator, not a court.\n12.  On 23 May 2000 the applicant’s detention on remand was substituted by a preventive measure prohibiting him from leaving his place of residence. He was therefore released from detention.\n13.  Between April and June 2000 the investigators interrogated a number of witnesses in connection with the case. It appears that no major investigative acts were carried out subsequently.\n14.  On 25 January 2001 the Baku City Prosecutor’s Office decided to suspend the investigation in the applicant’s case because one of the co‑accused, S.H., had absconded and he could not be located or his testimony obtained. Moreover, it was noted that at that stage of the investigation a number of other “accomplices to the offence” had not been identified. The prosecutor found that, in the absence of S.H. and other unidentifed accomplices, it was not possible to conclude the investigation and give a legal assessment of the acts of the co-accused, including the applicant. Therefore, the prosecutor decided to suspend the investigation until such time as S.H. and other accomplices were found and brought before the investigating authorities.\n15.  According to the applicant, he was not informed about the decision to suspend the proceedings and he only found out at a later, unspecified, date.\n16. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3668", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Mineralniye Vody in the Stavropol Region.\n8.  On 12 May 2000 the applicant was arrested and charged with passing counterfeit money. His detention was extended a number of times.\n9.  The applicant was committed to stand trial before the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow. According to the applicant, he was brought from the detention facility a number of times to the Gagarinskiy District Court to take part in trial hearings. On the day of a court session he was allegedly woken up at 5 or 6 a.m. and taken to a small room on the ground floor of the detention facility where he remained for several hours. The room was cold in winter. It was dirty and poorly lit. At about 11 a.m. the transportation of inmates to the courthouse began. Inmates were placed in an overcrowded van and transported in inhuman conditions for many hours; the van called in on the way at several courthouses until the inmates reached their destination. Throughout the entire day inmates, including the applicant, received no food.\n10.  On 5 April 2002 the Gagarinskiy District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.\n11.  The applicant appealed, alleging that the trial court had incorrectly assessed the facts and applied the law, that it had not thoroughly examined the case, and that his case should have been tried in another court having territorial jurisdiction.\n12.  On 28 August 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment, endorsing the reasons given by the District Court.\n13.  From 22 May 2000 to 6 September 2002 the applicant was detained in facilities nos. IZ-77/2 (commonly known as “Butyrka”) and IZ-77/3 (also known as “Krasnaya Presnya”) in Moscow.\n14.  According to certificates issued on 12 January 2006 by the director of the facility and produced by the Government, the applicant was kept in four different cells. From 22 May to 8 June 2000 and from 27 July 2000 to 17 April 2001 he stayed in cell no. 144 which measured 56.4 square metres and housed on average 48 inmates. From 8 June to 27 July 2000 he was kept in cell no. 129 which measured 13.8 square metres and accommodated six detainees. From 17 April 2001 to 7 April 2002 the applicant remained in cell no. 94 measuring 58.7 square metres. The average occupancy rate in that cell was 48 detainees. After 7 April 2002 he was kept in cell no. 137 with 51 inmates. Cell no. 137 measured 55.9 square metres. The Government supported their assertions with copies of extracts from registration logs showing the number of detainees on 23 May, 9 June and 28 July 2000 and 17 April 2001 and 11 April 2002.\nThe Government, relying on the certificates of 12 January 2006, further submitted that the applicant had had an individual bunk and bedding at all times.\n15.  The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements. However, he alleged that the bigger cells had had thirty-two sleeping places. Furthermore, the cell population changed two or three times a week. There were usually from 60 to 80 inmates in the bigger cells. Given the lack of beds, inmates had slept in shifts. No bedding or blankets were provided.\n(b)  Sanitary conditions, installations, food and medical assistance\n16.  The Government, relying on the information provided by the director of the facility, submitted that the cells received natural light and ventilation through large windows, which were glazed and measured 2.5 metres in width and 1.15 metres in he", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3669", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kastav.\n5.  On 1 July 1997 a certain N.K. brought a civil action against the applicant in the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci) seeking the division of jointly owned property. The court held six hearings, heard evidence from two witnesses and on 2 December 1999 dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against the applicant. A subsequent appeal by the plaintiff\nwas forwarded to the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) on 13 March 2000.\n6.  In the appellate proceedings the applicant lodged a request for the case to be transferred to another court, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 4 June 2003; a request for the President of the Rijeka County Court to stand down, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 13 October 2003 and a request for the presiding judge to stand down, which was dismissed by the President of the Rijeka County Court on 9 January 2004. The Government submitted that all three requests were unsubstantiated.\n7.  On 28 January 2004 the Rijeka County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for fresh examinations. In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court held hearings on 27 May and 6 July 2004 and scheduled an on-site inspection which was not carried out owing to the plaintiff’s refusal to admit the assigned expert onto his property.\n8.  According to the Government, from 2004 to 2006 the applicant failed to collect mail sent to him by the Municipal Court. This caused the adjournment of hearings scheduled for 9 May, 6 September and 24 October 2006.\n9.  The Government further submitted that in the period between 2004 and 2006 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on charges of numerous counts of fraud, threatening behaviour and usury. About fifteen hearings had been adjourned since the applicant had failed to collect the court summons.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 17 July 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the proceedings. On 17 November 2005 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed his complaint as ill-founded, finding that the proceedings were relatively complex and that the applicant had contributed to the delays by failing to appear at three hearings in 1998.\n11.  The case is at present pending before the Municipal Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3670", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Baku.\n7.  She owned a three-room apartment in Baku. In 1991, after getting married, the applicant’s son and his wife (G.R.) moved into the applicant’s apartment. After some time, the applicant’s relations with G.R. started to deteriorate. For this reason, the family decided to divide the apartment, with two rooms taken by the applicant and the remaining one room by her son and G.R.\n8.  In 1995 they decided to sell the apartment, divide the proceeds and live separately thereafter. After the sale of the apartment, the applicant used her part of the proceeds to purchase herself a new, smaller apartment, where she began to live alone. Her son and G.R. used their part of the proceeds to pay off their debts and resided temporarily in various places.\n9.  According to the applicant, in 1996 her son asked her to temporarily register him and his family in her new apartment as co-residents. He explained that without proper residence documents he was unable to get a job. The applicant allowed her son and G.R. to register temporarily, for a term of one year, as co-residents in her apartment. However, according to the applicant, pursuant to their agreement, her son and G.R. never moved in and never lived in the apartment. Later, the applicant successfully applied for their removal from the relevant registration records.\n10.  In 2001 the applicant’s son and G.R. divorced. They had two children who appear to have stayed in G.R.’s custody.\n11.  In 2000 G.R. filed a lawsuit, claiming the right to reside in the applicant’s apartment with her children and requesting the court to order their re-registration in the apartment as the applicant’s co-residents. On 24 July 2000 the Narimanov District Court upheld G.R.’s claim and recognised her and her children’s residence rights to the apartment.\n12.  Upon an appeal by the applicant, on 29 August 2000 the Baku City Court (the court of cassation under the old civil procedure laws effective at that time) quashed the district court’s judgment, finding that it had not assessed all the relevant facts of the case. The case was remitted for re-trial at the first instance.\n13.  After re-trial, on 8 December 2000 the Narimanov District Court ruled in the applicant’s favour and dismissed G.R.’s claims. It found that G.R. had failed to produce sufficient evidence supporting her claims to the apartment.\n14.  On 27 March 2001 the Court of Appeal, in the absence of the applicant, set aside the district court’s second judgment and ruled in G.R.’s favour. Contrary to the applicant’s arguments, it determined that G.R. had permanent registration in the disputed apartment and, therefore, had residence rights.\n15.  Upon the applicant’s appeal in cassation, on 4 July 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal’s judgment. It found that the Court of Appeal had breached the procedural rules by hearing the case in the applicant’s absence. Furthermore, it found that the Court of Appeal had failed to consider certain crucial facts, including the fact that G.R. had allegedly never resided in the disputed apartment. The case was remitted back to the Court of Appeal for re-examination.\n16.  On 11 October 2001 the Court of Appeal found that G.R.’s registration in the disputed apartment had been temporary, that she had never lived there and never engaged in joint household activities with the applicant. Thus, relying on the relevant provisions of the Housing Code, the court held that G.R.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3671", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, who is living in Vienna, is a practising lawyer by profession.\n5.  The applicant represented a commercial manager in administrative criminal proceedings before the Eisenstadt Municipal Office for alleged violations of the Frozen Food Labelling Decree (Tiefkühlkostkennzeichnungsverordnung – “the FFLD”). Referring to charges brought by the Vienna Food Inspection Agency (Lebensmitteluntersuchungsanstalt) concerning two samples of turkey meat, the applicant on 13 March 1996 filed observations, stating that:\n“Since the samples taken are not labelled as frozen food (contrary to the attempt to play tricks on my client (Schummelversuch) in the expert opinion underlying the criminal charge), they are not covered by Section 1 § 1 (1) of the FFLD.”\n6.  On 11 June 1996 the Vienna Municipal Office requested the Vienna Bar Association to institute proceedings against the applicant, claiming that his serious and unfounded allegations had tarnished the Vienna Food Inspection Agency’s reputation and were incompatible with a lawyer’s professional duties.\n7.  Subsequently, on 26 June 1996, the Vienna Bar Association opened disciplinary proceedings against the applicant.\n8.  On 3 July 1997 he filed observations, submitting that the Vienna Food Inspection Agency had repeatedly applied an extensive interpretation of the provisions in issue. By suggesting that the authority had attempted to play tricks on his client, he had merely sought to express his doubts as to the authority’s legal opinion “with a nod and a wink”, even though there may have been sufficient grounds for instituting proceedings for abuse of authority.\n9.  By decision of 24 March 1999 the Disciplinary Council (Disziplinarrat) of the Vienna Bar Association discontinued the proceedings. It found that, while the applicant’s allegations may have infringed the profession’s honour and reputation, his statements disclosed only a minor degree of culpability, as they had apparently been made in the context of a heated exchange between him and the authority concerned.\n10.  On 7 September 1999 the Bar Association prosecutor (Kammeranwalt) appealed. He asserted that the expression “attempt to play tricks on my client”, used by the applicant, insinuated that the authority had been acting fraudulently.\n11.  Subsequently, on 16 September 1999, the applicant filed observations in which he repeated his defence, namely that his remarks were not meant to be taken literally. He had resorted to innuendo, alluding to an allegedly unlawful practice on the part of the Vienna Food Inspection Agency. He alleged in particular that the latter used its position to pursue its aims in the field of food inspection policy.\n12.  On 14 February 2000 the Appeals Board (Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission) granted the prosecutor’s appeal. It quashed the decision of 24 March 1999 and remitted the case to the Disciplinary Council.\n13.  Having held an oral hearing, at which the applicant was present, the Disciplinary Council on 6 September 2000 convicted the applicant under Section 9 of the Lawyers Act (Rechtsanwaltsordnung) and, relying on Section 16 of the Disciplinary Act (Disziplinarstatut), issued a written reprimand. Moreover, it ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings.\n14.  The Disciplinary Council held that the applicant had used a defamatory and disparaging expression. Pursuant to Section 9 of the Lawyers Act a lawyer, when defending the interests of his client, was entitled t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3672", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Yerevan. She works as a cook.\n5.  In February-March 2003 a presidential election took place in Armenia. Following the election, the applicant participated in a series of rallies of protest organised in Yerevan by the opposition parties.\n6.  On 7 April 2003 at 5 p.m. a demonstration was held in the centre of Yerevan on the occasion of Mother’s Day. The demonstration took place on the Mashtots Avenue next to the Research Institute of Ancient Manuscripts (Մատենադարան). It appears that the demonstration was of a political nature and criticism of the Government and of the conduct of the presidential election was voiced.\n7.  The applicant alleged, and the Government did not dispute, that traffic was suspended by the traffic police on the relevant stretch of the Avenue prior to the commencement of the demonstration in order to facilitate its conduct. The applicant took part in the demonstration and the following march.\n8.  According to the applicant, at around 6 p.m. she went to work. After work at around 9 p.m. the applicant went home. On her way home, she was approached by three men in civilian clothes who, without presenting themselves, started dragging her to a nearby car. The applicant screamed and tried to resist. The men twisted her arms, punched her and pushed her into the car. The applicant was taken to the Central District Police Station of Yerevan (ՀՀ ոստիկանության Երևան քաղաքի կենտրոնական բաժին), where she found out that she had been arrested for having participated in the demonstration.\n9.  At the Police Station, the arresting police officers drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest (արձանագրություն բերման ենթարկելու մասին) in which it was stated that the applicant had been “arrested at 7.30 p.m. at 12 Khorhurdneri Street for violating public order”. The applicant alleged that the time of her apprehension was not correctly recorded. In reality she was arrested at 9 p.m.\n10.  One of the arresting police officers reported to the Head of the Police Station (ՀՀ ոստիկանության Երևան քաղաքի կենտրոնական բաժնի պետ) that:\n“... [the applicant] was brought to the Central Police Station for having participated on 7 April 2003 in an unauthorised march headed from the [Research Institute] to the Constitutional Court and violated public order...”\n11.  The applicant was subjected to a search during which no illegal items were found. A relevant record was drawn up.\n12.  The police officers questioned the applicant. She made a written statement (արձանագրություն բացատրություն վերցնելու մասին) in which she gave details of her participation in the demonstration and the following march. She stated, inter alia, that the street traffic was obstructed when the march headed towards the building of the Constitutional Court. She was in the front line holding the Armenian flag and screaming “justice”. The applicant alleged that this statement was made under pressure and was dictated to her by the police officers. While most of this statement was true, its part concerning the obstruction of traffic did not correspond to the reality since the traffic had been beforehand suspended by the traffic police.\n13.  The police officers drew up a record of an administrative offence (վարչական իրավախախտման արձանագրություն) in which it was stated that the applicant had “participated in a march and violated public order”. The applicant’s actions were qualified under Article 172 of the Code of Administrative Offences (Վարչական ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3673", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Szczecin.\n5.  On 29 March 1989 M.B. instituted civil proceedings for the dissolution of a co-ownership before the Pruszków District Court.\n6.  On 21 March 1991 the case was transmitted to the Warsaw District Court.\n7.  On 12 August 1991 the parties to the proceedings (the applicant, A.A., M.A., W.A., J.N., ZB.A., ZD.A.) lodged with the court their proposal for the dissolution of the co-ownership.\n8.  On 15 April 1993 the court stayed the proceedings as M.B. had died. On 7 April 1995 M.B.’s representative requested the court to resume the proceedings since M.B.’s heirs had been determined by the Pruszków District Court’s decision of 30 March 1995.\n9.  On 30 November 1995 the court summoned A.C. and A.C.R. (“the plaintiffs”) to participate in the proceedings.\n10.  Several subsequent hearings, namely of 30 November 1995, 20 February, 10 April and 4 June 1996 were adjourned as some of the parties had not been properly summoned.\n11.  On 12 September 1996 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from an expert as to the technical condition of the real property and possibilities of dividing it, and from some other parties, including the applicant.\n12.  On 30 December 1996 the court decided to obtain another expert opinion.\n13.  On 17 April 1998 the expert, W.K., submitted an evaluation report on the real property in question.\n14.  Two subsequent hearings, scheduled for 23 September and 25 November 1998, were adjourned as some of the parties had not been properly summoned.\n15.  On 3 February 1999 a hearing was held. The applicant stated that the plaintiffs had erroneously declared their shares in the co-ownership and he evoked in this context the real property sale contract concluded in 1972 between M.B. and A.C. (sellers) and the members of the applicant’s family (buyers). The court adjourned the hearing and obliged the parties to substantiate the above statement within twenty-one days.\n16.  On 11 June 1999 the court adjourned a hearing as the applicant and some other parties failed to appear, although they had been properly summoned.\n17.  On 24 September 1999 the court adjourned a hearing as some of the parties had not been properly summoned and the applicant submitted a medical certificate justifying his absence.\n18.  On 17 November 1999 the court held a hearing and heard evidence from some of the parties to the proceedings.\n19.  On 26 November 1999 the court issued a preliminary decision (postanowienie wstępne) wherein it determined the co-owners and their shares in the real property.\n20.  On 7 February 2000 the applicant appealed against the above decision.\n21.  On an unspecified date the court requested the applicant to rectify the formal lacunae in his appeal. On 22 March 2000 the applicant complied with the court’s order.\n22.  On 12 September 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing and quashed the impugned decision.\n23.  On 25 April 2001 the court adjourned a hearing as some of the parties had not been properly summoned.\n24.  Between 13 June 2001 and 26 September 2002 no actions were taken by the court apart from dealing with A.A.’s request for legal aid.\n25.  On 26 September and 25 November 2002 hearings were held and the court heard evidence from the plaintiffs and the applicant.\n26.  On 3 June 2003 the court adjourned a hearing as one of the plaintiffs failed to appear although he had been properly summoned.\n27.  The applicant requested an inspection of the real property.\n28.  ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3674", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960.\n6.  Between 1989 and 1994 the applicant worked on fixed-term contracts as a nurse in the polyclinic for eye diseases in a public hospital. From 1987 she paid regular visits to the polyclinic for infectious diseases of the same hospital, having been diagnosed as HIV-positive.\n7.  Early in 1992 the applicant began to suspect that her colleagues were aware of her illness. At that time hospital staff had free access to the patient register which contained information on patients’ diagnoses and treating doctors. Having confided her suspicions to her doctor in summer 1992, the hospital’s register was amended so that henceforth only the treating clinic’s personnel had access to its patients’ records. The applicant was registered in the patient register under a false name. Apparently later her identity was changed once again and she was given a new social security number.\n8.  In 1995 the applicant changed her job as her temporary contract was not renewed.\n9.  On 25 November 1996, the applicant complained to the County Administrative Board (lääninhallitus, länsstyrelsen), requesting it to examine who had accessed her confidential patient record. Upon request, the director in charge of the hospital’s archives filed a statement with the County Administrative Board, according to which it was not possible to find out who, if anyone, had accessed the applicant’s patient record as the data system revealed only the five most recent consultations (by working unit and not by person) and even this information was deleted once the file was returned to the archives.\n10.  In its decision of 20 October 1997 the County Administrative Board held that:\n“Section 12 of the Patient’s Status and Rights Act (laki potilaan asemasta ja oikeuksista, lag om patientens ställning och rättigheter) provides that the health authorities and staff have to comply with the regulations issued by the Ministry for Social Affairs and Health (sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö, social- och hälsovårdsministeriet, “the Ministry”) when preparing and processing patient records. Pursuant to this section the Ministry has issued, on 25 February 1993, Regulation no. 16/02/93.\nIn the said Regulation it is noted that patients records must be prepared having due regard to the secrecy regulations and the protection obligation and the duty to take care pursuant to the Personal Files Act (henkilörekisterilaki, personregisterlagen; Act no. 471/1987). According to the duty to take care, precaution and good registering practices must be observed when gathering, depositing, using and delivering data and these must be done in a manner so as not to infringe unnecessarily the right to privacy of the registered person or his or her benefits and rights. The protection obligation means that data in patient records must be duly protected against unauthorised processing, use, destruction, amendment and theft (sections 3 and 26 of the Personal Files Act).\nIn the said Regulation it is also noted that the patient records must form an entity to ensure that outsiders cannot gain unauthorised access to them and that, in addition to the said obligations, in accordance with the Personal Files Act, the purpose of use of the said data can be taken into account. This way it can be made sure that requisite patient data are only given to the personnel participating in the treatment of the patient.\n[The applicant] has in her representations alleged that [X], who is working for [the hospital] ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3675", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Veszprém-Kádárta.\n5.  In the context of an inquiry, the Bács-Kiskun County Directorate of the Hungarian Tax Authority established that the applicant had failed to pay 2,339,604 Hungarian Forints (approximately 9,167 euros). It ordered him to pay the outstanding tax plus a fine of HUF 1,119,000 (approximately 4,384 euros) and HUF 1,948,000 (approximately 7,771 euros) in accrued interest.\n6.  The applicant appealed. On 10 August 1998 the National Tax Authority upheld the first-instance administrative decision. It found that the applicant had received, on a regular basis, sums from a private company for his work but he had failed to pay taxes on this income. The Tax Authority relied on documentary evidence.\n7.  In September 1998 the applicant sought judicial review of the final administrative decision before the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court.\n8.  On 28 November 2002 the Regional Court found, after having held seven hearings, that the Tax Authority had acted in compliance with the law and dismissed the applicant’s action. The applicant appealed.\n9.  The Budapest Court of Appeal, after having held two hearings, upheld the first-instance decision on 22 September 2004. The courts relied on documentary evidence and the testimony of the parties.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3676", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in London.\n6.  His wife died on 12 September 1999 leaving two children, born in 1995 and 1998.\n7.  On 30 March 2000 the applicant applied for benefits equivalent to those to which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment a Widowed Mother’s Allowance and thereafter a Widow’s Pension, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). On 16 May 2000 the Benefits Agency refused his application because he was not a woman. He was told that he had no right of appeal since his claim had not been considered by a decision-maker.\n8.  On 5 October 2000 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance to the Inland Revenue for the year 1999-2000. On 12 October 2000 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in domestic law allowing widowers to claim this benefit.\n9.  The applicant receives child benefit in the sum of GBP 100 every four weeks.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3677", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Wrocław.\n5.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s father J.R. married M.K., his second wife. On 22 December 1994 they made a will before a notary, appointing each other sole beneficiaries of their wills. They both had children from their previous marriages.\n6.  On 21 March 1995 M.K. died. On 7 September 1995 her daughter K.C. applied for a declaration of acquisition of M.K.’s estate on the basis of a handwritten will made on 7 May 1990 by K.C. in the name of her mother. J.R. requested a declaration of acquisition of the estate on the basis of the will made in 1994.\n7.  On 19 February 1996 J.R. died. On 7 April 1997 the Radom District Court declared that his four children had acquired his estate.\n8.  The proceedings concerning the estate of M.K, carried out by the Radom District Court, were stayed because of J.R.’s death and later resumed on 8 September 1997 with the participation of his heirs. The will of 1990 proved to be null and void because it had not been made by the testator herself. Since some of the participants disputed the validity of the will of 1994, the court appointed an expert in psychiatry, who submitted his opinion over two months later.\n9.  On 29 September 1998 the Radom District Court allowed a request of a party to appoint an expert in neurology.\n10.  On 27 November 1998 a witness failed to appear in court; he was fined and heard by the court on 23 December 1998. At the same hearing the court appointed an expert in neurology, who submitted his opinion a month later.\n11.  On 28 May 1999 the court heard the expert witness and the parties. The applicant requested that three parties be examined by courts at their places of domicile – in Wrocław, Kamienna Góra and Zawiercie. The last testimony taken this way was delivered to the Radom District Court in November 1999.\n12.  On 28 October 1999 the applicant requested the court to admit as evidence an opinion to be prepared by the Institute of Psychiatry of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków.\n13.  The Institute in Kraków, after an exchange of correspondence with the court, refused to prepare the expert opinion. The request to issue an opinion in the case was subsequently addressed to the Medical Academy Institute in Wrocław. The Institute also refused to accept the assignment, but it was eventually obliged to do so by the court on 20 June 2000.\n14.  The opinion issued by the Institute was subsequently challenged by the party K.C. Following her request the court decided to examine the experts with the judicial assistance of the District Court in Wrocław. Their testimonies were submitted on 3 April 2001.\n15.  K.C. requested the court to admit further evidence from experts in psychiatry and graphology. The court allowed the requests on 9 September 2001. On 1 October 2001 it requested the Institute of Psychiatry in Warsaw to prepare an opinion in the case. On 5 November 2001 the Institute informed the court that it would not be able to prepare it before June 2002. The court accepted this date.\n16.  On 14 February 2002 the Institute informed the court that it would not be able to issue the opinion before December 2002 or even later. On 20 February 2002 the court notified K.C., but not the other parties, of this situation. On 8 April K.C. accepted this new date.\n17.  On 7 November 2002 the court admitted K.C.’s request to examine the relations between J.R. and his children.\n18.  On 9 January 2003 the Institute finally submitted t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3678", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  During 1992 the applicants lent various sums of money to a certain S.D., who was supposed to pay the money back within periods ranging from two to twelve months and at interest rates ranging from 10% to 18% per month (so-called “financial engineering”).\n5.  Since S.D. failed to perform her contractual obligations, on 21 March 1994 the applicants brought a civil action against her in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).\n6.  In the period before the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia (5 November 1997) the court held several hearings.\n7.  On 17 November 1997 the court invited the applicants to advance the costs of a financial expert. On 1 December 1997 the applicants refused to do so, arguing that an expert opinion was unnecessary since they had already submitted a similar opinion to which the respondent had not objected. They invited the court to give a judgment on the basis of the existing evidence.\n8.  The court held further hearings on 5 April and 26 October 2001 and 4 July 2003. On the last-mentioned date it delivered a judgment finding for the applicants. The judgment was served on the applicants' advocate on 30 December 2003.\n9.  On 12 February 2004 S.D. appealed to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).\n10.  On 8 November 2005 the County Court dismissed the respondent's appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 2 December 2002 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the above proceedings. On 9 November 2004 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants' constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded 4,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation to each of them and ordered the County Court to decide the appeal in the shortest time possible but no later than six months from the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 26 November 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3679", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Bridgend.\n6.   His wife died on 29 April 1999 leaving two children, born in 1989 and 1991.\n7.  In 1999 the applicant enquired about widows’ benefits and he was informed that he was not entitled to such benefits.\n8.  In early 2000 the applicant applied for widows’ benefits again and on 13 March 2000 the Benefits Agency rejected his claim.\n9.  He lodged an appeal against this decision on 16 March 2000 and this appeal was struck out on 23 May 2000 on the basis that it was misconceived.\n10.  On 16 May 2000 the applicant made an oral claim for Widow’s Bereavement Allowance to the Inland Revenue. On 23 May 2000 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in domestic law allowing widowers to claim this benefit. The applicant was advised that an appeal against this decision would be bound to fail.\n11.  The applicant received child benefit in the sum of GBP 100 per month.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3681", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, a housewife, was born in 1953 and lives in Bursa.\n5.  In her application form the applicant submitted that on 18 February 1999, upon a complaint of Mr M.A.G., gendarmes had taken her to the Görükle gendarmerie station where she was beaten with a truncheon and sworn at by a gendarme.\n6.  According to the report drafted by the gendarmes and signed by the applicant, upon the complaint of Mr M.A.G., that she was, inter alia, throwing garbage from her balcony and swearing at him, the gendarmes had arrived at the scene of the incident where they found the applicant to be shouting and disturbing the peace. The applicant had had to be taken to the gendarmerie station as she had failed to stop making a commotion. At the station, she had been orally warned not to disturb her neighbours and then released, since Mr M.A.G. did not wish to lodge an official complaint. In the same report it is stated that the gendarmerie station is situated 150-200 metres from the scene of the incident and that the gendarmes were well acquainted with the applicant due to numerous complaints brought against her by her neighbours regarding her unstable behaviour.\n7.  On 19 February 1999 the applicant filed an official complaint with the Bursa public prosecutor about the above events and requested the prosecution of those responsible. In addition, she asked to be transferred to the Forensic Medical Institute for a medical examination.\n8.  On the same day, at 3.45 p.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Bursa Forensic Medical Institute who noted that she had ecchymoses of 20x10 cm on her left shoulder and arm, an 8x5 cm ecchymosis on her right shoulder, a 6x5 cm ecchymosis on her right arm and an ecchymosis of 4x5 cm on her left thigh. He considered that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for ten days.\n9.  On 20 April 1999 the prosecutor heard evidence from the applicant, Mr M.A.G. and Mr M.G.\n10.  On 21 April 1999 the prosecutor questioned the accused gendarme, Mr T.Ü. who denied the allegations against him.\n11.  On the same day, the prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against Mr T.Ü., Mr M.A.G. and Mr M.G. He accused Mr T.Ü. of ill-treatment under Article 245 of the Criminal Code, and Mr M.A.G. and Mr M.G. of defamation under Article 482.\n12.  On 3 May 1999 the criminal proceedings against the accused gendarme Mr T.Ü. and Mr M.A.G. and Mr M.G. commenced before the Bursa Criminal Court of First Instance.\n13.  In a hearing held on 28 September 1999, the court heard evidence from witnesses as regards the manner in which the applicant’s arrest took place. In particular, the applicant’s daughter testified that her mother had been pushed and hit with a truncheon. The court also heard submissions from the applicant who stated that Mr M.A.G. and Mr M.G. had insulted her and that the gendarme Mr T.Ü. had hit her with a truncheon at the gendarmerie station.\n14.  On 26 December 2000 the Bursa Criminal Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Law no. 4616, that the proceedings against the accused should be suspended and subsequently discontinued if no offence of the same or a more serious kind was committed by the offenders within a five-year period. The applicant’s objection against this decision, notably regarding the application of Law no. 4616, was dismissed on 9 January 2002.\n15.  On 23 January 2006 the Bursa Criminal Court of First Instance, noting that the statutory time-limit for the offe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3682", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Baja.\n5.  On 27 January 1997 the applicant’s wife filed for divorce.\n6.  After several hearings, on 5 October 1999 the Pest Central District Court pronounced the parties’ divorce, placed the couple’s daughter with the mother, ordered the applicant to pay maintenance and suspended his right of access to his child, as he suffered from paranoid psychosis and, in the court’s view, his conduct was unpredictable.\n7.  On 25 May 2000 the Budapest Regional Court upheld part of this decision but remitted certain questions, in particular those concerning maintenance and the applicant’s visiting rights, to the District Court.\n8.  The first-instance proceedings were resumed on 23 April 2001. The applicant was subjected to an examination by an expert psychiatrist, in whose opinion his access to the child was feasible only under supervision, given his mental state.\n9.  On 17 October 2001 the court held a hearing and issued an order concerning the applicant’s access rights. This decision was quashed on appeal on 16 May 2002.\n10.  After several hearings, on 27 June 2003 the District Court issued an order allowing the applicant to meet his daughter once a month for two hours on the premises of a specialised foundation. Relying on the opinion of the expert psychiatrist, it observed that the applicant’s ailment prevented him from having greater access to his daughter, then eight years old. On 4 December 2003 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this decision.\n11.  On 25 February 2004 the Pest Central District Court determined the remainder of the action concerning maintenance. In application of section 92(1) of the Family Code, the court also recapitulated the applicant’s access rights, in that he was entitled to meet his daughter every fourth Tuesday, on the premises of the foundation, supervised by a professional.\n12.  During these proceedings, the applicant modified his claims on many occasions and filed numerous submissions.\n13.  On 9 December 2004 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3683", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Yeovil.\n6.  His wife died on 17 December 1996, leaving one child born in 1991.\n7.  On 20 June 2000 the applicant applied for benefits equivalent to those to which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment (“Wpt”) a Widowed Mother’s Allowance (“WMA”) and thereafter a Widow’s Pension (“WP”), payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). On 3 July 2000 the Benefits Agency refused his claim for WMA from 17 December 1996 to March 2000 because the claim dated 20 June was not made within the three-month time limit and the rest of his claim because he was not a woman.\n8.  On 28 July 2000 the applicant appealed. On 31 August 2000 the Benefits Agency wrote to the applicant explaining the reasons for its decision. On 4 September 2000 the appeal was turned down. The decision was then sent to the Social Security Appeals Service. However, such appeal was bound to fail given that no social security benefits were payable to widowers under the domestic law.\n9.  On 17 October 2000 the applicant made an oral claim for Widow’s Bereavement Allowance (“WBA”) to the Inland Revenue. These proceedings were still pending on the date of introduction of the claim before the Court and the applicant failed to inform the Court about their outcome. However, it is assumed that such claim was bound to fail. The claim for WBA in the present case would have been treated as a claim in respect of the tax years covering 1996/97 and 1997/98.\n10.  The applicant receives child benefit in the sum of GBP 70.20 per week.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3684", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lived in İstanbul. He died on 14 June 2005.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 7 March 1994 the applicant was taken into police custody in Muş on suspicion of being a member of the illegal PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party). On 13 March 1994 he was handed over to the Istanbul Security Directorate for further investigation.\n9.  On 21 March 1994 the applicant was taken before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered his detention pending trial.\n10.  By an indictment dated 23 June 1994, the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and forty-five other defendants before the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing them, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of involvement in activities that undermined the constitutional order of the State. The prosecution requested that the applicant be sentenced pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  On 5 May 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court, composed of three judges including a military judge, decided that the applicant's case should be separated from the file as his final defence submissions had not been submitted to the court.\n12.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge.\n13.  The case against the applicant continued before the Istanbul State Security Court. In the course of the proceedings the State Security Court rejected the applicant's requests for release, taking into account the nature of the alleged offence and the state of the evidence.\n14.  On 5 April 2004 the applicant was released pending trial. The case was still pending before the domestic courts when the applicant died on 14 June 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3685", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, husband and wife, were born in 1928 and 1936 respectively and live in Budapest.\n5.  On 1 March 1995 the liquidation of the South Pest General Consumer and Marketing Co-operative (“ÁFÉSZ”) was ordered by the Budapest Regional Court. Each applicant was creditor in these proceedings, holding individual claims.\n6.  In May 1996 the liquidator prepared the interim balance sheet (közbenső mérleg) that was sent to the applicants. On 31 May 1996 the applicants raised an objection concerning the interim balance sheet. In January 1997 the Budapest Regional Court suspended the review of the balance sheet until a decision by the Supreme Court. In April 1997 the Regional Court again suspended its proceedings concerning the applicants’ objection. The applicants allege that the Regional Court has never decided upon their objection.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings, on 28 July 1999 the Budapest Regional Court accepted the closing balance sheet prepared by the liquidator. The applicants appealed against this decision. On 12 July 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s decision and remitted the case to the first-instance.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings, the applicants raised an objection against an action of the liquidator, namely, the sale of real estate belonging to the debtor. In May 2005 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the objection. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision in September 2006. In May 2007 the review bench of the Supreme Court upheld the final decision.\n9.  In November 2007 the Regional Court ordered the bailiff to pay the applicants 3,835,643 Hungarian forints (approximately 15,577 euros) for their justified creditors’ claim. The entire sum was paid to them.\n10.  According to the information in the case file, the liquidation procedure is still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3686", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bournemouth.\n6.   His wife died on 2 November 1999. They had no children.\n7.  On 29 November 1999 and again on 17 August 2000 the applicant applied for the payment of social security survivors’ benefits, namely Widow’s Payment and Pension, with the Benefits Agency. On 3 December 1999 he was informed that he was not entitled to any benefit because he was not a woman and that he had no right of appeal since his claim had not been considered by a decision maker.\n8.  On 21 July 2000 the applicant wrote to the Benefits Agency asking for a reconsideration of his claim. On 26 July 2000 the Benefits Agency again refused his claim. The content of the letter of 3 December 1999 was reaffirmed in a letter dated 25 August 2000.\n9.  On 29 June 2001 the Benefits Agency wrote to the applicant stating that they had reconsidered the circumstances in which a formal decision should be given carrying a right of appeal and after reviewing their decision they again rejected the applicant’s claim because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal further as he was advised that in any case such appeal would be bound to fail.\n10.  On 13 September 2000 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance to the Inland Revenue. On 19 September 2000 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in domestic law allowing widowers to claim this benefit.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3687", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Nicosia. The applicant was married on 2 June 1974 in Nicosia. His marriage was dissolved on 16 March 1998.\n5.  On 6 August 1999 his former wife lodged an application (no.143/99) with the Nicosia Family Court for adjudication of certain property disputes between her and the applicant. On the same date the court issued an interim injunction prohibiting the applicant from selling, transferring or otherwise disposing of certain of his properties consisting of an apartment, a plot of land and two bank accounts. On 7 January 2000 the applicant submitted his defence and counter-claims. He claimed that he and his former wife had entered into an agreement in 1997 for the settlement of any potential property dispute. On 3 April 2000 his former wife filed her response to the applicant’s defence, and her defence in respect of his counter-claim.\n6.  The case was adjourned on at least two occasions at the request of the applicant. The hearing of the interim order application began on 8 March 2002. On 19 November 2002 it was decided that the prohibitory injunction would remain in force pending the final determination of the proceedings. An amendment was made in respect of the applicant’s plot of land, which would only be bound in respect of two thirds of the undivided share of the property.\n7.  On 28 November 2002, the applicant lodged an appeal against the injunction. He maintained that the court had erred in law in issuing it solely on the basis of the affidavit of his former wife and without further evidence substantiating her allegations. In another ground of appeal he complained about the delay that had occurred in the proceedings, which had severely restricted his professional activities.\n8.  On 12 March 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the injunction as the applicant’s former wife had entered into sufficient detail in her affidavit to justify non inclusion of further relevant documents. The court nevertheless expressed its concern about the delay in the proceedings.\n9.  The examination of the main application (no.143/99) by the Nicosia Family Court began on 26 September 2003. Of the 29 sittings held between 23 October 2003 and 18 November 2004 at least one was adjourned at the applicant’s request.\n10.  On 11 March 2005, the Nicosia Family Court ordered the applicant to pay 41,000 Cypriot pounds (CYP) plus interest to his former wife. The court dismissed the applicant’s submission that an agreement had been concluded between himself and his former wife. The counter-claim lodged by the applicant was dismissed in its entirety. Moreover, the court considered that the applicant’s evidence had been unreliable and given in bad faith. It noted that he had been unable to control himself during the proceedings and had become disrespectful towards the court and his former wife’s counsel.\n11.  On 11 April 2005, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court.\n12.  On 13 April 2005, the applicant’s former wife lodged with the Nicosia Family Court an application by summons requesting a ‘garnishee order’ (third party debt order). The application was set for hearing on 22 April 2005. On 28 April 2005 the applicant filed an objection and maintained that the application had been filed in bad faith.\n13.  On 28 April 2005 the applicant applied for suspension of the execution of the court’s decision dated 11 March 2005, until the examination of his appeal. This was set for hearing on 19 May", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3688", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Istanbul where he practises as a lawyer.\n5.  According to the official documents, including transcription of data from the police camera, a number of political parties and non‑governmental organisations wanted to hold an anti-war gathering in Istanbul’s Şişli Square on 14 October 2001. However, the Istanbul Governor did not permit it. On that day, at around 11.30 a.m., a group of about 500 people carrying the flags of these parties started to walk towards the ferry boat station at the Kadıköy Square. The organisers were warned, with megaphones, that the gathering was unlawful, that they could not make press statements at that place and that if they did not disperse the police would have to resort to force. The crowd were shouting out slogans like “Yankee go home”, “No to imperialist and colonial war”, “Terrorist America”, “Money for education and health and not for war”, “the Middle East will be the grave of imperialism”. As Mr L.T., head of the EMEP party, despite warnings, continued to make an oral press statement, the Rapid Response Force (Çevik Kuvvet) intervened and arrested forty-six persons who had resisted dispersing.\n6.  In the application form, the applicant claimed that he was in the crowd that day when police officers from the Rapid Response Force used excessive force on them. He submitted that, although he did not resist, the police, without any prior warning, sprayed pepper gas in his face, hit him with their truncheons and kicked him. As a result of having been sprayed with pepper gas, the applicant had a burning sensation in his eyes and face and had difficulty breathing. After having been kicked and beaten up with truncheons, he felt pain in his arms, legs, chest and ribs. Afterwards, the applicant stayed in the Kadıköy area in order to assist the injured and to note the names of persons who were being taken into custody. He then witnessed a high-ranking police officer beating up a person and taking him into custody. The same officer then started swearing at the applicant and pushed him about. A number of police officers then sent the applicant away from the area.\n7.  Approximately two hours after the incident, the applicant went to the office of the Kadıköy prosecutor and made an official complaint about the treatment to which he had been subjected by police officers and asked to be referred to a hospital. In particular, he stated that while the press release was being read, the rapid response forces had, without prior warning, started spraying pepper gas and hitting them. He submitted that he had received blows to his back and had been kicked. The applicant claimed that since the police officers had masks it was not possible for him to identify the perpetrators.\n8.  The same day the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Numune hospital who found 3 x 15 cm of hyperaemia (increases of blood flow in tissue) in an area on the right side of the applicant’s back, sensitivity in the right femur and pain in his right shoulder. He was transferred to an orthopaedist who noted ecchymotic regions on the applicant’s right arm and back. The applicant was also examined by another doctor at another hospital who found hyperaemic regions on the right arm and costal-vertebral region. It appears that a number of X-rays were also taken on this day.\n9.  The following day the applicant was examined by the Kadıköy branch of the Forensic Medicine Directorate. The doctor found no trauma apart", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3689", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in the town of Sergiyev Posad in the Moscow Region.\n5.  In 1988 the applicant gave up his post in the Zagorskiy engineering plant in order to be appointed to a similar position in a car manufacturing enterprise, ATP-11 (“ATP-11”). The latter refused to appoint the applicant to the position sought.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 1988 the applicant sued ATP-11, seeking that it complied with the agreement for his appointment to the post.\n7.  On 4 January 1989 the Zagorsk Town Court dismissed his claims. The Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment on 2 February 1989. On 4 May 1989 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgments by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for a new examination.\n8.  By a judgment of 27 June 1989, the Town Court rejected the applicant’s claims. On 14 July 1989 the Regional Court upheld the judgment.\n9.  On 7 June 1990 the Supreme Court of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (“the RSFSR Supreme Court”) quashed the judgments of 27 June and 14 July 1989 and remitted the case to the Town Court for a fresh examination.\n10.  On 28 December 1990 Judge M. of the Town Court listed a hearing for 9 January 1991.\n11.  At a hearing of 23 January 1991 the applicant amended his claims and claimed compensation for forced absence from work due to the ATP-11’s unlawful refusal to appoint him to the post.\n12.  On 7 May 1991 judge M. instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion that he had stolen the case file concerning his employment dispute.\n13.  On 1 November 1991 the deputy prosecutor of the Moscow Regional prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that there were no reasons to set aside the decision of 7 May 1991. He also noted that the local justice department had been ordered to take immediate measures to restore the materials of the case file in respect of the applicant’s employment dispute.\n14.  On 19 March 1998 the Mytishchi Town Court of the Moscow Region acquitted the applicant for lack of evidence. The judgment became final on 27 March 1998.\n15.  In the meantime, on 8 April 1992 the applicant requested the President of the Town Court (renamed the Sergiyev Posad Town Court after the town of Zagorsk had been renamed Sergiyev Posad) to restore the case file regarding his employment dispute and to pursue its examination of his claims against ATP-11. The applicant submitted the receipt card showing that the request had been received by the Town Court on 14 April 1992. On 6 May 1992 the President informed the applicant that his employment claims would be adjudicated after the examination of the criminal case against him.\n16.  On 1 June 1993 and 1 March 1994 respectively the Regional Court forwarded to the Town Court repeated requests by the applicant for restoration of the case file (заявление о восстановлении утраченного судебного производства) with a view to proceeding with the examination of his employment dispute, further to the decision of 7 June 1990. Those requests were accompanied by the documents from the file preserved by the applicant. In its letter of 1 March 1994 the court noted that in case of dismissal of the applicant’s request to restore the case file the courts were to advise the applicant on his right to re-submit his employment dispute to the courts by means of ordinary civil proceedings. It appears that no action was taken in response to the above requests.\n17.  By decision of 1 April 1994, the Town Cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3690", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 15 December 1998 the S. Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalni rad S., “the Centre”) instituted proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) with a view to divesting the applicant of her capacity to act (to perform acts with legal effect; poslovna sposobnost). On 9 December 1998 the Centre temporarily appointed the applicant’s mother as her guardian so that she could represent her daughter in the above proceedings. The Centre based its request on the notice from the V. Psychiatric Hospital of 27 October 1998 in which it was stated that the applicant was suffering from schizophrenia. The relevant part of the notice read as follows:\n“[The applicant] has been recurrently treated at the V. Psychiatric Hospital, on the last occasion from 4 to 26 September this year, and diagnosed [as suffering from] schizophrenia (depressive disorder), after a suicide attempt.\nDuring the last few treatments [at the hospital] the patient had left the hospital of her own will. While being in a phase of exacerbation she returned [to the hospital] on several occasions, after swallowing a large quantity of pills. We are aware that the patient has had problems with her mother and also that she is occasionally inclined to take drugs. As regards the main disease (sch[izophrenia]), we have not observed productive psychotic symptoms for a long period, but her behaviour and functioning has lately been compromised with so called deficiency symptoms which impede a more structured therapeutic process to a significant degree. We consider that the above indicates the need to deprive the patient of her capacity to act...”\n6.  On 4 June 1999 the applicant was heard by the Municipal Court’s judge for the first time. The transcript of her statement reads as follows:\n“The [applicant] says that her problems started when she went to London where she felt lost and begun to consume pot [meaning marijuana]. Since then she’s been suffering from hallucinations which at that time seemed tolerable to her. After 4 years, in 1993, she returned to Zagreb where she started her treatment. She is presently receiving therapy. Her latest hospitalisation was in September last year. She is presently receiving Depot and Haldol. She sells environmentally-friendly carrier bags. She neither wishes to be placed under guardianship nor does she wish to have her mother as her guardian, for private reasons. She is presently two months pregnant and ever since she learned of this she has not taken any drugs. Most lately she has been taking pot but no heavy drugs. She is planning to terminate the pregnancy. She does not feel good on Haldol, she feels depressed and in particular it bothers her at work. She has finished elementary school but has never been employed. She went to London when she was seventeen with a group of people. She now lives in a flat owned by her mother. She lives alone since her mother lives with her new husband. However, her mother is paying the bills and the rest she earns herself. It is true that she attempted suicide by [swallowing] pills, most recently in March last year. She is aware that she has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.”\nIn view of the opinion given by the medical expert and the fact that the applicant was undergoing psychiatric treatment, the court stayed the proceedings.\n7.  On 25 December 1999 the applicant gave birth to a daughter, A.\n8.  In his letter to the Centre of 11 Apr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3691", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1975 in Sri Lanka. He currently lives in London. He is of Tamil ethnicity.\n7.  The applicant entered the United Kingdom clandestinely on 17 August 1999 and claimed asylum the next day. He stated that he feared ill-treatment in Sri Lanka by the Sri Lankan army and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“the LTTE”). He explained that he had been arrested and detained by the army on six occasions between 1990 and 1997 on suspicion of involvement with the LTTE. Following his last detention he went into hiding until his family managed to fund his journey to the United Kingdom. He feared the LTTE on account of their adverse interest in his father who had done some work for the army. They had also tried to recruit the applicant on two occasions in 1997 and 1998.\n8.  His claim was refused by the Secretary of State on 30 October 2002. His appeal against that decision was heard and dismissed by an Adjudicator on 27 July 2003. It was found that the applicant’s account was credible: namely, he had been arrested by the army on some six occasions between 1990 and 1997 on suspicion of his involvement with the LTTE. He was detained for less than twenty-four hours on the first occasion and for two days on the last. There was no evidence as to how long the other periods of detention had lasted. On each occasion he was released without charge. During one or possibly more of these periods of detention he was ill-treated and his legs had scars from being beaten with batons. According to the Adjudicator, it may have been that the arrests took place in the course of round-ups. During the 1997 detention the applicant was photographed and his fingerprints were taken and his father signed certain papers in order to secure his release. He went into hiding in a temple and wanted to leave Sri Lanka at that stage but it took time for his mother to obtain money from his brother to pay the agent for his departure.\n9.  However, the Adjudicator found that the applicant’s fear of ill-treatment by the army upon his return was unjustified. It was noted that, since his departure from Sri Lanka, there had been a ceasefire between the army and the LTTE for a considerable time, checkpoints had been dismantled, and the LTTE had been able to open political offices and roads in the north. It was unlikely that he would attract any interest on the part of the authorities upon his return. Even if the record of his arrests was found it would be seen that he had been held for short periods and released without charge on each occasion. There was no record that he had ever been involved with the LTTE or that he had ever been wanted by the authorities. There was no reason why he should be strip-searched on return and, even if his scars were found, they would not cause the authorities to take an interest in him, certainly not to the extent of detaining and ill-treating him.\n10.  As to his fear of the LTTE, the Adjudicator appeared to accept that the applicant’s brother had done non-combative work for the LTTE, though he was never a member. He, the brother, had been arrested by the army but never charged and had left Sri Lanka for Saudi Arabia in 1997. It was found unlikely that the LTTE would still have any interest in the applicant and if he was settled in Colombo it would be unlikely that they could track him down. In any event, he could apply to the authorities for protection. As to his argument that he was in need of psychiatric treatment as a result of po", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3692", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Zamość.\n6.  On 12 September 2003 the Otwock District Court convicted the applicant of having committed a series of robberies acting in an organised criminal group and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n7.  On 21 September 2003 the Warsaw Regional Court partly amended the judgment. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n8.  On 30 June 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded.\n9.  On 16 August 2005 the applicant sent his application form to the Court. The envelope in which it was delivered bears several stamps of the Zamość Prison and a handwritten note: censored, D[istrict] C[ourt] [ocenzurowano SR]. Two sides of the envelope had been resealed with sellotape. The envelope itself was delivered in a plastic cover, apparently sealed by the post office.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3693", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Warsaw.\n5.  On 3 June 1991 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for dissolution of a co-ownership and division of an inheritance before the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). On 18 November 1992 the case was transmitted to the Pruszków District Court.\n6.  Between 24 February 1993 and 28 May 2003 the court held 18 hearings.\n7.  On 7 June 2004 the Pruszków District Court gave a partial decision in the case. The court held that, following further proceedings, a final decision concerning the distribution of the estate would be given at a later stage. The applicant appealed.\n8.  On 9 June 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court, having examined the partial decision, remitted the case to the District Court.\n9.  According to the applicant’s submissions, from June 2005 until March 2006 no hearing was listed in her case.\n10.  On 22 August 2007 the Pruszków District Court gave a decision and divided the inheritance. It is unclear whether the applicant appealed against that decision.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n12.  On 8 March 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court rejected her complaint for a procedural mistake.\n13.  On 11 April 2005 the applicant again lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under section 5 of the 2004 Act. She sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Pruszków District Court had been excessive and that just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN - approx. EUR 2,500) should be awarded to her.\n14.  On 9 June 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings, finding that there had been some periods of unjustified inactivity (lasting from several months to some two years) on the part of the Pruszków District Court and awarded the applicant PLN 3,000 (approx. EUR 738) in just satisfaction. Referring to the amount of just satisfaction, the court relied on the fact that the applicant and other parties to the proceedings had contributed to their length and that after 2003 the proceedings had been considerably accelerated.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3694", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is presently detained in Gdańsk, Poland.\n6.  On 28 May 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police while crossing the Latvian-Polish border. On 29 May 2001 he was questioned by the police. On 30 May 2001 the applicant was heard by a prosecutor and was charged with robbery committed while acting in an organised criminal gang.\n7.  On 30 May 2001 the Gdańsk District Court decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robberies as a member of an organised criminal gang.\n8.  On 17 August 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention relying, in addition to the grounds originally given, on the risk that the applicant would interfere with the course of the proceedings, since the leader of the organised gang had not yet been arrested.\n9.  On 13 November and 18 December 2001 the applicant’s detention was extended by the same court. It based its decision on the risk that a severe sentence would be imposed, which made it probable that the applicant would interfere with the course of the proceedings. Moreover, the court relied on the complexity of the case, as it concerned organised crime.\n10.  Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended, inter alia, on 21 March 2002 and 19 March 2003. The Regional Court reiterated the original grounds given for detention and held that keeping the applicant in custody was necessary for securing the evidence. In the latter decision the court considered that although the investigation had been lengthy, it had been justified by the complexity of the case.\n11.  Afterwards, as the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Regional Court applied to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) asking for the applicant’s detention to be extended beyond that term. On 19 March, 27 June and 17 December 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal allowed the application and extended his pre‑trial detention. The Court of Appeal based its decisions on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious offences and on the risk that he might interfere with the course of justice. The court further considered that the complexity of the case constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying his continued detention. The court also referred to the fact that the applicant did not have a permanent place of residence in Poland.\n12.  In the meantime, on 16 June 2003, the applicant and 14 other co‑accused were indicted before the Gdańsk Regional Court.\n13.  In 2004 the applicant’s detention was extended by decisions of the Gdansk Court of Appeal given on 16 June and 28 December. The court reiterated the grounds given previously.\n14.  On 14 June and 22 November 2005 the applicant’s detention was further extended. The court observed that the period of detention had been excessive given the complexity of the case and the need to ensure the proper conduct of the final stages of the trial.\n15.  On 22 February 2006 the applicant’s detention was further extended. The applicant’s numerous applications for release and appeals against the decisions extending his detention were to no avail.\n16.  During the entire proceedings the applicant made numerous, unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions extendi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3695", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and resides in the town of Zhovti Vody, Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted three separate sets of proceedings in the Zhovti Vody Town Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region against his employer, a State-owned company, the Zhovti Vody Construction Department (Жовтоводське управління будівництва), for salary arrears and other payments.\n6.  On 13 December 2000 and 31 July 2001 the court found for the applicant and awarded him a total of 4,694.11[1] Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH). On 12 March 2002 the court dismissed the applicant’s third claim as time-barred.\n7.  In 2001 the Zhovti Vody Town Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings.\n8.  The applicant received UAH 2,142, but the remainder of the awards remains unpaid.\n9.  On 5 October 2004 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy liquidated the debtor enterprise and the writs of enforcement were transferred to the liquidation commission.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3696", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Táborfalva, Hungary.\n5.  In 1992 the applicant brought an action in compensation against his former employer. On 12 April 1995 the Budapest Regional Court found for him. On 18 July 1995 enforcement proceedings were instituted. Since the respondent’s liquidation had been initiated on 14 December 1995, the applicant’s claims were channelled into those proceedings in April 1996.\n6.  On 13 October 1997 the applicant brought an official liability action against the Budapest Regional Court, seeking compensation for the damage which the respondent court had allegedly caused by not having proceeded with the enforcement of the award due to the applicant (see paragraph 5 above) adequately or in good time. On 3 March 1998 the Pest County Regional Court was appointed to hear the case.\n7.  After two hearings, this procedure was suspended on 27 April 1999, pending the termination of the liquidation.\n8.  The liquidation was accomplished on 11 March 2002. The sum due to the applicant could not be recovered for want of assets.\n9.  The applicant requested that the official liability proceedings be resumed only on 10 June 2004; he had not been able to do so earlier because he had suffered a serious occupational accident.\n10.  After a hearing on 22 November 2004, on 9 March 2005 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. He did not appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3697", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant Kemal Kahraman was born in 1972 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 10 June 1999 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of the IBDA-C (Great Eastern Islamic Raiders’ Front- İslami Büyükdoğu Akıncılar Cephesi). He was believed to have been involved in the bombing of bars and clubs in Istanbul on three different occasions, which had caused casualties. The police found instructions on how to make bombs, the necessary materials and explosives for doing so, as well as photographs in which the applicant was covered in the organisation’s flag whilst holding a Kalashnikov-type rifle, at his place of residence. The applicant claimed that during his questioning by the police officers he was blindfolded and subjected to various forms of ill-treatment. In particular, he was suspended by his arms (“reverse hanging”), hosed with cold water and beaten up by the police officers. Thereafter the applicant was made to sign statements in which he admitted the charges against him.\n7.  On 14 June 1999 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court, where he repudiated the content of his police statements, alleging that they had been extracted from him under torture.\n8.  On the same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute. The medical report recorded a bruise of 2 cm on his left upper leg, a bruise of 1.5 cm on the inner part of his right upper arm, a hyperaemic[1] area of 2cm on the right elbow, a bruise of 1.5 cm on the inner part of the left upper arm, a scab-covered lesion of 1 cm on the left elbow, and a complaint of pain in the back and arms. In her report the doctor also noted the applicant’s complaints that he had been suspended by his arms, beaten up and threatened during his detention in police custody. She thus concluded that the applicant had been subjected to physical violence which rendered him unfit for work for two days. The applicant was then brought before the investigating judge, who ordered his pre-trial detention.\n9.  On 18 September 1999 the Chief Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing the applicant of membership of the IBDA-C. The Public Prosecutor sought the death penalty, under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code, on account of the applicant’s participation in that organisation’s activities, and his aim to undermine the constitutional order of the State and to replace it with a theocratic regime.\n10.  In the course of the criminal proceedings, the applicant applied to the Istanbul State Security Court, alleging that he had been tortured during his detention in police custody. He protested his innocence and stated that he had been forced under torture to sign statements which he had not seen, including the report on the search of his home, and that the materials allegedly found at his home did not belong to him.\n11.  In his defence submissions dated 21 May 2002, the applicant’s lawyer referred to the medical report of 14 June 1999 indicating signs of ill-treatment, and asked the Istanbul State Security Court to acquit his client for lack of evidence.\n12.  On 1 October 2002 the State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged. The court relied on the evidence gathered by the police from the applicant’s place of residence, such as the photographs showing him wrapped in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3698", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Bila Tserkva, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant’s husband worked at the State-owned Atomspetsbud company (Державна будівельно-промислова компанія «Атомспецбуд»). On 16 March 2000 he died.\n6.  By two judgments of 1 February 2001 the Bilotserkivskyy District Court of Kyiv Region awarded the applicant 8,235.38[1] Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) and UAH 3,270[2] from the Atomspetsbud company in salary arrears due to the applicant’s deceased husband. The applicant received UAH 1,478.84; the remainder of the debts remains unpaid.\n7.  By an order of the Ministry of Energy dated 27 June 2002, the debtor company was liquidated and a liquidation commission established. As a result, the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case and the writs of enforcement were forwarded to the liquidation commission. The liquidation proceedings are still pending.\n8.  On 6 October 2004 the Central Expert Commission on Chernobyl Related Diseases (Центральна міжвідомча експертна комісія по встановленню причинного зв’язку хвороб, інвалідності та смерті з дією іонізуючого випромінювання та інших шкідливих чинників внаслідок аварії на Чорнобильській АЕС) established that the death of the applicant’s husband in 2000 was caused by diseases obtained as a result of his participation in the liquidation of the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3699", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are husband and wife. They were born in 1965 and live in Novokuznetsk.\n5.  In 1993 both applicants subscribed to a State savings scheme for buying cars. The State failed to provide the cars, and the applicants had to sue the Government.\n6.  On 1 April 2003 the Ust-Yansk District Court of Yakutia gave two judgments and awarded the first applicant 90,610.72 Russian roubles (“RUB”), and the second applicant RUB 108,654.15. These judgments became binding on 30 April 2003, but were not enforced immediately. On the Government's request, on 14 October 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Yakutia quashed the judgments and dismissed the applicants' claims on the ground that the district court had misinterpreted material laws.\n7.  In 2005 the first applicant again sued the Government for the undelivered car's price.\n8.  On 13 May 2005 the district court awarded the first applicant RUB 108,757.91. This judgment became binding on 24 May 2005. On the Government's request, on 18 May 2006 the presidium quashed the judgment and dismissed the first applicant's claims on the ground that the district court had misinterpreted material laws.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3700", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 7 February 1994 civil proceedings were instituted against the applicant. The plaintiff made various claims for movable and immovable assets.\n6.  Between 3 March 1997 and 2 November 1998 the case was suspended pending the termination of another procedure ongoing between the plaintiff and a third party.\n7.  On 6 January 2005 the Pest Central District Court found for the applicant, after having held numerous hearings.\n8.  On 17 November 2005 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal (service: 29 December 2005).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3701", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Warsaw.\n7.  He is the owner of a plot of land in Legionowo. Apparently, since 1990 construction works without the required permit have been carried out by the applicant’s neighbour, B.G., on his plot of land which adjoins the applicant’s property.\n8.  On 9 December 1993 B.G. requested the Mayor of Legionowo (Urząd Miejski w Legionowie) to grant him a building permit for a garage to be used for repairing lorries.\n9.  The Mayor of Legionowo found that the garage adjoining the applicant’s property had already been constructed without the required building permit and on 3 February 1994 ordered its demolition (przymusowa rozbiórka).\n10.  On 14 February 1994 B.G. lodged an appeal, submitting that he had already been granted a building permit which had subsequently been quashed.\n11.  On 29 June 1994 the Warsaw Regional Office (Urząd Wojewódzki) upheld the challenged decision.\n12.  On 18 July 1994 B.G. lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny).\n13.  On 22 September 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court ordered that enforcement of the Warsaw Regional Office’s decision be stayed pending the examination of B.G.’s appeal.\n14.  On 8 February 1995 the applicant, as a party to the administrative proceedings, requested the Supreme Administrative Court to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the challenged decision.\n15.  On 22 January 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the contested decision and the previous decision of 3 February 1994 and the proceedings were restarted. The court found that the administrative organs had not exhaustively examined all the circumstances of the case, in particular whether the construction in question constituted a danger to persons or property or whether it had a deleterious effect on the sanitary or other conditions of the surroundings.\n16.  On 10 February 1999 the Mayor of Legionowo (Prezydent Miasta Legionowa) imposed on B.G. an obligation to acquire a building permit by 30 June 1999.\n17.  On 25 February 1999 the applicant appealed against that decision and requested the Mazowsze Governor (Wojewoda Mazowiecki) to issue a demolition order.\n18.  On 23 August 1999 the Mazowsze Governor quashed the contested decision and remitted the case.\n19.  On 14 September 1999, following amendments to the provisions governing the powers of the administrative authorities, the President of Legionowo transferred the case to the Legionowo Local Inspector of Construction Supervision (Powiatowy Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego).\n20.  On 26 May 2000 the Legionowo Local Inspector of Construction Supervision gave a decision ordering demolition of the garage, finding that it had been constructed illegally and contrary to the local zoning plan (plan zagospodarowania przestrzennego).\n21.  On 12 June 2000 B.G. appealed against that decision.\n22.  On 20 January 2001 the applicant complained to the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision (Główny Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) of inactivity on the part of the administration. He referred to his appeal of 12 June 2000 lodged against the decision of the Legionowo Local Inspector of Construction Supervision of 26 May 2000 and requested the acceleration of the proceedings.\n23.  On 3 April 2001 the applicant again complained to the Chief Inspector of Construction Supervision of inactivity on the part of the administration. He referred to his previous complaint and stated that he had been informed that his app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3702", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 25 May 2002 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Çinili Police Station on suspicion of theft. Following a quarrel between the chief police officer and the applicant at the Çinili Police Station, the chief officer ordered his transfer to the Üsküdar Law and Order Department.\n7.  Prior to his transfer to the custody of the Law and Order Department, the applicant was taken to the Haydarpaşa Numune Hospital for a medical examination. According to the medical report dated 25 May 2002, there were no signs of ill-treatment on his body.\n8.  At the Üsküdar Law and Order Department, the applicant was allegedly insulted and threatened by the chief police officer, Remzi Akıncı, who later ordered other officers to torture him. The applicant was kept in a cell until the evening. After several hours he was handcuffed, blindfolded and taken to a cellar, where he was stripped naked and given electric shocks. Due to the pain caused by the shocks, the applicant hit his head on the floor and fainted.\n9.  On 26 May 2002 the applicant was taken back to the Çinili Police Station.\n10.  On 26 May 2002 the police officers brought the applicant back to Hayparpaşa Numune Hospital for a second medical examination. First the police officers went into the doctor’s room, and then the applicant was called in. Although the applicant claimed that he had described the type of ill-treatment to which he had been subjected to in police custody, the doctor did not note any of his complaints and concluded in his report that there were no signs of ill‑treatment on his body. Later, the applicant was brought before an investigating judge who ordered his release.\n11.  On the same day the applicant lodged a complaint with the District Governor’s office in Üsküdar against the five police officers who had allegedly ill‑treated him. He also lodged petitions with the offices of the Üsküdar District Governor, the Istanbul Governor and the Minister for Internal Affairs, describing in detail the treatment to which he had been subjected during his detention in police custody.\n12.  Upon the request of the District Governor, on 29 May 2002 the applicant was first examined by a doctor at the Üsküdar Clinic and then taken to the Haydarpaşa Numune Hospital for a further examination. Both medical reports noted that there was pain and sensitivity in the inguinal area, urinary problems and hyperaemia on the penis. In the light of these medical findings, a doctor at the Üsküdar branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute drafted a third report, concluding that the applicant was unfit to work for three days.\n13.  On 4 June 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Üsküdar Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office against the police officers at the Üsküdar Law and Order Department who had inflicted ill-treatment on him.\n14.  On 5 June 2002 the applicant was questioned by the Disciplinary Bureau of the Üsküdar police headquarters following his complaint lodged with the Üsküdar District Governor’s office.\n15.  On 6 June 2002 two police officers, one of whom was acting as investigator, questioned Dr İbrahim Öner from the Haydarpaşa Hospital in relation to his examination of the applicant on 26 May 2002. He stated the following:\n“On 26 May 2002 police officers brought Osman Karademir to the Emergency Surgical Unit. He was taken into the examination room alone. The police officers on duty waited outside. He was stripped", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3703", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kaarina.\n6.  The applicant is the sole answerable partner in a limited partnership company called Porin West-Print Ky. At the material time its line of activities was, inter alia, car repair and painting services, restaurant services and metal work.\n7.  The National Bureau of Investigation carried out a pre-trial investigation into the business activities of Porin West-Print Ky. The applicant, who was questioned as a suspect in an alleged tax fraud, proclaimed his innocence. In his closing statement, he expressed the view that other companies, represented by two other named individuals, had carried out the business activities which were the subject of the investigation and were therefore liable to pay tax. The file does not disclose whether anyone was charged with and convicted of the alleged offence.\n8.  In 1999 the south-west Finland Tax Office carried out a tax inspection into Porin West-Print Ky. It found that during the period from July 1998 to 20 December 1999 over 840,000 Finnish marks (FIM) (approximately 141,278 euros (EUR)) had been credited to the company’s account. The money had been paid in by several companies but most of the funds had not been recorded in the company’s books as income.\n9.  Basing himself on those transactions, the tax inspector considered that there was evidence of a sub-contracting relationship between Porin West-Print Ky and another company, R. Porin West-Print Ky’s line of activities had to be considered to include the sale of sub-contracting services to R. Formally this activity had been carried out in the name of another company T./Porin West-Print Ky and company F. For this reason, the tax inspector considered that Porin West-Print Ky was liable for the deduction of tax and social-security contributions in respect of the salaries paid to identified and unidentified employees. The total amount of the salaries was estimated on the basis of a list of hours worked found in the book-keeping records of R. and the bank statements of Porin West-Print Ky and the applicant. The salaries paid to identified employees ran to FIM 324,681 for the year 1998 and 53,000 in 1999. An additional FIM 50,000 was added in respect of unidentified employees to the estimated salaries for 1998.\n10.  Based on this reassessment, the Tax Office increased the tax liability and ordered the payment of FIM 359,609 in respect of 1998 and FIM 59,913 in respect of 1999. The file does not disclose the amounts of the tax surcharges.\n11.  Following a rectification request, the first amount was reduced to FIM 354,952.\n12.  Porin West-Print Ky appealed to the Turku Administrative Court (hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen), requesting an oral hearing and that the court hear testimony from the applicant and four other persons, Mr E.N., Mr A.L., Mr M.V. and Mr H.S. Porin West-Print Ky also requested a stay of enforcement until the case had been examined. According to the application form lodged with the Court, the amount in dispute was by then equivalent to EUR 33,885.\n13.  Porin West-Print Ky argued that Mr H.S. or companies T. and F., both controlled by Mr H.S., were responsible for social-security contributions. Although he had given Mr H.S. use of the Porin West-Print Ky bank card, the applicant had had nothing to do with the sub-contracting activities of Mr H.S. and his companies. As the sub-contracting work had been invoiced using the names and business indexes of the companies of Mr H.S", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3704", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Neytullah Getiren, was a Turkish national who was born in 1959 and had been living in Bursa. By a letter dated 20 December 2004, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had died on 23 January 2003 and that his brother, Sedreddin Getiren, wished to pursue the application.\n5.  On 14 March 1999 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul police headquarters during the course of a police operation carried out against the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation) following the bombing of a shopping centre in Istanbul, the Mavi Çarşı, causing the death of thirteen persons.\n6.  According to the house search, arrest and seizure report signed by eight police officers and the seven persons who were arrested, including the applicant, the arrest took place in a flat raided by the police. During the arrest a physical struggle occurred between the police officers and the applicant as the latter attempted to escape.\n7.  On the same day at 6 p.m., the applicant was medically examined by a doctor, who noted that there was no sign of physical violence on the applicant’s body.\n8.  The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to various forms of ill‑treatment while in police custody. In particular, he had been beaten, insulted and threatened with death.\n9.  On 20 March 1999 a report was drafted and signed by two police officers, according to which the applicant refused to make statements, claiming that he was only answerable to the PKK and that he would not give statements to the police and the judiciary of the Republic of Turkey. The applicant refused to sign this report.\n10.  On 21 March 1999 the applicant underwent four medical examinations. The first of these examinations took place at 10.45 a.m. at the Istanbul branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute. The medical expert, Dr. F.D., observed two scabbed abrasions of 1 x 3 cm and 1 x 2 cm on the applicant’s right scapula and a scabbed abrasion of 0,5 x 1 cm on his spine. He further noted that the applicant complained of pain in both ears, in his throat and the subcostal region. The medical expert concluded that the applicant should be referred to a State hospital and examined for the ear pain.\n11.  The second and third examinations took place at 11.50 a.m. and 12.15 a.m. in the Haseki Hospital. The first doctor who examined the applicant observed two bruises of 1 x 1 cm and 2 x 1 cm on the right scapula. The second doctor, who conducted an examination of the applicant’s ears, observed a central perforation of the right eardrum.\n12.  The applicant was subsequently taken back to the Istanbul branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute, where Dr. F.D. drafted the fourth medical report. The doctor noted two bruises of 1 x 1 cm and 2 x 1 cm on the right scapula, a central perforation of the right eardrum, two scabbed abrasions of 1 x 3 cm and 1 x 2 cm on the applicant’s right scapula and a scabbed abrasion of 0,5 x 1 cm on his spine. The doctor concluded that the applicant should be examined by a board of experts from the Forensic Medicine Institute with a view to establishing whether the perforation of the right eardrum was the result of a trauma.\n13.  On the same day the applicant made statements before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court. He denied the accusations against him and maintained, inter alia, that he had been beaten while in police custody. Th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3705", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and was resident in Siltakylä at the time of his death.\n6.  At the material time the applicant was the majority owner of a limited liability company providing bakery and café services. The company is not an applicant before the Court.\n7.  In 1999 the Uusimaa Tax Office carried out a tax inspection of the company’s books for the years 1996-1998. The tax inspector interviewed the applicant and three persons who were working, or had worked, for the company: Mr T.L., Ms H.T. and Mr R.L. He drew up an inspection report dated 2 September 1999 and two inspection letters dated 6 September 1999. He found that there were deficiencies in the company’s book-keeping and that it had failed to enter as income part of the retail sales during the tax years 1996, 1997 and 1998. Basing himself on the company’s turnover, books and the remaining cash register printouts, he estimated the amounts at 140,000 Finnish marks (FIM), FIM 100,000 and FIM 130,000 respectively. He considered that the missing sales should be treated as disguised payments of dividends for the purposes of assessing the tax liability of both the company and the applicant and therefore the applicant’s estimated income should be increased by the above amounts.\n8.  The Tax Office requested the company to submit its observations regarding the alleged errors in its tax returns for the fiscal years 1996-1998. In its observations of 23 August 1999 the company contested the allegation that certain sales had not been entered in the books. On 24 September 1999 the company and the applicant submitted their joint observations maintaining that all sales had been entered in the books and that the applicant had not received any disguised payments of dividends.\n9.  The decisions taken in respect of the applicant’s increased tax liability are mentioned below.\n10.  On 10 and 22 November 1999 the Tax Office increased the applicant’s estimated income for the above-mentioned years by FIM 129,000, FIM 90,000 and FIM 130,000 respectively. Following a rectification of the applicant’s tax liability, the amount of the disguised payments of dividends was reduced to FIM 121,000 for 1998. Tax surcharges of FIM 5,000 and FIM 3,000 were imposed on the applicant for the years 1996 and 1997.\n11.  Following the applicant’s requests, the Tax Rectification Board, on 31 May and 20 July 2000, partly upheld his claims for reductions. It reduced the disguised payments of dividends to FIM 85,000, FIM 60,000 and FIM 85,000 for the tax years 1996 to 1998. It also reduced the amount of tax surcharges for the years 1996 and 1997 to FIM 4,000 and FIM 2,000 respectively.\n12.  The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court, requesting an oral hearing of his evidence and that of witnesses Mr T.L., Ms H.T. and Mr R.L. proving that the company had not made any sales that had not been entered as income and that the applicant had not received any benefits which could be considered disguised payments of dividends.\n13.  The Tax Office obtained the observations of the Tax Ombudsman, the written statement of the Tax Office and the applicant’s observations in reply.\n14.  On 13 June 2001 the Administrative Court rejected the request for an oral hearing. It reasoned:\n“The Administrative Court considers that an oral hearing is manifestly unnecessary having regard to the evidence submitted to it and the nature of the case. The case can thus be decided without an oral hearing.”\nThe court also rejected the appeal", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3706", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Brzeg.\n5.  On 2 July 1997 the applicant applied for a building permit in order to join two flats she rented by way of building an internal stairway.\n6.  On 15 July 1997 the Brzeg District Office issued the building permit as requested. The chairman of the Brzeg Municipal Property Management Board (Miejski Zarząd Mienia Komunalnego) lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision.\n7.  On 29 August 1997 the Governor of Opole upheld the District Office’s decision. The chairman of the Brzeg Municipal Property Management Board lodged an appeal against that decision. The applicant built a stairway between the two apartments in compliance with the building permit.\n8.  On 24 March 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed both decisions and referred the case back for reconsideration, stating inter alia that the applicant had no right to make use of the flat for construction purposes.\n9.  On 16 July 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint alleging inactivity on the part of the mayor of Brzeg with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n10.  On 18 April 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court admitted that the proceedings in question had been lengthy and ordered the mayor to deal with the case within two months of the judgment being served on the parties.\n11.  On 5 July 2001 the mayor of Brzeg discontinued the relevant proceedings as being without purpose (bezprzedmiotowe), given the fact that the stairway had already been built. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision.\n12.  On 24 September 2001 the Opole Self-Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) quashed the contested decision and referred the case back for reconsideration.\n13.  On 29 January 2002 the Brzeg District Governor’s Office discontinued the relevant proceedings on the same basis as the mayor of Brzeg. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision.\n14.  On 24 April 2002 the Governor of Opole upheld the impugned decision. The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 21 December 2004 the Opole Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n16.  On 20 January 2005 the applicant applied for a legal-aid lawyer to be appointed in order to lodge a cassation appeal on her behalf against the Regional Administrative Court’s decision.\n17.  On 7 March 2005 the Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request.\n18.  On 14 June 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court decision.\n19.  Eventually, the applicant failed to lodge a cassation appeal.\n20.  On an unspecified date the Brzeg Municipality instituted civil proceedings for payment against the applicant, also seeking to have the flat vacated.\n21.  On 8 September 1999 the Brzeg District Court allowed most of the plaintiff’s claim. The applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment.\n22.  On 6 March 2000 the Opole Regional Court varied the lower court’s judgment so as to reduce considerably the amount of the payment awarded to the plaintiff.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3707", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Mysłowice.\n5.  On 4 October 2002 the applicant was arrested in Blanes, Spain, under an international search and arrest warrant on suspicion of having committed several offences of fraud, forgery, perjury, uttering threats, robbery and kidnapping, while acting in an organised criminal group. On 12 February 2002 the Central Investigating Court in Madrid no. 3 (Juzgado Central de Instrucción) granted a request for the applicant’s extradition. On 28 April 2003 the applicant was brought to Poland.\n6.  On 30 April 2003 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody until 30 June 2003. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. It further referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and to the risk that he might go into hiding. As regards the latter, the court stressed that this had happened before and had given rise to the issue of the international search and arrest warrant and to the extradition proceedings.\n7.  On 23 September 2003 the Katowice District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 October 2003. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question, the severity of the anticipated sentence, the fear that he might tamper with evidence and the complexity of the case. The applicant appealed.\n8.  On 29 October 2003 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant. It repeated the grounds previously given for his detention.\n9.  The applicant maintains that when he was detained between 28 April 2003 and 1 April 2004 he was forced to testify, subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and that the conditions of his detention were poor. Moreover, he maintains that he was deprived of contact with his family.\n10.  On 20 December 2004 the applicant was indicted before the Katowice District Court. The bill of indictment listed several charges of fraud, forgery, perjury, robbery and kidnapping brought against thirteen accused, committed in the context of an organised criminal group.\n11.  On 28 December 2004 the Katowice District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 30 June 2005. The court considered that the reasons for keeping him in detention were still valid. The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 9 March 2005 the Katowice Regional Court partly amended the decision of the district court and reduced the further period of his detention, fixing the deadline for 27 April 2005.\n13.  On 20 April 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention until 27 August 2005.\n14.  At the first hearing, held on 23 May 2005, the Katowice District Court found that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the case and referred it to the Katowice Regional Court.\n15.  On 2 June 2005 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice (Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwosci) about delays in the proceedings and his extradition from Spain. His complaint was referred to the Katowice District Court. In a letter of 30 June 2005 the President of the Katowice District Court informed the applicant that the trial court had dealt promptly with the case, which was very complex.\n16.  On 27 June 2005 the applicant made an application for release. He requested that his detention be replaced by another preventive measure.\n17.  On 8 July 2005 the Katowice District Court dismisse", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3708", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov.\n5.  The applicant was employed by the District National Committee (Okresný národný výbor) in Bardejov. In 1988 he was dismissed for breach of discipline. Subsequently courts at two levels of jurisdiction declared the dismissal unlawful. Their decisions became final on 2 August 1991. In 1990, while the above proceedings were pending, the national committees ceased to exist ex lege and their liquidation was formally completed on 31 July 1991. The national committees were replaced by district offices (okresné úrady) which were not, strictly speaking, the legal successors to the former.\n6.  On 2 September 1991 the Bardejov District Office terminated the applicant’s contract of employment on the ground that the district national committee which had formerly employed him had ceased to exist. The applicant challenged this decision. He argued, in particular, that the government regulations on the liquidation of the former national committees were unlawful, that he had become an employee of the Bardejov District Office after his dismissal in 1988 was declared unlawful on 2 August 1991, and that the District Office had paid his salary until the end of 1991. He claimed compensation for damage caused by the termination of his contract of employment.\n7.  On 6 March 1996 the Košice Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment dismissing the action. 1.2.1  Execution proceedings of 1998 (Bardejov District Court files no. E 182/98 and no. 3 Er 210/06, Prešov District Court file no. 572/99)\na) Applications of 25 May 1998 and 12 January 2006\n8.  On 25 May 1998 the applicant filed an application with the Bardejov District Court claiming enforcement of the District Court’s judgment of 16 January 1991 by which his dismissal of 1988 had been declared unlawful and the payment of his costs had been ordered to the defendant. The application was registered under file no. 182/98.\n9.  On 22 April 1999 the District Court invited the applicant to specify his claim. The applicant replied on 7 May 1999.\n10.  On 13 December 2005 the District Court admitted that the file had been misplaced and ordered its reconstruction.\n11.  On 12 January 2006 the applicant filed an application for the District Court’s judgment of 16 January 1991 to be enforced by an executions officer in accordance with new legislation enacted with effect from 1 September 2005. That application was registered under file no. 3 Er 210/06.\n12.  On 20 March 2006 the District Court transmitted the file to the executions officer. In doing so it concluded its proceedings under file no. 182/98 as under the new legislation the enforcement of judicial decisions was entrusted exclusively to executions officers.\n13.  On 19 July 2006 the District Court dismissed both parties’ objections to the execution.\n14.  The executions officer enforced the compensation for costs of the proceedings which had been awarded to the applicant in the judgment in issue. On 19 October 2006 the executions officer informed the applicant that the enforcement was thereby concluded. The applicant was invited to indicate to which bank account the sum in issue should be transferred.\n15.  In November 2006 the applicant objected that the execution had not been completed. He expressed the view that under the judgment in issue the defendant should be obliged to offer him a job.\n16.  On 22 November 2006 the executions officer transferred the sum enforced (the equivalent of approximatel", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3709", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Kurgan, a city in the Kurgan Region.\n5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant was entitled to social benefits. The benefits were underpaid, and the applicant sued the local welfare authority.\n6.  The Kurgan Town Court held for the applicant eight times.\n7.  On 25 March 2003 the court awarded arrears and fixed a new amount of periodic benefits. This judgment became binding on 8 May 2003 and was enforced in July 2003.\n8.  On 3 April 2003 the court awarded arrears and fixed a new amount of periodic benefits. This judgment became binding on 17 April 2003 and was enforced on 21 July 2005.\n9.  On 19 February 2004 the court awarded arrears and fixed a new amount of periodic benefits. This judgment became binding on 6 March 2004 and was enforced on 21 July 2005.\n10.  On 11 March 2004 the court awarded arrears and fixed a new amount of periodic benefits. This judgment became binding on 27 March 2004 and was enforced in July 2005.\n11.  On 27 April 2004 the court awarded arrears and fixed a new amount of periodic benefits. This judgment became binding on 8 May 2004 and was enforced in July 2005.\n12.  On 20 December 2004 the court awarded inationary loss caused by the non-enforcement of the previous four judgments, awarded arrears, and fixed a new amount of periodic benefits. This judgment became binding on 11 January 2005 and was enforced on 27 October 2006.\n13.  On 22 May 2006 the court awarded arrears and fixed a new amount of periodic benefits. This judgment became binding on 6 June 2006 and has been enforced in part.\n14.  On 28 June 2006 the court awarded arrears and fixed a new amount of periodic benefits. This judgment became binding on 14 July 2006 and has been enforced in part.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3710", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  In their capacity as a lawyer and a law firm, the applicants had been retained by Clinique Les Roches Claires, a public limited company (société anonyme), to assist and represent it during audit operations conducted into its affairs for the period 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2000 as a result of an audit notice of 10 July 2000.\n5.  On 12 June 2001, pursuant to the provisions of Article L. 16 B of the Code of Tax Procedure, the tax authorities applied to the President of the Marseilles tribunal de grande instance to authorise a search and seizure operation to be carried out in the context of the audit of Clinique Les Roches Claires, with a view to obtaining accounting, legal and corporate documents supporting certain declarations, on account of suspected fraudulent activities (price mark-ups and uninvoiced or fictitious transactions).\n6.  By a warrant of the same date the President authorised the tax inspectors, assisted by senior police officers, to carry out the searches and seizures required in order to discover evidence of the alleged activities at certain sites where documents or data carriers connected with the suspected fraud might be found, in particular at the applicants’ place of business, since they had been retained to assist and represent Clinique Les Roches Claires and were therefore assumed to be in possession of documents evidencing the suspected fraud on the part of their client.\n7.  The judge authorised only one search, setting 20 June 2001 as the time limit for the search and 30 June 2001 as the time-limit for the submission of a report on the operations.\n8.  On 13 June 2001, simultaneous searches were conducted at the locations indicated in the warrant issued by the President of the Marseilles tribunal de grande instance. The operations carried out at the applicants’ place of business by four tax inspectors took place between 7.30 a.m. and 1.10 p.m., in the presence of the first applicant, the chairman of the Marseilles Bar Association and a senior police officer. On that occasion, the first applicant was given a copy of the warrant of 12 June 2001.\n9.  A record of the search and seizure operations and an inventory were drawn up and signed by those present. Sixty-six documents were seized. They included handwritten notes and a document with a comment in the first applicant’s handwriting, in respect of which the chairman of the Bar Association expressly pointed out that these were the lawyer’s personal documents and were accordingly protected by the rule of absolute professional secrecy and could not be seized. The first applicant protested at the way in which the search had been carried out and made a number of observations which were logged in the record. He was given a copy of the record and the documents seized.\n10.  The applicants appealed on points of law within the statutory time-limit of five days. In their pleadings in support of the appeal, they raised two grounds alleging that the searches and seizures had been unlawful. They stated in particular, relying on professional secrecy and the rights of the defence, that documents sent by a client to that client’s lawyer and correspondence between them could not be seized where the search was not aimed at establishing proof that the lawyer in question had been involved in the offence. They also complained that the search warrant issued by the President of the tribunal de grande instance had failed to mention specifically that the presence of the chairman of th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3711", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lived until his arrest in the town of Ivanovo.\n7.  On 27 October 2000 four individuals attacked Mr I. near his flat, beat him up and attempted to rob him. Mr I. fought back and the attackers ran away.\n8.  Three days later the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having attempted to rob Mr I. in conspiracy with Mr B. and Mr V. The arrest record indicated that he had been arrested for disorderly conduct. The applicant was placed in detention facility no. IZ-37/1.\n9.  An investigator interviewed Mr B. and Mr V. who were drug addicts and were suffering from drug withdrawal syndrome. They confessed to robbery, committed with the applicant. According to the applicant, they had confessed because policemen had promised to supply them with drugs. The applicant insisted that in October and November 2000 Mr B. and Mr V. had written statements confessing to the robbery after the policemen had given them drugs.\n10.  On 30 October 2000 emergency doctors visited Mr V. The medical report of 30 October 2000 showed that Mr V. was a drug addict and that he had been provided with medical assistance.  On 5 and 6 November 2000 the emergency doctors examined Mr B. He was diagnosed with drug addiction and withdrawal syndrome. Medical assistance was provided.\n11.  On 2 November 2000 the applicant had a confrontation interview with Mr I. who stated that four men wearing balaclava masks had attempted to rob him on 27 October 2000. Mr I. noted that the applicant was of the same height as one of the attackers. The applicant did not dispute Mr I.’s submissions and did not ask any questions.\n12.  While being questioned by the investigator the applicant admitted that he had intended to beat Mr I. up because a friend had asked him to do it. He denied that he had ever attempted to rob Mr I. The applicant maintained that testimony at the trial.\n13.  On 26 October 2001 the applicant was committed to stand trial before the Frunzenskiy District Court of Ivanovo.\n14.  A lawyer representing Mr V. successfully asked the District Court to examine the medical report of 30 October 2000 indicating that Mr V. was a drug addict.\n15.  At the trial Mr V. and Mr B. retracted their confessions made during the pre-trial investigation. They claimed that they had confessed to the robbery under the influence of drugs and in the absence of a lawyer. They insisted that on 27 October 2000 they had met Mr I. but had merely intended to beat him up and had had no intention of robbing him.\n16.  Mr I. did not attend the trial and the District Court found that there were “good reasons” for his absence. The Government, relying on a written statement by a District Court secretary, submitted that on 29 November 2001 Mr I. had notified the secretary by telephone that he had not been able to attend the trial hearings as he had been in another country. Mr I. had confirmed his statements made during the pre-trial investigation. The Government also produced a written statement issued on 28 November 2001 by a lay assessor who had sat in the applicant’s case. According to the lay assessor, Mr I.’s wife informed her by telephone that Mr I. had left Russia and had been unable to come back before 3 December 2001.\n17.  At the hearing on 29 November 2001 the District Court read out depositions made by Mr I. on 23 April and 8 May 2001. The court record indicated that the District Court had not asked the applicant or his lawyer whether they had agreed to the reading of the de", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3713", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Pskov, a town in the Pskov Region.\n5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant is entitled to social benefits. Considering himself underpaid, he brought six successful actions against local authorities responsible for welfare.\n6.  On 13 August 2002 the Pskov Town Court fixed a new amount of periodic benefits. This judgment became binding on 24 September 2002. According to the Government, this judgment was fully enforced by 31 December 2006. According to the applicant, this judgment has still not been enforced, because from 1 January 2007 the periodic benefits were reduced again.\n7.  On 11 June 2003 the Town Court awarded 15,000 Russian roubles (“RUB”) as interest for delayed payment. This judgment became binding on 15 July 2003. On the welfare authority’s request, on 20 February 2004 the Presidium of the Pskov Regional Court quashed the judgment on supervisory review, on the ground of misapplication of material law.\n8.  On 21 July 2003 the Justice of the Peace of Court District 31 of Pskov awarded RUB 3,000 as interest for delayed payment. This judgment became binding on 9 October 2003. On the welfare authority’s request, on 14 May 2004 the Presidium of the Pskov Regional Court quashed the judgment on supervisory review, on the ground of misapplication of material law.\n9.  On 28 October 2003 the Town Court awarded arrears and fixed a new amount of periodic payments. This judgment became binding on 10 November 2003. According to the Government, this judgment was fully enforced by 31 December 2005. According to the applicant, this judgment has still not been enforced, because the periodic payments continue to be miscalculated.\n10.  On 29 December 2003 the Town Court awarded compensation of inflationary loss caused by the delayed enforcement of an earlier judgment. This judgment became binding on 9 January 2004 and was enforced on 8 July 2005.\n11.  On 1 June 2005 the Town Court ordered the applicant to be provided in 2005 with a decent flat of at least 65 m². This judgment became final on 15 June 2005 and was enforced on 29 December 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3714", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Novogrodivka, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 8 May 2002 the Novogrodivka Town Court ordered the Novogrodivka Mining Company No. 1/3 – a State-owned enterprise – to pay the applicant arrears of compensation for loss of breadwinner, i.e. her husband, in the amount of 1,285.58[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH).\n6.  This judgment became final and on 6 August 2002 the Novogrodivka Town Bailiffs’ Service initiated the enforcement proceedings.\n7.  In April 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Novogrodivka Town Court against the Novogrodivka Town Bailiffs’ Service claiming compensation for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in her favour. On 12 August 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 14 October 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court of Ukraine. According to her, in April 2005 the proceedings were still pending. The applicant did not provide the Court with any further information in this regard.\n8.  On 19 October 2005 the Bailiffs’ Service discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the judgment of 8 May 2002 had been enforced in full. The applicant did not contest this decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3715", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Porvoo.\n6.  In 1986 the applicant became allergic to ink used in her work as a window-dresser and decorator and was diagnosed as asthmatic. She was granted a rehabilitation allowance in order to be able to change career and to qualify for a new profession. From 1989 onwards she worked as an accountant.\n7.  In 1997 her asthma became worse. The insurance company granted her a temporary accident pension in 1998 based on her annual income in 1986 when the asthma first started.\n8.  The applicant appealed to the Accident Board (tapaturmalautakunta, olycksfallsnämnden), demanding that the accident pension be calculated on the basis of her income as an accountant instead of her income in 1986 since she was no longer employed in the same work as when the occupational disease was diagnosed. Moreover, she stated in her appeal that she was undergoing further tests for asthma in order to find out if she was suffering from a new occupational disease.\n9.  On 14 January 1999 the Accident Board issued a decision rejecting her appeal with regard to the income. In so far as the applicant demanded compensation on grounds of having contracted a new occupational disease in her new work, the Accident Board referred the matter to the insurance company for consideration.\n10.  On 18 August 1999 the insurance company refused her request for a further allowance as it found that, according to the most recent medical opinion, the applicant was not suffering from a new occupational disease and that her symptoms were caused by her previously diagnosed asthma. The applicant disagreed and appealed to the Accident Board, submitting two medical opinions in support of her claim.\n11.  On 12 January 2000 the Accident Board found that the medical opinions did not support the applicant’s claims and rejected her appeal.\n12.  Represented by a lawyer, she appealed to the Insurance Court (vakuutusoikeus, försäkringsrätten), claiming that the decision should be quashed. The insurance company filed its observations with the court and the applicant was given an opportunity to reply. On 24 January 2002 the insurance company filed two further medical opinions dated 20 April 2001 and 8 November 2001.\n13.  The Insurance Court upheld the decision on 11 June 2002, finding that the new evidence did not allow it to reach a different conclusion.\n14.  On 10 July 2002 the applicant acquainted herself with the case file before the Insurance Court. According to the applicant, she saw in the case file an opinion prepared by J., a doctor on the Accident Board, as well as two medical opinions from the insurance company.\n15.  The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen). She alleged that the Insurance Court had obtained two medical opinions from the insurance company and an opinion from J., a doctor on the Accident Board, which had not been communicated to her. She also claimed that the domestic decisions were inadequate, the medical opinions erroneous and the doctors biased.\n16.  On 5 March 2003 she was refused leave to appeal.\n17.  On 10 October 2003 the applicant again examined the case file before the Insurance Court. As she did not find J.’s opinion in the public part of the case file, she asked the Insurance Court to give her access to it. She repeated her allegation that she had seen the said opinion in the case file in July 2002, and said that it must have been subsequently removed.\n18.  On 23 Octo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3716", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Wrocław.\n6.  On 19 July 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed several burglaries and robberies together with several accomplices.\n7.  On 20 July 2001 the Jawor District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences. The court also considered that, given the likely severity of the penalty, it was probable that the applicant would interfere with the course of proceedings and he might go into hiding. Moreover, the court considered that there was a risk that the applicant would bring pressure to bear on witnesses or his accomplices.\n8.  On 4 October and 20 December 2001 the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) extended the applicant’s detention, finding that the original reasons for it were still valid. The court referred also to the risk of his absconding, considering that the applicant rarely stayed at his official place of residence and “had been avoiding contact with the police officers, who were looking for him”.\n9.  On 18 June 2002 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), upon an application from the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy), further extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention.\n10.  Subsequently, the applicant and ten co-accused were indicted before the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n11.  On 19 September 2002 the Wroclaw Regional Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. In a very brief reasoning the court stated that there was a reasonable suspicion against the applicant and that, given the likely heavy sentence and the fact that the applicant had acted in a criminal group, only his detention could secure the proper course of the proceedings.\n12.  Subsequently, as the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time-limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Regional Court applied to the Wrocław Court of Appeal for the applicant’s detention to be extended beyond that term.\n13.  On 10 June, 18 September and 16 December 2003 the Wrocław Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention and that of his three co‑accused. The court relied on the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. Moreover, the court referred to the nature of the offences and the risk that, given the likely severity of the penalty, the applicant would obstruct the proceedings or go into hiding. Lastly, the Court of Appeal examined the course of the proceedings before the trial court and found that their length had not been excessive, bearing in mind the number of accused involved and complexity of the case. It also stated that despite the fact that hearings had been held several times per week, over 130 witnesses still had to be heard.\n14.  On 25 February and 18 June 2004 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal further extended the applicant’s detention in two decisions. Both decisions repeated the same grounds for the applicant’s detention: the reasonable suspicion against him, the severity of the likely sentence and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The Court of Appeal stressed that it expected the trial court to finish the proceedings soon, in particular given the length of time the accused had spent in detention so far. In the second of the above-ment", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3717", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Baia Mare.\n5.  On 1 April 2002 the Maramureş County Court ordered a company I.W., the applicant’s former employer, to reinstate him in his post and to pay him compensation. This decision became final.\nHowever, on 30 September 2002 the same court granted I.W.’s request and annulled the 1 April 2002 decision (contestaţie în anulare). It proceeded to re-examine the case and dismiss the applicant’s initial action.\nThe 30 September 2002 decision was drafted on 28 October 2002 and typed up on 30 October 2002. In accordance with the rules of procedure, it was not served on the parties.\n6.  On 18 December 2002 the applicant requested the Procurator-General to lodge an application with the Supreme Court of Justice for an audit setting aside the decision of 30 September 2002 (recurs în anulare). On 20 March 2003, the Procurator-General refused to act upon the applicant’s request.\n7.  In a decision of 3 February 2000, which was upheld by a final decision of the Maramureş County Court on 18 May 2000, the applicant’s previous employer, a company called M. was ordered to give the applicant his employment record and to pay him 100,000 Old Romanian Lei (ROL) in legal fees.\n8.  On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged an application with the Baia Mare District Court to enforce that decision. In its defence, M. claimed that it no longer had the applicant’s employment record and that only the most recent employer (I.W.) was allowed to deliver a duplicate.\n9.  On 15 February 2002 the application was dismissed. The court found, in particular, that the facts of the case confirmed that it was objectively impossible for M. to deliver the applicant’s employment record, as the document was no longer in its possession.\n10.  The applicant’s appeal was allowed by the Maramureş County Court in a final decision of 17 June 2002, as amended on 12 September 2002. The court imposed a daily penalty on M. of ROL 350,000 from 3 February 2000 until execution and ordered it to pay the applicant ROL 5,712,000 in legal fees. After noting the arguments used by the court at first‑instance in order to find in favour of the debtor, the appeal court stated, in particular, that:\n“In so far as an irrevocable decision ordered [M.] to deliver to the complainant his employment record, the impediments to compliance referred to by the first-instance court are irrelevant.”\n11.  On 10 March 2003 M. filed with the Maramureş County Court a request for the annulment (contestaţie în anulare) of the decision of 17 June 2002, on the ground that the County Court had not examined the evidence confirming its inability to comply.\n12.  The applicant submitted that M. did not have locus standi to request an annulment, since the extraordinary-appeal procedure was only available to the party who had lodged the ordinary appeal. He also contended that the request should be rejected since M. had invoked the same reasons as before the first-instance court and the appeal court.\n13.  In a final decision of 26 March 2003, the Maramureş County Court, sitting in a different composition from that of 17 June 2002, allowed the request, and quashed the final decision of 17 June 2002 on the merits and the decision of 12 September 2002 amending it. Consequently, it dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of 15 February 2002. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:\n“The request [for annulment] was lodged by [M.], which was the respondent in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3718", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and is currently detained in the Gdańsk Detention Centre.\n6.  On 29 May 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed a robbery and the murder of a taxi driver.\n7.  On 30 May 2003 the Braniewo District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand. The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and the high probability that a heavy sentence would be imposed on him. The court further considered that there was a risk that the applicant might interfere with the course of proceedings and bring pressure to bear on witnesses.\n8.  On 26 August and 25 November 2003 and 23 January 2004 the Elbląg Regional Court prolonged the detention on remand of the applicant and his co-accused. The court found that the grounds previously invoked were still valid and that only the applicant’s detention would secure the proper conduct of the investigation.\n9.  On 16 March 2004 the applicant was indicted before the Elbląg Regional Court.\n10.  Subsequently, his pre-trial detention was prolonged by the same court on 26 March and 6 July 2004. The court, in addition to the grounds invoked previously, found that the applicant did not have a permanent place of residence in Poland; therefore, there was a risk that he might go into hiding.\n11.  At the hearings held on 18 November 2004 and 25 March 2005 the applicant’s detention on remand was further prolonged. The court briefly stated that the grounds previously given for his detention were still relevant and that there were no grounds favouring his release.\n12.  Subsequently, as the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time-limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Regional Court made applications to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal asking for the applicant’s detention to be prolonged beyond that term.\n13.  On 19 May 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) granted the request and prolonged the applicant’s detention. The court particularly relied on the complexity of the proceedings which had made it impossible for the court to finish the trial.\n14.  On 30 June 2005 the Elbląg Regional Court convicted the applicant and his co‑accused and sentenced them to 25 years’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment.\n15.  On 21 December 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case. On the same day, the appeal court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand.\n16.  On 7 March 2006 his pre-trial detention was further prolonged. The court admitted that the applicant had been detained for a rather lengthy period. However, it did not contravene the requirements of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention as the grounds for keeping the applicant in detention remained relevant and the courts had been diligent in examining the case.\n17.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was prolonged at the hearing held on 22 September 2006. The trial court reiterated the grounds given previously: the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, the probability that a severe sentence would be imposed on him and the risk that he might try to influence witnesses or otherwise interfere with the proper course of the proceedings.\n18.  At the hearing held on 28 December 2006 the court prolonged the applicant’s detention, finding that it had been necessary to secure the p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3720", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  The applicant was the director of a local branch in Warsaw of the bank PKO BP.\n7.  On 26 January 2001 the applicant was arrested by officers of the Central Investigation Bureau (Centralne Biuro Śledcze, CBŚ) on suspicion of fraud and forgery of documents. On 27 January 2001 the Pruszków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) dismissed the prosecutor’s request to impose on the applicant pre-trial detention finding that the suspicion against her had not been sufficiently justified. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 20 March 2001.\n8.  It appears that the Pruszków District Prosecutor continued the investigation against the applicant.\n9.  On 9 June 2003 the applicant was again arrested by the CBŚ. She was charged with fraud, in that with the aim of financial gain she had caused substantial financial damage to the bank in granting suspect loans to clients of the bank. Moreover, the applicant was charged with having acted together with a member of her staff, in an organised criminal group. On 11 June 2003 the Warsaw District Court remanded the applicant in custody. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which she had been charged. The District Court also considered that only detention could secure the proper course of the proceedings and that there existed a risk that the applicant would influence the witnesses, many of whom were bank employees formerly under her authority.\n10.  On 7 July 2003 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant.\n11.  On 3 September 2003 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion against the applicant and on the risk that the applicant, who had pleaded not guilty, would attempt to influence witnesses or otherwise interfere with the proper course of the proceedings.\n12.  The applicant’s detention was further extended on 3 December 2003 and 5 March 2004. In addition to the grounds given previously, the court relied on the probability that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant.\n13.  The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against all decisions prolonging her detention, submitting that the risk of her influencing the course of the proceedings had not been in any way substantiated. Prior to her arrest in 2003 she had not made any attempt to tamper with evidence or with the investigation that had been pending at the material time.\n14.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was further extended on 8 June 2004. In a brief reasoning the court referred particularly to the nature of the investigation that required the taking of voluminous evidence.\n15.  On 2 July 2004 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the latter decision; nevertheless, it considered that the District Court’s reasoning for its decision had been “vague” (ogólnikowe). It also stated that the prosecution should intensify its actions and lodge a bill of indictment so as to allow the trial court to examine the case within a reasonable time.\n16.  The subsequent decision to prolong the applicant’s detention, given on 7 September 2004 by the Warsaw Court of Appeal, contains the following reasoning:\n“The Appellate Prosecutor’s application is justified. The continued pre-trial detention of [the applicant] is justified under [the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure] on the grounds given in th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3721", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1948 and is currently detained in Tbilisi no. 1 Prison.\n8.  On 23 May 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having raped a fourteen year old girl.\n9.  According to the applicant, several police officers ill-treated him while he was in custody at a Rustavi police station on 23-25 May 2001, in order to obtain a confession. The police officers allegedly handcuffed him, put a gas mask on his face to make his cries inaudible, and severely battered him, breaking his jaw and the index finger of his left hand. The beatings were allegedly attended and encouraged by a senior officer of the Rustavi police station, Mr G., as well as by two investigators of the Rustavi district prosecutor’s office (“the RDPO”), Mr. M. and Mr. A.\n10.  An expert opinion of 24 May 2001 and other pieces of evidence suggested that the applicant had had sexual intercourse with the victim. On 25 May 2001 he was charged with the rape of a minor (“the rape case”).\n11.  As disclosed by the case file, on 26 May 2001 the applicant was assigned a lawyer, Mr S. On the same day, the Rustavi District Court remanded him in custody. Subsequently, he was transferred to the Tbilisi no. 5 Prison, where his state of health was examined by a physician. According to the applicant, that physician, whilst noting the signs of ill‑treatment on his body, refused to record them in the medical log.\n12.  On 11 July 2001 the applicant complained that there were various procedural shortcomings in the investigation and requested that Mr M. be withdrawn from his case and another investigator assigned. He accused investigator Mr M. of a lack of impartiality, but did not raise any complaint of ill-treatment on the part of the latter or any other law-enforcement agents.\n13.  The fact that sexual intercourse had taken place between the applicant and the victim was later confirmed by another, comprehensive expert opinion, as well as by various material pieces of evidence and witness statements. The Tbilisi Regional Court convicted the applicant on 12 December 2001 of the offence with which he had been charged and sentenced him to 13 years in prison. As disclosed by the case file, the applicant did not complain of alleged ill-treatment during the trial.\n14.  In a decision of 16 April 2002, the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant as unsubstantiated. The cassation hearing, which lasted several days, was attended by the applicant. No complaint of ill-treatment was raised before the cassation court either. Afterwards, the applicant was transferred to the Tbilisi no. 1 Prison to serve his sentence.\n15.  In support of his allegations of ill-treatment (see paragraph 9 above), the applicant submitted an excerpt from the medical log of the Tbilisi no. 1 Prison, dated 16 July 2003 (“the prison medical opinion of 16 July 2003”), which confirmed that the index fingers on both his hands were deformed due to fractures. The origin of those fractures could not however be identified. No traces of any old fracture of the applicant’s jaw were reported. 2. Proceedings related to the applicant’s complaints of ill‑treatment and an abuse of power by the investigative authorities\n(a) Prior to the communication of the application to the Government\n16.  On 23 May 2002 the applicant lodged with the General Prosecutor’s Office (“the GPO”) a complaint that various procedural violations had allegedly been committed in the course of the rape case, including the cassation pro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3722", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is currently serving a sentence in Vicenza Prison in Italy.\n7.  In 1995 the prosecutor’s office for the city of Durrës charged the applicant with murder on the basis of evidence from the victim’s father, who maintained that he had been told by the victim, before his death, that the applicant was one of the murderers. The investigation in respect of three other suspects had been discontinued.\n8.  The applicant’s father, when interviewed by the police, stated that the applicant had been travelling to Italy with two other persons on the day when the murder was committed.\n9.  On 27 November 1996 the applicant, in absentia, was found guilty of murder under Article 76 of the Criminal Code and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment by the Durrës Court of Appeal. His appeal to the then Court of Cassation was declared inadmissible on 10 March 1997.\n10.  Following the signature of an authorisation form by the applicant’s father on 10 December 1997, under Article 450 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), the applicant’s counsel sought judicial review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment by a request bearing the same date. The application for judicial review reached the District Court on 11 December 1997.\n11.  The judicial review request stated that new evidence had emerged in favour of the applicant. Firstly, from the autopsy report it transpired that the victim had been stabbed in the heart and had died instantly; consequently, from a scientific point of view the victim had not been able to communicate. Secondly, two witnesses stated that they had been travelling with the applicant early in the morning to take the ferry to Italy at the time when the murder had occurred.\n12.  On 13 December 1997 the applicant authorised the same lawyer, who had already been appointed by his father on 10 December 1997, to represent him in the domestic proceedings.\n13.  By means of a letter of 26 August 1998 to the district prosecutor, the Directorate of Investigation and Inspection at the Prosecutor General’s Office forwarded the case file of the applicant and added that\n“the request for judicial review meets the legal requirements (kërkesa për rishikimin e vendimit plotëson kriteret ligjore)”.\nIt requested the district prosecutor to examine objectively the new pieces of evidence to be submitted to the District Court.\n14.  The district prosecutor, who happened to be the same person who had attended the first trial, attended the hearing and requested the dismissal of the case pursuant to Article 328 (dh) of the CCP, which states that the case may be dismissed “if it transpires that the defendant has not committed the criminal offence or it cannot be proved that he committed the offence.”\n15.  On 27 November 1998 the Durrës District Court declared admissible the applicant’s application for judicial review. The court, deciding on the merits and after examining the new evidence and taking into account the prosecutor’s office request, quashed the Durrës Court of Appeal’s judgment of 27 November 1996 (see paragraphs 9 above) and acquitted the applicant on 14 December 1998 (“the acquittal decision”).\n16.  No appeal was lodged against the judgment within the 10 days allowed and it therefore became final on 24 December 1998.\n17.  On 8 October 1999 the prosecutor at the Durrës Court of Appeal (“the appeal prosecutor”) lodged a request for leave to appeal out of time against the acquittal decision with the Durrës District Court. T", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3723", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, who are father and daughter, were born in 1947 and 1995 respectively and live in Cepari.\n6.  On 4 June 2000 the second applicant was grievously injured in a car accident. She suffered total paralysis of her lower limbs and was admitted to hospital where, according to the first applicant, she remained for 709 days.\n7.  On an unknown date during pre-trial investigations the second applicant’s mother claimed damages in criminal proceedings. On 7 December 2000 the Public Prosecutor attached to the Curtea de Argeş Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”) committed T.M., the driver of the car, for trial before the Court of First Instance.\n8.  Of the fourteen hearings held between 17 January and 7 December 2001, ten were adjourned for the absence of witnesses or of expert reports, for hearing new witnesses and for ordering a new expert report, two at T.M.’s request for the absence of her lawyer and one for deliberations.\nOn 7 December 2001 the Court of First Instance convicted T.M. of having negligently caused bodily harm, sentenced her to a conditional prison sentence of three months, held her personally liable and awarded both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the second applicant and to her mother. It also ordered T.M. to pay the mother a monthly sum pending her daughter’s recovery.\n9.  On 26 March 2002 the Argeş Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) rejected an appeal by the mother, considering that the Court of First Instance had correctly reduced the damages on the ground of contributory negligence by the second applicant and lack of surveillance by the parents.\n10.  On 25 June 2002 the Piteşti Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld a subsequent appeal lodged by both the second applicant’s mother and T.M. and quashed the previous judgment, sending the case back for retrial. The court noted that the insurance company had not been summoned.\n11.  During the retrial the six hearings held between 26 September 2002 and 9 January 2003 were adjourned at the request of either T.M. or the insurance company.\n12.  On 23 January 2003 the Court of First Instance sentenced T.M. to a conditional prison sentence of three months, held her jointly liable with the insurance company and awarded both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the second applicant and to her mother, including a monthly sum pending the second applicant’s recovery.\n13.  On 8 May 2003 the Regional Court rejected an appeal by the second applicant’s mother and, finding that her daughter had been exclusively at fault, allowed an appeal by the opposing parties, held T.M. personally liable and reduced the amount of damages.\n14.  On 20 November 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld subsequent appeals lodged by the second applicant’s mother and by the public prosecutor, quashed the previous judgment and sent the case back for retrial. The court considered that both parties to the accident had been at fault and that the Regional Court had not pronounced on all the complaints raised by the second applicant’s mother.\n15.  After the retrial, on 3 March 2004 the Regional Court allowed the action lodged by the second applicant’s mother in part and awarded both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, finding T.M. jointly liable up to a certain sum and exclusively liable for the remainder.\n16.  On 27 May 2004 the Court of Appeal gave a final decision rejecting as unfounded an appeal by the second applicant’s mother. The court considered that the quantum of dam", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3724", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 11 January 2000 the Office for the Supervision of Credit Unions (Úřad pro dohled nad družstevními záložnami) (“the OSCU”) placed the applicant credit union in receivership (nucená správa) for a period of six months under section 28(3)(c) of the Act, on the ground that it had contravened the legislation in question, having engaged in activities outside its remit without authorisation. A receiver (nucený správce) was appointed to replace the applicant credit union’s decision-making bodies. The OSCU was acting under section 27(1) of the Act read in conjunction with section 26(2) of the Banks Act (zákon o bankách).\n7.  Referring to an audit of the applicant credit union’s activities, the OSCU noted that the applicant credit union had on 6 May 1999 concluded three contracts with S7, a limited liability company, under the terms of which the latter had assigned to the applicant credit union receivables due to it from two debtor companies, amounting to CZK 126,235,132 (EUR 3,366,582[2]) in total, for an agreed price of CZK 14,431,000 (EUR 384,862). The OSCU ruled that the applicant credit union had thereby purchased the receivables of a third party by effectively covering the latter’s debt. It qualified the transaction as a loan to a third party. Since section 3 of the Act prohibited credit unions from providing loans to non-members, the OSCU concluded that the applicant credit union had acted in flagrant breach of the Act.\n8.  The OSCU further noted that the auditors had discovered that the applicant credit union had entered into a contract on 2 and 5 August 1999 to grant a loan of CZK 22,000,000 (EUR 586,721) to a limited liability company, MLM Brno, and had signed two contracts on 25 June 1999 with OPES, a joint stock company, for the purchase of securities (cenné papíry) at a total price of CZK 41,200,056 (EUR 1,098,770). The OSCU ruled that these transactions were also illegal, as section 1(6) read in conjunction with section 3 of the Act did not allow credit unions to acquire securities other than public bonds (dluhopisy), municipal bonds (komunální obligace) or mortgage bonds (hypoteční zástavní listy).\n9.  The receivership became effective on 12 January 2000, when the applicant credit union was notified of the OSCU’s decision.\n10.  On 26 March 2000 the applicant credit union lodged a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) with the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) against the receivership order and applied at the same time for an order striking down certain provisions of the Act. It relied, inter alia, on section 75(2)(a) of the Constitutional Court Act, which enables the Constitutional Court to hear a constitutional appeal even if domestic remedies have not been exhausted, if it substantially affects the appellant’s personal interests.\n11.  On 7 April 2000, following an administrative appeal by the applicant credit union, the Ministry of Finance upheld the receivership order of 11 January 2000.\n12.  On the same date a petition to adjudge the applicant credit union bankrupt (konkusní řízení) was filed with the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud). During 2001 a large number of creditors joined the proceedings.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicant credit union applied for judicial review (správní žaloba) of the imposition of receivership under Article 247 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, asserting that the statutory conditions for such a step on the part of the OSCU had not been met.\n14.  On 1 May 2000 Act no. 100/20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3725", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Saint Petersburg.\n5.  As a serviceman and victim of radiation, he is entitled to a State flat. On 28 March 2002 the 224th Military Court of the Saint Petersburg Garrison ordered the Naval Engineering Academy to provide the applicant with a flat “meeting statutory requirements”. This judgment became binding on 9 April 2002, but was not enforced immediately.\n6.  In 2002–04 bailiffs several times urged the defendant to comply with the judgment.\n7.  In 2002–04 the applicant rejected three settlement offers.\nIn November 2002 he refused a three-room flat in Kommunar, a settlement in the Leningrad Region located 2 km away from Saint Petersburg. In February 2003 he refused a three-room flat in Gatchina, a town in the Leningrad Region located 8 km away from Saint Petersburg. The applicant rejected these two offers on the ground that they were located outside Saint Petersburg.\nIn February 2004 the applicant refused a flat in Pushkin, a town located within the administrative city limits of Saint Petersburg. The applicant rejected this offer on the ground that the flat was smaller than that due.\n8.  In December 2004 the debtor offered the applicant a four-room flat in Saint Petersburg, and the applicant accepted it. On 12 January 2005 the enforcement proceedings were terminated. On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant moved into the flat and began to pay utility bills. On 9 August 2007 the applicant’s tenancy was formally recorded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3726", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Samobor.\n5.  On 8 October 1990 the applicant brought a civil action against his former employer, the company F., challenging his dismissal and seeking his reinstatement and payment of salary arrears for the period of his unemployment.\n6.  The Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) granted the claim in part in a judgment of 6 December 1991, which was upheld by the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on 13 April 1993.\n7.  In a decision of 2 September 1998 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) quashed the lower courts’ judgments and remitted the case for retrial, upon an appeal lodged by the defendant.\n8.  In the fresh proceedings the Zagreb Municipal Court ordered the applicant’s reinstatement and dismissed his claim for payment of salary arrears on 11 May 2000. The applicant lodged an appeal.\n9.  On 29 April 2003 the Zagreb County Court upheld the part of the first instance judgment dismissing the claim for payment and quashed it in the part granting the applicant’s claim for reinstatement and in that part remitted the case for a fresh trial.\n10.  The applicant did not attend a hearing scheduled for 21 October 2003 before the Zagreb Municipal Court and the proceedings were stayed. On 24 October 2003 the applicant asked that the proceedings be resumed and further hearings were held on 12 February and 6 April 2004. On 2 June 2004 the trial was concluded but the applicant then submitted further evidence and the trial was reopened on 17 June 2004. Further hearings were held on 3 May 2005 and 7 November 2007 when the applicant asked for the exemption of the presiding judge. Hearings were held on 6 February and 10 April 2008 and the proceedings are still pending.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 24 January 2003 the applicant also lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings. On 27 November 2003 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible because the Zagreb County Court had in the meantime, on 29 April 2003, decided on his appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3727", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant is a religious community established in Austria, and the second to fifth applicants were born in 1927, 1935, 1927 and 1930 respectively and live in Vienna.\n8.  On 25 September 1978 the second to fifth applicants and two other claimants requested the Federal Minister for Education and Arts (Bundesminister für Unterricht und Kunst) to recognise the first applicant as a religious society (Religionsgesellschaft) under the 1874 Recognition Act (Anerkennungsgesetz). Since the Minister did not respond, the applicants subsequently filed a complaint (Beschwerde) with the Ombudsman’s Office (Volksanwaltschaft) about the Minister’s inactivity.\n9.  On 5 February 1981 the Ombudsman’s Office issued a statement concerning the complaint. It considered that the Minister’s inactivity for almost two years constituted an undesirable state of affairs in public administration (Missstand im Bereich der öffentlichen Verwaltung) even though the authority was not formally obliged under the applicable law to take a decision since recognition of a religious society had to be taken in the form of a decree (Verordnung). However, since an agreement had been reached in a meeting between the applicants and the Ministry on 3 December 1980, no further steps were required by the Ombudsman’s Office. The contents of this agreement were not disclosed by the applicants.\n10.  On 22 June 1987 the second to fifth applicants requested the Federal Minister for Education, Arts and Sports (Bundesminister für Unterricht, Kunst und Sport) to recognise the first applicant as a religious society.\n11.  The Minister did not grant the request and, after several reminders, informed the applicants that under the 1874 Recognition Act they had no right to obtain a formal decision (Bescheid) on their request.\n12.  On 25 October 1991 the applicants lodged a direct application (Individualantrag) with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). They requested the court to repeal section 2 (1) of the 1874 Recognition Act, as in their view, this provision violated the right to freedom of religion and to freedom of association. They also argued that they were directly affected by this provision without it being necessary for a formal decision by an administrative authority to be taken (Article 140 § 1 in fine of the Federal Constitution (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz)).\n13.  On 14 January 1992 the Federal Government (Bundesregierung) submitted their observations to the Constitutional Court. On 27 April 1992 the Constitutional Court asked the Federal Government to submit supplementary observations, which were filed on 2 June 1992. The Federal Government argued, inter alia, that the provisions at issue were in conformity with the Federal Constitution as it was possible for the applicants to found a religious association under the Associations Act (Vereinsgesetz).\n14.  On 25 June 1992 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ complaint as inadmissible. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the court considered that they were not directly affected by the impugned provisions as, in the light of its judgment of 1988 (VfSlg [Judgments and Decisions of the Constitutional Court] 11.931/1988), they had a right to have their case determined by an administrative authority. However, they had not exhausted the legal remedies available to them since they had failed to lodge an application under Article 132 of the Federal Constitution with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsger", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3729", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lived until his arrest in Rostov-on-Don. He is now serving his sentence in a correctional colony in the town of Bataysk.\n7.  On 29 October 2000 two police officers accompanied by a person in civilian clothes approached the applicant at a bus stop. According to the applicant, the civilian punched him and the police officers held his hands behind his back in an armlock, hit him with a rubber truncheon on his head and back, body searched him and pushed him into a police car. They took the applicant to the Proletarskiy District police station. The applicant submitted that the beatings had continued at the station with a view to forcing him to confess to a theft.\n8.  The Government, relying on similar written statements made on 2 and 8 August 2005 by police officers A. and Av. and a written statement drawn up by the applicant’s co-defendant, Mr P., disputed the applicant’s description of events. They alleged that on 29 October 2000 he had been arrested on suspicion of having robbed truck drivers and had been taken to a police station. The relevant part of the statements read as follows:\nStatement by police officer A.\n “On 29 October 2000, after midnight, on an order of an officer on duty, I drove to the following address:... due to a call about a robbery in progress. As a result of the operation, data was gathered, victims’ statements and explanations were recorded, and a certain police officer arrested Mr Nadrosov and Mr P. on suspicion of the crime and brought [them] to the police station. At present, due to the remoteness of the events, I cannot recall whether I questioned them and what they stated. I would like to add that on 29 October 2000, at 8.00 a.m., my shift ended and I left the police station. I took no further part in that police case. I strongly object to Mr Nadrosov’s statements that police officers injured him in the police station; at present I cannot recall whether Mr Nadrosov raised any complaints about the actions of the police officers.”\nStatement by Mr P.\n“... after that, police officers arrived at the [bus] stop and arrested certain participants in that brawl; I was among them. After I had been taken to the Proletarskiy District police station, Rostov-on-Don, the police officers informed me that I was suspected of having committed a robbery. Of course, I denied my guilt, stating that at night I was with my friends and that I had not committed any crime... After that, the police officers placed Mr Nadrosov, whom I did not know and who was also arrested by policemen on suspicion of the robbery, in my cell. I was not present when Mr Nadrosov was searched. I would also like to note that the police officers did not beat Mr Nadrosov in my presence... As I am aware, on 29 October 2000 Mr Nadrosov complained that he did not feel well, due to which he was sent from the Proletarskiy District Police Department to a hospital. Subsequently, I saw Mr Nadrosov in a courtroom...”\n9.  On 30 October 2000 an ambulance was called for the applicant. Emergency doctors drew up a report noting that he had an injury to the left kidney and a closed injury on the left side of the chest. The applicant was taken to a hospital.\n10.  At the hospital doctors again examined the applicant and diagnosed him with “an injury to the lumbar region and a closed chest injury”. The applicant explained that he had sustained the injuries when he had fallen from “the height of his own stature” on 29 October 2000. The medical", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3731", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Sverdlovsk Region.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on 20 January 1998. He was charged with a number of criminal offences, including conspiracy to commit murder.\n7.  On 11 May 1998 the applicant was taken to remand centre no. 77/1, also known as “Matrosskaya Tishina”.\n8.  In July 1998 the deputy Prosecutor General extended his detention until 18 January 1999. On 2 October 1998 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow upheld this extension order.\n9.  In September 2000 the criminal case against the applicant was listed for trial. On 29 September 2000 the Moscow City Court held that the measure of restraint in respect of defendants, including the applicant, had been lawful and should remain unchanged.\n10.  The City Court subsequently issued further extension orders on 3 July, 30 September, 18 December 2002, 24 March, 30 June and 30 September 2003, referring to the fact that the applicant and his co-defendants had been charged with particularly serious criminal offences. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected appeals against these remand orders, endorsing the City Court’s reasoning.\n11.  On 30 December 2003 the City Court extended the defendants’ detention on remand until 1 April 2004, noting the gravity of the charges against them and the possibility that they might abscond or obstruct justice.\n12.  On 30 March 2004 the City Court extended the defendants’ detention on remand until 1 July 2004, indicating that:\n“...[the defendants] have been charged with several counts of serious and particularly serious criminal offences committed by an organised gang in conspiracy with unidentified persons, against whom separate criminal proceedings are pending, and with another person, against whom criminal proceedings were disjoined because his whereabouts are not known; if released, [they] may abscond or obstruct justice”.\n13.  On 1 July 2004 the City Court extended the defendants’ detention, reproducing verbatim the reasoning of its earlier decision.\n14.  On 22 July 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 30 March 2004 and endorsed the City Court’s reasoning.\n15.  On 19 July 1999 the Moscow city prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and the case was submitted for trial to the City Court. The applicant was charged with multiple counts including conspiracy to commit murder. Similar charges were brought against fifteen other co-defendants.\n16.  On 5 August 1999 the City Court noted that the majority of the defendants had opted to exercise their constitutional right to a trial by jury. However, as there were no juries in the City Court, it decided to send an inquiry to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation as to where the case should be tried. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Moscow Regional Court, where juries were available.\n17.  On an unspecified date a judge of the Regional Court sent a request to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, inviting it to rule on the compatibility with the Russian Constitution of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the jurisdictional rules. On 17 February 2000 she suspended the proceedings pending a decision by the Constitutional Court. She also held that the defendants were to remain in custody because they had been charged with criminal offences of high public danger, classified as serious or particularly serious.\n18.  On 13 April 2000 the Constitutional Court held that the decisio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3732", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Sverdlovsk Region.\n6.  On 31 January 1998 the applicant was arrested. On 3 February 1998 the Yaroslavl regional prosecutor authorised his detention. On 14 April 1998 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Yaroslavl confirmed the detention order.\n7.  On 6 February 1998 the applicant was charged with aggravated murder. On an unspecified date, he was transferred to Moscow.\n8.  On 1 September 1998 the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant's complaint about an extension of his detention. On 17 September 1998 the Moscow City Court upheld the District Court's decision.\n9.  In September 2000 the criminal case against the applicant was listed for trial. On 29 September 2000 the Moscow City Court held that the measure of restraint in respect of defendants, including the applicant, had been lawful and should remain unchanged.\n10.  On 3 July 2002 the City Court extended the applicant's and his co-defendants' detention for three months, that is for the period from 1 July to 1 October 2002. The court relied on the fact that the defendants had been charged with particularly serious criminal offences. The applicant appealed against this decision on 12 July 2002. On 2 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dismissed his appeal, finding that the trial court had authorised the extension in compliance with the applicable procedure and that the defendants could not be released in view of gravity of the charges against them.\n11.  On 30 September 2002 the City Court rejected the applicant's application for release, noted the gravity of the charges and, without giving further reasons, extended his detention on remand. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision on 10 October 2002. On 12 February 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed it in the following terms:\n“...the defendants have been charged with particularly serious criminal offences. The court...extended the term of their detention. There were no breaches of the rules of criminal procedure that could entail quashing or amendment of that decision...The defendants' request to be relieved of the preventive measure fails because the defendants have been charged with particularly serious criminal offences.”\n12.  On 18 December 2002 the City Court authorised a further extension relying solely on the gravity of the charges. According to the Government, the applicant had mistakenly submitted an appeal against this order directly to the Supreme Court. In March 2003 the Supreme Court returned the case file to the City Court for a proper notification of the parties and preparation of the case file. The file was submitted to the Supreme Court on 24 July 2003. The appeal was examined on 16 October 2003 (see below).\n13.  On 24 March, 30 June and 30 September 2003 the City Court extended the applicant's detention with reference to the gravity of the charges. The applicant and his co-defendants appealed on unspecified dates.\n14.  According to the Government, the remand file regarding the order of 30 September 2003 reached the Supreme Court on 26 March 2004; it examined the appeal against it on 22 April 2004 (see below).\n15.  On 16 October 2003 the Supreme Court considered the appeals against the extension orders of 18 December 2002, 24 March and 30 June 2003. Neither the applicant nor his counsel was present. The Supreme Court found that there had been no procedural violations which warranted an ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3733", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Stephanskirchen.\n5.  On 25 March 2000 the applicant, driving on the A1 motorway in the direction of Linz, was stopped by a traffic patrol. The officers noted that he had been driving at 200 km/h, thus exceeding the speed limit of 130 km/h by 70 km/h, and that he had kept driving in the left-hand lane, in breach of the Road Traffic Act. Furthermore, they observed that, despite the good visibility, the applicant had switched on his fog-lights, and that he had failed to present his driving licence when they had requested him to do so.\n6.  Subsequently, on 27 April 2000 the Amstetten District Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) requested the applicant to comment on the above charges.\n7.  On 15 May 2000 the applicant filed his defence. He stated that he had been in a rush, since his passenger was sick and he wanted to take him home as fast as possible. Furthermore, he claimed that he had been driving at a maximum of 160 km/h. In addition, he submitted that he had been constantly overtaking cars, which was why he had been driving in the left-hand lane. The applicant contended that he had not used any fog-lights.\n8.  In a decision of 5 October 2000 the Amstetten District Authority convicted the applicant of four traffic offences, namely speeding, breaching the requirement to drive in the right-hand lane, unjustified use of fog-lights and failure to carry his driving licence with him, and imposed fines amounting in total to 7,000 Austrian schillings (508.71 euros) on him, with 236 hours’ imprisonment in default. Moreover, it ordered him to pay procedural costs.\n9.  Repeating his defence, the applicant, on 2 November 2000, lodged an appeal as regards the first three offences with the Lower Austria Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat). He did not appeal against his conviction for failure to carry a driving licence with him. He did not request a hearing.\n10.  On 28 May 2001 the Independent Administrative Panel, sitting in camera, dismissed the appeal. It stated that two police officers had been following the applicant over a stretch of more than 1,000 metres and had made consistent statements on the event.\n11.  On 24 July 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). He alleged in particular that the Independent Administrative Panel had failed to hold a hearing. This would have allowed it to examine his passenger and the police officers and, if need be, to obtain an expert opinion. Furthermore he repeated his defence as regards the charges of speeding and driving in the left-hand lane. As to the alleged use of fog-lights, the applicant presumed that they had possibly been mixed up with his xenon lamps.\n12.  At the Administrative Court’s request, the applicant submitted a second copy of his complaint on 14 August 2001.\n13.  On 20 November 2001 the Independent Administrative Panel filed its observations on the case. It stated that the applicant had failed to request a hearing. Nor had he applied for the examination of a witness or the production of an expert opinion.\n14.  On 16 January 2002, the applicant supplemented his complaint. He asserted, in particular, that an oral hearing had to be held even if he had not expressly requested one.\n15.  In an order of 29 January 2002 the Independent Administrative Panel was requested to submit the file. On 27 February 2002 it informed the Administrative Court that the file was missing. At", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3734", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Lipovljani.\n5.  On 15 April 1993 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against his employer, the company I., seeking damages for an injury sustained in the workplace.\n6.  On 21 June 1994 the court gave judgment, which was quashed by the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on 19 September 1999.\n7.  In 2002 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint concerning the length of proceedings under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. On 20 December 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) accepted the applicant’s complaint, finding a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarding him compensation in the amount of 5,100 Croatian kunas (HRK). It also ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to decide the applicant’s case in the shortest time possible but no later than ten months following the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The decision was published on 12 January 2005.\n8.  On 1 February 2007 the Zagreb Municipal Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. The judgment was quashed on appeal by the Zagreb County Court on 16 October 2007 and the case was remitted to the Municipal Court, where the proceedings are currently pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3736", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Warsaw.\n7.  On 10 November 1999 the applicant lodged a claim for payment with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The applicant requested the court to make an order for payment against his business partner. The value of the claim was 500 Polish zlotys (PLN) (about 150 euros (EUR).\n8.  On 9 January 2004 the Warsaw District Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim.\n9.  On 7 February 2004 the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n10.  On 30 November 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court heard the applicant’s appeal and granted the claim for payment.\n11.  On 21 September 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”). He sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Warsaw District Court had been excessive and that just satisfaction should be awarded to him.\n12.  On 9 November 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings (36 months and 7 days of inactivity on the part of the Warsaw District Court) but refused to grant the applicant any just satisfaction, holding that the applicant had failed to reason his request for just satisfaction and that the proceedings for payment of PLN 500 did “not seem to be particularly important for the applicant, who is a businessman”.\n13.  On 29 January 2005 the applicant lodged another application concerning the length of the civil proceedings for payment. Those proceedings lasted 5 years at one level of jurisdiction. The applicant made use of the complaint provided for by the 2004 Act and the domestic court acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings (35 months and 21 days of inactivity on the part of the Warsaw District Court) but refused to grant the applicant any just satisfaction.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3737", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Montreal.\n5.  On 27 August 1993 the applicant’s mother lodged a civil action against her niece, A.M., to have set aside a sale contract concerning a flat entered into on 3 April 1986 between the applicant’s parents and A.M. On 9 September 1993 the applicant’s mother died and the applicant pursued the application.\n6.  On 14 September 1993 the bailiff certified the existence of an action regarding the flat, and on 13 October 1993 the applicant notified A.M. not to enter into the flat, as it contained the goods inherited from her parents.\n7.  In 1994, on an unknown date, she also filed a criminal complaint against A.M. According to the applicant, she had not received any answer to her letters from the prosecuting authorities.\n8.  On 9 November 1994 the applicant supplemented the civil action, seeking to have the sale contract set aside for vitiated consent. She alleged that A.M. had deluded her parents into thinking that she would take care of them until their death and had thus persuaded them to sell her their flat.\n9.  On 21 December 1994 the Câmpina Court of First Instance rejected the applicant’s action as being brought by a person with no capacity to take part in court proceedings.\n10.  The applicant appealed. The five hearings held between 22 March 1996 and 29 May 1998 were adjourned on account of the lack of an acknowledgment of receipt in respect of summonses served on the applicant in Canada. Between 26 June 1998 and 31 May 1999 the proceedings were stayed for unjustified absence of the parties.\n11.  On 31 May 1999 the applicant requested resumption of the proceedings. According to the applicant, on 17 December 1999 the proceedings were stayed again and on 13 October 2000 she requested resumption of proceedings. The applicant expressed her wish to be summoned at her address in Canada.\n12.  On 19 April 2001 the judges entrusted with the archives informed the President of the Prahova Regional Court of the disappearance of the file and of the necessity to reconstruct it. Of the seven hearings held between 4 May 2001 and 6 March 2002 for the reconstruction of the file, two were adjourned at the applicant’s request.\n13.  On 25 April 2002 the Prahova Regional Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and quashed the judgment of the first-instance court, keeping the case for retrial. This ruling was upheld on 12 September 2002 by a final decision of the Ploieşti Court of Appeal.\n14.  During retrial, of the seventeen hearings held between 22 May 2002 and 27 June 2003 three were adjourned at the applicant’s request.\n15.  On 30 June 2003 the Prahova Regional Court allowed in part the applicant’s action and declared the sale contract partly null and void. As to the plea of limitation, the court considered that the three-year time-limit had to be calculated from 1993, when the applicant’s mother died, and not from the date of the sale contract, as the applicant had heard of this contract only in 1993.\nOn the merits, the court considered that the lack of discernment of the applicant’s father, when executing the sale contract, had been certified by a medical report, whereas there was insufficient medical data of a psychiatric nature to establish the mental capacity of the applicant’s mother in understanding the legal content and consequences of the contract.\n16.  On 16 September 2003 the Ploieşti Court of Appeal by a final decision allowed A.M.’s appeal and therefore rejected the applicant’s action as t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3738", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Oreovica (Serbia).\n5.  On 10 July 1995 the applicant was injured in a car accident caused by M.I. She claimed damages in criminal proceedings that were instituted against M.I.\n6.  In a final decision of 19 November 1998, the Piteşti Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) made awards in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to both the applicant and her husband. It also ordered M.I. to pay a monthly amount to the applicant until her state of dependency ceased. On 7 July and 15 December 2000 the quantum of damages and the level of the monthly instalments to the applicant were brought up to date.\n7.  On 15 November 2002 an application by the Prosecutor General at the Supreme Court of Justice to have the judgments in the criminal proceedings quashed (recurs în anulare) was granted by the Supreme Court of Justice, which therefore set aside the award for damage in respect of the applicant’s husband.\n8.  On 21 September 1999 the applicant and her husband brought an action seeking the division of property that was jointly owned by M.I. and his wife. They alleged that the community of property between spouses had hindered the enforcement of the judgment in their favour, which concerned only M.I.\n9.  On 7 November 2000 the Piteşti Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”) upheld their claims in part, severed the joint tenancy between M.I. and his wife, and allocated their apartment to M.I.\n10.  On 19 April 2001 the Argeş Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) struck out an appeal by M.I. and his wife because they had failed to pay the prescribed fee.\n11.  On 4 September 2001 the Court of Appeal by a final decision upheld an appeal by M.I. and his wife and quashed the judgment of the Regional Court, sending the case back for a fresh examination of their appeal. It found that M.I. and his wife had not been informed of the obligation to pay the fee or of the amount due.\n12.  After a retrial, on 29 April 2002 the Regional Court rejected the appeal of M.I. and her wife as groundless.\n13.  On 16 February 2004 the Court of Appeal by a final decision allowed a subsequent appeal by M.I.’s wife, on the ground that the courts had not examined her counterclaim, and quashed the judgment of the Regional Court. It retained the case for further consideration. On 22 November 2004 the same court decided that the case was within the competence of the Regional Court.\n14.  On 15 April 2005 the Regional Court upheld the appeal of M.I.’s wife and varied the judgment of 7 November 2000 as follows: it allowed the applicant’s claims but rejected her husband’s, it severed the joint tenancy between M.I. and his wife, and it allocated their apartment to M.I. to enable the applicant to recover her financial claims. The judgment was enforceable.\n15.  On 31 October 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment in a final decision.\n16.  Between 2001 and 2005 the applicant requested seven different bailiffs to enforce the judgment in her favour. The bailiffs took various steps, including requesting expert reports and putting M.I.’s apartment on sale by public auction.\n17.  On 12 June 2001 the Court of First Instance requested the Inspectorate of Police in Argeş to assign a police officer to accompany the bailiff to M.I.’s apartment. On 20 December 2002 it ordered M.I. to pay the judgment debt to the applicant, and stipulated that his apartment would be put on sale if he did not.\n18.  On 19 December 2005 the bai", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3739", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Obninsk, a town in the Kaluga Region.\n5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant was entitled to benefits. Considering himself underpaid, he brought proceedings against the local welfare authority.\n6.  On 20 February 2004 the Obninsk Town Court held for the applicant, awarded arrears, fixed a new amount of periodic benefits with subsequent adjustment for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on 2 March 2004 and, according to the Government, was gradually enforced by January 2006.\n7.  Later, the applicant sued the welfare authority for its failure to enforce the judgment in time, but on 16 December 2004 the Kaluga Regional Court rejected this claim.\n8.  The applicant also believed that the judgment remained unenforced with regard to the adjustment for the cost of living. For this reason, he sued the welfare authority, but on 7 April 2005 the Town Court rejected this claim as unfounded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3740", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Cologne, Germany.\n5.  On 27 October 1998 at 1 p.m. a group of 43 women belonging to “Mothers for Peace”, including the applicant, arrived at the provincial branch of the Motherland Party (Anavatan Partisi (ANAP)) in Istanbul in order to meet that party’s provincial leaders. Two women who received them at the entrance of the building stated that there was a press conference in progress, asked them to wait in the waiting room, which was on the third floor of the building, and left.\n6.  Five to ten minutes later, police officers arrived in the waiting room, threw a smoke bomb inside and entered. A police officer hit the applicant on the back of her head with a truncheon, grabbed her hair and dragged her down the stairs. She was then put in a police vehicle and taken to the Beyoğlu police headquarters.\n7.  On the same day at 3.50 p.m. the applicant, along with the other 42 women, was examined by a doctor at the Beyoğlu branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute. According to the medical report, the applicant had oedemas on her neck and scalp. The doctor considered that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit to work for three days.\n8.  The applicant spent the night in a cell with 10 other women at the police headquarters. Police officers came to the cell two or three times and insulted and beat the detainees each time.\n9.  On 28 October 1998 the applicant was examined by the same doctor at the Beyoğlu branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute, who noted no new injuries on the applicant’s body.\n10.  On the same day, the applicant and the other 42 women were brought before the Beyoğlu Magistrates’ Court. They were questioned about whether they had deprived Y.U., the person who was in charge of the coffee bar in the waiting room, of his liberty and whether they had resisted the police officers who had arrested them. They all contended that they had neither deprived Y.U. of his liberty nor resisted the police officers. The court remanded five women in custody and ordered the release of the others, including the applicant.\n11.  On 27 October 1998 a group of 43 women, including the applicant, entered the premises of the provincial branch of the Motherland Party in Istanbul after a press conference had been held by the party’s Vice-President. They occupied the premises with the aim of protesting against a meeting which would be held there and attended by the party members. The security forces attempted to lead the women out of the building in order to prevent possible clashes between them and the party members. Three of the women, including the applicant, resisted the police and used physical violence. All 43 women were then arrested and taken to the Beyoğlu branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute for a medical examination. Subsequently, they were taken to the Beyoğlu police headquarters.\n12.  The police took statements from Y.U., who maintained that the women who had occupied the premises had beaten four party members and deprived him of his liberty. He further stated that they had resisted the police officers during the arrest.\n13.  On 2 November 1998 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Beyoğlu Assize Court, charging all 43 women with resisting the police and depriving Y.U. of his liberty for ideological reasons.\n14.  On 4 November 1999 the Beyoğlu Assize Court acquitted the applicant and the other accused. In its judgment, the trial court noted that the accused wom", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3741", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Vienna. He is the owner and managing director of M, a building company.\n6.  On 10 October 1997 a worker employed by the M company mounted a scaffold (which was owned, however, by another building firm) at one of the company’s building sites at M. Street in Vienna. He fell and died a few days later.\n7.  Subsequently the Vienna District Public Prosecutor (Bezirksanwalt) started preliminary inquiries (Vorerhebungen) against the applicant on suspicion of having caused death by negligence (fahrlässige Tötung), an offence under Article 80 of the Criminal Code. On 27 March 1998 he discontinued the inquiries.\n8.  On 31 March 1998 the Vienna Municipality issued a penal order (Straferkenntnis) against the applicant as manager of the M company, imposing a fine for an administrative offence under section 130(1), no. 16, of the Industrial Safety Act (Arbeitnehmerschutzgesetz) read in conjunction with several provisions of the Construction Worker Safety Regulations (Bauarbeiterschutzverordnung). It found that the applicant had disregarded the duties of an employer concerning the properties, conditions, use, inspection or maintenance of equipment (Verpflichtungen betreffend die Beschaffenheit, die Aufstellung, die Benutzung, die Prüfung oder die Wartung von Arbeitsmitteln) as, on 10 October 1997, a scaffold used at the building site at M. Street, Vienna, had lacked protective barriers on three sides at head, chest and foot level and the protective barriers on the fourth side had not been properly secured.\n9.  On 31 March 1998 the applicant, assisted by counsel, appealed to the Vienna Independent Administrative Panel (“the IAP” – Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat). He submitted that at the building site at M. Street in Vienna 25 scaffolds owned by different construction companies had been in use. While the one belonging to the M company had all the necessary protective elements, the defective scaffold used by the employees of the M company, which had led to the industrial accident, was owned by another company. On 29 May 2000 the applicant submitted further that the IAP should quash the penal order as the administrative criminal proceedings had been conducted in breach of the principle of ne bis in idem.\n10.  On 20 June 2000 the IAP quashed the penal order of 31 March 1998. Referring to the Constitutional Court’s case-law on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, the IAP found that criminal proceedings for causing death by negligence under Article 80 of the Criminal Code and proceedings under section 130(1), no. 16, of the Industrial Safety Act, read in conjunction with the Construction Worker Safety Regulations, concerned essentially the same conduct as in both cases the authorities and courts had to examine whether the provisions for the protection of construction workers had been complied with. In such circumstances, the person responsible for compliance with these rules was also criminally liable under Article 80 of the Criminal Code in the event of an accident at work leading to the death of the victim. Therefore the IAP was prevented from conducting administrative criminal proceedings against the applicant even though finally the District Public Prosecutor had discontinued his inquiries into the charge of causing death by negligence against the applicant.\n11.  On 25 August 2000 the Federal Minister for Economy and Labour (Bundesminister für Wirtschaft und Arbeit) filed a complaint with the Administrative Court ag", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3742", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  At approximately 11 p.m. on 24 August 1995, a police car stopped outside the shop run by the applicant in Istanbul’s Beyoğlu district. Three police officers got out of the car and asked the applicant to remove the letters “DHKP/C” (the abbreviation for the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front, an illegal organisation) written on a wall, two shops down the road from the applicant’s shop.\n7.  When the applicant refused to comply with that request and told the police officers that it was not his wall and therefore he had no obligation to clean it up, the police officers started to beat him. A number of other police officers, who were driving in the area at the time, also stopped and took part in the beating. The police officers then took the applicant into custody where they continued to beat him in order to force him to sign statements, confessing to the offence of obstructing the police in the course of their duty.\n8.  According to the incident report prepared by the three police officers who had beaten the applicant, the letters “DHKP/C” had been on the wall of the applicant’s shop and the applicant had told them that he would “rather die than wipe them away” and had then run away. When the police officers gave chase, the applicant had thrown stones at them and had kicked and punched them, injuring one of them in the process. Consequently, the officers had taken the applicant to the police station.\n9.  The following day the applicant was taken to the First Aid Hospital in Istanbul’s Taksim district where a medical report was prepared. According to this report, the applicant’s body bore a number of ecchymoses and lacerations.\n10.  The applicant was then brought to the office of the public prosecutor in Beyoğlu district where he told the prosecutor that the police officers had tortured him.\n11.  The same day the prosecutor referred the applicant to the Beyoğlu branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute where he was examined by a doctor. The following injuries are recorded in the medical report prepared at the end of that examination: a one centimetre long abrasion on the left side of the rear parietal region; a thirty centimetre long ecchymosed area stretching from the back of the left shoulder to the right scapular area; an ecchymosed area measuring fifteen by three centimetres below the left scapular region; an ecchymosed area, measuring fifteen by five centimetres, on the left lumbar; two ecchymosed areas, measuring seven by three and seven by fourteen centimetres, on the right side of the chest; four one centimetre long bleeding grazes and two ecchymosed areas, each measuring three centimetres in diameter, on the inside of the left arm; two ecchymosed areas, each measuring two centimetres, on the left cheek; and another ecchymosed area on the right tibial region. The report concluded that the applicant would be unable to work for a period of ten days.\n12.  The same day the prosecutor ordered the applicant’s release.\n13.  On 10 October 1995 the applicant lodged a formal complaint with the Beyoğlu prosecutor, seeking the prosecution of the three police officers responsible for the ill-treatment.\n14.  The following day the Beyoğlu prosecutor rendered a decision of non-jurisdiction, under the Law on the Trial of Civil Servants, and transferred the case file to the governor’s office in Beyoğlu for the “necessary action to be taken”.\n15.  On 21 July 1997 the Beyoğlu Distr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3743", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Batman.\n6.  At the material time he was working at a tea shop at the Esenler Bus Terminal in Istanbul. On 5 July 1998 he was arrested by police officers for his alleged involvement in a fight and causing a disturbance while drunk. He was then taken to the police station inside the terminal building.\n7.  The police officers allegedly covered the applicant’s head with his coat and started kicking, punching and beating him. They strangled him and banged his head against the wall. They also allegedly threatened the applicant and swore at him.\n8.  The applicant was released the next day without being brought before the public prosecutor.\n9.  On 8 July 1998 the applicant applied to the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey for the treatment of his injuries resulting from his ill-treatment in police custody. His symptoms included pain in the left side of the chest and back, and restricted movement of the left arm.\n10.  On 13 July 1998 the applicant underwent a full bone scintigraphy (scan) at the Marmara Nuclear Medicine Centre. The scintigraphy report concluded that there were hyperactive areas in the soft tissue of the sixth left rib, left shoulder, right knee, ankles and cranium (occipital[1] and left temporo-parietal[2] bones). The report noted that the symptoms were probably the result of physical trauma.\n11.  On 21 July 1998 the applicant filed a petition with the Eyüp Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office complaining about the ill‑treatment he had suffered at the hands of the police officers at the terminal building.\n12.  On 22 July 1998 a public prosecutor from the Eyüp Chief Public Prosecutor’s office took statements from the applicant. The applicant reiterated his complaints and described the police officers who had ill‑treated him. He then asked the public prosecutor to send him for a forensic medical examination and to bring the police officers to justice. At the request of the public prosecutor, the applicant was taken to the Forensic Medicine Institute where an expert examined the applicant and requested an X-ray as the applicant complained about pain in his skull and chest.\n13.  On 31 July 1998 the Eyüp Public Prosecutor took statements from the three police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant. The police officers denied the allegations made by the applicant and claimed that the bruising found on his body could have been caused by other persons with whom he had fought.\n14.  On 7 August 1998 the Eyüp Public Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings in the Eyüp Criminal Court pressing charges against the three police officers for inflicting ill-treatment on the applicant in violation of Article 245 of the former Criminal Code.\n15.  According to a report dated 13 October 1998 prepared by doctors from the Human Rights Foundation, the findings of the above-mentioned medical examinations were compatible with the applicant’s account of the use of physical violence against him.\n16.  At a hearing on 24 November 1998, the Eyüp Criminal Court heard evidence from the applicant and the accused police officers. Although the accused denied the allegations of ill-treatment, the applicant gave a detailed description of the treatment he had suffered while in their custody. The court then sent the applicant for a medical examination at the Eyüp Forensic Medicine Institute. After noting all the findings in the previous reports and radiological examinations, the institute referred the applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3744", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Novovoronezh, a town in the Voronezh Region.\n5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant is entitled to benefits. Considering herself underpaid, she brought six sets of proceedings against the local welfare authority.\n6.  On 18 October 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court awarded the applicant arrears and legal costs in the amount of 3,014.09 Russian roubles (RUB). This judgment became binding on 28 October 2000 and was partly enforced on 24 September 2003.\n7.  On 16 June 2003 the Town Court awarded the applicant more arrears in the amount of RUB 19,315.50. This judgment became binding on 19 August 2003 and was enforced on 17 December 2004.\n8.  On 16 February 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant arrears in the amount of RUB 16,765.50, and on 1 April 2004 the appeal court in addition fixed a new amount of periodic payments. This judgment became binding on 1 April 2004 and was enforced on 3 August 2005.\n9.  On 15 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant arrears in the amount of RUB 4,973.57. This judgment became binding on 25 March 2004 and was enforced on an unspecified date.\n10.  On 26 August 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant arrears in the amount of RUB 21,118.50. This judgment became binding on 6 September 2004 and was enforced on 24 August 2005.\n11.  On 26 August 2004 the Town Court also awarded the applicant further arrears in the amount of RUB 1,772.30 and fixed a new amount of periodic payments. This judgment became binding on 6 September 2004 and was enforced on an unspecified date.\n12.  On the applicant’s request, on 31 May and 16 November 2005 the Town Court compensated the applicant’s inflationary loss caused by the delayed enforcement of the judgments in the total amount of RUB 9,369.86.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3745", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Petropavlosvk-Kamchatskiy, a town in the Kamchatka Region.\n5.  The applicant lives in a municipally maintained flat. She sued the local council’s planning department and a municipal maintenance company for overdue repairs. On 29 April 2002 the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy Town Court awarded the applicant 60,729 Russian roubles (RUB) by way of damages and costs, and in addition ordered the defendants to\n“eliminate the cause of the leak in [the applicant’s flat] in the third quarter of 2002 by way of reconstructive repairs of the end wall and roof according to the estimate for selective repairs of the house.”\nThis judgment became binding on 6 June 2002, but was not enforced immediately.\n6.  On 19 August 2002 bailiffs closed enforcement proceedings against the planning department, because in the meantime it had been disbanded. On 19 February 2003 the bailiffs closed enforcement proceedings against the maintenance company because of its insolvency. The writ of enforcement was passed to the Central Bank.\n7.  From December 2002 to September 2006 the applicant received three payments totalling RUB 19,155.49. In the second quarter of 2005 the applicant’s roof was repaired.\n8.  In separate proceedings in 2004 the applicant brought unsuccessful civil claims against the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsk Town Council. These proceedings ended with the judgment of the Kamchatka Regional Court of 17 June 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3746", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Rabu Mutushovna Takhayeva, who was born in 1959;\n2) Mr Khashim Nurdinovich Takhayev, who was born in 1952;\n3) Ms Zaira Khashimovna Takhayeva, who was born in 1977;\n4) Mr Islam Sultanovich Tumanov, who was born in 1998, and\n5) Ms Razet Zayndiyevna Terkibayeva, who was born in 1934.\nThe applicants live in the village of Mesker-Yurt, in the Shalinskiy District of the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The first and second applicants are married. They are the parents of Mr Ayub Khashidovich Takhayev, born in 1982, and the third applicant. The fourth applicant is the third applicant’s son and Ayub Takhayev’s nephew. The fifth applicant is Ayub Takhayev’s grandmother.\n8.  On the night of 13 November 2002 the first, second, third and fourth applicants, Ayub Takhayev and his grandfather slept in their family home at 42 Shkolnaya Street, Mesker-Yurt. The house had a common courtyard with three other houses inhabited by the applicants’ relatives. The fifth applicant slept in one of those houses.\n(a)  Abduction of Ayub Takhayev\n9.  At about 2.40 a.m. on 13 November 2002 the first applicant heard a noise coming from the courtyard. She looked out of the window and saw about ten to fifteen men wearing camouflage uniforms. A group of about five men headed towards the applicants’ house and entered without identifying themselves. They were armed with machine guns and grenades. All but one of them wore masks. The unmasked man had Slavic features. The first applicant assumed that the men belonged to the Russian military.\n10.  The servicemen ordered the second applicant to rise, took him into the corridor, forced him down onto the floor, tied his arms behind his back and hit him several times. In the meantime they locked Ayub Takhayev’s grandfather in one of the rooms.\n11.  Then the men entered the room where Ayub Takhayev and the third applicant were sleeping and woke them up with torch lights. They shouted at Ayub Takhayev to get up and kicked him; then they took him to the kitchen and forced him down onto the floor.\n12.  The intruders kept the first and third applicants locked in their rooms. When the first applicant tried to break through the door, one of the servicemen entered her room and pushed her in the chest so that she fell down. Then the servicemen locked the first, third and fourth applicants in one room. The women cried and begged them not to take Ayub Takhayev away. The fourth applicant was scared and cried. The servicemen ordered the third applicant to calm the child down and demanded the identity papers of the second applicant and Ayub Takhayev. The unmasked man with Slavic features shouted at the women and gave orders to the other men in Russian. The first applicant gave the men two internal passports; they took away the one belonging to Ayub Takhayev.\n13.  As the servicemen were leaving, they ordered everyone to stay indoors, threatening to blow up the house, and took Ayub Takhayev with them. The second applicant enquired as to where his son would be taken, but received no answer. Instead he was told he should thank the armed men for not taking him as well.\n14.  When the first and third applicants managed to open the locked door and leave their room, they ran out into the street and saw that the armed men had left. Then they went back inside and untied the second applicant.\n15.  Early in the morning on 13 November 2002 the second applicant found tracks left by an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”) about 100 metres from h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3747", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Insar, Republic of Mordoviya.\n5.  On 20 April 1999 the applicant was dismissed from his job as a security guard in a private company. He sued his former employer for reinstatement, payment of wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  On 19 November 1999 the Insarskiy District Court of the Republic of Mordoviya granted his claim in part and ordered his reinstatement in the job. This judgment was reversed on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordoviya, which remitted the case for fresh examination by the first-instance court.\n7.  On 9 January 2001 the Insarskiy District Court of the Republic of Mordoviya found the applicant’s dismissal justified and rejected the claims in full.\n8.  The applicant filed his statement of appeal on 18 January 2001. According to him, in the following months he regularly enquired with the court secretariat about the state of proceedings in his case but was informed each time that the date of the appeal hearing had not yet been fixed.\n9.  According to the Government, on 1 February 2001 the applicant was notified about the pending appeal hearing in his case. The applicant contested that he had received any notification.\n10.  In June 2001 the applicant went to the court in person and found out that the appeal hearing in his case had already taken place on 13 February 2001. He learned that his claim had been dismissed at the final instance.\n11.  After that, on 14 June 2001 the applicant received the appeal decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordoviya, which, inter alia, read as follows: “At the [appeal] hearing Mr Fokin maintained his claims and asked the court to grant them”. The decision also indicated that the other party to the proceedings was present at the hearing and maintained its objections to the claim.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3749", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The following is a brief summary of the relevant facts of the case[1].\n7.  The applicants’ family owned real estate of approximately 1,500 hectares. It was confiscated by the State after the Second World War.\n 8.  In 1991, the Land Ownership Act (Law no. 229/1991 Coll. ‑ “the Act”) was enacted, which provided for certain real property to be restored to its original owners or their legal successors. In situations similar to that of the applicants, the total acreage which could be returned was limited, under section 6 (3) of the Act, to 150 hectares for agricultural land and 250 hectares for other land.\n9.  On 28 February 1992 an amendment to the Act (Law no. 93/1992 Coll.) repealed section 6 (3) of the Act as, according to its explanatory memorandum, “the acreage limit restricted human rights”.\n10.  On 8 December 1992 Mrs M.R., the applicants’ relative, requested under the Act restitution of all her family’s real property to her.\n11.  On 26 August 1993 a new amendment to the Act (Law no. 186/1993 Coll.) reintroduced section 6 (3) of the Act, setting a general limit of 250 hectares on the amount of land to be restored to one person. Pursuant to a new section 33 (2), pending claims for restitution of land over the said limit could be satisfied only up to that limit.\n12.  On 15 February 1995 Mrs M.R. died. The applicants inherited her rights and continued her restitution claim as her heirs.\n13.  On 22 February 1999 the Land Office found that the applicants met all the requirements for restitution of property under the Act and ordered the forestry enterprise which occupied it to restore the land to them up to the 250-hectare limit. The Regional Court in Žilina upheld this decision on 7 July 1999.\n14.  On 20 September 1999 the Land Office formally ruled, at the applicants’ request, that they qualified for restitution of their property under the Act. However, in view of the decision of 22 February 1999 and the limit set by section 6 (3) of the Act, no further land could be restored to them.\n15.  On 25 January 2000 the Prosecutor General challenged sections 6 (3) and 33 (2) of the Act, as amended in 1993, before the Constitutional Court. On 24 April 2001 the Constitutional Court, sitting in plenary, dismissed the Prosecutor General’s challenge.\n16.  On 14 December 2001 the Regional Court upheld the Land Office’s decision of 20 September 1999 as lawful. It became final and binding on 25 March 2002.\n17.  Subsequently the applicants unsuccessfully challenged the decision of 14 December 2001 and the proceedings leading up to it before the Constitutional Court by means of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3750", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Van.\n5.  On 29 August 2000 the applicant was admitted to the military service.\n6.  On 7 September 2001 he went to see a doctor at the Sivas Military Hospital for an eye-sight problem. His medical report stated that he had ‑ 6, 25 of myopia (nearsightedness), +0,25 of hyperopia (farsightedness) and – 6,75 of anisometropia amblyopia (difference in refractive error between the two eyes leading to reduced vision in one eye) on his left eye. The report noted that the applicant had complained that he had had the problem on his left eye since childhood. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged from the military as he was no longer eligible for service.\n7.  On 17 March 2003, the applicant applied to both, the Retired Civil Servant’s Fund for a pension and to the Compensation Commission at the Ministry of the Interior for compensation. Both requests were rejected.\n8.  On 21 May 2003 the applicant obtained a certificate from the office of the headman (muhtarlık) attesting his indigence.\n9.  On 5 June 2003, the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of the Interior before the Supreme Military Administrative Court requesting compensation of 30,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1]. In his petition the applicant alleged, inter alia, that he had no such eye problems prior to his service in the army. He further referred to the doctrine of “social risk”, which did not require the establishment of any causal link between the harmful action and the loss. The applicant also requested legal aid to cover the payment of the court fees.\n10.  On 24 July 2003 the Supreme Military Administrative Court, after examining the case file and hearing the observations of the rapporteur, dismissed the applicant’s request for legal aid on the ground that the case was not well‑founded.\n11.  On 25 July 2003, the Supreme Military Administrative Court notified the applicant that he was required to pay a court fee which was TRL 476,970,000 (approximately 292 euros).\n12.  In the meantime, on 19 August 2008, the applicant was examined by doctors at Van State Hospital. The latter confirmed that the applicant had strong myopic degeneration (-8 degrees) in his left eye amounting to 37 % of loss of sight.\n13.  On 12 November 2003, the court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant failed to pay the necessary court fees.\n14.  On 20 December 2003 the applicant was notified of this decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3751", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 24 September 1998 the applicant, a student in the Faculty of Theology of İnönü University in Malatya, sought to enrol in the Faculty of Theology of Marmara University. For that purpose she provided, among other materials, an identity photograph which showed her wearing a headscarf.\n7.  On 1 October 1998 the Faculty of Theology of Marmara University replied to the applicant, informing her that the identity photograph she had supplied did not comply with the regulations in force and that where this was the case, the person concerned could not be enrolled.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application for judicial review with the Istanbul Administrative Court. She requested, in particular, that the refusal of the administrative authorities be set aside as being in breach of her rights.\n9.  In a judgment of 23 September 1999, the Administrative Court rejected the application, finding that the authorities’ refusal had been in accordance with the regulations in force. The court considered, in particular, that the applicant had submitted an identity photograph which did not conform to the regulations, which stipulated that “photographs must show the subject facing forward and be less than six months old, so that the person concerned is readily identifiable; the head and neck must also be uncovered” (Article 4 § 1 (f) of the Guide for University Applicants adopted by the Higher Education Board on 17 April 1998).\n10.  Following an appeal by the applicant on points of law, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 23 September 1999, finding it to have been in accordance with the law and the procedural rules. The relevant parts of the Supreme Administrative Court judgment read as follows:\n“Summary of the request: ...\nOpinion of Mrs Serpil K. Erdoğan, investigating judge of the Supreme Administrative Court: the judge is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed and the first-instance judgment upheld.\nOpinion of Mr H. Hüseyin Tok, State Counsel (savcı) at the Supreme Administrative Court: the grounds of appeal set out in the statement of grounds do not correspond to those enumerated in Article 49 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. In view of the juridical and legal arguments on which the first-instance judgment was based, these grounds cannot be said to require the quashing of the impugned judgment ...”", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3752", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Haiger, Germany.\n7.  On 12 November 1996 the applicant bought shares in a Romanian company, L. (“the company”). On 24 January 1997 and 21 September 1998 his shares, which at that date represented 87.5% of the total value of the company’s nominal capital, were recorded in the trade register (Registrul Comerţului).\n8.  On 9 March 2000 the other shareholders decided to annul the applicant’s shares on the ground that the latter had not paid their value, despite repeated notifications to this end. On 24 March 2000 mention of this modification was made in the trade register.\n9.  On 15 January 2001 the applicant lodged an action with the Bucharest County Court, seeking the annulment of the 9 March 2000 decision. The company argued, in defence, that, according to Law no. 31/1990 on companies (“Law no. 31”), the applicant lacked standing to bring the action, as he was no longer a shareholder.\n10.  In an interlocutory judgment of 19 February 2001 the County Court dismissed the company’s objection of lack of standing. The action was allowed on the merits on 22 October 2001.\nThe County Court considered that the evidence brought by the applicant supported his claims of having locus standi. On the merits of the case, the court found that the 9 March 2000 decision had not observed the requirements of Law no. 31. It therefore cancelled it.\n11.  This decision was upheld in a final decision of 12 March 2002 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, upon an appeal lodged by the company.\n12.  On 4 March 2002 the applicant lodged a new action with the Bucharest County Court, asking for the 24 March 2000 entry to be removed from the trade register. Based on the final decision of 12 March 2002, the County Court allowed the action in a judgment of 20 May 2002, which became final on 20 November 2002.\n13.  On an unspecified date, the Procurator General lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice, with a view to having the final decision of 12 March 2002 quashed (recurs în anulare), on the ground that the applicant lacked standing to bring his initial action.\n14.  The Supreme Court considered that the applicant had lost his status as a shareholder when his shares had been annulled by the company, a situation confirmed by the entry of 24 March 2000 in the trade register. Therefore, in a final decision of 25 March 2003, it allowed the extraordinary appeal and, on the merits of the case, rejected as inadmissible the applicant’s initial action.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3753", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Pančevo, Serbia.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 16 November 2003, the applicant was stopped and searched by a police officer at the main bus station in Belgrade and a packet containing 4.13 grams of cannabis was found on his person.\n9.  He was then taken to a police station but was released after a short period of time. Whilst in custody, an on-duty police officer issued a receipt confirming seizure of the cannabis in question (potvrda o privremeno oduzetim predmetima). This receipt was signed by the applicant and the officer and contained the applicant’s registered home address – M.K. Street no. 32, Pančevo.\n10.  In a subsequent incident report of the same date, however, the officer appears to have made a mistake by stating that the applicant’s address was M.K. Street no. 30 rather than no. 32. This report was neither seen nor signed by the applicant.\n11.  Having found his number in a telephone directory, on 6 July 2004 the police contacted the applicant’s father by telephone. He in turn informed the applicant that the police were looking for him. The applicant subsequently called the police and was told that he needed to come to the station in order to pick up the court summons. Upon arrival at the station, he was arrested and placed in detention.\n12.  It subsequently became clear that a detention order had been issued by the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade on 29 June 2004, as part of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant regarding the cannabis seizure of 16 November 2003. In its reasoning, the court first explained that the applicant had not appeared at the hearing scheduled for 17 March 2004 and noted that the return receipt attached to its summons had stated that he “was unknown at M.K. Street no. 30”. Secondly, the applicant had failed to appear at the following hearing scheduled for 20 May 2004 and the police, who had been ordered to serve the summons, had reported on 20 April 2004 that a neighbour had confirmed that the applicant had not been living at the address in question since 1999. Thirdly, on 20 April 2004 the police had also run a search in their database and had made additional inquiries, confirming that, as of 1986, the applicant’s registered residence was indeed M.K. Street no. 30, but could not discover any information concerning his current whereabouts. Finally, the court concluded that there was a sufficient factual basis to indicate that the applicant was hiding and/or in flight and had therefore ordered his detention. (It must, however, be noted that the neighbour’s statement and the original police report of 20 April 2004 were cited erroneously by the District Court and that in fact both had referred to M.K. Street no. 32 only, as the applicant’s registered residence, there being no mention of M.K. Street no. 30.)\n13.  On 29 June 2004 the District Court had also adopted a separate decision requesting the police to issue a wanted notice (poternica) and arrest the applicant. Therein the applicant’s address had again been stated as M.K. Street no. 30.\n14.  Various other documents successively referred to both addresses. Thus the District Court’s letter sent to the police on 20 May 2004 referred to M.K. Street no. 32 while all court summonses, the criminal complaint of 11 December 2003 (krivična prijava) and the indictment (optužni predlog) of 26 December 2003 consistently stated th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3754", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Orhei.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant was a victim of deportation by the Soviet authorities in the 1940s. In 1941 his family’s house was confiscated by the State. In 1992 the Moldovan Parliament enacted Law No. 1225-XII which allowed the victims of Soviet repression to claim back their confiscated property.\n8.  In 1998 the applicant brought an action against the local council, claiming the return of his family’s house. On 27 November 1998 the Orhei District Court found for the applicant. It confirmed his property right over the house and ordered the local council to evict the current tenants and provide them with alternative accommodation. The judgment became final. One of the two families concerned by the eviction included a person with a first-degree disability.\n9.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the bailiff failed to enforce. On 14 March 2002, the applicant wrote a letter to the bailiff of the Orhei District Court asking him to enforce the decision of 27 November 1998. The bailiff replied by a letter dated 3 April 2002, stating that the local council did not have the means to execute the judgment.\n10.  In view of the long period during which the judgment had not been enforced, the applicant on 10 January 2003 proposed to the council that it pay him the monetary value of the house, which he estimated at 80,000 Moldovan lei (MDL), (approximately 5,465 euros (EUR)) at the relevant time. By a letter of 28 January 2003 the council rejected his offer on the ground that the house was worth MDL 15,514 according to the real estate register.\n11.  On 20 February 2004 the local council informed the applicant that it had modified its budget for 2004 and had provided for MDL 80,000 to be paid to him in lieu of the house. No offer of compensation for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage was made. The applicant rejected the offer. Subsequently the Republican Institute for Judiciary and Criminal Expertise (“the RIJCE”) determined the market value of the house at MDL 81,570 (EUR 5,400). The applicant again rejected the offer.\n12.  At the Government’s request, a second valuation of the applicant’s house was carried out by experts from the National Centre for Expert Analysis (“the NCEA”, attached to the Ministry of Justice) on 16 July 2007. The experts concluded that the market value of the house was MDL 162,000 (EUR 9,674).\n13.  According to the applicant, an expert hired by him did not have access to the house or the documents relating to it. He could not, accordingly, determine its market value. At the applicant’s request, an estate agency certified on 16 January 2008 that houses in the centre of Orhei were worth between EUR 25,000 and EUR 150,000, while apartments cost EUR 450-500 per square metre. The cost of renting a house varied between EUR 50 and EUR 100 a month.\n14.  The judgment of 27 November 1998 has not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3755", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Bratislava.\n8.  Between 1995 and 1998 the applicant was the Director of the Slovak Information Service (Slovenská informačná služba), which is the Slovakian intelligence service.\n9.  On 31 August 1995 Mr M. Kováč, the son of the then President of the Slovak Republic, was forcibly taken from Slovakia to an Austrian village in the vicinity of the Slovakian border. Following a phone call the Austrian police found him intoxicated in a car. He was detained as the Munich District Court (Amtsgericht) had issued an arrest warrant against him.\n10.  On 20 February 1996 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) refused to extradite Mr Kováč to Germany for the purpose of his prosecution there. The Vienna Court of Appeal held, inter alia, that witness statements by a former member of the Slovak Information Service and by the President of the Slovak Republic supported Mr Kováč’s allegation that members of the Slovakian secret service had brought him to Austria against his will in the context of political controversies in Slovakia.\n11.  The Slovakian police started an investigation into the incident and expressed the view that several offences had been committed in that context.\n12.  On 3 March 1998 Mr V. Mečiar, the Prime Minister, who at the time, under Article 105 § 1 of the Constitution, exercised several powers entrusted to the President of the Slovak Republic, delivered a decision on amnesty (rozhodnutie o amnestii), the relevant parts of which read:\n“The Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic, in the exercise of his powers under Article 105 § 1 and Article 102(i) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the establishment of the Slovak Republic, gives the following decision on amnesty as a contribution to reaching civic reconciliation and in the interest of eliminating possible sources of tension in society: ...\nArticle VI\nI order that criminal proceedings should not be started and, if they have already been started, should be discontinued in respect of criminal offences committed in the context of the notification of the abduction of Michal Kováč junior abroad.”\nThe decision was published in the Collection of Laws on 3 March 1998.\n13.  On 7 July 1998 the following decision on amnesty given on the same day by Mr V. Mečiar in his capacity as Acting President of the Slovak Republic was published in the Collection of Laws:\n“The Prime Minister of the Slovak Republic, in the exercise of his powers under Article 105 § 1 and Article 102(i) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, in the interest of eliminating disputes as regards the interpretation of the decision on amnesty adopted on 3 March 1998 ..., declares the following decision on amnesty: ...\nArticle II\nI order that criminal proceedings should not be started and, if they have already been started, should be discontinued concerning the suspicion of criminal offences allegedly committed in the context of the reported abduction of Ing. Michal Kováč ... abroad, which allegedly occurred on 31 August 1995.”\n14.  On 18 September 1998 the police investigator decided not to pursue the case concerning the above offences which, as the decision stated, had been committed by unknown perpetrators. Reference was made to the decision on presidential amnesty of 7 July 1998 and to Article 11 § 1(a) and Article 159 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n15.  In September 1998 the applicant was elected as a member", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3757", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Oradea.\n5.  On 14 May 1999, the applicant lodged with the Oradea District Court an action for recovery of possession (acţiune în revendicare) of a plot of land that, although recorded in the land register (cartea funciară) as belonging to the Oradea Local Council, she claimed she had inherited it from E.S. who had received it from the State in exchange for another plot of land.\nThe three courts that dealt with the case found in favour of the applicant. The District Court gave its decision on 4 July 2000. Upon appeals by the Local Council, the Bihor County Court upheld it on 16 February 2001 and the Oradea Court of Appeal on 21 May 2001, the latter by means of a final and irrevocable decision.\n6.  Before all the courts that dealt with the case, the Local Council argued that certificate no. 10524 of 14 May 1955, used by the applicant in order to prove her ownership title, was false as it contained a series of irregularities.\n7.  The first-instance court and the appeal court rejected the argument on the ground that the defendant had not brought evidence to prove the allegations. Moreover, the courts noted that, according to the information in their possession, no criminal proceedings had been started on the matter.\n8.  The court of last resort rejected the Local Council’s request that the proceedings be stayed until the courts had ruled on the nullity of the certificate (procedure described at paragraphs 10 to 12 below). On the merits, it noted as follows:\n“The [defendant’s] allegations about the existence of irregularities in certificate no. 10524 of 14 May 1955 ... seem well-founded. However, this certificate established a prima facie case [început de probă scrisă] which entitled the first‑instance court to examine additional evidence; witness testimonies confirmed that the property title in dispute had been transferred from the State to E.S., who exercised public and peaceful possession without causing any nuisance ... This situation is also confirmed by the evidence on the consolidations of land that had taken place. The fact that the exchange of land occurred is undoubtedly proved by letter no. 28182 of 18 October 1949, issued by the Ministry of Agriculture ..., which cannot be contested...”\nIt also noted that the criminal investigation into the alleged forgery of the 1955 certificate had been terminated on 17 March 2001 as the time-limits for criminal responsibility had expired. However, the Court of Appeal considered that the evidence adduced, in particular the letter of 18 October 1949, rendered that investigation devoid of relevance in any case.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s ownership title was recorded in the land register.\n10.  On 19 April 2001 the Oradea Local Council lodged with the Oradea District Court an action against the applicant, seeking that the 14 May 1955 certificate above be set aside because it contained irregularities. The applicant argued that the issue was res judicata in so far as the courts ruling on the action for recovery of possession had already dealt with the matter.\n11.  The case was transferred to the Arad District Court which, on 28 March 2002, allowed the action, established that the document was false and set it aside.\n12.  Appeals by the applicant were rejected successively by the Arad County Court, on 10 July 2002, and by the Timişoara Court of Appeal, in a final decision of 3 December 2002.\n13.  Following the ruling of the Timişoara Cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3759", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Haiger, Germany.\n7.  On 12 November 1996, the applicant bought 7,000 shares having the value of 3,500,000,000 Old Romanian Lei (ROL), in a Romanian company, L. (“the company”). On 24 January 1997 and 21 September 1998 these shares, representing 87.5% of the total value of the company’s nominal capital, were recorded in the trade register (Registrul Comerţului).\n8.  On 26 September 1999 the other shareholders decided, in the applicant’s absence, to increase the company’s capital by assets contributed by one of the shareholders, thus devaluating the applicant’s share in the company from 87.5 % to 10.29% of its capital. On 4 October 1999 mention of this modification was made in the trade register.\n9.  On 4 November 1999 the applicant lodged an action with the Bucharest County Court, seeking the annulment of the 26 September 1999 decision.\n10.  The action was allowed on 22 October 2001. The County Court considered that the decision under review had not observed the requirements of Law no. 31/1990 on companies (“Law no. 31”). It therefore cancelled it.\nThe solution was upheld by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 25 February 2000 and also by the Supreme Court of Justice, in a final decision of 27 June 2001, upon appeals by the company.\n11.  On 6 November 2000 the applicant lodged a request with the Trade Register Office for the 4 October 1999 entry to be removed from the trade register. On 18 January 2001 the request was allowed, on the ground that the shareholders’ decision of 26 September 1999 had been annulled by the courts. Upon an appeal by the company, that solution was upheld by the Bucharest County Court in a final decision of 8 March 2001.\nOn an unspecified date, the Procurator General lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice, with a view to having the final decision of 27 June 2001 quashed (recurs în anulare), on the grounds that the ordinary courts had been wrong in considering that the shareholders’ decision had not complied with the legal requirements and that, in any case, the applicant had lacked standing to bring his initial action.\n12.  The Supreme Court considered that the evidence in the case confirmed that the 26 September 1999 decision had observed Law no. 31. Therefore, in a final decision of 9 June 2003, it allowed the extraordinary appeal and, on the merits of the case, rejected the applicant’s initial action.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3760", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Tarnów. He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in Tarnów Prison.\nCriminal proceedings against the applicant and his detention on remand\n6.  On 30 July 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.\n7.  On 31 July 2002 the Bytom District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. It justified the applicant’s pre‑trial detention by the gravity of the offence, the existence of strong evidence against him, the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed and by the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n8.  The applicant’s appeal against the decision to remand him in custody was unsuccessful. On 4 September 2002 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), relying on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a serious offence, upheld the Bytom District Court’s decision.\n9.  The applicant’s pre‑trial detention was subsequently extended by decisions of the Katowice Regional Court of, inter alia, 21 October 2002, 2 December 2002, 31 March 2003 (upheld by the Katowice Court of Appeal on 7 May 2003), 29 July 2003 and 16 June 2004.\n10.  Once the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory two‑year maximum laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the first‑instance court was no longer competent to extend it. Consequently, it was the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) which issued further extensions on, inter alia, 14 July 2004, 8 December 2004, 6 April 2005 and 28 December 2005.\n11.  The courts repeatedly justified the applicant’s pre‑trial detention in the initial phase by the existence of strong evidence against him, the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed and the reasonable risk that the applicant would attempt either to induce witnesses to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper course of proceedings by other unlawful means. They further stressed that it would be necessary to hear evidence from a large number of witnesses and to obtain expert reports.\n12.  In the latter stages of the applicant’s detention, the courts additionally referred to the complexity of the case and the fact that there was strong evidence against him and other defendants.\n13.  In the meantime, on 16 April 2003 the applicant was indicted on a charge of murder allegedly committed with two accomplices, who were also on trial.\n14.  On 4 July 2005 the Katowice Regional Court convicted the applicant and his co‑defendants as charged. The applicant was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment.\n15.  The prosecutor and the lawyers of all three defendants lodged appeals.\n16.  On 25 January 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the substance of the first‑instance judgment concerning the characterisation of the charges and the sentence.\n17.  On 8 November 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3761", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 5 May 1999 the applicants were laid off by the Diyarbakır Sur municipality, with which they had been employed.\n5.  Each of the applicants brought an action in the Diyarbakır Labour Court, claiming outstanding salaries, dismissal indemnities, severance pay and other pecuniary rights.\n6.  On 11 November 1999 the court ruled in their favour and ordered the municipality to pay the applicants certain amounts in Turkish liras (TRL), including costs, together with interest running from 15 June 1999.\n7.  In the absence of an appeal the judgments became final on 22 November 1999.\n8.  In the following months, as they did not receive any payment, the applicants requested the Diyarbakır Governorship to intervene in order to facilitate the enforcement of the court’s judgments. The Governor’s Office informed the applicants that it had requested the municipality to redress their grievances. However, due to lack of funds, the municipality did not make any payment.\n9.  At the date of introduction of the present application, the relevant judgment debts were still outstanding. Therefore, friendly settlement agreements were reached between the following applicants and the municipality on the dates indicated:\n- Müzeyyen Kalkan on 15 March 2005;\n- Şükrü Güntoğar on 23 January 2006, and\n- Bayram Akbulut on 11 December 2007.\n10.  No settlement was reached in respect of the other applicants. However, the municipality deposited a partial amount in the relevant account at the local enforcement office, which was made available to the remaining applicants. On 21 February 2005 Salih Demircan was paid 822 New Turkish liras (TRY).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3762", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Ümraniye prison, Istanbul.\n5.  On 4 September 1995 the applicant was arrested in Istanbul on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. He was placed in custody at the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Police Headquarters.\n6.  On 13 September 1995 he was questioned by police officers and on 17 October 1995 he was handed over to police officers in the south-eastern city of Batman and placed in police custody there. On 30 October 1995 police officers from the Batman Police Headquarters questioned the applicant. In his statements he submitted that he had been trained at PKK[1] camps before being sent to Istanbul where his health deteriorated.\n7.  On 2 October 1995 the applicant was brought before the Batman Chief Public Prosecutor for questioning. The same day the applicant was also questioned by the judge at the Batman Criminal Court of Peace. The judge ordered his detention in Batman prison pending the initiation of criminal proceedings against him.\n8.  On 11 October 1995 the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court and charged the applicant with the offence of membership of an illegal organisation, an offence which was defined in Article 168 of the Criminal Code and which carried a maximum sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s trial began before the Diyarbakır State Security Court on 17 October 1995.\n9.  In the course of its ninth hearing held on 11 December 1996, the Diyarbakır Security Court noted that another set of criminal proceedings had been initiated against the applicant on 31 July 1996 on the basis of an indictment filed on 23 July 1996, and that those proceedings were pending before the 3rd Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court. In those proceedings the applicant was being tried in absentia for the offence of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of a part of the national territory, an offence which was defined in Article 125 of the Criminal Code and which provided for the death penalty as the sole punishment. The Diyarbakır State Security Court considered that both cases were similar, and decided to join them before the 3rd Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court. The judge also ordered the applicant’s transfer to a prison in Istanbul.\n10.  A hearing took place before the 3rd Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court on 17 January 1997 in the applicant’s absence.\n11.  In the course of its sixth hearing held on 7 March 1997, the 3rd Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court noted that criminal proceedings were pending against a certain İ.K. before the 1st Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court concerning the killing of a village guard. Having regard to the evidence which had the potential to prove that the applicant had also been involved in that killing, the court decided to join the cases. The 1st Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court took over the trial.\n12.  After having joined the three cases, the 1st Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court (hereinafter “the trial court”) held its first hearing of the case on 10 April 1997. The applicant was not present at this hearing.\n13.  Between 10 April 1997 and 31 October 2000 – i.e. for a period of more than three and a half years – the trial court continued its hearings in the absence of the applicant because it was unable to establish the prison in which the applicant was", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3763", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1966 and 1977 respectively and live in Naberezhnye Chelny, Tatarstan. They are currently serving their respective sentences in correctional facility UE-148/5 in Sviyazhsk, Tatarstan.\n6.  On 6 December 2000 Mr D.E., Mr Yu.D. and Mr R.I. were transporting a travel bag with a large sum of money belonging to their employer, Ms S.S., in a car owned by Mr V.G. At about midnight the car was stopped by four armed persons disguised as policemen. Two of them had portable radios. They robbed Mr D.E., Mr Yu.D. and Mr R.I. and beat them up before stealing the travel bag and some other items from the car and leaving.\n(a)  The applicants’ account\n7.  In the evening of 7 December 2000 the applicants were in Mr R.’s flat together with Mr Sh. At around 10 p.m. the police entered and searched the flat. They found a travel bag with money and two portable radios.\n8.  At 11 p.m. on 7 December 2000 the applicants, Mr Sh. and Mr R. were arrested on suspicion of robbery. The arrest was ordered by a prosecutor. The report on the applicants’ arrest was drawn up at 4 p.m. on 8 December 2000.\n9.  Following his arrest, the first applicant was searched in the absence of a lawyer. The police found a wallet in his pocket with a list of towns and traffic police posts located near the road where the crime had been committed.\n10.  On 8 December 2000 the second applicant was questioned by investigators in the absence of a lawyer.\n11.  On 9 December 2000 the investigator ordered the first applicant’s placement in custody as a measure of restraint. On an unspecified date the same measure was applied to the second applicant. Later, the respective terms of the applicants’ pre-trial detention were extended several times by the prosecutor.\n12.  When asked where he had got the money found in Mr R.’s flat, the first applicant explained that he had borrowed it from an acquaintance of his, Mr L. The second applicant said that he had borrowed the money from three persons: his sister, Mr M.A. and Mr I.P.\n13.  The investigator questioned Mr L. The printed version of Mr L.’s statement read “I did not give [the first applicant] any money”.\n14.  The second applicant’s sister confirmed her brother’s account of events when questioned by the investigator. Mr M.A. and Mr I.P. were not questioned.\n15.  The first applicant told the investigator that at about 1 a.m. on 7 December 2000 he had bought some food in a night shop “M.” and requested that sales assistants from the shop be questioned. On 5 May 2001 the request was refused.\n16.  The first applicant further requested the investigators to question Mr Yu.I., an employee of a petrol station who had allegedly seen him on the night of the crime.\n17.  On unspecified dates Mr D.E., Mr Yu.D., Mr R.I., Mr V.G. and Ms S.S. were granted victim status and were questioned by the investigator.\n18.  The applicants did not participate in any identification parade before the victims and did not confront them.\n19.  The first applicant told the investigators that the list of towns seized from him during the search had been put into his pocket by a police officer, Mr T. The investigator ordered a graphology examination of the document. The expert report stated that one set of handwriting was identical to that of the first applicant. The first applicant insisted that the expert report had not attributed the handwriting to him.\n20.  Two other witnesses, Mr G. and Mr Tr., apparently police officers, were questioned by the investig", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3764", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1957 and 1953 respectively and live in Urus-Martan. They are spouses and the parents of four children. Their elder son, Adnan Yusupovich Akhmadov, was born in 1982.\n7.  Between 28 and 29 September 2002 the applicants, their two sons, two daughters and two minor grandchildren were at their family home at 90 Sportivnaya Street, Urus-Martan.\n8.  At about 3 a.m. on 29 September 2002 a group of five masked men in camouflage uniforms broke into the applicants’ house. The men did not identify themselves. They were armed with machine guns, which were equipped with silencers used by Russian troops. The men conversed among themselves in Russian without any accent. The applicants inferred that they were Russian servicemen.\n9.  The applicants’ younger daughter cried. The servicemen put machine guns to the second applicant’s chest, told him to calm the children down and ordered him to awaken his elder son. When he did so, they took Adnan Akhmadov to the courtyard, forced him to his knees and tied his arms behind his back with adhesive tape.\n10.  The servicemen pushed the second applicant with a machine-gun butt into a room and ordered him not to move. Then the armed men left the house taking Adnan Akhmadov with them. The second applicant tried to follow the servicemen, but the door was blocked from the outside. The second applicant then looked out the window and noticed more masked men. The whole group drove away in a UAZ vehicle, a Ural truck and an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”).\n11.  In support of their account of the events the applicants submitted written statements from four neighbours who had witnessed the scene in the courtyard.\n12.  According to the Prosecutor General’s Office, at 3 a.m. on 29 September 2002 unidentified persons armed with machine guns entered the house at 90 Sportivnaya Street, Urus-Martan, kidnapped Adnan Akhmadov and took him away in an unknown direction.\n13.  In the morning of 29 September 2002 the applicants reported in person their son’s disappearance to the district department of the interior, the temporary district department of the interior, the military commander’s office, the prosecutor’s office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district prosecutor’s office”) and the local administration. None of the officials provided any information as to Adnan Akhmadov’s whereabouts. On the same date the applicants lodged written complaints with all the aforesaid bodies. The applicants retained copies of some of these complaints and submitted them to the Court.\n14.  From 1 October 2002 onwards the first applicant repeatedly wrote to various official bodies, such as the Prosecutor General’s Office, the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic, the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20102, the Administration of the Chechen Republic, the Special Envoy of the Russian President in Chechnya for Rights and Freedoms, the Russian Ministry of Justice and the Russian State Duma. She also contacted the Memorial Human Rights Centre. In her applications she described in detail the circumstances of her son’s abduction and asked for assistance in establishing his whereabouts. Most of the complaints were eventually forwarded to the district prosecutor’s office.\n15.  The first applicant also addressed numerous penitentiary institutions requesting information on her son’s possible detention. In reply, she was informed that Adnan Akhmadov had not been held in any of them.\n16.  On 3 October 2002 the fir", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3765", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Town of Gayvoron. She worked as a judge at the Gayvoron Town Court and retired in February 2007.\n6.  On 20 August 2002 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv ordered the State Treasury to pay the applicant UAH 4,766[1] in compensation for her uniform.\n7.  On 30 October 2002 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.\n8.  On 3 December 2002 the Bailiffs instituted the enforcement proceedings.\n9.  On 22 December 2003 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued for the lack of budgetary funds.\n10.  On 3 October 2005 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3766", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Sarapul in the Udmurtiya Republic.\n6.  On 23 April 2001 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic delivered a judgment in a criminal case against the applicant and his co-defendants, Mr T. and Mr Z. The court established that in February-March 2000 the applicant, the then Head of the Sarapul Town Property Management Committee, had detected certain irregularities in the privatisation of a local brewery which, in his assessment, might have rendered the privatisation void. The applicant had conspired with T. and Z. to approach the director of the brewery to extort 350,000 Russian roubles (RUB) from the head of the brewery in exchange for covering up those irregularities. The head had agreed to pay RUB 200,000. On the day of payment the applicant prepared an amended assessment report on the brewery’s immovable property, signed it in his office and affixed the seal of the Property Management Committee. Z. and T. delivered the report to the brewery head and received the stipulated amount. On leaving the head’s office they were apprehended by the police.\n7.  The trial court found the applicant guilty of having attempted to solicit, through an intermediary, a large sum of money for performing acts in the interests of the bribe-giver that were within the applicant’s official competence. The court established that those acts were punishable under Article 290 § 4 (c) and (d) of the Criminal Code (“Bribery”) in conjunction with Article 30 § 3 (“Preparation of a criminal offence and an attempted criminal offence”). The applicant was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment in a high-security colony.\n8.  The applicant, but not the prosecution, appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n9.  On 17 October 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation held an appeal hearing in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer and a prosecutor. The applicant did not attend the hearing. In his oral submissions the prosecutor asked the court to recharacterise the applicant’s acts as attempted large-scale fraud committed by an organised group (Article 159 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 30 § 3), without reducing the sentence. Pursuant to Article 338 of the 1960 Code of Criminal Procedure, the court then asked the applicant’s lawyer to submit “additional explanations”. The lawyer contended that the granting of the prosecutor’s request would violate the applicant’s right to prepare his defence because neither the applicant nor the lawyer himself had been informed in advance of the nature and grounds of the new charge and they had not had adequate time to prepare their position. The lawyer relied, in particular, on Article 6 § 3 (a) and (b) and Article 13 of the Convention.\n10.  The court then withdrew for deliberations and delivered its judgment by which it recharacterised the applicant’s acts as attempted large-scale fraud within the meaning of Article 159 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 30 § 3 and upheld the applicant’s imprisonment term. It reasoned as follows:\n“Having correctly established the facts of the case, the [trial] court, however, groundlessly characterised [the applicant’s] acts as an attempt to solicit a bribe in conspiracy with T. and Z. As the court acknowledged in the judgment, the brewery privatisation documents had contained ‘defects’ that had been too insignificant to entail annulment of the privatisation, and [the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3767", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the village of Nadterechnoye, Chechnya.\n8.  The facts of the case as submitted by the parties are summarised in section A below (paragraphs 9-40). A description of the documents submitted by the Government is contained in section B below (paragraphs 41-42).\n9.  At the material time the applicant and his family lived in the village of Znamenskoye, in the Nadterechny District of Chechnya. They had an apartment in a block of flats at 19 Shosseynaya Street. The applicant’s family consisted of his father, Oleg Semenovich Mezhidov, born in 1938, his mother, Movlmat Lemayevna Mezhidova, born in 1940, his brother, Bislan Olegovich Mezhidov, born in 1969, and his two sisters, Aminat Olegovna Mezhidova, born in 1973, and Svetlana Olegovna Mezhidova, born in 1985.\n10.  In early October 1999 the Russian Government launched a counter‑terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic.\n11.  On 5 October 1999, between 7 and 9 p.m., the village of Znamenskoye came under fire. It appears that the applicant was absent from home at the time. His parents, brother and sisters tried to escape but were killed by a shell which burst in the courtyard of the building at 19 Shosseynaya Street.\n12.  According to the applicant, the village was shelled by artillery positioned on the Terskiy mountain range, where Russian troops were stationed. In his submission, a total of five to six shells had been fired during the attack. He submitted a sketch map of the scene of the incident indicating the shell craters. According to him, the position of the craters clearly indicated that the shells could only have been fired from the Terskiy mountain range. The applicant also submitted statements by two witnesses who had testified that the village had been shelled from the Terskiy mountain range and that they had seen the Russian forces stationed there.\n13.  According to the Government, the applicant’s family members died in an attack on the village of Znamenskoye carried out with unidentified firearms by unidentified men. They also suggested with reference to the information provided by the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia and the Chechen Department of the Federal Security Service that “the Mezhidovs [had been] killed by members of illegal armed formations”.\n14.  On 24 November 1999 the Civil Registration Office of the Nadterechny District certified the deaths of the applicant’s relatives. The certificates stated that each of them had died of “multiple shrapnel wounds”. The date and the place of death were recorded as 5 October 1999, Znamenskoye.\n15.  According to the applicant, the courts and administrative institutions in the Chechen Republic ceased functioning when the hostilities began.\n16.  On 3 February 2000, when the local law-enforcement bodies became operational, the applicant asked the Nadterechny prosecutor’s office (прокуратура Надтеречного района) to investigate the deaths of his family members. The applicant submitted a copy of his application, which bears no stamp to show that it had been received by the authorities. In the applicant’s submission, no investigative measures were taken in connection with his application. Some time later he was informed by law-enforcement officials that on 5 October 1999 Znamenskoye had allegedly been shelled by Chechen fighters with 120 mm-calibre mortars.\n17.  On 22 June 2000 the applicant applied to the Special Envoy of the Russian President in Chechnya for Rights and Freedoms (Специа", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3769", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1971, 1947 and 1938 respectively and live in Štip.\n5.  On 6 February 1996 the applicants brought an action against Mr G., a juvenile at that time, and Ms M. and Mr B., Mr G.’s parents (“the defendants”), claiming compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage resulting from injuries that the first applicant had sustained in a fight with Mr G. In the course of the proceedings, the applicants increased their initial claim on account of injuries that were established subsequently.\n6.  Five hearings were scheduled between 25 September and 9 December 1996, three of which were adjourned because of expert examinations. On the latter date the Štip Court of First Instance ruled partly in favour of the applicants, awarding them less compensation than they had sought. That judgment was quashed by the Štip Court of Appeal in a decision of 18 June 1997 following appeals by both parties.\n7.  On 15 October 1997 the Štip Court of First Instance partly granted the applicants’ claims and ordered the defendants jointly to reimburse the second and third applicants for the material loss, and to cover the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the first applicant.\n8.  On 25 February 1998 the Štip Court of Appeal, on appeal by the applicants, quashed the part of the lower court’s decision relating to the first applicant’s claim for loss of income. It upheld the remainder of that decision.\n9.  On 25 May 1998 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law (ревизија) with the Supreme Court. On 22 May 1999 the first applicant unsuccessfully requested that the case be given priority treatment.\n10.  On 11 January 2001 the Supreme Court partly allowed the applicants’ appeal and increased the award in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants were served with that decision on 23 March 2001.\n11.  On 17 April 2001 the applicants requested enforcement of the above decisions before the Štip Court of First Instance (“the enforcement court”). They proposed the following means of enforcement: seizure of the defendants’ monetary funds or an inventory, valuation and sale of their movable and immovable assets. They also requested the court to prevent Mr B. from selling or encumbering a flat (“the flat”) which he allegedly possessed. The enforcement court granted those requests in a decision of 16 May 2001 (“the order”). It appears that the applicants did not pay the court fees in time and the court did not decide upon their request for an injunction in respect of the flat.\n12.  An on-site examination of the flat was scheduled for 21 March 2002. However, a hearing was held in the court building instead. On that occasion, the applicants requested the court to obtain evidence about the defendants’ immovable assets.\n13.  On 21 June 2002 the applicants requested the court, in the alternative, to order an inventory and public sale of a house (“the house”) allegedly owned by Mr B. Their request for enforcement as regards the flat remained unaffected. The defendants argued that the house had not been constructed and that Mr B. did not have title to the flat.\n14.  On 19 September 2002 the court inspected the site and established the existence of the house. It further ordered the applicants to provide evidence that Mr B. had title to the house.\n15.  On 15 November 2002 the applicants requested the continuation of the enforcement proceedings in respect of the flat and the house. The defendants contested that request, stating that they did not h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3770", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a joint stock company based in Braşov.\n5.  On 25 August 1994 the applicant brought proceedings against the Transilvania University of Braşov seeking payment by the latter of an amount of money allegedly resulting from a contract they had entered into, which concerned repairs that had to be carried out by the applicant to one of the university’s halls of residence.\n6.  On 27 October 1995 the Braşov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) dismissed the action as premature, considering that the contract had not come to an end.\n7.  On 8 February 1996 the Braşov Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) allowed an appeal by the applicant, quashed the previous judgment and sent the case back to the Regional Court for fresh examination. It considered that the first-instance court had come to a decision on the basis of an exception that was inapplicable.\n8.  During the retrial, of the nine hearings held between 25 June 1996 and 4 February 1998, two were adjourned at the applicant’s request. This included the hearing of 25 June 1996 when it requested an adjournment to allow the Supreme Court of Justice to decide on its demand to transfer the case to another court, the hearing being fixed for 16 July 1996. The Regional Court adjourned the hearings until 29 October 1996.\nAccording to the applicant, on 16 July 1996 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed its request.\n9.  On 11 February 1998 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s action as being groundless.\n10.  On 25 June 1998 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant.\n11.  On 18 March 1999 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed by a final decision an appeal on points of law by the applicant, quashed the previous judgment and remitted the case to the court of appeal for fresh consideration. It found that one of the judges had also taken part in the proceedings when the first-instance court had given the judgment of 27 October 1995.\n12.  During the retrial, on 15 November 1999 the applicant informed the Court of Appeal that it had made a request before the Supreme Court of Justice to have the case transferred to another court, the hearing being fixed for 17 February 2000. The Court of Appeal decided to stay the proceedings and sent the file to the archives. The hearings were resumed on 21 April 2000.\nThe Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s request.\n13.  On 3 May 2000 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the judgment of 11 February 1998, on the grounds that the applicant’s claims had not been proved.\n14.  On 22 June 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice by a final decision rejected as groundless an appeal on points of law by the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3772", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  On 6 November 1992 the applicant lodged a claim with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sad Okręgowy) for dissolution of a partnership.\n7.  On 6 June 1995 the proceedings were stayed.\n8.  On 26 September 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court discontinued the proceedings.\n9.  The applicant appealed against this decision.\n10.  On an unspecified date the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the decision on the discontinuance of the proceedings.\n11.  On 23 July 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court found that it was not competent to deal with the matter and referred the case to the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n12.  Between 26 February 1998 and 2 September 2002 the court scheduled eight hearings, two of which were adjourned.\n13.  On 2 September 2002 the court ordered that an expert report be obtained.\n14.  Between 25 November 2002 and June 2003 the expert witness prepared his report.\n15.  On 8 April 2004 the proceedings were stayed. The applicant appealed.\n16.  On 16 August 2004 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal.\n17.  The proceedings are still pending before the Warsaw District Court.\n18.  On 14 June 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n19.  On 29 September 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed his complaint on the ground that on the date of the entry into force of the 2004 Act no undue delays in the court’s conduct could be discerned. The court acknowledged that the proceedings before 2004 had been unreasonably lengthy for various reasons such as the failure of witnesses and lawyers to appear on numerous occasions and the unreasonably long period taken up by the preparation of a report by the expert witness. The court also found some periods of inactivity on the part of the Warsaw District Court (between 18 November 1998 and 24 September 1999 and between 9 December 1999 and 29 October 2001). However, the court stressed that the 2004 Act had entered into force on 17 September 2004 and could not be applied to the proceedings occurring before that date. Having analysed the conduct of the District Court in the period following the entry into force of the 2004 Act, the Regional Court found that the proceedings had been conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3773", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Gdańsk. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Gdańsk Prison.\nCriminal proceedings against the applicant and his detention on remand\n6.  On 6 May 2000 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody until 5 August 2000 in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he was charged and the risk that he would obstruct the investigation. The applicant was suspected of acting in an organised criminal group, illegal possession of weapons and several offences of armed robbery. The court considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might induce witnesses to give false testimony The court also stressed the severity of the likely sentence and that the applicant had been wanted by the police since 1999.\n7.  The applicant’s detention was repeatedly extended by decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) and the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). Appeals and applications by the applicant for release and for the preventive measure to be varied were unsuccessful. In their decisions the courts relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, on their serious nature and the complexity of the case.\n8.  Once the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory two-year maximum laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks Postępowania Karnego), the first-instance court no longer had jurisdiction to extend it. Consequently, it was the Gdańsk Court of Appeal which issued further extensions. In its first extension decision, on 24 April 2002, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and on the considerable complexity of the case. The court also held that the risk that the applicant and other co-accused would obstruct the investigation was justified. It did not however refer to any reasons justifying its allegations.\n9.  On 31 October 2002 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.\n10.  The applicant and several other co-accused appealed. The applicant was kept in detention pending appeal for thirteen months.\n11.  On 1 December 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for re-examination to the first-instance court.\n12.  On 16 December 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 30 March 2004. The applicant remained in detention until his further conviction.\n13.  On 10 April 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court again convicted the applicant and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against this judgment.\n15.  On 20 November 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal gave judgment apparently upholding the applicant’s conviction.\n16.  The applicant twice lodged a complaint that his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n17.  On 16 March 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal left the complaint unexamine", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3774", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Braşov.\n5.  On 4 September 1991 the applicant brought an action against nine persons, seeking the division of property that was jointly owned and was registered in the Land Register under no. 954 Moeciu de Jos (“CF 954”). He requested to have a house made of wood and a stable allocated to him.\n6.  On 16 February 1993 the Braşov Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”) dismissed the action. The court could not reach a conclusion because the expert report had mentioned that the property registered under CF 954 was linked up with another property registered under CF 417, belonging to other owners and with no clear boundaries, and the parties had refused to have another expert report produced.\n7.  On 15 June 1993 the Braşov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) allowed an appeal by the applicant, quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and sent the case back for a fresh examination. It considered that the applicant should also bring the civil action against the owners of the property registered under CF 417.\n8.  Of the fourteen hearings held between 8 September 1993 and 20 September 1995, one was adjourned at the applicant’s request as his lawyer was absent.\n9.  On 15 July 1993 a certain M.A. brought proceedings against the applicant for recovery of possession of the property registered under CF 417. M.A.’s action was joined to the proceedings brought by the applicant.\nIn 1995 the applicant brought an action against M.A. to evict her from the house, the stable and other outbuildings. This action was also joined to the proceedings brought by the applicant in 1991.\n10.  After the retrial, on 25 October 1995 the Regional Court, taking into account the three expert reports, upheld the applicant’s action, severed the joint tenancy in respect of the properties registered under CF 954 and CF 417, allocated him the house registered under CF 954 and ordered the eviction of M.A. It also dismissed M.A.’s action for recovery of possession.\n11.  On 15 May 1996 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal by M.A.\n12.  M.A. subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law. Of the sixteen hearings held between 12 September 1996 and 3 March 1998, none was adjourned as a result of requests by the applicant.\n13.  On 10 March 1998 the Braşov Court of Appeal by a final decision upheld the subsequent appeal by M.A. and quashed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, sending the case back for a fresh examination as regards the division of the property registered under CF 954, rejected the applicant’s request for division of the property registered under CF 417 and ordered him to leave that property in the possession of M.A. It found that the lower court had not divided the property under CF 954 into shares.\n14.  During the fresh proceedings, of the fifty hearings held between 12 June 1998 and 12 November 2004 six were adjourned at the applicant’s request, including between 4 October 2002 and 22 May 2003, when he requested an adjournment pending an appeal he had lodged against an interlocutory decision. Between 8 January and 26 February 1999 and between 17 September 1999 and 1 September 2000 the proceedings were stayed on account of the unjustified absence of the parties.\nDuring the hearings between 4 May and 29 June 2001 the court reconstructed the file, following its disappearance.\n15.  On 10 August 2000 the bailiff proceeded, on the basis of the final decision of 10 March 1998, to put M.A. in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3775", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lived in Sopot.\n5.  On 8 March 1994 the applicant, together with four relatives, lodged a civil action claiming restitutio in integrum of a mill, the property of their parents, which had been taken by the State in 1948.\n6.  Of the twenty-two hearings held between 6 April 1994 and 12 January 1996, five were adjourned at the applicant’s request.\n7.  On 9 February 1996 the Craiova Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”) rejected the action, considering that the mill had been nationalised in accordance with the law and that therefore the applicant and his relatives had no right of property.\n8.  The applicant and his relatives appealed. Of the twenty-four hearings held between 23 August 1996 and 14 May 1998 one was adjourned at the applicant’s request.\n9.  On 21 May 1998 the Dolj Regional Court (“the Regional Court”), taking into account the expert’s report produced during the appeal, dismissed the appeal as being groundless.\n10.  On 1 February 1999 the Craiova Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) by a final decision upheld the findings of the lower courts, considering that the nationalisation had been lawful.\n11.  The applicant and his relatives made use of extraordinary remedies and on 12 May 1999 the Court of Appeal allowed the application to set aside the final decision of 1 February 1999, quashed the previous judgments and sent the case back for fresh examination. The court noted that under Government Ordinance no. 447/1997 the Ministry of Finance should have been summoned to appear in the proceedings as the State’s representative.\n12.  During the retrial, of the twenty-five hearings held between 26 August 1999 and 21 January 2002 two were adjourned at the applicant’s request.\nOn 8 September 2000 the Court of First Instance held that it had no jurisdiction ratione materiae, considering the case to be within the competence of the Regional Court. On 14 December 2000 the Regional Court also refused to exercise jurisdiction. Following the dispute as to jurisdiction, the Court of Appeal decided on 12 June 2001 that it was the Court of First Instance which had jurisdiction ratione materiae.\n13.  On 28 January 2002 the Court of First Instance, having regard to the two experts’ reports and to the witnesses produced during the retrial, upheld in part the action lodged by the applicant and his relatives, considering that the legal requirements for nationalisation had not been fulfilled and therefore the State had no valid title. The court granted restitutio in integrum in respect of the mill and of the appurtenant land.\n14.  The defendant party appealed. Of the eleven hearings held between 10 May 2002 and 14 February 2003 none was adjourned as a result of requests by the applicant. A new expert’s report was produced.\n15.  On 21 February 2003 the Regional Court allowed the appeal by the defendant and rejected on the merits the action lodged by the applicant and his relatives, considering that the nationalisation had been lawful. That decision was upheld on 7 October 2003 by a final decision of the Court of Appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3776", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Frătăuţii Vechi.\n5.  On 24 June 1993 the applicant, together with C.V. and B.V., his relatives, lodged a civil action against third parties claiming restitutio in integrum of a 0,26 ha piece of land situated in a place called “Ioneşti”.\nOn 10 July 1998 the Suceava Court of Appeal by a final decision rejected the action, as the third parties had the land titles for the relevant piece of land, which had been obtained in 1995.\nThe applicant lodged a criminal complaint alleging that the expert in the civil action had given false evidence. On 1 September 1999 the public prosecutor found no grounds for initiating criminal proceedings against the expert.\n6.  On 10 March 1999 the Rădăuţi Court of First Instance by a final decision dismissed the applicant’s claim to have the land title of the third parties annulled.\n7.  On 5 January 2000 the Rădăuţi Court of First Instance allowed the civil action brought by the applicant together with C.V. and B.V. and ordered the Mayor of Frătăuţii Vechi village, in his capacity as the chairman of the local administrative authorities, to allow them to take possession of 0,26 ha of land situated in Frătăuţii Vechi village, in a place called “Ioneşti”. That judgment became final.\n8.  On 16 November 2000 the applicant informed the local authorities that he was claiming the plot of land at Ioneşti, which had been occupied by the third parties, and that he would not accept another plot.\n9.  On 22 January 2001 the applicant together with C.V. brought proceedings against the Mayor claiming damages for the unjustified refusal to allow them to take possession of the 0,26 ha of land at Ioneşti.\n10.  On 15 February 2001 the local administrative authorities certified in an official record that the applicant had been allowed to take possession of a 0,26 ha plot of land in a place called “Măleni” and that he would be provided with a land title for this plot. The applicant did not sign the official record.\n11.  On 2 April 2002 the Suceava Court of Appeal by a final decision rejected the action against the Mayor, considering that there had been no unjustified refusal given that the applicant had been granted possession of another plot of land. The court also noted that the applicant’s action for the annulment of the land title of the third parties who had possession of the land at Ioneşti had been rejected.\n12.  The applicant lodged criminal complaints against the Mayor alleging abuse of authority. On 26 April 2001 and 18 March 2003 respectively the public prosecutor found no grounds which would justify initiating a criminal action against the Mayor. On 16 May 2001 and 24 November 2003 respectively these decisions were upheld by the senior prosecutor.\n13.  On 15 July 2004 the local administrative authorities certified in an official record that the applicant had been allowed to take possession of a 0,26 ha plot of land in a place called “Popovici” and that he would be provided with a land title for this plot of land. The applicant did not sign the official record.\n14.  The applicant brought proceedings for the annulment of the official record of 15 July 2004. On 25 October 2004 the Rădăuţi Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s action, considering that the local authorities would not have been able to ensure performance of the judgment of 5 January 2000 and that the decision to grant the applicant an alternative plot of land had been a justified measure.\n15.  On 8 Mar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3777", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  On 1 October 1993 G.G.C. and I.S. founded a company G. in Focşani to run a mutual aid scheme of the Caritas-type, which promised eight to ten times the money invested in seventy-five to eighty-five working days.\n6.  On 11 January 1994 the applicant became the sole shareholder of the company and on 17 February 1994 he withdrew by transferring all the shares of the capital to P.I. The transfer was registered at the Office of Commerce Registry attached to the Vrancea Chamber of Commerce and Industry and it was stated that the applicant continued to act as general director of the company.\n7.  On 11 March 1994, following some written notifications, the police, the public prosecution and the Financial Guard (Garda Financiară) started investigating the company’s activity and found several illegalities.\n8.  On 23 March, 15 April, 20 September and 19 October 1994 the public prosecutor ordered the sequestration of the movable and fixed assets belonging to the applicant, to his wife and to three companies involved in business with him in his capacity as the sole shareholder of the company G., and the freezing of his personal bank accounts until the resolution of the case, with a view to recovering the damage.\n9.  On 24 March 1994 the public prosecutor initiated a criminal action against the applicant for fraudulent bankruptcy, fraud, forgeries and use of forgery, and issued a provisional detention order against him, mentioning these offences in the order.\n10.  At least on 18 April, 17 May, 15 June and 14 July 1994 the Focşani Court of First Instance, on successive applications by the prosecutor, repeatedly extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention by thirty days. The applicant remained in pre-trial detention until 13 October 1995.\n11.  The applicant contested his detention pending trial. At least on 17 May, 8 and 29 June, and 26 July 1994 the Vrancea Regional Court rejected his demands as groundless.\n12.  On 2 November 1994 the prosecutor showed the applicant the investigation file and told him about the classification of the offences as fraud and fraudulent bankruptcy.\n13.  On 7 November 1994, on an application by the public prosecutor, the applicant was committed for trial before the Focşani Court of First Instance for fraud and fraudulent bankruptcy, together with four other persons. The prosecutor’s indictment mentioned that the applicant had misled thousands of people and had illegally appropriated the amount of 555,528,448 Old Romanian Lei (ROL).\nIt further revealed that during investigations 4,927 depositors had requested to participate in the proceedings as injured parties and formed themselves into an association. The indictment also recorded a company and the liquidation commission as injured parties and three companies as parties bearing civil responsibility.\n14.  On 27 December 1994 the public prosecutor committed the applicant for trial for mismanagement.\n15.  On 8 February 1995 the Focşani Court of First Instance considered that the case was within the jurisdiction of the Bucharest Court of First Instance and remitted the case to that court.\n16.  Of the twenty-two hearings held between 22 June 1995 and 28 June 2001, eighteen minutes mentioned that the court had failed to properly summon different parties in the proceedings, including two when the applicant also requested an adjournment for his and his lawyer’s absence. In particular, ten hearings held between 25 Januar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3778", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1936 and 1947 respectively and live in Bucharest.\n5.  On 28 May 1994 the applicants were injured in a car accident caused by B.F. On 17 October 1994 the Public Prosecutor attached to the Alexandria Court of First Instance committed B.F. for trial, mentioning that the first applicant had applied to join the criminal proceedings as a civil party seeking damages. On 16 February 1995 the second applicant claimed damages as well.\n6.  On 6 May 1996 the Alexandria Court of First Instance convicted B.F. of having negligently caused bodily harm, held him personally liable and awarded both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the applicants. It also ordered B.F. to pay the first applicant a monthly sum pending his recovery.\n7.  On 15 November 1996 the Teleorman Regional Court upheld the appeals lodged by all the parties and ordered that the case be severed, fixing a hearing for the continuation of the ruling on the civil action. It considered that the first-instance court should have brought the technical and medical expert reports up to date and should have ordered an expert accountant’s report. This ruling was upheld on 10 April 1997 by a final decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal.\n8.  Of the thirty-eight hearings held between 1 July 1996 and 10 December 1999 six were adjourned at the first applicant’s request. On 26 June 1998, at the first applicant’s request, the case was transferred to the Bucharest Regional Court.\n9.  On 17 December 1999 the Bucharest Regional Court rejected the applicants’ appeal against the amount of damages awarded by the judgment of 6 May 1996 and on 16 February 2000 the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld this decision in a final judgment.\n10.  On 6 July 2001 an application by the Prosecutor General at the Supreme Court of Justice to have the judgments in the criminal proceedings quashed (recurs în anulare) was granted by the Supreme Court of Justice, which therefore set aside the judgments of 17 December 1999 and 16 February 2000 and sent the case back to the Regional Court for fresh examination. It considered that the courts had misinterpreted the law, that the quantum of damages had not been correctly assessed and that the Bucharest Regional Court had, on 3 December 1999, unjustifiably rejected the expert report proposed and paid for by the applicants. It further considered an expert accountant’s report necessary.\n11.  During the retrial, seventeen hearings were held before the Regional Court, none of which was adjourned as a result of requests by the applicants.\n12.  On 9 December 2002 the Bucharest Regional Court upheld the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of the first-instance court and increased the amount of damages. The court also held that the applicants had renounced their claim for a vehicle adapted to their disability.\n13.  The applicants appealed again. During the hearing of 17 April 2003, they maintained before the Bucharest Court of Appeal that they had not renounced the claim in relation to the vehicle.\n14.  On 24 April 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal gave a final decision rejecting as unfounded the applicants’ subsequent appeal on the grounds that their allegations were not supported by the evidence.\n15.  On 12 May 2006 the High Court of Cassation and Justice, in a final decision, rejected the applicants’ objection to the execution of the judgment of 9 December 2002. The court considered that the applicants’ request to increase the amount of damages was of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3779", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in the town of Yuzhno‑Sakhalinsk in the Sakhalin region.\n6.  In December 1999 the applicant arrived in Moscow. On 3 December 1999 he was examined by the Moscow medical commission, which found him to be in good health and fit to drive a car.\n7.  On 5 December 1999 the applicant gave an interview to a national TV station, NTV, which was running a story on a dispute between private holders of government bonds and the Ministry of Finance. During the interview the applicant, the head of a group of private bondholders, accused the Ministry of initiating a vendetta against him and ordering assaults on bondholders to pressurise them into withdrawing their lawsuits against the Ministry. The interview was aired on NTV’s weekly political analysis show, Itogi.\n8.  On the same day police officers stopped the applicant and his brother in the street and asked them to show identification documents. The Government alleged that the police officers had acted on information about wanted criminals who looked remarkably similar to the applicant and his brother. According to the Government, the applicant and his brother were not in possession of any papers which could have proved their identity and they were taken to Koptevo police station in Moscow (ОВД «Коптево» г. Москвы) owing to their “refusal to comply with the orders of the police officers and use of obscene language in public”. According to the applicant, he and his brother disclosed their identity, his brother presenting a military ID card and the applicant showing a work pass.\n9.  At the station a police officer, Kh., drew up a note addressed to the head of the Koptevo police department. The note read as follows:\n“[I] am writing to inform you that on 5 December 1999, at 1.45 p.m., Mr Belousov was brought to the police station together with Mr V. [NB: the police officer]; at the address ..., following several requests to present documents proving his identity, [Mr Belousov] refused to show them and started swearing at us in the presence of private individuals, using obscene language and at the same time repeating that it would cost us five thousand roubles; the two men refused to follow us to Koptevo police station.\nThe identity check was prompted by telephone message no. 12316.”\n10.  According to the applicant, he was severely beaten in the police station by a group of allegedly drunk police officers. After the beatings he was moved to a cell. Several hours later he was brought to a room and forced to strip to the waist. He placed his clothes in a bag and was forced to lift the bag, which weighed approximately four kilograms, and to put it down. He had to perform this “exercise” over and over again. The applicant alleged that the task had been extremely difficult for him, as on 6 October 1999 he had undergone surgery and had been prohibited from lifting weights heavier than a kilogram. The applicant lost consciousness and was taken to the Botkin clinical hospital.\n11.  The Government, relying on information provided by the Prosecutor General’s Office, confirmed the fact that the applicant had sustained injuries.\n12.  In the hospital the applicant was examined by a neurosurgeon, a neuropathologist, a urologist and an oculist. Medical report no. 29314 was drawn up. The report indicated that the applicant had been admitted to the hospital at 6.45 p.m. on 5 December 1999 and that he had been diagnosed with “an injury to the front abdominal wall, bruises on th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3780", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Obninsk, a town in the Kaluga Region.\n5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant is entitled to social benefits. Considering himself underpaid, he brought four sets of proceedings against the local welfare authority.\n6.  On 22 July 2003 the Obninsk Town Court awarded the applicant arrears in respect of health damages and fixed a new amount of periodic payments with their subsequent adjustment for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on 25 September 2003 but was not fully enforced. On the applicant’s request, on 9 February 2006 the Town Court set aside the judgment due to newly-discovered circumstances.\n7.  On 1 August 2003 the Town Court fixed a new amount of periodic payments in respect of additional benefits with their subsequent adjustment for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on 25 September 2003 but was not fully enforced. On the applicant’s request, on 14 February 2006 the Town Court set aside the judgment due to newly-discovered circumstances.\n8.  On 22 March 2004 the Town Court fixed a new amount of periodic payments in respect of health damages. This judgment became binding on 2 April 2004 but was not fully enforced. On the applicant’s request, on 10 March 2006 the Town Court set aside the judgment due to newly-discovered circumstances.\n9.  On 14 April 2004 the Town Court fixed a new amount of periodic payments in respect of additional benefits with their subsequent adjustment for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on 26 April 2004 but was not fully enforced. On the applicant’s request, on 28 March 2006 the Town Court set aside the judgment due to newly-discovered circumstances.\n10.  After a rehearing, on 16 May 2006 the Town Court regrouped the four above judgments, awarded the applicant arrears and fixed new amounts of the periodic payments with their subsequent adjustment for the cost of living. This judgment became binding on 21 August 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3781", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Timisoara, Romania.\n7.  On 24 February 2002 the applicant’s passport and luggage were stolen in Nice when she was on her way back to Romania from a journey in Spain. After the French police had provided her with a document certifying that she had declared the theft, she continued her trip via Italy and Austria.\n8.  On 25 February 2002 the Hungarian border police refused the applicant leave to enter Hungary and sent her back to the Austrian border police; on the same day, the Neusiedl/See District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) ordered her detention with a view to her expulsion pursuant to section 61(1) of the Aliens Act 1997 (Fremdengesetz 1997). The reasoning read as follows:\n“You entered Austrian territory, coming from Italy, at 10.30 a.m. on 25 February 2002 at 2425 Nickelsdorf (marker stone A29-30), circumventing border controls and without being in possession of a valid travel document and stamp. On 25 February 2002 at 10.30 a.m. you were apprehended by border control officials.\nYour entry into and stay in Austria are therefore illegal. You do not have any fixed accommodation in Austria, nor do you have sufficient funds to finance your stay.\nThe Neusiedl/See District Administrative Authority has instituted proceedings for your deportation with a view to your expulsion from the country.\nIn view of the foregoing there is reason to fear that, if released, you would abscond and seek to evade the proceedings.”\n9.  The order for the applicant’s detention with a view to her expulsion (Schubhaftbescheid), issued in German and consisting of two pages, included instructions as to available remedies (Rechtsmittelbelehrung), referring in particular to a complaint to the Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) against the lawfulness of the order, arrest or detention. It was handed to the applicant at around 6 p.m. together with two information sheets in Romanian.\n10.  Information sheet I read as follows:\n“Section A\nYou are hereby informed that you have been arrested by law-enforcement officers (federal police/customs officers/Austrian federal army) in accordance with section 43(1)(2) of the Aliens Act because you entered Austria without reporting to the Border Control Office and were apprehended immediately afterwards.\nYou are entitled to have a relative or other person close to you advised of your arrest, at your request, without unnecessary delay and according to your choice. In addition, the consular representation of your country of nationality will be immediately informed of your detention.\nYou will be immediately brought before the authority responsible, namely the Neusiedl am See District Administrative Authority, which will issue the subsequent orders.\nSection B\nI ... (Name) ... (Date of birth)..., would like the following person to be advised of my arrest: ...\nWould you like your consular representation in Austria to be informed of your arrest?                            Yes              O                                          No              O\nBy signing, I also confirm receipt of information sheet I.\n(Signature)”\n11.  The applicant filled in the form, asking that Mr L. B. [full name], whose address and telephone number she indicated, be informed of her arrest, and ticked the box indicating that she wished the consular representation to be informed of her arrest. The applicant duly signed the form.\n12.  Information sheet II read as follows:\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3782", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Zelenograd.\n7.  On 5 February 1999 three police officers from the Metro police (милиция метро) at Leningradskiy railway station in Moscow, L., S. and I., arrested the applicant and another person, R., on suspicion of burglary. They took them to the Komsomolskaya Metro police station for questioning and urged the applicant to confess. The applicant refused and asked to be provided with a lawyer. Angry about this request, the policemen punched the applicant in the upper body and the head.\n8.  Later, the policemen took the applicant to a special Metro police station for further questioning. According to the applicant, as soon as the interrogation had begun, the policemen beat him to make him sign a confession they had prepared. The applicant refused to sign. Angry about this refusal, the policemen cuffed the applicant’s hands behind his back, dropped him on the floor, and applied electric shocks to his neck, kidney and liver areas and private parts. They kicked the applicant in the stomach, put him in a chair, and beat his head with a document file until he fainted. Fifteen minutes later the policemen told the applicant that they would hand him over to officers from the Sokol district police station because the burglary had been committed in that district.\n9.  The officers from the Sokol district police station questioned the applicant and placed him in a temporary detention unit. Three days later, the applicant was transferred to remand prison SIZO–48/5.\n10.  On the applicant’s admission to the prison, the doctor on duty observed injuries on his body. He sent the applicant to a first-aid point to record the injuries.\n11.  On 10 February 1999 the staff at the first-aid point recorded the following injuries sustained by the applicant:\n“Bruises on the soft tissue of the left auricle, right forefinger and right elbow joint and an abrasion on the left shin.”\nThe applicant explained that the injuries were caused by the ill-treatment he had received from the policemen.\n12.  On 22 February 1999 the prison administration asked the public prosecutor of the Golovinskiy District to investigate the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment. The prosecutor referred the request to the Metro public prosecutor (прокурор Московского метрополитена) because it was Metro police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant.\n13.  The applicant’s criminal case was submitted for trial in the Golovinskiy District Court. At the trial, the court questioned as a witness L., the policeman who had arrested the applicant, who stated that he had not used physical coercion against him. The applicant recognised L. as the man who had beaten him. The court asked the Metro public prosecutor about the results of the inquiry (прокурорская проверка) into the alleged ill-treatment. On 9 June 1999 the Internal Investigations Department of the Moscow police informed the court that the applicant could have been injured when being transported to the remand prison.\n14.  On 5 October 1999 the court convicted the applicant and R. of burglary and sentenced them to four years and four months’ imprisonment. The court found the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment unsubstantiated, stating:\n“The use of physical coercion [against the applicant and R.] by the policemen has not been corroborated by the results of the inquiry conducted.”\n15.  On 15 December 1999 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.\n16.  On 26 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3783", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Ayset Magomedovna Khalidova, who was born in 1959;\n2) Mr Khasmagomed Khalidov, who was born in 1924;\n3) Ms Nebisat Khalidova, who was born in 1916;\n4) Mr Atbi Isayevich Khalidov, who was born in 1993, and\n5) Ms Zarina Isayevna Khalidova, who was born in 1980.\nThey live in the town of Urus-Martan, in the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The second and the third applicants are spouses and the parents of Mr Isa Khalidov, born in 1950. Isa Khalidov was married to the first applicant, they are the parents of Mr Shamil Khalidov, born in 1981, and the fourth and the fifth applicants.\n8.  In November 2002 Isa and Shamil Khalidov worked at a juice factory, Dary Prirody, in the village of Psedakh, Malgobekskiy District in the Republic of Ingushetia, a region adjacent to the Chechen Republic.\n9.  At about 11 p.m. on 29 November 2002 ten armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at the factory. They identified themselves as officers of law enforcement agencies and, without providing any explanations, took Isa and Shamil Khalidov away in a grey UAZ vehicle with registration number 241 06 RUS.\n10.  The applicants did not witness the apprehension of Isa and Shamil Khalidov and only learned of it in the evening of 30 November 2002 from a relative who had heard local rumours.\n11.  The investigation in case no. 03540030 established that at about 11 p.m. on 29 November 2002 unidentified armed persons had entered the territory of the factory, Dary Prirody, where a camp for refugees from the Chechen Republic had been located. They had put Isa and Shamil Khalidov in a UAZ vehicle with registration number 241 06 and had driven away to an unknown destination.\n12.  Having learned of their relatives’ disappearance, the applicants started searching for Isa and Shamil Khalidov. In an attempt to establish the whereabouts and the fate of those missing, they applied both in person and in writing to various official bodies, such as the Prosecutor General’s Office, the military prosecutor of the United Group Alignment, the Administration of the Chechen Republic, the Russian Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Interior of the Chechen Republic, the Ministry of Interior of Ingushetia, the military commander’s office of the Urus-Martan District of the Chechen Republic and the Russian State Duma. The applicants retained copies of some of these complaints and submitted them to the Court. Most of the complaints were lodged by the first applicant on behalf of the whole family. A number of complaints were lodged by the SRJI on the first applicant’s behalf. Some applications remained unanswered, while some of them were forwarded to prosecutors’ offices at different levels.\n13.  On 15 December 2002 the first applicant wrote to the Ingushetia prosecutor’s office and the Ministry of Interior of Ingushetia complaining about her husband and son’s disappearance.\n14.  On 25 December 2002 the prosecutor’s office of Ingushetia forwarded the first applicant’s letter to the prosecutor’s office of the town of Malgobek (“the Malgobek prosecutor’s office”).\n15.  At some point the Ministry of Interior of Ingushetia established that a unit of servicemen of the department of interior of the Nadterechny District of the Chechen Republic (“the Nadterechny ROVD”), under the command of Mr K., had been in the village of Psedakh at the time of the apprehension of Isa and Shamil Khalidov.\n16.  In a decision of 7 January 2003 the Malgobek prosecutor’s office stated ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3784", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  The applicant occupied a flat under a tenancy agreement.\n6.  On 9 December 1992 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment.\n7.  The applicant served his sentence from 28 May 1992 to 25 May 2001.\n8.  As soon as he was released from prison the applicant returned to his flat to discover that on 12 October 1992, during the pre-trial investigation of his criminal case and his detention, A., acting on the applicant’s behalf in accordance with an allegedly false power of attorney, privatised the above flat and on 18 November 1992 sold it to I.\n9.  On 17 December 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against A., I., the Moscow City Justice Department, the Municipal Housing Department of Moscow, and the State-owned maintenance company (Государственное унитарное предприятие Дирекция единого заказчика района “Печатники” г. Москвы – “the maintenance company”) seeking to challenge the power of attorney, the privatisation agreement and the sale contract, and to recover the flat. A. was subsequently excluded from the defendants as he had died on 12 August 1994.\n10.  Eight hearings fixed between 21 February 2002 and 21 November 2002 were adjourned, mostly due to the necessity to obtain the applicant’s criminal file and to make inquiries with the maintenance company, the Municipal Housing Department of Moscow, the Savings Bank, the Bureau of Technical Inventory and the Moscow City Notary Chamber (Московская городская нотариальная палата). Some of the hearings were adjourned because the defendants failed to appear.\n11.  On 17 December 2002 the proceedings were suspended in order to conduct a handwriting examination at the applicant’s request. The documents were submitted to the expert body on 13 March 2003.\n12.  The examination started on 13 April 2003 after the applicant made an advance payment and was terminated by 16 May 2003.\n13.  On 11 June 2003 the results of the expert examination were submitted to the District Court, and on 16 June the proceedings were resumed.\n14.  On 24 June 2003 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claims. The final text of the judgment was prepared and sent to the applicant in August 2003, following which the applicant lodged an appeal against it.\n15.  On 2 October 2003 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n16.  Of seven hearings fixed between 3 February 2004 and 24 August 2004 one was adjourned because the parties failed to appear; two because the applicant could not attend; and three hearings were adjourned on the initiative of the District Court due to the necessity to obtain, once more, the applicant’s criminal file and to make inquiries with the maintenance company, the notary who certified the disputed documents, the Moscow City Notary Chamber and the Municipal Housing Department of the South‑East Administrative Circuit of Moscow; and one hearing was adjourned because the judge was involved in a different set of proceedings.\n17.  On 17 September 2004 the Lyublinskiy District Court suspended the proceedings following the defendants’ request to conduct another handwriting examination. However, following an appeal by the applicant, on 26 November 2004 the Moscow City Court cancelled the suspension.\n18.  The seven hearings fixed between 31 January 2005 and 4 July 2005 were all adjourned on the initiative of the Distric", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3785", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1956 and 1958 respectively. The first applicant lives in the town of Karabulak, the Republic of Ingushetia, the second applicant lives in Grozny.\n7.  The first applicant used to live in Grozny, at 10 Lyapidevskogo Street. She has six children, three sons and three daughters. Her son Murad Lyanov was born in 1983.\n8.  The second applicant lives in Grozny, at 2 S. Dudayev Boulevard, apt. 51. Her son Islam Dombayev was born in 1984. She has two other sons born in 1980 and 1997. Before the hostilities she worked for the Ministry of Defence, as did her husband and several close relatives. In 1996 they were forced to leave Chechnya because of separatist attacks on their family, and lived in Ingushetia for several years as internally displaced persons. They returned to Grozny on 29 May 2000.\n9.  On 28 June 2000 the first applicant and her son Murad Lyanov were at home. That evening two friends of Murad, T. (born in 1982) and Islam Dombayev, came to their house. Murad asked the applicant’s permission to go with them and to spend the night at T.’s home. The applicant agreed because she knew the boys, who lived nearby.\n10.  The second applicant submitted that her son Islam Dombayev, the first applicant’s son Murad Lyanov and T. had been good friends. The second applicant’s son had a guitar and they often played it in the courtyard of the applicant’s house. They did not normally go out on the street after 9 p.m. because of the curfew imposed by the military. On 28 June 2000 at about 11 p.m. they had gone to T.’s house at 53 Sadovaya Street (also referred to as Pervaya Sadovaya Street), adjacent to their street, to spend the night there. Islam Dombayev had his guitar with him.\n11.  On 29 June 2000 in the morning the first applicant went to the passport desk of the Leninskiy District Department of the Interior (VOVD) in order to obtain a new passport for her son. She returned home at about 3 p.m. and her daughter told her that Murad had not come home. The first applicant went to see T.’s mother, who told her that her son was not at home either.\n12.  On 29 June 2000 in the morning the second applicant, worried about her son, asked a group of servicemen in Sadovaya Street if they had seen three young men. The soldiers replied that they had detained them and sent them to Khankala, the main Russian military base in Chechnya. The women found the commander of the unit in an armoured personnel carrier (APC), but he denied knowing anything about the three teenagers.\n13.  On 30 June 2000 the applicants and T.’s mother went to the Leninskiy VOVD and submitted an application concerning the alleged detention of their sons. On the same day an investigator from that office came to T.’s house and questioned the three women.\n14.  According to the applicants, in the first few days after the three boys’ disappearance it became clear from the soldiers’ answers that the boys had been detained late at night on 28 June 2000 by a joint group of servicemen of the special police forces (OMON) from Pskov and special mission brigade no. 8 of Interior Ministry troops (referred to below as Obron-8) stationed in the district. The soldiers had detained the teenagers during a night raid, brought them to the headquarters of Obron-8 and the next morning had taken them to the Khankala military base.\n15.  The applicants submitted a copy of the report dated 29 June 2000 sent by the commander of the Pskov OMON unit, Yu. G., to the head of the Leninskiy VO", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3786", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Sochi, a town in the Krasnodar Region.\n5.  As an employee of the State-owned Scientifico-industrial Centre for Mountain Horticulture and Industrial Floriculture, the applicant was entitled to a service flat. The flat was not provided, and the applicant sued the Centre.\n6.  On 19 July 1993 the Khosta District Court of the Krasnodar Region ordered the Centre to provide the applicant with a flat for a family of four. This judgment became binding on 31 August 1993, but was not immediately enforced.\n7.  As in the meantime the Centre had been reorganised, on 10 June 2003 the District Court redirected the enforcement proceedings to the Centre’s successor – Russia’s Academy of Agricultural Sciences.\n8.  On the applicant’s request, on 5 September 2003 the District Court changed the mode of enforcement to a cash payment. The court found that the applicant had been entitled to a three-room flat and that such a flat could cost 1,368,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The court relied on a professional evaluation of December 2002 submitted by the applicant.\n9.  On 21 January 2004 the writ of enforcement was passed to the Ministry of Finance and on 8 February 2005 the Ministry paid the debt.\n10.  On 25 March 2005 a court awarded the applicant RUB 272,000 to compensate his inflationary loss caused by the delayed payment.\n11.  On 15 April 2005 the applicant bought a one-room flat for 45,494 US dollars.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3787", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1966 and 1939 respectively and live in the village of Chechen-Aul of the Grozny district, the Chechen Republic.  They are the brother and the mother of Ramzan Said-Khasanovich Rasayev, born in 1963, who was apprehended on 25 December 2001 by armed men and has been missing since. The applicants live in Chechen-Aul at 21 Kalinina Street, and Ramzan Rasayev lived there as well before his apprehension.\n6.  According to the applicants’, on 25 December 2001 the armed forces of the Russian Federation arrived in Chechen-Aul to conduct a security raid. The operation was conducted by special reconnaissance unit no. 352 of the interior troops (352й отдельный разведывательный батальон внутренних войск) under the command of Major General B.\n7.  At about noon Ramzan Rasayev was walking down the street returning home from a neighbour’s house. Apparently some servicemen who were about 150 metres away called to him, but he did not hear them because of his impaired hearing and continued walking towards his home. Four servicemen followed him with a police dog and broke into his house straight after he had gone in.\n8.  According to the applicants and other witnesses, whose testimonies they submitted to the Court, the servicemen were wearing camouflage uniforms and carrying military weapons, but no masks, and were armed with machineguns. They spoke Russian without an accent. The servicemen did not present any documents and did not introduce themselves. They demanded that all the men of the household come out to the courtyard and say which one of them had just been in the street. Ramzan Rasayev responded and was accused of not stopping following the order. The first applicant and Ramzan Rasayev were told to lean against the wall and were searched; then their documents were checked.\n9.  The servicemen left, taking Ramzan Rasayev with them and saying that he would be back shortly after an additional document check. Apparently they were taking him to the “filtration point” on the outskirts of Chechen-Aul. The second applicant and Khava Rasayeva, Ramzan Rasayev’s wife, were crying and asking the servicemen not to arrest him, but the soldiers pushed them and other family members back into the house, ordered them to stay indoors and left.\n10.  The first applicant and Khava Rasayeva followed them at some distance and saw them heading to the military vehicles parked in Karl Marx Street (one armoured personnel carrier (APC), one Ural truck and one UAZ all-terrain military vehicle, all without visible identification plates). After that they saw Ramzan Rasayev, who was ordered to lean against a fence with his hands up. At that point the servicemen noticed that the applicants had followed them and chased them back into the house. Other witnesses saw that the servicemen then started hitting and kicking Ramzan Rasayev. About ten minutes later all of the servicemen left on the above-mentioned vehicles, taking Ramzan Rasayev with them.\n11.  The applicants submitted a handwritten plan of the neighbourhood indicating their house and the location of the military vehicles. They also submitted statements by Khava Rasayeva and their neighbours, I. B., M. M. and P. G., who confirmed their account of Ramzan Rasayev’s apprehension.\n12.  Later on the same day a number of detainees at the “filtration point” saw Ramzan Rasayev. The applicants submitted written testimonies by A. Ya., Kh. B. and M. B., fellow villagers who had been detained at the filtrati", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3788", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1983 and 1981 respectively and live in Moscow.\n7.  On 14 September 2000 the first applicant was arrested on suspicion of having hijacked a car together with the second applicant and a Mr F., and was brought to Fili-Davydkovo police station. According to the first applicant, three police officers beat him severely, kicking him in the head and back, to force him to confess to twenty-five hijacking incidents which had occurred in that district of Moscow. After his resistance had worn down, the first applicant wrote a statement, prompted by the police officers, confessing to a car theft. The record of his arrest was drawn up at 3 p.m.\n8.  On the same day police officers arrested the second applicant. The second applicant submitted that on his arrest he had been placed in the boot of a car and had been brought to Fili-Davydkovo police station, where police officers had beaten him up and had forced him to confess to a car theft.\n9.  On 15 September 2000 the acting Kuntsevo district prosecutor questioned the applicants about their participation in hijacking incidents and authorised their release on their own recognisance. According to the Government, the applicants did not complain to the prosecutor about any police brutality.\n10.  On 16 and 18 September 2000 the applicants were examined in hospital no. 79 in Moscow. The first applicant was diagnosed with a compression fracture of the bodies of the 1st and 2nd vertebrae and the second applicant was diagnosed with injuries to the right side of the chest and neck. The first applicant was suffering from severe back pain, for which he was prescribed treatment and given a medical corset. For approximately four months he wore the corset and underwent medical treatment.\n11.  The applicants complained to the Kuntsevo district prosecutor that they had been ill-treated in the police station after their arrest. In November 2000 the Kuntsevo district prosecutor’s office initiated an inquiry into the applicants’ complaints.\n12.  On 22 January 2001 a senior assistant of the Kuntsevo district prosecutor declined to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers, finding no criminal conduct in their actions (Article 5 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The decision read as follows:\n“On 16 and 18 September 2000 the Fili-Davydkovo [police department] was informed by hospital no. 79 in Moscow that on those dates Mr F., [the second applicant] and [the first applicant] had on their own initiative requested medical assistance at hospital no. 79, where Mr F.... was diagnosed with..., [the second applicant] was diagnosed with an injury to the neck and the right side of the chest and [the first applicant] was diagnosed with a compression fracture of the 1st and 2nd vertebrae. Mr F., [the second applicant] and [the first applicant] explained that on 14 September 2000 they had been beaten up by police officers in Fili-Davydkovo police station.\n...\n[The first applicant], a minor, questioned in the presence of his mother, stated that on the night on 14 September 2000 he, Mr F. and [the second applicant] had hijacked two cars...; he had been arrested by police officers and brought to the duty unit of Fili-Davydkovo police station; after his arrest, on 14 September 2000 at approximately 8.30 a.m. a police officer, whom [the first applicant] could not name, had entered the duty unit of Fili-Davydkovo police station and had taken [the first applicant] to his office on the secon", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3789", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Obninsk, a town in the Kaluga Region.\n5.  As a victim of Chernobyl, the applicant was entitled to benefits. Considering himself underpaid, he sued the local welfare authority.\n6.  On 19 March 2004 the Obninsk Town Court awarded the applicant arrears and fixed new amounts of periodic payments. This judgment became binding on 30 March 2004 but was not fully enforced.\n7.  On the applicant’s request, on 9 March 2006 the Town Court set the judgment aside due to newly-discovered circumstances.\n8.  On 17 April 2006 the Town Court awarded the applicant arrears (including sums outstanding after the judgment of 19 March 2004) and fixed new amounts of periodic benefits.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3790", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n22.  The applicants are Croatian nationals.\n23.  Mr Ivo Kovačić was born in 1922 and lived in Zagreb. He died on 17 July 2004, in the course of the proceedings. His relatives have elected to pursue the application before the Court (see paragraph 3 above).\n24.  Mr Marjan Mrkonjić was born in 1941 and lives in Zurich (see paragraph 2 above).\n25.  Mrs Dolores Golubović was born in 1922 and lived in Karlovac. She died on 15 October 2004. Her nephew has elected to pursue her application before the Court (see paragraph 3 above).\n26.  Before the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”), the applicants or their relatives all deposited hard foreign currencies in savings accounts with the office of a Slovenian bank – the Ljubljana Bank (in Slovenian: Ljubljanska banka) – in Zagreb (Croatia). Some of them also held term accounts which matured in the late 1980s or early 1990s. At the time the Ljubljana Bank was one of the major commercial banks of the SFRY with offices in other Republics.\n27.  The bank now called the Ljubljana Bank was founded in 1955 and subsequently underwent several changes of status and name.\n28.  In 1969 its legal predecessor opened an office in Zagreb in the then Socialist Republic of Croatia. It was re-registered in 1974 and in 1977.\n29.  From 1978 until 1 January 1990 the Ljubljana Bank Head Office (Ljubljanska banka – združena banka), a company existing under the laws of the then Socialist Republic of Slovenia, operated as an “associated bank”. It was made up of Ljubljana Bank Basic Banks and carried on business in accordance with the principles of the socialist self-management system then in operation.\n30.  Over much the same period, from 1977 until 1990, the Ljubljana Bank's Zagreb office operated as a “basic bank”, being neither a branch nor a subsidiary of the Ljubljana Bank Head Office.\n31.  The Ljubljana Bank - Basic Bank Zagreb (in Croatian: Ljubljanska banka - Osnovna Banka Zagreb) had separate legal personality under the law of the then Socialist Republic of Croatia and was financially and economically independent. It was, however, integrated into the organisational structure of the Ljubljana Bank.\n32.  On 19 December 1989 the Ljubljana Bank Head Office was re-registered as a joint stock company (delniška družba, “d.d.”) with effect from 1 January 1990.\n33.  On 29 December 1989 the Ljubljana Bank Basic Bank Zagreb was re-registered as the Zagreb Main Branch (Glavna filijala Zagreb) with effect from 1 January 1990.\n(b)  The system of redepositing foreign-currency savings\n34.  Individuals were allowed to open foreign-currency savings accounts in the SFRY from 1965 onwards. Annual interest on savings accounts was comparatively high, reaching levels of 10% and more. From 25 December 1969 until the dates on which each successor State declared its independence, all foreign-currency deposits were covered by the Federation's (“the SFRY's”) statutory guarantee (see section 76 of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act, Official Gazette of the SFRY, no. 10/89, paragraph 166 below).\n35.  In 1977 a system by which commercial banks redeposited foreign-currency savings with the National Bank of Yugoslavia (“the NBY”) in Belgrade was introduced by the Foreign Exchange Operations and International Credit Relations Act (Official Gazette of the SFRY, no. 15/77). Pursuant to section 51(2) of that Act, the NBY was under an obligation to accept foreign-currency savings deposited with authorised b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3792", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a limited liability company, founded in 2006, with its seat in Budapest.\n5.  On 10 August 1992 its predecessor (see paragraph 1 above) requested the Budapest Regional Court to issue an order for payment against another company.\n6.  The court ordered the respondent to make a payment of 61,369 Hungarian forints (approximately 250 euros (EUR)). Since the latter contested the order, on 5 April 1993 the proceedings became litigation.\n7.  After having held three hearings, the Regional Court found for the plaintiff in April 1995. On appeal, the Supreme Court quashed this decision in October 1996 and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n8.  Between 6 February 1998 and 13 July 2003 the proceedings were stayed, pending the plaintiff’s identifying the respondent’s legal successor. After the latter had finally entered the proceedings, a procedural dispute evolved, at the end of which, apparently in February 2006, the Regional Court noted that, since the original respondent had ceased to exist on 1 April 1993, the proceedings had been interrupted on that date. Thus, all the actions of the parties and all the decisions delivered by the courts after that date were invalid.\n9.  Eventually, in November 2006 the Regional Court ordered the resumption of the proceedings and transferred the case to the Pest Central District Court, which had acquired jurisdiction to hear the case due to an amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure.\n10.  On 20 February 2007 the District Court allowed the applicant company to replace the original plaintiff.\n11.  On 5 December 2007 the District Court found for the applicant company. None of the parties appealed and the decision became final on 22 January 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3793", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1960 and 1928 respectively and live in Budapest.\n5.  On 8 November 1996 the applicants brought an action against Mr M., claiming moral damages for the latter’s insulting behaviour. The Dombóvár District Court initially suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal case being conducted against the respondent. A first judgment was eventually given on 15 April 1998 but was quashed on appeal on 27 May 1999. Subsequently, the case was assigned to the Szekszárd District Court. This court joined two further cases pending between the same parties to the principal action.\n6.  The joint proceedings later continued before the Buda Surroundings District Court. This court held numerous hearings between 24 January 2002 and 27 March 2007. Although the applicants did not attend several hearings, it appears that they requested the court to continue with their case in their absence. Ultimately, the District Court found for the applicants on 31 May 2007.\n7.  On 10 June 1999 Mr Kalmár brought an official liability action against the Attorney General’s Office. The case was assigned to the Pest County Regional Court. On 17 September 2000 this court adjudicated some of the plaintiff’s claims and disjoined others, the examination of which was suspended pending the outcome of another case. In the latter connection, the proceedings were resumed on 19 December 2001. However, no hearing took place until 4 October 2006. Further hearings took place on 14 March 2007 and 14 April 2008. According to the information in the case file, this case is still pending.\n8.  In 2001 Mr Kalmár was found guilty of making false accusations. On 30 July 2003 he requested a retrial. According to the information in the case file, that request is still pending.\n9.  On 5 August 2004 Ms J. filed a criminal report against Mr Kalmár, accusing him of libel. A hearing took place on 20 March 2006, at which Mr Kalmár complained that he had not been properly informed of the charges against him. His motion for bias against the police authority dealing with the case was dismissed, and his ensuing complaint, filed on 3 December 2004, does not appear to have been answered.\n10.  On 17 May 2006 Mr Kalmár challenged the Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court for bias. His motion was rejected on 2 June 2006. According to the information in the case file, these proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3794", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  In the context of complications suffered from plastic surgery, on 13 February 1992 the applicant brought an action in compensation against a hospital.\n6.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert, on 11 October 1994 the Pest Central District Court gave an interim judgment, accepting the applicant’s entitlement to compensation. On appeal, on 7 November 1995 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this decision.\n7.  Subsequently the proceedings continued before the District Court. In January 1996 the applicant extended her claims. After having held several hearings and obtained an expert opinion, on 27 January 2000 the District Court partly found for the applicant. On 24 January 2001 the Regional Court amended this decision.\n8.  On 25 June 2003 the Supreme Court quashed these decisions and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n9.  After several hearings in the resumed first-instance proceedings, on 31 October 2006 the District Court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant 1.9 million Hungarian forints (HUF) in compensation plus accrued interest, together with a monthly allowance in arrears and pro futuro.\n10.  On 19 February 2008 the Regional Court upheld this judgment.\n11.  On 6 May 2008 the first-instance judgment was rectified.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3796", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are forty-eight Hungarian nationals (see Appendix).\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicants were creditors, together with 40,000 other individuals, of an insolvent private company. Since they were unable to obtain their outstanding claims, they intended to hold a series of demonstrations between 7 July and 20 August 2004 in front of the Prime Minister’s private residence in Budapest. The applicant submitted photographs of the scene of the proposed events. According to these photographs, the Prime Minister’s house is situated on a two-lane road in a residential area composed of villas. Across the street from that property, between parked cars and the fence of another villa, there is a footpath parallel to which is a strip of grass which is over five metres wide. The applicant stated that the participants in the planned demonstrations intended only to occupy this pedestrian zone.\n8.  The first applicant, István Patyi (“the applicant”), was the main organiser of the events. He notified the Budapest Police Department as prescribed by the law. On 5 July 2004 the police prohibited the demonstrations. The applicant sought judicial review. On 8 July 2004 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the decision and remitted the case to the police.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, the police again prohibited the demonstrations on 10 July 2004. The applicant sought judicial review. The Budapest Regional Court dismissed his action on 15 July 2004.\n10.  In the meantime, the applicant and some fifteen other private individuals – according to the applicant’s submissions, “disguising themselves as tourists” – appeared before the Prime Minister’s house. The police were also present, but since the applicant informed them that they did not intend to “demonstrate”, they were not prevented from walking in front of the Prime Minister’s house and they then left the scene undisturbed. They did not cause any hindrance or inconvenience to the traffic or other pedestrians.\n11.  Subsequently, the applicant notified the police of another demonstration planned for 1 November 2004 for the same reasons and at the same spot. The planned number of demonstrators was twenty. The head of the Budapest Police Department, relying on section 8 of Act no. III of 1989 on the Right of Assembly (“the Assembly Act”), prohibited the event on 28 October 2004.\n12.  The police were of the view that the pavement was not wide enough to secure the necessary space for the demonstrators and other pedestrians at the same time. Therefore, in order to prevent possible accidents and confrontations between the demonstrators and passers-by, it would be necessary to close half the street. They pointed out that on the street in question three bus services operated on a regular basis and that on 1 November, All Saints’ Day, the traffic was expected to be heavier since many people would visit cemeteries that day. The police, therefore, having obtained the expert opinion of the Department of Traffic Administration, held that the demonstration would cause a disproportionate hindrance to the traffic, which could not be secured by alternative means. The applicant sought judicial review.\n13.  On 5 November 2004 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It established that the police decision had been in compliance with the law and in particular with Article 11 of the Convention.\n14.  Subsequently, the applicants", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3797", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In 1992 the applicant founded a company (Rusman) and was its director until 1998.\n8.  In July 2001 he became a licensed lawyer. On an unknown date in 2002 he became Rusman’s lawyer.\n9.  On 28 July 2003 S. P., the director of another company, was killed and a criminal investigation was initiated into the case. On 23 February 2004 the applicant signed a contract to represent B., who was suspected of the murder of S. P. According to the Government, the investigator found certain links between the activities of Rusman and S. P.’s death and decided to hear the applicant as a witness in respect of the activities of Rusman.\n10.  On 26 May 2004 the applicant was summoned to appear on the same day before T., an investigator of the Chişinău Police Inspectorate, in order to testify as a witness in his client’s case. Since he only received the summons fifteen minutes before the time indicated to appear, he was fifteen minutes late in arriving at the investigator’s office. T. had left by then. On the same date the applicant sent a telegram to the investigator, informing him of these events.\n11.  Also on 26 May 2004 T. ordered the search of the applicant’s office. The decision read as follows:\n“Officer T. [description of duties],\nHaving examined the materials of criminal file [no. of file] initiated under Article 145(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure;\nHas established that on 28 July 2003 at approximately 19.00 in Chişinău [address] [P. S.] was shot and killed with an unidentified firearm.\nFollowing a criminal and an operational investigation it was determined that B. [address], who has been arrested and is detained at [a detention centre], was connected with the murder of [P. S.]\nTaking into account that evidence in the file and the material obtained through the operational investigation allow a well-founded assumption that objects of interests to the operational investigation and which are material evidence in the criminal case, can be found at [the applicant’s] office in Lex Consulting situated at [address], on the basis of Article 125 CPP.\nDecides\nTo order a search of [the applicant’s] office in Lex Consulting situated at [address] with the aim of finding and taking as evidence objects of interest to the operational investigation and which are material evidence in the criminal case.”\n12.  On the same date T. issued an identically worded warrant for the search of the applicant’s apartment.\n13.  Following T.’s order, also on 26 May 2004 a prosecutor asked the Râşcani District Court to issue a warrant for the search of the applicant’s office since “objects which are of interest to the operational investigation and which are material evidence in the criminal case, are at [the applicant’s] workplace”. An identically worded request was made in respect of the applicant’s apartment.\n14.  Still on the same day, Judge E.C. from the Râşcani District Court adopted a decision authorising the search of the applicant’s office. The decision read as follows:\n“The court ... has examined in camera the request of the section prosecutor from the Prosecutor General’s Office concerning the authorisation of a search.\nThe court established:\nIn the present request permission is requested to authorise the search of [the applicant’s] office in Lex Consulting S.R.L. situated at [address] in respect of the criminal file [file nu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3798", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Zakroczym.\n5.  On 4 March 1986 the applicant’s mother lodged with the Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a motion for the dissolution of a co-ownership and division of an inheritance. The estate comprised, inter alia, a farm and plots of land located in Zakroczym. The applicant and her brother were also involved in the proceedings as parties.\n6.  Between 4 March 1986 and 3 April 1992 the court scheduled fifteen hearings and appointed three experts. In the meantime, the applicant lodged several complaints about the unreasonable length of the proceedings, to no avail.\n7.  On 3 April 1992 the court stayed the proceedings. They were resumed on 24 July 1995.\n8.  Between 16 August 1995 and 14 May 2002 the court scheduled twenty-three hearings, thirteen of which were adjourned for various reasons, for instance the need to obtain additional evidence, in particular several experts’ reports. Three hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s request.\n9.  On 14 May 2002 the court closed the trial and adjourned delivery of a decision. On 28 May 2002 the same court re-opened the proceedings and ordered that additional evidence be obtained, including experts’ reports.\n10.  On 17 November 2002 the applicant’s brother died and the proceedings were stayed. They were resumed on an unspecified date in 2003.\n11.  Between 20 February 2003 and 1 June 2007 the court ordered four expert reports to be obtained and scheduled sixteen hearings, five of which were adjourned.\n12.  The proceedings are pending before the first-instance court.\n13.  On 5 September 2005 the applicant lodged with the Warszawa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n14.  The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 2,500).\n15.  On 7 October 2005 the Warszawa Regional Court dismissed her complaint on the ground that on the date of the entry into force of the 2004 Act no undue delays in the proceedings could be discerned. Although the court acknowledged in general that the proceedings before 2004 had been unreasonably lengthy, it did not examine the course of the proceedings prior to the date of the entry into force of the 2004 Act. It stressed that the provisions of the 2004 Act could be applied only to proceedings pending after 17 September 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3799", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1964, 1969, 1964, 1971, 1961, 1965, 1971, 1975, 1964, 1971 and 1965 respectively, and live in Adıyaman.\n5.  On 30 April 1999 the Adıyaman Governor authorised the holding of May Day celebrations in the Adıyaman Amphitheatre, located in the Hasancık District.\n6.  On 1 May 1999 a group of people, including the applicants, gathered in the building of the Health Workers’ Trade Union and started to walk towards the amphitheatre for the May Day celebrations. They were stopped by police officers. Stating that they had obtained prior authorisation from the Governor, the group attempted to continue its march. The police then intervened to disperse the group; the applicants were allegedly injured during this incident as a result of the force used by the police. According to the incident report, thirty-eight people, including the applicants, were arrested. The applicants were subsequently taken to the Adıyaman State Hospital, where they were examined by a doctor. The medical reports in respect of Ms Zeynep Saya, Mr Hasan Ölgün, Mr Müslüm Atasoy, Ms Zöhre Taş, Mr Nedim Çifçi and Ms Hediye Kilinç stated that there were no signs of ill-treatment on their bodies. As regards the remaining applicants, the following findings were indicated in the respective medical reports:\n–Şeyho Saya: Tenderness on the back of the right leg and on the back.\n–Çetin Taş: Tenderness on the lower left side of the chest and pain while breathing. Tenderness and pain on the right side of the forehead. Possible fracture of the ribs on the left side of the chest.\n–Akın Doğan: Scratches on the back.\n–Ali Murat Bilgiç: Tenderness and bruises on the left shoulder and the left arm.\n–Bahattin Barış Bilgiç: Scratches on the right elbow, the right knee and hyperaemia on the left side of the chest.\n7.  The applicants were then taken into custody. They were released the next day.\n8.  On different dates in May 1999 the applicants filed criminal complaints with the Adıyaman Public Prosecutor against those police officers who had allegedly used excessive force during their arrest.\n9.  On 17 June 1999 the Adıyaman Public Prosecutor transferred the case file to the Adıyaman Provincial Administrative Council, seeking authorisation to bring criminal proceedings against the accused officers, pursuant to the provisions of Law on the prosecution of Civil Servants.\n10.  On 16 February 2000 the Adıyaman Provincial Administrative Council found that there was not enough evidence to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused officers and consequently refused to do so. On 1 September 2000 the applicants appealed against this decision. In their appeal petition, they invoked a breach of Article 11 of the Convention, arguing that the police interference had breached their freedom of assembly. On 14 June 2001 the Supreme Administrative Council upheld the decision of the Administrative Council.\n11.  In the meantime, on 1 June 1999 the Adıyaman Public Prosecutor, after examining a video recording of the incident, delivered a decision not to prosecute with regard to seventy demonstrators – including the applicants – who had been involved in the incident on 1 May 1999. In reaching his decision, the Public Prosecutor stated that the demonstrators had been stopped by the police, although they had been walking silently along the pavement, without presenting a danger to the public or engaging in any violent activities. It was also indicated in the decision that, pursuant to se", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3800", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1940 and 1946 respectively and live in Nicolae Bălcescu.\n5.  On 9 December 1992 the second applicant bought from M.I. a property consisting of 3,000 sq. m of land and the buildings on it.\n6.  On 20 April 1993 the second applicant brought an action against C.M. and R.S. seeking recovery of possession of the property. She also requested that R.S. be ordered to demolish what he had built on 1,000 sq. m of land.\nThe defendants lodged a counterclaim against the local administrative authorities, seeking to be certified as the owners of the property.\n7.  On 4 March 1994 the Constanţa Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”) allowed the second applicant’s action and ordered C.M. to leave 2,000 sq. m of land and the buildings on it in her possession, considering R.S. to be the owner of 1,000 sq. m of land.\n8.  On 12 January 1995 the Constanţa Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld an appeal by C.M., quashed the previous judgment and sent the case back for a fresh examination, as the first-instance court had not considered the case on the merits as regards the 2,000 sq. m of land after an adversarial argument by the local administrative authorities.\n9.  On 3 May 1995 the Constanţa Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) rejected as inadmissible an appeal on points of law by the second applicant against the judgment of the Regional Court.\n10.  After the retrial, on 29 April 1996 the Court of First Instance allowed the second applicant’s action and ordered C.M. to leave the house and the 2,000 sq. m of land in her possession, considering R.S. to be the owner of 1,000 sq. m of land.\n11.  On 26 March 1997 the Regional Court upheld an appeal by C.M., quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and sent the case back for fresh consideration. It found that the original judgment had not been signed by the registrar.\n12.  After the fresh examination, on 10 September 1997 the Court of First Instance, after comparing the land titles, dismissed the second applicant’s action. It found that M.I. had not been the owner of the property when he had sold it to the second applicant.\n13.  On 1 July 1998 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal lodged on 8 January 1998 by the first applicant as being brought by a person with no capacity to take part in court proceedings, due to the fact that he had not participated in the trial before the first instance.\n14.  On 20 April 1999 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on points of law by the second applicant, quashed the judgment of the Regional Court, changed the judgment of the first-instance court and sent the case back for a fresh examination. Taking into account the community of property between spouses, the court considered that the property under discussion belonged to both applicants and noted that the first instance had not also summoned the first applicant. It ordered both of them to be summoned during the trial on the merits.\n15.  After the retrial, on 1 March 2000 the Court of First Instance, after comparing the land titles, rejected the applicants’ action, considering that their title had not come from an owner.\n16.  On 14 February 2001 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants. That decision was upheld on 4 July 2001 by a final decision of the Court of Appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3801", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Pruszcz Gdański.\n6.  On 8 June 2004 he was arrested by the police.\n7.  On 9 June 2004 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention as there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that he had been dealing in drugs. The court also cited the risk that the applicant would go into hiding, in view of the likelihood of a heavy sentence.\n8.  On 2 September and 4 November 2004 the applicant’s detention was extended. In addition to the two grounds given previously, the District Court cited the need to ensure the proper conduct of the investigation.\n9.  On 26 October 2004 the applicant was indicted before the Gdańsk District Court. His pre-trial detention was subsequently extended.\n10.  As the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the District Court made a series of applications to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) for the applicant’s detention to be extended beyond that term. On 18 May and 17 August 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal granted the applications and extended his detention, citing the reasonable suspicion against the applicant and the length of the sentence that was likely to be imposed. The Court also considered that the District Court could not be held responsible for not having completed the trial as there had been objective procedural difficulties in hearing all the witnesses.\n11.  The first hearing was held on 21 January 2005. Subsequently, hearings were held at regular intervals.\n12.  The applicant’s applications for release from detention and his appeals against the decisions extending the preventive measure were dismissed.\n13.  On 17 October 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 20 November 2006. It cited the reasonable suspicion against the applicant and found that detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings given the likelihood of a heavy sentence.\n14.  The applicant’s detention on remand was not extended beyond that date and on 20 November 2006 he was released.\n15.  On 4 August 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). On 3 November 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the complaint, finding that the trial had been conducted speedily and with no periods of inactivity.\n16.  The proceedings are still pending before the trial court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3802", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Sulejówek.\n5.  On 8 March 1994 the applicant lodged an application for division of an inheritance with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n6.  On 7 November 1997 the Warsaw District Court stayed the proceedings. It referred to the fact that related criminal proceedings concerning fraudulent acquisition of land, which could affect the outcome of the case, had first to be terminated.\n7.  On 9 February 1998 the applicant asked for the proceedings to be resumed.\n8.  On 3 July 1998 the court refused that request.\n9.  On 3 July 1998 the applicant complained to the Warsaw District Court about the delays in the proceedings. On 14 July 1998 the court informed her that the proceedings would be resumed after the criminal proceedings had been terminated.\n10.  On 3 August 2000 the court refused to resume the proceedings. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision. The applicant referred to the fact that the prosecution had discontinued the investigation.\n11.  On 15 January 2001 the applicant asked once more for the proceedings to be resumed, to no avail.\n12.  The proceedings were resumed on 14 February 2002.\n13.  On 30 June 2004 the Warsaw District Court ruled that some of the issues raised in the application, concerning the acquisition of property, should be examined in separate proceedings. Consequently, part of the claim, concerning the expropriation of property, was referred to the Warsaw District Court as a separate case. The applicant appealed. On 26 July 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal.\n14.  On 25 October 2004 the court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the parallel proceedings for the expropriation of property. The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 24 October 2006 the Regional Court quashed that decision and resumed the examination of the case. It referred to the fact that the District Court had erroneously referred part of the claim to other proceedings. It relied on the need to examine both cases simultaneously within the scope of the same proceedings.\n16.  On 9 May 2007 the court stayed the proceedings because the parallel proceedings for the expropriation of property were pending before the appellate court.\n17.  The case is still pending before the District Court.\n18.  On 2 January 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court, alleging a breach of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time. She relied on section 2 of the Act of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004.\n19.  On 9 May 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Warsaw District Court. It awarded the applicant 200 Polish zlotys (PLN – approximately 50 euros (EUR)) by way of just satisfaction. The court referred to the resolution of the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) of 18 January 2005 (no. III SPP 113/04) in which it ruled that while the 2004 Act produced legal effects as from the date of its date of entry into force, its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been remedied. The Regional Court held that the overall length of the proceedings before the District Court had been exce", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3803", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Budaörs.\n5.  On 8 May 1998 the applicants’ neighbours brought an action against her and other respondents, claiming adverse possession of a right of way on their land.\n6.  Between 1 May 1999 and 5 February 2001 the proceedings were interrupted because of the death of a plaintiff.\n7.  Between 18 May 2001 and 16 March 2005 the Budaörs District Court held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert.\n8.  Since 21 April 2005 the proceedings have been interrupted because one of the respondents died, his successor did not join the proceedings voluntarily and the plaintiffs failed to apply for the successor to be made a party to the proceedings.\n9.  According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the first-instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3804", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Hatay.\n5.  On 15 September 1993 the applicant bought a plot of land (plot no. 1241), near the coast in Hatay. The land was registered in the applicant’s name in the Land Registry. She built a house there.\n6.  On 4 July 1995 the Treasury brought an action before the Samandağ Court of First Instance, requesting the annulment of the applicant’s title deed to the land on the ground that it was located within the coastal area.\n7.  On 16 December 1999 the Samandağ Court of First Instance upheld the Treasury’s request and decided to annul the title deed of the applicant to the plot of land. In its decision, the court held that, pursuant to domestic law, coastal areas could not be subject to private ownership and that, therefore, the applicant could not rely on the argument that she had acted bona fides.\n8.  On 16 May 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. On 14 January 2002 a request by the applicant for rectification was rejected by the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3805", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1956 and live in Bad Neuenahr.\n5.  On 28 September 1989 Apartment 14, 108 Turda Street, Bucharest, the applicants’ property, was seized by the State under Decree no. 223/1974, with payment of compensation, following their decision to leave the country. In appears from the file that the applicants received 131,538 Romanian Lei in compensation.\n6.  On 14 November 1996 the R.V. company, a State-owned company responsible for the management of property belonging to the State, sold the flat to the then tenants, under Law no. 112/1995.\n7.  On 29 November 1996 the Bucharest Regional Court, by a final decision, allowed an action by the applicants, annulled the seizure as being unlawful and ordered restitutio in integrum.\n8.  On 5 September 1997 the Bucharest Town Council ordered restitutio in integrum of the apartment and on 15 September 1997 informed the R.V. company of this.\n9.  On 14 May 2001 the Bucharest Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed the action lodged by the Town Council and joined by the applicants against both the R.V. company and the former tenants of the apartment, to have the sale declared null and void. The court considered that the sale had complied with the provisions of Law no. 112/1995 and had been made in good faith. It also stated that the applicants would receive compensation under Law no. 10/2001.\n10.  On 25 July and 14 November 2001 the applicants claimed restitution in kind of the apartment under the Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. So far they have not received any answer.\n11.  On 27 February 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed an application (recurs în anulare) by the Procurator-General, acting at the instance of the applicants, to have the judgment of 14 May 2001 quashed on the grounds that it was contrary to the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention and to the principle of legal certainty. The court considered that the sale had been made in good faith and observed that the principle of legal certainty had not been infringed, as the sale had preceded the final judgment which ordered restitutio in integrum and, moreover, the former tenants had not been parties in that set of proceedings, therefore the final judgment was not opposable by them.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3806", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Timişoara.\n5.  In 1950, a building situated in Timişoara, Spl. N. Titulescu no. 7, which was the property of the applicant’s husband and mother-in-law, was seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation.\n6.  On 26 May 1999 by a final decision the Timişoara Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) allowed an action by the applicant for rectification in the Land Register, acknowledged that the nationalisation of the building had been unlawful and ordered restitutio in integrum through the registration of the applicant’s right of property. It considered that the fact that some apartments in the building had been bought by the tenants had no influence on the solution, as the object of the proceedings was the validity of the State’s title and the titles of the buyers were therefore to be evaluated in another set of proceedings.\n7.  On 30 September and 30 November 1999 the Timişoara Town Council certified in an official record signed by the applicant that the latter had been allowed to take possession of the building, made up of thirty-one apartments, and of 29.28 sq. m piece of appurtenant land.\n8.  On 26 January 2000 the applicant sold flat no. 11 of the building to M.M. and M.D.\n9.  On 27 April 2000 O.E., the then tenant of flat no. 11, requested the court to declare the sale null and void, as on 16 January 1997 she had bought that flat from the State under Law no. 112/1995. She also claimed the registration of her right of property in the Land Register.\nThe applicant lodged a counterclaim requesting the court to declare the sale by the State null and void.\n10.  On 20 November 2001 by a final decision the Court of Appeal declared the sale made by the applicant null and void, as it contravened O.E.’s rights, and dismissed the claim by O.E. to register her right of property, as she had not expressly applied to remove the applicant’s title from the Land Register. It also dismissed the applicant’s request for the rescission of the sale by the State on the grounds that O.E. had made the purchase in good faith.\n11.  On 4 November 2002 by a final decision the Court of Appeal allowed O.E.’s action for rectification in the Land Register, registered her right of property in respect of flat no. 11 and removed the applicant’s title from the Land Register. The court compared the land titles and considered that the sale by the State had complied with the provisions of Law no. 112/1995 and that O.E. had made the purchase in good faith.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3807", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Hajdúsámson.\n5.  On 2 May 1989 the applicant filed for divorce. She also requested the division of the matrimonial property.\n6.  After having pronounced the parties’ divorce in a partial decision, having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts, on 9 November 1994 the Debrecen District Court adopted a decision on the property. This was reversed by the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court on 20 June 1996. On 24 June 1997 the Supreme Court’s review bench quashed this decision and remitted the case to the second-instance court.\n7.  In the resumed second-instance proceedings, the Regional Court held a hearing and quashed the District Court’s decision on 27 October 2000.\n8.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, on 5 June 2001 the District Court adopted a new decision concerning the property. This was reversed by the Regional Court on 23 November 2001.\n9.  On 10 November 2004 a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court’s review bench examined the respondent’s petition for review on the merits. It held that the taking of evidence in the case had been comprehensive and without a fault and that the applicant’s petition did not disclose a breach of the relevant law. It therefore upheld the Regional Court’s judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3808", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  On 3 July 1998 Mr C., a South Korean diplomatic officer, was apprehended by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (“the FSB”) while receiving certain materials from the applicant who was then deputy head of the First Asian Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. On the following day Mr C. was declared persona non grata and left Russia.\n8.  On 3 July 1998 at 11.30 p.m. a group of eight armed FSB officers entered and searched the applicant’s flat. They apprehended the applicant and escorted him to the Lefortovo remand prison.\n9.  On 3 August 1998 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dismissed the applicant for serious breaches of the Russian legislation on the civil service.\n10.  On 4 July 1998 investigators from the FSB Investigations Department interrogated the applicant as a suspect in a high treason case.\n11.  On 6 July 1998 a deputy Prosecutor General remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on several occasions.\n12.  On 13 July 1998 the applicant was charged with high treason in the presence of his legal-aid counsel, Mr Konoval. He was accused of having disclosed classified information to a South Korean intelligence agent.\n13.  On 15 July 1998 the applicant retained Mr Gervis as his defence counsel.\n14.  On 22 and 23 July, 16 September and 12 November 1998 the investigator ordered seizure of the applicant’s car and garage, 5,447 US dollars and a computer from his home, as security in respect of possible forfeiture of the applicant’s property following a conviction.\n15.  On 14 January, 12 March and 20 May 1999 the applicant attempted to challenge the orders authorising his continued detention on remand.\n16.  On 1 February and 4 June 1999 the Moscow City Court examined the applicant’s complaints and rejected them as unsubstantiated. The court found that the investigator had correctly imposed the preventive measure, having regard to the gravity of the charge and the applicant’s potential to abscond or interfere with the investigation.\n17.  On 10 June 1999 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant was granted access to the case file.\n18.  On 25 August 1999 the bill of indictment was served on the applicant. The applicant was refused permission to take a copy of the indictment to his cell because the document contained classified information. The applicant could examine the indictment at the special department (спецчасть) in the remand centre.\n19.  On 16 December 1999 the Moscow City Court found the applicant guilty as charged, sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment and ordered confiscation of his property.\n20.  On 15 June 2000 and other dates the applicant and his lawyers appealed against the conviction.\n21.  On 25 July 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the conviction and remitted the case to the trial court for a fresh examination. It found as follows:\n“In finding [the applicant] guilty of the offence under Article 275 of the Criminal Code, the [first-instance] court noted that... between early 1994 and 3 July 1998 [the applicant] had... communicated information and documents containing State secrets to the South Korean intelligence service. The [first-instance] court gave only a general list of information and documents..., without specifying which information and documents and when [the applicant] had communicated. As the offences imputed t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3809", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bethesda, the United States of America.\n5.  The applicant owns a flat in Cavtat, Croatia. In September 1995 Parliament passed a law governing the temporary use of property of persons who had left Croatia - Temporary Takeover and Management of Certain Property Act ( Zakon o privremenom preuzimanju i upravljanju određenom imovinom - hereinafter the “Property Takeover Act”), which allowed municipalities to temporarily accommodate other persons in such property.\n6.  In 1992 R., a policeman, forcibly moved into the applicant’s flat in Cavtat, Croatia. On 25 September 1995 the Konavle Housing Commission granted him refugee status and legalised his occupation of the applicant’s flat. On 30 January 2002 the applicant applied to the Housing Commission for repossession of her property.\n7.  On 11 January 2002 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Dubrovnik Municipal Court seeking R.’s eviction. On 27 February 2002 the claim was declared inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction. The applicant appealed.\n8.  On 29 August 2002 the applicant lodged a request with the Ministry of Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction seeking annulment of the decision authorising R. to occupy her flat.\n9.  The judgment of the Dubrovnik Municipal Court of 27 February 2002 was quashed by the Dubrovnik County Court on 30 August 2002 and the case was remitted to the Municipal Court for a fresh trial.\n10.  On 1 October 2002 the Amendments to the Act on Areas of Special State Care (Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o područjima od posebne državne skrbi – “the 2002 Amendments”) entered into force. They transferred the jurisdiction in the matter from the housing commissions (which were abolished) to the Ministry of Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction (Ministarstvo za javne radove, obnovu i graditeljstvo – “the Ministry”).\n11.  On 25 October 2003 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court upheld the claim and ordered R.’s eviction. R. appealed.\n12.  On 12 December 2003 the Ministry set aside the Property Takeover Commission’s decision authorising R. to occupy the applicant’s flat but also stated that R. had the right to housing under section 7 of the Act on Areas of Special State Concern.\n13.  The judgment of the Dubrovnik Municipal Court of 25 October 2003 was quashed by the County Court on 17 February 2005 on the ground that no alternative accommodation had been provided to R. Accordingly, the case was returned to the Municipal Court for further examination. On 12 May 2006 the applicant lodged an application with the Supreme Court complaining about the length of the proceedings. In a letter of 26 May 2006 the Supreme Court instructed the Dubrovnik Municipal Court to speed up the proceedings.\n14.  On 31 May 2006 the Municipal Court again granted the applicant’s claim and ordered R.’s eviction. R. appealed against this judgment to the Dubrovnik County Court. While the case was pending there the applicant once more applied to the Supreme Court complaining about the length of the proceedings. In a letter of 11 September 2006 the Supreme Court instructed the County Court to speed up the proceedings and adopt a judgment.\n15.  On 2 October 2006 the County Court again quashed the judgment of the Municipal Court and accordingly the latter was once more required to examine the applicant’s claims. In a judgment of 27 March 2007 the Municipal Court, as in its previous judgments, found in favour of the applicant. R. appeale", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3810", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Pyatigorsk, Stavropol region.\n7.  On 16 June 2000 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant, a police investigator. The investigating authority charged him with taking a bribe involving a large sum of money, aggravated by extortion, under Article 290 § 4 (c) and (d) of the Criminal Code, together with a number of other offences.\n8.  The applicant and his lawyer were present at the hearings before the Stavropol Regional Court.\n9.  On 2 October 2000 the Stavropol Regional Court delivered a judgment. In respect of the legal characterisation of the acts the applicant was found to have committed, it held as follows:\n“... the court finds the classification of the acts of Abramyan E.N. by the preliminary investigation authorities to have been erroneous and classifies his acts under Articles 30 § 3 and 159 § 3 (b) of the UK RF [Criminal Code of the Russian Federation]. It was established that Abramyan, through the abuse of official authority and with a view to misappropriating another’s property, misled witness [L.], claiming that he would forward her case to a court. He then fraudulently obtained two thousand US dollars from [L.], via [D.], having kept from [D.] and [L.] the fact that the proceedings had already been terminated. Taking into account the amount that was stolen and the fact that Abramyan had no real opportunity to dispose of the money, having been arrested at the scene, the court regards his acts as attempted misappropriation, through the abuse of official authority, of another’s property, involving a large sum of money, since he committed all the acts necessary in order to misappropriate another’s property and failed to complete the crime due to circumstances beyond his control.”\n10.  The court convicted the applicant under Articles 30 § 3 and 159 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code, acquitted him on the remaining charges and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment and imposed a confiscation order.\n11.  According to the record of the hearing, after pronouncing the judgment the presiding judge explained to the applicant the procedure and time-limit for appealing against the judgment. He explained that convicted persons could participate in the examination of their case by an appeal body.\n12.  The applicant appealed against the judgment. In particular, he complained that the court’s classification of his actions had been erroneous. In his appeal against the judgment the applicant did not request that he be summoned to the hearing before the appeal court or that he be informed of the date of the hearing. Nor did he or his lawyer lodge a separate request to that effect.\n13.  On 27 December 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation held an appeal hearing at which neither the applicant nor his counsel were present. The Supreme Court heard a prosecutor K. who argued that the judgment should be upheld. It examined the applicant’s points of appeal, reviewed the judgment and found that the trial court had correctly established the facts based on the evidence examined by it and had given the correct legal classification of the acts which the applicant had been found to have committed. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment.\n14.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant was released on parole.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3811", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in St Petersburg.\n5.  In February 1998 she lodged a court action against her brother and the St Petersburg Committee on Land Management with the Vyborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”). She claimed that her brother had unlawfully acquired the title deeds to a plot of land adjacent to her house and had destroyed her garden. In the course of the proceedings the applicant amended her claim several times.\n6.  On 20 July 1998 Judge A. accepted the case for examination. Several hearings were scheduled in 1998 and in the first half of 1999. They were adjourned either because the parties failed to appear or because the judge was on sick leave.\n7.  On 8 June 1999 the District Court refused to examine the case on the grounds that the applicant had failed to appear at two court hearings. The applicant requested the District Court to reinstate the proceedings as she had not been duly notified of the hearings. On 28 June 1999 the proceedings were reinstated.\n8.  The first hearing in the reinstated proceedings was scheduled for 22 September 1999. On that date the applicant amended her claim and the case was adjourned. The hearing of 21 October 1999 was adjourned because the judge was on sick leave and that of 14 December 1999 because she was involved in unrelated proceedings.\n9.  In 2000 several hearings were adjourned for a variety of reasons.\n10.  On 4 July 2000 the judge ordered an expert’s report at the applicant’s request, and suspended the proceedings.\n11.  On 5 March 2001 the expert’s report was finished and the proceedings were resumed. Several hearings were scheduled in the remaining part of 2001 at regular intervals but most of them were adjourned for various reasons.\n12.  In 2002, the hearing of 29 March did not take place because the judge was involved in unrelated proceedings. The next hearing, scheduled for 29 May, was adjourned because the judge was on a training course.\n13.  Several hearings were scheduled in 2003. Of them, the hearing of 4 June did not take place, because the representative of the Committee on Land Management failed to appear. The next hearing was scheduled for 16 September, but it was postponed because the judge was on sick leave. The hearing of 2 December 2003 did not take place because the judge was involved in unrelated proceedings.\n14.  In 2004, the hearing of 11 February was postponed because the applicant was sick. The next hearing was scheduled for 12 May; however, it did not take place due to the defendants’ failure to appear. The next hearing was scheduled for 22 September, but the representative of the Committee on Land Management did not appear and requested that the case go ahead in his absence. However, the judge postponed the examination of the case until 30 November 2004. On that date the hearing was adjourned because the defendant’s representative failed to attend. The hearing of 21 December 2004 did not take place because the judge was involved in unrelated proceedings.\n15.  Several hearings were scheduled in the first half of 2005. They were adjourned for a variety of reasons.\n16.  On 1 June 2005 the District Court terminated the proceedings in the case on the grounds that the applicant’s claim could not be examined within civil proceedings. On 31 August 2005 the St Petersburg City Court (“the City Court”) quashed the decision of 1 June 2005, on the applicant’s appeal, having found that that decision had not corresponded to the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3812", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a German national and lives in Buchholz.\n5.  On 21 September 1995 the applicant was granted divorce and concluded an interim settlement (Zwischenvergleich) with her former husband regarding her maintenance claims in the amount of 1.600 German marks (approximately 818 Euros (EUR)) subject to future variations from the date of the divorce.\n6.  On 10 August 2001 the applicant instituted claims in sequence before the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court in order to first obtain information on her former husband’s income and assets, and subsequently request the variation of her maintenance claims in accordance with the provided information. The claim was received by the court on 21 August 2001 and registered under file number “732 F 8/01”.\n7.  The scheduled hearings of 11 and 18 December 2001 were postponed at the request of the applicant’s former husband (the defendant).\n8.  On 5 February 2002 an oral hearing was set for 27 March 2002. At the hearing the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court ordered an expert opinion regarding the applicant’s invalidity.\n9.  From 8 May to 24 June 2002 the applicant was hospitalised due to her depressive disorder and the fact that she had suicidal tendencies at that time. On 4 June 2002 the clinic certified that the applicant should not take any active part in the court proceedings during her clinical treatment because it would put such a strain on her that her treatment would be jeopardised.\n10.  On 8 July 2002 the court rejected the applicant’s allegation of bias of 17 April 2002.\n11.  On 2 September 2002 the applicant’s counsel withdrew from representing her. On 25 September 2002 she applied for legal aid.\n12.  On 12 September 2002 the first expert, who was appointed by the court on 3 September 2002, declined the request due to other commitments. The subsequently appointed expert was rejected by the defendant on 10 October 2002 as he had treated the applicant previously.\n13.  On 17 October 2002 the applicant was granted legal aid for the pending proceedings on condition that she made payments by instalments. The court did not assign an attorney to the applicant.\n14.  On 21 November 2002 the power of attorney of the applicant’s new counsel was submitted to the court. Subsequently, he was granted access to the files.\n15.  On 16 January 2003 the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court revoked the legal-aid order as a result of the applicant’s bank balance of EUR 57.706,55. On 28 February 2003 the Hanseatic Court of Appeal quashed the revocation of the legal-aid order as it found that the applicant had revealed her bank balance in her initial motion and that with regard to the applicant’s justified trust in the order its revocation was disproportionate.\n16.  On 2 May 2003 the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court rejected the applicant’s new allegation of bias of 7 April 2003. Her appeal was dismissed by the Hanseatic Court of Appeal on 26 May 2003.\n17.  On 3 June 2003 the Hamburg-Wandsbek District Court appointed a new expert to determine the applicant’s invalidity. The applicant requested the extension of the evidence order to include information in the report as to her invalidity at the time of the divorce. On 27 August 2003 the evidence order was extended accordingly. The expert opinion was delivered on 19 December 2003, which established that the applicant had been continuously unfit to work since the divorce due to her mental illness.\n18.  On 28 December 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal against the modal", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3813", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1958 and 1983 respectively and live in Grozny, the Chechen Republic.\n8.  The first applicant was married to Abdulkasim Zaurbekov, born in 1951. They had four sons – Arbi, born in 1978, Alavdi, born in 1982, Ayndi, born in 1983 (the second applicant), and Magomed-Salakh, born in 1995, and lived in Grozny, Chechnya.\n9.  Between 15 August and 16 October 2000 Abdulkasim Zaurbekov worked as a crane operator at the Temporary Office of the Interior of the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny (временный отдел внутренних дел Октябрьского района г. Грозного, “the Oktyabrskiy VOVD”) under a short term employment contract.\n10.  On 16 October 2000 the Oktyabrskiy VOVD informed Mr Zaurbekov that his contract could not be extended due to lack of funds and invited him to collect his salary the next day.\n11.  On 17 October 2000 around 11 a.m. Abdulkasim Zaurbekov and the second applicant arrived at the Oktyabrskiy VOVD. The former entered the premises of the VOVD to get his wages, while the latter waited in the car in front of a security barrier 200 – 300 metres from the main entrance.\n12.  After having waited for a while, the second applicant enquired twice about his father with the officers at the barrier, who told him to wait. Around 7 p.m., when it got dark, the second applicant again enquired about his father and the police officers responded that there were “no civilians left” on the premises of the VOVD. The second applicant then returned home.\n13.  The applicants have had no news of Abdulkasim Zaurbekov since.\n14.  Since 18 October 2000 the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies, including the Oktyabrskiy VOVD, district and city military commander’s offices, prosecutors at various levels, special police units in Chechnya (отряды милиции особого назначения), the Chechen Department of the Federal Security Service (Управление по Чеченской Республики Федеральной службы безопасности, “the Chechen Department of the FSB”), local and regional administrative authorities and the Special Envoy of the Russian President for Rights and Freedoms in the Chechen Republic (Специальный представитель Президента РФ по обеспечению прав и свобод человека и гражданина в Чеченской Республике). In their letters to the authorities the applicants referred to the facts of their relative’s disappearance and asked for assistance and details of an investigation. Most of these enquiries remained unanswered, save for formal responses by which the applicants’ requests were forwarded to various prosecutor’s offices.\n15.  On 18 October 2000, in the morning, the applicants and other relatives visited the Oktyabrskiy VOVD and enquired about Abdulkasim Zaurbekov. The first applicant’s sister-in-law and another relative were admitted onto the premises of the VOVD and talked to Mr S., the Head of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD. The latter said that he was unaware of Abdulkasim Zaurbekov’s whereabouts, that there had been no grounds for his detention and that there was no such person among the detainees kept in the Oktyabrskiy VOVD. He added that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had left the premises of the VOVD after he had received his salary.\n16.  The first applicant’s sister-in-law also managed to look through an attendance register (журнал регистрации посетителей) in which she found an entry to the effect that Abdulkasim Zaurbekov had entered the building at 11.20 a.m. on 17 October 2000. There was no entry confirming that Abdulkasim", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3814", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n(1) Mrs Zulpa Akhmatova (also spelled Akhmadova), born in 1939;\n(2) Mr Abaz Debizov, born in 1932 (died in April 2004);\n(3) Mrs Taus Serbiyeva, born in 1932;\n(4) Mr Islam Serbiyev, born in 1964;\n(5) Mrs Saret Yasadova, born in 1963;\n(6) Mr Sharpudi Bargayev, born in 1956.\nThe applicants are Russian nationals and live in Chechnya, in the village of Novye Atagi, in the Shali District, except for the fourth applicant, who lives in Grozny.\n7.  The applicants submitted that between 14 and 16 January 2001 the federal troops had conducted a “sweeping” operation (“зачистка”) in the neighbouring villages of Novye Atagi and Starye Atagi. Early in the morning on 14 January 2001 the federal forces blocked the roads leading into Novye Atagi and stopped the traffic on the Grozny to Shatoy highway, which is the main road leading into and out of the village. They then disarmed and blocked the local police and cut off their communications. After that they proceeded to carry out house-to-house searches and identity checks.\n8.  The military operation was allegedly in response to the kidnapping on 9 January 2001 of a Médecins sans Frontières humanitarian worker, Mr Kenneth Gluck, which had occurred on the road outside Starye Atagi. The operation was well documented by human rights NGOs, such as Memorial and Human Rights Watch. The applicants submitted numerous affidavits about the events of 14 to 16 January 2001 produced by members of the families of the detained persons and by neighbours. They suggested that at least 21 men had been detained in Novye Atagi and Starye Atagi during that operation, including their relatives Said-Magomed Debizov, Iznovr Serbiyev and Bekkhan Bargayev.\n9.  The first and second applicants are the mother and father of Said-Magomed (also spelled Said-Magomet) Abazovich Debizov, born in 1967. Both applicants retired and lived at 40 Arsanova Street. The first applicant suffers from epilepsy and diabetes and the second applicant had advanced tuberculosis (he died in April 2004). Their son Said-Magomed Debizov was a cattle-breeder, and after finishing his army service in 1987 he lived in Kalmykia. He was married and had five minor children; his family resided in Kalmykia. He was also suffering from tuberculosis. In early January 2001 Said-Magomed Debizov came to his home village of Novye Atagi to visit the first and second applicants, whom he also supported financially. Immediately upon arrival he registered with the village administration. Said-Magomed Debizov was described by the head of the village administration as a good member of the community and part of a large and hard-working family, who had not taken part in unlawful activities.\n10.  The third and fourth applicants are the mother and brother of Iznovr Usamovich Serbiyev, born in 1967. Iznovr Serbiyev was the youngest of the third applicant’s eight children, and lived with her at 62 Arsanova Street in Novye Atagi. He was married and the father of three minor children. After completing his service in the Soviet army in 1987, he graduated from university with a degree in economics. However, he could not find work in this field, and supported his family by working as a car mechanic in Novye Atagi. Iznovr Serbiyev was described by the head of the village administration as a respectful and honest man, who had no connections with the illegal fighters.\n11.  Said-Magomed Debizov and Iznovr Serbiyev had been friends since childhood. Early in the morning on 14 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3816", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  The applicant’s father owned a flat in Moscow. In June 1993, a certain K., acting on behalf of the applicant’s father, sold the flat to L. In October 1993 the applicant’s father died. Later, L. made a gift of that flat to her son.\n7.  In February 1995 the applicant lodged a court action with the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) against K. and L. and L.’s son, seeking annulment of the contract of sale of his father’s flat. The Moscow department of housing policy, the registration service and the notary who had certified the power of authority delivered by the applicant’s father were invited as third parties to the proceedings.\n8.  Between 1995 and 1997 several hearings were listed, but they were adjourned for various reasons. In 1998 the examination of the case was postponed several times because the third parties or the defendants failed to appear. According to the Government, the hearing of 23 December was adjourned until 29 December because the applicant failed to appear.\n9.  On 29 December 1998 the District Court adjourned the applicant’s action generally on the grounds that the parties had failed to attend two court hearings. The applicant applied for reinstatement of the case on the grounds that he had not been duly summoned to the hearings. On 20 January 1999 the District Court quashed the decision of 29 December 1998, having found that the applicant had had a valid reason for failing to appear. It reinstated the case and scheduled the hearing for 23 March 1999.\n10.  In 1999 several hearings were adjourned for various reasons. On 26 May the case was adjourned until 14 July because the judge was involved in unrelated proceedings. According to the Government, the hearings of 30 November and 10 December did not take place because the applicant did not attend them.\n11.  In 2000 the hearings were postponed several times because the defendants or the third parties failed to appear.\n12.  On 13 March 2001 the applicant amended his claims. On the same date the District Court appointed, at his request, an expert examination of the power of authority signed by his father and suspended the proceedings pending the expert study.\n13.  On 4 June 2001 the proceedings were resumed and the hearing was fixed for 20 July 2001. On that date, according to the Government, the hearing did not take place because the applicant did not appear.\n14.  At the hearing of 5 September 2001 the applicant rejected the expert study and returned to his initial claims. On the same date the District Court dismissed his claims in full. On 22 February 2002 the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) quashed that judgment, finding that the first-instance court had failed to establish all relevant facts of the case. It remitted the case for a fresh examination to a different panel of the first-instance court.\n15.  In the second round of proceedings, the District Court accepted the case for examination on 26 September 2002. The first hearing was fixed for 15 November 2002. On that date the hearing was adjourned until 10 January 2003 because the parties failed to appear.\n16.  In 2003 six hearings were scheduled. Of these, the hearing of 6 August was adjourned until 29 October because the parties did not appear. However, on that date the defendants did not appear and the case was postponed until 20 January 2004.\n17.  In 2004 eight hearings were listed. Of these, at least five hearings were adjourn", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3817", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in penitentiary establishment UN 1612/1 of Mariinsk, the Kemerovo Region.\n5.  On 31 October 2001 at 4 a.m. the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and taken to the Frunzenskiy District police station, Ivanovo. He was questioned at 7.20 p.m. the same day.\n6.  According to the applicant, he was also questioned at 2 p.m. on 1 November 2001. During the questioning the police officers allegedly beat him on his head, chest and legs, seeking to obtain self-incriminating evidence. Afterwards the applicant was placed in a preliminary detention cell. The officer on duty was allegedly instructed not to let the applicant go to the toilet and not to give him anything to drink, notwithstanding the applicant’s argument that he suffered from diabetes insipidus which, in case of dehydration, could provoke an abrupt deterioration in his health.\n7.  According to the applicant, on 2 November 2001 an ambulance was called by the police officers for a young man detained in the same cell as the applicant. Following the applicant’s request, the ambulance doctor examined the applicant and allegedly told the police officers that he needed to be taken to the hospital. Notwithstanding the doctor’s advice, the applicant was transferred to a pre-trial detention facility (СИЗО-1 г. Иваново), where he was again examined by a doctor.\n8.  The Government maintained that an ambulance was never called for the applicant.\n9.  On 2 November 2001 the applicant, in the presence of his lawyer, wrote a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of ill-treatment by police officers and submitted it to the investigator. However, neither the applicant nor his lawyer ever received any answer to the complaint in question.\n10.  According to the Government, however, on 28 December 2001 the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment were examined by the Prosecutor of the Frunzenskiy District of Ivanovo, who did not find a prima facie case of ill-treatment and decided not to institute criminal proceedings. The Government submitted neither a copy of the above decision, nor the material of the investigation due to the fact that they had been destroyed on 27 April 2006 as their retention period had expired.\n11.  On 5 February 2002 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Ivanovo convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to eleven years and four months’ imprisonment with forfeiture of property. Despite the applicant’s objections the trial court did not obtain the attendance of Mr Sh., a prosecution witness, and relied on the testimony given by him during the pre-trial investigation. During the trial the applicant raised the issue of ill‑treatment. The trial record reads as follows:\n“... In the morning I was taken to the police officers. I told them everything, but they said I was lying. Around 4 p.m. I was taken to the fourth floor. They bullied and beat me there. In the presence of my counsel I wrote a complaint and handed it to Mr Kalyagin, the investigator. However, I never got any answer. An ambulance medic examined me and said I needed to be taken to Hospital No. 7. They threatened me all the time, but never explained what charges were being brought against me. I filed the complaint on 2 November 2001.”\nHowever, the trial court left this issue unexamined.\n12.  The applicant appealed. In his appeal he complained that the conclusions of the trial court as regards the circumstances of the case were w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3818", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1948, 1980 and 1944 respectively. The first applicant lives in the village of Kurchaloy and the second and third applicants live in the village of Akhkinchu-Barzoy, Kurchaloy district, in the Chechen Republic. The first applicant is a brother of Mr Vakhazhi Albekov, the second applicant is a brother of Mr Khasayn Minkailov and the third applicant is the mother of Mr Nokha Uspanov.\n7.  The facts of the case are partially disputed by the parties. The principal discrepancies may be summarised as follows.\n8.  Between March 2000 and February 2001 military unit no. 73881-2 was stationed near Akhkinchu-Barzoy, a village of about 1,000 residents.\n9.  According to the applicants, the military unit occupied land used by the residents for tillage and pasture, and soldiers mined the area around the unit and in the adjacent parts of the communal forest using anti-personnel mines and, specifically, mines with a trip wire.\n10.  According to the Government, the mines in the forest were planted by illegal armed gangs.\n11.  In statements submitted by the applicants, the head of the local administration and other residents alleged that there had been several incidents since March 2000 in which cattle and people had been injured by mines. The head of the administration stated that he had asked the military to remove the mines from the land used by the villagers but that the incidents had continued.\n12.  According to the Government, the population of Akhkinchu-Barzoy was regularly warned by the military that mines had been laid by armed gangs in the forest. They said that the minefield around the military unit was marked.\n13.  On 23 October 2000 at about 2 p.m. the first applicant’s brother, Mr Vakhazhi Albekov, born in 1969, went to the meadow to collect the family’s cattle from a field situated about 500 metres from the village. He was wearing a black jacket with a hood, a black sweater, blue sports trousers and black rubber boots. At about 3 p.m. another villager, Mr B., met Mr Vakhazhi Albekov in the meadow and the latter told him that he was going north to collect the calves. As a rule it took very little time to collect the cattle and return, and at 4 p.m. his family became concerned.\n14.  At about the same time another resident of the village, Mr M., was in the southern part of the pasture and heard an explosion somewhere to the north. He was scared and decided to return home along the road. On the road he was fired at by soldiers returning to the military unit, but escaped unharmed.\n15.  After 4 p.m. Mr Vakhazhi Albekov’s relatives and neighbours decided to search for him. They broke up into small groups and searched the pasture land and a short way into the forest, shouting his name. At about 10 p.m. they decided to report his disappearance to the military unit and ask for assistance. The first applicant’s sister, along with the head of the village administration, Mr E., and two other neighbours, went to the location of the military unit. Only Mr E. was allowed to enter and a serviceman informed him that they had no news of Mr Albekov and that they had not detained anyone.\n16.  On the morning on 24 October 2000 Mr E. went to the district centre of Kurchaloy and reported Mr. Albekov’s disappearance to the district authorities, namely the police station, the military commander and the head of the administration.\n17.  At the same time villagers continued to search for Mr Vakhazhi Albekov in the pasture land and forest. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3819", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 29 January 1997 the applicant company entered into a purchase agreement with Královéhradecká brokerská a.s., a joint stock company incorporated under Czech law (“KHB”). Under the agreement it bought 384,971 book-entry shares representing 55.71% of the registered capital of KOTVA a.s., a joint stock company incorporated under Czech law. The shares were registered with Prague Securities Centre (Středisko cenných papírů), which acted as a central securities depository.\n8.  In March 1997 criminal proceedings were instituted against H., a member of KHB’s board of directors, for illegal disposal of shares and other securities to the detriment of two Czech investments funds, TREND a.s. and MERCIA a.s., which joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties seeking damages.\n9.  On 11 March 1997 the Hradec Králové Deputy Regional Prosecutor (náměstek krajského státního zástupce), within the framework of the criminal proceedings, ordered the Securities Centre to register the suspension of the applicant company’s right to dispose of all shares deposited in its account (příkaz k registraci pozastavení výkonu práv majitele veškerých cenných papírů) until the end of the criminal proceedings. The order was based on a suspicion that the shares had been acquired illegally and that it was necessary to freeze them in order to secure claims from the victims of the transaction. The prosecutor relied on section 27(3)(d) of the Securities Act (no. 591/1992), which entitled State authorities to order such suspension where empowered to do so by a specific law, and on Article 78 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), which gave the prosecuting authorities the right to seize items of importance for criminal proceedings.\n10.  In a letter of 25 April 1997 addressed to the Ministry of Finance, the Regional Prosecutor stated as follows:\n“In order to clarify the criminal activities of [H. and others] and establish facts important for the criminal proceedings, and in an effort to prevent illegal transfers of securities, I decided to apply section 27(3)(d) of the Securities Act (no. 591/1992) ... However, this procedural step which, I discovered, was based on Articles 78 and 79 of the CCP, is very problematic and untenable in the case of book‑entry shares. Under these circumstances, the Securities Centre will be ordered, by 16 May 1997 at the latest, to cancel the registration of the suspension of disposal rights over the book-entry shares held by the following companies: ... (f) Forminster Enterprises Limited.\nSecurities owned by persons who are not facing criminal charges, which are in the portfolio of the aforesaid companies and are not relevant to the criminal activities, can no longer be impounded under criminal law because the existing criminal procedural regulations provide only for the seizure of tangible items of importance for the criminal proceedings under Article 78 of the [CCP] which can be surrendered or, pursuant to Article 79, seized. [In addition,] the application of Article 79a of the [CCP] in respect of securities is excluded. To proceed under section 27(3)(d) of the Securities Act is possible only when a specific law so provides. [However,] the [CCP] does not provide for such a procedural step ...”\n11.  On 12 May 1997 the Deputy Regional Prosecutor informed the Securities Centre that his order of 11 March 1997 was cancelled. Relying on section 27(", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3820", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 30 October 2001 the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, following an application lodged by the applicant on 21 July 1995 (Kanbur v. Turkey, no. 28291/95) concerning the length of criminal proceedings brought against him for his membership of Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). By then the proceedings had lasted for over nineteen years. The Court awarded the applicant 100,000 French francs (approximately 15,000 euros) in compensation.\n6.  At the time of the Court’s judgment, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending before the Ankara Assize Court.\n7.  The facts of the case thereafter, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 14 May 2002 the applicant attended a hearing before the Ankara Assize Court, gave a statement and submitted the Court’s judgment of 30 October 2001 in order to ensure that his case would be heard within a reasonable time.\n9.  On 16 July 2002 the Assize Court sentenced the applicant to death, and then commuted his sentence to life imprisonment. The judgment was subject to appeal.\n10.  In the meantime in October 2001, Article 38 of the Constitution was amended so that the death penalty could no longer be ordered or implemented other than in time of war or of imminent threat of war, or for acts of terrorism. Subsequently, by Law no. 4771, which was published on 9 August 2002, the Turkish Grand National Assembly resolved, inter alia, to abolish the death penalty in peacetime.\n11.  On 28 May 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on the ground that the death penalty had been abolished during the course of the proceedings.\n12.  On 23 December 2004 the Ankara Assize Court resumed the trial. On that day it ordered, in absentia, the provisional detention of the applicant in order to secure a statement from him.\n13.  On 27 December 2004 the Ankara Assize Court heard a statement from the applicant as regards the state of the case and revoked the detention order as having served its purpose. Subsequently, the Ankara Assize Court held thirteen more hearings.\n14.  On 3 October 2006, at its fourteenth hearing, the Ankara Assize Court delivered its judgment and sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment pursuant to Article 146 of the Criminal Code.\n15.  According to the information made available to the Court by the parties to date, the case is apparently still pending before the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3821", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1961, 1959 and 1964 respectively.\n5.  In the course of a police operation against an illegal armed organisation, namely the TKEP (the Communist Labour Party of Turkey), the police arrested and detained Mr Ayhan in police custody on 5 May 1993. The applicant had fake identity papers on him at the time of the arrest.\n6.  He was subsequently brought before a judge who remanded him in custody on 19 May 1993.\n7.  By an indictment dated 30 July 1993, the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and other accused before the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing the applicant, inter alia, of participation in activities which undermined the constitutional order of the State. These included aggravated theft from various jewellery shops and involvement in the killing of Mr Y.I. and Mr M.Ö in 1990 and 1991 respectively. The prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  In the course of the proceedings before the Istanbul State Security Court, the latter considered the applicant’s detention at the end of each hearing of its own motion and each time it ordered continued detention with reference to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file. At the hearing held on 28 January 1997, the applicant requested to be released for the first time. The court ordered the continuation of his detention, having regard to the nature of the offences with which he was charged and the state of the evidence. Thereafter until 30 May 2000 the applicant did not specifically request release. However, the court continued of its own motion to examine the applicant’s detention and ordered it to be continued on the same grounds as before. Between the hearings held on 30 May 2000 and 24 February 2004, the court considered the applicant’s detention regularly, either of its own motion or at the request of the applicant, and each time it ordered his continued detention, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file.\n9.  On 24 February 2004 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 4 October 2004.\n10.  On 10 February 1994 the second applicant, Mr Akkurt, and the third applicant, Mr Töre, were arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of involvement in the activities of the above-mentioned organisation. They were remanded in custody on 24 February 1994.\n11.  By an indictment dated 17 May 1994, the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants and other accused before the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing the applicants, inter alia, of involvement in activities which undermined the constitutional order of the State. These included aggravated theft from various jewellery shops. The prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  In the course of the proceedings before the Istanbul State Security Court, the latter considered the applicants’ detention at the end of each hearing of its own motion, and each time it ordered their continued detention with reference to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file. At a hearing held on 5 August 1998, the applicants requested to be released for the first time. The court ordered the continuation of their detention, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3822", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 26 July 1991 the applicant brought an action against an insurance company seeking compensation for injuries she had suffered in a road traffic accident. The dispute essentially concerned the amount of compensation payable.\n6.  After having obtained two expert opinions and held numerous hearings, on 5 November 1997 the Budapest Regional Court gave judgment. On 9 March 2000 the Supreme Court quashed this decision.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings, on 5 February 2002 the Budapest Regional Court awarded the applicant 8.2 million Hungarian forints (HUF) in compensation in addition to a monthly allowance.\n8.  On 28 April 2004 the Supreme Court’s appellate bench amended this decision, reducing the award. This judgment was final and served on 28 June 2004.\n9.  On 14 September 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for rectification of the judgment holding that her allegations related to the assessment of facts rather than any clerical error.\n10.  In a preliminary examination under section 273 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 1 October 2004 the Supreme Court’s review bench refused to deal with the merits of the applicant’s petition for review. In essence, it relied on section 270 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force during the relevant period, according to which a review of the substantive unlawfulness of final decisions was only admissible if a review was considered necessary from the perspective of harmonising or developing the application of the law. This decision was served on 3 November 2004.\n11.  In 2005 the applicant filed another action, introducing further compensation claims. On 31 May 2007 the Budapest Regional Court awarded her HUF 19.6 million. The Budapest Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. Its decision was served on the applicant on 21 February 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3823", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1931 respectively and live in Germany.\n6.  In connection with an ongoing investigation against activist members of the illegal armed organisation Devrimci-Sol (the “Revolutionary Left”), on 17 April 1992 police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate conducted an operation in three buildings located in different areas of Istanbul. The applicants’ daughter, Ayşe Gülen Uzunhasanoğlu, was killed during this operation. According to the police reports, police officers arrived at the building located in Erenköy at about 2.30 a.m. Ayşe Gülen Uzunhasanoğlu was living on the third floor of this building. The police officers, wearing bulletproof vests, took the necessary safety measures outside the building. Four of the officers went upstairs to flat no. 9 and rang the bell. There was no answer, and the officers forced the door open. Shots were fired from one of the rooms. Despite the officers’ call to surrender, the firing continued and a clash broke out, lasting approximately thirty minutes. When the firing ceased, the police found the dead bodies of two women; one in the bathroom and another in the living room, the latter being later identified as Ayşe Gülen Uzunhasanoğlu. It was observed that there was a Beretta gun next to Ayşe Gülen Uzunhasanoğlu’s body. As the police also found explosives in the flat, a bomb disposal team was called to the scene and the flat was evacuated. Once the apartment was secured, the Kadıköy public prosecutor was informed about the incident. The prosecutor arrived at the scene of the incident at about 9.30 a.m. and prepared a scene of incident report in which he noted that photographs of the bodies had been taken; that a sketch map of the flat had been drawn and that fingerprints of the bodies had been taken. The report further indicated that a semi-automatic Italian Beretta 7.65 mm pistol, its magazine and cartridges, 3 Kalashnikov cartridges, 90 cartridges of 7.62 mm, 7 bullet cases of 7.65 mm, 23 bullet cases of 5.56 mm, 90 bullet cases of 9 mm, several hand made bombs and material to manufacture explosive devices had been found. The prosecutor further examined the bodies in the presence of a medical expert. The preliminary examination of the bodies revealed that there were several bullet entry and exit holes on both corpses. The bodies were subsequently taken to the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute for autopsy. Following the inspection of the flat by the public prosecutor, the premises were sealed by the police.\n7.  On 27 April 1992 ballistic examinations of the Beretta pistol, the bullet cases and cartridges collected from the incident scene were conducted by two experts from the Regional Criminal Police Laboratory. According to their report, the seven 7.65 mm bullet cases had been fired by the Beretta pistol found at the scene of the incident. The report further concluded that the 52 bullet cases of 9 mm and the 23 bullet cases of 5.56 mm, which had been sent for examination, had been fired from the guns of the police officers.\n8.  On 28 April 1992 a criminal complaint was filed against Mr Necdet Menzir, the Head of the Istanbul Security Directorate at the time, and the police officers who had been involved in the three operations conducted on 17 April 1992.\n9.  On 4 May 1992 the first applicant applied to the Kadıköy public prosecutor and requested that the flat which had been sealed after the incident be returned to her. On 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3824", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 17 November 1998 at 3.30 p.m. the applicant, a journalist working for a biweekly newspaper, was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Diyarbakır Police Headquarters along with 108 other persons. At the time of the arrest, the applicant and the other arrestees were in the Diyarbakır branch of the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP), where demonstrations and hunger strikes were allegedly being organised, in order to protest about the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation.\n6. At 7.30 p.m. on the same day the applicant was taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital. The doctor who examined him noted that there was no sign of recent physical violence on the applicant’s person.\n7.  On 20 November 1998 the applicant made statements to the police. According to the report signed by two police officers and the applicant, the applicant stated that he had been in the Diyarbakır branch of HADEP in order to participate in the demonstration.\n8.  The applicant alleges that he was subjected to various forms of ill‑treatment while in police custody. In particular, he was kept in a dark cell with insufficient ventilation, deprived of food and water and was prevented from going to the toilet. He was forced to stand, handcuffed, in the same position for long hours. During the questioning, he was stripped naked, insulted and threatened with death and rape. The applicant was beaten on various parts of his body. In particular, he received repeated blows to his abdomen. His testicles were squeezed and he was subjected to sexual abuse. Finally, he was forced to watch a female detainee being sexually abused.\n9.  On 23 November 1998 the applicant, along with nine other persons, was taken to a clinic in Diyarbakır and examined there by a medical expert, who drafted one document in respect of all ten people, and noted that none of them had sustained any injuries.\n10.  On 25 November 1998 the applicant, along with 110 other persons, was taken to the same clinic and examined there by another doctor, Mr A.O. On a document of the police headquarters in which the names of all 111 persons were put, Mr A.O. noted the same sentence below every name:\n“No sign of physical violence has been observed”.\nThe applicant claimed that there had been police officers present in the examination room and that although he had described the type of ill-treatment to which he had been subjected in police custody, the doctor did not note any of his complaints.\n11.  On 25 November 1998 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. He maintained that he had been in the HADEP building as a journalist and that he had not participated in the demonstration or the hunger strike. He stated that he had been made to sign his police statements without reading them.\n12.  At 9 p.m. on the same day, the applicant was released upon the decision of the public prosecutor.\n13.  On 26 November 1998 the applicant was examined by a doctor from the Diyarbakır branch of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, Mr R.A., who recorded the following[1]:\n“There is a bruise measuring 10 x 0.5 cm on the right side of the hypogastrium[2]. He has sensitivity and pain upon palpation behind his knees, pain in the ankles, sensitivity and pain in the toe muscles in both feet. He also has sensitivity in his testicles ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3825", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 19 April 1995 the applicant, who was born in 1939 and lives in Ventspils, was arrested by the Jelgava police and remanded in custody until 13 June 1995. During this period of time some of the applicant’s property stored in her house in Jelgava, where a café belonging to her was also located, and in her second house in Dobele, was stolen. Criminal proceedings were initiated in this connection.\n7.  On 23 May 1995 criminal proceedings in case no. 22546495 were initiated regarding the burglary in Jelgava.\n8.  On 25 May 1995 the Jelgava police decided to acknowledge the applicant as a civil claimant in criminal case no. 22546495, with a claim for 763 Latvian lati (LVL) (approximately EUR 1,090).\n9.  On 11 July 1995 another set of criminal proceedings, allocated case number no. 22564195, was initiated regarding the burglary in Jelgava. On the same date the Jelgava police decided to acknowledge the applicant as a civil claimant in criminal case no. 22564195, with a claim for LVL 6725.60 (approximately EUR 9,607). According to a copy of that decision, submitted by the applicant, the police investigator crossed out the above amount, putting LVL 12,103 (approximately EUR 17,290) instead. The applicant requested to be acknowledged as a civil claimant with a claim for that amount when she was questioned on 11 September 1995.\n10.  On 28 February 1997 the Jelgava police joined the two sets of criminal proceedings into one case, no. 22564195.\n11.  On 17 September 1997 a public prosecutor attached to the Zemgale District Court (“the Zemgale public prosecutor”) informed the applicant that, following her complaint to the Prosecutor General’s Office, an examination of the investigation in the criminal proceedings relating to the burglary of her property had been carried out. During the examination, serious infringements of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code had been detected. In that regard, according to the Zemgale public prosecutor, she had on 27 January 1997 requested the head of the Jelgava police to rectify the deficiencies indicated to him and to identify the police officers who had failed to protect the applicant’s property upon her detention, as required by Article 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code. An official investigation had been carried out into the failure to protect the applicant’s property and the criminal proceedings in respect of the burglary of the property. As a result, two police officers had been identified as responsible for the failure to protect the applicant’s property. One of them had been disciplined and the other’s professional conduct had been assessed by the professional attestation commission.\n12.  On 20 August 2000 the applicant wrote to the Zemgale public prosecutor, inquiring about the progress in the criminal proceedings.\n13.  On 26 September 2000 the Zemgale public prosecutor informed the applicant that her complaint in respect of lack of progress in the criminal proceedings was well-founded, since the Jelgava police had not carried out any investigative measures and the investigation in the criminal proceedings had been unlawfully delayed. According to the prosecutor, the head of the police at the Ministry of the Interior had been informed thereof on 25 September 2000.\n14.  On 20 January 2001 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General about the inefficiency of the Zemgale public prosecutor, which had hindered the restitution of her stolen property. On 5 February 2001 the Prosecutor General in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3826", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Nesluša.\n5.  The applicant served as a member of the Police Corps of the Slovak Republic. As he intended to engage in political life, he requested that he should be released from service in the police. In an order of 5 August 1993 the applicant’s superior acceded to the request and released the applicant with effect from 31 December 1993.\n6.  On 13 August 1993 the applicant’s superior issued a new order dismissing the applicant from the police. Reference was made to a negative assessment of the applicant’s performance and behaviour. The order stated that the applicant had been found incapable of carrying out any service within the police within the meaning of section 110(1)(d) of the Police Corps Service Act 1991. The applicant and his superior subsequently agreed that the applicant would leave the police by 31 August 1993.\n7.  On 30 September 1993 the President of the Police Corps dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order of 13 August 1993. On 22 December 1993 the Minister of the Interior dismissed an extraordinary representation made by the applicant holding that the applicant’s service in the police had been terminated in accordance with the law in force.\n8.  On 22 May 1995 the applicant sued the Ministry of the Interior before the Bratislava I District Court. He claimed that his dismissal from the police was void and that the allowance related to his departure from the police should be increased. In parallel, he claimed protection of his personal rights with reference to his dismissal and the assessment of his performance made in that context. The District Court processed the latter claim (see paragraphs 20 et seq. below). It started dealing with the claim concerning the termination of the applicant’s service and the payment of an allowance in a separate set of proceedings on 2 December 1996.\n9.  On 18 April 1997 the District Court found that it lacked jurisdiction in the case. It established that the applicant sought a review of the assessment of his service in the police and of the decision on his dismissal.\n10.  On 14 July 1997 the Supreme Court returned the case to the District Court as the latter had not clearly established what the applicant claimed.\n11.  Subsequently the District Court requested the applicant to specify his action. The applicant replied on 5 December 1997 and 9 March 1998. The file was transmitted to the Supreme Court.\n12.  On 29 September 1998 the Supreme Court returned the file to the District Court. The accompanying letter stated that the former lacked jurisdiction in the case as the applicant had not sought judicial review of the decision on his dismissal from the police. The District Court judge disagreed. On 21 December 1998 the Supreme Court decided that the action fell to be determined by the Bratislava I District Court.\n13.  The District Court held the first hearing on 31 March 1999. On 10 July 2000 it discontinued the proceedings. It noted that the applicant had claimed that his service in the police had ended with his release at his own request and that the allowance to which he was entitled upon his departure from the police should be increased accordingly. The court found that the applicant’s service in the police was not governed by labour law. The relevant issues were to be determined by the Ministry of the Interior to which the District Court decided to transfer the case.\n14.  On 13 September 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld tha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3827", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1955, 1974, 1924, 1955, 1957 and 1970 respectively. The first, second and the seventh applicants live in Istanbul, the fourth and the fifth applicants live in Erzincan and the sixth applicant is residing in Nevnkirchen (Austria).\n5.  The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants are relatives of Mr Süleyman Yeter, who died on 7 March 1999.\n6.  According to the applicants, on 22 February 1997 Mr Süleyman Yeter was arrested by police officers while walking along the street, in Avcılar, Istanbul, and taken into police custody at the Istanbul Security Headquarters on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the MLKP (Marxist Leninist Communist Party). According to the arrest report, drafted by police officers, Mr Yeter was arrested at an apartment, together with eight other people. The arrest report does not contain the signatures of those arrested.\n7.  That same day, the first three applicants - Mr Erdoğan Yılmaz, Ms Birsen Kaya and Ms Ayşe Yılmaz - were also arrested at their houses and taken into police custody at the Istanbul Security Headquarters on suspicion of involvement in the activities of the MLKP.\n8.  The head of the security headquarters requested the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court to authorise the police to detain Mr Süleyman Yeter, as well as the first three applicants and fourteen others, until 7 March 1997. The public prosecutor gave his consent to detain them for fifteen days. He also noted that the detainees should be taken for a medical examination every three days.\n9.  The first three applicants and Mr Süleyman Yeter were allegedly subjected to various forms of ill-treatment while in custody. It is claimed that Mr Erdoğan Yılmaz was blindfolded, beaten, suspended by his arms, subjected to electric shocks, forced to remain standing, deprived of food and sleep and threatened with death. Mrs Ayşe Yılmaz was allegedly blindfolded, beaten, sexually harassed, forced to remain standing, forced to listen to loud music, deprived of sleep and threatened. It is further claimed that Ms Birsen Kaya was blindfolded, beaten, insulted, stripped naked, suspended by her arms and forced to remain standing. Finally, Mr Süleyman Yeter was allegedly blindfolded, beaten, insulted, hosed with cold water, suspended by his arms, forced to listen to loud music and deprived of sleep.\n10. During his police custody, the first applicant, Mr Erdoğan Yılmaz, was examined three times by a forensic doctor:\n-In a report dated 26 February 1997, it was noted that the applicant               had a lesion measuring 0,5 cm on his right elbow and a scab-covered               lesion measuring 3 to 4 cm on the left scapula.\n-The second examination of the applicant was carried out on 3 March 1997. It was noted that the applicant had a scab-covered               lesion measuring 1 cm by 1 cm on his left elbow, several               hyperaemic lesions measuring 1 cm by 2 cm on his back and               bruising measuring 2 cm by 1 cm on his right wrist.\n-In his third examination, carried out on 6 March 1997, the forensic               doctor noted that the findings of the report dated 3 March 1997 still               showed. He also observed that the applicant had pain in his chest.\n11.  The second applicant Ayşe Yılmaz was taken to the doctor on 26 February, 3 March and 6 March 1997 respectively. According to the first two reports, there were no traces of ill-treatment on her b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3828", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be submitted as follows.\n6.  The applicant lived in conjugal community with S.S. During their relationship, S.S. gave birth to a boy on 24 June 1998. The child was registered under his mother’s family name. For the first five months the couple raised the child together. Subsequently, the relationship deteriorated and the applicant left their common home.\n7.  Since the applicant’s parental status had not been resolved legally, he repeatedly initiated proceedings for an official declaration of paternity (teljes hatályú apai elismerő nyilatkozat). However, the mother refused to give her consent to the statement, which is required by law for such a statement to be valid. Moreover, the mother has not allowed the applicant to see the child at all.\n8.  In January 2000 the applicant brought an action against the child and the mother before the Pest Central District Court asking the court to establish paternity.\n9.  Between April 2000 and July 2001 the District Court held five unsuccessful hearings, which the mother did not attend despite a fine being imposed on her. The District Court sought assistance from the police in order to secure her presence at the hearings but to no avail.\n10.  In November 2001 a medical expert examined the applicant and the child. The expert could not establish with complete certainty whether the applicant was the father of the child or not, but she “believed it probable”.\n11.  In the meantime, a third individual, G.N., made a formal declaration of paternity which was accepted by the mother. Since the paternal status had been resolved, the District Court terminated the proceedings in January 2002.\n12.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the District Court in April 2002.\n13.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court suspended the procedure and initiated a constitutional review of the applicable legal provisions to be applied in December 2002.\n14.  According to the information submitted by the parties, the case is still pending before the Constitutional Court and consequently before the District Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3829", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Antalya.\n5.  The applicant owns a flat in Antalya. Based on a construction permit issued by the Antalya Municipality on 14 February 1991, construction works were commenced on neighbouring land to build an apartment block. The limitations concerning the height of the building were not respected and, as a result, the sea view from the applicant’s flat, which is situated on the sixth floor, was blocked by the new building.\n6.  On an unspecified date, the applicant initiated administrative proceedings against the Antalya Municipality for the annulment of the construction permit. He maintained that the permit was in breach of city planning regulations. On 27 June 1995 the Antalya Administrative Court found in the applicant’s favour and annulled the construction permit. On 13 March 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Antalya Administrative Court.\n7.  The applicant asked the Antalya Municipality to enforce the decision of the Antalya Administrative Court, but his request was rejected.\n8.  On 18 October 1998 the applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the Antalya Administrative Court on account of the Municipality’s failure to implement the court order of 13 March 1996. He requested both pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation, stating that the non-enforcement of the final court decision which had annulled the construction permit had diminished his flat’s value.\n9.  On 19 November 1998 the Antalya Administrative Court partially upheld the applicant’s claim, awarding him pecuniary compensation, but refusing non-pecuniary damages.\n10.  On 26 April 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Antalya Administrative Court’s decision in respect of pecuniary damage. However, finding that the applicant was also entitled to non-pecuniary compensation, it quashed the judgment in this respect. Subsequent to this decision, the Municipality paid the pecuniary compensation to the applicant.\n11.  On 1 November 2000 the Antalya Administrative Court awarded 250,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) to the applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.\n12.  On 16 April 2002, considering the amount of non-pecuniary compensation insufficient, the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the Antalya Administrative Court once again.\n13.  On 19 December 2002 the Antalya Administrative Court insisted on maintaining its judgment. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 16 June 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the Antalya Administrative Court of 19 December 2002.\n15.  On 29 December 2005 the Antalya Administrative Court adhered to the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court and awarded the applicant TRL 1,000,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary compensation with statutory interest running from 18 October 1996.\n16.  On 27 June 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal of the Municipality. The Municipality paid the due amount to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3830", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Dzerzhinsk, the Nizhniy Novgorod region.\n6.  On 26 May 1998 the applicant was arrested, charged with the unlawful possession of firearms and attempted murder of a police officer, and remanded in custody.\n7.  On 12 October 1998 the Criminal Section of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court, composed of a professional judge and two lay assessors, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to fifteen years and six months’ imprisonment. The court referred to statements from five witnesses: two eyewitnesses, two forensic medical examination reports and a ballistic expert’s report. The applicant had extensive opportunities to cross-examine those witnesses and challenge other pieces of evidence throughout the trial. It appears that the court refused the applicant’s request to call two more witnesses.\n8.  The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment. In his appeal submission he argued that the trial court had made wrong findings of fact and had assessed the evidence incorrectly. He did not raise any objections as to the composition of the first-instance court.\n9.  On 26 April 1999 the Supreme Court of Russia examined the applicant’s appeal and reduced the sentence to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant was present at the hearing, at the end of which the operative part of the decision was read out. According to the applicant, he obtained a copy of the decision on 12 May 1999.\n10.  The applicant’s attempts to avail himself of supervisory review proved unsuccessful.\n11.  On 17 March 2004 the applicant was released on parole.\n12.  According to the applicant, he was held in remand prison IZ – 32/1 in the city of Nizhniy Novgorod (СИЗО – 32/1) from 26 May 1998 to 16 March 1999.\n13.  The applicant was kept in a cell designed to hold 24 inmates. During the applicant’s detention the cell accommodated 120 inmates, and therefore he could only sleep taking turns, for no more than four hours a day. Due to lack of space, detainees had to remain standing the rest of the day.\n14.  The window of the cell was covered with metal grilles supplemented with “eyelashes”, that is metal strips covering the grille, which let no daylight in. The cell was lit only by a single light bulb. As there was no ventilation, the air was stale and musty. The cell was overrun with cockroaches and bloodsucking insects. Neither the cell nor detainees’ personal belongings were ever sanitised.\n15.  Detainees were able to take a shower every eight days. However, only a few of the shower cabins functioned properly, and therefore the detainees did not have enough time to wash themselves. The scarce meals were of poor quality, and the detainees had to eat standing, as the only table in the cell was designed for eight inmates.\n(ii)  Medical assistance\n16.  In December 1998 the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis and underwent medical treatment until 16 March 1999.\n(b)  The Government’s account\n(i)  General conditions of detention\n17.  According to the Government, the applicant was held in remand prison IZ – 32/1 in the city of Nizhniy Novgorod from 5 June 1998 to 16 March 1999. From 26 May to 5 June 1998 he was held in a temporary detention centre of the Dzerzhinsk Directorate of the Interior, Nizhniy Novgorod Region.\n18.  During his placement in remand prison IZ – 32/1 the applicant was held in cell no. 3/19, which measured 40.1 square metres and had 20 beds; cell no. 9/69, which measured 40.6 sq.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3831", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1968. He is currently serving a prison sentence in the Sverdlovskiy Region.\n7.  Late on the night of 11 May 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police at the scene of a crime on suspicion of having set fire to his mother's flat. His mother died in the fire and another person, M., received serious injuries. The applicant was taken to the police department of the village of Dinas in the Sverdlovskiy Region.\n8.  According to the applicant, while he was at the police department one of the policemen kicked him twice in the chest.\n9.  On 12 May 2001 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who noted a bruise on his head. The applicant stated that he had also complained of pain in the chest but that his chest had not been examined.\n10.  After the examination the applicant was transferred to the police department of the town of Pervouralsk. According to the applicant, while he was at the police department he was kicked in the legs, kidneys, chest and ribs by two policemen.\n11.  On the same day the applicant was questioned by the investigator. He denied involvement in the arson attack and stated that he had been attacked by three strangers who had assaulted him and set fire to the flat. He was subsequently put in a cell in the temporary detention unit of Pervouralsk.\n12.  On 15 May 2001 Mr L. was appointed as legal aid counsel for the applicant. The applicant asked the investigator and Mr L. to arrange a medical examination. The investigator refused his request.\n13.  On 16 May 2001 the applicant was escorted to detention facility no. 1 in Yekaterinburg. However, he was not admitted to the detention facility because he did not have a medical certificate. He was brought back to Pervouralsk.\n14.  On 18 May 2001 he was again escorted to detention facility no. 1 in Yekaterinburg, where – for the second time – he was refused admittance without a medical certificate. On his return to Pervouralsk, he was examined by a doctor, who noted a bruise on his chest. On the same day a chest X-ray was performed. On 18 November 2004 all the X-ray photographs revealing no injuries, including the X-ray photograph of the applicant's chest, were destroyed by the medical staff of Hospital No. 1. A certificate issued by the chief physician of Pervouralsk Hospital No. 1 on 16 February 2005 confirmed that the X-ray had revealed no injury to the applicant's chest.\n15.  On 21 May 2001 the applicant was admitted to detention facility no. 1 in Yekaterinburg, where he was examined by a doctor. The doctor noted two bruises on the applicant's forehead and a bruise on his chest. When asked by the doctor about the origin of the bruises, the applicant replied that they had been received outside detention facility no. 1. He signed a statement that he had no complaints and that there was no need for an investigation.\n16.  On 27 June 2001 the applicant complained to the prosecutor, alleging ill-treatment.\n17.  On 2 July 2001 the Pervouralsk town prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings. Having reviewed the reports on the applicant's arrest and questioning, he found that the applicant's head had already been injured when the police arrived at the crime scene. The applicant had himself stated to the investigator that he had been assaulted by strangers before the arrest, which provided sufficient explanation for his injuries. There was no evidence that he had been ill-treated by the police.\n18.  Following communication of the application, an interna", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3832", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 10 March 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the TIKB (the Revolutionary Communist Union of Turkey).\n6.  On 13 March 1998 he was brought before the public prosecutor and then the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. The latter remanded him in custody on the same day.\n7.  On 17 March 1998 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, charging the applicant with membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  Between 25 March 1998 and 21 March 2001, the court held nineteen hearings. During these hearings the Istanbul Security Court, relying on the state of the evidence, the nature of the offence, and the duration of his detention, refused to release the applicant.\n9.  On 21 March 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court pronounced its judgment and convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment under Article 168 of the Criminal Code.\n10.  On 8 August 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed this judgment. The case was accordingly remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court.\n11.  On 17 September 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court resumed the trial. During the subsequent hearings, the court rejected the applicant’s requests for release, having regard to the state of the evidence.\n12.  At the hearing on 1 June 2003, the applicant’s lawyer once again requested the court to release the applicant. In her submissions, she also drew attention to the psychological state and treatment of the applicant. The court rejected this request. An appeal lodged in that connection was also dismissed by a further court on 28 August 2003.\n13.  By Law no. 5190, in June 2004 State Security Courts were abolished. Subsequently, the Istanbul Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the case.\n14.  On 25 October 2004 the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to release the applicant. On 1 November 2004 the applicant was released pending trial.\n15.  According to the information made available to the Court by the parties to date, the case is apparently still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3833", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Lublin.\n5.  The applicant was arrested on 31 January 2001 on suspicion of fraud. On 2 February 2001 the Warsaw District Court ordered his detention on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed aggravated fraud. It relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty and the fact that the applicant had been previously convicted. In addition, the District Court found that there was the risk that the applicant would abscond, given that he had no permanent abode in the country.\n6.  On 27 April 2001 the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 July 2001, relying on the same grounds as in the first detention order. It observed that the applicant had not registered a permanent residence anywhere in the country.\n7.  On 9 May 2001 the applicant was questioned by the prosecutor. On 8 June 2001 the prosecutor ordered that evidence be obtained from psychiatrists to establish whether the applicant had acted in a state of diminished responsibility. The relevant reports were submitted on 18 June and 5 September 2001.\n8.  On 20 July 2001 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it ruled that the prolongation of his detention was justified by the need to obtain further evidence. In its decision of 18 September 2001 prolonging the applicant’s detention until 30 November 2001, the District Court invoked for the first time the risk that the applicant might interfere with the proceedings and attempt to influence witnesses.\n9.  On 10 November 2001 the prosecution filed with the Warsaw District Court a bill of indictment against the applicant and one other suspect. The applicant was charged with four counts of fraud. The prosecution requested the court to hear twenty-nine witnesses and two experts.\n10.  On 22 November 2001 the District Court ordered that the applicant be held in detention until 30 April 2002. It considered that no other preventive measure could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, having regard to the severity of the penalty faced by the applicant and the fact that he had no permanent abode in Poland.\n11.  On 25 April 2002 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 August 2002. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it held that there was a risk that the applicant might attempt to influence some of the witnesses who had been in close personal or business relations with him.\n12.  On 20 June 2002 the trial court held the first hearing and heard evidence from the applicant and his co-accused.\n13.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged on 28 August 2002 (until 31 January 2003).\n14.  In the meantime the period of his detention pending trial had exceeded the two-year time-limit set out in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, on 28 January 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 31 July 2003. It found, inter alia, that the nature of the charge against the applicant might prompt him to influence the witnesses. In addition, it observed that the trial could not be concluded on account of the applicant’s conduct, and not for reasons attributable to the trial court. It also stated that the trial court should endeavour to conclude the trial by 31 July 2003.\n15.  The applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by a different panel of the Court of Appeal on 4 March 2003. The Cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3834", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  In April 1997 the applicant bought a flat from a private individual, S.M. The seller stipulated that she had the right to buy back the property until 30 July 1997. However, she was not able to exercise this right because of the lack of sufficient means.\n6.  In September 1997 the Land Registry registered the applicant’s property rights on the flat. Subsequently, the applicant requested S.M. to let him have possession. Since S.M. was reluctant to leave the flat, the applicant requested the Gödöllő District Court to order the execution of the purchase contract – which had been concluded by a notary public (közjegyzői okirat) and, therefore, was executable as a final court judgment. The District Court issued the order on 10 November 1997.\n7.  Subsequently, S.M. brought an action against the applicant before the Gödöllő District Court, requesting the court to establish the invalidity of the purchase contract and to order the termination of its execution. In April 1998 the District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action. On appeal, in October 1998 the Pest County Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision.\n8.  S.M. requested that the case be reopened. The Gödöllő District Court suspended the execution of the purchase contract. The applicant appealed. The Pest County Regional Court reversed the first-instance decision and ordered the continuation of the execution in April 1999. Subsequently, S.M.’s request to reopen the case was dismissed. In May 1999 S.M. again requested the suspension of the execution, but the District Court dismissed her request.\n9.  In the meantime, the applicant was charged with the forgery of the contract in question. In view of the ongoing criminal proceedings, the Gödöllő District Court suspended the execution of the contract on 15 July 1999. In May 2003 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, acquitted the applicant. On 12 June 2004 the applicant requested the continuation of the execution. On 13 July 2004 the District Court accepted the applicant’s claim. The Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision on 21 October 2004.\n10.  According to the information available in the case file, the execution proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3835", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the town of Orsk in the Orenburg Region. He is a journalist.\n6.  On 21 August 2002 the applicant published an article in issue no. 128\\382 of the Orskiy Vestnik newspaper. The article appeared under the headline ‘Tortured suspects confessed to the theft they had not committed’ (“Под пыткой подозреваемые сознались в краже, которой не совершали”). It concerned an investigation into the theft of property of a private company. The company director had identified three of his former employees as prime suspects. Mr S., one of those three, had gone to the Leninskiy District police station of his own will to clear himself of suspicion. The story then switched to a first-person narrative by Mr S., which was preceded by the author’s statement, in bold and in italics: “I switched on the dictaphone recording of S[.]’s story”.\n7.  Mr S. said that he had been detained overnight at the Leninskiy District police station. The following morning he had been brought to an office where five police officers had been present; Mr G. had been among them. Mr S. continued as follows:\n“It was a Saturday. They [the police officers] planned to go to a wedding party after lunch; they reeked of fresh alcohol, it looked like they had already been drinking. They discussed how to torture me - using a crow-bar or otherwise? They tied me to a chair, my legs fastened to the chair legs and my arms cuffed behind the chair back. At first they punched me in the chest with their fists, it hurt. I was in a state of shock. Then, a sudden, stunning blow to the neck... I could not see who delivered the blow and with what object. Someone said: ‘What now? The crow-bar?’ G[.] says: ‘Well, but do not stain my table’. And he took all the magazines off the table. One of them, who squinted a bit, took out a tool that looked like a tyre lever. I do not know how they wanted to torture me. G[.] says: ‘No, let’s try a gas mask first’. They put a gas mask on me... I could not breathe in or out, I felt faint and my head shook...” (emphasis added, see below).\n8.  The article further continued to relate Mr S.’s story as told by him. After a while Mr S. had signalled his readiness to confess. He had been taken to the office next door, where a young man in civilian clothes had written down his statements. Thereafter, Mr S. had been locked in the basement cell of the police station.\nSwitching back to author’s speech, the applicant introduced Mr M., a friend of Mr S., who had gone to the police station to confirm Mr S.’s alibi. With the words “Let us give [M.] the floor”, the story continued as narrated by Mr M.:\n“At the Leninskiy District police station they took me into office no. 18 on the second floor. The interview was conducted by the investigator G[.], a tall athletic man with red hair.\n– Where is the snatch?\n– What snatch?\n– ...Your friends have already confessed. You are the ‘weak link’. You are an ‘MDP’ – a morally degraded person...\nHe began beating me. Every word was followed by a blow...\n– Where is the loot? You will tell me! I am a paratrooper. I used to crush people like you and I will do the same to you! Ever heard about disappearances? You will be one of them if you do not give back the loot!\n...I heard that if the police accidentally break the leg or arm [of a detainee], operational officers have to finish the victim off and secretly bury him so as to hide the traces of torture...\nG[.] says: ‘Stop talking like a parrot. Counsel, counsel", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3837", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Sofia.\n6.  On 19 November 1998 a criminal investigation was opened against the applicant on allegations of wilfully inflicting intermediate bodily harm on a former colleague of his at a construction site. On 15 February 1999 he was charged and ordered to pay bail. On 18 February 1999 he appealed to the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office, asking for a reduction of the bail. On an unspecified date that office granted the request, but its decision was not notified to the applicant. As he was unaware of it, he did not pay the bail. Accordingly, on 21 April 1999 an order was made for him to be placed in pre‑trial detention. He was not notified of that order either.\n7.  At about 2.40 p.m. on 28 May 1999, following a visit by a police officer to his home earlier that day, the applicant appeared at the first district police department in Sofia. At about 5.30 p.m. he was formally taken into custody. Several days later the applicant’s lawyer lodged a request for his release with the Sofia District Court. On 8 June 1999 that court made an order to that effect and the applicant was set free on 10 June 1999.\n8.  According to the applicant’s allegations, some time after being taken into custody the applicant was taken to a room on the fourth floor of the police department, where he saw a uniformed and a plain clothes police officer. Shortly after that the investigator in charge of his case, Ms T., came in and asked him to sign certain papers relating to his pre‑trial detention and the criminal charges against him. The applicant refused, whereupon she started shouting at him. The applicant still refused to sign, as in the papers it was stated that he did not wish to give evidence, which was not the case. He said that the offence alleged against him was not an arrestable one. After a verbal exchange the uniformed police officer started kicking the applicant on the left tibia and beneath the right knee. The plain clothes officer punched him in the face and the chest and slapped him on the face. In the same time Ms T. insisted that the applicant sign the papers presented to him, which he eventually did.\n9.  After that another uniformed police officer entered the room and, together with the one already present, took the applicant out. They cuffed both of his hands to a pipe running at head level along the corridor. He spent about two hours in this position.\n10.  At about 7.30 p.m. the applicant was taken to the cell block, situated on the top floor of the police department. He was put in a cell with three other detainees, Mr G.M., Mr T.T. and Mr E.\n11.  On the morning of the following day, 29 May 1999, the applicant requested to contact his mother or a lawyer, or to be interviewed by the investigator. However, nothing ensued. As the applicant was persisting in his requests, on 30 May 1999 the guards apparently became annoyed with him.\n12.  According to the applicant’s allegations, on the evening of 30 May 1999 he was let out of his cell together with Mr G.M. to go to the toilet. On the way back, in the corridor, he waited for Mr G.M. to move away from him and closer to the cell, and broke the glass of one of the corridor’s windows. Hearing the noise, Mr G.M. turned to see what was happening. The applicant made him a sign to move away, and Mr G.M. went back to the cell. Then the applicant took a piece of broken glass and cut himself on the forearms, allegedly in protest against the way in which he was being t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3838", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1938 in Paphos and lives in Limassol, Cyprus.\n7.  The applicant was, at the material time, a senior officer in the Cypriot Police Force in which he served until retirement, with an interruption of one year and nine months under the conditions set out below.\n8.  On an unspecified date in 1992, criminal proceedings were initiated against two of his subordinate police officers in relation to the alleged ill-treatment and torture of suspects. The prosecuting authorities failed to prove a prima facie case against them, and the officers were accordingly acquitted on 23 July 1993. The court considered that the testimony of the principal prosecution witnesses - the victim and one of his relatives who had been arrested with him- “had been so obviously unreliable that no reasonable court could rely on it and convict the accused”. It also considered that the prosecution had committed a series of improprieties which had tainted the evidence to such an extent that the case against the accused should be discontinued in the interests of the proper administration of justice.\n9.  Subsequently, on 3 September 1993, the Ministerial Council appointed an Independent Investigating Commission (IIC) to examine this matter further. The Commission’s findings were delivered on 3 November 1995. It found that certain police officers, including the afore-mentioned, had engaged in torture practices against certain suspects in order to obtain confessions. On the basis of the Commission’s findings, on 7 March 1996, the Ministerial Council terminated the employment of the two police officers as well as that of the applicant for the protection of public interest. The applicant was dismissed for the negligent exercise of his duties, since it was found that certain police officers under his control had engaged in such practices. Five other junior officers who were also found to have been involved in acts of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners were not dismissed. The applicant’s dismissal was widely reported in the national press.\n10.  The applicant challenged the legality of the said decision before the Supreme Court exercising its administrative judicial review jurisdiction.\n11.  The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in a plenary session on 26 November 1997. It unanimously annulled the decision of the Ministerial Council which was found to have violated the applicant’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent. It further found that he had effectively been dismissed without trial or disciplinary proceedings and, as such, he was deprived of any opportunity to defend himself. Moreover, the decision of the Ministerial Council was found to be ultra vires.\n12.  On 28 November 1997, the applicant requested the reinstatement to his former post. On 5 December 1997 he returned to duty.\n13.  Subsequently, the applicant brought an action under Article 146.6 of the Constitution before the District Court of Nicosia requesting fair and equitable compensation.\n14.  Judgment was delivered on 30 April 2000 by the District Court which refused the applicant’s request for exemplary damages. Concerning his request for payment of the difference in his monthly salary, corresponding to the period in which his service had been interrupted, the court observed that he had received a higher amount upon his dismissal than the requested difference in salaries. This amount had been held by him throughout the period following his return to duty and until his retire", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3839", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1940 and 1946 respectively and live in Limassol, Cyprus.\n7.  The applicants were, at the material time, senior officers in the Cypriot Police Force in which they served until retirement. They both served continuously with an interruption of one year and nine months under the conditions set out below.\n8.  On an unspecified date in 1992, criminal proceedings were initiated against them in relation to their alleged involvement in the ill-treatment and torture of suspects. The prosecuting authorities failed to prove a prima facie case against them and they were acquitted on 23 July 1993. The court considered that the testimony of the principal prosecution witnesses - the victim and one of his relatives who had been arrested with him- “had been so obviously unreliable that no reasonable court could rely on it and convict the accused”. It also considered that the prosecution had committed a series of improprieties which had tainted the evidence to such an extent that the case against the applicants should be discontinued in the interests of the proper administration of justice.\n9.  Subsequently, on 3 September 1993, the Ministerial Council appointed an Independent Investigating Commission (IIC) to examine this matter further. The Commission's findings were delivered on 3 November 1995. It found that the applicants, together with nine other police officers, had engaged in torture practices against certain suspects in order to obtain confessions. On the basis of the Commission's findings, on 7 March 1996, the Ministerial Council terminated the applicants' employment with the Police Force for the protection of public interest. One other police officer was also dismissed by virtue of the same decision, while five junior officers who were also found to have been involved in acts of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners were not dismissed. The applicants' dismissal was widely reported in the national press.\n10.  The applicants challenged the legality of the said decision before the Supreme Court, exercising its administrative judicial review jurisdiction.\n11.  The Supreme Court delivered its judgment in a plenary session on 26 November 1997. It unanimously annulled the decision of the Ministerial Council which was found to have violated the constitutional rights of the applicants. In particular, it found that their right not to be tried twice for the same offence had been breached and that their right to be presumed innocent, especially in the light of their acquittal, had been prejudiced. It further found that the applicants had effectively been dismissed without trial or disciplinary proceedings and, as such, they had been deprived of any opportunity to defend themselves. Moreover, the decision of the Ministerial Council was found to be ultra vires.\n12.  On 28 November 1997, the applicants requested reinstatement to their former posts. On 5 December 1997 they returned to duty.\n13.  Subsequently, the applicants brought an action under Article 146.6 of the Constitution before the District Court of Nicosia requesting fair and equitable compensation.\n14.  Judgment was delivered on 30 April 2000 by the District Court, which refused the applicants' request for exemplary damages. Concerning their request for payment of the difference in their monthly salaries, corresponding to the period in which their service had been interrupted, the court observed that the applicants had received a higher amount upon their dismissal t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3840", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1931, 1961, 1964, 1928 and 1927 respectively and live in Banjol, Croatia.\n5.  In 1963 the Communist authorities nationalised a plot of land on the island of Rab, owned by the fourth and fifth applicants and a certain J.Š., who was the first applicant’s husband and the second and the third applicants’ father. In 1964, a restaurant was built on the site. It appears that the land, which had been transferred into social ownership, was subsequently given to the company I. for its use.\n6.  During the process of privatisation of the company I. the land was included as part of its share capital. However, a number of shares were reserved to serve as compensation for former owners of nationalised property which formed part of the company’s share capital. On 20 June 1994 the Croatian Privatisation Fund (Hrvatski fond za privatizaciju) gave its consent to the privatisation of the company, which on the basis of that decision subsequently became the owner of the land in question.\n7.  On 11 October 1996 the Croatian Parliament passed the Act on Compensation for, and Restitution of, Property Taken under the Yugoslav Communist Regime (Zakon o naknadi za imovinu oduzetu za vrijeme jugoslavenske komunističke vladavine, Official Gazette nos. 92/96, 92/99 (corrigendum), 80/02 (amendments) and 81/02 (corrigendum) – “the Denationalisation Act”) which enabled former owners of nationalised or confiscated property, or their heirs in the first line of succession to seek either restitution of or compensation for the property taken. The Act entered into force on 1 January 1997.\n8.  On 16 June 1997 the applicants, relying on the Denationalisation Act, instituted administrative proceedings before the regional office of the state administration in Rab, as the competent first-instance administrative authority. Initially they asked to be awarded shares in the company I. as compensation for the above plot of land. It would appear that they subsequently sought restitution in kind.\n9.  On 24 March 2003 the Rab regional office issued an interim decision granting the applicants state bonds in compensation for the property taken. The exact amount of compensation was to be determined after the enactment of the relevant subordinate legislation. On 22 December 2003 the Ministry of Finance adopted the Ordinance on the Criteria for the Determination of Compensation for Construction Land and Business Premises Taken under the Yugoslav Communist Regime (Pravilnik o mjerilima za utvrđivanje naknade za oduzeto građevinsko zemljište i poslovni prostor, Official Gazette no. 204/03, 03/04 – “the Ordinance”), which entered into force on 1 April 2004.\n10.  On 18 April 2003 the applicants appealed to the Ministry of Justice against the first-instance decision asserting in the main that they were seeking the restitution of the plot of land in question rather than compensation for it.\n11.  As a result of the fact that the Ministry of Justice did not render a decision on their appeal within the statutory time-limit of sixty days, on 24 September 2003 the applicants brought an action for failure to respond (tužba zbog šutnje administracije, see paragraph 31 below) in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske).\n12.  On 23 June 2004 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act. They complained about the length of the above administrative proceedings and requested the Constitutional Court (Ustavni su", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3841", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Chatou.\n6.  The applicant is the sister of Joselito Renolde, who was born on 17 August 1964 and died on 20 July 2000 after hanging himself in a cell in Bois-d’Arcy Prison, where he was in pre-trial detention. They are members of a family of Travellers.\n7.  Joselito Renolde was separated from his former partner, with whom he had two children.\n8.  On 12 April 2000 he was placed under investigation by the investigating judge at the Meaux tribunal de grande instance for the armed assault on 8 April 2000 of his former partner and their thirteen-year-old daughter, occasioning total unfitness for work for more than eight days, and also for criminal damage and theft.\n9.  On the same day Joselito Renolde was placed in pre-trial detention in Meaux Prison. A medical and psychological report ordered by the investigating judge, submitted on 19 July 2000, found that he had retardations and deficits in the cognitive sphere; that, having a neurotic structure, he possessed immature and infantile defence mechanisms and several paranoid traits; and that, as he was incapable of mentalising, all his violence was expressed on a physical level.\n10.  On 30 June 2000 he was transferred to Bois-d’Arcy Prison to be closer to his family. His personal file described him as a normal person and mentioned sedative treatment.\n11.  On 2 July 2000 Joselito Renolde attempted to commit suicide by cutting his arm with a razor and was treated at the infirmary. The warder on duty found him to be somewhat “disturbed” and called in the Rapid Crisis Intervention Team (Équipe Rapide Intervention de Crise – “ERIC”) from the psychiatric unit at Charcot Hospital after Joselito Renolde had claimed to be hearing voices. The duty officer also observed three other cuts on his forearm and noted in the file that he had forced his way out of his cell.\n12.  The emergency report drawn up by the ERIC team stated:\n“Patient who made an SA [suicide attempt] by cutting his forearm with a razor. This act took place in the context of a hallucinatory delusional state observed since yesterday by the prison duty staff. On being interviewed, the patient displays incoherent, dissociative speech, a listening attitude, mentions verbal hallucinations, [illegible], persecutory delusional statements ... The patient mentions his psychiatric history, says that he has already been admitted to hospital and has already taken Tercian ... Conclusion: acute delirious episode.”\n13.  The ERIC team accordingly prescribed antipsychotic neuroleptic treatment, later adding an anxiolytic. The infirmary staff supplied the medicine to Joselito Renolde twice a week from 2 July 2000, without checking that he actually took it.\n14.  From 3 July 2000 onwards, Joselito Renolde was treated by the Regional Medical and Psychological Service (service medico-psychologique regional – “the SMPR”) and placed in a cell on his own under special supervision, which took the form of more frequent patrols. He was seen by the SMPR on 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 18, 19 and 20 July 2000.\n15.  On 4 July 2000 a trainee warder reprimanded him for throwing a piece of bread out of the window. Joselito Renolde threatened her with a fork, saying:\n“I’ll see you outside and we’ll see who has the power.”\nHe then threw a stool in her face. The warder was certified unfit for work for five days.\n16.  During the inquiry into that incident, Joselito Renolde made incoherent statements and denied what had happened. The in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3842", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Dolgoprudnyy, a town in the Moscow region.\n5.  On 7 April 2000 the Head of Dolgoprudnyy Town Administration, K., held a meeting with heads of departments where he stated that the applicant was planning the murder of his (K.’s) son-in-law and had hired a killer for this purpose. That statement was not included in the minutes of the meeting.\n6.  On 14 April 2000 a local newspaper published an article under the title “The hirer of a killer lives peacefully in Dolgoprudnyy and is going to become a minister”. The article contained, inter alia, the same statement as disseminated by K. at the meeting.\n7.  On 25 April 2000 the applicant brought a libel action against K., editors and founders of the newspaper and an author of the article.\n8.  On 28 January 2003 Dolgoprudnenskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region (“the Town Court”) granted his claim in part. The court ordered the newspaper to publish a retraction of the statement made in the article. The court also ordered the founders of the newspaper to pay the applicant 30,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs in the amount of RUB 7,650, instead of the RUB 108,000 claimed by the applicant. The court dismissed the claim against K. It found that on 24 December 1999 a certain L. had stated to the Department of Federal Security that he had been hired by the applicant to kill K.’s son-in-law. Since the competent authorities did not take any measures in this connection, K. had good reasons to take them on his own. The court was satisfied that his statement at the meeting with the heads of departments was merely aimed at securing the safety of his family and that he had no intention of offending the applicant. Furthermore, the statement had not been reflected in the minutes of the meeting and was not otherwise made public.\n9.  Both parties appealed against the judgment to the Moscow Regional Court (“the Regional Court”).\n10.  On 28 May 2003 the President of the Town Court sent the case file to the Regional Court. The accompanying letter stated that the appeal hearing was scheduled for 10 a.m. on 18 June 2003. The applicant and his representative were included in the list of addressees. The applicant’s address was indicated correctly. However, according to the applicant, he did not receive that letter or any other notification of the appeal hearing.\n11.  In October 2003 the applicant called the Registry of the Moscow Regional Court in order to inquire about the date of the appeal hearing. He was informed that the hearing had already taken place.\n12.  Later, the applicant received a copy of the appeal decision of the Regional Court, which was dated 16 June 2003. By that decision the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 28 January 2003. It followed from the decision that the Regional Court had not verified whether the applicant had been duly summonsed to the hearing.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3843", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Aykhal, a town in Yakutia.\n5.  In 1990 the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme for buying a car. The State failed to provide the car, and the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance.\n6.  On 19 August 2003 the Mirninskiy District Court awarded the applicant 138,967 Russian roubles (RUB). This judgment became binding on 6 October 2003, but was not enforced immediately.\n7.  On 23 October 2003 the District Court mailed enforcement papers to bailiffs. On 27 November 2003 the bailiffs returned the papers because of formal defects and advised the District Court that the judgment had to be enforced by the Ministry directly. On 15 June 2004 the enforcement papers reached the Ministry.\n8.  On the Ministry’s request, on 4 March 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Yakutia quashed the judgment on supervisory review, having found that the District Court had ignored a key material law.\n9.  On 4 February 2006 the Ministry paid to the applicant RUB 40,648.27 under the State program of redemption of in-kind debentures.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3844", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  By a judgment of 12 October 1998 the Shymkent Town Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan convicted the applicant of storing and transporting drugs and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The applicant started serving his sentence in Kazakhstan.\n8.  On 24 January 2000 the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation granted the applicant’s request to be transferred to Russia, his country of citizenship and his mother’s place of residence, to serve the rest of his sentence.\n9.  On 3 February 2000 the applicant’s request to be transferred to Russia was granted by the Kazakhstan Prosecutor General’s Office.\n10.  On 29 February 2000, following an agreement between the Russian and Kazakh authorities, the applicant was transferred to Russia.\n11.  Following the applicant’s request for supervisory review of his case, the Presidium of the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy Regional Court, in its decision of 16 March 2000, varied the judgment of 12 October 1998 by reclassifying the offence and reducing the sentence. In the same decision the court applied the 1999 Amnesty Act, discharged the applicant from serving the remainder of his sentence and ordered as follows:\n“The convicted prisoner Lobanov is to be released from custody forthwith.”\n12.  Next day the Regional Court sent a copy of its decision to the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy regional prosecutor’s office, which received it on the same day and, since no information about the place where the applicant was serving his sentence had yet been received from the Russian authorities, launched an inquiry about his location.\n13.  On 29 March 2000 the applicant arrived at correctional facility no. 8 (penitentiary establishment YaK‑7/8) in Penza.\n14.  According to the applicant, on 18 April 2000, immediately after he had learned of the court decision of 16 March 2000, he notified it to the administration of his correctional facility and requested them to expedite his release.\n15.  On 10 May 2000, after having established the applicant’s location, the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy regional prosecutor’s office sent a copy of the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy Regional Court’s decision of 16 March 2000 to Russia. According to the Government, the decision was sent to the Information Centre of the Penza Regional Police Department. According to the applicant, it was sent to Penza correctional facility no. 8.\n16.  According to the Government, a copy of the Yuzhno‑Kazakhstanskiy Regional Court’s decision of 16 March 2000 was received by the Information Centre of the Penza Regional Police Department on 18 May 2000.\n17.  On 23 May 2000 the Information Centre, which was located in Penza, after having established the applicant’s location, forwarded the decision to Penza correctional facility no. 8, which received it on 26 May 2000 and forwarded it on the same day to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation.\n18.  The Prosecutor General’s Office received the decision on 7 June 2000. On 13 June 2000 a deputy Prosecutor General ordered that the applicant be discharged from serving the remainder of his sentence. The next day, the prosecutor’s decision was sent to the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for execution. On 6 July 2000 it was received by the Ministry of Justice’s Penza Region Department for Execution of Sentences.\n19.  On 10 July 2000 the prosecutor’s decision reached correctional facility no. 8 and the applicant was released on the same day.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3845", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Turkey.\n5.  On 6 November 1992 the applicant was taken into custody within the context of a police operation carried out against an illegal organisation, namely the TKP/ML – TIKKO (the Turkish Communist Party-Marxist Leninist - Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army). On 17 November 1992 the applicant was placed in detention on remand.\n6.  By an indictment dated 10 February 1993 the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant before the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing him, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of involvement in activities which aimed at undermining the constitutional order of the State. The prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n7.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge.\n8.  On 12 June 2000 the applicant was convicted as charged by the Istanbul State Security Court and sentenced to death.\n9.  On 15 May 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant’s conviction for procedural reasons. The case was remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court for further examination.\n10.  On 18 July 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.\n11.  On 7 May 2004 State Security Courts were abolished following a constitutional amendment and the applicant’s case was transmitted to the Istanbul Assize Court.\n12.  On 31 January 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment, pursuant to Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n13.  On 20 March 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the Istanbul Assize Court’s judgment for having erred in its assessment of the facts. The case was remitted to the Istanbul Assize Court for re-trial.\n14.  Between 12 May 2006 and 30 May 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court held six hearings and dealt with procedural issues, such as the delivery of arrest warrants, the appointment of advocates for some of the accused and the extension of time-limits for defence submissions, etc.\n15.  On 21 May 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court delivered its judgment in respect of the applicant and thirteen other co-accused who stood trial for actively participating in the illegal activities of the TKP/ML – TIKKO with a view to undermining the constitutional order of the State. Having established that the applicant had been involved in armed attacks, the killing of several individuals and robberies, the court found the applicant guilty of the alleged offence and sentenced him to life imprisonment, pursuant to Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The applicant appealed.\n16.  The proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3846", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. The applicant, Mr Gerard Helwig, is a Polish national who was born in 1936 and lives in Poznań, Poland.\n5.  In 1940 the applicant’s father, S.H, died.\n6.  On 27 February 1951 S.H’s manufacturing works, Fr. Helwig Repair Works (przedsiębiorstwo “Warszaty Reparacyjne Fr. Helwig”), was placed under state administration. On 30 June 1958 the property was expropriated.\n7.  On 24 February 1992 the Kościan District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision and declared that the applicant and his siblings should inherit S.H.’s property.\n8.  In 1988 the applicant’s brother lodged a request for annulment of the 1951 and 1958 decisions.\n9.  On March 1995 the Ministry of Industry and Commerce (Minister Przemysłu i Handlu) gave a decision and declared the decision of 1951 null and void. The Minister stressed that there had not been any valid legal grounds to place the manufacturing works under state administration.\n10.  On 9 May 1995 the Ministry of Industry and Commerce transferred the case to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Economy (Minister Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywonościowej).\n11.  On 8 October 1997 the Ministry of Agriculture asked the Leszno Governor’s Office (Urząd Wojewódzki w Lesznie) to obtain evidence in the applicant’s case. On 6 February 1998 the Ministry asked the Governor’s office to supplement the documentary evidence that they had meanwhile submitted.\n12.  On 6 November 1998 the Ministry of Agriculture refused to institute proceedings relating to the annulment of the decision of 30 June 1958. The Ministry held that S.H.’s heirs had failed to submit documents confirming their title to the property in question. The applicant appealed against this decision.\n13.  On 21 May 1999 the Ombudsman upon the applicant’s complaint asked the Ministry of Agriculture to proceed with the appeal.\n14.  On 16 June 1999 the Ministry of Agriculture issued a decision and upheld the decision of 6 November 1998.\n15.  On 14 July 1999 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny).\n16.  On 28 November 2000 the applicant complained to the Ombudsman about the unreasonable delay before the Supreme Administrative Court. He submitted that for many years he had been waiting for justice to be done, however to no avail.\n17.  On 4 December 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court gave judgment and quashed the Ministry’s decisions of 6 November 1998 and 16 June 1999.\n18.  On 6 March 2002 the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi) discontinued the administrative proceedings. It considered that the applicant’s father had not had a title to the property in question. The applicant complained about that decision.\n19.  He also sent letters to various institutions (the President of Poland, the Ombudsman, etc.) complaining about the length of the administrative proceedings.\n20.  On 19 December 2002 the Ministry of Agriculture informed the applicant that his appeal against the decision of 6 March 2002 had been lodged outside the prescribed time-limit and accordingly should be rejected.\n21.  On 8 January 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Justice (Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości) alleging unfairness of the proceedings and complaining about their length.\n22.  On 16 May 2003 in reply to the applicant’s complaints, the Poznań Regional Prosecutor stressed that the decisions of the Ministry of Agriculture had been issued in breach of law. It further conf", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3847", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1973, 1977, 1975 and 1975 respectively. The first applicant lives in Antakya and the third applicant lives in Adana. The second and fourth applicants were in Kandıra Prison at the time of making their applications.\n6.  On various dates the applicants were arrested and subsequently placed in pre-trial detention in Ümraniye Prison in Istanbul, with the exception of the first applicant Süleyman Gülbahar, who was placed in Gebze prison.\n7.  On 19 December 2000 a security operation was conducted at the Ümraniye Prison and a number of other prisons, including Gebze Prison, where the first applicant was being detained. During the operation scores of detainees were killed and hundreds injured. After the operation a decision was made to transfer the detainees to other prisons.\n8.  According to an indictment prepared on 29 March 2004, a prosecutor in the Üsküdar district of Istanbul asked the Üsküdar Assize Court to prosecute a total of 267 members of the security forces for ill-treating and killing a number of prisoners during the operations carried out in the prisons between 19 and 22 December 2000. The names of the second, third and fourth applicants are listed as having been ill-treated among the 408 victims.\n9.  The first applicant, who was on his 235th day of hunger strike in protest against the attacks on the detainees during the operations of 19 December 2000, was transferred from Gebze Prison to Kandıra F-type Prison on 27 July 2001.\n10.  On arrival at Kandıra Prison he was kept waiting in the prisoner-transport van for a number of hours before he was taken into the prison where he was put in a room on his own.\n11.  While in that room the first applicant, who refused to take off his clothes, was stripped naked by soldiers, who were wearing gloves, and subjected to an internal body search. During the search he was punched by the soldiers. He was then told to put his clothes back on.\n12.  He was then stripped by prison guards down to his pants and had to move from one office to another in that condition to complete his prison registration process. He was then dragged into his cell.\n13.  The same day the first applicant informed a doctor about his ordeal but the doctor did not examine him because of the applicant’s hunger strike. The doctor then gave his reason for not examining the applicant, saying that the applicant “would die of his own accord anyway so there was no point in getting someone else into trouble”. According to a report drawn up by that doctor the same day, “[the applicant] was on his 230th day of hunger strike and a physical examination did not reveal any findings”.\n14.  On 15 August 2001 the first applicant, with the assistance of his lawyer, submitted a formal complaint to the prosecutor’s office, informed the prosecutor of the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected and asked the prosecutor to identify and prosecute those responsible. He and his lawyer also asked, unsuccessfully, for him to be referred to the Forensic Medicine Institute for a detailed medical examination.\n15.  The first applicant was released from the prison on 9 October 2001.\n16.  On 26 April 2002 the Kandıra prosecutor decided not to prosecute anyone in relation to the allegations of ill-treatment made by the first applicant and 42 other detainees. In his decision the prosecutor referred to a decision not to prosecute that had been given on 16 July 2001, in which similar complaints had already been examined and foun", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3848", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Libertów.\n5.  On 18 November 1993 the applicant divorced.\n6.  On 17 June 1994 she lodged with the Kraków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a claim for division of matrimonial property consisting of a family house in Jankówka and a right to a flat in a housing-co-operative in Kraków.\n7.  Between 8 November 1994 and 2 August 2000, the Kraków District Court scheduled forty-five hearings, nine of which were adjourned and one expert report was obtained.\n8.  On 13 December 2000 the court issued an interim order (zarządzenie tymczasowe) securing the applicant’s claim. On 19 December 2000 the defendant appealed against the making of the order. On 19 July 2001 the court amended its order.\n9.  At a hearing held on 16 November 2001 the Kraków District Court gave a preliminary decision (postanowienie wstępne) on the parties’ respective shares in the matrimonial property.\n10.  The applicant and the defendant appealed on 4 February and 12 March 2002, respectively.\n11.  On 24 January 2003 the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) amended the preliminary decision and dismissed the defendant’s appeal. His cassation appeal was rejected on 22 April 2003 on procedural grounds.\n12.  On 15 March 2004 the court ordered that an expert report be obtained. The report was submitted on 30 July 2004.\n13.  On 11 October 2005 the court held a hearing.\n14.  On 7 February 2006 the court ordered that the third expert report be obtained.\n15.  At a hearing held on 29 December 2006 the applicant’s lawyer made a friendly-settlement proposal. The court stayed the proceedings.\n16.  On 20 July 2007 the District Court resumed the proceedings and delivered a partial decision (postanowienie częściowe) in the case, concerning the composition of the matrimonial property. The defendant appealed against this decision. On 7 April 2008 the Kraków Regional Court rejected the defendant’s appeal.\n17.  The proceedings are still pending.\n18.  On 23 November 2004 the applicant lodged with the Kraków Regional Court a complaint under section 5 of the Law on 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n19.  She sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Kraków District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).\n20.  On 13 January 2005 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed her complaintin the part alleging., to the Supreme Court. The court observed that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy but it was the applicant’s husband who had been responsible for the delay in examination of the case. The court categorically stated that the Kraków District Court was not responsible for the protracted length of the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3849", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Warszawa.\n5.  The applicant’s testators owned a piece of real property in Warsaw. By virtue of the 1945 Decree on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw (Dekret o własności i użytkowaniu gruntów na obszarze m. st. Warszawy) all land in Warsaw was nationalised. The applicant’s testators filed an application for the grant of a right of perpetual use of the real property. On 6 July 1972 the Board of the Warsaw National Council (Prezydium Rady Narodowej) refused the application. On 12 February 1973 the competent Minister upheld that decision. Simultaneously, the applicant’s testators lodged a claim for compensation. On 22 November 1972 the Board of the Warsaw National Council dismissed the claim as according to the 1957 Law on exclusion of detached houses and apartments in housing cooperatives’ buildings from public management (Ustawa o wyłączeniu spod publicznej gospodarki lokalami domów jednorodzinnych oraz lokali w domach spółdzielni mieszkaniowych), the real property in question was not a detached house. Consequently, the 1965 Cabinet Resolution allowing for nationalised detached houses to be compensated was not applicable. The applicant’s testators appealed unsuccessfully against this decision.\n6.  On 24 February 1997 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings against the State Treasury for compensation for nationalised family real property.\n7.  It appears that on several occasions between 1997 and 2000 the applicant lodged complaints, alleging inactivity on the part of the first‑instance authority.\n8.  On 25 February 2000 the Mayor of Warsaw District informed the applicant that the administrative proceedings were in their final stage and in the near future a decision would be issued ordering valuation of the real property. Consequently, the assessment of the amount of compensation would then be possible.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint about inactivity on the part of the Mayor of the Warsaw District with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n10.  On 17 November 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court admitted that the proceedings in question had been lengthy and ordered the Mayor to deal with the case within two months of the judgment being served on the parties. The court stated that the relevant organ had not only failed to issue any decision as to the merits during the proceedings in question but had also failed to justify its delay.\n11.  On 9 February 2001 the Warszawa District Governor discontinued the relevant proceedings. He stated that the legal regime governing compensation for the expropriation of detached houses had not changed since 1957. Therefore, if a valid decision had been taken in 1972, a re‑examination of the case between the same parties and about the same claim was inadmissible. The applicant appealed against this decision.\n12.  On 18 March 2002 the Mazowiecki Governor dismissed the applicant’s appeal concluding in line with the contested District Governor’s decision.\n13.  On 27 November 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.\n14.  On 21 December 2004 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in order to have a plot of land on which the real property was situated restored to her.\n15.  It results from the case file that the relevant proceedings are still pending before the Minister of Infrastructure.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3850", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Timişoara.\n5.  In 1960, the plots of land situated in Cluj-Napoca, E. Murgu Street nos. 15-21 and 40, which were the property of the applicant’s father, were seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation.\n6.  On 8 September 1998 the Cluj Court of Appeal, by a final decision, allowed an action by the applicant, annulled the seizure as being unlawful and ordered restitutio in integrum.\n7.  Although there had been judicial recognition of his property rights, the applicant was not able to recover possession of some of these plots of land because on 14 March 1996 the authorities had issued ownership titles to third parties under Law no. 18/1991. These titles concerned the plots of land situated on E. Murgu Street nos. 17, 19 and 21 and registered in the Land Register under nos. 13956/9/2, 13958/4/2, 13956/10/2, 13958/5/2, 13956/11/3, 13958/6/3, 13957/9/3, 13956/11/2, 13958/6/2 and 12957/9/2, with a total surface of 1,088 sq. m.\n8.  On 17 May 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the third parties for the Land Register to be rectified. On 3 July 2003 the Cluj Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed the action. The court noted that the final decision of 8 September 1998 had certified the applicant’s right of property, but refused to annul the land titles of the third parties on the grounds that the applicant had neither registered that action in the Land Register nor lodged an action under Laws nos. 18/1991 and 169/1997 to annul these titles.\n9.  On 12 November 2001 the applicant claimed restitution in kind of the land under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. So far he has not received any response.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3851", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Muğla.\n6.  The applicant is a member of the Haber-Sen, a trade union formed by public employees. He is also a member of the Confederation of Public Employees’ Trade Unions (Kamu Emekçileri Konfederasyonu – “KESK”).\n7.  On 29 October 1997 the applicant was arrested in Muğla and taken to the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Muğla Security Directorate on charges of having insulted a police officer. He had allegedly attempted to resist arrest. During his detention in police custody, the applicant was allegedly beaten up, slapped and threatened with death by the police officers.\n8.  On the same day, the applicant was taken to the Emergency Service of Muğla State Hospital, where he was examined by a doctor. In his report, the doctor indicated the presence of hyperaemia on the applicant’s cheeks and another red mark measuring 10 cm x 10 cm on his back. The doctor concluded that the injuries in question (hyperaemia) would heal in three days and would not render the applicant unfit for work.\n9.  On 30 October 1997 the applicant was brought before the Muğla Public Prosecutor and the Muğla Magistrates’ Court respectively, where he complained that he had been beaten up and threatened with death during his detention in police custody. He was subsequently placed in pre-trial detention.\n10.  On 11 November 1997 the applicant underwent a new medical examination at Muğla State Hospital by a surgeon, who stated in her report that there were healing wounds and haematoma caused by a blunt object on the applicant’s shoulder blades.\n11.  On 12 November 1997 another doctor at the Muğla State Hospital examined the applicant and stated in his medical report that there was no sign of physical violence on his body.\n12.  On 25 November 1997 the applicant filed a complaint against the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated and insulted him.\n13.  According to a photo identification report dated 12 January 1998, the applicant was shown photos of forty-five police officers from the Anti‑Terrorism Branch of the Muğla Security Directorate and identified the six police officers who had ill-treated and threatened him.\n14.  Between 14 and 19 January 1998 senior police officers, who had been appointed as investigators, took statements from the six police officers who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant. The police officers all denied the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. They claimed that the applicant had made slanderous allegations in an attempt to waste their time and to demean the police force. The applicant also made statements to the senior police officers and claimed that he had been slapped, insulted and threatened with death by six police officers.\n15.  On 2 March 1998 the Muğla Chief Public Prosecutor delivered a decision of non-prosecution in respect of the applicant’s allegations that he had been insulted and threatened while in police custody. On the same day, the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Muğla Criminal Court against six police officers, accusing them of ill-treatment under Article 245 of the Criminal Code.\n16.  On 10 March 1999, the Muğla Criminal Court decided to stay the proceedings against the accused police officers and transferred the case file to the Muğla Provincial Administrative Council to obtain authorisation to bring criminal proceedings against the officers pursuant to the provisions of the Law on the prosecution of civil servants.\n17.  On 10 February 2000 the Muğl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3852", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Szczecin. He is currently detained in Goleniów Prison.\n6.  On 7 March 2000 the Szczecin – Zachód District Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Szczecin District Court. The applicant, a recidivist offender, was charged with three robberies and causing minor bodily harm. On 8 September 2000 the Szczecin District Court ordered that the case be transferred to the Regional Court and joined with the second set of proceedings (see below).\n7.  The applicant was arrested on 7 January 1998. On 8 January 1998 the Szczecin District Court ordered him to be placed in detention pending trial on suspicion of robbery, assault and intimidating a witness. His detention was subsequently extended by the District Court on 29 January, 31 March and 1 June 1998.\n8.  On 30 June 1998 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention until 7 October 1998. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. It further held that the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that the applicant would be given a heavy sentence justified the risk that he might obstruct the proceedings.\n9.  On 29 September 1998 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 7 January 1999.\n10.  On 6 January, 29 July and 13 December 1999 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) extended the applicant’s detention. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. It also had regard to the nature of the charges against the applicant and their number. Furthermore, it held that the applicant had refused to consent to an examination by psychiatrists, and had thus deliberately prolonged the investigation.\n11.  In October 1999 the applicant was transported to Łódź Prison Hospital for treatment, where he went on a hunger strike. On 17 December 1999 he was transported back to Potulice Prison Hospital. He persistently refused to undergo the relevant medical tests (except for 2 X-rays of his lungs).\n12.  On 7 March 2000 the Szczecin District Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Szczecin Regional Court. The applicant was charged with 26 different offences, including threatening to kill a witness, intimidating a witness, uttering threats, two counts of assault, extortion and a number of robberies. The applicant was the sole defendant. On the same date the prosecutor filed another bill of indictment with the Szczecin District Court. The applicant was charged with three robberies and causing minor bodily harm. Both sets of proceedings were joined on 8 September 2000.\n13.  On 17 March 2000 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 September 2000. It held that it was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings and to prevent the applicant from obstructing them. Furthermore, it found that the applicant, by deliberately refusing to cooperate with the prison health service, had aimed at compelling the court to release him. Thus, he had impeded the conduct of the investigation.\n14.  On 21 April 2000 the Regional Court informed the applicant, who was suspected of having contracted tuberculosis, that if he continued to refuse to undergo medical tests with a view to determining whether he could participate in the trial without posing an epidemiological danger to other persons, the court would conduct the trial in his absence.\n15.  On 2 June 2000 the Regional ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3853", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Kál, Hungary.\n5.  On an unspecified date in early 2001 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant. On completion of the investigation, a bill of indictment was preferred on 5 June 2001. The applicant and his accomplice were charged with forgery of official documents.\n6.  After having held five hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert, on 28 May 2003 the Hatvan District Court gave judgment.\n7.  On appeal, on 27 February 2004 the Heves County Regional Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings, the case was joined to another trial on 6 October 2004.\n9.  Following four hearings, on 29 September 2005 the applicant was acquitted. After the prosecution had withdrawn its appeal, this judgment gained binding force on 7 December 2005. The applicant was notified of this on 17 January 2006.\n10.  Between 25 June 2001 and 1 July 2003 the applicant was prevented from travelling abroad, under section 16(1a) of Act no. 12 of 1998, because criminal proceedings involving serious charges were pending against him. This prohibition ceased to exist because of a change in the legislation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3854", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are brothers, who were born in 1941, 1933 and 1937 respectively and live in Cluj-Napoca.\n5.  In 1950, a property situated in Cluj-Napoca, 15-17 Someşului Street, which was the property of the applicants’ parents, was seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation. The property was made up of ten apartments and appurtenant land.\n6.  On 31 January 2001 the Cluj Court of Appeal, by a final decision, allowed an action by the applicants, annulled the seizure as being unlawful and ordered restitutio in integrum.\n7.  Although they had judicial recognition of their property right, the applicants were not able to recover possession of Apartments 5 to 9 because the State had sold them in 1996-1997 to the then tenants under Păduraru v. Romania, no. 63252/00, § ..., ECHR 2005‑... (extracts) Law no. 112/1995.\n8.  On 12 July 2001 the applicants claimed restitution in kind of the property under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. So far they have not received any answer.\n9.  On 6 December 2002 the Cluj Court of Appeal, by a final decision, upheld in part an action by the applicants to declare the sale by the State of Apartments 5 to 9 null and void. The court declared the sale of Apartments 8 and 9 null and void, striking the third parties off the Land Register, on the ground that the sale was made after the entry into force of Government Decision no. 11/1997 prohibiting the sale by the State of property to which it had no lawful title. As for Apartments 5 and 6, it considered that the third parties had made the purchase in good faith.\n10.  On 16 December 2002 the applicants took possession of Apartments 1-4, 7 and 10 and of 1,490 sq. m of appurtenant land.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3855", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Mezőtúr.\n5.  In July 1988 the applicant had a road accident and suffered serious injuries resulting in permanent disability. On 7 January 1990 he brought an action in compensation before the Mezőtúr District Court against the company whose employee had caused the accident and an insurance company.\n6.  On 30 May 1995 the District Court, after having held five hearings and obtained the opinions of various experts, found for the applicant and awarded him 1,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 4,000 euros (EUR)) in compensation. On appeal, the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court changed the first-instance decision and dismissed the applicant’s action on 4 February 1997. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 16 November 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed his petition as time-barred, without an examination on the merits.\n7.  In May 1999 the applicant requested the reopening of the proceedings. In September 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request. On appeal, the Regional Court changed the first-instance decision and ordered the reopening of the case in December 1999.\n8.  In the reopened proceedings, the District Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision on 25 June 2002. The applicant appealed. The Regional Court reversed the District Court’s decision and found for the applicant. Concerning the amount of compensation, the Regional Court remitted the case to the first-instance court on 5 December 2002.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court on 30 July 2003 awarded the applicant HUF 450,000 (approximately 1,785 euros) in compensation. On appeal, on 11 November 2004 the Regional Court raised the amount to HUF 3,631,176 (approximately 14,408 euros) plus accrued interest and ordered the defendants to pay a monthly allowance of HUF 38,857 (approximately 154 euros) to the applicant. This decision was served on the applicant on 7 December 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3856", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Győr.\n5.  On 3 February 1995 company G. brought an action against the applicant, requesting the Győr District Court to hold, inter alia, that the termination of a lease contract was valid.\n6.  On 12 October 1995 the court adopted a partial decision holding that the termination was valid and requiring the applicant to vacate the real estate in question. On appeal, on 7 November 1996 the Győr-Moson-Sopron County Regional Court reversed that partial decision and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim concerning the validity of the termination.\n7.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, on 3 July 1997 the District Court ordered the applicant to pay 1.1 million Hungarian forints (HUF) in compensation and rejected his counterclaims. On appeal, on 21 January 1998 the Regional Court upheld the decision about the payment of HUF 1.1 million but quashed the remainder of the first-instance decision.\n8.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, the District Court held several hearings, obtained the opinion of an expert, and rejected the applicant’s counterclaims on 22 May 2001. On appeal, on 28 November 2001 the Regional Court quashed that decision.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, the case was transferred to the bench of the Regional Court competent to deal with it. That court held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert. On 6 April 2004 the applicant was awarded HUF 2.8 million plus accrued interest. On appeal, on 6 July 2004 the Budapest Court of Appeal reduced the award. This decision was served on 29 July 2004.\n10.  The applicant filed a petition for review, alleging that the final decision was unfounded and at variance with the relevant substantive law.\n11.  In a preliminary examination under section 273 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 5 November 2004 the Supreme Court refused to deal with the merits of the petition. It applied section 270 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force in the relevant period, according to which a review of the substantive unlawfulness of final decisions was only admissible if a review was considered necessary from the perspective of harmonising or developing the application of the law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3857", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Łódź.\n5.  On 19 September 1996 the applicant lodged an application for division of an inheritance and dissolution of co-ownership with the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The inheritance consisted of an apartment, money deposited on bank accounts and golden jewellery.\n6.  During the proceedings the hearings were scheduled approximately once a year. The hearings were often adjourned due to the judge’s illness or the parties’ lawyers’ failure to appear.\n7.  On 8 February 2000 the applicant lodged an application with the District Court for the case to be dealt with speedily as, on account of unpaid rent for the apartment, being a part of the inheritance, the estate had fallen into debt.\n8.  On 18 October 2006 the District Court ruled on the inheritance rights and awarded the applicant money and furniture. The applicant appealed.\n9.  On 16 April 2007 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) partially amended the District Court’s judgment and increased the sum awarded to the applicant. On 111 May 2007 the Regional Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the judgment.\nThe enforcement proceedings are pending.\n10.  On 27 April 2005 the applicant filed a complaint with the Łódź Regional Court under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n11.  The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Łódź District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 20,684.79 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 5,200 euros (EUR)).\n12.  On 20 June 2005 the Łódź Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Łódź District Court. It awarded the applicant PLN 3,000 (approximately EUR 750) in just satisfaction. The court referred to the overall length of the proceedings and to the complexity of the case.\n13.  The applicant appealed. On 20 July 2005 the Regional Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible in law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3858", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1966 and 1974 respectively and live in Istanbul.\n5.  The first applicant, Fevzi Saygılı, and the second applicant, Bülent Falakaoğlu, are, respectively, the owner and the editor of Yeni Evrensel, a newspaper published in Istanbul.\n6.  On 22 February 2001 Yeni Evrensel published an article entitled “Abductions are on the increase”. It read:\n“Yesterday Mr Büyükşahin, the deputy secretary-general of the HADEP (the People’s Democracy Party), drew attention to the illegal pressure and threats directed at the HADEP and stated that the authorities have still not provided an explanation as to the whereabouts of Serdar Tanış and Ebubekir Deniz[1], who have disappeared in Silopi. He went on to state that such threats and abductions had been carried out in Bingöl‑Karlıova and Şırnak-Cizre. Various people, identifying themselves as members of the security forces, had raided houses in Karlıova and detained Mustafa Boylu, Mehmet Özen, Remzi Genç and Selahattin Oge. Büyükşahin added that, subsequent to his detention, Selahattin Oge had been found lying in a coma next to a school. Following applications made to the prosecutors by the detainees’ relatives, the authorities had acknowledged these detentions. He further said that Mehmet Dilsiz, chairman of the HADEP’s Cizre branch, had been threatened, arrested and detained by the Gendarmerie Command on the basis of fake documents and without any evidence. Mr Büyükşahin stressed that the life of Mehmet Dilsiz, who had been threatened by the Şırnak Gendarme Brigade Colonel L.E, was in danger. Mr Büyükşahin speculated as to whether those who were currently threatening Mehmet Dilsiz were the same persons as those who had caused Tanış and Deniz to disappear. Alleging that the commander was threatening Mehmet Dilsiz, just as he had previously threatened Tanış, he asked what L.E.’s role had been in the disappearances of the HADEP’s Silopi members. Mr Büyükşahin condemned these incidents and called on the authorities to take up the victim’s cause and reveal the truth.”\n7.  On 7 March 2001 Yeni Evrensel published an article entitled “Cizre incidents contain clues for Silopi”. This article also concerned the issue of forced disappearances in south-east Turkey. However, this article did not explicitly mention Colonel L.E.\n8.  On 25 July 2001 the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court and charged the applicants and Mr Veli Büyükşahin with offences defined in Section 6 § 1 of the Anti‑Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713), namely disclosing the identities of public officials who are involved in the fight against terrorism and thus rendering such persons targets for terrorist organisations. According to the prosecutor, the articles had endangered the life of Colonel L.E. In addition, he called for the application of Additional section 2 of the Press Act (Law no. 5680).\n9.  In the course of the trial the applicants maintained that the content of the impugned articles remained within the limits of freedom of expression. They relied on the case-law of the Court of Cassation and the European Court of Human Rights.\n10.  On 9 April 2002, the Istanbul State Security Court delivered its judgment. It acquitted the applicants in respect of the charges concerning the second article and convicted them in respect of the charges regarding the first article. The court considered that the first article was written, under the guise of news, with the aim of prese", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3859", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and currently lives in New Portland, the United States.\n5.  In March 1996 a third person on the applicant’s behalf sold his car to another third person. The sale was carried out on the basis of a power of attorney issued by the applicant to the third person in 1993.\n6.  On 11 November 1996 the applicant asked the Syktyvkar Town Court to declare null and void the sale of his car claiming that it had been performed contrary to his will and on the basis of a revoked and thus invalid power of attorney.\n7.  On 14 May 1998 the Town Court held the first hearing of the case. It appears that the proceedings were adjourned at least on five occasions: on 18 September 1998, 12 July and 2 November 1999, on 27 June 2001 and on 26 August 2002, when on the latter date, the case was, according to the Government, adjourned as the judge was busy in unrelated proceedings.\n8.  On 30 January 2003 the Town Court examined and dismissed the applicant’s claim in absentia. The applicant received a copy of the reasoned version of the judgment on 12 February 2003 and introduced a notice of appeal. Since the applicant failed to pay the court fee and to make the relevant number of copies of his statement of appeal, the court twice refused to examine his appeal and set new time-limits for lodging it. The applicant was requested to comply with the procedural requirements.\n9.  On 25 March 2003 the applicant’s appeal was disallowed due to his failure to comply with the procedural requirements and to pay the court fee.\n10.  The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to contest this decision. His further appeals were disallowed as they were introduced outside the time-limit. The requests to extend the time-limit were rejected as unsubstantiated.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3860", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Yekaterinburg.\n5.  On 18 March 2003 the applicant and two other persons (Mr Sh. and Ms M.) sent a notice to the head of Yekaterinburg town administration of their intention to stage a picket in front of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court.[1] The picket was to take place between 25 and 28 March 2003 between 9 and 11 a.m. The declared purpose of the picket was “to attract public attention to violations of the human right of access to a court”.\n6.  On 19 March 2003 the head of the Committee for Public Relations and Mass Media of the Yekaterinburg town administration acknowledged receipt of the notice. He noted that, should the picket cause any inconvenience, such as blocking access to the court-house or impairing its normal functioning, the administration would have to intervene.\n7.  On 20 March 2003 the head of the Yekaterinburg public security police ordered that the police should maintain public order and traffic safety during the picket.\n8.  On 25 March 2003 the applicant and others held the picket. They distributed press clippings and leaflets about Mr Ovcharuk, the President of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court, who had allegedly been involved in corruption scandals, and collected signatures for his dismissal.\n9.  On 27 March 2003 Mr Dementyev, the first deputy president of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court, sent the following letter to the head of the Verkh-Issetskiy police department of Yekaterinburg:\n“With the consent of the Yekaterinburg town administration, a group of citizens comprising Mr Sh., Mr Kuznetsov and Ms M., held a picket in front of the building of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court...\nThe picket notice indicated that the purpose of the picket was ‘to attract public attention to violations of the human right of access to a court’.\nAs the subsequent events demonstrated, the picket organisers misled the officials of the Yekaterinburg town administration as to the real purposes of their action.\nInstead of drawing public attention to the problems of judicial protection and violations of human rights, as it was indicated in the picket notice – if they believed that such problems existed – which would be hard to contradict because the said problems exist in reality, for three days the picket participants distributed printed leaflets and materials of a slanderous and insulting nature which targeted the president of the Sverdlovsk Regional Court personally.\nThe information contained in the extract from the Novaya Gazeta newspaper was more than two years old. It had been checked by the Supreme Qualification Panel of Judges and the Prosecutor General’s Office and found to be slanderous, of which the picket participants, in particular Mr Sh. and Mr Kuznetsov, were perfectly aware.\nThe above stated begs the conclusion that the picket organisers deliberately and maliciously changed the nature of the action and in that way misled the public whom, according to the picket notice, they merely intended to acquaint with the state of judicial protection of human rights.\nThey have committed thereby an administrative offence by violating section 4 of the decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Council of 28 July 1988, as amended by the Presidential decree of 25 May 1992, and, pursuant to section 8 of that decree, they are administratively liable under Article 20.2 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences...\nAccordingly, I ask you to institute administrative proceedings against Mr Sh., Mr Kuznetsov and M", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3861", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is currently detained in a penitentiary institution in the Kherson region, awaiting his extradition to Turkmenistan. The applicant’s lawyer claims that the applicant is a stateless person. According to the Government, the applicant is a Turkmen national. The applicant himself does not deny his Turkmen nationality and has not raised the issue of his allegedly stateless status before the Ukrainian authorities.\n6.  On 7 July 1999 the Turkmen law-enforcement authorities issued a bill of indictment against the applicant for inflicting light and grievous bodily harm on two individuals on 4 June 1999 (the latter, more serious crime is punishable by five to ten years’ imprisonment under the Criminal Code of Turkmenistan). The same day the Turkmen police ordered the applicant’s arrest. This latter decision was approved by the Ashgabat Azatlyksky District Prosecutor on 8 July 1999.\n7.  On 12 July 1999 a search for the applicant was announced by the police.\n8.  The applicant left Turkmenistan in October 1999 because of his alleged persecution on ethnic grounds. Since then he has resided in Ukraine.\n9.  On 4 January 2007 the applicant was apprehended by the police. According to the applicant his relatives were informed that he had been arrested for hooliganism and later they were informed he had been arrested under Article 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under an international search warrant.\n10.  The same day the applicant was informed that he was wanted by the law-enforcement authorities of Turkmenistan. According to the applicant, the police officers persuaded him to refrain from asking for legal assistance under the pretext that all procedural steps in his criminal case would be conducted in the territory of Turkmenistan.\n11.  The same day the Kherson Police Department received an official request from the Turkmen authorities for the applicant’s provisional arrest under the CIS Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters, 1993.\n12.  On 8 January 2007 the applicant was allowed to see a lawyer.\n13.  On 10 January 2007 the applicant was brought by the police before a judge of the Kakhovsky District Court of the Kherson Region, who ordered his detention pending the extradition proceedings against him. The decision, which stated that an appeal could be made under Article 165-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was served immediately. No time-limit was set for his detention.\n14.  The same day the applicant was questioned by the Gornostaevsky District Prosecutor, to whom he explained, inter alia, that prior to his arrest he had not been aware that he had been wanted by the Turkmen law-enforcement authorities. He further explained that he had signed a waiver of assistance from a lawyer since the police had explained to him that he would not face a trial in Ukraine.\n15.  On 15 January 2007 the applicant requested the Court to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in his case. On 16 January 2007 the President of the Chamber decided to apply Rule 39, indicating to the Government that it would be desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings not to extradite the applicant to Turkmenistan pending the Court’s decision.\n16.  On 19 January 2007 the General Prosecutor’s Office of Turkmenistan requested the applicant’s extradition with a view to criminal prosecution for the crimes of inflicting light and grievous bodily harm on two indiv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3862", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  The applicant is a colonel of the Border Guard Service. In May 2004 he sued his command for its failure to grant his early discharge from service with the provision of a flat as guaranteed by domestic law.\n6.  On 11 October 2004 the Moscow Garrison Court ordered the applicant’s command to provide his family with a flat in Moscow and, once the flat had been provided, to grant the applicant an early discharge. On appeal, on 14 January 2005 the Military Court of the Moscow Command modified the award. It ordered that the flat did not necessarily have to be in Moscow, that the flat should have been provided out of turn, and that the defendant was to pay 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) by way of non-pecuniary damages.\n7.  This judgment became binding on the day of its adoption but was not enforced immediately. For this reason, from January 2005 the applicant rented private flats.\n8.  On 12 May 2005 the Border Guard Service paid to the applicant RUB 5,000.\n9.  In July 2005 the command offered the applicant two rooms in a service dormitory, but the applicant rejected this offer as unsuitable.\n10.  On 16 August 2006 the Housing Commission of the Border Guard Service decided to provide the applicant with a flat in Moscow and asked the applicant to submit papers necessary for the recording of his title. In December 2006 the applicant submitted the papers, but since in January 2007 their validity had expired, he had to resubmit them. On 9 April 2007 the applicant’s title to the flat was recorded.\n11.  On 12 July 2007 the applicant was discharged from service.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3863", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are brothers. Mr Amir and Damir Khuzhin were twins born in 1975 and Mr Marat Khuzhin was born in 1970. They all live in the town of Glazov in the Udmurtiya Republic of the Russian Federation. On 19 June 2006 Mr Damir Khuzhin died in an accident.\n5.  On 14 April 1999 the first and second applicants were arrested on suspicion of kidnapping committed in concert. The case was assigned to Mr Kurbatov, a senior investigator in the prosecutor’s office of the Udmurtiya Republic.\n6.  On 12 May 1999 the investigator Mr Kurbatov questioned the third applicant as a witness. On the same day he was placed in custody. On 14 May 1999 the investigator issued a formal decision to arrest the third applicant on suspicion on aiding and abetting kidnapping.\n7.  On 17 and 26 May 1999 the first applicant was allowed to see his fiancée, Ms Maksimova. It would appear that on the latter date they contracted a marriage because from 9 June 1999 she began visiting him as his wife and changed her name to Mrs Khuzhina. In the subsequent period she visited the first applicant on a regular basis once or twice a month.\n8.  On 2 June 1999 the three applicants were charged with kidnapping and torture, offences under Articles 117 and 126 of the Criminal Code. They were accused of having abducted a certain Mr V., a homeless tramp, and forced him to perform physical labour in a fruit warehouse owned by them in exchange for extremely low pay. On several occasions V. had run away but the brothers had caught him, beaten him and tortured him by applying electric wires to various parts of his body.\n9.  On 7 June 1999 the first applicant and his counsel requested the investigator to arrange for a confrontation with V. and a certain witness U. On the following day the investigator refused their request, noting that the confrontation was “undesirable as both V. and U. had previously been financially dependent on the Khuzhin brothers and during a confrontation Amir Khuzhin could exert a negative influence on them”.\n10.  The third applicant and his counsel requested the investigator to interview witnesses G., L., and A., who could allegedly testify that V. had been able to move around freely and that the Khuzhin brothers had treated him well. On 18 June 1999 the investigator dismissed the request as unsubstantiated. He noted that V.’s liberty of movement had indeed been unrestricted in the beginning and the Khuzhin brothers had restrained him “only at a later stage” and that there were “a sufficient number of depositions by witnesses and the victim to the effect that the Khuzhin brothers had treated V. very badly and humiliated him”.\n11.  It appears that on an unspecified date the police entered and inspected a warehouse belonging to the applicants.\n12.  On 20 July 1999 the State television channel Udmurtiya broadcast the Versiya (“Version”) programme. The second part of the programme concerned the applicants’ case. The participants included the presenter Ms Temeyeva, the Glazov town prosecutor Mr Zinterekov, the investigator Mr Kurbatov, and Mr Nikitin, who was head of the division for particularly important cases in the office of the prosecutor of the Udmurtiya Republic, as well as the victim V., whose face was not shown.\n13.  Mr Zinterekov opened the programme with the following statement:\n“The Khuzhin brothers are, by their nature, cruel, insolent and greedy; they wished to get cheap or, more precisely, free labour. On the other hand, the victim V., a person with", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3864", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Tver, a town in the Tver Region. In 1997–2003 he was engaged in two sets of civil proceedings.\n5.  The applicant sued a municipal maintenance enterprise for its failure to repair a leaking roof in his house. On 17 November 1997 the Central District Court of Tver ordered the enterprise to repair the roof by 15 December 1997. This judgment became binding on 27 November 1997. According to the Government, this judgment was enforced on 15 December 2000. According to the applicant, this judgment has not been enforced to date.\n6.  In 1998–2001 bailiffs several times terminated the enforcement proceedings considering that the enterprise had repaired the roof, but the applicant asserted that the roof still leaked, and courts ordered the bailiffs to resume the enforcement.\n7.  In June 2000 the applicant sued several defendants (among them the Ministry of Justice – the authority responsible for the bailiffs) for their failure to enforce the judgment. After one first-instance and one appeal hearing, on 23 December 2002 the District Court found that the bailiffs should not have terminated the enforcement proceedings, ordered them to resume the proceedings, and awarded the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles by way of non-pecuniary damages against the Ministry of Justice. This judgment became binding on 18 February 2003 after an appeal hearing. The appeal court stated that the damages were to be paid by the Treasury.\n8.  On 18 February 2003 the applicant renounced the resumption of the enforcement proceedings because he had been frustrated by their past inefficiency. On this ground, on 6 May 2003 the bailiffs decided not to resume the enforcement proceedings.\n9.  On the Treasury’s request, on 30 May 2003 the Presidium of the Tver Regional Court quashed the judgment of 23 December 2002 in the part concerning the damages. The Presidium found that the courts below had misinterpreted material law on non-pecuniary damages and that the bailiffs had not been responsible for the leaks.\nThe applicant was absent from this hearing. According to him, he had not been summoned. According to the Government, he had been informed about the time and place of the hearing by a letter of 18 May 2003.\n10.  In separate proceedings the applicant sued the Savings Bank for its failure to restore the purchasing power of his deposits. He asked the court to hear the case in his absence.\n11.  On 5 September 2003 the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow held against the applicant. In his appeal of 22 September 2003, the applicant asked for the case to be heard in his absence. In a corrigendum of 23 September 2003 the applicant asked for the case to be heard in his presence.\n12.  On 3 November 2003 the District Court informed the applicant about the time and place of the appeal hearing.\n13.  On 24 November 2003 the Moscow City Court rejected the appeal. The applicant was absent from this hearing.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3865", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  The applicant and his wife obtained an occupation certificate for a municipal flat where another family, (“Family X”), lived at the material time. Family X had, in turn, received an occupation certificate for another flat. As the flat offered to Family X did not meet their expectations, the family refused to move out of the old flat.\n6.  On 15 October 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow seeking the eviction of Family X.\n7.  On 12 November 1998 the Municipal Housing Department of Moscow, who owned the flat at the material time, also lodged a claim for the eviction of Family X.\n8.  On 22 December 1998 the Lyublinskiy District Court in the absence of the defendants passed judgment in default, granting the applicant’s request and ordering the eviction of Family X. However, the latter appealed against the above judgment which was annulled as a result on 8 February 1999.\n9.  On 10 March 1999 the defendants lodged a counter claim, requesting, inter alia, that the applicant’s occupation certificate be declared void.\n10.  Meanwhile, in April 1999 the applicant and his wife privatised the flat in dispute and registered their property right in the State’s Register.\n11.  As regards the twelve hearings fixed between 18 May 1999 and 26 May 2000, two were adjourned following requests by the defendants and four were adjourned because the representative of the Municipal Housing Department of Moscow failed to attend. The remaining six hearings were adjourned in view of the non-attendance of the Ministry of Finance, which was responsible for the allocation of municipal housing to the defendants and whose attendance was required to verify the issue of the lawfulness of the provision to the defendants’ family of new housing and the taking away of the flat in dispute. It was not until the District Court imposed a fine on the Ministry amounting to 3,000 Russian roubles for non-attendance at the hearings that a representative of the Ministry finally appeared before the court.\n12.  On 26 May 2000 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant’s claim and dismissed that of the defendant.\n13.  On 26 October 2000 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court and entered into force.\n14.  On 14 December 2000 the bailiffs opened enforcement proceedings.\n15.  On 20 December 2000 and 15 May 2001 the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 9 April 2001 and 13 July 2001 respectively, pending the examination of the request filed by the defendants for supervisory review of the judgment of 26 May 2000, as upheld on appeal on 26 October 2000.\n16.  On 17 August 2001 the enforcement proceedings were again suspended following the subsequent request from the defendants for supervisory review of the above judgment.\n17.  On 19 April 2002 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Russia brought an application for supervisory review of the judgment to the Presidium of the Moscow City Court.\n18.  On 13 June 2002 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh examination by a differently composed bench.\n19.  On 4 November 2002 the Lyublinskiy District Court granted the defendants’ counter claim and declared the occupation certificate issued to the applicant void. The court further obliged the Municipal Housing Department of Moscow to provide the applicant and his fami", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3866", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1940 and 1946, respectively, and currently live in Rijeka.\n5.  They are the owners of a three-storey family house in Knin, with a surface area of 350 square metres. They lived there until 5 August 1995, when they left Croatia. It appears that the second applicant returned to Croatia in November or December 1995 and went to live with her son in Rijeka. The first applicant joined them in July 2000.\n6.  On 27 September 1995 the Temporary Takeover and Administration of Certain Property Act (“the Takeover Act”) entered into force. It provided that property belonging to persons who had left Croatia after 17 October 1990 was to be sequestered, that is, taken into the care of and controlled by the State. It also authorised local authorities (takeover commissions) to temporarily accommodate other persons in such property.\n7.  On 4 October 1996 the Commission for Temporary Takeover and Use of Certain Property of the Town of Knin (Komisija za privremeno preuzimanje i korištenje određene imovine Grada Knina – “the Takeover Commission”) issued a decision authorising a certain A.M. and M.M. to use the applicants’ house temporarily.\n8.  In June 1998 Parliament adopted the Programme for the Return of Refugees and Displaced Persons (“the Programme for Return”), regulating the principles for their return and repossession of their property.\n9.  In August 1998 the Act on Termination of the Takeover Act (“the Termination Act”) entered into force. It incorporated and gave legal force to the provisions of the Programme for Return, providing that those persons whose property had, during their absence from Croatia, been used to accommodate others, should apply to the competent local authorities – the housing commissions – to recover their property.\n10.   Meanwhile, on 13 December 1995 the second applicant made a request to the Takeover Commission seeking that the house be returned to her. She received no reply.\n11.  On 17 March 1999 both applicants applied for repossession of their house to the Housing Commission of the Town of Knin (Stambena Komisija Knin – “the Housing Commission”), as provided by the Programme for Return.\n12.  On 30 November 2001 the Housing Commission set aside the Takeover Commission’s decision of 4 October 1996 and ordered that the property be returned to the applicants once alternative accommodation had been secured for the temporary occupants. However, no such accommodation was secured and the temporary occupants continued to live in the applicants’ house.\n13.  On 9 April 2003 the applicants brought a civil action in the Knin Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Kninu) against A.M. and M.M., seeking their eviction. On 7 October 2003 the court delivered a judgment ordering the respondents to vacate the house within 15 days after being provided with a place to stay. It held that until then they were entitled to remain in the applicants’ property.\n14.  Even though the court formally ruled in favour of the applicants, they appealed, arguing that by making their right to repossess their own house dependent on a future and uncertain event, the first-instance court actually exceeded its authority by granting a relief different from the one they sought (that is, ruled extra petitum).\n15.  On 22 December 2003 the Šibenik County Court (Županijski sud u Šibeniku) dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicants then lodged a constitutional complaint alleging violations of their cons", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3867", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Volgograd, Volgograd region.\n5.  According to the applicant, on an unspecified date in March or April 1999 he brought a court action against a local Welfare Office before the Traktorozavodskoy District Court of Volgograd (“the District Court”). He claimed an increase in the rate of disability allowance due to him as a Chernobyl victim, that the increase should be backdated and that the unpaid amounts should be recovered. The Government submitted that the applicant lodged his claims on 16 August 1999.\n6.  On 27 October 1999 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claims. On 14 January 2000 the Volgograd Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld that judgment.\n7.  On 21 May 2001 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 27 October 1999, as upheld on 14 January 2000, and remitted the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court on the grounds that the lower courts had failed to apply the appropriate substantive law.\n8.  On 3 July 2001 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims. It determined a new rate of monthly disability allowance and recovered the unpaid amounts. On 14 November 2001 the Regional Court upheld that judgment.\n9.  On 20 December 2002 the Presidium of the Regional Court, in the presence of the applicant, quashed the judgment of 3 July 2001, as upheld on 14 November 2001, and remitted the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court on the grounds that the above decisions had been made in breach of procedural and substantive law.\n10.  On 25 December 2002 the judgment of 3 July 2001 was enforced in so far as it had recovered the unpaid amounts.\n11.  On 27 December 2002 the District Court received the case for examination. Between 3 February and 1 September 2003 the proceedings were suspended pending the examination by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of a question relating to the application by the courts of the legislation on social protection of Chernobyl victims.\n12.  On 8 September 2003 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims. On 29 October 2003 the Regional Court quashed that judgment on appeal and remitted the case for fresh examination to the District Court on the grounds that the latter had failed to apply the appropriate law and had not complied with the ruling of the Presidium of the Regional Court of 20 December 2002.\n13.  On 12 January 2004 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims. It determined a new rate of monthly disability allowance and recovered the unpaid amounts. On 24 March 2004 the Regional Court upheld that judgment.\n14.   In April 2004 the legislation governing the social protection of Chernobyl victims was modified and established a new rate of monthly disability allowance which was higher than that determined by the judgment of 12 January 2004.\n15.  On 16 March and 26 May 2005 the applicant received the amounts awarded by the judgment of 12 January 2004.\n16.  Subsequently, the applicant lodged several applications for supervisory review of the judgment of 12 January 2004, as upheld on 24 March 2004. He considered that those decisions were unlawful. However, the judicial authorities refused to refer the case for examination on the merits to a supervisory review court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3868", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Balakhna, a town in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region.\n5.  On 29 July 2003 the Polyarnozorinskiy District Court of the Murmansk Region relied on the Law on State Pensions and ordered a pension authority to recalculate the applicant’s pension and to pay arrears. This judgment became binding on 27 August 2003, but was not enforced.\n6.  On 23 October 2003 a bailiff attached the authority’s accounts. The authority applied for a judicial review of the attachment order. On 28 October 2003 the bailiff stayed the enforcement proceedings for ten days pending the judicial review. Later, the bailiff stayed the proceedings four more times: on 11, 20, and 30 November, and 10 December 2003. On 18 December 2003 the District Court approved the attachment order, but since the authority had appealed against this decision, the enforcement was stayed pending the appeal, i.e. until 10 March 2004.\n7.  The applicant was absent from the hearing of 18 December 2003. According to the court, the applicant had asked for the hearing to be held in his absence. According to the applicant, he had never been invited.\n8.  In separate proceedings, on 29 January 2004 the Constitutional Court gave its own interpretation of the Law on State Pensions.\n9.  The pension authority considered that this interpretation superseded the interpretation given by the District Court, and on this ground asked it to reconsider the case due to newly-discovered circumstances. On 17 November 2004 the District Court granted this request, rejected the applicant’s claim against the pension authority, and terminated the enforcement proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3869", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n(1) Mr Magomed Musayev, born in 1950;\n(2) Mrs Zargan Mitayeva, born in 1949;\n(3) Mr Magomed Magomadov, born in 1969;\n(4) Mrs Aynap Magomadova.\nThey live in Raduzhnoye village, Grozny district, Chechnya.\n7.  The applicants submitted that on 10 December 2000 a large-scale sweeping operation (“zachistka”) had taken place in the three neighbouring villages of Raduzhnoye, Pobedinskoye and Dolinskiy, situated about 25 kilometres north-west of Grozny. The operation was carried out by 60 to 70 armed men wearing masks and camouflage uniforms, in a convoy of military trucks and armoured personnel carriers (APCs) with obscured number plates. On that day a total of 21 men were detained in the three villages, including three relatives of the applicants: Said-Rakhman Musayev, Odes (also spelt Ades) Mitayev and Magomed Magomadov.\n8.  The first applicant is the father of Said-Rakhman Musayev (born in 1984). On 10 December 2000 Said-Rakhman and his cousin Ruslan T. visited their grandmother in a neighbouring village. At about 8 or 9 p.m. they were returning to Raduzhnoye in a UAZ-469 car. They were stopped at the edge of the village by military servicemen with two APCs and ordered out of the car. Ruslan later testified that the servicemen had searched them and inspected the car, tied their hands behind their backs and put them into the back of a Ural military truck. In the truck there were already several other detainees and masked servicemen. At some point the car stopped and Ruslan heard an explosion and submachine gun bursts. The soldiers who returned to the truck said that they had blown up a VAZ-99 car.\n9.  According to Ruslan’s testimony, the truck travelled during the night, stopped several times and at dawn arrived at Khankala – the main Russian military base in Chechnya. The detainees were taken out and blindfolded with their own scarves or caps. They were then divided into two groups of 10 and 11 persons and ordered into two pits in the ground, 3-4 metres deep. The pits were covered with a metal and then a wooden sheet. In the same pit with Ruslan were Said-Rakhman Musayev and Odes Mitayev, as well as several other men from Raduzhnoye and Pobedinskoye villages. There was enough room in the pit for them to stand, but not to sit down. They were hardly given any food and suffered from the cold.\n10.  The men remained there until the evening of 12 December 2000. They were taken out one by one and questioned, while blindfolded, as to whether they knew any fighters (boyeviki) or had laid mines on the roads. During the questioning they were hit with rifle butts. In the evening of 12 December 2000 Ruslan was set free. Before they were released the blindfolded detainees were lined up and threatened. At that time Ruslan heard the voice of Magomed Magomadov. Late on 12 December 2000 Ruslan and ten other men were taken blindfolded to the outskirts of Novy Tsentoroy village, where their relatives and the head of the village administration collected them the following day. Within three or four days other detainees were released, but not Said-Rakhman Musayev.\n11.  The first applicant and his wife were not aware of their son’s detention until 11 December 2000, because they presumed that he had remained overnight with his relatives.\n12.  The second applicant is the mother of Odes Mitayev (born in 1972). On 10 December 2000 her son and two other men were returning home from Grozny. One of the men who had been in the car with Mitayev testi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3870", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Oryol. At the material time the applicant was a journalist and editor-in-chief of the Orlovskiy Meridian newspaper, published by the Mir Novostey limited company.\n7.  On 21 March 2001 the applicant’s newspaper published his article “Tied in the system, or, Why are the generals waiting for the appointed hour?” (“В путах системы, или Почему генералы ждут часа «Ч»?”). The article was signed by his pen name Sergey Smirnov. The article told the readers about a criminal investigation opened by the regional prosecutor’s office into the activities of six (out of fourteen) officers from the regional anti-narcotics unit (ОБНОН УВД Орловской области). It was alleged that on several occasions the officers of the unit had unlawfully discontinued the criminal prosecution of drug-dealers who had agreed to “co-operate” with them and to share the profits from drug sales.\n8.  The article featured an interview with a former drug dealer, Ms V., who sold drugs under the unidentified officers’ “cover” for several years, until they “betrayed” her and she was arrested:\n“They apprehended me at a market when I was purchasing opium, [they] wrote down my contact details... Like many others, I had been paying them, and, ‘as a gesture of thanks’, they at first overlooked my buying and consuming drugs, [and] later my selling them... They said: here is a new drug, try it and describe the effect to us. It was heroin... I assure you that the police know every single [sale-purchase] point and every single dealer – in this sense they work very well [because] it brings them profit... I had to remember all of their birthdays – theirs, their wives’ and children’s. All of them expected presents. Also, they needed money all the time: once [they asked for money] to buy petrol for the police car... They set me up... Now I am in prison. There are only my kind here, because we cannot pay them off – our income from drug-dealing is barely sufficient for a ‘pay-off’ and our own dose. As to the dealers... I bear witness that all of them left the pre-trial detention facility...”\n9.  The article described the alleged wrongdoings of the anti-narcotics unit in general terms, without identifying any officers by name or rank:\n“The persons who are charged today do not admit their guilt. They claim that they have been slandered by drug addicts and are being avenged by the regional prosecutor’s office for the drug-related arrest of the prosecutor’s son in the past... Nevertheless, it is for the court to determine the matter – this is why I do not name any of the police officers. But one fact is indisputable: the extent to which drugs have spread in the Oryol Region is such that there is probably no way out. Taking into account that the duties of various state authorities are clearly demarcated, no matter what subterfuges you use, it is the police in particular who are responsible for the prosperity of drug-dealers in Oryol and, more specifically, the anti-narcotics unit. The anti-narcotics unit is also to be blamed for the deaths of 39 persons who died last year by overdose and for the easy access to drugs of each school student in Oryol. And also for the fact that drug-dealers are still at liberty.”\n10.  The article further stated that the officers charged had used drugs to pay for “information and services”:\n“The investigation found that, as a matter of course, some officers in the unit used drugs to pay for services and information. Question: ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3871", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are a family. They were born in 1985, 1964, and 1944 respectively and live in Baltiysk, a town in the Kaliningrad Region.\n5.  The applicants’ house became decrepit because of a construction undertaken nearby by Military Unit 53110. On 19 September 2001 the Baltiysk Town Court ordered the Military Unit to provide the applicants with decent dwellings. This judgment became binding on 1 October 2001.\n6.  On 30 January 2002 the Town Court forwarded enforcement papers to bailiffs, but on 18 February 2002 the bailiffs returned the papers because of their formal defects.\n7.  From 25 March to 30 May 2002 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the Military Unit contested its liability for the judgment debt.\n8.  On 31 July 2002 the bailiffs returned the enforcement papers to the applicants because the judgment had been unclear.\n9.  On 13 August 2004 the applicants applied to clarify the judgment, and on 26 August 2004 the Town Court issued a clarification. The applicants disagreed with it and appealed. After a rehearing, on 26 November 2004 the Town Court ordered the Military Unit to\n“provide [the applicants] before 1 February 2005 with a decent (in terms of Baltiysk) flat in Baltiysk, measuring at least 47.2 m² and meeting sanitary and technical requirements.”\nThe applicants appealed, but on 12 January 2005 the Kaliningrad Regional Court rejected the appeal.\n10.  On 28 February 2006 the first and second applicants received a flat of 52.8 m² and the third applicant received a flat of 34.1 m².", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3872", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. By a judgment of the Štip Municipal Court (“the first-instance court”) of 14 June 1989 (“the 1989 judgment”), confirmed by the Štip Court of Appeal on 30 October 1989, the applicant and his neighbour (“the defendant”) were ordered to build a concrete supporting wall between their adjacent plots of land to protect the applicant’s house from damage. The civil courts found that the applicant should bear 31.4% of the costs, and the defendant 68.6%. The defendant was ordered to reimburse the applicant for the trial costs. Finally, an injunction was issued authorising the applicant to build the wall at the defendant’s expense if the latter had failed to do so as required. The injunction was valid until the 1989 judgment became final.\n5. On 12 July 1989 the first-instance court accepted the applicant’s request for enforcement of the 1989 judgment by way of seizure of the defendant’s immovable and immovable assets. The court also ordered the defendant to deposit his part of the costs for the construction of the wall (court deposit).\n6. On 10 September 1990 the first-instance court decided that offers should be collected for construction of the wall. On 1 October 1991 company B. (“the construction company”) was chosen to build the wall. On 22 October 1991 an on-site inspection was carried out.\n7. On 30 October 1991 the first-instance court ordered the parties to deposit with it money as established by the 1989 judgment. It further ordered the defendant to deposit an amount to secure the applicant’s trial and enforcement costs. It was also stated that in case of non-compliance, the payment would be enforced by an inventory and public sale of assets. The applicant deposited his part not with the court, as ordered, but with the construction company.\n8. Four hearings fixed between 29 May 1992 and 29 April 1993 were attended by the applicant. As the defendant failed to deposit the amount required, the enforcement proceedings continued with the drawing up an inventory of his belongings. Despite the court’s orders of 20 July and 13 September 1993 requesting the defendant to surrender certain movable assets to bailiffs, it appears that no items were seized or sold by the enforcement authorities. In the meantime, the defendant had constructed a wall. On 30 June 1997 the court made a further on-site inspection to examine the wall. At a hearing of 23 September 1998, the applicant requested the construction company to use his deposit to complete the wall so as to comply with the 1989 judgment.\n9. The applicant attended the four hearings which were scheduled between 30 April 1999 and 7 June 2001. On 7 December 2001 the first-instance court ordered the applicant to pay the costs of an on-site examination under threat of suspension of the proceedings. The applicant has submitted to the Court a payment slip of 26 December 2001.\n10. On 27 February 2003 the first-instance court fixed an on-site examination to be carried out on 25 March 2003 at the defendant’s home with a view to seizing the latter’s movable assets. The court also requested the presence of two policemen in case assistance was needed. According to the minutes of the on-site examination, the first-instance court examined the wall again.\n11. A hearing listed on 3 October 2003 was adjourned because of the absence of the sitting judge.\n12. At a hearing of 16 March 2004, the first-instance court scheduled another on-site examination of the wall constructed by the defendant. The inspection took place ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3873", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Stockholm. He is a lawyer.\n5.  On 17 March 1997 he sued the Swedish State for damages before the District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm, claiming negligence in the administration of his bankruptcy. The applicant requested that the court render a declaratory judgment (fastställelsetalan), establishing that the State was liable for damage allegedly caused by negligence during the Enforcement Service’s administration of his bankruptcy in 1987/88.\n6.  The District Court, in June 1997, ordered the applicant to specify his claims and to elaborate further the grounds for these claims. Upon a request by the applicant, the court granted him an extension of the time-limit for submitting the supplementary material. On 20 August 1997, the court received the applicant’s submissions, which included 57 annexes.\n7.  On 29 October 1997 the District Court, without having issued a summons, rejected the applicant’s claim as being clearly unfounded.\n8.  The applicant appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal (hovrätten) and demanded that the case be remitted to the lower court for proper examination. The Court of Appeal, in June 1998, requested the applicant to supplement his appeal and to specify his claims. After having been granted an extension of the time-limit, the applicant complied with the request.\n9.  In a judgment of 17 December 1998, the Court of Appeal set aside the lower court’s judgment as far as the applicant’s claim relating to damage allegedly caused by the Enforcement Service’s administration of his bankruptcy was concerned and remitted the case to the District Court for proper examination. However, the Court of Appeal also decided not to allow the applicant to plead that the State was responsible for damage caused by an alleged breach of contract by the Enforcement Service.\n10.  The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen), seeking leave to invoke the alleged breach of contract. On 23 April 1999, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.\n11.  The proceedings were then re-initiated before the District Court, which, in June 1999, issued a summons to the State, represented by the National Tax Board (Riksskatteverket). The State disputed the claims and the applicant was given the opportunity to comment on the State’s submissions. After having been granted two extensions of the time-limit due to ill-health, the applicant had his third such request for an extension rejected. The court called the parties to a preparatory meeting to be held on 18 January 2000. As the meeting could not be finalised in one day, it was resumed on 21 February 2000. The parties were subsequently requested to submit the evidence invoked. The applicant asked for, and was granted, another three extensions of the time-limit during the spring and summer before submitting all the requested material. During the autumn of 2000 both parties submitted comments relating to, inter alia, the oral evidence invoked and the schedule for the oral hearing. Due to the applicant’s health problems, the main hearing was eventually scheduled for 23 and 24 January 2001. During the hearing, four witnesses were heard and extensive written evidence was produced.\n12.  On 21 February 2001 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claim for damage as it did not find that the Enforcement Service’s administration of the bankruptcy had been negligent.\n13.  The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Court o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3874", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Głogów.\n6.  On 12 June 2000 Ms M.Ł. informed the police that her 17 year-old granddaughter (M.H.) had been raped by the applicant and J.K. Subsequently, the police opened an investigation into the allegations.\n7.  M.H. was questioned by the police on 12 June and by a prosecutor on 5 July 2000.\n8.  The police were unsuccessful in their attempts to arrest the applicant as he had gone into hiding.\n9.  On 6 July 2000 M.H. was heard by the Jelenia Góra District Court, at the request of the prosecutor, pursuant to Article 316 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Apparently, the prosecutor had attempted to notify the applicant of the hearing, but he had been absent from his place of residence.\n10.  On 17 August 2000 the Jelenia Góra District Court ordered that the applicant be detained on remand for a period of seven days from the day of his arrest. On 6 September 2000 the prosecutor issued a warrant for his arrest.\n11.  On 20 September 2000 the applicant was arrested by the police and placed in pre-trial detention.\n12.  On 20 December 2000 the co-accused was arrested by the police and detained on remand.\n13.  On 15 January 2001 the applicant was indicted before the Jelenia Góra Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n14.  On 26 July 2001 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The court established the following facts. On 10 June 2000 M.H., who was at that time 17 years old, met the applicant, J.K. and another man in a bar called “DIK”. The men were aggressive and intimidating, particularly J.K., who wanted to become M.H.’s boyfriend. They told her to come to the same bar the next day at 5 p.m., which she did. On 11 June 2000 the applicant and J.K. again threatened M.H. in the bar. Afterwards, J.K. went with her to a toilet where he harassed her. The applicant then led M.H. out of the bar and together with J.K. they went to the latter’s house. The applicant and J.K., taking turns, repeatedly raped M.H. in the basement of the house. They threatened to kill M.H. if she told anybody about it. The following day M.H. spoke about the incident to her grandmother, who informed the police.\n15.  The applicant and J.K. did not confess. They stated that they had met M.H. in the bar where they arranged a meeting for the next day with the purpose of having sex. They admitted that they had had sexual intercourse with M.H. but denied having raped her.\n16.  As regards the grounds for the conviction the trial court stated as follows:\n“The explanations of J.K. and [the applicant] regarding the rape of M.H. were considered untruthful. Their account came down to a statement that on 11 June 2000, in the DIK bar, M.H. had voluntarily agreed to meet the accused the next day to have sex with them, only she did not want to do it with both of them at the same time, but one after the other. From the accused’s explanations it also appears that afterwards she went upstairs with them to J.K.’s apartment where she was given a glass of water by his sister. Then they all returned to the DIK bar.\nAs the explanations of both accused are contrary to the testimonies of M.H. [they have been considered untruthful].\nDuring the preparatory proceedings, [M.H., who was] questioned three times, described in identical terms the course of events of 10 and 11 June 2000...\nTaking into account the age of M.H. and her personality as described in the psychologist’s ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3875", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Cahul.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In 1983 the applicant bought a house. The Cahul municipality subsequently allocated to the applicant the plot of land on which his house stood. In 1995, E., the applicant’s neighbour, moved the fence separating their respective plots and thus reduced the size of the applicant’s land.\n8.  The applicant brought court proceedings against E., seeking the removal of all impediments on the part of E. to his use of his land. On 29 May 1995 the Cahul District Court found in favour of the applicant. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final. Following a request by the Prosecutor General’s Office, on 13 October 1995 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgment of 29 May 1995 and ordered a full re-hearing. On 24 May 1996 the Cahul District Court rejected the applicant’s claims.\n9.  In parallel, the applicant requested the municipality to determine the boundary between his land and that of E. This was carried out on an unknown date in 1996. E. challenged the municipality’s actions in court but her complaint was rejected on 4 May 1996 by the Cahul District Court. There was no appeal and the judgment became final.\n10.  The applicant requested the municipality to establish his title to the land. On 26 February 1997 the municipality did so, determining the area of the land respectively owned by E. and the applicant. E. challenged that decision in court. Her request was rejected by the Cahul District Court on 8 August 1997. That judgment was upheld by the Cahul Regional Court on 13 November 1997 and the Court of Appeal on 17 March 1998. The judgment thus became final.\n11.  On 4 February 1999 the municipality annulled its own decision of 26 February 1997 and granted the applicant title to a smaller parcel of land. The applicant challenged the 1999 decision in court and sought an order for the removal of all impediments to his use of his land. On 20 September 1999 the Cahul District Court annulled the 1999 municipality’s decision. That judgment was upheld by the Comrat Regional Court on 2 May 2000 and the Court of Appeal on 7 September 2000. That judgment was final.\n12.  The applicant requested the Cahul District Court to issue an enforcement warrant, which was apparently refused. He made a number of complaints in this respect to various State authorities such as the Parliament, the Supreme Court of Justice, the municipality (for instance, in November 2000, September 2001, April and June 2002, January and March 2003) and was informed that during the period 1995-2000 no enforcement warrant in his name had been submitted for execution. On 19 December 2001 he was informed by the Ministry of Justice that it was not necessary to issue any enforcement warrant since the court in its judgment of 8 August 1997 had rejected E.’s claims and thus the municipality’s decision of 26 February 1997 remained in force.\n13.  On 8 October 2001 E.’s representative C.M. lodged a separate appeal against the judgment of 20 September 1999. On 5 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice decided that the appeal by E.’s representative should be examined by the Chişinău Regional Court, since most of the judges in the Cahul District Court had already sat in the case. On 18 April 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court dismissed the appeal on grounds of res judicata. There was no appeal and the judgment became final.\n14.  On 6 August 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3876", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Szczecin.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on 17 June 1999.\n7.  On 18 June 1999 the Szczecin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained until 17 September 1999 in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had assaulted a police officer and committed robbery. The court also referred to the risk that the applicant would obstruct the investigation.\n8.  The applicant appealed.\n9.  On 14 December 1999 the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the challenged decision.\n10.  The applicant’s detention was repeatedly extended by several decisions of the Szczecin Regional Court. Appeals by the applicant against those decisions were unsuccessful. In their decisions, the courts relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and on their serious nature.\n11.  On 5 April 2000 the Szczecin Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment.\n12.  The applicant appealed against the first‑instance judgment.\n13.  On 29 June 2000 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case.\n14.  On 11 September 2001 the Szczecin Regional Court again gave judgment and sentenced the applicant to four years and six months’ imprisonment. The court did not deduct the term of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, finding that at the time of detention he was serving prison sentences imposed in other sets of proceedings.\n15.  The prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer lodged appeals.\n16.  On 28 January 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment.\n17.  The applicant requested the Minister of Justice to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf.\n18.  On 8 January 2003 the Minister of Justice informed the applicant that he had found no grounds for lodging a cassation appeal.\n19.  During his detention, the applicant requested several times to be allowed to maintain personal contact with his family. He has not specified which members of his family he meant. Nor is it clear from the courts’ decisions refusing the contacts.\n20.  On 9 December 1999 the Szczecin Regional Court informed the applicant’s father that a letter from the applicant had been opened and seized “on account of its content”.\n21.  The applicant has produced six decisions given by the Szczecin Regional Court on the following dates: 18 February, 4 October and 14 December 2000, and 10 January and 3 July 2001. All these decisions refer to “the applicant’s family” without specifying any particular person. They comprise very brief reasoning and refuse the applicant personal contact with his family “in view of a suspicion that the family would obstruct the proceedings”, without further explanation.\n22.  On 18 February 2000 the applicant’s parents informed the Szczecin Regional Court that they had not seen their son for eight months and requested the court to give reasons for the refusal to allow them to visit him.\n23.  From a handwritten note on the letter from the applicant’s parents it emerges that they were informed on the same day that the refusal was justified by the fear that they would obstruct the proceedings.\n24.  From the Visiting Records (Karta Ewidencji Widzeń) produced by the Government it emerges that at the initial stage of proceedings the applicant’s parents visited him once, in April 2000. Further visits were not allowed.\n25.  On 10 Dece", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3877", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a company registered in Chişinău.\n6.  On 20 December 1994 two companies (Tehoptimed and Tudor & K.) concluded a contract according to which the latter rented a warehouse from the former.\n7.  In June 1996 the applicant company was registered. On 19 February 1997 the original contract for the use of the warehouse was amended to the effect that all the rights and obligations of Tudor & K. passed to the applicant company. The applicant company stored merchandise (food and clothes) in the warehouse.\n8.  On 11 June 1997 the police of the Ciocana Commissariat of Chişinău sealed the warehouse rented by the applicant company. On 30 June 1997 the applicant company complained to the Ciocana Commissar about a violation of its right to property and asked for the reasons for the police action. In a reply dated 2 July 1997 the applicant company was informed that the police had acted on the basis of the order of an investigator of the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office.\n9.  On 30 October 1997 the applicant company requested the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office to revoke the order. In a letter of 19 November 1997 the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office stated that its actions had been lawful. The applicant company made several other complaints to the Ciocana Police Commissariat and the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office and received similar answers. In its complaints, the applicant company claimed that the merchandise taken from the rented warehouse had not been listed in the minutes as required by law and that its total value had been 11,750,000 Moldovan lei (MDL), (approximately 1,059,340 United States Dollars (USD)).\n10.  The applicant company initiated court proceedings against the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office, the Ciocana Police Commissariat and Tehoptimed, requesting the restitution of the MDL 11,750,000.\n11.  On 31 March 1998 the Chişinău Economic Court found that the sequestration of the applicant company’s property “in the amount of MDL 11,750,000” from its rented warehouse had been unlawful. It ordered the defendants to return the property taken from the applicant company. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final 15 days later.\n12.  On 3 September 1998 the applicant company requested an expert report to be prepared in order to establish the current value of the property which had been kept in the sealed warehouse since July 1997. On 4 September 1998 the applicant company obtained access to that property. A list of items found in the warehouse was drawn up.\n13.  On 14 September 1998 an expert of the Central Laboratory of Scientific Research of the Ministry of Justice concluded that the warehouse had not been heated or ventilated and was infested with moths and rodents. The food and clothes stored in the warehouse had been severely damaged and their monetary value was MDL 74,158 (approximately USD 6,685).\n14.  On 29 October 1998 the Râşcani District Court returned the enforcement warrant to the applicant company and notified it that the total value of the merchandise found in the warehouse was MDL 74,158 and that there was no other property to be returned.\n15.  The applicant company requested the Chişinău Economic Court to change the manner of enforcing the warrant by ordering payment of the original value of its property.\n16.  At the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office, on 19 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the judgment of 31 March 1998 and ordered a re-hearing of the case.\n17.  On 23 December 2002 the Chişinău", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3878", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1908 and lived in Sebeş.\n5.  In 1950, a house and 1,460 sq. m of appurtenant land situated in Cluj-Napoca, Calea Turzii no. 26, the property of the applicant’s parents, were seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation.\n6.  On 24 July 1996 the applicant claimed compensation for the property under Law no. 112/1995. She states that she has not received any compensation.\n7.  On an unknown date the property was divided into several parts. It appears from the documents in the file that the property, made up of two constructions and appurtenant land, was divided into five apartments and two plots of appurtenant land of 1,058 sq. m and 116 sq. m respectively.\n8.  On 31 October, 15 November and 10 December 1996, and 3 February and 27 March 1997 the State sold the five apartments to the then tenants. It appears from the file that the two plots of appurtenant land were not made the object of a sale.\n9.  On 3 March 2000 the Cluj Court of Appeal by a final decision allowed the applicant’s action for annulment of the State’s title to property, acknowledged that the nationalisation of the building and of the 1,460 sq. m of land appurtenant to it had been unlawful and ordered restoration in the name of the applicant’s parents.\n10.  On 4 June 2001 the applicant requested the court to find that the sales by the State on 10 December 1996 and 3 February 1997 of apartments nos. 1 and 2 respectively, situated on Calea Turzii no. 28, were null and void. According to the applicant, she did not request the annulment of the sale of the other apartments, considering the action pointless in so far as the constant practice was to dismiss this kind of action.\nOn 4 September and on 27 November 2002 respectively the Cluj Court of Appeal by final decisions dismissed the two actions by the applicant to declare null and void the sales by the State. The court considered that the sales had complied with the provisions of Law no. 112/1995 and that the former tenants had made the purchase in good faith.\n11.  On 2 August 2001 the applicant made two different requests under the Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State, seeking restitution in kind or compensation of the parts of her property situated in Cluj, Calea Turzii nos. 26 and 28 and of the appurtenant land.\n12.  On 12 June 2007 the Cluj-Napoca Town Council, by two decisions, proposed that the applicant be given compensation under Law no. 247/2005. The Town Council mentioned that the apartments and the land claimed in kind were in the possession of third parties.\nSo far, she has not received any compensation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3879", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Poznań.\n6.  The applicant owns a house. In 1980 her neighbours constructed their house as the other part of the semi-detached house. It appears that their plumbing system was placed in a wall separating the two houses without necessary acoustic insulation. The applicant repeatedly complained about the noise caused by the neighbours’ plumbing system.\n7.  On 6 May 1993 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Poznań Regional Prosecutor, alleging inactivity on the part of the administrative authorities in dealing with her grievances. On 9 July 1993 the Regional Prosecutor applied to the Poznań District Office to institute proceedings with a view to determining whether the plumbing system complied with the applicable legal regulations.\n8.  On 31 January 1994 the Mayor of Poznań, who had assumed the competences of the District Office, refused to institute proceedings. On 29 March 1994 the Poznań Governor quashed that decision. Subsequently, on 18 April 1994 the Mayor of Poznań instituted proceedings. On 15 July 1994 the Mayor of Poznań discontinued the proceedings. It found that the applicant’s neighbours’ house had been constructed in accordance with the construction permit and that there had been no need to conduct any further proceedings. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision.\n9.  On 29 September 1994 the Poznań Governor quashed the Mayor’s decision. It held that it was not necessary to determine whether the plumbing system had been built in accordance with applicable regulations. The applicant appealed against that decision to the administrative court.\n10.  On 23 May 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Governor’s decision and the preceding decision of the Mayor of Poznań. It held that the Mayor of Poznań had been obliged to determine by means of a decision whether the plumbing system in the neighbours’ house complied with the Construction Act and other applicable laws.\n11.  On 1 June 2000 the applicant lodged with the administrative court a complaint about the inactivity of the Poznań District Inspector of Construction Supervision. This authority in the meantime had become competent to issue a decision in the case. The applicant alleged that the District Inspector had failed to issue a decision as required by the judgment of 23 May 1995.\n12.  On 11 January 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court gave judgment in favour of the applicant. It ordered the Poznań District Inspector of Construction Supervision to issue a decision on the compatibility of the plumbing system in the neighbours’ house with the applicable regulations within 30 days. It noted that despite its ruling of 23 May 1995 and the applicant’s repeated complaints the authorities had remained inactive for nearly five years.\n13.  On 5 April 2001 the District Inspector issued a decision. It found that the plumbing system at issue complied with the relevant regulations. That decision was quashed on appeal on 13 July 2001.\n14.  On 18 April 2002 the District Inspector ordered the applicant’s neighbours to provide an expert’s report on the plumbing system. On 5 November 2003 an expert delivered his opinion, which revealed certain irregularities in the structure of the plumbing system.\n15.  The District Inspector issued another decision on 28 June 2004. It ordered the applicant’s neighbours to carry out works with a view to making their plumbing system compatible with the applicable regulations. The applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3880", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Jozef Bič, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Košice.\n5.  On 17 May 1999 the applicant filed an action with the Košice I District Court. He challenged the validity of several legal acts relating to the purchase and subsequent donation of a flat in which he had earlier lived with his former wife.\n6.  On 19 May 1999 the judge invited the defendants to submit their comments on the action. The applicant was invited to pay the court fee. Two defendants submitted their comments in June and July 1999 respectively.\n7.  On 27 August 1999 the judge asked the applicant to pay a supplement to the court fee. She also requested files from a different court. The applicant paid the sum due on 8 September 1999.\n8.  On 7 October 1999 the third defendant submitted comments on the action.\n9.  A hearing was held on 28 March 2000. The case was adjourned.\n10.  On 2 May 2000 the court heard the parties. The court admitted a further defendant to the proceedings. That defendant submitted observations on the applicant’s action on 25 May 2000.\n11.  On 14 July 2000 the case was adjourned as two defendants had to be summoned. The same defendants failed to appear on 26 September 2000. The court imposed a disciplinary fine on one of them as he had failed to excuse his absence.\n12.  On 24 October 2000 the case was again adjourned due to the absence of the second defendant. It was not established that the summons had been duly served. On 31 October 2000 that defendant informed the court of her new address in the Czech Republic.\n13.  On 3 December 2001 the judge requested that the second defendant be heard by a Czech court. On 27 February 2002 the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic informed the District Court that the defendant resided at her address in Košice (Slovakia) at that time.\n14.  On 30 April 2002 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action.\n15.  The applicant appealed on 30 May 2002.\n16.  On 7 June 2002 the District Court judge invited the applicant to pay the fee for the appellate proceedings. She also invited the defendants to comment on the appeal. The defendants replied between 20 June 2002 and 11 July 2002.\n17.  In the meantime, on 19 June 2002, the applicant asked for an exemption from the obligation to pay court fees. On 2 July 2002 the District Court granted the request.\n18.  The appeal was submitted to the Košice Regional Court on 16 July 2002.\n19.  The Regional Court held hearings on 10 October 2002 and 7 November 2002. On the latter date it quashed the first-instance judgment. The file was returned to the District Court on 16 December 2002.\n20.  At the judge’s request of 18 December 2002 the applicant specified his claim on 9 January 2003.\n21.  On 20 March 2003 the District Court again dismissed the applicant’s action.\n22.  The applicant appealed on 2 May 2003 and the file was transferred to the Regional Court on 4 July 2003.\n23.  On 1 March 2004 the Regional Court scheduled a hearing for 18 March, which was later postponed until 22 April 2004.\n24.  On 22 April 2004 the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision on the merits. It quashed the part of the decision as regards costs and remitted the case to the District Court.\n25.  On 3 June 2004 the file was transferred to the District Court which issued its decision on costs on 28 July 2004.\n26.  Two of the defendants appealed and the case file was transferred to the Regional Court on 7 October 2004.\n27.  On 29 December 2004 the Regio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3881", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  By a decision of 25 August 1995 the Social Insurance Authority in Kraków awarded a pension to the applicant. It was to be paid to him for a period beginning on 1 May 1993.\n6.  Under the applicable provisions of domestic law, the Military Pensions Office was competent to make payments to the applicant, but it failed to do so. In a letter to the Office dated 16 October 1995, the Director of the Social Insurance Authority confirmed the applicant’s entitlement to a military pension.\n7.  As the Military Pensions Office still refused to make payments, apparently considering that the 1995 decision was not in conformity with the law, the applicant lodged an action with the Kraków Regional Court on 8 November 1995, complaining about the Office’s failure to pay. In its pleadings, the Office argued that the decision had been given in breach of substantive provisions of the applicable social insurance laws. It further indicated that it had informed the Social Insurance Authority about its doubts as to the lawfulness of the decision. Subsequently, the Authority had summoned the applicant to undergo an additional medical examination. As the applicant had failed to comply with the summons, payment of a part of his pension had been stayed with effect from 1 May 1996.\n8.  By a judgment of 4 March 1999 the court allowed the applicant’s action. It ordered the Military Pensions Office to pay the amount of pension due for the period from 1 May 1993 to 1 May 1996. It noted the decision staying payment of the applicant’s pension. However, it stressed that the decision given on 25 August 1995 had not been appealed against and, as a result, had become final. The Office was therefore bound by it. There were no grounds for not paying the applicant the amounts due for the years 1993‑1996. The court was not competent to re‑examine the lawfulness of the 1995 decision in the proceedings before it.\n9.  The Military Pensions Office appealed. It reiterated that, in its view, the 1995 decision had not been in compliance with the substantive law.\n10.  On 28 November 2000 the Kraków Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, finding that the first-instance court had correctly found that it had not been empowered to re-examine the lawfulness of the 1995 decision. It further reiterated that this decision had to be complied with by the Office.\n11.  On 29 November 2000 the applicant reiterated his request to have the amounts due paid to him, but to no avail. Subsequently, the Military Pensions Office lodged a cassation appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Court.\n12.  On 1 and 22 March 2001 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Defence and to the Prime Minister about the Office’s failure to pay him the pension.\n13.  By a decision of 16 May 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the Office, finding that it had failed to comply with the relevant procedural requirements.\n14.  In December 2002 the Military Pensions Office paid the applicant the amounts in arrears together with statutory interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3882", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Ostróda.\n7.  The applicant was arrested on 26 March 2002 at 4 p.m. On the same day the Olsztyn District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody until 26 June 2002 in view of the reasonable suspicion that, together with three other suspects, he had stolen several cars. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary given the risk that he might obstruct the proceedings; the court did not, however, state its reasons for taking such a view. It also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n8.  The applicant’s appeal against the detention order was unsuccessful, as were his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and his applications for release. His detention was extended on several occasions by the Olsztyn District Court (decisions of 20 May and 23 August 2002, 4 and 14 February 2003 and 14 May 2003) and his appeals against extension were dismissed by the Olsztyn Regional Court (decisions of 26 April 2002, 17 January and 23 May 2003, 6 June 2003 and 16 April 2004). In all these decisions the courts relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention or simply found that the reasons for his continued detention given in their previous decisions “were still relevant”.\n9.  On 27 September 2002 the first hearing took place. Evidence was heard from the applicant and his co-accused. The applicant behaved in an arrogant and disorderly manner and was expelled from the court room. Consequently, the hearing had to be adjourned and no witness evidence was heard that day.\n10.  On 14 February 2003 the Olsztyn District Court sentenced the applicant to ten years’ imprisonment. On the same day the Olsztyn District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 May 2003.\n11.  The applicant and two of his co-accused lodged appeals against the first‑instance judgment.\n12.  On 15 October 2003 the Olsztyn Regional Court heard the appeals, quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case for retrial.\n13.  In the retrial proceedings the applicant unsuccessfully appealed against further decisions extending his detention. The relevant decisions on extension of his detention were given by the Olsztyn District Court and the Olsztyn Regional Court. The courts again relied on the grounds originally given for the applicant’s detention. They added that there were no circumstances obliging them to release the applicant, with the result that his detention could be continued. In its decision given on 23 January 2004 the Olsztyn Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against further extension. It relied on the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed on the applicant as well as on the reasonable suspicion, justified by the evidence collected in the proceedings before the first-instance court, that the applicant and his co-accused would obstruct the proceedings. The court further found that the proceedings had been conducted without undue delays and that the applicant’s detention had been necessary to secure the proper course of the proceedings, because the court had had to hear evidence from a certain W.K., who had previously been accused in the same set of proceedings.\n14.  Between 5 February 2004 and 16 July 2004 the District Court held seven hearings during which evidence was heard from eighteen witnesses.\n15.  Following the retrial, on 16 July 2004, the Olsztyn District Court sentenced the applicant to three year", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3883", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, Mrs Danutė Balsytė-Lideikienė, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1947. At present she lives in Lithuania.\n8.  The applicant is the founder and owner of a publishing company “Metskaitliai”. Since 1995 the company has published “Lithuanian calendar” (Lietuvio kalendorius), a yearly calendar with notes by the applicant and other contributors describing various historic dates from the perspective of its authors. The calendar could be purchased in bookstores. It was distributed in Lithuania and among Lithuanian immigrants living abroad.\n9.  On 4 January 2000 a Member of the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) distributed a public announcement, stating that the texts published in “Lithuanian calendar 2000” insulted persons of Polish, Russian and Jewish origin. The relevant parts of “Lithuanian calendar” read as follows:\n[First page of the calendar]: “Lietuva – the land of the Lithuanians, as each footprint here bears traces of our Nation's blood”\n15 February: “In 1998, on the eve of the 80th anniversary of the restoration of the independence of Lithuania, a Pole insidiously killed nine Lithuanians living in Širvintų district's Draučių village – all the inhabitants of the village were shot. (...) The Nation was informed about the tragedy after thirty six hours – during this time Lithuanian [high society] were celebrating and enjoying themselves, hugged the Polish president, put flowers [on the monuments] to Pilsudski's army, drank and danced their ghastly dance on the freshly spilled blood of Lithuanians whose whole village had been murdered.”\n17 March: “The new Lithuanian government (...) puts on trial the Lithuanian nation for the extermination of the Jews (...) but is not interested in the genocide of the Lithuanians and dances Jewish foxtrots to the music of the Wiesenthals and Zurroffs.”\n26 April: “In 1944 in the vicinity of Rodūnia the Polish Krajova Army killed 12 Lithuanians for the sole reason that they were Lithuanians.”\n15 June: “The soviet occupying power, with the help of the communist collaborators, among whom, in particular, were many Jews, for half a century ferociously carried out the genocide and colonisation of the Lithuanian nation.”\n23 June: “In 1944 in Dubingiai and its surrounding area the Polish Krajova Army brutally killed more than a hundred Lithuanians (...) among whom were women, little children, even babies and old people. This was the way the Poles, in war conditions, carried out ethnic cleansing. In the whole territory of Lithuania [the members of the Krajova Army] killed about 1 000, and in the ethnic Lithuanian lands about 3 000 more innocent people, for the sole reason that they were Lithuanians. The Dubingiai events should be regarded as the genocide of the Lithuanian nation. But the Lithuanian authorities [who associate themselves with the Poles] ignore obvious facts and do not even attempt to evaluate these war crimes.”\n15 July: “Through the blood of our ancestors to the worldwide community of the Jews”\n18 July: “In 1999 the monument to the victims of the Polish Krajova Army was put up and consecrated in Dubingiai. (...) In 1944 in the environs of Dubingiai the Polish Krajova Army plundered and killed innocent people solely because they were Lithuanians. The killings of 8 March and 23 June 1944 are horrible [acts of] ethnic cleansing and cruel war crimes that cannot be solved by simply constructing a monument to the victims. There is no statutory time-limit on prosecution of war crimes", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3884", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 16 September 1980 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody for his suspected involvement in terrorist activities. Subsequently, he was remanded in custody until 6 April 1984, when, in the course of the criminal proceedings brought against him, he was released. On 15 May 1990 he was acquitted of all charges. The applicant submits that since this decision was not duly notified to him, he learned of his acquittal only in 1996.\n6.  On 24 May 1996 the applicant applied to the Diyarbakır Assize Court, seeking compensation pursuant to Law no. 466. That Law provides, inter alia, for an award of damages to any person who has been unlawfully deprived of his or her liberty, or who, after being lawfully detained, was not subsequently committed for trial or was acquitted after standing trial. The applicant claimed 20,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 256,706 US Dollars) for non‑pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 27 February 1998 the first-instance court awarded a certain amount of compensation. The Court of Cassation quashed that ruling on 30 December 1998 and remitted the file to the Diyarbakır Assize Court for a more comprehensive examination.\n8.  On 16 June 1999 the assize court dismissed the case on the ground that the applicant had failed to respect the statutory time-limit. This judgment was also quashed by the Court of Cassation on 2 May 2000.\n9.  On 4 October 2000 the first-instance court handed down its third ruling where it awarded a certain amount of compensation. On 27 March 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed this judgment on the ground that the amount awarded was too low.\n10.  On 6 September 2001 the assize court awarded the applicant TRL 3,000,000,000 (approximately EUR 2,400) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.\n11.  On 5 March 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n12.  In the course of the proceedings the assize court held investigatory sittings on a regular basis. Only on four occasions did it decide to notify the applicant’s lawyer of the date of its next session (30 April 1997, 10 February 1999, 1 June 2000 and 6 June 2001). However, no session was postponed on account of the applicant’s lawyer’s failure to attend.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3885", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  On 12 November 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police.\n7.  On 14 November 2003 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had stolen four Jaguar cars as a member of an organised criminal gang. The applicant appealed against this decision.\n8.  On 15 January 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed his appeal.\n9.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was prolonged on 4 February, 16 April and 28 September 2004. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion against the applicant and on the severity of the penalty that might be imposed, making it probable that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings and attempt to put pressure on witnesses.\n10.  The applicant appealed against all those decisions and applied to be released from detention, but to no avail.\n11.  On 26 July and 27 October 2005 the Warsaw District Court further prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand, giving identical reasons for its decisions as on previous occasions.\n12.  As the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time-limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego) the District Court made several applications to the Warsaw Court of Appeal for the applicant’s detention to be prolonged beyond that term. On 8 November 2005 and 10 March 2006 the Court of Appeal granted the application. The court justified its decisions with reference to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and the complexity of the case, which concerned an organised criminal gang. The court also held that the measure was justified by the severity of the sentence to which the applicant was liable. On both occasions, however, the court decided to prolong the applicant’s detention for a period shorter than had been requested by the trial court and instructed it to intensify its efforts to finish the trial, given that the most severe preventive measure had been applied to the applicant for a lengthy period.\n13.  On 9 June 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention until 11 November 2006, reiterating the grounds given previously.\n14.  On 26 October 2006 the Warsaw District Court decided to release the applicant from detention and to place him under the supervision of the police. The court considered that it could not be excluded that the applicant would be sentenced to a prison term amounting to the period he had already spent in detention on remand. The court also found that police supervision would secure the proper course of the proceedings. On the same day the applicant was released from detention.\n15.  In 2006 the trial court held 18 hearings. On 31 January 2007 it gave a judgment. The applicant was convicted of membership of an organised criminal gang involved in stealing cars and of having stolen three Jaguars. He was sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment.\n16.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment. On 19 March 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.\n17.  The proceedings are still pending before the trial court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3886", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Kórnik.\n5.  On 20 June 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of several offences of mugging and extortion committed as part of an organised criminal group.\n6.  On 22 June 2000 the Choszczno District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence or induce witnesses to give false testimony, particularly in view of the fact that another suspect had not yet been arrested. The court also stressed the severity of the likely sentence and the serious nature of the charges.\n7.  Several other members of the same criminal group were subsequently detained and charged in connection with the investigation against the applicant.\n8.  The applicant’s appeal against the detention order, like his further appeals against the decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, was unsuccessful. In his applications and appeals he relied, inter alia, on his personal circumstances, in particular the need to secure care for his elderly parents. He also argued that his confessions to offences of which he was suspected had not been taken into consideration.\n9.  Between 20 July 2000 and 5 August 2000 the applicant served a prison sentence which had been imposed on him in other criminal proceedings.\n10.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on several occasions, namely on 19 September 2000 (to 20 December 2000), 19 December 2000 (to 20 March 2001), 16 March 2001 (to 20 June 2001), 19 June 2001 (to 31 December 2001), 28 December 2001 (to 31 May 2002) and 29 May 2002 (to 18 July 2002). In all their detention decisions the authorities relied on a strong suspicion, supported by evidence from witnesses and his own testimony, that the applicant had committed the offences in question. They attached importance to the grave nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. They further considered that the need to ensure the proper conduct of the investigation, especially the need to obtain fresh evidence from experts and witnesses, justified holding him in custody.\n11.  On 28 June 2002 the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with robbery, deprivation of liberty, burglary and possession of firearms and ammunition without a licence. There were 39 defendants in the case, all charged with numerous offences committed in an organised criminal group.\n12.  On 4 April 2003 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held several hearings in the case.\n13.  During the court proceedings the Poznań Court of Appeal further extended the applicant’s detention pending trial on several occasions, namely on 11 July 2002 (to 18 January 2003), 16 January 2003 (to 18 April 2003), 10 April 2003 (to 18 October 2003) and 25 September 2003 (to 18 April 2004). The court, extending the applicant’s detention beyond the two-year period laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, reiterated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s detention. Relying on Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it also underli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3887", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On 1 November 1990 the applicant had an accident while entering a lift in the Balıkçıoğlu Business Centre in Ankara. The applicant subsequently learned that the lift had been under repair at the material time, despite the lack of any warning signs to this effect in the building, and that the accident had been caused by her attempt to operate the lift under those circumstances.\n6.  Following the accident the applicant was taken to the Ankara Numune Hospital where she received medical treatment. According to the report drawn up by an orthopaedist in that hospital on 20 August 1991, the applicant suffered a thoracic vertebral fracture as a result of the accident, was unfit for work for 45 days and was required to undergo 180 days of treatment.\n7.   Criminal proceedings were subsequently brought against the two workers who had been repairing the lift at the time (case no. 1990/986), on charges of causing injury through professional negligence.\n8.  On 11 March 1993 the Ankara Criminal Court acquitted the workers, holding that they were not responsible for the injuries which the applicant had suffered.\n9.  The Ankara public prosecutor then brought criminal proceedings before the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance against the manager and the concierge of the Balıkçıoğlu Business Centre, on charges of causing injury through negligence (case no. 1993/678).\n10.  Meanwhile, on 8 April 1992 the applicant brought civil proceedings (case no. 1992/284) before the Ankara Civil Court against the management of the Balıkçıoğlu Business Centre and Elmas Elektrik Sanayi Ticaret A.Ş. (the lift maintenance company), seeking compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage that she had suffered as a result of the accident.\n11.  On 4 February 1993 the first-instance court dismissed the case in so far as it concerned the management of the Balıkçıoğlu Business Centre, as the latter had no legal status.\n12.  Following the decision of 4 February 1993, on 24 May 1993 the applicant brought a second case before the Ankara Civil Court against the owners of the apartments in the Balıkçıoğlu Business Centre and its manager (case no. 1993/452).\n13.  Case no. 1993/452 was subsequently joined to case no. 1992/284.\n14.  On 2 February 1994 the Ankara Civil Court ordered that the file concerning case no. 1993/678 be obtained from the Ankara Criminal Court.\n15.  Between 2 February 1994 and 22 March 1995 the Ankara Civil Court postponed the hearings pending receipt of the aforementioned file.\n16.  On 22 March 1995, after receiving the file in question, the first‑instance court decided to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings.\n17.  On 3 March 2000 the applicant’s representative informed the first‑instance court that on 2 November 1999 the criminal proceedings had been terminated as the statutory time‑limit under Article 102 of the Criminal Code had expired.\n18.  Between 3 March 2000 and 21 March 2001, the Ankara Civil Court collected further evidence in the case.\n19.  On 21 March 2001 the first-instance court decided to send the case file to an expert for an assessment of the amount of pecuniary damage allegedly sustained by the applicant as a result of the accident.\n20.  On 25 April 2001 the expert submitted his report.\n21.  Subsequently, on 17 October 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the first-instance court, amending the amount of compensation she had previously claimed, in order to reflect", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3888", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kočani.\n5. On 13 July 1987 the applicant’s parents brought a civil action before the Kočani Municipal Court (Општински Суд Кочани) claiming revocation of a care agreement (“the agreement”) (договор за доживотна издршка) concluded on 25 December 1981 between them and their son, Mr T.K. Under the agreement, Mr T.K. was recognised as holder of the title to a property specified by the agreement in return for caring for his parents. They claimed that after their son’s death in 1982, the defendants, Mr T.K.’s wife and her children no longer lived with them and thus had ceased to fulfil the duties arising from the agreement.\n6. On 30 September 1987 the Kočani Municipal Court accepted the claim and revoked the agreement. After hearing the parties to the proceedings and several witnesses, the court found that the personal relationships between the parties had deteriorated over time and that the defendants had consequently failed to care for the applicant’s parents.\n7. On 12 February 1988 the then Štip District Court (Окружен Суд во Штип) accepted the defendants’ appeal of 29 October 1987. It held that the agreement had not stated that they should live under the same roof and that the separation of the living arrangements could not be considered a sufficient ground for its revocation.\n8. On an unspecified date, the applicant took over the case after her parents died. On 27 June 1991 the Kočani Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court heard the parties, examined eighteen witnesses and admitted a considerable amount of evidence.\n9. On 11 November 1992 the Štip District Court accepted the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n10. On 9 February 1993 the Kočani Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as ill-founded. This decision was set aside by the Štip District Court on 27 April 1994.\n11. On 11 April 1996 the Kočani Municipal Court, sitting in a different composition, dismissed the applicant’s claim again. On 29 October 1996 the Štip Court of Appeal upheld an appeal by the applicant of 23 May 1996 and quashed the lower court’s decision. It found, inter alia, that the case had been decided by a single judge instead of by a chamber of three judges as required by law.\n12. At the only hearing held on 9 July 1997, the Kočani Court of First Instance granted the applicant’s request and revoked the agreement. This decision was partly confirmed by the Štip Court of Appeal on 24 December 1997. This latter court remitted the decision on the trial costs for fresh consideration.\n13. On 23 April 1998 the Kočani Court of First Instance rejected an appeal by the defendants on points of law (ревизија) as out of time. On 12 September 1998 the Štip Court of Appeal remitted the case for re-examination. On 3 November 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the defendants’ appeal on points of law and quashed the lower courts’ decisions described in the preceding paragraph. It found that the first-instance court, sitting in different composition, had erred in law since it had relied on already established evidence without having the parties’ consent to do so.\n14. After two hearings, on 13 July 2000 the Kočani Court of First Instance upheld the applicant’s claim and revoked the agreement on the same grounds as in its decision of 9 July 1997. On 13 November 2000 the Štip Court of Appeal ruled in the defendants’ favour and set aside this decision for the reasons described in the prece", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3889", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1963 and 1968 respectively, and live in Strumica.\n5.  By a court decision of 1985, confirmed by the Appeal and Supreme Courts’ decisions of 1986 and 1987 respectively, the applicants were established as successors in title to a property which had belonged to their late grandfather. On 31 March 1992 the then Radoviš Municipal Court (“the first-instance court”), in non-contentious proceedings, accepted the applicants’ request for physical division of the property submitted in 1987 and determined the plots of land to be transferred into their actual possession (во сопственост и владение). On 14 September 1993 the then Štip District Court ruled partly in favour of both parties and overturned the lower court’s decision only in respect of part of the property for which it ordered a public sale.\n6.  On 27 December 1993 the first-instance court granted the applicants’ request for enforcement of the above decisions submitted on 20 December 1993. Under the order, the debtor was obliged to transfer into the applicants’ actual possession the plots of land as specified in those decisions. It further ordered a public sale of the remaining property.\n7.  On 26 October 1994 the court inspected the site together with a land expert. Enforcement was adjourned since the debtor had applied for a court summons. The court re-scheduled enforcement for 3 November 1994. It also ordered the applicants to make a down-payment in respect of the costs of enforcement (Macedonian denars 2,500 (MKD)). The debtor was ordered to reimburse those costs within three days under threat of forcible enforcement.\n8.  A payment slip of the same date confirmed that the court paid that amount to the court officers involved in the above on-site inspection.\n9.  On 2 November 1994 the debtor objected to the order. He argued that the court decision of 31 March 1992 was unenforceable since he had not been served with the appeal court’s decision given in those proceedings. On 7 November 1994 the applicants lodged their submissions in reply.\n10.  On 1 November 2000 the first-instance court dismissed the debtor’s objection.\n11.  On 8 November 2000 that court ordered the applicants to pay MKD 4,500 for the costs of enforcement. These included MKD 2,500 for an on-site inspection and MKD 2,000 for interest. It was also indicated that in case of non-compliance enforcement might be stayed.\n12.  A receipt slip of 17 November 2000 confirmed the payment of the above amount.\n13.  After the Ministry of Justice had requested information about progress in the applicants’ case, on 20 July 2001 the first-instance court issued a letter in which it stated that enforcement would resume with an expert identification of the plots of land.\n14.  On 29 August 2001 the Štip Court of Appeal allowed the debtor’s appeal against the first-instance court’s decision of 1 November 2000 and remitted the case for re-examination.\n15.  On 9 July 2003 the first-instance court dismissed the debtor’s objection, finding that he had been served with the appeal court’s decision in October or November 1993. It also rejected the applicants’ request for public sale of part of the property as that same issue should have been decided in the non-contentious proceedings initiated in 1987. On 26 January 2004 the Štip Court of Appeal confirmed that decision.\n16.  On 16 April 2004 the court inspected the site. After an expert had identified the plots of land, the court transferred them into the applicants’ po", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3890", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants lived in the village of Samashki, the Achkhoy-Martan District, in the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Ramzan Salmanovich Khadzhialiyev, born in 1977, and Mr Rizvan Salmanovich Khadzhialiyev, born in 1979. The third applicant is Ramzan Khadzhialiyev’s son.\n8.  On the night of 14 to 15 December 2002 the first and second applicants, their sons and Ramzan Khadzhialiyev’s wife, Mrs Petimat Kubiyeva, were sleeping in the family home at 45 Lenina Street, in the village of Samashki. At about 3 a.m. on 15 December 2002 around eight unidentified men wearing camouflage uniforms broke into the house. They were armed with machine guns and spoke Russian without an accent. Some of them wore masks; the unmasked men had Slavic features. The applicants believed that the men belonged to the Russian federal troops.\n9.  The first applicant and his sons got up and left their bedrooms. The servicemen forced the Khadzhialiyev men to the floor and then beat them with machine gun butts. They also beat the second applicant and Mrs Petimat Kubiyeva, then pregnant with the third applicant.\n10.  In the meantime, several servicemen searched the house without producing a warrant, found some money and seized it. They also demanded the Khadzhialiyev brothers’ identity papers.\n11.  Having severely beaten Ramzan and Rizvan Khadzhialiyev, the servicemen tied and handcuffed the brothers. They locked the other family members in one room, did not allow the Khadzhialiyev brothers to dress themselves and dragged them away.\n12.  The applicants did not see the servicemen leaving, but it was rumoured that they drove away in an UAZ vehicle.\n13.  The investigation established that at about 3 a.m. on 15 December 2002 unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns had entered the house at 43 Lenin Street in the village of Samashki, kidnapped Ramzan and Rizvan Khadzhialiyev and taken them away in an unknown direction.\n14.  Immediately after the abduction of their relatives the applicants contacted their neighbour, Mr S., a police officer. In the morning of 15 December 2002 Mr S. informed the Department of the Interior of the Achkhoy-Martan District (“the Achkhoy-Martan ROVD”) of the Khadzhialiyev brothers’ abduction.\n15.  During the following days one of the applicants’ relatives visited several State agencies and requested information as to the whereabouts and fate of Ramzan and Rizvan Khadzhialiyev. Officials assured him that their disappearance would be investigated.\n16.  The first and second applicants continued to search for their sons and repeatedly wrote to various official bodies asking for assistance in finding the Khadzhialiyev brothers. They were assisted in their efforts by the SRJI.\n17.  On 15 December 2002 the second applicant requested the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office (“the inter-district prosecutor’s office”) to assist in the search for her sons. On the same date an investigator of the inter-district prosecutor’s office examined the crime scene and found three firearm cartridges of 9 mm calibre.\n18.  On 17 December 2002 the inter-district prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into the disappearance of Ramzan and Rizvan Khadzhailiyev under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned number 63099.\n19.  At about 3 p.m. on 19 December 2002 body parts of two dead males were found in a field belonging ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3891", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Ryazan.\n6.  He is currently a military serviceman.\n7.  From 13 May 2000 to 5 May 2001 the applicant served in the Russian peacekeeping contingent in Kosovo.\n8.  Upon his return to Russia, he brought proceedings against the head of his military unit for his daily allowance in relation to his service abroad.\n9.  On 14 April 2003 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison ordered the military unit to pay the applicant 371,543.84 Russian roubles in respect of his daily allowance.\n10.  The military unit did not lodge an ordinary appeal within the statutory ten-day time-limit and on 25 April 2003 the judgment became binding and enforceable. The enforcement proceedings started.\n11.  However, on 25 August 2003 the military unit applied for a supervisory review of the judgment.\n12.  On 5 November 2003 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command quashed the judgment of 14 April 2003 by way of supervisory review, re-examined the claim and dismissed it in full. The reason given for the quashing of the judgment was the “wrongful application of substantive law by the first-instance court”.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3892", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1960. He is serving his sentence in the town of Minusinsk in the Krasnoyarsk Region.\n8.  On 14 November 1998 police officers searched the applicant’s flat and arrested him on suspicion of several counts of murder, robbery, kidnapping and unlawful possession of arms.\n9.  On 16 June 2000 the investigation was completed and the applicant was committed for trial before the Irkutsk Regional Court. Legal-aid counsel was appointed to represent the applicant.\n10.  The first hearing was scheduled for 23 October 2000. It did not go ahead because the judge had fallen ill.\n11.  The trial started on 28 February 2001. The court verified the identity of nine defendants and adjourned the hearing as counsel for some defendants did not appear.\n12.  The hearings of 5 and 11 March 2001 were adjourned at the request of the defence team, who needed additional time to study the case file.\n13. The hearings of 20 and 21 March, 9 April, 3 and 28 May, 6 and 13 June 2001 were all adjourned either because one of the defendants was unwell, or because counsel or witnesses did not attend.\n14. On 26 June 2001 the court ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant. The examination was completed on 17 August 2001 and the hearing resumed on 28 August 2001.\n15.  The hearings of 30 August, 10, 12 and 19 September 2001 were adjourned either because a defendant was unwell or because the defence asked the court to make requests for information from various State institutions.\n16.  The hearing of 24 September 2001 was adjourned at the request of the newly appointed counsel of one of the defendants, who needed time to study the case file.\n17.  The hearings of 1 and 10 October 2001 were adjourned as counsel for one of the defendants was ill.\n18.  On 25 December 2001 the Irkutsk Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n19.  The applicant and his co-defendants appealed. They sought leave to appear in person before the appeal court. The applicant asked to be provided with free legal assistance.\n20.  On 15 March 2002 the applicant received a copy of the trial record.\n21.  On 13 June 2002 the applicant lodged an additional appeal.\n22.  The appeal hearing was scheduled for 10 April 2003.\n23.  On 10 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation adjourned the appeal hearing and ordered that four defendants, including the applicant, be brought to Moscow.\n24.  On 21 May 2003 the applicant and two of his co-defendants were transported to Moscow.\n25.  On 12 December 2003 the fourth co-defendant was transported to Moscow.\n26.  On 29 January 2004 the Supreme Court held an appeal hearing, changed the legal characterisation of certain offences and upheld the remainder of the judgment. The defendants participated at the hearing through video conference facilities. No one was appointed as counsel for the applicant.\n27.  On 19 December 2005 a deputy Prosecutor General lodged an application for supervisory review with the Presidium of the Supreme Court. He submitted that the Supreme Court had infringed the applicant’s right to free legal representation.\n28.  On 1 March 2006 the Presidium of the Supreme Court granted the prosecutor’s application, finding that the failure to provide the applicant with free legal representation at the appeal hearing had violated the rights of the defence. It quashed the appeal judgment of 29 January 2004 and remitted the case for fresh examination before the Supreme Court.\n29.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3893", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Scott Norman Carlson, is a United States national who was born in 1962 and lives in Washington.\n7.  On 4 August 2001 the applicant married D., a Swiss national who was born in 1969. They decided to live in the United States of America (District of Columbia).\n8.  On 3 July 2004 their son, C., was born there. He is a national of the United States and of Switzerland. Parental responsibility was exercised jointly by both parents.\n9.  Between February and July 2005 D. made several trips to Switzerland, sometimes accompanied by C. She decided to settle there with the child, in the municipality of Stansstad (Canton of Nidwalden), from 1 August 2005 onwards.\n10.  On 16 September 2005, D. and C. moved to Obersiggenthal (Canton of Aargau).\n11.  On 28 September 2005 D. petitioned for divorce before Baden District Court (Canton of Aargau) and at the same time requested interim measures for the duration of the divorce proceedings, particularly with a view to obtaining custody of the child.\n12.  On 29 September 2005 the applicant petitioned for separation before a US court.\n13.  In a decision of 30 September 2005, the President of the appropriate division of Baden District Court provisionally granted D. custody of C.\n14.  On 31 October 2005 the applicant started proceedings in Baden District Court. Relying on the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”, see paragraph 38 below), he sought an order that his son be returned promptly to the United States. In support of his request he stated that his wife had gone to Switzerland in July 2005, accompanied by the child, for a holiday and also for health reasons. The applicant had joined her for a two-week holiday in September 2005 and had agreed with his wife that he would return alone to the USA on 28 September 2005. Just before his departure D. had, however, presented him with a divorce agreement. He had found it unacceptable and had thus refused to sign it. He then returned to the USA without his child.\n15.  In a decision of 14 November 2005 the President of the appropriate division of Baden District Court ordered D. to surrender C.'s passport and prohibited her from leaving Switzerland. At the same time, he decided to join the proceedings concerning the child's return to the divorce proceedings, including the determination of rights of custody and access.\n16.  On 21 November 2005 D. deposited the child's Swiss passport.\n17.  On 3 December 2005 D. submitted her observations on the request for the child's return to the USA, arguing that the parties had decided to move to Switzerland at the start of 2005. Thus, she alleged, the provisions of the Hague Convention were not applicable to the present case.\n18.  On 17 February 2006 the President of Baden District Court dismissed the applicant's request for the child's return to the USA. He found that the situation admittedly appeared to be one of wrongful removal or retention within the meaning of Article 3, sub-paragraph (a), of the Hague Convention, given that parental responsibility for C. had been exercised jointly by both parents under the applicable laws of the District of Columbia where the child had habitually resided before his removal. The President further acknowledged that the decision of 14 November 2005 to join the proceedings concerning the child's return and the divorce proceedings had not complied with Article 16 of the Hague Convention, which preclu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3894", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1964 and 1958 respectively. They live in the village of Mesker-Yurt, Shali District, in the Chechen Republic.\n5.  The first applicant was married to Mr Viskhadzhi Shatayevich Magamadov, born in 1962; they are the parents of five children. The second applicant was married to Mr Khaskhan[1] Shakhtamirovich Mezhiyev, born in 1963; they are the parents of three children. At the material time the two couples lived in neighbouring houses in Mesker-Yurt.\n6.  Between 13 and 14 November 2002 Khaskhan Mezhiyev stayed overnight at Viskhadzhi Magamadov’s home. The men slept in the main house. The first applicant, her children and her brother-in-law slept in an annexe to the Magamadovs’ family house.\n7.  At 5 a.m. on 14 November 2002 the first applicant woke up and heard the sound of gates opening. Shortly after that a group of unknown armed men entered her room. They wore camouflage uniforms and body armour; some of them wore masks. They did not identify themselves. The first applicant believed that they were servicemen of the Russian federal troops because they had Slavic features and spoke Russian without any accent. One of the servicemen shouted at the first applicant, using swearwords freely. The men examined the room where the first applicant, her children and brother-in-law slept and, having realised that there were no adult men in it, left. The first applicant looked out of the window and noticed in the courtyard about ten servicemen surrounding the main house.\n8.  In the meantime Viskhadzhi Magamadov, a practising Muslim, was performing his prayer in the main house. The servicemen entered his room and pushed him down to the floor. Then they forced Viskhadzhi Magamadov and Khaskhan Mezhiyev out to the courtyard and ordered them to run barefoot towards two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) parked nearby. The APCs’ registration numbers were covered with mud.\n9.  The first applicant tried to follow her husband but the servicemen blocked her way. Eventually she went out of the annexe to the courtyard.\n10.  The servicemen threw Viskhadzhi Magamadov and Khaskhan Mezhiyev on the ground and hit them with rifle butts. Then they put the two men into the APCs and drove away.\n11.  When the first applicant entered the main house, she discovered that there had been a search as there was a mess in the house and the floor was covered with scattered sugar.\n12.  The applicants have had no news of Viskhadzhi Magamadov and Khaskhan Mezhiyev since 14 November 2002.\n13.  The Government disagreed with the applicants’ account of events. They argued that the second applicant had not witnessed her husband’s abduction and concluded that it was doubtful that the kidnapping had taken place at all.\n14.  Shortly after the events of 14 November 2002 the applicants started to search for their husbands. They repeatedly contacted various official bodies, both in person and in writing, informing them that their husbands had been apprehended on the night of 13 to 14 November 2002 and trying to establish the whereabouts and fate of those missing. In particular, they applied to the prosecutors’ offices at different levels, the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic, the Plenipotentiary Representative of the Russian President in the Southern Federal Circuit, the Federal Security Service (“FSB”), the Russian Ombudsman and the Russian State Duma, describing in detail the circumstances of their husbands’ abduction. In their efforts the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3895", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Prior to the events at issue, in the 1980s, the applicant was convicted of theft and served a prison term. Several other sets of criminal proceedings were opened against him, some of which were terminated on the basis that the applicant, who suffered from schizophrenia, was found to be of unsound mind and therefore not criminally liable.\n6.  After 1990 the applicant spent several years in Germany until his expulsion on an unspecified date.\n7.  On 27 June 1999 two persons were robbed and murdered in their home in Plovdiv.\n8.  On 2 July 1999 the applicant was arrested, remanded in custody and charged with two counts of murder. The charges were later amended to robbery aggravated by murder.\n9.  In the course of the investigation approximately twenty witnesses were examined, some of them repeatedly. The investigator ordered numerous expert reports, including autopsies, analyses of blood stains and tissue, ballistic reports and reports by psychiatrists on the applicant's mental health. Several witness confrontations and identity parades were organised and other evidence was collected.\n10.  For several months in 2000 the case was dealt with by prosecution authorities at a number of levels in relation to the applicant's request for a third psychiatric examination (see paragraphs 29-31 below) and, additionally, on account of divergent views expressed by the investigator and prosecutors as regards the precise legal characterisation of the charges. On 27 December 2000 the Plovdiv Regional Prosecutor's Office submitted to the Regional Court an indictment against the applicant.\n11.  The trial started in January 2001. During the period when the applicant was deprived of his liberty three hearings were held. The hearing held on 19 February 2001 was adjourned as some of the psychiatric experts who had examined the applicant were absent. The next hearing took place on 8 and 9 May 2001, when the court examined twelve witnesses and twenty experts. Another hearing was held on 3 July 2001.\n12.  In a judgment of 4 June 2003 the Plovdiv Regional Court acquitted the applicant, holding that the charges against him had not been proven.\n13.  This judgment was quashed on 29 December 2003 by the Plovdiv Appeals Court, acting on an appeal by the prosecutor, on the basis that, inter alia, the lower court had failed to examine all relevant facts. The case was remitted to the Plovdiv Regional Court for a fresh examination.\n14.  The proceedings were terminated on an unspecified date following the applicant's death on 31 January 2006.\n15.  Following the applicant's arrest on 2 July 1999, he was remanded in custody by decision of an investigator and a prosecutor who found on the basis of witness testimony and other evidence that there was a reasonable suspicion as to the applicant's having been involved in the murders committed on 27 June 1999.\n16.  The applicant spent an unspecified period in the detention facility of the Plovdiv Investigative Service. Between 17 August and 28 September 1999 he was at the Psychiatric Department of Sofia Medical University for a psychiatric examination (see paragraphs 27 and 28 below).\n17.  On an unspecified date prior to March 2000 he was transferred to Plovdiv prison.\n18.  On an unspecified date in March 2000, while detained in Plovdiv prison, the applicant underwent a medical examination which detected the presence of a lump in his salivary gland. On 22 June 2000 he was transferred to Sofia and admitted to the Sofia prison hospita", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3896", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant associations are religious associations or meditation associations belonging to the Osho movement, formerly known as the Shree Rajneesh or Bhagwan movement. The movement was founded by the Indian mystic Rajneesh Chandra Mohan, who was first called Bhagwan by his followers, and then later Osho. According to their statutes, the applicant associations promote the teachings of Osho, who maintained that the aim of spiritual development was enlightenment. One precondition was to become free of all socialisation, through a comprehensive programme of traditional and new meditation techniques and a range of therapies. The applicant associations run Osho meditation centres, organise seminars, celebrate religious events and carry out joint work projects. They also protect the religious rights of their members against discrimination.\n7.  The applicant associations belong to a group of previously unknown religious communities which first surfaced in Germany in the 1960s. They were described as “sects”, “youth sects”, “youth religions”, “psycho-sects”, and “psycho-groups” or given similar labels. The groups quickly became the subject of critical public debate due to the fact that their actions are seen to be predominantly influenced by their religious and philosophical views and due to the way they treat their members and followers. The focus of concern was the potential danger that these groups could pose to adolescents’ personal development and social relations, which could lead not only to their dropping out of school and vocational training, radical changes in personality, various forms of dependence, lack of initiative and difficulties in communication, often aggravated by the group structure characteristic of certain communities, but also to material loss and psychological harm.\n8.  Since 1970 the Federal Government and the governments of the Länder have been confronted with these issues. To draw attention to the potential dangers of such groups, both to the individual and to society, the Federal Government launched a large-scale information and education campaign designed to increase public awareness and stimulate a critical discussion on the aims and activities of sects and sectarian groups. Since 1979 the German Government has given several official warnings concerning so-called sects with a view to informing the public about the practice of these groups. The Rajneesh, or Bhagwan, movement was mentioned as one of these new religious and spiritual movements. As part of their public relations work, State agencies have characterised the applicant associations as a “sect”, “youth sect”, “youth religion” and “psycho-sect”. The adjectives “destructive” and “pseudo-religious” have also been used to describe them, and the accusation has been raised that their members are manipulated.\n9.  These expressions were contained in Government statements, namely, in replies to members of the German Parliament of 27 April 1979, 23 August 1982 and 10 October 1984, in a report by the German Government to the Petition Board of the Federal Diet on youth sects in the Federal Republic of Germany dated February 1980 and published by the Federal Minister of Youth, Family and Health, and in a speech by the Federal Minister of Youth, Family and Health delivered on 8 December 1984.\n10.  In the reply of 27 April 1979 on the subject “Recent religious and philosophical communities (so-called youth sects)” the “Shree Rajneesh Movement” was counted among the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3897", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Štip.\n5. The applicant worked in Stopanska Banka A.D. Skopje (“the Bank”). On 10 March 1997 she was dismissed under, inter alia, section 19-a of the Restructuring Act of some of the banks in the Republic of Macedonia (“the Restructuring Act”). A redundancy allowance (испратнина) was paid to her.\n6. On 22 April 1997 the applicant challenged her dismissal before the Štip Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) alleging non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the Labour Act (“Act”) (Закон за работните односи). She further claimed that section 19-a of the Restructuring Act had been discriminatory and accordingly, unconstitutional.\n7. None of the five hearings listed before the first-instance court was adjourned at the applicant’s request. During the proceedings, the applicant specified her claim on three occasions. On 27 March 1998 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that the Restructuring Act, as the lex specialis, had suspended the application of the Labour Act. It further stated that an appeal against that decision could be lodged within eight days of its service on the party concerned.\n8.  On 2 June 1998 the applicant appealed (her notice of appeal ran to twenty-five pages). She requested, inter alia, the Court of Appeal to hold a public hearing for the purpose of providing her representative with an opportunity to elucidate the grounds of the appeal.\n9. Following private deliberations held on 17 September 1999, the Štip Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the lower court’s decision. It reiterated that the Restructuring Act had indeed been lex specialis and that section 19-a, as applied in her case, had suspended the application of sections 127 and 129 of the Act. It further maintained that the eight-day time-limit for submission of the appeal had been in compliance with the Civil Proceedings Act, valid at that time. The decision was served on the applicant on 12 October 1999.\n10. On 11 November 1999 the first-instance court received a detailed appeal by the applicant on points of law.\n11. On 19 September 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, endorsing the reasons given by the lower courts. It further held that the Court of Appeal had provided sufficient reasons for dismissing her arguments concerning the time-limit for submission of the appeal. It also dismissed her arguments about the temporal validity of the Restructuring Act. The applicant was served with the decision on 14 November 2002.\n12. On 14 January 2003 the applicant lodged with the Constitutional Court a request for the protection of human rights and freedoms (барање за заштита на слободите и правата на човекот и граѓанинот) (“the constitutional complaint”) alleging discrimination. She claimed that the Restructuring Act had been more restrictive for her, as an employee of the Bank, and that she had been put in a disadvantageous position compared to employees of other employers. Following the Constitutional Court’s request, on 27 January 2003 she clarified her application: she claimed to be a victim of the application of section 19-a of the Restructuring Act which had removed the discharge notice (отказен рок) and the criteria specified in the Act.\n13. On 9 July 2003 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint, finding no discrimination: it stated, inter alia, that the Restructuring", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3898", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Kherson.\n6.  On 26 April 1995 the investigator of the Kharkiv Regional Department for Combating Organised Crime of the Ministry of the Interior instituted criminal proceedings for tax evasion against officials of the Bystryye Dengi open joint-stock company, managed by the applicant. At that time the applicant was also a member of the Dzerzhinskiy District Council of Kharkiv (“the District Council”) and enjoyed immunity from criminal prosecution.\n7.  On 30 January 1996 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for tax evasion.\n8.  On 14 March 1996 the investigator charged the applicant with tax evasion and ordered him not to leave his place of residence. The same day, having established that the applicant’s whereabouts were unknown, the investigator suspended the investigation and placed him on the wanted list.\n9.  On 2 October 1996 the Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Region requested the District Council to lift the applicant’s immunity. On 1 November 1996 the Council rejected this request by a secret vote. Following this, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued and the order relating to his obligation not to abscond was cancelled.\n10.  On 12 March 1997 the prosecutor repeatedly requested the District Council to lift the applicant’s immunity.\n11.  On 20 March 1997 the applicant was stopped while crossing the Ukrainian-Russian border and was sent back to Kharkiv. On his way there he escaped.\n12.  On 17 April 1997 the Kharkiv City Council decided to lift the applicant’s immunity.\n13.  The same day the investigator ordered the applicant’s arrest.\n14.  On 18 April 1997 the preliminary investigation was suspended as the applicant’s whereabouts were unknown. The applicant was placed on the wanted list.\n15.  On 8 August 1998 the applicant was arrested and charged with tax evasion under Article 148-2 of the Criminal Code. On the same day the Deputy Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Region ordered his pre-trial detention.\n16.  The applicant’s detention was extended on successive occasions: to six months on 6 October 1998 by the Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Region, to ten months on 25 January 1999 and to twelve months on 25 May 1999 by the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine. The period of the applicant’s detention on remand pursuant to the prosecutors’ decisions expired on 8 August 1999.\n17.  On 15 January 1999 the investigator reclassified the charges against the applicant and instituted criminal proceedings against him for fraud, tax evasion, illegal business activities, embezzlement and abuse of power.\n18.  On 4 August 1999, four days before the approved period of the applicant’s detention on remand was due to expire (8 August 1999), the investigation was completed and the applicant was given access to the case file.\n19.  On 30 May 2000 both the applicant and his lawyer finished consulting the case file.\n20.  On 2 June 2000 the case was referred to the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”).\n21.  On 13 July 2000 a judge of the District Court committed the applicant and three other individuals for trial. In her decision, the judge noted that “[t]he preventive measure with respect to the accused was chosen in accordance with the material in the case file” and ruled that the preventive measure chosen by the investigating authorities should be maintained.\n22.  On 15 December 2000 and on several further occa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3899", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Leyla Isayevna Tsurova, who was born in 1973;\n2) Mr Isa Beksultanovich Tsurov, who was born in 1948;\n3) Mr Magomed Isayevich Tsurov, who was born in 1982; and\n4) Ms Aminat Tarkhanovna Tsurova, who was born in 1949.\nThey live in the village of Voznesenovskaya, the Republic of Ingushetia.\n6.  The second and fourth applicants are married. They are the parents of Mr Ibragim Isayevich Tsurov, born in 1970, and of the first and third applicants.\n7.  On 26 April 2003 Ibragim Tsurov, an advocate admitted to the Bar of the Chechen Republic, was driving his VAZ-2110 car in the city of Grozny. He was accompanied by Mr A.S., Mr D.S. and Mr S.N., servicemen of military unit no. 98311.\n8.  Several cars which had no registration numbers, including a VAZ-2107, a VAZ-2121 and a Volga with a flashing blue light, chased Ibragim Tsurov’s car and forced it to stop. A number of masked men got out of the vehicles, pointed their machine guns at Ibragim Tsurov and his passengers and ordered them to get out of the car and lie on the ground.\n9.  Ibragim Tsurov produced a special pass issued by the commander of the United Group Alignment. The armed men hit him with a machine gun butt, put him into the boot of his car and drove away.\n10.   On 26 April 2003 Ibragim Tsurov was driving the VAZ-211030 car with registration number B660PK15 from the village of Khankala, the Chechen Republic, to Vladikavkaz, the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania. There were three passengers in the car - Mr A.S., Mr D.S. and Mr S.N., servicemen of military unit no. 98311. At about 12.30 p.m. Ibragim Tsurov’s car was stopped by unidentified armed men wearing masks who were driving a VAZ-2107 and a VAZ-2121 cars without registration number plates. Using violence, they put Ibragim Tsurov into the boot of one of their cars and took him away to an unknown destination. They also stole his VAZ-211030 car.\n11.  After Ibragim Tsurov’s abduction the applicants contacted various official bodies, both in person and in writing, trying to establish his whereabouts and fate. In particular, they applied to the prosecutors’ offices at different levels, the military commander’s office, the President of the Republic of Ingushetia, the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic, the Plenipotentiary Representative of the Russian President in the Southern Federal Circuit and the Russian State Duma. They were supported in their efforts by the SRJI. The complaints, even those signed by only one of the applicants, were lodged on behalf of the whole family. The applicants retained copies of some of these complaints and submitted them to the Court. The official bodies forwarded the majority of the complaints to the prosecutors’ offices for investigation.\n12.  On 26 May 2003 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 (“the unit prosecutor’s office”) informed the first applicant that an inquiry had established that no military personnel had been implicated in Ibragim Tsurov’s abduction.\n13.  On 18 June 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the city of Grozny (“the city prosecutor’s office”) instituted an investigation into Ibragim Tsurov’s disappearance and theft of his car under Article 126 § 2 (aggravated kidnapping) and Article 162 § 2 (aggravated robbery) of the Russian Criminal Code. The case file was given number 40086.\n14.  On 30 June 2003 the city prosecutor’s office granted the first applicant victim status in case no. 40086.\n15.  On 18 August 2003 the investigati", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3900", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1951 respectively and live in Lysychansk, in the Lugansk region, Ukraine.\n5.  At the material time they worked at the State Machinery and Repair Plant (ДВАТ «Ремонтно-механічний завод» – “the plant”). In 2004 they were dismissed. Before the domestic authorities they were represented by a lawyer, M.\n6.  On 13 March 2000 the Lugansk Regional Court of Arbitration instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the plant.\n7.  On 10 April 2001 the court commenced the procedure of financial rehabilitation of the plant and appointed a bankruptcy trustee responsible for that procedure. It is not clear from the materials submitted whether the rehabilitation procedure has ended or is still pending.\n8.  On 12 October 2004 the Commercial Court of the Lugansk Region (the former Lugansk Regional Court of Arbitration) ordered the bankruptcy trustee to inform the creditors of the measures adopted in the course of the debtor’s rehabilitation and to provide them with financial documents concerning the payment of salary arrears. The applicants maintained that the trustee did not comply with this decision.\n9.  By the decisions of 29 November 2004, 11 April and 6 June 2005 the Labour Disputes Commission and the Lysychansk Town Court awarded the first applicant salary arrears and other payments due to him from his former employer in the total amount of 13,539.56 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1].\n10.  By the decisions of 29 November 2004, 5 April and 4 May 2005 the same authorities awarded the second applicant salary arrears and other payments due to him from his former employer in the total amount of UAH 6,281.11[2].\n11.  Furthermore, in decisions of 5 and 11 April 2005 the Lysychansk Town Court, inter alia, ordered the applicants’ reinstatement.\n12.  In so far as the above-mentioned decisions became final, the local department of the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce them.\n13.  According to a letter of 6 September 2006 from the local department of the State Bailiffs’ Service, the parts of the decisions of 5 and 11 April 2005 relating to the applicants’ reinstatement were fully enforced and the relevant enforcement proceedings were terminated by decisions of the State Bailiffs’ Service of 17 April 2005. The applicants submitted that in fact they were not reinstated as they were still not admitted to their workplaces. They did not, however, inform the Court whether they had challenged before the domestic courts the decisions of 17 April 2005 to terminate the enforcement proceedings in question.\n14.  The applicants requested the local prosecutor’s office to intervene in the enforcement proceedings and to institute criminal proceedings against the relevant persons, but apparently to no avail.\n15.  The applicants maintained that these decisions remain unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3901", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n(1) Ms Tamara Daliyevna Shaipova, born in 1953;\n(2) Ms Yakhita Musayevna Shaipova, born in 1974;\n(3) Mr Ramzan Akhmedovich Shaipov, born in 1995;\n(4) Mr Askhab Akhmedovich Shaipov, born in 1998; and\n(5) Mr Magomed Akhmedovich Shaipov, born in 2002.\nThey live in the town of Urus-Martan in the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Akhmed Musayevich Shaipov, born in 1972. Akhmed Shaipov was married to the second applicant; they are the parents of the third, fourth and fifth applicants.\n8.  On the night of 8 to 9 April 2003 the applicants and Akhmed Shaipov were in their family house at 79 Sportivnaya Street, Urus-Martan.\n9.  At about 2.30 a.m. on 9 April 2003 Akhmed Shaipov went to the courtyard for a smoke and then hastily returned inside the house. He told the second applicant that he had heard a noise. The second applicant stepped outside into the courtyard and saw a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms coming in the direction of their house. She went back into the house and awakened her sister-in-law, Ms Petimat Shaipova, and the first applicant. Akhmed Shaipov went to his bedroom.\n10.  Meanwhile a large group of armed men entered the applicants’ courtyard; they sat there for six or seven minutes. Then around ten of them broke into the applicants’ house. They were armed with machine guns, some of which were equipped with silencers, and wore masks. The applicants saw through holes in the masks that the men had blue eyes and Slavic features. The armed men spoke Russian without an accent. The applicants inferred that they were Russian federal servicemen.\n11.  Without identifying themselves, the servicemen ordered the applicants to turn the light on and searched the house. When they entered the room where Akhmed Shaipov was sleeping, they woke him up and took him into the corridor. There the servicemen forced Akhmed Shaipov to the floor. One of them pressed his knee against Akhmed Shaipov’s back and pointed a machine gun at him. The armed men told the Shaipov women that they were carrying out a routine check and demanded that they produce Akhmed Shaipov’s identity papers. Having examined the papers, the men tied Akhmed Shaipov’s arms behind his back and plastered his mouth with adhesive tape, while some of the servicemen sent the applicants back to their rooms and leaned against the doors to stop them leaving.\n12.  The servicemen took Akhmed Shaipov out of the house. He was barefoot; the servicemen allowed him to put on a pair of running shoes and then blindfolded him. The whole group left the applicants’ courtyard.\n13.  The first and second applicants rushed out into the street and asked neighbours if anyone had seen their relative. Some witnesses noticed that the armed men had led Akhmed Shaipov in the direction of the centre of Urus-Martan via Sovetskaya Street in which two Russian federal troops’ checkpoints were based. The applicants submitted to the Court relevant witness statements and plans of their neighbourhood as evidence.\n14.  At about 3 a.m. on 9 April 2003 unidentified men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with machine guns kidnapped Akhmed Shaipov from the house at 79 Sportivnaya Street, Urus-Martan.\n15.  In the morning of 9 April 2003 the first applicant visited the head of the local administration and asked him to help find her son. On the same date she also applied to the prosecutor’s office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district prosecutor’s offi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3902", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Kyiv.\n8.  The applicant is a former vice-president of the Khlib Ukrainy Company (ДАК Хліб України), a State-owned company trading in grain.\n9.  On 11 January 2000 the General Prosecutor’s Office (the “GPO”) opened a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant and another employee of Khlib Ukrainy on charges of aggravated embezzlement of public funds by means of fraudulent transactions for the amount of approximately 44,000 euros (EUR) via the private company Ukrzovnishtorg (“the Ukrzovnishtorg case”). The applicant was also accused of producing a copy of a forged university degree certificate when applying in 1996 for a position in the civil service.\n10.  The applicant was arrested on 17 January 2000.\n11.  On 19 January 2000 the investigator appointed to deal with his case formally charged the applicant with aggravated embezzlement of public funds and forgery.\n12.  On 20 January 2000 the Deputy Prosecutor General ordered the applicant’s detention on remand for two months on the grounds that the charges were serious and that the applicant might abscond and pervert the course of justice. The applicant appealed against his detention to the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv (“the Pechersky Court”).\n13.  On 14 March 2000 the GPO extended the applicant’s detention to five months.\n14.  On 15 March 2000 the GPO opened two more criminal cases against the applicant for aggravated embezzlement of public funds by means of fraudulent transactions via the Internova Trading Company and the Anmikh-Rossiya Company (respectively “the Internova case” and “the Anmikh case”). These cases were joined to the Ukrzovnishtorg case.\n15.  On 27 March 2000 the Pechersky Court, on the applicant’s appeal, revoked the detention order of 20 January 2000. The court found that there was no evidence that the applicant would abscond or pervert the course of justice if released. In particular, the applicant had his permanent residence in Ukraine and financially supported his wife and a child living in Kyiv. He had never failed to respond to a summons or attempted to obstruct the investigation. Moreover, the court found that, when ordering the applicant’s detention, the prosecution had not taken into account the fact that the applicant suffered from a number of serious illnesses.\n16.  On the same day, without releasing him from the Kyiv SIZO, the investigator placed him under arrest again, this time on suspicion of involvement in the Internova case. The Deputy General Prosecutor, on that same date, ordered the applicant’s detention on remand for a period of two months on the ground that he was suspected of a serious offence and that he might abscond or pervert the course of justice.\n17.  On 28 March 2000 the applicant was officially charged with embezzlement of public funds in the Internova case.\n18.  On 30 March 2000 the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged a request for supervisory review (protest) with the Kyiv City Court against the Pechersky Court’s decision of 27 March 2000.\n19.  On 10 April 2000 the Presidium of the Kyiv City Court quashed the Pechersky Court’s decision of 27 March 2000 and upheld the detention order of 20 January 2000. It found that the applicant’s wife and two children lived in Estonia. In Ukraine the applicant lived with his partner and their son in Kyiv whilst being registered in Dnipropetrovs’k. He had two registered addresses (in Ukraine and Estonia), three international passports (one Russian an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3903", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant has been involved in politics since the beginning of the democratic changes in Bulgaria in 1990 and was an activist of one of the major political parties in the 1990s, the Union of Democratic Forces (“UDF”). He played an active role in the UDF’s campaign during the parliamentary elections in April 1997. After the elections, he grew gradually disenchanted with the UDF’s policies and some of its leaders. He was particularly disappointed by Mr Teodosiy Simeonov, a UDF Member of Parliament from the Pleven constituency and head of the UDF branch in Pleven. On 4 February 1999 the applicant, together with a few other members of the UDF, formed the “Committee against corruption in the UDF – Pleven”. In his capacity as chairman of the committee, the applicant wrote to the Prime Minister, who was also leader of the UDF, alleging that Mr Simeonov had been heavily involved in political intrigue and corruption.\n6.  On 18 December 1999 Mr Simeonov was re‑elected as head of the Pleven branch of the UDF and on 21 December 2000 appointed as Minister of Justice.\n7.  On 1 June 2000, in an interview discussing the widely publicised trial of five Bulgarian nurses facing the death penalty in Libya, Mr Simeonov expressed the opinion that Libya was not a “white” country. This statement was severely criticised by the press and sparked a protest from the Libyan ambassador to Bulgaria. On 14 June 2000 the daily newspaper Monitor ran an editorial expressing the opinion that with his statement Mr Simeonov was “on his way to being ranked ‘top idiot’ of the year”.\n8.  In the beginning of July 2000 the applicant, together with some friends and political supporters, founded an initiative committee to campaign for Mr Simeonov’s resignation. On 7 July 2000 he notified the mayor of Pleven that on 10, 11 and 12 July 2000 in the centre of Pleven UDF supporters would gather signatures calling for the resignation of “the top idiot of the Bulgarian Government – Teodosiy Simeonov”. The organisers planned to gather signatures between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. on the above‑mentioned days at four stands placed in front of the town hall, the district police station, the theatre and the Monument to the Unknown Soldier – all in the centre of Pleven.\n9.  On 7 July 2000 the deputy mayor, who at the time was acting as mayor, refused to give permission for the gathering of signatures. His refusal was based on a lack of evidence that the applicant had been authorised to represent the initiative committee. The mayor further reasoned that coordination was necessary in order to ensure “the safety of citizens and buildings pursuant to Regulation no. 1 on the maintenance and protection of public order and public property in the municipality of Pleven” and invited the applicant, if he insisted on carrying out the action, to discuss where exactly the tables could be placed. On 9 July 2000 the police tried to apprise the applicant of this refusal but could not find him at his address.\n10.  At about 9 a.m. on 10 July 2000, while on his way to one of the signature‑gathering stands, the applicant was stopped in front of the district police station by the head of the police department, who informed him about the deputy mayor’s refusal. The applicant, who was determined to go ahead with his plan, went to the town hall and met with the deputy mayor, but did not reach an agreement with him.\n11.  The applicant decided to complete the planned action. He put in the centre of Pleven two stands and", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3904", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 17 November 2002 the applicant arrived in Moscow from Baku. He was carrying with him 21,348 US dollars (USD), representing the proceeds from the sale of his ancestral dwelling in Baku. However, he only reported USD 48 on the customs declaration, whereas Russian law required that any amount exceeding USD 10,000 be declared to the customs. A customs inspection uncovered the remaining amount in his luggage. The applicant was charged with smuggling, a criminal offence under Article 188 § 1 of the Criminal Code, and the money was appended to the criminal case as physical evidence (вещественные доказательства).\n7.  On 8 May 2003 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and imposed a suspended sentence of six months’ imprisonment conditional on six months’ probation. As regards the money, it held:\n“Physical evidence – 21,348 US dollars stored in the Central cash desk of the Sheremetyevo Customs Office – shall revert to the State.”\n8.  In his statement of appeal the applicant claimed his innocence and submitted that the confiscation order had no basis in the domestic law because Article 188 of the Criminal Code did not provide for confiscation as punishment.\n9.  On 29 May 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal. As regards the money, it noted that the trial court had not ordered confiscation of the money as a penal sanction, but had rather decided on the destiny of the physical evidence.\n10.  The applicant sent complaints to various Russian authorities. He pointed out that he had been living below the poverty line and that for this reason he had decided to sell the flat in Baku which he had inherited from his mother. He enclosed copies of the will and the flat sale contract. He asked for return of the lawfully acquired money on humanitarian grounds.\n11.  On 8 September 2003 the Ombudsman of the Russian Federation wrote a letter on the applicant’s behalf to the acting Moscow City prosecutor, asking him to submit a request for institution of supervisory-review proceedings in the part concerning the confiscation order. On 18 September 2003 the deputy Moscow City prosecutor replied to the Ombudsman that there were no reasons to seek institution of supervisory-review proceedings because the confiscation order had been lawful on the basis of paragraph 7 of the USSR Supreme Court’s Resolution of 3 February 1978.\n12.  On 22 October 2003 the Ombudsman asked the Prosecutor General to apply for institution of supervisory-review proceedings. He wrote, firstly, that, contrary to the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no procedural document indicated what category of physical evidence the applicant’s money belonged to. That omission entailed an incorrect decision on the destiny of the physical evidence. The applicant’s money had neither been an instrument of the crime – in smuggling cases only a hiding place could be such an instrument – nor had it been criminally acquired. Accordingly, neither paragraph 3 (1) nor paragraph 3 (4) of Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were applicable in the applicant’s situation and the money should have been returned to the lawful owner pursuant to paragraph 3 (6) of that Article. Otherwise, the confiscation order amounted to a de facto second punishment for the same offence. Finally, the Ombudsman contested the applicability of the USSR Supreme Court’s resolution of 3 February 1978. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3905", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 19 November 1996 the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of committing an offence. On 22 November 1996 he was charged with seven counts of theft, one count of attempted theft and one count of robbery. Most of the charges concerned offences committed jointly with others. He remained in custody until 30 September 1997, when he was released on bail.\n6.  In June 1998 the Sofia District Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant, Mr V.S. and Mr D.D. in relation to four thefts and one robbery. On an unspecified date one of the victims of the offences joined the proceedings as a civil claimant.\n7.  After a trial, in a judgment of 7 December 1998 the Sofia District Court found the applicant guilty as charged, sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, and ordered him to pay damages to the civil claimant. The court did not make an order for the applicant’s detention pending appeal. It did not immediately give the reasons for its judgment; they were made available in October 1999.\n8.  On 5 January 1999 the applicant’s counsel appealed to the Sofia City Court. Since at that point she did not yet have the reasons for the Sofia District Court’s judgment, she submitted in general that the applicant’s conviction was unlawful and unfounded and asked it to be quashed. She also argued that his sentence was excessive and requested that it be revoked or suspended. She said that she would provide further particulars and indicate the evidence to be gathered as soon as the reasons for the Sofia District Court’s judgment became available. As required under Article 318 § 2 of the 1974 Code of Criminal Procedure, the appeal was lodged through the Sofia District Court.\n9.  On 17 February 1999 the Sofia District Court briefly noted that the appeal did not meet the requirements of Article 319 of the Code and, without indicating the specific deficiencies, directed the applicant to submit a rectified appeal within seven days. The applicant was notified of the court’s ruling on 20 April 1999, but did not react. Accordingly, in a decision of 10 May 1999 the Sofia District Court dismissed the appeal. Neither the applicant, nor his counsel was notified of this and did not seek to appeal against this decision.\n10.  In line with Article 371 §§ 1 and 2 (3) of the Code (see paragraph 24 below), upon the expiry of the fifteen-day time-limit for appealing against the decision of 10 May 1999 the applicant’s conviction and sentence were considered final and therefore enforceable. On 30 November 1999 he was detained in Sofia Prison for the purpose of serving his sentence.\n11.  On 20 December 1999 the applicant’s counsel appealed to the Sofia City Court against the Sofia District Court’s decision of 10 May 1999. She argued that the appeal against the applicant’s conviction and sentence had been in line with all legal requirements. She stressed that the applicant had not been required to give detailed grounds of appeal, as the Sofia District Court had not made available the reasons for its judgment within the time‑limit for lodging an appeal. Finally, she asked the court to rule rapidly, as the applicant was in custody serving his sentence.\n12.  On 2 February 2000 the Sofia District Court sent this appeal to the Sofia City Court.\n13.  Two hearings listed by the Sofia City Court on 20 March and 22 May 2000 respectively were adjourned: the first because the applicant had not been properly summoned and, although legally represented, did not appear in person, and t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3906", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n14.  The applicants, Mr Kemal Demir and Mrs Vicdan Baykara, were born in 1951 and 1958 and live in Gaziantep and Istanbul respectively. The first applicant was a member of the trade union Tüm Bel Sen and the second applicant was its President.\n15.  The trade union Tüm Bel Sen was founded in 1990 by civil servants from various municipalities whose employment was governed by the Public Service Act (Law no. 657). Under Article 2 of its constitution, the trade union’s objective is to promote democratic trade unionism and thereby assist its members in their aspirations and claims. Its head office is located in Istanbul.\n16.  On 27 February 1993 Tüm Bel Sen entered into a collective agreement with the Gaziantep Municipal Council for a period of two years, effective from 1 January 1993. The agreement concerned all aspects of the working conditions of the Gaziantep Municipal Council’s employees, such as salaries, allowances and welfare services.\n17.  As the Gaziantep Municipal Council had failed to fulfil certain of its obligations under the agreement, in particular its financial obligations, the second applicant, as President of the trade union, brought civil proceedings against it in the Gaziantep District Court (“the District Court”) on 18 June 1993.\n18.  In a judgment of 22 June 1994, the District Court found in favour of Tüm Bel Sen. The Gaziantep Municipal Council appealed on points of law.\n19.  On 13 December 1994 the Court of Cassation (Fourth Civil Division) quashed the District Court’s judgment. It found that, even though there was no legal bar preventing civil servants from forming a trade union, any union so formed had no authority to enter into collective agreements as the law stood.\n20.  In arriving at this conclusion, the Court of Cassation took into account the special relationship between civil servants and the public administration as regards recruitment, the nature and scope of the work concerned, and the privileges and guarantees afforded to officials by virtue of their status. It considered that this relationship was different from that which existed between employers and ordinary contractual staff (that is to say, employees in the private sector together with manual workers employed by a public administration). As a result, Law no. 2322, governing collective agreements and the right to take strike or lock-out action, could not apply to relations between civil servants and a public administration. Any agreement of a “collective” nature between civil servants’ unions and a public administration had to be grounded in specific legislation.\n21.  In a judgment of 28 March 1995, the Gaziantep District Court stood by its original judgment on the ground that, despite the lack of express statutory provisions recognising a right for trade unions formed by civil servants to enter into collective agreements, this lacuna had to be filled by reference to international treaties such as the conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) which had already been ratified by Turkey and which, by virtue of the Turkish Constitution, were directly applicable in domestic law.\n22.  Among other things, the District Court indicated, firstly, that the trade union Tüm Bel Sen was a legally established entity which had filed its constitution with the provincial governor’s office a long time ago and which, since then, had carried on its activities without the slightest intervention by the competent authorities. The court added that, on this m", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3907", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Ms Valentina Grigoryevna Shapkina, is a Kazakh national who was born in 1937 and lives in the town of Berdyansk, Ukraine.\n5.  On 7 August 1998, the Berdyansk Court convicted Ms K. and Ms L. of fraud and awarded the applicant 19,357 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH)[1] in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to the applicant by these persons.\n6.  As the judgment of 7 August 1998 had not been enforced by the Berdyansk Bailiffs’ Service (Відділ державної виконавчої служби Бердянського міського управління юстиції Запорізької області), the applicant instituted proceedings against the latter in the Berdyansk Court. The applicant claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to her by the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment.\n7.  On 19 December 2002 the court found in part for the applicant. By its judgment, the court ordered that the Berdyansk Bailiffs’ Service pay the applicant UAH 5,635.90[2] in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to the latter as a result of the Bailiffs’ failure to take all necessary enforcement actions during the relevant period.\n8. Being dissatisfied with the amount of the compensation awarded to her, the applicant lodged an appeal against the above judgment. On 24 November 2003 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first instance court. On the same date the judgment of 19 December 2002 became final.\n9.  On 19 January 2004 the applicant transferred the enforcement writ in respect of the judgment of 19 December 2002 to the Berdyansk Bailiffs’ Service. On 27 February 2004 the enforcement writ was transferred for enforcement to the Primorsky Bailiffs’ Service.\n10.  On 5 April 2004 the latter instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 19 December 2002.\n11.  On 1 November 2005 the Primorsky Bailiffs’ Service suspended enforcement proceedings since the Berdyansk Bailiffs’ Service had no property that could be attached.\n12.  The judgment of 19 December 2002 remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3908", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Chişinău. On 28 November 2004 he was charged with unlawful fishing and misappropriation of seventy-three kilograms of fish.\n6.  On 21 December 2004 the Orhei District Court, in a closed sitting, heard an application to remand the applicant in custody, which it granted. The reasons for remanding him in custody relied upon by the court were that he had changed his address and that he might re-offend. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was present at the hearing and they found out about the detention order only one year later, when the applicant was arrested.\n7.  On 22 December 2005 at approximately 6 p.m. the applicant was arrested at his home in Chişinău and taken to the Orhei District Court where an investigating judge saw him and confirmed the detention warrant of 21 December 2004. He was then taken to the Orhei detention centre.\n8.  According to the applicant, he was kept in a small cell called the “aquarium” until approximately 10 p.m. the next day, when he was moved to cell no. 9. The “aquarium” was approximately two metres long and 0.80 metres wide and did not have a bed, chair, toilet or sink. It was intended for periods of detention not longer than three hours. Cell no. 9 was located below floor level and did not have windows. There was no ventilation. The electric light was always on, although it was so weak that it was difficult to distinguish the faces of the co-detainees. The cell was approximately seven metres long and three metres wide and there were six detainees in it. The cell was not equipped with a toilet but instead had a big bucket in a corner which was not separated from the rest of the cell. There was no sink and the detainees had to keep water in plastic bottles which they were allowed to refill once in a while outside the cell. There were no beds, but only a brick shelf a little higher than the floor on which four people could sleep. The cell was not provided with any bedding and the applicant alleged that he was only able to sleep for one hour per day. The cell was infested with insects, with the result that the applicant was covered with painful bites, some of which later became wounds. The applicant sent the Court photographs showing the bites on his body. The food was insufficient and of very poor quality. The detainees were fed only once a day from dirty plates and the applicant was permanently hungry. His relatives were not allowed to bring him food because he would not confess to the charges against him. The applicant was unable to have any contact with his relatives and the outside world. He did not have any paper, pen or envelopes. The room was not provided with a radio or television and due to the lack of natural light the applicant never knew what time of day it was.\n9.  On 4 January 2006 the applicant’s wife hired a lawyer and learned about the detention warrant of 21 December 2004. On 5 January 2006 the applicant’s lawyer challenged the detention order before the Chişinău Court of Appeal. He complained, inter alia, under Article 3 of the Convention, of the inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicant’s detention. After giving a detailed description of the conditions in which the applicant was being detained, he asked the court to find that the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention had been breached and to award him compensation.\n10.  On 13 January 2006 the applicant’s lawyer repeated the habeas corpus request and the compla", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3909", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the village of Rozdolne, the Crimea.\n5.  On 4 July 2000 the applicant lodged complaint with the Rozdolne District Court against two private agricultural companies “Chernyshevsky” (C.) and “Prymorsky” (P.), seeking to recover salary arrears.\n6.  The first hearing was fixed for 12 October 2000.\n7.  Between October 2000 and October 2003 eight out of fifteen hearings were postponed due to the respondents’ representatives’ failure to appear before the court.\n8.  In May 2001 the proceedings were suspended as the term of office of the presiding judge had expired.\n9.  The proceedings were resumed in March 2003.\n10.  On 7 October 2003 the applicant’s claims were allowed in full.\n11.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 7 November 2003.\n12.  The applicant was provided with a written copy of the judgment on 18 November 2003.\n13.  In the course of 2004 the amount awarded to the applicant against C. was paid in full.\n14.  The enforcement proceedings against P. were suspended on an unspecified date as the company was insolvent and this part of the judgment of 7 October 2003 remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3910", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Bergisch Gladbach, Germany. In the 1970s he participated as a sprinter in the Olympic Games and from 1986 to 1993, he was the president of FC Homburg, a football club playing in the German Football League.\n6.  From 1982 the applicant was the sole shareholder and sole managing director of the DETAG investment trust corporation which negotiated the sale of apartments to private investors. He later arranged for some of these apartments, which had been returned by the investors, to be taken up into funds managed by the IHV Real Estate Company.\n7.  The present application concerns criminal investigations instituted against the applicant and others related to the management of the real estate funds of the IHV Company. Additional criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant in connection with his business activities for the DETAG corporation and its arrangements made for the sale of apartments to private investors. On 4 February 2002 the judgment of the Bonn Regional Court acquitting the applicant of charges of fraud in this respect became final. The applicant also lodged an application with the Court related to these proceedings (no. 10597/03).\n8.  By a letter dated 19 February 1987, which reached the applicant on that day, the Cologne police headquarters summoned the applicant for questioning on charges of fraud in connection with his business activities for the DETAG corporation. Thereby the applicant obtained knowledge of the criminal investigations instituted against him in this respect. The Cologne Public Prosecutor’s Office later joined several sets of proceedings concerning accusations of fraud against the applicant (file no. 110 Js 24/88).\n9.  On 6 December 1990 the Cologne District Court’s order of 28 October 1990, made in the proceedings no. 110 Js 24/88, to search the applicant’s home and car was executed and a file was seized. The applicant was suspected of having at least instigated a partner of the IHV Real Estate Company to breach her fiduciary duty. The applicant had purportedly abetted that partner in respect of apartments, which had been returned to the DETAG corporation having been bought by private investors at prices far above their market value, into the real estate funds managed by the IHV Company.\n10.  On 11 and 17 December 1990 and on 11 and 18 April 1991, 23 and 31 October 1991 and 6 November 1991 the Cologne Public Prosecutor’s Office questioned suspects on the charges related to the IHV Company. In December 1991 and January 1992 the Public Prosecutor’s Office evaluated the documents seized in a note for the records.\n11.  On 10 November 1993 the Cologne Public Prosecutor’s Office instituted further separate proceedings for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty against the applicant and others concerning the management of the funds of the IHV Real Estate Company (file no. 110 Js 748/93). The accused persons in these proceedings were suspected of having committed fraud to the detriment of investors by including unmarketable apartments in the funds set up by the IHV Real Estate Company, thereby reducing the profitability of the funds. Moreover, they were suspected of breach of fiduciary duty by mismanaging the said funds, which operated at a loss.\n12.  In a file note dated 21 November 1994 the Cologne Public Prosecutor’s Office stated that the suspicion that fraud and breach of fiduciary duty had been committed in connection with the management of funds of the IHV", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3911", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1967 and 1940 and live in Muğla and Istanbul respectively.\n6.  In 1926, the Turkish State (the Treasury) sold a plot of land known as the Yana Farm, located in Balıkesir, to an individual who later sold it to the applicants’ predecessors (“the Yavaş family”).\n7.  On 12 September 1986 the Forest Cadastral Commission (“the FCC”), a Government agency, conducted a boundary marking exercise (tahdit çalışması). The purpose of this exercise was to detect forest areas which had not been included on the cadastral map. Following this exercise the FCC established that a portion of the Yana Farm had been unlawfully designated as agricultural land. The FCC reclassified it as forest land. Accordingly, on 31 July 1987, the FCC initiated a revocation procedure for partial annulment of the title deed.\n8.  On 11 November 1987, the applicants’ predecessors, the Yavaş family, brought an action in the Marmaris Cadastral Court since a portion of their registered land had been classified as forest land. They asked the court to annul the results of the boundary marking exercise and to reclassify their land as outside the forest area.\n9.  On 24 October 1988 the court conducted a survey of the land with the assistance of three experts on forest, agriculture and cadastral engineering. The forest engineer drew up a sketch map of the area and divided it into plots named (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F) and (G). Having examined the sketch map the court found that it was consistent with the general plans and the land.\n10.  On 9 August 1990 the Marmaris Cadastral Court ruled in favour of the applicants’ predecessors, the Yavaş family, with respect to the plots shown as (A), (B), (C) and (F) on a sketch prepared by court-appointed experts. However, it dismissed the request as regards plots (D) and (G), finding that they were part of the State forest. The Forestry Directorate appealed.\n11.  On 16 March 1992 the Court of Cassation quashed the above ruling considering that the Cadastral Court had erred in its assessment of the nature of the land. It observed that, even if the natural flora had been destroyed, the land remained forest land. It further noted that the first-instance court had relied on the title deeds submitted by the litigants and that the measurement of that land had been enlarged from 8,000 sq. m to 8,640 sq. m by the judgment of the Erdek Civil Court dated 8 September 1960. However, given that the Forestry Directorate was not a party to those proceedings, the finding of the Erdek Civil Court did not have any binding effect for the purposes of the current proceedings. The Court of Cassation thus remitted the case to the Marmaris Cadastral Court for further examination.\n12.  On 15 June 1994 the applicants purchased the Yana Farm from the Yavaş family. The relevant page of the log kept at the land registry office does not contain any annotation concerning the proceedings in question.\n13.  On an unspecified date, following the purchase of the Yana farm by the applicants, the Marmaris Land Registry invited the applicants to intervene in the proceedings. The court then joined the applicants’ case to that initiated by the Forest Directorate, who alleged that a portion of plot no. 142/2 was within forest boundaries.\n14.  On 18 June 1994 the Marmaris Cadastral Court carried out a second survey of the disputed land with the assistance of new experts.\n15.  On 4 May 1995 the Marmaris Cadastral Court dismissed the applicants’ case on the b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3912", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kokkola.\n5.  On 4 September 1996 the applicant gave a directly enforceable guarantee to cover the debt of a limited liability company. The debt fell due on 31 March 1999 and was not paid.\n6.  On 30 June 1999 the creditor bank initiated civil proceedings in the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) requesting the company and the applicant, along with other persons, to pay the debt.\n7.  On 8 February 2000 the District Court asked the defendants to indicate clearly in writing whether or not they contested the claim, at the risk of a default judgment. The applicant and the company filed their statements of reply on 15 and 20 March 2000 respectively but failed to indicate clearly their position.\n8.  On 21 March 2000 the District Court gave a default judgment in which it ordered the applicant and the company to pay the debt. The judgment was served on 9 May 2000.\n9.  On 12 May 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal against the default judgment with the District Court requesting that the judgment be quashed and the claims of the creditor bank be rejected.\n10.  On 15 June 2000 the District Court ordered a stay of execution of the judgment.\n11.  The District Court proceedings comprised three different sets of civil proceedings which were joined on 7 May 2003. These were the applicant’s claim for refund of benefit by unjust enrichment, the appeal against the default judgment and an action for damages, which was subsequently withdrawn.\n12.  On 6 February 2004 the court, after having held oral hearings in October and December 2003, quashed the default judgment and rejected the creditor bank’s claims as far as the applicant was concerned.\n13.  In March 2004 all parties to the case appealed to the Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten). The applicant’s appeal only concerned costs and expenses. The Appeal Court held an oral hearing in February 2006. On 4 April 2006 it upheld the District Court’s judgment as far as the applicant was concerned.\n14.  The applicant did not apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) as he was no longer in need of legal protection. Consequently, the Appeal Court judgment became final on 6 June 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3913", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  At about 5 a.m. on 9 May 1998 the applicant and an accomplice were surprised by police while in the process of trying to enter a computer equipment shop through a hole in the wall of the basement of a neighbouring building. They had previously drilled the hole over the course of several nights, and in this way had attracted the attention of the building’s inhabitants.\n6.  On the morning of 9 May 1998 the applicant and his accomplice were heavily armed. The applicant opened fire and shot a police officer dead. Later he detonated a hand grenade. In the ensuing exchange of gunfire his accomplice was injured and died. The special anti‑terrorism squad intervened later in the morning. The applicant gave himself up and was arrested at about 8.30 a.m., after negotiations with the police, a psychologist and a public prosecutor.\n7.  On the same day, 9 May 1998, the applicant was charged with attempted robbery committed in conspiracy with others and accompanied by murder, and placed in pre‑trial detention.\n8.  The charges against him were later amended to include the unlawful possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives in large quantities, the murder of a police officer, and attempted murder of six police officers committed in a manner and by means which endangered several lives and by a person who had already committed murder. The maximum penalty on conviction for those offences was life imprisonment, with or without parole.\n9.  After the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office referred the case back to the investigator on three occasions for additional investigation, on 13 August 1999 the investigator finished his work on the case, recommending that the applicant be committed for trial.\n10.  On 29 December 1999 the Sofia City Prosecutor’s Office filed an indictment against the applicant with the Sofia City Court.\n11.  On 21 February 2000 the judge‑rapporteur to whom the case was assigned set it down for hearing on 8 and 9 June 2000. As required by Article 241 § 2 (4) of the 1974 Code of Criminal Procedure, as in force at that time, he examined of his own motion whether the applicant’s pre‑trial detention should be replaced with a more lenient measure, and confirmed it without giving reasons.\n12.  The trial against the applicant began in June 2000, but had to re‑start in October 2001, as in May 2001 the judge-rapporteur was appointed as the Minister of Justice and the formation examining the case did not include a reserve judge.\n13.  Over the course of the next few years numerous hearings were adjourned for various reasons. On some occasions the adjournments were made necessary by the fact that the applicant had dismissed his counsel and instructed new ones, who needed time to acquaint themselves with the case file.\n14.  In a judgment of 14 October 2005 the Sofia City Court found the applicant guilty of murdering a police officer, attempting to murder another police officer and unlawfully possessing firearms and explosives. Although under the relevant provisions of the 1968 Criminal Code it could have imposed a sentence of life imprisonment, it opted for a lesser penalty and sentenced the applicant to thirty years’ imprisonment, citing his clean criminal record, and the facts that he had a family and had not been fully discredited morally and socially.\n15.  Both the applicant and the prosecution appealed. The prosecution requested that the applicant’s sentence be increased to life imprisonment.\n16.  On 2 October 2007 the Sofia Court of Appeal up", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3914", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Aachen (Germany). The second applicant was born in 1929 and died in 2005.\n5.  On 31 March 1976 the applicants’ property, comprising flat no. 1 and appurtenant land situated in Bucharest, Intrarea Traian Demetrescu no. 14, was seized by the State under Decree no. 223/1974, following their decision to leave the country. No compensation was paid. No copy of the decision to seize the property was sent to the applicants.\n6.  On 18 December 1996 company T., a State-owned company responsible for the management of property belonging to the State, sold the flat to the then tenant, T.T., under Law no. 112/1995.\n7.  On 3 May 2001 the applicants brought court proceedings for restitutio in integrum and seeking to have the sale by the State declared null and void.\n8.  On 24 August 2001 the applicants lodged an application with the administrative authorities for restitution in kind of the property under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. So far they have not received any answer.\n9.  On 11 October 2002 the Bucharest Court of First Instance allowed the applicants’ action in part. In the operative part of the judgment it held, inter alia, that there were no grounds for rescission of the sale by the State, but ordered T.T. to allow the applicants to take possession of the flat and the appurtenant land. The court compared the property titles, finding that the seizure had been unlawful but that T.T. had made the purchase in good faith.\n10.  On 19 March 2003 the Bucharest Regional Court allowed an appeal by T.T. and by company T. and, in the operative part of the judgment, varied the judgment of the first-instance court by dismissing the applicants’ action for recovery of the property. In its reasoning, the court considered that the first-instance court had been requested by the applicants to assess whether the seizure was null and void because they had not been sent a copy of the seizure decision, and that therefore the lower court should not have analysed the lawfulness of the seizure of its own motion. The Regional Court also considered that the failure to inform the applicants of the seizure did not affect its validity and that the applicants had no valid property title.\n11.  On 25 June 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal, in the operative part of a final decision, dismissed as groundless an appeal on points of law by the applicants. In the reasoning of the judgment the court considered that although some of the applicants’ criticisms were well-founded, in particular regarding the misinterpretation of the law by the Regional Court when it found that the Court of First Instance had exceeded the limits of the request made by the applicants, those criticisms did not constitute grounds for amending the previous judgment in accordance with Article 304 § 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but only for removing its reasoning. Therefore, in the reasoning part of its decision, the Court of Appeal considered, in line with the findings of the first-instance court, that the State had no valid title and that therefore the applicants had never lost their right of property. However, the court reasoned that as the applicants had not contested T.T.’s good faith in their appeal, the Regional Court had correctly dismissed their claim for recovery of the property.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3915", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant worked as a journalist for the national public audio-visual institution, Teleradio-Moldova company (T.). According to the applicant, on 27 July 2004 a spontaneous strike began amongst T.’s staff in response to alleged censorship and disrespect for democratic principles enforced within T. by the Communist Party. The applicant was among a group of staff who occupied a room and refused to vacate it until their demands were met. According to the Government, this was an unauthorised demonstration.\n8.  On 23 September 2004 the applicant, who was present in court, was found guilty of breaching Article 174/1 § 4 of the Code of Administrative Offences by actively participating in an unauthorised demonstration. She was fined 180 Moldovan lei (MDL) (12 euros (EUR) at the time).\n9.  The applicant appealed, claiming that there was no evidence of her active participation in the meeting and that the meeting had been an unplanned strike which should be examined under the relevant labour legislation.\n10.  On 7 October 2004 the applicant was dismissed from her position. She remains unemployed, having formally registered as such on 8 January 2005.\n11.  On 18 November 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal examined her case in her absence and rejected her appeal in cassation. The court noted that the applicant had been summoned. According to the applicant, she had not been summoned and found out about the decision of the Court of Appeal only on 6 January 2005 when she inquired about her case at the court’s registry.\n12.  The applicant paid her fine on 11 January 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3916", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Slavyansk, in the Donetsk Region of Ukraine.\n6.  On 23 January 1999 the applicant’s son, Mr M., disappeared.\n7.  On 1 February 1999 the applicant learned that her son had been beaten and, a few days later, that he had been murdered.\n8.  The body of Mr M. was found in a lake on 18 March 1999. The applicant maintained that this lake had been deliberately omitted from the police search, although neighbouring lakes had been checked.\n9.  On 18 March 1999 the investigator of the Slavyansk Prosecutors’ Office (“the SPO”) ordered a forensic medical examination of the corpse. The examination was conducted the next day by a forensic expert, Mr D. The expert concluded that the cause of death of the applicant’s son could not be established and that the latter had been slightly drunk at the time of his death.\n10.  On 26 March 1999 the SPO investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings regarding the death of Mr M. The investigator based his decision on the evidence submitted by the witnesses, Messrs D., P., G., and P., who were with the applicant’s son on the day of his disappearance. They testified that Mr M. had been very drunk and had behaved badly, fighting with some of them. They also stated that Mr M. had left them to go home and that they did not see him again. Moreover, the forensic examination had not established the cause of death, only that Mr M. had been drunk.\n11.  On 6 August 1999 the Slavyansk Town Court quashed the decision of 26 March 1999 and remitted the case for further inquiry, finding, in particular, that the expert’s opinion had been incomplete and the investigator had failed to scrutinise the circumstances evidencing that the death of the applicant’s son could have been a violent one.\n12.  On 18 August 1999 the SPO investigator refused to open criminal proceedings regarding the death of Mr M., stating that the additional inquiry did not disclose any new circumstances.  At the same time he instituted criminal proceedings concerning the beating of Mr M. that allegedly took place on the day of his disappearance. He transferred the case to the Slavyansk Internal Affairs Department ( “the SIAD”).\n13.  On 1 October 1999 the GPO prosecutor quashed the decision of 18 August 1999 refusing to open criminal proceedings, stating in particular that the inquiry had been carried out superficially and improperly. The prosecutor requested, in particular, that a further inquiry be held to clarify the following issues:\n- why the applicant submitted that some persons had initially confessed to the murder of her son;\n- which of the police officers were informed by the applicant of the trail leading to the ice-hole in the lake where Mr M.’s corpse had been found and who else had seen that trail;\n- why the police officers omitted the lake where Mr M.’s corpse was found when checking the neighbouring lakes.\n14.  On 29 October 1999 the SPO investigator refused to open criminal proceedings regarding the death of Mr M. since the cause of his death could not be established. Apparently, the SPO did not undertake any further inquiry into the applicant’s allegations.\n15.  On 11 November 1999 the SIAD investigator, in the course of the investigation of the alleged beating of Mr M., ordered a forensic examination to establish the circumstances of the death of Mr M.\n16.  The examination conducted by a group of experts of the Donetsk Forensic Medical Examination Bureau within the period between December 19", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3917", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Gdańsk.\n5.  On 16 April 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed robbery.\n6.  On 17 April 2002 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody until 16 July 2002 on reasonable suspicion that he had committed robbery and had attempted to escape. The court also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was justified by the existence of strong and substantial evidence, in particular testimonies of a victim and witnesses. It also gave as a ground for detention the severity of the likely sentence. Further, the court considered that, given the risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence, in particular collude with other co‑accused, keeping him in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.\n7.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on four occasions. The relevant decisions were given by the Gdańsk District Court on 15 July and 15 October 2002, and later on 15 January and 10 April 2003.\n8.  In all their detention decisions the authorities relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged and on the risk that he might go into hiding. As regards the latter, the court stressed that the applicant had already attempted to escape.\n9.  On 25 March 2003 the applicant was indicted before the Gdańsk District Court. The bill of indictment concerned five defendants and, in all, twelve charges were brought against them. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from around forty witnesses. Further, the bill of indictment included fifty items of evidence to be produced at the hearing.\n10.  On 5 June 2003 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently scheduled sixteen hearings in the case. Four of them were cancelled for various reasons.\n11.  In particular, it appears that no hearing took place between 14 August 2003 and 15 January 2004. Hearings scheduled for 9 October and 11 December 2003 were cancelled due to, among other things, the failure to bring the applicant to trial from prison, and the fact that a hearing scheduled for 6 November 2003 had to be cancelled because a trial judge was on mission.\n12.  In the course of the trial, the court ordered several expert opinions.\n13.  During the proceedings the applicant’s detention was extended on several occasions. At a hearing held on 9 October 2003 the Gdańsk District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 15 January 2004. On 15 January 2004 the court ordered that the term should be prolonged until 15 March 2004. On 11 March 2004 it ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 15 April 2004. Since on 16 April 2004 the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time-limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), further extension of his detention was ordered by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). On 23 March 2004 it extended his detention until 30 June 2004. The next decision was given by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 29 June 2004, when it extended his detention until 15 August 2004.\n14.  In all those decisions the courts stated that the grounds originally given for the applicant’s detention were still valid.\n15.  In the course of the investigation and the court proceedings the applicant made numerous, but unsuccessful, applications for release and appealed, likewise un", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3918", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company is registered in Dnipropetrovs’k.\n5.  On 22 August 2001 the applicant company lodged a claim with the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Commercial Court against the Commercial Bank P. (“the Bank”) seeking compensation for damages because of the latter’s failure to withdraw a sum of money from the account of a third party, S., in the framework of enforcement proceedings against S.\n6.  By decision of 13 September 2001, the court found against the applicant company. On 6 November 2001 the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Commercial Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant company and upheld the decision of the first-instance court.\n7.  By decision of 18 February 2002, the Higher Commercial Court, on the applicant company’s appeal, quashed the decisions of the lower courts and found for the applicant company.\n8.  On 4 June 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine, upon appeal by the Bank, quashed the resolution of the Higher Commercial Court on the ground that that court’s findings had been unfounded and erroneous, and upheld the decisions of the first-instance and the appellate courts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3919", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1954 and currently live in Kyiv.\n6.  In 1998 the applicants paid Mrs N.T. and Mrs T.T. the purchase price of a house located at D. street in Dnipropetrovsk and moved into it. Instead of registering the transaction in accordance with the applicable law, however, the applicants had the nominal house owners issue an authorization to Mr B., to whom the first applicant owed a debt, allowing him to perform any transactions relating to the house. As a result of the first applicant defaulting on his debt, in September 1999 Mr B. signed this house over as a gift to his daughter, although the applicants continued to live in it.\n7.  In 1999 Mr B. instituted civil proceedings against the applicants seeking repayment of the debt and various compensatory payments. The applicants lodged a counterclaim, seeking to confirm the validity of their unregistered purchase of the house. By the final decision of 29 August 2007 the claims of both parties were dismissed.\n8.  Since 1999 the applicants also lodged numerous complaints with law enforcement authorities alleging that they had been deprived of their house and money by gang members and that their lives were in danger on account of threats from Mr B. In support of their allegations, the applicants submitted tapes of their telephone conversations with Mr B., in which he had referred to his organized crime connections.\n9.  Criminal proceedings were instituted, in which Mr A.Kh., the first applicant’s cousin and a member of the applicants’ household, born in 1957, acted as one of the witnesses.\n10.  On 3 May 2001 the applicants’ family was provided with police bodyguards to secure their safety in connection with these proceedings. On 1 November 2001 the measure was lifted with reference to the first applicant’s inappropriate behaviour towards the guards. By the final decision of 2 September 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the earlier decisions finding the lifting of the measure lawful. The applicants subsequently made unsuccessful attempts to have the matter reopened.\n11.  Mr B. was eventually tried, but acquitted of extortion, as the applicants’ tapes were not admitted as permissible evidence. However the applicants insisted on bringing various other criminal actions against him, some of which appear to be currently pending.\n12.  At 9 a.m. on 30 April 2002 the applicants informed the Zhovtnevyy District Police that they had found Mr A.Kh. dead in his bed in the annex to their house at D. street.\n13.  On the same day several police officers and medical experts in presence of lay witnesses broke into the annex which was purportedly locked from the inside. A decomposing corpse was found in the bed on its back, with the head on the pillow. The group recorded no traces of a struggle or other evidence suggesting homicide. Pictures of the site were taken; however, they could not be developed on account of a defect in the film. The body was taken to the mortuary. However, as 1 May was a national holiday, the autopsy was not carried out until 2 May 2002. According to the applicants, no precautions were taken to prevent decomposition of the body in the mortuary.\n14.  Following the autopsy of 2 May 2002, the experts found it impossible to establish the cause of the death as the body had significantly decomposed. They further noted that no broken bones or other visible injuries could be found on the body. Finally, they suggested that the death, which must have occurred on or around 28 Apri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3920", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Bergisch Gladbach, Germany. In the 1970s he participated as a sprinter in the Olympic Games and from 1986 to 1993, he was the president of FC Homburg, a football club playing in the German Football League.\n6.  From 1982 the applicant was the sole shareholder and sole managing director of the DETAG investment trust corporation, which arranged the sale of apartments.\n7.  By a letter dated 19 February 1987, which reached the applicant on that day, the Cologne police headquarters summoned the applicant to question him on charges of fraud in relation with his business activities for the DETAG corporation. Thereby the applicant obtained knowledge of the criminal investigations instituted against him.\n8.  On 24 May 1988 and on 19 August 1988 the Cologne Public Prosecutor’s Office joined several different sets of proceedings concerning charges of fraud against the applicant, which had partly been transferred to it by other Public Prosecutor’s Offices (no. 110 Js 24/88).\n9.  In February 1989, court orders issued in October 1988 and February 1989, authorising the search of the applicant’s home, those of four co-defendants, of the companies led by them and of numerous banks in Germany, were executed and many documents seized.\n10.  In February 1990 the police submitted to the Public Prosecutor’s Office an evaluation of the documents seized and the statements of numerous witnesses who had been heard by way of a mailed questionnaire.\n11.  Between 5 October 1990 and 6 December 1990 further search orders, inter alia against the applicant and his company, were executed.\n12.  On 27 August 1992 the Cologne police headquarters, having heard ten witnesses since December 1990, sent back the files to the Public Prosecutor’s Office with a summary note on the results of their investigations.\n13.  On 28 July 1994 the Cologne Public Prosecutor’s Office, having questioned the applicant twice and following unsuccessful negotiations with the defence with a view to discontinuing the proceedings under Article 153a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 37 below), preferred an indictment (running to 460 pages) against the applicant with the Cologne Regional Court. It charged the applicant, who was represented by counsel, with seventy-four cases of aggravated fraud and attempted fraud, committed together with his co-defendants G. and D. between September 1984 and November 1986. The applicant, acting as the DETAG corporation’s managing director, was accused of having incited investors to buy apartments at a price far above their market value. According to the indictment, the applicant had obtained the investors’ consent to buy the apartments by misleading them about their true value and by orally undertaking, in particular, to repurchase the apartments after two years at the investors’ request, a guarantee which he never intended to keep.\n14.  On 21 November 1994 the Cologne Regional Court opened the main proceedings in respect of sixty-seven charges of aggravated fraud and attempted fraud against the applicant, who was represented by defence counsel throughout the proceedings.\n15.  On 1 June, 1 September and 1 December 1995 and on 1 March 1996 the president of the chamber of the Regional Court noted that due to two other sets of proceedings pending before the Regional Court which had to be granted priority as the defendants concerned were in custody, it was not possible to fix dates for the hearing in the applica", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3921", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Bayreuth, Germany.\n8.  On 22 May 1996 the applicant was charged with attempted tax evasion under sections 8 § 1, 10 § 1 b) and 148 §§ 1 and 2 c) of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 27 March 1997 the applicant and eight other persons, inter alia J.R., were officially indicted.\n10.  A main hearing before the Ostrava District Court (okresní soud) was scheduled as early as 28 April 1997 to be held in July 1997. It took place on 1 to 8 July 1997 and then on 17 July 1997. During the hearing of 3 July 1997 the applicant declared that he refused to attend further hearings; these then took place in his absence. The court requested a report from the prison doctor on the applicant’s bizarre behaviour during the main hearing of 3 July 1997 and with regard to the report on the applicant’s injury that occurred on 3 July 1997 in custody and to the report of 4 July 1997 on the use of a coercive measure against the applicant in custody due to his aggressiveness. It his report the prison doctor noted that the applicant was not able to attend the main hearings. It became necessary to carry out a psychological and psychiatric examination of the applicant, and the prison doctor did not recommend that the applicant attend the new main hearing. On 7 July 1997 the applicant’s and J.R.’s criminal case was severed for separate consideration and decision.\n11.  On 22 July 1997 the applicant was moved to the prison hospital whence he was transported back to the custody prison on 4 September 1997.\n12.  On 20 August 1997 the Regional Court submitted the applicant’s and J.R.’s criminal case to the Olomouc High Court (Vrchní soud) for the purpose of a decision on the regional prosecutor’s complaint that concerned, inter alia, J.R.’s detention during judicial proceedings. The Regional Court’s presiding judge asked the High Court for the file in order to make a copy for the applicant’s and J.R.’s severed criminal case. According to the Government, the file was lent to the Regional Court on 28 November 1997. Therefore, between 20 August and 28 November 1997 the Regional Court did not have the relevant file at its disposal.\n13.  On 19 December 1997 the Ostrava Regional Court (krajský soud) transferred the applicant’s and J.R.’s criminal case to the District Court as a court with jurisdiction in rem and local jurisdiction.\n14.  On 18 May 1998 the District Court convicted the applicant of tax evasion and sentenced him to eighteen months’ imprisonment. On the same day, the applicant was released from custody.\n15.  On 13 August 1998 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the District Court’s judgment.\n16.  On 2 September 1998 the District Court approved the deduction of the applicant’s pre-trial detention from his sentence.\n17.  On 23 May 1996 the District Court remanded the applicant in custody under Article 67 b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), with backdated effect from 22 May 1996. The court held that there was a risk that the applicant would influence witnesses and his co-accused.\n18.  On 24 June 1996 the Regional Court upheld the detention order, stating that the applicant’s detention was necessary, inter alia, in order to confront him with J.R., to interview the witnesses and eventually to confront the witnesses with the co-accused. The court found, therefore, that in this stage of the proceedings, the applicant’s detention was justified under 67 b) of the CCP.\n19.  On 17 July 1996 the Dist", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3922", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Krone Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, a limited liability company with its registered office in Vienna, is the owner of the daily newspaper Neue Kronenzeitung published by Mediaprint Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG (hereafter “the publisher”).\n6.  In 1996 the T association and another association founded the Techno-Z FH Forschungs- und Entwicklungs-GmbH (hereafter “Techno-Z FH”). This non-profit company was to promote and offer scientific support to the development of the information and communication society by conducting research projects and scientific studies in this field, by offering training, organising public presentations, editing publications and carrying out projects with other similar institutions. Techno-Z FH was sponsored by, inter alia,the Region of Salzburg.\n7.  In May 1999 Mr Dollhäubl, chairman of the T association at the time, was dismissed. The association held a press conference at the same time and praised the development of Techno-Z FH.\n8.  The applicant company subsequently published a series of articles about Mr Bruck, the managerial director of Techno-Z FH, in its daily newspaper Neue Kronenzeitung.\n9.  On 27 May 1999 the applicant company published an article headlined “Secret report discloses new scandal in Techno-Z!” (Geheimbericht enthüllt neuen Skandal um Techno-Z!) The relevant parts read as follows:\n \n(German original)\n \n„.[...] Ein streng geheimer Bericht deckt haarklein auf, wie locker es „Medienprofessor“ Peter A- Bruck in seiner Techno-Z-Firma bei Finanzen nahm!\nBruck ist Geschäftsführer einer Techno-Z-Firma, und zwar der „FH Forschungs- und Entwicklungs-GmbH“. Und kassiert dort fürstlich wie ein bisher geheimgehaltener „Statusbericht“ über die Gesellschaft enthüllt. Bei der Kontrolle 1998 fielen die Prüfer fast vom Hocker. Bruck hatte zu der Zeit keinen gültigen Dienstvertrag, laut altem Vertrag hätte er rund 72.000 S brutto verdient. Doch der „Medienprofessor“ ließ sich 80.000 S im Monat überweisen, dazu noch 10.000 S als „Prämienauszahlung“. Es konnte „nicht nachvollzogen werden“, mit welchem Recht sich Bruck die insgesamt 90.000 S monatlich genehmigte... Doch damit nicht genug: Auch die Reiselust ließ sich der Herr vom Techno -Z finanzieren. Allein für 1997 verrechnete er 392.170,24 S an Dienstreisen. Und für 1998 waren wieder 400.000 S für Brucks Dienstausflüge vorgesehen. Immerhin ein guter Tausender pro Tag... Und selbst damit war die finanzielle Gier noch nicht gestillt: Eine hohe sechsstellige Summe für „Tantiemen“ kam noch dazu, also eine Art Prämie. Bei einer Schulung für das Arbeitsmarktservice (AMS) ließ Bruck sich 142.000 S überweisen. Denn seine Firma hätte 247.090 S Gewinn gemacht. Falsch sagten die Prüfer. Es waren 200.000 S weniger. [...]”\n \n(Translation from German)\n \n„....a very secret report discloses in great detail how lax the “media professor” Aurelius Bruck was about the finances in his company Techno-Z! ... At the 1998 audit the auditors almost fell off their chair. Bruck had no valid employment contract at that time; according to his old contract, he would have earned a gross salary of approximately ATS 72,000. But the “media-professor” had transferred himself ATS 80,000 per month and a further “premium” of ATS 10,000. It was not possible to ascertain by which right Bruck was helping himself to a total of ATS 90,000 per month... But this was not enough: Bruck had also financed his wanderlust. For 1997 alone he charged ATS 392,170.24 for business trips. And for 199", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3923", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the town of Belogorsk in the Amur Region.\n5.  On 31 December 2003 she brought proceedings against the Social Security Office of Belogorsk on account of a refusal by the latter to increase her child benefit payments according to a certain method of calculation and seeking compensation in respect of pecuniary damage. She also alleged that the Office had not given her access to a number of documents concerning those payments.\n6.  By a judgment of 30 November 2004 the Belogorsk Town Court dismissed her claims as unfounded. The applicant’s representative lodged an appeal against the judgment on 12 December 2004.\n7.  The Amur Regional Court scheduled a hearing for 25 February 2005. According to the Government, on 17 February 2005 the Town Court dispatched summonses to the parties. The Government submitted a copy of the cover letter dated 17 February 2005 and sent by the Town Court to the Regional Court and the parties, including the applicant and her representative. The letter bore the outgoing number “1779” and indicated that the Town Court was sending the case file to the Regional Court and that the appeal hearing had been listed for 25 February 2005, at 9 a.m. The Government also submitted a copy of an excerpt from the Town Court’s outgoing correspondence log. The column entitled “outgoing number” contained the figure “1779”, and that entitled “sent to” listed the Regional Court, the applicant, her representative and the respondent. The date below that record read “18 February 2005”.\n8.  On 25 February 2005 the Amur Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Neither the applicant nor her representative was present. The judgment indicated that the appeal had been examined in a public session but did not specify whether the applicant or her representative had been notified of the hearing date.\n9.  On 17 March 2005 the applicant’s representative made an inquiry to the Town Court about the state of the appeal proceedings. On 22 March 2005 the Town Court sent him a copy of the appeal judgment and indicated that he had been duly informed of the hearing date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3924", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Rostov-on-Don, a town in the Rostov Region.\n5.  In 2002–03 the applicant stood trial for bribery but was acquitted. The applicant spent this time in pretrial custody.\n6.  On 30 December 2003 the Rostov Regional Court awarded the applicant against the Ministry of Finance 48,245.12 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage inflicted by the trial. This judgment became binding on 11 March 2004 and was enforced on 29 April 2005.\n7.  On 28 April 2005 the Presidium of the Regional Court awarded the applicant against the Ministry of Finance RUB 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained in pretrial custody. This judgment became binding on 28 April 2005 and was enforced on 21 March 2006.\n8.  On 4 April 2004 the Sovetskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don adjusted the award of 30 December 2003 for the cost of living and awarded a further RUB 7,034.68.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3925", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Luga, the Leningrad Region.\n5.  He sued the military unit no. 29760 of the Leningrad Military Circuit for damages resulting from a traffic accident.\n6.  On 21 June 1999 the Luzhskiy Town Court of the Leningrad Region granted his action and awarded him 40,911.50 Russian Roubles (“RUB”) to be paid by the military unit. The judgment was not appealed against and on 2 July 1999 entered into force.\n7.  On 2 August 1999 the Luzhskiy Town Court issued a writ of execution and on 9 August 1999 the bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 21 June 1999.\n8.  On 13 August 1999 the bailiffs sent the writ of execution to a local department of the Central Bank of Russia no. 29708, so that the amount awarded could be recovered from the military unit’s account. The unit did not comply with the judgment, since no budget funds had been allocated from the federal budget for these purposes.\n9.  As from 1 January 2002 the system of administration of the finances of the Leningrad Military Circuit has changed. The military units of the circuit, including military unit no. 29760, started receiving funds through the Federal Treasury system. The respondent unit’s account at the local department of the Central Bank of Russia was accordingly closed. On an unspecified date the unexecuted writ was returned to the bailiffs’ office.\n10.  On 16 January 2003 the bailiffs returned the writ and accompanying documents to the applicant. With reference to Decree No. 143 dated 22 February 2001 (see the relevant domestic law section below) they invited the applicant to submit the documents to a local department of the Ministry of Finance.\n11.  According to the Government, the applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the regional department of the Federal Treasury at some point in 2004. They did not submit any documents in this respect.\n12.  According to the applicant, on 16 January 2003 he sent the writ to a local department of the Federal Treasury. At some point the local department of the Federal Treasury returned the unexecuted writ to the applicant, referred to the impossibility to enforce the judgment due to the respondent unit’s lack of funds and invited him to submit it to the Federal Treasury in Moscow. On 20 May 2003 the applicant forwarded the writ of execution and the accompanying documents to the Federal Treasury. The applicant did not furnish any documents evidencing those transfers of the writ. He further submitted that after his complaint to the Administration of the President of Russia dated 30 January 2004 he obtained enforcement of the judgment.\n13.  On 21 April 2004 the military unit complied with the judgment in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3926", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Kovrov, the Vladimir Region.\n5.  The applicant is in receipt of compensation for health damage. On 21 May 1999 he brought a court action against two regional departments of the Social Security Fund (Sakhalin and Moscow) alleging incorrect calculation of the amount of compensation due to him for the period from 1 June 1998 to 31 May 2000. He claimed recalculation of the allowance and recovery of the unpaid amounts from the respondent departments of the Social Security Fund. He also asked the court to award him a penalty and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  On 9 February 2000 the Yuzhno-Sakhalinskiy Town Court dismissed the claim.\n7.  On 13 June 2000 the Sakhalin Regional Court reversed the judgment of 9 February 2000 on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh examination.\n8.  On 4 and 28 August 2000 the applicant modified his claims.\n9.  On 27 December 2000 the Town Court granted the applicant’s action in part. The court found that the Sakhalin Regional Department of the Social Security Fund (“the Sakhalin Department”) should pay the applicant RUB 10,348.35 and the Moscow Regional Department of the Social Security Fund (“the Moscow Department”) RUB 2,723.25 in arrears. The court further ordered each of the respondent departments to pay the applicant RUB 450 for lawyer’s fees and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claims as having no grounds under the domestic law. The applicant did not attend. On 9 February 2001 a copy of the judgment was sent to the applicant.\n10.  On 24 February 2001 the applicant mailed his grounds of appeal against the judgment of 27 December 2000.\n11.  On 24 April 2001 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 27 December 2000 in respect of the arrears and reimbursement of legal costs and remitted the claim for non-pecuniary damages and penalty for fresh examination. The applicant did not attend the hearing.\n12.  On 21 December 2001 the Town Court granted the applicant’s claims in part. The court awarded the applicant RUB 10,348.35 against the Sakhalin Department and RUB 2,723.25 against the Moscow Department in respect of penalty for delayed payment of the allowance. The remainder of the applicant’s claims were dismissed as unfounded. The applicant did not attend. On 18 March 2002 he received a copy of the judgment by post.\n13.  On 20 March 2002 the applicant appealed by post.\n14.  On 6 August 2002 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 21 December 2001 on appeal.\n15.  On 24 April 2001 the award made by the judgment of 27 December 2000 in respect of arrears and lawyer’s fees became enforceable.\n16.  On 20 and 26 July 2001 the Sakhalin Regional Department of the Social Security Fund paid the applicant RUR 10,348.35 in arrears and RUB 450 for lawyer’s fees respectively, as ordered by the judgment.\n17. On 15 October 2001 the Moscow Department transferred RUB 3,173.25 due to the applicant, to the deposit account of the bailiffs’ service.\n18.  On 16 November 2001 the bailiff informed the applicant that payment of the remaining amount had been received from the Moscow Regional Department of the Social Security Fund and asked for his bank details.\n19.  On 6 February 2002 the bailiff received that information.\n20.  On 25 July 2002 the bailiffs’ service transferred RUB 3,173.25 of the court’s award to the applicant’s bank account.\nb) Judgment of 21 December 2001\n21.  On 6 August 2002 the award of 21 December 2001 became enforceable, once upheld on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3927", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant is the father of the fifth and sixth applicants and a grandfather of Amkhad Vakha-Khadzhiyevich Gekhayev, born in 1986. The second and third applicants are the parents of Zalina Amadovna Mezhidova, born in 1978. The fourth and fifth applicants are Amkhad Gekhayev’s parents. The sixth applicant is Zalina Mezhidova’s husband and Amkhad Gekhayev’s uncle. The seventh and eighth applicants are Zalina Mezhidova’s children.\n8.  The applicants live in the Gudermes District of the Chechen Republic.\n9.  It does not appear that any of the applicants witnessed the events of 27 October 2001. The following account is based on eye-witness statements submitted by the applicants.\n10.  On 27 October 2001 a number of farmers from several villages of the Gudermes District, including two of the applicants’ relatives – Amkhad Gekhayev and Zalina Mezhidova – were harvesting in a field near the village of Komsomolskoye. The farmers had obtained prior authorisation for their work from the local authorities.\n11.  At 3 p.m. the farmers loaded the crop into a VAZ-2121 “Niva” vehicle belonging to the first applicant, in order to transport it to Komsomolskoye. Amkhad Gekhayev was driving and Zalina Mezhidova accompanied him, as she intended to return to the village to take care of her ailing grandmother and her two minor children – the seventh and eighth applicants, who were then three years and three months old and four months and twenty days old respectively.\n12.  At 3.10 p.m. an MI-8 and two MI-24 helicopters without clear hull numbers appeared in the sky over the field. One of the helicopters had the letters VVS RF (“the Air Forces of the Russian Federation”) on its side.\n13.  The MI-24 helicopters headed towards the field and started shooting over the heads of the people who remained there. Women and children were among their number.\n14.  The MI-8 helicopter attacked the “Niva” vehicle. After several warning shots the car stopped. The helicopter then landed nearby and several armed men in uniform approached the “Niva”, strafing it with machine guns. They took the applicants’ relatives out of the car and put them in the helicopter. According to the witnesses, Amkhad Gekhayev and Zalina Mezhidova appeared wounded or dead. The military blew the car up and the three helicopters then left.\n15.  Immediately after the incident the residents of Komsomolskoye made a video recording of the car. The “Niva” vehicle had been blown up, its windows were missing and there were numerous bullet holes in its frame. There were blood traces on the car doors. Zalina Mezhidova’s shoes and Amkhad Gekhayev’s cap lay nearby. Police officers arrived shortly after the incident, inspected and took photographs of the incident scene, collected slugs and cartridges from bullets of various calibres and a casing for a signal flare, examined the bullet holes on the car frame and noted the findings in their report.\n16.  The applicants referred to statements by a resident of Komsomolskoye, who had claimed that late in the evening of 27 October 2001 he had seen two armoured personnel carriers arrive at the scene of the incident and leave shortly afterwards.\n(b)  The Government’s version\n17.  According to the Government, since the beginning of the counter-terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic, the civil and military authorities had taken all necessary steps to secure the safety of civilians residing in the North Caucasus. The residents of the Chechen Republic had been n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3928", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Pskov, a town in the Pskov Region.\n5.  The applicant sued his employer, a regional department of the Federal Debt Recovery Centre, for salary arrears.\n6.  On 18 May 2004 the Pskov Town Court awarded him against the Government 342,578 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of the arrears and RUB 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damages. This judgment became binding on 7 June 2004.\nIn July and December 2004 the applicant sent enforcement papers to the Ministry of Finance, but in September 2005 the Ministry returned the papers, because they did not indicate the Ministry as the defendant and did not specify the financial source to be charged. The applicant asked the Town Court to clarify the judgment, but on 23 November 2005 the court refused this request, because the judgment was clear as it stood. The judgment has not been enforced to date.\n7.  In the meantime, on the Government’s request, on 12 November 2004 the Presidium of the Pskov Regional Court quashed the judgment in the part concerning the damages, and rejected this claim. The Presidium found that the courts below had misinterpreted material law.\n8.  On 17 April 2006 the Town Court gave two other judgments in the applicant’s favour. In the first judgment it adjusted the outstanding award of 18 May 2004 for the cost of living and awarded RUB 87,357. This judgment became binding on 28 April 2006. In the second judgment the court awarded the applicant RUB 206,672 in respect of salary arrears. This judgment became binding on 3 May 2006.\nIn May 2006 the applicant sent enforcement papers to the Ministry of Finance, but later the same month the Ministry returned the papers, because they did not specify the financial source to be charged. The applicant sent the enforcement papers to the bailiff’s service, but in December 2006 the service returned the papers, because it was not authorised to enforce debts against the treasury.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3929", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Ankara.\n6.  In 1990 he was prosecuted for his alleged membership of an illegal organisation, namely Dev-Genç (“Revolutionary Youth”) but was acquitted on 25 September 1990. Another set of criminal proceedings brought against him under Article 141 of the Criminal Code for membership of another illegal organisation, namely Dev-Yol (“Revolutionary Path”), were discontinued in 1990 following the repeal of that provision.\n7.  On 23 August 2003 the applicant was on his way to a demonstration in Ankara, organised by the Confederation of Public Workers’ Unions. He was arrested by the police, who allegedly beat him up. He was taken to a police station. A police report drawn up the same day stated that the applicant had a previous record for terrorist related activity in 1990.\n8.  On 24 August 2003 the Ankara prosecutor filed an indictment, accusing the applicant and 25 other persons of contravening the Demonstrations Act, and charged them with the offences of damaging State property and resisting arrest by using force.\n9.  While the criminal proceedings were pending before the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance (hereinafter “the Ankara court”), a police report entitled “information form on additional offences” (Ek Suç Bildirme Formu) was submitted to the Ankara court. In the report, under the heading “Records of Guilt” (Suçluluk Kayıtları), were two entries concerning the applicant which read as follows:\n“1- Member of Dev-Yol, 14/03/1990, Political Offences Branch [of the Police], 3371;\n2- Member of Revolutionary Youth, 2/11/1990, Political Offences Branch [of the Police], 14034”.\n10.  The report, which also included the applicant’s fingerprints, address and birth registry details, had been drawn up in accordance with Article 12 of the Police Regulations on Fingerprinting, which empowered the police to keep such details on persons accused or convicted of certain offences.\n11.  On 27 January 2004 the applicant submitted a complaint to the prosecutor and brought to the prosecutor’s attention his acquittal in 1990 of the offence of membership of the illegal organisation Dev-Genç, and the discontinuation in 1990 of the criminal proceedings concerning his alleged membership of Dev-Yol. The applicant drew attention to the fact that the Police Regulations on Fingerprinting also required the police to include in their records any acquittals or discontinuations of criminal proceedings. He asked the prosecutor to prosecute the police officers who had neglected their duties by failing to comply with the Regulations.\n12.  In his complaint the applicant further argued that the police report as it stood infringed his right to the presumption of innocence protected by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He was a sociologist and the author of a number of publications. He drew the attention of the prosecutor to the national press which had reported that “one of the persons arrested [in the demonstration] was a member of Dev-Genç”. He submitted that he was now regarded as a member of illegal organisations and this had adverse effects on his professional life and was detrimental to his psychological integrity.\n13.  On 11 February 2004 the prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s request for the police officers to be prosecuted. The prosecutor considered that the officers had not attempted to mislead anyone; all they had done was to forward to a criminal court official records of past incidents conc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3930", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Vilnius. At the time of lodging his application, he was serving a prison sentence.\n7.  The applicant, a person with previous convictions, was suspected of robbery. On 8 September 1999 the police conducted a search of his home. The applicant complained to the prosecution that the search had been unlawful. He also alleged that the police had taken some documents and computer files belonging to the Belarusian Youth Association (BYA), a non-governmental organisation which he ran.\n8.  On the same date the applicant was arrested. His detention on remand was authorised by the Vilnius City Third District Court on 10 September 1999. It was thereafter extended on several occasions.\n9.  On 20 September 1999 the applicant was placed in custody at the Lukiškės Remand Prison (Vilniaus Lukiškių tardymo izoliatorius - kalėjimas).\n10.  He unsuccessfully attempted to escape from a convoy vehicle on 28 December 1999.\n11.  On 23 December 1999 the prosecution rejected the applicant’s complaints regarding the search of his home. The applicant did not appeal.\n12.  On an unspecified date the pre-trial investigation was concluded and the case transmitted to the trial court.\n13.  On 17 October 2000 the Vilnius City Third District Court convicted the applicant of robbery, the illegal possession of ammunition, assault and an attempt to abscond. He was sentenced to five years and ten months’ imprisonment and his property was confiscated. During the hearing the applicant was assisted by an officially-appointed defence counsel and an interpreter (Russian / Lithuanian). When calculating the sentence to be imposed on the applicant, the trial court added a period of imprisonment relating to a previous conviction, which the applicant had not served fully as he had been released on licence on 6 May 1998.\n14.  The applicant appealed, claiming inter alia that the case against him had been fabricated, that the court had based its conclusions on evidence obtained by force, and that the conviction was arbitrary. On 8 March 2001 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s allegations as unsubstantiated. The applicant was not present at the appeal hearing but was represented by officially-appointed counsel.\n15.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, claiming that the charges had been fabricated in order to undermine the activities of the BYA, that the evidence had been collected by force, that the first-instance court had rejected his request to have his handcuffs removed during the trial, that some witnesses had not been questioned, and that the transcripts of the hearings had been false. The applicant further alleged that his defence rights had been violated during his questioning on 10 September 1999, and that the majority of other procedural acts during the pre-trial investigation had been carried out in the absence of his counsel. He also complained about the quality of the services provided by the lawyers officially appointed to defend him. Finally, the applicant objected to the fact that the appellate court had examined the case in his absence.\n16.  On 11 September 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal, the applicant’s lawyer being present. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court had reasonably refused to call additional witnesses. The applicant had been able to question the witnesses summoned by the court. The applicant could also have submitted his comments on the contents of th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3931", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 10 November 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempting to undermine the constitutional order, an offence under Article 146 of the Criminal Code then in force. He was subsequently transferred to a prison where he was detained pending the introduction of criminal proceedings against him.\n6.  On 4 December 1995 the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, charging the applicant and a number of other persons with the above-mentioned offence.\n7.  On 24 December 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court (hereafter “the trial court”) found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n8.  On 8 December 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment and criminal proceedings against the applicant recommenced before the trial court.\n9.  Following the abolition of the State Security Courts, the Istanbul Court of Assize took over the case. On 18 May 2006 the applicant was released on bail from prison where he had been detained since November 1995. The retrial is still pending before the Istanbul Court of Assize. According to the information provided by the applicant, the most recent hearing was held on 1 May 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3933", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in the village Shakhterskiy of the Tula Region.\n5.  The applicant is a former serviceman. Upon his dismissal certain pecuniary benefits were not paid to him. He instituted civil proceedings for their recovery against military unit no. 23132.\n6.  He had a military rank of junior sergeant in reserve at the material time.\n7.  On 6 August 2001 the Tula Garrison Military Court granted the applicant’s claim. The court established that from 24 March 2000 to 4 November 2000 the applicant had performed military service in the North Caucasus Region and from 24 March 2000 to 1 May 2000 participated in the military operations in that region. The court found that the applicant was entitled to monetary compensation and the failure to pay it to him in good time constituted a violation of his rights. In its analysis the domestic court referred, inter alia, to the Law on the Status of Military Servicemen (see paragraph 19 below) which provides for entitlement of certain categories of military servicemen to additional monetary compensation, and to Decree of the Federal Government of 20 August 1999 no. 930-54 establishing the amounts of compensation due to military personnel of different ranks for their participation in the military operations on the territory of Dagestan. The court ordered the commander of the military unit concerned to pay the applicant remuneration for his participation in the military operations between 24 March and 1 May 2000 and pecuniary benefits for his service in the North Caucasus Region. An exact amount to be paid was not specified in the operative part of the judgment.\n8.  The judgment entered into force on 17 September 2001.\n9.  On 9 October 2001 and 5 April 2002 the Tula Garrison Military Court invited the commander of the military unit to report whether the judgment of 6 August 2001 had been executed and notified him of his responsibility for non-execution of the judgment. By letter of 5 April 2002 the court also advised the applicant of his right to ask for a writ of execution to be issued in respect of the judgment.\n10.  At some point the applicant complied with the instruction and asked for a writ. On 7 May 2002 the Tula Garrison Military Court issued the writ of execution, and the enforcement proceedings were opened in respect of the judgment.\n11.  Since the respondent military unit was based in Shali, Chechnya, on 19 June 2002 the Bailiffs’ Office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the writ to the Chief Bailiff of the Shali District of Chechnya.\n12.  In their observations dated 14 July 2006 the Government submitted that the judgment of 6 August 2001 had not been enforced.\n13.  In their further observations of 25 May 2007 the Government informed the Court that the amounts of 25,110 Russian roubles (RUB) and RUB 74,520 of pecuniary benefits for the applicant’s participation in the military operations in the North Caucasus Region were paid to the applicant by the command of the military unit no. 23132 on an unspecified date at his discharge from the military service. They did not submit any documents in this respect.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3934", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  The applicant worked as chief physician in a hospital managed by the Moscow patriarchate. On 29 November 2000 the applicant on her own initiative left her place of work in order to participate in a conference dedicated to the fight against drug addiction in Russia, organised by the Russian Orthodox Church.\n6.  On 18 December 2000 the applicant was dismissed for unjustified absence from work on 29 November 2000. She believed that the dismissal was unlawful and brought civil proceedings for reinstatement and for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 28 March 2001 the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow partly allowed the claims, ordered her reinstatement and awarded her 19,401.03 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage. The applicant’s claims for non-pecuniary damage were dismissed. On 14 May 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n8.  On 16 May 2001 the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment. On 1 June 2001 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 28 March 2001 and the appeal decision of 14 May 2001 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination.\n9.  On 19 September 2001 the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. The Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on 22 October 2001.\n10.  The Vice-President of the Supreme Court lodged an application for supervisory review of the ruling of the Presidium of the Moscow City Court of 1 June 2001 and the subsequent judgments.\n11.  On 16 April 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia, by way of supervisory review, quashed the ruling of 1 June 2001 and the judgment of 19 September 2001 and restored the validity of the judgment of 28 March and the appeal decision of 14 May 2001 as regards the applicant’s reinstatement and the refusal to pay her compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant’s pecuniary claims were remitted to the first-instance court for a fresh examination as the amount initially awarded had by that time considerably decreased in purchasing power. No appeal lay against this ruling.\n12.  The Prosecutor General’s Office lodged an application for supervisory review of the Supreme Court’s ruling of 16 April 2002.\n13.  On 5 June 2002 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment of 16 April 2002 by way of supervisory review and restored the validity of the judgment of 19 September 2001, upheld on appeal on 22 October 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3935", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Moscow. He is a military officer.\n5.  At some point the applicant sued his military unit for wage arrears. By judgments of 1 June 2000 and 10 August 2000 the Mozdokskiy District Court of the Republic of North Ossetia (Alaniya) (“the District Court”) awarded him 242,293 Russian Roubles (RUB). This amount was not paid to him within the statutory time-limit.\n6.   At some point the applicant brought a claim against the military unit for inflation losses arising out of protracted enforcement of the judgments of 1 June 2000 and 10 August 2000.\n7.  On 5 November 2001 the District Court allowed his claim and ordered military unit no. 3737 to pay him RUB 122,975.28 of damages resulting from delayed enforcement of two judgments in his favour.\n8.  It appears that the judgment was not appealed against and entered into force ten days later.\n9.  On 19 November 2001 the District Court issued the applicant with a writ of execution in respect of the judgment.\n10.  On 13 February 2002 the applicant submitted the writ to the Ministry of Finance.\n11.  By letter of 20 September 2002 the Ministry informed the applicant that the writ of execution had been forwarded to the Ministry of the Interior. The judgment remained unenforced, since no budget funds had been allocated from the federal budget for these purposes until 2004.\n12.  According to the Government, on 29 October 2004 the amount of RUB 122,975.28 was paid to the applicant. The Government submitted a copy of the payment order dated 29 October 2004 confirming that the entire sum had been transferred to the applicant’s account.\n13.  According to the applicant, on 1 November 2004 he received the amount of RUB 122,900 credited into his bank account. He submitted a copy of the same payment order of 29 October 2004 (see paragraph 12 above) confirming transfer of 122,975.28 to his account.\n14.  On 14 November 2005 the applicant brought court proceedings claiming compensation for depreciation of the judgment debt due to inflation for a period between 14 February 2002, the date when the Ministry of Finance received the writ of execution, and 29 October 2004, the date when the judgment had been enforced.\n15.  On 20 December 2005 the District Court granted the applicant’s claim and awarded him RUB 46,238.68 against his military unit.\n16.  On 17 March 2006 the command of the respondent unit applied for reopening of the case in view of the newly established circumstances.\n17.  On 27 March 2006 the District Court granted the application, annulled the judgment of 20 December 2005 and scheduled a new examination of the case.\n18.  On 18 August 2006 the District Court examined the applicant’s action, found in his favour and ordered the military unit to pay him RUB 125,557.76. The respondent unit appealed.\n19.  On 16 May 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of North Ossetia (Alaniya) quashed the judgment of 18 August 2006 on appeal and remitted the case for a new consideration by the first instance court.\n20.  On 3 October 2007 the District Court examined the case afresh and allowed the applicant’s action. The court found that the military unit was to pay the applicant RUB 41,528.75 of compensation for inflation losses resulting from the delayed enforcement of the judgment of 5 November 2001.\n21.  It appears that at some point the command of the respondent military unit applied for the reopening of the proceedings due to newly established circumstances.\n22.  On 26 Decemb", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3936", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant’s family lived in the village of Ąžuolpamušio, Pasvalys district. Her husband died on 15 April 2002.\n6.  Prior to his death, on 31 January 2001 the biggest Lithuanian daily newspaper, Lietuvos Rytas, published a front page article entitled “Pasvalys villages paralysed by the fear of death: residents of the remote Lithuanian area shackled by the AIDS threat” (Pasvalio kaimus paralyžavo mirties baimė: nuošalios Lietuvos vietovės gyventojai atsidūrė AIDS grėsmės gniaužtuose). The following statements of particular concern to the applicant’s family were made in the article:\n“Notoriously promiscuous, thirty-year old Gitana Biriuk is already sick with this fatal disease ...\nAn HIV-positive person lives in a village in the Pajiešmenys area. This [is] G. Biriuk, an unmarried mother of two children ...\nThe father of G. Biriuk’s two children is an inhabitant of Paiešmenių [village] - L. Armonas...\nMedics at the Pasvalys hospital confirmed that G. Biriuk is HIV-positive. The woman was taken to hospital with tuberculosis. Blood tests revealed that she was HIV-positive ...\nThe woman [G. Biriuk] has already been diagnosed with AIDS - this is the last stage of the infection. The disease can last from a year up to ten years but finally ends with death...\nLaimis Armonas is HIV-positive...\nLast week ... the father of G. Biriuk’s two children, living in Pajiešmenių village, was taken to Pasvalys hospital with a high fever...\n7.  The husband instituted proceedings in the Vilnius City Third District Court, suing the newspaper for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 50,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, or about 14,460 euro (EUR)) for a breach of his right to privacy.\n8.  On 19 July 2001 the court ruled in his favour. The court found that the defendant had not proved the truthfulness of the published allegations as to the husband’s relationship with G. Biriuk, or that the information about the husband’s state of health, indicating his full name and residence, had been made public with his consent, or met a legitimate public interest in drawing society’s attention to the rising number of HIV cases in Lithuania. Having assessed all the relevant evidence, the court decided that there was no proof that the husband was the father of G. Biriuk’s children. The article humiliated the husband and the publication of information about his private life caused him non-pecuniary damage, had an impact on his health, and a negative influence on his family life and his reputation. It also restricted his family’s opportunities to communicate with others. The court noted that in 2001 the statutory capital of the newspaper company - JSC Lietuvos Rytas - was LTL 33,754,700 (approximately EUR 9,776,037). However, the court concluded that the information had not been made public deliberately, and applied Article 54 § 1 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public. Accordingly, it awarded the husband the maximum sum set by this Law in such circumstances, i.e. LTL 10,000 (about EUR 2,896), in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n9.  The husband appealed to the Vilnius Regional Court. On 8 October 2001 the court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower court’s reasoning.\n10.  As mentioned above, the husband died on 15 April 2002.\n11.  On 24 April 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision. It stated that an award exceeding the amount of LTL 10,000 set by the aforementioned legislation could be granted if it were established that infor", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3937", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the village of Kraštų, Pasvalys district.\n6.  On 31 January 2001 the biggest Lithuanian daily newspaper, Lietuvos Rytas, published a front page article entitled “Pasvalys villages paralysed by the fear of death: residents of a remote Lithuanian area shackled by the AIDS threat” (Pasvalio kaimus paralyžavo mirties baimė: nuošalios Lietuvos vietovės gyventojai atsidūrė AIDS grėsmės gniaužtuose). The following statements of particular concern to the applicant were made in the article:\n“Notoriously promiscuous thirty-year old Gitana Biriuk is already sick with this fatal disease ...\nAn HIV-positive person lives in a village in Pajiešmenys area. This [is] G. Biriuk, an unmarried mother of two children ...\n7.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Vilnius City Third District Court, suing the newspaper for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 50,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, or about 14,460 euro (EUR)) for a breach of her right to privacy. She referred, inter alia, to Article 8 of the Convention.\n8.  On 15 April 2002 the court ruled in favour of the applicant. The court found that the information about the applicant’s private life had been collected and published without her consent. The data about her private life did not correspond to any legitimate public interest. The article had been published on the front page of the newspaper as the sensation of the day, with the aim of increasing sales. The Vilnius City Third District Court noted that publication had humiliated her and caused her significant non-pecuniary damage. The court concluded that, by printing the article and doing so in a humiliating manner, the newspaper had deliberately sought the negative consequences or had intentionally allowed for such consequences. Taking into account the above considerations, the court applied Article 54 § 1 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public, multiplied the statutory sum of LTL 10,000 (about EUR 2,896) by three, and awarded the applicant LTL 30,000 (about EUR 8,676) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n9.  The applicant appealed to the Vilnius Regional Court, requesting the maximum award under Article 54 § 1 of the said Law, namely LTL 50,000. On 17 June 2002 the appellate court reduced the award to LTL 10,000 (about EUR 2,892). It reasoned that the applicant had not proved that the newspaper had published the information about her intentionally and that the first-instance court had had no grounds to triple the statutory sum.\n10.  On 15 January 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision. It stated that an award in excess of LTL 10,000 under Article 54 § 1 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public could only be granted if it had been established that the information had been published intentionally. The court agreed with the reasoning of the appellate court that, for a breach of privacy, intent was to be regarded as proven if the facts about someone’s private life were disseminated with the purpose of degrading that person (siekant jį sumenkinti). The Supreme Court held, inter alia, as follows:\n“It is to be stressed that the problem of the interaction between persons who are sick with AIDS and the others is relevant and should be discussed. The relations of the sick with the persons who live nearby are based on the knowledge about the disease we have today and on the understanding of the related dangers. The nature of the disease and the know", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3938", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are spouses. They were both born in 1947 and currently live in Belgrade.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The applicants and a certain M.P. were co-owners of a house and five other buildings in Belgrade.\n9.  On 21 May 1998 M.P. obtained a building permit for the partial reconstruction of the house co-owned by the applicants, authorising him to convert his flat into a duplex and enlarge it by approximately 100 meters squared.\n10.  M.P. started with the construction work immediately thereafter.\n11.  On 7 August 1998, on the basis of an on-site intervention, the Inspectorate of the Voždovac Municipality (“the Municipality”) concluded that M.P. was not performing the construction work in line with the building permit. It therefore ordered him to stop all work and to file a request for a new permit.\n12.  On 2 September 1998 the Inspectorate ordered M.P. to demolish, within three days, that part of the construction which had been erected contrary to the building permit.\n13.  On 11 September 1998 the Inspectorate issued an enforcement order in this respect.\n14.  Meanwhile, M.P. filed a request for a new building permit.\n15.  On 24 September 1998 the Municipality issued a favourable interim decision.\n16.  On 15 December 1998 the second-instance authority quashed this decision, remitting the case for re-consideration.\n17.  On 13 July 1999 the Municipality dismissed M.P.'s request for a new building permit, finding that his plan did not satisfy the requirements prescribed by the relevant domestic legislation.\n18.  On the same date, a technical report noted that “following the recent precipitation” and the construction work undertaken by M.P. the applicants' property had been seriously damaged. In particular, mortar had fallen, walls had cracked, and extensive damp and leakages had appeared throughout the premises.\n19.  On 27 March 2001 and 20 June 2002 the applicants filed criminal complaints against unidentified officials employed with the Municipality, alleging abuse of office.\n20.  On 25 November 2003 this complaint was rejected by the Fifth Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office (Peto opštinsko javno tužilaštvo) in Belgrade.\n21.  Following the entry into force of the new Planning and Construction Act in May 2003, M.P filed a request with the Municipality for the “legalisation” of the reconstruction of his flat (see paragraphs 32-34 below).\n22.  On 22 May 2003 and 11 June 2004 the applicants lodged submissions opposing the said legalisation.\n23.  On 11 February 2005 the Municipality informed the applicants that M.P. had filed a request for legalisation.\n24.  On 14 December 2005 M.P. supplemented this request.\n25.  Over the years, the applicants had repeatedly requested enforcement of the demolition order dated 2 September 1998, but to no avail.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3939", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Kaunas.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought civil proceedings for divorce and the division of the matrimonial property. On 13 November 2002 she signed a power of attorney authorising her lawyer to represent her during the first-instance proceedings before the Kaunas City District Court.\n7.  On 4 December 2003 the Kaunas City District Court granted the divorce and divided the family’s property, awarding the applicant monetary compensation in the amount of 8,547 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 2,442 euros (EUR)), for the property assigned to her former husband. The applicant and her lawyer were present at the hearing.\n8.  The applicant’s husband appealed. On 4 February 2004 the Kaunas Regional Court sent a written notice (pranešimas) about the forthcoming court hearing to four recipients – the applicant, her lawyer who had represented her before the court of first instance, the defendant and his lawyer. The notice was sent by the ordinary postal service.\n9.  On 18 February 2004 the Kaunas Regional Court heard the appeal in the absence of the applicant and her lawyer. The court noted that no comments on the appeal had been received from the applicant. The other party was present at the hearing. The court decided to reduce the amount of compensation to LTL 3,547 (approximately EUR 1,013).\n10.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal, complaining, inter alia, that she had not been duly summoned to the appellate hearing. In particular, the applicant alleged that the notice sent to her had been dispatched to the wrong address. Moreover, she had authorised her lawyer to represent her only before the Kaunas City District Court. Thus, it had been futile to send notice to that lawyer at the appeal stage.\n11.  On 26 April 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. It noted, inter alia, that, in accordance with standard civil procedure, the parties are to be notified about the first hearing by way of summonses (šaukimais) served upon them by registered post. However, they are to be informed about subsequent hearings by dispatching a notice via the simple postal service. These arrangements are deemed to speed up proceedings and are based on the assumption that the parties have a duty of care to follow the events in the case.\n12.  The Supreme Court acknowledged that the notice to the applicant had been dispatched using an incorrect address and noted that the notice had been sent to the applicant’s former representative. However, it observed that, in any event, the applicant had failed to show that – had she been present before the appeal court – she would have adduced any evidence that could have led to a different resolution of the dispute. The applicant had not indicated any such information in her cassation appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3940", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Şanlıurfa.\n6.  On 22 November 1984 Law no. 3083 came into force. Article 5 of this law provided the possibility of leasing State land to farmers who were in need and who fulfilled certain eligibility criteria (“right holders”). In particular, Article 24 § 1 of Law no. 3083 provided that those who had been convicted of certain offences were not entitled to benefit from this law (see paragraph 16 below).\n7.  Following the promulgation of Law no. 3083, the applicant applied to the Commission which determined the eligibility of farmers to be right holders and requested to be provided with land in Ceylanpınar in the south-east of Turkey.\n8.  On 1 March 1999 the applicant was identified as a right holder and leased land from the Directorate General for Agricultural Reform (Tarım Reformu Genel Müdürlüğü) (“the Directorate General”) for an indefinite period on payment of a rent. The applicant earned his living by cultivating this land.\n9.  On 11 May 2000, after conducting a “security investigation”, the Directorate General annulled the right holder status of the applicant.\n10.  On 31 May 2000 the applicant brought an action in the Gaziantep Administrative Court requesting the stay of execution and reversal of the Directorate General’s decision.\n11.  On 8 June 2000 the Gaziantep Administrative Court decided to request the defendant administration to indicate the reasons which grounded its decision to annul the right holder status of the applicant. The court invited the defendant administration to submit their response and relevant documents within thirty days.\n12.  On 2 August 2000 the Gaziantep Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for a stay of execution of the decision, holding that necessary conditions were not met.\n13.  On an unspecified date, the Directorate General refused to submit the information or documents requested by the Gaziantep Administrative Court. In this respect, the Directorate General relied on Article 20 § 3 of the Law on Administrative Procedure which provides that the Prime Minister or other Government Minister may refrain from submitting information or documents to an administrative court if the information or documents in question pertain to the security or vital interests of the State.\n14.  On 7 December 2000 the Gaziantep Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s case. The court held that the impugned decision of 11 May 2000 and the refusal of the Directorate General to submit the relevant information and documents had been in accordance with the domestic legislation. The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 15 April 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. This decision was served on the applicant on 5 July 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3941", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1966. The second applicant, his wife, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1967. They live together in Mažeikiai and have two children.\n6.  In April 1999 the first applicant’s sister, SJ, and her partner, DŠ (senior), died, and the applicants were appointed as temporary custodians of the deceased couple’s daughters - RŠ, aged four, and DŠ, aged six months.\n7.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the paternal grandparents, SŠ and VŠ, applied to a court to adopt RŠ and DŠ. The applicants submitted a counter-claim for the adoption. On 22 December 1999 the Mažeikiai District Court accepted the grandparents’ claim, recognising RŠ and DŠ as their adopted children. On 27 March 2000 the Šiauliai Regional Court upheld that decision. On 14 June 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the lower decisions, remitting the case for a fresh examination at first instance.\n8.  On 17 July 2001 the Mažeikiai District Court partly granted the claim of SŠ and VŠ, by recognising DŠ (then two years) as their adopted daughter. However, it recognised RŠ (then six years old) as the adopted daughter of the applicants. The applicants and the grandparents were ordered by the court to ensure that there were no obstacles that would prevent RŠ and DŠ from communicating with the applicants as well as with their grandparents.\n9.  On 8 March 2002 the Šiauliai Regional Court quashed the decision, dismissing both adoption applications. The court considered that the dispute between the two couples could be resolved without an adoption, but by a grant of permanent custody.\n10.  On 28 August 2002 the Mažeikiai District Court appointed SŠ and VŠ as the permanent custodians of the two girls. The court reached this decision on account of the better financial and living conditions of the grandparents compared to the applicants, as well as the fact that SŠ and VŠ were closer blood relatives to the girls. Noting RŠ’s young age (then seven years old) and her “emotional instability” when expressing herself in front of officials, the court rejected her express wish to live with her “mother” and “father” (the applicants). The Mažeikiai District Court observed that a child’s wish does not necessarily coincide with its future interests; therefore the court was not bound by RŠ’s opinion. The court took note of the request of the Child Rights Protection Institution to give custody of the girls to the applicants, whom the girls recognised as their “natural family” and who had cared for them since their parents’ death. However, it concluded that the girls were of a young, adaptable age. As RŠ had lived with the applicants for a few years, without any memory of her grandparents’ family, she was unable to understand where she would be better off.\n11.  The applicants and the Child Rights Protection Institution appealed. On 4 November 2002 the Šiauliai Regional Court confirmed the first-instance reasoning and decision after a written procedure, without an oral hearing of the parties.\n12.  The applicants and the Child Rights Protection Institution lodged cassation appeals. On 8 November 2002 the President of the Supreme Court suspended the execution of the Mažeikiai District Court’s decision until the cassation appeal could be examined. On 12 February 2003 the Supreme Court held that it had no jurisdiction in child custody cases and dismissed the cassation application.\n13.  On 21 March 2003, when the bailiff attempted to execute the courts’ de", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3942", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Barnaul.\n5.  The applicant is a former President of a private commercial bank and the owner of several businesses in Barnaul.\n6.  On 27 November 1997 criminal proceedings were opened against him on suspicion of fraud.\n7.  On 27 November 1997 the applicant was arrested and detained pending trial.\n8.  On 5 December 1997 charges were brought against the applicant.\n9.  In 1998-1999 the applicant’s detention was extended on several occasions.\n10.  On 21 April 1999 the pre-trial investigation ended and the applicant was allowed to examine the case file which was made up of 145 volumes – 9 of which contained the summons of the victims, 6 volumes contained accounting documents and 118 volumes contained the statements of the victims (seven thousand and thirty-six clients of the bank). A deadline of 8 November 1999 was given for the reading of the file. As the applicant had not managed to read all the volumes by the given deadline, the time was extended to 12 November 1999. No further extensions were granted.\n11.  On 5 January 2000 the trial commenced.\n12.  The applicant asked the court to send the case file back to the investigator due to the numerous alleged procedural violations and the lack of sufficient time given for the examination of the file. On 22 February 2000 his request was granted. However, on 30 March 2000 this decision was quashed and the case was remitted for fresh consideration. No further documents concerning the outcome of these proceedings are enclosed in the file.\n13.  On 15 June 2001 the applicant was released on bail due to the expiration of the time-limits for his pre-trial detention pending court examination. By that time he spent over three and a half years in detention.\n14.  On 18 November 2002 the applicant was again detained within the same proceedings as a result of his alleged attempts to influence witnesses. He appealed against the detention order, and on 9 January 2003 the Altay Regional Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail.\n15.  According to the Government, during the period from January 2000 to January 2003 the hearings were adjourned on 38 occasions due to reasons outside the authorities’ control, such as illnesses of the applicant and his lawyers, their requests for additional examinations, the lawyers of the applicant and his three co-accused being occupied in unrelated proceedings, untimely arrivals of victims and witnesses and the need to examine petitions lodged by the applicant for review of the alleged violations committed during the expert examinations. The Government submitted that the proceedings were adjourned due to the court’s actions on one occasion only, i.e. from 13 to 20 January 2003, the presiding judge being on a regular holiday leave.\n16.  As it appears from the Government’s submissions, no actions were taken by the domestic courts during the periods from 30 March to 31 July 2000, from 10 September 2001 to 11 March 2002 and from 30 September 2002 to 13 January 2003.\n17.  On 30 May 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Barnaul convicted the applicant, along with three other accused, of unlawful banking transactions, unlawful business undertakings, fraud and breach of professional discretion and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment with forfeiture of property. The applicant was taken into custody direct from the courtroom.\n18.  On 13 November 2003 the appeal hearing commenced. However, the applicant felt unwell and the hearing", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3943", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and resides in the village of Akimovka, the Zaporizhzhya region, Ukraine.\n6.  In December 1998 the applicant was dismissed from the military forces.\n7.  On 8 June 1999 the Zaporizhzhya Garrison Military Court (“the Zaporizhzhya Court”) ordered the Zaporizhzhya Regional Military Enlistment Office to pay the applicant 1,260.91 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) for his uniform expenses for the period up to 31 December 1998.\n8.  On 11 February 2000 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued because of the debtor’s lack of funds and because, according to Article 5 of the Economic Activities of the Armed Forces Act, the property of the Armed Forces could not be used to enforce a court decision.\n9.  According to the applicant, on 16 October 2001 the decision was enforced in part by the debtor. At 21 August 2007 the decision had not been enforced in full.\n10.  In June 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zaporizhzhya Court against his former employer, the Akimovskiy District Military Enlistment Office, claiming an allowance due to him for the period of January-February 1999. The applicant stated that though he was officially dismissed on 31 December 1998, he had actually left the forces on 16 February 1999.\n11.  On 23 June 1999 the court found for the applicant and awarded him UAH 442.03 for the unpaid allowance to be paid by the Enlistment Office.\n12.  On 17 August 1999 the South Regional Military Court quashed that decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n13.  On 3 November 1999 the Zaporizhzhya Court found against the applicant.\n14.  On 7 December 1999 the South Regional Military Court upheld that decision.\n15.  On 11 July 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 3 November 1999 and 7 December 1999 upon a protest, lodged by the President of the Supreme Court (at the applicant’s request), and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n16.  The applicant lodged an additional claim asking to change the date of his dismissal and requesting the payment of an insurance premium, compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and the enforcement of the decision of 8 June 1999.\n17.  On 3 November 2000 the Zaporizhzhya Court, considering the case in the applicant’s presence, changed the date of his dismissal and ordered the Enlistment Office to pay him UAH 791.78 for the unpaid allowance and other payments.\n18.  The applicant did not appeal against the decision.\n19.  In a letter of 30 January 2004, the applicant informed the Court that the decision of 3 November 2000 had been enforced in full, without specifying the date of enforcement.\n20.  In August 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Zaporizhzhya Court against the Enlistment Office and the Ministry of Defence with claims similar to those in the second set of proceedings.\n21.  On 31 August 2000 the court returned the applicant’s claim, stating that he had failed to pay the court fee and to enclose any evidence in support of his claim as required by the legislation.\n22.  The applicant neither appealed against that decision nor submitted his claim anew.\n23.  In November 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Central Regional Military Court against the Ministry of Defence contesting the lawfulness of his dismissal from the military service and seeking compensation for damage. The applicant also clamed that the defendant had been unlawfully ignoring the court decisions in his favour.\n24.  On 12 December 2000 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3944", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Andrushivka, Zhytomyr region, Ukraine.\n5.  By its judgment of 8 December 2000, the Andrushivka District Court awarded the applicant 700 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to her by Mr Y. It appears that this judgment became final and the enforcement proceedings were initiated. No further information about enforcement of this judgment is available.\n6.  In February 2002 the applicant lodged a claim with the Bogunsky District Court of Zhytomyr against the Bogunsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Zhytomyr (відділ державної виконавчої служби Богунського районного управління юстиції м. Житомира), alleging the latter’s inactivity in respect of the enforcement of the judgment of 8 December 2000 and claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage she had sustained as a result.\n7.  On 17 April 2003 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay her a total of UAH 450.39[1]. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment.\n8.  On 21 November 2003 the Bogunsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Zhytomyr instituted enforcement proceedings. Subsequently, the latter transferred the enforcement writ to the Zhytomyr Regional Bailiffs’ Service (відділ примусового виконання рішень державної виконавчої служби Житомирської області) for enforcement.\n9.  In the course of these enforcement proceedings the Zhytomyr Regional Bailiffs’ Service requested the Bogunsky District Court of Zhytomyr to replace the Bogunsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Zhytomyr with the local department of the State Treasury of Ukraine, as the debtor under the judgment of 17 April 2003. On 28 October 2004 the court rejected this request. The applicant did not attend this hearing.\n10.  On 21 May 2004 the State Treasury of Ukraine replied, upon the applicant’s request, that the 2004 State Budget of Ukraine did not provide funds for payment of compensation for damage caused by officials of the State Bailiffs’ Service.\n11.  Between July 2004 and April 2006 the Zhytomyr Regional Bailiffs’ Service several times terminated and resumed the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 17 April 2003. By the decision of 18 April 2006, the Zhytomyr Regional Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings of the judgment of 17 April 2003 on the ground that the debtor had been liquidated. Apparently the applicant did not appeal against this decision.\n12.  The judgment of 17 April 2003 remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3945", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Simferopol.\n6.  On the night of 14 to 15 March 2001 the applicant and three co-suspects were arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. After the arrest the applicant was taken into police custody at the Simferopol District Police Station (“the Police Station”).\n7.  According to the applicant, during the time he was held in the Police Station, from 15 to 18 March 2001, he was repeatedly punched and kicked by several police officers for the purpose of extracting from him a confession that he had committed the crime.\n8.  On 18 March 2001 the applicant was brought before the prosecutor, to whom he complained about the ill-treatment.\n9.  On the same day the applicant was taken to Simferopol City Hospital No. 6 and to the Semashko Central Hospital, where the doctors established that the applicant had suffered injuries to the soft tissue of his head and sustained bruises on his face. The same day the applicant was admitted to the Simferopol City Temporary Detention Centre.\n10.  On 19 March 2001 the applicant was examined by an expert of the Crimean Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations. During the examination the applicant stated that the injuries had been inflicted on him by police officers. The expert who examined him established that the applicant had sustained bruises on the lower eyelids of both eyes and on the left ear, with abrasions on the right temple and lower lip. Those injuries cumulatively qualified as minor bodily injuries. The expert assumed that the injuries could have been caused to the applicant in the period between four and seven days before the examination; however, the abrasion of the lower lip could have been sustained two days before the examination. The expert further opined that the injuries were caused by blunt objects with limited impact surface, in this case possibly fists or booted legs.\n11.  On 29 March 2001 another expert of the Crimean Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations examined the applicant and did not find any injuries on him.\n12.  In letters of 29 and 31 May 2001 the Crimean Police Department, upon the request of the applicant’s mother, informed her that the internal inquiry had not revealed any wrongdoing by the police officers with respect to the applicant. Following these replies the applicant and his relatives lodged a number of other complaints with various police officials and prosecutors claiming that the applicant had been ill-treated. Their complaints were dismissed as unsubstantiated.\n13.  On 5 November 2002, after the conviction of the applicant and his three co-defendants, the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Simferopol (the “Zheleznodorozhnyy Court”) issued a separate ruling, noting that during the trial proceedings it had been established that the defendants had not had any injuries when arrested and that the applicant, Mr S. and Mr Sh. had sustained injuries while in police custody. The court “brought to the attention” of the Prosecutor of the Crimea that the three defendants had sustained injuries during pre-trial proceedings and suggested that the offenders be identified and punished.\n14.  On 22 November 2002 an investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Crimea (“the POC”) found no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the police officers and decided not to institute criminal proceedings against them.\n15.  On 25 February 2003 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol (“the Tsentralnyy Court”), upon the applicant’s appeal, qu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3946", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was detained on 16 September 1995 and was charged with aiding and abetting another individual to commit murder and attempted murder on the previous day, the 15th – the applicant had been in the car of the victim when the latter and his wife had been shot and was a close relative of the alleged murderer. The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on the same day.\n7.  The applicant was released on 12 October 1995 and a restriction was placed on him not to leave his place of residence without the authorisation of the public prosecutor’s office.\n8.  On 16 December 1996 the Sliven regional public prosecutor’s office terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant as unproven and lifted the restriction on his movement.\n9.  Between 16 September and 12 October 1995 the applicant was detained at the Sliven Regional Investigation Service detention facility.\n10.  The applicant contended that at this detention facility there had been (a) overcrowding, as he had been accommodated in a cell with another five detainees, (b) insufficient oxygen in the cell, (c) inadequate hygiene, as he had had no access to a toilet and all six detainees had had to drink from the same water container, (d) insufficient food, (e) no possibility for visits by friends or relatives, and (f) no access to newspapers or other media. He also claimed that as a result of having been detained in such conditions his self‑esteem had declined and he had endured physical and psychological suffering.\n11.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the applicant initiated a civil action for damages against the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office under section 2 of the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act 1988 (the “SMRDA”: renamed in 2006). He claimed that he had been charged with an offence which he had not committed, that on 16 September 1995 he had been detained for almost a month and that a restriction had then been placed on his movement for more than a year. The applicant also argued that he had had to endure physical and mental pain and suffering as a result of the unlawful criminal proceedings against him and the inadequate conditions of detention at the Sliven Regional Investigation Service detention facility. In addition, because of the prolonged restriction on his movement he claimed to have suffered loss of income as he had been unable to accept a job in Greece. The applicant sought 50,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN: 25,641 euros (EUR)) in compensation of which BGN 35,000 (EUR 17,948) represented compensation for pecuniary damage and BGN 15,000 (EUR 7,692) represented compensation for non‑pecuniary damage.\n12.  In a judgment of 23 April 2001 the Sliven Regional Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office to pay him BGN 5,000 (EUR 2,564). This represented compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the unlawful acts and actions of the public prosecutor’s office during the period from 16 September 1995 to 16 December 1996 in charging him with aiding and abetting another individual to commit murder, holding him in pre-trial detention and then replacing it with a restriction not to leave his place of residence without the authorisation of the public prosecutor’s office. In reaching its decision, the Regional Court took into account the fact that the criminal proceedings and the associated restrictions imposed on the liberty and movement of the applicant had lasted for ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3947", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the Vinnytsya Region.\n5.  In October 2003 the applicant retired from military service.\n6.  On 4 December 2003 the Military Court of Zhytomyr Garrison ordered the Military Unit A-2128 to pay the applicant 3,253 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH)[1] in relation to his military uniform and UAH 51[2] in relation to court fees. This judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n7.  In April 2004 the applicant sent by registered post the writs of execution to the Berdychiv Bailiffs’ Service, which on 26 April 2004 instituted enforcement proceedings.\n8.  On 28 January 2005 the court, following the request of the Bailiffs, replaced the original debtor in the enforcement proceedings by its successor, the Berdychiv Town Military Enlistment Office.\n9.  In November 2006 the applicant received UAH 51[3].\n10.  On 29 December 2006 the court, following the request of the Bailiffs, replaced the Berdychiv Town Military Enlistment Office by the Zhytomyr Regional Military Enlistment Office which was responsible for the former’s finances.\n11.  The judgment of 4 December 2003 remains partially unenforced due to the debtor’s lack of funds.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3948", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1930, 1925, 1920, 1920, 1926, 1931, 1934, 1931 and 1924 respectively. On 8 October 2002 the fourth applicant, Mr Milko Kalev Balev, passed away. By a letter of 10 April 2006 his wife, Mrs Maria Vasileva Baleva and his sons, Mr Vladimir Milkov Balev and Mr Kalin Milkov Balev, informed the Court that they wished to continue the present application in his stead. The remaining applicants live in Sofia.\n6.  Prior to 1989 all nine applicants occupied leading positions in the Council of Ministers (the government) and the Bulgarian Communist Party (“the BCP”).\n7.  On 9 July 1992 the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office opened preliminary investigation against twenty-two former members of the Bureau of the Council of Ministers and the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the BCP, including the nine applicants and Mr A. Lukanov and Mr O. Doinov, whose applications relating to the same criminal proceedings were decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1997 and 2007 (Lukanov v. Bulgaria, judgment of 20 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II, and Doinov v. Bulgaria, no.68356/01, 27 September 2007). On an unspecified date the applicants were charged with abuse of office and misappropriation on the ground that between 1981 and 1989 they had participated in the adoption of decisions to provide financial assistance or extend loans, totalling 243,537,000 old Bulgarian levs, to foreign countries and political parties.\n8.  Between July 1992 and February 1993 the prosecution authorities carried out a number of investigations.\n9.  After February 1993 the criminal proceedings were stayed for undetermined periods of time on at least four occasions. The last such occasion was on 28 May 1995. The proceedings were resumed on 15 June 1999.\n10.  By a decision of the Sofia city public prosecutor’s office of 28 January 2000 the criminal proceedings against the applicants were terminated. The prosecution found that the actions of the accused, including the nine applicants, had not been punishable under domestic criminal legislation at the time: the funds in question had been included as expenditure in the State budget, the decisions had been adopted without exceeding the powers granted to the accused under the existing legislation and the provision of such aid was in conformity with the State’s international obligations. Reference was made to this Court’s judgment in the case of Lukanov v. Bulgaria (cited above) where it had been concluded in respect of the same domestic proceedings that:\n“... no evidence has been adduced to show that such decisions were unlawful, that is to say contrary to Bulgaria’s Constitution or legislation, or more specifically that the decisions were taken in excess of powers or were contrary to the law on the national budget” (§ 43).\n11.  On 16 February and 27 March 2000 the decision of the Sofia city public prosecutor’s office to terminate the proceedings was upheld by the Sofia appellate public prosecutor’s office and the Sofia Court of Appeal, respectively.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3949", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Donetsk.\n6.  According to the police report, at about 7.30 p.m. on 29 November 2001 the applicant, who was drunk, grabbed a bag out of Ms C.’s hands and attempted to run away. Two uniformed police officers, Mr M. and Mr K., who were patrolling the area, heard Ms C.’s cry for help and saw the applicant running with the bag in his hands. They chased the applicant, caught him in the street, restrained him and took him to the nearby police station.\n7.  The applicant alleged that when passing Ms C. in the street he had slipped on the ground and grabbed her bag unintentionally. After that he stood up and moved away. Shortly afterwards he had been knocked down by a heavy blow to the head, lost consciousness and regained it only at the police station.\n8.  According to the applicant, some six police officers at the police station handcuffed him to the window frame and demanded that he confess. When he refused to do so he was beaten. The applicant states that he was allowed to phone his sister only after he had signed a confession. He also alleges that his sister and mother had to bribe a police officer to ensure that he was not detained pending trial.\n9.  On 30 November 2001 the applicant was released from the police station.\n10.  On 10 February 2003 the Kalininsky District Court of Donetsk convicted the applicant of an attempted robbery on 29 November 2001 and fined him 850 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH). The applicant did not appeal against that judgment.\n11.  On 4 December 2001 a forensic medicine expert examined the applicant, on whom he found bruises on the body, abrasion of the left wrist joint and established that the applicant was suffering from concussion. The expert further concluded that these injuries, taken together, were minor.\n12.  According to a certificate issued on 5 December 2001 by a doctor at the local hospital, the applicant was suffering kidney pain as a post-traumatic effect of blows to his back.\n13.  Between 10 December 2001 and 2 January 2002 the applicant underwent medical treatment at the local hospital for the effects of concussion. According to his medical records, he was suffering from headache, general weakness and nausea. On admission to the hospital he alleged that he had been beaten by unknown persons.\n14.  On 14 January 2002 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor’s Office of Kalininsky District of Donetsk (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) about the ill-treatment allegedly suffered by him.\n15.  On 24 January 2002 the District Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against police officers for the lack of any corpus delicti in their acts.\n16.  On 12 February 2002 the Donetsk City Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 24 January 2002 as unfounded and remitted the materials for further inquiry.\n17.  On 25 February 2002 the District Prosecutor’s Office refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers, finding that there was nothing to suggest that they had committed any crime.\n18.  On 18 March 2002 the Donetsk Region Prosecutor’s Office overruled the decision of 25 February 2002, stating that the inquiry had been conducted unsatisfactorily and remitted the case for further examination.\n19.  On 21 March 2002 the forensic medical expert issued an additional report in which he repeated his previous conclusion that the applicant had received bruises to the body, abrasion of the left wrist joint and had suffered concussion, which", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3950", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicant was born on 2 February 1984 and lives in İzmir.\n12.  On 29 May 2001 at about 10.15 p.m., the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the İzmir Security Directorate on suspicion of having participated in an unlawful demonstration in support of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The applicant was also accused of hanging an illegal banner from a bridge in Bornova on 26 April 2001.\n13.  At about 12.30 a.m. on 30 May 2001 the applicant was taken to the Atatürk Teaching and Research Hospital, where he was examined by a doctor. The medical report stated that there was no trace of ill-treatment on his body.\n14.  Subsequently, at about 1 a.m., the applicant was interrogated at the anti-terrorism branch in the absence of a lawyer. According to a form explaining arrested persons’ rights which the applicant had signed, he had been reminded of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent. In his statement, the applicant admitted his involvement in the youth branch of HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi – the People’s Democracy Party). He gave the names of several persons who worked for the youth branch of the Bornova District Office. He explained that he was the assistant youth press and publications officer and was also responsible for the Osmangazi neighbourhood. He further stated that it had been part of his job to assign duties to other members of the youth branch. He admitted that he had participated in the demonstration on 29 May 2001 organised by HADEP in support of the imprisoned leader of the PKK. He said that there had been about sixty demonstrators present and that the group had shouted slogans in support of Öcalan and the PKK. He had been arrested on the spot. He also admitted that he had written “Long live leader Apo” on a banner which had been hung from a bridge on 26 April 2001. The police took samples of the applicant’s handwriting and sent it to the police laboratory for examination.\n15.  On 1 June 2001 the İzmir Criminal Police Laboratory issued a report after comparing the applicant’s handwriting to that on the banner. It concluded that although certain characteristics of the applicant’s handwriting bore similarities to the handwriting on the banner, it could not be established whether or not the writing on the banner was in fact his.\n16.  At 11.45 p.m. on 1 June 2001 the applicant was again examined by a doctor, who stated that there were no traces of ill-treatment on his body.\n17.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge. Before the public prosecutor, he explained that he was not a member of any political party, but had taken part in certain activities of HADEP. He denied fabricating an illegal banner or participating in the demonstration on 29 May 2001. He stated that he was in the Doğanlar neighbourhood to visit a friend when he was arrested by the police. The applicant also made a statement to the investigating judge, in which he retracted his statement to the police, alleging that it had been extracted under duress. He claimed that he had been beaten and insulted while in police custody. He again denied engaging in any illegal activity and explained that on 29 May 2001 he had gone to the Doğanlar neighbourhood to visit a friend and had not been part of the group shouting slogans. After the questioning was over, the investigating judge remand", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3951", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  In August 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Moskovskyy District Court of Kharkiv against the State-owned company Kharkivskyi Elektromekhanichnyi Zavod, seeking compensation for loss of a part of his salary due to its delayed payment, and compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the respondent’s failure to pay his salary in due time.\n6.  On 3 November 2003 the court awarded the applicant 634.03 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH)[1] in compensation for loss of a part of his salary due to the delay in its payment.\n7.  On 25 December 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal partially modified that judgment and awarded the applicant an additional UAH 1,072.62[2] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On the same date the judgment became enforceable.\n8.  In January 2004 the applicant and the respondent company appealed in cassation.\n9.  In December 2004 the applicant requested the Moskovskyy District Court to issue a writ of execution in his favour.\n10.  The court refused to issue a writ of execution on the ground that the case file had been sent to the Supreme Court.\n11.  On 7 April 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the court of appeal.\n12.  On 20 July 2006 the applicant received the writ of execution.\n13.  On 27 July 2006 the applicant submitted it to the Bailiffs.\n14.  On 12 September 2006 the applicant received the amount awarded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3952", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1981. They are currently detained.\n6.  On 18 August 1998 Mr Solovey confessed that he, Mr Zozulya and Mr Kh. had killed Mrs T.\n7.  On 19 August 1998 Mr Zozulya made a similar confession.\n8.  On the same day criminal proceedings against both applicants were initiated.\n9.  On 11 November 1998 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicants were given time to study the case file.\n10.  From 12 November 1998 until 4 May 1999 the applicants and other parties studied the case-file material. Mr Zozulya did so from 16 November 1998 to 15 April 1999, and Mr Solovey from 20 November 1998 to 3 May 1999.\n11.  On 13 May 1999 the case was referred to the Kyiv City Court (“the Kyiv Court”), acting as a first-instance court.\n12.  On 19 May 1999 the court committed the applicants for trial.\n13.  On 1 July 1999 the Kyiv Court convicted both applicants of aggravated murder and robbery; and sentenced each of them to fourteen years’ imprisonment.\n14.  On 9 December 1999 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed the judgment and remitted the case for additional pre-trial investigation.\n15.  On 17 January 2000 the criminal case against the applicants was sent to the prosecutor’s office for an additional investigation.\n16.  On 18 February 2000 the Prosecutor General lodged a request for extraordinary review of the decision of the Supreme Court of 9 December 1999 with the Plenary Supreme Court.\n17.  On 3 March 2000 the Plenary rejected the request for the review and the case was sent back to the investigator.\n18.  On 15 June 2000 the additional investigation was completed and the applicants were given time to study the case file.\n19.  On 20 July 2000 the case was referred to the Kyiv Court.\n20.  On 17 August 2000 the Kyiv Court remitted the case for additional investigation.\n21.  On 19 October 2000 the Supreme Court upheld that ruling of 17 August 2000.\n22.  On 30 January 2001, after additional investigation, the case was referred again to the Kyiv Court.\n23.  On 21 February 2001 the Kyiv Court committed the applicants for trial.\n24.  On 25 April 2001 the Kyiv Court convicted Mr Zozulya and Mr Solovey of aggravated murder and robbery; and sentenced them, respectively, to fourteen and ten years’ imprisonment.\n25.  On 25 April 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Kyiv Court.\n26.  Mr Solovey and Mr Zozulya were arrested on 18 August and 19 August 1998 respectively .\n27.  On 20 August 1998 the Kyiv Podolsky District Prosecutor ordered the detention of Mr Zozulya for two months on the ground that he had committed a serious offence and might abscond.\n28.  On 21 August 1998 the same preventive measure was chosen for Mr Solovey on the same grounds.\n29.  On 19 October 1998 the Kyiv Podolsky District Prosecutor prolonged the applicants’ detention up to three months – until 20 November 1998 for Mr Zozulya and 21 November 1998 for Mr Solovey.\n30.  On 19 May 1999 the Kyiv Court, in the committal hearing, maintained the applicants’ detention without giving any grounds or fixing any time limit.\n31.  In its judgment of 1 July 1999 the Kyiv Court, having convicted the applicants, also decided that they should remain in custody until the judgment became final.\n32.  On 9 December 1999 the Supreme Court of Ukraine, having quashed the judgment of 1 July 1999 in full, made no ruling in respect of the applicants’ further detention.\n33.  On 28 January 2000 the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office ordered the applicants’ detention for one month –", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3953", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and is currently detained in prison no.105, the Kherson region.\n6.  On 19 January 2002 the applicant, a minor at the time, was arrested on suspicion of having killed his grandmother and robbed her apartment together with a Mr G.\n7.  On 22 January 2002 the applicant was formally charged with murder and aggravated robbery.\n8.  The Kerch Town Court (Керченський міський суд – “the Kerch Court”) held a hearing on 22 January 2002, in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer. It ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the ground that he might abscond if released because he was suspected of having committed serious crimes.\n9.  On 15 March 2002 the Kerch Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for up to a total of four months. It found that there was sufficient evidence on which to found a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious offences.\n10.  In April 2002 the applicant’s lawyer requested the investigator to replace the applicant’s detention with a less restrictive preventive measure. By a ruling of 28 April 2002, the request was rejected on the ground that the applicant was suspected of having committed serious crimes and might prevent the establishment of the truth in the case.\n11.  On 13 May 2002 the Kerch Prosecutor (Прокурор міста Керч) sent the case file, together with the bill of indictment, to the Kerch Court for the trial proceedings.\n12.  On 27 May 2002 the judge of the Kerch Court held a committal hearing at which the applicant’s lawyer lodged a new request for release, stating that the applicant was a minor; had no previous convictions; could not obstruct the collection of evidence or destroy it; had positive aspects to his character; permanently resided in Kerch; did not – and could not – try to abscond due to the lack of resources or relatives in other parts of the country; and, lastly, that there was no indication that he would reoffend if released. The Kerch Court committed the applicant for trial on charges of murder and aggravated robbery. In its committal order the court also rejected the applicant’s request for release and extended his detention during the trial proceedings without giving any grounds.\n13.  On 23 August 2002 the applicant’s lawyer lodged another request with the Kerch Court for the applicant’s release on the same grounds as the one of 27 May 2002. According to the Government, it was considered and rejected on the same day.\n14.  On 16 October 2002 the Kerch Court referred the case back for additional pre-trial investigation. The court also rejected the applicant’s request for release, noting that he was suspected of having committed serious crimes and there were no grounds for applying a less restrictive preventive measure to him.\n15.  In December 2002 the applicant’s lawyer lodged two requests with the investigator for the applicant’s release. Both requests were rejected on the ground that the applicant was suspected of having committed serious crimes and might prevent the establishment of the truth in the case.\n16.  On 28 December 2002 the Crimea Court of Appeal (“the Crimea Court”) considered the investigator’s request for the applicant’s further detention. The court decided that further investigative actions were required in respect of the applicant and his co-accused and, given that the applicant was accused of serious crimes, there were sufficient grounds for his further detention. The court accordingly extended the applicant’", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3954", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Tuchola.\n5.  On 19 December 2002 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for payment of just satisfaction before the Tuchola District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) against the State Treasury, represented by the Bydgoszcz and Poznań branches of the Polish Television Company.\n6.  On 16 January 2003 the case was transmitted to the Poznań District Court. The applicant appealed against that decision and, on 24 March 2003, the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) sent the case back to the Bydgoszcz District Court.\n7.  On 25 April 2003 the applicant was requested to pay court fees of 1,500 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n8.  On 28 May 2003 the applicant requested the court to exempt him from court fees.\n9.  On 16 June 2003 the Bydgoszcz District Court granted the applicant legal aid.\n10.  On 14 August 2003 a lawyer was appointed to represent the applicant. The applicant informed the court that he had requested exemption from court fees and that he had not asked for legal aid.\n11.  Consequently, on 23 August 2003, the Bydgoszcz District Court quashed its decision of 16 June 2003 granting the applicant legal aid.\n12.  On 2 September 2003 the Bydgoszcz District Court requested the applicant to rectify some procedural shortcomings in his claim.\n13.  On 15 September 2003 the shortcomings were rectified.\n14.  On 16 October 2003 the first defendant, the Bydgoszcz branch of the Polish Television Company, submitted its defence.\n15.  On 1 December 2003 the second defendant, the Poznań branch of the Polish Television Company, submitted its defence.\n16.  On 3 February 2004 the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to extend the time-limit for submitting his comments on the defendants’ pleadings.\n17.  On 5 March 2004 the applicant submitted his comments and maintained his claim.\n18.  On an unspecified date the reporting judge was replaced by another judge.\n19.  On 5 July 2004 the court listed a hearing for 13 September 2004. At the request of the defendants’ lawyer, the trial was adjourned until 18 November 2004.\n20.  On 18 November 2004 the hearing was postponed until 13 January 2005.\n21.  At the hearing held on 13 January 2005 the Bydgoszcz District Court gave a decision transmitting the case to the Bydgoszcz Regional Court.\n22.  The next hearing was listed for 4 March 2005.\n23.  At a hearing held on 4 March 2005 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court found that it was not competent to deal with the subject-matter and transmitted the case to the Poznań Regional Court.\n24.  On 22 March 2005 the Poznań Regional Court transmitted the case to the Poznań District Court.\n25.  On 9 September 2005 the Poznań District Court listed a hearing for 16 November 2005.\n26.  On 16 November 2005 the Poznań District Court stayed the proceedings because both parties had failed to appear. According to the applicant, he failed to appear because he had not been informed of the hearing date.\n27.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings and to transfer the case for examination by the Bydgoszcz Regional Court.\n28.  On 27 December 2007 the Poznań District Court resumed the proceedings and dismissed the applicant’s request as regards the transfer of the case to the Regional Court.\n29.  The proceedings are still pending before the Poznań District Court.\n30.  On 4 May 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a br", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3955", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the village of Mrgashat, Armenia.\n5.  The applicant is the Chairman of the Armavir regional branch of the National Unity party, one of the opposition parties. Prior to his retirement the applicant had worked in law enforcement for 30 years, including ten years as chief of police of the Metsamor Police Department (ՀՀ ոստիկանության Մեծամորի բաժին).\n6.  A series of demonstrations were held from March to May 2004 in Yerevan, organised by the opposition parties in protest against the alleged irregularities that had taken place at the February-March 2003 presidential election, challenging the legitimacy of the re-elected President. It appears that the applicant participated in some of these demonstrations.\n7.  On 4 April 2004 the applicant was visited at his home by two police officers who asked him to accompany them to the Metsamor Police Department. It appears from the materials of the case that the applicant showed some resistance while being taken to the police station. The applicant denied this fact.\n8.  At the police station an administrative case was initiated against the applicant on the grounds that he had disobeyed the lawful orders of the police officers and had used foul language. The applicant alleged that the chief of police had told him that he had been arrested in order to prevent him from participating in the political demonstration due to be held the following day in Yerevan.\n9.  On 5 April 2004 the applicant was taken to the Armavir Regional Court (Արմավիրի մարզի առաջին ատյանի դատարան) where he was brought before Judge A. who sentenced him to ten days of administrative detention for “disobeying the lawful order of the police officers and using foul language for about five minutes, when asked to come to the Metsamor Police Department on suspicion of having committed a robbery”.\n10.  The applicant was then taken to the Temporary Detention Facility at the Ejmiatsin Police Department to serve his sentence.\n11.  The applicant alleged that, following his release from detention on 14 April 2004, he had been subjected to frequent police visits to, and searches of, his home. He had been forced to hide when such visits took place, fearing that he would be taken to the police station again.\n12.  On 20 April 2004 the applicant wrote to the Ombudsman (ՀՀ մարդու իրավունքների պաշտպան), complaining about the above events, including the alleged frequent visits by the police officers. It appears that this complaint was forwarded by the Ombudsman to the regional prosecutor’s office by a letter of 17 May 2004.\n13.  The applicant alleged that on 20 May 2004 at around 8 a.m. he had been visited at his home by three police officers who had informed him that the Chief of the Metsamor Police Department (ՀՀ ոստիկանության Մեծամորի բաժնի պետ) wanted to talk to him. He had then been taken to the police station.\n14.  It appears from the materials of the case that the applicant was arrested at around 9 a.m. on that day. According to the Government, the reason for his arrest was an argument that had erupted between him and the police officers who had stopped his car for a check.\n15.  At the police station an administrative case was initiated against the applicant, who was apparently charged under Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Offences (Վարչական իրավախախտումների վերաբերյալ ՀՀ օրենսգիրք – “the CAO”) with maliciously disobeying the lawful orders of police officers and using foul language. It appears", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3956", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  In 1988 the applicant was recruited by Türkiye Emlak Bankası A.Ş., a state-owned bank (hereinafter “the Bank”). In 1991 he was appointed to the post of deputy director in charge of credit cards.\n6.  On an unspecified date, an investigation was carried out as a result of fraudulent acts in the Topkapı branch of the Bank.\n7.  On 27 January 1994 the Bank brought an action in the 9th Chamber of Istanbul Court of Commerce claiming compensation from the applicant and seven other employees for having caused losses as a result of irregular transactions.\n8.  In June 1995 the Bank filed another action in the 4th Chamber of the Istanbul Court of Commerce claiming more compensation.\n9.  On an unspecified date, the two actions were joined at the 9th Chamber of Istanbul Court of Commerce.\n10.  On 18 November 1999 the 9th Chamber of Istanbul Court of Commerce decided that it had no jurisdiction ratione materiae and that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the labour courts since it concerned a dispute between the employer and employees. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 10 May 2000.\n11.  On 23 October 2001 the Istanbul Labour Court dismissed the action in respect of the applicant and six other employees considering that no fault could be attributed to them. The court however found that the director of the Topkapı branch of the Bank was responsible for the losses in question. It therefore ordered him to pay a certain amount of compensation to the Bank.\n12.  Meanwhile, criminal proceedings were brought against the director of the Topkapı branch of the Bank and three other persons for having committed a fraud. The applicant and the Bank intervened in these proceedings as a third party. On 9 July 1999 the Bakırköy Assize Court in Istanbul convicted the director and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment for having abused his duty. It however acquitted the other accused. The applicant appealed against this judgment arguing that the punishment imposed on the director was lenient.\n13.  On 29 May 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the above judgment.\n14.  On 31 December 2004 the Bakırköy Assize Court terminated the criminal proceedings against the director since they were time-barred.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3957", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  At the time of the events giving rise to the application, the applicants were members of the People’s Democratic Party (DEHAP) in Şırnak.\n5.  On 27 January 2003 a soldier was killed in an armed attack on the İdil Second Military Battalion.\n6.  Following the incident, the İdil and Şırnak public prosecutors initiated investigations.\n7.  On 28 January 2003 the İdil public prosecutor requested the İdil Magistrates’ Court to authorise the security forces to conduct searches at the applicants’ houses, under Article 94 of the former Code of Criminal Procedure.\n8.  On the same day, by decision no. 2003/7, the court granted the request and authorised the security forces to conduct one search during the daytime at the applicants’ homes with a view to obtaining evidence.\n9.  On 28 January 2003, between 7 and 8.30 a.m., the applicants and ten other persons were arrested in their houses by officers from the anti‑terrorist branches of the İdil and Şırnak police headquarters. According to the house search, seizure and arrest reports, they were arrested “in connection with the armed attack and in accordance with a decision of the İdil Magistrates’ Court (decision no. 2003/7)”. During the house search, the security forces seized music compact discs from the houses of Beşir Gasyak and Resul Kervanoğlu. Amongst those discs found in the former’s house, certain allegedly contained separatist propaganda. Nothing was found in the other applicants’ houses.\n10.  On 29 January 2003 the deputy director of the İdil police headquarters sent a letter to the İdil public prosecutor requesting that the applicants’ detention period be extended for a further two days. In his letter, the deputy director maintained that the applicants were considered to have been involved in the armed attack on the police. On the same day, the İdil public prosecutor extended the period of the applicants’ detention as requested.\n11.  Ali Nas and Beşir Gasyak made statements to the police on 29 January 2003; Havil Adırbelli, Resul Kervanoğlu and Metin Goran did so on 30 January 2003 and Yetgin Adırbelli, Gülek Adırbelli and Mehmet Goran on 31 January 2003. They were asked whether they had been involved in the armed attack of 27 January 2003. Beşir Gasyak was also questioned about the Kurdish music compact discs that had been found in his house. The applicants all maintained that they had been in their homes at the time of the incident and that they had had no involvement in the armed attack.\n12.  During their detention in police custody, on 30 January 2003 Havil Adırbelli, Metin Goran, Ali Nas, Beşir Gasyak and Resul Kervanoğlu had a meeting with their representative, Mr Elçi, upon their request. Yetgin Adırbelli, Gülek Adırbelli and Mehmet Goran did not request a lawyer.\n13.  In a letter dated 31 January 2003 the deputy director of the İdil police headquarters sent a letter to the İdil public prosecutor’s office informing the latter of the police operation. According to this letter, the police had files on six of the applicants. In particular, there had been investigations in respect of Havil Adırbelli, Ali Nas, Beşir Gasyak and Gülek Adırbelli in the 1980s and 1990s as they had been suspected of aiding and abetting the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation. Furthermore, Yetgin Adırbelli had been arrested on suspicion of being in possession of a firearm and there had been an investigation in respect of Metin Goran as he had been suspected of forgery.\n14.  On the sa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3958", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1986.\n7.  On 15 March 1999 an unidentified person or persons placed an advertisement on an Internet dating site in the name of the applicant, who was 12 years old at the time, without his knowledge. The advertisement mentioned his age and year of birth, gave a detailed description of his physical characteristics, a link to the web page he had at the time, which showed his picture, as well as his telephone number, which was accurate save for one digit. In the advertisement, it was claimed that he was looking for an intimate relationship with a boy of his age or older “to show him the way”.\n8.  The applicant became aware of the advertisement on the Internet when he received an e-mail from a man, offering to meet him and “then to see what you want”.\n9.  The applicant’s father requested the police to identify the person who had placed the advertisement in order to bring charges against that person. The service provider, however, refused to divulge the identity of the holder of the so-called dynamic Internet Protocol (IP) address in question, regarding itself bound by the confidentiality of telecommunications as defined by law.\n10.  The police then asked the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) to oblige the service provider to divulge the said information pursuant to section 28 of the Criminal Investigations Act (esitutkintalaki, förundersökningslagen; Act no. 449/1987, as amended by Act no. 692/1997).\n11.  In a decision issued on 19 January 2001, the District Court refused since there was no explicit legal provision authorising it to order the service provider to disclose telecommunications identification data in breach of professional secrecy. The court noted that by virtue of Chapter 5a, section 3, of the Coercive Measures Act (pakkokeinolaki, tvångsmedelslagen; Act no. 450/1987) and section 18 of the Protection of Privacy and Data Security in Telecommunications Act (laki yksityisyydensuojasta televiestinnässä ja teletoiminnan tietoturvasta, lag om integritetsskydd vid telekommunikation och dataskydd inom televerksamhet; Act no. 565/1999) the police had the right to obtain telecommunications identification data in cases concerning certain offences, notwithstanding the obligation to observe secrecy. However, malicious misrepresentation was not such an offence.\n12.  On 14 March 2001 the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the decision and on 31 August 2001 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.\n13.  The person who had answered the dating advertisement and contacted the applicant was identified through his e-mail address.\n14.  The managing director of the company which provided the Internet service could not be charged, because in his decision of 2 April 2001 the prosecutor found that the alleged offence had become time-barred. The alleged offence was a violation of the Personal Data Act (henkilötietolaki, personuppgiftslagen; Act no. 523/99, which came into force on 1 June 1999). More specifically, the service provider had published a defamatory advertisement on its website without verifying the identity of the sender.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3959", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Damian Janicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and is currently detained in Gdańsk Remand Centre.\nCriminal proceedings against the applicant and his pre-trial detention\n6.  On 20 February 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of homicide and arson. On 21 February 2003 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that he be remanded in custody. That decision was justified by the existence of strong evidence against the applicant.\n7.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was extended several times by the Gdańsk Regional Court in its decisions of 8 May, 15 July, 16 September and 16 December 2003. The court referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant, the risk that he might obstruct the proceedings and the need to obtain further evidence, such as reports by experts in forensic medicine and in psychiatry.\n8.  On 30 January 2004 the applicant was indicted before the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The bill of indictment comprised charges of homicide and arson against the applicant and his alleged accomplice. The prosecutor requested that thirty-four witnesses and eight experts be heard by the trial court.\nThe first hearing was scheduled for 10 May 2004.\n9.  In the course of the judicial proceedings, the applicant’s detention was extended several times by decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court of 10 February, 19 June, 27 October and 29 December 2004 and a decision of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal of 16 February 2005.\nThe courts referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and, furthermore, they reiterated the original grounds for the applicant’s pre-trial detention.\n10.  Between May and December 2004 the trial court held eight hearings. It appears that in the course of the proceedings the applicant made numerous unsuccessful applications for his detention to be lifted or replaced by another preventive measure and that he appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against decisions extending his detention. In his applications and appeals he relied on personal circumstances, in particular the fact of being the only guardian of two minor daughters.\n11.  On 23 March 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n12.   On 5 January 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Gdańsk Regional Court.\n13.  On 16 March 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 31 August 2006. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and on the likelihood that a severe sentence of imprisonment would be imposed on him.\n14.  During the retrial the applicant’s detention was extended on several occasions by the decisions of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal of 29 August and 14 December 2006. The court referred to the grounds for detention given in previous decisions.\nBetween June and December 2006 the trial court held four hearings.\n15.  On 22 August 2006, during one of the hearings, the applicant lodged an application for release. It was dismissed. The Regional Court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences. It referred to the need to ensure that the process of obtaining evidence would be successfully completed.\n16.  On 12 December 2006 the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3960", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, Mr Wiesław Pióro, and Mrs Barbara Łukasik, are siblings. They are Polish nationals who were born in 1930 and 1933 respectively. The first applicant died on 4 November 2003. His wife, two daughters and his grandson expressed a wish to continue the application in his stead. The second applicant lives in Warsaw, Poland.\n5.  On 22 November 1944 the applicants’ father’s land “Terebella” was expropriated for the purpose of an agrarian reform programme. On 8 May 1946 the Lublin Regional Land Office (Wojewódzki Urząd Ziemski) declared that the provisions on agrarian reform did not apply to the property in question, and therefore the applicants’ father was entitled to compensation. On 29 January 1949 the Minister of Agriculture quashed this decision and declared that “Terebella” had been expropriated for the purpose of agrarian reform.\n6.  On 20 May 1994 the applicants filed a motion for annulment of the 1949 decision.\n7.  On 5 September 1996 the Minister of Agriculture refused to declare the decision of 1949 null and void. On 8 October 1996 the applicants appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny).\n8.  On 27 April 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected their appeal on the ground that they had failed to exhaust the available remedies i.e. they had not filed a request with the Minister for reconsideration of his decision.\n9.  On 15 May 1998 the applicants applied to the Minister of Agriculture for leave to file out of time a motion for reconsideration (wniosek o ponowne rozpatrzenie sprawy) of the decision of 5 September 1996.\n10.  On 22 March 2000 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court alleging inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture.\n11.  On 12 May 2000 the Minister upheld the decision of 5 September 1996. The applicants lodged an appeal against that decision with the Supreme Administrative Court. On 3 November 2000 the court quashed the Minister’s decision of 12 May 2000 and remitted the case.\n12.  On 27 March 2001 the second applicant asked the Minister to comply with the judgment of 3 November 2000 and to give a decision without delay. On 24 May 2001 she complained to the Supreme Administrative Court alleging inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. On 19 October 2001 she again asked the court to proceed with her case.\n13.  On 14 November 2001 the Minister of Agriculture stayed the proceedings in the applicants’ case awaiting a report of an expert in geology.\n14.  On 3 December 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint about the Minister’s inactivity. On 10 January 2002 the second applicant lodged a complaint against the decision of the Minister of Agriculture to stay the proceedings.\n15.  On 7 February 2002 the Minister resumed the proceedings as the awaited expert report had been submitted.\n16.  On 25 June 2002 the Minister gave a decision on the merits upholding his previous decision of 5 September 1996.\n17.  On 23 July 2002 the second applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court against the decision of 25 June 2002.\n18.  On 11 February 2004 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court gave judgment quashing the challenged decision of the Minister.\n19.  On 30 April 2004 the Minister of Agriculture refused to annul the decision of 29 January 1949 on the ground that the contested decision had been issued in accordance with the law. The Minister upheld his decision on 18 November 2004", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3961", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the village of Karakert, Armenia.\n5.  The applicant has been a member of an opposition political party, the National Democratic Union (NDU), since 1995. Since 1997 he has headed the party’s local offices in the Baghramyan area. He is also a farmer and rears cattle on his farm.\n6.  In February and March 2003 a presidential election took place in Armenia. Following the first and second rounds of the election, a series of protest rallies were organised in Yerevan by the opposition parties, alleging irregularities.\n7.  On 21 March 2003 the applicant participated in a rally in Yerevan which was part of a nationwide public demonstration. Following the demonstration the applicant returned to his home in the village of Karakert.\n8.  On 22 March 2003 at 8 a.m. two police officers from the Baghramyan Police Department (ՀՀ ոստիկանության Բաղրամյանի բաժին) visited the applicant at his home.\n9.  The applicant alleged that the police officers had told him that he was required to accompany them to the police station as somebody wished to see him, without providing further reasons.\n10.  The Government alleged that the police officers had visited the applicant at his home because they suspected him of participating in an unauthorised demonstration the previous day.\n11.  It appears from the materials of the case that the applicant was asked by the police officers to accompany them to the police station. He showed resistance but was nevertheless taken to the police station.\n12.  At the police station the arresting police officers drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest (արձանագրությաւն բերման ենթարկելու մասին) in which it was stated that “[the applicant] participated on 21 March [2003] in the demonstrations which took place in Yerevan and, when asked to come to the police station, he disobeyed the lawful orders of the police officers and used foul language”. This record was signed by the applicant.\n13.  The applicant alleged that the chief of police and his deputy had informed him that his attendance was required because of his participation in the demonstration the previous day. The applicant was told that he would face a penalty of ten to fifteen days of administrative detention. He pleaded with the officers to impose a fine instead of detention in view of certain personal circumstances, such as his wife being heavily pregnant and about to give birth, and the need to care for his farm and cattle. The applicant was informed that this was impossible since the instructions temporarily to arrest all activists came from the Minister of Interior himself.\n14.  According to a written statement (արձանագրություն բացատրություն վերցնելու մասին) made by the applicant at the police station, police officers had visited him at home and asked him to come to the police station the morning after his participation in the demonstration of 21 March 2003. He had refused to go to the station, inquiring about the reasons, to which the police officers had replied that there were questions to be clarified. An argument erupted which lasted about five minutes, during which the applicant admitted that he had insulted the police officers and disobeyed their lawful orders. Then he had realised that what he was doing was wrong but it was already too late, so he had been taken to the police station.\n15.  The police officers drew up a record of an administrative offence (վարչական իրավախախտման արձանագրություն) in which it was stated that t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3962", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Ylöjärvi.\n6.  On 20 July 2000 she took her daughter's son to a doctor. The boy was three years old at the time.\n7.  According to the doctor's report, the applicant said that she had noticed a bruise on the boy's back which might have been caused by a blow, and that his behaviour had been abnormal since he had visited his father, T. The applicant had strong suspicions that the injuries were consistent with physical violence. Furthermore, it was written in the report that the applicant had informed the doctor that the boy had said that the bruise had been caused by a punch. The applicant further stated that in January 2000 she had noticed signs of violence for the first time, but that T. had explained that the boy had fallen down the stairs. The doctor wrote in his report that the bruise noted on the boy's back was consistent with a punch, thereby supporting the boy's account, given also to the doctor, that he had been hit by his father.\n8.  Later the same day, the doctor reported the alleged violence to the child welfare authorities, although the applicant had objected to a report being made.\n9.  On 17 August 2000 T. requested the police to investigate whether the applicant had committed an offence by alleging that he had hit his son. He maintained that he had never struck the boy. On 22 August 2000 he further requested the police to investigate whether the applicant had committed an offence, such as deprivation of liberty, by taking the boy to a doctor.\n10.  On 26 April 2001 the public prosecutor preferred charges against the applicant for defamation without better knowledge (ei vastoin parempaa tietoa tehty herjaus, smädelse dock icke emot bättre vetande). According to the charge, the applicant had given information to the doctor implying that T. had struck his son. The doctor had been given to understand that T. had struck the boy on several occasions, most recently during the previous weekend. The applicant did not have reasonable grounds to support her allegation. On 21 May 2001 T. joined the proceedings and claimed compensation from the applicant for non-pecuniary damage amounting to 10,000 Finnish marks (FIM, about 1,682 euros (EUR)) and reimbursement of his legal expenses.\n11.  On 24 August 2001 the Tampere District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) held an oral hearing. In its judgment the court held that it remained unclear whether the applicant had implied that the boy had been hit by his father or whether the doctor's report merely recorded his own impression based on his discussion with the applicant and the child. Applying the principle in dubio pro reo, the court rejected the charge. The presiding judge, however, dissented, finding the applicant guilty of defamation without better knowledge. She noted that, taking the facts as presented, there were no reasonable grounds to support the belief that T. had struck the boy. She further found that the boy's own statement could not as such be considered a reasonable ground, especially given the fact that it was not known whether the applicant had discussed the bruise with him before visiting the doctor.\n12.  T. appealed to the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). On 20 February 2002, after an oral hearing, the Court of Appeal overturned the District Court's judgment and convicted the applicant of defamation committed without better knowledge. No fines or other penalties were imposed, but the applicant was ordered to pay co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3963", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Brzozów.\n6.  On 12 December 1998 the applicant was arrested on a charge of numerous counts of armed robbery and membership of a criminal gang. On 13 December 1998 he was detained on remand by a decision of the Łowicz District Court. On an unspecified date in 2000 the Łódź Regional Prosecutor laid additional charges against the applicant (armed robbery committed as part of an organised criminal gang and homicide).\n7.  Subsequently, further decisions prolonging his detention on remand were taken by the Skierniewice Regional Court. The relevant decisions were taken on the following dates: 3 March 1999 (extending his detention until 11 June 1999); 26 May 1999 (extending his detention until 12 June 1999); and 28 April 2000 (extending his detention until 12 December 2000).\n8.  From June 1999 onwards, decisions prolonging the applicant’s detention on remand were taken by the Łódź Court of Appeal. The relevant decisions were taken on the following dates: 1 June 1999 (extending his detention until 12 September 1999; that decision was upheld by the Supreme Court on 29 July 1999); 7 September 1999 (extending his detention until 13 December 1999; that decision was upheld by the Supreme Court on 27 October 1999); 5 December 2000 (extending his detention until 31 March 2001); 20 March 2001 (extending his detention until 31 October 2001); 23 October 2001 (extending his detention until 28 February 2002); 12 February 2002 (extending his detention until 31 May 2002); 13 August 2002 (extending his detention until 23 November 2002); 5 August 2003 (extending his detention until 23 December 2003); and 22 December 2003 (extending his detention until 22 June 2004).\n9.  On 25 November 1999 and 10 March 2000, decisions prolonging the applicant’s detention were taken by the Supreme Court following requests by the Prosecutor General.\n10.  The courts justified their decisions prolonging the applicant’s detention on remand and their refusals to release him by the need to hear evidence from the accused and witnesses, some of whom lived abroad, the complexity of the case, the significant number of accused, the voluminous documents gathered in the case, the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences (including homicide) and the severity of the anticipated sentence. These considerations led the courts to assume that the applicant, if released, could obstruct the proper course of the proceedings. The courts found on several occasions that there were no special grounds, as specified in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that would justify lifting the detention order and imposing a less severe measure. In its decision of 12 February 2002 the Łódź Court of Appeal also acknowledged the delay in the proceedings and asked the trial court to expedite the examination of the case.\n11.  The applicant’s appeals against decisions prolonging his detention were unsuccessful. They were dismissed by the Skierniewice Regional Court on 12 July 2000, 6 September 2000 and 4 October 2000 and by the Łódź Regional Court on 30 March 2001, 25 January 2002, 14 June 2002, 29 October 2002, 29 November 2002, 7 January 2003, 25 March 2003, 6 May 2003, 15 July 2003, 17 February 2004 and 25 March 2004.\n12.  In the meantime, on 6 March 2000 the Skierniewice Regional Court, following the recommendations of doctors, had ordered that the applicant undergo a psychiatric observation for six weeks and that a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3964", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Gdańsk.\n6. On 2 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery and theft committed as part of an organised criminal gang.\n7.  On 3 March 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) ordered his pre-trial detention. It referred to the likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. It further considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the investigation by inducing witnesses to give false testimony.\n8.  In the course of the investigation the applicant’s detention was prolonged by the Regional Court several times. The court referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the complexity of the case. It relied on the fact that there were no circumstances to justify the application of a different preventive measure.\n9.  On 20 November 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) indicted the applicant together with 13 other persons on charges of armed robbery, fraud, destruction of documents and theft committed as part of an organised criminal gang. The prosecutor asked the court to hear evidence from at least 120 witnesses.\n10.  The trial began on 17 March 2004. The trial court held on average three hearings per month.\n11.  In the course of the trial the applicant’s detention was prolonged by the Regional Court and the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) several times. The court relied on the previous grounds. It also referred to the need to conclude the proceedings and in particular to ensure that the numerous co-accused and witnesses were questioned.\n12.  The applicant’s appeals against the decisions extending his detention and against the detention order, and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful.\n13.  In particular, on 31 July 2006 the applicant made an application for his detention to be lifted or replaced by another preventive measure. He referred to the fact that his role in the organised criminal gang had been marginal and that the process of obtaining evidence had been successfully completed. On 17 August 2006 the Regional Court dismissed the application.\n14.  On 15 November 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The judgment became final, as on 28 November 2006 the applicant informed the Gdańsk Regional Court that he would not appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3965", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the village of Karakert, Armenia.\n5.  The applicant has been a member of the Armenian Communist Party since 1998.\n6.  In February and March 2003 a presidential election took place in Armenia. Following the first and second rounds of the election, a series of protest rallies were organised in Yerevan by the opposition parties, alleging irregularities.\n7.  On 21 March 2003 the applicant participated in a rally in Yerevan which was part of a nationwide public demonstration. Following the demonstration the applicant returned to his home in the village of Karakert.\n8.  On 22 March 2003 two police officers from the Baghramyan Police Department (ՀՀ ոստիկանության Բաղրամյանի բաժին) visited the applicant at his home.\n9.  The applicant alleged that this visit had taken place at 7 a.m. The police officers told him that he was required to accompany them to the police station as the chief wished to see him regarding matters unrelated to the demonstration the day before.\n10.  The Government contested this allegation and submitted that the police officers had visited the applicant at 9 a.m. because they suspected him of having participated in an unauthorised demonstration the previous day.\n11.  It appears from the materials of the case that the applicant was asked by the police officers to accompany them to the police station. He showed resistance but was nevertheless taken to the police station.\n12.  According to the Government, at the police station the arresting police officers drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest (արձանագրությաւն բերման ենթարկելու մասին) in which the reasons for his arrest were indicated. This record was allegedly signed by the applicant.\n13.  In his application form, the applicant alleged that at the police station he had discovered that the real reason for his detention was his participation in the demonstration the previous day. Contrary to what he had been told, the chief of police did not want to see him. His requests to have a lawyer were ignored. In a later submission, the applicant alleged that the chief of police had in fact met him and told him that he would be detained since there were instructions from the Minister of the Interior to arrest temporarily all political activists.\n14.  According to a written statement (արձանագրություն բացատրություն վերցնելու մասին) made by the applicant at the police station, on 22 March 2003 he had participated in a rally in Yerevan and the same evening he had returned home to his village. The next morning at 9 a.m. the police officers had visited him at home and asked him to accompany them to the police station. An argument had erupted, during which the applicant admitted having disobeyed the lawful orders of the police officers. The applicant had regretted his actions, asked for forgiveness and promised that it would never happen again.\n15.  The applicant alleged that he had made the above statement since the police officers had led him to believe that his arrest was not in relation to serious matters and that he would not face any serious consequences.\n16.  The Government contested the above allegations and submitted that the applicant had made the above statement voluntarily. The police officers had informed the applicant of his procedural rights and had advised him to avail himself of his right to have a lawyer but he had not wished to do so.\n17.  The police officers drew up a record of an administrative offence (վարչական իրավախախտ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3966", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  At the time of the lodging of the application the applicants Mr Aydoğan and Ms Özen were in Tekirdağ and Kütahya prisons respectively. The other applicants were residing in Istanbul.\n5.  In the course of an operation carried out against the activities of an illegal armed organisation, namely DHKP/C (Turkish People’s Liberation Party/Front) the applicants were arrested and taken into custody on 22 and 23 October 1996.\n6.  On 5 November 1996 the applicants were brought before a judge who remanded them in custody.\n7.  In an indictment dated 11 November 1996, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court accused Mr Aydoğan and Ms Özen of attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the State and requested their conviction and sentence under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code. They were accused of taking part in armed attacks on various political party buildings and police stations and of being responsible for the death of Mr Mehmet Ünlü and causing bodily harm to two other persons. The other applicants were accused of aiding and abetting an illegal armed terrorist organisation. The prosecutor requested their conviction and sentence under Article 169 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  On an unspecified date the criminal proceedings against the applicants commenced before the Istanbul State Security Court, which was composed of one military and two civilian judges.\n9.  Mr İşeri, Mr Evren, Mr Varol and Mr Öztürk were released pending trial, on various dates, in 1996 and 1997.\n10.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of State Security Courts were replaced by civilian judges.\n11.  At a hearing held on 7 July 1999 the judge who had been appointed to replace the military judge sat as a member of the trial court for the first time. In this hearing the prosecutor maintained his earlier submissions as regards the merits. Mr Aydoğan read out his submissions on the merits. The court granted Ms Özen’s lawyer’s requests regarding obtaining information about the outcome of other cases pending against the accused and additional time to prepare her submissions.\n12.  Between 10 September 1999 and 19 October 2001 the court held eleven hearings, during which the judges dealt with procedural matters connected with the completion of the case file and, in particular, with the securing of final defence statements of the accused, whose representative had several times requested additional time to submit them. The court warned the applicants’ representative three times and in a hearing held on 29 November 2000 held that the case was being prolonged due to the failure of the applicants to submit their final observations on the merits of the case. However, the court granted the applicants’ representative’s request for an extension in the next hearing; since the security forces had a widespread operation in prisons the lawyer said he was not sure if his clients were still alive. At a hearing held on 4 April 2001 the applicants’ representative complained that the prison authorities were making it difficult for him to prepare his defence, for example by not admitting him to see his client if he did not have the power of attorney on him. The court granted leave to the applicants’ lawyer to complain about this situation to the prosecutor and Minister of Justice. During this time the court ordered the continued detention of Mr Aydoğan and Ms Özen at the end of each hearing.\n13.  On 19 October 2001 the Is", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3967", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Wrocław.\n5.  On 23 April 1999 the applicant notified the authorities of the illegal conversion of premises (a former boiler room) adjacent to his apartment into a grocery shop.\n6.  On 23 June 1999 administrative proceedings were initiated by the District Inspectorate for the Supervision of Construction (Powiatowy Inspektorat Nadzoru Budowlanego).\n7.  On 15 July 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court – Regional Branch – in Wrocław alleging that the Regional Construction Inspector had failed to take any action. On 8 September 1999 the applicant withdrew his complaint, as a result of which, on 20 September 1999, the court decided to discontinue its examination.\n8.  On 17 August 1999 the District Construction Inspector made an on-site inspection. The applicant failed to participate in the inspection, despite having been informed about it.\n9.  On 23 August 1999, following a visit to the site, the District Inspectorate for the Supervision of Construction issued an injunction against the illegal conversion of the premises in question.\n10.  On 7 September 1999 a party to the proceedings filed an appeal against the decision of 23 August 1999.\n11.  By a letter of 9 September 1999 the applicant was informed that all the evidence had been collected in the case.\n12.  By a letter of 21 September 1999 the owner of the premises, the housing co-operative “Maślice” (Spółdzielnia Budowlano-Mieszkaniowa), ordered Mr J. Sz., who had been leasing the former boiler room and running the grocery shop, to cease his activities with immediate effect.\n13.  On 29 September 1999 the District Inspectorate for the Supervision of Construction ordered the housing co-operative to bring the existing situation of the premises into conformity with the law by submitting a set of required documents (post-construction documentation and expert opinions). The Inspectorate alleged that the construction was not compatible with the local master plan.\n14.  On 5 October 1999 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision.\n15.  On 26 October 1999 the housing co-operative filed with the District Inspectorate the documents requested in the decision of 29 September 1999. The co-operative further requested that permission be granted for the grocery shop.\n16.  On 20 December 1999 the Regional Inspectorate for the Supervision of Construction upheld the impugned decision, finding that it had been issued in accordance with the law.\n17.  On 28 December 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n18.  On 2 June 2000 the applicant filed an application to have the decision of 20 December 1999 suspended. His application was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court on 12 June 2000 due to the applicant’s failure to substantiate his allegations that he would incur damage.\n19.  On 9 August 2000 the District Inspectorate decided to have the case transferred to the relevant department of the Municipality Office.\n20.  On 19 October 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 28 December 1999. The court found that the construction works carried out in the grocery shop met the technical requirements and were in compliance with the local master plan.\n21.  On 13 December 2000 the Mayor of Wrocław granted the housing co-operative the requested permission. Relying on all the documents collected in the case, the Mayor found that the premises me", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3968", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1952, 1960, 1939, 1963, 1950, 1937, 1946, 1962 and 1921 respectively and live in Warszawa, Świdnica and Łódź.\n5.  The applicants are heirs to a property (a plot of land with a residential building located thereon) situated in central Warsaw on Jana Pawła II Avenue (previously Leszno Steet).\n6.  The property belonged to Julian Charaziński and after his death on 15 May 1939 was inherited by his daughters: Władysława Zawistowska (legal predecessor of the applicants Małgorzata Gładysz-Wójcik, Andrzej and Piotr Zawistowski), Stefania Onichimowska (mother of the applicant Jolanta Serafin), Krystyna Gumułka (mother of the applicant Marta Plamenac), Czesława Paszkowska (grandmother of the applicant Katarzyna Okoniewksa), Julia Urbanek (mother of the applicant Teresa Urbanek).\n7.  By virtue of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw (“the 1945 Decree”) the ownership of all private land was transferred to the City of Warsaw.\n8.  On 13 October 1948 the applicants and/or their legal predecessors requested to be granted the right of temporary ownership (własność czasowa) of the property pursuant to section 7 of the 1945 Decree.\n9.  In 1990 and 1991 the applicants and/or their legal predecessors lodged with different administrative authorities numerous requests for return of the property.\n10.  On 28 October 1991 the Town Planning Division of the City of Warsaw informed the applicants that their application of 13 October 1948 had not yet been examined, and would be examined now by the Warsaw Municipality on the basis of the 1945 Decree provisions, in force at the relevant time.\n11.  On 28 April 1993, the Head of the Warsaw District Office rejected the applicants’ request of 1948 to be granted the right of perpetual use of the property (previously the right of temporary ownership). The authority observed that the property had already been used for public purposes (or was so designated according to the local land development plan), namely the widening of the Jana Pawła II Avenue and construction of a housing co-operative. Thus, the restitution of the property was impossible.\n12.  The Head of the Office also declared that compensation for expropriation of the property should be sought in separate proceedings.\n13.  On 2 November 1993 the applicants requested to be granted the right of perpetual use of land of equal value (as provided by the 1945 Decree) or to be awarded compensation in lieu.\n14.  On 9 March 1995 the Head of the Warsaw District Office rejected the applicants’ request for compensation. He found that according to the Land Administration and Expropriation Act of 1985 (Ustawa o gospodarce gruntami i wywłaszczaniu nieruchomości) the applicants’ entitlement to compensation had expired on the date of entry into force of this law.\n15.  The applicants appealed.\n16.  On 13 November 1995 the Mazowiecki Governor upheld the decision.\n17.  On 14 December 1995 the applicants appealed against the Governor’s decision to the Supreme Administrative Court.\n18.  On 20 January 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed both the first and second-instance decisions.\n19.  On 17 March 1999 Aniela Gładysz, on behalf of the other applicants, complained to the Warsaw Regional Office about the inactivity of the administration and lack of any decision in the case. Apparently her complaint was transferred to the Warsaw Starost (local State administration body), as a result of administrative reforms.\n20. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3969", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Warszawa.\n5.  He is a taxi driver by profession. On 4 February 1974 he had a car accident in Bulgaria. On 28 November 1995 he was involved in another car accident in Warsaw.\n6.  On 5 August 1996 the applicant lodged a claim for a disability pension in connection with both accidents. On 16 October 1996 the Warsaw Social Security Board gave a decision. On 20 December 1996 the applicant appealed against it.\n7.  On 14 November 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court stayed the proceedings with respect to the disability caused by the accident of 28 November 1995 pending the termination of criminal proceedings against the applicant. The applicant’s interlocutory appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 18 December 1997.\n8.  As regards the disability resulting from the accident which had occurred in 1974, the Regional Court has still not determined the matter.\n9.  On 23 July 1998 the applicant filed another motion with the Warsaw Social Security Board to be granted a disability pension in connection with the 1974 accident. On 24 February 1999 he lodged a complaint with the Regional Court alleging inactivity on the part of the Social Security Board.\n10.  On 3 November 2004 the Regional Court severed part of the applicant’s claim concerning the 1974 accident.\n11.  On 10 November 2004 the Social Security Board gave a decision in respect of the 1974 accident. On 25 November 2004 the applicant appealed against it.\n12.  On 29 April 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment in the criminal proceedings against the applicant concerning the accident which had occurred in 1995. The judgment is final.\n13.  On 27 September 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a judgment upholding the decision issued by the Warsaw Social Security Board in 2004 in connection with the 1974 accident. The judgment is final.\n14.  On 1 February 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment granting the applicant a right to a disability pension in connection with the 1995 accident. Both parties appealed against that judgment.\n15.  On 14 August 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal gave judgment in which it rejected the applicant’s appeal and entertained the appeal lodged by the Warsaw Social Security Board. The Court of Appeal quashed the second-instance judgment of 1 February 2007 and remitted the case.\n16.  The proceedings in respect of the 1995 accident are still pending.\n17.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under the 2004 Act as regards the proceedings relating to the 1995 accident.\n18.  On 8 February 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court observed that the proceedings had been stayed because the criminal proceedings against the applicant were pending.\n19.  On 17 February 2005 the applicant filed a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under the 2004 Act alleging that the proceedings concerning the 1974 accident had been unreasonably lengthy.\n20.  On 5 May 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal gave judgment and confirmed that the proceedings had been lengthy. It also granted the applicant PLN 4,000 [EUR 1,200] in compensation.\n21.  Subsequently, the applicant filed several complaints under the 2004 Act as regards the proceedings relating to the 1995 accident.\nOn 5 September 2007, having examined the applicant’s complaint on the merits, the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint.\nOn 19 June 2008 the Warsaw Court ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3970", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Makhachkala, a city in Dagestan.\n5.  A retiree of the Ministry of the Interior, in 2002–04 the applicant contested in court a stoppage of his pension.\n6.  On 30 October 2002 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala ordered the Ministry to resume the pension in the amount of 3,004.41 Russian roubles (RUB) per month, to pay arrears in the amount of RUB 94,378.47, and to adjust the arrears for the cost of living by paying RUB 77,331.32. This judgment became binding on 22 January 2003 with the exception of the cost-of-living adjustment, this part of the award having been quashed on appeal.\n7.  On 11 March 2003 the District Court once again awarded the cost-of-living adjustment in the same amount. This judgment became binding on 22 March 2003.\n8.  On 28 March 2003 the applicant requested bailiffs to enforce the judgment of 30 October 2002. On the Ministry’s request, from 14 May to 30 June 2003 the enforcement proceedings were stayed pending proceedings in the Constitutional Court. On 29 July 2003 the judgment was enforced in the part concerning the resumption of the periodic payments.\n9.  On 29 March 2004 the applicant requested the bailiffs to enforce the judgment of 11 March 2003.\n10.  On 19 April 2004 the applicant requested the bailiffs to enforce the judgment of 30 October 2002 in the part concerning the arrears.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 15 November 2003 the Ministry requested a supervisory review of the judgments, and on 8 June 2004 the Supreme Court of Dagestan stayed the enforcement. On 9 September 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the two judgments on supervisory review. The Presidium rejected the applicant’s claim, having found that the court below had misinterpreted material laws concerning the applicant’s entitlement to the pension.\nThe applicant was absent from this hearing, because he had allegedly not been properly notified of it.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3971", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are:\n(1) Mrs Medina[1] Bilalovna Akhmadova, born in 1954;\n(2) Mr Magomed[2] Musayevich Akhmadov, born in 1979;\n(3) Mr Kazbek Musayevich Akhmadov, born in 1982;\n(4) Mr Turpal Musayevich Akhmadov, born in 1984.\n8.  They live in Grozny, Chechnya.\n9.  The first applicant is the wife of Musa Mausurovich Akhmadov, born in 1951. The second, third and fourth applicants are their children. The first applicant is disabled and cannot work.\n10.  On 6 March 2002 Musa Akhmadov travelled to the village of Makhkety in Vedeno district in the south of Chechnya to see his ailing father. On that day between 2 and 3 p.m. he was detained at the military checkpoint in Kirov-Yurt village, Vedeno district. The applicants did not themselves witness the detention, and in their reconstruction of the events they relied on an affidavit by Alu S., the first applicant’s cousin, who was travelling with Musa Akhmadov, as well as on information obtained by them from the residents of Makhkety and a senior officer of the checkpoint in Kirov-Yurt.\n11.  Alu S. submitted that he and Musa Akhmadov had arrived in the town of Shali, where they had hired a VAZ car with a driver to take them to Makhkety. In the village of Kirov-Yurt (also known as Tezvan) the car had been stopped at the permanent checkpoint of the Russian military, which had been installed in 2000 and remained there until early 2003. The military collected documents from the persons in the car and took them inside the checkpoint. Several minutes later they returned the passports of everyone except for Musa Akhmadov, who was ordered to get out of the car. The soldiers ordered the car to move away from the roadblock and took Mr Akhmadov into the checkpoint building. Alu S. got out of the car and tried to stop the soldiers but one of them threatened him with a machine gun and forbade him to approach.\n12.  Some time later the military serviceman who had accompanied Musa Akhmadov into the checkpoint building returned to the road, and Alu S. asked him what had happened. The serviceman said that Musa Akhmadov had been detained because his family name was on the list of wanted persons. He also said that they had called the headquarters of their regiment in the village of Khatuni and that someone would come from there and take him to that military unit for an identity check. All further questions should be directed to the regiment in Khatuni.\n13.  Later, a senior officer at the checkpoint who was known as “Arthur” (the applicants submitted that it was not his real name) told Musa Akhmadov’s relatives that the latter had been taken on the same day to the military base in Khatuni by an armoured personnel carrier (APC) with hull number 719.\n14.  The applicants have had no news of Musa Akhmadov since his detention on 6 March 2002.\n15.  The Government in their observations did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicants. They stated that it had been established that on 6 March 2002 at the roadblock near Kirov-Yurt unidentified armed men had arrested Musa Akhmadov and taken him away to an unknown destination.\n16.  Immediately after Musa Akhmadov’s detention the applicants and other family members started looking for him.\n17.  On the day of detention, on 6 March 2002, Musa Akhmadov’s relatives went to the military base in Khatuni, but were not allowed to go through the gates. At about 6 p.m. the head of the temporary group of policemen from Samara on mission in Vedeno district, Mr Andrey K., came out", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3972", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Salavat. In 1998–2004 he obtained two judgments against the authorities.\n5.  On 2 February 1998 the Leninskiy District Court of Ufa awarded the applicant 9,019.88 Russian roubles (“RUB”) in pension arrears against the Ministry of the Interior of Bashkortostan. This judgment became binding on 12 February 1998, but was not enforced immediately. In 2000–2002, the bailiff’s service’s servicing bank had its licence suspended pending insolvency proceedings. On 31 July 2002 the bailiffs made a bank transfer to the applicant, but the transfer failed because of a clerical mistake.\n6.  As the applicant believed that the bailiffs had caused the delay, on 15 August 2001 he sued them for the judgment debt and non-pecuniary damages. After two first-instance hearings, one appeal hearing, and two supervisory-review hearings, on 18 November 2004 the Kirovskiy District Court partly held for the applicant. It confirmed the bailiffs’ fault, awarded RUB 45,509.20 that included the original judgment debt adjusted for ination and costs, but rejected the claim for non-pecuniary damages.\n7.  Both the applicant and the bailiffs appealed against this judgment, but the applicant’s appeal was not accepted because he had missed the time-limit. On 10 February 2005 the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan upheld the judgment of 18 November 2004. The applicant and the bailiffs were absent from this hearing. Earlier the applicant had asked the courts to examine the case in his absence.\n8.   On 5 September 2005 the bailiffs enforced the judgment of 2 February 1998.\n9.  On 29 March 2006 the Ministry of Finance enforced the judgment of 18 November 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3973", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Donetsk of the Rostov Region.\n5.  The applicant sued the Donetsk Social Welfare Office («Управление социальной защиты населения г. Донецка») for arrears in child benefits and for compensation of non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  On 27 December 2000 the Donetsk Town Court of the Rostov Region, composed of a professional judge Mr P. and two lay judges, partly allowed her claims. The judgment became enforceable on 7 January 2001.\n7.  On 25 July 2002 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case.\n8.  On 2 October 2002 the Donetsk Town Court, composed of the judge Mr P. and two lay judges, ordered that the Donetsk Social Welfare Office pay the applicant 1,506.27 Russian roubles (RUB, approximately EUR 49) in respect of child benefits adjusted for inflation and legal costs and expenses. The award was payable from the Rostov regional budget. The court rejected the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damage.\n9.  On 4 December 2002 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it became enforceable.\n10.  On 3 February 2003 the applicant received copies of the judgments of 2 October and 4 December 2002.\n11.  On 3 March 2003 she submitted the writ of execution to the respondent authority.\n12.  On 15 March 2003 the amount of RUB 292.20 was transferred to the applicant’s bank account pursuant to the judgment in her favour.\n13.  On 29 October 2003 the applicant received RUB 467.52 on her bank account.\n14.  On 25 November 2003 RUB 651.55 were paid to the applicant pursuant to the judgment of 2 October 2002.\n15.  On 27 December 2004 the respondent authority paid her the outstanding balance of RUB 95 (approximately EUR 3) - the sum awarded in respect of legal costs and expenses - thus completing full execution of the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3974", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Apatity in the Murmansk region.\n7.  On 6 June 2000 the Apatity Town Court of the Murmansk Region convicted the applicant and his co-defendant, Ms Sk., of concerted drug trafficking under Article 228 § 4 of the Criminal Code. It established that the applicant had repeatedly procured large quantities of drugs from unidentified sources and had handed them over to Sk. with a view to selling them to individual customers. Sk. had packaged the drugs, resold them and returned the proceeds to the applicant. On 1 October 1999 the applicant had come to Sk.’s flat and had collected the usual proceeds in the amount of 2,000 Russian roubles (RUB). He had been arrested shortly after leaving the flat.\n8.  At the trial Sk. pleaded guilty and submitted that the applicant had suggested that she sell drugs and that she had agreed. The applicant had repeatedly brought heroin and marijuana to her flat, she had sold the drugs to third persons and had returned to the applicant the proceeds in the amount of RUB 2,000 per gramme of heroin. The applicant pleaded not guilty to all charges and claimed that he had lent RUB 2,000 to Sk. and she had finally paid this amount back to him on the day of his arrest. He contended that during the search at his flat he had voluntarily surrendered heroin to the police and that marijuana seized there had been a plant.\n9.  In convicting the applicant the Town Court relied on the statements made by Sk. at the trial. It found that they were corroborated by the following evidence:\n - In a pre-trial statement Mr S., the partner of Sk.. who had previously cohabited with her, confirmed that the applicant had repeatedly handed drugs over to Sk. and that she had subsequently resold them. According to S., on 1 October 1999, before being arrested, the applicant had collected from Sk. the usual proceeds for the sale of heroin and had promised to return later and to hand her over a further amount of drugs for sale. S. was not questioned at the trial; his deposition was read out despite the applicant’s and his counsel’s objections.\n- In a pre-trial statement K. testified that she knew both from the applicant and Sk. that he had systematically provided Sk. with drugs for sale.\n- Ya. testified at the trial that the applicant had suggested that she sell drugs but she had refused.\n- Five police officers, questioned in court, submitted that prior to the applicant’s arrest they had arrested several persons leaving Sk.’s flat in possession of drugs. They also stated that they had seized drugs during the searches of the apartments of both co-accused.\n- Five persons testified in court that they had bought drugs from Sk.\n- Attesting witness V. confirmed at the trial that narcotic-like substances had been seized at Sk.’s flat.\n- Forensic reports established that the substances seized from the co-defendants were heroin and marijuana and whereas it had been impossible to establish any match between the heroin samples seized from the applicant and Sk., the marijuana samples seized from them had not matched.\n10.  The applicant was sentenced to eleven years and three months’ imprisonment. Sk. was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and was relieved from the punishment under the Amnesty Act.\n11.  The applicant appealed and contended, among other things, that his conviction had been based on circumstantial evidence and that the trial court had failed to summon S. despite the applicant’s requests a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3975", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1989 and 1963 respectively and live in Sheffield.\n10.  The first applicant, Mr S., was arrested on 19 January 2001 at the age of 11 and charged with attempted robbery. His fingerprints and DNA samples[1] were taken. He was acquitted on 14 June 2001.\n11.  The second applicant, Mr Michael Marper, was arrested on 13 March 2001 and charged with harassment of his partner. His fingerprints and DNA samples were taken. Before a pre-trial review took place, he and his partner had reconciled, and the charge was not pressed. On 11 June 2001, the Crown Prosecution Service served a notice of discontinuance on the applicant’s solicitors, and on 14 June 2001 the case was formally discontinued.\n12.  Both applicants asked for their fingerprints and DNA samples to be destroyed, but in both cases the police refused. The applicants applied for judicial review of the police decisions not to destroy the fingerprints and samples. On 22 March 2002 the Administrative Court (Rose LJ and Leveson J) rejected the application [[2002] EWHC 478 (Admin)].\n13.  On 12 September 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Administrative Court by a majority of two (Lord Woolf CJ and Waller LJ) to one (Sedley LJ) [[2003] EWCA Civ 1275]. As regards the necessity of retaining DNA samples, Lord Justice Waller stated:\n“... [F]ingerprints and DNA profiles reveal only limited personal information. The physical samples potentially contain very much greater and more personal and detailed information. The anxiety is that science may one day enable analysis of samples to go so far as to obtain information in relation to an individual’s propensity to commit certain crime and be used for that purpose within the language of the present section [section 82 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001]. It might also be said that the law might be changed in order to allow the samples to be used for purposes other than those identified by the section. It might also be said that while samples are retained there is even now a risk that they will be used in a way that the law does not allow. So, it is said, the aims could be achieved in a less restrictive manner ... Why cannot the aim be achieved by retention of the profiles without retention of the samples?\nThe answer to [these] points is as I see it as follows. First the retention of samples permits (a) the checking of the integrity and future utility of the DNA database system; (b) a reanalysis for the upgrading of DNA profiles where new technology can improve the discriminating power of the DNA matching process; (c) reanalysis and thus an ability to extract other DNA markers and thus offer benefits in terms of speed, sensitivity and cost of searches of the database; (d) further analysis in investigations of alleged miscarriages of justice; and (e) further analysis so as to be able to identify any analytical or process errors. It is these benefits which must be balanced against the risks identified by Liberty. In relation to those risks, the position in any event is first that any change in the law will have to be itself Convention compliant; second any change in practice would have to be Convention compliant; and third unlawfulness must not be assumed. In my view thus the risks identified are not great, and such as they are they are outweighed by the benefits in achieving the aim of prosecuting and preventing crime.”\n14.  Lord Justice Sedley considered that the power of a chief constable to destroy d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3976", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Volgodonsk, a town in the Rostov Region. In 1999 she lost her home in a terrorist bomb attack.\n5.  On 1 November 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Krasnodar ordered a local authority to provide the applicant with a flat within three months of the judgment’s entry into force. This judgment entered into force on 19 December 2002.\n6.  On 19 February 2003 the District Court clarified the judgment and indicated that the flat had to measure at least 72 m².\n7.  In 2002–04 the local authority several times applied for a supervisory review of the judgment, and pending this procedure the enforcement was stayed.\n8.  On 12 March 2004 the local authority offered the applicant a flat, but she refused it. On 9 August 2004 the local authority offered another flat (measuring 76.78 m²) and the applicant accepted it. On 28 September 2004 the applicant’s ownership was formalised.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3979", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the village of Serzhen-Yurt, the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The applicant lived with her husband, Mr Sharani Askharov (born in 1956), at 106 Sheripova Street in the village of Serzhen-Yurt. The applicant is a housewife, and her husband was a lorry driver. Together they had two daughters, one of whom is away from home for long periods of time for medical reasons. In the same courtyard there are five houses; the four others are owned by the applicant’s husband’s brothers and their families.\n8.  According to the applicant, early in the morning of 18 May 2001 a “sweeping operation” (зачистка) took place in Serzhen-Yurt. At about 5 a.m. a group of armed men wearing masks and dressed in camouflage broke into the applicant’s home and entered the room where the applicant, her husband and their 12-year-old daughter were sleeping. The applicant was forced by a man armed with a sub-machine gun to stand against the wall in the hall, while other men held her husband down in another room. The applicant describes the men as well-built, tall and speaking unaccented Russian. One of them was, in her estimation, 40-45 years old. They did not introduce themselves, show any identification or ask anyone for identity documents, nor did they ask any questions. When the applicant asked them what they wanted and who they were looking for they told her to be quiet. The soldiers put a sack over Mr Sharani Askharov’s head and took him outside into the courtyard. The applicant was prevented from following. The applicant’s account of the events is supported by statements by three eyewitnesses.\n9.  The soldiers proceeded to another house in the same courtyard, and brought out one of the applicant’s husband’s brothers, Mr Yunus Askharov. They pulled a T-shirt over his head and put him into an armoured personnel carrier (APC). They also detained Mr Sharani Askharov’s nephew, Mr Aslan Askharov, born in 1974.\n10.  Mr Yunus Askharov, who was later released, explained that his T-shirt was thin and that he could see that he was in the same APC as his brother Sharani. He tried to talk to his brother, but a sack was put over his head too, and the detainees were forbidden to talk and were beaten with rifle butts if they attempted to.\n11.  The neighbours later told the applicant that they had noted the license plate numbers of two APCs that took part in the sweeping operation as 714 and 224. They also noted the plate numbers of the Ural military truck as 76-46 VA. There were also other vehicles, at least two other APCs, but their number plates were obscured with mud.\n12.  The applicant submitted that in the same sweeping operation nine men had been detained in Serzhen-Yurt. Two of them, including the applicant’s husband, had disappeared. Mr Aslan Askharov, her nephew, had been found dead with bullet wounds later on 18 May 2001 on the outskirts of the village. Six others had been released on 18 and 19 May 2004, after having been subjected to interrogations accompanied by beatings and torture.\n13.  The applicant submitted written statements by Mr Yunus Askharov and Mr M. R., who were released on 18 May 2004. According to their statements, the APCs carrying the detainees drove for several hours. The men inside remained blindfolded and their hands were tied tightly behind their backs. On several occasions the vehicles stopped, the detainees were dragged out, beaten, tortured and then pulled back inside. Mr Yunus Askharov was asked questions", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3980", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya.\n7.  The applicant was married to Mr Alaudin Ayubovich Gandaloyev, born in 1938. They had two sons, Emir and Muslim Gandaloyev. Alaudin Gandaloyev worked as a forester in the Achkhoy-Martan district and had never been suspected of participation in illegal armed groups.\n8.  In the morning of 17 September 2003 Emir Gandaloyev drove his father to the forest in his GAZ-2401 (Volga) car. At about 9.30 a.m. they arrived at their destination point near the village of Yandi (formerly called Orekhovo), in the Achkhoy-Martan district of Chechnya. There they met Alaudin Gandaloyev’s colleague, Mr Viskha Badayev. The foresters had been working in this part of the forest assigning directions for lorries carrying firewood since the beginning of September 2003.\n9.  At about 9.45 a.m. three armed men wearing camouflage uniforms came out from the woods and, in unaccented Russian, ordered the Gandaloyevs and Viskha Badayev to produce their identity papers. Emir Gandaloyev reached for his wallet that he had left in the car and heard a machine-gun burst. Then he felt a gun barrel pressed against his neck. One of the armed men ordered him in Russian to prostrate himself. After that Emir Gandaloyev heard another machine-gun burst and four or five single gunshots. He looked under the car and saw his father’s arm prostrated. He concluded that Alaudin Gandaloyev and Viskha Badayev had also been forced to the ground.\n10.  At that moment Emir Gandaloyev heard one of the armed men telling the others: “This is the driver”. The men threw the papers on the ground and left in silence. Emir Gandaloyev rose and saw his father and Viskha Badayev lying on the ground. The two foresters were covered with blood, their identity documents were scattered around. Emir Gandaloyev put his father’s body into the car and drove away.\n11.  Having driven for some time, he saw some Chechen police officers and told them what had happened. The policemen then reported the incident to the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office (“the inter-district prosecutor’s office”).\n12.  Later the same day a doctor of the Achkhoy-Martan central district hospital examined Alaudin Gandaloyev’s body. According to the certificate issued by the doctor on 22 October 2003, there were a large open gunshot wound in the front temporal area of the skull and numerous closed gunshot wounds in the body and its extremities. The certificate stated that the death of Alaudin Gandaloyev had been caused by those wounds.\n13.  On 29 September 2003 the Civil Registry Office of the Achkhoy-Martan district issued a death certificate to the effect that Alaudin Gandaloyev had died on 17 September 2003 in the village of Yandi of the Achkhoy-Martan district.\n14.  In support of her account of the events the applicant submitted copies of the following documents: witness statement of Emir Gandaloyev, two statements concerning Alaudin Gandaloyev’s employment record and his salary, Alaudin Gandaloyev’s death certificate, a medical statement describing Alaudin Gandaloyev’s wounds, a character reference for Alaudin Gandaloyev and the newspaper article concerning the killing of Alaudin Gandaloyev and Viskha Badayev (see below).\n15.  The Government submitted that “at about 10 o’clock on 17 September 2003 two corpses of employees of the Achkhoy-Martan forestry agency, Mr V. Kh. Badayev and Mr A. A. Gandaloyev, were discovered on the outskirt of the village of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3981", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Naro-Fominsk in the Moscow region. He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Ryazan region.\n5.  On 22 July 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.\n6.  On 18 August 1995 he was charged with robbery, murder, illegal possession of firearms and false reporting of a crime. On the same date the prosecutor ordered that the applicant be placed in detention.\n7.  On 27 June 1996 the prosecution authorities submitted the case file to the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) for trial. On 3 June 1997 and 4 March 1998, at the request of the applicant’s counsel, the City Court referred the case back to the prosecution authorities for additional investigation on account of serious breaches of procedure. The prosecutor did not challenge those decisions.\n8.  On 4 August 1998 the additional investigative measures were completed and the case was submitted to the City Court for trial. However, on 10 August 1999 the City Court granted a request by the applicant’s counsel to remit, once more, the case for additional investigation. It held that the prosecution authorities had failed to implement the instructions given in its decision of 4 March 1998 and that the applicant’s defence rights had been violated during the investigation. On 24 September 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal against that decision.\n9.  On 20 May 1999 the case was submitted to the City Court for trial, after additional investigation. However, on 3 June 1999 the City Court, at the defence’s request, again referred the case for additional investigation on account of serious procedural breaches. On 22 July 1999 the Supreme Court upheld that decision.\n10.  On 24 August 1999 the case was submitted to the City Court for trial and the first hearing was scheduled for 24 September 1999. However, on that date the case was adjourned until 1 November 1999 because the applicant’s counsel and the victims had failed to appear. Several hearings were scheduled for November 1999. Two of them were adjourned at the request of the applicant’s counsel.\n11.  On 22 November 1999 the City Court found the applicant guilty of illegal possession of firearms and acquitted him of the other charges. It sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment and ordered that he be released from serving his sentence and consequently from detention, as by that time he had spent more than four years in detention. The applicant was released in the courtroom.\n12.  On 13 January 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”) heard the case on appeal. It found, among other things, that the first-instance court had failed to properly assess the evidence in the case. It upheld the applicant’s acquittal on the charge of false reporting of a crime, quashed the remaining part of the judgment of 22 November 1999 and remitted that part of the case for fresh examination to the City Court.\n13.  On 28 January 2000 the case was sent to the City Court. The first hearing was scheduled for 5 June 2000. However, on that date the case was adjourned until 1 November 2000 because the judge was involved in unrelated proceedings. The hearings of 1 November 2000 and 28 March 2001 were postponed for the same reason.\n14.  The hearing of 26 July 2001 was adjourned because the applicant’s defence counsel was on annual leave until 18 August 2001. The next hearing was scheduled for 8 October 2001.\n15.  The City Court heard the case", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3982", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya.\n8.  The applicant has a daughter and three grandsons. Her family lived at 9 Kiyevskiy Lane in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny. Prior to the resumption of hostilities in Chechnya in 1999 the applicant was a lecturer in the Chechen and Russian languages and in teaching methods at the Chechen branch of the Business and Administration University of Ingushetia.\n9.  In October 1999 hostilities resumed between Russian forces and Chechen armed groups. Grozny came under heavy aerial and artillery bombardment.\n10.  The applicant remained in Grozny in the winter of 1999 to 2000. On 10 January 2000 her house at 9 Kiyevskiy Lane was destroyed during a rocket attack.\n11.  After 10 January 2000 the applicant and her family lived in the cellar of a house at 23 Olympiyskiy Drive, together with several other residents of the area. On 22 January 2000 the residents were informed, via an amplifier installed in a helicopter, that the following day would be their last opportunity to leave the city through a humanitarian corridor. Leaflets containing similar information were dropped, notifying the residents that they could leave on 23 January 2000 at 9 a.m. by the road leading to the settlement of Staraya Sunzha, where they would be picked up by buses and taken out of the Grozny area.\n12.  On 23 January 2000 at 9 a.m. the applicant and her family left the house at Olimpiyskiy Drive. They were joined by other residents who were heading towards Staraya Sunzha. The applicant recalled that there were about a hundred people in their group, including children. People were carrying only their most valuable possessions, in bags or on sledges. Many had white armbands, and a man walking close to the applicant was carrying a pole with a white sheet to show that they were civilians.\n13.  At about 9.30 a.m. the front of the group, including the applicant, reached Zhukovskiy Street. Further down that street there stood the premises of a former canning factory, where a regiment of Russian military forces was temporarily stationed. While the applicant was crossing Zhukovskiy Street at the point where it intersects with Olimpiyskiy Drive, artillery fire and shelling started from the direction of the cannery. Later a helicopter appeared, from which a sniper fired towards the crossroads. As a result of the shelling a nine-storey building nearby was destroyed. The applicant submitted a drawing with a plan of the area where the attack occurred.\n14.  The applicant received several shell and bullet wounds to her right arm, both legs, hips and left kneecap. She lost consciousness and remained in the street for about ten hours. Her relatives told her later that the shelling had continued and that they could not retrieve her or the other wounded until nightfall.\n15.  In the evening of the same day the applicant was taken by her relatives to a basement. She could not be taken to a hospital because the shelling was still ongoing. Her relatives and neighbours transported her from one cellar to another, and it was not until 30 January 2000 that she reached the field hospital of the Ministry of Emergencies (Emercom), located in the settlement of Staraya Sunzha on the outskirts of Grozny, where she was for the first time examined by medical personnel.\n16.  On the following day the applicant was taken further away, to a hospital in the town of Argun. However, that hospital had no electricity and it was impossible to p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3983", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Zaynap Zhazhayevna Tagirova, born in 1950;\n2) Mr Taus Daudovich Tagirov, born in 1950;\n3) Mr Musa Tausovich Tagirov, born in 1982;\n4) Ms Zarema Abdullayevna Bazayeva[1], born in 1983;\n5) Ms Madina Tausovna Tagirova, born in 1983;\n6) Ms Milana Tausovna Tagirova, born in 1981; and\n7) Ms Ratkha Tausovna Tagirova, born in 1972.\nThey live in Urus-Martan in the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The first and second applicants are married to each other. They are the parents of the third, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants and Mr Movsar Tausovich Tagirov, born in 1978. Movsar Tagirov was married to the fourth applicant. At the material time the second applicant was an officer of the special task force of the Chechen Republic. Movsar Tagirov was a trainee of the special task force of the Chechen Republic.\n8.  On the night of 6 to 7 February 2003 the Tagirovs were sleeping in their family house at 86 Sovetskaya Street, Urus-Martan, in the Chechen Republic.\n9.  At about 3 a.m. on 7 February 2003 around twenty men wearing camouflage uniforms burst into the applicants' courtyard. They broke down the entrance door of the house; nine or ten of them entered. The men wore masks and were armed with sniper rifles («винторезы») equipped with silencers; they did not identify themselves but the applicants believed that they were Russian servicemen.\n10.  Having broken into the house, the armed men found in the living room the second applicant's duty machine gun and portable radio transmitter; one of them unloaded the machine gun and pulled a battery out of the radio transmitter.\n11.  An armed man examined the second applicant's officer's badge and asked him whether there were other men in the house. The second applicant replied that there was his son, a task force trainee.\n12.  Then the armed men compelled the Tagirovs to proceed to the courtyard. They did not allow Movsar Tagirov to dress himself properly with the result that he left the house without jacket or shoes. The armed men forced him to stand face to the wall and ordered that someone bring his identity papers. The fourth applicant produced a task force trainee's badge; the armed men examined it and then took Movsar Tagirov from the courtyard to the street.\n13.  Meanwhile three armed men forced the applicants back inside the house and threatened to open fire should they attempt to leave it. The applicants obeyed. Having entered the house, the first applicant looked out of the window and observed the armed men leading Movsar Tagirov down Sovetskaya Street.\n14.  Some fifteen minutes later the remaining three armed men unblocked the entrance door, proceeded to the courtyard and disconnected a portable radio transmitter installed in the second applicant's car. Then they left.\n15.  The second applicant ran to his car, turned on the radio transmitter and sent a message about his son's abduction to special task force units, but was unable to discover where he had been taken.\n16.  According to written statements made by the applicants' neighbours, on the night of 6 to 7 February 2003 the armed men allegedly belonging to the Russian military visited and searched other houses in Sovetskaya Street, Urus-Martan. The neighbours refused to disclose their identities, implying that they feared for their safety.\n17.  On 31 March 2004 Ms R.T., the applicant's neighbour in Sovetskaya Street, provided the SRJI with her written statement. She submitted that at 3 a.m. on 7 February 2003 armed men in mas", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3984", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Voronezh of the Voronezh Region.\n5.  On 4 November 2000 the Talovskiy District Court of the Voronezh Region granted the applicant’s civil action against the Social Welfare Department of the Talovskiy District and awarded her 756.52 Russian roubles (RUB) in pension arrears.\n6.  The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable on 15 November 2000. At some point the domestic court issued the applicant with the writ of execution in respect of the judgment.\n7.  At the end of November 2000 the bailiffs received the writ.\n8.  At some point in 2001 the bailiffs’ service returned the writ to the applicant without execution, since the respondent authority did not have funds available for enforcement of the applicant’s claim.\n9.  It appears that on 9 February 2006 the applicant resubmitted the writ of execution to the respondent authority.\n10.  On 1 March 2007 the award was paid to the applicant in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3986", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first two applicants are a married couple. They have four sons – the ninth, tenth and eleventh applicants and Mr Vakhid Vakhayevich Musikhanov, born in 1976. The latter was married to the third applicant and had four children with her – the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants (the youngest child was born a month after Vakhid Musikhanov's disappearance). The eighth applicant is the second applicant's sister.\n8.  The applicants live in Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic.\n9.  On 9 November 2002, at around 2 or 3 a.m., a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks forcibly entered a private house at 6 Kavkazskaya Street, in which Vakhid Musikhanov and his family lived. Vakhid Musikhanov's sister-in-law, Vakhid Musikhanov himself and all the other applicants, except for the second and eighth ones, were inside the house at that time. According to the applicants, the men who raided their house belonged to the Russian federal troops, since they spoke Russian without an accent and were able to circulate freely during the curfew. In the Government's submission, they were “unidentified persons in masks and camouflage uniforms armed with automatic firearms”.\n10.  The men, who had machine guns and torches, did not produce their identity papers or any documents justifying their actions. They ordered everyone to lie down and searched the house. Then they blocked the women in one room and forced the Musikhanov men into another. The intruders ordered the Musikhanov men to remain silent and not to move and checked their identity documents. According to the tenth and eleventh applicants, when they moved slightly, the men hit them in the face with their machine guns and kicked them with the result that the eleventh applicant started bleeding.\n11.  Having checked the documents, the intruders ordered Vakhid Musikhanov to get dressed and took him away. The first applicant attempted to prevent them from detaining her son, but the men said that he would come back as soon as he had showed them a certain building. They then jammed the front door shut from the outside with an iron bar. Several minutes later the eighth applicant, who lived next door, let them out. The applicants have had no news of Vakhid Musikhanov ever since.\n12.  In the morning of 9 November 2002 the applicants went to the Urus-Martan district authorities (администрация Урус-Мартановского района) and the military commander's office of the Urus-Martan District (военная комендатура Урус-Мартановского района, “the Urus-Martan military commander's office”) and enquired after Vakhid Musikhanov. They received no substantive information.\n13.  According to the second applicant, he requested his distant relative, who had acquaintances at the Urus-Martan military commander's office, to obtain information concerning the detention of his son. Several days later the relative told the second applicant that Vakhid Musikhanov had been apprehended on the basis of an anonymous letter, which had contained criminal charges against him, and was allegedly kept at the Urus-Martan military commander's office. The second applicant also talked to a certain local official who confirmed that Vakhid Musikhanov was detained at the Urus-Martan military commander's office. According to the SRJI, their organisation has at its disposal the personal data of the relative and the official.\n14.  Since 9 November 2002 the first three applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various pu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3988", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are: 4.  Ms Maret Abubakarovna Ilyasova, born in 1978.\nThey live in Mesker-Yurt, Shali District, the Chechen Republic. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Adam Abubakarovich Ilyasov, born in 1983. The other applicants are his brother and sisters.\n6.  Mr Adam Ilyasov lived with his family at 95 Lenina Street, Mesker-Yurt, Shali District, Chechen Republic. He had never been detained or charged with any offences.\n7.  According to the first applicant, on 15 November 2002 at around 6 a.m., when she was at home with her daughter and son, Mr Adam Ilyasov, armed servicemen of the Russian federal forces approached the Ilyasovs’ house in three armoured personnel carriers (APCs) with licence plates covered with mud. They were wearing masks and uniforms without any insignia. They were armed mostly with small arms and some of them had portable radio transmitters. The servicemen broke into the house and smashed everything inside: they broke doors, tore out window frames, turned the furniture upside down, scattered things everywhere and broke the windows of Mr Adam Ilyasov’s truck, a GAZ-3307, which was parked in the yard of the house. They presented neither identity papers nor a search or detention order. When the first applicant tried to intervene, one of the servicemen kicked her in the chest and she fell on the floor. Then they grabbed Mr Adam Ilyasov, twisted his arms, threw him in the APC and drove off in an unknown direction. They also took his passport, driving licence and documents for the truck.\n8.  Ms M. Il., Mr Adam Ilyasov’s aunt, and Ms M. Is., his sister-in-law, submitted written statements providing their account of the events. They stated that they shared the same yard as the applicants. On 15 November 2002 at around 6.15 a.m. armed men in four APCs with registration numbers covered with mud came from the Khankala direction. They were tall, spoke Russian without an accent, were wearing uniforms without any insignia and masks and carried small arms. Some of them had portable radio transmitters and shields. They did not let anyone in the Ilyasovs’ house. They searched the house, having broken the windows and the door, and broke the windows of the truck parked in the yard. Then they took Mr Adam Ilyasov and left in the direction of the Argun Military Commander’s Office. They produced no documents to authorise either the search or Mr  Ilyasov’s arrest.\n9.  Mr Adam Ilyasov has never been seen again.\n10.  The Government submitted that in the course of the investigation in case no. 59274 it was established that on 15 November 2002 at approximately 6.15 a.m. unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms armed with automatic weapons had abducted Mr Adam Ilyasov from his house and had taken him to an unknown destination.\n11.  The applicants applied in writing and in person to numerous State authorities seeking to establish Mr Adam Ilyasov’s whereabouts. Copies of the applications have been submitted to the Court. Their applications filed with the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Prosecutor’s Office of the Chechen Republic were forwarded to the Shalinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office. Their applications filed with the Military Prosecutor of the United Group Alignment (UGA) were forwarded to the Military Prosecutor of military unit no. 20116. A written application was lodged for the first time by the first applicant on 29 November 2002.\n12.  On 10 December 2002 the Shalinskiy District Prosecutor’s Office instituted crimina", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3989", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic.\n8.  At the material time the applicant worked in the administration of the Urus-Martan District (администрация Урус-Мартановского района, “the Urus-Martan administration”) and lived in an apartment in a block of flats in Urus-Martan. She had a son, Mr Artur Bersunkayev, born in 1979, who lived at the time with the applicant’s brother-in-law, Mr Ayndi Bersunkayev, and the latter’s family, in a privately owned house at 51 Partizanskaya Street, Urus-Martan.\n9.  The applicant did not witness the apprehension of her son and her account was based on statements by her brother-in-law and his wife, Mrs Layla Tsugayeva.\n10.  On 13 June 2001, at around 4 a.m., a group of men arrived at 51 Partizanskaya Street and attempted to break down the door of the house. When Mrs Tsugayeva opened the door, about six men entered the house. They were wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and had machine-guns and portable transmitters.\n11.  The men did not introduce themselves or produce any documents to authorise their actions. They locked Mrs Tsugayeva in one of the rooms and ordered the applicant’s brother-in-law and her son to lie down. The men hit Ayndi and Artur Bersunkayev with their machine-guns and then tied the latter’s hands and covered his eyes and mouth with adhesive tape. It appears that the applicant’s son lost consciousness and the military poured some water on his head so that he came around.\n12.  The servicemen interrogated the applicant’s brother-in-law and her son, putting their questions very rapidly. They enquired whether Ayndi and Artur Bersunkayev were relatives and then demanded that the applicant’s brother-in-law confess and reveal where he kept firearms, and why he provided shelter to terrorists. Ayndi Bersunkayev answered that he was Artur’s uncle, had no firearms and did not provide shelter to terrorists. He also stated that only his family and nephew lived in his house.\n13.  The servicemen searched the house and found Ayndi Bersunkayev’s old hunting rifle, which was damaged and unfit for shooting. They seized it without furnishing the applicant’s brother-in-law with any relevant document. Thereafter the officer in command of the group told Ayndi Bersunkayev that they had come to the wrong address and would leave. Then the applicant’s brother-in-law was allowed to go to his room and get dressed. When he returned to the corridor his nephew was no longer there.\n14.  One of the soldiers looked into the room in which Mrs Tsugayeva was locked, and asked her whether she was a relative to Ayndi and Artur Bersunkayev. When she answered, the soldier told her that they would not take her husband but would take Artur Bersunkayev.\n15.  Thereafter the commanding officer ordered his group to leave, having stated that they “had been mistaken” and would not “take anyone or anything”. The officer also ordered Ayndi Bersunkayev to stay inside the house for 10 minutes after the servicemen’s departure, having warned that otherwise a sniper would shoot him. Nevertheless, the applicant’s brother-in-law attempted to follow the military, but they threatened him with their firearms. He returned home and found out that the applicant’s son had disappeared. Ayndi Bersunkayev ran into the street, but the military were already gone. Later that day the applicant’s brother-in-law talked to a number of neighbours who, according to him, stated that they had seen a “Ural” vehicle and an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3990", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lived until his arrest in Moscow.\n6.  On 1 April 1997 a statue of Russia’s last Tsar, Nicholas II, was blown up near the village of Tayninskoye in the Mytishchi District of the Moscow Region.\n7.  On the same day the mass media reported that an organisation called “The Revolutionary Military Council” («Революционный Военный Совет» – hereafter “the RMC”) had claimed responsibility for the destruction of the monument. In the morning of 6 July 1997 newspapers published a statement by the RMC, which claimed that its members were planning to perform “a conditional destruction” of the statue of another Russian Tsar, Peter the Great. According to the RMC, packets of plastic explosives had been planted inside the statue to protest against plans to bury Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin’s body. The RMC had planned to explode the bombs at about 6 a.m. but had eventually dropped its plans for fear of injuring innocent victims.\n8.  Responding to the RMC’s warning, the police found seven explosive devices planted under Peter the Great’s monument near the Kremlin in Moscow. On 6 July 1997, following the discovery of the explosive devices, the Moscow Investigation Department of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) instituted criminal proceedings.\n9.  According to the applicant, since 15 July 1997 he and his wife had been under surveillance by the FSB.\n10.  On 22 April 1998, at about 9.40 a.m., a group of armed FSB officers arrested the applicant in his office in the Main Department for the Fight against Organised Crime of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and brought him to the FSB Investigation Department in Moscow where he was questioned about his participation in the bombings on 1 April and 6 July 1997. An investigator apprised the applicant of his rights as a defendant, including the right to remain silent, and insisted that the applicant should not testify. However, the applicant considered that his silence could be interpreted as “a confession” and decided to make a statement. He claimed that he had nothing to do with the bombings.\n11.  On the same day the applicant was charged with terrorism and unlawful production of weapons and explosive devices. His detention on remand was authorised and he was escorted to the Lefortovo remand prison, run by the Federal Security Service. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on several occasions. His office and flat were searched and his personal belongings and money were seized.\n12.  On 29 October 1998 the applicant was additionally charged with organising a criminal undertaking, abuse of position, unlawful possession of weapons, abetting forgery of documents and actions aimed at a violent overthrow of the State.\n13.  On 2 February 1999 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant and his lawyers were granted access to the case file. They finished examining the file on 22 July 1999.\n14.  On 3 August 1999 a deputy prosecutor of Moscow approved the bill of indictment and the case file was sent to the Moscow City Court for trial.\n15.  On 23 August 1999 the Moscow City Court fixed the first hearing for 6 September 1999. That hearing was postponed until 4 October 1999 because the presiding judge was involved in other unrelated proceedings. The following two hearings were adjourned because a co-defendant, M., failed to attend.\n16.  On 12 October 1999 the Moscow City Court remitted the case to the Moscow Prosecutor’s offi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3991", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Mr Henri Adam was born in 1968 and lives in Berlin. Mrs Hiltrud Adam and Mr Eberhard Adam were born in 1940 and live in Güstrow.\n5.  The first applicant is the father of a son (C.), born out of wedlock on 20 March 1995. The second and third applicants are C.’s paternal grandparents. The second and third applicants were the child’s main carers during the first three years of his life because his mother (S.) was working full-time. In February 1998 the first applicant and S. separated. From January 1999 onwards C. remained with his mother, who had custody of him.\n6.  On 15 April 1999, following problems in obtaining access to his son, the first applicant applied to the Güstrow District Court for access to C.\n7.  On 9 June 1999 the parents agreed before the District Court that the first applicant should have contact with C. for a trial period of four months on those Sundays on which S. had to work. In view of the difficult relationship between S. and C.’s grandparents, the latter were to be allowed to attend C.’s visits only from the third Sunday onwards for one hour.\n8.  On 29 September 1999 the District Court provisionally decided that pending the next hearing (on 8 December 1999) the first applicant would be entitled to have contact with his son on 31 October 1999 and once in November. His grandparents would be excluded from those visits. The first applicant failed to comply with that decision as he brought C. to see his grandparents during his first visit. The second contact visit did not take place.\n9.  On 1 October 1999 the first applicant lodged a hierarchical complaint (Dienstaufsichtsbeschwerde) against the sitting judge of the District Court, which was rejected by the Rostock Court of Appeal on 29 November 1999.\n10.  On 8 December 1999 the District Court granted the first applicant accompanied access (begleiteter Umgang) to C. for two hours on Fridays with the assistance of the Güstrow Youth Office. C.’s grandparents were not allowed to attend those visits.\n11.  On 3 February 2000 the first applicant appealed to the Rostock Court of Appeal.\n12.  On 24 October 2000 the parents provisionally agreed that pending the next hearing (on 9 January 2001) three further accompanied visits should take place on the premises of the Youth Office.\n13.  On 9 January 2001 the Court of Appeal heard evidence from the parents and a representative of the Youth Office.\n14.  On 23 January 2001 it quashed the District Court’s decision and remitted the case to that court for fresh consideration.\n15.  Following the remittal to the District Court, the court files (initially no. 75 F 131/99) were given a new file number (no. 72 F 86/01).\n16.  On 7 March 2001 the District Court heard evidence from C., who stated that he could imagine meeting his father even without the presence of the Youth Office representative.\n17.  On 25 April 2001 the parents agreed that for a transitional period of six months the first applicant should have the right to take C. home one Saturday afternoon per month. Again, C.’s grandparents were excluded. Visits took place in accordance with that decision until July 2001, when C. refused to see his father any longer.\n18.  On 19 September 2001 and on subsequent occasions the applicant requested the District Court to schedule a new hearing.\n19.  On 18 February 2002 the District Court heard evidence from C., who confirmed that he did not wish to see his father any longer as his mother had told him not to visit him.\n20.  On 11 April 2002 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3992", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in İzmir.\n6.  On the night of 31 May 2001, at around midnight, police officers from the anti‑terrorist branch of the İzmir police conducted an operation to arrest a number of persons suspected of participating in an illegal demonstration. To that end, a group of police officers arrived at the two-storey house where the applicant and his uncle Sabri Selvi lived. The police officers were looking for the applicant’s uncle, who was suspected of having been involved in the aforementioned illegal demonstration.\n7.  According to the applicant’s version of events, the applicant, who lived on the first floor of the building, heard some noise coming from the second floor, where his uncle lived. He opened his flat door to see what was going on. He saw some persons in civilian clothes and asked them who they were. They asked the applicant to show his identity card. The applicant showed them his identity card, but when he asked them to show their identity cards as well the persons concerned, who turned out to be police officers in civilian clothes, they became angry and complained of the fact that everyone asked to see their identity cards. They then chased the applicant into his flat, beat him up and swore at him. After arresting the applicant, they prepared an arrest report which they forced him to sign.\n8.  The arrest and search report dated 31 May 2001, which was signed by six police officers, a witness, the applicant and his uncle Sabri Selvi, stated the following:\n“...Wearing police identification vests and having taken security precautions, we knocked on the door of the flat in question. We told the man who opened the door that we were police officers and that we wanted to carry out a search of the flat. With the agreement of the occupant, who said ‘You may search’, we entered the flat.\nFollowing the identity check, having realised that the man [who opened the door] was ... Sabri Selvi, we arrested him. In his presence, we conducted a search of the [flat] and found no evidence of involvement in crime. When asked whether any damage was caused to anything in the flat due to the search, the arrestee said ‘None’. As we were about to leave the flat together with the arrestee, a person called Yahya Selvi... attacked Deputy Superintendent Ramazan Oral and started hitting him while swearing and saying things like ‘You cannot take anyone away from here; I f..k your mothers and wives’. We overpowered Yahya Selvi by force, arrested him and took him with the other person to police headquarters for investigation...”\n9.  On 31 May 2001 at about 2 a.m. the applicant was taken to the Atatürk Hospital, where he was examined by a doctor. In his report, the doctor noted the presence of swelling on the applicant’s face. The same day at 12.30 p.m. a statement was taken from the applicant at police headquarters. In his statement, the applicant admitted that he had attacked the police officers while they were conducting a search of his house. He explained that he had been angered by the fact that the police officers had arrived to arrest his uncle at night. He also stated that he had not been subjected to any form of ill‑treatment during his detention in police custody and that he had not given his statement to the police under duress. At about 2 p.m. the applicant was again taken to the Atatürk Hospital. The doctor who examined the applicant prepared a report identical to the previous one.\n10.  On 31 May 2001 police off", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3993", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 5 April 1996 the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant, on the basis of which he was arrested and taken into custody on 12 April 1996 by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Police Headquarters. Upon his arrest, the applicant signed an arrest report acknowledging the warrant and the authorities’ intention to transfer him to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command.\n6.  On 12 April 1996 a house search report was drafted by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Police Headquarters which indicated that the applicant had been arrested on suspicion of affiliation to the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation, and of having committed homicide. The report was signed by three police officers and the applicant.\n7.  After being held for two days in the Istanbul police headquarters, the applicant was transferred to Diyarbakır, where he was held in the custody of the gendarmerie until 25 April 1996.\n8.  On 22 April 1996 the applicant was questioned by officers from the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command, where he was requested to provide information regarding his affiliation to the PKK and his involvement in the killing of a certain B.C. The applicant stated that he was a member of the PKK and that he had killed B.C. in compliance with orders he had received from that organisation.\n9.  On 25 April 1996 the applicant was brought before the Diyarbakır public prosecutor, where he alleged that he was not involved in the activities of the PKK. The applicant further contended that in 1992 he had killed B.C. in his village as he had suspected that his partner had had a relationship with him. The applicant stated that the murder was not linked to any terrorist activity. The statements that he had made at the gendarmerie command were read to him. The applicant denied having made them. Furthermore the statements of three other suspects, Ş.B., Ş.C. and S.B., who maintained that the applicant was a member of the PKK, were also read to him. The applicant rejected these statements, claiming that these persons were relatives of B.C.\n10.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before a single judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. He reiterated the statements which he had made before the public prosecutor. Following his questioning, the judge remanded the applicant in custody, holding that there were strong indications that he had committed the offence defined in Article 125 of the former Criminal Code, namely carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.\n11.  On 10 May 1996 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and six other persons. The applicant was charged under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code, and with killing B.C.\n12.  On 14 May 1996 the First Division of the Diyarbakır State Security Court held a hearing and ordered the applicant’s continued detention on remand in view of the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the content of the case file.\n13.  On 19 August 1996 the applicant made statements before the first‑instance court, denying the charges against him.\n14.  Between 19 August 1996 and 29 December 1997, the first-instance court postponed the hearings as it was awaiting information and docum", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3994", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the town of Solnechnogorsk in the Moscow Region.\n7.  On 8 March 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed franchise fraud, that is, having organised a financial pyramid scheme in which more than one hundred persons had been enrolled and which had caused fraudulent losses of over 23,000,000 Russian roubles. Three days later a prosecutor authorised the applicant’s placement in custody on the ground that she was charged with a serious criminal offence and was liable to abscond and pervert the course of justice.\n8.  On 6 May and 2 July 1999 the Omsk Regional Prosecutor extended the applicant’s detention until 8 July and 8 September 1999 respectively, having regard to the gravity of the charges.\n9.  On 3 September and 29 November 1999 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, invoking the same grounds as in the previous detention orders, authorised the extension of the applicant’s detention until 8 December 1999 and 8 March 2000 respectively.\n10.  On 25 February and 26 June 2000 the acting Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation authorised further extensions of the applicant’s detention until 8 July and 8 September 2000 respectively. The reasons for both extensions were the same: the gravity of the charges and the applicant’s liability to abscond and pervert the course of justice.\n11.  On 15 August 2000 the Omsk Regional Prosecutor asked the Omsk Regional Court to extend the applicant’s detention for an additional six months because the applicant needed additional time to read the case file. The prosecutor also noted that the applicant and her co-defendants had participated in an organised criminal offence, had been charged with serious criminal offences, and had influenced other defendants, witnesses and victims. They were liable to abscond and pervert the course of justice.\n12.  On 23 August 2000 the President of the Omsk Regional Court wrote in the corner on the first page of the prosecutor’s application that he authorised the extension of the applicant’s and her co-defendants’ detention until 8 March 2001.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicant and her co-defendants appealed against the order of 23 August 2000. They claimed that the maximum eighteen-month period of their detention would expire on 8 September 2000. An extension of the detention beyond eighteen months was possible only if the defendant needed more time to read the case file. The applicant insisted that she had finished studying the file and that there were therefore no grounds for a further extension.\n14.  On 22 November 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined the applicant’s and her co-defendants’ appeals against the order of 23 August 2000, quashed it and remitted the matter to the Omsk Regional Court for fresh examination. The relevant part of the Supreme Court’s decision reads as follows:\n“By virtue of Articles 220-1 and 220-2 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure the judge has to examine the lawfulness and well-foundedness of the request for extension of the detention of Ms Matyush... and has to issue a reasoned decision as required by paragraph 8 of Article 220-2 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure.\nMoreover, paragraph 2 of Article 102 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure requires that [a court] should prepare minutes of a court hearing in which the issue of extension of detention is examined... [the minutes] should indicate who participated in the h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3995", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Grigoreşti.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In 1996 the applicant received from the local authority in the village of Alexandreni a plot of land which she still uses. She was not, however, given title to the land, so in December 2003 she requested the local authority to transfer title to her.\n8.  On 20 February 2004 her request was turned down. She then brought court proceedings for the annulment of that decision and an order requiring the local authority to grant her title to the land. She explained that she continued to use it but needed a document proving her ownership.\n9.  On 9 June 2004 the Sîngerei District Court granted her request and ordered the local authority to transfer title to her. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and enforceable 15 days later.\n10.  The applicant obtained a warrant of execution which she lodged with the Decisions Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice (“the Department”) on 19 July 2004. On 26 July 2004 the Department requested the local authority to comply with the warrant.\n11.  According to documents submitted by the Government, on 27 July 2004 the local authority annulled its decision of 20 February 2004 and granted the applicant title to the land. According to the applicant, she was not informed of that decision.\n12.  On 16 February 2005 the applicant’s representative asked for the Department’s assistance in enforcing the judgment of 9 June 2004.\n13.  In a letter to the applicant dated 21 March 2005, the Department informed her that on 10 January 2005 the warrant of execution had been served on the Alexandreni local authority, but that the authority had still not complied with the judgment. The Department also informed the applicant that it was preparing documents with a view to inviting the court to penalise those responsible for the failure to comply with the judgment.\n14.  On 20 September 2005 the applicant’s representative again asked for the Department’s assistance in enforcing the judgment of 9 June 2004. It is unclear whether he received any answer.\n15.  On 14 December 2005 the Sîngerei branch of the Bălţi Territorial Cadastral Office issued the applicant with the cadastral plan of the land. On 26 December 2005 the applicant paid for the registration of her title at the Territorial Cadastral Office in Bălţi.\n16.  Following a request on 22 May 2006, the applicant obtained registration of her title to the land on 30 May 2006.\n17.  On 15 February 2007 the Department asked the Sîngerei Cadastre Office for information about the date and number of the registration of the applicant’s title to the land.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3996", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant lives in Salgótarján.\n5.  On 29 September 1999 the applicant’s employer brought an action against him, alleging a deficient inventory.\n6.  On 15 May 2001 the Salgótarján Labour Court found for the plaintiff, after having held several hearings.\n7.  On 25 October 2001 the Nógrád County Regional Court upheld this decision. On 27 November 2002 the Supreme Court quashed these judgments and remitted the case to the Labour Court.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings, on 27 January 2005 the Labour Court again found for the plaintiff, after having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts.\n9.  On 26 May 2005 the Regional Court amended this decision.\n10.  On 15 September 2005 the applicant’s petition for review reached the Supreme Court. Although section 273(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes a 60-day time-limit for the preliminary examination of a petition, it only took place on 12 April 2006. On that date a single judge decided, in a 6-page decision which was reasoned in detail, that the applicant’s petition did not disclose a breach of the relevant law, in particular the rules concerning the interpretation of expert opinions. Although the decision was given in a procedure nominally as to the admissibility of the petition, in fact it dealt with the merits of the applicant’s case. The Supreme Court’s order was served on him on 29 May 2006.\n11.  The applicant filed a complaint alleging that, because of the non-observance of the 60-day time-limit, the single judge had no longer been entitled to reject his petition and a hearing should have been held.\n12.  On 6 July 2006 the Head of the Supreme Court’s Labour-Law Collegium rejected the applicant’s complaint. She explained that the delay was due to the Supreme Court’s backlog of cases and that section 273(4) could not be interpreted to the effect that the delay had entailed an obligation on the Supreme Court’s part to hold a hearing.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3997", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1977, 1974 and 1974, respectively, and live in Istanbul.\n5.  Cem Demirbaş and Haydar Ceylan were arrested on 18 April 1999, and Binnaz Demirbaş was arrested on 19 April 1999. According to the arrest report drawn up in respect of Binnaz Demirbaş and Cem Demirbaş, the reason for their arrest was the suspicion that they were members of an illegal organisation, namely the Türkiye Komunist Partisi/Marksist Leninist - Türkiye İşçi Köylü Kurtuluş Ordusu (the TKP/ML-TİKKO; the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist Leninist-Workers’ and Peasants’ Liberation Army of Turkey). They were subsequently placed in custody at the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Police Headquarters.\n6.  On 25 April 1999 the applicants were brought before the prosecutor and, subsequently, the duty judge of the Istanbul State Security Court, who questioned them further and recorded their statements. The duty judge remanded them in custody pending the introduction of criminal proceedings against them.\n7.  On 3 June 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicants and nine other persons. The applicants were charged with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, an offence proscribed by Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code.\n8.  On 25 August 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case. In the course of twelve subsequent hearings, the actions taken by the trial court were limited to the reading out of the indictment in open court, asking the applicants to submit their defence and obtaining copies of the applicants’ birth certificates and criminal records. The applicants’ request to widen the scope of the investigation by, inter alia, hearing a number of witnesses, was rejected by the trial court.\n9.  On 22 May 2002 the first-instance court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to death. This sentence was commuted to life imprisonment.\n10.  The applicants appealed.\n11.  On 17 April 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment.\n12.  On 2 June 2003 the case against the applicants resumed before the Istanbul State Security Court.\n13.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicants was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.\n14.  Up until 14 February 2007 the applicants and their representatives requested the formers’ release pending trial several times both before the Istanbul State Security Court and the Istanbul Assize Court. On each of those occasions the trial court rejected the applicants’ requests, considering that the reasons justifying their remand in custody still obtained on account of the “nature of the offence of which they were accused, the evidence in the file, and the continuing risk of escape”. Binnaz Demirbaş’s objection of 15 April 2002 and the other two applicants’ objections of 25 July 2005 against the orders for their continued detention were also dismissed on 17 April 2002 and 5 September 2005 respectively.\n15.  On 14 February 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court ordered the applicants’ release pending trial.\n16.  According to the information in the case file, thirteen more hearings have been held since 2 June 2003 in the context of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants which, according to the information available in the case file, are still pending.\n17.  On 18 April 19", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3998", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Szomód.\n5.  In the context of a real estate dispute, on 13 August 1993 the applicant brought an action claiming partial ownership of a house.\n6.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of two experts, on 27 August 1998 the applicant was granted one fifth of the property in question.\n7.  On appeal, on 17 March 1999 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court quashed this decision.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings, the Tata District Court held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert. On 12 June 2003 it gave judgment, granting the applicant partial ownership. Simultaneously, it dissolved the common ownership thus created, gave the part allocated to the applicant to the respondent, and ordered the latter to compensate the former.\n9.  On appeal, on 4 February 2004 the Regional Court amended this decision and gave a final judgment.\n10.  The applicant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.\n11.  On 31 January 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the petition in preliminary proceedings. In a reasoned decision, it held that the applicant’s petition was inadmissible because it did not disclose a breach of the relevant law, in particular the rules concerning the termination of common ownership. The Supreme Court’s order was served on him on 17 February 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-3999", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Lublin\n6.  On 2 October 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of acting in an organised and armed criminal group, deprivation of liberty, extortion and incitement to murder. On 4 October 2001 the Lublin District Court remanded him in custody, having regard to the severity of the likely penalty. It also held that the application of that measure was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings and to prevent the applicant from interfering with witnesses.\n7.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged on 18 December 2001 and 26 March 2002. The court referred to the complexity of the investigation and relied on the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n8.  On 11 June 2002 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Lublin Regional Court. The applicant was charged with acting in an organised and armed criminal group, incitement to murder, deriving profits from prostitution, extortion and unlawful possession of a firearm. The bill of indictment concerned seven other persons. The trial court appointed a legal-aid counsel for the applicant.\n9.  On 14 June 2002 the Lublin Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 September 2002, referring to the severity of the anticipated penalty.\n10.  On 3 September 2002 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant and his co-accused be kept in custody until 3 February 2003. It stated, inter alia, that:\n“Evidence obtained in the case, namely statements of G.S., statements of witnesses I.K., S.C., M.I. and statements of anonymous witnesses, indicates that the accused committed the acts with which they were charged.”\nThe court also relied on the gravity of the charges. It added that, having regard to the nature of the charges and the personal characteristics of the accused, their detention on remand was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n11.  On 16 September 2002 the applicant appealed against that decision. In a further letter he complained that in its decision of 3 September 2002, the court had expressly stated that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged.\n12.  On 16 October 2002 the Lublin Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 3 September 2002. The court considered that it was not its task to assess evidence at this stage of the proceedings. It was sufficient to establish that the evidence gathered in the case confirmed the strong suspicion of the applicant’s involvement in the offences he had been charged with.\n13.  The applicant on several occasions challenged the presiding judge, alleging that he had infringed the rights of the defence by refusing his requests to admit evidence. On 22 October 2002 and 13 May 2003 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge.\n14.  The first hearing was held on 17 June 2003.\n15.  On 18 June 2003 the Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for a further unspecified period.\n16.  On 24 September 2003 the Lublin Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 2 January 2004. It invoked the gravity of the charges and the severity of the anticipated penalty. The Court of Appeal also had regard to the particular complexity of the case related to the volume and nature of the evidence, which included anonymous witnesses.\n17.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by the Court of Appeal on 30 December 2003 (until 19 March 2004", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4000", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lived in Warsaw.\n6.  On 17 September 1997 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 18 September 1997 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had been involved in drug trafficking as part of an organised criminal gang. In particular, the applicant was suspected of having participated in the recruitment of persons used for international drug trafficking.\n7.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended on several occasions.\n8.  On 15 May 1998 the applicant was indicted before the Warsaw Regional Court.\n9.  The applicant, who had suffered two heart attacks in 1993 and 1995, submitted that his health deteriorated after his arrest. On 22 July 1998 he consulted a cardiologist. On 8 September 1998 the Medical Panel (Komisja Lekarska) decided that there were no reasons militating against the applicant’s detention, provided that the detention centre in which he was detained possessed a hospital wing.\n10.  In September 1998 the applicant and several co-accused were indicted before the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n11.  On 22 January 1999 the applicant consulted a non-prison doctor who prescribed a coronary angiography (koronografia). The applicant submitted that he had not been informed of this.\n12.  On 1 February 1999 the Medical Panel again found that the applicant could be held in a detention centre if it had a hospital wing.\n13.  On 4 August 1999 the applicant was again examined by a non‑prison doctor who confirmed the need for a coronary angiography. The applicant submitted that the prison authorities refused to carry out this procedure. He complained about this to the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Warsaw.\n14.  Between 18 and 31 August 1999 the applicant was treated in the hospital wing of the detention centre.\n15.  On 23 August 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention, finding that the grounds for it remained valid. On the same date the court dismissed the applicant’s request for release finding that the applicant’s state of health was not incompatible with detention.\n16.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by the Supreme Court on 16 September 1999, on the ground of the reasonable suspicion against him.\n17.  In October 1999 the trial court decided to return the case to the prosecutor and to join the investigation to another case concerning organised crime. On 21 October 1999 the Warsaw District Court ordered the applicant’s detention in connection with this set of criminal proceedings.\n18.  On 2 November 1999 the prison authorities replied to the Helsinki Foundation regarding the applicant’s health care. The authorities stated that the applicant had been examined by doctors on several occasions and that the cardiologist had not ordered the coronary angiography but had only suggested it as one of several possible treatments. The applicant’s state of health did not preclude detention and he could receive any necessary treatment in the hospital wing of the detention centre. They reiterated that the applicant was detained in a detention centre which had hospital facilities and that, if necessary, he would be hospitalised.\n19.  On 19 November 1999 the applicant was transferred to the Łódź detention centre, which had no hospital wing. The applicant argued that this was in reprisal for his complaint to the Helsinki Foundation. In March 2000 the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4001", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1943 and 1944 respectively and live in Budapest.\n5.  On 3 August 1992 the applicants brought an action challenging an administrative decision expropriating their land. After two hearings, on 10 May 1993 the case was suspended pending an underlying dispute concerning the situation in the land register.\n6.  On 29 August 2002 the case was transferred to the Pest County Regional Court as this was the competent court to deal with the case.\n7.  The proceedings concerning the land register were terminated by the Érd District Land Registry on 26 March 2004. The applicants did not appeal to the Pest County Land Registry.\n8.  After two further hearings, on 15 February 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ action. The court held that the authorities involved in the expropriation had proceeded in compliance with the law.\n9.  On 2 November 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal. This decision was served on their lawyer on 27 December 2005.\n10.  On 16 May 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ petition for review as inadmissible, since it did not meet the procedural requirements.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4002", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, Triplu-Tudor S.R.L. and Tudor-Auto S.R.L., are two companies incorporated under Moldovan law.\n7.  On 18 November 1993 the State Service for the Supervision of Insurance by the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Moldova (“the Service”) (Serviciul de Stat pentru supravegherea asigurărilor pe lângă Ministerul Finanţelor al Republicii Moldova) registered the insurance company Tudor and Co. S.R.L., founded by three private parties T.N., V.N. and L.R. (“the founders”). On an unspecified date the founders lodged with the Service a request to register two other insurance companies, which on 3 November 1995 were registered as Triplu-Tudor S.R.L. and Triplu‑Tudor‑Auto S.R.L. They also sought the registration of changes in the companies’ founders, namely the replacement of T.N. and V.N. with other founders, and in one of the company’s names from Triplu-Tudor-Auto S.R.L. into Tudor-Auto S.R.L. On 25 and 27 December 1995 and on 11 January 1996 the Service granted their requests.\n8.  On 10 June 1997 the Government adopted Decision no. 533 “on certain regulatory measures of insurance activity” (see paragraph 31 below), according to which insurance companies had to fulfil certain formalities and to obtain new registration certificates before 1 August 1997.\n9.  On 31 July 1997 Triplu-Tudor S.R.L. and Tudor-Auto S.R.L. submitted to the Service the required documents together with the evidence of increase in their statutory capital up to 300,000 Moldovan lei (MDL), (65,197 euros (EUR) at the time), as provided for by section 1 of decision no. 533, and requested to register the changes in the constitutional documents and to be issued with new registration certificates for insurance activity (“the certificates“). Since the Service refused to comply with their requests, on an unspecified date each of the applicant companies brought actions against the Service, seeking to order it to register the requested changes and to issue new registration certificates.\n10.  On 15 January 1998, during the proceedings before the first-instance court, the Service only registered the changes in the companies’ statutory capital.\n11.  On 31 March 1998 the Chişinău Economic Court ruled in favour of the applicant companies and ordered the Service to issue them with new registration certificates. On 15 April 1998 the applicant companies were issued with enforcement warrants which stated “for immediate enforcement”. The Service appealed.\n12.  On 24 June 1998 the Appellate Chamber of the Chişinău Economic Court rejected the appeals of the Service in both cases. No further appeals were lodged and the judgments became final and enforceable.\n13.  The Service took a number of steps designed to either annul the final judgments or to prevent their enforcement. On 21 July 1998 and 1 June 1999 the Service annulled its decisions of 25 and 27 December 1995 and of 11 January 1996.\n14.  On 1 December 1998 the Service requested a stay of the enforcement proceedings, which was dismissed by the Chişinău Economic Court on 12 February 1999.\n15.  On an unspecified date it asked for a revision of the judgments of 31 March 1998. On 15 July 1999 the Chişinău Economic Court dismissed the request as unfounded.\n16.  On 8 February 2000 the Service lodged a new request for a revision of the judgments of 31 March 1998. By a final decision of 6 September 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the request.\n17.  In a separate set of proceedings, on 28 September 1999 the Rîşcani Dist", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4003", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1951 respectively and currently reside in Neu Isenburg and Berlin respectively.\n5.  The second applicant, Mr Ateş, and the first applicant, Ms Demirel, were, respectively, the owner and the editor of Yedinci Gündem, a weekly newspaper.\n6.  In its 31st edition, in January 2002, Yedinci Gündem published an article entitled ‘Öcalan[1]‘s reply to Akçam[2]‘. It concerned Abdullah Öcalan’s response to Taner Akçam’s accusations on issues concerning the establishment of the PKK and its development which was published in another newspaper. It also featured Öcalan’s thoughts on various issues such as education and cultural activities in Kurdish. Various parts of the article read as follows:\n“ Response to Taner Akçam\n....Öcalan replied to one of the ex-leaders of DEV-YOL, Taner Akçam...It is not a coincidence that they are making him talk. It is important...Those that Taner Akçam claimed to have saved from the hands of the PKK, he had them murdered...he caused great damage...they had them murdered. This person’s identity and personality is dubious. He also caused great damage to the PKK...We were at ADYÖD together in 1975...In 1982 he provoked the anti-fascist front. You can ask Teslim Töre this, he knows this period. He said that, at that time, Apo wanted to kill him. No, I never had any intention of killing him. On the contrary, we have suspicions that it was that front who attempted to kill or assassinate us. He very openly dissolved DEV-YOL. He is swearing to his past...he has one foot in America, the other in Yerevan. It is not known to whom and what he adheres...He is dangerous...\nIdentity notice\nAbdullah Öcalan also referred to the desires for a Kurdish education and the State’s response to these requests and said: It would be better to establish special learning houses in villages and streets to learn Kurdish on a scientific basis rather than the State giving permission for it. I am saying do literary and cultural work and activities...If Turkey prohibits it then it cannot make progress...\n“May it be a democratic year”\nIf there are no developments in the democratic expansion then there will be deadlock. If State keeps the doors open for democratic expansion and, a democratic response develops then Turkey will grow big both inside and outside...If pressure, denial and destruction develops a new in that case the state of legitimate defence will be realised”.\n7.  On 28 January 2002 the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court and charged the applicants with offences defined in Section 6 § 2 of the Anti-Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713), namely publishing declarations of an illegal organisation. In addition, he called for the application of Additional section 2 of the Press Act (Law no. 5680) and section 36 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  On 4 February 2002 criminal proceedings against the applicants commenced before the Istanbul State Security Court.\n9.  In their written submissions to the court the applicants denied that the publication of the article had been in contravention of the applicable legislation. They maintained, inter alia, that by publishing the article they had been doing their jobs and informing the public. There had been nothing in the article which could be interpreted as an insult to other individuals or as an incitement to commit offences and that there was no justification for a restriction on their right to freedom to impart information.\n10. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4004", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  The applicant is the owner and director of a construction company registered in Turkey, the Mustafa Açıkgöz Construction Company Limited.\n6.  On 26 April 1993 the applicant concluded a contract with S.K. and F.Ö., in which the applicant undertook to construct a building, comprising flats and shops, on a plot of land in Beypazarı belonging to S.K. and F.Ö. The owners were to transfer the ownership of the plot to the applicant and, on completion of the construction, the applicant was to transfer the ownership of six flats to S.K. and F.Ö. According to the contract, S.K. and F.Ö. were to have three flats each, two of which would be well lit by daylight.\n7.  On 7 March 1994 S.K. brought a case against the applicant before the Beypazarı Civil Court, claiming that the applicant had constructed the building but had failed to transfer the ownership of the flats to her. S.K. requested that flats nos. 8, 15 and 18 be registered in her name.\n8.  Twenty-eight hearings were held between 8 April 1994 and 1 May 1997. During the same interval five expert reports were submitted to the court either as to the division of flats and sections of the building or as to the luminosity of the flats.\n9.  On 1 May 1997 the Beypazarı Civil Court granted S.K.’s request.\n10.  On 3 December 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 1 May 1997, holding that the first-instance court had failed to assess the provisions of the contract between the applicant and S.K. correctly and, as a result, had designated the wrong flats. The Court of Cassation considered that the expression “well lit flats” contained in the contract should have been interpreted as meaning flats on the south side of the building.\n11.  The applicant requested revision of the Court of Cassation’s decision.\n12.  On 18 May 1998 the revision request was dismissed.\n13.  The case was subsequently remitted to the first-instance court.\n14.  Two hearings were held between 18 May 1998 and 24 September 1998.\n15.  On 18 September 1998 an expert report was submitted to the court indicating that the sunnier flats were nos. 11, 14, 17 and 20.\n16.  On 24 September 1998 the Beypazarı Civil Court decided that S.K. should be registered as the owner of sections nos. 5, 6 and 8 (whose size was equal to that of a flat), as well as flats nos. 17 and 20.\n17.  On 7 April 1999 the Court of Cassation again quashed the first‑instance court’s judgment. It considered that the applicant had incurred unjustified loss as a result of that decision.\n18.  The claimant requested review of the Court of Cassation’s decision.\n19.  On 2 December 1999 the review request was dismissed.\n20.  The case was subsequently remitted to the first-instance court.\n21.  Six hearings were held between 2 December 1999 and 9 October 2000.\n22.  On 26 May 2000 an expert report was submitted to the court.\n23.  On 9 October 2000 the Beypazarı Civil Court decided that S.K. should be registered as the owner of sections nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 (whose total surface was less than that of flats nos. 5, 6 and 8), as well as flats nos. 17 and 20.\n24.  On 30 April 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 9 October 2000.\n25.  The applicant requested review of the Court of Cassation’s decision.\n26.  On 8 October 2001 the Court of Cassation granted the applicant’s request, annulled its decision of 30 April 2001 and quashed the judgment of 9 October 2000. The Court of Cassation noted that the first-inst", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4005", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  In 1989 the applicant bought a flat from a real estate investment bank. On 14 July 1993 he brought various warranty claims against the successor of the seller.\n6.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert, the Pest Central District Court found in part for the applicant on 19 September 2002.\n7.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing on 28 March 2003. It upheld the first-instance decision on 11 July 2003.\n8.  On 18 March 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s petition for review, since it held that the motion was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4006", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Gaziantep.\n5.  The Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant (plot no. 624) in the Aşağıçardak village, in Nizip, in order to build the Birecik dam.\n6.  On 8 February 1999 the applicant brought an action before the Nizip Civil Court of First Instance for additional compensation.\n7.  On 30 December 1999 the Nizip Civil Court of First Instance awarded the applicant additional compensation of 5,286,375,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 5 March 1999.\n8.  On 19 June 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n9.  On 4 November 2002 and 23 May 2007 the administration paid the applicant TRL 15,853,159,343[2] and 7,799.64 new Turkish liras (TRY)[3] respectively in additional compensation, together with interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4007", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, Unistar Ventures GmbH (hereafter “UV”), is a company incorporated in Germany.\n8.  On 3 March 2000 UV signed a contract with the Civil Aviation State Authority (hereafter “CASA”), under which the State-owned airline company Air Moldova was to be reorganised into a Moldovan-German limited liability airline company called Air Moldova S.R.L. (hereafter “the company”). The Moldovan Government, represented by the CASA, was to contribute 31,025,504 Moldovan lei (MDL) (2,548,086 euros (EUR) at the time) representing 51% of the registered capital, and UV was to contribute 2,384,705 United States dollars (USD), the equivalent of MDL 29,808,812 (EUR 2,448,161 at the time) representing 49% of the registered capital. The new company was declared to be the legal successor of the State airline company, Air Moldova.\n9.  On the same date the Articles of Association were adopted and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was elected. The Articles of Association provided that he could be dismissed only with three quarters of the votes.\n10.  On 7 April 2000 the Privatisation Department of the Ministry of Economy issued a permit to the newly created company. The permit stated, inter alia, that after having verified the incorporation documents the Department of Privatisation had decided to allow the creation of the new company.\n11.  On 25 July 2000 a specialised department of the Ministry of Justice examined the legality of the documents of incorporation of the company. It issued a decision according to which the company was legally incorporated and that all the documents of incorporation were in order and conformed to the legislation of the Republic of Moldova.\n12.  On 2 August 2000, following a letter from a member of Parliament, the Prosecutor General’s Office carried out a verification of the legality of the incorporation of the company. In its written conclusion it stated that all the documents of incorporation were in order and that the rules for creating a company with State participation had been fully complied with.\n13.  It appears from documents submitted by the parties that on 12 June 2000 and 13 June 2001 the company received from UV and/or its CEO via Dresdner Bank USD 2,384,705 in three instalments.\n14.  On an unspecified date the company concluded an agreement with the Brazilian aircraft manufacturer Embraer-Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S.A. (hereafter “the Brazilian aircraft manufacturer”) for the purchase of two Embraer 145 aeroplanes. It appears from the documents submitted by the parties that the price of the aeroplanes was approximately USD 39 million, of which 15% was to be paid by the company and the rest was to be financed by Dresdner Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) by way of a ten-year loan.\n15.  On an unspecified date the company paid a non-refundable advance of approximately USD 3.7 million to the Brazilian aircraft manufacturer.\n16.  The facts presented under this heading are based on the submissions and documents provided by the applicant that were not disputed by the Government.\n17.  In February 2001 the Communist Party of Moldova won the parliamentary elections. It declared in its manifesto, inter alia, that Western countries had a tendency to enter the Moldovan economy at any price, take over valuable assets and impose unequal contracts on the country in order to make it dependent on creditors. One of the goals of the Communist Party was to obtain control over the strategi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4008", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 18 November 1997 the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (hereinafter “the Directorate”) expropriated 4,309 square metres of the applicant’s land in Tunceli. The expropriation decision was communicated to the applicant on 16 August 2000. According to the domestic procedure, the applicant had thirty days, which began the day after the decision was communicated to him, to ask for an increase in the amount of compensation.\n7.  On 1 September 2000 a certain Mr Sezai Yıldız, who had been authorised by the applicant to appoint a lawyer for him, had a power of attorney drawn up at a notary public, appointing Mrs Fatma Kalsen Demirdaş as legal counsel to represent the applicant.\n8.  On 19 September 2000 the applicant, with the assistance of his lawyer Mrs Demirdaş, brought an action before the Tunceli Civil Court (hereinafter the “Tunceli Court”), seeking increased compensation. Mrs Demirdaş requested the court to accept the case despite the expiry of the statutory time-limit on 17 September 2000, as she had had health problems preventing her lodging the case earlier.\n9.  On 9 November 2000 the Tunceli Court asked the Forensic Medicine Institute in Ankara to clarify whether Mrs Demirdaş had had health problems at the relevant time and whether those problems had been of a nature to render it impossible for her to come to the court house and lodge the applicant’s case within the statutory time-limit.\n10.  On 22 May 2001 the Erzurum branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute forwarded to the Tunceli Court a number of medical reports, confirming that Mrs Demirtaş had been ill between 23 August 2000 and 17 September 2000 and had thus been unable to lodge the case within the statutory time-limit.\n11.  The Tunceli Court accepted the medical report and began examining the merits of the case. In the course of the proceedings it had regard to the zone plan, the expropriation documentation, two principal and two additional expert reports, and awarded the applicant additional compensation on 31 May 2001. The Directorate appealed.\n12.  On 3 March 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision, quoting the applicant’s name, instead of that of his representative, as the person who had been ill. The Court of Cassation stated that the applicant had given a power of attorney to Fatma Kalsen Demirdaş so that, even if he had been ill, Mrs Kalsen Demirdaş could have lodged the claim on his behalf within the statutory time-limit. The Court of Cassation consequently held that the case had been time-barred on 17 September 2000.\n13.  In an application for rectification Mrs Demirdaş argued that it was she who had been ill, not her client. The Court of Cassation had therefore made a factual error which should be rectified.\n14.  On 12 May 2003, the Court of Cassation held that “amending the factual error would not affect the outcome”, and dismissed the rectification request.\n15.  On 4 July 2003 the Tunceli Court concurred with the Court of Cassation’s decision and dismissed the case. On 13 November 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the final ruling.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4009", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1928 and 1933 respectively and live in Bihać.\n5.  Prior to the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”) the applicants deposited foreign currency in their bank accounts at the Privredna banka Sarajevo Glavna filijala Bihać. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in other successor States of the former SFRY, such savings are commonly referred to as “old” foreign-currency savings (for the relevant background information see Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-...).\n6.  Following several unsuccessful attempts to withdraw their funds, the applicants initiated court proceedings seeking the recovery of their entire “old” foreign-currency savings and accrued interest.\n7.  By a decision of the Bihać Municipal Court of 3 December 1993, the Privredna banka Sarajevo Glavna filijala Bihać was ordered to pay the applicants 54,469.42 German marks (DEM), 19,257.25 Swiss francs, 81.12 French francs, 60,120.49 Austrian shillings, 185.61 Canadian dollars, 231.86 US dollars, 163.39 Dutch guilders and 22,217.60 Italian liras, default interest on the above amounts at the rate applicable to overnight deposits from private individuals from 1 January 1992 and legal costs in the amount of DEM 1,940. The judgment entered into force on 12 June 1994.\n8.  On 9 April 1997 the Bihać Municipal Court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju). The execution proceedings were effectively stayed between 12 January 1998 and 12 September 2001.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 28 November 1997, the judgment debt became a public debt pursuant to the Settlement of Claims Against the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina Act 1997.\n10.  On 6 April 2005 the Human Rights Commission within the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Human Rights Commission”) found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention arising from a failure to enforce the judgment of 3 December 1993. It ordered the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to ensure full enforcement of the judgment in issue within two months, to pay the equivalent of 255 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage within three months and to pay default interest after the expiry of the above time-limits at the annual rate of 10%.\n11.  On 28 October 2005 the applicants received the compensation awarded by the Human Rights Commission.\n12.  The judgment of 3 December 1993 was fully enforced on 5 June 2007 (the applicants were paid the principal debt, default interest and legal costs in the amounts specified in the judgment).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4010", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Masku.\n5.  On 16 February 1980 the applicant was injured in a car accident. On 15 October 1980 the Turku City Court (raastuvanoikeus, rådstuvurätten) rejected her request to increase the amount of compensation she had already received from an insurance company. She unsuccessfully appealed against the decision to the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) and subsequently the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), which gave their decisions on 13 May and 5 October 1981 respectively.\n6.  Subsequently, another insurance company, as well as the Social Insurance Institution (kansaneläkelaitos, folkpensionsanstalten) granted the applicant a pension on grounds of her disability.\n7.  On 14 September 1993 the Supreme Court partly annulled the above court decisions in the light of new medical evidence presented by the applicant. On 1 December 1993 she filed a new claim for compensation alleging that she had become permanently unfit for work due to her physical injuries and a traumatic stress reaction caused by the accident. On 8  November 1994 the Turku District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) ordered the other party to the accident and the insurance company to pay the applicant approximately 1,500,000 Finnish marks (FIM), mainly for loss of income.\n8.  On 9 March 1995 the police started a pre-trial investigation, suspecting the applicant of, inter alia, multiple fraud. The applicant was questioned as a suspect for the first time on 19 April 1995.\n9.  On 19 January 1996 the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant in the Turunseutu District Court, which held its first session on 4 March 1996. In addition to written evidence, the court received testimony from several witnesses in the course of the proceedings.\n10.  On 8 May 2000 the court concluded, inter alia, that the applicant had continued to work as an entrepreneur in the cleaning trade after the accident, although she was receiving a pension at that time. Furthermore, she had given false information to the tax authorities about her business activities and had falsely claimed to be disabled in order to obtain financial benefits. She was convicted of several offences including, inter alia, tax fraud, an accounting offence and aggravated fraud and was sentenced to one year and ten months’ unconditional imprisonment. She was also ordered to pay damages.\n11.  The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Turku Court of Appeal claiming, inter alia, that the District Court had unlawfully relied on witness statements given to the police because some of the witnesses had refused to testify in court. The applicant had not been able to put questions to these witnesses. The court had also relied on the applicant’s own pre-trial statement. Furthermore, she claimed that the court had made an assessment of her medical condition on the basis of insufficient evidence.\n12.  On 28 June 2002 the Court of Appeal, having held an oral hearing, upheld the judgment specifying, however, its own conclusions on the facts regarding the dates of the offences and modifying the amount of damages. The court received testimony from 20 witnesses as well as from the applicant herself. In its reasons it stated, inter alia, that the medical evidence presented to the court did not have any relevance to the assessment of the applicant’s criminal liability, since other evidence had shown that she had been working as an entrepreneur and cleaner a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4011", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are brothers, who were born in 1931 and 1925 respectively and live in Bucharest and Aachen (Germany) respectively.\n5.  In 1932 the applicants’ parents bought a 596 sq. m plot of land with a one-storey building on it. In 1936 they built a three-storey building, linked to the existing one. The property is situated in Constanţa, at the crossroad of two streets, Dacia no. 1 and Răscoala din 1907 no. 38.\n6.  In 1967 the property of the applicants’ parents was seized by the State under Decrees nos. 218/1960 and 712/1966.\n7.  In 1974 two of the then tenants bought two of the flats.\n8.  On 30 September and 18 October 1976 respectively, the Constanţa Court of First Instance declared the two sales null and void on the ground that they had ignored the legal provisions. However, on 9 February 1978 and 24 November 1992 respectively the two sales were deemed valid by court decisions.\n9.  On 10 April 1996 the first applicant brought an action for the recovery of possession of immovable property, requesting the court to declare the nationalisation of her property unlawful and to order its return to her. The second applicant and the former tenants intervened in the proceedings. The former tenants claimed to be the owners of the two flats bought in 1974 and sought a declaration that they had acquired a right of property through acquisitive prescription, being in good faith.\n10.  On 23 July 2001 the applicants lodged an application with the administrative authorities for restitution in kind of the property under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. So far they have not received any answer.\n11.  On 15 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice, in the operative part of a final decision, allowed in part the applicants’ action for recovery of possession, excepting the two flats bought by the former tenants, who were considered as being their owners. In the reasoning of the judgment the court stated that the seizure had been unlawful, that the State had no title to property since the two decrees had been contrary to the Constitutions of 1952 and 1965 respectively, and that the entire property belonged to the applicants’ parents, the applicants being their sole heirs. However, it considered that the former tenants, although buying from a non-owner, the State, had been in good faith and had acquired a right of property through acquisitive prescription. It would have been exaggerated and manifestly unfair to have requested the former tenants to question the validity of the State’s title at that moment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4012", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Les Salles Sur Verdon, France.\n5.  At the beginning of the 1990s a new concept called “tax asset stripping cases” (selskabstømmersager) came into existence in Denmark. It covered a criminal activity by which the persons involved committed aggravated debtor fraud by buying up and selling numerous inactive, solvent private limited companies within a short period and, for the sake of their own profit, “stripping” the companies of assets, including deposits earmarked for payment of corporation tax. The persons involved were usually intricately interconnected and collaborated in their economic criminal activities, which concerned very large amounts of money. According to surveys made by the customs and tax authorities, approximately one thousand six hundred companies with a total tax debt exceeding two billion Danish kroner (DKK) were stripped in the period from the late 1980s until 1994. Following a number of legislative amendments, the trade in inactive, solvent companies largely ceased in the summer of 1993.\n6.  In 1994, the applicant learnt via a local newspaper that he was the subject of an investigation, as was a private limited stockbrokers company, of which he was part owner.\n7.  By letter of 9 June 1994 he informed the police that he was available for an interview, if required. By letter of 14 June 1994 the police confirmed that they were in the process of investigation and informed the applicant that they would talk to him at a later stage.\n8.  From November 1994 to September 1995, six discovery orders were issued against two banks, four search warrants were issued and numerous interviews were held.\n9.  On 19 September 1995 the applicant was arrested and charged, inter alia, with aggravated debtor fraud. On the same day he was detained in solitary confinement, which was prolonged at regular intervals until he was released on 22 December 1995.\n10.  On the latter date, an oral hearing took place before the Copenhagen City Court (Københavns Byret - hereafter “the City Court”), during which the prosecution stated that the investigation was concluded and that the indictment could be expected at the beginning of 1996.\n11.  From January 1996 to June 1998 various investigative steps were taken, notably relating to five co-accused in the case, for example searches in Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden, numerous interviews in Denmark and abroad, international letters of request, a request to Interpol, fifteen discovery orders and an order prohibiting the disclosure of the applicant’s name. Moreover, on 19 March 1997 a request for an accountant’s report was made and material for that purpose was obtained, including statements of account, cheque vouchers and so on.\n12.  On 25 June 1998, the indictment was submitted to the City Court according to which the applicant (and five co-accused: A, B, N, M and R) were charged of “tax asset stripping” committed jointly. The applicant was charged with fifteen counts out of a total of fifty-nine committed between March 1992 and May 1993. His responsibility related to an amount of DKK 9,890,000 (approximately 1,300,000 euros (EUR)) out of the total amount of tax evaded in the case which came to approximately EUR 19,000,000.\n13. Between 14 August 1998 and 10 March 1999, fifteen pre-trial hearings were held and the draft of the accountant’s reports was submitted. On the former date, the case was set down for trial on 15 March 1999.\n14.  Between 15 March 1999 and 3", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4013", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Nicosia.\n5.  On 31 August 1995 the applicant filed an action before the District Court of Nicosia (no. 7992/95) under the Property Relations of Spouses and other Related Matters Law of 1991 (hereinafter “Law 232/91”) claiming recovery of part of the increase in his wife’s property by reason of his contribution during their marriage. An interim injunction was granted on that date in his favour.\n6.  In his affidavit of 31 August 1995 the applicant stated that the separation had started in June 1992 even though he and his wife were still living in the same house.\n7.  On 5 April 1996, following an amendment to Law 232/91 (see paragraph 49 below) the Nicosia Family Court became the competent court to adjudicate on the application. On 9 May 1996 the action was transferred to that court by virtue of (Amending) Law 34(1)/96, as an application (application no. 46/96; hereinafter “main application”).\n8.  On 13 June 1996 the main application and the interim injunction were adjourned until 19 September 1996 at the parties’ request. On that date the main application was adjourned until 17 October 1996.\n9.  On 17 October 1996 the court made the injunction absolute and fixed the case for mention for 21 November 2006. It ordered that the applicant file his statement of claim by that date.\n10.  On 21 January 1997 the applicant filed his statement of claim, on 26 June 1997 his former wife (hereinafter “the respondent”) filed her defence and counter-claim and on 14 October 1997 the applicant filed his reply and his defence to the counter-claim. It appears from the court record of the proceedings that the main application was fixed for mention several times in order to give time to the parties to file their pleadings.\n11.  In his statement of claim the applicant alleged that he had separated from his wife on the 22 September 1995. The respondent in her defence and counter-claim stated that the applicant had abandoned the family home on or around 22 September 1995 but that they had been separated since the summer of 1992 despite living under the same roof.\n12.  In the meantime, on 21 January 1997 a divorce order was issued by the Nicosia Family Court (divorce jurisdiction) dissolving the marriage.\n13.  On 16 October 1997 the court, at the parties’ request, fixed the main application for hearing for 15 January 1998. On the latter date, again at the parties’ request, the main application was fixed for mention for 19 February 1998. On the latter date it was adjourned three consecutive times until 12 November 1998, always at the parties’ request.\n14.  In the meantime an interim application was filed by the respondent on 9 November 1998.\n15.  On 12 November 1998 the interim application was fixed for mention for 19 November 1998 in order to settle the matter of the composition of the court. It was fixed for mention, for the same reason, twice more until 3 December 1998 and then for 18 March 1999 at the parties’ request. The main application was also fixed for hearing on the latter date.\n16.  On 18 March 1999 the hearing of the main application was adjourned until 10 June 1999 and the interim application was fixed for 13 May 1999 and then, on that date, for 10 June 1999.\n17.  On the latter date the interim application was fixed for hearing for 10 September 1999. The main application was also adjourned to 12 November 1999 as the applicant’s lawyer had to attend another hearing.\n18.  On 10 September 1999 the parties re", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4014", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant, TV Vest AS (Ltd.), is a television broadcasting company located in Stavanger in the County of Rogaland, on the west coast of Norway. The second applicant, Rogaland Pensjonistparti, is the regional branch of the Pensjonistpartiet, which will be referred to hereinafter as “the Pensioners Party”. This is a small political party, which, in the local and regional elections held on 15 September 2003, obtained 1.3% of the votes nationally, while the Rogaland branch obtained 2.3% of the votes in Rogaland.\n8.  With a view to the above-mentioned elections the Party asked to purchase advertising time from TV Vest in order to broadcast political advertisements. In the Spring of 2003 TV Vest, considering that the broadcast would be lawful, agreed to broadcast three different advertisements, with a duration of fifteen seconds each, seven times per day over eight days during the period from 14 August to 12 September 2003, and for which the Party would pay a fee of 30,000 Norwegian kroner (NOK). The short broadcasts sought to portray the values of the Pensioners Party and encouraged viewers to vote for them:\nAdvertising film 1:\nEgil Willumsen, Pensioners Party: “We want this splendid property here to be given back to the people of Stavanger and Rogaland as a specialised hospital for the elderly and chronically ill. Vote for the Pensioners Party.”\nPicture with text:\n“We need your vote on 15 September! Vote for the Pensioners Party.”\nAdvertising film 2:\nÅshild Bjørnevoll, Pensioners Party: “Young people are our future. Some of them live in difficult circumstances and need help and support. If they do not receive the assistance they require, it may have major consequences for us all. Vote for the Pensioners Party for a better future.”\nPicture with text:\n“We need your vote on 15 September! Vote for the Pensioners Party.”\nAdvertising film 3:\nTor Kristian Rønneberg, Pensioners Party: “A sufficient number of good nursing home places. Secure jobs, particularly for older workers, and decent pension schemes. If you are interested in any of this, vote for the Pensioners Party.”\nPicture with text:\n“We need your vote on 15 September! Vote for the Pensioners Party.”\n9.  On 12 August 2003 the first applicant notified the State Media Authority (Statens medieforvaltning – the “Media Authority”) of its intention to broadcast the political advertisements and argued that such broadcasting was protected by Article 10 of the Convention.\n10.  The first applicant broadcast the political advertisements on 14, 15, 16, 18, 28, 29 and 30 August and on 1, 3, 12 and 13 September 2003. According to a public statement by the second applicant dated 30 August 2003, although it had been made aware of the statutory prohibition of political advertising on television, it had nonetheless decided to advertise for a number of reasons:\n“The Pensioners Party in Rogaland has found it difficult to gain the attention of the media. We regard this as a 'golden opportunity' to highlight the party's values and political priorities.\nThe bigger parties are given very wide leeway in connection both with debates and with various initiatives in radio, television and the press. In this regard, the Pensioners Party often feels excluded and has very limited opportunities to make itself heard.\nIn addition, the Party is never identified in national or local opinion polls, but is included in the group 'Others'.\nWe in the Pensioners Party took responsibility for the content of the message", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4015", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in Uzbekistan.\n7.  The applicant arrived in Russia in July 2000 and resided in the town of Michurinsk in the Tambov Region. It appears that until mid-2003 he returned to Uzbekistan for several short periods of time. In 2004 he was convicted by a Russian court and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for having used a false migration card. After his release, in October 2004 he moved to Usman, a provincial town in the Lipetsk Region, where he was employed as a cook. On 31 January 2005 the applicant sought a temporary residence authorisation (разрешение на временное проживание) and apparently applied for Russian citizenship. It appears that his application was rejected on 28 February 2006 (see paragraph 17 below). According to the applicant, he became aware of that refusal only on 29 September 2006.\n8.  Most recently, from 23 December 2005 to 23 March 2006 the applicant had a valid temporary residence registration (временная регистрация) in the Lipetsk Region. According to the applicant, on an unspecified date in 2006 the Chief Inspector of the Criminal Police of Usman in the Lipetsk Region refused to renew it. It appears, however, that no formal decision was issued.\n9.  According to the Uzbek authorities, in April 2005 two Uzbek nationals complained to the Uzbek National Security Service (NSS) that the applicant had been engaged in anti-constitutional activities during an unspecified period of time. He left Uzbekistan after his accomplices had been apprehended.\n10.  On 29 April 2005 the NSS of the Surkhandarianskiy Region initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 159 § 3 (b) and Articles 216, 244-1 and 244-2 of the Uzbek Criminal Code (see paragraph 76 below). They accused him of membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), a transnational Islamic organisation, which is banned in Russia, Germany and some Central Asian states. On 8 May 2005 the Uzbek authorities issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant with reference to the charges under Articles 159 and 244-1 of the Uzbek Criminal Code.\n11.  On 2 February 2006 the applicant was apprehended in the town of Gryazi in Russia and taken into custody. On 4 February 2006 the Gryazi Town Court of the Lipetsk Region authorised his detention with a view to extradition to Uzbekistan, relying on Article 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP). It did not set a time-limit for which that detention was authorised. The detention order was amenable to appeal to the Regional Court within a three-day time-limit. The applicant did not appeal.\n12.  In March 2006 the Uzbek Prosecutor General’s Office requested the applicant’s extradition and provided assurances that he would not be surrendered to another State without Russia’s consent and would not be prosecuted or punished for any offence committed prior to his extradition and for which extradition would have been refused; and that he would be able to leave Uzbekistan after being tried and serving his sentence.\n13.  On 12 April 2006 the Lipetsk regional prosecutor instructed the administration of the remand centre to keep the applicant in detention under Article 466 of the CCrP, the 1993 Minsk Convention and the Prosecutor General’s Instructions of 20 June 2002 (see paragraphs 53, 54 and 66 below).\n14.  On 22 September 2006 the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation rejected the extradition request because some of the acts imputed to the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4016", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the city of Mykolaiv, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant is a former employer of the open joint-stock company “Avtobaza” (“the company”) situated in the town of Ochakiv, the Mykolaiv region. The State have not held any share in the company since February 1999.\n6.  On 13 May 1998 the Ochakiv Court ordered the company to pay the applicant UAH 3.176[1] in salary arrears. This judgment was enforced in full on an unspecified date in 2002.\n7.  While the enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment were still pending, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Ochakiv Court against the Ochakiv Bailiffs’ Service and the company claiming compensation for pecuniary damage caused to him due to the non-enforcement of the judgment of 13 May 1998 in due time.\n8.  On 3 April 2001 the court ordered that the company pay the applicant UAH 2.283[2] in compensation for inflation losses. By the same judgment, the court rejected the applicant’s claims against the Bailiffs’ Service as unsubstantiated. This judgment became final and the enforcement writ was transferred to the Bailiffs’ Service for enforcement.\n9.  On 8 May 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the company had been declared bankrupt by the decision of the Mykolayiv Regional Commercial Court of 17 December 2002.\n10.  The judgment of 3 April 2001 remains unenforced.\n11.  In September 2001, while the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 3 April 2001 were still pending, the applicant instituted proceedings in the Ochakiv Court against the Ochakiv Bailiffs’ Service seeking compensation for the latter’s failure to act.\n12.  On 26 November 2002 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to pay him UAH 825[3] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused as result of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 3 April 2001.\n13.  On 12 May 2003 the Ochakiv Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of their own lack of funds.\n14.  The judgment of 26 November 2002 remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4018", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are husband and wife. They were born in 1920 and 1930 respectively and live in Sofia.\n7.  In 1982 the first applicant, who was an artist, purchased from the State through the Union of Bulgarian Artists a workshop of 212 square metres in Sofia. It appears that the second applicant, being the first applicant’s spouse, acquired a share in the property. The price, 17,680 “old” Bulgarian levs (BGL), was determined in accordance with the relevant legislation and paid by the first applicant. At the relevant time this sum was the equivalent of not less than 75 average monthly salaries.\n8.  In the following years the applicants made substantial alterations to the property. The applicants used the property as a workshop and as their home.\n9.  The property, located in a building constructed not later than 1946, had originally consisted of three separate premises which had become State property in 1976 and 1978, when a Mr A. and a Ms P., the owners, had each sold their premises to the State, through the Union of Bulgarian Artists. The transaction had been executed pursuant to Council of Ministers Decree no. 60 of 1975, at prices determined by the relevant regulations (see paragraph 19 below).\n10.  In 1992 the heirs of Mr A. and Mrs P. reimbursed the price their families had received in 1976 and 1978 respectively and, claiming that they had thereby restored their title to the respective parts of the property by virtue of the Restitution of Stores, Workshops and Storage Houses Act 1991 (“the 1991 Act”), filed a rei vindicatio action against the applicants.\n11.  The proceedings went through three levels of jurisdiction and ended with a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 13 May 1997 ordering the applicants to vacate the property.\n12.  The courts noted that in accordance with the 1991 Act the former owners of real estate sold to the State under Decree no. 60 of 1975 could automatically restore their title by reimbursing the price they had received from the State. The restored owners were entitled to claim their property from any third person, even where the latter had acquired it by means of a valid transaction. The courts found that in the case at hand the plaintiffs had reimbursed the price their families had received in 1976 and 1978 and had restored their title. Under the 1991 Act the applicants were no longer the owners and had to vacate the premises. The fact that they had purchased the property in 1982 by means of a valid transaction was immaterial.\n13.  The relevant court judgments in the 1992-1997 proceedings, as well as the applicants’ notary deed, described the property as covering approximately 212 square metres on three levels: (i) basement, used as a workshop (75.24 square metres), (ii) art gallery (53.37 square metres) and (iii) upper level (83.24 square metres).\n14.  On 28 April 1999 the applicants were evicted from the property. They moved into a room of 12 square metres belonging to a friend of theirs, where they lived until 2001.\n15.  The applicants asked the Sofia municipality to provide them with a municipal flat for rent. The municipality agreed but proposed to the applicants, in April 2000, a squatted flat and later on a flat located below ground level, which the applicants refused as being unsuitable for occupation. Eventually, in December 2002 the applicants were granted the tenancy of a two-room municipal flat at regulated prices.\n16.  On an unspecified date in 1997 the applicants brought an ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4019", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1918 and lives in the town of Vyshgorod, Kyiv Region, Ukraine.\n6.  In 1994 the applicant, resident of Donetsk at that time, moved to Kyiv. She issued a letter of authority to Mr R. who promised to help the applicant to exchange her apartment in Donetsk for one in Kyiv.\n7.  Mr R. sold her apartment to Mrs P. and the latter had subsequently sold it to Mrs L. The applicant allegedly received no money for it.\n8.  In February 1995 Mrs L. instituted proceedings in the Voroshylovskyy District Court of Donetsk (the “Voroshylovskyy Court”), claiming that the applicant had lost her right to reside in the apartment.\n9.  On 22 February 1995 the Voroshylovskyy Court found for Mrs L.\n10.  On 30 October 1995 the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court, upon the protest lodged by the President of the same court, quashed the judgment of 22 February 1995 and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n11.  On 23 June 2000 the Voroshylovskyy Court referred the claims of Mrs L. to the Kalininskyy District Court of Donetsk (the “Kalininskyy Court”) for examination.\n12.  Meanwhile, in February 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Voroshylovskyy Court against Mr R., Mrs P., Mrs L., Mr K. and Mr B., the latter two having acted as the real estate agents of Mrs P., asking the court to annul the sales contracts in respect of the apartment and seeking the eviction of Mrs L. from it. She further claimed her belongings which she had allegedly left in the apartment.\n13.  The Voroshylovskyy Court considered the case on three occasions and delivered judgments on 26 July 1995, 5 November 1996 and 10 November 1999, which were overturned by the decisions of the Donetsk Regional Court on 17 August 1995, 17 April 1997 and 30 March 2000, respectively.\n14.  On 26 June 2000 the case was remitted for a fresh examination to the Kalininskyy Court.\n15.  In July 2000 the Kalininskyy Court decided to examine the applicant’s claims and the claims of Mrs L. jointly.\n16.  On 29 October 2001 the court found against the applicant.\n17.  In the period from 10 December 2001 to 18 October 2002 the applicant lodged several requests for leave to appeal against the above judgment with the Kalinskyy Court and the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal. The requests were rejected since the applicant failed to comply with procedural formalities and to respect the time-limits. No hearing was held during this period.\n18.  On 10 October 2002 the applicant requested the court to renew the time‑limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of 29 October 2001.\n19.  On 18 October 2002 the Kalininsky Court rejected the applicant’s request to renew a time-limit for appeal against the above judgment.\n20.  The applicant appealed against the ruling of 18 October 2002. On 15 May 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed this ruling.\n21.  On 17 June 2003 the Kalininskyy Court granted the applicant’s request to renew a time-limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of 29 October 2001.\n22.  On 5 August 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 29 October 2001.\n23.  On 19 November 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. This ruling of the Supreme Court was sent to the applicant on 1 December 2003.\n24.  In the course of the proceedings there were five hearings postponed due to the applicant’s failure to appear, twenty two hearings postponed due to the defendants’ failure to appear and one - ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4020", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Stavropol.\n6.  At the material time the applicant and her husband lived in a three-room apartment in a block of flats at 4 Prospekt Revolyutsii in the city of Grozny, the Chechen Republic. The applicant submitted a housing warrant (ордер) confirming her right to live in the apartment. She did not submit any documents proving that she had a title to the flat.\n7.  In early October 1999 a military operation was launched in the territory of the Chechen Republic.\n8.  According to the applicant, on 4 January 2000 the block of flats at 4 Prospekt Revolyutsii was hit by a missile fired by the Russian armed forces during an attack on Grozny. The applicant’s flat and all her belongings were destroyed. It does not appear that the applicant witnessed the destruction.\n9.  On 6 January 2000 the applicant, her husband and other residents were sheltering from a bombardment in the basement of their block of flats. At around 10 p.m. an intoxicated man armed with a machine gun came down to the basement and started shooting, with the result that the applicant’s husband and three other persons were killed. The applicant managed to escape. According to her, the name of the man who shot her husband was Khalid. He had lived for some time in their block of flats and during the bombings she had met him in the basement on several previous occasions.\n10.  On the next day the applicant buried her husband’s body and the bodies of the others killed in the shooting in the courtyard. It does not appear that an autopsy was performed or any photographs taken.\n11.  On 21 June 2000 a local registry office certified the death of the applicant’s husband. On the same date a housing authority issued the applicant with a certificate confirming that her flat “was destroyed and burnt completely during the military actions on 4 January 2000”. The certificate contained no other information relating to the destruction. The applicant did not submit any documents which would indicate the cause of the destruction of the block of flats at 4 Prospect Revolutsii, or any photographs of the site of the destruction.\n12.  According to the Government, the applicant’s written complaint concerning her husband’s murder was received by the Zavodskoy District Department of the Interior of Grozny on 17 February 2000. On 27 February 2000 the acting prosecutor of Grozny opened an investigation into the case under Article 105 (2) (aggravated murder) of the Russian Criminal Code. The case file was assigned the number 12005.\n13.  On the same day the applicant was granted the status of victim of a crime and questioned. She reiterated her account of the events of 6 January 2000 and described the appearance of the alleged murderer.\n14.  In the Government’s submission, on 27 February 2000 the investigation authorities also inspected the scene of the incident in the applicant’s presence. The Government did not produce any report on that inspection.\n15.  On 23 April 2000 the proceedings in case no. 12005 were suspended for failure to establish the identity of the alleged perpetrator. The applicant was informed in writing that the proceedings had been adjourned on 27 [rather than 23] April 2000.\n16.  On 7 June 2000 the criminal proceedings were reopened. According to the Government, on the same date, upon the applicant’s request of 31 May 2000, the investigator in charge ordered the exhumation of the corpses of those killed on 6 January 2000, including the applica", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4021", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in the town of Novaya Kakhovka, the Kherson Region, Ukraine.\n6.  On 4 November 2003[1] the Nova Kakhovka Court ordered the joint stock company “Pivdenelektronmash” (“the company”), in which the State holds 75 % of the shares, to pay the applicant 37,237.36[2] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears owed to her husband who died in October 2002.\n7.  There were bankruptcy proceedings pending against the company at that time.\n8.  On 2 December 2003 the Nova Kakhovka Bailiffs’ Office (“the Bailiffs”) instituted enforcement proceedings. The writ of execution was joined to other enforcement proceedings pending against the company.\n9.  Following the ruling of the Commercial Court of the Kherson Region of 27 February 2004, the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 4 November 2003 were suspended.\n10.  On 1 November 2004 the Nova Kakhovka Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the alleged inactivity of the Bailiffs. This decision was upheld on 10 March 2005 by the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal.\n11.  On 1 July 2005 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.\n12.  On 7 May 2006 the company paid the applicant UAH 8,938[3].\n13.  By its judgment of 2 June 2006 the Nova Kakhovka Court ordered that the company pay the applicant UAH 7,812[4] in compensation for failure to pay in time the award under the judgment of 4 November 2003.\n14.  On 13 June 2006 the Bailiffs instituted the enforcement proceedings in respect of this judgment.\n15.  According to the applicant, the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings concerning the judgment of 4 November 2003 on the ground of false information provided by the company about the settlement of the debt. The applicant requested the Nova Kakhovka Court to provide her with a new writ of execution, which she submitted to the Bailiffs on 18 July 2006.\n16.  On 20 July 2006 the Bailiffs instituted new enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 4 November 2003.\n17.  The judgments of 4 November 2003 and 2 June 2006 remain unenforced due to the company’s difficult financial situation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4022", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Charlottenlund.\n7.  At the beginning of the 1990s a new concept called “tax asset stripping cases” (selskabstømmersager) came into existence in Denmark. It covered a criminal activity by which the persons involved committed aggravated debtor fraud by buying up and selling numerous inactive solvent private limited companies within a short period and, for the sake of their own profit, “stripping” the companies of assets, including deposits earmarked for payment of corporation tax. The persons involved were usually intricately interconnected and collaborated in their economic criminal activities, which concerned very large amounts of money. According to surveys made by the customs and tax authorities, approximately one thousand six hundred companies with a total tax debt exceeding two billion Danish kroner (DKK) were stripped in the period from the late 1980s until 1994. Following a number of legislative amendments, the trade in inactive, solvent companies largely ceased in the summer of 1993.\n8. At the relevant time the applicant was part owner of a private limited stockbrokers company ([B] & [the applicant] A/S] - hereafter “the company”).\n9.   On 18 January 1994 he learnt that the tax authorities were about to check the company’s accounts for the years 1989 to 1992. On 6 May 1994 the tax authorities informed the applicant that the question of whether any criminal liability had occurred would be decided on later. The tax authorities also reported various potential co-offenders to the police.\n10. During 1994, 1995 and at the beginning of 1996 the police carried out an investigation comprising, among other things, discovery orders against banks, international letters of request, search warrants and numerous interviews of witnesses.\n11. On 17 June 1996, the Copenhagen City Court (Københavns Byret – hereafter “the City Court”), sitting in camera, granted the police a warrant to search the premises of the applicant’s business and those of the company.\n12.   On 2 July 1996 the search was carried out by the police.\n13.  From July 1996 to February 1998 various investigative steps were taken, also relating to five co-accused in the case, for example searches in Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden, numerous interviews in Denmark and abroad, international letters of request, a request to Interpol, fifteen discovery orders and an order prohibiting the disclosure of the applicant’s name. Moreover, on 19 March 1997 a request for an accountant’s report was made and material for that purpose was obtained, including statements of account, cheque vouchers and so on.\n14.  On 12 February 1998 the applicant was officially charged and interrogated by the police.\n15.  On 25 June 1998 an indictment was submitted to the City Court, according to which the applicant (and five co-accused, A, B, H, N and R) were charged with “tax asset stripping” committed jointly. The applicant was charged on forty-four counts out of a total of fifty-nine, committed between 26 June and 3 November 1992. His responsibility related to an amount of DKK 87,000,000, equal to approximately 11,600,000 euros (EUR) out of the total tax amount evaded in the case which came to approximately EUR 19,000,000. The indictment related to eighty different companies and six banks in Denmark and abroad.\n16.  Between July 1998 and 10 March 1999, fifteen pre-trial hearings were held and the draft of the accountant’s reports was submitted. On the former date, th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4023", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in the Kaliningrad Region.\n6.  At the beginning of February 1999 the applicant complained to her doctor Ms K. about the neighbours, who had allegedly subjected her to electromagnetic emissions, attempted to contaminate her with HIV, created noises and draughts and tortured her in a multitude of other ways. She threatened to pour acid on them.\n7.  On 10 February 1999 the applicant was examined by a medical panel comprising two psychiatrists and three general practitioners affiliated with the Baltiysk Town Medical Association. The panel concluded that the applicant suffered from a paranoid personality disorder and was hallucinatory and aggressive. She was therefore dangerous to the public and to herself. The doctors also found that the applicant suffered from hypertension.\n8.  On the same day she was taken to the Kaliningrad Regional psychiatric hospital No. 1 (hereinafter “the hospital”).\n9.  On 12 February 1999 the applicant was examined by the hospital psychiatrists, who diagnosed her with involutional paranoid psychosis and concluded that she needed compulsory treatment.\n10.  On the same day the hospital applied to a court for approval of the applicant’s confinement.\n11.  On 16 February 1999 the Leningradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad ordered that the applicant should provisionally remain in the hospital until the application was examined. The hearing was scheduled for 18 February 1999.\n12.  On 18 February 1999 the hearing did not go ahead. The record indicated that the applicant was unable to appoint a representative owing to her grave mental state.\n13.  On 26 March 1999 the applicant consented to medical treatment. She remained in the hospital until 21 April 1999.\n14.  On 13 May 1999 the court proceedings were discontinued as the hospital had withdrawn its application.\n15.  After her discharge, the applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office about her allegedly unlawful confinement.\n16.  By letter of 1 February 2000, the Head of the Law-Enforcement Supervision Department of the Kaliningrad Regional prosecutor’s office acknowledged that from 16 to 26 March 1999 she had been unlawfully held in the hospital without a judicial decision and advised her that measures would be taken to remedy the situation.\n17.  On 11 April 2002 the Leningradskiy District Court informed the prosecutor’s office that it would take measures to avoid similar violations in future and undertook to observe the time-limits for examining applications from hospitals.\n18.  In the meanwhile on 21 February 2000 the applicant sued doctor K. and the hospital in tort. She contested the findings of the medical panels of 10 and 12 February 1999, claiming that she had not suffered from any mental disorder and that it had not been necessary to confine her. She further argued that her detention had been unlawful as it had not been based on a court order. She sought compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In reply, the hospital’s representative argued that the medical findings in the applicant’s case had been correct and her confinement lawful. He asked the court to reject the applicant’s claims in full.\n19.  On 22 June 2000 the Leningradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad found that there had been no reason to question the findings of the medical panels and that the applicant’s detention had been lawful.\n20.  On 25 October 2000 the Kaliningrad Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case. It held that th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4024", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Kharkiv.\n6.  On 14 June 2001 criminal proceedings against the applicant were instituted for hooliganism.\n7.  On 30 July 2001 the applicant was placed under an undertaking not to abscond.\n8.  On 1 August 2001 the applicant was committed for trial.\n9.  On 7 September 2001 the Chervonozavodsky District Court of Kharkiv (“the Chervonozavodsky Court”) found the case ready for examination.\n10.  On 24 September 2001 the President of the Chervonozavodsky Court allowed the applicant’s request to remove a judge in her case.\n11.  On 4 December 2001 the President of the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) changed the case’s territorial jurisdiction and referred it to the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Zhovtnevy Court”).\n12.  On 25 December 2001 the Zhovtnevy Court remitted the case to the Chervonozavodsky District Prosecutor’s Office for additional investigation.\n13.  On 12 June 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld this ruling with minor changes.\n14.  On 5 August 2002 the additional investigation was completed and the case was referred to the Zhovtnevy Court.\n15.  On 30 September 2002 the Zhovtnevy Court remitted the case to the Chervonozavodsky District Prosecutor’s Office for additional investigation.\n16.  On 26 November 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for renewed consideration to the first instance court.\n17.  On 29 April 2003 the Zhovtnevy Court found the case ready for examination.\n18.  On 27 June 2003 the Zhovtnevy Court adjourned the proceedings untill 26 August 2003 due to the prosecutor’s absence.\n19.  On 13 June 2006 the Zhovtnevy Court found the applicant guilty of hooliganism and sentenced her to three years’ suspended imprisonment. The applicant was exempted from serving her sentence since the charges against her had become time-barred.\n20.  On 31 October 2006 and 17 January 2008 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld the judgment.\n21.  Throughout the pre-trial investigation and the trial proceedings the applicant lodged some 211 complaints, motions, petitions, requests and appeals. She mainly complained about allegedly unlawful actions of the investigative authorities, the prosecutor’s office and the judges who considered her criminal case and challenged the procedural decisions taken by them. In particular, the applicant lodged 30 motions challenging the judge who considered her case, 5 motions challenging the prosecutor.\n22.  In the course of the trial proceedings some nineteen hearings were adjourned since the court had to consider numerous requests, motions, petitions and complaints lodged by the applicant. Five adjournments were due to the applicant’s or her lawyer’s absence or the applicant’s requests for adjournment. Four hearings were adjourned on account of witnesses’ or victims’ failures to appear. Eleven hearings were adjourned since the judge was involved in other proceedings, and one hearing was adjourned on account of the judge’s illness.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4025", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1909 and lives in Volodymyr-Volynsky, in the Volyn Region, Ukraine.\n5.  In 1971 the Volodymyr-Volynsky Town Council granted the applicant a protected tenancy of a plot of land for permanent use (безстрокове користування земельною ділянкою); subsequently the applicant gained property rights over the plot.\n6.  According to the applicant, in 1984 her neighbour, C., built a garage occupying part of her land.\n7.  In May 1994 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Volodymyr-Volynsky Town Court (“the Town Court”) against C., seeking to remove the impediments to her possession of the plot of land at issue. She also sought compensation.\n8.  On 10 August 1995, in the context of conciliatory proceedings, a municipal land commission defined the boundary between the plots and placed a set of land markers to make it visible.\n9.  On 24 March 1997 the Town Court found in favour of the applicant. In particular, it ordered C. not to impede the applicant’s use of her land and dismissed the claim for compensation.\n10.  On 17 April 1997 the Volyn Regional Court (since June 2001 the Volyn Regional Court of Appeal) rejected an appeal in cassation by C.\n11.  The judgment of 24 March 1997 having become final, on 5 May 1997 the Volodymyr-Volynsky Town Bailiffs’ Service (“the Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings.\n12.  The Bailiffs’ Service requested the Town Court to clarify the manner of enforcement of the judgment. On 19 June 1997 the Town Court indicated that the boundary between the plots should be set out in accordance with the municipal land commission’s plan of 10 August 1995. Nevertheless, until at least 2002, the Bailiffs’ Service requested the court several times to provide further clarifications. In letters of 21 January and 5 April 1999, 14 January and 19 December 2000, 19 November 2001 and 12 November 2002 the Town Court replied to these requests and noted that the judgment of 24 March 1997 was final and subject to enforcement, and that the court findings were unambiguous and clear. The court also referred to its decision of 19 June 1997.\n13.  Subsequently, on an unspecified date the local prosecutor requested the Town Court to interpret its judgment of 24 March 1997. On 7 July 2003 the court discontinued the proceedings upon this request as it had already interpreted the judgment in question on 19 June 1997.\n14.  Between 1997 and 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service made over thirty visits to the site; however, because of C.’s resistance and unwillingness to cooperate, they were unsuccessful. Although C. was fined for such behaviour (the last occasion, according to the Government, being on 1 November 2001), the judgment of 24 March 1997 remained unenforced. The Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings on a number of occasions. However, following appeals by the applicant, those decisions were quashed by the Town Court and the enforcement proceedings were resumed.\n15.  On 19 July 2002, following the court’s reversal of one of the above-mentioned decisions to terminate the enforcement proceedings, the Bailiffs’ Service refused to resume these proceedings, as, in its view, the court findings in the judgment of 24 March 1997, as mentioned in the writ of enforcement, were vague and imprecise. On 20 August 2002 the Town Court allowed a complaint by the applicant against the Bailiffs’ Service and set aside its decision. The court also ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to enforce the judgment at issue.\n1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4026", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in the town of Debaltseve, in the Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 15 July 1998 the Dokuchayevsk Court ordered the State-owned mining company “Yuzhnodonbassakya-3” (“the company”) to pay the applicant 2,147.72[1] Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) in salary arrears and other payments. By another decision adopted on the same day the court ordered the company to pay the applicant UAH 312.11[2] for loss of salary and to rectify the records in his work book (трудова книжка) about the date and the reason of his dismissal.\n6.  On 1 September 1998 the same court ordered the company to pay the applicant UAH 949.90[3] for loss of salary and other payments. By the same judgment the court ruled again to rectify the records in his work book about the date of his dismissal.\n7.  On 6 January 1999 the same court ordered the company to pay the applicant UAH 1,438.42[4] for loss of salary and other payments. By the same judgment the court ruled to rectify the records in his work book about the date of his dismissal.\n8.  On 26 February 1999 the same court ordered the company to enforce the judgments of 15 July 1998.\n9.  On 1 October 1999 the same court ordered the company to provide the applicant with an apartment, as stipulated in his employment contract. On 4 March 2002 the same court, upon the applicant’s request, modified the manner of enforcement of the judgment of 1 October 1999 and ordered the company to pay the applicant UAH 13,137[5] instead of providing him with an apartment.\n10.  All the above judgments became final and the enforcement proceedings were instituted by the Vugledar Bailiffs Service (“the Bailiffs Service”).\n11.  On 22 February 2000 the Bailiffs Service informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been suspended due to bankruptcy proceedings pending against the company.\n12.  In September 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Vugledar Court against the Bailiffs Service seeking compensation for damage caused to him due to the non-enforcement of the above judgments. On 10 June 2004 the Vugledar Court rejected the applicant’s complaints against the alleged inactivity of the Bailiffs Service. On 26 August 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a new consideration. According to the applicant’s submissions, the proceedings are still pending.\n13.  The applicant rented a house owned by Mr. Ch. In December 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings against the municipal company Donetskoblvodokanal (ДОКП Донецькоблводоканал), and the Dokuchaevsk Water and Sewerage Company (Докучаєвське управління водопровідно каналізаційного господарства) claiming UAH 2,000[6] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, alleging that the water supply to the house rented by him was unsatisfactory. The applicant also sought a recalculation of his water rates.\n14.  On 13 September 2002 the Dokuchayevsk Court allowed the applicant’s claims in part. On 5 December 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case to the Dokuchayevsk Court for a fresh consideration by another judge.\n15.  On 6 May 2003 the Dokuchayevsk Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him UAH 1,000[7] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.  On 21 July 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case to the Dokuchaevsk Court for a fresh consideration by another judge.\n16", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4027", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Novoaltaysk, a town in the Altay Region.\n5.  In 2003 the applicant sued the Government and the Ministry of Finance for liquidation of Soviet bonds issued in 1982.\n6.  On 30 June 2003 the Novoaltaysk Town Court of the Altay Region awarded the applicant 6,635,348.50 Russian roubles (RUB). This judgment became binding on 18 July 2003 but was not enforced immediately.\n7.  The Ministry of Finance lodged a supervisory-review appeal, and on 10 February 2004 the Presidium of the Altay Regional Court quashed the judgment. The Presidium found that the District Court had misinterpreted material law and, in particular, had ignored the rule saying that the Soviet bonds could have been liquidated only after their ulterior conversion into Russian special-purpose debentures. The Presidium concluded that since until then no such conversion had been made, and since the yearly budget had had no allocations for the liquidation of the bonds, the District Court had effectively replaced itself for the body competent to make the conversion and thus overstepped its authority.\n8.  In 2003–04 the applicant also instituted a number of proceedings against high ranking State officials. These proceedings were refused or stayed because of the applicant’s failure to comply with procedural requirements.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4028", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Sergey Ivanovich Lyutov, was born in 1956 and lives in the town of Horlovka, Ukraine.\n5.  On 22 November 1993 the applicant had a work-related accident in which he sustained multiple burns. On 24 November 1993 the applicant’s employer, the State company “Artemshaktobud” (“the company\"), issued an accident report which stated that the applicant had been partly responsible for the accident.\n6.  In 1994 the applicant received the status of a partially disabled person with a medium degree of disability. The company paid the applicant a single-payment accident allowance and awarded him compensation for loss of earnings, to be paid monthly.\n7.  In May 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Company in the Nikitovsky District Court of Horlovka, asking the court to establish that he was not responsible for the accident, to recalculate the amounts of the above payments and compensate him for the losses sustained due to the erroneous calculation. The applicant also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused to him as a result of the accident. On 4 December 1995 the court allowed the applicant’s claims in part.\n8.  On 28 March 1996 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Donetsk Region lodged a protest against the above judgment with the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court. On 10 April 1996 the latter allowed the protest, quashed the above decision and remitted the case for reconsideration to the first-instance court.\n9.  On 22 July 1996 the Nikitovsky District Court of Horlovka allowed the applicant’s claims in part. The Deputy President of the Donetsk Regional Court lodged a protest against that decision with the Presidium of the Donetsk Regional Court. On 11 November 1998 the decision was quashed and the case was remitted to the first-instance court for reconsideration on the ground that, inter alia, the first-instance court had erred in the calculation of the payments due to the applicant.\n10.  On 11 November 1999 the Nikitovsky District Court of Donetsk allowed the applicant’s claims in part. The company appealed against that decision. On 24 January 2000 it was quashed by the Donetsk Regional Court on the ground that the first-instance court had erred in its calculation of the payments due to the applicant. Therefore the case was remitted to the first-instance court for a fresh consideration.\n11.  On 7 June 2000 the Nikitovsky District Court of Horlovka allowed the applicant’s claims in part. The company appealed against this decision. On 13 November 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 7 June 2000 on the ground that the first-instance court had erred in the calculation of the payments due to the applicant. By the same ruling the court of appeal remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n12.  In April 2001 the applicant lodged an additional claim, requesting the court to amend the report of 24 November 1993.\n13.  On 17 January 2001 the applicant lodged a request with the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal for his case to be remitted to another court for consideration.\n14.  On 6 March 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a first-instance court, considered the applicant’s case and allowed his claims in part.\n15.  Dissatisfied that the court of appeal had not allowed all of his claims, the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the decision on 27 May 2002. According to the law in force at the material time, the cassation appeal was filed with the first-instance ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4029", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born on 14 August 1982 and is currently serving concurrent sentences of imprisonment at the Nicosia Central Prison.\n7.  In the context of a police investigation concerning a murder and robbery which took place on 19 April 2000, the police contacted the applicant’s father and invited him and the applicant to visit the Limassol police station. At the time the applicant was just over 17 years old. The applicant went to the police station accompanied by his father. The Limassol District Police Director (hereinafter “the Police Director”) informed the applicant’s father, in the presence of the applicant, about the crime that had been committed, the seriousness of the case, and the fact that there was evidence involving the applicant and that an arrest warrant had been issued against him.\n8.  According to the applicant, he immediately stated that he was innocent. Another police officer told him that his friend had already confessed to murdering the victim together with the applicant. The police officer added that the applicant’s friend was crying and hitting his head against a wall while he (the applicant) was merely lying to them. Then, another police officer came into the Police Director’s room holding an arrest warrant and informed the applicant that he was under arrest for murder. The applicant replied that he had nothing to add to his statement that he was innocent. The police officer then told the applicant to follow him into a different office. There there were 5 or 6 officers who started asking him questions and inducing him to confess, promising that if he did so they would assist him. They questioned him for approximately 30-40 minutes but he kept saying that he could not remember anything as he had been very drunk the night before. At some stage during the interrogation a police officer put his gun on the desk and told the applicant that he should hurry up as they had other things to do. The police officers told him that if he wanted to go he should confess. Subsequently a police officer suggested that they take a written statement from the applicant and that the police officers would remind him of anything he could not remember. The applicant then agreed to make a written statement. He denied having made any prior oral admission.\n9.  According to the Government, relying on the testimonies of the police officers participating in the interrogation, the applicant was shown the arrest warrant and informed of the reasons for his arrest, and had his attention drawn to the law. The applicant replied that he had nothing to say other than that he was innocent. He was then taken to a different room for questioning. Before the applicant was questioned the arresting officer explained again the reasons for his arrest, repeated that there was evidence involving the applicant in the circumstances under investigation and cautioned him that anything he said could be used against him in subsequent proceedings. There were four police officers present in the room. The applicant replied that he had not intended to kill anyone and started to give an explanation of the events. According to the arresting officer, the applicant was interrupted and his attention was drawn to the law. During the questioning the applicant confessed his guilt.\n10.  The parties agreed that when the applicant was taken away for questioning, his father remained in the Police Director’s office. He was shocked and after a couple of minutes told the Police Dir", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4030", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Mikhail Pavlovich Loshenko, was born in 1930 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  In 1995 the applicant concluded a contract with A., a private bank (“the Bank”), by which it would invest the applicant’s funds in the construction of an apartment by JSC “K.” (“the Construction Company”), to be completed by 30 July 1996. Pursuant to the provisions of this contract, in the event of a delay in completion of the construction works, the applicant could claim late-payment penalties from the Bank.\n6.  As the Construction Company officially completed the works only on 29 August 1996, on 2 October 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv claiming payment from the Bank for delay in completion of the works.\n7.  On 2 December 1996 Judge V. held a hearing. Subsequently Judge Z., the President of the Pechersky Court at the material time, withheld the case from Judge V. for unspecified reasons.\n8.  On 27 October 1997 the Bank lodged a counterclaim, alleging that the promise to pay a penalty for the Construction Company’s failure to fulfil the work on time had been given by it ultra vires, and had to be annulled as incompatible with the applicable banking law.\n9.  On 19 November 1997 Judge Z. pronounced a judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim and allowing the Bank’s counterclaim. However, he did not sign this judgment.\n10.  On 27 November 1997 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Kyiv City Court.\n11.  On 3 December 1997, pursuant to the requirements of the procedural law in place at the material time, the appeal was forwarded to Judge Z. to decide on its compliance with procedural formalities.\n12.  In June 2001 a new appeal procedure was introduced, and the Kyiv City Court was transformed into the Kyiv City Court of Appeal.\n13.  In July 2001 Judge Z. was dismissed on disciplinary grounds.\n14.  On 10 December 2001 the Kyiv City Department of Justice informed the applicant that it had investigated his complaint about the lengthy consideration of his cassation appeal and discovered that former Judge Z. had failed to register it and had withheld the case file from the court’s registry. The Department assured the applicant that the case would be promptly transferred to the Kyiv City Court of Appeal for consideration.\n15.  On 7 May 2002 the City Court quashed the judgment of 19 November 1997 as unsigned by the presiding judge and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n16.  On 10 October 2002 the Pechersky Court allowed the applicant’s claim and dismissed the Bank’s counterclaim. On 24 October 2002 the Bank appealed.\n17.  On 4 December 2002 the Kyiv Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, having annulled the clause concerning the Bank’s responsibility for the Construction Company’s delay as incompatible with the applicable law.\n18.  On 23 December 2002 the applicant appealed in cassation before the Supreme Court.\n19.  On 16 October 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation.\n20.  On 24 March 2004 Judge Z. was convicted of failure to perform official duties and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended. His criminal case included several episodes, none of which concerned the applicant’s civil case.\n21.  Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully sought to reopen the proceedings, alleging that a similar complaint by another investor had been upheld in the investor’s favour.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4031", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1937; the second applicant was born in 1958. They live in Pervomaysk, Mykolaiv region, Ukraine.\n6.  On 22 June 1999 the Pervomaysk Court awarded the first applicant 1,410.85 [1]Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears against the Pervomaysk State department for education.\n7.  On 2 August 1999 the same court awarded the first applicant UAH 324.34[2] in compensation for recreation leave allowance against the same defendant.\n8.  On 22 June 1999 the Pervomaysk Court awarded the second applicant UAH 794.60[3] in salary arrears against the Pervomaysk State department for education. On 2 August 1999, the same court awarded the second applicant UAH 274[4] in compensation for recreation leave allowance against the same defendant.\n9.  In December 2003, the Mykolaiv Regional Department of Justice informed the applicants that the judgments in their favour could not be enforced due to lack of the funds in the State budget, and the property of the debtor could not be attached since it was a public institution.\n10.  The judgments given in favour of the applicants remain unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4032", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1960 and is currently serving a prison sentence in correctional colony YuK-25/8, Orenburg Region.\n7.  On the morning of 7 August 2000 the applicant’s father, an important businessman, was kidnapped from his car in St Petersburg. The abduction was organised by Mr Kervalishvili and Mr Berkadze, known within the Georgian criminal milieu, with a view to receiving a ransom for his life.\n8.  Mr Kogan, the personal driver of the applicant’s father, managed to escape from the kidnappers. He contacted the police and the applicant’s relatives and told them what had happened. The police immediately started an investigation.\n9.  On the afternoon of 7 August 2000, having received the information about his father’s abduction, the applicant flew from Israel to Russia. As regards the following events, the parties’ accounts differ.\n10.  According to the applicant, once he arrived in St Petersburg he went to his office, where he met his brother and a group of his employees. In the presence of an unidentified police officer, the applicant’s brother assured the applicant that the best policemen had been deployed to find and release his father.\n11.  On the same evening the applicant was contacted by Mr Berkadze (an accomplice to the kidnappers), who offered his services to locate the applicant’s father. On the following morning Mr Berkadze called Ms Margvelashvili from the applicant’s office and asked her to assist in finding the applicant’s father. In exchange, Mr Berkadze offered to facilitate the release of her friends, Mr Dvali, Mr Kakushadze and Mr Grigolashvili, who had been arrested by the police earlier that evening. The applicant spoke to Ms Margvelashvili by telephone as well. He asked for help in finding his father.\n12.  On the evening of 8 August the applicant’s father was released by his abductors.\n13.  According to the prosecution authorities’ account, on arrival in St Petersburg the applicant, acting through his bodyguards (namely Mr Kazimirchuk and several others), ordered several unidentified individuals to go to Ms Margvelashvili’s flat on the basis that she had allegedly been involved in the abduction of the applicant’s father, and to kidnap members of her family, in order to exchange them for his father. The information that Ms Margvelashvili might have been implicated in the abduction of the applicant’s father had been received earlier that day from the police officers in charge of the official investigation into the event.\n14.  Early in the morning of 8 August 2000 the applicant’s men, posing as uniformed police officers, broke into Ms Margvelashvili’s flat, kidnapped Mr Dvali and Mr Kakushadze and took them to the applicant’s office. Ms Margvelashvili and her minor son remained in the flat under the surveillance of two “policemen”. Since Mr Dvali and Mr Kakushadze were unable to indicate the whereabouts of the applicant’s father, the applicant ordered the kidnapping of another person, Mr Grigolashvili, who allegedly knew where the applicant’s father was detained.\n15.  In the applicant’s office, Mr Dvali, Mr Kakushadze and Mr Grigolashvili were questioned and beaten by six of the applicant’s employees, including Mr Kazimirchuk, the applicant’s chief bodyguard. It appears that the applicant and his brother took part in their questioning and that the applicant hit Mr Grigolashvili in the face at least once. The applicant invited his father’s driver, Mr Kogan, to his office and showed him Mr Dvali, Mr Kakusha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4033", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a private limited liability company with its registered office in Žilina.\n5.  On 1 June 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Žilina District Court. It sued eight persons for a sum of money on grounds of unjust enrichment.\n6.  On 20 November 1998 the case was transferred to the Čadca District Court and on 22 August 2001 to the Martin District Court upon decisions of the Žilina Regional Court as to bias on the part of judges.\n7.  Subsequently, the Martin District Court obtained further evidence including expert opinions, delivered several procedural decisions and held four hearings. On 21 April 2008 it delivered a judgment. The parties appealed and in August 2008 the applicant informed the Court that the proceedings were still pending.\n8.  On 5 April 2006 the Constitutional Court (Third Chamber) found that the Martin District Court had violated, and that the District Courts in Žilina and in Čadca had not violated, the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay.\n9.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was complex in that expert evidence had to be adduced and related proceedings had been pending. The applicant company by its conduct had contributed to the length of the proceedings. The Martin District Court had failed to proceed in an appropriate manner and was responsible for delays totalling 16 months.\n10.  The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 40,000 (the equivalent of 1,066 euros at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the Martin District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4034", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Mionica.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 7 November 2001 the applicant, a bus conductor, was dismissed by his employer, “Lasta Strela”, a transportation company based in Valjevo.\n8.  On 24 December 2001 he filed a claim with the Municipal Court in Valjevo (“the Municipal Court”), seeking reinstatement and payment of salary arrears.\n9.  Following a remittal of 14 April 2003, the next hearing in the case was scheduled by the Municipal Court for 27 September 2004.\n10.  Of the nine separate hearings scheduled between 27 September 2004 and 26 January 2006, it would appear that four were adjourned whilst five were held. As regards the former, two hearings were adjourned because the respondent and/or several witnesses had not been duly summoned and the other two because witnesses, of whom two were proposed by the applicant, had, though duly summoned, failed to appear in court (for which omission they were ultimately fined).\n11.  On 27 January 2006 the Municipal Court ruled against the applicant.\n12.  On 25 April 2006 the applicant was served with this judgment.\n13.  On 3 May 2006 the applicant filed an appeal with the District Court in Valjevo (“the District Court”).\n14.  On 18 December 2006 the District Court returned the case file to the Municipal Court, requesting it to submit certain missing documents.\n15.  On 29 March 2007 the District Court upheld the judgment rendered at first instance.\n16.  On 3 April 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law (revizija).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4035", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1924, 1932, 1940, 1949, 1946, 1944, 1937 and 1934 respectively and live in different cities in Turkey.\n5.  On various dates, the applicants inherited or bought plots of land and properties near the coasts in different parts of Turkey, namely in Çanakkale, Şarköy, Izmir, Mudanya and Seferihisar. Some of the applicants constructed houses or operated commercial entities on their land.\n6.  On different dates, the Treasury requested from the competent courts of first instance to determine whether the applicants’ properties were located within the coastal strip. A group of experts appointed by the courts inspected the plots of land and any existing buildings on them and concluded that they were located within the coastline area.\n7.  Following the conclusion of the expert reports, the Treasury brought actions before the relevant courts, requesting the annulment of the applicants’ title deeds to the land and the properties, on the ground that they were located within the coastal area.\n8.  On various dates, the courts of first instance upheld the request of the Treasury and annulled in full the applicants’ title deeds in application nos. 23953/05, 37166/05, 19638/06 and 17654/07, whereas the title deeds in the remaining two applications were partially annulled. In their decisions, the courts held that, pursuant to domestic law (the Coastal Law of 1990), the coasts could not be subject to private ownership and that, therefore, the applicants could not rely on the argument that they had acted bona fides or on the fact that they had constructed buildings on the plots of land.\n9.  Appeals by the applicants against these judgments were dismissed by the Court of Cassation. Some of the applicants’ requests for rectification of the judgments were also rejected by that court.\n10.  In application no. 23953/05 the applicant brought an action for damages in the Şarköy Civil Court of First Instance on account of his loss of ownership and the demolition of four shops located on the land. On 28 October 2003 the Şarköy Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s action on the ground that, inter alia, the State was not liable for the damage resulting from the cancellation of the registration of the property in issue. The applicant appealed. In a judgment of 24 September 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment. A rectification request by the applicant was further dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 17 March 2005.\nThe details concerning the six applications are indicated in the table below:\n \n \n \n\nApplication no. and date of lodging\nName of the applicants\nName of court and date of decision \nDate of final decision of Court of Cassation\nDate of notification of final decision of Court of Cassation\n16858/05\n(15.4.2005)\nNecdet Terzioğlu\nSelma Fatma Terzioğlu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4036", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1977 and 1978 respectively and live in Batman.\n6.  On 15 September 1998 gendarmerie officers arrested the applicants at a checkpoint in a rural area of Diyarbakır on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). Subsequent to their arrest, both applicants were taken to the Çınar Central Health Clinic in Diyarbakır where they underwent a medical examination. According to the doctor’s report, there were no signs of ill-treatment on their bodies. The doctor noted that neither of the applicants had had sexual intercourse. The applicants were then placed in the custody of the Çınar Gendarmerie Station in Diyarbakır.\n7.  The applicants alleged that during their custody at the gendarmerie station, they had been blindfolded, threatened, insulted, stripped naked, given electric shocks, beaten, and hung from their arms. The gendarmerie officers had also raped the applicants by inserting a truncheon into their anus and vagina.\n8.  On 18 September 1998 the applicants were questioned by gendarmes. They stated that they had been on their way to join the PKK and gave detailed information about their connections with the organisation.\n9.  On 19 September 1998 the applicants underwent a new examination by a forensic doctor, who did not find any trace of ill-treatment on their bodies. The doctor also reported that the applicants had not had any sexual intercourse.\n10.  On 21 September 1998 the applicants were once again taken to the Çınar Central Health Clinic, where they were examined by a forensic doctor. As regards the first applicant Mukadder Ataş, the doctor found that there was no sign of ill-treatment on her body or any indication of sexual intercourse. In his report concerning the second applicant Süheyla Seven, the doctor stated that following a vaginal and anal examination, it was established that the second applicant had not had sexual intercourse and that there were no signs of ill-treatment on her body.\n11.  Again on 21 September 1998, the applicants were brought, respectively, before the Çınar Public Prosecutor and a Çınar Magistrate’s Court judge. Before the Public Prosecutor, the applicants stated that they had already given detailed information to the gendarmes concerning their involvement in the PKK. They noted that the statements they had given to the gendarmes were true and that they had not been subjected to any ill‑treatment or duress.\n12.  However, when questioned by the judge on the same day, both applicants denied the charges against them and claimed that the gendarmes had tortured them and forced them to sign some statements which they had not read. When their statements to the public prosecutor were read to them, the applicants admitted that they were true. The judge then ordered their detention on remand.\n13.  On 12 February 1999 the applicants’ legal representative, Ms Eren Keskin, filed a criminal complaint with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s office in Istanbul, for submission to the Diyarbakır Chief Public Prosecutor’s office, alleging that the applicants had been subjected to various forms of torture during their detention at the Diyarbakır Çınar Gendarmerie Station. She alleged that the applicants had been beaten up, given electric shocks, stripped naked and then raped by truncheons which had been inserted into their vagina and anus. She asked the judicial authorities to take statements from the officers and their superiors who had questioned the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4037", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Niš, Serbia.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 11 May 2001 the Municipal Court in Niš (“Municipal Court”) ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the respondent “socially-owned” company (see paragraph 46 below), “Vagonka” (“the debtor”), to pay him:\ni. salary arrears in the amount of 98,001 Dinars (“RSD”, approximately 1,661 euros, “EUR”) plus statutory interest as of 27 January 2001;\nii. 267,620 RSD (approximately 4,537 EUR) in already accrued statutory interest, and\niii. 800 RSD (approximately 14 EUR) for his legal costs.\n9.  By 15 June 2001 this judgment became final.\n10.  On 22 June 2001 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the judgment, proposing that it be carried out through the auctioning of the debtor’s movable assets.\n11.  On 4 October 2001 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order (I.br. 1706/01).\n12.  This order subsequently became final.\n13.  The Municipal Court thereafter attempted several auctions but to no avail.\n14.  On 2 July 2002 the Municipal Court reduced the sum awarded to the applicant in the above judgment by 95,730 RSD (approximately 1,578 EUR), which amount the applicant owed the debtor based on a prior transaction within a separate set of enforcement proceedings.\n15.  On 28 November 2002 the applicant filed another request for the enforcement of the above judgment, this time proposing that it be carried out by means of a bank transfer and that the total sum awarded therein be reduced by 95,730 RSD.\n16.  On 13 December 2002 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order (I.br. 3974/02).\n17.  By 4 February 2003 this order became final.\n18.  On 25 February 2003 the Municipal Court provided the Central Bank (Narodna banka Srbije) with the enforcement order, as well as the debtor’s bank account details.\n19.  On 20 March 2003 the Municipal Court provided the Central Bank with additional specifications concerning the enforcement ordered.\n20.  On 6 October 2004 the applicant urged the Central Bank and the Ministry of Finance to ensure effective implementation of the Municipal Court’s enforcement order dated 13 December 2002 (I.br. 3974/02).\n21.  On 29 November 2005 the applicant requested the Municipal Court to provide him with a complete list of the debtor’s assets.\n22.  On 19 January 2006 the Privatisation Agency (Agencija za privatizaciju) published a public announcement inviting all of the debtor’s creditors to report their claims, noting, however, that the private creditors were not legally obliged to do so.\n23.  On 16 June 2006 the same agency accepted a privatisation programme for the debtor.\n24.  On 29 August 2006 the applicant wrote to the Central Bank. He stated that the debtor’s bank account had apparently not been blocked despite the fact that there was a binding court decision so ordering.\n25.  On the same date the applicant complained to the Privatisation Agency, referring to his application filed with the Court.\n26.  On 31 August 2006 the applicant received a letter form the Central Bank, informing him that on 10 August 2006 the above enforcement had been stayed at the initiative of the Privatisation Agency.\n27.  On 4 September 2006 the Privatisation Agency itself sent a letter to the applicant, explaining that the decision to privatise the debtor, by means of a public auction, had been adopted on ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4038", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, a married couple of Iraqi origin, were born in 1957 and 1963 respectively and live in Västerås. They have three children, who are now eighteen, sixteen and eight years of age.\n6.  From 1 November 1999 they rented a flat in Rinkeby, a suburb of Stockholm. Rule 13 of the special provisions of the tenancy agreement stipulated the following:\n“The tenant undertakes not to erect, without specific permission, placards, signs, sunblinds, outdoor aerials and such like on the house.”\nThe agreement further stipulated, as a general condition, that the tenants were obliged to take proper care of the flat and to maintain good sanitary conditions, order and good practice in the house.\n7.  It appears that when the applicants moved in, there was a satellite dish mounted on the façade, next to one of the windows of the flat. The applicants made use of this in order to receive television programmes in Arabic and Farsi.\n8.  In October 2003 the applicants' landlord changed. The new landlord, a real-estate company, demanded that the satellite dish be dismantled. The applicants did not comply and, by letter of 2 April 2004, the company gave the applicants notice of termination of the tenancy agreement with effect from 31 July 2004.\n9.  Further, in April 2004, the landlord initiated proceedings before the Rent Review Board (hyresnämnden) in Stockholm against the applicants and some other tenants who had installed satellite dishes in the same house. The landlord sought execution of the notice of termination, claiming that the applicants' satellite installation violated the express ban in Rule 13 of the tenancy agreement and that, by not complying with the instruction to dismantle the dish, they had failed to maintain good sanitary conditions, order and good practice. Stating that it objected only to satellite dishes mounted on or outside the façade of the house, while allowing, for instance, dishes placed on a balcony, the landlord claimed that the ban on such installations was of considerable importance as the installations a) risked causing injuries to persons and property for which the landlord would be held responsible, b) damaged the house physically and aesthetically and c) obstructed rescue workers' and the landlord's access to the flat.\n10.  Shortly after having received the notice of termination, the applicants dismantled the satellite dish. However, in its place they installed a new device by placing on the kitchen floor an iron stand from which an arm, on which the satellite dish was mounted, extended through a small open window. The installation could be pulled back into the kitchen when not being used. At the request of the Tenants' Association, an engineer, Mr S. Tornefelt, examined the installation on 26 August 2004. He found that it was very stable but recommended that, for safety reasons, a steel wire be fixed between the dish and the stand. The applicants made the recommended addition.\n11.  The applicants, as well as the other tenants summoned, contested the landlord's claims before the Rent Review Board. They stated that, by mounting satellite dishes for the reception of television programmes, some of which were broadcast in their mother tongues, they were exercising their freedom to receive information, as protected by the Swedish Constitution, Article 10 of the Convention and EC law. The landlord's interests, as provided for in Chapter 12, section 25 of the Land Code (Jordabalken), had to be balanced against this freedom", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4039", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is an Azerbaijan citizen who was born in 1971 and currently lives in Biedermansdorf, Austria.\n6.  The date of the applicant’s arrival in Lithuania was disputed between the parties. The applicant stated that he had lived in Lithuania since 1989, proof of which was the judgment of 1989 of Vilnius City 2nd District Court by which he was found guilty of theft and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. He claimed that after that trial he was not ordered to leave the country. He also noted that he had arrived in Lithuania before the introduction of the visa regime in the early 1990’s, and that therefore his entry had not been illegal.\n7.  The Government stated that the date of the above-mentioned judgment was not 1989 but 1998, and that the applicant only lawfully entered the territory of Lithuania on 12 March 2001, when he was issued with a single-entry visa.\n8.  On 25 July 1996 LG, the daughter of the applicant and his partner SG, a Lithuanian citizen, was born in Lithuania. In 2001 the applicant was officially registered as the father of LG. The applicant married SG on 21 April 2001. On this basis, on 11 June 2001 he was issued with a temporary residence permit, valid for one year.\n9.  On 16 April 2002 the applicant applied for a renewal of that permit.\n10.  On 14 June 2002 the Migration Department refused to issue a new residence permit on the ground that the applicant posed a “threat to national security and public order”. In this connection the immigration authorities referred to the file classified as “secret”, which had been received from the State Security Department on 10 June 2002.\n11.  On 24 June 2002 the Police Commissariat of the Trakai Region ordered the applicant to leave the territory of the Republic of Lithuania by 4 July 2002.\n12.  On 26 June 2002 the applicant appealed to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, requesting that the decisions of the Migration Department and the Police Commissariat of the Trakai Region be quashed. The applicant argued that he had lived in Lithuania since 1989, from which date he had been granted a temporary residence permit several times, owned real estate in Lithuania, had his own business, had established a non-governmental organisation “Ibrahim and friends”, which aimed to foster the cultural traditions of Azeris residing in Lithuania, and in 1996 had had a daughter with his wife SG, a Lithuanian citizen. The applicant also noted that at the time of the deportation proceedings his wife had been expecting another child.\n13.  On 10 August 2002 the court dismissed the appeal. It relied on the written evidence in the case and, in particular, on the above-mentioned classified report of the State Security Department, which was not disclosed to the applicant, and concluded that the applicant’s continued presence in Lithuania endangered the national security of the country and public order.\n14.  The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. In addition to his previous arguments, he noted that his wife was of Armenian origin and, taking into account the tensions in relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, including the previous military conflicts between the two countries, she would have difficulties integrating in Azerbaijan if the applicant was expelled from Lithuania and she decided to go with him. The applicant maintained that the authorities’ main reason for denying him a residence permit was the classified file in which it was stated that he posed a threat t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4041", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Tarnów, Poland.\n6.  The applicant is a gynaecologist. In August 1995 he set up a company which prepared medical reports at his clients’ request.\n7.  On 12 March 1996 the applicant wrote a report entitled “Civil opinion” (opinia cywilna) on the treatment that Mr J.M. had undergone in the Regional Hepatology Clinic in Tarnów. The opinion described, in a detailed manner, the history of Mr J.M.’s medical treatment since the beginning of the 1980s. The report was based on Mr J.M.’s medical file obtained from the clinics of hepatology and dermatology where he had received treatment. The applicant also relied on the results of a recent medical examination, a biopsy, carried out at the applicant’s initiative by the Cracow University Medical Academy. In his report the applicant established that the patient had been receiving treatment since 1983 at the Tarnów Clinic. However, in spite of the fact that his health had deteriorated and that he had been developing symptoms of liver damage, no specialised examination, that is, a biopsy, had been carried out. A recent liver biopsy, undertaken upon the applicant’s recommendation at the Cracow University Medical Academy, had shown that the patient was suffering from aggressive and chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis (przewlekłe agresywne zapalenie wątroby z marskością wątroby). The applicant considered that the damage to Mr J.M.’s health, due to both his liver condition and dermatological problems, amounted to 90% thus making him eligible to receive the highest group of invalidity allowance. With regard to the treatment received at the Tarnów Hepatology Clinic the applicant’s report stated:\n“...Despite [the patient’s] chronic suffering, of which he had complained constantly during his regular visits, and which was confirmed by examinations indicating a chronic liver condition, the employees of the Clinic had failed to take the actions [necessary] for the health care of [the patient] and his diagnosis. So, despite indications, adequate diligence while diagnosing, informing and providing health care to [the patient] was not displayed.”\nThe opinion also dealt with the treatment of Mr J.M.’s dermatological problems at the Tarnów Dermatology Clinic and concluded that it had been proper and diligent.\n8.  On 2 December 1996 the Tarnów Regional Attorney for Professional Liability (Okręgowy Rzecznik Odpowiedzialności Zawodowej) instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. He was charged with unethical conduct, reference being made to the fact that the applicant’s opinion had discredited the doctors who had been treating the patient. The Regional Attorney relied on Article 52 of the Polish Code of Medical Ethics (Kodeks Etyki Lekarskiej). Moreover, according to the Regional Attorney, in assessing a complicated therapy in which he did not specialise, the applicant had overstepped his professional competences. In his application of 10 March 1997 lodged with the Tarnów Regional Medical Court (Okręgowy Sąd Lekarski), in which he asked for a disciplinary punishment to be imposed on the applicant, the Attorney stated:\n“In the present case the Attorney established that Dr Ryszard Frankowicz, by preparing and giving the patient an opinion in which he included judgments on the professional conduct of other doctors (working in the Tarnów Hepatology Clinic), obviously violated the well-established medical society rules of proper conduct between doctors.\nUnfavourable ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4042", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Olsztyn.\n5.  The applicant’s mother owned a mill situated in Rogoźno, Poland. By virtue of Ordinance no. 425 issued on 6 December 1955, the Minister of Purchase (Minister Skupu) nationalised the mill.\n6.  On 7 June 1990 the applicant’s mother instituted administrative proceedings before the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy (Minister Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej) and the Minister of the Internal Market (Minister Rynku Wewnętrznego). She asked the authorities for restitution of her property.\n7.  On an unspecified date the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy transferred the case file to the Minister of the Internal Market who, on 9 May 1991, gave a decision. It was challenged by the applicant and, on 3 June 1991, the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) gave judgment and quashed the decision.\n8.  On 17 January 1992 the Minister of Industry and Commerce (Minister Przemysłu i Handlu), who had assumed the competencies of the Minister of the Internal Market, transferred the case to the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy.\n9.  On 19 October 1992 the Supreme Administrative Court gave judgment and obliged the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy to give, within 14 days, a decision on the motion lodged on 7 June 1990.\n10.  In April 1995 the applicant’s mother died.\n11.  On 18 April 1996 the Olsztyn District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision declaring that the applicant had acquired her late mother’s inheritance.\n12.  On 30 May 1996 the applicant asked the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy for the immediate enforcement of the judgment of 19 October 1992.\n13.  As the Minister had failed to give any decision, on 19 July 1996 the applicant lodged an inactivity complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court. She also requested that a fine be imposed on the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy and a declaration be granted that the 1955 Ordinance was null and void.\n14.  On 12 May 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the inactivity complaint. It relied on the fact that on 22 April 1998 the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy had given a decision on the merits, whereby the applicant’s restitution motion had been dismissed.\n15.  On 7 May 1998 the applicant made an application to the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy for reconsideration (wniosek o ponowne rozpatrzenie sprawy) of the decision of 22 April 1998.\n16.  On 28 July 2000 the applicant filed another inactivity complaint with the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy.\n17.  As no decision had been given, on 20 October 2000 she lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court a complaint about the inactivity of the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy.\n18.  On 21 December 2000 the Minister of Agriculture and Country Development (Minister Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi), who had assumed the competencies of the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economy, upheld the decision of 22 April 1998.\n19.  On 19 January 2001 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Supreme Administrative Court.\n20.  On 6 March 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings concerning her inactivity complaint, since, on 21 December 2000, the Minister of Agriculture and Country Development had taken the decision in question.\n21.  On 21 November 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court gave judgment and quashed both decisions given by the Minist", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4043", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a private limited liability company with its registered office in Žilina.\n5.  On 1 February 1995 eight persons filed an action with the Žilina District Court. They sued the applicant and the Municipality of Žilina for a sum of money on grounds of unjust enrichment.\n6.  On 24 January 1996 the Žilina District Court delivered a judgment. On 20 June 1996 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for further examination to the Žilina District Court.\n7.  On 16 December 1998 the case was transferred to the Čadca District Court and on 10 July 2001 to the Martin District Court upon decisions of the Žilina Regional Court as to bias on the part of judges.\n8.  On 27 February 2006 the Martin District Court delivered a judgment. The parties appealed and the file was transferred to the Žilina Regional Court on 12 May 2006.\n9.  The plaintiffs’ representative lodged their observations on the applicant’s appeal in August 2006. The case file circulated within the Regional Court until 24 January 2008 when a hearing was scheduled for 19 February 2008. The hearing was adjourned upon an objection by the applicant as to bias on the part of judges.\n10.  On 31 March 2008 the file was transferred to the Supreme Court for a decision on the objection of bias. On 1 April 2008 the Supreme Court decided not to exclude the challenged judges from hearing and deciding on the case.\n11.  On 22 April 2008 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Martin District Court, also because of the latter’s failure to respect the legal opinion of the appellate court given on 20 June 1996.\n12.  On 12 May 2008 the file was transferred to the Martin District Court. In August 2008 the applicant informed the Court that the proceedings were pending.\n13.  The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings before the Žilina, Čadca and Martin District Courts to the Constitutional Court. On 18 January 2006 the Constitutional Court (First Chamber) rejected the applicant’s complaint about unjustified delays in the proceedings before the District Courts in Žilina and Čadca as being belated (as those courts no longer dealt with the case and the complaints had been lodged outside the statutory two-month time-limit).\n14.  On 4 May 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Martin District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay.\n15.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was complex from a factual point of view. However, the Martin District Court had only assessed the evidence adduced before the District Courts in Žilina and Čadca and the duration of the proceedings could not be explained by the complexity of the case. The applicant had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. The Martin District Court had failed to proceed in an appropriate manner and it was responsible for delays totalling 43 months.\n16.  The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 60,000 (the equivalent of 1,612 euros at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the Martin District Court to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs but did not order it to avoid further delays in the proceedings, as that court had delivered its decision on the merits in the meantime.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4044", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Mr Vitalie Levinţa (“the first applicant”) was born in 1971 and Mr Pavel Levinţa (“the second applicant”) was born in 1974. They live in Cahul.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 30 October 2000 the applicants, who are brothers, were arrested in Russia by the local police following a request from the Moldovan authorities. They were suspected of membership of a criminal organisation and of murdering, or attempting to murder, a number of persons in Moldova (see Popovici v. Moldova, nos. 289/04 and 41194/04, 27 November 2007 for more details in respect of other persons accused of membership of the same criminal group). All five of the other persons on trial with the applicants made self-incriminating statements during the pre-trial investigation, and fully accepted their guilt in committing the crimes with which they had been charged. All (with one exception, a former police officer) retracted these statements at a later stage, claiming that they had been tortured in order to extract those statements.\n8.  On 31 October 2000 the applicants were examined by a doctor, who found bruising around their eyes, a bruise on the knee of the first applicant, a reddish area on the chest of the second applicant and marks left by handcuffs on each of the applicants’ wrists. The applicants explained that these injuries had been caused during their arrest.\n9.  On 3 November 2000 they were handed over to the Moldovan police and flown to Moldova, where they were detained in the Chişinău police inspectorate from approximately 3 p.m. According to a document signed by both the Russian and Moldovan authorities, no complaints or other issues were raised by either the applicants or the Moldovan authorities.\n10.  According to the applicants, they were ill-treated throughout the afternoon of 3 November 2000 and the night of 3-4 November by Mr V. Ivarlac, the investigator from the Department in the Prosecutor General’s Office responsible for investigating exceptional cases, and by officers G. Stavila, V. Gusev, V. Ciobănaş and V. Railean from the Chişinău police inspectorate. The officers put gas masks on them and suspended them for hours on a metal bar with their hands tied behind their backs (a method known as “swallow” (ласточка), and somewhat similar to “Palestinian hanging”). While in that position, the applicants were hit with rubber sticks on their bodies and the soles of their feet and weights were hung around their necks. From time to time the flow of air through the gas mask was stopped until they fainted.\n11.  At approximately 3.30 p.m. on 4 November 2000 an ambulance was called to give emergency medical aid to the first applicant. The doctors found bruises on his face and head, and diagnosed him as suffering from contusion of the soft tissues on his face, head trauma and possible post-traumatic encephalopathy (a second-degree emergency). They also noted that “because he is very dangerous, the police have not authorised [the applicant’s] admission to a hospital”.\n12.  The applicants asked to see a lawyer. On 4 November 2000 at approximately 3.30 p.m. the applicants were briefly allowed to meet their lawyers, in the presence of the investigator and police officers, whose presence effectively excluded the possibility of giving proper legal advice. Observing signs of ill-treatment and having spoken to their clients in the presence of the investigator, the lawyers requested a medical examination of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4045", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Ostrów Mazowiecka.\n5.  On 9 November 1992 the applicant lodged with the Ostrów Mazowiecka District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a claim for payment against his ex-employer, a construction company.\n6.  On the same day the case file was sent to the Warszawa District Court which was competent to deal with the subject-matter.\n7.  The first hearing was scheduled for 22 February 1993. It did not take place because on 21 December 1992 the Warszawa District Court stayed the proceedings due to the fact that on 3 December 1992 winding-up proceedings had been instituted against the defendant.\n8.  On 5 April 1994 the applicant’s claim was entered on the list of claims (lista wierzytelności).\n9.  On 27 May 1994 the Warszawa District Court refused to resume the proceedings.\n10.  On 18 September 2000 the Warszawa District Court was informed that the winding-up proceedings had been discontinued.\n11.  The proceedings were resumed on 6 April 2001. On the same day the case was joined to similar claims lodged against the defendant, and registered under a new reference number. The court adjourned the trial until 1 February 2002.\n12.  It appears that between the date when the proceedings were resumed and the day on which the first-instance judgment was given, no hearing took place. The trial was adjourned 11 times on procedural grounds, such as, for example, the appointment of the defendant’s curator then its liquidator, and the need to supplement the evidence and to appoint an expert.\n13.  On 24 July 2006 the Warszawa District Court, following the applicant’s motion, appointed a lawyer for the applicant.\n14.  On 31 October 2006 the Warszawa District Court gave judgment and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the applicant.\n15.  On 18 December 2006 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal. It was rejected by the Warszawa District Court on 9 February 2007 on procedural grounds, i.e. failure to pay the so-called “basic court fee” (opłata podstawowa).\n16.  On 6 December 2006 the applicant lodged with the Warszawa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) which entered into force on 17 September 2004. The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Warszawa District Court had been excessive.\n17.  On 25 January 2007 the Warszawa Regional Court dismissed his complaint. The court examined the course of the impugned proceedings and held that there had been no delays for which the Warszawa District Court could be held responsible, although it admitted that the proceedings had been lengthy.\n18.  On 26 February 2007 the Warszawa Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 25 January 2007 as inadmissible in law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4046", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Sîngerei.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant was convicted of theft and robbery and served his sentence, having been conditionally released on 7 April 1999. On 20 April 2000 he was arrested by the police for resisting them and taken to the police station in Ialoveni. A court found that the applicant had not committed any offence and ordered his release.\n8.  After releasing him, the police immediately re-arrested him and filmed him. Thereafter he was accused of having murdered P., the director of a private company.\n9.  According to the prosecution, the applicant had good relations and was in frequent contact with his former colleague S., who in turn maintained close relations with a company directly competing with that of P. for rice imports from Romania. P. had received a number of threats to make him stop his activity, the latest of which had been on 8 September 1999.\n10.  The prosecution submitted that on 12 September 1999 the applicant and another suspect, who remained unidentified, had waited near P.’s house until he came out with a sports bag in his hand and climbed into a truck that was waiting for him. At that moment (approximately 7 p.m.) the two suspects had opened the passenger door and one had ordered P. at gunpoint to hand over the bag containing 8,700 United States dollars and 12,000 Moldovan lei. P. had kicked the attacker and had been shot three times. He died shortly afterwards. The other suspect had threatened Z., the truck driver, with a knife and ordered him to stay put, and had then taken the bag. He and the applicant then fled into a nearby park.\n11.  The court found that the applicant had never admitted his guilt and that on 20 April 2000 a charge of resisting the police had been fabricated by officers Dodu and Gulea from the Ialoveni police station. After being acquitted of the offence by a court, he had been arrested again by the same police officers.\na.  Statements by the witnesses\n12.  The court examined the statements made by various witnesses in the case. P.’s wife stated that the decision to travel to Romania on business had been taken in the afternoon of 12 September 1999 and that only she, P.’s cousin M.P., a business partner V. and the truck driver Z. had known about this. She confirmed that threats had been made against her husband by agents of the competing company.\n13.  M.P. and V.P., P.’s cousin and brother, were not present at the crime scene but confirmed that threats had been made against P. by agents of the competing company.\n14.  Z., the truck driver, confirmed the attack by two unknown persons. During the investigation he listened to three male voices, including that of the applicant refusing to repeat a standard text, but did not identify either attacker’s voice. He did not recognise the applicant’s voice during the court hearings either. The court concluded that nothing in Z.’s testimony pointed to the applicant’s involvement in the crime.\n15.  C.I., a witness, testified in court that he did not remember the date or month of the event. He had seen two men attack the passenger in the truck and flee past him. He later recognised one of them during the identity parade as being the applicant, who was the shorter of the two attackers; the other had had a black object in his hand. He also recognised the shirt taken from the applicant’s house as having been worn by one of the attackers", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4047", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Katowice.\n5.  On 5 January 1993 the applicant filed with the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a claim for payment of maintenance contributions made between 1987 and 1993 for property located in Katowice, at Stawowa Street.\n6.  On 23 August 1993 the court held a hearing. The applicant was ordered to specify her claim.\n7.  On 23 March 1994 the applicant was urged to specify her claim. On 9 April 1994 the applicant complied with the court’s order.\n8.  On 8 June, 21 September and 30 November 1994 the court held hearings, one of which was adjourned on the applicant’s motion.\n9.  On 7 June 1995 the proceedings were stayed at the parties’ request.\n10.  On 11 November 1997 the applicant lodged an application for resumption of the proceedings. They were resumed after thirteen months – on 16 December 1998.\n11.  On 25 August 2000 the Katowice Regional Court stayed the proceedings pending the completion of civil proceedings for the annulment of a donation contract. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was rejected by the Katowice Court of Appeal on 10 January 2002, following the dismissal of her application for exemption from court fees.\n12.  On 2 March 2004 the applicant lodged an application to resume the proceedings, to no avail.\n13.  On 9 May 2006 the applicant, following the defendant’s death, withdrew her claim.\n14.  On 15 May 2006 the Katowice Regional Court resumed the proceedings.\n15.  On 31 August 2006 the proceedings were discontinued.\n16.  On 28 July 2005 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) which entered into force on 17 September 2004.\n17.  The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Katowice Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).\n18.  On 24 August 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed her complaint. It observed that the provisions of the 2004 Act could be applied only to proceedings pending after 17 September 2004, that is, the date of the entry into force of the 2004 Act. As the main proceedings had been stayed in 2000, the case – in the opinion of that court – was not pending within the meaning of the 2004 Act.\n19.  On 9 December 1996 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Regional Court a claim for payment of maintenance contributions made between 1993 and 1995 for property located in Katowice, at Stawowa Street, together with a request for exemption from court fees.\n20.  On 21 April 1997 the court dismissed the applicant’s request. She appealed against this decision.\n21.  On 11 August 1997 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal.\n22.  On 10 January 1999 the defendant lodged a counterclaim against the applicant, together with a request for exemption from court fees.\n23.  On 12 October 2000 the court, after having examined several requests for exemption from court fees, returned the counterclaim.\n24.  On 28 March, 9 May, 4 June and 30 July 2001 the court held hearings. Five witnesses gave evidence and the court ordered that an expert report be obtained.\n25.  On 13 February 2003 the Katowice Regional Court stayed the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4048", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Volsk, a town in the Saratov Region.\n5.  In 2001–2006 the applicant participated in three actions.\n6.  In his first action the applicant applied to a court for the status as a Chernobyl victim. On 4 December 2002 the Volsk Town Court rejected this claim. The applicant did not lodge an ordinary appeal against this judgment.\n7.  In his second action the applicant sued his former employer, the Tax Police, for an extension of his working record, which would result in an increase of his pension. On 4 February 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saratov obliged the defendant to formally include in the applicant’s working record his employment preceding the service in the Tax Police. This judgment became binding on 20 February 2004, but the Tax Police failed to update the applicant’s working record. The applicant sought the assistance of bailiffs in the enforcement of this award, but on 4 November 2004 bailiffs stopped the enforcement proceedings because in July 2004 the Tax Police had been disbanded.\n8.  In his third action the applicant resubmitted his previous claim against the successor of the Tax Police – the Saratov Regional Police. He asked to formally include in his working record his employment preceding the service in the Tax Police. On 27 May 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Saratov granted this claim, and obliged the defendant to formally include in the applicant’s working record his employment preceding the service in the Tax Police and to recalculate his pension accordingly. This judgment became binding on 18 July 2005.\n9.  On the Regional Police’s request, the President of the Saratov Regional Court applied for a supervisory review of this judgment. The supervisory-review hearing was fixed for 3 April 2006. According to the Government, on 21 March 2006 the court mailed to the applicant a summons and left a telephone message with his wife.\n10.  On 3 April 2006 the Presidium of Regional Court quashed the judgment on the ground that the courts below had misinterpreted material laws. This hearing was chaired by the President of the Regional Court. The applicant was absent from this hearing.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4049", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Nekhvoroshch, in the Cherkasy Region.\n6.  By decision of the Gorodyshche District Court of 21 May 1997, upheld on appeal by the Cherkasy Regional Court on 12 August 1997, the applicant was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.\n7.  Between 18 August 1997 and 3 December 2002 the applicant was detained in Vinnytsia penitentiary no. 86.\n8.  According to the applicant, the sanitary conditions in this prison were poor in that dishes used by inmates were not properly washed after use, thus entailing an increased risk for detainees of contracting tuberculosis. Furthermore, the detainees were woken up very early and assembled for morning exercises in the prison yard without due regard being had to weather conditions.\n9.  In December 2002 the applicant was moved to penitentiary no. 113, with a less strict regime, where detainees could enjoy relative freedom of movement. In that penitentiary, according to the applicant, the food and the living conditions were inadequate and the detainees were used as a source of cheap labour for the administration’s benefit.\n10.  In neither of the penitentiaries, allegedly, did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment for unspecified medical conditions.\n11.  According to the Government, the conditions of the applicant’s detention in these penitentiaries, including the quality of medical care, were adequate.\n12.  In June 2003 the applicant was released on probation and returned to his home in Nekhvoroshch.\n13.  On 28 October 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of hooliganism and theft and detained in the Korsun-Shevchenkivsky town police station.\n14.  On 31 October 2003 the Korsun-Shevchenkivsky District Court remanded the applicant in custody.\n15.  On the same date the applicant requested the Korsun-Shevchenkivsky Prosecutor’s Office to institute criminal proceedings against several police officers, who had allegedly inflicted bodily injuries on him in order to force him to confess.\n16.  On 11 November 2003 the applicant underwent a medical examination and was found to be fit for detention, although he had a fractured rib. According to the applicant, he also suffered other injuries at the hands of the police, including a major head injury, which was not recorded. He did not, however, lodge any complaints concerning the adequacy of the medical examination at the relevant time.\n17.  On 30 January 2004 the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings to investigate the applicant’s ill-treatment complaint, having found it groundless. It referred to the findings of the medical commission that the applicant had been fit for detention and to the testimonies of the investigator and police officers who had participated in his arrest. All officers denied the applicant’s allegations concerning ill-treatment. The four police officers who had taken part in the arrest operation, however, admitted that they could have inflicted minor injuries on the applicant when arresting him. In their opinion the application of force had, however, been proportionate, since the applicant, who had gone into hiding after his disorderly conduct on 25 October 2003, had vigorously resisted his arrest and threatened the officers with a loaded rifle. The applicant did not appeal against that decision in court.\n18.  On 20 December 2004 the Korsun-Shevchenkivsky District Court convicted the applicant of hooliganism, acquitt", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4050", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is currently detained in the prison of Zhovti Vody, Ukraine.\n5.  On 8 June 1997 the applicant killed Mr R. and Mr Sh. and inflicted grievous bodily harm on Mr S. and Mr Sch. after a quarrel in a pub with a number of youths. The applicant received minor injuries. The applicant alleged that he had confronted the above persons with a knife after the quarrel in a pub since he and his friend, Mrs M., had been attacked.\n6.  On 8 June 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated murder. He was suspected of having killed Mr R. and Mr Sh. and inflicted grievous bodily harm on Mr S. and Mr Sch.\n7.  On 11 June 1997 the applicant was formally charged with two counts of aggravated intentional murder. On the same day the prosecutor authorised his detention on remand.\n8.  On 1 August 1997 the prosecutor extended the applicant’s detention on remand and the term of pre-trial investigation up to three months.\n9.  On 1 September 1997 the charges against the applicant were amended: he was accused of exceeding the limits of necessary defence which resulted in killing two persons and in inflicting grievous bodily harm on two others.\n10.  On 3 October 1997 the investigation was completed and the case was referred to the Kyivskiy District Court of Kharkiv.\n11.  On 3 November 1997 the case was referred from the Kyivskiy District Court of Kharkiv to the Kominternovskiy District Court of Kharkiv for examination on the merits.\n12.  On 11 June 1999 a judge of the Kominternovskiy District Court of Kharkiv remitted the case to the Kyivskiy District Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv for additional investigation. The court ordered the investigative authorities to find all witnesses in the case and question them, hold a confrontation between them, find the persons who participated in the quarrel and inflicted minor bodily injuries on the applicant and Mrs M. The court also requested a reconstruction of the events and additional forensic examination if the latter appeared to be necessary. The court also requested to check whether the charges against the applicant should be re-qualified under Article 93 of the Criminal Code.\n13.  On 30 August 1999 the investigation in the case was reopened.\n14.  On 28 September 1999 the applicant was charged with exceeding the limits of necessary defence which resulted in killing two persons and in inflicting grievous bodily harm on two others.\n15.  On 1 November 1999 the case was referred to the Kominternovskiy District Court of Kharkiv.\n16.  On 26 November 1999 a judge of the Kominternovskiy District Court of Kharkiv remitted the case to the Kyivskiy District Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv for additional investigation. The court ordered that a reconstruction of events be held and then a forensic examination be conducted if it appeared to be necessary.\n17.  On 7 April 2000 the investigation in the case was reopened.\n18.  On 6 May 2000 the applicant was again charged with exceeding the limits of necessary defence which resulted in killing two persons and in inflicting grievous bodily harm on two others.\n19.  On 6 May 2000 the case was referred to the Kominternovskiy District Court of Kharkiv.\n20.  On 18 May 2000 a judge of the Kominternovskiy District Court of Kharkiv remitted the case for additional investigation on the ground that the investigative authorities had failed to comply with the requirements contained in the ruling of 26 November 1999.\n21.  On 30 May 2000 the investigation in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4051", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the town of Karachev in the Bryansk Region.\n5.  In January 1999 the applicant, a former military officer, sent a letter to the commander of military unit no. 64176, who supervised the command of unit no. 92919. The letter read as follows:\n“On 24 December 1998 the command of military unit no. 92919 held a meeting of war veterans ... who live in the military compound. The meeting adopted an open letter to the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation with a request to return the town baths to the compound residents and to stop discrimination against the residents on account of their social or official status ...\nCommanders of the military unit conduct themselves as ‘usurpers, invaders and occupants’. In a short period of time the new commander of military unit no. 92919, Colonel Shatov, destroyed the town dance hall and the warehouse for vegetables, locked up the leisure centre of the unit, performed an unauthorised dismantling of the bus park and threw everyone out of the bathhouse which he converted into a ‘brothel’ for a narrow circle of chosen ones.”\n6.  Mr Shatov lodged a defamation action against the applicant, claiming that the letter of January 1999 had impaired his honour and dignity. He sought compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage and a written apology, enclosing its proposed text.\n7.  By judgment of 13 July 2000, the Karachevskiy District Court of the Bryansk Region found for the plaintiff. It established that the dance hall and the warehouse had been indeed dismantled, but the materials had been used for the needs of the military unit, that the leisure centre was open, and that the soldiers and officers and their family members could still use the baths. The court noted that the document the applicant produced to prove the dismantling of the bus park could not be used in evidence as it bore no stamp.\n8.  The District Court found that the information stated in the letter of January 1999 had been untrue and damaging to Mr Shatov’s honour and dignity, and ordered as follows:\n“Pursuant to Articles 152 § 5 and 151 of the Civil Code, the court orders [the applicant] to pay Mr Shatov 500 Russian roubles in respect of non-pecuniary damage because the allegations about Mr Shatov’s ‘discrimination against citizens, [his acting as an] usurper, invader, occupant, destruction of the dance hall and the warehouse, unauthorised dismantling of the bus park and throwing everyone out of the bathhouse which he converted into a ‘brothel’ for a narrow circle’ have impaired Mr Shatov’s honour and dignity...\n...to order that [the applicant] make a written apology to Mr Shatov within one month, worded as follows: “In January 1999 I, [the applicant], sent to the commander of military unit no. 64176 a letter containing information on your professional activities, which was untrue and damaging to your honour and dignity. This fact was established by the Karachevskiy District Court on 13 July 2000. I apologise to you for having disseminated such information, for undermining your authority in the eyes of your subordinates and superiors, compound residents and the Karachev town residents, and for causing you personal suffering”;\n...and to make an apology to the commander of military unit no. 64176 of Moscow worded as follows “In January 1999 I, [the applicant], sent you a letter containing information on the professional activities of the commander of military unit no. 92919, Mr Shatov, which was", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4052", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1961 and 1979 respectively and live in Baku.\n6.  The first applicant was the acting chief editor of the Müxalifət newspaper. The second applicant was a journalist working for the same newspaper.\n7.  In its issue of 12-18 April 2003, the newspaper published an article named “Grain Mafia in Azerbaijan” (“Azərbaycanda taxıl mafiyası”), under the by-line of Samir Sharif, a pseudonym of the second applicant. The article was accompanied by a picture of J.A., who was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a well-known expert in agriculture, and a member of the Milli Mejlis (Parliament). The article generally spoke about a number of problems in the country’s agricultural sector. It also appeared to imply, amongst other things, that J.A. was in charge of the breeding of certain experimental crops in “experimental” fields in several agricultural regions. J.A.’s name was printed in full in the article itself.\n8.  Specifically, the article read as follows (translated from Azerbaijani):\n“[President] Heydar Aliyev’s famous conference in Sumgait was rich in memorable moments. Naturally, in the essence of this richness, it is impossible not to notice the scale of arbitrariness and corruption and how the entire nation is held up to ridicule. But we are not talking about the dismissal ... of [certain government officials] for reasons which remain obscure to many.\nWe are also not talking about how it was far from logical to accuse of stinginess a businessman named Isgandarov who has spent more than 30,000 dollars on charity in one year, while not a single member of the clan which has misappropriated billions of dollars of the country’s wealth is willing to expend a penny on development of our motherland. What is interesting is that the Head of State accused the people, whom he had turned into an object of reproach, of nepotism ... and monopolisation of the private sector in Sumgait. Aliyev says that he has refused to appoint his relatives to any [official] positions despite [having received] insistent requests in this regard. But what he does not say is that there is no person in this country other than the son Aliyev who simultaneously occupies four “armchairs”. Speaking of seizing control over [well-to-do sectors of economy], today even a baby who is just learning to speak knows which people control such a huge sphere of the Azerbaijani economy as the agricultural sector. Thousands of hectares of fertile land in Azerbaijan have been turned into an experimental zone for “valuable sorts” of grains. For almost ten years the agricultural sector has been plundered as if it were in the private ownership of the certain known person.\nDuring the Soviet period agriculture was the main contributor to the gross domestic product and the main area of the population’s employment. However, in the Aliyev era of independence, the agrarian sector, like all other sectors of the economy, has been monopolised to serve the interests of peri-governmental circles. With the exception of grain and livestock farming, other leading branches of agriculture have slumped. The productivity level of poultry farming has decreased from 143,000 tonnes in 1995 to 35,000 tonnes in 2002. Viticulture can be said to have been completely ruined, while cotton growing is in such an acute state of decline that within the last 10 years its share in the total agricultural product has decreased from 12-13% to 2%. As a result of appropriation of the cotton-process", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4053", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Wolfurt.\n5.  By decision of 17 November 1998 the Hard municipality granted a request by H., a building company, for permission to construct an apartment block, situated next to the applicant’s property. H. carried out the construction work and, since the building deviated from one of the authorised height levels by 21 centimetres, it requested an amendment of the building permit on 19 November 1999.\n6.  On 7 February 2000 the mayor of Hard granted the amended building permit. He dismissed the applicant’s objection that the ramp of the building’s underground car park failed to comply with the statutory distance from his property.\n7.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Hard Municipal Council (Gemeinderat) on 23 February 2000. He alleged, in particular, that the covered ramp of the underground car park did not constitute a construction (Bauwerk) within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Vorarlberg Building Act, for which a distance of two metres from the adjacent property was required, but was a part of the building within the meaning of section 2(g) of the said Act, for which a minimum distance of three metres had to be observed. In addition he claimed that, at any rate, the ramp was too high.\n8.  On 12 December 2000 the Hard Municipal Council dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It found that the applicant had failed to raise his argument in the initial proceedings concerning the building permit and was therefore precluded from raising it now in the proceedings concerning a mere request for amendment of the building permit. In any event, the covered ramp to the underground car park could neither be classified as a building or part of a building, but qualified as a construction within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Vorarlberg Building Act. The minimum distance from the applicant’s plot of land was therefore two metres and had in fact been respected.\n9.  Subsequently, on 28 December 2000 the applicant filed an objection (Vorstellung) with the Bregenz District Administrative Authority, contesting the Municipal Council’s competence, because the respective appeals commission had not been duly composed following municipal elections. In addition, he repeated that the amendment of the permit did not only involve minor changes, but constituted an overall change of the project.\n10.  On 31 May 2001 the District Administrative Authority dismissed the applicant’s objection.\n11.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court on 20 July 2001, repeating his arguments. Moreover, he requested an oral hearing.\n12.  On 28 September 2001 the District Administrative Authority submitted its observations.\n13.  On 20 March 2003 the Administrative Court, without a hearing, quashed the District Administrative Authority’s decision and remitted the case back to it. Referring to a previous decision in a similar case, it found that contrary to section 53 of the Vorarlberg Municipal Act the Municipal Council’s decision had been signed by the mayor and not by the president of the appeals commission.\n14.  On 14 May 2003 the District Administrative Authority granted the applicant’s objection of 28 December 2000 and remitted the case to the Hard Municipal Council.\n15.  Upholding its decision of 12 December 2000, the Municipal Council again dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 19 August 2003.\n16.  On 2 September 2003 the applicant lodged a further objection (Vorstellung) with the Bregenz District Administ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4054", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Makiyivka.\n6.  At about 6.30 a.m. on 13 November 1995 Mr O.M. was found in a cultivated forest near a railway station, with four gunshot wounds, from which he died the same day in a hospital some two hours later.\n7.  On 17 November 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having murdered Mr O.M. In the course of a subsequent search of the applicant’s house 1,500 dollars (USD) were seized.\n8.  Between 17 November 1995 and 13 December 1996 the applicant was held in custody in the Donetsk Investigative Isolation Unit (SIZO). According to the applicant, the conditions in which he was held were inhuman and degrading. Furthermore, the police allegedly tortured him to obtain a confession.\n9.  The applicant consistently denied any involvement in the murder. He acknowledged that on 12 November 1995 his classmate Mr A.F. had driven him to the site of the incident, as he had wanted to see the place, where he had planned a business meeting for 13 November 1995 with a certain Andrey, whose other details he did not know. The following day Mr A.F again accompanied the applicant to the same place along with his father in their car and waited for him nearby. The applicant met Andrey on the railroad bridge as agreed. Andrey took the applicant’s jacket. When the applicant saw two men fire at a passer-by, he became scared and ran through the forest to Mr A.F.’s car and they drove away. During the trip, the applicant threw away his boots and his gloves, as he had realised that other passers-by could have seen him and implicated him in the incident.\n10.  On 18 November 1995 Mr N.L., the applicant’s acquaintance, who was a shareholder and a driver in a company managed by Mrs O.M., the victim’s widow, was questioned by the police concerning the murder. As he was questioned as a witness, Mr N.L. was warned of his obligation to provide all the information known to him on pain of criminal sanctions and was not offered the option to consult with a lawyer. He confessed to having hired the applicant to kill Mr O.M. and to having paid him USD 2,000 in advance and USD 10,000 post factum. He also testified that on the eve of the murder the applicant had shown him the gun he had acquired to kill Mr O.M. Soon afterwards Mr N.L. was indicted for incitement to murder. Following his indictment and purportedly a consultation with a lawyer, he retracted his confession and subsequently consistently denied his or the applicant’s involvement in the events throughout the course of the proceedings.\n11.  On 21 November 1995 Mr N.L. complained to the prosecutor’s office that the police officers who had questioned him had put him under severe psychological pressure, including threats to accuse him of a capital offence, to have him beaten and raped and to harm his wife and daughter unless he identified the applicant as the killer of Mr O.M. On an unspecified date Mr N.L. also complained that two unknown individuals had attacked him on the porch of his house and told him to confess to his involvement in the murder if he wanted to spare his family serious trouble. The parties did not provide any information concerning the authorities’ reaction to these complaints.\n12.  On an unspecified date the case against the applicant and Mr N.L. was referred for trial to the Donetsk Regional Court. According to the prosecution, the applicant was guilty of murder for profit, unlawful possession of firearms and unlawful transactions in foreign cu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4055", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first and second applicants, Mr Oleg Volodymyrovych Kats and Mrs Tetiana Yakivna Kats, born in 1946, are the father and mother of the late Ms Olga Olegivna Biliak (hereinafter Olga Biliak), who was born in 1971 and died in 2004. The third applicant, Mr Stanislav Ihorovych Beliak, born in 1993, is the son of Olga Biliak. All three applicants live in Kyiv.\n7.  Olga Biliak had a history of mental illness and drug addiction. At the time of her arrest, she was a registered schizophrenic and infected with HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus).\n8.  On 18 November 2002 the Solomyanskyy District Police Department of Kyiv (Солом'янське РУ ГУ МВС України в м. Києві – “the District Police Department”) instituted criminal proceedings against Olga Biliak and S. for assaulting and robbing a certain A. On 15 January 2003 the cases against Olga Biliak and S. were disjoined. S. was subsequently sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for assault and robbery committed jointly with “another person”.\n9.  On 16 April 2003 Olga Biliak was charged with robbery.\n10.  On the next day the Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv (Солом'янський районний суд м. Києва – “the Solomyanskyy Court”) ordered Olga Biliak's pre-trial detention.\n11.  On 27 August 2003 the Solomyanskyy Court convicted Olga Biliak of robbery and sentenced her to eight and a half years' imprisonment.\n12.  On 25 November 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд м. Києва – “the Court of Appeal”), following an appeal by Olga Biliak, quashed this judgment, remitted the case for further investigation and decided – without stating any grounds – that she should remain in detention. From that point on, according to the applicants, no investigative action was taken and Olga Biliak was on no occasion visited by the investigator.\n13.  On 1 February 2004 Olga Biliak died in pre-trial detention.\n14.  On 23 August 2004 the District Police Department discontinued the proceedings against Olga Biliak, in view of her death.\n15.  On 30 December 2004 the Solomyanskyy Court quashed the District Police Department's ruling and ordered the rehearing of the case. On 29 March 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed a prosecution appeal against this decision.\n16.  On 31 January 2006 the Solomyanskyy Court found Olga Biliak guilty of robbery and discontinued the proceedings against her because of her death.\n17.  On 7 November 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld Olga Biliak's conviction. On the same date that court issued a separate ruling to the effect that, in breach of Article 165-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 20 of the Pre-trial Detention Act, the authorities had failed to implement immediately the investigator's decision to release Olga Biliak (see paragraph 45 below). The Court of Appeal decided to bring this violation of the domestic law to the attention of the Kyiv City Prosecutor (прокурор міста Києва).\n18.  On 14 June 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed the decisions of 31 January and 7 November 2006, including separate rulings, and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the first-instance court. The proceedings are apparently still pending.\n19.  The applicants complained on many occasions that the real reason behind Olga Biliak's prosecution was revenge for her refusal to cooperate with officers T. and N. from the Anti-Narcotics Police Department (Відділ по боротьбі з незаконним обігом наркотиків), who had allegedly proposed that she sell drugs seized by the police from street dea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4056", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Perm, the Perm Region. He is a retired military officer.\n6.  At the material time the applicant performed his military service at the Department of Military Science of the Perm State Technical University. He sued the authorities for repayment of arrears in respect of the food allowance.\n7.  On 15 July 1998 the Perm Garrison Military Court granted the applicant’s action in part. The court established that the applicant was receiving the food allowance from military unit 04163 of the Privolzhskiy Military Circuit and ordered the Catering Service of the Privolzhskiy Military Circuit to pay him monetary compensation instead of uncollected food allowance for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 July 1998, the amount of compensation to be calculated on the basis of the real value of the food allowance at the day of payment. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 25 July 1998.\n8.  On 15 March 1999 the Perm Garrison Military Court amended the operative part of the judgment and ordered the respondent authority to pay to the applicant 9,807.27 Russian Roubles (RUB) in arrears relating to the food allowance. The judgment entered into force ten days later.\n9.  On 16 March 1999 the writ of execution was issued in respect of the judgment and on 29 March 1999 the enforcement proceedings were opened by the bailiffs.\n10.  As from 22 November 1999 the employees of the Department of Military Science of the Perm State Technical University started receiving the food allowance from the Perm Military Missile Force Institute (“the Institute”). The applicant forwarded the judgments of 15 July 1998 and 15 March 1999 to the Institute, for repayment of the allowances due to him before his dismissal from the military service.\n11.  On 14 April 2000 the Institute proposed to pay the applicant RUB 4,853.33 of the uncollected food allowance in respect of the period specified in the judgment of 15 July 1998. The applicant refused to accept the payment, since he was entitled to a bigger sum pursuant to the judgment.\n12.  On 15 April 2000 the applicant was dismissed from military service.\n13.  At some point he asked the Perm Garrison Military Court to replace the defendant in his case by the Catering Service of the Institute.\n14.  On 4 May 2000 the Perm Garrison Military Court informed the applicant that his motion could not be examined, since the enforcement proceedings were pending in respect of the judgment and the writ of execution was with the bailiffs’ office, and invited the applicant to address his inquiries directly to the bailiffs.\n15.  On 12 May 2000 the Missile Force Institute paid to the applicant RUB 11,840 in respect of the food allowance for the period from August 1998 to April 2000. According to the applicant, the Institute refused to make any payments in respect of the period between 1 January 1997 to 31 July 1998, since the compensation for the unpaid allowance in respect of this period should have been paid to him by the Catering Service of the Privolzhskiy Military Circuit, as ordered by the judgments of 15 July 1998 and 15 March 1999.\n16.  On 15 June 2000 and 15 August 2000 the bailiff fined the Head of the respondent service for the failure to comply with the judgment. The decisions to impose the fines were annulled by the Leninskiy District Court of Samara, on 6 July 2000 and 2 October 2000 respectively.\n17.  On 31 July 2001 the bailiffs concluded that the execution was impossible, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4057", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Dushanbe, a city in Tajikistan.\n5.  At the material time the applicant was a colonel of the Russian Border Guard Service. In 1996 he requested an early discharge for health reasons. Under domestic law, long-serving servicemen in need of better housing (the applicant met these conditions) could be discharged against their will only if the command provided them with such housing. When asking for discharge, the applicant specified that he wished to receive the housing.\n6.  Since no housing was provided, the applicant sued his command. On 21 January 1998 the Military Court 10514 ordered the Director of the Border Guard Service to discharge the applicant with the provision of housing in Russia, and to pay 7,000 Russian roubles (RUB) by way of non-pecuniary damages. This judgment became binding on 31 January 1998.\n7.  From March 1998 to August 2006 the command offered the applicant flats in Vyazma (Smolensk Region), Kursk (Kursk Region), Kovrov (Vladimir Region), Galich (Kostroma Region), Voronezh (Voronezh Region), and Krasnodar (Krasnodar Region). The applicant rejected these offers because he wished to receive a flat in Tver.\n8.  For this reason, the applicant once again sued his command. On 8 February 2002 the Military Court of Garrison 109 ordered the Director of the Border Guard to discharge the applicant with the provision of housing in Russia and to pay RUB 5,000 by way of non-pecuniary damages. This judgment became binding on 16 April 2002 after the appeal court had upheld it having specified that the housing should be provided in Tver.\n9.  In October 2006, December 2006, and June 2007 the command offered the applicant three flats in Tver. The applicant rejected these offers because he considered that the command should have first satisfied his claims for other benefits, and because he disliked the flats’ characteristics.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4058", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 24 May 2003 the applicants founded an association named “Azerbaijani Lawyers Forum” (“Azərbaycan Hüquqşünaslarının Forumu” İctimai Birliyi). This was a non-profit organisation established with the purpose of carrying out various activities aimed at further democratisation of society, the formation of a state governed by the rule of law, liaison between lawyers, and the protection of their professional interests.\n6.  On 23 June 2003 the applicants lodged a request for the association’s state registration with the Ministry of Justice (hereafter also referred to as “the Ministry”), the government authority responsible for the state registration of legal entities. In accordance with the domestic law, a non‑governmental organisation acquired the status of legal entity only upon its state registration by the Ministry of Justice.\n7.  Under the Law on State Registration of Legal Entities of 6 February 1996 (“the Old State Registration Act”), applicable at that time, the Ministry was obliged to respond to the applicants’ registration request within ten days after receipt of the request. However, the applicants did not receive any response for several months.\n8.  In March 2004 the applicants lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court, complaining that the Ministry had “evaded” registering their organisation and asking the court to compel the Ministry to register it. They claimed that the delay in state registration constituted a violation of their right to freedom of association under Article 58 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the Convention, and demanded compensation for non‑pecuniary damage.\n9.  In its pleadings submitted to the court in reply to the applicants’ claim, the Ministry of Justice argued that on 18 February 2004 it had sent an official response to the association’s legal address. However, the postal service had not been able to deliver it because there had been a mistake in the recipient’s address printed on the envelope. The Ministry re-sent the official response to the correct address on 28 June 2004. In that response, the Ministry noted that it was returning the registration documents to the applicants “without taking any action”, that is to say without issuing a state registration certificate or an official refusal to register the association. The reason was the applicants’ failure to include the description of the association’s activity in its name, as required by Article 3.1 of the Law on Non-Governmental Organisations (Associations and Funds), and to approve the association’s charter, by signing it, as required by Article 47.1 of the Civil Code.\n10.  On 24 January 2005 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicants’ claim. The court found that the Ministry had issued a formal response to the applicants’ registration request on 18 February 2004, although the applicants did not receive it at that time owing to an unintentional mistake in the recipient’s address. The court further dismissed the applicants’ claim that the Ministry had failed to comply with the ten-day time-limit laid down by the Old State Registration Act. The court noted that, in the meantime, on 9 January 2004 a new Law on State Registration and the State Register of Legal Entities (“the New State Registration Act”) had entered into force and superseded the Old State Registration Act. In accordance with the New State Registration Act, the time-limit for the Ministry’s formal response to a registration request was extended to 40 working d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4059", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Kyiv.\n6.  On 30 November 2006 the applicant was apprehended by the police in Kyiv under the international arrest warrant issued by the General Prosecutor’s Office of Belarus.\n7.  On 1 December 2006 the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv ordered the applicant’s detention for forty days pending an official request for his extradition to Belarus and in order to effect his transfer to the law enforcement authorities of Belarus.\n8.  On 4 December 2006 the applicant appealed against the decision of 1 December 2006. He contended that the first instance court had not taken into account his state of health and the fact that he, together with his wife and three minor children, had been residing in Ukraine for a long period of time, and that the court had not examined the applicant’s submissions concerning his political persecution in Belarus.\n9.  On 7 December 2006 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 1 December 2006. It held that the first instance court had duly taken into account the applicant’s state of health. However, it took the view that his family situation was irrelevant for the case and that the applicant’s allegations of political persecution in Belarus were unsubstantiated.\n10.  On 8 December 2006 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Republic of Belarus submitted an official request to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine, seeking the applicant’s extradition to Belarus.\n11.  By letter of 25 December 2006 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine informed the Belarusian Deputy Prosecutor General that the applicant would not be extradited on the ground that, under Ukrainian law, the charges against the applicant did not carry imprisonment.\n12.  On 27 December 2006 the applicant was released from detention.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4060", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Zara Khasanovna Nasukhanova, born in 1954;\n2) Mr Magomed Dulayevich Kasumov, born in 1936;\n3) Ms Razet Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1976;\n4) Ms Luiza Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1981;\n5) Ms Kristina Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1984; and\n6) Ms Kamila Magomedovna Kasumova, born in 1982.\nThey live in the village of Pervomayskaya of the Grozny District of the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The first and second applicants are parents of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants and of Mr Ruslan Magomedovich Kasumov, born in 1974.\n8.  On the night of 2 to 3 February 2003 Ruslan Kasumov stayed overnight at the house of his relative, Mr Sh.D., at 4 Proletarskiy Alley, the village of Pervomayskaya. At about 2 a.m. on 3 February 2003 four armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and four Ural vehicles pulled up in front of that house and around thirty armed men wearing camouflage uniforms broke inside it. Some of them wore masks. The men did not identify themselves; they shouted at the inhabitants in Russian. Then they took Mr Sh.D. and Ruslan Kasumov to the courtyard and demanded their names. Having heard the reply, they let Mr Sh.D. go back in the house and loaded Ruslan Kasumov into one of the APCs. Then the vehicles drove away in the direction of the village of Ken-Yurt. Mr Sh.D.’s wife, Ms Tamara Kh., noticed that one of the APCs had registration number 907.\n9.  The applicants have had no further news of Ruslan Kasumov.\n(b)  Apprehension of Mr A.D.\n10.  At about 2 a.m. on 3 February 2003 a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms broke into the house of Mr Sh.D.’s brother, Mr A.D., at 3 Proletarskiy Alley, the village of Pervomayskaya. They took Mr A.D., handcuffed him, asked his family name and dragged him out of the house. Then they put a T-shirt on his head so that Mr A.D. could not see their faces. One of the servicemen again asked Mr A.D.’s last name, said that they would clear things up later and put Mr A.D. into an APC. The vehicle travelled for about thirty minutes and then stopped. Mr A.D. heard a man asking someone if he could identify Mr A.D., who had a torch shone in his face. The reply was negative. The men questioned Mr A.D., asking him whether he had participated in illegal armed groups or assisted rebels. Some twenty to thirty minutes later one of the men unlocked the handcuffs and left Mr A.D. lying on the ground. The men got into the vehicles and drove in the direction of the village of Ken-Yurt. Mr A.D. waited for a few moments and ran home.\n11.  At about 3 a.m. on 3 February 2003 unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with machine guns arrived in the village of Pervomayskaya and kidnapped Ruslan Kasumov from the house at 3 Proletarskiy Alley.\n12.  In the morning of 3 February 2003 the applicants learned of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction and complained about it to several military commanders’ offices and to the prosecutor’s office of the Grozny District (“the district prosecutor’s office”). Further, they continued to search for their relative and repeatedly contacted the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms (“the Special Envoy”), the Russian President, the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office, the military prosecutors’ offices, the Administration of the Chechen Republic and the Ombudsman of the Chechen Republic. In the applications they described the circumstances of Ruslan Kasumov’s abduction and asked for assistance", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4061", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1951 and 1954 respectively and live in Istra, a town in the Moscow Region.\n5.  Following their renunciation of Russian citizenship in 2000, the applicants were engaged in three actions against the police.\n6.  On 28 March 2003 the Istra Town Court awarded each applicant against the Police Passport Service 410.75 Russian roubles (RUB) for non-pecuniary damage and costs caused by the Service’s refusal to issue identity and residence papers. This judgment became binding on 8 April 2003 and was enforced on 9 October 2006.\n7.  On 15 October 2003 the Justice of the Peace of Circuit 61 of the Istra District awarded each applicant against the Police Passport Service RUB 505 for non-pecuniary damage and costs caused by defamation. This judgment became binding on 16 October 2003 and was enforced on 9 October 2006.\n8.  On 2 December 2003 the Justice of the Peace of Circuit 61 of the Istra District awarded the second applicant against the Police Passport Service RUB 5,000 for costs. This judgment became binding on 13 December 2003 and was enforced on 9 October 2006.\n9.  On 6 December 2006 the awards were adjusted for the cost of living, and on 22 June 2007 the sum of the adjustment was paid to the applicants.\n10.  In separate proceedings that lasted from February 2005 to December 2005 the applicants challenged in courts a bailiff’s return of enforcement papers.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4062", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Skopje.\n5.  On 3 April 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the then Skopje Municipal Court (Општински Суд Скопје) (“the first-instance court”) against the Copyright Agency of Macedonia-Skopje (“the company”) claiming payment of an outstanding dividend. He alleged that the company’s restructuring had been unlawful and that the latter had not calculated his salary in compliance with the applicable legislation at that time (the applicant alleged that the company had not been fully privatised and that accordingly, it should have applied legislation concerning socially-owned enterprises). He further claimed that the company had misappropriated part of its profits and distributed them to its employees as salaries. In that latter context, he claimed a higher dividend than he had actually received (he claimed to have possessed 13.63% of the company’s capital and not 11.918%).\n6.  On 17 February 1997 the court ordered an expert examination of the applicant’s claim. It appears that the expert report was produced in August 1997.\n7.  On 29 May 1997 the applicant brought a separate civil action against the company’s manager. On 25 December 1997 the first-instance court joined the two applications since they concerned the same issues of facts and law.\n8.  On 3 December 1997 the applicant unsuccessfully proposed a friendly settlement of the case.\n9.  In September 1998 the applicant successfully applied for the removal of the judge sitting in his case. The sitting judge also asked to withdraw due to the applicant’s difficult behaviour, namely that he had repeatedly accused the courts and experts of bias and incompetence.\n10.  None of five hearings fixed between 25 November 1999 and 5 October 2000 was adjourned at the applicant’s request.\n11.  On 29 November 2000 the chairman of the panel deciding the applicant’s case withdrew because the applicant had brought criminal charges against her. The latter were rejected by the public prosecutor.\n12.  Hearings listed on 29 May, 12 July and 21 December 2001 and 14 February 2002 were rescheduled due to the absence of the sitting judge or the incorrect summoning of the defendants.\n13.  By submissions of 18 November 1998, 4 May 1999, 25 April 2000, 25 April 2001 and 1 March 2002, the applicant submitted further applications increasing his claim.\n14.  On 28 March 2002 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 4 September 2002 this decision was served on the applicant.\n15.  On 19 December 2002 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant on 18 September 2002.\n16.  On 12 February 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (ревизија) with the Supreme Court. On 5 and 20 March 2003 he filed supplements to his appeal.\n17.  On 23 June 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. This decision was served on him on 16 December 2004.\n18.  On 20 December 2004 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification of its decision, which had been in fact a request for a fresh decision on the merits.\n19.  The composition of the first-instance court’s panel changed four times during the proceedings in question.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4063", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are mother and daughter. They were born in 1945 and 1972 respectively, and live in Kyiv, Ukraine.\n5.  At the material time the companies “Spetsenergobud” (дочірнє підприємство «Спеценергобуд») (a subsidiary of “Kyivenergobud” (ВАТ «Київенергобуд»)) and “Atomspetsbud” (Державна будівельно-промислова компанія «Атомспецбуд») were owned by the State. By 29 May 1996 “Kyivenergobud” had been privatised and the State no longer held any shares in it. Atomspetsbud is still owned by the State.\n6.  Spetsenergobud and Atomspetsbut were engaged in work on eliminating the consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe.\n7.  On 8 December 1998 the Vatutinsky District Court of Kyiv awarded Mr S. – the applicants’ husband and father, respectively – salary arrears in the amount of 5,635 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] to be paid by his former employer, Atomspetsbud.\n8.  When that judgment became final, the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce it.\n9.  On 19 March 2003 Mr S. died. According to the applicants, they are the only heirs of Mr S.\n10.  In the course of the enforcement proceedings the sum of UAH 290.16 was paid to the applicants. The remainder of the debt under the judgment of 8 December 1998 has still not been paid.\n11.  By an order of the Ministry of Energy dated 27 June 2002, Atomspetsbud was liquidated and a liquidation commission established. As a result, the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated the existing enforcement proceedings and all the writs of enforcement were forwarded to the liquidation commission as creditors’ claims.\n12.  The liquidation proceedings are still pending.\n13.  Both applicants worked for Spetsenergobud. In 1998 they resigned.\n14.  On 17 December 1998 by two separate judgments the Vatutinsky District Court of Kyiv awarded the first and the second applicants salary arrears owed to them in the amounts of UAH 4,555.37[2] and UAH 1,137.88[3], respectively, by their former employer.\n15.  When those judgments became final, the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce them. On 12 March 2004 those proceedings were terminated as it could not be established that the debtor company had any assets. No information as to whether the applicants challenged the decisions of 12 March 2004 and what other measures were taken by them after that date (for instance, measures aimed to have the enforcement proceedings reinstituted, or to join the liquidation proceedings as creditors, and so on) is available.\n16.  The applicants state that the judgments in question have still not been enforced due to the lack of funds of the debtor company. They never claimed damages from the State Bailiffs’ Service.\n17.  According to an excerpt from the official companies’ register, in April 2007 the debtor company was under liquidation. However, it is not clear when the liquidation proceedings were instituted and whether they are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4064", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, husband and wife, were born in 1957 and 1956 respectively and live in Romny.\n6.  Both applicants have been blind since childhood.\n7.  From 1990 to 2006 the first applicant was officially employed by an enterprise run by the Ukrainian Society of the Blind (“the USB”; Українське товариство сліпих), a public organisation subsidised by the State to provide assistance to blind people. However, as appears from his employer’s statement that between 2001 and 2006 the first applicant actually worked at most a few days a year. In 2006 the first applicant reached retirement age and was dismissed on redundancy. The second applicant stopped working in the early nineties.\n8.  Since 1997 the family have officially occupied two two-bedroom flats owned by the State, although the applicants claim that they have used only one of them. The flats were supplied with oven heating, but have no drains or hot running water.\n9.  The applicants have given birth to seven children: O.S. born in 1991, M.S. born in 1992, Y.S. born in 1993, P.S. born in 1995, S.S. born in 1997, K.S. born in 1998 and T.S. born in 2001.\n10.  In February 1998 four of the children (M.S.,Y.S., P.S. and S.S.) were taken into public care on account of the applicants’ inability to provide them with adequate care and upbringing. The children were initially placed in various institutions; however, it appears that currently all of them, except P.S., who has been adopted with the applicants’ consent, reside in the Romny Boarding School (Роменська загальноосвітня школа-інтернат І-ІІІ ступенів для дітей-сиріт і дітей, позбавлених батьківського піклування ім. О.А. Деревської).\n11.  In 1997 O.S., the eldest son, who remained in the applicants’ care, was also admitted to the Romny Boarding School. The parents took him home for weekends and vacations. On several occasions the school administration complained to the municipal authorities that O.S. habitually ran away from school, wandering, collecting empty bottles and begging. No specific details or incidents were given.\n12.  Between 1998 and 2004 representatives of the Municipal Juvenile Service (Служба у справах неповнолітніх) and the Tutelage Board (Орган опіки та піклування), in cooperation with several other municipal authorities, visited the applicants’ flat on some ten occasions and drafted reports concerning the suitability of the living conditions for the upbringing of the children who remained in their care. According to these reports, the conditions were grossly unsatisfactory. In particular, the premises badly needed renovation; they were cold, dirty, full of cob-webs and smelled of human excrement. Clothes and rags were scattered around the floor and on the beds. Dishes were not washed. Bedding, if present, was very dirty. The baby’s mattress had rotted in the middle because of large quantities of urine. The baby’s cot was unusable. No food was found in the kitchen. The children were dirty and dressed unseasonably. One report also noted that T.S., the smallest child, had a skin rash. According to another report “the children were sick”, although no symptoms were noted. On one occasion the children would not let the inspectors in as the parents had gone out to buy milk and the children were alone with the oldest child, O.S.\n13.  On several unspecified dates between 1998 and 2004 the USB provided the applicants with various assistance of unrecorded amounts, including firewood, clothing, shoes and alimentary products (such ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4065", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Samos.\n6.  On 17 August 2007 the applicant was arrested in flagrante delicto for receiving a package containing 71 grams of cannabis and remanded in custody. Following his arrest, the applicant’s house was searched. The investigating authorities found and seized a large number of Egyptian and Greek antiquities, including small statues, ancient coins, vessels and fossils.\n7.  On 18 August 2007 the applicant was brought before the Public Prosecutor of Samos who charged him with having received a package containing drugs. Concerning the antiquities found in the applicant’s house, the Prosecutor decided not to press charges unless new evidence was adduced.\n8.  On 20 August the investigating judge at the Samos Criminal Court, after questioning the applicant, remanded him in custody with effect from 17 August, the date of his arrest, on the grounds that there were serious prima facie indications that the defendant had committed the drug-related offence and that it was necessary to prevent him from absconding and to make sure that he would not commit further offences.\n9.  On 24 August 2007 the applicant applied for release on bail.\n10.  On 10 September 2007 the Indictment Division of the Samos Criminal Court rejected the applicant’s request (decision no. 49/2007). It held as follows:\n“... [the way that the packet was carefully prepared] reveals a dexterous and studied action, established by the choice of special means for the commission of the crime of drug trafficking, as well as a collective action. Furthermore, during the lawful search of the accused’s house ... a significant number of antiquities were found, including in particular, 41 coins from different periods, a small statue of Apollo, a small bronze statue of Bacchus, an ancient vessel, a fossil in lava from the volcano of Santorin, part of a fresco and numerous Egyptian antiquities, the possession of which demonstrates the perpetrator’s propensity to commit further offences relating to antiquities. In view of the above, there is very serious evidence of the applicant’s guilt and ... his request should be rejected since it is reasonably considered that even the replacement of his pre-trial detention by preventive measures would not be sufficient to ensure his appearance in court and the execution of any judgment the court may deliver.”\n11.  On 18 February 2008, the Public Prosecutor submitted to the Indictment Division of the Samos Criminal Court his proposal to prolong the applicant’s detention in compliance with Article 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 17 below), since the applicant had been in detention for six months.\n12.  On 7 March 2008 the Indictment Division of the Samos Criminal Court replaced the applicant’s pre-trial detention by preventive measures (decision no. 5/2008). In particular, it held that:\n“... the prolongation of the applicant’s pre-trial detention is not absolutely necessary since he has a known residence in Samos, and has family and property in Greece, he has not made preparations with a view to absconding, he has never been a fugitive in the past and it is improbable, on the basis of his criminal record and his social and professional status, that he will commit further crimes if he is released. In the light of the above and in view of the applicant’s old age and serious health problems ... the Indictment Division considers that the prolongation of the detention imposes on the applicant a di", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4066", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  Until his arrest he was working as a lawyer in a private law office located in Moscow.\n7.  On 19 May 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in drug dealing. His car was searched. According to the applicant, his personal effects and 300 US dollars disappeared from the car after the search.\n8.  On the same day the applicant was taken to the police station for interview and remanded in custody pending the investigation.\n9.  On 18 December 1997 the Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of drug dealing and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. On 21 April 1998 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal.\n10.  In May and June 1998 the applicant was being transported from Moscow to a correctional facility in the Irkutsk Region where he was to serve his sentence.\n11.  On 3 March 1999 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed both the judgment of 18 December 1997 and the appeal decision of 21 April 1998, by way of supervisory review, and remitted the charges for fresh examination. The Supreme Court established, in particular, that the conviction had been based on insufficient evidence and that the courts had failed to examine all the relevant circumstances.\n12.  On 5 May 1999 the Savelovskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk that he would interfere with the investigation or abscond. The decision was issued in the absence of the parties.\n13.  On 17 May 1999 the applicant was transported to Moscow for a new trial.\n14.  On 25 May 1999 the applicant was placed in remand centre no. 48/3 in Moscow where he remained until 13 July 2000.\n15.  On 28 June 1999 the District Court dismissed a request for the applicant’s release lodged by his counsel, reproducing verbatim the reasoning of the decision of 5 May 1999.\n16.  On 25 November 1999 the District Court disallowed the applicant’s appeal against the decisions of 5 May and 28 June 1999 on the grounds that they had been introduced outside the time-limit.\n17.  It appears that the District Court subsequently issued further extension orders, copies of which were not submitted to the Court.\n18.  On 9 March 2000 the District Court found the applicant guilty of drug dealing and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.\n19.  On 27 June 2000 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal.\n20.  On 13 July 2000 the applicant was transported from Moscow to the Irkutsk Region where he was to serve his sentence. On 28 July 2000 he arrived at a correctional facility in the Irkutsk Region.\n21.  On 19 September 2002 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 9 March and the appeal decision of 27 June 2000 by way of supervisory review and remitted the charges for fresh examination. It noted, in particular, that the lower courts’ findings of fact were based on inconclusive and contradictory evidence. The court did not indicate whether the applicant should remain in custody or be released.\n22.  The applicant claims that he asked the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk to release him but received no response.\n23.  On 17 October 2002 the Savelovskiy District Court scheduled the opening date of the trial and ordered that the applicant remain in custody. The applicant was neither present, nor represented. On 5 December 2002 the Moscow City Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.\n24.  On 24", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4068", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1971. He is currently detained in Moscow, and held in Town Hospital no. 60.\n7.  The applicant is a former practicing member of the Moscow Bar. He represented Mr Khodorkovskiy and Mr Lebedev, as one of their lawyers, in criminal proceedings which are now the subject of complaints before the Court (applications nos. 5829/04, 4493/04, 13772/05, 11082/06). He also provided legal services to the oil company Yukos (“the company”) in matters related to that company’s application before this Court (application no. 14902/04). Until 2003 the applicant worked as the head of the legal department of Yukos.\n8.  In 2003-2004 the General Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation into the activities of several of the company’s senior executives, including Mr Khodorkovskiy, Mr Lebedev, Mr L. N., Ms S.B., Mr D.G., Mr B. and others. Some of them were arrested in 2003-2004 on suspicion of having committed large-scale fraud and embezzlement of the shares of several Siberian oil refineries, including Tomskneft PLC. In particular, Ms S.B., one of the company’s lawyers, was arrested. According to the Government, in her statement of 8 December 2004, confirmed in March-April 2006, she testified that the applicant, as her manager, had instructed her in relation to the illegal operations with the Tomskneft PLC shares, qualified by the prosecution authorities as embezzlement.\n9.  At the same time the tax authorities sued the company, seeking to recover unpaid corporate taxes. In 2004-2006 the courts delivered several judgments ordering the company to pay considerable tax arrears and considerable penalties. Enforcement proceedings commenced; as a result, a large-scale corporate conflict broke out, opposing the company’s shareholders on one side, and the State, the company’s largest creditor, on the other.\n10.  On 8 January 2004 the prosecution opened an investigation into the alleged misappropriation of the shares of several Siberian oil companies by several former senior managers of Yukos. Charges were brought against Mr L.N., who, by that time, had fled Russia, and, sometime afterwards, against several other people. The investigation was pursued in 2005 and 2006.\n11.  According to the applicant, in early 2006 investigators from the General Prosecutor’s Office (“the GPO”) started questioning staff members of Yukos and affiliated companies. The questioning sessions were accompanied by threats of criminal prosecution if the staff members cooperated with the senior executives appointed by the then major shareholders of the company. Those threats were also made to the applicant.\n12.  On 20 March 2006 the shareholders of Yukos appointed the applicant as executive vice‑president of the company. That appointment was supposed to take effect on 1 April 2006. On 22 March 2006 the applicant was summoned by a GPO investigator and questioned. According to the applicant, during the questioning the investigator warned the applicant to “stay far away” from the company’s business. When he replied that he had no intention of leaving his post at the company, the investigator responded: “This is the first time I have seen a person volunteer to go to prison”.\n13.  In the meantime bankruptcy proceedings against the company commenced. On 28 March 2006 the Commercial Court of Moscow imposed a supervision order on the company and appointed an interim receiver. Several days later the applicant, as a vice-president of the company, initiated a reorganisation of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4069", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Nova Kapela.\n5.  The applicant’s lorry was forfeited by the Sisak Police Department (Policijska postaja Sisak) on 23 August 1995 in connection with a suspicion held against the applicant of having committed an aggravated theft. The criminal complaint against the applicant was eventually dropped and on 26 February 1996 the police invited the applicant to take delivery of the vehicle. They also noted that the vehicle was not in good working order. For that reason the applicant refused to take delivery of the vehicle.\n6.  The applicant, represented by a lawyer, instituted civil proceedings on 13 June 1996 in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against the Ministry of Interior (Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova Republike Hrvatske, hereinafter “the Ministry”), seeking repossession of the vehicle and damages.\n7.  After holding a public hearing and hearing the evidence, in its judgment of 2 October 1997 the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) ordered the State to return the vehicle to the applicant in good working order within fifteen days after the judgment became final. It found that the applicant’s vehicle was in good working order at the time of its requisition. The Municipal Court also dismissed his claim for damages. The judgment was upheld by the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on 4 April 2000 and thus became final. Further appeals on points of law lodged by both parties were dismissed by the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 23 March 2004.\n8.  The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 19 January 2005.\n9.  The applicant lodged a request for an enforcement order in the Zagreb Municipal Court on 14 June 2000, seeking the enforcement of the above final judgment of 4 April 2000. On 9 October 2000 the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order requiring the applicant’s vehicle to be returned to him in good working order.\n10.  On 20 December 2000 the applicant withdrew his initial request and asked instead the Zagreb Municipal Court to order the Ministry to pay a penalty for not complying with the enforcement order. On 29 December 2000 the Ministry admitted that it had not complied with the initial enforcement order. In view of the applicant’s new request, the proceedings concerning the enforcement order of 9 October 2000 were terminated on 12 January 2001 and the proceedings upon the applicant’s request for penalty payments continued.\n11.  On 8 February 2001 the Municipal Court ordered the Ministry to return the vehicle to the applicant within two days, failing which it was to pay the applicant Croatian kuna (HRK) 1,500 for each day of default from that point on. The Ministry lodged an appeal and on 5 March 2002 the appellate court quashed the first‑instance decision, finding that the Zagreb Municipal Court lacked territorial jurisdiction in the matter. The case was transferred to the Sisak Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Sisku), which on 20 May 2002 ordered the Ministry to return the vehicle to the applicant within two days, failing which it was to pay HRK 1,500 for each day of default. The appellate court, however, quashed that decision and ordered the first-instance court to establish whether the parties were willing to settle the case. On 13 November 2003 the Ministry offered a settlement, which the applicant refused.\n12.  On 23 December 2003 the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4070", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kirov.\n7.  On 6 May 2000 the Leninskiy District Court of the Kirov Region granted an application by the applicant and his spouse E. for adoption of a girl, A., who had been born on 22 October 1997.\n8.  On the same date the District Court ordered that the adoption decision be executed immediately and referred to the child’s need for individualised care.\n9.  At that time A. suffered from a slight delay in development of speech functions and from systolic murmur. Her doctors declared her generally fit.\n10.  In the autumn of 2003 the applicant and E. noticed that the girl’s eyesight was deteriorating and contacted the Russian Children’s Hospital in Moscow. The hospital responded by offering an in-patient examination, which the parents declined.\n11.  A.’s parents applied to the Kirov Regional Children’s Hospital (“the hospital”) on 2 October 2003 complaining about the child’s eyesight, paleness of skin, vomiting, poor appetite and limpness.\n12.  It appears that prior to 2 October 2003 A. had been undergoing outpatient treatment in that hospital on account of B12 deficiency anaemia which had been confirmed by bone marrow aspiration on 19 September 2003.\n13.  On 9 October 2003 the medical council convened and approved a proposal to subject A. to a medical examination. As a result of the examination, it was suggested that A. might have a disease of the central nervous system.\n14.  Subsequently A. was sent to the Russian Children’s Hospital in Moscow, where on 21 October 2003 the doctors diagnosed her as having acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. It appears that, despite the doctors’ recommendations, the applicant and his spouse refused to consent to A.’s hospitalisation.\n15.  On 23 October 2003 the girl was nevertheless placed in the hospital for treatment for acute disseminated encephalomyelitis. The applicant’s wife stayed with her.\n16.  On several occasions medical staff met the applicant and his spouse to explain the medical condition of A. Her medical file had entries to that effect.\n17.  On 31 October 2003 the medical staff had a conversation with E. concerning A.’s condition and the need to place her in an intensive care unit.\n18.  On 3, 4 and 5 November 2003 the hospital repeated its requests, but to no avail.\n19.  The applicant alleged that on 5 November 2003 a hospital employee and a man who introduced himself as a psychotherapist visited E. and asked her some questions. It appears that E. had impeded the medical staff from carrying out emergency medical measures in respect of A. and that such actions could have put the child’s life at serious risk. Those actions raised the suspicions of the medical staff as to E.’s psychological state and the interview was considered justified by the need to protect A.’s life. Following the interview, the psychotherapist concluded that E. “was not in need of psychiatric treatment”.\n20.  As of 3 November 2003 the hospital repeatedly informed the applicant and his spouse about the seriousness of A.’s condition and the need to continue her treatment in an intensive care unit of the hospital. However, the applicant and his spouse refused the requests.\n21.  On 11 November 2003 the hospital’s management informed the parents that it had been decided to place A. in an intensive care unit and to separate her from E.\n22.  The hospital authorities also warned them that if E. refused to leave the hospital they would contact the local Custody and Guardianship Agen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4071", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Litija.\n6.  Since 1979 the applicant was engaged as a typist at Slovenian Railways – “SZ” (Slovenske železnice). In 1983 a fire broke out on the premises. However, the work continued in the offices that were not directly affected by the fire. In 1984 the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from asthma and was advised to avoid dust and contact with certain material. She subsequently received daily injections. In 1985 she was recognised as suffering from level three invalidity. Subsequently, she was transferred to an administrative post. In August 1985 she stopped working, only returning for a period of eight days in 1988. In 1990 she retired owing to her invalidity.\n7.  On 23 November 1989 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation and loss of earnings against SZ.\n8.  On 31 October 1991 the second-instance court upheld a judgment by the Ljubljana Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela v Ljubljani) that partly rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation against SZ. On 24 April 1992 the Ljubljana Court of Associated Labour decided the remainder of her claim.\nSeveral hearings were held in the above proceedings.\n9.  On 19 November 1993 the applicant lodged a request for the reopening of the proceedings on the basis of new evidence, in particular new scientific findings concerning the effect on the respiratory system of certain gaseous emissions during a fire. The request was upheld on 14 February 1994.\n10.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia.\n11.   On 5 July 1994 SZ lodged an appeal, which was rejected on 17 October 1995 by the Higher Labour and Social Court. On the latter date the decision to reopen the case became final and the proceedings were subsequently reopened.\n12.  On 25 November 1996 the court appoint an expert, which produced a report on 26 March 1997.\nBetween 9 January 1996 and 27 May 1997 the court held 7 hearings.\nOn 27 May 1997 the renamed Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) delivered an interim judgment in which it found SZ liable for the damage caused by the work-related disease – bronchial asthma.\n13.  On 9 September 1997 SZ appealed to the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče).\nOn 18 December 1997 the court allowed the appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the interim judgment contained insufficient reasoning, and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n14.  In the re-examination proceedings, the expert produced an additional opinion on 18 June 1998.\n15.  The court held five hearings between 24 February 1998 and 23 March 1999.\nOn 23 March 1999 the first-instance court delivered an interim judgment in which it found SZ liable for 50% of the damages suffered by the applicant due to the asthma.\n16.  Both parties appealed.\nOn 19 November 1999 the Higher Labour and Social Court delivered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation.\n17.  On 16 February 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\nOn 10 October 2000 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the law had been wrongly applied, with the result that the facts had not been established sufficiently. It quashed the lower courts’ judgments and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.\n18.  In the re-examination proceedings, the applicant replied to two sets", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4072", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1962 respectively and live in London. They were charged with involvement in a money laundering scheme together with a third co-accused, Mr E.\n5.  On 24 March 2000 the second applicant pleaded guilty at a Crown Court to conspiracy to launder the proceeds of criminal conduct contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. On 3 April 2000 the first applicant pleaded guilty to the same offence.\n6.  On 21 June 2000 the prosecution served notice under section 71(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (CJA 1988, see paragraphs 40-41 below), as amended by the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995, indicating their intention to seek confiscation orders to recover the proceeds of the applicants’ criminal conduct.\n7. On 29 June 2000 counsel for the second applicant requested an early confiscation hearing and counsel for the co-accused, Mr. E., requested a confiscation hearing in September. The trial judge pencilled in a date on the week beginning 30 October 2000, as that was the first occasion on which he would be available. The trial judge further directed that the date would be considered again on the proposed date for sentence, 18 August 2000.\n8.  On 18 August 2000 the second applicant was sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment and the first applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Prior to sentence the confiscation hearing was formally postponed until after passing sentence and was fixed for 30 October 2000, outside the six-month period required under section 72A of the CJA 1988.\n9.  On 30 October 2000 the case was listed for the confiscation hearing with a time-estimate of five working days. The applicants objected that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the confiscation proceedings on the grounds that more than six months had elapsed since their convictions and that the judge had not considered whether there were “exceptional circumstances” warranting the imposition of the confiscation orders outside the statutory time-limit, as required by section 72A (3) of the CJA 1988, as amended (see paragraph 35 below).\n10.  On 3 November 2000 the trial judge held that he had jurisdiction to hear the confiscation proceedings. It was then agreed by the parties that the confiscation proceedings should be adjourned to await the outcome of a similar case which was due to be heard by the Court of Appeal, R v Steele and Shevki. The confiscation proceedings were adjourned until 5 February 2001.\n11.  On 21 November 2000 Mr E. was granted leave to appeal against his conviction. On 24 November 2000 both the applicants’ applications for leave to appeal against sentence were refused by a single judge of the Court of Appeal.\n12.  On 14 December 2000 the Court of Appeal delivered its judgment in R v. Steele and Shevki ([2000] EWCA Crim 70). It found that although adjournments beyond the six-month period prescribed by statute should be avoided, exceptional circumstances such as the unavailability of a judge would not deprive a subsequent confiscation order of its validity.\n13.  On 31 January 2001 the confiscation proceedings were listed again for mention. Renewal of argument in relation to the Crown Court’s jurisdiction to hear the confiscation proceedings, in light of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in R v. Steele and Shevki, was listed for 8 and 9 March 2001. Following the hearing on 8 March 2001, the judge held that the court retained a common law power to adjourn beyond the statutory six-month time-limit in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4073", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n(1) Ms Tamara Adnanovna Zakriyeva, who was born in 1951;\n(2) Ms Amnat Khasiyevna Khakimova, who was born in 1978;\n(3) Ms Movsar Aslanbekovich Khamzayev, who was born in 1999;\n(4) Ms Iman Aslanbekovna Khamzayeva, who was born in 2002;\n(5) Mr Ilyas Aslanbekovich Khamzayev, who was born in 2003;\n(6) Mr Duk-Vakha Esikayevich Khamzayev, who was born in 1972;\n(7) Mr Aslan Esikovich Khamzayev, who was born in 1980; and\n(8) Mr Khavazh Esikovich Khamzayev, who was born in 1983.\nThe second applicant lives in the village of Achkhoy-Martan, in the Chechen Republic. The other applicants live in the village of Gekhi, the Urus-Martan District, in the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The first applicant is the mother of the sixth, seventh and eighth applicants and of Mr Aslanbek Esikovich Khamzayev, who was born in 1974. Aslanbek Khamzayev was married to the second applicant; they are the parents of the third, fourth and fifth applicants.\n8.  The applicants did not witness the disappearance of Aslanbek Khamzayev. The account below is based on statements by third parties submitted by the applicants.\n9.  On 25 June 2002 Aslanbek Khamzayev was visiting his aunt, Ms Yu., in Grozny. At about 3 p.m., while driving a car in the direction of his home village, he was stopped by a group of armed men at a Russian military checkpoint near the village of Aldy. The servicemen ordered Aslanbek Khamzayev to get out of the car and then put him into one of several armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) parked next to the checkpoint. That APC’s registration number was covered with mud so that only two figures, “2” and “8”, out of three were visible. Then all the APCs drove off in the direction of Grozny.\n10.  Meanwhile a rumour spread that Russian military units were carrying out a special operation on the outskirts of Grozny. Ms Yu. was concerned for her nephew’s safety and drove towards Gekhi to meet him. Near the Aldy checkpoint she encountered a group of women who had witnessed Aslanbek Khamzayev’s abduction and told her about it. Ms Yu. drove to Grozny in pursuit of the APCs, which she eventually overtook and followed to the secured courtyard of the military commander’s office of the Zavodskoy District of Grozny (“the Zavodskoy military commander’s office”).\n11.  Later the same day the applicants visited the Zavodskoy military commander’s office and enquired about Aslanbek Khamzayev’s whereabouts but received no information.\n12.  Some eighteen months later the applicants were told by unknown persons that not all of the APCs had arrived at the Zavodskoy military commander’s office on 25 July 2002 as one of them had left the group and driven in the direction of the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny.\n13.  The Government stated that on 25 June 2002 unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms had kidnapped Aslanbek Khamzayev in the village of Aldy in the Zavodskiy District of Grozny in the Chechen Republic.\n14.  On 28 June 2002 the second applicant wrote to the Memorial Human Rights Centre (“Memorial”), an NGO based in Moscow, informing it that her husband had been arrested by Russian servicemen and asking for its help in searching for him. On the same date lawyers from Memorial wrote to the Grozny prosecutor’s office (“the city prosecutor’s office”) requesting that criminal proceedings be instituted in respect of Aslanbek Khamzayev’s disappearance.\n15.  On 6 August 2002 the city prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into Aslanbek Khamzayev’s disappeara", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4074", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Arkhangelsk.\n5.  In 1994 the applicant paid 10,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) to a cooperative society whose main activity was the construction of garages (гаражно-строительный кооператив) in order to be provided with a garage as one of its members. Since she was not provided with one, on 30 January 1995 the applicant sued the society by lodging a claim with the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk. The applicant sought to be reinstated as a member of the society and to have her property rights in respect of the garage recognised.\n6.  The hearing was adjourned on six occasions: twice due to the need to collect evidence; twice due to the respondent’s failure to appear, once due to the necessity to summon witnesses and once without any specified reason.\n7.  On 28 March 1996 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court found that she had never been accepted as a member of the cooperative society in accordance with the established procedure and, therefore, had not acquired the right to be provided with a garage. On 22 July 1996 the judgment was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted for fresh consideration.\n8.  The hearing was postponed five times: twice due to the need to collect evidence; twice due to the respondent’s failure to appear and once due to the necessity to summon witnesses. The Government claimed that on one occasion, on 24 December 1997, the applicant failed to appear for the hearing. The applicant contested this statement, claiming that she had been present together with her lawyer.\n9.  On 31 March 1998 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk granted the part of the applicant’s claim relating to her reinstatement as a member of the cooperative society and dismissed the parts relating to property rights over a garage and non-pecuniary damages. On 8 June 1998 the judgment was quashed on appeal by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court and the case was remitted for fresh examination.\n10.  On 23 February 1999 the applicant filed an additional claim against the society, requesting the court to declare the decision of its members concerning the annulment of her membership void and to acknowledge her title to the garage.\n11.  The hearing was postponed three times due to the respondent’s failure to appear.\n12.  On 16 February 2000 the Lomonosovskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk granted the part of the applicant’s claim relating to her reinstatement as a member of the cooperative society and awarded the applicant RUB 5,000 in non-pecuniary damages and RUB 2,000 for costs. The court dismissed the remainder of the claim.\n13.  On 17 April 2000 the judgment was quashed on appeal by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court due to the wrong assessment of evidence and the case was remitted for fresh examination.\n14.  The hearing was postponed nine times: six times due to the respondent’s failure to appear, twice due to the need to collect additional evidence and once due to the expiration of terms of office of the presiding judge. The Government claimed that on one occasion, on 1 September 2000, the applicant failed to appear for the hearing. The applicant contested this statement, claiming that she had been present together with her lawyer.\n15.  From 13 December 2000 to 9 January 2001 the proceedings were suspended due to the appointment of an examination relating to the value of the garage.\n16.  On 15 February 2002 the Lomonosovskiy District Cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4075", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Ercsi.\n5.  On 19 August 1998 the applicant, a truck driver, was involved in a multiple road accident. Subsequently he was interrogated as a suspect for having negligently caused the death of six people and the serious injury of five others, three of whom became permanently disabled.\n6.  After several hearings at which numerous witnesses testified and the opinions of several experts were obtained, on 9 April 2002 the Miskolc District Court acquitted the applicant.\n7.  On 6 November 2002 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court quashed this judgment as unfounded.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held four hearings. On 6 May 2004 it found the applicant guilty as charged. It held that, apart from the responsibility of another driver who had died in the multiple collisions, the accident had essentially been caused by the applicant’s failure to maintain the brakes of his truck and his grossly negligent driving. The applicant’s offence was punishable with two to eight years’ imprisonment. The District Court took account of the protraction of the proceedings as an important mitigating factor and sentenced him to three and a half years’ imprisonment and a four-year prohibition on driving.\n9.  On appeal, on 13 October 2004 the Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction but reduced his sentence to two and a half years’ imprisonment and a three-year prohibition on driving.\n10.  As a consequence of a successful intervening constitutional complaint concerning a procedural rule applied in the applicant’s case, on 4 July 2005 the Attorney General’s Office introduced a motion for a review by the Supreme Court.\n11.  On 3 October 2005 the Supreme Court’s review bench quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case to it.\n12.  In the resumed second-instance proceedings, a motion for bias lodged by the applicant was dismissed the Debrecen Court of Appeal. The hearings scheduled for 28 June and 20 September 2006 had to be postponed for non-attendance by the applicant’s representative. After another hearing on 8 November, on 27 November 2006 the Regional Court acquitted the applicant.\n13.  On 21 June 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. This decision was served on 19 September 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4077", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Snina.\n5.  In the 1950s State authorities took land and other agricultural property from the applicant’s father. The property was put at the disposal of a cooperative. Following the fall of the communist regime the applicant and the other members of the family sought restitution of the property. They relied mainly on the Land Ownership Act 1991. The following relevant events occurred and decisions were taken in that context.\n6.  In August 1991 and on 20 November 1992 the applicant, together with other members of her family, claimed restitution of three plots of land which were used by a cooperative.\n7.  On 2 December 1992 the Land Office in Michalovce found that the claimants were entitled to have the land restored to them. It further decided that the claimants were co-owners of the land at issue.\n8.  On 29 December 1992 the cooperative challenged that decision before the Košice Regional Court.\n9.  On 23 March 1993 the Regional Court quashed the administrative decision.\n10.  On 26 May 1993 the Land Office in Michalovce again found that the applicant and four other persons were the owners of the land and that it should be restored to them.\n11.  On 21 July 1993 a record was drawn up in the presence of the applicant’s advocate indicating that the cooperative had returned the land to the owners.\n12.  On 23 July 1993 the Land Office in Michalovce issued a decision confirming that the plots of land had been returned to the applicant and the other claimants.\n13.  In August 1991 and on 20 November 1992 the applicant and other persons also claimed compensation for livestock and movable property which had been taken from their predecessor.\n14.  As no agreement had been reached by the parties, the applicant claimed compensation before the Michalovce District Court in 1993.\n15.  On 23 August 1994 the District Court asked an expert to assess the value of the property.\n16.  On 15 February 1995 the Košice Regional Court dismissed the defendant’s request for exclusion of the District Court judge from the case.\n17.  On 7 September 1995 the District Court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant a part of the sum claimed. It decided to deal separately with the outstanding claim. On the defendant’s appeal, the Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court on 19 September 1997.\n18.  On 23 January 1998 the District Court joined the excluded claim to the original set of proceedings and ordered the defendant to compensate the applicant for the property at issue. The judgment stated that the administrator in insolvency of the cooperative had accepted the claim and had agreed that the proceedings on this claim continue notwithstanding that insolvency proceedings had been brought against the defendant cooperative in the meantime.\n19.  The judgment became final on 12 March 1998.\n20.  In 1993 the applicant claimed compensation for agricultural buildings belonging to her late father which had been destroyed.\n21.  On 30 May 1994 the Michalovce District Court ordered the defendant cooperative to pay compensation to the applicant. The defendant appealed. The applicant submitted observations on the appeal on 4 October 1994.\n22.  On 15 November 1994 the defendant challenged the District Court judge. On 30 January 1995 the Košice Regional Court dismissed the request.\n23.  On 6 October 1995 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment to the extent that it obliged the defen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4078", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are:\n5.  The first applicant is the mother, the second and third applicants are the sisters and the fourth applicant is the son of Mr Ismail Issayevich Dzhamayev, born in 1981. They lived together in the village of Stariye Atagi, the Grozny District. Mr Ismail Dzhamayev was a student of mathematics.\n(a) Sweeping operation in Stariye Atagi\n6.  According to the applicants, from 6 to 11 March 2002 federal military officers, under the command of General Borisov, conducted a sweeping operation (зачистка) in the village of Stariye Atagi involving around 10,000 servicemen, 50 armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and several military helicopters.\n7.  Throughout the said period the military besieged Stariye Atagi and restricted freedom of movement in the village. They organised a filtering point at the poultry-yard and the mill on the outskirts of Stariye Atagi where they kept the residents detained during the operation.\n8.  In total fifteen men residing in Stariye Atagi were apprehended between 6 and 11 March 2002. Whilst some of them were subsequently released, eleven residents disappeared. Relatives of ten of those who disappeared applied to the Court (see Arzu Akhmadova and Others v. Russia, no. 13670/03).\n(b) Detention of Mr Ismail Dzhamayev\n9.  According to the applicants, Mr Ismail Dzhamayev was apprehended in the following circumstances. In the morning of 6 March 2002 the first applicant asked him to go and see his uncle who lived in the same village and buy something for him in the village shop. When Mr Ismail Dzhamayev was in the street apparently on the way from the shop to his uncle’s house, he saw two APCs approaching. He got frightened, turned around the corner to Bezymyannaya Street and dropped in at Mr B.’s, his acquaintance. Mr B.’s mother let him in. As soon as he entered, servicemen ran into the yard after him. They said that there was a sweeping operation in the village and that they would check the house. They searched the house. After the search they took Mr B. and Mr Ismail Dzhamayev with them. Mr B.’s mother asked them not to take the children away since they had all their documents with them. The servicemen checked the documents and then put Mr B. and Mr Ismail Dzhamayev in an APC. When Mr B.’s mother tried to intervene, however, the servicemen pushed her aside, hit her against the wall and left her lying on the ground.\n10.  The next day Mr B. was released. He said that after they had been apprehended, the servicemen took them around the village in the APC for approximately two or three hours while they checked other houses. They were thrown on the floor of the APC and the servicemen put their feet on them. Then they were taken to the filtration point. Mr B. said that he had heard Mr Dzhamayev’s voice when the latter had been questioned. They had asked him what he had been doing at B.’s house, and Mr Dzhamayev had explained that he had gone to the shop and had just dropped by. When Mr B. heard that Mr Ismail Dzhamayev had not returned home he was surprised because he had heard nothing during the night and thought that Mr Dzhamayev had been released.\n11.  Upon his release Mr B. was barely alive because of the beating he had received from the servicemen. He died six months later.\n(c)  Other incidents in Stariye Atagi during the sweeping operation of 6 ‑ 10 March 2002\n12.  On 7 March 2002 the residents of Stariye Atagi found several bodies in an abandoned house in the village. The applicants heard others ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4079", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are:\n(1) Mrs Nurzhan Supyanovna Abdulkadyrova, born in 1973;\n(2) Mr Shamkhan Ayndayevich Dzhabayev, born in 1995;\n(3) Mr Zumrat Ayndayevich Dzhabayev, born in 1993;\n(4) Ms Kheda Ayndayevna Dzhabayeva, born in 1991.\n8.  The applicants live in Urus-Martan, Chechnya.\n9.  The first applicant is the wife of Ayndi Aliyevich Dzhabayev, born in 1967. The second, third and fourth applicants are their children. The first applicant is a librarian by profession, but is currently unemployed. The sole breadwinner of the family was her husband Ayndi Dzhabayev, who worked as a bricklayer in a construction company.\n10.  The applicants live in their own house at 26 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street in the town of Urus-Martan. At this address there are three houses, sharing a common courtyard. Two other houses are occupied by their relatives. One house is occupied by Said-Magomed D., his wife Fatima (also called Petimat) A. and their two daughters, who were six and three years old in September 2002.\n11.  There is a direct passage between their courtyard and the house of their neighbours who live at 28 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street.\n12.  On 8 September 2002 the first applicant had been at the market since early morning. Her three children – the second, third and fourth applicants – were at home with their father, Ayndi Dzhabayev, who was ill. The applicants’ presentation of the events related to Ayndi Dzhabayev’s detention is based on statements by the third and fourth applicants, Fatima A. and two neighbours, Roza P. and Kheda A., who were eyewitnesses to these events.\n13.  According to these statements, on 8 September 2002 at about midday, a group of military servicemen in several armoured personnel carriers (APCs) surrounded the house at 28 Krasnoarmeyskaya Street, next door to the applicants’ house. The second, third and fourth applicants were playing in the street outside their house. When the military arrived, they went into their house, together with their friend Kh.\n14.  At house no. 28 there was an exchange of automatic gunfire. The first applicant’s sister-in-law Fatima A. and her two children ran into the first applicant’s house. The shooting in the neighbouring house lasted for about five to ten minutes. When it stopped, Fatima A. went over to her house with her younger daughter.\n15.  Then a serviceman broke down the door which separated the applicants’ courtyard from that of their neighbours at no. 28 and entered their courtyard. The serviceman was wearing a balaclava mask and was armed with an automatic weapon. He shouted in Russian: “Everybody out in the street, bitches!”\n16.  Fatima A. ran into the street with her daughter. She was scared to return for the other children and called them from the street to come out. The second and fourth applicants heard the shouting and immediately went outside. Their father Ayndi Dzhabayev told them to go outside, while he was dressing and looking for his passport. The third applicant was late coming out of the house. While in the courtyard he heard the serviceman ordering someone “Hands on the wall, animal!” He turned back and saw the soldier aiming a gun at his father, who quickly walked to the wall and put his hands up. He had not had time to put on his shoes. The serviceman walked up to Ayndi Dzhabayev. The third applicant was scared to remain and went out into the street.\n17.  At that point Fatima A. realised that her elder daughter had remained inside the house and asked the fourth applicant to go", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4080", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 in Kazakhstan and currently resides in the town of Petrozavodsk in the Republic of Karelia in Russia. According to both Russian and Kazakh authorities, the applicant is a citizen of Kazakhstan. According to the applicant, the only citizenship she obtained was that of the former Soviet Union.\n6.  In October 1997 the applicant moved from Kazakhstan to the Republic of Karelia.\n7.  On 13 January 1998 the Kazakh police initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of large-scale fraud committed in 1997 in the town of Ust-Kamenogorsk. At the same time she was put on the list of fugitives from justice as her whereabouts were unknown.\n8.  On 22 January 1998 the Ust-Kamenogorsk Town Prosecutor of Kazakhstan authorised the applicant’s arrest.\n9.  On 7 February 2003 the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation received a request for the applicant’s extradition sent by the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan.\n10.  On 7 August 2003, pursuant to the arrest warrant issued by the Ust-Kamenogorsk Town Prosecutor, the applicant was arrested in Petrozavodsk with a view to her extradition to Kazakhstan. According to the applicant, the police officers failed to explain why she had been arrested and detained. According to the Government, on the same day the applicant signed the arrest warrant issued by the Ust-Kamenogorsk Town Prosecutor and was informed of the reasons for her arrest and of the charges against her. The Government provided the Court with copies of the arrest warrant signed by the applicant on 7 and 8 August 2003.\n11.  Upon the applicant’s arrest she met with her lawyer, Mr Fleganov.\n12.  On 13 August 2003 the Karelia Prosecutor’s Office sent the extradition file to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation for examination of the extradition request.\n13.  On 15 August 2003 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a complaint with the Petrozavodsk Town Court contesting the grounds for his client’s detention.\n14.  On 2 September 2003 the Petrozavodsk Town Court on the request lodged by the Karelia Prosecutor’s Office ordered the applicant’s detention with a view to her extradition to Kazakhstan on the basis of Article 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Town Court held that the applicant was charged with a criminal offence punishable by a prison term of more than one year and that the extradition request was pending. The Town Court did not find it possible to apply a more lenient preventive measure, referring to the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (“the 1993 Minsk Convention”) and the Russian Code of Civil Procedure. No time-limit for the applicant’s detention was set. This decision was upheld on appeal on 11 September 2003 by the Supreme Court of Karelia.\n15.  Later on 2 September 2003 the Petrozavodsk Town Court examined and dismissed the applicant’s lawyer’s complaint about the applicant’s detention lodged on 15 August 2003. Relying on Articles 61 and 62 of the 1993 Minsk Convention, the Town Court found that the applicant’s detention was lawful. The applicant appealed. On 9 October 2003 the Supreme Court of Karelia upheld that decision.\n16.  On 13 October 2003 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Karelia dismissed the applicant’s request to change the measure of restraint, noting that the Prosecutor’s Office of Karelia was not authorised to examine this issue.\n17.  On 20 October 2003 the P", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4081", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  In February 1996 the applicant’s neighbour caused a flood in the applicant’s flat. According to the applicant, she sent a statement of claims to the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow by regular mail in November 1996. She sought compensation for damage caused by her neighbour. It is unclear whether the applicant’s statement was received by the District Court.\n6.  On 14 January 1997 the applicant resubmitted her tort action against her neighbour to the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow. On 10 October 1997 the proceedings were stayed pending an expert examination. They were subsequently resumed on 10 March 1998 with no examination having been performed.\n7.  From 28 April 1998 to 17 February 1999 several hearings were adjourned either because the defendant had not attended or because the judge was busy on another case.\n8.  On 17 February 1999 another expert examination was ordered. The parties refused to pay for it. The examination was not performed and on 13 May 1999 the experts returned the case file to the District Court. On 8 June 1999 and 10 April 2000 the court made an offer to the applicant to pay for the expert report. According to the Government, she did not reply to the offer.\n9.  On 3 August 2000 the Basmanniy District Court resumed the proceedings.\n10.  On 15 August 2000 the hearing was adjourned because the parties had not attended. On 24 August 2000 the Basmanniy District Court refused to examine the action because the parties had again failed to appear.\n11.  On 4 September 2000 the applicant complained to the Moscow City Court that she had not been properly notified of the hearing of 24 August 2000 and had been unable to attend.\n12.  On 8 September 2000 the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of 24 August 2000 and ordered the proceedings to be resumed. A hearing was listed for 6 December 2000.\n13.  From 6 December 2000 to 3 June 2002 several hearings were adjourned either because the defendant had not attended or had asked for an adjournment or because the judge was busy on another case.\n14.  On 3 June 2002 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant’s action in part and awarded her 10,000 Russian roubles as compensation for damage.\n15.  On 22 October 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n16.  On many occasions in 2001-2002 the applicant complained to various domestic officials, including the Supreme Judicial Appointments Board, the Judicial Department of the Supreme Court of Russia, the Moscow City Court, and the Ministry of Justice, of the excessive length of the proceedings in her case.\n17.  It appears that her complaints were either left unanswered or redirected to the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4082", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1969 and 1967 respectively. They are currently serving prison sentences.\n7.  In October 1998 the applicants were arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of several counts of murder, robbery and other crimes. Both applicants alleged that the policemen had ill-treated them and forced to confess.\n8.  The applicants partly confessed to several criminal offences. Both of them had lawyers at the preliminary stage of investigation. The applicants did not complain about the alleged ill-treatment during the pre-trial investigation.\n9.  Between January 1998 and March 1999 the investigation carried out a significant number of forensic expert examinations. On 17 April 1999 the investigator familiarised the first applicant with decisions to appoint all these examinations and with their conclusions. The first applicant refused to get acquainted with the examinations and stated that he would read them together with the whole case file at the end of the investigation.\n10.  On an unspecified date the investigation was completed and the case was referred to the Chelyabinsk Regional Court for trial.  The trial court was composed of Mr S., the presiding judge, and Ms G. and Ms U., lay judges. The first applicant unsuccessfully asked for a trial by jury.\n11.  The first applicant admitted, partly or fully, his guilt on five counts of aggravated murder and robbery, one of attempted murder, unlawful possession of weapons, forgery of documents and several other crimes. He pleaded not guilty on two other counts. Apart from the first applicant’s confession, the trial court relied on statements of co-accused made both during the pre-trial investigation and the trial, witnesses, documentary evidence, numerous records of investigative actions, including a record of inspection of the first applicant’s flat, during which the police had found a number plate for a car, allegedly supposed to be used for robbery, and expert examinations. The first applicant, however, challenged the results of the forensic medical examination of the body of Mr S., one of the victims, claiming that the examined body had not been found in the place where he had committed the murder of Mr S.; therefore it belonged to another person.\n12.  Out of seven episodes of murder, robbery and unlawful possession of weapons, incriminated to the second applicant, he partly admitted his guilt as regards robbery and the murder of Mr S. He pleaded not guilty with respect to the remainder of the episodes. However the trial court found him guilty as charged. The court relied on depositions of the co-defendants, including the first applicant, the second applicant’s confession made during the pre-trial investigation, documentary evidence, video recordings of investigative actions with the applicant and his co-defendants, and results of forensic examinations.\n13.  The second applicant requested that the trial court hear Mr I., who could allegedly have confirmed his alibi. The court noted that the authorities had tried to establish Mr I.’s whereabouts and had checked the address indicated by the second applicant. It was established that such a person had never lived in the Chelyabinsk Region, contrary to what had been alleged by the second applicant.\n14.  The first applicant and co-defendants complained to the trial court that the policemen had beaten them during the investigation. The court thoroughly examined these complaints and dismissed them as unsubstantiated. It appears", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4083", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Gaziantep.\n5.  In 2000 the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (“the Ministry”) expropriated two plots of land belonging to the applicant (plot no. 247 in block no. 103 and plot no. 14 in block no. 130) in Erenköy village, Nizip, for the construction of the Birecik dam.\n6.  On 23 May 2000 the applicant brought two separate actions before the Nizip Civil Court for additional compensation.\n7.  On 22 and 25 December 2000 respectively the Nizip Civil Court awarded the applicant additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 9 June 2000 (judgments nos. 2000/5137 and 2000/4790).\n8.  On 9 July 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgments of the first‑instance court.\n9.  On 30 April 2003 the Ministry made a partial payment to the applicant, namely 23,449,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] for plot no. 247 and TRL 13,494,000,000[2] for plot no. 14.\n10.  On 2 May 2003 the Birecik Execution Office issued a payment order to the Ministry where it informed the latter that it had an outstanding debt of TRL 3,073,350,480[3] for plot no. 247 and TRL 1,804,328,414[4] for plot no. 14.\n11.  On 28 June 2007 the applicant’s representative sent a letter to the Ministry whereby he agreed to accept the calculations made by the administration for the discharge of its outstanding debt.\n12.  On 8 July 2008 the Government informed the Court that they had not yet made any further payments to the applicant to discharge their outstanding debt.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4084", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently serving a life sentence in a prison in Turkey.\n6.  On 18 July 1995 the applicant was arrested in Istanbul on suspicion of killing a person on behalf of the PKK[1]. The same day he was placed in police custody, where two statements were taken from him by police officers.\n7.  On 31 July 1995 he was brought before a prosecutor and a judge, who questioned him further. The judge remanded the applicant in custody pending the introduction of criminal proceedings against him.\n8.  On 2 August 1995 the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the applicant and five other persons of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. He sought the death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  Criminal proceedings began before the Istanbul State Security Court (“the trial court”) on 30 October 1995.\n10.  During the 31st hearing held on 28 February 2001, the applicant’s lawyer requested the trial court to release the applicant on bail. In the request the lawyer also referred to a number of judgments adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in cases concerning Article 5 of the Convention. The request for release was refused by the trial court. The objection lodged against the refusal was also rejected on 9 May 2001.\n11.  On 17 April 2002 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to death. The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment on 24 September 2002. An appeal lodged by the applicant against his conviction was dismissed by the Court of Cassation on 10 June 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4085", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1923, 1948 and 1952 respectively and live in Istanbul.\n6.  The first applicant is the mother and the remaining two applicants are the sister and brother of Ms Nilgün Hasefe, who was employed by Sabancı Holdings in Istanbul. On 9 January 1996 a number of armed persons raided the Holdings' premises and killed Nilgün Hasefe and two others.\n7.  On 11 November 1996 the applicants wrote to the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”) and claimed compensation in accordance with Article 125 of the Constitution on the ground of the State's failure to protect Nilgün Hasefe's right to life. The Ministry rejected the claim on 9 December 1996.\n8.  On 14 February 1997 the applicants filed a compensation claim against the Ministry before the Istanbul Administrative Court (hereafter “the Istanbul court”).\n9.  On 14 October 1999 the Istanbul court partly allowed their claims for compensation and ordered the Ministry to pay certain sums of compensation to the applicants in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n10.  On 9 March 2000 the applicants asked the Ministry to pay them the amounts of compensation awarded by the Istanbul court.\n11.  The Ministry appealed against the decision on 22 March 2000 and asked for an interim injunction suspending the execution of the Istanbul court's decision. In his written submissions the prosecutor at the Supreme Administrative Court agreed with the Ministry and requested that an interim injunction be granted and that the decision of the Istanbul court be quashed. The prosecutor's written submissions were not forwarded to the applicants.\n12.  On 18 May 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court granted the injunction sought by the Ministry and on 6 March 2002 it quashed the Istanbul court's decision of 14 October 1999.\n13.  The case was remitted to the Istanbul court, which decided on 31 January 2003 to reach the same conclusion as it had in its decision of 14 October 1999. It ordered the Ministry to pay the same amounts of compensation to the applicants as those awarded in its previous decision. The Ministry appealed. The applicants also appealed and argued that the amounts of compensation ordered by the Istanbul court were no longer satisfactory owing to the low rates of interest.\n14.  On 14 April 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court's General Council of the Administrative Chambers (Danıştay İdari Dava Daireleri Genel Kurulu) dismissed the Ministry's appeal and accepted the applicants' claims for higher rates of interest in respect of non-pecuniary damage.\n15.  A request by the Ministry for rectification of the Istanbul court's decision of 31 January 2003 was rejected on 16 March 2006.\n16.  On 31 October 2006 the Istanbul court adopted a decision in line with the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court's General Council of the Administrative Chambers in so far as it concerned the rates of interest for non-pecuniary damage, and awarded compensation to the applicants. On 2 March 2007 the Ministry appealed against the decision. According to the information provided by the Government, the appeal proceedings are still pending.\n17.  On 10 December 2007 the Ministry paid the applicants the amounts of compensation awarded by the Istanbul court in its decision of 14 October 1999 and the interest awarded in the same court's decision of 31 October 2006. The total sum paid to the three applicants was 63,080 new Turkish liras (TRY – approximately 37,000 euros (EUR) at the time).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4086", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the village of Trudovoy, the Rostov Region.\n7.  In 1996 the applicant was arrested and charged with a number of serious offences, including possession of explosives, death threats, attempted murder and murder.\n8.  The Rostov Regional Court examined the applicant’s case and gave judgment on 18 February 1997 acquitting him on all charges.\n9.  On 30 April 1997 the Supreme Court of Russia examined the first-instance judgment on appeal. The court decided that the trial court had committed serious breaches of procedure, quashed the judgment of 18 February 1997 and remitted the case for a fresh examination at first instance.\n10.  On 23 July 1997 the Rostov Regional Court re-examined the applicant’s case and found him guilty on all charges. He was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The court also ordered the forfeiture of the applicant’s property.\n11.  An appeal by the applicant against the judgment of 23 July 1997 was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Russia on 25 December 1997.\n12.  On an unspecified date the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation lodged a special appeal against the judgment of 23 July and the decision of 25 December 1997.\n13.  On 18 October 2000 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia examined the prosecutor’s appeal. The court reopened the proceedings and partly changed the decisions in the case. In particular, the court declared the prosecution in respect of the death threats to be time-barred and changed the legal characterisation of the applicant’s criminal conduct in relation to one of the other charges. The applicant’s sentence remained unchanged.\n14.  The applicant and his counsel were neither notified of the hearing nor summoned to it. The prosecution was present and made submissions.\n15.  In letters dated 13 April 2001, 1 December 2001, 25 November 2002, 15 April 2004 and 18 May 2004 the applicant complained that he had been unable to correspond freely with the Court, other domestic authorities and his lawyers; that the authorities had not accepted sealed envelopes for dispatch; and that there had been considerable delays in forwarding correspondence to him after its receipt by the prison and in actually sending letters out after their acceptance for dispatch.\n16.  In their observations, the Government submitted the register of correspondence which stated that the applicant had sent out letters to various destinations on various dates. There was a short description of the content of the letters dated between 1999 and March 2000. In respect of the letters dated March 2000, it was recorded that they had been “sealed”.\n17.  In a letter of 25 April 2005 the applicant informed the Court that its letters of 1 February, 8 and 9 March 2005 had been forwarded to him with considerable delay. In particular, the letter of 1 February had been received by the prison on 16 February 2005, registered under the incoming number 620, and had not been forwarded to him until 3 March 2005.\n18.  In a letter of 20 November 2005 the applicant informed the Court that the Court’s letter of 20 June 2005 had been received by the prison on 1 July 2005 and had not been served on him until 24 July 2005. He also stated that his understanding was that his letters dated 13 January 2005 and 1, 9 and 24 February 2005 (outgoing no. A-11 dated 19 January 2005, outgoing A‑19 dated 2 February 2005 and outgoing A-26 dated 16 February 2005) had not been received by the Court.\n19.  In rep", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4087", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5. On 11 September 1989 the applicants, excluding the third applicant, lodged a civil action with the then Bitola Employment Court of First Instance (Основен суд на здружен труд Битола) applying for the annulment of the decision (“the 1989 decision”) of the agricultural cooperative Rasanec земјоделска задруга (“the cooperative”), dated 26 August 1989, to restructure itself as a socially owned enterprise општествено претпријатие (“the enterprise”). They claimed that the 1989 decision had been adopted without the requisite number of votes of the cooperative’s members and workers being attained. They also maintained that the interests of the cooperative’s members had not been taken into consideration when adopting the 1989 decision which had affected the cooperative property directly. The applicants claimed to be members and founders of the cooperative. The action appears to have been an attempt by the applicants to restore their standing as members of a cooperative to which they had contributed.\n6. On 5 February 1991 the Bitola Employment Court of First Instance rejected the applicants’ claim as the cooperative had ceased to exist after the 1989 decision had been recorded on the court’s register.\n7. On 30 January 1992 the then Trade Court of Macedonia (Стопански суд на Македонија) upheld the applicants’ appeal and quashed the lower court’s decision.\n8. On 4 March 1993 the then Bitola District Trade Court (Окружен Стопански суд Битола) upheld the applicants’ claim and annulled the 1989 decision. It established that, after the 1989 decision, on 21 September 1989 the enterprise had merged with the joint stock company Biljana (“the company”). The court found that the enterprise had been the legal successor of the cooperative and had accordingly undertaken the latter’s rights and obligations. As the company had twice intervened in the proceedings, the court concluded that it had assumed the position of a party being sued as the legal successor of the enterprise. It finally decided that the 1989 decision had been adopted without the necessary number of votes.\n9. On 7 July 1993 the Trade Court of Macedonia accepted both parties’ appeals and quashed the above decision. It held that the lower court had erred in establishing the facts concerning the status of the cooperative. It concluded that the proceedings should have been stayed had the cooperative ceased to exist, until its legal successor was eventually able to take over the dispute.\n10. On 23 February 1994 the Bitola District Trade Court declared itself incompetent to decide the case. It held that, because of the nature of the dispute it was the Ohrid Municipal Court (Општински суд Охрид) which had jurisdiction to decide the case.\n11. On 20 May 1994 the Trade Court of Macedonia quashed the lower court’s decision and referred the case back for re-examination. It held that the Bitola District Trade Court had been competent ratione materiae to decide the case. According to the higher court, the matter in dispute in the case was the change of the cooperative’s status (статусен спор).\n12. On 24 June 1994 the Bitola District Trade Court stayed the proceedings as a result of the fact that the cooperative had ceased to exist on 29 January 1992. It was decided that the proceedings would be stayed until the legal successor of the cooperative could take over the dispute.\n13. On 29 August 1994 the Trade Court of Macedonia dismissed the applicants’ appeal and upheld the lower court’s decision.\n14. On 29 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4088", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. On 4 February 1998 the applicant brought a civil claim against her employer, seeking compensation for unpaid salary and social security contributions. On 6 July 2000 the employer was divided into three separate companies (“the successors”).\n5. Between 16 October 1998 and 10 September 2001 the first instance court scheduled fifteen hearings, none of which was adjourned on the applicant’s request. It ordered expert examination of the applicant’s claim and heard evidence from witnesses. The employer’s counter claim against the applicant was dismissed five months after it had been submitted. During the proceedings, the applicant made more specific claims on four occasions.\n6. On 10 September 2001 the Gevgelija Court of First Instance allowed the applicant’s claim and ordered the successors jointly to pay her unpaid salary and to pay social security contributions to the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund. The total award amounted to 486, 557 Macedonian denars (MKD) (approximately 7, 940 euros) plus trial costs. This decision was served on the applicant on 26 June 2002.\n7. On 11 July 2002 the successors appealed. On 7 October 2002 the applicant submitted her arguments in reply.\n8. On 24 October 2002 the Gevgelija Court of First Instance dismissed the successors’ appeal as having been submitted out of time.\n9. On 22 November 2002 the successors appealed, arguing that the first-instance court had wrongly calculated the time-limit. On 26 June 2003 the first-instance court ordered the successors to pay the court’s fees.\n10. On 30 December 2003 the successors withdrew their appeal.\n11. Between 1 April and 26 June 2004 the applicant requested the first-instance court to expedite the proceedings on three occasions.\n12. On 15 July 2004 the Gevgelija Court of First Instance rejected the successors’ appeal as having been withdrawn.\n13. On 21 September 2004 the first-instance court’s decision of 10 September 2001 became final.\nb. Insolvency proceedings against the successors\n14. Between March 2002 and June 2003 three separate sets of insolvency proceedings were initiated in respect of the successors. The last successor was liquidated in September 2003. The receiver was ordered to enforce the liquidation by public sale of that successor’s assets. The applicant filed a request to have her claim recognised only in respect of that successor. On 9 September 2003 the first-instance court partly allowed the applicant’s claim. No information has been provided as to what actions were taken in respect of the court’s sale order.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4089", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and at the time of the events was serving a prison sentence in the Buca Prison in İzmir.\n5.  She had been convicted of being a member of a terrorist organisation and sentenced to twenty-two years’ imprisonment.\n6.  On 12 November 2001, following the prison doctor’s referral, the applicant was taken to İzmir-Yesilyurt Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, escorted by three male security officers (two gendarmes and a male prison guard) and one female prison guard, in order to undergo an ultrasound scan by a gynaecologist.\n7.  In the hospital the applicant was taken to a consultation room located on the ground floor. The bottom of the consulting room windows was only 50 cm above floor level and the windows were unprotected. The applicant’s handcuffs were not removed and the male security officers refused to leave the consultation room for security reasons. They stated that they would wait behind a folding screen. The applicant refused to be examined in such conditions. Accordingly, the gynaecologist issued a medical report stating that she had not been able to perform the requested ultrasound scan as the patient had not given her consent.\n8.  On 14 November 2001 the applicant’s representative applied to the İzmir Public Prosecutor’s Office, accusing the gendarmes and the male prison guard of misconduct, arbitrary treatment and insulting the applicant.\n9.  On 15 November 2001 the İzmir Public Prosecutor’s Office separated the investigation file in respect of the accused gendarme officers, noting that, pursuant to Law no. 4483 on the Prosecution of Civil Servants and Public Officials, permission to prosecute had to be sought from the District Governorship.\n10.  On 28 December 2001 the Buca District Governor decided not to authorise the prosecution of the gendarme officers, stating that the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated.\n11.  The applicant did not file an appeal and the decision became final on 30 January 2002.\n12.  On 26 and 27 November 2001 respectively, the İzmir public prosecutor took statements from the male prison guard and the applicant as the complainant.\n13.  On 3 December 2001 the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the prison guard. Referring to the doctor’s note dated 12 November 2001, in which it was stated that no examination had been performed as the applicant had not given her consent, the prosecutor decided that the applicant’s allegations were unsubstantiated.\n14.  On 29 July 2002 the Karşıyaka Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision.\n15.  In the meantime, on 23 January 2002, the applicant’s lawyer filed a complaint with the İzmir Medical Association (İzmir Tabip Odası) against the doctor who had not asked the male security officers to leave the room or remove the applicant’s handcuffs.\n16.  On 8 April 2002 the İzmir Medical Association found it unnecessary to initiate criminal proceedings against the doctor, holding that she had not treated the applicant disrespectfully.\n17.  The applicant objected and on 5 October 2002 the Turkish Medical Association (Türk Tabipleri Birliği) quashed that decision.\n18.  On 23 January 2003 the İzmir Medical Association examined the file once again and decided to issue the doctor with a warning for professional misconduct, namely for not taking the initiative to request the male security officers to leave the consultation room or remove the applicant’s handcuffs, as required by ethical rules.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4090", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are:\n(1)  Ms Asht Khamidovna Shakhgiriyeva, born in 1960;\n(2)  Ms Zarema Baudinovna Esmurzayeva (Magomadova), born in 1971;\n(3)  Ms Alpatu Magomadova, born in 1922;\n(4)  Ms Zarema Kharonovna Umarova, born in 1968;\n(5)  Ms Ayshat Bibulatovna Gerasiyeva, born in 1985;\n(6)  Ms Aza Ayubovna Abayeva, born in 1972;\n(7)  Ms Svetlana Gelaniyevna Dakasheva[1], born in 1961.\n8.  The applicants are Russian nationals and residents of the village of Chechen-Aul, in the Grozny district of Chechnya. The sixth applicant currently resides outside Russia.\n9.  The facts of the case are mostly not in dispute between the parties. They may be summarised as follows.\n10.  The applicants submitted that in the early hours of 23 October 2002 eight persons had been detained in their village by a group of servicemen wearing masks and camouflage uniforms and moving around in a Ural military truck, UAZ all-terrain military vehicles and armoured personnel carriers (APCs) with obscured number plates. Among the eight persons there were four relatives of the applicants: Magomed Shakhgiriyev, Ali Magomadov, Ismail Umarov and Umalat Abayev.\n11.  The first applicant is the mother of Magomed Khamidovich Shakhgiriyev, born in 1986. She lives with her family in Chechen-Aul at 37 Lenina Street. In October 2002 Magomed Shakhgiriyev was 16 years old and attended school. He was described by the school head teacher and the head of the village administration as a good student and a well-mannered young man. The first applicant is married and has two other children, who were then aged 6 and 15.\n12.  On the night of 22 to 23 October 2002 the first applicant and her family were at home sleeping. At about 5 a.m. an APC smashed the gates of their house and entered the courtyard. It was followed by a UAZ vehicle. Servicemen in uniforms and masks, armed with automatic weapons, surrounded the house and entered. The military did not produce identity papers or any documents to justify their actions and gave no explanations. They did not ask for the inhabitants' identity documents. The first applicant and her two younger children were locked in one room. The servicemen threatened to shoot if they tried to go outside.\n13.  The first applicant's husband and her elder son, Magomed Shakhgiriyev, were ordered to go outside into the courtyard. Magomed Shakhgiriyev, who was wearing a long-sleeved T-shirt, trousers and socks, was escorted by the soldiers into the APC. He was not allowed to put on his boots. The first applicant submitted that her husband had been drunk on that night, and the servicemen seated him on the ground in the courtyard and asked where his machine gun was. He said that he had no weapons.\n14.  The first applicant submitted that a neighbour had tried to find out what had been happening and wanted to enter their courtyard, but the servicemen had hit her and told her to stay away.\n15.  During the search the soldiers seized some items from the house, including the goods the first applicant traded in the market and those stored at her house by other traders overnight, because her house was close to the market.\n16.  The second and third applicants are the wife and mother of Ali Baudinovich Magomadov, born in 1966. The applicants' family live in Chechen-Aul in their own house at 81 Lenina Street. The second applicant has four minor children, who in October 2002 were aged between 2 and 11, from her marriage to Ali Magomadov. Ali Magomadov worked in Grozny at the local b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4091", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Yaroslavl. She is a journalist on the Zolotoye Koltso newspaper.\n7.  On 17 January 2003 the newspaper published an article by the applicant under the headline “A year later they impounded the car” («Через год арестовали автомобиль»). The article was prompted by the following letter written by a Ms P. and reproduced in italics in the opening passage of the article:\n“On 22 September 2001 my husband... had a traffic accident. Ms Galina Borisovna Baskova, a judge of the [Yaroslavl] regional court, crashed into his car... The traffic police officers did not find us responsible and we calmed down. But the following year we received by registered mail a statement of claim, requesting that Ms Baskova be compensated for damage in the amount of 75,000 roubles, and an order for a charge on our property and our car issued by a judge. We had not been informed of the hearing and we consider that our civil rights were violated as we were convicted in our absence. We feel that Ms Galina Borisovna Baskova is taking advantage of her office and connections in the judiciary”.\n8.  The article related the versions of the traffic accident by Judge Baskova (as described in her statement of claim), by traffic police officers, by Mr and Ms P. and by eyewitnesses. It concluded as follows:\n“So far the Zavolzhskiy District Court [of Yaroslavl] has held three hearings... The date of the next hearing is not fixed yet. Mr and Ms P. remember menacing words that Galina Borisovna [Baskova] uttered immediately after the traffic accident ‘You will buy me a new car anyway!’; they shudder but they will defend themselves to the very end.”\n9.  On 7 March 2003 Judge Baskova sued the newspaper, the applicant and Ms P. for defamation and refutation of untrue information contained in the statement “Baskova is taking advantage of her office and connections in the judiciary”.\n10.  On the same day Judge Baskova requested the court to order interim measures, and notably an interlocutory injunction on the newspaper to prevent publication of “any articles, letters or materials about the factual circumstances of the traffic accident of 22 September 2001, as well as about the court proceedings concerning that accident until they [had] finished”.\n11.  On the same day a judge of the Kirovskiy District Court of Yaroslavl issued a decision to indicate interim measures (определение об обеспечении иска). The decision endorsed the arguments put forward by Judge Baskova and read, in its entirety, as follows:\n“The plaintiff has referred to the following circumstances. The article ‘A year later they impounded the car’ (Zolotoye Koltso, no. 9, 17 January 2003) was published before a decision on the merits of her claim for damages against Mr P. had been issued, after the Zavolzhskiy District Court of Yaroslavl had suspended the proceedings on 9 December 2003 and commissioned a technical study at the defendant’s request. The article ends with the assertion that Mr and Ms P. ‘will defend themselves to the very end’. The plaintiff considers that further developments in the judicial proceedings – upon their resumption – may also be reported by the newspaper in such a manner as to confirm the damaging information and conclusion already disseminated by the author.\n[The plaintiff] considers that under these circumstances a failure to indicate interim measures can impede the enforcement of the judgment [in the defamation claim]: otherwise, alongside with public", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4092", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Grigorios Leonidis, is a Greek national of Russian-Pontic origin who was born in 1952 and lives in Thessaloniki.\n6.  In the early hours of 25 March 2000 the applicant’s 18 year-old son, Nikolaos Leonidis, and two of his friends were in a district of the old town of Thessaloniki.\n7.  Plainclothes police officers G.A. and C.T., serving in the Ano Poli police station, were out on patrol duty in an unmarked police vehicle when they noticed the three young men on the street. The three men were not committing any offence, but G.A. noticed in his car mirror that one of them turned to look at the police car as it passed. Since several burglaries had been recently reported in that area, he decided to carry out an identity check. However, as he drove back towards them, the three men ran away.\n8.  The two police officers got out of the car and ran after them. The chase apparently continued for a minute. The three young men split up and ran off in different directions.\n9.  G.A. ran after Nikolaos Leonidis. As he approached him, Nikolaos Leonidis put his hand inside his jacket. Suspecting that the latter might take out a weapon, G.A pulled out his own service revolver, a 357 magnum Smith and Wesson, which had no safety catch and was loaded. Holding the revolver in his right hand, with his finger on the trigger, he ordered Nikolaos Leonidis to stop. After running a few metres, Nikolaos Leonidis tired of the chase, lost his balance and tripped. That allowed G.A. to catch hold of him with his left hand. G.A. then pushed him against a car and immobilised him by forcing him to raise his hands and place them on the car roof while he was pointing his gun towards the sky.\n10.  Then, with his left hand G.A. twisted the young man’s left wrist behind his back in order to handcuff him. At that point Nikolaos Leonidis jabbed him with his right elbow in the right side, causing him sharp pain. Reacting to the pain, G.A. bent forward, and while he was drawing himself back up, his revolver went off, firing a single shot in the lower part of Nikolaos Leonidis’ right ear, instantly killing him.\n11.  C.T., who had in the meantime arrived close to the two men, was five metres away from the scene and partially witnessed the incident. From where he was standing, he was not able to see the shooting.\n12.  A few hours after the fatal shot police officers from the Ano Poli police station conducted a preliminary inquiry (προανάκριση) into the event. The police officers inspected the area and drafted an inspection report as well as a sketch plan. In addition, they took a statement from C.T. A few hours later, a crime scene reconstruction was conducted in the presence of the Public Prosecutor and a report was drawn up in this respect.\n13.  On the same day a forensic post-mortem examination was performed by a forensic medicine expert from the University of Thessaloniki. The doctor indicated that the cause of death was a fracture of the cranium due to a gunshot wound and that the shot had been fired either at point-blank range or from a few centimetres distance. According to the report, the exact range was to be established after further examination in the criminal police laboratory.\n14.  The forensic medicine expert also examined G.A. According to the report, G.A. was diagnosed with “a contusion in the right hemithorax”.\n15.  On the same day, at around 1 p.m., the applicant was informed of the incident.\n16.  The following day, the Public Prosecutor of Thessa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4093", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. The first applicant was married to the second applicant’s brother, Mr Saidkhasan Khasmagamedovich Dangayev, who was born in 1948. The couple had two children. At the material time Saidkhasan Dangayev was a senior bailiff and held an officer’s identity card (no. 028814) and a gun licence. He had positive references from his superior.\n6.  On 23 October 2002 Saidkhasan Dangayev and the first applicant together with Mr Dangayev’s nephew and his wife were at the Dangayevs’ family house at 14 Pogranichnaya Street in the Staropromyslovskiy district of Grozny. The town was under curfew; checkpoints manned by Russian federal forces were located on the main roads leading to and from the town.\n7.  At about 9.45 p.m. a UAZ military vehicle arrived at the Dangayevs’ house. Nine or ten tall men in camouflage uniforms and masks descended from it. They were armed with machine-guns equipped with silencers and spoke unaccented Russian. The men told the first applicant that they were from the military commander’s office and ordered her to open the gates. When she did so, they entered the courtyard. The applicants thought that the men were Russian servicemen.\n8.  The servicemen asked the first applicant whether there were any weapons in the house. Saidkhasan Dangayev came out to the courtyard and requested the servicemen to produce identification. The men replied that they were from the military commander’s office and were performing an identity check.\n9.  Saidkhasan Dangayev produced his bailiff’s identity card and his service pistol. The servicemen took his card and the gun. While they were examining the identity document, one of them shouted and swore at the first applicant. Saidkhasan Dangayev asked him to mind his language in the presence of women, but received a kick from one of the servicemen. He then rushed into the house and reappeared on the porch with his service machine-gun. One of the servicemen then shot Saidkhasan Dangayev in the arm and chest, whereupon the servicemen ran out of the courtyard with Saidkhasan Dangayev’s identity card and pistol.\n10.  Saidkhasan Dangayev fell to the ground bleeding. The first applicant was unable to transport him to the doctor’s because of the curfew. After a few minutes Saidkhasan Dangayev died from blood loss in the courtyard of his house.\n11.  According to the first applicant, her neighbours had seen her husband’s killers arrive at the applicants’ house on board UAZ military vehicles. However, they refused to give witness statements as they feared for their safety.\n12.  The applicants also submitted that either before or after the killing of Saidkhasan Dangayev, the same group of armed men had visited the house of their neighbour, Mr M.\n13.  In support of their account the applicants submitted two witness statements by the first applicant and copies of the documents received by the applicants from the investigation into Saidkhasan Dangayev’s death.\n14.  The Government submitted that “at about 10.00 p.m. on 23 October 2002 unidentified persons in camouflage uniform and masks, armed with automatic weapons arrived on board a UAZ vehicle at 14 Pogranichnaya Street, Grozny, and committed the murder of S. Kh. Dangayev”.\n15.  Referring to the witness statement the first applicant had given in the investigation into her husband’s death the Government noted that on the evening of 23 October 2002 she and her husband had been at home. From the window she had seen several m", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4094", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants’ names and other details are indicated in the appended table. All the applicants were members of the Russian military forces and took part in peace-keeping operations in former Yugoslavia and/or in other military missions outside the Russian Federation.\n6.  In 2001 they sued the military unit no. 03611 before the Ryazan Garnison Military Court for payment of outstanding daily allowance allegedly due to them on account of their military missions abroad. The court granted the applicants’ claims (see dates of the judgments and sums awarded in the appended table). The judgments were not appealed against and became binding and enforceable on the dates indicated in the appended table.\n7.  The judgments of 11 December 2001 were not enforced. On 6 November 2002 the Presidium of the Moscow Circuit Military Court decided, upon its President’s request for supervisory review, to quash these judgments in view of an erroneous application of material law and sent the cases for a new consideration to the Ryazan Garnison Military Court (judgments Nos. 338п/г, 339п/г and 341п/г). The applicants did not attend the hearing. It does not appear from the case-file that the applicants or their counsel had been informed of the supervisory-review proceedings or that they were able to take part in these proceedings.\n8.  On 9 and 10 April 2003 the Ryazan Garnison Military Court reconsidered the cases and dismissed the applicants’ claims. These judgments were upheld on appeal by the Moscow Circuit Military Court on 10 and 17 June 2003 and thus became final.\n9.  The judgments of 13 and 20 December 2001 in favour of S. Panchenko were enforced on 3 April 2006 and 24 April 2003 respectively. On 2 June 2006 the Ryazan Garnison Military Court partially granted this applicant’s claim for compensation of the inflation losses due to the delay in the execution of the judgment of 13 December 2001. The court awarded compensation for the inflation losses occurred between 1 January 2006 and 31 March 2006, i.e. a sum of 12 428.64 RUB instead of 124,350.48 RUB claimed by the applicant for the total delay in enforcement.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4095", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Dunaegyháza.\n5.  On 19 March 1999 the applicant brought an action against a cooperative of which he was an external shareholder. He claimed that a resolution of the cooperative establishing the value of his share was wrong.\n6.  On 11 December 2001 the Kunszentmiklós District Court dismissed his action. On 31 January 2002 it completed this decision with a ruling concerning the costs.\n7.  On appeal, on 3 October 2002 the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court reversed these decisions, found for the applicant in an interim decision and quashed the resolution in question. In the ensuing proceedings, on 17 March 2004 the District Court awarded the applicant 258,000 Hungarian forints plus accrued interest. On 2 September 2004 the Regional Court upheld this ruling in a partial decision.\n8.  However, on 12 May 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 3 October 2002 and upheld the original decision of 11 December 2001, in which the applicant’s claim had been rejected. The Supreme Court pointed out that the Regional Court’s interim findings entitling the applicant – only an external shareholder – to certain payments, which were reserved for actual members, were wrong. This decision was received at the District Court with a view to despatching on 17 June 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4096", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are:\n8.  They live in Staryye Atagi, the Chechen Republic.\n9.  According to the applicants, from 6 to 11 March 2002 federal military officers, acting under the command of General Borisov, conducted a sweeping operation (зачистка) involving around 10,000 servicemen, 50 armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and several military helicopters in the village of Stariye Atagi. General Moltenskiy, the commander of the United Group Alignment (UGA) in the Northern Caucasus (командующий Объединенной группой войск на Северном Кавказе) visited the village twice during the operation.\n10.  Throughout the said period the military besieged Stariye Atagi and restricted freedom of movement in the village. They organised a filtering point at the poultry yard and the mill at the outskirts of Stariye Atagi where they held residents detained during the operation.\n11.  In total fifteen men residing in Stariye Atagi were apprehended between 6 and 11 March 2002. Whilst some of them were subsequently released, eleven residents disappeared. The applicants are relatives of nine of those who disappeared.\n (b)  Detention of Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev\n12.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Aslan Akhmadov, born in 1979, who was a student at Grozny University. They and other relatives lived at 261 Nuradilova Street and were neighbours of the second applicant, who resided with her nephew, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev, born in 1983, and other family members at 9 Polevaya Street.\n13.  On 6 March 2002, between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., Mr Aslan Akhmadov, Mr Said-Selim Kanayev and several other residents of Stariye Atagi were standing in the street when a group of masked and armed federal servicemen arrived in three APCs, two UAZ cars and an Ural vehicle. The APCs’ hull numbers were covered with mud and the vehicles’ registration plates were wrapped in a rag. The servicemen started beating Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev without any explanation. Several women, including Mr Aslan Akhmadov’s seventy-five-year-old grandmother, attempted to intervene, but the military threw smoke bombs and fired in front of the women’s feet and above their heads.\n14.  According to the first applicant, while she was at home she heard women and children screaming and rushed into the street. She saw her son and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev on their knees with their hands behind their heads. Both of them were bleeding.\n15.  Then the military escorted Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev to their houses. Without introducing themselves or producing any documents to justify their actions, the servicemen searched the houses and the courtyards. The first applicant inquired about the charges against her son, whereupon one of the soldiers replied that they were servicemen of the 405th regiment stationed in the village of Khatuni and had an order “to take away everyone they met on their way”.\n16.  According to the first and second applicants, the military promised to release Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev in exchange for money. The Akhmadov family gave them 200 US dollars (USD), which Aslan Amkhadov’s grandmother had been saving for her funeral. One of the servicemen took the money and said into his radio transmitter: “Plus I have their son and money”. The Kanayev family gave them USD 300. Having received the money, the military nevertheless took Mr Aslan Akhmadov and Mr Said-Selim Kanayev away “for a computer check of their identities”. The first two app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4097", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the village of Terbuny, Lipetsk Region.\n7.  On 7 August 2001 the applicant bought sugar from Ms D. He paid with a hundred-dollar note. When Ms D. attempted to exchange the note for Russian roubles, she was told that the note was counterfeit. Ms D. lodged a complaint with the Lipetsk Town Police Department alleging that the applicant had given her a counterfeit note.\n8.  On the same day police officers stopped the applicant’s car and arrested him on suspicion of fraud and use of counterfeit currency. During his arrest the applicant attempted to pass several dollar notes to his friend, who returned the notes to the applicant following an order from a police officer.\n9.  The applicant was taken to the Oktyabrskiy District police station.\n10.  According to the applicant, he refused to answer the investigator’s questions and police officers hit him several times with rubber truncheons on the head, back and legs. The beatings alternated with admonitions to confess his guilt. A police officer twice punched the applicant on the ear and once hit him on both ears with both hands at the same time. The police officers continued hitting the applicant’s legs and head with rubber truncheons. The applicant tried to shy away from the punches, but once he bent forward on the chair, he received a series of truncheon blows to his chest and back. The applicant fell on the floor. The policemen continued hitting and kicking him on the back and legs. They forced the applicant to confess to the use of counterfeit currency.\n11.  The Government submitted that after the applicant had been taken to the police station, an investigator of the Lipetsk Town Police Department, Ms Z., had questioned him. The applicant confessed that he had been involved in the distribution of the counterfeit bills. In particular, he stated that he had bought three counterfeit hundred-dollar notes from an unidentified man and had asked his friend, Mr Ma., to exchange those notes for Russian roubles. Mr Ma. had told him that the notes were counterfeit and had refused to take them. On 7 August 2001 the applicant had bought sugar from Ms D. and had paid with one of those notes. The Government enclosed a copy of the applicant’s confession and the record of his questioning. At the bottom of his confession statement the applicant noted as follows:\n“The confession statement is handwritten by me; no moral or physical pressure [was] applied”.\nThe Government noted that the applicant had been advised of his right to the services of counsel prior to the entry of his guilty plea. However, he had expressly waived that right, making a handwritten entry to that effect in the interrogation record.\n12.  On 8 August 2001 the applicant was placed in the temporary detention facility of the Oktyabrskiy District police station. According to the Government, on his admission to the facility the applicant signed an entry in a registration log that he had “a slash wound on his left forearm and a bruise on the left side of the body which he had inflicted on himself on 8 August 2001 in the Oktyabrskiy District police station” and that he had no complaints about the state of his health. The Government submitted an extract from the registration log copied by hand by a warder and certified by the head of the detention facility. According to the extract, submitted by the Government, on the same day the applicant was also examined by a prison otolaryngologist, who did not es", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4098", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants’ names and other details are indicated in the appended table. All the applicants were active or retired servicemen at the material time.\n7.  On various dates they sued their employer military units, a military commissioner’s office or the competent federal ministries in courts for payment of monetary sums on account of their service in the military forces or some specific missions undertaken during this service, such as field works (case of Kulkov) or peace-keeping operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina (case of Shelestovskaya), Kosovo (cases of Biserov and others, Dubovov, Davydov and Pyshnograyev) or South Ossetia (case of Kashcheyev). The applicant Doroshok claimed compensation of health damage and severe injuries caused during his military mission in Chechnya. The applicants Sobakar and Sereda claimed a recalculation of their pensions and a compensation of shortfalls in monthly payments made in the past.\n8.  The domestic courts granted the applicants’ claims (see dates of the judgments and sums awarded in the appended table). The judgments were not appealed against in cassation and became binding and enforceable on the dates indicated in the appended table. However, only one of these judgments was enforced (the judgment of 13 May 2003 in favour of V. Kashcheyev, see paragraph 12 below). All the other judgments, including the second judgment in favour of V. Kashcheyev delivered on 14 July 2006, were not enforced.\n9.  On various dates the Presidiums of higher courts decided, upon the defendant authorities’ requests for supervisory review, to quash the judgments in the applicants’ favour considering that the lower courts misapplied the material law (see details in the appended table). With the exception of two cases (Kulkov and Shelestovskaya), the higher courts dismissed the applicants’ claims in full by the same decisions.\n10.  In the case of Kulkov, the Presidium of the Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court quashed on 18 April 2002 the judgment in the applicant’s favour by way of supervisory review initiated by the President of this court. However, the judgment of 18 April 2002 was itself overruled by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 11 April 2003 and the first-instance judgment in the applicant’s favour was thus restored. It remained in force until it was quashed for a second time on 25 December 2003 by the Presidium of the Privolzhskiy Circuit Military Court upon application of the defendant military unit. While dismissing the applicant’s claims for field allowance (RUB 70,675), the Presidium upheld the first-instance court’s decision as regards the award of the regional bonus to the applicant (RUB 1,112.33).\n11.  In the case of Shelestovskaya, the Presidium of the Moscow Circuit Military Court quashed on 7 April 2004 the judgment in the applicant’s favour. However, the judgment of 7 April 2004 was itself overruled by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 12 August 2004 and the first-instance judgment in the applicant’s favour was thus restored. On 15 September 2004 the Presidium again quashed the latter judgment and awarded the applicant smaller amounts, i.e. RUB 270 in respect special allowance and RUB 250 in respect of legal aid. The Presidium dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claims.\n12.  The first of the two judgments, which was delivered in favour of V. Kashcheyev on 13 May 2003 and became enforceable on 26 May 2003, was enforced on 15 September 2005. On 18 June 2007 the Pskov Garni", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4099", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in Voronezh, the Voronezh Region. Their names and dates of birth are indicated in the appended table.\n6.  The applicants are pensioners. They sued the local social welfare authorities for underpaid cost-of-living adjustment of their pensions. On the dates set out in Appendix I the domestic courts granted their claims and ordered the welfare authorities of different districts of Voronezh to pay them the respective amounts. The judgments became final on the dates indicated in Appendix I.\n7.  In 2001 all the applicants except for Mrs Gurova submitted the writs of execution to the bailiffs. On various dates of the same year the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings and returned the writs to the respective courts, referring to the debtor’s lack of funds. In 2004 these applicants resubmitted the enforcement documents for execution. The bailiffs returned the writs unenforced, with reference to the lack of funds.\n8.  On 16 June 2006 the Levoberezhnyy District Court of Voronezh rejected Mrs Sadchikova’s complaint about the bailiffs’ negligence.\n9. In their observations the Government submitted, without further detail, that at some point, apparently after 25 November 2005, the Main Department of Pension Fund of the Levoberezhnyy District of Voronezh had invited the applicant to receive the judgment debt, but she had refused. They informed the Court that on 3 July 2007 the unspecified documents regarding payment of the judgment debt had been sent to a local post office, for delivery to the applicant. They furnished no information or documents confirming that the applicant had received the amount.\n10.  According to the Government, the writ of execution issued in respect the award in favour of Mrs Gurova was on 14 June 2000 returned to the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Voronezh, on account of full execution of the award. All the documents concerning the enforcement proceedings were subsequently archived and destroyed. The Government submitted that, apparently, the judgment had been enforced in 2000, but they were not in possession of any documents evidencing the enforcement.\n11.  In 2005 Mrs Gurova asked the district pension authority to execute the judgment, but the authority rejected her claim on the ground that the domestic courts’ findings in her favour had been incorrect.\n12.  On 11 July 2007 1,489.60 Russian Roubles (RUB) of the judgment debt were transferred to her bank account. According to the Government, this payment had been made due to humanitarian considerations and respect for human rights.\n13.   The judgments in favour of the other applicants had been enforced on the dates tabulated in Appendix I.\n14.  The above applicants submitted in their observations, without further detail, that at some point after communication of their cases by the Court they had been summoned for interviews by the local prosecutor’s office. It followed from the summonses they received that they were called in respect of their complaints to the Court. The summonses contained a reference to Article 6 of the Federal Law on Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation stipulating that the prosecutor’s instructions were binding, and the failure to comply with them might result in administrative responsibility.\n15.   Mrs Gurova furnished a copy of a prosecutor’s explanatory note («объяснение») concerning her interview. It transpires from the note that the prosecutor asked the applicant questions about the judgment in her fa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4100", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Ashtarak, Armenia. He is the chairman of a regional branch of the Republic Party («Հանրապետություն» կուսակցություն).\n5.  In 2003 a presidential election was held in Armenia with its first and second rounds taking place on 19 February and 5 March respectively. Following the first and second rounds, a series of protest rallies were organised in Yerevan by the opposition parties.\n6.  On 20 February 2003 the applicant participated in a demonstration held in Yerevan which was apparently followed by a march.\n7.  On 26 February 2003, when another demonstration was apparently supposed to take place in Yerevan, the applicant and two other members of his party set off by car from Ashnak village to Yerevan.\n8.  The applicant alleged that on the road to Yerevan their car was stopped by several individuals in civilian clothes who introduced themselves as officers of the Aragatsotn Regional Police Department. The applicant and his colleagues were taken to the Regional Police Department. From there the applicant was transferred to the Central District Police Department of Yerevan where an administrative case was initiated against him on account of his participation in the demonstration of 20 February 2003.\n9.  On the same date, several hours later, the applicant was taken to the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (Երևան քաղաքի Կենտրոն և Նորք-Մարաշ համայնքներկ առաջին ատյանի դատարան). There he was brought before Judge A. who, having heard the applicant and his lawyer, after a brief hearing sentenced the applicant under Article 180.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (Վարչական իրավախախտումների վերաբերյալ ՀՀ օրենսգիրք – “the CAO”) to ten days of administrative detention, finding that:\n“On 20 February 2003 [the applicant] participated in an unauthorised march, thus violating the prescribed rules for organising and holding street marches and demonstrations.\nFor this act [the applicant] was brought to the Central District Police Department on 26 February 2003.\nThe fact of [the applicant’s] participation in an unauthorised march was confirmed by the explanation given by [the applicant] in court and the examination of the materials of the administrative case file.”\n10.  The decision stated that it was not subject to appeal and could be protested against only by the prosecutor.\n11.  On 27 February 2003 the applicant’s lawyer lodged both an appeal with the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal (ՀՀ քրեական և զինվորական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարան) and an application with the General Prosecutor (ՀՀ գլխավոր դատախազ) requesting him to initiate an appeal against the decision of the District Court. The lawyer argued at the outset, relying on various domestic provisions, that he was entitled to lodge an appeal against the decision of the District Court. As to the merits, he submitted that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly was in violation of the Constitution and was not prescribed by law, and the penalty imposed was excessive. The lawyer attached a copy of the contested decision to the appeal.\n12.  On 2 March 2003 the President of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal (ՀՀ քրեական և զինվորական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարանի նախագահ) reviewed the applicant’s conviction, finding that:\n“[The applicant, according to the decision of the District Court, was subjected to administrative detention] ... for violating the prescribed rules for organising and holding assembl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4101", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1953 respectively and live in Legionowo.\n6.  In the evening of 3 August 2000 the applicants' son and his two friends, T.D. and G.S. were drinking beer on a street in Legionowo. After G.S. broke a windowpane on a notice board, they fled.\n7.  In connection with that event, at about 10.45 p.m. on the same day, Paweł Lewandowski was arrested by two police officers, M.K. and A.J. The police officers established the identity of the applicants' son and ordered him to get into the police car. The applicants' son kept asking about the reasons for his arrest. He rang his sister from his mobile phone to inform her about the situation. One of the police officers asked Paweł Lewandowski “if he did not like something”. The other police officer asked him where he lived and later said that they would bring a charge against him of assaulting a police officer.\n8.  Shortly afterwards the police officers ordered the applicants' son to leave the car. After crossing the street, they knocked him over and started kicking him. In reaction to that, Paweł Lewandowski began insulting and uttering threats against the police officers. That incident was observed by D.G. from a nearby estate.\n9.  At about the same time the two friends of Paweł Lewandowski, T.D. and G.S. were arrested by other police officers.\n10.  Subsequently, the applicants' son was driven to the Legionowo police station. He signed the record of arrest which stated that he was suspected, among other things, of insulting and assaulting a police officer. The applicants' son did not complain about his state of health. It was established by breathalyser test that he had a blood alcohol level of 1.38. The applicants' son did not receive any medical assistance during his detention at the police detention centre, despite showing visible signs of injury.\n11.  Paweł Lewandowski was released from detention on 5 August 2000 at about 10 a.m. On his release, he went with his parents to see a doctor. On 5 August 2000 Dr D.S. issued a medical certificate for the applicants' son which read as follows:\n“Condition after assault. Swelling and reddening of left upper eyelid. Ecchymoses on the left side of the forehead, right side of the neck and inside area of both arms. Light pressure pain in the area of the back of the head and in the area below the right side of the ribs.”\n(b) The Government's account of facts\n12.  The applicants' son was arrested on 3 August 2000 on suspicion of destroying public property. He was also said to have kicked and smashed private cars while fleeing the scene. He had been intoxicated as he had been drinking beer with his two friends, T.D. and G.S.\n13.  Two police officers, M.K. and A.J., arrived at Aleja Róż where the other police team attempted to arrest the perpetrators of the misdemeanour. On approach the police officers noticed three men fleeing into a forest. The applicants' son was caught first. While resisting arrest, he slapped and kicked police officer M.K on the right thigh. The police officers had recourse to force during the arrest to the extent that had been necessary in view of the applicants' son's conduct. The applicants' son was pulled to the ground after a brief struggle. He was later handcuffed as he had still been aggressive. The applicants' son used very abusive and insulting language towards the police officers and he uttered very serious threats. Two other men were arrested by the second police team in the forest.\n14.  On 11 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4102", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Warsaw.\nCriminal proceedings against the applicant and her detention on remand\n6.  On 10 June 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud, committed in an organised criminal group.\n7.  On 11 June 2003 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded her in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that she had committed the offence in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that she might tamper with evidence and induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n8.  The applicant’s appeal against the detention order, likewise her further appeals against decisions prolonging her detention and all her subsequent, numerous applications for release, were unsuccessful. In her applications and appeals, she argued that the charge against her was based on unreliable and contradictory evidence. She also relied on her personal circumstances, in particular her age.\n9.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was prolonged on several occasions by the Warsaw District Court (on 11 June 2003, 3 September 2003, 3 December 2003 and by the Warsaw Court of Appeal (on 8 June 2004, 7 September 2004, 3 December 2004, 1 March 2005). In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. They attached importance to the grave nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation, especially the need to verify evidence from suspects and witnesses and the need to obtain fresh evidence from experts justified holding her in custody.\n10.  On 12 May 2005 the Pruszków District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) lodged a bill of indictment with the Warsaw District Court. The applicant was charged with fraud, committed in an organised criminal group. There were 16 defendants in the case, all charged with numerous counts of fraud committed in an organised criminal group. On 20 May 2005 the Warsaw District Court again prolonged the applicant’s detention until 9 June 2005 reiterating the grounds previously given for her detention.\n11.  Since on 10 June 2005 the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time-limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a further prolongation of her detention and also detention of her co-accused E.C., A.F. and P.S until 9 December 2005 was ordered by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 3 June 2005. The court found that the strong suspicion against her of having committed the serious offences with which she had been charged and the severity of the anticipated sentence justified holding her in custody. It pointed out that the case was complex given the number of accused and the number of charges brought against them. Moreover, it added that 450 witnesses were to be heard and numerous documents were to be examined.\n12.  On 12 August 2005 the trial court held the first hearing. Until 21 December 2006, the date on which the applicant was released from detention, the Warsaw District Court held 44 hearings in the case.\n13.  During the court proceedings the authorities furthe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4103", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1975, 1970, 1972, 1967, 1963, 1972, 1961 and 1972 respectively, and live in the town of Şölen.\n6.  The applicants were all employed as manual workers by the Şölen Town Council (hereafter “the Town Council”) until their contracts of employment were terminated by the Town Council on 29 April 1999.\n7.  On various dates in 1999 the applicants brought proceedings before the Ergani Civil Court of First Instance against the Town Council and claimed their unpaid salaries and other pecuniary rights to which they were entitled under the applicable legislation.\n8.  The applicants' claims were partly accepted by the Ergani Civil Court in its decisions adopted on 3 November 1999 and 30 December 1999.\n9.  Between December 1999 and March 2000 the applicants initiated enforcement proceedings against the Town Council and sought to obtain the sums awarded to them by the Ergani Civil Court together with statutory interest.\n10.  The sums claimed by the applicants were as follows:\n \nApplication no.\nApplicant\nAmount in Turkish liras\nApproximate amount in Euros\n42894/04\nMehmet Arat\n791,793,180\n1,440\n42904/04\nHaci[2] Atsız\n1,481,705,734\n2,700\n42905/04\nMehmet Atsız (son of Hakim)\n3,670,205,743 \n6,680\n42906/04\nEdip Çelik\n3,299,888,955\n6,000\n42907/04\nRamazan Alaca\n3,409,954,582\n6,200\n42908/04\nErdal Güneş\n976,729,112\n1,780\n42909/04\nMehmet Atsız\n4,918,063,504\n8,950\n42910/04\nMehmet Can\n2,792,467,421\n5,080\n11.  In the course of the enforcement proceedings, the applicants unsuccessfully attempted to recover their monies from the Town Council's bank accounts at the State owned Ziraat Bank. The bank refused to make the payments on the ground that the monies deposited there by the Town Council had been allocated to a special fund earmarked for public services. Following this, the Town Council transferred all their monetary assets to the special fund to circumvent the Ergani Civil Court's decisions.\n12.  At the time of the adoption of the present judgment the applicants' attempts at recovering their monies were still continuing.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4104", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the “TRNC”.\n7.  On 29 May 2001 a businessman was found dead in his office in the “TRNC”. His throat had been slit and there were also a number of injuries to his head caused by blows. According to the autopsy report, the businessman had been killed in his office between 8 p.m. and 10.45 p.m. on 29 May 2001.\n8.  The remaining facts of the case are disputed by the parties and are set out separately. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 9-22). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 23-32). The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 33-46).\n9.  The applicant, his wife and their two children moved to the “TRNC” in 1997 and the applicant opened two shops, selling musical equipment. The applicant did not speak much Turkish.\n10.  At around midnight on 29 May 2001 the applicant was arrested at his home by police officers. He was asked to drive to the Central Police Station in his own car, accompanied by a police officer. On his arrival at the police station he was handcuffed, questioned by the director of the police station and his fingerprints were taken. When the applicant asked the police why he had been arrested, he received no answers.\n11.  The following morning, namely 30 May 2001, the police brought in Mr M.E. and Mr W.F., two Egyptian students who had arrived in the “TRNC” three months previously.\n12.  On 2 June 2001 the applicant was brought before a judge who ordered his detention for an additional period of eight days.\n13.  The same day the applicant was interviewed by Mr Z.A., a police investigator, who told the applicant that, in the opinion of the police, Mr M.E. was the murderer. Police investigator Mr Z.A. then questioned the applicant and recorded his statement on a piece of paper which he asked the applicant to sign. The applicant did not understand what was written in the statement because the handwriting was illegible and his Turkish was not sufficient. He asked for an interpreter. But when police investigator Mr Z.A. told him that there was nothing in the statement that he should be afraid of, and that his lawyer would translate it for him the following morning, the applicant signed the statement. Police investigator Mr Z.A. then persuaded the applicant to write something in Turkish on another piece of paper and sign. He told the applicant that he would be released the following morning.\n14.  On 3 June 2001 the applicant was taken to the office of Mr E.D., the chief of police. Mr H.M., who had been appointed as the applicant’s legal representative, was also present in the room. The chief of police told the applicant that he believed that the applicant and Mr M.E. (see paragraph 11 above) were the murderers. When the applicant protested his innocence, the police chief threatened him. The applicant was then handcuffed and taken back to his cell. Throughout this time the applicant’s lawyer Mr H.M. stayed quiet and did not intervene.\n15.  The same day the applicant was taken to another room to see police investigator Mr Z.A., who had questioned him the previous day. Mr Z.A. and a number of other police officers told the applicant that they knew about the confession the applicant had made to the chief of police Mr E.D. earlier in the day, and asked him to sign that confession which h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4105", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Białystok.\n5.  On 15 May 1995 the Białystok District Court ruled that J.C. was to pay the applicant the sum of 2,977 Polish zlotys (PLN), plus statutory interest from 23 August 1994. On 5 July 1995 the District Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the judgment.\n6.  On 16 October 1995 the applicant asked the bailiff of the District Court (Komornik Sądu Rejonowego) to institute enforcement proceedings.\n7.  Between October 1995 and April 1996 the bailiff of the Białystok District Court made several unsuccessful attempts to recover the debt. As it was impossible to recover the debt, on 30 September 1996 the bailiff initiated proceedings for possession of J.C.’s apartment.\n8.  On 29 December 1998 the applicant (at the bailiff’s request) paid an advance on the fees payable to the expert responsible for valuing J.C.’s apartment.\n9.  The bailiff set the date for the valuation of the apartment for 15 January 1999. However, the valuation was not done until 15 July 1999.\n10.  In June and August 2000 the applicant submitted requests for an auction of J.C.’s apartment to be held. However, the bailiff failed to reply to the applicant’s requests.\n11.  On 29 November 2000 the applicant again requested the bailiff to schedule a date for the first auction.\n12.  In reply to the request, on 6 June 2001, the bailiff requested from the applicant an advance on payment for the auction. On 9 July 2001 the bailiff stayed the proceedings because of the applicant’s failure to pay. After the amount due was paid, the bailiff reopened the proceedings on 16 August 2001.\n13.  On 18 September 2001 the bailiff informed the applicant that J.C.’s apartment was being auctioned.\n14.  On 16 October 2002 the bailiff informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings had been ineffective. The co-owner of the apartment was J.C.’s husband.\n15.  On 6 November 2002 the applicant requested the court to issue a writ of execution in respect of J.C.’s husband. On 7 November 2002 the bailiff stayed the proceedings.\n16.  On 10 March 2003 the applicant requested the proceedings to be resumed. On 23 April 2003 the bailiff granted the request. The bailiff noted that the apartment’s co-owner, J.C’s. husband, was abroad and requested that a guardian be appointed for him.\n17.  On 11 August 2004 the bailiff requested a further valuation of the apartment. The expert informed the applicant and the bailiff that it had not been possible to enter the apartment to carry out the valuation.\n18.  On 29 October 2004 the bailiff requested that someone other than J.C. be named in the administration of the property.\n19.  On 25 July 2006 the applicant sold the debt.\n20.  The applicant filed a complaint with the Białystok Regional Court, alleging that there had been a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time. He relied on the provisions of the Act of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004. Under section 3 of the 2004 Act a complaint can be lodged during enforcement proceedings.\n21.  On 27 May 2005 the Białystok Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act produced legal effects as from the date of its entry into force. The court acknowledged the excessive len", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4106", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Otwock.\n5.  The applicant lives in a block of flats in Otwock.\n6.  In 1981 (according to the applicant) or in 1985 (according to the applicant’s neighbour) the applicant’s neighbour fitted bars to his balcony in such a way that they could serve as a ladder to the applicant’s apartment on the first floor, and subsequently, in 1994, he adapted part of the staircase as a cellar by constructing a wall, allegedly without the required permit.\n7.  On 27 June 1994 the applicant informed the competent administrative authority about the construction works and requested that his neighbour be ordered to dismantle the bars and the wall on the staircase.\n8.  On 28 February 1995, following numerous letters from the applicant seeking to accelerate the proceedings, the Otwock District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) ordered the applicant’s neighbour to carry out some reconstruction works on the bars. It did not refer to the wall on the staircase.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed to the Warsaw Governor (Wojewoda).\n10.  The Warsaw Governor did not give a decision within the statutory fourteen-day time-limit. Therefore, on 12 March 1995, the applicant complained to the Chief Building Inspectorate (Główny Urząd Nadzoru Budowlanego).\n11.  On 18 July 1995 the Chief Building Inspector allowed the complaint and ordered the Governor to give a decision within fourteen days.\n12.  On 7 August 1995 the Warsaw Governor upheld the first-instance decision. The Governor did not refer to the wall.\n13.  On 7 September 1995 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court (Najwyższy Sąd Administracyjny).\n14.  On 13 February 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the challenged decision and the decision of the first-instance authority.\n15.  Apparently the Supreme Administrative Court scheduled another hearing to deal with a second part of the applicant’s complaint, concerning the wall constructed on his staircase.\n16.  On 4 June 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court gave another judgment and ordered the Otwock District Office to give a decision in the matter of the wall constructed by the applicant’s neighbour, within one month of the date of delivery of the judgment.\n17.  From the day on which the Supreme Administrative Court gave its second judgment, the administrative proceedings were split into two separate sets of proceedings.\n18.  On 6 November 1997 the Otwock District Office ordered that expert opinions concerning fire regulations be obtained and imposed on the applicant’s neighbour an obligation to produce, within three months, a new specification for the installation of the bars on his balcony.\n19.  The applicant’s neighbour failed to comply with the above‑mentioned order and, on 10 June 1998, the Otwock District Office sent him a reminder, set an additional three-week time-limit to carry out the necessary works and informed him that failure to comply with the order within the new time-limit would result in compulsory demolition of the bars.\n20.  The applicant’s neighbour again did not comply with the order.\n21.  On 16 September 1998 the Otwock District Office ordered compulsory demolition of the bars.\n22.  On 28 September 1998 the applicant appealed against that decision holding that the demolition order should have concerned not only the bars, but also the canopy over the applicant’s neighbour’s balcony.\n23.  On 17 February 1999 the applicant complained to the Supreme Administra", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4107", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952. He is a practising lawyer and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On an unspecified date the applicant, on behalf of his client Mr O.M., filed an action with the Istanbul Administrative Court seeking the annulment and suspension of execution of a competition to fill 49 posts announced in the Akit newspaper on 10 December 1997 by the office of the mayor of the Ümraniye district in Istanbul. In his petition, the applicant stated, inter alia, that 111 out of 137 workers who had been dismissed on 13 June 1994 had won their cases before the Administrative Courts but despite this fact they had not been reinstated. In this regard, the applicant submitted that the municipality had refused to reinstate 20 of the workers on the ground that there were no available posts. As to the other 91, they had been reinstated for a day before being dismissed again. The applicant complained that pending another set of administrative proceedings against the Municipality regarding a competition announced in the same newspaper on 30 March 1997 for 49 posts, the Municipality had announced this new competition, through which it was aiming to fill the available posts, rendering impossible the enforcement of the court judgments in favour of the dismissed employees, including his client. He further claimed that the vacancy notice had been published only in the editions of Akit which were distributed to various associations affiliated with the Refah party and not in the normal edition of Akit as distributed in Istanbul that same day.\n6.  In one paragraph of his petition, the applicant made the following remark:\n“As stated by political historians, the most dangerous cruel [person] (zalim) in the world is the one who considers himself and his acts as fair or who presents himself as such. The elected head of the accused administration, who has placed my clients in their current situation, is such a cruel [person](zalim) and a bigot (yobaz) with no regard for the rule of law (hukuk tanımaz).”\n7.  On 24 April 1998 Mr Bingöl, mayor of Ümraniye and member of the Refah party, brought an action against the applicant claiming compensation for the damage he had incurred as a result of the applicant’s serious attack on his honour and integrity.\n8.  In the course of the proceedings before the Üsküdar Civil Court of First Instance (hereafter the “Üsküdar Court”), the applicant unsuccessfully asked the court to appoint expert witnesses to analyse the impugned words and to hear a number of witnesses. In his written observations, the applicant maintained, inter alia, that his statements had not been an attack against Mr Bingöl but mere observations, since there were documents proving to what degree the latter had acted in accordance with the laws, the Constitution and ethics over the previous five years. He made a number of accusations regarding Mr Bingöl’s actions as mayor and referred to the fact that the latter and his administration had been the subject of media attention many times. The applicant stated that he had used the impugned words in the course of his defence duties; it had not been his aim to insult Mr Bingöl. He had referred to the plaintiff as “cruel” because the dismissals had had serious adverse effects on the lives of his 137 clients. He had used the word “bigot” as a reference to an intolerant person. In this connection, the applicant also referred to the reasons voiced by the Constitutional Court when it decided to ban the Refah party. The a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4108", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Warsaw.\n5.  The applicant lived in a long-term relationship (cohabitation) with J.L., who died in 1984. On 18 July 1984 she lodged a civil action with the Warsaw District Court against his sons, R. and D., for recognition of her ownership rights to the property she had possessed and maintained during her cohabitation with J.L.\n6.  At its first hearing on 13 November 1984 the court heard the parties.\n7.  On 23 February 1985 the Warsaw District Court stayed the proceedings, as the applicant’s counsel had failed to submit some important documents concerning the ownership of the disputed property. The applicant appealed and on 10 May 1985 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed that decision.\n8.  Subsequent hearings in the case were held on 28 January and 19 February 1987. The court questioned the applicant and two witnesses. Further, it asked counsel to define precisely the subject matter of the claim.\n9.  The hearing scheduled for 16 November 1987 was postponed due to the applicant’s non-appearance.\n10.  The hearing of 25 July 1988 was adjourned at the parties’ request, in connection with their wish to reach a friendly settlement.\n11.  On 27 September and 18 October 1988 the court heard three witnesses.\n12.  Following a request by counsel, on 9 December 1988 the court appointed an expert to prepare a valuation of the property. The expert submitted his opinion on 5 September 1989.\n13.  At the hearing of 20 April 1990 counsel contested the findings contained in the expert’s report. The hearing was subsequently adjourned as the parties again expressed their wish to reach a friendly settlement of the case.\n14.  On 1 October 1990 counsel informed the Warsaw District Court about the parties’ failure to reach an agreement.\n15.  Hearings in the case were held on 12 November 1990 and 10 January, 18 February, 21 March, 29 April and 16 May 1991. The parties were again examined, as well as eleven witnesses.\n16.  On 16 May 1991 the court requested the expert to supplement his opinion. In this connection the defendants were asked to deliver additional documents. They failed, however, to comply with this request. Hence, the expert was not able to supplement his opinion and in October 1993 he returned the case file to the court.\n17.  On 29 June 1994 the Warsaw District Court appointed another expert, T.K., who submitted his opinion on 24 April 1995.\n18.  On 25 May 1995 the applicant decided to withdraw her claim for transfer of ownership and submitted a claim for compensation instead.\n19.  The expert, as well as the defendants, was summoned for a hearing scheduled for 13 September 1996, but they all failed to comply with the summons and did not appear at the trial.\n20.  By the decision of 13 September 1996 the Warsaw District Court exempted the applicant from court fees for lodging her new claim.\n21.  On the same day the Warsaw District Court decided that it lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae (due to the high value of the transformed claim) and transferred the case to the Warsaw Regional Court.\n22.  On 31 January 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court again summoned expert T.K. and adjourned the hearing until 25 April 1997. The expert again failed to attend that hearing.\n23.  On 26 April 1997 the court found that it lacked jurisdiction ratione loci and materiae and on 22 May 1997 transferred the case to the Nowy Dwór Mazowiecki District Court. No hearing was scheduled until 15 April 1999.\n24.  The hearing of 15 April 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4109", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, Ms Mukadesa Crnišanin (“the first applicant”), Ms Arifa Hamidović (“the second applicant”), Ms Milodarka Kostić (“the third applicant”), and Ms Faza Paljevac (“the fourth applicant”) are all Serbian citizens who were born in 1953, 1957, 1951 and 1955, respectively, and currently live in the Municipality of Novi Pazar, Serbia.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 24 March 1995 and 1 May 1996, respectively, the first and the second applicants, both employed with Raška Holding AD, on 1 August 1992, the third applicant employed with Trikotaza Raška DP (succeeded by Oktan-Pro), and on 1 January 1994 the fourth applicant employed with “Raška Holding - Raška pamučna predionica”, were all “placed” by their respective “socially-owned” employers on “compulsory” paid leave “until such time” when “normal production could be resumed” and the said companies’ business performance “improved sufficiently”.\n9.  Whilst on this leave, in accordance with the relevant domestic legislation, the applicants were entitled to a significantly reduced monthly income, as well as the payment of their pension, disability and other social security contributions.\n10.  Since the companies failed to fulfil these obligations, the applicants brought numerous separate civil claims before the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the Municipal Court”).\n11.  On 11 July 2002 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her the monthly “paid leave benefits” (“naknada za vreme plaćenog odsustva”) due from 20 June 1998 to 31 December 2001, plus statutory interest.\n12.  This judgment became final in 2003 or early 2004.\n13.  On 27 March 2003 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:\ni. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 January 1999 to 18 February 2003, with statutory interest; and\nii. 6,500 Dinars for her legal costs.\n14.  This judgment became final on 22 April 2003.\n15.  On 30 October 2003 the Municipal Court again ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:\ni. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 18 February 2003 to October 2003 (37,924 Dinars in all), together with statutory interest;\nii. 11,643 Dinars for her legal costs; and\niii. the pension and disability insurance contributions (“doprinosi za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje”) due for that period.\n16.  This judgment became final on 28 November 2003.\n17.  On 19 April 2004 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgments, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank account transfer or through the auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets.\n18.  On 6 May 2004 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.\n19.  On 21 May 2004 the Municipal Court provided the Central Bank (Narodna banka Srbije) with this order.\n20.  On 30 March 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:\ni. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 November 2003 to 30 March 2004 (25,408 Dinars in all), together with statutory interest;\nii. 4,200 Dinars for her legal costs; and\niii. the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for that period.\n21.  This judgment became final on 18 June 2004.\n22.  On 21 June 2004 the applicant filed a request for t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4111", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Yerevan.\n5.  In 2003 a presidential election was held in Armenia with its first and second rounds taking place on 19 February and 5 March respectively. The applicant acted as an authorised election assistant (վստահված անձ) for the main opposition candidate in this election. Following the first and second rounds of the election, a series of protest rallies were organised in Yerevan by the opposition parties.\n6.  According to the materials of the case, the applicant attended one of these rallies on 23 February 2003. The applicant denied this fact and alleged that he had not attended the rallies.\n7.  On 26 February 2003 at 8 a.m. the applicant was visited at home by two police officers from the Shengavit District Police Department (ՀՀ ոստիկանության Շենգավիթի բաժին). He was informed that the chief of the police department wished to speak to him and was taken to the police station.\n8.  At the police station an administrative case was initiated against the applicant who was charged under Article 172 of the Code of Administrative Offences (Վարչական իրավախախտումների վերաբերյալ ՀՀ օրենսգիրք – “the CAO”) with minor hooliganism on the ground that he had participated in the unauthorised demonstration of 23 February 2003 and had violated public order.\n9.  On the same date, several hours later, the applicant was taken to the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (Երևան քաղաքի Կենտրոն և Նորք-Մարաշ համայնքների առաջին ատյանի դատարան). There he was brought before Judge H. who, after a brief hearing, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to ten days of administrative detention, finding that:\n“On 23 February 2003 on Mashtots Avenue in Yerevan [the applicant] participated together with a group of people in an unauthorised demonstration and march, and violated public order.”\n10.  The decision stated that it could be protested against by the prosecutor under Article 289 of the CAO.\n11.  The applicant was taken to a detention facility to serve his sentence.\n12.  The applicant alleged that on 1 March 2003 he was taken from his cell to another room. On the table in this room there were two sample applications, one of which was handed to him with the instruction to write and sign his name on it. The content of the application was a statement which declared: “I regret what I have done and request a review of my case.” This request was addressed to the President of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal (ՀՀ քրեական և զինվորական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարանի նախագահ). The applicant alleged that he had to sign this document, even though he disagreed with its contents, in order to be released and to be able to perform his authorised election assistant duties in the second round of the presidential election.\n13.  On the same date the President of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal reviewed the applicant’s conviction, finding that:\n“[The applicant, according to the decision of the District Court, was subjected to administrative detention] ... for attending an unauthorised demonstration in the Kentron District of Yerevan on 23 February 2003 and violating public order.\nHaving familiarised myself with [the applicant’s] appeal and the materials concerning the administrative offence, I find that the penalty imposed on [the applicant] must be changed.”\n14.  The President changed the penalty to an administrative fine of 2,000 Armenian drams (AMD) (approximately 3 euros (EUR) at the material t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4112", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  On 6 July 2004 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed, inter alia, several offences of drug trafficking.\n7.  On 7 July 2004 the Kielce District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. It relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and on the risk that he might tamper with evidence. Further, the court referred to the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n8.  The applicant appealed against the detention order. On 10 August 2004 the Kielce Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the first‑instance decision. It explained that the reasons for his detention were still valid and stressed that the suspicion against him was supported by the fact that the applicant had partly confessed.\n9. In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended several times. The courts relied on the suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged. In their decisions, which also concerned several other suspects, the courts stressed the fact that most of the accused – however not the applicant - were acting in an organised group. Further, they referred to the complexity of the case, the fact that many suspects were involved in the case and that some of them had gone into hiding. They stressed that the detention was justified by the need to obtain further evidence, in particular, to obtain expert reports, to take evidence from numerous witnesses and suspects and to confront a witness with suspects. Lastly, the courts relied on the fact that some of the suspects were related to each other. On almost every occasion the courts relied on grounds that did not pertain to the applicant individually.\n10.  On 20 June 2005 the applicant and thirty three other suspects were indicted before the Warsaw Regional Court. The bill of indictment comprised 180 charges. The applicant was indicted on several charges of drug trafficking.\n11.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by the Warsaw Regional Court on 27 June and 24 October 2005, 27 January 2006 and later by the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 27 June and 15 December 2006, 13 March, 13 July and 12 October 2007. The courts repeated the grounds given in the previous decisions. On an unspecified date in January 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal further extended the applicant’s detention, until 3 April 2008. The applicant failed to submit information as to whether there any further decisions had been given extending his detention. On 23 May 2008 the applicant informed the Court that he had been released.\n12.  It appears that in the course of the proceedings, the applicant made numerous unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release him and against decisions extending his detention. The Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance decisions on the following dates: 29 November 2005, 3 March and 8 August 2006, and 3 August and 9 November 2007.\n13.  On 10 January 2006 the trial court held the first hearing. Between 10 January 2006 and 25 June 2007 it held approximately sixty hearings in the case.\n14.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the first‑instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4113", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1980, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1980, 1983, 1978 and 1983, respectively, and live in Istanbul. They were students at various faculties attached to Istanbul University at the time of the events. The applicants were also members of a group called Istanbul University Students’ Coordination (İstanbul Üniversite Öğrencileri Koordinasyonu).\n5.  On 3 October 2002 Istanbul University held its opening ceremony for the academic year 2002-2003. During the ceremony, which was attended by politicians, businessmen and the press, the applicants were forcibly removed from the conference hall by plain clothed policemen and taken to Beyazıt police station, approximately 500-600 metres away from the university[1].\n6.  According to the incident report drafted by police officers at 12.15 p.m., the events unfolded as follows. At around 11.20 a.m., while the Chancellor Mr Alemdaroğlu was speaking, some students, from the upper stage of the hall, started shouting out “Freedom to University, an end to investigations” and “Oppression will not intimidate us, decree belongs to the State and the University to us”, and raised banners and placards with similar messages. They also held up enlarged photocopies of disciplinary sanctions given to various students, including one of the applicants, Mr Haşim Özgür Ersoy. Further to a request from the Chancellor’s security adviser, the police warned the students that theirs was an unlawful demonstration and that they were breaching public order by interfering with freedom of education and instruction and disrupting the ceremony. They were asked to come to the police station. However, since the students continued their protest and shouted out “Oppression will not intimidate us”, the police, together with the private security guards of the university, intervened and arrested nineteen students, including the applicants, by using force. The applicants were taken to Beyazıt police station.\n7.  At 12.15 p.m. records of the applicants’ arrest were drawn up, which they refused to sign.\n8.  At 2 p.m. the applicants were medically examined by a doctor at Haseki Hospital. At 4.55 p.m. they were again examined by a doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Department.\n9.  The doctor at the Haseki Hospital noted that the applicant had ecchymosed lesions in the middle of her left arm.\n10.  The doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Department noted that the applicant had a bruise of 2.5 cm on the middle inside part of her left arm and another bruise of 1 cm on the lower left arm.\n11.  The doctor at Haseki Hospital found that the applicant had a skin graze and redness in her lower back region.\n12.  The doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Department noted, in addition to the above, a skin graze of 1 cm on the right side of her neck. It was noted that the applicant had stated that she had sustained these injuries during the upheaval on the university stairs.\n13.  The doctor at the Haseki Hospital found an area of bruising and swelling on the applicant’s forehead, bruises and swelling on the nose and a skin graze on the back of the right ear. Further medical analysis did not reveal any bleeding or other problems in the nasal region.\n14.  The doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Department noted the same injuries on the applicant. It was further noted that, as regards the injury on his forehead, the applicant had stated that he had been punched in the face. As to the other injuries, the applicant failed to rem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4114", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Helsinki.\n5.  On 30 January 1994 the applicant had an accident at work. The insurance company paid him an occupational injury pension until 31 May 1996.\n6.  The applicant applied to have the pension continued from 1 June 1996 onwards. On 8 May 1996 the insurance company rejected his application finding that the applicant’s work capacity had been reduced by less than 10%. It further held that the applicant’s inability to return to his previous profession as a carpenter was not the result of the injury sustained during the accident, but of pains which had not been caused by the accident.\n7.  In June 1996 the applicant appealed to the Accident Board (tapaturmalautakunta, olycksfallsnämnden), repeating his requests. He relied on a medical opinion dated 13 May 1996 in which he was found to be unfit for carpentry work. He also submitted further medical opinions. The Board rejected his appeal on 13 March 1997. It ruled, inter alia, that he was incapable of full-time carpentry work. However, the applicant’s pains were not caused by the accident and therefore could not be compensated under the Employment Accidents Act.\n8.  The applicant, represented by a lawyer, appealed to the Insurance Court (vakuutusoikeus, försäkringsdomstolen) submitting further evidence. On 17 November 1998 the court rejected the bulk of his appeal. However, it modified the Accident Board’s decision so as to grant the applicant a 100% occupational injury pension for the period from 20 May to 19 June 1997, during which the applicant had participated in a work-testing project. The case was referred back to the insurance company for further measures.\n9.  On acquainting himself with his case file at the office of the Insurance Court’s registry, he found three documents which he claimed had not been communicated to him. In his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) he claimed, inter alia, that he had not been sent all the documents relevant to his case.\n10.  The Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal on 21 October 1999.\n11.  On 27 March 2000 the applicant, using an extraordinary procedure, requested the Supreme Court to annul its decision and that of the Insurance Court. He argued that the latter court had failed to send him documents.\n12.  On 13 November 2003 the Supreme Court rejected his application. It found that the non-communicated documents related to decision-making within the insurance company and that the documents had not been submitted to the court in connection with the parties’ submissions or relied on by the court in reaching its decision.\n13.  On 27 March 2000 the applicant lodged an application (no. 57793/00) with the European Court against Finland. He alleged, in particular, that he had been denied a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the failure to provide him with an opportunity to comment on some documents which had been included in his case file. On 7 June 2007 the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.\n14.  Meanwhile, the case was pending before the insurance company. On 7 February 2000 the insurance company decided that the new medical evidence submitted was not capable of changing the conclusions of the Accident Board in its decision of 13 March 1997. The insurance company found that, even though the applicant was incapable of full-time carpentry work,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4115", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Tbilisi.\n6.  On 20 June 2003 criminal proceedings for murder were initiated (“the murder case”). On 3 July 2003 charges of murder and the unlawful acquisition, storage and transportation of firearms were brought against the applicant’s brother and another person. The accused persons, having fled, were formally declared wanted on 4 July 2003.\n7.  On an unspecified date in July 2003, photographs of four persons – the applicant, his brother, the other person accused of murder and the latter’s brother – were posted on the boards of “wanted persons” in the police stations of the Vake-Saburtalo District in Tbilisi, the Ambrolauri district (western Georgia) and on the Armenian-Georgian border. Identified by their names, they were said to be wanted by the police in connection with a murder.\n8.  In reply to queries from the applicant’s lawyers, the Vake‑Saburtalo District Court in Tbilisi stated on 4 November 2003 that, between May and November 2003, no criminal procedural measures of a coercive nature against the applicant had been registered in the relevant log. Further, by a notification of 28 November 2003, the Vake-Saburtalo police station confirmed to the lawyers that solely the applicant’s brother, who was charged with the murder and firearms offences, had been declared wanted and that no similar measure had been taken with respect to the applicant.\n9.  On 15 December 2003 the applicant’s lawyers requested the Ministry of the Interior (“the MI”) to remove the applicant’s photograph from the police stations and to punish those who had unlawfully posted it. In a reply of 30 December 2003, the MI reiterated that only the applicant’s brother had been wanted for the murder and firearms offences. As to the applicant, in view of his constant refusals to appear before the Vake-Saburtalo district prosecutor’s office, the latter agency had taken “the relevant operational measures aimed at having him interviewed, in the capacity of a witness”. No reply was given to the request for the photograph’s removal.\n10.  On 28 January 2004 the applicant’s lawyers requested the Vake‑Saburtalo District Court to initiate criminal proceedings for libel on the basis of the unlawful posting of the applicant’s photograph in the police stations (“the libel complaint”). Under Article 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) as in force at the material time, the offence of libel was a matter for private prosecution and, pursuant to Article 627 § 1 of the CCP, only a competent court was empowered to initiate criminal proceedings on the basis of a complaint by the victim.\n11.  As disclosed by the case file, the Vake-Saburtalo District Court decided to summon the applicant to a hearing, reasoning that it was necessary to hear oral submissions from him. The summons could not be served on the applicant at his home address, as his parents stated that his whereabouts had been unknown for the past eight months.\n12.  In a decision of 4 February 2004, the Vake-Saburtalo District Court dismissed the libel complaint. The court pointed out that a private prosecution could be requested either personally by the victim or by his representative in law (Article 627 § 1 of the CCP). That being so, the court, whilst accepting the power of the applicant’s lawyers to represent him, pointed out that the libel complaint had been signed not by the applicant or his representative in law but by the director of the human rights advocacy cent", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4116", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Angleur.\n6.  On 17 October 2003 the applicant appeared before the Liège Assize Court, together with seven co-defendants, on charges of murdering a government minister, A.C., and attempting to murder the minister's partner, M-H.J., on 18 July 1991. The indictment stated that they were accused of the following:\n“1.  having knowingly and intentionally killed [A.C.], with the additional circumstance that the killing was premeditated; this offence is classified by law as premeditated murder (assassinat); 2.  having attempted, knowingly, intentionally and with premeditation, to kill [M-H.J.], the intention to commit the offence having been manifested by conduct which objectively constituted the first step towards perpetration of the offence and which was halted or failed to attain the aim pursued only as a result of circumstances outside the control of its perpetrators; this offence is classified by law as attempted premeditated murder.”\n7.  The indictment further noted on pages 11 to 12:\n“Carlo T. accuses Richard Taxquet, P.D.M. and A.V.D.B. of having ordered the murder of A.C. ...\nIn April 1991 Richard Taxquet informed him about an altercation he had had with A.C., who, having evidently found out about certain matters, had told Richard Taxquet 'that he would get it'.\nRichard Taxquet also confided in his uncle that someone had issued a death threat against him, adding: 'it will be him or me'.”\n8.  In June 1996 a person described by the applicant as an anonymous witness had passed on certain information to the investigators. A record of 3 September 1996 mentioned the informer's intention to remain anonymous, which he justified by fears for his safety “in view of the importance of his information and the media outcry that has always surrounded the C. case”. The person was never interviewed by the investigating judge. He had given the investigators information obtained in confidence from a person whose identity he refused to disclose. During the trial in the Assize Court, the investigators were asked on the initiative of several defendants about the informer's identity. They stated that their informer was not one of the defendants and had not personally witnessed the alleged offences. According to the information supplied, which was set out in fifteen points, A.C.'s murder had been planned by six people, including the applicant and a leading political figure. The only point incriminating the applicant stated:\n“V.der B. and Taxquet apparently laid particular emphasis on the urgent need to kill C. before the '91 holidays as he had promised to make some significant disclosures after the summer break.”\n9.  On 7 January 2004 the Assize Court sentenced the applicant (and his co-defendants) to twenty years' imprisonment.\n10.  The jury had been asked to answer thirty-one questions from the President of the Assize Court. Four of them concerned the applicant and were worded as follows:\n“Question 25 – PRINCIPAL COUNT\nIs the accused Richard Taxquet, who is present before this court, guilty,\nas principal or joint principal,\n– either through having perpetrated the offence or having directly cooperated in its perpetration,\n– or through having, by any act whatsoever, lent such assistance to its perpetration that without it the offence could not have been committed,\n– or through having, by gifts, promises, threats, abuse of authority or power, scheming or contrivance, directly incited another to commit the offence", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4117", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was arrested on 8 May 1996 on suspicion of having committed an aggravated robbery while acting as a member of an organised criminal gang. On 9 May 1996 the District Prosecutor issued a detention order against him on charges of aggravated robbery involving use of a firearm and committed in conspiracy with other persons. The prosecutor referred to a reasonable suspicion, based on witnesses’ testimony, and the risk that the applicant might go into hiding or exert pressure on witnesses. Detention was imposed until 8 August 1996.\n6.  The applicant was detained on the same date as two other accused persons. Yet another suspect was detained on 23 August 1996. The investigation and subsequent court proceedings were conducted against five persons jointly, four of them detained and one at liberty.\n7.  On 10 May 1996 the applicant’s defence counsel appealed against the detention order. He challenged the credibility of the evidence in the applicant’s case, stating that it had been obtained illegally. In particular, he argued that the manner in which the applicant had been presented in an identification parade had not complied with the applicable procedural guarantees. This application was dismissed on 13 May 1996.\n8.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was prolonged twice, on 1 August, until 31 October 1996, and on 24 October, until 31 December 1996. The courts relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had actually committed the offence with which he was charged and on the need to ensure the proper conduct of the investigation. They further referred to the need to obtain experts’ reports on certain items of material evidence. In its decision of 24 October 1996, the court observed that the seriousness of the charges against the applicant substantiated an actual risk that he might “undertake dishonest actions aimed at obstructing the investigation”. It further pointed out the need for additional expertise, in particular with regard to fingerprints and mechanoscopy. An appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of 1 August 1996 was unsuccessful.\n9.  On an unspecified date in November or December 1996 the investigation was completed. On 23 December 1996 the prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and his co-accused with the Wrocław Regional Court. The bill of indictment listed thirty-nine witnesses to be questioned and one hundred and thirty-seven pieces of documentary evidence to be read out during the trial.\n10.  The first hearing in the case was held on 21 March 1997. A further hearing was held on 29 April 1997. The hearing fixed for 17 June 1997 was adjourned as one of the accused had been hospitalised.\n11. On 7 August 1997 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed an application for the applicant’s release, referring to a persistent reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence. It further pointed out that the severe penalty that could be imposed on him justified the fear that he might go into hiding or otherwise obstruct the proceedings.\n12.  The court held subsequent hearings on 11 and 12 September and 18 November 1997, and 10 February and 3 March 1998. During a hearing held on 3 March 1998 the court heard evidence from two anonymous witnesses who answered questions which had previously been formulated in writing by the applicant’s lawyers. On 25 March 1998 they submitted to the court a list of further questions to be put to one of those witnesses. At a heari", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4118", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Espoo.\n6.  On 2 February 1995 the applicant, a member of the board of a wound-up company (“V.”), was detained on suspicion of involvement in offences of aggravated fraud, debtor dishonesty and false book-keeping, allegedly committed in 1991 and 1992, before the winding up of V.\n7.  The criminal proceedings against his four co-defendants began on 18 April 1996 before the Salo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). The charges were served on the applicant on 6 May 1996 and 16 December 1996, respectively, and the trial against him apparently began on 19 March 1997.\n8.  On 21 March 2006 the District Court gave its judgment. It convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud. The court found that the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in the Constitution and the Convention had not been respected and that the applicant was therefore entitled to redress. The court considered that the redress had to be significant and, having regard to the exceptionally lengthy nature of the proceedings, it should also be substantial. The applicant had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. The court stated that it would reduce the applicant’s sentence by half, owing to the breach of the “reasonable time” requirement. It sentenced the applicant to 18 months’ imprisonment.\n9.  The applicant and his co-defendants appealed to the Turku Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten).\n10.  One of the applicant’s co-defendants requested that the Appeal Court terminate the proceedings immediately in his respect and dismiss all charges against him. He based his request on the European Court’s judgment of 9 January 2007 in the case Uoti v. Finland (application no. 61222/00), in which the Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the excessive length of proceedings.\n11.  On 16 January 2007 the Appeal Court rejected this request. The court found that the European Court had not requested in its judgment that the proceedings be terminated.\n12.  On 22 October 2007 the Appeal Court gave its judgment. It found that, taking into account the applicant’s previous conviction, the applicant should have been sentenced to imprisonment of three years and three months. However, due to the excessive length, this sentence should be mitigated and the redress had to be more significant than that granted by the District Court. The Appeal Court mitigated the applicant’s sentence by two-thirds owing to the breach of the “reasonable time” requirement and sentenced him to 13 months’ imprisonment.\n13.  The applicant and his co-defendants appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen).\n14.  On 22 May 2008 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.\n15.  On 29 June 1994 the bankruptcy estate of V. lodged claims for damages against the applicant and three other persons with the Helsinki District Court.\n16.  The court informed the applicant three times, the first being on 29 January 1996, that the case had been adjourned in anticipation of the outcome of the criminal proceedings pending before the Salo District Court (see above), which was based on the same facts as the civil proceedings. On 7 October 1999 and 2 June 2000 it issued decisions to the same effect.\n17.  The applicant objected and requested that the civil proceedings be continued. He also requested that the claims be dismissed because the length of the proceedings had already exceeded a reasonable time. On 1 April 2003 the court rejected his r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4119", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1948 and 1955 respectively and live in Glinica.\n5.  On 27 November 1995 the first applicant lodged a claim for payment of compensation for the seizure of his property. On 13 May 1998 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. On 24 June 1999 the Katowice Court of Appeal partly remitted the case. On 6 November 2003 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment. The first applicant appealed. On 9 June 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. According to an assessment made by two lawyers, a cassation appeal lacked any prospects of success.\n6.  In a letter of 5 December 2004 the first applicant informed the Court that he did not intend to make use of the remedies provided by the Law of 17 June 2004 (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n7.  On 25 November 2002 the applicants filed an action against the State Treasury with the Gliwice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). They claimed compensation for the unlawful annulment of a contract by a public official.\n8.  On 27 December 2002 the Gliwice Regional Court ordered that the applicants rectify certain formal shortcomings in their statement of claim.\n9.  On 18 November 2003 the Court dismissed the applicants’ request to be exempted from court fees. The applicants appealed. On 19 February 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the Regional Court’s decision and exempted the applicants from court fees.\n10.  On 24 March 2004 the Gliwice Regional Court found that it did not have the competence to deal with the subject-matter and referred the case to the Katowice Regional Court.\n11.  The first hearing in the case was held on 26 January 2005.\n12.  On 16 May 2007 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment and granted the applicants’ claim in part.\n13.  Both parties lodged appeals against the first-instance judgment.\n14.  On 8 November 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals.\n15.  It appears that both parties lodged cassation appeals and the case is pending before the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n16.  On 21 December 2004 the applicants lodged a complaint under section 5 of the 2004 Act. They particularly referred to the Gliwice and Katowice Regional Courts’ inactivity between the date the claim had been filed with the Gliwice Court and the date the first hearing had been scheduled. They sought just satisfaction in the amount of 20,000 Polish zlotys (PLN), that is, PLN 10,000 each.\n17.  On 10 March 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act had legal effect as from its entry into force on 17 September 2004. It found that during the relevant part of the proceedings, there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the authorities. In that connection, the court held that there had been no breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time in the period after 17 September 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4120", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Ostrów Wielkopolski.\n5.  On 3 February 2003 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for damages against W.U. before the Kielce Regional Court. On 4 February 2003 the case was transferred to the Kraków Regional Court. Hearings before that court were held on 8 May, 3 July, 14 and 23 October 2003. On the last date the court assigned an expert to prepare a report which was submitted to the court on 31 December 2003. Further hearings were scheduled for 20 April and 25 May 2004.\n6.  By a judgment of 8 June 2004 the applicant’s claim was dismissed. On 1 December 2004 the appellate court quashed the first-instance judgment and the case was remitted.\n7.  A hearing was held on 11 March 2005. On 2 May 2005 the Regional Court admitted evidence based on an expert opinion. The expert’s report was submitted to the court on 19 July 2005. As the parties objected, the court decided that a new expert should be found. However, it could not find one competent to examine the issues involved in the case.\n8.  On 29 September 2005 the applicant complained that the proceedings were too lengthy. In October 2005 the court took steps to find an expert, to no avail.\n9.  Ultimately the court decided that two experts should give their opinion as it was impossible to find one competent to deal with all aspects of the case. One expert was found and the task of preparing a partial opinion was assigned to him. On 27 January 2006 the case file was sent to him. Another expert was asked to prepare an opinion to complete the first one after he had received the case file with the first report. The full report was submitted to the court on 4 September 2006.\n10.  On 2 and 3 October 2006 the parties filed their objections concerning the report. On 19 February and 27 March 2007 hearings were held. On the latter date the applicant modified and extended his claim. The next hearing was scheduled for 8 April 2007. On 23 May 2007 the court gave a judgment and allowed the applicant’s claim in part.\n11.  The parties appealed. On 21 November 2007 the Kraków Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. In February 2008 both parties lodged cassation appeals with the Supreme Court. The case is currently pending before that court.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed, under the Law of 17 June 2004 (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”), a complaint about the breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time. He also claimed compensation for the excessive length of the proceedings.\n13.  On 29 January 2007 the Kraków Court of Appeal found that from October 2005 until January 2006 the Regional Court had failed to conduct the proceedings expeditiously. It dismissed the applicant’s request to be awarded compensation and ordered the Regional Court to give a judgment on the merits of the case before July 2007.\n14.  On 2 April 2007 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal against this decision, finding that no appeal was available in law against it.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4121", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Częstochowa.\n5.  On 23 October 2003 the applicant, who is a police officer, was charged with abuse of powers.\n6.  On 4 November 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 5 November 2003 the applicant was released. The Kraków Appeal Prosecutor (Prokuratura Apelacyjna) suspended the applicant from professional duties and ordered that he be subjected to police supervision in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It further referred to the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.\n7.  On 20 November 2003 the applicant lodged an application with the prosecutor, requesting access to the investigation file. On 28 November 2003 the prosecutor dismissed the application. He referred to the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.\n8.  In the meantime, on 22 November 2003, the applicant had lodged an application for his suspension from professional duties to be lifted or replaced by another preventive measure. The application was dismissed by the Prosecutor of Appeal. In his decision the prosecutor referred to the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation and the seriousness of the offences the applicant was charged with.\n9.  In the course of the proceedings, on 4 March and 2 June 2004, 14 March 2005 and 28 April 2006, the applicant made unsuccessful applications for his suspension from professional duties to be lifted or replaced by another preventive measure and he appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against decisions dismissing his applications. In his applications he referred to the poor financial situation of his family resulting from the lengthy application of the preventive measure.\n10.  On 4 April 2006 the Kraków Appeal Prosecutor decided to obtain a psychiatric report on the applicant and his ability to stand trial.\n11.  On 3 September 2007 the applicant lodged an application for his suspension from professional duties to be lifted or replaced by another preventive measure. On 2 October 2007 the Kraków Prosecutor of Appeal lifted the preventive measure.\n12.  In the course of the investigation the proceedings were severed on several occasions and of the 110 suspects in this case 75 were indicted. However, the investigation concerning the remaining suspects, including the applicant, has not yet been completed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4122", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Sosnowiec.\n5.  On 4 March 1997 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a claim for payment against a limited liability coal‑mining company which for several years had been in possession of the applicant’s plot of land and had not paid the applicant any remuneration for using it without a contract.\n6.  Between 2 October 1997 and 11 September 2000 the court listed 8 hearings and heard five expert witnesses.\n7.  On 25 September 2000 the Katowice Regional Court gave judgment and partly granted the claim.\n8.  On 29 September 2000 the defendant was declared insolvent and a trustee (syndyk masy upadłości) was appointed.\n9.  On 31 October 2000 the trustee lodged an appeal against the judgment of 25 September 2000.\n10.  On 22 November 2000 the Katowice Regional Court stayed the proceedings. The court relied on a provision of the Code of Civil Proceedings (Kodeks postępowania cywilnego) pursuant to which the proceedings had to be stayed if a party to them had meanwhile been declared insolvent and the dispute concerned an object belonging to the assets of the insolvent party.\nOn 23 May 2007 the Katowice Regional Court gave a decision and discontinued the proceedings. It relied on a newly amended provision of the Code of Civil Proceedings pursuant to which a court must discontinue the proceedings if they concern assets belonging to the insolvent party and the liquidation of the assets in question has been ordered.\n11.  On 7 July 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint about the undue length of the proceedings under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n12.  On 25 August 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his complaint. Relying on certain judgments of the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) according to which the 2004 Act was applicable only to proceedings in which the “state of unreasonable delay” existed on the date on which the 2004 Act entered into force, the court came to the conclusion that a complaint under this Act was not the appropriate remedy for seeking a ruling on the unreasonable length of the proceedings before the court, which had resolved the dispute a long time ago (in this regard the court referred to the fact that the Regional Court had given its judgment on 25 September 2000 and after that date the proceedings had been stayed). The court also found that the applicant had not appealed against the decision staying the proceedings and concluded that the period in which the proceedings had been stayed could not be taken into account.\n13.  On 23 July 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings against the trustee of the above-mentioned company, seeking to recover possession of the property which had been used by the coal-mining company.\n14.  On 6 June 2005 the Katowice Regional Court stayed the proceedings. The applicant appealed and, on 8 August 2005, the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.\n15.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings.\n16.  On 8 December 2006 the Katowice Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request.\n17.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that decision.\n18.  On 10 April 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal amended the Regional Court’s decision, granted the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4123", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1970, 1924, 1955 and 1957 respectively. The first applicant lives in Istanbul, the second and third applicants live in Erzincan and the fourth applicant lives in Neunkirchen (Austria). The first applicant is the wife, the second applicant is the mother and the third and fourth applicants are the brothers of Mr Süleyman Yeter, who was born in 1962 and died on 7 March 1999.\n6.  On 22 February 1997 Mr Süleyman Yeter was taken into police custody at the Istanbul Security Headquarters on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party). He was subjected to torture while in custody. On 6 March 1997 Mr Süleyman Yeter was remanded in custody by a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court.\n7.  On 10 March 1997 Mr Süleyman Yeter filed a complaint with the Fatih public prosecutor against the police officers who had tortured him during his detention. Subsequently, on 4 July 1997 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment against nine officers before the Istanbul Assize Court, accusing them of ill-treatment under Article 243 of the Criminal Code. Mr Yeter joined the case as an intervening party.\n8.  In the meantime, on 8 October 1997 he was released from detention on remand.\n9.  At a hearing on 2 March 1999 the Istanbul Assize Court decided to confront the accused police officers and the plaintiffs at the next hearing, to be held on 29 April 1999.\n10.  On 5 March 1999, the police raided the office of the magazine Dayanışma (Solidarity)[2] in Istanbul. Mr Süleyman Yeter and four others who worked for the magazine were arrested and taken into custody by police officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate.\n11.  On the same day, a medical report taken from the Haseki State Hospital certified that Mr Süleyman Yeter bore no signs of ill-treatment.\n12.  On 7 March 1999 Mr Süleyman Yeter collapsed while his statement was being taken by deputy superintendent A.O. and police constable M.Y.; he died on the way to the hospital.\n13.  The same day, the Fatih public prosecutor examined the state of the room where Süleyman Yeter had collapsed and checked the custody register. An incident report drawn up by him and two police officers noted that nothing had been erased from the custody records. He also took statements from officers A.O. and M.Y., who had been present.\n14.  On 8 March 1999 a post-mortem of the body was conducted in the presence of the public prosecutor and the family’s lawyers. The examination revealed wounds to the forehead and chin, and extensive bruising to the rest of the body.\n15.  On the same day, the applicants submitted a petition to the Fatih public prosecutor’s office, requesting that the prosecutor hear testimonies from the persons who had been detained at the same time as Mr Süleyman Yeter in the detention unit.\n16.  On 9 March 1999 the applicants’ lawyers filed a complaint with the Fatih public prosecutor’s office against H.O. (the Istanbul police commissioner), A.C. (the deputy to the commissioner of the Istanbul anti-terrorism branch), and S.K. (the director of the anti-terrorism branch), as well as the police officers who had allegedly detained and interrogated Mr Süleyman Yeter. They argued that the two senior police officers were the hierarchical superiors of those officers who had tortured and killed Mr Süleyman Yeter. They further stated that, for the proper administration of the investigation, all t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4124", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Ashtarak, Armenia.\n5.  In 2003 a presidential election was held in Armenia with its first and second rounds taking place on 19 February and 5 March respectively. The applicant acted as an authorised election assistant (վստահված անձ) for the main opposition candidate in this election. Following the first and second rounds of the election, a series of protest rallies were organised in Yerevan by the opposition parties.\n6.  On 21 February 2003 the applicant participated in a demonstration held in Yerevan.\n7.  On 22 February 2003 two police officers went to the applicant’s flat and took him to the Central District Police Department of Yerevan where an administrative case was initiated against him on account of his participation in the demonstration of 21 February 2003.\n8.  On the same date, several hours later, the applicant was taken to the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (Երևան քաղաքի Կենտրոն և Նորք-Մարաշ համայնքների առաջին ատյանի դատարան). There he was brought before Judge H. who, after a brief hearing, sentenced the applicant under Article 180.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (Վարչական իրավախախտումների վերաբերյալ ՀՀ օրենսգիրք – “the CAO”) to 15 days of administrative detention, finding that:\n“On 21 February 2003 [the applicant] participated together with a group of people in an unauthorised demonstration in Yerevan.”\n9.  The applicant was taken to a detention facility.\n10.  The applicant alleged that he had been visited in the detention facility several days later by a Red Cross representative who had brought him a letter from his wife, to which he was not allowed to reply.\n11.  The applicant further alleged that, on an unspecified date, his wife had verbally requested the District Court to review its decision. She had been notified by a letter of 25 February 2003 that the District Court had no such competence.\n12.  On 27 February 2003 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an application with the General Prosecutor (ՀՀ գլխավոր դատախազ) requesting him to initiate an appeal against the decision of the District Court. The lawyer, apparently having received by mistake a copy of a decision taken in respect of a person convicted in a different administrative case, H.A., argued that the applicant had been unlawfully found guilty under Article 180.1 of the CAO and deprived of his liberty by a decision taken in respect of another person.\n13.  On 1 March 2003 the President of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal (ՀՀ քրեական և զինվորական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարանի նախագահ) reviewed the applicant’s conviction, finding that:\n“[The applicant, according to the decision of the District Court, was subjected to administrative detention] ... for the violation of the prescribed rules for organising and holding assemblies, demonstrations, street marches and rallies, namely on 21 February 2003 he participated in an unauthorised demonstration and street march, during which he violated public order.\nHaving familiarised myself with [the applicant’s] appeal and the materials concerning the administrative offence, I find that the penalty imposed on [the applicant] must be changed.”\n14.  The President changed the penalty to an administrative fine of 1,000 Armenian drams (AMD) (approximately 1.5 euros (EUR) at the material time) and ordered the applicant’s release. On the same date the applicant was released from detention after he had served about seven days of his sentence.\n15.  By a letter o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4125", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Józefosław.\n6.  On 10 June 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud, committed in an organised criminal group.\n7.  On 11 June 2003 the Warszawa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded her in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that she had committed the offence in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that she might tamper with evidence and induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n8.  The applicant’s appeal against the detention order, likewise her further appeals against decisions prolonging her detention and her application for release, were unsuccessful.\n9.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was prolonged on several occasions by the Warszawa District Court (on 11 June 2003, 3 September 2003, 3 December 2003 and 3 March 2004) and by the Warszawa Court of Appeal (on 8 June 2004, 7 September 2004, 3 December 2004, 1 March 2005). In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. They attached importance to the grave nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation, especially the need to verify evidence from suspects and witnesses and the need to obtain fresh evidence from experts justified holding her in custody.\n10.  On 12 May 2005 the Pruszków District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) lodged a bill of indictment with the Warszawa District Court. The applicant was charged with fraud and forgery of documents, committed in an organised criminal group. There were 16 defendants in the case, all charged with numerous counts of fraud committed in an organised criminal group. On 20 May 2005 the Warszawa District Court again prolonged the applicant’s detention until 9 June 2005, reiterating the grounds previously given for her detention.\n11.  Since on 10 June 2005 the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time-limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a further prolongation of her detention - until 9 December 2005 - was ordered by the Gdansk Court of Appeal on 3 June 2005. The court found that the strong suspicion against her of having committed the serious offences with which she had been charged and the severity of the anticipated sentence justified holding her in custody. It pointed out that the case was complex given the number of accused persons and the number of charges brought against them. Moreover, it added that 450 witnesses were to be heard and numerous documents were to be examined.\n12.  On 12 August 2005 the trial court held the first hearing. Until 21 December 2006, the date on which the applicant was released, the Warszawa District Court held 44 hearings in the case.\n13.  During the court proceedings the authorities further prolonged the applicant’s detention pending trial. On 25 November 2005 the Warszawa Court of Appeal, on an application of the trial court, prolonged the detention of the applicant until 9 March 2006, reiterating the grounds previously given for her detention. The court found the request ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4126", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Warszawa.\n5.  On 31 December 1991 the applicant instituted proceedings for redress for obviously unwarranted pre-trial detention (o odszkodowanie za oczywiście niesłuszne tymczasowe aresztowanie).\n6.  On 28 November 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court scheduled the first hearing for 9 January 2001.\n7.  On 9 January 2001 the applicant’s representative requested the court for additional time to specify his claim for redress. The court adjourned the hearing sine die.\n8.  On 14 June 2004 the applicant’s representative requested the court to grant him additional time to update legal and factual grounds for the applicant’s claim. The court adjourned the hearing.\n9.  On 22 February 2005 the applicant’s representative requested the court to exclude the presiding judge from the proceedings.\n10.  On 7 July 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s motion.\n11.  On 6 September 2005 the court scheduled the next hearing for 13 October 2005.\n12.  On 13 October 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of civil proceedings instituted by the applicant. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision.\n13.  On 8 November 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the contested decision and resumed the examination of the case.\n14.  On 28 December 2005, 18 May, 25 September, 17 October and 24 October 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court held hearings.\n15.  On 5 December 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court again stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the civil proceedings instituted by the applicant. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision.\n16.  On 9 February 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the contested decision and resumed the examination of the case.\n17.  On 30 March 2007 the court, due to a modification in the bench assigned to try the case (zmiana składu sędziowskiego), reopened the proceedings. One witness was heard. The court scheduled the next hearing for 15 June 2007.\n18.  Eventually, on 27 September 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court awarded the applicant PLN 2,277,838 in compensation for pecuniary damage and PLN 45,000 for non-pecuniary damage. Since this judgment was not appealed against, it became final on 19 October 2007.\n19.  On 20 April 2007 the applicant filed a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). On 25 May 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal confirmed that the proceedings in question had indeed been lengthy and awarded the applicant PLN 3,000[1] by way of just satisfaction. The court stated, inter alia, that the periods of inactivity between 31 December 1991 and 28 November 2000, as well as between 9 January 2001 and 6 May 2004, only confirmed the fact that the court had contributed to the excessive length of the proceedings. The court further stated that the intervals between the hearings were considerable and contributed to the overall length of proceedings. The court also referred to the fact that the Warsaw Regional Court’s decisions of 13 October 2005 and 5 December 2006 to stay the proceedings were unwarranted and also affected the length of the proceedings. Finally, the court stated that, although the applicant’s representative had lodged several futile motions which affected the pace of the proceedi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4127", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Szydłowiec.\n5.  On 7 June 2005 the applicant lodged a civil claim for compensation against the court’s bailiff and the Przysucha District Court. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Radom District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n6.  On 1 January 2006 the Radom District Court exempted the applicant from court fees. The court considered that the applicant had substantiated his difficult financial situation. He was unemployed, received no unemployment benefit and thus could not pay court fees.\n7.  On 31 July 2006 the Radom District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment.\n8.  On 9 November 2006 the Radom Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. On 27 December 2006 the applicant was served with the written reasons for the judgment. He was instructed that he could lodge a cassation appeal (skarga kasacyjna), which had to be prepared by a lawyer, with the Supreme Court.\n9.  On 12 January 2007 the applicant requested the Regional Court to appoint him a legal-aid lawyer who would lodge on his behalf the cassation appeal.\n10.  On 18 January 2007 the court dismissed the applicant’s request for appointment of a legal-aid lawyer. The decision contained no reasons.\n11.  The applicant appealed against this decision and requested the court to prepare written reasons for it.\n12.  On 1 February 2007 the Radom Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request to prepare the reasons for the decision of 18 January 2007 and for those reasons to be delivered to him. The decision contains no reasons.\n13.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 1 February 2007 but on 15 February 2007 the Radom Regional Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible in law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4128", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1956, 1963, 1985, 1995 and 2001 respectively and live in Čakovec. The first and second applicants are husband and wife and the third to fifth applicants are their children.\n5.  During 2004 M.T., the first and second applicants’ daughter and the third to fifth applicants’ sister, entered into a relationship with a certain M.M. They started living together with the applicants in their home. On 1 March 2005 they had a child, V.T. Soon afterwards M.M. had a series of disputes with the members of the household and often expressed verbal threats against M.T., which resulted in him moving out of the house in July 2005. On 4 January 2006 the Čakovec Social Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Čakovec – hereinafter “the Welfare Centre”) filed a report with the Međimurje Police Department (Policijska uprava međimurska) stating, inter alia, that on 2 January 2006 M.M. had come to the Centre and claimed that he had a bomb and would “throw it at his former wife [meaning M.T.] and child”.\n6.  On 5 January 2006 M.T. lodged a criminal complaint with the Čakovec State Attorney’s Office against M.M. She alleged that on a number of occasions since July 2005 M.M. had come to her parents’ house where she also lived with her daughter and had threatened to kill her and their daughter with a bomb unless she agreed to come back to him. He had also often made telephone calls and sent SMS messages to her by mobile phone repeating the same threats.\n7.  On 3 February 2006 M.M. was detained following the instigation of the criminal proceedings against him in the Čakovec Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Čakovcu) on 27 January 2006. A psychiatric opinion obtained during the proceedings stated that on 2 January 2006 M.M. had claimed before the employees of the Welfare Centre that he had a bomb and that his threats had been meant seriously. He had repeated the same claim on 19 January 2006 before police officers from the Međimurje Police Department. The relevant parts of the conclusions of the report read as follows:\n“1. Defendant M.M. is a person suffering from a profound personality disorder etiologically linked to innate malfunctioning of the brain and the highly unfavourable pedagogical circumstances of his childhood. Dg: mixed personality disorder ... 2. In the context of the said personality disorder the defendant’s reaction to a problematic situation was an inadequate and pathological defence mechanism with inflated ideas and related activities. These inflated ideas do not amount to a mental illness. 3. I have not found elements of either permanent or temporary innate mental illness, diminished intellectual capacity or epilepsy which might be linked to the criminal offences with which the defendant is charged. 5. In view of what has been said under 1, 2 and 3 and in view of all the other information collected so far in connection with the criminal offences, I consider that his ability to wilfully control and understand the meaning and consequences of his act tempore criminis was diminished, but that [he was not] completely unaccountable. 6. There is a strong likelihood that he will repeat the same or similar criminal offences. In order to prevent this, I recommend that the court, apart from the other measures, order compulsory psychiatric treatment with a predominantly psychotherapeutic approach with the aim of developing an ability to resolve difficult situations in life in a more constructive manner.”\n8.  On 15 March 2006 the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4129", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company was the registered owner of 4,462 square metres of immovable property located in the seaside area of Limassol, on which a complex of stores had been used as bonded warehouses since 1965.\n5.  On 10 July 1972 the municipality of Limassol decided to acquire the applicant company’s seaside properties for public benefit purposes which included “town planning” and “construction, maintenance and development of land communications” in furtherance of a municipal plan to rid the Limassol seafront of privately owned buildings. On 1 December 1972 a notice of acquisition of the relevant property was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic. The notice referred to the applicant’s property, which constituted part of the relevant Land Registry plan, and having total area approximately 4,462 square meters. On 26 January 1973, an order for compulsory acquisition was published in the Official Gazette.\n6.  On 14 February 1973 the applicant company lodged judicial review proceedings with the Supreme Court (case no. 47/73) to contest the order. On 31 May 1975 judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court dismissing the applicant company’s application. The land in question was one of the few remaining plots for the completion of a project that had been implemented in stages for more than two decades. From the evidence adduced it was clear that the financial implications of the project had been carefully considered by the municipality having due regard to whether it was the opportune moment to proceed with the acquisition.\n7.  On 5 May 1977 the municipality requested the Lands and Surveys Office (LSO) to provide an evaluation of the property so as to determine the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicant company. On 7 September 1978, the LSO concluded that the value of the property amounted to 100,000 Cypriot pounds (CYP). On 3 September 1980 the municipality informed the applicant company that they would pay CYP 70,000 as compensation. It added that given that the applicant company’s own evaluation was excessive, a friendly settlement could not be concluded.\n8.  On 1 March 1984 a meeting was held between the applicant’s representatives and the municipality. The latter disclosed the estimated value of the property and offered CYP 190,000, including interest, as compensation.\n9.  On 23 February 1985 the applicant company requested the municipality to make a new offer of compensation within seven days. It notified the municipality that in the event that no such offer was made, it would consider that there was no longer an interest in the compulsory acquisition, which would be taken as abandoned.\n10.  The municipality offered to pay the applicant company by 28 February 1985 the amount of CYP 200,000, which included compensation as assessed by the LSO and interest. This was not accepted by the applicant company which made a counter-offer of CYP 250,000 including interest. The municipality agreed to the amount of CYP 230,000, an offer which was, however, not approved by the Government.\n11.  On 8 May 1985 the applicant company filed application for judicial review no. 517/85 with the Supreme Court, requesting a declaration that the omission of the municipality to revoke the acquisition order of 1973 was contrary to section 7 of Compulsory Acquisition of Property Law no. 15 of 1962 and/or section 8 of Compulsory Acquisition of Property (Amendment) Law no. 35 of 1983, and Article 23 of the Constitution. Moreover, a declaratio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4130", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Sagan-Nur in the Buryatia Republic.\n5.  On 10 May 1998 the applicant, then fifteen years of age, was arrested. On 12 May 1998 he was charged with causing grievous bodily harm occasioning the death of the victim. On 13 May 1998 the prosecutor refused to admit Ms S as counsel and appointed another lawyer to represent the applicant. It appears that the applicant pleaded guilty, but later retracted his plea alleging that he had confessed under duress. After an inquiry into the matter, the investigator decided not to prosecute the officers. Apparently, the applicant did not contest this decision.\n6.  In November 1998 the applicant was charged with murder. After the completion of the preliminary investigation on 13 November 1998, the case was listed for trial before the Mukhorshibirskiy District Court of the Buryatia Republic. On 24 November 1998 the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor for further investigation. On 19 January 1999 the investigation was suspended because a forensic report had been ordered. On the same date, the applicant was released but ordered to remain in town.\n7.  The preliminary investigation was resumed in June 1999. On 15 July 1999 the prosecutor discontinued the criminal case against the applicant. This decision was quashed on 6 September 1999 and the proceedings were resumed.\n8.  On 26 November 1999 the District Court again decided to return the criminal case to the prosecutor for further investigation. The applicant was placed in custody. On 11 January 2000 the Supreme Court of the Buryatia Republic quashed the decision of 26 November 1999. It appears that on 1 March 2000 another forensic report was ordered, and the applicant was released but ordered to remain in town. The forensic report was submitted to the trial court on 18 May 2000.\n9.  On 23 June 2000 the District Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. On the same day he was taken into custody. On 28 August 2000 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment.\n10.  On 9 February 2001 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the previous judgments by way of supervisory review because the applicant had not been properly served with a copy of the bill of indictment. A retrial was ordered. On 28 April 2001 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. On 19 June 2001 the Supreme Court set this judgment aside on appeal and remitted the case for re-examination by the District Court. The appeal court established that the trial court had not properly assessed the evidence and had erred in its factual findings.\n11.  On 14 September 2001 the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor for further investigation. It found, inter alia, that the prosecutor had unlawfully prevented the applicant’s counsel from representing him. It appears that the Supreme Court quashed this decision on 25 October 2001.\n12.  On 28 November 2001 the District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him for a period of time corresponding to the one already served. The applicant was released on the same day. On 25 December 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 28 November 2001 due to certain procedural defects and remitted the case for examination by another district court.\n13.  On 11 March 2002 the Bichurskiy District Court of the Buryatia Republic found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to six years", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4131", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in the town of Irkutsk.\n6.  On 22 December 1999 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of the Irkutsk Region convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. On 11 April 2000 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the judgment.\n7.  On 7 June 2001 the applicant asked the President of the Regional Court to apply for supervisory review of the above judgments on a number of legal grounds. After leave had been granted, on 2 July 2001 the Presidium of the Regional Court upheld the conviction but reduced the applicant’s sentence to four years and six months because of an error in the calculation of the term. The applicant was not brought to the hearing.\n8.  The applicant made further attempts to obtain a review of his conviction and sentence. Apparently in reply to one of those applications, by a letter of 18 November 2002 the Irkutsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office notified the applicant that they had applied for supervisory review of the judgments of 22 December 1999 and 11 April 2000. It appears that the scope of the application for review was limited to an argument that the trial court had erred in determining the prison regime to be applied to the applicant without having regard to the cancellation of his conviction in 1992 for another offence. The applicant received that letter on 22 November 2002.\n9.  It appears that on 6 December 2002 the applicant submitted his observations in relation to that request. However, in the meantime, on 2 December 2002 the Presidium of the Regional Court had already examined the supervisory review application and found that the 1992 conviction had been cancelled in 1997 and should not have been taken into consideration when the trial court decided whether there had been a repeated commission of a criminal offence (recidivism). It concluded that the applicant’s acts had constituted dangerous rather than “particularly” dangerous recidivism, and changed the type of the correctional facility in which the applicant was to serve his sentence. The Presidium upheld the judgments of 22 December 1999 and 7 June 2001 in the remaining part. The applicant was not brought to that hearing. On 30 December 2002 he was told that the review had taken place, but a copy of the decision was not given to him.\n10.  The applicant served his sentence in correctional colony no. UK-272/25 situated in the village of Vikhorevka in the Irkutsk Region.\n11.  According to the applicant, on 7 September 2001 the colony administration informed the detainees that a special-purpose squad would be brought to the colony “to discipline detainees”.\n12.  On 21 September 2001 five officers of the special-purpose squad arrived at the colony in order to “render practical assistance in carrying out searches and prophylactic measures”.  On the same day the wardens and the officers of the squad searched the applicant’s cell. The applicant objected to the search and the officers intimidated him, beat him up and damaged his personal belongings. The applicant received no medical assistance and the colony doctor refused to record his injuries. The colony administration subsequently refused to dispatch his complaints to the prosecutor.\n13.  According to the Government, the Director of the Regional Department for Execution of Sentences of the Ministry of Justice ordered a series of searches in detention facilities with a view to seizing unauthorised items kept by detainees in their cells which could be", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4132", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Anatoliy Tikhonovich Burdov, is a Russian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Shakhty, in the Rostov region of the Russian Federation.\n7.  On 1 October 1986 the applicant was called up by the military authorities to take part in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. The applicant was engaged in the operations until 11 January 1987 and, as a result, suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. He is entitled to various social benefits in this connection.\n8.  Considering that the competent State authorities failed to pay these benefits in full and in due time, the applicant repeatedly sued them in domestic courts from 1997 onwards. The courts repeatedly granted the applicant’s claims but a number of their judgments remained unenforced for various periods of time.\n9.  On 20 March 2000 the applicant first complained before the Court about non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions (application no. 59498/00). In its judgment of 7 May 2002, the Court found that the Shakhty City Court’s decisions of 3 March 1997, 21 May 1999 and 9 March 2000 had remained unenforced wholly or in part at least until 5 March 2001, when the Ministry of Finance took the decision to pay in full the debt owed to the applicant. The Court accordingly held that there had been violations of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the authorities’ failure for years to take the necessary measures to comply with these decisions (see Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, §§ 37-38, ECHR 2002‑III).\n10.  Under the terms of Article 46 § 2 of the Convention, the Court’s judgment of 7 May 2002 in Burdov was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of its execution. The Committee invited the Government to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the Court’s judgment of 7 May 2002, having regard to the Russian Federation’s obligation under Article 46 § 1 to abide by it. On 22 December 2004 the Committee adopted Resolution ResDH(2004)85 in this case. The measures taken by the Russian authorities were summarised by the Government in the Appendix to this Resolution:\n“... With regard to individual measures, the amounts due under the domestic judicial decisions were paid to the applicant on 5 March 2001. ... Subsequently, a fresh indexation of the monthly allowance was ordered by the Shakhty City Court on 11 July 2003 (final on 1 October 2003). The social authorities continue to comply with the domestic judicial decisions by regularly paying the sums awarded.\nIn addition, the following general measures were adopted by the Russian authorities to comply with the European Court’s judgment.\n(a)  Resolving similar cases\nAt the outset, the government paid the arrears accumulated as a result of the non-execution, as in the present case, of domestic judgments ordering the payment of compensation and allowances for the Chernobyl victims in the applicant’s position (a total of 2,846 million Russian roubles were paid between January and October 2002).\n5,128 other domestic judgments concerning the indexation of the allowances for the victims of Chernobyl were executed by the authorities.\nThe government has also improved its budgetary process to ensure that the necessary budgetary means are allocated to social security bodies (2,152,071,000 Russian roubles were allocated for 2003, 2,538,280,500 Russian roubles for 2004, and 2,622,335,000 for 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4133", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Norilsk in the Krasnoyarsk Region of the Russian Federation.\n7.  In August 1998 the applicant, formerly an engineer in a public company, was made redundant. On 3 September 1998 she was registered in the Norilsk Employment Centre.\n8.  As the unemployment allowances were paid to the applicant after a substantial delay and, as she believed, their calculation was not correct, in March 2000 she sued the Norilsk Employment Centre for the allowance arrears, adjusted for inflation, and interest thereon.\n9.  On 25 September 2000 the Norilsk Town Court of the Krasnoyarsk Region allowed the applicant's claims in part. It awarded her 677.35 Russian roubles (RUR) for arrears and RUR 4,568.53 for the indexation of the arrears to take account of inflation. Basing its award on Article 395 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation the court also granted the applicant RUR 8,102.50 as interest on belated payments.\n10.  On 2 and 25 October 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal, arguing that the claims rejected by the first-instance court should have been granted.\n11.  On 9 October 2000 the Norilsk Employment Centre lodged an appeal. It claimed that labour legislation did not provide for an interest on unemployment allowances and therefore requested that the judgment in this part be quashed.\n12.  On 12 October 2000 the Norilsk Town Prosecutor filed an appeal (protest) against the judgment, exercising his power under Article 282 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure. He submitted that the first-instance court had erroneously applied provisions of civil law to labour law relations and therefore unlawfully granted interest on belated payments in the applicant's favour. In his view, no interest was payable in respect of belated unemployment allowances, thus he requested the Court of Appeal to quash the judgment in this part. The Prosecutor also supported the part of the judgment which rejected the remainder of the applicant's claims.\n13.  A copy of the prosecutor's protest was served on the applicant on 18 October 2000, and she submitted her objections on 25 October 2000.\n14.  Having examined the appeals and the prosecutor's protest and having heard the judge-rapporteur and the prosecutor, on 29 November 2000 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the arguments made by the Employment Centre and the prosecutor. Finding that the Civil Code was not applicable in the sphere of unemployment benefits, it quashed the first-instance court's judgment in the part granting the applicant RUR 8,102.50 as interest on belated payments.\n15.  The applicant's attempts to institute supervisory review proceedings proved to be unsuccessful.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4134", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was born in 1920. She died on 30 April 2006. The second applicant, her daughter and only heir, expressed her wish to pursue the proceedings in her own name and in the name of her deceased mother. The second applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Sofia.\n7.  In 1958, Mr Koprinarov, whose heirs the applicants are, purchased from the State one storey of a three-storey house in Plovdiv. The property’s surface area was 109 square metres. The property had belonged to a private person until the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and for several years afterwards.\n8.  After the adoption of the Restitution Law (ЗВСОНИ) in 1992, the former pre-nationalisation owners brought proceedings under section 7 of that law against the applicants, seeking the nullification of the applicants’ title and the restoration of their property.\n9.  The case went twice through the court system and the Supreme Court of Cassation gave final judgment on 26 July 1999.\n10.  The courts examined and dismissed a number of allegations made by the plaintiffs in respect of alleged breaches of the housing regulations and other legal provisions as in force in 1958. The courts found, however, that a relevant document in the file concerning the 1958 transaction – approval by the Minister of Public Construction – had been signed by a Head of Department in the Ministry, not by the Minister personally. It followed that the person from whom the applicants had inherited had obtained the property unlawfully. The applicants’ title was therefore null and void and they were ordered to vacate the property.\n11.  The applicants were evicted from the property on 17 September 2001. The eviction was conducted in the presence of special counsel for the applicants, appointed by the relevant court on the basis that the applicants had not been found at their address and the summonses sent had been repeatedly returned undelivered. The applicants appealed against the acts of the enforcement judge arguing, inter alia, that they had never changed their address and that their belongings had been damaged. The appeals were unsuccessful. The courts noted that the applicants had not been found at the address they had indicated and that therefore there had not been procedural violations. Also, the applicants had failed to collect their belongings for more than a month and had thus been responsible for the damage complained of.\n12.  Following their eviction, the applicants wrote repeatedly to the municipal authorities asking for compensation in the form of a municipal apartment or land but did not receive a reply.\n13.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the applicants brought an action against the Plovdiv Municipality and the Ministry of Public Construction and Regional Development seeking compensation for the fact that they had lost their property owing to an administrative error committed by the defendant bodies in 1958. They claimed the current value of the apartment, estimated at 54,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) (27,000 euros (EUR)). The claim was rejected by final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 27 June 2006 on the grounds that the relevant legislation – the State Responsibility for Damage Act 1989 – did not apply retrospectively and that the law provided for a special compensation scheme by bonds in cases like that of the applicants.\n14.  In 2000, it became possible for the applicants to obtain compensation from the State in the form of bon", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4135", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The second applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Ohrid, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.\n9. On 24 May 2000 ten Macedonian nationals, including the second applicant, founded the Association in the city of Ohrid. On 19 June 2000 the Ohrid Court of First Instance registered the Association in the register of associations of citizens and foundations under the following name: “Association of Citizens Radko-Ohrid”.\n10. Article 3 of the Articles of Association (“the Articles”) defined the Association as an independent, non-political and public organisation, which studies and promotes the Macedonian Liberation Movement (“the Movement”) through commonly accepted democratic principles and standards.\n11. Article 7 defined its objectives and tasks as follows:\n“The Association has the following objectives and tasks:\n-          it endeavours to raise and affirm the Macedonian cultural space;\n-          it endeavours to establish traditional ethical and human values;\n-          it endeavours to popularise the objectives, tasks and ideas of the Macedonian Liberation Movement through the publication of its own newspaper, publishing activity and library, and through its own electronic media, seminars, conferences, forums and other forms of cultural action.”\n12. Article 8 set out that the Association will attain these objectives and tasks through:\n“- the individual and collective activities of the members, bodies and structures of the Association,\n- cooperation between the Association and other similar associations and structures, inside the country and abroad”.\n13. Article 9 provided that every citizen who accepted the Association’s Programme could become a member.\n14. Article 10 § 1 provided:\n“Every citizen of the Republic of Macedonia and citizens of a foreign state may become a member, if they have reached the age of 18, after signing a membership application”.\n15. The Association’s Programme of 24 May 2000 consisted of two paragraphs. It read as follows:\n“The Association is founded as a non-governmental, non-party and non-political organisation with the purpose of raising and affirming the Macedonian cultural space, establishing traditional ethical and human values, affirmed in the ideas of the Macedonian Liberation Movement, through the publication of its own newspaper, publishing activity and library, and through its own electronic media, seminars, conferences, forums and other forms of cultural action.\nFor the above objectives, the Association will organise public forums, with the participation of outstanding cultural and scientific scholars from inside the country and abroad, through its local committees.”\n16. On 27 October 2000 the official launch of the Association took place in a hotel in Skopje, the capital of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. A promotional leaflet by the Association (which accompanied the letters of invitation for the opening ceremony) was published at the beginning of October. It provided information about the Association’s name, objectives and the ways in which these were to be achieved. It read:\n“a. Name of the Association\nThe founders of the Association have taken as its name the most frequently used pseudonym of Ivan Mihajlov, RADKO.\nIvan Mihajlov-Radko, his name, his life, his revolutionary activity and especially his cultural and literary activity are deeply woven in the history of Macedonia. Praised, but also denounced by his ideological adversaries, he became and still remains a legend for h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4136", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1949 respectively. They live in Urus-Martan in the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The applicants are married. They are the parents of Mr Vakha Khavazhovich Abdurzakov, born in 1981.\n8.  On the night of 24 to 25 October 2002 the Abdurzakovs were sleeping in their family house at 234 Sheripov Street, Urus-Martan.\n9.  At about 3 a.m. on 25 October 2002 barking dogs woke the applicants. The second applicant heard human voices, looked out of the window and saw four armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks.\n10.  The second applicant stepped outside the house and saw in the courtyard around thirty armed men who ordered him in Russian to stop. He also heard the engine of an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”).\n11.  The armed men ordered the second applicant to raise his hands and entered the house. There they forced him to his knees and searched the house without producing any warrant. Some of them pointed their machine guns at the first applicant.\n12.  Meanwhile several armed men entered Vakha Abdurzakov’s room and ordered him to identify himself. The first applicant produced her son’s identity papers. The armed men examined them and ordered Vakha Abdurzakov to rise and took him to the entrance door. When the first applicant begged them not to take her son away, they replied that she should “thank” her neighbours.\n13.  The armed men pushed the first applicant into a room and blocked its door with a refrigerator. Then they left the house taking Vakha Abdurzakov with them.\n14.  The second applicant unblocked the door and let his wife out of the room. She ran into the street and noticed two UAZ vehicles going towards the town centre. Then she saw two APCs parked nearby. When she had almost reached them they drove away.\n15.  In the morning of 25 October 2002 the applicants and their neighbours found bloodstains on the road which led from the applicants’ house to Titov Street, where traces of UAZ tyres were visible.\n16.  The applicants concluded that those who had abducted their son were Russian servicemen because they had freely moved around the town during the curfew, had driven military vehicles and had spoken Russian without an accent.\n(b) Money demanded from the applicants\n17.  Two or three days before 25 October 2002 Ms Yu., an inhabitant of Urus-Martan, had visited the applicants and told them that Russian law enforcement agencies had been told that their son was participating in illegal armed groups and had been planning to detain him. Ms Yu. had said that she would prevent Vakha Abdurzakov’s arrest if the applicants paid her 400 United States dollars (USD). The applicants had declined her offer as they were convinced that their son had not been involved in any illegal activities.\n18.  A few days after Vakha Abdurzakov’s disappearance Ms Yu. again visited the applicants and told them that their son had originally been kept in the Urus-Martan temporary department of the interior (“VOVD”) and then transferred to the military commander’s office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district military commander’s office”). She also mentioned names of two persons involved in Vakha Abdurzakov’s disappearance, “Volodya” and “Sergey”, and said that the latter was the head of the Urus-Martan District Department of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB department”). Later the applicants learned that at the material time the FSB department had been headed by Mr Sergey Konstantinov.\n19.  The applicants gave Ms Yu. a pa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4137", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the Rostov region.\n6.  On 12 March 2003 the prosecutor’s office opened criminal proceedings against the applicant and three other persons on suspicion of fraud. The applicant was suspected of forging payment orders using a counterfeit seal of a private company. His alleged accomplices had obtained large amounts of diesel fuel using the forged payment orders.\n7.  On the same day the applicant was arrested.\n8.  On 14 March 2003 the investigator asked the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don to remand the applicant in custody. In support of his request he stated as follows:\n“Taking into account that at present the investigation does not have enough evidence to bring charges against [the applicant] and that the crime committed by him is serious, [the applicant], if left at liberty, may abscond, conceal the yet undiscovered evidence of his criminal activity, interfere with the establishment of the truth or re-offend.”\n9.  On the same day the Leninskiy District Court remanded the applicant in custody in the following terms:\n“The court considers that the investigator’s request should be granted for the following reasons. It is clear from the materials submitted [by the investigator] that the applicant was involved in the forgery of documents of the private company ‘Svetlana’ and possessed the seals of that company... During the search in [the applicant’s] flat many seals, seal matrices and parts for seal manufacturing ... were found. However, no seals or stamps of the ‘Svetlana’ company were discovered. Given that [the applicant] is suspected of committing a serious criminal offence, there are grounds to believe that if left at liberty, he may obstruct the investigation and destroy physical evidence.”\n10.  On 19 March 2003 the applicant was formally charged with fraud.\n11.  On 28 April 2003 the investigator applied to the Leninskiy District Court for an extension of the applicant’s detention. He submitted that the applicant was refusing to disclose evidence and was giving false testimony, trying to escape criminal responsibility. Given the gravity of the charges against him, he might obstruct the investigation by putting pressure on witnesses or destroying physical evidence, in particular the counterfeit seals of the “Svetlana” company which he had concealed from the investigation. There was also a risk of his re-offending.\n12.  The applicant asked to be released on bail or personal surety. He submitted that no seals of the “Svetlana” company or any other evidence of his involvement in the fraud had been found in his flat, that he had no criminal record, had positive references and permanent employment and residence in the Rostov Region. His father was disabled and he had to look after him.\n13.  On 30 April 2003 the Leninskiy District Court rejected the applicant’s request for release and extended his detention until 5 June 2003. It found that it was necessary to perform additional investigative measures, in particular to obtain several expert opinions and to confront the applicant and his co-defendants with witnesses. Given that the applicant was charged with a serious criminal offence committed in criminal conspiracy and had no permanent place of residence in Rostov-on-Don, he might abscond, put pressure on witnesses who had not yet been questioned or interfere with the investigation in some other way.\n14.  On 5 May 2003 the applicant appealed. He submitted that the court’s conclusions tha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4138", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are the parents of Anastasios Reklos, who was born on 31 March 1997 in a private clinic, I. Immediately after birth the baby was placed in a sterile unit under the constant supervision of the clinic’s staff. Only its doctors and nurses had access to this unit.\n7.  On 1 April 1997 two photographs of the new-born baby, taken face on, were presented to the second applicant. The photographs had been taken inside the sterile unit by a professional photographer located on the first floor of the clinic. The clinic informed its clients that photography services were available.\n8.  The applicants complained to the clinic’s management about the photographer’s intrusion into a unit to which only the clinic’s staff should have had access, adding that the new-born baby was likely to have been upset by the taking of photographs face on and, most importantly, that they had not given their prior consent.\n9.  Faced with the clinic’s indifference to their protests and refusal to hand over to them the negatives of the photographs, on 25 August 1997 the applicants brought an action for damages before the Athens Court of First Instance, under Articles 57, 59 and 932 of the Civil Code. Acting on behalf of their child, they claimed the sum of 4,000,000 drachmas (about 11,739 euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the alleged infringement of their child’s personality rights.\n10.  On 24 June 1998 the Athens Court of First Instance dismissed their action as unfounded. It found as follows:\n“ ... it has not been possible to establish, from the circumstances in which the offending photographs were taken, that the photographer’s conduct was unlawful. In any event, the personality rights of the new-born baby cannot have been affected because, just after birth, his psychological and emotional environment had not yet been formed and the recording of his face on a photograph cannot have had any negative consequences for his subsequent development.” (decision no. 3049/1998)\n11.  On 22 September 1998 the applicants appealed. On 14 September 1999 the Athens Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the court below. It found in particular as follows:\n“ ... according to the conclusions drawn from common practice, the personality, emotional environment and mental maturity of a new-born baby, only one day old, are not sufficiently developed for it to perceive an infringement of its personality rights, as has been alleged, or for its inner balance to be upset ...”. (decision no. 7758/1999).\n12.  On 28 August 2002 the applicants, represented by the first applicant, lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation. In their notice of appeal they pointed out their child’s age at the material time and referred to all the considerations that had led the court below to dismiss their appeal. Their single ground of appeal on points of law concerned the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Articles 57 and 932 of the Civil Code. In their view, that interpretation ran counter to Article 2 of the Greek Constitution and to Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, the applicants claimed that the criterion used by the domestic courts in determining whether the image and, a fortiori, the personality of an individual, could be protected, had been incompatible with the rights to “dignity” and to “the protection of private life”. In addition, the applicants argued that the criterion in question was also potentially dangerous, especially if it were to be applied to disabled ch", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4139", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1961 respectively. They are farmers residing at Ginsenberg, Styria.\n6.  On 8 June 1972 the Graz District Agricultural Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde, \"the District Authority\") opened the Mooskirchen land consolidation proceedings (Zusammenlegungsverfahren) which also concerned the applicants’ land.\n7.  On 16 November 1984 the District Authority adopted the consolidation scheme (Zusammenlegungsplan) and on 10 December 1984 the parties to the proceedings were notified.\n8.  Subsequently, on 20 December 1984 K. and A., the applicants’ predecessors (the first applicant’s parents), lodged an appeal, alleging that they had not been duly compensated.\n9.  On 19 September 1990 the Regional Agricultural Panel (Landes-agrarsenat) dismissed their appeal as unfounded. By decision of 25 February 1991 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the case for lack of prospect of success and upon the applicants’ predecessors’ request remitted the case to the Administrative Court.\n10.  Thereupon K. and A. lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court, which, on 21 September 1995, quashed the decision of 19 September 1990 for failure to comply with procedural rules and remitted the case back to the Regional Agricultural Panel.\n11.  Since the Regional Agricultural Panel failed to decide within a reasonable time K. and the first applicant on 12 January 1998 lodged a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag).\n12.  On 1 April 1998 the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat) granted the request and assumed competence. By decision of 3 May 2000 it granted the appeal of 20 December 1984 and remitted the case to the District Authority.\n13.  As the District Authority failed to take a decision within the statutory period of six months, K. and the two applicants on 16 January 2001 lodged another request for the transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag).\n14.  Having granted the request the Regional Agricultural Panel issued a new consolidation scheme on 26 September 2001. Subsequently the applicants lodged another appeal.\n15.  On 4 December 2002 the Supreme Land Reform Board dismissed the applicants’ appeal. Hence the applicants, on 29 January 2003, lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court.\n16.  On 30 September 2004 the Constitutional Court dealt with the applicants’ complaint. It found that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time and that this constituted a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in this respect. However, it held also that for this reason alone it could not quash the impugned decision and dismissed the complaint. Upon the applicants’ request it referred the case to the Administrative Court.\n17.  On 24 February 2005 the Administrative Court, upholding the lower-instance decisions, dismissed the applicants’ complaint. It found that the consolidation proceedings were in conformity with the regulations as set out under the consolidation scheme and that the applicants had been duly compensated. As regards plot no. 278a which had initially been of inferior value it noted that in the meantime measures for improving its value by constructing an appropriate drainage system had been adopted. The decision was served on the applicants’ counsel on 18 March 2005.\n18.  On 8 May 2006 the applicants lodged public liability proceedings with a view to receiving reimbursement of the remaining difference between the compensation which had been granted by the Supreme Land Reform B", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4140", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Oberalm.\n5.  On 16 March 1994 the applicant requested legal aid as he intended to bring an action for damages against M.L., a lawyer who had represented him in previous civil proceedings. On an unspecified date the applicant withdrew his request.\n6.  The applicant, now represented by E.H., a lawyer appointed by him, brought an action against M.L. for damages on 30 November 1994.\n7.  On 3 January 1995 the Salzburg Regional Court summoned the applicant for a hearing, scheduled for 6 February 1995. However, on 16 January 1995 the Salzburg Regional Court cancelled the hearing and interrupted proceedings, as the competent Hallein District Court needed to examine the question whether a guardian should be appointed for the applicant. In the decision it noted that as early as 1984 the applicant had suffered from psychosis and a guardian had been appointed. Guardianship had been terminated in June 1987.\n8.  On 23 January 1995 the applicant filed a motion challenging judge S., the judge of the Regional Court dealing with the civil proceedings against M.L., for bias. The Regional Court returned the motion to the applicant. On 13 February 1995, as it did not carry the signature of a lawyer.\n9.  On 8 June the Hallein District Court provisionally appointed a guardian for the applicant. On 13 September 1995 the Regional Court set the applicant a time-limit of fourteen days for re-submitting the motion of 23 January 1995 signed by his lawyer, otherwise it would be deemed that he had withdrawn his motion.\n10.  The applicant again applied for legal aid for the proceedings against M.L. on 23 October 1995. The Regional Court, on 9 November 1995, informed the applicant that his request for legal aid would be transmitted to E.H., who had meanwhile been appointed the applicant’s provisional guardian, for signature. E.H. signed the request on 15 November 1995.\n11.   Judge S. commented on the applicant’s motion challenging him for bias on 16 November 1995 and, on 23 November 1995, the Salzburg Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s motion of 23 January 1995. The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 19 January 1996 the District Court discontinued the guardianship proceedings against the applicant. According to an expert opinion obtained he was capable of understanding his actions and their consequences.\n13.  By decision of 11 April 1996 the Linz Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Regional Court’s decision of 23 November 1995. On 9 May 1996 the Regional Court dismissed a further motion challenging the judge for bias. On 8 January 1997 the Linz Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s motion challenging judge S. for bias.\n14.  The applicant requested the Salzburg Regional Court to resume the proceedings against M.L. and to schedule a hearing on 19 March 1997. On 1 April 1997 the applicant requested under Section 91 of the Court Act (“section 91 request”), to the Salzburg Regional Court, that a time-limit be set for deciding upon his request for legal aid.\n15.  The President of the Regional Court, referring to the applicant’s section 91 request, informed him on 23 April 1997 that, after his motion challenging the judge for bias had finally been dismissed, Judge S. could take further steps in the proceedings.\n16.  On 30 May 1997 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for legal aid, finding that the applicant had sufficient means to afford assistance by a lawyer. On 12 June 1997 the Reg", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4141", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Požega.\n5.  The applicant has served as a teacher in various elementary schools in Croatia. In 1966 she began her service in an elementary school in Čaglin. In 1970 she gave birth to a son who remained living with her until 2004. As a single mother she was granted a specially protected tenancy (stanarsko pravo) of a flat in Čaglin. In 1984 the applicant was transferred to an elementary school in Požega, a town in the same region. The school provided her with a flat, which it had temporarily leased from its then owner, the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA).\n6.  The lease expired in 1990. In 1991 the State took over all property of the YPA, thereby becoming the owner of the flat. The school then asked on several occasions for the lease to be extended but these requests were ignored by the competent authorities. However, since no request for her eviction was made and no other flat was provided for her by her employer, the applicant remained living in the flat and continued paying a monthly rent to the State.\n7.  On 7 January 1999 the State brought a civil action against the school and the applicant in the Požega Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Požegi), seeking the applicant’s eviction. The State argued that since the applicant’s lease had expired she had no further legal entitlement to occupy the flat.\n8.  On 30 October 2002 the court granted the State’s claim and ordered the applicant to vacate the flat within fifteen days even though, as it noted, the applicant had no other place to stay. The court did so because it was satisfied that the State owned the flat and the applicant had no legal entitlement to occupy it. The judgment concluded as follows:\n“The evidence presented in the proceedings lead this court to finding the plaintiff’s claim to be well-founded.\nThe Government’s Decree of 2 October 1991 resulted in all possessions of the former YPA [Yugoslav Peoples Army] coming into the ownership of the Republic of Croatia ...\nBefore the above Decree had been enacted, a contract in relation to the lease of the flat in question was concluded ... between the YPA ... and the school ... The contract was concluded to last for a limited period of time - until 31 December 1990 when the school was obliged to return the flat ... The contract was concluded pursuant to section 36 of the then valid Act on Financing of the YPA ... That Act allowed the YPA to lease its property ... On the basis of the contract [between the YPA and the school], the school ... entered into further contracts with the second respondent Katarina Ćosić allowing her to temporarily occupy the flat and obliging her to pay rent as well as all other expenses connected with the use of the flat, while maintaining the second respondent’s obligation to return the flat to the YPA after the expiry of the contract.\nNeither the [initial] contract nor the additional contracts between the school and the second respondent are a basis for acquiring a specially protected tenancy of the flat in question. ... Thus, irrespective of the time [the second respondent] has occupied the flat and irrespective of the fact that the respondents continued to be in possession of the flat even after all contracts [concerning the flat] had expired, there is no legal basis for the second respondent to have acquired any rights on the flat in question ...\nAlthough this court is aware of the respondent’s unenviable position, it has to adopt its decisions exclusively on th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4142", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 in Moutoullas, Cyprus and lives in Nicosia.\n5.  On 12 March 1996 the police received complaints to the effect that the applicant had been involved in fraudulent behaviour in February 1994. The police then commenced their investigation and on an unspecified date they obtained a written statement from the applicant. On 23 September 1996 the results of the investigation were submitted to the Attorney-General to decide whether to prosecute the applicant. On 3 November 1996 he decided not to proceed with prosecution. Following the receipt of further complaints against the applicant’s conduct, the investigation file was sent for a second time to the Attorney-General. On 15 May 1998 the Attorney-General issued new instructions to the police to commence a new cycle of investigations. On 16 June 1998 the applicant and his wife were charged with several counts of forgery and obtaining funds through misrepresentation. On 18 September 1998 criminal proceedings were brought against them before the District Court of Nicosia.\n6.  On 14 October 1998 the applicant and his wife pleaded not guilty, and the case was set for hearing on 20 November 1998. On that date the case was adjourned, on the applicant’s request, for 13 January 1999. On the basis of the applicant’s request it was further adjourned for 19 February 1999 and then for 8 March 1999. The case was adjourned on two subsequent occasions. On 19 March 1999 the applicant changed his lawyer and requested an adjournment so that his new lawyer could prepare his case. The hearing was set for 25 May 1999. A further adjournment was requested by the applicant for the same reasons and the case was set for 30 June 1999. The hearing was then adjourned twice due to the change of judge and on the request by the prosecution. A further adjournment request was made by the applicant on 11 November 1999 and the case was set for hearing on 23 November 1999. On that date the applicant’s new lawyer had to withdraw from the proceedings and the applicant requested a further adjournment to appoint a new lawyer.\n7.  The case was thus set for directions on 29 November 1999. On that date a new lawyer appeared on behalf of the applicant who requested an adjournment of the case so that he could prepare the applicant’s defence. The case was adjourned for 6 December 1999 when the applicant requested an adjournment. On 14 December 1999 the applicant appeared without a lawyer and requested an adjournment until 17 December 1999 so that he could find another lawyer. On 17 December 1999 the applicant’s new lawyer requested another adjournment so that he could file a request for the applicant’s discharge due to the unreasonable delay in the proceedings. On 23 December 1999 the court heard the parties’ addresses in this respect. On 21 January 2000 the court issued an interim decision by which it rejected the applicant’s request for discharge.\n8.  The hearing of the case eventually commenced on 28 February 2000 but was subsequently adjourned on several occasions. On 29 November 2000 the applicant argued that his written statement should not be admitted in trial and the issue was examined in a trial within trial. The court issued its interim decision in this respect on 4 April 2001 when the main trial was resumed. Following a number of adjournments the hearing was completed on 9 July 2002. Judgment was delivered on 6 November 2002, finding the applicant guilty of certain of the charges brought against ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4143", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Karabulak.\n7.  The applicant lived with her husband, Mr Adam Medov (born in 1980), in Karabulak, Ingushetia. The applicant is a linguist by training, and currently looks after her two children, born in 2003 and 2004. In June 2004 her husband temporarily resided in Nazran in Ingushetia.\n8.  The applicant submitted that on 15 June 2004 at about 8 p.m. her husband had left his temporary home in Nazran in his car (Zhiguli VAZ 21099). According to his brother, Mr Magomed Medov, he should have had 3,800 United States dollars with him, which he had borrowed from his relatives. He did not come back home that night.\n9.  In the night of 16 to 17 June 2004 the applicant’s husband called his brother, Mr Magomed Medov, on his mobile phone and said that his car had broken down. He tried to say where he was, but the phone was cut off.\n10.  In the evening of 17 June 2004 the Medovs were informed that their son, Mr Adam Medov, was being detained at the Sunzhenskiy District Department of the Interior (the Sunzhenskiy ROVD). At about 8 p.m. several of Mr Adam Medov’s relatives, including his father and two brothers, arrived at the village of Ordzhonikidzevskaya (also called Sleptsovskaya) – the administrative centre of the Sunzhenskiy district – and went to the ROVD building.\n11.  There the policemen told them that on 17 June 2004 the traffic police stopped two vehicles, a green Volga 31-10 and a Zhiguli VAZ 21099, for an inspection near the Kavkaz-1 crossing between Ingushetia and Chechnya. The policemen heard noise coming from the boot of the Zhiguli car. They opened it and found a man tied up (according to the policemen this was Mr Adam Medov) who cried “I am an Ingush! They are trying to take me out of here!”. The Volga car then started to move towards Chechnya, but was stopped by the policemen. In its boot they found another man tied up.\n12.  The policemen arrested the persons who were in both cars and took them and the two bound men to the Sunzhenskiy ROVD at about 7 p.m.\n13.  According to the policemen, Mr Adam Medov was questioned and explained that on 15 June 2004 he had been apprehended near the Sunzha restaurant in Sleptsovskaya along with a man to whom he had been giving a lift in his car, and whose name he did not know. He said he had been apprehended by eight men, four of them of Russian origin and four of them of Chechen origin, and subsequently taken to the Federal Security Service (FSB) headquarters in Magas, the capital of Ingushetia. There he had been beaten and tortured. At some point on 16 June 2004 he had been forced to call his family to convince them not to start searching for him.\n14.  By the evening of 17 June 2004 numerous relatives of Mr Adam Medov had gathered in front of the Sunzhenskiy ROVD. The policemen asked his relatives to bring food and agreed to take it to him. Later they offered to allow two of Mr Adam Medov’s brothers, Mr Magomed Medov and Mr Usman Medov, to visit him inside the building. While the two men were standing on the ground floor of the police station, they heard someone shouting “No visits! They should leave!” Magomed Medov and Usman Medov were then escorted to the exit of the ROVD building.\n15.  At about 11.30 p.m. on 17 June 2004 the policemen came outside to where the relatives of Mr Adam Medov were waiting and told them that he and another detainee had been driven to Chechnya. Mr K-v, an officer of the Sunzhenskiy ROVD, had accompanied the cars to the Ka", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4144", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is currently detained in Herby Stare Prison, Poland.\n6.  The applicant has been suffering from epilepsy since his early childhood. More recently he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and other serious mental disorders. Prior to his detention, he had attempted to commit suicide and had received in-patient treatment in a psychiatric hospital.\n7.  On 19 April 2005 the Będzin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of committing robbery and battery. Subsequently, the applicant's pre‑trial detention was extended by the Będzin District Court in decisions of 14 October 2005 and 11 January 2006, and by the Myszków District Court in decisions of 5 June and 28 September 2006.\n8.  On being taken into detention, the applicant was committed to an unspecified remand centre, presumably Sosnowiec Remand Centre.\n9.  On 20 April 2005 he was taken to a State psychiatric hospital in Czeladź experiencing intensive auditory hallucinations of a psychotic nature. He remained there for two days.\n10.  On 22 April 2005 the applicant was committed to Zabrze Remand Centre but on the same day he was transferred to Rybnik Psychiatric Hospital for observation. On 17 or 18 July 2005 the applicant was transferred back to Zabrze Remand Centre and he remained there until 4 January 2006.\n11.  During his detention in Zabrze Remand Centre the applicant was taking psychotropic medicines and he was examined by a psychiatrist on 19 July, 23 August, 6, 21 and 27 September, 8 and 22 November, and 20 and 30 December 2005. In addition, the applicant was under the constant supervision of a psychologist who examined him on 19 July, 23 August, 15 November and 15 December 2005. Finally, the applicant was examined by a prison general practitioner in connection with dermatological problems, coughs, backaches and gastrological disorders.\n12.  From 4 January until 5 April 2006 the applicant was detained in Sosnowiec Remand Centre.\n13.  On 15 January 2006 he was again taken to Czeladź Psychiatric Hospital experiencing auditory hallucinations and suicidal thoughts. On the following day the applicant's condition stabilised. He was prescribed medicines and returned to Sosnowiec Remand Centre. It was suggested that he should remain under psychiatric supervision.\n14.  On 23 January 2006 at about 11 p.m. the applicant attempted to hang himself in Sosnowiec Remand Centre. He was rescued by his fellow cellmates. Immediately afterwards he was examined by the in-house doctor, who did not find any injuries.\n15.  On 24 January 2006 the applicant was taken to Czeladź Psychiatric Hospital. Because of the lack of places, he was transported to Opole Psychiatric Hospital, where he was examined by doctors. The applicant was diagnosed with schizophrenia and it was suggested that he remain under psychiatric supervision. Nevertheless, the applicant was not admitted to the hospital as there was no room. As a result, he was taken back to Sosnowiec Remand Centre.\n16.  During his remaining time in Sosnowiec Remand Centre the applicant claimed that he had experienced hallucinations. He received regular pharmacological treatment, including psychotropic medicines. Between January and April 2006 he was examined nine times by a psychiatrist or a general practitioner.\n17.  On 22 May 2006 the applicant was transferred to Herby Stare Prison.\n18.  On his admission to Herby Stare Prison the applicant was examined by a neurologist. The examination ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4145", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in the United Kingdom.\n8.  The applicant claimed that until 14 August 1974 he and his family used to live in Morphou (Cyprus) in a detached house with a yard (area: 229 sq. m). This property was registered in the name of the applicant’s wife under plot no. 315, sheet/plan 19/32.5.2. On 14 August 1974, as the Turkish forces were advancing, the applicant and his family fled their home leaving behind all its contents, including precious personal belongings.\n9.  The applicant also claimed that he was the owner of the following plots of land in northern Cyprus:\n(a)  Nicosia/Kapouti, plot no. 576, sheet/plan 19/16, field, area: 5,017 sq. m;\n(b)  Kyrenia/Livera, plot no. 39/1, sheet/plan 5/62W1, field, area: 112,149 sq. m;\n(c)  Kyrenia/Livera, plot no. 14, sheet/plan 5/62W2, field, area: 171,549 sq. m;\n(d)  Kyrenia/Livera, plot no. 34, sheet/plan 5/63W1, field, area: 22,074 sq. m;\n(e)  Kyrenia/Livera, plot no. 45, sheet/plan 5/63W1, field, area: 11,582 sq. m.\n10.  In support of his claim of ownership the applicant produced the relevant certificates of registration and affirmations of ownership issued by the Republic of Cyprus.\n11.  The applicant alleged that from 14 August 1974 onwards he had not been able to return to his house and had been continuously prevented from exercising his property rights and enjoying his properties.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4146", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant, Mr Andrius Četvertakas, was born in 1973. The second applicant, Ms Ona-Danguolė Četvertakienė, was born in 1941. The third applicant, Mr Viktor Četvertak, was born in 1943. The applicants live in Vilnius. The second and the third applicants are parents of the first applicant.\n5.  In 1993 the first applicant bought part of a building, including a cellar and warehouse, and a plot of land adjacent to the building. The seller of the property, R.R., had purchased it from the local authorities.\n6.  In 1994 the first applicant’s neighbour, A.K., bought another flat in the same building. The privatisation agreement concluded with the local authorities stipulated that A.K. had also acquired part of the warehouse and the cellar.\n7.  On 18 July 1994 A.K. brought an action requesting annulment of the decisions whereby part of the land adjacent to the building had been sold to the first applicant.\n8.  On an unspecified date the parties brought new interlocutory claims regarding the ownership of the warehouse.\n9.  On 23 February 1995 the Vilnius City Third District Court granted the action of A.K. in part and ordered the local authorities to readjust the borders of the plot of land at issue.\n10.  On 7 November 1995 the Vilnius Regional Court quashed the decision and returned the case for examination de novo. It was established that the lower court had ruled on claims which had not been put forward by the parties and that the court had not assessed whether the rights of A.K. had been breached. Moreover, the local authority should have been invited to join the proceedings as a third party.\n11.  On 12 January 1996 several additional claims were brought by A.K.. The applicant submitted a new counterclaim, requesting non-pecuniary damages.\n12.  On 4 April 1997 the Vilnius City Third District Court dismissed the action of A.K., accepting the first applicant’s claims in part. In particular, the court declared null and void the agreement whereby A.K. had acquired half of the warehouse.\n13.  On 11 May 1998 the Vilnius Regional Court quashed the decision due to various procedural flaws, in particular the failure to resolve the question of the amount of the court fee to be paid. It was also noted that the lower court had failed to request certain evidence and therefore had not established certain facts relating to the property at issue. It also failed to establish whether R.R. had acquired the land from the local authority lawfully. The case was remitted to the Vilnius City Third District Court for a fresh examination.\n14.  On an unspecified date in 2000, A.K. brought several new claims. He requested, inter alia, that the first applicant be obliged to grant him access to the cellar in the building. On 18 May 2000 the first applicant submitted a counterclaim.\n15.  On 20 September 2000 the Vilnius City Third District Court granted the action of A.K. It was established that R.R. had unlawfully obtained a bigger plot of land than the one she was entitled to, thereby breaching the rights of A.K. As R.R. had had no right to sell that plot to the first applicant, the court annulled the contract between the first applicant and R.R. and ordered full restitution. The first applicant was also instructed not to obstruct access by A.K. to the cellar. The first applicant’s counterclaims regarding the warehouse were dismissed as unsubstantiated. The local authority and the first applicant appealed.\n16.  On 21 February 2001 the Vilnius Regional Court u", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4147", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Nicosia.\n8.  The applicant claimed that until July 1974 he used to live with his family in a house belonging to his parents in Lapithos, a village in the District of Kyrenia. In July 1974, as the Turkish army was advancing, the applicant and his family had been forced to leave Lapithos. Ever since, they have not been able to return to the applicant’s parents’ house.\n9.  On 20 April 1990 the applicant’s parents donated half of their house to the applicant. They also donated to him half of three other houses, two shops and a number of plots of land and water installations in Lapithos. The remaining half of the properties mentioned above was transferred to the applicant’s sister. The transfers at issue were recorded in the Land Registry of the Republic of Cyprus.\n10.  The applicant produced the relevant affirmations of ownership issued by the Republic of Cyprus. According to these documents, the applicant’s properties could be described as follows:\n(a)  plot no. 288/3, sheet/plan 11/14 E.1, plot of land – olive grove, area 2,282 sq. m;\n(b)  plots nos. 511 and 513, sheet/plan 11/14E.2, plots of land, area: 3,862 sq. m and 3,405 sq. m respectively;\n(c)  plots nos. 19, 20, 28 and 29, sheet/plan 11/15W.1, plots of land, area: 1,053 sq. m, 1,024 sq. m, 1,769 sq. m and 1,405 sq. m respectively;\n(d)  plots nos. 98 and 128/1, sheet/plan 11/15W.2, lemon plantations, area: 5,219 sq. m and 1,469 sq. m respectively;\n(e)  plot no. 296, sheet/plan 11/15W.2, lemon plantation with bore hole, area: 4,877 sq. m;\n(f)  plots nos. 22, 22/1, 22/2, 22/3 and 22/4, sheet/plan 11/15W.2 and E.2, lemon plantation with two wells and one ground storey residence, area: 7,032 sq. m;\n(g)  plot no. 42, sheet/plan 11/15W.2.E (no. 2), lemon plantation, area: 1,018 sq. m;\n(h)  plot no. 104, sheet/plan 11/15W.2.E (no. 2), tank of an area of 37 sq. m with a freshwater spring;\n(i)  plots nos. 60/1/2, 63/1 and 63/3, sheet/plan 11.23E.1,W (no. 1), lemon plantation (area: 2,358 sq. m) with a bore hole and one tank (area: 84 sq. m); on this property had been constructed: a ground storey residence of an area of 152.25 sq. m; two shops of an area of 56 sq. m; two semidetached ground storey residences (areas: 152.25 sq. m and 63 sq. m respectively); one residence of an area of 219.41 sq. m;\n(j)  plots nos. 53, 773, 774, 775 and 776, sheet/plan 11/23W.2,E.1 and 11/23W1E (no. 2), right to use a freshwater spring.\n11.  The applicant alleged that the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus had prevented him from using and/or enjoying his properties.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4148", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Łódź. He is currently detained in the Katowice Remand Centre.\n6.  On 15 February 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having been involved in drug trafficking as a member of an organised criminal group.\n7.  On 17 February 2002 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand until 15 May 2002 in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. The court considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings given the risk that he might obstruct them. This suspicion was, in the court’s view, justified by the fact that the applicant had been acting in an organised criminal group, “the members of which had not been identified”. The court also stressed the severity of the likely sentence.\n8.  The applicant’s detention was repeatedly extended by several decisions of the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) and the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). In their decisions, the courts repeatedly relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, the serious nature of the offences and the risk that the applicant, as a member of an organised criminal group, would obstruct the investigation.\n9.  On 14 December 2004 the prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Katowice Regional Court against the applicant and 32 other co-accused. The prosecutor requested 22 witnesses to be heard.\n10.  On 7 December 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal, extending the applicant’s detention for a further three months, noted that the length of the investigation had already been excessive and ordered that, by the end of the extended detention (that is, by 15 March 2006), the Regional Court commence the trial and hear all the defendants in the proceedings.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed.\n12.  On 28 December 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal confirmed its decision.\n13.  It appears that the Katowice Court of Appeal’s instructions were not followed by the Regional Court. After 15 March 2006 the applicant’s detention was extended three more times and the measure has still not been lifted.\n14.  On an unspecified date in January 2007 the applicant’s lawyer, relying on the applicant’s state of health and his family situation, requested the court to vary the preventive measure.\n15.  On 15 January 2007 the Katowice Regional Court refused the request, again invoking the serious nature of the offences with which the applicant had been charged and the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings. As regards the applicant’s health and his family situation the court found that:\n“It emerges from the information received from the Katowice Remand Centre’s doctor that the applicant can be treated in detention.... The applicant’s family situation is not so different from the situation of most families where a husband and father is imprisoned. However, the applicant’s wife runs her own business, which secures her and her children a basic income. It is true that the applicant’s apartment has been sold at auction but, in the court’s view, any possible eviction is still a long way off and even then the applicant and his family can obtain alternative accommodation. Lifting the applicant’s detention order would not change the living conditions of his family much.”\n16.  The applicant’s detention was further extended b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4149", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Szczecin.\n6.  On 26 January 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed several offences of drug trafficking.\n7.  On 26 January 2004 the Szczecin District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence and go into hiding. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n8.  In the course of the investigation, his detention was extended several times. In their decisions the courts referred to the reasons previously given and the likelihood that he had committed the offences in an organised criminal group. Further, they referred to the complexity of the case and the fact that many suspects were involved and some of them had not yet been arrested. They stressed that the detention was justified by the need to analyse the existing evidence and the scope of the applicant’s criminal activity, as well as the necessity to obtain further evidence, in particular to have witnesses examined.\n9.  The applicant appealed against the decision extending his detention (he appealed against the Szczecin District Court’s decisions of 9 April, 23 June, 31 August and 22 October 2004 and 19 January 2005) but to no avail. His applications for release were likewise unsuccessful.\n10.  However, on 15 July 2004 the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), after examination of the applicant’s appeal, amended the decision extending his detention given by the Szczecin District Court on 23 June 2004 and reduced the detention period by two months. The court criticised the manner in which the investigation and the case file had been conducted, as well as pointing out shortcomings in the prosecutor’s request for extension of the applicant’s detention.\n11.  On 12 October 2004 the investigation was completed and on 20 October 2004 the applicant and other suspects were indicted before the court.\n12.  The detention was then subsequently extended by the Szczecin District Court on several occasions.\n13.  In a decision given on 20 October 2005, the Szczecin District Court extended the applicant’s detention and the detention of the other nine co‑accused until 25 January 2006. However, at the same time it ruled that the applicant could be released on bail on payment of a security of 30,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 7,500 euros (EUR). The court noted also that “in most cases the accused were charged with acting in an organised criminal group or possibly (ewentualnie) the offences with which they were charged had been committed together and under arrangement with other persons”. The court did not however indicate which of the accused had been involved in the criminal group.\n14.  On 8 November 2005 the applicant’s defence counsel requested the court to lower the amount of bail by PLN 10,000, but his request was rejected on 6 December 2005.\n15.  The applicant did not pay the security and his detention was extended beyond the statutory two-year time-limit by the Szczecin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 18 January 2006 and 26 April 2006.\n16.  In the decision of 18 January 2006, which considered the extension of the detention only in relation to the applicant, the court did not mention the charge of acting in an organised criminal group. It noted however that “th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4150", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Mieścisko. He is a retired police officer who had formerly been employed in the Civil Militia (Milicja Obywatelska). In 1974 the applicant had been dismissed from service for a disciplinary offence. He was rehired by the Police in 1991. He retired in 1994.\n5.  On 27 September 1993 the applicant brought a civil action against the State Treasury for compensation on the grounds that in 1974 he had been unlawfully dismissed from his post at the Civil Militia and banned from working there until 1990. In addition the applicant claimed that he had not been hired by the new police services immediately after the change of the political regime, as he should have been, but only in April 1991.\n6.  The applicant sought compensation, which comprised damages for lost earnings from 1974 to 1990, for lost earnings and benefits from 1990 to 1991, and for alleged moral suffering due to the loss of employment.\n7.  On 9 November 1993 the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) rejected the claim on the ground that the civil court did not have jurisdiction over a dispute arising out of an employment relationship between a civil servant and the State (niedopuszczalność drogi sądowej).\n8.  As a result of an interlocutory appeal by the applicant, on an unspecified date the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed that decision and remitted the case to the Poznań Regional Court.\n9.  On 10 August 1995 the Poznań Regional Court rejected the claim on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.\n10.  On 6 March 1996 the Poznań Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case indicating that the applicant's claim was of a civil character as it had arisen out of relations between a civil servant and the State which were of an administrative and legal character rather than from a bond of special trust and loyalty between the two.\n11.  On 4 November 1997 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claim.\n12.  On 25 February 1998 the Poznań Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment in the part concerning the claim for compensation for lost earnings from 1990 to 1991 and remitted the case in this part to the lower court.\n13.  On 15 March 2001 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed the case. The applicant appealed.\n14.  It appears that on 25 April 2006 the appellate court issued an order to hold a hearing on 11 May 2006.\n15.  On 11 May 2006 the Poznań Court of Appeal delivered a judgment varying the judgment of the Poznań Regional Court of 15 March 2001 and ordering that the respondent pay the applicant a certain amount of compensation for lost earnings and benefits from 1990 to 1991.\nA cassation appeal in the case was inadmissible in law.\n16.  On 29 April 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint about the unreasonable length of proceedings for compensation for lost earnings and benefits from 1990 to 1991 under the Act of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). The applicant submitted that his civil case had been pending for over twelve years.\n17.  On 26 July 2006 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings under the 2004 Act on the ground that the civil proceedings which were the subject of the complaint had meanwhile terminated.\n18.  The court observed that the main purpose of the complaint about the unreasonable leng", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4152", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1947 and 1960 respectively and live in Bucharest and Wuppertal (Germany) respectively.\n5.  On 3 October 1941 the Botoşani County Court, following a division of an inheritance, assigned to N.M., inter alia, 151,005 sq. m of forest land situated on the Buneni estate and 100,000 sq. m of forest land situated on the Dângeni estate.\n6.  On 4 October 2000 the applicants, together with Z.D., as inheritors of N.M., brought proceedings to annul an administrative decision and to recover possession of 5,229 sq. m and 10,480 sq. m of forest land respectively.\nOn 26 February 2001 the Săveni Court of First Instance dismissed the action as groundless, considering that the applicants had not followed the procedure provided for by Law no. 18/1991 in its original wording, but had introduced their request after Law no. 169/1997 came into force.\n7.  The applicants appealed. On 19 June 2001 the County Court upheld the action in respect of the first applicant, allowing him to recover possession of 5,229 sq. m of forest in Dângeni village, and dismissed it regarding the second applicant, as she had not proved her Romanian citizenship.\n8.  The second applicant continued the proceedings with a further appeal. On 12 March 2002 the Suceava Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, stating that the lower courts had not considered the case on the merits in respect of the second applicant, and quashed the previous judgment in part, sending the case back for retrial.\n9.  On 14 November 2002, after a fresh examination in respect of the second applicant, the County Court allowed her to recover possession of 9,542 sq. m of forest land in Dângeni village.\n10.  The second applicant lodged an appeal on points of law alleging, inter alia, that she had not received the costs of the proceedings and that she had received a smaller area of land. On 11 March 2003 the Court of Appeal by a final decision dismissed her appeal as groundless.\n11.  On 29 May and 17 July 2003 the applicants requested the Dângeni Town Council and Botoşani Prefecture respectively to enforce the judgments in their favour. On 5 August 2003 the Town Council informed them that it had submitted the documentation to the competent authorities in order to issue the ownership titles.\n12.  On 9 September 2005 the applicants together with Z.D. claimed before the Town Council recovery of possession of 78,460 sq. m of forest land under Law no. 247/2005, of which 20,917 sq. m was for the first applicant and 41,834 sq. m for the second. They submitted a certificate of inheritance issued on 29 July 2002, which confirmed them as inheritors of N.M., with a quota of one-twelfth and two-twelfths respectively, together with Z.D., E.K., I.M. and A.M. They did not mention the judgments of 19 June 2001 and 14 November 2002 in their request.\n13.  On 12 January 2007 the Botoşani county commission for the application of property laws (“the county commission”), at the proposal of the local commission in Dângeni for the application of property laws (“the local commission”), decided to recover possession of 78,100 sq. m of forest land at Dângeni in favour of the applicants, together with Z.D., I.M. and A.M., as inheritors of N.M. However, the county commission rejected the proposal to allow the same beneficiaries to recover possession of a further 125,837 sq. m plot of forest land at Buneni.\nAn official record of 30 January 2008 signed by the first applicant also in his capacity as legal representative of the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4153", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Bîra.\n5.  On 21 November 1990 the applicant brought an action against the Bîra agricultural cooperative for the recovery of possession of 5,000 sq. m of land.\n6.  On 16 July 1991 the Roman Court of First Instance authorised the applicant to recover possession of a 5,000 sq. m plot of land situated in Bîra village at a place called “Cimitir” (“the cemetery”). The land had boundaries with the cemetery (to the north), a road (to the south), pastureland (to the east) and land belonging to B.A., a third party (to the west). The court ordered the agricultural cooperative to enable the applicant to take possession of the land. That judgment became final.\nOn 5 December 1991 the bailiff certified in an official record that the applicant had been able to take possession of the land and that some constructions built by the former agricultural cooperative, including a stable and part of a shed, were situated on it.\n7.  On 9 August 1991 the county commission in Neamţ for the application of Law no. 18/1991 (“the county commission”) authorised the applicant to recover possession of 52,600 sq. m of land.\n8.  On 5 October 1992 the applicant contested the administrative decision before the court on the ground that he was also entitled to recover possession of a further 11,200 sq. m approximately of land.\n9.  On 15 December 1992 the Court of First Instance allowed the applicant’s action, taking the view that he was entitled to recover possession of a total surface area of 63,800 sq. m of land, and ordered the administrative authorities to issue him with a document of title for that land, situated in Bîra village. That judgment became final.\n10.  On 17 January 1994 the local commission in Bîra for the application of Law no. 18/1991 (“the local commission”) certified in an official record that the applicant had been able to take possession of a 6,152 sq. m plot of land at Cimitir. The applicant signed the official record.\n11.  On 18 September 1997 the applicant brought an administrative action against the local commission seeking to have it perform the procedure for enabling him to take possession of the land and to prepare the documentation pertaining to the issuance of a document of title for the 63,800 sq. m of land.\n12.  On 26 January 1998 the Neamţ Regional Court upheld the applicant’s action and ordered the local commission to implement the procedure for enabling him to take possession of the 63,800 sq. m of land situated in Bîra village, to issue the official record and to provide him with a title document, in accordance with the judgment of 15 December 1992. That judgment became final.\n13.  On 3 April 2000 the applicant brought an administrative action against the local commission seeking a daily pecuniary penalty for the refusal to enable him to take possession of the entire surface area of 63,800 sq. m of land in Bîra village, and to prepare the documentation pertaining to the acquisition of title, as ordered by the judgment of 26 January 1998.\n14.  On 27 November 2000 the Regional Court, by an enforceable decision, upheld the applicant’s action and ordered the local commission to pay a daily pecuniary penalty of 100,000 Romanian lei (ROL). The court noted that the applicant had taken possession of 59,400 sq. m of land and that the local commission had refused to enable him to take possession of the plot of 5,000 sq. m of land situated at Cimitir, thus preventing the preparation of the necessary docu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4154", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Siemirowice.\n7.  On 7 April 2000 the Wejherowo District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) convicted the applicant of domestic violence and sentenced him to a one‑year period of imprisonment suspended on probation for 4 years. The court found that between June 1998 and October 1999 the applicant had ill‑treated his girlfriend in that he had beaten her and abused her verbally.\n8.  It appears that the applicant breached the terms of his probation and on 20 September 2002 the Wejherowo District Court ordered that his sentence be enforced. On 2 April 2003 he started to serve it in the Wejherowo Detention Centre.\n9.  On 18 July 2003 the applicant’s father died. The applicant submits that he immediately asked the prison authorities for leave to attend his father’s funeral. On 20 July the applicant’s girlfriend delivered him his father’s death certificate.\n10.  On 21 July 2003, a Monday, the applicant made a formal application for leave to attend the funeral, which was to be held on 22 July 2003.\n11.  On 21 July 2003 the Penitentiary Judge of the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sędzia Sądu Okręgowego Wydziału Penitencjarnego) refused the leave request. The reasons given for the judge’s decision were as follows:\n“The convicted person’s application cannot be allowed. The grounds relied on [by the applicant] to justify allowing him to leave the prison cannot be considered especially important.\nConsequently, since the conditions specified in Article 141 § 4 of [the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences] had not been fulfilled, it has been decided as above.”\n12.  The decision also included an instruction on the possibility to lodge an appeal against the decision with the Gdańsk Penitentiary Court within 7 days of the date of notification of the decision.\n13.  The decision was notified to the applicant on 22 July 2003. The applicant did not appeal against it as the funeral had already taken place and he considered that his request to leave prison had become without purpose.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4155", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, a lawyer, was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul. He was a member of the board of directors of the Istanbul Bar Association and Istanbul department director of the Contemporary Lawyers Association at the time of the lodging of the application. The applicant also pursued various activities for the furtherance of human rights protection in Turkey.\n5.  In his application form the applicant submitted that, on 18 February 1999, a client of his and Ms Several Demir, a certain Ms S.P., committed suicide in prison in protest. When they went to pick up her body at the morgue, together with the deceased’s brother, a police officer approached them and told them that Mr A.Ç., the deputy police chief of the Istanbul Security Directorate, would like to express his condolences and invited them to the Security Directorate to meet him. At the police station the applicant and Ms Demir were asked to wait outside while Mr A.Ç. received the deceased’s brother, Mr A.P. After a while they were also received. The applicant claimed that there were seven or eight other policemen in the room and that, as soon as they entered the room and sat down, Mr A.Ç. asked, in a stern tone, why they were interested in this incident. When the applicant stated that they were the deceased’s lawyers, Mr A.Ç. became angry and told them in a rude manner that the dead people do not have lawyers. The applicant alleged that, when he stated that they were the lawyers of the family, Mr A.Ç became even angrier, got up from his seat, repeated that dead people do not have lawyers, insulted the applicant and punched him in the face. When the applicant tried to get up from his seat, the other police officers held his arms and hands while Mr A.Ç. continued to punch him in the face and stomach. Later he was pushed around and kicked out of the police station, with insults being hurled at him.\n6.  According to the Government, the deceased’s brother was at the police station to sort out paperwork regarding the funeral. Two lawyers erupted into the office of the deputy police chief and stated that they were the deceased’s lawyers and wanted to take over the funeral arrangements. The deputy director, maintaining that deceased persons could not be legally represented, asked the lawyers to leave his office. Since they resisted, they were escorted by the police out of the Security Headquarters.\n7.  On the same day the applicant submitted an official complaint to the Fatih public prosecutor about the above events and requested the prosecution of Mr A.Ç. and the other police officers on duty that day. In addition, he asked to be referred to the Forensic Medical Institute for a medical examination.\n8.  On the same day, at 6.15 p.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor at Haseki Hospital who noted that the applicant had pain in his eye sockets and neck. The applicant was also seen by an orthopaedist who noted that the applicant had pain in his neck and right shoulder.\n9.   On 19 and 20 February 1999, press statements were issued by the Turkish Bar Association, Istanbul Bar Association and Contemporary Lawyers’ Association, condemning the incident and requesting the prosecution of those responsible.\n10.  On 26 March 1999 the Fatih public prosecutor gave a decision of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae and transferred the investigation file to the Istanbul Governor’s Office.\n11.  On 9 April 1999 Mr E.Y., an Istanbul deputy police chief (“the investigator”), was appointed to carry o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4156", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Érd.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant is the chairman of the Trade Union of Value Transporters and Security Workers (Értékszállítási és Őrzésvédelmi Dolgozók Szakszervezete), which represents its members in numerous companies.\n8.  The applicant was an employee of the security company G. As the chairman of the trade union, he had constant arguments with the company. In 1998 his employment was terminated, which measure was declared illegal by the competent courts in 2000. The applicant alleged that, since then, company G. has not allowed him to enter its premises, even on official trade union business.\n9.  In March 1999 the applicant lodged a private motion (magánindítvány) with the Pest Central District Court against S.K., the managing director of company G., alleging that the latter had committed defamation by saying at a company meeting that the applicant “had taken under his wing criminals who had worked in the company”. In September 2003 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, ultimately found S.K. guilty of defamation and fined him 150,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 550 euros (EUR)).\n10.  In June 2002 the trade union became active in company D. In the second half of the same year, the trade union was informed of an intention to sell company D. and that one of the possible buyers was company G. The employees of company D. opposed the project and, in order to express their opinion, requested the trade union to organise a protest demonstration. This it did in front of the Parliament building. The applicant, as chairman of the trade union, gave interviews to several newspapers concerning the events.\n11.  On 14 December 2002, a daily newspaper Színes Mai Lap published an article which reported the planned sale of company D. and described the demonstration, analysing the background to the events. It interviewed the applicant, who made the following statements.\n“... the other reason [for which we are holding a demonstration] is that 2,500 employees should not lose their livelihood and that such a company [i.e. company G.] which tramples constitutional and labour rights should not be the successor of company D. (...) Because of the inhuman conduct of the management [of company G.] [the employees] should not have to stay in a place where they were called ‛criminals’. We initiated court proceedings in some fifty cases because of that.”\n12.  On 17 January 2003 S.K. brought an action against the applicant before the Budaörs District Court, asking the court to establish that the applicant’s statements had infringed his good reputation, to order the applicant to refrain from such acts in the future and to arrange for a rectification to be published.\n13.  On 17 March 2004 the District Court, finding that it was impossible to identify S.K. directly from the impugned article, dismissed his action. The plaintiff appealed.\n14.  The Pest County Regional Court was of the view that the District Court’s decision had only been a partial decision determining the applicability of the law on defamation. On 8 July 2004, it amended the first-instance decision and established that the plaintiff could be identified from the article in question. Thus he, as an affected person, might lawfully claim the protection of his privacy rights.\n15.  In fresh proceedings the District Court found, on 24 November 2004, that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4157", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born on 30 April 1980 and lives in Belgium.\n6.  On 29 September 1995 a certain Mr Özcan Atik was arrested on suspicion of membership of the PKK[1]. The following day the applicant was arrested in Istanbul upon information allegedly given to the police by Mr Atik. According to that information, the applicant was a member of the PKK. Following his arrest the applicant was placed in police custody.\n7.  The applicant was questioned by police officers on 5 October 1995. In a written statement prepared by the police and signed by him, the applicant was quoted as having stated that he was a member of the PKK and that he had had a number of meetings with several of its members, including Özcan Atik. One day Özcan Atik had told the applicant that he had asked a certain Menderes Koçak to provide financial assistance to the PKK but that Mr Koçak had refused. Özcan Atik had then asked the applicant to help him set fire to a vehicle owned by Mr Koçak. This they had done one evening with the help of two other persons. The applicant also added that had he not been arrested, he would have taken part in further activities on behalf of the PKK.\n8.  On 7 October 1995 Mr Koçak identified Mr Atik and another person as the persons who had asked him to give money to the PKK. He did not know whether it had been the same two persons who had subsequently set fire to his vehicle and shop.\n9.  On 9 October 1995 police officers took the applicant and three other persons, including Mr Atik, to the street where Mr Koçak’s vehicle had been set on fire.\n10.  On 12 October 1995 the applicant and 21 other persons who had been arrested as part of the same police operation were taken to the Istanbul branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute, where they were examined by a doctor. According to the medical report drawn up the same day, the applicant’s body did not bear any signs of ill-treatment.\n11.  The same day the applicant was taken to the Istanbul State Security Court, where he was questioned by a prosecutor and then by a judge who ordered his detention in prison pending the introduction of criminal proceedings against him. In the statement drawn up by the prosecutor the applicant was quoted as having stated that he was a sympathiser but not a member of the PKK. He had set fire to the vehicle together with three other persons. In the statement drawn up by the judge, however, the applicant was quoted as having stated that he had set fire to the vehicle on his own.\n12.  When questioned by the police, and subsequently by the prosecutor and the judge, the applicant was not represented by a lawyer.\n13.  On 27 November 1995 the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, charging the applicant and fifteen other persons with the offence of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. According to Article 125 of the Criminal Code in force at the time, the punishment stipulated for this offence was the death penalty (see Relevant Domestic Law and Practice below).\n14.  A preparatory hearing was held on 18 December 1995 by the Istanbul State Security Court (hereinafter “the trial court”). One of the three judges on the bench was an army officer.\n15.  At the first hearing, held on 27 February 1996, the applicant was present but not represented by a lawyer.\n16.  During the second hearing, held on 1 March 1996, the applicant was still not represented by a lawye", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4158", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Vilnius.\n5.  On 23 June 1995 criminal proceedings were instituted for possible embezzlement of the property of the Aurabankas commercial bank.\n6.  On 5 January 1996 the bank filed a civil claim for the recovery of debt against the applicant. The claim was joined to be examined in the criminal proceedings.\n7.  On 16 January 1997 the applicant was questioned as a witness in the context of the above-mentioned criminal proceedings.\n8.  On 20 January 1997 the investigation authorities took a decision to seize the applicant’s bank accounts. On 4 February 1997 the authorities decided to seize the applicant’s apartment in Vilnius, and, on 5 February 1997, to seize his car.\n9. On 17 December 1999 the applicant was again questioned as a witness in the context of the aforementioned criminal proceedings.\n10.  On 31 March 2000 charges were brought against the applicant for fraud on a gross scale by obtaining money under forged agreements to exchange currency. On the same day the applicant was questioned as the accused and a remand measure – an obligation not to leave his place of residence – was imposed on him.\n11.  On 1 December 2000 upon the approval of the bill of indictment the case was transferred for trial to the Vilnius City First District Court. In accordance with the rules of jurisdiction the applicant’s criminal case was transferred to the Vilnius City Second District Court. By order of 12 December 2000 the court committed the applicant for trial.\n12.  Between 22 January 2001 and 28 June 2002 the case was adjourned thirteen times in view of the failure of certain witnesses or the co-accused to appear at a hearing and/or as a result of the illness of certain participants.\n13.  On an unspecified date the lawyer of J.P., one of the co-accused in the case, asked the court to order a medical examination to establish whether J.P. would be able to serve a prison sentence if convicted. On 28 June 2002 the Vilnius City Second District Court ordered a medical expert report for this purpose.\n14.  On 12 September 2002 the officials of the Institute of Forensic Medicine informed the Vilnius City Second District Court that, due to an intensive workload and lack of expert staff, the report in the case would take more time. The trial court was informed that it was planned to complete the report by 21 October 2002. The court adjourned the hearing until 5 November 2002.\n15.  Of the eighteen hearings between 5 November 2002 and 10 October 2003, three were adjourned because the applicant failed to appear (twice for medical reasons) while the other participants in the proceedings were present. The remaining hearings were adjourned in the absence of the other co-accused or their lawyers.\n16.  On 10 October 2003 the Vilnius City Second District Court convicted the applicant of fraud. It was also established that the criminal responsibility for forgery had become time-barred. The applicant was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment. The court also granted the bank’s civil claim.\n17.  On 12 February 2004 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the judgment.\n18.  On 15 July 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4159", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Mirosław Palewski, was born in 1957 and lives in Koszalin, Poland.\n6.  On 1 August 2000 and 13 February 2002 there was a fire at Morska Street in Koszalin, where the applicant’s business was located.\n7.  On 15 November 2002 he sued the insurance company Warta S.A. before the Koszalin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) for compensation of 545,918.65 zlotys (PLN) (approx. 136,500 euros (EUR)). At the same time, he also asked to be exempted from court fees.\n8.  On 9 December 2002 the court ordered the applicant to pay PLN 28,896 (approx. EUR 7,228) in court fees.\n9.  On 22 January 2003 the Koszalin Regional Court refused to exempt the applicant from court fees. The court’s reasons for this decision read, in so far as relevant, as follows:\n“...\nDespite the court’s request, the applicant has failed to provide information concerning his business activities. The documents submitted concern the SEDNO Manufacturing and Servicing Company (Zakład produkcyjno-uslugowy) located at Morska Street in Koszalin. However, from the insurance policies submitted, it appears that the applicant insured two companies, both located at Morska Street in Koszalin: SEDNO Manufacturing and Servicing Company and the Private Car Transport Company (Przedsiębiorswto Prywatnej Komunikacji Samochodowej).\n ...\nIt is therefore not clear what type of business activities the applicant is involved in at Morska Street in Koszalin (...).\nThe documents submitted by the applicant show that he has already received PLN 360,572.68 [approx. EUR 90,142] as partial compensation from Warta S.A. According to the applicant, this amount did not compensate him for the damage actually incurred. However, there are no reasons to believe that the applicant’s business collapsed because he received only partial compensation.\nIt further appears from the submitted tax return forms concerning SEDNO’s business for January to October 2002 that the applicant made an eight-digit gross profit and a seven-digit net profit in that period. This leads the court to the conclusion that the applicant can afford to pay the court fees because he has sufficient funds. However, lack of information concerning all his assets prevents the court from making an objective assessment of his financial situation.”\n10.  On 3 February 2003 the applicant filed an interlocutory appeal (zażalenie) against this decision. He claimed that his net profit for the period of ten months in 2002 had been PLN 15,288 (approx. EUR 3,820), which, contrary to the court’s findings, was a five-digit sum and that he also had a mortgage to pay. He also stressed that he owned only one company, SEDNO Manufacturing and Servicing Company (Zaklad produkcyjno‑uslugowy). The insurance policy issued for Private Car Transport Company concerned the same business as this was its old name. Finally, he submitted that he was in debt, and that enforcement proceedings against the company were pending.\n11.  On 29 April 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal. The court referred to the fact that the applicant had already received PLN 360,572.68 from the insurer as partial compensation. The court further considered that this in itself justified the refusal to exempt him from court fees as he could have put money aside for that purpose.\n12.  It appears that subsequently the applicant’s statement of claim was returned to him.\n13.  On 14 October 2003 the applicant again sued the insurance company Warta S.A. before the Kosza", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4160", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Kluczbork.\n5.  The applicant is a habitual offender and has a criminal record. He was charged with robbery and detained on remand in the Wołomin Detention Centre and later in the Łódź Detention Centre from 18 December 2001 to 8 August 2003, when the final judgment was given in his case. At present he is serving prison sentences after conviction for various offences.\n6.  The applicant suffers from severe ophthalmological problems resulting from an eye injury sustained during a fight with a fellow inmate. In 1996, before he was detained, his right eye was removed. He is currently one-eyed. His problems concern mainly the socket of his extracted eye.\n7.  In 1998 an expert in ophthalmology, Prof. J.Sz., found it necessary to operate on the applicant’s right eye socket to have the remains of the extracted eye removed. The surgery should have been performed while the applicant was released from detention. However, it did not take place, for unknown reasons.\n8.  In April and June 2000 different specialists from Warsaw and Bytom examined the applicant. It was suggested that he undergo a reconstruction of his right eye socket at Warsaw Medical University Hospital, which was scheduled for 14 August 2000. In a decision of 3 July 2000 the Medical Commission at Warsaw Remand Centre ordered a two-month suspension of the applicant’s prison sentence. It appears that the operation was not performed as the applicant failed to appear for a preliminary examination.\n9.  On 14 February 2002, while the applicant was detained on remand, another specialist in ophthalmology discovered that there was a need to perform a reconstruction of his right eye socket. An operation was scheduled for 22 April 2002; it was, however, postponed until 27 May 2002, since as stated in the applicant’s medical certificate of 29 April 2002, the hospital refused to perform it “under escort”, which implied that he would be transported back to a detention centre’s hospital immediately after the operation.\n10.  The surgery scheduled for 27 May 2002 was not performed since the applicant was granted neither release from detention nor a suspension of his prison sentence for the necessary period. The Government observed that on 24 May 2002 new criminal charges had been brought against the applicant and that for this reason he could not be released. In this connection, the judge in charge of the applicant’s case asked the Bytom Remand Centre hospital whether the applicant’s operation could be postponed. This question was answered in the negative after an examination on 22 August 2002. Moreover, the applicant was found to be in need of a different operation on his left eye, namely a vitrectomy.\n11.  The applicant’s vitrectomy on his left eye was scheduled to be performed at the Bytom Remand Centre hospital on 3 October 2002. It was cancelled since the applicant refused to undergo this operation at the Bytom Remand Centre hospital. He protested against the conditions in which it was to take place and insisted on being treated at Warsaw Medical University Hospital.\n12.  On 10 June 2002 the applicant was examined in the ophthalmology ward of the Bytom Remand Centre hospital. The doctors, however, decided not to operate on the applicant’s right eye socket in the Remand Centre hospital, since special facilities had to be in place. Therefore it was decided to have the operation performed at Warsaw Medical University Hospital on 22 September 2002. It w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4161", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1940 and 1938 and live in Oniceni and Cornu Luncii respectively.\n5.  On 11 October 1995 the Fălticeni Court of First Instance upheld an action by the applicants and authorised them to recover in co-ownership, as their mother’s heirs, a plot of land measuring 0.26 hectares situated in Cornu Luncii village, in a place known as Cotromanţi.\nThe first page of that judgment states that it became final on 7 November 1995. That statement is accompanied by a signature and a stamp of the Court of First Instance. According to the Government, the judgment became final on 28 November 1996, when an appeal by G.M., a third party intervening in the proceedings, was dismissed as groundless. The Government did not submit either a copy of the alleged judgment of 28 November 1996 or any other document making reference to that judgment.\n6.  On 21 November 1995 the authorities granted third parties title to a plot of land measuring 0.15 hectares situated at Cotromanţi. According to the Government, the land formed part of the plot of 0.26 hectares granted to the applicants by the judgment of 11 October 1995.\n7.  On 20 August 1997 the third parties sold that land to G.M.\n8.  On 6 May 1996 the applicants brought administrative proceedings against the local commission in Cornu Luncii responsible for the application of Law no. 18/1991 (“the local commission”), seeking to take possession of the 0.26 hectares of land at Cotromanţi. On 21 November 1996 the Suceava County Court upheld the action and ordered the local commission to enable them to take possession of the land at Cotromanţi. That judgment became final.\n9.  On 1 September 1997 the applicants brought proceedings against G.M. seeking annulment of the sale of 20 August 1997. On 13 December 2002 the Suceava Court of Appeal dismissed the action in a final decision, taking the view that G.M. had acted in good faith.\n10.  Between 1997 and 2003, according to the applicants, they lodged several criminal complaints against the mayor alleging abuse of authority and non-compliance with court decisions. The public prosecutor found no grounds which would justify initiating a criminal action against the mayor. On 25 November 1998 and 26 June 2001 these decisions were upheld by the senior prosecutor.\n11.  On 14 July 1998 the Court of First Instance, in an enforceable decision, upheld an action by the applicants and ordered the local commission to enable them to take possession of the 0.26 hectares of land at Cotromanţi. It ordered the mayor, in his capacity as chairman of the local commission, to pay the applicants a pecuniary penalty of 3,000 Romanian lei (ROL) for each day’s delay in enforcement.\n12.  On 8 January 2001 the County Court, by an enforceable decision, increased the amount of the daily pecuniary penalty to ROL 150,000 at the applicants’ request, considering the mayor to be acting in bad faith and ignoring the law.\n13.  On 14 September 2001 the County Court, by an enforceable decision, allowed an action by the applicants and attached the accounts of the Cornu Luncii Town Council with the Fălticeni Treasury up to an amount of ROL 77,700,000 and, for the future, up to ROL 150,000 per day.\n14.  On 3 April 2003 the applicants lodged an action seeking, inter alia, to have the title of the third parties who had sold the land to G.M. declared partially null and void, in respect of a surface area of 0.13 hectares.\nOn 14 September 2006 the Court of Appeal, by a final decision, allowed ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4162", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul. He was detained at the Inebolu prison at the time of the events.\n5.  Upon the applicant’s request he was examined by a doctor at the prison clinic on 14 January 2004.\n6.  According to the prison clinic’s registry provided by the Government, the applicant was examined by the prison doctor who considered that he was suffering from a tension headache. The doctor decided to transfer the applicant to a neurology department of a hospital. The Government submitted that, since there was no neurology department at Inebolu State Hospital, the applicant was transferred to Kastamonu State Hospital where he was examined by a doctor at the Neurology Department on 25 March 2004.\n7.  In the meantime, on 19 January 2004 the applicant filed a petition with the Inebolu Judge for the Execution of Sentences, after an oral refusal by the prison authorities, requesting copies of the doctor’s report issued after his medical examination of 14 January 2004 and the relevant pages of the prison clinic’s registry.\n8.  On 21 January 2004 the Inebolu Judge of Execution ordered the prison authorities to provide the applicant with copies of the requested documents. The applicant was so provided.\n9.  On 26 January 2004 the Inebolu public prosecutor filed an objection against the above decision. Referring to the spirit and purpose of a circular dated 5 December 1990, he claimed, inter alia, that the delivery of the originals or copies of any official prison documents to detainees or convicted persons was not permitted, in practice, on grounds of security and public order.\n10.  On 27 January 2004 the Inebolu Assize Court accepted the prosecutor’s objection on these grounds.\n11.  On 30 January 2004 the documents in question were reclaimed by the prison authorities.\n12.  On 29 March 2004, the applicant requested the prison authorities to provide him with a copy of the medical report and prescription issued at the Kastamonu State Hospital following his medical examination on 25 March 2004. On the same day he received them.\n13.  The applicant’s further request from the Ministry of Justice to quash the Assize Court’s judgment by a written order (yazılı emir) was also rejected on 4 May 2004.\n14.  On 26 November 2004 the applicant was released from prison.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4163", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1951, 1961 and 1956 respectively and live in Kiskunhalas.\n5.  On 1 February 1995 the applicants were charged with soliciting prostitution (üzletszerű kéjelgés elősegítése). The prosecution authorities asserted that the applicants, acting as a criminal gang, had been involved in running a brothel with minors working there as prostitutes.\n6.  Having held seven hearings, the Kiskunhalas District Court found the applicants guilty as charged on 21 November 1997. They appealed. On 18 June 1998 the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held three hearings and acquitted the applicants on 12 April 2005. The prosecution appealed.\n8.  On 20 October 2005 the Regional Court upheld the applicants’ acquittal on the ground of lack of evidence. It noted that during the proceedings relevant evidence, in particular an audio tape recorded by a journalist investigating the matter, had been lost and that some key witnesses for the prosecution had withdrawn their testimonies before a Romanian notary public. However, it did not investigate the circumstances of these events.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4164", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Snežnica.\n5.  On 13 March 1998 the applicant filed an action with the Čadca District Court. He claimed compensation in a labour dispute. On 11 September 1998 the case was transferred to the Považská Bystrica District Court.\n6.  In the period following the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 14 February 2006 (see below) the Považská Bystrica District Court held three hearings. It also requested the Čadca District Court to hear witnesses and twice urged it to do so.\n7.  On 15 March 2007 the Považská Bystrica District Court granted the applicant’s claim. The judgment became final on 12 May 2007.\n8.  On 14 February 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Považská Bystrica District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.\n9.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was not complex. Although the applicant had to a certain extent contributed to the length of the proceedings through insufficient cooperation, that had not influenced the overall length of the proceedings. Delays imputable to the Považská Bystrica District Court had amounted to a total of 4 years.\n10.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 40,000 (the equivalent of 1,066 euros at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the reimbursement of the applicant’s legal costs and ordered the Považská Bystrica District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4165", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 10 July 2002 the applicant was arrested and placed in the anti‑terrorist branch of the Istanbul police headquarters after, during a road check, police officers saw a photograph of Abdullah Öcalan and the slogans “Biji Serok Apo” (“Long live President Apo”) and “Biji Kurdistan” (“Long live Kurdistan”) on the screen of the applicant’s mobile telephone.\n6.  On the same day, the applicant made statements to the police and, subsequently, to the Gebze Magistrates’ Court, which ordered his detention on remand, having regard to the state of the evidence, the applicant’s statements to the police and the nature of the alleged offence, namely, membership of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation.\n7.  On 11 July 2002 the applicant lodged an objection to the remand order. No decision has been taken regarding the applicant’s objection.\n8.  On the same day, the Gebze public prosecutor issued a decision finding that he lacked jurisdiction. The investigation file was subsequently transferred to the public prosecutor’s office at the Istanbul State Security Court.\n9.  On 1 August 2002 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court charged the applicant with membership of an illegal organisation, under Article 168 § 2 of the former Criminal Code.\n10.  On 12 August 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s continued detention, having regard to the nature of the alleged offence, the state of the evidence and the date of the initial order for the applicant’s detention.\n11.  On 25 October 2002 the State Security Court held the first hearing in the case. The applicant’s representative requested the first‑instance court to release the applicant. The court accepted the request and ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.\n12.  On 5 September 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court acquitted the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4166", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Lyngby.\n6.  During the period from 1988 to 1992 the applicant received treatment at the Urological Unit of the County Hospital in Glostrup (Amtssygehuset i Glostrup).\n7.  In May 1992, the applicant underwent two cystoscopic examinations at the County Hospital in Gentofte (Amtssygehuset i Gentofte).\n8.  In October 1992 she underwent a diagnostic laparoscopic examination at the County Hospital in Glostrup.\n9.  Alleging malpractice on the part of the consultant who performed the cystoscopic examinations, on 30 June 1993 the applicant’s insurance company, acting on her behalf, filed a grievance with the National Patients’ Complaints Board (Sundhedsvæsenets Patientklagenævn). The latter found against her by decision of 28 September 1995.\n10.  On 9 September 1997, alleging malpractice on the part of the consultant who performed the diagnostic laparoscopic examination, the applicant requested that the Patient Insurance Association (Patientforsikringen) grant her compensation. The latter refused her request on 28 January 1998 finding that her troubles were caused by the disorder for which she sought treatment, rather than the examination and treatment received in that connection. On appeal, on 20 January 2000 the Patient Injury Appeals Board (Patientskadeankenævnet), upheld the Patient Insurance Association’s decision.\n11.  On 29 June 1995, alleging malpractice, the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the High Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret - hereafter the High Court) against the medical consultant who performed the two cystoscopic examinations in May 1992.\n12.  On 7 September 1995 the applicant changed the defendant from the medical consultant to Copenhagen County (Københavns Amt), being responsible for the County Hospital in Gentofte. She amended the writ accordingly and requested that Copenhagen County be ordered to acknowledge its liability in damages for the injuries allegedly incurred in connection with the examinations carried out at Gentofte County Hospital.\n13.  During the proceedings before the High Court, which ended on 13 November 2002, the applicant changed counsel at least five times. Moreover, during the proceedings a significant amount of time was spent on the drafting and discussion of various questions to be submitted to the Medico‑Legal Council (Retslægerådet) for an expert opinion.\n14.  From September 1995 to March 1996 pleadings were exchanged.\n15.  From March 1996 to April 1997 the applicant was granted seven extensions of time limit to prepare her questions to the Medico-Legal Council and because she had changed lawyer.\n16.  From 10 April to 8 August 1997 the questions were discussed and approved by the High Court, and on the latter date they were forwarded to the Medico-Legal Council.\n17.  Having requested and received additional medical material, on 22 December 1997 the Medico-Legal Council issued its opinion.\n18. In January and February 1998, it was established that one of the expert members of the Medico-Legal Council had to be disqualified due to conflict of interest. The Medico-Legal Council thus had to reconsider the questions. Beforehand, however, the parties wanted to prepare supplementary questions to be annexed. The case was accordingly adjourned five times and, at a hearing on 11 December 1998, the High Court fixed a time limit for 20 January 1999 for the applicant to finish her draft questions and a time limit for 24 February 1999 for the par", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4167", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n(1) Mr Kursolt Bibolovich Dolsayev[1], born in 1949;\n(2) Ms Mak (also spelled as Makka) Isayevna Dolsayeva, born in 1953;\n(3) Ms Madina Kursoltovna Dolsayeva, born in 1982;\n(4) Mr Shamil (also known as Adam) Kursoltovich Dolsayev, born in 1984; and\n(5) Mr Baysongur Kursoltovich Dolsayev, born in 1995.\nThe first, third, fourth and fifth applicants live in the village of Martan-Chu, in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya. Prior to her death in June 2007 the second applicant also lived there.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The first and second applicants were married. They were the parents of Beslan Kursoltovich Dolsayev, born in 1974, Mr Rizvan Kursoltovich Dolsayev, born in 1977, Mr Rizavdi Kursoltovich Dolsayev, born in 1978, and Mr Shuddi Kursoltovich Dolsayev, born in 1980, as well as the third, fourth and the fifth applicants.\n9.  At the material time Beslan Dolsayev worked as a police officer of the department of the interior of the Zavodskoy district of Grozny (“the Zavodskoy ROVD”) and had a service machine gun. The Dolsayev brothers had positive references from local authorities and were not suspected of participation in illegal armed groups.\n10.  From December 1999 Martan-Chu was under the full control of the Russian federal forces. From the end of September 2001 the village was under curfew from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. The checkpoints of the Russian military forces were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement. Military servicemen conducted regular identity checks in the village; prior to the events in question they had visited the applicants' house for identity checks on eleven occasions.\n11. On the night between 20 and 21 October 2002 Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev, the applicants and other members of the Dolsayev family were sleeping in their house at 4 Tsentralnaya Street, Martan-Chu, in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya. At about 4 a.m. around thirty men in camouflage uniform and masks and armed with machine guns entered the Dolsayevs' yard. They were equipped with portable radio transmitters but used gestures to communicate among themselves. The men shouted that they belonged to the Main Intelligence Department of the Ministry of Defence (“the GRU”) and ordered everyone not to move. Ten of them broke into the house. Meanwhile, one or two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and a Ural vehicle arrived at the house; their registration numbers were painted over.\n12.  The servicemen ordered the men from the Dolsayev family to stand along the wall, checked everyone's identity papers and took Beslan Dolsayev's service gun. Some of them searched the house without producing any warrant and took away a large knife with a black handle.\n13.  The servicemen then instructed Beslan, Rizvan, Rizavdi and Shuddi Dolsayev to go outside; the brothers were not allowed to put on clothing. After that, the four brothers were placed in the APC. The servicemen also intended to take the fourth applicant with them, but the second applicant dissuaded them from doing so as he was sick.\n14.  Having locked the women together with the fifth applicant in one room and the first and fourth applicants in another, the intruders left the house and drove away in the APCs and the Ural vehicle.\n15.  The applicants' neighbour Ms A.M. submitted in her witness statement that on the night of the abduction of the Dolsayev brothers she had been awoken by the sou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4168", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Ms Kaemena, was born in 1967 and is currently detained in Vechta. The second applicant, Mr Thöneböhn, was born in 1968 and is currently detained in Celle.\n6.  On 9 May 1996 the first and the second applicant were arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of having jointly murdered the first applicant’s husband on 2 May 1996.\n7.  On 5 September 1996 the indictment for murder was preferred against the applicants with the Verden Regional Court.\n8.  On 21 January 1997 the Verden Regional Court opened the trial against the applicants, who were represented by counsel throughout the proceedings before the domestic courts, and against another co-defendant (M.).\n9.  On 16 December 1997 the Verden Regional Court convicted the applicants and their co-defendant, who had all denied the charges, of having jointly murdered the first applicant’s husband, who had stood in the way of the applicants’ plan to marry, and sentenced them to life imprisonment.\n10.  Having heard more than fifty witnesses and at least five experts, having inspected the scene of the crime and having analysed the time and duration of numerous telephone calls between the defendants, the Regional Court concluded that the first applicant had given 20,000 Deutschmarks to M. and had lured her husband to a remote place, where he had been shot by the second applicant and M. acting jointly.\n11.  The Regional Court found that in view of their considerable involvement in their intimate relationship, in which they had driven each other to commit the offence in question, the applicants’ guilt was not of a particular gravity (Article 57a § 1 of the Criminal Code; see paragraph 45 below).\n12.  On 17 December 1997 the applicants both lodged an appeal on points of law. They complained, inter alia, that the Regional Court had made a procedural error in that it had based its judgment on a document containing a list of telephone calls they had made without that evidence having been produced at the main hearing.\n13.  The Public Prosecutor’s Office likewise lodged an appeal on points of law, which it reasoned on 29 May 1998. It contested in particular the Regional Court’s finding that the applicants’ guilt was not of a particular gravity.\n14.  By a decision of 10 February 1999 the Federal Court of Justice (third senate) dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law as manifestly ill-founded. It added that it considered the applicants’ appeal to be inadmissible in so far as they had alleged a procedural error. It argued that the applicants had failed sufficiently to substantiate this complaint. They had not informed the court that in the summons for a witness working for the telephone company who had listed the applicants’ phone calls, the president of the Regional Court had stated that the witness was called to explain the content of the said list of calls.\n15.  By a judgment delivered on the same day, the Federal Court of Justice, having held a hearing, allowed the prosecution’s appeal on points of law. It quashed the judgment of the Verden Regional Court in so far as the latter had not considered the applicants’ guilt to be of a particular gravity and remitted the case to a different chamber of the Regional Court.\n16.  By submissions dated 8 and 9 April 1999 respectively the second and the first applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. They notably contested the Federal Court of Justice’s finding that their appeal h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4169", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Krasnoznamensk, a town in the Moscow Region.\n5.  At the material time the applicant was a lieutenant colonel of Space Forces. After 22 years of service, he was due to retire on reaching the age limit in August 2004. Under domestic law, long-serving servicemen in need of better housing (the applicant met this condition) could be discharged against their will only if the command provided them with such housing. When preparing his discharge, the applicant insisted that the command provide him with a flat and did not agree to be discharged “flatless” (бесквартирным).\n6.  As the flat had not been provided in time, the applicant sued his command. On 25 February 2005 the Krasnoznamensk Garrison Military Court ordered the command to provide the applicant with housing at his place of service and, once this done, to discharge him. This judgment became binding on 10 March 2005 but was not enforced immediately.\n7.  In February 2006 the applicant was offered a flat in Bolshie Vyazyomy, a village 3.5 km away from Krasnoznamensk. The applicant refused this offer, insisting that the flat should be located in Krasnoznamensk itself.\n8.  On 15 June 2007 the applicant received a flat in Krasnoznamensk. He was discharged later the same year.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4170", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Ulan-Ude in the Buryatiya Republic.\n5.  The Russian authorities initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant:\n-  on 13 June 1999 under Article 198 § 2 of the Criminal Code (tax evasion by a private person); the applicant was charged on 10 August 1999;\n-  on 24 June 1999 under Article 201 § 1 of the Code (abuse of power);\n-  on 29 August 1999 under Article 199 of the Code (tax evasion by a legal entity);\n-  on 13 October 1999 under Article 160 § 3 (b) (misappropriation of private property);\n-  on 21 January 2000 under Article 165 (causing pecuniary damage).\n6.  The above cases were joined on a number of occasions, most recently on 4 June 2001. According to the Government, the charges under Articles 165 and 199 of the Code were abandoned on 5 January 2000 and 4 June 2001 respectively (see, however, paragraph 9 below).\n7.  According to the Government, the proceedings were suspended on 6 January, 4 February and 17 August 2000, 13 June and 21 September 2001, and 20 January 2003, owing to the applicant’s illness. According to the Government, the applicant and his counsel were advised that the proceedings had been suspended on a number of occasions and subsequently resumed.\n8.  On 18 August 2004 the applicant sought access to the case file and, in particular, to the above-mentioned decisions to suspend the proceedings. On 27 August 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Buryatiya Republic sent him a letter stating that the case file might be available at the archives of the Tax Authority in Ulan-Ude. On 5 October 2004 the Investigations Department of the Regional Ministry of the Interior informed the applicant that the criminal case against him had been suspended owing to his illness. Upon his renewed request, on 22 December 2004 the applicant received another reply from the Regional Office of the Drugs Control Service stating that the Investigations Department might be able to provide the requested documents. On 8 September 2005 the Drugs Control Service informed the applicant that on 10 July 2003 the criminal case against him had been forwarded to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Buryatiya Republic.\n9.  On 20 January 2006 the Investigations Department discontinued the proceedings as regards charges under Articles 160, 165, 198, 199 and 201 of the Criminal Code.\n10.  In August 1997 the applicant bought a PAZ-320500 bus. On 5 November 1999 the investigator in the criminal case against the applicant (see above) authorised seizure of the bus as security for eventual civil claims against him or eventual confiscation as a penalty under Article 160 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 16 below). On 9 November 1999 the applicant’s bus was seized. It appears that no civil claims were lodged in the criminal case against the applicant.\n11.  On an unspecified date the bus was transferred for safekeeping to a Mr Y.\n12.  In September 2003 the applicant brought proceedings in which he challenged the investigator’s seizure order as unlawful and requested the court to release the bus.\n13.  On 15 September 2003 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude examined the applicant’s claims with reference to Article 125 of the 2002 Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 19 below) and rejected them as unfounded. The court held as follows:\n“...under Article 175 § 1 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure in order to secure civil claims or eventual confiscation of property the investigator shall is", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4171", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1958 respectively. They live in Stariye Atagi, the Chechen Republic.  They are the parents of Mr Anzor Sambiyev (also known as Anzor Pokayev), born in 1980.\n5.  According to the applicants, after the disappearance of their other son, Mr Amir Pokayev, in March 2002 (see Arzu Akhmadova and Others v. Russia, no. 13670/03), the second applicant sent Mr Anzor Sambiyev to live with her sister in Nazran where she believed him to be safe. Servicemen often enquired after his whereabouts and asked for his photographs, although they never explained why. The second applicant never told them where he was and removed all his photographs.\n6.  On 8 April 2004 Mr Anzor Sambiyev came to Stariye Atagi to visit his family.\n7.  On 10 April 2004 at approximately 9 p.m. the second applicant and Mr Anzor Sambiyev were at home. Suddenly armed servicemen of federal troops wearing camouflage uniform rushed into the yard of the house. There were about fifty servicemen who had arrived in armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and a “Ural” vehicle. Some of them surrounded the house. The second applicant told Mr Anzor Sambiyev to jump out of the window into the garden. After he did, she went to the yard and asked the servicemen what was wrong and what they were looking for. They told her to step out of the house. When she refused, they forced her into the yard. At that moment she heard shooting.\n8.  The second applicant was not allowed to enter her house for approximately half an hour while the servicemen were inside. She went into her neighbours' yard. While she remained there she heard the neighbours' children, who managed to see something through the fence, saying: “They killed someone, they are dragging someone”.\n9.  When the servicemen left, the second applicant returned home and found that everything had been thrown around the house. She noticed that they had taken the first applicant's passport, driving licence, medical certificate and a car certificate.\n10.  In the morning the next day the applicants went to the head of the village administration and told him about the events of the previous evening. At the same time a body was found on the outskirts of the village of Prigorodnoye, which was identified as Mr Anzor Sambiyev. At approximately 10 a.m. his body was brought to Stariye Atagi and buried. He had a large wound near his heart, his arm was broken and there was a bullet mark on his watch.\n11.  According to the Government, on 10 April 2004 at around 9 p.m. unidentified men wearing camouflage uniform and masks, and armed with automatic weapons, approached the house at 91 Nasrudilova Street in Stariye Atagi in an Ural vehicle. Mr Anzor Sambiyev, who was inside the house, jumped out of the window, and his mother, the second applicant, did not want to leave the house but was forced to by the armed men. After a short time she heard shooting and went out to the yard, where one of her neighbours told her that Mr Anzor Sambiyev had been taken away in the Ural vehicle. The neighbours also told her that they had seen two APCs.\n12.  On 11 April 2004 at around 9 a.m. the body of Mr Anzor Sambiyev, showing signs of having died a violent death, was found on the left-hand side of the Grozny – Shatoy road in the direction of Shatoy within 20 metres of the turning to the village of Prigorodnoye in the Grozny District.\n13.  On 11 April 2004 the Grozny District Prosecutor's Office opened criminal investigation no. 34046 into Mr Anzor Sam", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4172", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1943 and 1975 respectively and live in Urus-Martan.\n8.  The first applicant has two children: Isa Zaurbekov, born in 1967, and the second applicant. At the material time her two children were living temporarily in a block of flats at 1 Kirov Avenue in Grozny, Chechnya. Isa Zaurbekov worked as a car mechanic in a local repair shop.\n9.  On 11 February 2003, at around 3 a.m., a group of armed men forcibly entered the block of flats at 1 Kirov Avenue and attempted to break down the door of a flat in which the second applicant and Isa Zaurbekov lived. The men managed to make a hole in the door. One of them then pointed his sniper rifle (vintorez) through the hole at the second applicant, who had been awakened by the noise, and ordered her to let them in. As soon as the second applicant opened the door, the men pushed her aside and about 15 of them entered the flat. They were wearing camouflage uniforms and one of them was masked. The men had sniper rifles with optic sights and silencers. According to the second applicant, the men who raided her flat belonged to the Russian federal troops, since they spoke Russian without an accent, had a Slavic appearance, were equipped with military vehicles and were able to circulate freely in Grozny during the curfew.\n10.  One of the men ordered another one to get the second applicant “out of the way”, and the latter put his gun into her mouth. Then he covered the second applicant’s mouth with a rag and tied her hands with a rope.\n11.  The intruders did not introduce themselves or produce any documents to authorise their actions and searched the flat. They forced Isa Zaurbekov, who was asleep in his room, out of bed and ordered him to lie down. The men tied his hands and covered his mouth with adhesive tape. They then ordered the second applicant’s brother to produce his identity papers, and the latter indicated that his passport was in his jacket. One of the servicemen showed Isa Zaurbekov’s passport to the masked man and asked if that was him. The masked man shook his head in the negative. The former servicemen stated that they would “take [Isa Zaurbekov] away anyway and then find out”. Although Isa Zaurbekov was only wearing trousers and a shirt and was barefoot, the men did not allow him to take his overcoat.\n12.  Before leaving the flat one of the men ordered the second applicant to stay immobile for half an hour if she “wanted to live”. However, the one who had tied her up told her quietly that he had made the knot loose so that she could free herself easily. After the men had left, the second applicant managed to untie her hands. She then went out on the balcony and saw about 40 servicemen in the street. There were also three armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”), a white VAZ-2106 Zhiguli car and a UAZ vehicle. They left in the direction of the federal military base in Khankala. The applicants have had no news of Isa Zaurbekov since that date. The second applicant also examined the flat and found out that a computer central processing unit, a number of compact discs and a family photo album were missing.\n13.  The applicants corroborated their account of events of 11 February 2003 with two eyewitness statements, notably those of Ms M.-M. and Ms D., the second applicant’s neighbours. Both women confirmed that on the night of the incident they had seen a group of about 40 men in camouflage uniforms and masks armed with machine guns and that those men had taken away Isa Z", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4173", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 16 August 2000 the applicant company purchased goods from another company (“the supplier”).\n7.  Both companies were registered under the Value Added Tax Act 1999 (“the VAT Act”) and the transaction constituted a taxable supply under the said Act.\n8.  The total cost of the received supply was 21,660 Bulgarian levs (BGN) (11,107 euros (EUR)), of which BGN 18,050 (EUR 9,256) was the value of the goods and BGN 3,610 (EUR 1,851) was value-added tax (“VAT”).\n9.  The supplier issued invoice no. 12/16.08.2000 to the applicant company, which the latter paid in full, including the VAT of BGN 3,610 (EUR 1,851).\n10.  The applicant company recorded the purchase in its accounting records for the month of August 2000 and filed its VAT return for that period by 15 September 2000.\n11.  The supplier, on the other hand, did not record the sale in its accounting records for the month of August 2000, but for October 2000, and reported it in its VAT return for the latter period, which it filed on 14 November 2000.\n12.  On an unspecified date the tax authorities conducted a VAT audit of the applicant company covering the period from 10 February to 31 December 2000. In the course of the inspection a cross-check of the supplier was conducted in order to ascertain whether it had properly reported and recorded the supply in its accounting records. As a result, the above reporting discrepancy was discovered (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above).\n13.  On 31 January 2001 the “Yug” Tax Office of the Plovdiv Territorial Tax Directorate issued the applicant company with a tax assessment. It refused the applicant company the right to deduct the VAT it had paid to its supplier (“the input VAT”), amounting to BGN 3,610 (EUR 1,851), because the supplier had entered the supply in its accounting records for the month of October 2000 and had reported it for that period rather than for August 2000. The Territorial Tax Directorate therefore considered that no VAT had been “charged” on the supply in the August 2000 tax period, that the applicant company could not therefore deduct the amount it had paid to its supplier as VAT and, furthermore, that it was liable to pay the VAT on the received supply a second time. Accordingly, it ordered the applicant company to pay the VAT in the amount of BGN 3,610 (EUR 1,851) into the State budget, together with interest of BGN 200.24 (EUR 102) for the period from 15 September 2000 to 31 January 2001.\n14.  The applicant company appealed against the tax assessment on 20 February 2001.\n15.  In a decision of 26 February 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Tax Directorate dismissed the applicant company’s appeal and upheld the tax assessment in its entirety. It recognised that the applicant company had fully complied with its VAT reporting obligations in respect of the received supply, but found that the supplier had failed to enter its invoice in its own accounting records on the date it had been issued, 16 August 2000, and had not reported its VAT-taxable supply for the month of August 2000 as it should have done. It therefore concluded that no VAT had been “charged” on the supply in question and that the applicant company was accordingly not entitled to deduct the input VAT, in spite of the fact that the supplier had subsequently reported the supply for the month of October 2000.\n16.  The applicant company appealed against the decision of the Regional Tax Directorate on 19 March 2001, arguing that it could not be denied the right to deduct the input VA", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4174", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  In 1949 the authorities in Bulgaria enacted legislation regulating the organisational structure and functioning of religious denominations (the Religious Denominations Act 1949).\n10.  In accordance with the Act, each religious denomination had to apply for registration and approval of its statute by the Council of Ministers and to register its leadership with the Directorate of Religious Denominations (“the Directorate”) attached to the Council of Ministers. The local leaderships were registered by the municipal authorities.\n11.  In reality, the leadership of religious denominations was pre-approved or even directly nominated by the Bulgarian Communist Party.\n12.  The Bulgarian Orthodox Church was no exception. A document dating from 1949, submitted by the applicants, attests that in 1949 the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party discussed the need for “cleansing” in the leadership of the Church and took measures to promote persons loyal to the authorities to leading positions in the Church. In 1971, following the death of Patriarch Cyril, the Central Committee of the Bulgarian Communist Party, in a decision dated 8 March 1971, nominated Metropolitan Maxim for Patriarch and instructed a Mr K., a government employee, to “undertake the necessary preparation so as to secure the election of Metropolitan Maxim as Patriarch”. Contrary to the Statute of the Church, which provided that each eparchy had to hold elections for seven electors to a special Church Convention empowered to elect a new Patriarch, Maxim was elected by the electors nominated in 1957, when Cyril had become Patriarch.\n13.  It is unclear whether Patriarch Maxim’s leadership was validly registered by the Council of Ministers under the 1949 Act. At all events, in administrative practice and for all legal purposes, until 1990 his leadership was recognised as being lawfully registered.\n14.  Soon after the beginning of the democratisation process in Bulgaria in late 1989, a number of Christian Orthodox believers sought to replace the leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church. They considered that Patriarch Maxim had been proclaimed Bulgarian Patriarch in violation of traditional canons and the statute of the Church and that he had been responsible for acts incompatible with the duties of the Patriarch.Patriarch Maxim also had supporters. This situation caused divisions and internal conflict within the Church.\n15. Each of the conflicting groups in the Church naturally associated with one of the main political forces at the time – those who sought changes with the newly created Union of Democratic Forces (anti-communist) and those who represented the status quo with the Bulgarian Socialist Party (the reformed Communist Party).\n16.  At the end of 1991, following parliamentary elections, a new government was formed by the Union of Democratic Forces and the Movement for Rights and Freedoms.\n17.  On 25 May 1992 the Directorate of Religious Denominations attached to the Council of Ministers (“the Directorate”) issued a decision stating that the nomination of Maxim as Bulgarian Patriarch and head of the Church in 1971 had been in violation of its statute and ordered his replacement by an interim council pending the election of a new leadership by a Church Convention. Metropolitan Pimen was appointed chair of the interim council.\n18.  The leadership presided over by Patriarch Maxim appealed to the Supreme Court. In judgments of 2 July 1992 and 5 November 1992 the Suprem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4175", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Vidin.\n6.  At the relevant time he worked as an electrical engineer on a ship on the Danube river. At about 9 p.m. on 3 January 1992, while the ship was anchored in Passau, Germany, and the crew were celebrating a birthday onboard, one of them, Mr V.M., who had been drinking alcohol, showed the others a gas pistol he had bought. He put the muzzle close to the first mechanic’s head and then went out of the cabin. A few seconds later a shot was heard and V.M. entered the cabin, saying that he had shot the second mechanic. The others admonished him not to play with the pistol, as he could blind somebody. However, V.M. turned towards the applicant and told him that he “[would] be next”. The applicant warned him not to play with the pistol, but V.M. aimed at him, laughing. The applicant tried to hide his face and went out of the cabin and back in several times. V.M. continued to laugh and shot the applicant in the face, from a distance of about 50 or 60 centimetres. The applicant was blinded and felt numb in his nose, mouth and chin. His glasses were covered with powder.\n7.  On the next morning the applicant was taken to a hospital in Passau to undergo treatment. He had a number of black disfiguring scars on his face.\n8.  The applicant brought the matter to the attention of the Bulgarian prosecuting authorities on 2 June 1993. On 14 December 1993 the Vidin District Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation into the incident and in December 1993 and January 1994 in the investigator in charge of the case interviewed several witnesses.\n9.  On 1 February 1994 V.M. was charged and questioned.\n10.  On 11 February 1994 the investigator concluded that V.M. had wilfully caused the applicant intermediate bodily harm, contrary to Article 129 § 1 of the 1968 Criminal Code (see paragraph 26 below), and recommended that he be committed for trial.\n11.  No further procedural steps were undertaken until 15 May 1998, when the Lom District Prosecutor’s Office, to which the case had been transferred in February 1994, submitted an indictment against V.M. to the Lom District Court, accusing him of negligently inflicting intermediate bodily harm on the applicant, contrary to Article 133 of the 1968 Criminal Code (see paragraph 26 below).\n12.  In the meantime, in 1994, November 1995 and January 1996, the applicant contacted the Lom District Prosecutor’s Office and requested that the case be processed faster. In 1996 and 1997 he also complained about the delay to the Montana Regional Prosecutor’s Office.\n13.  The first hearing before the Lom District Court, listed for 3 November 1998, was adjourned because the witnesses and an expert witness did not appear.\n14.  The hearing took place on 23 February 1999. The court accepted for examination a civil‑party claim which the applicant had lodged the previous day, and gave him leave to take part in the proceedings as a private prosecuting party alongside the public prosecutor. Noting that V.M. was ill, the court adjourned the case.\n15.  A hearing scheduled for 15 April 1999 failed to take place because V.M. was ill and none of the witnesses had appeared.\n16.  A hearing listed for 23 February 2000 was also adjourned because V.M. was absent. The court found that he was evading the proceedings and ordered his detention.\n17.  A hearing listed for 5 July 2000 started as planned, but was adjourned because it emerged that V.M. had not received a copy of the indictment.\n18.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4176", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants, Mr Nicolai Cebotari, Mr Nicolai Gorbatîi, Ms Zinaida Curganov, Mr Ion Nedin and Mr Petru Anin, are Moldovan nationals, who were born in 1936, 1942, 1931, 1957 and 1939 respectively and live in Chişinău.\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  The applicants were employees of a private company (“the company”) and were entitled to receive invalidity benefit. Since the company stopped paying them benefit in 1998, the applicants jointly brought an action against it, seeking payment of benefit arrears and requiring the former to pay the benefit for the rest of their lives.\n10.  On 23 October 2001 the Botanica District Court ruled in favour of the applicants. It ordered the company to pay each of them invalidity benefit for the period 1 April 2000 to 1 November 2001 as follows: 9,507 Moldovan lei (MDL) (823 euros (EUR)) to Mr Nicolai Cebotari; MDL 6,245.4 (EUR 541) to Mr Nicolai Gorbatii; MDL 6,320.33 (EUR 548) to Mrs Zinaida Curganov; MDL 6,345.61 (EUR 550) to Mr Ion Nedin; and MDL 8,123.61 (EUR 550) to Mr Petru Anin. It also ordered the company to recalculate their respective benefits periodically and to pay it for the rest of their lives. On the same date the court issued enforcement warrants. The company’s appeal was dismissed on 8 May 2002 by the Chişinău Regional Court and on 13 June 2002 by the final judgment of the Court of Appeal.\n11.  The enforcement warrants were sent to the bailiff on 5 January 2002.\n12.  Between 2001 and 2004 the applicants lodged numerous complaints with various authorities about the non-enforcement of the judgment in their favour. In its replies the Ministry of Justice informed the applicants about the actions taken by the Bailiff’s Office to enforce the judgment. On several occasions a bailiff made enquiries of the Tax Authority, the Land Registry and the Vehicle Registration Department about the company’s assets. He was informed that the company held numerous bank accounts which had been frozen by the Tax Authority, that the company did not have any real estate and that it owned several vehicles, later found to have been dismantled and allegedly to be of no value.\n13.  In order to enforce the judgment in favour of the applicants, on 5 February 2002 a bailiff seized a building, which, according to a certificate of 22 February 2002 issued by the Land Registry, belonged to a third company. On 25 February 2002 a court annulled the sale by auction of that building.\n14.  On 22 July 2002 the company proposed to pay to each applicant MDL 1,300 (EUR 94), but they refused the offer.\n15.  On 13 August 2002 a bailiff seized four items of the company’s machinery and arranged for their sale at auction. On 22 August 2002 a third party bank (“the bank”) sought annulment of the bailiff’s actions on the ground that the machinery had been mortgaged by the company in 1996 in order to guarantee a loan. Although the company’s machinery was auctioned on 18 December 2002, following a request from the bank, on 26 December 2002 the Botanica District Court annulled the auction. On 13 February 2003 the Botanica District Court ordered a stay of the enforcement proceedings in respect of the seized machinery, relying on a judgment of the Economic Court of 18 March 1999 by which a judicial dispute between the company and the bank had been determined in favour of the latter.\n16.  By judgments of 21 May 2002 and 31 March 2003 the Economic Court dismissed a third party bank ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4177", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Nicosia.\n8.  The applicant was born and grew up in Ayios Amvrosios, a village in the District of Kyrenia. In 1973 he moved his residence to Kyrenia. During the military intervention of July 1974, Turkish troops evicted the applicant and his family from their home and forced them to leave Kyrenia and flee to the south.\n9.  The applicant claimed that he had real properties in northern Cyprus. He produced affirmations of ownership issued by the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus, according to which he was the owner of the following properties:\n(a)  Kyrenia, Klepini, Boumbourka, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/33, plot no. 72, area: 2,784 sq. m, share: whole;\n(b)  Kyrenia, Ayios Epiktitos, Karamanou Quarter, field with trees, sheet/plan 12/32, plot no. 235, area: 539 sq. m, share: whole;\n(c)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, Alakati tou Platymati, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/19, plot no. 220/2, area: 7,078 sq. m, share: whole;\n(d)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, Vasilion, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/20, plot no. 63, area: 3,365 sq. m, share: whole;\n(e)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, Vasilion, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/20, plot no. 130, area: 3,301 sq. m, share: whole;\n(f)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, Vasilion, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/20, plot no. 151, area: 365 sq. m, share: whole;\n(g)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, Platanos, garden and cultivated field, sheet/plan 13/22, plot no. 524, area: 55 sq. m, share: whole;\n(h)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, Vrysi tou Potamou, freshwater spring, sheet/plan 13/22, plot no. 608/1, share: whole;\n(i)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, Mangou, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/31, plot no. 34, area: 3,819 sq. m, share: whole;\n(j)  Kyrenia, Pano Kyrenia, house with yard (ground level), No. 7, Demosthenous Street, sheet/plan 12/20, plot no. 34, area: 785 sq. m, share: whole.\n10.  The applicant alleged that the house described under paragraph 9 (j) above had been his permanent residence. He lived there with his wife Sophia Andreou Ioannou (the applicant in application no. 18360/91), his son Michael Michael (the applicant in application no. 18361/91) and his daughter Christina Michael.\n11.  Following the 1974 intervention and the ensuing Turkish military occupation, the applicant was deprived of access to and the use of his property. He participated in various peaceful demonstrations and marches towards his village. On all occasions he was prevented from walking home by the Turkish troops.\n12.  On 9 December 1990 the applicant made one further attempt to return to his home and property in Kyrenia and Ayios Amvrosios by participating in a convoy of cars of fellow refugees intending to return home.\n13.  The applicant and his fellow refugees, who had informed the Commander of the United Nations (UN) forces in Cyprus of their intentions, arrived at the check point in the \"buffer zone\", on the main road which links Nicosia with Ayios Amvrosios and Kyrenia. There, they asked the UN officer on duty to be allowed to return to their homes, property and villages. They requested the same officer to forward their demand to the Turkish military authorities. The officer replied that the latter had refused their request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4178", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1908.\n9.  The applicant grew up in Trypimeni, a village in the District of Famagusta. He alleged that he was the owner of the following immovable properties in the village:\n(a)  registration no. 5147, plot no. 20, sheet/plan 13/40, house with two rooms and one kitchen, one veranda, oven, trees and yard; the applicant alleged that two extra rooms and one kitchen had been added later; area of the plot of land: 530 sq. m; area of the house: 230 sq. m;\n(b)  registration no. 2597, plot no. 442, sheet/plan 13/40, field with olive trees; area: 13,713 sq. m.\n10.  In support of his claim of ownership, the applicant submitted copies of the original title deeds. It appears from these documents that the applicant owned five twelfths of the property described above under paragraph 9 (a) and half of the property described above under paragraph 9 (b). However, in his observations of September 1999, the applicant’s lawyer alleged that his client had had full ownership of the whole of the two plots. He submitted that from 1921 onwards only the applicant, his wife and his two children had been living in the house built on plot no. 20. This house had been the marital home from the time of his wedding and the applicant had had the absolute and unrestricted use and occupation of it. Moreover, from August 1928 the applicant had been cultivating and taking care of the whole of plot no. 442. He had been a farmer who earned his income from the production of the olive trees. In support of these statements, the applicant’s lawyer produced a certificate issued by the Trypimeni village committee on 25 September 1999. The reason why the applicant had not been registered as the owner of the whole share of the two plots was that the applicant’s mother, Mrs Maria Yianni, had been the owner of two twelfths of plot no. 20. She had given one twelfth of the plot to the applicant and one twelfth to his brother, Mr Elias Kyriakou, in the form of an unregistered gift. The applicant’s brother had also been the owner of the remaining five twelfths of plot no. 20 and of the remaining half of plot no. 442. In 1956 Mr Elias Kyriakou, who had emigrated to Australia and had no intention of coming back to Cyprus, had given all his shares to the applicant. However, no official transfer of ownership had been entered in the land register. In support of his version of the facts, the applicant’s lawyer produced an affidavit from the applicant’s son, Mr Andreas Ioannou.\n11.  In July 1974, as the Turkish troops were advancing, the applicant and his family had to leave Famagusta and flee to the area still controlled by the Cypriot Government. The applicant had lived until his death in a small house located in a housing scheme for displaced persons.\n12.  Since 1974 the applicant had been unable to return to his home and property in the northern part of Cyprus. He participated in various peaceful demonstrations and marches, but had been prevented from walking home by the Turkish troops. On 9 December 1990 the applicant took part once again in a car convoy organised by persons from three villages in Kyrenia and from Trypimeni wishing to return to their homes in the north peacefully. The participants in the convoy had informed the commander of the United Nations (UN) forces in Cyprus of their intention to return home. They drove to the “buffer zone” checkpoint on the main road linking Nicosia and Famagusta. There they stopped and asked the UN officer on duty to be a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4179", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The first and second applicants were born in 1971 and 1961 respectively and live in Tbilisi.\n9.  The applicants were co-founders of and shareholders in a private media company (“the media company”) which owned the television channel “TV 202” (“the channel”), broadcasting in Tbilisi. The first applicant, as an anchorman of the popular talk show “Debatebi” (Debates), often addressed politically sensitive issues.\n10.  Under a service agreement of 25 April 2005, the media company undertook to air several documentary films made by “Studio Reporter”, a private film-production company (“the production company”). Consequently, in May 2005, the latter started working on a documentary concerning certain business activities of Mr B., a parliamentarian from the presidential political party (“the ruling party”), which held at that time the majority of seats in Parliament. The object of the documentary was to expose Mr B.’s allegedly illegal commercial activities. According to the Government, except for the applicants, nobody within the media company knew about the making of the compromising film.\n11.  After Mr B. had tried in vain to persuade the journalists of the production company to drop the project, he contacted the first applicant. From May to August 2005 the parliamentarian placed numerous telephone calls, asking Mr Ramishvili to block the film. Eventually, they agreed to meet and discuss the issue.\n12.  During their first meeting, which took place in the morning of 26 August 2005, an agreement was reached whereby the first applicant would not allow the airing of the film on his channel in exchange for USD 100,000 (EUR 80,000[1]). Immediately after this meeting, Mr B. complained to the Minister of the Interior that the first applicant had been blackmailing him. He reported to the authorities that, in the event of the compromising film being aired, it could have disastrous consequences not only for him personally but also for the image of the ruling party.\n13.  The same day, the Ministry of the Interior initiated criminal proceedings on suspicion of extortion for the purpose of gaining vast profits. Later that day, Mr B. met the first applicant again. They agreed that the latter would accept the sum in two instalments: USD 30,000 and 70,000 (EUR 24,010 and 56,000).\n14.  In the morning of 27 August 2005, Mr B. informed the prosecution service that he would hand over the first instalment to the first applicant around noon. The 100 US dollar notes were consequently processed with invisible chemicals and marked with a special pencil, while their serial numbers were recorded by the investigation authorities. The Prosecutor General’s Office (“the PGO”) issued a ruling, dated 27 August 2005, at 11.00 a.m., authorising the secret videoing of the meeting without a court order, due to “urgent necessity”. The camera was hidden on the parliamentarian’s person.\n15.  The meeting during which Mr B. handed over the money to the first applicant took place on 27 August 2005 at noon, in the apartment of a mutual friend of theirs. It was also attended by the second applicant. The conversation and the handing over of the money were videoed secretly (“the video recording of 27 August 2005”) by the parliamentarian. When the applicants left the meeting and got into the second applicant’s car, they were arrested and searched. USD 30,000 and the car in which the money was found were seized. On the same day the Tbilisi City Court legalised the secret video recording", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4180", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is remanded in custody in Diyarbakır prison.\n5.  On 12 October 1998 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of Hizbullah, an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 19 October 1998 a single judge at the Batman Magistrates’ Court remanded him in custody.\n7.  On 11 November 1998 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and three other persons. The applicant was charged with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, an offence proscribed by Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code. According to the information in the case file, the proceedings against the applicant are still pending at first instance, which is now the Diyarbakır Assize Court, and the applicant remains in detention on remand.\n8.  During the proceedings, the first-instance courts have examined the applicant’s continued detention at the end of every hearing, either on their own motion or at the applicant’s request. The courts ordered the applicant’s continued detention, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the content of the file on each occasion.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4181", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Nicosia.\n8.  The applicant used to live with his family in Trypimeni, a village in the District of Famagusta. During the 1974 military intervention Turkish military troops evicted the applicant and his family from their home and forced them to leave Famagusta and flee to the south. Since 1974 both Famagusta and Trypimeni have been under Turkish military control.\n9.  The applicant claimed to be the owner of a garden with twenty fruit‑bearing apricot trees in Trypimeni village. The property, registered on 25 January 1967 in the name of the applicant under the number 472, had an area of 920 sq. m. According to the researches conducted by an expert appointed by the applicant in the Famagusta land register, the property at issue bore the plot number 185 on sheet/plan 13/32. In support of his claim of ownership, the applicant submitted a cadastral plan on which his property was marked in yellow.\n10.  On 9 December 1990 the applicant made an attempt to return to his home and property in Famagusta and Trypimeni by participating in a convoy of cars of fellow refugees wishing to return home during a peaceful march towards their villages.\n11.  The applicant and his fellow refugees, who had informed the Commander of the United Nations (UN) forces in Cyprus of their intention, stopped at the checkpoint in the \"buffer zone\" on the main road linking Nicosia and Famagusta. There, they asked the UN officer on duty to be allowed to return to their homes, properties and villages. They requested him to transmit their demand to the Turkish military authorities. The officer announced that the Turkish military authorities had refused the refugees’ request to drive through the checkpoint and enter the Turkish-controlled part of Cyprus.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4182", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1904 and lives in Nicosia.\n9.  The applicant claimed that until 1974 he had lived with his family (composed of his wife, two of his sons, his married daughter, her husband and her two children) in a house which belonged to him in Trypimeni, a village in the District of Famagusta.\n10.  The applicant produced a copy of the original title deed, dated 3 February 1936. According to this document, the house at issue originally consisted of two rooms at ground level, one room on the upper floor, two verandas, one stable, one village oven and a yard with trees. It was registered under registration number 5299, sheet/plan 13/40, plot no. 165. The area of the applicant’s land was 377 sq. m. According to an affidavit signed by the applicant’s son, three additional rooms (one downstairs and one upstairs) had been built prior to July 1974. The house had an overall inside area of approximately 200 sq. m.\n11.  In July 1974, according to the applicant, he had been forced to leave Famagusta and flee to the area still controlled by the Cypriot Government.\n12.  Since 1974 the applicant had been unable to return to his home and property in the northern part of Cyprus. On 9 December 1990 he took part in a car convoy organised by persons from three villages in Kyrenia and from Trypimeni wishing to return to their homes in the north peacefully. The participants in the convoy had informed the commander of the United Nations (UN) forces in Cyprus of their intention to return home. They drove to the “buffer zone” checkpoint on the main road linking Nicosia and Famagusta. There they stopped and asked the UN officer on duty to be allowed to return to their homes, property and villages. They requested him to transmit their demand to the Turkish military authorities. The UN officer announced to the applicant and the other participants in the convoy that their request to drive through the checkpoint and enter the northern part of Cyprus had been refused by the Turkish military authorities.\n13.  The applicant alleged that his house in Trypimeni had been used by the Turkish army. The Government disputed this allegation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4183", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Nicosia.\n8.  The applicant first stated that he was the owner of a fully furnished house in the District of Kyrenia. However, in his observations of 27 October 1999 he listed his properties as follows:\n(a)  Ayios Amvrosios, registration no. 13094, plot no. 33/2, sheet/plan XIII/31.E.1, field with various trees, area: 15,340 sq. m;\n(b)  Ayios Amvrosios, registration no. 8648, plot no. 512, sheet/plan XIII/27.E.1&E.2 and XIII/28.W.1&W.2, inaccessible hilly field, area: 19,735 sq. m;\n(c)  Ayios Amvrosios, registration no. 4923, plot no. 135, sheet/plan XIII/22.W.1, inaccessible field with olive trees, area: 3,345 sq. m;\n(d)  Ayios Amvrosios, registration no. 8277, plot no. 343, sheet/plan XII/27.E.1, field with small former farmhouse and stables, area: 370 sq. m;\n(e)  Ayios Amvrosios, registration no. 13131, plot nos. 400 and 401/1, sheet/plan XIII/27.E.1, inaccessible field with nine olive trees, area: 1,254 sq. m.\n9.  An expert appointed by the applicant conducted researches in the Famagusta lands registers and obtained the above registration numbers and references. In support of his claim of ownership, the applicant submitted a survey map on which his properties were marked in yellow.\n10.  Moreover, in an affidavit of 22 October 1999 the applicant stated that from the time he was born he had lived with his parents in their home in Ayios Amvrosios. When he got married in July 1973 he moved to his wife’s house in Aglandja, a village which had never been occupied by Turkish military forces. After his marriage, the applicant used to spend weekends and holidays in Ayios Amvrosios.\n11.  As a result of the 1974 Turkish military intervention the applicant had been deprived of his property rights, his properties being located in the area which was under the occupation and overall control of the Turkish military authorities. The latter had prevented him from having access to and using his property and his parents’ house located in Ayios Amvrosios. Moreover, the applicant stated that his house had been occupied by officers and/or other members of the Turkish military forces.\n12.  On 9 December 1990 the applicant made an attempt to return to his property in Ayios Amvrosios by participating in a convoy of cars of fellow refugees from the same district wishing to return home during a peaceful march towards their villages.\n13.  The applicant and his fellow refugees, who had informed the Commander of the United Nations (UN) forces in Cyprus of their intention, stopped at the checkpoint in the “buffer zone”, on the main road linking Nicosia with Ayios Amvrosios and Kyrenia. There, they asked the UN officer on duty to be allowed to return to their homes, property and villages. They requested the officer to transmit to the Turkish military authorities their demand to return to their homes. The officer announced to them that the Turkish military authorities had refused their request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4184", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Nicosia.\n8.  The applicant stated that he had been living in a house in Kyrenia and was the owner of a field with trees in the village of Ayios Epiktitos. As a result of the 1974 Turkish military intervention he had been deprived of his property rights, his property being located in the area which was under the occupation and the overall control of the Turkish military authorities. The latter had prevented him from having access to and using his house and property. He was being continuously prevented from entering the northern part of Cyprus because of his Greek-Cypriot origin.\n9.  The applicant produced two certificates from the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus, stating that he was the legal and registered owner of the following immovable property in the District of Kyrenia:\n-  Kyrenia, Ayios Epiktitos, Mevlitoudi, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/25, plot no. 120, surface: hectares 2, decares 2, sq. m 663, share: ¼.\n10.  The applicant acquired ownership of this property on 27 June 1990, when it was transferred to him by way of inheritance from his grandfather and a gift from his parents.\n11.  On 9 December 1990 the applicant made one further attempt to return to his property in northern Cyprus by participating in a convoy of cars of fellow refugees intending to return home during a peaceful march towards their villages. The applicant and his fellow refugees, who had informed the Commander of the United Nations (UN) forces in Cyprus of their intentions, stopped at the check point in the “buffer zone”, on the main road linking Nicosia with Ayios Amvrosios and Kyrenia. There, they asked the UN officer on duty to be allowed to return to their homes, property and villages. They requested the same officer to forward their demand to the Turkish military authorities. The officer replied that the latter had refused their request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4185", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 13 March 2001 a mother contacted the police on account of a suspicion that her child R., a girl born in December 1986, had some ten days earlier been sexually abused by a relative, the applicant. On 21 March 2001 the police took a statement from the mother. On 9 July 2001 the police questioned the applicant. R. was interviewed by the police on 30 July 2001 in the presence of a social worker. No other person was present at the interview, nor was it recorded.\n6.  The applicant was subsequently charged before the Tampere District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) with having sexually abused R., who was 14 years’ old at the time, by touching her sexual organs. The applicant denied the charge. The court received testimony from R.’s mother and the applicant as well as three witnesses who testified on the applicant’s behalf. The prosecutor submitted a video recording of two interviews with R. conducted by a medical expert, H., on 17 and 18 April 2001. H. was heard as a witness in this connection. The prosecutor also submitted a medical statement containing an assessment of the interviews in question and another medical certificate containing findings relating to R.’s physical examination. The prosecutor further produced a statement given on 14 March 2001 by a rehabilitation centre for intellectually disabled persons. From the statement it transpired that R. had the intelligence level of a child aged 6 to 8½ years. Written evidence of R.’s need for professional help was submitted on her behalf.\n7.  On 20 November 2001 the District Court convicted the applicant of sexual abuse of a child and sentenced him to a suspended term of seven months’ imprisonment. As evidence, the court relied firstly on the testimony of R.’s mother, which it found more credible than that of the applicant and his witnesses and secondly, on the video recording along with H.’s testimony. The court noted that R. had given similar accounts of the events to her mother and to H. It further noted that during the interviews R. had talked to H. openly and with confidence, but her behaviour had clearly changed when the issue of the alleged abuse had been broached. R. had, nevertheless, been able to give an account of the events in a rather versatile and detailed manner. The recording gave the court no reason to suspect that R. had been repeating some other person’s words or that she had imagined the events.\n8.  The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), arguing, inter alia, that the District Court should not have decided the case without hearing R. in person. He had not been given the opportunity to put questions to R. at any point of the proceedings. Nor had he been given an opportunity to watch the video recording of her interviews before the main hearing, yet the recording had been an essential part of the evidence leading to his conviction. The applicant requested that the Court of Appeal hold an oral hearing and that R. be heard in person.\n9.  On 9 January 2003 the Court of Appeal refused the applicant’s request to hear R. in person as it might be detrimental to her, taking into account her level of development and the nature of the issue in question. The court relied on the principle contained in section 10(1) of the Act on the Publicity of Court Proceedings (laki oikeudenkäynnin julkisuudesta, lag om offentlighet vid rättegång, Act No. 945/1984), which provided that a person below the age of 15 could not attend a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4186", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Belgrade.\n6.  On 30 June 1988 the Municipality of Voždovac, where the applicant was employed as a clerk, issued a decision leaving the applicant unassigned to a specific post, which ultimately resulted in his dismissal.\n7.  On 7 October 1988 the applicant thus filed a suit against the Municipality, seeking reinstatement and salary arrears.\n8.  On 24 January 1989 the Labour Court (Osnovni sud udruženog rada) in Belgrade ruled against the applicant, and by 18 May 1989 this decision became final.\n9.  The applicant subsequently twice requested the re-opening of the proceedings (podneo predlog za ponavljanje postupka), but to no avail.\n10.  On 13 January 1992 the applicant filed a third request of this sort and on 19 March 1996 the Fifth Municipal Court (Peti opštinski sud) in Belgrade (hereinafter “the Municipal Court”), to which the case had been transferred, finally decided to have his case re-opened.\n11.  Between 9 October 1997 and February 2004, the Municipal Court obtained four expert reports concerning the exact amount of salary arrears owed to the applicant, as well as the accrued statutory interest.\n12.  Following two remittals, on 4 July 2006 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s request for reinstatement, but partly granted his pecuniary claim.\n13.  On 27 June 2007 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s reinstatement, but quashed the remainder of the judgment rendered at first instance and ordered a retrial.\n14.  On 6 March 2008 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Srbije) rejected the respondent’s appeal on points of law (revizija).\n15.  The proceedings before the Municipal Court thereafter continued in respect of the applicant’s pecuniary claim only. Following two additional expert reports which had been provided, on 28 June 2008 the Municipal Court again ruled partly in favour of the applicant.\n16.  On 17 July 2008 the respondent Municipality filed an appeal against this judgment. According to the information made available to the Court by the parties to date, the case is apparently still pending before the District Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4187", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944.\n5.  The applicant worked as a judge in a District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) since 1976. Since the 1980s she has suffered from backache which has prevented her from working long hours and sometimes made it impossible for her to work. The supervising court, the Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten), questioned on several occasions her ability to continue to work. In 1991 and 1994 the Appeal Court concluded, however, that the applicant’s condition was not serious enough to justify her dismissal.\n6.  In 2000 the issue was again brought up. On 6 June the senior judge of the District Court informed the Appeal Court about the applicant’s situation. On 19 June the Appeal Court requested the applicant to submit a medical certificate.\n7.  On 8 September 2000 the applicant submitted a certificate which showed that she was capable of performing her judicial functions. On 18 September she submitted several other medical certificates to the court showing her fitness for work. On 16 October the Appeal Court decided to carry out an inspection of the District Court. The inspection was carried out on 10 November without the applicant’s knowledge. The head of personnel of the Appeal Court went to the District Court to interview the applicant’s colleagues about her situation. The colleagues and supervisors were given a questionnaire which they had to complete in writing. They were apparently also shown statistics on the court’s workload, the division of work and the applicant’s absences.\n8.  On 21 December 2000 the applicant sent the Appeal Court the results of her medical examinations as well as a further medical opinion drawn up by her doctor. She requested that her case be decided on the basis of these materials together with the medical opinions which she had previously submitted.\n9.  On 3 January 2001 the Appeal Court prepared a report on the inspection of the District Court carried out on 10 November 2000. According to that report, the applicant’s share of the work had been minimal in comparison with the other judges’ workload. The report concluded that the medical examinations conducted so far did not give a correct picture of the applicant’s state of health and capacity to work, and that the conditions justifying a further medical examination under the Civil Servants Act were therefore fulfilled. On 9 March 2001 the Appeal Court decided that the case could not be decided on the basis of the existing materials. It thus requested the applicant to undergo a thorough and objective medical examination at the State’s expense.\n10.  On 22 March 2001 the President of the Appeal Court, the head of personnel and the applicant’s counsel met and decided to give the applicant an opportunity to express her point of view on the request for a medical examination. The applicant stated in her reply of 20 April that there were no grounds for making her undergo a further examination since she had already provided several medical certificates on her state of health.\n11.  On 4 May 2001 the Appeal Court found that the applicant’s reply did not give cause for changing the court’s decision of 9 March 2001. The court requested a new medical examination and, in order to avoid any lack of objectivity, sent the complete file to the doctor responsible for occupational health care. The doctor contacted the State Treasury (Valtiokonttori, Statskontoret) in order to ascertain the kind of medical examination needed to obtain a disability pe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4188", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the vicinity of Prijedor.\n5.  Prior to the dissolution of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”) the applicant deposited foreign currency in his bank accounts at the then Privredna banka Sarajevo Filijala Prijedor. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well as in other successor States of the former SFRY, such savings are commonly referred to as “old” foreign-currency savings (for the relevant background information see Jeličić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 41183/02, ECHR 2005-...).\n6.  Following several unsuccessful attempts to withdraw his funds, the applicant instituted proceedings, seeking the recovery of his entire “old” foreign-currency savings and accrued interest.\n7.  By a decision of the Prijedor Court of First Instance of 4 September 1995 the Prijedorska banka (the legal successor of the Privredna banka Sarajevo Filijala Prijedor) was ordered to pay the applicant 254,725.85 German marks (DEM) and legal costs in the amount of 2,000 dinars (approximately DEM 770 on the date of the judgment). The judgment entered into force on 11 March 1996. On 26 December 1997 the Prijedor Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju).\n8.  Although domestic authorities took over the judgment debt, the judgment has not yet been enforced.\n ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4189", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul. He is a member of the Human Rights Association in Turkey.\n5.  According to the official police documents, drafted on 8 April 2002, at 9.15 and 9.30 p.m., the security forces received information that the Human Rights Association would hold an unauthorised demonstration and press release concerning Israel’s operations against Palestine, at Tünel Square, on that day. The police took the necessary precautions in the area as of 7 p.m. At 8 p.m., around 30-35 persons gathered at the square holding candles, photos and banners which stated, inter alia, “All the world is Palestine, all of us are Palestinians”, “an end to the occupation, freedom to Palestine” and “Wanted Ariel Sharon war‑criminal”. They sat down on the street. The police chief warned the demonstrators, many times, to disperse and a passage was opened by the police for the demonstrators to leave. The group started to disperse; however, two persons, including the applicant, despite warnings, continued to sit and shout slogans. The police used force to arrest them.\n6.  The applicant submitted, in the application form, that, on 8 April 2002, he had arrived to Tünel Square in order to participate in the Human Rights Association’s press release on Israel’s invasion of Palestine. However, the police intercepted the group and told them that they would not permit such a demonstration. As a result, the organisers decided to disperse and told the group to disband. While the group was dispersing, the applicant saw that the police were trying to arrest Ms M.A., a fellow demonstrator. When he intervened and asked why they were arresting her, the police chief got angry. He and 5 or 6 other police officers beat him up. They then arrested him and Ms M.A. In this connection, the applicant claimed to have received punches and kicks, and to have been hit by truncheon on various parts of his body, including his head and his back.\n7.  The applicant and Ms M.A. were brought to the Beyoğlu police station. They were released 1,5 hours later. The applicant was asked to give a statement to the prosecutor’s office the next day.\n8.  In the meantime, the police took the applicant for a medical examination to Taksim Hospital where the doctor who examined him noted a swelling and ecchimosis of 2 cm on the applicant’s head in the frontal region. In the report it is mentioned that the applicant had complained of a headache and of difficulty in breathing.\n9.  On 9 April 2002 the applicant was heard by Mr Y.A., a prosecutor at the Beyoğlu public prosecutor’s office. In his deposition the applicant complained, inter alia, about the manner in which he had been arrested and requested that those who had committed these offences be punished.\n10.  On the same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Beyoğlu Forensic Medicine Department who noted a swelling of 2 cm on his head in the frontal region. In addition, the doctor noted that the applicant had sensitivity to the right of his chest.\n11.  On 10 June 2002 an Istanbul deputy police chief was appointed to carry out a preliminary investigation on behalf of the governor of the allegations of ill-treatment made by the applicant and Ms M.A.\n12.  On an unspecified date the deputy police chief prepared his report and submitted it to the governor’s office. It recommended that authorisation for the prosecution of Mr Ş.P., the police chief on duty that day, should be declined since the complaints were ill-foun", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4190", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1930.\n10.  The applicant claimed that she was the owner of a house with a yard, as well as a garden and four plots of land with trees in the village of Ayios Amvrosios in northern Cyprus. She allegedly also owned half of a plot of land with trees and one sixth of another plot with trees and an olive grove in the same area. The applicant grew up and lived in Ayios Amvosios until 1973, when she claimed to have moved to Kyrenia. She lived there with her family, allegedly in a house owned by her husband. In July 1974, as the Turkish troops were advancing, the applicant and her family had to flee to the area still controlled by the Cypriot Government.\n11.  Before the Court, the applicant produced a certificate confirming ownership issued by the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus, a certificate for the same purpose signed by the chairman of the local committee of Ayios Amvrosios and a certificate signed by the rural guard of Ayios Amvrosios. It transpires from these documents that the applicant’s properties could be described as follows:\n(a)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, within the village, house with yard (ground level), sheet/plan 13/14X, plot nos. 189/1/2/1, 189/3, area: 350 sq. m, share: whole;\n(b)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, Tzieheneu Teresi, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/14, plot nos. 189/1/2/1, 189/3, area: 350 sq. m, share: whole;\n(c)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, Ayios Demetrianos, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/13, plot no. 193, area: 3.54 decares, share: whole;\n(d)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, Moussas, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/21, plot no. 207, area: 1.229 decares, share: whole;\n(e)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, Tsioppi, garden/cultivated field, sheet/plan 13/23, plot no. 115, area: 335 sq. m, share: whole;\n(f)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, Bambatzera, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/27, plot no. 226, area: 1 hectare, 1.851 decares, share: whole;\n(g)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, Vouno tis Mangous, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/31, plot no. 32/1, area: 1 hectare, 9.449 decares, share: whole;\n(h)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, Vouno tis Mangous, field with trees, sheet/plan 13/31, plot no. 32/3, area: 1 hectare, 3.186 decares, share: ½;\n(i)  Kyrenia, Ayios Amvrosios, Tzieheneu Teresi, field with olive trees, sheet/plan 13/19, plot no. 171, share: 1/6.\n12.  Between 1974 and her death the applicant was unable to return to her home and property in the northern part of Cyprus. She was also unable to make use of her property there in any other manner.\n13.  After 1974 the applicant took part in a number of peaceful demonstrations and marches towards Ayios Amvrosios. She claimed that on all occasions she was prevented from “walking home” by Turkish troops. On 9 December 1990 the applicant took part once again in a car convoy organised by persons from Kyrenia wishing to return to their homes in the north peacefully. The participants in the convoy had informed the Prime Minister of Turkey, the representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) in Cyprus and the commander of the UN forces on the island of their intention to return home. They drove to the Mia Milia buffer‑zone checkpoint on the main road linking Nicosia and Kyrenia. There they stopped and asked the UN forces officer on duty to be allowed to return to their homes, property and villages. They requested him to transmit their demand to the Turkish military authorities. Four hours later, the UN officer announced to the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4191", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Nicosia.\n8.  The applicant lived with her family in Kalogrea, a village in the District of Kyrenia. During the 1974 intervention, the Turkish military troops evicted the applicant and her family from their home and forced them to leave Kyrenia and flee to the south.\n9.  The applicant alleged that until 7 September 1999, when the properties were transferred to her children, she had been the owner of ten plots of land in Kalogrea, two of which had one house each on them. One of these houses had been the applicant’s home. It was an ancestral house built in 1916, comprising huge, spacious rooms, two bedrooms, a living room, a kitchen and a bathroom. It had two levels and a huge yard. It was built of stone, had marble floors and a titled roof, and wooden doors and windows. The second house was the applicant’s holiday home, built in 1958 and situated in the locality known as Roukania. It had two spacious bedrooms and was very close to the sea (about 50 metres).\n10.  In support to her claim to ownership, the applicant produced affirmations of ownership issued by the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus, stating that she was the legal and registered owner of the two houses and of the pieces of lands registered under the plots nos. 260, 268, 45, 119/5, 119/6, 164.9, 121/2/3, 122/2/4, 359/1 and 425.\nThe applicant also produced certificates of registration for eight of the ten properties at issue.\n11.  The applicant claimed that she had been prevented from returning to her home and properties because the Turkish military authorities had continuously occupied and used them.\n12.  On 9 December 1990 the applicant made an attempt to return to her home and property in Kyrenia and in the Kalogrea Village by participating in a convoy of cars of fellow refugees intending to return home. The demonstration organisers had informed the Commander of the United Nations (UN) forces in Cyprus of their intentions.\n13.  The applicant and her fellow refugees stopped at the check point in the \"buffer zone\", on the main road linking Nicosia and Famagusta. There, they asked the UN officer on duty to be allowed to return to their homes, property and villages. They requested the same officer to forward their demand to the Turkish military authorities. The officer replied that the latter had refused their request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4192", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The second applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Espoo.\n5.  The applicant company, which is wholly owned and administered by the second applicant, bought shares in a housing corporation on 18 June 1992. Later the applicants found out that the same shares had been given as security by company X. which had been declared bankrupt. They also found out that the whole of the real estate had been placed under an interdiction against sale or dispersal.\n6.  On 23 August 1993 the applicant company initiated an action for damages in the Espoo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) against the bank and the bank director responsible for selling the shares, claiming compensation for the loss of the shares. On 25 October 1993 the District Court dismissed the claim as premature without considering the merits.\n7.  On 23 December 1993 the applicant company initiated, together with the other share holders, a new action for damages against the bank as the rules on civil procedure had changed in the meantime. The company claimed that the damage had been caused by a bank manager and that the bank as employer was liable for its employees. Allegedly, the bank manager had given incorrect information, had not acted diligently but in breach of good banking practice and was guilty of criminal conduct. The company claimed that the bank was obliged to compensate, inter alia, by reimbursing the purchase price of the shares, the condominium charges paid to the housing corporation and the company’s legal expenses incurred in the criminal case.\n8.  The case was postponed pending the outcome of other civil proceedings related to the present case. The final judgment in those proceedings was rendered on 7 December 1995.\n9.  After the conclusion of the above-mentioned civil proceedings, the present case was postponed once more pending the outcome of criminal proceedings which had been brought against the representatives of the bank and which concerned the same sale of shares. The Helsinki District Court judgment in the criminal proceedings was issued on 19 December 1997.\n10.  In letters dated 14 January and 2 April 1998 and addressed to the Espoo District Court, the applicant company requested that, despite the pending appeal against the judgment in the criminal case, the consideration of the present case be resumed.\n11.  On 2 April 1998 the applicant company also informed the Espoo District Court that the shares in the housing corporation had been declared part of the bankruptcy estate of company X. pursuant to the above-mentioned final judgment of 7 December 1995. The shares were thus worthless since the housing company was de facto bankrupt.\n12.  On 18 June 1998 the defendant bank requested that the proceedings remain adjourned pending the outcome of criminal proceedings since the proceedings were still pending on appeal.\n13.  On 6 November 1998 the Espoo District Court held a preparatory meeting. On 4 March 1999 it decided to adjourn the proceedings pending the final outcome of the criminal proceedings. According to the court, it was important to await that outcome as the question of criminal liability formed the basis of the civil proceedings and the cases partly overlapped.\n14.  On 8 March 1999 the applicant company lodged an appeal with the Helsinki Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten), requesting that the Espoo District Court decision of 4 March 1999 be annulled and that the civil proceedings be immediately resumed. It claimed that, due to the adjournment,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4193", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Ussuriysk, Primorye Region.\n6.  On 8 February 2001 the applicant, then a military officer, was detained on suspicion of having committed theft of spare parts for military ammunition and the murder of his accomplice G. His initial questioning was conducted without a lawyer because the applicant had signed a waiver stating that he was aware of his right to legal assistance and that his refusal was not due to financial reasons.\n7.  On 16 February 2001 legal aid counsel was appointed to represent the applicant in the criminal proceedings.\n8.  From that date the applicant was detained in the Ussuriysk IZ-25/2 detention facility. During the first months of his detention he sent a number of letters to the prosecutor’s office complaining about the lack of progress in his criminal case and various procedural violations on the part of the investigator. In his letter of 1 June 2006, in particular, he indicated that the assistant of the military prosecutor of the Ussuriysk Garrison, investigator D., had made threats “to hand him over” to the family of G. to let them take revenge.\n9.  On 15 June 2001 at about 10 a.m. investigator D. checked the applicant out of the detention facility in order to take him to some unspecified site, allegedly for investigative actions. The applicant was transported by operative officers K. and T., both of whom were armed, and he was driven in T.’s personal car. They drove to 33 Lermontova Street on the outskirts of Ussuriysk, where the car stopped. K. and T. told the applicant that they were waiting for D. to join them before they could proceed to the place for the investigative action. While they were waiting, at 11 a.m. another car later described as a “Japanese make” pulled in. Several armed men got out, opened the door of T.’s car, forced the applicant out and loaded him into their car. K. and T. offered no resistance to their actions. According to the applicant, they even helped the men to push the applicant into their car.\n10.  The armed men, who, the applicant maintained, were relatives of G., took the applicant to a house in the country and tortured him there until 5 p.m. the same day. According to the applicant, he was chained to a radiator pipe while the men took turns to administer blows with various objects, such as stools, benches and tools, burned him with cigarettes and crushed his fingers and toes. Every time the applicant passed out they would throw him under cold water until he recovered consciousness and then continued to torture him. Throughout the beatings they threatened to kill his family and demanded that he confess to the murder. At about 5 p.m. the men made an “anonymous phone call” to investigator D., telling him that he could collect the applicant from Frunze Street in Ussuriysk. The applicant was then brought to that street where D. found the applicant and took him back to the IZ-25/2 detention facility. In the detention facility the applicant underwent a medical examination which established multiple bruises, abrasions and burn marks on his body. He informed an operative officer, Major Kh., about the incident and on the following day sent a complaint, accompanied by the medical certificate, to the Ussuriysk Prosecutor’s Office.\n11.  On 30 September 2001 the applicant sent a complaint to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Dalnevostochniy Military Command that he had been ill-treated on 15 June 2001 and about the lack of follow-up to his complaint ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4194", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Klin, a town in the Moscow Region.\n5.  At the material time the applicant was a captain of the Army. His unit was stationed in Vatutinki-1 near Moscow.\n6.  In 2000 the applicant requested an early discharge for health reasons. Under domestic law, long-serving servicemen in need of better housing (the applicant met these conditions) could be discharged against their will only if the command provided them with such housing. When asking for discharge, the applicant specified that he wished to receive the housing.\n7.  On 14 December 2000 the command offered the applicant a flat in Vatutinki-1, but he rejected this offer and sued his command.\n8.  On 13 February 2001 the Moscow Garrison Military Court ordered the command to provide the applicant’s family with housing at his place of duty without specifying the exact location. In addition, the court ordered to discharge the applicant, to pay outstanding service-related benefits, to pay 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of legal costs, and to pay RUB 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. This judgment became binding on 16 March 2001 and was enforced as follows.\n9.  On 26 March 2001 the command offered the applicant a flat in Krasnogorsk, but he rejected this offer.\n10.  On April 2001 the applicant was discharged from active duty but was retained on the roster pending the provision of the housing. In April 2001 the command paid the benefits. In May 2001 the command paid the costs and damages.\n11.  On 21 November 2001 the command offered the applicant a flat in Domodedovo, but he rejected this offer.\n12.  On 21 March 2002 the command offered the applicant a flat in Zelenograd, and he accepted this offer. However, higher authorities in the Ministry of Defence found that the offered flat was too big for the applicant’s family, because his wife and son had another flat. In 2002–03 courts upheld this decision.\n13.  On 2 June 2004 the command offered the applicant a flat in Moscow. On 25 February 2005 the applicant accepted this offer. On 5 May 2005 city authorities invited the applicant to formalise his ownership, but he avoided this procedure because he considered the flat too small. He sued his command, and on 18 October 2005 the Moscow Garrison Military Court found that the flat in Moscow met the conditions of the judgment of 13 February 2001.\n14.  On 5 December 2005 the applicant was removed from the roster.\n15.  In September 2006 the applicant agreed to formalise his ownership of the flat in Moscow and moved in.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4195", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Vyatskiye Polyany, Kirov Region.\n7.  On 7 February 2000 the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of having committed gang rape. He remained in custody throughout the investigation.\n8.  On 3 May 2000 the Vyatsko-Polyanskiy District Court of the Kirov Region found the applicant guilty of aggravated rape and violent sexual assault and sentenced him to two years and two months’ imprisonment. In deciding on the sentence the court applied Article 64 of the Criminal Code, which allowed the imposition of a penalty below the statutory minimum (which was four years’ imprisonment) with regard to the voluntary compensation paid to the victim, her request to terminate the applicant’s prosecution, the absence of a previous criminal record and the fact that the applicant had a child.\n9.  On 10 May 2000 the Vyatsko-Polyanskaya District Prosecutor’s Office filed an appeal against the judgment on the ground that the sentence, resulting from an unjustified application of Article 64 of the Criminal Code, was too lenient. On an unknown date the applicant also filed an appeal, pleading not guilty and requesting the reduction of his sentence and release on parole.\n10.  On 26 May 2000 the Amnesty Act entered into force.\n11.  On 8 August 2000 the Kirov Regional Court dismissed the appeals of both parties and upheld the judgment of the District Court at final instance. It held, in particular, that the applicant’s participation in the rape had been “secondary” and that this in combination with other circumstances referred to by the first-instance court had justified application of a penalty below the statutory minimum. The court also stated that no grounds for applying the Amnesty Act had been made out.\n12.  On 18 August 2000 the Vyatsko-Polyanskiy District Court of the Kirov Region, in a separate decision, found that this was the applicant’s first conviction and that his prison sentence did not exceed three years. It absolved the applicant from serving the sentence by virtue of the Amnesty Act.\n13.  On 31 October 2000 the Kirov Regional Prosecutor lodged an application for supervisory review, seeking to have the judgment of 3 May 2000 and the appeal decision of 8 August 2000 quashed on the ground that the sentence imposed was too lenient and specifically challenging the application of Article 64 of the Criminal Code.\n14.  On 15 November 2000 the Presidium of the Kirov Regional Court granted the application and remitted the case for a new examination at first instance. The Presidium also quashed the decision of 18 August 2000.\n15.  On 27 December 2001 the Vyatsko-Polyanskiy District Court of the Kirov Region found the applicant guilty on the same counts and sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment. It found that there had been no “exceptional circumstances” justifying the application of Article 64 of the Criminal Code. Pursuant to this judgment, the applicant was taken into custody following the court hearing.\n16.  The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment claiming, inter alia, that he had been tried and punished twice for the same offence.\n17.  On 3 April 2001 the Kirov Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the District Court in the final instance.\n18.  On 28 November 2002 the Kirovo-Chepetskiy District Court of the Kirov Region released the applicant on parole.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4196", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and is now serving a prison sentence in the correctional facility USh/382/10 in the Saratov Region.\n6.  On 21 May 2002, at 9 a.m., the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having murdered M., the mother of his girlfriend, and was brought to the Severnoye Medvedkovo police station in Moscow. The arrest record indicated that the applicant had been arrested on suspicion of murder. The applicant countersigned the record, noting that he had been notified of his rights and had understood them. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by prosecutors and courts.\n7.  According to the applicant, upon arrival at the police station on 21 May 2002, he was placed in the office of Officer Mus. The latter and another officer started beating him up. They hit and kicked him in the solar plexus, on the head, in the kidney area and the groin with a view to extracting a confession to the murder. After their prolonged beatings the applicant was placed in a cell. After a while Officers S. and L. started beating him up again. They hit him on the head, on the body and in the groin, insisting that he confess to the murder. Despite the ill-treatment, he did not confess. Only when they threatened to rape his mother and girlfriend, the applicant’s psychological resistance was broken and he confessed.\n8.  On 21 May 2002, at 10 p.m., the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert in the presence of the investigator in charge of the criminal case and two attesting witnesses. The expert detected and noted in the examination record the following injuries on the applicant’s body: a pinkish-bluish bruise on the left ear measuring 1.2 cm, two reddish-purple bruises on the left side of the thorax measuring around 2×2.25 cm and 2.2×0.6 cm and a cut on the back of the left wrist. According to the record, the persons present at the examination were apprised of their right to make declarations and objections in connection with the examination. The applicant made no observations and countersigned the examination record.\n9.  On 22 May 2002 the investigator questioned the applicant about the murder but he denied all accusations. Later on the same day he wrote a statement confessing to the murder. He noted that the confession had been made without any “moral or physical pressure” and that he had no complaints about police officers.\n10.  On 23 and 30 May 2002 the investigator questioned the applicant in the presence of his two lawyers. The applicant maintained the confession and described in detail how he had committed the murder. He again confirmed the confession while being questioned during a video-recorded inspection of the crime scene where he was also assisted by his lawyers.\n11.  At a questioning on 2 August 2002 the applicant retracted his previous statements and submitted that his confession of 22 May 2002 had been extracted from him by force and that he had not murdered M.\n12.  On 24 September 2002 the applicant requested the prosecutor’s office to institute criminal proceedings against Officer “Marat” who had allegedly beaten him up on 21 May 2002.\n13.  The applicant submitted a written statement by witness A. dated 26 July 2003 which, in its relevant parts, reads as follows:\n“...I was detained on 21 May 2002 ... at the [applicant’s] flat... together with [the applicant]....We have been together since 11 a.m. on 20 March 2002...The fact that we had spent that time together can be confirmed by Z., D., A. and K.... Al", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4197", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Tver Region.\n5.  On 21 October 1999 the applicant was apprehended by police officers N and O. According to him, they beat him up and some bystanders, who did not realise that he was being beaten up by police officers, called the police. According to a letter dated 23 May 2000, produced by the Government, the Moscow Department of the Interior informed the applicant’s representative that on 21 October 1999 there had been no call for police assistance in the area where the applicant had been apprehended.\n6.  After his arrest the applicant was taken to hospital where a doctor diagnosed him with “an injury; a bruise on the left shin; an injury on the left shoulder.” The applicant was then brought to a police station and stayed there for three days on suspicion of drug trafficking.\n7.  The applicant complained to the prosecutor about the police brutality. As follows from a copy of the decision dated 17 March 2000, submitted by the Government, the Cheremushkinskiy Prosecutor’s Office of Moscow refused to initiate criminal proceedings against officers N and O. It found that the applicant had resisted lawful arrest by swinging his hands and otherwise trying to escape. Thus, the officers had had to handcuff him. The investigator in charge of the applicant’s criminal case at the material time affirmed that the applicant had not alerted her to any unjustified recourse to force against him. Apparently, the applicant was not apprised of the decision of 17 March 2000. According to the Government, that decision was quashed in October 2005 and a further inquiry was ordered. The outcome of that inquiry remains unclear.\n8.  The applicant also raised the ill-treatment matter at the trial (see paragraphs 11 and 15 below).\n9.  The applicant was charged with drug trafficking. The prosecution case was that the applicant had committed the following offences:\n- on an unspecified date he had bought a large quantity of heroin and on 19 October 1999 sold it to Ms U;\n- on an unspecified date he had bought a large quantity of heroin and on 21 October 1999 he attempted to sell it to Ms U, but the police stopped him.\n10.  On 22 and 23 October 1999 the applicant was questioned in relation to the charges against him. He was not provided with a lawyer because he had previously refused legal assistance. On 24 October 1999 the applicant was released on a written undertaking not to leave the town. On an unspecified date he retained a lawyer and several lay representatives.\n11.  At the trial the applicant pleaded that he had spent the whole day on 19 October 1999 at home. On 20 October Ms U had called him, but being short of time he had arranged to meet her the next day. It appears that the police monitored that conversation on the second handset. According to the applicant, on 21 October 1999 in the course of his meeting with Ms U, he was approached by police officers who forcibly pinned him to the ground, handcuffed him and beat him up.\n12.  On 12 October 2000 the applicant asked the trial court to call Ms B, Mr S and Mr R, who could, he alleged, confirm that “he had been at home all day on 19 October 1999 and that he had not met Ms U on that day”. The court rejected that application as premature. The applicant reiterated the request at a hearing on 25 October 2000 and also asked to call Mrs T, his aunt, who had allegedly been at home with him on 19 October 1999. The court rejected both appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4199", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Narva.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 19 October 1999 AS Eesti Maapank, a public limited company, lodged a claim for nearly four million kroons (EEK – corresponding approximately to 255,000 euros (EUR)) against the applicant with the Narva City Court (linnakohus). The claim concerned an alleged loan the applicant had failed to pay back.\n7.  On 14 December 2000 AS Eesti Maapank applied for interlocutory measures. On 15 December 2000 the City Court granted the plaintiff’s request and attached the applicant’s property (four properties and four vehicles). The parties did not appeal against the decision.\n8.  However, on 2 January 2001 the applicant requested the City Court to revoke the attachment in respect of one house because it had already been mortgaged to a bank. On 19 January 2001 the City Court revoked the attachment in so far as requested.\n9.  On 23 October 2001 the Viru Court of Appeal (ringkonnakohus), on an appeal by the plaintiff, quashed the partial revocation of the attachment as it had been done without a valid legal ground.\n10.  On 27 February 2003 the plaintiff requested the City Court to speed up the proceedings.\n11.  In a letter of 27 October 2003 the City Court explained to the parties that in order to speed up the proceedings it was possible, by mutual agreement between the parties, to transfer jurisdiction to a different court. The court received no reply from the parties.\n12.  In the applicant’s submission, he had been ready, at some stage of the proceedings, to transfer jurisdiction so that the Tallinn City Court would have tried the case. However, the plaintiff had not agreed.\n13.  On 12 July 2004 the Narva City Court transmitted the statement of claims to the applicant for comment. On 6 August 2004 the applicant informed the court that he did not acknowledge the claim.\n14.  By a decision of 1 April 2005 the City Court replaced AS Eesti Maapank as plaintiff by OÜ Trenton Invest, a private limited company, since the latter had agreed to take over the claim against the applicant.\n15.  On 18 May 2005 a preliminary hearing before the City Court took place. The court adjourned the hearing in order that the plaintiff could submit originals of certain documents and that an expert opinion could be obtained in respect of the genuineness of the applicant’s signature on the documents. The plaintiff submitted the documents to the court on 25 May 2005. Subsequently, at the applicant’s request, the court required certain additional documents from the plaintiff, which the latter was unable to provide.\n16.  In April 2006 the applicant became aware that the court had not sent the documents to an expert.\n17.  On 16 May 2006 the applicant and OÜ Trenton Invest concluded a compromise agreement. The applicant undertook to pay a sum of EEK 450,000 (approximately EUR 29,000) to the plaintiff to settle the case.\n18.  On 29 May 2006 the Viru County Court (maakohus) – the successor of the Narva City Court – approved the settlement.\n19.  On 21 July 2006 the County Court annulled the interlocutory measure applied on 15 December 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4200", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  On 2 June 1996 the applicant had a quarrel with his neighbours and stabbed one of them with a screwdriver causing him fatal injury. On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. He was charged under Article 108 § 2 of the RSFSR Criminal Code (Уголовный кодекс РСФСР) with “deliberate infliction of physical injury leading to the victim’s death”.\n8.  On 29 September 1997 the Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow examined the case at first instance. It requalified the applicant’s actions and found him guilty of “murder committed in circumstances where excessive force was used in self-defence” under Article 108 § 1 of the newly enacted Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Уголовный кодекс РФ), which had entered into force on 1 January 1997. The court sentenced the applicant to a prison term of one year and eight months, which was calculated from 15 September 1996, when he was detained pending trial.\n9.  On 27 November 1997 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 29 September 1997 at final instance.\n10.  While serving his sentence the applicant attempted to institute supervisory review proceedings against these decisions. His request was rejected by the Vice-President of the Moscow City Court on 2 March 1998.\n11.  In May 1998 the applicant was released after having served his sentence.\n12.  On 8 October 1998 the Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Russia lodged an application for supervisory review (протест в порядке надзора) of the court decisions of 29 September and 27 November 1997. In the application it was stated that although he had been indicted under Article 108 § 2 of the old Criminal Code, the applicant had been tried and convicted under a different provision, namely, Article 108 § 1 of the new Criminal Code. The new charge, as it was further argued, was more serious than the original charge as it implied, unlike the first one, an intention to cause death. However, Article 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс РСФСР) prevented the trial court from amending charges unless it was to the benefit of the accused.\n13.  On 22 October 1998 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court granted the application for supervisory review. The Presidium decided to quash the court decisions on the grounds put forward in the application and to remit the case for a new examination at first instance.\n14.  On 16 July 1999 the Kuntsevskiy District Court found the applicant guilty under Article 108 § 2 of the old Criminal Code of “deliberate infliction of physical injury leading to the victim’s death”. The court sentenced the applicant to a prison term of six years. In deciding the actual term to be served, the court deducted from this period the prison term of one year and eight months already served by the applicant. On the same day the applicant started serving the remainder of the prison sentence.\n15.  On 31 August 1999 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 16 July 1999 at final instance.\n16.  On 28 December 1999 the Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Russia lodged an application for supervisory review of the court decisions of 16 July and 31 August 1999. The application sought to have the case remitted for a new court examination.\n17.  On 27 January 2000 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court decided to grant the application. The Presidium found that:\n“... the sentence was quashed by the decision of the Presi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4201", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1969 and live in the town of Tver.\n7.  On an unspecified date the authorities brought proceedings against the applicants on suspicion of fraud.\n8.  On 17 April 2001 the Moskovskiy District Court of the town of Tver tried and convicted both applicants on a charge of attempted large-scale fraud. Both applicants were also tried on a charge of forgery. On the latter charge, the court acquitted the first applicant and found the second applicant guilty. They were sentenced to three years and six months and four years and six months’ imprisonment respectively.\n9.  The applicants appealed against the judgment. Their appeal was examined and dismissed by the Tver Regional Court on 3 July 2001.\n10.  On 18 December 2002 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Russia applied for supervisory review of the judgment of 17 April 2001, requesting a milder sentence.\n11.  By decision of 20 January 2003 the Supreme Court examined and allowed the arguments set out in the special appeal. It reduced the applicants’ sentences to two years and two years and six months’ imprisonment respectively and ordered that the first applicant be released accordingly.\n12.  By decision of 11 March 2003 the Torzhokskiy Town Court released the second applicant on parole before the expiry of his prison sentence.\n13.  On 15 December 2000 the applicants were arrested and placed in detention.\n14.  The applicants specified that between 11 a.m. on 15 December and 3 a.m. on 16 December 2000 they had first been held in a local police station before being transferred to IZ-69/1. According to both applicants, they were refused food and an opportunity to sleep. They did not make any allegations concerning the overcrowding of cells in that facility.\n15.  Both parties agreed that the applicants had been transferred to pre-trial detention centre IZ-69/1 on 16 December 2000 and that they had first been held in the local police station.\n16.  The applicants arrived at the pre-trial detention centre IZ‑69/1 in the town of Tver on 16 December 2000. The first applicant remained there until 24 July 2001 and the second applicant until 31 July 2001.\n(a)  The first applicant\n17.  According to the first applicant, between 16 and 19 December 2000 he had been detained in cell no. 42.\n18.  On 20 December 2000 he was transferred to cell no. 60. Between 30 December 2000 and 23 January 2001 he was held in cell no. 42. From 23 January to 11 March 2001 he was detained in cell no. 54. For eleven days between 11 and 22 March 2001 he was detained in a punishment cell. On 22 March 2001 he was transferred back to cell no. 54 and remained there until 17 April 2001. Between 17 April and 24 July 2001 he was detained in cell no. 23. On 24 July 2001 the first applicant left facility no. IZ-69/1 for another penitentiary establishment to serve his prison sentence.\n19.  The Government submitted that the dates of detention in the various cells in facility no. IZ-69/1 given by the first applicant were erroneous. The first applicant had been placed in cell no. 42 on 15 December and had remained there for only one day. He was then transferred to cell no. 60, where he stayed until 19 December 2000. Between 20 and 24 December 2000 the first applicant was detained in cell no. 42. He was transferred to cell no. 54 on 25 December 2000 and remained there until 22 January 2001. Between 23 January and 10 March 2001 the first applicant was held in cell no. 120. From 11 to 18 March 2001 he was held i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4202", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Poznań.\n6.  He is a recidivist offender. He served a number prison sentences in various detention establishments in Poland.\n7.  Since 1996 the applicant has been suffering from epilepsy marked by frequent (daily) seizures and encephalopathy accompanied by dementia. He also suffers from ulcers and syphilis. He has been classified by the social security authorities as a person with a “first-degree disability making him completely unfit to work” (pierwszy stopień inwalidztwa całkowicie niezdolny do pracy).\n8.  On 7 November 2000 the Białystok District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) appointed neurology and forensic medicine experts to produce a report on the applicant’s health in connection with a criminal case pending at that time against him. The experts examined the applicant’s medical records and the preceding psychological and forensic medicine reports. The extracts from these documents revealed that since 1996 the applicant had been suffering from epilepsy accompanied by very frequent seizures and from a personality disorder. He had made several suicide attempts. During one medical interview, the applicant had stated that he could not obtain the necessary medical treatment in prison and that his cellmates ignored his epileptic fits. The doctors, who had examined the applicant in the past, agreed that he could remain in prison provided that he received specialised psychiatric treatment on a permanent basis.\n9.  On 11 July 2001 the Białystok District Court appointed new medical experts to draft a report on the applicant’s health. The experts found that the penitentiary medical care system could no longer offer the applicant the necessary treatment. They emphasised that his continuous incarceration might put his health and life at risk. It was further indicated that the applicant should obtain a more detailed diagnosis from a specialised clinic and, perhaps, undergo brain surgery.\n10.  It appears that the applicant was first remanded in custody on 30 May 1998.\n11.  From 13 April 1999 until 23 June 1999 and from 20 July 1999 until 4 January 2000 he was detained in Poznań Remand Centre.\n12.  It appears that in 2000 he was admitted for several days to an unspecified prison hospital.\n13.  On 10 January 2001 the applicant was committed to Gdańsk Remand Centre where he received medical treatment in the neurology ward. Doctors emphasised the need to provide the applicant with permanent specialised medical care and to ensure his constant supervision by another person.\n14.  On 5 April 2001 he was transferred to Białystok Remand Centre.\n15.  On 3 August 2001 the applicant was released home.\n16.  On 17 September 2001 he was again remanded in custody in connection with a new criminal case against him. From that day until 30 October 2001 he was detained in Poznań Remand Centre.\n17.  On 28 February 2002 he was granted conditional release from prison.\n18.  On 5 September 2002 the applicant was once more remanded in custody. He was committed to an unspecified detention facility.\n19.  From 28 April until 5 August 2003 the applicant was at liberty.\n20.  On 5 August 2003 the applicant was again remanded in custody. From that day until 30 November 2007 he was in continuous detention either in ordinary detention facilities or in prison hospitals.\n21.  During that time he was detained in Poznań Remand Centre during four separate periods: (1) from 5 until 27 August 2003; (2) from 18 May until 12 July 2005; (3) from 5 Janua", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4204", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Tirana.\n7.  On 14 April 1992 the applicant suffered a serious accident at work and was unable to continue working. There is no documented information concerning the applicant’s state of health from 1992 to 2001.\n8.  The applicant was admitted to hospital on an unspecified date. On 13 March 2001 he was released from hospital with a medical report recommending that he apply for recognition of his incapacity to work (fletë drejtimi për K.E.M.P.) and for the corresponding benefits.\n9.  On 14 March 2001 the applicant applied to the District Medical Examination Commission on Capacity for Work (Komisioni Mjekësor i Caktimit të Aftësisë për Punë (K.M.C.A.P. Dibër) – “the District Commission”) seeking to have his degree of incapacity determined and to be awarded benefits. By decision of 28 September 2001, the Commission recognised the applicant’s incapacity for work with effect from 14 April 1992. However, it decided that he would be eligible for the corresponding benefits only for the period from 16 March 2001 to 30 March 2002, and granted him Category 4 incapacity status on the grounds that he was considered to have suffered an accident outside work.\n10.  On 1 October 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Medical Examination Appeals Commission on Capacity for Work (K.M.C.A.P. Epror –“the Appeals Commission”) contesting the District Commission’s decision in part. He argued that, in considering that he had suffered an accident outside work, the District Commission had erroneously assessed the circumstances of the case. He claimed that he should have been granted Category 2 incapacity status instead of Category 4.\n11.  On 30 January 2003 the Appeals Commission revoked the District Commission’s decision in its entirety. It declared the applicant fit for work and ineligible for incapacity benefits.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the Dibra District Court to verify and recognise that the accident of 14 April 1992 had occurred at his place of work.\n13.  On 30 May 2003, on the basis of witness statements and medical reports, the Dibra District Court found that the applicant had suffered an accident on 14 April 1992 during working hours. The judgment became final and binding on 16 July 2003.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicant initiated civil proceedings with the Tirana District Court to challenge the lawfulness of the Appeals Commission’s decision.\n15.  On 9 June 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action on the grounds that, pursuant to section 35 of the Social Security Act, the decisions of the Appeals Commission were final and binding and not subject to scrutiny by the courts (see paragraph 24 below).\n16.  The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal. He claimed a violation of his right of access to a court in order to challenge the fairness of the proceedings before the Appeals Commission. In addition, the applicant argued that by refusing to exercise jurisdiction in the matter, the District Court had discriminated against him vis-à-vis other claimants who, having challenged the unfairness of the proceedings before the Appeals Commission, had obtained redress from the courts (see paragraphs 34 and 35 below).\n17.  On 9 October 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision, confirming that the outcome of the procedure before the Appeals Commission was final and not subject to challenge before the courts. In so far as the applicant’s compla", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4205", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Vlore.\n7.  On 30 January 1995 the Lushnjë District Court recognised the existence of the applicant’s father’s property rights over a plot of land measuring 576 sq. m. situated in the city of Lushnjë (vendim për vërtetim fakti). The decision became binding and final on 13 February 1995.\n8.  The applicant, pursuant to the Property Restitution and Compensation Act (hereinafter “the Property Act”), lodged a request with the Lushnjë Commission on Property Restitution and Compensation (hereinafter “the Commission”) seeking restitution of the original property.\n9.  By a decision of 21 March 1996 the Commission upheld the property rights of the applicant and the other five heirs of her father over the plot of land measuring 576 sq. m situated in the city of Lushnjë. On the basis of the documents in its possession the Commission held that restitution of the original property was impossible since it was occupied. Accordingly, the Commission decided that the applicant was to be compensated in kind or in the form of State bonds pursuant to section 16 of the Property Act. The Commission ordered the district authorities to take the necessary measures in order to enforce its decision.\n10.  In 2004, following the failure of the authorities to enforce the Commission decision, the applicant requested the district authorities to decide on the amount of compensation to be awarded to her in respect of her property.\n11.  The authorities have still not complied with their obligation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4206", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Izmir.\n5.  On 17 April 2000 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Izmir Security Directorate on suspicion of his involvement in the activities of an illegal armed organisation.\n6.  On the same day, the applicant was interrogated at the Anti-Terrorist branch in the absence of a lawyer. According to a form explaining arrested persons’ rights which the applicant had signed, he had been reminded of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent. In his statement, the applicant admitted to his involvement in the illegal armed organisation.\n7.  On 20 April 2000 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge at the Izmir State Security Court. Before the public prosecutor and the judge, again in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant admitted that he had participated in certain activities of the illegal armed organisation.\n8.  On the same day, the applicant’s lawyer requested to visit him; however this request was rejected by the Public Prosecutor.\n9.  On 2 May 2000 the Public Prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court, accusing the applicant of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. He requested that the applicant be sentenced and convicted under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).\n10.  On 5 December 2000 the Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. In its decision, the court attached particular importance to the applicant’s statements to the investigating judge.\n11.  On 25 December 2000 the applicant appealed. On an unspecified date, the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written opinion. This opinion was not served on the applicant or his representative. On 11 June 2001, the Court of Cassation, upholding the reasoning and assessment of the Izmir State Security Court, dismissed the applicant’s appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4207", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 22 September 1996 the applicant, who was sixteen years old at the time, was taken into custody by policemen from the Diyarbakır Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party). In her police statements dated 6 and 8 October 1996 respectively, the applicant accepted the charges against her. During her interrogations, the applicant did not have the assistance of a lawyer.\n6.  On 22 October 1996 the applicant was brought before the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and subsequently before the investigating judge. She was interrogated in the absence of a lawyer by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively and denied the allegations against her. Taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, the judge ordered that the applicant be placed in detention on remand. The applicant was then allowed to have access to a lawyer.\n7.  By an indictment dated 3 December 1996, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and nine other accused. He accused the applicant of being a member of the PKK and accordingly called for her to be sentenced pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  The trial commenced before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. In the subsequent twenty hearings, the court refused to release the applicant on account of the nature of the alleged offence and the state of evidence.\n9.  On 2 June 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court concluded that the applicant was a member of the PKK and accordingly sentenced her to eight years and four months’ imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n10.  On 20 December 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.\n11.  On 10 August 2001 the applicant was released pending trial.\n12.  On 9 April 2002 the court rendered its judgment and sentenced the applicant to eight years and four months’ imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code. In convicting the applicant, the State Security Court had particular regard to the applicant’s police statements.\n13.  On 7 October 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4208", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Adam Kauczor, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Siemianowice Śląskie.\n6.  On 9 February 2000 the applicant was arrested. On 10 February 2000 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody on suspicion of murder. That decision was upheld by the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 1 March 2000.\n7.  The applicant’s pre‑trial detention was subsequently extended by the Katowice Regional Court’s decisions of 25 April 2000, 3 July 2000 (upheld by the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 2 August 2000), and 23 April 2001.\n8.  Meanwhile, on 21 June 2000 the applicant was indicted for murder and illegal possession of weapons. The Prosecutor requested that thirty-four witnesses be heard by the trial court and the testimonies of a further one hundred and four witnesses be read out at the trial.\n9.  The first hearing was scheduled on 28 December 2000. It was adjourned, however, due to the absence of a key witness.\nSubsequently the court held sixty hearings. Approximately twenty hearings were cancelled or adjourned either because of the absence of the applicant’s counsel or summoned witnesses, or because of the illness of a judge.\n10.  On 26 November 2001 the Katowice Regional Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention until 30 April 2002. However that decision was changed by the Katowice Court of Appeal’s decision of 19 December 2001. The Katowice Court of Appeal agreed to continue the applicant’s detention, but only until 9 February 2002. It was held that the first‑instance court was no longer competent to extend the preventive measure, since the length of the applicant’s detention was about to reach the statutory two-year time‑limit laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego).\n11.  Between 2001 and 2003 the court held a hearing every two or three months.\n12.  During this time, the applicant’s detention was extended by the Katowice Court of Appeal’s decisions of 6 February 2002 (confirmed by the same court on 13 March 2002), 15 May 2002 (upheld on 23 October 2002), 23 October 2002 (upheld on 12 March 2003), 12 March 2003 (upheld on 23 April 2003).\n13.  On 21 May 2003 the applicant’s trial commenced de novo because the judge rapporteur had retired.\n14.  The first hearing scheduled on 5 July 2003 was adjourned due to the absence of a key witness and one of the lay judges.\n15.  From the beginning of 2004 until mid‑2005 the court held on average one hearing per month.\n16.  On 16 September 2005 the President of the Criminal Section (przewodniczący wydziału) ordered that hearings be scheduled more often than once a month.\n17.  In 2006 the court scheduled twenty-three hearings, of which eleven did not take place. It appears that between January and October 2007 the court scheduled nine hearings.\n18.  Meanwhile, the applicant’s detention was extended by the Katowice Court of Appeal decisions of 23 July 2003 (upheld on 27 August 2003), 26 November 2003 (upheld on 17 December 2003), 18 February 2004 (upheld on 17 March 2004), 11 August 2004 (upheld on 25 August 2004), 24 November 2004 (upheld on 5 January 2005), 16 March 2005 (upheld on 20 April 2005), 27 July 2005 (upheld on 10 August 2005), 19 October 2005 (upheld on 23 November 2005), 25 January 2006 (upheld on 22 February 2006), 19 April 2006 (upheld on 19 May 2006), 19 July 2006 (upheld on 23 August 2006), 25 October 2006 (upheld on 15 November 2006), and 24 January 2007.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4209", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Tirana.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application with the Lushnja Property Restitution and Compensation Commission (Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave – “the Commission”), seeking to have the property of her deceased relative, confiscated in 1949, returned to her.\n8.  On 22 April 1994 the Commission upheld the application and recognised the applicant’s property rights over two villas and a three-storey building measuring 1,380 sq. m and a plot of land measuring 540 sq. m.\n9.  As regards the three-storey building and one of the villas, the Commission decided to return the property to the applicant. As regards the other villa, the Commission recognised the applicant’s co-ownership with its existing occupier. However, as it was impossible to allocate the original plot of land measuring 540 sq. m to the applicant, the Commission ordered the payment of compensation in State bonds equivalent to the value of the plot. Lastly, the Commission ordered the authorities to enforce the decision.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a civil action with the Lushnjë District Court challenging the part of the Commission’s decision that recognised one of the villas as being jointly owned and claiming full ownership thereof. Notice of the proceedings was given to the existing occupier and the Commission.\n11.  On 23 January 1996 the court upheld the applicant’s civil claim and granted her full ownership of the villa. The court did not rule on the part of the Commission’s decision relating to the compensation issue.\n12.  On 10 May 1996, following an appeal by the defendant party, the Tirana Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision. As no appeal was lodged with the Supreme Court, that decision became final and binding.\n13.  On an unspecified date, following the enforcement of the court’s decision, the applicant took possession of the properties allocated to her, that is to say, the two villas and the three-storey building.\n14.  In 2004, as no State bonds had been issued, the applicant wrote a letter to the Commission seeking a solution to the compensation issue in respect of his plot of land measuring 540 sq. m. She did not receive a reply to her letter.\n15.  To date, the authorities have not provided compensation in respect of the plot of land measuring 540 sq. m, in spite of the Commission’s decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4210", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1985 and live in Diyarbakır. At the time of the events they were sixteen years old.\n5.  According to the official documents, in connection with an ongoing investigation against an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), the police received information that the second applicant, a suspected member of that organisation, had arrived from the rural area in order to conduct activities in cities on behalf of the organisation. Having established the second applicant’s address in Diyarbakır, the police conducted a search of the premises, on 1 December 2001 at 1.20 a.m., and arrested the second applicant. The other applicants, who were also present during the house during the search, were similarly arrested and taken into police custody in order to establish any link they might have had with the organisation. The police did not find anything illegal or incriminating during the search.\n6.  On the same night, at around 2.15 a.m., the applicants were taken for a medical examination at the Diyarbakır State Hospital.\n7.  According to the custody records, the police informed the fathers’ of first and the third applicant and the second applicant’s mother of their arrest and detention.\n8.  On 2 December 2001 the police searched the house of the first applicant but did not find anything illegal or incriminating.\n9.  Upon the request of the police, the Diyarbakır public prosecutor (hereinafter the prosecutor) extended the applicants’ detention for two days on 3 December 2001.\n10.  On the same day, the applicants were questioned by the police. Since they were accused of offences falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts, they could not benefit from the assistance of a lawyer despite their age.\n11.  The custody records noted the end of the applicants’ custody at 10.40 a.m. on 4 December 2001.\n12.  Later the same day, the applicants were taken for a medical examination at the Bağlar Medical Clinic.\n13.  Afterwards, the applicants were first brought before the prosecutor and then to the Diyarbakır State Security Court (hereinafter the SSC). The latter, after having heard them, ordered their remand in custody.\n14.  On 5 December 2001 the prosecutor, relying mainly on the basis of the applicants’ statements obtained during the pre-trial investigation, filed a bill of indictment with the SCC accusing the second applicant of membership of an illegal organisation and the other applicants of aiding and abetting that organisation. The charges were brought under Articles 168 and 169 of the Turkish Criminal Code respectively.\n15.  At the first hearing held before the SSC, on 5 February 2002, the applicants were released pending trial.\n16.  No further documentation has been submitted by the parties regarding these proceedings before the SSC.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4211", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is serving his prison sentence in the Gaziantep H-type Prison.\n5.  On 27 April 1998 the applicant was taken into custody during a military operation carried out by the Turkish armed forces on suspicion of being a member of an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The applicant was detained at a gendarme station, where he was questioned in the absence of a lawyer and his detailed statement was recorded verbatim.\n6.  In the statement the applicant was quoted as having said that he had joined the PKK on 13 February 1995 and that he had carried out a number of armed activities since that date.\n7.  On 6 May 1998 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge. When questioned by the prosecutor and the judge, in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant confirmed the accuracy of the information contained in the statement he had made at the gendarme station, and repeated that he had carried out a number of armed activities. The applicant was placed in detention on remand on the order of the investigating judge.\n8.  On 15 June 1998 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment, charging the applicant with the offence of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. He sought the death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  The trial of the applicant and his seven co-defendants began on 20 August 1998 before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. In the course of the trial, the applicant was represented by his lawyer. He informed the court that he had joined the PKK in 1995 and had received military training. He further admitted to certain charges brought against him. The applicant also stated, during the hearings, that he had been forced to put his thumbprint on the statement taken from him at the gendarme station.\n10.  On 28 November 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to death. The death penalty was commuted to a life sentence. The court found it established, on the basis of, inter alia, the statements taken from the applicant after his arrest and the testimony given by him during the trial, that he had carried out a number of illegal activities and had been involved in the killing and kidnapping of a number of village guards.\n11.  On 16 September 2003 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4212", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the Moscow Region.\n7.  On 6 March 2003 the applicant and Mr S. were arrested and charged with the armed robbery of Ms M., an offence under Article 161 § 2 (g) of the Russian Criminal Code, and the robbery of Ms G., an offence under Article 162 § 2 (g) of the Criminal Code.\n8.  The first charge was based on the investigator’s interviews with Ms M., the victim, and Ms K., an eyewitness to the robbery. Ms M. stated that on 30 January 2003 she had been working as a pedlar. The applicant and Mr S. had come up to her and told her to give them merchandise and money. The applicant had threatened her with a knife. She panicked. The men stuffed the merchandise in bags, took her money and left. Ms K. testified that on 30 January 2003 she had seen two men approach Ms M. and heard them ask for money. They had verbally threatened her. Then they had got hold of the merchandise and left. The applicant’s flat was searched and the objects taken from Ms M. were found there. An identification parade was held and Ms M. identified the applicant and Mr S. as the persons who had robbed her.\n9.  The second charge was based on the statements that Ms G. and her brother Mr G. gave to the investigator. Ms G. explained that at some time in February 2003 the applicant and Mr S. had come to her brother Mr G. They had locked themselves in her brother’s room. She had heard the visitors say that her brother owed them money and that they would take the TV set and video player for the debt. They had threatened to kill her. She had seen them carrying the TV set and video player out of the flat. Mr G.’s testimony was identical to that of his sister, except that he claimed that he owed nothing to the applicant or Mr S.\n10.  On 29 April 2003 the applicant and Mr S. were committed for trial on both charges. The Lobnya Town Court of the Moscow Region scheduled the hearing for 27 May 2003 and summoned Ms M., Ms K., Ms G. and Mr G. to appear as prosecution witnesses.\n11.  On 27 May 2003 Ms M., Ms K. and Mr G. did not appear. The applicant asked the court to obtain their attendance. The court adjourned the hearing until 17 June 2003 and ordered that the police ensure the witnesses’ appearance in court.\n12.  On 17 June 2003 the witnesses did not appear. Ms K. sent a note saying that she could not come as she had to look after her new-born baby. As to Ms M., the police report stated that in the morning of 17 June 2003 she had not been at home and that a neighbour had said that “Ms M. had not lived at that address for some time”. Mr G. was in custody and could not be brought to the courtroom on 17 June 2003 as on that day “the prosecutor was going to extend the authorised period of investigation in the criminal case against Mr G.”.\n13.  The applicant insisted that the court should make further efforts to obtain the attendance of the witnesses and asked the court to adjourn the hearing. However, the court decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the witnesses.\n14.  The court heard the testimony by the applicant and his co-defendant Mr S. On the first count the applicant admitted that on 30 January 2003 he had seen Ms M. in the street. She had been talking to a certain Misha. Misha had given him a bag, which he had brought home. He denied that he had threatened Ms M. with a knife. On the second count he pleaded not guilty. He acknowledged that on 14 February 2003 he had come to see Mr G. to recover a debt but denied having tak", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4213", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Khabarovsk.\n6.  In 2001 the applicant, a salesman by occupation, decided to go to China to purchase merchandise.\n7.  On 30 July 2001 the applicant arrived at the Khabarovsk International Seaport. The customs found on him 72,300 United States dollars (USD) and 760 Chinese yuan (CNY) in cash which he had not reported in his customs declaration. The applicant was charged with attempted smuggling of foreign currency, a criminal offence under Articles 30 § 3 and 188 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The money was appended to the criminal case as physical evidence (вещественные доказательства).\n8.  On 6 November 2001 the Tsentralniy District Court of Khabarovsk found the applicant guilty as charged and imposed a suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment conditional on one year’s probation. As regards the money, the court held that:\n“Physical evidence – USD 72,300 and CNY 760 taken from Mr Sun Huan Xin – shall be confiscated by the State ...”\n9.  In his statement of appeal, counsel for the applicant argued that the confiscation measure had no basis in domestic law because the offence of smuggling did not carry such a penalty. She asked that the money be returned to the applicant as the lawful owner.\n10.  On 29 January 2002 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. As regards the money, the Regional Court held as follows:\n“Pursuant to Article 86 (4) of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, criminally acquired money and other valuables shall be confiscated by the State after conviction.\nIt appears from the case materials that Mr Sun Huan Xin did not report USD 72,300 and CNY 760 in his customs declaration when crossing the customs border of the Russian Federation. Since that moment, the above-mentioned valuables have become criminally acquired by Mr Sun Huan Xin and, pursuant to Article 86 (4) of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, should be confiscated by the State after conviction.”\n11.  On 2 March 2006 the first deputy prosecutor of the Khabarovsk Region lodged an application for supervisory review of the applicant’s conviction. He submitted as follows:\n“It was established during the trial that the money which Mr Sun Huan Xin omitted to declare... USD 6,100 were his personal property, whereas the remainder was the money destined to pay for the merchandise he had intended to buy in China. Thus, the court did not adduce any evidence showing that the seized foreign currency had been criminally acquired. In these circumstances, the physical evidence – USD 72,300 and CNY 760 – must be returned to the lawful owner, Mr Sun Huan Xin. Moreover, the first-instance and appeal judgments contradict the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ...”\n12.  On 5 June 2006 the Presidium of the Khabarovsk Regional Court rejected the prosecutor’s application. In a succinct decision it held, without further details, that “the convict’s acts had been correctly characterised” and that “the penalty had been determined in accordance with the requirements of the law”. It did not address in substance the issue raised in the prosecutor’s application. Finally, noting that Article 188 of the Criminal Code did not provide for confiscation, the Regional Court considered it necessary to amend the first-instance and appeal judgments to read “reverted to the profit [of the State]” instead of “confiscated [by the State]”.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4214", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was born in 1956 and the second applicant in 1977. They live in Ingushetia. 1.  The applicants’ account\n(a)  Underlying events and the first applicant’s detention in the Sunzhenskiy District Department of the Interior\n7.  The first applicant is married and has four children. Until 1999 he and his family lived in Grozny. In October 1999, because of the hostilities, they moved to the neighbouring republic of Ingushetia and settled in the village of Verkhny Alkun, Sunzhenskiy District, which is near the border with the Chechen Republic. There the first applicant and his family owned and tended several cows.\n8.  On 8 September 2001 the village elder and the head of the administration went to the military unit of the border troops stationed near the village to warn them that on the following day the villagers were going to cut grass for hay in the meadows, and to indicate that the servicemen should not shoot at them. The commander of the military unit gave assurances that there would be no shooting.\n9.  On 9 September 2001 the first applicant, together with his youngest son and other villagers (14 persons altogether, including women and children) went to the meadow to cut grass for hay. At about 10 a.m. the villagers were shot at from the nearby forest, where the troops were stationed. The first applicant’s nephew, Mr A.K., born in 1984, was wounded in both legs. The first applicant and other villagers tied his wounds to stop the heavy bleeding and started shouting to the soldiers, who were 100-200 metres away, that they should stop shooting and that a boy had been wounded. However the shooting and shelling continued for about an hour.\n10.  The first applicant and two women tied a handkerchief to a raised stick and walked up to the closest armoured personnel carrier (APC), shouting “Don’t shoot! There is a wounded person here!” An officer in the APC told the first applicant that he would ask the others not to shoot and told him to get the other men out of the field. The villagers got into the Gaz-66 minivan in which they had arrived at the meadow and went down the hill to the village.\n11.  At the edge of the village they were met by a group of servicemen, policemen and villagers of Verkhny Alkun. There they were told that the servicemen had been attacked and had fired in response. A local police officer told them that the injured should be taken to hospital, for which purpose he had called a car, and that the men should go and see journalists at the Sunzhenskiy District Department of the Interior (ROVD) in the village of Sleptsovskaya (also known as Ordzhonikidzevskaya) and tell them what had happened.\n12.  Once at the Sunzhenskiy ROVD, the first applicant and other men were placed in a cell and questioned. Seven men, including the applicant and his son A., were detained for three days, and released on 12 September 2001. While in the ROVD, the applicant and other men were questioned by unknown men wearing military camouflage and by M. B., the investigator of the Sunzhenskiy District Prosecutor’s Office. No documents were produced in respect of this detention.\n13.  Following the opening of a criminal investigation into the attack of 9 September 2001, on 11 October 2001 an investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office of Ingushetia informed Mr A.K. that on 11 September 2001 he had been granted victim status in criminal case no. 21600040. The first applicant submitted several statements by other villagers about the circumstanc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4215", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, who is of Serbian origin, was born in 1952 and lives in Pforzheim (Germany).\n6.  On 2 January 2002, at around 8.35 p.m., the applicant, on her way to Germany, was crossing the border between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia at Slavonski Brod. She was stopped by the Croatian customs officers, who first searched her car and found undeclared goods hidden in its luggage compartment. In particular, in the place for the spare wheel the officers found 61 cartons of cigarettes of various brands and 9.5 kg of coffee.\n7.  The customs officers then searched the applicant and found 30,500 German marks (DEM), which she had also failed to declare under section 74a(1) of the Foreign Currency Act and section 9(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (see paragraphs 14 and 15 below). They seized DEM 20,000 while allowing the applicant to keep the remaining DEM 10,500 as that amount roughly corresponded to 40,000 Croatian kunas (HRK), the sum she was not required to declare pursuant to the above-mentioned legislation. The report drafted on the spot indicates that the applicant informed the customs officers that she had obtained the money through a bank loan in Germany and had been carrying it back there.\n8.  On 3 January 2002 the Slavonski Brod Municipal State Attorney’s Office indicted the applicant before the Slavonski Brod Municipal Court for the criminal offence of avoiding customs controls, prescribed in section 298(3) of the Criminal Code, accusing her of not having declared 61 cartons of cigarettes. On 4 January 2002 the court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to six months’ imprisonment but suspended the sentence (uvjetna osuda) for a period of two years provided that in that period she did not commit a further offence. The court also ordered the confiscation (oduzimanje predmeta) of 61 cartons of cigarettes as a security measure (sigurnosna mjera). As the applicant waived her right to appeal, the judgment immediately became final.\n9.  On 3 January 2002 the customs authorities instituted administrative offences proceedings (prekršajni postupak) against the applicant before the Foreign Currency Inspectorate of the Ministry of Finance (Ministarstvo financija, Devizni inspektorat – “the Ministry”).\n10.  On 21 March 2002 the Ministry found the applicant guilty of having committed an administrative offence and fined her HRK 6,000. At the same time, the Ministry imposed a protective measure (zaštitna mjera) confiscating DEM 20,000 pursuant to section 99a(2) of the Foreign Currency Act. In so deciding it held as follows:\n“In her written defence the accused admitted that she had not declared the money when entering the Republic of Croatia because she had not known that she was required to do so. She submitted that she had taken out a loan from her bank in Germany and that she had been bringing the money to Yugoslavia in order to buy a flat. Since she had not found the flat to her liking she had decided to wait for a while until she found something [more] favourable. ...\n... She submitted that she had not been aware that she had to declare the money at the customs. She is asking that the seized money be returned to her because she needs it for the purchase of a flat, and if she does not buy a flat she has to return the money to the bank.\n...\n[The Ministry] could not accept the defence of the accused that she had not known that she had to declare foreign currency to the customs authorities, considering that t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4216", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  The applicant was a judge and the President of the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske). He was also a member of the National Judicial Council (Državno sudbeno vijeće, hereinafter the “NJC”). Sometime in 1996 the Government filed a request with the NJC to open disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. They alleged that from January to August 1996 the applicant had conducted sexual relationships with minors and that from 1995 onwards he had used his position to protect the financial activities of two individuals who were known for their criminal activities, and had thus caused damage to the reputation of the judiciary, which amounted to a serious disciplinary offence. For these reasons they proposed that disciplinary proceedings be instituted against the applicant and that a disciplinary sanction be imposed, including that he be permanently removed from office as a judge and as President of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, they asked for the applicant’s immediate provisional removal from office during the proceedings.\n6.  On 21 November 1996 the NJC instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. On 5 December 1996 the applicant filed a motion seeking the withdrawal from the case of three members of the NJC, namely A.P., V.M. and M.H, on the ground that they had shown their bias towards the applicant in interviews published in various national newspapers. The motion was denied on 9 January 1997 as being unfounded. At the hearing held on 9 January 1997 the NJC refused the applicant’s request that the hearings before it be public on the ground that the exclusion of the public was necessary for the protection of the interests of the applicant and the judiciary as such without any further reasoning. Further hearings were held on 10, 13 and 14 January 1997. On 14 January 1997 the NJC found that the applicant had committed a disciplinary offence in maintaining contacts and appearing in public with B.Č. and S.Š. despite knowing that they had been convicted of numerous crimes, and of using his position to protect these two individuals’ interests and gains from June 1995 to November 1996. The NJC further found the remaining allegations against the applicant unfounded and thus requiring no disciplinary measures. It was decided to remove the applicant from his post as judge and President of the Supreme Court.\n7.  The applicant’s subsequent “request for protection” (zahtjev za zaštitu) to the Parliament’s Chamber of the Counties (Županijski dom Sabora Republike Hrvatske) was dismissed on 19 February 1997. On 21 March 1997 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint in which he maintained that the proceedings had been unfair and that his right to respect for his correspondence had been infringed.\n8.  On 17 April 1998 the Constitutional Court quashed the decision of NJC of 14 January 1997 as well as the decision of the Chamber of Counties of 19 February 1997. The Constitutional Court found that the disciplinary proceedings before the NJC had been defective because some of the evidence presented in the proceedings, such as audio recordings of intercepted telephone calls and testimony by a member of the NJC who sat on the Council panel which considered the applicant’s case, had not been obtained in accordance with the law. The case was remitted to the NJC.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings the first hearing was held on 23 September 1998. The applicant filed a motion s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4217", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1949 respectively. At the material time they lived in the village of Akhkinchu-Borzoy, in the Kurchaloy District of the Chechen Republic. They are currently residing in the village of Noyber, in the Gudermes District of the Chechen Republic.\n6.  The applicants are the parents of Mr Marvan Agdulmusumovich Idalov, born in 1985. They also have three other sons: Khizir, Vakhid and Alikhan Idalov.\n7.  At the material time Marvan Idalov was a student at a secondary school. A certificate issued by the local authorities confirmed that Marvan Idalov had not participated in any illegal armed groups.\n8.  According to inhabitants of Akhkinchu-Borzoy, special military unit no. 24 of the Russian Ministry of the Defence («24-е стрелковое спецподразделение МО РФ», hereinafter “military unit no. 24”) was based near their village in 2002.\n9.  On the night of 21 to 22 November 2002 the applicants and Marvan Idalov were sleeping at their family home. Early in the morning the first applicant went outside the house to perform an ablution.\n10.  At about 6 a.m. an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”), an infantry battle vehicle (“IBV”) and a Ural vehicle arrived at the Idalovs' house; a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks descended from them. The first applicant inferred that the men belonged to the Russian military.\n11.  The servicemen started breaking the entrance door and windows. The first applicant asked them why they were doing so. In reply the servicemen shouted at her and forced her to enter the house.\n12.  Meanwhile five or six servicemen broke into the house without producing any documents or search warrants. The first applicant saw the faces of two unmasked servicemen who had Slavic features; they spoke Russian without an accent. The servicemen hit the second applicant, tied his arms behind his back, forced him to the floor and pointed a machine gun at him.\n13.  Marvan Idalov was studying when the servicemen entered his room. They tied his arms, put a sack on his head and took him to the street. It appears that they then put Marvan Idalov in one of the vehicles parked at the house and left. Some neighbours submitted that the vehicles drove away in the direction of the base of military unit no. 24.\n14.  According to the decision of the district prosecutor's office of 20 December 2004 to grant the second applicant victim status in criminal case no. 44034, on 22 November 2002 at least ten unidentified armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks travelling in an APC, an IBV and a lorry with an anti-aircraft gun on it unlawfully entered the applicants' house, kidnapped Marvan Idalov and took him away to an unknown destination.\n15.  Immediately after their son's abduction the applicants requested information on his whereabouts from the head of special military unit no. 24, Mr K., who replied that the military servicemen under his command had not carried out any special operations in the morning of 22 November 2002 and had not apprehended Marvan Idalov.\n16.  The applicants continued searching for their son. They applied to various official bodies, such as the prosecutors' offices at different levels, the departments of the interior, the Administration of the Chechen Republic, the Russian State Duma and the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for Rights and Freedoms, asking to help them to find Marvan Idalov. In their efforts the applicants were assisted by the SRJI. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4218", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are the owners of a house and a surrounding plot of land with a surface area of 769 square metres, located on the island of Spetses. The plot is adjacent to the promenade of the Port of Spetses. The title deeds relating to this property, duly deposited in the Land Registry, date back to 1912.\n5.  In particular, on 11 September 1912 G.P. bought the plot at a public auction conducted by the Registrar of the Spetses Magistrates’ Court. On 5 January 1914 G.P. sold the plot to K.D., who sold it to her daughter F.V. on 8 April 1921. The latter donated a part of the plot to her daughter, the third applicant, on 16 June 1965. On 29 April 1975 F.V. donated the remaining part of the plot to her son, the first applicant. On 9 March 1990 the first applicant granted himself a life interest in the property and settled the remainder on his daughter, the second applicant.\n6.  All these transactions were executed by deeds of public notaries duly deposited in the transcription registry. The applicants have always declared the property to be in their ownership and have paid the relevant taxes on it.\n7.  In autumn 1991 the first applicant applied to the Planning Office of the municipality of Spetses for a permit to start minor building works.\n8.  On 5 September 1991 the municipality of Spetses claimed that the northern part of the land in question constituted land for public use. On 6 July 1992 the Planning Office rejected the first applicant’s request on the ground that the topographical survey submitted by the applicants was inaccurate, as it wrongly included public land among their property.\n9.  On 24 June and 15 December 1993 the municipality of Spetses and the applicants filed opposing claims with the Piraeus Court of First Instance, each asking to be declared the owners of the disputed piece of land.\n10.  In 1994 the Piraeus Court of First Instance delivered an interlocutory judgment ordering a number of expert assessments. In particular, the court appointed T.A., a civil engineer, to conduct an expert assessment in order to clarify whether the disputed land was included in the applicants’ title deeds (decision no. 464/1994).\n11.  On 8 March 2002 T.A. took into consideration the applicants’ title deeds, the planning legislation in force and the official topographical and planning charts of the Planning Office of the Piraeus Prefecture and produced his expert report. After having prepared a topographical survey, he concluded that the disputed land was included in the applicants’ title deeds.\n12.  On 25 September 2003 the Piraeus Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants’ claims, holding that an area of 220 square metres on the northern side of the applicants’ garden constituted public land (judgment no. 4328/2003). In particular, the Piraeus Court of First Instance took into account several witnesses’ testimonies and aerial photographs and attached particular importance to the fact that the applicants had never exercised any ownership rights over that part of the land, since they had never cultivated it or planted trees or erected a fence there.\n13.  On 24 November 2003 the applicants appealed to the Piraeus Court of Appeal.\n14.  On 28 February 2005 the Piraeus Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal (judgment no. 213/2005). In particular, it held that according to a rule of Byzantine-Roman law (vetustas), which had been applied in Greece before the introduction of the Civil Code in 1946, a property could be consider", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4219", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n7.  Ms Malika Akhmarovna Salamkhanova, born in 1951,\n8.  Mr Luisa Said-Khusinovna Ismailova, born in 1971. 7.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in Duba-Yurt, Shalinskiy District, in the Chechen Republic. They were represented before the Court by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia. 8.  The first and second applicants are spouses and are the parents of Mr Suliman Khamzatovich Malikov, born in 1975. The third and fourth applicants are spouses and are the parents of Mr Adlan Alviyevich Khatuyev, born in 1977 and Mr Aslan Alviyevich Khatuyev, born in 1983. The fifth and sixth applicants are the mother and sister of Mr Sayd-Salu Kirgizbayevich Akhmatov, born in 1975. The seventh and eighth applicants are the mother and sister of Mr Mansur Sayd-Khusinovich Ismailov, born in 1984.\n9.  Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Mansur Ismailov and Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov had no permanent employment at the material time. Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov, following his father’s death in 2001, was working on the restoration of his family’s house, which had been destroyed. Mr Adlan Khatuyev was a student at the Grozny State Oil Institute.\n10.  Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov lived in Duba-Yurt, Shalinskiy District, in the Chechen Republic. On 9 June 2002 at 3 p.m. they were driving in a white VAZ 21061 car (ВАЗ 21061) through checkpoint no. 113 located in the south of Duba-Yurt. They were stopped at the checkpoint and apprehended by servicemen. After they had been apprehended a Ural truck and two armoured personnel carriers (APC) with licence plates “П-232” and “Ч-221” approached the checkpoint. Mr Suliman Malikov, Mr Adlan Khatuyev, Mr Aslan Khatuyev, Mr Sayd-Salu Akhmatov and Mr Mansur Ismailov were put in the Ural truck. When the fifth and seventh applicants saw that their sons had been apprehended and put in the truck, they got into the truck themselves and demanded that the servicemen tell them why they were taking away their sons. The servicemen pushed them out of the truck and drove it away, escorted by the two APCs.\n11.  The apprehension was witnessed by A.M., Z.M. and A.Sh., residents of Duba-Yurt. In their written statement of 30 November 2003 they submitted that on 9 June 2002 they had been working in an orchard close to checkpoint no. 113. A white VAZ car had driven towards the checkpoint. The servicemen approached the car and checked the identity papers of the people in it. Then the servicemen took the people into the checkpoint building and pulled their clothes over their heads. The youngest of them fell down on the ground. When the witnesses saw this, they approached the servicemen and asked what the people had done to be subjected to such treatment. The servicemen replied that they had received instructions from the town of Shatoy to check the car because it had darkened windows. Then an Ural truck and two APCs approached the checkpoint and the people who arrived took the applicants’ relatives away. When two of the applicants tried to intervene, they were pushed away by the servicemen.\n12.  A., an engineer with the special police forces (OMON) unit of the Republic of Buryatiya, and V., deputy commander of the OMON unit of the Republic of Buryatiya, were questioned by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Buryatiya on 30 January 2003.\n13.  A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4221", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1972, 1965, 1980, 1961 and 1980 respectively and live in Chişinău. They are members of “Lawyers for Human Rights”, a Chişinău-based non-governmental organisation specialised in the representation of applicants before the Court.\n8.  According to the applicants, after the coming to power of the Communist Party the number of violations of human rights increased considerably. In that context their organisation was created, whose sole purpose was the protection of human rights by assisting persons who sought to introduce applications with the European Court of Human Rights.\n9.  As a result, the applicants considered that they had caused the Government serious harm in terms of damage to their image and financial loss as a result of the findings of violation in cases they had helped to bring before this Court.\n10.  The applicants maintained that they ran a serious risk of having their telephones tapped as a result of their activity, due to the state of the legislation in force. They did not claim to have been victims of any specific interception of their communications, whether by telephone or post, and they had not instituted any domestic proceedings in that respect.\n11.  The Government disputed the allegation concerning the increase of the number of violations of human rights after the Communist Party had won the elections.\n12.  On 17 January 2008 one of the applicants wrote to the President of the Supreme Court of Justice and asked for statistical information concerning, inter alia, the number of applications lodged by the investigating bodies with courts for interception of telephone conversations and the number of successful and unsuccessful applications.\n13.  In a letter of 6 February 2008 the Head of the President's Office of the Supreme Court of Justice replied that in 2005 of a total of 2,609 applications for interception lodged, 98.81% had been successful; in 2006 of the 1,931 applications lodged, 97.93% had been successful; and in 2007 of the 2,372 applications lodged, 99.24% had been successful.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4222", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Kauvatsa. The second applicant was born in 1942 and was resident in Härmä at the time of his death.\n8.  The first applicant is a freelance journalist. In 1997 he wrote an article about criminal proceedings which were then pending before the Turunseutu District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). Those proceedings were public in nature. A defendant, X, was charged with various counts of tax fraud and aggravated fraud for allegedly deceiving the Social Insurance Institution (kansaneläkelaitos, folkpensionsanstalten) and insurance companies. The article was published in issue no. 6/1997 of the magazine Alibi, and entitled: “It seemed legal, but... a woman entrepreneur cheated to obtain a pension of over 2 million marks?” (In Finnish: Näytti lailliselta, mutta... yrittäjärouva huijasi yli 2 miljoonan eläkkeen?). The article did not mention X’s name. In the magazine’s table of contents, however, her first name was mentioned. The article included a reproduction of an article which had been published eight years previously with two photographs of X. That article, written by the first applicant, had been published in another magazine and mentioned X’s full name and included two photographs of her, one taken inside her home and another in her garden. The article was about a house purchased by the applicant which turned out to be full of rising damp. This situation naturally made her extremely miserable as she had spent her money on an uninhabitable house.\n9.  In September 1997 X lodged a criminal complaint, and proceedings were instituted against the applicants. On 18 December 1997, however, the Espoo District Court dismissed the charges. X appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), which upheld the judgment on 1 April 1999. X was ordered to reimburse the applicants’ legal costs.\n10.  Subsequently, X brought civil proceedings against the applicants before the Espoo District Court. She claimed that the said article had incriminated and insulted her and, in the alternative, that her picture had been published without her consent, causing her mental suffering. She requested compensation for non-pecuniary damage amounting to 250,000 Finnish marks (FIM) (approximately 42,047 euros (EUR)). In the alternative, she claimed compensation for the publication of her picture and non-pecuniary damages amounting to FIM 125,000 (EUR 21,023). She also claimed pecuniary damages amounting to FIM 29,234 (EUR 4,917). In a hearing before the court she claimed that publication of the article and photograph had amounted to an invasion of her privacy.\n11.  In its judgment of 31 March 1998 the District Court found that, given that X had been only a suspect at the time and the criminal case against her had still been pending, it had been wrongly alleged in the table of contents and in the headline of the article that she had obtained pension payments by fraud. The case thus amounted to defamation, as set out in Chapter 27 of the Penal Code (rikoslaki, strafflagen). The court found that other parts of the article were not defamatory. Under the Tort Liability Act (vahingonkorvauslaki, skadeståndslagen; Act no. 412/1974), the court ordered the applicants jointly and severally to pay X FIM 80,000 (EUR 13,455) for non-pecuniary damage and FIM 27,554 (EUR 4,634) for pecuniary damage, and to pay her legal costs. Finally, it found that, having regard to the above, there was no need to adjudicate on her se", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4223", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Tbilisi.\n6.  In a judgment of 29 November 1999, the Didube-Chughureti District Court in Tbilisi recognised the applicant’s mother as the owner of part of her family house. Under a gift contract of 26 January 2000, the applicant’s mother had donated her estate to her three children, including the applicant. The contract was certified by a notary and recorded in the Public Registry.\n7.  According to the applicant, her part of the house was occupied by Mr E. – a descendant of the family who had been leasing the premises since 1923. The legal relations between her ancestors and those of Mr E. had allegedly represented an informal tenancy whereby the tenants had held possession with the landlords’ consent but without any fixed terms.\n8.  On 17 February 2000 the applicant brought an action against Mr E., his spouse and aunt, requesting their eviction on account of the failure to pay rent (“the eviction proceedings”). The claim was registered at the Didube-Chughureti District Court in Tbilisi (“the District Court”) on the same day.\n9.  Between 29 February and 20 July 2000, four hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s request, the District Court ordering the competent State agencies to submit information about the respondents’ tenancy rights.\n10.  On 25 July and 21 September 2000 the District Court adjourned hearings in view of, respectively, the respondents’ absence and their request to conduct a technical assessment of the disputed house. The District Court raised with an expert of the Ministry of Justice a number of questions about the architecture of the house. No deadline was set for the expert’s reply.\n11.  On 25 October 2000 an expert reported to the District Court that, in view of the absence of proper land registration records, he had been unable to clarify the main issue – whether or not the respondents had occupied the applicant’s estate.\n12.  Between 5 February and 2 July 2001, five hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s request – due to her illness, the need to hire an advocate and her overseas trip. She returned to Georgia in August 2001, of which fact the District Court was informed in due time.\n13.  On 6 November 2001 the applicant filed an amended statement of claim together with additional documents.\n14.  Hearings scheduled for 26 December 2001 and 27 February 2002 were adjourned due to the judge’s sick leave and the absence of the respondents’ advocate.\n15.  On 12 March 2002 the respondents obtained from the District Court an injunction preventing the applicant from recording her estate in the Land Register, pending the eviction proceedings.\n16.  Between 10 April and 27 May 2002, three hearings were adjourned at the request of the respondents’ advocate. The latter referred to the need to familiarise herself with the applicant’s amended claim of 6 November 2001 and its supporting documents, and asked the District Court to collect additional information from various State agencies.\n17.  On 3 June 2002 the respondents requested the District Court to quash the final judgment of 29 November 1999 (“the reopening request”). Claiming that the eviction proceedings were contingent upon the reopening, they requested the District Court to stay the former pending the resolution of the latter. That request was granted on 20 June 2002.\n18.  The reopening request being dismissed at several instances and, lastly, by the Tbilisi Regional Court on 10 June 2003, the District Court, having gr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4224", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and previously resided in the town of Togliatti.\n7.  On 22 December 1999 police officers searched the applicant’s flat and arrested him on suspicion of having committed a number of crimes.\n8.  Thereafter the applicant was remanded in custody pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against him.\n9.  The applicant alleged that he had been tortured during the pre-trial investigation.\n10.  By a judgment of 1 November 2000 the Samara Regional Court convicted the applicant and a number of co-accused and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. Having regard to various pieces of evidence, including the oral evidence given by a number of witnesses, the court found the applicant guilty of organising and inciting others to murder and bribery and sentenced him to twenty-one years’ imprisonment.\n11.  The applicant, one of his co-accused and their counsel appealed against the judgment of 1 November 2000.\n12.  On 22 October 2001 the Supreme Court examined and partly allowed the defence appeals. The applicant was acquitted of some of the charges and his sentence was reduced to nineteen years’ imprisonment.\n13.  The parties agree on the following time-line with regard to the applicant’s pre-trial detention.\n14.  The applicant was initially arrested on 22 December 1999. He has remained in detention since that date. Pending criminal proceedings against him, he was detained intermittently in IVS-1, IZ-63/1, IZ-77/3 and IZ-63/2.\n15.  From 11 to 16 June 2001 he was detained in IZ-63/1. On 16 June 2001 the applicant was sent to IZ-77/3 in the city of Moscow to take part in the appeal proceedings in his case. On 13 November 2001 the authorities transferred the applicant back to IZ-63/1. The applicant remained there until 5 December 2001. On that date he was transferred to prison facility IK-13 of the Samara Region to serve his sentence of imprisonment. Some years later, on 23 August 2006, the applicant was transferred from IK-13 to IK-26.\n16.  From 11 to 16 June 2001 and from 13 November to 5 December 2001 the applicant was detained in cell no. 36 of IZ-63/1.\n(a)  Information submitted by the parties at the admissibility stage of the proceedings\n17.  According to the Government, the cell measured 34.02 square metres (6.3 x 5.4 x 3.1 metres), had a window and contained eight sleeping places, with no more than seven inmates being held together with the applicant.\n18.  The applicant stated that the cell measured around 30 square metres, contained ten two-tier beds designed for twenty detainees and a wooden table for ten persons. There were between 18 and 32 detainees in the cell at the relevant time. The prisoners were permitted daily outdoor exercise which lasted for 40 minutes. It was cold in the cell in winter (+13o C to +15o C) and stiflingly hot (+30o C to +40o C) in summer.\n19.  To support his allegations, the applicant referred to statements of support signed by a number of his fellow inmates who had witnessed the conditions of detention in the same cell or in other cells of IZ-63/1 (see paragraphs 37, 40, 43, 47, 56, 58, 59, 63 and 65 below).\n20.  The Government disputed the validity and veracity of these statements, submitting that none of the witnesses in question had been detained in the same cell simultaneously with the applicant.\n(b)  Information submitted by the parties at the post-admissibility stage of the proceedings\n21.  The Government were requested to submit specific information on the number ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4225", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Vologda, the Vologda Region.\n5.  The applicant is a former military officer. He brought a claim against the Vologda Regional Military Service Commissariat (“the Commissariat”), seeking recalculation of his pension on account of increase of daily allowances due to servicemen of the military units belonging to the nuclear weapons complex of the Russian Federation.\n6.  On 12 May 2003 the Vologda Town Court of the Vologda Region granted his claim and held that the Commissariat should increase his pension on account of an increase of the official salary rate with the multiplier of 1.5 as from 1 January 2001, and also pay him the arrears for the period from 1 January 2001 to 30 April 2003.\n7.  The Commissariat did not file an ordinary appeal and the judgment became binding and enforceable ten days later.\n8.  While the judgment was in force the Commissariat paid to the applicant 39,171.16 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of increased pension and arrears for the period from 1 January 2001 to 30 September 2003.\n9.  On 22 October 2003 the Commissariat filed an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 12 May 2003 referring to the lack of grounds in domestic law for increasing the applicant’s pension.\n10.  On 19 November 2003 a judge of the Vologda Regional Court ordered the case to be sent for examination by the Presidium of the Vologda Regional Court.\n11.  On 8 December 2003 the Presidium of the Vologda Regional Court quashed the judgment of 12 May 2003 and rejected the applicant’s initial claim on the ground that the Town Court’s findings had been premised on an incorrect application of substantive law. In particular, the Presidium found that the Town Court had examined all the relevant circumstances of the case, but incorrectly applied the multiplier of 1.5 in the applicant’s case. The court found that the applicant’s unit could not be considered as belonging to the nuclear weapons complex of Russia, because it had been discontinued before the list of such units had been established in the respective Decree of the Russian Government.\n12.  The applicant subsequently attempted to challenge the judgment of 8 December 2003 by lodging an application for its supervisory review with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court rejected his application.\n13.  At some point the Commissariat claimed return of the amount paid in execution of the judgment of 12 May 2003, referring to the fact that the judgment had been quashed by way of the supervisory review proceedings. The applicant contested the request for repayment on the ground that the sums already paid represented compensation for health damage which, once paid, could not be recovered in accordance with the domestic law.\n14.  On 22 January 2004 the Vologda Town Court dismissed the applicant’s argument on the ground that the amount to be returned had been paid in respect of pension, not compensation for health damage. The court granted the Commissariat’s application and ordered the applicant to return RUB 39,171.16 to the Commissariat.\n15.  On 20 February 2004 the Vologda Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n16.  In 2005 the applicant’s military unit was added to the list of the units belonging to the nuclear weapons complex of Russia, in accordance with the Decree no. 949 of 9 August 2005 by the President of the Russian Federation. In March 2007 the Commissariat recalculated the applicant’s ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4226", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Mr Denisenko, was born in 1982 and the second applicant, Mr Bogdanchikov, was born in 1979. The applicants are serving their prison sentences in correctional colonies USh 382/3 and USh 382/2 respectively, in the Saratov Region.\n6.  On 1 March 2001 patrol officers from Khamovniki police station in Moscow arrested the applicants and a certain Mr Nikitin on suspicion of attempted murder and robbery by an organised gang.\n7.  On 2 March 2001 the applicants were questioned. The interview record contains a handwritten statement by the first applicant to the effect that he had been apprised of his “rights and obligations” and required no legal assistance at that stage of the proceedings.\n8.  On 4 March 2001 the Khamovniki district prosecutor of Moscow authorised the first applicant’s pre-trial detention on the ground that he had been arrested at the crime scene, was suspected of particularly dangerous crimes and, if released, could abscond and interfere with the establishment of the truth. The prosecutor’s decision referred to Articles 90-92 and 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n9.  On 12 March 2001 the first applicant was charged with attempted aggravated murder and several robberies committed in concert. The decision was served on him on the same day in the presence of a legal-aid lawyer.\n10.  On an unspecified date the first applicant’s mother asked the district prosecutor for permission to visit her son, without success. On 21 March 2001 the first applicant’s mother was allowed to visit him in custody for the first time. It appears that the first applicant did not complain about the refusal of visits by his mother to the competent authorities.\n11.  On 27 April 2001 the Khamovniki district prosecutor extended the first applicant’s and his co-accused’s detention until 2 June 2001. The prosecutor noted that on 2 March 2001 the first applicant and his co-accused had been arrested on suspicion of committing several robberies and an attempted murder in concert, and that their placement in custody had been authorised on 4 March 2001. On 12 March 2001 the first applicant had been charged with the crimes of which he was suspected and the preventive measure had been upheld.\n12.  The prosecutor further referred to the fact that the first applicant and his co-accused had been arrested at the crime scene and that the victims of the attempted murder and the robberies had identified them as their assailants. The prosecutor considered that the first applicant and his co‑accused should not be released because, once at large, they could interfere with the establishment of the truth and abscond. It was further noted that the term of detention of the accused expired on 2 May 2001, but that it was impossible to complete the investigation by that date because it was necessary to obtain forensic reports from expert examinations initiated earlier, to carry out formal identifications and confrontations between the victims and the accused and to provide the accused with access to the case file. Finally, it was noted that during that phase of the investigation the investigators had questioned the victims, the accused and the officers who had arrested them, organised confrontations between the accused and the victims, carried out a fingerprint examination and ordered four medical examinations to establish the nature of the injuries sustained by the victims, as well as three forensic biological examinations of the physical evidence.\n13.  Th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4227", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant, Mr Mihaylov, was born in 1926. He passed away in 2003. His heirs, the second applicant, Mrs Mihaylova, and her two children, Ms Valentina Mihaylova and Mr Stefan Mihaylov, stated that they wished to pursue the application. The applicants were born respectively in 1931, 1956 and 1962, and live in Sofia.\n7.  In 1985 the first two applicants purchased from the Sofia municipality a three-room apartment of 88 square metres. The apartment was located in a three-storey building in the centre of Sofia. It had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and for several years afterwards.\n8.  Several months after the adoption of the Restitution Law in 1992, the former pre-nationalisation owners brought proceedings under section 7 of that law against the first and second applicants, seeking the nullification of the applicants’ title and the restoration of their property..\n9.  The proceedings ended by final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 13 December 2002. The courts found that the applicants’ title was null and ordered them to vacate the apartment. This finding was based on two grounds: 1) the area where the apartment was located had been earmarked for construction of buildings of more than three storeys, according to the building plan of Sofia, and the relevant legislation prohibited the sale of apartments in three-storey buildings located in such areas; and 2) the 1985 sale contract had not been signed by the mayor but by his deputy.\n10.  The applicants vacated the apartment on 30 December 2002.\n11.  After the final judgment in their case, the applicants had the opportunity to obtain compensation from the State in the form of compensation bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicants did not avail themselves of this opportunity.\n12.  In May 2006 the second applicant was granted the tenancy of a one-room municipal apartment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4228", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are:\n8.  They live in the village of Martan-Chu, Urus-Martan district, Chechnya.\n9.  The applicants represent two families. Two of their relatives were detained on the night of 16 to 17 December 2002 in Martan-Chu. The two men have not been seen since the day of detention, and the families have been conducting a search for them together.\n10.  The first eight applicants are relatives of Leoma Akhiatovich Meshayev, who was born in 1952. The first applicant is his wife, the second applicant is his brother, the fourth, fifth, sixth and the seventh applicants are his children. The third and eighth applicants are his niece and nephew. Leoma Meshayev worked as a driver and tractor mechanic. The first applicant suffers from a number of chronic diseases and has category 3 disabled status. The fifth applicant, the Meshayevs’ minor daughter, is seriously ill and has category 1 disabled status. The applicants submitted that Leoma Meshayev had suffered from tuberculosis. In March 2003 the heads of administration of Martan-Chu and of the Urus-Martan district certified that there was no information to suspect Mr Meshayev of involvement in illegal armed groups or any other criminal activities.\n11.  The Meshayev family live in their own house at 12 Rechnaya Street. About 3 a.m. on 17 December 2002 a group of five or seven men wearing camouflage uniforms and white camouflage cloaks entered the house. They were all armed and masked and spoke Russian and Chechen.\n12.  One of the men woke up Leoma Meshayev and told him in Chechen “Leoma, wake up!” They threw him on the floor and handcuffed him. When one of the intruders pointed his automatic rifle at Meshayev’s nine-year-old son, another told him in Chechen “Don’t touch the children, they are not guilty”. Then the armed men escorted Leoma Meshayev out of the room, without permitting him to put on warm clothes. He was wearing a short-sleeved T‑shirt, trousers and was allowed to put on a pair of boots.\n13.  The first applicant submitted that she had cried and asked them not to take her husband away and that he hadn’t done anything. The armed men had ordered her to keep quiet, or they would use the firearms. They took her husband’s passport with them, in which documents for his Ural truck were inserted. When they were leaving the house, one of the men hit the first applicant with a rifle butt on the head, as a result of which she briefly lost consciousness. The first applicant was able to see this person quite closely and submitted that he was short and plump, had large blue eyes visible in the opening of his mask and spoke Russian.\n14.  When the first applicant came round, she found that the men had closed the entrance door to the house by pushing a wardrobe against it. The first applicant managed to open it, with difficulty, and went out into the courtyard. The servicemen there tried to start her husband’s Ural truck, but failed. They then proceeded along Svoboda Street towards the cemetery. The first applicant ran after them, but they started to shoot at her with machine guns with silencers and she had to keep a distance.\n15.  The first applicant reached the cemetery and there she lost sight of the men. A woman who lived near the cemetery told her on the following day that she had seen military vehicles – an armoured personnel carrier (APC), two Ural trucks and a UAS vehicle – all without registration numbers, parked near her house. She had also seen a group of armed men around these vehi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4229", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1946 respectively and live in Sofia.\n8.  In 1972 the applicants purchased from the Sofia municipality a three‑room apartment of seventy-four square metres located in a three‑storey building in the centre of the city. The apartment had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following several years.\n9.  In November 1992 some of the heirs of the former pre-nationalisation owner brought proceedings against the applicants under section 7 of the Restitution Law.\n10.  As the proceedings had not been brought by all heirs of the pre‑nationalisation owner, they only concerned half of the applicants’ apartment. The proceedings ended by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 May 1999.\n11.  The courts found that the applicants’ title was null and void because the area where the apartment was located had been earmarked for construction of buildings of more than three storeys, according to the Sofia building plan of the 1970s, and the relevant legislation prohibited the sale of apartments in three-storey buildings located in such areas.\n12.  In 1998 and 1999 other heirs of the pre-nationalisation owner brought proceedings against the applicants under section 7 of the Restitution Law seeking to recover the remaining half of the apartment. It appears that those proceedings were terminated as time-barred.\n13.  In 1999 the applicants requested to be accommodated as tenants in a municipal dwelling. This was refused as they still owned one half of the apartment.\n14.  In 2000 the applicants vacated half of the apartment, which the restored owners started to use.\n15.  The applicants vacated the whole apartment in 2005 when they and the restored owners sold their respective parts of the property to a third party. The applicants received 70,000 euros (EUR). On an unspecified date the new owner demolished the building.\n16.  In 1998 the applicants requested compensation bonds. On 17 April 2001 the regional governor granted the request and ordered that an expert be appointed to assess the value of the property. On 6 June 2001 the governor issued another order rectifying an obvious error in the first one. The applicants did not visit the governor’s office to receive the new order and the proceedings were apparently stayed.\n17.  The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.\n18.  Shortly after the adoption of that judgment, on 8 May 2007 the Government published regulations implementing section 7 (3) of the Restitution Law (State Gazette no. 37 of May 2007). The regulations enable persons currently in possession of housing compensation bonds to obtain payment at face value from the Ministry of Finance.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4230", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Dagman Bantayeva, born in 1932,\n2) Ms Kometa Mauladiyevna Manayeva, born in 1966,\n3) Ms Zina Rashedovna Bantayeva, born in 1970,\n4) Ms Khava Abubakarovna Bantayeva, born in 1988,\n5) Ms Petimat Salmanovna Bantayeva, born in 1991,\n6) Mr Islam Abubakarovich Manayev, born in 1998,\n7) Ms Amnat Abubakarovna Bantayeva, born in 1996,\n8) Mr Magomed Salmanovich Bantayev, born in 1989,\n9) Ms Rayana Salmanovna Bantayeva, born in 2003,\n10) Mr Dzhokhar Salmanovich Bantayev, born in 1998, and\n11) Ms Amina Abubakarovna Manayeva, born in 1993.\n7.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in the village of Komsomolskoye, in the Gudermes district of Chechnya.\n8.  The applicants are relatives. The first applicant is the mother of Mr Abubakar Aliyevich Bantayev (also known as Bakra Manayev), born in 1957, and Mr Salman Aliyevich Bantayev, born in 1962. Abubakar Bantayev is married to the second applicant; they are the parents of the fourth, sixth, seventh and the eleventh applicants. Salman Bantayev is married to the third applicant; they are the parents of the fifth, eighth, ninth and tenth applicants. The first applicant has two other children, Ms Madina Bantayeva and Mr Shamil Bantayev, who are not applicants in this case.\n9.  Prior to 2000 Abubakar and Salman Bantayev participated in illegal armed groups. In 2000 they quitted paramilitary activities and voluntarily handed their arms over to the Chechnya Department of the Federal Security Service (the Chechnya FSB). On 21 January 2000 Abubakar and Salman Bantayev were provided with individual statements to this effect by the Department of the Federal Security Service of Gudermes District (the Gudermes FSB) together with the military commander of the security zone of Gudermes District (комендант зоны безопасности).\n10.  At the material time Russian federal forces checkpoints were located on roads leading to and from the village of Komsomolskoye.\n11.  According to the first applicant, about five months prior to 2 January 2003, that is, in the summer of 2002, she, her son Salman Bantayev and their neighbour were in a KAMAZ lorry driving from their village to the village of Engel-Yurt in the Gudermes district of Chechnya. On the road between Kadi-Yurt and Engel-Yurt their lorry was stopped by Russian military servicemen in an APC (armoured personnel carrier). They checked the identity papers of Salman Bantayev and his neighbour. The servicemen had a list against which they checked Salman Bantayev’s name. After that they told the first applicant that they would take her son away with them. They put Salman Bantayev into the APC and took him to a military unit stationed near Gudermes. The applicant’s other son, Abubakar Bantayev, went to the military unit on the same day to find out the reasons for his brother’s detention. Later in the evening of the same day Salman Bantayev was released.\nII.  Events of 2 January 2003\ni.  Abduction of Abubakar Bantayev\n12.  On the night of 1-2 January 2003 Abubakar Bantayev and his children were sleeping in one part of the house at 1 Zapadnaya Street, in the village of Komsomolskoye. Abubakar Bantayev’s brother, Shamil Bantayev, was sleeping in another part of the house. Abubakar Bantayev’s wife was not at home that night as she was visiting her relatives in another village.\n13.  Between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. a group of masked men wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns broke into the house. The men did not introduce themselves; th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4231", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1937 and 1960 respectively and live in Sofia.\n7.  In 1984 the first applicant purchased from the State a two-room apartment of 48 square metres located on a main commercial street in Sofia. The apartment had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following years.\n8.  In 1987 the first applicant transferred her title to her son, the second applicant, but preserved the right to use one room of the apartment until the end of her life.\n9.  After the adoption of the Law on the Restitution of Ownership of Nationalised Real Property in 1992, the former pre-nationalisation owners of the apartment brought proceedings against the first applicant under section 7 of that Law seeking the nullification of her title and the return of their former property. They also brought a rei vindicatio action against the second applicant.\n10.  In 1997 the District Court found that the 1984 transaction had been valid and dismissed the claims.\n11.  On appeal, on 6 August 1998 the claims were granted by the Sofia City Court, which also ordered the applicants to vacate the apartment. The final judgment was that of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 20 July 1999, which upheld the Sofia City Court’s judgment.\n12.  The courts found that in 1984, at the time of the transaction, the building plan of Sofia had envisaged the demolition of the applicants’ apartment building and the construction of a new apartment building. The relevant regulations had prohibited the sale of State apartments in such circumstances. It followed that the first applicant had obtained the apartment unlawfully. Thus, her title had been null and void and the second applicant’s title was null and void as well.\n13.  The applicants were evicted in April 2000.\n14.  In 2000, it became possible for the applicants to obtain compensation from the State, in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers.\n15.  On 5 February 2001 the regional governor of Sofia refused the applicants’ request for compensation bonds. Upon the applicants’ appeal, in judgments of 2002 and 2003 the courts quashed the refusal and granted the applicants’ request.\n16.  In June 2003 an expert appointed by the courts assessed the market value of the apartment at 22,032 Bulgarian levs (“BGN”), the equivalent of approximately EUR 11,200. The applicants submitted the opinion of another expert, who assessed the apartment’s market value at BGN 40,490 (the equivalent of approximately EUR 20,700).\n17.  In February 2004 the applicants received compensation bonds for BGN 21,600 (the equivalent of approximately EUR 11,000).\n18.  They sold them on 26 November 2004, when bonds were traded at 68% of face value, and obtained BGN 15,055.20 (the equivalent of approximately EUR 7,680).\n19.  In 1999 the first applicant brought an action under the State Responsibility for Damage Act seeking BGN 44,800 in damages from the State and the Sofia municipality, which had sold her the apartment in breach of the relevant domestic law. On 10 April 2006 the claim was disallowed in a final judgment of the Sofia Court of Appeal, which found that the authorities’ actions in concluding the contract of sale did not give rise to responsibility under the State Responsibility for Damage Act and that in any event the first applicant could have refused to buy an apartment in breach of the law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4232", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Varna.\n7.  In 1968 the applicant and her husband purchased from the State a three-room flat of approximately 76 sq. m in Varna. The flat had become State-owned by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following years.\n8.  In 1993, shortly after the Restitution Law (ЗВСОНИ) was passed, the former pre-nationalisation owners brought proceedings under section 7 of that law against the applicant and her husband, seeking the nullification of their title and the restoration of the property.\n9.  The applicant’s husband passed away in June 1996. She was his sole heir and the proceedings continued against her.\n10.  On 29 June 1996 the Varna District Court found that the 1968 transaction had been null and void and allowed the claim. On appeal, on 25 July 1997 the Varna Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. The courts found that the 1968 contract had been signed by a deputy to the mayor instead of the mayor (председател на изпълнителния комитет на районния народен съвет) and that the file did not contain the requisite approval by the Minister of Architecture and Building Planning. The courts also found that the price of the flat, 5,352 levs, had not been determined correctly by the administration (the judicial expert ordered by the court in the 1996 proceedings estimated the price in 1968 at 5,725 levs).\n11.  In 1999 the applicant requested the reopening of the proceedings, stating that she had not been duly summoned for the Regional Court’s hearing held on 2 July 1997. In a judgment of 22 July 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the request for reopening.\n12.  In 2000 it became possible for persons in the applicant’s situation to obtain compensation from the State, in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicant did not avail herself of that opportunity within the relevant three-month time-limit. She applied for bonds in June 2007 but was informed by a letter of 5 July 2007 from the Varna Regional Governor that she was not entitled to compensation in the form of bonds.\n13.  The applicant did not leave the property voluntarily. In 1998 the restored owners instituted enforcement proceedings. The applicant was evicted on 16 August 2006.\n14.  On 15 November 2006 the applicant was granted the tenancy of a two-room municipal flat in Varna.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4233", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Kurgan, the Kurgan region. He is currently serving a prison sentence in the Kurgan region.\n7.  On 15 November 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder of a certain S. and was placed in detention.\n8.  On 5 February 2002 the Kurgan Town Court, Kurgan Region (“the trial court”) held a trial in the applicant’s case. The applicant confessed to the murder in part. He submitted that during a quarrel with S. the latter had threatened him with an axe and he (the applicant) had stabbed him several times with a knife in order to defend himself. The Town Court found the applicant guilty of premeditated murder under Article 105 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below, paragraph 22) and sentenced him to eleven years and three months’ imprisonment. On 5 March 2002 the Kurgan Regional Court (“the appeal court”) quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination to the trial court having found, in particular, that the latter had not established whether the victim had had an axe in his hands during the quarrel. On the same date the Regional Court remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant was neither present nor represented by a lawyer at the appeal hearing.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant was additionally charged with several counts of theft. A certain Sch. was charged with concealment of the murder of S. Criminal proceedings against Sch. were joined to those against the applicant.\n10.  On 22 March 2002 the trial court started the examination of both charges against the applicant and the charges against Sch. At the beginning of the hearing the applicant submitted that he had refused assistance from legal aid counsel and that his refusal was not linked to his financial situation. Lawyer M., who had been provided to the applicant, left the courtroom.\n11.  The applicant pleaded guilty to theft. As regards the charges of murder, he submitted that he had committed the murder in self-defence because during their quarrel S. had threatened him with an axe. The trial court heard the applicant and his co-accused, the mother of S. and several witnesses including witness K. During the questioning of K. the court rebuked the applicant twice for contempt of court and finally, at the prosecutor’s request, removed the applicant from the hearing for putting pressure on the witnesses. The applicant was absent until the end of the hearing of 22 March 2002. In his absence the trial court continued to hear witness K. and heard witness B. According to the applicant, on 22 March 2002 the trial court also ordered to remove from the hearing everybody except for the victims, their representative, witnesses and his co-accused. The examination of the case continued on 25 March 2002 in the applicant’s presence. The trial court heard seven more witnesses and an expert.\n12.  On 26 March 2002 the trial court found the applicant guilty of theft and premeditated murder and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. Having regard to the statements by the witnesses, it found, in particular, that S. had had no axe in his hands at the moment of his murder, and, therefore, the applicant’s version of self-defence had been unfounded. It also held that the applicant’s balance of mind had not been disturbed at the moment of the murder. Sch. was found guilty of concealment of murder and was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment.\n13.  The judgment stated that the applicant ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4234", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lived in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. On 9 January 2003 the applicant died and his wife, Ms Ashat Ayubova, expressed her intention to pursue the application before the Court on the applicant’s behalf in letters of 31 January and 26 December 2005.\n8.  The applicant and his wife, Ms Ashat Ayubova, are the parents of Mr Adam Ayubov, born in 1959. They lived in Grozny in their privately owned house at 17 Narvskaya Street with other family members. In the winter of 1999-00 the applicant and other members of his family left Grozny because of the hostilities. Adam Ayubov remained in Grozny to guard the house and property. He was married and had two children. Before the unrest in Chechnya he had served in the elite troops of the Ministry of the Interior and had held the highest sport title of the USSR.\n9.  On 19 January 2000, during daylight hours, a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at Narvskaya Street in a Ural military truck. The applicant, who did not witness his son’s detention, referred to eyewitness statements of his neighbours to the effect that they were federal servicemen. According to the Government, they were “unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms”.\n10.  The men checked the residents’ documents and ordered three men – Adam Ayubov, Mr Sh. and a man named Oleg or Vladimir – to get into the truck. The neighbours who were present in the street tried to intervene, and for about 20 minutes obstructed the vehicle, asking the men in camouflage uniforms to release the three men and saying that they had not been involved in anything illegal. Despite their efforts the applicant’s son and the two other men were taken away.\n11.  The applicant submitted with reference to his neighbours’ statements that about an hour later the same Ural truck with the same armed men in camouflage uniforms had returned and destroyed the house at 17 Narvskaya Street and two cars in the courtyard with a flame-thrower. The applicant produced photographs of his destroyed house and burnt cars and a list of his destroyed possessions (see paragraphs 40 and 41 below).\n12.  Mr Sh. and the man named Oleg or Vladimir were released later that day. They stated that they had been detained by a detachment of the police special force from Novosibirsk.\n13.  The applicant and his family have had no news of Adam Ayubov since that date.\n14.  The applicant’s wife corroborated the above account of the events with two eyewitness statements made by Mr G. and Ms Kh. They both confirmed that on 19 January 2000 they had seen Adam Ayubov being detained by servicemen and taken away in a military Ural truck, and that the servicemen had returned later on 19 January and then on 20 January 2000 and had taken property from the Ayubovs’ house and burned a Volga car and a Niva car in the courtyard of the house. The applicant’s wife also submitted a written statement of one of her representatives to the effect that he had on several occasions approached Mr Sh. with a request to give a written statement concerning the events of 19 January 2000. Mr Sh. had confirmed the circumstances of that incident orally, but had refused to make any written statements out of fear for his security, stating that he had been warned by law-enforcement officials to refrain from describing that incident to any human rights organisations.\n15.  According to Adam Ayubov’s sister, Ms Liza Azimova, on 19 January 2000 the Russian TV channel NTV showed an interview w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4235", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Mr Nolan and K. were born in 1967 and 2001 respectively and live in Tbilisi, Georgia. Mr Nolan is the father and sole custodial parent of K.\n6.  Since 1988 the applicant has been a member of the Unification Church (“the Church”), a spiritual movement founded by Mr Sun Myung Moon in 1954.\n7.  On 21 May 1991 the Unification Church was officially registered as a religious association in the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic.\n8.  On 29 December 2000 the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation granted State re-registration to the Unification Church at federal level as a centralised religious organisation. It did so on the basis of an expert opinion from the Expert Council for Conducting State Expert Examinations in Religious Studies, which stated, inter alia, the following:\n“In the Russian Federation neither the Unification Church nor its leaders have ever been held criminally liable. No violations of the federal law on freedom of conscience and religious associations on the part of the Unification Church or its various representatives have been established. Thus, (1) the Unification Church is a religious, non-commercial organisation and, accordingly, has the characteristics of a religious association within the meaning of section 6 § 1 of the federal law on freedom of conscience and religious associations; and (2) no indication of unlawful activities has been uncovered in its religious teachings and corresponding practice.”\n9.  In 1994 the Church invited the applicant to assist its activities in Russia. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation granted the applicant leave to stay in Russia. His leave to stay was subsequently renewed by the Ministry on a yearly basis through invitations issued by the registered religious organisation of the Unification Church in Moscow and an associated social organisation in St Petersburg, the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU).\n10.  The applicant lived primarily in Rostov-on-Don in southern Russia, where he worked with local branches of the FFWPU and the Youth Federation for World Peace (YFWP). He explains that, while the Unification Church, the FFWPU and the YFWP and other associations operating in Russia maintain legal independence from one another, they cooperate with one another in pursuit of similar goals. According to the applicant, these organisations acknowledge their origin in the Unification Movement founded by Rev. Moon; their different titles and legal forms reflect the specific focus of their activities and the fact that the social organisations are open to members of other faiths.\n11.  On 21 May 1999 the FFWPU established a local organisation in Rostov. Since the applicant’s host organisation in Russia was responsible for processing his residence registration with the police during the term of his stay, this was subsequently arranged through the Rostov FFWPU.\n12.  On 10 January 2000 the acting President of the Russian Federation amended, by Decree no. 24, the Concept of National Security of the Russian Federation, adopted in 1997. The relevant paragraph of Chapter IV, “Ensuring the National Security of the Russian Federation”, was amended to read:\n“Ensuring the national security of the Russian Federation also includes the protection of its ... spiritual and moral heritage ... the forming of a State policy in the field of spiritual and moral education of the population ... and also includes opposing the negative influence of foreign r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4236", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in St Petersburg.\n5.  She owned and occupied a 15 square metre room in a communal flat in St Petersburg. In 1999 she decided to change her room, which was located on the fifth floor, to a similar room on the ground floor which would better suit her deteriorated state of health. Mr B. offered his help in improving her housing situation. Since it was impossible, according to the law, to pass over the owners of the remaining rooms in the same flat holding pre-empting rights, in order to sell the room to an individual found by Mr B., the applicant signed on 5 September 1999, following Mr B.’s advice and explanations by the notary, an agreement for the transfer of her room as a gift while in reality she sold it. Mr B. disappeared with the money after the deal. The applicant managed to occupy her room again. She learned that the room had meanwhile been sold to another individual K. who then died.\n6.  On 8 September 2000 the applicant requested the police to initiate criminal proceedings against Mr B. The police advised her to apply to a court.\n7.  On 14 September 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings against the buyer before the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg claiming that the agreement was null and void and requesting the restitution. As her application did not comply with formal requirements she was requested to correct the defects before 18 September 2000. It appears that she did so and on 21 September 2000 the judge issued a ruling on the preparation of the case for examination according to which the judge was to meet the parties on 16 November 2000.\n8.  On 3 March 2003 the case was assigned to another judge who scheduled a hearing for 16 May 2003. On that day the judge imposed an arrest on the disputed property and adjourned the examination of the case to 29 October 2003 due to the failure of the respondent and the notary to appear and the need to join to the proceedings K.’s heir as a third party. On 29 October 2003 the examination of the case was adjourned to 29 April 2004 for reasons related to the judge’s workload.\n9.  On an unspecified date K.’s heir brought proceedings against the applicant seeking for her eviction from the room. On 29 April 2004 those proceedings were joined with the proceedings in the applicant’s case and the hearing was scheduled for 10 November 2004. On that date the court heard the parties and K.’s heir, adjourned the hearing to 26 January 2005 and ordered that certain additional evidence should be collected.\n10.  On 26 January 2005 the applicant was represented by Mr Romanov who requested that the hearing be adjourned to enable him to examine the case file. The hearing was adjourned to 22 June 2005.\n11.  On 22 June 2005 the court heard the parties, K.’s heir and witnesses. The applicant’s counsel Mr Romanov was ordered to leave the courtroom. According to him, the judge did so because, despite the judge’s reluctance, he kept on requesting the court’s order for obtaining certain documents as evidence. According to a letter of 24 May 2006 from the St Petersburg prosecutor’s office to Mr Romanov, the judge did so in response to Mr Romanov’s refusal to stand when addressing the court, as was required by the procedural rules. Mr Romanov unsuccessfully tried to bring criminal proceedings against the judge.\n12.  The examination of the case was adjourned to 23 November 2005 under K.’s heir’s request. On the latter date the applicant and her counsel failed ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4238", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  In 1984 the house, which was the property of the applicant’s mother and was where they had been living was demolished by the State without compensation. Therefore on 18 October 1984 the applicant’s mother was authorised to take on the tenancy of Apartment 18 situated at 2 Valea Călugărească Street in Bucharest.\n6.  On 25 March 1991 the applicant’s mother made a request to the O. company, a State-representative company responsible for the management of property belonging to the State, to buy the apartment under Decree-law no. 61/1990 and Law no. 85/1992 regarding the sale to the population of dwellings built with State funds. She died on 9 July 1993, the applicant being her only heir.\n7.  On 26 January 1994 V.V. took on the tenancy of Apartment 18. According to the applicant, he was living in the apartment at that time.\nOn 29 March 1994 the applicant was evicted from that apartment, as he had no tenancy. The goods in the apartment were entrusted to the keeping of V.V., most of them being placed under a seal in one room. At the latest on 7 December 2000 the O. company demanded that the applicant take the goods removed from the apartment, as it had no suitable place to keep them.\n8.  On 17 March 1994 the applicant requested the court to oblige both O. and R. companies, as State-representative companies responsible for the management of property belonging to the State, to sell him Apartment 18.\n9.  On 11 May 1998 the Bucharest Court of First Instance allowed the applicant’s action, considering that he had inherited his mother’s right to buy that apartment, and ordered the two companies to conclude a sale contract with the applicant for Apartment 18.\n10.  On 30 September 1999 the Bucharest Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed as groundless an appeal by the two companies, which sought to declare the apartment governed by Law no. 112/1995, not by Decree-law no. 61/1990 and Law no. 85/1992.\n11.  Although there had been judicial recognition of the authorities’ obligation to sell Apartment 18 to the applicant, the latter was not able to buy it, being informed that on 27 January 1997 the former had sold the apartment to V.V., the then tenant, under Law no. 112/1995.\n12.  On 12 February 2001 the applicant requested the court to find the sale of Apartment 18 null and void and to oblige the authorities to perform the sale as provided by the judgment of 30 September 1999.\nOn 5 February 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed the action, considering that the property was governed by Law no. 112/1995, not by Decree-law no. 61/1990 and Law no. 85/1992, and that V.V. had made the purchase in good faith.\n13.  On 27 February 2002 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the two managers of the O. company for damaging his personal interest in the course of their duties as civil servants and for giving false information for inclusion in a document. On 5 November 2003 the public prosecutor decided not to initiate criminal proceedings because of the prescription of criminal liability. However, the prosecutor considered that the constitutive elements of both criminal offences had been met because, on the one hand, the apartment had been sold despite being the object of pending proceedings and before a final decision on the matter and, on the other hand, the two representatives had been in bad faith when they had signed the sale contract with V.V.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4241", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Stronie Śląskie.\n6.  On 3 August 1997 the Law of 11 April 1997 on disclosing work for or service in the State’s security services or collaboration with them between 1944 and 1990 by persons exercising public functions (ustawa o ujawnieniu pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z nimi w latach 1944-1990 osób pełniących funkcje publiczne) (the “1997 Lustration Act”) entered into force.\n7.  On 14 April 2004 the applicant, a candidate for the European Parliament, declared that he had not collaborated with the communist-era secret services. He was subsequently elected as a Member of the European Parliament.\n8.  On 9 December 2004 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) decided to institute lustration proceedings against the applicant following a request made by the Commissioner of the Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) on the grounds that the applicant had lied in his lustration declaration by denying that he had cooperated with the secret services.\n9.  On 17 February 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first‑instance lustration court, found that the applicant had submitted an untrue lustration declaration since he had been an intentional and secret collaborator with the State’s secret services. The court established that the applicant had met on probably two occasions in 1973 with agents of the secret services and had agreed to help them as a consultant.\n10.  The applicant appealed against the decision. He submitted that he had never collaborated with the secret services and the meeting in question had been in connection with the preparation of an article. The applicant also referred to his subsequent activity in the “Solidarność” movement for which he had been persecuted and detained by the communist authorities. Subsequently, he was allowed to leave Poland and between 1985 and 1994 he was a deputy of the Polish Section of Radio Free Europe in Munich.\n11.  On 6 June 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the second‑instance lustration court, upheld the impugned judgment.\n12.  On 1 February 2007 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. That decision was notified to the applicant on 8 March 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4242", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Parola.\n5.  The applicant requested sickness benefits due to his incapacity for work for the period from 3 June 2002 until 31 December 2002. On 10 June 2002 the applicant’s doctor stated in a certificate that he was incapable of working until 31 December 2002.\n6.  The Social Insurance Institution (kansaneläkelaitos - KELA, folkpensionsanstalten – FPA, later “KELA”) rejected his request in two decisions of 28 August 2002. In the decisions his disability was described in detail, but he was not considered incapable of working. The decision was based on section 14 of the Sickness Insurance Act (sairasvakuutuslaki,  sjukförsäkringslag 364/1963).\n7.  On 13 September 2002 the applicant appealed to the Social Insurance Board (sosiaalivakuutuslautakunta, socialförsäkringsnämd). His appeal was rejected on 24 April 2003. In the decision no reference was made to the certificates provided by the applicant’s doctor. It stated that the applicant had been given an opportunity to reply to the KELA’s statement, but it did not give any details of the statement nor did it state whether the applicant had replied.\n8.  On 4 June 2003 the applicant appealed to the Appellate Board for Social Insurance (tarkastuslautakunta, prövningsnämnden, later the “Appellate Board”). His appeal was rejected on 15 January 2004. In the decision no reference was made to the statements by the applicant’s doctors or the report from the time he spent in rehabilitation between 8 January and 28 January 2003. Like the decision of the Social Insurance Board, it stated that the applicant had had the opportunity to reply to the KELA’s statement, but failed to specify the content of the statement and whether the applicant had replied to it.\n9.  On 1 March 2004 the applicant requested information on the documents in his file with the KELA. The documents contained several statements by a medical expert, requested by the KELA at various times. The statements were dated 10 April, 6 June, 22 August and 17 October 2002 and 18 June 2003. None of the authorities had previously provided him with copies of the statements.\n10.  According to information supplied by the Government at the Court’s request, the medical statements in question were also included in the case file of the Appellate Board.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4243", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in Kazakhstan and came to Latvia in 1954, at the age of 12, when it was one of the fifteen Soviet Socialist Republics (SSRs) of the Soviet Union. She has been permanently resident there ever since. In 1966, after finishing her studies at Riga Polytechnic Institute, she obtained a job at the chemical complex in Olaine (Latvia), working in a laboratory at a recycling plant.\n11.  In 1973 the applicant was assigned to the regional division of the Environmental Protection Monitoring Department, which was part of the USSR Ministry of Chemical Industry. Until 1981 she worked for a State enterprise attached to the Ministry, with its head office in Kyiv (Ukraine). She was subsequently placed under the authority of a subdivision of the same enterprise, which was based in Belorussia (present-day Belarus) and was itself subordinate to a division with its head office in Dolgoprudnyy (in the Moscow Region, Russia). The enterprise in question was an all-Union enterprise (предприятие всесоюзного значения) and was thus governed by federal law and under the authority of the USSR central government. The applicant’s salary was paid by monthly post-office giro transfer, from Kyiv and Moscow. Notwithstanding her successive reassignments, the applicant continued to work at the recycling plant in Olaine. Furthermore, throughout this period she remained affiliated to the same local unit of the centralised Soviet trade union for workers in the chemical industry.\n12.  On 4 May 1990 the Supreme Council (the legislative assembly at the time) adopted the Declaration on the Restoration of the Independence of the Republic of Latvia. On 21 November 1990 the Environmental Protection Monitoring Department was abolished. As the enterprise had become autonomous, the applicant came under the direct authority of the plant’s management.\n13.  In August 1991 Latvia’s independence was fully restored. Subsequently, in December 1991 the Soviet Union, the State of which the applicant had hitherto been a national, ceased to exist. The applicant therefore became stateless. Following the enactment on 12 April 1995 of the Act on the status of former USSR citizens without Latvian or other citizenship, the applicant was granted the status of “permanently resident non-citizen” (nepilsone).\n14.  In September 1993 the applicant was made redundant as a result of staff cutbacks. She immediately signed a contract with another employer, based in Riga, for which she worked until her retirement in 1997.\n15.  In August 1997, after reaching the age of 55, the applicant retired and asked the Social-Insurance Board for the Kurzeme District of Riga (Rīgas Kurzemes rajona Sociālās apdrošināšanas pārvalde) to calculate the amount of her retirement pension (vecuma pensija). In a letter of 21 August 1997, the Board notified her that, in accordance with paragraph 1 of the transitional provisions of the State Pensions Act, only periods of work in Latvia could be taken into account in calculating the pensions of foreign nationals or stateless persons who had been resident in Latvia on 1 January 1991. It appeared from the applicant’s employment record (darba grāmatiņa) that from 1 January 1973 to 21 November 1990 she had been employed by entities based in Kyiv and Moscow. The Board therefore calculated the applicant’s pension solely in respect of her years of service before and after that period. As a result, the applicant was awarded a monthly pension of only 20 Latvian lati (LVL ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4244", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Pasiky-Zubrytski.\n  A.  Events which led to criminal charges against the applicant\n6.  Since 1974 the applicant has worked as a teacher in the Lviv Boarding School no. 6 for Children with Language Disorders (“the School”). In 1995 he was elected head of the school branch of the “VOST” - one of the two trade unions represented in the School.\n7.  On 12 January 1996 the local Board of Education employed Mrs P. to serve as a director, notwithstanding opposition from some staff, in particular the VOST members.\n8.  In May 1996 Mrs P. dismissed an employee, who was a VOST member, without the consent of the VOST. Subsequently, in 1998, this employee was reinstated as a result of a court action brought on her behalf by the VOST.\n9.  On 6 June 1996 Mrs P. refused to sign a collective agreement, signed by the VOST and the head of the second trade union present at the School.\n10.  On an unspecified date in late 1996, a former School driver who had been dismissed by Mrs P. for incompetence submitted a written statement to the applicant, alleging that in April 1996 Mrs P. had ordered him to unload ten boxes of humanitarian aid intended for the School at her father’s estate and that on many occasions she had used the school vehicle for personal purposes.\n11.  In early 1997 the applicant in his capacity as a trade union leader made several applications to the Control Inspection Department (Контрольно-ревізійне управління, a public audit service, scrutinising the use of funds by State-owned entities, “the KRU”), alleging that Mrs P. had abused her office and misused School property and funds. In particular he stated that Mrs P. had appropriated ten boxes of humanitarian aid, the School’s TV set, other video equipment and bricks from the school boundary wall which had been demolished. On several occasions the applicant also complained about the situation to Mr U., the regional leader of the VOST.\n12.  In response to these complaints in 1997 the KRU held several inquiries into the use of the School funds.\n13.  In its report of 28 February 1997, the KRU stated that there were no serious instances of mismanagement of the School’s property.\n14.  The KRU’s report of 26 March 1997, however, revealed certain shortcomings on the part of the School administration in the handling of humanitarian aid, charity and the bricks. However, no evidence was found that any of the humanitarian aid or charity monies or any bricks had been appropriated by Mrs P.\n15.  In April 1997 the applicant on behalf of the School branch of the VOST, Mr U. on behalf of the Regional VOST, and Mr N. on behalf of the local branch of the Ukrainian Conservative Party made a criminal complaint against Mrs P. to the Lychakivsky District Prosecutor’s Office (“the Prosecutor’s Office”) a criminal complaint against Mrs P., referring largely to the same circumstances as in the VOST’s complaints to the KRU. On 28 April 1997 the Prosecutor’s Office dismissed this complaint for want of evidence of criminal conduct on Mrs P.’s part. On 17 June 1997 a second criminal complaint was dismissed on the same ground. However, criminal proceedings were initiated into the circumstances of the disappearance of the TV set and the video equipment.\n16.  On 26 May 1997 several representatives of the Regional VOST picketed the Lychakivsky District Administration protesting against the alleged abuses by Mrs P. The participants in the picket carried placards with various slo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4245", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant association was registered in 1990 and is located in the town of Kakhovka, Kherson region.\n6.  In 1990 the applicant association entered into a contract with the Construction Department of the Kherson Regional State Administration (“the Department”; Управління капітального будівництва Херсонської обласної державної адміністрації), according to which the latter undertook to construct a block of flats for the applicant association’s members.\n7.  In January 2002 the applicant association instituted proceedings in the Commercial Court of the Kherson Region against the Department, seeking compensation for defaulting on the construction project.\n8.  On 5 April 2002 the court found in part for the applicant association and ordered the Department to pay it 144,066.74 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) in compensation. On 27 March 2003 the Commercial Court of Appeal of the Odessa Region quashed the decision of the first-instance court and adopted a new decision, ordering the Department to pay the applicant association UAH 2,227,269.40 in compensation.\n9.  On 20 June 2003 the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine rejected the Department’s request for leave to appeal in cassation for failure to comply with procedural requirements.\n10.  On 15 July 2003 the Commercial Court of the Kherson Region issued a writ of execution for the decision of the Commercial Court of Appeal of the Odessa Region of 27 March 2003.\n11.  On 11 August 2003 the Suvorovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kherson instituted enforcement proceedings.\n12.  By decisions of 22 September and 22 December 2003, the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine rejected the Department’s request for leave to appeal in cassation for being lodged out of time.\n13.  The decision of 27 March 2003 remains unenforced to the present date with reference to the debtor’s lack of funds and realisable assets.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4246", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Pavlograd.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 17 November 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and a certain Mr V.G. on suspicion of robbery. On the same date the applicant was arrested and detained.\n8.  On 20 November 2000 the applicant was formally charged with involvement in a robbery. On the same date a decision was taken to remand him in custody pending trial based, in particular, on the seriousness of the charge against him. Subsequently, the applicant was indicted on several additional charges of robbery and theft, committed on his own and in association with a certain Mr M.M.\n9.  On 3 July 2002 the Pavlograd City Court (hereafter “the City Court”) convicted the applicant of several offences of robbery and theft, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.\n10.  The applicant appealed. On 6 December 2002 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment of 3 July 2002, finding that the conviction was not based on sufficient evidence. The Court of Appeal ordered that further pre-trial investigations be carried out. It also decided, without giving any reasons, to extend the applicant’s detention pending the additional investigations.\n11.  On an unspecified date the prosecution submitted the applicant’s case to the City Court for a fresh trial.\n12.  On 6 May 2003 the City Court found at the preparatory hearing in absence of the applicant that the evidence gathered was insufficient and that the instructions of the Court of Appeal had not been followed. The case was remitted for fresh pre-trial investigations. The court also ordered that the applicant should remain in custody, without, however, giving any reasons for this decision. The prosecutor lodged an appeal against the decision to remit the case for further investigations.\n13.  On 4 July 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 6 May 2003 and referred the case to the City Court for trial. The Court of Appeal also decided, without giving any reasons, that the applicant was to remain in custody.\n14.  On 1 April 2004 the City Court convicted the applicant of theft and robbery and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment with deduction of the time spent in detention.\n15.  That judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 9 June 2004 and by the Supreme Court on 17 March 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4247", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Kharkiv.\n6.  On 31 March 2000 the applicant’s grandfather was murdered in his apartment. On 1 April 2000 the criminal investigation into the murder was initiated.\n7.  On 19 April 2000 the investigator of the Poltava Oktyabrskiy District Police Department ordered a search in the applicant’s apartment. The investigator also ordered that the applicant be brought compulsorily before him (примусовий привід) as a suspect on 21 April 2000 at 9.00 a.m. in the framework of the criminal case of murder of the applicant’s grandfather.\n8.  On 20 April 2000 the applicant was apprehended in Kharkiv and transferred to Poltava. Upon arrival the applicant allegedly attempted to escape from the police car and resisted the police officers who prevented his fleeing.\n9.  The same day the police officers drew up a report on the applicant’s forceful resistance to the police. Following this report, on 21 April 2000 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Poltava (hereinafter – the District Court) sentenced the applicant to five days’ administrative arrest under Article 185 of the Code on Administrative Offences. This decision was final and not subject to appeal under Article 287 of the above Code, but the president of the higher court could review it on its own motion under Article 294. The applicant requested the higher courts on two occasions for a review of his case, but the requests were rejected, respectively, by the President of the Poltava Regional Court on 12 May 2000 and by the President of the Supreme Court on 25 September 2001.\n10.  According to the applicant he wrote confession statements, admitting the murder of his grandfather, on 22 April 2000. These statements were allegedly dictated by the police officer K., who signed and backdated them to 20 April 2000. On the same date K. made minutes of the applicant’s interrogation as a suspect, also dated 20 April 2000. During this period he was not represented by a lawyer.\n11.  On 25 April 2000 the applicant was charged with intentional murder of his grandfather and was temporarily detained as a suspect.\n12.  On 27 April 2000 the prosecutor of Oktyabrskiy District ordered the applicant’s detention on remand for two months.\n13.  On 31 May 2000 the District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the prosecutor’s detention order of 27 April 2000.\n14.  From 22 June to 30 June 2000 the applicant and his lawyer studied the case-file.\n15.  On 13 July 2000 the case was referred to the District Court.\n16.  On 21 August 2000 the court conducted a preparatory hearing and maintained the applicant’s detention on remand.\n17.  On 10 November 2000 the applicant’s lawyer requested the applicant’s release. The court rejected this request.\n18.  During the trial the applicant denied the accusations and stated that he had been forced to confess. On 6 June 2001 the District Court remitted the case for additional investigation on that matter and for examination of the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment during the investigation. The court further rejected the applicant’s request for release and maintained his detention. On 4 July 2001 the Poltava Court of Appeal (former Poltava Regional Court) upheld this ruling.\n19.  On 18 July 2001 the Prosecutor’s Office received the case-file.\n20.  On 1 August 2001 the investigator of the Prosecutor’s Office requested the District Court to extend the applicant’s detention from 18 July to 18 September 2001.\n21.  On 8 August 2001 the Di", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4248", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961. Before his detention he lived in Mariupol. In May 1997 the applicant was recognised as falling into the second category of invalidity (the medium level) because of a spine disease. In November 1998 his invalidity was reclassified as being of the third category (mildest level).\n6.  On 16 April 1999 the applicant was detained on suspicion of murder. He was placed in the Mariupol Pre-trial Detention Centre (hereinafter “the Mariupol SIZO”).\n7.  In the period between 16 May and 5 June 1999 the applicant was kept in the Donetsk Pre-trial Detention Centre. On 5 June 1999 the applicant was returned to the Mariupol SIZO.\n8.  On 17 June 2000, after the applicant’s conviction, he was transferred to the Donetsk prison no. 124.\n9.  On 22 July 2000 he was transferred to the Gdanovsk prison no. 3.\n10.  On 15 December 2000 the applicant was returned to the Mariupol SIZO.\n11.  On 21 February 2003, after the retrial of the applicant’s case, upon which he was sentenced to imprisonment for a longer period, he was transferred to the Sokiryanska prison no. 67.\n12.  On 6 January 2005 the applicant was transferred to the Dykanivska prison no. 12 where he is still serving his sentence.\n13.  According to the applicant, when he was held in the Mariupol SIZO the cell was constantly overcrowded, so that three persons occupied one bunk and had to take turns to sleep. The cell was not properly ventilated with fresh air and he did not have access to daylight. The nutrition was insufficient. The medical care was inadequate in particular in view of the fact that in April 2000, in addition to his poor health, he contracted tuberculosis. He had not been provided with any medical treatment as regards his spine disease.\n14.  The applicant alleged that during his detention in the Sokiryanska prison no. 67 he suffered from the poor medical care and food supply which was inappropriate in view of his health problems. The cell was always damp which had an additional negative impact on his health.\n15.  As regards the Dykanivska prison no. 12, where the applicant is currently held, he states that the cell is lit by a wan electric lamp and dim daylight, restricted by glass blocks. This has led to the deterioration of his sight. However, despite his request to this effect, the applicant has not been examined by an ophthalmologist or provided with the necessary medical treatment. Moreover, despite the tuberculosis which he contracted in the Mariupol SIZO, for a year and a half he has not been provided with any medical care for this disease. In addition, his requests to receive the necessary medical treatment in respect of his spine disease have been ignored.\n16.  The mandatory ventilation in his cell is not available and the window does not open because of metal bars attached to it. The lack of adequate ventilation is further aggravated by a general tolerance of smoking in the cells and outside during walks.\n17.  The applicant is employed at the factory at the Dykanivska prison no. 12. He alleges that on his way to his working place and back he is strip searched in the presence of other inmates and in any season. He states that these searches are conducted in premises that are unequipped for this purpose.\n18.  The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention to various State authorities. In particular the applicant complained to the State Department for Execution of Sentences claiming that the material conditions of his detention had", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4249", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Chervonograd, Lviv Region, Ukraine.\n5.  In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Chervonograd Town Court against the Lvivvugillya State Enterprise, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the failure of the defendant to provide the applicant with an apartment, to which he had been entitled according to an agreement between them.\n6.  On 10 November 2003 the court partly found for the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant 42,000 Ukrainian hryvnias[1] in compensation.\n7.  That judgment became final and on 11 December 2003 the Chervonograd Town Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n8.  On 30 December 2005 the enforcement proceedings were terminated in accordance with the 2005 Law of Ukraine “On Measures to Ensure the Stable Operation of Fuel and Energy Sector Enterprises”.\n9.  The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4250", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in the village of Sheludkovka, the Kharkiv Region, Ukraine.\n5. The applicant’s mother owned a plot of land and an old house. On unspecified date the applicant started constructing a new house on this plot without a construction permit and other necessary documentation. On 25 April 1995 the applicant’s mother died. The plot of land and the old house had been transferred shortly before her death under a donation agreement to Mr E.Ts.\n6.  On 29 July 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against Mr. E.Ts. (“the defendant”), the Sheludkovsky Local Council (“the local council”) and the Zmiyiv State Notary Office (“the notary office”) in the Zmiyiv Court. She challenged the donation agreement and claimed her property right to the unfinished building. She also challenged the resolutions of the local council by which the latter had refused to provide her with the plot of land on which she had started the above construction works.\n7.  On 12 April 2002 the Zmiyiv Court dismissed the applicant’s claims concerning annulment of the donation agreement and the local council’s resolutions. The court further terminated the proceedings in respect of her claim for the unfinished building. The applicant appealed.\n8.  On 17 July 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal amended the judgment. The court of appeal considered the applicant’s claim concerning the unfinished building and dismissed it since the applicant had conducted construction works without the necessary permit. The court of appeal upheld the rest of the judgment.\n9.  On 13 August 2002 the applicant appealed in cassation. On 3 December 2002 the Supreme Court left the applicant’s appeal without consideration since she had failed to comply with procedural requirements prescribed by law.\n10. On 15 January 2003 the applicant rectified the shortcomings and re-lodged her appeal in cassation. On 3 September 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation.\n11.  According to the records provided by the Government, in the course of the proceedings falling within the Court’s competence ratione temporis, of thirty listed hearings eleven were adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to appear and two due to his requests for adjournment. Two hearings were adjourned since the defendant and the representative of the State notary office failed to appear. The domestic courts took no steps to ensure the defendant’s presence in the court. One hearing was adjourned due to the failure of the representative of the local council to appear. Three hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s request for adjournment, and three due to the applicant’s lawyer’s failure to appear.\n12.  Most hearings were scheduled at intervals from several days to two months. No hearings took place between 8 July 1998 and 11 May 1999, from 18 August 1999 and 12 January 2000, and from 1 June and 15 October 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4251", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Kirovograd.\n5.  He is a former employee of a company “Drukmash” (“the company”) and joint inventor of two products. The company used the patent rights for these inventions under contracts it entered into with the applicant.\n6.  On 23 October 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings against the company in the Kirovsky District Court of Kirovograd (“the District Court”). He alleged that the company had not paid him instalments due under the contract for the use of the first invention and sought an order requiring the company to comply with its terms. He also claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 1 March 1996 the company lodged a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the contract for the use of the first invention was null and void.\n8.  Later, in the course of the proceedings, the applicant requested the court to annul the company’s right to use the patents for the inventions. He also claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the company’s failure to comply with its contractual obligations.\n9.  The first hearing in the case was held on 5 August 1998.\n10.  On 29 June 1999 the District Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part. The company lodged an appeal in cassation.\n11.  On 29 July 1999 the District Court refused to hear the company’s appeal in cassation as it had failed to pay the court fees.\n12.  On 20 October 1999 the Presidium of the Kirovograd Regional Court[1] rejected a protest by the Kirovograd Regional Prosecutor against that judgment.\n13.  On 23 February 2000, following a protest by the Deputy Prosecutor General, the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 29 June 1999 and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration.\n14.  On 18 December 2000 the District Court found against the applicant.\n15.  On 15 February 2001 the Kirovograd Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration on the ground that the first-instance court had failed to examine all the circumstances of the case.\n16.  On 7 June 2001 the District Court found against the applicant.  The applicant appealed in cassation.\n17.  On 13 November 2001 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration on the ground that the first-instance court had failed to examine all the circumstances of the case.\n18.  On 1 March 2002 the Head of the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant’s case be transferred to another court since the District Court had failed to consider it within a reasonable time.\n19.  On 11 March 2002 the applicant’s case was transferred to the Leninsky District Court of Kirovograd for consideration.\n20.  On 20 November 2002 the Leninsky District Court of Kirovograd found against the applicant. On 5 February 2003 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision.\n21.  On 17 February 2003 the applicant appealed in cassation. On 23 March 2004 the Supreme Court rejected that appeal in a decision which was served on the applicant on 16 April 2004.\n22.  In the course of the proceedings falling within the Court’s competence ratione temporis two expert reports were obtained. This took about seven months. According to documents provided by the Government, out of some forty-three hearings scheduled during the relevant period, four hearings were adjourned at the applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4252", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, a Turkish national who was born in 1903 and died in 2005, was resident in Adana at the relevant time.\n10.  During the 1930s he acquired for value a two-floor freestone building, constructed in 1906, in the sub-prefecture of Tarsus, İçel province. The building, which had a total floor space of 516.34 m², was of architectural interest in its own right.\n11.  On 1 November 1990 the Committee for the Protection of Adana's Cultural and Natural Heritage decided to classify the property as a “cultural asset” within the meaning of the Cultural and Natural Heritage (Protection) Act (Law no. 2863 of 21 July 1983). On 23 November 1998 it was included in the project for protection of the urban environment. It was also included on the Council of Europe's inventory for the protection of the cultural and natural heritage.\n12.  On 4 April 2000 the executive council of İçel province issued an expropriation order in respect of the property in the context of the “Project for the environmental rehabilitation and regeneration of the streets around St Paul's Well”. On the basis of a valuation report submitted on 21 March 2000 by a panel of experts (hereafter “panel no. 1”) made up of three representatives of the authorities and two representatives of property owners, and in line with the “high-grade building” category in the construction price index published by the Ministry of Urban Planning, the council determined the building's value at 36,856,865,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (about 65,326 euros (EUR)[1]). This amount was paid to the applicant on the date of transfer of ownership.\n13.  On 12 October 2000 the applicant lodged an application for increased compensation for the expropriated building with the Tarsus District Court. He requested that a new panel of experts, to include a qualified art historian, re-assess the property, taking into account its historical and architectural value. He claimed TRL 1,000,000,000,000 (about EUR 1,728,750) in additional compensation.\n14.  On 26 February 2001 the court held a hearing and dismissed the applicant's request for re-valuation of the building on the ground of its historical value. The court held, inter alia, that under section 11 (1) of the Expropriation Act (Law no. 2942) (see paragraph 29 below), the panel of experts responsible for the building's valuation could only determine its value on the basis of clearly defined objective data. At the same time, it agreed to the appointment of a new panel of experts, to be made up of a civil engineer, an architect and a representative of property owners.\n15.  On 10 May 2001, after visiting the site, the court-appointed panel of experts (hereafter panel no. 2) submitted its report. With regard to those features and factors which had a bearing on the property's value, it reached the following conclusions:\n“The property in question is located in the Camicedit neighbourhood, within the territory of Tarsus, in the Mersin District. It is recorded in the land register as a solid structure house with a courtyard. Situated in an urban area, it is classed as a listed building in the project for protection of the urban heritage. The decision to classify the building was adopted by the Committee for the Protection of Adana's Cultural and Natural Heritage on 1 November 1990...\nThe property under dispute... is located ... in the town centre, at the corner of two streets, and its south- and east-facing façades give onto the road.. It is situated in a high-density busine", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4253", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and is currently in prison in the city of Zhytomyr, Ukraine.\n6.  On 10 December 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and murdering a minor, S. During the arrest the applicant sustained light bodily injuries, which were recorded by a forensic medical expert.\n7.  On 13 December 2001 the Bogunsky District Court of Zhytomyr ordered the applicant’s detention.\n8.  On 17 December 2001 the applicant was provided with a lawyer.\n9.  On 19 December 2001 the applicant was charged with the above-mentioned crime, following an investigation during which the applicant had shown the police the places in which S.’s corpse and some of her belongings had been hidden.\n10.  On 15 February 2002 the applicant, allegedly under pressure by the investigator, wrote a letter requesting that he be questioned “about events that took place at the end of October 2001 at the address 5, maidan Rad, in Zhytomyr”. In his letter he mentioned that he did not require the assistance of a lawyer during the interview. According to the stamp on the letter it was received by the Zhytomyr Prosecutor’s Office on 18 February 2002.\n11.  On 15 February 2002, allegedly upon the above request, he was questioned by the investigating prosecutor, Sh., as a witness about the circumstances of the death of Mrs K. During this questioning, without a lawyer, the applicant confessed to the murder of Mrs K. (The criminal investigation into the murder of Mrs K. had been initiated on 29 October 2001. On 25 December 2001 Mr K., son of the late Mrs K., was questioned by the investigating prosecutor, Sh., as a witness and confessed to the murder of his mother. The next day he retracted his confession. On 27 December 2001 the criminal case against Mr K. was closed for lack of corpus delicti.) In his testimony the applicant submitted that he had needed money and having read in a newspaper about the intention of Mrs K. to buy an apartment had decided to rob her. Having gone to her home and having found that she had no money, he killed her. The applicant gave numerous details about the apartment, the victim and the way he killed her. The minutes of the applicant’s questioning stated that he had been told about his duty to state everything he knew about the case and the criminal liability for refusal to give testimony and for giving false testimony under Articles 385 and 386 of the Criminal Code. It was also indicated in the minutes that the provisions of Article 63 of the Constitution had been explained to the applicant.\n12.  On 16 February 2002 the applicant, still as a witness, participated without a lawyer in an on-site reconstruction of the events of the murder of Mrs K.\n13.  On the same day the applicant was examined by a forensic expert who did not report any signs of ill-treatment on his body. According to the applicant this report was falsified, given that a previous medical examination conducted on 22 January 2002 had revealed several injuries on his body, the traces of which could not have disappeared in less than a month.\n14.  On 18 February 2002 the applicant was additionally questioned, without a lawyer, by the prosecutor concerning the circumstances of purchasing the knife which the applicant had used to kill Mrs K.\n15.  On 22 February 2002 the applicant was repeatedly questioned without a lawyer about the knife because it had been established that the shop in which he had allegedly bought it did not sell knives. The applicant changed hi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4254", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  On 22 December 1998 the applicant, accompanied by S.N. and V.B., threw a burning torch into a car belonging to O.S. as a retaliatory measure for allegedly unfair business dealings with the applicant. The interior of the car was damaged. The police decided not to initiate criminal proceedings into the incident at the material time for lack of corpus delicti.\n6.  On 8 May 1999 O.S. was fatally injured in a stabbing.\n7.  Criminal proceedings into the circumstances of his death were initiated on the same date.\n8.  According to the applicant, at about 8 p.m. on 8 May 1999 he was arrested on suspicion of incitement to murder and taken to the Vatutinsky District Police Station, where he was severely ill-treated by some ten police officers until he confessed to the offence on 10 May 1999. In particular, he alleged that the police officers had handcuffed and kicked him and fractured his ankle with a crowbar. He had lost consciousness and, on coming round, had found himself suspended from a crowbar with his hands locked under his knees. After he had signed the confession, the officers had contacted his wife and requested her to bring fresh clothes and a coat, on which he was then carried down to a police cell. Afraid that the staff of the Temporary Detention Centre (the “IVS”) would not admit the applicant on account of his injuries, the officers left him in a cell at the police station, unable to walk and without even the most basic care.\n9.  According to the official record, the applicant was arrested on 10 May 1999 at 3 p.m. in the premises of the Vatutinsky District Police Station.\n10.  On 10 May 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and two other individuals: M.V., who was suspected of O.S.’s stabbing, and S.N., who was suspected of having hired M.V. to do so.\n11.  On 19 May 1999 the applicant was admitted to the IVS. The officer on duty noted that he had a leg injury.\n12.  On 20 May 1999 the IVS paramedic called an ambulance. The ambulance paramedic found that the applicant had suffered a severe chest contusion and arranged for his admission to the Emergency Hospital, where he was treated until 17 June 1999. According to a medical certificate issued by the hospital, the applicant had suffered a closed chest injury, closed fragmental fracture of the right ankle and a haematoma in an ankle joint. He was operated on to drain abscesses on both ankles. 15 ml of puss was recovered from one ankle and 5 ml from the other.\n13.  On 22 May 1999 the applicant was officially indicted for incitement to murder.\n14.  On 29 October 1999 the Vatutinsky District Prosecutors’ Office rejected a request by the applicant to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers on account of his alleged ill-treatment, as it found his complaint unfounded.\n15.  On 24 April 2000 the case-file concerning the murder charges was sent with the bill of indictment to the Kyiv City Court for examination on the merits.\n16.  On 10 May 2000 the court held the first hearing.\n17.  Between May and October 2000 the court held some eleven hearings. At the trial all the defendants retracted their initial confessions. Two witnesses also complained that they had been ill-treated by the police, who had incited them to give evidence against the defendants, who were friends of theirs. The applicant further alleged that the police officers had drafted a confession which they had forced him to sign.\n18.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4255", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Odessa.\n6.  On 27 April 2002, in the course of a police operation, an undercover police officer bought a substantial quantity of cannabis from the applicant. The applicant was immediately arrested in accordance with Article 263 of the Administrative Offences Code for a violation of the drug circulation rules which constituted an administrative offence laid down in Article 44 of that Code. Following a body search and a search of the applicant’s car, the police found further quantities of the drug.\n7.  On 29 April 2002 the local police office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for drug trafficking.\n8.  On 2 May 2002 the Ovidiopolskyy District Court of Odessa (hereinafter “the District Court”) considered a request by the investigator for the applicant to be placed in pre-trial detention and rejected it. However, it extended the period of the applicant’s arrest up to a total of ten days, ordering the investigative authorities to obtain more information on the identity of the applicant and establish further circumstances justifying his detention pending trial.\n9.  On 8 May 2002 the District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the ground that the applicant was charged with a serious crime and, if at large, would continue his criminal activity and abscond from the investigation and trial.\n10.  On 25 June 2002 the District Court extended the period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 29 July 2002 as the investigative authorities needed more time to complete the case file, namely, to complete the biological expert examination, to order and carry out a narcotics forensic examination, to question Mr. Sh., who was the witness in the case, to familiarise the applicant with the case file, and to draw up the bill of indictment. The District Court also found that, given the character of the applicant and the gravity of the crime that had been committed, the preventive measure should be left unchanged.\n11.  On 29 July 2002 the applicant was provided with access to the criminal case file to prepare his defence.\n12.  On 6 August 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint against the investigation authorities with the District Court, claiming that there had been no legal basis for his detention, in so far as the period of his detention, fixed in the District Court’s decision of 25 June 2002, had expired on 29 July 2002 and had not been extended. This complaint was joined to the criminal case file.\n13.  On 17 September 2002 the applicant finished studying the case file.\n14.  On 18 September 2002 the supervising prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and the case file was referred to the District Court for adjudication.\n15.  On 2 January 2003 the District Court considered the applicant’s complaint of 6 August 2002 in the course of the preliminary hearing and found that the applicant’s detention after 29 July 2002 had been lawful. In particular, the District Court established that during the period between 29 July and 17 September 2002 the applicant had been studying the case file and, in accordance with Article 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this period was not taken into account in calculating the overall period of his detention pending trial. It further noted that on 18 September 2002 the case file had been referred to the District Court and therefore the applicant’s complaint was unsubstantiated. The District Court did not specify the reasons or legal basis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4256", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lived in Melitopol.\n6.  In 1996 a Moldovan national transferred his car to the applicant and issued a power of attorney granting the applicant broad rights in respect of the car including, inter alia, the right to drive and to sell it. The Moldovan national, however, remained the owner of the car.\n7.  The applicant did not pay customs clearance for importing the car from a foreign country. In order to comply with the requirements of domestic customs law, the applicant returned across the Ukrainian border every third month, declaring the car as newly imported and giving an undertaking to re-export it within the following three-month period.\n8.  In October 1998 the applicant was unable to undertake his regular trip outside Ukraine because of health problems. On 2 June 1999 the applicant attempted to cross the border with his car. However, the customs officer, having noted that the three-month re-export period was substantially overdue, seized the car pending adjudication of the applicant’s administrative offence.\n9.  On 24 June 1999 the Primorskyy District Court of Mariupol (hereafter “the District Court”) found the applicant guilty of a customs offence, fined him 74 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) and ordered the confiscation of the car.\n10.  On 27 August 1999 the Primorskyy District Prosecutor, at the applicant’s request, lodged with the District Court a protest, seeking to open the extraordinary review proceedings in the applicant’s case.\n11.  On 14 October 1999 the District Court, by way of extraordinary review, adopted a judgment by which it quashed the fine as being time-barred, while leaving the confiscation order in force.\n12.  On 16 March 2000 the car was sold by public auction at the price of UAH 7,970 in the course of the enforcement of the judgment of 24 June 1999. The funds received from the sale were transferred to the State budget.\n13.  On 23 October 2000 the President of the Donetsk Regional Court, on a request by the applicant for extraordinary review, reopened the proceedings in the applicant’s case and quashed the judgments of 24 June 1999 and 14 October 1999, finding, in particular, that under the Constitution the car could not be confiscated from the applicant as he had not been its owner.\n14.  On 16 March 2001 the applicant brought a claim in the Starokyivskyy District Court against the Ministry of Justice and the Customs Office, seeking recovery of the confiscated car or reimbursement of its value and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n15.  On 10 April 2001 the court left the claim unexamined on account of the applicant’s failure to comply with procedural requirements, stating, inter alia, that the applicant failed to provide any calculation of the non-pecuniary damage and to enclose the documents for the car.\n16.  By letters of 12 April 2001, 10 October 2001, 19 March 2002 the Customs Office confirmed to the applicant that he could be reimbursed the value of the confiscated car upon finalisation of procedural formalities.\n17.  On 25 April 2002 the President of the Supreme Court, upon a request by the Customs Office for extraordinary review, reopened the proceedings in the applicant’s case and, relying on Article 294 of the Code on Administrative Offences, quashed the judgment of 23 October 2000 in the applicant’s favour as unfounded, thereby upholding the District Court’s judgments of 24 June and 14 October 1999. The judgment provided, inter alia, that under customs law, which was", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4257", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  On 11 September 2001 four commercial aeroplanes were hijacked over the United States of America. Two of them were flown directly at the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre and a third at the Pentagon, causing great loss of life and destruction to property. The Islamist extremist terrorist organisation al-Qaeda, led by Osama Bin Laden, claimed responsibility. The United Kingdom joined with the United States of America in military action in Afghanistan, which had been used as a base for al-Qaeda training camps.\n10.  The Government contended that the events of 11 September 2001 demonstrated that international terrorists, notably those associated with al-Qaeda, had the intention and capacity to mount attacks against civilian targets on an unprecedented scale. Further, given the loose-knit, global structure of al-Qaeda and its affiliates and their fanaticism, ruthlessness and determination, it would be difficult for the State to prevent future attacks. In the Government’s assessment, the United Kingdom, because of its close links with the United States of America, was a particular target. They considered that there was an emergency of a most serious kind threatening the life of the nation. Moreover, they considered that the threat came principally, but not exclusively, from a number of foreign nationals present in the United Kingdom, who were providing a support network for Islamist terrorist operations linked to al-Qaeda. A number of these foreign nationals could not be deported because of the risk that they would suffer treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in their countries of origin.\n11.  On 11 November 2001 the Secretary of State made a derogation order under section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the 1998 Act” – see paragraph 94 below) in which he set out the terms of a proposed notification to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of a derogation pursuant to Article 15 of the Convention. On 18 December 2001 the Government lodged the derogation with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The derogation notice provided as follows:\n“Public emergency in the United Kingdom\nThe terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001 resulted in several thousand deaths, including many British victims and others from seventy different countries. In its Resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001), the United Nations Security Council recognised the attacks as a threat to international peace and security.\nThe threat from international terrorism is a continuing one. In its Resolution 1373 (2001), the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, required all States to take measures to prevent the commission of terrorist attacks, including by denying safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist attacks.\nThere exists a terrorist threat to the United Kingdom from persons suspected of involvement in international terrorism. In particular, there are foreign nationals present in the United Kingdom who are suspected of being concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of international terrorism, of being members of organisations or groups which are so concerned or of having links with members of such organisations or groups, and who are a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom.\nAs a result, a public emergency, within the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4258", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the town of Zhytomyr, Ukraine.\n4.  On 13 December 2001 the Korolyovsky District Court of Zhytomyr ordered the Lyonteks open joint-stock company, in which the State held 51% of the share capital, to pay the applicant 2,833.9[7] Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. On 18 January 2002 the Korolyovsky District Bailiffs’ Service of Zhytomyr instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of this judgment.\n5.  On 3 April 2002 the same court, following the applicant’s request, adopted a procedural decision, in which it held that the total amount of the award of 13 December 2001 had been wrongly summed up. It found that the correct total amount of the payments due to the applicant was UAH 2,807.2[8][2].\n6.  On 11 October 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Bogunskyy District Court of Zhytomyr against the Bailiffs’ Service, seeking compensation for the failure to enforce the judgment of 13 December 2001.\n7.  On 1 July 2003 the court ruled against the applicant, finding no fault on the part of the Bailiffs’ Service.\n8.  On 4 November 2003 and 18 October 2006 the Zhytomyr Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court respectively upheld the judgment of 1 July 2003.\n9.  The judgment was enforced in full on 23 December 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4259", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Sieradz.\n6.  On 18 September 2001 the applicant was arrested on charges of rape. He was transported to the Łuków Police Station and detained for 48 hours. His detention was subsequently prolonged for a further 24 hours. Upon his arrival the applicant was examined by a doctor, Z.M., who found only slight superficial scratches, at least some of which could have been caused by a struggle with another person. In addition, these scratches must have occurred several hours earlier.\n7.  According to the applicant the police officers abused him verbally when interrogating him and punched him in the stomach, chest, shoulders, face and arms. The Government did not respond to these allegations.\n8.  On 19 September 2001 the applicant was brought to the prosecutor’s office by two policemen, M.M and T.K. He was then questioned by the prosecutor. According to the applicant, he reported the alleged ill-treatment. The Government submitted that during the interview the prosecutor and the applicant were alone in the room. There was no note of the applicant’s complaint in the minutes of the interrogation.\n9.  On the evening of the same day the applicant felt weak and complained of stomach pain. At the applicant’s request, the police officer on duty called an ambulance. On arrival, the doctor, M.A., administered a painkiller to the applicant. She noted that the applicant had a small (2‑3 cm) bruise on his chest. He also complained about pain in his chest, ribs and stomach.\n10.  On 21 September 2001 the applicant was brought before the Łuków District Court. The court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody. According to the applicant, he again complained about the alleged ill‑treatment. However, there is no note of the complaint in the minutes of the hearing.\n11.  On the same date M.M., a police officer from the Łuków Police Station, drew up an official report. The report reads as follows:\n“On 18 September 2001 J.P. [the applicant] was arrested in Celiny Szlacheckie, Stanin commune, on charges of raping E.C. On his arrest he was examined by a surgeon, Z.M., who did not observe any marks on his body apart from scratches on his neck and the upper part of his chest.\nOn 19 September 2001 J.P was interrogated by the Łuków District Prosecutor. On the evening of that day he informed the police officer on duty in the Łuków Police Station, that he had been beaten by police officers. At his request the officer on duty called an ambulance and [he] was examined by a doctor.\nToday, during the Łuków District Court’s hearing regarding his detention, J.P. complained that he had been beaten by police officers while being questioned”.\n12.  Later that day the applicant was admitted to the Siedlce Detention Centre. On arrival the applicant had visible injuries, and was asked to explain their origin. He made a written note and stated that he had been subjected to ill‑treatment at the police station. He noted that the police officers had ordered him to keep his arms above his head and when his arms began to shake they had hit him and told him that they “would treat his neurosis”. Lastly, he stressed that he would be able to recognise the officers in question.\n13.  On 24 September 2001 he was examined by a doctor, P.S. In so far as relevant, the doctor’s report read:\n“Haematomas and bruises on both arms. Movement preserved. Haematomas and bruises on the left ribs. Bruises without oedema on the right eyelid. No changes to the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4260", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Comrat.\n5.  On 29 November 2006, during a press conference, the Governor of the Gagauzia region of Moldova, Mr G.T., made a statement which the applicant considered defamatory. He instituted civil defamation proceedings against G.T. which ended on 19 December 2001 with a final judgment of the Court of Appeal in his favour. The court found the statement defamatory and ordered G.T. to retract it and to pay the applicant non-pecuniary damages of 122 euros (EUR).\n6.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant and, on 1 March 2002, requested that the judgment be enforced, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 10 below). However, in May 2002, a bailiff refused to enforce the judgment on the ground that the defendant did not have a domicile in Comrat (the main town in Gagauzia region). It does not appear that the enforcement was formally discontinued by a court decision, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 10 below).\n7.  In the meantime, defendant G.T. ended his mandate as Governor of the Gagauzia region and, in February 2001, was elected MP in the Moldovan Parliament on the Communist Party ticket – this is the party in power to date. In 2002 Mr G.T. was re-elected Governor of the Gagauzia region also as a representative of the Communist Party and simultaneously appointed to the central Government of Moldova. He occupied the above positions until 2006 and 2007 respectively and had offices both in the building of the Government in Chişinău and in Comrat.\n8.  According to the applicant, he complained on several occasions to the competent authorities about the non-enforcement of the final judgment favourable to him, however to no avail. He sent the Court a copy of a letter dated 24 January 2005 he had written to the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice forwarded his letter to the Comrat Office of Enforcement of Judgment but no action followed. Further correspondence took place in 2008, but also to no avail.\n9.  The final judgment of 19 December 2001 has not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4261", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a non-profit-making association whose aim, as stated in its articles of association, is “to protect the environment in the region of Marche-Nassogne. That region essentially covers the municipalities of Nassogne, La Roche-en-Ardenne, Marche-en-Famenne, Rendeux and Tenneville. Environment means the quality and diversity of ecosystems and natural or semi-natural spaces, land use and town planning, the value of landscape, water, air and other elements vital to human beings, and the tranquillity of spaces. It may take any action relating directly or indirectly to its aim ...”.\n6.  Members of the applicant association include its founding members and any person admitted by a simple majority of the general meeting or by a two-thirds majority of the administrative board. The published list of the applicant association’s founding members and administrators shows that they all reside in the above-mentioned municipalities.\n7.  On 26 September 2002 Idelux, a cooperative society, applied to the delegated official of the province of Luxembourg for planning permission to expand the class 2 and 3 technical landfill site at “Al Pisserotte”. An increase of more than one-fifth of the site’s original capacity was sought. The preamble to the planning permission set out all the circumstances leading to its approval.\n8.  On 5 January 2004 the municipality of Tenneville wrote to the applicant association informing it that Idelux had been granted planning permission on 23 December 2003 and that the applicant association could apply to the Conseil d’Etat for judicial review.\n9.  On 5 March 2004 the applicant association lodged an application for judicial review of the decision of the delegated official and requested that it be stayed. The applicant association based its arguments primarily on instruments such as Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the decree of 11 September 1985 on environmental impact assessment in the Walloon Region and the Nature Conservation Act of 12 July 1973.\n10.  In that application, which was seventeen pages long, the applicant association stated as follows under the heading “The facts”:\n“The statement of facts is set out in sufficient detail in the reasons for the impugned decision. The impugned decision was notified to the applicant in a letter of 5 January 2004, which was received on 7 January.”\n11.  The impugned decision was attached to the application for judicial review as exhibit no. 1.\n12.  Relying on Article 2 § 1 (2) of the Regent’s decree of 23 August 1948 laying down the rules of procedure in the Administrative Division of the Conseil d’Etat, the opposing party argued that the application for judicial review should be declared inadmissible because it did not include a statement of the facts.\n13.  By an order of 8 September 2004, the Conseil d’Etat dismissed the request for the impugned decision to be stayed. It pointed out that the statement of the facts should have been sufficiently thorough and accurate for the factual circumstances of the dispute to be understood merely from reading that document. It concluded that the documents attached to the request for the decision to be stayed could not be deemed to equate to a statement of the facts.\n14.  In its pleadings in reply, and in its final pleadings, the applicant association argued", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4263", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Espoo. He is an attorney.\n5.  The applicant was suspected of aiding and abetting aggravated embezzlement. He was first questioned by the police on 28 September 1998. He was subsequently questioned again in connection with two other similar offences.\n6.  On 14 December 2000 the public prosecutor brought charges against him and another defendant, R, in the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). The court held its first session on 29 November 2001. In the course of the proceedings, the court was presented with written evidence, including 94 documents submitted by the applicant. It also received testimony from both defendants and twelve witnesses, four of whom were called by the applicant. The evidence included a written statement and the oral testimony of the Bankruptcy Ombudsman. On 10 May 2002 the court gave its judgment. It found that on 30 September 1994 the applicant had, as a receiver of a bankrupt’s estate, unlawfully transferred a substantial sum of money from the estate’s bank account to the account of his own law firm. The court also found that, on the same date, he had aided and abetted his associate R in the commission of two similar offences. The court convicted the applicant of aggravated embezzlement and two counts of aiding and abetting aggravated embezzlement and sentenced him to a suspended term of one year and four months’ imprisonment. R was found guilty of having made unlawful money transfers on several separate occasions between 29 April 1993 and 31 May 1996. He was convicted of two counts of aggravated embezzlement, as well as aiding and abetting the applicant’s aggravated embezzlement.\n7.  The applicant, R, and the prosecutor all appealed against the judgment to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). At the applicant’s request, the court had extended by some five weeks the time-limit for lodging his appeal. In his letter of appeal, lodged on 16 July 2002, the applicant claimed that he had only transferred funds to which he believed he was entitled as a retainer and that he had, therefore, lacked criminal intent. He made similar claims in connection with the two counts of aiding and abetting R’s offences. He also referred, inter alia, to the written statement of the Bankruptcy Ombudsman, in which the latter had considered it possible that the applicant had, in fact, lacked criminal intent in regard to the alleged embezzlement. On 15 and 17 November 2004 the Court of Appeal held an oral hearing. By its judgment of 13 January 2005 it upheld the applicant’s conviction but changed his sentence to one year and ten months’ unconditional imprisonment. In its reasons the court had regard, inter alia, to the Bankruptcy Ombudsman’s testimony. The Ombudsman had noted, inter alia, that at the time of drawing up his written statement he had not had all the information about the applicant’s actions in the matter or, at least, had not paid attention to it. He had also testified that the receiver of a bankrupt’s estate did not have a right to withdraw money from the estate’s account without consent.\n8.  On 4 May 2005 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4264", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Gdańsk.\n6.  The applicant is a journalist and at the material time was the editor in chief of a free newsletter called Kolbudzkie ABC, Periodical, Private, Independent (Periodyk, Prywatny, Niezależny). In the 13th edition of the newsletter, of 9 October 1998, the applicant published the following article:\n“The Peter Principle [the title is repeated six times]\nThe Peter Principle: During his career in administration a civil servant aims to rise to a position in which he will be totally incompetent.\nSeveral years ago Mr A.W. took over and swiftly left the office of mayor. At that time this matter was widely commented upon. The surprise of the ABC editors was thus great when we saw the name of the former mayor of the commune (wójt) on the list of the candidates for the council (radny).\nThis is not a candidate like any other, as he became famous for the scandal of disposing of the rights to an excellent water source in Pręgów, for half price, to the Gdańsk company Saur...\nWe were shocked when we discovered the name of the unfortunate negotiator‑forester on the list of candidates for the council. It can only mean that the failed would-be councillor thinks that the inhabitants of Kolbudy and the surrounding area have forgotten about the Saur blunder.\nThis confirms the Peter Principle – the former mayor reached his level of incompetence a few years ago. That blunder (wpadka) did not put him off and he is crawling up (wczołguje się) again to another level... a Polish speciality....”\n7.  Mr A.W. was not elected in the municipal elections of 11 October 1998. However, he succeeded in the supplementary elections to the Municipal Council of 6 June 1999.\n8.  On 8 January 1999 Mr A.W. lodged with the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a private bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him with defamation. He submitted that, two days prior to the elections to the Municipal Council, the applicant had in his publication debased him in public opinion, which had undermined public confidence in him, as a consequence of which he had lost the election. In particular, A.W. complained about the applicant’s allegations that he had sold the rights to water sources for half price and the applicant’s statement that as mayor of a commune he “had already reached his level of incompetence a few years ago, but that this blunder had not put him off and he was crawling up again to another level”. Finally, A.W. considered that the title of the article, repeated several times, was defamatory.\n9.  On 4 April 2000 the Gdańsk District Court found the applicant guilty of defamation under Article 212 of the Criminal Code as well as of proffering insult under Article 216 of the Criminal Code. The applicant was sentenced to a fine of 1,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) and was ordered to pay PLN 200 to a charity. Furthermore, the applicant was ordered to reimburse the private prosecutor PLN 300 for the costs of the proceedings. The court found as follows:\n“In the court’s opinion, both the form and the content of the article ‘The Peter Principle’ clearly show that [the applicant’s] purpose was to defame the private prosecutor in alleging abuses when signing the contract with the Saur company, so that the day before the elections to the Kolbudy Municipal Council he would lose the public confidence necessary for him to hold public office”.\n10.  On 16 August 2000 the applicant appealed against the judgment alleging, inter alia, a viol", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4265", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Taganrog, Rostov Region.\n6.  On 24 September 1999 the Taganrog Town Court convicted the applicant and three other persons of theft of cigarettes from a container in a sea port, an offence provided for by Article 158 § 2 (a) of the Criminal Code. The applicant was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, and released conditionally with six months’ parole. The parties did not appeal and the judgment became final seven days later.\n7.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor of the Rostov Region lodged an application for supervisory review, seeking to have the judgment quashed on the ground that there had been substantial violations of the procedural law by the trial court.\n8.  On 27 January 2000 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court conducted supervisory review proceedings. The prosecutor, but not the applicant or his counsel, was present at the hearing. The Presidium quashed the judgment of 24 September 1999 in the part concerning the applicant on grounds that the trial court had failed to examine and assess the evidence correctly and that its findings were inconsistent with the evidence. These considerations, in the Presidium’s view, justified the quashing of the judgment under Article 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case was remitted for fresh examination by the first-instance court.\n9.  On 14 February 2000 the Constitutional Court examined another case challenging Article 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see below) and found that provision incompatible with the Constitution in so far as it allowed a supervisory review in a criminal case to the detriment of the acquitted or convicted person.\n10.  According to the applicant, neither he nor his counsel was informed of the hearing held on 27 January 2000 or of the quashing. He learned about these developments in the case on 13 September 2000, when summoned by the Taganrog Town Court for the fresh examination of his case. Thus, subsequently on an unspecified date the applicant requested the Supreme Court to reverse, by way of supervisory review, the decision of 27 January 2000 in the light of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 14 February 2000. In June 2001 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court informed the applicant that his request was dismissed on the ground that the decision in the applicant’s case had been adopted before the Constitutional Court’s ruling.\n11.  The applicant applied to the Constitutional Court requesting that the ruling of 14 February 2000 be extended to his case. On 21 December 2001 the Constitutional Court refused to examine the applicant’s complaint as its subject matter was identical to that of the case examined on 14 February 2000. It held that the ruling of 14 February 2000 applied to all persons whose cases had been reopened on the basis of Article 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hence the decision of 27 January 2000 could still be reversed in ordinary proceedings.\n12.  In the meantime, on 27 December 2000 the Taganrog Town Court, composed of one professional and two lay judges, conducted a fresh examination of the criminal case against the applicant. He was found guilty of theft and convicted under Article 158 § 2 (а) and (c) of the Criminal Code, and given a conditional sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment with six months’ parole. With reference to the Amnesty Act of 26 May 2000 the court ordered that the applicant in any event be relieved from serving his sentence. The ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4266", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Sweden.\n7.  On 26 February 1996 the applicant arrived in Russia from Azerbaijan. In April 2001 he asked the St. Petersburg City Representation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to grant him refugee status. Four months later refugee status was granted and the applicant was informed of his right to move to Sweden.\n8.  On 10 September 2001 the acting chief of the Gyandzha Town police department of the Republic of Azerbaijan faxed a letter to the chief of the St. Petersburg City police department asking him to arrest the applicant. The letter read as follows:\n“[We] seek your order to arrest a criminal, [the applicant], wanted by us for having committed a crime (theft of State property) under Article 88-1 of the Criminal Code of the Azerbaijan Republic... criminal case no. 10/295. The arrest warrant and order for transport were issued on 29 May 1995 by the first deputy military prosecutor of the Azerbaijan Republic.”\nA translation of the arrest warrant of 29 May 1995 was attached to the letter.\n9.  On 13 September 2001 the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation received a letter from the Moscow Regional Representation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, informing him about the applicant’s refugee status. The letter read as follows:\n“The Regional Representation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the Russian Federation applies to you in connection with the case of Mr Gunduz Eminbeyli, which was examined by the UNHCR in July 2001, as a result of which [the applicant] was granted refugee status and was considered in need of international protection under the UNHCR mandate in the territory of the Russian Federation.\nIn August 2001 Sweden accepted [the applicant] as a refugee with permanent leave to remain, in support of which he was given a travel document and issued with an entry visa for that country.\nAs it follows from the information obtained by us, a federal search warrant was issued in respect of [the applicant] on the basis of the fact that the Azeri authorities accused him of having committed criminal actions; the [accusation] prevents him from leaving the Russian Federation.\nDue to the fact that [the applicant] is a proxy of the former Prime Minister of Azerbaijan, Mr S. Guseynov, who subsequently became a leader of the opposition to the Government of Mr G. Alieyev in Azerbaijan, and due to the fact that he worked with an Azeri national, Mr Z. Ismaylov, whose case was examined by the Prosecutor General’s office last summer, the UNHCR has grounds to conclude that the true reasons for the warrant issued by the Azeri authorities are [the applicant’s] work with and close ties to the above-mentioned Azeri political figures.\nAs we were informed by the St. Petersburg City Department of Visas and Registration where [the applicant] lives and with whom he lodged his application for a visa, the Azeri authorities lodged a request for [the applicant’s] extradition.\nThe UNHCR is concerned that if [the applicant] is expelled to Azerbaijan, there will be a danger of a violation of Article 33 § 1 of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees... and of the Russian Law of 25 October 1999... by the Russian Federation. Article 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees forbids an expulsion of persons to a country where their lives and freedom will be threatened by a persecution on account of his race, religion, nationality, m", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4267", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants live in the village of Chechen-Aul, in the Groznenskiy District of the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The applicants are married. At the material time they lived together with their children at 8 Lenin Street, the village of Chechen-Aul. One of their sons, Mr Alis Adnanovich Zubirayev, was born in 1986.\n8.  At about 5.15 a.m. on 21 December 2004 someone knocked at the entrance door of the applicants’ house. Alis Zubirayev opened the door. Three armed men wearing military uniforms burst inside and beat Alis Zubirayev with machine-gun butts. The men wore no masks. They did not identify themselves but the first applicant inferred that they belonged to the Russian military. At some point three other servicemen entered the house.\n9.  The first applicant called her husband; when he entered the room, one of the servicemen ordered him to produce identity papers. When the second applicant did so, he saw a serviceman pointing a machine gun at Alis Zubirayev.\n10.  The servicemen asked Alis’s family name, examined his identity papers and said that it was “him”. Two of the servicemen twisted the young man’s arms behind his back and dragged him to the entrance door. The applicants asked them where they intended to take their son. The servicemen replied that the applicants had no reasons to worry. One of them told the first applicant to give him Alis’s jacket and shoes but did not allow Alis to dress.\n11.  The six servicemen left the house and took Alis to the street. The applicants followed them and saw an all-terrain UAZ vehicle without a registration number parked next to their gates. The servicemen put Alis on the floor of that vehicle and then got in it. The UAZ vehicle drove off. The applicants noticed an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”) parked behind UAZ. The APC’s registration number was illegible.\n12.  The UAZ and APC drove down Lenin Street and eventually turned to Partizanskaya Street.\n13.  After a while the applicants heard a noise and realised that an APC was ramming the gates of a neighbouring house. Later the applicants found out that servicemen had taken away their neighbour, Mr A.K.\n14.  The applicants have had no news of Alis Zubirayev since 21 December 2004.\n15.  The Government did not submit their account of the circumstances of Alis Zubirayev’s kidnapping.\n16.  At about 9 a.m. on 21 December 2004 the second applicant and relatives of A.K. came to the Groznenskiy District Department of the Interior (“ROVD”). Mr A., the head of the ROVD, told them that four policemen in an all-terrain UAZ vehicle had gone to Chechen-Aul to arrest Aslan Khatatayev and Mr M. and that they had been assisted by Russian military servicemen in APCs. Mr A. further said that the police had had no intention of arresting Alis Zubirayev and that he was unaware of the latter’s whereabouts. He suggested that Russian servicemen could have taken Alis to the village of Starye Atagi and confirmed that A.K. was detained in the ROVD.\n17.  In the afternoon of 21 December 2004 the applicants learned that some villagers had seen two APCs and an UAZ vehicle driving in the direction of Grozny.\n18.  Two days later A.K. was released from the ROVD and told the applicants the following. On his apprehension he had been first placed in an APC; at some point the servicemen had put a bag on his head and placed him in the UAZ vehicle. He could not tell whether Alis Zubirayev was in that vehicle. The servicemen had taken him to the ROVD. In the evening of 21 December 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4268", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n6.  Ms Elza Isayevna Sagayeva, born in 1995,\n7.  Ms Selita Vozukayeva, born in 1980,\n8.  Mr Khusein Imranovich Sagayev, born in 1971,\n9.  Ms Petimat Abdulvakhabovna Sagayeva, born in 1971.\n10. Ms Aizan Imranovna Sagayeva, born in 1968. 7.  The first and second applicants are married and are the parents of the third applicant and his brother, Mr Ilias Imranovich Sagayev, who was born in 1972. The seventh applicant is the wife of Mr Ilias Imranovich Sagayev. The third applicant is married to the fourth applicant and they have three children: the fifth and sixth applicants and Mr Yunadi Isayevich Sagayev, who was born in 1986. The eighth and ninth applicants are a brother and sister-in-law of Mr Ilias Imranovich Sagayev. The eighth applicant is also an uncle of Mr Yunadi Isayevich Sagayev. The tenth applicant is a sister of Mr Ilias Imranovich Sagayev and an aunt of Mr Yunadi Isayevich Sagayev. 8.  Eight members of the Sagayev family lived in a family compound at 72A Sheripova Street, Urus-Martan. The compound consisted of three houses in one courtyard. The first, second and tenth applicants lived in the first building. Mr Ilias Sagayev and the seventh applicant lived in the second building. The eighth and ninth applicants lived in the third building. Ms S. Sagayeva, a sister of Mr Ilias Sagayev and an aunt of Mr Yunadi Sagayev, whose permanent residence was in Grozny, temporarily resided at 72A Sheripova street as well. 9.  At 5 a.m. on 30 August 2002 a group of between ten and twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms wearing masks came to the family compound. They first broke down the doors to the houses of the first and eighth applicants. Then they went to the house of Mr Ilias Sagayev, broke down the door and apprehended him. They took him into the street and walked towards their vehicles, which they had apparently parked up the road, a short distance from the house. The applicants heard the sound of armoured personnel carriers (APC) while they were standing in the yard outside their houses. They were convinced that the armed men were Russian servicemen as they spoke Russian without an accent, and a curfew prevented civilians from being out on the streets at night. 10.  The account of the events was given in written statements by the first, second, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth applicants. Mr K., their neighbour, stated in writing that at around 5 a.m. on 30 August 2002 he had seen military vehicles drive past his house along Sheripova Street. He had then heard them stop not far from his house before the engines were turned off. He had heard the vehicles again some ten to fifteen minutes later as they were driving away. Ms D., another neighbour, confirmed in writing that at around 5 a.m. on 30 August 2002 she had heard an APC park not far from her house and had then heard people talking in Russian.\n11.  The Government submitted that in the course of the investigation in case no. 61121 it was established that at approximately 5 a.m. on 30 August 2002 unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms and masks had abducted Mr Ilias Sagayev from a house at 72A Sheripova Street, Urus-Martan.\n12.  In the morning of 30 August 2002 the first applicant went to the Urus-Martan Military Commander’s Office, the Prosecutor’s Office, the local police department, and the Urus-Martan District Administration to submit written complaints concerning the events of the previous night. He was questioned by an investigator, R. Yu., who l", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4269", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Mrs Nadezhda Stoyanova Vladimirova, was born in 1945. Her husband, Mr Hristo Velimirov Vladimirov, born in 1946, and her mother, Mrs Ivanka Marinova Petkova, born in 1920, are the second and third applicants. All applicants are Bulgarian nationals and live in Sofia.\n6.  In 1968 the applicants purchased from the State a four-room apartment of 140 square metres in the centre of Sofia. Until then, the applicants’ family and two other families had been sharing the apartment as tenants. The apartment had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following several years. The apartment was on the third floor of a five-storey building constructed in the beginning of the 1930s.\n7.  After the adoption of the Restitution Law in 1992, the former pre-nationalisation owners brought proceedings under section 7 of that law against the applicants.\n8.  By judgment of 30 July 1996 the District Court found that the 1968 transaction was null and void on several grounds, including abuse of office, since at the relevant time the second applicant’s father had been an employee of the municipal real estate service. The applicants appealed.\n9.  By judgment of 12 April 2000 the Sofia City Court upheld the lower court’s judgment while it modified its reasoning. The court found that the allegation about abuse had remained unproven, the very fact that a relative of the applicants had worked in the municipal real estate service being insufficient.\n10.  The court found, however, that a relevant document concerning the 1968 transaction had been signed by the deputy to the official in whom the relevant power had been vested. The court considered that as a result the applicants’ title was null and void. The applicants were ordered to vacate the apartment.\n11.  The judgment of the Sofia City Court was recorded in the court’s register on 19 June 2000. From that moment it became possible for the parties to learn about that judgment, if they visited the Sofia City Court’s registry.\n12.  The applicants, who had been waiting for the Sofia City Court’s judgment since 10 May 1999, the date of the last hearing, checked the register on an unspecified date between 19 August and 20 September 2000. On 20 September 2000 they submitted a petition for review (cassation) against the Sofia City Court’s judgment.\n13.  By decisions of 22 February 2001, 26 March and 25 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation decided that the cassation appeal had been submitted outside the relevant two-month time limit, which had expired on 19 August 2000 and refused to renew that time limit. The Supreme Court of Cassation agreed with the applicants that the Sofia City Court had delivered its judgment more than one year after the last hearing in the case and that the applicants had never been informed that the judgment had been ready and recorded. It found, however, that according to the relevant law the two‑month period for the submission of a petition for review (cassation) ran from the date on which the impugned judgment had been made available in the court’s register.\n14.  On unspecified dates between 2000 and 2002, it became possible for the applicants to obtain compensation from the State, in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicants did not avail themselves of this opportunity.\n15.  The applicants were evicted in March 2004.\n16.  In 2003 the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4270", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are relatives. They are:\n8.  They live in the village of Gekhi, in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya.\n9.  The first, third and seventh applicants are sisters of Aslanbek Zayndyevich Astamirov (born in 1974). The second applicant is Aslanbek Astamirov’s mother. The fourth applicant is his wife, and the fifth and sixth applicants are their daughters (the sixth applicant was born in March 2003). The seventh applicant is deaf mute. The applicants submitted that their relative Aslanbek Astamirov had suffered from TB for the previous seven years and that he had been in need of regular medical assistance.\n10.  The applicants live in their own six-room house at 45 Sheripova Street in the village of Gekhi, in the Urus-Martan district. In the same courtyard there is another house, owned by the family of Aslanbek Astamirov’s brother, Alkha A.\n11.  According to the applicants’ submissions, on 5 August 2002 at around 3 a.m. a group of about thirty masked men in blue camouflage uniforms forcibly entered the applicants’ house. The applicants believed that they were servicemen, as they were armed with machine guns and spoke Russian without an accent. The servicemen did not produce identity papers or any documents to justify their actions and gave no explanations.\n12.  The fourth applicant submitted that she had been sleeping in the room with her husband, Aslanbek Astamirov, and their daughter, the fifth applicant. The first applicant, Aslanbek Astamirov’s sister, and her two daughters had been in another room, and the second and seventh applicants had been sleeping in another room.\n13.  The fourth applicant submitted that she had been woken at 3 a.m. by the sound of Russian being spoken in their courtyard. Then the door to their room opened and four or five men in camouflage and masks, armed with automatic weapons, rushed into the room. They shouted “Lie down” and approached the fourth applicant’s husband. One of the servicemen pushed the fourth applicant against the wall and she fell down. Another serviceman gave her the crying child and ordered her to calm her down and to remain seated.\n14.  The men tied Aslanbek Astamirov’s hands behind his back and escorted him out of the room. They took along his slippers, trousers and a shirt. Two men remained in the room and searched it, but did not take anything. One of them found Aslanbek Astamirov’s passport and took it with him. Then the fourth applicant was permitted to come out of her room and into the courtyard, where she saw her sisters-in-law and mother-in-law. The servicemen were leaving and told them to be quiet. About five minutes later the electricity went off in the village and the applicants returned to the house. They submitted that the intruders had remained in their house for about twenty to twenty-five minutes.\n15.  The first applicant submitted that about five minutes after the men and her brother had left they had heard the sound of a military Ural truck leaving from the direction of the main road. They did not follow the armed men into the street because there was no electricity and because they were afraid.\n16.  The applicants submitted that the following morning the neighbours told them that they had seen an armoured personnel carrier (APC) and a military all-terrain UAZ vehicle in the village. They also submitted that both exits from the village on the main road were controlled by the Russian military and that there was a curfew in place, so no movement of vehicles ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4272", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Moscow. At the material time she had been working as a judge for 18 years.\n7.  From 6 November 2000 the applicant held judicial office at the Moscow City Court.\n8.  In 2003 the applicant was appointed to sit on a criminal case concerning abuse of powers by a police investigator, Mr Zaytsev. He was accused of carrying out unlawful searches while investigating a case of large-scale customs and financial fraud involving a group of companies and, allegedly, certain high-ranking state officials.\n9.  In June 2003 the court, composed of the applicant as judge and two lay assessors, Ms I. and Ms D., began to examine the case. During the hearing on 26 June 2003 the court invited the public prosecutor to present evidence for the prosecution. He replied that the court had failed to ensure the attendance of the prosecution witnesses and objected to the manner in which the proceedings were being conducted. On the following day, Friday 27 June 2003, he challenged the applicant as judge on the grounds of bias which she had allegedly shown when questioning one of the victims. Other parties to the proceedings, including the victim in question, objected to the challenge. On the same day the lay assessors dismissed the challenge, following which the public prosecutor challenged both lay assessors. The parties to the proceedings objected to the challenge and it was dismissed. On the same day the prosecutor filed another challenge to the lay assessors on the grounds of bias, which was also dismissed by the applicant on the same day.\n10.  On Monday 30 June 2003 both lay assessors filed a motion to withdraw from the proceedings.\n11.  On 1 July 2003 the public prosecutor declared that the minutes of the proceedings were being kept incorrectly and requested access to the records. The court refused his motion, on the grounds that the minutes could be accessed within three days of their completion.\n12.  On 3 July 2003 the applicant allowed the withdrawal of both lay assessors, having found as follows:\n“At the hearing the lay assessors I and D declared their withdrawal from the proceedings, on the grounds that they were unable to participate in the examination of the case because of the [public prosecutor’s] biased and discourteous behaviour towards them and due to the perverse environment at the hearing, for which he is responsible and which made them ill.”\n13.  According to the applicant, the Moscow City Court President, Ms Yegorova, then during the proceedings called the applicant to her office and asked her about the details of the proceedings, putting certain questions regarding the conduct of the trial and the decisions on the above motions.\n14.  The parties disagree on the circumstances of the applicant’s withdrawal from the case. According to the applicant, the Moscow City Court President removed her from sitting in the case on 4 July 2003, the day after the lay assessors’ withdrawal. According to the Government, the case remained with the applicant until 23 July 2003, when it was withdrawn from her by the Moscow City Court President on the grounds that she had delayed forming a new court composition and that there was a risk of further delay in view of her request for annual leave from 11 August to 11 September 2003, filed on 22 July 2003.\n15.  On 23 July 2003 the Moscow City Court President assigned the case to judge M.\n16.  The applicant subsequently sat as a judge in several other criminal cases.\n17.  In ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4273", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicants' ancestors emigrated to Anatolia from the Caucasus during the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-1878. In 1920 the authorities gave them usufructuary rights to a piece of land located within the administrative division of the town of Kadirli, near Adana. Although they were able to use the land, they were not able to buy it. In 1926, when the Civil Code of the then newly founded Turkish Republic entered into force, it became possible for private individuals to own property.\n4.  Between 1924 and 1929 a Mr Ali Saip Ursavaş, who had been an army commander, a member of Parliament and a judge, forced the applicants' ancestors and a number of other villagers living in the same area of their land and registered the land in his own name and that of his wife.\n5.  A court case was brought in 1950s to challenge the registration of the land in the name of the Ursavaş family. In 1965 the applicants' ancestors applied to the Kadirli Title Deeds Registration Court (hereafter “the Kadirli Court”) and asked to be given permission to join the proceedings as interveners. This request was rejected on 7 April 1967.\n6.  An appeal lodged by the applicants' ancestors against the decision of the Kadirli Court was upheld by the Court of Cassation and the decision of 7 April 1967 was thus quashed.\n7.  The proceedings, which recommenced before the Kadirli Court in 1969, ended 14 years later with a decision of 21 July 1983. The Kadirli Court found in favour of the applicants' ancestors (as, by that date, some of the applicants had started taking part in the proceedings themselves, for practical reasons those applicants as well as the ancestors of the younger applicants will hereafter be referred to as “the applicants”) and ordered the registration of the land in their names in the Land Register.\n8.  An appeal lodged by the Treasury and the heirs of Ali Saip Ursavaş against the decision of 21 July 1983 was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 13 November 1984. The decision of 21 July 1983 was thus quashed. A revision request made by the applicants was also rejected.\n9.  Proceedings recommenced before the Kadirli Land Registry Court in 1987. These proceedings continued for nine years and ended on 4 March 1996. In its decision the Kadirli Land Registry Court rejected the applicants' claims in respect of plots nos. 1-3, and severed the proceedings in so far as they concerned plots nos. 4-6.\n10.  In the meantime, on 10 May 1994 five of the applicants, namely Gülşen Başdoğan, Akif Ugur, Salih Ugur, Mahmut Nedim Ugur and Cevriye Ugur, gave a power of attorney to Hanifi Ugur to represent them in all proceedings in Turkey.\n11.  On 18 July 1997 the applicants appealed against the decision of 4 March 1996 in so far as that decision concerned their entitlement to plots nos. 1‑3. This appeal was rejected by the Court of Cassation on 6 July 1999. The Court of Cassation upheld the requests made by a number of other persons who were also participating in the proceedings in respect of plots nos. 1‑3 and quashed the decision of 4 March 1996 in so far as it concerned those persons' claims. A new set of proceedings in respect of those persons' entitlement to plots nos. 1-3 began.\n12.  A request made by the applicants on 8 November 1999 for a revision of the decision was rejected on 6 June 2001 and the decision of 4 March 1996 thus became final in so far as it concerned the applicants' entitlement to plots nos. 1-3. The proceedings concerning other persons' entitlement to plo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4274", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Strzelce Opolskie.\n6.  On 1 July 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of two counts of kidnapping, deprivation of liberty, extortion and battery, committed in an organised and armed criminal group.\n7.  On 2 July 2003 the Katowice District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the fact that the offences had been committed in an organised criminal group.\n8.  Subsequently, fourteen other persons suspected of belonging to the same criminal group were charged in connection with the investigation of the applicant.\n9.  The applicant’s appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeals, he argued that the charges against him were based on unreliable evidence. He further relied on his personal circumstances; in particular the fact that he was unable to complete his university education and continue running his business, and the need to ensure that his parents were cared for. Lastly, the applicant stressed, on several occasions, that he had never made any attempts to disrupt the trial.\n10.  In the course of the investigation the applicant’s detention was prolonged on 22 September and 22 December 2003, 22 March, 23 June and 22 September 2004.\n11.  On 18 November 2004 the bill of indictment was lodged with the Częstochowa Regional Court. The applicant was charged with kidnapping, deprivation of liberty, extortion and battery committed in an organised criminal group. The bill of indictment contained fourteen other persons.\n12.  Further decisions extending the applicant’s detention were taken on 21 December 2004, 29 June and 21 December 2005, 19 April and 11 October 2006, 22 February, 20 June and 28 November 2007. In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses, and on the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. They attached importance to the complexity of the case, the significant number of persons involved and the voluminous documentation. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, especially the need to verify evidence from suspects and witnesses justified holding him in custody and that the applicant, if released, could obstruct the proper course of the proceedings. The courts found no special grounds that would justify lifting the detention and imposing a less severe measure. In its decision of 21 December 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal recommended to the Częstochowa Regional Court that hearings should be held more frequently, in order to ensure the speedy progress of the proceedings. Further, in the decisions of 11 October 2006 and 22 February and 20 June 2007, the Katowice Court of Appeal stressed the need to terminate the criminal proceedings pending before the first-instance court.\n13.  By letters of 12 January, 29 June, 8 August and 26", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4275", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n4.  On 14 March 1999 the police carried out an operation against Hizbullah, an illegal organisation, in Mardin. At around 3 a.m. the police raided a flat after receiving information from a certain A.T., who was allegedly a member of Hizbullah. During the search conducted in the apartment, three weapons with their cartridges and three computer hard discs, among other objects, were found. According to information retrieved from one of these hard discs, the applicant was allegedly involved in Hizbullah and had been giving religious lessons to children in the Kuba mosque in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 5 June 1999 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court drew up a list of the material seized during the raid in Mardin in order to place it in the custody of the State Security Court. The material included the computer hard discs.\n6.  On 18 October 1999 at around 8.30 p.m. the applicant was arrested while leaving the Kuba mosque in Diyarbakır along with four other persons. According to the arrest report, he was arrested as part of the investigation being conducted into Hizbullah.\n7.  On 19 October 1999 the security forces conducted a search of the applicant’s house. According to the house search and seizure report signed by three police officers and the applicant’s father, nine books with religious content and four tapes were found in the apartment.\n8.  On 25 October 1999 the applicant made statements to the police. According to these submissions, the applicant admitted that he was involved in the activities of Hizbullah.\n9.  On 26 October 1999 the applicant was examined by a doctor in a health clinic in Diyarbakır, along with four other suspects. The doctor observed no sign of ill-treatment on the applicant’s person.\n10.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently a single judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court and was questioned about his affiliation to Hizbullah. The applicant maintained that he was not a member of Hizbullah and denied that he had given religious lessons on behalf of this organisation. As regards the books found in his apartment, the applicant contended that he had been a student in an İmam Hatip High School[1] and that he had bought them at a book fair. The applicant contended that he had been blindfolded in police custody and forced to sign the document allegedly containing his statements.\n11.  On the same day, the judge remanded the applicant in custody. 12.  On 2 November 1999 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against six persons, including the applicant, charging them with membership of Hizbullah under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code and Section 5 of Law no. 3713.\n13.  On 16 December 1999 the applicant made statements before the first-instance court. He maintained that one of the other accused was his schoolmate and that he did not know the other persons. He stated in this connection that he had no affiliation with Hizbullah. The applicant also denied the accuracy of his police statements, alleging that they had been made under duress. He contended that he had been in the mosque for prayer and that he had not given religious lessons to children there. The applicant lastly submitted that the tapes which had allegedly been found in his apartment did not belong to him.\n15.  On 17 January 2000 the police carried out operations against Hizbullah", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4276", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1947, 1973 and 1977 respectively. While the first applicant lives in Sarajevo, her sons, the second and the third applicants, live in Belgrade, in Serbia.\n6.  On 24 June 1983 the local authorities expropriated an apartment in Sarajevo which was occupied (but not owned) by the applicants. The local planning authorities were ordered to allocate the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment. This decision entered into force on 21 October 1983.\n7.  On 6 April 1987 the first applicant initiated court proceedings seeking the allocation to her by the local planning authorities of a suitable replacement apartment.\n8.  On 29 April 1998 the Sarajevo First Municipal Court held that, while it was clear that the local planning authorities were required to allocate the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment, the courts of law had no power to designate such an apartment. The Sarajevo First Municipal Court, consequently, declined jurisdiction. This decision entered into force on 31 March 1999 when the Sarajevo Cantonal Court upheld it.\n9.  On 24 November 1999 the first applicant complained to the Human Rights Chamber about non-enforcement of the administrative decision of 24 June 1983.\n10.  On 7 May 2003 the Human Rights Chamber found breaches of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. It ordered the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (a constituent Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) to allocate, or to cause the local planning authorities to allocate, to the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment at the latest within one month. The Human Rights Chamber awarded the first applicant, in pecuniary damage, 18,200 convertible marks (BAM) (approximately 9,300 euros (EUR)) plus BAM 200 (approximately EUR 100) per month from June 2003 until the end of the month in which she was to be allocated a suitable replacement apartment. She was further awarded BAM 3,000 (approximately EUR 1,550) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Lastly, she was awarded default interest on the above amounts at an annual rate of 10%. This decision entered into force on 4 September 2003.\n11.  On 24 March 2005 the local planning authorities offered the first applicant a tenancy of an apartment in Sarajevo. On 31 March 2005 the applicant rejected the offer.\n12.  On 1 July 2005 the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina paid the following amounts to the first applicant: BAM 18,200 in respect of pecuniary damage, BAM 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and default interest on the above amounts at the rate indicated in the Human Rights Chamber’s decision.\n13.  On 15 September 2005 the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina requested the interpretation of the order to allocate, or to cause the local planning authorities to allocate, to the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment set out in the Human Rights Chamber’s decision.\n14.  On 15 December 2005 the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber, the Human Rights Commission within the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, explained that in accordance with the Human Rights Chamber’s decision the first applicant should be given ownership of a suitable apartment and not only a tenancy.\n15.  On 19 September 2006 the local planning authorities offered the first applicant a tenancy of the same apartment as on 24 March 2005. The applicant has not accepted the offer.\n16.  On 8 November 2006 the first applicant filed a criminal compla", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4278", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are a mother and daughter who were born in 1953 and 1975 respectively and live in Chişinău.\n7.  The applicants are shareholders in company C. The background to the case lies in a dispute between the applicants and two other shareholders in the company (I.A. and S.A.) which started in 1998. At that time the first applicant owned eighty percent of the company’s shares while I.A. and S.A. claimed to be the owners of over fifty percent of the shares. The matter was taken before the courts and the first applicant was successful before the first two instances, which accepted her position in the judgments of the Râşcani District Court of 25 July 1999 and of the Chişinău Regional Court of 27 September 1999. The judgments were reversed, however, by the Court of Appeal on 21 December 1999.\n8.  The first applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal which was upheld by the Supreme Court on 5 July 2000. The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 21 December 1999 and left the judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court of 27 September 1999 as the final decision in the case.\n9.  After that date I.A. and S.A. lodged numerous extraordinary appeals and revision requests challenging the judgment of 27 September 1999. However, they were all unsuccessful.\n10.  In 2000 the first applicant purchased 13.15% of the shares of the company and in 2003 she donated all her shares to the second applicant. In the same year the second applicant purchased 1.31% of the shares, thus becoming the owner of 94.46% of the shares.\n11.  On 3 July 2006 I.A. and S.A. lodged a new revision request with the Supreme Court of Justice challenging the judgment of 27 September 1999. The request was based on Article 449 (b), (c) and (h) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the reason given in the request was that following two expert evaluations ordered by them and carried out on 18 and 19 May 2006, it appeared that several documents which had formed the basis of the judgment of 27 September 1999 had been false. I.A. and S.A. also argued that they had lodged an application with the European Court complaining that the principle of legal certainty had been violated by an abusive quashing by the Supreme Court of Justice on 5 July 2000 of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 21 December 1999. In support of their request I.A. and S.A. attached to their request a copy of their application lodged with the Court and copies of correspondence with the Court concerning application no. 10232/03.\n12.  The first applicant and company C. objected and argued, inter alia, that the revision request was time-barred and that the simple fact of lodging an application with the European Court of Human Rights was not a sufficient basis for quashing a final judgment under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. They also disputed the allegations concerning the false documents and argued that these allegations had been made in previous revision requests lodged by I.A. and S.A. and had been rejected by the courts. In particular they submitted that the conclusion from the expert reports of 18 and 19 May 2006 had been taken from a previous expert report dated 12 July 2005 written by the same expert. Moreover, the first applicant had finally been acquitted in criminal proceedings on charges of forging the above documents on 18 February 2003. Finally, the defendants argued that I.A. and S.A. had failed to pay court fees.\n13.  On 27 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice uphe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4279", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  The applicant has been a self-employed designer since 1972.\n7.  On 8 April 1990 the applicant was injured in a car accident which happened on a business trip. It appears that the applicant has since then been on sick leave for most of the time. However, for certain periods the Health Insurance Institute (Zavod za zdravstveno zavarovanje – “the HII”) recognised his full or partial working capability.\n8.  On 10 January 1996 the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče), in a non-public session, rejected the applicant’s claim concerning the HII’s decision granting the applicant a right to be absent from his work on a part-time basis until 25 February 1993.\n9.  On 22 April 2000 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. On 16 October 2001 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) dismissed the appeal as being out of time. This decision was served on the applicant on 21 November 2001.\n10.  On 15 April 1994 the HII issued a decision finding that the applicant was fully capable of working.\n11.  On 30 June 1994 the applicant lodged a claim with the Ljubljana Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela v Ljubljani) seeking annulment of the aforementioned decision, a recognition of his reduced working capability and entitlement to invalidity insurance benefit.\n12.  On 28 December 1994 the applicant gave a statement to a judge on duty urging the court to proceed with his case swiftly.\n13.  The (renamed) Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) held a hearing on 28 November 1996.\n14.  On 21 January 1997 the court received an expert’s opinion.\n15.  On 5 February 1997 the court held a hearing.\n16.  The court scheduled a new hearing for 26 March 1997 in order to examine an orthopaedist. The hearing was eventually cancelled since the expert had been absent owing to some professional commitments.\n17.  After holding a hearing on 17 June 1997, the court decided to deliver a written judgment rejecting the applicant’s claim. The judgment was served on the applicant on 4 July 1997.\n18.  The applicant appealed to the Ljubljana Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani).\n19.  On 23 July 1998 the Ljubljana Higher Labour and Social Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. The court tried several times to serve its decision on the applicant (on 26 October 1998, 10 November 1998 and on 10 December 1998) at the same address in Celje where it had served the decision of 17 June 1997. The decision was eventually served on 14 January 1999 through a colleague of the applicant at work.\n20.  Subsequently, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court but it was rejected on 12 October 1999. The court again tried several times to serve this decision (on 10 and 30 November 1999, on 21 December 1999 and on 11 January 2000). The decision was served at the applicant’s three different addresses, two in Celje and one in Ljubljana. On 20 January 2000 the court process server left a notice in the applicant’s mailbox at his home in Ljubljana. The decision was eventually served on the applicant on the first-instance court’s premises on 23 February 2000.\n21.  On 22 April 2000 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal which also concerned the decision of the Supreme Court of 10 January 1996 (see paragraph 8 above).\n22.  On 16 October 2001 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal concerning the above proceeding", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4280", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Wrocław.\n6.  In 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in which he asked for the division of his late parents’ marital property. The applicant’s mother died in the 1960s and he was her heir. The applicant’s father died in 1992 and his second wife inherited after him according to his last will. The applicant claimed that his parents’ marital property included a collection of 300 valuable paintings worth approximately 460,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). The applicant’s father’s second wife contested the fact that the paintings belonged to the estate in question and submitted that they were her own assets.\n7.  On 23 December 1997 the applicant was exempted from court fees.\n8.  In 2001 the other party to the proceedings, the second wife of the applicant’s late father, died and her daughter joined the proceedings as her heir.\n9.  On 17 July 2003 the Wrocław District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided of its own motion to order the preparation of an expert opinion regarding the value and origin of the paintings allegedly acquired during the applicant’s parents’ marriage. The court found that the applicant described many of the paintings, some of which had been in the possession of the other party and whose existence and ownership had been contested, as belonging to his parents. The assessment of his submissions required special knowledge concerning the authors of the paintings, their description and authenticity. It had thus been impossible to assess those issues without the assistance of an expert. The court considered that since the applicant had initiated the proceedings he should bear the costs of the opinion and ordered him to pay PLN 5,000 (approximately 1,200 euros (EUR)) as an advance on the costs of the expert opinion.\n10.  On 21 August 2003 the applicant applied for an exemption from court fees. He submitted that he was a pensioner and was receiving an old‑age pension of PLN 550. His unemployed wife and her mentally handicapped brother, the latter receiving PLN 400 in invalidity benefit, were both in his sole charge. The applicant explained that although he had been represented by a lawyer of his choice, the latter had not received any payment but had agreed to accept a certain percentage of the award received at the end of the proceedings.\n11.  On 12 January 2004 the Wrocław District Court dismissed his application. The court acknowledged the applicant’s difficult financial situation. However, it considered that since the beginning of the proceedings in 1997 he should have saved money for the purpose of paying the future court fees. The court calculated that by putting aside between ten and twenty percent of his income the applicant could have saved up PLN 5,000 since 1997.\n12.  The applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision, explaining at length the difficult financial situation of the applicant’s family. He submitted that 75% of the family’s monthly income went on rent for their flat, monthly charges and the costs of medicines for the applicant and his wife’s brother. The remaining sum of money did not allow for any savings; in fact, it was not sufficient for the applicant to support himself and his family; they had been surviving with the financial help of their friends and relatives.\n13.  On 15 April 2004 the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The court underlined the fact that the applicant had already benefited from an exemption from the court fees fo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4281", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the village of Goyskoye in the Urus-Martan District of the Chechen Republic.\n8.  The applicant did not witness the killing of her husband and the account of events given below is based on witness statements by the applicant’s fellow villagers. She submitted statements by a Mr A. and a Mr K.\n9.  On 11 September 2000 Mr A. and Mr K. were guarding agricultural fields to the north of the village of Goyskoye near the Goitinka River in the Urus-Martan District of the Chechen Republic. At about 3 p.m. they met the applicant’s husband, Mr Lecha Adamovich Khazhmuradov, born in 1964, and Mr D., who had come to get some wood in the nearby forest area.\n10.  Some time later a number of armed men arrived in two armoured personnel carriers. According to the witnesses, they were servicemen of the Russian armed forces. Without any prior warning the servicemen opened indiscriminate fire across the field. The witnesses hid so that they could observe the events in safety. The servicemen also fired at the applicant’s husband and Mr D. Mr Lecha Khazhmuradov was killed on the spot. Then the servicemen crossed the river and shot Mr D. They dropped the two dead bodies in the river, got in the armoured personnel carriers and drove away in the direction of Urus-Martan.\n11.  According to Mr A. and Mr K., the armoured personnel carriers should have passed near a federal military unit located at that time on the north-western outskirts of the village. They should also have passed through a federal check-point which blocked the motorway leading from Goyskoye to Urus-Martan.\n12.  After the soldiers had left, Mr A., Mr K. and several other residents of Goyskoye, who had come from the village having heard the shooting, took the corpses out of the water and took them back to the village.\n13.  Later that day the villagers informed the law-enforcement agencies of the incident.\n14.  The killing of Mr D. does not form part of the present application.\n15.  According to the Government, on 12 September 2000 the prosecutor’s office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district prosecutor’s office”) instituted an investigation into the murder of Mr Lecha Khazhmuradov and Mr D. under Article 105 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated murder). The case file was assigned the number 24376. It does not appear that the applicant was duly informed of that decision.\n16.  In the Government’s submission, on 12 September 2000 the status of victim was given to Mr Lecha Khazhmuradov’s brother. The applicant’s request that she be declared a victim of a crime was rejected, since she had not furnished the authorities with documents confirming that she was married to Mr Lecha Khazhmuradov.\n17.  According to the Government, on 12 September 2000 the investigating authorities inspected the scene of the incident, which was heavily saturated with a substance of a brown colour resembling blood, and found fragments of biological material resembling brain matter. They also found six bullet cases of 7.62 mm calibre. At a certain distance from that place, on the other river bank, the investigating authorities found twenty-five bullet cases of 7.62 x 39 mm calibre, eight bullet cases of 7.62 x 51 mm calibre and two bullet cases of 5.45 mm calibre. Also, the tyre tracks of a motor vehicle, presumably an armoured personnel carrier, were found at the scene of the incident. According to an expert examination carried out on an unspecified date, the bullet cases ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4282", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in Cellino San Marco in Italy and lives in Berlin.\n6.  On 11 November 1998 the applicant underwent a kidney transplant operation at the Charité Medical University in Berlin. Following complications after the operation, the transplanted kidney had to be removed and the applicant underwent a further operation.\n7.  On 9 May 2001 the applicant brought an action against the Charité Medical University claiming that they were medically liable for the unsuccessful kidney transplant. In particular, she requested the court to award her an adequate amount of damages for pain and suffering (Schmerzensgeld) and to declare that the defendant was liable for all future damage to her health (including latent damage) and any stress, worry or inconvenience caused by the defendant’s alleged malpractice.\n8.  On 16 October 2001 the Berlin Regional Court ordered an urological expert report on the question whether the defendant, due to alleged insufficient post-operative treatment, had discovered the applicant’s urinary leak too late. On 15 November 2001 the Regional Court appointed the first expert who informed the court on 5 December 2001 that he would be unable to prepare the report.\n9.  On 22 January 2002 the Regional Court requested the Lower Saxony Medical Association to designate an expert. On 28 March 2002 the Regional Court commissioned a second expert and set him a time-limit of three months for the preparation of his report. Between October 2002 and March 2003 the court inquired of the expert three times as to whether he had prepared his report. On 29 April 2003 it ordered him to deliver the latter within six weeks and announced its intention to impose a fine on him in case of non-compliance with that time-limit.\n10.  On 26 August 2003 the Regional Court imposed a fine on the second expert, discharged him, and appointed a third expert. On 13 October 2003 the court set him a time-limit of six months for the preparation of his report. On 24 November 2003 the Regional Court requested the applicant to pay a further advance on the expert’s costs which the applicant paid on 19 December 2003. On 23 and 30 September 2004 the Regional Court extended the time-limit for the preparation of the expert’s report until 17 November 2004 after the expert had informed the court that his assistant whom he had entrusted with the preparation of the report had unexpectedly become unavailable. On 6 December 2004 the Regional Court received the expert report dated 12 November 2004. The expert invoiced for 28 hours’ work in the preparation of his report.\n11.   On 4 February 2005 the applicant requested the Regional Court to extend the time-limit for the submission of her comments on the report. On 22 February 2005 she submitted her comments.\n12.  On 10 May 2005, after having held a hearing, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action as being unfounded.\n13.  On 27 May 2005 the judgment was served on the applicant’s representative.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4283", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n6.  On 31 May 2000 the applicant, a tax police officer, was arrested. He was later remanded in custody on suspicion of banditry, robbery and abuse of power. His detention was subsequently extended on several occasions.\n7.  The proceedings against the applicant and co-accused were surrounded by an extensive media campaign. In particular, on 6 June 2000 the Segodnia daily newspaper published an article which contained a detailed description by a journalist of the charges against the applicant and co-accused. According to the applicant’s submissions, similar statements were repeated in other Moscow newspapers («Московский Комсомолец») in June 2000. The applicant asserted that the prosecutor had included these articles in the case file as evidence against him.\n8.  In April 2001 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was referred to the Moscow City Court.\n9.  On 8 May 2002 the Moscow City Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment. The court relied on statements of many witnesses, including co-defendants and victims, and forensic expert reports.\n10.  On 1 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia, acting on appeal, quashed the judgment due to procedural defects and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n11.  On 19 February 2003 the Moscow City Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. During the trial the defendants, relying on their right to silence, refused to testify. The court based its findings on numerous witnesses’ depositions and submissions by the defendants during the pre-trial investigation.\n12.  According to the applicant, on 9 June 2003 another Moscow newspaper («Российский Курьер») published an article discussing the applicant’s criminal case.\n13.  On 29 July 2003 the Supreme Court of Russia, acting on appeal, upheld the judgment with minor changes.\n14.  From 5 June 2000 to 9 September 2003 the applicant was detained in facilities nos. IZ-77/2 and IZ-77/3 in Moscow.\n15.  According to certificates issued on 15 February 2006 by the acting facility director, and produced by the Government, the applicant was kept in eight cells. From 5 June to 27 October 2000 he was detained in cells nos. 314, 501, 146 and 218. According to the Government, the information on the number of inmates during the above period was not available as the documents had been destroyed.\n16.   Further, the Government submitted that from 27 October 2000 to 22 January 2002 there had been fifteen detainees on average together with the applicant in cell no. 501, which was designed for thirty-eight persons. From 22 January to 12 February 2002 there were four detainees on average in cell no. 27, which was designed for six persons. From 12 February to 17 April 2002 there were ten detainees on average in cell no. 51, which was designed for eight persons. From 17 April to 17 May 2002 there were twenty-five detainees on average in cell no. 140, which was designed for twenty-two persons. There were fifty-one detainees on average in the same cell from 28 October 2002 to 16 February 2003. From 17 to 30 May 2002 there were two detainees on average in cell no. 37, which was designed for six persons. From 16 February to 28 June 2003 there were twenty-eight detainees on average in cell no. 146, which was designed for twenty persons. Finally, from 28 June to 14 August 2003 t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4284", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Split. She is unemployed and unwaged.\n6.  From October 1996 the applicant occupied a room and common premises of a privately owned flat in Split together with other tenants. On 2 August 1999 the applicant found that the lock of the entrance door to the flat had been changed and that her belongings had been removed from the flat. The applicant called the police, who drew up a report. On 3 August 1999 the applicant brought a civil action in the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) against two individuals, M.P. and I.P., seeking protection against the disturbance of her occupation of a room and common premises in the flat.\n7.  After a first-instance judgment by default of 16 September 1999 had been quashed at a hearing held on 9 November 1999 before the Split Municipal Court, subsequent hearings were held on 21 December 1999, 22 February, 28 March, 3 May and 7 June 2000, when a fresh judgment, allowing the applicant’s claim, was adopted. It was, however, quashed by the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) on 17 August 2000 and the case was remitted to the Municipal Court.\n8.  In the fresh proceedings the Municipal Court held hearings on 7 June, 5 September and 22 November 2001 and 22 January, 26 February, 3 April and 14 May 2002. On this latter date a judgment ordering that the applicant was to regain her co-occupation of the flat in question was adopted. A subsequent appeal by the defendants was declared inadmissible in a decision of the Split Municipal Court, adopted on 24 May 2002, which was upheld by the Split County Court on 7 March 2003.\n9.  Since the defendants in the civil proceedings had failed to comply with the judgment of 14 May 2002, the applicant applied to the Split Municipal Court on 31 March 2003, seeking an enforcement order. The order was issued on 10 April 2003. The defendants lodged an appeal. The execution of the order was scheduled for 5 June 2003. It was duly carried out. However, on 6 June 2003 the applicant was thrown out of the flat (see paragraph 13 below). Accordingly, on 2 July 2003 she requested the Split Municipal Court to resume the enforcement proceedings.\n10.  On 26 August 2004 the Split County Court allowed the defendants’ appeal, quashed the enforcement order of 10 April 2003 and remitted the case to the Split Municipal Court. The latter, on 18 March 2005, invited the applicant to amend her request. The applicant submitted an amended request on 26 April 2005. On 29 March 2007 the Municipal Court again invited the applicant to amend her request. The applicant submitted the amended request on 13 April 2007. On 24 April 2007 the Municipal Court invited the applicant to adjust her request within eight days. On 8 January 2008 the Split Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the enforcement proceedings to be resumed.\n11.  On 9 August 2002 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Repbulike Hrvatske) about the length of the civil proceedings described above. In a decision of 18 March 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint as ill-founded, finding that the proceedings had been concluded within a reasonable time.\n12.  On 10 April 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint about the length of the enforcement proceedings with the Split County Court. On 31 March 2008 the County Court allowed the complaint, found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded her 5,000", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4286", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Wrocław.\n5.  On 18 April 2002 the Opole District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed several offences of fraud and that he had organised and led a criminal group.\n6.  On 15 July 2002 the court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 September 2002. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and on the risk that he might tamper with evidence.\n7.  On 13 September 2002 the court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 November 2002. It repeated the grounds previously given for his detention and found that his remaining in custody was necessary to complete the expert psychiatric examination as to the state of the applicant’s mental health.\n8.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on 14 November 2002. The court attached importance to the serious nature of the offences with which he had been charged and the likelihood of a heavy sentence being imposed on him.\n9.  On 11 December 2002, the applicant was indicted on several charges of fraud while acting in an organised criminal group. Subsequently, in March 2003, the case file was transferred to the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court for reasons of procedural economy.\n10.  On 23 April 2003 the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court extended the applicant’s detention for a three-month period, until 23 July 2003. It considered that the severity of the anticipated sentence and the need to secure the proper course of the trial justified the continuation of that measure.\n11.  On 22 July 2003 the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 October 2003. It also observed that the applicant’s continued detention was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the gravity of the anticipated sentence. In addition, it referred to the complex nature of the case.\n12.  On 13 October 2003 the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 January 2004. The court referred to a strong likelihood that he had committed the serious offences with which he had been charged and stressed that a heavy penalty might be imposed on him. It also observed that no other measures would prevent the applicant from obstructing the proceedings or going into hiding.\n13.  That decision was upheld by the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 7 November 2003. The Regional Court stated in the relevant part of the reasons for its decision that:\n“The appeals are not well-founded. (...) The District Court correctly pointed out that the fear that the accused would tamper with evidence arises also from the fact – as proved by the collected evidence - that he organised and led the group of offenders. Consequently, there is a strong probability that by using the same methods of pressure on the co-accused he may induce them to tamper with evidence.”\n14.  Between 14 November 2003 and 12 January 2004 the court held four hearings, two of which were adjourned.\n15.  On 21 January 2004 the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 March 2004.\n16.  In the course of the investigation and the court proceedings the applicant made numerous unsuccessful applications for release on bail or under police supervision and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against decisions extending his detention.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4287", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lived in İzmir.\n6.  On 23 February 1998 the applicant bought a plot of land (plot no. 536 in the Ulucak village, in the Menemen district of İzmir) from the heirs of V.G.\n7.  On 13 July 1999 the Ministry of Agriculture (“the Ministry”) brought an action before the Menemen Civil Court, requesting the annulment of the title deed of the applicant to plot no. 536 and its registration in the Treasury's name, claiming that it had had actual possession of this land since 1966. The Ministry primarily relied on Article 38 of the Expropriation Act (Law no. 2942). The Ministry also alleged that an expropriation had been effected in relation to the said land in 1966 and that V.G. had received compensation for it. However, the land register had not been amended due to an administrative error.\n8.  On 20 December 2000 the Menemen Civil Court accepted the request of the Ministry of Agriculture and ordered that the land be registered in favour of the Treasury in accordance with Article 38 of Law no. 2942. In its judgment, the first-instance court noted that the Ministry had been in actual possession of this land for more than twenty years and that the applicant had been aware of this fact when he had bought the plot.\n9.  The applicant appealed.\n10.  On 17 September 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 20 December 2000.\n11.  The applicant requested rectification of the decision of 17 September 2001.\n12.  On 24 December 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's request.\n13.  On 4 January 2002 the Court of Cassation's decision was served on the applicant.\n14.  On 10 April 2003 the Constitutional Court annulled Article 38 of Law no. 2942.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4288", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Nijmegen.\n7.  He came to the Netherlands on 16 August 1998 and applied for asylum. Although his request was rejected, he was granted a provisional residence permit (voorwaardelijke vergunning tot verblijf). On 8 January 2001 his request for renewal of this permit was denied. The applicant’s objection against this refusal was dismissed, as was his subsequent appeal. The final decision in these proceedings was taken on 11 July 2002 by the Regional Court (rechtbank) of The Hague.\n8.  Meanwhile, in 1998, the applicant had started a relationship with a Ms A.A., a settled immigrant of Somali origin. The couple had two children, born on 11 November 1999 and 27 February 2002 respectively. The applicant and Ms A.A. were married on 4 November 2002.\n9.  On 21 August 2002 the applicant requested a residence permit for the purpose of residing in the Netherlands with his (future) spouse. This request was denied by the Minister for Immigration and Integration (Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie) on 28 November 2002 for the reason that the applicant did not hold the required provisional residence visa (machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf), which had to be applied for at a representation of the Netherlands in the country of origin or, if there was no such representation in the country of origin, at the representation situated closest to that country.\n10.  The applicant filed an objection (bezwaar) against this decision, arguing that he ought to be exempted from the visa requirement as he was unable to return to Somalia or, given that there were no representations of the Netherlands in that country, to one of Somalia’s neighbouring countries. In addition, his wife was disabled and required his assistance in the care for their two children.\n11.  In order to be able to await the outcome of the objection proceedings in the Netherlands, the applicant also applied for a provisional measure (voorlopige voorziening). By a decision of 5 November 2003, the provisional-measures judge (voorzieningenrechter) of the Regional Court of The Hague, sitting in Arnhem, rejected the request for a provisional measure and, at the same time, dismissed the applicant’s objection. The judge reiterated that the ratio of the visa requirement lay in preventing the national authorities, prior to a decision on a person’s request for admission having been taken, from being confronted with a fait accompli as a result of that person’s illegal presence in the Netherlands. If an alien, who had entered the Netherlands without a visa but with the intention of settling there, could be exempted from the visa requirement simply by asserting that it was impossible to return, this would have serious negative repercussions on the policy. Finally, the Regional Court considered that the refusal to exempt the applicant from the obligation of first applying for a visa did not constitute an interference with his right to respect for family life because this refusal did not deprive him of a residence permit on the basis of which he had been able to have family life in the Netherlands. Neither were the authorities under a positive obligation to exempt the applicant from the visa requirement, as it could reasonably be expected that he apply for a visa in his country of origin and await the outcome of that application there. The applicant had not substantiated his claim that such would not be possible for him, but had merely argued that he had to as", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4289", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n2.  The applicant was born in 1917 and lives in Eğil.\n3.  On 3 April 1997 the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources expropriated 6 plots of land (plots nos. 546, 529, 503, 507, 527 and 523) belonging to the applicant in the Kale district of Eğil in Diyarbakır. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the sum fixed thereby was paid to the applicant on 19 November 1997.\n4.  On 8 December 1997 the applicant lodged a case with the Eğil Civil Court, requesting additional compensation. The first-instance court decided to deal separately with parcel no. 523 due to the different nature of that parcel.\n5.  On 6 December 1999 the Eğil Civil Court awarded the applicant additional compensation of 501,377,750 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at a rate of 30% from 8 December 1997 to 1 January 1998, and a rate of 50% from 1 January 1998 onwards.\n6.  On 9 October 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the court of first instance.\n7.  On 13 June 2001 the administration paid the applicant TRL 1,586,220,000 in additional compensation together with interest.\n8.  On 17 May 2000 the Eğil Civil Court awarded the applicant additional compensation of TRL 11,267,083,000 plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 18 February 1998.\n9.  On 12 February 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n10.  On 27 November 2001 the administration paid the applicant TRL 35,240,270,000 in additional compensation together with interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4291", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Chişinău.\n11.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n12.  The applicant was a deputy mayor of Chişinău and was also a lecturer at the Academy of Economic Studies in Moldova. Between 24 September 2004 and 25 February 2005 he was held in the remand centre of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (“the CFECC”). On 25 February 2005 he was transferred to Ministry of Justice Remand Centre no. 3 in Chişinău (also known as “Prison no. 3”, subsequently re‑named “Prison no. 13”). The applicant suffers from a number of illnesses (see paragraphs 22 and 25 below).\n13.  The applicant was accused in three separate sets of criminal proceedings under Article 185 (3) of the old Criminal Code and Article 327 (2) of the new Criminal Code (“the CP”) of abuse of power and acting in excess of authority (excesul de putere sau depăşirea atribuţiilor de serviciu; abuzul de putere sau abuzul de serviciu).\n14.  On 17 September 2004 the CFECC opened a criminal investigation concerning the applicant and on 24 September 2004 he was taken into custody.\n15.  On 27 September 2004 the Buiucani District Court issued a warrant for his arrest and detention for thirty days. The reasons given by the court for issuing the warrant were that:\n“[The applicant] is dangerous to society. If released he may reoffend, destroy evidence or abscond from the law-enforcement authorities, obstruct the normal course of the investigation or the taking of evidence and influence evidence and witnesses.”\nOn 4 October 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that decision. Judge M.B. dissented, finding no reason to detain the applicant as the prosecution had not submitted any evidence of the alleged danger of his absconding or interfering with the investigation. The applicant had a family and a permanent residence in Chişinău, was ill and had no criminal record.\n16.  The applicant made habeas corpus requests on 5, 13 and 19 October, 2 November and 29 December 2004 and 22 February, 23 June and 20 September 2005. He relied on the following elements: his poor state of health; the fact that he had no criminal record; his impeccable reputation as a doctor of economics and a university lecturer; the fact that his identity documents had been seized by the prosecuting authorities so that he could not leave the country; the fact that his family and permanent residence were in Chişinău; the fact that he was supporting his 75-year-old mother who was an invalid; the fact that he had the personal guarantee of three well‑known persons (who had already deposited 3,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) and each of whom was prepared to pay the further MDL 8,000 initially requested by the court); and the lack of reasons for his arrest. All these requests were rejected on grounds similar to those cited in the decision of 27 September 2004.\n17.  On 22 October 2004 the case file was submitted to the trial court.\n18.  On an unspecified date in October 2004 the prosecution submitted to the trial court a second case file in which the applicant was also identified as one of the accused. The investigation into that case had begun on 28 March 2003. The investigators had twice closed it for lack of evidence (on 15 July and 26 September 2003) but on both occasions a prosecutor had ordered its reopening. On 27 October 2004 both cases were joined.\n19.  On 2 November 2004 Judge L.V., President of the Centru District Court, rejected the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4292", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On 2 and 3 May 1995 the applicant deposited a total of 1,537,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) with Global A.Ş., a private brokerage firm, and requested the firm to buy Treasury bonds for her.\n6.  In September 1995 the applicant contacted B.G., the broker to whom she had given the money, and asked her whether she had bought the Treasury bonds on her behalf. B.G. informed the applicant, by way of a handwritten document, that she had.\n7.  On 15 March 1996 when the applicant went to the office of Global A.Ş., she learned that B.G. had used her money not to buy Treasury bonds but to buy stocks, which had lost their value and therefore the firm had caused her to lose money.\n8.  On 30 September 1996 the applicant brought a case against Global A.Ş. and B.G. before the Ankara Commercial Court (Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi), requesting the defendants to reimburse the money which she had deposited with the firm.\n9.  On 27 May 1998 the Ankara Commercial Court partially granted the applicant’s request and ordered the defendants to pay her TRL 942,000,000 with simple interest.\n10.  Both the applicant and the defendants appealed.\n11.  On 26 October 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 27 May 1998. The case was subsequently remitted to the Ankara Commercial Court.\n12.  On 7 November 2001 the Ankara Commercial Court once again partially granted the applicant’s request and ordered Global A.Ş. and B.G. to pay her TRL 1,512,000,000 with simple interest.\n13.  The applicant and Global A.Ş. appealed.\n14.  On 10 October 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 7 November 2001.\n15.  On 13 January 2003 the applicant requested rectification of the Court of Cassation’s decision of 10 October 2002.\n16.  On 11 April 2003 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4294", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Krasnoyarsk.\n9.  From 1997 to 1999 the applicant was chairman of the board of the Krasnoyarsk Aluminium Plant. At the time of his arrest in October 2000 he was a major shareholder and an executive of a corporation called OAO Krasenergomash-Holding and a founder of a number of affiliated firms. He was also a deputy of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Parliamentary Assembly.\n10.  In September 2000 the applicant allegedly ordered V., a member of his entourage, to kill S., the applicant's former business associate. V. did not comply with the order, but on 18 September 2000 he reported the applicant to the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (“the FSB”). On the following day V. handed in the gun which he had allegedly received from the applicant.\n11.  On 21 September 2000 the Prosecutor of the Severo-Zapadnyy District of Moscow opened a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant on suspicion of conspiracy to murder.\n12.  On 26 and 27 September 2000 the FSB and the police decided to conduct a covert operation to obtain evidence of the applicant's intention to murder S.\n13.  On 29 September 2000 the police staged the discovery of two dead men at S.'s home. They officially announced in the media that one of those killed had been identified as S. The other man was his business partner, I.\n14.  On 3 October 2000 V., acting on the police's instructions, came to see the applicant at his estate. He carried a hidden radio-transmitting device while a police officer outside received and recorded the transmission. He was received by the applicant in a “guest house”, a part of the estate connected to his personal residence. In accordance with the instructions, V. engaged the applicant in conversation by telling him that he had carried out the assassination. As proof of his accomplishment he handed the applicant several objects taken from S. and I.: a certified copy of a mining project feasibility study marked with a special chemical agent, two watches belonging to S. and I. and 20,000 United States dollars (USD) in cash. At the end of the conversation V. took the cash, as suggested by the applicant. The police obtained a sixteen-minute recording of the dialogue between V. and the applicant.\n15.  On 4 October 2000 the applicant's estate was searched. Several watches were seized, including those belonging to S. and I. A chemical analysis was conducted and revealed the presence on the applicant's hands of the chemical agent which had been used to mark the feasibility study. The applicant was arrested.\n16.  On 27 February 2001 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor of the Severo-Zapadnyy District of Moscow that his prosecution had been unlawful because it involved numerous procedural violations of his rights, including the unauthorised intrusion into his home and the use of the radio-transmitting device. On 2 March 2001 the prosecutor dismissed his complaint, having found, in particular, that the applicant had let V. into his house voluntarily and that therefore there had been no intrusion. It was also found that no judicial authorisation had been required for the use of the radio-transmitting device because in accordance with the Operational-Search Activities Act, it was only required for the interception of communications transmitted by means of wire channels or mail services, none of which had been employed in the covert operation at issue.\n17.  Following the applicant's arrest on 4 Octobe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4295", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1969 and 1979 respectively and live in İzmir.\n5.  On 14 February 2001 two persons were shot and injured in a bus by a person who subsequently got off the bus.\n6.  On the same day, upon receipt of information that the suspect of the shooting was in a red car, police officers from the Aydın police headquarters arrested the applicants during a traffic control operation that had they initiated on the Aydın motorway. The security forces further arrested four other persons, including the first applicant’s brother, in another car. The police officers confiscated the applicants’ mobile telephones and both cars, in which 5 firearms were found. On the same day, the applicants were taken into police custody.\n7.  On 15 February 2001 three police officers drafted a report containing the numbers dialled and calls received on the mobile telephones of the first applicant, his brother and another suspect.\n8.  On 19 February 2001 a single judge at the Aydın Magistrates’ Court extended the period of the applicants’ detention in police custody for a further three days.\n9.  On the same day the applicants’ statements were taken by police officers from the organised crime unit of the Aydın Police Headquarters. According to the document containing their statements, the applicants were suspected of forming a criminal profit-making organisation proscribed by Article 1 of Law no. 4422. According to the document, both applicants confessed to their involvement in a criminal organisation.\n10.  On 15, 16 and 21 February 2001, the applicants were examined by doctors at the Aydın State Hospital. The doctors noted in their reports that there were no signs of ill-treatment on the applicants’ persons.\n11.  On 21 February 2001 the applicants were brought before a single judge at the Aydın Magistrates’ Court, who ordered their detention on remand. Before the judge, the applicants refuted the accuracy of the documents containing their statements taken by the police.\n12.  On 22 March 2001 the firearms found in the cars were subjected to a ballistic examination. The experts found that one of the weapons found in the car of the first applicant’s brother had been used in the shooting of 14 February 2001.\n13.  On an unspecified date a test was conducted in order to detect traces of gunpowder on the applicants’ and other suspects’ hands, which resulted in the finding of gunpowder traces on the applicants’ hands.\n14.  On 19 April 2001 the Public Prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicants and eleven other persons with forming a criminal profit-making organisation.\n15.  On 5 June 2001 the applicants made statements before the Aydın Assize Court and refuted the veracity of the documents containing their statements taken by the police. The minutes containing their statements were then sent to the İzmir State Security Court.\n16.  On 13 June 2001 the İzmir State Security Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case and heard some of the accused and read out the evidence in the case file. On the same day the applicants’ representative stated before the court that the applicants disputed the accuracy of the evidence against them, including the medical reports issued following their detention in police custody, which stated that there was no sign of physical violence on their bodies.\n17.   On 2 August and 11 September 2001 the court held the second and third hearings and took statements from some", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4296", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Nijmegen.\n7.  The applicant came to the Netherlands on 2 January 1995 and applied for asylum. Her request was rejected, the final decision in this respect being taken by the Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague on 17 April 1997.\n8.  Meanwhile, in 1996, the applicant had started a relationship with a Mr F.A., also of Somali origin. In 1998 Mr F.A. obtained Netherlands nationality. The applicant and Mr F.A. were married on 30 January 2001. They had three children, born on 2 November 2000, 17 April 2002 and 5 October 2004 respectively, who have Netherlands nationality.\n9.  On 15 May 2001 the applicant requested a residence permit for the purpose of staying with her spouse, who was in full-time gainful employment. This request was denied by the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) on 15 October 2001 for the reason that the applicant did not hold the required provisional residence visa (machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf), which had to be applied for at a representation of the Netherlands in the country of origin or, if there was no such representation in the country of origin, at the representation situated closest to that country.\n10.  The applicant filed an objection (bezwaar) against this decision, arguing that she ought to be exempted from the visa requirement as she was unable to return to Somalia or, given that there were no representations of the Netherlands in that country, to one of Somalia’s neighbouring countries. Not only would this contravene the rights of her Dutch children in the Netherlands, it was also realistically impossible for her to travel: as there was no functioning Somali Government, she could not obtain a travel document.\n11.  After the Deputy Minister rejected her objection on 27 February 2002, the applicant appealed to the Regional Court of The Hague, sitting in Arnhem, which court upheld the appeal on 24 April 2003.\n12.  The Minister for Immigration and Integration (Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie; the successor to the Deputy Minister of Justice) lodged an appeal against the Regional Court’s decision. In a decision of 18 July 2003, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State; herein after “the Division) found in favour of the Minister. The Division reiterated that the ratio of the visa requirement lay in preventing the national authorities, prior to a decision on a person’s request for admission having been taken, from being confronted with a fait accompli as a result of that person’s illegal presence in the Netherlands. If an alien, who had entered the Netherlands without a visa but with the intention of settling there, could be exempted from the visa requirement simply by asserting that it was impossible to return, this would have serious negative repercussions on the policy. Noting that family life had been started at a time when the applicant was not residing lawfully in the country, the Division further found that insisting on the visa requirement did not violate Article 8 of the Convention. It added that the impugned decision did not constitute a definite refusal of family life being exercised in the Netherlands, but merely an enforcement of legal requirements. Finally, it had not appeared that there were any objective impediments to family life being developed abroad. For these reasons, the Division quashed the decision of the Region", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4297", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Belgrade (Serbia).\n7.  On 6 July 1991 the applicant was baptised in accordance with the ceremonial rite of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and became an active member. On 1 December 1995 he assumed the function of a preacher (“special full-time servant” or “regular pioneer” – Sondervollzeitdiener, allgemeiner Pionier).\n8.  On 20 December 1995 the Styrian Military Authority (Militär-kommando) found the applicant fit to perform military service. It subsequently called him up (Einberufungsbefehl) to begin his military service on 1 July 1996. That order was later revoked.\n9.  The applicant, on 13 January 1997, filed a request with the Federal Minister for Internal Affairs (Bundesminister für Inneres) for recognition as a conscientious objector (Zivildiensterklärung).\n10.  Subsequently, on 14 April 1997, the Minister for Internal Affairs recognised the applicant as a conscientious objector. Accordingly, he was exempted from the duty to perform military service but liable to perform civilian service (Zivildienst).\n11.  From 28 July 1997 until 1 July 1998 the applicant lived in a community of preachers (“Bethel family” – Bethelfamilie), which, in the applicant’s view, is similar to a religious order (Orden) and is called the Religious Order of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Orden der Sonder-vollzeitdiener der Zeugen Jehovas).\n12.  On 1 April 1998 the Ministry for Internal Affairs ordered the applicant to commence his civilian service (Zuweisungsbescheid) with the Styrian Regional Fire Brigade (Landesfeuerwehrkommando Steiermark) on 2 June 1998.\n13.  On 17 April 1998 the applicant became a deacon (“ministerial servant” – Diakon, Dienstamtgehilfe) within the Jehovah’s Witnesses.\n14.  On 30 April 1998 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) against the Ministry’s order of 1 April 1998, also requesting the suspension of its effect. The applicant submitted that he had been living in a community of preachers since 28 July 1997 and devoted all his time to religious activities. On 17 April 1998 he had become a deacon and aspired to assume the function of an elder within the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Referring to German law (section 10(1)(3) of the German Civilian Service Act) and the case-law and practice of the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG, 29 September 1989, Zl. 8 C 53.87), he argued that persons in a similar situation (preachers and deacons) were exempt from compulsory military or civilian service. Further, the applicant complained that section 13a(1) of the Civilian Service Act exempted only members of recognised religious societies performing specific services relating to worship or religious instruction from the obligation to perform civilian service, whereas he held a comparable clerical position within the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Furthermore, section 11(1) of the newly introduced Federal Act on the Legal Status of Registered Religious Communities (Bundesgesetz über die Rechtspersönlichkeit von religiösen Bekenntnisgemeinschaften, hereafter referred to as the “1998 Act”), which had entered into force on 10 January 1998, established that recognition under the Recognition Act was only possible after ten years’ existence as a registered religious community. Therefore this new provision precluded any recognition during the following ten years and made the Recognition Act inapplicable until 2008. The applicant requested the Constitutional Court to revoke the restrictio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4298", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Romny.\n6.  After last being seen in the applicant’s house on 7 June 2003, Mr O.S., the applicant’s acquaintance, disappeared. On several occasions between June 2003 and March 2004 the applicant explained to the police that he was unaware of Mr O.S.’s whereabouts following his departure from the house.\n7.  On 11 June 2003 the police seized from the applicant’s house a knife and several objects spotted with a brown substance. According to an expert assessment obtained in March 2004, these spots were human blood that probably belonged to Mr O.S.\n8.  On 27 March 2004 the applicant confessed that he had accidentally killed Mr O.S during a drinking party. He had then dismembered the body, packed it in sacks and disposed of it in the Romenka River. On the same date criminal proceedings were instituted against him on suspicion of murder. The applicant was taken to the river bank to point out the place where he had dumped the sacks. However, no body parts were found.\n9.  On 30 March 2004 the applicant was detained as a criminal suspect.\n10.  On 6 April 2004 the investigator brought formal charges against the applicant for murder.\n11.  On 9 April 2004 the applicant was released after giving an undertaking not to abscond.\n12.  On 16 April 2004 the applicant informed the Town and the Regional Prosecutor that he had confessed to having killed Mr O.S. under torture. He further submitted that in reality Mr O.S. had apparently been killed by two masked robbers, who had broken into his house during the drinking party on 7 June 2003 and knocked the applicant unconscious. He had kept this story secret fearing reprisals by the robbers.\n13.  Between April and December 2004, on some four occasions, criminal proceedings against the applicant were suspended for periods ranging from several days to some three months on account of his ill-health or for unexplained reasons. At the same time, certain investigative actions, such as the examination of witnesses, were carried out during the periods when the investigation was officially suspended.\n14.  On 21 January 2005 the applicant was committed for trial.\n15.  Between February and July 2005 the prosecution withdrew the case file from the court on four occasions for the rectification of procedural omissions. On 1 August 2005 the applicant was committed for trial for the fifth time.\n16.  On 8 August 2005 human bones were retrieved from the Romenka River. On the same day the prosecution withdrew the case file from the court in order to verify whether these bones belonged to Mr O.S.\n17.  On 12 August 2005 the Town Court authorised the applicant to be remanded in custody for ten days.\n18.  On 19 August 2005 the Town Court, following a hearing held in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer, authorised that pending the outcome of pre-trial investigation the applicant be detained for a maximum period of two months, on the grounds that there was a serious suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he had been charged and that during the pre-trial proceedings he had changed his place of residence and attempted to influence a witness.\n19.  On 2 September 2005 the Town Prosecutor refused an application for bail lodged by the applicant. On the same date the Town Court informed the applicant that it was not competent to deal with bail applications while the case was at the investigation stage.\n20.  On 23 September 2005 the case file and a new bill of indictment w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4299", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine.\n5.  On 21 February 2001 the Snizhne Court awarded the applicant 23,536.80[1] Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH[) against the State-owned ]Udarnik mine in compensation for her husband’s death as a result of a work-related accident. Subsequently, the mine was reorganised into the Snizhneantratsyt State Company.\n6.  The judgment was not appealed against, became final, and enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the debt.\n7.  Between February 2002 and December 2003 the applicant was paid UAH 11,135.\n8.  On 18 January 2008 the applicant received the rest of the judgment debt.\n9.  The applicant attempted to collect compensation from the debtor company for the delay in enforcement, by way of judicial proceedings; however her efforts were to no avail.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4300", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n(1) Mr Magomed Abdulvadudovich[1] Elsiyev, born in 1941,\n(2) Mr Isa Noshayevich Demelkhanov, born in 1956,\n(3) Mr Vakhid Boltiyev, born in 1937,\n(4) Ms Petimat Dzhamaldiyevna[2] Nakayeva, born in 1954,\n(5) Ms Shurka Abubakarova, born in 1939,\n(6) Mr Khozhbaudi Abdul-Vakhitovich Mandiyev, born in 1957,\n(7) Ms Zavra Saidselimovna Demilkhanova, born in 1961, and\n(8) Ms Shakhadat (also spelled as Shakhadad) Alieyvna Agmerzayeva, born in 1962.\n7.  The applicants live in the village of Tsotsi-Yurt, in the Kurchaloy district of Chechnya. The applicants’ relatives have been detained and subsequently disappeared.\n8.  On 31 August 2002 the Russian military troops surrounded the village of Tsotsi-Yurt (also known as Oktyabrskoye). Between 1 and 8 September 2002 they carried out a large-scale special security operation in the village. The military, under the command of General Studenikin (also spelled as Studenkin), based their headquarters and a temporary filtration point on the outskirts of the village. The filtration point, known to the local residents as “the flour mill” and “the brigade”, consisted of an old barn, a former repair station and a fenced yard. Military division no. 4 (4-я дивизия) was among the units which participated in the special operation. At least 86 persons were apprehended during the operation and taken to the filtration point by “AvtoZak” vehicles (GAZ-53 lorries equipped for transportation of detainees), one of which had the registration number 112 BM 61.\n(b)  Apprehension of Salakh Elsiyev and subsequent events\n9.  The first applicant is the father of Mr Salakh Magomedovich Elsiyev, who was born in 1972.\n10.  On 2 September 2002 the Elsiyevs were at home, at 21 Shosseinaya Street, in the village of Tsotsi-Yurt. At about 3 p.m. two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and a UAZ car arrived at their house. The vehicles’ registration numbers were covered with mud.\n11.  The first applicant went outside. Twelve or thirteen armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks, equipped with portable radio systems and armed with Stechkin pistols and machine guns, entered the yard and ordered the first applicant to prostrate himself. He disobeyed their order. The men forced him against the wall and asked how many men were in the house. The first applicant named his son and himself.\n12.  The servicemen entered the house, dragged Salakh Elsiyev outside and put him on the ground. When the first applicant requested the soldiers to explain what was happening, one of them pointed a Stechkin gun at him and ordered him to keep silent. Three or four servicemen entered the Elsiyevs’ house and searched it. They did not produce any search warrant.\n13.  The servicemen searched Salakh Elsiyev, then put him in the APC and drove away in the direction of the western outskirts of the village, where the special operation’s headquarters were stationed. The apprehension of the first applicant’s son was witnessed by the first applicant’s neighbour, Mr Sh.G., who provided a witness statement similar to that of the first applicant.\n14.  On 3 September 2002 the first applicant and his wife went to the filtration point. They saw that the apprehended men were being kept in the barn. From the date of Salakh Elsiyev’s apprehension the applicant went to the point every day, waiting for the release of his son. In the morning of 7 September 2002 the first applicant returned to the filtration point and saw that all the military vehicles had ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4301", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966. He lives in Kyiv.\n6.  In November 2000 a criminal investigation was opened against the applicant in Belarus.\n7.  On 5 December 2003 Grodno Prosecutor’s Office decided that the applicant’s undertaking not to abscond be replaced by remand in custody.\n8.  On 9 March 2004 the applicant was placed on an international wanted list.\n9.  On 29 December 2004 the Lidsky District Police Department of the Republic of Belarus sent a letter to the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine informing it that according to their data the applicant, who was wanted for swindling and whose arrest had been ordered on 5 December 2003 by the Grodno Prosecutor’s Office, was living in Kyiv. Therefore, they requested that the applicant be found and arrested. They further stated that his extradition would be requested in accordance with the Minsk Convention 1993.\n10.  On 29 December 2004 the applicant was arrested by the Kyiv Pechersky District Police Department on the basis of the arrest warrant of the Grodno Prosecutor’s Office of 5 December 2003.\n11.  On 31 December 2004 a department of the Belarus Ministry of the Interior applied to the President of the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv (“the Pechersky Court”), seeking that the applicant be placed in detention.\n12.  On 5 January 2005 the Pechersky District Police Department requested from the Lidsky District Police Department of the Republic of Belarus the originals of documents needed to order the applicant’s arrest by a Ukrainian court.\n13.  On 6 January 2005 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Belarus applied to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine, requesting that the applicant be placed in detention until the request for his extradition had been submitted.\n14.  On 11 January 2005 the Pechersky Court ordered that the applicant be placed in detention for one month.\n15.  The applicant appealed against this decision on 13 January 2005, referring to the allegedly unlawful nature of the Belarus authorities’ decision of 5 December 2003 ordering that he be detained. In addition, the applicant complained that his detention prior to 11 January 2005 had been unlawful. By a judgment of 20 January 2005, the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 11 January 2005, noting that the decision was well-founded and in accordance with procedural law.\n16.  On 19 January 2005 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the Pechersky Court, seeking a declaration that the applicant’s detention without judicial supervision during the period between 29 December 2004 and 11 January 2005 had been unlawful.\n17.  On 19 January 2005 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Belarus submitted an official extradition request to the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine.\n18.  On 20 January 2005 the applicant asked the European Court of Human Rights to prohibit the Ukrainian Government from extraditing him to Belarus, alleging that there was a risk that he would be subjected to torture by the officers conducting the investigation and would not enjoy the benefit of a fair trial.\n19.  On 21 January 2005 the President of the Chamber indicated to the Ukrainian Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, not to extradite the applicant to Belarus until 21 February 2005 and invited the parties to submit additional information.\n20.  On 22 January 2005 the applicant’s extradition was suspended.\n21.  On 27 January 2005 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine informed the Deputy Prosecutor General of Belarus of the interim mea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4302", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Novaya Usman, Voronezh Region.\n5.  On 17 or 20 March 1998 the applicant brought an action against his former employer, a municipal enterprise, claiming his reinstatement in the post and damages. On 3 June 1998 the applicant amended his claims and sought to obtain certain documents from the respondent company.\n6.  On 8 February 2000 the Chaunskiy District Court of the Chukotka Region dismissed the applicant’s action. On 6 April 2000 the Chukotka Regional Court set aside the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n7.  In May and July 2000 and January 2001 the applicant amended his claims, reiterated his claim for documents from the respondent and asked the court to call witnesses. On 1 February 2001 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims in part. On 24 May 2001 the Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a re-trial.\n8.  In July 2001 and February 2002 the applicant amended his claims. On 22 February 2002 the District Court found for the applicant. The court reinstated him and awarded him 67,960 Russian roubles (RUB) on account of leave payment, RUB 39,766.09 for salary arrears and inflation losses, and RUB 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 16 May 2002 the Regional Court remitted the case for a new examination in the part of leave payment and upheld the remainder of the judgment.\n9.  On 30 November 2002 the applicant received RUB 39,766.09 as awarded by the court and another payment of RUB 17,397.14.\n10.  On 9 January 2003 the District Court awarded the applicant RUB 48,247 in leave payment. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 20 January 2003.\n11.  On 24 January 2003 the bailiffs’ office opened enforcement proceedings. On 21 March 2003 the District Court instructed the bailiffs’ office to collect RUB 30,849.86 from the respondent company because due to a mistake the applicant had already received RUB 17,397.14.\n12.  On 5 May 2003 the bailiffs’ office closed the enforcement proceedings. They held that the judgment could not be enforced because the respondent had no property or funds; on 2 July 2002 the enterprise had been restructured so that its assets had been transferred to the municipality.\n13.  The judgment of 9 January 2003 was enforced in full on 14 April 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4303", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lived in Tomsk until his arrest.\n8.  In July 1996 the applicant was elected to the position of mayor of Tomsk. In 2000 he was re-elected.\n9.  In 2006 two co-owners of a private company complained to the Tomsk Regional Department of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) that the applicant’s relative, Ms E., had attempted to extort 3,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) from them by threatening to destroy their real estate and prevent them from rebuilding. According to the co-owners, following their refusal to pay, the applicant annulled the Tomsk mayor’s decision of 26 September 2005 by which their company had been provided with a plot of land and granted that plot of land to his relative, Ms E. By a letter of 15 September 2006 the applicant had also ordered the Head of the Tomsk Town Land Committee to demolish the company’s property situated on that land. The Government provided the Court with a copy of the co-owners’ complaint registered by the FSB on 5 December 2006.\n10.  On 6 December 2006 the office of the Tomsk Regional Prosecutor, acting on the complaint from the co-owners and the results of the preliminary investigative actions performed by the FSB, instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, suspecting him of having abused his position and having aided and abetted aggravated extortion. On the same day the applicant was arrested and placed in the Tomsk Town temporary detention facility.\n11.  The applicant felt ill and was immediately transferred to the Scientific Research Cardiology Institute (“the Institute”), where he was diagnosed with ischemic heart disease, unstable stenocardia, impaired cardiac function, chronic pancreatitis, chronic cholecystitis and bronchitis.\n12.  On 8 December 2006 a commission of medical experts from the Institute issued a report finding the applicant fit to participate in the pre-trial investigation. The commission also concluded that the applicant could remain in custody on condition that urgent medical assistance was to be provided to him if necessary.\n13.  A senior investigator from the office of the Tomsk Regional Prosecutor asked the Sovetskiy District Court of Tomsk to authorise the applicant’s detention.\n14.  On 8 December 2006 the District Court found that the prosecution had to submit additional evidence in support of their request, and granted a seventy-two-hour extension to keep the applicant in police custody. The District Court noted that the applicant should remain under arrest until 6.07 p.m. on 11 December 2006. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:\n“At the hearing the acting head of the department... of the Tomsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office, Ms K., applied for a seventy-two-hour extension to keep [the applicant] in custody pending the submission of additional evidence, namely the suspect’s identification documents – a copy of the suspect’s passport – in support of the request.\nThe suspect, [the applicant], disagreed with the request and stated that there were no grounds for extending his detention.\nThe suspect’s lawyers also disagreed with the request and explained that [the applicant] had no intention to abscond, he had a permanent place of residence and his arrest was unlawful, as there were no grounds for his arrest as required by Article 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. In these circumstances they asked for the request to be dismissed.\nHaving heard the submissions of the parties to the proc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4304", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Ryazan.\n5.  He is a former military serviceman. From 22 August 2000 to 15 October 2001 he served in the Russian peacekeeping contingent in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Republic of Yugoslavia.\n6.  Upon his return, the applicant brought proceedings against the head of his military unit to secure payment of his daily allowance for his service abroad.\n7.  On 25 July 2003 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the military unit to pay the applicant 400,164.75 Russian roubles (RUB) in remuneration and RUB 1,000 in expenses for legal advice.\n8.  The military unit did not lodge an ordinary appeal, and on 22 August 2003 the judgment became binding and enforceable.\n9.  However, following the respondent’s request, on 19 November 2003 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command quashed the judgment of 25 July 2003 by way of supervisory review and dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. The reason given for the quashing of the judgment was the “wrongful application of substantive law by the first-instance court”.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4305", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants in application no. 27238/03 are:\nThe applicants in application no. 35078/04 are:\n8.  They live in the Urus-Martan district, Chechnya.\n9.  The applicants belong to four families, members of whom were detained in three separate incidents in 2001 and 2002 in the town of Urus-Martan or in villages in the Urus-Martan district. The four men disappeared following their detention, and the families have been conducting the search for them together.\n10.  The first four applicants are relatives of Imran Dzhambekov, who was born in 1979. The first two applicants are his mother and father, and the third and fourth applicants are his younger sister and brother. The Dzhambekov family live in their own house at 209 Sovetskaya Street in the village of Goyty in the Urus-Martan district. In March 2002 Imran Dzhambekov was a second-year student at the Grozny Oil Institute, in the faculty of Construction Management and Economics. The local police office in Urus-Martan certified that he had no problems with the law and was known to his neighbours and fellow students as a responsible member of the community. In May 2003, at the first applicant’s request, the Goyty village policeman certified that there was no reason to suspect Imran Dzhambekov of involvement with illegal armed groups.\n11.  On the evening of 19 March 2002 the first four applicants and Imran Dzhambekov were at home. At about midnight the first applicant heard someone trying to open the front door. She walked to the door, which opened, and a man wearing camouflage and a mask entered and pointed a machine gun at her. He turned on the light, and then about twelve more servicemen entered the house. They were all armed and masked. They spoke Russian without any accent and the first applicant noticed blue eyes and light features through the openings in the masks. The first applicant asked them what they wanted but they told her to keep quiet. They did not explain anything to the applicants and did not produce any papers.\n12.  The servicemen asked the first applicant to indicate who was in which room of the house. The first applicant pointed to the room where her husband, the second applicant, was sleeping and to the room where her elder son Imran Dzhambekov was sleeping. One serviceman went into the second applicant’s room, and about ten of them went into Imran’s room. The first applicant managed to get past the servicemen into her son’s room and saw him lying on the floor face down, his hands tied behind his back. He was wearing a short-sleeved T-shirt and shorts in which he had been sleeping. The servicemen ordered him to be silent and asked the first applicant her son’s name and date of birth. Then they ordered her to fetch his passport and other documents, which she did.\n13.  In the meantime the first and second applicants’ two minor children, the third and fourth applicants, started to cry and one of the soldiers took the children and the first applicant and escorted them into the second applicant’s room. Then they closed the door and pushed some furniture against it to block it from the outside. The second applicant received several blows from the servicemen in the face and in the stomach, and for some time lay on the floor in pain. When the applicants managed to open the door after about ten minutes, the servicemen had already left and taken Imran Dzhambekov with them.\n14.  The first applicant ran along the street crying out her son’s name. She saw a group of servicemen walk", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4306", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is currently imprisoned.\n6.  On 31 December 1999 the applicant, Mr D. and Mr G. were arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed a murder.\n7.  On 3 January 2000, given the gravity of the offence of which the applicant was suspected, the investigator of the Druzhkivka District Prosecutor’s Office decided that the applicant should be remanded in custody for up to two months. The same day the Druzhkivka District Prosecutor issued the arrest warrant, authorising thereby the investigator’s decision.\n8.  On 20 February 2000 the Druzhkivka District Prosecutor extended the term of the applicant’s detention until 31 March 2000.\n9.  On 23 March 2000 the applicant, Mr D. and Mr G. were charged with murder.\n10.  On 24 March 2000 the investigator completed the investigation and gave the applicant and the co-accused access to the case file. However, on 11 April 2000 the investigator reopened the investigation and additionally charged the applicant with aggravated robbery. On 12 April 2000 the investigation was completed and the applicant and the co-accused continued studying the case-file until 27 April 2000.\n11.  On 6 May 2000 the supervising prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and transferred the case file to the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) for trial proceedings.\n12.  On 17 May 2000 the Court of Appeal committed the applicant and the co-accused for trial and held that the preventive measure in their respect was to remain unchanged. The hearing took place in the presence of the prosecutor, but the applicant and his lawyer were absent.\n13.  On 2 October 2001 the Court of Appeal held a hearing in the applicant’s case, where it considered several applications submitted by the co-accused and adjourned consideration of the case until the requisite technical facilities could be installed for the proceedings. According to the applicant, the Court of Appeal also adjourned consideration of his release request, lodged before the hearing.\n14.  According to the applicant, in the period between 2 October 2001 and 6 October 2003 he lodged about twenty requests for his release with the Court of Appeal, referring to his health problems and relying on his right to a trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Those requests remained unanswered however.\n15.  On 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 October 2003 the Court of Appeal held hearings in the case during which it examined the evidence and questioned the defendants and witnesses.\n16.  Further court hearings took place on 26 and 27 January, 9, 10, 11, 15, 23, and 24 March, and 26 and 28 April 2004, during which the Court of Appeal continued examining the evidence and questioning witnesses. Within that period the hearings were adjourned three times because one of the defendants was feeling ill and twice because the counsel of the other defendant failed to appear before the court.\n17.  In a letter of 4 March 2004 the Deputy President of the Court of Appeal informed the applicant that his latest complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings had been rejected on the same basis as the previous ones, namely that there were compelling and valid reasons for the delays in the proceedings. However, the nature of those reasons was not specified in the letter.\n18.  On 6 May 2004 the Court of Appeal considered the applicant’s release requests and rejected them, holding that he", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4307", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and currently lives in Sevastopol, the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea, Ukraine.\n5.  At the material time she worked at the Housing Maintenance and Utilities Enterprise “Kotelnikovo” (Управління житлово-комунального господарства «Котельниково»), a municipal enterprise set up and owned by local village council. The labour contract with the applicant was signed by that village council. Subsequently she resigned.\n6.  On 16 December 2002 the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea awarded the applicant 3,151.25 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments due to her by her former employer.\n7.  This judgment became final and on 30 January 2003 the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce it. According to the Government, in the course of these proceedings the total amount of UAH 357.97 was paid to the applicant. The applicant, in her turn, contested that she had ever been paid any sum under the judgment.\n8.  In September 2003 the applicant instituted another set of proceedings against her former employer seeking additional compensation for salary arrears. On 1 February 2005 the court dismissed her claim. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment.\n9.  On 15 December 2004 the enforcement proceedings were terminated for lack of funds of the debtor enterprise. The applicant did not challenge this decision before the domestic courts; nor had she reintroduced her writ of enforcement with the State Bailiffs’ Service.\n10.  On 26 January 2006 the Commercial Court of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea initiated liquidation proceedings against the debtor enterprise. These proceedings were terminated on 26 February 2007 and the enterprise was removed from the relevant enterprises’ register. The applicant did not raise her creditor claims within these proceedings.\n11.  The judgment of 16 December 2002 remains unenforced.\n12.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Pyatykhatky, the Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.\n13.  On 11 April and 1 October 2003 the Pyatykhatky District Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region awarded the applicant UAH 1,705.14 and UAH 570.41[2], respectively, in salary arrears due to her by her former employer, the Pyatykhatky Municipal Plumbing Company (Комунальне підприємство водопровідно-каналізаційного господарства в м. П’ятихатки) set up, owned and managed by local town council.\n14.  These judgments became final and on 30 April 2003 and 30 March 2004, respectively, the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce them.\n15.  The applicant complained to various State authorities about lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments in her favour but to no avail.\n16.  On 15 May 2007 the awarded amounts were paid to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4308", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1958 and 1931 respectively and live in Beryozovka, the Odessa region. The first applicant is a farmer who specialises in arable crops. The second applicant is his mother, a pensioner.\n6.  On 24 January 2001 the first applicant was stopped by tax police officers when driving a lorry leased from his mother. On checking the lorry the officers discovered 500 kilos of wheat, 1,400 kilos of flour and 3,000 kilos of wheat middlings for which the applicant had no proper documents. The police officers drew up a report on an administrative offence and seized the lorry and the load pending adjudication of the case by the court.\n7.  On 26 January 2001 the Trostyanets District Court (the “District Court”) found that the first applicant had transported the property of a third person for sale without a relevant business permit and was therefore guilty of unlawful business activity (an administrative offence). The District Court fined the applicant 51 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) and ordered the confiscation of the flour and wheat middlings. It further held that the 500 kilos of wheat were not subject to forfeiture as they belonged to the first applicant.\n8.  According to the applicants, after the judgment of 26 January 2001 they applied on several occasions to the Trostyanets Town Tax Office (the “Tax Office”), requesting that the lorry and the wheat load, which were not covered by the confiscation order, be returned to them. Their requests were rejected however.\n9.  On an unspecified date the confiscated products were sold and the funds were transferred to the State budget.\n10.  On 19 June 2001 the President of the Vinnytsya Region Court (subsequently renamed as the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal), following an extraordinary review, quashed the judgment of 26 January 2001, stating that the conviction of the first applicant and the imposed penalties had been unsubstantiated. He therefore closed the case.\n11.  On 15 August 2001 the Tax Office returned the lorry and the wheat load to the applicants. According to the applicants the wheat load had deteriorated significantly and the lorry was damaged when returned.\n12.  On 3 January 2002 the applicants lodged a claim with the Vinnytsya Region Court of Appeal against the District Court and the Tax Office seeking damages for the wrongful conviction; for the groundless seizure and lengthy detention of their property; and for the deterioration of their property when in charge of the Tax Office. They claimed in particular that the Tax Office unlawfully retained the lorry and the wheat load despite the fact that those objects were not covered by the confiscation order; and that the lorry and the wheat load had significantly deteriorated when returned.\n13.  On 20 January 2002 the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal declared the claim inadmissible, stating, in particular:\n“According to Article 62 of the Constitution, compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused in the course of the administration of justice can be paid by the State to a person who has been groundlessly sentenced provided that the judgment in a criminal case has been quashed as unfair.\nHowever, even in such a case the damage is compensated by the State, and not by a court or a judge.\nTherefore, the court (or judge) as a body (or individual) administering justice cannot be a defendant in civil litigation, as the law provides another mechanism for correcting mistakes and irregularities committed in the cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4309", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Vladimir Petrovich Krasovskiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1942 and lives in the town of Dniprodzerzhynsk, Ukraine.\n5.  On 28 October 2003 the Dniprovsky District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk awarded the applicant 2,199 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears and UAH 2,743.29 in other payments, to be paid by the open joint stock company Dniprovsky Mineral Fertilizers Plant (“the debtor”).\n6.  On 4 November 2003 the Bagliysky District Bailiffs’ Service of Dniprodzerzhynsk initiated enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On 25 October 2004 the debtor paid the applicant UAH 2,199 in salary arrears.\n8.  On unspecified date the debtor paid the applicant UAH 106,19.\n9.  On 7 April 2004 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor.\n10.  By a letter of 22 December 2005, the bailiffs notified the applicant that they were unable to collect the full amount of the award, referring to the fact that financial assets of the debtor were insufficient. They further explained that other assets could not be sold, as the State owned 40 % of the debtor’s share capital. The debtor was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property”.\n11.  The judgment remains partly unenforced.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings against the debtor in the Dniprovsky District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk claiming payment of UAH 4,775.90.\n13.  On 16 December 2004 the court found against the applicant.\n14.  On 17 February 2005 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. On 20 July 2007 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4310", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n7.  Mr Abdula Zaindievich Khadayev, born in 1971,\n8.  Ms Aset Zaindievich Khadayev, born in 1972.\nThey live in Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic. 7.  The first two applicants are the parents of Mr Ali Zaindievich Khadayev, born in 1977, and the other applicants are his sisters and brothers. 8.  At the material time Mr Ali Khadayev lived with his family in a private house at 22 Sheripova Street, Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic.\n9.  According to the applicants, in the night of 18 to 19 April 2002 between twelve and fourteen men, of whom four were wearing masks, came to the house of the Khadayev family and apprehended Mr Ali Khadayev. Subsequently his family applied to various authorities, in particular, the District Office of the Interior, the Military Commander’s Office and the Prosecutor’s Office, seeking his release.\n10.  Seven days later the applicants were approached by Z., an officer of the Military Commander’s Office. He told them that Mr Ali Khadayev could be released against the payment of 2,000 United States dollars (USD). By 1 May 2002 they gathered the money and handed it over, following which Mr Ali Khadayev was dropped off outside their house. He was very weak since during his 11 days’ detention at the Federal Security Service (FSB) of the Urus-Martan District he had been given no food and had been ill-treated by federal servicemen. However, the applicants neither sought medical assistance nor applied to law-enforcement agencies in connection with the detention and the alleged ill-treatment. After the release a representative of the FSB told the second applicant that Mr Ali Khadayev was not guilty of anything and had been detained by mistake.\n11.  According to the Government, at around 5 a.m. on 19 April 2002 unidentified armed persons abducted Mr Ali Khadayev from his house and took him to an unknown destination.\n12.  On 19 April 2002, upon a complaint by the second applicant concerning his son’s abduction, the district prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings under Article 126 (2) of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was assigned the number 61075.\n13.  On 22 April 2002 the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings.\n14.  On 19 June 2002 the investigation was suspended on account of the failure to identify those responsible.\n15.  According to the applicants, the investigation file contained a letter from the head of the Urus-Martan District Department of the Interior (ROVD) to the Urus-Martan District Prosecutor’s Office, received by the latter on 24 May 2002 and assigned the number 887. The letter contained the following passage: “We remind [you] that at present A.Z. Khadayev is at his home”. However, Mr Ali Khadayev was not questioned after his release and no investigative measures were conducted with regard to his relatives or other witnesses to establish the circumstances of the abduction.\n16.  In the night of 4 to 5 January 2003, during curfew hours, the first, second, fifth and sixth applicants and N., a friend of the family, were sleeping in the Khadayevs’ house. At around 3 a.m. approximately twenty servicemen of the Russian federal forces approached the house. Around twelve servicemen entered the house while the family was asleep. They were armed with machine-guns, were wearing camouflage uniforms, were tall, had Slavic appearances and spoke only Russian. Only one serviceman was masked.\n17.  Three unmasked servicemen ent", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4311", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Maissau.\n8.  Upon his baptism on 9 July 1994 he became a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Austria, within which he assumed the function of a preacher or “regular pioneer” (Prediger, allgemeiner Pionier) and, since 27 November 1996, a deacon or “ministerial servant” (Diakon, Dienstamtgehilfe). In this function he assisted the clerical work of elders of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.\n9.  On 17 November 1994 the Lower Austrian Military Authority (Militärkommando) found that the applicant was fit to perform military service. On 3 July 1995 the applicant started his military service; however, on 1 August 1995 he was discharged following a military medical expert opinion that had found him unfit for service.\n10.  On 28 September 1995 the Lower Austrian Military Authority issued a conscription order (Stellungsbescheid) in respect of the applicant, ordering him to undergo another examination as to his ability to perform military service pursuant to section 24(8) of the Military Service Act (Wehrgesetz), as in force at the relevant time. As to the applicant’s argument that he should be exempted from military service under section 24(3) of the Military Service Act, it noted that the applicant was not a member of a recognised religious society.\n11.  The applicant appealed against that order, claiming in particular that he should be dispensed from military service since he performed a function within the Jehovah’s Witnesses which was equivalent to that of members of a recognised religious society who were exempted from military service under section 24(3) of the Military Service Act. To restrict such a privilege to members of recognised religious societies was not objectively justified and was therefore in breach of the Federal Constitution.\n12.  On 16 November 1995 the Federal Minister for Defence (Bundesminister für Landesverteidigung) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the lower authority’s decision.\n13.  On 8 January 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof), requesting it to repeal the wording “recognised religious societies” in section 24(3) of the Military Service Act.\n14.  On 1 December 1997 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the applicant’s complaint for lack of prospects of success. It referred to an earlier decision by which it had found that the obligation to perform military or civilian service raised no concerns as regards compliance with Article 9 of the Convention.\n15.  On 26 March 1998 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs-gerichtshof) dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It noted that the applicant had solely complained about section 24(3) of the Military Service Act in conjunction with the 1998 Act on the Legal Status of Registered Religious Communities (Bundesgesetz über die Rechtspersönlichkeit von religiösen Bekenntnisgemeinschaften – hereafter referred to as the “1998 Act”), which had entered into force on 10 January 1998. However, the Administrative Court had to limit its examination of the legality of the drafting order to the legal situation at the time when the order had been issued. Referring to the case-law quoted by the Constitutional Court, it found no concerns as regards the legality of the drafting order and therefore also no indication to institute proceedings to review constitutionality (Gesetzesprüfungsverfahren) as proposed by the applicant.\n16.  On 14 May 1998 the Lower Austrian Military Autho", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4312", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Safonovo, Smolensk Region.\n5.  The applicant took part in the clean-up operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result of exposure to radioactive emissions, in 1997 a medical board designated him Category 3 disabled. He was awarded monthly compensation for the damage to his health.\n6.  In 2007 the applicant brought proceedings against the local social welfare authority (Департамент Смоленской области по социальному развитию) in order to have his compensation recalculated in line with inflation.\n7.  On 9 February 2007 the Safonovo Town Court of the Smolensk Region granted the applicant’s claim and obliged the respondent to pay the applicant 64,526.01 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of monthly compensation for health damage from 1 July 2007 and RUB 1,870,641.16 in respect of arrears for the period from 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2006. No appeal was lodged within the statutory time-limit, and on 10 April 2007 the judgment became final and enforceable.\n8.  On 15 May 2007 the respondent lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 9 February 2007.\n9.  On 1 June 2007 the enforcement proceedings started.\n10.  On 30 July 2007 the Presidium of the Smolensk Regional Court re-examined the case and concluded that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law. It therefore quashed the judgment of 9 February 2007 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n11.  On 1 November 2007 the applicant’s claim was partly satisfied by the Safonovo Town Court.\n12.  The applicant appealed against the judgment and on 18 December 2007 the Smolensk Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n13.  Meanwhile the applicant amended his claims and requested the compensation to be adjusted from 3 February 1997. He also raised his claims as regards the monthly payments.\n14.  On 19 March 2008 the Safonovo Town Court partly granted the applicant’s claims. The court obliged the respondent to pay the applicant RUB 55,546.16 in respect of monthly compensation for health damage as from 1 July 2007 and RUB 1,689,301.76 in respect of arrears for the period from 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2006. It also awarded the applicant RUB 3,000 for legal costs and expenses.\n15.  On 6 May 2008 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 19 March 2008, having raised the subsequent amounts to RUB 57,140.31 and RUB 1,763,050.41 respectively.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4313", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, who were born in 1983 and 1980, live in Izmir and Switzerland respectively. They were sixteen and nineteen years old at the time of the events giving rise to the present application.\n5.  On 6 March 1999 at 2 a.m. Nazime Ceren Salmanoğlu was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the İskenderun police headquarters on suspicion of membership of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation).\n6.  On the same day at 3 a.m. she was taken to the İskenderun State Hospital, along with two other persons. In a document of the police headquarters in which the names of the detainees were put, the doctor, E.B., noted that there were no signs of physical violence on the applicant’s body.\n7.  On the same day, the head of the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the İskenderun police headquarters requested the İskenderun Maternity Hospital to establish Nazime Ceren Salmanoğlu’s virginity status and determine whether she had had recent sexual relations (bakire olup olmadığı ve yakın zamanda cinsel ilişkide bulunup bulunmadığını gösterir kati doktor raporunun verilmesi). The medical expert, S.S., who conducted the examination, noted, on a document of the police, that Nazime Ceren Salmanoğlu was still a virgin and had not had recent sexual relations.\n8.  On 8 March 1999 at 11.30 a.m. Fatma Deniz Polattaş was arrested by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the İskenderun police headquarters, pursuant to an arrest warrant issued against her within the context of a police operation conducted against the PKK.\n9.  On the same day, the head of the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the İskenderun police headquarters requested the İskenderun Maternity Hospital to establish Fatma Deniz Polattaş’s virginity status and determine whether she had had recent sexual relations. She was examined by S.S. who subsequently informed the police that the applicant was a virgin and had not had recent sexual relations.\n10.  The applicants allege that they were subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. In particular, Nazime Ceren Salmanoğlu was blindfolded, forced to stand for a long time, and deprived of food, water and sleep. She was also insulted and threatened with death and the torture of other members of her family. She was sexually harassed and beaten. Fatma Deniz Polattaş was blindfolded, insulted and beaten. The police officers also inserted a truncheon into her anus, which caused bleeding. A female police officer asked her family to provide clean underwear, which the applicant changed into. The applicants were both stripped naked by this female police officer, A.Y.\n11.  On 9 March 1999 at 12.35 a.m. the applicants and two other detainees were examined by a medical expert, B.I.K., at the İskenderun State Hospital who noted, in a letter sent to the hospital by the İskenderun police headquarters containing the detainees’ names, that Fatma Deniz Polattaş had been sensitive upon palpation of the scalp and in the lumbar region. The doctor observed no sign of physical violence on the applicants’ persons.\n12.  On 12 March 1999 at 10.15 a.m. the applicants were once again referred to the İskenderun Maternity Hospital for virginity testing. The applicants were not examined as they refused to undergo a gynaecological examination.\n13.  On the same day, the applicants and two other persons were also examined by a general practitioner, A.A., in a health clinic, who noted that there was no sign of physical viol", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4314", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Volgograd.\n7.  On 21 April 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated murder.\n8.  On 23 April 2003 the Elista Town Court of the Kalmykiya Republic formally remanded the applicant in custody, referring to the gravity of the charge and the risk that he might abscond or interfere with the investigation.\n9.  On 12 June 2003 the Tsenteralniy District Court of Volgograd extended the applicant’s detention until 10 September 2003, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk of his absconding, reoffending and interfering with the investigation.\n10.  On 8 September 2003 the Tsenteralniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 December 2003, referring to the gravity of the charges and the complexity of the case. It stated that there was no reason to amend the preventive measure.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s case was joined with the cases of five other persons, who had allegedly acted in conspiracy with the applicant.\n12.  In October 2003 the applicant and his co-defendants were charged with organising an armed criminal gang, several counts of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, extortion, infliction of serious injuries and murder.\n13.  On 4 December 2003 the Tsenteralniy District Court extended the applicant’s and a co-defendant’s detention until 10 April 2004, referring to the need for an additional investigation and the gravity of the charges. Moreover, the applicant had no permanent place of residence in Volgograd. The court found that there was a risk of the defendants’ absconding or re-offending.\n14.  On 12 April 2004 the investigation was completed and six defendants, including the applicant, were committed for trial before the Volgograd Regional Court.\n15.  The defendants asked for a trial by jury.\n16.  On 20 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 27 April 2004 to examine the request. It further held that the defendants should meanwhile remain in custody.\n17.  On 27 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court ordered that the defendants be tried by jury and that they remain in custody pending trial.\n18.  On 13 October 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges.\n19.  On 12 January 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk that they might put pressure on witnesses and jurors.\n20.  On 7 April 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 July 2005. The Regional Court found that, in view of the gravity of the charges, it was “opportune” to keep the defendants in custody. It rejected their requests to release them under an undertaking not to leave the town, since it could not exclude the risk that they would put pressure on witnesses or jurors.\n21.  On 29 June 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 October 2005. It found that the defendants might interfere with the proceedings, as they were charged with serious criminal offences, including the charge of being members of an armed criminal gang.\n22.  On 4 October 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2006 for the same reasons as before.\n23.  The applicant appealed against the extension order of 4 October 2005. In his grounds of appeal he complained that the Regional Court’s conclusion", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4315", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Volgograd.\n6.  On 28 January 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of unlawful possession of arms and forgery of identity documents. He was taken to police department no. 2 in Volgograd and interrogated in the office of its deputy head, Mr T.\n7.  The applicant stated that Mr T. and the subordinate police officers had handcuffed and beaten him, seeking a confession. While he was sitting on a chair with his arms handcuffed behind the chair, the policemen administered electric shocks to his fingers through wires connected to a dynamo. The applicant fell onto the floor and one of the policemen stepped on his back. As the applicant was screaming, the policeman took off the applicant’s sock and gagged his mouth.\n8.  At about 5 a.m. on 29 January 2003 the applicant was put in a temporary detention cell. In the cell he pulled out a nail from the window frame and tried to open his veins. His arms swelled up and he asked for a doctor. The warders gave him an antiseptic and allegedly handcuffed him to a bar in the corridor. An hour later he was again taken to the police station and beaten. The policemen threatened to torture his wife and sister and insisted that he confess.\n9.  On 30 January 2003 the applicant was questioned by the investigator and he complained to the latter about ill-treatment. The investigator ordered a medical examination. The applicant was immediately escorted to the Volgograd Regional Department of Forensic Medicine where he was examined by two medical experts. It can be seen from the medical report of the same date that he had numerous bruises on his forehead, left shoulder, left shoulder-blade and right leg, which had been caused by the impact of blunt objects. The injuries to his back and leg could have been the result of bumping against protruding objects. The applicant also had abrasions on his forearms, which had been caused by a sharp object, possibly a nail. Lastly the doctors recorded thermoelectrical burns on the applicant’s fingers. They found that all injures had been inflicted one or two days before.\n10.  On 28 March 2003 the police arrested and allegedly beat the applicant’s wife and sister. They were released on 31 March 2003. On the same day the applicant’s sister was examined by a doctor who reported many bruises on her chest and waist and brain concussion. The applicant’s wife was diagnosed with post-traumatic perforated otitis.\n11.  On 29 March 2003 the applicant’s mother-in-law was also arrested and questioned by police officer Mr T. According to her testimony, he was drunk. He hit her several times in the face and verbally abused her. She was released on the same day. It transpires from a medical certificate issued on 30 March 2003 that she had a bruise on her face.\n12.  The applicant stated that he had complained to the prosecutor’s office about his ill-treatment, but had received no reply. He then signed a power of attorney for his mother who, on 26 August 2004, filed a complaint about the applicant’s ill-treatment with the prosecutor’s office. The applicant’s wife, sister and mother-in-law also complained that they had been beaten by Mr T., a deputy head of police department no. 2, and the subordinate police officers.\n13.  The Tsentralniy District prosecutor questioned one of the police officers of police department no. 2 and he denied beating the applicant. No other investigative measures were taken. On 3 September 2004 the Tsentralniy District p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4316", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Altmünster.\n6.  Upon his baptism on 30 July 1983 the applicant became a member of the recognised religious community of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Austria, within which he assumed the function of a preacher (Prediger) and, since 6 November 1997, an elder (Ältester) in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ community in Gmunden. This function includes providing pastoral care to the community, leading church services and preaching.\n7.  In September 2000 the Upper Austrian Military Authority (Militärkommando) ordered the applicant to undergo examinations as to his ability to perform military service. The applicant appealed against the order, claiming that he should be dispensed from military service since he performed a function within the Jehovah’s Witnesses which was equivalent to that of members of a recognised religious society who were exempt from military service under section 24(3) of the Military Service Act (Wehrgesetz). To restrict such a privilege to members of recognised religious societies was not objectively justified and was therefore in breach of the Federal Constitution.\n8.  On 9 October 2000 the Upper Austria Military Authority dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 14 December 2000 the Federal Minister for Defence (Bundesminister für Landesverteidigung) confirmed that decision. Both authorities refused the applicant’s appeals on the ground that he did not belong to a recognised religious society.\n9.  Subsequently, on 25 January 2001, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof), requesting it to repeal the wording “recognised religious societies” in section 24(3) of the Military Service Act.\n10.  On 25 September 2001 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the applicant’s complaint for lack of prospects of success. It found that the applicant’s obligations under the Military Service Act did not interfere with the internal rules and practices of the religious community at issue. It furthermore referred to earlier decisions dealing with the legal status of religious communities and their difference from recognised religious societies under the Recognition Act.\n11.  On 23 May 2003 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It found that exemption from the obligation to perform military service merely applied to members of recognised religious societies and could not be extended to members of registered religious communities. This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 4 July 2003.\n12.   On 26 August 2003 the applicant asked the Federal Ministry for Defence to take no action until the European Court of Human Rights had decided on his application. The applicant was informed that an instruction had been issued to the Upper Austrian Military Authority not to call him up until further notice.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4317", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Volgograd.\n7.  On 17 July 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated murder and harbouring criminals.\n8.  On 18 July 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd remanded him in custody, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk that he might abscond or interfere with the investigation.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s case was joined with the cases of five other persons, who had allegedly acted in conspiracy with the applicant.\n10.  In October 2003 the applicant and his co-defendants were charged with organising an armed criminal gang, several counts of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, extortion, infliction of serious injuries and murder.\n11.  On 3 December 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention, referring to the gravity of the charges, the previous criminal record and the risk of his absconding or re-offending.\n12.  On 12 April 2004 the investigation was completed and six defendants, including the applicant, were committed for trial before the Volgograd Regional Court.\n13.  The defendants asked for a trial by jury.\n14.  On 20 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 27 April 2004 to examine the request. It further held that the defendants should meanwhile remain in custody.\n15.  On 27 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court ordered that the defendants be tried by jury and that they remain in custody pending trial.\n16.  On 13 October 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges.\n17.  On 12 January 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk that they might put pressure on witnesses and jurors.\n18.  On 7 April 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 July 2005. The Regional Court found that, in view of the gravity of the charges, it was “opportune” to keep the defendants in custody. It rejected their requests to release them under an undertaking not to leave the town, as it could not exclude the risk that they might put pressure on witnesses or jurors.\n19.  On 29 June 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 October 2005. It found that the defendants might interfere with the proceedings, as they were charged with serious criminal offences, including the charge of being members of an armed criminal gang.\n20.  On 4 October 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2006 for the same reasons as before.\n21.  On 22 December 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 April 2006 for the same reasons as before.\n22.  The applicant appealed against the extension order of 22 December 2005. In his grounds of appeal he complained that the Regional Court’s conclusions had been hypothetical and had not been supported by relevant facts. The court had relied essentially on the gravity of the charges against him, disregarding his arguments that he had permanent residence and employment, and was the only breadwinner for his elderly parents. On 4 April 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified.\n23.  On 5 July 2006 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 October 2006 for the same reasons as before.\n24", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4318", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant is a civil servant in the Ministry of National Education. At the relevant time she was on secondment to the Bureau for the primary education of Greek children abroad, in the city of Stuttgart. On 2 June 1998 she filed a criminal complaint for perjury and defamation against S.M., with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party, but without claiming compensation. S.M., a civil servant in the same Ministry, was the applicant's immediate superior. She alleged in particular that, in connection with an administrative investigation opened against her, S.M. had stated that she did not observe working hours and did not get on well with her colleagues.\n11.  On 26 September 2001, when the case was heard before the Athens Criminal Court, the applicant reiterated her civil-party application, claiming 1,000 drachmas (about 3 euros) and adduced her arguments. On the same day, the Athens Criminal Court acquitted S.M. of the charges against him, finding that the applicant's allegations were unsubstantiated. In particular, after examining all the evidence, the court considered that the offending remarks had been truthful and that it had not been the defendant's intention to defame or insult the applicant (judgment no. 74941/2001).\n12.  On 5 August 2002 this judgment was finalised and entered in the register of the Criminal Court.\n13.  On 24 September 2002 the applicant requested the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation to lodge an appeal on points of law against the Athens Criminal Court's judgment no. 74941/2001, under Article 506 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She alleged, in particular, that the judgment did not contain sufficient reasoning.\n14.  On 27 September 2002 the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation returned the applicant's letter with the following handwritten comment on the actual request: “There are no legal or well-founded grounds of appeal to the Court of Cassation”.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4319", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1955, 1976, 1979 and 1983, respectively, and live in Ankara. The first applicant is the mother and the remaining three applicants are the brothers and sister of Mr Mustafa Beker, who was born in 1977 and was working as an expert corporal[1] in the special teams of the gendarmerie in Tunceli.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  At around 9.20 a.m. on 8 March 2001 Mustafa Beker allegedly committed suicide by shooting himself in the head in the dormitory of the military barracks where he was stationed. A non-commissioned officer who arrived at the scene immediately checked for a pulse and realised that Mr Beker was still alive. At 9.30 a.m. he was taken to the infirmary in an ambulance.\n8.  The same day a First Lieutenant (“the military investigator”) carried out an inspection of the dormitory, drew a sketch of the place, questioned a number of Mr Beker’s colleagues and recorded their statements.\n9.  A pistol was found some distance away from the place where Mr Beker had fallen, but the exact distance is not specified in the sketch. The pistol had been cocked and had fired two rounds but had failed to fire a third time. Two spent bullet cases and two bullets – one of which was misshapen – were also found. It was established that the pistol belonged to one of Mr Beker’s colleagues, expert sergeant T.Y., who had left it in his locker just outside the dormitory. According to a document drawn up by the military investigator, Mr Beker had obtained the pistol by smashing the padlock on the locker with a stick.\n10.  Expert sergeant M.A., when questioned by the military investigator, stated that Mr Beker had stayed at the former’s house the previous night. Mr Beker had been drunk and in an agitated state. M.A. had been concerned about Mr Beker’s state and had taken his pistol away from him and then hidden it in his house. When he had woken up in the morning, Mr Beker had already left the house, leaving his pistol behind. He had found Mr Beker in a restaurant, drinking. They had then gone to the barracks where Mr Beker had unsuccessfully asked expert sergeant T.Y. for the key to T.Y.’s locker. M.A. had then started to walk away but turned back when he heard a gunshot; whereupon he saw Mr Beker on the floor, with a pistol next to his feet.\n11.  When questioned by a military prosecutor, expert sergeant T.Y. confirmed that he had seen M.A. and Mr Beker in the corridor and that the latter had asked him for his key to his locker. He had told Mr Beker that he did not have the key on him. He had then left to attend to business elsewhere in the barracks. He had left his pistol in his locker.\n12.  Expert sergeant M.K. told the military investigator that, between 9.10 and 9.15 a.m., he had been changing his clothes in front of his locker in the corridor when Mr Beker had approached him and asked him where T.Y.’s locker was. M.K. had then heard noises which he thought were coming from the area near Mr Beker’s locker. Twenty to thirty seconds later he had heard two gunshots coming from the dormitory. When he had reached the dormitory he had seen Mr Beker lying on the floor with his head bleeding.\n13.  Four expert sergeants questioned by the military investigator and subsequently by the military prosecutor stated that they had been in their bunk beds in the dormitory when Mr Beker entered at around 9.15 a.m. and asked the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4320", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1965 respectively and live in Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski.\n5.  On 27 November 1995 the applicants lodged with the Kielce Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a claim for payment against Z.G. and J.D.\n6.  On 7 May 2001 the first instance court gave judgment. The defendants appealed.\n7.  On 13 March 2002 the Kraków Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) partly remitted the case.\n8.  On 28 January 2004 the Kielce Regional Court gave judgment.\n9.  The proceedings were terminated on 9 November 2004 by the final judgment of the Kraków Court of Appeal.\n10.  On 7 February 2005 the applicants lodged with the Kraków Court of Appeal a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. They specifically relied on section 18 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) which entered into force on 17 September 2004.\n11.  The applicants sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Kielce Regional Court had been excessive. They asked for an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 2,500).\n12.  On 16 March 2005 the Kraków Court of Appeal gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Kielce Regional Court. It awarded the applicants jointly and severally PLN 10,000 in just satisfaction.\n13.  On 9 May 2001 the applicants lodged a claim for payment against the City Office (Urząd Miasta) and District Office (Starostwo Powiatowe) with the Kielce Regional Court.\n14.  The first hearing was held on 24 October 2001.\n15.  On 29 October 2001 the applicants specified that they wished to continue the proceedings only against the City Office.\n16.  The hearing scheduled for 3 April 2002 was adjourned at the applicants’ request.\n17.  On 22 July 2002 the court held a hearing.\n18.  In a letter of 2 September 2002 the applicants requested the court to accelerate the proceedings and to list a hearing.\n19.  On 16 October 2002 and 12 March 2003 the court held hearings.\n20. On 18 July, 30 September and 24 October 2003 the court ordered that an expert report be obtained. The expert’s report was submitted to the court on 3 January 2004.\n21.  On 11 February, 10 March, 28 July and 22 September 2004, 14 March and 30 May 2005 the court held further hearings, one of which was adjourned at the applicants’ request.\n22.  On 9 June 2005 the Kielce Regional Court gave judgment. The parties filed their appeals on 1 August 2005.\n23.  On 18 January 2006 the Kraków Court of Appeal upheld the first instance judgment.\n24.  On 10 June 2005 the applicants lodged with the Kraków Court of Appeal a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time under the 2004 Act.\n25.  The applicants sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Kielce Regional Court had been excessive. They asked for an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 2,500).\n26.  On 25 July 2005 the Kraków Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ complaint. The court found that the Regional Court had given judgment on 9 June 2005, thus at the time of the examination of the complaint the proceedings before the court of first instance had terminated. The court further held that the purpose of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4321", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants live in Kuusjoki, Perniö, Tuohittu and Humppila respectively.\n5.  The first applicant and Mr Lehtonen were from 1989 to 1991 members of the board of directors of a local bank which subsequently went bankrupt. On 30 December 1993 the successor property management company of the bank, which was owned by the Finnish State, initiated civil proceedings before the Salo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten), claiming compensation from the first applicant and Mr Lehtonen. The company claimed that the first applicant and Mr Lehtonen along with other persons had caused the bank damage exceeding 134 million euros (EUR) through accepting loan applications and neglecting their duty to supervise the acts of the management. Later the amount of damages claimed was lowered to EUR 90 million.\n6.  The District Court held preparatory meetings in the case on 8 March 1994, 8 November 1995, 9-10 January 1996 and 25 January 1996. On 5 February 1996 the court gave an interlocutory judgment concerning succession issues and the application of the statute of limitations. During the preparatory meetings the parties agreed to wait for the outcome of other proceedings which were closely related to the case and could provide additional information for its resolution. After the preparatory meetings the case was processed only in writing. The judge responsible for the case was changed a number of times and the parties, despite several attempts, were not able to settle the case.\n7.  During the District Court proceedings the first applicant and Mr Lehtonen, among others, requested that the proceedings be terminated and that the complaints of the successor company be either rejected or dismissed without examining the merits. They maintained that, according to the Convention, proceedings should be terminated within a reasonable time. That rule had not been complied with in their case and the proceedings should therefore be discontinued.\n8.  On 9 March 1996 Mr Lehtonen died and his estate, comprising his wife and two daughters, continued the case on his behalf (hereafter the second applicant).\n9.  On 29 June 2004 the District Court decided to accept the applicants’ request and dismissed the case without examining the merits. The court stated that from the point of view of procedural economy it would be wise to await the outcome of the related proceedings which, however, had lasted longer than expected and were still pending. The case was very complex and it was expected that a judgment would only be rendered in a few years’ time. The applicants had tried to accelerate the proceedings by proposing a settlement on several occasions. The proposals had all been rejected by the successor company. The court concluded that the length of the proceedings was already excessive, that the proceedings could not be accelerated and that the only effective remedy was to dismiss the case without examining the merits.\n10.  The successor company appealed to the Turku Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten), which on 29 November 2004 quashed the District Court decision and referred the case back to the District Court. The court found that Finnish law did not give a possibility to reject or dismiss a case without examining the merits in a situation where the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time. Neither the Convention nor the European Court required that in such cases the proceedings should be terminated. The successor company had, as a separate legal person, according", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4322", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  From 1973 he lived in an apartment rented from the State in a nationalised building. On 13 January 1997, under Law no. 112/1995 on the legal status of certain residential property, the applicant bought that apartment from the State.\n7.  In a final decision of 23 May 1997 the Bucharest District Court allowed an action (acţiunea în revendicare) brought by the former owner against the State for recovery of possession of the building where the applicant’s apartment was situated.\n8.  Based on that decision, the former owner lodged several actions for recovery of possession against the persons who had bought apartments in the building in similar conditions, including the applicant.\n9.  In a final decision of 28 January 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal ordered the applicant to surrender possession of the apartment to the plaintiff. The court found that the former owner’s property title deed, as it had been confirmed by the final decision of 23 May 1997, prevailed over the applicant’s purchase contract. It also considered that the applicant’s bona fides in concluding the 13 January 1997 contract was relevant only in the event that the applicant lodged an action for compensation against the State.\n10.  Meanwhile, the same Court of Appeal did take into account the buyers’ good faith in dismissing actions lodged by the former owner against other persons who had bought apartments in the same building. Thus, on 28 November 2002 the Court of Appeal dismissed the action against T.I. and T.A., who had bought their apartment on 12 December 1996; on 7 February 2003 it dismissed the action against I.E. and M.S. and on 20 June 2003 it dismissed the action against C.D., who had bought his apartment on 27 March 1997.\n11.  On 6 April 2006 the High Court of Cassation and Justice, acting on an application by the Procurator General (recurs în anulare), quashed the final decision of 28 November 2002 and sent the case back to the first‑instance court. According to the information available to the Court, the proceedings are still pending with the domestic courts.\nOn 9 February 2006 the High Court allowed a similar application by the Procurator General and set aside the 20 June 2003 decision, thereby allowing the former owner’s action against C.D.\nA similar action by the Procurator General, lodged against the 7 February 2003 decision mentioned above, was allowed by the High Court on 14 February 2007. The case was sent back to the Bucharest County Court for re-examination of the appeal. The proceedings are still pending with that court.\n12.  As to the applicant, eviction proceedings lodged by the former owner against him are currently pending with the domestic courts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4323", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bojszowy, Poland.\n6.  On 28 August 1999 the applicant’s elder son, Hubert Mojsiejew, died at the age of twenty-five in the Tychy Sobering‑Up Centre (Izba Wytrzeźwień), where he had been detained at 4.50 a.m. that day.\n7.  On the same day the Tychy District Prosecutor and a forensic expert examined Hubert Mojsiejew’s body. The prosecutor ordered an autopsy to be carried out by experts from the Śląska Medical Academy.\n8.  After an autopsy had been carried out on 30 August 1999 an opinion was submitted to the prosecutor on 3 September 1999. The expert established that a possible cause of death was asphyxiation resulting from pressure on the victim’s neck and that Mr Mojsiejew had a blood alcohol level of 1.70 per mille.\n9.  The death certificate (karta zgonu) signed by Dr J.S., a forensic expert from the Śląska Medical Academy in Katowice, gave the following cause for Hubert Mojsiejew’s death:\n“Numerous effusions of blood in the soft tissue of the neck.”\n10.  On 30 August 1999 the Tychy District Prosecutor opened an investigation in order to establish whether an offence prohibited by Article 155 of the Criminal Code (unintentional homicide) had been committed. The prosecutor interviewed several witnesses and ordered an examination of blood and other samples and the preparation of an expert opinion.\n11.  On 30 December 1999 the Tychy District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation. The prosecutor observed that Hubert Mojsiejew had been examined by a doctor at the time of his admission to the sobering‑up centre. The examination showed that he had been intoxicated and that he had no injuries to his body. As Hubert Mojsiejew had uttered threats and had been aggressive, he had been tied up to a bed with belts. The room in which he had been detained had been inspected by an employee of the sobering‑up centre at 7 a.m. and 7.45 a.m. When the same employee had come to the room at 8.45 a.m. he had noticed spots on Hubert Mojsiejew’s skin and had called the doctor on duty. The doctor had examined Hubert Mojsiejew and had called an ambulance. The doctor who had arrived in the ambulance had examined Hubert Mojsiejew and had declared him dead. Furthermore, the prosecutor referred to an expert opinion prepared by the Śląska Medical Academy, which stated that Hubert Mojsiejew had died of asphyxiation. The prosecutor concluded that the evidence collected in the course of the investigation did not show that third persons had caused the death of Hubert Mojsiejew.\n12.  On 18 January 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Tychy District Prosecutor against the decision to discontinue the investigation. She also requested that the prosecution service carry out a reconstruction of the crime scene, with the assistance of a medical expert. On 20 January 2000 the Tychy District Prosecutor informed the applicant that her request had been granted.\n13.  On 14 March 2000 a medical expert opinion was prepared by the Silesian Medical Academy in Katowice. The expert established that the possible cause of Hubert Mojsiejew’s death had been asphyxiation due to immobilisation of his chest by belts which might have obstructed his breathing. However, the expert was unable to establish the origin of the injuries to Hubert Mojsiejew’s neck.\n14.  On 14 March 2000 the Tychy District Prosecutor allowed the applicant’s appeal of 18 January 2000 and resumed the investigation.\n15.  In May 2000 the prosecutor charged Z.K., an empl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4324", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1936, 1934, 1930, 1971 and 1973 respectively, and live in Rome (Italy) and Tirana (Albania).\n7.  In pre-war Albania, the applicants’ father owned a villa and adjacent land measuring 1,377 square metres situated in Tirana.\n8.  In 1941 the Bank of Naples (“the Bank”) took a mortgage on the property, including the plot of land and the villa, as security for a loan the applicant had obtained from the bank. In 1945 the ownership of the Bank was transferred to the State, including the Bank’s liabilities, amongst which was the applicant’s loan.\n9.  On 21 April 1948 the Military Supreme Court found the applicants’ father guilty of political offences, sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment and ordered confiscation of half of his property which had been deposited as a mortgage. The confiscation was carried out by a decision of the Executive Committee of Tirana City Council (Komiteti Ekzekutiv i K.P. Qytetit Tiranë) of 20 July 1948.\n10.  It transpires from the documents that ownership of the property was transferred to the State on 16 July 1957. On 4 September 1957, pursuant to Law no. 419 of 16 April 1947, the Ministry of Finance ordered the Mortgage Office to discharge the mortgage debt in relation to the applicants’ father’s property. On 5 October 1957 the applicants’ father sold his part of the property to P.D.\n11.  In 1959 the State sold its part of the property to K.G. Consequently, in 1959 the villa and its adjacent land were co-owned by P.D. and K.G.\n12.  On 8 October 1992, under the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression Act (Law no. 7514 of 30 September 1991), the financial unit of Tirana municipality allocated to the applicants the part of the villa owned at the material time by K.G., and half of the adjacent land. The municipality held that the property had been illegally confiscated and that consequently the applicants’ property rights should be restored in respect of that part of the property. Moreover, it ordered that the applicants’ title to the property be entered in the Tirana Land Registry.\n13.  On an unspecified date K.G. lodged a civil action with the Tirana District Court, seeking to have the order granting title to the property annulled on the ground that he had been a bona fide purchaser. He maintained that the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression Act was not applicable to private properties. Moreover, K.G. submitted that the villa had been transferred to the State because of the failure of the applicants’ father to pay off the mortgage.\n14.  On 16 February 1995 the Tirana District Court rejected K.G.’s claim as ill-founded.\n15.  On 26 April 1995, following K.G.’s action, the Tirana Court of Appeal quashed the District Court’s judgment and, deciding on the merits, declared the order granting title to the property null and void since it had been issued by an authority not competent to decide on the matter. Moreover, the court designated the Commission on the Restitution and Compensation of Property (“the Commission”) as the competent authority to rule on restitution of property issues.\n16.  On an unspecified date the applicants lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court. On 7 July 1995 the Civil Division of the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal judgment, finding that the order granting title to the property had been issued in 1992, that is to say, one year before the Commission was established. Consequently, the court held that the order should be considered as", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4325", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kunfehértó.\n5.  On 28 March 1997 the applicant, a subcontractor of Telekábel Ltd. (“the Company”), initiated the liquidation of the Company before the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court, since the Company had become insolvent and not paid his invoices.\n6.  On 10 September 1997 the Regional Court established the insolvency of the Company and ordered its liquidation. This decision gained binding force on 25 June 1998. The liquidation proceedings eventually involved thirty-one creditors in total.\n7.  The debtor’s interim balance sheet was established on 1 March 2000.\n8.  After adjudicating several complaints, on 21 October 2004 the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court established the termination of the liquidation proceedings and dissolved the Company. This decision was served on the applicant on 20 January 2005.\n9.  On 15 July 1997 the Company signed an agreement with one of its main customers to pay the latter a specific amount of money. It was stipulated that, in exchange, the customer would desist from any further claims.\n10.  On 2 December 1999 the applicant and another creditor brought an action against the Company and the above-mentioned customer before the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court, requesting the court to rule the respondents’ agreement invalid.\n11.  After a remittal, the Szeged Court of Appeal finally found in part for the plaintiffs on 27 February 2004. It further ordered the applicant to pay part of the court fees. This decision was served on the applicant on 7 April 2004.\n12.  On 15 November 2004 the Bács-Kiskun County Duties Office requested the applicant to pay the court fees. On the applicant’s request, the enforcement of this decision was suspended until 31 October 2006 by the Duties Office on 7 October 2005. On 22 March 2007 the applicant’s salary was attached by the Tax Authority. The applicant lodged a demurrer of execution against the decision, which was dismissed. The enforcement proceedings are still pending.\n13.  On 25 June 2002 the Tax Authority seized part of the payment which the applicant, in tax debt, had received as a result of his claim against the Company.\n14.  On 5 April 2003 the Tax Authority, observing that the applicant still had some tax debts, ordered enforcement on his real estate. He did not lodge a demurrer of execution against this decision.\n15.  On 13 May 2003 the Kiskunhalas Notary, noting that the applicant had not paid his tax debts, withdrew his private entrepreneur’s licence. He did not lodge an administrative appeal against this decision.\n16.  On 23 March 2004 the Tax Authority also seized the applicant’s movable property. On 26 May 2004 part of the default interest on the tax debt was cancelled for reasons of equity.\n17.  The applicant having finally paid the debt, the Tax Authority discontinued the enforcement proceedings on 11 November 2004.\n18.  On 15 September 2005 the Tax Authority nevertheless requested the applicant to pay the default interest on the tax debt. On 25 May 2006 the applicant’s request to have this latter debt annulled was rejected by the Tax Authority. This decision was upheld by the National Tax Authority on 18 July 2006. The applicant did not seek judicial review of that decision.\n19.  On 10 August 2005 the Kiskunhalas Notary notified the applicant that he owed some local tax. On 20 December 2005 the Notary warned the applicant that he should pay additional amounts of local tax. The applicant lodged a complaint again", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4327", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Poprad.\n5.  On 14 April 1993 the District Court in Poprad restricted the applicant’s legal capacity in that she was not allowed to act on her own before public authorities. The court relied on the opinion of several experts concluding that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder as a result of paranoid development of her personality. The applicant suffered from the delusion that she was being persecuted and on that ground she had made a considerable number of complaints and other submissions. The applicant’s mother was appointed guardian for the purpose of the proceedings concerning the limitation of the applicant’s legal capacity.\n6.  On 18 April 1994 the Regional Court in Košice upheld the first-instance judgment, which became final on 26 July 1994.\n7.  On 1 August 1994 the District Court in Poprad brought proceedings on its own initiative with a view to appointing a guardian for the applicant, whose legal capacity had been restricted by the above decisions. On 12 September 1994 the file was transmitted to the Regional Court in Košice for decision on an objection to the judges of the District Court.\n8.  On 30 December 1994 the Regional Court excluded the judges of the District Court in Poprad and transferred the case to the District Court in Prešov. The file was returned to the District Court in Poprad on 9 March 1995. The decision was served on the applicant on 20 March 1995. On 6 April 1995 the file was sent to the District Court in Prešov where the case was registered under number P 81/95.\n9.  On 12 July 1995 and 30 August 1995 the District Court asked the applicant’s husband to inform it about persons who could act as the applicant’s guardian. The mail was returned to the court with the explanation that the addressee was in hospital. On 19 September 1995 the Town Office in Poprad submitted information at the District Court’s request of 30 August 1995.\n10.  On 29 September 1995 the District Court asked the applicant’s mother whether she was willing to act as her daughter’s guardian. The mother replied in the negative.\n11.  On 5 October 1995 the court appointed a judicial secretary to act as the applicant’s guardian in the proceedings in issue.\n12.  On 18 October 1995 the applicant’s brother refused to act as guardian.\n13.  On 31 October 1995 the Town Office in Poprad informed the District Court that its employees were unable to identify a person willing to act as the applicant’s guardian. On 14 and 16 November 1995 the applicant’s sisters refused to assume that duty.\n14.  At a hearing held on 4 December 1995 the Poprad Municipality proposed that its employee Mrs Ch. be appointed as the applicant’s guardian. That person stated that the applicant had no confidence in her. The case was adjourned and the court asked the municipality to indicate an employee of the Town Office who would act as the applicant’s guardian. On 18 December 1995 the Poprad Municipality again proposed that Mrs Ch. should be charged with that responsibility. In a letter of 15 January 1996 the applicant replied that she disagreed.\n15.  On 29 January 1996 Mrs Ch. informed the court that she had been unable to find any person willing to assume the duty in question. The District Court decided that Mrs K., a person who had represented the town of Poprad at the previous hearing, should act as the guardian. Both Mrs K. and the applicant appealed in March 1996. On 1 April 1996 Mrs K.’s appeal was sent to the District ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4328", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  The applicant was a member of a public association, the National Bolshevik Party. On 15 November 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ordered its dissolution. On 19 January 2006 the Federal Registration Service of the Ministry of Justice refused an application for registration of a political party by the same name. Party members challenged the refusal before Taganskiy District Court, Moscow.\n7.  On 13 April 2006 fifteen party members, including the applicant, came to Taganskiy District Court for a hearing concerning the refusal to register the National Bolshevik Party. The applicant alleged that near the court building they had been attacked by a group of forty people and had had to defend themselves. According to the Government, the party members, including the applicant, had assaulted passers-by with gas guns and rubber truncheons.\n8.  On 11 April 2007 the applicant was arrested. The arresting officer indicated in his report that witnesses had identified the applicant as one of the perpetrators of the assault. On the same day he was charged with participation in mass disorders involving the use of gas guns and assault and battery, an offence under Article 213 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 12 April 2007 Tverskoy District Court, Moscow, formally remanded the applicant in custody, finding that he had been charged with a serious criminal offence and that he had no registered place of residence in Moscow or permanent employment. The court concluded that he might abscond, interfere with the proceedings or reoffend.\n10.  In his grounds of appeal of 13 April 2007 the applicant submitted that he had been arrested a year after the fight. He had had plenty opportunity to abscond, reoffend or interfere with the investigation during that year if he had wished. The fact that he had not fled from justice proved that he had no such intention. He had no criminal record, had permanent residence and employment in Moscow, positive references, a spouse suffering from epilepsy and a child. He was the only breadwinner in his family. He asked to be released on bail.\n11.  On 7 May 2007 Moscow City Court upheld the detention order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant was committed for trial before Taganskiy District Court.\n13.  On 22 May 2007 Taganskiy District Court scheduled a preliminary hearing for 29 May 2007 and ordered that the applicant should meanwhile remain in custody. It referred to the gravity of the charge, the applicant’s character and his record of administrative offences, which included commission of several disorderly acts, and concluded that the applicant might abscond or reoffend. The applicant’s arguments that he had a child, that his wife suffered from epilepsy and that he himself needed medical assistance were insufficient to warrant release.\n14.  The applicant appealed, repeating the arguments set out in his grounds of appeal of 13 April 2007. On 11 July 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified.\n15.  On 24 May 2007 a member of Parliament offered his personal guarantee that the applicant would not abscond.\n16.  On 29 May 2007 Taganskiy District Court returned the case to the investigator, ordering that the applicant’s case be joined with the cases of six other members of the National Bolshevik Party who had been charged in connection w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4329", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  From 1970 he practised as a physician affiliated to the statutory public health insurance scheme.\n7.  In 1992 the Health Care Reform Act (Gesundheitsstrukturgesetz) amended the relevant provisions of the Social Security Act, Book V (Sozialgesetzbuch V) and introduced a retirement age of 68 for those medical practitioners who were affiliated to the statutory public health insurance scheme with effect from 1 January 1999 (see “Relevant domestic law” below).\n8.  On 11 May 1998 the Hamburg Regional Registration Committee for Physicians (Zulassungausschuss für Ärzte) decided that according to section 95 § 7 of the Social Security Act, Book V (see “Relevant domestic law” below) the applicant’s authorisation to practise as a physician under the statutory public health insurance scheme would expire on 1 January 1999 as the applicant already had reached his 68th birthday prior to that date.\n9.  On 27 July 1998 the applicant lodged an administrative appeal against that decision, which the Hamburg Appeals Board for Physicians (Berufungsausschuss) dismissed on 30 September 1998.\n10.  On 19 November 1998 the applicant brought an action before the Hamburg Social Court to have the previous decisions annulled without submitting his statement of claim.\n11.  On 21 December 1998 the applicant, without awaiting the outcome of the proceedings before the Social Court, lodged a constitutional complaint which the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit on 15 February 1999.\n12.  On 21 May 1999 the applicant submitted a statement of claim to the Hamburg Social Court which it forwarded to the defendant on 16 July 1999.\n13.  On 21 December 1999 the Social Court forwarded the defendant’s statement of 26 July 1999 to the applicant.\n14.  On 18 February 2000 the Social Court forwarded the defendant’s further statements of 18 January 2000 to the applicant and requested him to comment on them which the applicant did on 3 September 2001.\n15.  Between 21 September 2001 and 22 May 2002 the case file was erroneously stored in the Social Court’s archives.\n16.  On 17 October 2002 the Social Court informed the applicant that it intended to render a decision (Gerichtsbescheid) without holding an oral hearing and invited the applicant to submit written comments within one month. On 15 November 2002 the applicant submitted his comments.\n17.  On 20 August 2003 the Hamburg Social Court dismissed his action, referring to the established case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court according to which the introduction of a compulsory retirement age for doctors had been compatible with the Basic Law (Grundgesetz).\n19.  On 18 August 1999 the applicant lodged his first application with the Court, alleging that the revocation of his authorisation to practise as a physician under the statutory public health insurance scheme violated his rights under Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.\n20.  On 20 May 2003 the Court declared his application (no. 55004/00) inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4330", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6. The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Copenhagen.\n7.  He was a partner in a commercial partnership, a banking and stockbroking firm called Vekselerfirmaet Hugo Petersen I/S (hereafter “the Partnership”). In addition to the applicant, the Partnership had five other partners: VL, FVM, CHN, and two private limited companies, namely Hugo Petersen Børsmæglerselskab A/S and Kejpe A/S. Subsequently, in legal proceedings it was established that a further partner, CEN, had not formally resigned from the Partnership and therefore was also to be considered a partner.\n8.  On 29 March 1988, due to financial difficulties, proceedings were initiated before the Bankruptcy Court (Skifteretten under Sø- og Handelsretten) concerning the Partnership and the partners for suspension of payments.\n9.  On 29 August 1988, the Bankruptcy Court decided to discontinue the suspension of payments. At the same time, having heard two bankruptcy petitions against the applicant, who did not object to the claim that the bankruptcy conditions had been met, the Bankruptcy Court commenced bankruptcy proceedings against his estate. A trustee in bankruptcy was appointed to sort out the estate and to settle the accounts and the applicant was divested of the right to administer or to deal with his assets.\n10.  The Bankruptcy Court formally commenced the examination of claims on 17 November 1988, but found that it was appropriate to wait until the claims against the Partnership had been lodged and examined.\n11.  On 8 December 1988, bankruptcy proceedings commenced against the Partnership and by the end of 1988 bankruptcy notices regarding all the co‑partners had been issued as well. The Partnership’s assets, including the individual partners’ assets, were estimated at about 8 million Danish kroner (DKK), while its liabilities were estimated at DKK 15 million. The Partnership estate was closed on 5 December 1995 with distribution of dividends.\n12.  In the meantime, as regards the applicant’s bankruptcy estate, in the period between 1988 and 1990 various court sessions were held with a view to determining the applicant’s assets and considering creditor claims.\n13.  In the beginning of 1991 a new trustee was appointed. Court hearings were held in April and December 1991.\n14.  Moreover, the trustee held several meetings with the applicant and the partners in 1991 and 1992.\n15.  During 1993 and 1994 it appears that no court hearings as such were held. Nevertheless the Bankruptcy Court and the trustee regularly examined claims in this period.\n16.  In a report of 9 February 1995, the trustee stated, inter alia, that the applicant’s estate could not be dealt with until the closure of the Partnership estate.\n17.  Court sessions were held on 6 November, 6 and 21 December 1995, 14 February and 17 April 1996. On the latter date, the Bankruptcy Court adjourned the proceedings pending the preparation of accounts.\n18.  In a report of 5 November 1996, the trustee stated that full coverage for the Partnership creditors was expected in connection with the closing of the partners’ estates. He was therefore endeavouring to obtain a compulsory composition so that the bankruptcy proceedings could be finalised pursuant to section 144 of the Bankruptcy Act. The accounts of the applicant’s bankruptcy estate could not be prepared, however, until formal accounts were available in the estates of the co-partners Hugo Petersen’s Børsmæglerselskab A/S, CHN and FVM. At the relevant time, those accounts", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4331", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  On the night of 21 April 1992 two persons, who worked as bodyguards for the applicant’s former father-in-law, were murdered. A preliminary investigation was opened on an unspecified date.\n11.  The applicant’s former father-in-law was detained and questioned on an unspecified date. He confessed to the two homicides and implicated the applicant as an accomplice.\n12.  The applicant was detained and questioned on 4 and 5 May 1992. He confessed to having assisted his former father-in-law in planning, committing and concealing the two murders. The applicant was then remanded in custody and charged.\n13.  Thereafter the authorities conducted a preliminary investigation which involved, inter alia, the questioning of almost two hundred and fifty witnesses in different cities, performing a number of crime scene experiments and commissioning the following reports: autopsy, physical‑chemical, forensic, ballistic, medico-ballistic, psychiatric, graphological, and accounting. An assessor’s report was also prepared.\n14.  The preliminary investigation ended in August 1994.\n15.  On 17 March 1995 an indictment was filed against the applicant and his co-defendant. The applicant was charged with (a) premeditated aggravated murder; (b) acquiring and retaining significant amounts of money obtained through fraudulent means; and (c) obtaining and possessing a handgun and ammunition without a permit.\n16.  On 21 June 1995 the charges against the applicant were amended, which led to the initial indictment being withdrawn on an unspecified date and a revised indictment being filed on 11 July 1995.\n17.  It is unclear on which dates and how many hearings were conducted before the Sofia City Court.\n18.  On 15 November 1996 the Sofia City Court remitted the case back to the public prosecutor’s office. The applicant contended, which the Government did not expressly challenge, that this was because of procedural violations but that no additional investigative procedures had been conducted as a result.\n19.  A new indictment was filed against the applicant on 1 July 1997.\n20.  On an unspecified date the victims’ relatives joined the proceedings as civil claimants.\n21.  It is unclear when and how many hearings were conducted before the Sofia City Court.\n22.  In a judgment of 11 June 1999 the Sofia City Court found the applicant guilty of (a) premeditated aggravated murder; (b) acquiring and retaining money obtained through fraudulent means; and (c) obtaining and possessing a handgun and ammunition without a permit. The applicant’s co‑defendant was also found guilty of related charges. The court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and awarded damages to the victims’ successors.\n23.  On 9 July 1999 the applicant appealed against the judgment of the Sofia City Court. It is unclear on which dates and how many hearings were conducted before the Supreme Court of Appeal.\n24.  In a judgment of 18 April 2000 the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the lower court’s judgment in its entirety.\n25.  On 26 April 2000 the applicant filed a cassation appeal. In a final judgment of 3 November 2000 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal, but reduced the imposed sentence to life imprisonment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4333", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Armavir, a town in Armenia.\n5.  A warrant officer of the Russian Border Guard Service (“Service”), she serves in a unit stationed in Armenia.\n6.  In June 2000 the applicant requested an early discharge because of structural changes in her service. Under domestic law, long-serving personnel in need of better housing (the applicant met these conditions) could be discharged against their will only if the command provided them with such housing. When asking for discharge, the applicant specified that she wished to receive the housing.\n7.  As no housing was provided, in November 2003 the applicant sued the Director of the Service for provision of housing and an early discharge. On behalf of the defendant the trial was attended by X, a major of military justice acting on the basis of a power of attorney. X accepted the applicant’s claim and on 15 March 2004 the Fifth Garrison Military Court ordered the Director to provide the applicant’s family with housing in Moscow and to discharge her. This judgment became enforceable immediately, but was not enforced.\n8.  In July 2004 the Bailiff’s Service investigated the applicant’s allegation that the delayed enforcement constituted an offence under section 315 of the Criminal Code (ignoring judgments), but found that the Director had no case to answer.\n9.  On the Director’s request, on 18 January 2005 the Presidium of the North-Caucasian Military Court quashed the judgment on supervisory review and ordered a rehearing. The Presidium justified the quashing with four reasons.\nFirst, the judgment had been based solely on the defendant’s acceptance of the claim and had not explored whether the claim as such had been lawful and compatible with third parties’ interests.\nSecond, X had not been duly authorised by the defendant proper, i.e. by the Director; he was authorised by the Service’s local branch only.\nThird, the acceptance of the claim had not been formally recorded.\nFourth, the Garrison Court had misevaluated facts and material law.\n10.  After the rehearing, on 1 June 2006 the Garrison Court ordered the Director to provide the applicant’s family with housing in Moscow by means of a first-priority queue (в первоочередном порядке). The court dismissed the applicant’s claim for discharge because this matter was within the authority of her unit, not that of the Director. This judgment became binding on 25 October 2006.\n11.  To enforce the judgment, in November 2006 the logistics department of the Service sent to the applicant’s unit a list of documents necessary for putting her in the queue. In February 2007 the unit provided a part of these documents. In May 2007 the logistics department reminded the applicant that to complete her file she had to provide further documents, among them an extract from the register of tenants, her children’s birth certificates, and proof of entitlement to privileges. In September 2007 the applicant completed the file, and on 2 November 2007 the housing commission of the Service put the applicant’s family in the first-priority housing queue.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4334", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Zadar.\n5.  On 3 June 1994 the applicant applied for the enforcement of a final judgment of the Omiš Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Omišu) ordering a certain N.B. to pay him a sum of money. An enforcement order to that effect was issued on 14 September 1994. The enforcement order was to be carried out by selling a real estate owned by N.B. at a public tender. On 26 March 1996 a certain M.B. objected to the enforcement proceedings claiming that she was the co-owner of the real estate in question. The Municipal Court instructed M.B. to institute civil proceedings whereby she would claim her ownership and consequently the Municipal Court stayed the enforcement proceedings pending the outcome of these civil proceedings.\n6.  On 9 May 1996 M.B. brought a civil action in the same Municipal Court against the applicant and some other persons, asking the court to disallow the enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On 9 December 1996 N.B. brought a separate civil action in the Omiš Municipal Court against the applicant and some other persons, also asking the court to disallow the enforcement proceedings.\n8.  In civil proceedings instituted by M.B. the Omiš Municipal Court adopted a judgment on 3 March 1999 which was quashed on 6 February 2004 by the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) and the case was remitted for retrial.\n9.  On 1 July 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the enforcement proceedings.\n10.  In civil proceedings instituted by M.B. the Municipal Court adopted a decision that the claim had been withdrawn on 18 May 2005. This decision became final on 10 June 2005.\n11.  In civil proceedings instituted by N.B. on 12 September 2005 the Municipal Court decided that the action had been withdrawn. N.B. lodged an appeal and the case was forwarded to the Split County Court as the appellate court.\n12.   On 29 March 2006 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded him 7,800 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation, and also ordered the Split County Court to determine the civil dispute relating to the enforcement proceedings in question, instituted by N.B., in the shortest time possible but no later than six months after the publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court in the Official Gazette. It also ordered the Omiš Municipal Court to conclude the enforcement proceedings in the shortest time possible but no later than six months after the above decision of the Split County Court became final. The Constitutional Court’s decision was published in the Official Gazette of 19 April 2006.\n13.  In the civil proceedings instituted by N.B., on 26 May 2006 the Split County Court remitted the case to the Omiš Municipal Court with the instruction that the submission lodged by N.B. and entitled “appeal” had to be examined by the Municipal Court as a request to bring the proceedings to the status quo ante. The Municipal Court accepted this request and held hearings on 12 April, 22 May and 5 and 21 June 2007. On 29 June 2007 it dismissed the claim. This judgment became final on 8 January 2008.\n14.  On 5 May 2008 the applicant requested the Omiš Municipal Court to resume the enforcement proceedings. A hearing was held on 8 July 2008 and the first public tender was scheduled for 21 October 2008. It appears that these proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4335", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  At the time of the events giving rise to the application, Hyde Park (the first applicant) was registered with the Moldovan Ministry of Justice as a non-governmental organisation lobbying, inter alia, for freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly. In 2007 its members decided to discontinue the organisation’s registration on grounds of alleged pressure and intimidation by the State. In particular, they complained of the refusal of the Ministry of Justice to register amendments to the organisation’s articles of association, the repeated freezing of its bank account, the arbitrary arrest of its members, attempts to shut down its newspaper, among other things. Several of the organisation’s leaders requested political asylum in western countries. It was decided to continue the organisation’s activity under the same name but without registering it with the State authorities. It was also decided that the new unincorporated association would become the former organisation’s successor. After removal of the organisation from the Government’s list of non-governmental organisations on 2 June 2008, Hyde Park’s activities continued as before on the basis of its new articles of association. The association continued editing its newspaper, its Internet page and continued staging protests and demonstrations.\n6.  The other applicants are members and supporters of Hyde Park: Gheorghe Lupuşoru, Anatol Hristea-Stan, Mariana Gălescu, Alina Didilică and Oleg Brega who were born in 1969, 1953, 1982, 1978 and 1973 respectively and live in Chişinău, Chişinău, Chişinău, Cazangic and Pepeni respectively.\n7.  On 10 February 2006 the first applicant applied to the Chişinău Municipal Council for authorisation to hold a peaceful demonstration in front of the Parliament building on 25 February 2006, to protest against the “non-transparent” manner of organising the Eurovision song contest in Moldova.\n8.  On 21 February 2006 the Chişinău Municipal Council rejected the application on the grounds that: “the Parliament was not responsible for organising the Eurovision song contest, which took place in Ukraine and the protest was groundless because it concerned past events”.\n9.  On 22 February 2006 the first applicant challenged the refusal in court and argued, inter alia, that it was unlawful and contrary to Article 10 of the Convention. It also asked that the case be examined urgently.\n10.  During the court proceedings the Chişinău Municipal Council relied on two new reasons for rejecting Hyde Park’s application to hold a demonstration, namely that the members of Hyde Park had not participated in the Eurovision song contest and that the problem had already been discussed in Parliament. On 24 February 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ action, finding that the Municipal Council had lawfully rejected its application and upholding all the reasons relied upon by it. Moreover, the court gave a new reason in favour of the Municipality’s decision not to authorise the demonstration, namely that in its request for authorisation, Hyde Park had failed to correctly indicate the aim of its protest. In particular, it indicated that the protest was intended to be against the manner in which the contest was organised. Later, during the proceedings, it submitted that the intention was to protest against the non-transparent manner in which the televoting in Moldova had taken place.\n11.  Hyde Park appealed against this judgment and argued that the j", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4336", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  At the time of the events giving rise to the application, Hyde Park (the first applicant) was registered with the Moldovan Ministry of Justice as a non-governmental organisation lobbying, inter alia, for freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly. In 2007 its members decided to discontinue the organisation’s registration on grounds of alleged pressure and intimidation by the State. In particular, they complained of the refusal of the Ministry of Justice to register amendments to the organisation’s articles of association, the repeated freezing of its bank account, the arbitrary arrest of its members, attempts to shut down its newspaper, among other things. Several of the organisation’s leaders requested political asylum in western countries. It was decided to continue the organisation’s activity under the same name but without registering it with the State authorities. It was also decided that the new unincorporated association would become the former organisation’s successor. After removal of the organisation from the Government’s list of non-governmental organisations on 2 June 2008, Hyde Park’s activities continued as before on the basis of its new articles of association. The association continued editing its newspaper, its Internet page and continued staging protests and demonstrations.\n6.  The other applicants are members and supporters of Hyde Park: Gheorghe Lupuşoru, Anatol Hristea-Stan, Mariana Gălescu, Alina Didilică and Oleg Brega who were born in 1969, 1953, 1982, 1978 and 1973 respectively and live in Chişinău, Chişinău, Chişinău, Cazangic and Pepeni respectively.\n7.  On 6 December 2004 Hyde Park applied to the Chişinău Municipal Council for authorisation to hold a peaceful meeting in front of the Romanian Embassy on 5 January 2005, to protest against the policy of Romania in respect of Moldovan students. The application was signed by Hyde Park’s president and stated, inter alia, that:\n“By the present [application] we seek permission from the Chişinău Municipality to hold a public gathering on 5 January 2005 in Chişinău.\nThe members and the supporters of Hyde Park who study in Romania or who have relatives studying there are not content with the manner in which they are treated by the Romanian authorities. Therefore we intend to protest with them and on their behalf in front of the Romanian Embassy, between 11 a.m and 2 p.m. in front of the entrance on Bucharest street.\nWe undertake to respect public order and not to block traffic.”\n8.  On 30 December 2004 the Chişinău Municipal Council rejected the application on the ground that:\n“The municipal police considered the applicants’ protest to be unfounded and unwelcome because it was the Government of Romania which financed the studies of Moldovan students in Romania and therefore the Romanian authorities were competent to take a decision in respect of the applicants’ application [of 6 December 2004]”.\n9.  On 3 January 2005 the first applicant challenged the refusal in court and argued, inter alia, that it was unlawful. It also argued that the Municipal Council had protracted the examination of their application until the last day of the year so as not to leave it enough time to challenge the refusal in the courts. It asked that the case be examined urgently. The applicant explained that many persons who had expressed their wish to participate in the demonstration were students in Romania and were at home, in Chişinău, only for the winter break.\n10.  On 21 Fe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4337", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant (“the applicant”), was born in 1974 and lives in Budapest. The second and the third applicant, Dániel Weller and Máté Weller, the applicant’s twin sons, were born in 2005 and live in Budapest.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In 2000 the first applicant married a Romanian citizen, who currently lives in Hungary. The couple are raising four children from the previous marriage of the wife and they have successfully claimed numerous allowances on their behalf. On 30 June 2005 the wife gave birth to the second and third applicants. Both of them acquired Hungarian nationality by birth, through their father. At the material time, the mother held a residence permit (tartózkodási engedély). She was granted a settlement permit (letelepedési engedély) in May 2007.\n8.  On 7 September 2005 the first applicant requested maternity benefit (anyasági támogatás) amounting to 148,000 Hungarian forints (HUF)[1] from the Budapest and Pest County Regional Directorate of the Hungarian Treasury in his own name and on behalf of his children.\n9.  On 8 September 2005 the Regional Directorate refused the applicant’s claim. It pointed out that, in the light of the relevant provisions of Act no. 84 of 1998 on Family Support (“the Act”), only mothers, adoptive parents and guardians were entitled to the benefit in question. It also noted that the natural father might only apply for such an allowance if the mother were deceased. The first applicant appealed.\n10.  On 20 January 2006 the Hungarian Treasury dismissed his appeal. The Treasury established that, pursuant to the Act, only mothers with Hungarian citizenship might apply for maternity benefit. It further observed that the Act applies only to those non-Hungarian citizens who have obtained settlement permits (letelepedési engedély), being either refugees or citizens of another Member State of the European Union. It concluded that, since the applicant’s wife did not fall into either of these categories, the claim had to be rejected, since the natural father was not entitled to such benefits.\n11.  On 6 March 2006 the first applicant sought judicial review before the Pest County Regional Court. He argued that the legal background of the institution of maternity benefit, as well as the decisions of the competent Hungarian authorities, were discriminatory and contravened the Hungarian Constitution and Article 14 of the Convention.\n12.  On 5 July 2005 the Regional Court, finding that the administrative authorities’ decisions had been in compliance with the law, dismissed the applicant’s claim. It held, inter alia, that the purpose of maternity benefit was to support the mother and not the entire family or the children, therefore the latter could not be considered to have suffered discrimination.\n13.  On 7 August 2006 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court. These proceedings are apparently still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4338", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Helsinki.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant was suspected of an aggravated drugs offence. On an unspecified date the public prosecutor brought charges against him and two other persons, L.J. and J.J. According to the indictment, the defendants had decided to obtain a large amount of amphetamine from Estonia. Between 28 and 29 September 2001 the applicant and J.J. made a trip to Estonia to arrange the purchase, acting on instructions from L.J. On 15 October 2001 the drugs, hidden in a truck, were brought to Finland by a fourth person. During this period the applicant kept in contact with the Estonian supplier by telephone. On 16 October 2001 the truck driver handed over the drugs to L.J. and J.J., who then hid them. Later in the evening J.J. returned for the drugs, as agreed with L.J. While J.J. was driving back to town, the police stopped and detained him and seized the drugs from his possession. In the meantime, the applicant picked up L.J. from a nearby petrol station.\n8.  Subsequently, all the defendants contested the above charge. The applicant denied any knowledge of the matter. He maintained that his trip to Estonia had only been for pleasure and that he had not received any instructions from L.J. relating to it. Nor had he kept any contact with the supplier. He further denied any knowledge of what had happened at the petrol station on 16 October 2001. Apparently all the defendants asserted that their collective enterprise had concerned a plan to purchase weapons and not drugs.\n9.  On 1 February 2002 the applicant’s counsel sent a letter to the police inquiring whether all the telephone calls made between the three defendants by mobile phone had been included in the pre-trial investigation material. He also requested the police to confirm in writing that it was not possible to disclose to the defence the telephone metering information in the possession of the police.\n10.  In their response of 8 February 2002 the police stated that all the telephone calls pertaining to the investigated offence had been included in the pre-trial investigation material. The police further confirmed that the telephone metering information in their possession could not be disclosed as it was confidential.\n11.  The evidence obtained through telephone surveillance and produced before the court included 21 recorded telephone conversations and 7 recorded text messages between the defendants between 25 September and 16 October 2001, apparently all pertaining to the different stages of the alleged drugs offence.\n12.  On 14 February 2002 the Espoo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) found that the defendants had planned to purchase drugs and had carried out the plan together. It convicted them as charged and sentenced each of them to six and a half years’ imprisonment. As to the conviction of L.J. and J.J. the court relied mainly on the testimony of the truck driver and the fact that the drugs had been found in J.J.’s possession. As to its finding that all three defendants had acted in concert in committing the offence, the court relied on information obtained through telephone surveillance. According to the court, the numerous recordings of telephone conversations between the defendants consistently showed that there had been a common understanding about the plan to obtain the drugs several weeks before they were delivered. Their co-op", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4339", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Sosnowiec, Poland.\n6.  On 8 April 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of homicide. She was first interviewed by a police officer. On 9 April 1999 she was charged with murdering E.L on 8 April 1999. On 9 and 10 April 1999 she was questioned by the Sosnowiec District Prosecutor. During the questioning she stated that she had been having alcohol problems for the last 20 years. She and E.L., a former work colleague, used to drink together. On 7 April 1999 they had drunk more than half a litre of vodka and some wine. She also stated that she did not remember much of what had happened. She further confessed to killing E.L. Nevertheless, she stressed that she had not meant to kill the victim, but he had made her very angry and she had stabbed him with scissors.\n7.  During the arrest and subsequent questioning by the police and the prosecution authorities the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer. On 9 April 1999 the applicant signed the relevant form acknowledging that she had been informed of her rights, including the right to be assisted by a lawyer and the right to refuse to testify.\n8.  On 19 April 1999 the prosecutor ordered an expert report on the applicant’s mental health at the time when the crime of which she was suspected was committed. The report was submitted on 26 April 1999. The applicant was considered to be criminally responsible.\n9.  On 21 April 1999 the applicant asked to be released from detention. The District Prosecutor refused her motion on 11 May 1999. This decision was upheld by the Regional Prosecutor on 7 June 1999.\n10.  On 23 April 1999 the Regional Court appointed a legal-aid-lawyer for the applicant. On 5 May 1999 the applicant appointed a lawyer of her own choice.\n11.  On 28 June 1999 the Sosnowiec District Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The applicant was indicted on charges of murder.\n12.  Throughout the trial the applicant maintained that she suffered from alcoholism. She retracted her confession made during police custody, alleging that she had been questioned under duress and forced by the police officers to make self-incriminating statements.\n13.  On 30 June 1999 the Katowice Regional Court, having regard to the fact that the applicant was represented by a lawyer of her own choice, decided to withdraw the services of the legal-aid lawyer.\n14.  The trial ended on 24 February 2000. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment. The court considered that the applicant’s testimony during the trial had not been credible and had merely been her line of defence. The conviction was based on the applicant’s statements made during the initial phase of the investigation and on evidence given by several witnesses.\n15.  On 11 April 2000 the applicant’s lawyer filed an appeal against the judgment. He stressed, in particular, that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to defend herself in view of the deficiencies in the preliminary investigation.\n16.  On 25 May 2000 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the first‑instance judgment. The court held that the applicant’s right to defend herself had not been infringed. It pointed out that as of 23 April 1999 she had been assisted by a lawyer – first an officially appointed lawyer, then a lawyer of her own choice.\n17.  On 19 July 2000 the applicant’s lawyer filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (S", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4340", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Tampere. He was the principal partner in a construction company, Toprakenne Ky Toive Lehtinen (limited partnership), which was wound-up in 1991.\n6.  On 8 May 1995 the SSP Bank (hereinafter “SSP”) initiated civil proceedings to enforce various debts against the applicant. The applicant was summoned on 17 May 1995. Subsequently the applicant filed a counter-claim, which was eventually joined to the original claim on 5 January 1996.\n7.  Between 4 December 1995 and 28 May 1998 a total of ten preparatory hearings and three main hearings were organised.\n8.  During the same period the District Court issued six partial decisions. The decisions concerned requests to grant the applicant free legal aid, to dismiss the opposing legal counsel, to declare the trial material classified, to declare one claim inadmissible, to relieve the applicant’s counsel of his tasks and to order the claimant to provide certain documents as evidence.\n9.  On 24 June 1998 the District Court gave its judgment, ordering the applicant to pay some 1,487,603 euros (EUR) with interest to SSP and dismissing all of the applicant’s counter-claims.\n10.  In his appeal the applicant challenged the judgment in its entirety as well as the earlier decisions of the District Court not to dismiss the opposing counsel and the refusal to order the claimant to produce certain documents as evidence. He requested that the case be remitted to the District Court and that an oral hearing be held before the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) with regard to the missing documents or – if the case was not remitted – with regard to the entire case. He further requested that he be exempted from paying SSP’s legal fees or at least the value-added tax (VAT) on the fees. He also requested reimbursement of his own legal fees.\n11.  On 30 November 1999 the Court of Appeal remitted the case to the District Court, ordering SSP to provide three specified documents (minutes from various board meetings) at the hearing before the District Court and allowing the applicant to provide some additional evidence which had previously been refused by the District Court.\n12.  The proceedings became pending before the District Court on 27 March 2000.  Between 31 May 2000 and 26 March 2001 a total of three preparatory hearings and five main hearings were organised.\n13.  On 6 September 2000 the District Court ordered SSP to provide various additional documents, including the above-mentioned ones. All but two of the requested documents were provided on 30 October 2000. The missing documents were no longer in the possession of SSP or they had not been found.\n14.  On 5 June 2001 the District Court decided on the case for the second time, finding that the examination of the previously presented evidence, the new evidence and the new hearing of all the witnesses did not give rise to any new conclusions. The judgment was essentially the same as the one given in the first set of proceedings.\n15.  In his appeal the applicant requested that the judgment be quashed, that an oral hearing be held, and that he be exempted from paying SSP’s legal fees or at least the VAT thereon. He also requested reimbursement of his own legal fees. In the addendum to his appeal he requested the Court of Appeal to order the missing documents to be provided and to remit the case again to the District Court since the judgment did not specify the new evidence nor address the issue of changed witness stat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4341", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n2.  The applicants were born in 1974 and 1975, respectively, and are detained in Diyarbakır prison.\n3.  The applicants were taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of Hizbullah, an illegal organisation, on 8 March 1995 and 29 June 1999. On 5 April 1995 and 16 July 1999 they were remanded in custody.\n4.  On unspecified dates criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants on charges of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory, as well as membership of Hizbullah. Subsequently, the cases against the applicants were joined before the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n5.  Following the promulgation of Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, the cases were transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.\n6.  On 31 March 2005 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicants of attempting to undermine the constitutional order and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On 11 December 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed this judgment. On 9 November 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court once again convicted the applicants. According to the information in the case file, the proceedings against the applicants are still pending before the Court of Cassation.\n7.  During the proceedings, the first-instance courts examined the applicants’ continued detention at the end of every hearing, either on their own motion or upon the applicants’ request. On each occasion, the courts ordered the applicants’ continued detention on remand having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the content of the file.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4342", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  On 15 December 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of fraud. The District Court of Suwałki (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody.\n7.  On 27 March 2000 the applicant was served with a bill of indictment, which comprised charges of attempted fraud and forgery committed with two accomplices.\n8.  On 10 April 2000 the applicant’s detention was extended by the Suwałki District Court until 31 May 2000. The applicant appealed. On 17 May 2000 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. It further considered that as the applicant did not have a permanent address in Poland there was a risk of his absconding or going into hiding. The court also stressed that there was the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed on him.\n9.  In the meantime, on 8 May 2000 the Suwałki Regional Court transmitted the case to the Tomaszów District Court. On 7 June 2000 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court transmitted the case to the Jaworzno District Court, in the vicinity of which two of the accused resided.\n10.  On 19 September 2000 the Jaworzno District Court decided to remit the case to the Suwałki District Prosecutor (Prokuratura Rejonowa), finding that there was a need to complete the investigation.\n11.  On 29 December 2000 the Suwałki District Prosecutor released the applicant on bail. The prosecutor prohibited the applicant from leaving the country, referring to the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation and to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question.\n12.  On 16 May 2001 the Suwałki District Prosecutor submitted a fresh bill of indictment.\n13.  The Jaworzno District Court lodged an application with the Katowice Regional Court for the case to be transmitted to the Łódź District Court. On 19 September 2001 the Katowice Regional Court rejected the court’s application. It referred to the fact that the case had been transmitted to different courts several times and that this factor had prolonged the proceedings.\n14.  On 26 February 2002 the Jaworzno District Court stayed the proceedings because one of the co-defendants suffered from mental health problems. They were resumed on 24 January 2003.\n15.  On 13 October 2005 the Jaworzno District Court sentenced the applicant to one year and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant and the prosecutor appealed. However the applicant was not placed in detention.\n16.  On 13 March 2007 the Katowice Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Jaworzno District Court.\n17.  In the meantime, on 20 July 2006 the applicant had asked the Jaworzno District Court to waive the prohibition on his leaving the territory of Poland. He submitted that his sister had died and that he wanted to visit his ailing mother.\n18.  On 23 August 2006 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed his application. The court held that if the prohibition was lifted, there were serious grounds to believe that the applicant would go into hiding, especially since he had informed them that he wished to go to Libya.\n19.  According to the information available to the Court on the date of the adoption of the present judgment, the proceedings are still pending before the District Court.\n20.  On 3 June 2005 the applicant lodged, under the Law of 17 June 2004 (Ustawa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4343", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Olsztyn.\n6.  On the evening of 27 December 1999 the applicant met with her friend.\n7.  Subsequently the applicant took a taxi to go home and refused to pay the allegedly exorbitant fare without obtaining a proper bill. As a result, the driver did not let the applicant out of the taxi in front of her house but took her to a sobering‑up centre in Olsztyn. The applicant called the police from the taxi as she felt threatened by the driver’s behaviour. So did the driver as regards the applicant’s behaviour.\n8.  Subsequently, the applicant was detained in the sobering‑up centre. She refused to undergo a breathalyser test. The applicant submitted that she had had two beers. The Government maintained that she had been in a state of “average intoxication”.\n9.  The applicant submitted that the staff of the centre had insulted her and that she had been brutally manhandled and beaten. She had also been forcibly stripped naked by two men and a woman. Afterwards, she had been forcibly put into a disposable gown.\n10.  The Government submitted that it was the applicant who had been aggressive towards the staff and had verbally insulted them. They had therefore had no choice but to undress her by force as she had refused to undress herself and had subsequently resisted their legitimate efforts to dress her in a disposable gown.\n11.  They further argued that she had had to be placed in restraining belts because after being put to bed she had been kicking the doors of the room and screaming abuse, waking other patients.\n12.  The parties’ submissions are concordant as to the fact that the applicant was subsequently restrained by belts, tied to a bed and locked in a cell until the morning of 28 December 1999, when she was released.\nThe applicant submitted that she had remained in the cell, restrained by the belts, for approximately ten hours. The Government did not challenge this submission.\n13.  On 29 December 1999 the applicant obtained a medical certificate concerning her condition.\nThe relevant part of the certificate read:\nA bloody bruise on the left hip, at the front, of approximately 3 cm in diameter, abrasion at the wrist at the elbow side; mobility and rotation of the shoulder limited (unclear whether passive or active movements concerned); the [applicant] complained of pain in her jaw at the left side; the jaw at that side swollen.\n14.  Shortly afterwards the applicant filed a complaint against the staff of the centre with the head of the district police in Olsztyn. She submitted that she had not been intoxicated, that nothing in her conduct had justified the decision to deprive her of her liberty and that she had been brutally manhandled and undressed by the staff of the centre.\n15.  On 21 January 2000 the head of the district police refused to institute an investigation in her case. The grounds of the decision read:\nOn 29.12.1999 Ms A. Wiktorko complained to the Town Police Station that on 27/28 December a taxi driver and the staff of the sobering-up centre had used physical force against her and insulted her. In her formal complaint that a criminal offence had been committed, which she submitted on 4 January 2000, she [explained] that on 27 December 1999 at 11 p.m. approximately a driver of a taxi No. [...] had first insulted her verbally and afterwards had taken her to the sobering-up centre where she had been detained against her will and physical force, resulting in bruises and scratches, had b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4344", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  At the time of the events giving rise to the application, Hyde Park (the first applicant) was registered with the Moldovan Ministry of Justice as a non-governmental organisation lobbying, inter alia, for freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly. In 2007 its members decided to discontinue the organisation’s registration on grounds of alleged pressure and intimidation by the State. In particular, they complained of the refusal of the Ministry of Justice to register amendments to the organisation’s articles of association, the repeated freezing of its bank account, the arbitrary arrest of its members, attempts to shut down its newspaper, among other things. Several of the organisation’s leaders requested political asylum in western countries. It was decided to continue the organisation’s activity under the same name but without registering it with the State authorities. It was also decided that the new unincorporated association would become the former organisation’s successor. After removal of the organisation from the Government’s list of non-governmental organisations on 2 June 2008, Hyde Park’s activities continued as before on the basis of its new articles of association. The association continued editing its newspaper, its Internet page and continued staging protests and demonstrations.\n6.  The other applicants are members and supporters of Hyde Park: Gheorghe Lupuşoru, Anatol Hristea-Stan, Mariana Gălescu, Alina Didilică and Oleg Brega who were born in 1969, 1953, 1982, 1978 and 1973 respectively and live in Chişinău, Chişinău, Chişinău, Cazangic and Pepeni respectively.\n7.  On 26 September 2005 Hyde Park applied to the Chişinău Municipal Council for authorisation to hold a peaceful rally in the Stefan cel Mare Park in Chişinău on 14 October 2005, in support of freedom of speech.\n8.  On 7 October 2005 the Chişinău Municipal Council rejected the application on the ground that on the same date a number of events were planned in the city centre, including in the Stefan cel Mare Park, as it was a day of public holiday. This decision was sent by mail to Hyde Park on 10 October and was received by it on 12 October 2005.\n9.  On 12 October 2005 the first applicant challenged the refusal in court and argued, inter alia, that it was unlawful and contrary to Article 11 of the Convention. It also asked that the case be examined urgently.\n10.  On 2 December 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ action while finding that the Municipal Council had lawfully rejected its application. The court considered that since other events were scheduled to take place in the park on that day, such as exhibitions, sports events, concerts and other demonstrations, Hyde Park’s rally might hinder those events and endanger public order. Moreover, the application to the Municipal Council had been signed by the president of Hyde Park and there was no evidence in the case file that the council of Hyde Park had approved it.\n11.  Hyde Park appealed against this judgment and argued that the judgment breached its members’ right to freedom of assembly as guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention and was also contrary to the provisions of the Assemblies Act. There was no evidence that the rally would endanger public order.\n12.  On 3 May 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the first applicants’ appeal on points of law while reiterating that authorising Hyde Park’s rally at the same time as the other cultural and sports demons", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4345", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 13 July 1992 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of the Revolutionary Left (the “DEV-SOL”), an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 28 July 1992 she was brought before a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court who ordered her detention on remand.\n7.  On 18 September and 14 October 1992 and 26 May 1995, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed three bills of indictment, charging the applicant with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, proscribed by Article 146 of the former Criminal Code.\n8.  The case against the applicant was joined to another brought against five other persons. On 28 September 1992 the first hearing before the Istanbul State Security Court was taken up with procedural matters.\n9.  By 24 December 2002 the applicant had made several requests for release pending trial to the Istanbul State Security Court. The court dismissed her requests on each occasion, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the content of the case file.\n10.  On 24 December 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced her to death, subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. The State Security Court further ordered the applicant’s release from prison, having regard to the total amount of time that she had been in detention.\n11.  On 28 April 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 24 December 2002.\n12.  On 15 November 2006 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced her to life imprisonment.\n13.  On 16 April 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the assize court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4346", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Baku.\n6.  On 15 October 2003 presidential elections were held in Azerbaijan. The candidate of the opposition Musavat Party lost the election.\n7.  On the evening of the election day a group of opposition supporters gathered in front of the Musavat Party’s headquarters in the centre of Baku, claiming their candidate’s victory in the election. At this time there were some violent altercations between opposition supporters and the security forces.\n8.  At around 2 p.m. on 16 October a number of opposition supporters started gathering near the State Carpet Museum, in the centre of Baku, to protest the election results. The crowd then started moving towards Azadliq Square, the main square in the city. It was reported that, on their way, some people in the crowd began damaging cars, buildings, benches and other urban constructions. It was also claimed that the organisers of this unauthorised demonstration and certain leaders of the opposition parties were inciting their followers to violence.\n9.  Police officers who had been deployed at Azadliq Square were attacked by some of the demonstrators. Shortly thereafter large numbers of riot police and military personnel, fully equipped with helmets, shields and truncheons, arrived in the square. The situation quickly escalated into public disorder and violent clashes occurred between the crowd and the police.\n10.  At around 6 p.m. the demonstration was dispersed. Hundreds of people were arrested during the events of 16 October and in their aftermath.\n11.  The applicant was at Azadliq Square when the demonstration was being dispersed and suffered a serious injury to her right eye. The parties disagreed as to what exactly happened to the applicant on that day.\n12.  According to the applicant, the number of police and military personnel deployed at Azadliq Square far exceeded the number of demonstrators. The police and military forces attacked the demonstrators suddenly, without any demands to disperse peacefully or any other prior warning. They used excessive force and clubbed anyone who happened to be in their way. A number of people were injured and at least one man died as a result of police brutality.\n13.  As the police and military forces started to gain ground, people panicked as they attempted to run from the square. The applicant also tried to escape, but someone in the crowd pushed her from behind and she fell to the ground. She lifted her head and saw several policemen in helmets standing in front of her. She extended her arm in their direction, asking them to help her stand up. At this moment one of the policemen struck her forcefully in the right eye with a truncheon. The applicant immediately lost the sight in her right eye. The policeman attempted to hit her again, but she managed to evade the second blow.\n14.  A number of unknown individuals took her to Pharmacy no. 259, which was located nearby. The pharmacy’s employees were trying to provide first aid to a number of other injured people who were already there.\n15.  At some point a number of soldiers attempted to enter the pharmacy, apparently with the intention of attacking the people inside, but were prevented from doing so by a person named I.G. and a pharmacy employee. A little later an ambulance arrived and took the applicant and four other injured people to an emergency clinic.\n16.  The Government stated that, during the disorder, more than twenty peaceful civilians were injured and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4347", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Voronezh.\n6.  In August 1998 the applicant deposited 40,000 US dollars (USD) for three months with a private bank “SBS-AGRO” (hereafter – “the Bank”). Following the Bank’s refusal to return the deposit, the applicant sued the Bank for the deposit, interest and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. According to the Government, the Bank’s refusal to return the deposit was caused by a major financial crisis which had occurred in the Russian Federation in the summer of 1998 and which had led to the Bank’s inability to return money to its more than 1.2 million creditors.\n7.  In September 1998 the Central Bank of Russia adopted a programme aimed at the protection of deposits made by private individuals with private banks. In line with measures adopted, the Bank signed an agreement with the Russian Savings Bank. Under the terms of the agreement, the Bank transferred its liabilities to the Russian Savings Bank which, in its turn, undertook to repay deposits made in US dollars at the exchange rate of 9.33 Russian roubles for 1 US dollar. On 28 December 1998 the Bank, through a division of the Russian Savings Bank, paid the applicant 373,204 Russian roubles (RUB).\n8.  On 10 March 1999 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Voronezh found that the applicant had not consented to the liability transfer. However, taking into account that he had already been repaid a part of the deposit, the District Court ordered that the Bank should repay the applicant USD 30,919.40 and that it should also pay him annual interest starting from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. The District Court dismissed the claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 22 March 1999. A month later the Moscow bailiffs’ office instituted enforcement proceedings.\n9.  On an unspecified date the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court, acting on an application for a supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 10 March 1999 and sent the case for a fresh examination.\n10.  On 29 February 2000, following the re-examination of the applicant’s action, the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court awarded him USD 20,841.68 in main debt, interest thereon and USD 2,853.73 in compensation for damage. That judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n11.  By the end of March 1999 over 2,000 enforcement claims were pending against the Bank, with an additional 70-80 claims added every week.\n12.  On 16 August and 15 September 1999 the Central Bank of Russia declared a moratorium until 17 November 1999 on the execution of all creditors’ demands against the Bank. On 16 November 1999 the management of the Bank was taken over temporarily by the “Agency on Restructuring of Lending Agencies” (hereafter – “the ARKO”), set up by the State in accordance with the Law on Restructuring of Lending Agencies (hereafter - “the Law”). On 16 November 1999, in accordance with the Law, a moratorium was set for enforcement of all creditors’ demands against the Bank for a year. This period was prolonged by the ARKO on 17 November 2000 for another six months, until 17 May 2001.\n13.  On 8 May 2001 the Moscow Commercial Court had approved the text of a tripartite friendly settlement involving the Association of the Bank’s Creditors, the Bank and the ARKO. The text of the friendly settlement was adopted at the general meeting of the Association of Creditors on 9 February 2001 by a majority of votes. The ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4348", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Urus-Martan.\n6.  The applicant’s husband, Mr Magomed Uvaysovich Dzhabayev, was born in 1953. They resided together with their three children born in 1985, 1987 and 1994 at 50 Tobolskaya Street in Grozny (Грозный, ул. Тобольская, д. 50). However, on an unspecified date in 1999 the applicant with her three children temporarily moved to the neighbouring republic of Ingushetia where they stayed in the town of Karabulak in a camp for migrants from Chechnya.\n7.  In her application form the applicant submitted that on 10 March 2000 Mr Dzhabayev had been apprehended by officers of the Oktyabrskiy Temporary Office of the Interior (VOVD) in the yard of his house at 50 Tobolskaya Street in Grozny. Subsequently he had been taken to the Oktyabrskiy VOVD, after which he was never seen again.\n8.  At the same time the applicant enclosed a copy of her application to the Chairman of the National Public Commission for Investigation of Offences and Protection of Human Rights in the North Caucasus of 25 August 2000 where she provided a detailed account of the circumstances of her husband’s alleged detention and contended that he had been apprehended while queuing at a centre of distribution of foodstuffs. The application read as follows:\n“I ... ask you for help in searching for my husband, the father of my children, Magomed Uvaysovich Dzhabayev, born in 1953, a resident of Grozny.\nDuring the attack at Grozny and the military campaign my husband... stayed at home in Grozny at the address Oktyabrskiy district, Tobolskaya Street, 50, Apt. 1 (Okruzhnaya District). I saw him for the last time on 2 March 2000. He passed all the checks by the federal [forces] and was entitled to receive foodstuffs at the centre located at Saykhanova Street. On 10 March 2000 at 10 a.m. my husband ... went to the centre to receive foodstuffs, and there he saw [officers of federal forces] bullying a man. He came towards them, showed his passport and asked, what the man had done wrong. Having checked his papers, [the officers of federal forces] grabbed my husband and threatened him with execution. A woman who was also queuing at the centre rushed to their help, but [the officers of federal forces] threatened to execute her as well. After that [the officers of federal forces] took my husband and the other man, [Mr T.], born in 1951 and handicapped. They took them to a destroyed house and started bullying them. They put machine guns on their necks, put glasses on them and took photos. [The officers] told them to stand like rebel fighters. Then they called somebody by portable radio transmitter and said that ... they were bringing two more [men]. After that they placed sacks on the head of my husband and [Mr T.] and started to beat and kick them..., they beat their heads against an armoured personnel-carrier and when they lost consciousness put them in [a military car] and drove to an unknown destination. According to a witness, they were officers of the Moskovskiy SOBR [Special Fast Deployment Team] together with officers of the Oktyabrskiy ROVD [District Department of the Interior]. I have witnesses to confirm these facts.\nAt the time I was not at home, I was in Ingushetia together with the children. On 11 March 2000 [Ms H.A.], the wife of [Mr T.] applied to the Military Commander’s Office located at the railway hospital asking for assistance in searching for her husband. The Military Commander’s Office ordered that she be taken to her hu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4349", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Ryazan.\n5.  She is a military servicewoman. From January 2000 to February 2001 she served in the Russian contingent of the UN Peacekeeping Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n6.  Upon her return, the applicant brought proceedings against the head of her military unit to secure payment of her daily allowance for her service abroad.\n7.  On 25 July 2003 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison partly granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the military unit to pay the applicant 346,050.70 Russian roubles (RUB) in remuneration and RUB 1,000 in expenses for legal advice.\n8.  The military unit did not lodge an ordinary appeal, and on 22 August 2003 the judgment became binding and enforceable.\n9.  However, following the respondent’s request, on 19 November 2003 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command quashed the judgment of 25 July 2003 by way of supervisory review and dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. The reason given for the quashing of the judgment was the “wrongful application of substantive law by the first-instance court”.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4350", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n1) Mr Vakhit Abdurashidovich Dokuyev, born in 1947;\n2) Mrs Zina Abdulayevna Dokuyeva, born in 1952;\n3) Mrs Imani Ramzanovna Makayeva, born in 1983;\n4) Mrs Rukiyat Vakhitovna Dokuyeva, born in 1972;\n5) Mrs Makka Vakhitovna Dokuyeva, born in 1983;\n6) Mr Khavazh Abdurashidovich Dokuyev, born in 1951;\n7) Mrs Kheda Khavazhovna Dokuyeva, born in 1978.\nThey live in the village of Novye Atagi, the Chechen Republic\n7.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Magomed Dokuyev, born in 1977. The third applicant is the wife of Mr Magomed Dokuyev, with whom she had a son born in 2000. The fourth and the fifth applicants are sisters of Mr Magomed Dokuyev, and the sixth and the seventh applicants are his uncle and cousin.\n8.  The Dokuyev family live in the village of Novye Atagi at 4 Podgornaya Street in a household composed of two houses and a common courtyard. The first five applicants and Mr Magomed Dokuyev lived in one house. The other house belongs to the sixth applicant and his family.\n9.  Mr Magomed Dokuyev finished school in 1994 and studied to become a translator from English and Arabic. His higher education was interrupted by the first and the second periods of hostilities in Chechnya. He never had a full-time job.\n10.  On 14 February 2001 at about 6 a.m. two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and a Ural truck with obscured number plates drove up to the Dokuyevs’ family home. Mr Magomed Dokuyev, his father, wife and two sisters (the first, third, fourth and fifth applicants) were at home at the time. The second applicant, Mr Magomed Dokuyev’s mother, was away that day. A large group of more than twenty uniformed armed soldiers, most of whom were wearing masks, broke into the house. They asked the first applicant for his passport. They also asked Mr Magomed Dokuyev to confirm his identity. However, they did not ask for his documents. The soldiers then allowed the first applicant to dress, whereas his son had to remain barefoot. Both men were taken into the courtyard of the house, while the women and children were ordered to stay inside the house. In the courtyard the soldiers started to kick and beat Mr Magomed Dokuyev with their rifle butts. When the first applicant tried to intervene, the soldiers beat him too and ordered him to stand against the wall.\n11.  The sixth and the seventh applicants were in their house at that time and witnessed the detention of Mr Magomed Dokuyev and Mr Vakhit Dokuyev. The sixth applicant, woken by the noise, went out into the courtyard and was forced by the soldiers to lie face down while his brother and nephew were taken away.\n12.  The first applicant and his son were subsequently taken to an APC parked at the back of the house. The first applicant heard the sound of a second APC driving behind them and guessed that they were being taken in the direction of the Grozny-Shali road. While in the APC the detainees were not allowed to talk or look around. About one hour later the vehicles stopped and the men were taken outside. They were handcuffed and blindfolded, but the first applicant managed to catch a glimpse of military tents around. Later he heard helicopters landing and taking off and the sounds of morning exercise, which convinced him that he was in a large military base, probably in Khankala.\n13.  The first applicant was thrown on the ground inside a tent, and he could hear his son and another man screaming in a tent near by. He understood that they were being beaten ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4351", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1954, 1974 and 1979 respectively. They live in the village of Serzhen-Yurt, the Shali District, in the Chechen Republic.\n6.  The first applicant is the mother of the third applicant, Ms Luisa Saydaliyeva and of Mr Vakha Khasanovich Saydaliyev, born in 1976. At the material time Vakha Saydaliyev lived with the second applicant and had three children with her. Vakha Saydaliyev was disabled: he had had a leg amputated as a result of a trauma.\n7.  On 16 April 2002 the Saydaliyevs gathered their relatives and acquaintances in their house at 50 Sheripov Street, the village of Serzhen-Yurt, for the funeral of a family member. At some point Vakha Saydaliyev absented himself from home for a while and went to visit his neighbours.\n8.  At about 1 p.m. two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and three Ural vehicles arrived at the Sandaliyevs’ house; around fifty or sixty armed men who wore camouflage uniforms and spoke Russian without an accent got out of them. The applicants believed the men to be Russian military servicemen.\n9.  The servicemen proceeded to the courtyard and blocked the gates to it. Some of them entered the house and searched it without producing any warrant. They examined the dead body prepared for the funeral and explained that they had been instructed to check everything.\n10.  The servicemen shouted at the applicants and asked them where “their one-legged man” was. Then they lined all the men present against a wall and checked their identity papers.\n11.  In the meantime Vakha Saydaliyev returned home and entered the courtyard. The servicemen told him that they would take him to the military commander’s office for questioning but did not produce any documents. Vakha Saydaliyev did not offer any resistance and got into the Ural vehicle.\n12.  The applicants and Luisa Saydaliyeva begged the servicemen not to take Vakha Saydaliyev away. In reply, the servicemen shouted at the women; one of them hit Luisa Saydaliyeva with a machine gun butt. Then the vehicles drove away.\n(b)  Information obtained by the applicants from third persons\n13.  On 16 April 2002 armed men, allegedly Russian servicemen, detained the Saydaliyevs’ neighbour, Mr Kh. On 17 or 18 April 2002 he was released and returned home. Mr Kh. told the applicants that he had seen Vakha Saydaliyev in the premises of the military commander’s office in the village of Avtury, the Shali District, in the Chechen Republic. However, he refused to provide more information on his arrest and detention or to make an official statement. Later he left the village of Serzhen-Yurt.\n14.  In spring 2004 two unknown men visited Vakha Saydaliyev’s relatives and told them that for a year they had been kept in a detention facility in Stavropol and had shared a cell with Vakha Saydaliyev. They had no further information on his fate.\n15.  At about 2 p.m. on 16 April 2002 unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns kidnapped Vakha Saydaliyev from the house at 50 Sharipov Street, the village of Serzhen-Yurt.\n16.  Immediately after Vakha Saydaliyev’s abduction the first and second applicants asked the head of the local administration to help find their relative, but in vain.\n17.  Starting from 16 April 2002 the first and second applicants tried to establish Vakha Saydaliyev’s whereabouts. They applied to various official bodies, such as prosecutors’ offices at different levels, the Russian President, the Speaker of the Russian State Duma, the Adm", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4352", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Malmö.\n6.  Since 1992 the applicant has been registered with the Employment Service (Arbetsförmedlingen) in Malmö and, since 2001, she has been taking part in different programmes provided by it. One of these programmes, called activity guarantee (aktivitetsgaranti), was a programme for persons who were, or who were at a risk of becoming, unemployed for a long period as well as for groups of persons who often had difficulties in finding a job. The purpose of the programme was to give the participants greater opportunities to find a job and it involved different activities such as short term education and the possibility to try different kinds of work. Each person who participated in the programme had a personal supervisor from the Employment Service and together they were supposed to set up a plan for the activities in which the participant was taking part. The participant was obliged to attend meetings and to meet his or her supervisor on a regular basis, and he or she also had an obligation to apply for suitable jobs which were advertised through the Employment Service.\n7.  On 4 July 2005 the Employment Service (apparently on delegation from the County Labour Board (Länsarbetsnämnden)) decided to withdraw its approval for the applicant to take part in the programme in which she was participating. The decision was taken in accordance with Section 37(a) of the Ordinance on Labour Market Policy Programmes (förordningen om arbetsmarknadspolitiska program, SFS 2000:634; hereafter \"the 2000 Ordinance\"). According to the Employment Service, the applicant had not been acting in a proper manner in relation to the demands laid upon her. The decision was taken on the basis of a report drawn up by the Employment Service. The report stated that the applicant had been called to attend information meetings on several occasions but that she had either announced that she was not able to attend or she had simply not attended. It also stated that the applicant, at an information meeting, had made statements that led to a job interview being cancelled.\n8.  When the applicant’s permission to participate in the programme was revoked, her subsistence support in the form of activity support (see § 18 below) was also revoked, leaving her without any income. According to the applicant this forced her to pay for living expenses out of her savings for nine months and to take 25% early retirement in September 2005.\n9.  On 21 July 2005 the applicant appealed against the decision of the Employment Service to the National Labour Market Board (Arbetsmark-nadsstyrelsen –hereafter “the Board”). She claimed that there were several statements in the report which were not true. For instance, she had been ill and hospitalised and therefore had not been able to attend certain meetings and she had informed the Employment Service about the situation. She also alleged that a note in the report which stated that on one occasion she had not attended a meeting was not true. Moreover, she claimed that, at the aforementioned information meeting, she had told an official of the Employment Service that she felt she was not suited for the job in question. Thereafter, the official had told her that she could leave.\n10.  On 29 March 2006 the Board decided to reject the appeal. It found that the applicant had, on several occasions in August and September 2004, announced that she was not able to attend certain meetings; on one occasion becau", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4353", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Chişinău. He is a driver but at the time of the events was unemployed.\n6.  He was suspected of having forged documents concerning the sale of an apartment in Chişinău and was summoned to appear at the Ministry of Internal Affairs for questioning on 21 December 2004.\n7.  He complied with the summons and appeared before police officers N. T. and S.D. in their office, in the building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The time of his arrival in the building of the Ministry is disputed between the parties. According to the applicant he arrived at about 9 a.m. while the Government maintains that he arrived at 1 p.m. According to the applicant, the two police officers tried to force him to confess and when he refused to comply beat him with rubber truncheons and punched him in the head. Following a punch to his right ear he lost consciousness for several minutes. The allegations of beatings are disputed by the Government. It is undisputed that the questioning took place. The length of the questioning is also disputed between the parties: according to the applicant it lasted for eight hours while the Government contend that the questioning lasted for only one hour. At the same time it is undisputed that the police officers did not make any record of the questioning on that day.\n8.  The time of the applicant’s release is also disputed between the parties: the Government contend that he was released at about 2 p.m. while the applicant submits that he was released at approximately 5 p.m. It is, however, undisputed that he took a taxi from the front of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and went directly to his friend, V.P., with whom he had planned to go to Germany the next morning to inform him that he would not be able to go. Both the taxi driver and his friend noted the bruises on his face and were told by the applicant that he had been beaten up by the police in the building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The applicant obtained the taxi driver’s card.\n9.  The applicant felt ill during the night and the next morning, 22 December 2004, he went to the Emergency Hospital (Spitatlul de Urgenţă). The hospital’s register contains the following information:\n“The patient was beaten up by police officers in the building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on 21 December 2004 at 11.50 a.m. with loss of consciousness for several minutes. He complains of headache, nausea, vomiting and vertigo. Diagnosis: concussion and bruises to the face, upper lip, head and body.... The applicant refused to be hospitalised. Information has been transmitted to the General Police Station and received by D. under number 6196 at 8.35 p.m.”\n10.  It appears that no action followed as a result of the Emergency Hospital’s informing the General Police Station about the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment at the hands of police officers.\n11.  On the same day, 22 December 2004, at 4.45 p.m. the applicant was hospitalised in a military hospital. According to the applicant, he chose that hospital over the Emergency Hospital because it had cheaper services. It appears from the hospital’s register that the applicant gave the same account of events as at the Emergency Hospital about the beating received on 21 December 2004 in the building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs at the hands of two police officers. He was diagnosed with head trauma, multiple bruises to the body and head and post-traumatic deafness in the right ear. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4354", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  At the time of the events giving rise to the application, Hyde Park (the first applicant) was registered with the Moldovan Ministry of Justice as a non-governmental organisation lobbying, inter alia, for freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly. In 2007 its members decided to discontinue the organisation’s registration on grounds of alleged pressure and intimidation by the State. In particular, they complained of the refusal of the Ministry of Justice to register amendments to the organisation’s articles of association, the repeated freezing of its bank account, the arbitrary arrest of its members, attempts to shut down its newspaper, among other things. Several of the organisation’s leaders requested political asylum in western countries. It was decided to continue the organisation’s activity under the same name but without registering it with the State authorities. It was also decided that the new unincorporated association would become the former organisation’s successor. After removal of the organisation from the Government’s list of non-governmental organisations on 2 June 2008, Hyde Park’s activities continued as before on the basis of its new articles of association. The association continued editing its newspaper, its Internet page and continued staging protests and demonstrations.\n6.  The other applicants are members and supporters of Hyde Park: Oleg Brega, Anatolie Juraveli, Roman Cotelea, Mariana Galescu, Radu Vasilascu, Vitalie Dragan, Angela Lungu and Anatol Hristea-Stan. They were born in 1973, 1988, 1987, 1982, 1983, 1967, 1988 and 1953 respectively and live in Pepeni, Durlesti and Chişinău.\n7.  On 30 June 2006 the first applicant applied to the Chişinău Municipal Council for authorisation to hold a peaceful demonstration at the junction of Banulescu-Bodoni and Stefan cel Mare streets, not far from the Government building, between 1 and 31 August 2006, to protest against the refusal of the Ministry of Culture to install a monument dedicated to the poet Liviu Rebreanu, donated by the Government of Romania.\n8.  On 18 July 2006 the Chişinău Municipal Council authorised the holding of a demonstration in writing, but only on 1 August 2006. It stated that it considered that one day of protest was sufficient in order to bring Hyde Park’s concerns to the Government’s attention.\n9.  On 25 July 2006 Hyde Park challenged the Municipal Council’s decision in court.\n10.  On 29 August 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal found that the Municipality’s refusal had been unlawful, quashed its decision of 18 July 2006 and ordered the Municipal Council to authorise the first applicant to hold a demonstration in front of the Government building between 29 and 31 August 2006. The court ordered that its judgment should come into force immediately.\n11.  On 30 August 2006 the applicants requested authorisation from the Municipality on the basis of the judgment of 29 August 2006. However, the Municipality refused to comply with the judgment on the ground that it was not final.\n12.  On the same day at 5 p.m. the applicants started their demonstration at the place indicated in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. At 5.15 p.m. the applicants were approached by a group of police officers who asked whether they had authorisation. The applicants showed them the judgment of the Court of Appeal. From a video which was made by the police and which is part of the domestic case file a police officer can be seen attempting to convince Mr Brega", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4355", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 24 May 1993 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava – vidiek District Court. He claimed the estate of his predecessor.\n6.  The District Court held several hearings in 1993. On 10 December 1993 it issued an injunction which the court of appeal quashed on 31 May 1994.\n7.  In the second half of 1994 and in 1995 the District Court scheduled a number of hearings. The parties or their representatives were unable to attend several of them. The District Court took further evidence during that period.\n8.  There was no progress in the case between 25 November 1996 and 28 October 1999. In 1997 the case fell to be examined by the Bratislava III District Court to which the court business of the former Bratislava – vidiek District Court had been transferred.\n9.  On 18 April 2000 the applicant submitted further documents following a request by the District Court which his representative had received on 29 December 1999. In June and December 2001 the applicant specified his action and submitted further documents as requested by the District Court. On 8 February 2002 the District Court asked the applicant to submit another original of the document in which he provided further particulars of his claims.\n10.  In August 2002 the District Court asked the defendant to comment on the claims. The defendant replied on 14 October 2002.\n11.  On 13 April 2004 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 2 June 2004.\n12.  As the defendant’s representative was unable to attend, the case was adjourned until 27 September 2004. On that date the case was again adjourned as the defendant was ill. A hearing was scheduled for 22 November 2004.\n13.  Hearings were held in 2006. On 13 November 2006 the District Court allowed the applicant to modify his action.\n14.  On 18 January 2007 the Bratislava III District Court delivered an interim judgment confirming that the applicant was the heir of the person whose estate he claimed.\n15.  The defendant appealed.\n16.  On 1 April 2008 the Bratislava Regional Court changed the first- instance decision in that it dismissed the applicant’s action. It held that the applicant’s claim had lapsed.\n17.  On 21 October 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava III District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. There was no indication that the case was complex. The applicant by his conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings which, however, had been prolonged for reasons imputable to the defendant. The Constitutional Court noted, in particular, that the defendant had repeatedly been ill and that his representative had been unable to attend hearings several times in 1995 and in 2004. The District Court had remained inactive between 20 May 1996 and 28 October 1999, between 18 April 2000 and 3 May 2001 and also from 14 October 2001 to 13 April 2004. Unjustified delays thus exceeded 70 months.\n18.  The Constitutional Court awarded the equivalent of 1,500 euros (EUR) to the applicant as just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the District Court to proceed with the case and to reimburse the applicant’s costs.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4356", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1929, 1972, 1956, 1966, 1963 and 1953 respectively, and live in Mersin except for the third and the fourth applicants who reside in Diyarbakır and Şanlıurfa respectively.\n5.  The first applicant’s son and the other applicants’ brother, Harun Çetin, was a student at the Istanbul University at the time of the events.\n6.  On 15 March 1993 Harun Çetin was arrested and taken into police custody, together with his friend Mr Ö.Yüce, at the Avcılar Campus of Istanbul University. They had Molotov cocktails in their possession.\n7.  On 16 March 1993, while in detention, Harun Çetin’s health deteriorated and he was admitted to Şişli Etfal Hospital. On the same day, he was transferred to Cerrahpaşa hospital. On his arrival, Harun Çetin was unconscious and had slight bruises and abrasions on various parts of his body. A brain scan revealed a subdural haematoma in the right fronto-temporo‑parietal region. He was immediately operated on and remained in the hospital’s intensive care unit until 9 June 1993, without, it appears, regaining consciousness. Harun Çetin was later transferred, first to Bakırköy Reanimation Center and later to Taksim Hospital where he died on 5 September 1993. He was twenty years old.\n8.  On 8 September 1993, upon the request of the Beyoğlu public prosecutor, an autopsy was carried out on Harun Çetin at the Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty. According to the autopsy report, drawn up on 22 December 1993, the cause of death was attributed to pneumonia related respiratory insufficiency which had developed as a result of his transition from active to passive, following the subdural brain haemorrhage suffered from a head trauma.\n9.  In the meantime, on 16 March 1993 Mr Yüce gave a statement to the police in which he claimed, inter alia, that he and Harun Çetin had been beaten both by the police officers who had arrested them and by the police officers at the Avcılar police station where they were interrogated, and that Harun Çetin’s poor health might have resulted from these beatings.\n10.  Between 3 September 1993 and 4 October 1993, a prosecutor took the statements of eleven police officers who were working either at the Avcılar police station or the anti-terror branch of the Security Directorate.\n11.  In an indictment dated 31 December 1993, the public prosecutor at the Bakırköy Assize Court accused Mr U.A., the police chief at the anti-terror branch of the Avcılar Security Directorate and Mr I.H., a police officer in the same department, of causing Harun Çetin’s death, unintentionally, as a result of ill‑treatment. They were also accused of ill-treating Mr Yüce. The charges were brought under Articles 452 § 1, 243 §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  On 5 January 1994 the criminal proceedings against the accused police officers began before the Bakırköy Assize Court. The first hearing was fixed for 8 April 1994.\n13.  Between 8 April 1994 and 24 February 2006 the court held thirty‑three hearings, during which it mainly took numerous procedural decisions in order to establish the whereabouts of Mr Yüce, without success.\n14.  In the hearing held on 8 April 1994 the applicants, except for Mrs Nuriye Kaymış, joined the proceedings as civil parties (müdahil).\n15.  The court heard the police officers, who denied the accusations against them at the hearing held on 1 July 1994.\n16.  In a petition dated 28 October 1994, the civil parties requested the court to conduct an additional investigation. In this connection", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4357", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the Vilnius area.\n6.  On 4 March 1992 the applicant was awarded a Commemorative “13 January” Medal (bestowed upon persons who distinguished themselves when defending the freedom and independence of Lithuania during the period January-September 1991). By the Presidential order of 30 September 1996 the applicant was awarded the Medal of Founding Volunteers of the Lithuanian Army.\n7.  On 12 September 2000 a special governmental commission (“the Commission”) found that the applicant had been a “former secret collaborator” (slapta bendradarbiavęs asmuo) under the Law on registering, confession, entry into records and protection of persons who have admitted to secret collaboration with special services of the former USSR, and decided to publish this information in the “Official Gazette” (Valstybės žinios).\n8.  The applicant brought proceedings before the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court requesting it to quash the Commission’s conclusion as to his former collaboration. On 7 May 2001 the court partly granted the applicant’s claim, establishing that there had been a lack of evidence of the applicant having been a KGB collaborator.\n9.  On 3 July 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the lower court’s decision. It was found that the applicant had indeed been a KGB collaborator while working as a sports journalist and travelling abroad in the 1980s.\n10.  On 23 July 2001 the Commission published information in the “Official Gazette” to the effect that, in the past, the applicant had collaborated with the special services of the former USSR, namely with the KGB.\n11.  On 27 July 2001 the applicant was dismissed from his post as an official at the Human Resources Department of the Ministry of the Interior. The decree by which he was dismissed stipulated that the reason for the dismissal was the information regarding his collaboration, which the Commission had published on 23 July 2001.\n12.  The applicant again challenged the Commission’s conclusions in its decision of 12 September 2000 as being null and void. On 31 October 2001 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the action on procedural grounds, finding that there had been a final court decision on the issue. The case was discontinued.\n13.  On 12 December 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court reopened the proceedings to have the evidence better examined and to establish guidelines for a common judicial practice in similar future cases.\n14.  On 16 January 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court examined the merits of the applicant’s complaints, dismissing his request to quash the decision of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court of 31 October 2001. The Supreme Administrative Court found that the lower courts had reasonably concluded that the applicant had secretly collaborated with the secret services of the former USSR. The court noted that the applicant’s rights in examining the evidence and questioning the witnesses had not been curtailed. That decision was final.\nOn an unspecified date the applicant submitted a request to the Supreme Administrative Court seeking the reopening of the procedure, alleging violations of material legal norms in the decisions in his case. On 16 May 2002, the court dismissed his request as unfounded.\n15.  The applicant alleged that he had been disbarred from practising as a barrister as a result of the impugned domestic decisions.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4358", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first three applicants, Mr Gheorghe Straisteanu, Ms Natalia Straisteanu and Ms Daniela Straisteanu, are a family of Moldovan nationals who were born in 1954, 1957 and 1986 respectively. The fourth applicant, Codrana-Lux S.R.L., is a limited liability company incorporated in Moldova. Sixty percent of its stock belongs to the first three applicants’ family.\n6.  The first applicant is a well-known businessman and a former member of the Moldovan Parliament, between 1998 and 2001. He was, inter alia, the founder of the first Moldovan private television company and owned a chain of petrol stations. After the Communist party won the general election in 2001 he retired from politics and had to wind up most of his businesses, including the television station and the petrol business.\n7.  In May 2001 the fourth applicant bought a plot of land measuring 14.63 hectares from the Onesti Local Council. The land was later sold by the fourth applicant to the first two applicants. Subsequently, the first applicant donated a part of the land to the third applicant and an artificial lake was built on the family’s property.\n8.  Also in May 2001, the fourth applicant concluded a contract of lease with the Onesti Local Council for a period of ten years concerning a natural lake measuring 5.63 hectares adjacent to the property which it had bought.\n9.  The first three applicants settled on the above property and developed it with a view to using it for tourism and fishing. According to them, in 2005 Government officials started to exercise pressure on the first applicant to induce him to give up the property.\n10.  On 20 July 2005 the first applicant was arrested in Chişinău together with his driver. At the police station, he was informed that he and his driver were being accused of carrying out a series of car thefts over the past year in Chişinău. It would appear that several criminal complaints concerning car thefts were joined in a single procedure, while others were joined later (see paragraph 14 below).\n11.  On 22 July 2005 the Centru District Court issued a detention warrant in the first applicant’s name for a period of ten days. The grounds for detention were that he was suspected of committing a serious offence punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, that the criminal case was complex, and that he might abscond, hinder the investigation and the finding of the truth. An appeal by the applicant was dismissed and his detention was subsequently extended on the same grounds.\n12.  On 18 August 2005 Judge A.B. from the same court ordered the applicant’s release. The grounds for release were that there were no reasons to believe that the applicant would abscond or hinder in any way the investigation. However, the prosecuting authorities refused to comply with the order and continued to hold the applicant in detention. They applied a second time for an extension of the detention but Judge A. B. refused again on 19 August 2005 and found that the prosecutor had failed to comply with his previous decision and that therefore the applicant’s detention had been unlawful. The prosecutor refused again to comply with the order of release and ordered his further detention on account of charges of theft from a Volkswagen car, an episode which had not been joined to the main criminal case at that time. On the same date the prosecutor applied to another court, the Râşcani District Court, for a detention warrant. The charges against the first applicant were th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4359", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Tabarik Malsagova, born in 1952;\n2) Ms Zulikhan Mayrsoltovna Malsagova, born in 1978;\n3) Ms Shovda Mayrsoltovna Malsagova, born in 1987;\n4) Ms Tamila Mayrsoltovna Malsagova, born in 1983;\n5) Ms Yakha Mayrsoltovna Malsagova, born in 1974;\n6) Mrs Kometa Mayrsoltovna Malsagova, born in 1973; and\n7) Mr Tamerlan Mayrsoltovich Malsagov, born in 1983.\nThey live in the town of Urus-Martan, in the Chechen Republic.\n8.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Saydi Mayrsoltovich Malsagov, born in 1980. The other applicants are the first applicant’s children and siblings of Saydi Malsagov. The applicants live in their family house at 22 Shvernika Street, Urus-Martan.\n9.  At about 2 a.m. on 7 November 2002 a group of about twenty-five or thirty masked men in camouflage uniforms forcibly entered the Malsagovs’ house. They were armed with machine guns and sniper rifles with optical sights; they spoke Russian without accent. The armed men did not identify themselves but the applicants inferred that they belonged to the Russian military. The servicemen did not produce any documents to justify their actions and gave no explanations.\n10.  The first applicant was sleeping in one room with her two granddaughters aged seven and nine and the fourth applicant. In another room Saydi Malsagov was sleeping with his wife, Ms S. The seventh applicant and his father Mayrsolt Malsagov (who died in October 2003) were sleeping in the third room.\n11.  The first and the fourth applicants were awakened by a group of servicemen who walked into their room, turned on the lights and ordered them to remain in bed and not to move. Two men searched the wardrobes in the room while the third stood at the doors on guard. The servicemen did not talk to the women. Once they had finished searching, two servicemen left and went to the adjacent room where Saydi Malsagov and Ms S. were. In about ten minutes five or six servicemen again entered the room and walked up to the first applicant’s bed. The two granddaughters of the first applicant were frightened and started to cry, and the first applicant asked the soldiers not to hurt the children. The soldiers told her that they were there just to check. Then they left the room and closed the door from the outside.\n12.  Five minutes later the seventh applicant and his father entered the women’s room. Together they went into Saydi Malsagov’s room. There they saw his wife who was sitting on the floor by her bed and crying. Belongings and beds had been thrown around. Ms S. said that the military had taken her husband away. They also took audio and videotapes, some papers and Saydi Malsagov’s medical record.\n13.  The seventh applicant stated that on 7 November 2002 at about 2.30 a.m. five men in camouflage or black uniforms armed with machine guns had entered the room where he and his father were sleeping and asked for his passport. The seventh applicant was ordered to lie on the floor. One of the servicemen read out his full name and the seventh applicant confirmed that it was him. Then the servicemen searched the rooms without saying what they were looking for and left in about ten minutes. They told the seventh applicant to remain on the floor and not to move. The seventh applicant heard them break down the door to the next room. About five minutes later three men entered the room and again asked the applicant for an identity document. The seventh applicant replied that his passport had already been checked and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4360", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kristiansand.\n6.  On 19 May 2000, two girls of eight and ten years of age were raped and stabbed to death in Baneheia, a recreation area in the city of Kristiansand. Two young men were later convicted of the crimes and sentenced to 21 and 19 years of imprisonment respectively for rape and murder committed in particularly aggravating circumstances. The case received intense and extensive coverage in the national media.\n7.  In 1988 the applicant had been convicted of murder, attempted murder and eight instances of assault, all committed by the use of knife in June 1987 in Kristiansand. He had been sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment and to five years’ security measures (sikring) (which under the relevant law at the time, could be imposed where it was established that the person concerned was not mentally ill (and thus criminally liable) but had an underdeveloped and permanently impaired mental capacity and that, because of this condition, there was a clear risk of his or her committing further criminal offences). Shortly before the expiry of the security measures on 20 September 1999, the public prosecutor had requested a prolongation, which a first instance court had granted in March 2000 for a period of three years (but which an appellate court refused in January 2001). In May 1999 the applicant had been released from security detention (lukket sikring) and had been placed under supervision at liberty (fri sikring). Thereafter he had lived in Kristiansand, partly in a camping cabin and partly in his family’s cabin by the river and had been working at a protected workplace for persons on rehabilitation scheme. He was a substance abuser and was connected to a group which used to gather at the so-called “Acid Knoll”, a place in the recreation area where the murders had taken place.\n8.  During the early stages of the murder investigation, the applicant and a number of other previously convicted persons were interrogated as witnesses. The police’s interest in the applicant attracted considerable media attention.\n9.  Two days after the murder, the police collected the applicant from his workplace and brought him to the police station. The police interrogated him for 10 hours until 00.30 am on 24 May 2000, and then brought him to his home. The interrogation became known to the press and was presented in the national media on 23 and 24 May 2000 together with information about his criminal trial in 1988 and the imposition of security measures in his case. In their issues published on those dates, three national newspapers, Aftenposten, Dagbladet and Verdens Gang, reported on the applicant but without stating his identity.\n10.  Also a national television channel, the TV2, gave extensive reports. In a news broadcast on 23 May 2000, at 9 pm (while the applicant was being interrogated), it stated:\n“Possibly the most special candidate of these persons (former convicted, Court’s addition) is precisely this 42-year-old because of his past and because he has been seen in the area where the murder occurred, at the time when it occurred, but so far there are no suspects, and it is precisely that which now is a little exciting in this case. Habitually, this type of investigation takes a long time, but when one carries out this type of alibi checkups, the case may soon take a new and special turn.”\n11.  In a news broadcast on 24 May 2000, 6.30 pm, TV2 reported that members of the press had followed a 42 year o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4361", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the town of Kamyshin in the Volgograd Region.\n6.  The applicant was employed as an expert in the local Forensic Examinations Service. In 2000 he was accused of having been negligent in the discharge of his professional duties and was dismissed from his post. In March 2001 he was charged with having given a deliberately false expert opinion.\n7.  On 30 May 2001 the Kamyshin Town Court of the Volgograd Region convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to one year of correctional labour coupled with a fine amounting to 20% of his income. Under the Amnesty Act 2000 the applicant was absolved from serving his sentence.\n8.  On 7 August 2001 the Volgograd Regional Court overturned the judgment and discontinued the proceedings for want of corpus delicti. The court held that the offence required express malice, which had not been established on the facts of the case. The Rules on the Forensic Medical Examination of Corpses allowed the expert to determine the scope and methods of examination on the basis of ministerial instructions. The applicant’s failure to conduct a thorough corpse examination resulted from having chosen “the wrong scope and methods”.\n9.  On a supervisory request from the Volgograd Region Acting Prosecutor, on 21 September 2001 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed both judgments for insufficient substantiation and remitted the case to the prosecutor for a new investigation. It held as follows:\n“Ruling on the discontinuation of the case, the [appeal] court referred to the Rules on forensic examination of corpse, annexed to the Decree 407 of 10 December 1996... According to paragraph 1.11 of the Rules, ‘the scope and method of the expert examination of a corpse is determined by the expert, taking account of the aim and objectives of the examination, the requirements of substantiation and objectivity of the expert’s conclusions, directions of the normative instructions and guidelines.’\nSo, the appeal court ruled that the insufficiency of the corpse examination carried out by the applicant ...had been due to his wrong choice as regards the scope and method of examination...\n[T]he case file did not contain all normative documents regarding the process of an expert examination.\nThe investigating authority and the court concluded that [the applicant] had acted in gross disregard of the above Rules, only on the basis of excerpts from these Rules. This did not allow for a thorough examination of the case...”\nThe prosecutor was present at the hearing and made submissions to the Presidium of the Regional Court. According to the applicant, neither he nor his counsel was apprised of this hearing and consequently could not attend it.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings, on 22 May 2002 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to one year of correctional labour coupled with a fine amounting to 10% of his income. Under the Amnesty Act 2000 the applicant was absolved from serving his sentence.\n11.  On 9 July 2002 the Regional Court set aside the judgment of 22 May 2002 and discontinued the proceedings as time-barred.\n12.  On a supervisory review request from the President of the Regional Court, on 20 September 2002 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the appeal judgment and remitted the case to the appeal court. The supervisory instance court stated that the defendant’s consent should have been obtained for a discontinuation due to the expiry of the limitation perio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4362", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the village of Goyty in Urus-Martan District in the Chechen Republic.\n8.  The applicant is the mother of Mr Khanpasha Lechayevich Dzhabrailov, born in 1976. At the material time the applicant, Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov, his wife and their three children lived at 24 Shamov Street, Goyty village.\n9.  The account below is based on eyewitness statements of the applicant and her daughter, Ms Raisa Dzhabrailova.\n10.  According to the applicant, the village of Goyty was under the federal forces’ control from December 1999. The road leading to and from the village was blocked by federal checkpoints.\n11.  On 10 April 2003 at around 4 a.m. a khaki UAZ vehicle, a grey UAZ off-road vehicle («таблетка») and a grey bus with a blue stripe arrived at the Dzhabrailovs’ house. Around twenty armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles; the applicant believed that they belonged to the Russian military because they spoke unaccented Russian and could move freely around the village during the curfew.\n12.  Around ten servicemen entered the house, woke the Dzhabrailovs and, threatening them with their machine guns, forced them to the floor. Then they seized Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov’s badge of an employee of a local human rights NGO, grabbed the young man and dragged him to the door. When the applicant and her daughter-in-law asked them where they intended to take Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov, the servicemen gave no clear answer but shouted at the women, using mostly swear words. They then blindfolded Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov and took him away.\n13.  Ms Raisa Dhzbrailova followed the servicemen and saw them put Mr Khanpasha Dzabrailov into the bus and leave in the direction of Urus‑Martan.\n(b)  The Government’s account of events\n14.  According to the Government, on 10 April 2003 at about 4 a.m. a group of at least ten unidentified persons in masks and camouflage uniforms armed with automatic firearms entered the house at 24 Shamov Street in Goyty village, abducted Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov and took him away to an unknown destination.\n15.  On 11 April 2003 the applicant complained in writing about her son’s abduction to the military commander’s office of the Urus-Martan District.\n16.  On 27 April 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district prosecutor’s office”) instituted an investigation into Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov’s disappearance under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). The case file was given the number 34051.\n17.  On 30 April 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic (“the republican prosecutor’s office”) forwarded the applicant’s complaint about her son’s disappearance to the district prosecutor’s office.\n18.  On 27 June 2003 the district prosecutor’s office stayed the investigation for failure to identify those responsible.\n19.  On 10 June (or September) 2003 the military commander’s office of Urus-Martan District informed the applicant in reply to her complaint of 11 April 2003 (see paragraph 15 above) that they had carried out an internal inquiry which had not established Mr Khanpasha Dzhabrailov’s whereabouts or the identities of those who had abducted him. They also assured the applicant that they would continue searching for her son.\n20.  On 10 September 2003 the district prosecutor’s office informed the applicant that they had stayed the investigation in case no. 34051 on 27 June 2003 and advised her that she had ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4363", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n1) Mr Balaudy Dokayev, born in 1945,\n2) Ms Koku Khamidovna Dokayeva, born in 1953,\n3) Ms Rosa Talkhigova, born in 1974,\n4) Ms Razet Dokayeva, born in 1996,\n5) Ms Dinara Dokayeva, born in 2003,\n6) Mr Timur Dokayev, born in 2000,\n7) Ms Maymont (also spelled as Maymut) Askhabova, born in 1933,\n8) Ms Maryam Bakarayeva, born in 1963,\n9) Mr Khalid Askhabov, born in 1956,\n10) Mr Leytche Dubayev, born in 1953,\n11) Ms Aysara Dubayeva, born in 1957.\nThe applicants are three families who live in Grozny, Chechnya. The first applicant family consists of six persons (applicants 1-6). The first applicant is married to the second applicant. They are the father and the stepmother of Isa Dokayev (also spelled Dakayev), who was born in 1969. The third applicant is his wife; the fourth and fifth applicants are his daughters and the sixth applicant is his son. The second applicant family consists of three persons (applicants 7-9). The seventh applicant is the mother of Ruslan Askhabov, who was born in 1962. The eighth applicant is his wife and the ninth applicant is his brother. The third applicant family consists of two persons (applicants 10-11). They are married and are the parents of Isa Dubayev, who was born in 1981. The applicants’ relatives have been detained and subsequently disappeared.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  Isa Dokayev, the third applicant and their two minor children lived at 37 Zabolotnogo Street, in the Oktyabrskiy district of Grozny, Chechnya. At the material time the third applicant, Ms Rosa Talkhigova, was pregnant with their third child, the fifth applicant. On the night of 10 December 2002 they were all at home, along with Ruslan Askhabov and Isa Dubayev, who were Isa Dokayev’s guests that night. The house was located not far from the Oktyabrskiy district department of the interior (the ROVD), the military commander’s office and the local administration. Military checkpoints manned by Russian federal servicemen were located on the roads leading to and from Grozny; the area was under curfew.\n9.  At about 2.30 a.m. on 10 December 2002 five or six masked men in white camouflage uniforms, armed with machine guns and pistols, rushed into Isa Dokayev’s house. At the entrance they shot the applicants’ dog. They opened fire in one of the rooms and shot up a TV set. The men neither identified themselves nor produced any documents. They were equipped with portable radios. They spoke Russian without accent, were drunk and swore. The applicants believed that the intruders were Russian military servicemen.\n10.  The servicemen ordered the third applicant to stay in her room. Through the half-open door she saw her husband lying down on the kitchen floor with a soldier standing over him and pointing his machine gun at him. The soldier was kicking Isa Dokayev in the back, swearing at him and saying that he should be quiet, otherwise “it would get worse”. Ruslan Askhabov and Isa Dubayev were also lying on the floor. All three men had their hands tied and black sacks placed over their heads.\n11.  The children woke up with the sound of shooting and started crying. From the kitchen floor Isa Dokayev asked his wife to calm them down. When the third applicant tried to leave her room one of the servicemen threatened to shoot her if she tried to open the door again. The servicemen kept swearing at her. When the third applicant asked where the servicemen were taking her husb", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4364", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is the father of a son (S.), born on 30 July 1990. In 1997 the applicant and the child’s mother (K.) separated. S. remained with his mother. In 1998 the applicant and S.’s mother were divorced.\n6.  On 21 January 1998 the Pankow District Court awarded K. sole custody of S. and decided that the applicant would be entitled to personal contact with his son every other weekend. In September 1998, however, the applicant ceased to have contact with his son.\n7.  On 7 October 1998 the applicant requested the Pankow District Court to impose a coercive fine on the mother to enforce his access rights. The District Court registered his request under file number 11 F 4813/98.\n8.  Between 9 November 1998 and 10 March 1999 the parties and the Youth Office submitted observations.\n9.  On 17 May 1999 the applicant withdrew his request and stated that he now wished the court to mediate between the parents with a view to reaching an agreement on the applicant’s contact rights according to section 52a of the Non-Contentious Proceedings Act (Gesetz über die Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit – see “Relevant Domestic Law” below). The District Court pursued the applicant’s modified request under the same file number (11 F 4813/98).\n10.  On 13 August 1999 the District Court heard S., who declared that he wished to see his father only occasionally under the supervision of a third person.\n12.  On 18 October 1999 the District Court held a further hearing at which the parties declared that the court currently did not need to take any action.\n13.  On 22 February 2000 the applicant applied for the appointment of a guardian ad litem and a contact supervisor (Umgangsbegleitperson) arguing that the mediation proceedings had failed.\n14.  On 10 March 2000 the District Court appointed a guardian ad litem and set down the case for hearing on 5 April 2000. However, that hearing was postponed to 15 May 2000 as agreed with the parties.\n15.  On 5 June 2000 a further hearing was held, and on 14 June 2000 the District Court ordered supervised contact for a period between late June and mid-December.\n17.  On 28 September 2000 the District Court asked the contact supervisor to comment on the failure to have contact established between the applicant and his son. In October and November 2000 the District Court reminded the contact supervisor of its request of 28 September 2000 and unsuccessfully attempted to contact the latter by phone.\n19.  On 11 December 2000 the District Court sent a further reminder to the contact supervisor and requested the parties to comment on the question as to whether the mediation proceedings should be continued.\n21.  On 20 March 2001 the District Court decided to continue the proceedings after the parties had agreed on a one-off supervised contact.\n22.  On 6 July 2001 the contact centre informed the District Court that the contact supervisor had been replaced with another person, and on 11 July 2001 the District Court appointed that person as contact supervisor.\n23.  On 14 August 2001 the District Court received the contact supervisor’s report, according to which S. refused to see his father.\n24.  On 22 September 2001 the applicant asked the District Court to declare that the mediation proceedings had failed and to commission an expert report.\n25. On 22 November 2001 the District Court heard S. again, who firmly declared that his father no longer existed for him.\n26.  On 27 November 2001 the District Court commissioned a psyc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4365", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Gribanovskiy, in the Voronezh Region.\n6.  The applicant is suffering from partial deafness (also known as sensor neural hearing loss).\n7.  On 17 January 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of several counts of robbery, theft and unlawful possession of arms and taken to a police station for questioning. Following the interrogation, the applicant was remanded in custody pending trial in detention facility IZ-36/2 in Borisoglebsk, Voronezh Region.\n8.  Upon the applicant’s arrest he retained a lawyer, Mr B. In March 2001 the applicant asked for Mr B. to be replaced by Mr S. Later the applicant again asked the court for permission to change his lawyer on two occasions, alleging ineffectiveness. It appears that during the trial hearing he was represented by Ms N.\n9.  The trial was held on 12 November 2001. The Voronezh Regional Court convicted the applicant, along with nine other co-accused, of theft, aggravated robbery, hijacking, causing deliberate damage to property and possession of firearms, and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment with forfeiture of estate. The applicant appealed on the point of facts and law, contesting his involvement in several episodes and alleging that the sentence was too severe.\n10.  According to the applicant, on 26 August 2002 he requested to be present in the courtroom in person for health reasons (partial deafness and weak eyesight) but his request was never examined by the court.\n11.  According to the Government, the courts did not receive such a request.\n12.  It appears that the applicant was not informed about the date and time of the appeal hearing in due time but learned about it on the day of the appeal hearing. The authorities submitted a certificate from the IZ-77/3 detention centre in Moscow, where the applicant was placed for the duration of the appeal proceedings, informing the Court that it was impossible to submit a copy of the summons to the appeal hearing due to the absence of the applicant’s case file.\n13.  On 13 September 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia examined the applicant’s appeal, modified the qualification of his crimes and reduced the sentence to nine years and six months. The appeal hearing was held by video link. The applicant was brought to IZ-77/3 detention centre, which was equipped with the necessary facilities to broadcast the hearing. He was not represented by a lawyer. The prosecutor was present in person in the court room.\n14.  According to the applicant, the quality of the video and audio transmission was very low. The applicant, who was suffering from partial deafness, could not follow the appeal hearing properly and when he asked the warders to increase the volume his requests were allegedly refused in a rude manner. He further alleged that he had twice been interrupted by the judge when trying to defend himself and was not able to proceed with the defence due to his confusion and the negative psychological effect caused by the judge’s attitude and the transmission by video link. He further alleged that the overall length of the hearing amounted to less than ten minutes.\n15.  According to the Government, the applicant stated his case at the appeal hearing. He did not mention his illness during the appeal examination. The Supreme Court examined his arguments concerning the excessive severity of punishment. The court took into account the applicant’s family situation, his readiness to cooperate with the authoritie", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4366", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Zareta Khamidovna Gaziyeva[1], born in 1973,\n2) Ms Radima Abdul-Malikovna Shakhmurzayeva, born in 2001 and\n3) Mr Rakhim Abdul-Malikovich Shakhmurzayev, born in 1999.\n7.  The applicants live in the village of Chechen-Aul, in the Grozny district of Chechnya. The first applicant is the wife of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev, born in 1968. The second applicant is his daughter and the third applicant is his son.\n8.  At the material time the village of Chechen-Aul and its premises were under full control of the Russian military; checkpoints manned by military servicemen were located on roads leading to and from the settlement.\n9.  In the afternoon of 8 February 2001 three APCs (armoured personnel carriers) blocked the road between the village of Chechen-Aul and the Grozny-Shatoy motorway. The APCs’ registration numbers were covered with mud. The men who had arrived in the APCs were stopping every car driving by on the road. They were wearing black masks and uniforms and were carrying portable radios. They behaved like an organised group with a chain of command. It appears that the group belonged to division Don-100 of the North-Caucasian Military Circuit of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior (Дивизия Северокавказского округа внутренних войск “Дон-100”).\n10.  That afternoon Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev was driving a ZIL-130 lorry in the direction of Chechen-Aul. Earlier that day he had picked up two fellow villagers, Mr Malik Z. and Mr Gilani M., to give them a lift to Chechen-Aul.\n11.  At about 3 p.m. Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev’s lorry was stopped by the group of servicemen in APCs. He and the two passengers were told to step out of the vehicle and lie face down on the ground to answer the servicemen’s questions.\n12.  Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev refused to lie down on the ground and said that he would answer the questions standing. One of the servicemen told him: “You will not only lie down, you will crawl and bark like a dog if we say so” and three of the servicemen started swearing and beating him with rifle butts. The beating was witnessed by three other persons who had also been stopped by the same group of servicemen: Mr S., Mr G. and Mr Yu.\n13.  After the beating Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev was put in one of the APCs and taken away. The two passengers Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev had picked up earlier that morning were also detained. The servicemen also detained the drivers of two other ZIL lorries, who were also beaten up but let go in the evening of 8 February 2001. These drivers, Mr Yu. and Mr G., came to the applicants and told them about the arrest of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev.\n14.  On 9 February 2001 the first applicant went to the military commander’s office in the nearby village of Gikalo. There she spoke to an officer who refused to reveal his name. He confirmed that Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev had been arrested on 8 February 2001 by military servicemen, but stated that no charges had been brought against him. The two men to whom Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev had given a lift on 8 February had also been arrested.\n15. On 9 February 2001 the applicant went to the Urus-Martan district military commander’s office. There she met an officer who told her that Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev and his two passengers were being held in the “Tangi-Chu pits” in the village of Tangi-Chu (also spelled Tenghi-Chu).\n16.  The applicants’ description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction of Abdul-Malik Shakhmurzayev wa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4367", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants, Franja and Ivan Šilih, were born in 1949 and 1940 respectively and live in Slovenj Gradec.\n11.  On 3 May 1993, at some point between midday and 1 p.m., the applicants' twenty-year-old son, Gregor Šilih, sought medical assistance in the Slovenj Gradec General Hospital for, inter alia, nausea and itching skin. He was examined by a duty doctor, M.E. On the basis of a diagnosis of urticaria (a type of allergic reaction), M.E. ordered the administration of intravenous injections of a drug containing glucocorticosteroid (Dexamethason) and an antihistaminic (Synopen). Following the injections, the applicants' son's condition significantly deteriorated. This was probably a result of him being allergic to one or both of the drugs. His skin became very pale, he began to tremble and to feel cold; M.E. noticed signs of tachycardia. A diagnosis of anaphylactic shock was made. Subsequently, at 1.30 p.m., the applicant's son was transferred to intensive care. M.E. ordered the administration of, inter alia, adrenaline. By the time the cardiologist arrived, the applicants' son had stopped breathing and had no pulse. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was given. At around 2.15 p.m. the applicants' son was connected to a respirator and his blood pressure and pulse returned to normal, but he remained in a coma; his brain was severely damaged.\n12.  On 4 May 1993 he was transferred to the Ljubljana Clinical Centre (Klinični center v Ljubljani), where he died on 19 May 1993.\n13.  The exact timing of the events which led to the death of the applicants' son and the action taken by M.E. in response to his deteriorating condition were disputed in the domestic proceedings.\n14.  On 13 May 1993 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint (ovadba) with the Slovenj Gradec Unit of the Maribor First-Instance Public Prosecutor's Office (Temeljno javno tožilstvo Maribor, Enota v Slovenj Gradcu) against M.E. for the criminal offence of “negligent medical treatment” (nevestno zdravljenje) which, following the applicants' son's death, was characterised as “a serious criminal offence that [had] caused damage to health” (hudo kaznivo dejanje zoper človekovo zdravje). The applicants argued that, through the intravenous injection of the two drugs, M.E. had given their son the wrong treatment and had subsequently failed to take appropriate corrective measures after his condition deteriorated.\n15.  In the course of the preliminary proceedings (predkazenski postopek) medical documents concerning the treatment administered to the applicants' son were seized by the police and, following his death, the duty investigating judge (preiskovalni sodnik) directed the Ljubljana Institute for Forensic Medicine (Inštitut za sodno medicino v Ljubljani) to conduct an autopsy and prepare a forensic report.\n16.  On 26 August 1993 the police submitted a report to the public prosecutor from which it appears that the Ministry of Health (Ministrstvo za zdravstvo) requested the Medical Association (Zdravniško Društvo) to set up a commission to prepare an opinion in the case. The commission was composed of the same experts as those who were preparing the forensic report (see paragraph 17 below). According to the report, the opinion was sent on 11 June 1993 to the Ministry of Health, which published it in two of Slovenia's main newspapers on 19 June 1993.\n17.  On 1 July 1993 the Ljubljana Institute for Forensic Medicine submitted their report, which stated, inter alia:\n“The anaphylactic sh", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4368", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Perm. At the material time he was a practising advocate and member of the Perm Regional Bar.\n7.  On 10 June 2003 the prosecutor of the Sverdlovskiy District of Perm opened an investigation into theft of property by a Mr S. The theft had been allegedly committed through the use of forged documents. The applicant acted as counsel for Mr S. in the criminal proceedings against him.\n8.  The investigator suspected that the documents allegedly forged by Mr S. and a procedural application made by the applicant in the criminal proceedings against Mr S. had been printed on the same device. He commissioned an expert to study those documents. On 21 August 2003 the expert reported that the allegedly forged document and the applicant’s application could have been printed “on the same printing device or on different devices having the same or higher resolution...” The expert specified that it was impossible to make any conclusive findings because “the documents did not contain any singularities that could permit identification of the printing device”.\n9.  On 9 February 2004 the investigator asked the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Perm to issue search warrants for the applicant’s home in Gorky Street and his late parents’ flat in Kuybyshev Street.\n10.  On 12 February 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Perm granted the investigator’s request and issued two warrants authorising searches at the applicant’s and his late parents’ flats. The entire reasoning of the first warrant concerning the Gorky Street reads as follows:\n“The investigator... has submitted an application for a search warrant at the address... which is the place of residence of Mr Kolesnichenko, an advocate with the Perm Regional Bar Association. The investigator argues that certain documents allegedly prepared by Mr G.S. had not in fact been drafted by him but rather fabricated by an electrophotographic process with the probable use of the same device as that used for preparing an application by the advocate Mr Kolesnichenko. This fact is confirmed by an expert report; accordingly, the investigation believes that certain objects of relevance for the investigative acts and the criminal case may be located at that address.\nHaving studied the materials produced at the hearing, the court considers that the application should be granted because it is reasoned. Since no criminal proceedings have been instituted against the advocate Mr Kolesnichenko and no charges have been levelled against him, the investigator’s application for a search warrant was lodged in accordance with law.\nSufficient information was submitted to the court in support of the application and, in these circumstances, there are grounds for authorising a search in Mr Kolesnichenko’s residence located at [the address on Gorky Street].”\nThe reasoning of the second warrant concerning Kuybyshev Street was identical, save for the mention that the address in Kuybyshev Street was the registered place of residence of the applicant’s late parents and also the registered address of the applicant’s office.\n11.  At 9.40 p.m. on the same day the investigator, accompanied by police officers and two attesting witnesses (ponyatye), came to the applicant’s home in Gorky Street. He asked the applicant to hand over the copying device, which the applicant did.\n12.  The investigator and officers then searched the applicant’s flat and seized two computers containing the applicant’s private and pr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4369", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Kaluga.\n6.  On 4 November 2000 the town prosecutor authorised the applicant’s placement in custody on the ground that he was suspected of having committed aggravated murder and was liable to abscond and pervert the course of justice.\n7.  On 8 November 2000 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. Shortly afterwards, on 13 November 2000, charges of aggravated murder were brought against him.\n8.  In the period from 1 February to 5 October 2001 the regional prosecutor extended the applicant’s detention on six occasions pending investigation, referring to the necessity to undertake various investigation activities and having regard to the gravity of the charges. The applicant’s appeals against the above decisions yielded no result.\n9.  On 13 July 2001 the additional charge of firearms trafficking was brought against the applicant.\n10.  On 2 November 2001 the regional prosecutor’s office approved the bill of indictment and the case was sent to Kaluga Regional Court for trial.\n11.  On 3 December 2001 Kaluga Regional Court remitted the case for an additional investigation, due to various procedural irregularities of the initial investigation. The court held that the applicant should remain in custody. The court did not indicate either reasons for, or the time-limit of, the extension ordered.\n12.  During the additional investigation the applicant’s detention was extended by the regional prosecutor on 14 March 2002 until 13 April 2002, and on 29 March 2002 until 1 July 2002, both times with reference to the gravity of the charges against the applicant, his character and the risk of his absconding and interfering with the investigation. The applicant did not appeal against either of the above decisions.\n13.  On 28 June 2002 the regional prosecutor’s office returned the case to Kaluga Regional Court for examination on the merits.\n14.  On 27 December 2002 Kaluga Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial until 28 March 2003. The decision reads as follows:\n“...\nOn 28 December 2002 the six-month time-limit of the [applicant’s] detention during the trial, established by Article 255 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, expires. However the trial cannot be completed by this date.\nIn connection with the above, in the absence of information allowing the conclusion that the need for the preventive measure applied to [the applicant] has disappeared or that the grounds for the [applicant’s] detention have changed; regard being had to the fact that [the applicant] is charged with crimes carrying a sentence of over two years’ imprisonment, including especially serious crime connected with encroachment on human life and therefore representing an increased danger to society, and the fact that the nature of the charges gives sufficient grounds to believe that [the applicant] can abscond or otherwise obstruct justice, the court considers it necessary to extend the [applicant’s] detention until the termination of the trial but not exceeding three months.\n...”\n15.  On 18 March 2003 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified.\n16.  On 25 March 2003 Kaluga Regional Court extended the applicant’s and his four co-defendants’ detention until 28 June 2003, repeating the decision of 27 December 2002 verbatim.\n17.  The applicant appealed, claiming that the Regional Court had no grounds to concl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4370", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Łomża.\n5.  On 7 March 1991 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings. She sought compensation for the expropriation of her real property which took place on 16 October 1957 by a decision of the Presidium of the Regional National Council (Prezydium Wojewódzkiej Rady Narodowej).\n6.  On 11 June 1991 the Director of the Łomża District Office refused to grant the applicant compensation for the expropriated real estate. She appealed.\n7.  On 25 September 1991 the Łomża Governor upheld the Council’s decision.\n8.  On 23 January 1992 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for compensation. Following a judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court on 15 May 1994 the applicant requested that the property in question be returned to her.\n9.  On 29 July 1994 the Director of the Łomża District Office refused to restore the property. It was found that the property had been used in accordance with the provisions of the original decision of 16 October 1957.\n10.  On 28 September 1994 the Łomża Governor upheld the director’s decision. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 10 February 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n12.  Subsequently on an unspecified date in July 1997 the applicant made a request to the Łomża Governor to have the original decision of 16 October 1957 declared null and void pursuant to Article 156 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (CAP).\n13.  On 6 August 1997 the Łomża Governor dismissed her request. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 24 June 1998 the proceedings were discontinued by a decision of the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development. It was established that after the entry into force on 1 January 1998 of the Land Administration Act of 21 August 1997 (Ustawa o gospodarce nieruchomościami) the Łomża Governor was no longer competent to examine the applicant’s appeal. In this decision the President designated himself as the competent authority and subsequently on 22 July 1998, at the applicant’s request, resumed the examination of the case.\n15.  On 18 October 1999 the President granted the applicant’s request to declare the decision of 1957 null and void and quashed the decision.\n16.  On 8 November 1999 the Łomża Administration Board (Zarząd Miasta) requested to have the case re-examined, contesting the reasoning given for the President’s decision.\n17.  On 30 October 2000 the President upheld his decision.\n18.  On 16 January 2001 the Łomża Administration Board filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n19.  On 23 August 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the appealed decision and remitted the case.\n20.  On 8 November 2002 the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development, having re-examined the case, refused to quash the decision of 16 October 1957.\n21.  On 22 November 2002 the applicant filed an application to have her case re-examined again, enclosing additional documents.\n22.  On 31 January 2003 the President upheld his own decision of 8 November 2002. The applicant appealed.\n23.  On 20 October 2004 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court decided to suspend the proceedings in order to establish which authority was competent to examine the appeal in light of the liquidation of the Office for Housing and Town Development. The applicant lodged a complaint against this decision. The proceedings were eventually resumed on 23 February 2005.\n24.  On 21 April ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4371", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1937 and 1934 respectively and live in Katowice.\n5.  The applicants’ father owned a plot of land with a surface area of 1,035 square metres, situated in Warsaw, in Grabowa Street.\n6.  By virtue of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw (Dekret o własności i użytkowaniu gruntów na obszarze miasta stołecznego Warszawy) (“the 1945 Decree”), the ownership of all private land was transferred to the City of Warsaw.\n7.  On 14 February 1949 the applicants’ father filed an application for the grant of the right of temporary ownership (własność czasowa) of the plot of land, pursuant to section 7 of the 1945 Decree (“the 1949 application”).\n8.  On 28 July 1983 the Head of the Warszawa-Wola District Office (Naczelnik Dzielnicy Warszawa-Wola) refused his application (“the 1983 decision”).\n9.  In the meantime, the Law of 20 March 1950 on the Local State Administration entered into force on 13 April 1950, according to which the ownership of all property previously held by the local government was transferred to the State. By virtue of certain decisions of 12 January 1976 and 11 June 1982, the property in question had been designated for construction of an underground.\n10.  By a decision of 25 January 1984, given on behalf of the Mayor of Warsaw (Prezydent Warszawy), the applicants’ father was granted compensation for the property and subsequently it was paid to him.\n11.  On the applicants’ father’s death, the applicants’ status as heirs was confirmed by the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) on 24 November 1989.\n12.  Following the re-establishment of the local government in Poland in the 1990s, the ownership of the plot was transferred to the City of Warsaw. The above was confirmed by decisions of the Warsaw Governor (Wojewoda Warszawski) given on 2 February 1992 and 31 May 2000.\n13.  On 23 March 1998 the applicants instituted administrative proceedings before the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) and applied for the annulment of the 1983 decision.\n14.  On 9 October 2000 the applicants filed complaints, alleging inactivity on the part of the first-instance authority.\n15.  In the meantime, the case file circulated among the Warsaw Government Board of Appeal, the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development (Prezes Urzędu Mieszkalnictwa i Rozwoju Miast) and the Mazowiecki Governor’s Office (Mazowiecki Urząd Wojewódzki). However, no decision was taken in the applicants’ case.\n16.  On 20 July 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) dismissed their complaint of 9 October 2000 about the inactivity of the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal.\n17.  On 22 May 2002 the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal gave a decision declaring the 1983 decision null and void.\n18.  On an unspecified date an appeal against the decision of 22 May 2002 was lodged by the Board of the City of Warsaw (Zarząd Miasta Warszawy).\n19.  On 3 December 2002 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court, complaining of the inactivity of the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal.\n20.  On 18 March 2003 the Warsaw Self-Government Board of Appeal gave a decision and discontinued the appellate proceedings. It was found out that the City of Warsaw was not a party to the proceedings. As a consequence of that decision, the 1949 application had still to be examined.\n21.  By a letter of 26 May 2003 the applicants withdrew", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4372", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Zrenjanin, Serbia.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 1 August 1992 the applicant married M.F.\n9.  On 6 February 1993 and 9 September 1994 their children Z.F. and N.F., respectively, were born.\n10.  In 1998 the applicant and M.F. started having marital problems.\n11.  On 19 April 1998 M.F. moved out, but the children remained with the applicant.\n12.  On 31 August 1999 the applicant filed a claim with the Municipal Court in Zrenjanin (“the Municipal Court”), seeking the dissolution of marriage, the custody of the children and a contribution to their maintenance.\n13.  In January 2000 M.F. spent several days with the children, but failed to return them to the applicant thereafter.\n14.  On 6 June 2000 the Municipal Court: (i) dissolved the marriage; (ii) granted custody of the children to M.F.; (iii) ordered the applicant to pay monthly child maintenance; and (iv) ruled that the applicant could spend every first and third weekend of each month with the children, as well as seven and fourteen days of their winter and summer holidays, respectively.\n15.  By 28 September 2000 this judgment had become final.\n16.  On 9 August 2006 the applicant filed a claim with the Municipal Court, seeking custody of Z.F and N.F. as well as the amendment of the maintenance ordered.\n17.  On 22 August 2006 M.F. filed a separate claim with the Municipal Court, seeking the amendment of the applicant’s access rights.\n18.  On 11 September 2006 the Municipal Court joined these proceedings into a single case.\n19.  On 8 February 2007 the applicant withdrew his claim in respect of N.F.\n20.  On 12 April 2007 the Municipal Court ruled against the applicant and partly in favour of M.F. In particular, the court ordered that the applicant would be entitled to spend time with Z.F. and N.F. each Sunday between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., thereby restricting his prior access rights.\n21.  On an unspecified date thereafter this judgment would appear to have become final.\n22.  Having apparently been refused access to the children by M.F., on 28 September 2000 the applicant filed an enforcement request with the Municipal Court.\n23.  On 6 October 2000 the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order, stating, inter alia, that M.F. would be fined 1,500 Serbian dinars should she fail to comply therewith.\n24.  On 8 November 2000 the applicant informed the Municipal Court that he had been denied all access and requested that the conditional fine now be imposed.\n25.  On 28 November 2000 the Municipal Court rejected this request as premature, stating that M.F. had received the order in question on 20 November 2000.\n26.  On 27 March 2001 the Municipal Court confirmed its decision of 28 November 2000.\n27.  On 25 June 2001 the applicant informed the Municipal Court that his contact with the children was dependent upon the whims of his former wife and noted that the final judgment of 6 June 2000 was being ignored.\n28.  On 29 June 2001 the Municipal Court decided to impose the said fine and again ordered M.F. to respect the applicant’s access rights.\n29.  On 22 December 2003 the Social Care Centre based in Zrenjanin (“the Social Care Centre”) informed the court that the applicant had not been in touch with them. They further noted that M.F. had stated that the applicant had not shown any initiative to see the children. Lastly, the Social Care Centre proposed that the enforcement proceedings be termin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4373", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Košice.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 17 May 1996 the applicant filed an action with the Košice – okolie District Court. She sought the dissolution of a joint ownership of real property.\n7.  On 18 August 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice – okolie District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. The case was not complex. The applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings in that she had challenged judges and an expert. The District Court was responsible for delays totalling 53 months.\n8.  The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 40,000 (the equivalent of approximately 1,000 euros at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs.\n9.  On 29 September 2004 the District Court issued an interim measure.\nOn 15 October 2004 the applicant appealed.\n10.  On 22 November 2004 the District Court discontinued the appeal proceedings concerning the interim measure as the applicant had not paid the court fees.\n11.  On 29 July 2005 the District Court dissolved the joint ownership of the property in issue. On 14 October 2005 the applicant appealed. On 2 December 2005 the District Court delivered a decision correcting a clerical error in its judgment.\n12.  On 26 September 2005 the applicant appointed a new legal representative.\n13.  On 26 May 2006 the applicant filed a submission with the District Court seeking an interim measure. On 17 July 2006 the applicant withdrew her submission.\n14.  On 28 November 2006 the District Court transferred the file to the Court of Appeal.\n15.  On 4 April 2007 the Court of Appeal returned the file to the District Court for a decision on the applicant’s request for an exemption from the obligation to pay court fees.\n16.  On 15 April 2007 the applicant challenged the judge.\n17.  On 20 September 2007 the District Court transferred the file to the Court of Appeal.\n18.  On 26 May 2008 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment of 29 July 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4374", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is an association founded in 1994, with its seat in Budapest.\n7.  In March 2004 a Member of Parliament (“the MP”) and other individuals lodged a complaint for abstract review with the Constitutional Court. The complaint requested the constitutional scrutiny of some recent amendments to the Criminal Code which concerned certain drug-related offences.\n8.  In July 2004 the MP gave a press interview concerning the complaint.\n9.  On 14 September 2004 the applicant – a non-governmental organisation whose declared aim is to promote fundamental rights as well as to strengthen civil society and the rule of law in Hungary and which is active in the field of drug policy – requested the Constitutional Court to grant them access to the complaint pending before it, in accordance with section 19 of Act no. 63 of 1992 on the Protection of Personal Data and the Public Nature of Data of Public Interest (“the Data Act 1992”).\n10.  On 12 October 2004 the Constitutional Court denied the request without having consulted the MP, explaining that a complaint pending before it could not be made available to outsiders without the approval of its author.\n11.  On 10 November 2004 the applicant brought an action against the Constitutional Court. It requested the Budapest Regional Court to oblige the respondent to give it access to the complaint, in accordance with section 21(7) of the Data Act 1992.\n12.  On 13 December 2004 the Constitutional Court adopted a decision on the constitutionality of the impugned amendments to the Criminal Code. It contained a summary of the complaint in question and was pronounced publicly.\n13.  Notwithstanding the fact that the Constitutional Court procedure had already been terminated, on 24 January 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It held in essence that the complaint could not be regarded as “data” and the lack of access to it could not be disputed under the Data Act 1992.\n14.  The applicant appealed, disputing the Regional Court’s findings. Moreover, it requested that the complaint be made available to it after the deletion of any personal information contained therein.\n15.  On 5 May 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision. It considered that the complaint contained some “data”; however, that data was “personal” and could not be accessed without the author’s approval. Such protection of personal data could not be overridden by other lawful interests, including the accessibility of public information.\n16.  The applicant’s secondary claim was rejected without any particular reasoning.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4375", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Helsinki.\n6.  The applicant purchased a company in September 1995. The company was wound-up on its own initiative in March 1996. A criminal investigation was started in regard to the financial activities of the company in February 1997 and the applicant was questioned by the police for the first time on 21 April 1997. He was, together with two other persons, suspected of aggravated debtor’s dishonesty and false accounting in 1995 and 1996.\n7.  The pre-trial investigation was finalised on 26 November 1997. On 27 March 1998 the prosecutor waived prosecution due to insufficient evidence.\n8.  On 22 April 1998 the bankruptcy estate requested the State prosecutor to examine the previous decision not to prosecute. On 23 December 1998 the deputy State prosecutor requested the police to conduct an additional investigation without delay due to the time that had already passed since the beginning of the investigation. On 23 December 1999, the local prosecutor was ordered to bring charges against all the suspects. An additional investigation was requested. The last investigation was concluded on 13 January 2000.\n9.  The charges were brought against the applicant and the other defendants on 16 February 2000. The District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) dismissed all the charges on 1 March 2002.\n10.  Following the prosecutor’s appeal and after a two-day oral hearing, the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) convicted the applicant on 18 June 2004. He was sentenced to five months’ imprisonment. The sentence was amended for reasons of equity in view of two previous prison sentences dating from 2002 and 2004.\n11.  In his appeal to the Supreme Court the applicant raised the issue of the excessive length of the proceedings. The Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal on 8 February 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4376", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Toronto, Canada.\n5.  On 8 August 2000 Mr A. instituted civil proceedings in the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv (“the court”) against the applicant and Mr D. alleging that he had been humiliated by them. He claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  On an unspecified date Mr A. requested the court to secure his claim by prohibiting the Migration Office of the Kharkiv Department of the Ministry of Interior (“the Migration Office”) from issuing the applicant with an authorisation to leave Ukraine to live permanently abroad. On 18 July 2002 the court granted Mr A.’s request.\n7.  On 23 and 30 September 2002 the court quashed the ruling of 18 July 2002 and attached the applicant’s flat.\n8.  On 31 October 2002 the applicant went to live permanently in Canada. On 13 December 2002 he came back to Ukraine.\n9.  On 25 March 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), following Mr A.’s appeal, quashed the rulings of 23 and 30 September 2002 and remitted the case for a new consideration to the court.\n10.  On 21 April 2003 the applicant lodged a counterclaim against Mr A. claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n11.  In May 2003 the applicant waived his permanent residence in Canada in order to restore his right to receive a pension in Ukraine.\n12.  In a letter of 2 October 2003 the court explained to the Head of the Migration Office that as on 25 March 2003 the rulings of 23 and 30 September 2002 had been quashed, the Migration Office should abide by the ruling of 18 July 2002.\n13.  On 21 July 2004 the applicant again left Ukraine for Canada, where he lives now.\n14. Since July 2004 he has been represented by his representative before the domestic courts.\n15.  On 22 April 2005 the court rejected Mr. A.’s claim and partly allowed the applicant’s counterclaim.\n16.  On 16 December 2005 the Court of Appeal amended the judgment of 22 April 2005 and dismissed the applicant’s counterclaim.\n17.  On 23 February 2006 Mr A. appealed in cassation before the Supreme Court. The cassation proceedings are still pending.\n18.  According to the documents provided by the Government, in the course of the proceedings some forty-nine hearings were listed by the domestic courts. Nine hearings were adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings, one because he was on holiday and one because the judge was ill. Some twenty-four hearings were adjourned because one or more parties to the proceedings or their representatives failed to appear or at their request. From the documents in the case file it cannot be seen that the domestic courts took any steps to ensure the parties’ presence in the court. No hearings were adjourned solely due to the applicant’s failure to appear.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4377", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Daruvar.\n5.  On 11 December 2002 the Daruvar State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Daruvaru) filed a bill of indictment against the applicant in the Daruvar Municipal Court (Općinksi sud u Daruvaru) charging him with violation of copyrights in that he had used various items of computer software without the consent of the holders of the relevant licence. In the proceedings the applicant was represented by legal counsel of his own choosing. At a hearing held on 10 March 2003 the applicant gave his evidence. At a hearing held on 28 April 2003 the Municipal Court heard evidence from the witnesses nominated by the defence and gave a judgment acquitting the applicant of all charges. However, this judgment was quashed on 10 July 2003 by the Daruvar County Court, upon an appeal lodged by the prosecution.\n6.  In the resumed proceedings before the Daruvar Municipal Court an expert opinion was obtained. At the first hearing held on 6 October 2003 the applicant again gave his evidence, in the presence of his chosen counsel. The next hearing, scheduled for 29 December 2003, was adjourned on a request by the applicant’s counsel who explained, in a submission filed on 24 December 2003, that he had already planned a journey on that date. The hearing scheduled for 4 February 2004 was adjourned on account of the illness of the presiding judge.\n7.  According to the applicant, before a hearing scheduled for 9 March 2004 his counsel contacted the Municipal Court by telephone and asked for an adjournment on account of his sudden illness.\n8.  At the beginning of the hearing the applicant asked that the hearing be adjourned and informed the court that he did not wish to defend himself in the absence of his counsel. The presiding judge, however, decided to hold the hearing. A counsel for the prosecution was also absent. The applicant, who had already given evidence at the previous hearings, gave additional evidence. The applicant’s request that further witnesses be heard was dismissed. The applicant then gave his closing arguments. The hearing was concluded and a judgment was pronounced. The applicant was found guilty of using various items of computer software without the consent of the holder of the relevant licence. He was given a suspended sentence of three months’ imprisonment with a one-year probation period.\n9.  In an appeal lodged on 21 April 2004 the applicant complained, inter alia, that the hearing of 9 March 2004 had been held in the absence of his counsel although there had been a good reason for the latter’s absence. He asserted that on the morning of 9 March 2004 his counsel had contacted the Daruvar Municipal Court by telephone. His call had been answered by an usher and the counsel had asked to speak to the presiding judge. However, the judge had not answered the call. Therefore, the counsel had asked the usher, M.R., to inform the presiding judge about his inability to attend the hearing owing to his sudden illness. The usher had done so. The counsel’s request that the hearing be adjourned on account of his sudden illness had not been noted in the minutes of the hearing. The applicant enclosed a medical certificate for his counsel, of 8 March 2004, indicating that he had been given sick leave as of that date.\n10.  On 24 June 2004 the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru) upheld the first-instance judgment. It found that the presence of the applicant’s counsel at th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4378", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the city of Odessa, Ukraine.\n5.  In 1991 the applicant became a member of the housing cooperative “Verstatobudivelnyk-2” (“the cooperative”) in order to be provided with an apartment in the dwelling house to be constructed by the latter. At the same time he was employed part-time by the cooperative.\n6.  By decisions made at a general meeting of the members of the cooperative on 19 May 1999, 30 June 1999 and 29 September 1999 the applicant’s membership of the cooperative was cancelled on the grounds that he had failed to pay his contributions on time. Therefore, the applicant was not provided with the apartment to which he believed he was entitled (“the apartment”). Later it was given to another member of the cooperative, Mr S.\n7.  In October 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against the cooperative in the Illichevsk District Court of Odessa requesting the court to declare the above decisions null and void. He also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n8.  Later, the applicant lodged additional claims against the Housing Department of the Odessa City Council, the Odessa Privatisation Agency and Mr S., challenging the latter’s right to own the apartment, seeking the removal of Mr S.’s family and claiming property rights over the apartment. The applicant also claimed payment of the salary arrears from the cooperative, and alleged that his contributions entitled him to a larger apartment.\n9.  In January 2003 the Illichevsk District Court of Odessa was closed down. On an unspecified date the applicant’s case was transmitted from that court to the Malinovsky District Court of Odessa (“the court”).\n10.  In the period from October 1999 to 20 October 2003 the domestic courts listed some thirty-nine hearings.  Six hearings were adjourned due to the failure of the representative of the cooperative to appear or at his request. Two hearings were adjourned since Mr S. failed to appear. The domestic courts took no steps to ensure the defendants’ presence in the court. Three hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to appear or at his request.  Most hearings were scheduled at intervals from several days to two months.\n11.  On 20 October 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s claims.\n12.  On 19 February 2004 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (“the court of appeal”) quashed the decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the court.\n13.  On 18 July 2005 the court found against the applicant.\n14.  On 5 October 2005 the court terminated proceedings concerning payment of the salary arrears and the applicant’s claim for a larger apartment since the applicant had failed to comply with procedural requirements prescribed by Ukrainian law. The applicant did not appeal against this ruling.\n15.  On 13 December 2005 the court of appeal quashed the judgment of 18 July 2005 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the court.\n16.  On 11 July 2006 the court dismissed the applicant’s claims.\n17.  On 25 May 2007 the court of appeal quashed the judgment of 11 July 2005 and partly allowed the applicant’s claims.\n18.  In the period from 20 October 2003 until 25 May 2007 the court and the court of appeal listed some fifteen hearings. One hearing was adjourned because of the judge’s illness, one due to Mr S’s failure to appear, one at the applicant’s request. Most hearings were scheduled at intervals from several days to two months. No hearings were scheduled by the court bet", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4379", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Cherkasy, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant is a lawyer. In 1998 he provided a private company, “D.”, with legal assistance according to an agreement between them; however, the latter failed to pay for the services.\n6.  By judgments of 14 July 2000 and 26 October 2000 the Cherkasy Regional Arbitration Court (after June 2001 – the Cherkassy Regional Commercial Court) ordered the company “D.” to pay the applicant 308,332.67 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1].\n7.  Those judgments became final and on 24 November and 4 December 2000 the State Bailiffs’ Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs’ Service”) instituted enforcement proceedings. In the course of those proceedings a total of UAH 4,000 was paid to the applicant.\n8.  Being dissatisfied with the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments, on 25 May 2001 the applicant lodged a claim with the Cherkassy Regional Arbitration Court against the Bailiffs’ Service, seeking compensation for pecuniary damage caused by its inactivity.\n9.  On 10 April 2002 the court found for the applicant, noting that the Bailiffs’ Service had failed to take measures to enforce the judgments of 14 July 2000 and 26 October 2000, and awarded him UAH 308,332.67[2] in damages to be paid from the State budget. It further noted that the Bailiffs’ Service could still collect these damages from company “D.” to cover the expenses. On 29 October 2002 and 25 September 2003 the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal and the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine, respectively, rejected the defendant’s appeals against the judgment. Subsequently, in 2005-2007, the State Treasury of Ukraine, being an administrator of the State budget, also attempted to appeal against the judgment, but the courts found that it lacked standing to that end.\n10.  On 22 November 2002 the applicant requested the Bailiffs’ Service to institute enforcement proceedings. However, according to the applicant, those proceedings were instituted only after he had made several pertinent complaints to the court. Later on, the applicant’s writ of enforcement was transferred from one department of the Bailiffs’ Service to another for various reasons; once it was also transmitted to the State Treasury of Ukraine for further processing but was subsequently remitted back to the Bailiffs’ Service. Furthermore, the latter terminated and resumed the enforcement proceedings several times. The applicant lodged numerous complaints with the courts alleging inactivity and omissions on the part of the Bailiffs’ Service; the courts found those complaints well-founded on a number of occasions (for example, by decisions of 28 February 2003, 13 December 2004, 22 April and 2 June 2005).\n11.  In August 2008 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Cherkassy Commercial Court against the Bailiffs’ Service, seeking additional compensation for pecuniary damage (namely, inflation losses, exemplary damages based on a 3% interest rate and legal costs) caused by its inactivity. On 28 November 2008 the court allowed the claim and awarded the applicant UAH 292,720.63[3] to be paid by the State Treasury of Ukraine from the State budget. The Bailiffs’ Service appealed and the proceedings apparently are pending before the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal.\n12.  In December 2008 the applicant requested the local department of the Bailiffs’ Service to resume the enforcement proceedings upon the judgment of 10 April 2002. On 4 December 2008 the Bailiffs’ Service dismissed the reques", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4380", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Syrotyne, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant worked at “Obyednannya Azot” (Сєверодонецьке державне виробниче підприємство «Об’єднання Азот»), a State chemical company, from 1978. According to the applicant, in December 2000 – January 2001 he was diagnosed as having chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (хронічний лімфолейкоз), a blood cancer. On 26 June 2001 the diagnosis was reaffirmed by a medical expert and he was recognised as having a work-related illness.\n6.  In June 2001 the applicant was dismissed because of his absence from work. The applicant alleged that the real reason for his dismissal was his attempts to establish a casual link between his illness and work.\n7.  In July 2001 an internal investigation relating to the applicant’s illness was held. A report of 16 July 2001 revealed a number of shortcomings on the part of the employer, including a disregard for minimum work safety conditions, which had led to the applicant’s illness.\n8.  The applicant is now in the final stages of the disease.\n9.  In January 2002 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Severodonetsk Town Court against “Obyednannya Azot” challenging the reason for his dismissal and seeking compensation for his work-related illness.\n10.  Shortly after that, on 31 January 2002, the local department of the State Social Security Fund (Сєверодонецьке відділення виконавчої дирекції Фонду соціального страхування від нещасних випадків на виробництві і професійних захворювань) was joined to the applicant’s case as a co-defendant.\n11.  On 2 April 2002 the court split the dismissal claim against “Obyednannya Azot” and the compensation claim against “Obyednannya Azot” and the State Social Security Fund (the “Fund”) into two separate sets of proceedings.\n12.  On 29 May 2002 the court stayed the compensation proceedings pending the determination of the dismissal proceedings.\n13.  On 23 December 2004 the Severodonetsk Town Court discontinued the dismissal proceedings as “Obyednannya Azot” and the applicant had reached a settlement.\n14.  On 28 March 2005 the court went on to examine the compensation claim.\n15.  On 20 July 2005 and 15 August 2006 the court ordered forensic medical and psychiatric examinations.\n16.  According to the applicant, on 19 January 2007, in order to expedite examination of his case, he was required to relodge his claim against the Fund for compensation for his work-related illness in administrative proceedings (see paragraph 23 et seq.). He also requested the court to discontinue examination of his claim against the Fund in civil proceedings. At the same time, he made a fresh claim against “Obyednannya Azot”, seeking compensation for unlawful dismissal, and requested the court to continue the civil proceedings in his claim against “Obyednannya Azot” seeking compensation for his work-related illness. These requests were granted on the same day.\n17.  On 20 April 2007 the Severodonetsk Town Court rejected the applicant’s claims against “Obyednannya Azot”.\n18.  On 4 December 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and gave a new one. In particular, it found in part for the applicant and awarded him 1,500 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in compensation for unlawful dismissal; the claim for compensation for the applicant’s work-related illness was dismissed as unsubstantiated.\n19.  On 15 February 2008 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation.\n20.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4382", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine.\n5.  On 4 July 1997 the Kyivsky District Court of Donetsk (“the District Court”) fined the applicant with 350 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) for corruption in the course of his duties. On 17 December 1997 the President of the Donetsk Regional Court quashed this decision and terminated the proceedings against the applicant as time-barred.\n6.  On 5 May 2000 the District Court awarded the applicant UAH 500[1] in compensation for non-pecuniary caused by his conviction, to be paid by the Office of the State Treasury in the Kyivsky District of Donetsk (“the Office”). The decision was upheld on 5 June 2000 by the Donetsk Regional Court).\n7.  On 29 June 2000 the Bailiffs’ Service of the Kyivsky District of Donetsk (“the Bailiffs”) instituted enforcement proceedings and transferred the writ of execution to the Office.\n8.  On 6 June 2001 the District Court rectified its judgment of 5 May 2000, specifying that the applicant was to be paid UAH 500 from the State Budget through the Office.\n9.  On 26 June 2001 the writ of execution was sent to the Office, which transferred it to the Department of the State Treasury of the Donetsk Region.\n10.  In November 2004 the writ of execution was transferred to the Bailiffs’ Service of the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv, which on 7 December 2004 refused to institute enforcement proceedings as it fell outside its jurisdiction.\n11.  On 25 December 2004 the writ of execution was transferred to the Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice, which on 21 January 2005 refused to institute enforcement proceedings.\n12.  On 11 February 2005 the Donetsk Regional Bailiffs’ Service refused to institute enforcement proceedings since the writ of execution had expired on 5 June 2003.\n13.  On 20 May 2005 the District Court ordered a new writ of execution to be sent to the Department.\n14.  On 20 June 2005 the Donetsk Regional Bailiffs’ Service opened enforcement proceedings.\n15.  The judgment was enforced on 12 January 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4383", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in the town of Yevpatoriya, Ukraine.\n5.  On 8 December 1999 the Chornomorsk District Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the District Court”) fined the applicant UAH 136 for having exercised commercial activity without a licence and ordered the confiscation of 268.5 tonnes of the waste metal collected by him.\n6.  On 22 December 1999 the same court, following the protest of the Chrornomorsk District Prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, quashed this decision and terminated the administrative proceedings against the applicant. The case file was transferred to the Chornomorsk District Prosecutor’s Service of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea for a decision on account of the applicant’s criminal liability for tax evasion.\n7.  On 22 January 2000 the Head of the Chornomorsk Tax Inspectorate refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant.\n8.  On 27 January 2000 the District Court examined the same case file again and fined the applicant UAH 136 for having exercised commercial activity without a licence and ordered the confiscation of 268.5 tonnes of the waste metal collected by him. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.\n9.  On 27 April 2000 the Chornomorsk Bailiffs’ Service, noting that proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, ordered the suspension of the enforcement proceedings in respect of the decision of 27 January 2000. However, the Yevpatoriya Tax Inspectorate sold the waste metal.\n10.  On 10 May 2000 the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea quashed the decision of 27 January 2000 and terminated the proceedings on the ground that the same facts had already been examined by the court.\n11.  On 19 April 2002 the District Court ordered the restitution of the 268.5 tonnes of the waste metal to the applicant.\n12.  On 20 August 2002 the same court, following the applicant’s request, modified the ruling of 19 April 2002 and ordered the State Treasury to pay the applicant UAH 89,410[1] in compensation for the waste metal sold by the Tax Inspectorate.\n13.  The applicant challenged the Bailiff’s inactivity in enforcing the ruling of 19 April 2002 on numerous occasions before the domestic authorities.\n14.   In September 2002 the applicant lodged his claim for compensation for damage caused by the administrative proceedings against him and the confiscation of his property with the District Court. On 10 December 2003 the District Court ordered the State Treasury to pay the applicant UAH 3,000. On 14 July 2004 the Court of Appeal of the Crimea modified this decision and ordered the same amount to be paid to the applicant from the State Budget.\n15. The ruling of 19 April 2002, as amended by the ruling of 20 August 2002, and the judgment of 10 December 2003 were enforced in August 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4384", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and prior to the events in question he had been living in Alicante. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Malta.\n7.  On 5 August 2004, the applicant was arrested and detained in Spain following a request for his extradition (quoting the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Extradition) by the Maltese authorities, pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry.\n8.  The arrest warrant had been issued on the basis of an allegation that the applicant had in Spain conspired with another person or persons in Spain to transport drugs to Malta.\n9.  While detained in Spain, the applicant, through his legal counsel, lodged proceedings in Malta contesting the legality of the arrest warrant.\n10.  On 12 October 2004, while he was in Spain, the applicant, through his legal counsel, requested the Court of Magistrates to re-examine the lawfulness of his arrest on the ground that it had not been competent to issue the warrant and that Malta did not have jurisdiction to try the applicant.\n11.  On 28 October 2004 the Court of Magistrates rejected both claims. It held that the facts which formed the basis of the charges against the applicant amounted to a crime falling under the Maltese authorities’ jurisdiction and that in the referral stage (“rinviju”), it had been competent to issue the warrant.\n12.  On 29 October 2004 the applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. He maintained that his arrest in Spain had occurred consequent to an arrest warrant which was unlawful on the grounds, first, that the Maltese Courts did not have jurisdiction on the facts as alleged. According to section 5 of the Maltese Criminal Code (hereinafter “CC”), the Maltese courts had jurisdiction over foreigners acting outside Maltese territory only in cases specifically provided for in law and this could not be extended by means of interpretation. There was no specific law and none of the legal provisions cited in the arrest warrant (section 22 (1) (f) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and the 120 A (1) (f) of the Medical and Kindred Professions Ordinance) referred to the alleged facts. Secondly, the applicant claimed that the warrant had been issued by an authority which was not competent to issue it. Moreover, he complained that the Court of Magistrates which had been requested to examine speedily the lawfulness of his arrest did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in so far as, according to section 409A of the CC (see paragraph 35 below), only the prosecution had a right of appeal, not the accused. He requested the court to uphold the alleged violations, revoke the arrest warrant and the consequential request for extradition, and to grant him compensation.\n13.  On 12 November 2004 the Civil Court partly upheld the applicant’s claims. It held that the arrest warrant of 5 February 2004 should be rescinded as the court issuing it had acted ultra vires. Indeed, the Court of Criminal Inquiry in its referral stage had no competence to issue the arrest warrant, even more so since the issuing of such warrant had not been requested by the Attorney General and such action did not fall within the ambit of Article 405 of the CC regarding the examination of witnesses; therefore the applicant’s arrest was devoid of any legal basis and contrary to Article 5 § 1 and the applicant should accordingly be released. Moreover, it held that the Court of M", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4386", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946.\n6.  On 6 December 1995 L.T. who had been wounded by a gunshot, requested that a criminal investigation be instituted. Consequently, an investigation in rem was instituted. On 17 January 1996 the applicant was arrested in connection with the investigation. On 18 January 1996 the Łódź Regional Prosecutor imposed pre-trial detention on him and three other suspects on charges of acting in an organised criminal gang and aggravated assault. The prosecutor considered that the evidence had justified the charges against the applicant, who was also suspected of being a leader of the criminal gang. It was further noted that other members of the gang had not yet been arrested. There was therefore a serious risk of collusion and suppression of evidence. Furthermore, there were grounds for believing that the applicant had ordered someone to murder L.T. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 22 January 1996 the prosecutor served the applicant with a written statement of the charges against him. This document referred to the investigation concerning the attempted murder of L.T. The prosecutor observed that the evidence gathered in this investigation had given rise to a suspicion that the attempt on L.T.’s life had been made by an organised criminal gang engaged in assaults and racketeering. Evidence given by certain witnesses, who were to remain anonymous pursuant to Article 164 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1969, had unequivocally demonstrated that the applicant was a member of that gang. Hence, charges in respect of criminal offences punishable under Article 276 § 1 of the Criminal Code had to be laid against him.\n8.  On 2 February 1996 the Łódź Regional Court upheld the applicant’s detention order of 18 January 1996. It noted that the evidence gathered sufficiently supported the charges against him. It indicated that it was likely that the applicant was a member of an organised criminal gang, committing aggravated assaults with the use of firearms. Having regard to the evidence given by anonymous witness no. 2, and in particular in the light of the statements given by other witnesses, including anonymous witnesses, and having also regard to various documents and the results of the inspection of a car, the court concluded that the charges against the applicant were justified. The character of those charges, involving violent crimes, also justified the decisions to impose and maintain detention, the more so as other members of the gang still remained at liberty. The applicant’s release would endanger the purpose of the ongoing investigation.\n9.  On 29 February 1996 the Łódź Regional Prosecutor ordered that an expert opinion be prepared for the purposes of the further investigation. Altogether, fifteen expert opinions were prepared during the investigation.\n10.  On 2 March 1996 the Łódź Regional Prosecutor refused the applicant’s new application for release, considering that the evidence gathered in the case, in particular the statements made by the anonymous witnesses, indicated that it was necessary to keep him in custody.\n11.  On 12 April 1996 the Łódź Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 28 June 1996, having regard, in particular, to the evidence given by anonymous witnesses nos. 1 to 9. It observed that new developments were to be expected regarding new offences which had come to light, including a crime of manslaughter which appeared to have been committed with the applicant’s involvement.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4387", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Košice.\n5.  He was the successful plaintiff in civil proceedings for payment against an individual which ended with a judgment of the Košice II District Court of 6 August 1998.\n6.  On 3 February 1999 enforcement proceedings were brought against the applicant’s debtor (file no. Ex 4/99).\n7.  The debtor submitted his objections to the enforcement and its costs to the executions officer. On 24 March 1999 the latter transferred the objections to the District Court for decision (file no. Er 85/99). The objections were dismissed on 16 September 2003.\n8.  On 6 August 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about delays in the proceedings pending under file no. Er 85/99. On 5 November 2003 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay, awarded him SKK 25,000 (equivalent to 604 euros (EUR) at that time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered reimbursement of his legal costs. It did not order the District Court to proceed without further delay on the ground that a decision on the debtor’s objections had already been taken.\n9.  On 13 April 2005 the executions officer returned his authorisation for enforcement to the District Court with the applicant’s consent, as the debtor had no property with which he could satisfy the applicant’s claim. The enforcement proceedings thus ended.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4388", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1921 and 1926 respectively and live in Gaziantep.\n5.  In 1999 the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants (plot no. 746) in the Aşağıçardak village, in Nizip, in order to build the Birecik dam.\n6.  On 9 February 1999 the applicants brought an action before the Nizip Civil Court for additional compensation.\n7.  On 30 December 1999 the Nizip Civil Court of First Instance awarded the applicants additional compensation of 15,748,251,500 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 28 February 1999.\n8.  On 26 June 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n9.  On 3 December 2002 and 23 May 2007 the administration paid the applicants TRL 47,876,259,385[2] and 24,628.81 Turkish liras (TRY[3])[4] respectively in additional compensation, together with interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4389", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants live in Warszawa, Łódź, Świdnica and Sochaczew.\n5.  The applicant Joanna Aleksowicz-Zawistowska died in 2005. The applicant Piotr Zawistowski is her sole heir.\n6.  The applicant Andrzej Zawistowski died in 2008. His heirs Monika, Rafał and Marcin Zawistowscy declared their intention to pursue the claim.\n7.  The applicants are heirs to a property (a plot of land with a creamery) situated in central Warsaw on Towarowa Street (previously Krochmalna Steet).\n8.  The property belonged to Julian Charaziński and after his death on 15 May 1939 it was inherited by his daughters: Władysława Zawistowska (legal predecessor of the applicants Małgorzata Gładysz-Wójcik, Elżbieta Zawistowska, Andrzej and Piotr Zawistowski), Stefania Onichimowska (mother of the applicant Jolanta Serafin), Krystyna Gumułka (mother of the applicant Marta Plamenac), Czesława Paszkowska (grandmother of the applicant Ms Katarzyna Okoniewska), Julia Urbanek (mother of the applicant Teresa Urbanek). They all worked in the creamery until 1954.\n9.  By virtue of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw (“the 1945 Decree”) the ownership of all private land was transferred to the City of Warsaw. The applicants’ creamery was also nationalised.\n10.  On 13 October 1948 the applicants and/or their legal predecessors requested to be granted the right of temporary ownership (własność czasowa) of the property pursuant to section 7 of the 1945 Decree.\n11.  On 16 December 1952 the Board of the Warsaw National Council (Prezydium Rady Narodowej) refused the request.\n12.  On 19 April 1993 the applicants requested annulment of the decision of 16 December 1952.\n13.  On 22 September 1994 the Minister of Planning and Construction (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa) declared the decision null and void, finding that it had been issued in breach of law.\n14.  On 20 November 1990 the applicants lodged a request to have their property returned under Article 7 of the 1945 Decree.\n15.  On 31 January 1992 the Warsaw Deputy Mayor transferred the applicants’ request to the Warszawa‑Wola Mayor.\n16.  In letters dated 10 April 1992 and 10 September 1992, Stefania Onichimowska requested the speedy examination of her application.\n17.  On 3 November 1992 Aniela Gładysz (the niece of Stefania Onichimowska and mother of Małgorzata Gładysz-Wójcik), one of the legal heirs to the property, complained to the Warsaw Deputy Mayor about the lack of response on the part of the Warszawa-Wola Mayor.\n18.  On 30 December 1992 the Warsaw Deputy Mayor requested the Warszawa-Wola Mayor to deal with the applicants’ request by 30 January 1993.\n19.  Apparently, on 14 September 1995, the applicants were requested to submit relevant documents confirming their rights to the property.\n20.  On 5 December 1995 and on 15 April 1997, in letters to the Warsaw municipality, Aniela Gładysz demanded that the applicants’ request for the return of the property or for compensation be examined.\n21.  On 28 May 1997 she was informed that, due to the need to confirm the inheritance rights of the alleged heirs to the property and due to Stefania Onichimowska’s death in August 1995 and the resulting need to establish the identity of her heirs, the examination of their application could not be undertaken before 15 April 1997 – the date on which Aniela Gładysz had submitted all required documents.\n22.  On 17 March 1999, Aniela Gładysz complained to the Warsaw‑Centre Municipal Council against t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4390", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Helsinki.\n6.  In 2000 the applicant became suspected of debtor’s fraud for allegedly not having provided correct information about his assets and possessions, including real estate, shares in two housing companies and cars, in debt recovery procedures on 14 January or 16 December 1994 and 5 December 1997 as well as in his bankruptcy proceedings on 13 November 1995 or 5 January 1996. His creditors, the Tax Office of Uusimaa and Osuuspankki Realum, a bank, were complainants in that pre-trial investigation, which was carried out by the Espoo police. The applicant was in detention from 26 January to 22 March 2000.\n7.  In their observations of 12 July 2006 the Government submitted that the pre-trial investigation had been terminated in 2005 and that the matter was pending before the public prosecutor for the consideration of the charges. It is not known whether charges have been preferred against the applicant.\n8.  While the pre-trial investigation was pending the indebted applicant was, in another enforcement inquiry (ulosottoselvitys, utsökningsutredning) on 9 June 2000, ordered to provide information about his assets in order to enable the Helsinki Bailiff to seize those assets to secure payment of the applicant’s debts. The enforcement inquiry is a formal procedure in which the debtor must, under threat of certain sanctions, give an overall account of his assets and other financial means for the purposes of enforcement. In order for the Bailiff to be able to decide whether there are assets which can be used to satisfy the creditor, the debtor must also provide information on assets handed over to others and about transactions carried out by him. An enforcement inquiry is resorted to if it has not been possible otherwise to establish the debtor’s financial situation in a reliable manner.\n9.  On 19 June 2000 at the Helsinki enforcement office the applicant however refused, arguing that the enforcement inquiry concerned the same facts as were in issue in the pending pre-trial investigation into alleged debtor’s frauds. He claimed that it would be contradictory if he were ordered to reveal information in the enforcement inquiry as he had a privilege to remain silent as regards these matters in the pre-trial investigation.\n10.  On the same day the Bailiff issued a decision ordering the applicant to provide this information on 28 June 2000 on pain of an administrative fine (uhkasakko, vite) in the amount of 200,000 Finnish marks (FIM; about 33,638 euros (EUR)). According to the decision, the enforcement inquiry was necessary because the applicant had debts amounting to FIM 9.7 million subject to debt recovery. The applicant had to provide information about his assets and debts and about property disposed of and related transactions so that it could be ascertained whether or not assets were recoverable for the purposes of enforcement. The requested information was considered decisive in the search for the applicant’s assets.\n11.  On 28 June 2000 the applicant failed to arrive at the enforcement inquiry at the Bailiff’s office. Instead he submitted a letter, informing the Bailiff that he was not going to provide the information requested. He referred to Article 6 of the Convention and his rights to remain silent and not to incriminate himself. The pending pre-trial investigation concerned, inter alia, two earlier enforcement inquiries and also the current enforcement inquiry concerned these matters", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4391", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1935, 1936, 1949 and 1949 respectively and live in Budapest.\n6.  The applicants, two married couples, were parties to a 1996 sale and purchase agreement concerning a flat. One of the applicants on the sellers’ side was registered in the land register only as the holder of an annotation rather than proprietor. Moreover, her predecessor (“the Predecessor”) was in the same situation, and it was the person who had sold the flat to the Predecessor in 1993 that was registered as the owner (“the Owner”). Because in 2000 the Predecessor had not been able to obtain from the Owner an authorisation to have himself registered as proprietor, neither his nor the applicants’ requests to have the ensuing transactions registered were granted by the District Land Registry.\n7.  The applicants lodged an appeal with the Budapest Land Registry. They complained that, had they been informed of the procedure concerning the Predecessor and the Owner, they would have been able to obtain the necessary authorisation themselves, thereby enabling the registration of the chain of transactions.\n8.  Although the missing authorisation had meanwhile been obtained and in fact submitted, the Land Registry dismissed the appeal. On 9 December 2005 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ request for judicial review. It relied on leading judgments of the Supreme Court, whose text was available only to the respondent Land Registry (which had also been respondent in the earlier procedures) but not to the applicants. In sum, the applicants’ ownership was not registered at that stage.\n9.  In pursuit of the applicants’ petition for review, on 9 May 2006 the Supreme Court ordered that review proceedings concerning the merits of the case be instituted.\n10.  On 15 November 2006 the Supreme Court’s review bench dismissed the applicants’ petition. This decision was served on their lawyer on 11 December 2006.\n11.  The applicants subsequently submitted a request, under sections 86-88 of Act no. 141 of 1997 (the chapter concerning properties with an unresolved status in the land register), to have the situation of the property in question regularised in the land register.\n12.  The applicants’ request was granted and the transaction eventually registered on 13 June 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4392", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Nizhniy Tagil, Sverdlovsk region. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Nizhnyy Tagil.\n8.  In September 2001 the applicant and a certain B. were arrested on suspicion of three murders and were placed in detention. The applicant alleged that he was ill-treated while in detention. However, he did not lodge any complaints in that respect with the competent domestic authorities.\n9.  On 22 February 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court (“the trial court”) heard the case in the presence of the applicant, his counsel Ch. and his co-accused B. The applicant submitted that B. had tried to strangle the first victim with a cord, but had not managed to do so and asked him for help. So, he had tightened the cord. Afterwards he strangled the second victim. He further maintained that the third victim was killed by his co-accused. Co-accused B. submitted that the applicant had killed the third victim with a knife.\n10.  The trial court considered that B.’s testimony regarding the third murder was coherent and consistent with other evidence submitted at trial and therefore deserved more credit. It found the applicant guilty of three murders and theft and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. It found B. guilty of complicity in committing the first and the second murders as well as of theft and sentenced her to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The judgment stated that the applicant and his co-accused could appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation within seven days of the date on which they received a copy of the judgment.\n11.  In their appeal against the judgment of 22 February 2002 the applicant and his counsel complained, in particular, that the trial court’s conclusions regarding the applicant’s guilt in the first murder were not supported by the evidence submitted at trial. The first victim had been strangled by B. and when the applicant approached her, she was already dead. The applicant’s conviction for the third murder had been based solely on B.’s testimony which was supported by nothing else but the court’s suppositions. The applicant and his counsel requested that the judgment be quashed and the case be remitted for a fresh trial. When lodging the appeal the applicant did not expressly state that he wished to take part in the appeal hearing. The applicant’s co-accused did not appeal against her conviction.\n12.  On 15 August 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”) examined the applicant’s appeal in the presence of the prosecutor and dismissed it. Neither the applicant nor his counsel were present at that hearing.\n13.  On 26 October 2005 the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation lodged an application for supervisory review of the appeal decision of 15 August 2002 with the Presidium of the Supreme Court, on the ground that the applicant and his lawyer had not been properly notified of the appeal hearing of 15 August 2002 and therefore, could not attend it. He requested that the above decision be quashed and the case be remitted for a fresh appeal examination.\n14.  On 5 April 2006 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 15 August 2002 and remitted the case for a fresh examination of the appeal. It appears that neither the applicant nor his representative were present at that hearing.\n15.  On 23 May 2006 the head of the detention facility in which the applicant was held received a telegram which read as follows: “Inform ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4393", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is currently serving a prison sentence.\n5.  On 25 December 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of several counts of aggravated murder and taken to a police station. The police officers allegedly intimidated the applicant and forced him to confess. The applicant’s representative was present when the applicant made his confession.\n6.  On 26 December 1999 a medical examination was conducted on the applicant. The expert recorded a bruise on the left side of the applicant’s chest and three abrasions on the backs of his hands, which did not cause harm to the applicant’s health. The above injuries were caused in the period from one to three days prior to the examination. The applicant stated that on the night of 24 December 1999 he had tried to stop a fight, and that as a result he had scratched his hand and been punched in the chest.\n7.  The applicant sought to have criminal proceedings instituted against the police officers, however his allegations were found to be unsubstantiated.\n8.  On 28 December 1999 the applicant was detained in custody.\n9.  On 3 January 2000 the applicant was charged with murder under Article 105 of the Criminal Code.\n10.  On 9 February, 27 March, 6 April and 19 December 2000 the applicant’s detention pending investigation was extended until 18 June, 25 June, 25 September 2000 and 25 February 2001 respectively. The extension orders referred to the particular gravity of the charges against the applicant, the fact that he had no permanent place of residence and that he had previously absconded, thus breaching the preventive measure applied to him in connection with another criminal case.\n11.  On 23 February 2001 the investigation was completed, and the case file was submitted to the St. Petersburg City Court for trial.\n12.  On 25 April 2001 the St. Petersburg City Court referred the case back to the prosecution authorities for additional investigation on account of serious breaches of procedure. The court held that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”.\n13.  On 25 May, 18 June and 11 September 2001 the applicant’s detention pending investigation was extended until 24 June, 26 September 2001 and 26 March 2002 respectively, for the reasons set out above.\n14.  On 25 December 2001 the additional investigation was completed and the case was resubmitted to St. Petersburg City Court for trial.\n15.  On 8 January 2002 the St. Petersburg City Court accepted the case for trial and held that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”.\n16.  Starting from 1 July 2002 the St. Petersburg City Court extended the applicant’s detention every three months. In particular, on 1 July 2002 it extended the applicant’s detention from 1 July 2002 until 1 October 2002; on 24 September 2002 from 30 September until 30 December 2002; on 15 December 2002 from 30 December 2002 until 30 March 2003; on 11 March 2003 from 30 March to 30 June 2003; on 13 May 2003 from 30 June to 30 September 2003; on 4 July 2003 from 30 September to 30 December 2003; on 28 November 2003 from 30 December 2003 until 30 March 2004, and on 26 February 2004 from 30 March 2004 until 20 June 2004.\n17.  The above extension orders concerned the applicant and five other co-defendants. All of the extension orders referred to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and his co-defendants and the risk of their absconding, without providing any further detail. The e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4394", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment.\n6.  On 10 June 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking.\n7.  On 11 June 1998 the applicant was charged under Article 228 § 1 of the Criminal Code with the unlawful purchase and possession of 0.26 grams of opium. On the same day the Prosecutor of the Voroshilovskiy District of Rostov-on-Don remanded the applicant in custody. The Prosecutor referred to the applicant’s criminal record and the risk of his committing other crimes.\n8.  On 6 August 1998 the applicant was also charged under Articles 126 § 2, 139 § 1, and 163 § 3 of the Criminal Code with kidnapping, unlawful entry into a home and extortion. The case was joined to the case concerning drug trafficking.\n9.  On 10 August, 9 September and 5 November 1998 the applicant’s detention was extended until 10 September, 10 November and 10 December 1998 respectively, in accordance with Article 97 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure. Consideration had been given to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and information about his personality, including his criminal record.\n10.  On 1 December 1998 the prosecution dropped the charges of kidnapping, unlawful entry into a home and extortion for lack of proof.\n11.  On 10 December 1998 the supervising prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and the case against the applicant was sent to the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don for trial.\n12.  On 10 January 1999 the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don convicted the applicant under Article 228 § 1 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. On an unspecified date the conviction became final. The case file contains no further information as to when the applicant completed his sentence.\n13.  On 22 March 1999 the Prosecutor of the Rostov Region quashed the decision of 1 December 1998, and on 24 March 1999 the charges under Articles 126 § 2, 139 § 1, and 163 § 3 of the Criminal Code were again brought against the applicant. The prosecutor, having considered the applicant’s criminal record and the gravity of the charges, decided that he should be detained pending trial.\n14.  On 12 April, 18 June, 21 September and 3 December 1999 the applicant’s detention was extended until 18 June, 24 September and 18 December 1999 and 24 March 2000 respectively. Each time, consideration was given to the applicant’s criminal record, the gravity of the charges against him and his active role in a gang.\n15.  On 20 March 2000 the case against the applicant was sent to the Rostov Regional Court for trial.\n16.  On 29 March 2000 the Rostov Regional Court scheduled the opening date of the trial and ordered that the preventive measure “should remain unchanged” in accordance with Articles 222, 223 and 230 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure.\n17.  On 13 June 2000 the Rostov Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to ten years six months’ imprisonment taking into account that he had not fully served a sentence handed down by the judgment of 10 January 1999. On 2 November 2000, however, the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. The Supreme Court held that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”.\n18.  On 1 December 2000 the Rostov Regional Court scheduled the opening date of the trial and ordered that the preventive measure “should remain unchanged”.\n19.  On ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4395", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Kovachevets.\n5.  In 1995 the applicant entered into contracts under which he undertook to export wheat to foreign companies. On 11 August 1995 the Council of Ministers of Bulgaria adopted Regulation No. 160/1995 whereby the export tax for wheat was increased from 35 United States dollars (USD) to USD 55. The new rate became effective on 25 August 1995.\n6.  On 24 August 1995 the applicant had already loaded 6,333 metric tons of wheat on to a cargo ship. At 11.30 p.m. on the same day he submitted to the customs authorities in the port of Varna West the necessary customs documents. However, the applicant was not granted authorisation to export the shipment. Thereafter, he continued loading the ship and later paid the export tax at the newly-introduced higher rate, whereupon export authorisation was granted.\n7.  On 8 October 1996 the applicant brought an action for damages against the Central Customs Office (Главно управление „Митници”) and the State Fund “Agriculture” (Държавен фонд „Земеделие”) under sections 45 and 55 of the Contracts and Obligations Act of 1951.\n8.  In a judgment of 10 July 1998 the Sofia City Court dismissed the claim. The court found that the customs officers had not acted unlawfully and that in any event the applicant had not sustained any damage.\n9.  The applicant appealed.\n10.  In a judgment of 25 June 1999 the Sofia Appeal Court quashed the Sofia City Court’s judgment and referred the case for a fresh examination, indicating that the applicable law was the State Responsibility for Damage Act.\n11.  The Central Customs Office appealed against the Sofia Appeal Court’s judgment. By decision of 19 April 2000, the Supreme Court of Cassation terminated the proceedings as the lower court’s decision to refer the case back to the court of first instance was not amenable to cassation appeal.\n12.  In a judgment of 23 December 2003 the Sofia City Court established that the applicant had sustained damage and granted his claim.\n13.  The proceedings continued on appeal before the Sofia Appeal Court and the Supreme Court of Cassation at least until 19 April 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4396", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Urus-Martan, Chechnya. She is the mother of Bekkhan Alaudinov, who was born in 1976.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  In November 2001 the town of Urus-Martan, Chechnya, was under the full control of the Russian military forces. A curfew was imposed in the area. All roads to and from the town were blocked by Russian military checkpoints.\n9.  On the night of 8 November 2001 the applicant and her sons Bekkhan and Aslanbek Alaudinov were in their house at 30 Proletarskaya Street, in Urus-Martan, Chechnya.\n10.  At about 4.30 a.m. someone knocked at the door of the applicant’s house. When the applicant asked who was there, she was told that it was the police. After she opened the door, three armed men in camouflage uniform entered the house. Two of them were wearing masks; the third one did not have a mask and had a Slavic appearance. The men neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They spoke Russian without an accent and behaved like an organised group with a chain of command. The applicant thought that they were Russian military servicemen.\n11.  The servicemen demanded identity documents. One of them ordered the applicant and her sons to get dressed and took Bekkhan and Aslanbek Alaudinov outside. Meanwhile, the other servicemen conducted a search of the applicant’s house and yard.\n12.  The serviceman took Bekkhan and Aslanbek Alaudinov to their uncle’s house, which was situated nearby. When the Alaudinov brothers walked into the yard they saw a large group of servicemen. One of the officers pointed at Aslanbek Alaudinov and said “this is the Bearded Aslanbek” (Бородатый Асланбек). Aslanbek Alaudinov denied that and said that the man known as “the Bearded Aslanbek”, an active member of illegal armed groups, had used to live in the neighbourhood, but had left the place some time ago. Then the servicemen left Aslanbek in his uncle’s yard and one of them took Bekkhan Alaudinov back to his house.\n13.  Back at the house Bekkhan Alaudinov was asked to provide his passport. When the applicant handed over his passport, the serviceman took the document along with the money he found in it. The serviceman took Bekkhan Alaudinov outside. When the applicant attempted to follow them, the officer threatened to shoot her. In spite of that the applicant followed her son.\n14.  On the road, about a hundred metres away from the house, the applicant saw two military URAL lorries, a military UAZ car (“таблетка”) and a VAZ 2121 car (“Нива”). When the applicant approached the vehicles she saw the servicemen putting her son in one of the URAL vehicles. When the applicant called her son’s name, the servicemen opened gunfire over her head. The applicant had to hide in a ditch. After that the soldiers got into the vehicles and drove away in the direction of the town centre.\n15.  A few minutes later Aslanbek Alaudinov found his mother and they returned home. Upon arrival at their house, about ten to fifteen minutes later, they heard the sound of gunshots. The applicant decided to go to the town centre to find out whether the military vehicles she had seen were parked next to the buildings of local law enforcement agencies.\n16.  On her way to the centre the applicant was stopped by representatives of the Urus-Martan district department of the interior (the ROVD). They ordered the applicant to return home due to the curfew and walked her back to the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4397", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Goyty, Urus-Martan district, Chechnya.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The applicant is the father of Murad Khachukayev, born in 1974. At the material time they lived, along with the applicant’s daughter and other two sons and their family members, in a private household comprising two houses at 141 Kirova Street in the village of Goyty (in the submitted documents the village is also referred to as Goyskoye), in the Urus-Martan District, Chechnya. The village was under curfew.\n9.  The applicant’s account of events was based on his statements as well as on eyewitness statements from his daughter, two daughters-in-law and youngest son.\n10.  On the night of 4-5 February 2003 the applicant, his elder son with his wife and their two children, the applicant’s daughter and daughter-in-law were sleeping in one of their houses, while Murad Khachukayev and the applicant’s youngest son were sleeping in the other one, situated in the same courtyard.\n11.  Around 2.30 a.m. a group of about fifteen masked men in camouflage uniform broke into the applicant’s house. The intruders had machine-guns, ammunition belts (“разгрузка”), sniper rifles and torches. They did not produce identity papers or any documents to justify their actions and gave no explanations. According to the applicant, the intruders were Russian military servicemen, as they spoke unaccented Russian and were able to circulate freely during the curfew.\n12.  The applicant was woken by the noise and attempted to get up, but was ordered to remain in bed. Two intruders pointed their machine guns at him. He asked them what they intended to do and in response they told him to go to sleep. From his bed the applicant saw that there were other armed men in the house.\n13.  Three men entered the room in which the applicant’s daughter and one of his daughters-in-law were sleeping. They told the women that it was a passport check and ordered them to remain in their beds and not to move. Then two of them aimed their machine guns at the women, while the third searched the room, acting quickly and quietly and in a professional manner. The intruders also asked the applicant’s daughter, who was in the other house at the time, and she replied that her two brothers were sleeping there. About five minutes later the men left the room, having warned the women to stay inside, as the house was surrounded by snipers.\n14.  Two intruders entered the room occupied by the applicant’s elder son, his wife and their two children. The applicant’s daughter-in-law woke up and the men told her that it was a passport check. They pointed their machine guns at the applicant’s elder son, who was still asleep, and asked the applicant’s daughter-in-law whether there were any firearms in the house. She answered in the affirmative and gave them a pistol belonging to her husband, who was an officer of a law enforcement agency. The intruders enquired why there were firearms in the house and the applicant’s daughter-in-law replied that it was her husband’s service gun. Thereafter the men asked who was in the other house, and the applicant’s daughter-in-law replied that two of her husband’s brothers were sleeping there. The intruders also ordered the applicant’s daughter-in-law to produce her husband’s identity papers. When she did so, one of the men took the documents away and showed them to someone in the street. Shortly after he ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4398", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Tabarka Tagirovna Israilova[1], born in 1953;\n2) Mr Shirvan Mikhaylovich Israilov, born in 1940;\n3) Mr Tagir Atiyevich Gikhayev, born in 1924;\n4) Ms Avlaz Gikhayeva[2], born in 1929;\n5) Mr Alikhan Shirvanovich Israilov[3], born in 1976;\n6) Ms Petimat Shirvanovna Israilova, born in 1975;\n7) Mr Magomed Shirvaniyevich Israilov [4], born in 1993;\n8) Ms Roza Abdulkhamidovna Dovtayeva, born in 1951;\n9) Ms Fatima Saidselimovna Ismailova, born in 1970;\n10) Ms Aminat Adlanovna Dovtayeva, born in 2000;\n11) Ms Iman Adlanovna Dovtayeva, born in 1995;\n12) Mr Magomed-Khasan Adlanovich Dovtayev, born in 1993;\n13) Mr Aslan Dzhunaidovich Dovtayev[5];\n14) Ms Roza Dzhunidovna Aydamirova[6], born in 1963;\n15) Ms Raisa Dzhunaidovna Dovtayeva, born in 1965; and\n16) Ms Madina Dzhunidovna Talkhigova[7], born in 1979.\nThe applicants live in the villages of Gekhi and Kulary, in the Urus-Martan District of the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The first and second applicants are the parents of the fifth, sixth and seventh applicants, as well as of Mr Sharpuddin (also spelled “Sharpudi”) Shirvaniyevich Israilov, born in 1973. The third and fourth applicants are the parents of the first applicant.\n8.  The eighth applicant is the mother of the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth applicants, as well as of Mr Adlan Dzhunaidovich Dovtayev, born in 1971. Adlan Dovtayev was married to the ninth applicant; they are the parents of the tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants.\n9.  The applicants did not witness the events described below and gained knowledge of them from third persons.\n(a)  Abduction of Adlan Dovtayev and Sharpuddin Israilov\n10.  On 30 December 2002 Adlan Dovtayev drove a VAZ-21043 car from Grozny to Urus-Martan. He was accompanied by his acquaintances, Mr S.B., Mr K.B., Mr I.B. and Mr L.I.\n11.  At about 5 p.m., when the VAZ-21043 car was within 500 metres of federal military check-point no. 18, two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) without registration numbers crossed its path. Passengers of the APCs - unidentified armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks - fired at the VAZ-21043 car and forced it to stop. Then they blocked the road with the APCs and forced Adlan Dovtayev, S.B., K.B., I.B. and L.I. to get into one of them.\n12.  Meanwhile, Sharpuddin Israilov was driving his VAZ-2103 car from Grozny to Urus-Martan. He was accompanied by police officers, Mr M.A., Mr R. Ya. and Mr A.S.\n13.  At about 5.30 p.m., when the VAZ-2103 car was within about 1000 metres of check-point no. 18, a group of armed men forced it to stop. The armed men hit the car with a burst of machine gun fire and wounded Sharpuddin Israilov, R.Ya. and A.S. Then the armed men took Sharpuddin Israilov, M.A., R.Ya. and A.S. out of the car, forced them to the ground and searched them. They then put the four men into the back-seat of the VAZ-2103 and two armed men drove it to the woods where the APCs were parked.\n14.  By the time the VAZ-2103 reached the APCs, R. Ya. had died. The armed men threw his dead body on the APC’s roof. Then they took Sharpuddin Israilov, M.A. and A.S. out of the VAZ-2103 car and put them into the APC in which Adlan Dovtayev, S.B., K.B., I.B. and L.I. had been kept.\n15.  Some of the armed men got in the two VAZ cars; then all the vehicles drove off in the direction of the village of Khankala. At some point the vehicles stopped, the armed men took R. Ya.’s dead body from the APC’s roof and blew it apart with explosives. The vehicle", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4399", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants live in the village of Duba-Yurt, the Shali District in the Chechen Republic.\n7.  According to the applicants, as of early 2000 the village of Duba-Yurt in the Shali District of the Chechen Republic was under the control of the federal forces, who established an administration, a military commander's office and a police station in the village. At the period described in the statement of facts, there were federal check-points at all roads leading to and from the village.\nii.  Bayali Elmurzayev\n8.  The first applicant was married to Mr Bayali Abdullayevich Elmurzayev, born in 1968; they were the parents of the second, third and fourth applicants.\n9.  At about 2 a.m. on 27 March 2004 around fifteen armed men wearing masks and uniforms burst into Bayali Elmurzayev's house at 15 Rodnikovaya Street, while a number of other armed men remained standing in the courtyard. Without introducing themselves, the men levelled their machine guns at the family members. Then they dragged Bayali Elmurzayev out of bed and beat him; they also beat his mother. Eventually the men took Bayali Elmurzayev outside, where two armoured personnel carriers, a Gazel vehicle, a Niva car and several UAZ off-road vehicles («таблетки») were parked and put him into an UAZ vehicle.\niii.  Sharip Elmurzayev\n10.  The fifth applicant is a brother of Mr Sharip Khamidovich Elmurzayev, born in 1971. The sixth applicant was Sharip Elmurzayev's cohabiting partner; they were the parents of the seventh and eighth applicants.\n11.  At about 2 a.m. on 27 March 2004 around ten armed men in masks burst into the courtyard at 10 Partizanskaya Street. There were two houses in the courtyard; the armed men entered and examined each of them. They grabbed Sharip Elmurzayev from his bed and beat the family members. The men swore in Russian. They took Sharip Elmurzayev outside and put him in a white Gazel vehicle that had no registration plate.\niv.  Khusin and Isa Khadzhimuradov\n12.  The tenth applicant was married to Mr Khusin Imranovich Khadzhimuradov, born in 1975; they were the parents of the eleventh and twelfth applicants. The thirteenth applicant was married to Mr Isa Imranovich Khadzhimuradov, born in 1965; they are the parents of the fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth applicants.\n13.  At about 2 a.m. on 27 March 2004 a group of armed men forcibly entered the house at 21 Rodnikovaya Street, apprehended Khusin and Isa Khadzhimuradov and took them away.\nv.  Lechi Shaipov\n14.  The eighteenth applicant is a brother of Mr Lechi Abuyezitovich Shaipov, born in 1960. The latter was married to the nineteenth applicant; they were the parents of the twentieth and twenty-first applicants.\n15.  At about 2 a.m. on 27 March 2004 around fifteen armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at the Shaipovs' house at 10 Beregovaya Street. The men broke down the entrance door and burst inside. Without introducing themselves, they ordered everyone to lie down, threatening the inhabitants of the house with weapons equipped with silencers, and demanded that the Shaipov men introduce themselves. Then they informed someone via a portable radio transmitter that they had “taken Shaipov as well”. They seized Lechi Shaipov's identity papers and the money that they had found. The eighteenth applicant looked through the window and saw two armoured personnel carriers, a Niva car, an UAZ vehicle and three off-road vehicles parked outside. Then the armed men took Lechi Shaipov to t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4400", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Duderstadt.\n5.  On 25 May 1997 the applicant had a traffic accident and suffered severe injuries. He disagreed with the insurance companies involved about the seriousness of his permanent injuries and the amount of insurance benefits due. Three expert medical opinions concerning the degree of his invalidity produced differing results. The dispute resulted in three sets of court proceedings, only one of which is the subject of the present application.\n6.  On 28 November 2001 the applicant brought a claim for 219,000 German marks (DEM, 111,972.92 euros (EUR)) plus interest before the Göttingen Regional Court. The claim was registered under file number 2 O 503/01. Prior to the institution of the proceedings he had already been paid DEM 231,000.00 (EUR 118,108.42) by the insurance company.\n7.  On 15 May 2002 the court suggested a friendly settlement, which the parties did not accept.\n8.  On 8 August 2002 a hearing was held.\n9.  On 29 August 2002 the Regional Court ordered a comprehensive expert report regarding the degree of the applicant’s invalidity up to 25 May 2000. The expert was asked not to take into account any developments in the applicant’s health which occurred after that date.\n10.  On 19 September 2002 the court sent the files to the appointed expert.\n11.  On 16 October 2002 it received the expert’s observation that additional expert reports in the field of thoracic surgery, neurology and psychiatry were also necessary. He suggested two suitable experts.\n12.  On 31 October 2002 both the applicant and the defendant consented to the two additional expert opinions and agreed with the proposed choice of experts.\n13.  On 14 February 2003 the court received the additional opinion from the thoracic surgery expert, dated 30 January 2003. It informed the applicant but failed to inform the defendant.\n14.  On 24 June and 16 September 2003 the applicant asked the court about the status of the proceedings and urged it to expedite the completion of the outstanding expert opinions.\n15.  On 26 June and 20 November 2003 the court replied to him that the case files had been sent to an expert in the parallel proceedings.\n16.  On 26 January 2004 the applicant asked the court to retrieve the case files from the parallel proceedings.\n17.  On 4 May 2004 the applicant informed the court that the expert opinion in the parallel proceedings had already been concluded in 2003 and asked about the whereabouts of the case files.\n18.  On 26 July 2004 the court informed the applicant that the expert opinion which had been drawn up in the parallel proceedings would also be considered in the present proceedings.\n19.  On 30 September 2004 the applicant opposed this, observing that on 31 October 2002 the parties had agreed upon the experts to be appointed in these proceedings and that the expert opinion in the parallel proceedings was deficient and concerned the applicant’s state of health at the present time, not on 25 May 2000.\n20.  On 13 June 2005 the case files and the medical documentation were resubmitted to the main expert.\n21.  In the summer of 2005 the defendant was notified of the opinion of the thoracic surgery expert and criticised it on several grounds.\n22.  On 14 September 2005 the main expert reminded the court of the need to appoint an additional expert for a neurological and psychiatric expert opinion.\n23.  On 1 December 2005 the court appointed the expert whom the parties had agreed upon on 31 Octobe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4401", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1964 and 1963 respectively and live in Vladivostok, Russia. At the material time the first applicant, a police officer, and the second applicant, a former police officer, were the chairman and the deputy chairman of a local police trade union.\n7.  On 28 October 1999, in connection with the discovery of two explosive devices and cartridges at the home of a third person, K., the department of the interior of the Primorskiy region and the Federal Security Service of Russia (“the FSB”) initiated criminal proceedings under Article 222 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Russia (“unlawful acquisition, transfer, sale, storage, transportation and carrying of firearms, basic parts of firearms, ammunition, explosives and explosive devices”).\n8.  On 14 January 2000 the applicants were arrested. On 17 January 2000 the prosecutor’s office of the Primorskiy region extended the applicants’ detention, referring to the gravity of the charges against them and the risk of their absconding from the authorities or obstructing the course of justice.\n9.  On 24 January 2000 the applicants were transferred to detention centre IZ-25/1 (“the detention centre” – in some of the documents submitted also referred to as IZ-20/1) in Vladivostok.\n10.  On 13 March 2000 the prosecutor’s office of the Primorskiy region extended the applicants’ detention until 10 April 2000, referring to the same reasons, namely the risk of their absconding from the authorities or obstructing the course of justice.\n11.  On 3 April 2000 the prosecutor’s office of the Primorskiy region extended the applicants’ detention until 10 May 2000. The first applicant’s lawyer appealed against the extension order. On 28 April 2000 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok dismissed the appeal and stated that the applicant had the right to appeal against that decision to the Primorskiy Regional Court. The first applicant did not appeal to the second-instance court.\n12.  On 27 April 2000 the prosecutor’s office of the Primorskiy region extended the applicants’ detention until 10 July 2000, referring to the gravity of the charges against them and the risk of their absconding from the authorities or obstructing the course of justice.\n13.  On 10 July 2000 the investigation forwarded the criminal case against the applicants to the Primorskiy Regional Court for the determination of the jurisdiction for the trial. On 13 July 2000 the Regional Court decided that the case should be examined by the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok (“the District Court”) and forwarded the case file to the District Court.\n14.  On 8 August 2000 the District Court held a directions hearing and decided to examine the criminal case on 11 October 2000. The court also decided to extend the applicants’ detention on remand, using a summary formula in respect of both applicants and stating that “the preventive measure in respect of [the applicants] should remain the same – detention on remand”. No reasons for the extension of the applicants’ detention on remand were provided.\n15.  On 11 October 2000, during the examination of the applicants’ case, the court allowed an application by them for an additional expert assessment of fingerprints. The court forwarded the case file to Moscow for the expert assessment and adjourned the hearing of the criminal case. During the hearing the applicants complained under Article 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (lodging applications before the court) to the District ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4402", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1960 respectively. They live in the town of Argun, in the Shali District of the Chechen Republic.\n6.  The applicants are the parents of Mr Idris Khalidovich Gakiyev, born in 1980. At the material time the applicants and their son lived at 33 the Eighth of March Lane, in the town of Argun.\n7.  At about 2 a.m. on 30 November 2003 three armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) arrived at the applicants’ house. A group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms got off the vehicles and burst inside. The men wore no masks and had Slavic features; they did not identify themselves but the applicants inferred that they belonged to the Russian special task forces.\n8.  The servicemen severely beat the first applicant with the butts of their machine guns; when he lost consciousness, they left him lying on the floor. At some point they poured petrol over the first applicant’s body. Then they seized Idris Gakiyev, took him outside and placed him in one of the APCs. Before leaving, the servicemen set the applicants’ house on fire. Then they climbed into the APCs and drove away.\n9.  The second applicant went out into the street and cried. The first applicant somehow managed to get out of the burning house. Later, the fire was extinguished but the house had been demolished by then.\n(b)  Medical examination of the first applicant\n10.  The case file contains a medical certificate issued by the Argun Town Hospital on 30 November 2003, which reads as follows:\n“... on 29 November 2003 [Khalid Gakiyev] applied to the Argun Town Hospital [for medical assistance] in relation to the bodily injuries inflicted on him.\nHe was examined by a traumatologist and a neuropathologist and prescribed with the requisite treatment.”\n11.  According to the certificate, the first applicant was diagnosed with a closed craniocerebral injury, cerebral concussion, injuries to the right parietal area, injuries and a bruise to the left cheekbone and orbital area, haemorrhage in the left eye and abrasions on the face, abdomen and hips.\n12.  At about 2 a.m. on 30 November 2003 unidentified armed persons in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns and travelling in APCs entered the house at 11 Groznenskiy Lane, Argun, and kidnapped Mr Khuseyn Elmarzayev, born in 1981, and Mr Khaseyn Elmarzayev, born in 1985. Then the same persons drove to the house at 33 the Eighth of March Lane, Argun, and kidnapped Idris Gakiyev. After the kidnappings the perpetrators set both houses on fire.\n13.  After their son’s abduction the applicants complained to various State agencies and officials, including the Russian President, the Russian State Duma, the Russian Ombudsman, the Russian Prosecutor General, the President of the Chechen Republic and the local administration. Most of those complaints were forwarded to the prosecutors’ offices at different levels.\n14.  By letter of 2 December 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the town of Argun (“the town prosecutor’s office”) requested the local administration to assess the damage to the applicants’ house. They mentioned that “unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns” had inflicted bodily injuries on the first applicant and had kidnapped his son. On 5 December 2003 the commission formed by the local administration drew up an evaluation report, according to which the applicants’ house had been completely demolished and could not be reconstructed.\n15.  On 6 December 2003 the town prosecutor’s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4403", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Szczecin.\n7.  The applicant had been a judge for twenty‑seven years. By virtue of an amendment to the law on the System of Common Courts 1985, which came into effect on 17 October 1997, the status of a “retired judge” was created (see paragraph 24 below).\nOn 4 December 1997 the applicant who had retired on 8 July 1997 on grounds of ill health acquired the status of a “retired judge”. Under the applicable provisions of domestic law retired judges were entitled, as from 1 January 1998, to a special retirement pension equivalent to seventy‑five per cent of their last full salary (sędziowski stan spoczynku) every month.\n8.  On 3 August 1997 the Lustration Act entered into force. By a further amendment to the 1985 Law of 17 December 1997, which came into effect on 15 August 1998, retired judges who had acquired the right to a special retirement pension were required to submit a declaration under that Act. In September 1998 the applicant made a declaration under the provisions of that Act to the effect that she had never secretly collaborated with the communist secret services.\n9.  Subsequently, on an unspecified date, the Commissioner of Public Interest applied to the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first‑instance lustration court, to institute proceedings in the applicant’s case under the Lustration Act on the ground that she had lied in her lustration declaration by denying that she had collaborated with the secret services. He referred to documents showing that in 1986 the applicant had agreed to collaborate and from 1986 until 1988 had submitted fifteen written reports.\n10.  During the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer. The case file could be consulted by the applicant and her lawyer in the secret registry of the lustration court. They were authorised to make notes. However, the notes could be made only in special notebooks which were subsequently sealed and deposited in the registry. It was possible for them to make notes, but not to take the notes from the registry.\n11.  On an unspecified date the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first‑instance court, held a hearing in the applicant’s case. The hearing was not public. She was questioned by the court and commented on the evidence at the court’s disposal. The case file was composed of the applicant’s lustration declaration, copies of certain documents contained in the applicant’s file compiled by the communist secret police and the Commissioner’s application for lustration proceedings to be instituted.\n12.  On 7 April 2004 the court gave a judgment in which it found that the applicant had made an untrue lustration declaration because she had been a willing secret collaborator of the communist secret services. It observed that the documents in the case file were incomplete, but that they were nevertheless sufficient to find that the applicant had been a secret collaborator. The applicant appealed.\n13.  On 4 November 2004 the same court, acting as a court of appeal, upheld the contested judgment, holding that the evidence in the case file was sufficient to find that the applicant had knowingly and intentionally collaborated with the communist secret services. The applicant submitted a cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, which dismissed it by a judgment of 7 April 2005.\n14.  From January 1998 to May 2005 the applicant received 4,614 Polish zlotys (PLN) per month (PLN 3,738 after tax) as the special retirement ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4404", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Belgrade.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 28 October 1999 the Fifth Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office (Peto opštinsko javno tužilastvo) in Belgrade filed a request for the opening of a judicial investigation (zahtev za sprovođenje istrage) against the applicant, alleging that he had committed numerous offences of theft under Article 166 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 16 December 1999 the investigating judge of the Fifth Municipal Court in Belgrade (Peti opštinski sud u Beogradu, hereinafter “the Municipal Court”) instituted a judicial investigation (doneo rešenje o sprovođenju istrage) in respect of these charges.\n10.  On 18 January 2000 the same court’s investigating judge found that the applicant’s whereabouts were unknown and issued a warrant, ordering his detention for a period of up to one month.\n11.  On 16 April 2002 the Municipal Court, acting ex officio, appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant in the proceedings.\n12.  On 20 January 2005, at 4 p.m., the applicant was arrested by the police and taken to the District Prison (Okružni zatvor) in Belgrade. This arrest was carried out on the basis of the Municipal Court’s detention order of 18 January 2000.\n13.  On 21 January 2005 the Municipal Court attempted to contact the applicant’s lawyer, but he could not be reached. On 24 January 2005, therefore, the court appointed another lawyer to represent the applicant.\n14.  Since the newly appointed lawyer was unable to go to the District Prison on 25 January 2005, the applicant’s hearing was re-scheduled for 27 January 2005.\n15.  On 27 January 2005, at 9.30 a.m., the applicant, in his lawyer’s presence, was heard by the investigating judge of the Municipal Court, on which occasion, inter alia, he denied all charges and explicitly waived his right to file an appeal against the detention order of 18 January 2000. It would appear that the applicant considered that he had little chance of being released on appeal and preferred instead to be tried as soon as possible.\n16.  On 3 February 2005 the Fifth Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office issued an indictment against the applicant.\n17.  On 4 February 2005 the three-judge panel of the Municipal Court extended the applicant’s detention for another 30 days, without having heard him or his lawyer in person.\n18.  On 11 February 2005 the applicant filed an appeal against this decision, pointing out, inter alia, that he had not been brought promptly before a judge, “in breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention”.\n19.  On 18 February 2005 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade rejected this appeal, ruling again in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer. It also failed to consider the applicant’s specific complaint made under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.\n20.  The applicant’s trial began on 2 March 2005, but his detention had been extended.\n21.  On 18 May 2005 the applicant was found guilty by the Municipal Court, sentenced to one year and two months in prison and released from detention.\n22.  On 19 December 2005 the District Court quashed the impugned judgment and ordered a retrial.\n23.  On 16 February 2007 the Municipal Court, based on a somewhat amended indictment, found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to eight months in prison.\n24.  On 5 April 2007 the applicant seems to have filed an appeal against this judgment with the District Court in Belgrade.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4405", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kent.\n5.  The applicant and his wife had two children, born in 1982 and 1987. The applicant’s wife died on 2 June 1999.\n6.  On 5 October 2000 the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency for the payment of social security benefits. He applied for benefits equivalent to those which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment (“Wpt”) and a Widowed Mother’s Allowance (“WMA”), payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). On 17 October 2000 his application was rejected as these benefits were only available to women. This decision was reconsidered without alteration on 25 October 2000.\n7.  The applicant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal on 10 July 2001 and again his claim was rejected. In November 2001 the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Appeal Commissioner. Eventually permission was granted but his appeal was again rejected on 28 May 2004. The applicant again appealed to the Commissioner who rejected the applicant’s appeal on 13 December 2006.\n8.  Finally, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), which was refused on 16 March 2007.\n9.  At the time of his claim in 2000 the applicant was in receipt of child benefit.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4406", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1951 and 1949, respectively, and live in Budapest.\n7.  The applicants are respectively 50% and 10% shareholders in D. Ltd. By decisions of the Budapest Regional Court and the Supreme Court, in 1998 the liquidation of D. Ltd was ordered and M. Ltd. appointed liquidator.\n8.  In 2001 the applicants brought an official liability action against the two courts involved, claiming damages for the liquidation, which in their view had been ordered unlawfully.\n9.  On 6 December 2002 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the action, holding that, although the liquidation had indeed been ordered unlawfully, the two courts’ culpability was not so extensive as to justify the establishment of their tort liability.\n10.  On appeal, on 11 December 2003 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision but changed its reasoning. It held that the applicants had no locus standi in the case, since their company was in liquidation and only the liquidator had the capacity to conduct legal proceedings in its name.\n11.  The applicants filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. They pleaded that their claim did not concern any loss suffered by the company itself. Rather, they personally sought compensation for the loss in value of their own shares which they had suffered on account of the unlawfully ordered liquidation.\n12.  On 10 February 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ petition, reiterating the position that they had no locus standi in the case. This decision was served after 11 March 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4407", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The first, second and third applicants were born in 1950, 1973 and 1971, respectively, and currently live in Belgrade, Serbia.\n11.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n12.  The first applicant, her husband and the other two applicants were holders of a specially protected tenancy concerning a flat in Podgorica (nosioci odnosno korisnici stanarskog prava), Montenegro, where they lived.\n13.  In 1989 the first applicant and her husband divorced and the former was granted custody of the other two applicants.\n14.  On 26 January 1994 the first applicant obtained a decision from the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud u Podgorici) declaring her the sole holder of the specially protected tenancy on the family’s flat. In addition, her former husband (“the respondent”) was ordered to vacate the flat within fifteen days from the date when the decision became final.\n15.  On 27 April 1994 the decision of the Court of First Instance was upheld on appeal by the High Court (Viši sud u Podgorici) and thereby became final.\n16.  Given that the respondent did not comply with the court order to vacate the flat, on 31 May 1994 the first applicant instituted a formal judicial enforcement procedure before the Court of First Instance.\n17.  The enforcement order was issued on the same date.\n18.  On 8 July 1994 the bailiffs attempted to evict the respondent together with his new wife and minor children but the eviction was adjourned because he threatened to use force.\n19.  On 14 July 1994 they tried again, this time assisted by the police, but apparently the planned eviction was adjourned for the same reason.\n20.  On 15 July 1994 the first applicant bought the flat and became its owner.\n21.  On 26 October 1994 the bailiffs and the police once again failed to evict the respondent who kept threatening the first applicant in their presence and bore arms on his person. There also appear to have been additional weapons, ammunition and even a bomb in the flat at the time. The police took the respondent to their station but released him shortly afterwards without pressing charges.\n22.  On 28 November 1994 and 16 March 1995 another two scheduled evictions failed, the latter due to the “respondent’s request for the provision of social assistance” in respect of his minor children.\n23.  On 23 October 1995 the first applicant gifted the flat to the second and third applicants.\n24.  On 3 June 1996 and 1 August 1996, respectively, another two scheduled evictions failed.\n25.  On 3 June 1998 the Ministry of Justice informed the first applicant that the Court of First Instance had committed to enforce the eviction order before the end of the month.\n26.  On 27 October 1998 and 1 November 1999 another two scheduled evictions failed.\n27.  In the meantime, on 13 August 1999, the Real Estate Directorate (Direkcija za nekretnine) issued a formal decision recognising the second and the third applicants as the new owners of the flat in question.\n28.  In March of 2004 another eviction was attempted but failed. In the presence of police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, bailiffs and the enforcement judge herself, as well as his wife and their children, the respondent threatened to blow up the entire flat. His neighbours also seem to have opposed the eviction, some of them apparently going so far as to physically confront the police.\n29.  Throughout the years the first applicant complained to numerous State bodies about the non-enforcem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4408", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Łόdź.\n6. On 30 June 1997 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) instituted criminal proceedings against an individual charged with financial fraud. The applicant, who was considered to be a victim, was entitled to lodge in the context of the criminal case a claim for damages sustained as a result of the crime.\n7. On 30 July 1997 the Łódź Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) filed a civil claim for damages against the defendant on the applicant’s behalf. On 29 August 1997 the District Court admitted the claim.\n8. A hearing scheduled for 25 January 2001 was adjourned because of the absence of the defendant, who had submitted a medical certificate indicating that he had health problems. On 13 February 2001 the defendant submitted another medical certificate stating that he had been admitted to a hospital. On 3 April 2001 the court held a hearing in the absence of the defendant. On 25 April 2001 the defendant submitted another medical certificate.\n9. On 30 April 2001 the District Court ordered that the defendant be examined by a forensic specialist. On 23 July 2001 a medical report was submitted to the court. It stated that the defendant’s health prevented him from participating in the forthcoming hearings as he was to undergo surgery.\n10. On 8 October 2001 the District Court stayed the proceedings and ordered the defendant to provide information on his medical treatment. The defendant failed to do so.\n11. On 26 September 2002 the District Court issued an arrest warrant as the police had informed the court that the defendant had left his place of permanent residence. On 18 January 2003 the defendant was apprehended by the police and detained until 16 January 2004.\n12. On 5 February 2003 the District Court again stayed the proceedings and ordered that the defendant be examined by a specialist. On 25 April 2003 a medical report was submitted to the court. It stated that the defendant’s health did not prevent him from participating in the proceedings.\n13. On 25 September 2003 the court resumed the proceedings. On 28 October 2005 the court held a hearing.\n14. The proceedings are currently pending.\n15. On 14 October 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Łódź Regional Court under section 5 of the Act of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“the 2004 Act”).\n16. On 3 December 2004 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court considered that the proceedings had lasted a long time but found no “unreasonable delays” considering that the conduct of the defendant had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings. That period of delay could not be attributed to the judicial authorities as it had been caused by the fact that the defendant had repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s orders.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4410", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Siemanowice.\n6.  On 28 April 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of bribery, several counts of evasion of tax and customs duties and several counts of forgery, committed in an organised criminal gang.\n7.  On 29 April 2005 the Katowice District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. The court referred to the complexity of the case and the considerable number of accused. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence and induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n8.  Later, twenty-one other persons were detained and charged in connection with the investigation against the applicant.\n9.  The applicant’s appeal against the detention order, like his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeal, he argued that the charge against him was based on unreliable and contradictory evidence.\n10.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was prolonged on 22 July 2005, 20 October 2005, 20 January 2006, 29 March 2006, 28 June 2006, 27 September 2006, 4 January 2007 and 4 April 2007.\n11.  On 17 April 2007 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Katowice Regional Court. The applicant was charged with bribery, several counts of evasion of tax and customs duties, several counts of forgery and membership of an organised criminal gang. The bill of indictment also concerned twenty-one other persons.\n12.  Further decisions extending the applicant’s detention were taken on 25 July 2007, 24 October 2007 and 27 February 2008.\nIn a decision given on 24 October 2007, the Katowice Court of Appeal Court criticised the manner in which the investigation had been conducted. It also referred to delays in the proceedings which amounted to six months. It acknowledged that almost all the evidence had been gathered and that the risk that the applicant would tamper with evidence had been marginal.\nIn a decision given on 27 February 2008, the Katowice Court of Appeal ruled that the applicant could be released on bail on payment of security of 800,000 Polish zlotys. The applicant requested the court to reduce the amount of bail. On 28 March 2008 the court reduced it to 300,000 Polish zlotys. The applicant paid the security and he was released on 30 April 2008.\n13.  The criminal proceedings are currently pending before the first‑instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4411", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are eight female Slovakian nationals of Roma ethnic origin.\n7.  The applicants were treated at gynaecological and obstetrics departments in two hospitals in eastern Slovakia during their pregnancies and deliveries. Despite continuing to attempt to conceive, none of the applicants has become pregnant since their last stay in hospital, when they delivered via caesarean section. The applicants suspected that the reason for their infertility might be that a sterilisation procedure was performed on them during their caesarean delivery by medical personnel in the hospitals concerned. Several applicants had been asked to sign documents prior to their delivery or on discharge from the hospital but they were not sure of the content of those documents.\n8.  The applicants, together with several other Roma women, granted powers of attorney to lawyers from the Centre for Civil and Human Rights, a non-governmental organisation based in Košice. The lawyers were authorised to review and photocopy the women’s medical records in order to obtain a medical analysis of the reasons for their infertility and possible treatment. The applicants also authorised the lawyers to make photocopies of their complete medical records as potential evidence in future civil proceedings for damages, and to ensure that such documents and evidence were not destroyed or lost. The photocopies were to be made by the lawyers with a portable photocopier at the expense of the Centre for Civil and Human Rights.\n9.  The applicants attempted to obtain access to their medical records in the respective hospitals through their authorised representative in August and September 2002. The lawyer unsuccessfully asked the management of the hospitals to allow her to consult and photocopy the medical records of the persons who had authorised her to do so.\n10.  On 11 October 2002 representatives of the Ministry of Health expressed the view that section 16(6) of the Health Care Act 1994 did not permit a patient to authorise another person to consult his or her medical records. The above provision was to be interpreted in a restrictive manner and the term “legal representative” concerned exclusively the parents of an underage child or a guardian appointed to represent a person who had been deprived of legal capacity or whose legal capacity had been restricted.\n11.  The applicants sued the hospitals concerned. They claimed that the defendants should be ordered to release their medical records to their authorised legal representative and to allow them to obtain a photocopy of the documents included in the records.\n12.  Six applicants brought an action against the J.A. Reiman University Hospital (Fakultná nemocnica J. A. Reimana) in Prešov (“the Prešov Hospital”) on 13 January 2003.\n13.  On 18 June 2003 the Prešov District Court delivered a judgment ordering the hospital to permit the plaintiffs and their authorised representative to consult their medical records and to make handwritten excerpts thereof. The relevant part of the judgment became final on 15 August 2003 and enforceable on 19 August 2003.\n14.  With reference to section 16(6) of the Health Care Act 1994 the District Court dismissed the request to photocopy the medical documents. The court noted that the records were owned by the medical institutions concerned and that such a restriction was justified with a view to preventing their abuse. It was not contrary to the plaintiffs’ rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Conv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4412", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Dällikon (Canton of Zürich). By his own account, he is a lorry driver.\n11.  On 14 March 1997 a military doctor declared him unfit for military service as he was suffering from type 1 diabetes (diabetes mellitus).\n12.  On 22 February 1999 the applicant was also exempted from the civil protection service.\n13.  On 8 September 2000 that exemption was lifted and in October that year the applicant was assigned to the Dübendorf Civil Protection Reserve in the Canton of Zürich. According to the Government, it is unclear from the file whether the applicant was given any tasks to carry out in a civil protection capacity. The applicant alleges that he volunteered on several occasions, but because of staff cutbacks in the Canton of Zürich he was never called to do any civil protection duty.\n14.  On 9 August 2001 the Zürich cantonal authorities responsible for the military-service exemption tax sent him an order to pay the tax for 2000, in the amount of 716 Swiss francs (CHF) (approximately 477 euros (EUR)), based on his taxable income that year (CHF 35,800 – approximately EUR 23,866).\n15.  In a letter of 11 September 2001, the applicant challenged the tax demand, considering that he was being discriminated against. He pointed out that he had always stated his readiness to do military service.\n16.  On 20 September 2001 the federal tax authorities informed the applicant that all Swiss men who did not suffer from a “major” disability were required to pay a tax in order to be exempted from military service. They explained that a disability was considered “major” if the degree of physical or mental disability was at least 40%. They considered that further examinations were needed in order to determine whether the applicant’s disability met that requirement.\n17.  When he examined the applicant on 14 May 2002, a doctor from the Zürich University Hospital found that in most cases the type of diabetes the applicant suffered from did not make people unfit for work.\n18.  In another expert medical examination on 5 May 2003, a military doctor found the applicant’s physical disability to be less than 40%.\n19.  By a decision of 15 July 2003, the Zürich cantonal authorities responsible for the military-service exemption tax decided, based on the findings of the medical examination and the expert examination of 14 May 2002, that the applicant did not qualify for exemption from the tax as his degree of invalidity was less than 40%. The applicant challenged that decision and the authorities confirmed it on 5 August 2003.\n20.  The Federal Tax Appeals Board for the Canton of Zürich upheld that decision on 7 November 2003. It considered that in adopting the criteria set out in section 4(1)(a) of the Federal Military-Service Exemption Tax Act of 12 June 1959 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”, paragraph 30 below) Parliament’s intention had not been to generally exempt all people with disabilities from the obligation to pay the tax in question. In the applicant’s case the medical examination of 14 May 2002 had shown that his disability was not a major one and that his condition was highly unlikely to be an obstacle in his future career. Thanks to medical progress, patients with the applicant’s type of diabetes could live quite normal lives these days and practise almost any line of work. That being so, the people concerned were not considered to have disabilities for the purposes of section 4(1)(a) of the Federal Mil", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4413", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1963 and 1966 respectively and live in Stavropol.\n5.  As judges, the applicants were entitled to a service at. As the at had not been provided, the applicants sued the Pyatigorsk Town Council. On 10 June 2003 the Essentuki Town Court held for the applicants and ordered the council to:\n“[P]rovide [the applicants] with a decent dwelling for a family of four, offering 12 m² per person and having an extra surface of 40 m² with regard to two family members’ right to extra surface: either 20 m² per person or a separate room per person.”\nThis judgment became binding on 8 September 2003, but was not enforced immediately.\n6.  In September–November 2003 bailiffs several times inquired with the council whether it had available ats. In December 2003 and February 2004 the bailiffs requested the court to change the mode of execution to a cash payment. In September 2005 the bailiffs attached the council’s bank accounts and means of transport.\n7.  In August 2004 the applicants and the council reached a settlement, but the council defaulted on its promise.\n8.  On the council’s request, on 20 March 2006 the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court quashed the judgment and ordered a rehearing. The presidium found that the council had been the wrong defendant, and that the district court had awarded a at bigger than the applicants had been entitled to.\n9.  In the course of the rehearing, on 22 October 2007 the applicants withdrew their claims and the proceedings were closed.\n10.  In December 2007 the applicants were offered a at of 124.8 m² in a house in the centre of Stavropol, but they refused to accept it insisting that the at should be of 150 m². In the meantime, in 2006–07 the authorities subsidised the applicants’ rent.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4414", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Mendeleyevo, a town in the Moscow Region.\n5.  In 1995 the applicant brought a court action against a housing maintenance service. Throughout the proceedings she represented herself. She claimed compensation for damages sustained as a result of poor quality repairs carried out by the respondent in her flat and requested that the works be done again. She also claimed penalties for the delays in the reparation of her flat. In course of the proceedings the applicant amended her claims.\n6.  On 27 November 1995 the Solnechnogorskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region (“the Town Court”) dismissed her claim. On 6 February 1996 the Moscow Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld that judgment.\n7.  On 28 May 1996 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 27 November 1995 and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the first-instance court.\n8.  In the meantime the administration of the Solnechnogorskiy District transferred the municipal housing into the authority of a municipal enterprise, Mendeleyevo Service.\n9.  On 10 October 1997 the Town Court granted the applicant’s claim in part. On 18 February 1998 the Regional Court upheld that judgment.\n10.  On 13 January 1999 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 10 October 1997 and remitted the case for a new examination to the Town Court. It held in particular that the lower courts had failed to establish the proper defendant in the case. It also indicated that in order to decide on the penalties the first-instance court had to establish whether the parties had previously set any deadlines for the repairs.\n11.  On 5 March 1999 the Town Court set the examination of the case for 9 April 1999. Between April and October 1999 six hearings were scheduled, however they were adjourned mainly because the respondent and the third party failed to appear.\n12.  On 26 October 1999 the Town Court established that the municipal enterprise Mendeleyevo Service was the proper respondent in the case and ordered it to repair the applicant’s flat. It awarded the applicant penalties for the delays in the repair of her flat and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Furthermore, it held that the respondent had been in bad faith in opposing a correct and quick examination of the case and ordered it to pay the applicant compensation for the lost time.\n13.  On 2 February 2000 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 26 October 1999 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination. It found that the Town Court had not indicated in its decision which repairs had to be done in the applicant’s flat, it had not followed the Presidium’s decision of 13 January 1999 and it had not given reasons for its conclusions as regards the respondent’s bad faith in delaying the proceedings.\n14.  On 3 May 2000 the Town Court set the examination of the case for 29 June 2000. Between June and December 2000 nine hearings were scheduled. Three of them did not take place because the respondent failed to appear, one hearing was postponed because the applicant did not appear and three hearings were adjourned either because the applicant asked for additional time to amend her claims or because the respondent asked for additional time to submit evidence. One hearing was postponed in order to call an expert to trial.\n15.  On 19 December 2000 the Town Court held that since the maintenance service no longer existed it was impossible for it to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4415", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Iaşi.\n5.  On 21 December 2000 the county commission in Iaşi for the application of Law no. 18/1991 (“the county commission”) authorised the applicant, as inheritor of C.C., to recover possession of 20.4 ha of land situated in Rediu and ordered the local administrative authorities to enforce that decision.\n6.  The applicant’s submissions to the town council to execute that decision were to no avail. The mayor’s refusal to prepare the documentation pertaining to the acquisition of title prevented the applicant from obtaining an ownership title.\n7.  In 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the Mayor of Rediu village and against the local commission in Rediu responsible for the application of Law no. 18/1991 seeking to have them ordered to prepare the documentation pertaining to the acquisition of title. She also claimed a daily pecuniary penalty until execution.\nThe local authorities of Rediu village stated that it was impossible to ensure the execution of the decision of the county commission on the ground that third parties had been allowed to take possession of that land. An expert’s report produced in the proceedings certified that the surface of 20.4 ha had been allocated to thirty-four persons.\n8.  On 3 February 2003 the Iaşi Court of First Instance allowed the action and ordered the Rediu local commission to provide the applicant with the cadastral plan and with the official record certifying that she had been able to take possession of the 20.4 ha of land, as specified by the decision of 21 December 2000. It also ordered the Mayor of Rediu to pay the applicant a pecuniary penalty of 300,000 Romanian lei for each day’s delay in enforcement. The court dismissed the local authorities’ plea that it was impossible to execute that decision due to the fact that the land had been attributed to third parties, considering that the applicant could not be held responsible for what was the authorities’ fault.\nThat judgment became final on 26 May 2003.\n9.  On 31 July 2003 the bailiff, at the applicant’s request and following a meeting with the mayor in his capacity as the chairman of the local commission, certified in an official record that the latter had not executed the judgment of 3 February 2003. The bailiff enjoined the mayor to enforce that judgment.\n10.  On 1 July and 24 November 2005 the applicant requested the Iaşi Prefecture to identify 20.4 ha of land in a location adjoining Rediu village, as there was a lack of available land in Rediu. Eventually, the applicant changed her request, claiming only 16 ha of land.\n11.  The State Property Authority (Agenţia Domeniilor Statului) informed the county commission, at the latter’s request, that it had identified an unoccupied plot of land of 16 ha, with the cadastral identification T6, T8 and T9, placed under the administration of the Agromixt company, a company that used to be responsible for the management of property belonging to the State.\n12.  On 26 July 2006 the county commission upheld the request and varied the decision of 21 December 2000, authorising the applicant to recover possession of the 16 ha of land situated in Miroslava village, which was under the administration of the Agromixt company. It further stated that the provisions of the present decision were to be carried out by the local commission in Miroslava responsible for the application of property laws.\n13.  The Miroslava local commission and the Mayor of Miroslava b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4416", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Skopje.\n5.  On 1 February 1993 Mr. F.D., the applicant’s former husband, bought a state-owned apartment and a garage (“the property”). By a deed of gift of 29 December 1994 (“the 1994 gift”), Mr F.D. transferred one notional half of the property into the applicant’s possession. The spouses divorced in 1996. By court decisions of 18 April and 5 September 2001 respectively, the 1994 gift was rescinded.\n6.  The present case concerns two sets of proceedings concerning the property at issue.\n7.  On 13 July 1995 Mr H.D. and Mrs V.D., Mr F.D.’s parents (“the plaintiffs”), brought a civil action against the applicant and Mr F.D. to establish their title to the property and to rescind the 1994 gift. The plaintiffs alleged that they had transferred to their son the right to buy the property and that they had paid the price.\n8.  Of six hearings scheduled between 3 November 1995 and 19 May 1997, none was rescheduled on the applicant’s request.\n9.  Sixteen hearings fixed between 19 May 1997 and 20 November 2000 were adjourned because of incorrect service of the court summons, late exchange of applications by the parties, belated submissions or the failure of the national authorities and the parties to respond to court orders in time. A hearing fixed for 25 May 1998 was postponed due to the applicant’s absence for work-related reasons.\n10.  On 20 November 2000 the Skopje Court of First Instance upheld the plaintiffs’ claim and recognised their title to the property. It rescinded the 1994 gift and declared that Mrs V.D. had the title to one notional half of the property. The court established that Mr H.D. had tenancy of the property since 1972 and that the plaintiffs had authorised the defendants to buy the property under the condition of caring for them and living under the same roof. As the applicant had divorced her husband and ceased to live with the plaintiffs, the court held that the right to buy the apartment remained groundless and considered it as if it had not been established.\n11.  On 28 June 2001 the Skopje Court of Appeal accepted an appeal by the applicant and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It established that the lower court had not given sufficient reasons for its decision. It further ordered a stay of the proceedings pending assessment of the validity of the sale agreement of 1 February 1993, the subject of other proceedings.\n12.  Between 19 November 2001 and 15 September 2005 the first-instance court listed twenty-three hearings which were re-scheduled for similar reasons as those described in paragraph 9 above. The applicant did not attend four hearings. During this time, the applicant claimed title to four fifths of the property, as a joint property acquired through marriage. She further proposed an out-of-court settlement on two occasions and requested the court to expedite the proceedings.\n13.  The proceedings resumed on 4 December 2006 when a new judge was assigned to sit in the case. The court listed six hearings until 18 May 2007. The proceedings are still pending before the Skopje Court of First Instance.\n14.  On 4 April 2002 Mr F.D. requested annulment of a deed of gift of 18 July 2001 (“the 2001 gift”) under which the applicant had transferred into the possession of their two daughters her notional half of the property. Referring to the annulment of the 1994 contract, Mr F.D. claimed that the applicant had not been entitled to dispose of the property. On 5 April ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4417", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Astrakhan.\n6.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant gave birth to a daughter out of wedlock.\n7.  On 11 November 2003 she lodged a claim with the Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan against Mr A., with whom she allegedly had been in a relationship since 2000, in order to establish paternity and obtain child maintenance. In the course of the proceedings the applicant was represented by a counsel.\n8.  On 15 December 2003 the court ordered a DNA test to be carried out. The blood samples were collected in Astrakhan and sent to a specialised institute in Moscow for a forensic genetic examination. According to the expert conclusion submitted on 19 March 2004, the probability that Mr A. was the father of the applicant’s daughter was 99.99%.\n9.  On 2 June 2004 the court heard the defendant’s representative, who contested the admissibility of the DNA test on account of procedural shortcomings, and the applicant, who insisted on its accuracy; and rejected the applicant’s claim in full. It found that the applicant had failed to support her allegations. With respect to the expert forensic report the court found as follows:\n“...Blood sampling for the expert report was entrusted to the Bureau of forensic-medical examinations in the Astrakhan Region...\nAccording to the Instruction on organisation and production of expert examinations in Bureaus of forensic medical examinations, blood samples must be packed individually... An envelope must be supplied, with identifying information (on the basis of an identity document) and signatures of a medical worker who took the blood samples and two medical workers who were present during this procedure...\nOn the envelopes with the blood samples of Mr A., Ms Kalacheva and Ms K.D. [the applicant’s daughter] there are no data based on the identity documents of the above persons. Moreover, there are only two signatures on the envelopes, one of which belongs to a person who took the blood samples...\nTaking into account that the blood samples were collected with serious violations of the Instruction..., the court is critical of the expert conclusion, since it cannot exclude the possibility that the blood samples received by the experts were not those collected from the parties.”\n10.  The court found the other evidence submitted by the applicant, namely a photo showing her with the defendant and a badge in her name, issued by the hostel (where they allegedly met), insufficient to conclude that the defendant was her child’s father.\n11.  The applicant and her lawyer lodged an appeal against this judgment, claiming that the case should be sent to a fresh examination due to the court’s failure to respect the civil procedural law. On 29 June 2004 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the judgment of 2 June 2004. It mentioned that, under civil procedural law, an expert conclusion was not binding on the court, and that in the present case the DNA test, carried out in breach of the relevant procedure, was not corroborated by other evidence.\n12.  On 20 June 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected an application for supervisory review lodged by the applicant’s lawyer.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4418", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Krasnodar.\n6.  In 1986 the applicant took part in the cleaning-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. He was subsequently granted Category 2 disability status and became entitled to various social benefits, including a 50% discount on housing charges.\n7.  In March 2004 the municipal housing maintenance authority lodged a claim against the applicant, seeking to recover unpaid housing charges.\n8.  On 31 March 2004 the applicant counterclaimed, seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He insisted that he had paid the housing charges on time and in full. The amount of the charges paid had been calculated to include the 50% discount to which he and his family were entitled.\n9.  On 26 July 2004 the Justice of the Peace of the 47th Court Circuit of the Prikubanskiy District of Krasnodar partly found against the applicant and ordered him to pay outstanding housing charges. It rejected the applicant’s counterclaim, finding that by law only he, but not his family members, was entitled to the discount.\n10.  The applicant appealed against the judgment. He challenged the first-instance court’s assessment of the facts and application of the legal provisions.\n11.  On 1 October 2004 the applicant’s representative requested the Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar to bring the Social Protection Department into the proceedings as a third party. The court granted this request and suspended the proceedings.\n12.  The appeal hearings were subsequently scheduled for 24 December 2004 and 21 January 2005 but did not take place due to the presiding judge’s illness.\n13.  On 2 February 2005 the Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar upheld the judgment. The applicant received the summons on 3 February 2005 and therefore neither he nor his representative could attend the hearing. The judgment (определение) contained a notice to the effect that no appeal lay against it.\n14.  On 9 February 2005 the applicant requested the court to resume the appeal proceedings since he had been summoned to the appeal hearing on 2 February 2005 belatedly.\n15.  On 6 April 2005 the Prikubanskiy District Court of Krasnodar heard the parties and rejected the applicant’s request. The court established that the summons had been sent to the applicant on 1 February 2005, and there had been no evidence showing that the summons had reached him before the hearing on 2 February. Nevertheless, according to civil procedural law, improper summoning is not a ground for a review of the case.\n16.  On 5 July 2005 the Krasnodarsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request for supervisory review proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4419", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Piastów, Poland.\n6.  On 28 April 2002 the applicant and a friend were travelling by train from work to his home in Piastów. Supporters of the Legia football team, who were celebrating their victory in the Polish league, were travelling on the same train. Among the football fans there were some hooligans, who started smashing windows and vandalising the carriages. The train attendants called the police.\n7.  Around midnight the train stopped at Warsaw-Włochy station and the police entered the carriage. The applicant was hit in the face with a truncheon by police officer K. and dragged out of the train onto the platform. He was bleeding heavily but was ordered to lie on the ground. The police officer insulted him. Subsequently, the police officers called an ambulance and the applicant was taken to Wolski Hospital in Warsaw.\nOne of the supporters, an acquaintance of the applicant, who had protested against the use of force against the applicant, was immobilised by the police officers on the platform and handcuffed.\n8.  The certificate from the ambulance team stated that the applicant received assistance on 29 April 2002 at 00.40 a.m. at Warsaw-Włochy station. It contained the following description of the applicant’s injuries: wound to the right side of jaw 2 cm long, teeth knocked out (no. 5 upper and nos. 5,6,7,8 lower).\n9.  On 29 April 2002 the medical certificate from Wolski Hospital stated as follows:\n“Condition after being beaten, wound to the jaw. Head injury. Condition after being beaten yesterday. He states that he was hit several times with a rubber truncheon on the head. He did not lose consciousness. Yesterday vertigo and nausea. Today no complaints. X-ray of the head and face with no changes. Difficulties in opening mouth, individual teeth knocked out. A consultation with a face surgeon is recommended. Further care in the district [hospital]. The wound stitched, examination by a surgeon in two days. Under observation for eight hours.”\n10.  A certificate by a dentist, Dr. E. K., dated 29 April 2002, stated:\n“The patient came in the day after he had been beaten. Left cheek swollen. Fractured teeth nos. 4, 6 and 5. Tooth pulp exposed. Teeth loose, second degree.”\n11.  A certificate by a doctor, E. T., a court expert, dated 2 May 2005, provides as follows:\n“[The applicant] was examined on 30 April 2002 and 2 May 2002.\nEstablished:\n1) Swollen and painful left cheek.\n2) Wound to the chin on the right side, about 2 cm long, stitched.\n3) Tooth cavities as described in the dentist’s certificate of 29 April 2002.\n[Medical certificates of 29 April 2002 listed and quoted.]\nOn the basis of the examination and the above-mentioned medical certificates it is established that the [period of] incapacity exceeds seven days.”\n12.  On 7 May 2002 the applicant requested the Warsaw District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) to initiate criminal proceedings against the police and in particular police officer K. The applicant asserted that on 28 April 2002 he had been beaten by the police and had sustained serious injuries.\n13.  On 10 March 2003 a doctor, L. S., submitted a forensic report in which he answered questions put by the prosecutor. The report states as follows: 1. What injuries did the applicant sustain on 28 April 2002?\nI establish on the basis of the medical certificates previously referred to that on 28 April 2002 the applicant sustained fractures of teeth 4 and 6 on the upper left side and to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4420", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  After divorcing his wife in 1986, the applicant moved in with his sister and after a while he began looking for other accommodation.\n8.  In spring 1990, A.Z., an eighty-six-year-old widower at the time and the father of the applicant’s friend, invited the applicant to live with him. He thus moved into the one-room apartment A.Z. was renting from the Ljubljana-Šiška Municipality.\n9.  On 29 May 1992 the applicant registered his permanent residence at A.Z.’s address. A.Z. declared on the back of the registration form that the applicant lived with him in order to provide him with daily care.\n10.  On 9 June 1992 a new contract of lease was made in A.Z.’s name. The applicant’s name was included in the contract as one of the persons allowed to use the apartment.\n11.  On 9 April 1993 A.Z. died.\n12.  Further to the applicant’s inquiries, on 17 February 1995 the Ljubljana-Šiška Municipality informed him that the 1991 Housing Act (Stanovanjski zakon) was not applicable to the relationship established between the applicant and A.Z., since he was not a member of A.Z.’s close family. Therefore, he was not entitled to take over the tenancy and was requested to vacate the apartment within three months.\n13.  On 24 February 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Ljubljana Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani), seeking the right to succeed to the tenancy following A.Z.’s death. The claim was directed against the Ljubljana Municipality, which had taken over the ownership of the apartment at issue from the Ljubljana-Šiška Municipality following a reform of the city administration.\n14.  On 4 April 1996 the Ljubljana Local Court requested the applicant to complete his action, which he did on 16 April 1996.\n15.  On 22 October 1999 the Ljubljana Municipality lodged a counterclaim, seeking the applicant’s eviction. On 7 November 1999 the applicant lodged a response.\n16.  During this period, the applicant continued to live in the apartment, paid rent and in 1998 and 1999 refurbished the apartment.\n17.  At the hearing held on 9 November 1999, the Ljubljana Local Court allowed the counterclaim lodged by the Ljubljana Municipality.\n18.  Another hearing was held on 11 January 2000, at which the Ljubljana Local Court enlarged the claim to include all other successors of the previous municipalities that had formed the city of Ljubljana, without specifying them. In his submissions of 18 January 2000, the applicant enumerated eleven communities and municipalities which had replaced the former Ljubljana municipalities.\n19.  After a hearing held on 4 July 2000, the Ljubljana Local Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court held that under Section 56 of the 1991 Housing Act (“Section 56”) the applicant was not entitled to continue the contract of lease with the Ljubljana Municipality since he was neither the deceased’s “spouse”, nor a person forming a “long-lasting life community” with him, nor a close relative.\n20.  Since the notion of a “person having lived with the tenant in a long-lasting life community” was not defined in Section 56, in the court’s view it had to be understood as an alternative to the notion “spouse” and interpreted in accordance with Section 12 of the Marriage and Family Relations Act defining an “extramarital relationship” (zunajzakonska skupnost). The latter provision limiting the no", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4421", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Košice.\n5.  On 30 March 1999 the applicant filed a civil action with the Košice II District Court. She claimed that the defendant should be ordered, in accordance with his earlier written undertaking, to sell a flat to her.\n6.  The applicant replied to the defendant on 23 July 1999 and 8 February 2000.\n7.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant discovered that the defendant had transferred the ownership of the flat in issue to a different person in 1999. The transfer of ownership had been formally registered on 3 March 1999. On 24 February 2000 the applicant therefore requested that the new owner of the flat should join the proceedings as a defendant. She also expressed her wish to extend the action, claiming that the purchase contract of 1999 was void.\n8.  Three hearings were adjourned because of the defendant’s absence.\n9.  On 13 March 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request of 24 February 2000. The decision stated that the purchase contract had been concluded prior to the introduction of the applicant’s action of 30 March 1999, and that nothing had prevented the applicant from bringing separate proceedings on the question of its validity. The hearing was held in the defendant’s absence. The defendant submitted a medical opinion certifying that he had serious health problems and could not leave his flat.\n10.  Three hearings were again adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to appear. Because of the defendant’s medical condition, a District Court official heard the defendant at his home on 15 August 2002.\n11.  The judge dealing with the case was on sick leave between 4 September and 31 October 2002.\n12.  On 17 December 2002 the case was adjourned at the request of the applicant’s lawyer.\n13.  On 4 February 2003 the District Court delivered a judgment by which it dismissed the applicant’s action. The court noted that the defendant had transferred the ownership of the flat in question to a third party on 9 March 1999, that is prior to the introduction of the proceedings by the applicant. As he was not the owner of the flat, he could not be obliged to conclude a purchase contract as requested by the applicant. On 21 February 2003 the judgment was served on the applicant’s lawyer.\n14.  The applicant appealed. She subsequently withdrew the appeal and, as a result, the Košice Regional Court discontinued the proceedings on 12 September 2003.\n15.  On 19 March 2003 the Constitutional Court concluded that the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time had not been violated in the proceedings before the Košice II District Court. It held that the case was not complex and that the applicant’s conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. It further held that the proceedings had been substantially protracted as a result of the defendant’s repeated failure to appear before the District Court. It established that the District Court had, in principle, taken appropriate action to ensure the defendant’s attendance. The Constitutional Court found a period of inactivity of approximately six months in 2001 imputable to the District Court. That period was not, however, capable of significantly interfering with the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4422", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the village of Inchkha in the Dagestan Republic of the Russian Federation.\n7.  On 16 April 1996 the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic, sitting as a court of last instance, found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and the unlawful possession of weapons and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment in a correctional colony.\n8.  In separate proceedings on 16 May 1996 the Kizlyar Town Court of the Dagestan Republic found the applicant guilty of a grave traffic offence which led to the victim’s death under Article 211 § 2 of the RSFSR Criminal Code and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court.\n9.  The applicant began serving his sentence in 1996 in colony no. IU-4 in the Tyumen Region.\n10.  In 2000 a special police unit came to the colony in order to search the cells.\n11.  The applicant alleges that he was beaten up during the search and that his gall-bladder was damaged as a consequence. He also alleged that he contracted diabetes as a result of the injury.\n12.  In September 2000 the applicant sued the colony administration for damages.\n13.  On 21 September 2000 the Kalininskiy District Court of Tyumen returned the applicant’s claim without examining it on the grounds that he had failed to comply with the procedural requirements prescribed by law, namely to pay a court fee, submit additional copies of his statement of claim and indicate possible evidence. Apparently the applicant did not rectify the mentioned shortcomings.\n14.  On 1 August 2002 a special police unit (ОСН УИН МЮ РФ в Тюменской области) arrived at the colony. According to the applicant, the unit stayed at the colony until 7 August 2002, and during that period he was severely beaten on several occasions. No medical assistance was provided after the beatings and the colony’s doctors refused to record ill-treatment in his medical records.\n15.  The applicant alleged that his ribs were broken and his left kidney damaged. He was X-rayed but was never given a copy of the results.\n16.  According to the Government, at about 10.20 a.m. on 1 August 2002 warders searched the applicant’s cell. A warder told the applicant to undress in readiness for a body search. When the applicant refused he was warned that his further refusal would result in the use of force in accordance with sections 28-30 of the Penitentiary Institutions Act. The warder gave the applicant a minute “to reconsider”.\n17.  As the applicant refused to implement the order and became aggressive, the warders gripped his hands and forced him to undergo the body search.\n18.  On 1 August 2002, immediately after the events complained of, the applicant was examined by a colony doctor who made the following entry on the applicant’s medical card:\n “State of health after the use of force: no injuries.”\n19.  On 9 August 2002 the applicant complained to the colony doctor of chest pain. He was examined and diagnosed with neurocirculatory dystonia. On 29 August 2002, following further complaints, he was re-examined.\n 20.  On 2 September 2002 the applicant was admitted to the colony hospital. He claims that doctors diagnosed him with nephroptosis (a kidney disease) which resulted from the beatings. However, according to the documents submitted, he was diagnosed with diabetes.\n21.  On 4 September 2002 a surgeon at the colony hospital examined the applicant and diagnosed him with “an injury to the left side of the c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4423", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant was born in 1942, the second applicant was born in 1944 and the third applicant was born in 2002. They live in the village of Chechen-Aul, the Groznenskiy District, in the Chechen Republic.\n8.  The first and second applicants are spouses and the parents of Mr Kazbek Taysumov, born in 1972. Kazbek Taysumov was married to Ms Zulpat Eskirkhanova, born in 1978; the couple had two daughters – Ms Ayshat Eskirkhanova, born in 1999, and the third applicant. They all lived in a private house at Molodezhnaya Street, Chechen-Aul.\n9.  At about 10.10 p.m. on 7 September 2002 Kazbek Taysumov, Zulpat Eskirkhanova and their elder daughter Ayshat were having dinner in the courtyard of the Taysumovs’ house. Their neighbour, Mr D., who had come to visit Kazbek Taysumov, was also in the courtyard and was about to leave. The first applicant was with the then six-month-old third applicant inside the house. The second applicant was not at home.\n10.  At about 10.20 p.m. artillery fire commenced from three directions – from the federal military base of Khankala, from the village of Starye Atagi, in which a detachment of the Shali regiment was stationed, and from zone no. 56.\n11.  The first applicant heard a shell fall and burst near the house. The electricity was cut off. The first applicant took hold of the third applicant, rushed outside and hid in a ditch in the courtyard. Immediately thereafter he saw another shell hit the house and one of the walls collapsed. Part of the house, including the room which the first and third applicants had left a moment before, was ruined.\n12.  In total 15 to 18 shells were fired; three of them hit the applicants’ house. The attack lasted some 20 minutes. When the gunfire ceased, the first applicant started moving slowly across the wreckage-strewn courtyard and stumbled on his daughter-in-law’s dead body. She had been hit in the head. The first applicant saw his son nearby. The latter was seriously wounded and died half an hour later. The first applicant did not manage to find his elder granddaughter and shouted to his neighbours for help.\n13.  When the neighbours arrived, they and the first applicant started searching for other victims. They carefully examined the courtyard using torches. Ayshat Eskirkhanova was found under the ruins not far away from her parents. The three-year-old girl was lethally wounded with several pieces of shrapnel in the abdomen. She died on her way to hospital. Mr D. was found seriously wounded and admitted to hospital. Eventually he survived, but lost his eyesight.\n14.  As a result of the attack of 7 September 2002 the applicants’ house and a KavZ 685 minibus belonging to the first applicant were severely damaged. The applicants submitted a valuation report which had been drawn up by the head of the administration of Chechen-Aul and reflected the poor state of the applicants’ property. The applicants further presented a hand-drawn plan of their house indicating the three directions from which the village had been shelled, and photographs of the destroyed house, the minibus and several shell craters around their house. The first applicant examined the shell craters and found several shell fuses. He wrote down the serial numbers of the fuse housings and delivered them to the prosecutor’s office. One of the numbers was RGM-216-82.\n15.  On 8 September 2002 investigators from the prosecutor’s office of the Groznenskiy District (“the district prosecutor’s office”) arrived at Molo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4424", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1969 and 1940 respectively. They live in the village of Alleroy, the Kurchaloyevskiy District, in the Chechen Republic. The first applicant is the wife of Mr Aslanbek Ilyasovich Khamidov, born in 1965. The second applicant is his mother.\n7.  At about 10 a.m. on 25 October 2000 a group of armed men arrived at the applicants’ house at 11 Tolstoy Street, the village of Alleroy, arrested Aslanbek Khamidov and took him away.\n8.  According to the applicants, Aslanbek Khamidov was arrested in the course of a special “sweeping” operation (зачистка) carried out by the Russian armed forces in the village of Alleroy on 25 October 2000. The servicemen arrested ten other men residing in Alleroy and brought them, together with Aslanbek Khamidov, to a locally based military unit, presumably on the pretence of checking their identities. Later, the ten detainees were released. Aslanbek Khamidov was never seen again.\n9.  On 15 January 2001 the local administration of the village of Alleroy issued a certificate confirming that on 25 October 2000 Aslanbek Khamidov had been arrested in the course of the “special sweeping operation”.\n10.  On 25 October 2000 an identity and registration regime check was carried out in the village of Alleroy.\n11.  At about 10 a.m. on 25 October 2000 at least ten unidentified armed men wearing camouflage uniforms took Aslanbek Khamidov away from the house at 11 Tolstoy Street in the village of Alleroy.\n12.  On 1 March 2001 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the application lodged by the NGO Memorial concerning Aslanbek Khamidov’s disappearance to the Argun interdistrict prosecutor’s office (“the interdistrict prosecutor’s office”) and ordered that an inquiry be carried out and a criminal case be opened if necessary. They commented that Aslanbek Khamidov had been “arrested by unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms in the course of a registration regime check [in the village of Alleroy]”.\n13.  On 18 April 2001 the interdistrict prosecutor’s office instituted an investigation into Aslanbek Khamidov’s kidnapping under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (“aggravated kidnapping”). The case was assigned the number 39024.\n14.  On 18 June 2001 the interdistrict prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 39024 for failure to identify those responsible.\n15.  On 23 June 2001 the department of the interior of the Kurchaloyevskiy District (“ROVD”) opened search case no. 30/15 in relation to Aslanbek Khamidov’s kidnapping.\n16.  On 24 December 2001 the interdistrict prosecutor’s office notified the first applicant of the suspension of the investigation. They observed, inter alia, the following:\n“The investigation has established that at 10 a.m. on 25 October 2000 ... unidentified servicemen of the military arrested A. Khamidov and took him away in an unknown direction. A. Khamidov’s whereabouts have not been established to date.”\n17.  On 14 February 2002 the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic informed the Shali Town Court of the Chechen Republic (“the town court”) of the following:\n“At about 10 a.m. on 25 October 2000, in the course of a special operation, unidentified servicemen of the federal armed forces arrested Aslanbek Khamidov at 11 Tolstoy Street, the village of Alleroy, the Kurchaloyevskiy District of the Chechen Republic, and drove him away in an unknown direction.”\nThe prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic further mentioned that t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4425", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1956.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  Following his conviction by a court of law, between 20 June 1999 and 28 August 2002, the applicant served his first term in the Niš Penitentiary (Kazneno-popravni zavod u Nišu; hereinafter “the prison”).\n9.  During this time the prison dentist diagnosed that he had been suffering from paradontosis (i.e. “shaky teeth and their spontaneous falling out”). On two separate occasions extractions were carried out and on a third occasion the applicant complained about facial paresis, which was determined to be unrelated to his dental problems.\n10.  After his release, on 17 March 2003 the applicant was apparently placed in detention on remand, as part of a separate criminal case.\n11.  Following yet another conviction, on 5 January 2004 the applicant started serving his second prison term in the Niš Penitentiary.\n12.  On the same date his medical file was opened. Several medical problems, involving his knees and facial paresis were apparently identified, but no dental examination appears to have been carried out.\n13.  On 13 February 2004 the applicant was first examined by the prison dentist, who confirmed his complete toothlessness (terminalna krezubost).\n14.  On 5 March 2004 the dentist proposed that the applicant be provided with dentures.\n15.  On 4 May 2004 the applicant sent a letter to the Ministry of Health (Ministarstvo zdravlja), requesting dentures.\n16.  On 25 June 2004 the said Ministry’s inspectorate (Sektor za zdravstveni nadzor) informed the applicant that convicted persons had to exercise their rights through the Ministry of Justice (Ministarstvo pravde) rather than the Ministry of Health.\n17.  By letter of 21 July 2004 the Health Inspection (Zdravstvena inspekcija Ministarstva zdravlja - odsek Niš) observed that, in accordance with Article 4 of the Decision on the Participation of Insured Persons in the Costs of Health Care (Odluka o učešću osiguranih lica u troškovima zdravstvene zaštite; see paragraphs 46 and 47 below), blood donors, such as the applicant, were not exempted from the obligation to cover 60% of the cost of obtaining dentures (pokretne stomatološke nadoknade od akrilata.)\n18.  On 21 October 2004 the applicant was admitted to the prison hospital, where his loss of appetite was noted, while on 2 December 2004 he complained of anxiety.\n19.  On 23 December 2004 the applicant fainted during a head count and sustained an injury above his left eye.\n20.  On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant was informed by the prison authorities that he had to pay 10,000 dinars (at that time approximately 110 euros) towards meeting the total cost of his dentures. The applicant instead proposed that he be allowed to pay this amount in instalments corresponding to his monthly prison salary.\n21.  On 1 February 2005 the applicant again fainted and sustained an injury to his left cheekbone, requiring maxillofacial surgery, which was performed on 4 February 2005.\n22.  The applicant alleges that throughout this time he had continued having problems with his eating. In particular, he could eat no solid foods, including meat or even fruit. The prison authorities, however, attempted to alleviate the applicant’s plight by providing him with additional soft bread at each meal.\n23.  On 7 June 2006 the applicant repeated his request concerning the payment of his dentures through monthly instalments.\n24.  On 30 January 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4426", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n6.  On 9 November 2004 the Opole Regional Court convicted the applicant of manslaughter and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The prosecution appealed.\n7.  On 8 December 2004 J.G., the lawyer assigned to represent the applicant under the legal‑aid scheme, also submitted an appeal against the first-instance judgment, arguing that the sentence was too severe. In the same pleadings J.G. also requested the court to dispense him from his obligation to represent the applicant and to appoint another lawyer to the case.\n8.  In a letter of the same date he informed the applicant that, in his view, the appeal offered no reasonable prospects of success. He also stated that under no circumstances would he represent him for the purposes of cassation proceedings.\n9.  On 16 December 2004 the Wroclaw Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. In the proceedings before the appellate court the applicant was represented by another legal‑aid lawyer, D.K.\n10.  On 4 March 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s request for the grant of legal aid and assigned J.G. to represent him for the purposes of cassation proceedings.\n11.  On 15 March 2005 the second-instance judgment with the written statement of reasons was served on both the applicant and his lawyer.\n12.  By a letter of 16 March 2005 the lawyer requested the court to be exempted from the obligation to represent the applicant. He submitted that he had already informed the applicant that he would prepare an appeal against the first‑instance judgment on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the sentence was disproportionate. He had also informed him that, in his view, this appeal offered no reasonable prospects of success. In the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal his opinion proved justified. He also stated that he had warned the applicant that under no circumstances would he represent him for the purposes of cassation proceedings. In his view, there were no grounds on which to accept that any grounds for a cassation appeal obtained in the case. This was so because in the appeal against the first-instance judgment he had relied only on the disproportionate nature of the sentence, which could not be argued before the Supreme Court.\n13.  The Wrocław Court of Appeal informed the applicant of this refusal by a letter dated 22 March 2005. It was further stated that in these circumstances the only course of action left to the applicant was to request the Ombudsman to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf. This letter was served on the applicant on 29 March 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4427", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1964. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n7.  On 22 March 2000 the applicant was arrested. On 24 March 2000 he was remanded in custody by the Gliwice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) on suspicion that he had killed his mother. His pre‑trial detention was subsequently extended by the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 19 June 2000, by the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 6 September 2000, by decisions of the Gliwice Regional Court of 5 March and 13 July 2001, and by decisions of the Katowice Court of Appeal of 13 March, 29 May, 10 July and 28 August 2002.\n8.  The domestic courts justified the applicant’s pre‑trial detention in its initial phase by the existence of strong evidence against him and the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed, as well as by the need to secure the proper course of the proceedings. During that time, an autopsy, a number of unspecified biological tests and an inspection of the crime scene were carried out. At the later stage of the applicant’s detention, the authorities referred to the severity of the sentence likely to be imposed on him. In addition, they emphasised that the investigation could not be completed for reasons beyond the prosecutor’s control, namely delays in obtaining expert reports and in viewing the applicant’s testimony recorded on video tape.\n9.  From 17 December 2001 until 2 January 2002 the applicant was concurrently serving a sentence of sixteen days’ imprisonment, imposed on an unspecified date by the Zabrze District Court in another criminal case.\n10.  The applicant’s minor sons and his wife were witnesses in the investigation. In May 2002 the prosecutor decided that a psychologist should be present when the younger son was to be interviewed by the prosecution. Apparently the older son was also interviewed by the prosecutor on an unspecified date. The applicant submitted that his wife and two sons were not allowed, for an unspecified period, to communicate with him in writing or to visit him in prison. The prosecution relied on Article 217 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (see paragraph 30 below).\n11.  The applicant was indicted on 20 November 2000. In the proceedings before the first- and second-instance courts he was represented by a legal-aid lawyer.\n12.  On 14 August 2002 the Gliwice Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment.\n13.  On 19 December 2002 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. A copy of the judgment was served on the applicant on 17 January 2003.\n14.  On 21 February 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal appointed a legal‑aid lawyer for the purposes of the cassation proceedings.\n15.  A copy of the judgment of 19 December 2002 was served on the legal-aid lawyer on 3 March 2003.\n16.  By a letter of 20 March 2003 the lawyer informed the Katowice Court of Appeal that, in her opinion, a cassation appeal in the applicant’s case lacked prospects of success and that she therefore refused to prepare and lodge one with the Supreme Court. By a letter of 27 March 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal informed the applicant of the lawyer’s refusal and, further, that no other legal-aid lawyer would be appointed for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal in his case.\n17.  The court’s letter was served on the applicant by the prison administration on 1 April 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4428", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  The applicant, a historian, specialises in the functioning of the secret services of dictatorships, comparative studies of the political police forces of totalitarian regimes and the functioning of Soviet-type States. He has published several works in this field.\n7.  With a view to publishing a study concerning the functioning, in the 1960s, of the Hungarian State Security Service of the Ministry of the Interior, on 21 September 1998 the applicant requested the Ministry to grant him access to certain documents deposited with it.\n8.  His request was denied on 10 November 1998; the Ministry made reference to a decision of 29 October 1998 classifying the documents as State secrets until 2048.\n9.  On 10 December 1998 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry, basing his claim on section 21 of Act no. 63 of 1992 on the Protection of Personal Data and the Public Nature of Data of Public Interest. Claiming a right of unrestricted access to the documents, he submitted that the data he sought were necessary for the purposes of his ongoing historical research.\n10.  On 19 January 1999 the Budapest Regional Court found for the applicant, granting him access to the documents for research purposes. It observed that the documents in question had indeed been classified during the Communist era. However, according to section 28(2) of Act no. 65 of 1995 on State and Service Secrets, they would have had to have been characterised as such again before 30 June 1996. Since this characterisation had not taken place, the documents had lost their classified nature ipso iure by 1 July 1996, irrespective of the decision of 29 October 1998.\n11.  On 20 April 1999 the Supreme Court rejected the respondent’s appeal as it had been introduced outside the statutory time-limit.\n12.  On 1 November 1999 the Ministry proposed access to the applicant if he signed a confidentiality undertaking.\n13.  On 10 October 2000 the applicant requested the enforcement of the judgment, arguing that the respondent’s imposition of a condition of confidentiality was unacceptable. On 21 December 2000 the enforcement procedure was initiated and an enforcement order issued. In its reasoning, the Budapest Regional Court observed that the respondent did not have the right to require confidentiality from the applicant as a precondition to the access granted by the enforceable judgment.\n14.  On 21 November 2001 the Supreme Court upheld on appeal the decision of 21 December 2000 but deleted from the reasoning the confidentiality observation.\n15.  Meanwhile, on 12 June 2001 the Ministry brought an action with a view to having the enforcement proceedings terminated. On 25 February 2002 the Pest Central District Court dismissed the action, holding that the respondent’s proposal of 1 November 1999 was unsatisfactory and that, therefore, the initiation of enforcement proceedings had been lawful. On 15 October 2002 the Regional Court dismissed the Ministry’s appeal.\n16.  On 29 October 2002 the Ministry issued the applicant with a permit for access to documents, but restricted him from publishing the information thus acquired to the extent that “State secrets” were concerned.\n17.  In the absence of a permit granting unrestricted access to all the documents concerned, the court found that there had not been compliance with the enforcement order, and on 23 June 2003 the Ministry was fined 100,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4429", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Śrem.\n6. In 1995 the applicant’s husband died on a pedestrian crossing after being hit by a car. The car was being driven by a certain B.M.\n7.  On 20 July 1998 the applicant filed a claim against B.M. and the “Warta” Insurance Company with the Poznań Regional Court, seeking compensation in the amount of 50,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). At the same time the applicant requested the court to give her a full exemption from the costs of the proceedings. She submitted that she received only a small pension and that her health had significantly deteriorated.\n8.  On 21 June 1998 the Regional Court partly granted the applicant’s request. It exempted her from the court fee for processing her claim (wpis od pozwu).\n9.  On 25 November 1999 the Śrem District Court in the course of criminal proceedings convicted B.M. of having caused a traffic accident which resulted in a fatality and sentenced him, inter alia, to a suspended prison term.\n10.  In January 2001 the applicant filed her amended claim with the Regional Court. She sought an award of PLN 130,000 in compensation and PLN 500 as a supplementary monthly allowance.\n11.  On 28 December 2001 the Poznań Regional Court awarded the applicant PLN 20,000 to be paid jointly and severally by the defendants and dismissed her further claims. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the defendants in the amount of PLN 3,726.10.\n12.  On 18 January 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal against the first‑instance judgment. On the same day the Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay PLN 7,100 in court fees for proceeding with her appeal.\n13.  On 29 January 2002 the applicant asked the Regional Court for an exemption from the relevant fees. She submitted that her income consisted only of a monthly pension in the amount of PLN 800 and that she did not have any property or valuable movables. She also claimed that her health had significantly deteriorated since her husband’s death.\n14.  On 5 February 2002 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed her request. It considered, in so far as relevant:\n“(...) It should be underlined that the obligation to demonstrate the preconditions for an exemption from the costs rests with the claimant.\nExamining the claimant’s request, the court considers that it cannot be granted. The claimant did not demonstrate that she was unable to bear the [relevant] costs without entailing a substantial reduction in her and her family’s standard of living.\nA person requesting exemption from costs should submit a declaration of means that she is unable to pay the costs, including detailed information about her family status, her assets and her income, which have to be supported by relevant documents.\nIn a case where a person seeking exemption from costs has a representative who is an advocate, that representative has an obligation to inform his client about the requirements attached to a declaration of means and the necessary information which must be included therein. In that case, the court is not required to summon the representative of a party seeking exemption from costs to submit an additional declaration.\nFor these reasons, considering that the claimant’s request did not contain the required declaration of means, which implies that there is no information enabling [the court] to examine the merits of the request, the court, pursuant to Article 113 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held as in the operative part of the decision.”\n15.  The appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4430", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are Romanian nationals of Roma origin who, during the events which gave rise to the present case, lived in the village of Bolintin Deal, Giurgiu County.\n9.  Following the killing, on the night of 6/7 April 1991, of a non-Roma from Bolintin-Deal by a Roma villager, a crowd of more than two thousand non‑Roma inhabitants from the same village and from the neighbouring village, together with the priest and the mayor, burned and otherwise destroyed the applicants’ houses and their contents.\nAs a consequence, the entire Roma community fled their houses and were left homeless for a month.\n10.  When, on 7 May 1991 the evacuated Roma villagers tried to negotiate their return, the non‑Roma community gathered together again and burned four more houses belonging to Roma. The applicants, who were helped by the police to flee the village in a windowless military van, lost all their belongings while being evacuated. The attacks against the applicants continued on the following days and the Roma inhabitants were denied access to the village, the orthodox church and the cemetery.\n11.  It appears that the applicants have not returned to Bolintin Deal. They have had to change their addresses several times and now have no legal documents attesting their actual residence. Some of them have been contacted by the mayor of Bolintin Deal with offers to purchase their land and, in desperate need of money, have accepted the offers.\n12.  In April 1991 the applicants filed a criminal complaint with the Giurgiu County Prosecutor’s Office. An investigation was started and the applicants joined the proceedings as civil parties, seeking compensation for their destroyed houses and belongings.\n13.  On 17 October 1996 the criminal trial commenced, in conjunction with a civil action for damages. The Bucharest District Court gave its judgment on 18 May 1998. It convicted thirteen individuals of unlawful entry into a person’s home and destruction of property and gave them each a three to six months’ suspended prison sentence.\nThe District Court awarded the applicants compensation for their houses; it based its ruling on an expert report of 1994 and rejected the applicants’ request to take the inflation rate into account. It then halved the amount of the compensation, on the ground of the mitigating circumstances of provocation. The District Court did not afford any redress for the movable property, as it considered that its existence, and subsequent destruction during the incidents, had not been proven.\n14.  The appeals lodged by the applicants were rejected and the judgment upheld, first by the Bucharest County Court on 4 January 1999 and then by the Bucharest Court of Appeal in a final decision of 27 May 1999.\n15.  The applicants were referred to as “gypsies” (in Romanian “ţigani”) on several occasions in the court decisions above.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4431", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  The applicant’s brother Halim Bayram, who was a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, was called up for military service in 1998. He was 20 years old at the time.\n7.  On 23 May 1998 Halim Bayram started his initial two months’ training in Izmir. On 10 August 1998 he was granted leave for fifteen days. On his return, he was informed that he had been appointed to Çanakkale. On 28 August 1998 Halim Bayram went to Çanakkale to join his unit. His superior was Mr Hüseyin Arabacı.\n8.  A few days later the applicant received a telephone call from his brother, who stated that he was being bullied by his superior. He told the applicant that he had been threatened with death by Hüseyin Arabacı.\n9.  On 7 September 1998 the applicant’s brother was posted to sentry duty. At about 12.30 p.m. he was seriously wounded by one bullet and he was immediately taken to the Çanakkale Military Hospital, where he was operated upon. At 5 p.m. the same day, Hüseyin Arabacı called the applicant and informed him that there had been an accident and his brother had shot himself. The applicant went to Çanakkale immediately. Hüseyin Arabacı and another soldier took the applicant to hospital. His brother was in the intensive care unit, unconscious. When the applicant asked Hüseyin Arabacı how the incident had happened, he told the applicant that he had been 20-30 metres away from Halim Bayram when he saw him point the gun towards himself and fire. He explained that Halim Bayram had been taken immediately to the hospital where he had been operated upon.\n10.  On 8 September 1998, the applicant was able to speak to his brother briefly at the hospital. Halim Bayram allegedly told the applicant:\n“I saw Hüseyin Arabacı approaching and I remembered his death threats. I thought he was going to shoot me. I do not remember what happened but I am sure that I did not shoot myself.”\n11.  The applicant’s brother told him that he wanted to be transferred to Istanbul. He also said that he had written a letter and given it to his friend Mr Kazım Ağın, also a conscript.\n12.  In the meantime, statements were taken from witnesses to the event, namely from Mr Barış Tulpar, Mr Celal Elbir and Mr Kazım Ağın.\n13.  In his statement Mr Tulpar said that after lunch, as he was walking around, he heard a single gun shot. When he went to see what had happened, he saw Halim Bayram lying on the ground, heavily injured. He was mumbling, saying “you have burnt me Emrah, I am burning, I am in pain”. Mr Tulpar said Halim Bayram’s rifle was between his knees.\n14.  Mr Celal Elbir said that when he heard the shot, he immediately went to the scene of incident. Halim Bayram was lying on the ground. He was alive but heavily bleeding. His rifle was between his legs.\n15.  In his statement, Mr Ağın maintained that Halim Bayram had told him that he would commit suicide as the girl whom he was in love with was getting married to someone else. He also said that Halim Bayram had given him a letter to be sent to his parents, should anything happen to him.\n16.  The same day, the applicant also spoke to Mr Kazım Ağın, who allegedly told him that Halim Bayram had been pressurised by his superior Hüseyin Arabacı. He told the applicant that the soldiers had been forced not to speak to Halim Bayram and added that Halim Bayram had no bed and was sleeping on the floor. Mr Ağın confirmed that Halim had given him a letter; however he explained that somebody had taken it f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4432", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Gelendzhik, in the Krasnodar Region.\n5.  The applicant's husband was a staff member of the Oceanology Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a State-owned institution. In 1977 he was placed on a waiting list to receive housing. In August 1998 he was on the top of the list. In order to obtain a larger flat from the Institute, it was agreed that the applicant would transfer title to her own flat to the Institute. On 4 December 1998 the applicant and the Institute signed an exchange agreement. The Institute subsequently discovered that the applicant had sold her old flat in March 1998.\n6.  On an unspecified date, having become aware of the above transactions, the Gelendzhik town prosecutor, acting on behalf of the Institute and the person who had been allocated the applicant's flat (a Mr M), brought proceedings against the applicant and her husband to have the exchange agreement invalidated and to evict the applicant's family from the flat granted to her husband. The applicant's husband brought a counter-claim seeking the acknowledgement of his right to the new flat received from the Institute.\n7.  On 9 March 2000 the Gelendzhik Town Court of the Krasnodar Region granted the public prosecutor's claim. On 25 April 2000 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment and ordered a re-examination of the case by the first-instance court.\n8.  The first instance heard the prosecutor, the applicant, her husband and their counsel. The Oceanology Institute's and Mr M's representatives were also present and made submissions to the court. On 1 June 2001 the Town Court granted the public prosecutor's claim. On 18 June 2001 the Town Court dismissed the counter-claim in a separate judgment. The applicant appealed. On 16 August 2001 the Regional Court upheld the judgments of 1 and 18 June 2001. The prosecutor was present at the appeal hearing. There is no written proof that the applicant received any summons for the appeal hearing scheduled for 16 August 2001.\n9.  On 30 January 2003 the Supreme Court refused to initiate supervisory proceedings in respect of the above judgments. It rejected, inter alia, the applicant's complaint about non-notification of the appeal hearing, noting that the parties had been apprised of it.\n10.  In the meantime, on 4 February 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of embezzlement in relation to the same facts. On 19 December 2000 the case was discontinued for lack of a corpus delicti. On 15 August 2006 the above decision was quashed and the preliminary investigation was resumed. Its outcome remains unclear.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4433", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine.\n5.  On 18 October 1995 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand. He was subsequently charged with illegal possession of arms.\n6.  On 21 October 1995 the applicant was charged with theft.\n7.  On 30 May 1997 the Leninskyy District Court separated the two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant and remitted the case of theft for further investigation.\n8.  On 2 June 1997 the court sentenced the applicant to three and a half years’ imprisonment for illegal possession of arms. On 6 August 1997 the Balakleyskyy District Court amnestied the applicant and he was subsequently released. According to the applicant, the release was subject to an undertaking not to abscond.\n9.  On 6 November 1997 the applicant was arrested again, apparently in the context of the criminal proceedings in the case of theft mentioned above, and charged with embezzlement; subsequently this charge was reclassified to theft and robbery. The gravity of the crimes with which he was charged and the danger of his absconding were mentioned in the investigator’s arrest order as reasons for the applicant’s detention on remand.\n10.  Alongside the applicant, other persons were charged within these proceedings (by the end of the trial there were fourteen persons), although on different dates and with different crimes.\n11.  On 25 December 1997 the Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Region extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 14 April 1998. In doing so he referred to the gravity of the crimes with which the accused were charged and the danger of their absconding.\n12.  Between 1998 and 2001 the applicant’s criminal case was transferred several times for examination to the Kharkiv Regional Court. However, the latter remitted it for additional investigation. The last time this happened was on 8 February 2001. In doing so the court, inter alia, ordered the applicant’s further detention on remand; it did not specify any reasons for this detention. On 15 May 2001 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed this decision and remitted the case back to the court.\n13.  On 6 September 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (formerly Kharkiv Regional Court) remitted the case to the Kharkivskyy District Court of the Kharkiv Region for examination because of the changes introduced in the Criminal Procedure Code on 12 July 2001, which provided that such cases had to be considered by the district courts.\n14.  The applicant and his lawyer asked the court to release the applicant on several occasions referring, inter alia, to the applicant’s state of health, but to no avail. In particular, on 27 March, 8 July and 18 August 2003 the Kharkivskyy District Court refused the applicant’s and his lawyer’s requests to replace the applicant’s detention on remand with an undertaking not to abscond. On the latter date the court rejected the applicant’s reference to his poor state of health, arguing that he was taking an active part in the criminal proceedings against him and, therefore, his argument of poor health was ill-founded. Apparently, the remainder of the applicant’s and his lawyer’s requests for release were either not taken into account by the court or the copies of relevant court decisions were not provided to the Court.\nThe applicant was finally released on 1 October 2003 for health reasons, on an undertaking not to abscond.\n15.  The other accused and their lawyers also made several requests to the court ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4434", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in the Moscow Region.\n6.  On 3 October 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking. On an unspecified date charges were brought against her and several other persons.\n7.  On 5 October 2006 the Podolsk Town Court of the Moscow Region remanded her in custody. It referred to the gravity of the charge and found that she might abscond, reoffend, threaten witnesses, destroy evidence or impede the investigation in some other way.\n8.  The applicant appealed. She submitted that she had no intention of absconding or interfering with the investigation and asked the court to release her on bail. She had a permanent place of residence and employment, positive references and a clean criminal record.\n9.  On 31 October 2006 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the detention order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified. There was a well-founded suspicion of the applicant’s involvement in drug trafficking.\n10.  On 30 November 2006 the Podolsk Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 3 February 2007, referring to the gravity of the charge, the risk of absconding, reoffending or interfering with the proceedings, and the need for a further investigation. In particular, it noted that it was necessary to listen to 126 recordings of the applicant’s phone conversations, to perform an expert analysis of those recordings, to carry out fingerprint, physico-chemical and psychiatric expert examinations, to make these expert opinions available to the defendants and counsel and to draft a bill of indictment.\n11.  The applicant appealed. She repeated her arguments advanced in the previous grounds of appeal and further claimed that the Town Court had not explained how she could interfere with the expert examinations or obstruct the listening to the recordings. She also submitted that her brother was terminally ill with cancer.\n12.  On 19 December 2006 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified.\n13.  On 1 February 2007 the Podolsk Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 3 April 2007, referring to the gravity of the charge, “her active role in the commission of the crime”, her being the leader of an organised criminal group, her refusal to cooperate with the investigator and to name her accomplices, the risk of absconding, reoffending or interfering with the proceedings, and the need for a further investigation. In particular, it noted that it was necessary to listen to 123 recordings of the applicant’s phone conversations, to perform an expert analysis of those recordings, to identify other members of the organised criminal group, to find and question witnesses who might have information about the group’s activities, to verify whether the applicant was involved in the commission of other crimes related to drug trafficking, to bring final charges against her and her seven accomplices and to perform other investigative measures.\n14.  On 13 February 2007 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the extension order on appeal.\n15.  On an unspecified date the investigator applied for a further extension of the applicant’s detention, submitting that the investigation had not been completed. It was necessary to listen to fifty-one recordings of the applicant’s phone conversations, to perform an expert analysis of those recordings and make the results available to the defendants and counsel, to find and question witnesse", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4435", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kyiv, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant had worked at a joint stock company, V., since 1968. On 4 November 1996 she was dismissed.\n6.  On 29 November 1996 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Starokyivsky District Court of Kyiv against V., seeking reinstatement and payment of salary arrears still owed to her following her allegedly unlawful dismissal.\n7.  On 28 January 1998 the court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated.\n8.  On 18 March 1998 the Kyiv City Court (since June 2001 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal), noting the lower court’s failure to examine the important pieces of evidence, quashed the judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n9.  Of the eleven hearings held between 29 November 1996 and 18 March 1998 two were adjourned due to the applicant’s or her lawyer’s failure to appear before the court; four hearings were adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to appear before the court. Furthermore, on 19 May 1997 the defendant requested the court to schedule the next hearing after 1 August 1997 since its representative was on holiday; that request was granted and the next hearing was scheduled for 22 October 1997.\n10.  In April 1998 the case was transferred to the Moskovsky District Court of Kyiv (since October 2001 the Golosiyisky District Court of Kyiv, “the District Court”).\n11.  Two hearings scheduled for 4 and 25 June 1998 were adjourned at the applicant’s requests as she was hiring a lawyer and the latter was subsequently engaged in other court proceedings.\n12.  On 12 January 1999 the applicant lodged an additional claim, seeking payment of salary arrears allegedly owed to her for 1992-96.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the court to order a forensic technical examination and to exempt her from payment of its costs. On 20 April 1999 the District Court allowed the applicant’s first-mentioned request, ordered the forensic technical examination and stayed the proceedings; apparently the court did not allow the applicant’s request to exempt her from payment of the costs of the forensic examination. Subsequently the applicant requested the court to stay the forensic examination as she had appealed against the decision of 20 April 1999. It is not clear when the applicant’s appeal was examined and what was the result thereof. The court resumed the proceedings on 10 August 1999.\n14.  At the end of September 1999 the applicant requested the District Court to order a new forensic examination and to order the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to bear the costs. Following the court’s refusal, the applicant requested the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to grant money for the forensic examination at issue and requested the District Court to stay the proceedings pending examination of her first-mentioned request by the Ministry. The proceedings resumed on 16 December 1999.\n15.  From 5 September 2000 to 8 January 2001 the proceedings were stayed at the applicant’s request as she had requested the local prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the head of the defendant company.\n16.  On 14 and 28 January 2002 the applicant lodged additional claims, seeking to have the amount of her salary established and to be compensated for her allegedly impaired honour and dignity.\n17.  On 11 March 2002 the Golosiyisky District Court of Kyiv found against the applicant. The latter appealed.\n18.  From 29 May to 17 July 2002 the proceedings were stayed as th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4436", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in St Petersburg.\n5.  On 2 August 1999 the applicant lodged an action against two private companies seeking compensation for damage caused to his car. On the same day the Sestroretskiy District Court of St. Petersburg adjourned the examination of the action until 9 February 2000 and ordered that the applicant should pay a court fee in instalments.\n6.  On 23 May 2000 the Sestroretskiy District Court once again adjourned the examination of the action, requesting the applicant to pay an additional court fee because he had amended his claims on 9 February 2000. The applicant paid the fee in full on 30 June 2000.\n7.  No hearings were fixed between September 2000 and 17 October 2000 because the case file had been sent to the St. Petersburg City Court and the composition of the District Court examining the applicant’s case had been changed.\n8.  The hearing fixed for 17 October 2002 was adjourned because the case file had been sent to the St. Petersburg City Prosecutor’s office. The following hearing was listed for 11 March 2003.\n9.  According to the Government, hearings fixed between 11 March 2003 and 1 November 2004 were postponed because the companies’ representatives defaulted or asked for adjournments, and because the presiding judge was ill or involved in other unrelated proceedings.\n10.  On 1 November 2004 the Sestroretskiy District Court dismissed the action. On the same day the applicant lodged a short version of the statement of appeal against the judgment of 1 November 2004.\n11.  On 15 November 2004 the applicant complained to the president of the Sestroretskiy District Court that he had not been served with the full text of the judgment of 1 November 2004 and that he had not been allowed to study the case file to prepare his appeal statement.\n12.  On 15 December 2004 the Sestroretskiy District Court adjourned the appeal proceedings because the applicant had not submitted the “reasoned” appeal statement and a certificate showing that he had paid the court fee.\n13.  The applicant complained about the decision of 15 December 2004 before the St. Petersburg City Court.\n14.  On 22 April 2005 the St. Petersburg City Court refused to examine the applicant’s appeal, noting that he had failed to comply with the District Court’s decision of 15 December 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4437", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Kirovograd, Ukraine.\n5.  On 16 November 2001, 6 March and 13 September 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Kirovograd awarded the applicant 4,912.67 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1], UAH 4,967.66[2] and UAH 6,025.10[3], respectively, in salary arrears and other payments due to her by her former employer, the Municipal Company “Garantiya” (комунальне підприємство «Гарантія») owned and controlled by the city council.\n6.  All these judgments became final and the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce them. According to the Government, in the course of these proceedings the total amount of UAH 3,190.33 was paid to the applicant. According to the applicant, she had received UAH 2,366.02 only.\n7.  Being dissatisfied with the lengthy non-enforcement of these judgments, the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the State Bailiffs’ Service, claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 28 March 2003 the court rejected her claim for pecuniary damage but awarded her UAH 500[4] in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 7 August 2003 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment and the latter became final. Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this judgment in cassation before the Supreme Court of Ukraine.\n8.  According to the Government, the applicant did not request the State Bailiffs’ Service to institute enforcement proceedings under the judgment of 28 March 2003. The applicant disagreed, providing in support the letter of the State Bailiffs’ Service of 7 June 2006 in which the latter informed her that the judgment of 28 March 2003 had not been enforced due to its lack of funds.\n9.  The applicant also complained to various State authorities but to no avail.\n10.  On 28 December 2004 the Kirovograd Commercial Court instituted liquidation proceedings against the debtor company.\n11.  In this regard on 24 and 28 March 2005 the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings against the debtor company and transferred the applicant’s writs of enforcement to the liquidation commission for further processing. The liquidation proceedings are apparently still pending.\n12.  All the above-mentioned judgments given in the applicant’s favour remain unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4438", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 in Oberschwöditz, in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR), and lives in Lennestadt.\n6.  The applicant is the natural daughter of a Mr Schildgen, who recognised her several months after her birth. She lived in the territory of the former GDR until 1989, while her father lived in the FRG. The father and daughter corresponded regularly during this period, and after the reunification of Germany she visited him. He died between 30 June and 3 July 1998 (the precise date has not been specified).\nThe applicant subsequently made several attempts to assert her inheritance rights in the domestic courts.\n7.  On 10 July 1998 the applicant applied for a certificate of inheritance attesting that she was entitled to at least a 50% share of Mr Schildgen’s estate.\n8.  In a decision of 8 October 1998 the Neunkirchen District Court (Amtsgericht – Nachlassgericht) refused the applicant’s application, holding that, notwithstanding the reform of the law of succession following the introduction of the Inheritance Rights Equalisation Act of 16 December 1997 (Erbgleichstellungsgesetz), the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act (Gesetz über die rechtliche Stellung nichtehelicher Kinder – Nichtehelichengesetz) of 19 August 1969 remained in force. The provision in question stated that children born outside marriage before 1 July 1949 were not deemed to be statutory heirs (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”, paragraph 18 below). The District Court also referred to a decision given by the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) on 8 December 1976 (see also “Relevant domestic law and practice”, paragraph 21 below), in which the provision had been found to be in conformity with the Basic Law (Grundgsetz).\n9.  On 4 November 1998 the applicant appealed to the Saarbrücken Regional Court (Landgericht), arguing in particular that the law of the former GDR, which provided for equal treatment between children born within and outside marriage, should apply in her case. In any event, section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act contravened Article 3 (principle of equality before the law) of the Basic Law as there was no objective justification for the difference in treatment.\n10.  In a decision of 7 January 1999 the Saarbrücken Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision on the same grounds. It acknowledged, however, that the exclusion of children born outside marriage before 1 July 1949 from the statutory right of inheritance placed them at a very clear disadvantage in relation to those born after that date and also to those covered by the law of the former GDR.\n11.  In a decision of 3 September 1999 the Saarland Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) quashed the Regional Court’s decision and remitted the case to it to establish whether the applicant was indeed Mr Schildgen’s natural daughter and whether there were any other heirs. If the applicant were to be entitled to at least a 50% share of the estate, the Regional Court should examine whether the first sentence of section 12(10)(2) of the Children Born outside Marriage (Legal Status) Act was in conformity with the Basic Law.\nThe Court of Appeal confirmed at the outset that by virtue of the rules of private international law and, in particular, the settled case-law concerning section 25(1) of the Introductory Act to the FRG Civil Code (Einführungsgesetz in das Bürgerliche", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4439", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Pervomaysk, Mykolayiv region, Ukraine.\n6.  On 19 May 2003, after several rounds of court proceedings, the Pervomaysk District Court of Mykolayiv Region ordered the Pervomaysk Town Centre of Municipal Companies (Комбінат комунальних підприємств міста Первомайська), a municipal entity owned by the local council, to pay the applicant the total amount of 7,498.94 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in damage caused to his apartment and other property.\n7.  This judgment was not appealed against and became final. On 23 November 2003 the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings. According to the Government, in the course of these proceedings the amount of UAH 1,500 had been transferred to the bank account indicated by the applicant. However, because the bank details provided by the applicant were inaccurate that sum was withdrawn. The applicant, in turn, denied that any sum had ever been paid into his bank account. He provided the relevant bank statement to support his claim.\n8.  On 19 May 2004 the local council decided to liquidate the debtor entity and the liquidation proceedings were initiated. In this respect, on 1 June 2004 the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings and transferred the writ of enforcement to the liquidation commission for further processing. The liquidation proceedings apparently are still pending.\n9.  The applicant complained to various State authorities about lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in his favour but to no avail.\n10.  The judgment of 19 May 2003 remains unenforced.\n11.  The applicant was born in 1952 and currently resides in the village of Dovzhok, Khmelnytsky region, Ukraine.\n12.  On 13 April 2000 the local city council decided to liquidate the applicant’s employer, the Kamyanets-Podilsky Maintenance Municipal Company (Кам’янець-Подільське ремонтно-виробниче комунальне підприємство) owned by this council, and liquidation proceedings were initiated. Subsequently the applicant resigned.\n13.  On 11 July 2001 the Kamyanets-Podilsky City Court awarded the applicant UAH 3,385.42[2] in salary arrears and other payments due to him by his former employer.\n14.  In so far as this judgment became final, on 15 October 2001 the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce it. In the course of these proceedings the total amount of UAH 2,195 was paid to the applicant.\n15.  On 17 August 2003 the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings and transferred the writ of enforcement to the liquidation commission for further processing. The liquidation proceedings are apparently still pending.\n16.  On 10 April 2003 the applicant requested the local Prosecutor’s Office to institute criminal proceedings against L. and M., the head of the liquidation commission of the debtor company and the bailiff respectively, for lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment given in his favour. Apparently the proceedings are still pending.\n17.  The applicant also complained to various State authorities but to no avail.\n18.  The judgment of 11 July 2001 remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4440", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Nova Kakhovka, Kherson region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 17 December 2003 the Nova Kakhovka Town Court awarded the applicant and his wife the total amount of 5,635.20 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in damages caused by the Nova Kakhovka Housing Maintenance and Utilities Company, Komunservis, (Новокаховське ЖКП «Комунсервіс»), a company owned and controlled by the local community, by its failure to comply with contractual obligations. The awarded sum included joint compensation in respect of pecuniary damage inflicted on the applicant and his wife in the total amount of UAH 2,635.20 (the court did not specify the precise amounts owed to the applicant and his wife individually) and compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage in the amount of UAH 1,500 each.\n6.  This judgment became final and on 20 April 2004 the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce it. In the course of these proceedings the total amount of UAH 2,000 was paid to the applicant.\n7.  On 23 December 2004 the Kherson Commercial Court instituted liquidation proceedings against the debtor company.\n8.  In this regard on 4 January 2005 the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings against the debtor company and transferred the applicant’s writ of enforcement to the liquidation commission for further processing.\n9.  On 29 August 2005 the debtor company was declared liquidated and subsequently was removed from the relevant companies’ register.\n10.  Dissatisfied with the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment in their favour, in January 2006 the applicant and his wife instituted proceedings in the Nova Kakhovka Town Court against the State Bailiffs’ Service, claiming compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. However, on 23 January 2006 the court discontinued the proceedings as the defendant had been liquidated and the newly established State Bailiffs’ Service had not succeeded the liquidated one. The applicant and his wife did not appeal against this decision.\n11.  The judgment of 17 December 2003 remains unenforced.\n12.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Pryazovske, Zaporizhzhya region, Ukraine.\n13.  On 17 December 2001 the Pryazovske District Court awarded the applicant UAH 2,758.58[2] in salary arrears due to him by his former employer, the Pryazovske Housing Maintenance and Utilities Company (Приазовське комунальне підприємство житлового господарства) owned by the local village council.\n14.  On 20 December 2001 the village council decided to liquidate the debtor company and set up a liquidation commission.\n15.  The judgment in the applicant’s favour became final and the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted proceedings to enforce it. However, according to the Government, in February 2002 these proceedings were terminated and the applicant’s writ of enforcement was transferred to the liquidation commission for further processing.\n16.  On 21 December 2004 the Zaporizhzhya Commercial Court instituted liquidation proceedings against the debtor company.\n17.  According to the Government, on 27 February 2006 the debtor company was liquidated.\n18.  The judgment of 17 December 2001 remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4441", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants in case no. 15441/05 are:\n1) Ms Malayka (also spelled as Malika) Adamovna Basayeva, born in 1956,\n2) Ms Nura Basayeva, born in 1937,\n3) Ms Limon Lechayevna Basayeva, born in 1979,\n4) Ms Kheda Lechayevna Basayeva, born in 1990,\n5) Mr Khasan Khavazhovich Basayev, born in 2002,\n6) Mr Khoza Salmanovich Basayev, born in 1960,\nThe applicants in case no. 20731/04 are:\n7) Ms Tatyana Aliyevna Dikayeva, born in 1969,\n8) Mr Ali Dautovich Dikayev, born in 1932,\n9) Ms Dagman Osmanovna Dautmirzayeva (also known as Dikayeva), born in 1977,\n10) Ms Makka Dikayeva, born in 1997, and\n11) Ms Madina Dikayeva, born in 1999.\n8.  The applicants live in Martan-Chu, in Urus-Martan district, Chechnya. Prior to her death in December 2005 the second applicant also lived there. Applicants one to six are relatives of Mr Lecha Basayev, who was born in 1955. The first applicant is his wife; the second applicant was his mother; the third and the fourth applicants are his daughters; the fifth applicant is his grandson and the sixth applicant is his brother. The applicants from seven to eleven are the relatives of Mr Lema Dikayev, who was born in 1965. The seventh applicant is his sister; the eighth applicant is his father; the ninth applicant is his wife; the tenth and eleventh applicants are his daughters. At the material time Lema Dikayev had a second-degree disability; he had sutures in his abdominal area which had been put in 1996.\n9.  At the material time Martan-Chu was under the full control of the Russian federal forces and the area was under a curfew. Russian military checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement.\n10.  On the night of 5-6 July 2002 the applicants, their relatives and Lecha Basayev were sleeping in their house in Bazarnaya Street in the village of Martan-Chu, Urus-Martan district, Chechnya. The applicants' house had several interconnected bedrooms. The fifth applicant, who was just a few months old at the time, was sleeping in one room; the first and the fourth applicants were sleeping in the second bedroom and Lecha Basayev was sleeping in the third bedroom. It rained that night.\n11.  At about 1.30 a.m. the first applicant woke up and heard someone banging on the door. When she approached the door, a group of about ten armed masked men with flashlights and in camouflage uniforms broke into the house and asked in Russian: “Where is Lecha Basayev?” The intruders dispersed into different rooms. They ordered the first applicant to lie down on the bed. The men pointed their machine guns at the first and the fourth applicants.\n12.  The men neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They spoke unaccented Russian. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen. The servicemen ransacked the house. When the first applicant tried to ask for explanations, she was ordered to shut up. During the search one of the servicemen asked the first applicant: “Did you go to visit anyone by car two or three days ago?” She answered that they had not been anywhere. Then he told her: “We know that. We know everything”.\n13.  About five minutes later the servicemen took Lecha Basayev outside. They walked through the first and the fourth applicants' bedroom. The first applicant saw that her husband had his clothes on. A few minutes later the first and the fourth applicants heard the sound of adhesive tape.\n14.  Having spent eight or ten minutes in the applicants' house, prior to leaving, the servi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4442", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are:\n1) Mr Moldi Nazhmudinovich Nenkayev, born in 1952;\n2) Ms Zura Vakhayevna Nenkayeva, born in 1955;\n3) Mr Isa Moldiyevich Nenkayev, born in 1977;\n4) Mr Musa Moldiyevich Nenkayev, born in 1976;\n5) Mr Ruslan Moldiyevich Nenkayev, born in 1984;\n6) Mr Apti Moldiyevich Nenkayev, born in 1986;\n7) Mr Sulim Moldiyevich Nenkayev, born in 1990;\n8) Mr Islam Moldiyevich Nenkayev, born in 1993;\n9) Ms Iman Moldiyevna Nenkayeva, born in 1996; and\n10) Ms Aminat Khasanovna Nenkayeva, born in 1982.\nThey live in the town of Urus-Martan, in the Chechen Republic.\n8.  The first two applicants are spouses and the parents of eight children – the third to ninth applicants and Mr Muslim Moldiyevich Nenkayev, born in 1982. The tenth applicant is the fourth applicant’s wife. At the material time Muslim Nenkayev was a serviceman of the Gudermes district office of the interior. The applicants lived in a private house at 84 Pervomayskaya Street, Urus-Martan.\n9.  At about 3 a.m. on 8 June 2002 a group of around twenty-five or thirty masked men in camouflage uniforms forcibly entered the Nenkayevs’ house. They were armed with submachine guns with silencers and, swearing profusely, spoke Russian with no accent. The men did not identify themselves, but the applicants inferred that they belonged to the Russian military.\n10.  The first applicant, who was sleeping in his room, was woken by a blow to the leg from a machine gun butt. He saw several servicemen pointing machine guns at him. One of the servicemen was checking the first applicant’s identity papers left on a table. The soldiers asked the first applicant whether his name was Moldi Nenkayev and whether he had sons. The first applicant answered in the affirmative. Then the servicemen asked the first applicant whether he had sons named Musa, Isa and Muslim. The first applicant confirmed that he had. Thereafter one of the servicemen put his machine gun against the first applicant’s neck and escorted him to the courtyard and then to another entrance into the house of the Nenkayev family. The door was locked. One of the soldiers pushed a door knob and broke it. The first applicant asked his relatives inside to open the door, and the sixth applicant did so.\n11.  The servicemen came in with the first applicant in front of them and using him as a shield. About five of them entered a room in which the second and ninth applicants and the first applicant’s sister-in-law and her daughter were sleeping. Threatening them with firearms, the servicemen ordered everyone to stay in bed and conducted a search which lasted about an hour.\n12.  During the search the servicemen seized a service machine gun belonging to the third applicant, who was an officer of the special police unit of the Chechen Republic. One of the servicemen attempted to take away the third applicant’s leather jacket but another armed man ordered him to leave it.\n13.  Another group comprising around ten servicemen entered the room in which the fourth and tenth applicants were sleeping. They forced the fourth applicant out into the corridor and ordered him to lie face down. The tenth applicant was ordered to put her hands behind her head and also to lie down on the floor. Then the military searched the room and took away a leather waistcoat, a leather jacket, a gold ring and perfumes. The tenth applicant heard one of them telling another one to look for diamonds. Ten minutes later they left the room, having ordered the tenth applicant to stay do", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4443", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1961 and 1995 respectively and live in the village of Chervlennaya, Shelkovskoy District, in the Chechen Republic.\n8.  The first applicant was married to Ms Khava Aduyevna Magomadova, born in 1956. They are the parents of the second applicant. At the material time Khava Magomadova worked as a manager at Chervlennaya railway station.\n9.  The applicants’ family lived at 10 Karl Marx Street in Chervlennaya village. On the morning of 16 December 2002 the applicants’ neighbours noticed a white Gazel vehicle parked not far from the applicants’ house.\n10.  At 7.25 a.m. Ms B., Khava Magomadova’s colleague, saw two UAZ-469 vehicles parked near the special task force checkpoint located in the railway station and three armed men in camouflage uniforms climbing into them. Then the vehicles drove away towards Karl Marx Street.\n11.  At about 7.30 a.m. Khava Magomadova went to work. According to her neighbours, as soon as she left the house the white Gazel that had been parked near her house drove off. When Khava Magomadova turned from Karl Marx Street into Zavodskaya Street it followed her.\n12.  Mr D., a railway station employee, was behind Khava Magomadova on his way to work and saw her and the Gazel turning into Zavodskaya Street. A few moments later, when he reached Zavodskaya Street, he saw the Gazel swaying slightly and no trace of Khava Magomadova.\n13.  The applicants’ neighbour, Ms S.B., saw a blue and a khaki UAZ‑469 vehicle with aerials on their roofs moving along Zavodskaya Street towards Lenin Street.\n14.  Khava Magomadova has not been seen since then.\n15.  At about 7.40 a.m. on 16 December 2002 Khava Magomadova left her house. She has not been seen since then.\n16.  Khava Magomadova had not arrived at her office by 8 a.m. Her colleagues began to worry and went to her house. The first applicant told them that his wife had left for work. The colleagues and the first applicant followed Khava Magomadova’s footprints, visible on the fresh layer of snow. The footprints stopped at the crossroads of Frunze and Zavodskaya Streets, where Mr D. had seen the Gazel.\n17.  The first applicant went to the police station to report his wife’s disappearance. Police officers told him that they could not deal promptly with his complaint as they were having a weekly meeting. However, they assigned an investigator to deal with the matter.\n18.  Later the same day investigators visited the scene of the incident and photographed tyre prints.\n19.  The first applicant complained about his wife’s disappearance to various official bodies, including the Russian President, the Russian State Duma, the Chechen administration and the Chechen State Council. The majority of his complaints were forwarded to prosecutors’ offices at different levels.\n20.  On an unspecified date the State authorities refused to institute criminal proceedings related to Khava Magomadova’s disappearance.\n21.  On 12 February 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Shelkovskoy District (“the district prosecutor’s office”) informed the first applicant that they had quashed the decision refusing to investigate his wife’s disappearance and instituted criminal proceedings under Article 126 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code (“kidnapping”). The case file was assigned the number 52007.\n22.  On 12 April 2003 the district prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation in case no. 52007 for failure to identify those responsible.\n23.  On 18 April 2003 the first applicant complained a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4444", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kamyanets-Podilsky, Khmelnytsky region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 20 August 2002 the local city council decided to put the applicant’s employer, Pharmacy No. 130 (комунальне підприємство Аптека № 130), a municipal enterprise owned and controlled by this council, into liquidation, and the liquidation proceedings were initiated.\n6.  On 1 June 2004 the Kamyanets-Podilsky City Court awarded the applicant 1,355.41 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments due to her from Pharmacy No. 130.\n7.  This judgment became final and on 2 September 2004 the State Bailiffs’ Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n8.  According to the Government, on 22 September 2004 the State Bailiffs’ Service, having terminated the enforcement proceedings, returned the writ of enforcement to the applicant on 22 September 2004. According to the Government, the applicant had been instructed to transfer the writ to the liquidation commission for further processing but had failed to do so.\n9.  On 16 December 2004 the debtor enterprise was removed from the relevant companies’ register.\n10.  The judgment of 1 June 2004 remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4446", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Košice.\n5.  In 1997 the applicant’s parents, by way of a donation contract, transferred to the applicant their ownership title to a garage.\n6.  On 13 March 2002 the applicant was sued by her parents. They asked the Košice I District Court to order the applicant to return the above gift.\n7.  The applicant’s request for an interim measure was dismissed on 10 December 2002.\n8.  Several hearings took place between 19 February 2003 and 29 July 2005.\n9.  On 3 November 2005 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and her right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. It held that the case was not complex and the applicant’s conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. The period of inactivity totalling one year was imputable to the District Court.\n10.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant 10,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) (the equivalent of 256 euros at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s costs.\n11.  A hearing took place on 4 November 2005. Another hearing, scheduled for 2 February 2006, was adjourned.\n12.  On 3 July 2006 the District Court dismissed the action. The judgment was served on the applicant on 10 October 2006 and became final and enforceable on 26 October 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4447", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953.\n6.  In January 2002 the applicant went to a bar for a few drinks. He met his female acquaintance who was in the company of two 17-year-old girls whom he had not met before. Afterwards, they all decided to leave the bar in a taxi. They dropped off the applicant’s acquaintance at her home and continued to the applicant’s apartment. The applicant, and apparently also the girls, continued drinking and talking. According to the statement given by the applicant in the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten), after a while he called a taxi for the girls and gave them money for the fare. He claims that the next time he heard of the girls was about four months later when the police contacted him and suspected him of a sexual offence.\n7.  The girls’ version of the early evening’s events was roughly the same as the applicant’s but differed considerably as concerned the events at his apartment. The girls claimed that while they were in the applicant’s apartment, he had sexual intercourse with one of the girls after she had fallen asleep, and that he attempted to rape the other one. Immediately after this had happened, the girls decided to leave. One of the girls called a taxi and the applicant gave them money for the fare. When they got home, the mother of one of the girls called the police. A police patrol came and the police interviewed the girls. The girl who alleged that she had been raped refused to see a doctor.\n8.  The applicant was questioned for the first time on 21 May 2002. The public prosecutor brought charges against him on 20 November 2003. The District Court held an oral hearing on 31 March 2004 at which only the applicant and the girls were heard.\n9.  On 5 May 2004 the District Court gave its judgment. It acknowledged that the parties’ accounts of the facts diverged greatly. The majority of the District Court judges found that the girls’ account was more reliable than the applicant’s. Their stories were coherent and consistent. It was not credible that the girls could have invented the allegations. The fact that the girl who had been raped did not see a doctor immediately after the incident was of no relevance. The applicant was convicted of sexual abuse and attempted coercion into sexual intercourse (sukupuoliyhteyteen pakottamisen yritys, försök till tvingande till samlag), sentenced to a conditional prison sentence of 8 months and 15 days and fined. One judge found the applicant’s account of the facts to be more reliable and gave a dissenting opinion.\n10.  By a letter dated 4 June 2004 the applicant appealed to the Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten), requesting that an oral hearing be held as he had been convicted on the basis of conflicting evidence. The girls’ testimonies before the District Court had differed from their accounts given during the pre-trial investigation and were inconsistent. The girl who claimed to have been raped had not seen a doctor after the alleged offence. Moreover, the police had started to investigate the crime as rape. However, since rape was such a serious offence the police should have arrested the applicant immediately and conducted a crime-scene investigation in his apartment. Instead, the applicant had been questioned for the first time only about four months later.\n11.  On 6 September 2004 the Appeal Court decided to apply the filtering procedure (seulontamenettely, sållningsförfarandet) and rejected the request for an oral hearing. It upheld the District", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4448", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Tarnów.\n5. On 9 August 1968 the Hrubieszów District National Council took over the applicant’s farm, regarding it as abandoned property. On 16 January 1969 the Lublin Regional National Council upheld that decision.\n6. On 12 December 1994 the applicant requested the Minister of Agriculture to declare the latter decision null and void.\n7. On 29 August 1997 the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economics dismissed the applicant’s request. The applicant appealed. On 9 January 1998 the Minister upheld his former decision.\n8. On 8 September 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed both decisions of the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economics and remitted the case for re-examination.\n9. On 4 April 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court requesting that a fine be imposed on the Minister for failure to enforce the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of 8 September 1999. He also complained about the overall length of the proceedings. On 9 May 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court discontinued these proceedings since the applicant had withdrawn his complaints as the Minister had in the meantime issued the decision in question (see paragraph 12 below).\n10. The Minister began to examine the case in June 2000. On 16 June 2000 he stayed the proceedings until certain documents concerning ownership of the applicant’s farm were submitted by the Lublin Governor’s Office. The requested documents were submitted to the Minister on 23 November 2000.\n11. On 14 March 2001 the applicant lodged another complaint with the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economics alleging inactivity on his part.\n12. On 26 April 2001 the Minister again dismissed the applicant’s request to declare the decision null and void. On 8 May 2001 the applicant appealed, requesting a re-examination of his case.\n13. On 21 November 2001 the applicant again lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court alleging inactivity on the part of the Minister. The proceedings were discontinued on 14 March 2002 since the applicant had withdrawn his complaint as the Minister had issued the decision in question (see paragraph 14 below).\n14. On 8 February 2002 the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economics upheld his decision of 2001.\n15. On 21 January 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Minister’s decisions given in 2001 and 2002.\n16. On 27 January 2004 the Minister dismissed the applicant’s request of 1994 for the third time. On 9 February 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision.\n17. The proceedings are currently pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4449", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and is currently in prison in Staffordshire.\n6.  On 30 November 2001 the applicant was sentenced by a Crown Court to a total of fourteen years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and two offences of possession of a Class A drug with intent to supply.\n7.  On 6 April 2001, while on bail pending trial, the applicant suffered a brain haemorrhage for which he underwent surgery. On 5 July 2002 he underwent further surgery. Following his discharge to prison, he required monitoring and was required to go to hospital every six months for a specialist check-up by a neuro-radiologist.\n8.  In 2002 the applicant was held in a high-security prison which held Category A (high-risk) prisoners as well as Category B prisoners such as himself. As a result, he fell within the provisions of a general order, Prison Service Order (PSO) 1000, which applied to all prisoners of whatever security category who were being held in a unit which held Category A prisoners (see paragraph 28 below).\n9.  The applicant wished to correspond confidentially with his external medical specialist to ensure that he would receive the necessary medical treatment and supervision in prison. He expressed his concerns about his medical correspondence with his external medical specialist being read and applied to the prison governor for a direction that such correspondence should be accorded confidentiality.\n10.  On 18 September 2002 the governor of the prison in which the applicant was being detained agreed to the applicant’s request. It was decided that the applicant’s medical correspondence would not be read provided that certain conditions were met. All outgoing and incoming mail was to be marked “medical in confidence”. Outgoing correspondence would be checked to ensure that it was being sent to a nominated address and incoming mail was to be marked with a distinctive stamp of the relevant health authority.\n11.  The prison governor subsequently reconsidered his decision after seeking advice from HM Prison Service Headquarters. On 28 November 2002 the prison governor informed the applicant that he had been advised that it was necessary to examine his medical correspondence for illicit enclosures. All correspondence between the applicant and his external medical specialist would be directed, unopened, to the prison medical officer. The latter would examine the content of the envelope in order to ascertain its medical status and then reseal it. Incoming and outgoing correspondence would then be sent to the applicant and his external medical specialist respectively.\n12.  The applicant contested the decision to monitor his medical correspondence. He was concerned that his attempts to confirm that he was receiving adequate treatment in hospital might be regarded by the prison medical officer as criticism and that this might inhibit his relationship with his external medical specialist.\n13.  On 4 August 2003 the applicant applied for leave to apply for judicial review of the prison governor’s decision of 28 November 2002. On 20 February 2004 the presiding High Court judge, Mr Justice Collins, allowed the applicant’s claim for judicial review.\n14.  The Prison Service had submitted, inter alia, that it would be difficult to make the necessary arrangements to permit medical correspondence to remain confidential. They argued that there were a large number of health bodies with which a prisoner might wish to correspond and that some health bo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4450", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 3 April 2002 the applicant lodged an action against her husband with the Bratislava IV District Court, seeking a judicial determination of their parental rights and obligations in respect of their child.\n6.  On 30 January 2003 the District Court delivered an interim measure in the applicant’s favour.\n7.  On 20 March 2003 the District Court gave the applicant custody of the child. It did not order the defendant to pay any maintenance. On 13 November 2003 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the judgment in its part concerning maintenance and remitted the case to the District Court. The view was expressed that the court of first instance had not sufficiently established the relevant facts. The Regional Court ordered the District Court to proceed along the lines specified.\n8.  In a judgment of 21 September 2004 the District Court determined the issue. On 23 September 2005 the Regional Court again quashed the relevant part of the judgment and remitted the case to the District Court. It found that the District Court had not sufficiently established the relevant facts and explained to the latter how the case should be dealt with.\n9.  On 29 November 2005 the applicant withdrew the action as she had reached an out-of-court settlement with the defendant.\n10.  The District Court thus discontinued the proceedings on 17 January 2006. The decision became final on 17 February 2006.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 10 January 2006, the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court established that the case was not complex and that no delays could be imputed to the applicant. It noted that the District Court had acted ineffectively. In view of the subject-matter of the proceedings, their overall duration had been excessive. The Constitutional Court concluded that the finding of a violation represented in itself sufficient just satisfaction in the circumstances of the case, especially as the applicant had withdrawn the action. It did not order the District Court to proceed with the case on the ground that the applicant had withdrawn the action. It ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4451", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Trnava.\n5.  On 24 October 2000 the applicant filed an action with the Trenčín District Court. He claimed compensation for damage from an insurance company.\n6.  On 30 November 2001 the Trenčín District Court dismissed the action. On 22 March 2002, upon an appeal by the applicant, the case file was transferred to the Trenčín Regional Court. On 24 October 2002 the Trenčín Regional Court quashed the decision. It remitted the case to the District Court on 15 November 2002.\n7.  On 14 January 2004 the District Court judge fixed the next hearing for February 2004. On 4 February 2004 the applicant requested additional evidence to be taken and five witnesses to be heard.\n8.  In April 2004 and February and March 2005 the District Court held three hearings and ordered an expert opinion.\n9.  On 10 May 2005 the appointed expert asked the District Court for additional documents which he considered necessary for the elaboration of an expert opinion. On 15 November 2005 the District Court informed him that it did not have the requested documents.\n10.  In June 2006 the District Court held a hearing and delivered its judgment on 4 July 2006.\n11.  On 9 November 2006 the Trenčín Regional Court, on appeal by the applicant, partly upheld and partly quashed the first-instance judgment.\n12.  In March 2007 the District Court held a hearing. It dismissed the applicant’s claim at a hearing held on 3 April 2007.\n13.  On 9 August 2007 the Trenčín Regional Court, on appeal by the applicant, upheld the first-instance judgment (the Regional Court’s judgment became final on 15 August 2007).\n14.  On 27 January 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Trenčín District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and his right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.\n15.  The applicant had complained exclusively about the proceedings before the Trenčín District Court. The Constitutional Court had regard to the fact that the time taken by the Regional Court to decide the appeal (8 months) had prolonged the proceedings.\n16.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was to some extent complex from the factual but not the legal point of view. However, the factual complexity of the case could not justify the length of the proceedings. The applicant’s conduct had not contributed to their length. Delays imputable to the Trenčín District Court had exceeded 13 months.\n17.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant 10,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) – the equivalent of 259 euros at that time – as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the Trenčín District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs (176 euros).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4452", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Košice.\n6.  On 28 August 2000 and 17 April 2001 respectively police authorities in Martin and Zvolen brought two separate sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant. The applicant was accused of abuse of authority (Article 158 of the Criminal Code) on the ground that, while acting as an enforcement officer (exekútor), he had allowed the transfer of securities of two major companies to a third party, thus causing prejudice to the creditor. As the companies in issue had been involved in arms production and their transformation brought about a high rate of unemployment in the region, the events attracted the attention of the media.\n7.  The applicant received the first decision accusing him of an offence on 7 September 2000. Prior to that, two daily newspapers with nationwide distribution published information about the case.\n8.  The daily newspaper Pravda published an article on 30 August 2000 in which it stated that several persons including the applicant had been accused of an offence. The article stated that the information had been obtained from a “competent police source”, indicating that there were justified reasons to believe that the accused persons had attempted to arrange for a transfer of the property of the company in issue at as low a price as possible to the detriment of other creditors.\n9.  A similar article was published in Hospodárske noviny on 4 September 2000. It indicated that the relevant information had been obtained from the police.\n10.  Subsequently, several other articles were published in the press reporting on, among other things, the criminal proceedings. They were mostly based on the facts contained in the decisions accusing the applicant of abuse of authority.\n11.  In September 2000 the magazine Dane a právo, specialising in tax issues, published an article, “Criminal activities related to enforcement proceedings”, in the column entitled “From the reports of the Finance Police”. With reference to the decision to start the criminal proceedings it described the circumstances under which enforcement proceedings had been brought against the company concerned. It indicated that the applicant, as an enforcement officer, had not proceeded in accordance with the law. The article contained the following paragraph:\n“The facts mentioned above confirm that [the representatives of the companies concerned] acted in agreement with the enforcement officer JUDr. Ján B. [the applicant] with the intention of transferring movable and, most importantly, immovable property to company [...] at as low a price as possible and, thereby, deliberately causing prejudice to other creditors ...”\n12.  Another article was published by the weekly magazine Profit on 18 September 2000. Its author referred in detail to the investigation file kept by the police. It also contained the following quotations from the deputy director of the Office of the Finance Police:\n“... [the applicant], without justification, made a list of securities indicating that they formed part of the movable property of [the company concerned] notwithstanding that [that company] ... did not own those securities at that time ... While the action of the accused corresponds to the constitutive elements of the offence of causing prejudice to a creditor, if considered in its entirety, it is a premeditated fraudulent action aimed at transferring the property [of the company concerned] to its daughter companies and, subsequen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4453", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Jaklovce.\n5.  On 14 June 1995 the Spišská Nová Ves District Court started inheritance proceedings in respect of the estate of a relative of the applicant. At that time the applicant’s mother was one of the heirs of the testator.\n6.  After the official appointed by the court had gathered all the information required, the District Court gave a decision on the distribution of the estate on 18 September 1996. Both parties appealed.\n7.  The Košice Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision on 28 July 1997.\n8.  On 23 June 1998 the file was transmitted to the notary appointed to act as the court’s officer in the case.\n9.  A different notary was appointed on 8 October 1999.\n10.  On 26 January 2000 the applicant’s mother died. She bequeathed her share in the inheritance to the applicant.\n11.  Five hearings were scheduled before 22 January 2002, when a different notary was appointed to act as the court’s officer in the case.\n12.  The applicant challenged all the judges of the District Court on the ground that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. On 30 September 2002 the Regional Court decided not to exclude the District Court judges.\n13.  On 10 December 2002 the officer of the District Court drew up a list of the estate. The District Court decided on its distribution on the same day.\n14.  On 21 December 2002 the applicant appealed. The file was transferred to the Regional Court on 21 February 2003.\n15.  On 31 March 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on the merits and quashed the part concerning the costs.\n16.  On 30 May 2003 the District Court gave a decision on the costs of the inheritance proceedings and the notary’s fees.\n17.  On 27 August 2003 the Regional Court quashed the decision to the extent that it concerned the notary’s fees.\n18.  On 23 December 2003 the District Court decided on the notary’s fees. The decision became final on 18 February 2004.\n19.  On 23 February 2004 the District Court asked the applicant to settle the court fees, which had not been fully paid.\n20.  The applicant complied with the request on 12 May 2004.\n21.  On 5 August 1996 the applicant lodged an action with the Spišská Nová Ves District Court, claiming a sum of money (the equivalent of approximately 2,500 euros (EUR)) from the heirs in the above inheritance proceedings. The applicant had spent that sum on the reconstruction of the house which belonged to her relative’s estate. The proceedings were given the file number 4 C 720/96.\n22.  On 5 August 1999 the applicant and her husband sought legal recognition that the sum equivalent to approximately EUR 2,500 which they had invested in the house of the applicant’s relative did not form a part of the testator’s estate. That claim was attributed file number 7 C 768/99 until 20 December 2000, when the District Court decided that it should be joined to the proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 1996.\n23.  On 26 June 2003 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the action of 1996 because the applicant had withdrawn her claim. It further granted leave to the applicant to amend her claim of 1999. The District Court decided to deal with the newly submitted claim in a separate set of proceedings (see below).\n24.  As indicated above, on 26 June 2003 the District Court permitted a modification of the claim of 1999. By the new action the applicant sought that the sum of money which she and her husband had invested in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4454", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Spišské Podhradie. The applicant introduced his application through the intermediary of an advocate, Mrs Elena Smiková. Subsequently, the applicant corresponded with the Registry himself.\n5.  On 4 February 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Spišská Nová Ves District Court. He challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal from his employment.\n6.  On 22 December 2005 the district court dismissed the action. The Košice Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment on 29 January 2007 (final on 14 March 2007).\n7.  On 23 August 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.\n8.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was not complex and that the applicant’s conduct had contributed to the length of the proceedings. Delays imputable to the district court totalled 10 years and 8 months.\n9.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 90,000 (the equivalent of 2,328 euros at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the Spišská Nová Ves District Court to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs and avoid any further delay in the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4455", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lived in Baia Mare.\n5.  In 1950, a house and 1,867 sq. m of appurtenant land situated in Zalău, Andrei Şaguna no. 20, the property of the applicant’s mother, were seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation.\n6.  The property was subsequently divided into two apartments. In 1973 the applicant’s father bought Apartment 1 and in 1974 the applicant’s uncle bought Apartment 2.\n7.  On 18 September 1997 the applicant brought court proceedings for recovery of property, including restitution in kind of the appurtenant land of 1,617 sq. m and compensation for the remaining plot of 250 sq. m, which had been allocated to a third party as building land. He also sought to have the sales of the two apartments declared null and void.\n8.  On 4 February 1999 the Zalău Court of First Instance allowed the action in part and awarded the applicant the equivalent value of Apartment 2 and the updated amount paid by his father for Apartment 1. The court refused to declare the sale of Apartment 2 null and void, as the applicant had been given compensation, and dismissed his demand for restitution in kind of the 1,617 sq. m of appurtenant land on the ground that it had not satisfied the conditions required by Law no. 18/1991.\n9.  On 3 August 1999 the Sălaj County Court upheld an appeal by the applicant and by the town council, quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and sent the case back for fresh consideration.\n10.  During retrial, on 7 December 1999 the Court of First Instance decided that the case was within the competence of the County Court.\n11.  On 20 October 2000 the Sălaj County Court awarded the applicant the equivalent value of Apartment 2, the updated amount paid by his father for Apartment 1 and dismissed his request to have the sale of Apartment 2 declared null and void.\n12.  The applicant and the Ministry of Public Finance (“the Ministry”) appealed, the former claiming restitution in kind of Apartment 2 as well.\n13.  On 11 May 2001 the Cluj Court of Appeal dismissed the two appeals. It held that the applicant’s uncle had acquired a right of property over Apartment 2 by acquisitive prescription. The court also held that the seizure of the property had been unlawful and following the decease of his father Apartment 1 had entered into the ownership of the applicant and of his father’s sister, being thus registered in the Land Register. It further confirmed that there were no allegations that Apartment 1 was in the ownership of the State or of third parties.\n14.  On 25 June 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed a further appeal by the applicant and by the Ministry, quashed the previous judgment and sent the case back for a fresh examination. It found that the lower courts had not been concerned with the precise description of the property which was the object of the applicant’s action.\n15.  After the retrial, on 14 April 2004 the Cluj Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the Ministry and rejected the applicant’s action, considering that the buyers of the two apartments were in good faith. It held that the appurtenant land of 1,617 sq. m belonged to the private domain of the State and therefore it was the Mayor who should have been brought to trial, not the Ministry. The court also considered that, for the plot of 250 sq. m of appurtenant land, the third party should have been brought to trial, and that the claim for damages for the two apartments had been time-barred, and was anyw", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4456", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a university professor of ancient history and archeology who was appointed at Klagenfurt University in 1998. Under the terms of appointment he was entitled to reimbursement of the removal costs and to a household allowance. In April 2001 the sum of 5,699.21 euros (EUR) was paid to the applicant.\n6.  On 6 July 2001 the applicant claimed reimbursement of the remaining removal costs in the sum of EUR 4,684.40 and payment of the household allowance in the sum of EUR 5,443.70, plus 4.5% interest since August 1999.\n7.  The Dean of Klagenfurt University dismissed the applicant’s claim on 16 January 2002.\n8.  The applicant appealed on 29 January 2002 to the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (“the Ministry”).\n9.  The Ministry did not decide within the statutory six-month time-limit laid down in section 73 § 1 of the General Administrative Proceedings Act. In August 2002 the applicant brought court proceedings relating to the claims at issue. A conditional settlement was reached but was revoked by the applicant in January 2003. The applicant’s action was dismissed in February 2003.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 18 November 2002, the applicant complained to the Administrative Court under Article 132 of the Federal Constitution about the administration’s failure to determine his claim. On 29 November 2002 the Administrative Court ordered the Ministry of Education to issue a decision within three months.\n11.  On 3 March 2003 the Ministry dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n12.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court on 16 April 2003. The Ministry filed observations in reply on 24 June 2003.\n13. On 24 February 2006 the Administrative Court quashed the Ministry’s decision as being unlawful.\n14.  By decision of 25 July 2006 the Ministry referred the case back to the Dean of Klagenfurt University for a new decision. Meanwhile on 8 May 2006 the applicant supplemented his claims, apparently requesting reimbursement of costs incurred for travelling between Klagenfurt and his former place of residence.\n15. On 16 October 2006 the applicant was summoned to a hearing and two days later the sum of EUR 4,000 was paid to the applicant with a view to reaching a settlement.\n16.  The hearing took place on 20 November 2006. According to the minutes the hearing served the purpose of establishing the plausibility of the applicant’s claims as submitted on 6 July 2001 and supplemented on 8 May 2006 and to determine their amount with the participation of the applicant. It is then noted that, in the light of the explanations given, the costs and interest claimed seemed plausible. At the close of the hearing the parties concluded a friendly settlement with the following terms:\n“(a)  Klagenfurt University thus declares its willingness to transfer, in addition to the payment already made of EUR 4,000 and the regulated transport costs in the amount of EUR 5,699.21, the lump-sum of EUR 10,000 within 14 days to the account of Professor Strobel.\n(b)  Professor Strobel, for his part, withdraws all requests in connection with the proceedings at issue. As a result, the demands and claims asserted in the present proceedings are completely settled and complied with.”", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4458", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n6.  On 26 January 1998 he was arrested on suspicion of murder. The trial took place before the Warsaw Regional Court. The applicant, represented by a legal-aid lawyer, was present during the trial. The legal‑aid lawyer attended all hearings held before the court. On 22 February 2001 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to twenty‑five years’ imprisonment.\n7.  The applicant’s lawyer filed an appeal against this judgment with the Warsaw Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”). He argued, in particular, that the first‑instance court had committed errors in the assessment of the evidence. It had wrongly held that the applicant had committed, together with another defendant A.K., a crime of murder, instead of finding the applicant guilty only of handling and selling goods stolen from the victim. The court had also erred in considering that the testimony given by A.K. was credible. The court had wrongly assessed certain other pieces of evidence on the basis of which it had accepted that the applicant had taken part in the crime. It was further argued that the court had failed to take into consideration circumstances pointing to the applicant’s innocence and that it had breached the principle of the presumption of innocence.\n8.  On 17 July 2001 the applicant lodged his own appeal with the court, arguing essentially that he was not guilty, that the evidence had been wrongly assessed and that he should be acquitted. On 26 September 2001 the Warsaw Court of Appeal fixed the date of the hearing in the appeal proceedings for 28 November 2001. On the same date the court decided, referring to Article 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that on 3 October 2001 it would hold a session to decide whether to bring the applicant from prison to attend the hearing.\n9.  On 3 October 2001 the applicant was served with the decision concerning the date fixed for the hearing. On the same date the court gave a decision ex officio concerning the applicant’s presence at the hearing. By a letter from the court’s registry, served on the applicant on 12 October 2001, he was informed of that decision. The letter read:\n“The Warsaw Court of Appeal states that by a decision of 3 October 2001 it has decided not to bring the accused Janusz Strzałkowski to a hearing before that court, as his interests will be duly represented by his defence lawyer.”\nNo appeal was available against that decision.\n10.  On 28 November 2001 the Court of Appeal held a hearing. The applicant’s lawyer and the prosecutor were present. The court considered that the applicant had been properly summoned. The judge rapporteur of the Court of Appeal read out the appeal submitted by the applicant himself. The applicant’s lawyer, in his oral pleadings, supported the arguments of the defence submitted in his appeal. The prosecutor requested the court to dismiss the appeal.\nThe Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals against the first-instance judgment. The court examined the grounds for the appeals adduced by the applicant’s lawyer. In particular, the court stressed that no arguments had been advanced to persuade it that the findings of fact were incorrect. The first-instance court had found the applicant guilty essentially on the basis of the testimony of other defendants. This evidence had been examined in a thorough manner against the background of other evidence available in the case. Th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4459", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Piešťany.\n7.  The applicant is a lawyer. He used to be a public prosecutor and is now a practising member of the Slovak bar association.\n8.  Between August 1999 and March 2001 the applicant acted as the legal representative of several industrial companies belonging to a group associated with a strategic steelworks in eastern Slovakia. For a period of time starting on 18 April 2001 he was on the board of directors of the company owning the works.\n9.  In 1999 the Minister of the Interior set up a special team of investigators to investigate large-scale organised criminal activities of a financial nature which were supposedly being committed in connection with a company belonging to the above group. The team was composed of officers from the financial police.\n10.  On an unspecified date the investigators charged an individual, I.C., with aggravated fraud.\n11.  On an unspecified date the investigators applied for judicial authorisation to tap the applicant’s telephone. At an unspecified time a judge of the Bratislava Regional Court granted the authorisation. The applicant’s professional mobile phone was subsequently tapped.\n12.  In November 2000 the applicant learned that calls from his phone were being intercepted; that the interception was being carried out by the financial police; and that the contents of his telephone communications were known outside the police.\n13.  On 5 January 2001 the applicant received an anonymous letter confirming the above information and advising him that the interception had taken place from October to December 2000 and had been carried out at the request of opponents of his clients.\n14.  On 31 May 2001 and 1 June 2001 a daily paper published interviews with the Minister of the Interior and the chief of the Police Corps. From those interviews the applicant understood that there had been confirmation that the interception had actually taken place.\n15.  Verbatim records of the applicant’s calls had been leaked to various interest groups, politicians and journalists, as well as to representatives of several legal persons.\n16.  Thus in September 2001 the daily Sme received by mail a transcript of the applicant’s telephone conversation with a journalist of Radio Free Europe. On 13 October 2001 Sme published a statement by a politician who had declared at a press conference that he possessed approximately 300 pages of copies of transcripts of the applicant’s telephone conversations.\n17.  In summer 2002 the applicant was informed that verbatim records of his conversations with third persons which had been made by the financial police were freely accessible on a website. They included conversations with his colleagues, clients, the representative of the other party in a case, and friends. The records had been manipulated in that they included statements which the applicant and the other persons involved had not made.\n18.  On 15 and 29 January 2001 the applicant informed the Inspection Service of the Ministry of the Interior (“the Inspection Service”) that he had been warned in a letter signed “member of the Financial Police” about the interception of his telephone. He claimed that the interception was unlawful and unjustified and accused one or more unknown police officers of having abused their official authority. The applicant stated that an appropriate investigation should be carried out into the matter in accordance with the law.\n19.  The director of the special div", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4460", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kraków.\n5.  On 19 June 2000 the Katowice District Prosecutor issued a bill of indictment against the applicant on charges of drug trafficking, unlawful possession of firearms and membership of an organised criminal gang. There were 36 accused and 147 witnesses in the case.\n6.  On 20 February 2001 the Katowice District Court held a first hearing in the case. From that date to 30 March 2004 the court scheduled two hundred hearings in the case. During that period of time the court held one hundred thirty and two hearings.\n7.  On 13 February 2008 the Katowice District Court gave judgment in the case convicting the applicant. The applicant appealed.\n8.  The proceedings are currently pending before the Katowice Regional Court.\n9.  On 31 May 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Katowice Court of Appeal under the Act of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). He also claimed just satisfaction in the amount of PLN 10,000.\n10. On 20 July 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the length complaint. Although the court found that the proceedings had lasted a very long time, it concluded that this had not amounted to an “excessive length” as defined by the 2004 Act. The Court of Appeal pointed out that the court had scheduled 58 hearings in 2001, 66 in 2002, 73 in 2003, 64 in 2004 and 85 in 2005. However, several hearings had had to be postponed because defence lawyers, co-accused and witnesses were absent and assessors and judges were ill.\n11. On 19 October 2006 the applicant lodged another complaint with the Katowice Court of Appeal.\n12. On 31 January 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal again dismissed the length complaint. The court found that the proceedings had been handled properly and the delays had been attributable to other persons and unexpected circumstances rather than to the court. The Court of Appeal pointed out that since July 2005 the court had held over 30 hearings and over 30 hearings had had to be postponed because defence lawyers and experts had been absent, assessors, a judge and certain co-accused had been ill, renovation works had been carried out in the hearing room and there had been a shortage of police officers to convey the accused to the court. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the proceedings were of a complex character and noted that the court had taken many appropriate steps in order to speed them up.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4461", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n6.  The applicant was charged with multiple counts of fraud and unlawful possession of a firearm. The trial took place before the Grodzisk Wielkopolski District Court. The applicant, represented by a legal-aid lawyer, was present during the trial. On 19 May 2006 the court convicted the applicant of multiple counts of fraud, acquitted him of the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.\n7.  The applicant’s legal‑aid lawyer, who had represented him during the proceedings, filed an appeal against this judgment with the Poznań Court of Appeal. He maintained, in particular, that the first‑instance court had committed errors when applying the relevant provisions of substantive law; that the court had erred in refusing to admit a further expert opinion in evidence; that the presumption of innocence had thereby been breached as the court had refused to admit this evidence because the applicant had in the past been convicted in different criminal proceedings; and that the court had wrongly established the relevant facts of the case which had led it to make a wrong decision.\n8.  By a letter dated 2 July 2006 the applicant lodged his own appeal with the court. He argued, inter alia, that the first‑instance court had committed errors in the assessment of the evidence, that the establishment of the facts had been erroneous and that the court’s reasoning, leading to the finding of guilt, was arbitrary. He argued that the principle of the presumption of innocence had thereby been breached. The prosecuting authorities also appealed against the judgment.\n9.  By a letter of 10 October 2006 the applicant, who was in detention at that time, requested leave to be brought from prison to the hearing before the Poznań Court of Appeal. His request read:\n“On the basis of Article 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I hereby request to be brought to a hearing to be held on 22 November 2006 before the court of appeal during the appeal proceedings against the judgment of the Grodzisk Wielkopolski District Court.”\n10.  By a decision of 25 October 2006 the court refused leave. The decision read as follows:\n“Under Article 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an appellate court shall order that a detained accused be brought to the hearing, unless it decides that the presence of a lawyer is sufficient.\nThe Regional Court is of the view that the [applicant’s] request is very brief and vague and that its author has limited himself to saying that he would like to attend the hearing, failing to specify reasons why his presence was necessary or required.\nThe [applicant] is represented by a legal-aid lawyer, whose presence at the appeal hearing is obligatory. In those circumstances his right to an effective defence will be fully secured.”\n11.  On 22 November 2006 the Court of Appeal held a hearing. The applicant’s lawyer was present. In his oral pleadings the lawyer reiterated the arguments advanced in his appeal.\nThe Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals against the first‑instance judgment. The court examined the grounds for the appeals adduced by the applicant’s lawyer and by the applicant himself. It was of the view that the lower court had thoroughly assessed the evidence and had carefully considered the applicant’s guilt. Its conclusions were logical, thorough and meticulously explained in the light of the voluminous evidence obtained in the ca", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4462", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n8.  The applicant’s mother married A.O. in a religious ceremony. In 1990 the applicant and H.O., A.O.’s son, started a relationship and began living together. They officially married on 12 November 1995. They had three children, in 1993, 1994 and 1996. The applicant and H.O. had heated arguments from the outset of their relationship. The facts set out below were not disputed by the Government.\n9.  On 10 April 1995 the applicant and her mother filed a complaint with the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor’s Office, alleging that H.O. and A.O had been asking them for money, and had beaten them and threatened to kill them. They also alleged that H.O. and his father wanted to bring other men home.\n10.  On the same day, the applicant and her mother were examined by a doctor. The applicant’s medical report noted bruises on her body, an ecchymosis and swelling on her left eyebrow and fingernail scratches on the neck area. The medical report on the applicant’s mother also noted bruises and swellings on her body. On 20 April 1995 definitive reports were issued, which confirmed the findings of the first report and stated that the injuries in question were sufficient to render both the applicant and her mother unfit to work for five days.\n11.  On 25 April 1995 the public prosecutor lodged indictments against H.O. and A.O. for death threats and actual bodily harm. On 15 June 1995 the Diyarbakır First Magistrate’s Court discontinued the assault case, as the applicant and her mother had withdrawn their complaints and had thereby removed the basis for the proceedings under Article 456 § 4 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  On 11 September 1995 the Diyarbakır Second Magistrate’s Court also acquitted the defendants of making death threats on account of the lack of evidence, and again discontinued the assault case, noting that it had been previously heard by the Diyarbakır First Magistrate’s Court.\n13.  On 11 April 1996, during an argument, H.O. beat the applicant very badly. The medical report drawn up on that occasion recorded surface bleeding on the applicant’s right eye, bleeding on her right ear, an ecchymosis on her left shoulder and back pain. The report concluded that the applicant’s injuries were sufficient to endanger her life. On the same day, at the request of the public prosecutor and by a decision of a single judge, H.O. was remanded in custody.\n14.  On 12 April 1996 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Diyarbakır Criminal Court, accusing H.O. of aggravated bodily harm under Articles 456 § 2 and 457 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n15.  On 15 April 1996 H.O. filed a petition with the Presidency of the First Magistrate’s Court, requesting his release pending trial. He explained that during an argument with his wife he had become angry and had slapped his wife two or three times. Then his mother-in-law, who worked at a hospital, had obtained a medical report for his wife and that report had led to his detention for no reason. He stated that he did not want to lose his family and business and that he regretted beating his wife.\n16.  On 16 April 1996 the Second Magistrate’s Court dismissed H.O.’s request for release pending trial and decided that his pre-trial detention should be continued.\n17.  At the hearing on 14 May 1996, the applicant repeated her complaint. The public prosecutor requested that H.O. be released pending trial, considering the nature of the offence and the fact that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4463", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Wałbrzych.\n5.  The applicant was the owner of a piece of land in Radomsko. On 12 December 1985 he concluded an arrangement with a co-operative enabling him to begin construction work.\n6.  On 16 September 1988 the applicant renounced his right to the land and the house which had meanwhile been constructed on it.\n7.  In consequence, on 4 November 1988 the board of the co-operative stripped the applicant of his membership. The applicant appealed. On 21 November 1988 the supervisory board upheld the decision.\n8.  On an unspecified date a certain S.B. and his family settled in the applicant’s house.\n9.  On 31 December 1988 the applicant brought an action against S.B. and the co-operative in the Radomsko District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), seeking repossession of his property and restoration of his membership of the co-operative.\n10.  On 30 July 1990 the court allowed the applicant’s claim. On 22 November 1990 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the defendant’s appeal.\n11.  On 8 February 1991 the Radomsko District Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the final judgment.\n12.  After the judgment became final, the applicant asked the bailiff of the District Court (Komornik Sądu Rejonowego) to institute enforcement proceedings.\n13.  On 27 May 1991 the bailiff, despite the fact that S.B. had not vacated the applicant’s house, made an official record of restoration of possession in favour of the applicant (protokolarne wprowadzenie w posiadanie).\n14.  On 18 September 1991 the Radomsko District Court quashed the bailiff’s decision and ordered that S.B. be evicted.\n15.  On 8 May 1992 the District Court bailiff found that it had no competence to deal with the case. The applicant lodged a complaint about the actions taken by the bailiff (skarga na czynności komornika). On 5 January 1993 the Radomsko Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint.\n16.  As the enforcement proceedings were unsuccessful, on 1 August 1994 the applicant brought an action against S.B. before the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court seeking repossession of the property and compensation. On 1 June 2000 the court gave judgment in favour of the applicant and ordered S.B. to return the property.\n17.  On 13 February 2001 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the Regional Court judgment. On 4 April 2001 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the final judgment.\n18. On 23 July 2001 the applicant asked the bailiff of the District Court to institute enforcement proceedings.\n19.  On 18 September 2001 the bailiff requested S.B. to vacate the property.\n20.  On 28 November 2001 the bailiff made an unsuccessful attempt to recover possession.\n21.  On 6 December 2001 the applicant made a further complaint about the actions of the bailiff. On 17 January 2002 the Radomsko District Court dismissed the complaint.\n22.  On 4 February 2002 the Radomsko District Court again made an official record of restoration of possession in favour of the applicant. The applicant appealed. On 16 April 2002 the Regional Court quashed the District Court’s decision.\n23.  On 17 October 2002 the applicant lodged his third complaint against the actions taken by the bailiff. On 25 November 2002 the District Court ordered the bailiff to secure alternative accommodation for S.B. and his family.\n24.  On 25 November 2002 the Radomsko District Court ordered the bailiff to guarantee alterna", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4464", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Zabrze. He is currently detained in Włocławek Prison.\n6.  On 29 September 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking, committed while acting in an organised criminal gang.\n7.  On 1 October 2003 the Bytom District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court pointed out that other persons involved in the crime were still at large. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n8.  Later, several other members of the same criminal gang were detained and charged in connection with the investigation against the applicant.\n9.  The applicant's appeal against the detention order, like his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeal, he argued that the authorities had failed to justify his continued detention by relevant and sufficient reasons. He stressed that the measure complained of should be imposed only at the initial stage of the proceedings and that his continued detention constituted in practice deprivation of liberty. He also relied on his personal circumstances, in particular on the difficult financial situation of his family.\n10.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged on 3 December 2003, 8 March 2004, 3 June 2004 and 22 September 2004. In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant's detention.\n11.  On 22 December 2004 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Katowice District Court. The applicant was charged with drug trafficking, illegal arms trading, unlawful possession of a firearm and acting in an organised criminal gang. There were fifteen defendants in the case, all charged with numerous counts of drug trafficking committed in an organised criminal gang.\n12.  On 25 August 2005 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held some sixty-one hearings in the case.\n13.  During the court proceedings the authorities further prolonged the applicant's detention (on 30 December 2004, 17 March 2005, 14 June 2005, 24 August 2005, 8 March 2006, 17 August 2006, 20 December 2006 and 23 March 2007). The courts repeated the grounds previously given for his continued detention.\n14.  On 15 May 2007 the Katowice District Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted of drug trafficking, unlawful possession of a firearm and acting in an organised criminal gang and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment.\n15.  The applicant appealed against that judgment.\n16.  On 7 May 2008 the Katowice Regional Court heard the applicant's appeal. It partly quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case in respect of the charges concerning drug trafficking and acting in an organised criminal gang. The court upheld the first-instance judgment in respect of the charge concerning unlawful possession of a firearm for which the applicant had been sentenced to three years' imprisonment. It held that the applicant's detention from 29 September 2003 to 29 September 2006 should be counted towards his sentence.\n17.  The retrial", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4465", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Zgierz.\n5.  On 22 January 2004 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed extortion, car insurance fraud and bribery while acting in an organised criminal group. On 24 January 2004 the Zgierz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his detention on remand. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question, the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on him, the complexity of the case and the risk that he might tamper with evidence.\n6.  On 27 January 2004 the Zgierz District Prosecutor ordered that the applicant’s assets be attached by way of an interim measure.\n7.  On 15 April 2004 the Zgierz District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 22 July 2004. It repeated the grounds previously given for his detention.\n8.  On 16 July 2004 the Zgierz District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 31 December 2004. On 20 December 2004 that court ordered his continued detention until 21 January 2005. The court emphasised that the grounds originally given for his detention were still valid.\n9.  On 11 January 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention until 30 June 2005. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, which was corroborated by evidence from witnesses and co-accused. It referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the complexity of the case. The court made reference to the measures already taken in the investigation and indicated, in a detailed manner, the evidence that still had to be obtained.\n10.  On 17 June 2005 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Zgierz District Court. The applicant was charged with one count of car insurance fraud committed in an organised criminal group. The bill of indictment was brought against 46 defendants.\n11.  On 23 June 2005 the court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 December 2005. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the volume of evidence obtained in the investigation.\n12.  On 21 December 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 30 June 2006. On 21 June 2006 it extended his detention until 30 October 2006. All the decisions reiterated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s detention, most notably the reasonable suspicion of his having committed the offences in question and the severity of the anticipated penalty which, in the courts’ opinion, justified keeping him in custody so as to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n13. The applicant’s appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeals, he argued that the charge against him was based on unreliable and contradictory evidence and he relied on his personal circumstances, in particular the need to provide care to his wife and their new-born child, his poor health and the fact that he did not have a previous criminal record.\n14.  On 25 October 2006 the Łódź Court of Appeal refused the trial court’s application for the applicant’s detention to be extended further. The court held that the trial c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4466", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Lubiąż.\n5.  On 6 January 2006 the applicant was remanded in custody. The grounds for this decision are unknown, since the applicant has not produced a copy of the order.\n6.  On 7 November 2006 the Swiebodzin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) extended the applicant’s detention. On the same day the court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against him. The court held that the applicant at the time of the commission of the offence had been incapable of recognising its significance or controlling his conduct because of his mental illness. The applicant had been diagnosed with schizophrenia (paranoid subtype).\n7.  On 1 October 2007 the applicant was placed in a mental hospital.\n8.  On 22 April 2008 the Świebodzin District Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention at the mental hospital. The court held that he was still suffering from severe schizophrenia.\n9.  On 22 July and 20 November 2008 the Świebodzin District Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the applicant due to his mental illness. The applicant’s state of health was confirmed by a medical certificate of 1 October 2008.\n10.  In the light of the applicant’s submissions, it is impossible to establish the facts relating to his detention.\n11.  On 4 December 2006 the Court received a letter from the applicant dated 23 November 2006. The letter was sent while the applicant was detained in the Szamotuły Remand Centre (Areszt Śledczy). It bears the following stamp: “District Court in Świebodzin, censored” (Sąd Rejonowy Świebodzin, Cenzurowano), a handwritten date: “28.11.06” and an illegible signature.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4467", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Mr Krzysztof Kamecki, Sławomir Kamecki and Irena Kamecka-Kossowska, were born in 1954, 1951 and 1949 respectively. The first applicant lives in Vienna, Austria, the second in Puławy, Poland, and the third in Kleve, Germany.\n6.  The applicants own a plot of land and a house in Puławy, Poland. They have been involved in several sets of administrative proceedings relating to an apartment block constructed on a neighbouring plot of land.\n7.  In the local development plan the plots of land in question were intended for construction of one-family houses, multi-family houses and for services and commercial purposes. In 1997 the Południe housing cooperative applied to change the local development plan in view of their intention to construct an apartment block.\n8.  On 29 September 1997 the Puławy City Council (Rada Miasta) allowed the application and amended the local development plan deciding that the main purpose of the land would be housing. The applicants learned about the decision on an unspecified later date and complained about it to the Supreme Administrative Court.\n9.  On 18 February 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court examined the complaint and found that the impugned decision had been given in violation of the law as the applicants had not been informed about the proceedings. However, the court did not quash the decision as more than one year had elapsed and domestic law did not allow for it to be quashed after that period.\n10.  On 16 December 1997 the Mayor of Puławy (Prezydent Miasta Puławy) granted planning permission (concerning the construction of the apartment block).\n11.  The applicants appealed, but on 19 February 1998 the Lublin Self‑Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny).\n12.  On 11 March 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the complaint and declared both decisions null and void (stwierdzenie nieważności). The court established that the local authorities “had violated the elementary rules of the Code of Administrative Proceedure”. In particular they had not notified the applicants about the proceedings as they had addressed all letters to their late mother, which had deprived each applicant of their right to participate in the proceedings as a party.\n13.  On 13 January 1998 the President of the Południe housing cooperative applied for a building permit for construction of the apartment block. The L-shaped block would share a border with the applicants’ property on two sides.\n14.  On 25 March 1998 the Mayor of Puławy (Prezydent Miasta Puławy) granted the application. The applicants appealed.\n15.  On 14 May 1998 the Lubelski Governor (Wojewoda Lubelski) dismissed the appeal. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n16.  Subsequently, as the Governor’s decision became final, the housing cooperative started construction of the apartment block.\n17.  The applicants applied to stay the enforcement of the Lubelski Governor’s decision pending the examination of the complaint by the Supreme Administrative Court. However, on 14 August 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed their application.\n18.  On 19 June 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the appeal, quashed both impugned decisions and remitted the case. The court established that the local authorities had given decisions while the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4468", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  At the time of the events giving rise to this application, the applicant was the manager of the post office in Beyoğlu, Istanbul. He wrote an article entitled “An open letter to Ms G.B., former Director of the Istanbul PTT”, in which he criticised Ms G.B.’s negligence in the project to restore the Beyoğlu post office building and blamed her for the dilapidated state and partial collapse of the building. In May 2000, the article was published in the 496th issue of the Pos‑Tel magazine, a non‑profit-making publication of the State postal service (“the PTT”), which has approximately 28,000 employees.\n7.  In the same edition of the magazine, in an article entitled “PTT Hospital and Beyoğlu Post office”, the editor-in-chief also criticised the restoration project and claimed that the amount paid for the project suggested that it had been carried out to make certain people richer. He concluded that those who were responsible for the current state of the building or had been negligent had been put on trial, but that the unlawfulness and abuses would soon be forgotten and the accused would get away with the offences. He pointed out that justice delayed was not justice.\n8.  On 7 June 2000 Ms G.B. sent a letter of correction to the editor‑in‑chief of the magazine, requesting him to publish her replies to the allegations made against her. This letter was received by the editor-in-chief on 9 June 2000.\n9.  Since the magazine did not publish the letter, Ms G.B. brought an action in the Fatih Criminal Court of First Instance seeking an order for the publication of her letter.\n10.  On 26 June 2000 the Fatih Criminal Court ordered the publication of the correction letter. However, it decided that certain passages in the letter should be deleted as the statements contained therein went beyond the aim of responding to the allegations made against the plaintiff. The parties did not inform the Court whether this letter was published in the Pos-Tel magazine.\n11.  On 31 August 2000 Ms G.B. brought a civil action for compensation against the applicant and the editor-in-chief of the magazine before the Istanbul Civil Court of First Instance. She claimed that the allegedly defamatory remarks made in the magazine, particularly in the applicant’s article, constituted an attack on her reputation. She thus requested that the court award her compensation in the amount of 5,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) for non‑pecuniary damage.\n12.  During the proceedings the court examined the following passages:\n“My esteemed former Director, ... as a result of your pointless and inappropriate acts, which were carried out merely to obtain economic and political profit and to appear cute to some people, you caused irreparable harm to our historic PTT (Beyoğlu) building ...\n... I believe that our late Minister of Communications, Hüseyin Hasip Efendi, would turn in his grave if he saw the building today ...\nMy esteemed retired Director, in an interview which was published in Tempo magazine, in which you appeared in the guise of a heroine and a symbol for honesty, like an exemplary manager in Turkey, you managed to exploit the sentiments of (the interviewer) by appearing innocent, clean and pure. The interview was given the title ‘They ate the president who did not eat’. This title moved me tremendously and made me think. I wished that the interview had not been published in a serious magazine. Now, like a lady with a cons", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4469", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Hamburg.\n6.  At the material time the applicant was working as a general practitioner in Hamburg.\n7.  On 31 August 1993 the review board at the Hamburg Regional Medical Association (Prüfungsausschuss bei der Kassenärztliche Vereinigung Hamburg), after having examined the applicant’s economic efficiency (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below), decided to reduce by 15% the fees payable to her for the first quarter of 1993 and as far as initial check-ups were concerned. It argued that the fees claimed for her initial check-ups exceeded the average for that category by 72% and that there was thus a presumption of a lack of economic efficiency which the applicant had failed to rebut. Instead of 33,200 euros (EUR) the applicant was therefore awarded a reduced sum of EUR 32,200 in quarterly fees.\n8.  By a letter dated 8 November 1993 the applicant lodged an administrative appeal.\n9.  On 20 October 1994 the appeal board at the Hamburg Medical Association (Beschwerdeausschuss bei dem Prüfungsausschuss der Kassenärztlichen Vereinigung Hamburg – “the appeal board”) dismissed her appeal. It also held that the applicant had failed to rebut the presumption of her lack of economic efficiency by demonstrating any particularities of her practice or consequent savings justifying the remuneration claimed for initial check-ups. That decision was served upon the applicant on 25 January 1995.\n10.  By a letter dated 20 February 1995 the applicant appealed to the Hamburg Social Court.\n11.  On 8 March 1995 the court requested the appeal board to submit its pleadings.\n12.  In April 1995 the AOK Hamburg, a public health-insurance company, requested a third-party summons (Beiladung).\n13.  On 4 July 1995 the applicant requested the court not to schedule the hearing before mid-September 1995.\n14.  On 9 August 1995, following a reminder from the court, the appeal board submitted that the claim should be dismissed, referring to the reasons stated in its decision. It also asked for an extension of the time allowed for submitting additional observations.\n15.  On 5 September 1995 the court issued a third-party summons to the Hamburg Medical Association and the health-insurance funds.\n16.  On 3 June 1996 the applicant requested the court not to schedule a hearing between 24 June and 19 July 1996.\n17.  On 30 May 1997 the court scheduled the hearing for 17 September 1997.\n18.  On 17 September 1997, at the hearing, the court requested the appeal board to supply further information as regards reductions of the fees paid to the applicant in previous quarters.\n19.  On 5 November 1997 the appeal board submitted the information requested.\n20.  In her reply of 13 February 1998 the applicant requested that further inquiries be carried out as to the facts. She also complained about the length of the proceedings.\n21.  In March 1998 the court suggested that the appeal board and the third parties submit further observations.\n22.  In April 1998 the appeal board filed its pleadings.\n23.  On 23 June 1998 the applicant requested the court not to schedule the hearing before 15 September 1998.\n24.  On 7 July 1998 the court scheduled the hearing for 7 October 1998. The AOK, a further insurance company, a regional insurance association and also the Hamburg Medical Association were summoned as interested parties.\n25.  On 7 October 1998 it dismissed the applicant’s claim. It held that the appeal board had complied with its duty to provide ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4471", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Urus-Martan. The applicant is the mother of Abu Khasuyev, who was born in 1978.\n8.  At the material time the applicant lived with her son, Abu Khasuyev, his wife and his minor daughter. Abu Khasuyev worked as a physical training teacher. The family lived in a flat in a two-storey block of flats at 20 Sovetskaya Street, Urus-Martan, Chechnya. The applicant submitted a copy of Abu Khasuyev’s passport with the official registration of his domicile at 20 Sovetskaya Street in Urus-Martan. According to the applicant, houses in the street were renumbered at some point later, after the events, and their address was changed to 18 Sovetskaya Street. According to the Government, at the material time the applicant and her family resided at 18 Sovetskaya Street.\n9.  The Russian federal forces had had full control over the town of Urus-Martan since December 1999. Numerous military units were stationed in the town and on its outskirts. The various public bodies, including the town administration, the district military commander’s office and law enforcement agencies, were functioning properly.\n10.  In August 2001 the federal military authorities placed further checkpoints around the town to ensure that all transport going into or out of Urus-Martan passed through those checkpoints.\n11.  At the time of the events described below one of the checkpoints was located just across the street from the applicant’s block of flats. In the vicinity of the applicant’s building there was another checkpoint of the Russian military forces, the town administration and the Urus-Martan district department of the interior (the ROVD). Several police officers stood watch on the roof of the ROVD round the clock. According to the applicant, her house could be clearly seen from the rooftop. The applicant produced a photograph of her street and indicated the location of the checkpoints and the respective administrative buildings.\n12.  According to the applicant, on 30 August 2001 she was at work. Her son was at home. He was sick and was staying in bed with an intravenous drip. His wife, daughter, and one of the applicant’s sisters were also at home.\n13.  Around 1 p.m. the applicant’s daughter-in-law was about to leave for a local food market. When she opened the door a group of about ten men in camouflage uniforms rushed into the flat. They had machine guns and sniper rifles with silencers (“vintorez”). They spoke unaccented Russian. All but two of them were wearing masks. Those without masks were fair-haired, blue-eyed and had a Slavic appearance. The applicant’s relatives thought that the intruders were Russian military servicemen.\n14.  The intruders did not produce identity papers or any documents to justify their actions, gave no explanations, and quickly searched the flat.\n15.  The applicant’s sister lost consciousness at the sight of the men. The men pointed their machine guns at the applicant’s daughter-in-law and her three-month-old daughter. The applicant’s daughter-in-law heard the intruders enter Abu Khasuyev’s room and order him to lie on the floor. After that she saw the intruders taking her husband outside. He was barefoot, a T-shirt which he was wearing was pulled over his head and his hands were behind his head.\n16.  The applicant’s daughter-in-law asked one of the men without masks why they were arresting Abu Khasuyev and where they were taking him. In response the officer asked her what relation she was to the ar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4472", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Krilo Jesenice.\n6.  The legal system of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) distinguished between two types of ownership: private ownership (privatno vlasništvo) and social ownership (društveno vlasništvo). While owners of property in private ownership were private individuals (natural persons) and some private legal entities called “civil legal entities” (građanske pravne osobe) such as foundations, associations and religious communities, property in social ownership, according to the official doctrine, had no owner. Nevertheless, the federal State, the constituent Republics, municipalities being local government units and other various legal entities called “social legal entities” (društvene pravne osobe), among which the most important ones were companies, known at the time as “organisations of associated labour” (organizacije udruženog rada) and later on as “socially owned companies” (društvena poduzeća), were during the socialist period given certain quasi-ownership rights over property in social ownership, such as the right to use it (pravo korištenja), the right to administer it (pravo upravljanja) or the right to dispose of it (pravo raspolaganja). Private individuals could also acquire certain rights over property in social ownership. Notably, many individuals living in socially owned flats had specially protected tenancies (stanarsko pravo) in respect of those flats.\n7.  The Constitution of the Republic of Croatia of 1990 (Ustav Republike Hrvatske, Official Gazette, no. 56/1990 with subsequent amendments) acknowledged only one type of ownership: private ownership. Therefore, in order to bring the country’s legal system in conformity with its Constitution, in the period between 1991 and 1997 the Croatian Parliament adopted several legislative acts with a view to transforming social ownership into private ownership.\n8.  In particular, the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act (Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo, Official Gazette no. 27/1991 with subsequent amendments – “the Sale to Occupier Act”), which entered into force on 19 June 1991, enabled the holders of specially protected tenancies to purchase their flats which were in social ownership under favourable conditions and thereby become their owners.\n9. The Transformation of Socially Owned Companies Act (Zakon o pretvorbi društvenih poduzeća, Official Gazette no. 19/1991 with subsequent amendments), which entered into force on 1 May 1991, provided that all “socially owned companies” had to transform into commercial companies, in particular into either limited liability companies or joint stock companies.\n10.  On 1 January 1997 both the Ownership and Other Rights In Rem Act (Zakon o vlasništvu i drugim stvarnim pravima, Official Gazette no. 91/1996 of 28 October 1996 – “the 1996 Property Act”), and the Act on Compensation for, and Restitution of, Property Taken During the Yugoslav Communist Regime (Zakon o naknadi za imovinu oduzetu za vrijeme jugoslavenske komunističke vladavine, Official Gazette nos. 92/1996, with subsequent amendments – “the Denationalisation Act”), entered into force. By entry into force of these two Acts the transformation of social ownership into private ownership was largely completed.\n11.  The 1996 Property Act provided that by its entry into force the holders of the rights to use, administer and dispose of socially owned property (see paragrap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4473", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Nebist Khalitova, born in 1959;\n2) Ms Zarema Almurzayeva, born in 1971;\n3) Ms Zalina Chapayeva, born in 1982; and\n4) Mr Maulat Achkhanov, born in 1929.\nThe first applicant lives in the village of Raduzhnoe. The second, third and fourth applicants live in the village of Pobedinskoe. The two villages are located a short distance one from another in the Groznenskiy District of the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The first applicant is the wife of Mr Ali Uspayev and the mother of Mr Amir Magomedov. The second applicant is the sister of Mr Aslan Dokayev. Aslan Dokayev was married to the third applicant. The fourth applicant is the father of Mr Rustam Achkhanov.\n8.  On the night of 18 July 2001 the first applicant, her son and husband were sleeping in their house in Raduzhnoe. At about 5 a.m. around thirty unidentified armed men wearing camouflage uniforms broke into it. The men did not identify themselves. They had Slavic features and spoke Russian without an accent.\n9.  The first applicant looked out of the window and saw the armed men dragging Amir Magomedov, who had his legs in a plaster cast because of a previous trauma, to the gates. Ali Uspayev was lying on the ground in the courtyard with his arms handcuffed behind his back. Then one of the armed men hit the first applicant with a rifle butt and she lost consciousness. Having recovered a few minutes later, she saw that everyone had left the house.\n10.  According to her neighbours who witnessed the events, the armed men loaded Amir Magomedov and Ali Uspayev into one of two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) parked next to the first applicant’s house and drove away. Outside the village the two vehicles were joined by two more APCs.\n(b)  Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov\n11. On the morning of 18 July 2001 Rustam Achkhanov was driving his VAZ 2106 car. He was accompanied by his acquaintance, Aslan Dokayev.\n12.  At about 6 a.m., when they reached the village of Raduzhnoe, unidentified armed men in four APCs without registration numbers opened fire in the direction of the VAZ 2106 car. Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov got out of the car and started running. The armed men continued shooting, wounded Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov and loaded them into one of the APCs. Then they took the music player and some other valuable items from the VAZ 2106 car, poured petrol over it and then set it on fire. The car blew up. The four APCs drove away.\n13.  The second, third and fourth applicants did not see their relatives being taken away and obtained the description of the events from inhabitants of Raduzhnoe.\n14.  On 18 July 2001 units of the federal troops and the Internal Troops of the Russian Ministry of the Interior carried out a special operation in the village of Pobedinskoe with a view to arresting members of illegal armed groups and prosecuting them in accordance with the law in force. The servicemen of the Internal Troops had a right to carry and use arms when ensuring peace and order. Residents of the Chechen Republic were advised by officials to abstain from using cars or other vehicles at night because of the unlawful activities of illegal armed groups and the counter-attacks of federal troops.\n15.  At about 5 a.m. on 18 July 2001 Aslan Dokayev and Rustam Achkhanov were travelling in a VAZ 2106 car in the direction of the village of Pobedinskoe. At some point near the bridge on the Alkhanchurskiy canal servicemen participating in the counter-terrorism campaign ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4474", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a private limited company with its registered office in Bratislava. The applications on its behalf were lodged by Mr D. Paľko and Mr M. Morong, the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of its managing board.\n6.  On 15 July 2005 the applicant company concluded a contract with Slovak Radio, a public-law institution. Under that contract, taken together with two additional ones concluded on 20 September 2005 and 27 January 2006, the applicant company acquired the right, in exchange for compensation paid to Slovak Radio, to recover unpaid broadcast receiver licences in 355,917 cases, plus additional sums for default in those payments.\n7.  On 20 October 2008 the Bratislava I District Court confirmed the validity of the above contracts. The decision became final on 5 November 2008.\n8.  The applicant company was obliged to sue those persons who had refused to pay the debt which it had acquired the right to recover. The applicant company prepared individual actions with a request for payment orders to be issued against the debtors. Given the number of persons concerned, the actions were generated by means of computer software and recorded on DVDs. The DVDs were sent to the district courts concerned, accompanied by an explanatory letter.\n9.  Thus the applicant company, on 31 March 2006 and 24 July 2006, lodged actions, in electronic form, with several district courts. On 19 October 2006, after officials of the Ministry of Justice had stated that courts were in a position to register such actions, the applicant company resubmitted the first group of actions to the courts concerned on DVDs. The courts refused to register the actions, indicating that they lacked the equipment to receive and process submissions made and signed electronically. Further relevant details of the applications under examination are set out in Appendix I.\n10.  In one case the applicant company submitted, on 14 December 2006, with the agreement of the Svidník District Court, a printed version of the 379 actions it had lodged on a DVD on 31 March 2006. The documents in support of the claims remained available on the DVD exclusively. The file numbers indicate that the District Court registered those actions as having been lodged in 2007.\n11.  On 15 December 2008 the applicant company informed the Court that its claims relating to the actions which the district courts had refused to register had become statute-barred.\n12.  In 2006, following the district courts’ refusal to register the actions it had submitted on DVDs, the applicant company lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court in respect of each individual refusal. Referring to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalent, it alleged a violation of its right of access to a court.\n13.  The Constitutional Court rejected the complaints in the cases under consideration as having been lodged outside the statutory time-limit of two months. The decisions stated that the applicant company had earlier learned, in the context of its previous attempts to lodge actions electronically, that district courts lacked the necessary equipment for processing such actions and had failed to lodge a complaint with the Constitutional Court at that time. The Constitutional Court considered it irrelevant that the above-mentioned time-limit had been complied with in respect of the district courts’ refusal to register actions in those cases which underlay the constitutional complaints under consideration (further", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4476", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1948 and 1949 respectively and live in Warszawa.\n5.  On 25 October 1993 the applicants lodged with the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a statement of claim for payment.\n6.  On 9 March 1995 the court gave a judgment in absentia, in favour of the applicants. The applicants asked the bailiff of the District Court (Komornik Sądu Rejonowego) to institute enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On 16 May 1995 the applicants were ordered to pay court fees.\n8.  On 3 April 1996 the court granted the defendant retrospective leave to appeal and ordered the enforcement proceedings to be adjourned.\n9.  In the course of the enforcement proceedings the applicants asked to be exempted from court fees. By a decision of the Szczecin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) given on 1 April 1997 they were exempted from court fees.\n10.  On 9 April 1997 the court decided to stay the proceedings following the death of the defendant. The proceedings were resumed on 27 September 2002.\n11.  The first hearing in the case was scheduled for 21 May 2003.\n12.  On 16 October 2003 the court gave judgment in absentia in favour of the applicants. The enforcement proceedings are pending.\n13.  On 12 November 1993 the applicants sued M.L. and L.F. before the Warsaw District Court. They sought payment.\n14.  On 25 February 1994 the court found that it lacked competence to deal with the case and referred it to the Szczecin Regional Court.\n15.  On 9 March 1995 the Szczecin Regional Court gave a partial judgment in absentia in favour of the applicants as regards the claim against L.F.\n16.  On 21 June 1995 the court gave the final judgment in absentia.\n17.  On 28 September 1995 the court rejected the interlocutory appeal lodged by M.L. On 29 April 1997 it granted L.F. retrospective leave to appeal.\n18.  In a letter of 9 March 1998 the applicants complained to the Ministry of Justice (Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości) about the delay in the proceedings.\n19.  On 18 May 1998 the President of the Regional Court (Prezes Sądu Okręgowego) acknowledged the delay and informed them that he had ordered the court to proceed speedily with the proceedings.\n20.  On 23 August 1998 L.F. died. His heirs, T.I. and J.Ł. replaced L.F. as the defendant in the proceedings.\n21.  On 9 November 2001, 19 February and 3 October 2003 the court held hearings.\n22.  On 19 November 2003 the applicants complained to the Ministry of Justice, the Ombudsman (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich) and the President of the Regional Court about the delay in the proceedings and violation of their right to a trial within a reasonable time, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention.\n23.  On 22 December 2003 the Szczecin Regional Court quashed the partial judgment of 9 March 1995 and dismissed the applicants’ claim. The applicants appealed.\n24.  The hearing scheduled for 19 October 2004 was adjourned.\n25.  On 11 October 2005 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the first instance judgment.\n26.  On 29 November 2005 the Poznań Regional Court officially appointed a lawyer who was supposed to lodge a cassation appeal on the applicants’ behalf. On 12 December 2005 the applicants indicated that they wished to renounce free legal assistance.\n27.  On 30 January 2006 they asked the Ombudsman to lodge a cassation appeal on their behalf. On 1 September 2006 the Ombudsman refused the applicants’ request.\n28.  On 18 March 2005 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) under section 5 o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4477", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The applicant was arrested and placed in detention on 25 October 2005 on suspicion of having stolen some mobile telephones.\n7.  According to the applicant, immediately after his arrest the police started to ill-treat him almost every day during lunch breaks and in the evenings in order to try to force him to confess to numerous other offences which he had not committed. Although he was being detained on suspicion of stealing mobile telephones, he was interrogated by police officers from the homicide squad who tried to make him admit to having committed a murder. Since he refused to make any confession and denied the accusations, he was taken on 31 October 2005 to an office in the General Police Headquarters, where five police officers tortured him for several hours. His hands and legs were tied together behind his back and he was suspended on a metal bar. The police officers put a gas mask on his head and periodically closed the air tube. Two wires were placed under the gas mask and attached to his ears and he was given electric shocks. He was beaten on his head with two-litre plastic bottles filled with water and was hit on his ears. Periodically, the applicant lost consciousness. After reviving him the police officers continued the acts of torture. They attached wires to his hips and administered electric shocks to him and beat him. He was later taken off the metal bar and laid on the floor. A weight of thirty-two kilograms was placed on his back and he was left lying on the ground for approximately ten minutes. The applicant’s hands and feet were subsequently untied; he felt severe pain in the region of his lower back and was unable to move his feet. He was made to sit on a chair; however, he fell down. He was put back on the chair by two police officers, who kept telling him something, but he could not hear them. He was then taken to his cell. His cellmates put him on a bed, where he was left lying for two days. The allegations of beatings are disputed by the Government.\n8.  Since the applicant could not stand up, he was visited by two doctors on 3 November 2005. They were accompanied by one of the police officers who had allegedly tortured him. The police officer told the doctors that the applicant had fallen from his bed. The doctors diagnosed the applicant with hysteria and recommended that he be seen by a neurologist. The applicant was then taken to another room, where he was allegedly told by a police officer not to tell anybody about the acts of torture. He was allegedly threatened with death or imprisonment for twenty-five years. A police officer wrote a report on behalf of the applicant stating that nobody had beaten him up and that he had fallen from his bed and had caught a cold; he allegedly forced the applicant to sign the report.\n9.  On 4 November 2005 the applicant’s father employed a lawyer, who immediately lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office alleging ill‑treatment.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant was allegedly taken again to an office at the police station. Since he could not walk, he was lifted by two police officers. The police officers who had tortured him were in the office along with three other police officers. He was made to sit on a chair and was kicked and punched. The police officers allegedly requested that he withdraw the complaint about ill-treatment, and threatened him with death.\n11.  The ill-treatment was allegedly rep", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4478", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Yerevan.\n5.  The applicant alleged that on 5 and 9 April 2004 at 9 a.m. he was taken by police officers to Shengavit District Police Station of Yerevan where he was kept in a locked room until 7 p.m. and 6 p.m. respectively. He was neither questioned nor offered any explanation as to why he was being detained by the police. No records of his arrests were drawn up. The applicant claimed that these arrests were intended to prevent his participation in major demonstrations which were organised on those dates in Yerevan by the political opposition.\n6.  On 20 May 2004 the applicant was taken to the Shengavit District Police Station of Yerevan.\n7.  According to the record of the applicant’s arrest (արձանագրություն բերման ենթարկելու մասին), the applicant was “arrested at 7.45 p.m. on the Nzhdeh street ... for disturbing public order”.\n8.  According to the applicant, he was in reality arrested at home at 5 p.m. after a police officer visited him and asked him to accompany him to the police station.\n9.  The arresting police officers reported to the chief of police that:\n“... on 20 May 2004 at ... [we] were patrolling on Nzhdeh Square and noticed a man who was swearing out loud. We approached him and tried to call him to order, however, he did not follow our instructions and continued his unpleasant behaviour. The said citizen was brought to the police where it was established that he was [Mr Gasparyan].”\n10.  The police officers drew up a record of an administrative offence (վարչական իրավախախտման արձանագրություն) in which it was stated that the applicant was accused of committing an offence envisaged under Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO). The applicant refused to sign any of the above documents or to make a written statement.\n11.  The applicant alleged that at the police station he was first taken to the chief of the police station. Thereafter he was questioned about his participation in demonstrations and about his support for the opposition. He told the police officers that he had not committed any public order offence, to which they replied that in any event the case had already been decided. The applicant asked them to allow him to appoint a lawyer, which they refused.\n12.  The Government contested this allegation and claimed that the police officers had informed the applicant of his procedural rights and had advised him to avail himself of his right to have a lawyer but he did not wish to do so.\n13.  According to the applicant, at 10 p.m. he was taken to Judge G. of the Shengavit District Court of Yerevan (Երևան քաղաքի Շենգավիթ համայնքի առաջին ատյանի դատարան) who, after a brief hearing, sentenced him under Article 182 of the CAO to eight days of administrative detention. The judge’s entire finding amounted to the following sentence:\n“On 20 May 2004 at around 7 p.m. [the applicant] was using unaddressed swear words on Nzhdeh Square, and when the police officers warned him and called him to order, [the applicant] became upset, continued to behave in an unpleasant manner, and disobeyed the lawful orders of the police officers, for which he was brought to the Shengavit District Police Station...”", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4479", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Odessa, Ukraine.\n5.  At the material time the applicant worked at the Odessa Naval College (“the ONC”), a State educational institution. According to the applicant, in July 1990 her family was provided by the ONC with an apartment. However, she was not provided with any documents certifying her title to this apartment.\n6.  In June 1997 the ONC instituted proceedings in the Zhovtnevy District Court of Odessa against the applicant, seeking eviction of her family. In this respect the ONC argued that the premises at issue were for administrative use only and that the applicant was occupying them without permission. The applicant lodged a counterclaim, seeking to acknowledge the habitable status of the disputed premises and her tenancy title thereto. She also sought to oblige the ONC to conclude a rent contract with her on the disputed premises.\n7.  On 9 September 1997 the court joined the local city administration to the applicant’s case as a third party.\n8.  From 25 September to 6 November 1997 and from 2 December 1997 to 15 January 1998 the proceedings were stayed due to the illness of the applicant.\n9.  On 16 April 1998 the court ordered a forensic examination of the premises at issue. The expert’s report was completed by 20 October 1998.\n10.  On 9 November 1998 the applicant lodged an additional claim, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n11.  On 31 December 1998 the court found for the ONC and rejected the applicant’s counterclaims. Accordingly, it ordered eviction of the applicant’s family.\n12.  On 23 March 1999 the Odessa Regional Court (since June 2001 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal) quashed this judgment on an appeal by the applicant, finding that the lower court had failed to identify the members of the applicant’s family and to join them to the proceedings as co‑defendants. Accordingly, it remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n13.  On 28 May 1999 the case was transferred for examination to the Leninsky District Court of Odessa.\n14.  From 9 June 1999 the court repeatedly requested the head of the military unit, the employer of the applicant’s husband, to provide documents necessary for the case. A reply was sent to the court only on 12 October 1999.\n15.  On 25 June 1999 the applicant’s husband and son were joined to the proceedings as co-defendants.\n16.  From 29 February to 26 April 2000 no hearing was held as the judge in charge was either away on business or ill.\n17.  On 26 April 2000 the court came to the same conclusions as the Zhovtnevy District Court of Odessa.\n18.  On 18 July 2000 the Odessa Regional Court quashed this judgment on the ground that the lower court had failed to address the statute of limitation issue in the case and the applicant’s claim for compensation. Accordingly, it remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n19.  Of the eleven hearings held between April 1999 and 18 July 2000 two were adjourned due to the applicant’s or her family members’ failure to appear before the court, and four due to the ONC representative’s failure to appear before the court. One of the hearings, on 20 December 1999, was adjourned as none of these persons attended.\n20.  In July-September 2000 the courts considered the applicant’s request to have her case examined on the merits by the panel of judges of the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal. This request was ultimately granted and the case transferred back to the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal which took it over on", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4480", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Urus-Martan, Chechnya. The applicant is the mother of Ibragim Uruskhanov (in the submitted documents also spelled as Ustarkhanov and Usturkhanov), who was born in 1973.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  At the material time the town of Urus-Martan was under curfew. The applicant’s house was located in the eastern part of the town, in the vicinity of a Russian military checkpoint.\n9.  On the night of 12 April 2002 the applicant, her son Ibragim Uruskhanov and other relatives were sleeping in their flat, no. 7, located on the second floor of a block of flats at 56 Lenina Street, Urus-Martan, Chechnya.\n10.  At about 3 a.m. the applicant heard a group of people going up the stairs to the second floor of the building. The applicant got up and looked out of the window. By the light of a street lamp she saw that the building and a nearby garage were surrounded by forty to fifty armed men in camouflage uniforms.\n11.  The applicant approached the entrance door and heard someone’s order in Russian: “No noise. Let nobody out of the building”. After that a group of seven or eight armed men broke down the door of the applicant’s flat. Two of them were wearing masks; the others had no masks and had Slavic appearance. They neither identified themselves nor produced any documents. The applicant and her relatives thought that they were Russian military servicemen.\n12.  At first the servicemen rushed into the applicant’s room, then into the room of her son Ibragim Uruskhanov and his family. The servicemen took Ibragim Uruskhanov’s passport and ordered him to go with them. When the applicant asked why they were taking her son away, the servicemen told her that they were taking him “to find something out” (для выяснения) and that she would find him the next morning, either at the Urus-Martan temporary district department of the interior (the VOVD) or at the local military commander’s office. While Ibragim Uruskhanov was getting dressed the intruders searched the flat. They did not explain what they were looking for. It appears that they did not find anything of interest to them.\n13.  Having spent about fifteen minutes in the applicant’s flat, the servicemen took her son outside. The applicant tried to follow them, but at the entrance to the building she was stopped by one of the officers, who ordered her to return home as she was violating the curfew. According to the applicant’s neighbour, Mr A.M., ten to twelve intruders walked with Ibragim Uruskhanov in the direction of the Russian military checkpoint.\n14.  The applicant waited for a few minutes and ran to her daughter, who lived nearby. Having told her about the abduction of Ibragim Uruskhanov, the applicant went back home. On her way to the flat the applicant saw a military URAL vehicle moving slowly, behind another vehicle which looked like an APC (armoured personnel carrier). Both vehicles drove in the direction of the Russian military checkpoint located in the building of the former enterprise Selkhozkhimia on the eastern outskirts of Urus-Martan.\n15.  When the applicant returned home, a number of neighbours were waiting for her. They told her that they had seen from their windows Russian military servicemen arriving at the block of flats in an APC and a military URAL vehicle. The servicemen had ordered those neighbours who had attempted to go outside to stay in their flats.\n16.  The applicant ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4481", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Munich, Germany.\n5. In 1996 the applicant entered into an agreement with a private company, Skorpion, under which the latter was obliged to construct an apartment in a block house. Following insolvency proceedings instituted against this company, the applicant entered into a debt transfer agreement (“the agreement”) with a private company, KGD, (“the company”), under which the latter accepted responsibility for the obligations of the Skorpion company.\n6. On 17 June 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against the company in the Ivano-Frankivsk Court. She requested the court to declare a part of the agreement null and void and sought a ruling to oblige the company to fulfil the remainder of the agreement.\n7.  On 6 September 1999 the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court (“the City Court”) allowed the applicant’s claim.\n8.  On 16 November 1999 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court[1] quashed this decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n9.  On 3 February 2000 the company lodged a counterclaim seeking termination of the agreement on the ground that the applicant had failed to comply with the agreement.\n10.  On 6 December 2001 the City Court rejected the applicant’s claim and allowed the counterclaim.\n11.  On 13 March 2002 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld this judgment.\n12.  On 11 March 2004 the Supreme Court, following a cassation appeal by the applicant, quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.\n13.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicant modified her claims on several occasions. Finally she amended her claims on 22 August 2005. She claimed property rights over the apartment in the house constructed by the company which was occupied by Mr and Mrs K and sought their removal. She also challenged the title documents on this apartment which had been issued to Mr and Mrs K.\n14.  On 8 August 2005 the City Court, following a request by the applicant, attached Mr and Mrs K.’s apartment. On 3 November 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld this ruling.\n15.  On 6 March 2006 the company withdrew its counterclaim.\n16.  On 7 March 2006 the City Court found against the applicant.\n17.  On 12 July 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld this judgment.\n18.  On 15 September 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as unsubstantiated.\n19.  The applicant tried to appeal against the decisions given in her case under extraordinary proceedings. However her efforts were to no avail.\n20.  According to the records provided by the Government, in the course of the proceedings, of forty-five listed hearings, four hearings were adjourned due to the company’s representative’s failure to appear and six due to his requests for adjournment. The domestic courts took no steps to ensure his presence in court. Three hearings were adjourned because the judge sitting in the case was involved in other proceedings. Two hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s request and five because the applicant’s representative or lawyer failed to appear or at their request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4482", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Monastyryshche, Cherkassy region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 31 May 2002, following complaints by several persons about the applicant, the local police launched an investigation into alleged fraud. The relevant decision begins as follows: “From 2000 to 2001 [the applicant], as the head of [a private company, N.], received money from [the listed persons] under the pretence [that she would provide them with] employment abroad, swindling and abusing their confidence, [...]”.\n6.  Officially the applicant was not charged and participated in the proceedings as a witness. However, according to her, by January 2003 she had participated in a number of confrontations with victims. Furthermore, on 7 June 2002 her house had been searched by the authorities.\n7.  From 4 July to 26 December 2002 the investigation was stayed eight times due to the applicant’s illness. Apparently no other investigative steps were taken during this period. Subsequently, it was held by the District Court that the reasons relied on by the investigator in his relevant decisions to stay the proceedings during this period could be applied to an accused only.\n8.  On 9 January 2003 the police instituted two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion that she had committed abuse of authority and forgery. Subsequently other sets of proceedings which had been instituted against the applicant on the related charges were joined to the main proceedings; the latter eventually incorporated nine sets with a total of sixteen counts.\n9.  The applicant continued to be interrogated as a witness up to 29 January 2003 when she was formally charged and gave a written undertaking not to abscond.\n10.  By 23 June 2003 the investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Monastyryshche District Court (“the District Court”).\n11.  On 7 July 2003 the preliminary court hearing was held.\n12.  On 23 September 2003 the applicant was arrested.\n13.  On 25 September 2003 the investigator issued an attachment order over the applicant’s car and other items of property.\n14.  The next day the District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. Subsequently, on 16 October 2003 the Cherkassy Regional Court of Appeal quashed this order and the applicant was released.\n15.  On 1 October 2003 the District Court remitted the case for additional investigation.\n16.  On 10 October 2003 the investigator ordered a forensic technical examination of a document in the case. The expert report was completed by 29 October 2003.\n17.  From 30 October 2003 to 18 July 2005 the investigation was stayed because of the applicant’s illness. Nevertheless, within this period the domestic authorities carried out additional forensic technical examinations and applied to the Russian authorities for legal assistance. The expert report was completed within a month and the international letter rogatory was executed within two months.\n18.  By 5 September 2005 the additional investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the District Court.\n19.  On 6 October 2005 the preliminary court hearing was held.\n20.  On 23 October 2006 the prosecutor dropped the charges against the applicant on two counts as her guilt had not been proven.\n21.  On 4 December 2006 the District Court remitted the case for an additional investigation.\n22.  On 27 February 2007 the Cherkassy Regional Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4483", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Rokytno. Until August 1996 he worked as a secondary school teacher.\n6.  On 25 July 1995 K. hit the applicant and damaged his teeth.\n7.  By two medical reports of 26 July 1995 and 2 February 1996 the applicant was found to have sustained minor injuries.\n8.  On an unspecified date the criminal case was opened against K. and subsequently referred to the Yavoriv Town Court (“the Yavoriv court”). In the course of the trial the applicant introduced a claim for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages on account of his injuries.\n9.  On 7 March 1997 the applicant received from a private dentist an estimate of the medical treatment which he had to undergo as a result of his injuries, and submitted it to the court.\n10.  On 16 December 1997 the court found K. guilty of intentional infliction of minor bodily injuries and sentenced him to one year’s community service. It relied on the medical reports of 26 July 1995 and 2 February 1996.\n11.  The court further rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation on the ground that it had not been lodged in accordance with the procedural formalities, and informed him that he could institute civil proceedings against K.\n12.  The above judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n13.  On 30 March 1998 the applicant lodged with the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv (“the Galytskyy court”) a civil law claim against K.\n14.  The court ordered two medical examinations and stayed the proceedings pending their outcome for the periods of 15 February to 4 March 1999, 27 December 1999 to 21 November 2000, and 26 December 2000 to 21 April 2003. It also made several unsuccessful inquiries to the local police and hospital about the applicant’s medical documents of 1995.\n15.  From December 1999 to March 2003 the Lviv Regional Dental Hospital kept the case file for the purpose of the aforementioned examinations. Due to the loss of the relevant medical documents and the considerable lapse of time following the injuries, it found it impossible to estimate the actual costs of the treatment the applicant had had to undergo.\n16.  According to the letter of the Galytskyy court to the applicant dated 13 March 2003, the latter had twice failed to appear for medical examinations and had failed to notify the court of a change of his address.\n17.  In April 2003 the court adjourned the hearing for about a month due to the defendant’s absence.\n18.  On 26 May 2003 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered K. to pay him 2,273 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in compensation for medical expenses as confirmed by the certificate issued to the applicant by a private dentist on 7 March 1997, and UAH 1,500[2] in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The court based its judgment on the factual findings of the Yavoriv court in the criminal case against K.\n19.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4484", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in St Petersburg.\n5.  In 1987 the applicant inherited one half of a house in Leningrad (now St Petersburg) from his mother.\n6.  In 1989 the City Council decided to build new apartment buildings in the area where the applicant’s house was situated. It also decided that the houses affected by the construction plan would be demolished and their inhabitants resettled.\n7.  Between 1992 and 1996 construction work was carried out on the land by private companies commissioned by the City Council. Different underground pipelines were installed. During the construction work the applicant and his family continued to live in their house. The applicant alleges that as a result of the construction work his garden was destroyed and that the largest part of the plot became unfit for garden purposes.\n8.  On 26 January 1996 the applicant acquired the title to the plot of land surrounding his house.\n9.  On 22 September 1997 the applicant brought a court action against the Administration of the Primorskiy District of St Petersburg and private companies which had carried out the construction work. He requested the court to declare that the construction work carried out on the plot of land had resulted in de facto expropriation of part of his land and to award him compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The case was assigned to judge S.\n10.  In 1998 and 1999 the case was adjourned several times. In particular, between 10 June and 24 November 1998 no hearings were scheduled because the judge was busy in unrelated proceedings. Several hearings were adjourned either because the defendants and third parties failed to appear or because the applicant amended his claims.\n11.  In 2000 and 2001 the case was adjourned several times. In particular, between 17 February and 26 April 2000 the proceedings were suspended pending an expert study. Between 24 August 2000 and 15 March 2001 and between 21 June and 10 August 2001 the case was adjourned because the judge was on sick leave. One hearing did not take place because the defendants failed to appear.\n12.  On 13 August 2001 the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg granted the applicant’s claims for compensation of pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage in part and dismissed the remainder of his claims.\n13.  On 18 July 2002 the St Petersburg City Court (“the City Court”) held that the first-instance court had failed to properly establish important circumstances of the case and to duly assess the evidence. It quashed the judgment of 13 August 2001 in so far as it awarded the applicant compensation for non-pecuniary damage and remitted the matter to the first-instance court for a fresh examination. It upheld the remaining part of the judgment.\n14.  On 16 August 2002 the case was reassigned to judge K., who set the examination of the case down for 16 January 2003. On that date the case was adjourned until 20 March 2003, because the applicant intended to submit additional evidence to the court.\n15.  On 4 March 2003 the case was reassigned to judge A. and was scheduled for 22 May 2003. On that date the hearing was postponed until 29 September 2003, at the applicant’s request, so that he could undergo a medical examination.\n16.  Between September 2003 and November 2004 the case was adjourned several times because the applicant amended his claims and the defendants had to study his new claims, the court requested additional evidence from the parties and the applicant nee", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4485", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Lviv.\n5.  The applicant owns 99% of shares in a limited liability company “Sykhiv” (“the Sykhiv company”) and is the sole owner of a private company “Sykhiv-MB” (“the Sykhiv-MB company”).\n6.  In February 1997 the “Ukrsotsbank” bank (“the U. bank”) granted the Sykhiv-MB company a sum in credit that had to be paid back within a year. The credit was secured by the company’s real estate.\n7.  In September 1997 the “Prominvestbank” (“the P. bank”), granted credit to the Sykhiv company, also with the latter’s property as security. The criminal proceedings against the applicant would later establish that this contract was provided on the basis of fictitious transactions and in fact was aimed at raising funds for repayment of the Sykhiv-MB company’s debt vis-à-vis the U. bank (see paragraph 11 below).\n8.  In October-November 1997, according to the applicant, the State Tax Administration and the police seized certain financial documents of both the Sykhiv and Sykhiv-MB companies.\n9.  The Sykhiv-MB company failed to pay back the debt owed to the U. bank in a timely manner. Therefore, in March 1998 the notary who had certified the pledge contract securing the credit issued a writ of execution for the sale of the pledged property. In May 1998 the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv (“the Galytskyy court”) ordered the seizure of that property, which in June 1998 was sold at a public auction.\n10.  On 18 March 1997 the Lychakivskyy District Department of the Ministry of the Interior in Lviv opened a criminal investigation against the applicant on suspicion of embezzlement of State (or collective) property. On 9 May 1997 the proceedings were discontinued as the action in question had ceased to be a criminal offence.\n11.  On 12 February 1999 the Lviv Regional Prosecutor opened a new criminal investigation against the applicant on a charge of financial fraud. He was suspected of having provided a bank with false information regarding his company’s financial situation in order to obtain credit, which had allegedly caused considerable damage to the bank.\n12.  The parties’ versions of events during this period varied.\n13.  According to the applicant, he was not aware of the investigation opened against him on 12 February 1999 until August 2003. He alleged, however, that in early May 2000 he had discovered from a letter of the Lviv Regional State Administration that a criminal investigation against him on a financial fraud charge had been opened on 24 February 1999 and subsequently discontinued on 15 October 1999. This was not disputed by the Government.\n14.  In May-July 2000 the applicant complained to the Lviv Town Prosecutor, Regional Prosecutor and Prosecutor General that the criminal investigation against him had been improper, and that he had not been informed of the grounds for its opening and closure, nor had been involved in any investigative activities. The outcome of the applicant’s complaints is unknown.\n15.  According to the Government (see also paragraph 13 above), following the opening of the criminal investigation on 12 February 1999, he was summoned several times by the investigating officer for questioning, but failed to appear.\n16.  According to the documents submitted by the Government, on 29 May 1999 the “criminal case against the applicant on a charge of fraud ... [was] ... stayed pending identification of the persons who had committed the crime”; in August-December 2000 the investigator issue", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4486", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and is being detained in Remand Centre IZ-70/1 of Tomsk, Russia.\n6.  A Ms M named the applicant as her supplier of MDMA pills also known as “ecstasy”. On 9 December 2004 the Sovetskiy District Court of Tomsk authorised a search in the flat where the applicant was living. A pile of documents, cash and pills were seized. On the same day the applicant was arrested on suspicion of supplying 8.86 gm of MDMA to a Mr V (his co-accused in subsequent proceedings). By a decision of 10 December 2004, the Sovetskiy District Court of Tomsk authorised his detention. His detention was then extended on 4 February and 6 April 2005 until 9 April and 2 June 2005 respectively. His offer of a deposit of 150,000 Russian roubles (RUB) as surety for bail was refused.\n7.  On 18 May 2005 the applicant was charged with smuggling 77 gm of MDMA and 31 gm of amphetamine from Germany to Russia. His detention was extended on 31 May and 25 July 2005 until 2 August and 2 September 2005 respectively.\n8.  The investigator sought another extension, explaining that she needed more time to receive the forensic reports, list the full charges against the applicant and his co-accused, allow them to study the reports and other materials in the case file and draft a bill of indictment. On 31 August 2005 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tomsk decided to keep the applicant in detention until 2 December 2005 (that is for a total period of eleven months and twenty-four days). The court ruled in the following terms:\n“The time-limit for the preliminary investigation has not expired. The court grants the investigator’s request for an extension until 2 December 2005 so as to enable her to take certain investigative measures. The court takes into account the gravity of the charges, the exceptional complexity of the case in view of the number of persons involved in the drug trafficking and the close link between them. In addition, given that [the applicant] has both Russian and German nationality but has no permanent place of residence in Russia, the court finds that there are reasons to believe that he would abscond, fearing an eventual custodial sentence, and would then obstruct the proceedings...In view of the above, a less stringent measure of restraint would be inappropriate.”\n9.  On 25 October 2005 the applicant was charged with membership of a criminal gang, a further count of drug smuggling and a further count of supplying drugs committed as part of an organised group.\n10.  The investigator sought a further extension, stating in her request that the applicant’s guilt had been proven; however, it was impracticable to complete the investigation before 2 December 2005. On 30 November 2005 the Tomsk Regional Court extended his detention until 2 January 2006 and held as follows:\n“On 25 November 2005 investigator Matveyeva, having obtained approval from the Tomsk regional prosecutor, lodged a request dated 24 November 2005 asking the court to extend [the applicant’s] detention for one month, increasing the period of detention to twelve months and twenty-four days, that is until 2 January 2006...The accused was given access to the case file more than thirty days before the expiry of the maximum period of detention (28 October 2005). However, thirty days were not sufficient for the accused and the reasons for his detention persist. Thus, given the gravity of the charges, the specific circumstances of the case and his personality, as well as the lack of a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4487", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Sertolovo, Leningrad Region. He is a former police officer.\n6.  On 21 July 1997, at about 6 p.m., he was arrested in his office in Irkutsk on suspicion of bribe-taking. According to the applicant, his office was searched and a service weapon was seized. On the following day criminal proceedings were instituted against him under Article 290 § 4 of the Russian Criminal Code on a charge of aggravated bribery. The applicant’s detention on remand was authorised.\n7.  Four days later an investigator interviewed the applicant. According to the applicant, his counsel was not allowed to attend the interview. However, the interrogation record indicates that he was assisted by Mr Ph., counsel, who made a handwritten note in the record demanding the applicant’s release. The applicant further stated that he was not provided with legal assistance until 22 January 1998. The Government, relying on records of various investigative steps taken between July 1997 and February 1998, insisted that the applicant had made full use of his right to legal aid, being assisted by counsel, Mr Sh., and that he had not made any self-incriminating statements.\n8.  On 22 January 1998 the applicant was released on a written undertaking not to leave the town. In the same decision an investigator stayed the criminal proceedings, finding that the applicant’s poor health made it impossible for him to participate actively in the proceedings. The applicant claimed that he had been in good health at the time.\n9.  On 2 November 1998 the proceedings were resumed and joined with another set of criminal proceedings that had been instituted against the applicant on suspicion of unlawful possession of ammunition.\n10.  On 1 March 1999 the proceedings were adjourned, but resumed on 3 March 1999 on the order of a higher-ranking prosecutor. The proceedings were adjourned again on 2 April 1999 owing to the applicant’s alleged illness. Relying on a certificate issued by the head of Bratsk Town police station no. 3, the applicant insisted that he had not been sick, or received any medical treatment and that he had been performing his duties in the police station during that period. The Government confirmed that there was no medical evidence warranting any of the adjournments. The criminal proceedings were resumed on 27 November 2000 on the order of a higher-ranking prosecutor, who found that the decision to stay the proceedings was unlawful.\n11.  The pre-trial investigation was closed on 15 March 2001. The applicant was committed to stand trial before the Irkutsk Regional Court.\n12.  On 24 April 2001 the Regional Court returned the case file to the prosecution authorities with directions to correct certain procedural defects. It also made an order for the applicant to be provided with additional time to study the case-file. The prosecution authorities remitted the case file to the Regional Court on 7 August 2001.\n13.  On 14 September 2001 the Irkutsk Regional Court again remitted the case file to the prosecution authorities because the applicant had not been given enough time to study the file.\n14.  The prosecution appealed against the decision of 14 September 2001. On 8 November 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the decision and remitted the case to the Irkutsk Regional Court for examination on the merits.\n15.  On 29 March 2002 the Irkutsk Regional Court returned the case file to the prosecution authorities af", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4488", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a private company based in Lugansk, Ukraine.\n5.  The JSC Panel House Building Company No. 4 (“the company”) used the applicant company’s invention under a licence contract.\n6.  On 27 July 1998 the applicant company instituted proceedings against the company in the Kyiv City Commercial Court (“the first-instance court”). The applicant company alleged that the company had not made instalment payments due to it under the licence contract.\n7.  On 1 October 1998 the first-instance court ordered an expert examination in order to calculate the revenues received by the company and the payments due to the applicant company. On the same day the court suspended proceedings pending the outcome of the examination. By a ruling of 6 November 1998 and a letter of 5 February 1999 the court amended the questions put before the experts and added a new question. The expert report was submitted to the court in December 1999. The institution which performed the examination did not respond to all the questions put by the court due to lack of competence.\n8.  On 16 December 1999 the first-instance court ordered a new expert examination to be held by another institution. The court put the same questions. By the same ruling the court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the examination. The expert report was submitted to the court in May 2000.\n9.  Between July 1998 and 11 September 2000 the first-instance court scheduled three hearings.\n10.  On 11 September 2000 the first-instance court allowed the applicant company’s claims in part.\n11.  On 12 December 2000 the president of the first-instance court granted the company’s request to review the judgment of 11 September 2000 under the supervisory review procedure. The judgment was quashed, in particular because the first-instance court had failed to comply with procedural requirements prescribed by law while ordering the expert examination. The case was remitted for fresh consideration to the same court. On 16 May 2001 the Higher Commercial Court upheld the ruling of 12 September 2000.\n12.  On 5 June 2002 the court ordered the expert examination to be held. The proceedings were suspended. The report was submitted to the court in February 2003.\n13.  In August 2003 the company lodged a counterclaim seeking a declaration that the licence contract was null and void.\n14.  Between 12 December 2000 and 10 October 2003 the court scheduled some thirteen hearings.\n15.  On 10 October 2003 the first-instance court found against the applicant company. On 16 December 2003 the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal (“the court of appeal”) upheld this decision.\n16.  On 6 April 2004 the Higher Commercial Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n17.  Between April and November 2004 the first-instance court scheduled some six hearings.\n18.  On 16 November 2004 the first-instance court found against the applicant company. On 1 March 2005 the court of appeal upheld this decision.\n19.  On 7 June and 11 August 2005 respectively the Higher Commercial Court and the Supreme Court dismissed cassation appeals by the applicant company.\n20.  The parties did not provide this Court with precise information about the number of hearings actually held. According to the information provided by the Government, the hearings were adjourned on two occasions at the applicant company’s request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4489", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.   Ms Yefrosyniya Semenivna Bilokin was born in 1925, Ms Olena Oleksandrivna Shebitko in 1972, Mr Anatoliy Ivanovych Shebitko in 1973, Mr Petro Ivanovych Shebitko in 1967, Mr Sergiy Ivanovych Maksymenko in 1965 and Ms Nataliya Dmytrivna Maksymenko in 1963. All the applicants live in Sudiyivka, Poltava Region.\n5.  On 26 July 2001 the Poltava Town Court (“the Town Court”) allowed the applicants’ claim against the collective enterprise and ordered the latter to return to all of them certain agricultural equipment worth 13,382 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1]. It also awarded them UAH 180[2] in compensation for legal expenses.\n6.  On 17 October 2001 the Town Court changed the manner of enforcement of the judgment at the applicants’ request and ordered the debtor to pay them UAH 13,382 instead of providing them with the equipment corresponding to that amount. To secure the claim the court decided to seize the equipment at issue.\n7.  On 9 November 2001 enforcement proceedings were instituted.\n8.  In April 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service seized the debtor’s equipment.\n9.  On an unspecified date the judgment was enforced in part, an amount of UAH 2,000[3] being paid to the applicants (each of them received UAH 333[4]).\n10.  No further steps seem to have been taken for the enforcement of the judgment.\n11.  The applicants complained to the Town Court that the Bailiffs’ Service was taking no action.\n12.  On 21 November 2002 the Town Court found their complaint substantiated and ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to speed up the sale of the seized property.\n13.  In 2004 the applicants introduced a claim for damages against the Bailiffs’ Service at the Zhovtnevyy District Court, Poltava (“the District Court”).\n14.  On 5 August 2004 the District Court found for the applicants and ordered the Bailiffs’ Service to pay them jointly UAH 11,562[5] as the remaining amount of the award made by the 26 July 2001 judgment, and UAH 1,000[6] each in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. It remains unenforced for lack of funds.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4490", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in the town of Blagoveshchensk, Amur Region.\n5.  On 30 November 1998 the Amur regional police stopped a car. During an inspection of the car, the police discovered a large quantity of aviation fuel. As the driver was unable to produce a certificate for the fuel he was transporting, the police (officer S) seized 22,622 litres of fuel. The police entrusted it for safe keeping to a Belogorsk technical college and later to military unit no. 62266.\n6.  As the fuel allegedly belonged to a private company OPIUMIK (the “company”), officer S required the company director, Mr P, to produce a document confirming that the fuel had been acquired lawfully. Mr P submitted an invoice dated 1 August 1998. Criminal proceedings were, however, instituted against Mr P on suspicion of forgery of this invoice. The Belogorsk town prosecutor subsequently discontinued the proceedings on the ground that only the forgery of official documents was punishable under the Criminal Code. No decision was taken regarding the fate of the fuel.\n7.  As can be seen from the domestic courts’ findings (see paragraph 15 below), in the meantime, officer S decided not to institute any criminal proceedings in relation to the seized fuel. However, on 2 February 1999 the Belogorsk deputy prosecutor set aside this decision and ordered an additional inquiry. There is no indication that this inquiry led to any prosecution or that any decision was taken in relation to the seized fuel.\n8.  The company thus attempted to regain possession of its fuel. By a letter of 17 May 1999 the Belogorsk deputy prosecutor informed the company that the fuel had not been attached to the criminal case file against Mr P as evidence and thus no decision had to be taken. He invited Mr P to collect the fuel through the police department. On an unspecified date, however, the company learnt from the Amur police department that the fuel had been stolen when it had been stored in the military unit.\n9.  Meanwhile, the national authorities endeavoured to identify the officials responsible for the loss of the fuel. Criminal proceedings were instituted against officer S for abuse of power, as well as against the commander of the military unit and officer St, who had allegedly misappropriated the fuel in the military unit. On 18 December 1999 the Belogorsk town military prosecutor discontinued the proceedings against officer St and the head of the military unit because there was no indication of a criminal offence. On 8 April 2000 the proceedings against officer S were discontinued because his participation in the disappearance of the fuel had not been proven.\n10.  It does not appear that any criminal or other investigation continued thereafter in relation to the seized but missing fuel. No further claim was lodged in respect of it by the company or any other person or legal entity. Nor does it appear that the company made any attempts to obtain compensation after 17 May 1999 (cf. paragraph 8 above). Instead, the company chose to assign the related claims to the applicant (see below).\n11.  On 26 October 2001 the company transferred title to the seized fuel to the applicant. On 25 November 2001 the parties amended the assignment agreement, indicating that the assignment included a claim in respect of any damage or loss caused by the authorities on account of the seizure of the fuel, as well as a claim for compensation in respect of unjustified enrichment on the same account a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4491", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the village of Bolshaya Rechka, Irkutsk Region.\n5.  As an employee of a State-owned company, in 1987 the applicant and his family were granted a room in a shared flat. After his dismissal in 1992, the company sought his eviction. In 1993 the company was reincorporated as a limited liability company.\n6.  On 1 October 1993 the applicant brought proceedings against the company asserting his right to live in the room. According to the Government, the applicant’s claim was received by the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Irkutsk on 12 November 1993. The respondent sought the applicant’s eviction.\n7.  By a judgment of 1 February 1994, the District Court rejected the applicant’s claim and ordered his eviction. On 13 April 1994 the Irkutsk Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant obtained a stay of execution of the eviction order. On 20 June 1994 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the above judgments by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n8.  Thereafter the District Court examined the case twice and rendered two judgments. Each time the Regional Court quashed the judgments and remitted the case for fresh examination. It appears that in the meantime the applicant resettled and the respondent company withdrew their claim for eviction.\n9.  On 5 May 1998 the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia.\n10.  In yet another round of the resumed proceedings, the applicant confined his claim to asking the court to require the respondent to provide him with housing. By a judgment of 23 November 1998, the District Court granted this claim and ordered the company to provide the applicant with a flat. On 12 March 1999 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. The respondent sought supervisory review. On 12 April 1999 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the above judgments by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for re-examination.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings, the applicant amended his claim and sought to substitute the respondent by the new company. On 2 July 1999 the District Court required the company to provide the applicant with housing. On 1 December 1999 the Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n12.  On 24 April 2000 the District Court issued a new judgment in the applicant’s favour. On 30 June 2000 the Regional Court set aside this judgment on appeal and ordered a new examination of the case. The district judge was on annual leave from 26 July to 5 September 2000. One hearing was adjourned due to the applicant; two hearings were adjourned at the respondent’s request. On 20 February 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 23 May 2001 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant sought supervisory review. On 19 August 2002 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the above judgments and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n13.  Between October 2002 and January 2004 a number of hearings were scheduled and adjourned mostly because the respondent failed to attend or sought adjournments. Several hearings were adjourned because of the applicant. One hearing was adjourned in view of the judge’s illness. By a judgment of 12 February 2004, the District Court rejected the applicant’s claim. On 21 April 2004 the Regional Court upheld the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4492", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Tula.\n5.  In 1999 the applicant inherited a flat. On 19 August 1999 Mr L., the grandson of the testator, brought an action against the applicant seeking invalidation of the will and transfer of the title to the flat. Judge A. of the Zarechinskiy District Court of Tula adjourned the examination of the action until 10 October 1999, ordering Mr L. to pay a court fee.\n6.  After the fee had been paid, the District Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 19 July 2000. At that hearing it ordered a post-mortem forensic psychiatric examination of the testator to establish whether she had been competent to make a will. The proceedings were stayed until 27 September 2000. According to the Government, the examination was not performed as the case file did not contain the materials necessary for the experts to carry out their inquiry.\n7.  No hearings were held between October 2000 and 27 June 2001.\n8.  On 27 June 2001 the case was assigned to judge P., who held a preliminary hearing on 16 July 2001. At that hearing the parties asked the District Court to obtain the attendance of certain witnesses. The Government submitted that the next hearing had not been scheduled to take place until 25 October 2001 because the presiding judge had to study the parties’ requests.\n9.  On 25 October 2001 the District Court, at Mr L.’s request, again ordered a post-mortem psychiatric examination of the testator and stayed the proceedings. The expert examination was performed on 30 December 2002. Three months later the District Court resumed the proceedings.\n10.  The hearing fixed for 27 March 2003 was postponed until 14 May 2003 to allow the applicant’s representative to lodge requests.\n11.  On 14 May 2003 the Zarechinskiy District Court adjourned the proceedings because Mr L. had died on 28 April 2003 and it was necessary to identify his heirs or legal successors. The proceedings were resumed on 3 December 2003 and a hearing was scheduled for 18 December 2003.\n12.  Of the four hearings listed between 18 December 2003 and 1 June 2004, two were adjourned because the applicant’s representatives defaulted, one was rescheduled because the claimant’s lawyer did not attend and one was postponed because a witness did not attend.\n13.  On 1 June 2004, at the request of the applicant’s lawyer, the District Court authorised an additional post-mortem psychiatric examination of the testator. The experts completed the examination on 17 November 2004. The District Court received the case file with the expert report on 13 January 2005.\n14.  Due to judge P.’s resignation, the case was assigned to judge D., who fixed the first hearing for 4 March 2005. That hearing and the subsequent hearings on 6 and 11 April 2005 were postponed because the claimant’s lawyer was ill.\n15.  On 7 June 2005 the District Court once again stayed the proceedings to identify Mr L.’s heirs. In the meantime, judge D. resigned and the case was assigned to judge M., who resumed the proceedings on 1 November 2005 and fixed the first hearing for 15 November 2005. Ms S. joined the proceedings as the claimant.\n16.  Of the fourteen hearings scheduled between 15 November 2005 and February 2007, five hearings were adjourned either because the applicant and her representatives defaulted or she filed applications for the examination of additional evidence, six hearings were postponed because Ms S. and her lawyer did not attend, two hearings were rescheduled at Ms S.’s request ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4493", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the town of Rivne, Ukraine.\n5.  In March 1976 the Executive Committee of the Rivne Local Council instituted proceedings against the applicant’s father and the applicant’s uncle in the Rivne People’s Court. The Committee sought confiscation of the house owned by them because there had been serious breaches of building regulations. The case was considered on several occasions. On 22 March 1977 the People’s Court ruled that the house should be confiscated. On 28 April 1977 the Rivne Regional Court upheld that judgment. Following that decision the house was confiscated.\n6.  The applicant’s father died in 1985. In 1990 the Rivne Local Council sold a part of the house (“the disputed property”) to Ms K.\n7.  On 27 January 1993 the Presidium of the Rivne Regional Court, upon an objection (протест) by its President, quashed the judgment of 22 March 1977 and remitted the case to the same court for fresh consideration.\n8.  On 12 April 1993 the Rivne Court dismissed a claim lodged by the Executive Committee of the Rivne Local Council.\n9.  On 24 January 1994 the applicant and Mr P. instituted proceedings against Ms K. and the Executive Committee of Rivne Local Council in the Rivne Court, seeking to have the above-mentioned contract of sale declared null and void and claiming ownership of the disputed property.\n10.  On 12 April 1994 Mr K., husband of Ms K., lodged a counterclaim, seeking recognition of ownership of the disputed property.\n11.  On 25 January 1995 Ms S. and Ms Ko. instituted proceedings against Mr and Ms K., claiming ownership of the disputed property.\n12.  In the period from 26 January 1994 to 3 November 1996 the first-instance court scheduled ten hearings.\n13.  On 4 November 1996 the court granted a request by the applicant’s lawyer to suspend the proceedings on the ground that the applicant was undergoing treatment. After that date the next hearing was scheduled by the court only for 18 May 1998.\n14.  On 25 March 1998 Ms. K died. On 18 May 1998 the court decided to suspend the proceedings until Ms K.’s successors joined the proceedings.\n15.  On 18 March 1999 the court decided to join Mr K. as a defendant in the case. On the same day the court joined the consideration of the above proceedings.\n16.  Between 19 May 1998 and 22 March 2000 the court scheduled one hearing.\n17.  Between 23 March 2000 and 15 October 2001 the court scheduled no hearings.\n18.  On 21 March 2002 the court found against the applicant. In particular, the court found unsubstantiated the applicant’s allegation that he could claim inheritance rights over the disputed property.\n19.  On 26 June 2002 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.\n20.  Between 16 October 2001 and 26 June 2002 the first-instance court and the court of appeal scheduled six hearings. Four hearings were adjourned on account of the one of the parties’ failure to appear or at their request.\n21.  On 22 January 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in cassation by the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4494", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Izmir.\n5.  On 18 March 1999 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of involvement in various acts of arson with a view to protesting against the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan, the former leader of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal armed organisation.\n6.  On 21 March 1999 the applicant was questioned by two police officers in the absence of a lawyer. In the verbatim records, signed by the applicant, the latter admitted, inter alia, to taking part in three separate acts of arson together with Mr M.K. and Mr F.D. in order to protest against the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan.\n7.  On 22 March 1999 the applicant, Mr M.K. and Mr F.D. were first brought before the prosecutor and later before a judge at the Izmir State Security Court. On both occasions the applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer, repeated his earlier statements and gave details about each set of events. He also accepted the contents of his police statement and verbatim records of a reconstruction of events that had been carried out, and admitted that after each act they had called the television station MED TV to claim responsibility under the name of “Apo’s tigers of revenge”.\n8.  On 5 April 1999 the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the latter, charging the applicant, Mr M.K. and Mr F.D. under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation and under Articles 516 § 7, 517, 522 of the Criminal Code with, inter alia, damaging other persons’ property. They were accused of setting fire to a car on 19 February 1999 and setting fire to two buildings on 13 and 14 March 1999.\n9.  On 7 April 1999 the Izmir State Security Court held a preparatory hearing where it decided on procedural matters, such as the measures to be taken for securing the presence of the accused.\n10.  On 11 May 1999 the first-instance court held its first hearing, in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer. It heard evidence from the accused and three complainants, Mr A.Ş., Mr I.Ö. and Mr H.K, who had not witnessed the incidents. It also read out the evidence compiled at the pre‑trial investigation stage, including witness statements and the verbatim records of the reconstruction of events. Before the court the applicant retracted his earlier submissions, claiming that he had made them under duress. The co-accused also retracted their earlier statements on the same grounds. He further contested the veracity of the verbatim records of the reconstruction of events and other evidence which incriminated him. The court did not respond to the applicant’s lawyer’s request to make additional defence submissions under Article 169 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of the State Security Courts were replaced by civilian judges.\n12.  At the second hearing held on 19 August 1999 the judge who had been appointed to replace the military judge sat as a member of the trial court for the first time. The court heard another complainant, Mr A.A., and gave a number of procedural decisions. The next hearing was held on 7 October 1999 where the court heard evidence from one complainant, Mr R.G., who had not witnessed the incidents, Ms F.K., the sister of one of the accused who maintained that she and her brother had been subjected to torture in custody, and Ms S.G., an eye-witness", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4495", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1970, 1970, 1966, 1974 and 1970 respectively, and live in Diyarbakır.\n5.  The applicants were taken into custody on the following dates: the fifth applicant on 6 January 1994, the first three applicants on 9 March 1994, and the fourth applicant on 19 March 1994. The applicants were arrested on suspicion of membership of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 20 January 1994 a single judge at the Muş Magistrates’ Court remanded the fifth applicant in custody.\n7.  On 31 March 1994 a single judge at the Muş Magistrates’ Court remanded the other applicants in custody.\n8.  On 16 March 2004 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicants of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code, and sentenced them to life imprisonment.\n9.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicants was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.\n10.  On 6 June 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 16 March 2004 in respect of the applicants and remitted the case to the first‑instance court.\n11.  On 16 November 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicants under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code and again sentenced them to life imprisonment.\n12.  On 20 January 2008 the applicants appealed.\n13.  According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4497", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  The applicant is a professor of construction management at Istanbul Technical University. In his speech, delivered during the “First National Construction Conference”, which took place in 1997, the applicant analysed the progress of the work in his field of discipline. He also distributed a paper in which he criticised the way the examinations for assistant professors were being administered.\n7.  On 17 September 1997, an assistant professor, N.C.A., brought a civil action for compensation against the applicant, before the Şişli Civil Court of First Instance. He claimed that certain remarks used by the applicant in the paper constituted an attack on his reputation, although his name was not mentioned. The statements in question were as follows:\n“The panel for the assistant professorship examination in the discipline of construction management was formed by academics of the construction faculty. This led to the election of very inadequate assistant professors. (...) During this period, before a panel on which [the applicant] was the only professor of construction management, a candidate was notified that his one-page-long report and his examination were not satisfactory. Blaming [the applicant] for the unsatisfactory result, the same candidate filed an action for damages, alleging that he had been beaten by [the applicant]. Before the action for compensation was finalised, he managed to pass the assistant professorship examination before another panel, whose members were not from the construction management department, and without publishing a single article ...”\n8.  On 10 June 1999 the first instance court rejected N.C.A's claim, holding that these statements were merely a criticism of the academic system and the institutions. N.C.A appealed.\n9.  On 13 September 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision holding that the following sentence could be taken as an attack on the plaintiff's reputation:\n“...he managed to pass the assistant professorship examination before another panel, whose members were not from the construction management department, and without publishing a single article ...”\n10.  It held that the above sentence implied that, if there had been a different panel, the plaintiff would have failed the examination.\n11.  On 22 May 2000 the applicant's request for rectification of the latter decision was dismissed.\n12.  On 7 November 2000 the Şişli Civil Court of First instance, after having considered the Court of Cassation's views on the case, confirmed its earlier decision. It held that the defendant, who was an academic, should be granted the flexibility enjoyed by members of the press or lawyers. The reasoning of the court was as follows:\n “If these statements were uttered by a press member or a lawyer, it would have been regarded as freedom of the press or the rights of the defence. If we hold that these remarks made by an academic were against the law, then this would be a breach of his constitutional rights, such as freedom of expression, dissemination of ideas (article 26) and freedom of science and the arts (Article 27).”\n13.  N.A.C. appealed once again. On 14 March 2001 the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court quashed the decision by 26 votes to 24, holding that the first instance court should have followed the opinion of the Court of Cassation.\n14.  On 30 May 2001 the applicant's request for the rectification of the latter decision was dismissed.\n15.  T", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4499", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Kikinda.\n6.  The applicant is a journalist and member of a political party. At the time of the impugned events, he was also the editor of the local weekly newspaper, Kikindske.\n7.  On 3 October 2003 the applicant published an article about a certain historian, J.P., entitled ‘The Floor is Given to the Fascist’ (‘Reč ima fašista’). In his article the applicant wrote:\n“J.P., a historian, who during the 1980s and 1990s... used to write kilometres of various insults and defamation concerning the opponents of Milošević and his... regime, has again come to the centre of public attention thanks to... the journalist of Novi Sad TV..., who had invited him as a guest on the show ‘Unbuttoned’. And J.P. would not have been himself (an idiot), if he had not used another opportunity to express his fascist-oriented points of view. This is how he, on a national TV channel..., stated that Baranja was under Croatian occupation and that Slovaks, Romanians and above all Hungarians in Vojvodina were colonists... According to [J.] P., there are no Croats in Vojvodina..., whereas the Hungarians are mainly Slavs... because they have ‘such nice Slavic faces’...\nIn these three weeks following the show, many NGOs and individuals, as well as a few political parties, uttered their opinions.... [They] requested the Radio Broadcasting Council, relying on point 6 of its recommendation which provides... that ‘all broadcasters were under the obligation to respect... the provisions restraining hate speech’, to take appropriate measures against the [national] TV...\nThe Minister of Culture and Media and other officials also reacted ...\nThe latest news indicates that the Radio Broadcasting Agency has been collecting relevant information about the show... Meanwhile, J.P. must be gloating because he has managed once again to launch his twisted attitudes into the public domain. Following the changes of 5 October, this professional ‘long spitter’ was... appointed head of the Serbian History Archive... until recently, when the Government discharged him. He was then granted the opportunity in some tabloids ... to [criticise] the existing Government and the “non-existent nations”. ‘Unbuttoned’ was just the last episode of this activist... who will undoubtedly... contaminate our environment for a long time to come.”\n8.  On 10 October 2003 J.P. instituted private criminal proceedings for insult against the applicant in the Kikinda Municipal Court.\n9.  At the hearing held on 17 November 2003, the applicant stated that “he did not wish to settle the matter with the private prosecutor [J.P.] because he was a member of the fascist movement in Serbia”. On account of this statement, on 5 January 2004 J.P. instituted new private criminal proceedings for defamation against the applicant.\n10.  Territorial jurisdiction in the matter was subsequently transferred to the Zrenjanin Municipal Court, which decided to join the two cases.\n11.  The court scheduled a hearing for 15 April 2004, the summons for which was served on the applicant along with J.P.’s second criminal bill of indictment on 11 March 2004. The applicant did not attend the hearing.\n12.  The court scheduled the next hearing for 23 September 2004, for which the applicant received the summons on 24 June 2004. He again failed to appear in court.\n13.  The applicant submits that none of those court summons were served on him properly, since they had been sent to the address of the newspape", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4500", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first and the second applicants, who are mother and daughter, were born in 1960 and 1990 respectively and live in Los Angeles, USA.\n5.  The first applicant was the owner of a 26 sq. m. flat in an apartment building situated at 9 Byuzand Street, Yerevan. The flat was acquired by the first applicant on 30 May 1995. The building in question was situated on a plot of land owned by the State.\n6.  The applicants alleged that the second applicant enjoyed a right of use in respect of the above flat as the first applicant’s family member residing in it.\n7.  The Government contested this allegation and claimed that the second applicant did not enjoy the right of use in respect of the first applicant’s flat and simply had the right to live in it.\n8.  On 5 October 2001 the Government adopted Decree no. 950, approving the procedure for taking plots of lands and immovable property situated within expropriation zones of Yerevan and for preparing the relevant price offers. The Mayor of Yerevan was entrusted with its implementation. According to that Decree, the amount of compensation was to be determined on the basis of the market value of the immovable property, which was to be determined by a licensed valuation organisation or organisations selected through a tender process. Financial incentives were envisaged for those proprietors who, within ten days of receiving the price offer, gave their consent to hand over their property. Persons who were registered within the expropriation zones and their minor children were to be awarded 2,000,000 Armenian drams (AMD) as a support.\n9.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the immovable property (plots of land, buildings and constructions) situated within the administrative boundaries of the Central District of Yerevan to be taken for the needs of the State for the purpose of carrying out construction projects, covering a total area of 345,000 sq. m. Byuzand Street was listed as one of the streets falling within such expropriation zones.\n10.  On 4 March 2004 the Government adopted Decree no. 399-N, authorising the Mayor of Yerevan, for the purpose of facilitating the construction works in the expropriation zones, to include in the compensation offers in specific cases the grant of construction permits without a tender process through direct negotiations.\n11.  On 17 June 2004 the Government adopted Decree no. 909-N, authorising the Mayor of Yerevan to grant such a construction permit for one of the sections of Byuzand Street – which was to be renamed Main Avenue – to a private company, Glendale Hills CJSC.\n12.  On 28 July 2004 Glendale Hills CJSC and the Yerevan Mayor’s Office signed an agreement which, inter alia, authorised the former to negotiate directly with the owners of the property subject to expropriation and, should such negotiations fail, to institute court proceedings on behalf of the State, seeking forced expropriation of such property.\n13.  On 23 December 2004 Glendale Hills CJSC informed the first applicant that her flat was situated in the expropriation zones approved by Government Decree no. 1151-N. An independent licensed organisation, Orran Ltd, had carried out a valuation of her property, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Government Decree no. 950. According to the valuation report prepared by Orran Ltd, the sum of compensation to be paid to her was the Armenian dram equivalent of 7,000 US dollars (USD). An addi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4501", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Zvolen.\n5.  On 27 April 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Zvolen District Court. He claimed a sum of money which the defendant had failed to pay for the work done by the applicant.\n6.  On 9 May 1995 the District Court gave an interim judgment confirming that the applicant’s claim was justified. The amount owed by the defendant remained to be determined in further proceedings.\n7.  In the subsequent period the District Court experienced some difficulties in finding a suitable expert and obtaining an opinion from a specialised institute.\n8.  On the applicant’s complaint, on 26 March 2003, the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The length of the proceedings was partly due to the factual complexity of the case. The applicant had not contributed to the overall length of the proceedings in a significant manner.\n9.  The Constitutional Court awarded 20,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) (the equivalent of approximately 480 euros (EUR) at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delay and to reimburse the applicant’s costs.\n10.  In the subsequent period the file was pending before the Banská Bystrica Regional Court for several months. The latter examined the amount of the fee to be paid to the specialised institute.\n11.  On 3 May 2004 the District Court partially found in the applicant’s favour.\n12.  Both the applicant and the defendant appealed.\n13.  On 23 September 2005 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment on the merits. It quashed its part concerning the costs and remitted the matter to the District Court. The decision on the merits became final on 4 November 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4502", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1970 and 1966 respectively and live in Kikinda.\n6.  The applicants are journalists and were employed by the local weekly newspaper Kikindske.\n7.  On 9 April 2004 the first applicant published an article criticising several criminal convictions he and another journalist had incurred for defamation. The article was entitled ‘They have not punished us much for what we are’ (‘Malo su nas kaznili, kakvi smo’) and, in so far as relevant, read as follows:\n“Where will our souls go, we wonder. Are we Superhiks [the most prominent villain from the ‘Alan Ford’ comic book] of Kikinda, who take from the poor and give to the rich? Are we arrogant spendthrifts who waste money belonging to all Kikinda citizens, so that poor people have to pay our fines for offensive writing? Has the judge D.K.... punished us too mildly and shouldn’t he have satisfied the request of the lawyer S.K. and deservedly ripped us off to the tune of 150,000 dinars? But couldn’t our prosecutor, who is surely not a blonde, but is being whistled at by workers on strike, have asked for more, since [another column in the K. newspaper] ruined his reputation acquired over decades, and in particular over the past year or two, when he so ‘skilfully’ drafted dismissals to all the [‘]non-workers[‘] and the opposition from [a local factory]? And what should the citizens who finance our public company do and think? Could they also wonder who gave us the right to write insulting texts so that the judges of Kikinda must punish us?... Do we have the right to deny that people are tired of such a behaviour of ours...? Do we have the right to deny our fellow citizens their wish for a quiet life, free of stress and various court proceedings? Do we have a soul, we wonder out loud, and if we do, where will it go after we’ve prepared another scandal? We should be ashamed of ourselves.”\n8.  In the same issue, the second applicant was the editor of the page entitled ‘Amusement’, consisting of anagrams, jokes, a crossword and a horoscope. In the top middle section of the page there was a photo of a blonde woman in her underwear, next to which there was a text, which, in its relevant part, read as follows:\n“JPICK and the manager were visited by a blonde the other day. For that occasion the blonde was whistled at by the workers who were not on strike. And she wasn’t even a lawyer...”\nOn the left of the photograph, there was a small box containing three anagrams, the first of which was an anagram of S.K.’s name.\n9.  Shortly after publication of the above, S.K. instituted private criminal proceedings for insult against the applicants in the Kikinda Municipal Court.\n10.  On 14 February 2005 the court convicted the applicants of insult. The court fined each of them 12,000 dinars (RSD, approximately EUR 150), ordering them jointly to pay S.K. another RSD 16,000 (approximately EUR 200) in respect of the costs of the proceedings.\n11.  In its judgment, the first-instance court defined insult as a statement or an action objectively humiliating to a certain individual, constituting an attack on his or her honour. Acknowledging that S.K. was a public figure, the court explained that under domestic law an action done by way of a joke was not a criminal offence as long as that joke did not overstep acceptable boundaries and become insulting. The applicants must have known that S.K. considered their articles insulting, since they had previously been convicted of using identical terms abo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4503", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Cahul.\n6.  On 30 May 2002 (31 May 2002, according to the Government) the applicant was arrested in Chişinău by the Department of Criminal Investigation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on suspicion of racketeering (banditism). He alleges that he was hooded, pushed into a car and taken to a police station.\n7.  At Hânceşti Police Station the applicant was allegedly severely beaten up by police officers. He alleges that a police officer in plain clothes ordered five other officers to put a gas mask over his head; that he was handcuffed and his legs tied together and attached to his arms behind his back; that he was laid face-down on his abdomen; and that two electric wires were attached to his ears. He was allegedly given electric shocks while cold water was poured over him. Because of the severe pain he bit his tongue. In the meantime, another police officer had been blocking the air to the gas mask and moving the wires from his ears to his toes. The applicant alleges that between 30 May and 3 June 2002 he was subjected to the same ill-treatment every night. During the day he was driven to Comrat Police Station.\n8.  On 3 June 2002 the Comrat District Court issued an order remanding the applicant in custody for a period of thirty days. The applicant was placed in the remand centre of Comrat Police Station. It is unclear from the documents in the case file whether he appealed against the decision of 3 June 2002.\n9.  Following a request from his lawyer, an investigator from Comrat Police Station ordered the applicant’s examination by a forensic doctor A. medical report of 4 June 2002 stated, inter alia:\n“[According to the applicant] On 30 May 2002 he was taken to Hânceşti Police Station. His arms and legs were tied together, and he was beaten with a baton and with metal bars. Electric wires were attached to his toes and he was given electric shocks. When he was losing consciousness water was poured over him. The wires were then attached to his ears and he was again given electric shocks. When he was losing consciousness water was again poured over him. A gas mask was put over his head and the air permanently cut off. The applicant complained of headache, nausea and pain in the injured places.\nAbove the right eyebrow – a scratch of 2.4 x 1.4 cm, ..., in the right occipital region of the head – a light-yellowish bruise of 1 x 0.8 cm, on the right upper eyelid - an oval bruise of 3.5 x 0.8 cm, around the left eye – a light-yellowish bruise of 4.5 x 2.1 cm, ... irregular-shaped light-violet bruises of 2.6 x 2 cm and 2.7 x 1.9 cm on both cheeks, in the right temporal region – an irregular-shaped light-yellowish bruise of 4 x 2 cm, auricles (right and left) [ears] – yellow, ... on the front part of the right shoulder – a yellow bruise of 10 x 7 cm, ... multiple bruises of between 7.3 x 2.4 cm, 1.3 x 1.2 cm and 4 x 0.9 cm on both sides of the chest, on the abdomen – multiple irregular-shaped light-yellowish bruises of between 1.8 x 1.2 cm and 6 x 1.7 cm, on the scapulas – irregular-shaped dark-reddish bruises of 9 x 6 cm, 14 x 2 cm and 3.7 x 1 cm, multiple bruises of between 0.2 x 0.4 cm and 7 x 2.2 cm on both legs. ... On the tip of the [applicant’s] tongue – oval scar of 1.4 x 0.6 cm, 0.3 cm in depth.\nThe scratches and bruises ... were inflicted by blows with a hard blunt object, the scar on the tip of the tongue ... could have been caused by human teeth, [the injuries] could have been caused in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4504", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Louko.\n6.  The applicant had been unemployed since 13 November 1999 and had applied for unemployment benefit. On 28 September 2000 the Social Insurance Institution (Kansaneläkelaitos, Folkpensionsanstalten) decided to refuse benefit for the period from 4 September to 2 November 2000. According to section 9, subsection 1, of the Act on Unemployment Benefits (työttömyysturvalaki, lag om utkomstskydd för arbetslösa), if an unemployed person’s own behaviour has caused an employment contract not to be concluded, he or she has no right to unemployment benefit for two months. According to the Social Insurance Institution, the applicant’s own behaviour had meant that the intended employment contract, which was to last for more than five days, had not been concluded on 4 September 2000. As the applicant had not given a valid reason for not accepting the work offered to him, the benefit was refused.\n7.  On 26 October 2000 the applicant appealed to the Unemployment Appeal Board (työttömyysturvalautakunta, arbetslöshetsnämnden), claiming that the Social Insurance Institution’s decision had been based on incorrect information. He claimed that he had spoken with the employer in September 2000 but that no starting date for the work had been agreed upon. He denied having at any point refused to accept the offered work. On the contrary, he claimed that in early September he had offered to take the job. In late September he had contacted the employer on two occasions but the employer had not yet decided who to employ. He claimed to have told the employer many times that he would be available for the job offered. The applicant requested that the Unemployment Appeal Board ask the employer to submit a written statement of his account of the facts.\n8.  On 15 March 2001 the Unemployment Appeal Board rejected the appeal. It found that the applicant had not contacted the employer immediately after having heard that the employer had called him in early September and that, due to this delay, the employment contract could not be concluded. The unemployment benefit could thus be refused. It rejected the applicant’s request concerning the written statement as unnecessary.\n9.  The applicant appealed to the Insurance Court (vakuutusoikeus, försäkringsdomstolen), reiterating his grounds and, in particular, pointing out that the case had not been adequately established as no written statement had been requested from the employer.\n10.  On 5 September 2002 the Insurance Court quashed the Unemployment Appeal Board’s decision and referred the case back to it for a new examination. It found that in this case it was essential to find out what the employer and the applicant had agreed regarding the starting date and the modalities of the employment contract. The case had thus not been adequately established.\n11.  On 5 December 2003 the Unemployment Appeal Board, after having acquired a written statement from the employer and a reply from the applicant, rejected the appeal. It found that the employer had called the applicant and that they had agreed to meet. The applicant had not come to the meeting and the employer had not been able to reach him by telephone. The employer had left a message for the applicant but he had been told that the applicant would be absent for a week. The unemployment benefit could thus be refused.\n12.  On 14 January 2004 the applicant appealed to the Insurance Court requesting, inter alia, that an oral he", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4505", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Gdynia.\n6.  On 30 March 1993 the Chief of the Gdańsk Regional Police Headquarters (Komenda Wojewódzka Policji) dismissed the applicant from the police service (he was held accountable for accepting bribes).\n7.  On 14 May 1993 the Chief of the Principal Police Headquarters (Komenda Główna Policji) upheld the decision.\n8.  In November 1992 the Gdynia prosecution authorities charged the applicant, a serving police officer at the time, with numerous counts of fraud.\n9.  On 30 June 1993 a bill of indictment against the applicant and eleven other suspects was lodged with the Gdynia District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n10.  The applicant did not submit any information concerning the court’s hearings between July 1993 and January 2005.\n11.  Two hearings, scheduled on 1 February and 8 March 2005, were adjourned as some of the suspects failed to appear.\n12.  Two hearings, scheduled on 12 April and 10 May 2005, were cancelled due to the judge’s illness.\n13.  On 7 June 2005 the court severed the charges against the applicant and four other accused.\n14.  Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on 12 and 26 July, 6 September, 12 October, 17 November and 12 December 2005, and 18 January, 15 February, 15 March, 19 April, 5 and 29 June and 19 July 2006.\n15.  On 21 July 2006 the Gdynia District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to one year and six months’ imprisonment and a fine of 800 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n16.  On 25 September 2006 the applicant appealed.\n17.  On 11 December 2006 his appeal was dismissed by the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n18.  On 2 October 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) and asked for just satisfaction.\n19.  On 13 November 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed his complaint. It limited its examination of the length of proceedings issue to the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act and stressed that the Act could not be applied to the protracted length of court proceedings occurring before that date. Having analysed the conduct of the District Court during the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act, the Regional Court found that there were no delays for which the District Court could be held responsible. Pointing to the complexity of the case and the voluminous documentation gathered in the proceedings it held that the proceedings had been conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4506", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Wojkowice. He is currently detained in the Zabrze Remand Centre.\n6.  On 17 November 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder and uttering threats.\n7.  On 19 November 2003 the Zabrze District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question, supported by evidence from witnesses and the applicant’s confession of having beaten the victim. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence, given the character of the offence and the magnitude of the injuries suffered by the victim. It found no special grounds that would justify lifting the detention and imposing a less severe measure.\n8.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicant’s detention was extended by the Gliwice Regional Court on 9 February, 10 May and 11 October 2004 and 20 January 2005.\nIn all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses. They attached importance to the serious nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings justified holding him in custody and that the applicant, if released, could disrupt the trial.\n9.  On 6 April 2005 the Gliwice Regional Court convicted the applicant of rape, aggravated assault and uttering threats and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s detention was extended.\n10.  On 7 July 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case to the Gliwice Regional Court.\n11.  Further decisions extending the applicant’s detention were taken on 8 August and 10 November 2005, and 24 January and 12 April 2006. On 5 May 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant against the latter decision.\n12.  Subsequent decisions prolonging the detention were given by the Gliwice Regional Court on 8 June and 13 October 2006.\n13.  In the retrial proceedings the applicant made two applications for release, which were refused by the Gliwice Regional Court on 16 January and 10 July 2006. In his applications he relied on his personal circumstances. In particular, the need to ensure that his sick mother and his brother (a minor) were cared for.\n14.  On 27 October 2006 the Gliwice Regional Court convicted the applicant of rape, aggravated assault and uttering threats and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment.\n15.  On 8 January 2007 the Gliwice Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention. It held that in the light of the first-instance court’s judgment, the reasons for the applicant’s continued detention were still valid. A further interlocutory appeal was dismissed by the Katowice Court of Appeal on 31 January 2007.\n16.  On 15 March 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment.\n17.  On 27 April 2007 the applicant lodged a request to have a legal-aid lawyer appointed to his case with a view to lodging a complaint questioning the constitutionality of Article 263 of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure. On 28 August 2007, the applicant’s legal-aid counsel informed the Gliwice District Court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4507", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Pazin.\n5.  On 16 June 2005 the Pazin Police lodged a request for minor-offences proceedings to be instituted against the applicant in the Pazin Minor-Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u Pazinu). In a decision of the same day the Pazin Minor-Offences Court found that at about 7 p.m. on 15 June 2005 at the Pazin coach terminal, the applicant had, while under the influence of alcohol, verbally insulted one D.R., punched him in the head several times and proceeded to kick and punch him about the body. The applicant was found guilty of particularly offensive behaviour in a public place in that he had insulted another and caused a breach of the peace. This constituted a minor offence under section 6 of the Minor Offences against Public Order and Peace Act for which he was sentenced to forty days’ imprisonment. That decision became final on 29 June 2005. The relevant part of the decision reads:\n“Defendant: Armando Maresti ...\nis guilty\nin that at 7 p.m. on 15 June 2005 at the coach terminal in Pazin, while under the influence of alcohol, he ... firstly insulted D.R. ... and then pushed him with both hands and, when he fought back, started to hit him with his fists many times to the head before continuing to punch and kick him about his entire body.\n...”\n6.  On 14 July 2005 the Pazin State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo Pazin) lodged an indictment with the Pazin Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Pazinu) accusing the applicant of causing grievous bodily injury to A.M.\n7.  The applicant was represented in the proceedings by counsel. On 9 September 2005 his counsel submitted a written request for all correspondence to go through him and enclosed a signed authority by the applicant’s mother. At the time the applicant was serving a prison sentence in Pula Prison.\nProceedings in respect of D.R.\n8.  On 15 November 2005 the Pazin State Attorney’s Office lodged an indictment with the Pazin Municipal Court accusing the applicant of causing grievous bodily injury to D.R. It relied in the indictment on a police report on the events of 15 June 2005.\n9.  On 12 April 2006 the Municipal Court joined three separate sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant, including the proceedings in respect of the alleged assaults on A.M. and D.R. On the same day it ordered the applicant’s detention on the grounds that he had been indicted in several sets of proceedings, had a number of previous convictions and would be liable to reoffend if left at large.\n10.  On 19 May 2006 the Municipal Court found the applicant guilty on two counts of assault causing grievous bodily injury and one count of making death threats. In respect of the incident at the Pazin coach terminal on 15 June 2005, it found that the applicant had approached D.R. and insulted him verbally before proceeding to punch and kick him about the body. He was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment in respect of all the offences of which he was convicted. The time he had already served in connection with his conviction in the summary proceedings before the Minor-Offences Court was to be deducted from his sentence. He was ordered to undergo compulsory treatment for alcohol addiction during his imprisonment. The relevant part of the judgment reads:\n“Defendant Armando Maresti ...\nis guilty\nbecause\n...\n2) at about 7 p.m. on 15 June 2005. at the coach terminal in Pazin, while under the influence of alcohol, he ... approached D.R. ... and firstly insulte", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4508", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the village of Ularci.\n5.  On 31 July 1996 the applicant was dismissed for failing to prevent water flood of the employer’s premises. On 14 August 1996 the dismissal decision was upheld by the employer’s executive board.\n6.  On 5 September 1996 the applicant brought a civil action against the employer requesting annulment of his dismissal and his reinstatement.\n7.  The first-instance court postponed hearings listed on 17 December 1997, 27 January, 18 February, 13 April and 20 April 1998 due to the absence of the employer and witnesses.\n8.  On 18 June 1998 the Štip Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s claim. It would appear that this decision was served on the applicant in December 2000, given that his appeal of 26 December 2000 was accepted as being submitted within the statutory fifteen-day time-limit. On 9 May 2001 the Štip Court of Appeal remitted the case for a renewed examination.\n9.  After two on-site expert examinations and five adjournments, none of which was ordered on the applicant’s request, on 25 June 2003 the first-instance court annulled the dismissal decision.\n10.  On 24 March 2004 the Štip Court of Appeal quashed that decision since liquidation proceedings were launched in respect to the employer.\n11.  On 1 November 2004 the first-instance court terminated the proceedings. The applicant was advised to seek recognition of his claim in the liquidation proceedings.\n12.  No further decisions were taken in these proceedings.\n13.  On 20 July 2004 the applicant claimed (пријава за побарување) compensation for the pecuniary loss sustained as a result of the alleged unlawful dismissal. In support, he referred to the first- and second-instance courts’ decisions of 25 June 2003 and 24 March 2004.\n14.  On 7 September 2004 the first-instance court recognised the applicant’s claim as having been established by a court decision.\n15.  On 23 November 2004 the Štip Court of Appeal upheld an appeal of the employer’s receiver and quashed the lower court’s decision. It held that the applicant’s claim had not been established by any final decision nor had his application been based on any such decision. It further requested that fresh opinion be obtained from the receiver.\n16.  On 11 February 2009 the first-instance court did not recognise the applicant’s claim and advised him to seek its determination in civil proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4509", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1968 and 1964 respectively and live in Plovdiv. The first applicant is the wife of the second applicant.\n6.  On 9 October 2002 the police seized from the applicants’ home tax labels and bank notes worth approximately 10,000 euros (EUR). An expert opinion established that the labels and the bank notes were counterfeit.\n7.  Subsequently, devices for the production of false identity papers were also found in the applicants’ flat.\n8.  On 9 October 2002 the second applicant was arrested and taken into police custody. On 11 October a prosecutor ordered his 72-hour detention with a view to bringing him before a court.\n9.  On 11 October 2002 the second applicant was charged on two counts: firstly that he had, in complicity with others, counterfeited state securities, and secondly that he had had counterfeit securities and counterfeit bank notes in his possession.\n10.  On 14 October 2002 the second applicant was brought before the Plovdiv District Court, which remanded him in custody, finding that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed criminal offences and a risk of him re-offending. Upon appeal, on 22 October 2002 the Plovdiv Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision.\n11.  During his detention, the second applicant, who did not have a criminal record, lodged four requests for release. The first two were dismissed in court decisions of 21 January and 29 April 2003. The courts found that the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question persisted and that the charges were factually and legally complex. Furthermore, they found that there was a risk of him reoffending or absconding because he had apparently been part of an organised criminal group and also since he had been found in possession of a large quantity of counterfeit bank notes and of materials for the production of false identity papers.\n12.  The courts dismissed the second applicant’s arguments that he needed to support his family financially and that the first applicant was seriously ill, pointing out that he had not adduced evidence about his family’s financial situation and that the Code of Criminal Procedure provided for public care for the children of detained persons, and also that the first applicant had received adequate treatment and her illness did not warrant his release. The courts also found that the length of the second applicant’s detention was not unreasonable because domestic law provided for a one-year limit on the duration of pre-trial detention in cases like his, which had not been exceeded.\n13.  In May 2003 the prosecution dropped the charge against the second applicant of having counterfeited state securities acting in complicity with others. The proceedings continued only with respect to the charge of possession of counterfeit items, an offence carrying a potential sentence of up to eight years’ imprisonment.\n14.  The second applicant’s third and fourth requests for release were dismissed on 29 July and 10 October 2003.\n15.  The courts affirmed that there was still a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence he had been charged with. They acknowledged that there was no risk of him absconding but found that he might reoffend as he was charged with a “serious” offence and had apparently been part of an organised criminal group. The courts found again that the length of his detention was not unreasonable because the one-year time-limit provided for in domestic law had not b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4510", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is currently serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony in the Rostov Region.\n6.  On 26 February 1998 the prosecutor opened a criminal investigation against the applicant.\n7.  On 3 March 1998 the applicant was arrested and detained in custody on suspicion of kidnapping and fraud. On 13 March 1998 he was released on bail. However, the applicant fled from the investigative authorities and re-offended.\n8.  On 5 May 1999 the applicant was again arrested. Shortly afterwards, on 18 May 1999 he was detained on remand.\n9.  On 22 May 1999 the applicant was charged under Articles 139 § 3, 126 § 3 and 163 § 3 of the Criminal Code with unlawful entry into a home, kidnapping and extortion. He was subsequently charged under Articles 127 § 3, 158 § 3, 159 § 3, 161 § 3, 162 § 3, 325 § 2 and 327 § 1 of the Criminal Code with illegal deprivation of liberty, theft, fraud, robbery, stealing and forgery of official documents.\n10.  On 14 July, 7 September, 16 September and 30 November 1999 the Prosecutor of the Rostov Region extended the applicant’s detention until 24 September, 15 November, 18 December 1999 and 24 March 2000 respectively. Each time, consideration was given to the applicant’s criminal record, the gravity of the charges against him and his active role in a gang.\n11.  On 20 March 2000 the case against the applicant was sent to the Rostov Regional Court for trial.\n12.  On 29 March 2000 the Rostov Regional Court scheduled the opening date of the trial and ordered that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant and his co-defendants “should remain unchanged” in accordance with Articles 222, 223 and 230 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure.\n13.  On 13 June 2000 the Rostov Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. On 2 November 2000, however, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. The Supreme Court held that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”.\n14.  On 1 December 2000 the Rostov Regional Court scheduled the new trial hearing and ordered that the preventive measure “should remain unchanged”.\n15.  On 14 May 2001 the Rostov Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to sixteen years’ imprisonment, but on 16 January 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the conviction on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. The Supreme Court held that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”.\n16.  On 12 February 2002 the Rostov Regional Court listed the new trial hearing for 27 February 2002 and ordered that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”.\n17.  On 1 July 2002 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 1 October 2002. It found as follows:\n“The defendants [the applicant and four other persons] are charged with kidnapping, illegal deprivation of liberty, burglary and other crimes.\nThey have been in custody: ..., [the applicant] – since 15 May 1999, ... .\nThe Prosecutor requested that the defendants’ detention be extended by 3 months.\nHaving examined the Prosecutor’s request, having heard the parties to the proceedings, the court considers it necessary to extend the defendants’ detention by 3 months, that is, until 1 October 2002 inclusive, because they are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences.\nUnder Articles 255, 256 of th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4511", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was the mother of the second and third applicants. The fourth applicant is the second applicant’s daughter.\n7.  In 1968 the first applicant and her husband purchased from the State a three-room apartment which occupied the first floor of a two-storey building in Plovdiv. Its area was approximately 95 square metres. They also acquired a share in the plot on which the building was constructed and a share in the yard.\n8.  The whole property had become State owned by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and for several years afterwards.\n9.  In the years after 1968 the first applicant and her husband made improvements to the property and constructed an annex of 34 square metres and a garage in the yard.\n10.  On 29 September 1992, shortly after the adoption of the Restitution Law, the former pre-nationalisation owners brought proceedings under section 7 of that law against the first applicant and her husband.\n11.  Following the death of the first applicant’s husband, on an unspecified date the second and third applicants became co-owners of the property. The proceedings continued against the first, second and third applicants.\n12.  The District Court held nine hearings and examined witnesses and documentary evidence. Two adjournments, which caused a delay of approximately five months, were requested by the plaintiffs, the pre-nationalisation owners.\n13.  On 30 January 1995 the Plovdiv District Court found that the 1968 transaction was valid and rejected the claim.\n14.  On appeal, on 14 July 1995 the Plovdiv Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. The courts examined and rejected the plaintiff’s allegation that the apartment had been acquired through abuse of official position.\n15.  On 20 May 1996 the Chief Public Prosecutor submitted to the Supreme Court a request for review.\n16.  On 22 July 1997 the Supreme Court of Cassation, to which the case was transferred following a reform in the judicial system, accepted the request and, considering that the lower courts had not examined all arguments of the plaintiffs, quashed their judgments and referred the case for a fresh examination.\n17.  In the renewed proceedings, on 21 July 1998 the Plovdiv District Court again rejected the plaintiffs’ claim against the first, second and third applicants. The plaintiffs appealed.\n18.  On 12 July 1999 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the lower court’s judgment, declared the 1968 contract null and void and restored the plaintiffs’ ownership of the first floor and the share in the plot and the yard. By final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 21 June 2000 that decision was upheld. The courts found that a relevant document had been signed by the Deputy Minister of Architecture and Building Planning instead of by the Minister personally and concluded that as a result the first applicant and her husband had not validly acquired the property in 1968.\n19.  The applicants, including the fourth applicant who apparently lived in the apartment at issue for an unspecified period, refused to leave the property.\n20.  In 2002 Mr and Mrs P., the persons to whom the restored owners had sold the property in February 2002, brought a rei vindicatio action against the four applicants. The statement of claim did not mention the garage.\n21.  In May 2002 Mr and Ms P. demolished the garage and built a new one. The applicants complained to the prosecuting authorities, who considered that th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4512", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 6 July 2000 the applicant brought a civil action against his former employer, a Hungarian company called GE L.T. Rt., in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu), challenging his dismissal and seeking payment of his salary arrears and a bonus for outstanding work performance. On an unspecified date the defendant in the proceedings lodged a counter-claim, requesting that the applicant reimburse the bonus which the company had allegedly overpaid him.\n6.  The Zagreb Municipal Court held hearings on 13 October 2000 and 21 February 2001. On 21 February 2001 the Zagreb Municipal Court declared the applicant’s claim inadmissible as being lodged out of time. On 5 February 2002 the Zagreb County Court quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n7.  On 15 April 2003 the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claim in the part challenging his dismissal, as being lodged out of time. The applicant did not appeal against that decision, which thus became final. The proceedings continued in respect of the remainder of the applicant’s claims and the defendant’s counter-claim.\n8.  On 20 July 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings. On 12 July 2006 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded the applicant 9,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to decide the case in the shortest time possible and not later than eight months after the publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court in the Official Gazette.\n9.  The Constitutional Court’s decision was published in the Official Gazette on 28 August 2006 and the eight-month period expired on 29 April 2007.\n10.  The proceedings are currently pending before the Zagreb Municipal Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4513", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Kumanovo.\n5.  On 29 June 1995 the applicant applied for disability pension.\n6.  On 30 January 1996 the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund (“the Fund”) rejected the applicant’s request for lack of jurisdiction (ненадлежeн).\n7.  On 15 February 1996 the second-instance commission (“the Commission”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 2 February 1996.\n8.  Between 30 October 1996 and 5 February 2003, the Supreme Court ordered retrial on four occasions. This latter decision was given on the applicant’s appeal on points of law lodged on 25 November 2000.\n9.  On 23 April 2003 the Commission ordered the Fund to carry out an on-site examination so that to determine the validity of the applicant’s employment.\n10.  On 4 December 2003 the Fund rejected the applicant’s request since he had no valid employment in the respondent State. On 30 January 2004 the Commission confirmed this decision. On 16 December 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law accepting the reasons given by the Fund.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4514", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Luka.\n5.  On 9 December 1999 a request that minor-offences proceedings be instituted against the applicant was lodged with the Zaprešić Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u Zaprešiću), following an allegation that on 8 December 1999 the applicant (then aged twenty-two) and two other individuals had physically attacked three minors, D.E., S.C. and I.Š., by hitting them and kicking them all over their bodies while simultaneously shouting obscenities. They had also damaged a vehicle owned by the mother of one of the victims and had broken one of its front lights and the front bumper.\n6.  On the evening of 23 April 2000 the above-mentioned D.E. (born on 17 February 1982), S.C. (born on 15 November 1982) and I.Š. (born on 25 July 1982), together with four friends, B.B. (born on 17 January 1983), F.P. (born on 28 May 1982), Z.T. (born on 18 December 1981) and S.T. (born on 25 May 1983), approached the applicant, who was in the company of five friends, and asked him about the incident of 8 December 1999. The applicant then verbally insulted D.E. on the basis of his Serbian origin. A fight ensued.\n7.  On 24 April and 8 June 2000 the police interviewed the individuals from the above group. Their statements concurred as to the fact that they had been friends with the applicant until the incident of 8 December 1999. On 23 April 2000 they had agreed that they would find the applicant and attack him. When they attacked the applicant, he had pulled out a knife and stabbed Z.T. twice. B.B. had then hit the applicant on the head with a wooden plank and all of them, including the applicant, had left the scene.\n8.  In his statement of 24 April 2000 I.Š. mentioned that the applicant was of Roma origin, but did not elaborate on this point. The relevant part of the statement reads:\n“As regards Darko Beganović, he is of Roma origin. He used to mistreat the others on occasions when any of them was alone. He threatened to attack them, which caused fear in the group because they were afraid of him and of such behaviour.”\n9.  The police also interviewed the applicant and two other neutral witnesses. In his statement the applicant gave no indication that any of the assailants had made reference to his Roma origin.\n10.  On 12 June 2000 the applicant, represented by legal counsel, lodged a criminal complaint with the Zagreb State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu) against six identified individuals (F.P., Z.T., S.T., S.C., D.E. and B.B.) and a seventh unknown individual, alleging that on 23 April 2000 they had approached and surrounded him and proceeded to hit him until he fell to the ground. They had then started to kick him. When the beating stopped he had stood up, whereupon B.B. had hit him on the head with a wooden plank, causing him to lose consciousness. The attack had caused him severe bodily injuries. Furthermore, on 6 June 2000 the same men had told a certain D.K. to tell the applicant that they were going to burn him alive. The applicant alleged that they had thus committed two criminal offences, namely assault leading to grievous bodily harm and threatening behaviour, and asked for criminal proceedings to be brought against them.\n11.  In a letter to the Zagreb Police Department dated 24 April 2000 the “Sveti Duh” General Hospital in Zagreb, where the applicant had been examined, described the applicant’s injuries as grievous. A letter of discharge dated 29 April 2000 stated that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4517", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1950, 1959 and 1989 respectively and live in St. Petersburg. They are relatives.\n6.  On 17 July 1996 the first applicant lodged an action before the Nevskiy District Court of St. Petersburg against a private company and its owner, Mr P., claiming execution of a contract and compensation for damage. According to the Government, the action was lodged on 30 October 1996.\n7.  The Nevskiy District Court fixed a hearing for 12 September 1996 and ordered the first applicant to provide a detailed calculation of the damages claimed. The first applicant submitted the calculation and amended his claims.\n8.  On 15 October 1996 the Nevskiy District Court adjourned the examination of the action because the first applicant had not followed the pre-trial procedure for settling the dispute.\n9.  Three days later the first applicant appealed against the decision of 15 October 1996 to the St. Petersburg City Court. On the same day he lodged another action before the Nevskiy District Court against Mr P. seeking compensation for damage and execution of a contract. The action was based on the same set of facts as the action of 17 July 1996.\n10.  On 18 November 1996 the St. Petersburg City Court upheld the decision of 15 October 1996.\n11.  On 17 June 1997 the District Court partly granted the action of 18 October 1996. The judgment was quashed on appeal on 1 December 1997 and a re-examination of the case was ordered.\n12.  Having received the case file, on 11 March 1998 the Nevskiy District Court joined the two sets of the proceedings pertaining to the applicant’s actions and listed a hearing for 3 April 1998. Between April 1998 and March 2000 the District Court fixed fourteen hearings, of which, according to the Government, three hearings in 1998, one hearing in 1999 and five hearings in 2000 were adjourned due to the parties’ failure to attend. The first applicant, relying on a letter of 15 December 1998 from a deputy president of the Nevskiy District Court, disputed the Government’s assertion, arguing that one hearing in 1998 had been postponed due to the parties’ absence, two had been adjourned because the presiding judge had been involved in other unrelated proceedings or had been ill and the remaining eight hearings had been adjourned because the respondent had defaulted.\n13.  In the meantime, on 12 March 1999 the first applicant, who at that time lived in the town of Sestroretsk, asked the District Court to examine the action in his absence and to serve him with a copy of the judgment. The first applicant provided the Court with copies of summonses for the hearings, neither of which contained a notification that his presence before the District Court was mandatory.\n14.  On 28 March 2000 the Nevskiy District Court partly accepted the action. The first applicant appealed. On 14 August 2000 the District Court adjourned the appeal proceedings and asked the first applicant to pay a court fee.\n15.  On 5 February 2001, following a complaint by the first applicant, the St. Petersburg City Court quashed the decision of 14 August 2000 and accepted the appeal. On the same day the City Court quashed the judgment of 28 March 2000 in part and sent the case for a fresh examination.\n16.  On 25 April 2001 the first applicant once again asked the Nevskiy District Court to consider the case in his absence.\n17.  As it appears from the parties’ submissions, after the District Court had received the case file from the St. Petersburg City Court,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4518", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Szeged.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 30 June 2005 the applicant and an accomplice were arrested on a charge of theft of a car and two motorcycles. In the ensuing proceedings he was assisted by defence counsel of his choice.\n8.  On 1 July 2005 the Szeged District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 1 August 2005. The District Court considered that – given that the applicant had previous convictions and that another accomplice had absconded – there was a risk that he would endanger the investigation.\n9.  The applicant appealed and requested his release. He argued that the stolen goods had been found and the third accomplice had been arrested, so that the reasons given by the first-instance court had ceased to exist. He also pointed out that his agricultural activity – which was his main source of income – was seriously hindered by his detention. Lastly, he stated that his mother was seriously ill and he had to take care of her.\n10.  On 7 July 2005 the Csongrád County Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. It considered that, given the seriousness of the charges against him and that his presence in the investigation could not be secured otherwise, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was necessary.\n11.  The applicant was in the meantime charged with other minor offences. On 29 July 2005 the District Court prolonged his pre-trial detention until 1 October 2005. It considered that, in view of his record, there was a serious risk that he would abscond, reoffend or endanger the investigation, in particular by destroying evidence. It also established that the applicant’s request for release, which was based on identical reasons to those set out in his appeal, was insufficiently founded to justify ending his detention. The applicant appealed, asking to be released or to be placed under house arrest in lieu of detention.\n12.  On 1 September 2005 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision but deleted from the list of reasons the risk of destruction of evidence.\n13.  On 28 September 2005 the District Court again prolonged the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 1 January 2006 for the same reasons it had given previously. The applicant appealed and drew attention to the fact, inter alia, that the investigation was practically closed, as all the necessary investigative acts had already been carried out. He also stated that the seriousness of the charges against him could not serve as the sole basis for his detention. On 12 October 2005 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision.\n14.  On 28 December 2005 the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until the delivery of the first-instance judgment on the merits. It considered that the seriousness of the charges against him meant that there was a serious risk that he would abscond or jeopardise the procedure by conspiring with his missing accomplice. The applicant appealed and repeated his previous arguments.\n15.  On 6 February 2006 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision but changed the ground for detention to the risk of the applicant’s reoffending. It also established that the investigation had ended, so that the applicant could no longer jeopardise it.\n16.  On 21 August 2006 the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until the delivery of the first-instance judgment on the merits on the same grounds", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4520", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant, Mr Anders Synnelius, was born in 1957 and lives in Sollentuna. The second applicant, Edsbergs Taxi AB, a limited liability company, was owned by the first applicant and was dissolved following bankruptcy in 1999.\n7.  In 1996 and 1997 the Tax Authority (skattemyndigheten) of the County of Stockholm carried out a tax audit concerning the second applicant's taxi business during the years 1993 and 1994. By decisions of 17 December 1997, the Tax Authority increased the applicants' tax liability. Moreover, as the information supplied by them was found to be incorrect and, therefore, the taxation had been made under a discretionary assessment procedure, the Authority ordered them to pay tax surcharges (skattetillägg, avgiftstillägg). The surcharges levied on the applicants respectively amounted to 11,000 and 8,000 euros (EUR) plus interest for each year.\n8.  Following the applicants' appeal to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) in Stockholm, the Tax Authority reconsidered its decisions on 27 September 1999 but did not change them.\n9.  By judgments of 29 November 2001, the County Administrative Court upheld the Tax Authority's decisions concerning the first applicant. On the same date, the court struck out the cases concerning the second applicant owing to the bankruptcy. The applicants appealed against the courts' judgments and decisions.\n10.  By a decision of 2 March 2004, the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Stockholm found that the second applicant had legal capacity to act as a party in the taxation proceedings. Accordingly, the cases concerning the company were referred back to the County Administrative Court for examination.\n11.  By judgments of 16 November 2004, the County Administrative Court upheld the Tax Authority's decisions concerning the second applicant. The company's appeal was dismissed on formal grounds by the Administrative Court of Appeal on 21 February 2005. The court noted that the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) (RÅ 2003 ref. 53) had found that a dissolved company could not claim a right to a review of tax surcharges in two court instances pursuant to the provisions of the Convention. Having regard to the Supreme Administrative Court's finding, the second applicant did not appeal against the appellate court's decision.\n12.  Also on 21 February 2005, the Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the County Administrative Court's judgments of 29 November 2001 concerning the first applicant. On 3 January 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the first applicant leave to appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4521", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 5 September 2000 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of an organised criminal gang and involvement in kidnapping on behalf of that organisation. On 8 September 2000 he was remanded in custody.\n6.  On 18 October 2000 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and twenty‑one other persons on the above-mentioned charges.\n7.  On 6 November 2000 the criminal proceedings against the applicant and the twenty-one other accused commenced before the Istanbul State Security Court. Eighteen hearings were held in total. Throughout the proceedings the applicant’s lawyer repeatedly requested that the applicant be released during trial, but those requests were dismissed at the end of each hearing by way of an interim decision using an identical expression, namely “having regard to the nature of the offence with which he is charged and the state of the evidence”.\n8.  On a number of occasions the applicant’s lawyer objected to the interim decisions of the Istanbul State Security Court extending the applicant’s detention, and in each case the objections were further dismissed by the Istanbul State Security Court using the aforementioned identical expression.\n9.  On 11 March 2004 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him, in total, to 27 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.\n10.  On 20 April 2005 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the first-instance court’s judgment in respect of the applicant’s membership of an organised criminal gang, but quashed the judgment in respect of the sentence imposed on the applicant for kidnapping.\n11.  On 1 August 2005 the case was referred back to the Istanbul Assize Court.\n12.  On 10 November 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court decided to release the applicant pending trial. He was accordingly released the next day.\n13.  On 26 February 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for, in total, twelve years, eight months and fifteen days.\n14.  The case is still pending before the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4522", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the village of Goyty, the Urus-Martan District, in the Chechen Republic.\n6.  The applicant was married to Mr Salman Abdulazizov, born in 1950. Salman Abdulazizov was a Category 1 disabled person. The couple are the parents of six children.\n7.  At about 2 a.m. on 12 February 2001 an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”) and several UAZ vehicles with illegible registration numbers arrived at the applicant’s house. Around twenty men armed with machine guns and sniper rifles got out of the vehicles and burst in. They did not identify themselves but the applicant believed that they belonged to the Russian military.\n8.  The servicemen searched the house without producing any warrant. Then they took Salman Abdulazizov away and put him into a Ural vehicle. There were also a red Niva car with no rear window, a Volga car and several UAZ vehicles parked nearby; the servicemen got into those vehicles and drove away. The applicant has not seen her husband since then.\n9.  On the night of 12 February 2001 five other inhabitants of the village of Goyty – Mr E., Mr I., Mr V. and two brothers, Mr D.M. and Mr V.M. – were abducted under similar circumstances. Later they were released and told the applicant that they had been kept together with her husband at the military commander’s office of the Urus-Martan District.\n10.  The applicant provided the Court with written statements by several Goyty villagers, including Mr I. and Mr V.M., who had been arrested on the night of 11-12 February 2001.\n(a)  Mr I.’s statement\n11.  At about 1 a.m. on 12 February 2001 Mr I. was sleeping at his home. Around twenty-five masked men in camouflage uniforms armed with sniper rifles entered his courtyard; seven of them proceeded to his house. The armed men spoke Russian without accent. They ordered Mr I. to get dressed and took him outside. The armed men searched and handcuffed Mr I. Some ten minutes later a Ural vehicle and two UAZ vehicles arrived. The armed men covered Mr I.’s eyes with a cap and then fastened it with adhesive tape. However, Mr I. could see a little through holes. The armed men were putting Mr I. inside the Ural vehicle when he saw Salman Abdulazizov standing next to it. The servicemen told Salman Abdulazizov to climb into the Ural; he replied that he could not do it because he had only one leg. Then the men put him into the vehicle. Mr I. said hello to Salman Abdulazizov; a serviceman hit him, ordering him to keep silent. The Ural travelled for some fifteen minutes and then stopped. Mr I. was taken out of the vehicle and brought inside a building with stairs. He was left sitting in a corridor on a concrete floor for forty-eight hours. He was not given any food or drinks. Salman Abdulazizov spent a night in the same corridor and was questioned by servicemen on several occasions. Twenty-four hours later Salman Abdulazizov was taken away. Later someone approached Mr I. and asked him about Salman Abdulazizov. Two or three days later Mr I. was taken out of the building and put into a car. The servicemen brought him to the military commander’s office of Goyty and left there. Mr I. spent an hour in the premises of the military commander’s office of Goyty. Then his fellow villager Mr G. took him home.\n(b)  Mr V.M.’s statement\n12.  In 2001 the inhabitants of Goyty obtained the federal military’s permission to organise a civilian night watch to protect their village from marauders.\n13.  At about 1 a.m. on 12 February 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4523", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and is currently serving a sentence in Viru Prison in Jõhvi.\n6.  On 19 April 2005 the applicant was transferred from Tallinn Prison to Narva for trial at the local city court. He was placed in Narva Arrest House (arestimaja) where he stayed until 2 May 2005.\n7.  Upon his arrival at the arrest house, the applicant was searched and several personal-hygiene items (razor, shaving foam, comb, set for cutting nails, etc.) were taken from him. He was examined by a nurse, to whom he complained that he felt ill and had a pain in his throat. The nurse did not take any measures.\n8.  Subsequently, he was sent to a cell designed to accommodate four persons. However, he was the eighth inmate in the cell and had to sleep on the cold and dirty floor. He was given bed sheets and a pillowcase but no mattress, pillow or blanket. Moreover, he had to sit down all the time as there was no room to walk or to stretch out since part of the floor area was taken up by the toilet corner, sink, table and benches, and the place for inmates’ personal belongings. The condition of the cell was insanitary; condensation was dripping from the walls and there was a lack of oxygen as the cell was full of cigarette smoke. There was no possibility to wash or dry clothes. There was one plate and one spoon for three inmates; instead of mugs, plastic yoghurt pots had to be used for tea or water. There was a constant queue to use the sink or the toilet. The toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell. In these conditions the common cold he had had transformed into a long-lasting illness.\n9.  On 20 April 2005 the nurse examined the applicant and established that he had a swollen throat. He was given Biseptol pills. His request to be examined by an external specialist was refused because of the cost and the long waiting lists to get a doctor’s appointment.\n10.  The applicant made several complaints concerning the conditions of his detention to the head of Narva Arrest House but received no reply. He also wrote to the Ministry of Justice and to the Police Board, who informed the applicant in reply that they were aware of the situation.\n11.  Narva Arrest House is located on the third (upper) floor of the regional police headquarters. The building was completed in two phases, the older part in the 1960s and the new part in the 1970s. Since 2004, that is, after the CPT’s visit and recommendations, the following improvements have been made to the arrest house: new lighting has been installed in the cells, the ventilation system has been completely refurbished, the showers have been refurbished and access to national daily newspapers has been ensured to detainees.\n12.  Cells nos. 3 and 11, in which the applicant was held, have glass block windows measuring 1.5 m by 1 m, bunks with metal frames, a central-heating radiator, daytime lighting and night lights, a secluded corner with a toilet and cold water for daily hygiene requirements. The detainees can also use hot water.\n13.  On 19 April 2005 the applicant was placed in cell no. 11, which was meant for six persons. The size of the cell was 12.5 sq. m. There were seven detainees in the cell.\n14.  On 23 April 2005 the applicant was placed in cell no. 3, which was meant for four persons and measured 12 sq. m. On several days there were six to eight persons in the cell.\n15. In respect of the items taken away from the applicant, the Government pointed out that they had been given back to him on 3 May ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4524", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1947 respectively and live in Sofia.\n7.  In April 1979 the two applicants and the second applicant’s mother bought from the Sofia municipality a four-room apartment of 121 square metres in the centre of the city. In September 1979 the second applicant’s mother died; her heirs were the second applicant and her brother. In 1993 the second applicant’s brother died; the second applicant was his heir.\n8.  The apartment had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1947. In February 1993 the heir of its former pre-nationalisation owner brought proceedings under section 7 of the Restitution Law seeking the nullification of the applicants’ title and the restoration of her own title.\n9.  The proceedings ended by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 16 February 2004. The courts found that the applicants’ title was null and void on the ground that the 1979 contract had not been signed by the mayor but by one of his deputies. Although the mayor had been entitled to authorise another person to sign such contracts, he had made no written and explicit authorisation. Furthermore, the initial approval of the sale in 1977 had not been signed by the mayor and had not also been confirmed by the mayor of the region; instead, it had once again been their deputies who had signed.\n10.  Later in 2004 the applicants attempted unsuccessfully to have the proceedings reopened.\n11.  Immediately after the final judgment in their case, it became possible for the applicants to obtain compensation from the State, in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicants did not avail themselves of this opportunity.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicants vacated the apartment. In July 2005 they were granted the tenancy of a four-room municipal apartment, which they share with their daughter and her husband and son.\n13.  The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4525", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1925 and 1946 respectively and live in Sofia.\n6.  In 1959 Mr M., the husband of the first applicant and father of the second applicant, purchased from the Sofia municipality a four-room flat which had been nationalised in 1948.\n7.  On 22 February 1993 the heirs of the pre-nationalisation owner of the flat brought proceedings under section 7 of the 1992 Law on the Restitution of Ownership of Nationalised Real Property (the Restitution Law) seeking the annulment of the applicants’ title. Initially, however, their action was directed against the first applicant and Mr M. Finding that this did not represent a valid claim against the second applicant, and in view of the fact that no such claim had been brought within the time-limit indicated in the Restitution Law, in a final decision of 22 September 1997 the courts terminated the proceedings against the second applicant.\n8.  The Sofia District Court held its first hearing on 23 February 1994. The first applicant had been duly summoned on 29 November 1993 but did not attend.\n9.  The Sofia District Court held seventeen more hearings, eight of which, held between 15 February 1995 and 7 October 1996, were adjourned because the first applicant had not been found at her address to be summoned. For the first time a representative of the first applicant attended a hearing on 12 March 1997.\n10.  In a judgment of 11 November 1997 the Sofia District Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ action. On 19 January 1999 the Sofia City Court upheld the lower court’s judgment.\n11.  The plaintiffs appealed. In a judgment of 19 October 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation reversed that decision and referred the case back to the Sofia City Court, holding that the latter had applied the law wrongly.\n12.  On 30 June 2000 the Sofia City Court gave a judgment finding against the first applicant and ordering her to surrender possession of the flat to the plaintiffs.\n13.  The first applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Cassation. In a final judgment of 27 November 2001 the latter court upheld the Sofia City Court’s judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4526", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In 1987 the first applicant purchased from the Sofia municipality a three-room apartment of 102 square metres.\n6.  The property had become State owned by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following years.\n7.  Originally, the nationalised apartment had been bigger. Not later than 1968 it had been divided into two apartments. One of them had been sold to an individual, Mr. V., in 1968 and the second one to the first applicant in 1987.\n8.  In 1993, shortly after the enactment of the Restitution Law, the former pre-nationalisation owners brought proceedings under section 7 of that Law against the first applicant.\n9.  The proceedings ended by final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 13 January 2003.\n10.  The courts examined the evidence and rejected, in reasoned decisions, the first applicant’s argument that the claim under section 7 had been brought after 23 February 1993 – the date of expiry of the relevant statutory time-limit.\n11.  Dealing with the case on the merits, the courts declared the 1987 contract null and void and restored the plaintiffs’ ownership of the apartment on the basis of two arguments: 1) the procedure for dividing an apartment into two apartments had not been observed by Mr V. and the municipality in 1968 or earlier, and 2) a relevant document concerning the 1987 sale, a tenancy order, had not been signed by the mayor personally, as required by law, but by another official at the municipality.\n12.  Until April 2003, within three months of the final judgment in the case under section 7 of the Restitution Law, it was possible for the first applicant to obtain compensation from the State, in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The first applicant did not avail herself of this opportunity.\n13.  As the first applicant did not vacate the apartment voluntarily, in December 2003 the owners brought rei vindicatio proceedings against her and her son, the second applicant, who apparently also lived in the flat. These proceedings ended by final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 20 February 2008 ordering the applicants to vacate the flat. In December 2008, the first applicant informed the Court that she had not vacated the property and that the second applicant did not live there.\n14.  In May 2008 the first applicant petitioned the regional governor with requests to provide her with a State-owned flat or, alternatively, with compensation bonds. In December 2008 the first applicant informed the Court that she had not received a reply.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4527", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1953, 1975 and 1974 respectively and live in Sofia. The first applicant is the mother of the second and the third applicants.\n7.  In 1984 the first applicant bought from the Sofia municipality a two‑room apartment of 61 square metres.\n8.  The apartment had been confiscated by the State from Mr S.M. who in 1983 had been convicted of espionage and treason and sentenced to imprisonment and confiscation of his property. In a judgment of 20 April 1990 the Supreme Court quashed Mr S.M.’s conviction finding that the courts had breached the relevant procedural rules.\n9.  In 1997 Mr S.M. brought rei vindicatio proceedings against the first applicant.\n10.  In a final judgment of 16 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation allowed the claim. It found that the contract by virtue of which the first applicant had acquired the flat at issue in 1984 had not been signed by the mayor, as required by law, but by another official in the municipality. This rendered the first applicant’s title null and void ab initio. She could not have acquired the apartment through adverse possession either as prior to 1996 State property could not be acquired in this way. The apartment had therefore remained State-owned and the judgment of 20 April 1990 had had the effect of restoring Mr S.M.’s title over it.\n11.  In August 2004 the applicants, who all lived in the apartment, vacated it. The first and second applicants rented another apartment and moved in there.\n12.  In April 2004 they applied for the tenancy of a municipal apartment and in June 2007 were offered a two-room flat in the outskirts of the city. They refused the offer.\n13.  In May 2004 the first applicant applied to receive compensation bonds under the 1997 Law on Compensation for Owners of Nationalised Real Property. According to the latest information available to the Court, as of October 2008, the regional governor had not yet decided on the request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4528", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1950 respectively and live in Sofia. They are sister and brother.\n7.  In September 1967 their parents bought from the Sofia municipality a three-room apartment of 108 square metres in the centre of the city, which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1947.\n8.  In 1994 the applicants’ parents conveyed the title to the property to the applicants. All four of them – the applicants and their parents – continued to live in the apartment.\n9.  On 13 March 1998, following the amendments to the Restitution Law whereby the initial one-year time-limit for bringing proceedings under section 7 of that law was renewed (see paragraph 15 below), the heirs of the former, pre-nationalisation, owners of the flat brought such proceedings against the applicants’ parents.\n10.  In March 2002 the applicants’ mother died and the applicants joined the proceedings as her heirs. On an unspecified later date their father died too.\n11.  The proceedings ended by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 March 2004. The courts found that the title of the applicants’ parents was null and void because documents related to the sale of the apartment had not been signed by the officials in whom the relevant power had been vested but by their deputies.\n12.  On an unspecified date the former owners of the apartment brought a rei vindicatio action against the applicants. Considering that they stood no chance in these proceedings, in November 2004 the applicants vacated the apartment. In December 2005 they bought from the municipality an apartment in the outskirts of Sofia for 24,393 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of approximately 12,450 euros (EUR).\n13.  On 8 July 2004 the applicants applied for compensation bonds. On 10 March 2005 their request was rejected by the regional governor, who found that it had been lodged after the expiry of the statutory two-month time-limit following the final judgment in their case. In April 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal against the governor’s order, arguing that his refusal ran contrary to the purpose of the Compensation Law. As of April 2009 the proceedings were still pending at first instance before the Sofia City Court.\n14.  The relevant background facts, domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.\n15.  In 1997 former pre-nationalisation owners who had missed the initial one-year period under section 7 of the Restitution Law for bringing an action against post-nationalisation owners were given a second chance through a legislative amendment renewing the time-limit. On 11 March 1998 the Constitutional Court struck down the amendment as it encroached on the principle of protection of property and legal certainty (реш. 4 от 11.3.1998 по к.д. 16/97). Nevertheless, as the judgments of the Constitutional Court have no retroactive effect, the courts continued to examine claims brought between the entry into force of the 1997 law renewing the time-limit and the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 11 March 1998.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4529", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives on the island of Samsø.\n5.  In the beginning of the 1990s a new concept called “tax asset stripping” (selskabstømmersager) came into existence in Denmark. It related mainly to a criminal activity whereby the persons involved committed aggravated debtor fraud by buying up and selling numerous inactive solvent private limited companies within a short period and, for their own profit, “stripped” the companies of assets including deposits earmarked for payment of corporation tax. The persons involved were usually closely interconnected and collaborated on their criminal activities, which involved very large amounts of money. According to a survey conducted by the customs and tax authorities, approximately one thousand six hundred companies with a total tax debt exceeding two billion Danish kroner (DKK) were stripped in the period from the late 1980s until 1994. In addition to the criminal cases, tax asset stripping gave rise to a large number of cases for damages relating to the sellers’ and the buyer banks’ liability for the loss arising when the companies were stripped of their funds in connection with the sale. Following a number of legislative amendments, the trade in inactive solvent companies largely ceased in the summer of 1993.\n6.  On 27 November 1992, in his role as owner and managing director, the applicant sold a private limited company originally called Soft TUX Aps, the name later being changed to HOP no. 49.\n7.  On 30 March 1995 HOP no. 49 went bankrupt. A trustee in bankruptcy was appointed to manage the estate and settle the accounts.\n8.  On 6 October 1997 the trustee, on behalf of the bankrupt HOP no. 49, initiated civil proceedings before the High Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret), the High Court, against the applicant and a bank (BG Bank A/S), requesting that the defendants be ordered jointly and severally to pay approximately 4.4 million Danish kroner (DKK), equivalent to approximately 594,000 euros (EUR). The trustee alleged that the defendants had been responsible for stripping the company of assets in connection with the above-mentioned sale in 1992.\n9.  On 18 November 1997 the defendant BG Bank A/S joined the proceedings and raised an individual claim against the applicant, an accountancy firm (Revisorhuset A/S) and two lawyers, HAV and PF, as defendants in the main proceedings.\n10.  On 20 November 1997, maintaining that he had been misled by his advisers, the applicant brought proceedings against a lawyer CH, a law firm G & N, an accountant JOL, Revisorhuset A/S and BG Bank A/S as defendants in the main proceedings.\n11.  Formally the proceedings included twelve parties. However, since the applicant and BG Bank A/S acted both as defendants and third-party defendants, and Revisorhuset A/S had been joined to the proceedings by both the applicant and BG Bank A/S, the proceedings included nine different parties. Subsequently, in 2002 the proceedings against Revisorhuset A/S were abandoned because it ceased to exist. Six of the remaining eight parties were represented by five different counsels and two of them had no legal representation.\n12.  Seven hearings were held and several written pleadings exchanged between October 1997 and 17 September 1999.\n13.  On the latter day all parties, including the applicant, agreed to adjourn the proceedings until 14 January 2000 pending a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case, hereafter called the Else Thrane case. In that case, a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4530", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Sofia.\n7.  In 1967 her parents purchased from the Sofia municipality a two-room apartment of 69 square metres in the centre of the city. The apartment had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1947.\n8.  After the deaths of her parents the applicant inherited from them.\n9.  On 23 February 1993 the former pre-nationalisation owners of the apartment brought proceedings against the applicant under section 7 of the Restitution Law, seeking nullification of her title and restoration of their property. The proceedings ended by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 5 March 2004. The courts declared the 1967 contract null and void and restored the plaintiffs’ title to the apartment on two grounds: 1) the initial decision to sell the apartment had not been affirmed by the Minister of Architecture and Public Works but by his deputy; and 2) the sale contract had been signed not by the mayor but by one of his deputies. Although the mayor had been entitled to authorise another person to sign such contracts, he had made no written and explicit authorisation.\n10.  After the final judgment in her case, it became possible for the applicant to seek compensation from the State in the form of bonds, which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicant did not immediately apply for bonds.\n11.  She requested bonds in November 2006, following the amendments to the Restitution Law of June 2006. The regional governor dismissed the request and the applicant appealed against the refusal; the appeal was dismissed in a final judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 6 April 2009. The domestic courts found that persons who had not applied for compensation bonds within the relevant time-limit, in force since 2000, could not seek such bonds after the adoption in June 2006 of new paragraphs 2 and 3 of section 7 of the Restitution Law as the amendment at issue did not give rise to a new entitlement to compensation bonds and therefore did not affect the relevant time-limit.\n12.  In February 2007 the applicant vacated the apartment.\n13.  The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4532", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, Jerzy, Ariadna and Andrzej Plechanow, are Polish nationals who were born in 1953, 1924 and 1955 respectively and live in Warszawa.\n7.  The applicants’ predecessor owned a plot of land with a residential building situated in Warsaw. The applicants are his heirs.\n8.  By virtue of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw (“the 1945 Decree”) the ownership of all private land was transferred to the City of Warsaw.\n9.  The applicants’ predecessor requested to be granted the right of temporary ownership (własność czasowa) of the property pursuant to section 7 of the 1945 Decree.\n10.  On 6 January 1964 the Board of the Warsaw National Council (Prezydium Rady Narodowej) refused the request. The Board also stated that the ownership of all buildings situated on the property had been transferred to the State Treasury. The property was subsequently divided into smaller plots.\n11.  Between 1975 and 1992 the State Treasury sold several apartments in the residential building (together with shares in the right of perpetual use of the land) to third parties.\n12.  In 1991, 1994 and 1995 the Warsaw Governor declared that on 27 May 1990 the Warsaw Municipality had acquired ex lege the ownership of the plots of land and the building thereon (with the exception of the previously sold apartments).\n13.  On 12 March 1997 the Board of the Praga-Południe District of the Warsaw-Centre Municipality adopted a resolution on the basis of which it published a list of flats which could be sold to the tenants. In September and November 1997 they sold two apartments.\n14.  On 5 March 1998 the Praga-Południe District Office informed the applicants of the above resolution and of the possibility of exercising a right of pre-emption in respect of the remaining flats. The right of pre-emption had been introduced as from 1 January 1998 on the basis of section 34 of the Act of 21 August 1997 on the management of real estates (ustawa o gospodarce gruntami).\n15.  On 18 March 1998 the applicants informed the municipality that the third applicant would buy the flat he had occupied so far. At the same time they requested that the further sale of other flats be stayed. They enclosed a decision of the Warsaw District Court of 5 March 1991 declaring them to be heirs of F.P., K.P. and P.P.\n17.  On 30 November 1999 the Local Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) declared the decision of 6 January 1964 null and void in respect of part of the property. However, the Board could not annul the decision in respect of the remaining part of the property in question, since the ownership rights to 19 apartments and respective shares in the right of perpetual use of the land had been sold in the meantime to third parties. Thus, in view of the irreversible legal consequences of the 1964 decision, the Board only declared that, in this respect, the decision had been issued in breach of law.\n18.  The Board noted that the obligations of the Warsaw National Council resulting from a breach of law had been taken over by the Warsaw Municipality.\n19.  The Board further noted that its decision entitled the applicants to seek compensation for damage caused by the administrative decision having been issued in breach of law.\n20.  In March 2000 the applicants lodged compensation claims with the Mayor of the Warsaw District (Starosta Powiatu Warszawskiego) and the President of Warsaw in respect of the relevant 19 apartments.\n21.  On 9 June 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4533", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Warsaw\n5.  The applicant’s family owned a plot of land measuring 1,454 sq. m. situated in the centre of Warsaw. The applicant is one of the heirs of the owners of that property. By virtue of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw the ownership of all private land was transferred to the City of Warsaw.\n6.  On 30 September 1948 the applicant’s family filed an application for the grant of the right of temporary ownership (własność czasowa) of the plot of land pursuant to section 7 of the 1945 Decree (“the 1948 application”). This application was refused in 1953 and 1954 respectively. In 1955 the State constructed the Metropol Hotel on part of the land in question.\n7.  On an unspecified date the plot was divided into two separate parts. On 27 May 1990 the ownership of the first part of the original plot was transferred to the City of Warsaw by operation of law. It constituted a part of a larger plot (no. 39) with an overall area of 4,163 sq. m. The second part of the plot, with an area of 636 sq. m, remained with the State.\n8.  On 29 June 1993 the Board of the Union of Warsaw Municipalities (Zarząd Związku Dzielnic Gmin Warszawy) issued a decision declaring that as of 5 December 1990 the “Syrena” Warsaw Tourist Company had the right of perpetual use of the plot of land no. 39. In addition, the ownership of the buildings attached to that plot, including the Metropol Hotel, was transferred to the “Syrena” company.\n9.  On 1 October 1992 S.P., one of the heirs of the applicant’s family and acting on their behalf, filed with the Minister of Planning and Construction (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa) an application for annulment of the administrative decisions refusing to grant temporary ownership. On 24 March 1993 the Minister quashed the 1953 and 1954 decisions. Consequently, the competent administrative authorities were required to rule on the 1948 application. The applicant and other heirs of the previous owners were, as their legal successors, parties to the subsequent proceedings.\n10.  In 1995 the Minister of Planning and Construction instituted proceedings with a view to having his earlier decision of 24 March 1993 annulled. On 9 July 1996 the Minister declared the decision of 24 March 1993 null and void. After several appeals, on 11 December 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed this decision. As a consequence of that judgment, the 1948 application filed by the applicant’s family has yet to be examined.\n11.  Initially, the applicant was a party to two sets of proceedings concerning the right of perpetual use of the land, which were conducted separately before the Board of the City of Warsaw (subsequently the Mayor of Warsaw) and the Warsaw District Office. That situation stemmed from the fact that the plot of land formerly owned by the applicant’s family had been divided into two separate parts which were respectively owned by the City of Warsaw and the State. As from July 2002, following amendments to the relevant laws, the City of Warsaw became the sole owner of the entire plot of land in question and the relevant proceedings were conducted exclusively before the Mayor of Warsaw.\n12.  On 11 June 1996 the Board of the City of Warsaw (Zarząd Miasta Stołecznego Warszawy) decided of its own motion to stay the proceedings until the termination of the proceedings instituted by the Minister of Planning and Construction in 1995 (see above).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4534", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in the Kaunas region.\n5.  On an unspecified date in 1991 the former owners of the land belonging to the Noreikiškės settlement, situated on the territory of the Lithuanian Academy of Agriculture (“the LAA”), filed claims for restitution of their ownership rights.\n6.  On 13 March 1992 the Noreikiškės settlement local council assigned a plot of land for the applicant’s use and for construction of a private house. On 20 July 1992 the applicant paid 2,970 Russian roubles (RUR) for the use of that plot.\n7.  On 13 October 1992 a meeting of the Kaunas Regional Board took place attended by the applicant, acting on behalf of the LAA, a representative of the pre-nationalisation owners who sought to restore their property rights to the land assigned to the territory of the new LAA settlement, and representatives of various municipal and State institutions. It was decided to organise another meeting to discuss the possibility of restoring property rights to the land in Noreikiškės settlement in kind and to propose to the Government that plots of 0.3 hectares be allocated to the former owners for the construction of private houses.\n8.  Between 1992 and 1995 the Government enacted several decrees allowing persons in the applicant’s position to acquire ownership of the land they had been using.\n9.  On 11 April 1995 the applicant and the Kaunas municipality signed a land-purchase agreement which specified that on 20 July 1992 the applicant had paid 29.70 Lithuanian litas (LTL) for the plot of land. On 14 April 1995 the plot of land was registered in the State Land Registry in the applicant’s name and, in accordance with Lithuanian law, the applicant became its owner.\n10.  On 5 June 1995, civil proceedings were brought by a group of eight private individuals for annulment of the land-purchase agreements, including that of the applicant. The plaintiffs claimed restitution of their property rights to the land in question, which the LAA had allocated for the building of private houses and which had been nationalised by the Soviet occupying power in the 1940s. The dispute involved a total of 129 co-defendants, including the applicant.\n11.  On 27 June 1995 the Kaunas District Court ordered the seizure of the applicant’s land. The order was later upheld by the Kaunas Regional Court and the Supreme Court, and specified that the applicant could grow only plants with a one-year lifespan on the land at issue. Moreover, the applicant was forbidden from carrying out any construction activities on the land pending the court proceedings.\n12.  On 28 October 1996 the Kaunas District Court dismissed the action as unsubstantiated.\n13.  On 5 February 1998 the Kaunas Regional Court quashed the decision, noting that the lower court had failed to properly inform 38 defendants in the case about the forthcoming hearing. The case was returned for fresh examination at first instance.\n14.  On 26 February 1999 the Kaunas District Court again dismissed the action.\n15.  On an unspecified date the case was transferred to the Panevėžys Regional Court, which examined it on appeal.\n16.  On 14 March 2000 the Panevėžys Regional Court stayed the proceedings, deciding to submit a question as to the constitutionality of the Government decrees on the basis of which the land had been sold to the applicant.\n17.  On 6 March 2002 the Kaunas County Governor’s Office informed the applicant that despite the courts’ ban on pursuing any activities on the pl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4535", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Cracow.\n5.  The applicant was charged with handling stolen property and, on an unspecified later date, he was detained on remand.\n6.  On 29 November 1993 the Cracow District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 2 years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 8 April 1994 the Cracow Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment.\n8.  The applicant was charged with handling stolen property, forgery of documents and unlawful possession of a firearm and, on an unspecified later date, he was detained on remand.\n9.  On 2 March 1995 the Cracow Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed.\n10.  On 5 October 1995 the Cracow Court of Appeal amended the first-instance judgment and increased the sentence to 5 years’ imprisonment.\n11.  On 21 December 1995 the Cracow Regional Court gave a cumulative judgment (wyrok łączny) and sentenced the applicant to 5 years’ imprisonment as cumulative penalties for the former conviction given in the first set of criminal proceedings (see paragraph 7 above) and the latter conviction given on 5 October 1995.\n12.  On an unspecified later date the applicant was charged with handling stolen property.\n13.  On 27 February 1997 the Cracow Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 5 June 1997 the Cracow Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment. A cassation appeal was available.\n15.  On 5 June 2002 the applicant requested to have the criminal proceedings against him re-opened. On 18 July 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed his request.\n16.  On 14 March 2002 the Court received the applicant’s letter of 25 February 2002. The envelope bore the following stamp: “Censored on 28 February 2002” (Ocenzurowano dnia 28.02.2002) and an illegible signature.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4536", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Tczew.\n6.  On 15 October 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police.\n7.  On 16 October 2003 the Tczew District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a robbery by punching R.O. and taking a “Slava” watch from him worth 100 Polish zlotys (PLN). The court also relied on the severity of the penalty that was likely to be imposed on the applicant and the fact that he had been previously convicted of another robbery, for which he had been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 8 January 2004 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended.\n9.  On 26 March 2004 the applicant was indicted before the Tczew District Court. The prosecutor established that on 15 October 2003, in Tczew train station, R.O., a homeless person, had been stopped by an individual who had taken a can of beer from him. The individual had then returned, hit R.O. in the face, causing a bruise, and taken his watch. When the police arrived, R.O. identified the applicant as the perpetrator. On his arrest the applicant had dropped the watch and it had been returned to its owner, R.O.\n10.  On 8 April 2004 the Tczew District Court further extended the applicant’s detention, finding that the grounds previously given remained relevant. Moreover, the court did not find any circumstances that would point in favour of the applicant’s release.\n11.  On 15 July 2004 the Starogard Gdański District Court, to which the case had been transferred, dismissed the applicant’s request for release and further extended his pre-trial detention. It relied on the reasonable suspicion against the applicant and on the likelihood that a severe sentence would be imposed.\n12.  It appears that on 29 July 2004 the trial court held the first hearing. Subsequently, hearings were held at regular intervals.\n13.  On 14 October 2004 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention, relying solely on the likely severity of the sentence.\n14.  On 12 January and 11 April 2005 the applicant’s detention was further extended. The court’s reasons included two grounds: the reasonable suspicion against the applicant and the severity of the penalty that was likely to be imposed.\n15.  On 13 July 2005 the court extended the detention of the applicant relying, in addition to the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed, on the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n16.  On 30 September 2005 the Starogard Gdański District Court found the applicant guilty of the robbery of a watch worth not less than PLN 3, committed within five years of his previous conviction. The court established that both the applicant and the victim had been under the influence of alcohol. The applicant was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment.\n17.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended.\n18.  On 13 January 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment. It appears that the applicant failed to lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) and that the judgment became final.\n19.  On 14 April 2007 the applicant was released from detention, having served the totality of his sentence.\n20.  On 4 July 2005 the Tczew District Court acquitted the applicant of the charge of having stolen a can of beer worth PLN 2.8 from R.O. It appears that", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4537", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Polish nationals and live in Bystra.\n6.  The applicants owned some plots of land in Wieprz, Poland.\n7.  On 10 July 1989 the applicants signed a friendly settlement agreement with the Public District Roads Office (Rejon Dróg Publicznych) and agreed to the expropriation of 120 square metres of their property in return for compensation. The land was to be designated for the widening of a regional road (droga wojewódzka). Since then the property has been in the possession of the State Treasury.\n8.  In 1991 the Public District Roads Office requested the applicants to sign a notary deed confirming their friendly settlement. Subsequently, the representative of the Public District Roads Office refused to sign the deed because a contract of annuity had previously been concluded in favour of the mother of one of the applicants. That contract was registered in the property records of the plot in question. The applicant’s mother could not sign the notary deed because she suffered from Alzheimer’s disease.\n9.  In 1999 the applicant’s mother died. The right of annuity was removed from the property records.\n10.  On 15 July 1999 the applicants asked the Żywiec District Roads Authority (Powiatowy Zarząd Dróg) for compensation for the expropriated plot or for the restitution of the land. The applicants noted that the matter of compensation had not been resolved for the previous seven years and requested that the matter be given urgent attention.\n11.  On 11 August 1999 the District Roads Authority informed the applicants that, on 1 January 1999, their plot of land had become ex lege the property of the State Treasury and that they would be granted compensation if they applied for it between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2005. The applicants were also informed that their previous application for compensation would be regarded as an indication that they would lodge another, official application within the statutory time‑limit. On 22 January 2001 the applicants filed another request for compensation for the expropriated land.\n12.  On 16 August 2001 the applicants complained about the lack of compensation to the Śląski Governor. They submitted that for several years they had been seeking compensation for expropriated property and that no appealable decision in their case had been given. On 26 September 2001 the Śląski Governor replied that they should complain and submit their application for compensation to the Mayor of the Żywiec District.\n13.  On 4 September 2001 the applicants lodged a further application for compensation, this time with the Mayor of the Żywiec District.\n14.  On 26 September 2001 the Mayor of the Żywiec District replied, informing the applicants that, on 1 January 1999, their plot of land had become ex lege the property of the State Treasury. He did not refer to the applicants’ request for compensation.\n15.  On 1 October 2001 the applicants again complained to the Śląski Governor.\n16.  On 10 October 2001 the Śląski Governor replied that, although the plot had become the State Treasury’s property ex lege, a final decision by the Śląski Governor confirming the transfer of ownership was necessary in order to determine and pay compensation. The Governor also mentioned that “the drawing up of the necessary documentation for the plots of land in question” depended on “the financial means at the disposal of the office”.\n17.  On 20 February 2006 the Śląski Governor gave a decision and confirmed the transfer of ownership of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4539", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Batman.\n5.  On 1 April 1996 the applicant was arrested by gendarmerie officers while he was leaving Batman. He was then transferred to the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Batman Police Headquarters on suspicion of involvement in the activities of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 18 April 1996 the applicant was brought before the Batman public prosecutor and the judge at the Batman Magistrates’ Court. The judge remanded the applicant in custody.\n7.  On an unspecified day the Batman public prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the public prosecutor’s office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n8.  On 22 May 1996 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, along with other persons, charging him with membership of the PKK under Article 168 § 2 of the former Criminal Code.\n9.  On 30 July 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case.\n10.  On 25 December 2001 the Fourth Chamber of the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.\n11.  Throughout the proceedings, the applicant and his representative requested several times that the applicant be released pending trial. At the end of each hearing the State Security Court rejected the applicant’s requests, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file.\n12.  On 9 October 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. The case was subsequently remitted to the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n13.  On 13 May 2003 the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.\n14.  On 23 March 2004 the State Security Court once again convicted the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.\n15.  On 19 October 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 23 March 2004.\n16.  Pursuant to Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, abolishing State Security Courts, the case against the applicant was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.\n17.  On 2 May 2005 the Diyarbakır Assize Court decided that the proceedings against the applicant should be terminated on the ground that the statutory time‑limit under Article 102 of the Criminal Code had expired. This decision to terminate the case became final as neither the applicant nor the public prosecutor appealed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4540", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1956, respectively, and live in Koszalin.\n5.  On 1 August 1997 the applicants filed a claim with the Koszalin District Court against a housing co-operative concerning the amount of maintenance fees to be fixed in respect of their apartment building.\n6.  On 24 November 1998 the proceedings were stayed pending the termination of parallel proceedings relating to the alleged nullity of an amendment made to the co-operative’s statute. The Koszalin District Court resumed the proceedings on 7 March 2003.\n7.  On 13 May 2003 a hearing was held. The court requested the Koszalin Regional Court to provide the case-file of the proceedings relating to the alleged nullity of an amendment made to the co-operative’s statute.\n8.  On 16 June 2003 the Koszalin District Court decided to stay the proceedings at the applicants’ request. They were resumed, upon the applicants’ request, on 17 November 2004.\n9.  Hearings were subsequently held on 23 February, 11 August, 22 September, 10 November and 9 December 2005.\n10.  On 30 January 2006 the Koszalin District Court decided to admit an expert opinion. On 6 June and 16 August 2006 the expert requested prolongation of the time-limit for submission of the opinion.\n11.  On 6 September 2006 the court summoned the expert to submit the opinion within 7 days.\n12.  In 2007 the District Court held 7 hearings.\n13.  18 October 2007 the Koszalin District Court gave a judgment in the case.\n14.  The judgment was quashed on 27 February 2009 by the Koszalin Regional Court and the case remitted for re-examination.\n15.  The proceedings are currently pending before the first-instance court.\n16.  On 30 November 2005 the applicants lodged a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\nOn 6 January 2006 the Koszalin Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ complaint, finding that the trial court could not be held responsible for any delays and that the proceedings had been prolonged as it had been necessary to stay them.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4541", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Jastrzębie.\n5.  On 28 August 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of homicide.\n6.  On 30 August 2000 the Trzcianka District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. The court considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation justified holding him in custody. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n7.  On 20 November 2000 the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) extended his detention until 30 December 2000. On 27 December 2000 the court ordered that the term should be extended until 30 March 2001. On 26 March 2001 it ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until 30 June 2001. In all its detention decisions the court relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. The court repeatedly stressed that his detention was justified by the need to obtain further evidence.\n8.  On 11 June 2001 the Trzcianka District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) indicted the applicant on charges of homicide, committed with an accomplice.\n9.  On 25 June 2001 the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) extended the applicant’s detention. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged. It also referred to the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings as a justification for holding him in custody. On 30 June 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal. In his appeal he maintained that, given his poor health, detention was putting a severe strain on him. He particularly relied on the atheromatosis which affected his legs.\n10.  On 24 July 2001 his appeal was dismissed by the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). It found that there was a risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence, having regard to the fact that the co-accused suffered from a mental disability.\n11.  Between 28 September 2001 and 19 December 2002 the court held 12 hearings.\n12.  On 28 September 2001 and 25 October 2001 the applicant lodged applications with the Poznań Regional Court to have his detention lifted or replaced by another preventive measure. He referred to his health problems. The court dismissed the applications. It relied on the likelihood of a severe prison sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. It further observed that the applicant had received adequate medical care in prison.\n13.  On 20 December 2002 the Poznań Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 13 years’ imprisonment. The applicant and his co-defendant appealed.\n14.  On 2 September 2003 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n15.  On 26 May 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Poznań Regional Court. The Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 26 August 2004. The court referred to the seriousness of the offence with which he had been charged and to the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n16.  In the meantime, on 7 November 2003, as a result of the atheromatosis, the applicant’s right leg was amputated.\n17.  The applicant’s detention was extended by decisions of the Poznań Regional Court of 16 August 2004, 21 February 2005 (upheld by the Pozn", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4542", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and is currently detained in Gdańsk Remand Centre.\n6.  On 24 November 2002 the applicant, who since 28 August 2002 had been sought under a wanted notice, was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion that he had committed murder with three accomplices.\n7.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was subsequently extended by decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) of 26 November 2002 and 6 February, 8 May, 29 July, and 18 November 2003.\n8.  The domestic court justified the applicant’s pre‑trial detention by the existence of strong evidence against him and the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed in the case. The court also noted that it was necessary to carry out further investigations, such as obtaining evidence from new witnesses, psychiatric reports on the suspects and various forensic reports.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 14 July 2003 the applicant was indicted on charges of robbery, manslaughter, distribution of drugs, assault and battery. There were three other defendants in the applicant’s case. The prosecutor asked the trial court to examine sixty-four witnesses and to read out the testimonies of another five witnesses.\n10.  On 15 October 2003 the trial court decided that certain procedural shortcomings had occurred in the proceedings and returned the bill of indictment to the prosecutor. On 27 October 2003 a rectified bill of indictment was filed with the court.\n11.  The first hearing in the applicant’s case took place on 28 November 2003. Subsequently, seventeen hearings were held by the trial court. One hearing was adjourned due to the absence of defendants.\n12.  Between 2 and 12 June 2004 the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed by the Gdańsk District Court in a separate case.\n13.  On 8 October 2004 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant on several counts and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment.\n14.  Pending appeal, the applicant’s detention was extended by decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court of 23 November 2004 and of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) of 19 April and 20 July 2005.\n15.  The courts reiterated that there was strong evidence against the applicant and the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed in the case. In addition, the authorities noted that for the above reasons the applicable law allowed for a presumption of risk that the applicant would obstruct the proper course of the proceedings and the latter could only be ensured by applying the preventive measure in question.\n16.  Meanwhile, on 22 June 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal partly quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court in that part. The first-instance judgment was upheld, however, with respect to a few offences and in that connection the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The court deducted from the imposed sentence the term of the applicant’s detention preceding the conviction, namely two years, six months and eighteen days comprising two periods: from 24 November 2002 to 2 June 2004 and from 12 June 2004 to 22 June 2005.\n17.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was extended by the decision of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal of 20 July 2005 and then, by decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court of 25 October 2005, 21 February and 21 September 2006 (upheld on 11 October 2006 by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal), 30 November 2006, 22 February 2007 (upheld on 6 March 2007), 22 May 2007 (upheld on 5 June 2007), 24 August ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4543", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Gdańsk.\n6. On 20 July 2001 the applicant was remanded in custody by the Gdańsk Regional Court on suspicion of murder. The court held that there had been a risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings or abscond, given the severity of the penalty he faced.\n7.  Later, several other persons were detained and charged in connection with the same investigation conducted by the Gdańsk District Prosecutor’s Office. The charges against the applicant were also extended.\n8.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged on the following dates: 11 October 2001, 10 January, 18 April, 17 September 2002, 28 January, 2 July, 1 October, 30 December 2003, 3 February, 21 April, 7 December 2004, 24 February, 9 June 2005, 29 May and 21 September 2006. The courts relied mainly on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question and on the gravity of the charges. The courts considered that the applicant had been charged with the commission of crimes for which he was liable to a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 8 years, and that the circumstances of the case indicated that there was a reasonable risk that he might obstruct the proceedings. Regard was also had to the number of suspects and the need to obtain further evidence.\n9.  During the investigation and the trial the applicant filed several unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions prolonging his detention.\n10.  From 20 March 2002 until 9 May 2002 and from 17 February 2003 until 18 March 2003 the applicant served prison sentences imposed in other sets of criminal proceedings against him.\n11.  On 14 June 2004 the Gdańsk Regional Court delivered a judgment in the case. The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 24 February 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal partly quashed the first-instance judgment in respect of the applicant, sentenced him to 6-years’ imprisonment in respect of some of the charges, and remitted the remainder of the case for retrial.\n13.  Between 2005 and 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court held fourteen hearings in the case.\n14.  The applicant was released on 14 May 2007. The Gdańsk Regional Court found that the necessary pieces of evidence had been obtained and the case was at its final stage, so there was no need to prolong the applicant’s detention.\n15.  The proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4544", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Łomianki.\n5.  The applicant’s family owned a plot of land measuring 1,454 sq. m. situated in the centre of Warsaw. The applicant is one of the heirs of the owners of that property. By virtue of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw the ownership of all private land was transferred to the City of Warsaw.\n6.  On 30 September 1948 the applicant’s family filed an application for the right of temporary ownership (własność czasowa) of the plot of land pursuant to section 7 of the 1945 Decree (“the 1948 application”). This application was refused in 1953 and 1954. In 1955 the State built the Metropol Hotel on part of the land in question.\n7.  On an unspecified date the plot was divided into two separate parts. On 27 May 1990 the ownership of the first part of the original plot was transferred to the City of Warsaw by operation of law. It constituted a part of a larger plot (no. 39) with an overall area of 4,163 sq. m. The second part of the plot, with an area of 636 sq. m., remained with the State.\n8.  On 29 June 1993 the Board of the Union of Warsaw Municipalities (Zarząd Związku Dzielnic Gmin Warszawy) issued a decision declaring that as of 5 December 1990 the “Syrena” Warsaw Tourist Company had the right of perpetual use of the plot of land no. 39. In addition, the ownership of the buildings attached to that plot, including the Metropol Hotel, was transferred to the “Syrena” company.\n9.  On 1 October 1992 S.P., one of the heirs of the applicant’s family and acting on their behalf, filed with the Minister of Planning and Construction (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa) an application for annulment of the administrative decisions refusing to grant temporary ownership. On 24 March 1993 the Minister quashed the 1953 and 1954 decisions. Consequently, the competent administrative authorities were required to rule on the 1948 application. The applicant and other heirs of the previous owners were, as their legal successors, parties to the subsequent proceedings.\n10.  In 1995 the Minister of Planning and Construction instituted proceedings with a view to having his earlier decision of 24 March 1993 annulled. On 9 July 1996 the Minister declared the decision of 24 March 1993 null and void. After several appeals, on 11 December 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed this decision. As a consequence of that judgment, the 1948 application filed by the applicant’s family has yet to be examined.\n11.  Initially, the applicant was a party to two sets of proceedings concerning the right to perpetual use of the land, which were conducted separately before the Board of the City of Warsaw (subsequently the Mayor of Warsaw) and the Warsaw District Office. That situation stemmed from the fact that the plot of land formerly owned by the applicant’s family had been divided into two separate parts which were respectively owned by the City of Warsaw and the State. As from July 2002, following amendments to the relevant laws, the City of Warsaw became the sole owner of the entire plot of land in question and the relevant proceedings were conducted exclusively before the Mayor of Warsaw.\n12.  On 11 June 1996 the Board of the City of Warsaw (Zarząd Miasta Stołecznego Warszawy) decided of its own motion to stay the proceedings until the termination of the proceedings instituted by the Minister of Planning and Construction in 1995 (see above). This decision was subsequen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4545", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 19 July 2000 the applicant’s daughter E., born in June 1997, was first interviewed at a hospital child psychiatric clinic on a suspicion that she had been sexually abused by the applicant. That suspicion was initially based on E.’s own account of what her father had done to her.\n7.  Dr S. examined E. at the clinic on 2, 4 and 8 August 2000. The sessions were recorded on videotape. Following those sessions the hospital staff proposed that a meeting be arranged between the applicant and E. to enable the observation of their interaction. Such a meeting was never held, presumably due to the opposition of E.’s mother, the applicant’s former wife.\n8.  On 7 August 2000 the applicant met a social worker and a nurse at the hospital. He denied any sexual abuse, suspecting that the mother had manipulated E. into saying negative things about him in order to prevent his visits with the child. The applicant and E.’s mother had divorced in 1998 and they had not been able to agree on the child’s custody and visiting rights. They had subsequently been afforded joint custody of E. by a court. Against this background, the applicant urged that other possible reasons for E.’s behaviour than sexual abuse be taken into consideration.\n9.  In a feedback discussion held on 14 September 2000 Dr S. informed the applicant about the results of the examinations, which in his opinion supported the suspicion of abuse by the applicant. The applicant was told that a meeting between him and E. was to be arranged and that he would be informed about the date of the meeting later on. The applicant requested copies of E.’s examination reports.\n10.  No meeting between the applicant and E. was arranged.\n11.  As copies of E.’s examination reports had not been sent to the applicant, his counsel made fresh requests to that end on 3 and 14 November 2000. She also insisted that the applicant be heard regarding the examinations.\n12.  On 15 November 2000 E. was examined at the clinic by Dr H. That session was also videotaped. No meeting with the applicant was arranged in respect of the results of that examination.\n13.  On 28 November 2000 the hospital refused to submit copies of E.’s examination reports to the applicant, finding that their disclosure might be detrimental to her health or treatment and that it might conflict with another very important private interest.\n14.  In December 2000 the applicant filed a request with the Data Protection Ombudsman (tietosuojavaltuutettu, dataombudsmannen) to obtain access to E.’s medical file. No decision was given by that authority before the beginning of the subsequent trial against the applicant.\n15.  E.’s therapy at the hospital started in January 2001.\n16.  On 15 February 2001 the police began a pre-trial investigation of the applicant during which his counsel was given the opportunity to view the video recordings of E.’s examinations by Drs S. and H. Apparently, counsel was also given copies of at least some of the documents pertaining to the case. The investigation was closed on 19 September 2001. In his final statement to the pre-trial investigation, the applicant requested that the investigating authorities acquire the totality of E.’s medical file from the hospital. His request was not complied with as the police and the public prosecutor did not regard E.’s patient records as having any influence in the matter.\n17.  While the investigation was still pending, in May and June 2001, the applicant’s counsel had again asked the hos", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4546", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1971 and is currently serving sentences of life imprisonment and 15 years’ imprisonment in Peqin High Security Prison (Albania).\n7.  On 6 October 1997 the Italian authorities issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant, charging him with the premeditated homicide of an Albanian national in Milan, Italy.\n8.  On 2 February 2001 the applicant was sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment by the Milan Assize Court of Appeal on a count of murder and to five years’ imprisonment on a count of illegal possession of firearms.\n9.  On 16 February 2001 the Italian authorities issued a second arrest warrant concerning the applicant which related to a new charge against him, namely participation in a criminal organisation and international narcotics trafficking. From the documents in the file it transpires that during the period of the proceedings before the Italian courts the applicant was carrying on a lawful business and resided in Albania.\n10.  On 29 April 2001 Interpol Albania transmitted to the Tirana Police the two arrest warrants mentioned above. On the same date the Chief of the Tirana Criminal Police ordered that “the arrest warrants be immediately enforced”.\n11.  On 30 April 2001 Interpol Rome sent a fax to the Albanian authorities seeking the initiation of criminal proceedings against the applicant for crimes committed on Italian territory.\n12.  On 30 April 2001 the applicant was arrested in Albania on the strength of the arrest warrant issued on 16 February 2001 by the investigating judge at the Milan Court of Appeal. The charge related to the applicant’s involvement in a criminal organisation and international drug trafficking.\n13.  On 1 May 2001 the applicant was remanded in detention for 15 days.\n14.  On 12 May 2001 the Tirana District Court, (“the District Court”), dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the grounds of his arrest. On the same day, the prosecutor informed the applicant about the charges against him, namely participation in a criminal organisation and international narcotics trafficking.\n15.  On 15 May 2001 the District Court upheld the prosecutor’s application and ordered the applicant’s detention in prison for an undetermined period. On 4 June 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the decision.\n16.  In June and December 2001 the General Prosecutor’s Office repeatedly requested the Italian authorities to transmit the evidence that grounded the charges against the applicant. In January 2002 the request was also repeated by the Albanian Minister of Justice.\n17.  On 30 July 2002 the General Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings in the Tirana District Court, charging the applicant with international narcotics trafficking (hereinafter “the criminal proceedings”).\n18.  On 29 December 2003 the District Court found the applicant guilty of establishing a criminal organisation and international narcotics trafficking and sentenced him to 19 years’ imprisonment. According to the applicant, the conviction related to a new charge of which he had never been informed. On 25 June 2004 the Tirana Court of Appeal, (“the Court of Appeal”), upheld the District Court’s judgment but changed the applicant’s sentence to 17 years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. On 23 June 2006 the Supreme Court changed the qualification of one of the criminal offences of which the applicant had been convicted. It upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment and changed the applicant’s sent", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4547", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Mr. Július Ďurech and Mr Pavol Ďurech were born in 1933 and 1940 respectively and live in Prešov. Ms Marta Máthéová was born in 1930 and lives in Košice. The applicants are siblings.\n5.  On 7 October 1987 the applicants requested a judicial determination of their ownership title to a house.\n6.  The first-instance court delivered judgments on 18 November 1987, 25 October 1988, 5 June 1990, 4 July 1995 and 3 March 1997. The court of appeal quashed those judgments on 26 May 1988, 22 December 1988, 28 February 1991, 5 March 1997 and 29 October 1999 respectively.\n7.  On 28 January 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice II District Court had violated the applicants’ right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.\n8.  The Constitutional Court had jurisdiction to examine the length of the proceedings as from 15 February 1993, but it had regard to the stage which the proceedings had reached by that date. The case was not complex and the applicants by their conduct had not caused any delay. The overall length of the proceedings was in itself incompatible with the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time.\n9.  The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to proceed with the case without further delay. It also awarded 100,000 Slovakian korunas (the equivalent of 2,465 euros at that time) to each applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicants’ costs.\n10.  On 1 February 2005 the District Court delivered a judgment. The Košice Regional Court quashed that judgment on 14 November 2005 on the ground that the District Court had failed to assess the relevant evidence and to give sufficient reasons for the conclusion reached.\n11.  On 28 November 2006 the District Court found against the applicants. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 30 April 2008. The decision was served on the applicants’ lawyer on 2 July 2008.\n12.  On 24 November 2008 the applicants asked the Prosecutor General to lodge an extraordinary appeal on points of law against the above final decision on their behalf. No further information has been made available.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4548", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Gdańsk.\n5.  On 31 March 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. On 1 April 1999 the Gdańsk District Court remanded him in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery and had unlawfully possessed a firearm. It also found that there was a risk that the applicant might go into hiding, tamper with evidence or obstruct the proceedings by other unlawful means.\n6.  Later, several other persons were detained and charged in connection with the same investigation conducted by the Department of Organised Crime of the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office.\n7.  On 24 June 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 September 1999. It relied on the need to obtain and secure further evidence. On 15 September 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 December 1999, reiterating the grounds previously given for his detention and adding that the measure was also justified by the severity of the anticipated penalty.\n8.  On 8 December 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended his detention until 30 March 2000, relying on the grounds previously given for his detention. It underlined the serious nature of the offences with which the applicant had been charged and the need to obtain further expert evidence.\n9.  On 30 March 2000 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 June 2000. It found that the strong suspicion that he had committed the serious offences with which he had been charged, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the risk of his tampering with evidence justified holding him in custody. It also relied on the complexity of the case.\n10.  On 24 May 2000 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 15 December 2000, invoking the same grounds as given in its earlier decision. In addition, it found that the present case was “particularly complex” within the meaning of Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to, inter alia, the nature of the offences and the number of suspects involved.\n11.  On 13 December 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s and his eight co-accused’s detention until 31 March 2001.\n12.  On 7 March 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 May 2001. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the severity of the anticipated penalty. The Court of Appeal further held that detention on remand was the only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings given the nature of the charges and the relations between the accused, all members of an organised criminal gang. It also considered that the prolongation of detention was justified by the need to obtain DNA evidence in order to corroborate evidence previously obtained.\n13.  Since on 30 March 2001 the applicant’ s detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further prolongation of his detention was ordered by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. The Gdańsk Court of Appeal gave decisions on the applicant’s detention on 23 May 2001 and 24 October 2001, prolonging it respectively until 31 October 2001 and 31 March 2002.\n14.  On 15 May 2001 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with several dozen coun", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4549", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant, Mr Aleksandr Voronov, was born in 1958. The second applicant, Mr Sergej Vorona, was born in 1966. Both of them live in Klaipėda.\n5.  On 3 December 1993 the applicants concluded agreements with the Klaipėda city council whereby each applicant would acquire an apartment in a building that the local authority was obliged to build by 1 May 1994. The applicants undertook to cover the costs of construction by paying the sums specified in the agreement. They paid their respective contributions by the date agreed in the contract.\n6.  On 25 July 1994 the applicants brought a court action, alleging that the local authorities had failed to complete the construction in time. They requested an order obliging the defendant to complete the works and provide them with property certificates. After the completion of the construction works on 20 October 1994, the applicants withdrew the former claim.\n7.  The Klaipėda city council lodged a counter-claim, requesting annulment of the agreements concluded with the applicants, claiming that its administrative division had lacked competence to enter into a contract with the applicants and that the costs of the construction had been incorrectly estimated. The local authority did not request restitution, but suggested that the applicants should cover the additional building costs.\n8.  On 11 October 1995 the Klaipėda City District Court dismissed the applicants’ case.\n9.  On 7 December 1995 the Klaipėda Regional Court quashed the decision, returning the case for a fresh examination. It was noted that the lower court had failed to summon all the parties and that not all the relevant circumstances of the case had been properly established.\n10.  On 1 August 1997 the court ordered an expert examination (documentary audit) regarding the municipality’s actions when accepting the contributions from the applicants for the construction of the apartments.\n11.  On 6 April 2000 one of the applicants addressed the Klaipėda City District Court requesting it to urge the experts to finish the examination and produce their conclusions.\n12.  The expert examination was completed on 20 September 2000. The next hearing took place on 13 February 2001.\n13.  On 11 February 2003 the Klaipėda City District Court allowed the counter-claims of the local authorities in part. The applicants were ordered to cover the additional construction costs. Upon receipt of the payment, the Klaipėda city council was obliged to issue the applicants the documents allowing them to register their titles to the apartments.\n14.  On 22 May 2003 the Klaipėda Regional Court partly amended the decision.\n15.  On 10 December 2003 the Supreme Court amended the decisions of the lower courts, fully allowing the applicants’ claims. It was established that the Klaipėda city council was not entitled to require the applicants to cover the additional costs. It was ordered to perform the agreement by issuing the applicants the documents which would allow them to register the apartments in their names.\n16.  On 31 December 2003 and on 13 January 2004 the Klaipėda city municipality issued the documents attesting that the applicants had paid the full amount for the apartments constructed under the agreement of 3 December 1993.\n17.  On 19 January and 13 February 2004 the applicants registered their titles to the apartments and, under domestic law, became their owners.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4550", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Warszawa.\n5.  On 9 June 1993 the applicant lodged with the Warszawa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an application for division of matrimonial property. She paid the relevant court fees on 9 November 1993.\n6.  Between 9 June 1993 and 21 February 2003, the District Court scheduled 28 hearings, 6 of which were adjourned due to the failure of the applicant’s husband to appear; only two hearings were scheduled in 1996, no hearing was scheduled between 8 December 1997 and 15 June 1999 and two hearings were scheduled in 2000.\n7.  On 5 March 2003 the Warszawa District Court delivered a partial decision (postanowienie częściowe) on the parties’ respective shares in the matrimonial property.\n8.  Between 4 August 2004 and 16 April 2008, the District Court scheduled 13 hearings, 3 of which were adjourned. No hearing was held in 2006.\n9.  On 23 June 2008 the Warszawa District Court gave a decision. The applicant appealed. The proceedings are pending before the second-instance court.\n10.  On 1 June 2006 the applicant lodged with the Warszawa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a complaint under section 5 of the Law on 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) which entered into force on 17 September 2004.\n11.  She sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Warszawa District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).\n12.  On 4 August 2006 the Warszawa Regional Court gave a decision. The court held that the 2004 Act did not have retroactive effect and, consequently, examined the applicant’s claim only in respect of the period between the entry into force of the 2004 Act on 17 September 2004 and the date on which the complaint had been lodged. The court found that, during that part of the proceedings, there had been some periods of inactivity for which the District Court had been responsible. The court awarded the applicant PLN 2,000 (approx. EUR 526 euros) in just satisfaction.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4551", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1967, 1978, 1979, 1973 and 1965, respectively, and live in Istanbul, except for Ms Yaşar who resides in Allschwill, in Switzerland.\n5.  On 24 March 1995[1] the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the MLKP-K (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party Foundation), and of organising illegal demonstrations in the Gazi neighbourhood on 12 and 13 March 1995[2] on behalf of that organisation.\n6.  On an unspecified date the Istanbul Security Directorate held a press conference and presented the applicants to the press[3]. There is no information as to the content of the police statement.\n7.  On 28 March 1995, upon his lawyer’s request and following authorisation from the prosecutor on the basis of a Ministry circular, Mr Kırmızıgül met with his lawyer between 4 and 4.05 p.m.\n8.  On 28, 30 and 31 March 1995, the applicants Mr Kırmızıgül, Ms Tağaç, Mr Akbaba and Ms Sarısaltıkoğlu were questioned by two police officers and made a number of statements incriminating both themselves and other applicants.\n9.  According to a verbatim record drafted on 31 March 1995, Ms Yaşar refused to give a statement to the police.\n10.  On 31 March 1995, following her lawyer’s request of 29 March 1995 and authorisation from the prosecutor on 29 and 31 March 1995 on the basis of a Ministry circular, Ms Yaşar met with her lawyer at 2.45 p.m. The applicant stated this meeting lasted for about twenty minutes.\n11.  On 1 April 1995 the applicants, Mr Kırmızıgül and Mr Akbaba, took part in a reconstruction of events where they showed their positions and where and how many shots they had fired during the Gazi incidents.\n12.  On the same day the applicants were confronted with each other.\n13.  On 3 April 1995 a superintendent from the Istanbul Security Directorate drafted a report (fezleke) in which he considered, on the basis of various documents such as arrest protocols and the applicants’ statements, as well as the documents and firearms discovered during house searches, that the applicants had been involved in MLKP-K activities. In addition, an information note was prepared on the MLKP-K - its origins, aims and activities.\n14.  On 4 April 1995 the applicants were examined by a doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Department. The doctor found no signs of traumatic lesions on the applicants’ bodies. She noted that Ms Yaşar had complained of pain in her throat and shoulders and Ms Sarısaltıkoğlu of shoulder and back pain, while Ms Tağaç had claimed that her urine was dark. The latter was examined by a urologist who found no pathological signs on her body or in the results of laboratory tests.\n15.  On 4 April 1995 the applicants were bought before the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court (“ISSC”). Those applicants who had given statements to the police retracted them, with Ms Tağaç and Mr Akbaba claiming that their statements had been made under duress and ill-treatment and Ms Yaşar alleging that she had been ill-treated.\n16.  On 5 April 1995 the applicants were brought before a judge at the ISSC where they reiterated the statements they had given to the prosecutor. They claimed that their police statements had been given under torture.\n17.  On 3 May 1995 the prosecutor at the ISCC filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicants of membership of the MLKP-K and of inciting the public to rebellion during the Gazi incidents. The charges were bought under Article", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4554", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n7.  The applicants are respectively the mother, wife and daughter of Khasan Vakhidovich Yusupov, born in 1979. At the material time they lived together at 25 Budennogo Street, Achkhoy-Martan. Khasan Yusupov served as a private in the military commandant’s office of Achkhoy-Martan (the district military commander’s office).\n8.  In the morning of 15 November 2002 Khasan Yusupov went from Achkhoy-Martan to Khankala by car. Two other servicemen from the military commandant’s office of Achkhoy-Martan travelled with him: commander of platoon A.A. and private A.M. They had an appointment at the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102. The three servicemen had been summoned to the military prosecutor’s office in relation to a criminal investigation opened against A.M. They travelled in the personal Moskvich-412 car of driver Ilyas B.\n9.  Until about 2.30 p.m. the servicemen and Ilyas B. were in communication by radio with the military commander’s office and with Ibragim B., Ilyas B.’s brother, who was also serving in the district military commandant’s office. Then the radio connection was cut.\n10.  Five days later the first applicant went to the district military commander’s office and enquired about Khasan Yusupov. She was told that he and his colleagues had left for an appointment at the military prosecutor’s office of Khankala in connection with a criminal case pending against A.M.\n11.  On the following day the applicants went to the military prosecutor’s office in Khankala and met investigator L., who told them that Khasan Yusupov and his colleagues had left his office on 15 November 2002 at around 3 p.m.\n12.  A taxi driver who had been parked next to the military prosecutor’s office on the afternoon of 15 November 2002 told the applicants that Khasan Yusupov and some others had been taken by the authorities late in the afternoon to cars which had left for unknown destinations. However, he refused to make any formal statement in this respect. The applicants are not aware of his identity.\n13.  It appears that Ilyas B.’s Moskvich-412 car remained in front of checkpoint no. 1 of the Khankala military base until 18 November 2002, when it was collected by his brother, Ibragim B.\n14.  On 5 or 6 December 2002 a young man told the applicants that he had been detained with Khasan Yusupov in Khankala for three days and that the latter had stayed there. He refused to give any formal testimony or to disclose his identity.\n15.  The applicants and other relatives of the disappeared men have had no news of them since 15 November 2002.\n16.  The Government denied that the applicants’ relative and three other men had been detained by representatives of the State. They stated that on 15 November 2002 Khasan Yusupov, two other servicemen of the district military commander’s office and driver Ilyas B. had gone to Khankala, after which they disappeared. Their whereabouts have not been established so far.\n17.  Since 15 November 2002 the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies. They have been supported in their efforts by the SRJI NGO. In their letters to the authorities the applicants referred to their relative’s disappearance and asked for assistance and details of the investigation. The applicants submitted some of the letters to the authorities and the replies to the Court, which are summarised below.\n18.  In December 2002 (in the Government’s submissions this date is indicate", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4555", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1975 and 1971, respectively, and live in the town of Sasovo in the Ryazan Region.\n7.  On 12 July 2001 the brother of the first applicant had a fist fight with Mr K. Several persons, including Mr L., witnessed the fight and were brought to the Sasovo District police station for questioning. The applicants, investigators in the Sasovo District Police Department at the material time, invited Mr L. into an office and urged him to change his statements about the fight. In response to Mr L.’s refusal, the applicants, who were intoxicated, beat him up. The first applicant dragged Mr L. outdoors, forced him into a car, drove him to a cemetery and left him there.\n8.  Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants upon Mr L.’s complaints. They were charged with aggravated abuse of position. The applicants were not remanded in custody as they had given written undertakings not to leave the town.\n9.  On 9 April 2003 the Sasovo District Court of the Ryazan Region found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced the first applicant to three years and six months’ imprisonment and the second applicant to three years’ imprisonment. The applicants were taken into custody in the courtroom.\n10.  On 5 June 2003 the Ryazan Regional Court, acting on appeal, quashed the judgment of 9 April 2003, remitted the case for a fresh examination and ordered, without providing any reasoning or indicating any legal grounds, that the applicants should remain in custody. The decision of 5 June 2003 was not amenable to appeal.\n11.  On 10 July 2003 the Sasovo District Court fixed the first trial hearing for 18 July 2003 and ordered that the measure of restraint applied to the applicants should “remain unchanged”. No reasons for the extension were given. At the same time the District Court indicated that the decision could be appealed against to the Ryazan Regional Court within ten days. The applicants did not appeal.\n12.  The applicants’ lawyers asked the District Court to release the applicants on their own recognisance. Both requests were dismissed, on 11 and 14 July 2003, respectively, because the District Court had already examined the detention matter on 10 July 2003. The lawyers did not appeal against the decisions.\n13.  On 25 July 2003 the Sasovo District Court examined the applicants’ requests for release and dismissed them by two separate identically worded decisions. In particular, the District Court held that the applicants were charged with serious criminal offences and could influence witnesses. The decisions were amenable to appeal, however, no appeal followed.\n14.  On 8 October 2003 the District Court extended the applicants’ detention on remand until 9 January 2004. It held that the applicants had committed a serous criminal offence and, if released, might obstruct justice. The District Court also mentioned that it had ordered an expert examination which had not yet been completed.\n15.  The applicants appealed, arguing that their conviction had been quashed and there were no further grounds to keep them in custody. They noted that they had children, had permanent places of residence and did not have any criminal record.\n16.  On 30 October 2003 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the decision of 8 October 2003, noting that the detention had been lawfully extended with reference to the seriousness of the charge against the applicants.\n17.  On 25 December 2003 the Sasovo District Court, by two separate similarly word", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4556", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1963. At the date the application was lodged, he was living in Mönchengladbach.\n10.  On 25 July 2002 the applicant was arrested.\n11.  On the same day the Mönchengladbach District Court ordered his detention on remand after hearing representations from him. The applicant was assisted from this point on by counsel. In a detention order running to some one and a half pages, the District Court found that there was a strong suspicion that the applicant had evaded taxes on some twenty occasions between 1996 and June 2002, an offence punishable under various provisions (which were specified in detail) of the Tax Code, the Turnover Tax Code, the Income Tax Code and the Regulations on Trade Taxes. He had been working as a self-employed commercial agent for fifteen different firms in Germany (whose names were listed in detail in the order) since 1994. He had also been running a telephone service since 2000; in 2001 a company, TMA Aachen, had paid him commission amounting to 124,926.22 Deutschmarks (DEM). The court found on the basis of the documents before it that there were grounds for suspecting the applicant of having evaded turnover taxes of 57,374 euros (EUR), income taxes of EUR 133,279 and trade taxes of EUR 20,266.\n12.  Noting that the applicant, who had availed himself of the right to remain silent, was strongly suspected of tax evasion on the basis of business records that had been seized when his home was searched, the District Court decided that he had to be placed in pre-trial detention because of the danger of collusion (Verdunkelungsgefahr – see Article 112 § 2 no. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited in paragraph 45 below). It also noted that the documents seized were incomplete, so that there was a risk that the applicant, if released, might destroy the missing documents or conceal further business transactions and accounts.\n13.  On 7 August 2002 the applicant, represented by counsel, lodged an application for review of his detention order (Haftprüfung) with the Mönchengladbach District Court. His counsel also requested access to the case file, which he argued he had a right to inspect in order to apprise himself of all the facts and evidence on which the detention order and, in particular, the strong suspicion that an offence had been committed were based. He also pointed out that domestic law prohibited the District Court from considering facts and evidence to which defence counsel had been refused access pursuant to Article 147 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 52 below).\n14.  On 12 August 2002 the Mönchengladbach Public Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant's counsel that he was being refused access to the case file pursuant to Article 147 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it would jeopardise the purpose of the investigation. It added, however, that the public prosecutor in charge of the case was prepared to inform counsel orally about the facts and evidence at issue. The applicant's counsel did not take up that offer.\n15.  On 16 August 2002 the Mönchengladbach District Court heard representations from the applicant and his defence counsel. The applicant argued that there was no risk of collusion or of his absconding. Should the court nevertheless consider that he might abscond if released he was ready to comply with any conditions imposed by the court, such as handing over his identity papers. The applicant's counsel complained that he had still not had acces", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4557", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the village of Ferzikovo in the Kaluga Region.\n7.  Between 24 August 2001 and 27 December 2002 the applicant served a sentence for theft in detention facility ZhH-385/5 (hereinafter referred to as “ZhH-385/5” or “the prison”) in the village of Lepley in the Republic of Mordovia.\n8.  During his imprisonment the applicant was detained in the following units of the prison:\n(i)  from 24 August 2001 to March 2002 in unit no. 6;\n(ii)  from March to August 2002 in a high-security unit;\n(iii)  from September to December 2002 in unit no. 2.\n9.  The parties’ descriptions of conditions in ZhH-385/5 differ on a number of counts.\n10.  The applicant stated that unit no. 6 measured 336 sq. m, which included a dormitory, a storage room, a dining room and a common room. The unit housed approximately 200 inmates, and since there were not enough sleeping places the applicant had to sleep in the common room on several stools put together. The unit was equipped with only five washbasins, sometimes with no water in them.\n11.  Unit no. 2 measured 280 sq. m, which included a dormitory, a storage room, a dining room and a common room. The unit housed approximately 200 inmates, and since there were not enough sleeping places the applicant was again given a sleeping place in the common room, consisting of several stools put together. The unit was equipped with only five washbasins.\n12.  The toilet facilities, consisting of five cubicles, were shared by four units (nos. 2, 6, 7 and 9) which housed about 700 inmates in total.\n13.  There were no water-heating facilities in the units that inmates could access.\n14.  The water in the shower was usually lukewarm; the inmates had to wait for hours for their turn to take a shower. The inmates did not have enough space for their personal belongings and had to dry their washed clothes in their living premises as well, resulting in constant stuffiness and an unpleasant smell. The living premises and canteen were shared with inmates suffering from tuberculosis, and this caused outbreaks of the disease. The authorities did not comply with the prison regulations on food supply and the provision of clothing and toiletries. The inmates had pearl‑barley mush three times a day for months, but received no vegetables, fish or meat at all and sometimes no tea for several weeks. The applicant was provided with a mattress, two sheets and a sweater, but the prison authorities failed to provide him with a blanket, towels, underwear, other clothing, shoes or toothpaste.\n15.  During his detention the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell on several occasions. In the disciplinary cell his head was shaved weekly, and when being inspected by the warder he had to stand up facing the wall holding his hands up with the palms turned outwards.\n16.  In support of his allegations about conditions in the facility the applicant submitted a number of written statements by other inmates of ZhH-385/5, dated 2-4 November 2002, which had been produced for the domestic proceedings (see subsection 3 below). In so far as relevant these statements may be summarised as follows.\n17.  Mr Kh. wrote that, starting in December 2001, he had been detained in unit no. 10. The unit contained 170 inmates of whom some, including Mr Kh. himself, were infected with tuberculosis and some were not; inmates were allowed about 1.4 sq. m of personal space. Only six washbasins were available for all the inmates of the unit; the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4558", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lived until his arrest in St. Petersburg.\n7.  On 7 June 2000 the applicant was charged with aggravated robbery and possession of weapons. On 17 April 2002 he was committed to stand trial before the Primorskiy District Court of St. Petersburg, composed of Ms T., the presiding judge, Mr S. and Ms B., lay judges. The Government, relying on a copy of “Supplement to list no. 1” approved on 28 August 1991 by the Head of the Primorskiy District Council of People’s Deputies and listing the names of eleven individuals, including Mr S., their home address and place of work, argued that Mr S. had been selected to serve in the Primorskiy District Court in 1991. The Government further submitted that Ms B. had been appointed as a lay judge to the Primorskiy District Court in 1999. They supported their assertion with a copy of decision no. 2156 of 7 December 1999 of the Primorskiy District Council, approving the list of lay judges for the Primorskiy District Court. According to that decision, Ms B. was elected by the Presidium of the Primorskiy District Assembly of War and Labour Veterans. Mr S. was not included in that list.\n8.  The applicant unsuccessfully asked the District Court to hear several individuals who could have provided “valuable information concerning the case”. He and his lawyer also challenged the composition of the bench a number of times, arguing that the lay judges S. and B. had no right to sit on the bench and asking for documents to be produced confirming that they had been elected to serve in the Primorskiy District Court. The challenges were dismissed with the bald statement that the court’s composition was lawful.\n9.  On 27 December 2002 the District Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated robbery, dismissed the charge of arms possession and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.\n10.  The applicant and his lawyer filed an appeal against the judgment of 27 December 2002. They challenged, inter alia, the composition of the bench that had given the said judgment. They claimed that the lay judges, Mr S. and Ms B., had not been appointed in accordance with the procedure established by law. They also referred to the list of lay judges of the Primorskiy District Court of St. Petersburg which had been adopted by the St. Petersburg Legislative Council on 6 November 2002. Mr S. and Ms B. were not on that list. They also indicated that St. Petersburg archives did not have any document showing that those persons had ever been included in lists of lay judges in St. Petersburg. The applicant further argued that, even assuming that Mr S. and Ms B. had been appointed as lay judges, their term of office had expired, at least on 5 August 2002 according to the decree of the President of the Russian Federation.\n11.  On 14 November 2003 the St. Petersburg City Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the applicant’s conviction. The City Court ruled that the complaint about the unlawful composition of the bench was unfounded. The lay judges had been appointed in accordance with domestic law and their powers could not have been discontinued by the decree of 5 August 2002 because the case had commenced before that date and they had already served as lay judges in the earlier period.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4559", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants' names and other details are indicated in the appended table.\n6.  The applicants emigrated to Israel from the USSR in the 1980s and 1990s and obtained Israeli nationality. Before immigration they had been receiving old-age pensions from the Soviet authorities. However, once the applicants left the USSR, the payments were discontinued in accordance with the USSR pension law applicable at the material time. As they left the USSR prior to its collapse, they were not entitled to a pension under the new Russian legislation.\n7.  In early 2000 the applicants unsuccessfully applied to the regional departments of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (“the Pension Fund”) for the payment of their pensions to be restored. On unspecified dates they brought civil proceedings against the Pension Fund requesting restoration of the payment of their pensions.\n8.  By the final judgments listed in the appended table the applicants' claims were allowed and the Pension Fund was ordered to restore pension payments.\n9.  In their judgments the courts found, inter alia, that although the pensions had initially been awarded in accordance with the USSR legislation, the latter was also applicable in the Russian Federation. The courts interpreted the relevant legal provisions in the light of the Constitutional Court judgment of 15 June 1998, considering that the pension payments should be restored regardless of the date or place of emigration from the Russian Federation.\n10.  The Pension Fund restored the payments in ten cases (see § 43 below).\n11.  On 17 June 2005 the Pension Fund, in a letter numbered ГВ‑21‑15/6390, asked the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to provide an explanation of the issue. It based the request on the fact that courts of different regions had different attitudes towards the problem. Thus, it noted that in Moscow, the Moscow Region and in most of the other regions the courts rejected claims for payment of pensions to emigrant pensioners whose pensions had been awarded in accordance with the legislation of the USSR. At the same time, the courts in St Petersburg, in the Samara Region, in the Kaluga Region and in the Yaroslavl Region awarded such payment.\n12.  Subsequently the Pension Fund, as a party to the proceedings in the present case, lodged requests with the competent regional courts for supervisory review of the final judgments in the applicants' favour. The Presidia of the regional courts granted the requests, quashed the judgments and dismissed the applicants' claims.\n13.  The Presidia found that according to the relevant USSR legislation, under which the pensions had been awarded, there was no possibility to continue the payments to the applicants, as they had left the country. According to their interpretation of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of 15 June 1998, the payments were to be restored only if the pensions had been awarded in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, not the USSR. The Presidia accordingly concluded that there was no basis under the domestic law for the payments to be awarded to the applicants.\n14.  The relevant data on the Presidia decisions is listed below.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4560", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is serving a prison sentence in Izhevsk.\n7.  On 20 June 2000 the applicant and two other persons were apprehended on suspicion of involvement in several incidents of theft. The applicant was allegedly taken to a flat where the police officers beat him up to make him confess to the crimes. On the next day he was transferred to a temporary detention facility at a police station. According to the applicant, the beatings continued on 21, 22, 23 and 26 June 2000.\n8.  On 21, 22, 23 and 26 June 2000 in response to the applicant’s complaints of renal colic and pain in the lumbar area, the officer on duty called an ambulance. The applicant was examined on each occasion by a doctor, who did not find it necessary to take him to hospital. The applicant did not tell the doctor or the officer on duty anything as to what might have caused those pains. Nor did he say anything about ill-treatment by the police.\n9.  On 21 June 2000 the investigator ordered that the applicant’s flat be searched. On 23 June 2000 the police conducted the search.\n10.  On 23 June 2000 the applicant’s family retained a lawyer to represent him during the investigation and trial. On 15 December 2000 the applicant’s father was also admitted to represent him as a lay defender.\n11.  On the same day the prosecutor of the Zapadniy Administrative Circuit of Moscow authorised the applicant’s detention. The court reasoned that the applicant should remain in custody pending the collection of the evidence necessary for the preparation of his indictment.\n12.  On 30 June 2000 the applicant was charged with several counts of theft. He denied any involvement in the crimes he was charged with.\n13.  On 10 August 2000 the prosecutor granted the investigator’s request to extend the detention of the applicant and two other defendants until 21 September 2000. The investigator reasoned that he needed more time “to investigate additional criminal acts committed by [the defendants], to join the criminal case-files, to finalise the bill of indictment and to carry out other investigative tasks in order to complete the preliminary investigation”.\n14.  On 8 September 2000 the prosecutor granted the investigator’s request to extend the defendants’ detention until 21 November 2000. The investigator reproduced verbatim the reasoning of his previous request.\n15.  On 12 October 2000 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s application for release. The court noted that the gravity of the charges alone could justify the applicant’s detention pending investigation and trial. It also referred to the applicant’s previous conviction and another pending criminal investigation against him.\n16.  On 27 November 2000 the Nikulinskiy District Court scheduled the first hearing of the matter for 8 December 2000. The court ruled that the applicant and two other defendants should remain in custody pending trial. No time-limits or reasons justifying the defendants’ detention were indicated.\n17.  Between 8 December 2000 and 14 June 2001 the court held twenty-one hearings of the case. On twenty occasions the hearing was adjourned due to the representatives of the defendants’ failure to appear or their need to study the case-file.\n18.  On 14 June 2001 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention for three months. The court issued an order in respect of the three defendants, reasoning that their release “might impede a thorough, complete and objective examinati", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4561", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Mr Usman Karimov, born in 1949,\n2) Ms Rikhant Karimova, born in 1957,\n3) Ms Luiza Karimova, born in 1978 and\n4) Ms Seda Amayeva, born in 1985.\n6.  The applicants are Russian nationals. The first applicant lives in Grozny, Chechnya, and the other three applicants live in the village of Proletarskoye (also known as Proletarskiy), in Grozny district, Chechnya. The applicants are represented before the Court by lawyers of the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (“the SRJI”), an NGO based in the Netherlands with a representative office in Russia.\n7.  The first and the second applicants are the parents of Arbi Karimov, who was born in 1981. The third applicant is his sister and the fourth applicant is his wife.\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  At the material time the applicants lived in Proletarskoye, in Grozny district, Chechnya. The settlement was under the full control of Russian federal forces and the area was under a curfew. Russian military checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement.\n10.  On the night of 11 January 2003 (in the submitted documents the date is also referred to as 12 January 2003) the applicants and Arbi Karimov were sleeping in their house at 32 Belostotskaya Street. At about 2 a.m. a group of military vehicles arrived at the street. A Ural military lorry and two APCs (armoured personnel carriers) parked next to the house of the applicants’ neighbours I. Two other APCs and another Ural military vehicle with Russian military servicemen in it drove up to the applicants’ yard. One APC drove through the gates and a group of about twenty armed masked men in helmets broke down the entrance door and rushed into the applicants’ house.\n11.  The noise woke the first applicant and he approached the servicemen. They hit him and took him into the kitchen. There they forced the first applicant down on to the floor and two of the servicemen put their feet on him to keep him on the floor. The intruders dispersed the family members into different rooms, pointed their guns at them, and ordered them to lie face down. When the second applicant asked the servicemen what was going on she was ordered to be quiet.\n12.  The intruders neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They spoke Russian without an accent. The applicants heard them using the code name “Vityaz” among themselves. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen.\n13.  The servicemen put handcuffs on the first applicant and on his son Arbi Karimov. The fourth applicant and her husband Arbi Karimov were placed together in the living room. Every time Arbi Karimov tried to move the serviceman on guard kicked him in the torso. After that the servicemen took Arbi Karimov outside; they did not allow him to put on warm clothing.\n14.  A few minutes later the servicemen took the first applicant outside where he saw his son in the Ural military vehicle. The first applicant heard Arbi Karimov saying to the servicemen: “Why are you taking my father? He is an elderly man”. After that the officers talked among themselves and released the first applicant. Having spent about twenty minutes outside, the first applicant was taken back into the house. On his way into the house the first applicant saw that his son had been taken out of the Ural vehicle and put into one of the APCs. In the house the servicemen took off the first applicant’s handcuffs.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4562", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1964 and 1936 respectively and live in Paphos.\n6.  The applicants rented a souvenir shop together in Paphos. On 2 March 2001 they filed an application (K2/01) before the Rent Control Tribunal (”the RCT”) challenging the amount of rent they paid the respondents and seeking its reduction.\n7.  On 22 March 2001 the RCT ordered that the application be served abroad on the respondents in Athens.\n8.  On 11 April 2001 the respondents filed their defence.\n9.  Upon completion of the pleadings, the applicants, on 27 April 2001, requested the RCT to list the application for mention.\n10.  The application was listed for directions six times between 21 June 2001 and 20 December 2001. No court records are available for this period.\n11.  On 25 February 2002 the respondents filed an application for discovery and inspection of documents.\n12.  On 28 February 2002 the respondents requested that the RCT carry out a local survey. With the applicants’ agreement, this was carried out on the same day.\n13.  The case was listed for a directions hearing to be held on 7 March 2002 with a view to setting a hearing date after the parties’ lawyers had the opportunity to inform the court of their decision regarding the manner in which the court’s expert would testify.\n14.  On the above date the respondents requested leave to amend their valuation.\n15.  The application was set down to be heard on 25 April 2002 and the court directed that its expert would testify and be cross-examined on that day.\n16.  The hearing started on the above date. Following the expert’s testimony, the respondents requested that cross-examination take place on another date to allow their expert to assess the evidence given and prepare their cross-examination. The applicants’ lawyer objected.\n17.  The court granted the adjournment and set the case down for 23 May 2002 after discussing the suitability of that date for the lawyers. Costs were ordered against the respondents.\n18.  The hearing continued on the above date with the cross-examination of the RCT’s expert by the respondents’ lawyer. When this finished the hearing was adjourned to 13 June 2002 at the applicants’ request.\n19.  The hearing continued on 13 June 2002 with the cross-examination of the RCT’s expert by the applicants’ lawyer. At the end of the hearing the respondents requested the court to join the application with another three applications (K10/00, K12/00 and K13/00) as they all concerned the determination of the rental value of shops which were situated in the same complex. The parties agreed and the court issued an order joining the applications. As the lawyers considered there was not enough time for the testimony and cross-examination of the respondents’ expert the hearing was fixed for 19 September 2002, following the summer vacation.\n20.  On the above date the court accepted the parties’ request that the evidence of the expert be given at the same time for all the cases followed by separate cross-examination by each lawyer. After the examination-in-chief of the first witness, the examination-in-chief of the second witness was interrupted due to that witness’s ill health.\n21.  The hearing continued on 24 October 2002 and was then adjourned to 12 December 2002. It was further adjourned, however, on that date, as the respondents’ expert could not attend due to a health problem.\n22.  The hearing was then listed for 20 February 2003. It continued on that date and then on 22 April 2003. The hearin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4563", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Wrocław.\n7.  The applicant was a journalist employed by Telewizja Polska Spółka Akcjna (TVP), the Polish public television company. On 1 April 1999 Gazeta Wyborcza, a national newspaper, published an article reporting that two classical music programmes had been taken off the air. The article cited well-known composers, critics and journalists who had expressed their concerns about the lack of support for classical music and about the fact that the quality of public television programmes was being negatively affected as a result of fierce competition from private broadcasters. The article also quoted an opinion which had been expressed by the applicant in an interview in her capacity as the President of the Polish Public Television Journalists’ Union (Syndykat Dziennikarzy Polskich Telewizji Polskiej).\nThe relevant part of the article read as follows:\n“... Ms Kaletowa, the President of the Polish Public Television Journalists’ Union said: ‘We have received the decision very badly, especially as the new programme proposals are not concrete. Director K. stated that the changes were not aimed at getting rid of classical music but, on the contrary, at creating new possibilities for it. I take this statement at face value, although no steps have been taken so far which could confirm these good intentions’.”\n8.  The applicant also signed an open letter addressed by 34 representatives of cultural and artistic circles in Wrocław to the board of TVP. The letter stated that classical music was a common value and a pillar of national identity and that the lack of a stable and coherent policy with respect to the broadcasting of classical music constituted a threat to culture and to the amateur music movement. By way of example, the authors mentioned two music programmes which had been discontinued and replaced by “pseudo-musical kitsch”.\nThe open letter read, inter alia:\n“Everybody involved in music is deeply concerned by the marginalisation of culture and music in our country and, in particular, in our region.\nMusic is the heritage of the nation. It is also the universal language of art, spoken by citizens throughout the world. Music constitutes one of the pillars of our national identity and we must preserve and disseminate both the work of previous centuries and of modern times. Chopin, Szymanowski, Górecki, Lutosławski, Kilar or Penderecki are composers of whom we are proud.\n... All these achievements are seriously jeopardised. There is a lack of money and no stable and coherent policy of protection and no systematic co-operation with the media. As regards regional television, despite the principles governing the public TV’s mission, concerts, magazines, cultural and music programmes, such as ‘MAK’, ‘TUBA’, ‘Meeting Classical Music’ are disappearing and air time is being polluted by violence and pseudo-musical kitsch.\nThe NSZZ Solidarność Trade Union and the representatives of cultural and artistic circles ... protest against these measures.”\n9.  On 15 April 1999 the applicant was reprimanded in writing by her employer for failing to observe the company’s general regulation no. 14 § 2, which required her to protect her employer’s good name (see paragraph 18 below). The applicant argued in her appeal of 20 April 1999 to the Regional Director of TVP that when commenting on the employer’s decision she had been acting in her capacity as the president of a trade union.\nThe employer stated in reply that", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4564", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Baroul Partner-A, is a company incorporated in Moldova.\n6.  In 2000, in accordance with the Law on the Privatisation Programme for the years 1997-2000, the Government put up for sale their portion of the shares (199,875 shares, representing 65.86%) in the Soroca Gravel and Granite Quarry Co. (“the quarry”).\n7.  The applicant company participated in the auction and, having offered the highest price, purchased the stock in February 2000 at a price of 12.5 Moldovan lei (MDL) per share. The total price of the purchased stock was MDL 2,498,437.5.\n8.  In 2003 the Court of Accounts carried out a check on the privatisation activity of the Government and in a decision of 3 January 2004 found that in 1996 the quarry had received from a third State-owned company twenty-seven railway carriages without any title and that those carriages had remained in the quarry's possession throughout its subsequent existence without ever being included in the accounting documents.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 2004 the Department of Privatisation initiated proceedings for unjust enrichment against the quarry, claiming compensation for the railway carriages. The proceedings ended with a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 11 November 2004, by which the quarry was ordered to pay the State MDL 972,000, representing the cost of the carriages as established by an expert report. The judgment was enforced in 2005.\n10.  On 29 July 2006 the Centre for the Fight against Economic Crime and Corruption (“CFECC”) initiated criminal proceedings in respect of the privatisation of the quarry. The activity of the quarry was blocked as a result of the seizure of the accounting documents, the refusal to extend licences for extraction of granite and gravel, and other measures taken against the quarry by the State authorities. It appears that the criminal investigation is still pending before the CFECC and that the case has never been brought before the courts.\n11.  On 15 December 2006 the Prosecutor General's Office initiated, on behalf of the Government, court proceedings against the Department of Privatisation and the applicant company, seeking the annulment of the contract of sale of the State-owned stock. It argued that since at the date of the sale of the shares the quarry had not included the twenty-seven carriages in its accounting documents (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above), the price of each share had been fixed at only MDL 12.5, whereas it should have been MDL 13.88. The Prosecutor General's Office did not make reference to the proceedings which ended with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 11 November 2004. In its pleadings before the court, the Prosecutor's Office argued that its action was not time-barred since the time-limit did not apply to its court actions.\n12.  In its observations and pleadings, the Department of Privatisation disagreed with the Prosecutor General's action and argued that the applicant company had participated in an auction organised by the Government and had won it by offering the highest price for the shares. The auction was organised in accordance with the relevant regulations. The question of the carriages which had not been included in the quarry's accounting documents in 1996 had been resolved by the Department of Privatisation by way of civil proceedings which ended with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 11 November 2004 in favour of the Department of Privatisation. That judgment was en", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4565", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  According to the applicant, on 27 April 2000 he brought proceedings before the Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow seeking compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage against a municipal maintenance enterprise. According to him, the enterprise should have repaired the bathroom or plumbing equipment on upper floors of the building in which he was living. As can be seen from a copy of his statement of claim, submitted to the Court, this statement had a handwritten inscription “lodged on 27 April 2000 [unreadable signature]”. According to the Government the claim was lodged and assigned to a judge on 3 May 2001.\n6.  On 16 August 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings considering that there had already been a final judgment in the same matter issued on 2 July 2001. On 6 September 2001 the Moscow City Court quashed the above decision and remitted the case to the District Court. The City Court considered that it had not been properly established by the first-instance court that the above cases concerned the same subject-matter.\n7.  On 21 September 2001 the case was assigned to a professional judge sitting with lay judges. Eight hearings were scheduled and adjourned between October 2001 and February 2002 on account of the lay judges’ failure to attend hearings. On 12 and 27 February 2002 the court requested a local hospital to provide information on the applicant’s state of health. Further six hearings were adjourned to collect evidence and summon witnesses. Two hearings were adjourned because the applicant defaulted.\n8.  By a judgment of 1 August 2002, the District Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him 2,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The applicant appealed. On 22 January 2003 the City Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. The City Court considered that the District Court had misinterpreted the subject-matter of the applicant’s claims.\n9.  On 29 April 2003 the applicant requested the District Court to examine the case in his absence. The court granted this request. On 18 July 2003 the District Court discontinued the case referring to the applicant’s failure to attend hearings. On 26 August 2003 the City Court quashed the decision and required the District Court to examine the case. According to the Government, on an unspecified date the District Court issued a notice that the applicant’s presence at the hearings had been indispensable.\n10.  By a decision of 29 December 2003 the District Court again discontinued the case on grounds of the applicant’s failure to attend an unspecified number of hearings. The text of the decision indicated that “the plaintiff could challenge this decision by applying to a court within ten days”. Considering that this decision was amenable to appeal to a higher court, on 16 January 2004 the applicant appealed to the City Court alleging that the discontinuation had been unlawful. According to the Government, on an unspecified date, the City or District Court returned the appeal to the applicant and informed him of his right to challenge the decision not to examine the case before the same District Court.\n11.  In March 2004 the applicant complained to the President of the City Court that his appeal had not been examined. This complaint was forwarded to the District Court. No reply was received.\n12.  On 2 October 2006 the applicant sought an extension of the time-limit for his appeal. He ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4566", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Tychy. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n6.  On 10 November 1998 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision to hold the applicant in pre-trial detention for seven days from the day of arrest. He was suspected of being a member of an organised criminal group and of having committed several offences of battery and extortion. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged and on the fact that he was not living in his permanent place of residence and had gone into hiding. The court also held that the decision on pre-trial detention was indispensable in order to enforce the arrest warrants which had been issued against the applicant.\n7.  On 20 November 1998 the applicant was arrested in Oldenburg, Germany.\n8.  On 21 January 1999 the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, applying the “rule of speciality” set forth in Article 14 of the European Convention on Extradition, consented to the applicant’s extradition.\n9.  On 3 February 1999 the applicant was extradited to Poland.\n10.  On 5 February 1999 the Katowice District Court decided to hold the applicant in pre-trial detention for three months. In its eight-line reasoning, the court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged. The court also found that the fact that the applicant had been charged with participation in an organised criminal group created the risk that the applicant would unlawfully obstruct the investigation.\n11.  The applicant’s detention was repeatedly extended by several decisions of the Gliwice District Court and subsequently the Katowice Court of Appeal. In those decisions, the courts relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged and on the reasonable suspicion that he would obstruct the proceedings.\n12.  In its decision of 27 April 1999 extending the applicant’s detention the Gliwice District Court also relied on the fact that “the applicant had gone into hiding and thus he might try to abscond”.\n13.  On 19 May 1999 the Gliwice District Court again extended the applicant’s detention, finding that the grounds previously given for his detention were still valid.\n14.  On 19 October 1999 the applicant was indicted. The bill of indictment concerned six co-accused who were charged with a total of forty-one offences. Five co-accused were remanded in custody. The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion, several counts of attempted extortion, issuing threats and participation in an organised criminal group.\n15.  On 16 December 1999 the proceedings were joined with another set of proceedings and it was decided that the case be examined by a panel of three professional judges, without the participation of lay judges.\n16.  On 2 February 2001 the length of the applicant’s detention reached the statutory two‑year time‑limit laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego) and the first‑instance court was no longer competent to extend it. Consequently, it was further extended by decisions of the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) of, inter alia, 11 October 2000, 27 June and 30 October 2001 and 26 June 2002.\n17.  The applicant’s appeals against decisions extending his detention were unsuccessful. In one of his appeals, on 7 November 2001, the applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4567", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Linsengericht.\n5.  He joined the civil service in 1967 and was appointed a civil servant in 1969. In 1976 the applicant was appointed a bailiff and civil servant for life. In 1984 he was promoted to chief bailiff.\n6.  In 1985 a new supervisor (Dienstvorgesetzte) was appointed for him, with whom he had numerous professional disputes. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged a great number of his supervisor's instructions in court. Despite this being pointed out to him, he continued to ignore his supervisor's guidance and to act contrary to the latter's instructions.\n7.  On 28 November 1986 preliminary disciplinary investigations were opened against the applicant. On 17 July 1987 a final (preliminary) report was drawn up. On 3 August 1987 the applicant was informed that the preliminary investigations had been closed. However, the preliminary investigations had to be re-started and expanded as numerous further misdemeanours possibly committed by the applicant had been discovered.\n8.  On 9 May 1990 the President of the Frankfurt Court of Appeal opened formal disciplinary investigations against the applicant on suspicion of a large number of misdemeanours committed from 1987 to 1990. The allegations included false recording of enforcement proceedings, imposition of excessive costs and hindering audits of his professional conduct.\n9.  On 3 November 1990 the applicant challenged the President of the Frankfurt Court of Appeal for bias. As no decision was reached, the applicant complained to the Hessen Ministry of Justice, which, on 28 February 1991, informed him that he had no right to lodge complaints of bias in the framework of disciplinary investigations.\n10.  In the meantime, the disciplinary proceedings were stayed on 29 November 1990 in accordance with Article 14 § 1 of the Hessen Disciplinary Code (see paragraph 30 below) (“the Code”) with respect to the then ongoing criminal proceedings concerning the same facts. Moreover, the applicant was temporarily removed from office. His basic remuneration remained unaffected.\n11.  On 20 September 1991 the applicant again challenged the President of the Frankfurt Court of Appeal for bias; on 8 October 1991 the latter rejected the challenge as being unfounded, and on 7 November 1991 the Hessen Ministry of Justice, again informed the applicant that he had no right to challenge members of the investigating authority for bias.\n12.  On 12 December 1991 the applicant was acquitted of the criminal charges and the criminal proceedings were thus terminated.\n13.  On 3 May 1995 the disciplinary investigations were resumed.\n14.  The formal disciplinary investigations were closed and a first formal report was drawn up on 20 October 1995. However, as the hearing of further witnesses was necessary, the investigation was continued. According to a note dated 27 September 1996 the delays in the investigation were due to the complexity of the case and to the processing of priority disciplinary matters. On 5 February 1997 the final report was drawn up.\n15.  On 25 August 1997 the President of the Court of Appeal ordered the head of the investigation to compile the charges.\n16.  On 17 October 1997 the prosecutor in charge of the preparation of the charges withdrew due to overwork and illness and had to be replaced by another prosecutor.\n17.  On 27 September 1999 the charges were finalised. They were received by the Disciplinary Chamber of the Frankfurt Administrative Court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4568", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Vienna.\n6.  On 4 August 1998 the Meidling District Court (Bezirksgericht), in summary proceedings, ordered the applicant to pay 102,330.48 Austrian schillings (ATS), approximately 7,440 euros (EUR) to G. for the cost of plumbing work carried out in her apartment (Zahlungsbefehl).\n7.  On 26 May 1999 the District Court granted G.'s request for the enforcement of the payment of this order and the costs of the proceedings in the amount of approximately EUR 2,150 by judicial sale (Zwangsversteigerung) of the applicant's apartment situated at S.-street 23/17, in the 12th district of Vienna. That address was used by the courts for serving this and subsequent decisions. A registered letter was sent to the applicant at the above address. As it could not be handed over to her personally, it was served on her on 8 June 1999 by deposition (Hinterlegung) in the post office.\n8.  On 27 July 1999 the Meidling District Court, referring to two further enforceable payment orders of 24 October 1995 and 15 June 1999 respectively (amounting to approximately EUR 2,100) and to the costs of the respective proceedings, granted another creditor, W., leave to accede to the judicial sale.\n9.  The applicant was informed of the date of the judicial sale by registered letter, which was again sent to her address at S.-street 23/17, and was served by deposition in the post office on 6 October 1999.\n10.  On 17 November 1999 the judicial sale took place. The applicant did not assist. The District Court sold the applicant's apartment (Zuschlag) for 812,000 ATS (approximately EUR 59,000) to H. GmbH, a limited liability company. The decision of sale was served on the applicant on 24 November 1999 by deposition in the post office.\n11.  By a decision of 14 January 2000 the District Court allocated shares of the proceeds to the creditors (Meistbotsverteilungsbeschluss).\n12.  In February 2000 the applicant was evicted from the apartment.\n13.  In March 2000 the applicant had a nervous breakdown and stayed in a psychiatric hospital between 2 March 2000 and 12 April 2000. It cannot be established on the basis of the file where the applicant lived for the rest of the year 2000. It appears that in 2001 she was housed in a community owned apartment, where she is still living.\n14.  In connection with the applicant's stay in the psychiatric hospital, the Fünfhaus District Court instituted guardianship proceedings (Sach-walterschaftsverfahren) and, on 15 March 2000, appointed a provisional guardian for the applicant. In these proceedings a medical expert submitted that the applicant had suffered from paranoid psychosis since 1994 and had since then not been able to make rational decisions, in particular as far as housing matters were concerned. On 15 May 2005 a permanent guardian was appointed for the applicant.\n15.  On 3 April 2000 the Meidling District Court served the decision of 17 November 1999 concerning the judicial sale of the applicant's apartment on the applicant's guardian. On 17 April 2000 the applicant, represented by her guardian, appealed against this decision. Referring to the guardianship proceedings, she submitted that the enforcement proceedings were null and void as she had not been capable of participating in the proceedings (prozeßfähig) either at the time of delivery of the respective payment orders or at the time of delivery of the decisions granting enforcement and summoning her to the judicial sale. She further req", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4569", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is serving a prison sentence in Tomsk.\n7.  The applicant was suspected of involvement in a criminal gang. On 1 September 2000 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Tatarstan (the “Prosecutor’s Office”) opened a criminal investigation into the gang’s activities. On 20 September 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of two counts of murder and placed in custody.\n8.  On 21 September 2001 the prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention pending investigation, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk of his absconding and obstructing justice. No time-limit for detention was fixed.\n9.  The applicant appealed. He claimed that the prosecutor’s decision of 21 September 2001 lacked justification. He also applied for release, arguing that he had no intention of absconding, had family commitments and a permanent place of residence and a job.\n10.  On 6 June 2002 the Vakhitovskiy District Court of Kazan rejected the applicant’s appeal and his application for release and upheld the prosecutor’s decision of 21 September 2001. In particular, the court stated the following:\n“When deciding to detain [the applicant], [the prosecutor] took into account the gravity of the charges and the fact that [the applicant] might abscond and interfere with the establishment of the truth...\nThe arguments furnished by [the applicant and his counsel] are not sufficient to refute [the prosecutor’s] finding that [the applicant] might abscond and interfere with establishment of the truth.”\n11.  On 5 July 2002 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan upheld the decision of 6 June 2002.\n12.  In the meantime, on 28 September 2001 the Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant for murder and involvement in a criminal gang. On an unspecified date the applicant was also charged with fraud, extortion and kidnapping.\n13.  On 19 November 2001 the Prosecutor’s Office extended the applicant’s detention until 20 March 2002. The detention order was issued in respect of seven defendants, including the applicant. Referring to the gravity of the charges, the prosecutor in charge of the investigation alleged that the defendants might abscond or interfere with the investigation. The detention order further indicated that several witnesses, including two of the defendants, had identified the applicant as one of the perpetrators of the crimes under investigation. The applicant did not appeal.\n14.  On 21 March and 14 June 2002 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Russian Federation extended the applicant’s detention until 4 July and 4 October 2002 respectively. The orders were issued in respect of nine and then twelve defendants, including the applicant, and reiterated verbatim the reasoning previously used to justify keeping the accused in custody. As to the evidence collected in the course of the investigation, the prosecutor referred to numerous witnesses who had testified against the applicant. The applicant did not appeal.\n15.  On 30 April 2002 the defendants and their lawyers started studying the case file which comprised seventy-two volumes.\n16.  On 29 August 2002 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan further extended the applicant’s detention until 4 January 2003. The court reasoned as follows:\n“[The applicant] should remain in custody since he is charged with grave offences and might abscond and threaten the witnesses and other parties involved in the proceedings. Besides, [the applicant] is to study a considerable", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4570", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Barnag, Hungary.\n5.  The applicant used to work as a business consultant. He was insured with the Mülheim Administrative Health Insurance Association (Verwaltungs-Berufsgenossenschaft, hereinafter referred to as “the Insurance Association”).\n6.  Between 1982 and 1987 he lived and worked in premises of which the wood-panelled walls and ceilings had been treated with timber preservative. During this time he began to suffer from concentration and respiration problems.\n7.  In 1986 the medical service of the Insurance Association established that as of 28 October 1986 the applicant was incapable of practising his profession. A specialist in internal diseases informed the Insurance Association that the applicant was presumably allergic to timber preservatives.\n8.  The applicant subsequently gave up his profession, moved out and later moved to Hungary.\n9.  The applicant then applied to have his illness recognised as work-related within the meaning of the Occupational Disease Act (Berufskrankenverordnung).\n10.  In the course of these administrative proceedings a number of expert opinions and statements were obtained.\n11.  On 25 October 1990 the Insurance Association rejected his application.\n12.  On 19 November 1990 the Appeals Board of the Insurance Association dismissed his administrative appeal.\n13.  On 19 December 1990 the applicant lodged a claim with the Duisburg Social Court for the recognition of his health problems as a work-related disease within the meaning of the Occupational Disease Act (Berufskrankenverordnung). He announced that he would file further submissions.\n14.  On 30 July 1991, after having received four reminders from the Social Court, the applicant filed those submissions.\n15.  Between August 1991 and August 1992 both the Insurance Association and the applicant filed numerous further pleadings and additional documents.\n16.  On 3 August 1992 the Social Court scheduled the hearing – first for 19 August 1992 and then, on the applicant’s requests for a postponement, for 26 October 1992. At the hearing the parties agreed that Prof. S., an expert at the institute for hygiene and micro-biology at the University of Bochum, should be commissioned to produce an expert opinion.\n17.  On 10 December 1992 the Social Court appointed the expert.\n18.  In July 1993, after receiving a reminder from the Social Court, the expert announced that on account of his workload and health problems, he would not submit his report until December 1993.\n19.  On two occasions in the course of the year 1994 the Social Court set the expert a time-limit for the submission of his report – the latter deadline was further extended twice on the ground that the expert had to undergo an operation. In February and March 1995 the court warned the expert that it would fine him in the amount of 1,000 euros (EUR) if he failed to submit the expert opinion again.\n20.  On 30 March 1995 Prof. S. submitted his report. He returned the files in May.\n21.  On 21 August 1995, following an extension of the time-limit set by the Social Court and a reminder, the Insurance Association submitted its observations on the expert opinion.\n22.  Thereafter, the court informed the applicant that it intended to obtain another expert opinion.\n23.  In December 1995 the applicant filed his observations on the expert opinion.\n24.  In January 1996 the Nordrhein-Westfalen Social Court of Appeal requested the files, since further proceedings on the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4571", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Ninotsminda, Georgia.\n5.  On 20 July 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for a number of economic crimes. He was placed under police supervision pending trial.\n6.  On 30 June 2001 the prosecution authority terminated the investigation and sent the case to the Ninotsminda District Court for trial. The Registry of that court acknowledged receipt of the file on 12 July 2001.\n7.  On 18 January 2005 the Aspindza District Court, which instance had taken over the applicant’s case, reproaching the prosecutor for deficiencies in the bill of indictment and the failure to conduct a financial audit of the applicant’s activities, remitted the case for an additional investigation. However, on 17 March 2005 the Tbilisi Appellate Court, overturning the decision of 18 January 2005, ordered the trial court to proceed with an examination on the merits. The appellate decision was upheld by the Supreme Court on 14 July 2005.\n8.  In a verdict of 11 August 2006, the applicant was partly convicted and partly acquitted of the charges. No sentence was imposed with respect to the conviction, as it had become time-barred.\n9.  The verdict of 11 August 2006 was upheld by the Tbilisi Appellate Court and the Supreme Court on 23 October 2006 and 15 May 2007 respectively.\n10.  As disclosed by the case materials, the applicant, an ethnic Armenian allegedly without knowledge of the Georgian language, was assisted by a Georgian-speaking legal counsel and an interpreter throughout the judicial proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4572", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Bursa.\n6.  On 7 March 1999 the applicant and four others were arrested at around 12.30 p.m. by police officers in Kadifekale, İzmir, and taken into police custody at the İzmir police headquarters. On the same day, at 4.p.m., the applicant was taken to İzmir Atatürk State Hospital where a doctor examined him and drew up a provisional report which is mostly illegible. The legible parts of the report indicate that the applicant is conscious, that there is no need for an urgent intervention and that his medical condition does not require him to take time off from work.\n7.  On 8 March 1999, at 8.15 a.m., two police officers who were on duty where the applicant was in custody drew up and signed a report which indicated that the applicant hit his head against the door of his cell whilst refusing breakfast in an angry manner. The names of the police officers are not indicated on the report.\n8.  On 8 March 1999, at 3.55 p.m., the applicant was seen by a doctor at the Konak Forensic Medicine Institute who noted an oedema and lesion on the right upper eyelid and a minor lesion on the lower lid of the same eye and a lesion on the upper lip. The report noted that these findings rendered the applicant unfit for work for two days. On the same day the applicant was brought before the investigating judge, who ordered his release.\n9.  On 9 March 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor, who heard him in person the same day. The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to torture by the police officers whilst in custody and requested to be referred to a forensic doctor in order for the marks of ill‑treatment still visible on his face and body to be verified.\n10.  On the same day the applicant went, of his own accord, to be examined by the doctors of the İzmir Chamber of Doctors, who drew up a report on 25 June 1999 noting pain in various parts of the head and neck and lesions around the right eye. The report also stated that the applicant was suffering from post-traumatic stress. The report concluded that the findings on the applicant’s body corroborated his allegations and that they had been caused by the use of force.\n11.  The public prosecutor heard the accused police officers on 2 June 1999 and on that day issued a decision not to prosecute. The police officers stated that they had not been there when the applicant was arrested. They had questioned him afterwards. The public prosecutor found it established, on the basis of the police officers’ statements, that the marks on the applicant’s face had occurred when the applicant hit his head on the door of his detention room whilst refusing breakfast on 8 March 1999. The public prosecutor concluded that there was insufficient evidence against the police officers.\n12.  On 12 July 1999 the applicant lodged an objection with the Karşıyaka Assize Court against the decision not to prosecute and submitted the report drawn up by the İzmir Chamber of Doctors in support of his allegations.\n13.  On 30 July 1999 the applicant was seen by a forensic doctor, who referred to the findings of the medical report dated 8 March 1999, namely lesions around the right eye and on the upper lip, and noted that periorbital lesions would not occur as a result of hitting one’s head on a door and that it was possible that they had been caused by the use of force.\n14.  On 2 August 1999 the Karşıyaka Assize Court upheld the applicant’s objection, finding that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4574", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Bodrum. He was the manager of a hotel at the time of the events.\n5.  On an unspecified date, a number of persons complained to the police that the applicant, together with other persons, was extorting money and threatening them.\n6.  On 24 July 2004 the applicant, together with three other persons, was arrested and taken into custody by police officers from the organised crime unit of the Bodrum District Security Directorate. A certain amount of heroin was also found in the car driven by the applicant during arrest.\n7.  According to the rights of the suspected accused form (şüpheli sanık hakları formu) signed by the applicant, on the same day, at about 8 a.m., the latter was informed of his rights, including the right to legal assistance and to remain silent, both of which he waived.\n8.  On the same day, at 8.30 p.m., when interviewed by two police officers he denied the accusations against him.\n9.  In the application form the applicant complained, without any details, that he had been subjected to torture, during interrogation, by two police chiefs, named Mehmet and Soner.\n10.  On 28 April 2005 the applicant, at the Registry’s specific request, submitted a letter running to approximately eleven pages in which he set out in detail the various forms of ill‑treatment he had been allegedly subjected to at the hands of various police officers in custody. In particular, these treatments included a violent punch on his chest during arrest; being blindfolded, handcuffed, made to lie down on the floor face down and told to raise his legs and receiving kicks to his buttocks and a blow to his head when he lowered his legs after his arrival at the police station; having one officer pulling his right leg while at the same time another pressed down on his back during interrogation. During this time, his testicles were squeezed and he received kicks and pressure to his back. A few hours before he was to be brought before the prosecutor, the applicant was told that chief Soner was going to come and he was made to wait while sitting in an uncomfortable position for hours. This person punched the applicant’s face and his chin and kicked him on his knees. The applicant submitted that those responsible for his alleged ill-treatment were Soner, Mehmet, Bayram, Osman, Tolga and three other police officers.\n11.  On 25 July 2004 the applicant was examined by Dr Ü.E. at the State hospital who found no signs of injury on his person.\n12.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and a judge at the Bodrum Magistrates’ Court. The latter ordered his remand in detention.\n13.  On 26 July 2004 the applicant’s lawyer submitted an official complaint to the Bodrum public prosecutor claiming that the applicant had been subjected to severe torture while he was held in police custody and requested the prosecution of the police officers who had taken part in the applicant’s interrogation. The lawyer stated that the applicant had bruises under his right eye and on his back and asked that the applicant be urgently referred to a hospital for a medical examination, including a psychiatric evaluation. However, the petition did not include any details as regards the alleged ill‑treatment.\n14.  On 27 July 2004 the applicant was examined by two doctors at the Bodrum State hospital. Dr M.A. noted that the applicant had five or six longitudinally bruised areas on his lower back, which rendered him unfit for ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4575", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Warsaw.\n5.  On 22 June 2005 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor (Prokuratur Prokuratury Apelacyjnej) charged the applicant with fraud and dealing in stolen goods committed in an organised criminal group.\n6.  On 29 June 2005 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It further considered that there was a risk that he would obstruct the proper conduct of the investigation. The court also stressed the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed on him.\n7.  In the course of the investigation the applicant’s detention was extended regularly by the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) and the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). The courts repeated the grounds originally given for his detention. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against the subsequent decisions.\n8.  On 13 and 30 October and 6 December 2005 the applicant lodged unsuccessful applications with the Appeal Prosecutor for his detention to be lifted and replaced by another preventive measure.\n9.  On 14 February 2006 the Wrocław Court of Appeal did not extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The court prohibited the applicant from leaving the country and ordered police supervision.\n10.  The applicant submits that despite the Court of Appeal’s decision to release him he was kept in detention until 17 February 2006, the date when new charges were laid against him and the Katowice District Court remanded him in custody in another set of proceedings.\n11.  On 17 February 2006 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor charged the applicant with armed robbery, hostage taking and fraud committed in an organised group.\n12.  On the same date the Katowice District Court remanded the applicant in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It further considered that there was a risk that he would obstruct the proper conduct of the investigation. It referred to the complexity of the case and the large number of persons involved. The court also stressed the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed on him. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against the decision.\n13.  On 24 February and 30 May 2006 the applicant lodged applications with the Prosecutor of Appeal for his detention to be lifted and replaced by another preventive measure. He referred to his state of health and the deterioration of his family relationships. On 24 March and 5 June 2006 respectively the Prosecutor of Appeal dismissed his applications.\n14.  On 8 May 2006 the Katowice Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention. The court repeated the grounds previously given by the District Court.\n15.  Subsequently, in the course of the proceedings the applicant’s detention was extended regularly by the Katowice Regional Court and the Katowice Court of Appeal. The courts repeated the grounds originally given for his detention. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against the subsequent decisions.\n16.  In the meantime, on 13 July 2006 and 22 January 2007 the applicant lodged applications with the Appeal Prosecutor requesting permission to call his daughter. Respectively, on 24 July 2006 and 5 February 2007 the Prosecutor refused his requests, referring in his decisions to the prohibition on using telephone and other communication devices by persons in pre-trial detention.\n17.  On 30 October 2007 the Katowice ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4576", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Kaunas.\n5.  On 28 November 1995 the applicant brought a civil action, requesting annulment of a number of agreements concluded in 1987 whereby ZD, a third person, had acquired a house and certain other items of real property. The applicant alleged in particular that he had been the actual buyer, and that ZD had only acted in a formal capacity. Six other persons were defendants in the proceedings.\n6.  ZD lodged a counter-claim.\n7.  Given certain evidence that in the past the applicant had suffered from schizophrenia, on 30 April 1997 the court ordered a psychiatric expertise in order to establish whether the applicant was capable of participating in the court proceedings due to his state of mental health.\n8.  On 15 September 1997 the State Legal Psychiatry Service informed the court that the applicant had failed to appear before it for the expertise to be conducted. The expertise was carried out on 14 October 1997.\n9.  On 23 December 1997 the Pasvalys District Court dismissed the applicant’s case as unsubstantiated.\n10.  On 20 May 1998 the Panevėžys Regional Court quashed the decision, returning the case for examination de novo. It was established that the first-instance court had failed to examine certain claims of the parties.\n11.  On 1 February 1999 the Kėdainiai District Court again dismissed the applicant’s case.\n12.  The applicant appealed. He also requested the Kėdainiai District Court to exempt him from the obligation to pay stamp duty. On 17 February 1999 that court allowed his request.\n13.  On 9 March 1999 the Panevėžys Regional Court quashed the ruling by which the applicant had been exempted from paying the stamp duty.\n14.  On 25 May 1999 the Panevėžys Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the merits and upheld the decision of 1 February 1999.\n15.  On 10 February 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts on account of the fact that they had failed to establish all the relevant circumstances. The case was returned for a fresh examination at first instance.\n16.  On 27 November 2000 the Kėdainiai District Court allowed the applicant’s action in full.\n17.  On 16 January 2001 the Panevėžys Regional Court upheld the decision.\n18.  On 20 June 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case to the first instance court for a new examination. It was established that the lower courts had again failed to establish and assess all the relevant circumstances of the case, despite having been instructed to do so in the Supreme Court’s ruling of 10 February 2000.\n19.  On 14 August 2002 the Panevėžys City District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims.\n20.  On 27 August 2002 the applicant appealed. However the Panevėžys City District Court decided to return the appeal to the applicant unexamined for failure to pay stamp duty. The applicant’s objection to the latter decision was dismissed on 1 October 2002. It was established that the applicant had been and still was a wealthy man, given that he owed numerous real estates. Consequently, there was no ground to exempt him from stamp duty.\n21.  On 14 February 2003 the Panevėžys Regional Court upheld the decision of 14 August 2002.\n22.  On 11 November 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4577", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Novosibirsk Region.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. Legal aid counsel was appointed to represent him. The applicant and his accomplice were accused of having unlawfully entered the victim’s flat and having robbed him. The applicant was also charged with having wounded the victim with a knife, causing the victim’s death.\n7.  On 11 October 2001 the Novosibirsk Regional Court appointed another legal aid counsel to represent the applicant at the trial. The applicant admitted the relevant facts, while giving a version of the events which differed from that of his accomplice. In particular, he made admissions to the effect that he had wounded the victim in a fight and had then taken his belongings in order to simulate a robbery.\n8.  On 16 October 2001 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and robbery and sentenced him to seventeen years’ imprisonment. In his points of appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the applicant challenged the admissibility and assessment of evidence by the trial court. He asked the court to ensure his attendance at the appeal hearing.\n9.  The applicant asked for legal assistance with a view to preparing for the appeal hearing. No response was received. On 20 June 2002 the Supreme Court granted the applicant leave to appear in person.\n10.  On 31 October 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. The applicant was not represented. According to the applicant, the hearing was conducted by means of a videoconferencing facility (VCF). The Government, however, submitted that the applicant “had been present at the hearing”.\n11.  The applicant lodged a request dated 22 August 2003 for supervisory review of his conviction. This request was received by the Supreme Court on 26 September 2003. In another request dated 31 October 2002, received by the Supreme Court on 26 September 2003, the applicant challenged the appeal decision of 31 October 2002. He alleged that he had not been afforded an opportunity to be present at the appeal hearing and had not been provided with the assistance of counsel. By a decision of 25 May 2004, a Supreme Court judge rejected his request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4578", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  On 6 January 1992 the applicant and her then husband F.B., who had decided to get divorced, entered into an agreement on the partition of their joint property. The agreement stipulated, inter alia, that F.B. would transfer to her, within one year, the ownership of premises on Zaloška Street, unless they agreed on a different location. The agreement further stipulated that if the stated obligations were not fulfilled, the applicant could terminate the agreement and claim a share of the joint property in accordance with the relevant domestic law. On 24 April 1992 the applicant and F.B. divorced.\n7.  Subsequently, F.B. did not transfer the ownership of premises on Zaloška Street to the applicant. However, on 24 September 1992 the applicant accepted the keys of certain premises on Trubarjeva Street. After F.B. had bought the latter premises, on 6 November 1992, he offered the applicant the possibility of signing a supplement to the agreement. According to the supplement, the applicant would receive forty per cent of the premises on Trubarjeva Street as a form of alternative performance of the relevant part of the agreement. The applicant refused to sign the supplement to the agreement.\n8.  On 3 May 1993 she instituted proceedings in the Ljubljana Basic Court (Temeljno sodišče v Ljublani) seeking termination of the agreement and partition of the joint property.\n9.  On 16 November 1993 F.B. died and his heirs, J.B.J, B.E.B. and M.B., took over his capacity in the proceedings.\n10.  On 9 November 1995 the court issued a partial judgment terminating the relevant agreement and rejecting the counter-claim lodged by J.B.J, B.E.B. and M.B (“the heirs”).\n11.  On 11 April 1996 the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani) quashed the first-instance court’s judgment and remitted the case for re-examination. The applicant then challenged that decision in an appeal on points of law, but that was rejected by the Supreme Court on 22 May 1997.\n12.  In the re-examination proceedings, on 14 September 1998, the (renamed) Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani) issued a new judgment rejecting the applicant’s claim. The court considered that the relevant agreement was not a “fixed contract” (fiksna pogodba) which could be terminated without allowing additional time for its performance. Moreover, from F.B.’s conduct it had not been apparent that he was not going to honour his obligation. The applicant should therefore have offered an additional time-limit to F.B. In addition, the court found that F.B. had in large part fulfilled his obligations and that the applicant, by accepting the keys to the premises on Trubarjeva Street, had agreed to an alternative performance of the agreement.\n13.  On 31 March 1999 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the first-instance court’s judgment. It, however, amended certain parts concerning the payment of costs and expenses.\n14.  On 13 May 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče). She supplemented the appeal on 25 May 1999.\n15.  On 19 April 2000 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s appeal to the extent that it concerned the application of law by the lower courts, but dismissed the remainder. The Supreme Court considered that the interpretation of the relevant agreement concerned the application of the law. It then concluded that F.B. had not fulfilled his obligations by offering the applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4579", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Łęczyca prison.\n6.  On 25 July 2000 the applicant was arrested and his apartment was searched by the police. He was subsequently remanded in custody from 27 July 2000 until 31 May 2001. In a judgment of 8 January 2002 the Kutno District Court found the applicant guilty of burglary and sentenced him to three and a half years’ imprisonment. The applicant, who was at that time in detention for the purposes of another criminal case against him, was represented before the court by a legal‑aid lawyer, M.M.\n7.  On an unknown later date the lawyer submitted his appeal to the court. By a letter of 4 July 2002 the court, apparently unaware of the fact that the applicant remained in detention in connection with another criminal case, informed the applicant that the appeal submitted by the lawyer had been declared admissible. This letter was sent by registered letter to the applicant’s home address and served on his wife. The court considered it to have been properly served on the party as required by the applicable laws. The appeal itself was neither sent to the applicant nor served on him.\n8.  On 15 May 2003 the court sent another letter to the applicant’s home address, informing him that his legal‑aid lawyer had been replaced by another one, A.L. This letter was not collected from the post office within the statutory period and was returned to the registry of the court. The court considered, in compliance with the applicable provisions of criminal procedure, that it had been properly served on the applicant.\n9.  Subsequently, the court sent a summons to the hearing before the appellate court to the applicant’s home address. It was not served on him as he remained in detention.\n10.  The new legal‑aid lawyer did not get in touch with the applicant. The applicant learned from one of the inmates in Łowicz prison that an appeal had been lodged in his case and that a hearing was soon to be held. On 15 July 2003 he wrote a letter to the court requesting it to postpone the hearing and to be brought before the court. He also submitted his own arguments in support of the appeal.\n11.  On 17 July 2003 a hearing was held, in the applicant’s absence, before the Łódź Regional Court. The court dismissed the lawyer’s appeal.\n12.  On 28 July 2003 the applicant was informed by the registry of the court that his request of 15 July and his appeal had been submitted to the court after the hearing of 17 July 2003. On the same day the applicant complained to the court that he had been unable to participate in the hearing.\n13.  On 8 August 2003 a copy of the judgment given by the appellate court was sent to the prison where the applicant was detained at that time.\n14.  On 14 August 2003 the applicant requested legal aid for the purpose of preparing a cassation appeal against the judgment of 17 July 2003. On the same day he submitted a detailed complaint to the Łódź Court of Appeal about the fact that he had not been properly notified of the hearing, that the legal‑aid lawyer had been replaced without his knowing it, that he had neither been served with a copy of the appeal nor informed that it had been accepted for examination, and that he could not participate in the hearing. He was of the view that his defence rights had thereby been breached and that the conviction was in any event not safe, given the errors committed by the first-instance court in the assessment of the evidence.\n15.  On", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4580", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974. He is currently detained in Ploieşti Penitentiary.\n7.  On 27 January 2005 the applicant was arrested for robbery with violence. He was first placed in pre-trial detention in the Bucharest police facility. On 4 May 2005 he was sent to Bucharest-Jilava Penitentiary.\n8.  During the criminal investigation, the applicant denied the charges, allegedly because other co-defendants had threatened to physically abuse him and his family should he confess to his crime. He allegedly unsuccessfully asked the authorities to grant him special protection.\n9.  On 27 April 2005, the prosecutor’s office completed the criminal investigations against the applicant and the case was sent to Bucharest County Court. Before the court the applicant confessed to his crime. From that moment on he was allegedly threatened with physical abuse by several co-detainees, acting on behalf of one of the applicant’s co-defendants in the criminal proceedings.\n10.  By decision no. 704/2005 of 23 August 2005 the administration of Jilava Penitentiary ordered that the applicant be placed in strict solitary confinement for ten days for proffering verbal insults against prison staff, on 13 August 2005, while he was in cell no. 510. On 28 October 2005 the Bucharest District Court annulled decision no. 704/2005. The court found that the applicant had not committed any offence.\n11.  On 9 September 2005, around 11.15 p.m., while he was detained in cell no. 315, the applicant was physically abused by N.M. and seven other co-detainees, allegedly relatives of his co-defendant.\n12.  Following this assault, at 11.50 p.m. he was examined by Dr L. from the Jilava Penitentiary’s medical centre. Dr L. noted in his report that the applicant had an open wound on his scalp and sent him to Rahova Penitentiary Hospital for surgery. Dr. V., from the Rahova Hospital for detainees, provided the applicant with medical care.\n13.  On 10 September 2005 the applicant was sent back to Jilava Penitentiary. On 15 September 2005 the surgical stitches were extracted from his wound. On 22 December 2005 a doctor examined him and established a diagnosis of recent cranial trauma, with scarring, and prescribed him medication.\n14.  Shortly after this incident of 9 September 2005, by decision no. 783/2005 of 19 September 2005, the administration of Jilava Penitentiary placed the applicant in strict solitary confinement for ten days, for breach of disciplinary rules, namely for proffering insults and threats against a co-detainee. The decision mentioned that the applicant was still in cell no. 315.\n15.  The incident report noted that late in the evening of 9 September 2005, at 11.15 p.m., the applicant had insulted N.M. and had threatened him with a small knife. N.M. had subsequently knocked the applicant over so that he had fallen on his head, causing an open wound. He had been taken to the hospital immediately. As is stated in an official letter of 11 July 2006, addressed to the National Administration of Penitentiaries, the medical file and the administrative files of N.M. revealed that he had not suffered any injury during the incident of 9 September 2005.\n16.  On an unspecified date after the incident, the applicant was placed in cell no. 207. He shared this cell with fifty-five other inmates, for whom thirty-seven beds were provided.\n17.  On 21 September 2005 the National Administration of Penitentiaries rejected the applicant’s request to be transferred to another detention cen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4581", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 25 November 1997 the applicant was taken into police custody at the İstanbul Security Headquarters, where he was held until 2 December 1997 and questioned regarding his alleged involvement in a terrorist organisation.\n7.  On 2 December 1997 the applicant and nine other detainees were examined by a forensic doctor who noted a 1-cm-long crusted scar on the lower part of the applicant’s left leg and a 2‑-cm‑-wide lesion surrounding his lower left eyelid.\n8.  In statements made before the State Security Court on 1 December 1997 and before the Fatih Public Prosecutor on 10 March 1998, the applicant complained about having been subjected to torture by the police officers while in custody. He said, in particular, that he had been subjected to various forms of pressure: he had been beaten and his testicles had been squeezed. He added that he might be able to recognise the perpetrators.\n9.  On 17 April 1998 the Istanbul Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment and charged four police officers (S.A., M.C., E.M. and N.C.) with ill-treating the applicant and three other detainees.\n10.  On 25 June 1998 the applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party.\n11.  During hearings before the Istanbul Assize Court, the accused police officers claimed that the applicant had shown resistance at the time of his arrest, which explained the marks found on his body. Consequently, at the hearing held on 29 June 2000 the applicant requested a consultation with the Forensic Medicine Institute in order to determine the exact cause of the marks on his body.\n12.  In its report issued on 19 December 2001, the Forensic Medicine Institute concluded that the crusted scar on the applicant’s leg could have been around seven days old at the time he was examined by the forensic doctor on 2 December 1997 whereas the purple lesion under his left eye could have occurred three to four days previously. The report further stated that the lesions under the eye could have been caused by the application of a hard substance directly to the eye or the person’s hitting his eye or having his head forced against a solid and dented surface. The report added that it was not medically possible to identify which of the three reasons was the exact cause.\n13.  On 20 June 2003 the Istanbul Assize Court held that, on the basis of the evidence in the case file, the complainants had been subjected to ill‑treatment which fell under Article 243 of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, the police officers had inflicted this treatment intentionally in order to extract confessions. Referring, inter alia, to the findings in the medical reports, the court sentenced as charged M.C. and S.A., who had previously been identified by the applicant during the hearings, to one year’s imprisonment and acquitted E.M. and N.C. due to lack of evidence.\n14.  Both parties appealed. On 29 March 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in respect of M.C. and S.A. on the ground of the insufficiency of the investigation. The court noted in particular that the medical reports of the complainants, which had been issued when they were taken into police custody, and their statements taken there, were absent from the case file.\n15.  The case was remitted to the Istanbul Assize Court, which decided on 24 June 2006 to discontinue the proceedings as the prosecution had become time-barred in the meantime.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4582", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1938 and 1968 respectively and live in Kaunas.\n5.  On 17 November 1992 the Kaunas City Board restored the applicants’ property rights to part of a building in Kaunas. In particular, it restored in kind the applicants’ property rights to the flats in which they lived. The property restitution decision specified that the property rights to the uninhabited part of the building (hereafter “the disputed premises”) would be restored in accordance with the procedure and terms fixed by the Government.\n6.  On 15 October 1993 the Kaunas City deputy mayor and the applicants signed a statement of transfer acceptance (priėmimo-perdavimo aktas), by which the disputed premises were transferred to the applicants. On 21 December 1993 the applicants registered their title to the premises.\n7.  By a decision of 21 March 1994, the Kaunas City mayor declared the statement of transfer acceptance unlawful and consequently null and void. By a decision of 31 May 1994 the Kaunas City Board supplemented the decision of 17 November 1992 with a clause which specified the form in which the property rights were to be restored. Therein it was decided to pay compensation for the disputed premises, at that time occupied by a pharmacy, after the Government had determined the means and the procedure by which compensation was to be paid.\n8.  By a decision of 14 June 1994, the Kaunas City Board transferred the disputed premises from the balance sheet of one State-run company to the balance sheet of the State-run company of Kaunas area pharmacies. Subsequently, by a decision of the Kaunas City Board of 14 June 1996, the disputed premises were transferred into the private ownership of the closed-stock company, Šlamučio vaistinė.\n9.  On 3 June 1994 the applicants, together with other persons in a similar situation, brought a civil claim, challenging the local authorities’ decisions of 21 March 1994 and 31 May 1994. It was dismissed as unsubstantiated by the Kaunas City District Court on 4 July 1994.\n10.  On 22 August 1994 the Supreme Court quashed the lower court’s decision and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The Supreme Court noted that the lower court had not examined all the relevant circumstances. In particular, it had not taken account of the fact that, at the time of the adoption of the impugned decisions, the applicants had already been recognised as the owners of the entire building. The Supreme Court observed that only a court and not a local authority could have annulled the applicants’ ownership rights.\n11.  On 7 October 1994 the Kaunas City District Court decided to suspend the civil proceedings further to a request by V.A., one of the plaintiffs in the case, on account of the illness of one of his relatives, who also was a plaintiff in that case. The court ordered V.A. to inform it when his relative’s state of health would allow her to participate in the proceedings.\n12.  On 1 July 1999 the Kaunas City District Court of its own motion resumed the civil proceedings.\n13.  On 9 September 1999 the Kaunas City District Court granted the applicants’ claim. It declared the local authority’s decisions of 21 March 1994 and 31 May 1994 null and void, restoring the applicants’ title to the premises occupied by the pharmacy.\n14.  On 28 February 2000 the Kaunas Regional Court upheld that decision.\n15.  On 12 September 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions and returned the case to the Kaunas City District Court for ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4583", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1929 and 1936 respectively and live in Mielec.\n5.  In 1978 the craftsmen’s cooperative (spółdzielnia rzemieślnicza) “Wielobranżowa” established its seat next to the applicants’ home. It was engaged in a wide range of commercial activities, including various maintenance services for lorries, metal cutting and grinding machines and other small-scale operations in the iron and steel industry.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 1985 the applicants instituted administrative proceedings to have the cooperative cease its activities. They alleged that the level of noise and pollution emitted by the cooperative exceeded a tolerable level.\n7.  On 25 March 1986 the Mielec District Office ordered the liquidation of the craftsmen’s cooperative “Wielobranżowa” by the end of 1995 or alternatively that it switch to activities that did not cause a nuisance. During the remaining months of 1986 the cooperative was to adapt its activities in order to comply with the rules on the protection of the environment and the emission of noise.\n8.  On 5 September 1986 the Director of the Department for Architecture of the Provincial Office in Rzeszów upheld that decision. The applicants appealed, contesting the lengthy period foreseen for the cooperative’s liquidation and urging its shutdown.\n9.  On 29 July 1987 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed their appeal (thus the decision of 5 September 1986 became final).\n10.  On 30 May 1988 the applicants again lodged a complaint with the Provincial Office in Rzeszów alleging that the daily operations of the cooperative caused unbearable noise and were life-threatening for people living in the vicinity.\n11.  On 3 June 1988 the Director of the Department for the Environment of the Provincial Office in Rzeszów issued a decision establishing the maximum level of noise to be emitted.\n12.  Due to the non-compliance of the cooperative with the established noise-level limits, by a decision of 31 August 1989 the Director of the Department for the Environment of the Provincial Office in Rzeszów ordered the cooperative to suspend the operation of all its technical devices. The cooperative appealed to the Minister of the Environment.\n13.  On 25 February 1997, as the time-limit for the cooperative’s liquidation established by the decision of 1986 had expired, the applicants lodged a motion with the District Office in Mielec to have the decision of 5 September 1986 executed.\n14.  On 9 April 1997 the applicants sent a letter to the Director of the Department for the Environment of the Provincial Office in Rzeszów repeating their allegations with regard to the unacceptable noise and pollution emitted by the cooperative. They invoked the decision of 25 March 1986 ordering the cooperative to cease its activities.\n15.  On 9 May 1997 in response to their above request the Provincial Office in Rzeszów stated that all documents issued between the years 1974 and 1986 had been destroyed, and thus the decision invoked by them no longer existed. Subsequently the Provincial Office referred the case to the District Office in Mielec to determine its factual circumstances.\n16.  On 3 June 1997 the District Office in Mielec carried out an inspection of the cooperative.\n17.  On 5 June 1997 the Provincial Office informed the applicants about the state of their case.\n18.  On 18 July 1997 the District Office in Mielec notified the applicants of an extension of the time-limit granted to settle their case.\n19.  On 14 August 19", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4584", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6. The applicant was born in 1954 and lived in Czarne, Poland.\n7.  The applicant was arrested by the police on 12 September 2001 on a charge of murder and by a decision of the Bytów District Court of 14 September 2001 he was detained on remand.\n8. Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was prolonged on several occasions by the Słupsk Regional Court (decisions of 6 December 2001, 2 January 2002, 22 March 2002, 20 December 2002, 18 March 2003 and 16 June 2003).\n9. The applicant on several occasions unsuccessfully applied to be released and to have the preventive measure imposed on him changed into a more lenient one.\n10. The courts justified their decisions prolonging the applicant’s detention on remand and their refusals to release him by the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence concerned and by the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n11. On 22 March 2002 the Słupsk Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. On 5 September 2002 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the lower court.\n12. On 16 September 2003 the Słupsk Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. On 10 February 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the lower court.\n13. On 7 February 2005 the Słupsk Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. On 23 June 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to six years’ imprisonment. A cassation appeal against the second-instance judgment was available.\n14. On 23 June 2005 the applicant was released because of his health which had prevented him from serving a term of imprisonment. The applicant submitted that from August 2005 he had been examined several times by psychiatrists and that he had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital for short periods on five occasions. He had been diagnosed with nervous depression.\n15. On 5 March 2003 the Court received a letter from the applicant dated 9 February 2003. The envelope bore the following stamps: “the Słupsk Regional Court (...)” and “Censored on 18 February” (Ocenzurowano dnia 18.02) and an illegible signature.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4585", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Aksaray.\n5.  In 1995 the Municipality of Konya decided to expropriate the applicant’s property. The title was transferred to the Municipality of Konya on 26 August 1996.\n6.  On 1 May 2003 the applicant brought an action before the Konya Court of First Instance for increased compensation. On 21 June 2004 the Konya Court of First Instance partly accepted the applicant’s claim and awarded him additional compensation of 1,861,980,000[1] Turkish liras (TRL), which bore statutory interest running from 26 August 1996. On 29 December 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.\n7.  The applicant requested rectification. On 18 April 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the request for rectification and notified the applicant on 10 May 2005.\n8.  On 22 June 2005 the authorities paid the applicant 13,783 Turkish liras (TRY)[2].", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4586", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 8 April 1995 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident, I.R., had taken out insurance with the insurance company A.\n7.  On 18 October 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against I.R. and the insurance company A. in the Celje District Court, seeking damages in the amount of 3,688,433 Slovenian tolars (SIT) (approximately 15,370 euros) (EUR) for the injuries sustained.\n8.  Between 29 November 2001 and 12 May 2006 the applicant lodged several written submissions and adduced evidence.\n9.  Between 15 December 2003 and 4 September 2006 the court held eight hearings, one of which was conducted at the site of the accident. It does not appear that any of the hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s fault.\n10.  During the proceedings, the court also appointed two experts and requested an additional opinion from one of them.\n11. After the last hearing in the case, the court delivered an interim judgment (vmesna sodba) determining the responsibility for the damage, which was served on the applicant on 25 September 2006.\n12.  On 9 October 2006 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. I.R. and the insurance company A also appealed.\n13.  On 9 May 2007 the Celje Higher Court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and changed the first-instance court’s interim judgment. It found I.R. and the insurance company A responsible for 70% of the damage suffered due to the accident.\n14.  The judgment was served on the applicant on 18 May 2007.\n15.  On 13 June 2007 the insurance company A lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. These proceedings are still pending.\n16.  On 2 March 2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Celje District Court. In this supervisory appeal the applicant explained that the proceedings had started on 18 October 1999 and were still pending. As a consequence, his right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated. He requested that the proceedings be expedited and the decision be delivered immediately.\n17.  On 23 March 2007, referring to sections 5(1) and 6(4) of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”), the President of the Celje District Court replied to the supervisory appeal by explaining that the case file had been transferred to the Celje Higher Court on 20 March 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4587", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and currently lives in Tbilisi.\n5.  In the course of a police operation conducted on 15 September 1997 in the village of Becho, Mestia District, the applicant’s house, which happened to be close to the scene, was accidentally burned down together with the adjacent farm buildings. The house had been the applicant’s place of residence prior to the incident.\n6.  On 15 July 1999 the applicant sued the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Finance for the damage done and, in a judgment of 27 December 2000, the Krtsanisi-Mtatsminda District Court in Tbilisi ordered the respondent authorities to pay him 60,000 Georgian laris (GEL) (26,646 euros (EUR))[1] in compensation for the destruction of his property (“the judgment debt”). The operative part of the judgment indicated that the payment should be made from the State Budget for 2001.\n7.  The judgment of 27 December 2000 was upheld in full by the Tbilisi Regional Court and the Supreme Court of Georgia on 21 March and 2 October 2002, respectively, and became binding on the latter date.\n8.  On 19 November 2002 the Krtsanisi-Mtatsminda District Court issued the respondent authorities with a writ of execution which reiterated the obligation to discharge the judgment debt from the 2001 State Budget. The authorities remained inactive.\n9.  Subsequent to the applicant’s complaint, on 8 January 2003 the Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice (“the Enforcement Department”) invited the respondent authorities to discharge the judgment debt of their own accord within the following three months, on pain of forcible enforcement measures. The allotted time expired without the judgment debt having been paid, but no measures followed.\n10.  On 11 October 2005 the Enforcement Department issued the National Bank of Georgia with an order to pay the judgment debt. However, as that order indicated the wrong amount, the National Bank sent it back on 25 November 2005 unenforced.\n11.  On 1 December 2006 the applicant asked the Ministry of Finance for news of progress in the enforcement proceedings.\n12.  On 13 December 2006 the Ministry of Finance replied that it was unable to discharge the judgment debt, as the Ministry of the Interior had failed to do so of its own accord.\n13.  In a decision of 19 December 2006, at the applicant’s request, the Tbilisi City Court removed from the judgment of 27 December 2000, as an objectively unenforceable condition, the indication that the debt should be paid from the 2001 State Budget. That decision became binding on 28 May 2007, and on 4 September 2007 the City Court issued a writ for its enforcement.\n14.  On 2 April 2008, on the basis of the previous enforcement writ of 19 November 2002, the Enforcement Department requested the National Bank of Georgia to disburse the judgment debt. The latter authority did so on 4 April 2008, and three days later the applicant retrieved the debt in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4588", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kaunas.\n5.  On 17 November 1992 the Kaunas City Board restored the applicant’s property rights to part of a building in Kaunas. In particular, it restored the applicant’s property rights to 1/12 of the uninhabited part of the building (hereafter “the disputed premises”). The property restitution decision specified that the property rights to the disputed premises would be restored in accordance with the procedure and terms fixed by the Government.\n6.  On 15 October 1993 the Kaunas City deputy mayor and the applicant signed a statement of transfer acceptance (priėmimo-perdavimo aktas), by which the disputed premises were transferred to the applicant. On 21 December 1993 the applicant registered his title to the property.\n7.  By a decision of 21 March 1994, the Kaunas City mayor declared the statement of transfer acceptance unlawful and consequently null and void. By a decision of 31 May 1994, the Kaunas City Board supplemented the decision of 17 November 1992 with a clause which specified the form in which the property rights were to be restored It was decided to pay compensation for the disputed premises, at that time occupied by a pharmacy, after the Government had determined the means and the procedure by which compensation was to be paid.\n8.  By a decision of 14 June 1994, the Kaunas City Board transferred the disputed premises from the balance sheet of one State-run company to the balance sheet of the State-run company of Kaunas area pharmacies. Subsequently, by a decision of the Kaunas City Board of 14 June 1996 the disputed premises were transferred into the private ownership of the closed-stock company Šlamučio vaistinė.\n9.  On 3 June 1994 the applicant brought a civil claim (“the first civil case”), challenging the local authorities’ decisions of 21 March 1994 and 31 May 1994. It was dismissed as unsubstantiated by the Kaunas City District Court on 4 July 1994.\n10.  On 22 August 1994 the Supreme Court quashed the lower court’s decision and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The Supreme Court noted that the lower court had not examined all the relevant circumstances. In particular, it had not taken account of the fact that, at the time of the adoption of the impugned decisions, the applicant had already been recognised as the owner of the entire building. The Supreme Court observed that only a court and not a local authority could have annulled the applicant’s ownership rights.\n11.  On 7 October 1994 the Kaunas City District Court decided to suspend the civil proceedings further to a request by the applicant, on account of the illness of one of his relatives, V.A., who was also a plaintiff in that case. The court ordered the applicant to inform it when his relative’s state of health would allow her to participate in the proceedings.\n12.  On 3 October 1994 the State-run company of Kaunas area pharmacies brought a civil claim, seeking the partial annulment of the Kaunas City Board’s decision of 17 November 1992 (hereinafter “the second civil case”).\n13.  On 8 January 1996 the applicant and other plaintiffs brought a new civil claim (hereinafter “the third civil claim”), challenging the Kaunas City Board’s decision of 14 June 1994.\n14.  On 1 July 1999 the Kaunas City District Court of its own motion resumed the civil proceedings in the first civil case.\n15.  On 2 September 1999 the Kaunas City District Court decided to join all three cases and examine them together.\n16.  On 9 S", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4589", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Ms Safa Grišević (“the first applicant”), Mr Dragoš Vranić (“the second applicant”) and Ms Mladomirka Vučićević (“the third applicant”) are all Serbian citizens who were born in 1962, 1954 and 1965, respectively, and currently live in the Municipality of Novi Pazar, Serbia.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 1 February 1995 the first applicant employed with Raška Holding AD, on 1 January 1998 the second applicant employed with Raška Holding AD – Tkačnica DOO, and on 17 November 1995 the third applicant employed with DP Savremena Konfekcija Raška, were all placed by their respective socially-owned employers on compulsory paid leave until such time when normal production could be resumed and the said companies’ business performance had improved sufficiently.\n8.  Whilst on this leave, in accordance with the relevant domestic legislation, the applicants were entitled to a significantly reduced monthly income, as well as the payment of their pension, disability and other social security contributions.\n9.   Since the companies failed to fulfil these obligations, the applicants brought numerous separate civil claims before the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the Municipal Court”).\n10.  On 30 March 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:\ni. the “paid leave benefits” (“naknadu za vreme plaćenog odsustva”) due from 1 February 1995 to 19 January 2004, amounting to 80% of the salary which she would otherwise have earned, plus statutory interest;\nii. 7,800.00 Dinars [RSD] (approximately 99 euros [EUR]) for her legal costs; and\niii. the pension and disability insurance contributions (“doprinose za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje”) due for that period.\n11.  By 20 April 2004 this judgment became final.\n12.  On 14 May 2004 the applicant requested the Municipal Court to enforce the said judgment and proposed that this be carried out either by means of a bank account transfer, for which purpose she produced her employer’s relevant bank details, or through the auctioning of the debtor’s movable and/or immovable assets.\n13.  On 10 June 2004 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and ordered the enforcement sought.\n14.   Thereafter, the Municipal Court transmitted this order to the Central Bank (Narodna banka Srbije).\n15.  On 1 December 2005 the applicant filed a written submission with the Municipal Court, stating, inter alia, that:\ni. the debtor had, in the meantime, publicly leased out its real estate to third parties and must have thereby obtained sufficient funds for the purposes of enforcement; and\nii. it was unclear whether these funds were being paid to the debtor in cash or through a bank account transfer, which is why the enforcement at issue should instead be attempted through the auctioning of the debtor’s movable and specified immovable property.\n16.  On 17 November 2006 the Central Bank informed the Municipal Court that certain information was missing.\n17.  On 24 November 2006 the Municipal Court requested the applicant to complete the information.\n18.  On 4 December 2006 the applicant provided the Municipal Court with the information sought and on 6 December 2006 the latter adopted a new enforcement order.\n19.  On 14 December 2006 the Municipal Court transmitted this order to the Central Bank.\n20.  It would appear that the enforcement proceedings are still pending.\n21. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4590", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973. He is currently detained in Ustka Prison.\n6.  On 22 October 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion that he had committed a series of criminal offences against different banks, such as fraud, perjury and attempted unlawful disposal of property.\n7.  On 25 October 2004 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody. On 7 February 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld that decision.\n8.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was subsequently extended by decisions of the Gdańsk District Court of: 13 January and 22 April 2005 (the latter upheld by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 23 May 2005) and 15 July 2005 (upheld by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 16 August 2005). Later, the preventive measure in question was extended by decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court of 20 October 2005 (upheld by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 3 November 2005), 2 January, 23 March, 31 May and 3 July 2006 (upheld by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 19 July 2006), and 23 August 2006.\n9.  The domestic courts justified the applicant’s pre‑trial detention in its initial phase by the existence of strong evidence against the applicant and a likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed. Moreover, the authorities invoked the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings in the light of the risk that the applicant might go into hiding. He did not have a permanent residence and had been already sought by the police under a wanted notice. Finally, the domestic courts indicated that it had been necessary to examine new witnesses, to obtain psychiatric reports on the applicant and to run the necessary graphology tests, all of which had contributed to the delays in the pre‑trial proceedings.\n10.  At the later stage of the applicant’s pre‑trial detention, the authorities emphasised that the applicant had been charged with seventeen serious criminal offences and that holding him in detention was the only possible way to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings, since the applicant had already gone into hiding in the past.\n11.  Meanwhile, from 19 November 2004 to 27 February 2005, from 27 February to 13 May 2005 and from 20 July 2005 to 20 April 2006 the applicant was concurrently serving prison sentences which had been imposed by domestic courts in three unrelated criminal proceedings against him.\n12.  It appears that on 18 February 2005 the applicant, who beforehand had resided in Germany, became registered at a permanent address in Poland.\n13.  On 30 September 2005 the applicant was indicted on numerous charges of fraud, perjury and attempted unlawful disposal of property. It was asserted in the indictment that he had tried to enter into financial transactions with different banks under false pretences and using false documents. The prosecutor asked the trial court to examine sixty-one witnesses, including nine expert witnesses.\n14.  The first hearing took place on 7 November 2005. Subsequently, between 2005 and the end of 2007 the trial court held twenty-four hearings.\n15.  When the length of the applicant’s pre‑trial detention appeared to reach the statutory two‑year time‑limit laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Gdańsk Regional Court asked the superior court to assume jurisdiction to take a decision on the measure. On 17 October 2006, however, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal decided not to hear the case, noting that the applicant’s a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4591", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Ilnitsa, Ukraine. The second applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Lensk, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya).\n7.  In the 1990s the applicants subscribed to a State savings scheme for buying Russian-made cars. The State failed to fulfil its obligation to provide them with cars. The applicants brought court actions against the authorities, seeking to recover the monetary value of the State promissory notes for purchasing of a Russian-made car.\n8.  On the dates listed in the Appendix the domestic courts of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld their actions and awarded them compensation in the amounts specified below, payable by the Ministry of Finance. On the dates listed in the Appendix the judgments were upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic and became final. The enforcement proceedings were opened.\n9.  The awards remained unenforced.\n10.  On the dates cited in the Appendix the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, upon an application from the Ministry of Finance and by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgments in the applicants' favour, re-examined the cases and dismissed the applicants' actions, having found that the lower courts had incorrectly interpreted and applied the domestic law.\n11.  The first applicant submitted that he had not been timeously notified of the session of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) and therefore could not attend it. He received a copy of the judgment several months after the hearing at the Presidium.\n12.  On 26 November 2004 the first applicant received 49,259.70 Russian roubles (RUB) of compensation in respect of a part of the promissory note value.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4592", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Ohrid.\n5.  On 16 September 1994 she brought before the Ohrid Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) a compensation claim against the Ohrid Health Centre (“the hospital”) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss sustained as a result of an alleged medical negligence during a 1991 surgery.\n6.  On 1 December 1994 the first-instance court ordered the applicant to propose, within ten days, an expert so that to assess whether she had received proper care in the hospital.\n7.  On 27 February 1995 the applicant made a proposal, while the hospital consented with Mr V.Dz. being the expert on 19 April 1995.\n8.  On 8 May 1995 the first-instance court ordered the expert to produce his opinion, which he did on 3 October 1995. On this latter date, the applicant increased the value of her claim.\n9.  On 14 November 1995 the applicant requested additional expert examination. As on 7 March 1996 the expert requested exclusion, the court ordered the applicant to propose a new expert within fifteen days. She proposed a new expert on 17 December 1996. The expert submitted his report only on 5 November 1997, while being ordered to do so on 6 March 1997.\n10.  After three hearings being adjourned on the applicant’s request and four hearings on the hospital’s request, the first-instance court ruled partly in favour of the applicant on 17 March 1998.\n11.  On 20 October 1998 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the parties’ appeals and remitted the case for a renewed consideration.\n12.  Hearings scheduled for 30 June and 9 November 1999 respectively, were adjourned due to the absence of witnesses.\n13.  On 26 May 1999 the first-instance court requested an additional expert examination by Mr V.Dz.. On 9 November 1999 the court withdrew this request due to the expert’s repeated absence from hearings.\n14.  On 14 December 1999 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 17 May 2000 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s appeal and referred the case back for a fresh consideration.\n15.  On 16 December 2000 the first-instance court ordered the Forensic Institute to draw up the third expert report.\n16.  On 27 March 2002 the Forensic Institute informed the court that the applicant had failed to attend medical examinations fixed for 6, 14 and 25 March 2002, respectively.\n17.  On 23 April 2002 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim relying, inter alia, on her failure to undergo medical examination. This decision was upheld by the Bitola Court of Appeal’s and the Supreme Court’s decisions of 5 February 2003 and 28 January 2004, respectively. This latter decision was served on the applicant on 10 April 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4593", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1953; she and her husband Mr Abdul-Khamit Tepsurkayev were the parents of Khizir Tepsurkayev, who was born in 1980. The applicant lives in Urus-Martan.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The applicant did not eyewitness the events. The description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction of Khizir Tepsurkayev is based on the witness accounts provided by the applicant, her husband, Mr A. Ruslanbek and Mr A. Alvi.\n9.  At about 9 a.m. on 27 August 2001 Khizir Tepsurkayev left his house in Urus-Martan to go to the Town Court, located in the centre of the town. He was supposed to meet there with the chairman of the court to discuss his future employment as a policeman and the chairman’s guard. On his way to the centre, at the corner of Pervomaiskaya and Ordzhonikidzevskaya Streets, Khizir Tepsurkayev met his acquaintance A. Said-Arbi. The two men were talking when a VAZ-2107 car pulled up next to them. The driver, B. Mairbek, offered Khizir Tepsurkayev and A. Said-Arbi a lift with him to the centre of town. A. Said-Arbi declined the offer, explaining that he had left his passport at home and that he would need it because a sweeping operation was taking place in the centre. Khizir Tepsurkayev accepted the offer of a lift and got into the car. It appears that Khizir Tepsurkayev was not aware of the fact that B. Mairbek and his car were on the authorities’ wanted list.\n10.  At about 10 a.m. the car approached the building of the former Military Commissariat on Kalanchakskaya Street. There was a group of Russian servicemen there from military unit no. 6779. The group consisted of policemen from Bashkortostan and was stationed on the eastern edge of Urus-Martan. One of Khizir Tepsurkayev’s acquaintances, police officer A.Ruslanbek, was with the group. The commander of the group was officer V. Vasiliy. The group, accompanied by military cars and APCs (armoured personnel carriers), was participating in a special operation and was conducting identity checks. The servicemen were stopping and searching every car. Many people were in the area at the time, as the checks were being carried out next to the local farmers’ market. When the soldiers stopped B. Mairbek’s car, Khizir Tepsurkayev got out of the car and showed his identity documents. The officers checked them and gave them back. At that moment someone in an APC shouted that the car was on the wanted list and the driver should be arrested. B. Mairbek turned his car around and drove away as the servicemen opened fire.\n11.  After the car had left, commander V. Vasiliy immediately ordered the soldiers to detain Khizir Tepsurkayev. The soldiers started beating him. One of the soldiers hit Khizir Tepsurkayev on the forehead with the butt of his rifle, causing bleeding. During the beatings Khizir Tepsurkayev called for help. He called the name of his acquaintance, D. Yaragi, who lived nearby. The latter heard him and approached the crowd, but could not get through to Khizir Tepsurkayev because the soldiers started firing over the heads of the crowd. Khizir Tepsurkayev was forced into one of the APCs.\n12.  Another eyewitness, police officer A. Alvi (also mentioned in the submitted documents under the name of A. Aslan), participated in the special operation with another group of servicemen. He was close to the market when he heard the gunfire. Upon approaching the crowd he was told by bystanders that the officers h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4594", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1948 and the second applicant in 1952. They live in Bataysk, the Rostov Region.\n6.   The applicants, Chernobyl victims, were in receipt of a monthly pension and a special “food allowance” from the State. They brought proceedings against the regional social security office (“the defendant”) claiming recalculation of the pension and the allowance in line with the increase of the minimum subsistence amount.\n7.  On the dates listed below the Bataysk Town Court of the Rostov Region granted the applicants’ claims and ordered the increase of the allowance and its subsequent index-linking. In re-calculating the amounts to be paid the court applied the multiplier of 1.92 reflecting the increase of the minimal subsistence amount in the Rostov Region. The judgments acquired legal force, as upheld on 16 April 2003 by the Rostov Regional Court.\n8.  On 13 May 2003 the defendant appealed to the Regional Court by way of supervisory review of the judgments.\n9.  On 30 June 2003 the judge rapporteur refused to initiate the supervisory review proceedings and to remit either of the two cases for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court (“the Presidium”).The defendant complained to the President of the Regional Court about the judgments in the applicants’ favour and the judge rapporteur’s decision of 30 June 2003.\n10.  On 19 September 2003 the President of the Rostov Regional Court and on 24 October 2003 judge B. of the Regional Court allowed the defendant authority’s applications for supervisory review of the judgments in the first and the second applicants’ favour respectively and sent the cases for examination on the merits to the Presidium. These decisions referred to the arguments adduced by the defendant but offered no explanation as to the grounds for overruling the judge rapporteur’s decision of 30 June 2003.\n11.  On the dates listed in the Appendix the Presidium, by way of supervisory review, quashed the first instance and the appeal judgments on the ground that that the lower courts had applied an incorrect multiplier to the applicants’ cases, and remitted the cases for a fresh examination to the first instance court.\n12.  On 25 December 2003 the Bataysk Town Court examined the cases anew. The court, by a single judgment, established that the allowance due to the applicants should have been multiplied by 1.25 in 2002 and by 1.26 for 2003. The court restored in the favour of each applicant 34,500 Russian roubles (RUB) for the period between 1 January 2002 and 1 January 2004 and established that as of 1 January 2004 they were entitled to the monthly compensation in the amount of RUB 3,937.50, to be index-linked in future. The judgment was not appealed against and became final ten days later.\n13.   In 2004 and 2005 the second applicant brought further court proceedings for adjustment of the allowance. On 22 April 2004 and 12 September 2005 the Bataysk Town Court granted his claims and ordered the allowance to be increased by application of the multipliers of 1.16 and 1.08 respectively and to pay him arrears for the periods from 1 to 30 April 2004 and from 1 January to 30 June 2005.\n14.  As follows from the Government’s additional observations, on 31 October 2006 the second applicant applied for annulment of these two judgments and the award of 25 December 2003 due to discovery of new circumstances. On 15 February 2007 the request was granted by an unspecified court. The judgments of 25", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4595", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant association was registered in 1994 by the Sverdlovsk Regional Department of Justice (“the Department”) at the following address: 10, Revolution Place, Verkh-Neyvinskiy, Sverdlovsk Region. However, the applicant association has since moved to 11-1, Turgenev Street, Yekaterinburg. As appears from the materials of the case, in particular, from the letter of 11 May 1999, the Department was aware of the applicant association’s actual address.\n7.  In 1995 a new Law on non-governmental organisations was enacted. The Law required that all NGOs established before 1995 be re-registered before 1 July 1999. The applicant association applied twice to the Department seeking re-registration. However, its applications were refused.\n8.  The applicant association brought an action against the Department seeking re-registration of the association. On 17 June 1999 the Commercial Court of the Sverdlovsk Region allowed the applicant association’s claim and ordered the Department to register the applicant association. The Court also ordered the reimbursement by the Department of the court fees paid by the applicant association. That decision was upheld by the Federal Commercial Court of the Ural Circuit on 18 October 1999.\n9.  On 22 August 2000 the Vice-President of the Supreme Commercial Court brought an extraordinary appeal (надзорная жалоба) against the decisions of 17 June and 18 October 1999. As appears from the letter of the registry of the Supreme Commercial Court of 19 November 2001, on 29 August 2000 a copy of the appeal was sent to the applicant association’s previous address, which appeared in the association’s official registration documents. On 7 September 2000 the letter from the registry reached its destination, but it was returned to the sender marked by the postman as follows: “no [such] public organisation is registered [at this address]”.\n10.  On 26 September 2000 the Presidium of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation quashed the lower courts’ decisions by way of a supervisory review. The reasoning of the Presidium reads as follows:\n“Pursuant to Article 22 of the Code of Commercial Procedure commercial courts could determine economic disputes arising from civil, administrative and other legal relationships.\nUnder Articles 50 and 117 of the Civil Code, as well as Article 5 of the Law On Public Associations a public association is a non-profit organisation.\nDisputes concerning [State] registration or re-registration of non-profit organisations are not economical by their nature and [hence] do not fall within the competence of the commercial courts.”\nAs a result, the proceedings were discontinued. The hearing took place in the absence of the parties.\n11.  On 10 October 2000 a copy of the decision of the Supreme Commercial Court was sent to the applicant association’s previous address. This document was delivered on 17 October 2000; however it was also returned to the registry marked as follows: “[this is] the address of the village council, the receptionist refused to take delivery [of this letter]”.\n12.  According to the applicant association, on several occasions it applied to the Commercial Court of the Sverdlovsk Region with a view to urging the Department of Justice to enforce the judgment of 17 June 1999, as upheld on 18 October 1999, and register the association, but to no avail. In October 2001 a law clerk of the Commercial Court of the Sverdlovsk Region informed the applicant association of the annul", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4596", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Mr Ivan Dvořáček, was born in 1942. The second applicant, Mrs Jozefa Dvořáčková, was born in 1945. They are married and live in Bratislava. They filed the application also on behalf of Ms Ivana Dvořáčková, their daughter.\n6.  Ms Ivana Dvořáčková was born in 1981 with Down Syndrome (trisomy 21) and a damaged heart and lungs. She was in the care of a specialised health institution in Bratislava. In 1986 she was examined in the Centre of Paediatric Cardiology in Prague‑Motole where it was established that, due to post-natal pathological developments, her heart chamber defect could no longer be remedied.\n7.  On 1987 she underwent vascular surgery in Prague. However, the doctors considered that comprehensive heart surgery with a view to eliminating the cardio-vascular defect was no longer feasible. A conservative treatment was recommended and the medical prognosis was that her heart or lungs would fail in the second or third decade of her life.\n8.  Ms Ivana Dvořáčková died of heart failure on 14 March 2004 at the age of 23.\n9.  On 26 October 1987 Ms Ivana Dvořáčková and her parents instituted proceedings in the Bratislava I District Court. They claimed compensation for damage on the ground that Ms Ivana Dvořáčková’s health had been seriously and irreparably damaged as a result of shortcomings in the post-natal treatment she had received in a hospital to which the defendant was the legal successor. In particular, on the basis of the aforementioned examination in the Centre of Paediatric Cardiology in Prague, they alleged that the health institution in Bratislava had failed to diagnose in time the extent of the damage to her health and to ensure appropriate and timely treatment of the defect.\n10.  The District Court held eleven hearings in the case and dismissed the action on 9 August 1990. On 19 June 1991 the Regional Court in Bratislava quashed that judgment. The case file was returned to the District Court on 5 August 1991.\n11.  In 1994 and 1995 the District Court took various procedural steps. It scheduled two hearings in 1997.\n12.  On 2 March 1998 the District Court appointed an expert, who submitted an opinion on 17 November 1999.\n13.  Another hearing in the case was scheduled for 3 October 2000. The plaintiffs requested an adjournment but the District Court dismissed their request on 18 May 2001. On 30 November 2001 the Regional Court quashed that decision. After obtaining further evidence, the District Court stayed the proceedings on 19 March 2002 at the applicants’ request. On 13 June 2003 the plaintiffs requested that the proceedings be resumed.\n14.  On 11 December 2003 the District Court held a hearing at which Ms Ivana Dvořáčková challenged the expert.\n15.  On 20 April 2004, after their daughter had died, the first and second applicants asked the District Court to proceed with their case and determine whether the defendant was liable for damage to their daughter’s health. They indicated that the question arose whether her death had been caused by shortcomings in her medical treatment and that they intended to claim damages in that respect. On 5 May 2004 the first and second applicants specified their claims for damages with the District Court.\n16.  On 7 June 2004 the District Court dismissed the request for the exclusion of the expert. In a separate decision, which was rectified on 30 August 2004, it discontinued the proceedings. On 30 September 2004 the Bratislava Regional Court varied the first-instance c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4597", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Antalya.\n5.  On 24 May 2000 the applicant started his compulsory military service.\n6.  On 10 July 2000 two conscripts, Mr Karaman and Mr Gezici, informed their superiors and other soldiers that the applicant had made several improper comments to them.\n7.  Mr Karaman claimed that the applicant had shown him a map of Turkey indicating how they were going to establish Kurdistan and put up its flag and had also said that the Special Forces and soldiers were killing their people and innocent children. According to Mr Karaman, the applicant also stated that “during target practice they can if they want shoot right on target but that they would not”.\n8.  Mr Gezici alleged that the applicant had kept telling him that they were going to establish Kurdistan and that he had a commando physique and they should take him to the camps.\n9.  On the same day the head of the military unit heard the applicant, Mr Karaman and Mr Gezici, Mr Dere and Mr Sancı.\n10.  The applicant maintained that he had never made such remarks and that it was nothing but lies and smears. He stated that he did not have any quarrel with the people who had accused him.\n11.  Subsequently, on 15 December 2000, the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court charging the applicant with the offence defined in section 8 of the Anti‑Terrorism Act, namely, disseminating separatist propaganda.\n12.  On 18 December 2000 the Izmir State Security Court held a preparatory hearing at which it decided on procedural matters, namely issuing rogatory letters to various authorities in order to secure the applicant’s and the witnesses’ statements. The next hearing was fixed for 6 February 2001.\n13.  On 2 February 2001 the applicant appeared before the Erzurum State Security Court. The indictment was read out to him. The applicant denied the accusations against him and claimed that Mr Karaman, with whom he had had an argument, was lying. He maintained that he had never uttered the words mentioned in the indictment. The record of the hearing noted that the applicant had requested to be exempted from the obligation to appear at the hearing (duruşmadan vareste tutulma). The applicant was not represented by a lawyer.\n14.  On various dates the rogatory courts heard evidence from Mr Sancı, Mr Gezici, Mr Karaman and Mr Dere. In their statements, Mr Sancı and Mr Dere both affirmed, inter alia, that they had not heard the applicant making the impugned remarks but had been informed of them through Mr Gezici and Mr Karaman.\n15.  In his statement Mr Gezici claimed, inter alia, that the applicant had told him “we have camps in the east. Let me take you to them. You have a commando physique”. He stated that the applicant was smiling and it looked like a joke. However, he started to take his words seriously when he heard what the applicant had said to Mr Karaman and decided to complain about him to their hierarchical authorities.\n16.  In his statement Mr Karaman claimed, inter alia, that on various occasions the applicant had told him “Turkish soldiers are traitors, they kill our people. Special Forces have killed our people and blame it on us. Before military service I was receiving instruction at a camp.” He further claimed that the applicant was pointing at the eastern part of Turkey on the map and saying “We are going to divide Turkey and establish Kurdistan”.\n17.  On 6 February, 27 March, 10 May and 26 June 2001 t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4598", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1969 and 1971 and live in Malatya and Sivas respectively.\n6.  On 21 May 1997, at about midnight, the applicants were taken into police custody at the Mersin Security Headquarters for car theft. They were allegedly ill-treated by police officers, who stripped them naked, beat them and subjected them to electric shocks.\n7.  On 23 May 1997, at about 9.35 a.m., the applicants were brought before a forensic doctor (S.T.) who reported that there were no traces of ill‑treatment on their bodies.\n8.  The applicants were released the same day (23 May), following which they lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor against the police officers (S.D. and I.A.) who had interrogated them and against the doctor (S.T.) who had drawn up their medical report.\n9.  The public prosecutor referred the applicants to a forensic doctor who reported the same day (23 May) that the first applicant had red marks of various sizes on both the scapula and the thorax, a 2‑cm‑wide bruise on the lower right lip and an 0.5‑cm‑wide ecchymosis on his right eye. Moreover, it was noted that the second applicant had a red 1 x 1 cm skin wound on his groin. The report stated that the marks and bruises on their bodies did not render the applicants unfit for work.\n10.  By an indictment filed on 27 November 1997, the public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against S.D. and I.A. for having insulted and tortured the applicants, and against S.T. for professional misconduct.\n11.  On 13 December 1999 the Mersin Assize Court delivered its judgment. Referring to the second medical report, which noted the presence of marks on the applicants’ bodies, the court found S.D. and I.A. guilty of ill-treatment during the performance of their duties under Article 245 of the former Criminal Code, and sentenced them to imprisonment, which was converted to a fine. The court added that for treatment to be qualified as torture under domestic law, the victims needed to have been charged with a particular crime, whereas in the present case the applicants had only been suspects and were later released without charge. Therefore the officers’ acts could not be qualified as torture under Article 243 of the Criminal Code, but as ill-treatment under Article 245. The court acquitted S.T., however. It noted that, although S.T. had not examined the applicants, he had simply written down what they had said and had therefore had no criminal intention.\n12.  On 31 January 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on the ground that the provisions applicable to the police officers and the doctor were contained in Articles 243 and 230 of the Criminal Code which concerned the offences of torture and negligence in the performance of public duties respectively. The Court of Cassation added that S.D. had previously been convicted of the same offence; therefore the prison sentence should not have been converted to a fine.\n13.  On 30 January 2002 the Mersin Assize Court persisted in its earlier judgment on the same grounds.\n14.  By a decision of 15 November 2002, the Joint Criminal Chambers of the Plenary Court of Cassation (Criminal Divisions) (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu) quashed the Mersin Assize Court’s judgment and held that the evidence in the case file showed that the applicants had been subjected to torture by S.D. and I.A., who had intentionally inflicted ill-treatment in order to extract confessions; their acts therefore fell under Article 243 of the Criminal Code. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4600", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Vasile Olaru, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1971 and lives in Chişinău. He is a police officer.\n6.  According to the Law on Police Forces, the local public administration is obliged to provide police officers with social housing (see the Domestic Law part below).\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Chişinău Municipal Council and on 16 December 2004 the Centru District Court ordered the defendant to provide the applicant with accommodation. The judgment became final and enforceable; however, it has not been enforced to date.\n8.  The applicants, Artur, Corina and Olivia Lungu are a family of Moldovan nationals who were born in 1972, 1973 and 1994 respectively and live in Straseni.\n9.  Between 1997 and 2003 the first applicant was a judge. By a final judgment of 10 September 2001 of the Edineţ District Court, the Edineţ Municipal Council was ordered to provide the applicants with housing in accordance with the provisions of the Law on the Status of Judges.\n10.  Since the judgment was not enforced, on 11 March 2005, the applicants applied for a change in the manner of enforcement of the judgment.\n11.  On 9 June 2006 the Râşcani District Court ordered the Edineţ Local Council to pay the applicants the value of the apartment, namely 15,000 dollars (USD).\n12.  The judgment of 10 September 2001 has not been enforced to date.\n13.  The applicant, Ms Vera Gusan, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1955 and lives in Chişinău.\n14.  Together with her three children and a nephew, the applicant lived in an apartment measuring sixteen square metres, which was part of a bigger house.\n15.  On an unspecified date, a third party instituted proceedings against the Chişinău Municipal Council for the restitution of the house in which the applicant’s apartment was located, in accordance with Law No. 1225-XII “on the rehabilitation of the victims of the political repression committed by the totalitarian communist occupying regime”.\n16.  On 22 July 1998 the Centru District Court found in favour of the third party and ordered the eviction of the applicant from her apartment. At the same time, in accordance with the provisions of the same law, the court ordered the Municipal Council to provide the applicant with alternative accommodation in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Code. According to the latter provisions, each member of the applicant’s family had the right to accommodation of at least nine square metres.\n17.  The judgment of 22 July 1998 has not been enforced to date.\n18.  The applicant, Mr Simion Racu, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1951 and lives in Chişinău.\n19.  The applicant is an internally displaced person. After the 1992 war he fled Transdniestria and settled in Chişinău.\n20.  On 21 October 1993 the Government of the Republic of Moldova adopted Decision no. 658 “on housing for persons forced to quit their houses in the eastern region of Moldova”.\n21.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings against the Government and the Chişinău local authorities seeking housing.\n22.  By a final judgment of 7 June 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice ordered the Government and the Chişinău Municipal Council to provide the applicant with an apartment.\n23.  It appears that enforcement proceedings were conducted against the Chişinău Municipal Council only; however, the judgment has not been enforced to date.\n24.  The relevant provisions of Law no. 435", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4601", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Nicosia.\n9.  The applicant claimed that she was the owner of 109 plots of land in the District of Kyrenia. However, she submitted claims for just satisfaction only in relation to 63 plots of land. She alleged that as a result of the 1974 Turkish military intervention, she had been refused access to her properties, which were located in the area under the occupation and overall control of the Turkish military authorities. In May 1996 the applicant transferred part of her properties to her children. On 11 February 2008 she informed the Court that on 30 June 2003 she had transferred to her daughter the ownership of ten plots of land.\n10.  On 24 November 2008 the applicant filed an application (no. 72/2008) with the Immovable Property Determination, Evaluation and Compensation Commission instituted by Law no. 67/2005 (the “Commission”), a body with jurisdiction to award compensation for Greek-Cypriot immovable properties in the “TRNC”. She requested financial compensation (10 million euros (EUR)) for the loss of use of the 63 plots of land for which she had claimed just satisfaction before the Court. She specified that a total of 53 plots had been transferred to her children in 1996 and 2003 (see paragraph 8 above and paragraphs 10 and 46 of the Court's judgment of 20 January 2009). She moreover underlined that another plot (identified by serial number 63 in the list of her properties) had been included in her application due to an oversight. This plot, located in Lapithos, had been registered in the name of her son, Mr Yiannos Alexandrou, since 1973.\n11.  On 15 April 2009 two of the applicant's children (Alecos Alexandrou and Yiannos Alexandrou) filed another application (no. 16/2009) with the Commission in order to obtain compensation with respect to 11 plots of land which had previously been owned by their mother and her late sister (Mrs Efthymia Tymviou).\n12.  In a decision of 17 April 2009, the Commission first noted that only the following 9 plots were currently registered in the applicant's name:\n(a) Vasilia, registration no. 5946, sheet/plan XI/5.W.2, plot no. 32/41, use: building site; share: whole; area: 557 m²;\n(b) Vasilia, registration no. 5960, sheet/plan XI/13.W.1, plot no. 392, 5/1, use: building site; share: whole; area: 641 m²;\n(c) Vasilia, registration no. 5964, sheet/plan XI/13.W.1, plot no. 400, use: building site; share: whole; area: 641 m²;\n(d) Vasilia, registration no. 5962, sheet/plan XI/13.W.1, plot no. 5/6, use: building site; share: whole; area: 762 m²;\n(e) Vasilia, registration no. 5967, sheet/plan XI/13.W.1, plot no. 5/7, use: building site; share: whole; area: 780 m²;\n(f) Vasilia, registration no. 447, sheet/plan XI/5E1&E2, plot no. 140/2, use: field; share: ½; area: 22,408 m²;\n(g) Vasilia, registration no. 78, sheet/plan XI/5, plot no. 27/2, use: field; share: ½; area: 40,691 m²;\n(h) Vasilia, registration no. 5970, sheet/plan XI/13.W.1, plot no. 397, use: building site; share: whole; area: 604 m²;\n(i) Vasilia, registration no. 5371, sheet/plan XI/5, plot no. 28/1, use: field; share: ½; area: 5,212 m².\nHowever, on 28 January 2009 the applicant had revoked her claims concerning the properties described under (a) and (b) above.\n13.  In the light of the above and having taken into account the relevant documents submitted to it, the Commission ordered the restitution of one of the properties claimed by the applicant's children; it further invited the Ministry Responsi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4602", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in born in 1973 and 1976 respectively and live in Wągrowiec.\n7.  The parties do not fully agree about the facts of the case, which may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The second applicant lived with a group of friends, including the first applicant, mostly students, in an old and decrepit house they had rented in Wrocław. They occasionally invited their friends to spend a night or a couple of days in their house.\n9.  On the night of 14 June 1997 there was a group of students sleeping in the house. At 3 a.m. they were awakened by two police officers patrolling the area. The police enquired whether the inhabitants knew the owner of an unlocked car parked in front of the house.\n10.  The applicants and one of their friends, D. S., started a polite discussion with the police officers about the car. It was confirmed that one of the residents of their apartment was the owner of the car. However, the police announced their intention of towing the car away to the police car park. The applicants argued that it was not forbidden or illegal to keep the car unlocked. At the police’s request, they produced their identity cards and the registration card of the car, whose owner was asleep in the house.\n11.  The police were not satisfied with their explanation and the dispute became more intense. In reaction to the opinions expressed about the intervention, in particular by D. S., the policemen used truncheons. They hit D. S. several times and handcuffed him. The applicants tried to argue with the policemen, to no avail. The police called other police officers and shortly afterwards approximately ten other policemen arrived. They hit the first applicant with their truncheons several times and the second applicant once. Thereupon D. S. was taken to the police car where he was beaten. The applicants were ordered to stand against a fence. They were pushed and jostled and the policemen insulted them referring to them as “scum”, “slobs”, “queers” (hołota, brudasy, pedały).\n12.  Subsequently, a group of policemen, armed with truncheons and guarded by police dogs, entered the house, woke up the other occupants and ordered them to stand against the wall. Then the police searched the house. No information was provided about the grounds, purpose or legal basis for the search. During this time the police showered abuse on the students. They pushed and shoved them. This lasted for about half an hour. Afterwards, the police left the house and warned the students that some of them were in an illegal situation as they were not registered as inhabitants of the house, and threatened that they would be in trouble if they submitted a complaint about the events.\n13.  The police left, taking D. S. with them.\n14.  On 16 June 1997 the applicants requested to be examined by a forensic medicine specialist. It was established that the first applicant had two long bruises on his left arm, and other bruises on the palm of his hand. The second applicant had a blue mark on her bottom (13 by 9 cm). It was stated that these bruises could have been caused by the use of police truncheons.\n15.  The second applicant and her friend D. S. lived in the house with the owner’s permission. They often received young visitors from all over the country. On the night in question the unlocked car parked in front of the house had seemed very suspicious to the policemen A. C. and R. S., who thought it was stolen and considered that it should be towed away. They had knocked a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4603", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in the town of Kerch, Ukraine.\n5.  In February 1999 the Kerch Tax Inspectorate instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, who ran a small business, on a charge of tax evasion and attached his property. Later, the criminal proceedings against him were terminated on the ground that his actions did not constitute a criminal offence under the new criminal law.\n6.  On 17 November 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Kerch Tax Inspectorate claiming compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to him.\n7.  On 10 August 2001 the Kerch City Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part.\n8.  In September 2001 the defendant in the case lodged an appeal against that judgment.\n9.  On 11 August 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 10 August 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n10.  On 12 December 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.\n11.  By a judgment of 16 June 2004 the Kerch City Court dismissed the applicant’s claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. By a ruling adopted the same date the court terminated proceedings in respect of pecuniary damage.\n12.  On 27 September 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and ruling and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh consideration.\n13.  On 6 October 2004 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the ruling of 27 September 2004.  On 30 August 2007 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, dismissed it.\n14.  In accordance with the ruling of 27 September 2004 the case was remitted to the first-instance court and the proceedings are still pending before it.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4604", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the city of Odessa, Ukraine.\n5.  In February 1996 Mr I. M., the father of the applicant’s grandson, exchanged his share in the apartment in which he cohabited with his parents, for the apartment of Mrs  I.S, his grandmother, who moved in with his parents. This transaction was recorded in a residential premises exchange bureau (бюро обміну житловими приміщеннями), but was not certified by a notary.\n6.  In May 1996 Mr I. M. gave the applicant a power of attorney authorising her to manage all his property.\n7.  In June 1996 the applicant, acting on the basis of this power of attorney, sold the apartment Mr I.M. had acquired from Mrs I.S to Mr Y. S., the applicant’s former husband, who in October 1996 sold it on to Mr V. K.\n8.  On 23 June 1997 Mr I. M. instituted civil proceedings in the Malynivsky District Court of Odessa (“the Malynivsky Court”) against the applicant, Mr Y. S. and Mr V. K., seeking to annul the sales of his apartment, which he alleged had been effected in breach of confidence.\n9.  On 9 October 1997 Mrs I.S. lodged a claim against Mr I. M., his parents, the applicant, Mr Y. S. and Mr V. K., seeking to annul the initial apartment exchange and subsequent sales. These proceedings were joined to the proceedings that had been brought by Mr I.M.\n10.  On 17 May 1999 the Malynivsky Court dismissed Mr I. M.’s claim for breach of confidence and upheld Mrs  I.S.’s claim for the annulment of the exchange, considering that the exchange had not been certified by a notary in breach of applicable law. However, having found that Mr V. K. had purchased the apartment in good faith, the court declared him the lawful owner of the apartment and ordered the applicant and Mr Y. S. jointly to pay Mrs I.S. compensation of 41,181 Ukrainian hryvnyas[1] for the loss of the apartment. The applicant and Mr Y. S. appealed in cassation.\n11.  On 31 December 1999 Mrs I.S. died.\n12.  On 11 April 2000 the Odessa Regional Court[2] authorised Mrs L. M. to join the proceedings as Mrs I.S.’s successor.\n13.  On 25 April 2000 it quashed the judgment of 17 May 1999 as regards the amount of compensation awarded against the applicant and Mr Y. S. after finding that the first-instance court had insufficiently explored the relevant evidence, and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n14.  On 21 August 2001 the Malynivsky Court ordered the applicant and Mr Y. S. to pay Mrs L. M. UAH 56,112[3] in compensation for the loss of the apartment. The applicant and Mr Y. S. appealed.\n15.  On 17 October 2002 the Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. The applicant and Mr Y. S. appealed in cassation.\n16.  On 29 May 2003 the Supreme Court rejected their request for leave to appeal in cassation.\n17.  On several occasions the applicant and her husband unsuccessfully challenged the decision to allow Mrs L. M. to join the proceedings.\n18.  On 18 December 2006 the Malynivsky Court ordered the applicant and Mr Y.S to pay Mrs L. M. UAH 80,653.33[4] in compensation for the loss of the apartment.\n19.  On 27 March 2007 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. The applicant and Mr Y. S. appealed in cassation.\n20.  On 31 May 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the lower courts.\n21.  On 7 October 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Central District Court of Odessa, alleging that Mr I. M. had failed to repay her 7,000 United States dollars (USD) he had r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4605", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943. He is currently serving a sentence in Kostroma OT-15/1 correctional colony.\n6.  On 9 May 2001 policeman S. stopped the applicant for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol. Mr S. then drew up an administrative offence report, noting that the applicant had committed an offence under Article 117 of the RSFSR Code of Administrative Offences (alcohol-impaired driving).\n7.  On 10 May 2001, early in the morning, police officers came to the applicant's home and brought him to Manturovo police station. At the police station several police officers demanded that the applicant confess to killing policeman S. According to the applicant, when he refused to do so he was severely beaten several times. As a result of the beating the applicant wrote a confession statement. After that the applicant was questioned by a prosecutor in the presence of a lawyer P. appointed by the investigator. On 11 May 2001 the applicant repeated his confession statements during the reconstruction of events.\n8.  On 24 August 2001 the criminal case against the applicant was referred to the Kostroma Regional Court.\n9.  During the trial the applicant withdrew his self-incriminating statements made during the initial inquiry and pleaded not guilty. He stated that he had been forced to incriminate himself, and provided the court with his medical record. In the course of the proceedings the court requested the Regional Prosecutor to examine the applicant's complaints (see paragraph 22 below) and twice ordered forensic medical examinations of the applicant's injuries (see paragraphs 26 and 28 below). According to the last forensic medical report of 22 October 2002 (see paragraph 29 below), the applicant had a chest trauma with a fracture of the seventh, eighth and tenth ribs which could have occurred on 10 May 2001, the day of the applicant's arrest. These injuries were caused by the impact of a blunt hard object with a narrow surface, possibly by blows with fists or kicks with a booted foot.\n10.  On 27 December 2002 the court convicted the applicant of the murder of a law enforcement official and illegal manufacture and possession of weapons, and sentenced him to eighteen years' imprisonment. It was found that the applicant had requested Mr S. not to charge him with an administrative offence, and when the latter had refused to do so the applicant had killed him. The applicant's conviction for murder was based on his self-incriminating statements obtained on 10 May 2001, similar statements made by him during the reconstruction of events on 11 May 2001 and during further interrogations on 30 May and 6 August 2001, statements of witnesses to whom the victim had complained the previous day that the applicant had threatened him, and the presence of the applicant's pistol not far from the crime scene. While the court agreed that the applicant could have received a chest trauma with fractured ribs on 10 May 2001, with respect to the applicant's confession it found as follows:\n“...at the same time the court considers that the bodily injuries of the defendant are not linked to his confession statements during the preliminary investigation, since Gladyshev gave these statements under circumstances which excluded any physical or mental pressure on the part of police officers of the Manturovo police station”.\nThe court considered the applicant's confession statements a mitigating circumstance.\n11.  The applicant and his lawyer challenged the jud", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4606", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Maykop, Republic of Adygeya.\n5.  The applicant worked in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Adygeya (“the Supreme Court of the RA”) as a consultant. While she was on maternity leave her position was converted to that of assistant to the President of the Supreme Court of the RA. On her return the applicant was offered various posts, but not the newly created position of assistant to the President. She refused those offers and was dismissed.\n6.  On 17 July 2001 the applicant lodged a court action against the Supreme Court of the RA with the Maykop Town Court of the Republic of Adygeya (“the Town Court”). She requested the Town Court to reinstate her to her previous position, recover unpaid salary and award compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In the course of the proceedings the applicant amended her claims.\n7.  On 2 August 2001 the court fixed the first hearing for 6 August 2001. However, on that date the proceedings were postponed until 20 August 2001 because the applicant and her child were sick.\n8.  On 20 August 2001 the applicant requested the Town Court to postpone the examination of the case until her request to have the case referred to a different court had been examined by a higher court. She also objected to one of the judges sitting in the case.\n9.  On 20 August 2001 the Town Court dismissed her request and the objection to the judge and rejected her claims as unsubstantiated.\n10.  On 18 September 2001 the Supreme Court of the RA upheld that judgment.\n11.  On 25 November 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”), following a request for supervisory review by the Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia, found that the lower courts had erroneously interpreted the substantive law. On those grounds it quashed the judgment of 20 August 2001, as upheld on 18 September 2001, and remitted the case to the Town Court for a fresh examination.\n12.  On 11 February 2003 the Town Court fixed the hearing for 17 February 2003. However, on that date the proceedings were postponed, at the applicant’s request, until the Supreme Court had examined her request to have the case referred to a different court.\n13.  On 4 March 2003 the Supreme Court replied to the applicant that there were no grounds to refer her case to a different court.\n14.  On 16 April 2003 the Town Court, after a fresh examination, found that the applicant’s dismissal had been unlawful, ordered the Supreme Court of the RA to reinstate the applicant to her position, pay her salary arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The Supreme Court of the RA appealed against the judgment of 16 April 2003.\n15.  On 5 May 2003 the applicant requested the Supreme Court to refer her case to a different appeal court on the ground that the judges of the Supreme Court of the RA should not examine an appeal lodged by the Supreme Court of the RA. That would amount to a violation of her right to an independent and impartial tribunal. On the same date the applicant lodged an objection to all the judges of the Supreme Court of the RA and requested that the appeal not be examined until the Supreme Court had replied.\n16.  However, on 23 May 2003 the Supreme Court of the RA heard the case on appeal and found, in particular, that the Town Court had not properly established the facts of the case. It quashed the judgment of 16 April 2003 and remitted the case to the Town Court for a fresh examination.\n17.  On 25 June 2003 th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4607", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Smolensk region.\n7.  On 22 December 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. Subsequently he was committed to stand trial by the Glinkovskiy District Court of the Smolensk Region. The trial was fixed for 22 July 2003.\n8.  In the morning of 22 July 2003 the applicant had a talk with legal-aid counsel appointed to represent him. He was dissatisfied with the result of that discussion and so refused counsel's services in writing.\n9.  The first witness on the stand was the applicant's sister. The applicant had an altercation with her and the judge ordered that he be escorted out of the room.\n10.  The applicant was brought back into the courtroom to make his final submissions. After that the judge declared the trial at an end and announced that the verdict would be handed down on 24 July 2003.\n11.  On 24 July 2003 the judge delivered the judgment, finding the applicant guilty of murder and sentencing him to fifteen years' imprisonment in a high-security colony.\n12.  On 28 July 2003 the applicant filed grounds of appeal. He submitted, in particular, that the entire trial had been conducted in his absence, that he had not been represented and, as a consequence, had not been able to defend himself. He asked that his case be re-heard and that a different legal-aid lawyer be appointed to represent him before the appeal court.\n13.  On 11 November 2003 the Smolensk Regional Court held the appeal hearing. The applicant was present but not represented, as he had requested. The Regional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the conviction had been lawful and justified. In the Regional Court's view, there had been no violation of the applicant's right to defend himself because he had voluntarily refused the services of legal-aid counsel before the trial.\n14.  On 15 June 2004 the Fokinskiy District Court of Bryansk reviewed the applicant's conviction in the light of recent amendments to the Russian Criminal Code and held that the applicant should serve a prison sentence in a colony with less strict conditions of detention.\n15.  On 27 December 2006 the Presidium of the Smolensk Regional Court quashed by way of supervisory review the appeal judgment of 11 November 2003. The Presidium found that the applicant's right to legal representation had been infringed in the appeal proceedings and remitted the case for fresh examination by the appeal court.\n16.  On 23 January 2007 the judicial authorities asked the President of the Smolensk Regional Bar Association to appoint counsel to represent the applicant in the proceedings before the appeal court.\n17.  On 29 January 2007 the applicant's case was assigned to Ms D. as counsel. The applicant was informed accordingly.\n18.  On 31 January 2007 the Smolensk Regional Court scheduled the appeal hearing for 13 February 2007. On the same day Ms D. studied the applicant's case file.\n19.  On 6 February 2007 the applicant informed the Regional Court of his decision not to participate in the appeal hearing. In his motion he further questioned the effectiveness of his legal representation referring to the state-appointed lawyer's failure to meet him to prepare his defence.\n20.  On 13 February 2007 the Smolensk Regional Court examined the case and upheld the applicant's conviction. Ms D. was present. She did not file any grounds of appeal and appeared to make oral submissions to the court on the basis of the grounds of appeal", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4608", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in St Petersburg.\n6.  The applicant suffers from chronic hypertension and ischaemic heart disease and had ischaemic strokes on 29 December 2006 and 6 March 2007.\n7.  On 22 November 2005 six persons, including the applicant, were charged with unlawful business activities and money laundering, offences under Articles 172 § 2 and 174.1 § 4 of the Criminal Code. The applicant was accused of unlawful business practices carried out through several companies over a long period of time.\n8.  The applicant retained two lawyers who represented him during the investigation and trial.\n9.  On 27 September 2007 the investigation was completed and the case was referred for trial before the Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg.\n10.  On 9 October 2007 the Moskovskiy District Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 19 October 2007. It ordered that the applicant be brought to the courtroom for the preliminary hearing and that he be accompanied by a doctor.\n11.  On 19 October 2007 the Moskovskiy District Court held a preliminary hearing and fixed the opening date of the trial for 20 November 2007. The court reiterated that the applicant should be accompanied by a doctor when brought to the courtroom for a hearing.\n12.  The hearings of 20 November and 20 December 2007 were adjourned because the applicant was in hospital.\n13.  The hearings of 14, 21 and 28 January 2008 were adjourned because the applicant was not brought to the courtroom. The applicant had difficulty walking and the police escort refused to carry him on a stretcher, claiming that it did not form part of their duties. The stretcher did not fit standard prison vans, making it impossible to transport the applicant. Moreover, the remand centre authorities refused to assign a doctor to accompany the applicant to the courtroom.\n14.  The court decided that further hearings should be held in the remand centre.\n15.  Hearings were held on 11 and 18 February, 3, 17, 24 and 31 March, 14, 21 and 28 April, 12, 19 and 26 May and 2, 9, 23 and 30 June 2008.\n16.  No hearings were held in July or August 2008 as the defendants’ lawyers were on leave.\n17.  The trial resumed on 29 August 2008, with further hearings held on 18 and 19 September 2008.\n18.  On 19 September 2008 the Moskovskiy District Court convicted the applicant of unlawful business activities, an offence under Article 172 § 2 of the Criminal Code, and acquitted him of money laundering, an offence under Article 174.1 § 4 of the Criminal Code. It sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment.\n19.  On 26 January 2009 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 2.  Decisions concerning the application of a custodial measure\n 20.  On 22 November 2005 the applicant gave an undertaking not to leave the city or reoffend.\n21.  On 13 February 2006 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg ordered his placement in custody. The court found on the basis of evidence submitted by the investigator that the applicant had continued his unlawful business activities despite his undertaking not to reoffend and had put pressure on his employees urging them to repudiate their testimony against him. It considered the applicant’s arguments that he had a permanent place of residence and employment, that he was the only breadwinner for his family consisting of his elderly mother, unemployed spouse and two minor children, and that he suffered from ischaemic heart disease. It found, however, that there was no m", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4609", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Volgograd.\n6.  On 31 January 2003 the applicant was arrested and charged with two counts of theft and the use of stolen and forged identity documents.\n7.  On 6 April 2004 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment starting from 31 January 2003.\n8.  On 27 July 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n9.  The applicant completed his sentence on 31 July 2006.\n10.  On 16 September 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd remanded the applicant in custody on the charge of aggravated murder. It referred to the gravity of the charge and the risk of absconding or interfering with the investigation.\n11.  On an unspecified date additional charges of membership of an organised criminal group, robbery, extortion and kidnapping were brought against the applicant.\n12.  On 13 November 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 January 2004, referring to the gravity of the charges and the need for a further investigation.\n13.  On 24 December 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 April 2004. It found that the applicant might abscond or reoffend, as he had been charged with serious criminal offences and was unemployed.\n14.  In April 2004 the investigation was completed and six defendants, including the applicant, were committed for trial before the Volgograd Regional Court.\n15.  The defendants asked for trial by jury.\n16.  On 20 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 27 April 2004 to examine the request. It further held that the defendants should meanwhile remain in custody.\n17.  On 27 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court ordered that the defendants be tried by jury and that they remain in custody pending trial.\n18.  On 13 October 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges.\n19.  On 12 January 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 April 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk that they might put pressure on witnesses and jurors.\n20.  On 7 April 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 July 2005. The Regional Court found that, in view of the gravity of the charges, it was “opportune” to keep the defendants in custody. It rejected their requests to release them under an undertaking not to leave the town, since it could not exclude the risk that they would put pressure on witnesses or jurors.\n21.  On 29 June 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 October 2005. It found that the defendants might interfere with the proceedings, as they were charged with serious criminal offences, including the charge of being members of an armed criminal gang.\n22.  On 4 October 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2006 for the same reasons as before.\n23.  The applicant appealed. He submitted that it was not necessary to extend his detention as he was currently serving his sentence under the judgment of 6 April 2004 and for that reason could not tamper with witnesses or threaten jurors. On 8 December 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the extension order on appeal.\n24.  On 22 December 2005 the Volgogr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4610", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in the Moscow region.\n6.  The applicant was a member of a public association, the National Bolshevik Party. On 15 November 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ordered its dissolution. On 19 January 2006 the Federal Registration Service of the Ministry of Justice refused an application for registration of a political party under the same name. Party members challenged the refusal before the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow.\n7.  On 13 April 2006 fifteen party members, including the applicant, attended the Taganskiy District Court for a hearing concerning the refusal to register the National Bolshevik Party. The applicant alleged that near the court building they had been attacked by a group of forty people and had had to defend themselves. According to the Government, the party members, including the applicant, had assaulted passers-by with gas guns and rubber truncheons.\n8.  On 15 May 2006 the applicant attended an assembly of members of the National Bolshevik Party. The police broke down the door and arrested him.\n9.  On 16 May 2006 the applicant was charged with participation in mass disorder, involving the use of gas guns and assault and battery, an offence under Article 213 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n10.  The investigator applied to the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow for a custody order. He submitted that the applicant had been charged with a serious criminal offence, had no permanent place of residence in Moscow and had been previously fined in administrative proceedings for commission of disorderly acts. Therefore, there were reasons to believe that he might abscond or reoffend.\n11.  On 17 May 2006 the Tverskoy District Court ordered the applicant’s placement in custody, referring to the gravity of the charge and the risk of his absconding or reoffending.\n12.  The applicant appealed. He complained that the District Court had disregarded pertinent facts such as his lack of a criminal record, his permanent residence and positive references and his frail health. The conclusion that he might flee or reoffend was hypothetical and was not supported by relevant facts.\n13.  On 7 June 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified. Before ordering the applicant’s placement in custody the District Court had reviewed the materials submitted by the prosecution and had taken into account the applicant’s character and personal situation.\n14.  On 30 October 2006 a member of Parliament offered his personal guarantee that the applicant would not abscond.\n15.  On 14 September 2006 the Tverskoy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 15 November 2006, finding that there was no reason to vary the preventive measure. On 18 December 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified.\n16.  On 13 November 2006 the Tverskoy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 16 January 2007 for the same reasons as before. On 10 January 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal.\n17.  On an unspecified date in December 2006 an additional charge of infliction of injuries, an offence under Article 112 § 2 of the Criminal Code, was brought against the applicant.\n18.  On 16 January 2007 the Tverskoy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 16 March 2007, referring to the gravity of the charges, the risk that he migh", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4611", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the town of Kamyanets-Podilskyy. The second applicant was born in 1925 and lives in the village of Slobidka Gumenetska, the Khmelnytskyy Region.\n5.  In February 1993 the first applicant signed a deed of gift (“the first deed”) for the house belonging to Mr I. Sh., her husband, an advocate by profession, in favour of the second applicant. This deed was certified by the village council, but it was never registered on the local real-estate register.\n6.  In August 1993 the first applicant and Mr I. Sh. divorced.\n7.  In November 1993 Mr I. Sh. gave the first applicant power of attorney to manage his property in connection with his decision to leave the country. In August 1994 the first applicant, acting on the basis of this power of attorney, signed at a notary office a deed of gift for the house (“the second deed”) in favour of the second applicant, making no reference to the previous deed.\n8.  Having returned from abroad, Mr I. Sh. challenged the validity of the first deed before the Kamyanets-Podilskyy District Court. On 20 December 1994 the court annulled the first deed, having found that at the material time the first applicant had had no right to dispose of Mr I. Sh.’s house. This judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n9.  On 3 November 1995 Mr I. Sh. challenged the second deed of gift.\n10.  On 18 June 1996 the Kamyanets-Podilskyy Court annulled the second deed, having found that when it had been signed the disputed house had already belonged to the second applicant under the first deed, then in force. The first applicant appealed.\n11.  On 18 July 1996 the Khmelnytskyy Regional Court (“the Regional Court”)[1] quashed this judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The court noted, in particular, that the first-instance court had incorrectly interpreted the law, since the first deed should have been considered null and void from the date of its signature.\n12.  On 2 December 1996 the proceedings were transferred to the Dunayevetskyy Court.\n13.  On 15 December 1998 the Dunayevetskyy Court dismissed Mr I. Sh.’s claims, having found that the first deed had been null and void from the date of signature and the second deed had been concluded on the basis of a valid power of attorney given by Mr I.Sh. to the first applicant.\n14.  On 4 February 1999 the Regional Court quashed this judgment on Mr I. Sh.’s appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It found, in particular, that the first-instance court had given insufficient weight to the fact that the first deed had not been formally annulled at the time when the second deed had been concluded.\n15.  On 26 April 1999 the Dunayevetskyy Court allowed Mr I. Sh.’s claims, referring essentially to the same grounds as the Kamyanets-Podilskyy Court in its judgment of 18 June 1996. The applicants appealed.\n16.  On 27 May 1999 the Regional Court upheld the judgment and it became final.\n17.  On 9 June 2000 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgments of 26 April and 27 May 1999, following an objection (протест) introduced by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. The Presidium instructed the courts to pay due regard to the fact that the first deed should have been considered null and void as of the date of its signature. The proceedings were transferred to the Kamyanets-Podilskyy Town Court.\n18.  There were no hearings scheduled between 10 June and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4612", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lived until his arrest in the town of Kyzyl in the Tyva Republic of the Russian Federation.\n7.  On 21 January 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of several counts of aggravated robbery. On the following day he was arrested. Three days later, however, his release was authorised on condition that he did not leave his town of residence.\n8.  On 3 March 2000 the head of the investigative unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Tyva Republic authorised the applicant’s arrest in a decision which, in so far as relevant, read:\n“On the night of 20-21 January 2000, at approximately midnight, [the applicant], who is unemployed, acting with mercenary intent for the purpose of stealing another’s property, in collusion with Mr O. and unidentified persons, arrived by car... at the village of Khalbus-Dash... [and], having unlawfully entered a house and used weapons, attacked Mr Kh. and Mr D. After beating the victims Mr Kh. and Mr D. and having tied their hands, [the applicant], Mr O. and unidentified individuals, issuing threats of murder, killed 14 [cows], placed their bodies in the cars and stole property, thus causing the victims Mr O., Mr Or. and Mr D. pecuniary damage in the amount of 78,430 roubles, and fled the crime scene.\nHaving regard to the threat which the committed criminal offence poses to society and taking into account that [the applicant], if at liberty, may obstruct the establishment of the truth in the criminal case and may also abscond from the investigation and the court...\n[I] ORDER: 1. That a measure of restraint in the form of arrest should be applied to [the applicant], who is to be informed of this, against his signature on a copy of the present decision...”\nThe decision bore the applicant’s signature under the last printed paragraph, confirming that the decision had been served on him on 17 May 2000.\n9.  On 4 March 2000 the head of the investigative unit placed the applicant on the wanted persons list. The relevant part of the decision read:\n“On 3 March 2000 a decision charging [the applicant] with having committed a crime proscribed by Article 162 § 3 (b) of the Russian Criminal Code and a warrant for his arrest were issued, given the particular gravity and dangerous nature of the crime committed by him. On the same day [police officers] were authorised to bring [the applicant] to the pre-trial investigating authorities for the reading out of the charges and his questioning as an accused. However, the accused, [the applicant], was not found at his place of residence... [It] was established that he left for the Barun-Khemchinskiy District in the Tyva Republic. His exact location was not discovered.”\n10.  On 6 March 2000 the applicant was arrested. On the following day the Kyzyl District Prosecutor authorised his detention on remand.\n11.  On 9 June 2000 the acting Prosecutor of the Tyva Republic, by the same decision, extended the applicant’s and his co-defendant’s detention until 21 July 2000, relying on the particular gravity of the charges against them and the likelihood that they would pervert the course of justice and abscond if released.\n12.  The applicant’s and his co-defendants’ detention was further extended on 13 July, 10 and 23 October 2000 until 21 October and 6 November 2000 and 21 January 2001 respectively, with reference to the same grounds as in the decision of 9 June 2000.\n13.  On 20 January 2001 the applicant was committe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4613", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lived until his arrest in the town of Prokopyevsk in the Kemerovo Region. He is now serving his sentence in a correctional colony in Kemerovo.\n7.  On 12 March 2003, at approximately 10 a.m., police officers of the Rudnichniy District Police Department in Prokopyevsk stopped the applicant and his friend, Ms S., in a street and took them to the Rudnichniy District police station.\n8.  The applicant provided the following description of the subsequent events. He was placed in office no. 17 where five police officers, D., A., I., K. and Ko. severely beat him up. Ms S. was left in a hall, near office no. 17, and heard him screaming. She saw the applicant, covered with injuries and barely walking, two hours later. On 13 March 2003, unable to bear the beatings, the applicant wrote a statement, prompted by the police officers, in which he confessed to having committed a robbery. He was released on the following day under his own recognisance not to leave the town.\n9.  On 15 March 2003 the applicant attended the Central Trauma Unit where he was examined. The examining doctor recorded the following injuries on the applicant’s body: injuries to the kidneys, injuries and bruises on the upper extremities, buttocks and left shank and an injury to the soft tissue of the head. Treatment was recommended.\n10.  On 20 March 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prokopyevsk Town Prosecutor, seeking institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers who had ill-treated him on 12 and 13 March 2003.\n11.  Five days later the Prokopyevsk Town prosecutor’s office remitted the applicant’s complaint to the Prokopyevsk Town Police Department with a request to conduct an official inquiry into the events of 12 and 13 March 2003.\n12.  On 7 April 2003 the head of the Prokopyevsk Town Police Department issued a decision, approving the findings of the official police inquiry into the applicant’s complaints. The decision read as follows:\n“On 25 March 2003 the police department received [the applicant’s] complaint from the town prosecutor’s office; [in that complaint the applicant] indicates that the police officers of the district police station applied psychological and physical pressure to him and his acquaintance, Ms S., in order to extract a confession statement.\nAccording to [the applicant], on 12 March 2003, at approximately 10.00 a.m., he and Ms S. were arrested by a police officer, D., and taken to the Rudnichniy District Police Department, where in office no. 17, [officer] D., having handcuffed [the applicant] to the chair back, beat him with a shovel handle.\n[The applicant] indicated that on a number of occasions, in the police station between 12 and 14 March 2003, the police officers D., A., I., K. and Ko. had taken him from a detention unit to the service garage, where [they] had beaten him up, had buried him naked in the snow, had threatened him and his girlfriend with violence, [and] had applied psychological pressure.\nMs S. explained that after [she had been] taken to the police station, she had been near office no. 17 for approximately two hours and had heard [the applicant] screaming. After [the officer] D. had questioned her, she was placed in a detention unit where she remained until 9.00 a.m. on 13 March 2003. Ms S. also asserts that psychological pressure was applied to her.\nThe police officer, D., stated that on the basis of information received pertaining to an armed robbery, on 12 March 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4614", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the Rivne Region.\n5.  On 13 March 1996 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Sarny Court against a private company, Vysotskyy, for non-fulfilment of its contractual obligations, under which it should have provided the applicant with agricultural products.\n6.  On 1 July 1997 the Sarny Court left the applicant’s complaint without consideration, holding that it fell within the jurisdiction of the commercial courts.\n7.  On 28 July 1997 the Rivne Regional Court quashed that ruling and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n8.  On 22 December 1997 the Sarny Court rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated.\n9.  On 26 January 1998 the Rivne Court quashed that decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n10.  On 19 May 1998 the Sarny Court found in part for the applicant.\n11.  On 13 July 1998 the Rivne Court upheld that decision.\n12.  On 23 December 1998 the Presidium of the Rivne Court, following an objection (протест) lodged by its President, quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case to the Sarny Court for a fresh consideration.\n13.  On an unspecified date the Vysotskyy company lodged a counterclaim with that court seeking the annulment of the contract.\nAfter December 1998 the case was reconsidered by the courts at three levels of jurisdiction on four occasions because the courts of first instance and appeal had committed factual and legal errors in their decisions.\n14.  On 3 March 2003 the Dubrovytsya Town Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part and ordered the successor of the Vysotskyy company, Zlagoda, to transfer thirty-three tons of potatoes, worth 15,196 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH)[1], and eight tons of wheat, worth UAH 2,598[2], to the applicant. It also ordered the applicant to return 3,855 kg of meat, worth UAH 11,133[3], to Zlagoda.\n15.  On 27 June 2003 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 4 February 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.\n16.  In the course of the proceedings twenty-seven hearings were adjourned, two of which were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to attend and the remaining twenty-five due to the need to call witnesses or due to their or their respondent’s failure to attend.\n17.  On an unspecified date the Bailiffs started enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 3 March 2003.\n18.  On 11 January 2007 the Rivne Court modified the procedure of enforcement, ordering the Zlagoda company to pay the applicant UAH 17,794[4] for the products due to him under the judgment of 3 March 2003.\n19.  On 7 February 2007 the Dubrovytsya Court, following a request by the Zlagoda company to modify the procedure of enforcement of the judgment of 3 March 2003, ordered cross-cancellation of the debts under that judgment in the amount of UAH 11,133[5] and ruled that Zlagoda was to pay the applicant UAH 6,661[6]. The ruling of 7 February 2007 was not appealed against and became final.\n20.  On 21 February 2007 the judgment of 3 March 2003 was enforced in full.\n21.  In March 2007 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Zlagoda company, seeking compensation for the difference between the award paid and the in market prices of the products due to him under the judgment of 3 March 2003.\n22.  On 5 June 2007 the Dubrovytsya Court rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated.\n23.  On 18 July 2007 the Rivne Court quashed that decision and discontinued the proce", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4615", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970. He is currently serving his sentence in penitentiary institution УЩ‑349/2 in Yekaterinburg.\n7.  On 28 April 2001 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of inflicting grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim. On 27 June 2002 the Podolskiy Town Court convicted the applicant of inflicting grievous bodily harm resulting in death and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. On 14 October 2002 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant was held in a pre-trial detention facility till 3 December 2002.\n8.  Between 3 December 2002 and 9 June 2005, excluding three periods from 4 July to 12 September 2003, from 22 June to 9 July 2004 and from 19 November to 10 December 2004, the applicant served his sentence in correctional colony IK-3, Ryazan Region (ИК-3 Рязанской области, учреждение ЯМ 401/3).\n9.  The applicant was kept in units (отряды) nos. 3 and 5. The parties’ descriptions of conditions in IK-3 differ in a number of respects.\n10.  The applicant submitted that in unit no. 5 there were approximately another seventy detainees and in unit no. 3 around fourteen detainees. He had an individual sleeping place for the whole period of detention; however, the sanitary conditions in the colony were inadequate. The central heating in their dormitory was insufficient, and during the winter the convicts slept fully clothed. In summer it was very hot in the cell, and due to its overcrowding the air was stale and musty. The toilet was situated in a separate unheated area, and it was extremely cold there in winter. No hygiene facilities were provided. Food was of a very poor quality, the usual ration included white bread, barley porridge and semi-sweet tea in the morning, barley soup and porridge at lunch time, and mashed potatoes made from powder in the evening. While a supplementary diet was prescribed for him by the doctor, the applicant claimed that he had only received milk before November 2003 and after March 2004; butter and eggs were provided as of September 2004.\n11.  Furthermore, there was not enough light and heating in the sewing workshop where the applicant and other prisoners worked. There was not sufficient light in the bedroom either, because the windows were obstructed by bunk beds.\n12.  Unit no. 5 measured 240 sq. m., and its bedroom measured 150 sq. m. The unit housed approximately 70 inmates. After he was diagnosed with tuberculosis in June 2003, the applicant was transferred to unit no. 3 to a dormitory which measured 42 square meters and housed fifteen inmates. The applicant was at all times provided with an individual bed, bedding and clothes – a cotton suit, cap, cold-weather cap, sweater and boots. The relevant records were submitted to the Court.\n13.  The Government, relying on the certificates provided by the Federal Service for the Execution of Sentences, further submitted that the cells were ventilated both naturally through the windows and by a ventilation shaft, which was mandatory. The windows in the cells were double glazed and allowed sufficient natural light through. The cells were also equipped with satisfactory artificial lighting.\n14.  The units were equipped with a central heating system; bedrooms had a seven-unit heating device which provided an average temperature of 18 degrees Celsius in winter, also in the toilets. The lighting in the sewing workshop was sufficiently provided by luminescent lamps in accordance with the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4616", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1947 and the second in 1949. Both applicants live in the city of Mykolaiv, Ukraine.\n5.  By two separate judgments of 9 December 2002, the Zavodskoy District Court of Mykolaiv awarded the first applicant 6,932 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) [1] and the second applicant UAH 4,329.73[2] in salary arrears and other payments, to be paid by the open joint-stock company Chornomormebli (“the debtor company”).\n6.  The State-owned company Chornomorsky sudnobudivny zavod held 51 % of the shares in the debtor company on the date the judgments were delivered.\n7.  The judgments became final and enforcement proceedings were instituted.\n8.  In the period between April and June 2003 the first applicant received UAH 2,425.59 and the second UAH 1,567.38 in part settlement of the judgment debts.\n9.  By a letter of 15 July 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service notified the applicants that they were unable to collect the full amount of the awards because the financial assets of the debtor company were insufficient. They further explained that other assets could not be sold, as the State owned 51 % of the debtor company’s share capital. The debtor company was therefore subject to the Law of 29 November 2001 “on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property”.\n10.  Since 5 May 2004 the State has held 9,64 % of the shares in Chornomorsky sudnobudivny zavod.\n11.  By a letter of 11 April 2006 the State Bailiffs’ Service proposed that the applicants accept the debtor company’s seized property in satisfaction of the judgment debts, but the applicants did not agree.\n12.  In February 2007 insolvency proceedings were instituted against the debtor company. On 12 June 2007 it was declared insolvent.\n13.  In September 2007 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued since the debtor company had been declared insolvent. The liquidation proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4617", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Volgograd.\n7.  On 20 September 2002 the applicant was arrested and charged with several counts of theft.\n8.  On 9 February 2004 the Gorodishchenskiy District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to one year and eight months’ imprisonment starting from 20 September 2002.\n9.  On 20 May 2004 the applicant completed his sentence.\n10.  On 29 April 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of infliction of serious injuries. It referred to the gravity of the charge.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with membership of an armed criminal gang, several counts of aggravated robbery, extortion, kidnapping, infliction of serious injuries and murder.\n12.  On 19 June 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 September 2003, referring to the gravity of the charge and the risk of his absconding or reoffending. Counsel for the applicant was absent from the hearing.\n13.  On 8 September 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 December 2003, referring to the gravity of the charges and the need for an additional investigation. The applicant was represented by court-appointed counsel.\n14.  On 5 December 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 April 2004, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk of his absconding or reoffending. Counsel for the applicant was absent from the hearing.\n15.  On 12 April 2004 the investigation was completed and six defendants, including the applicant, were committed for trial before the Volgograd Regional Court.\n16.  The defendants asked for trial by jury.\n17.  On 20 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 27 April 2004 to examine the request. It further held that the defendants should meanwhile remain in custody.\n18.  On 27 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court held a preliminary hearing, ordered that the defendants be tried by jury and that they remain in custody pending trial.\n19.  On 13 October 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 January 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges.\n20.  On 12 January 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk that they might put pressure on witnesses and jurors.\n21.  On 7 April 2005 the Volgograd Regional Court extended the defendants’ detention until 12 July 2005. The Regional Court found that, in view of the gravity of the charges, it was “opportune” to keep the defendants in custody. It rejected their requests to release them under an undertaking not to leave the town, since it could not exclude the risk that they would put pressure on witnesses or jurors.\n22.  In his grounds of appeal of 14 April 2005 the applicant complained that the Regional Court’s conclusion that he might interfere with the proceedings had been suppositional and had not been supported by facts. He further submitted that he had three minor children, an unemployed spouse and an elderly mother and that he was the only breadwinner of the family. He had a permanent place of residence and employment.\n23.  On 8 June 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful and justified. The appeal hearing took place in the presence of the pro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4618", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine.\n5. On 19 March 2004 the Moskovskiy District Court of Kharkiv (“the court”) partly allowed the applicant’s claims and awarded him 4,643.42 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and compensation for loss of earnings, to be paid by the State-controlled company “Serp i molot”.\n6.  The applicant did not appeal against this decision under the ordinary appeal procedure, but on 3 February 2005 he lodged a cassation appeal against it. On 4 February 2005 the court returned the applicant’s cassation appeal since the relevant decision had not been appealed under the ordinary appeal procedure.\n7.  The applicant states that he received the ruling of 4 February 2005 when the time-limit for lodging an appeal against it had already expired. The applicant did not provide this Court with any document certifying that he had requested the domestic courts to renew the time-limit for lodging an appeal against the ruling of 4 February 2005.\n8.  On 31 August 2004 the Moskovskiy District Bailiffs’ Service of Kharkiv initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 19 March 2004.\n9.  Following insolvency and liquidation proceedings instituted against the company, on 10 October 2007 the latter was closed down and removed from the relevant enterprises’ register.\n10.  In 2007 the applicant received UAH 163.71. The remainder of the judgment has not been enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4619", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in the village of Velykyy Listven, Gorodnya District, in the Chernihiv Region.\n6.  According to the applicant, at about 11 a.m. on 11 September 1997, when he was in company of Mr O.K. and two ladies, three police officers, S.V., V.V. and I.P., entered the house. They pushed him and Mr O.K. out to the police car and drove both to the collective farm office. There they were joined by Mr Y.M., another villager, who, along with officers S.V. and V.V. severely beat the applicant and Mr O.K..\n7.  Between 12 September 1997 and 2 October 1997 the applicant underwent inpatient treatment on account of numerous leg injuries, including surgical dissection and drainage of a haematoma. As regards Mr O.K., between 12 and 29 September 1997 he was also treated in the hospital on account of traumatic vascular asthenia (астено-вегетативний синдром).\n8.  On 10 October 1997 the Gorodnya Prosecutors’ Office rejected Mr O.K.’s request for criminal proceedings to be initiated against the officers S.V. and V.V., having found no appearance of criminal conduct on their part. On 17 November 1997 the Chernihiv Prosecutors’ Office annulled this decision and remitted the case for additional investigation. On 3 December 1997 the Gorodnya Prosecutors’ Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings.\n9.  Following a further complaint by the applicant and Mr O.K., lodged on 9 March 1998, the Chernihiv Department of the Ministry of Interior conducted an internal investigation. On 19 March 1998 it announced that the circumstances described by the complainants “were found to be partly true”. However, there was no appearance that the police officers had infringed applicable law. In particular, it was confirmed that on 11 September 1997 officers S.V., V.V. and I.P. had invited the applicant and Mr O.K. to the farm office for questioning concerning their suspected involvement in a burglary at a village store. When near the office, they encountered Mr Y.M., who got into a fight with Mr O.K. After the fight was over, the police officers left the villagers and went off to continue their investigation. According to another villager, Mr Y.L., Mr O.K. and the applicant had fought each other the night before at a drinking party in his house.\n10.  According to the applicant, at about 9:30 p.m. on 4 November 1999 the same police officers, S.V. and V.V., together with officer A.B., found the applicant in the company of Mr O.P. and Mr Y.K. in a house belonging to Mr O.P. Officers S.V. and V.V. beat the applicant severely, causing him cerebral concussion. The applicant did not, however, see a doctor, since he was afraid of reprisals by police, and attempted to recover at home on his own. However, as he continued to suffer (in particular, from headaches and dizziness) he sought medical advice on 27 January 2000. According to the medical records, on this date the applicant was prescribed medication for the after-effects of a head injury. Subsequently (between 2 and 18 August 2000) the applicant underwent inpatient treatment for pyramidal insufficiency and vegetative-vascular syndrome, recorded as after-effects of a head injury. The applicant has allegedly suffered from frequent headaches, vertigo, general weakness and bouts of depression ever since the injury.\n11.  In the meantime, on an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, who was suspected of having stolen hay from the collective farm’s barn on or around ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4620", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1951, 1959, 1952 and 1953 respectively. All four are Ukrainian nationals and reside in the town of Smila, in the Cherkassy region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 8 February 1999 the third and fourth applicants were arrested. They were remanded in custody and charged with smuggling.\n6.  On 30 March 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against the first applicant for tax evasion. On 8 May 1999 new charges of smuggling were brought against him. On 10 May 1999 he was arrested and remanded in custody.\n7.  On 14 July 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against the second applicant for forging documents and tax evasion. The second applicant gave an undertaking not to abscond.\n8.  Later, given the common factual and legal background of the above criminal cases, they were joined.\n9.  The first, third and fourth applicants remained in pre-trial detention until 14 July 2000, 7 June 1999 and 5 July 2000 respectively.\n10.  On 30 September pre-trial investigation was terminated and the criminal case was sent to the Smila Court.\n11.  On 12 October 1999 the court started considering the case.\n12.  On 21 April 2000 it remitted the case for additional investigation.\n13.  On 16 May 2000 the Cherkassy Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n14.  On 11 September 2000 the Smila Court acquitted the applicants.\n15.  On 17 October 2000 the Cherkassy Regional Court, following an appeal by a local prosecutor’s office, quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration by the Cherkassy District Court. The applicants were ordered not to leave their place of permanent residence.\n16.  Between 14 December 2000 and 22 February 2001 the Cherkassy District Court held six hearings. No hearings were scheduled between 22 February and 2 August 2001.\n17.  On 2 August 2001 the Cherkassy District Court suspended the proceedings as the fourth applicant had absconded. It ordered the prosecutor’s office to put the fourth applicant on the list of wanted persons.\n18.  During this period, the first and second applicants submitted repeated requests to the Cherkassy District Court and the Cherkassy Regional Court of Appeal for their case to be examined separately from that of the fourth applicant.\n19.  In a letter of 3 March 2003, the Cherkassy District Court indicated, in particular, that the authorities had failed to take necessary measures to find the fourth applicant. It ordered the Prosecutor of Smila, the Prosecutor of the Cherkassy Region and the officials of the Cherkassy Department of the Interior to issue a separate indictment concerning the first and the second applicants and to take measures to find the fourth applicant.\n20.  On 23 April 2003, in the course of the court hearing, the prosecutor’s office submitted an amended indictment in respect of the first applicant and discontinued the tax evasion proceedings against him.\n21.  On 14 May 2003 the fourth applicant appeared before the court.\n22.  On 11 November 2003 the Cherkassy District Court acquitted the second applicant. It convicted the other applicants and gave them a three-year suspended prison sentence. The applicants were ordered not to leave their place of permanent residence.\n23.  The judgment was appealed against by the third and fourth applicants and by the prosecutor.\n24.  On 28 November 2003 the same court declared an appeal by the third and fourth applicants inadmissible as it had been lodged out of time.\n25.  On 13 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4621", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n(1) Mr Sergey Nikolayevich Danilenkov, born in 1965;\n(2) Mr Vladimir Mikhaylovich Sinyakov, born in 1948;\n(3) Mr Boris Pavlovich Soshnikov, born in 1951;\n(4) Mr Anatoliy Nikolayevich Kasyanov, born in 1958;\n(5) Mr Viktor Mikhaylovich Morozov, born in 1947;\n(6) Mr Anatoliy Yegorovich Troynikov, born in 1947;\n(7) Mr Dmitriy Yurievich Korchazhkin[1], born in 1969;\n(8) Mr Yuriy Ivanovich Zharkikh, born in 1970;\n(9) Mr Anatoliy Ivanovich Kiselev, born in 1949;\n(10) Mr Yuriy Anatolyevich Bychkov, born in 1969;\n(11) Mr Aleksandr Igorevich Pushkarev, born in 1961;\n(12) Mr Gennadiy Ivanovich Silvanovich, born in 1960;\n(13) Mr Ivan Vasilyevich Oksenchuk, born in 1946;\n(14) Mr Gennadiy Adamovich Kalchevskiy, born in 1957;\n(15) Mr Aleksandr Ivanovich Dolgalev, born in 1957;\n(16) Mr Vladimir Fedorovich Grabchuk, born in 1956;\n(17) Mr Aleksandr Fedorovich Tsarev, born in 1954;\n(18) Mr Aleksandr Yevgenyevich Milinets, born in 1967;\n(19) Mr Lukshis Aldevinas Vintso, born in 1955;\n(20) Mr Aleksandr Fedorovich Verkhoturtsev, born in 1955;\n(21) Mr Igor Nikolayevich Vdovchenko, born in 1966;\n(22) Mr Igor Yuryevich Zverev, born in 1969;\n(23) Mr Nikolay Grigoryevich Yegorov, born in 1958;\n(24) Mr Aleksandr Konstantinovich Lemashov, born in 1955;\n(25) Mr Nikolay Nikolayevich Grushevoy, born in 1957;\n(26) Mr Petr Ivanovich Mironchuk, born in 1959;\n(27) Mr Nikolay Yegorovich Yakovenko, born in 1949;\n(28) Mr Yuriy Yevgenyevich Malinovskiy, born in 1971;\n(29) Mr Oleg Anatolyevich Tolkachev, born in 1964;\n(30) Mr Aleksandr Viktorovich Solovyev, born in 1956;\n(31) Mr Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Lenichkin, born in 1936;\n(32) Mr Vladimir Petrovich Kolyadin, born in 1954.\n7.   The applicants are Russian nationals who live in Kaliningrad. The twentieth and thirty-first applicants died on unspecified dates.\n8.  A branch of the Dockers' Union of Russia was established in 1995 in Kaliningrad seaport as an alternative to the traditional Maritime Transport Workers' Union. The branch was officially registered with the Kaliningrad Justice Department on 3 October 1995.\n9.  The applicants' employer, the private company Kaliningrad Commercial Seaport Co. Ltd. (ЗАО «Морской торговый порт Калининград» – “the seaport company”), was established on 30 June 1998 as a result of the reorganisation of the limited company Commercial Seaport of Kaliningrad and was the legal successor to the latter. On 20 July 1998 the Administrative Authority of the Baltiyskiy District of Kaliningrad officially registered the new legal entity. On 25 April 2002 the private company was converted into a public company under the same name (ОАО «МПТК»).\n10.  The applicants indicated that on 4 March 1997 the Governor of the Kaliningrad Region had issued Resolution no. 183 establishing the Kaliningrad Regional Development Fund (“the Fund”) and appointing five officials of the Kaliningrad Regional Administrative Authority to its board of management. The Governor himself became the chairman of the board and Mr Karetniy, the first deputy Governor, was appointed Fund manager.\n11.  According to the applicants, between 1998 and 2000 Mr Karetniy was a member of the board of directors of the seaport company. During that time Mr Karetniy also managed, through a company called Regionk which was controlled by him, a further 35% of the seaport company shares. Thus, the applicants inferred that their employer had at the material time been under the effective control of the State: both directly (20% of share", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4622", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Kurgan.\n6.  On 27 December 2000 the Ketovskiy District Court of the Kurgan Region found the applicant guilty of kidnapping for profit and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment conditional on three years’ probation. Neither the applicant nor the prosecutor appealed.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked the Kurgan Regional Court for supervisory review of the judgment of 27 December 2000. He alleged that the court had erred in defining his actions as kidnapping for profit. He further challenged the findings of the trial court as to the circumstances of the matter. He claimed that he had freed the kidnapped victim of his own will and should have been exonerated from the kidnapping charges as provided for in the Russian Criminal Code.\n8.  By a letter of 10 October 2003, the Kurgan Regional Court informed the applicant that the supervisory-review proceedings had been instituted and that the Presidium would examine his application on 20 October 2003. According to the stamp on the letter, it reached the penitentiary establishment where the applicant was serving a prison sentence on 23 October 2003. The applicant indicated that the letter had been handed over to him on 27 October 2003.\n9.  On 30 October 2003 the applicant sent written submissions to the Kurgan Regional Court.\n10.  In December 2003 the applicant received the text of the Presidium’s decision on his application for supervisory review. The hearing had taken place on 20 October 2003. The court had reviewed the applicant’s case and granted his application in part. It had reclassified the charges as simple kidnapping. The sentence, however, had remained unaffected.\n11.  On 7 August 2001 the applicant was arrested, together with Mr T. and Mr Z., by officers of the Organised Crime Unit on suspicion of extortion.\n12.  On 10 August 2001 the applicant was formally charged and remanded in custody.\n13.  On 21 January 2002 the Kurgan Town Court of the Kurgan Region convicted the applicant and Mr Z. of extortion and sentenced the former to six years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 26 March 2002 the Kurgan Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal.\n15.  According to the applicant, on 7 August 2001 during and after the arrest he was beaten up by the police officers.\n16.  On 8 August 2001 the applicant was placed in the temporary detention facility (ИВС) located within the police station. On admission he was examined by an officer on duty and a paramedic, who did not observe any injuries on his body. The applicant did not bring an oral or written complaint about the alleged beatings.\n17.  On 10 August 2001 the applicant was transferred to remand centre no. 43/1 of Kurgan. On arrival he was examined by a general practitioner who noted several bruises in the lumbar region measuring 1 by 1 cm and 3 by 2 cm. A relevant entry was made in the applicant’s medical file.\n18.  It appears that on the same day the administration of the remand centre prepared a report concerning the applicant’s injuries and forwarded all the relevant materials to the prosecutor’s office for further inquiry. According to a certificate issued by the remand centre on 16 August 2007, the copies of those materials stored at the remand prison had been destroyed after the expiry of the time-limit for their storage on 20 January 2006 and 27 March 2007.\n19.  On 5 March 2002 the applicant complained to the Kurgan Regional Prosecutor that he had been beaten", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4623", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the town of Gorlovka.\n5.  In July 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno-gorodskoy District Court of Gorlovka (“the court”) against his former employer, a State company “Kommunalnik” (“the company”), claiming compensation for damages resulting from his work-related disease.\n6.  On 29 December 1998 the court awarded the applicant UAH 44,273.27[1]. By the same judgment he was entitled to receive an allowance of UAH 372.24, to be paid monthly. On 5 February 1999 the Gorlovka Bailiffs’ Service (“the Bailiffs’ Service”) initiated enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On 10 October 2000 the judgment was enforced in part; the applicant received UAH 127.12.\n8.  In March 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the court against the company and the State Insurance Fund for Work Accidents and Work-Related Diseases (“the Fund”) seeking re-calculation of the monthly allowance paid to him for his work-related disability and claiming payment of losses sustained on account of the erroneous calculation.\n9.  On 11 April 2002 the court allowed the applicant’s claims and ordered the company to pay the applicant UAH 30,645.53[2]. By the same judgment he was entitled to receive a monthly allowance of UAH 737.04, to be paid by the Fund as from 1 April 2001. On 30 May 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings.\n10.  In November 2005 the applicant instituted court proceedings against the Bailiffs’ Service seeking compensation for damages caused to him by the non-enforcement of the judgments. On 29 December 2005 the court found against the applicant. On 27 April 2006 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.\n11.  On 13 March 2008 the Bailiffs’ Service returned the enforcement writs in respect of the judgments of 29 December 1998 and 11 April 2002 to the applicant.\n12.  The company failed to enforce the judgments of 29 December 1998 and 11 April 2002 in full. The Fund has no judgment debts vis-à-vis the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4624", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.   The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the town of Chervonograd, Ukraine.\n5.  On 17 September 2003 the Chervonograd Court awarded the applicant 34,041.65 Ukrainian hryvnas (about EUR 5,887) in salary arrears and other sums, to be paid by the State company Chervonogradske girnichomontazhne upravlinnya.\n6.  The judgment became final and enforcement proceedings were instituted.\n7.  On 25 June 2007 the Bailiffs’ Service returned the writ of enforcement to the applicant since there was a tax lien over the company’s property and it was therefore not possible to attach it. The applicant did not challenge this decision before the domestic courts; nor did he relodge the writ of execution with the Bailiffs’ Service.\n8.  The judgment in the applicant’s favour remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4625", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and was detained in Mardin prison at the time when the application to the Court was lodged.\n5.  In the course of an operation carried out against the activities of an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), the applicant, together with seven other suspects, was arrested and placed in custody at the anti-terrorism branch of the Diyarbakır police headquarters on 31 October 1993.\n6.  On the same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor at Çınar Medical Clinic. No physical signs of ill‑treatment were noted on the applicant’s person.\n7.  In the application form the applicant alleged, without any further details, that he had been subjected to torture and ill-treatment, including threats and coercion while he was detained.\n8.  On 31 October, 17 November and 18 November 1993 the applicant took part in a number of reconstructions of certain events.\n9.  The health of one of the suspects arrested on the same ground as the applicant deteriorated while in detention and he died[1]. The applicant claimed that this person had also been tortured in custody.\n10.  In the meantime, on 12 November 1993, the applicant was taken for a medical examination because he did not feel well. It appears from his note that the doctor suspected a urinary infection. The laboratory results noted the presence of about 3 or 4 red blood cells in his urine. On 13 November 1993 the applicant paid for the medicament prescribed by the doctor.\n11.  On 20 November and 25 November 1993 the applicant, on being questioned by two police officers, made a number of incriminating statements concerning himself and some of the other accused.\n12.  On 26 November 1993 the applicant and ten other accused were examined by a doctor at Diyarbakır State Hospital. No physical signs of ill‑treatment were noted on the applicant’s person.\n13.  On 26 November 1993 the applicant was brought before the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court (SSC), where he retracted his statements to the police, claiming that he had given them under torture. He accepted that he was the owner of two of the guns found as a result of reconstruction of the events but stated that he had no idea if one of these guns had been used, before he bought it, in the killing of a certain Mr H.B. and Mr M.S.G. as found in a ballistic report concerning their deaths. He also denied the content of the rest of the verbatim records of the reconstructions of the events, claiming that it was the police who had taken the suspects there and had told them what to say.\n14.  On 26 November 1993 the applicant was brought before a judge at the SSC where he reiterated the statements he had given to the prosecutor. In particular, he denied his police statements and the contents of the verbatim records of the reconstructions, claiming that he had signed them under duress and coercion. The court remanded him in custody.\n15.  On 30 November 1993 the applicant objected to his remand in custody. In his petition, he claimed his innocence and submitted that he had been subjected to constant and severe ill-treatment while in police custody. The applicant’s request for release was rejected by the SSC on 7 December 1993, its reasons being stated as follows: “having regard to the nature of the offence with which he is charged and the state of the evidence”.\n16.  On 23 December 1993 the prosecutor at the SSC filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant under Article 125 of the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4626", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.\n5.  The applicants are four Slovak nationals who live in Košice. The first applicant, Mrs E. S., was born in 1964. She is the mother of the second applicant, Ms Er. S., the third applicant, Ms Ja. S., and the fourth applicant, Mr Já. S., who were born in 1986, 1989 and 1988 respectively.\n6.  On 7 March 2001 the applicants left the apartment in which they lived with Mr S., who was the first applicant’s husband and the father of the second, third and fourth applicants. The first applicant moved the second, third and fourth applicants away from the apartment to protect them from physical and sexual abuse by Mr S.\n7.  On 11 April 2001 the first applicant filed for divorce against her husband in the Košice I District Court. On 25 June 2001 the District Court placed the second, third and fourth applicants in her care pending the outcome of the divorce proceedings. On 19 March 2002 the District Court granted the petition for divorce. The divorce was finalised on 6 May 2002. The first applicant was granted custody of the second, third and fourth applicants on 18 November 2003.\n8.  On 21 May 2001 the first applicant filed a criminal complaint against her husband on the ground that he had ill-treated both her and the children and had sexually abused one of their daughters.\n9.  On the same day the first applicant requested that the Košice I District Court issue an interim measure ordering her husband to move out of the municipal apartment that they held under a joint tenancy. In making the request, the first applicant referred to her husband’s behaviour in respect of the children and submitted the opinion of an expert, which indicated that the second, third and fourth applicants had suffered from physical and psychological ill-treatment on account of their father’s behaviour and expressed the view that it was absolutely necessary to separate the four applicants from him.\n10.  Articles 74 and 76 of the Code of Civil Procedure permitted the courts to issue an interim measure requiring the parties to perform something, forbear from something or bear something. On 20 June 2001 the District Court dismissed the first applicant’s request as her husband had a tenancy right in respect of the apartment and the court considered that it lacked the power to restrict his right to use it. As a consequence, the applicants had to move away from their home, their family and their friends and the second and third applicants had to move to a new school.\n11.  The first applicant appealed to the Regional Court in Košice. She informed the court that the children had been placed in her custody and that criminal proceedings had been brought against their father.\n12.  On 31 August 2001 the Regional Court in Košice upheld the first-instance decision not to issue an interim measure. It held, with reference to the relevant law and practice, that the first applicant would be entitled to bring proceedings with a view to terminating the joint tenancy of the apartment only after a final decision had been delivered in the divorce proceedings. Ordering an interim measure in the terms requested by the first applicant would impose a disproportionate burden on her husband. The Regional Court indicated, however, that an interim measure could have been issued if the first applicant had instead requested that her husband be ordered to abstain from inappropriate behaviour towards her and the children ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4627", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first six applicants were born in 1946, 1940, 1936, 1945, 1937 and 1941 respectively and live in Israel. The seventh applicant was born in 1920 and died in 2004.\n5.  In 1950, a building and 1,683 sq. m of appurtenant land situated in Mediaş, Piaţa Regele Ferdinand no. 2, the property of F.A., Z.E. and K.I., were seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation.\n6.  In 1974 the property was divided up and registered under two topographical numbers: 200-201/2/1 and 200-201/2/2. Title to the immovable property under number 200-201/2/2 was registered in the names of M.I. and M.A., and the immovable property under the first number was divided into six apartments together with the corresponding appurtenant land.\n7.  On 21 May 2001 the applicants, as heirs of F.A., Z.E. and K.I., lodged an application with the administrative authorities for return of property under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State.\n8.  On 11 December 2002 the Mayor of Mediaş upheld in part their request and ordered the return of Apartments 1, 2 and 4, since they had not been sold by the State to third parties. As to the land appurtenant to those three apartments, their request for restitution was rejected on the ground that the applicants did not have Romanian nationality. The Mayor also dismissed their request in respect of Apartments 3, 5, 6 and that registered under the number 200-201/2/2 on the ground that they had been sold under Law no. 112/1995. However, he held that the applicants would receive pecuniary compensation for those apartments.\n9.  The applicants contested the Mayor’s decision before the courts, claiming restitution of the whole property.\n10.  On 4 March 2003 the Sibiu County Court upheld in part their action, annulled the provision regarding the land appurtenant to Apartments 1, 2 and 4, and ordered the Mediaş Town Council to enable the applicants to recover that land. It took into account that three of them had proved their Romanian nationality before the court. The court considered that the whole property, namely the building and 1,683 sq. m of appurtenant land, had been unlawfully seized by the State. It also noted that the State had in its ownership only Apartments 1, 2 and 4 with the appurtenant land and held that the applicants only had a right of compensation under Article 18 (d) of Law no. 10/2001 for the apartments transferred to third parties.\n11.  The applicants appealed, claiming the whole property.\n12.  On 17 June 2003 the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal. It held that the previous court had rightly established that the four items of immovable property which had not been restored had been sold in accordance with Law no. 112/1995 and that the applicants were entitled only to compensation under Article 18 (d) of Law no. 10/2001.\n13.  On 18 May 2005 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed by a final decision a further appeal by the applicants.\n14.  On 5 June 2006 the Mayor of Mediaş varied the provisions of the administrative decision of 11 December 2002 and authorised the applicants to recover the land appurtenant to Apartments 1, 2 and 4. He also held that for the other four apartments, which were impossible to recover, the applicants had a right to pecuniary compensation under Law no. 247/2005.\n15.  So far the applicants have not received any compensation for the part of the property that was considered impossible to recover.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4628", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Msida, Malta.\n6.  The applicant is the owner of a maisonette in Sliema, Malta. He inherited one undivided half-share of the premises from his father, who died in 1995 and the other undivided half-share from his mother, who died in 1997.\n7.  On 21 November 1975 the applicant’s father had entered into a temporary emphyteusis contract (a contract granting a tenement [house, flat or other type of real property] for a stated yearly rent or ground rent to be paid in money or in kind) with Mr P. The parties had agreed that Mr P. was to pay a yearly amount of 90 Maltese liras (MTL – approximately 210 euros (EUR)) and was to return the premises with vacant possession to the owner after twenty-five years. They further agreed that in respect of maintenance, the grantor was responsible only for “extraordinary expenses in connection with the roofs and ceiling ... unless caused by the negligence of the acquirer”.\n8.  In accordance with the Civil Code, the premises reverted ipso iure to the applicant on 20 November 2000.\n9.  In 1979 under Act XXIII (see paragraph 24 below) amending Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta, Mr and Mrs P., as holders of the utile dominium at the time and as Maltese citizens occupying the premises as their ordinary residence, were granted the right to retain possession of the premises under a lease, without the consent of the owner. The law did not apply to temporary emphyteusis contracts entered into after 1 June 1995.\n10.  By a letter of 6 April 2000, the year in which the temporary emphyteusis contract lapsed, the applicant informed Mr and Mrs P. that he would not renew the contract of emphyteusis and that they should vacate the premises.\n11.  By a letter dated 13 April 2000, Mr and Mrs P. informed the applicant that they were not seeking renewal of the contract but that they were availing themselves of the right granted to them under Act XXIII of 1979 whereby they could retain the property under a lease.\n12.  After 20 November 2000, Mr and Mrs P. remained in possession of the premises under a lease, bringing about a completely new legal relationship between them and the applicant. As a result the applicant claimed that he had been unilaterally deprived of his property without being able to have recourse to a court for a determination as to whether it was necessary for Mr and Mrs P. to retain the property or to establish just and fair lease conditions. The applicant also submitted that Mr and Mrs P. also owned other property, whilst he could not make use of his property for the benefit of his daughter, who was getting married.\n13.  On 26 September 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Rent Regulation Board (the “RRB”) in order to have a fair amount of rent fixed. On 17 January 2002 these proceedings were adjourned sine die in view of the constitutional proceedings instituted by the applicant, and they have not been resumed since. According to the applicant the proceedings were awaiting the outcome of the constitutional proceedings and would be resumed according to law, as stated in the minutes of the last hearing before the Board. According to the Government, the applicant abandoned these proceedings, which were then declared to have been vacated on 28 July 2004. The maximum compensation the applicant could be offered by the RRB in accordance with the law (see paragraph 21 below) was MTL 180 (approximately EUR 420) per year.\n14.  According to an architect’s report", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4629", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 10 May 1999 the applicant was detained by the police as a suspect. Two days later he was released after questioning. He was further questioned by the police on two later occasions. On 11 August 1999 the public prosecutor filed an application for a summons with the Hämeenlinna District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). According to the indictment the applicant had concealed property, namely a retirement pension insurance of a considerable value, firstly in enforcement proceedings against him and on a later occasion in his application for legal aid concerning another set of proceedings. The summons was served on 4 October 1999.\n6.  The proceedings began on 17 March 2000 with a preparatory hearing. In an oral hearing, held on 6 April 2000, the applicant was charged with aggravated fraud by a debtor and aggravated fraud. Two complainants to the case joined the first charge and presented an accessory claim for damages and legal costs. On 27 April 2000 the court dismissed the first charge, as well as the complainants’ civil claims, stating that the applicant’s actions in that respect did not constitute a criminal offence. As to the second charge, the court found the applicant guilty of fraud and sentenced him to three months’ conditional imprisonment.\n7.  The applicant appealed against the conviction to the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). The complainants also appealed against the judgment as to the dismissal of the first charge and their civil claims. They supplemented the indictment alleging that the applicant had also concealed other property besides the retirement pension insurance in the enforcement proceedings. The applicant objected to the alteration of the charge, contending that it was unlawful. The court found for the applicant on this point and examined the first charge without having regard to the alterations. On 27 June 2002, after having held an oral hearing, the court upheld the lower court’s judgment in all parts.\n8.  The Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) granted the complainants leave to appeal. On 4 November 2003 the court found that their fresh allegations did not constitute a prohibited alteration of the charge and referred the case back to the District Court for re-examination in that part.\n9.  After the Supreme Court’s decision, the local media took a strong interest in the case as the applicant was well-known in the region’s commercial life.\n10.  The other complainant requested the District Court, twice, for an extension of the time-limit set by that court for completing the charge, as civil proceedings, allegedly related to the case, were still pending in the Supreme Court. These requests were granted on 25 April 2005 and 16 June 2005 respectively, without hearing the applicant. According to the Government, the court had taken certain procedural measures in the case even before granting those extensions.\n11.  On 7 June 2005 the applicant filed a complaint with the Deputy Chancellor of Justice (apulaisoikeuskansleri, biträdande justitiekanslern) contending that the proceedings had lasted too long. He made reference to Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.\n12.  A preparatory hearing was held by the District Court on 1 November 2005. The charge against the applicant was scheduled to be re-examined on 21 December 2005. However, the complainants waived the charge and the case was dismissed on that date without an examination of the merits.\n13.  On 5 June 2006 the Deputy Chancellor of Jus", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4630", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1945. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Płock prison.\n6.  Since 1997 the applicant lived with his partner in her apartment in Płock. On 22 March 2002 she was found dead in the apartment. She had serious head injuries and broken ribs. The applicant protested his innocence. On 7 February 2003 the Płock District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Płock Regional Court. The applicant was charged with murder.\n7.  On 28 April 2003 the Płock Regional Court gave a judgment in the case. The court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 30 June 2003 the applicant appealed to the Warsaw Court of Appeal. He argued that the first‑instance court had failed to examine all the relevant circumstances of the case.\n9.  On 7 October 2003 the appellate court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first‑instance court for re‑examination, having regard to certain procedural shortcomings in the proceedings.\n10.  On 16 December 2003 the Płock Regional Court gave a judgment and again convicted the applicant of murder. The applicant was sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed. On 16 April 2004 the appellate court upheld the contested judgment.\n11.  Throughout the judicial proceedings the applicant was represented by a legal-aid lawyer.\n12.  On 28 June 2004 the court served the written grounds of the judgment on the applicant and assigned a legal-aid lawyer for the purpose of cassation proceedings.\n13.  By a letter of 26 July 2004 the lawyer informed the court that he had not found any grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal.\n14.  On 29 July 2004 the appellate court forwarded the lawyer’s refusal to the applicant and informed him that the time-limit for lodging the cassation appeal was to expire on 30 July 2004.\n15.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the court to assign a new legal aid lawyer. The court refused to do so.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4631", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Polanica Zdrój.\n6.  On 27 May 2002 the applicant was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (Centralne Biuro Śledcze) on suspicion of having committed fraud.\n7.  On 30 May 2002 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It further considered that there was a risk that he would induce the co-accused to give false testimony or obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings by destroying the documentary evidence relevant to the investigation; at the time of his arrest the applicant was found to be destroying documents which might be important for the further conduct of the proceedings. The court also stressed the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed on him.\n8.  On 6 June 2002 the applicant appealed unsuccessfully against the detention order. In his further applications for release and appeals he maintained that, given his poor health, detention was putting a severe strain on him.\n9.  On 13 June 2002 the applicant lodged a motion with the State Prosecutor (Prokurator Krajowy) for the case to be referred to another prosecutor because the prosecutor dealing with his case was not in his view impartial. In his motion the applicant alleged that he had been denied access to his lawyer in breach of his right to defence. On 4 September 2002 the motion was dismissed by the State Prosecutor.\n10.  On 3 October 2002 the applicant lodged an application with the Warsaw Prosecutor of Appeal (Prokurator Apelacyjny) for the detention to be either lifted or replaced by another preventive measure. On 7 December 2002 the application was dismissed.\n11.  On 21 August 2002 the Warsaw District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 31 October 2002. It repeated the grounds originally given for his detention.\n12.  On 24 October 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), on appeal by the applicant, upheld the decision of 21 August 2002. It repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s detention and referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on him.\n13.  Subsequently, further decisions extending the applicant’s detention were taken by the Warsaw District Court. The relevant decisions were taken on the following dates: 28 October 2002 (extending his detention until 31 December 2002), 30 December 2002 (extending his detention until 28 February 2003), 26 February 2003 (extending his detention until 30 April 2003) and 25 April 2003 (extending his detention until 26 May 2003).\n14.  On 23 May 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 21 June 2003. The court again relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question and on the severity of the expected penalty. It also mentioned that the continued detention was justified by reasons referred to in Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without however specifying them.\n15.  The Warsaw District Court further extended the applicant’s detention on the following dates: 16 June 2003 (extending his detention until 20 September 2003), 19 September 2003 (extending his detention until 31 March 2004) and 27 February 2004 (extending his detention until 26 May 2004).\n16.  In the meantime, on 4 November 2002, the applicant had appealed against the decision of 28 October 2002 extending his pre-trial detention. No ruling w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4632", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 19 January 1994 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody by officers of the Diyarbakır security police in connection with an investigation into an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 7 February 1994 the applicant was brought before the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and then the investigating judge, who remanded the applicant in custody.\n7.  By an indictment dated 17 March 1994, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and a number of others, accusing him, inter alia, of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  On 30 July 1997 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted and sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment, pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  The applicant appealed. On 1 March 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on procedural grounds and remitted the case to the Diyarbakır State Security Court. Following constitutional amendments introduced on 7 May 2004, the State Security Courts were totally abolished. Subsequently, the applicant’s case was resumed before the 6th Assize Court of Diyarbakır.\n10.  Throughout the whole proceedings the applicant regularly requested his release whereas the trial courts rejected his requests. On 20 October 2005 the applicant noted that he had already been detained for a period of more than eleven years and reiterated his request. Relying on the accusations against the applicant, the existence of strong evidence against him and the content of the case file, the 6th Assize Court of Diyarbakır refused his request again. The applicant appealed. On 25 October 2005 the 4th Assize Court of Diyarbakır dismissed the appeal without further reasoning.\n11.  On 9 March 2007 the 6th Assize Court of Diyarbakır convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 7 March 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4633", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Jarocin.\n5.  The applicant’s relative – a certain W.W. – owned the Jarocin Furniture Factory, registered under numbers: no. 87/1 and 87/2 with a surface area of 4,955 square metres. By an administrative decision of 11 January 1955 of the Board of the Poznań National Council (Prezydium Rady Narodowej) the factory and the adjacent land were expropriated.\nThe applicant is one of the heirs of the owner of that property.\n6.  On 12 April 2001 the applicant together with other members of her family lodged a request with the Mayor of the Jarocin District (Starosta) for restitution of the property.\n7.  On 22 June 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Jarocin District with the District Council (Rada Powiatu). The complaint was referred to the Wielkopolski Governor (Wojewoda) as the competent administrative authority.\n8.  On 5 July 2001 the Mayor of the Jarocin District discontinued the proceedings. The applicant appealed.\n9.  On 6 September 2001 the Wielkopolski Governor informed the applicant that her complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Jarocin District had been left without consideration since on 5 July 2001 the Mayor had issued a decision.\n10.  On 10 September 2001 the Wielkopolski Governor quashed the decision of the Mayor of the Jarocin District and remitted the case.\n11.  On 22 October 2001 the Mayor of the Jarocin District stayed the proceedings due to the applicant’s failure to produce all necessary decisions confirming that she had acquired the property as the heir of the deceased owner.\n12.  On 18 March 2002 the applicant asked for the resumption of the proceedings, to no avail.\n13.  On 10 October 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Jarocin District with the District Council (Rada Powiatu). On 27 December 2002 her complaint was referred to the Wielkopolski Governor.\n14.  On 3 June 2003 the Wielkopolski Governor dismissed the complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Jarocin District. It held that even if the applicant had submitted all of the necessary testamentary evidence, the proceedings would not have been resumed until the conclusion of the administrative proceedings concerning the applicant’s request for a declaration that the expropriation decision was null and void (see below).\n15.  The proceedings are still stayed.\n16.  On 6 August 2001 the applicant lodged an application with the Office for Housing and Town Development (Urząd Mieszkalnictwa i Rozwoju Miast) for a declaration that the expropriation decision of 11 January 1955 was null and void.\n17.  By a decision of 9 May 2002 the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development (Prezes Urzędu Mieszkalnictwa i Rozwoju Miast) refused to institute the administrative proceedings, since the applicant had failed to produce the relevant documents in support of her claim. The applicant made an application for reconsideration of the matter.\n18.  On 30 July 2002 the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development quashed his decision of 9 May 2002.\n19.  On 30 May 2003 the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development decided to stay the proceedings, following the death of one of the parties to the proceedings.\n20.  By a decision of 9 February 2004 the Minister of Infrastructure (Minister Infrastruktury) resumed the proceedings and asked the Jarocin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) and Ostrów District Court to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4634", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first and second applicants were born in 1939, the third applicant was born in 1934 and the fourth applicant was born in 1938. They all live in Zator, Poland.\n5.  In 1985 T.P., the applicants’ neighbour started a company producing soft drinks, having received the relevant permits. The company was located at number 8 Żwirki and Wigury Street in Zator (at the end of a cul-de-sac). In 1990 and 1992 respectively T.P. extended his activities to include a wholesale and retail food business. In 1991 he was granted a permit to construct an additional warehouse on his property. The applicants live in houses located on the same street and in the direct vicinity of T.P.’s company.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicants and other inhabitants of Żwirki and Wigury Street complained to the Mayor of Zator about the heavy traffic and nuisance caused by the wholesale business of T.P. They submitted that according to the local development plan the area in question was intended to be used for housing to the exclusion of obtrusive businesses.\n7.  On 23 September 1993 the Mayor of Zator issued a decision banning T.P. from using certain buildings of his company for a wholesale food business on the ground that he had failed to obtain the relevant permits. The second applicant was a party to those proceedings. On 23 November 1993 the Bielsko-Biała Governor dismissed an appeal by T.P. against that decision. T.P. appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. On 12 January 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed both decisions.\n8.  On 6 June 1994 the Mayor of Zator required T.P. to obtain various permits. T.P. unsuccessfully appealed against that decision. On 20 June 1996 the Mayor of Zator issued a decision ordering T.P. to stop using the additional warehouse for his wholesale food business. On 21 February 1997 the Bielsko-Biała Governor quashed that decision and remitted the case to the Mayor.\n9.  On 14 May 1997, in response to the applicants’ complaints, the Mayor of Zator issued a decision concerning the use of property by T.P. It ordered him to cease using the warehouse for a wholesale beer and food business. The Mayor established that T.P. had opened a wholesale business on his property in contravention of the Construction Act (section 71) and the local development plan. He also noted that heavy traffic was generated by T.P.’s company, causing significant nuisance to his neighbours, including the applicants. T.P. appealed.\n10.  On 15 July 1997 the Bielsko-Biała Governor upheld the Mayor’s decision. T.P. appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. On 6 October 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed his appeal. It found that by virtue of the relevant planning permission T.P. was entitled to use the building in question as an additional warehouse for his soft drinks company. However, he had changed the manner of use of the property by setting up a wholesale food business there without obtaining the relevant permissions. Thus, he had clearly breached the Construction Act and the administrative decisions complained of had been correct.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 7 September 1999 the applicants unsuccessfully complained to the Małopolski Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision about non‑enforcement of the decision. Their further complaints to other authorities were equally unsuccessful.\n12.  In a letter of 29 October 1999 the Architecture Department of the Małopolski Regional Office informed the second applicant that his complaint was we", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4635", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Ms Maria Moskal, is a Polish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Glinik Chorzewski.\n6.  The applicant is married with three children. She has a medium-level education. Prior to her early retirement she was employed for thirty-one years and had paid her social security contributions to the State. Her child, born in 1994, suffers from atopic bronchial asthma (atopowa astma oskrzelowa), various allergies and recurring sino-pulmonary infections.\n7.  On 6 August 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  The particular type of pension sought by the applicant was at the relevant time regulated by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).\n9.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents, a medical certificate issued on 2 August 2001 by a specialist in allergy and pulmonology from the Health Service Institution in Strzyżów (Zespół Opieki Zdrowotnej). The certificate stated that the applicant’s seven-year-old son had suffered from the age of three months from atopic bronchial asthma, various allergies, as well as frequent sino‑pulmonary infections often accompanied by fever and bronchial constriction (spastyczne skurcze oskrzeli). Consequently, he was in need of his mother’s constant care. It was further noted that the medical certificate had been issued in connection with the application for an early-retirement pension regulated by the 1989 Ordinance in view of the need to provide permanent care to the child from 31 December 1998 onwards.\n10.  On 29 August 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension in the amount of 1,683 Polish zlotys (PLN) gross (PLN 1,020 net), starting from 1 August 2001. In the same decision, however, the Social Security Board suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision.\n11.  On 31 August 2001 the applicant resigned from her full-time job as a clerk at the Polish Telecommunications Company in Rzeszów, where she had been employed for the past thirty years.\n12.  Consequently, on an unspecified date, the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued a new decision authorising the payment of the previously awarded retirement pension starting from 1 September 2001.\n13.  Subsequently, the applicant was issued with a pensioner’s identity card marked ‘valid indefinitely’ and for the following ten months she continued to receive her pension without interruption.\n14.  On 25 June 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued two decisions. By virtue of the first decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued starting from 1 July 2002. By virtue of the second decision, the Board revoked the initial decision of 29 August 2001 and eventually refused to award the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance. The latter decisio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4636", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  “Teleradio-Moldova” (TRM) was created by Presidential decree as a State-owned company on 11 March 1994, out of the previously existing State broadcasting body. TRM's statutes were changed in 1995, 1996 and again in 2002, when it was transformed into a public company (see paragraphs 59, 60 and 65 below) and was registered as such on 26 July 2004.\n8.  In November 2004 a privately-owned Moldovan television station (NIT) began broadcasting nationally. Until that date, in addition to TRM, only one Romanian public channel (Romania 1) and one Russian public channel (ORT) could be viewed throughout Moldova. Romania 1 carried no local news and ORT introduced a daily 10-minute Moldovan news bulletin in 2002. While, in October 2004, 61% of Moldova's population was rural, cable television was available only in the big cities and the use of satellite television was largely undeveloped. According to the Government, a survey commissioned by the Centre of Independent Journalism (see paragraph 76 below) in 2004 found that TRM was the most-watched channel in Moldova and that TRM's evening news bulletin was the favourite television programme of approximately 20% of the population.\n9.   Larisa Manole (the first applicant) had worked in television since 1982 and was the Head of TRM's Television News Section between 2001-2002 and editor and presenter of the evening news bulletin in Romanian. She left TRM in September 2002.\n10.  Corina Fusu (the second applicant) edited and presented the morning entertainment show, as well as TRM's evening news bulletin and a programme dedicated to French culture. She joined TRM's predecessor in 1990 and was made redundant in November 2004.\n11.  Mircea Surdu (the third applicant) was the editor-in-chief and presenter of a weekly evening talk-show on cultural, social and political issues. He joined TRM's predecessor in 1985 and was dismissed by the State Company in August 2004 but employed by the Public Company in August 2004.\n12.  Dinu Rusnac (the fourth applicant) was a senior editor in the Television News Section and presented the evening news in Russian. He joined TRM in July 1994 and was made redundant in November 2004.\n13.  Diana Donică (the fifth applicant) was a senior director of the Television Cultural Section and worked on the show presented by Mircea Surdu. She joined TRM in August 1994 and was dismissed by the State Company in August 2004 but employed by the Public Company in August 2004.\n14.  Leonid Melnic (the sixth applicant) was the producer of several programmes and talk-shows within the Television Cultural Section. He joined TRM's predecessor in August 1992 and was dismissed by the State Company in August 2004 but employed by the Public Company in August 2004.\n15.  Viorica Cucereanu-Bogatu (the seventh applicant) worked as a special correspondent in the Television News Section. She joined TRM's predecessor in August 1979 and was made redundant in November 2004.\n16.  Angela Aramă-Leahu (the eighth applicant) was a senior editor and presenter in the Television Cultural Section, as well as producer and presenter of an entertainment show. She joined TRM's predecessor in December 1983 and was made redundant in November 2004.\n17.  Ludmila Vasilache (the ninth applicant) was an editor and presenter of several programmes within the Television Cultural Section. She joined TRM's predecessor in February 1990. She was dismissed by the State Company in August 2004 but employed by the Public Company in August 2004.\n18", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4637", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Lyaylya Adiyevna Asadulayeva (also spelled as Leyla/Layla Adiyevna Asadulayevna), born in 1967;\n2) Ms Aset Eslyudyevna Saitova, born in 1981, and\n3) Ms Zinaida Adiyevna (also spelled as Adyevna) Asadulayeva, born in 1976.\n6.  The applicants live in Alkhan-Kala, in the Groznenskiy District of the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The first and third applicants are sisters of Mr Bekman Adiyevich Asadulayev, born in 1979. The second applicant is his wife. The couple have two children, born in 2003 and 2004.\n8.  At the material time Bekman Asadulayev lived in the village of Kerla-Yurt together with the second applicant and their child. He was employed as a police officer of the Pobedinskoye police station of the Groznenskiy district office of the Interior (ROVD).\n9.  On 14 January 2004 Mr S., head of the ROVD, summoned Bekman Asadulayev to the ROVD and instructed him to go to the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic (MVD) to give an explanation to Mr G., an official of the MVD human resources department, in connection with his unauthorised absence from work.\n10.  Bekman Asadulayev, Mr Sh., the then acting head of the Pobedinskoye police station, and a Mr A. drove to the MVD.\n11.  At about noon on 14 January 2004 they arrived at the MVD. The MVD grounds, including the MVD building, were surrounded by a high fence and could be entered only through a checkpoint. At that checkpoint visitors had either to apply for a special temporary pass or show their identity cards. Every visitor's identity information was registered at the checkpoint in special visitors' logbooks. Armed security guards were stationed at the secure gate leading to the MVD grounds. The external access road to the MVD grounds had two further checkpoints. Each of them was guarded by security personnel and kept its own visitors' logbook.\n12.  Upon arrival at the MVD secure gate Bekman Asadulayev and Mr Sh. got out of the car and went into the MVD building. Mr A. stayed in the vehicle. Bekman Asadulayev and Mr Sh. were received by Mr G. Bekman Asadulayev made a written statement and handed it over to Mr G. At that moment three or four armed men in military uniforms walked into the room. Their uniforms were unusual in that they were grey and had many pockets. While leaving the building Bekman Asadulayev and Mr Sh. were stopped by the armed men who had apparently followed them. The men asked for Bekman Asadulayev's and Mr Sh.'s identity cards. After checking the documents, they returned Mr Sh.'s identity card to him but did not give Bekman Asadulayev his identity card back. They told Bekman Asadulayev that they would take him with them “for a check”, handcuffed him and put him in a dark blue VAZ-21099 car which was parked at the entrance of the MVD building. The car, which did not have licence plates, was driven to the checkpoint at the gate. The officers at the checkpoint did not stop the car; the driver merely honked and the car was allowed to pass through without being checked. Having left the MVD grounds, the car was driven to an unknown destination.\n13.  When Mr Sh. left the MVD grounds and met Mr A., he told the latter about the incident and they decided to go to Mr S., head of the ROVD, to alert him to the abduction of Bekman Asadulayev. Meanwhile, Mr S. had arrived at the MVD entrance gate in his car. Having heard their account, Mr S. reassured them that there were no reasons to worry and that on the following day they would “have information ab", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4638", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in St Petersburg.\n5.  On 1 October 1997 the applicant was dismissed from her position as head of department of a state research institute. On 24 February 1998 she lodged a court action against her former employer with the Vuborgskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”). She requested the court to reinstate her in her previous position, recover and index-link the unpaid salary, and award compensation for unused leave and for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. In the course of the proceedings the applicant amended her claims. The domestic courts examined her claims three times at two levels of jurisdiction.\n6. The case was initially assigned to judge V. who, on 30 November 1998, scheduled a hearing for 3 December 1998. On an unspecified date in 2001 the case was reassigned to judge N.\n7.  Between 1998 and 2002 the proceedings were adjourned several times for various reasons.\n8.  During three periods (between 8 December 1998 and 1 March 1999, between 21 March and 28 April 2000, and between 15 January and 11 April 2001) no hearings were scheduled because the judge was on sick leave. The case was also adjourned from 5 February until 10 April 2002 because the court’s registrar was on sick leave.\n9.  The proceedings were adjourned between 3 and 9 June 1999, 29 November 1999 and 21 March 2000, 28 April and 2 June 2000, 19 June and 25 September 2002 because the defendant failed to attend. They were also adjourned from 25 July until 9 August 2000 and from 10 April until 19 June 2002 because the defendant’s representative was on a business trip.\n10.  The case was postponed from 9 June until 5 August 1999 and from 17 until 25 December 2002 because the applicant’s counsel failed to attend.\n11.  The proceedings were also adjourned on several occasions because the applicant amended her claims and the defendant needed additional time to comment on them.\n12.  On 25 December 2002 the District Court awarded the applicant a certain amount in compensation for unused leave and compensation for legal costs. It further held that the applicant’s claim for compensation for delayed payment of her salary was unsubstantiated and dismissed it. Finally, it found that the remainder of the applicant’s claims were either unsubstantiated or lodged out of time.\n13.  On 14 April 2003 the applicant filed the final version of her grounds of appeal against the judgment of 25 December 2002 with the St Petersburg City Court (“the City Court”). A hearing was scheduled for 9 June 2003. On that date the case was adjourned until 23 June 2003 because the applicant did not attend.\n14.  On 23 June 2003 the City Court quashed the judgment of 25 December 2002 in so far as it had dismissed the applicant’s claims for compensation for delayed payment of salary and remitted this part of the case to the District Court for fresh examination. The City Court found that this part of the judgment was not duly reasoned. It upheld the rest of the judgment.\n15.  On 31 July 2003 the case was transmitted to the District Court and assigned to judge T. On 1 September 2003 a hearing was scheduled for 4 November 2003. On that date the case was adjourned until 17 December 2003 because the applicant’s counsel failed to attend.\n16.  Subsequently, the case was adjourned several times for various reasons. In particular, on 25 February and 8 June 2004 the case was adjourned until 2 March and 7 September 2004 respectively because the defendant’s rep", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4639", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1940 and is at present imprisoned in Parma.\n9.  On 2 September 1999, after a fight with his two sons, the applicant killed his wife and injured one of his sons. He was arrested on 3 September.\n10.  At the end of the preliminary investigation the Rome prosecution service asked for the applicant to be committed to stand trial for murder, attempted murder, ill-treatment of his family and unauthorised possession of a firearm\n11.  At a hearing on 18 February 2000 before the Rome preliminary hearings judge (giudice dell'udienza preliminare – “the GUP”) the applicant asked to be tried under the summary procedure, a simplified process which entailed a reduction of sentence in the event of conviction. In the version in force at that time Article 442 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) provided that, if the crime committed by the defendant was punishable by life imprisonment, the appropriate sentence should be thirty years. (see paragraph 29 below).\n12.  The GUP agreed to follow the summary procedure. Further hearings were held on 22 September and 24 November 2000. The last-mentioned hearing began at 10.19 a.m.\n13.  On 24 November 2000 the GUP found the applicant guilty and noted that he was liable to a sentence of life imprisonment; however, as the applicant had elected to stand trial under the summary procedure, the judge sentenced him to a term of 30 years.\n14.  On 12 January 2001 the Public Prosecutor's Office at the Rome Court of Appeal appealed on points of law against the Rome GUP's judgment of 24 November 2000. The prosecution argued that the GUP should have applied Article 7 of Legislative Decree no. 341 of 24 November 2000, which entered into force on the very day when the applicant was convicted. After being amended by parliament, Legislative Decree no. 341 was converted into Law no. 4 of 19 January 2001.\n15.  The prosecution contended in particular that Article 7 of Legislative Decree no. 341 had amended Article 442 of the CCP and now provided that, in the event of trial under the summary procedure, life imprisonment was to be substituted for life imprisonment with daytime isolation if there were “cumulative offences” (concorso di reati) or a “continuous offence” (reato continuato – see paragraph 31 below). The GUP's failure to apply Legislative Decree no. 341 amounted to “a manifest error of law” (evidente errore di diritto).\n16.  On 5 and 22 February 2001 the applicant appealed. His chief submission was that he should be acquitted on the ground that his conduct had not been intentional or that, at the time when the offences were committed, he was incapable of understanding the wrongful nature of his acts and of forming the intent to commit them (incapacità de intendere e volere). In the alternative, he requested a reduction of his sentence.\n17.  As there were now two appeals, at two different levels of jurisdiction, the Public Prosecutor's appeal on points of law was changed to an appeal on both facts and law and the Rome Assize Court of Appeal was declared to have jurisdiction to hear the case (Article 580 of the CCP).\n18.  The hearing in private before the Rome Assize Court of Appeal was held on 10 January 2002. The applicant was not present and was tried in absentia. He alleged that, as he had difficulty in walking, he had asked to be taken to the courtroom by ambulance or some other suitably adapted vehicle but that, as the prison management had refused his request, he had been deprive", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4640", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Deputatskiy, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya).\n5.  In the 1990s the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme which would entitle him to receive a VAZ car in 1993. He paid the car’s full value but never received the car.\n6.  On 13 February 2003 he received a partial compensation in the amount of 18,538.20 Russian roubles (RUB) equal to 13.35% of the car value.\n7.  The applicant brought the court action against the authorities, seeking to recover the monetary value of the State promissory notes for purchasing of a car.\n8.  On 30 June 2003 the Ust-Yanskiy District Court of the Sakha Republic (Yakutiya) allowed the applicant’s action against the Government and awarded him RUB 120,428.80 as the full car value less the amount already paid in February 2003. The award was to be paid at the expense of the Federal Treasury.\n9.  On 28 July 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment and it became final. The award remained unenforced.\n10.  On 19 September 2003 the Ministry lodged a request for supervisory review of the case with the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.\n11.  On 15 July 2004 the Presidium quashed the judgment of 30 June 2003 and the appeal decision of 28 July 2003 on the ground of a violation of the substantive law and delivered a new judgment in which it dismissed the applicant’s claim in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4641", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Skopje.\n6.  According to an official note of the Ministry of Finance of 1997, the applicant and Mr Angel Kupev registered Naša Kniga STD (самостоен трговски дукан, “the undertaking”, as opposed to companies incorporated under company law) through which they pursued business activities. On 17 July 1992 they ceased trading through the undertaking. On 8 February 1993 the undertaking was re-registered in the name of the applicant. The undertaking operated until 22 February 1995, when its activities were voluntarily terminated.\n7. On 23 June 1993 the Skopje District Commercial Court (Окружен Стопански суд) upheld the undertaking's claim and ordered AD Gazela (“the debtor”) to pay a debt amounting to 1,393,377.70 old Macedonian denars (MKD) plus interest. The court found that the debtor and the undertaking had concluded a framework agreement under which the latter would produce paper products for the debtor. As the debtor had failed to pay for the products made, the court upheld the undertaking's claim.\n8.  On 10 September 1993 the Macedonia-Skopje Commercial Court (Стопански суд на Македонија), sitting as an appellate court, dismissed an appeal by the debtor and upheld the lower court's decision. On 22 March 1994 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on points of law (ревизија) by the debtor and upheld the lower courts' decisions.\n9. On 2 October 1993 the undertaking requested enforcement of the judgment debt, proposing the following means of enforcement: transfer of the money due from the debtor's account and an inventory, evaluation and public auction of the debtor's movable and immovable property. On 8 October 1993 the Skopje District Commercial Court granted the undertaking's request and ordered the debtor to pay the debt. On 3 November 1993 it dismissed an objection by the debtor.\n10. On 26 November 1993 the District Commercial Court dismissed a request by the debtor for postponement of enforcement. On 25 December 1993 the Commercial Court dismissed an appeal by the debtor and upheld its decision.\n11. On 9 June 1994 the District Commercial Court upheld an objection by the debtor and discontinued the enforcement proceedings in so far as they concerned interest.\n12. On 2 September 1994 the District Commercial Court ordered the Public Payment Office to require the bank in which the debtor had had its foreign currency account to transfer the balance due to the undertaking's account. It also ordered the bank not to make any payments from the debtor's account to other parties until the undertaking's claim had been completely honoured. The court established that the undertaking had received part of the judgment debt. It further noted that, as there were no other funds available in the debtor's account, on 25 July 1994 the undertaking had requested the court to satisfy its claim from other accounts belonging to the debtor.\n13. On 6 October 1994 the undertaking, represented by Mr A. Kupev, and the debtor reached a court settlement (“the 1994 settlement”) concerning the means of securing payment of the remaining balance, which amounted to MKD 21,774,593.00 (844,631 German marks). The undertaking agreed to receive the balance in twelve equal instalments within a year.\n14. As the debtor did not pay the debt as agreed, on 27 October 1994 the District Commercial Court ordered an inventory and public auction of the debtor's vehicles. On 30 November 1994 the Commercial Court dismissed an appeal by the deb", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4642", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Koku (also spelled as Koka) Magomadova, born in 1942,\n2) Ms Ayshat Magomadova (also known as Taymuskhanova), born in 1976,\n3) Ms Eset (also spelled as Aset) Magomadova, born in 1995,\n4) Mr Baudin Magomadov, born in 1997,\n5) Ms Ayzan Muradova, born in 1965.\nThe applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya. The first applicant is the mother of Ruslan Magomadov, who was born in 1966. The second applicant is his wife; the third and the fourth applicants are his daughter and son; the fifth applicant is his sister.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  At the material time Ruslan Magomadov was working as a senior officer at the investigations department in the Shatoy district department of the interior in Chechnya (the Shatoy ROVD). He had been doing this since 2000.\n8.  On the night of 9 February 2003 the applicants, with Ruslan Magomadov and other relatives, were at home at 179 Kluchevaya Street, in Grozny, Chechnya. The household consisted of three dwellings; one of them was occupied by the first applicant, another by Ruslan Magomadov and his family and the third by his brother and his family. The applicants' house was near a Russian military checkpoint.\n9.  At about 4.30 a.m. a group of about thirty armed men in camouflage uniform rushed into the applicants' yard. They broke into two groups. One group went into the first applicant's part of the house and the other one went into the part occupied by Ruslan Magomadov and his family.\n10.  Those intruders who were not wearing masks had a Slavic appearance. The men neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They spoke Russian without an accent. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen.\n11.  The servicemen pointed their guns at the applicants and ordered them not to move. About ten of the intruders went into Ruslan Magomadov's part of the house. They shouted and swore at the applicants and ordered everyone not to move. When the second applicant asked them what was going on, she and her children were forced to go into another room, where some of the servicemen put their guns to the applicants' heads and ordered them to lie on the floor.\n12.  The rest of the servicemen threw Ruslan Magomadov on to the floor, bound his hands, placed a pillowcase over his head, bound it with adhesive tape and took him outside. Ruslan Magomadov was barefoot and in his underwear.\n13.  The servicemen did not ask for Ruslan Magomadov's identity documents. They searched the house and took his service gun, a hunting rifle and a folder with official papers which he had brought home from work.\n14.  After that the servicemen placed Ruslan Magomadov in one of the two APCs (armoured personnel carriers) which were parked next to the applicants' house and took him away.\n15.  According to the applicants, some time later the local military commander told them that representatives of the Main Intelligence Department of the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of the Interior (the MVD) and the Federal Security Service (the FSB) had requested to be provided with unopposed passage through the checkpoint near the applicants' house on the night of 9 February 2003.\n16.  The applicants have had no news of Ruslan Magomadov since 9 February 2003.\n17.  In support of their statements the applicants submitted the following: an account by the second applicant given on 13 April 2005, an account by the applicants' neighbour Ms I. given o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4643", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n(1) Ms Tamara Zabiyeva, born in 1937;\n(2) Ms Eset Kotiyeva, born in 1973;\n(3) Mr Khamzat Zabiyev, born in 2000; and\n(4) Mr Belan Zabiyev, born in 2002.\nThey live in the village of Galashki, in the Republic of Ingushetia.\n7.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Ali Zabiyev, Mr Musa Zabiyev and Mr Umar Zabiyev, who was born in 1972. Umar Zabiyev was the second applicant's husband; they are the parents of the third and fourth applicants.\n8.  On 10 June 2003 the first applicant and her sons, Ali and Umar Zabiyev, were working in a field outside the village of Galashki. At some point they noticed a helicopter flying in circles above them.\n9.  At about 7 p.m. they rode home in a ZIL-130 lorry; Umar Zabiyev was driving. When they were within 4 kilometres of the village of Galashki, their vehicle came under heavy gunfire. Apparently the shots were fired from machine guns and came from the nearby forest. The first applicant was wounded in the back, neck and head. Umar Zabiyev lost control of the lorry, which crashed into a roadside tree. The Zabiyev brothers took the first applicant, unconscious, out of the vehicle. Then Ali Zabiyev ran to the village for help; Umar Zabiyev stayed with his mother. At some point the lorry exploded. Then the gunfire ceased.\n10.  About forty minutes later Ali Zabiyev, accompanied by Musa Zabiyev, policemen and fellow villagers, arrived at the scene of the incident to find the first applicant lying on the ground and no trace of Umar Zabiyev. The first applicant was then transported to hospital; two bullets were extracted from her body.\n11.  Having heard about Umar Zabiyev's disappearance, the villagers started searching for him. At about 10 p.m. on 10 June 2003 two of them, Mr D. and Mr O., met in a forest a group of around thirty or forty armed men speaking unaccented Russian. The armed men forced the two villagers to the ground and questioned them. Then they contacted someone via a portable radio transmitter, ordered the villagers to lie still for another half an hour and left.\n12.  In the morning of 11 June 2003 a group of Russian servicemen, under the command of an officer with the rank of major-general, arrived at the scene of the incident. The major-general suggested that the Zabiyevs had been attacked by unknown Chechen insurgents and denied any possible involvement of Russian military personnel.\n13.  At 12 noon on 11 June 2003 Umar Zabiyev's dead body, with gunshot wounds and bruises, was found around two kilometres from the scene of the incident and some twenty metres from the place where Mr D. and Mr O. had met the armed men the night before. The corpse was partly covered with soil.\n14.  At about 7.10 p.m. on 10 June 2003 unidentified persons were hiding in the forest on the left side of the road leading from the village of Dattykh at a distance of 4 kilometres from the village of Galashki. They fired from machine guns at the ZIL-130 lorry in which the first applicant, Umar Zabiyev and Ali Zabiyev were travelling. As a result of the shooting the first applicant suffered injuries to her neck and back, Ali Zabiyev received tangential soft-tissue wounds and Umar Zabiyev went missing.\n15.  On 11 June 2003 the dead body of Umar Zabiyev was found buried at a distance of 1.7 kilometres from the scene of the incident. The body bore traces of numerous gunshot wounds to the head and body.\n16.  On 16 July 2003 Human Rights Watch released a paper entitled “Russia: Abuses Spread Beyond Chech", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4644", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Saransk, the Republic of Mordovia.\n5.  On 15 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and detained pending trial. He was allegedly ill-treated by the police who sought to extract a confession.\n6.  On 6 October 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saransk convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. However, on 11 February 2004 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia quashed his conviction on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial.\n7.  On 25 May 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saransk again convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to two years and two months’ imprisonment. On 13 October 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence on appeal. The time spent in detention pending trial was to be counted towards the sentence. Thus, the applicant would have served his sentence by 15 May 2005.\n8.  On 31 March 2005, following a request for supervisory review by the applicant, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia reduced his sentence to two years’ imprisonment. The applicant was present and took part in the supervisory-review proceedings. Thus, according to article 408 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant should have been released immediately. However, he was returned to the prison. Once the prison administration received the decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Court, the applicant was released on 7 April 2005.\n9.  The applicant then brought proceedings for compensation in respect of the excess time he had spent in prison.\n10.  On 18 May 2006 the Leninskiy District Court of Saransk dismissed his claims. It held that the delay in his release had been due to the supervisory-review procedure, which had ended on 31 March 2005, and to the fact that the prison administration had not received the decision of 31 March 2005 of the Presidium of the Supreme Court until a week later and so were not liable for the additional period the applicant had spent in prison. On 4 July 2006 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia upheld that judgment on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4645", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Italy.\n8.  The applicant was placed in detention on 23 December 1993.\n9.  Several sets of criminal proceedings were brought against him, as a result of which he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment for, among other offences, membership of a mafia-type criminal organisation, drug trafficking and illegal possession of firearms. On 27 December 2001 the public prosecutor at the Milan Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant’s sentences be aggregated and fixed the overall term at thirty years.\n10.  The applicant was detained in several Italian prisons (including Palermo, Catania, Pisa and Naples).\n11.  On 10 August 1994, in view of the danger posed by the applicant, the Minister of Justice issued a decree ordering that he be subject for one year to the special prison regime provided for in the second paragraph of section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act (“Law no. 354 of 1975”). This provision, which was amended by Law no. 279 of 23 December 2002 (“Law no. 279 of 2002”), allows application of the ordinary prison regime to be suspended in whole or in part for reasons of public order and safety.\nThe 1994 decree imposed the following restrictions:\n–  restrictions on visits by family members (a maximum of a single one‑hour visit per month);\n–  no meetings with non-family members;\n–  prohibition on using the telephone;\n–  no sums of money above a fixed amount to be received or sent out;\n–  no more than two parcels to be received per month, but permission to receive two parcels per year containing clothing and linen;\n–  ban on organising cultural, recreational or sports activities;\n–  no right to vote in elections for prisoners’ representatives or to be elected as a representative;\n–  no handicraft activities;\n–  no food requiring cooking to be purchased;\n–  no more than two hours’ outdoor exercise per day.\n12.  In addition, all the applicant’s correspondence was to be monitored, subject to prior authorisation by the judicial authority.\n13.  The application of the special regime was subsequently extended on nineteen occasions for successive periods of one year or six months.\nEach decree covered a limited period, as follows:\n10 August 1994 – 9 August 1995 (decree no. 1)\n5 August 1995 – 5 February 1996 (decree no. 2)\n2 February 1996 – 2 August 1996 (decree no. 3)\n31 July 1996 – 31 January 1997 (decree no. 4)\n4 February 1997 – 4 August 1997 (decree no. 5)\n31 July 1997 – 31 January 1998 (decree no. 6)\n4 February 1998 – 4 August 1998 (decree no. 7)\n30 July 1998 – 30 January 1999 (decree no. 8)\n27 January 1999 – 27 July 1999 (decree no. 9)\n22 July 1999 – 31 December 1999 (decree no. 10)\n23 December 1999 – 23 June 2000 (decree no. 11)\n22 June 2000 – 31 December 2000 (decree no. 12)\n21 December 2000 – 21 June 2001 (decree no. 13)\n18 June 2001 – 18 December 2001 (decree no. 14)\n13 December 2001 – 13 June 2002 (decree no. 15)\n10 June 2002 – 31 December 2002 (decree no. 16)\n28 December 2002 – 22 December 2003 (decree no. 17)\n23 December 2003 – 23 December 2004 (decree no. 18)\n17 December 2004 – 17 December 2005 (decree no. 19).\n14.  The applicant appealed against most of these decrees to the Naples court responsible for the execution of sentences. The case file shows that the applicant did not appeal on points of law against the decisions of the latter court. He maintained that the Court of Cassation would in any event have dismissed the appeals on the ground that he no longer had an interest in havin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4646", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n20.  The complaints raised in this application arise out of the Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in July and August 1974 and the continuing division of the territory of Cyprus. These events gave rise to four applications by the Government of Cyprus against the respondent State, which have led to various findings of violations of the Convention. The history is set out in the Court’s judgment in Cyprus v. Turkey ([GC], no. 25781/94, §§ 13-18, ECHR 2001‑IV; hereinafter “the fourth inter-State case”) and the Court sees no reason for repetition.\n21.  The facts are disputed by the parties. The Court notes that the summary of their versions of events given in the Chamber judgment have not been; these are in large part reproduced below, with the addition of some new information submitted by the parties and identified as such in the text.\n22.  The first applicant, an ironmonger, was born in 1947; he has been considered missing since 1974. His wife, the second applicant, was born in 1949 and resided in Lymbia.\n23.  In July 1974 the first applicant, responding to the declared general mobilisation, enlisted as a reservist in the 305 Reservists Battalion which had its headquarters in Dhali village. On 8 to 9 August 1974 the reserve soldiers of the 305 Reservists Battalion, among them the applicant, took up the manning of Cypriot outposts along the front line opposite the Turkish military forces which extended between Mia Milia and Koutsovendis.\n24.  On the morning of 14 August 1974, Turkish military forces, supported by tanks and air cover, launched an attack against the Cypriot area where the applicant and his battalion were serving. The Cypriot line of defence was broken and the Turkish military forces began advancing towards the area of Mia Milia; the Cypriot forces began retreating and dispersed in all directions. After a while the area was captured by the Turkish military forces and the applicant was trapped within. There has been no trace of the applicant since.\n25.  Mr Christakis Ioannou of Pano Dhikomo and now of Stavros Refugee Camp Strovolos, who had been a prisoner of the Turkish military forces and/or the Turkish authorities, stated that at Adana Prison in Turkey, where he had been taken on 31 August 1974, there were another forty persons in the same room for three to four days. Among them was the applicant. After the said period they were split up and he had not seen the applicant since.\n(b)  Application no. 16065/90: Andreas Loizides\n26.  The first applicant, a student, was born in 1954; he has been considered missing since 1974. His father, the second applicant, was born in 1907 and resided in Nicosia.\n27.  In July 1974 the first applicant was serving as a second lieutenant in the 1st Company of the 256 Infantry Battalion stationed at Xeros. On about 30 July 1974 the battalion moved to the Lapithos area. The soldiers were split up into various groups; the applicant’s group, consisting of ten men, was ordered to take up positions on the Lapithos heights.\n28.  On 5 August 1974 Turkish forces launched a strong attack from all sides against the Cypriot forces’ positions while other Turkish troops managed to encircle Lapithos. Owing to the Turkish superiority in men and weapons the Cypriot forces were ordered to retreat towards the centre of the village to the company base. The applicant arrived there with his men and was informed by the inhabitants that Lapithos was surrounded by Turkish troops. They hid their weapons in an ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4647", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Mardin. By a letter dated 11 June 2008, the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the second applicant had died on 10 March 2007 and that his son Mr Abdulvahap Çelik wished to pursue the application.\n5.  In 1974, a third person named B.A. inherited a plot of land from her mother, a Syrian national. However, she did not have the land registered in her name at the time.\n6.  On 9 July 1996 B.A.’s representative signed an agreement with the applicants before a notary public, promising to sell the land to them. The applicants paid the amount due and were told that B.A. would finalise the relevant formalities and transfer the ownership of the land to the applicants in the shortest possible time.\n7.  On 1 August 1996 the applicants brought an action against B.A. before the Üsküdar Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. They claimed that she had failed to transfer the ownership of the land to them, although they had paid the purchase price. They requested that the land be registered in their names.\n8.  On 30 December 2003 the court dismissed the action. It held that on 1 October 1966 the Cabinet of Ministers had issued a decree seizing the property of Syrian nationals living in Turkey, including the land in question. As the land had been owned by the State since 1966, the court concluded that the sale agreement of 9 July 1996 signed by B.A. was void.\n9.  Both parties appealed against that decision. B.A. also put forward a plea of unconstitutionality against the decree of 1966.\n10.  On 28 February 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the plea of unconstitutionality and upheld the first instance court’s decision.\n11.  On 7 July 2005 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ request for rectification. This decision was not served on the applicants and they learned about the outcome of the proceedings by tracking their application through the Court of Cassation’s web site.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4648", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Nicosia.\n8.  The applicant stated that he was born in Karavas, a village on the coast in the Kyrenia district of northern Cyprus. On the death of his father, he inherited the house, located at 15, Lambousa Street, in which he had lived throughout his childhood. It was situated on plots nos. 268 and 269, sheet/plan XI/16W1 and 8W2, and was registered in the name of the applicant by virtue of registration no. 5725 of 23 March 1956; it consisted of three ground floor rooms, two basement rooms, one kitchen, two wells, one turbine water pump and one water storage tank. The applicant continued to make use of this house, where his sister lived, until July 1974.\n9.  However, when he married in 1963, the applicant moved to a house nearby which he had purchased. It was situated on plots nos. 20 and 21/3, sheet/plan XI/16W2.E1, and was registered in the name of the applicant by virtue of registration no. 5678 of 23 January 1970. This second house, located at 10, Kanaris Street, consisted of three ground floor rooms, one room upstairs, two wells, one electric water pump and one water storage pump.\n10.  The applicant also owned three plots of land in Karavas, some of which were lemon groves, with olive and carob trees growing on the others, and a share in a natural water spring. These properties were registered as follows:\n(a) plot no. 273, sheet/plan XI/16W1, field with lemon groves of a total extent of 6,355 m², registered in the name of the applicant by virtue of registration no. 151 of 23 March 1956;\n(b) plot no. 25, sheet/plan XII/18W1, field with carob and olive trees of a total extent of 11,372 m², registered in the name of the applicant by virtue of registration no. 4091 of 16 April 1957;\n(c) plots nos. 76 and 79, sheet/plan XII/18W1, field with carob and olive trees of a total extent of 35,452 m², registered in the name of the applicant by virtue of registration no. 4269 of 23 January 1970;\n(d) plot no. 140, sheet/plan XI/24W2, source of running water, registered for the 1/224 share in the name of the applicant.\n11.  In support of his claim to ownership the applicant produced the original Land Certificates concerning each of his alleged properties, with the exception of the house described under paragraph 9 above. He alleged that the relevant Land Certificate had been submitted to the Kyrenia Land Survey Office for amendment in June 1974 and had been lost due to the Turkish invasion. He therefore produced an extract from the registries of the Republic of Cyprus, dated 29 June 1993, and indicating that the property at issue was registered in his name.\n12.  Upon the 1974 Turkish intervention, the applicant left with his wife and two children for Limassol, southern Cyprus. He claimed that he had been deprived of his property rights, all his property being located in the area which was under the occupation and control of the Turkish military authorities. The latter had prevented him from having access to and from using and possessing his houses and fields.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4649", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Helsinki.\n6.  On 24 February 2004 the applicant was convicted of aggravated fraud by the Tuusula District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) and sentenced to conditional imprisonment for one year and eight months.\n7.  On 25 March 2004 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) requesting, inter alia, that an oral hearing be held. The other defendants and one of the complainants also appealed to the Appeal Court.\n8.  On 28 December 2004, after having received written observations from the parties, the Appeal Court decided to hold an oral hearing. On 29 December 2004 the parties were summoned to attend the oral hearings which were to take place on 28 February, 14 to 16 March, 18 March, and 21 to 24 March 2005. It was stated in the decision and in the summons that the applicant was to appear in person at the hearing on all of those days, under penalty of a default fine. His presence was required due to his own appeal as well as the opposing parties’ appeal and in order to be heard by the public prosecutor. However, the hearing of witnesses was to take place between 14 and 24 March 2005. Moreover, it was stated in the summons that, if the applicant were to be absent from the main hearing without a valid excuse and despite the penalty of a default fine being imposed, his appeal would be discontinued. As far as the opposing parties’ appeal and the hearing by the public prosecutor were concerned, a new threat of a higher fine could be imposed on the applicant, he could be ordered to be brought to the same or a later hearing, and the case could be decided regardless of his absence. A valid excuse meant circumstances of force majeure or an illness certified by a medical certificate. Work or holiday reasons were normally not considered as valid reasons. The Appeal Court was to examine whether the excuse was valid.\n9.  The summons was served on the applicant on 4 January 2005.\n10.  The applicant did not attend the hearing on 28 February 2005 but was represented by his counsel. He could not be reached by telephone despite several attempts. The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be brought to the hearing but this was not done. The applicant’s counsel indicated that the applicant could most likely be found at his home but that his presence at the hearing on 28 February 2005 was not necessary as it had been planned in advance that he would be heard only on 15 March 2005.\n11.  On 28 February 2005 the Appeal Court decided, on the basis of Chapter 26, section 20, subsection 1, of the Code of Judicial Procedure (oikeudenkäymiskaari, rättegångsbalken; Act no. 381/2003), that the applicant’s appeal was to be discontinued due to his absence. It found that, since the applicant had not attended the hearing on 28 February 2005 or notified the court of a valid excuse for his absence, he had to be considered to have been absent even though his counsel had been present. It was stated in the decision that an ordinary appeal was not allowed but if the applicant had had a valid excuse that he had not been able to announce in time, he had the right to a reopening of the case on the basis of the same appeal, by notifying the Appeal Court in writing within thirty days of the decision to discontinue the appeal. If he could not provide a valid excuse, the case would be ruled inadmissible.\n12.  On 15 March 2005 the applicant attended the hearing as planned and was questioned as a wi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4650", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kandıra.\n5.  On 9 July 1996 the applicant was arrested in Istanbul during a bank robbery. On 24 July 1996 he was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who remanded him in custody.\n6.  On 5 August 1996 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicant. Invoking Article 146 of the Criminal Code, he accused the applicant of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of involvement in activities which undermined the constitutional order of the State.\n7.  The trial commenced before the Istanbul State Security Court. In the subsequent hearings, the court refused to release the applicant on account of the nature of the alleged offence and the state of the evidence.\n8.  On 11 December 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court pronounced its judgment. It convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n9.  On 3 December 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed this judgment. The case was accordingly remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court.\n10.  On 5 January 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court resumed the trial. During the subsequent hearings, the court rejected the applicant’s requests for release, having regard to the state of the evidence.\n11.  On 19 December 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court once again convicted the applicant as charged and, pursuant to Article 146 of the Criminal Code, sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n12.  On 16 September 2003 the Court of Cassation once again quashed the judgment of the first instance court.\n13.  The proceedings continued before the Istanbul State Security Court. On 7 May 2004 the State Security Courts were abolished following a constitutional amendment, and the applicant’s case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.\n14.  According to the information in the case file, the proceedings are still pending and the applicant is still remanded in custody.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4651", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company has its headquarters in Rovaniemi. The second applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kauniainen.\n5.  The applicant company is a limited liability company, the shares of which are fully owned by the second applicant. The second applicant is the only member of the board of directors of the applicant company.\n6.  On 5 December 1997 the Tax Office of Länsi-Suomi (verovirasto, skatteverket) requested that a distraint order be issued and the property of the applicant company seized for the second applicant’s unpaid taxes. The Tax Office had initiated a police investigation which had revealed that the registration documents of the applicant company had been forged. It was assumed that the company had been created in order to protect the second applicant’s business and assets.\n7.  On 9 and 10 December 1997 the property of the company was seized in accordance with Chapter 4, section 10 of the Execution Act (ulosottolaki, utsökningslagen), as in force at the relevant time.\n8.  On 17 December 1997 the applicant company apparently appealed against the distraint order, arguing that its property could not be seized for the second applicant’s unpaid taxes. The result of the appeal is not known.\n9.  On 30 December 1997 the second applicant was declared bankrupt. The property seized prior to the bankruptcy was transferred to the bankruptcy estate on the basis of section 45 of the Bankruptcy Act (konkurssisääntö, konkursstadgan). This terminated the seizure procedure. It was decided on 13 March 1998 that the seized property could be liquidated and it was actually sold in November and December 1998.\n10.  On 27 November 1998 the second applicant was convicted for having forged the company registration documents and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. This judgment became final on 31 August 2000.\n11.  On 8 December 1998 the applicant company filed an action against the second applicant’s bankruptcy estate and requested the court to order the sequestration of the value of the seized property, which was in the bankruptcy estate’s possession, and to confirm the company’s ownership of this property.\n12.  By a decision of 4 June 1999 the Seinäjoki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) refused to apply interim measures.\n13.  On 21 March 2001 the District Court dismissed the action without considering the merits. The court found that the seizure of the applicant company’s property had already acquired legal force and that the procedure in that respect had ended. As the value of the property was still in the possession of the bankruptcy estate, it was not too late to determine to whom the property had belonged. The applicant company had been registered in spite of the fact that the registration documents were forged. As the second applicant had acted mala fide, he could not take advantage of the registration and the property in question had thus never been transferred to the company. The second applicant could thus be equated with the company vis-à-vis his debtors. The company was therefore not in need of judicial relief.\n14.  On 15 April 2001 the applicant company complained to the Vaasa Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten).\n15.  On 14 October 2002 the Appeal Court quashed the District Court’s decision of 21 March 2001 and referred the case back to the District Court. It found that the grounds given by the District Court were not such that it could conclude that the company was not in need of judicial relief. It should not have ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4652", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Nicosia.\n8.  The applicant claimed that until 1974 she had been permanently residing in a house she owned at 33, 28th October Street, Kyrenia (northern Cyprus). She also owned a garden at Kazafani and three fields with trees at Karmi (in the locality known as “Horteri Chomatovounos”), all in the District of Kyrenia.\n9.  According to the applicant, her house had a surface-area of 190 square metres, with three large drawing rooms, a spacious dining room and kitchen, four bedrooms, two bathrooms, a storeroom and verandas. It was surrounded by a 753 sq. m garden and furnished mainly with period antiques and luxury items.\n10.  In support of her claim to ownership, the applicant produced copies of the relevant certificates of ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable properties issued by the Republic of Cyprus. According to these documents, the applicant's properties were registered as follows:\n(a) Kyrenia/Pano Kyrenia, plot no. 45, sheet/plan 12/21.1.12, registration no. C1703, house with garden;\n(b) Kyrenia/Kazafani, plot no. 95/1/1, sheet/plan 12/22W2, garden/orchard; area: 2,351 sq. m;\n(c) Kyrenia/Karmi, plot no. 222, sheet/plan 12/27E2, field; area: 3,138 sq. m;\n(d) Kyrenia/Karmi, plot no. 282, sheet/plan 12/27E2, field; area: 1,650 sq. m;\n(e) Kyrenia/Karmi, plot no. 291/1, sheet/plan 12/27E2, field; area: 2,264 sq. m.\n11.  Since the 1974 Turkish intervention, the applicant has been deprived of her properties, which were located in the area under the occupation and control of the Turkish military authorities, who prevented her from having access to and using her properties.\nII. THE DEMONSTRATION OF 19 JULY 1989\n12.  On 19 July 1989, the applicant joined an anti-Turkish demonstration in the Ayios Kassianos area in Nicosia in which the applicants in the Chrysostomos and Papachrysostomou v. Turkey and Loizidou v. Turkey cases (see below) also took part.\n13.  According to an affidavit sworn by the applicant at Nicosia District Court on 10 April 2000, the demonstration of 19 July 1989 was peaceful and was held on the fifteenth anniversary of the Turkish intervention in Cyprus, in support of the missing persons and to protest against human- rights violations. The applicant and other women had planned to gather in the grounds of the Ayios Kassianos School and to stage a sit-in in protest against the occupation of the northern part of the island. They also asked the Bishop of Kitium to conduct a service in the St. George's Chapel, which was located near the school.\n14.  When the applicant arrived, the school grounds were filled with a group of mostly young women, who were singing. The applicant stood near a water tank. She noticed the presence of UN soldiers and Turkish policemen armed with batons.\n15.  The UN officers invited the demonstrators to leave the premises. However, within a matter of seconds, the Turkish policemen had rushed towards them. Some of the women were grabbed by their clothes and hit with guns and batons. The applicant herself was hit and pushed. She received what she described as a “terrible blow in the right leg beneath the tibia”. She realised she had been hit with a sharp object, namely a bayonet wielded by a Turkish soldier. Her leg started to bleed profusely and she felt herself drifting into unconsciousness. She shouted: “Help, help, please, I am losing my leg”. Some demonstrators put her on a stretcher and she was taken by ambulance to Nicosia General Hospital.\n16.  At th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4653", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Adana.\n5.  On 31 December 2000 at about 00.15 a.m. the applicant, who was seventeen years old at the time, was taken into police custody in Adana on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation by way of chanting slogans in favour of that organisation and by burning tyres in the streets. The same day he was interrogated by the police and the public prosecutor respectively, in the absence of a lawyer. According to the information in the file, the applicant was released on the second day of custody.\n6.  On 10 January 2001 the Public Prosecutor at the Adana State Security Court filed an indictment accusing the applicant and three others of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, an offence under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).\n7.  Between 10 January and 13 August 2001, the court held thirty-four hearings, during which the applicant was not represented by a lawyer. A lawyer was assigned to the applicant for the hearing of 3 September 2001.\n8.  On 3 December 2001 the State Security Court delivered its judgment. It convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment. In convicting the applicant, the court had regard to the applicant’s statements to the police and the public prosecutor, which were taken in the absence of a lawyer. On 8 July 2002 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal, without holding a hearing on the merits. The decision dated 8 July 2002 was deposited with the registry of the Adana State Security Court on 21 August 2002. Subsequently, on 11 September 2002 the applicant was sent to prison to serve his sentence.\n9.  In the meantime, on 30 July 2003 Law no. 4963 entered into force, which amended Article 169 of the Criminal Code. Relying on the fact that the new law provided more favourable provisions for the applicant, on 29 August 2003 the applicant’s lawyer requested the re-opening of the proceedings. On 15 September 2003 the Adana Criminal Court decided to re-open the case and ordered the applicant’s release from prison. The matter was accordingly re-examined by the Adana Criminal Code and, in view of the new wording of Article 169 of the Criminal Code, on 7 October 2004 the court held that the applicant should not be convicted under Article 169 but under Article 312. As a result, he was sentenced to three months and ten days’ imprisonment and his sentence was converted to a fine. Furthermore, in accordance with Law no. 647, the execution of his sentence was postponed. On 7 October 2004 the applicant appealed.\n10.  On 19 December 2005 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation decided that the case file should be remitted to the Adana Criminal Court for re-examination. In his decision, the prosecutor referred to new legislation which had entered into force on 12 October 2004, amending the Criminal Code once again. The Prosecutor drew further attention to another new amendment which had been made on 31 March 2005 to Law no. 5326 concerning misdemeanours.\n11.  The applicant’s case was once again examined by the Adana Criminal Court in view of the recent legislative amendments. Finally, on 8 May 2006 the court found the applicant guilty under Article 215 of Law no. 5326 and sentenced him to twenty five days’ imprisonment. The court further converted the sentence to a fine and, pursuant to Law no. 5395 on Juvenile Protection, i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4654", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Athienou.\n8.  The applicant alleged to be the owner of 11 plots of land situated in the northern part of Cyprus. His properties were registered as follows:\n(a) Nicosia/Piroi, plot no. 124, sheet/plan 31/26, registration no. 4475, share: ½, area: 25,753 square metres (m²);\n(b) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 607, sheet/plan 31/46, registration no. 31803, share: whole; area: 2,342 m²;\n(c) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 670, sheet/plan 31/46, registration no. 23140, share: whole; area: 1,673 m²;\n(d) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 671, sheet/plan 31/46, registration no. 25893, share: whole; area: 1,673 m²;\n(e) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 635, sheet/plan 31/46, registration no. 23158, share: whole; area: 2,676 m²;\n(f) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 291, sheet/plan 31/54, registration no. 25885, share: whole; area: 11,706 m²;\n(g) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 339, sheet/plan 31/43, registration no. 25887, share: whole; area: 6,680 m²;\n(h) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 338, sheet/plan 31/43, registration no. 23126, share: whole; area: 6,666 m²;\n(i) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 82, sheet/plan 31/43, registration no. 29092, share: whole; area: 5,017 m²;\n(j) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 122, sheet/plan 31/36, registration no. 23392, share: 1/2; area: 12,041 m²;\n(k) Larnaca/Arsos, plot no. 59, sheet/plan 32/25, registration no. 842, share: 1/2; area: 22,409 m².\n9.  In support of his claim to ownership, the applicant produced copies of the original title deeds and a cadastral plan on which his lands were marked in red. He specified that the plots of land described in paragraph 8 (a) and (k) above belonged to his father, who had transferred them to him on 10 April 1997 and 23 June 1995 respectively. Plot (a) was land which could be developed, located 150 metres from the road connecting Nicosia and Larnaca.\n10.  The applicant had been forced to leave his properties by reason of the 1974 Turkish invasion, his lands being located in the area which was under the occupation and overall control of the Turkish military authorities. The latter had prevented him from having access to and from using his lands. He had been continuously prevented from entering the northern part of Cyprus.\n11.  In December 1992 the applicant took part in a peaceful march to the Saint Epiphanios church, which was located in the occupied part of Cyprus in the vicinity of the Athienou village.\n12.  On 8 December 1992 the Athienou Town Council invited the Ambassador of Turkey to the Council of Europe to request the Turkish Government to give the Turkish military forces in Cyprus instructions aimed at permitting the peaceful and free accomplishment of the said march. On 13 December 1992 the applicant and approximately 200 other persons left Athienou and reached the UN buffer zone, where they were stopped by the UN forces in Cyprus (UNFICYP). UNFICYP officials informed the applicant and the other demonstrators that in the absence of an authorisation from the Turkish-Cypriot authorities their security could not be guaranteed. The applicant and his fellow demonstrators had to abandon their plan to reach the Saint Epiphanios church.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4655", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 28 August 1992 the applicant opened a joint bank account with her husband, S.K., in Luxembourg. At the beginning of 1994 S.K. fell ill with an incurable disease. He decided that the joint bank account should be closed and the money deposited therein, 132,655.16 U.S. dollars (USD), transferred to a new account, which was to be opened in the applicant’s name at the same bank. The transaction was carried out on 28 April 1994.\n6.  On 4 August 1994 S.K. died. An inventory of his estate was conducted on 1 November 1994. The applicant did not report in the inventory the money which was still in her account in Luxembourg. On 20 January 1995 she confirmed the inventory of the estate on oath before a court. She did not mention the money in her Luxembourg account. On 31 March 1995 she transferred the money to another bank account in her name in Switzerland.\n \nCriminal proceedings\n7.  On 3 July 1995 S.K.’s children from his previous marriage filed a criminal complaint with the police alleging that the applicant had embezzled from S.K.’s foreign bank accounts money belonging to his estate. On 16 August 1995 the applicant was questioned by the police for the first time.\n8.  In August 1995 requests for international legal assistance were sent to the Luxembourg and Swiss authorities. The former replied in either August or September 1997 and the latter did not reply at all.\n9.  On 24 September 1997 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) confiscated the applicant’s property in the amount of USD 477,609 (equivalent to 2,551,731 Finnish marks (FIM)) as security for the total sum allegedly embezzled by her. Apparently, the applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) on 4 December 1997.\n10.  The pre-trial investigation was completed on 5 December 1997. Subsequently, the public prosecutor sought several extensions to the time-limit for pressing charges. On 24 May 1999 the prosecutor filed an application for a summons with the Helsinki District Court. According to the indictment the applicant had appropriated assets in the amount of USD 132,655.16 in her possession but belonging to S.K.’s estate by failing to report the money in the estate inventory.\n11.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor filed a request to reduce the amount of the above-mentioned security. It appears that the District Court granted this request on 4 June 1999. On 11 October 1999 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal in this connection, upholding the security measure as amended by the District Court.\n12.  In the criminal proceedings before the District Court the applicant denied the charge of aggravated embezzlement claiming that she had not been engaged in any transactions regarding the money allegedly appropriated by her. She also contended that S.K. had told her that the money had belonged to a Russian businessman and she had not therefore been obliged to report it at the time of drawing up the estate inventory.\n13.  On 13 September 1999, having obtained the testimony of the applicant and four other persons as well as written evidence, the court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to a suspended term of one year and four months’ imprisonment. She was also ordered to compensate S.K.’s estate in the amount of USD 132,655.16. The court ordered the security measure to remain in force until the compensation had been paid or levied or until it had been decided otherwis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4656", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1930, 1936, 1958, 1961, 1959, 1983, 1985, 1987 and 1990 respectively. Their place of residence is not known. In a fax of 22 March 2002 the applicants' representative indicated that “the Hadjithomas family had [had] to ... emigrate abroad”.\n9.  The first and second applicants (Mr Thomas George Hadjithomas and Mrs Ioulia Yioupa Hadjithoma) were a married couple. The third and fourth applicants (Mrs Paraskevi Hadjithoma-Hapeshi and Mr Nicos Thomas Hadjithomas) are their children. The fifth applicant (Mrs Xanthi Antoniou-Hadjithoma) is the widow of the elder son of the family, X, whom she married in 1983. The remaining applicants are the children of X and the fifth applicant.\n10.  The first and second applicants alleged that they had lived with their children in Ayios Amvrosios, a village in the District of Kyrenia (northern Cyprus), where the first applicant owned several properties, including the family house. On 13 August 1974, as the Turkish troops were advancing, the applicants left Ayios Amvrosios and fled to the unoccupied part of Cyprus.\n11.  On 12 January 1996 the first applicant transferred the ownership of most of his properties, including the family house, to his three children: the third and fourth applicants and X. In November 1996 X died. His estate was inherited by the fifth applicant and their children (the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth applicants). Detailed information about the properties at issue is contained in the file. In particular, in 1974 the first applicant was the owner of 33 plots of land, including woodlands; the family house (registered under no. 10920, plot no. 40-41-476/2); a garden; a non-descript “site”; a “ruined room”; a “ruined mill with one room”; and an orchard with 12 mulberry trees. These properties were located in the villages of Ayios Amvrosios, Klepini and Chartzia.\n12.  The applicants produced an affidavit from Mr Georgios Michael, the Kyrenia Deputy District Officer of the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus, stating that:\n(a) for 18 of the properties (including the house) there existed original title deeds;\n(b) for 6 other properties there existed the title deeds and “certificates of ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable properties” issued by the Republic of Cyprus; and\n(c) for 15 other properties the original title deeds were lost in 1974 and only certificates of ownership were available.\nAll the above-mentioned documents have been produced by the applicants.\n13.  The applicants claimed that they had been informed that their house in Ayios Amvrosios had been destroyed by the Turkish army. This fact was denied by the respondent Government.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4657", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants all live in Limassol. Their dates of birth are indicated in the list annexed to the present judgment.\n8.  All the applicants claimed to be permanent residents of Famagusta (northern Cyprus), where they had their homes as well as other immovable properties.\n9.  Upon the 1974 Turkish intervention, the applicants left for southern Cyprus. They claimed that they had been deprived of their property rights, all their property being located in the area which was under the occupation and control of the Turkish military authorities. They had made several attempts to return to their homes and properties in Famagusta, the last occasion being on 23 December 1989, but they had not been allowed to do so by the Turkish military authorities. The latter had prevent them from having access to and from using their houses and properties.\n10.  In his memorial of 27 May 2003 the applicants' representative stated that applicants nos. 2 to 5, 7 to 14 and 17 to 36 had decided not to pursue their case any further and to withdraw their application. The case was thus to be continued only in the names of applicants nos. 1 (Mrs Soula Zavou), 6 (Mrs Lenia Chrysostomou), 15 (Mrs Anastasia Evengelides), 16 (Mrs Ariadni Evangelides) and 37 (Mrs Maro Pouyourou).\n11.  Applicant no. 1 (Mrs Soula Zavou) claimed to be the owner of the following immovable properties:\n(a) Famagusta, Chrysospyliotissa, plot no. 513, sheet/plan 33/12.4.2, block A, registration no. AO-16/10/86; description: house; use: residence, share: whole;\n(b) Famagusta, Ayios Ioannis, plot no. 320, sheet/plan 33/12.2.3, block A, registration no. AO-16/10/86; description: block of flats; use: commercial-rent; share: 1/5;\n(c) Famagusta, Ayios Loucas, plot no. 827, sheet/plan 33/11.W.1, block B and plot no. 51, sheet/plan 33/11.W.1, block B, registration no. BO-16/10/86; description: orange grove; share: 3/8.\n12.  Applicant no. 6 (Mrs Elenitsa (Lenia) Chrysostomou) claimed to be the owner of the following immovable property:\nFamagusta, Chrysospyliotissa, plot no. 1178, sheet/plan 33/12.6.3, block A; description: two houses; share: ½.\n13.  Applicant no. 15 (Mrs Anastasia Evangelides) claimed to be the owner of the following immovable properties:\n(a) Famagusta, Chrisi Akti, plot no. 691, sheet/plan 33/21.1.IV, block A; description: house; use: residence; share: whole;\n(b) Famagusta, Chrisi Akti, plot no. 693, sheet/plan 33/21.1.IV, block A; description: house; use: rent; share: whole;\n(c) Famagusta, Salamis, plot no. 1885, sheet/plan 33/3.E.1, block D; description: building site.\n14.  Applicant no. 16 (Mr Ariadni Evangelides) claimed to be the owner of the following immovable property:\nFamagusta, Stavros, plot no. 701, sheet/plan 33/13.4.3, registration no. SDD 626/85; description: plot of Land with two houses; use: residence; share: whole.\n15.  Applicant no. 37 (Mrs Maro Pouyourou) claimed to be the owner of the following immovable properties:\n(a) Famagusta, Ayios Ioannis, plot no. 264, sheet/plan 33/12.3.4, block C; description: house; use: residence; share: whole;\n(b) Famagusta, Komi Kepir, plots nos. 532 and 543, sheet/plan 7/46; description: plots of land; use: agriculture; share: whole.\n16.  In support of their claims to ownership applicant nos. 1, 6, 15, 16 and 37 submitted certificates of affirmation of ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable properties issued by the Republic of Cyprus. They also produced affidavits in verification of their personal status and immovable property rights.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4658", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Ağrı.\n5.  On 28 January 1995 the applicant was arrested in Istanbul on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. On 15 February 1995 he was remanded in custody.\n6.  On 24 April 1995 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and nineteen other accused with the Istanbul State Security Court. On 2 May 1995 the trial commenced. On 10 May 2001 the applicant was released pending trial.\n7.  By Law no. 5190, in June 2004 State Security Courts were abolished. Subsequently, the Istanbul Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the case.\n8.  On 23 October 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4659", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Istanbul.\n4.  On 15 August 1988 the applicant brought a case before the Erdek Civil Court against the Treasury, requesting to be registered as the owner of a certain plot of land.\n5.  On 17 April 1990 the Erdek Civil Court granted the applicant’s request. The Treasury appealed.\n6. Whenever he inquired about the outcome of the appeal proceedings, the applicant was informed by the registry of the first-instance court that the proceedings were still pending. In 1998, however, the applicant was informed by the Court of Cassation that the latter had actually rendered its decision long before, on 28 October 1992. The Erdek Civil Court declared, in response to a petition from the applicant, that the case file had never been sent back to it and it had subsequently attempted to recreate the case file, which appeared to have been lost.\n7.  On 8 May 1998 the Treasury filed a petition with the Court of Cassation requesting that the decision of 28 October 1992 be rectified.\n8.  On 28 September 1998 the Court of Cassation decided that it could not examine the Treasury’s request as the reconstituted file was not sufficient and it needed the original case file for such an examination. It therefore decided to send the file back to the Erdek Civil Court. According to the information submitted by the parties to the Court, the proceedings are still pending.\n9.  In 2001 the Land Registry Commission attached to the General Directorate of Land Registration conducted a land registry survey and registered the title to the relevant plot under the name of a certain K.T. and the Treasury.\n10.  On 30 May 2001 the applicant brought a case before the Erdek Cadastral Court, challenging the land registry survey.\n11.  On 18 May 2004 an on-site inspection of the land was carried out, and on 20 October 2004 the Erdek Cadastral Court allowed the applicant’s request in part.\n12.  On 10 November 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 20 October 2004 and on 26 February 2007 it dismissed the Treasury’s rectification request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4660", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Nicosia.\n8.  The applicant was born in Peristerona, a village in the District of Famagusta in northern Cyprus. He lived in Famagusta with his family in a four-bedroom apartment with an unobstructed view towards the sea, which he claimed that he owned. This apartment, located at no. 128 of the commercial and touristic main street named Kennedy Avenue, was indicated by no. 703 on a building erected upon a building site with plot no. 937 of block C and sheet/plan 33/21.2.3. It was registered in the name of the applicant under registration no. 1057.\n9.  The applicant further claimed that at the time of the 1974 Turkish invasion he was the owner of land in Famagusta on which was located an Intercommunal Secondary Grammar school, known as the “Centre of Higher Studies”. This land covered a total area of 6,299 m², on plot no. 900 of block D and sheet/plan 24/59W2. It was registered in the name of the applicant under registration no. D-4840. On this land the applicant had erected a three-storey building, which had a total area of 2,020 m², comprising a basement, ground floor and two vertical floors above it. The applicant submitted that he was the owner and headmaster of the above-mentioned school, the premises of which are now part of the “Eastern Mediterranean University”.\n10.  In support of his claims to ownership, the applicant produced the following documents:\n- an agreement reached on 1 September 1968 between a certain G. Nicolaides and Mr Takis Saveriades (a member of the applicant's family) for the sale of an apartment located on the seventh floor of a flat on the Famagusta coast;\n- a certificate issued on 28 November 2002 by the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus stating that the applicant was the owner of a flat without parking space, located in Famagusta, Kennedy Avenue, registered under plot no. 937, sheet/plan 3/21.2.3;\n- a certificate issued on 11 September 2001 by the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus stating that the applicant was the owner of a field with an unregistered building, located in Famagusta, Salaminas Avenue, registered under plot no. 900, sheet/plan 24/59;\n- a building permit issued on 11 September 1963 concerning plot no. 900, sheet/plan 24/59\n11.  At the time of the 1974 Turkish invasion, the applicant and his family fled to southern Cyprus. He claimed that since then he had been deprived of his property rights, all his property being located in the area which is under the occupation and the control of the Turkish military authorities. The latter prevented him from having access to and from using and possessing his home and property in Famagusta as well as from practising his profession there.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4661", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Larnaca.\n8.  The applicant claimed that his home had been in the village of Marathovounos in the District of Famagusta (northern Cyprus). His family had owned considerable immovable property in northern Cyprus and was one of the wealthiest families in the village. The applicant's parents had intended to transfer to him a quarter share in their immovable properties when he reached the age of 18. However, because of the 1974 Turkish intervention this did not happen. The applicant considered that, even though the formal registration process was not completed, he had been the “beneficial owner” of the said share in the properties from the age of 18.\n9.  The properties listed below were all transferred to the applicant by way of gift from his parents on 6 August 1996 (declarations of transfer nos. D-1534, D-1535, D-1537 and D-1538):\n(a) Famagusta, Marathovounos, Rashies, plot no. 149, sheet/plan: 22/24; description: house (area: approximately 250 square metres) and yard (ground floor); use: residence; area 2,339 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(b) Famagusta, Marathovounos, plot no. 223, sheet/plan: 22/24; description: field; area 2,161 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(c) Famagusta, Marathovounos, plot no. 170, sheet/plan: 22/24; description: field; area 1,339 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(d) Famagusta, Marathovounos, Rashies, plot no. 188, sheet/plan: 22/24; description: field; area 2,190 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(e) Famagusta, Marathovounos, plot no. 303/1/1, sheet/plan: 22/24.V.1; description: field; area 276 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(f) Famagusta, Marathovounos, Xylogefyro, plot no. 130, sheet/plan: 23/26; description: field; area 26,127 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(g) Famagusta, Marathovounos, Landes, plot no. 406, sheet/plan: 22/32; description: field; area 4,925 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(h) Famagusta, Marathovounos, Paneloporta, plot no. 274, sheet/plan: 22/32; description: field; area 4,076 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(i) Famagusta, Marathovounos, Paneloporta, plot no. 275, sheet/plan: 22/32; description: field; area 4,413 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(j) Famagusta, Marathovounos, Pallourokampos, plot no. 403, sheet/plan: 22/31; description: field; area 9,382 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(k) Famagusta, Angastina, plot no. 439/1, sheet/plan: 22/31; description: field; area 7,055 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(l) Famagusta, Angastina, plot no. 439/2, sheet/plan: 22/31; description: field; area 974 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(m) Famagusta, Marathovounos, Parraka, plot nos. 330/2/1, 330/3, 335/1, sheet/plan: 22/7; description: field; area 8,758 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(n) Famagusta, Marathovounos, Tzaetika, plot no. 135, sheet/plan: 22/16; description: field; area 3,145 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(o) Famagusta, Marathovounos, Hepipis, plot no. 236, sheet/plan: 22/16; description: field; area 2,703 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(p) Famagusta, Marathovounos, Vitsada Road, plot no. 269, sheet/plan: 22/16; description: field; area 2,325 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(q) Famagusta, Marathovounos, Tzaetika, plot no. 246/1, sheet/plan: 22/16; description: field; area 1,994 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(r) Famagusta, Marathovounos, Tzaetika, plot no. 246/2, sheet/plan: 22/16; description: field; area 1,918 sq. m; share: ¼.\n10.  The properties listed below were all transferred to the applicant by way of gift from his parents on 12 January 2000 (declaration of transfer no. D-36):\n(a) Famagusta, Marathovounos, plot no. 321, sheet/plan: 22/24.V.1; description: house and yard (ground floor); area 1,238 sq. m; share: ¼;\n(b) Famagusta, Marathovounos, Limni, plot no. 147, sheet/plan: 22/32; de", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4662", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The application was initially lodged in the name of the “Pancyprian Association of Affected and Displaced Persons”, an “association representing all affected and displaced persons as a result of the Turkish occupation of Cyprus”. By letters of 19 February and 2 March 1990, the Secretariat of the Commission requested the applicants' representative to clarify whether the application was to be regarded as having been lodged by each of the individual members of the association, or by the association itself as a non-governmental organisation. In a letter of 30 March 1990 the applicants' representative indicated that “the application [was] to be regarded as introduced by each of the individual members”, a list of which was provided.\n8.  The 26 individual applicants are Cypriot nationals whose names are indicated in the list attached to the present judgment; they alleged that they had been permanent residents of the District of Famagusta, in the northern part of Cyprus. The 3 remaining applicants (nos. 5, 13 and 27 in the attached list) are private companies registered under Cypriot law.\n9.  In July 1974, as the Turkish troops were advancing, the individual applicants fled to the southern part of Cyprus. All the applicants alleged that they had been the owners of substantial properties in the District of Famagusta (see details below).\n10.  They alleged that the Turkish military authorities had occupied their homes and properties and had prevented them from having access to and using them.\n11.  By letters of 25 September 1999, the applicants' representative requested the Court to discontinue the proceedings before it with regard to applicants nos. 18 to 28.\n12.  The properties claimed by applicants nos. 1 to 17 can be described as follows.\n13.  Applicant no. 1, Mr Andreas Loizou, claimed ownership of the following properties:\n(a) Karavas, plot no. 76/1, sheet/plan XII/9W1, registration no. 5737, lemon plantation; share: whole; area: 5,352 square metres;\n(b) Karavas, plot no. 76/2, sheet/plan XII/9W1, registration no. 6031, lemon plantation with a ground-storey residence and a water tank; share: whole; area: 8,603 sq. m;\n(c) Karavas, plot no. 99, sheet/plan XII/9W2, registration no. 996, olive grove; share: whole; area: 2,007 sq. m.\n14.  In support of his claim to ownership, applicant no. 1 produced a copy of the original title deeds. He indicated that the property described in paragraph 13 (b) above was the house where he and his family were living at the time of the Turkish invasion.\n15.  Applicant no. 2, Mr Kostas Panage, claimed ownership of the following properties:\n(a) Nicosia/Yerolakkos, plot no. 694, sheet/plan 21/34&42vill., registration no. A590, land with a two-storey house; share: ½; area: 560 sq. m;\n(b) Nicosia/Yerolakkos, plot no. 52, sheet/plan 21/42E1&E2, registration no. H48, field; share: whole; area: 4,952 sq. m;\n(c) Nicosia/Yerolakkos, plot no. 32, sheet/plan 21/35W1, registration no. F30, field; share: whole; area: 9,542 sq. m;\n(d) Nicosia/Yerolakkos, plot no. 147, sheet/plan 21/27W2, registration no. E130, field; share: whole; area: 10,759 sq. m;\n(e) Nicosia/Yerolakkos, plot no. 539, sheet/plan 21/27W2, registration no. E478, field; share: whole; area: 6,086 sq. m;\n(f) Nicosia/Yerolakkos, plot no. 332, sheet/plan 21/34E1, registration no. E299, field; share: 5/24; area: 8,548 sq. m.\n16.  In support of his claim to ownership, applicant no. 2 produced a copy of the original title deeds. He indicated that the property desc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4663", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1934, 1947, 1936, 1925, 1924 and 1933 respectively. The first three applicants live in Nicosia, the fourth applicant lived in Limassol and the fifth and sixth applicants live in Larnaca.\n9.  The applicants had been permanent residents of Famagusta (northern Cyprus), where some of their properties were located.\n10.  Applicant no. 1 (Mr Phanos Epiphaniou) claimed to be the owner of the following immovable properties:\n(a)  Famagusta, Ayios Ioannis, plot no. 370, sheet/plan 33/12.3.1, block B; use: residence on 1st floor and shops on ground floor; share: ½ (other ½ in the name of his wife);\n(b)  Famagusta, Ayios Loukas, plot no. 974, sheet/plan 33/11.E.1, block C; use: building site for investment; share: whole;\n(c)  Famagusta, Milia, Haragkas, plot no. 214/4/3, sheet/plan 23/14; use: land to be divided into building sites; share: whole.\n11.  Applicant no. 2 (Mrs Sofi Phitidou) claimed to be the owner of the following immovable properties:\n(a) Famagusta, Ayios Nicolaos, plot no. 200, sheet/plan 33/12.6.2, block E; use: land for development; share: whole;\n(b) Famagusta, Kantara-Davlos, plot no. 68.9/1, sheet/plan 7/50.6.1; use: house with yard used as holiday house; share: whole.\nApplicant's no. 2 home in Famagusta was registered in the name of a family company established by her father.\n12.  Applicant no. 3 (Mr Kleanthis Stavri) claimed to be the owner of the following immovable property:\nFamagusta, Ayias Zonis, plot no. 105, sheet/plan: 33/12.6.IV, block F; use: house with yard; share: ½ (other ½ in the name of his wife).\n13.  Applicant no. 4 (Mr Christodoulos Demetriades) claimed to be the owner of the following immovable properties:\n(a) Famagusta, Ayios Loucas, plot no. 752, sheet/plan 24/59.E.2, Block D; use: building site; share: whole;\n(b) Famagusta, Ayios Loucas, plot no. 753, sheet/plan 24/59.E.2, block D; use: building site; share: whole;\n(c) Famagusta, Ayios Loucas, plot no. 754, sheet/plan 24/59.E.2, block D; use: building site; share: whole;\n(d) Famagusta, Ayios Loucas, plot no. 755, sheet/plan 24/59.E.2, block D; use: building site; share: whole;\n(e) Famagusta, Ayios Loucas, plot no. 948, sheet/plan 24/59.E.2, block D; use: land; share: whole;\n(f) Famagusta, Spathariko, plot no. 270, sheet/plan 24/2.E.2, block D; use: land; share: ½.\nApplicant no. 4's home in Famagusta was registered in his wife's name. He was informed that some of his plots of land were used or permitted to be used by the respondent Government for building part of a university or other structures.\n14.  Applicant no. 5 (Mr Theodoros Economou) claimed to be the owner of the following immovable property:\nFamagusta, Chrysospiliotissa, plot no. 371, sheet/plan 33/19.3.IV, block D; use: land with two houses, one used by the applicant as his residence and the other one for renting; share: whole.\n15.  Applicant no. 6 (Mr Anastassis Georghiou) claimed to be the owner of the following immovable properties:\n(a) Famagusta, Latsia, Trikomo, plot no. 137/1/6/2, sheet/plan 15/43; use: land with trees for agriculture; share: 1/6;\n(b) Famagusta, Pervolia Trikomou, Kokkines, plot no. 127/2/2, sheet/plan 15/43; use: land for agriculture; share: whole;\n(c) Famagusta, Pervolia Trikomou, Kokkines, plot no. 141, sheet/plan 15/43; use: land for agriculture; share: whole.\nApplicant no. 6's home in Famagusta was registered in his wife's name.\n16.  In support of their claims to ownership the applicants submitted cadastral plans (on which their properties ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4664", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, M.V., is an infant of Serbian nationality who was born in 2002 and currently lives in Belgrade.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted on behalf of the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 16 April 2003 the applicant’s representative, S.R., filed a civil claim with the Second Municipal Court (Drugi opštinski sud) in Belgrade, seeking child maintenance from N.V., the applicant’s biological father.\n8.  On 2 February 2004 the Second Municipal Court issued an interim maintenance order, which had been requested by the applicant on 19 January 2004.\n9.  On 24 November 2004 the District Court quashed the interim order.\n10.  By 11 May 2005 a total of five hearings were scheduled. Only one, however, was held while the remaining four were adjourned due to the presiding judge’s “other commitments” (zbog sprečenosti).\n11.  Between 17 June 2005 and 20 October 2006, the Second Municipal Court held or adjourned another thirteen hearings. At the hearing of 20 February 2006, it heard the applicant and the respondent for the first time since the beginning of the proceedings.\n12.  On 12 December 2006 the Second Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant and issued an interim maintenance order, pending the conclusion of the civil proceedings.\n13.  On 28 February 2007 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade quashed this judgment, as well as the interim order, and remitted the case for a retrial. In so doing it stated that the maintenance awarded needed to be reconsidered and, further, that N.V.’s access to the applicant also had to be regulated.\n14.  Between 5 July 2007 and 25 February 2008, three hearings were held, whilst two were adjourned because of a strike and the replacement of certain members of the court’s panel.\n15.  On 25 February 2008 the Second Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant, issued an interim maintenance order pending the conclusion of the civil proceedings, and ordered N.V. to cover the legal costs.\n16.  On 31 March 2008 N.V. filed an appeal against this decision.\n17.  On 30 May 2008 the District Court reduced the maintenance awarded, rejected the request for an interim maintenance order, and ruled that each party was to pay its own costs and expenses.\n18.  This judgment was served on the applicant on 24 July 2008.\n19.  On 5 August 2008 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law.\n20.  On 11 August 2008 the applicant also filed a request for the re-opening of the proceedings.\n21.  According to the information in the case file provided by the parties to date, it would appear that the proceedings are still pending before the Supreme Court.\n22.  Throughout the proceedings complaints were made on behalf of the applicant about the delay to various State bodies, but to no avail.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4665", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  In 1998 the applicant and his wife bought a flat. In 1999 the applicant’s wife initiated divorce proceedings against the applicant and in 2000 the divorce was pronounced.\n6.  In the meantime, on 24 November 1999, the applicant brought an action before the İzmir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, asking for compensation in an amount equal to half the value of the flat he and his former wife had bought in 1998. On 17 September 2003 the court dismissed the case as it found that it did not have jurisdiction ratione materiae, and sent the file to the İzmir Family Court. However, on 21 October 2004 the İzmir Family Court dismissed the case as it also found that it lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae, and sent the file back to the İzmir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.\n7.  Finally, on 16 June 2005, having regard to the statements of both parties’ witnesses and an expert report to assess the contribution made by the parties to the flat, and in view of the facts of the previous divorce action, the İzmir Civil Court of General Jurisdiction dismissed the case. It held that the applicant and his former wife had been living in separate houses when the flat in question was bought. Moreover, the applicant was unemployed and unable to provide even a basic level of financial support for his wife. It was concluded that, given his financial situation, the applicant could not have contributed enough to the purchase of the flat in question to be entitled to claim a share in it. The court further noted that, at the time of purchase, the legal matrimonial regime was the system of separation of property and the title deed of the flat was registered in the wife’s name.\n8.  On 29 December 2005 and 14 April 2006 respectively, the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal and rectification requests.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4666", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants, who are siblings, were born in 1959, 1942, 1947 and 1944 respectively. The first applicant (who is a Cypriot and British citizen) lives in London; the second, third and fourth applicants all reside in Larnaca. The second applicant is a Cypriot citizen, while the third and fourth applicants are British citizens.\n8.  On 13 August 1974, as the Turkish troops were advancing, the applicants' father left the village of Ayios Avrosios in the District of Kyrenia, where he owned the following immovable properties:\n(a) plot of land with trees in Kapsala (plot no. 12/7/5/1, sheet/plan 13/15, registration no. 14426, area: hectares (h.) 3, decares (d.) 9, square metres (m²) 818);\n(b) plot of land with trees in Glifhonera (plot no. 12/7/3, sheet/plan 13/15, registration no. 13911, area: h. 5, d. 6, m² 105);\n(c) plot of land with trees in Glifhonera (plot no. 12/7/4, sheet/plan 13/15, registration no. 13912, area: h. 5, d. 5, m² 27);\n(d) plot of land with trees in Apati (plot nos. 13/4 and 15/3, sheet/plan 13/31, registration no. 10106, area: d. 2, m² 342);\n(e) plot of land with trees in Spati (plot no. 250/3, sheet/plan 13/23, registration no. 7182, area: d. 3, m² 345);\n(f) plot of land with trees in Apati (plot no. 11/6, sheet/plan 13/31, registration no. 10097, area: m² 437);\n(g) plot of land with trees in Apati (plot no. 11, sheet/plan 13/31, registration no. 10087, area: d. 4, m² 14);\n(h) plot of land in Trachonas (plot no. 579, sheet/plan 13/22, registration no. 5927; area: d. 1, m² 673).\n9.  In support to their claim that their father was the owner of the above-mentioned plots of land, the applicants submitted copies of the title deeds and of the relevant certificates of ownership.\n10.  On 17 August 1974 the applicants' father tried to visit his property but was arrested by Turkish soldiers. He was released on the same day, since he was a British citizen.\n11.  On 19 May 1991 the applicants' father died. According to his will, dated 18 May 1988, the plot described under paragraph 8 (a) above was to be inherited by the first applicant and the other plots were to be inherited by the four applicants in equal shares. On 30 July 1991, Mr T. Michaelides was appointed as executor of the will of the applicants' father. The applicants registered their titles with the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus on 10 July 1995. The first applicant tried, via the British consular authorities, to visit the properties at issue, but did not obtain permission.\n12.  In a letter of 2 September 2003, the applicants informed the Court that Turkey was planning to construct a highway at the edge of their properties and that an area of m² 6,000 had been taken for this purpose. The applicants had not been consulted on the matter and no compensation had been offered to them.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4667", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants, who are brother and sister, were born in 1959 and 1942 respectively. The first applicant (who is a Cypriot and British citizen) lives in London, while the second applicant (a Cypriot citizen) resides in Larnaca.\n8.  The applicants alleged that until August 1974 they were living in a house owned by their father in Ayios Amvrosios, in the District of Kyrenia (northern part of Cyprus). This house was built on plot no. 233/9 of sheet/plan 13/23. The second applicant, who had been recently married, was living with her husband and daughter in the east wing of the house, a separate residence, while the first applicant was living with his mother and father in the west wing. The plot on which the two semi-detached residences had been built covered an area of 517 square metres (m²); each residence was of 290 m². They both had a garage and two floors.\n9.  The applicants left their house on 13 August 1974, as the Turkish troops were advancing. On 17 August 1974 their father tried to visit his property but was arrested by Turkish soldiers. He was released on the same day, since he was a British citizen.\n10.  On 19 May 1991 the applicants' father died. According to his will, dated 18 May 1988, the house and land in question was to be equally shared by the two applicants. On 30 July 1991, Mr T. Michaelides was appointed as executor of his will. On 10 July 1995 the applicants registered, in equal shares, their titles with the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus. The first applicant got the west residence, while the second applicant got the east one. The first applicant tried, via the British consular authorities, to visit his property, but did not obtain permission.\n11.  The applicants had been informed that their house had been occupied by high-ranked Turkish military officers.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4668", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant company had its headquarters in Tymbou (northern Cyprus). It was owned by Mrs Elena Proestou, a Greek citizen, and Mr Georghios Christoforides, a Greek-Cypriot. Its directors were Mrs Elena Proestou, Mr Georghios Christoforides and Mr Vassos Proestos, a Greek-Cypriot.\n8.  The applicant company alleged that it was the owner of the following four plots of land at Tymbou:\n- plot no. 166, sheet plan XXXI/4, registration no. A196;\n- plot no. 168, sheet plan XXXI/4, registration no. A197;\n- plot no. 170, sheet plan XXXI/4, registration no. A200;\n- plot no. 230, sheet plan XXXI/20.W.1, registration no. B229.\n9.  A quarry was situated on the applicant's land. Before 1974, it had obtained a permit to operate the quarry and use sand from the nearby river to wash sandstone. The applicant was also the owner of several machines and equipment used at the quarry.\n10.  In August 1974, as the Turkish army was advancing, the shareholders and directors of the applicant company abandoned the quarry, machines and equipment and fled to the area controlled by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. Since then they had been unable to return to and to enjoy their properties.\n11.  In its “additional evidence and written observations” of 23 November 2000, the applicant company produced a copy of the title deeds concerning the plots of land described in paragraph 8 above.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4669", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Limassol.\n8.  The applicant claimed that in 1952, when she was 19 years' old, she had permanently settled in Famagusta (northern Cyprus), where she got married and had two sons. She had her home and other immovable property there. In order to substantiate her claim to ownership, the applicant produced an “affirmation of ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable property” issued by the Republic of Cyprus, according to which her properties could be described as follows:\n- Famagusta, Chrysi Akti, plot no. 778, block C, sheet/plan 33/21.1.IV, description: buildings with house, yard and shop on ground floor and house on the first floor; use: residence; area of the houses: 115 m² each; share: ¾.\n9.  The applicant submitted that the property described above had been transferred to her by way of gift from her husband, Mr Andreas Papis, on 28 June 2000 (Declaration of transfer no. D-971). The latter had acquired it on 8 July 1994 by way of gift (Declaration of transfer no. D-1044) from his mother, who had become the owner of the whole property in 1971. The applicant produced a copy of the two above-mentioned declarations of transfer.\n10.  The applicant also claimed to have a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with regard to the following property:\n- Kato Dherynia, provisional no. 19, D/959; description: building site under subdivision; share: whole.\n11.  In particular, the applicant declared that she had entered into a contract to purchase the site on 24 December 1971 and had paid the purchase price in monthly instalments. The sale price was CYP 2,750 (approximately EUR 4,613) and the applicant had given a lump-sum of CYP 200 (approximately EUR 341) as an advance payment. The remaining sum of CYP 2,550 should have been paid as follows: CYP 500 on 31 January 1972, plus 48 monthly instalments of not less than CYP 45 (approximately EUR 76). All the instalments had been paid off, with the final one being paid on 2 July 1974. In accordance with the contract, the transfer was to be effected on payment of the full sale price. However, the applicant's title to the land was not registered owing to the Turkish intervention. The applicant produced the contract of sale and copies of the receipts of payment.\n12.  The applicant submitted that since the 1974 Turkish intervention she had been deprived of her property rights, since her property was located in the area that was under the occupation and control of the Turkish military authorities. She had made an attempt to return to her home and property on 19 July 1989, but had not been allowed to do so by the Turkish military authorities. They had prevented her from having access to and using her house and properties.\nII.  THE DEMONSTRATION OF 19 JULY 1989\n13.  On 19 July 1989, the applicant joined an anti-Turkish demonstration in the Ayios Kassianos area in Nicosia in which the applicants in the Chrysostomos and Papachrysostomou v. Turkey and Loizidou v. Turkey cases (see below) also took part.\n14.  According to an affidavit sworn by the applicant before the Nicosia District Court on 4 August 2000, the demonstration of 19 July 1989 was peaceful and was held on the fifteenth anniversary of the Turkish intervention in Cyprus, in support of the missing persons and to protest against human rights violations.\n15.  The applicant and other women had gathered in the Ayios Georgios church, where a service was in progress. While she was in the cha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4670", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 16 May 1996 the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody by officers of the İstanbul security police in connection with an investigation into an illegal organisation. On 30 May 1996 the applicants were brought before the İstanbul public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively, who remanded the applicants in custody.\n6.  By an indictment dated 27 June 1996, the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants and a number of others, accusing them, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of taking part in its activities.\n7.  On 4 June 2003 the İstanbul State Security Court sentenced the applicants to life imprisonment, pursuant to Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code. On 20 January 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and remitted the case. State Security Courts were abolished by constitutional amendments introduced on 7 May 2004. Subsequently, the applicants’ case was resumed before the 12th Assize Court of İstanbul.\n8.  Referring to recent amendments in domestic law, on 27 December 2004 the applicants requested to be released pending trial. Relying on the accusations against the applicants, the length of their detention and the content of the case file, the 12th Assize Court of İstanbul refused the applicants’ request on 29 December 2004. The applicants appealed. On 18 January 2005 the 13th Assize Court of İstanbul dismissed their appeal without further reasoning.\n9.  On 1 February 2006 the applicants were released pending trial.\n10.  On 30 April 2008 the 12th Assize Court of İstanbul sentenced the applicants as charged. According to the information in the case file, as submitted by the parties, the proceedings are pending before the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4671", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n2.  On 3 December 1997 the applicant company instituted compensation proceedings before the Istanbul 8th Commercial Court against a private bank (“the bank”) and claimed that it had suffered financial loss as the bank had applied high interest rates. Subsequently the bank filed a counterclaim and the two proceedings were joined on 22 September 1998.\n3.  On 20 January 2004 the court awarded the applicant company compensation. Both parties appealed. On 18 April 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on procedural grounds.\n4.  On 17 November 2005 the Istanbul 8th Commercial Court made the procedural corrections and ordered the bank to pay compensation to the applicant company. Both parties appealed. On 13 March 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant company’s appeal for having been lodged outside the statutory time-limit. However, the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in respect of the bank, both on the procedure and the merits. On 30 June 2006 the applicant company requested rectification of the judgment. On 19 June 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant company’s request.\n5.  On 21 June 2007 the İstanbul 8th Commercial Court issued a decision of non-jurisdiction. On 25 January 2008 the applicant company appealed.\n6.  According to the information in the case file submitted by the parties to date, the proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4672", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1973 and 1978 respectively and are currently being held in the Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre in Kırklareli.\n7.  The applicants joined the People’s Mojahedin Organisation in Iran (“the PMOI”, also known as the “Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization”) in 1992 and 2001 respectively. They arrived in Iraq on unspecified dates. They lived in Al-Ashraf camp, where PMOI members were accommodated in Iraq, until they left the organisation in 2005 and 2006 respectively, because they disagreed with the PMOI’s goals and methods. After leaving the PMOI, they went to the Temporary Interview and Protection Facility (“TIPF”), a camp created by the United States forces in Iraq. This facility was subsequently named the Ashraf Refugee Camp (“ARC”).\n8.  On 5 May 2006 and 16 October 2007, after being interviewed, the applicants were recognised as refugees by the UNHCR Headquarters in Geneva during their stay in Iraq. As regards the first applicant, the UNHCR found that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran on grounds of his political opinion, his character and the firm conviction with which he held his political opinions. In particular, having regard to the applicant’s link to the PMOI for 10 years, to the treatment of members of the PMOI in Iran and to his explicit opinions on the need for a secular State in his country of origin, the UNHCR considered that the applicant had established to a reasonable degree that his situation would be followed up by the security agencies which would make his stay in Iran intolerable if he returned there.\n9.  As regards the second applicant, the UNHCR found that he had a well-founded fear of violations by Iranian authorities of, inter alia, his right to life through an arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life, freedom from torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary arrest or detention, as well as his right to a fair and public trial. In particular, having regard to the applicant’s membership of the PMOI and to his political opinions and the treatment of actual and suspected members of the PMOI and its sympathisers in Iran, the UNCHR considered that the evidentiary threshold of “reasonable likelihood” that the applicant would face treatment such as arbitrary detention and torture was satisfied.\n10.  In April 2008 the TIPF was closed down and the applicants, along with other former PMOI members, were transferred to northern Iraq.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicants arrived in Turkey. They were arrested by security forces and, as they had entered Turkish territory illegally, were deported back to Iraq on 17 June 2008.\n12.  They immediately re-entered Turkey.\n13.  On 21 June 2008 they were arrested by road checkpoint gendarmerie officers from the Gökyazı gendarme station, in Muş, as their passports were found to be false.\n14.  On 21 June 2008 the applicants made statements to the gendarmerie officers. The applicants contended that they would be executed if returned to Iran, due to their opposition to the Iranian Government’s policies, and that their lives had also been at risk in Iraq. They stated that they wished to go to Istanbul in order to request asylum and leave for Canada.\n15.  The applicants were subsequently placed in the foreigners’ department at the police headquarters in the Hasköy district of Muş.\n16.  On 23 June 2008 the Muş public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Muş Magistrates’ Court, charging the applicants with illegal entry into", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4673", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Nicosia.\n8.  The applicant claimed that her former husband, Mr Ioannis Vrahimis, had been the director and shareholder of a company called Vrahimis Estate Ltd. The company owned two large plots of land located in the village of Klepini, in the District of Kyrenia (plots nos. 6 and 7, sheet/plan XIII/33.W.I, registration nos. 583 and 586; area: 3,011 and 4,348 square metres respectively; share: whole). On 24 March 1973 the company decided to transfer these two adjoining plots by way of gift to Mr Ioannis Vrahimis. The company secretary was authorised to take all necessary steps on behalf of the company to effect the transfer. On 11 June 1973 the relevant declaration of transfer was submitted to the Kyrenia District Lands Office. However, the process of transfer and registration was not completed owing to the Turkish military intervention. Meanwhile, in view of the proposed gift of the land, the applicant and her former husband proceeded to build a two-storey house (with a surface area of approximately 200 sq. m.) on it. As at the relevant time Mr Ioannis Vrahimis had no income, the applicant bore the costs of building and furnishing the property. In April 1974, when the house was completed, she moved into it with her family. They intended to live there initially for long periods and then permanently.\n9.  The applicant further claimed that in 1974 she owned the following land:\n(a) Nicosia, Yerollakkos, plot no. 97, sheet/plan: XXI/43.W.I, registration no. G80; description: field; area: 5,342 sq. m; share: ½;\n(b) Nicosia, Yerollakkos, plot no. 189, sheet/plan: XXI/43.W.I, registration no. G170; description: field; use: development; area: 5,575 sq. m; share: ½;\n(c) Famagusta, Akanthou, plot no. 327, sheet/plan: XIV/2 E1, registration no. 23218; description: field near the sea with water perforation; area: 4,683 sq. m, share: ½.\n10.  In support of her claim to ownership, the applicant submitted copies of the relevant certificates of title of Turkish-occupied immovable properties issued by the Republic of Cyprus.\n11.  The plots of land described in paragraph 9 (a) and (b) above were registered in the applicant's name until 15 January 1998, when she transferred them by way of gift to her son, Mr Laris Ioanni Vrachimi. The plot described in paragraph 9 (c) above was registered in the applicant's name until 28 March 2000, when she transferred it by way of gift to her other son, Mr Roberto Ioanni Vrachimi (declaration of transfer no. D477). The applicant stated that she intended to divide the plots described in paragraph 9 (a) and (b) above into approximately 16 building sites.\n12.  The applicant alleged that since the 1974 Turkish intervention she had been deprived of her property rights, as her properties were located in the area that was under the occupation and control of the Turkish military authorities. She had made an attempt to return to her home and property on 19 July 1989, but was not allowed to do so by the Turkish military authorities. They had prevented her from having access to and from using her house and property.\n13.  In 1994 the applicant divorced her husband. In 1996 she made an application to the local tribunal in which she claimed, inter alia, her rights as beneficial owner of the house and the plots of land described under paragraph 8 above. Her claim was based on the fact that she had borne all the expenses for the construction of the house and all the other financial obligat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4674", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Roza Babusheva, born in 1966,\n2) Mr Kharon Babushev, born in 1928,\n3) Mr Lomali (also spelled as Lom-Ali) Babushev, born in 1986,\n4) Ms Khadizhat Babusheva, born in 1988,\n5) Ms Nura Babusheva, born in 1993,\n6) Mr Turpal-Ali Babushev, born in 1994 and\n7) Ms Nurseda Babusheva, born in 2003.\nThe applicants live in the village of Makhkety, in the Vedeno district, Chechnya.\n6.  The first applicant is the wife of Ramzan (also known as Vakha) Babushev, who was born in 1960; the second applicant is his father; and the third to seventh applicants are his children.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  At the material time Ramzan Babushev worked as a car mechanic. On 4 February 2003 the first, second and sixth applicants and Ramzan Babushev were at their home at 27 Zarechnaya Street (in the submitted documents the address was also referred to as 37 Zarechnaya Street) in Makhkety, Chechnya. The third, fourth and fifth applicants were at school. The first applicant was pregnant with the seventh applicant. Two neighbours had come to visit and were also in the applicants' house.\n9.  At around 11 a.m. a military UAZ car arrived at the house. A group of about ten to fifteen Russian military servicemen got out of the car; some of them remained in the street next to the house, whereas others went inside. The men spoke Russian without an accent and were of Slavic appearance. The person who was apparently in charge of the group introduced himself as Mr Y. B., the head of the department of the interior of Khattuni (also spelled as Khatuni) village (the Khattuni OVD). It appeared that he was on mission in Chechnya from the OMON (special police forces) unit of the Perm region, Russia. The servicemen asked Ramzan Babushev to repair their car. He agreed and they moved the car into the applicants' yard. Ramzan Babushev changed into his work clothes and started the repair work.\n10.  Meanwhile, the servicemen contacted someone via their portable radio set. Approximately 10-15 minutes later an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”) carrying a group of about twenty masked servicemen arrived at the applicants' house. The servicemen from the APC ran into the yard and put handcuffs on Ramzan Babushev and a dark sack over his head. They ordered the first applicant to go into the house, threatening to kill her if she stayed in the yard. After that they put Ramzan Babushev into the APC. The servicemen neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. Almost all of them were wearing masks; three of them, who did not have masks, were of Slavic appearance. The first applicant asked them who their commander was and why they were taking her husband away. She did not receive any answer to her questions.\n11.  After that Mr Y. B. asked the servicemen from the APC whether his group was free to go. They received permission and the UAZ car and the servicemen left. Immediately after their departure, the servicemen from the APC started to search the applicants' house. The search took about one and a half hours. During the search the servicemen seized a number of the applicants' possessions, including a videocassette recorder, a TV set, Ramzan Babushev's clothing and tools, the first applicant's jewellery, the family photographs, two car engines and car repair parts. The servicemen loaded the applicants' belongings into the APC and drove away.\n12.  The abduction of Ramzan Babushev was witnessed by a n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4676", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lived, until his arrest, in the town of Revda in the Sverdlovsk Region. Prior to the events described below the applicant had never been accused of or charged with any crime.\n7.  On 15 December 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated robbery. According to the Government, a police investigator apprised the applicant of the rights of an accused, including the right to be assisted by counsel. The Government insisted that the record of the applicant’s arrest contained a line which read as follows: “[the applicant] needs services by a retained lawyer Mr L.” The Government did not produce a copy of the arrest record, despite the Court’s request to that effect. The applicant confirmed that he had made a handwritten note in the arrest record, asking to be assisted by counsel, Mr L. He had also included Mr L.’s phone number and home address in the record. The applicant stressed that after the investigator had drawn up the arrest record, he had commenced interrogating the applicant about his participation in the robbery on 10 December 1998. As a consequence of the interrogation the applicant confessed to “[having gone] to a motorway together [with six other individuals] to seize a cargo by fraud”. The applicant also noted that one of his accomplices had had a gun which he had planned to use as a threat.\n8.  On 16 December 1998 an investigator again interrogated the applicant about the circumstances surrounding the robbery. According to the applicant, the investigator disregarded his request for legal assistance and proceeded to questioning. During that interrogation the applicant described in detail the preparations for the robbery, his meetings with other co-accused and the subsequent events on 10 December 1998. He also confessed to having participated with his co-accused in other criminal activities, including a murder, kidnapping, hijacking and unlawful possession of weapons. The Government did not produce a copy of the interrogation record drawn up on 16 December 1998.\n9.  On the following day the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor-Criminalist performed an investigative experiment aimed at verifying the applicant’s statements made during the questioning on 15 and 16 December 1998. In the course of the experiment the applicant was taken to various places where he and his accomplices had allegedly planned or committed criminal offences. In each location the applicant, in the presence of attesting witnesses, answered the prosecutor’s questions pertaining to various criminal activities committed by the criminal group in which the applicant had taken part. It appears from the record of the investigative experiment that the prosecutor commenced the experiment by asking the applicant whether he agreed to participate in the experiment in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant did not object. The prosecutor further informed the applicant of his constitutional right not to make self-incriminating statements and asked whether he was willing to show the crime scenes, describe his and his accomplices’ actions and reproduce his actions at the crime scene. The applicant agreed and signed the record.\n10.  On 18 December 1998 the Achitskiy District Prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention on remand. The detention was subsequently extended on a number of occasions by a prosecutor or a court.\n11.  On 24 December 1998 a senior investigator of the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor’s office charged the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4677", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1941 and 1947 respectively and live in the town of Urus-Martan, in the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The applicants are husband and wife. They are the parents of Mr Akhmed Rezvanov, born in 1984.\n8.  At about 7.15 a.m. on 10 December 2002 six armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and two UAZ vehicles arrived at the applicants' house at 6 Mayakovskiy Street, Urus-Martan. A group of armed men in camouflage uniforms got off the vehicles and burst into the house. The applicants assumed that they were federal servicemen.\n9.  Some of the servicemen levelled machine guns at the second applicant and asked her in unaccented Russian where the men of the house were. The others searched the house and its annexes without producing any warrant. Later the applicants discovered that the men had messed everything up, broken some crockery, ripped bed-linen and scattered flour all over the floor.\n10.  In the meantime Akhmed Rezvanov was hiding in a wash-house annexed to the house. At some point the servicemen threatened to blow up the house. The first applicant asked them to wait, went to the wash-house and convinced his son to come out of it. Akhmed Rezvanov went to the courtyard; the armed men apprehended him and placed him in a light-blue UAZ all-terrain vehicle («таблетка») with registration number 276‑95-RUS. Then they seized some of the applicants' belongings, including a leather jacket, a video appliance, a pair of running shoes and a few more items. It appears that at some point the men told the applicants that they were servicemen of the department of the interior of the Zavodskoy District. Then they got into the vehicles and drove away.\n11.  On the same day the armed men apprehended two of the first applicant's nephews, Abdula and Artur; they were released a few hours later and returned home. Abdula and Artur told the applicants that following their arrest they had been brought to the premises of the military commander's office of the Urus-Martan District.\n12.  On the morning of 10 December 2002 unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns took Akhmed Rezvanov away from the first applicant's house at 6 Mayakovskiy Street, Urus-Martan. The same persons robbed the first applicant and took a video appliance, a leather jacket, running shoes and some other items.\n13.  On 10 December 2002 the first applicant complained about his son's abduction to the Urus-Martan Town Court and to the prosecutor's office of the Urus-Martan District (“the district prosecutor's office”). In his complaint the first applicant mentioned that the armed men had told him that they belonged to the department of the interior of the Zavodskoy District. He also requested information on his son's whereabouts from the local administration and the military commander's office of the Urus-Martan District (“the military commander's office”), but to no avail.\n14.  On 27 December 2002 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the district prosecutor's office.\n15.  On 16 January 2003 the Ministry of Justice of Ingushetia informed the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic that they had received a complaint from the first applicant and his brother. The letter read as follows:\n“According to the complainants, those who apprehended A. Rezvanov identified themselves as the FSB [Federal Security Service] officers and were [travelling] in two or three APCs and an Ural vehicle. The convo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4679", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Istanbul. On 5 March 2003 he was expelled from a military academy as he was found unsuitable to be a student there following a secret security investigation conducted on him and his family. The applicant was not notified of the specific reasons for his expulsion.\n4.  Subsequently, the applicant asked the Supreme Military Administrative Court to annul the expulsion decision. During the proceedings, he did not have access to the classified documents and information submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Supreme Military Administrative Court in support of its decision to expel him from the military academy.\n5.  On 25 February 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request. It stated that information and documents the confidentiality of which was required and necessitated for the performance of military service could not be disclosed to the applicant. The court further emphasised that it was not bound by the classification made by the administration and that it made its own assessment as to whether the confidentiality of the documents was justified in each case. The written opinion submitted by the public prosecutor to the Supreme Military Administrative Court during the proceedings was not communicated to the applicant.\n6.  The applicant subsequently requested the rectification of the Supreme Military Administrative Court’s decision, arguing that his inability to access the results of the security investigation due to their allegedly confidential nature precluded him from duly defending himself.\n7.  On 20 May 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s rectification request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4680", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Vác.\n6.  In January 2002 the Pest Central District Court found the applicant, a recidivist offender, guilty of attempted blackmail and plunder and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court, on 15 May 2003, re-characterised his actions as offences of “taking the law into one’s own hands”, attempted aggravated assault and a violation of personal liberty, but reduced his sentence to five years’ imprisonment.\n7.  In February 2003 the applicant was charged with aggravated assault. In the ensuing proceedings the applicant was assisted by court-appointed defence counsel.\n8.  After holding three hearings, the Pest Central District Court found the applicant guilty as charged on 26 February 2004. The District Court took account of the protraction of the proceedings as a mitigating factor and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The District Court relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of a forensic medical expert and the testimony of several witnesses as well as the applicant.\n9.  The applicant appealed, seeking acquittal on the ground that the judgment was ill-founded. The Budapest Regional Court notified the applicant’s lawyer that it would determine the appeal at deliberations in camera. In reply, the lawyer put forward his arguments in detail and requested the court to hold a public hearing. He asserted that the court should hear further witnesses in order to establish the facts fully.\n10.  On 1 February 2005 the Regional Court held deliberations in camera and upheld the applicant’s conviction. The applicant, his lawyer and the prosecution were not present. The Regional Court reviewed the entirety of the proceedings and upheld their lawfulness. Furthermore, it considered that the findings of fact by the first-instance court were not ill-founded within the meaning of section 351(2) of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, and were thus suitable for appellate review without taking further evidence. This consideration enabled the court to hold deliberations in camera, pursuant to section 360(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without the attendance of either the defence or the prosecution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4681", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Poznań.\n5.  By an administrative decision of 29 June 1978 of the Head of the Dominowo District (Naczelnik Gminy) the real estate owned by the applicant’s husband was transferred to his son – S.K. Neither the applicant’s husband nor the applicant was informed by the authorities about this decision.\n6.  In 1990 the applicant’s husband died in a car accident.\n7.  On 11 February 1999 the applicant filed a request with the Commune Office (Urząd Gminy) for retrospective leave to appeal against the decision of 29 June 1978.\n8.  On 23 February and 17 March 1999 the applicant was informed by the Mayor of the Dominowo Commune (Wójt Gminy) that her request had been left without consideration.\n9.  On 22 March 1999 she complained to the Head of the Commune Council (Przewodniczący Rady Gminy) about the fact that her case had been left without consideration and that no decision had been taken on it. She did not receive any answer.\n10.  On 14 January 2001 the applicant repeated her request for retrospective leave to appeal against the decision of 29 June 1978.\n11.  On 6 December 2000 the Commune Office (Urząd Gminy) informed the applicant that her request could not be dealt with since the case file had been sent to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Admnistracyjny).\n12.  On 3 March 2005 the applicant complained to the Commune Office about the delay. She asked for the proceedings to be accelerated.\n13.  On 5 April 2005 she lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Commune with the Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny).\n14.  On 9 June 2005 the Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s complaint, since the applicant had failed to lodge it in accordance with the formal requirements set out in Polish law, namely she had failed to lodge a complaint with the administrative authority under Article 37 of the Code of Administrative Procedure.\n15.  On 3 February 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Dominowo Commune with the Self‑Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze). The complaint was referred to the Dominowo Commune Council, being the competent administrative authority.\n16.  By a resolution of 30 August 2006 her complaint was dismissed as ill-founded.\n17.  On 4 January 2007 she lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of the Dominowo Commune with the Regional Administrative Court. She submitted that she had lodged numerous complaints with different administrative authorities, her case had been pending for 8 years and no decision had been given on it.\n18.  On 5 December 2007 the Regional Administrative Court found the complaint well-founded. It held that the proceedings in the applicant’s case had exceeded a reasonable time and ordered the Mayor of the Dominowo Commune to proceed speedily with the case.\n19.  On 8 April 2008 the Self-Government Board of Appeal decided to grant the applicant retrospective leave to appeal against the decision of 29 June 1978.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4682", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Izmir.\n5.  While the applicant was in compulsory military service in Kırklareli, on 19 November 2002 he got ten days’ leave and went to Izmir to see his family. He did not return to his barracks afterwards.\n6.  On 22 February 2003 at 3 p.m., the applicant was arrested by police officers at the Narlıdere police station during a routine identity check on suspicion of being an army deserter (asker kaçağı). At 4 p.m. he was taken to the Üçkuyular Military Station Command where the officials determined that he had not returned to his army command when his leave had ended. He was questioned, inter alia, about which army command he belonged to, why he had deserted and whether he had committed a crime during this time.\n7.  On the same day at 8 p.m., the applicant was taken to Şirinyer Military Station Command where he remained in custody. The next day at 11 a.m., he was transferred to the Military Recruitment Office.\n8.  On 7 March 2003 at 1.30 p.m., the applicant was transferred to his army command in Kırklareli. The verbatim record of this transfer noted that the applicant, having committed the offence of army desertion, was requested to be transferred to his army command. It further indicated that the applicant had entered the “security room” on 23 February 2003 and “exited” on 6 March 2003.\n9.  On the same day at 2 p.m., the applicant was questioned by two army officials who informed him that he had committed the offence of exceeding his leave.\n10.  Between 7 March and 11 March 2003, the applicant was held in custody at his army command.\n11.  On 11 March 2003 he was brought before the Çorlu Military Court, which remanded him in custody.\n12.  On 12 March 2003 the Çorlu Military Prosecutor filed an indictment charging the applicant with exceeding his leave (“izin tecavüzü”) under Article 66 § 1 of the Military Criminal Code.\n13.  On 14 April 2003 the Çorlu Military Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment. In its decision the court noted that the applicant had failed to return to his army command at the end of his leave, that he had been apprehended on 22 February 2003 and that he had been held in custody between 7 and 11 March. It deducted the period spent on the road and in custody between 22 February and 11 March 2003 from his prison sentence.\n14.  On 22 April 2003 the judgment of the Çorlu Military Court became final as neither the military prosecutor nor the applicant appealed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4683", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1958, respectively, and live in Szolnok.\n6.  The applicants intended to set up an enterprise and started to raise funds in March 1994. They contacted a loan agency and signed a real estate sales contract with an individual concerning their detached house on 12 March 1994. Change of ownership was registered on the basis of this contract on 14 July 1995.\n7.  In August 1995 the applicants brought an action before the Szolnok District Court requesting the court to order restitutio in integrum by declaring the contract invalid. The fact of the existence of these proceedings (perfeljegyzés) was registered in the Land Registry. This case ceased after a six-month stay by mutual agreement of the parties. However, for unknown reasons, the registration of the proceedings was not deleted from the register until July 1998.\n8.  In June 1998 the real estate was sold to a third party. After the deletion of the registration of the civil proceedings described above from the land register, the new owner was entered in that register on 25 August 1998. On 21 September 1998, after having been informed about these events and having unsuccessfully attempted to settle the case otherwise, the applicants brought an action before the Szolnok District Court, identical to the previous one, together with claims about other loan contracts between the same parties.\n9.  On 4 March 2004, after holding a hearing in June 2002, the District Court dismissed the applicants’ action in part. It established that, although the contract was ostensible, restitutio in integrum was impossible since the applicants had failed to bring their action before the court in due time.\n10.  The District Court pointed out that the purchase contract evidently concealed a loan and was thus invalid. However, this could not have any effect on the acquisition by a third party, whose good faith had not been successfully challenged by the applicants. It relied on paragraph 31(2) of Law-Decree no. 31 of 1972 on the Land Registry which provided – in order to secure the legal certainty of the real estate market – that in such disputes, a third-party proprietor could not be deprived of his acquisition after sixty days of his date of entry in the register, provided that he had acted in good faith and the decision to make the entry in the register had been served on the former owner.\n11.  However, applying paragraph 237(2) of the Civil Code, the court restored the financial balance between the parties, taking into account the ostensible purchase contract and other loan contracts. All in all, it obliged the defendants to pay the applicants 8,082,214 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 32,300 euros (EUR)) plus accrued interest, from which HUF 4,160,000 (approximately EUR 16,300) was to compensate for the loss of the property.\n12.  All the parties appealed. The Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision on 20 October 2004.\n13.  The Regional Court confirmed that restitutio in integrum was impossible in this case, although it gave different reasoning. It noted that the sixty-day deadline could not be applied since the decision to enter the third party’s acquisition in the register had not been served on the applicants. It also observed that, flowing from the above-mentioned provision of the Law-Decree, after three years no change could be made at all to this entry in the land register. It further stated that paragraph 63(2) of the new ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4684", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1948 respectively and live in Katerini, Greece.\n7.  Ms Polikseni Foka was a Greek national who was born in 1943. In 1954 she was adopted by Mr Apostolos Pistikas and his wife Mrs Elisavet Pistika, who were both Turkish nationals of Greek origin. The adoption was made in accordance with the decisions of both the Greek and Turkish courts.\n8.  Following the death of Mr Apostolos Pistikas on 24 November 1981, all his property was inherited by his wife Mrs Elisavet Pistika. Upon the death of the latter on 6 March 1987, Polikseni Pistika (Foka) was the sole heir to the property. The relevant property consisted of both immovable and movable property. In particular, it comprised three buildings in Istanbul and income from rent, deposits and valuable documents/deeds.\n9.  On 3 July 1987 the Istanbul 3rd Civil Court (Asliye Hukuk) decided that the total of the above-mentioned immovable and movable property of Mrs Elisavet Pistika would be transferred by way of inheritance to Ms Polikseni Pistika (Foka).\n10.  On 15 July 1991 Ms Polikseni Pistika (Foka) was transported by the police to a hospital for treatment. She was admitted to the psychiatric department of the Balıklı Rum (Greek) hospital in Zeytinburnu, Istanbul, because she was not capable of taking care of her personal affairs. The authorities thus appointed a guardian for Ms Polikseni Pistika despite the first applicant’s efforts to appoint a guardian of his choice.\n11.  On 31 July 1996 the Turkish authorities filed an application for the annulment of the decision by which Ms Polikseni Pistika (Foka) had inherited the above-mentioned property. This was due to, inter alia, Legislative Decree no. 1062 and Decisions no. 6/3706 of 25 September 1964 and no. 6/3801 of 2 November 1964, according to which a natural person holding Greek nationality has no right to inherit in Turkey and, also, because the Greek Government applied similar provisions to persons of Turkish origin living in Greece.\n12.  On 27 November 1997 the Istanbul 7th Civil Court annulled the decision on inheritance (decision no. 1197/1261), although Ms Polikseni Pistika had already paid the inheritance tax which was due to the State. The Court of Cassation upheld this judgment by a decision of 2 February 1998. On 12 October 1998 the latter court also dismissed the request for rectification of its decision. As a result, the immovable property was transferred to the Treasury and Ms Polikseni Pistika (Foka) was deprived of all her income and accounts and thus remained without resources in the psychiatric department of the Balıklı Rum hospital.\n13.  In the meantime, Ms Polikseni Pistika’s legal guardian had commenced two legal challenges against the above decision. In this connection on 10 March 1999 the legal guardian filed an action in the 7th Chamber of the Istanbul Magistrate’s Court for the re-opening of the proceedings. His request was dismissed on 27 May 1999. The appeal proceedings against this decision came to an end as a result of the death of Ms Polikseni Pistika. A further action in the 4th Chamber of the Ankara Administrative Court was also terminated for the same reason. It is to be noted that the applicants did not submit any document pertaining to the legal proceedings before the Ankara Administrative Court.\n14.  On 24 April 2000 Ms Polikseni Pistika died in Istanbul whilst she was under guardianship and confined in an institution due to psychiatric illness.\n15.  On 26 September 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4685", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is currently detained in Wrocław Prison.\n6.  On 26 March 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a series of thefts and armed robberies committed as a part of an organised criminal group.\n7.  On 28 March 2002 the Zielona Góra District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence. The court also stressed the likelihood of a lengthy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant and the complexity of the case.\n8.  Subsequently, several other members of the same criminal group were detained and charged in connection with the same investigation, which was conducted by the Organised Crime Department of the Zielona Góra Regional Prosecutor’s Office.\n9.  The applicant’s appeals against the detention order and the decisions extending his detention, and his numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were all unsuccessful.\n10.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on 21 June 2002 (to 26 September 2002), 23 September 2002 (to 24 December 2002), 20 December 2002 (to 25 March 2003), 20 March 2003 (to 26 July 2003) and 22 July 2003 (to 30 November 2003). The courts repeated the grounds previously given for his continued detention, emphasising the complexity of the case and the large number of co-accused.\n11.  On 19 November 2003 the Zielona Góra Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Zielona Góra Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The applicant was charged with several counts of theft and armed robbery committed as part of an organised criminal group.\n12.  During the court proceedings the courts further extended the applicant’s detention pending trial on several occasions, namely on 26 November 2003, 25 February 2004, 11 March 2004, 23 June 2004, 21 September 2004, 16 December 2004, 10 March 2005, 17 June 2005, 18 August 2005 and 25 October 2005. They repeated the grounds that had previously been given for the applicant’s continued detention.\n13.  On 23 February 2006 the Zielona Góra Regional Court gave judgment. It convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine.\n14.  The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 5 December 2006 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld that judgment.\n16.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) which was dismissed on an unspecified subsequent date.\n17.  On 8 October 2004 the Zielona Góra District Court remanded the applicant in custody.\n18.  On 6 January 2005 it extended his pre-trial detention on the grounds of the likelihood that the applicant might tamper with evidence and the complexity of the case.\n19.  Subsequently, further decisions to extend his detention were taken by the Zielona Góra Regional Court and the Poznań Court of Appeal on the following dates: 31 March 2005, 1 July 2005, 6 October 2005, 29 December 2006, 23 March 2007, 31 July 2007 and 27 September 2007. The courts repeated the grounds originally given for his detention.\n20.  On an unspecified date the applicant was served with a bill of indictment charging him with armed robbery.\n21.  On 21 November 2007 the Zielona Góra Regional Court decided not to extend the applicant’s detention.\n2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4686", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Durrës, Albania.\n8.  The applicant was employed by the National Employment Service (NES) as the Director of Durrës Vocational Training Centre (“the Durrës VTC”). The NES is responsible to the Ministry of Labour. On 9 July 2005 the applicant was dismissed. Considering his dismissal arbitrary, he challenged it before the Durrës District Court. The applicant did not seek an award of pecuniary damage.\n9.  In its judgment of 27 September 2005, the Durrës District Court found the dismissal void due to a flawed procedure and ordered the applicant to be reinstated. On 1 November 2005 the NES filed an appeal with the Durrës Court of Appeal, (“the Court of Appeal”).\n10.  By judgment of 12 December 2005, the Durrës Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible as having been filed out of time. That judgment became final as no appeal was filed with the Supreme Court.\n11.  For the purposes of executing the Durrës District Court’s judgment of 27 September 2005, an execution writ was issued by the court on 22 December 2005 pursuant to Articles 510 (a) and 511 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).\n12.  On 23 January 2006 the bailiff’s office imposed a fine on the Minister of Labour concerning the failure to enforce the Durrës District Court’s judgment. To date, the Durrës District Court’s judgment of 27 September 2005 has not been executed.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Durrës District Court requesting payment of salary arrears since 9 July 2005.\n14.  On 24 October 2006 the Durrës District Court found in the applicant’s favour and ordered the NES to pay the applicant his salary from 9 July 2005 until the date of his actual reinstatement.\n15.  On 14 June 2007 the Durrës Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by the NES. The NES appealed to the Supreme Court. According to the information before the Court, it appears that these proceedings are pending before the Supreme Court.\n16.  On 6 December 2006, at the applicant’s request, the Durrës District Court issued an execution writ in respect of its judgment of 24 October 2006.\n17.  On an unspecified date the NES sought the immediate suspension of execution. The Durrës District Court decided that the case fell outside its territorial jurisdiction and transferred the case file to the Tirana District Court.\n18.  On 31 January 2008 the Tirana District Court dismissed the NES action. On an unspecified date the NES appealed. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Tirana Court of Appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4687", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Chişinău.\n9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  The applicant worked as a carpet maker for Floare-Carpet SA, a company registered in Chişinău (“the employer”). On 29 November 1999 she was declared to be a person with second degree disabilities by a specialised medical commission, which recommended that the applicant should stop working as a carpet maker as her working conditions were damaging her health.\n11.  Having submitted the relevant certificate to her employer, on 30 December 1999 the applicant was dismissed from her job on the grounds that she was no longer able to work as a result of her invalidity. She disagreed with the reason for her dismissal, claiming that this was not a valid legal reason. She asked her employer to issue her with a record of employment (carnet de muncă) giving a different reason for her dismissal, a document which she would have to produce if she applied for another job. On 31 January 2000 the employer issued her with a record of employment, which she claims was in the old format, contrary to the law.\n12.  On 7 February 2000 the applicant initiated court proceedings against the employer, asking for a modification of the reason for her dismissal, the issuing of a new record of employment and the payment of her salary and compensation for the entire period during which she had not been issued with a new record of employment.\n13.  On 11 February 2000 the Botanica District Court left her action without examination. On 10 May 2000 the Chişinău Regional Court quashed that decision and ordered the examination of her action.\n14.  On 15 June 2000 the Botanica District Court found against the applicant. On 15 November 2000 the Chişinău Regional Court quashed that judgment and adopted a new one, partly admitting the applicant's claims and awarding her compensation. On 31 January 2001 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgments of the lower courts and ordered a full re-trial of the case.\n15.  On 31 March 2001 the Botanica District Court found for the applicant and awarded her compensation. On 9 September 2003 the Chişinău Court of Appeal partly quashed that judgment and adopted a new one, ordering the employer to issue the applicant with a new record of employment, and in addition to pay her compensation in the amount of 26,817 Moldovan lei (MDL) (1,755 euros (EUR) at the time).\n16.  On 7 November 2003 the employer lodged an appeal in cassation, asking the court to reject the applicant's claims. It also requested the court to accept its right to lodge the appeal despite having missed the 15-day time-limit established by law, because it had not participated at the court hearing of 9 September 2003 and had only been informed of the judgment by mail on 16 October 2003.\n17.  On 4 February 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice accepted the employer's appeal and quashed the lower courts' judgments, rejecting all of the applicant's claims. The court found that there was clear evidence of the applicant's refusal to take her record of employment on the day of her dismissal (30 December 1999), as well as of the fact that on 31 January 2000 she had taken her record of employment. The employer had therefore not been responsible for any delay in issuing her record of employment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4688", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Şırnak.\n4.  On 8 June 2004 the applicant, an artillery captain at the Turkish Armed Forces, brought a case before the Supreme Military Administrative Court against the Ministry of Defence for the annulment of his transfer to a different garrison.\n5.  In their pleadings the Ministry of Defence argued that the applicant’s transfer had been lawful and submitted certain confidential documents in support of their arguments for the Supreme Military Administrative Court’s examination under Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602. These documents were not communicated to the applicant.\n6.  On 15 February 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court held that the applicant’s appointment had not been contrary to law and rejected his request. In taking this decision the Supreme Military Administrative Court relied on, inter alia, the confidential documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence by virtue of Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602.\n7.  On 26 April 2005 the applicant’s rectification request was rejected by the Supreme Military Administrative Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4689", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1971 respectively. The first applicant lives in Bucharest, and the second in Afumaţi, Ilfov county.\n5.  On 11 November 2003 the prosecutor started criminal proceedings against “George” and “Florin”, later identified as the applicants, based on information that they were trafficking in drugs. No other details were given in this decision of the prosecutor.\n6.  On 18 November 2003 the police division responsible for the fight against organised crime and drug trafficking (“the police”) sought authorisation from the prosecutor’s office to use an undercover agent and to obtain two grammes of heroin in order to gather evidence of the applicants’ alleged involvement in drug trafficking. It relied on Law no. 143/2000 on the fight against drug trafficking and illegal drug use (“Law no. 143”). The same day, the organised crime and drug trafficking section of the prosecutor’s office at the Bucharest Court of Appeal (“the prosecutor’s office”) authorised the operation for ten days and handed over the two grammes of heroin to the undercover agent (referred to in the domestic proceedings as “Alex 1”).\n7.  The police set up the surveillance operation in the car park of McDonald’s Dristor (Bucharest), where the trafficking was thought to happen. Meanwhile G.M., a police collaborator (referred to in the domestic proceedings as “Alex 2”), set up a meeting with the first applicant, whom he had known previously.\n8.  At 13.45 Alex 1 arrived by car in the parking area together with Alex 2. The first applicant and another man were sitting in another car. Alex 2 got out and approached the applicant; he was to tell him that Alex 1, whom the applicant did not know, wanted to contact a person who could sell him two grammes of heroin. After a short talk, Alex 2 returned accompanied by the first applicant; the latter then left by car with Alex 1. The police followed the car until it stopped in front of a building on Zizin Street. The applicant made a phone call from Alex 1’s mobile phone. He left the car and entered the building, where he remained for 10-15 minutes. He then returned with the second applicant to Alex 1’s car. The first applicant took the right front seat, while the second applicant remained standing near the right front door of the car. Alex 1 handed money to the first applicant; the latter passed it to the second applicant who took it and walked away.\n9.  At that moment the police got out of their cars and shouted: “Police, stop!”. The second applicant started running, abandoning his jacket and the money. He managed to escape into one of the neighbouring buildings.\n10.  The first applicant was identified and searched. Sixteen tablets of methadone were found on him. He admitted that the tablets belonged to him and declared that he was a rehabilitated drug user and was authorised to take methadone. A small package containing 1.5 g of heroin was visible in the car near the gear lever. The police seized it.\n11.  The same day a search was conducted in the flat from where the second applicant had come, and where he lived with S.F., his partner. No drugs were found.\n12.  The first applicant was taken into custody for 24 hours, but released on 19 November 2003. While in custody, he was taken to hospital under suspicion that he had swallowed a package of heroin. The treatment did not confirm the suspicions.\n13.  The second applicant was apprehended on 18 May 2004 after being noticed on the street by Alex 1. He was tak", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4690", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Mersin.\n4.  The applicant was discharged from the Turkish Armed Forces in 2003 due to a medical condition and the Retired Civil Servants’ Fund (Emekli Sandığı) granted him simple disability benefits.\n5.  Subsequently, the applicant lodged a request with OYAK, the pension fund of the armed forces, for full and permanent disability benefits.\n6.  On 25 July 2003 OYAK rejected the applicant’s request, holding that he did not qualify for such benefits under the relevant law (Article 26 of Law no. 205). The applicant requested the annulment of this decision from the Supreme Military Administrative Court.\n7.  On 10 June 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court held a hearing where it rejected the applicant’s request. The written opinion of the principal public prosecutor submitted to the Supreme Military Administrative Court was not communicated to the applicant. No classified documents or information had been submitted by the administration to the Supreme Military Administrative Court as evidence during the proceedings.\n8.  The applicant requested the rectification of this judgment. On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s rectification request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4691", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Dusseldorf, Germany.\n6.  On 14 January 2001 police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Tunceli police headquarters arrested the applicant on suspicion of having written slogans on a wall in support of TKP/ML-TMLGB, namely, the Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist Leninist - Marxist Leninist Youth Union of Turkey (Türkiye Komunist Partisi/Marksist Leninist - Türkiye Marksist Leninist Gençlik Birliği), an illegal organisation. He was placed in police custody. According to the arrest report of 14 January 2001, the applicant did not ask for a lawyer.\n7.  The applicant alleged that while in police custody he had been subjected to physical and psychological ill-treatment amounting to torture. The ill‑treatment consisted of, inter alia, being hosed with pressurised cold water and suspended by the arms, electric shocks and beatings.\n8.  According to four medical reports drawn up on 14, 16, 17 and 19 January 2001 by a doctor at Tunceli State Hospital, apparently at the request of the police headquarters where the applicant was being detained, there were no marks of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body. It was stated in the reports that the applicant “did not have any complaints, appeared well and was conscious” and that there were “no injuries on his body”.\n9.  On 17 January 2001, while he was in police custody, police officers questioned the applicant and recorded his statement. In the nine‑page statement the applicant was reported as having stated that he did not want the assistance of a lawyer and went on to detail the activities he had carried out on behalf of the above-mentioned illegal organisation. These activities included distributing copies of a left-wing newspaper, writing slogans on walls and taking part in meetings with other members of the organisation.\n10.  On 19 January 2001 the applicant was brought before the Tunceli prosecutor and subsequently before the Tunceli Magistrates’ Court (Tunceli Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi), where he was questioned further. The applicant confirmed the accuracy of the contents of the statement he had made in police custody on 17 January 2001. The Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicant’s detention pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The applicant was detained in Malatya Prison.\n11.  On 22 January 2001 the applicant submitted a petition to the Malatya State Security Court, requesting his release. In his petition the applicant stated that, in the course of his detention in police custody he had been subjected to intensive physical and psychological torture in order to force him to sign a statement. Furthermore, he had not been allowed to sleep for three days preceding his appearance before the prosecutor and, as a result, had not been fully conscious when questioned. The applicant’s request for release was rejected the following day.\n12.  On 8 February 2001 the applicant asked, in writing, for the Malatya public prosecutor to refer him to a hospital so that the marks left on his shoulders by the ill‑treatment could be documented. On 14 February 2001 the Malatya prosecutor decided that the alleged ill-treatment had not taken place in his area of jurisdiction and forwarded the applicant’s letter to the Tunceli prosecutor.\n13.  Following a request apparently made by the director of the Malatya Prison on 27 February 2001, the applicant was examined on 28 February 2001 by the director of the Malatya branch of the Forensic Medicine Directorate, w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4692", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  In November 2003 the Budapest I/XII District Public Prosecutor charged the applicant with disorderly conduct and vandalism, punishable by three years of imprisonment.\n7.  The Budapest Central District Court held hearings on 22 January, 28 March and 28 April 2004. On the latter date it found the applicant guilty of vandalism and fined him 90,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 337 euros (EUR)). The District Court relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of an expert, and the testimony of witnesses and the applicant.\n8.  The applicant appealed, seeking acquittal on the ground that the judgment was ill-founded, and requested the court to hold a public hearing. The Budapest Chief prosecutor also appealed, and requested the court to quash the first-instance judgment and remit the case to the District Court because of shortcomings in the finding of facts.\n9.  The Budapest Regional Court notified the applicant’s lawyer that it would determine the appeal sitting in camera. In reply, the lawyer put forward supplementary arguments and again requested the court to hold a public hearing.\n10.  On 7 April 2005 the Regional Court held a session in camera and upheld the applicant’s conviction. The applicant, his lawyer and the prosecutor were absent.\n11.  The Regional Court reviewed the entirety of the proceedings and established their lawfulness. Furthermore, it considered that the findings of fact by the first-instance court were not ill-founded within the meaning of section 351(2) of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, and were thus suitable for an appellate review without taking further evidence.\n12.  However, the Regional Court, relying on the existing case file, modified the findings of fact as established by the first-instance court. When delivering its judgement, it relied on the modified facts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4693", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant, who was born in 1980 and lives in Kayseri, was a student at a military academy. At the time of his registration at this academy, his father had signed a promissory note for the reimbursement of the applicant’s educational expenses in the event of his leaving the school, due to expulsion or otherwise.\n4.  In March 2003 the applicant was expelled from the military academy following a secret security investigation conducted by the Ministry of Defence into him and his family. The applicant was not notified of the specific reasons for his expulsion.\n5.  Subsequently, the applicant asked the Supreme Military Administrative Court to annul the expulsion decision. During the proceedings, he did not have access to the classified documents and information submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Supreme Military Administrative Court in support of its decision to expel him from the military academy.\n6.  On 10 December 2003 the Supreme Military Administrative Court refused to annul the expulsion decision. It stated that information and documents the confidentiality of which was required and necessitated for the performance of military service could not be disclosed to the applicant. The Court further emphasised that it was not bound by the classification made by the administration and that it made its own assessment as to whether the confidentiality of the documents was justified in each case. The written opinion submitted by the principal public prosecutor to the Supreme Military Administrative Court during the proceedings was not communicated to the applicant.\n7.  On 7 April 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s rectification request, which decision was served on the applicant on 20 April 2004.\n8.  The Ministry of Defence subsequently filed an action with the Kayseri Civil Court against the applicant for the reimbursement of his educational expenses. On 3 May 2004 the Kayseri Civil Court ordered the applicant to pay the Ministry of Defence 5,050,500,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 3,000 euros (EUR)), plus interest running from 8 April 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4695", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant, who is a retired non-commissioned officer, was born in 1959 and lives in Osmaniye.\n4.  On 29 June 2002 the applicant attempted to enter the social facilities of the Osmaniye Gendarmerie Commandership, which was a right granted to him under Article 664 § 4 of the Internal Service Regulation of the Turkish Armed Forces (“the Internal Service Regulation”) as a retired non‑commissioned officer. He was, however, not admitted on the basis of an order of the Turkish General Staff, prohibiting him from entering any social facilities of the Armed Forces. The applicant was not provided any further information as to the reason for this prohibition.\n5.  The applicant subsequently filed an action against the Ministry of Defence with the Supreme Military Administrative Court and requested the annulment of the order of the Turkish General Staff. The applicant emphasised that he was not able to duly defend himself against the impugned decision due to his lack of access to the secret information and documents relied on by the Turkish General Staff.\n6.  In its reply, the Ministry of Defence stated that the applicant had been banned from using the said facilities for engaging in activities proscribed under Article 664 § 4 (c) of the Internal Service Regulation. It submitted certain classified documents in support of its decision.\n7.  On 22 April 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request. It stated that information and documents the confidentiality of which was required and necessitated for the performance of military service could not be disclosed to the applicant. The court further emphasised that it was not bound by the classification made by the administration and that it made its own assessment as to whether the confidentiality of the documents was justified in each case.\n8.  On 16 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s rectification request", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4696", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant, was born in 1970 and lives in Nevşehir, was a civil servant working for the Turkish Armed Forces at the time of the events giving rise to this application.\n4.  On 10 September 2003 the Supreme Disciplinary Council of the Ministry of Defence decided to dismiss the applicant from service for misconduct in office following his criminal conviction by a martial law court.\n5.  The applicant subsequently requested the annulment of the dismissal decision from the Supreme Military Administrative Court.\n6.  In its reply to the submissions of the applicant, the Ministry of Defence stated that the applicant had been dismissed in accordance with the relevant provisions of Law no. 657 on Civil Servants and the regulation on disciplinary councils and superiors concerning civil servants employed in the Turkish Armed Forces (Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinde Görevli Devlet Memurları Disiplin Kurulları ve Disiplin Amirleri Yönetmeliği). The Ministry of Defence also submitted certain documents and information to the Supreme Military Administrative Court, which were classified as “secret documents” under Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602 on Supreme Military Administrative Court. These documents were not disclosed to the applicant.\n7.  On 24 June 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request. The written opinion submitted by the principal public prosecutor to the Supreme Military Administrative Court during the proceedings was not communicated to the applicant.\n8.  On 16 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s rectification request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4697", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Bydgoszcz.\n5.  On 13 July 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of physical and mental cruelty towards his common-law wife. On 16 July 2005 he was detained on remand. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and documents. The court also relied on the risk that he might tamper with evidence, since the victim was his next of kin.\n6.  On 12 October 2005 the Bydgoszcz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) extended his detention until 13 January 2006. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. It also relied on the risk that he might tamper with evidence.\n7.  On 4 January 2006 the court extended the applicant’s detention until 13 April 2006. On 10 April 2006 it ordered that the term should be extended until 13 July 2006. The court referred to the grounds for detention listed in the previous decisions.\n8.  In the meantime, the District Court had proceeded with the trial. The hearings were held on 29 November 2005, 4 January, 6 February and 8 May 2006. The court heard evidence from 12 witnesses and in the course of the proceedings two expert reports were given.\n9.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant made numerous, unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release him and decisions extending his detention.\n10.  On 11 May 2006 the Bydgoszcz District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment. He appealed.\n11.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on several occasions.\n12.  On 5 January 2007 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the trial court’s judgment.\n13.  On 17 August 2007 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as being manifestly ill-founded.\n14.  On 2 October 2006 the applicant complained that the Court’s letter of 15 September 2006 had been censored by the authorities. The envelope of this letter, produced by the applicant, bears a red stamp that read: “Censored” (Cenzurowane).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4698", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  Mr Shahin Vrioni, the applicant in application no. 35720/04, is an Albanian national who was born in 1925 and lives in Albania. Mr Gherardo La Francesca, Mr Dario La Francesca and Mr Oliver Vrioni, the applicants in application no. 42832/06, are Albanian and Italian nationals who were born in 1946, 1950 and 1974 respectively and live in Italy. Mr Shahin Vrioni represented himself and the other applicants in the domestic courts’ proceedings.\n7.  In 1950 a plot of land measuring 1,637 sq. m belonging to the applicants’ ancestor, was confiscated by the then Albanian authorities without compensation.\n8.  On 1 July 1991 the Italian Embassy in Albania purchased two buildings in Tirana bordering on the property confiscated from the applicants’ grandfather. The transaction was concluded through an inter-State agreement validated by means of note verbale exchanges between the two governments. The note verbale did not contain any information as to the transfer of title to the surrounding or adjacent plots of land. The relevant property titles were not entered in the Tirana Property Register.\n9.  The Albanian Government subsequently used the income from the transaction to purchase the premises of the Albanian Embassy in Rome.\n10.  Under the Property Restitution and Compensation Act (“the Property Act”), the applicants lodged two applications in 1996 and 1999, respectively, with the Tirana Property Restitution and Compensation Commission (Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave – “the Commission”), claiming title to their deceased grandfather’s property.\n11.  On 18 March 1996 and 14 December 1999 the Commission recognised the applicants’ title to two plots of land measuring 1,100 sq. m. and 537 sq. m. respectively. The Commission held that it was impossible for the applicants to have the whole original plot of land allocated to them. It decided to restore to the applicants a vacant plot of land (një truall i lirë) measuring 1,456 sq. m., which was situated within the occupied grounds of the Italian Embassy, and ordered the authorities to pay compensation in respect of a plot of land measuring 181 sq. m. Moreover, it ordered that the applicants’ title to the property be entered in the Tirana Property Register.\n12.  The applicants were also issued with two certificates of property registration by the Registry Office: registration no. 4373, dated 1 June 1996, and registration no. 420, dated 28 December 1999.\n13.  On an unspecified date in 1996, having regard to the fact that, according to the note verbale of 1991, the Italian Embassy had title to one of the buildings only, but not to the occupied plot of land, the applicants requested the Embassy to return their property which it was occupying without title.\n14.  On 27 November 1996 the Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, having regard to the applicants’ property claims to the plot of land adjacent to the Embassy’s buildings, offered mediation to the Italian Embassy with a view to entering into civil agreements with the applicants.\n15.  On 16 August 1997 the Italian Embassy in Albania, in reply to the applicants’ request for recovery of their property, informed them that their property claims to the plot of land situated within its premises had to be settled with the Albanian authorities.\n16.  On 1 October 1997, following a request by the applicants, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed them that by virtue of the note verbale exchanges of 1991 the Italian Embassy in Albania ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4699", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Hontianske Nemce.\n5.  On 4 October 1996 the applicant was charged with fraud by the Zvolen District Investigation Police Office (Okresný úrad vyšetrovania policajného zboru SR Zvolen), now the Office of the Justice and Criminal Police of the Zvolen District Police Directorate (Úrad justičnej a kriminálnej polície Okresného riaditeľstva Policajného zboru Zvolen). The Zvolen District Prosecutor dismissed a complaint lodged by the applicant against the charge. Following an application by the applicant, the Regional Prosecutor in Banská Bystrica decided not to exclude the district prosecutors from dealing with the case.\n6.  On 17 March 1997 the criminal proceedings were stayed as the absence of the injured party’s representative (resident in the USA) prevented the relevant authority from clarifying the case. The proceedings were resumed on 19 January 1998. They were also stayed between 19 March 1998 and 3 April 2000 and between 25 September 2000 and 2 April 2001.\n7.  On 15 January 2002 the District Prosecution Service appointed a guardian for the injured party. The appointment was confirmed by the Regional Prosecution Service.\n8.  In the course of the pre-trial proceedings the Hungarian authorities were twice requested for legal assistance in order to obtain further evidence from witnesses in Hungary.\n9.  The applicant asked the Prosecutor General three times to review the course of the proceedings before the Zvolen District Prosecutor and the Office of the Justice and Criminal Police of the Zvolen District Police Directorate.\n10.  On 1 June 2007 the proceedings were stayed as the absence of one witness prevented the authority from proceeding with the case. The investigator took several steps with a view to establishing the place of residence of the witness concerned.\n11.  On 14 March 2008 the proceedings were resumed again and the witness was heard. The investigator collected further information.\n12.  On 19 June 2008 the investigator recommended the Zvolen District Prosecutor’s Office to discontinue the criminal proceedings. On 6 November 2008 the Zvolen District Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the proceedings on the ground that no offence had been committed.\n13.  On 29 September 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Office of the Justice and Criminal Police of the Zvolen District Police Directorate had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay.\n14.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was complex from the factual point of view (international element). It stated that as the personal rights and freedoms of the accused person were affected in the course of the criminal proceedings the “reasonable time” criterion should be interpreted strictly. The applicant’s conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. Owing to the relevant authority’s ineffective performance (the proceedings were stayed for 41 months) and inactivity (28 months in total), avoidable delays had occurred.\n15.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 60,000 (the equivalent of 1,553 euros at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the Office of the Justice and Criminal Police of the Zvolen District Police Directorate to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs.\n16.  On 4 September 2007 the Constitutional Court found that during the period after its first finding of 29 September 2005 th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4700", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 31 July 1996 the applicant was run over by a motorist, Mr A.I. As a result of the accident, her clothes were damaged and became unusable. Both of her arms, her right ear and her right leg were bruised. Shortly after that she was admitted to a hospital, where she spent a week, and was found to have a broken ankle and a traumatic brain injury.\n5.  After criminal proceedings which were later converted to administrative-penal ones, in a judgment of 10 March 1997 the Sofia District Court found A.I. responsible for the accident and fined him.\n6.  On 4 June 1997 the applicant brought a civil action against A.I. and his insurer. She sought 500,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL)[1] for pecuniary and BGL 2,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.\n7.  Between October 1997 and March 1999 the Sofia District Court held ten hearings, the first five of which were adjourned because A.I. had not been properly summoned. The court gave judgment on 19 April 1999, awarding the applicant BGL 75,000 compensation for pecuniary and BGL 266,000 for non‑pecuniary damage. It found that there was no valid insurance contract between the insurance company and A.I. and for this reason held that the compensation was due solely by the latter.\n8.  On 29 April 1999 the applicant appealed, arguing that she had suffered more serious injuries and that the compensation awarded was inadequate. A.I. also appealed. As the Sofia District Court, through which the appeals had been filed, did not process them until October 2000, the applicant made a complaint about delays. As a result, on 10 November 2000 the chairman of the Sofia City Court instructed the district judge in charge of the case to send it without delay to the Sofia City Court for examination.\n9.  After holding a hearing on 7 June 2001, in a judgment of 11 July 2001 the Sofia City Court partly reversed the lower court’s judgment and found that A.I.’s insurance company was liable. The court also increased the award in respect of non‑pecuniary damage to 350 Bulgarian levs (BGN). However, the applicant’s contention that her skull had been fractured in the car accident and that this had resulted in permanent injuries was considered unsubstantiated, as no evidence in support of that had been submitted.\n10.  On 10 August 2001 the applicant appealed on points of law. In November 2002, while the proceedings were pending, the 1952 Code of Civil Procedure was amended and provided that henceforth the Supreme Court of Cassation had jurisdiction to hear only cases in which the amount in issue was higher than BGN 5,000. The amendment entered into force with immediate effect and was applicable to pending cases. Accordingly, in a decision of 25 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation terminated the proceedings on the ground that the amount of the compensation claimed was below the minimum for which that court had jurisdiction to hear cases. The applicant was informed of the decision in a letter of 9 December 2002. She did not appeal against it.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4701", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n(1)  Ms Amanat (also spelled Aminat) Ilyasova, born in 1958;\n(2)  Mr Khizir Ilyasov, born in 1954, and\n(3)  Ms Khadizhat Dudayeva, born in 1984.\n6.  The applicants live in the village of Mesker-Yurt, in the Shalinskiy District of the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Musa (also spelled Mussa) Khizirovich Ilyasov, born in 1980. The third applicant is his common-law wife.\n8.  At the material time Musa Ilyasov and the applicants lived at 91 Lenina Street in a single household consisting of two separate buildings with a common courtyard. The property was surrounded by a fence and had a common entrance gate. The first and second applicants occupied one house, which had a grocery store attached to it belonging to the family. Musa Ilyasov and the third applicant, who had got married around the end of June, apparently according to the local customs, lived in the second building.\n9.  On the night of 11 August 2002 the first and second applicants were sleeping in their house while the third applicant and Musa Ilyasov were in the other house.\n10.  Between 4 and 5 a.m. a group of armed men arrived at the Ilyasovs' home in two APCs (armoured personnel carriers) and two grey UAZ vehicles (“таблетка”), and stopped at the gate. Their arrival was witnessed by Ms A., who lived at 67 Lenina Street and was woken up by the noise of the vehicles passing by her house. Having heard the noise, Ms. A. went outside and followed the APCs and the UAZ vehicles to the applicants' home. When she attempted to approach, she saw that about ten armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks had blocked off the perimeter of the applicants' home. She inferred that they were servicemen. They ordered her to leave immediately, threatening to kill her if she disobeyed; she therefore returned home. The majority of the group then entered the grocery store attached to the first and second applicants' house. The men took away packages of various goods such as juice, cigarettes and chicken legs.\n11.  Meanwhile, several intruders entered the first and second applicants' house. One of them pointed his gun and his torch at the applicants and they saw that he was wearing a camouflage uniform and a mask. The second applicant, who had served in the army, decided that the intruders were Russian servicemen because they spoke unaccented Russian, wore camouflage uniforms, carried submachine guns and had the usual military equipment. The second applicant did not specify what that equipment had been. The man in the mask requested the second applicant to identify himself. The second applicant gave his name and showed his identity papers. Having checked them, the armed man asked the second applicant whether there were other men in the house. The second applicant replied that his son was there and immediately asked the intruders whether his son would be taken away. They reassured him that they would not take his son away and that they had just come to check whether any rebel fighters were hiding in the house. They then quickly searched the house.\n12.  Meanwhile, several armed men entered the house where the third applicant and Musa Ilyasov were sleeping. The armed men were speaking Russian. They checked Musa Ilyasov's identity papers and seized them. One of them said to another: “This is not the man. This is Musa Ilyasov.” The other replied: “So what? We are going to sort it out later”. They then handcuffed Musa Ilyasov, put a pill", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4702", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant, Mr Kimlya, was born in 1977 and lives in Surgut in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region. He is the President of the Church of Scientology of Surgut City.\n7.  The second applicant, Mr Sultanov, was born in 1965 and lives in Nizhnekamsk in the Republic of Tatarstan. He is a co-founder and member of the third applicant, the Church of Scientology of Nizhnekamsk, a religious group without legal-entity status.\n8.  In 1994 the first centre for the study of Dianetics (the creed of the Church of Scientology) opened in Surgut and obtained State registration as a social non-governmental organisation under the name of “Surgut Humanitarian Dianetics Centre”.\n9.  In 1995 a new Russian law on non-governmental associations was enacted. It required all non-governmental associations established before its entry into force to be re-registered before 1 July 1999. The Centre applied for re-registration; however, its application was refused on 23 July 1999 on the ground that the aims of the organisation were religious in nature. On 23 November 1999 the Justice Department of the Khanty-Mansi Region (“the Khanty-Mansi Justice Department”) sought a court decision terminating the Centre’s existence.\n10.  The Centre applied for registration as a non-commercial partnership regulated by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. On 4 October 1999 the deputy mayor of Surgut Town Council rejected the application, referring to the religious purposes of the Centre.\n11.  On 2 January 2000 the first applicant, in community with his fellow believers, resolved to found the “Scientology Group of Surgut City” and to hold regular services on Sundays. At a subsequent meeting on 1 July 2000, the first applicant and other believers passed a resolution to establish a local religious organisation, the Church of Scientology of Surgut City (“the Surgut Church”).\n12.  On 15 August 2000 the ten founding members, including the first applicant, applied to the Khanty-Mansi Justice Department for registration as a local religious organisation having the status of a legal entity.\n13.  On 14 September 2000 the Khanty-Mansi Justice Department refused registration in the following terms:\n“You have failed to produce a document issued by a local authority certifying that the religious group has existed in the given territory for no less than fifteen years, or a document issued by the managing body of a centralised religious organisation certifying that the religious group is a branch of such an organisation, and this does not comply with the requirements of section 11(5) of the Federal Law on freedom of conscience and religious associations.\nThe refusal of registration does not prohibit a subsequent new application for registration provided that the grounds for the refusal have been removed.”\n14.  On 17 October 2000 the first applicant appealed against that decision to the Khanty-Mansi Town Court. He alleged that his constitutional right to freedom of conscience had been violated and that his religious group had been discriminated against. Lacking the status of a legal entity, his religious group could not print, export or import religious books or articles of worship, own property, carry out charitable activities or found organisations for religious purposes.\n15.  On 25 December 2000 the Khanty-Mansi Town Court dismissed the complaint. It held that the Khanty-Mansi Justice Department had correctly refused registration because the Surgut Church had failed to provide a docu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4703", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the town of Pechora, Komi Republic.\n5.  On 27 March 1997 the applicant was dismissed from her post of accountant in a private company TOO SIAP (“the company”). She sued the company claiming reinstatement in her post, non-pecuniary damages, salary arrears and unpaid allowances (child allowance, annual leave allowance and maternity allowance). According to the applicant, she lodged her statement of claim (apparently concerning pecuniary claims) with the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ryazan on 22 September 1995. The Government claimed that the proceedings started on an unspecified date in 1997. In October 1997 she moved to another town. According to her, she informed the court of her new address.\n6.  On 24 November 1997 the District Court decided to process her pecuniary claims separately. By a judgment of 25 November 1997, the District Court ordered the applicant’s reinstatement in her post and awarded her 500,000 Russian roubles (RUB)[1] in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant was not present at the hearing. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 5 December 1997. A copy of the judgment was sent to the applicant on 22 December 1997, apparently to her previous address. Another copy was sent on 28 May 1998 to her new address. The applicant received it in June 1998. It appears that neither copy was accompanied by a writ of execution.\n7.  In November 1998 and then in June 2001 the applicant enquired about the state of proceedings regarding the pecuniary claims. It appears that these requests remained unanswered.\n8.  Apparently in April 2002 the applicant learnt that the case file regarding her pecuniary claims had been lost by the court registry. On 30 November 2002 she asked the district court to restore the file, which was done on 14 February 2003. On 28 October 2003 the judge decided to process separately the applicant’s claims for maternity allowance, annual leave allowance and salary arrears. By a judgment of the same date, the court granted her claims for child allowance arrears.\n9.  On 19 January 2004 the District Court granted in part the applicant’s claims for salary arrears, maternity allowance and annual leave allowance. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n10.  Upon the applicant’s request, on 28 September 2004 the Presidium of the Ryazan Regional Court quashed the judgment on supervisory review and ordered a re-examination of the claims.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 14 June 2005 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims. On 22 July 2005 the judge rectified technical errors in this judgment. The applicant was awarded RUB 557,483 in unpaid salary; RUB 48,960 in annual leave allowance; and RUB 76,163 in maternity allowance. It appears that the judgment of 14 June 2005 and the decision of 22 July 2005 were not appealed against and became final.\n12.  It appears that on an unspecified date the applicant instituted a separate set of civil proceedings against the company. The applicant submitted that by a judgment of 18 December 2006 the District Court granted her claims against the company. The applicant did not substantiate the existence of these proceedings by any documentary evidence.\n13.  It appears that in October 1998 the applicant learnt that the company director refused to reinstate her and to pay her compensation in accordance with the judgment of 25 November 1997 (see paragraph 6 above). Thus, in November 1998 she wrote t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4704", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is serving a prison sentence in Sorda, in the Kirov region.\n8.  On 9 March 1999 senior police officer U. sent his subordinates, including officers M. and Sh., to arrest the applicant at his flat and take him to the Regional Department of the Interior (УВД Кировской области) for questioning with regard to several cases of theft. According to the applicant, the police officers put him in the back seat of the car, where they started beating him to make him confess to the thefts until he almost lost consciousness. At the police station he was handcuffed and stripped naked in the presence of the police officers and Ms B., an investigator. One of the police officers pulled a knitted hat down over his eyes. Then they pinned him to the table and threatened to rape him with a rubber truncheon.\n9.  In the evening of the same day the applicant was taken to the Kirov temporary detention facility (ИВС г. Кирова), where he was held for two days.\n10.  Following the prosecutor’s refusal to authorise the applicant’s detention pending investigation, the applicant was released on 12 March 1999 on a written undertaking that he would not leave town.\n11.  On 15 March 1999 the applicant was examined by a general practitioner and a surgeon at Severnaya Hospital in Kirov. The applicant complained to the doctors that he had been beaten up by police officers and was experiencing pain in the lumbar region. The excerpt from the applicant’s medical file read as follows:\n“15 March 1999. On 10 March 1999 [the applicant] was beaten up at the police station. Since then [he] has been bothered by pain in the right lumbar and subcostal region. No dysuria. Satisfactory general condition. Blood pressure measurement 120/80 mmHg. Clear heart beat. Vesicular breathing. Soft abdomen, moderate pain in the right subcostal region. Painful muscle palpation in the right lumbar region. Diagnosis: contusion (ушиб) in the lumbar region?”\n12.  On 27 April 1999 investigator B. summoned the applicant for questioning in connection with a case of robbery. The applicant denied involvement in the robbery. Despite a refusal by the prosecutor to place the applicant in custody, he was allegedly detained at the police station, where he spent the night sitting on a chair handcuffed to a radiator.\n13.  After the applicant had been identified by a witness as one of the alleged perpetrators, the prosecutor authorised his detention pending investigation on 28 April 1999.\n14.  On 29 April 1999 the applicant appointed Ms O., a lawyer, to represent him in the criminal proceedings against him.\n15.  On an unspecified date the applicant made complaints of ill-treatment to the Kirov Town Prosecutor’s Office.\n16.  On 21 June 1999 the assistant prosecutor of Kirov Town refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. The assistant prosecutor based her findings on statements made by the police officers and Investigator B., who denied the applicant’s allegations, and on the applicant’s medical file. In particular, the assistant prosecutor stated as follows:\n“...On 10 June 1999 the Kirov Town Prosecutor’s Office received a complaint by [the applicant]...in which he alleges that officers Sh. and B. of the Internal Affairs Department used unlawful methods of investigation. In particular, they subjected him to physical and mental pressure to make him confess to the offences he was charged with... [The applicant] contests his guilt and requests to be release", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4705", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1944 and 1935 respectively and live in Popovo.\n5.  By a mayor's order of 9 May 1988 the applicants' house in Popovo was expropriated with a view to developing the land as a residential area. The order was based on sections 95 and 98(1) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of 1973 (“the TUPA”) and provided that the applicants were to be compensated with a two-room flat in a building which the municipality intended to construct.\n6.  In 1989 the house expropriated from the applicants was demolished.\n7.  By an order of 19 April 1991, under section 103 of the TUPA, the mayor indicated the exact future flat with which the applicants were to be compensated. Its surface was to be 73 square metres.\n8.  On an unspecified date in 1991 the municipal authorities opened with the State Savings Bank a blocked housing bank account in the name of the applicants and deposited an amount corresponding to the value of their expropriated real property.\n9.  The construction of the building where the applicants' apartment was to be located started in 1994.\n10.  For an unspecified period the applicants lived in their son's flat (their son was allotted a municipal flat). Later they rented other accommodation and in 1996 were housed in a makeshift dwelling provided by the municipality.\n11.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicants brought an action for damages against the Popovo municipality for wrongful failure to fulfil its obligations to build and provide them with a flat.\n12.  On 8 January 2001 they complained to the President of the National Assembly about the failure of the municipality to provide them with a flat. On 27 March 2001 they filed a complaint with the President of the Republic.\n13.  In a final judgment of 27 May 2003 the courts awarded the applicants 6,750 new Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of approximately 3,500 euros (EUR), in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The indemnification covered the period 1991-2000. The courts held that the municipality's failure to provide the applicants with a flat was unlawful and that the situation of uncertainty had caused them to suffer mental anguish.\n14.  In another judgment - of 31 August 2005 - the applicants' claim for pecuniary damages (loss of rent which they would have received had they let the flat) was dismissed as the courts found that this was speculative.\n15.  In January 2006 the applicants accepted an offer by the municipality to be compensated with an apartment in a different building. The new flat which had a surface area of 64 square metres, was delivered to the applicants in August 2007.\n16.  In September 2007 the applicants brought an action against the Popovo municipality. They claimed BGN 7,940, which represented the difference between the value of the flat allotted to them originally and the flat they received eventually. It appears that these proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4706", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on 3 September 2004 during a police intervention following complaints of domestic violence made by his wife. On 4 September 2004 the Warsaw District Court remanded him in custody on suspicion of acts of domestic violence committed between May and September 2004. It relied on evidence given by the applicant's wife and his son. It found that there was a risk that the applicant might influence witnesses, in particular his twelve-year old son. The court noted that according to witnesses' statements the applicant had been violent and had not respected the living arrangements in the family flat. Furthermore, the preventive measure (police supervision) which had been imposed so far had proved ineffective. Having regard to the above, the District Court held that only detention during judicial proceedings could secure the proper conduct of the investigation. However, it noted that the investigation should last no longer than two months.\n7.  The applicant appealed. However his appeal was dismissed on 5 October 2004. His requests for release were likewise dismissed, on 1 October 2004.\n8.  On 26 October 2004 the Warsaw District Court extended the applicant's pre-trial detention until 2 February 2005. It found that his continued detention was necessary in order to prevent the applicant from influencing the victims.\n9.  On 9 November 2004 the applicant appealed against the extension of his detention. He argued that the background to the family conflict was related to his older son's alleged addiction to drugs and theft of his money. He also submitted that he had no criminal record and had been declared “second-degree disabled”.\n10.  On 5 January 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. It relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty and the fact that the applicant had just begun psychiatric observation.\n11.  On 25 January 2005 the Warsaw District Court extended the applicant's detention until 2 May 2005. It invoked the risk that the applicant, if released, would attempt to influence the victims. It also found that continued detention was justified in order for a psychiatric report to be prepared.\n12.  The applicant's lawyer lodged an appeal against this decision on 8 February 2005.\n13.  The Government submitted that the applicant obtained a copy of the decision of 25 January 2005 only on 24 February 2005. His appeal, dated 25 February 2005, was submitted to the Warsaw District Court on 21 March 2005.\n14.  On 6 April 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant's and his lawyer's appeal. It relied, in particular, on the need to obtain a psychiatric report.\n15.  On 11 March 2005 the Warsaw Żoliborz District Prosecutor refused the applicant's request to be released on bail.\n16.  Meanwhile, on 1 April 2005 the psychiatric experts submitted their report to the District Prosecutor.\n17.  On 29 April 2005 the Warsaw District Court ordered that the applicant be held in detention until 2 June 2005. In addition to the risk of obstruction of the proceedings, it held that the extension of detention was justified by the need to assess certain documentary evidence and to enable the applicant to consult the file, as the investigation was nearing its end (scheduled for 9 May 2005). On an unspecified later date the applicant appealed against that extension of his detention.\n18.  On 19 May 2005 the Warsaw Żoliborz District Prosecutor filed a bil", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4707", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  At the material time she was a judge in a first-instance court in Bucharest. Two sets of criminal investigations were started against her, on suspicion of having repeatedly falsified official documents in the exercise of her duties, as part of an organised group, with the aim of illegally obtaining title to various properties in the centre of Bucharest.\n7.  Under the provisions of Law no. 92/1992 on the Organisation of Justice, the applicant was automatically suspended from her post during the criminal trial.\n8.  On 18 September 2001 she was dismissed from her post by an order of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary (Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii) for manifest professional unfitness. On 15 July 2003 the decision was endorsed by the President of the Republic and on 3 November 2003 it was upheld by the High Court of Cassation and Justice (former Supreme Court of Justice), upon an appeal by the applicant.\n9.  On 9 October 2001 the prosecutor at the Supreme Court of Justice started the criminal investigations against the applicant.\n10.  On 27 November 2001 the applicant was arrested for thirty days, on the orders of the prosecutor, in connection with the criminal investigations against her.\nThe applicant appealed against the arrest order on the grounds that it did not satisfy the domestic-law requirements or those set forth in Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.\n11.  On 5 December 2001 the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld the arrest order. It found that the evidence in the file disclosed a reasonable suspicion that she had committed the offences she was accused of. It considered that her actions, which were contrary to public policy, had been aggravated by the fact that the applicant had been a judge at the time.\nOn 14 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the order by two votes to one. The third judge expressed his separate opinion that there were no grounds for arresting the applicant.\n12.  On 19 December 2001 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant's pre-trial detention by thirty days, upon a request by the prosecutor. It found that:\n“the reasons invoked – in the light of the complexity of the case which requires that the prosecutor take the investigative measures indicated in his request – constitute sufficient justification under Articles 155 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”\nOn 28 December 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the above‑mentioned interlocutory judgment.\n13.  On 24 January 2002 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention on the ground that the applicant's release would be contrary to public policy, given the seriousness of the offences she was accused of and the risk of generating society's mistrust in the judicial system.\nOn 6 February 2002 the Supreme Court reduced the new term of detention to fifteen days.\n14.  On 7 February 2002 the Court of Appeal extended the detention for a further thirty days on the ground that the reasons invoked for the arrest still existed.\nOn 15 February 2002 the Supreme Court reduced the duration of detention to fifteen days again.\n15.  On 21 February 2002 the Court of Appeal extended the detention by nineteen days on the same grounds, in order to allow the prosecutor to finalise the investigations. On 5 March 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the interlocutory judgment.\n16.  On 14 March 2002 the Court of Appeal dismissed a new request by the prosecutor for another extension of the applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4708", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1956 and 1946 respectively. The first applicant lives in Łόdź.\n6.  The first applicant owns a publishing house named “Westa Druk” which publishes a weekly magazine, Angora, and its supplement for children, Angorka. The second applicant was the editor in chief of the magazine.\n7.  On 16 May 1999 Angorka published an article referring to an advertising campaign by a company, Star Foods, for its potato crisps. On the first page of the magazine there was a cartoon showing a boy holding a packet, with the name “Star Foods” on it, saying to Reksio – a little dog, a popular cartoon character for children – “Don’t worry! I would be a murderer too if I ate this muck!” (“Nie martw się – też bym był mordercą, gdybym jadł to świństwo!”). Above the cartoon, there was a large heading reading “Polish children shocked by crisps advertisement, ‘Reksio is a murderer’ (Reksio to morderca)”.\n8.  The article, printed on the second page of the magazine, read as follows:\n“Recently in Star Foods crisps [packets] stickers appeared which terrified parents and their children: ‘Reksio is a murderer’.\nIn the [packets of] crisps from the company Star Foods, which are stocked on the shelves of almost all shops, stickers appeared recently which terrified parents and children. In the packets there are little pieces of paper bearing the slogan: “Reksio is a murderer”.\nBefore the stickers appeared in the packets of crisps the company ordered a market study. One of the advertising agencies proposed slogans and sayings used every day by teenagers. Children, however, are terrified by those slogans.\n...\nPrepared following ‘the Super Express’”\n9.  The above quoted article on the second page was accompanied by a small cartoon featuring two cats holding a packet with the word “crisps” on it and the dog Reksio in the background. One cat holds a piece of paper with the slogan “Reksio murderer” apparently taken out from the packet and says to the second cat - “surely, he is sometimes unpleasant, but a murderer?!” (“Owszem, nieraz bywa przykry, ale żeby od razu mordercą?!”).\n10.  On 2 November 1999 Star Foods (“the plaintiff”) lodged against both applicants a civil claim for protection of personal rights. The company sought an order requiring the defendants to publish an apology in Angora and Angorka for publishing a cartoon discrediting, without any justification, Star Foods products. They further sought reimbursement of their legal costs and payment by the applicants of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) to a charity.\n11.  On 28 May 2001 the Łόdź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) found for the plaintiff. The court ordered the applicants to publish apologies as sought in the statement of claim and to pay PLN 10,000 to a charity. The applicants were also ordered to pay the plaintiffs PLN 11,500 to reimburse the costs of the proceedings. The court considered that the cartoon in question had breached the personal rights of the plaintiff and discredited the products of the company. The words used by the applicants had an unambiguous meaning relating to disgust and repulsion and were strongly pejorative. Accordingly, the court concluded that the applicants had overstepped the threshold of permissible criticism, in particular in a magazine aimed at children. The court dismissed the applicants’ arguments that the cartoon had aimed to criticise the advertising campaign run by Star Foods and not their product. It considered that such an attack on the plaintiff’s persona", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4709", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Istanbul.\n4.  On 20 August 1996 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP‑C (Devrimci Halk Kurtuluş Partisi-Cephesi; the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party-Front), as well as aiding and abetting the said organisation.\n5.  On 3 September 1996 the applicant was remanded in custody.\n6.  On 6 December 1996 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, along with other persons, charging him with membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 1 of the former Criminal Code.\n7.  On 20 May 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty of activities carried out for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. The applicant was sentenced to death; his sentence was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment.\n8.  On 30 September 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on the ground that the latter had failed to specify the provision of the Criminal Code under which the applicant had been found guilty. The Court of Cassation held that the applicant had been unlawfully held accountable for an event which had not been included in the bill of indictment of 6 December 1996.\n9.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was therefore transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.\n10.  On 31 March 2006 the applicant was released pending trial.\n11.  According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4710", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1945, 1967, 1945, 1953, 1957 and 1959, respectively. Mr Talat Acar lives in İzmir. The other applicants live in Midyat.\n6.  At the time of the events the applicants were living in the village of Çalpınar, which is located within the administrative jurisdiction of the town of Midyat, in south-east Turkey.\n7.  On 20 April 1992 a number of villagers from Çalpınar village were travelling in two vehicles. Some time after they left their village the vehicles were stopped by a group of village guards[1]. The village guards then opened fire on the villagers and killed six of them, including the first applicant's brother and the sixth applicant's husband, Mr Süleyman Acar[2]. A number of other villagers were injured. Two of the injured persons, including the second applicant's brother and the fifth applicant's husband, Mr Sabri Acar, died the following day in hospital. The third and the fourth applicants were among those injured in the incident. The third applicant, Yusuf Acar, was shot in the leg and his injuries required a month to heal. The fourth applicant, Süleyman Acar, had broken bones and a bullet had split in his body. The doctors did not deem it necessary to remove the bullet pieces as they were not life-threatening.\n8.  The same day the Midyat prosecutor visited the area and, with the assistance of a forensic doctor, examined the bodies. It was established that the deceased persons had been shot at close range.\n9.  The prosecutor asked the gendarmes who were in the area to collect the spent bullet cases. When the soldiers refused to help him, the prosecutor himself collected and secured a total of sixty-six spent cartridges discharged from the village guards' rifles. The rifles had been given to the village guards by the gendarmerie. As the gendarmes also refused to take the injured persons to the hospital, the prosecutor's clerk had to do it himself.\n10.  The prosecutor expressed the opinion that the village guards had set an ambush to kill the villagers.\n11.  According to a report prepared by the gendarmerie, however, it had not been the village guards who opened fire on the villagers but a group of PKK[3] members wearing military uniforms.\n12.  On 8 July 1992 the Midyat prosecutor filed an indictment with the Midyat Assize Court, charging twenty-seven village guards with multiple offences of homicide and attempted homicide.\n13.  For security reasons the trial was moved from the Midyat Assize Court to the Denizli Assize Court, in the west of the country.\n14.  Some eight and a half years later the Denizli Assize Court rendered its judgment on 20 November 2000 and acquitted all the defendants.\n15.  On 7 February 2002 the Denizli Assize Court's judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation in respect of seventeen of the twenty-seven village guards but was quashed in respect of the remaining ten.\n16.  A retrial began before the Denizli Assize Court, which, on 20 May 2003, found the ten village guards guilty of the murder of the eight villagers as well as the attempted murder of a number of others, including the third and fourth applicants. The village guards were sentenced to life imprisonment. In its judgment the Denizli Assize Court stated the following:\n“In view of the autopsy reports, there is no question as to the cause of death of the villagers. Instead, the question to be resolved is whether those who fired on the villagers were the accused village guards.\nIt is not possible to rely solely on the w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4711", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The first applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Ankara. The second applicant is a construction company registered in Turkey.\n4.  On 10 October 1990 the applicant company brought a civil action before the Seventh Chamber of the Ankara Civil Court against the National Water Board (Devlet Su İşleri) to recover the monies owed to it under a construction contract (case no. 1990/584).\n5.  On 27 December 1993 the Ankara Civil Court awarded the applicant company's claim in full, plus interest.\n6.  On 18 November 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on procedural and substantive grounds.\n7.  On 16 March 1995 the applicant company brought an additional action against the National Water Board before the Eighth Chamber of the Ankara Civil Court in relation to the latter's default in certain other financial undertakings under the aforementioned construction contract (case no. 1995/255).\n8.  On 28 September 1995 the Eighth Chamber of the Ankara Civil Court decided to join case no. 1995/255 with case no. 1990/584 pending before the Seventh Chamber of the Ankara Civil Court.\n9.  On 15 December 1998, 12 September 2000 and 5 July 2001 the Ankara Civil Court rendered three separate judgments on the case, all of which were quashed by the Court of Cassation on 20 May 1999, 6 February 2001 and 27 December 2001 respectively on procedural and substantive grounds, including erroneous calculations, resulting in the remittal of the case to the Ankara Civil Court each time.\n10.  On 19 April 2002 the Ankara Civil Court examined the case for the fifth time and awarded the applicant company's claim in part, together with interest.\n11.  On 6 June 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court with certain minor technical amendments.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4712", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The applicant is a shareholder in a private company (M.). On 20 July 1999 she and five other shareholders initiated court proceedings against a company (L.) which also held shares in M., asking for the annulment of a number of contracts and decisions adopted by the shareholders' association.\n7.  On 10 January 2001 the Grigoriopol District Court allowed the claims made by the plaintiffs in part. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final fifteen days later.\n8.  The applicant sought enforcement of the judgment and claims that a number of measures were taken with a view to having it enforced.\n9.  In a letter signed 30 November 2001 (but apparently lodged with the court on 6 December 2001) L. appealed against the judgment of 10 January 2001. L. claimed that it had not received a copy of the judgment until the middle of November. The representative for the applicant and the other five plaintiffs asked the court to reject the appeal as lodged out of time and argued that, in his opinion, L. had known about the judgment of 10 January 2001 since April 2001. He submitted, in particular, that on 25 May 2001 he had personally handed a copy of the judgment to L.'s president in the presence of all the shareholders.\n10.  On 30 April 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court allowed L.'s appeal in part, without taking any decision in respect of the fifteen-day time-limit for lodging an appeal.\n11.  In an appeal in cassation, the applicant emphasised L.'s failure to lodge its appeal within the time-limit set by law.\n12.  On 11 July 2002 the Court of Appeal sent the case back to the Chişinău Regional Court for a decision on the payment of court fees.\n13.  On 3 September 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court decided that the applicant and the other plaintiffs were to pay the court fees.\n14.  On 28 January 2003 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation and upheld the judgment of 30 April 2002.\n15.  At the applicant's request, on 14 April 2003 the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged a request with the Supreme Court of Justice asking for the reopening of the case. One of the reasons given was that, in lodging its appeal on 6 December 2001, L. had missed the fifteen-day time-limit for lodging an appeal and had also failed to comply with the statutory requirement to apply to the court for a decision holding that the reasons for missing the time-limit were acceptable. Moreover, the Chişinău Regional Court had examined the case in the applicant's absence, depriving her of her procedural rights.\n16.  On 4 June 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice granted the request and ordered a rehearing of the case by the Court of Appeal. It noted that L. had lodged its appeal on 6 December 2001, outside the time-limit for lodging appeals. The court also noted that the examination of the appeal in the absence of the applicant's representative had amounted to a failure to respect the rights of all the parties to the proceedings, “especially given that a new judgment was adopted”.\n17.  On 24 September 2003 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected L.'s appeal against the judgment of 10 January 2001. The court found that L. had missed the fifteen-day time-limit for lodging an appeal. Even if L. had stated the truth when it declared, in its appeal, that it had not found out about the judgment of 10 January 2001 until the middle of November 2001, it should have lodged its appeal by the end of November, and not on ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4713", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On 17 May 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. The same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor, who reported that there was no sign of ill-treatment on his body. On 18 May 2000 he was questioned in police custody in the absence of a lawyer. In his police statement, the applicant admitted that he had had military training in Iran but rejected the allegation that he was a member of an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 21 May 2000 the applicant was again medically examined by a doctor, who stated that there were no traces of ill-treatment on his body. Subsequently, on the same day, the applicant was brought before the prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Ankara State Security Court, still in the absence of a lawyer. Before the public prosecutor, the applicant declared that he had been subjected to “psychological torture” in police custody and refuted his police statement. He acknowledged that he had been to Iran but denied having had military training there. The applicant also gave a statement to the investigating judge. He retracted his police statement but did not mention any allegations of ill-treatment or duress. After the questioning was over, the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody.\n7.  On 11 July 2000 the prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, charging the applicant with the offence of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Tevhid-Selam and its sub-group the Kudüs Savaşçıları. A number of other persons were also included in the same indictment and accused of various offences, such as the assassination of a number of prominent journalists and academics in Turkey. According to the prosecutor, the organisation's aim was to establish a religious regime in Turkey similar to that in Iran.\n8.  On 7 January 2002 the Ankara State Security Court rendered its 152 page-long judgment. The trial court found it established, on the basis of the applicant's police custody statement of 18 May 2000, that he was a member of the illegal organisation. It sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment under Article 168 of the Criminal Code. In its decision the trial court also examined the applicant's allegation of psychological pressure in police custody. Having regard to the two medical reports drawn up at the time of the applicant's arrest and his release from police custody, which stated that there were no marks of injury on the applicant's body, the court concluded that the applicant had retracted his police custody statement in order to avoid conviction.\n9.  On 12 November 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant's conviction. The applicant was released from prison on 10 June 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4714", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1926, 1959, 1951, 1962, 1963 and 1966 respectively and live in Gaziantep.\n5.  In 1999 the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources expropriated five plots of land belonging to the applicants (plots nos. 501, 561, 562, 606 and 608) in the Aşağıçardak village in Nizip for the construction of the Birecik Dam.\n6.  Following the applicants' requests for increased compensation, the Nizip Civil Court of First Instance awarded them additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate. The applicants appealed and the Court of Cassation upheld the judgments of the first instance court.\n7.  In November and December 2002 the administration made partial payments to the applicants in additional compensation. On 31 May 2007 the Ministry made further payments to discharge their outstanding debts. The details regarding the proceedings and payments are indicated in the table below:\n \nPLOT No.\nDATE OF JUDGMENT OF THE NİZİP CIVIL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE\nDATE OF FINAL DECISION BY THE COURT OF CASSATION\nAMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION\n(interests and legal costs not included)\n(in Turkish liras (TRL))\nAMOUNT OF FIRST PAYMENT (made in November and December 2002)\n(in TRL)\nAMOUNT OF SECOND PAYMENT (made on 31 May 2007)\n(in Turkish liras (TRY[1]))\n501", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4715", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant, who was born in 1985 and lives in İzmir, was a student at a military academy. When he registered with the academy, the applicant and his father had signed a promissory note for the reimbursement of the applicant's educational expenses in the event of his leaving the school, due to expulsion or otherwise.\n4.  On 7 June 2004 the applicant was expelled from the military academy following a secret security investigation conducted by the Ministry of Defence into him and his family. The applicant was not notified of the specific reasons for his expulsion.\n5.  On 23 July 2004 the applicant asked the Supreme Military Administrative Court to annul the expulsion decision.\n6.  On 23 August 2004 the Ministry of Defence made submissions to the Supreme Military Administrative Court, alleging that the applicant had been expelled in compliance with the relevant laws. The Ministry of Defence also supplied that court with the results of the security investigation which had led to the applicant's expulsion in support of its allegations. The applicant was not granted access to this information, as it was classified as secret, in accordance with Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602 on the Supreme Military Administrative Court.\n7.  Following an examination of the classified documents submitted by the Ministry of Defence, on 15 December 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court refused to annul the expulsion decision. The court acknowledged that the security investigation conducted into the applicant and his family had revealed that his father had previously been convicted of forgery. It further held that this information justified the applicant's expulsion under the relevant laws and regulations.\n8.  On 18 January 2005 the applicant requested rectification of that judgment, which the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected on 16 February 2005.\n9.  The Ministry of Defence subsequently filed an action with the İzmir Civil Court against the applicant for the reimbursement of his educational expenses. On 14 April 2008 the İzmir Civil Court ordered the applicant to pay the Ministry of Defence 12,355.61 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 6,000 euros (EUR)), plus interest running from 7 June 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4716", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Poznań.\n5.  The applicant lives in a rented flat in a house in Poznań.\n6.  In 1995 a certain M.W. converted an attic above the applicant's flat into a flat and, without the required permit, moved in. She failed to carry out the necessary soundproofing work and, as a result, the applicant could be heard from her flat and is disturbed by noise coming from the flat above her.\n7.  In 1995 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings. She sought a demolition order in relation to the unauthorised flat.\n8.  On 28 June 1998 the mayor of Poznań gave a decision ordering the compulsory demolition “of the constituent elements of the flat” and imposing on the co-owners of the building an obligation to restore the attic to its former condition (przywrócenie stanu poprzedniego).\n9.  On an unspecified date the co-owners of the building and M.W. appealed against that decision.\n10.  On 24 September 1998 the Poznań Governor (Wojewoda Poznański) quashed part of the challenged decision in so far as it imposed obligations on the co-owners of the building and upheld the remainder of the decision.\n11.  On an unspecified date M.W. lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court. She requested that both decisions be declared null and void.\n12.  On 25 May 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) gave judgment and, for procedural reasons, quashed part of the challenged decision in so far as it had set aside the first-instance decision. The court dismissed the remainder of the complaint, with the result that the co‑owners of the house became obliged to carry out the demolition and to restore the attic to its previous condition.\n13.  The obligations arising from the final judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court were not performed by the co-owners.\n14.  In November 1998 the administrative enforcement authority, namely the Poznań Local Inspector of Construction Supervision (Powiatowy Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego), sent a reminder to the co-owners to perform their obligations imposed by the final and enforceable decision of the Poznań Governor. The reminder remained ineffective.\n15.  In September 1999 another reminder, also ineffective, was sent to the debtors.\n16.  On 12 October 1999 the Poznań Local Inspector of Construction Supervision imposed a fine on the co-owners for non-performance of their obligations (grzywna w celu przymuszenia). The fine was subsequently enforced but, as the co-owners had appealed against the decision imposing the fine and the Supreme Administrative Court quashed it, the amount paid had to be returned to the debtors.\n17.  On 18 August 2000 the applicant's lawyer complained of the inactivity of the administrative authorities to the Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision. He relied on the newly amended section 54(2) of the 1966 Administrative Enforcement Proceedings Act (ustawa o postępowaniu egzekucyjnym w administracji), which allowed creditors to lodge complaints about the excessive length of administrative enforcement proceedings. It appears that the applicant's lawyer's complaint remained ineffective.\n18.  On 21 March 2002, relying on the same ground as previously, the applicant's lawyer again complained about the excessive length of the administrative enforcement proceedings to the Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision.\n19.  On 30 April 2002 the Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision dismissed the complaint, finding", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4717", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 13 October 1992 the local authorities of Briceni decided to split the State-owned Regional Association for Production and Services (“the Association”) into two companies, one of which was the applicant company. On 28 December 1992 the applicant company was officially registered with the authorities as a private company and was subsequently assigned certain assets belonging to the Association.\n7.  The applicant company operated until 3 December 1993, when the local authorities sealed its premises in order to recover State property allegedly held by it. On 16 December 1993 the local authorities decided to create a State-owned company (“the State company”) with a similar name to that of the applicant company and to transfer to it the Association's assets which had been assigned to the applicant company in 1992.\n8.  The applicant company claimed that its own property had been seized on 3 December 1993 together with the property that had formerly belonged to the Association and had been assigned to it in 1992. It also claimed that it had paid for the property assigned to it in 1992 and that therefore the seizure of 3 December 1993 had been unlawful. When the State company refused to return the seized assets, the applicant company initiated court proceedings.\n9.  On 12 May 1994 the Briceni District Court allowed the applicant company's claims. On 1 June 1994 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed that judgment and ordered a full rehearing of the case.\n10.  On 15 February 1995 the Briceni District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the arbitration courts were competent to examine such cases. On 22 March 1995 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld that decision.\n11.  On an unknown date in 1995 the applicant company initiated proceedings before the Arbitration Court. On 27 November 1995 the Arbitration Court partly allowed the applicant company's claims. On the same day the court issued an enforcement order, which was amended on 19 December 1995.\n12.  On 5 February 1996 the enforcement of the decision of 27 November 1995 was suspended pending an appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice.\n13.  On 2 July 1996 the decision of 27 November 1995 was amended by the Arbitration Court, reducing the amount awarded to the applicant company.\n14.  On 1 July 1997 the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Moldova annulled all the previous judgments and ordered a full rehearing of the case.\n15.  On 26 September 1997 the Chişinău Arbitration Court partly allowed the applicant company's claims.\n16.  On 14 November 1997 the applicant company complained to various authorities, including the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, of unnecessary delays in the proceedings. The complaints were forwarded to the court examining the case.\n17.  On 16 January 1998 the Appeals Chamber of the Arbitration Court of Moldova quashed the judgment of 26 September 1997 and ordered a full rehearing of the case.\n18.  On 23 March 1998 the Chişinău Arbitration Court partly allowed the applicant company's claims. On the same day the court issued an enforcement order. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final fifteen days later.\n19.  On 4 May 1998 the Prosecutor General's Office lodged an application for annulment of the final judgment and asked the Supreme Court of Justice to reopen the proceedings. On 3 June 1998 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the request and quashed the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4718", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Cahul.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant is a school teacher with twenty-five years of teaching experience and is a person with a third-degree disability as a result of spinal cord and leg injuries.\n8.  According to the applicant, on 9 May 2004, the 59th anniversary of the end of World War II as celebrated in Moldova, he was in a bar with a friend. At approximately 8.30 p.m. he went home but was stopped by two persons wearing police uniforms. Without identifying themselves or giving any explanation, the persons took him by the hands and forced him to follow them. The applicant protested, identifying himself and asking who they were and where he was being taken. He was told that he would find out all the reasons on arrival at the local police station.\n9.  The applicant alleges that during the arrest and while being taken to the police station he received blows from the police officers. Two women intervened in his defence, but he was taken to the police station. At the police station he received more blows and was then placed in a detention cell together with four other men, most of them sleeping on the bare floor. When he made a complaint about the conditions of detention he was transferred to a solitary cell with even worse conditions. No information was given to him about the reasons for his arrest and he was not allowed to call his twelve-year-old son, who remained alone at home, nor to call a lawyer.\n10.  The next morning at approximately 8 a.m. he was given the record of his arrest to sign, but was not allowed to read it. He was also told the reasons for his arrest, following which he signed the documents but noted his disagreement with the charges against him. The record was dated 9 May 2004 and indicated the applicant's full name and home address. It described his behaviour as contrary to Article 164/1 and 174/6 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). According to the Government, the applicant signed the reports on 9 May 2004.\n11.  The two police officers wrote reports to the head of the police station, stating that on 9 May 2004 at approximately 8.30 p.m. the applicant had disturbed the public order by insulting certain public figures, including the deputy mayor of Cahul. Their request to follow them to the police station went unheeded, following which they had to use force to take him to the police station, since he was “playing to the public”. On the way to the police station he tried to escape but was tripped by one of the officers and fell down, hitting his face on the pavement. He was arrested again and taken to the police station.\n12.  Witness statements by O. N. and N. N. were annexed to the file, in which they described having seen the applicant being escorted by two police officers. When he attempted to escape, one of the officers tripped him and the applicant fell to the ground, hitting it with his face.\n13.  On 10 May 2004 at approximately 10 a.m. the applicant was brought before a judge, who examined his administrative case. The applicant alleges that his request for assistance by a lawyer was left unanswered. The Government submit that no such request was made. The judge found the applicant guilty of minor hooliganism and refusal to comply with lawful requests from the police, contrary to Articles 164/1 and 174/6 of the CAO. The court found, in particular, that the applicant had breached p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4719", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Sandomierz.\n6.  In 1974 the applicant's parents agreed to the expropriation of their property in Sandomierz for the purpose of building a pedestrian access and a driveway to a clinic.\n7.  On 21 September 1990 the applicant and her parents lodged an application for restitution of the expropriated land with the Sandomierz Municipality (Urząd Miejski) under section 69 of the Law of 29 April 1985 on Land Administration and Expropriation (Ustawa o gospodarce gruntami i wywłaszczaniu nieruchomości). This section stipulated that the former owner of the expropriated property (or his legal successor) could lodge an application for restitution provided that the property no longer served the purpose specified in the expropriation decision. According to the applicant, their application was left unanswered.\n8.  Subsequently, the applicant's parents transferred their claim to the property to the applicant.\n9.  On 17 November 1992 the applicant and her parents made another application for restitution of the property.\n10.  On 15 March 1993 the head of the Sandomierz District Office (Kierownik Urzędu Rejonowego) refused the application.\n11.  The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 7 June 1993 the Tarnobrzeg Governor (Wojewoda) upheld the first‑instance decision.\n13.  The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny).\n14.  On 14 June 1994 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed both decisions.\n15.  On 14 March 1995 the applicant complained of inactivity on the part of the administrative authorities.\n16.  On 21 April 1995 the Tarnobrzeg Governor explained that the case was particularly complex and acknowledged that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy. He also ordered the head of the Sandomierz District Office to give a decision by 20 May 1995.\n17.  On 18 May 1995 the head of the Sandomierz District Office gave a decision and ordered the restitution of the property. He also ordered the applicant to pay the Sandomierz Municipality the indexed sum of 81,931 Polish zlotys (PLN) in return for the compensation awarded to her parents in 1974.\n18.  The applicant appealed, arguing that the indexed sum had been wrongly calculated and did not reflect the real value of the property.\n19.  On 20 September 1995 the applicant complained to the Supreme Administrative Court about the inactivity of the administrative authority.\n20.  On 30 November 1995 the Tarnobrzeg Governor quashed the challenged decision and ordered that the property be returned to the applicant for a payment of PLN 49,338.\n21.  The applicant and the Sandomierz Municipality lodged appeals with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n22.  On 27 June 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court declared the challenged decision null and void.\n23.  On 14 July 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court examined the applicant's complaint of 20 September 1995 about the inactivity of the administrative authorities and discontinued the proceedings, finding that a decision had already been given by the relevant authority.\n24.  On 12 February 1997 the Tarnobrzeg Governor quashed the decision of the head of the Sandomierz District Office of 18 May 1995.\n25.  On 30 June 1997 the head of the Sandomierz District Office gave a decision and ordered that part of the property, which had not been developed, be returned to the applicant.\n26.  Both parties lodged appeals: the applicant on 18 July 1997 and the Sandomierz Municipality on 15 July 1997.\n27.  On 9 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4720", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  On 7 June 1997 the applicant passed an exam for the post of a private security guard and was subsequently employed to work for Etibank, a State-owned company. However, the exam results were subsequently annulled on the basis of a report prepared by inspectors who had found a number of wrongdoings in the conduct of the examination. The applicant's contract of employment was terminated.\n6.  On 27 November 1997 the applicant brought an action before the 7th Chamber of the Ankara Administrative Court, challenging the annulment of the exam results. He also asked to be reassigned to his post. The Ankara Administrative Court decided on 9 December 1997 that it had no jurisdiction to examine the case and forwarded the case file to the Konya Administrative Court.\n7.  On 5 March 1998 the Konya court decided that it also did not have jurisdiction to examine the case and sent the file to the Supreme Administrative Court which decided, on 15 June 1998, that the Ankara Administrative Court had jurisdiction.\n8.  On 14 April 1999 the 7th Chamber of the Ankara Administrative Court decided in favour of the applicant and he was reinstated in his previous post. The court found that the annulment of the exam should not have affected the successful candidates who, by having met the necessary criteria, had passed the exam properly. The bank appealed against the decision on 28 June 1999.\n9.  On 15 November 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision. The court found that the report drawn up by the inspectors contained sufficient reasons for the annulment of the exam. The Supreme Administrative Court attached weight to the gravity of the wrongdoings pointed out in that report and concluded that the employment of personnel through such an exam would not be fair. On 26 June 2002 the applicant was dismissed from his job once more.\n10.  On 18 September 2002 the 7th Chamber of the Ankara Administrative Court followed the Supreme Administrative Court's decision and rejected the applicant's request. On 3 December 2002 the applicant appealed.\n11.  On 29 December 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of 18 September 2002. The final decision was communicated to the applicant on 10 May 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4721", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Tekirdağ.\n5.  On 5 November 1999, at around 10 a.m., the applicant was arrested and taken into custody in Tekirdağ on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party).\n6.  On the same day, at around 2 p.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor who found no signs of ill-treatment on his body.\n7.  On the same day, at 2.10 p.m., the applicant was handed over to police officers at the Erzincan Security Headquarters and transferred to Erzincan by car.\n8.  On 6 November and 7 November 1999 the applicant took part in two reconstructions of events in the mountains in order to show where he had buried guns.\n9.  On 7 November 1999 the applicant was questioned by two police officers at the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Erzincan Security Headquarters, where he gave a detailed account of the activities he had taken part in within the MLKP.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant signed a pre-printed document which indicated, inter alia, that he had the right to remain silent.\n11.  On 9 November 1999 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Erzincan State Hospital who found no signs of ill-treatment on his body.\n12.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the Erzincan Magistrates' Court where, in the presence of his lawyer appointed by the Bar, he submitted that he was unfit for questioning because he had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody. The applicant requested to be transferred to a hospital for a medical examination. The judge noted a purple bruise and redness on the applicant's left eye and that he had difficulty in standing upright and speaking, and ordered him to be transferred to the Forensic Medicine Institute for an examination. On the same day, the court remanded the applicant in custody.\n13.  On 9 November 1999 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Erzincan State Hospital who found no signs of ill-treatment on his body.\n14.  On 12 November 1999 the applicant asked to be released. In his request he maintained that he had been ill-treated both by the police officers at the Tekirdağ Security Headquarters and the Erzincan Security Headquarters. He gave details as to the form of the treatment, namely beatings, hanging, and squeezing of the genital organs, as well as when they had occurred. The applicant's objection to his remand in custody was dismissed by the Erzincan Magistrates' Court on the same day.\n15.  In the meantime, on 10 November 1999, the applicant requested to be examined by a doctor at the prison clinic.\n16.  On the same day, at 5.35 p.m., the applicant was examined by the prison doctor, who noted that he had under the left eye a fading light green line of about 1 to 3cm which looked like either a bruise or a hyper pigmentation. He reckoned that it dated from seven to ten days previously. The doctor did not note any other signs of beating or violence.\n17.  An investigation into the alleged ill-treatment was instigated by the Erzincan public prosecutor.\n18.  On 28 November 1999 the prosecutor heard evidence from the applicant, who gave details as to where, when and what forms of ill‑treatment he had been subjected to. In particular, he claimed that his eye injury had resulted from blows he had received from the driver of the car when he was being transferred to Erzincan. He further repeated that he had been tortured during interrogation, both in Tekirdağ and in Erzincan.\n19.  On 22 N", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4722", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants live in Vladivostok and Arsenyev in the Primorskiy Region. They are founders of the Arsenyevskie Vesti weekly newspaper.\n8.  Ms P. published an article under the title “All Power Comes from the Forest” («Вся власть из леса») in issue no. 4 of the applicants' newspaper, dated 24-30 January 2002. The article stated that, while the town of Dalnerechensk suffered from underfunding, massive and unlawful felling of trees and illegal sales of timber to China thrived. A regional roundtable (panel) on the rational use and protection of forests revealed that representatives of Chinese companies were constantly present at many timber yards in Dalnerechensk and offered cash dollars for timber, whether documented or not. Such companies were registered at fictitious addresses outside the region.\n9.  The article went on to quote from an open letter which had been adopted by the participants in the panel:\n“All these irregularities have clearly been on the rise since the town's police department (timber purchasing quota of 4,500 cubic metres) and the courts' management department of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (timber purchasing quota of 3,000 cubic metres) became the forest operators.”\nThe quotation was bold-faced and the source was clearly identified. The letter had been signed by seventeen individuals, including the head of the Dalnerechensk municipal council and his first deputy, the deputy head of the town police, the deputy head of the local department of the Federal Security Service, the deputy head of the tax police, a senior State tax inspector, the deputy head of the department for environmental resources, two directors of regional forest operators, and others. The letter had been sent on behalf of the Dalnerechensk municipal council to the Presidential Envoy in the Far Eastern Federal Region and also made public at a press-conference held on the premises of the Press Development Institute.\n10.  On 28 March 2002 the courts' management department of the Primorskiy Region (Управление судебного департамента при Верховном Суде РФ в Приморском крае) brought a civil action against the applicants – as the founders of the newspaper – for the protection of its professional reputation and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. They submitted that the impugned extract had impaired the professional reputation of the department and undermined the authority of the courts' management department of the Primorskiy Region and that of the judicial system as a whole.\n11.  Following the institution of the civil action, the applicants printed the letter in full in issue no. 17 of the newspaper, dated 25 April – 1 May 2002, under the headline “Ghost Companies and Courts' Management Department at Timber Yards” («Фирмы-призраки и Управление судебного департамента на лесозаготовках»). The letter was followed by an editor's note under the headline “It was not about you. Refutation” («Вас тут не стояло. Опровержение»). The note emphasised that the quoted letter did not specify which courts' management department had purchased timber. It went on as follows:\n“It is certainly easier for the head of the Department, Mr V.A. Shulga, who lodged the [defamation] action, to tell who[se department], in addition to its principal functions, has been a forest operator and whose professional reputation has been impaired when a newspaper brought this fact into the limelight...\nThis is why the editor's office decided not to wait for a court decision an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4723", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Barnaul.\n7.  On 11 January 1999 the Central district police department of Barnaul opened a criminal case in respect of the applicant's alleged misappropriation of funds from the Rosbankstroy building company. The applicant was the president and a majority shareholder of Rosbankstroy.\n8.  On 24 June 1999 the prosecutor's office of the Altay Region opened a criminal case concerning allegations of bribery. It was alleged that in order for Rosbankstroy to be chosen as a chief contractor for the building of the Russia Central Bank's main computer centre in Moscow the applicant had bribed a Mr K., who was the head of the Central Bank's construction department. On the same day the prosecutor's office joined both criminal cases into a single set of proceedings.\n9.  On 25 June 1999 the applicant was charged with bribery and his detention pending trial was ordered by the prosecutor of the Altay Region. He was placed in pre-trial detention facility IZ-17/1 in Barnaul.\n10.  As the investigation into the bribery charge had been completed, on 5 November 1999 the prosecutor's office severed the proceedings concerning that charge from the other proceedings and on 2 December 1999 transmitted that case to court for trial. The remaining part of the case concerning the allegations of the applicant's misappropriation of Rosbankstroy's funds remained with the prosecutor's office for further investigation since there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against the applicant on that account. It was assigned the number 76574.\n11.  On 1 February 2000, having examined the materials in criminal case no. 76574, the prosecutor's office decided that it had sufficient evidence that funds belonging to the State-owned Central Bank had been misappropriated in the course of the construction of its main computer centre in Moscow by Rosbankstroy. Mr K. and the applicant were alleged to have unlawfully overpriced the construction work. The prosecutor's office decided to open a new criminal case and the next day brought misappropriation charges against the applicant.\n12.  On 14 March 2000 the Altay Regional Court convicted the applicant of bribery and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment.\n13.  On 28 March 2000 the new criminal case concerning the misappropriation of the Central Bank's funds was joined with the case concerning the misappropriation of Rosbankstroy's funds. The joined case retained the number 76574.\n14.  On 11 July 2000 the Supreme Court partly quashed the conviction of bribery, discharged the applicant from the obligation to serve his sentence on the basis of the State Duma's amnesty act and ordered his release. However, the applicant was not released and remained in detention facility IZ-17/1.\n15.  On 14 July 2000 the prosecutor of the Altay Region ordered the applicant's detention pending trial on the charge of misappropriation of the Central Bank's funds in case no. 76574.\n16.  The applicant appealed. He argued, in particular, that he had been detained pending investigation since 25 June 1999 and the term of his detention had been extended for up to six months. The case concerning the bribery charge had been examined by a court and the Supreme Court had, in the decision of 11 July 2000, exempted him from serving his sentence. The new case concerning the alleged misappropriation of the Central Bank's funds had been joined with the earlier case concerning the alleged misappropriation of Rosbankstroy'", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4724", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Kičevo.\n6.  On 6 August 2003 the applicant received a telephone call from an officer of the Intelligence Service (Управа за безбедност и контраразузнавање) who asked him to come to a police station for a “talk”. The applicant replied that he would attend with his lawyer provided he received a written request.\n7. Mr J.S., a high-ranking officer in the Intelligence Service gave a verbal order for the applicant's arrest on suspicion that he was armed and might leave the State.\n8. At 11.15 p.m. the same day the applicant was arrested by police near the Tabanovce border post with Serbia. He was taken to Tabanovce police station and a body search was carried out. A report on the search indicated that a mobile phone, passport, identity card and a licence to carry arms (“the licence”) had been found. According to the parties, a gun was also found, but was not recorded in the report. The applicant was handcuffed and transferred to Kumanovo police station by the Intelligence Service. He managed to contact his lawyer on his mobile phone.\n9. At 2 a.m. on 7 August 2003 the applicant signed a report in which he waived his right to a lawyer. No record of questioning was kept. The applicant maintained that he was questioned about the work of his superiors (one of the executive managers of company O.), about certain members of the then opposition political party and certain high-profile journalists. His personal belongings were returned and he was released at 9 a.m.\n10. On 7 August 2003 the applicant brought his alleged unlawful arrest to the attention of the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”) and on 3 November 2003, to the Sector for Internal Control at the Ministry (“the Sector”). Several letters were subsequently exchanged between the applicant and the Sector.\n11. In a report of 3 March 2004 the Sector noted that the applicant's arrest and detention had been carried out in compliance with the law. Owing to minor errors in the minutes concerning the body search, the Sector proposed that the police officers responsible be fined and warned. The Sector repeated these findings in its reply to the applicant dated 22 March 2004. No explanation was given for the applicant's arrest.\n12. On 7 August 2003 the applicant requested an investigating judge at the Kumanovo Court of First Instance to review the lawfulness of his deprivation of his liberty (барање за испитување на законитоста на лишувањето од слобода). He claimed that he had been detained unjustifiably; that he had not been informed of the reasons for his arrest; that his lawyer had been prevented from attending his interview and that the arrest had been carried out without a court order.\n13. Between 15 October 2003 and 12 January 2004 the investigating judge was on sick leave.\n14. On 4 February 2004 the investigating judge requested the Ministry to provide documents concerning the applicant's arrest. In a reply of 20 February 2004, the Ministry stated that the applicant's arrest had been ordered on account of suspicion that he had been involved in arms trafficking and that he had been released after it had been established that there was no evidence to support the allegations and that he had the requisite licence. On 23 June and 21 September 2004 the investigating judge required further written evidence from the Ministry which the latter submitted on 29 September 2004.\n15. On 26 January 2005, after five requests by the applicant for the proceeding", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4725", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Yekaterinburg. At the material time she was a journalist and the editor-in-chief of the newspaper D.S.P. (“D.S.P.” is a Russian abbreviation meaning “For Official Use Only”).\n7.  In late September 2001 the applicant's newspaper published in the same issue several items concerning the large-scale misappropriation of budgetary funds allegedly committed by Mr V., the head of the Sverdlovsk Regional Government, for the benefit of Mr K., an employee of the Moscow representative office of the Sverdlovsk Region.\n8.  The first article, entitled “Gay scandal in the White House” (“Гей-скандал в «Белом доме»”), appeared under the name of “Sergey Petrov”. It opened with the following passage:\n“Once upon a time there lived the head of the Sverdlovsk Regional Government Mr V. He had everything: his position, high esteem and respect. And also the governor's love.\nBut V. fell in love ... not with the governor or with his work, but with a twenty-five year-old employee of the region's representative office in Moscow, Mr K.\nHow does one become a homosexual? Where does this “love” come from?\nWe are simple unsophisticated people ... And we cannot imagine the scene that took place between them in the sumptuous building of the region's representative office in Moscow ... Rumour has it that the governor, on having learnt certain details, was furious ... and even fired K. from his position.\nBut love, as we know, can overcome any obstacle. It finds not only a time, but also a place.”\n9.  The article further asserted that, under the terms of an order signed by Mr V. in 1997, the regional railway company had extinguished its outstanding regional tax liability by purchasing a three-room flat in Moscow:\n“The flat was bought in Moscow at the following address: 9 Orshanskaya St., building 1, flat no. ...\nInitially the flat was even entered in the Government's balance sheet. However, after a while V. made a gift of the flat ... No, please do not think that he gave it to Mr K... [He gave it] to Mr K.'s father. Apparently, as a 'thank-you' for the upbringing of his son...”\n10.  The author concluded in the following manner:\n“It might have been a private matter if it were not for two 'buts'.\n[Firstly,] two public figures, rather than private individuals, were linked together by Shakespearean passions in this story. In the instant case: the head of the Sverdlovsk regional government, V., and a member of the regional parliament, K...\nSecondly, the flat was purchased at our expense, at the expense of our budget. Two billion roubles disappeared in 1997 into thin air. To date there has been no reimbursement or sanctions on the part of the tax authorities. The [character from a well-known Soviet picaresque novel] blushed a lot as he was stealing official property, but his like-minded accomplice V. never blushes.\nAnd yet, to this day the entire budget of the region is channelled through his hands. How can we ensure that he handles that money honestly?”\n11.  On the left-hand column of the page the newspaper reproduced the text of a letter which the deputy director of the Sverdlovsk regional police had sent to the chairman of the Sverdlovsk regional audit commission. The police officer informed the auditor that the police were investigating the mechanism which involved extinguishing tax liabilities by acquiring a flat in Moscow, and asked the experts of the audit commission to assist by verifying the accounts of the railway company, t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4726", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1964 and is serving a prison sentence in the Kirov Region.\n9.  On 19 March 1995 the police uncovered a substantial quantity of marijuana in one of the offices of Rostov Nautical College. A witness testified that the drug had been left there by the applicant, who was arrested a day later and then released on 23 March 1995 on a written undertaking not to leave town. It appears that the applicant failed to appear for questioning on several occasions. The authorities failed to establish his whereabouts and on 5 July 1995 the criminal investigation was suspended.\n10.  The applicant was arrested on 29 April 1998. The police found cocaine on him. More drugs and some ammunition were discovered in his flat. On 30 April 1998 the prosecutor authorised his detention pending investigation, referring to the risk of his absconding. It was further extended on 22 June 1998 until 29 July 1998.\n11.  Upon completion of the investigation, the prosecutor forwarded the case file to the Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don on 22 July 1998. The District Court found, however, that the case should be remitted to the prosecutor's office for additional investigation. The relevant decision was issued on 15 October 1998. The court also ruled that the applicant should remain in custody.\n12.  Once the additional investigation was completed and the case file was forwarded to the District Court, the latter scheduled the hearing of the case for 22 January 1999. The first two hearings were adjourned on 22 January and 19 February 1999 on account of the judge's involvement in other proceedings. Subsequently, the District Court found certain procedural irregularities in the bill of indictment and remitted the case to the prosecutor's office on 9 March 1999 for their rectification. The applicant's detention pending investigation was further authorised by the prosecutor on 25 June 1999 until 24 July 1999.\n13.  On 24 July 1999 the maximum permissible period of the applicant's detention pending investigation expired. Two days later the applicant was released on an undertaking not to leave town.\n14.  The trial was opened on 10 August 1999. The District Court scheduled the hearing of the case for 15 September 1999; it was subsequently adjourned owing to the applicant's lawyer's failure to appear. The hearing was further adjourned on 19 October and 16 November 1999 owing to the applicant's illness. It was resumed on 14 December 1999. Referring to the gravity of the charges, the court ordered the applicant's detention pending trial.\n15.  On 24 January 2000 the District Court found the applicant guilty of unlawful possession of ammunition and drugs and gave him a suspended sentence of three years' imprisonment, conditional on two years' probation. The applicant was released on a written undertaking not to leave town. Both the prosecutor and the applicant appealed.\n16.  The Rostov Regional Court adjourned the appeal hearing owing to the applicant's lawyer's failure to appear on 23 February and 7 and 15 March 2000. The matter was considered on 29 March 2000. The Regional Court held that the trial court's findings were inconclusive, quashed the conviction and remitted the case to the lower court for fresh consideration.\n17.  On 8 June 2000 the District Court ordered that the proceedings should be stayed because of the applicant's illness. They were resumed on 17 May 2001, when the court scheduled the first hearing for 25 May 2001. The court also directe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4727", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants, who are relatives, were born in 1912 and 1966 respectively. Their place of residence is unknown.\n8.  At the material time the applicants lived in a privately owned house at 167 Ulyanova Street in the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny.\n9.  According to the applicants, on 29 March 2000 a group of federal servicemen in two armoured personnel carriers with obscured hull numbers approached the applicants' house. The servicemen were masked and had the Russian Armed Forces emblem on their sleeves. One of them pointed his machine gun at the second applicant, who was standing near the gate, and ordered him not to move. The soldiers then entered the courtyard of the applicant's house and one of them asked the first applicant whether she was of Chechen origin. When the first applicant said that she was, the servicemen further asked her whether Chechen rebel fighters (boyeviki) were living in the house. The first applicant replied that no fighters had ever lived in her house, that she lived there with the second applicant, and that they had never been involved in military activities.\n10.  The servicemen then broke the door down and entered and searched the house. They remarked, turning to the first applicant, that her living conditions were quite good and that apparently it was the house of some Chechen field commander. The soldiers then sprayed the walls inside the house with petrol and set it on fire. The house, with the applicants' possessions inside it, was completely burnt down.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicants complained to the Oktyabrskiy District Office of the Interior of Grozny (“the Oktyabrskiy VOVD”) that federal servicemen had burnt their house down.\n12.  On 5 April 2000 the Oktyabrskiy VOVD decided to dispense with criminal proceedings on the grounds that it was impossible to establish to which military unit the servicemen involved in the arson attack belonged.\n13.  According to the Government, on 24 January 2006 the decision of 5 April 2000 was set aside and criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 167 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (aggravated deliberate destruction of, or infliction of damage on, property) in connection with the incident of 29 March 2000. The investigation was under the supervision of the Prosecutor General's Office.\n14.  On 19 September 2000 the local authorities drew up an evaluation report (дефектный акт), which listed the items of the applicants' property that had been destroyed on 29 March 2000.\n15.  On an unspecified date the applicants obtained an estimate of costs for repair works to be carried out on their house.\n16.  On 11 October 2001 the applicants brought proceedings in the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Grozny (“the District Court”), seeking damages in connection with the deliberate destruction of their property by the federal servicemen.\n17.  On 6 November 2001 the District Court held that the applicants' claims “could not be allowed in court proceedings” on the ground that the alleged damage should be compensated in accordance with the temporary regulations concerning compensation and other social benefits for Russian citizens who had suffered damage as a result of the military conflict in the Chechen Republic, and therefore the applicants should apply to a local migration service for compensation.\n18.  On 5 March 2002 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic upheld the above judgment on appeal, having repeated the reasoning of the first-instance court.\n19.  The", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4729", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 in Ukraine and lives in Tallinn.\n6.  The applicant is a former Soviet and Russian Army officer who served from 1983 in the territory of Estonia. After the restoration of Estonian independence, he was refused an extension of his residence permit in that country. His complaints were dismissed by the domestic courts; the final judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court (Riigikohus) on 17 April 2003. Subsequently, he lodged an application with the Court, alleging, among other complaints, that his right to respect for his private and family life, guaranteed under Article 8 of the Convention, had been violated by the Estonian authorities. On 5 January 2006 this application was declared inadmissible (see Mikolenko v. Estonia (dec.), no. 16944/03, 5 January 2006).\n7.  The circumstances of the applicant’s stay in Estonia and the Estonian authorities’ refusal to extend his residence permit, as well as a summary of the relevant domestic and international legal provisions may be found in the decision mentioned above. In brief, although the Estonian authorities had finally refused to extend the applicant’s residence permit, he – backed by the Russian Government – was of the opinion that he was still entitled to stay in Estonia under the terms of the agreement concerning social guarantees for retired military personnel of the armed forces of the Russian Federation in Estonia, concluded on 26 July 1994. The agreement provided that retired military personnel, that is persons discharged from the army service and receiving pension could apply for a residence permit in Estonia. According to the Russian Government the applicant was dismissed from the military service on 20 July 1994 for health reasons and excluded from the lists of the military unit on 18 October 1994.\n8.  The Estonian authorities, to the contrary, considered that he did not fall under the agreement concerning social guarantees but rather under the treaty on the withdrawal of the Russian troops from the Estonian territory, also concluded on 26 July 1994, as he had been in the active military service at the time of the conclusion of the treaty. He had only been assigned to the reserve forces on 4 August 1994 and discharged from the military unit as of 18 October 1994. Accordingly, he had been obliged to leave Estonia under the treaty.\n9.  On 21 July 2003 the Citizenship and Migration Board (Kodakondsus- ja Migratsiooniamet – hereinafter “the Board”) ordered the applicant to leave the country on 17 September 2003 at the latest. He was warned that in the event of failure to comply with the order, he would be expelled immediately. The applicant challenged the order before the Tallinn Administrative Court (halduskohus) which, on 24 October 2003, dismissed the complaint. The applicant appealed, but his appeal was dismissed by the Tallinn Court of Appeal (ringkonnakohus). On 27 October 2004 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.\n10.  In the meantime, on 29 October 2003, the applicant was arrested. His immediate expulsion was not possible as he only presented his expired passport on arrest, saying that he did not know where his valid Russian passport was. On 31 October 2003 the Tallinn Administrative Court decided, at the request of the police, that the applicant was to be taken to a deportation centre for execution of the deportation order. The Administrative Court authorised his detention for up to two months, starting from 3 November 2003, giving him some", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4731", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  On 18 December 1997 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant arrears in child benefits in the amount of 1,062 Russian roubles (RUB). The judgment was not appealed against and became final. It was not enforced.\n6.  On 13 December 2000 upon request of the authorities the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgment by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It based its decision on the ground that another defendant authority should have also been a party to the proceedings.\n7.  On 4 April 2001 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh in case no. 2-3638/01 awarded the applicant RUB 2,914.49 as arrears in child benefits. There was no appeal.\n8.  According to the Government, the applicant had been present at the hearing on 4 April 2001. They submitted a copy of the relevant record of proceedings. The record contains information that the applicant was present at the hearing and supported her claims. The record is signed by the judge who tried the case and by the clerk.\n9.  According to the applicant, she was not present at the hearings on that date. She provided the Court with a copy of a page from the case-file on which the parties put their signatures attesting the receipt of the court's judgments. The applicant submits that she was not present at the hearings as she did not receive the judgments of 4 April 2001.\n10.  The judgment of 4 April 2001 is not enforced to date.\n11.  On 12 February 1999 the Kominternovskiy District Court awarded the applicant for arrears in child benefits RUB 3,607. The judgment was not enforced.\n12.  On 13 December 2000 upon request of the authorities the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgment by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It based its decision on the ground that the defendant was not present at the hearing and was not duly informed about it.\n13.  On 4 April 2001 the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh in case no. 2-4195/01 awarded the applicant RUB 7,408.63 of arrears in child benefits. The judgment was not appealed against.\n14.  The Government, like in respect of the previous case, asserted that the applicant had been present at the hearing and submitted a copy of the record of proceedings signed by a judge and a clerk.\n15.  The applicant maintained that she had not been present.\n16.  The judgment 4 April 2001 was enforced on 13 December 2005.\n17.  On 24 March 2000 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Voronezh awarded the applicant RUB 493.28 in child benefits. The judgment was not appealed against.\n18.  It was enforced only on 13 December 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4732", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.\n5.  In 1986 the applicant took part in the cleaning-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. He was subsequently granted Category 2 disability status and became entitled to various social benefits. The subjects of the present case are the disputes concerning these benefits.\n6.  In 1996 the applicant lodged a complaint before the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don alleging a failure of the authorities to comply with the pension law. On 24 July 1996 the District Court upheld the complaint, noting the authorities' unlawful inactivity.\n7.  On 18 November 1997 the Proletarskiy District Court upheld the applicant's action against the authorities and awarded him monthly payments of 2,495,023 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for health damage and as food allowance. The District Court also awarded him a lump sum of RUB 47,314,000 in outstanding compensation. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. The authorities did not pay the applicant the lump sum, and made the monthly payments only until September 2000.\n8.  On 15 March 2001 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 18 November 1997 and remitted the case for re-examination to the Proletarskiy District Court.\n9.  The hearings were adjourned on 14 May 2001 and on 7 June 2001 due to the authorities' failure to appear.\n10.  The next hearing was fixed for 5 July 2001 when it was again postponed as the applicant had amended his claims.\n11.  On 17 September 2001 the applicant lodged additional claims.\n12.  On 24 September 2001 the court granted the authorities' request for stay in the proceedings on the grounds that there were pending related proceedings in the Supreme Court of Russia and in the Constitutional Court of Russia. The proceedings in the Constitutional Court had been initiated by the applicant (see para. 60 below). The applicant appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings, to no avail.\n13.  On 24 October 2002 the case was reopened and assigned for hearing for 21 November 2002.\n14.  On 21 November 2002 the authorities failed to appear and the proceedings were adjourned.\n15.  On 10 December 2002 the Proletarskiy District Court accepted the applicant's claims in part. It ordered that the Social Security Services should pay him a lump sum of RUB 37,992.75 in compensation for health damage, monthly payments of RUB 4,850 and a lump sum of RUB 5,000 in compensation for damage caused by a delay in the payment of monthly benefits. The District Court also noted that the amount of monthly payments was to be index-linked in accordance with the law. The judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 7 May 2003.\n16.  In 2003 the authorities, as well as the applicant, requested reopening of the proceedings by way of supervisory review.\n17.  On 13 November 2003 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgments of 10 December 2002 and 7 May 2003 and sent the case for a fresh examination. The Presidium held that the lower court had not calculated the sums of compensation and adjustment of monthly payments in accordance with the relevant law provisions, considering it as mistakes in implementation of substantive, as well as procedural, law.\n18.  On 18 December 2003 the authorities failed to appear in court and the hearing was adjourned.\n19.  On 23 January 2004 the applicant specified his claim.\n20.  On 12 F", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4733", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Dortmund.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  In 1992 the applicant and her husband transferred the ownership of a flat to the applicant's niece. In the notarial deed they agreed upon a life annuity in the amount of 400 German marks (DEM) and a “purchase price” of DEM 53,000. Prior to the drawing up of the notarial deed both parties had moreover agreed that the niece was not entitled to sell the flat to a third party.\n7.  In 1995, after the parties' relationship had deteriorated, the applicant's niece sold the flat. In March 1996 the applicant and her husband therefore revoked the transfer of ownership, which they had considered a gift, on account of the recipient's gross ingratitude.\n8.  On 9 January 1997 the applicant and her husband introduced a claim against the niece with the Dortmund Regional Court for the payment of DEM 137,000.\n9.  At a hearing of 18 April 1997, after the niece had challenged the court's competence to examine the case, the case was transferred to the Hagen Regional Court, which informed the parties that they had to be represented by a lawyer admitted to plead before the court (as foreseen in section 78 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the relevant time; see below).\n10.  On 24 November 1997 the lawyer who had been appointed by the applicant and her husband addressed the court for the first time. The Regional Court then scheduled a hearing for 4 February 1998.\n11.  On 4 March 1998, following that hearing, the court decided that the value of the flat was to be evaluated by an expert.\n12.  On 6 November 1998, following the submission of further information by the parties requested by the expert and an inspection of the property, the expert submitted the report.\n13.  After having received the parties' submissions on this report, the court scheduled a hearing for 24 February 1999. It also summoned the expert. On account of his absence, the hearing had to be postponed to 24 March 1999.\n14.  On 28 April 1999 the Hagen Regional Court decided that the niece was to pay the applicant and her husband the amount of DEM 81,479.34. It dismissed the remainder of the claim.\n15.  On 4 June 1999 the niece appealed. In September 1999, following an extension of the time-limit, she filed her pleadings.\n16.  On 24 September 1999 the Hamm Court of Appeal – with the help of a special body at the Court of Appeal entrusted with the organisation of the hearings – scheduled a hearing for 18 February 2000. This was the first date at which both parties' representatives had been able to attend. It also set the applicant and her husband a deadline for their observations.\n17.  In January 2000 the applicant and her husband lodged a cross-appeal (Anschlußberufung).\n18.  At the hearing of 18 February 2000 the parties concluded a friendly settlement.\n19.  On 5 April 2000 the niece revoked the friendly settlement.\n20.  On 26 April 2000 the Hamm Court of Appeal therefore scheduled a new hearing for 25 August 2000. Again, no previous hearing date at which both parties' representatives could attend had been found. Due to the absence of a witness summoned at the request of the applicant and her husband, it had to be postponed to 21 November 2000.\n21.  At the hearing the court proposed a settlement to the parties. On 28 December 2000 the applicant and her husband refused to give their consent.\n22.  On 19 January 2001 the court therefore scheduled another ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4734", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 in Gusar, Azerbaijan, and is currently serving a life sentence in Gobustan Prison.\n6.  The applicant is an Azerbaijani national of Lezgi ethnic origin. He was a member of “Sadval” which was considered by its members a Lezgi welfare and cultural organisation. The organisation, however, has also been accused of harbouring extreme nationalist and separatist ideas.\n7.  In 1994 the applicant was arrested and brought to trial as one of the planners and perpetrators of a bomb attack in the Baku Metro (underground railway system), which had been carried out on 19 March 1994. As a result of this attack, fourteen people died and fifty people received bodily injuries of various degrees. The applicant was also accused of cultivating narcotic plants in his garden.\n8.  On 3 May 1996 the Supreme Court, sitting as a court of first instance for especially serious crimes, found that the applicant, together with the other accused persons, was guilty, inter alia, of creating an anti-government organised criminal group which had planned and carried out a bomb explosion in the Baku Metro which had resulted in numerous casualties among the civilian population. The court convicted the applicant under Articles 15, 17, 61, 65 and 227 of the Criminal Code of 1960, which was in force at that time, and sentenced him to death with confiscation of property. This judgment was final and not subject to appeal under the rules of criminal procedure applicable at that time.\n9.  On 10 February 1998 the Milli Majlis (Parliament) adopted the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and Correctional Labour Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Connection with the Abolition of the Death Penalty in the Republic of Azerbaijan (“the Law of 10 February 1998”). The Law of 10 February 1998 amended all the relevant domestic legal provisions, replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment. Pursuant to this law, the penalties of all convicts sentenced to death, including the applicant, were automatically commuted to life imprisonment.\n10.  In 2000 a new Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCrP”) and new Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan were adopted. Before the new CCrP's entry into force on 1 September 2000, on 14 July 2000 Parliament passed a transitional law allowing the lodging of an appeal under the new CCrP against final first-instance judgments delivered in accordance with the old criminal procedure rules (“the Transitional Law”).\n11.  The applicant attempted to use the opportunity provided to him by the Transitional Law and on 4 August 2004 lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. He drafted this appeal himself, without any legal assistance. In his appeal, he claimed that his conviction on 3 May 1996 had been unfair.\n12.  According to the Government, on 22 March 2005 the Supreme Court “informed the applicant that the appeal hearing concerning his case would be held on 12 April 2005”. According to the applicant he did not receive any such summons and in general did not receive any information concerning his case for several months.\n13.  In the meantime, the applicant's relatives hired a lawyer who prepared a new draft of the cassation appeal on behalf of the applicant and submitted it to the Supreme Court on 26 May 2005.\n14.  However, by a letter of 14 June 2005, the Supreme Court informed the lawyer that on 12 April 2005 it had already held a hearing and examined the applicant's original cassation appea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4735", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The Association is a non-profit-making non-governmental organisation (NGO), now dissolved, which was active between 1995 and 2002. The application was lodged by its former Chairman, Mr Sabir Israfilov, who was born in 1948 and lives in Baku.\n7.  The Association was registered by the Ministry of Justice on 25 August 1995 and acquired the status of a legal entity.\n8.  Clause 1.1 of the Association’s Charter defined it as an independent, charitable public organisation with voluntary membership, conducting its activities within the framework of the laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan on public associations, other applicable laws and its own Charter.\n9.  According to clause 1.2 of the Charter, the main objects of the Association were:\n“... in the circumstances of the present-day environmental crisis, to develop the environmental culture and awareness of the various strata of the country’s population, to organise a public movement for a clean environment in Azerbaijan, to give impetus to the process of effective resolution of environmental protection problems, and to strive permanently to promote the measures necessary to create a healthier environment.”\n10.  According to the Charter, the Association’s governing bodies consisted of the Congress (the general assembly of members), the Central Council (the management board elected by the general assembly for a five‑year term), the Central Supervisory Commission (a body of internal control elected by the general assembly for a five-year term), and various local bodies. Clause 4.8 of the Charter provided that the Congress, as the general assembly of members, was the Association’s supreme governing body and would convene once every five years.\n11.  Since the date of its establishment and State registration, and until August 2002, the Association had not convened a general assembly of its members.\n12.  It appears that, on 9 July 1997, about two years after the Association’s State registration, the Ministry of Justice sent a letter to the Association, noting that the latter had committed certain breaches of the domestic law and the Association’s own Charter. The exact content of that letter is not clear from the materials available in the case file.\n13.  On 14 August 2002 the Ministry of Justice commenced an inspection of the Association’s activities.\n14.  On 10 September 2002 the Ministry issued a warning to the Association in accordance with section 31.2 of the Law on non‑governmental organisations (public associations and foundations) of 13 June 2000), applicable at the material time (“the NGO Act”). The Ministry stated that the Association’s activities did not comply with the requirements of its own Charter and the domestic law. It was noted that a general assembly of the Association’s members had not been convened within the five-year period specified in its own Charter. Moreover, in any event, this provision of the Charter was itself incompatible with the domestic law, as section 25.2 of the NGO Act required that the supreme governing body of a public association – the general assembly of members – was to be convened at least once every year. The Ministry requested that, within ten days, the Association take measures to remedy the above-mentioned breach and inform the Ministry of the measures taken.\n15.  In reply, Mr Israfilov informed the Ministry that, in fact, a general assembly of members had taken place on 26 August 2002. It appears that, among other things, the Association’s general as", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4736", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Gevgelija.\n5. On an unspecified date in 1996, the applicant brought a civil action against Mr D. (“the debtor”) claiming restoration of the outstanding debt related to a loan that she had given to him in 1995.\n6. On 29 April 1998 they reached a court settlement (судско порамнување, “the court settlement”) under which the debtor was required to pay the outstanding debt in equal monthly instalments.\n7. On 19 January 1999 the Gevgelija Court of First Instance (“the first- instance court”) granted the applicant's request of 11 January 1999 ordering enforcement of the court settlement, less DM 300 which the debtor had meanwhile paid. The applicant proposed an inventory, valuation and public sale of movable and immovable property of the debtor. On 17 May 2000 she further specified her request as concerning a house and plot of land (“the property”). In this connection, she submitted an extract from the land registry (“the registry”) dated 21 October 1999 attesting the debtor's title to the property. She also requested the first-instance court to record a charging order over the property (да стави прибелешка врз имотот на должникот) so as to secure her claim.\n8. On 15 June 2000 the first-instance court ordered valuation of the property. It was carried out on 10 October 2000. The first-instance court's decision in this respect dated 22 March 2001. It was served on the debtor on 28 November 2006.\n9. Between 28 November 2006 and 17 April 2007, the first-instance court ordered four adjournments because of the debtor's absence.\n10. By submissions of 25 April 2007 and 5 June 2007 respectively, the applicant informed the first-instance court that the debtor had transferred the property to his father's possession on the basis of a court decision of 14 March 2001. She requested the first-instance court to continue with the enforcement since the debtor had regained possession of the property after his father died.\n11. No further actions were taken for enforcement of the applicant's claim.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4737", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  On 8 October 2004 the applicant travelled from Moscow to Simferopol in Ukraine through Sheremetyevo airport. She had on her 13,020 US dollars (USD), 31 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) and 1,100 Russian roubles (RUB). However, she only reported USD 10,000 and UAH 31 in her customs declaration. The customs inspection uncovered the remaining USD 3,020, which the applicant claimed she had forgotten about. She was charged with smuggling, a criminal offence under Article 188 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The money was appended to the criminal case as physical evidence (вещественные доказательства).\n8.  On 9 December 2004 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty as charged and imposed a suspended sentence of one year's imprisonment, conditional on one year's probation. As regards the money, it referred to Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that:\n“Physical evidence – USD 13,020 and UAH 31 held in the evidence storage room of the Sheremetyevo Customs Office – shall revert to the State.”\n9.  In his statement of appeal, counsel for the applicant contested the lawfulness of the confiscation measure. He submitted that the gravity of the offence should have been determined by reference to the amount the applicant had concealed from the customs, that is USD 3,020, rather than the entire amount she had carried. The money had been the object rather than the instrument of the offence and as such it should have been returned to the lawful owner because it had not been claimed that it had been criminally acquired.\n10.  On 25 January 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment by a succinct decision, without examining the counsel's arguments in detail.\n11.  Counsel for the applicant submitted several applications for supervisory review of the judgments. The applications were rejected by a judge of the Moscow City Court on 22 August 2005, the President of the Moscow City Court on 18 January 2006, and a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 12 April 2006. As regards the confiscation measure, the judicial authorities maintained that the measure had been lawful and compliant with Article 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n12.  On 26 April 2007 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court examined yet another application for supervisory review. It held that the applicant had been correctly found guilty of smuggling but amended the judgment in part concerning the confiscation measure, having found as follows:\n“However, the decision that the authentically declared amount of USD 10,000 and UAH 31 should revert to the State was not founded on sufficient reasons.\nIn deciding that the foreign currency should revert to the State, the court posited that the currency transported by Ms Adzhigovich was the object of the offence. However, since her criminal intent was directed at the breach of the procedure for transferring cash money (currency) across the customs border rather than at their unlawful misappropriation, the cash money (currency) was not the object of the offence and therefore not liable to confiscation under Article 81 [§ 3] (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\nMoreover, according to Article 81 [§ 3] (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, criminally acquired property, money or other valuables must revert to the State. The case file does not contain any evidence to the effect that Ms Adzhigovich obtained the above-mentioned money through criminal ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4738", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Košice.\n5.  On 3 April 2001 the applicant filed an action with the Košice II District Court. He claimed that the defendants had lost the right to use a flat.\n6.  The first hearing in the case was held on 21 September 2004.\n7.  On 23 September 2004, on the applicant's complaint, the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of the above proceedings. It noted that the case was not complex. The applicant's conduct had partially contributed to their duration at the initial stage in that he had not paid the court fees at the time of filing the action. The District Court was responsible for delays totalling twenty-five months. The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant 20,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) (the equivalent of 500 euros (EUR) at that time) as just satisfaction. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's legal costs and to proceed with the case speedily.\n8.  On 12 April 2005 the District Court found against the applicant.\n9.  The Košice Regional Court, on appeal, quashed the judgment on 16 November 2005 and remitted the case to the District Court.\n10.  The District Court asked the defendants and the applicant to submit information and invited several doctors to indicate whether the defendants' state of health would allow them to attend a hearing. A hearing was held in November 2006 at which the applicant requested a modification of his action. His request was subsequently rejected.\n11.  The District Court found against the applicant on 27 February 2007.\n12.  On 15 October 2007 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. After having been served on the parties to the proceedings, the decision became final on 29 November 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4739", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Bartosinski, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Lubianka.\n7.  By a decision of the Bydgoszcz District Court of 14 September 2002 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of illegal production and sale of alcohol, selling cigarettes without payment of excise duty and membership of an organised criminal group. According to the applicant's submissions, police officers used force against him during his arrest and insulted him. When ordering his detention, the court found that the evidence obtained in the case, in particular the testimonies of the other suspects and of a witness, bills, minutes of searches and telephone conversations, indicated a high probability that the applicant had committed the offences. The applicant's detention was therefore necessary in order to prevent collusion and to avert the risk that he would exert pressure on witnesses or that the suspects would coordinate their testimonies.\n8.  During the investigation the applicant's detention was successively prolonged by detention orders issued by the Inowrocław District Court or the Gdańsk Court of Appeal and dated 11 December 2002, 11 March and 27 August 2003.\n9.  The applicant submits that the decision of 11 December 2002 was served on him on 16 December 2002 and that for 4 days he had been kept in custody without having been provided with a relevant detention order.\n10.  In his letter of 3 April 2003 the Bydgoszcz Regional Prosecutor admitted that the service of the applicant's motion for release had been delayed for 5 days before reaching the Prosecutor Office.\n11.  In further letters, the Regional Prosecutor stated among other things that the applicant's correspondence with the prosecutor had not been delayed by the Prosecutor Office. On 15 May 2003, following the applicant's complaint to the Ombudsman about delays in the service of official letters, the President of the Inowrocław District Court clarified that the applicant's letter to the Regional Prosecutor of 27 January 2003 had been forwarded to the prosecutor on 14 February 2003 and that a letter dated 13 February had been served on the applicant on 28 February 2003.\n12.  The applicant submitted an envelope containing a letter from the Court, bearing several stamps of the Police Detention Centre dated 8 and 16 March 2004 including a stamp “censored” (“ocenzurowano”) with an illegible date.\n13.  By a decision of 14 August 2003 the Bydgoszcz Regional Prosecutor granted the applicant permission to receive a visit from members of his family in the presence of an officer of the Central Investigation Office. The prosecutor stated that the applicant had previously been granted two visits, on 28 February and 10 June 2003, and that neither the family nor the applicant had requested more frequent meetings. On 29 September 2003 the Regional Prosecutor replied to the applicant that further visits had not been granted since no requests for such had been made.\n14.  On 29 March 2004 the applicant was released from detention. The proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4740", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Kraków.\n6.  On 5 January 2000 the applicant was arrested by the police.\n7.  On 7 January 2000 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his detention pending trial on suspicion of having committed, inter alia, several armed robberies while acting in an organised armed criminal gang. The District Court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on him. Moreover, the court considered that the applicant might tamper with evidence.\n8.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was extended several times. In their decisions, the courts relied on the reasons previously given and the likelihood that he had committed the offences while acting in an organised armed criminal gang. In this respect, they referred, inter alia, to the testimony of a crown witness (świadek koronny). Further, they referred to the complexity of the case, the need to obtain further evidence and the fact that some of the suspects had not yet been arrested.\n9.  Simultaneously, between 27 September 2000 and 27 September 2002, the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed on him in other criminal proceedings.\n10.  On 11 June 2001 the investigation was completed and on 18 June 2001 the applicant was indicted before the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n11.  Due to the fact that some of the accused were detained in the Katowice area, on 4 March 2002 the Kraków Regional Court asked the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) to refer the case to the Katowice Regional Court. On an unspecified date the Katowice Court of Appeal refused. On 5 May 2002 the Supreme Court, following a request by the Kraków Regional Court, referred the case to the Katowice Regional Court.\n12.  The first hearing was scheduled for 23 January 2003, but it did not take place because one of the defence lawyers was unwell.\n13.  On 13 February 2003 the trial started. It was continued on 20 March, 10 April and 15 May 2003 when the trial court heard evidence from the co‑accused. On 12 June 2003 the trial court heard evidence from one witness but could not proceed with hearing other evidence because a sworn interpreter had failed to appear.\n14.  At a hearing held on 8 July 2003, out of fifteen witnesses only three appeared before the trial court. Similarly, on 25 September 2003, the Katowice Regional Court took evidence from only one witness, instead of four. At the subsequent hearing held on 26 September 2003, seven witnesses failed to appear at the trial, so the court heard evidence from only three witnesses. The same happened at the hearings held on 27 November and 18 December 2003, 6 June 2004 and 25 February 2005.\n15.  Between 7 July 2004 and 20 January 2005 the trial court scheduled seven hearings. Only one, scheduled for 29 October 2004, took place.\n16.  In sum, from 13 February 2003 to 25 May 2005, the Katowice Regional Court heard evidence from only seven witnesses.\n17.  It appears that no hearing was scheduled between 15 July and 1 September 2006 because the hearing room was under renovation.\n18.  Around sixteen out of forty-five hearings scheduled by the first‑instance court were cancelled for various reasons, such as: the absence of some witnesses, defendants and interpreters; failure of the police to bring certain accused to the court from detention centres; the summer break; t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4741", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  On 8 October 2001, the applicant was taken into police custody in İzmir on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party). During his police custody, the applicant signed a form explaining arrested persons' rights, whereby he was reminded of his right to remain silent. On 9 October 2001 the police officers interrogated the applicant at the Anti-Terrorism department of the Izmir Security Directorate, in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant admitted that he had aided and abetted the PKK and acted as courier for the organisation. Another accused, N.S. was also arrested in the course of the operation. In his police statement, N.S. stated that he was a member of the PKK and that he had stayed at the applicant's house when he had come to Izmir and maintained that the applicant had acted as a PKK courier and helped him in certain illegal activities.\n6.  On 12 October 2001 the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor and he denied that he had been involved in the PKK. He also claimed that he had signed his police statement without reading it.\n7.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the investigating judge, who questioned him and sixteen other suspects in relation to their involvement in the PKK. The applicant's lawyer was also present during the questioning. In his statement to the investigating judge, the applicant denied all the charges against him. After the interrogation, the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on the order of the judge.\n8.  In an indictment dated 19 October 2001, the Public Prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court charged the applicant and fifteen others with aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. The charges were brought under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713 (the anti-terrorist law).\n9.  During the trial, the applicant denied any connection with the PKK. Furthermore N.S., one of the co-defendants, admitted to being a PKK member before the court, but stated that although he had stayed at the applicant's house when he had come to Izmir, the applicant did not know that he was a PKK member. In this connection, N.S. rejected his police statement, alleging that it had been taken under duress. On 20 June 2002 the Izmir State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years and nine months' imprisonment. In convicting the applicant, the Izmir State Security Court relied on the applicant's police statement, which had been taken in the absence of a lawyer. The court further took into consideration the police statement of N.S. who had given evidence that the applicant had been involved in the activities of the PKK. It therefore concluded that the applicant's police statement, in which he had admitted to his involvement in the PKK, had been confirmed by other evidence in the case file.\n10.  On 10 October 2003 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4742", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Šaľa.\n5.  On 7 July 1994 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava I District Court against a private company. He claimed the equivalent of approximately 3,300 euros (EUR) which the company owed him.\n6.  On 28 April 1998 insolvency proceedings were brought against the company and the proceedings on the applicant's action were stayed ex lege pending the outcome of the insolvency proceedings (see point B below).\n7.  On 23 October 1996 the Bratislava Regional Court started insolvency proceedings against the debtor company. That decision was quashed by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Regional Court started a new set of insolvency proceedings on 28 April 1998.\n8.  The administrator in insolvency refused to acknowledge the applicant's claim originally introduced on 7 July 1994 (see point A above). The applicant, therefore, lodged a separate action, on 17 April 1997, with a view to having his title to the debtor company determined. In a judgment which became final on 9 July 2001 the Regional Court confirmed that the applicant was entitled to the sum claimed. He was, however, not entitled to default interest on the amount claimed by him.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 23 September 1999 and 28 September 2000 the administrator in insolvency informed the Regional Court about her activities.\n10.  A meeting of creditors was held on 24 October 2000.\n11.  On 15 February and 11 October 2001 the administrator submitted a report on her activities in the proceedings.\n12.  On 22 April and 16 December 2002 the court asked the administrator to submit a report on her activities in the insolvency proceedings. She was informed that her failure to comply with the court's order would lead to the imposition of a fine.\n13.  The administrator submitted her report on 31 January and 2 October 2003 and 24 February 2004.\n14.  On 17 November 2004 the court asked the administrator to submit her final report and her claims for fees and expenses.\n15.  The administrator complied with the order on 27 January 2005.\n16.  The court repeatedly asked the administrator to modify the final report. She submitted the report on 21 September 2005.\n17.  On 23 November 2005 the final report was accepted by the court.\n18.  Meanwhile, several other creditors lodged separate actions with the Regional Court in respect of their claims to the debtor company's property. In 2006 three of those sets of proceedings, initiated in 2001, were pending.\n19.  The insolvency proceedings are still pending.\n20.  On 1 October 2003 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's complaint of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the proceedings on his action of 7 July 1994 and the insolvency proceedings. The decision stated that the Bratislava I District Court was prevented from dealing with the case as the proceedings before it had been stayed ex lege pending the outcome of the insolvency proceedings against the debtor company. At that time the District Court could not, therefore, be held liable for any violation of the applicant's rights. The Constitutional Court could not examine the alleged delays in the District Court's proceedings before they had been stayed, as the relevant part of the application had been submitted after the expiry of the statutory two-month time-limit. The Constitutional Court found no particular delays in the insolvency proceedings pending before the Regional Court.\n21.  As regards the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4743", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Kocaeli.\n5.  On 10 October 2001 the applicant was arrested in Istanbul on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. On 14 October 2001 the applicant was allowed to see her lawyer for a short period of time (five minutes) following the permission given by the public prosecutor.\n6.  On 14 October 2001 the applicant's statement was taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer. In her statement, the applicant accepted the charges against her and gave a detailed account of her connections in the illegal organisation. Subsequently, on 16 October 2001 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor, and thereafter before the investigating judge of the Istanbul State Security Court. Before the public prosecutor, the applicant admitted that she was a member of the illegal organisation. When questioned by the investigating judge, the applicant denied the charges against her. After the interrogation, the investigating judge ordered that the applicant be detained on remand.\n7.  On 23 November 2001 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing the applicant of being a member of an illegal armed organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.\n8.  On 4 March 2004, based on her police statement and other evidence before it, the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced her to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. On 11 November 2004 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant's appeal.\n9.  On 7 October 2005 the applicant was released from prison.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4744", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n6.  In 1994 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant before the Diyarbakır State Security Court (“the trial court”) for the offence of membership of an illegal organisation[1]. On 15 April 1999 he was acquitted of the charges. When acquitting him, the trial court considered that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the applicant was a member of the illegal organisation. It found, however, that there was sufficient evidence to show that he had aided and abetted the organisation. Nevertheless, considering that the applicant had been coerced to aid and abet the organisation by its members, the trial court concluded that the applicant did not have the requisite mens rea and acquitted him.\n7.  Before the appeal lodged by the prosecutor against the applicant's acquittal was examined by the Court of Cassation, the statute of limitations for the offence in question had been reached. Accordingly, on 1 February 2000 the Court of Cassation discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant.\n8.  On 2 June 2000 the applicant was arrested once more and was examined by a doctor before he was placed in police custody in Diyarbakır. According to the report of the medical examination, there were no injuries on the applicant's body.\n9.  According to the applicant, during his time in police custody he was subjected to ill-treatment.\n10.  On 5 June 2000 police officers took the applicant to a café and two shops in the nearby town of Ergani, which had been bombed in 1993. According to the statements drawn up pertaining to those visits, the applicant told the police officers that he had carried out the bombings with the assistance of a number of other persons.\n11.  In a statement taken from the applicant in police custody the same day, the applicant was reported as having detailed his activities within the PKK.\n12.  On 6 June 2000 the applicant was released from police custody and was brought before a prosecutor and then before a judge, who questioned him further. The applicant denied the statements taken from him by police officers the previous day, and added that he had not been involved in any bombing. The applicant told the judge that he had signed the statements in police custody because he had thought that he would be ill-treated by the police officers if he refused to sign them. He added that in 1993 he had collected money by making threats on behalf of the PKK, taken part in demonstrations and distributed leaflets in support of that organisation, but that he had already been tried and spent time in prison for those activities (see paragraphs 6-7 above). The judge remanded the applicant in custody pending the introduction of criminal proceedings against him. The same day the applicant was examined by a doctor, who reported that there were no injuries on the applicant's body.\n13.  When questioned by the police officers and subsequently by the prosecutor and the judge, the applicant was not represented by a lawyer.\n14.  On 1 August 2000 the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the applicant of activities carried out for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.\n15.  In the proceedings before the trial court the applicant was represented by a lawyer. During the trial the applicant repeatedly denied his police custody statements and told the trial court that the statemen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4745", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Switzerland.\n4.  On 26 September 2001 the public prosecutor at the Erzurum State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with the Erzurum State Security Court against the applicant on the charge of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way), for certain offences allegedly committed in 1981 or before.\n5.  On 15 August 2003 the Erzurum State Security Court issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction (görevsizlik kararı), pursuant to provisional Article 1 of Law no. 2845, which limited the jurisdiction of State Security Courts to offences committed after 1 May 1984. The case was thus referred to the Sivas Assize Court.\n6.  On 11 November 2004 the Second Chamber of the Sivas Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against him. The applicant did not attend any of the hearings before the Sivas Assize Court as he lived in Switzerland at the material time.\n7.  On 19 November 2004 the judgment of 11 November 2004 became final since it was not appealed by the parties.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4746", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1975, 1974, 1961 and 1972 respectively. They all live in the town of Cizre.\n6.  In March 1994 Abdulaziz Gasyak, Süleyman Gasyak, Yahya Akman and Ömer Candoruk were killed. The applicants were related to these people as follows: Sabri Gasyak is the brother of Abdulaziz Gasyak; Leyla Gasyak was the wife of Süleyman Gasyak; İsa Akman is the father of Yahya Akman and Hanım Candoruk was the wife of Ömer Candoruk. The application was brought by the applicants on their own behalf and on behalf of the remaining heirs of the four deceased men.\n7.  The facts of the case, particularly concerning events which took place on 6 March 1994, are disputed by the parties.\n8.  The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 9-21). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraph 22).The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 23-50).\n9.  The applicants’ four relatives were working as tradesmen, buying food, tea and tobacco from the area near the Turkish-Iraqi border and selling them in the nearby town of Cizre and the surrounding areas.\n10.  On 6 March 1994 the four men were travelling from Cizre to Silopi in a vehicle which was being driven by Ömer Candoruk. They were stopped by gendarmes at a checkpoint approximately five to six kilometres outside the town of Silopi. Two unmarked Renault cars were parked nearby. At that point, a certain Mr A.M., who lived in Cizre and who knew the four men, was travelling from Cizre to Silopi in a minibus and saw the four men arguing with a group of gendarme officers in plain clothes. Abdulhakim Güven and Adem Yakın, who used to be PKK[1] members but who had been working for the gendarmerie since their arrests, were also with the gendarme officers. MM. Güven and Yakın were referred to in the area as “confessors”[2]. The applicants’ relatives were then put into vehicles. They were joined by gendarme officers and the confessors and the cars began driving in the direction of Cizre.\n11.  Mr A.M. then saw something being thrown out of one of the vehicles. He stopped and picked it up and realised that it was Ömer Candoruk’s driving licence. The vehicles then turned off the main road and started heading towards Holan village. Mr A.M. did not see the vehicles again.\n12.  According to the information the applicants subsequently gathered from a number of villagers living in Holan village, one of their relatives had jumped out of the moving vehicle and tried to run away, but was shot by one of the confessors or the gendarme officers. His body was put in the boot of one of the vehicles.\n13.  The three surviving men were then taken to the gendarme station in Bozalan village, which is located approximately seven to eight kilometres from Cizre. Before sunset they were taken in the same vehicles to a place nearby and were shot and killed.\n14.  The killing was witnessed by a certain Mrs E.T. and her female friends who were working in a nearby field.\n15.  The following day, 7 March 1994, Mr A.M. told the applicants what he had seen and gave them Ömer Candoruk’s driving licence. The applicants then contacted the police and the gendarmerie in Silopi, but were unable to obtain any information from them. The same day Mrs E.T. told the applicants about the fate of their relatives. The applicants then contacted the gendarmerie and informed the offices of the prosecuto", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4747", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. The applicant was born in 1975.\n5. On 30 January 2001, in the context of an operation carried out against the illegal armed organisation Hizbullah (“Party of God”), the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody.\n6.  The applicant signed a “form explaining the rights of arrested persons” and was notified of the charges against him. He was informed of his right to remain silent and to see a lawyer at the end of the police custody period. The police questioned him. The applicant exercised his right to remain silent.\n7.  A search was carried out at the applicant’s home. The police seized an audio-cassette. The transcript of the tape was worded as follows: “The tape is, for the most part, inaudible. There are incomprehensible speeches in Kurdish. It also contains songs, in which the word ‘sharia’ can be heard, but the sentences are also incomprehensible.”\n8. Throughout this period, the applicant continued to remain silent.\n9. On 3 February 2001 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention by a judge of the Siirt Police Court.\n10. In an indictment dated 9 February 2001, the applicant and three other persons were charged with being members of Hizbullah by the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court. The latter called for the applicant’s conviction on the basis of Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n11. The first hearing took place on 10 April 2001 before the Diyarbakir State Security Court (“the State Security Court”). The applicant, assisted by his lawyer, denied all the charges against him. He claimed that the audio-cassette seized from his home belonged to his mother and that he did not know what was on it.\n12. At the hearing on 29 May 2001 the judges read out statements by five other persons charged in separate criminal proceedings concerning the same organisation, which named the applicant as one of the leading members of the organisation. The accused were also shown seized documents pertaining to the organisation. Counsel for the applicant addressed the court and argued that the elements constituting the offence had not been made out. He claimed that the applicant should be tried for aiding and abetting an illegal organisation on the basis of Article 169 of the Criminal Code, and not for belonging to such an organisation. He did not ask to call any witnesses.\n13. During the hearings of 17 July, 11 September and 6 November 2001 the applicant’s lawyer repeated his previous submissions and requested that his client benefit from the provisions of the Amnesty Act (Law no. 4616).\n14. The applicant argued his case at the hearing of 4 December 2001. He claimed to have no ties with the organisation in question and asked to be acquitted. His lawyer also addressed the court and referred once again to the defence pleadings that he had filed during the trial, requesting, under Law no. 4616, a stay of the proceedings brought against his client.\n15. At the end of the hearing, the State Security Court sentenced the applicant to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment on the basis of Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n16. In support of its decision, the court took into account all the reports and documents in the case file. In particular, it gave consideration to the statements naming the applicant as one of the leading members of the organisation. It also based its decision on a document which showed the applicant’s position within the organisation. The court found it established, among other things, that the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4748", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Vrbas, Serbia.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  Since 1973 the applicant has brought, mostly before the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Vrbas, some two hundred lawsuits against his employer and its management, as well as various private parties and Government officials, alleging irregularities, harassment and/or malfeasance. He has also lodged numerous criminal complaints on the same grounds.\n9.  In 2003 insolvency proceedings were instituted in respect of the applicant's employer and the applicant was laid off.\n10.  The said lawsuits, however, continued, some of which were subsequently concluded in favour of the applicant.\n11.  In June 1996 the applicant threatened his employer's general manager with a hunting knife and a fake hand grenade. Ultimately, however, he voluntarily surrendered both, leaving the manager with a cut on his right hand.\n12.  The applicant was subsequently charged with the crime of intimidation (ugrožavanje sigurnosti).\n13.  In the course of these proceedings the applicant was examined by two teams of medical experts.\n14.  On 30 August 1996 the first team of experts (Medicinski centar Novi Sad - Institut za psihijatriju) stated that he was mentally ill, suffering from paranoid psychosis, and could not therefore be held criminally liable. Further, since there was a real danger that the applicant could reoffend, the team recommended mandatory psychiatric treatment on an in-patient basis.\n15.  On 6 November 1996 the second team of experts (KPD bolnica u Beogradu) found that the applicant had a borderline personality disorder, but deemed him not seriously aggressive and recommended no in-house psychiatric treatment.\n16.  On 22 November 1996 the Municipal Court in Vrbas found that the applicant was not criminally liable given that he could not control his actions nor properly comprehend their meaning (see paragraph 84 below). It ordered, however, the applicant's mandatory psychiatric treatment on an out-patient basis.\n17.  Between 22 November 1996 and 15 November 1998 the applicant regularly reported for treatment. On 16 November 1998 he was discharged from this obligation.\n18.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant was summoned by the Vrbas police in order to give a statement concerning his repeated threats allegedly made to the same general manager.\n19.  Following receipt of requests to this effect from the District Court (Okružni sud) in Novi Sad and the Supreme Court of Serbia (Vrhovni sud Srbije) of 26 October 2001 and 31 October 2001 respectively, which courts had themselves already been dealing with the applicant's claims in a number of separate, pending civil suits (see paragraph 106 below, Articles 82 and 79, in that order), in March 2002 the Municipal Court in Vrbas recommended to the local Social Care Centre (Centar za socijalni rad, “the SCC”) to formally request the institution of proceedings for the assessment of the applicant's legal capacity.\n20.  On 18 March 2002 the SCC agreed with this proposal.\n21.  On 21 March 2002 the Municipal Court noted that the said proceeding had thus been instituted ex officio and ordered that the applicant be subjected to a psychiatric examination by the Forensic Medical Board of the Novi Sad Medical Faculty (Sudsko-medicinski odbor medicinskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu). In so doing, it reasoned as follows:\n“Considering the fact that [the applicant] is involved in many lega", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4749", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1977 and 1965, respectively, and they are both serving prison sentences. The facts common to these cases are that the applicants were arrested and placed in custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, and during their police custody they had no right to legal assistance. Their statements taken during this period were subsequently used for their conviction by the trial courts.\n5.  The details concerning the applications are indicated in the table below.\n\nApplication no. and case name\nDate of police custody\nDate of interrogation by the police \nDate of interrogation by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge \nDate of first instance court judgment and Court of Cassation decision\n8747/02\nGeçgel v. Turkey\n6.  In the case of Mr Geçgel (no. 8747/02), the domestic courts constantly extended his detention using identical, stereotyped terms, such as “having regard to the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence”.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4750", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1975, 1964, 1982, 1976, 1983, 1978, 1961, 1947, 1955, 1975, 1979, 1953, 1952 and 1976 respectively and live in Ankara.\n6.  On 31 July 2000 the applicants, together with several other persons, gathered in a public park in Ankara in protest against F-type prisons and the events which had occurred in Bergama Prison (violent clashes had taken place between the detainees and security forces on 27 July 2000). The participants wanted to read out a press statement in order to express their concerns about F-type prisons and the events in Bergama Prison. Police officers warned the crowd over a megaphone that the demonstration was illegal under Law no. 2911 on Meetings and Demonstration Marches. The group ignored the police warning. The police officers then arrested twenty-four persons, including the applicants, and took them into custody. It appears from the newspaper articles submitted by the applicants that the police officers used force in order to disperse the protesters. As a result, some of the protestors were injured and a number of them were arrested by the police officers.\n7.  According to the arrest report, drawn up and signed by the police officers, the applicants were demonstrating with protest banners in their hands. After having warned them to desist, the police arrested the protesters who continued demonstrating. It was also noted in the arrest report that three police officers, who had been injured during the clash with the demonstrators at the time of the arrest, had had to be taken to hospital. The medical reports stated that the police officers were unfit for work for two days.\n8.  On 31 August 2000 the Ankara Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance against the applicants and nine others, charging them with having taken part in a demonstration in a public place, without the permission of the authorities, contrary to Law no. 2911.\n9.  The applicants alleged that the police officers had been armed during the hearings before the trial court and had verbally harassed the defence lawyers. Moreover, the police officers had obtained a copy of the reports and statements in the case file even though they were not a party to the proceedings. The applicants' request to include these facts in the record of the hearings was dismissed.\n10.  On 5 July 2001 the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance acquitted some of the accused but convicted the applicants on the basis of the evidence given by them and by witnesses. The court found that the applicants had ignored the police warning that their meeting was illegal and that they had to disperse. The police had had to use force in order to arrest the applicants. Furthermore, having examined the applicants' defence submissions, the court considered that the applicants had indirectly confessed to the crime (tevil yollu ikrar) by admitting that they had gathered in the park in order to protest against F-type prisons and the events in Bergama Prison. It then sentenced Rıza Altuntov to a fine, taking into account the fact that he was a minor at the time of the incident (seventeen and a half years old), whereas it sentenced the other applicants to one year and three months' imprisonment. It decided to suspend enforcement of the applicants' sentence, under section 6 of Law no. 667, with the exception of Alaattin Uğraş, Sinan Cem Uzunget and İsmail Temizyürek.\n11.  On 7 March 2002 the applicants appealed to the Court of Cassa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4751", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company is registered in Moldova.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In 1987 a State-owned company started construction of an apartment building, with the ground floor reserved for office space. After several changes of ownership of the unfinished building, another State company (L.) was designated as its owner. A subsequent administrative decision allowed a third State company (M.) to become a co-owner of the building.\n8.  In 1997 L., with the apparent approval of the Department of Privatisation (“the Department”), concluded a contract with a private company (I.). The latter undertook to finish the construction works in exchange for a share of the office space on the ground floor of the building.\n9.  On 19 October 2000 I. concluded a contract with the applicant company, under which the applicant company would finance the construction work and in exchange become the owner of a part of the office space in the building.\n10.  On 27 March 2001 M. initiated court proceedings against L., I. and the Department for annulment of the 1997 contract, as interfering with its right to a part of the building.\n11.  On 19 November 2001 the applicant company initiated court proceedings against I., claiming damages for I.'s failure to fulfil its part of the contract in time. On 29 November 2001 the applicant company requested I. to transfer the office space to which it had rights under the contract concluded in 2000.\n12.  On 6 February 2003 the applicant company initiated court proceedings against I., M., the Department of Privatisation and the Chişinău municipality, requesting confirmation of its property right over the office space claimed from I. under the contract of 19 October 2000. It noted that it had invested more than a million United States dollars (USD) in the construction of the building under that contract and that it was using the relevant office space, but that it was still unable to exercise all rights over that property as its rightful owner. It added that “due to I.'s actions, [the applicant company] was dragged into court proceedings against M., the Department, etc.” The applicant company asked the court to recognise its property right over specifically identified office space in the relevant building.\n13.  On 27 April 2004 the applicant company asked the court to discontinue the proceedings it had initiated against I. because the latter had accepted its claims and transferred the relevant office space. On the same day the Chişinău Court of Appeal allowed the applicant company's request.\n14.  Also on 27 April 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the claims of M. as unfounded.\n15.  On 8 July 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed that judgment and adopted a new one, allowing M.'s claims in full.\n16.  The applicant company asked for a revision of the judgment of 8 July 2004. It complained that it had not been joined as a party to the proceedings, even though its property rights had been affected. Moreover, its court action lodged on 6 February 2003 had not been examined and the judgment of 8 July 2004 had prejudged the outcome of those proceedings. The applicant company emphasised that it had withdrawn only its court action against I. and not that against M. and the Department for recognition of its property right over the part of the building which it had been occupying throughout the proceedings.\n17.  On 16 September 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice rejec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4752", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1951, 1950, 1964 and 1962 respectively. The first three applicants live in Turkey and the fourth applicant lives in France.\n5.  The application concerns a dispute between the applicants and a third party over ownership of plots of land in the province of Adıyaman.\n6.  On 21 February 1980 the applicants brought an action before the Kahta Civil Court of First Instance for prohibition of the third party's unlawful occupation of their land. On 16 April 1997 the civil court issued a decision of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (görevsizlik kararı) and sent the case file to the Kahta Cadastral Court.\n7.  In the meantime, on 8 April 1997 the third party brought a counter action against the applicants before the Kahta Cadastral Court and requested registration of the plots of land in his name.\n8.  On 14 April 1997 the General Directorate of Forests in Turkey (“the Directorate”) also brought an action before the same court and requested that one of the plots owned by one of the applicants should be designated as forest and registered as property of the Treasury. The Kahta court joined the cases on 2 September 1997.\n9.  On 6 July 2000 the Kahta Cadastral Court ordered partial registration of the land in the names of the applicants. The applicants and the Directorate appealed. On 29 January 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, holding that all the land had to be registered in the name of the applicants and remitted the case to the Kahta Cadastral Court.\n10.  On 17 April 2003 the Kahta Cadastral Court abided by the Court of Cassation's decision and ordered the registration of the land in the name of the applicants.\n11.  On 15 December 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment and on 13 July 2004 it dismissed the third party's rectification request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4753", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov.\n5.  According to the applicant, on 19 June 2000 judges of the Prešov Regional Court decided on his appeal against the first-instance judgment notwithstanding that he had challenged them and no decision had been given on his request for their exclusion.\n6.  On 2 October 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the above judgment of 19 June 2000 in proceedings concerning his claim for compensation (equivalent of approximately 350 euros (EUR) plus default interest). In accordance with the relevant law, the applicant lodged the appeal on points of law with the Bardejov District Court, which was to complete the file prior to its submission to the Supreme Court for a decision on the appeal on points of law.\n7.  On 1 April 2003 the District Court asked the applicant to eliminate formal shortcomings in his appeal on points of law. The applicant requested that a lawyer be appointed to represent him in the cassation proceedings.\n8.  On 28 May 2003 the District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay the court fee and appointed an advocate to represent him.\n9.  On 10 September 2003 the District Court revoked the appointment of the above advocate as he had informed the court that he was the legal representative of the defendant.\n10.  The District Court appointed another advocate to represent the applicant. The applicant and the advocate appealed as, in the past, the applicant had lodged a complaint against that advocate with the Slovak Bar Association and therefore the appointed advocate could not appropriately represent him. On 3 August 2004 the Prešov Regional Court quashed the decision to appoint the advocate.\n11.  On 12 October 2004 the District Court appointed a different advocate to represent the applicant. The applicant appealed, arguing that the decision had been incorrect. On 11 March 2005 the District Court rectified a clerical error in the decision. On 27 May 2005 the Regional Court in Prešov upheld the above decisions.\n12.  On 29 June 2005 the case file was transmitted to the Supreme Court. On 20 July 2005 the file was returned to the District Court as having been submitted prematurely.\n13.  On 10 October 2005 the District Court invited the advocate appointed to represent the applicant to eliminate formal shortcomings in the applicant's appeal on points of law.\n14.  On 17 October 2005 the advocate asked the applicant for cooperation in completing his appeal on points of law. She asked the applicant to come to her office on 21 October 2005. On 2 November 2005 the advocate informed the District Court that the applicant had refused to cooperate with her.\n15.  On 19 January 2006 the Bardejov District Court sent the file to the Supreme Court with the explanation that it had not been possible to eliminate the shortcomings in the applicant's appeal on points of law despite the fact that an advocate had been appointed to represent the applicant.\n16.  In a letter of 30 January 2006 the advocate stated that the applicant had not responded to her request for cooperation and asked him to submit to her all documents concerning the case.\n17.  On 24 May 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal on points of law as formal shortcomings had not been eliminated.\n18.  On 12 November 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay when dealing with his appeal on point", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4754", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 31 October 2000 the applicant was taken into police custody in Diyarbakır on suspicion of membership of Hezbollah, an illegal armed organisation. In his police statement dated 9 November 2000, taken in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant accepted the charges against him.\n6.  On 10 November 2000 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge. Before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant denied that he was a member of Hezbollah.\n7.  On 30 November 2000 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment and accused the applicant of membership of an illegal armed organisation. He requested that the applicant be charged and sentenced pursuant to Article 168 of the Criminal Code. On 30 April 2002 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment. In convicting the applicant, the court had regard to his statement taken in the absence of a lawyer.\n8.  On 30 April 2002 the applicant appealed. On 19 June 2002 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation lodged a written opinion, in which he submitted that the Court of Cassation should uphold the judgment of the State Security Court. This opinion was not served on the applicant or his representative. On 21 October 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n9.  On 8 July 2005 the applicant was released from prison.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4755", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently detained in the Kocaeli F Type Prison pending the criminal proceedings against him.\n4.  On 7 May 1997 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of being involved in the activities of an illegal organisation known as the DHKP-C (the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party).\n5.  On 10 May 1997 he was brought before a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court who ordered his pre-trial detention.\n6.  On 20 May 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and another person, charging them with attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code.\n7.  On 27 September 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to death.\n8.  On 14 May 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. The case was remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court for further examination.\n9.  On 25 December 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant for a second time on the same charge and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n10.  On 5 July 2004 the Court of Cassation once again quashed the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court.\n11.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was subsequently resumed before the Istanbul Assize Court.\n12.  According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.\n13.  Throughout the proceedings, the first-instance courts examined the applicant's continued detention at the end of every hearing, either on their own motion or upon the applicant's request. Each time the courts ordered his continued detention having regard to the state of evidence and the content of the file.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4756", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Kraków.\n6.  On 3 April 1997 the applicant was arrested by the police. On the same day the Kraków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his detention for three months on suspicion of having committed several armed robberies. Simultaneously, an investigation was opened into the charges against the applicant.\n7.  Between 3 and 11 April 1997 the applicant served a prison sentence imposed on him in another set of proceedings.\n8.  On 1 July 1997 the applicant was released.\n9.  On 2 September 1997 the investigation was stayed because one of the suspects had gone into hiding.\n10.  On 10 January 2000 the applicant was arrested again. On the following day the Katowice District Court ordered his detention pending trial until 9 April 2000 on suspicion of having committed, inter alia, several armed robberies while acting in an organised armed criminal gang. It relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on him. Moreover, the court considered that the applicant might tamper with evidence and go into hiding.\n11.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was extended several times. In their decisions, the courts relied on the reasons previously given and the likelihood that he had committed the offences while acting in an organised armed criminal gang. In this connection, they referred, inter alia, to the testimony of a crown witness (świadek koronny). They also referred to the complexity of the case, the need to obtain further evidence and the fact that some of the suspects had not yet been arrested.\n12.  Simultaneously, between 22 September 2000 and 22 March 2001, the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed on him in other criminal proceedings.\n13.  On 11 June 2001 the investigation was completed and on 18 June 2001 the applicant was indicted before the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n14.  In a decision of 28 September 2001 extending the applicant's detention the Kraków Regional Court held that “a wanted notice had been put out in respect of some of the co-defendants and one of them was not a Polish citizen and had no domicile in Poland; therefore there was a real risk of absconding and going into hiding not only as regards that defendant but also as regards the remainder of them”.\n15.  In its decision of 28 December 2001 the Kraków Regional Court repeated the same argument.\n16.  Due to the fact that some of the accused were detained in the Katowice area, on 4 March 2002 the Kraków Regional Court asked the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) to refer the case to the Katowice Regional Court. On an unspecified date the Katowice Court of Appeal refused. On 5 May 2002 the Supreme Court, following a request by the Kraków Regional Court, referred the case to the Katowice Regional Court.\n17.  The first hearing was scheduled for 23 January 2003, but it did not take place because one of the defence lawyers was unwell.\n18.  On 13 February 2003 the trial started. It was continued on 20 March, 10 April and 15 May 2003 when the trial court heard evidence from the co‑accused. On 12 June 2003 the trial court heard evidence from one witness but could not proceed with hearing other evidence because a sworn interpreter had failed to appear.\n19.  At a hearing held on 8 July 2003, out of fifteen witnesses only three appeared before the trial court. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4757", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Barış İnan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and is currently detained in the Kandıra F-type prison, in Kocaeli.\n5.  On 8 September 1998 the applicant was arrested during a police operation conducted against the MLKP (the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party). On 14 September 1998 a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention.\n6.  On 18 September 1998 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court lodged a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, an offence proscribed by Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code.\n7.  On 4 December 1998 the Istanbul State Security Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case (no. 1998/259).\n8.  According to the information in the case file last submitted by the parties, the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending at first instance, which is now the Istanbul Assize Court, and the applicant is still detained on remand. During the proceedings, the first-instance courts examined the applicant's continued detention at the end of every hearing, either on their own motion or upon the applicant's request. On each occasion the courts ordered the applicant's continued remand in custody, given the content of the file and the state of evidence.\n9.  The applicant, Mrs Muhabbet Kurt, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and is currently detained in the Gebze prison, in Kocaeli.\n10.  On 8 September 1998 the applicant was arrested during a police operation conducted against the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party). During her detention in police custody, the applicant was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment. In particular, she claimed to have been raped by police officers.\n11.  On 14 September 1998 the applicant, along with eleven other persons, was examined by a doctor at the Istanbul branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute who noted that none of them had sustained any injuries.\n12.  On the same day the applicant made statements to the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court and stated that she had been tortured while in police custody. The applicant was subsequently brought before a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court who ordered her pre-trial detention.\n13.  On 18 September 1998 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court lodged a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, an offence proscribed by Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code.\n14.  On 4 December 1998 the Istanbul State Security Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case (no. 1998/259).\n15.  During the hearing on 8 December 1999, the applicant alleged before the first-instance court that she had been raped while in police custody. At the end of the hearing, the State Security Court requested the public prosecutor's office to initiate an investigation into this allegation.\n16.  On 20 December 1999 the public prosecutor's office at the Istanbul State Security Court issued a decision based on a lack of jurisdiction and passed the investigation to the Fatih public prosecutor's office.\n17.  On 3 July 2000 the Fatih public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute anyone in relation to the applicant's allegations, holding that there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal proceedings. The public prosecutor noted that the applicant did not apply to the na", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4758", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Behice Alkın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1985 and lives in Şırnak. At the time of the events she was eleven years old and lived in Ortabağ village, which is located within the administrative province of Şırnak.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 13 May 1996 the applicant – who was 11 years old at the time – was playing with other children in the meadows near her village when she stepped on a landmine. According to a document drawn up by the soldiers, a few minutes prior to the events a gendarme soldier from the nearby Ortabağ gendarmerie station had told the children to leave the area, and the applicant had stepped on the mine as she was leaving the area.\n8.  She was airlifted to Şırnak Military Hospital in a military helicopter and subsequently to Diyarbakır Military Hospital. According to a medical report prepared by Diyarbakır Military Hospital on 22 August 1996, the applicant's left leg was amputated from the knee. As the family lacked the necessary funds, the social services provided the applicant with a prosthetic leg.\n9.  The applicant's father made a statement to the gendarmerie on 19 May 1996 and stated that the incident had been an accident and that he did not want to press charges against anyone. In her statement of 4 June 1996 the applicant also stated that she did not want bring any complaints in connection with the incident, which had been an accident.\n10.  On an unspecified date the public prosecutor's office in the nearby town of Uludere initiated an investigation of its own motion into the circumstances of the incident. On 27 June 1996 the file was transferred to the Uludere district administrative council for the necessary authorisation to continue with the investigation.\n11.  On 14 August 1997 the Uludere district administrative council declined the authorisation sought by the prosecutor. It found that, despite the soldier's warning, the applicant had crossed the minefield and that therefore there had been no intention or fault on the part of the soldiers.\n12.  On 4 December 1997 the Diyarbakır Regional Administrative Court examined, of its own motion, the decision of the Uludere District Administrative Court and upheld it.\n13.  According to the applicant, neither the decision of 14 August 1997 nor the judgment of 4 December 1997 was communicated to her or her family and they only became aware of these decisions in 2004.\n14.  On 26 March 1997 the applicant's parents, acting as her legal guardians, filed a petition with the Ministry of the Interior (hereinafter “the Ministry”) requesting compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on account of the injury sustained by the applicant. On 5 June 1997 the Ministry informed them that they would not pay her compensation in the absence of a judicial decision.\n15.  On 16 June 1997 the lawyer representing the applicant's parents (“the family”) filed an action for compensation against the Ministry before the Diyarbakır Administrative Court. In their petition, the family claimed that the State had been responsible for the injury sustained by the applicant. In any event, in accordance with the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court, the State should bear responsibility for her injury in accordance with the “social risk principle” even if no fault was established on the part of the Ministry. They requested the court to award t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4759", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Sukhodolsk.\n6.  The applicant worked as a foreman in the Barkov Mine in the Lugansk region.\n7.  On 11 March 2000 an explosion in the mine caused the death of eighty miners. Another seven individuals, including the applicant, sustained injuries. As a result of those injuries the applicant's sight and hearing were impaired, and the condition gradually developed to the stage of complete blindness and deafness.\n8.  On 17 August 2000 the applicant and four other officials of the mine, who were responsible for the observance of work safety regulations, were charged with negligence.\n9.  On 6 July 2001 the Krasnodon City Court found the applicant guilty of negligence and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment.\n10.  On 18 September 2001 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first-instance court with minor amendments.\n11.  On 1 August 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine quashed the decisions of the lower courts, considering the punishment too lenient, and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n12.  In November 2002 the new hearing started in the first-instance court.\n13.  During this new examination of the case the applicant's lawyer and representative submitted a request for the severance of the criminal proceedings against the applicant due to a violation of his right to a defence at the initial stage of the investigation, when he was not legally represented although such representation was obligatory due to his disabilities. On 13 May 2003 the court allowed this request and remitted the criminal case against the applicant for a new pre-trial investigation.\n14.  On 14 August 2003 the applicant was once again charged with negligence.\n15.  In November 2003 the Krasnodon City Court ordered two forensic examinations to assess the applicant's sanity, his ability to understand the ongoing events and to participate in the pre-trial investigation and the trial itself.\n16.  The forensic examinations conducted in February and June 2004 established the partial insanity of the applicant and his inability to understand the ongoing events and to participate in the proceedings.\n17.  On 22 June 2004 the Krasnodon City Court discharged the applicant from criminal liability due to changed circumstances, brought about by his state of health, and to the fact that he was not a danger to society.\n18.  The applicant's representative appealed against this decision, considering that the criminal case should be terminated on exonerative grounds.\n19.  On 26 October 2004 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 22 June 2004 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n20.  On 15 March 2005 the Krasnodon Court referred the case for additional investigation.\n21.  On 30 August 2005 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court.\n22.  On 3 November 2005 the pre-trial investigation in the case against the applicant was suspended due to the serious illness of the accused in accordance with Article 206 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n23.  On 8 February 2008 the proceedings were resumed.\n24.  On 13 February 2008 the investigator questioned an expert and on 15 February 2008 the proceedings were suspended again.\n25.  On 12 January 2009 the investigator reopened the proceedings and ordered an additional forensic medical examination of the applicant. The examination, conducted between 16 and 21 January 2009, confirmed the complete blindness and", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4760", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\nApplication no. 32921/03\n6.  Through the acquisition of shares before January 2001, the first two applicants became minority shareholders of Českomoravský cement, a.s., a joint stock company incorporated under Czech law.\n7.  On 1 January 2001 the Commercial Code (hereinafter “the CC”) was amended. In accordance with its newly introduced Article 220p, a general meeting of a joint stock company was empowered to decide to wind up the company and transfer all its assets to a shareholder who owned shares representing more than 90% of the company's share capital (“the main shareholder”). An asset transfer contract between the main shareholder and the company was to be concluded to that end and compensation paid to the minority shareholders.\n8.  On 31 May 2001 the general meeting of the company adopted, by votes of the main shareholder, a resolution on the winding-up of the company and on the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder (together also referred to as “the transfer”).\n9.  On the same day the applicants filed an action to have that resolution and the asset transfer contract set aside with the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud). They asserted that the resolution had been adopted contrary to law, treaties concerning the encouragement and reciprocal protection of investments and their property rights. They informed the court administering the commercial register (obchodní rejstřík) about this step.\n10.  On 31 October 2001 the court administering the commercial register (rejstříkový soud) approved the transfer. No hearing was held prior to that decision.\n11.  On 14 December 2001 the applicants contested the decision to register the transfer before the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud), alleging an infringement of the right to a fair trial and their property rights. They claimed not to have been able to raise their objections to the general meeting resolution in a hearing during the non-contentious proceedings preceding the delivery of the decision. They invited the court to strike down inter alia Articles 220h(3) and (4) and 220p of the CC.\n12.  On 25 March 2003 the Constitutional Court in its decision no. IV. ÚS 720/01 rejected the applicants' appeal without holding a hearing. It found that the applicants were not entitled to participate in the proceedings as the task of the court in charge of the commercial register had been to decide on the rights of the company, not on theirs. It noted that that court had the applicants' arguments in their action to set aside at its disposal and had taken them into consideration before delivering the impugned decision, whilst reviewing the lawfulness of the resolution as a preliminary question. It held that the power to stay the proceedings was still available to that court under the law as it stood at the relevant time. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants' second claim according to which that decision amounted to other interference by public authority into their right to access to a court. Referring to Article 220h of the CC, it found the application of Article 131 of the CC in conformity with constitutional law. In this regard, the court pointed to procedural safeguards enshrined in Articles 131, 220h, 220k, 2201 and 220p of the CC which were available to the applicants, and emphasised the aim of the regulation providing for legal certainty and expeditious transformation of companies. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4761", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the town of Chervonograd, Ukraine.\n5.  On 10 November 2003 the Chervonograd Court ordered the State company Lvivvugilllya to pay the applicant 42,000[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused by the company's failure to provide him with an apartment.\n6.  On 17 December 2003 the State Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment.\n7.  On 30 December 2005 the enforcement proceedings were terminated in accordance with the Law of Ukraine on Measures to ensure the Stable Operation of Fuel and Energy Sector Enterprises.\n8.  The judgment given in the applicant's favour remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4762", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is currently detained in Kharkiv pre-trial detention centre No. 27 (Слідчий ізолятор № 27 м. Харкова – “the SIZO”), Ukraine.\n6.  On 14 March 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and inflicting grievous bodily harm causing the death of Mrs S.\n7.  On 16 March 2007 the Zmiyivskyy District Court authorised the applicant's pre-trial detention. The court indicated that the applicant was suspected of committing a serious crime, had been previously convicted on many occasions, had had negative character assessments, drank excessively and did not work. Therefore, the court was of the opinion that the applicant might abscond, commit other crimes or hinder the investigation. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.\n8.  On 10 May 2007, on completion of the preliminary investigation, the applicant's criminal case was sent to the court.\n9.  On 25 June 2007 the Zmiyivskyy District Court rejected the applicant's request for release. The parties did not submit a copy of this decision.\n10.  On 28 March 2007 (in some submissions the applicant refers to 23 March 2007) the applicant was placed in the SIZO. The applicant stated that he had requested his release as he was suffering from cancer.\n11.  Immediately on his arrival, the applicant complained about his health problems but was examined and diagnosed only a month later.\n12.  In April 2007 the applicant was diagnosed with liver cirrhosis and advanced cancer of the left kidney with metastasis in the lungs. The applicant received symptomatic treatment including the use of narcotic analgesics but, according to him, the quantity of analgesics was not sufficient given the advanced stage of his cancer.\n13.  On 26 July 2007 the Zmiyivskyy District Court ordered a medical examination of the applicant in order to establish the severity of his condition. The applicant was not provided with any medical treatment.\n14.  From 9 to 17 August 2007 the medical examination of the applicant took place, confirming the previous diagnosis.\n15.  The applicant's representative in the criminal proceedings, allegedly Mr Kh., lodged numerous requests with the court for the applicant to be released in view of his serious state of health, but to no avail. No copies of these requests or the court's refusals were submitted by the applicant.\n16.  On several occasions – at least four times – the applicant was escorted to court hearings which took place about 50 kilometres away from the SIZO. The applicant stated that the conditions in which he was transported, given his serious state of health, had caused him extensive suffering. In particular, he had to wait in a room measuring one square metre for the arrival of the prison van. The trip lasted approximately two hours and the applicant was not fed or provided with any medical assistance. The applicant stated that any movement had been painful for him and that being transported to the courthouse had caused him severe distress; on the last two occasions his health had seriously deteriorated as a result.\n17.  From 15 to 28 March 2007 the applicant stayed in Zmiyivska Central Hospital, where he received treatment for an injury to the left hand, lymphangitis (an inflammation of the lymphatic channels) of his left arm and pneumonia.\n18.  On 28 March 2007 the applicant was placed in the SIZO.\n19.  On arrival at the SIZO the applicant complained about headaches and pain in the right part of his chest. On the next day he was di", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4763", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow.\n8.  In October 2000 the applicant retired from the Ukrainian Army. He was entitled to a lump-sum retirement payment and compensation for his uniform, but the payments were not made to him on his retirement.\n9.  In July 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Cherkassy Regional Military Court against Military Unit A-1575, seeking recovery of the debt. On 22 August 2001 the court allowed his claim in full and ordered the military unit to pay the applicant 1,449.36 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in compensation for his uniform, UAH 2,512.50[2] in retirement payment arrears, and UAH 51[3] by way of reimbursement for the court fees. On 22 September 2001 the court’s judgment became final and enforceable.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant received UAH 2,512.50[4]. The remainder of the award remained unpaid.\n11.  The enforcement proceedings concerning the judgment of 22 August 2001 commenced on 24 January 2002. In the course of those proceedings the bailiffs informed the applicant that they had frozen the debtor’s bank accounts, though no funds had been found in those accounts.\n12.  In a letter of 12 November 2002 the Ministry of Defence informed the applicant that the legislative provisions entitling him to compensation for his uniform were suspended and that there were no budgetary allocations for such payments.\n13.  On 5 May 2003 the debtor military unit was disbanded and Military Unit A-0680 became its successor.\n14.  In a letter of 6 April 2004 the bailiffs informed the applicant that the latter military unit had no money to pay the applicant in compliance with the judgment of 22 August 2001. They also mentioned that the forced sale of assets belonging to military units was prohibited by the law.\n15.  The judgment of 22 August 2001 remains partially unenforced.\n16.  In 2002 the applicant lodged with the Leninskyy District Court of Kirovograd (“the Leninskyy Court”) a complaint against the bailiffs, alleging that the judgment of 22 August 2001 had not been enforced because of fault on their part. On 3 December 2002 the court found that the bailiffs had not taken the necessary measures to enforce the judgment in the applicant’s favour and ordered them to identify and freeze the bank accounts of the debtor military unit in order to seize the money available in those accounts.\n17.  According to the applicant, the bailiffs did not comply with the court’s ruling of 3 December 2002. On 20 May 2003 he lodged a claim with the same court against the bailiffs, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n18.  On 29 July 2003 the applicant’s claim was partly allowed. The Leninskyy Court found that the judgment of 22 August 2001 remained unenforced through the fault of the bailiffs and awarded the applicant UAH 1,500.36[5] in compensation for pecuniary damage and UAH 1,000[6] for non-pecuniary damage. On 29 August 2003 the judgment of 29 July 2003 became final and enforceable. On 25 February 2004 an appeal by the applicant against the judgment of 29 July 2003 was dismissed as having been lodged out of time.\n19.  On 3 March 2004 the applicant submitted a written request to the Leninskyy Court to issue a writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 29 July 2003. The applicant did not receive the writ or a reply to his request. The judgment of 29 July 2003 remains unenforced.\n20.  Throughout the proceedings against the bailiffs, the applicant was assisted and represen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4764", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Vittoriosa.\n10.  The applicant is the brother of Mrs M., who lived in an apartment above Mr F.\n11.  On 17 July 1985 Mr F. applied for an injunction to restrain Mrs M. from hanging out clothes to dry over the courtyard of his apartment, thereby allegedly interfering with his property rights. Mr F. relied on the provisions of Article 403 of the Maltese Civil Code in this connection.\n12.  On one occasion following a hearing on the injunction, and after Mrs M. and her lawyer, Dr A., had already left the courtroom, the presiding magistrate changed the date of a future hearing, which had already been fixed. As a consequence, Mrs M. was not aware of the new date and was not present at the hearing. In her absence, on 29 November 1985 the presiding magistrate issued the injunction in favour of Mr F.\n13.  According to Maltese law as it stood at the time, Mr F. had to institute proceedings in respect of the property claim preserved by the warrant within four days of the issuing of the injunction; otherwise the injunction would cease to have effect. Accordingly, on 5 December 1985, Mr F. lodged a writ of summons to start proceedings.\n14.  On 6 March 1992 the relevant court trying the merits of Mr F.’s civil action found against Mrs M. and issued a permanent injunction against her. On 24 March 1992, as no appeal had been lodged, the case became final.\n15.  On 6 December 1985 Mrs M. instituted proceedings before the Civil Court (First Hall) in its ordinary jurisdiction, claiming that the injunction had been issued in her absence and without giving her the opportunity to testify (see paragraph 77 below).\n16.  By a judgment of 15 October 1990, the Civil Court upheld her claim. It held that the audi alteram partem principle was applicable to the procedure for issuing an injunction. Referring to Article 873 § 2 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, which stated that an injunction should not be issued unless the court was satisfied that it was necessary in order to preserve any right of the person seeking it (see paragraph 27 below), the Civil Court held that the relevant test was a matter for the court’s discretion. However, if the court found it necessary to hear the parties, they should be duly heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In the present case the court held that, through no fault of her own, Mrs M. had been denied her right to be heard and therefore the said warrant was null and void.\n17.  Mr F. appealed against the judgment of 15 October 1990. In the first-instance proceedings Mr F. had been assisted by Dr U., while at the appeal stage he had appointed the latter’s son, Dr C. The Court of Appeal was presided over by the Chief Justice, who sat with two other judges. The Chief Justice was Dr U.’s brother and Dr C.’s uncle.\n18.  At the appeal hearing of 12 October 1992, the Chief Justice, after asking some questions, alleged that the conduct of Dr A. was unethical, as he had impugned, without justification, the conduct of Mr F’s lawyer. When it was noted that in the first-instance proceedings Mr F. had been represented by the Chief Justice’s brother, the Chief Justice threatened to refer the case to “the competent authorities”. Furthermore, he dictated a note to this effect, which read as follows:\n“The court is asking Dr A., who himself is declaring that the date of the hearing at first instance had been changed when he and his client had already left the courtroom,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4765", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the city of Donetsk.\n5. In October 1999 insolvency proceedings were instituted against the applicant's former employer, the State company Chervona Zirka (“the company”).\n6.  On 8 August 2002 the Proletarsky District Court of Donetsk awarded the applicant 4,150.39 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments, to be paid by the company.\n7.  On 9 October 2002 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court declared the company bankrupt.\n8.  Since December 2002 liquidation proceedings have been pending.\n9.  The decision in the applicant's favour was enforced in full in November 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4766", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and is serving a prison sentence in Kaliningrad.\n7.  On 1 June 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of assault and robbery. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial.\n8.  On 20 May 1999 the Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment.\n9.  On 31 August 1999 the Kaliningrad Regional Court quashed the applicant's conviction on appeal and discontinued the criminal proceedings against him. He was released on the same day.\n10.  It appears that approximately a month after his release the applicant was arrested on suspicion of two counts of murder.\n11.  In December 2001 the applicant, who was at that time serving a prison sentence, sued the Ministry of Finance and M., the trial judge who had convicted him on 20 May 1999, for compensation for damage resulting from his unlawful detention and conviction. The applicant claimed an award for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 500,000 Russian roubles (RUB), reimbursement of his lawyer's fee and lost earnings in the amount of RUB 55,000. He also sought leave to appear before the court.\n12.  On 25 January 2002 the Moskovskiy District Court of Kaliningrad granted the applicant leave to appear and scheduled the hearing for 22 February 2002.\n13.  The District Court heard the case on 22 February 2002 as scheduled. The applicant was not transported to participate in the hearing. Mr D., his representative, was present. He asked the court to consider the matter in the applicant's absence. The District Court granted the applicant's claims in part and awarded him RUB 25,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The remainder of the applicant's claims were dismissed.\n14.  On a complaint by the applicant, the Presidium of the Kaliningrad Regional Court quashed the judgment of 22 February 2002 by way of supervisory review on 30 July 2002. The court noted, inter alia, that the District Court had failed: (1) to inform the applicant of his duty to submit documents substantiating his claim for compensation for lost earnings; and (2) to establish the circumstances with regard to the applicant's claim concerning non-pecuniary damage.\n15.  On 15 August 2002 the applicant was notified of a new court hearing, scheduled for 28 August 2002. He was also advised of his right to be represented in the proceedings before the court.\n16.  In response to the District Court's decision of 6 August 2002 to grant the applicant leave to appear, the head of the administration of the penitentiary establishment responded that it was not possible to comply with the court's decision. On 28 August 2002 the District Court adjourned the hearing.\n17.  On 29 August 2002 the District Court asked the applicant to make written submissions in connection with his claims. The applicant asked the court to appoint the regional ombudsman to represent him in the proceedings. He further asked the court to obtain certain documents to substantiate his claims for compensation for lost earnings and reimbursement of the lawyer's fee.\n18.  On 1 November 2002 the District Court adjourned the hearing of the matter pending the receipt of the documents requested by the applicant. The court scheduled the next hearing for 11 December 2002 and advised the applicant of his right to appoint a representative.\n19.  Following the ombudsman's refusal to represent the applicant, the latter asked the District Co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4767", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Krasnodar.\n5.  In October 1996 the applicant's husband sued his neighbours, Mr P and Mr Pr alleging that they prevented him from using his land. In April 1997 he amended his claim raising a complaint against the Krasnodar town administration claiming removal of structures built on his land and annulment of the administration's decision allowing such construction. In reply to the court's request, in his report dated 31 March 1997, the expert concluded that the border between P's and the applicant's land was not in line with the reference document issued in 1957. By a default judgment of 23 January 1998, the Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar granted the applicant's husband's claims. Mr P sought annulment of the default judgment. On 10 April 1998 this judgment was annulled and the proceedings resumed.\n6.  On 5 May 1998 the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia.\n7.  On 26 June 1998 the District Court granted the applicant's husband's claims and ordered the town administration “not to place any obstacles in the way of his building a garage”. The applicant's husband and the district prosecutor lodged appeals against this judgment. On 27 August 1998 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal; the case was remitted to the District Court.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings, three hearings were adjourned because third parties, experts or witnesses defaulted. Two hearings were adjourned because the applicant's husband's lawyer studied the case file for ten days and because the applicant's husband drafted an amended statement of claim.\n9.  In April 1999 the case was re-assigned to another judge. In May 1999 the applicant's husband lodged a claim against a Ms N, his other neighbour. In June 1999 Mr P and Ms N lodged counter-claims against the applicant's husband. In July 1999 the court ordered an expert report. In the absence of the necessary documents and payment, the expert refused to submit a report.\n10.  In 3 February 2000 the case was re-assigned. At least five hearings were adjourned for various reasons (the judge was ill or busy; the other parties, their lawyers or other participants failed to attend). In September 2000 the applicant's husband and Mr P signed a friendly settlement agreement in respect of certain claims. On 30 November 2000 the Presidium of the Regional Court annulled it.\n11.  In January 2001 the applicant's husband withdrew some of his claims; Mr Pr waived his right to be present at hearings; Ms N withdrew her claims against the applicant. By a judgment of 1 February 2001, the District Court rejected the applicant's husband's claims. On 20 March 2001 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. On 2 August 2001 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the above judgments by supervisory review and ordered a re-examination of the case.\n12.  The applicant's husband died on 8 October 2001. On 17 October 2001 the court suspended the proceedings pending the succession proceedings (see paragraph 20 below). In early 2002 the applicant informed the court that she had applied for a succession certificate.\n13.  In March 2002 Mr Pr waived his right to be present at hearings and asked the court to render a judgment with reference to his depositions made over the previous years. On 9 April 2002 the court resumed the proceedings. A hearing was scheduled for 3 June 2002. On the latter date, the court suspended the proceedings because the applicant decided to bring", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4768", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine.\n5. In 1996 her apartment was sold to Mrs T. In October 1998 Mr P., the applicant's ex-husband, acting on behalf of Mrs T., sold this apartment to Mr L. In March 2003 Mr L. sold back the apartment to Mr P. and his wife, Mrs P.N. The applicant stated that her signature on the initial sales contract with Mrs T. had been falsified.\n6.  On 1 February 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kharkiv (“the Dzerzhynsky Court”) against Mr P. and Mrs T. for a declaration that the sale of the apartment to Mrs T. and all further sales were null and void.\n7.  On 1 February 1999 the Dzerzhynsky Court attached the disputed apartment, having banned in particular, its disposal.\n8.  The first hearing was scheduled for 30 October 2000.\n9.  Between 30 October 2000 and 15 October 2001 the first-instance court scheduled four hearings. Two were adjourned since the parties failed to appear and the other two because the judge was involved in other proceedings.\n10.  On 15 October 2001 the Dzerzhynsky Court declined to consider the applicant's claim because the parties failed to appear.\n11.  The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision.\n12.  On 18 July 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) remitted the case for examination on the merits to the first -instance court.\n13.  According to the applicant, on 18 December 2001 the Dzerzhynsky Court lifted the sales ban imposed under the ruling of 1 February 1999.\n14.  In the period from 18 July 2002 till 7 April 2005 the Dzerzhynsky Court scheduled nineteen hearings. Five were adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings and because he was ill. A further six were adjourned owing to the absence of one or more of the parties.\n15.  On 7 April 2005 the Dzerzhynsky Court granted the applicant's claim.\n16.  On 18 January 2006 the Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n17.  The case-file was returned to the Dzerzhynsky Court in January 2006.\n18.  On 26 July 2006 the case was transferred to another judge.\n19.  On 6 February 2007 hearings were suspended because of the death of Mr P. On 21 March 2007 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 6 February 2007. The proceedings resumed in August 2007.\n20.  On 14 December 2007 the applicant appealed against the ruling of 18 December 2001. On 21 May 2008 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal left her appeal without consideration. On 9 July 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the court of appeal.\n21.  On 10 October 2008 the Dzerzhynsky Court granted the applicant's claims in part. The judgment was not appealed and became final.\n22.   Between 19 January 2006 and 18 January 2008 the Dzerzhynsky Court scheduled eleven hearings. Seven were adjourned because the judge was on holiday or involved in other proceedings. A further three were adjourned because the defendants failed to appear. The Government and the applicant did not provide the Court with information about the hearings scheduled after 18 January 2008.\n23.  On 15 October 2001 Mr L. instituted proceedings seeking the applicant's eviction from the apartment in question.\n24.  On 26 October 2001 the Dzerzhynsky Court ordered the applicant's eviction. On 1 October 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal. On 14 November 2003 the judgment was enfo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4769", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lived until his arrest in the town of Dyatkovo in the Bryansk Region. He is serving his sentence in the correctional colony in the village of Kamenka in the Bryansk Region.\n7.  On 14 December 2002 the police arrested the applicant and brought him to the Dyatkovskiy District police station.\n8.  On the same day a police officer, I., who had taken part in the applicant's arrest, drew up a report, informing the chief of the Dyatkovskiy District police station that a man had approached him and his fellow officers in a street, complaining that he had been beaten up and robbed. The applicant had passed by and the victim had identified him as the robber. The applicant had tried to escape but he had been apprehended and taken to the police station. The report did not indicate whether force or special means had been used during the arrest.\n9.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Dyatkovo Town Prosecutor's office, seeking institution of criminal proceedings against the arresting police officers. In particular, he alleged that the police officers had unlawfully applied force against him during the arrest.\n10.  On 30 December 2002 a deputy Dyatkovo Town Prosecutor issued a decision, finding that there was no case to answer and dismissing the applicant's complaint. The decision stated that on 14 December 2002, after the applicant had committed the robbery, police officers had stopped him in a street and had ordered him to get into a police car. The applicant had refused, had punched police officer Ka. in the face and had attempted to escape, threatening the officers with a knife. Police officer I. had hit the applicant with a rubber truncheon on the arm, forcing him to drop the knife. Subsequently, the police officers had forced the applicant into the car. The deputy prosecutor concluded that there had been no indication of a criminal offence in the police officers' actions. The applicant was served with a copy of that decision.\n11.  According to the applicant, after being taken to the Dyatkovskiy District police station on 14 December 2002, he had been placed in a cell. An assistant police officer on duty, P., had approached the applicant and hit him with a rubber truncheon approximately ten times on the left side of the body and once in the face. An officer on duty, S., had entered the cell and had started beating the applicant as well. The beatings had continued for an hour and a half. The applicant had subsequently been placed in the detention facility of the Dyatkovskiy District Police Department.\n12.  The Government, relying on the information provided by the Prosecutor General's office, submitted that on 14 December 2002 the applicant had been taken in a state of alcoholic intoxication to the duty unit of the Dyatkovskiy District police station. After being placed in a cell for administrative detainees, he had started kicking the door, using obscene language and ignoring the police officers' orders to stop the unlawful behaviour. Police officer P. had entered the cell and hit the applicant a number of times in the back with a rubber truncheon. After officer P. had left, the applicant had stripped to the waist and started pushing the door. The police officers, using force, had transferred him to another cell. While he was being escorted to the new cell and was passing the desk of an officer on duty, the applicant had started spitting on the desk communication board. Officer P. had thus been forced to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4770", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in the city of Kyiv, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant is a former military serviceman. In October 2001 he was transferred to the reserve.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Court of Gorlovka (“the court”) against the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Military Enlistment Office of Gorlovka (“the enlistment office”) claiming payment of a single-payment allowance due to him, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and 51 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for the court fees.\n7.  While the proceedings were still pending, the enlistment office paid the allowance. Therefore, the applicant withdrew his claims regarding payment of the allowance and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n8.  On 24 April 2003 the court awarded the applicant UAH 51[1] in compensation for the court fees, to be paid by the enlistment office. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n9.  On an unspecified date the Tsentralno-Gorodskoy District Bailiffs' Service of Gorlovka (“the Bailiffs' Service”) initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.\n10.  On 15 July 2003 the Bailiffs' Service suspended enforcement proceedings since the court had not indicated the debtor's account in the enforcement writ.\n11.  Later the enlistment office was closed down. The latter's debts were transferred to its successor, the Gorlovsky City Enlistment Office. On 4 May 2006 the court granted the applicant's request and changed the debtor in the enforcement proceedings. The applicant re-lodged the enforcement writ with the Bailiffs' Service.\n12.  The judgment remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4771", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1918 and lives in St Petersburg.\n6.  On 15 October 2001 the applicant brought proceedings before the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”) against the St Petersburg Fuel and Energy Complex, a State energy supply enterprise, for damages. He complained that the defendant had deprived him of his right to a reduced price for heating, to which he was entitled as a disabled veteran of the Second World War.\n7.  In a judgment of 14 May 2002 the District Court granted the applicant's claim in part and ordered the defendant to repay the sums overpaid by the applicant between December 1998 and November 2001.\n8.  On 12 February 2003, upon the defendant's appeal, the St Petersburg City Court (“the City Court”) quashed the judgment in part and ordered a fresh examination by the first-instance court.\n9.  On 31 March 2003 Judge K. of the District Court took up the case and fixed a hearing for 26 June 2003.\n10.  According to the Government, the applicant modified his claims on 26 May 2003.\n11.  During the hearing on 26 June 2003 the applicant waived part of his claims and lodged claims against new defendants, with the result that the hearing was postponed until 13 November 2003.\n12.  In the Government's submission, the applicant modified his claims on 13 October 2003.\n13.  According to the Government, the hearing scheduled for 13 November 2003 was not held owing to the fact that Judge K. had resigned from office, with the result that on 30 September 2003 the case was transferred to Judge P. The latter was on sick leave between October 2003 and January 2004. Subsequently all cases assigned to Judge P. were transferred to Judge I., who fixed a hearing in the applicant's case for 16 December 2004. On the latter date the hearing was postponed until 7 July 2005 as the judge was engaged in unrelated proceedings.\n14.  In the Government's submission, the applicant modified his claims on 7 and 11 July 2005.\n15.  On 7 July 2005 the hearing was adjourned until 11 August 2005 because the defendants and a third party had failed to appear, and then until the following day because the judge was engaged in unrelated proceedings. Then the hearing was postponed until 4 October 2005 in view of the defendant's failure to appear.\n16.  On 4 October 2005 the hearing was adjourned until 17 November 2005 at the applicant's request; he asked for more time to adduce some evidence and consult his lawyer, and then until 22 December 2005 as the judge was on leave. In the Government's submission, on 22 December 2005 the applicant modified his claims. On the same date the hearing was postponed until 1 February 2006, as the defendants had failed to appear and there was no evidence in the case file that they had been duly notified of the hearing.\n17.  By a judgment of 1 February 2006 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claims. The applicant's appeal against this judgment was stayed on 3 February 2006 owing to his failure to comply with certain formal requirements and he was invited to remedy the shortcomings by 15 March 2006. On the latter date the applicant lodged an amended appeal.\n18.  On 17 May 2006 the City Court upheld the judgment of 1 February 2006 on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4772", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Starokostantiniv, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant is a former military serviceman. In November 1999 he was transferred to the reserve force.\n6.  On 21 April 2000 the Starokostantiniv Court ordered military unit A-2502 to pay the applicant UAH 1,151.2[4][1] in compensation for uniform expenses.\n7.  On 5 May 2000 the Starokostantiniv Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n8.  In December 2003 the Bailiff's Service informed the applicant that the military unit was unable to enforce the judgment of 21 April 2000 because it did not have the necessary funds.\n9.  The judgment remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4773", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Barguzin, Republic of Buryatiya.\n7.  On 1 April 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. On 3 April 1998 the Prosecutor's Office of the Oktyabrskiy District of Ulan-Ude authorised his pre-trial detention. The applicant remained in custody pending investigation and trial.\n8.  Upon completion of the investigation in December 1998, the prosecutor's office forwarded the case file in respect of the applicant and six other defendants to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatiya. The Supreme Court found, however, that the case should be remitted to the prosecutor's office in view of the incomplete investigation. The relevant decision was issued on 26 January 1999. Subsequently the Supreme Court remitted the matter for additional investigation on 15 June 1999 and 31 March and 4 July 2000.\n9.  The opening of the trial was scheduled by the Supreme Court on 8 December 2000.\n10.  On 8 and 14 December 2000 the hearing was adjourned due to the absence of the interpreter.\n11.  Between 19 January and 17 April 2001 the Supreme Court scheduled and adjourned seventeen hearings. The Government submitted the information concerning the reasons for the adjournment as follows. On one occasion the applicant's lawyer failed to appear. On four occasions the court could not proceed due to the absence of one of the legal counsel representing other defendants. Three times the interpreter failed to appear due to his illness or business trips. Once the hearing was adjourned pending the completion of an additional forensic medical examination. The court also went into recess for two days on one occasion to prepare its ruling in response to the submissions made by the parties.\n12.  On 18 May 2001 the Supreme Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment.\n13.  On 5 December 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant's conviction on appeal. The applicant's representative was present; the applicant participated in the hearing by video link.\n14.  From 6 April 1998 to 16 May 2002 the applicant was detained at remand prison IZ-4/1 in Ulan-Ude. According to the Government, from 6 April 1998 to 3 April 2001 the applicant was held in cell no. 170, which measured 45.6 sq. m and housed 14-16 inmates. From 3 April to 28 November 2001 the applicant was held in cell no. 117, which measured 46.02 sq. m and housed 7-9 inmates. From 28 November 2001 to 16 May 2002 the applicant was held in cell no. 44, which measured 57.76 sq. m and housed 16-19 inmates.\n15.  On 16 May 2002 the applicant was taken to Moscow and placed in remand prison no. IZ-77/3 where he was detained pending an appeal hearing until 21 December. According to the Government, the applicant was held in cell no. 212, which measured 28.5 sq. m and housed seven inmates.\n16.  On 23 January 2003 the applicant was returned to remand prison IZ-4/1, where he was placed in cell no. 48 which, according to the Government, measured 74.86 sq. m and housed 23-26 inmates. On 28 January 2003 the applicant was transferred to a penitentiary facility to serve his prison sentence.\n17.  Without disputing the information submitted by the Government concerning the size of the cells, the applicant claimed that all of them had been overcrowded. The number of bunk beds was insufficient and the inmates had to take turns to sleep. The cells did not have any ventilation and were stiflingly hot in summer. The cells were infested ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4775", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the city of Kharkiv.\n5.  On 24 December 1997 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. He was charged with extortion of money from Mr Sh. and Mrs Shi.\n6.  On an unspecified date Mr Sh. and Mrs Shi. lodged their civil claims. They claimed payment of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the applicant.\n7.  On 16 February 1998 the applicant gave a written undertaking not to abscond.\n8.  On 2 September 1998 the applicant was also charged with causing damage to official documents while studying his case file.\n9.  On 5 November 1998 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Kyivsky District Court of Kharkiv.\n10.  On 28 May 2001 the court convicted the applicant of extortion and damaging official documents and sentenced him to a suspended term of five years' imprisonment. By the same judgment the court partly allowed the civil claims.\n11.  On 21 January 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the part of the judgment concerning the applicant's conviction for damaging official documents and ruled that the proceedings in that respect should be terminated since there was insufficient evidence against the applicant.\n12.  By the same ruling the Court of Appeal quashed the remainder of the judgment and remitted it for fresh consideration to the first‑instance court on the ground that the latter had failed to examine all the circumstances of the case.\n13.  On 4 February 2003 the Kyivsky District Court of Kharkiv convicted the applicant of extortion and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment, suspended. By the same judgment the court partly allowed the civil claims lodged by Mr Sh. and Mrs Shi.\n14.  On 22 May 2003 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.\n15.  On 2 December 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in cassation by the applicant.\n16.  The hearings in the case were scheduled at intervals ranging between several days and two months. In the course of the proceedings two expert reports were obtained. This took about six months. On one occasion the applicant challenged a judge who was considering his case.\n17.  On 18 April 1997 the Krasnokutsky Court awarded the applicant 23,943 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to the applicant due to Mr Sh.'s failure to repay a debt he owed to the applicant. On an unspecified date the judgment was quashed by a higher court.\n18.  In 2008 new criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. On 1 October 2008 he was arrested. He was remanded in custody.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4777", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and died on 10 September 2008.\n5.  On 3 April 1994 the applicant had a work-related accident. Subsequently, he received the status of a partially disabled person.\n6.  The applicant's former employer, the State company “Makeyivvugillya” (“the company”) paid the applicant a lump sum accident benefit and awarded him a monthly allowance for his disability.\n7.  In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno‑gorodskoy Court of Makeyevka against the company and the State Insurance Fund for Industrial Accidents and Diseases (“the Fund”). He sought re-calculation of the above allowances and claimed compensation for losses sustained due to erroneous calculation.\n8.  On 29 October 2003 the court found for the applicant and awarded him 42,970.19[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH), to be paid by the company, and UAH 12,485.76[2] to be paid by the Fund.\n9.  On 25 February 2004 the Tsentralno-gorodskoy District Bailiffs' Service of Makeyevka instituted enforcement proceedings.\n10.  On an unspecified date the Fund paid the applicant the full amount awarded under the judgment.\n11.  In the period from 24 December 2004 to 26 July 2005 the company partly paid its debt. The judgment remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4778", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Kyiv.\n6.  In February 2005 the applicant left Belarus for Ukraine. From that time on she has been residing in Ukraine with her family.\n7.  On 10 March 2006 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Belarus issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant on suspicion of aggravated trafficking in human beings and organised crime.\n8.  On 26 July 2007 the applicant was apprehended in Kyiv under an international arrest warrant with a view to her extradition issued on 21 June 2007 and a Belarus Interpol Bureau letter of 15 July 2007 to the Ukrainian authorities informing them that the applicant was on the territory of Ukraine and requesting them to find and arrest her with a view to extradition. She was thus separated from her newly-born child, who was exactly one month old when the applicant was apprehended.\n9.  On 27 July 2007 the Golosiyivskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant's detention for forty days pending an official request for her extradition to Belarus. On 6 August 2007 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld that decision.\n10.  On 29 July 2007 the applicant applied for refugee status in Ukraine.\n11.  On 27 August 2007 the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine (“the GPO”) received an official request from the Deputy Prosecutor General of Belarus for the applicant's extradition to Belarus with the aim of prosecuting her for aggravated trafficking in human beings and organised crime. The request contained detailed information about criminal acts of which the applicant was suspected by the Belarusian authorities, as well as assurances that the applicant would be prosecuted only for these crimes, that she would be free to leave Belarus after her trial and serving a sentence, and that she would not be deported or expelled to any third country without Ukraine's consent. No decision was taken with regard to the above request.\n12.  On 3 September 2007 the District Court ordered the applicant's continued detention without a fixed time-limit and until the GPO had decided on her extradition to Belarus. The Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this decision on 13 September 2007.\n13.  On 12 September 2007 the President of the Chamber decided to apply Rule 39, indicating to the Government that the applicant should not be extradited to the Republic of Belarus.\n14.  By letter of 21 September 2007, the Belarusian General Prosecutor's Office sent to the First Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine assurances that, if extradited to Belarus, the applicant would not be subjected to any kind of treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention, that she would receive a fair trial, and that the death penalty would not be applied in her case.\n15.  On 5 March 2008 the State Migration Committee (“the Committee”) granted the applicant refugee status.\n16.  On 6 March 2008 the applicant received a refugee certificate.\n17.  On 7, 14 and 21 March 2008 the applicant's lawyer lodged applications for her release with the District Court on the ground that the applicant had refugee status and therefore could not be extradited.\n18.  By letters of 12 and 31 March 2008, the District Court refused to consider the applications for release on the ground that there was a final and binding court decision ordering the applicant's detention pending extradition and that it was the prosecution service that was competent to decide whether there were grounds or not for the applicant's detention.\n19.  On 18 Ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4779", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972.\n5.  Following a criminal conviction for murder, the applicant was sent to Lepoglava State Prison on 15 December 1997 to serve a twelve-year prison sentence. Since that date he has served his sentence in various prisons in Croatia.\n6.  On 3 December 2003, while the applicant was serving his prison term in Pula Prison, the Pula Municipal State Attorney's Office indicted him on a charge of threatening a prison employee on 21 May 2003. Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant before the Pula Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Puli). A hearing scheduled for 18 December 2003 was adjourned because the applicant had not been duly summoned. A further hearing scheduled for 2 March 2004 was also adjourned because at that time the applicant was undergoing treatment in Zagreb Prison Hospital. At a hearing held on 25 May 2004 the applicant stated that he had neither understood the content of the indictment against him nor the warning given to him by the presiding judge. The court then ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant and adjourned the hearing.\n7.  On 28 June 2004 the applicant lodged a written request for a legal aid counsel. The request was received at the Pula Municipal Court on 30 June 2004 and enclosed in the case file on 15 July 2004. No written decision was made in respect of his request at that stage of the proceedings.\n8.  The applicant was examined by a psychiatrist in Vrapče Psychiatric Hospital (Psihijatrijska bolnica Vrapče) from 23 to 29 June 2004. The report, drawn up on 6 July 2004, shows that the applicant was treated in the Psychiatric Ward of the Zagreb Prison Hospital during the following periods:\n- 12 to 17 February 1999 for depression;\n- 26 February to 15 March 1999 for a suicide attempt;\n- 1 to 6 April 1999 for allegedly falling out of bed and hurting his head;\n- 3 December 1999 to 10 January 2000 for depression and anxiety;\n- 17 February to 6 March 2000 for self-injury;\n- 21 December 2000 to 31 January 2001 for a suicide threat;\n- 12 to 24 April 2001 for personality disorder;\n- 6 to 25 November 2002 for personality and behavioural disorder;\n- 17 December until 2 January 2003 for a suicide attempt;\n- 3 to 22 April 2003;\n- 28 July to 20 August 2003 for a suicide attempt;\n- 21 to 22 August 2003 for refusal to drink water;\n- 22 August to 22 September 2003 for a suicide attempt;\n- 24 September to 27 November 2003 for a suicide attempt;\n- 20 February to 18 March 2004 for a suicide attempt;\n- 8 to 14 April 2004 for swallowing batteries;\nThe conclusions of the report read as follows:\n“1. Zlatko Prežec is a person suffering from serious and permanent personality disorder with a prevalence of paranoia [paranoid personality disorder], schizophrenic disorder and a pronounced narcissistic pathology, as well as a strong tendency towards destructive and self-destructive behaviour. 2. The patient's mental disorders do not fall into the category of a temporary or permanent mental illness, insufficient mental development or a mental illness with physical causes. 3. During psychiatric examination no elements indicating alcohol dependency or dependency on any psychoactive substance were found. 4. Bearing in mind the gravity and nature of the patient's personality disorders and their close link with the offences with which he has been charged, we consider that his ability to understand and control his own actions was diminished when the offences in question were committed. 5. Bear", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4780", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in the city of Ivano‑Frankivsk, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant, a former military serviceman brought proceedings against military unit A-3339, where he had served before retirement, claiming compensation for his uniform. On 2 October 2003 the Ivano‑Frankivsk Court found for the applicant and awarded him 2,393.62[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH).\n6.  On 13 November 2003 the Ivano-Frankivsk Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On an unspecified date the above military unit was liquidated and the judgment debt was transferred to its legal successor, military unit A-1807.\n8.  Following this event the enforcement writ was transferred to the Yaremcha Bailiffs' Service. On 11 February 2008 the latter instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment.\n9.  On 24 June 2008 the enforcement writ was returned to the applicant. The judgment has not been enforced due to the debtor's lack of funds.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4781", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the town of Armyansk, Ukraine.\n5.  On 6 November 2003 the Armyansk Court awarded the applicant 1,399.61 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) in salary arrears, to be paid by her former employer, the State company Sivashsky Anilinokrasochniy zavod (“the company”). On an unspecified date the judgment was enforced in full.\n6.  On 20 February 2004 the same court awarded the applicant UAH 2,206.56[1] in compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the delay in payment of the salary. The judgment became final. On 24 March 2004 the State Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n7.  On 10 October 2006 the company was declared insolvent. The liquidation proceedings instituted against the company are still pending.\n8.  The judgment of 20 February 2004 has not been enforced due to the company's lack of funds.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4782", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Zhytomyr, Ukraine. He has been recognised as falling within Category I disabled status (the gravest one) on account of his service during the Second World War.\n5.  The applicant was an operative who dealt with the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. From 1997 he was on a special priority list of persons to be allocated an apartment by the State.\n6.  On 31 August 2006 the Korolyovskyy District Court of Zhytomyr ordered Zhytomyr Town Council to provide the applicant with an apartment in accordance with the requirements of section 20 § 10 of the Chernobyl Victims' Status and Social Security Act (see paragraph 12 below). This decision became final. Enforcement proceedings were commenced on 28 September 2006.\n7.  According to the Government, in February 2008 the bailiff requested from the Korolyovskyy District Court of Zhytomyr replacement of the in-kind award conferred by the decision of 31 August 2006 with an equivalent amount of money. On 8 July 2008 the court dismissed that request. The court's reasoning is unknown, as neither the party furnished a copy of that decision. The State Bailiffs' Service appealed and the proceedings are apparently still pending before the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal.\n8.  Although the debtor was fined several times by the bailiffs, the decision of 31 August 2006 has not been enforced. On several occasions, in their replies to the relevant applicant's complaints, the State authorities gave explanations based on a lack of funds in the budget to purchase or construct new apartments and the lack of available apartments. The enforcement proceedings are still pending.\n9.  According to the applicant, he lives in a rented house in poor living conditions (for example, without water supply). The local press described the house as “old” and “ramshackle”.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4783", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Trabzon.\n5.  On 6 October 1995 the applicant signed a contract with POAŞ (Petrol Ofisi A.Ş.), formerly a State-owned enterprise, for the operation of a petrol station. Having obtained a construction permit and carried out certain building work at the site, the applicant applied for an operations licence but was refused on grounds of safety, due to the proximity of the petrol station to a railway.\n6.  On 20 June 1997 the applicant lodged an action with the Ankara Commercial Court for the termination of the contract, which he claimed was null and void due to the impossibility of obtaining the operations licence. The applicant also requested the reimbursement of his expenditure, together with interest (case no. 1997/305).\n7.  On 25 April 2001 the Ankara Commercial Court partially granted the applicant's request by declaring the contract null and void and by ordering the return of the guarantee previously paid by the applicant to the POAŞ, namely 6,290,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL), plus interest. The Court rejected the request for the reimbursement of the applicant's remaining expenditure.\n8.  On 26 October 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The parties requested rectification of this decision.\n9.  On 3 June 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. It indicated in particular that the first-instance court had not sufficiently examined whether the POAŞ could be ordered to reimburse the applicant for the expenses incurred in the construction work carried out on the petrol station.\n10.  On 21 August 2002 the applicant lodged a further complaint with the Ankara Commercial Court under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations alleging that he had sustained additional loss exceeding the late-payment interest payable as a result of the delay in reimbursing the guarantee (case no. 2002/567). This case was joined to the initial case (no. 1997/305).\n11.  On 30 December 2003 the Ankara Commercial Court partially granted the applicant's requests and awarded him TRL 5,138,188,500 for the expenses incurred in relation to the construction work and TRL 2,000,000,000 for his additional financial loss claimed in case no. 2002/567, plus interest.\n12.  On 8 February 2005 the Court of Cassation partially quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on account of the insufficient factual examination of the alleged additional financial loss.\n13.  On 25 April 2007 the Ankara Commercial Court awarded the applicant TRL 199,413,000,000 for his additional financial loss, plus interest.\n14.  On 22 October 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Ankara Commercial Court on procedural grounds.\n15.  The Ankara Commercial Court decided in favour of the applicant on 5 November 2008 and this decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 23 March 2009. The applicant subsequently recovered from the POAŞ the total amount of 222,910 new Turkish liras TRY; (approximately 100,000 euros; EUR), which included approximately EUR 95,000 for the late return of the guarantee paid by the applicant in 1995.\n16.  In April 2009 the applicant lodged a further complaint with the Ankara Commercial Court under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations, alleging that he had sustained additional losses exceeding the late-payment interest payable as a result of the delay in reimbursing the expenditure incurred by him. According to the information in the case f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4784", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Turany. At the relevant time he was attached, as a soldier by profession, to the Military Academy in Liptovský Mikuláš.\n6.  On 6 May 2002 the dean of the Faculty of Logistics at the above-mentioned military academy issued a disciplinary order with reference to sections 179(2) and 78(2) of the Military Service Act 1997. In it the applicant was found guilty of a disciplinary offence in that he had grossly offended another person in the context of administrative proceedings before the District Office in Martin. The decision stated that his action constituted a minor offence under section 49(1)(d) of the Minor Offences Act 1990.\n7.  The decision stated that the case related to a disagreement between the applicant and his neighbours and that similar problems had occurred previously. With reference to section 81(c) of the Military Service Act 1997, the applicant was fined 1,500 Slovakian korunas (SKK), which was then the equivalent of approximately 37 euros (EUR). That sanction was considered appropriate in view of the danger for society of the applicant's action. With reference to Regulation 393/1990, the applicant was ordered to reimburse the costs of the proceedings.\n8.  The applicant appealed, arguing that the decision in question was premature and arbitrary as it had been taken in disregard of the relevant facts.\n9.  On 24 June 2002 the rector of the military academy dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision in issue. The rector's decision stated that it was final and that it could not be challenged by means of an ordinary remedy.\n10.  On 27 August 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. He alleged that the decisions given by the military authorities were arbitrary and that his right to judicial protection had been violated as those decisions could not be reviewed by the courts. He relied, inter alia, on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.\n11.  The Constitutional Court rejected the complaint for lack of jurisdiction on 11 December 2002. It referred to Article 144 and Article 46 § 2 of the Constitution and to its decision II. ÚS 50/01 and held that administrative decisions which had a bearing on fundamental rights and freedoms could not be excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts. The decision stated that the applicant alleged a violation of his right to judicial protection without having sought protection of his specific rights before an ordinary court. Had the applicant brought an action in an ordinary court, the latter would have been obliged to comply with the Constitution when dealing with it.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4785", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 19 January 1990 the Józefów Municipality Representative approved an initial development project (plan zabudowy) and permitted the construction of a house on a plot of land adjacent to that of the applicant.\n5.  On 29 May 1992 the applicant’s neighbour was ordered by the authorities to demolish some of the appurtenances (including an outhouse) that had been built without a permit.\n6.  On 26 April 1993 a building permit for a cesspit was issued to the neighbour. The applicant appealed in writing against the construction of the cesspit, as it was to be placed close to where she lived. She also did not agree to the construction of an outhouse on the neighbouring plot.\n7.  On 31 October 1996 the Józefów Municipality Representative ordered the demolition of the outhouse, as it had been built unlawfully and had been contested by the applicant.\n8.  The applicant appealed against the decision, arguing, inter alia, that it had not indicated the time-limit for its implementation and failed to deal with all the issues she had raised, in particular the problem of the cesspit. She also complained to a higher authority about the delay in dealing with the case. On 23 April 1997 the Warsaw Governor’s Office quashed the decision and remitted the case for re-examination.\n9.  On 16 January 1998, following the applicant’s complaint about the inactivity of the authorities, the Warsaw Governor ordered the Józefów Municipal Office to examine the applicant’s case within a 14 day time‑limit.\n10.  On 6 February 1998 the Municipal Office granted the applicant’s neighbour permission to use the cesspit, an outhouse and a stone fence adjacent to the road. It found that they had been built in accordance with building principles and had posed no threat to their users or to the environment. The applicant appealed, requesting that the outhouse and internal fence be demolished and the leak‑tightness of the cesspit be checked.\n11.  On 22 October 1998 the Warsaw Governor quashed the decision of 6 February 1998. The Governor stated that the decision failed to take into account the applicant’s allegations concerning, in particular, the leaking of the cesspit and remitted the case for reconsideration.\n12.  On 1 March 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s neighbour’s complaint against the decision of 22 October 1998.\n13.  On 13 June 2000 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Józefów Municipal Office to accelerate the administrative proceedings.\n14.  On 26 June 2000 the Municipal Office granted the neighbour permission to use the cesspit and other outbuildings.\n15.  The decision was quashed on 23 February 2001 by the Mazowiecki Governor’s Office and remitted for reconsideration.\n16.  On 3 December 2002 the neighbour’s appeal against the Mazowiecki Governor’s Office’s decision was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court.\n17.  On 30 May 2003 the Józefów Municipal Office granted the neighbour permission to use the outhouse. The applicant appealed.\n18.  On 6 January 2004 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Chief Building Inspector to set a time-limit for the examination of her appeal.\n19.  On 27 February 2004 the Mazowiecki Building Inspector quashed the decision of 30 May 2003 and remitted the case for re‑examination. He observed that it had not been possible to establish whether the impugned decision concerned the same constructions which should have been demolished on the basis of the decision given on 29 May 1992. There had also been no pro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4786", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Mr Valeriu Roşca (V.R.) and Mr Nicolae Roşca (N.R.), are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1960 and 1978 respectively and live in Cotiujenii-Mari.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 1 August 2000 I.C. complained to the Ialoveni police that he had been abducted and robbed by unidentified assailants.\n8.  On 11 May 2001 both applicants were arrested by officers from the Centru District Police Station in Chişinău. According to the applicants, no reasons were given for their arrest, during which they both were beaten by the arresting officers.\n9.  The applicants claim that at the police station they again received blows and kicks over a period of several hours. They were later taken to the General Police Directorate in Chişinău, where they were pressured to confess to crimes they had not committed. Following their refusal, they were each beaten, then handcuffed on the floor, where they received truncheon blows to the soles of their feet and electric shocks.\n10.  As a result of the ill-treatment, N.R. wrote a self-incriminatory statement, but did not sign it, as a form of protest. The applicants were subsequently moved back to the Centru District Police Station, where the investigator offered them documents to sign under threat of further ill-treatment.\n11.  On 13 June 2001 the applicants were taken to Ialoveni Police Station. As was later explained by the Ialoveni police officers, this was necessary in order to verify the applicants' possible involvement in the crime against I.C. described above. On the same day the CPT delegation visited the police station. N.R. informed the CPT about ill-treatment at the Centru District Police Station and the General Police Directorate.\n12.  The applicants state that after the departure of the CPT delegation, they were taken to an office and ill-treated for hours on end, with truncheon blows to the soles of their feet and to their heads, in order to make them confess to crimes they had not committed.\n13.  On 14 June 2001 the CPT delegation returned to Ialoveni Police Station and saw N.R., who had complained of ill-treatment the day before.\n14.  On 15 June 2001 three officers from the Ministry of Internal Affairs visited N.R., who repeated his complaints of ill-treatment at the Centru District Police Station, the General Police Directorate, and Ialoveni Police Station. Both applicants were then taken to the Centru District Police Station and later to the General Police Directorate.\n15.  The applicants claim that as a result of their ill-treatment they partly lost their hearing and have frequent headaches and pain.\n16.  The applicants complained of ill-treatment in all three establishments in which they had been detained, but the prosecution refused to initiate criminal investigations in respect of all but one of the complaints, that relating to ill-treatment at Ialoveni Police Station. None of the police officers was suspended and some allegedly put pressure on the applicants and their families to withdraw their complaints.\n17.  On 15 June 2001 a police inspector, Colonel P.D., submitted a report to the Minister of Internal Affairs, describing the visit of the CPT to Ialoveni Police Station and the findings made on 14 June 2001, namely that the conditions of detention and medical care there were inadequate and that a person detained there, identified as Mr Roşca, had been found to have suffered serious bodily harm. P.D. proposed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4787", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Şanlıurfa.\n5.  In the cadastral survey carried out in 1964 some plots of land in Siverek village were registered in the names of the applicant and a number of other individuals. In 1971 an individual further donated his share of a plot in the same village to the applicant.\n6.  On 28 August 1972 two villagers (O.T., H.Y.) instituted civil proceedings against another villager (M.E.) objecting to the cadastral registrations and claiming that they were the lawful owners of the land in question on the basis of a registration dating from before 1950. It appears that on unspecified dates during the course of the proceedings numerous villagers, including the applicant, became parties to the proceedings, which continued with three complainants, seventeen defendants and two intervening third parties. Both the claimants and defendants claimed to have title to the land in question.\n7.  On 9 June 1983 the trial court requested the applicant's address to be determined so that he could be summoned before the court. On 20 March 1985 the trial court decided to publish the summons in a country-wide newspaper in an attempt to determine the applicant's whereabouts.\n8.  On 18 November 1985 H.Y. submitted a letter to the trial court informing the judge of an agreement he had reached with the applicant and stating that the applicant would appear before the court to testify accordingly.\n9.  The case file indicates that the applicant did not appear before the trial court until 22 March 2004, when he presented himself as one of the parties. On 22 November 2004 the applicant's representative submitted a power of attorney to the trial court.\n10.  During the course of the proceedings the court held an on-site inspection on 23 June 1986. A number of expert reports were requested concerning the title registrations. Numerous witnesses were heard on various occasions. Some of the defendants transferred part of their shares to others on different dates.\n11.  On 5 March 2007 the Siverek Cadastral Court delivered its judgment in favour of the applicant and the other defendants. It appears that the number of claimants and defendants had reached twenty-eight and eighty-one respectively by the time the judgment was delivered.\n12.  The case is still pending before the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4788", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1955 respectively and live in İzmir.\n5.  On 3 July 1995 the applicants' son, Ercan Dikici, who was an electrician, had an occupational accident and died from an electric shock.\n6.  The same day, the Aliağa Public Prosecutor started an investigation into the incident. Subsequently, on 17 August 1995 he initiated criminal proceedings in the Aliağa Criminal Court against three persons, including the employer of Ercan Dikici and another employee who had been working with him on the day of the accident. They were charged with involuntary manslaughter under Article 455 of the Criminal Code. On 4 July 1996 the Aliağa Criminal Court acquitted the accused persons of the charges against them. On 12 May 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Aliağa Criminal Court.\n7.  On 17 December 1998 the Aliağa Criminal Court found the employer of Ercan Dikici and the other employee who had been working with him guilty of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced them to six months' imprisonment. Their sentence was converted into a fine. On 16 February 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment.\n8.  While the criminal proceedings were pending, on 20 November 1995 the applicants initiated compensation proceedings in the İzmir Labour Court against the employer of their son. They requested 50,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRL 1,500,000,000 (approximately 28,000 US Dollars (USD)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.\n9.  On an unspecified date, the İzmir Labour Court adjourned the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.\n10.  When the criminal proceedings ended, the trial before the İzmir Labour Court resumed. The court ordered further expert reports and heard evidence from witnesses. Subsequently, on 24 May 2001 the court decided to award TRL 600,000,000 to the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage with statutory interest running from 3 July 1995. It further found that the applicants had not been in any way financially dependent on their deceased son and therefore rejected their claim for compensation for pecuniary damage.\n11.  On 5 July 2001 the Court of Cassation decided that the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage should be increased to TRL 1,000,000,000 (approximately USD 790) with statutory interest running from 3 July 1995[1]. Holding that there was no other reason to quash the judgment of the İzmir Labour Court, it rejected the remainder of the applicants' appeal requests. This decision was served on the applicants on 22 August 2001. The same day, the defendant party paid TRL 2,677,533,000 to the applicants (approximately USD 1,850).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4789", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1975 respectively and live in Diyarbakır.\n6.  On 31 May 1999 the applicants were arrested at different locations in Diyarbakır. It appears from the arrest report in respect of Mr Attı that he was arrested outside the university where he was a student. The reason for the arrest was the police officers' “suspicion of his appearance/condition” (durumundan şüphe ettiğimiz). He was taken into police custody for the “necessary investigation to be carried out”.\n7.  According to the arrest report in respect of Mr Tedik, he was arrested in a house and “in relation to an investigation”. Mr Tedik was also taken to the police station. The police officers who arrested Mr Tedik also searched the house and found a number of books and magazines in the Kurdish and Turkish languages. The books included a book of poems, a novel and a Kurdish grammar book.\n8.  The Diyarbakır Police Headquarters, where the applicants were being detained, wrote to the prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court on 2 and 4 June 1999, and asked for permission to detain the applicants for a number of additional days. On 4 June 1999 the prosecutor granted permission to the police to detain the applicants until 10 June 1999.\n9.  Also on 4 June 1999 a number of police officers took the applicants to a number of locations where, the applicants claimed in two signed statements prepared the same day, they had carried out a number of activities on behalf of the PKK[1], including preparing and throwing Molotov cocktails.\n10.  The applicants were questioned by police officers on 8 June 1999. They stated that they were PKK sympathisers and also members of the Patriotic Youth Union (Yurtsever Gençlik Birliği).\n11.  On 9 June 1999 the applicants were released from police custody and brought before the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, who took statements from them. In their statements the applicants denied any connections with the PKK, and submitted that they had been forced to sign their police custody statements without having been allowed to read them first. The same day the applicants were brought before the duty judge, who remanded them in custody pending the introduction of criminal proceedings against them.\n12.  When questioned by police officers and subsequently by the prosecutor and the judge, the applicants were not represented by a lawyer.\n13.  On 14 June 1999 the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, charging the applicants and ten other persons with the offence of membership of an illegal organisation, an offence defined in Article 168 of the Criminal Code which was in force at the time.\n14.  The first hearing in the case was held on 22 June 1999 by the First Division of the Diyarbakır State Security Court. In the course of the trial, the applicants were represented by lawyers, and they repeatedly denied the accuracy of the contents of their police custody statements.\n15.  On 13 March 2001 the applicants were found guilty as charged and sentenced to twelve and a half years' imprisonment. In convicting the applicants the Diyarbakır State Security Court relied on the statements taken from them in police custody.\n16.  The prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written observations to that court but they were not forwarded to the applicants or their lawyers. The applicants' convictions were upheld by the Court of Cassation on 11 October 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4790", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n5.  The applicant's family owned a plot of land with a surface area of 1,454 sq. m. situated in the centre of Warsaw. The applicant is a legal successor of A.M.R., her grandmother and one of the direct heirs of the former owners of that property, who had passed away. A.M.R. was a party to the proceedings referred to below from the very beginning. It transpires from the case file that on 16 September 1999 the Warsaw District Court declared the applicant an heir of the deceased.\n6.  By virtue of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw the ownership of all private land was transferred to the City of Warsaw.\n7.  On 30 September 1948 the applicant's family filed an application for the grant of the right of temporary ownership (własność czasowa) of the plot of land pursuant to section 7 of the 1945 Decree (“the 1948 application”). This application was refused in 1953 and 1954 respectively. In 1955 the State constructed the Metropol Hotel on part of the plot in question.\n8.  On an unspecified date the plot was divided into two separate parts. On 27 May 1990 the ownership of the first part of the original plot was transferred to the City of Warsaw by operation of law. It constituted a part of a larger plot (no. 39) with an overall surface area of 4,163 sq. m. The second part of the plot with a surface area of 636 sq. m. remained with the State.\n9.  On 29 June 1993 the Board of the Union of Warsaw Municipalities (Zarząd Związku Dzielnic Gmin Warszawy) issued a decision declaring that as of 5 December 1990 the “Syrena” Warsaw Tourist Company had the right of perpetual use of the plot of land no. 39. In addition, the ownership of the buildings attached to that plot, including the Metropol Hotel, was transferred to the “Syrena” company.\n10.  On 1 October 1992 S.P., one of the heirs of the applicant's family and acting on their behalf, filed with the Minister of Planning and Construction (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa) an application for annulment of the administrative decisions refusing to grant the right of temporary ownership. On 24 March 1993 the Minister quashed the 1953 and 1954 decisions. Consequently, the competent administrative authorities were required to rule on the 1948 application. The applicant (as from 16 September 1999) and other heirs of the previous owners were, as their legal successors, parties to the subsequent proceedings.\n11.  In 1995 the Minister of Planning and Construction instituted ex officio proceedings with a view to having his earlier decision of 24 March 1993 annulled. On 9 July 1996 the Minister declared the decision of 24 March 1993 null and void. Upon several appeals, on 11 December 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed this decision. As a consequence of that judgment, the 1948 application filed by the applicant's family had yet to be examined.\n12.  Initially the applicant's grandmother and later the applicant herself were a party to two sets of proceedings concerning the right of perpetual use of land, which were conducted separately before the Board of the City of Warsaw (subsequently the Mayor of Warsaw) and the Warsaw District Office. That situation stemmed from the fact that the plot of land formerly owned by the applicant's family had been divided into two separate parts which were respectively owned by the City of Warsaw and the State.\n13.  As from July 2002, follo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4791", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 4 February 2000 a car driven by the applicant and a lorry driven by Mr E.K. were involved in a road traffic accident. The applicant's passenger died on the spot and the applicant was seriously injured.\n7.  Two passengers in the lorry involved in the accident were questioned by the gendarmerie the same day. They stated that the road had been slippery and that the car driven by the applicant had skidded and hit their lorry head on.\n8.  The driver of the lorry, Mr E.K., was arrested but was released the following day.\n9.  On 11 February 2000 the prosecutor at the Gerede Criminal Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) filed an indictment charging the applicant and E.K. with the offence of causing death and injury by recklessness. It appears from the indictment that one of the passengers travelling in the lorry was also injured in the accident.\n10.  During the first hearing, which took place on 11 April 2000, the lawyer representing the applicant informed the trial court that the applicant was still ill and bedbound. He would submit his defence arguments to the trial court after his client, the applicant, had given evidence to the trial court in person.\n11.  On 7 June 2000 the applicant was questioned by a court in Istanbul which had been requested to do so by the trial court in a letter rogatory. The applicant stated that the road had been very icy and that the lorry had gone out of control and hit his car.\n12.  On 20 July 2000 the trial court judge and the prosecutor examined the stretch of road where the accident had taken place.\n13.  A report was prepared by a police officer and submitted to the trial court on 28 July 2000. According to the report, the applicant had been solely responsible for the accident.\n14.  In his petition of 25 September 2000, the lawyer for the applicant lodged an objection to the above-mentioned report and requested that an additional report be prepared by the Forensic Medical Institute. This request was accepted by the trial court.\n15.  In their report of 17 January 2001, three experts at the Forensic Medical Institute confirmed that the applicant had been solely responsible for the accident.\n16.  During the hearing held on 29 March 2001, the applicant's lawyer lodged an objection to the Forensic Medical Institute's report and asked the trial court to obtain another report, this time from a university. No decision was taken by the trial court in response to that request.\n17.  On 4 October 2001 the trial court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and to payment of a fine. The trial court decided that, regard being had to the applicant's personality and the nature of the offence, there was no reason to commute the prison sentence to a fine.\n18.  The applicant appealed on 31 October 2001.\n19.  The Chief Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written observations to that court and requested that the applicant's conviction be quashed. These observations were not communicated to the applicant.\n20.  On 23 September 2002 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The Court of Cassation did not hold a hearing before reaching its conclusion.\n21.  The decision of the Court of Cassation was received at the registry of the trial court on 25 October 2002. The applicant claimed that he had become aware of the decision on 2 December 2002.\n22.  On 16 December 2002 the applica", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4792", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Ankara.\n6.  On 6 March 2000 the applicant was arrested by the gendarmerie in the border city of Edirne on her return from Bulgaria. She was detained in a gendarmerie station. According to an arrest report prepared by the gendarmerie the same day, the applicant was informed of her right to be represented by a lawyer and to inform her family about her arrest. Nevertheless, it was also stated in the same document that, if the offence in respect of which she was arrested fell within the jurisdiction of State Security Courts, she could consult a lawyer only if her detention period was extended by a judge or if a judge ordered her detention in a prison. The applicant signed the report and wrote on it that she had “no requests”.\n7.  The applicant was interrogated during her detention at the gendarmerie station, and an eight-page statement was taken from her between 7 and 9 March 2000. In her statement the applicant admitted to having engaged in activities on behalf of the PKK[1].\n8.  On 9 March 2000 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Edirne branch of the Forensic Medicine Directorate. According to the medical report drawn up the same day, there were “no injuries or signs of ill-treatment on her body”.\n9.  The same day she was brought before the prosecutor and then before the Edirne Magistrates' Court, which ordered her pre-trial detention in prison. In two statements made during meetings with the prosecutor and the judge the applicant admitted to being a member of the PKK.\n10.  According to the three statements referred to above, the applicant did not want to be represented by a lawyer during the questioning.\n11.  On 3 April 2000 the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicant with that court for the offence of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK. The prosecutor, referring to the above-mentioned statements made by the applicant, alleged that the applicant had left Turkey in 1996 and had been taken to the PKK's training camp in Lavrion, Greece, where she had received training. Following her training she had obtained a false German passport in order to enter the Netherlands. During her time in Europe she had engaged in activities on behalf of the PKK in Germany and the Netherlands.\n12.  Criminal proceedings against the applicant commenced before the Istanbul State Security Court (hereafter “the trial court”). During the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer.\n13.  During the first hearing, which was held on 22 June 2000, the applicant rejected the allegations against her and alleged that, before she was brought before the prosecutor and the judge on 9 March 2000, she had been told by the gendarmes that if she did not accept the accusations before the judge and the prosecutor she would be taken back to the gendarmerie station and tortured again. That had been the reason she had accepted the accusations before the prosecutor and the judge. When asked by the trial court what she had to say about the medical report of 9 March 2000 in which it was stated that her body bore no signs of ill-treatment, the applicant replied that the medical report had been prepared before she was beaten up by gendarme officers and threatened with rape. She also alleged that she had been stripped naked by the gendarmes during her detention. The applicant further informed the trial court that the gendarmes had not asked her whether she ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4793", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Suwałki.\n6.  On 27 August 1992 the applicant and K. P., disguised as police officers, requested A. J. and Z. T. to present their car registration documents for inspection. Subsequently, as it transpires from the case file, the applicant, assisted by K. P., seized the car and drove away.\n7.  On 27 August 1992 a criminal investigation was opened against the applicant and K. P. by the Suwałki District Prosecutor's Office.\n8.  On an unspecified date in 1993 the applicant was committed for trial before the Suwałki District Court on a charge of car theft.\n9.  On 18 February 1995 a burglary was committed at the Suwałki District Court building and the case documents were stolen.\n10.  On 15 March 1995 proceedings to have the case documents reconstructed were initiated and the criminal proceedings against the applicant were suspended.\n11.  On 23 December 1996 the Suwałki District Court decided that the case documents had been partly reconstructed. The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 3 February 1997 the Suwałki Regional Court upheld the District Court's decision.\n13.  On 14 February 1997 the Suwałki District Court scheduled a first hearing for 6 March 1997.\n14.  On 6 March 1997 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were reopened and the first hearing took place.\n15.  Several subsequent hearings in the case, inter alia those of 24 April, 5 June and 26 September 1997 and 4 June 1998, were adjourned because witnesses or the accused failed to appear.\n16.  On 3 December 1998 the Suwałki District Court decided to have the proceedings suspended as one of the accused, K. P., had gone into hiding.\n17.  On 25 January 2007 the criminal proceedings were reopened by decision of the Suwałki District Court, as K. P. had been found. He was taken to a hearing under police escort.\n18.  On 23 May 2007 the Suwałki District Court decided to discontinue the proceedings as the charges against the applicant had become time‑barred. That decision became final on 31 May 2007.\n19.  On 23 May 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Suwałki Regional Court under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). He alleged that the length of the criminal proceedings pending against him before the Suwałki District Court had been excessive.\nOn 26 June 2007 the Suwałki Regional Court, while admitting that the proceedings in the case had been unreasonably lengthy, dismissed the applicant's complaint. The court found, following the Supreme Court's decisions in respect of the interpretation of the 2004 Act that the purpose of the remedies provided by the 2004 Act was not to have an unreasonable length declared and damages awarded but to accelerate the course of pending proceedings. The court concluded that as the proceedings had eventually been discontinued, the complaint lodged by the applicant pursuant to the 2004 Act had served its purpose. It was accordingly unfounded and had to be dismissed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4794", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Ankara.\n6.  On 19 March 1992 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of obtaining property by deception. The same day he was placed in police custody in Ankara, where a statement was taken from him, allegedly under duress. In that statement the applicant admitted having committed the offence.\n7.  The applicant was released from police custody on 21 March 1992 and was brought before a judge the same day. The judge questioned the applicant further and ordered his detention in prison pending the institution of criminal proceedings against him. When he was questioned by the judge, the applicant denied the accusations against him.\n8.  While being questioned in police custody and subsequently by the judge, the applicant was not represented by a lawyer.\n9.  On 24 March 1992 the Ankara prosecutor filed an indictment with the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance, charging the applicant and another person with the offences of forgery and perverting the course of justice.\n10.  On 25 March 1992 the applicant's legal representative submitted a petition to the Criminal Court of First Instance, arguing that there was no evidence against the applicant other than the police-custody statement taken from him “by force”.\n11.  The same day the applicant asked to be examined by the prison doctor. According to the report drawn up by the doctor, there were injuries to his mouth.\n12.  On 30 March 1992 the applicant's trial began before the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance. During the third hearing, held on 22 May 1992, the court decided that it lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae and transferred the case file to the Ankara Assize Court.\n13.  In the course of the criminal proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer. He alleged that he had been ill-treated in police custody and submitted that the only evidence against him was the statement taken from him in police custody.\n14.  On 3 December 1992, after having been detained for eight and a half months, the applicant was released from prison on bail.\n15.  The criminal proceedings before the Ankara Assize Court continued for a further period of seven and a half years because the court was waiting for two other accused persons to be arrested and brought to trial.\n16.  On 29 June 2000 the applicant was found guilty and sentenced to four years and eight months' imprisonment. In reaching its decision the Ankara Assize Court had regard to the statement taken from the applicant in police custody.\n17.  The applicant appealed and argued, in particular, that he had been forced to sign the police-custody statement. In support of his allegation the applicant referred to the above-mentioned medical report of 25 March 1992.\n18.  The prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his observations on 12 March 2002 and recommended that the applicant's appeal be dismissed. These observations were not communicated to the applicant.\n19.  On 13 June 2002 the appeal was rejected by the Court of Cassation and the applicant's conviction was upheld. The Court of Cassation did not hold a hearing before giving its decision. The decision was returned to the registry of the first-instance court on 22 July 2002.\n20.  On 7 October 2002 the applicant was arrested and imprisoned to serve his sentence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4795", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1984 and 1985 respectively and live in İzmir.\n5.  On 30 March 2004 the applicants quarrelled with S.C. As the quarrel turned into a fight, a certain M.C. intervened to stop them and he was stabbed by the second applicant. On 31 March 2004 the police took the statements of the parties, including the applicants.\n6.  On 8 April 2004 the İzmir public prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicants with the İzmir Magistrates' Court for the alleged assault with a knife, occasioning actual bodily harm. He requested that the applicants be sentenced pursuant to Article 456 § 4 of the Criminal Code. The indictment was not served on the applicants.\n7.  On 28 April 2004 the İzmir Magistrates' Court, without holding a hearing, issued a penal order and found the applicants guilty as charged. The court fined the applicants to 445,616,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (equivalent to 268 euros (EUR)) and TRL 594,154,000 (equivalent to EUR 357) respectively. In doing so, it relied on the “simplified procedure” stipulated in Article 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for relatively minor offences.\n8.  On 15 July 2004 the İzmir Criminal Court dismissed the applicants' objection, without holding a hearing.\n9.  On 6 December 2004 the first applicant paid TRL 618,000,000 (equivalent to EUR 330) including interests. The second applicant has not paid the fine.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4796", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  At the material time the applicants were the owners, executive directors, editors-in-chief, news directors and journalists of four daily newspapers published in Turkey: Ülkede Özgür Gündem, Gündem, Güncel and Gerçek Demokrasi. The publication of all four newspapers was regularly suspended, pursuant to section 6(5) of Law no. 3713 (the Prevention of Terrorism Act), by various Chambers of the Istanbul Assize Court, between 16 November 2006 and 25 October 2007, for periods ranging from 15 days to a month in respect of various news reports and articles. The impugned publications were deemed to be propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation, the PKK/KONGRA-GEL[1], as well as the approval of crimes committed by that organisation and its members.\n6.  In the first case against Ülkede Özgür Gündem on 16 November 2006, the trial judge considered that the content of certain reports and articles contained elements of propaganda, the approval of terrorist crimes and had identified officials who risked terrorist attack, contrary to section 6(5) of Law no. 3713. Their content thus exceeded the permissible limits of Article 10 of the Convention. Moreover, the offences had not been limited to a single issue of the newspaper, but had been continuous. Consequently, he was authorised by section 6(5) to suspend the publication and distribution of the periodical for a period of fifteen days to a month.\n7.  In the case against Güncel on 16 July 2007, the newspaper was suspended for 15 days, not by virtue of section 6(5) of Law no. 3713, but because its owners, journalists and content were the same as those of Gündem, whose publication and distribution had been suspended for 15 days by a court decision of 12 July 2007.\n8.  Neither the applicants nor their representative participated in these ex parte procedures, and their written objections to the suspension orders were dismissed. Consequently, the orders were executed.\n9.  The applicant Ali Gürbüz, the owner of Ülkede Özgür Gündem, was prosecuted under sections 6(1) and (2) and 7(2) of Law no. 3713, as well as Article 215 of the Criminal Code, for disseminating propaganda in favour of the aforementioned organisation, approving crimes committed by that organisation and its members, and identifying officials with anti-terrorist duties as targets, in respect of various articles published in their newspaper (case no. 2007/367). Ali Gürbüz was convicted and fined 380,000 new Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 217,000 euros (EUR)).\n10.  The applicant Özlem Aktan, the executive director of Ülkede Özgür Gündem and Gündem, was similarly prosecuted. Her first case concerning the former newspaper was disjoined from that of Ali Gürbüz. Her second case (no. 2007/197) involved another applicant, Lütfi Ürper, the owner of Gündem and Güncel. They were charged under sections 5, 6(2) and (4) and 7(2) of Law no. 3713, as well as Articles 215 and 218 of the Criminal Code.\nLütfi Ürper was prosecuted on three other occasions on similar charges (case nos. 2007/419, 2007/343 and 2007/482). Another applicant, Hüseyin Bektaş, the owner and executive director of Gerçek Demokrasi, was prosecuted for the same offences under sections 6(2) and 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and Article 215 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  According to the information in the case file, all these prosecutions are still pending at first instance, except for that against Ali Gürbüz, which is apparently still pending before the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4797", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  On 30 March 2002 the applicant, together with Mr Z.K., was arrested by police officers at the Buca District Security Directorate Security Office and taken into police custody on suspicion of committing robbery.\n6.  According to the record of the arrest, drafted by three police officers on the same day at 7.10 p.m. and signed by the applicant and Mr Z.K., the police had received information that at about 1 p.m. two persons had been seen trying to break into three different houses in Buca Egekent. A unit was dispatched and at 7 p.m. arrested the suspects, who corresponded to the description given by eyewitnesses; in the course of the arrest, the applicant had sustained various injuries to his knees, back and forehead since he had fallen on stony ground while he was running.\n7.  On the same day (30 March 2002) at 7.30 p.m. an eyewitness identified the applicant and Mr Z.K. in the course of an identification parade.\n8.  According to a verbatim report, the applicant was not questioned since he was a minor.\n9.  In the application form the applicant submitted, in great detail, that he had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment while he was held in police custody. In particular, he submitted that he had been taken to an interrogation room where one part of the wall was covered with sponge and that the officers had hit his head against this wall. He claimed that, in this room, he had been beaten and threatened, for example with electric shocks, by four plain-clothed police officers. He stated that, although he was blindfolded, he was able to see at one point and recognised them from their voices. The applicant further stated that the officers had later made him take a cold shower, stripped him naked and tied his hands. He claimed that all this had taken place at Buca central police station and not at the Ş. Çoşkun Erçin police station, where he had been taken for certain procedures before being brought before the court.\n10.  At 7.45 p.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Buca medical clinic, Mr O.T., who found that he had a 1.5 cm slight skin lesion and oedema on his head, an elliptical area of redness of around 8 cm in the middle of his back resulting from rubbing or hitting, a slight bruise on the back towards the right shoulder and a slight abrasion on the right knee due to rubbing.\n11.  On 31 March 2002, at 2.35 p.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor, Mr B.G., at the Buca medical clinic, who found that he had an old bruise of 6 cm by 7 cm in the middle of his back. The doctor considered it to be around seven to eight days old.\n12.  According to the undated rights of suspects and accused form signed by the applicant and a police officer at the Ş. Çoşkun Erçin police station, the latter was arrested at 7 p.m. However, according to the transfer/release form, dated 31 March 2002, the applicant was arrested by the İzmir Buca Juvenile Service on 30 March 2002 at 1.30 p.m. and released on 31 March 2002 at 4 p.m. According to a report (fezleke) prepared by the police, on 31 March 2002, the applicant and Mr Z.K. were arrested at 7.10 p.m. by police officers from Buca Security Office (Asayiş Bürosu). In this report it is stated that at 2.56 p.m. on 30 March 2002 Ms E.C. arrived at the police station to complain about the theft.\n13.  It appears that on 31 March 2002 the police attempted to bring the applicant before the prosecutor and a judge. However, since it was t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4798", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Trzebnica.\n6.  The applicant is a police officer. In 2002 he divorced his wife and moved out from their apartment.\n7.  On 18 June 2004 the applicant filed a claim for damages with the Wrocław Regional Court against the State Treasury – Wrocław Court of Appeal. At the same time he asked to be exempted from the court fees due in the proceedings.\n8.  On 29 June 2004 the Regional Court ordered the applicant to specify the amount of damages sought. The applicant complied with the order. He also submitted information about his personal income tax for 2002 and 2003, in which he indicated as his places of residence Wrocław, Drucki –Lubecki street and Wrocław Muzealna street respectively.\n9.  The Regional Court subsequently transferred the case to the Wrocław Krzyki District Court, which had in the meantime become competent to examine it.\n10.  On 23 November 2004 the District Court dismissed the applicant's request for an exemption from court fees. That decision was upheld by the Regional Court on 28 January 2005.\n11.  The applicant subsequently modified the claim and specified that he sought 3,000 zlotys (PLN) in damages.\n12.  On 11 April 2005 the District Court ordered the applicant to indicate his place of residence (miejsce zamieszkania).\n13.  On 27 April 2005 the applicant informed the court that following his divorce he had had to move out from the apartment he had previously occupied at Gajowa Street in Wrocław. On 25 October 2002 his name had been removed from the register of residents. Since then, he had been living with friends at different addresses. He gave a post-office box address for any correspondence and stressed that he could be reached every day at his work address, at the police station in Wrocław, Stare Miasto.\n14.  On 16 May 2005 the District Court ordered that the statement of claim be returned to the applicant. The court held that the applicant had failed to indicate his place of residence. It noted that a post-office box or a work address could not be considered as a place of residence within the meaning of Article 126 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n15.  The applicant filed an interlocutory appeal against that decision. He argued that he did not have a permanent place of residence. He lived at different addresses, his last place of residence having been the apartment at Gajowa Street in Wrocław. He submitted that the refusal to admit his claim constituted a restriction on his right of access to a court.\n16.  On 11 July 2005 the applicant was ordered to pay a court fee of PLN 240 for lodging the interlocutory appeal. On the same date the applicant made an application for an exemption from court fees in the interlocutory appeal proceedings. On 12 August 2005 the District Court dismissed his application. That decision was upheld on appeal on 9 December 2005. Consequently, the applicant paid the required court fee for lodging his interlocutory appeal.\n17.  On 14 April 2006 the Wrocław Regional Court upheld the District Court's decision of 16 May 2005. The court held that the applicant had failed to indicate his place of residence. Since he had stayed at different addresses he should have indicated a place where he spent most of his time and where his daily activities were located.\n18.  Consequently, the Regional Court ordered the return of the applicant's statement of claim and the payment of the court fee of PLN 240.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4799", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Skopje.\n5.  He worked in a company for production of chemical products (“the employer”).\n6.  On 8 February 1993 a second-instance commission of the Pension and Social Insurance Fund (“the Fund”) declared the applicant completely and permanently incapacitated due to a work-related eye-disease. On 30 April 1993 the applicant's employment terminated ipso jure. On 4 June 1993 the Fund determined the amount of his disability pension.\n7.  In other proceedings that ended with the Supreme Court's decision of 6 July 1995, it was established that the applicant had contracted a work-related eye-disease.\n8.  On 4 April 1994 the applicant brought a civil action against his employer requesting the then Skopje Municipal Court to award him compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss sustained as a result of his disease.\n9.  On four hearings listed between 22 April 1997 and 11 November 1998 the applicant specified his claim, submitted new evidence or requested additional expert examination.\n10.  On 6 April 1999 the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) dismissed the applicant's claim finding that the damage to his eye was to be regarded as a disease and that the employer could not be held responsible for the applicant's disease. It based its decision on a range of evidence: the expert report of the Forensic Institute of 6 April 1995; its supplement of 25 December 1995; the oral evidence of the Institute's experts produced on a hearing of 19 February 1998; the statements of two co-workers and a physician working with the employer. On 5 April 2000 the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed this decision instructing the lower court to obtain an alternative expert opinion from a hospital since the Institute's experts were not eye-disease specialists.\n11.  On 8 February 2002 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant's claim again. The alternative expert examination confirmed that the damage to the applicant's eye could not be regarded as work-related. On 5 June 2002 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n12.  On 28 October 2002 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court an appeal on points of law (ревизија) which was dismissed by a decision of 22 October 2003. This decision was served on the applicant on 5 December 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4800", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Vienna.\n5.  The applicant's husband was a civil engineer, and affiliated compulsorily to the Federal Chamber of Architects and Engineer Consultants (Bundeskammer der Architekten und Ingenieurkonsulenten) and its pension fund (Versorgungsfonds).\n6.  The applicant's husband, who had moved out of the marital home in 1985 and lived with another partner, died in 1992.\n7.  The applicant applied orally for payment of a survivor's pension in 1992, and was informed that she did not have a claim to a pension since her husband had been living with another woman. Only the latter was entitled to claim a survivor's pension.\n8.  At first, the applicant did not follow up on her application, but by application dated 22 March 2001 she requested pension payments.\n9.  On 25 June 2001 the Committee of the Welfare Institutions (Kuratorium der Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen) declined payment of a survivor's pension since the applicant and her husband had ceased to live in a common household. Due to changes to the Statutes of the Welfare Institutions (Statut der Wohlfahrtseinrichtungen) and the wording of the statutes at the time of the applicant's husband's death, the partner had the same right to a survivor's pension as the widow. Since the applicant's husband had lived in a common household with another partner, the latter was entitled to a survivor's pension.\n10.  The applicant appealed and the Board of Directors of the Federal Chamber of Architects and Engineer Consultants (Vorstand der Bundeskammer der Architekten und Ingenieurkonsulenten) decided on 11 October 2001 to uphold the decision of the Committee of the Welfare Institutions.\n11.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) on 22 November 2001, which decided to examine the relevant provisions of the Chamber of Engineers Act (Ingenieurkammergesetz) and the Statutes of the Welfare Institutions. On 23 June 2003, it set aside several provisions of the Chamber of Engineers Act as unconstitutional. Furthermore it set aside the Statutes of the Welfare Institutions as unlawful and on the same day decided to refuse to deal with the applicant's complaint, as the matter was not excluded from the Administrative Court's jurisdiction.\n12.  Upon the applicant's request of 18 August 2003 her case was transferred to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof). In her request the applicant had mentioned her old age and the duration of the proceedings. In the proceedings before the Administrative Court, the Board of Directors of the Federal Chamber of Architects and Engineer Consultants submitted their observations on 5 November 2003, to which the applicant replied on 24 November 2003.\n13.  The applicant applied again for a survivor's pension on 29 July 2004. The request was dismissed on 6 December 2004 by the Committee of the Welfare Institutions as the case was still pending before the Administrative Court. An appeal was rejected by the Board of Directors on 7 February 2005. The applicant complained to the Administrative Court on 21 March 2005. On an unknown date the Administrative Court decided to join both complaints.\n14.  On 27 November 2007 the Administrative Court set aside the contested decision, since it was based on a statute the Constitutional Court had set aside as being unconstitutional.\n15.  By a decision of 15 April 2008, which was served on the applicant's counsel on 18 April 2008, the Board of Directors of th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4801", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Štip.\n7. On 10 July 1998 the Štip Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) ordered an indefinite security measure against the applicant, who was a deaf mute, of “compulsory psychiatric treatment and confinement in a medical institution of a closed type” (задолжително психијатриско лекување и чување во здравствена установа од затворен тип) (“the confinement order”) for causing “serious bodily injury” and “endangering another with a dangerous implement in a fight or quarrel”. The court established that on 23 October 1995 an incident had taken place in the court building between Mr I., the applicant's father, and Mr D., as parties summoned to attend a hearing scheduled for that day. The applicant intervened in the quarrel and knocked Mr D. down. Mr D. sustained severe head injuries and a brain haemorrhage as a result of the fall and died seven days later. The applicant also hit a judge several times. He was subsequently prevented from assaulting a third person. The court found that the applicant was “slightly mentally retarded” and considered aggressive and a danger to the public, in particular villagers whom he had allegedly often assaulted. Two medical reports drawn up by three psychiatric experts confirmed that the applicant was mentally ill, and needed medical treatment in a specialised psychiatric hospital.\n8. The confinement order was enforced immediately. The applicant was placed in the Negorci Hospital for Mental Diseases (hereafter “the hospital”).\nb)  Previous review of the applicant's detention in the hospital\n9. On 28 October 1999 the hospital requested the trial court to amend the confinement order and release the applicant on condition that he undergoes compulsory psychiatric treatment. It based its proposal on the applicant's good behaviour in the past, the good relations he had established with the staff and other patients and the absence of any neurotic or psychiatric disorder since his confinement. The hospital noted that the applicant was mentally ill, which was a permanent state that could not be regarded as a disease. The public prosecutor supported the hospital's proposal.\n10. In submissions of 16 June 2000, the applicant's sister requested that the trial court decide on the hospital's proposal. A petition signed by over seventy villagers, indicating that the applicant had been never dangerous and had been accepted in the village, was also attached to the request.\n11. The trial court, in a decision confirmed on appeal, dismissed the hospital's proposal relying on a notification by police, according to which the applicant had left the hospital several times and his visits to the village had been perceived as a threat and a danger by the local inhabitants. The police also referred to an incident of 1 January 2001 involving the applicant and Mr D.'s son. In a court decision of 11 February 2002, confirmed on appeal, Mr D.'s son was acquitted, as having acted in self-defence, of causing grievous bodily injury to the applicant. The court also referred to another petition signed by many villagers, which allegedly had been attached to the notification.\n12. On 3 April 2003 the hospital lodged with the trial court a fresh proposal for the applicant's conditional release, which was based on similar grounds to those of the previous review: good relations with the staff and other patients; no disturbance of order; mild drug therapy. The proposal was made with the stated aim of a f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4802", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Gostivar.\n5.  In 1968 the then Assembly of the Municipality of Gostivar expropriated, inter alia, a plot of a construction land (“the property”) from the applicant's late father with the stated aim of building a nursery school. Compensation was to be determined by a separate decision.\n6.  On 7 January 1996 the applicant requested the then Gostivar Municipal Court, in non-contentious proceedings, to award him compensation according to the market value of the property. Three other persons joined these proceedings.\n7.  On 22 September 1999 the Gostivar Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) upheld the applicant's request and ordered the Municipality of Gostivar to compensate him for the expropriated property. It further dismissed his request against the State for lack of standing. On 24 February 2000 the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed that decision arguing, inter alia, that the lower court had incorrectly specified the award.\n8.  Between 25 January 2001 and 19 November 2003 the Skopje Court of Appeal ordered retrial on three occasions.\n9.  On 20 June 2005 the first-instance court awarded the applicant compensation in the amount specified by an expert and ordered its joint payment by the State and the nursery school. It also ordered that the latter reimburse the applicant for his legal costs.\n10.  On 30 November 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision in respect of the awarded compensation and remitted the remainder for a fresh consideration.\n11.  On 26 January 2006 the Solicitor General submitted an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court. On 14 February 2006 the applicant submitted his observations in reply.\n12.  On 10 February 2006 the applicant sought enforcement of the Appeal Court's decision of 30 November 2005. He proposed that the award be transferred to his bank account. On 24 February 2006 the first-instance court requested the applicant to pay the court fees.\n13.  On 21 March 2006 the public prosecutor lodged a request for protection of legality with the Supreme Court.\n14.  On 14 April 2006 the applicant again requested enforcement of his claim established by the court decision of 30 November 2005. His request was granted on 19 April 2006.\n15.  On 22 June 2006 the applicant and the State concluded an out-of-court settlement (вонсудска спогодба) (“the settlement”) under which the State undertook to recognise the applicant's title to the property (право на сопственост); to register him as a co-owner in the land registry; and to withdraw extraordinary remedies submitted on its part. The applicant agreed to withdraw his request for enforcement and to refrain from claiming any payment in respect of the above decisions.\n16.  The enforcement proceedings were terminated by a decision of the Skopje Court of First Instance of 13 September 2006.\n17.  Notwithstanding the settlement, the request for the protection of legality was not withdrawn. On 18 April 2007 the Supreme Court granted this request and quashed the lower courts' judgments in respect of the awarded compensation. The court dismissed the applicant's objection that the above request should be rejected as the parties have concluded the settlement. It held that the lower courts did not give sufficient reasons in their judgments and that it was not clear who was required to pay the compensation. The court, however, rejected the appeal on points of law lodged by the Deputy Solicitor General as i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4803", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1971 and 1960 respectively and live in village of Stryama, the Plovdiv region.\n5.  On 21 January 1995 criminal proceedings were opened against an unknown perpetrator in respect of the theft of two sheep and a lamb. On 27 January 1995 the police took a statement from Mr Yankov in which he confessed to taking part in the commission of the offence.\n6.  On 24 February 1995 the investigation against an unknown perpetrator was transformed into an investigation against Mr Yankov and two other individuals.\n7.  From April 1995 until October 2001 the case remained dormant. In October 2001 the authorities started working on it. On 7 November 2001 Mr Yankov was charged. The investigation was completed in February 2002, and Mr Yankov was indicted on 15 July 2002.\n8.  The first hearing, listed for 2 July 2003, was adjourned because certain witnesses and an expert were absent. It took place on 29 January 2004. The Plovdiv District Court approved a plea agreement between Mr Yankov and the prosecution and terminated the proceedings. The applicant was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, suspended.\n9.  On 4 September 1993 the police received a complaint that six sheep had been stolen. The following day, 5 September 1993, they took statements from Mr Manchev and Mr Yankov in which the applicants confessed to taking part in the commission of the offence.\n10.  On 19 October 1993 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicants and two other individuals on charges of theft.\n11.  Between November 1993 and November 2001 the case remained dormant. In November 2001 the authorities started working on it. Mr Yankov and Mr Manchev were charged on 16 and 19 November 2001 respectively. In December 2003 the investigation was completed, and the applicants were indicted in January 2004.\n12.  At the first hearing, held on 27 October 2004, the Plovdiv District Court approved a plea agreement between the applicants and the prosecution and terminated the proceedings. Each of the applicants was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, suspended.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4804", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lived until his arrest in the town of Astrakhan.\n7.  On 2 March 2003 the office of the Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor of Astrakhan opened a criminal investigation into the murder of Ms P.\n8.  On 6 March 2003 the applicant was arrested and taken to the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department. According to the applicant, police officers severely beat him up to ferret out information and elicit a confession to the murder. Being unable to bear the beatings, on 8 March 2003 he wrote a statement confessing to having fired his rifle at a window of Ms P's house. He claimed that he had not intended to kill anyone.\n9.  On 8 March 2003 an investigator drew up a report restating the applicant's confession. The applicant signed the report and filed a written request for provision of assistance by a lawyer, Mr C. He noted that he had confessed under duress and that the investigator had not informed him of his rights as an accused, in violation of Article 51 of the Russian Constitution.\n10.  On the same day a deputy Chernoyarskiy District Prosecutor filed an application with the Chernoyarskiy District Court, seeking authorisation of the applicant's detention for an additional forty-eight hours. The applicant's lawyer, Mr C., disputed the necessity to detain the applicant. In addition, he drew the District Court's attention to the applicant's appearance, arguing that the police officers had maltreated the applicant to force him to confess to the murder. While accepting the deputy prosecutor's request, the District Court held, inter alia, that the applicant had left the crime scene and had hidden the crime weapon and that therefore he was liable to abscond and pervert the course of justice.\n11.  On 11 March 2003 the Chernoyarskiy District Court authorised the applicant's further detention on remand, holding as follows:\n“At the same time the court considers that the materials presented by the investigating authorities - records of investigative actions and operative measures - make it sufficiently clear that the arrest of [the applicant], that is the person who may have taken part in the above-mentioned criminal offence, was well-founded and taking into account the particular dangerousness of that criminal offence committed in grave circumstances, belonging to the category of particularly serious criminal offences, the court concludes that it is impossible to apply another, more lenient, preventive measure to [the applicant].”\nThe applicant and his lawyer, Mr C., attended the hearing. The decision was upheld on appeal on 20 March 2003.\n12.  As shown by an extract from the registration log drawn up in the detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District Police Department and presented by the Government, on 9 March 2003, at approximately 7.25 p.m., an ambulance was called to the applicant, who was complaining about a headache. The ambulance was called again at 11.55 a.m. and 9.30 p.m. on 12 March 2003. In response to the morning call an emergency doctor noted in the registration log that the applicant was suffering from neurasthenia syndrome and high blood pressure. On the latter occasion, a doctor made an entry in the registration log, noting that the applicant had refused a medical examination and assistance. According to the applicant, an emergency doctor did not want to record his head injury out of fear of reprisal.\n13.  On 13 March 2003 a police officer working in the detention unit of the Chernoyarskiy District", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4805", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Orchowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Wrocław Remand Centre in Poland.\n6.  By the time the instant case was communicated to the Polish Government, the applicant had been detained subsequently in four detention facilities (see paragraphs 8 – 45 below). On 26 April 2007, however, he was transferred to Kamińsk Prison and from there, on 3 July 2007, to Gdańsk Remand Centre. Subsequently, on 13 February 2008 the applicant was taken to Goleniów Prison. On an unspecified date, as it appears, in late-2008 he was transferred to Warszawa Mokotów Remand Centre. Finally, as it appears, on 13 February 2009 the applicant was committed to Wrocław Prison, where he remained.\n7.  The parties’ statements relating to the conditions of the applicant’s detention prior to April 2007 are, to a large extent, contradictory. The Government did not make any comments with regard to the applicant’s detention after that date, except for the period when the applicant was detained in Goleniów Prison.\n8.  From 5 September until 11 December 2003, from 30 December 2004 until 11 February 2005, from 19 July until 2 December 2005 and from 20 December 2005 until 6 March 2006 the applicant was detained in Słupsk Remand Centre.\n9.  Detainees in Słupsk Remand Centre had a right to a one-hour long outdoor exercise in one of the two yards, measuring 276 and 141 square metres (“m²”) respectively. Groups of thirty and fifteen inmates respectively shared the yards at a time. The applicant had access to the TV and entertainment room in the remand centre twice a week for two hours at a time. He could watch television or play table tennis.\n(b)  Facts in dispute\n(i)  The Government\n10.  The Government submitted that during the first term of his detention in Słupsk Remand Centre (from 5 September until 11 December 2003) the applicant was held in six different cells. The size of those cells varied between 8 and 27 m² and the occupancy rate fluctuated between one and six persons. In either case, the space per person ranged between 3 and 13 m².\n11.  As regards the other periods of the applicant’s detention, the Government submitted that Słupsk Remand Centre had not kept any records of the applicant’s accommodation or of the number of prisoners assigned to each cell. They noted that it had not been possible to keep records because the number of detainees assigned to a particular cell changed very often, even several times per day.\n12.  The Government acknowledged the existence of overcrowding in Słupsk Remand Centre at the time when the applicant was detained there. They submitted that the remand centre’s governor had been obliged to regularly inform the competent penitentiary judges about the fact that the detainees had less than the statutory 3 m² of space per person.\n13.  The Government also submitted that the prisoners were entitled to one hot shower at least once per week. The shower-room in Słupsk Remand Centre was, at the relevant time, equipped with twelve shower-heads. Prisoners showered in groups of twelve.\n14.  Between July 2003 and February 2006 the Słupsk State Sanitary Inspectorate (Państwowy Inspektorat Sanitarny) carried out five inspections at Słupsk Remand Centre. The Government did not provide any information as to the results of those inspections. They noted that cells in Słupsk Remand Centre were disinfected once a week. In addition, a sufficient amount of hygiene and sanitary pro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4807", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Volgograd.\n5.  In 1986 the applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. In 1997 he underwent medical examinations which established a link between his poor health and his involvement in the Chernobyl events. The applicant was awarded compensation, to be paid monthly.\n6.  In 2000 the applicant brought proceedings against the Welfare Office of the Krasnooktyabrskiy District of the Volgograd Region (Управление социальной защиты населения Краснооктябрьского района Волгоградской области - “the defendant”) for an increase in the compensation, for the increase to be backdated and for recovery of the unpaid amount. The applicant considered that the amount of compensation had been determined incorrectly.\n7.  On 5 October 2000 the Krasnooktyabrskiy District Court of Volgograd upheld the applicant's action and awarded him a lump sum of 113,707.59 Russian roubles (RUB) and monthly payments of RUB 4,051.88, to be paid before the date of the subsequent medical examination, which was made in June 2002.\n8.  On 24 April 2002 the lump sum, and on 29 April 2003 and on 30 May 2003 the arrears of the monthly payments, were credited to the applicant's account, so that the judgment was enforced in full.\n9.  On 13 February 2004, at the defendant's request, the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court quashed the judgment of 5 October 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The basis for this decision was that the District Court had applied the substantive law incorrectly.\n10.  On 4 June 2004 the Krasnooktyabrskiy District Court of Volgograd terminated the proceedings due to the applicant's failure to appear. The applicant did not appeal. Instead, he brought another set of proceedings with the same court, claiming adjustment of monthly payments and seeking damages for 1997-2007.\n11.  After several sets of proceedings, by a final judgment of 16 August 2007 the Krasnooktyabrskiy District Court of Volgograd granted the applicant's claims in part, i.e. lowering the amounts previously awarded by the judgment of 5 October 2000. It took into account that the latter judgment had been quashed on 13 February 2004, recalculated the sums paid under it and deducted the difference from the sums awarded. The judgment entered into force on 3 September 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4808", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk.\n6.  On 5 February 1997 the Uglegorsk Town Prosecutor's Office opened criminal proceedings against the applicant on charge of manslaughter. On the same day the applicant was detained and placed in custody. His detention pending investigation and trial was authorised on 8 February 1997.\n7.  On 6 July 1997 the investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Uglegorsk Town Court. The applicant was charged with manslaughter, infliction of bodily harm and dangerous and disorderly conduct. The judges' dockets were full and the trial was scheduled for 9 February 1998. The hearing was subsequently adjourned until 16 April 1998 due to the judge's conflict of schedule.\n8.  On 20 April 1998 the Town Court found that the investigation conducted by the prosecutor's office was incomplete and sent the file back. On 10 June 1998 the Sakhalin Regional Court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal against the Town Court's decision. The applicant was to remain in custody pending investigation.\n9.  On 8 July 1998 the case file was forwarded to the Uglegorsk Town Prosecutor's office for additional investigation.\n10.  On 10 August 1998 the prosecutor's office closed the investigation and forwarded the case file to the court. Upon receipt and review of the file, the Town Court found that the investigation had not been duly completed and transferred the file back to the prosecutor's office. The prosecutor unsuccessfully appealed. The final decision on the matter was taken by the Regional Court on 18 November 1998.\n11.  The Town Court resumed the trial on 1 February 1999. On 13 April 1999 the Uglegorsk Town Court of the Sakhalin Region found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and infliction of bodily harm and acquitted him of the charge of dangerous and disorderly conduct. He was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.\n12.  On 28 July 1999 the Sakhalin Regional Court affirmed the applicant's acquittal of dangerous and disorderly conduct, quashed the remainder of the judgment of 13 April 1999 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The applicant remained in custody.\n13.  On 17 August 1999 the applicant was taken to hospital where he underwent treatment for tuberculosis. The trial was suspended until the applicant's release from hospital in December 1999.\n14.  On 28 December 1999 the applicant was released on bail.\n15.  The applicant's case was assigned to judge Sh. On 5 December 2001 she was transferred to another court and the case was allocated to judge Ya. who could not proceed with the trial since his judge status was terminated. On 31 March 2003 the applicant's case was taken over by judge R.\n16.  The new trial began on 14 April 2004. According to the Government, the applicant refused to have the proceedings discontinued due to the expiration of the prescribed period for prosecuting him. By a judgment of 7 May 2004, the Town Court reclassified the charges brought against the applicant and found him guilty of two counts of infliction of bodily harm and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment. The court found however that the applicant was no longer liable to serve the sentence and exempted him from doing so.\n17.  On 21 July 2004 the Sakhalin Regional Court quashed the conviction, acquitted the applicant of one charge of infliction of bodily harm and discontinued the criminal proceedings against him in respect of the second charge because the prescribed period for prosec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4809", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Požega.\n5.  The applicant was employed as a civilian by the Yugoslav People's Army (YPA). On 18 June 1991 the Požega Garrison Command issued a conclusion noting the applicant's application to be granted a flat and classifying it in “group one” on the basis of his employment with the YPA from 19 October 1988. On 17 July 1991 the Government adopted the Decree on the Prohibition of All Real Estate Transactions in Croatia (Uredba o zabrani raspolaganja nekretninama na teritoriju Republike Hrvatske – published in Official Gazette no. 36/1991 of 24 July 1991) which banned all transactions in respect of immovable property situated in Croatia and belonging to the former Yugoslavia's federal institutions or legal entities having their seat in one of its former federal units. This decree entered into force on 24 July 1991.\n6.  On 20 August 1991 the above-mentioned Garrison Command adopted a decision to grant the applicant, as their civilian employee, together with his wife and son, the right to occupy and purchase a flat in Požega owned by the YPA. The applicant and his family moved into the flat in September 1991. Pursuant to the Government's decree of 2 October 1991, all possessions of the former YPA came into the ownership of the Republic of Croatia. The applicant left the YPA and made himself available for the Croatian Army.\n7.  On 3 June 1991 Parliament enacted the Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act (Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo), which regulated the sale of publicly-owned flats previously let under protected tenancies, giving the right to holders of such tenancies of publicly-owned flats to purchase them from the provider of the flat under favourable conditions. On the basis of that Act, in 1997 the applicant requested the Ministry of Defence as the owner of the flat to enter into a contract for the sale of the flat with him as the buyer. Since the owner declined his request, the applicant brought a civil action in the Požega Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Požegi) seeking a judgment in lieu of the contract of sale.\n8.  On 17 October 1997 the State brought a civil action against the applicant in the same Municipal Court, seeking his eviction. The State submitted that it was the owner of the flat and that the applicant, as a result of the decree of July 1991, had never obtained a specially protected tenancy in respect of the flat, so the State had the right to repossess it. The two proceedings were joined.\n9.  In a judgment of 25 October 2000 the Municipal Court accepted the State's action and dismissed the applicant's counterclaim. It also ordered that the applicant be evicted. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:\n“... the decision relied on by the defendant [the applicant] is null and void pursuant to the Decree on the Prohibition of All Real Estate Transactions. No other decision has been adopted concerning the defendant's [rights] in respect of the flat in question. Under the Housing Act a specially protected tenancy could have been acquired on the basis of a final decision on allocation of a flat for occupation or any other valid legal entitlement (section 3 of the Housing Act, Official Gazette no. 51/85). Save for his occupation of the flat in question, the defendant does not possess a final decision that he had acquired a specially protected tenancy or any other valid legal entitlement to that effect ...”\n10.  On appeal, on 19 September", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4811", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Osmaniye.\n4.  While performing his compulsory military service, the applicant sustained a serious knee injury, which led to his eventual discharge.\n5.  The applicant subsequently lodged a request with the Retired Civil Servants' Fund (Emekli Sandığı) to receive disability benefits in connection with his knee injury.\n6. On 15 September 2003 the Retired Civil Servants' Fund rejected the applicant's request. On 21 November 2003 the applicant applied to the Supreme Military Administrative Court for the annulment of this decision.\n7.  On 23 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court held a hearing where it heard the principal public prosecutor, who presented his written opinion on the merits of the case which had been previously submitted to the court on 7 July 2004, and the parties. The written opinion of the principal public prosecutor had not been communicated to the applicant prior to the hearing.\n8.  On 10 February 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant's request. The applicant sought the rectification of this judgment.\n9.  On 26 May 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's rectification request, which decision was served on the applicant on 8 June 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4812", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Artashat, Armenia. He is a member of the National Democratic Union (NDU) political party. He is also the party's representative in the Ararat Region of Armenia.\n5.  In 2003 a presidential election was held in Armenia with its first and second rounds taking place on 19 February and 5 March respectively. The applicant was involved with the work of the main opposition candidate and his responsibilities included monitoring the voting process. He alleges that, following the election, he prepared a report on various irregularities which had allegedly taken place during the election, but high officials from the Government and the Ararat Region tried to prevent him from making his report public, which he refused.\n6.  The applicant further alleges that from February 2003 until his arrest on 20 May 2004 he was repeatedly harassed because of his political activity. In particular, the police frequently called him to the local police station without any reasons and demanded that he stop his political activities. Furthermore, on 9 April 2004 his son was arrested and subjected to an administrative fine for disobeying the lawful orders of police officers and using foul language. Finally, from the date of his participation in a major demonstration held on 10 April 2004 until 19 May 2004, the police officers of the Ararat Police Department visited his home on a daily basis between 5 a.m. and 9 a.m., demanding that his whereabouts be disclosed. As a result of these actions, he was forced to stay away from his home and returned there only on 20 May 2004 after, in reply to his complaint, he had allegedly been assured by the Ombudsman that these visits would stop.\n7.  On 20 May 2004 the applicant was taken to Ararat Police Department. According to the record on bringing the applicant into custody (արձանագրություն անձին բերման ենթարկելու մասին), he was brought to the police station by two police officers at 1.15 p.m. for disobeying the lawful orders of a police officer and for using foul language.\n8.  At the Police Department an administrative case was prepared against the applicant. One of the arresting police officers reported to the Chief of Police:\n“On 20 May at 1 p.m. [we] were in the yard of building no. 26 on Kharazyan Street in Artashat where the resident of flat no. 55 of the same building, [the applicant], was speaking loudly with an unknown man. We approached and demanded [the applicant] to lower his voice and not to violate public order. Having heard this, [the applicant] turned from the unknown man towards us and spoke to us in the same manner, saying that it was not our business to judge how he was speaking and then he said that we should stop poking our noses into everything and pestering. We tried to calm him down but he continued insulting us and using insulting language. This lasted about five minutes, after which he was brought to the police station.”\n9.  A record of an administrative arrest was drawn up in which it was stated that the applicant had “disobeyed lawful orders and used foul language” which constituted an offence under Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO). It was also stated that the applicant had refused to make any statements. This record was signed by the applicant.\n10.  On the same date the applicant was taken to the Ararat Regional Court (Արարատի մարզի առաջին ատյանի դատարան) where Judge S. examined his case and found him guilty under Article 182 of the CAO", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4813", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1947 and 1950 respectively and live in Nicosia. They are a married couple.\n7.  The parties disagree as to the facts of the case.\n8.  On 3 June 1996 Stelios Kalli Panayi, the applicants' son, who at that time was nineteen years old, was serving in the Cyprus National Guard as a private soldier. Early that morning he entered the United Nations (UN) buffer zone in Nicosia. He wanted to exchange his hat with one belonging to a soldier of the Turkish-Cypriot armed forces. He was off duty and unarmed. The Turkish armed forces shot him.\n9.  When members of the UN force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) attempted to reach Stelios Kalli Panayi in order to provide medical treatment and try to save his life, the Turkish armed forces opened fire, thus preventing medical aid from being administered.\n10.  According to the applicants, who cited articles published in the Cyprus Mail newspaper of 5, 6 and 7 June 1996 in this connection, had access not been denied to the persons seeking to provide medical assistance there would have been a good chance of saving Stelios Kalli Panayi's life.\n11.  The applicants produced a report from the UN Secretary-General dated 7 June 1996. In so far as relevant, this document reads as follows:\n“The third incident took place on 3 June 1996. An unarmed National Guard soldier was shot and killed inside the UN buffer zone in central Nicosia. The investigation has revealed that the lethal round was fired by a Turkish-Cypriot soldier whom UNFICYP had observed entering the buffer zone with his rifle strung across his back. Shortly thereafter a single shot was heard and the Turkish-Cypriot soldier was seen running back in a crouched position to the Turkish ceasefire line holding his rifle in his right hand. UNFICYP soldiers were prevented from reaching the National Guard soldier by Turkish-Cypriot soldiers who fired shots in the direction of the UNFICYP soldiers each time the latter tried to move forward. UNFICYP strongly protested to the Commander of the Turkish forces in Cyprus the unauthorised entry of an armed Turkish Cypriot soldier into the buffer zone, the shooting incident and the hostile action, including live fire against UNFICYP. UNFICYP is pursuing with the Turkish forces in Cyprus and with the Turkish-Cypriot authorities the question of appropriate action and has requested that UNFICYP police investigating the killing be able to interview the Turkish-Cypriot soldier involved in the incident. The military authorities on both sides have been urged once again to respect the UN buffer zone and ensure its integrity.”\n12.  The applicants' lawyer requested a copy of the relevant reports from UNFICYP. However, his request was refused as the documents in question were considered to be internal UN documents.\n13.  According to the Government, the chain of events which led to the death of Stelios Kalli Panayi could be summarised as follows.\n14.  The incident took place in a part of Nicosia where the Pedios River marked the boundary of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the “TRNC”). In the Turkish part of the buffer zone were the Yıldırım sentry post and the positions of the Turkish-Cypriot security forces. The positions of the Greek-Cypriot army (the National Guard) were on the Greek-Cypriot administration's defence line, 2-3 metres west of the UNFICYP patrol road. The UN-60 observation post was about 250 metres south of the sentry positions of each of the two sides. The Yıldırım sentry post was loca", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4814", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and had been living in Erzurum. On 11 June 2009 he died.\n6.  On 6 April 1989 the applicant bought a plot of land (no. 5784) in Istanbul. The land was later divided in five parts (plot nos. 13320, 13321, 13322, 13323 and 13324).\n7.  Upon the Ümraniye Municipality's decision to put a notice in the Land Registry in 1993, the applicant learned that there was a water pipeline passing underneath plot no. 13324.\n8.  On 12 April 2000 the Istanbul General Directorate for Water and Infrastructure (the “ISKI”) filed an action with the Üsküdar Civil Court of First Instance and requested the annulment of the title deed of the applicant to the land in question and its registration in their name. In this respect, they submitted that they had occupied the disputed plot of land since 1970 by way of laying down a water pipeline underneath it and that, therefore, it should be registered under its name pursuant to Article 38 of Law no. 2942.\n9.  In the course of the proceedings a commission of experts examined the documentary evidence and conducted an onsite inspection together with the court. On 17 July 2001 the experts submitted their report where they considered, inter alia, that the land in question would be worth around 305,972,500,000 Turkish liras[1]. In the annexed document it was noted that plot no. 13324 was de facto a road.\n10.  On 28 December 2001 the Üsküdar Civil Court of First Instance, noting that as of 15 November 2001 the Ümraniye Civil Court of First Instance had become operational, transferred the case to it.\n11.  On 18 June 2002 the Ümraniye Civil Court of First Instance, on the basis of the evidence, particularly official documents concerning the construction of the water pipeline, accepted the request of the ISKI and ordered that the land be registered in their name. It considered, in particular, that the applicant's property rights over the land in question had ceased, following the expiry of the statutory time‑limit provided under Article 38 of the Law no. 2942.\n12.  The applicant appealed. Referring to a court case concerning the previous owner of the plot of land, the applicant submitted, inter alia, that the water pipeline in question passed through another plot and not plot no. 13324, and that the statutory time-limit provided under Article 38 of the Law no. 2942 had not expired since a notice was put in the Land Registry only in 1993.\n13.  On 10 December 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the first‑instance court's judgment. The applicant's request for rectification was rejected on 17 March 2003. This decision was served on him on 8 April 2003.\n14.  On 10 April 2003 the Constitutional Court annulled Article 38 of Law no. 2942.\n15.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked the Ümraniye Civil Court of First Instance to reopen the proceedings on the ground, inter alia, that, according to their own investigation there were no water pipelines passing underneath plot no. 13324 and, consequently, the court's earlier decision had been based on erroneous official documents and the false testimony of State officials.\n16.  On 11 December 2003 the Ümraniye Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant's request on the ground that the applicant had already made similar claims in the earlier proceedings, that in the presence of official documents there was no need, in such cases, to investigate by digging up the disputed land, and that, although Article 38 of Law no. 2942 had been subsequently an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4815", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Nicosia.\n8.  The applicant claimed that she had had her home as well as other immovable property in the occupied part of Nicosia (northern Cyprus). In order to substantiate her claim to ownership, she produced certificates of affirmation of ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable properties issued by the Republic of Cyprus. According to these certificates, the properties of Mrs “Androulla Savva Olymbiou, née Kyriakos Anatolitis” could be described as follows:\n(a) Nicosia, Ibrahim Pasha, plot no. 497, sheet/plan XXI/38.2.IV, registration no. A533; building site with single storey house (area: 100 m²) and a small house (area: 50 m²) on the east half plot and trees; use: residence; share: ½ (east plot);\n(b) Nicosia, Ibrahim Pasha, plot no. 373, sheet/plan XXI/38.3.III, registration no. B433; building site; share: ½.\n9.  The applicant stated that her name was shown as “Andri” in her passport; however, her identity card was in the name of “Androulla”, the name she was given when she was baptised. “Savvas” was her husband's name.\n10.  The applicant specified that the property described in paragraph 8 (a) above had originally belonged to her father, Mr Kyriakos Yianni Anatolitis. On 7 August 1980 he had transferred ownership to the applicant by way of gift (Declaration of transfer no. D 5316/80). The half share of the building site described in paragraph 8 (b) above had been purchased by the applicant on 10 October 1973.\n11.  The applicant submitted that since the 1974 Turkish intervention she had been deprived of her property rights, as her property was located in the area that was under the occupation and control of the Turkish military authorities. She had made an attempt to return to her home and property on 19 July 1989, but had not been allowed to do so by the Turkish military authorities. They had prevented her from having access to and from using her home and properties.\nII.  DEMONSTRATION OF 19 JULY 1989\n12.  On 19 July 1989, the applicant joined an anti-Turkish demonstration in the Ayios Kassianos area in Nicosia in which the applicants in the Chrysostomos and Papachrysostomou v. Turkey and Loizidou v. Turkey cases (see below) also took part.\n13.  According to an affidavit sworn by the applicant before the Nicosia District Court on 3 August 2000, the demonstration of 19 July 1989 was peaceful and was held on the fifteenth anniversary of the Turkish intervention in Cyprus, in support of the missing persons and to protest against human rights violations.\n14.  The applicant and other women gathered at the Ayios Kassianos school in Nicosia, which was in the UN buffer zone. She sat on the stairs in front of the entrance to the school and was listening to other women singing when she noticed that there were Turkish soldiers standing in front of the windows inside the school. The UN forces had taken up position in front of the school and formed a ring around the demonstrators. All of a sudden, some Turkish policemen had started running toward the demonstrators. They hit the women they found in front of them with batons, pushed them and dragged them by their hands, hair and clothes. The UN forces left the premises and invited the demonstrators to do likewise.\n15.  The Turkish policemen pushed the applicant with their batons. She felt electricity passing through her body and realised that the batons were electric. She was seized by the armpits, pulled by the hair, dragged along the ground and ta", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4816", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were both born in 1951 and live in Ialoveni and Vorniceni respectively.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In July 1987 the applicants and several other persons founded a business association ('the Association'). After other members of the Association left, the two applicants remained its only members. According to the applicants, in 1989 the Association hired three other persons (“the employees”) who were subsequently dismissed in 1992. According to the Government, they had become members of the Association in 1989.\n8.  In December 1992 the applicants transformed the Association into a limited liability company. The newly registered company retained its old name – Victoria.\n9.  On 1 June 1993 one of the employees initiated court proceedings against the applicants claiming that he had been a member of the Association and requesting the annulment of the transformation into a limited liability company. He also claimed his part of the assets of the Association. The two other employees initiated identical proceedings on 16 August 1994. The cases were joined.\n10.  In 1995 the Botanica District Court granted their claims. The Supreme Court of Justice upheld that judgment. On 27 November 1995 the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice quashed that judgment and ordered a full rehearing of the case.\n11.  On 3 October 1997 the Botanica District Court rejected the employees' claims. On 22 January 1998 the Chişinău Regional Court upheld that judgment. On 10 September 1998 the Court of Appeal also upheld that judgment, which then became final.\n12.  On an unspecified date the Prosecutor General filed a request for the annulment of all previous judgments and for the claims against the applicants to be granted in full. On 26 January 2000 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld that request and quashed the above-mentioned judgments. It ordered a full rehearing of the case.\n13.  On 27 November 2001 the Buiucani District Court declared null and void the transformation of the Association into a limited liability company. Although the employees had been hired by the Association, the court found that they had taken part in the decision-making process and had made financial contributions to the common assets of the Association. Accordingly, the court considered that the employees should be recognised as having been members of the Association. The court ordered “the distribution of the assets of the association 'Victoria', situated at 99 Decebal str. in Chişinău” between the applicants and the employees, each of the two groups obtaining various items (production equipment, cars and office equipment) of common property. The court also specified that “the building of the 'Victoria' market” should remain the applicants' property.\n14.  On 11 April 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court quashed that judgment and adopted a new one by which it rejected all the claims against the applicants. On 12 September 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the Chişinău Regional Court and upheld the judgment of the Buiucani District Court of 27 November 2001 (in favour of the employees). That judgment became final.\n15.  On 21 February 2003 a bailiff received a warrant for the enforcement of the judgment of 27 November 2001. On the same day he informed all interested parties that the assets would be distributed on 26 February 2003. On that date the bailiff came to Victoria's premises and proceeded to distribute so", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4817", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 22 November 1998 the applicant's husband, who was performing his compulsory military service, died of a heart attack due to a congenital heart defect, which was diagnosed during the subsequent autopsy.\n5.  On 19 October 1999 the applicant instituted compensation proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court (Askeri Yükesek İdare Mahkemesi). She also requested a retirement pension.\n6.  On 6 January 2000 the Assembly of Chambers of the Supreme Military Administrative Court (Askeri Yüksek İdare Mahkemesi Daireler Kurulu) rejected the applicant's claim on the ground that she had to introduce, pursuant to relevant domestic legislation, two separate proceedings for each of her claims. On 4 February 2000 the applicant reintroduced her claims separately before the Supreme Military Administrative Court.\n7.  On 1 March 2000 the Supreme Military Administrative Court issued an interim decision and inquired whether the applicant had requested compensation from the Ministry of the Interior before instituting legal proceedings. With reference to the relevant domestic provisions and in the absence of such a preliminary request from the administrative authorities, the court referred the applicant's claim to the Ministry of the Interior on 29 March 2000.\n8.  In the meantime the applicant had been paid compensation by the Gendarmerie General Command (Jandarma Genel Komutanlığı) of the Ministry of the Interior on 12 February 2000. On an unspecified date the Ministry of the Interior rejected the applicant's compensation claim on the ground that she had already been paid. The applicant was notified of this decision on 24 May 2000.\n9.  Having thus complied with the preliminary requirement, the applicant re-introduced her compensation claim before the Supreme Military Administrative Court on 1 June 2000 and requested the same amounts of compensation as well as legal aid. By reference to the relevant provisions and the compensation already paid to the applicant, the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant's request for legal aid on 28 June 2000.\n10.  On 27 March 2002, the second chamber of the Supreme Military Administrative Court issued a decision of non-jurisdiction concerning the applicant's compensation claim on the ground that she was not military personnel. With reference to the relevant domestic legislation, the chamber held that the proceedings should have been instituted before the competent civil administrative court.\n11.  On 7 June 2002 the applicant instituted compensation proceedings before the Ankara Administrative Court. On 17 July 2003 the Ankara Administrative Court noted that the issue ought to have been examined by the Supreme Military Administrative Court due to its military content and referred the case to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes (Uyuşmazlık mahkemesi), which held on 17 November 2003 that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the military administrative courts.\n12.  Referring to the above judgment, the Ankara Administrative Court issued a decision of non-jurisdiction on 19 December 2003. Consequently the Supreme Military Administrative Court continued examining the merits of the case. On 3 May 2004 an expert report regarding the applicant's possible pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage was submitted to the Ankara Administrative Court. The applicant objected to the amounts stated in the expert report.\n13.  On 16 June 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court granted the applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4818", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company is a joint stock company based in Ploieşti.\n5.  In 2000 the applicant company brought proceedings against the Ariceştii Rahtivani town council seeking payment by the latter of the amount of 448,586,286 old Romanian lei (ROL), updated at the date of payment, for damages allegedly resulting from a contract they had entered into, which concerned repairs that had to be carried out by the applicant company to the defendant's new headquarters. The applicant company also requested the court to attach the defendant's accounts up to that amount and to order the town council to pay interest in accordance with Government Ordinance no. 9/2000 regarding the legal level of interest for pecuniary obligations.\n6.  On 15 May 2001 the Prahova County Court (“the County Court”) attached the town council's financial assets in the Treasury.\n7.  On 28 August 2001 the County Court, by an enforceable judgment, allowed the action in part and ordered the town council to pay the applicant company ROL 433,545,816 as due payment and ROL 33,315,916 in respect of the costs of the proceedings. The court based its findings on an accounting expert report which had updated the due amount and had also calculated the due interest in accordance with Government Ordinance no. 9/2000.\n8.  On 18 January 2002 the Ploieşti Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), by a final decision, allowed an appeal by the applicant company, considering that it was also entitled to the reimbursement of the penalties for overdue payments to the State budget. It therefore supplemented the previous amount by ROL 751,742,532 for damages and ROL 15,923,050 for costs of proceedings and further ordered the defendant to pay ROL 13,284,025 in respect of the costs of the appeal proceedings.\n9.  In February-April 2002 the debtor paid, in four instalments, ROL 433,545,816. In September 2003 it paid ROL 33,315,916. These were the amounts stipulated by the judgment of 28 August 2001.\n10.  On 9 April 2002 the Ploieşti Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”), in private, consented to a seizure requested by the bailiff, at the applicant company's request, in respect of the town council's goods and declared that the two judgments could be enforced, since the debtor had not voluntarily executed its obligation. An appeal by the town council was dismissed on 14 June 2002 by the County Court, which held that the debtor's appeal was an attempt to procrastinate and abusively delay the payment. That ruling became final.\n11.  By two interlocutory decisions delivered in private on 18 June 2003 the Court of First Instance, upon two requests by the applicant company, attached the town council's immovable and movable property and declared that the two judgments could be enforced. Two appeals by the town council were allowed by two judgments of 19 September 2003 of the County Court, which found that the town council had to pay only the remainder, ROL 576,828,428.\n12.  On 7 April 2004 the town council also paid ROL 576,828,428 out of the ROL 751,742,532 stipulated by the judgment of 18 January 2002, as well as ROL 15,923,050 for costs and expenses stipulated by the same judgment.\n13.  However, on 13 July 2004 and 8 February 2005 respectively the Court of Appeal, by final decisions, allowed further appeals by the applicant company and upheld the rulings of the two interlocutory decisions (see paragraph 11 above), considering that it was not for the court which had authorised the enforce", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4819", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in the village of Karakert, Armenia. He works as a school principal.\n5.  In February and March 2003 a presidential election took place in Armenia. Following the first and second rounds of the election, a series of protest rallies were organised in Yerevan by the opposition parties, alleging irregularities.\n6.  On 21 March 2003 the applicant travelled to Yerevan in order to visit his son who had been placed in a mental hospital the previous day.\n7.  On that day a demonstration took place in Yerevan. The applicant alleged that he had not attended the demonstration. According to him, after visiting his son at 3 p.m. he went to the bus station to take a bus back to his village but all public transport to Yerevan had been suspended because of the demonstration. At the bus station he met two co-villagers, Lavrent Kirakosyan and Arman Mkhitaryan, who were intending to participate in the demonstration. They were planning to return home by car in the evening, so he arranged to meet them at 5 p.m. to join them on their return journey to his village.\n8.  On 22 March 2003 two police officers from the Baghramyan Police Department (ՀՀ ոստիկանության Բաղրամյանի բաժին) visited the applicant at his home.\n9.  The applicant alleged that this visit had taken place at 8 a.m. The police officers informed him that he was required to accompany them to the police station, without providing further reasons.\n10.  The Government agreed that the visit had taken place at 8 a.m. but contested the applicant's allegation that no reasons had been given. The Government alleged that the police officers had visited the applicant in order to obtain an explanation concerning his possible participation in an unauthorised demonstration the previous day.\n11.  It appears from the materials of the case that the applicant was asked by the police officers to accompany them to the police station. He showed resistance but was nevertheless taken to the police station. According to the Government, the reasons for the applicant's arrest were orally communicated to him by the arresting police officers.\n12.  At the police station the arresting police officers drew up a record of the applicant's arrest (արձանագրություն բերման ենթարկելու մասին) in which it was stated that “[the applicant] had been brought to the Baghramyan Police Department for having used foul language and maliciously disobeyed the lawful orders of the police officers for five to six minutes”. The time of the arrest was indicated as 9.30 a.m. This record was signed by the applicant.\n13.  The police officers drew up a record of an administrative offence (վարչական իրավախախտման արձանագրություն) in which it was stated that the applicant “had maliciously disobeyed the lawful orders of the police officers and had maliciously used foul language for about five to seven minutes”. The applicant was charged under Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Offences (Վարչական իրավախախտումների վերաբերյալ ՀՀ օրենսգիրք – “the CAO”). This record was signed by the applicant.\n14.  The applicant alleged that he had not been able to read the contents of the above documents, including his written statement (արձանագրություն բացատրություն վերցնելու մասին) in which he had admitted committing the alleged acts, since he did not have his reading glasses. Nor were the contents of those documents read out to him. The documents had allegedly been prepared by the police officers who asked him to sign them, which", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4820", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Nădrag.\n5.  In 1993 the public prosecutor initiated a criminal action against the applicant for homicide and grievous bodily harm. On 14 September 1993 he was placed in pre-trial detention, where he remained until 25 October 1994. On 7 May 1997 the Timiş County Court (“the County Court”) acquitted the applicant, finding that he had not committed the crimes concerned. That judgment became final on 30 November 1999.\n6.  On 2 November 2000 the applicant lodged an action for pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation for illegal detention.\n7.  On 16 February 2001 the County Court dismissed the request because the applicant had not paid a deposit of 5 % of the amount claimed, as provided for by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 53/2000.\n8.  On 26 April 2001 the Timişoara Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) allowed an appeal by the applicant, quashed the previous judgment and sent the case back for a fresh examination. The court held that the above-mentioned ordinance applied only to violations of non-pecuniary rights committed through the press.\n9.  On 30 November 2001 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed an appeal by the authorities and upheld that ruling.\n10.  After the retrial, on 8 March 2002 the County Court made awards in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n11.  On 15 May 2002 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the applicant and awarded the whole amount claimed by him for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n12.  On 31 January 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld an appeal on points of law by the authorities, quashed the two previous judgments and sent the case back for fresh consideration. It reiterated that a claimant needs to provide proof of damage, but that judges are also obliged to avoid investigative errors, if necessary by ordering certain evidence to be produced even if the parties refuse. The lower courts had estimated the damage without taking into account that damage must be demonstrable and uncompensated and without giving reasons.\n13.  On 25 June 2003 the case was registered with the County Court. The court questioned the applicant, heard a witness, requested information from different institutions, and ordered two expert reports.\n14.  After the fresh examination, on 6 April 2004 the County Court awarded the applicant 54,476,856 old Romanian lei (ROL) in respect of pecuniary damage and ROL 300,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It also awarded costs and expenses.\n15.  On 16 July 2004 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the applicant and increased the amount in respect of non-pecuniary damage.\n16.  The parties appealed on points of law. On 25 August 2004 the High Court of Cassation and Justice received the case file from the Court of Appeal and fixed the first hearing for 9 February 2006.\n17.  On 17 February 2006 the High Court, in a final decision, upheld the appeal by the applicant and awarded him the full amount of ROL 900,000,000 claimed in respect of non-pecuniary damage, as well as ROL 53,120,000 for costs and expenses.\nOn 19 May 2006 it sent the case file back to the Court of Appeal.\n18.  On 30 June 2006 that judgment was endorsed with a writ of execution. On 3 August 2006 the applicant requested the Ministry of Public Finance to pay the above-mentioned amounts. After securing the official authorisations, the Ministry paid the debt on 14 November 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4821", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Istanbul.\n4.  On 10 October 1990 the applicant, who served as a first lieutenant in the Turkish Armed Forces at the material time, was arrested on suspicion of, inter alia, professional misconduct and bribery.\n5.  On 28 March 1991 the military prosecutor at the 33rd Infantry Division Commander's office filed an indictment charging the applicant with twenty-four different offences, including professional misconduct, bribery and assault and battery of his inferiors.\n6.  On 12 May 1993 the Kırklareli Military Court acquitted the applicant in relation to certain charges and found him guilty of the remaining offences.\n7.  On 19 January 1994 the Military Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court in relation to certain offences and quashed the remainder of the judgment on grounds of, inter alia, insufficient investigation.\n8.  On 7 November 1995 the Kırklareli Military Court acquitted the applicant in relation to certain charges and found him guilty as charged for the remaining offences.\n9.  On 6 March 1996 the Military Court of Cassation partially upheld the first-instance court's judgment.\n10.  On 16 April 1996 the Kırklareli Military Court once again acquitted the applicant in relation to certain charges and found him guilty of the remaining offences.\n11.  On 9 May 1997 the applicant was expelled from the armed forces.\n12.  On 10 June 1998 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on procedural grounds in relation to certain charges and for being time-barred (zamanaşımı) in relation to the remainder.\n13.  On 5 August 1999 the Çorlu Military Court found the applicant guilty as charged in relation to those offences which were not time-barred and of which he had not already been acquitted.\n14.  On 28 March 2001 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court once again in the light of a recent amendment to the relevant jurisdictional rules, and held that the case should be heard by ordinary criminal courts.\n15.  On 26 December 2001 the Çorlu Military Court issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction and referred the case to the Kırklareli Assize Court.\n16.  On 2 December 2003 the Kırklareli Assize Court decided to discontinue the proceedings against the applicant as the prosecution had become time-barred.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4822", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Thomas John Crompton, is a British national who was born in 1954 and lives in Stalybridge, Cheshire.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In 1989 the applicant joined the Territorial Army (“TA”) as a pay and accounts clerk, a military post, carrying out duties such as filing, photocopying and maintaining a stationery store. In July 1993 the applicant was informed that he was to be made redundant, following organisational changes in the TA pursuant to a process of civilianisation. He was subsequently informed that the clerical post which he had occupied was to become a civilian post and was to be converted to that of a technical store-man. The applicant applied for this new post, but was informed in February 1994 that he could take it only if he undertook a training course, but that all relevant training courses had been cancelled. He also applied for a number of other clerical posts within the Army but was refused for them all.\n8.  The applicant was therefore made redundant. His discharge from the Army, dated 18 February 1994, was formally made, incorrectly, on the basis that his services were no longer required. The applicant later discovered that his former duties were being carried out by an untrained civilian, while the technical store-man post remained vacant.\n9.  On 3 May 1994 the applicant complained about his redundancy to the Industrial Tribunal, but his claim was rejected because the Industrial Tribunal did not have jurisdiction over matters involving military personnel.\n10.  On 19 December 1994 the applicant claimed redress in respect of his redundancy from his Commanding Officer, under sections 180 and 181 of the Army Act 1955.\n11.  On 22 March 1995 the Commanding Officer issued a brief in which he concluded that the applicant had a weak case for redress. He further requested the Army Board of the Defence Council to determine whether the applicant was subject to military law. The applicant's solicitors, on 6 December 1996, submitted observations in reply. The matter was then placed before the Army Board.\n12.  In January 1998, the applicant applied for judicial review in respect of the Army Board's failure to determine the case within a reasonable time. His application was granted by the High Court on 2 February 1998 and the Army Board was ordered to deal with the case expeditiously.\n13.  The Army Board, without holding an oral hearing or directing a Board of Inquiry to be convened, issued its decision on 7 May 1998, refusing the applicant's claim for redress.\n14.  The applicant applied for judicial review of the decision not to hold an oral hearing or convene a Board of Inquiry.\n15.  On 3 November 1998, while the judicial review application was pending, the Army Board directed that a Board of Inquiry should be convened. The Board was convened by an order dated 10 February 1999. It sat in March 1999, considered oral and documentary evidence and issued a summary of its factual findings on 6 May 1999. It found in the applicant's favour as regards his argument that he ought to have been, but was not, given priority before five selection boards. It was anticipated that the level of compensation would be fixed by negotiation between the Army Board and the applicant.\n16.  The Army Board met to reach a determination on 11 April 2001. It issued its decision on 16 July 2001, ordering that the applicant be offered compensation in respect of the failure to offe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4823", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1936. At the time of the introduction of her application she was living in Larnaca.\n9.  In 1996 the Cyprus Motorcycle Federation (CMF) organised a demonstration aimed at protesting against the Turkish occupation of the northern part of Cyprus. On 2 August 1996 a group of over one hundred Cypriot and other European motorcyclists set off from Berlin and made their way through Europe to Cyprus. Tensions arose when the authorities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the “TRNC”) announced that, should the demonstration take place, they would be organising “counter-rallies”. The President of the Republic of Cyprus made a special plea to the motorcyclists to disperse peacefully.\n10.  Notwithstanding this, on 11 August 1996 a group of motorcyclists and other civilians proceeded to various points along the United Nations (UN) buffer zone. Violent clashes took place between the demonstrators, the counter-demonstrators and the “TRNC” forces. One of the Greek-Cypriot demonstrators, Anastasios Isaak, was beaten to death in Dherynia. The events concerning the killing of Mr Isaak were brought to the attention of the Court in the context of application no. 44587/98 (Isaak and Others v. Turkey). In its judgment of 24 June 2008 the Court held, inter alia, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the killing of Anastasios Isaak and in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which he had died.\n11.  On 14 August 1996 the applicant attended the funeral of Anastasios Isaak, who was a friend of her son, in Paralimini.\n12.  After the funeral, a number of people went to the vicinity of the site where the events had taken place to pay their respects. The applicant's son, daughter and son-in-law were among those persons. The applicant remained outside the UN buffer zone near Dherynia, close to the Greek-Cypriot National Guard checkpoint, and observed the events.\n13.  Tension arose between the Greek-Cypriot demonstrators and the “TRNC” authorities. One of the demonstrators, Solomos Solomou, crossed the Turkish-Cypriot ceasefire line and started to climb a flagpole. He was shot and later died from his injuries. The events concerning the killing of Mr Solomou were brought to the attention of the Court in the context of application no. 36832/97 (Solomou and Others v. Turkey). In its judgment of 24 June 2008 the Court held, inter alia, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in respect of the killing of Solomos Solomou and in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which he had died.\n14.  Immediately after the shooting of Mr Solomou, the applicant saw soldiers firing their weapons in the area under the control of the Turkish armed forces. As a result, a number of people were wounded, including two British soldiers from the UN Forces in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and the applicant. The latter was hit by one bullet in the abdomen. She collapsed and was taken to Larnaca Hospital. She was operated on but lost one of her kidneys.\n15.  The applicant claimed that her life had been put in serious danger and had been saved only because she had received prompt medical attention. Even after the introduction of her application she was still suffering from her injuries, as a result of which she could not obtain employment and was under great psychological stress.\n16.  The applicant underlined the follo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4824", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Trenčín.\n5.  On 16 November 1999 the applicant challenged the validity of a company's statute before the Trenčín Regional Court. The case was registered under the file number 7 Cb 73/99.\n6.  The case was dealt with by the Regional Court. The Supreme Court examined, for three months, the applicant's request for an interim measure.\n7.  On 7 May 2003 the Regional Court discontinued the proceedings as there was an obstacle of litis pendens. The applicant's appealed.\n8.  On 4 August 2003 the file was transferred to the Supreme Court which quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court. The file was transferred back to the latter on 31 October 2003.\n9.  On 20 May 2004 the Regional Court delivered a judgment on the applicant's claims.\n10.  The defendant appealed. The file was transferred to the Supreme Court on 11 October 2004.\n11.  On 3 November 2005 the Supreme Court adopted a judgment which was served on the parties and became final on 20 December 2005.\n12.  In 2000 the applicant filed two and in 2003 one action, in which he challenged decisions taken at a company's general meeting.\n13.  The Regional Court dealt with the first action in proceedings no. 7 Cb 13/00. Its judgment was partially upheld and partially amended by the Supreme Court. The judgment became final on 21 June 2005.\n14.  The second action was examined in the proceedings 7 Cb 60/00. On 20 May 2004 it was joined to and decided upon in the proceedings 7 Cb 73/99 mentioned above (see point A).\n15.  The proceedings on the third action (file no. 7 Cbs 5/03) ended by the Supreme Court's decision of 20 June 2007.\n16.  On 18 August 2004, on the applicant's complaint, the Constitutional Court found that the Regional Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the proceedings no. 7 Cb 73/99. The length of the proceedings was partly due to the complexity of the case and the applicant's conduct. The Regional Court had remained inactive for a period exceeding two years. The overall length of the proceedings was in itself excessive in the particular circumstances of the case.\n17.  The Constitutional Court ordered the Regional Court to proceed with the case without further delay and to reimburse the applicant's costs. It held that its finding in itself provided appropriate just satisfaction to the applicant. The Constitutional Court, therefore, dismissed the applicant's claim in that respect.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4825", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Zgorzelec. He is currently detained in Wołów Prison.\n5.  On 23 August 2000 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed, inter alia, several offences of drug trafficking and leading an organised armed criminal gang. On 25 August 2000 the Wrocław District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his detention pending trial. It relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on him. Further, the court stressed that the applicant could tamper with evidence, in particular given that he had been charged with being the leader of an organised armed criminal gang.\n6. On 17 November 2000 and 28 March 2001 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court extended the applicant's detention.\n7.  On 10 May 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 28 March 2001. The court noted that the reasons for his detention were still valid. Moreover, it referred to the strong risk that the applicant could jeopardise the proper course of the investigation. The court held that according to the testimonies of the key prosecution witness (świadek koronny), even during his detention the applicant had tried to threaten witnesses in the case.\n8.  On 26 July 2001 the Jelenia Gora Regional Court extended the applicant's detention. On 16 August 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant's detention to 30 September 2001. A subsequent extension was ordered by the Wrocław Court of Appeal on 25 September 2001. The decision was served on the applicant on 2 October 2001. In his appeal, the applicant alleged that he had been illegally deprived of his liberty for two days, due to the fact that the decision in question had been served on him after the expiry of the previous detention order given on 16 August 2001.\n9.  On 17 October 2001 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court explained that the first-instance decision had indeed been served on him on 2 October 2001, in compliance with the law. It underlined the fact that the order had been given before the expiration of the previous one.\n10.  In their decisions concerning the extension of the applicant's detention, the courts relied on the likelihood that he had committed the offences as the leader of an organised armed criminal gang. They attached importance to the grave nature of these offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on him. Furthermore, they referred to the complexity of the case, the fact that many suspects were involved and that some of them had not yet been arrested. They stressed that the detention was justified by the need to obtain further evidence, in particular, to have witnesses examined by the German authorities by means of a rogatory letter, to obtain expert reports and to hear a key prosecution witness.\n11.  The applicant's appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions to extend his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. The courts held that the reasons for his detention were still valid.\n12.  On 15 November 2001 the applicant and 14 co-defendants were indicted before the Jelenia Góra Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The bill of indictment against the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4826", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Chelyabinsk.\n6.  In 1995 the applicant's vehicle was damaged in a road traffic accident. On 25 June 1997 he sued a private company in charge of road maintenance for damages. He alleged that the accident had been caused by its failure to clean up the road. The examination of the matter was stayed pending the payment of the court fee by the applicant. The proceedings were resumed on 13 October 1997.\n7.  On 29 October 1997 the Sovetskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk granted a request by the respondent company to adjourn the proceedings pending the criminal investigation into the road traffic accident. The proceedings were resumed on 27 April 1998.\n8.  On 25 May 1998 the representative of the respondent company failed to appear and the hearing was adjourned.\n9.  On 4 and 16 June and 5 October 1998 the District Court adjourned the court hearing as the applicant modified his claims.\n10.  On 9 October 1998 the District Court granted a request by the respondent company for an expert report to determine the value of the applicant's vehicle and stayed the proceedings. The respondent company failed to pay the expert's fee and the case file was returned to the court.\n11.  On 27 January and 11 March 1999 the District Court adjourned the hearing, granting the respondent company's requests to study the case file.\n12.  Between 4 November 1999 and 13 April 2000 the proceedings were adjourned pending the criminal investigation further to requests by the respondent company and the applicant.\n13.  On 1 December 2000 the District Court adjourned the hearing further to a request by the respondent company to summon new witnesses.\n14.  On 20 March 2001 the applicant asked the court to adjourn the hearing pending the criminal investigation.\n15.  On 27 September 2001 the District Court granted the applicant's claims in part. On 15 November 2001 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a fresh examination. The Regional Court noted that the District Court had failed to properly establish the circumstances of the road traffic accident and to determine the responsibility of all the parties involved.\n16.  On 4 February 2002 the District Court adjourned the preparatory hearing owing to the parties' failure to appear. The preparatory hearing was subsequently held on 13 March 2002.\n17.  On 27 May and 6 November 2002 the District Court granted the applicant's request and adjourned the hearing pending the criminal investigation.\n18.  On 2 February 2004 the applicant asked the court to resume the hearing of the matter. On 2 March 2004 the District Court annulled its own decision of 6 November 2002 and resumed the proceedings.\n19.  On 19 March 2004 the applicant asked the court to adjourn the hearing in order to modify his claims.\n20.  On 13 May 2004 the applicant submitted the modified claims and asked the court to summon certain witnesses.\n21.  On 17 June 2004 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claims in full. On 9 December 2004 the Regional Court quashed that judgment and granted the applicant's claim in part. The court based its findings, inter alia, on the materials in the criminal investigation file, such as the crime-scene investigation and forensic expert reports.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4827", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n7.  Ms Khadizhat Vakhayeva, born in 2000.\nThe applicants are Russian nationals and live in Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic. 7.  The applicants are members of one family and are close relatives of Kazbek Vakhayev, born in 1975, who was apprehended by the police and has been missing since 13 August 2000. The first applicant is his mother, the second applicant is his wife and the third to seventh applicants are his children. The applicants live together in their house in Urus-Martan at 5, Nuradilova Street, where Kazbek Vakhayev also lived before his arrest.\n8.  Kazbek Vakhayev worked as a furniture maker before his arrest. According to the applicants, he had never been involved in the armed conflict in Chechnya and had no connections with the paramilitary.\n9.  On 1 August 2000 the Urus-Martan Temporary Department of the Interior of the Chechen Republic Урус-Мартановский временный отдел внутренних дел Чеченской республики (“Urus-Martan VOVD”) conducted a sweeping operation in the eastern part of the town. From early morning military forces cordoned off the eastern sector of the town, and officers from the Ministry of the Interior carried out a security raid.\n10.  During the raid a van belonging to the Urals police arrived at the Vakhayevs' house. The whole family was already waiting in the courtyard with their documents, ready to be checked. According to the applicants, the servicemen were wearing police uniforms and were armed. Without any introduction or the presentation of a warrant they started searching the house. No attesting witnesses were present and no official records were made of the search. The search did not yield any incriminating evidence.\n11.  After the search the servicemen proceeded with the document check, and requested the passports of the adult men who were present, namely Kazbek Vakhayev and his father, Lecha Vakhayev. They showed their passports, both of which were valid and bore registration stamps confirming their legal address, which was the place where they were being checked. The servicemen examined the passports and asked who Kazbek Vakhayev was. He answered and then asked whether anything was wrong with his documents. The servicemen told him that the documents were fine, but he was “on the list” and showed him a page from a notepad with some names on it. He was ordered to get in the van. In reply to the first applicant's question as to where he was being taken one of the policemen said: “They will see. Interrogate him. He will be released in two hours”. Another policeman explained that Kazbek Vakhayev was being taken following the receipt of an anonymous letter.\n12.  On the same day officers from the Urus-Martan VOVD arrested several other men from the neighbourhood, among them G., two brothers Sh. and four brothers M. At the time of their arrests their houses were also searched. All of them were taken to the Urus-Martan VOVD, a temporary police station with a detention facility set up in a former boarding school in the town centre.\n13.  On 2 August 2000 the applicants learned that an order to remand Kazbek Vakhayev in custody for ten days had been issued on the grounds that he was a vagrant. Under the applicable legislation this meant a person without any legal address indicated in his passport.\n14.  For the next ten days the first and the second applicants visited the Urus-Martan VOVD regularly to enquire about Kazbek Vakhayev and to leave food and clothes for him, to be passed to t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4828", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Ayna Khantiyeva, born in 1951;\n2) Mr Alaudin Khantiyev, born in 1940;\n3) Ms Kulsum Baysultanova, born in 1972, and\n4) Mr Adam Khantiyev, born in 1991.\nThe applicants live in Grozny, in the Chechen Republic.\n6.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Mayrudin Khantiyev, born in 1972. The third and fourth applicants are Mayrudin Khatntiyev's wife and son.\n7.  According to a certificate issued on 12 March 2002 by the head of the Grozny SIZO-I remand prison, from 1998 to 1999 Mayrudin Khantiyev was employed as a junior inspector in the security department of that facility; he left his job in 1999 because of the hostilities. According to the applicants, Mayrudin Khantiyev subsequently worked as a mechanic and then as a construction worker on the construction site of a school.\n8.  In December 2000 the city of Grozny was under curfew. The applicants and Mayrudin Khantiyev lived in the same five-storey block of flats at no. 269 Ugolnaya Street in Grozny (“house no. 269”). The flat of Mayrudin Khantiyev's family was on the ground floor; his parents' flat was on the first floor. Two guard posts of the Russian military forces were stationed on the roof of house no. 269 on a permanent basis, the soldiers having constructed a shelter there. The building was situated about fifty metres from the military commander's office of the Staropromyslovskiy district (the district military commander's office) and its checkpoint. Two further checkpoints were located in the vicinity of the applicants' building. One of them, called “Katayama” (“Катаяма”), was located about 500 metres away; the other one, called “Zagryazhskiy” (“Загряжский”) was about 1.5 km away from the applicants' building.\n9.  On 4 December 2000 the applicants and Mayrudin Khantiyev were sleeping in their respective flats at the above address. At about 6.15 a.m., during curfew, the third applicant was woken up by a noise at the entrance door. She approached the door and noticed the light of a torch. She saw that the door was being forced from the outside. The third applicant called Mayrudin Khantiyev and they tried to hold the door from the inside. After a while the door lock was broken and a group of about five armed men in dark-green camouflage uniforms and masks burst into the flat. The intruders were speaking Russian. They neither identified themselves nor produced any documents. The third applicant inferred that they were servicemen.\n10.  The servicemen immediately grabbed the third applicant and Mayrudin Khantiyev and took them into one room. The third applicant asked one of the intruders what they were looking for. She did not receive any response to her question and was ordered to stay quiet. She heard the servicemen tying up her husband with adhesive tape; he could not say anything as apparently his mouth was covered with the tape. Having tied up Mayrudin Khantiyev, who was barefoot and in his underwear, the servicemen dragged him outside through the balcony and put him into a new white Niva vehicle with blackened windows and without licence plates, parked near the third applicant's balcony. While the servicemen were leaving the flat with Mayrudin Khantiyev the third applicant started screaming for help. Meanwhile the men got into the car and it started driving away in the direction of the 36th district (36-й участок) of Grozny.\n11.  The third applicant ran outside calling for help, and saw the car drive away in the above direction. At that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4829", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1953. She lives in Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The applicant's son, Yusup Satabayev, born in 1977, lived with her in Urus-Martan at the address 1 Tolstogo Street. The applicant has two other children.\n8.  On 29 January 2000, following the outbreak of armed conflict in Chechnya, Yusup Satabayev joined one of the paramilitary groups which fought against the federal army. According to the applicant, he stayed with the paramilitary group for less than a month, during which time there were no armed confrontations, and then left. On 23 February 2000 he arrived in Martan-Chu, in the Urus-Martan district, allegedly to surrender to the authorities in order to benefit from the Amnesty Act. However, on the same day he was arrested at his sister's house by servicemen of the Federal Security Service (FSB). After his arrest he voluntarily disclosed to the authorities the hiding place of his personal machine gun and a cache of weapons belonging to the paramilitaries.\n9.  Yusup Satabayev was then charged in criminal proceedings with participation in an organised armed gang and illegal dealing in firearms (case file no. 59211). He was remanded in custody during the investigation. On 4 March 2000 he was transferred to the pre-trial detention facility in the village of Chernokozovo in Naurskiy district. On 12 March 2000 the applicant visited this detention facility and, although she was not allowed to see him in person, she received his message confirming receipt of her parcel. The applicant then remained in Chernokozovo and regularly sent parcels to her son, each time receiving confirmation of their receipt.\n10.  In mid-July 2000 legal counsel hired by the applicant, Ms T., visited Yusup Satabayev in the detention facility and ascertained that he was in good health.\n11.  On 27 July 2000 the criminal proceedings against Yusup Satabayev were discontinued on the following grounds:\n“[Yusup Satabayev] has acknowledged having participated in illegal organised gangs, is aware of being guilty of the [criminal offences he is charged with], he is liable to the maximum sanction of five years of imprisonment ..., has voluntarily surrendered [his weapon] and indicated the place where paramilitaries' arms were hidden, and thus should be absolved of criminal liability [for dealing in firearms]; he has not caused any damage to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, has no previous criminal record, and has a permanent place of residence, [he is] characterised positively, has voluntarily quit the illegal paramilitary groups, and has therefore ceased to pose a public danger.”\n12.  Yusup Satabayev was notified of this decision on the same day and he signed the last page of it, as required by law. His release was due on the same day but he remained in custody.\n13.  The applicant was not aware that the criminal proceedings against her son had been discontinued.\n14.  On 28 July 2000 the applicant's legal counsel, T., discovered that Yusup Satabayev had been transferred to the detention facility of the Urus‑Martan temporary Department of the Interior of the Chechen Republic (VOVD) (Урус-Мартановский временный отдел внутренних дел Чеченской республики). The applicant went to Urus-Martan and met investigator O., who was in charge of the criminal case against Yusup Satabayev. He explained that Yusup Satabayev would be detained for another ten days and would then be released. He did not inform her that the criminal case had been discont", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4831", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Piešťany.\n5.  On 31 December 1992 the applicant filed an action with the Nitra District Court. Under the Land Ownership Act 1991 she claimed compensation for agricultural property and livestock which had been transferred to a co-operative in 1951.\n6.  In March 1997, January 2002 and May 2005 issues of a procedural nature were determined by the court of appeal.\n7. In September 2007 the Government informed the Court that the proceedings were pending before the District Court. No information is available about further developments in the case.\n8.  On 30 December 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The decision stated that the proceedings had been pending for 12 years. During that period not a single hearing had been held with a view to taking evidence and establishing the facts relevant for the determination of the applicant's action. Such situation was not justified by the complexity of the case. The applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings in that, upon the court's instruction of 3 June 1993, she had completed her action on 10 March 1997 and had not informed the District Court that, in the meantime, she had initiated proceedings with a view to establishing which person was obliged under the relevant law to pay compensation to her.\n9.  As to the conduct of the District Court, unjustified delays in the proceedings exceeded 8 years. Furthermore, the District Court had failed to proceed in an effective manner, whereby the proceedings had been protracted. The Constitutional Court pointed to (i) the insufficient instruction of the applicant about essentials of her action and (ii) the decisions of the Regional Court of September 1997 and January 2002 to quash the District Court's decisions.\n10.  The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 100,000 (the equivalent of 2,574 euros at that time) to the applicant as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's costs.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4832", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Chełm. He is currently detained in Lublin Remand Centre.\n6.  On 25 February 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 27 February 2003 the Lublin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed several offences of fraud, in different locations in Poland, Switzerland and Germany. The court relied on the likelihood that a heavy sentence might be imposed on the applicant and that there was a risk of his absconding. It based its conclusion on the fact that the applicant had multiple citizenship and permanent residence permits in Switzerland and Monaco.\n7.  On 16 May 2003 the Lublin District Court extended the applicant's detention until 25 February 2004, reiterating the original grounds for the detention. The applicant appealed against this decision, complaining in particular about the considerable period of time for which his detention had been extended.\n8.  On 12 June 2003 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal, finding that there were justifiable reasons to explain why the investigation had not yet been terminated by the prosecutor.\n9.  Subsequently, as the applicant's detention pending investigation had exceeded a period of one year, the Lublin Appellate Prosecutor applied to the Lublin Court of Appeal to extend further his pre-trial detention. On 18 February 2004 the court allowed the application, relying on the severity of the sentence to which the applicant was liable and on the necessity of continuing the complex investigation and evidence-taking process, which required international co-operation.\n10.  On 10 August 2004 the applicant was indicted before the Lublin District Court. The trial court held the first hearing on 16 December 2004.\n11.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was subsequently extended on 26 January 2005 by the trial court and on 16 February 2005 by the Lublin Court of Appeal. The courts relied on the grounds cited previously, namely the severity of the possible sentence, which created a risk of the applicant's going into hiding, and the necessity of gathering evidence in this particularly complex case. The courts also found that the applicant's state of health was not serious enough to justify the need for his treatment outside prison. In the last of these decisions the Court of Appeal also considered that it was not possible to release the applicant on bail as he did not have sufficient assets to secure his appearance at the trial.\n12.  On 20 July 2005 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention until 30 January 2006. The court based its decision on the process of gathering evidence in this particularly complex case and on the risk of the applicant's attempting to influence witnesses. As regards the latter argument, the court noted that during the preparatory proceedings the applicant had been smuggling notes from prison concerning illegal actions aimed at interfering with the proceedings.\nThe court decided, however, that the applicant could be released upon payment of bail in the amount of 40,000,000 Polish zlotys (PLN), (approximately 10,000,000 euros (EUR) at the material time). It gave the following reasons for its decision:\n“...given the request to replace detention on remand with bail [in an amount] that [the applicant] would be able to pay, lodged by one of his lawyers, it is now possible to examine again the issue of the application of a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4833", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Bratislava.\n6.  The applicant's family owned a plot of agricultural land located in the Prešov area. At the beginning of the 1960s the State put the land at the disposal of an agricultural cooperative. The applicant's family remained the owners of the land in name (nuda proprietas).\n7.  In 1964 the right to use the land was conferred on the Slovakian Union of Fruiterers and Gardeners. The area where the plot is located was turned into a “garden community” consisting of individual gardens which were put at the disposal of third parties, members of the above Union (“gardeners”).\n8.  On 14 January 2000 the gardeners requested under section 7(1) of Law no. 64/1997 that the ownership relationship in respect of their gardens be settled by the Prešov District Office in a land consolidation procedure under section 7(4) of that Act.\n9.  On 10 January 2002 the District Office made a formal announcement under section 18(1) of Law no. 64/1997 of the commencement of the land consolidation procedure under section 7(4) of the Act. The announcement contained a register of the original ownership and a surveyor's plan concerning the current state of the land (“the preliminary inventory”).\n10.  Three land owners objected to the preliminary inventory. The applicant's legal predecessor, Ms J. Salusová, objected that she did not own one of the plots concerned. On 17 June 2002 the District Office dismissed the objection, as the propriety certificate clearly indicated that she co-owned the relevant plot.\n11.  On 3 October 2002 the District Office approved the preliminary inventory under section 9(4) of Law no. 64/1997.\n12.  On 27 October 2002 Ms J. Salusová died. On 20 May 2003 a notary authorised by a court confirmed that the applicant had inherited a share in Ms J. Salusová's land used by the gardeners.\n13.  On 13 February 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that Law no. 64/1997 ran contrary to his constitutional right to own property. On 28 February 2003 a constitutional judge informed the applicant that individuals lack standing to initiate proceedings concerning conflict of laws.\n14.  In a letter of 21 March 2003 the District Office invited the applicant under section 10(1) of Law no. 64/1997 to state whether he preferred to be compensated by being granted a substitute plot or paid an amount of money in lieu in respect of his title to the plot. The letter contained a list of specific plots that the administrator of the State's real property, the Slovak Real Estate Fund, had proposed as possible substitute plots in the applicant's case. In response, on 9 May 2003, the applicant rejected the proposed plots.\n15.  On 5 August 2003 the District Office decided on the compensation for the landowners. The decision was not subject to appeal. It was envisaged that the gardeners would subsequently acquire title to their gardens.\n16.  On 27 January 2004 public prosecutor lodged an objection and proposed that the administrative authority quash its decision on the matter of compensation, since one of the landowners had been omitted from the procedure. On 26 February 2004 the District Land Office in Prešov granted the objection. Subsequently it took further steps with a view to eliminating shortcomings in the procedure.\n17.  On 10 April 2006 the Slovak Real Estate Fund proposed new substitute lands as the release of the former substitute lands was suspended.\n18.  On 3 July 2007 two other heirs of Ms J", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4834", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Outokumpu.\n5.  On 16 November 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against K., a journalist, and Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy, a publishing company, claiming non-pecuniary damages for suffering and distress due to an article published in 1998.\n6.  On 27 January 2000 the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) held an oral hearing. On 4 February 2000 it rejected the action, holding that publishing the name of a convicted person did not amount to an offence and that, therefore, no right to compensation existed under Chapter 5, section 6, of the Tort Liability Act (vahingonkorvauslaki, skadeståndslagen; Act no. 412/1974).\n7.  The applicant appealed. On 22 March 2001 he changed counsel.\n8.  On 12 December 2002 the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) held an oral hearing. On 31 March 2003 the court partly upheld the applicant's claim and ordered the journalist and the publishing company jointly to pay the applicant EUR 2,000 for suffering and distress. The court found that there had been no justification for publishing the name of a private person such as the applicant.\n9.  All the parties requested leave to appeal, which was granted on 3 September 2003.\n10.  In its judgment of 19 December 2005 (precedent no. KKO 2005:136) the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) overturned the appellate court's judgment and rejected the action.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4835", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant's family owned a plot of land situated in Warsaw. The applicant is the heir of the owners of that property.\n8.  By virtue of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw (“the 1945 Decree”) the ownership of all private land was transferred to the City of Warsaw.\n9.  The applicant's predecessors requested to be granted the right of temporary ownership (własność czasowa) of the plot of land pursuant to section 7 of the 1945 Decree. On 27 December 1966 the Board of the Warsaw National Council (Prezydium Rady Narodowej) refused the request on the basis that the plot of land had been designated for public use (namely, an agricultural co-operative).\n10.  On 27 June 1967 the Warsaw-Mokotów District National Council (Prezydium Dzielnicowej Rady Narodowej) issued a decision granting the right of perpetual use of the plot of land to T. K.\n11.  On 23 January 1992 the applicant's predecessor Z.S. lodged an application with the Minister of Planning and Construction (Minister Gospodarki Przestrzennej i Budownictwa) for annulment of the administrative decision of 27 December 1966. On 10 February 1993 the Minister declared the decision null and void.\n12.  On 14 June 2000 the Local Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) declared that the decision of 27 June 1967 had been issued in breach of law. However, the Board refused to declare the decision null and void in view of its irreversible legal consequences – on the basis of the 1967 decision a civil contract had been concluded with the perpetual user of the land who, in 1990, had transferred the rights to the estate to his son.\n13.  On 3 March 2003 the Local Government Board of Appeal dismissed the applicant's claim for compensation in respect of the 1967 decision on the grounds that he had not proved “an actual loss” (see domestic law part below).\n15.  On 10 November 2004 the Regional Court delivered a judgment and awarded the applicant PLN 604,000. The court found that as a consequence of the unlawful 1967 decision the applicant had lost his property right and thus had suffered loss amounting to the value of that right. The court further considered that the State Treasury had the legal capacity to be sued for damages in this case.\n16.  The State Treasury, represented by the Mayor of Warsaw, appealed against the judgment, arguing that the municipality (gmina) should have been sued in this case.\n17.  On 14 July 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicant's claim. The court, although it observed that the case-law had been divergent on the issue, inclined to the view expressed in a Supreme Court resolution of 16 November 2004, that the municipality – and not the State Treasury – had the legal capacity to be sued for damages resulting from an administrative decision issued before 27 May 1990, provided that the decision had been annulled or declared unlawful after that date (see domestic law part below).\n18.  The applicant lodged a cassation complaint. He submitted that the judgment was in breach of relevant substantive law on account of an erroneous interpretation of the Local Self-Government Act of 10 May 1990. He also invoked Articles 3984 § 1 (3) and 3989 of the Civil Procedure Code arguing that the examination of the cassation complaint was justified because there was a significant legal issue in the case and a need for an authoritative interpretation of provisions which had been interpreted differentl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4836", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The present case relates to the issue of “old” foreign-currency deposits (foreign currency deposited before the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia – “the SFRY”).\n7.  Until the 1989/90 economic reforms (the so-called Marković reforms, named after the then Prime Minister Ante Marković), the commercial banking system of the SFRY consisted of self-managed basic and associated banks. Basic banks, founded and nominally controlled by socially owned enterprises, carried on day-to-day commercial banking activities. Two or more basic banks could form an associated bank through a self-management agreement, while preserving their legal personality. In the SFRY, there were more than 150 basic banks and nine associated banks (namely Jugobanka Beograd, Beogradska udružena banka Beograd, Vojvođanska banka Novi Sad, Kosovska banka Priština, Udružena banka Hrvatske Zagreb, Ljubljanska banka Ljubljana, Privredna banka Sarajevo, Stopanska banka Skopje and Investiciona banka Titograd).\n8.  Hard-pressed for hard currency as it was, the SFRY made it attractive for its expatriate workers and other citizens to deposit their foreign currency with commercial banks based in the SFRY: such deposits earned high interest (the annual interest rate often exceeded 10%) and were guaranteed by the State (see, for example, section 14(3) of the Foreign-Currency Transactions Act 1985[1] and section 76(1) of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Act 1989[2]).\n9.  The Foreign-Currency Transactions Act 1977[3] introduced a system for redepositing of foreign currency by commercial banks with the National Bank of Yugoslavia. Although the system was optional, it allowed commercial banks to shift the currency risk to the State and practically all foreign currency was thus redeposited. In addition, the National Bank of Yugoslavia was required to grant national-currency loans (initially, interest-free) to commercial banks to the value of the redeposited foreign currency. It should be underlined, however, that such redepositing was as a rule only a paper transaction, because commercial banks had insufficient liquid funds: it would appear that commercial banks redeposited in total 12.2 billion United States dollars (USD), out of which only USD 1.7 billion (approximately 14%) was actually transferred to the National Bank of Yugoslavia (see Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, §§ 36 and 39, ECHR 2008-...; see also decision AP 164/04 of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina of 1 April 2006, § 53). In 1988 the system of redeposits was brought to an end (see section 103 of the Foreign-Currency Transactions Act 1985, as amended on 15 October 1988).\n10.  Problems resulting from the foreign and domestic debt of the SFRY caused a monetary crisis in the 1980s. The national economy was on the verge of collapse and the SFRY resorted to emergency measures, such as statutory restrictions on the repayment of foreign-currency deposits (see section 71 of the Foreign-Currency Transactions Act 1985). As a result, foreign-currency deposits were practically frozen.\n11.  Within the framework of the Marković reforms, the SFRY abolished the system of basic and associated banks described above. This shift in the banking regulations allowed some basic banks to opt for an independent status, while other basic banks became branches (without legal personality) of the associated banks to which they had beforehand belonged.\n12.  Som", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4837", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Prešov.\n6.  The applicant's mother had a share in a plot of agricultural land. The land is located in the Bardejov area and is registered as plot number 2612.\n7.  In 1958 the Bardejov local authority (Miestny národný výbor) assigned the “right of use” in respect of the plot to the Bardejov State Property Enterprise (Štátny majetok).\n8.  The right of use was later conferred on the Bardejov Agricultural Cooperative and, under a 1980 contract on the Bardejov Union of Gardeners.\n9.  The area where the plot is located was turned into a “garden community” named Kira-Juh and consisting of individual gardens which were put at the disposal of members of the above Union (“the gardeners”). The plot has been used as such a garden area since. It is situated outside the built-up area of Bardejov and it has been entered in the land register as arable land.\n10.  On 9 October 1995 the Bardejov District Court issued an inheritance decree confirming that the ownership of 6,557.25 square metres of land in the above plot had devolved to the applicant.\n11.  On 26 March 1997 special legislation on the use of plots of land in allotment gardens and arrangements as regards their ownership (Zákon o užívaní pozemkov v zriadených záhradkových osadách a vyporiadaní vlastníctva k nim – “Law no. 64/1997”) entered into force (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).\n12.  Pursuant to section 3 of Law no. 64/1997, if no other arrangement has been made between an owner and a tenant of land in a garden community, their relation would become ex lege that of the parties to a lease. The applicant attempted twice to terminate the lease of her land by notice. She argued that, despite her efforts, no fair agreement concerning the use of the plot had been reached and that the statute used for the calculation of the rent in the absence of an agreement was outdated. Moreover, the Union of Gardeners was in any event in default of payment.\n13.  In 1998 the applicant sued the gardeners before the Bardejov District Court. She claimed that the defendant should be obliged to conclude a lease contract with her and pay 19,671 Slovakian korunas (SKK) as rent. On 2 October 2000 the District Court rejected the action as the defendant, as indicated in the applicant's action, lacked standing in the case. On 14 February 2001 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment.\n14.  On 30 October 2000 the Bardejov District Office informed the applicant, with reference to sections 3 and 4 of Law no. 64/1997, that rent payable by the gardeners amounted to 10% of the value of the land, determined pursuant to Regulation 456/1991. In any event, the minimum rent was SKK 0.3 per square metre.\n15.  In 2000 the gardeners sent SKK 5,208 to the applicant as rent for the period from 1997 to 1999. In 2001 the gardeners paid another SKK 1,736.6 to the applicant as rent for 2000. Those sums correspond approximately to SKK 0.3 per square metre a year.\n16.  In letters of 9 October 2000 and 9 April 2001 the applicant informed the gardeners that the sums paid were inadequate in view of the actual value of her land and that no agreement had been reached between her and the gardeners as to the lease of the land. It appears from the applicant's submission of 22 August 2006 that between 1996 and 2005 the gardeners had paid to her the overall sum of SKK 15,629 as rent for the use of her land.\n17.  On 20 November 1998, the gardeners requested that the owner", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4838", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Bratislava.\n7.  In 1938 the applicant's father acquired land in Levoča. After the Second World War, when the communist regime was installed in Czechoslovakia, the State availed itself of the land and put it at the disposal of a State-owned agricultural farm in Levoča without the owner's consent and without paying any compensation. The applicant's father remained the owner of the land in name (nuda proprietas).\n8.  In 1983 the farm put the land, of which the applicant and her four sisters had become the owners in the meantime, at the disposal of the local organisation of the Slovak Union of Gardeners in Levoča for ten years. The owners were provided with no compensation.\n9.  In accordance with the provisions of the Land Ownership Act 1991, the gardeners' right to use the land was extended by ten years in 1993.\n10.  Levoča is nowadays a district town with approximately 15,000 inhabitants. According to the data in the land register, the applicant's land is situated outside the town's built-up area.\n11.  On 23 June 1994 the applicant sued the users of the land for rent. She claimed that the tenants should pay her two Slovak korunas (SKK) per square metre of land a year for the period from 24 June 1991 to 31 December 1994.\n12.  On 15 May 2003 the Spišská Nová Ves District Court obliged the tenants to pay the applicant a rent of SKK 0.1 per square metre of land for the period from 24 June 1991 to 31 December 1991, and SKK 0.3 for the period from 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1994.\n13.  As to the former period, the rent due was up to 1.5% of the administrative value of the land. Part of the applicant's land was classified as pasture and its value under the applicable regulation was SKK 0.5 per square metre. The remaining part of the plot was classified as arable land and its value was SKK 0.65 per square metre. Under the law in force the applicant was thus entitled to a total sum of SKK 10.1 as rent for the above period in 1991. However, since the gardeners had agreed to pay SKK 0.1 per square metre for the use of the land the court accepted that sum as the basis for determination of the rent. The rent due for that period was thus SKK 126.9.\n14.  As to the second period, that is from 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1994, valuation of land was governed by Regulation 465/1991. According to this, the arable part of the applicant's land had the value of SKK 0.5 per square metre and the remainder SKK 0.375. Compensation for temporary use of the land was to be agreed upon by the parties. Since no such agreement had been reached, the District Court considered it appropriate that the gardeners should pay SKK 0.3 per square metre per year. It had thereby also regard, as reference, to section 4(1) of Law no. 64/1997. The decision stated that the sum claimed by the applicant, namely SKK 2 per square metre, was too high, considering the location of the land and the gardeners' contribution to increasing its quality.\n15.  The applicant appealed. She argued that the first-instance court had not correctly determined the surface area of her share in the plot used by the gardeners and that the rent due had not been determined correctly.\n16.  On 30 October 2003 the Košice Regional Court granted the applicant's claim in part, in that it held that the gardeners were obliged to pay rent in respect of the overall land covered by the contract of 1983, that is also on its parts which, according to the gardeners, could not ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4839", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Helsinki.\n5.  On 6 February 1997 the applicant was questioned as a suspect regarding an aggravated tax offence.\n6.  The charges became pending before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) on 17 November 1997.\n7.  In the period between 20 March 1998 and 17 May 2001 the bailiff unsuccessfully tried to reach the applicant at least three times: once in March 1998 at an address in Helsinki and twice, in January and June 1999, via the post box used by the applicant's company in Helsinki. It appears from the documents provided that the applicant called the bailiff on or after 20 March 1998 informing him of a new address outside Helsinki. However, there is no indication that the bailiff tried to reach him at that or any other address than those mentioned above.\n8.  As is customary in cases where a person cannot be found by the bailiff, a warrant for the applicant's arrest was issued on 24 June 1999. The warrant was subsequently renewed at regular intervals.\n9.  On 17 May 2001, while serving a prior prison sentence, the applicant was located by the bailiff and served with the summons.\n10.  The District Court held preparatory hearings on 5 December 2002 and 11 February 2003. The main hearing was organised over two days, on 24 and 26 March 2003. The applicant and four witnesses were heard. Two of those witnesses testified on the applicant's behalf.\n11.  On 5 May 2003 the District Court convicted the applicant of an accounting offence and aggravated tax fraud. The charges with regard to a third offence had been withdrawn due to its having become time-barred. The applicant was sentenced to seven months' imprisonment.\n12.   In his appeal of 1 June 2003 the applicant requested an oral hearing, at which the four previously heard witnesses would be heard on the same matters as at first instance. In the same observations, however, he stated that, due to the length of time that had passed, the witnesses had not been able to recall, before the District Court, the relevant events which had taken place from 1992 to 1994. He also argued that the charges should be dismissed owing to the length of the proceedings. In his additional observations of 6 July 2004, the applicant requested that the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) hear two entirely new witnesses.\n13.  On 29 June 2005 the Court of Appeal rejected the request for an oral hearing as manifestly unnecessary since no issue had arisen as to the assessment of the credibility of the oral evidence and as the matter could be decided on the basis of the written material presented during the proceedings. The lower court's judgment was upheld but instead of an unconditional prison term of seven months the applicant was sentenced to 180 hours of community service.\n14.  On 29 August 2005 the applicant requested leave to appeal. The request was denied on 7 February 2006 by the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4840", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Lahti.\n5.  On 12 October 2000 the applicant was questioned by the police as a suspect in a number of aggravated narcotics offences which had allegedly been committed on 10 December 1999. The offences had been reported to the police on 5 October 2000. The pre-trial investigation was completed on 21 March 2001.\n6.  The case was examined and decided by the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) with regard to some of the defendants in May 2001. The charges against the applicant and one other person were removed from the docket for the time being at the public prosecutor's request because H., a witness, had not been located to appear in court.\n7.  On 15 April 2002 the public prosecutor preferred charges against the applicant and the other remaining defendant.\n8.  On 15 February 2004 H. was summoned to appear before the court on 12 May 2004. That hearing was cancelled as H. was in prison awaiting trial in Sweden. The hearing eventually took place on 11 August 2004. During the hearing H. refused to elaborate on the matter and his pre-trial records were read out to the court.\n9.  On the same date the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment. In its judgment the court stated, in reply to the complaint made by the applicant's co-defendant, that when assessed as a whole, the proceedings had lasted longer than usual. However, the delay had been attributable to the legal excuse of a witness, which had prevented the case from being finalised earlier.\n10.  On 15 May 2006 the Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), having held an oral hearing, upheld the lower court's judgment. As witness H. was again unavailable for the hearing, despite several previous attempts by the court to reach him, the District Court recordings of his statements were played back during the hearing.\n11.  In its decision the court noted that there were no reasons in the co-defendant's case to mitigate the punishment based on the long time that had passed since the offences. It further noted that both defendants had previously been sentenced many times to unconditional prison sentences. Taking that into account the court found that the length of the sentence awarded by the District Court struck a fair balance between the act committed, the motives for that act and other aspects of their guilt.\n12.  On 10 October 2006 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused leave to appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4841", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  Mr Kolev was a high-ranking prosecutor. Between 1994 and 1997 he was Deputy Chief Public Prosecutor of Bulgaria and, thereafter, a prosecutor at the Supreme Cassation Prosecution Office and later at the Supreme Administrative Prosecution Office.\n7.  His wife, Mrs Nanka Koleva, the second applicant, is a high-ranking prosecutor.\n8.  On 10 January 2001 Mr Kolev was dismissed from his position by decision of the Supreme Judicial Council, on an application by the Chief Public Prosecutor, Mr F. The decision ordered Mr Kolev's retirement.\n9.  During the months preceding Mr Kolev's dismissal, several other high-ranking prosecutors were dismissed and ordered to take early retirement.\n10.  Mr Kolev lodged an appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court against his dismissal, stating, inter alia, that he had never applied for retirement and that he had not reached retirement age. By a judgment of 23 May 2001 a chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the dismissal as contrary to the law, noting that Mr Kolev had not reached retirement age and that even though he was eligible for early retirement this could only be ordered if requested by the person concerned.\n11.  On appeal, that judgment was upheld on 10 December 2001 by a five-member chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court.\n12.  On an unspecified date in 2002 Mr Kolev resumed his office as a prosecutor. He started work at the Supreme Administrative Prosecution Office.\n13.  Between 1999 and 2006 Mr F. was the Chief Public Prosecutor of Bulgaria.\n14.  According to Mr Kolev, the real reason for attempting to force him to retire was a conflict between him and the Chief Public Prosecutor. Mr Kolev allegedly knew the Chief Public Prosecutor very well as they had been in the same class as university students and had worked together for an unspecified period. Observing the behaviour of the Chief Public Prosecutor, Mr Kolev gradually formed the opinion that he was suffering from a psychiatric disorder. Also, a conflict between the two allegedly erupted in relation to plans – which Mr Kolev resisted – to allow public access to the archives of the military intelligence service dating from the communist period. According to Mr Kolev's statements, supported by several other public figures, the conflict also arose from the fact that the Chief Public Prosecutor had developed an authoritarian style and had repeatedly ordered other prosecutors to act unlawfully against persons whom the Chief Public Prosecutor perceived as his enemies. In particular, on numerous occasions the Chief Public Prosecutor had ordered his subordinate colleagues to open criminal proceedings against other persons on fabricated charges.\n15.  On 23 February 2001 the Chief Public Prosecutor met Mr Kolev and allegedly ordered him to withdraw his appeal against the dismissal order of 10 January 2001 (see paragraph 8 above), threatening him with arrest and criminal prosecution if he did not comply.\n16.  In March and April 2001 Mr Kolev made public his suspicions about the mental health of the Chief Public Prosecutor. In interviews for the press he stated that the Chief Public Prosecutor constantly feared plots, mistrusted his colleagues and regularly ordered unlawful actions to put pressure on persons whom he considered to be against him. He referred to the recent suicide of a high-ranking prosecutor, who had left a note stating that the Chief Public Prosecutor should resign. Also, in January 2001 the Chief Public Prosecut", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4842", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1934 respectively and live in Makedonski Brod.\n5.  On 12 March 1996 the applicants brought a civil action against the Ministry of Finance (“the Ministry”) claiming an annual leave allowance (регрес за годишен одмор) for 1995.\n6. On 18 April 1996 the then Kičevo Municipal Court (“the first-instance court”) ruled in favour of the applicants, ordering the Ministry to pay them the amount claimed. The decision was given in the Ministry's absence, although summoned properly. It became final on 27 May 1996.\n7. On 27 June 1997 the applicants requested enforcement of this decision. This request was granted on 29 September 1997. On 5 December 1997 the Attorney-General (Јавен Правобранител) objected to the enforcement order, arguing, inter alia, that it had not been given an opportunity to participate in the substantive proceedings as the Ministry's legal representative. Its objection was dismissed by decisions of 11 March 1999 and 8 March 2000 respectively. In or about May 2000 the amount due was transferred on the applicants' accounts.\n8.  On 3 September 2000 the Attorney-General requested that the first-instance court remove the clause attesting that its decision of 18 April 1996 had become final (“the clause”, се брише клаузулата на правосилност) since it had not been summoned, as the Ministry's legal representative, to participate in those proceedings.\n9. On 25 September 2000 the first-instance court dismissed this request. The Attorney-General appealed. On 12 June 2001 the Bitola Court of Appeal accepted its appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. On 6 July 2001 the first-instance court accepted the request and removed the clause. The parties were advised to appeal against this decision. The applicants refused to be served with this decision. They did not appeal.\n10. On 28 November 2001 the Attorney-General appealed against the first-instance court's decision of 18 April 1996. The applicants refused to have a copy of this appeal communicated to them.\n11. On 15 January 2002 the Bitola Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney-General's appeal and quashed the decision of 18 April 1996.\n12. On 27 January 2003 the proceedings were stayed. On the applicants' appeal, on 3 April 2003 the Bitola Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for re-examination.\n13. On 5 September 2003 the first-instance court dismissed the applicants' claim since no such allowance had been paid in 1995 and no funds had been allocated for that purpose in the State's budget.\n14. On 19 November 2003 the Bitola Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicants of 15 October 2003. This decision was served on them on 10 December 2003. On 6 February 2004 the public prosecutor informed the applicants that there were no grounds for lodging a request for the protection of legality with the Supreme Court.\n15.  In separate proceedings, the State requested that the applicants pay back the amount awarded by the first-instance court's decision of 18 April 1996. This request was accepted by court decisions of 7 May and 6 December 2004 respectively.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4843", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Belozem.\n5.  On 12 November 1997 the applicant, who had previous convictions for rape and other offences, was arrested, charged with rape and sexual assault and remanded in custody. The charges on which the applicant was later convicted concerned a gang rape by three persons who entered the home of a woman who lived with her two minor daughters, forced her to leave the house and raped the girls, aged thirteen and sixteen.\n6.  The preliminary investigation was completed in July 1998. During that stage of the proceedings the investigator held more than twenty interviews with witnesses and the accused, commissioned medical reports and a psychiatric report, conducted searches and collected other evidence.\n7.  On 31 July 1998 an indictment was submitted to the Plovdiv District Court.\n8.  In the following two years and two months the District Court invited the parties to ten or twelve hearings, five or six of which were adjourned. Three adjournments were caused by the fact that one of the jurors was absent. That caused a delay of approximately six months. One adjournment was the result of the absence of the lawyer of one of the accused and another adjournment was occasioned by the absence of the civil plaintiff. The authorities also encountered difficulties in locating and summoning some of the witnesses.\n9.  By judgment of 25 September 2000, the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment. The applicant and the other accused appealed.\n10.  By judgment of 28 March 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the lower court's judgment and remitted the case on the ground that on 26 May and 28 September 1999 the District Court had ruled on the accused persons' appeals against detention in a composition different from that in which it had sat in the criminal case against them. That was considered to be a “significant breach of procedure” that automatically required the quashing of the District Court's judgment in the criminal case and a fresh trial. In reaching that conclusion, the Regional Court referred to the practice of the Supreme Court of Cassation on the matter (see paragraph 30 below).\n11.  In April 2001 the prosecutor rectified two minor omissions in the indictment.\n12.  The new trial started with a hearing on 16 July 2001 which was, however, adjourned, because the victims had not been summoned.\n13.  The hearing listed for 25 January 2002 was adjourned as two of the accused did not appear. One of them had fallen ill and the other had left the country.\n14.  The hearing listed for 20 February 2002 was adjourned as one of the jurors did not appear.\n15.  The hearing listed for 9 May 2002 could not proceed because the applicant's lawyer was attending to other business and the applicant had not had the time to seek assistance from other counsel.\n16.  The hearing listed for 19 June 2002 was adjourned because the applicant's lawyer did not appear and the applicant had not retained counsel. The court appointed counsel for the applicant itself and adjourned the hearing.\n17.  The court held hearings on 16 and 17 September 2002, 21 and 22 November 2002 and 21 and 24 March 2003. It heard witnesses and the parties' pleadings and admitted other evidence.\n18.  Throughout the proceedings delays occurred as a result of the fact that the victims and witnesses could not be found at their registered addresses.\n19.  By judgment of 24 March 2003 the applicant and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4844", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Malaga, Spain.\n5.  The applicant's company was building houses on a plot bordering on parkland in the city of Espoo. On 19 October 2000 the city filed a criminal complaint requesting the police to investigate whether the applicant, or other persons, had committed an offence by cutting down trees on city grounds and removing them without authorisation.\n6.  On 31 October 2000 the applicant was questioned by the police for the first time in that connection. On 5 July 2001, having questioned the applicant on three further occasions, as well as other suspects and witnesses, and having obtained written evidence, the police referred the investigation report to the public prosecutor.\n7.  The applicant subsequently requested an additional pre-trial investigation. The prosecutor acceded to the request and referred the case back to the police on 14 November 2001. The report on that investigation was sent to the prosecutor on 13 March 2002.\n8.  In August 2001 two more criminal complaints were filed and the applicant was questioned on suspicion of having made unauthorised alterations to a listed building situated on the construction site and having used the city grounds as a storage area for soil and building materials. The reports on these investigations were referred to the prosecutor on 19 and 20 June 2002, respectively.\n9.  The applicant was provided with an opportunity to submit final statements to the investigation reports, which he did. The police referred the last two statements to the prosecutor on 22 August 2002.\n10.  On 24 September 2002 the prosecutor brought charges against the applicant and three other defendants in the Espoo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt). He accused the applicant of damage to the environment, aggravated criminal damage, a building offence and criminal trespass. The city joined most of the charges. After having held preliminary hearings on 8 January 2003, the court held an oral hearing comprising ten sessions between 7 and 22 May 2003. In addition to written evidence the court received testimony from all defendants and nearly 30 witnesses. On 7 May 2003 the court also made an on-site inspection.\n11.  On 18 June 2003 the court dismissed all the charges. Regarding the applicant, it stated, inter alia, that in cutting down the trees he had acted in good faith, relying on an agreement between the city and the owner of the building plot. According to the said agreement, the constructor was required to trim and tidy up the bordering parkland. The court further found that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the applicant had justifiably believed that no authorisation was needed to renovate the listed building and that he had not used the city grounds in an unlawful manner. In assessing the amount of costs and expenses awarded to defence counsel, the District Court noted that the case material had been extensive and the court's oral hearing had comprised ten long sessions.\n12.  On 30 June 2003 the prosecutor requested an extension of the time-limit set for an appeal. Having regard to the extent of the case material and the prosecutor's annual leave, the District Court extended the time-limit to 15 September 2003.\n13.  On that date, the prosecutor lodged his appeal with the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). On 14 November 2003 the letter of appeal was sent to the applicant for comments. On 3 December 2003 the applicant requested an extension of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4845", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1918, 1944, 1946, 1947, 1939, 1943, 1950, 1949, 1955, 1965 and 1940 respectively. They all live in Ghaxaq except for the last applicant who lives in Mosta.\n7.  The applicants are owners of two plots of land (“A and B”) in Ghaxaq, Malta. Plot A measures 71.5 sq.m and plot B measures 1,930.3 sq.m.\n8.  By a Governor's declaration of 15 February 1974, the Government gave notice of expropriation of both plots of land. It was declared that the land was required for a public purpose and was to be acquired by outright sale. At the relevant time, this declaration did not transfer the ownership of the land to the Government. In particular, it was provided that the Commissioner of Lands should serve a copy of the Presidential Declaration on the owner of the land, together with a “notice to treat” informing him or her about the amount that the Commissioner was willing to pay.\n9.  By a Notice to Treat of 19 November 1974 the applicants were offered the sum of 81 Maltese liras (MTL – approximately 189 euros (EUR)) for plot A and MTL 2,905 (approximately EUR 6,762) for plot B. Consequently, the procedure to compensate the applicant and to transfer the legal ownership of the land to the legal authority was initiated.\n10.  The applicants refused the offer and on an unspecified date in 1990 proceedings were instituted before the Land Arbitration Board (“LAB”). On 13 October 1995 the LAB ordered the applicants to transfer the two plots of land to the Government by outright sale and established the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicants in the sum of MTL 277.75 (approximately EUR 647) for Plot A and MTL 7,099.94 (approximately EUR 16,512) for Plot B, in accordance with the appointed architects' evaluations according to domestic law. The applicants submitted that according to their architect's valuation dated January 1993 the land then was worth MTL 105,000 (approximately EUR 243,850).\n11.  The applicants appealed against this decision to the Court of Appeal, which on 30 May 1997 declared the appeal null and void as no appeal could be entered against the decision of the LAB.\n12.  In the meantime, building permits had been issued by the administration in respect of all the entire area surrounding the plots of land at issue; however, the administration had not considered that Plots A and B could be used for building purposes. The applicants alleged that from 1974 to 1998 (the year when they instituted constitutional proceedings, see paragraph 13 below), Plots A and B had not been utilised for any public purpose. Plot A had been allocated to a private individual so that he could have a garage and a garden next to his residence and Plot B had remained unused until 1979, when a commemorative plaque was placed in a small area of the land. The remainder had not been utilised by the authorities for twenty-five years.\n13.  On 18 May 1998 the applicants lodged an application with the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional jurisdiction claiming that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention, in that the property expropriated had not been used for a public purpose and the amount determined by the LAB did not constitute adequate compensation for the taking of the property. They further complained, under Article 6 of the Convention, that the Government, which alone had the possibility of initiating proceedings before the LAB in order to determine the amount of compensation due, had wait", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4846", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Tallinn.\n \nThe first set of proceedings\n5.  The applicant's father died in 1989. On 16 March 2001 a lawyer carried out the distribution of the estate, the applicant and his brother being its beneficiaries.\n6.  On 17 September 2001 the applicant lodged a civil action against his brother with the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) contesting the distribution.\n7.  On 8 October 2001 the court requested the applicant to supplement his application for a summons to be issued. It urged the applicant to give further particulars of his claims and the circumstances on which they were based and to indicate the evidence that he wished to present and what each piece of evidence was intended to prove, as required by Chapter 5, Article 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure (oikeudenkäymiskaari, rättegångsbalken, 4/1734 with later amendments). The court further referred to Chapter 5, Article 6 of the Code, noting that in case of failure to comply with the request, the court could declare the action inadmissible or dismiss it.\n8.  The applicant filed two submissions, dated 22 October 2001 and 2 April 2002.\n9.  On 7 March 2003 the court sent the applicant another request, finding his submissions to be so incomplete and unclear that the defendant would not be able to respond to his action in an appropriate manner.\n10.  The applicant filed two submissions, dated 31 March and 17 April 2003.\n11.  On 23 July 2003 the defendant filed with the court his response to the action. He requested that it be declared inadmissible or dismissed stating, inter alia, that he was unable to respond to the claims due to the obscurity of the applicant's submissions.\n12.  On 8 August 2003 the court requested the applicant to submit a detailed statement in reply to the defendant's pleading. It further urged the applicant to consider employing the services of a lawyer.\n13.  The applicant filed five submissions between 18 August and 7 September 2003.\n14.  On 9 September 2003 the District Court ruled that the applicant's action was inadmissible as his submissions to the court were so incomplete that they could not form a basis for the proceedings. The court referred to Chapter 5, Article 6 of the Code of Judicial Procedure in that connection.\n15.  The applicant appealed against the decision to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). In its decision of 1 July 2004 the appellate court stated, inter alia, that the applicant's application for a summons and his supplementary submissions thereto were confused in several parts and difficult to understand. However, it could be deduced from his submissions that his claims concerned an alleged advance on the inheritance received by his brother and compensation due to the applicant for his own work in the interests of the estate. The court found that the applicant had sufficiently explained those circumstances which formed the grounds for his action and that he had even submitted monetary claims with accompanying explanations. The court concluded that the District Court should not have ruled the action inadmissible and remitted the case to that court. It ordered the District Court to open the examination of the case of its own motion after one month had elapsed from the date when the Court of Appeal's decision had gained legal force.\n16.  On 3 February 2005 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the defendant leave to appeal and the above decision ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4847", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Trnava.\n5.  On 22 September 2000 a housing cooperative filed an action before the Trnava District Court against the applicant, seeking payment of a sum of money.\n6.  On 7 October 2002 the District Court decided against the applicant and dismissed his counterclaim. The applicant lodged an appeal.\n7.  On 18 November 2002 the applicant complained about unjustified delays to the President of the District Court and challenged a District Court judge for bias.\n8.  On 31 March 2003 his request for waiver of the court fees was dismissed by a judicial clerk. The applicant filed an appeal.\n9.  On 8 August 2003 the case file was transferred to the Trnava Regional Court. On 4 September 2003 the Regional Court remitted it back, as the District Court had failed to decide on the applicant's appeal in respect of his request for waiver of the court fees. On 23 February 2004 a District Court judge dismissed the applicant's request for waiver of the court fees. The applicant appealed.\n10.  On 30 June 2004 the case file was transferred to the Regional Court. On 13 August 2004 the Regional Court remitted it to the District Court, as the decision of 23 February 2004 was delivered by the judge who had previously been challenged for bias by the applicant. Following a statement by the judge concerned as to her alleged bias, the case file was transferred to the Regional Court on 23 September 2004. On 30 September 2004 the Regional Court decided not to exclude the District Court judge in question from dealing with and deciding on the case.\n11.  On 31 January 2005 the Regional Court quashed the District Court's judgment and confirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a waiver of the court fees. The case file was remitted to the District Court on 18 February 2005.\n12.  On 13 February 2006 the District Court decided against the applicant. The applicant appealed. On 4 April 2006 the file was transferred to the Regional Court which, on 17 July 2006, quashed the first-instance judgment.\n13.  On 11 January 2007 the applicant lodged a counterclaim. On 21 February 2007 the District Court dismissed the applicant's request for waiver of the court fees for lodging his counterclaim. The applicant appealed and the file was transferred to the Regional Court on 14 March 2007. On 13 April 2007 the Regional Court remitted it back as being submitted prematurely. On 18 April 2007 the file was repeatedly transmitted to the Regional Court. On 30 April 2007 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision of 21 February 2007.\n14.  Between January and October 2007 the District Court held 6 hearings. On 29 October 2007 the District Court delivered its third judgment and decided against the applicant.\n15.  On 9 November 2007 the applicant appealed. On 27 February 2008 the District Court dismissed the applicant's request for waiver of the court fees for lodging his appeal. The applicant appealed. On 27 March 2008 the file was transferred to the Regional Court which, on 18 April 2008, upheld the first-instance decision of 27 February 2008.\n16.  On 5 November 2008 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment of 29 October 2007. According to the information submitted by the applicant a hearing was to be held on 10 June 2009 before the District Court.\n17.  On 15 March 2004 the applicant applied to the Constitutional Court, challenging the length of the proceedings before the Trnava District Court.\n18.  On 4 November 2004 the C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4848", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Diyarbakır. He is the owner of a grocery shop in Diyarbakır which he runs with his brother.\n5.  According to the arrest report, drafted on 15 February 2001 at around 10.45 a.m. and signed by the applicant and his brother, police officers had received information that shopkeepers on Bal Street were not opening their shops as a protest to mark the second anniversary of the arrest of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party), an illegal armed organisation. When the officers arrived at the street in question they asked the applicant and his brother to open their shop. The applicant and his brother swore at them and shouted slogans. In the meantime, a small crowd of children and women had started to throw stones at the police cars. The police officers requested, via wireless radio, reinforcements from the police station. Two police officers sustained injuries while trying to arrest the applicant and his brother. The police officers then used force to subdue the applicant and his brother before arresting them for obstructing an official in the course of his duties. It is also stated that the suspects reached for the gun of one of the police officers. It appears that five police officers took part in the applicant and his brother's arrest.\n6.  In his application form the applicant submitted that, on 15 February 2001, before he had opened the shutters of his shop, a number of police officers arrived and started smashing the shop shutters and windows with sledgehammers. When the applicant and his brother attempted to stop the police officers, they were beaten up, arrested and subsequently placed in police custody.\n7.  According to a medical report drawn up at the Diyarbakır branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute the same day, at 2.20 p.m., there was a light 4 x 1cm reddish bruise and a traumatic oedema on the front of the applicant's left arm. There was also another red-coloured bruise, measuring 15 cm by 3cm, on the outside of his left thigh.\n8.  The same doctor also found a number of injuries on the applicant's brother, including a 1 x 1 cm wound on the right parietal region, a 4 x 1 cm bruise on the right side of his neck, a 10 x 3 cm bruise on the right side of his lower back and left shoulder, slight erosion on his right wrist and a number of superficial grazes.\n9.  In the meantime, on the same day, two of the police officers were examined first at the State Hospital, and later at the Diyarbakır branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute.\n10.  According to the medical report drawn up at the State Hospital, at 10.50 a.m., police officer M.A.A. had sustained a haematoma on his left eye, had redness and sensitivity on the right side of his chest, a haematoma and swelling on his left hand and a swelling and superficial graze on his right hand. At 1.30 p.m. Mr M.A.A. was examined at the Forensic Medicine Institute, where the doctor found that the police officer had sustained a haematoma on his left eye and a traumatic oedema on his left cheek, pain and sensitivity on his left hand and the right side of his ribs and that he had slight erosion on the right hand.\n11.  According to the medical report drawn up at the State Hospital, at 10.50 a.m., police officer H.A.K. had a broad patch of redness on the right side of his neck and shoulder region. At 1.30 p.m. he was examined at the Forensic Medicine Institute, where the doctor found that the police officer had a number of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4849", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1962, 1978 and 1980 respectively and were in Kandıra prison at the time of the lodging of the application.\n5.  On 11 March 1998 the first applicant, Mr Bolukoç was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the DHKP-C (Revolutionary People's Liberation Party- Front).\n6.  According to a report drafted on 14 March 1998 by a police officer, the first applicant had stated that he was a member of DHKP-C and that, in line with that organisation's directives, he would not make statements to the police.\n7.  On 14 March 1998 the first applicant, Mr Bolukoç was brought before a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court (hereinafter “the ISCC”), who ordered his remand in custody.\n8.  On 30 March 1998 the prosecutor at the ISCC filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal armed organisation. The charges were brought, inter alia, under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of Law no. 3713.\n9.  On 13 April 1998 criminal proceedings against the first applicant commenced before the 5th Chamber of the ISSC (no. 1998/128). At the next hearing, held on 28 July 1998, the court decided to join these proceedings to another case (no. 1997/543) pending before the 6th Chamber of the ISSC. In the course of these proceedings, the applicant was released pending trial.\n10.  On 11 July 2000 the first applicant was again arrested and taken into police custody on the same grounds as before, but in respect of acts which he had allegedly committed after he had been released pending trial.\n11.  On the same day, the second and the third applicants were arrested and taken into police custody on the same grounds as the first applicant.\n12.  On 14 July 2000 the third applicant was questioned by two police officers and made a number of statements incriminating both himself and others.\n13.  On 15 July 2000, following authorisation from the prosecutor, the second applicant met with his lawyer between 3 and 3.15 p.m. On the same day, the third applicant met with his lawyer between 3.30 and 3.45 p.m.\n14.  On the same day, the police showed photographs of suspected members of the organisation to the second applicant, who recognised one person who had procured for him guns and a photocopying machine. The second applicant was also questioned by two police officers and made a number of statements incriminating both himself and others.\n15.  On 16 July 2000 the second and the third applicant took part in a reconstruction of events where they admitted, inter alia, to throwing a Molotov cocktail at a building in Istiklal on 30 March 2000.\n16.  According to a verbatim record drafted by the police on 16 July 2000, the first applicant refused to make a statement to the police and stated that he was on hunger strike until his transfer to judicial authorities. According to another report drafted on 17 July 2000 by a police officer the first applicant had stated that he was a member of DHKP-C and that he would not make statements to the police or sign any documents.\n17.  On 17 July 2000 the applicants were bought before the prosecutor at the ISSC, where they denied the accusations against them. The second and the third applicants retracted their police statements. The first applicant stated that he had refused to make a statement to the police because he did not accept the accusations against him.\n18.  On the same day the applicants were brought before ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4850", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are spouses. The first applicant was born in 1930 and the second applicant was born in 1940. They live in Detva.\n5.  On 8 January 1997 the applicants claimed that the joint ownership of a real property should be dissolved and that the property in issue should be distributed between them and a third co-owner.\n6.  On 24 February 1997 the Zvolen District Court delivered a judgment against which the defendant appealed.\n7.  The judgment was quashed by the Banská Bystrica Regional Court on 12 June 1997.\n8.  On 28 August 2002 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision of 19 July 2002 ordering each of the applicants to pay an advance on expert's fees. The second applicant unsuccessfully complained that she was not obliged to pay that sum (the equivalent of 92 euros (EUR) at that time). Subsequently, enforcement of the above decision was ordered. The second applicant submits that she was thereby put in a difficult situation as her only income was an invalidity pension.\n9.  On 22 April 2002 the first applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about excessive delays in the Zvolen District Court's proceedings. The Constitutional Court asked him to rectify shortcomings in his submission. On 23 May 2002 the first applicant appointed a lawyer to represent him in the constitutional proceedings. On 30 May 2002 the lawyer, on behalf of the first applicant, complied with the Constitutional Court's request.\n10.  On 8 January 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the first applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time in that it had significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings. It awarded the first applicant 25,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) (the equivalent of EUR 607 at that time), ordered the District Court to avoid further delays and to reimburse the first applicant's costs.\n11.  On 24 June 2003 the Zvolen District Court decided to transfer the case to the Lučenec District Court.\n12.  The file was transferred to the Lučenec District Court on 7 August 2003. The latter delivered a judgment on the merits on 3 October 2005. The applicants appealed and filed additional claims for compensation.\n13.  The file was transferred to the court of appeal on 18 November 2005. On 15 March 2006 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment, noting that it could not examine any additional claims which the plaintiffs had not submitted to the first-instance court. The decision was served on the applicants on 27 March 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4851", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Mr Trninić and Mr Novaković live in Serbia and the other applicants in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n6.  By judgments of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 18 September 2001, 28 January 2003, 27 March 2001, 25 February 2002, 19 March 2003, 6 July 1999, 5 November 2001, 4 April 2000, 21 December 1999, 12 May 1999, 1 October 1999, 17 April 2002, 17 October 2002, 22 April 2002, 17 July 2001 and 15 February 1999, which became final on 16 November 2004, 26 May 2005, 17 September 2003, 25 January 2005, 25 April 2005, 20 June 2001, 18 October 2004, 20 March 2002, 10 July 2001, 5 January 2001, 9 March 2001, 17 March 2005, 10 May 2005, 21 December 2004, 28 December 2004 and 6 July 2001 respectively, the Republika Srpska[1] was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate from the date of the relevant first-instance judgment:\n(a)  30,000 convertible marks (BAM)[2] in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 2,410 in respect of legal costs to Mr Čolić;\n(b)  BAM 27,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,114 in respect of legal costs to Mr Trninić;\n(c)  BAM 15,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,782 in respect of legal costs to Mr Punišić;\n(d)  BAM 8,580 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 2,550 in respect of legal costs to Mr Jusufagić;\n(e)  BAM 27,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,456 in respect of legal costs to Mr Novaković;\n(f)  BAM 8,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Vulin;\n(g)  BAM 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 718 in respect of legal costs to Mr Vulin;\n(h)  BAM 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,175 in respect of legal costs to the Žujićs;\n(i)  BAM 15,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,567 in respect of legal costs to Mr Simović;\n(j)  BAM 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 1,953 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 3,000 in respect of legal costs to the Malkićs;\n(k)  BAM 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 600 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,500 in respect of legal costs to the Todorovićs;\n(l)  BAM 16,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,374 in respect of legal costs to Mr Milić;\n(m)  BAM 11,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 987 in respect of legal costs to Mr Višić;\n(n)  BAM 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,015 in respect of legal costs to Ms Bojanić;\n(o)  BAM 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 1,050 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 2,327 in respect of legal costs to Ms Petrović and the Ivanovs; and\n(p)  BAM 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,241 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,132 in respect of legal costs to the Majstorovićs.\n7.  The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 20 April 2005, 24 October 2005, 4 November 2003, 19 April 2005, 26 December 2005, 31 January 2005 (ordering the enforcement of two judgments in favour of Mr Vulin), 2 June 2003, 1 November 2001, 6 July 2001, 4 April 2002, 5 September 2005, 25 October 2005, 7 April 2005, 19 April 2005 and 29 August 2001 respectively.\n8.  The applicants complained of non-enforcement to the Human Rights Chamber or to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 9 November 2005 the Human Rights Commission (the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber) found a breach of Article 6 of the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4852", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Vratsa.\n7.  At about 2.30 p.m. on 25 March 1993 the applicant's five‑year‑old son was playing in the street and started spraying a neighbour, Mr M.T., with water from a bottle. According to the findings of the national courts which examined the case later, M.T. asked him to stop. The applicant's son did not heed his request. M.T. then took a five‑centimetre‑long piece of tile and threw it at the applicant's son, hitting him in the forehead and the left eyelid. The injuries suffered by the boy were a longitudinal wound on the left eyebrow measuring 11 by 3 millimetres and a bruised lower left eyelid measuring 5 by 3 millimetres. The applicant alleged that his son had in addition suffered psychological trauma.\n8.  On 3 August 1993 the applicant, acting on behalf of his son, lodged with the Vratsa District Court (Врачански районен съд) a criminal complaint and a claim for damages against M.T. He alleged that M.T. had wilfully inflicted actual minor bodily harm on his son and requested that he be sentenced to two years' imprisonment and be ordered to pay 100,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL), plus interest, as compensation for his son's pain and suffering.\n9.  At the first hearing, which took place on 15 November 1993, the court invited the parties to settle. M.T. expressed his regret and said that he was willing to reach a settlement with the applicant, but the latter refused. The court adjourned the case to allow the parties to call witnesses.\n10.  At the next hearing, held on 18 April 1994, the court again unsuccessfully invited the parties to settle. It heard M.T. and three witnesses and adjourned the case to allow the applicant to call two more witnesses.\n11.  Four hearings, listed for 19 October 1994, 22 February, 14 June and 18 October 1995, failed to take place: the first because witnesses called by the applicant did not appear; the second because the applicant, who was taking care of his sick son in hospital, and M.T.'s lawyer were absent; the third because the applicant was ill and could not attend; and the fourth because neither the applicant, who was ill, nor M.T. appeared. At the fourth hearing the court noted that M.T. had not given good reasons for his absence and ordered that he be compelled to attend the next hearing.\n12.  At the next hearing, on 11 December 1995, the court again invited the parties to settle, without success. It heard one witness and asked an expert to give an opinion on the exact extent of the injuries suffered by the applicant's son. The applicant increased the claim for damages to BGL 200,000.\n13.  At a hearing held on 13 March 1996, in spite of the absence of the applicant's lawyer, the court heard the expert and admitted his report in evidence. The applicant requested a neurological expert report on his son's condition. The court refused his request and heard the parties' closing arguments. In a judgment of the same day it found M.T. guilty of wilfully inflicting actual minor bodily harm on the applicant's son, contrary to Article 130 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 25 below). It sentenced him to one year's imprisonment, suspended. It awarded the applicant's son BGL 8,000, plus interest.\n14.  The applicant appealed to the Vratsa Regional Court (Врачански окръжен съд), arguing that there had been material breaches of the rules of procedure, that the court had erred in assessing the facts and that the sentence was too lenient.\n15.  A hearing listed for ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4853", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963. He is currently detained in Zhytomyr Prison No. 8 in Ukraine.\n6.  On 7 November 1998 according to the applicant (on 10 November 1998 according to the documents), the applicant, together with three other persons, was arrested on suspicion of two counts of aggravated murder and robbery. According to the applicant, the police ill-treated him, forcing him to confess and to waive his right to a lawyer.\n7.  During initial questioning on 10 November 1998 the applicant confessed that on 19 August 1998 he and other suspects had killed Mrs C. (hereinafter “victim C.”) whilst under the influence of alcohol. He also confessed that on 2 October 1998 he and other suspects had killed Mr B. (hereinafter “victim B.”). He made similar admissions during the reconstruction of the events on 11 November 1998. On 13 November 1998 the applicant was questioned again. During the questioning he maintained his confessions. Similar confessions were made by the suspects T., U. and B. All these investigation measures were conducted without legal assistance.\n8.  On 18 November 1998 the applicant was assigned a lawyer.\n9.  On an unknown date the applicant's mother lodged a complaint with the Kirovograd Prosecutor's Office, seeking to institute criminal proceedings against several police officers, alleging that they had subjected the applicant to inhuman treatment. On 24 December 1998 the Prosecutor's Office refused to institute criminal proceedings owing to the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers. Neither the applicant nor his mother appealed against this decision to the court.\n10.  On 29 March 1999, being questioned as an accused, the applicant denied his original confessions and claimed his innocence, stating that he had been forced to confess to crimes which he had not committed.\n11.  On 2 June 1999 the preliminary investigation was completed and the case against the applicant and four other suspects – T., U., B. and I. – was referred to the Kirovogradskiy Regional Court (Кіровоградський обласний суд, “the Regional Court”).\n12.  On 1 July 1999 the Regional Court remitted the case to the Prosecutor of the Kirovogradskiy Region for additional investigation, as it found that the investigation authorities had violated certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, breaches which could not be remedied during the trial. In its decision the court noted, inter alia, that the investigation authorities had violated the defence rights of the accused. The court found that the criminal charges against the applicant and the co-defendants had required their obligatory legal representation at the initial stage of the proceedings, whereas they had not been provided with any. In particular, the court underlined that the applicant's questioning on 10 and 13 November 1998 and the reconstruction of the events on 11 November 1998 had been conducted without legal assistance. The same considerations applied to the self-incriminating statements made by the co-defendants. The court also noted that the investigating authorities had failed to find the murder weapon and other physical evidence. By virtue of this decision, the Prosecutor's Office was obliged to repeat all the investigative measures in the presence of the defendants' lawyers.\n13.  On 10 May 2000 the additional investigation was completed and the case was referred to the Regional Court.\n14.  The applicant and the co-defendants withdrew their self-incriminating sta", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4854", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Mykolayiv, Ukraine.\n5.  On 25 November 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Korabelnyy District Court of Mykolayiv (“the Korabelnyy Court”) against Mr L., her neighbour, disputing his right to use a plot of land. On 15 January 1999 Mr L. lodged a counterclaim, alleging that he was so entitled.\n6.  On 11 January 2000 the Korabelnyy Court dismissed the applicant's claim and upheld Mr L.'s counterclaim.\n7.  On 16 March 2000 the Korabelnyy Court rendered an additional judgment, requiring Mr L. to move the fence between his and the applicant's land and ordering the applicant to pay Mr L. litigation expenses incurred by the latter.\n8.  On 12 April 2000 the Mykolayiv Regional Court[1] (“the Regional Court”[) upheld the above ]judgments with slight amendments and they became final.  In July 2000 they were enforced in full.\n9.  On 6 October 2000 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgments of 11 January and 16 March and the ruling of 12 April 2000, following an objection (протест) by the Acting President of the Regional Court and remitted the case for fresh consideration. The Presidium found that the courts had erred in their application of the law and had not sufficiently explored the relevant evidence.\n10.  On 14 August 2002 the Korabelnyy Court terminated the proceedings because Mr L. had died, leaving no heirs interested in succeeding him in the proceedings.\n11.  On 7 October 2002 the applicant appealed against this decision and requested leave to appeal out of time, referring to the Korabelnyy Court's failure to inform her about the decision of 14 August 2002 in due time.\n12.  On 3 December 2002 the Korabelnyy Court rejected the applicant's request. The applicant appealed.\n13.  On 27 February 2003 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 3 December 2002, having found, in particular, that the Korabelnyy Court had failed to pronounce the decision of 14 August 2002 publicly and to inform the applicant about it in due course.\n14.  On 3 April 2003 the Regional Court allowed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 14 August 2002. It remitted the case for fresh consideration, having found that the Korabelnyy Court had failed to take steps to identify successors to Mr L.\n15.  On 3 July 2003 the Korabelnyy Court admitted Mrs L.L., Mrs K.L., Mrs A.O. and Mrs K.I. to the proceedings as Mr L.'s successors.\n16.  On 1 September 2003 the Korabelnyy Court ruled that Mrs A.O. be questioned and some relevant court documents be served on her. Since Mrs A.O. was residing in the town of Novorossiysk, Russia, the court requested the Novorossiysk Court to carry out the above actions. By the same ruling, the court suspended the domestic proceedings. On 22 October 2003 the request was transmitted to the Mykolayiv Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice. On an unspecified date in October 2003 it was transmitted to the Russian authorities.\n17.  On 22 December 2003, following the applicant's request, the Korabelnyy Court attached the disputed plot of land, having prohibited, in particular, its division and disposal, including the preparation of any relevant documents, until the resolution of the dispute. Mr L.'s successors appealed. On 14 January 2004 the Korabelnyy Court left their appeal without examination. On an unspecified date in January 2004 the court renewed the time-limit for appealing against the ruling of 22 December 2003. On 12 February 2004 the Korab", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4855", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the town of Zaporizhzhya, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant, being the Head of the Zaporizhzhya Airport Customs Office, gave an instruction to the customs officers that the deputies of the local councils should be exempted from customs inspections when crossing the Ukrainian border.\n6.  In the period from 9 March 1998 to 22 May 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Ch., Mr S., Mr B., Mr M., Mrs N. and Mrs K. in connection with smuggling goods to Ukraine. The criminal proceedings against Mr B., Mr M. and Mrs N. were later discontinued.\n7.  On 22 May 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. She was charged with exceeding her powers.\n8.  On 11 August 1998 the proceedings against the applicant, Mr Ch. and Mrs K. were joined.\n9.  On 5 June 1998 the applicant gave a written undertaking not to abscond.\n10.  On 17 June 1998 the applicant was charged with taking a bribe.\n11.  On 18 June 1998 the applicant was arrested. She was remanded in custody.\n12.  On 7 September 1998 the preliminary investigation was terminated and the case was transferred to the court.\n13.  On 12 May 1999 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court[1] convicted the applicant of criminal negligence and sentenced her to 10 months and 24 days' imprisonment. Since the applicant had already served her sentence she was released on the same date. By the same judgment the court required the applicant to give an undertaking not to abscond.\n14.  On 16 September 1999 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court on the ground that the latter had failed to examine all the circumstances of the case.\n15.  On 16 March 2000 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court convicted the applicant of criminal negligence and sentenced her to 10 months and 24 days' imprisonment. Since the applicant had already served her sentence she was exempted from serving it. By the same judgment the court placed the applicant under an obligation not to abscond.\n16.  On 1 June 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 16 March 2000 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya on the ground that the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court had failed to examine all the circumstances of the case.\n17.  On 3 August 2000 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya remitted the case to the prosecution service for additional investigation.\n18. On 25 December 2000 the additional investigation was terminated and the case was transferred to the court.\n19.  On 15 October 2001 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya convicted the applicant of criminal negligence and sentenced her to one year's imprisonment. The applicant was exempted from serving her sentence since the charges against her had become subject to a time limitation. By the same judgment the court removed the undertaking not to abscond.\n20.  On 10 December 2001 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment.\n21.  On 8 October 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of 10 December 2001 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the Court of Appeal on the ground that the latter had failed to examine in due manner the appeals lodged by the applicant, Mr Ch. and Mrs K.\n22.  On 18 December 2002 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 15 October 2001 and remitted the case for additional investigation to the prosecutor's office.\n23.  On 24 Septem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4856", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is currently serving a sentence in Rivne Regional Penitentiary no. 76.\n8.  According to the applicant, he was detained and ill-treated in police custody from 19 to 21 October 2003. There are no further details or documents.\n9.  In the evening of 31 October 2003 the applicant, together with another person, was arrested by the Fontanka police unit of the Kominternovo District Police Department in flagrante delicto on the scene of a robbery and car hijacking. As it would later be confirmed by at least two eye-witnesses (see paragraph 23 below), the applicant attempted escaping from and showed resistance to the police.\n10.  According to the applicant, he pleaded guilty to several counts of robbery under torture. He alleged in particular that he had been heavily beaten with rubber truncheons, hanged with his arms twisted behind him and administered electric shocks.\n11.  On 1 November 2003 the applicant signed the arrest report in confirmation that his procedural rights had been explained to him.\n12.  On the same day the applicant was taken to the Kominternovo Temporary Detention Facility, where a doctor examined him and made a note that he had a bruise under his left eye.\n13.  On 4 November 2003 the investigator submitted to the Kominternovo Town Court (Комінтернівський районний суд – “the Kominternovo Court”) a motion on the applicant's detention as a preventive measure pending trial. The investigator noted that the applicant was suspected of having committed serious crimes (three counts of robbery with violence on 22, 26 and 31 October 2003), had no permanent place of residence and had a criminal record, and thus could hinder the investigation or abscond if at liberty. According to the investigator, the applicant had fully admitted his guilt.\n14.  On the same date the Kominternovo Court remanded the applicant in custody, having upheld the investigator's reasoning.\n15.  On 26 December 2003 the Kominternovo Court extended the term of the applicant's detention to four months, having referred to the necessity to complete the investigation.\n16.  On 15 June 2004 the applicant was committed for trial.\n17.  No further documents concerning the applicant's detention are available in the case file.\n18.  While having raised a general complaint about the conditions of his detention, the applicant did not describe them until in response to the information submitted by the Government.\n19.  According to the information provided by the Government, from 7 November 2003 to 3 November 2006 the applicant had been held in fifteen different cells, the smallest of which had measured 7.17 square meters (the applicant had spent three and a half months there, sharing with another inmate), while the largest one had measured about 34.1 square meters (where he had stayed for fifteen days, sharing with eleven other inmates). Each of the cells had a toilet separated from the living area, sufficient natural and artificial light, operational heating, ventilation, water supply and sewage system.\n20.  As it transpires from a note by the Odesa SIZO administration issued on an unspecified date, disinfection, disinsection and rat extermination were regularly carried out on the SIZO premises.\n21.  The Government provided seven colour photos of the cells the applicant had been detained in. The photos showed that the cells were clean and looked as if they had been repaired not long before the photos had been taken. They had sufficient natural", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4857", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1938, the second in 1962, the third in 1959, the fourth in 1940, and the fifth in 1939. All applicants live in the town of Makeyevka, Ukraine.\n6.  The applicants are former employees of the State company Shachta imeni K.I. Pochenkova (“the company”).\n7.  The applicants instituted proceedings against the company in the Chervonogvardeysky District Court of Makeyevka (“the first-instance court”) requesting it to recalculate the amount of the salary paid to them from January 1997 to October 2001 and compensate them for losses sustained as a result of alleged miscalculations made by the company. They also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The court allowed their claims (see Annex 1).\n8.  The Chervonogvardeysky District Bailiffs' Service of Makeyevka initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments given in the applicants' favour.\n9.  On an unspecified date the company was liquidated. The applicants requested the first-instance court to change the debtor in enforcement proceedings to another State company. The court allowed their requests and changed the debtor to the State company Ukrvuglerestrukturizatsiya. The Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the rulings of the first-instance court and rejected the applicants' requests. The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the Court of Appeal (for details see Annex 2).\n10.  Later, the applicants lodged extraordinary appeals against the final decisions given in their cases by the Supreme Court. However, their appeals were unsuccessful.\n11.  On 3 June 2008 the State Bailiffs' Service returned the enforcement writs to the applicants and terminated the enforcement proceedings. The judgments in the applicants' favour remain unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4858", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1939 and 1957 respectively and live in Pavlograd and Slovyansk, Ukraine.\n5.  By a judgment of 7 June 2001 the Pavlograd Town Court (Павлоградський міський суд) awarded Mr Savinskiy 6,376.66 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments to be paid by his former employer, the State company Pershotravenskoye shakhtostroyitelnoye upravleniye-4.\n6.  By a judgment of 24 December 1997 the Slovyansk Town Court (Павлоградський міський суд) awarded Mr Shevchenko UAH 1,829.89[2] in salary arrears to be paid by his former employer, the Soda Plant (ВАТ «Содовий завод»), a joint stock company in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital. By a judgment of 17 July 2000 the same court additionally ordered the debtor company to pay Mr Shevchenko UAH 7,173.09[3] in payments owed to him upon retirement.\n7.  After the above judgments had become final, the relevant departments of the State Bailiffs' Service instituted proceedings to enforce them.\n8.  Subsequently, the insolvency and later the liquidation proceedings against the debtor companies were instituted and the State Bailiffs' Service terminated the enforcement proceedings. The above-mentioned liquidation proceedings are apparently still pending.\n9.  The judgments in the applicants' favour remain unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4859", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lived in Gukovo. In December 2007 the applicant died and his sister, Mrs Irina Nikolayevna Kulikova, indicated that she wished to pursue the case.\n7.  On 13 February 1997 the applicant was apprehended at the Chervonopartizanskyy border crossing point on suspicion of drug trafficking. On the same date the applicant's car, which he had been driving at the time, was seized together with his belongings, documents and money which were in it. The customs officers refused to compile an inventory of objects seized from the applicant. Subsequently, the Customs Service transferred the car to a private company called Forum for storage.\n8.  On 26 June 1997 the Sverdlovsk Court sentenced the applicant to five years' imprisonment for drug trafficking and confiscated all of his property.\n9.  On 8 October 1997 the Lugansk Regional Court modified that judgment, sentencing the applicant to five years' imprisonment, suspended, without confiscation.\n10.  On 5 November 1997 the applicant approached Forum to ask for the return of his car. When the car was returned, the applicant noted that it had been seriously damaged and lacked several parts, the documents and belongings had been torn up and his money had disappeared. According to the company, the Customs Service had transferred the car in that condition on 20 February 1997.\n11.  On 4 January 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Sverdlovsk Court against the Sverdlovsk Customs Service seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and stating that the defendant had failed to comply with its obligation to keep his property undamaged and without loss.\n12.  On 26 March 1998 the court partially allowed the applicant's claims and awarded him part of the compensation claimed.\n13.  On 28 May 1998 the Lugansk Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the same court.\n14.  On 9 November 1998 the Sverdlovsk Court rejected the applicant's claims as unsubstantiated.\n15.  On 19 February 1999 the prosecutor's office initiated criminal proceedings against two customs officers, Mr V. and Mr C., following a request from the applicant in which he alleged that these persons were responsible for the damage to his car and belongings.\n16.  On 15 September 1999 the Presidium of the Lugansk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 9 November 1998 at the request of the prosecutor's office and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the first-instance court.\n17.  On 16 February 2000 the Sverdlovsk Court suspended the civil proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against Mr V. and Mr C.\n18.  The criminal investigation in the criminal case against Mr V. and Mr C. is still pending.\n19.  On an unspecified date following the applicant's death, his mother, Mrs Nasima Mullakhmetovna Tverdokhlebova, and daughter, Ms Mariya Vladimirovna Tverdokhlebova, joined the civil proceedings as the applicant's successors. They are represented before the domestic court by Mrs Irina Vladimirovna Kulikova, the applicant's sister.\n20.  According to Mrs Kulikova, in May 2009 the hearings in the civil case in question resumed and the case is currently pending before the first instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4860", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n11.  The applicant was born on 14 August 1979. The applicant claims to be Mr Amir Damirovich Kubulov, a citizen of the Russian Federation. He also claims that he has citizenship of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The applicant is currently detained in the Poltava pre-trial detention (“the Poltava SIZO”) of the State Department for Enforcement of Sentences.\n12.  On 16 June 2003 an unidentified person murdered Zh.U.Zh. On the same date the Ministry of the Interior of Kazakhstan launched a criminal investigation into the murder.\n13.  On 28 June 2003 the applicant was accused in Kazakhstan, in his absence, of having committed a crime under Article 96(1) of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan (murder). On the same date an investigator the Ministry of the Interior decided that the applicant should be detained.\n14.  On 4 July 2003 the Ministry of the Interior of Kazakhstan (“the MIK”) issued an international search warrant for the applicant on suspicion of his having committed aggravated murder, involving capital punishment as a sanction (Article 96(2) of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan).\n15.  The facts surrounding the applicant's initial detention may be summarised as follows.\n16.  It was agreed by the parties that the applicant had been picked up at 9.20 p.m. on 23 August 2004 and detained thereafter, although there was no agreement as to where and why the applicant was detained. They provided various documents certifying what happened in the period from 9.20 p.m. on 23 August 2004 to 7.30 p.m. 25 August 2004, which can be summarised as follows.\n17.  According to a document entitled “Record of arrest based on suspicion of involvement in a crime” (“Протокол о задержании по подозрению в совершении преступления”; hereafter - the “detention record”), issued by Major Tsarruk of the Dniprovsky District Police Department of Kyiv, a police patrol stopped the applicant, described as Amir Damirovich Kubulov, born on 14 August 1979, residing at 86, Zenkova Street, Almaty, Kazakhstan, on 23 August 2004 at 9.20 p.m. The detention record was dated with the same date and time.\n18.  In smaller print, in what appear to be standard blocks of text, the following grounds for arrest (основания задержания) are set out:\n“(...) 1.  Person had been arrested at the moment of committing a crime or in flagranto; 4.  [There is] other data, giving grounds to suspect the person in committing a crime, if he/she tried to escape or has no permanent place of residence or when the identity of the suspect has not been established.”\n19.  The detention record also set out, again in small print, reasons for the applicant's arrest (мотивы задержания):\n“To prevent crime.\n20.  The detention record then noted, in large print, that the applicant was suspected of involvement in the crime envisaged in Article 96 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan. The detention record was signed by Major Tsarruk and stated that the applicant had been “familiarised” with the reasons for his detention (the applicant signed it and marked it stating that he familiarised with it in Russian language - “ознакомлен”), and with his rights and duties, as it was provided by Article 10 of the Regulation “On temporary detention of persons suspected in committing of crime”. It contained no exact date and time when the applicant had been familiarised with the reasons for his detention. After the applicant's signature, the record stated t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4861", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  In 1952, a property situated in Bucharest at 10 Negustori Street and belonging to I.A. was seized by the State under Decree no. 224/1951, following an alleged unpaid debt. I.A.’s only heir was his wife, the applicant being the latter’s sole legatee.\nThe property consisted of a building placed on a 458 sq. m plot of land. The building was divided into five apartments.\n6.  On 10 July 1996 the applicant requested the authorities to authorise her to recover the whole property and to refrain from selling it to the tenants under Law no. 112/1995. However, on 9 December 1996, 12 March, 30 September and 7 October 1997 and 22 October 1998 the F. company, a State-owned company responsible for the management of property belonging to the State, sold the five apartments with the appurtenant land to the then tenants under Law no. 112/1995.\n7.  On 5 June 2001 the applicant, in her capacity as legatee of I.A.’s wife, claimed restitution or compensation, under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State, for a plot of 460 sq. m of land and for the constructions on it situated in Bucharest at 10 Negustori Street. It appears from the file that she did not receive any answer.\n8.  On 6 August 2002 the applicant brought court proceedings to have the sales of the five apartments declared null and void. She considered that the seizure by the State had been unlawful.\n9.  On 16 June 2003 the Bucharest Court of First Instance dismissed the action, considering that the third parties had made the purchase in good faith, although the authorities were in bad faith since they had sold the property before resolving her request to recover it. The court also acknowledged that the seizure by the State of the whole property had been unlawful and that the applicant was the legatee of I.A.’s wife. However, relying on section 46 § 2 of Law no. 10/2001, it considered that the applicant had not also proved the buyers’ bad faith.\n10.  Two subsequent appeals by the applicant were dismissed, on 14 October 2003 by the Bucharest County Court and on 11 February 2005 by a final judgment of the Bucharest Court of Appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4862", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Ankara.\n6.  On the basis of a construction permit obtained on 10 August 1976, Mr M.A. built a house in Boğazkurt, Ankara. The construction of the house and its annexes was completed in 1978. Mr M.A. planted trees around the house and regularly paid property tax to the authorities. The property in question was subsequently purchased by the applicant in 1996 (see paragraph 11 below).\n7.  In the meantime, on 21 January 1981 the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement notified Mr M.A. that his construction permit had expired on 10 August 1980 and that he had not yet applied for a property utilisation permit. In this context, he was requested to provide a report proving that the utilisation of the property did not pose any threat to public health or to the environment.\n8.  On 30 January 1981 the Kızılcahamam district government doctor issued a report stating that the utilisation of the property in question did not pose any threat to public health and that its construction had been completed in compliance with the environmental regulations.\n9.  On 11 February 1981 that report was submitted to the Ministry.\n10.  On 10 May 1981 Mr M.A. filed an application with the Ankara Provincial Construction Directorate for the renewal of the construction permit. In response, the administration notified him on 21 May 1982 that his application was currently being dealt with.\n11.  On 18 July 1996 the applicant bought the property from Mr M.A. On the same day, the land registry office issued him a title deed attesting his ownership of the property. Furthermore, the village mayor (muhtar) certified in writing that the previous owner had been residing in the property in question since 11 August 1976.\n12.  On 11 November 1998 the Directorate of Public Works and Settlement of the Ankara Governorship notified the applicant that the construction on his land must be demolished as it had been completed in the absence of the required construction permit.\n13.  On 20 November 1998 the same directorate notified the following to the applicant:\n“The construction permit for the property was issued on 10 August 1976 and expired on 10 August 1980. An application for the renewal of the construction permit was not filed in time. The required property utilisation permit was not obtained either. The property is located in the absolute protection zone, which is the immediate zone within 300 metres of sources of drinkable water. According to the Law on Hygiene and the Regulation on the Prevention of Water Pollution, construction within 300 metres of sources of drinking water and their basin is prohibited. On 11 November 1998, for these reasons, an order for the cessation of construction was issued regarding the house. As the issue of a new construction permit is not legally possible in these circumstances, it is requested that the construction on your land be demolished; otherwise it shall be demolished following the adoption of a decision by the Ankara Administrative Council.”\n14.  On 5 January 1999 the Ankara Administrative Council issued a demolition order based on the reasons specified in the notification of the Directorate of Public Works and Settlement of the Ankara Governorship.\n15.  On 26 February 1999 the applicant sought the annulment of the demolition order, stating that the construction had been completed within two years after the required permit had been obtained, so that the issue of a new construction permit was never r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4863", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Steven O. Omojudi, is a Nigerian national who was born in 1960. He currently lives in Nigeria.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicant was born in Nigeria and lived there until 1982. He was educated in Nigeria and for a period he was employed by a Nigerian aviation handling company. On 9 September 1982, when he was twenty-two years old, he was granted two months' leave to enter the United Kingdom as a student. His leave was subsequently extended to 15 January 1986. In 1983 the applicant was joined by his partner, who was also a national of Nigeria. The applicant married his partner in the United Kingdom in 1987. They had three children, who were born on 11 February 1986, 28 October 1991 and 16 September 1992. The children were born in the United Kingdom and all are British citizens. The oldest child has a daughter, who is now two years old.\n7.  Prior to the expiry of his leave in January 1986, the applicant applied for a further extension. The following day, however, he was caught returning from the Netherlands with a British visitor's passport obtained by deception. Although he was not prosecuted for the offence, the application to extend his leave was refused.\n8.  On 12 March 1987 the applicant was informed of his liability for deportation. He was served with a deportation order on 31 July 1987. He attempted to appeal against the order and a second deportation order was served on 4 December 1990. The applicant appealed against the second order, but the appeal was subsequently withdrawn.\n9.  The applicant was convicted of theft and conspiracy to defraud on 7 March 1989. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. Other convictions the same day resulted in five terms of twelve months' imprisonment to run concurrently.\n10.  On 24 October 1995 the applicant claimed asylum by post, but on 12 January 1998 the application was refused for non-compliance.\n11.  On 28 September 2000 the applicant and his wife applied for leave to remain under an overstayer's regularisation scheme. On 18 April 2005 they both were granted Indefinite Leave to Remain.\n12.  On 19 November 2006 the applicant was convicted of sexual assault. The conviction stemmed from an incident in which the applicant, in his capacity as a housing officer, touched a woman's breast without her consent. He was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment, with half to be spent in custody and half on licence, and he was registered as a sex offender. The offence was considered to be particularly serious as the applicant was in a position of trust at the time it was committed. The sentencing judge described the offence as “a gross sexual intrusion into the private life of a woman by someone in a position of trust”. He reduced the sentence, however, to lessen the impact on the applicant's family and he did not recommend him for deportation.\n13.  The Secretary of State for the Home Department made a deportation order on 31 March 2007 on the basis that deportation was necessary for the prevention of disorder and crime and for the protection of health and morals. The applicant appealed against that decision but the appeal was dismissed on 25 July 2007. Although the judge accepted that the applicant had established a family life in the United Kingdom, and that deportation would interfere with that family life, he concluded that the measure was proportionate because the applicant remained a potential offender", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4864", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and is a citizen of the United States of America.\n6.  On 25 September 2002, while the applicant was temporarily staying in Olaine (Rīga District, Latvia), the Latvian police initiated criminal proceedings concerning sexual assault of juveniles purportedly committed by him during his previous trip to Latvia, in November 2001.\n7.  On 1 October 2002 the applicant was apprehended by the police and taken into custody on suspicion of having committed sexual assault of juveniles. According to the arrest report, the applicant had been identified by an eyewitness whose name was not indicated. The charges against the applicant were explained to him in English by an officer from the Latvian National Interpol Bureau. The arrest report noted that the applicant had confirmed that he had understood the substance of the report but had refused to sign to that effect.\n8.  On 4 October 2002 the applicant was brought before a judge of the Rīga City Centre District Court, who decided to detain him on remand. The judge filled in a standard pre-typed form by writing her name, the date of the detention order and other details of the case. In substantiating the decision, the judge had simply to underline the pre-typed text of the standard form, choosing from the following list of grounds for detention: risk of absconding, risk of impeding the investigation, risk of committing crimes, severity of the crime the arrested person is suspected of, his or her personality, occupation, state of health, and “other circumstances”. The judge underlined all of the aforementioned grounds, except the “risk of absconding”, the “state of health”, the “occupation”, and the “other circumstances”. The applicant received the English translation of this order on 10 February 2003.\n9.  The applicant's attorney appealed against the detention order to the Rīga Regional Court on 15 October 2002. The attorney did not attend the hearings that had been scheduled for 18 and 29 October 2002. By a final decision of 5 November 2002, taken after a hearing with the applicant's lawyer's participation, the Rīga Regional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the impugned order had been taken in accordance with the applicable law. No other reasons were given.\n10.  In the meantime, on 31 October 2002 the applicant was officially charged with sexual assault.\n11.  On 29 November 2002, a judge of the Rīga City Centre District Court, on the request of the public prosecutor in charge of investigation, extended the applicant's detention on remand until 1 February 2003. This decision was not written on a standard form with a pre-typed text. According to that decision, the applicant's detention was extended on the basis of the reasonableness of the suspicion against the applicant, the severity of the crime with which he was charged, the fact that he had no legal and/or fixed residence in Latvia, the danger of his absconding and the possibility that he could impede the investigation. It also mentioned the risk that the applicant could put pressure on witnesses or endanger them.\n12.  The applicant appealed against that decision to the Rīga Regional Court. According to the requirements of the law, he submitted his appeal, written in English, to the court that had adopted the disputed order, in order for it to be transmitted to the Regional Court. On 13 December 2002 the Regional Court sent the applicant's appeal back to the Centre District Court, directing that it should be ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4865", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Otwock.\n6.  On an unspecified date in January 1987 the applicant's former husband instituted civil proceedings for division of matrimonial property.\n7.  During the proceedings the Otwock District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided on several occasions, of its own motion, to stay the proceedings due to the fact that the plaintiff had not paid the relevant costs arising in the course of the proceedings.\n8.  On numerous occasions the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings and to proceed speedily with the claim.\n9.  On 5 March 1998 the applicant complained to the President of the Warsaw Regional Court (Prezes Sądu Wojewódzkiego) about the delay in the proceedings.\n10.  On 8 April 2004 the proceedings were resumed.\n11.  On 20 October 2006 the Otwock District Court gave a decision ordering the plaintiff to pay a certain amount to the applicant. The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 29 October 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) partly amended the first-instance decision and dismissed the remainder of the appeal.\n13.  On 15 February 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n14.  The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Otwock District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n15.  On 6 May 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. It limited its examination of the length‑of‑proceedings issue to the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act and stressed that the Act could not be applied to the protracted length of court proceedings occurring before that date. Having analysed the conduct of the District Court during the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act (that is after 17 September 2004), the Regional Court found that there were no delays for which the District Court could be held responsible. It held that the proceedings had been conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4866", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Krupski Młyn.\n6.  On an unspecified date in July 2001 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant.\n7.  On 29 July 2002 the applicant was indicted before the Tarnowskie Góry District Court. He was charged with several offences of fraud. The bill of indictment comprised 12 accused.\n8.  On 9 September 2002 the case was remitted to the Tarnowskie Góry District Prosecutor.\n9.  On 21 October 2002, the court ordered that the applicant undergo a psychiatric examination and that an expert's opinion on his health be prepared. The hearing was adjourned until 31 January 2003.\n10.  Between 7 March 2003 and 13 October 2004 the court held nine hearings, four of which were cancelled. The applicant failed to appear at one of these hearings.\n11.  During hearings listed for 29 October, 10 and 22 November 2004 witnesses were heard.\n12.  On 6 December 2004, upon the request of the applicant's co‑accused's lawyer, the hearing was cancelled.\n13.  At hearings, set down for 15 December 2004, 5 January, 2 and 23 February, 14 March, 1 and 22 April 2005, witnesses were heard.\n14.  Between 13 May 2005 and 20 December 2006 the court held 17 hearings, six of which were adjourned since witnesses had failed to appear before the court.\n15.  The next hearing, scheduled for 22 January 2007, was adjourned as the applicant's co-accused's counsel had not been properly summoned.\n16.  The subsequent hearing, scheduled for 9 March 2007, was cancelled due to the judge's illness.\n17.  On 2 April 2007, due to the judge's prolonged illness, the case was assigned to another judge.\n18.  In consequence the case had to be reheard from the beginning and the first hearing was set down for 28 November 2007.\n19.  On 5 October 2007 the case was assigned to a third judge because of the new division of work in the court.\n20.  The trial was listed for 12 May 2008.\n21.  The proceedings are still pending before the Tarnowskie Góry District Court.\n22.  On 7 February 2008 the applicant filed with the Gliwice Regional Court a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in respect of the criminal proceedings instituted against him and asked for just satisfaction. He relied on the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004.\n23.  On 12 March 2008 the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed his complaint. It limited its examination of the length of the proceedings to the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act and stressed that the Act could not be applied to the protracted length of court proceedings occurring before that date. Having analysed the conduct of the District Court during the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act, the Regional Court acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings, finding that there had been a period of unjustified inactivity from 1 March 2007 until 12 March 2008. However, the court did not grant any just satisfaction to the applicant. It held that the applicant had failed to prove that he had suffered any damage or that he had incurred any pecuniary losses on account of the length of the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4867", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Sosnowiec.\n6.  On 20 May 2003 the Regional Prosecutor instituted an investigation into illegal trading in liquid fuel.\n7.  On 8 June 2005 the applicant was charged with, inter alia, establishing and leading an organised criminal group engaged in money laundering, illegal trading in liquid fuel and the falsification of tax documents.\n8.  On 9 June 2005 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, on the basis of reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n9.  The applicant's appeals against decisions prolonging his detention were unsuccessful. In his appeals, he argued that the charges against him were based on unreliable and fabricated evidence. He also relied on his personal circumstances, in particular the need to ensure that his wife, who suffered from psychiatric problems, was cared for.\n10.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged on 30 August and 30 November 2005 and 2 March 2006.\n11.  Further decisions extending the applicant's detention were taken by the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 19 May, 9 August 2006 and 22 November 2006, 14 February, 16 May, 17 August, 19 September and 19 December 2007.\n12.  In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. They attached importance to the complexity of the case, the significant number of persons involved and the voluminous documentation. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, especially the need to verify evidence from suspects and witnesses, justified holding the applicant in custody. The courts stressed, on several occasions, the applicant's role in the organised criminal group, holding that there was a risk that if released, he would induce witnesses to give false testimony, or otherwise obstruct the proper conduct of the investigation. In one of the decisions dismissing an appeal by the applicant against a decision prolonging his detention, the Court of Appeal noted, that “certain witnesses in principle admitted that they had been instructed [about what to say] in their testimony” and that “the testimony of other witnesses was not consistent with the explanations given by the applicant in the course of the investigation.” It did not, however, specify who had exerted pressure on the witnesses or how they had done so. The courts found no special grounds that would justify lifting the applicant's detention and imposing a less severe measure.\nIn its decisions of 17 August and 19 September 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal stressed that the investigation had already lasted a long time and urged the prosecutor to draw up a bill of indictment. It also noted, in its decisions of 19 September and 19 December 2007, that the prosecutor's arguments for having the applicant's detention extended had been of a very general nature and instructed the prosecutor to provide a detailed list of tasks that still needed to be completed during the investigation if he wished to have the applicant's detention extended further.\n13. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4868", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Karacabey.\n5.  On 17 October 1996 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of armed robbery and murder. On 27 October 1996 he was placed in detention on remand. On 4 November 1996 the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant in the Bursa Assize Court. On 27 November 1997 the applicant was released pending trial. Subsequently, on 29 June 2001 the Bursa Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against him and this judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 19 March 2002.\n6.  On 5 August 2002 the applicant applied to the Bursa Assize Court, seeking compensation for both non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage pursuant to Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained.\n7.  On 23 January 2003 the Bursa Assize Court awarded the applicant 358,071,000 Turkish[1] liras (TRL) for pecuniary damage and TRL 3,000,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage. It also decided that no default interest should be applied.\n8.  On 31 March 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment.\n9.  On 26 April 2004 the applicant applied to the Bursa Enforcement Office and requested the payment of TRL 6,022,015,000, including interest running from the date of the judgment. On 10 August 2004 the Treasury objected to the interest rate, but paid the amount of TRL 5,727,000,000 which was not in dispute. Following the objection of the Treasury, proceedings commenced before the Bursa Enforcement Court to determine the exact amount and interest rate to be paid by the Treasury. On 26 October 2004 the Bursa Enforcement Court dismissed the objection of the Treasury. Subsequently, on 25 February 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, holding that the interest rate should be calculated on the basis of that laid down in the Budget Law. The case was then remitted to the Enforcement Court. Following a re-examination of the case, and based on an expert report, on 10 June 2005 the Enforcement Court ordered an additional payment of TRL 479,450,000 to the applicant. This amount was paid in August 2005. Consequently, the domestic authorities had applied an interest rate of 50% per annum between 23 January 2003 and 1 January 2004, and 15% per annum as from 1 January 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4869", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant newspaper, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  In early March 2004 a warehouse belonging to the Parliament in Chişinău was converted into four apartments. On 18 March 2004 Mr Vlad Cubreacov, Member of Parliament, asked the Parliament leadership to allow him access to information on whether the manner in which deputies from the four parliaments elected since the date of Moldova's independence had been provided with accommodation from public money had been correct. He did not obtain access to that information.\n7.  On 9 April 2004 the applicant newspaper published an article entitled “Four more communists have obtained housing on our money”. The article informed readers about the four apartments built in the former Parliament warehouse. The journalists visited the apartments and saw workers carrying out final repairs in them. They were almost ready since the pipes and water meters had already been installed. The author added that:\n“According to certain sources in Parliament, who have asked to remain anonymous, the future owners of the relevant apartments include V.S., the president of the communist faction in Parliament, C.G., head of the Parliament apparatus, and M.R., the president of Floreşti county.”\n8.  The article went on to state that the newspaper had tried to verify this information by telephoning V.S. on his mobile phone and at work but could not find him, his secretary answering that he was busy. Attempts to contact the Speaker of Parliament or her adviser, as well as the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, had also been unsuccessful. Mr Ş. Secăreanu, Member of Parliament, informed the newspaper that he had been told by C.G. and M.C., another deputy speaker in Parliament, that Parliament had paid for the apartments.\n9.  The article went on to recount further efforts to discover information about the source of the funding for the four new apartments from other State officials, including C.G., none of whom could be contacted. The newspaper concluded that none of the State officials had given it the opportunity to verify the information regarding the future owners of the apartments. It also mentioned that three years earlier E.O., a speaker of parliament and member of the then ruling party had obtained, in a similar manner, an apartment measuring 200 square metres in the same former warehouse. The article then described Mr Secăreanu's efforts to obtain information on the expenditure of Parliament and the Presidency from the President of the Court of Accounts, information which had been made secret by the latter, as well as his efforts to obtain that information from the Parliament leadership. The article concluded by referring to Mr Cubreacov's request of 18 March 2004 (see paragraph 6 above) and his attempt in 2002 to obtain similar information. Two photographs of the exterior and the interior of the apartments were inserted into the text of the article.\n10.  On 5 May 2004 V.S. initiated court proceedings against the applicant newspaper, claiming that he had been defamed by the article and notably by the phrase cited above (see paragraph 7 above).\n11.  The applicant newspaper submitted to the first-instance court that it had published the opinions of third parties on an issue of major public interest, opinions to which it had not subscribed. It also referred to the journalist's unsuccessful attempts to verify the information by telephoning V.S. and other officials, and the refusal o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4870", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1932, 1944, 1957, 1955, 1968, 1928, 1925, 1932, 1955, 1945, 1942 and 1944 respectively. They lived in Bucharest and Ploieşti.\n5.  On an unknown date in the 1960s a property situated in Bucharest at 6 Theodor Aman Street, belonging to H.P., was seized by the State under Decree no. 409/1955 and Council of Ministers Decision (HCM) no. 8/1960. The applicants together with E.P. are H.P.'s heirs of different degrees. According to them, the property consisted of an 824 sq. m plot of land with a building on it.\n6.  By three letters of 22 and 28 July 1996 the heirs of H.P. sought from the H. company, a State-owned company responsible for the management of property belonging to the State, recovery of the immovable property situated in Bucharest at 6 Theodor Aman Street.\n7.  On 9 December 1996 the H. company sold Apartment no. 1+2 of that building and 59.79 sq. m of appurtenant land to the then tenants under Law no. 112/1995.\n8.  On 5 June 2001 the applicants Florica-Maria Petroiu, Maria-Alexandra Sterian, Ena Rizescu (Georgescu), Constantin Petroiu, Florin-Constantin Stăncescu, Mircea-Constantin Sterian and Doru Dănuţ Dumitru Popescu claimed restitution under Law no. 10/2001 for Apartments 1+2 and 3, with the appurtenant land, situated at 6 Theodor Aman Street. On 7 February 2002 the applicants Lidia Peicev and Maria Peicev claimed restitution of the same apartments, with 796 sq. m of appurtenant land. It appears from the file that they did not receive any answer.\n9.  On 7 August 2002 all the applicants except Mrs Mihaela-Iuliana Vintilescu, Mrs Ana-Maria Apetrei and Mrs Paraschiva Vintilescu, together with M.C.V. and E.P., brought court proceedings to have the sale declared null and void. The plaintiffs, as heirs of H.P., considered that the State had no title to that property and invoked the provisions of section 46 § 2 of Law no. 10/2001.\nThe applicants Mihaela-Iuliana Vintilescu, Ana-Maria Apetrei and Paraschiva Vintilescu are the heirs (wife and daughters) of M.C.V. who, according to a certificate of inheritance, died on 15 April 2002.\n10.  On 15 May 2003 the Bucharest Court of First Instance, in the operative part of its judgment, dismissed as groundless the action introduced by the applicants Florica-Maria Petroiu, Constantin Petroiu, Florin-Constantin Stăncescu, Maria Peicev, Lidia Peicev, Mircea‑Constantin Sterian, Maria-Alexandra Sterian and Doru Dănuţ Dumitru Popescu. The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs were the heirs of H.P., but considered that they had not proved that the State had no title to the seizure. Therefore it held that since the State had a valid title, the case came under the provisions of section 46 § 4 of Law no. 10/2001, and considered that the sale had been lawfully performed. The court also declared null and void the action introduced by the applicant Ena Rizescu (Georgescu) and by E.P., for lack of signature.\nThe judgment made no reference to the plaintiff M.C.V., except to mention him among the plaintiffs who had lodged the action.\n11.  All the applicants appealed. However, the only reasoned appeal was that of the first applicant, who had lodged it in the name of all the plaintiffs, alleging that the seizure had been unlawful, that the sale had been performed in bad faith and that they had claimed that property before the sale.\n12.  On 28 June 2004 the Bucharest County Court, in the operative part of its judgment, allowed the appeal by all the applicants and varied the first-i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4871", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 23 October 1984 the Second Municipal Court (Drugi opštinski sud) in Belgrade issued a judgment stating, inter alia, that the applicant was the owner of 36% of a flat and a garage located in Belgrade. The remaining 64% was determined to be the property of D.S., the applicant's former partner. On 25 June 1985 this judgment became final.\n6.  In a separate set of proceedings, on 30 March 1987, the Fourth Municipal Court (Četvrti opštinski sud) in Belgrade ruled that the physical division of the said real estate was impossible, that a public auction should be held instead, and that the proceeds thereof should be divided among the former partners accordingly.\n7.  On 16 November 1987 this decision became final.\n8.  On 18 May 1990 the Fourth Municipal Court in Belgrade (hereinafter “the enforcement court”) accepted the applicant's request and ordered the enforcement of the above decision dated 30 March 1987.\n9.  At the hearing held on 2 September 1996 the applicant offered to buy the 64% of the flat in question owned by D.S. and thereby become its sole owner. On the same date the enforcement court accepted this offer, “awarded” the flat (“dosudio nepokretnosi”) to the applicant and set the price at 25,126.22 Dinars. D.S. subsequently filed an appeal against this decision.\n10.  Following a remittal, on 26 April 2002 the District Court upheld the decision of the enforcement court and it thereby became final.\n11.  On 3 March 2004 the Supreme Court accepted the request for the protection of legality (zahtev za zaštitu zakonitosti) filed by the Chief Public Prosecutor personally. It quashed the lower courts' decisions and remitted the case to the enforcement court for reconsideration. It would appear that the Supreme Court's decision was served on the applicant by 12 January 2005.\n12.  Following their separation in 1978, D.S. retained sole possession of the flat in question while the applicant appears to have had no access since then.\n13.  On 20 October 2006 the applicant was given back the nominal value of the amount paid pursuant to the decision of 2 September 1996 (see paragraph 9 above).\n14.  On 2 September 2007 the applicant died.\n15.  On 21 September 2007 the Fourth Municipal Court suspended the proceedings pending the determination of the applicant's legal heirs.\n16.  On 10 October 2008 the applicant's son, as her only legal heir, requested the continuation of the proceedings.\n17.  It would appear that there have been no further developments in the case since then.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4872", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Teplička nad Váhom.\n5.  On 14 May 1993 the applicant and eleven other persons filed an action with the Žilina District Court for determination of their shares in an estate. The action was dismissed on 24 October 1995.\n6.  On 6 May 1996 and on 19 February 1997 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court, without deciding on the merits, returned the case to the District Court to rectify errors in its judgment. On 10 October 1997 the case file was again submitted to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court. The latter quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court on 30 October 1997.\n7.  In 2000 the Žilina Regional Court decided that the District Court judge was biased and the case was assigned to a different judge.\n8.  Following the Constitutional Court's finding (see below), the District Court and the Regional Court decided on several occasions on the parties' requests for interim measure. The District Court also requested additional information, collected further evidence and invited the parties to the proceedings to specify their claims. The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.\n9.  On 6 October 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Žilina District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.\n10.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was complex from the factual but not from the legal point of view and that the applicant's conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court noted that the District Court by its erroneous conduct was responsible for a major part of the duration of the proceedings before the Regional Court. Delays imputable to the District Court totalled 74 months.\n11.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 80,000 (the equivalent of 2,062 euros at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and ordered the Žilina District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings. The applicant claimed reimbursement of his legal costs in the amount of 941 euros. The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant the equivalent of 479 euros for legal representation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4873", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Valjevo.\n6.  On 24 July 1998 and 16 November 1998 the applicant filed two separate claims against his employer with the Municipal Court in Valjevo (“the Municipal Court”), seeking revocation of his suspension from work as well as reinstatement and salary arrears, respectively.\n7.  On 9 April 1999 the two sets of proceedings were joined.\n8.  Following a remittal, on 14 March 2006 the Municipal Court ruled against the applicant.\n9.  On 29 March 2007 and 3 April 2008 the District Court and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld the decision of 14 March 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4874", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Cioroiaşi. At the material time he was working as a professional driver.\n7.  On 21 June 1997, at around 7 p.m., the applicant parked his car at the side of the road, with the intention of spending the night in his outhouse. He was accompanied by his girlfriend, S.U. When they started walking away from the car, two lower ranking police officers (plutonieri) got out of a car and approached them, one in uniform (S.D.) and the other in plain clothes (P.D.). Other police officers were also present at the scene, as traffic controls were being carried out. S.D. asked for the applicant’s identification papers, but the latter could not produce them as he had left them in his other car. S.D. grabbed the car keys from his hand with the intention of searching the car. The applicant told him that he would not find the papers in the car and that, in fact, he had just been fined for the same offence. He put his hand in his pocket to pull out the police report.\nAt that moment, the police officer punched the applicant in the mouth and tried to hit him again. The applicant stepped back and lifted his leg in defence. P.D. intervened and the two police officers threw the applicant face down on his car and searched him and the vehicle. As his lip was bleeding, the applicant shouted at the police, calling them “militia agents” (miliţieni). He told them he would go straight to a forensic doctor and would then press charges against them.\n8.  On 21 June 1997, at around 7 p.m., the applicant was driving his car while under the influence of alcohol. When he saw the police performing traffic controls, he decided to stop the car and continue on foot, in order to avoid being caught drunk driving. The police officers S.D. and P.D. noticed the applicant and assumed that he was trying to avoid being checked. They approached him in their car. S.D. introduced himself and asked to see the applicant’s identification papers.\nThe applicant turned his back on the police, shouted abuse and told them he did not have the papers on him. He was incoherent and smelled of alcohol. The police asked him to go with them to the hospital for a blood test. The applicant refused to follow them. When S.D. tried to take him by the arm, the applicant became violent and abusive. He kicked S.D. in the leg. He was then immobilised by S.D. and P.D. but managed to tear S.D.’s uniform.\n9.  After the incident, the applicant was taken straight to hospital to have his blood alcohol content tested. The physician concluded, after carrying out the standard tests, that the applicant was not under the influence of alcohol. She also noted in the clinical evaluation form that the applicant had a small bruise on the left upper lip. Two urine samples were taken and sent to the laboratory for further testing. The results (available on 23 June 1997) showed a blood alcohol content of 1.45g/oo.\n10.  Later that evening, the applicant was taken from the hospital to the police headquarters. His car was also brought to the police courtyard. His girlfriend was interviewed until 11 p.m., when she was released.\n11.  On 22 June 1997 the prosecutor ordered the applicant’s arrest. On 23 June 1997 he was remanded in custody for thirty days. He remained in custody until the end of the criminal proceedings against him.\n12.  A few days after the incident, the police allowed S.U. to take the applicant’s car from the police yard.\n13.  On 8 July 1997 the Prosecutor’s Office attached ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4875", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968.\n5.  On 11 October 2004 he attempted to kill O.A. under the delusion that he was persecuting him.\n6.  On 29 March 2005 the Zenica Cantonal Court found the applicant not guilty by reason of insanity (paranoid schizophrenia) and referred the case to the Social Work Centre in Tešanj. The judgment took effect on 12 May 2005.\n7.  On 17 May 2005 the Zenica Cantonal Court provisionally placed the applicant in Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex, pending a decision of the Social Work Centre in Tešanj.\n8.  On 16 June 2005 the Social Work Centre in Tešanj decided that the applicant should remain indefinitely in Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annex under the Mental Health Act. The applicant appealed to the Cantonal Ministry for Social Affairs in Zenica pursuant to the instructions of the Social Work Centre. On 31 October 2005 the file was transferred to the Ministry of Social Affairs of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and on 23 November 2005 to the Ministry of Justice of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, where it remains.\n9.  The applicant lodged two applications with the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The first application was dismissed on 21 December 2006 as having been lodged out of time (more than 60 days after the effective date of the judgment of 29 March 2005) and the second one was dismissed on 14 July 2008 because of the applicant's failure to substantiate his case and provide a copy of the judgment of 29 March 2005.\n10.  On 12 May 2009 the Forensic Psychiatric Annex was relocated to one of the renovated facilities in Zenica Prison which contains seven dormitories of three beds. While the applicant was treated in a civil hospital from 17 April until 22 May 2009 and has been on home leave since then, the administrative decision of 16 June 2005 remains in effect and the applicant therefore has to report regularly to the prison authorities.\n11.  The European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment provides non-judicial preventive machinery for the protection of persons deprived of their liberty. It is based on a system of visits by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). The CPT periodically draws up reports on individual States, which are strictly confidential. Nevertheless, if a State fails to cooperate or refuses to improve the situation in the light of the CPT's recommendations, the CPT may decide to make a public statement. The State itself may at any time request publication of the CPT's report, together with its comments.\n12.  The relevant part of the CPT's report on the visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina carried out from 27 April to 9 May 2003 reads as follows:\n“70. ... As a priority, the CPT recommends that serious efforts be made to reduce occupancy levels in prisons; the aim should be to provide a minimum of 4 m² of space per person. Further, any cells measuring less then 6 m² should be taken out of service as prisoner accommodation.\n... 84. Zenica Prison Forensic Psychiatric Annexe opened as a temporary accommodation for forensic psychiatric patients in 1996. It is the only closed forensic psychiatric unit on the territory of the Federation [of Bosnia and Herzegovina]. With an official capacity of 64 beds, it is located on the first floor of Pavilion IV; at the time of the visit, it was accommodating 69 patients.\n... 85. According to the P", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4876", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Timişoara.\n6.  At the material time he was a journalist at the newspaper Ziua de Vest in Timişoara.\n7.  On 16 June 2000 the applicant attended an official meeting between the prefect and representatives of the interns from the hospitals in the county who were on strike. Ms C.M.O., one of the interns' representatives, stated:\n“Because I refused to prostitute myself with Doctor [P.], Professor [D.] dismissed me from the Cardiology Centre.”\n8.  On 19 June 2000 the newspaper Ziua de Vest published an article by the applicant. The relevant parts read as follows:\n“Scandal in the medical world in Timişoara\nDr. [P.] accused of sexual harassment\nThe president of the Interns Association in Timiş County, Dr [D.D.], says that 'Dr [P.] behaves in certain ways that we all know'\nA medical intern from Timişoara, whose name we shall not yet make public, declared on Friday, in front of the prefect [L.B.], that the director of the Timiş Public Health Direction, Dr [P.], had attempted to sexually blackmail her. 'Because I refused to prostitute myself with Doctor [P.], Professor [D.] dismissed me from the Cardiology Centre' declared the intern. The president of the Interns Association in Timişoara, Dr [D.D.], declared that he had not known about this case of sexual harassment, which he learned of only at the meeting with the prefect. 'Dr [P.] behaves in certain ways that we all know' said Dr [D.D.] ...\nAlthough we tried to get his comments on the accusations brought against him, Dr [P.] was unavailable.”\nA photo of P. featured in the article.\n9.  On 21 June 2000 P. lodged a criminal complaint for defamation against the applicant with Timişoara District Court. His complaint also concerned the company which published the newspaper.\n10.  The District Court heard evidence from C.M.O., who admitted to having made the assertion reproduced by the applicant but denied having given her permission for its publication. The prefect also confirmed that an intern had accused P. of sexual aggression during the meeting.\n11.  The applicant was heard by the court on two occasions. He pleaded not guilty and relied in his defence on his right to freedom of expression and the right to provide information about public figures.\n12.  On 20 March 2001 the District Court gave judgment. It acquitted the applicant on the ground that he had not intended to denigrate P. It found that the expression “sexual harassment” had not harmed P.'s dignity as it was a stylistic choice by the applicant.\n13.  Both parties appealed to the Timişoara County Court.\nOn 18 May 2001 the court was addressed by the parties' counsels, who defended orally the grounds for their respective appeals. P.'s lawyer asked for the applicant's conviction. The applicant's lawyer and the company's representative requested that P. be compelled to pay court fees. The applicant was invited to speak only before the end of the hearing (ultimul cuvânt al inculpatului). In his address he asked that P.'s appeal be dismissed.\n14.  The final decision was adopted on the same day. The County Court quashed the judgment of 20 March 2001, re-examined the evidence and found as follows:\n“[the journalist] did not confine himself to merely providing information about the criticisms [expressed against P.] but added his own appreciation, which went beyond [C.M.O.]'s statements.\n...\nThrough its title and content, the article contains untrue statements and allegations and personal appreciations by", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4877", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Timişoara.\n6.  At the material time he was a journalist at the newspaper Ziua de Vest in Timişoara.\n7.  On 23 June 2000, following the local elections, the newspaper Ziua de Vest published an article by the applicant accusing A.V.I., the newly elected mayor of Buziaş, of having collaborated with the Securitate (the intelligence service during the communist period). The article, featured on the third page of the newspaper, was announced on the front page by the headline: “Mayor with file” (Primar cu dosar).\n8.  The relevant parts of the article read as follows:\n“Citizens' safety above State security\nThe Scandal of the files in Buziaş\nThe newly elected mayor, [A.V.I.], is suspected of having collaborated with the Securitate\nThe first scandal concerning the Securitate files is about to burst in the town of Buziaş. The elected mayor, [A.V.I.] is suspected by some citizens – whose names will not be made public for obvious reasons – of having collaborated with the Securitate. Based on information from inside the Romanian Secret Service, our sources said that [A.V.I.] was under surveillance until 1989 as an irredentist chauvinist, which made it impossible for him to obtain a history teaching post in Buziaş... During the same period [A.V.I.] was allegedly persuaded to collaborate with the Securitate, and a file allegedly exists on this matter...\nBefore the local elections, [A.V.I.] lodged a written statement with the Electoral Bureau... declaring that he had not been part of the former Securitate. He informed us yesterday that what he had written in that statement was true and that he had never collaborated in any way with the secret police before 1990.”\n9.  On 21 August 2000 A.V.I. lodged a criminal complaint for insult and defamation against the applicant with Timişoara District Court. His complaint also included the company which published the newspaper.\n10.  The District Court heard testimonies from two witnesses who confirmed that they had told the applicant about the rumours concerning the victim's collaboration with the Securitate.\n11.  On 31 October 2000 the applicant gave a statement to the court. He pleaded not guilty and relied in his defence on the right to freedom of expression and the right to provide information about public figures.\n12.  On 20 February 2001 the District Court gave judgment in the case. It considered that the applicant had not committed defamation, as he had not referred to any specific offences allegedly committed by the victim. It found that the expressions used by the applicant, including the headline on the front page, were manifestly insulting to the victim. However, the District Court noted that the applicant had not described any of the rumours as fact and that he had also presented the victim's point of view in the article.\nIt further considered that a certain degree of aggressiveness was common in journalism and that therefore, although the facts met the legal criteria to constitute the criminal offence of insult, in the circumstances of the case the acts perpetrated and their consequences were not severe enough to come within the sphere of criminal law.\nThe District Court acquitted the applicant of both defamation and insult and imposed an administrative fine of 500,000 Romanian lei (ROL). The court also found that the conditions had been met for the applicant's civil liability and that of the company publishing the newspaper, in respect of the prejudice c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4878", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Nicosia.\n8.  The applicant lived in her family home in Lapithos (the biggest village in the Kyrenia district of northern Cyprus) until 1963, when she married and moved to her husband's house in a neighbouring village. Her mother came from Sysklipos, another village near Lapithos, where she owned land. The applicant claimed to have acquired the ownership of the family property in the two villages, as well as a right to draw a certain amount of water from a spring in Sysklipos.\n9.  The Government challenged the applicant's property claims, particularly as regarded the properties in Sysklipos, as they had evidence that it had belonged to other persons. The applicant replied that those other persons were her parents who had donated these properties to her.\n10.  On 27 November 1973 the applicant applied to the Kyrenia Land Registry Office for a permit to divide one of her plots of land in Lapithos into sixteen building sites. She alleged that the issuing of the permit would have significantly increased the value of her land.\n11.  However, this planning procedure was not completed because, due to the 1974 Turkish intervention, the applicant and her family had been forced to leave all their property and possessions and move to Limassol in southern Cyprus. The applicant was thereby deprived of her property rights, all her property being located in the area which was under the occupation and control of the Turkish military authorities. The latter had prevented her from having access to and using her property.\n12.  Attached to her observations of 4 September 2002, the applicant produced a certificate of affirmation of ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable properties, issued on 12 August 2002 by the Departments of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus, and an affidavit, signed by herself, in which she declared that she owned 8 pieces of land in Lapithos “all on the mountain slope, very suitable for building purposes”. According to the above mentioned certificate of affirmation of ownership, the following properties were owned by Mrs Iordanou Iordani Anthousa, daughter of Mr Polykerpos Panagiotou:\nLapithos village – Agia Paraskevi and Agia Anastasia:\n(a) Land certificate no. 1613 of 22 April 1971, plot no. 199 of sheet/plan XI/22 (Mantres tou Kazeli), with a total extent of 4,683m²; share: whole; on this plot of land there was a small house for shepherds and two shelters for the animals;\n(b) Land certificate no. 1459 of 27 April 1971, plot no. 331 of sheet/plan XI/23 (Persterkonas), with a total extent of 25,753 m²; share: whole; use: field with trees;\n(c) Land certificate no. 2312 of 27 April 1971, plot no. 51 of sheet/plan XI/31 (Kaminia), with a total extent of 3,679 m²; share: whole; use: field with trees;\n(d) Land certificate no. 1623 of 27 April 1971, plot no. 201 of sheet/plan XI/22 (Syrtaros), with a total extent of 16,723 m²; share: whole; use: field with trees;\n(e) Sheet/plan 11/23W.1.E.2, plot no. 53; this plot comprised running water and was registered in the name of the applicant for the 1/120 share (equivalent to 3 hours continuous flow fortnightly every 15 days);\n(f) Land certificate no. 2774 of 27 April 1971, plot no. 2 of sheet/plan XI/31 (Livadi tou Kolymbou), with a total extent of 89,457 m² (registered for 1/24 share in the name of the applicant); use: field;\n(g) Land certificate no. 2744 of 27 April 1971, plot no. 133 of sheet/plan XI/30 (Kolymbes Livadiou), with a total e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4879", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  In 1995 the applicants concluded a sales contract with three individuals buying shares from the A. company (“the company”).\n7.  On 13 September 1996 the first applicant brought a civil action requesting the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) to order the company to register the sales contracts in its book of shareholders and to provide them with a certificate of title. On 22 November 1996 the second applicant and Mr Mile Stojčevski joined the first applicant's claim. During the proceedings, the applicants specified their claim on three occasions.\n8.   Between 25 June 1997 and 27 November 1998, the first-instance court ordered four adjournments, none of which was requested by the applicants.\n9.  On 11 January 1999 the first-instance court dismissed the applicants' claim finding that they had failed to comply with the applicable legislation and that the company had not had a capacity to stand in the proceedings. It also dismissed their request of 27 May 1998 for an interim measure prohibiting the vendors to dispose of the shares.\n10.  On 12 April 2000 the Skopje Court of Appeal partly upheld the applicants' appeal of 3 November 1999 and remitted the case for a renewed examination.\n11.  On 18 December 2001 the first-instance court dismissed the applicants' claim. The decision was served on them on 22 August 2002.\n12.  On 19 March 2003 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' appeal. They were served with the decision on 7 May 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4880", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Frankfurt.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicant is the mother of a child born on 23 January 1996. In 2004, after having obtained an expert opinion, a court transferred custody to her and at the same time determined the father's access rights.\n7.  On 17 August 2007, following a three-week stay with her father, the child refused to go back to her mother, and, on account of this, was taken into care.\n8.  On 20 August 2007 the applicant requested the court to return the child to her custody.\n9.  On 21 August 2007 the Frankfurt/Main District Court (the “District Court”), by means of an interlocutory decision, made at the request of the Frankfurt/Main Youth Office, transferred the right to determine the child's residence and other essential aspects of custody to the Frankfurt/Main Youth Office.\n10.  In a letter of 24 August 2007 the applicant requested the District Court to quash this decision. The court then set the parties a time-limit of four weeks to submit further submissions.\n11.  On 11 September 2007 the District Court formally appointed a guardian ad litem (Verfahrenspfleger) for the child. On 20 September 2007 the Youth Office submitted a report. On 27 September 2007 the District Court heard the child.\n12.  On 26 October 2007, on account of the competent judge being ill, the District Court cancelled the hearing scheduled for 30 November 2007.\n13.  On 1 January 2008 the case was assigned to another judge. On 5 February 2008 that judge scheduled the hearing for 18 March 2008.\n14.  On 11 February 2008 the applicant's newly-appointed lawyer requested access to the files. This was refused on the ground that he had not yet submitted a power of attorney. By letters dated 12 and 15 February 2008 the new lawyer requested that the hearing be scheduled for another day.\n15.  On 20 February 2008 the new lawyer submitted a power of attorney (possibly for the second time). On 27 February 2008 the District Court refused to reschedule the hearing, inter alia, on the ground that the applicant still appeared to be represented by her former lawyer, who had not yet informed the court that his mandate had been terminated.\n16.  On 3 March 2008 the applicant's new lawyer provided the District Court with satisfactory proof of the termination of the previous lawyer's mandate and again requested access to the files. This request was granted on 4 March 2008.\n17.  On 7 March 2008 the applicant challenged the judge on the ground of bias. On 13 March 2008 the hearing was cancelled. The applicant's lawyer was not informed about it. On 17 March 2008 the judge ruled against the allegation of bias.\n18.  On 20 March 2008 the applicant also challenged the appointment of the child's guardian ad litem. On 14 April 2008 the District Court transmitted the files to the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal. On 17 April 2008 that court rejected her appeal.\n19.  On 25 April 2008 and again on 26 June 2008 the District Court also rejected the applicant's motion for bias. The latter decision was served upon the applicant on 18 July 2008. On 30 July 2008 the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal quashed the decision and found that the judge was biased as she had known that the applicant would not be represented at the scheduled hearing and, moreover, as she had not informed the applicant's lawyer that she had cancelled the hearing.\n20.  In letters of 15 and 29 August 2008 the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4881", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and is at present serving a prison term in Gospić Prison.\n5.  On an unspecified date an investigation was opened in respect of the applicant, who was suspected of having committed a number of thefts and aggravated thefts.\n6.  On 20 February 2004 a Varaždin County Court investigating judge (istražni sudac Županijskog suda u Varaždinu) issued a warrant for the search of the applicant's flat. The search was carried out by the police on 23 February 2004 and a number of items were seized.\n7.  The applicant was arrested on 23 February 2004 at 10 p.m. but was released on 24 February 2004 at 6.00 p.m.\n8.  On 1 March 2004 the applicant was indicted in the Prelog Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Prelogu) on numerous counts of theft and aggravated theft. He was represented in these proceedings by an officially appointed defence counsel.\n9.  He was arrested again on 2 March 2004 and placed in pre-trial detention in Varaždin Prison (Zatvor Varaždin) and later on in other prison facilities (see below).\n10.  During the criminal proceedings against him, the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist and, in a psychiatric report of 16 May 2004, it was established that the applicant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).\n11.  In a judgment of the Prelog Municipal Court of 26 August 2004 the applicant was found guilty of twenty counts of theft and aggravated theft and sentenced to six years and six months' imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the judgment to the Čakovec County Court (Županijski sud u Čakovcu) complaining about the outcome of the proceedings and also that his defence rights had been violated in that he had not been informed of the hearings in time to prepare his defence and that he had not had sufficient contact with the officially appointed defence counsel.\n12.  On 1 October 2004 the applicant was taken to the Prelog Municipal Court, where he examined the case file. His request that certain documents be copied for him was complied with.\n13.  The first-instance judgment of 26 August 2004 was quashed on 14 January 2005 by the Čakovec County Court which extended the applicant's detention at the same time. The first-instance judgment was quashed, inter alia, on the grounds that the applicant had not been informed of the hearings in time to prepare his defence and that he had not had sufficient contact with the officially appointed defence counsel.\n14.  On 30 January 2005 the applicant lodged a request with the Prelog Municipal Court seeking permission to contact his officially appointed defence counsel and some other persons. On 2 February the Municipal Court allowed the applicant unrestricted telephone communication with his defence counsel.\n15.  At a hearing held on 3 February 2005 the applicant challenged the presiding judge for bias. The defence counsel opposed the challenge. The hearing was adjourned pending the decision on the applicant's objection. In his submission of the same date the defence counsel requested to be relieved of his duties.\n16.  On 4 February 2005 the President of the Prelog Municipal Court dismissed the applicant's challenge to the presiding judge as unfounded. On the same day the presiding judge relieved the officially appointed defence counsel of his duties and the president of the court appointed a new defence counsel. The applicant was allowed unrestricted telephone communication with his new counsel.\n17.  On 14 February 2005 the applicant informed the presidi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4883", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. He is currently detained in remand prison IZ-33/1 in Vladimir.\n6.  At the material time the applicant was pursuing postgraduate studies in Vladimir, Russia.\n7.  On 4 April 2004 an investigator of the Department of Interior of the Vladimir Region instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 228 § 4 of the Russian Criminal Code (purchase or possession of drugs in large quantities). On the same day the applicant was arrested.\n8.  On 6 April 2004 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladimir (“the district court”) ordered the applicant's placement in custody reasoning that he had been charged with a serious crime and that, if he remained at liberty, he could have absconded or interfered with the investigation or continued his unlawful activities.\n9.  On 3 June 2004 the district court extended the term of the applicant's detention until 4 July 2004.\n10.  On 2 July 2004 the district court extended the term of the applicant's detention until 4 August 2004 for the reason that the investigators needed to take certain steps and that the applicant was charged with a serious crime and, once released, could have absconded, continued unlawful activities and impeded the investigation.\n11.  On 5 August 2004 the investigators transferred the file in the applicant's criminal case to the district court.\n12.  On 16 August 2004 the district court scheduled a hearing on 27 August 2004 and ruled that the preventive measure applied to the applicant remain unchanged.\n13.  On 27 August 2004 the hearing was postponed until 28 September 2004 due to the absence of witnesses.\n14.  On 28 September 2004 at counsel for the applicant's request the district court decided to return the case file to the prosecutor's office for further investigation. Ten days later the case was transferred to the investigators.\n15.  On 18 November 2004 the prosecutor's office transferred the case to the district court. On 22 November 2004 the district court received the case file.\n16.  On 30 November 2004 the district court scheduled a hearing for 9 December 2004 and ruled that the preventive measure remain unchanged.\n17.  On 8 December 2004 the hearing was postponed until 17 January 2005 upon counsel for the applicant's request.\n18.  On 17 January 2005 the applicant's counsel filed an application for the applicant's release pending trial, arguing that upon arrival of the case file at the district court the term of the detention had been extended in the absence of the parties to the proceedings. On the same date the application was dismissed for the reason that, having received an investigation file, a court had to schedule a hearing and decide on any preventive measure to be applied to a suspect.\n19.  On 24 January 2005 the applicant's counsel appealed against the ruling of 17 January 2005.\n20.  On 1 February 2005 the district court extended the term of the applicant's detention until 3 May 2005 for the reason that the applicant had been charged with particularly serious crimes. The applicant's counsel appealed against the decision. He invoked Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and argued, in particular, that the district court had not considered the possibility of applying other preventive measures, such as release on bail, and had not taken into account the applicant's personal circumstances. He emphasised that the applicant had a child of under one year of age, had no previous criminal record, had a p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4884", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Mr Akhmed Ismailov, born in 1949,\n2) Mr Alkhazur Ismailov, born in 1985,\n3) Mr Shamil (also spelled Shamal) Ismailov, born in 1995,\n4) Ms Ruman Sokayeva (also spelled as Rumani or Khumana Sakayeva), born in 1963,\n5) Mr Aslambek Merzhoyev (also spelled as Aslambek Merzhuyev), born in 1990,\n6) Ms Kheda Merzhoyeva (also spelled as Kheda Merzhuyeva), born in 1981,\n7) Ms Zalina Merzhoyeva (also known as Aset Merzhoyeva), born in 1979,\n8) Ms Petimat Ismailova, born in 1964,\n9) Ms Kheda Idrisova (also known as Ismailova), born in 1981,\n10) Mr Ramzan Ismailov, born in 1982,\n11) Ms Khazan Ismailova, born in 1984,\n12) Ms Larisa Ismailova, born in 1986,\n13) Ms Laila Ismailova, born in 1990,\n14) Mr Rizvan Ismailov, born in 1992,\n15) Ms Tanzila Ismailova, born in 1994,\n16) Mr Iles (also spelled as Ilez) Ismailov, born in 1995,\n17) Ms Medna Ismailova, born in 1997,\n18) Mr Ibragim Ismailov, born in 1999,\n19) Ms Makka Ismailova, born in 2001,\n20) Ms Markha Ismailova, born in 2001,\n21) Ms Liman Ismailova, born in 2003.\n6.  The applicants are four families of Russian nationals who live in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. All four applicant families are related to each other. The first applicant is the father of Aslambek (also spelled as Aslanbek) Ismailov, who was born in 1979, and Aslan Ismailov, who was born in 1981. The second applicant family consists of applicants 2-4. The fourth applicant is the wife of Khizir Ismailov, who was born in 1962; applicants 2 and 3 are his children. The third applicant family consist of applicants 5-7, who are the children of Yusi Daydayev, who was born in 1953. The fourth applicant family consists of applicants 8-21. The eighth applicant is the wife of Yaragi Ismailov, who was born in 1956; applicants 9-21 are his children.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  At the material time the town of Achkhoy-Martan was under the full control of the Russian federal forces. Checkpoints manned by Russian servicemen were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement. The applicant families lived close to each other in two households situated at no. 15a and no. 22 in Orekhova Street, Achkhoy-Martan. The first house was located about 500 metres away from the nearest federal forces checkpoint.\n9.  On the night of 13-14 January 2003 the first applicant, his sons Aslambek and Aslan Ismailov and other relatives were sleeping at home at 15a Orekhova Street.  At about 4 a.m. an APC (armoured personnel carrier) with a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms drove through their gate. About ten men got out of the APC and ran into the house. They spoke Russian without accent and were wearing masks and helmets. They neither identified themselves nor produced any documents. The family members thought they were Russian military servicemen.\n10.  The servicemen searched the house; they neither explained to the residents what they were looking for nor asked for identity documents. They took Aslambek and Aslan Ismailov into the yard, kicked them and threw them into the APC. The brothers were not allowed to put on any warm clothing. The officers ignored their mother's questions concerning the reason for her sons' being taken away.\n11.  The first applicant's wife ran after her sons into the street. She saw several APCs, a military Ural car and groups of Russian military servicemen standing along the street. The vehicles were parked next to different houses with their ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4885", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In 1979 the applicant purchased a one-third share in certain real estate in Neštěnice which had been donated to the State by the original owners in 1966. The purchase price of 25,326 Czech korunas (CZK) (950 euros (EUR)[1]) for the whole property was fixed by an expert in September 1978.\n6.  At the time the application was lodged the property was being used by the applicant's daughter and her family.\n7.  On 25 August 1992, after the entry into force of Act no. 229/1991 (“the Land Ownership Act”), a certain M. instituted restitution proceedings in the Benešov District Court (okresní soud) against five co-owners, including the applicant, seeking recovery of the property in issue by virtue of section 8 (1) of the Land Ownership Act. M. alleged that the acquisition of the property by the applicant and the other co-owners had been vitiated by a breach of the regulations in force at the time, that they had enjoyed an unlawful advantage, and that the price they had been required to pay had been lower than the real value of the property.\n8.  On 29 September 2000, after the case had been examined by the courts at three levels of jurisdiction between 1995 and 2000, the District Court ruled against the applicant and the other co-owners and transferred the title to the property to P., the daughter of the original plaintiff who had died in the meantime. In the course of the proceedings, several expert reports assessing the value of the disputed property at the time of its acquisition by the applicant had been produced at the request of the District Court: an expert report valuating the property at CZK 31,012 (EUR 1,165), an audit report by a company, S., fixing the price at CZK 29,889 (EUR 1,123) and an amendment to the audit report setting the price at CZK 69,347 (EUR 2,606). It emerged from this amendment that when valuing the property the earlier reports had been based on the correct price regulation but certain interpretative directives (směrnice a pokyny) issued by the Ministry of Finance had been disregarded. The court found on the one hand that the defendants had acquired the property at a lower price than that required by the law in force at the material time. On the other hand, the plaintiff had failed to establish that they had enjoyed an unlawful advantage when acquiring the property, in that the father of one of them was a member of the communist party.\n9.  On 11 April 2001 the Prague Regional Court (krajský soud) upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. It accepted the conclusions set out in the amendment to the audit report, as the reasons for the difference in prices had been satisfactorily explained. Thus, it considered a new audit, as suggested by the applicant, to be superfluous. The Regional Court's judgment became final on 8 August 2001.\n10.  On 24 September 2002 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud), without holding a public hearing, dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law (dovolání) of 20 August 2001, stating, inter alia, as follows:\n“The court of cassation finds well-founded [the applicant's] arguments challenging the legal conclusions of the audit report. ... There was no reason to apply ... the particular provision of section 12 (2) of the Price Regulations, which only concerned expropriation and was intended to protect persons from whom real estate was taken ...\nDespite this interpretation ..., the court of cassation could not grant the applicant's request to quash as incorrect the judgment of the appellat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4886", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. She is the mother of Balavdi Ustarkhanov, who was born in 1982.\n6.  The events described in the application took place in Zakan-Yurt, in the Achkhoy-Martan district of Chechnya. At the material time the village of Zakan-Yurt was under the full control of the Russian federal forces. Military checkpoints manned by Russian servicemen were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement. The area was under a curfew.\n7.  At the material time the applicant and her son Balavdi Ustarkhanov lived in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. On 31 December 2002 Balavdi Ustarkhanov went to Zakan-Yurt to celebrate the New Year holiday with his friend, Mr Magomed M. On the same day he had a fight with local residents and received several cuts. He was taken to a local hospital where his cuts were treated and a bandage was placed around his head. Balavdi Ustarkhanov subsequently decided to stay with his friend's family in Zakan‑Yurt for several days.\n8.  On the night of 6 to 7 January 2003 (in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as the night of 6 January 2003) Balavdi Ustarkhanov stayed at Mr Magomed M.'s house at 72 Shkolnaya Street in Zakan-Yurt. The household consisted of two dwellings; one belonged to Mr Magomed M. and his family, and the other to the family of his uncle, Mr Makhadi M.\n9.  At about 6 a.m. a large group of armed men in camouflage uniforms broke into the household. Some of them were wearing masks. Those who were not wearing masks were of Slavic appearance. The men neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They spoke unaccented Russian and were equipped with portable radio sets. The residents of the household thought that they were Russian military servicemen.\n10.  The servicemen told everyone that they were looking for a person who was on the authorities' wanted list. They conducted an identity check and took away the passports of Mr Makhadi M. and Mr Magomed M. On completion of the check the servicemen were about to leave when one of them asked Balavdi Ustarkhanov why his head was bandaged. The latter explained that he had arrived at his friend's house for the holidays, that he had been hit with a sharp object and that his cuts had been treated at the local hospital. The serviceman then called someone via his portable radio set and reported that there was a man in the house who had not been registered as a resident and that his head was bandaged. The officer was ordered to take Balavdi Ustarkhanov away.\n11.  When Balavdi Ustarkhanov's friends asked the servicemen why they were taking him away, the officers said that they were just going to check what Balavdi was doing in the house. The servicemen took Balavdi Ustarkhanov outside without shoes or warm clothing. There they put him in one of the military vehicles parked next to the house: there were a military UAZ car, a minivan and an APC (armoured personnel carrier). The vehicles then drove away in the direction of the local checkpoint, manned by the Russian military forces.\n12.  The passport of Mr Makhadi M., which had been taken away by the abductors, was found some time later in the vicinity of Zakan-Yurt, on the road to Grozny, across the street from the Russian military checkpoint.\n13.  According to Mr Magomed M.'s neighbour, Mr I.A., who lived across the street, at about 5 a.m. on 7 January 2003 he and his relatives had seen from their windows two vehicles and a large group of a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4887", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Arkhangelsk.\n6.  In 1975 the applicant was injured in a work-related accident. In 2004 she sued the Arkhangelsk Regional Health Department for disability benefits alleging that her current disability had resulted from that incident.\n7.  On 15 December 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk rejected the applicant's claims. The District Court examined, among other evidence, a decision by the Medical and Labour Expert Examination Service of the Arkhangelsk Region, which indicated that the applicant's disability had been caused by the injury she sustained in 1975.\n8.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Arkhangelsk Regional Court. The appeal hearing was scheduled for 17 January 2005. According to the Government, the District Court dispatched summonses to the parties, including the applicant and her representative, informing them of the date and time of the appeal hearing. According to the applicant, she did not receive the summons.\n9.  On 17 January 2005 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court examined the appeal and rejected it. The applicant and the representative of the Health Department were absent but the prosecutor intervened in the proceedings on behalf of the Health Department and addressed the court. The Regional Court did not examine the question whether the applicant or her representative had been duly summonsed and, if they had not, whether the examination of the appeal should have been adjourned.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4888", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.   The first applicant, Mr Eberhard, was born in 1968 and lives in Ponikva. The second applicant, M., is his daughter.\n5.  On 8 April 2001 the first applicant’s wife, M.E., together with the second applicant, then aged four, moved out of the flat in which they had been living with the first applicant. M.E. subsequently filed a petition for divorce.\n6.  On 4 May 2001 the first applicant and his wife, with whom the second applicant was living, signed an agreement on access arrangements.\n7.  On 12 June 2001 the first applicant filed a request with the Šentjur Social Welfare Centre (“the Šentjur Centre”) seeking formal determination of the access arrangements, claiming that since 12 May 2001 M.E. had denied him access to the second applicant.\n8.  During the following month M.E. gave a number of statements at the Šentjur Centre, opposing contact between the applicants, stating that the first applicant represented a danger to her and the second applicant. She also lodged a criminal complaint against the first applicant for endangering their safety.\n9.  On 11 July 2001 the expert committee of the Šentjur Centre submitted an opinion in the case.\n10.  On 31 July 2001 a hearing was held at the Šentjur Centre. While the first applicant attended the hearing, M.E. refused to attend, claiming that she did not feel safe in the presence of the first applicant.\n11.  On 1 August 2001 the Šentjur Centre issued an order granting the first applicant four hours a week with the second applicant, taking into account the expert committee’s opinion and the fact that, at the supervised meeting between the applicants, the second applicant had not appeared to be afraid of the first applicant but, on the contrary, pleased to see him. The Šentjur Centre did not follow the first applicant’s proposal that he should be allowed to pick the second applicant up at her nursery; instead it ordered M.E. to bring the second applicant to a meeting point at a local train station.\n12.  On 3 October 2002, further to an appeal by M.E., the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs (“the Ministry”) modified the order in part. However, in essence, the access arrangements remained unaffected. The access order therefore became final and enforceable on 16 October 2002.\n13.  M.E. failed to comply with the order. She did not bring the second applicant to the meeting-point specified therein.\n14.  On 22 November 2002 the first applicant requested enforcement of the order. After hearing evidence from both parties, on 31 January 2003 the Šentjur Administrative Unit (“the Unit”) allowed the enforcement and ordered M.E. to hand the second applicant over to the first applicant at the next meeting. In addition, the Unit decided that if M.E. failed to do so she would be ordered to pay a fine of 5,000 Slovenian tolars (SIT) (approximately 25 euros (EUR)). It also noted that the fine could be increased in the event of further failure to comply.\n15.  M.E. continued to refuse the first applicant all access to the second applicant.\n16.  Further to the first applicant’s thirteen notices of non-compliance by M.E., on 3, 18, 23 and 30 April, 13 May and 9 June 2003 the Unit issued orders imposing fines which increased from SIT 5,000 to SIT 35,000 (approximately EUR 145). The orders were forwarded to the tax authorities for execution.\n17.  M.E. appealed against the orders.\n18.  According to letters addressed to the court by the Šentjur Centre on 8 September 2003 and 3 May 2004, in the context of proce", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4889", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first and the second applicants were born in 1957 and 1962 respectively and live in Yerevan.\n5.  The applicants are a husband and wife who had worked for Hrazdanmash Closed Joint-Stock Company (hereafter “Hrazdanmash”), a company involved in manufacturing various machinery and equipment and whose majority shareholder is the State.\n6.  No salary was paid to the staff for the years 1998-2000, since Hrazdanmash was experiencing financial problems. In 2000 the majority of Hrazdanmash's staff, including the applicants, were ordered to take unpaid leave for an indefinite period.\n7.  It appears that in that period a number of court judgments were adopted against Hrazdanmash, which was ordered to pay tax and other arrears to the State budget, the Pension and Employment Fund and the Armenian Railroad CJSC to a total amount of 589,009,285 drams (AMD). Several sets of enforcement proceedings were instituted.\n8.  It further appears that in 2000 Hrazdanmash was restructured into an open joint-stock company, the majority of its shares being retained by the State.\n9.  By a decree of 24 April 2000 the Government decided to terminate the enforcement proceedings against Hrazdanmash and other similar companies and to refrain from seizing their property in order to ensure effective management of State property, since the companies in question were engaged in the 1998-2000 privatisation programme of State property. It appears that this decree was repealed on 28 December 2000 and the enforcement proceedings were resumed.\n10.  On 17 May 2001 the relevant trade union instituted court proceedings against Hrazdanmash in the interests of the staff, seeking arrears for unpaid salary and other benefits.\n11.  On 2 July 2001 the Kotayk Regional Court (Կոտայքի մարզի առաջին ատյանի դատարան) granted the claim and ordered Hrazdanmash to pay a total of AMD 58,060,925, including AMD 211,864.51 and AMD 221,157.08 to the first and the second applicant respectively.\n12.  No appeal was lodged against this judgment which became final.\n13.  On 23 July 2001 the Kotayk Regional Division of the Department for the Enforcement of Judicial Acts (ԴԱՀԿ ծառայության Կոտայքի մարզային ստորաբաժանում – “the DEJA”) instituted enforcement proceedings no. 738. In the course of these proceedings the bailiff decided to freeze Hrazdanmash's property and bank accounts.\n14.  On 27 August 2001 the Government adopted decree no. 775, outlining the actions to be taken in order to streamline the privatisation process of companies having strategic importance, to foster investments in such companies and to expand and develop production. Hrazdanmash was listed among the companies in question.\n15.  On 10 September 2001 the tax authorities instituted proceedings in the Kotayk Regional Court against Hrazdanmash, seeking to declare it bankrupt and to levy AMD 358,154,700.\n16.  By a letter of 11 September 2001 the Regional Court asked the executive director of Hrazdanmash to submit observations in reply.\n17.  By a letter of September 2001 (exact date unclear) the First Deputy to the Minister of Industry and Trade replied to the Regional Court's letter, stating that Hrazdanmash was undergoing restructuring on the basis of a governmental decree and that the Ministry of Industry and Trade had applied to the Ministry of State Revenue with a request to suspend the bankruptcy procedure until the restructuring was finalised.\n18.  On 13 September 2001 the DEJA decided to stay enforcement proceedings no. 738 on the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4890", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Ms Janina Trzaskalska, is a Polish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Częstochowa.\n5.  She owned a plot of land which was expropriated by a decision of 5 May 1988 for the purposes of building a housing estate. By virtue of the same decision the applicant received compensation for one plot amounting to 1,121.299 old Polish zlotys (PLZ). By a supplementary decision of 8 June 1988 the Częstochowa Municipal Office fixed the amount of compensation for another plot at PLZ 560,649. On 29 January 1990 and 19 April 1990 the Municipal Office fixed the amounts of compensation for two remaining expropriated plots at PLZ 236,073.600 and PLZ 119,817.600, respectively.\n6.  On 30 January 1997 the applicant filed a motion with the President of the Urban Development Office to declare the expropriation decision of 1988 null and void. She claimed that the compensation was too low, as the authorities had calculated it on the basis of agricultural land, whereas after the decision to build a housing estate the land should have been regarded as building land. The applicant invoked the relevant provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure, on the basis of which land loses its agricultural nature after it has been expropriated for building purposes. The applicant's motion was forwarded to the Śląsk Governor on 25 January 1999.\n7.  As the applicant received no reply to her original motion, on 6 October 1998 she filed the same motion with the Częstochowa Governor. The Governor informed the applicant by a letter of 8 December 1998 that in view of the need to obtain an expert assessment of the land's value, the case could be dealt with in the first quarter of 1999.\n8.  On 13 April 1999 the Śląsk Governor's Office notified the applicant that proceedings to declare the contested decision null and void had been instituted.\n9.  On 26 July 1999 the Śląsk Governor declared the expropriation decision of 5 May 1988 and the supplementary compensation decision of 8 June 1998 null and void as having been issued in flagrant breach of the law.\n10.  On 20 October 1999 the Częstochowa Municipal Office instituted administrative proceedings in order to fix the amount of compensation for the expropriation of the applicant's land.  On 20 November 1999 the Municipal Office contacted five experts, asking them to quote by 5 December 1999 a price for drawing up an evaluation report in the applicant's case, and informed the applicant that her case would be dealt with within 14 days from the submission of the evaluation report.  Subsequently, S.H. was appointed as an expert. As he resigned on 1 February 2000, A.G. was assigned the case.\n11.  On 17 February 2000 the applicant was notified that the time-limit for the examination of the case had been set for 31 March 2000. On 13 March 2000 A.G. submitted his evaluation report, wherein he assessed the value of the real estate at PLN 63,000 and the amount of compensation which had already been paid, re-assessed against inflation, at PLN 46,980.\n12.  On 28 March 2000 the evidentiary proceedings were terminated and the applicant was invited to read the file and submit her comments.\n13.  On 4 April 2000 the applicant challenged the evaluation report.\n14.  On 20 April 2000 the Mayor awarded the applicant compensation for the expropriated plot in the amount of PLN 63,000, reduced by the amount of PLN 46,980 already paid to her by virtue of the decision of 5 May 1998. The applicant appealed on 7 May 2000, contesting th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4891", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Toruń. He is currently detained in the Toruń Remand Centre.\n6.  On 20 November 2002 the Bydgoszcz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) issued a “wanted” notice in respect of the applicant in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a murder and had gone into hiding, thereby defeating attempts by the police to arrest him. The court also decided to remand the applicant in custody for a period of seven days from the date of his arrest.\n7.  On 13 March 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 17 March 2003 the Toruń Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) extended his detention until 13 June 2003.\n8.  Subsequently, the Toruń Regional Court extended the applicant's detention on 4 June, 29 August and 8 December 2003. The court relied on the probability that a severe sentence might be imposed on the applicant and the fact that an arrest warrant had been issued during the time he had been in hiding.\n9.  His detention pending investigation was further extended by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 25 February and 28 April 2004.\n10.  On 31 May 2004 the applicant was indicted before the Toruń Regional Court. The act of indictment was directed against twelve persons. The applicant was charged with homicide.\n11.  The trial started in November 2004 and hearings were held at regular intervals. On several occasions the trial court found that the grounds for the applicant's detention remained valid and extended it.\n12.  On 23 February 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal decided to extend the applicant's detention beyond the statutory time-limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego).\n13.  On 8 December 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal decided to further extend the applicant's detention. The court based its decision on the risk that he might interfere with the course of justice, given the severity of the penalty that could be imposed and the fact that he had been in hiding prior to his arrest in 2003.\n14.  On 12 May 2006 the Toruń Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to twelve years' imprisonment. The applicant would found guilty of having attacked a certain M.S., who was heavily under the influence of alcohol, in a billiards club, and beaten him, causing serious bodily harm and in consequence death.\n15.  The applicant lodged an appeal. It appears that the trial court transferred the case to the court of appeal nine months later. The Toruń Court of Appeal held a hearing on 6 April 2007.\n16.  On 27 April 2007 the court allowed the applicant's appeal and quashed the impugned judgment.\n17.  On 4 May 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention, finding that only detention would secure his attendance at the trial.\n18.  On 8 August and 14 December 2007 the Toruń Regional Court further extended his detention, observing that the grounds for detention were still valid. In its identically reasoned decisions the court relied on two grounds invoked previously: the severity of the penalty that might be imposed, which made it probable that the applicant would interfere with the proper course of proceedings, and the fact that he had been sought pursuant to a “wanted” notice in 2002.\n19.  At the hearings held on 7 March, 4 June, 12 September and 11 December 2008 the trial court further extended the applicant's detention. In every decision the court considered that the applicant's detention was necessary to complete the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4892", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  On an unspecified date in March 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant.\n7.  On 26 March 2001 the applicant was indicted before the Warsaw District Court. The bill of indictment comprised charges of fraud and forgery of documents.\n8.  At a hearing held on 19 September 2003 the applicant's lawyer lodged a request for the case to be remitted to the Warsaw District Prosecutor. The prosecutor appealed. On 19 November 2003 the request was dismissed.\n9.  The subsequent hearings, listed for 20 December 2005 and 23 March 2006, were adjourned as on both occasions the victim had not been properly summoned.\n10.  In the meantime, on 1 January 2006 the case had been assigned to another judge.\n11.  At the hearing held on 8 June 2006, the court ordered that the documents concerning the applicant's health be obtained.\n12.  At the hearing held on 14 July 2006, upon the request of the prosecutor, the court ordered that the applicant undergo a psychiatric examination and that an expert's report on his health be prepared.\n13.  The hearing listed for 5 October 2006 was adjourned as the victim had again not been properly summoned.\n14.  At the hearings held on 4 December 2006, 20 February and 29 March 2007 the applicant and four witnesses were heard.\n15.  A further hearing, scheduled for 19 January 2007, was cancelled.\n16.  On 20 February and 29 March 2007 the court ordered that an additional expert's report be prepared.\n17.  On 29 May 2007 the court requested the Warsaw District Prosecutor to submit evidence supporting the charges against the applicant as laid down in the bill of indictment.\n18.  The next hearings, listed for 5 September and 10 December 2007, were cancelled as the time-limit for the prosecutor to submit evidence had been prolonged until 29 February 2008.\n19.  The subsequent hearing, set down for 10 March 2008, was cancelled due to the judge's illness.\n20.  On 7 May 2008 the Warsaw District Court acquitted the applicant.\n21.  On 7 November 2005 the applicant filed with the Warsaw Regional Court a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in respect of the criminal proceedings instituted against him and asked for just satisfaction. He relied on the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004. The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Warsaw District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 9,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (the equivalent of approx. 2,250 euros (EUR)).\n22.  On 2 December 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his complaint. It limited its examination of the length of the proceedings to the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act and stressed that the Act could not be applied to the protracted length of court proceedings occurring before that date. Having analysed the conduct of the Warsaw District Court during the period after the entry into force of the 2004 Act, the court found that the proceedings had been conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time.\n23.  On 20 February 2008 the applicant filed his second complaint under the 2004 Act. The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the procee", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4893", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Ms Aleksandra Vinčić (“the first applicant”), Mr Damir Matić (“the second applicant”), Ms Dušica Obradović (“the third applicant”), Mr Aleksandar Kržić (“the fourth applicant”), Mr Ljubomir Božić (“the fifth applicant”), Mr Zoran Radonjić (“the sixth applicant”), Ms Ljiljana Savić (“the seventh applicant”), Ms Aleksandra Rosić (“the eighth applicant”), Mr Jovo Grbić (“the ninth applicant”), Mr Mirko Maljković (“the tenth applicant”), Mr Milan Vukelić (“the eleventh applicant”), Mr Jovan Milić (“the twelfth applicant”), Mr Jovan Jovanović (“the thirteenth applicant”), Mr Milutin Jovanović (“the fourteenth applicant”), Mr Nenad Jovanović (“the fifteenth applicant”), Mr Zoran Korica (“the sixteenth applicant”), Ms Dara Đorđević Halapir (“the seventeenth applicant”), Ms Vera Vasović (“the eighteenth applicant”), Mr Drago Tumbas (“the nineteenth applicant”), Mr Dobrivoje Dunjić (“the twentieth applicant”), Mr Svetozar Munćan (“the twenty-first applicant”), Mr Rade Savić (“the twenty-second applicant”), Mr Dragan Udović (“the twenty-third applicant”), Mr Milutin Milunov (“the twenty-fourth applicant”), Mr Predrag Stamenović (“the twenty-fifth applicant”), Mr Zoran Babić (“the twenty-sixth applicant”), Mr Slobodan Pejić (“the twenty-seventh applicant”), Mr Mirko Novaković (“the twenty-eighth applicant”), Mr Radoje Đukić (“the twenty-ninth applicant”), Mr Zoran Živković (“the thirtieth applicant”) and Mr Miodrag Lopičić (“the thirty-first applicant”) are all Serbian nationals.\n6.  The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicants were all members of the Independent Union of Aviation Engineers of Serbia (Samostalni sindikat inženjera vazduhoplovstva Srbije).\n8.  Following a strike, on 28 November 2004 their union and their employer, JAT Airways, concluded an agreement whereby the latter accepted to pay all union members a certain benefit while the former promised to discontinue the strike and refrain from any legal action.\n9.  On 29 November 2004 the Director General of JAT Airways, a public corporation founded by the respondent State, ordered that the necessary calculations be made and the payment of the benefit be effected immediately.\n10.  Since this decision would appear not to have been implemented, on 7 February 2005 the applicants, as part of a group of 151 persons, filed a single civil claim against JAT Airways with the Fourth Municipal Court (Četvrti opštinski sud) in Belgrade, seeking payment of the benefit in question (ranging from several hundred up to approximately one thousand Euros, “EUR”, respectively).\n11.  The total number of plaintiffs subsequently dropped to 140. The Fourth Municipal Court thereafter decided to separate the proceedings for each of the remaining plaintiffs, and ordered them to re-submit their individual claims. The plaintiffs, including the applicants, complied.\n12.  Certain applicants were successful before the Fourth Municipal Court; others were not. However, all the applicants were unsuccessful at second-instance before the District Court in Belgrade whose decisions they received on the following dates:\n- the first applicant on 27 September 2006;\n- the second applicant on 13 July 2006;\n- the third and fourth applicants on 13 September 2006;\n- the fifth applicant on 17 November 2006;\n- the sixth applicant on 10 November 2006;\n- the seventh applicant on 4 December 2006;\n- the eighth applicant on 5 December 2006;\n- the ninth applicant on 28 November 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4894", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  The applicant is a historian and university professor. His main subject of research is the Second World War and, in particular, the extermination of Jews and Roma. He is the author of numerous publications on the subject.\n7.  In 2004 a heated public debate took place in Hungary as to whether a statue should be raised to commemorate Pál Teleki[1]. In a wider context, the debate also concerned the question of Hungary’s failure to face up to its role in World War II and the Holocaust, as well as the attitude of Hungarians to this chapter of the country’s twentieth-century history – issues which had political implications, given that certain right-wing parties in the country identified their roots in the pre-World-War-II political system, of which Pál Teleki was an emblematic figure.\n8.  In that context the applicant publicly stated that Teleki had been one of the most reprehensible figures of Hungarian history, responsible for substantial anti-Semitic legislation as well as for dragging Hungary into World War II.\n9.  In issue no. 11/2004 of the weekly paper Élet és Irodalom, the applicant published an article on this subject, criticising the right-wing media, including a certain Mr B.T., for embellishing Teleki’s role and for making anti-Semitic statements in the process. The article presented examples of, and refuted, various misconceptions about Teleki’s political acts, endorsed by right-wing authors in order to diminish his responsibility for the persecution of Hungarian Jews, which, in the applicant’s view, amounted to “cautious Jew-bashing”. One of these examples reads as follows:\n“In B.T.’s charming words, two anti-Semitic laws ‘fell’ within Teleki’s two premierships. ... If we are counting, let us be accurate: not two, but 12 (twelve) anti-Semitic laws are linked to Teleki’s name. ...”\nThe applicant also noted that:\n“... [I]t is rare that those supporting [the plan to erect a] statue of Teleki are trying to defend their position using overtly anti-Semitic arguments.”\n10.  Mr B.T. brought an action against the applicant before the Budapest Regional Court. He claimed that his reputation had been tarnished by another passage in the applicant’s article which read as follows:\n“In the Parliamentary Library’s PRESSDOC database there are hundreds of articles and studies praising Pál Teleki, written in a sometimes uninhibited, sometimes more moderate style. In 1994-95, the extremely anti-Semitic and irredentist Hunnia Brochures devoted a 15-episode series to the ex-PM. The amateur historian [B.T.] wrote several articles[2] extolling the virtues of Pál Teleki – the devout Catholic, the enthusiastic Scout leader – who in his view was an anti-Nazi ‘Realpolitiker’.\nThese articles and studies prompted very little reaction. There are very few of us who, at least from time to time, pick up the products of the right-wing or extreme right-wing press, which, perhaps encouraged by this [indifference], keeps lying, keeps slandering, keeps stirring feeling against and bashing the Jews (zsidóznak), in an increasingly uninhibited way.”\n11.  According to the plaintiff, the last sentence of the quotation could have been aimed at him and was prejudicial to his reputation.\n12.  On 1 June 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the action, holding in essence that the impugned sentence, especially the expression “bashing the Jews” did not concern the plaintiff himself but the right-wing and extreme right-wi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4896", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Baku.\n6.  The applicant was the sole owner and director of Nail Commercial Firm (“the Company”), established on 2 March 1992 in Baku. It appears from the case file that the Company was registered on 22 January 1993 and, that, according to the company's charter, the applicant was its sole founder.\n7.  By an order of the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) of 7 February 1996, the Company was granted the right of use of a plot of land in Baku for constructing and operating a health centre. On 25 May 1998 the Company was granted an additional plot of land adjacent to the original one. The total area of land granted to the Company comprised 0.75 hectares (“the Plot”).\n8.  The Company obtained all necessary construction permits and authorisations and paid all relevant fees. However, it did not start any construction work.\n9.  In 1998 the Plot was occupied by another private company, called Ruslan, which commenced construction of a shopping centre on the Plot.\n10.  After writing several letters of complaint to the BCEA and the police, the Company brought an action against the Khatai District Executive Authority (“the KDEA”) and Ruslan, asking for protection of its right of use of the Plot. On 29 October 1998 the Economic Court (acting as a first‑instance court) rejected the Company's claim. The court found that Ruslan had occupied the Plot illegally. However, the court noted that, due to the fact that a substantial amount of construction had been carried out on the site, it was impracticable to demolish the buildings constructed by Ruslan. Therefore, the court held that the buildings illegally constructed by Ruslan were to be confiscated in favour of the State, while the BCEA was ordered to grant the Company another plot of land of similar value.\n11.  Following a series of appeals by the Company, on 31 May 2001, the Economic Court (acting as an appeal court) quashed the judgment of 29 October 1998 and granted the Company's claim. The court ordered the demolition of buildings constructed by Ruslan and restoration of the Company's right of use of the Plot. No cassation appeals were lodged against this judgment and it entered into legal force.\n12.  It appears from the case file that the applicant applied to various authorities complaining that the judgment of 31 May 2001 had not been enforced.\n13.  On 29 January 2002 the Economic Court issued a special decision (xüsusi qərardad), instructing the Khatai District Prosecutor's Office to institute criminal proceedings against those responsible for the non‑enforcement of the judgment.\n14.  Upon a request by the Company, on 1 July 2003 the Economic Court issued a special decision interpreting the operative part of the judgment of 31 May 2001. The court clarified that the Plot must be vacated by any third parties, that access to the Plot must be restricted and that the illegally constructed buildings must be demolished by the KDEA. Thereafter, the Plot was to be transferred to the Company.\n15.  In August 2003 the Khatai District Department of Judicial Observers and Enforcement Officers informed the Economic Court that the enforcement of the judgment was impossible due to the KDEA officials' refusal to demolish the illegally constructed buildings.\n16.  On 11 September 2003 the Economic Court issued a special decision instructing the Khatai District Prosecutor's Office to institute criminal proceedings against the relevant KDEA officials. On 17 Octobe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4897", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Saratov.\n6.  On 9 January 2003 the applicant published an article under the headline “The Political Scene in 2002: Old Faces and New Times” (Политические расклады 2002 года: старые лица и новые времена) in issue no. 1 (10) of the Nedelya Oblasti newspaper. The article examined the interplay of political groups in the Saratov Region and, in particular, the part played by the prosecutor's office of the Saratov Region and B., the Saratov Regional Prosecutor.\n7.  B. sued the applicant and the editorial board for defamation before the Kirovskiy District Court of Saratov. He claimed that the following extract from the article had damaged his honour, dignity and professional reputation:\n“Probably, only this [the political union between the town hall and the regional prosecutor's office] can account for the regional prosecutor's office's perseverance in instigating criminal proceedings against members of the regional government..., while at the same time shielding the serving officials of the town hall and the town legislature from criminal prosecution. For example, in the corruption-ridden case of the “Town Charity Fund for Health Care Support”, charges had been brought against only one member of the town legislature, Mr K[.], but shortly thereafter he was acquitted. And the mayor's close circle, headed by Mr A[.] in person, was spared responsibility. In gratitude for support the town hall started supplying the prosecutor's offices with 'gifts' in the form of foreign-made cars and furniture. As to the regional prosecutor Mr B[.], the town hall allocated to him under a 49-year lease agreement (!) a plot of land in the courtyard of the block of flats where he lives (allegedly for development).”\n8.  The District Court commissioned a linguistic examination of the impugned extract by four experts from Saratov State University.\n9.  On 12 September 2003 the panel of four experts returned their unanimous findings. In their assessment, the article did not give an appraisal of B.'s character, nor did it damage his honour or professional reputation. The publication might create the impression that the prosecutor's actions had been unseemly and cast doubt on the lawfulness of a lease agreement for such a long term and the validity of its purpose. However, these issues called for a legal rather than a linguistic examination. The experts concurred that the words “probably”, “only this can account for...” and “in gratitude for support” were expressions of the journalist's personal opinion rather than statements of fact. The author did not allege that prosecutor B. had received any benefits for his support of the town hall. The journalist merely supposed that the prosecutor had not been impartial and that criminal charges against officials had been brought selectively.\n10.  On 14 November 2003 the Kirovskiy District Court of Saratov gave judgment, finding against the applicant for the following reasons:\n“Taking into account the factual circumstances of the case, the court considers that in the [applicant's article] the plaintiff Mr B. cannot be viewed as a private individual because in the public perception – having regard to the fact that the plaintiff is a public figure – the plaintiff is Mr B., the citizen who holds the office of the Saratov Regional Prosecutor and must observe higher standards in his personal and professional image and his daily actions.\nThe court further considers that the term 'prosecutor'", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4898", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Pulheim.\n8.  The applicant is the father of a daughter born out of wedlock in 1995. The applicant and the mother of the child separated in August 1998. Their relationship had lasted five years. Until January 2001, the daughter lived with the applicant, whereas the mother had moved to another flat which was located in the same building. As the parents did not make a joint custody declaration (gemeinsame Sorgerechtserklärung), the mother obtained sole custody (alleinige Personensorge) pursuant to Article 1626a § 2 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, see Relevant domestic law and practice below).\n9.  In January 2001, the child moved to the mother’s flat. Subsequently, the parents started to argue about the applicant’s contact with the child. In June 2001 they reached an agreement with the assistance of the Cologne-Nippes Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt Köln-Nippes), according to which the applicant would have contact with the child every Wednesday afternoon until Thursday morning, every Sunday from 10 a.m. to Monday morning and half of each holiday, amounting in total to approximately four months per year. In 2001, the applicant applied for a joint custody order, as the mother was unwilling to agree on a joint custody declaration, although otherwise both parents were cooperative and on good terms.\n10.  On 18 June 2003, the Cologne District Court (Amtsgericht Köln) dismissed the applicant’s application. It found that there was no basis for a joint custody order. Under German law, joint custody for parents of children born out of wedlock could only be obtained through a joint declaration, marriage or a court order under Article 1672 § 1 of the Civil Code, the latter requiring the consent of the other parent. The Cologne District Court considered Article 1626a of the Civil Code to be constitutional and referred to a leading judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) of 29 January 2003 (see §§ 18-21, below). Having regard to the fact that the pertinent legal provisions did not allow for a different decision, the District Court did not consider it necessary to hear the concerned parties in person.\n11.  The applicant appealed and on 2 October 2003 the Cologne Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht Köln) dismissed the appeal. It reasoned that, as the applicant and the mother were unmarried, the applicant’s participation in the exercise of custody was only possible in accordance with Article 1626a of the Civil Code. The applicant and the mother had, however, not submitted the required joint custody declaration. In its judgment of 29 January 2003, the Federal Constitutional Court had found that Article 1626a of the Civil Code was constitutional with regard to the situation of parents of children born out of wedlock who had separated after 1 July 1998. The Cologne Court of Appeal noted that the applicant and the mother of the child had separated in August 1998. Thus, they had had a period of one and a half months before they separated in which they could have made a joint custody declaration. The Cologne Court of Appeal further noted that the new legislation, which had entered into force on 1 July 1998, had received public attention for a considerable period. Unmarried parents might have been expected therefore to have shown an interest in the matter and to have noticed the new legislation.\n12.  On 15 December 2003 the Federal Constitutional Court, referring to t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4899", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Baku.\n6.  By an order of the Azizbeyov District Executive Authority (“ADEA”) of 18 January 1994, the applicant was issued an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) to a flat in a recently constructed residential building in Baku.\n7.  On the same day, the applicant became aware that the flat was occupied by S. and his family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Lachin, a region under the occupation of the Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno‑Karabakh.\n8.  According to the applicant, despite his numerous demands, S. refused to vacate the flat, pointing out that he was an IDP and had no other place to reside in.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 2003, the applicant lodged an action with the Surakhany District Court asking the court to order the eviction of S. and his family from the flat.\n10.  On 23 December 2003 the Surakhany District Court granted the applicant's claim and ordered that S. and his family be evicted from the flat. The court noted that S. and his family were IDPs who had illegally settled in the flat in 1993. The court held that, pursuant to the occupancy voucher issued to him by the ADEA on 18 January 1994, the applicant was the lawful tenant of the flat and, as such, had a right to demand S. to vacate it. Moreover, the court noted that, in accordance with the domestic law, IDPs could be allowed to temporarily settle of their own will only if this did not infringe the rights and lawful interests of other persons; otherwise, the local executive authorities had to ensure their resettlement in other accommodation. In the present case, since the applicant's property rights had been infringed, the Surakhany District Executive Authority (“SDEA”) was ordered to provide S. and his family with other accommodation.\n11.  No appeals were filed against this judgment and it entered into legal force. However, S. refused to comply with the judgment and, despite the applicant's complaints to various authorities, it was not enforced.\n12.  On 22 February 2005 the Department of Judicial Observers and Enforcement Officers of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that it was impossible to execute the judgment of 23 December 2003, because the local authorities could not find other accommodation for S. and his family. In such circumstances, the authorities were barred from taking any measures to evict IDPs from their temporary place of residence.\n13.  On 24 March 2005 the SDEA informed the applicant that, at that time, there were more than 25,000 IDPs temporarily settled in the Surakhany District. These IDPs lived in various flats, hotels, administrative buildings and other premises. For this reason, there was no more available accommodation in the district in which S. and his family could be resettled. Therefore, it was impossible to execute the judgment of 23 December 2003.\n14.  Following the applicant's repeated complaints, on 5 May 2006 the SDEA again informed the applicant that, due to the continuous lack of any other accommodation where S. and his family could be moved, it was impossible to execute the judgment.\n15.  At the time of the latest communication with the applicant, the judgment of 23 December 2003 remained unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4900", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1918, 1939 and 1944, respectively, and live in Shkoder.\n8.  Following the conclusion of a purchase contract on 10 July 1940, the applicants' relative became the owner of a plot of land measuring 5,000 sq. m and situated on the Durrës coast. The applicants' relative's title to the property was subsequently entered in the Durrës Land Register.\n9.  In 1946 the State nationalised – without compensation – all the land situated on the Albanian coast, including the applicants' relative's plot of land.\n10.  On 3 February 1994 the Durrës Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Property (Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave – hereafter “the Commission”), restored the applicants' property rights over their relative's property pursuant to the Property (Restitution and Compensation) Act of 1993 (see “Relevant domestic law”, paragraph 53 below). On 22 February 1994 the applicants' title to the property was entered in the Durrës Land Register.\n11.  Between 1994 and 1995 attempts by the applicants to recover possession of the property proved unsuccessful because buildings had been illegally erected on their land by unlawful occupiers.\n12.  On an unspecified date in 1995, being unable to recover possession of their property, the applicants initiated proceedings before the Durrës District Court (“the District Court”), seeking an order for three occupiers (M., R. and D.) to cease occupation of their property and for the illegal buildings to be demolished.\n13.  On 11 April 1995 the District Court confirmed the applicants' property rights over the plot of land allocated to them by the Commission and ordered the occupiers to vacate the applicants' property. That decision became final on 23 May 1995.\n14.  On 1 August 1995 one of the occupiers, M., submitted a request to the President of the then Court of Cassation for supervisory review of the District Court's decision of 11 April 1995 on the ground that he had not been notified of the proceedings. On 23 September 1995 the President of the Court of Cassation endorsed his request by putting it before the Civil Bench.\n15.  On 2 February 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the District Court's decision of 11 April 1995 on the ground that none of the three occupiers had been duly informed of the proceedings before the District Court, and remitted the case to the same court for fresh examination.\n16.  The applicants were neither informed of the proceedings nor invited to attend the hearings before the Court of Cassation.\n17.  On 21 June 1996 the District Court decided to dismiss the case as none of the parties had attended the hearing and none had given legitimate reasons for their failure to attend.\n18.  It appears that the proceedings were reopened on an unspecified date. They were also directed against another unlawful occupier, B. On 20 January 1997 the District Court confirmed the applicants' title to their relative's plot of land and ordered the four occupiers (M., R., D. and B.) to cease occupation.\n19.  In February 1997 the applicants sold a plot measuring 500 sq. m to another party. That transaction was entered in the land register.\n20.  On an unspecified date the occupiers of the applicants' property appealed against the District Court's decision of 20 January 1997, challenging the lawfulness of the applicants' title to the plot of land. On 1 April 1998 the Durrës Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed their appeal and upheld the District Court's", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4901", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Cracow.\n6.  In a letter of 18 September 2000 to the Social Insurance Authority (Zaklad Ubezpieczeń Spolecznych) in Cracow, the applicant's husband submitted that in his view the applicant, who had been receiving a disability pension since 1985, was in fact healthy and should no longer be receiving a pension. He suggested that she be re-examined by competent doctors. Apparently divorce proceedings involving the parties were pending at that time.\n7.  On 10 October 2000 the Social Insurance Authority, referring to the applicant's medical records, instituted proceedings in order to reassess the applicant's condition with a view to establishing whether she complied with the conditions governing entitlement to a disability pension.\n8.  In reply to a query from the applicant about the legal basis on which these proceedings were instituted, on 28 November 2000 the Social Insurance Authority informed her that the proceedings had been instituted under the provisions governing the internal supervision of physicians working for the Authority.\n9.  Eventually, on 4 December 2000 the Social Insurance Authority gave a decision by which the applicant's right to receive a disability pension was extinguished as she was no longer unfit to work.\n10.  On 12 January 2001 the applicant appealed, submitting that the Social Insurance Authority had failed to assess properly the medical evidence concerning her condition. She also submitted that her condition had been reassessed in 1994, 1995 and 1997. On each of these occasions decisions had been given confirming that she was permanently unfit to work.\n11.  In her pleadings submitted on 18 May and 3 December 2001 the applicant submitted that there was no legal basis for conducting medical examinations in order to reassess her condition. She referred to the 1983 Ordinance, which prohibited reassessment of the medical condition of persons who had been receiving a disability pension for longer than ten years (see paragraph 25 below). The Ordinance provided that no medical examination could be conducted in respect of such persons with a view to a reassessment of their condition. She further invoked the case-law of the Supreme Court which, in the applicant's submission, supported the conclusion that no medical reassessment of a condition which had served as the basis for granting a disability pension could be ordered once ten years had elapsed from the date on which the decision awarding the entitlement to a pension became final (II URN 8/94, see paragraph 28 below).\n12.  The Cracow Regional Court, by a judgment of 24 September 2002, partly amended the decision of the Social Insurance Authority by granting the applicant the disability pension for a fixed period, namely from 1 January 2001 until 1 January 2003.\n13.  The applicant appealed, claiming that in view of her condition she was entitled to a permanent disability pension. She complained about the assessment of the medical evidence by the first-instance court. In her additional pleadings submitted to the Court of Appeal on 6 September 2004, she reiterated her arguments about the lack of legal basis for the reassessment of her condition and concluded that the first-instance judgment was therefore in breach of substantive law.\n14.  On 8 September 2004 the Cracow Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court examined the complaint concerning the allegedly incorrect assessment of the evidence and concluded that the fir", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4903", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Madrid.\n8.  The applicant and M.D., both members of the Roma community, were married in November 1971 according to their community’s own rites. The marriage was solemnised in accordance with Roma customs and cultural traditions and was recognised by that community. For the Roma community, a marriage solemnised according to its customs gives rise to the usual social effects, to public recognition, to an obligation to live together and to all other rights and duties that are inherent in the institution of marriage.\n9.  The applicant had six children, who were registered in the family record book issued to the couple by the Spanish civil registration authorities (Registro civil) on 11 August 1983.\n10.  On 14 October 1986 the applicant and her family were granted first-category large-family status, under the number 28/2220/8, pursuant to the Large-Family Protection Act (Law no. 25/1971 of 19 June 1971).\n11.  On 24 December 2000 the applicant’s husband died. He was a builder and at the time of his death had been working and paying social security contributions for nineteen years, three months and eight days, supporting his wife (registered as such) and his six children as his dependants. He had been issued with a social security benefit card, stamped by Agency no. 7 of Madrid of the National Institute of Social Security (Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social – “the INSS”).\n12.  The applicant applied for a survivor’s pension. In a decision of 27 March 2001, the INSS refused to grant her one on the following ground:\n“[she was] not and [had] never been the wife of the deceased prior to the date of death, as required by paragraph 2 of the seventh amendment to Law no. 30/1981 of 7 July 1981 (in force at the material time), combined with section 174 of the General Social Security Act [Ley General de la Seguridad Social – “the LGSS”] approved by Royal Legislative Decree no. 1/1994 of 20 June 1994.”\n13.  That decision was confirmed by a decision of the same Institute dated 10 May 2001.\n14.  The applicant filed a claim with the Labour Court. In a judgment dated 30 May 2002 of Labour Court no. 12 of Madrid, she was granted an entitlement to receive a survivor’s pension with a base rate of 903.29 euros per month, her Roma marriage thus being recognised as having civil effects. The relevant part of the judgment read as follows:\n“... In our country the Roma minority (etnia gitana) has been present since time immemorial and it is known that this minority solemnises marriage according to rites and traditions that are legally binding on the parties. These marriages are not regarded as being contrary to morality or public order and are recognised socially.\n... Article 61 of the Civil Code provides that marriage has civil effects from the time it is solemnised but that it must be registered in the Civil Register if those effects are to be recognised. Roma marriages are not registered in the Civil Register because they have not been regarded by the State as a feature of the ethnic culture which has existed in our country for centuries.\n... The argument relied upon against the applicant in order to deny her a survivor’s pension is solely the non-recognition of the civil effects of her marriage to the insured person (a working man of Spanish nationality with rights and obligations governed by domestic and European Community law), notwithstanding the fact that Spain has ratified the United Nations International ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4904", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Tampere.\n5.  On 16 June 2001 the police searched the applicant's apartment on account of a suspicion that it had been used for procuring. On 26 June 2001 she was questioned as a suspect. On 11 August 2001 the pre-trial investigation was completed.\n6.  On 23 August 2001 the public prosecutor preferred charges against the applicant for procuring, allegedly committed during the period from 4 to 11 June 2001.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant was summoned to appear before the Tampere District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) at a hearing which was to take place on 6 March 2002.\n8.  However, the hearing was cancelled owing to the fact that Ms H., a witness, had failed to appear before the court although lawfully summoned to do so. Another witness, Ms M., had not been summoned. Both witnesses were Estonian citizens. The hearing of the case was postponed until 12 August 2002 and Ms H. was summoned to appear before the court on pain of a fine of 650 euros (EUR).\n9.  On 12 August 2002 the District Court noted that the above-mentioned witnesses had failed to appear before it although lawfully summoned. The court adjourned the case until 11 December 2002 and decided to summon the witnesses on pain of a fine of EUR 800 each.\n10.  On 11 December 2002 the District Court noted that the witnesses had not been summoned, postponed the hearing of the case until 1 December 2003 and decided that the witnesses should be summoned to appear before it on pain of a fine of EUR 800 each. The court also issued warrants for their arrest.\n11.  On 1 December 2003 the District Court again noted that the witnesses had not been summoned, adjourned the case until 26 May 2004 and decided that the witnesses should be summoned to appear on pain of a fine of EUR 800 each. The court also issued warrants for their arrest.\n12.  On 26 May 2004 the District court noted that Ms M. had not been summoned and that Ms H. had been summoned but failed to appear. It postponed the hearing of the case until 8 December 2004, issued warrants for their arrest and decided that they should be brought to court.\n13.  On 8 December 2004 the District Court noted that the witnesses had not been found. The case was adjourned until further notice.\n14.  According to the Government, seven more attempts were made by the District Court to hold an oral hearing between 2005 and 2008. These attempts proved unsuccessful, as the witnesses could not be brought before the court in Finland.\n15.  In January 2008 the District Court contacted the Finnish liaison prosecutor in Estonia to explore the possibility of arranging the hearing of the witnesses through a video link.\n16.  In the autumn of 2008 the District Court received video-conferencing equipment. On 9 January 2009 the District Court issued a request for international legal assistance to Estonia to have the hearing by video link arranged.\n17.  On 23 February 2009 the District Court held its oral hearing. The applicant argued that the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time and were thus in breach of the Convention. In consequence, the charges against her should be dismissed. The court rejected the applicant's argument. It acknowledged that the proceedings had been delayed but noted that the delay had resulted from the unsuccessful attempts to bring the crucial witnesses before the court. It was only after the Tampere District Court was provided with video-conferencing equipment that the hearing coul", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4905", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Vierumäki.\n6.  The applicant was suspected of having supplied large amounts of illegal drugs to other persons for distribution. The pre-trial investigation against the applicant and other suspects was concluded on 24 September 2003.\n7.  During the pre-trial investigation, the applicant had been represented by a court appointed counsel, J.T. On an unspecified date prior to the trial J.T. informed the Kuopio District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten), which was the court of jurisdiction, of the dates when he would not be available due to other engagements. According to the applicant, the court had then informed J.T. that the trial dates had already been fixed. On 28 October 2003 J.T. was informed that in such a large case the court would not be able to arrange the trial dates to suit the lawyers' requests and that a representative should arrange for a substitute to deal with other pending cases. The court asked J.T. whether he would prefer that the applicant be appointed another representative.\n8.  On 31 October 2003 the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant and twelve other defendants in the Kuopio District Court. The prosecution evidence comprised, inter alia, recordings of telephone conversations obtained through police interception.\n9.  The court's oral hearing was held in nine sessions between 11 and 21 November 2003. The applicant appeared in person at six of those sessions. At four of them he was represented by J.T. and at the other two by a different lawyer.\n10.  During the session of 13 November 2003 the applicant and two other defendants requested access to certain recordings in the possession of the police but not included in the case material. They contended that those recordings concerned business arrangements other than the alleged drugs trading, and other material supporting their innocence. The prosecutor opposed the request, stating that a number of recordings, to the necessary extent, had been included in the case file. He further maintained that recordings of such telephone conversations which did not support the charges had also been included in the file.\n11.  In order to provide the court with further evidence in the matter, the prosecutor called the investigating police officer to the stand. In its minutes, the court summarised his statement as follows:\n“All recordings of telephone conversations pertaining to the offences in question have been included in the pre-trial investigation material available to the parties. Recordings not related to the matter were either destroyed at once or removed later. The threshold for including recordings to the case material has been low. In case of doubt as to whether a given recording was related to the matter or not, it has been attached to the case material. As far as the witness could recall, there had been 55 conversations between [the applicant] and [another defendant], of which 23 had been attached to the case material.”\nThe witness had also explained that the recordings gathered during the investigation had indeed disclosed a number of other dealings between the defendants concerning, inter alia, procuring and trading in cars and car parts.\n12.  Relying on the above witness testimony the court rejected the defendants' request finding that all relevant recordings had been included in the pre-trial investigation material, submitted at the disposal of the court and the parties. The court noted that the police ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4906", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Kielce.\n5.  On 6 November 1991 the applicant lodged a claim against a cooperative, his former employer, with the Kielce District Court, seeking reinstatement in his job.\n6.  On 19 December 1991 the proceedings were stayed because of other proceedings pending before the Kielce Regional Court.\n7.  On 4 August 1994 the Kielce District Court, finding the proceedings before the Kielce Regional Court had been terminated, decided to resume the proceedings against the applicant's employer.\n8.  On 18 August 1994 the defendant cooperative was declared insolvent and on 29 September 1994 the Kielce District Court again stayed the proceedings.\n9.  On 28 November 1997 the Kielce District Court discontinued the proceedings, finding that the applicant's claims had been satisfied in the insolvency proceedings of his former employer.\n10.  The applicant appealed against that decision.\n11.  On 30 December 1997 the Kielce Regional Court quashed the challenged decision.\n12.  On 30 January 1998 the Kielce District Court resumed the proceedings and on 1 April 1998 it stayed them again, finding that the insolvency proceedings had not yet been terminated.\n13.  On 19 December 2000 the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings, submitting that the Regional Court had discontinued the insolvency proceedings.\n14.  On 8 January 2001 the proceedings were resumed.\n15.  At a hearing on 24 July 2001 the applicant, taking into consideration that liquidation proceedings in respect of the defendant cooperative had been commenced, modified his claim and directed it against the members of the management board of the cooperative in liquidation.\n16.  On 11 October 2001 the Kielce District Court again stayed the proceedings, because the applicant had failed to provide the court with the addresses of the defendants.\n17.  The applicant appealed, but the decision of 11 October 2001 was upheld by the Kielce Regional Court.\n18.  On 19 September 2003 the Kielce District Court resumed the proceedings.\n19.  On 10 December 2003 the Kielce District Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim.\n20.  On 15 December 2003 the applicant requested the court to prepare and deliver the reasoning of the judgment.\n21.  The judgment with reasoning was sent to the applicant on 18 October 2004.\n22.  On 10 November 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment.\n23.  On 6 July 2005 the Kielce Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n24.  On 8 July 2005 the legal adviser, G.P., who had represented the applicant before the courts, sent a letter to the applicant informing him, that “because the proceedings in this case have lasted since 1991”, he could no longer act as his representative. The lawyer's letter went on to explain:\n“at the time of my appointment you were a member of the trade union and as such you were entitled to legal aid provided for by the union. For several years however, you have no longer been a member of the union and the Świętokrzyski Region, which granted me power of attorney, is no longer under obligation to deal with your affairs.”\n25.  The lawyer failed to submit the letter to the court.\n26.  On 12 July 2005 the applicant personally submitted a letter to the Regional Court informing it that he had revoked the power of attorney of his lawyer, G.P.\n27.  On the same day, the applicant requested the court to allow him a legal-aid lawyer to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf. H", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4907", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Legionowo.\n6.  On 4 October 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of assault. On 5 October 2002 the Warsaw District Court ordered his pre-trial detention on suspicion of aggravated assault committed with two other suspects. It noted that he had been charged with an offence which attracted a statutory sentence of up to ten years' imprisonment. The court also observed that each of the three suspects had given a different account of the events at issue and that, consequently, there was a risk that they would collude or exert pressure on witnesses.\n7.  The applicant's detention was subsequently extended on 30 December 2002 and 1 April 2003. The courts relied on the high likelihood that the applicant had committed the crime in question and the risk that he might tamper with evidence.\n8.  On 18 June 2003 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Warsaw District Court. The applicant was charged with aggravated assault occasioning death (Article 158 § 3 of the Criminal Code). The bill of indictment concerned two other co-accused.\n9.  On 30 June 2003 the Warsaw Regional Court remanded the applicant in custody until 3 December 2003. It relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty. Having regard to Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it noted that the applicant had been charged with an offence which attracted a statutory maximum sentence exceeding eight years' imprisonment.\n10.  On 1 December 2003 the Warsaw Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 3 June 2004. It invoked the severity of the anticipated penalty and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n11.  On 22 December 2003 the first hearing was held. The court heard the applicant, two co-accused and eleven witnesses.\n12.  At a hearing held on 5 April 2004, the applicant's lawyer asked the court to apply police supervision instead of the pre-trial detention. However, the court refused.\n13.  At a hearing held on 19 May 2004 the applicant's lawyer again asked the court to replace the detention with police supervision. However, the court refused and extended the applicant's detention, referring to the grounds given previously.\n14.  On 26 July 2004 the Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 3 October 2004, relying on the same grounds as previously.\n15.  On 23 September 2004 during a hearing, the applicant's lawyer again asked for detention to be replaced with police supervision but the court again refused.\n16.  Since, on 4 October 2004, the applicant's detention would have reached the statutory two-year time-limit laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any further extension of his detention had to be ordered by the Warsaw Court of Appeal.\n17.  On 1 October 2004 the Warsaw Court of Appeal remanded the applicant in custody until 30 November 2004. It invoked the severity of the likely sentence, noting that he had been charged with an offence which attracted a statutory sentence of up to ten years' imprisonment. It also observed that the trial had been at an advanced stage. However, it could not have been terminated earlier, as planned, since one of the witnesses had repeatedly failed to appear. That circumstance, which had been beyond the trial court's control, justified the prolongation of the applicant's detention.\n18.  On 30 November 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated assault occasioning death and sentence", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4908", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Novi Sad.\n6.  On 7 June 1996 he filed a lawsuit against his former wife, seeking division of their marital property.\n7.  On 22 March 1999 the applicant instituted another lawsuit, this time against an individual who had subsequently bought the property in question.\n8.  On 25 March 1999 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Novi Sad joined these two sets of proceedings into a single case.\n9.  The Municipal Court scheduled a total of sixteen hearings, only two of which had been held since 3 March 2004.\n10.   On 13 July 2005 the Municipal Court appointed an expert. On 22 February 2007, however, it appointed a new expert because the original expert had failed to provide his findings.\n11.  On 25 March 2008 the Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicant.\n12.  On 28 January 2009 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Novi Sad quashed this judgment and ordered a re-trial.\n13.  According to the information in the case file submitted by the parties, the case is still pending at first instance.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4909", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Antoni Puczyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1940 and lives in Kraków.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 15 October 2000 the applicant lodged with the Mayor of Kraków (Urząd Miasta) an application to transform his right of perpetual use (prawo użytkowania wieczystego) of a piece of real property into a right of ownership. He relied on the provisions of the 4 September 1997 Law on Transforming Perpetual Use Vested in Individuals into Ownership (ustawa o przekształceniu prawa użytkowania wieczystego przysługującego osobom fizycznym w prawo własności) (“the 1997 Act”).\n7.  On 3 November 2000 the Mayor informed the applicant that, due to a judgment of the Constitutional Court (Trybunał Konstytucyjny) which found some provisions of the 1997 Act to be incompatible with the Constitution, he could not give a decision in the case within the statutory time-limit of one month, and set a new time-limit of 31 July 2001.\n8.  On 27 November 2001 the Mayor informed the applicant that, due to some changes to the 1997 Act, a valuation report concerning the property (operat szacunkowy) had to be drawn up and a new time-limit set, 31 March 2002.\n9.  On 6 August 2002 the applicant complained to the Kraków Self‑Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) about inactivity on the part of the administrative authority.\n10.  On 17 January 2003 the Kraków Self-Government Board of Appeal found the applicant's complaint well-founded and ordered the Mayor to give a decision on the merits within one month of the delivery of its decision.\n11.  The Mayor did not give the decision within the prescribed time‑limit. Instead, on 6 March 2003, the Mayor issued a procedural decision (postanowienie) setting another time-limit, 31 December 2003, and informing the applicant that the decision could not be appealed against and that it could be challenged only when a decision on the merits had been given.\n12.  On 20 August 2004 the applicant again asked the Mayor to give a decision in his case.\n13.  On 7 September 2004 the Mayor informed the applicant that, due to further changes to the 1997 Act, by a decision of 5 August 2004 the proceedings for transforming his right had been discontinued and that proceedings for ex lege acquisition of the property in question had been instituted.\n14.  On 23 December 2004 the Mayor again informed the applicant that the matter could not be resolved within the statutory time-limit and set a new time-limit of 31 December 2005.\n15.  On 22 June 2005 the applicant again complained to the Kraków Self‑Government Board of Appeal about the inactivity of the administrative authority.\n16.  On 5 August 2005 the Kraków Self-Government Board of Appeal found the complaint justified and ordered the Mayor to give a decision in that connection within one month of the delivery of its decision.\n17.  On 15 September 2005 the Mayor gave a decision on the merits and refused to acknowledge an ex lege acquisition of the property by the applicant.\n18.  On 27 September 2005 the applicant appealed.\n19.  On 30 December 2005 the Kraków Self-Government Board of Appeal quashed the challenged decision and remitted the case.\n20.  On 11 April 2006 the Mayor gave a further decision and again refused to acknowledge an ex lege acquisition of the property.\n21.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed.\n22.  On 19 June 2006 the Kraków Self-Government Board of Appeal again qua", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4910", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Lulzim Caka, was born in 1970 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Tirana, Albania.\n7.  On 21 July 1997 P. was murdered. On an unspecified date in 1997 a criminal investigation was opened against the applicant. During the criminal investigation, the victim's sister, A., even though she had not been present at the crime scene, stated that the applicant had killed her brother. She based her testimony on the account of three eyewitnesses, B., C. and D., who, it would appear, were questioned on an unspecified date.\n8.  On 6 October 1998 the judicial police, the body responsible for the conduct of the criminal investigation and the identification of the perpetrator, recommended that the criminal investigation be suspended, as the perpetrator of the crime could not be identified. However, on 15 October 1998 the prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant with the Berat District Court (see paragraph 17 below).\n9.  In 1997 Albania was hit by civil unrest as a result of the fall of pyramid schemes. Army depots were looted and a very considerable number of weapons were in civilian hands. The gradual restoration of ordre public necessitated frequent police checkpoints. Consequently, on 18 March 1998 the Berat police forces set up checkpoints to conduct searches of people for illegal possession of firearms. In the early afternoon of the same day, police officers on duty at a checkpoint situated on the main road between the cities of Berat and Fier shot the applicant and X., another person riding a motorcycle with him. As a result, X. died and the applicant was seriously wounded.\n10.  According to the police report on the incident, two persons riding a motorcycle (identified later as the applicant and X.), did not stop when ordered to do so by the police at the first checkpoint. The police at the second checkpoint reported that the applicant, who had been driving the motorcycle, had fired at the police officers with both an automatic gun and a revolver simultaneously. The police had returned fire and shot X., the pillion passenger, dead. Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant was wounded, he had continued to shoot until he surrendered. The police reported having collected from the scene two Kalashnikov automatic guns (automatikë kallashnikov), two pistols (pistoletë), bullets and cartridges, the motorcycle, a mask, a hat, a pair of sneakers, and other things allegedly used by the applicant and X. It appears that the automatic weapons, pistols, bullets and cartridges were sent for ballistics examination.\n11.  On 18 March 1998 the applicant and another suspect, E., were arrested in relation to the above event (see paragraph 9-10 above).\n12.  The applicant was taken to hospital, where he stayed for a couple of hours for medical treatment as he had been wounded. After release from the hospital on the same day, he was remanded in custody in Berat. On 19 March 1998 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who found that his overall state of health was satisfactory. It was concluded that the injuries the applicant had sustained fell under the category of light bodily injuries requiring no more than nine days' rest.\n13.  On 19 March 1998 the prosecutor charged the applicant with attempted murder in collusion with others and illegal possession of firearms. During questioning the same day, the applicant did not provide any information regarding the charges levelled against him. The applicant requested the presence o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4911", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Prievidza.\n5.  On 10 February 1992 the applicant submitted an inheritance-related claim to the State Notary in Bratislava. On 21 December 1992 the applicant was informed that the ordinary courts had jurisdiction to deal with her claim.\n6.  On 11 June 1993 the applicant filed an inheritance-related claim with the Bratislava-vidiek District Court (whose case load was later transferred to the Bratislava III District Court).\n7.  On 4 October 1993 the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of related inheritance proceedings. The related proceedings were concluded on 20 November 1996.\n8.  On 19 June 2006 the Bratislava III District Court delivered a judgment. On 22 August 2006 the applicant appealed.\n9.  On 20 September 2007 the Bratislava Regional Court, without deciding on the merits, returned the case to the District Court to rectify errors in its judgment. On 31 October 2007 the case file was again submitted to the Regional Court.\n10.  On 20 November 2008 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 16 December 2008.\n11.  On 3 November 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava III District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. The Constitutional Court awarded the equivalent of 1,794 euros (EUR) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.\n12.  The Constitutional Court observed that the factual complexity of the case did not justify the unreasonable length of the proceedings. The applicant by her conduct had not contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court further noted that during the period under consideration, which exceeded 12 years, the District Court had not proceeded with the case in an effective manner, had held no more than two hearings and delays imputable to the latter totalled more than 5 years.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4912", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Trebišov.\n5. On 27 August 1991 the applicant filed an action for distribution of matrimonial property with the Spišská Nová Ves District Court.\n6.  Following the Constitutional Court's finding (see below) the District Court held seven hearings, obtained further evidence and an expert opinion.\n7.  On 29 November 2006 the District Court delivered a judgment which became final on 30 January 2007.\n8.  On 13 January 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. The overall length of the proceedings (more than 14 years at a single instance) was clearly inappropriate. The applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings to a certain extent in that she had failed to appear at hearings on six occasions.\n9.  The Constitutional Court awarded the equivalent of 1,810 euros (EUR) at that time to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4913", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in the village of Turbiv, Ukraine.\n5.  On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr L. for inflicting bodily harm on the applicant.\n6.  On 11 February 1999 the applicant lodged a civil claim against Mr L. with the Lipovetsky Court (“the court”) claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 18 August 1999 the court convicted Mr L. of inflicting bodily harm on the applicant and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. Under the same judgment Mr L. was exempted from serving his sentence under the Amnesty Act. The court also partly allowed the applicant's civil claim.\n8.  On 6 October 1999 the Vinnitsa Regional Court[1] quashed the judgment of 18 August 1999 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n9.  On 18 December 2000 the court convicted Mr L. of inflicting bodily injury on the applicant and sentenced him to one year's correctional labour. He was exempted from serving his sentence under the Amnesty Act. By the same judgment the court partly allowed the applicant's civil claim.\n10.  On 31 January 2001 the Vinnitsa Regional Court quashed the part of the judgment of 18 December 2000 concerning the applicant's civil claim and remitted it for fresh consideration. By the same ruling the regional court upheld the rest of the judgment.\n11.  On 8 August 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed a request by the applicant for leave to appeal in cassation against the decisions of the lower courts.\n12.  On 26 March 2003 the court partly allowed the applicant's civil claim and awarded him 1,731.11 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for pecuniary damage and UAH 3,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n13.  On 23 June 2003 the Vinnitsa Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 26 March 2003 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n14.  On 2 December 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court.\n15.  On 27 February 2006 the Supreme Court gave a final decision on the case, by which it upheld the judgment of 26 March 2003.\n16. The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal against the final judgment of the Supreme Court. On 26 February 2007 the Supreme Court refused to grant the applicant's request to reopen proceedings in his case.\nII.  ENFORCEMENT OF THE JUDGMENT OF 26 MARCH 2003\n17.  On 17 May 2007 the Lipovetsky Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 26 March 2003.\n18.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the Vinnitsa Circuit Administrative Court challenging the bailiffs for inactivity in enforcing the judgment of 26 March 2003. On 24 December 2007 the court refused to consider the applicants' complaint since it had no jurisdiction to consider it. The court indicated in its ruling that the applicant had the right to challenge the bailiffs' inactivity before the Lipovetsky Court. The applicant appealed against the ruling of 24 December 2007. On 7 April 2009 the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal declined to consider his appeal. The applicant appealed in cassation. The proceedings before the Higher Administrative Court of Appeal are still pending.\n19.  The judgment of 26 March 2003 remains unenforced due to Mr L.'s lack of funds.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4914", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Artemivsk.\n5.  On 16 April 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Artemivsk Town Court against the company A., his former employer, and the State Pension Fund, seeking recalculation of his salary and pension and recovery of salary and pension arrears.\n6.  On 5 May 1999, further to the applicant's request, the court ordered an expert examination as regards the accuracy of the calculation of the applicant's salary and pension and suspended the proceedings awaiting the results of the examination.\n7.  On 18 November 1999 the court, further to the applicant's request, cancelled the examination and resumed the proceedings.\n8.  During the period from 18 November 1999 to 8 April 2002 no court hearings were held in the case.\n9.  On 7 February 2003 the court rejected the applicant's claims as not based on the relevant law.\n10.  On 6 March 2003 the applicant appealed.\n11.  On 13 March 2003 the first-instance court allowed the applicant until 25 March 2003 to rectify shortcomings in his appeal.\n12.  On 21 March 2003 the applicant submitted his rectified appeal.\n13.  On 12 June 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 7 February 2003.\n14.  On 27 August 2003 the applicant appealed in cassation.\n15.  By a ruling of 2 September 2003 the first-instance court returned the appeal in cassation to the applicant as lodged out of time.\n16.  On 11 September 2003 the applicant appealed against that ruling.\n17.  Further to the court's instructions he rectified shortcomings in that appeal and resubmitted it on 18 September 2003.\n18.  On 30 October 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of 2 September 2003.\n19.  On 13 November 2003 the first-instance court granted the applicant extension of the time-limit for lodging his appeal in cassation.\n20.  On 9 September 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated.\n21.  Of twenty court hearings six were adjourned at the respondent's request or due to its representative's failure to appear, eight following the applicant's requests and due to the introduction of additional claims.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4915", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the town of Novyy Rozdil, Ukraine.\n5.  On 4 April 2003 the Mykolaivsky Court awarded the applicant 1,884.77 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and litigation expenses incurred by the applicant, to be paid by the State-controlled enterprise OJSC Novorozdilsky Zavod Fungytsydiv.\n6.  On 8 May 2003 the State Bailiffs' Service initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment given in the applicant's favour.\n7.  On 25 October 2006 the company was declared insolvent. The liquidation proceedings instituted against the company are still pending.\n8.  On 19 May 2006 the applicant received UAH 659.32 in part settlement of the judgment debt.\n9.  In their submissions the Government stated that on 31 October 2008 the applicant had also received UAH 150.78. The applicant did not disagree.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4916", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Kyiv.\n6.  On 28 January 2004 the Shevchenkivskiy District Court of Kyiv obliged the Shevchenkivskiy District Administration of Kyiv to regularise privatisation of the apartment, which the applicant occupied with her family.\n7.  On 13 May 2004 this judgment was upheld by the Kyiv City Court of Appeal and on 27 July 2004 the bailiff service instituted enforcement proceedings in its respect.\n8.  On 9 December 2004 the judgment was further upheld by the Supreme Court of Ukraine and became final.\n9.  On several occasions the enforcement proceedings were suspended on account of various objections and requests for clarification by the debtor. On 17 and 23 February 2005 the bailiffs' service imposed fines on the Head of the Administration on account of his failure to ensure enforcement of the judgment. In March 2005 the bailiffs' service further requested the prosecutors' office to institute criminal proceedings against him on account of evasion of enforcement, which request on 14 March 2005 was rejected.\n10.  On 15 April 2005 the Shevchenkivskiy District Administration issued the applicant and her family with a privatisation certificate and the enforcement proceedings were discontinued. However, in view of the fact that the State Real Estate Inventory Bureau (Бюро технічної інвентаризації) refused to register the applicant's family's title to the apartment on the basis that the title documents issued to another party, a municipal company, had not been invalidated, the enforcement proceedings were subsequently renewed.\n11.  On 6 December 2005 the bailiffs' service imposed a fine on the debtor for non-enforcement of the judgment in the applicant's family's favour.\n12.  On 19 December 2005 the Shevchenkivskiy District Administration instituted court proceedings seeking invalidation of the municipal company's title to the apartment and the enforcement proceedings in the applicant's favour were suspended.\n13.  On 2 June 2006 the Shevchenkivskiy District Court of Kyiv invalidated the municipal company's title to the apartment.\n14.  On 20 November 2006 the Real Estate Inventory Bureau registered the applicant's family's title to the apartment and on 8 December 2006 the enforcement proceedings were terminated.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4917", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lived in Dnіprodzerzhynsk.\n6.  On 14 May 2004 the Dniprovsky District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk awarded the applicant 2,000 hryvnias (UAH) against the Dniprodzerzhynskteplomerezha municipal company and UAH 1,000 against the Dnipropdzerzhynska Teploelectrotsentral State-controlled OJSC.\n7.  On 12 August 2004 this judgment became binding for enforcement.\n8.  In September 2004 enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the debts. By 7 July 2005 the first debtor had paid its debt. As regards the second debtor, on several occasions enforcement proceedings were suspended on various grounds (such as insolvency proceedings against the debtor and introduction of a moratorium according to the 2005 Law of Ukraine “On Measures to Ensure the Stable Operation of Fuel and Energy Sector Enterprises”). Currently the proceedings are suspended and the debt remains outstanding.\n9.  On 17 June 2008 the applicant died. By a letter of 28 November 2008 the applicant's widower informed the Court of his wish to pursue the application.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4918", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Igor Igorevich Shagin, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Kyiv.\n6.  On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were initiated on the suspicion that a network of private commercial enterprises, “Top-Service”, directed by the applicant, organized an armed group with conspiracy to kill State officials and businessmen who were allegedly obstructing its business.\n7.  On 28 April 2000 the Podilskyy District Court of Kyiv sanctioned the applicant for forcefully resisting police and placed him under twelve days' administrative arrest.\n8.  During the period of 28 April to 10 May 2000 the applicant was questioned and participated in a number of investigative activities as a witness in the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 6 above).\n9.  On 10 May 2000 the applicant was arrested as a suspect and on the following day he had his first meeting with lawyers.\n10.  On 19 May 2000 the Kyiv Prosecutor's Office charged the applicant with banditism. Namely, he was charged with having created a gangster group suspected of having committed eight counts of murder, attempted murder and infliction of serious bodily injuries.\n11.  On 18 April 2001 the pre-trial investigation was declared completed and the applicant was given access to the case file.\n12.  On 26 June 2001 the investigation was resumed and new charges were brought against the applicant: in addition to banditism, they included infringement on the life of a law-enforcement official and incitement to murder for profit, related to the victims' official duties and committed repeatedly by an organised group following orders.\n13.  On the same day the applicant's lawyer complained to the Kyiv Prosecutor's Office (“the Kyiv prosecutor”) that by reopening the investigation the investigator had in fact unlawfully prolonged the term of the applicant's detention and had violated his right to defence.\n14.  On 27 June 2001 the Kyiv prosecutor rejected the above complaints, having noted, in particular, that the reopening of the investigation had been necessitated by the need for additional investigative activities and that the applicant would be given the opportunity to study the case file again after the completion of the investigation.\n15.  On 29 January 2002 the Kyiv prosecutor found unsubstantiated the applicant's complaints that, inter alia, he had not had access to the schedule for studying the case-file and to certain documents, as he had signed a statement to the contrary.\n16.  On 13 February 2002 a new indictment was brought against the applicant. He was charged with additional counts of incitement to murder.\n17.  From 13 to 15 February 2002 the applicant, at his own request, submitted in writing his statements in respect of the new charges, in which he alleged that he himself had been a victim of banditism. However, on 15 February 2002 the investigator proposed that he answer his questions instead, as he claimed that the applicant's statements did not relate to the essence of the charges against him. The applicant explained that he would answer the questions as soon as he had finished writing his statements and asked not to be prevented from using that possibility fully. On the same day the investigator declared the investigation completed, having found the applicant's statements to be of no relevance for the investigation at issue. The applicant's lawyer complained about that to the Kyiv prosecutor, who upheld the investigator's actions.\n18.  On 30 September 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4919", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1957 and 1971 respectively. They live in Kyiv.\n6.  On 18 February 2000, formal charges were brought against the applicants and two co-suspects, Mr T. and Mr K., in connection with the kidnapping of a child earlier that month. Although the child's parents had received ransom demands, the perpetrators had released the child without a ransom having been paid to them.\n7.  On 21 February 2000, the second applicant and, on 22 February 2000, the first applicant were arrested on suspicion of involvement in the kidnapping.\n8.  On 7 June 2000, while the case was still at the pre-trial stage, the investigator decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the applicants under the Amnesty Act of 11 May 2000 and ordered their release. Two other suspects, Mr T. and Mr K., were committed for trial in July 2000.\n9.  On 17 August 2000 the Darnitsky District Court of Kyiv (hereafter “the Darnitsky Court”), composed of a single judge, Mr B., allowed a motion by the victims' representatives for a further investigation to be carried out. The Darnitsky Court held that the abduction of the child was exacerbated by extortion, a more serious criminal offence, which was not covered by the amnesty. The investigating authorities had failed to establish who exactly called the child's parents and demanded a ransom. In that respect it noted that the first applicant had stated that he did not know who had done that. The Darnitsky Court suggested that the authorities should verify the truthfulness of this statement by means of voice identification. The court further stated:\n“The indicated insufficiency and incorrectness of the pre-trial investigation cannot be remedied in the trial proceedings; moreover, the case-file contains grounds for laying charges of the more serious offence of extortion against the defendants and [the applicants]...\nThe Kyiv Prosecutor shall decide on the lawfulness of the decisions ... of 7 June 2000 to terminate the criminal proceedings against [the applicants] ... since their actions suggest that they were involved in committing the more serious offence of extortion. Their actions, in the court's opinion, should be qualified by a cumulation of the crimes ...\nDepending on the outcome [of the additional investigations] [the authorities] should resolve the question of the legal qualification of the acts committed by each accomplice to the offence. If the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings against [the applicants] is revoked, [the authorities] should charge them anew and choose in accordance with law a preventive measure corresponding to the gravity of the offence.”\n10.  On 22 October 2000 the investigator rearrested the applicants.\n11.  On 24 October 2000 the Deputy Kyiv City Prosecutor ordered their detention.\n12.  On 8 November 2000 the applicants filed an appeal against the prosecutor's detention order with the Moskovsky District Court of Kyiv (“the Moskovsky Court”).\n13.  On 10 and 13 November 2000 and 4 January 2001 the Moskovsky Court unsuccessfully requested the Kyiv City Prosecutor's Office to provide it with the case file, which was the ground for the decision to arrest the applicants.\n14.  On 16 November 2000, in the presence of an investigator, the child's father recognised the recorded voice of the first applicant as the voice of the person who had called to demand a ransom.\n15.  On 20 November 2000 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicants were given access to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4920", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in the town of Torez, Ukraine.\nFirst set of proceedings\n5.  On 5 November 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Torez Town Court against the Torezantratsyt State Company, his former employer, seeking recalculation of his monthly payments for work-related damage and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 13 July 2000 the court found in part for the applicant and awarded him a lump sum of 948.27 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH), and UAH 50.48 to be paid monthly. The defendant appealed and on 14 August 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court (from June 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal) quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the lower court for a fresh examination.\n6.  At this stage of proceedings the Ukrvuglerestrukturyzatsiya State Company (ДК «Укрвуглереструктуризація») (“Company no. 1”) was joined as co-defendant.\n7.  On 5 February 2003 the Torez Town Court found in part for the applicant and ordered the Company no. 1 to pay the applicant the lump sum of UAH 4,574.33 and UAH 122.90[1] in monthly life-time instalments. According to the applicant, that judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n8.  In that regard, on an unspecified date the State Bailiffs' Service instituted proceedings to enforce the judgment.\n9.  In the course of those proceedings the applicant requested the Torez Town Court to replace the debtor with another company, the Donvuglerestrukturyzatsiya State Company (ДП «Донвуглереструктуризація») (“Company no. 2”). On 2 June 2004 the court turned down that request.\n10.  On 11 October 2004 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy started the process of liquidation of Company no. 1.\n11.  On 27 September 2006 by a decision of the Ministry of Coal Industry Company no. 1 was merged with Company no. 2.\n12.  On 29 December 2007 Company no. 2 was reorganised in its turn and merged with the Ukrvugletorfrestrukturyzatsiya State Company (ДП «Укрвуглеторфреструктуризація») (“Company no. 3”).\n13.  On 9 April 2009 the Bailiffs' Service requested the Torez Town Court to replace the debtor in the case. On the same day the enforcement proceedings were stayed pending the court's decision.\n14.  On 23 June 2009 the court rejected the Bailiffs' Service's request.\n15.  The judgment of 5 February 2003 remains unenforced.\nSecond set of proceedings\n16.  In January 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Torez Town Court against the local State Social Security Department, seeking compensation for the allegedly incorrect calculation of his pension. On 27 February 2001 the court found against the applicant. On 23 April 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court upheld that judgment.\nThird set of proceedings\n17.  In April 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal against the Torez Town Court, seeking compensation for the lengthy examination of his claim against the Torezantratsyt State Company. On 11 April 2002 the court found that domestic legislation did not confer on the applicant a right to lodge claims against lower courts if he was not satisfied with their administration of justice. On 25 November 2002 the same court dismissed appeals by the applicant against that decision for procedural shortcomings. The applicant did not appeal against the latter decision.\nFourth set of proceedings\n18.  In October 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Torez Town Court against Company no. 2, seeking salary arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damag", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4921", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant who was born in India lives in Lustenau. She runs an Indian restaurant with Ayurvedic cuisine in Lustenau.\n6.  On 1 October 2004 she lodged a request with the Dornbirn Labour Market Service (Arbeitsmarktservice – LMS) for the grant of an employment permit for an Ayurvedic chef from the South of India as a key worker (Schlüsselarbeitskraft).\n7.  On 2 November 2004 the Dornbirn LMS refused the request in accordance with section 2(5) of the Aliens' Employment Act (Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz). It found that the chef did not fulfil the conditions to be a key worker as defined in section 2(5).\n8.  The applicant appealed against the refusal to the Vorarlberg LMS on 17 November 2004. She maintained in substance that the authority had failed to assess properly the evidence.\n9.  On 15 February 2005 the Vorarlberg LMS dismissed the applicant's appeal. It held that the submitted documents did not sufficiently prove her contention that the proposed chef fulfilled the conditions required to be a key worker or that the requested employment would secure existing jobs or create new jobs, as required by section 2(5) of the Aliens' Employment Act. His professional skills could not be seen as specific and extraordinary since any chef could with further training obtain a certificate in Ayurvedic cuisine.\n10.   The applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court on 31 March 2005 and requested an oral hearing. In her appeal the applicant maintained that the authorities had failed to assess the evidence properly and give appropriate reasons. Had they done so they should have concluded that the person to be employed qualified as a key worker. On 7 June 2005 the Voralberg LMS submitted its comments.\n11.  On 24 April 2006 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. In accordance with section 39(2) of the Administrative Court Act (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz) it also dismissed the applicant's request for an oral hearing as it found that it would not be likely to contribute to the clarification of the case. The decision was served on the applicant's counsel on 6 June 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4922", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1976, the second in 1946. Both applicants live in the town of Makeyevka, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicants are former employees of the State company Shachta imeni K.I. Pochenkova (“the company”).\n6.  The applicants instituted proceedings against the company in the Chervonogvardeysky District Court of Makeyevka (“the first-instance court”) requesting it to recalculate the amount of salary paid to them from January 1997 to October 2001 and compensate them for losses sustained as a result of alleged miscalculations made by the company. They also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In their initial submissions the applicants stated that they had instituted these proceedings in April 2002. In their further submissions they alleged that they had instituted them on 19 December 2001. However, according to the registration stamp of the domestic court on the copies of their claims, those claims were registered by the court on 28 March 2003. The applicants did not provide any documents in support of their statement that their claims had been lodged prior to that date.\n7.  By two separate judgments of 4 April 2003, the court allowed their claims and awarded the first applicant 2,075.99 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] and the second applicant UAH 2,301.46[2].\n8.  The Chervonogvardeysky District Bailiffs' Service of Makeyevka initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments given in the applicants' favour.\n9.  On an unspecified date the company was liquidated. In June 2003 the applicants requested the court to change the debtor in enforcement proceedings to another State company. By two separate rulings on 17 July 2003 the court allowed their requests and changed the debtor to the State company Ukrvuglerestrukturizatsiya. On 16 and 20 October 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the rulings of the first-instance court and rejected the first and second applicant's requests, respectively. By two separate rulings of 4 and 5 October 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the court of appeal given in the first and second applicant's cases.\n10.  Later, the applicants lodged extraordinary appeals against the final decisions given in their cases by the Supreme Court. However, their appeals were unsuccessful.\n11.  On 3 June 2008 the State Bailiffs' Service returned the enforcement writs to the applicants and terminated the enforcement proceedings.  The judgments in the applicants' favour remain unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4923", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Pischelsdorf. He is the manager of a transport company.\n5.  On 1 April 1999 the Melk District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft – DAA) charged the applicant with failing to carry a fire extinguisher while transporting dangerous goods. The applicant did not react.\n6.  On 2 June 1999 the DAA issued a penal order (Straferkenntnis). It found the applicant (as responsible person for the Almesberger Transport Company) guilty (i) of failing to carry, as the owner of the truck (Zulassungsbesitzer), a fire extinguisher and (ii) of failing to carry, as the responsible transporter (Befördererer) a fire extinguisher and the necessary documents, contrary to the relevant provisions of the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act (Gefahrgutbeförderungsgesetz). It sentenced the applicant to a fine of 12,100 Austrian schillings (ATS), approximately 880 euros (EUR).\n7.  The applicant appealed on 28 June 1999 against the penal order to the Lower Austria Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat – IAP). He maintained that the DAA had not raised the charge against him in time and that the criminal proceedings had therefore become time-barred, that his conviction of the offences under point (i) and (ii) of the penal order infringed the principle of ne bis in idem and that the fine imposed on him was excessive.\n8.  At the request of the applicant a hearing scheduled before the IAP on 7 September 2000 was adjourned. On 14 September 2000 the IAP held a hearing in the absence of the applicant.\n9.  In a decision of 18 September 2000 the IAP dismissed the applicant's appeal. It found, inter alia, that in his capacity as the managing director of a private limited company the applicant had failed to ensure that the fire extinguisher in the inspected heavy goods vehicle had been regularly checked.\n10.  On 10 October 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. He submitted that the proceedings before the IAP had been unfair, that his conviction under point (i) and (ii) of the penal order of 2 June 1999 infringed the ne bis in idem principle and that the sanctions provided for in the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act were excessively high and thus unconstitutional.\n11.  The DAA commented on the applicant's complaint to the Constitutional Court on 1 December 2000.\n12.  On 9 February 2001 the comments of the Constitutional Department of the Federal Chancellery were transmitted to the applicant.\n13.  Meanwhile proceedings concerning a review of the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act had been instituted by the Constitutional Court, following requests by several IAPs in the course of administrative criminal proceedings pending before them.\n14.  On 27 September 2002 the Constitutional Court gave its ruling following its review of the Dangerous Goods Transportation Act. It rejected a request to strike down provisions concerning the minimum fine that had to be imposed in the event of conviction after finding that they complied with the Austrian Federal Constitution.\n15.  Subsequently, on 9 October 2002, the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant's constitutional complaint as it had no prospects of success. It remitted the case to the Administrative Court at his request.\n16.  The applicant amended his complaint to the Administrative Court on 28 February 2003. On 27 May 2003 the IAP submitted observations in rep", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4924", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1932. The first applicant lives in Slovyansk. The second applicant lived in the same town before his death.\n5.  At the material time the applicants worked at the State Soda Plant (ВАТ «Содовий завод»).\n6.  On 24 October 1997 and 5 June 1998 the Slovyansk Town Court awarded the first applicant 1,752.56 and 717.74 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in salary arrears to be paid by the above-mentioned company.\n7.  On 24 October 1997 and 28 March 2001 the Slovyansk Town Court awarded the second applicant UAH 940.84 and UAH 715.63[2] in salary arrears to be paid by the above-mentioned company.\n8.  These decisions became final and the State Bailiffs' Service instituted proceedings to enforce them.\n9.  On 3 January 2001 the Donetsk Regional Arbitration Court (after June 2001 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court) instituted insolvency proceedings against the debtor company. On 4 September 2003 the court, having declared the debtor insolvent, ordered its liquidation, which is still pending.\n10.  The decisions given in the applicants' favour have not been executed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4925", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kyiv, Ukraine.\n5.  From 18 April 1997 until 10 July 2003 the applicant occupied the position of a judge in the Golosiyivskyy District Court.\n6.  On 19 July 2002 the Svyatoshynskyy District Court of Kyiv found that the applicant had been entitled to improvement of his housing conditions since 1999. It held that the State Treasury of Ukraine should transfer 177,650 Ukrainian hryvnias[1] (UAH) to the Golosiyivskyy District Court for the purchase of an apartment for the applicant and his family.\n7.  On 22 November 2004 the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine informed the applicant that the writ of enforcement had been returned by the State Treasury of Ukraine and that the judgment should be enforced by the State Court Administration.\n8.  This judgment at issue remains unenforced allegedly because of lack of funds.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4926", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Brovary, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant is a disabled war veteran. From 1994 he was on a special list of persons to be allocated an apartment by the State on priority basis (see paragraph 38 below).\n6.  In May 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Brovary Town Court (“the Town Court”) against Brovary Town Council, requesting the court to order the defendant to provide him with an apartment on a priority basis.\n7.  On 17 July 1997 the court dismissed the applicant's claim.\n8.  The applicant appealed and on 19 August 1997 the Kyiv Regional Court (since June 2001 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal) upheld the lower court's judgment.\n9.  In August 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Town Court against the Brovary Town Executive Committee, the Kyiv Regional State Administration and the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, requesting the court to order the defendants to provide him with a apartment on a priority basis and seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n10.  On 10 December 2001 the court dismissed the applicant's claims.\n11.  On 14 March 2002 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the lower court's judgment and remitted the case to it for fresh consideration.\n12.  In the course of subsequent hearings before the Town Court the applicant withdrew some of his claims, eventually requesting the court only to order the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine to provide him with an apartment on a priority basis.\n13.  On 27 November 2002 the Town Court dismissed the applicant's claim. On 27 December 2002 the same court rectified certain clerical errors in its judgment.\n14.  On 6 June 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 27 November 2002 and rendered a new one, ordering the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine to provide the applicant with an apartment within three months of the judgment becoming final. Apparently, this judgment was not appealed against.\n15.  On 20 October 2003 the State Bailiff's Service instituted proceedings to enforce this judgment.\n16.  In May 2004 the applicant requested the Court of Appeal to change the means of enforcement of the judgment of 6 June 2003. In particular he sought replacement of the in-kind award with monetary compensation to him in the amount of 225,332.40 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1].\n17.  On 27 May 2004 the court rejected that request, indicating that the matter should be examined by the Town Court.\n18.  On 13 October 2004 the Town Court allowed the applicant's request in part, ordering the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine to pay Brovary Town Council the above-mentioned sum in order to purchase an apartment for the applicant.\n19.  On 12 May 2005 this sum was transferred to the bank account of Brovary Town Council.\n20.  On 16 May 2005 the State Bailiff's Service terminated the enforcement proceedings against the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine as the judgment of 6 June 2003 as amended by the decision of 13 October 2004 had been enforced.\n21.  On 26 May 2005 Brovary Town Council authorised the Brovary Town Executive Committee to arrange the purchase of an apartment for the applicant in compliance with the judgment of 6 June 2003 as amended by the decision of 13 October 2004.\n22.  According to the Government, the sum awarded on 13 October 2004 was insufficient to purchase an apartment for the applicant on the second‑hand market due to the dramatic increase in real estate prices. For that reason, having invited tenders", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4927", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Bila Tserkva.\n6.  Between 1998 and 2000 the Bila Tserkva Tax Police (“the police”) instituted and subsequently discontinued several sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant for property embezzlement and tax evasion.\n7.  On 6 November 2001 he claimed compensation from the police for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in respect of the above proceedings.\n8.  By a letter of 23 November 2001 the police informed the applicant that his claims had to be rejected as unsubstantiated. They noted that he had been found guilty and amnestied in one set of the proceedings and that the property which had been seized from him in the course of the proceedings had in fact remained in his possession.\n9.  On 10 December 2001 the applicant repeated his claim, which remained without reply.\n10.  On 20 February 2002 he brought proceedings before the Bila Tserkva Town Court (“the Bila Tserkva Court”) against the police, claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in respect of the criminal proceedings against him.\n11.  On 4 March 2002 the court stayed the examination of his claim in the part concerning the pecuniary damage having indicated some shortcomings which had to be rectified by 27 March 2002. It referred to section 12 of the Act “On the procedure of compensation for damage caused to citizens by unlawful actions of bodies of inquiry, pre-trial investigation authorities, prosecutors and courts” (“the Compensation Act”), according to which the amount of compensation for pecuniary damage was to be established by a resolution of the respective authority (the police in the present case). The court noted that the police had rejected the applicant's claim for such compensation by their letter of 23 November 2001 and that the applicant had not introduced a judicial appeal against that refusal. As to his claim in the part concerning the non-pecuniary damage, it was subsequently examined by the domestic courts and rejected as unsubstantiated.\n12.  On 26 March 2002 the applicant introduced a complaint, by which he challenged the refusal of his claim by the police. Referring to his two requests to them of 6 November and 10 December 2001, he argued that he had made every attempt to settle the issue before bringing the judicial action.\n13.  On 23 April 2002 the court rejected the above claim as time-barred, referring to the fact that the applicant had failed to raise it within six months after he had become aware of the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against him (February 2000).\n14.  On 25 October 2002 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the above decision on the applicant's appeal and remitted the case for fresh examination. It noted that the first-instance court had wrongly considered that the applicant's claim concerned the criminal proceedings against him. Instead, it should have been deemed to concern the refusal of the police to award him compensation for pecuniary damage. It further noted in that connection that the first-instance court had failed to clarify whether the police had issued a resolution concerning the applicant's compensation claim.\n15.  On 21 November 2002 the Bila Tserkva Court refused to consider the applicant's complaint, since no resolution in that respect had been issued by the police in accordance with section 12 of the Compensation Act. The court also relied on the fourth paragraph of Article 248-3 of the Code of Civil Proc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4928", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Chornobayivka.\n6.  On 16 August 1999 the applicant was dismissed from his job at the Dzherelo enterprise (Чорнобаївське сільське комунальне господарство «Джерело»), a subsidiary of the municipal entity Oblsilkomungosp (Херсонське обласне виробничо-кооперативне об'єднання сільського комунального господарства «Облсількомунгосп»).\n7.  In August 1999 the applicant challenged his dismissal and sought compensation before the Dniprovsky District Court of Kherson.\n8.  On 22 August 2001 the court allowed the applicant's reinstatement claim and ordered Oblsilkomungosp to pay him 4,800 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH).\n9.  On 3 September 2001 the State Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n10.  On 6 November 2001 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.\n11.  On 7 December 2001 the Dzherelo enterprise was formally reorganised into a private company, D.\n12.  On several occasions the enforcement proceedings were discontinued for various reasons and reopened following complaints by the applicant that these decisions were unfair. It is unclear from the parties' submissions whether the debt under the judgment was paid.\n13.  In October 2005 the debtor entity was fined for failure to enforce the judgment of 22 August 2001. Additionally, the State Bailiffs' Service requested the local prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the managers of Oblsilkomungosp, which request was subsequently rejected.\n14.  On 7 October 2005 a decision was taken to initiate liquidation of Oblsilkomungosp.\n15.  On 17 October 2005 the Bailiffs' Service returned the enforcement writ to the applicant unenforced.\n16.  On 3 July 2006 the Kherson Regional Commercial Court instituted insolvency proceedings against Oblsilkomungosp and on 17 July 2006 declared the company insolvent.\n17.  On 4 March 2008 the Commercial Court further approved the liquidation balance sheet and declared Oblsilkomungosp liquidated, following which declaration on 19 March 2008 the company was deleted from the State Company Register.\n18.  On 5 April 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Suvorovskiy District Court of Kherson against Oblsilkomungosp, seeking compensation on account of its prolonged failure to reinstate him.\n19.  On 4 February 2005 the court, finding that the judgment of 22 August 2001 in the part concerning reinstatement had still not been enforced, awarded the applicant UAH 8,081.70.\n20.  On 24 May 2005 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal increased this sum to UAH 17,206.\n21.  On an unspecified date the State Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings. On 23 December 2005 the State Bailiffs' Service terminated the enforcement proceedings as the debtor had been liquidated.\n22.  The judgment of 4 February 2005, as amended by the judgment of 24 May 2005, remains largely unenforced.\n23.  In September 2005 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Dniprovskiy District Court of Kherson against Oblsilkomungosp, seeking compensation for its failure to reinstate him after 5 February 2005.\n24.  On 14 June 2006 the court, finding that the judgment of 22 August 2001 in the part concerning reinstatement had still not been enforced, allowed his claim and awarded the applicant UAH 9,495.75. The court also found that the applicant had resigned on 14 June 2006 as a result of his employer's liquidation and ordered the liquidation commission to prepare documents for the applicant's pension.\n25.  On 2 Novem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4929", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Vienna. The applicant is a lawyer by profession, who practised law in Vienna and Retz (Lower Austria).\n5.  The first set of proceedings (D169/98) started on 14 July 1998, when Mr G., a partner in the law firm of Dr K., who served as President of the Vienna Bar Chamber from 1999 to 2002, lodged a disciplinary complaint against the applicant alleging that he had committed documentary fraud. Subsequently, on 23 July 1998, an Investigating Commissioner (Untersuchungskommissär) was appointed, who issued his report on 12 November 1999.\n6.  On the basis of the Commissioner's report, the Disciplinary Council of the Vienna Bar Chamber (Disziplinarrat der Wiener Rechtsanwaltskammer) decided to open the main proceedings on 24 May 2000.\n7.  On 2 June 2000 and on 18 September 2000 Mr G. lodged a further disciplinary complaint against the applicant alleging that he had obtained credit by fraud, and obstructed enforcement proceedings. On 30 November 2000 the Investigating Commissioner's terms of reference were extended to these two allegations. A new commissioner was appointed on 7 June 2002, who issued his report on 21 October 2002.\n8.  Following the recommendations of this report, the Disciplinary Council of the Vienna Bar Chamber decided on 29 January 2003 that the allegations concerning obtaining credit by fraud and obstruction of enforcement proceedings were ill-founded.\n9.  With regard to the Disciplinary Council's prior decision of 24 May 2000 to open proceedings against the applicant (see paragraph 6 above), a hearing was held on 14 November 2003.\n10.  On 19 January 2004 the applicant ceased to practise law for health reasons. Subsequently, on 26 February 2004, the Disciplinary Council discontinued the proceedings, applying by analogy section 412 of the Austrian Criminal Procedure Act (Strafprozessordnung).\n11.  The disciplinary proceedings D33/99, concerning enforcement proceedings against the applicant, started on 23 February 1999, when an Investigating Commissioner was appointed. On 20 October 1999 he issued his report, on the basis of which the Disciplinary Council decided to open main proceedings on 26 January 2000. On 28 June 2001 the applicant was summoned to an oral hearing scheduled for 8 September 2001. As he did not appear on that date, the hearing could not be held.\n12.  On 8 August 2002 a new hearing was scheduled for 25 September 2002, also with regard to the proceedings D102/99, D165/00 and D15/01 (see below). On 19 August 2002 the applicant objected to the attendance of one of the members of the Disciplinary Council at the hearing, which therefore was adjourned. On 14 November 2003 the hearing was held. Following the applicant's resignation from exercising his profession also this set of disciplinary proceedings was discontinued by the Disciplinary Council on 26 February 2004.\n13.  The proceedings D102/99, concerning alleged failures to perform professional duties in client relations, started on 12 May 1999 with the appointment of an Investigating Commissioner, who issued his report on 18 April 2001, after having heard witness evidence. Subsequently, on 30 May 2001, the Disciplinary Council decided to open the main proceedings. No further measures were taken until 8 August 2002 (see paragraph 12 above).\n14.  On 8 August 2002 a hearing was scheduled for 25 September 2002, which, however, was postponed. On 14 November 2003 this hearing, which also concerned the proceedings D 33/99, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4930", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 30 May 2000 an unidentified individual broke the skull of I.D., the applicant's son, in the corridor of a dormitory at Cherkasy Technological University.\n7.  On 7 June 2000 the Prydniprovsky district police department of Cherkasy initiated criminal proceedings into a suspected offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm.\n8.  On 8 June 2000 I.D. died without regaining consciousness. Subsequently the investigation amended the characterisation of the suspected offence to inflicting grievous bodily harm resulting in death.\n9.  On 25 July and 15 August 2000 the Prydniprovsky district prosecutor's office advised the investigation as to various procedural steps to be taken.\n10.  As no leads concerning the perpetrator had been picked up by 25 September 2000, the police suspended the investigation.\n11.  On 1 February 2001, following complaints by the applicant's family, the Prydniprovsky district prosecutor's office annulled the decision to suspend the proceedings, finding that the police had not fully complied with the requirements of the applicable procedural law and had also failed to comply with the instructions issued by the prosecutor's office on 25 July and 15 August 2000.\n12.  On 5 April 2001 the applicant was granted leave to join the proceedings as an injured party and a civil claimant.\n13.  On 15 June 2001 the Cherkasy regional prosecutor's office acknowledged to the applicant's family that the investigation had been beset by unnecessary delays for which it could not provide a plausible explanation. Moreover, the investigator in charge of the case had been subjected to disciplinary action on account of serious procedural omissions. The prosecutor's office also informed the applicant's family that progress in the case had twice been discussed at recent staff meetings and assured her that the investigation would be closely monitored.\n14.  On 20 September and 27 November 2001 the applicant's family received further similar acknowledgments from the Cherkasy regional prosecutors' office and the Ministry of the Interior.\n15.  By a letter of 5 December 2001 the General Prosecutor's Office acknowledged to the applicant's family that the investigation into the circumstances leading to I.D.'s death had been perfunctory as the instructions given by the prosecutor's office had not been carried out in full. They further informed the applicant's family that they had instructed the Cherkasy regional prosecutor's office as to the specific steps to be taken and had advised that the case should be transferred to an experienced investigator.\n16.  On 14 December 2001 the case was transferred for investigation to the Cherkasy regional police department.\n17.  On several occasions (on 19 May and 6 December 2002, 17 March 2003 and 23 October 2004) the investigation was suspended on account of a failure to pick up any leads as to the perpetrator's identity.\n18.  These decisions were annulled by the supervising prosecutors (on 22 November and 20 December 2002, 18 April 2003 and 12 January 2009 respectively), with reference to the inadequacy of the measures taken.\n19.  On several occasions (in particular, on 7 May and 1 July 2003 and 20 October 2004) the prosecutor's office and the Ministry of the Interior acknowledged to the applicant's family that the investigative work aimed at identifying the person responsible for I.D.'s wounding had been inadequate. In October 2004 the Prydniprovsky district prosecutor's office further proposed that the police depar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4932", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1937 respectively and live in Slovyansk, Donetsk region, Ukraine.\n5.  At the material time the applicants worked at the Soda State Plant (ВАТ «Содовий завод»).\n6.  On 31 October 1997 and 14 May 2003 the Slovyansk Town Court awarded Mrs Len 1,709.25 and 5,513.92 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments, to be paid by the above-mentioned company.\n7.  On 3 November 1997 and 22 February 2001 the Slovyansk Town Court, and on 22 September 2003 the Labour Disputes Commission, awarded Mr Len the amounts of UAH 2,211.18 (about USD 1,176.47), UAH 9,157.04 (about EUR 1,855.94) and UAH 2,356.92 (about EUR 399.22) in salary arrears, to be paid by the above-mentioned company.\n8.  These decisions became final and the State Bailiffs' Service instituted proceedings to enforce them.\n9.  On 3 January 2001 the Donetsk Arbitration Court (after June 2001 – the Donetsk Commercial Court) instituted insolvency proceedings against the debtor company. On 4 September 2003 the court, having declared the debtor insolvent, ordered its liquidation, which is still pending.\n10.  The decisions given in the applicants' favour have still not been enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4933", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Kyiv, Ukraine.\n6.  In the middle of 2006 the applicant left Belarus as he had been invited to work as a coach for the national free-style wrestling team of Ukraine.\n7.  On 15 June 2007 the General Prosecutor's Office of Belarus instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for aiding and abetting bribery (maximum sentence of six years' imprisonment). Since his whereabouts were unknown, a warrant for his arrest was issued.\n8.  On 2 July 2007 the Kyiv Organised Crime Department received a request from the Main Organised Crime Department of Belarus to assist in arresting the applicant.\n9.  On 18 July 2007 the General Prosecutor's Office of Belarus charged the applicant with participation in organised crime, abuse of authority, aiding and abetting bribery and other offences (maximum penalty of fifteen years' imprisonment).\n10.  On the same day the applicant was arrested in Kyiv, Ukraine.\n11.  On 20 July 2007 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv authorised the applicant's detention pending a decision on his extradition.\n12.  On 25 July 2007 the General Prosecutor's Office of Belarus requested the applicant's extradition to Belarus.\n13.  On 31 July 2007 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal changed the decision of 20 July 2007 further to an appeal by the applicant and authorised his detention for a maximum of forty days pending receipt of the request for his extradition.\n14.  On 20 August 2007 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv authorised the applicant's continued detention. This decision was upheld on 30 August 2007 by the Kyiv City Court of Appeal.\n15.  By letter of 25 October 2007 the General Prosecutor's Office of Belarus stated that, if extradited, the applicant would not be subjected to the death penalty or to any treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention; that he would be provided with the necessary medical treatment; that he would be given a fair trial; and that he would not be persecuted for his political beliefs.\n16.  On 5 November 2007 the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine (“the GPO”) authorised the applicant's extradition to Belarus. On the same date the decision was sent to the applicant. The applicant was also informed that this decision could be contested by him in court within ten days of its receipt.\n17.  On 13 November 2007, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the President of the Fifth Section of the Court invited the Government of Ukraine not to extradite the applicant to Belarus.\n18.  The applicant received the decision of 5 November 2007 on 16 November 2007, but did not challenge before in the Kyiv Regional Administrative Court until 19 February 2008.\n19.  On 7 April 2008 the applicant was granted refugee status in Ukraine by the State Migration Committee.\n20.  On 21 April 2008 the Pecherskyy District Court rejected an appeal by the applicant's lawyer against the court decisions of 20 July and 20 August 2007 since they had already been appealed against under the ordinary appeal procedure and the first-instance court was not competent to quash them. This decision was upheld on 5 May 2008 by the Kyiv City Court of Appeal.\n21.  On 25 April 2008 the GPO filed an objection with the State Migration Committee against the decision granting the applicant refugee status. According to the applicant, execution of the relevant decision was suspended pending the Committee's reply.\n22.  On 7 May 2008 the Kyiv Regional Administrative Court rejected a complaint by the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4934", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, who was born in 1980, is a Belarusian youth activist and musician. He is currently detained in the Pre-Trial Detention Centre no. 15 (hereinafter, “the SIZO”) in Simferopol (Сімферопольський слідчий ізолятор), Ukraine.\n6.  In 2001 the applicant and R. were charged with the murder (under Article 139 § 2 of the Belarusian Criminal Code) and robbery of M. According to the above Article, the death penalty is foreseen, inter alia, as a sanction for murder.\n7.  On 7 December 2001 the Brestskiy Regional Court of Belarus acquitted the applicant and R. In particular, the court emphasised that during their interrogations the applicant and R. had been subjected to physical and psychological pressure and had been forced to confess, and therefore their confessions during the pre-trial investigation could not be taken into consideration.\n8.  On 1 February 2002 the Supreme Court of Belarus upheld this decision.\n9.  On 18 May 2002 these decisions were quashed by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Belarus under the extraordinary review procedure upon an application (“protest”) lodged by a prosecutor, and the criminal proceedings were resumed.\n10.  In June 2002 the applicant moved to Ukraine, where he was registered by the Zhytomyr passport service. He travelled several times to Poland and married in 2003. Therefore, according to the applicant, he has not been hiding from justice.\n11.  On 28 June 2002 the Brestskiy Regional Court stayed the criminal proceedings since the applicant’s whereabouts were unknown.\n12.  On 9 July 2002 the Brestskiy Regional Prosecutor decided to search for the applicant.\n13.  On an unspecified date an international search warrant for the applicant was issued.\n14.  On 25 June 2007 the applicant was arrested in Sevastopol, Ukraine. The applicant stated that during his arrest the policemen had fired several shots in order to intimidate him and that he had been subjected to physical and psychological pressure.\n15.  On 27 June 2007 the Balaklava District Court of Sevastopol ordered the applicant’s detention for forty days with a view to his extradition to Belarus.\n16.  On 9 July 2007 the General Prosecutor’s Office of Belarus requested the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine (hereinafter, “the GPO”) to extradite the applicant. In its request the General Prosecutor’s Office of Belarus indicated that “Koktysh I.G. would be tried only for the crimes he was extradited for, and he would not be sentenced to the death penalty”.\n17.  On 3 August 2007 the Balaklava Local Court decided that the applicant should remain in detention pending extradition.\n18.  On 10 October 2007, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the President of the Court’s Fifth Section indicated to the Government of Ukraine that the applicant should not be extradited to Belarus.\n19.  On 15 October 2007 the General Prosecutor’s Office of Belarus informed the GPO that in the event of the applicant’s extradition he would not be tortured, ill-treated or discriminated against and would be given a fair trial. If necessary, he would be provided with medical assistance and treatment.\n20.  On 19 May 2008 the Balaklava District Court informed the applicant that his request for release could not be considered as the current legislation did not foresee the possibility of challenging detention pending extradition.\n21.  On 3 June and 7 July 2009 the Balaklava District Court rejected the applicant’s further requests for release since the law in force did not fores", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4935", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the village of Uzhachyn, Zhytomyr Region.\n5.  The applicant worked at the State-owned Atomspetsbud company (Державна будівельно-промислова компанія «Атомспецбуд»).\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings against the above company in the Novograd-Volynskyy Town Court (“the Town Court”) claiming 8,677.37 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in salary arrears.\n7.  By an order of the Ministry of Energy dated 27 June 2002, the company was liquidated and a liquidation commission established.\n8.  On 15 April 2003 the Town Court terminated the proceedings in the case because the company was in liquidation.\n9.  By a letter of 15 December 2003 the liquidation commission acknowledged the applicant's claim of UAH 8,677.37[1]. The applicant was included in the register of creditors of the company.\n10.  On 19 December 2008 the applicant was paid the full amount of the outstanding debt.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4936", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1951, respectively, and live in Odessa.\n5.  From 1976 until 1996 the second applicant worked for the Chernomorska Penitentiary Institution no. 74 (“the colony”). He was provided with a room in a hall of residence, which was situated on the site of the colony and had the same postal address. He resided there until 1991. Afterwards, the applicants lived together in the first applicant's flat. The second applicant is still entitled to reside in the colony and it remains his registered place of residence.\n6.  In September 1998 the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Prymorskyy District Court of Odessa against the colony and the local post office. They alleged that letters addressed to them by domestic and international courts, which had been delivered to the address of the second applicant, had been unlawfully opened and read by the defendant institutions. The applicants sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 29 March 2001 the court rejected the applicants' claims. It established that the colony had opened two letters addressed to the applicants: the letter of 27 October 1998, sent by the Starokyivskyy District Court of Kyiv to the first applicant, and the letter of 24 August 1998, sent by the European Court of Human Rights to the second applicant in the context of his previous application to the Court (no. 44997/98, declared inadmissible on 26 October 1999).\n8.  The court held that, pursuant to Article 28 of the Correctional Labour Code of 1970 and section 7 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act of 1993, the administration of the colony had been authorised to monitor all correspondence delivered to it. Since the room of the second applicant was situated on the premises of the colony, his correspondence had been dealt with by its administration in accordance with the rules applicable to detainees' correspondence. The court also found that the administration had acted in accordance with the Instruction on the processing of documents in the organs of the Ministry of the Interior and the Instruction on the organization of the monitoring of correspondence of persons held in penitentiary institutions and pre-trial detention centres, issued by the Ministry of the Interior on 22 June 1993 and 28 May 1999, respectively. The court further stated that the letter addressed to the first applicant had been opened also due to the fact that there had been a detainee with the same name in the colony. The court concluded that the interception of the applicants' correspondence had not violated their constitutional rights.\n9.  On 19 July 2001 the Odessa Regional Court upheld the first-instance court's decision. On 15 May 2002 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court rejected the applicants' request for leave to appeal in cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4937", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Trnava.\n5.  On 17 April 2000 the applicant lodged a civil action before the Trnava District Court.\n6.  Following the applicant's failure to eliminate shortcomings in his action, the District Court discontinued the proceedings on 16 January 2001.\n7.  On 28 August 2001 the Trnava Regional Court quashed the above decision as the District Court had failed to instruct the applicant in a clear manner as to how to eliminate the shortcomings in his action. On 27 November 2001 the case was remitted to the District Court.\n8.  On 29 November 2002, 20 January 2003 and 1 July 2004 the applicant addressed a request for acceleration of the proceedings and two complaints about undue delays to the President of the District Court.\n9.  On 24 August 2005 the District Court rejected the applicant's action due to his failure to eliminate shortcomings in his action although he had been instructed how to do so.\n10.  On 14 July 2006 the Regional Court confirmed the first-instance decision. The decision became final on 22 August 2006.\n11.  On 16 March 2005 the Constitutional Court rejected as being manifestly ill-founded the applicant's complaint about a violation by the District Court of his right to a hearing without unjustified delay.\n12.  The Constitutional Court observed that a single period of inactivity (12 months) of the District Court had not led to a breach of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. Furthermore, it held that the remedy used by the applicant, namely the complaint about undue delays to the President of the District Court, had had an accelerating effect.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4938", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Ostróda. In the 1990s the applicant was suffering from lung cancer. During his treatment he was infected with type B hepatitis.\n6.  On 17 February 1998 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation against the hospital. He was represented by counsel, Z.K. On 22 September 1998 the Olsztyn Regional Court awarded the applicant compensation in the amount of twenty percent of his claim. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 24 August 1999 the court issued a supplementary judgment declaring that in view of the reform of the health care system the State Treasury was liable jointly with the hospital for damage suffered by the applicant.\n8.  By a judgment of 29 December 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal held that the amount of compensation did not correspond to the damage which the applicant had suffered. Nevertheless, it dismissed the appeal. It pointed to the fact that the applicant had wrongly named one of the defendants, namely the hospital.\n9.  Subsequently, the applicant asked Z.K. on several occasions, including by letter, to take further steps and to lodge another appeal. He also contacted the local Bar, complaining about the lawyer's conduct. Finally, he authorised Z.K. to represent him in the cassation proceedings.\n10.  The cassation appeal was lodged on 4 August 2000.\n11.  On 27 April 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed it, partly because the lawyer had wrongly challenged the first-instance court judgment instead of the judgment of the appellate court and partly because the statement of appeal had not fulfilled the applicable formal requirements.\n12.  The decision was served on Z.K. on 30 May 2001 but he failed to inform the applicant of this. As a result, the applicant only learned about the outcome of the proceedings on 9 July 2002 when he contacted the registry of the Supreme Court directly.\n13.  On 24 June 2002 the applicant terminated his contract with Z.K.\n14.  On 14 November 2002 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation against Z.K. with the Elbląg Regional Court. In a judgment delivered on 4 June 2003 the Elbląg Regional Court awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant as a result of Z.K.'s failure to represent his interests in the proceedings diligently.\n15.  On 7 October 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment which was dismissed by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 9 March 2004. The decision was served on the applicant on 19 April 2004.\n16.  On 20 April 2004 the applicant requested legal aid for the purposes of preparing a cassation appeal. On 30 April 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal allowed his request and requested the Gdańsk Bar Association to assign a lawyer to the case. On 13 May 2004 the Bar assigned the case to M.K. On an unspecified date between 14 and 17 May 2004 M.K. was served with a copy of the second-instance judgment.\n17.  On 19 May 2004 the applicant was served with a legal opinion prepared by M.K. and dated 17 May 2004 by which M.K. explained why he had found no grounds to prepare a cassation appeal.\n18.  On 27 July 2004 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice about the refusal.\n19.  As a result of this intervention with the Ministry, on 3 September 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal requested M.K. to prepare the cassation appeal within seven days. In a written opinion of 6 September 2004 M.K. maintained his view that there were no grounds for a cassation appeal in this case.\n20.  On 9 September 2004 the applicant a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4939", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Palanca.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant's wife and son have been suffering from chronic renal failure (a gradual and progressive loss of the ability of the kidneys to excrete waste, concentrate urine, and conserve electrolytes) since 1998 and 2002 respectively. Consequently they need haemodialysis (a medical procedure that uses a machine to filter waste products from the bloodstream and to restore the blood's normal constituents). They are both disabled on account of their disease (first degree disability, 100% unfit for work).\n8.  While they live in Palanca village in Ştefan-Vodă county, they have to travel to Chişinău to receive their haemodialysis treatment. Initially, their transportation costs were covered by the regional hospital. However, starting from early 2004, the hospital no longer covered these expenses. In order to continue to benefit from financial help, the applicant's wife and son had to apply to the regional council, which could include the relevant expenses in the regional budget. The hospital informed the regional council about the situation. It also requested a confirmation that the applicant's wife and son actually lived in Palanca. Such a confirmation from the competent State authority was provided on 12 May 2004.\n9.  On 15 July 2004 the regional council discussed amendments to the regional budget in order to include additional expenses to cover transportation costs for five persons requiring haemodialysis in the county. All those in need of such support were granted it, except for the applicant's wife and son. The reason for the refusal was certain information about the fact that they lived in Chişinău and not in Palanca and therefore did not need transportation to obtain haemodialysis treatment. The decision regarding the applicant's wife and son was postponed.\n10.  On 5 August 2004 the regional council did not include on its agenda the issue of financial aid to the applicant's wife and son.\n11.  On 4 November 2004 the regional council met again, and a declaration from the applicant's wife was distributed to all the councillors. The issue concerning financial aid to the applicant's wife and son was put on the agenda. When it was examined, several councillors spoke against introducing the amendments. The county President I.M. stated that he had only seen the applicant twice (implying that the latter did not live in Palanca) and that he was against misappropriation of public funds. Some councillors spoke of the applicant's wife and son living at specific addresses in Chişinău and not needing financial support. Others mentioned the applicant's complaints to various authorities, including courts, against I. M., and the need to protect him from unwarranted attacks.\n12.  Then the applicant took the floor. According to the minutes of the meeting, he stated: “... what is most insulting is that my son was indeed a student until 2002, when his health worsened and he had to abandon his studies. My wife asked for help in 2004, but that was refused. They told her that she was good to go cultivate the land. My boy is not [in Chişinău]. I do not take back my words that [I. M.] is a fascist...”.\n13.  According to the applicant, he did not insult anyone during the meeting and did not use the word fascist.\n14.  After the applicant's statement, he was invited to leave the room and he eventually did so.\n15.  I. M", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4940", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, an anaesthesiologist, was born in 1968 and lives in Samsun.\n5.  The applicant was working at the Kars State Hospital when criminal proceedings were instigated against him for alleged involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation. He was accused together with other suspects of, inter alia, hanging posters and banners in various places in Ankara on behalf of that organisation. Throughout the proceedings the applicant maintained his innocence. In the meantime, Kars State Hospital suspended the applicant pending the criminal proceedings.\n6.  On 11 September 2001 the Ankara State Security Court, on the basis of the evidence contained in the case file, convicted the applicant under Article 7 § 1 of Law no. 3713 and sentenced him to two years and six months' imprisonment and to a fine. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On an unspecified date a written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation dated 10 December 2001 was submitted to that court. This opinion was not communicated to the applicant.\n8.  On 27 March 2002 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court in respect of the applicant.\n9.  The applicant's request for a rectification of the Court of Cassation's judgment was dismissed by the principal public prosecutor at that court.\n10.  The applicant submitted that he had been released from prison in July 2003.\n11.  By an additional judgment dated 4 May 2004, the Ankara State Security Court, taking into account the amendment to the definition of “terror acts” under section 7 of Law no. 3713 pursuant to Law no. 4928, acquitted the applicant, who had not taken part in any violent activities, and nullified his conviction, together with all its consequences. This judgment became final on 11 May 2004.\n12.  In the meantime, on 28 February 2002, the Supreme Disciplinary Commission of the Ministry of Health decided to dismiss the applicant from the civil service. The applicant's objection to this decision was dismissed by the administrative court who noted, inter alia, that, according to the disciplinary investigation, the applicant had taken fifteen days leave from 2 June 2000 in pursuit of his illegal activities. The court also noted that the applicant's conviction had become final. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court on 27 December 2005. In his observations the applicant submitted that, despite his acquittal, his request for a retrial had been rejected by the administrative court. However, he did not submit any court decisions.\n13.  According to an attestation dated 10 September 2007 the applicant is currently employed at Atasam hospital in Samsun.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4941", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are siblings. They were born in 1928 and 1938 respectively and live in Bratislava.\n5.  On 6 January 1992 the applicants' mother filed an action with the Bratislava I District Court. She claimed restitution of real property.\n6.  On 5 April 1994 the applicants' representative informed the District Court of their mother's death. He also submitted a confirmation from the public notary stating that the applicants were legal heirs of the deceased.\n7.  On 14 April 1994 the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the inheritance proceedings. On 29 July 1994 the applicants' representative informed the District Court of the outcome of the inheritance proceedings and requested that the first-instance court should proceed with the case.\n8.  On 14 November 1994 the District Court again stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of other related inheritance proceedings. In July 2001 the District Court was informed about the outcome of the latter inheritance proceedings.\n9.  On 4 October 2005 the Bratislava I District Court allowed the applicants' claim. The judgment was served on Mr Pavel Kučera on 22 December 2005.\n10.  On 4 and 26 January 2006 the applicants' lawyer complained that the judgment had not been served on him and the other applicant.\n11.  On 4 January 2006 the defendant appealed.\n12.  On 9 January 2006 the District Court transmitted the case to the Regional Court in Bratislava. On 17 March 2006 the court of appeal sent the case back to the District Court as its judgment had not been duly served on the applicants' representative. The latter received the judgment on 27 March 2006.\n13.  On 3 May 2006 the District Court sent the case to the court of appeal. On 31 July 2006 the latter again returned the case to the District Court for rectification of a mistake in the judgment of 4 October 2005.\n14.  On 24 October 2006 the District Court rectified its judgment. On 4 December 2006 the case was transmitted to the Regional Court.\n15.  On 31 October 2007 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment of 4 October 2005 and remitted the file to the District Court.\n16.  On 21 February 2008 the District Court delivered a judgment. The defendant appealed. On 19 November 2008 the Regional Court remitted the file to the District Court ordering the latter to obtain another expert opinion.\n17.  On 6 May 2009 the District Court appointed an expert and ordered the elaboration of an expert opinion. On 31 July 2009 the District Court urged the submission of the expert opinion. The proceedings are pending.\n18. On 1 April 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicants' right to a hearing within a reasonable time. In its view, the factual complexity of the case did not justify the overall length of the proceedings. No delays could be imputed to the applicants' conduct. The proceedings had been pending for 12 years without a decision on the merits. That was due to the conduct of the District Court which had failed to proceed with the case in an efficient manner. The Constitutional Court observed that the District Court could have proceeded with the case after it had been informed about new parties to the proceedings on 5 December 1994. It further stated that the applicants had a right to a hearing within a reasonable time also when the proceedings had been stayed.\n19.  The Constitutional Court awarded the equivalent of 2,492 euros to each of the applicants as jus", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4942", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1981 respectively and live in Saint Petersburg and Bucharest respectively.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 10 March 1995 S.L. (the first applicant) was appointed director of S.A. Aroma, a State company producing alcohol. Between 13 April 2002 and 21 May 2003 he worked as the director of the agroindustrial department Moldova-Vin. In June 2003 his son O.L. (the second applicant) graduated from the Moldovan Academy of Economic Sciences and on 1 November 2003 he was hired as an economist in Vinis N.L.G. He also owns a 16.8% stake in that company.\n8.   The applicants are accused of having organised, between 1 June 2000 and 1 November 2003, the purchase by S.A. Aroma of bottles using the services of Vinis N.L.G. and Dimplox S.R.L., instead of buying them directly from the producer, and thus damaging the State company's interests. The profits made were then channelled to Aroma-Floris S, a private company registered in Latvia in which S.L. owned a 22% stake. His associate A.F. owned a 23% stake and was also arrested and accused of co-authorship in the crime.\n9.  According to the applicants, not contradicted by the Government, Vinis N.L.G. is the owner of the well-known registered bottles Barza Neagră and Djin, which are used by various companies, including S.A. Aroma, for brandy. The bottles are produced by the Chişinău glass factory on the basis of contracts with Vinis N.L.G. The glass factory could not lawfully sell such bottles to anyone without the consent of the owner of the registered bottles, Vinis N.L.G.\n10.  In the morning of 5 November 2004 at approximately 10 a.m. S.L. was leaving for work when he was approached by two masked men who grabbed him by the hands. A third man introduced himself as an officer of the Centre for Fighting Organised Crime and Corruption (“the CFECC”) and handed S.L. a summons to appear at the CFECC. A fourth man filmed the event. Sequences of the film were later shown on the national television channel. According to the Government, the applicant was arrested at 12.20 a.m.\n11.  S.L. was forced into a car and driven to the CFECC, where he was allegedly informed that he needed a lawyer and that his arrest had been ordered by the highest leadership of Moldova. Since he did not have his diary, S.L. could not call his lawyer. Despite his insistence on being assisted by the lawyer of his choice, his request was rejected and he was offered the services of a lawyer appointed by the investigator.\n12.  According to S.L., he could not freely discuss his case with that lawyer, since a masked man and the investigator were present at their discussion, which took place in the investigator's office.\n13.  S.L. was then informed that he was charged with large-scale fraud. He was formally recognised as a suspect on the same day and placed in the CFECC remand centre. Investigation no. 2004036575 was the only investigation referred to in the record of S.L.'s arrest.\nAll his subsequent meetings at the CFECC with the lawyer chosen by him were held in the lawyer-client room, where they were separated by a glass wall and allegedly had to shout to hear each other. In the lawyer-client meeting room of the CFECC detention centre the space for detainees is separated from the rest of the room by a door and a window. The window is made of two plates of glass. Both plates have small holes pierced with a drill; however the holes do not coincid", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4943", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Lučatín.\n5.  On 21 August 1997 the applicant claimed a sum of money from an association and its three individual members before the Banská Bystrica District Court.\n6.  In November 1997 the District Court held a hearing at which neither the applicant nor his lawyer appeared. The applicant also failed to appear at the hearing of December 1997.\n7.  Another hearing was scheduled for 12 March 1998 but did not take place due to the absence of the judge. A further hearing was scheduled for 23 April 1998 but could not take place because it turned out that the judge who had been charged earlier that day with replacing the judge dealing with the case was the wife of the lawyer of the defendants.\n8.  On 10 December 1998 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of two of the defendants.\n9.  In letters of 20 September 1999 and 21 February 2001 the President of the District Court acknowledged that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings.\n10.  On 20 March 2001 and 5 April 2002 the District Court held further hearings. The former took place before a substitute judge who had been charged with replacing the judge initially appointed on health grounds earlier that day. Consequently, he had no in-depth knowledge of the case file and he could not proceed with the case. The latter hearing took place before a further judge who, again, was not familiar with the details for the case. It was adjourned sine die with a view to obtaining expert evidence.\n11.  In the meantime, on 31 January 2002, the Banská Bystrica Regional Court dismissed as unfounded the applicant's challenge to all judges of the District Court.\n12.  On 9 January 2003 the District Court appointed an expert and ordered that the applicant pay an advance on the expert's fees. The applicant appealed against the latter ruling.\n13.  On 24 June 2003 the District Court discharged the expert and appointed another one. On 29 July 2003 it corrected clerical errors in that decision.\n14.  On 30 January 2004 the District Court urged the expert to submit his opinion. The expert first requested an extension of the time-limit for the elaboration of his opinion and, subsequently, an exemption from his obligation to elaborate the opinion.\n15.  On 9 June 2004 the District Court did not exempt the expert from his obligation and urged the submission of the opinion by 8 October 2004. The expert requested the District Court to appoint a different expert due to his heavy workload. On 24 October 2004 the District Court prolonged the time-limit for elaboration of the expert opinion and warned the expert that a fine would be imposed on him in the absence of a reply. On 21 January 2005 the expert filed his opinion.\n16.  Between 5 April 2005 and 12 December 2006 the District Court held eleven hearings. They were adjourned with a view to obtaining further evidence and summoning witnesses and the defendants.\n17.  On 15 December 2006 the District Court delivered a judgment dismissing the action.\n18.  On 19 April 2007 the Regional Court, upon the applicant's appeal, partly confirmed and partly revised the first-instance judgment.\n19.  On 27 November 2007 the Supreme Court, upon the applicant's appeal on points of law, quashed the appellate court judgment.\n20.  On 4 September 2008 the Regional Court approved the friendly settlement reached between the parties. The decision became final on 9 October 2008.\n21.  On 13 September 2002 the applicant lodged a ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4944", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 30 October 2001 the board of Interbrew, a Belgian brewing company, asked its investment bank advisers, Goldman Sachs (“GS”) and Lazard, to carry out work on a potential association between Interbrew and South African Breweries plc (“SAB”), a competitor in the brewing industry, with a view to a possible takeover bid for SAB by Interbrew.\n7.  On 18 November 2001 GS produced a document in relation to the possible takeover. The document was confidential and contained data which were likely to affect both Interbrew and SAB's share prices. It formed the basis of a presentation which, on 20 November 2001, was submitted to Interbrew's internal mergers and acquisitions department.\n8.  On an unknown date a person (“X”) whose identity is unknown, even by the applicants, came into possession of a copy of the presentation submitted to Interbrew. On 27 November 2001 X sent copies of a document (“the leaked document”) to various news media organisations, including the FT, The Guardian, The Times and Reuters, from an address in Belgium. On Interbrew's evidence the leaked document was very similar if not identical to the Interbrew presentation, except for the following: (a) the substitution of an offer price for SAB shares of between 500 and 650 pence in place of the price of between 400 and 550 pence, which had apparently been in the original presentation; and (b) the insertion of a timetable for making the offer.\n9.  On 27 November 2001 Mr Jones, a journalist at the FT, received a copy of the leaked document from X. At 5p.m. that day, he telephoned Mr Van Praag of GS and told him that he had received the leaked document and that he intended to publish it. Mr Van Praag reported the conversation to Mr Powell, the Chief Executive Officer of Interbrew. Mr Powell telephoned Mr Jones and told him, on the record, that Interbrew had carried out research into SAB but that it was not in the advanced stage of preparing an offer. At about 10p.m., the FT published an article on its website stating that Interbrew had been plotting a bid for SAB, that documents seen by the FT indicated that an approach could be made on 3 December 2001 and referring to the conversation between Mr Jones and Mr Powell. The article did not state the proposed offer price but gave accurate codenames used for the advisers in the presentation and quoted from the document on the likely positive market reaction and with reference to potential rival bids. The FT published an article in the same terms in its newspaper the next morning.\n10.  At about 5.30p.m. on 27 November 2001 The Times received a copy of the leaked document from X. In its second edition, which reached the news stands at about 5a.m. on 28 November 2001, it published an article referring to the “confidential” document which it had seen, a supposed approach to SAB “this weekend”, a plot to bid GBP 4.6 billion for SAB and an offer expected to be pitched at up to 590 pence per share.\n11.  At 12.51a.m. on 28 November 2001 Reuters reported the FT's story and the rise in the share price of SAB on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange on its wire service. Reuters received a copy of the leaked document from X on the afternoon of 28 November 2001 and, at 2.44p.m., published a further article referring to its receipt of the leaked document.\n12.  At about 8.30a.m. on 28 November 2001 GS and Lazards contacted the Takeover Panel, which asked Interbrew ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4945", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The applicant used to work for the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the Ministry”). On his retirement in 1984 he received a State pension. On 23 June 1993 the Parliament enacted an Act establishing the manner of calculating the pensions of certain categories of military and affiliated personnel (no.1544-XIII) (“the 1993 Act”), which also applied to the applicant's case. On 21 February 1994 the Government adopted Decision no. 78 regarding the calculation of years worked and the payment of pensions (“the 1994 Decision”). In the applicant's opinion, the 1994 Decision unlawfully reduced the amount of pension he was entitled to receive under the 1993 Act.\n9.  In 1998 the applicant asked for a recalculation of his pension on the basis of the 1993 Act. Following the Ministry's refusal of his request, he initiated court proceedings. On 18 June 1999 the Centru District Court rejected his claims.\n10.  In September 2000 the applicant again asked for a recalculation of his pension, considering that the 1994 Decision had unlawfully changed the provisions of the 1993 Act by reducing the amount of pension payable to persons in his situation. He claimed 9,656 Moldovan lei (MDL) (920 euros (EUR) at the time), which constituted the difference between the amount of his pension and the amount to which he was entitled by law, with effect from 1 July 1993.\n11.  On 22 October 2001 the Chişinău Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's claim and ordered the Ministry to recalculate his pension from 1 July 1993, in accordance with the 1993 Act. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and enforceable fifteen days later.\n12.  On 28 August 2002 the Decisions Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice (“the Department”) informed the applicant that on 15 November 2001 it had registered his request to have the judgment enforced. On 10 June 2002 the Department set a time-limit for the Ministry to comply with the judgment. On 15 August 2002 the Ministry replied that the applicant's pension had been calculated correctly. The Department requested the Ministry to submit the “calculation sheets showing the sums on the basis of which the pension was calculated”. The Department promised to keep the applicant informed.\n13.  On 5 September 2002 the Department sent the applicant a similar letter.\n14.  On 17 April 2003 the Ministry informed the applicant that the judgment in his favour had been enforced. In the same letter the Ministry stated that the applicant's pension had been calculated on the basis of the 1993 Act and the 1994 Decision up to 1998. From 5 February 1998 his pension had been calculated on the basis of amendments to the 1993 Act adopted in 1997. His pension was recalculated again on the basis of a Government decision adopted in 2000. The Ministry also informed the applicant that 710 warrants awaited enforcement, in a total sum of MDL 5,100,000. Since the Ministry's budget for 2003 did not provide for such a substantial sum to be paid for these purposes, payment on the basis of the enforcement warrants, including the applicant's, would be made after amending the 2003 State Budget Act and, progressively, as enforcement warrants were submitted to the Treasury of the Ministry of Finance.\n15.  On 18 April 2003 the Department informed the applicant that on 26 November 2001 it had set a time-limit for the Mini", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4946", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1948, 1978, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986 respectively and live in Diyarbakır.\n6.  On 3 October 1992, at 10:30 a.m., clashes occurred in the district of Kulp in the province of Diyarbakır, between the PKK (the Workers' Party of Kurdistan, an illegal organisation) and the security forces, subsequent to the killing of two gendarmes and grave injury of two other gendarmes in a military vehicle by PKK militants. At that time the applicant, Hakan Narin and his father, Abduvahit Narin, were in the Narin Hotel, which belonged to them. During the clash some other individuals from the town and hotel customers joined them in the basement of the hotel to seek shelter from the clash. There were a total of thirty-five people hiding in the basement of the hotel.\n7.  According to the applicants' version of events, at around 4 p.m. the security forces raided the hotel and gathered the people on the ground floor. They singled out Adulvahit Narin from the crowd and took him into the hotel director's office. After a while the applicant, Hakan Narin, heard gunshots coming from the office. The security forces then allegedly poured petrol on the floor and set the hotel on fire.\n8.  On 4 October 1992 two incident reports describing the events in question were prepared and signed by a number of gendarme officers who took part in the clashes. According to this report, on 3 October 1992, at around 10.30 a.m., PKK militants opened fire on a military vehicle on a main street in Kulp. As a result, two gendarmes died and two were severely injured. Hearing the gunfire, security forces arrived on the scene. PKK militants also fired at them and the security forces returned fire. The clashes, which lasted until 5 p.m., caused the destruction of a number of vehicles and some buildings. It was understood that the real aim of the PKK members was to take control of the Kulp Gendarmerie Station and to seize the weapons therein. Some of the PKK militants hid in the Narin Hotel and opened fire on the security forces. When leaving the town they set the hotel and a number of other buildings on fire. When they were informed that there was a burned body at the hotel, a team of security forces arrived at the hotel in the morning of 4 October 1992. They found an unidentifiable burned body, a Kalashnikov rifle and sixty-four empty cartridges there. The security forces noted that all the furniture in the hotel had been burned, there were a number of bullet holes in the walls and gas cannisters found in the kitchen had exploded as a result of the fire and had caused massive damage to the building. A sketch map describing the state of the hotel and location of the body was also drawn up by a gendarme officer.\n9.  On 4 October 1992, at 3:50 p.m., the Kulp Public Prosecutor arrived at the Narin Hotel with a doctor. They conducted a classical autopsy and an on-site investigation. The on-site investigation report noted that a burned body was lying in one of the ground-floor rooms of the hotel. The report also contained Hakan Narin's testimony that two expert sergeants[1], whose names he did not know but whom he could identify if shown, took his father to the director's office. He then heard gunshots coming from that direction, and saw the security forces throw grenades into the room. He further stated that M.Y., A.Y., M.A., and the teachers A.A., M.Y., H.S. and F.A., who were in the hotel at the time, also witnessed the incident. The repor", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4947", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Tashkent, Uzbekistan. He is currently residing in Moscow.\n7.  In January 2005, when the applicant was living in Uzbekistan, a district court in Tashkent convicted him of being a member of the Islamic religious organisation Tablighi Dzhamaat, prohibited in Uzbekistan. The court ordered him to pay a fine in an amount equal to sixty times the minimum monthly wage.\n8.  The applicant paid the fine and continued to reside in Uzbekistan. However, according to him, he felt constant pressure from the law‑enforcement agencies, which required him to report on all his actions and movements and, in case of delay or failure on his part, threatened to arrest his elder son. So as not to put his family in danger, on 6 December 2005 the applicant left Uzbekistan for Moscow.\n9.  In the meantime the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan quashed the decision of January 2005 on the ground that the sentence was too mild and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n10.  On 9 January 2006 the Sobir Rakhimovskiy District Court of Tashkent ordered the applicant to be remanded in custody. On that basis a cross-border search warrant for the applicant was issued.\n11.  On 26 January 2007 the applicant was arrested in Moscow on the basis of the cross-border search warrant.\n12.  On an unspecified date the Tashkent Department of the Interior sent the Meshchanskiy District Department of the Interior of Moscow a request to keep the applicant in custody and enclosed a copy of the Sobir Rakhimovskiy District Court's decision of 9 January 2006.\n13.  On 29 January 2007 the Meshchanskiy Inter-District Prosecutor's Office in Moscow issued a decision on application of a preventive measure and ordered that the applicant be placed in custody on the basis of the Uzbek court's decision of 9 January 2006. Article 61 of the Minsk Convention was cited as a legal source for application of the preventive measure. The decision indicated that the applicant should remain in custody until the Prosecutor General's Office decided on his extradition; the term of the detention was not specified. It was not mentioned whether the decision could be appealed against. On the same day the applicant was placed in remand prison SIZO-77/4, Moscow.\n14.  On 12 February 2007 the applicant applied to the Russian Prosecutor General's Office. He asked it to refuse the request of the Uzbek Prosecutor General's Office for his extradition and to release him from custody since he was charged with a crime that did not constitute a criminal offence under Russian law.\n15.  On 28 February 2007 the Uzbek Prosecutor General's Office requested the Russian Prosecutor General's Office to extradite the applicant.\n16.  On 23 March 2007 the Russian Prosecutor General's Office informed the applicant that no final decision had been taken in respect of the extradition and there were therefore no grounds to change the preventive measure applied in his case.\n17.  On 29 June 2007 the Meshchanskiy Inter-District Prosecutor's Office issued a new decision to remand the applicant in custody pursuant to Article 466 § 2 of the CCP and Article 60 of the Minsk Convention. The decision indicated that the applicant should remain in custody until the Prosecutor General's Office decided on his extradition; the term of the detention was not specified. It was not mentioned whether the decision could be appealed against. Neither the applicant nor his counsel was provided with a copy of the decision. The appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4948", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lived until his arrest in the town of Neman in the Kaliningrad Region. He is now serving his prison sentence in the correctional colony in the village of Slavyanovka, Kaliningrad Region.\n6.  On 16 August 2001 officers of the Krasnoznamensk town police department arrested the applicant and brought him to the temporary detention unit of the Neman town police department. A police investigator informed the applicant that he had been arrested on suspicion of aggravated robbery and that a prosecutor had authorised his detention on 29 May 2001. The applicant, having been informed of the rights of accused persons, including the right to legal aid, refused legal assistance because he considered himself innocent, and signed a record confirming his refusal. During the subsequent interview the applicant denied the accusations and consistently maintained his innocence.\n7.  On 28 September 2001 the applicant, who was still unrepresented, had a confrontation interview with a co-accused, Mr P., at which he was assisted by a lawyer. On a number of occasions the applicant unsuccessfully requested the investigating authorities to hold confrontations with other co-defendants, witnesses and victims.\n8.  On 3 October 2001 the applicant took part in a voice identification parade. The parade was performed in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer and two attesting witnesses. The victim was asked to identify the alleged perpetrator by his voice. Two other individuals took part in the parade. The applicant alleged that they had had very strong accents because one of them was of Chechen ethnic origin and the other one was Lithuanian.\n9.  Two days later the investigator served the applicant and his counsel with the bill of indictment and allowed them to study the case file. On the following day the investigator closed the pre-trial investigation and sent the case to the Neman Town Court for trial.\n10.  On 12 October 2001 the Town Court remitted the case to the investigating authorities, finding that the applicant had not had sufficient time to study the file. The applicant was granted a month for examination of the file.  In June 2002 the Town Court accepted a request from the applicant’s counsel, Ms Z., and granted her and the applicant five days to review the file.\n11.  On 11 June 2002 the prosecutor asked the Neman Town Court to remit the case for an additional pre-trial investigation in order to correct certain procedural defects. The applicant objected and applied for release on his own recognisance. On the same day the Town Court granted the prosecutor’s request and dismissed that of the applicant.\n12.  On 30 July 2002 the Kaliningrad Regional Court quashed the decision of 11 June 2002 in the part concerning the remittance of the case to the investigating authorities, and ordered that the Town Court should commence the trial.\n13.  A month later the first trial hearing was held. The applicant’s lawyer unsuccessfully asked the Town Court to exclude from evidence certain items including the record of the applicant’s voice identification parade.\n14.  On 5 September 2002 the Neman Town Court found the applicant guilty of several counts of aggravated robbery committed within a group of individuals and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.\n15.  The applicant’s lawyer, Ms Z., appealed.\n16.  The Kaliningrad Regional Court fixed the first appeal hearing for 25 February 2003. The applicant’s lawyer, Ms Z., failed to appear an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4949", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  On 29 June 2001 the applicant and his school friend Mr N. were spending the evening together. At about 11.30 p.m. they went to Mr N.’s place as Mr N., who is a diabetic, needed an insulin injection. After that they took a taxi to the applicant’s place.\n8.  While walking through the courtyard they were assaulted, near house no. 16/18 on Shcherbakovskaya Street in the Eastern Administrative District of Moscow. The attacker called out to them from behind and, before they could turn round, they received strong blows to their heads, fainted and collapsed on the ground. A considerable sum of money, a gold bracelet and a cell phone were stolen from them.\n9.  Neighbours called the Sokolinaya Gora police station. At 1.40 a.m. on 30 June 2001 the police officers Mr Zharov and Mr Volkov arrived at the scene. They served in the 2nd police battalion of the Eastern Administrative District of Moscow, whose main task was to provide security to businesses and private property under commercial contracts. In addition to that, they acted as neighbourhood patrol officers.\n10.  According to their statements, they saw two young men on the road whom they believed to be drunk. One of them was sitting, the other lay still. Some vomit could be seen. The policemen claimed that they reported the situation to the officer at the Sokolinaya Gora police station and told him that an ambulance or specialists from a sobering-up centre should be called.\n11.  The policemen then dragged the unconscious applicant and his friend away from the road into the courtyard of house no. 16/18. According to the Government, the policemen left the applicant and N. “on a grass plot”; the applicant claimed that they had been put “in the rubbish dump”. At that moment the private security co-ordinator (дежурный по отделу вневедомственной охраны) informed the officers that an alarm had gone off and instructed them to check it out. They reported it to the officer at the police station and left the scene.\n12.  At about 7 a.m. janitors Ms E. and Mr B. spotted two young men some three or four metres away from the rubbish bins and attempted to wake them up. However, both were unconscious, the dark-haired one (Mr N.) mumbled incoherently. They called for an ambulance.\n13.  At 8 a.m. Doctor P. arrived in the first ambulance. On seeing two victims, he called for another ambulance and began attending to Mr N. who had an abrasion and haematoma on his left cheek. When Mr N. regained consciousness, Doctor P. helped him climb into the van and took him to Moscow City Hospital no. 1.\n14.  In the meantime, a second ambulance arrived with Doctor Ch. He loaded the still unconscious applicant into the van and took him to Moscow City Hospital no. 33.\n15.  Upon arrival at the hospital at 9.05 a.m. the applicant was diagnosed with alcohol intoxication. Injuries and abrasions on his wrists and forehead were noted. Two hours later he was examined by a neurosurgeon.\n16.  Until 5 p.m. on 1 July 2001 the applicant remained, still unconscious and also undressed, on a trolley in the hospital corridor.\n17.  At 6.30 p.m. emergency surgery – bilateral trepanation of the skull – was performed on him.\n18.  On 8 July 2001 the applicant’s mother invited a private doctor to examine her son. The doctor determined that the applicant was in a life-threatening condition. An ambulance transferred the applicant in a state of coma to the Burdenko Military Hospital in Moscow.\n1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4950", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and is currently in Schwalmstadt Prison.\n7.  Since the applicant attained the age of criminal responsibility he has been convicted at least seven times and has spent only a couple of weeks outside prison.\n8.  Between 1971 and 1975 he was repeatedly convicted of theft committed jointly and burglary. He escaped from prison four times.\n9.  On 5 October 1977 the Kassel Regional Court, applying the criminal law relating to young offenders, convicted the applicant of attempted murder, robbery committed jointly with others, dangerous assault and blackmail and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. It found that approximately one week after his release from prison the applicant, together with an accomplice, had injured and robbed an acquaintance of his and had forced the victim, a homosexual, to sign a borrower’s note. Moreover, he had injured and attempted to kill his victim one day later when he learned that the latter had reported the robbery to the police. Having regard to a report submitted by expert D., the court found that the applicant suffered from a pathological mental disorder, with the result that his criminal responsibility was diminished (Article 21 of the Criminal Code).\n10.  On 8 March 1979 the Wiesbaden Regional Court convicted the applicant of dangerous assault, sentenced him to one year and nine months’ imprisonment and ordered his subsequent placement in a psychiatric hospital under Article 63 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 47 below). The applicant had injured a prison guard by throwing a heavy metal box at his head and stabbing him with a screwdriver after having been reprimanded. As confirmed by expert D., the applicant suffered from a serious pathological mental disorder, with the result that his criminal responsibility was diminished.\n11.  On 9 January 1981 the Marburg Regional Court, on appeal, convicted the applicant of assault of a disabled fellow prisoner following a discussion as to whether or not the cell window should remain open. Incorporating the sentence imposed by the judgment of the Wiesbaden Regional Court of 8 March 1979, it sentenced him to a cumulative sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment. Moreover, it upheld the order for the applicant’s placement in a psychiatric hospital. In the proceedings, an expert found that there were no longer any signs that the applicant suffered from a pathological brain disorder.\n12.  On 17 November 1986 the Marburg Regional Court convicted the applicant of attempted murder and robbery and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. It further ordered his placement in preventive detention (Sicherungsverwahrung) under Article 66 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 49-50 below). It found that when the conditions of his detention in the psychiatric hospital where he had been detained since October 1984 had been relaxed, the applicant had on 26 July 1985 robbed and attempted to murder a woman who had volunteered to spend a day with him in a city away from the hospital. Having regard to the report of a neurological and psychiatric expert, W., the court found that the applicant still suffered from a serious mental disorder which could, however, no longer be qualified as pathological and did not have to be treated medically. He therefore had not acted with diminished criminal responsibility and the preconditions for his placement in a psychiatric hospital under Article 63 of the Criminal Code were no longer met. However, he", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4951", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is now serving his sentence in prison UP-288/T of Minusinsk, the Krasnoyarsk Region.\n6.  On 14 August 1989 seven teenagers were found dead near Kazynet railway station of the Askizskiy District of the Republic of Khakassia. On an unspecified date in 1989 the competent authorities opened an investigation into the case. On 24 July 1992 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed murder. By a judgment of 24 March 1995, the Kemerovo Regional Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to capital punishment. By a judgment of 11 October 1995, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on appeal. On 4 September 1996 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia, by way of supervisory review proceedings, quashed the judgments of 24 March 1995 and 11 October 1995 and remitted the case for an additional investigation.\n7. On 17 February 1997 the case file was transferred to the General Prosecutor's Office and the criminal proceedings were reopened. On 3 April 1997 the applicant was released from custody on an undertaking not to leave his town of residence. On 18 August 2000 he was officially charged.\n8. On an unspecified date the pre-trial investigation was completed and on 30 November 2000 the case file was submitted to the trial court for judicial examination.\n9. On 18 September 2001 the Supreme Court of the Republic Khakasia convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to 15 years' imprisonment. The applicant was detained in the court room immediately after the pronouncement of his sentence. By a judgment of 12 February 2003, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4952", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Skopje.\n5. On 5 May 1991 the then Municipal Court of Struga (“the first-instance court”) ruled partly in the applicant's favour ordering the defendant, Mr J.T., to pay him compensation. On 29 December 1992 the then District Court of Bitola overturned the decision and increased the amount of the award.\n6. On 1 February 1993 the applicant sought enforcement before the first-instance court by an inventory and public sale of the defendant's (“the debtor”) movable property.\n7. According to the applicant, his request for enforcement was granted on 3 February 1993, but no formal decision has been ever served on him.\n8. Between 17 April 1993 and 18 April 1994 respectively, the applicant complained to the President of the first-instance court and to the State Judicial Council about the court's inactivity. No answer was provided.\n9. On 23 June 1994 an expert determined the amount of the applicant's claim with interest.\n10. According to the Government, in May 1999 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as being resolved “in other way” (“на друг начин”) corresponding to the common practice of the courts and extract of the court's registry. No record was made about the termination of the proceedings. In or about March 2000, the case-file was destroyed.\n11. According to the applicant, on 13 December 2006 the first-instance court intended to restore the case by requesting him to resubmit relevant documents. The Government did not dispute that assertion.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4955", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in the town of Biysk in the Altayskiy Region.\n8.  The applicant stated that the residents of her block of flats were embroiled in a conflict with a group of teenagers who frequently gathered in front of the building to drink alcohol, litter the yard and make noise until late at night.\n9.  On 24 August 1999 several residents, including the applicant and her partner Mr Sh., tried to disperse the teenagers. A quarrel followed. One of the teenagers swore at them. Mr Sh. retorted that “youngsters like these should be killed”. The teenagers ran immediately to the nearby police station where they complained that Mr Sh. had threatened them with a gun and had fired a shot at them.\n10.  Several minutes later several police officers came running to the spot and required that Mr Sh. surrender his gun. They were drunk. Mr Sh. denied having a gun. The applicant told him to go home and he left. The policemen did not attempt to stop him.\n11.  After a while the police officers decided to arrest Mr Sh. and rang his doorbell. Mr Sh. refused to open it. The neighbourhood police officer (участковый) Mr T. was determined to get into the apartment through the balcony and called the fire brigade, which brought an extension ladder.\n12.  Mr T. and another police officer, Mr K., climbed the ladder and broke the balcony window. The applicant heard two shots. She believed that Mr T. had fired the first shot at Mr Sh. and then fired in the air. When she entered the flat she saw that Mr Sh. was dead.\n13.  At about 5 p.m. on 24 August 1999 the neighbourhood police officer Mr T. heard a gunshot and saw several teenagers running towards him. They said that a man had just fired a shot at them and pointed at Mr Sh. He saw Mr Sh. give something to the applicant, who then entered the building. He ran after her and made her come back. At that time other police officers arrived on the scene.\n14.  Mr Sh. behaved aggressively, in particular brandishing a shovel at the police officers, and Mr T. thought that he was drunk. He ordered Mr Sh. to surrender his gun. Mr Sh. denied having any weapon. Mr T. wanted to search him but was prevented from doing so by other residents of the block of flats. Mr Sh. took advantage of the situation and escaped to his flat. He locked the door and refused to let Mr T. in. Mr T. asked the applicant to open the door or give him the key, but she refused.\n15.  Mr T. asked one of the police officers to watch the door. He then called the police officer on duty and asked for instructions. The police officer instructed him to force the door open and arrest Mr. Sh. As he was unable to force the door open, Mr T. decided to get into the flat through the balcony and asked the officer on duty to call the fire brigade. At that moment a patrol team arrived at the scene.\n16.  Once the fire brigade had arrived, Mr T. and a police patrol officer Mr K. climbed the extension fire ladder. Mr Sh. attempted to prevent them from entering the balcony. He threatened to kill them and brandished a gun-like object. Mr T. ordered Mr Sh. to lay down his weapon, warned him that he would shoot and fired in the air. Mr Sh. hit Mr T. on the head with the heavy metal object he was holding. Mr K., who was standing behind Mr T. on the ladder, saved him from falling from the third floor. When Mr Sh. attempted to hit Mr T. a second time, Mr T. shot at Mr Sh., fatally wounding him. The police officers carried Mr Sh. into the bedroom and immedia", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4956", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 in Gubadly and currently lives in Sumgayit.\n6.  The applicant and his family are internally displaced persons from Gubadly. In 1993, during the occupation of the region by Armenian military forces, they fled their permanent place of residence and came to Sumgayit.\n7.  After their flight from Gubadly, the applicant's family of six (himself, his wife, three children and the applicant's mother-in-law) resided temporarily in various places in Sumgayit. Immediately prior to the events outlined below they lived in a room in a State-owned hostel.\n8.  From 17 June to 5 July 1999 the applicant's wife, Chichek Mammadova, underwent in-patient treatment in the Sumgayit City Emergency Hospital with a diagnosis of “closed craniocerebral injury, brain concussion; contusion of soft tissues of the crown of the head; hysterical psychosis”.\n9.  In late 2003 the applicant discovered that there were three vacant rooms in an old administrative building that belonged to the Sumgayit City Military Commissariat (the army recruitment office), which, however, no longer occupied the building. Part of the building was occupied by an association of war veterans, but the rooms that the applicant was interested in were abandoned and in a state of neglect. The rooms were located in auxiliary premises which had a separate entrance from the rear side of the building. The applicant occupied these rooms and conducted substantial repair work there for three months. According to him, the other occupants of the building were aware of his activities but did not object to them. Likewise, according to the applicant, there were no objections by any public authorities to the repair works carried out by him.\n10.  After completing the repair works, at the end of 2003 the applicant left his hostel room and moved into the new dwelling together with his family.\n11.  On 26 March 2004 two officials (E.G. and Y.A.) of the Sumgayit City Executive Authority (“the SCEA”), an employee of the local housing maintenance and utilities board (K.A.) and a number of police officers arrived in the applicant's new dwelling. They had no court order for his eviction.\n12.  At an unspecified time after the arrival of the above-mentioned officials, the applicant's wife, Chichek Mammadova, poured some kerosene on herself and ignited it, apparently in protest at what she perceived as the authorities' intention to evict her family. It appears that at least one of the police officers helped put out the fire on her body, using a blanket he found inside the applicant's home. Chichek Mammadova's brother, who arrived slightly later, took her to hospital by taxi.\n13.  Following this incident, the police loaded the possessions of the applicant's family onto a lorry and transported them back to the hostel where the applicant's family had previously resided.\n14.  The applicant's wife suffered multiple second- and third-degree burns affecting 50% of the body surface. On 30 March 2004 she died in hospital of complications resulting from her injuries. The results of the autopsy released on 2 April 2004 confirmed that the death had been caused by the extensive burns to her body surface.\n15.  According to the applicant, prior to 26 March 2004 he was summoned several times to meet the SCEA officials, who orally demanded him to vacate the rooms in the old Commissariat building and even asked him for a bribe in order to allow him to stay there. He refused their demands.\n16.  On 26 March 2004", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4957", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Bascharage.\n5.  The applicant had been working as a licensed doctor in Berlin from 1972 to 1994. Since 1994 he has been practising medicine in Luxembourg.\n6.  He is a member of the Berlin Medical Association (Ärztekammer), a corporation under public law and since 1972 had been paying compulsory contributions to its pension scheme until his change of residence to Luxembourg in 1994.\n7.  Prior to his move to Luxembourg, he was informed by the Berlin Medical Association's pension scheme (Ärzteversorgung) that he could either terminate his membership or continue to stay as a member on a voluntary basis while paying contributions at the full or a reduced rate. The applicant opted for the continuation of his membership and chose to pay voluntary contributions in an amount equal to half of the maximum contribution rate.\n8.  Since 1994 he has also paid the full compulsory contribution to the relevant Luxembourg pension scheme.\n9.  Ever since his move to Luxembourg the Berlin pension scheme has informed the applicant annually in writing about the amount of his future pension entitlement. He objected to the corresponding notifications on several occasions alleging that while the amount of contributions had been increased, his expected pension had been unduly reduced compared to previous years. He was repeatedly informed by the Berlin pension scheme that the decrease of his pension entitlement was due to the agreed adjustment of his contributions since 1994.\n10.  By letters of 9 and 15 August 2001 the Berlin pension scheme advised the applicant of the option to have the meanwhile accrued contributions transferred to the Luxembourg pension scheme subject to the latter's approval. It further specified that a transfer of the contributions could only be effected by means of a direct payment to the Luxembourg pension scheme and that it was not possible to disburse the amount accrued to the applicant himself. By a letter dated 20 August 2001 the applicant asked for his contributions to be transferred.\n11.  On 12 October 2001 the Berlin pension scheme informed the applicant that the conditions of a transfer were not fulfilled since the Luxembourg pension scheme was not in a position to accept a direct transfer of the contributions. The applicant notified the Berlin pension scheme on 1 November 2001 that he nevertheless wanted to continue the payment of his voluntary contributions.\n12.  In reply to a further objection by the applicant on 13 September 2003 regarding the calculation of the amount of his future pension entitlement, the Berlin pension scheme, by letter dated 18 September 2003, specified that the definite amount of the applicant's pension claim would be determined once he had become eligible to the actual payment of pension benefits and could only be challenged together with a corresponding payment order.\n13.  On 9 October 2003 the applicant brought an action against the Berlin Medical Association (Ärztekammer) with the Berlin Administrative Court claiming the transfer of the total amount of his compulsory and voluntary contributions accrued with the Medical Association's pension scheme including interest and compensation for inflation to the Luxembourg pension scheme. Alternatively, he requested that the Berlin pension scheme be obliged to freeze his pension entitlement at the current amount while maintaining the amount of contributions to be paid by him.\n14.  By a letter dated 13 October 2003 t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4958", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Vienna. At the time of the events he was a national of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. By the time of lodging the application he had obtained Austrian citizenship.\n7.  On 28 April 1994 the Vienna Federal Police Authority (Bundespolizeidirektion) ordered the applicant's detention with a view to expulsion on account of his illegal stay in Austria. At that time a request by the applicant for asylum had been refused by the second-instance authority.\n8.  On the same day the applicant was taken to the Vienna East Police Prison (Polizeigefangenenhaus Wien Ost). On 30 April 1994 he went on hunger strike.\n9.  In accordance with the relevant regulations (see paragraph 45 below), a report was drawn up to document the applicant's hunger strike. According to the entries in that report, the applicant, whose height is 1.77 metres, weighed 64.8 kilograms when he started his hunger strike. Subsequently, his weight was recorded every four or five days, namely on 5, 9, 14, 19, 24, 27 and 28 May 1994. Apparently his blood-sugar level was also checked but the findings were not recorded in the report.\n10.  The events at issue took place when the applicant had been on hunger strike for three weeks. The exact date is in dispute between the parties.\n11.  According to the applicant, the events happened in the evening of 21 May 1994. He submits that he has consistently referred to that date throughout the domestic proceedings and the Convention proceedings, and that the Independent Administrative Panel in its decision of 3 September 1999 also established 21 May 1994 as the date of the events at issue.\n12.  According to the Government, the events at issue took place on 22 May 1994. They referred to the entry in the disciplinary file of the Vienna Police Prison, according to which the applicant had created unrest in the course of 22 May 1994 (banging against the cell door and repeatedly ringing the bell to call prison officers and finally pretending to be unconscious) and had been transferred to an individual cell on that date as a disciplinary measure.\n13.  While the parties disagreed as to the date of the events, it is not in dispute that, on the evening at issue, the applicant's cellmates called the police officers on duty and informed them that the applicant had slipped while going to the toilet and had sustained a bleeding injury to his head. Subsequently, the applicant was taken to an individual cell. The injury to his head was bandaged by a paramedical officer.\n14.  On 24 May 1994 the applicant was taken to a prison doctor, who noticed and mentioned in his written diagnosis several skin abrasions in the lumbar region of the applicant's backbone, one of which is described as being substantial. He treated these injuries with a spray and bandages. Moreover, he recorded the applicant's weight and measured his blood pressure and blood-sugar level.\n15.  On the same day Mr Staub, a member of an NGO looking after the applicant, Mrs Pichler, a journalist, and Mr Horvath, a friend, visited the applicant in prison. Mrs Pichler subsequently published an article in the magazine News reporting that the applicant had told her that after his accident four officers had dragged him by the feet out of his cell and kicked him. They had also stabbed him behind the ears with ballpoint pens and hit him repeatedly in the face. He had shown the journalist abrasion marks on his back and hip and small round bruises b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4959", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.\n5.  On an unspecified date he sued his former wife for title to a half of the flat which they had allegedly purchased while they were married. The matter was repeatedly reviewed by courts at two levels of jurisdiction.\n6.  On 20 February 2001 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don dismissed the applicant's claim.\n7.  On 11 May 2001 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 20 February 2001 on appeal and remitted the matter for further consideration.\n8.  On 8 August 2001 the District Court granted the applicant's claim in full.\n9.  On 19 September 2001 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 8 August 2001 on appeal.\n10.  On 2 October 2002 the applicant's former wife asked the President of the Rostov Regional Court to lodge an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 8 August 2001 as upheld on 19 September 2001.\n11.  On 24 December 2002 the acting President of the Rostov Regional Court granted the request and sent the case to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court for supervisory review.\n12.  On 26 December 2002 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court reassessed the evidence and quashed the judgments of 11 May, 8 August and 19 September 2001 by way of supervisory review and reinstated the judgment of 20 February 2001. It considered that the applicant had failed to provide enough evidence to substantiate his title to the disputed property.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4960", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in the town of Voronezh.\n5.  The applicant was a member of a housing cooperative. Having paid a sum of money, she expected to receive a certain flat from the cooperative in a newly built block of flats. However, the applicant was then expelled from the cooperative. The flat was given to Mr L instead. The latter sold the flat to Mr Ch.\n6.  On 16 March 1998 the applicant brought proceedings against the housing cooperative in the Kominternovskiy District Court of Voronezh. She sought the annulment of the cooperative's decision to expel her and give the flat to L. She also sought compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage and recognition of her title to the flat.\n7.  In the meantime, Mr Ch resold the flat to Ms K. On 7 May 1998 the judge issued a charging order in respect of the flat.\n8.  In September 1998 the applicant amended her claims, seeking the annulment of the purchase contracts by Ch and K and recognition of her right to live in the flat in question.\n9.  According to the Government, several hearings between September and November 1998 had to be adjourned in order to take account of the applicant's amended claims and enable the parties to collect evidence in support of their claims.\n10.  According to the Government, in 1999 one hearing was adjourned because of the defendants; another one was adjourned on account of their and the lay judges' failure to attend; and two further hearings were adjourned to enable the applicant to submit amended claims.\n11.  By a judgment of 6 September 1999, the District Court rejected her claims. The applicant appealed. After complying with the court's instructions concerning court fees, on 20 April 2000 the Voronezh Regional Court examined her appeal and upheld the above judgment as regards the rejection of the non-pecuniary claim but ordered a fresh hearing in respect of the remaining claims.\n12.  Upon the applicant's complaint about the length of proceedings before the District Court, a judge of the Regional Court carried out a preliminary inquiry and concluded on 31 January 2001 that a further inquiry would be appropriate. Its outcome remains unclear.\n13.  In the meantime, having re-examined the remaining claims, on 27 June 2001 the District Court upheld most of the claims against the defendant, including the applicant's claim for title to the flat in question. On 15 August 2001 the District Court issued an additional judgment amending the earlier one and ordering Ms K's eviction. On 11 October 2001 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 27 June 2001.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicant applied for registration of her title to the flat. On 18 January 2002 the State Property Registry refused to issue a title certificate to the applicant because there was a valid charging order in respect of the flat. However, on 29 January 2002 the applicant was provided with the title certificate.\n15.  On 5 February 2002 the President of the Regional Court lodged a request for supervisory review of the judgment of 15 August 2001. On 11 February 2002 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgment on the ground that the defendant had not been informed of the hearing.\n16.  Upon a request of the Acting President of the Regional Court, on 14 October 2002 the Presidium court quashed the judgments of 27 June and 11 October 2001 in part and ordered a re-examination of the relevant claims.\n17.  It appears that, on an unspecified date, the title registration", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4961", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were both born in 1952 and live in Gießen.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  In September 1997 the applicants and their neighbour filed a request with the Gießen administrative authorities (“the administration”) seeking permission to cut down their neighbour’s tree which, according to an expert opinion obtained by the applicants, was causing damage to their house.\n7.  On 19 November 1997 the administration rejected this request. On 9 March 1998, on the applicants’ administrative appeal, the administration granted permission to cut down the tree on the ground that they could not exclude the possibility that the damage to the house had been caused by the tree.\n8.  Subsequently, the applicants’ neighbour refused to cut down the tree.\n9.  In August 1998 the applicants requested the Gießen Regional Court to order their neighbour to cut down the tree.\n10.  On 23 November 1998, following submissions by the defendant, who also presented an expert report, the court decided to obtain an expert opinion from a Dr Str. On 30 January 1999 Dr Str. submitted his report.\n11.  On 3 May 1999, following a hearing, the Gießen Regional Court decided that the applicants’ neighbour had to cut down the tree or take other measures to prevent the earth from drying out.\n12.  On 29 June 1999 the applicants’ neighbour appealed. She also submitted another expert opinion.\n13.  On 28 July 1999 the Frankfurt/Main Court of Appeal, on provision of a security by the neighbour, stayed the proceedings for enforcement of the first-instance judgment. Subsequently, the case was transferred to a single judge.\n14.  On 9 August 1999 the court scheduled a hearing for 12 November 1999. That day it decided to obtain an expert opinion. On 10 January 2000 it commissioned Professor K., an expert on construction matters.\n15.  On 11 January 2000 the applicants lodged a subsequent appeal (Anschlussberufung).\n16.  On 2 February 2000 the court amended its decision regarding the taking of evidence. Subsequently, it also requested a further advance. On 26 March 2000 the applicants paid the requisite advance. A few days later they questioned the expert’s qualification. On 26 April 2000 the court sent the files to the expert.\n17.  On 25 August 2000, following comments made by the expert about the applicants’ objections against him, the court mandated Professor K. to proceed with the report. On 22 September 2000 Professor K. informed the court about the cost of his services (which amounted to about 25,000 euros (EUR)).\n18.  In November 2000 the court requested the files from the expert and on 9 February 2001, on appeal by the defendant, it quashed a decision of the Gießen Regional Court concerning the enforcement proceedings.\n19.  On 23 February 2001 the court proposed to the applicants that, in view of the exceptionally high costs claimed by Professor K., evidence should be taken by other means and proposed a Dr S., a landscaping expert.\n20.  On 12 March 2001 the applicants opposed the proposal since, in their view, Professor K.’s report was indispensable. They also opposed the choice of Dr S. on the grounds that he had been proposed by the defendant, knew the defendant’s son and it could be assumed that he had been talking with him about the case.\n21.  At the subsequent hearing on 20 April 2001 the applicants requested Dr S. to declare that he did not have any personal ties with the defendant or her son and had not dealt", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4962", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.   On 31 July 1998 the applicant company, together with three other plaintiffs, Mr Kesyan, Ms Gorovaya and Ms Makarova, all represented by the same lawyer, filed an action against the Rostov Regional Department of the Federal Treasury and Mrs O. seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on account of the unlawful seizure of goods.\n6. The first hearing was scheduled for 22 September 1998 but was adjourned owing to the judge's leave. The following hearing on 28 December 1998 did not take place owing to the defendants' failure to appear in court.\n7. On 11 February 1999, at the plaintiffs' request, the District Court ordered an expert examination and stayed the proceedings.\n8. In September 1999 the experts' report was received. In October and November 1999 the applicant company's representative amended the claims.\n9. On 25 November 1999 the court proceedings were resumed.\n10. Between 25 November 1999 and 3 October 2000 the District Court listed eight hearings, of which three were adjourned because the defendants failed to attend and five because none of the parties attended.\n11. By a decision of 3 October 2000, the District Court declined to examine the applicant company's claims on the merits on the ground of its repeated failure to appear in court.\n12. On 9 July 2001 the applicant company's representative requested that the decision of 3 October 2000 be set aside for the reason that neither he, nor the applicant company had been duly notified of the hearings. By a decision of 12 July 2001, the District Court allowed the request and resumed the proceedings.\n13. By a decision of 5 September 2001, the District Court invited the Taganrog Custom Service to join the civil proceedings as a third party.\n14. At the third party's request of 10 October 2001, the proceedings were stayed because a related administrative case was pending before another court. On 30 September 2002 they were resumed.\n15. Between 30 September and 20 December 2002, three hearings were adjourned because the parties failed to attend.\n16. On 20 December 2002 the District Court declined to examine the applicant company's claims on the merits on the ground of its repeated failure to appear in court.\n17. The proceedings were resumed on 23 January 2004, at the request of the applicant company's representative of 19 January 2004, for the reason that neither he, nor the applicant company had been properly summoned to the hearings.\n18. Of ten hearings listed between 20 February and 16 November 2004, four hearings were adjourned owing to Mrs O.'s absence, two owing to the parties' absence, one at the applicant company's representative's request and two because the presiding judge was on leave.\n19. By a judgment of 16 November 2004, the Kuybyshevskiy District Court dismissed the applicant company's claim.  On 16 February 2005 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 16 November 2004 on appeal and remitted the matter to the first-instance court for fresh examination.\n20. The Kuybyshevskiy District Court listed the first hearing for 18 May 2005. Of three hearings fixed between 18 May and 28 June 2005, two were adjourned because the defendants failed to attend and one was adjourned at the defendants' request.\n21. On 28 June 2005, at the plaintiffs' request, the District Court ordered an expert examination and stayed the proceedings.\n22. The proceedings were later resumed and, by a judgment of 15 December 2005, the Kyubyshevskiy District Court allowed the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4963", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Sochi, in the Krasnodar Region.\n6. On 31 July 1998 the applicant, together with three other plaintiffs, Mr Kesyan, Ms Gorovaya and MP Kineskop, all represented by the same lawyer, filed an action against the Rostov Regional Department of the Federal Treasury and Mrs O. seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on account of the unlawful seizure of goods.\n7. The first hearing was scheduled for 22 September 1998 but was adjourned owing to the judge's leave. The following hearing on 28 December 1998 did not take place owing to the defendants' failure to appear in court.\n8. On 11 February 1999, at the plaintiffs' request, the District Court ordered an expert examination and stayed the proceedings.\n9. In September 1999 the experts' report was received. In October and November 1999 the applicant's representative amended the claims.\n10. On 25 November 1999 the court proceedings were resumed.\n11. Between 25 November 1999 and 3 October 2000 the District Court listed eight hearings, of which three were adjourned because the defendants failed to attend and five because none of the parties attended.\n12. By a decision of 3 October 2000, the District Court declined to examine the applicant's claims on the merits on the ground of her repeated failure to appear in court.\n13. On 9 July 2001 the applicant's representative requested that the decision of 3 October 2000 be set aside for the reason that neither he, nor the applicant had been duly notified of the hearings. By a decision of 12 July 2001, the District Court allowed the request and resumed the proceedings.\n14. By a decision of 5 September 2001, the District Court invited the Taganrog Custom Service to join the civil proceedings as a third party.\n15. Upon the third party's request of 10 October 2001, the proceedings were stayed because a related administrative case had been pending before another court. On 30 September 2002 they were resumed.\n16. Between 30 September and 20 December 2002, three hearings were adjourned because the parties had failed to attend.\n17. On 20 December 2002 the District Court declined to examine the applicant's claims on the merits on the ground of her repeated failure to appear in court.\n18. The proceedings were resumed on 23 January 2004, upon the request of the applicant's representative of 19 January 2004, because neither he, nor the applicant had been properly summoned to the hearings.\n19. Of ten hearings listed between 20 February and 16 November 2004, four hearings were adjourned owing to Mrs O.'s absence, two owing to the parties' absence, one at the request of the applicant's representative and two because the presiding judge was on leave.\n20. By a judgment of 16 November 2004, the Kuybyshevskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's claim.  On 16 February 2005 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 16 November 2004 on appeal and remitted the matter to the first-instance court for fresh examination.\n21. The Kuybyshevskiy District Court listed the first hearing for 18 May 2005. Of three hearings fixed between 18 May and 28 June 2005, two were adjourned because the defendants failed to attend and one was adjourned at the defendants' request.\n22. On 28 June 2005, at the plaintiffs' request, the District Court ordered an expert examination and stayed the proceedings.\n23. The proceedings were later resumed and, by a judgment of 15 December 2005, the Kyubyshevskiy District Court allowed the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4964", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is serving a prison sentence in Kaliningrad Region.\n7.  On 16 March 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of possession of illegal drugs. From 16 March to 30 December 1998 he was detained in remand prison no. IZ-39/1 in Kaliningrad pending investigation and trial.\n8.  Pursuant to the certificate issued by the remand prison administration on 16 March 2007 and produced by the Government, the applicant was detained in four cells. From 16 March to 24 April 1998 he was held in cell no. 29, which measured 7.7 square metres. From 24 April to 15 June 1998 he was placed in cell no. 145, which measured 7.9 square metres. From 15 June to 26 August 1998 he was kept in cell no. 8, which measured 7.8 square metres. Lastly, from 26 August to 29 December 1998 he was held in cell no. 4/19, which measured 14 square metres. According to the Government, the information on the numbers of inmates detained in the same cells as the applicant was not available as the documents had been destroyed. The Government, relying on the same certificate, further submitted that at all times the applicant had had an individual bed and bedding.\n9.  The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements and the period of detention there. He submitted that the cells in the remand prison were always overcrowded. The number of bunk beds in the cells was insufficient and the inmates had to take turns to sleep. There were six beds in cell no. 29, while there were twelve inmates held there. In cell no. 145 there were ten or eleven inmates who had to share four beds. No bedding was provided for him and all the time he had been detained in cell no. 29 he had had to sleep just on the metal mesh of the bunk bed. Then his relatives sent him a mattress, a blanket, a pillow, sheets and a pillow case.\n10.  Relying on the certificates issued by the management of the remand prison on 16 and 27 March 2007, the Government provided the following description of the cells where the applicant had been detained. The windows had glass panes and were provided with air vents which could be kept open. Each cell was equipped with mechanical and exhaust ventilation. When the inmates went out for exercise the door vents in the cells were kept open too, to allow for additional air circulation. The central heating ensured an adequate temperature of 180C. The lights in the cells were constantly on, which permitted permanent supervision of the inmates detained in the cells and the prevention of altercations between them, and against other contingencies too. Between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. the cells were lit with two 100-watt bulbs, ensuring sufficient brightness in the cells. During the night the lighting used was of a lower intensity. Cleaning and disinfection were carried out on a regular basis, at least once a month. Rodent and insect extermination was carried out on a weekly basis. Should lice, bed bugs, cockroaches, etc. be detected in the cells, additional prompt disinfection was conducted too. The cells were equipped with a centralised cold and hot water supply and a sewage system. The remand prison did not limit or restrict water use by the detainees in any way. The toilet was separated from the living area of the cell by a wall one metre in height and functioned properly.\n11.  The applicant rejected the description of the conditions of his detention as submitted by the Government. As regards the certificates provided by the Government, he considered them to be a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4965", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lived until his arrest in the town of Smolensk. He is a former deputy governor of the Smolensk Region.\n6.  On 24 October 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted against several officials of the Smolensk Regional Council on suspicion of money laundering and fraud.\n7.  On 2 December 2002 the applicant was arrested in the Smolensk Regional Prosecutor's office where he had been invited for questioning. He was transferred to the Smolensk Regional Department of the Federal Security Service (hereinafter – the FSB). A record of his arrest, drawn up at 2 p.m. on the same day and produced by the Government, indicated that certain documents were found and seized from the applicant's office. Those documents and other evidence, including witness statements, linked the applicant to or placed him in charge of private and State-owned enterprises implicated in money laundering and fraudulent activities and served as the basis for suspecting the applicant of having participated in an aggravated fraud. The relevant part of the record read as follows:\n“[The applicant], who is suspected of having committed a serious criminal offence, was arrested according to subparagraphs 1, 2 and 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 91 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, and because the pre-trial investigating authorities have sufficient grounds to believe that, if released, he may abscond..., threaten witnesses, destroy evidence or in any other way obstruct the investigation in the present case.”\nThe applicant signed the record, making a handwritten objection to his arrest and the accusations against him.\n8.  On the following day a senior investigator of the Smolensk Regional FSB Investigative Division, with the consent of the acting Smolensk Regional Prosecutor, lodged an application with the Leninskiy District Court of Smolensk, seeking authorisation for the applicant's detention on remand. The application contained a lengthy description of the fraudulent activities of a number of private and State-owned enterprises in which the applicant had allegedly taken part. The senior investigator also drew the District Court's attention to other circumstances warranting the applicant's detention, namely the likelihood that he would abscond and pervert the course of justice.\n9.  On 3 December 2002 the Leninskiy District Court authorised the applicant's detention, finding that he was accused of having committed a serious crime and that, if released, he might threaten witnesses, destroy evidence and obstruct justice.\n10.  The applicant's lawyer appealed against the decisions authorising the arrest and detention. In particular, she complained that there was no evidence which could serve as grounds for the applicant's arrest and that if such evidence did exist, it had not been listed in the record of the applicant's arrest. According to the lawyer, the authorities did not put forward any evidence justifying the conclusion that the applicant was liable to abscond or obstruct justice.\n11.  On 11 December 2002 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the decision of 3 December 2002, holding as follows:\n“Taking into account the circumstances of the case, the information concerning the personality of the accused, [the court finds that] the investigator's application is substantiated because [the applicant] may threaten witnesses, destroy evidence in the case and obstruct adjudication of the case.”\n12.  Two weeks later, on 26 December 2002, the Leninskiy D", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4966", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow. He has no fixed place of residence or residence registration.\n6.  On 24 May 2002 the applicant asked to hire cutlery and a folding bed from the “Morion” hire agency. Having studied his passport, the manager replied that the company could not hire out anything to him because he had no residence registration[1].\n7.  On 12 August 2002 the applicant lodged a civil action against the “Morion” company, alleging unlawful denial of services. The statement of claim indicated that the applicant had no fixed place of residence and provided an address in Moscow for correspondence.\n8.  On 9 October 2002 the Khoroshevskiy District Court stayed the applicant's claim because his place of residence had not been specified. He was invited to specify it by 11 November 2002, failing which his action would be declared inadmissible.\n9.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 9 October 2002, alleging an unlawful restriction on his right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 46 of the Russian Constitution on account of his inability to show that he had permanent residence at a specific place.\n10.  On 20 December 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision.\n11.  On 5 April 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to subscribe to the services of the MTS telecommunications company. He was refused because he had no residence registration.\n12.  On 22 August 2003 he sued the MTS company and the cell phone vendor for subscription to a contract and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He indicated the city of Moscow as his place of residence and provided a poste restante address for correspondence.\n13.  On 8 September 2002 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow stayed the applicant's claim due to his omission to indicate his address. He was instructed to rectify the omission within ten days, failing which his claim would be declared inadmissible.\n14.  The applicant received a copy of the decision by mail at the address indicated in his statement of claim.\n15.  The applicant appealed, submitting that he had indicated his address in the statement of claim.\n16.  On 18 November 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 8 September 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4967", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Zlatar.\n5.  In July 1991 the applicant had a road traffic accident. Since the insurance company C.O. (“the company”) refused to compensate the resultant damage, on 8 July 1992 she instituted civil proceedings against it in the Zlatar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zlataru).\n6.  On 15 March 1993 the Municipal Court ruled in the applicant's favour ordering the company to pay her the amount of 222,501 Croatian dinars (HRD) together with the statutory default interest accruable from 19 August 1991. The applicant collected the judgment debt on 16 July 1993.\n7.  However, in the meantime, on 2 July 1993 the Municipal Court issued a decision rectifying a clerical error in its judgment of 15 March 1993. Instead of ordering the company to pay the statutory default interest accruable from 19 August 1991 on the entire amount of damages awarded, (HRD 222,501), in the rectified judgment the court ordered the company to do so only on the part of that amount, namely HRD 22,501, which was the amount awarded in respect of pecuniary damage. The company was ordered to pay the accrued interest on the remaining amount of HRD 200,000 only with effect from 15 March 1993.\n8.  The decision on rectification was served on the applicant's representative on 26 July 1993.\n9.  On 10 September 1993 judge M.M., who was at the time the President of the Zlatar Municipal Court, filed a criminal complaint against the applicant with the Zlatar Municipal State Attorney's Office considering that she had committed a criminal offence. M.M. stated in his complaint that at the beginning of July 1993 a certain Z.F.C., a lawyer employed with the insurance company C.O., had come to his office explaining the clerical error in the Municipal Court's judgment of 15 March 1993 and asking him to influence the applicant – who was working at the time as an advocate – with a view to returning the unlawfully obtained amount. After explaining the error and mentioning that it had been rectified by the Municipal Court's decision of 2 July 1993, judge M.M. stated:\n“... despite the rectification of the judgment, the advocate Marija Parlov-Tkalčić, to date does not want to return the unlawfully appropriated money to [the company] C.O., Zabok, for which reason the civil proceedings no. P-330/93 were instituted [against her].\nSince we consider that the act of the advocate Marija Parlov-Tkalčić also contains elements of criminal liability, we are reporting it to you with a view to investigating it and, possibly, instituting criminal proceedings against her ...”\n10.  On 15 September 1993 the Zlatar Municipal State Attorney requested transfer of jurisdiction because he was a friend of the applicant. On 22 September 1993 the case was transferred to the Krapina Municipal State Attorney who, on 24 January 1994 indicted the applicant before the Zlatar Municipal Court charging her with a criminal offence of misappropriation (utaja).\n11.  However, on 3 February 1994 the judge assigned to hear the case requested that the case be transferred to another court as its president had actually filed a criminal complaint against the applicant. On 8 March 1994 the Supreme Court (decision no. Kr-103/1994-3) granted the request and decided to transfer the case to the Krapina Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Krapini). The decision in its relevant part read as follows:\nThe ... judge [assigned to hear the case] of the Zlatar Municipal Court made a request that the criminal proc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4968", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mrs Emma Vladimirovna Talysheva, is a Russian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Krasnodar.\n6.  The applicant sued her relative, Mr T., claiming sole ownership of a house. By a judgment of 1 March 2001 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar granted her claims. No appeal was lodged.\n7.  Subsequently, the applicant sued Mr T. and the Krasnodar Town Council, seeking annulment of their title to the ramshackle buildings adjacent to the house.\n8.  On 18 June 2003 the Justice of the Peace in the 64th Circuit of the Tsentralniy District of Krasnodar granted her claims. No appeal was lodged.\n9.  In 2004 Mr T. applied for supervisory review of the judgments of 1 March 2001 and 18 June 2003.\n10.  On 12 February 2004 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment of 18 June 2003 because the Justice of the Peace had misapplied the domestic law. Having re-examined the case, the Presidium issued a new judgment, rejecting the applicant's claims.\n11.  On the same date in the other case the Presidium also set aside the judgment of 1 March 2001 on account of procedural defects. In the Presidium's view, the first-instance court had misinterpreted the applicant's claim, had not supplied a legal basis for its findings, and had erroneously found that the defendant had admitted the claims. The Presidium re-examined the case and issued a new judgment rejecting the applicant's claims.\n12.  Both of the Presidium's judgments indicated that the parties had been notified of the hearing and had appeared before it.\n13.  On 21 July 2001 Mr T. applied for a court injunction to prevent the applicant from using a plot of land. By a default judgment of 30 October 2001, the Justice of the Peace in the 61st Circuit of the Tsentralniy District of Krasnodar granted the injunction. Upon the applicant's request, the Justice of the Peace revoked that judgment on 3 September 2002. On 21 November 2002 the Pervomayskiy District Court, sitting on appeal, decided that the default judgment should remain in force.\n14.  On 10 April 2003 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment of 21 November 2002 and remitted the case to the Justice of the Peace.\n15.  On 14 December 2004 the District Court discontinued the proceedings because the parties had repeatedly failed to attend hearings.\n16. The proceedings were resumed on an unspecified date. On 11 April 2006 the District Court endorsed a friendly settlement which had been reached by the parties.\n17.  On 27 February 2001 the Krasnodar Regional Court took a final decision rejecting the applicant's claims in an inheritance dispute.\n18.  The applicant was also an unsuccessful party to another land dispute. The final decision on that matter was taken by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 22 April 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4969", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Sochi, in the Krasnodar Region.\n6.  On 31 July 1998 the applicant, together with three other plaintiffs, Mr Kesyan, Ms Makarova and MP Kineskop, all represented by the same lawyer, filed an action against the Rostov Regional Department of the Federal Treasury and Mrs O. seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage on account of the unlawful seizure of goods.\n7. The first hearing was scheduled for 22 September 1998 but was adjourned owing to the judge's leave. The following hearing on 28 December 1998 did not take place owing to the defendants' failure to appear in court.\n8. On 11 February 1999, at the plaintiffs' request, the District Court ordered an expert examination and stayed the proceedings.\n9. In September 1999 the experts' report was received. In October and November 1999 the applicant's representative amended the claims.\n10. On 25 November 1999 the court proceedings were resumed.\n11. Between 25 November 1999 and 3 October 2000 the District Court listed eight hearings, of which three were adjourned because the defendants failed to attend and five because none of the parties attended.\n12. By a decision of 3 October 2000, the District Court declined to examine the applicant's claims on the merits on the ground of her repeated failure to appear in court.\n13. On 9 July 2001 the applicant's representative requested that the decision of 3 October 2000 be set aside for the reason that neither he, nor the applicant had been duly notified of the hearings. By a decision of 12 July 2001, the District Court allowed the request and resumed the proceedings.\n14. By a decision of 5 September 2001, the District Court invited the Taganrog Custom Service to join the civil proceedings as a third party.\n15. Upon the third party's request of 10 October 2001, the proceedings were stayed because a related administrative case had been pending before another court. On 30 September 2002 they were resumed.\n16. Between 30 September and 20 December 2002, three hearings were adjourned because the parties had failed to attend.\n17. On 20 December 2002 the District Court declined to examine the applicant's claims on the merits on the ground of her repeated failure to appear in court.\n18. The proceedings were resumed on 23 January 2004, at the request of the applicant's representative of 19 January 2004, because neither he, nor the applicant had been properly summoned to the hearings.\n19. Of ten hearings listed between 20 February and 16 November 2004, four hearings were adjourned owing to Mrs O.'s absence, two owing to the parties' absence, one at the request of the applicant's representatives and two because the presiding judge was on leave.\n20. By a judgment of 16 November 2004, the Kuybyshevskiy District Court dismissed the applicant's claim.  On 16 February 2005 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 16 November 2004 on appeal and remitted the matter to the first-instance court for fresh examination.\n21. The Kuybyshevskiy District Court listed the first hearing for 18 May 2005. Of three hearings fixed between 18 May and 28 June 2005, two were adjourned because the defendants failed to attend and one was adjourned at the defendants' request.\n22. On 28 June 2005, at the plaintiffs' request, the District Court ordered an expert examination and stayed the proceedings.\n23. The proceedings were later resumed and by a judgment of 15 December 2005 the Kyubyshevskiy District Court allowed the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4970", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in the town of Belgorod in the Belgorod Region.\n6.  On 29 December 1992 the applicant's husband bought municipal property, including the premises of a former restaurant. According to the applicant, several years later her husband, fearing for his life and for the safety of his family, signed a contract with a number of individuals, transferring title to the restaurant building to them.\n7.  On 5 May 2002 the applicant, in the interests of her minor child, lodged an action against her husband, seeking invalidation of the contract. She claimed that her husband had acted ultra vires while signing the contract, as he had not been the sole owner of the building. A part of the building had belonged to their minor child.\n8.  The Sverdlovskiy District Court of Belgorod accepted the claim for examination and listed a hearing.  However, on 13 August 2002 it transferred the case to the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region for further adjudication. The relevant part of the decision read as follows:\n“By virtue of paragraph 1 of Section 4 of the Code of Commercial Procedure of the Russian Federation, which entered into force on 6 August 2002, the present case falls into the jurisdiction of a commercial court.\nUnder Article 7 of the Federal Law “On Putting into Operation the Code of Commercial Procedure of the Russian Federation” cases which are in the process of adjudication by courts of general jurisdiction and which, according to the Code of Commercial Procedure..., have been placed under the jurisdiction of commercial courts, should be transferred by courts of general jurisdiction, with the plaintiff's consent, to commercial courts within two weeks after paragraph 1 of Section 4 of the Code of Commercial Procedure has entered into force... If the plaintiff does not consent to the transfer of the case from the court of general jurisdiction to the commercial court, the court of general jurisdiction discontinues the proceedings in the case at issue because the case is not within the jurisdiction of the court of general jurisdiction.\nAt the hearing the plaintiff, [the applicant], consented, which she had confirmed in writing, to the transfer of the case to the commercial court.\nThe court finds it necessary to transfer the case pertaining to the [applicant's] action against [her husband]... to the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region.”\nAn appeal against the District Court's decision could have been lodged before the Belgorod Regional Court within ten days.\n9.  On 17 October 2002 the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region discontinued the proceedings because it found that it had no jurisdiction over the claim.\n10.  On 10 December 2002 the Appeal Division of the Commercial Court of the Belgorod Region upheld the decision of 17 October 2002, endorsing the reasons given by the Commercial Court. On 24 March 2003 the Federal Commercial Court of the Central Circuit, in the final instance, upheld the decisions of 17 October and 10 December 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4971", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Snezhinsk, Chelyabinsk region. He is currently serving a prison sentence in the Chelyabinsk region.\n6.  On 16 July 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery.\n7.  On 18 July 2003 the Snezhinsk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk region (“the Town Court”) released the applicant on an undertaking not to leave the town.\n8.  On 23 July 2003 the Town Court remanded the applicant in custody. It held that his detention was justified on the ground of his previous convictions, the gravity of the offence, and the risk that he would abscond, obstruct investigation of the case, commit another crime or hinder the execution of the sentence.\n9.  On 25 July 2003 the applicant's counsel Ye. appealed against the detention order of 23 July 2003. He contested the grounds on which the applicant had been placed in detention. On the same date the Town Court registered the appeal as no. 132.\n10.  It follows from the Government's submissions, confirmed by a copy of the record of the outgoing mail of the Town Court, that on 28 July 2003 the Town Court sent copies of the grounds of appeal to the applicant, the investigating authorities and the prosecutor's office. On 4 August 2003 the Town Court sent a notification about the examination of the appeal by the Regional Court on 14 August 2003 to the detention facility in which the applicant was detained and to his counsel. However, the Government did not submit any document confirming that the applicant or his lawyer had received that notification. On 7 August 2003 the appeal materials reached the Chelyabinsk Regional Court (“the Regional Court”).\n11.  According to the applicant, neither he nor his lawyer received the notification of the appeal hearing.\n12.  On 14 August 2003 the Regional Court examined the appeal in the absence of the applicant and his counsel. The Prosecutor, who was present at the hearing, considered that the appeal should be dismissed. The Regional Court upheld the detention order of 23 July 2003, finding it lawful and duly reasoned.\n13.  Subsequently the Town Court extended the applicant's detention on 17 and 26 September 2003. The applicant did not appeal against those extension orders.\n14.  On 4 November 2003 the Town Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. On 15 January 2004 the Regional Court upheld the applicant's conviction and reduced the term of imprisonment to eight years.\n15.  On 13 April 2005 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation granted the applicant's request for supervisory review of the judgment of 4 November 2003, as upheld on 15 January 2004, and remitted the case for examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Regional Court. On 1 June 2005 the Presidium of the Regional Court upheld the applicant's conviction.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4972", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter referred to as “the Constitution” or “the State Constitution” when it is necessary to distinguish it from the Entity Constitutions) is an annex to the 1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Dayton Agreement”), initialled at Dayton on 21 November 1995 and signed in Paris on 14 December 1995. Since it was part of a peace treaty, the Constitution was drafted and adopted without the application of procedures which could have provided democratic legitimacy. It constitutes the unique case of a constitution which was never officially published in the official languages of the country concerned but was agreed and published in a foreign language, English. The Constitution confirmed the continuation of the legal existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a State, while modifying its internal structure. In accordance with the Constitution, Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of two Entities: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. The Dayton Agreement failed to resolve the Inter-Entity Boundary Line in the Brčko area, but the parties agreed to a binding arbitration in this regard (Article V of Annex 2 to the Dayton Agreement). Pursuant to an arbitral award of 5 March 1999, the Brčko District has been created under the exclusive sovereignty of the State.\n7.  In the Preamble to the Constitution, Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs are described as “constituent peoples”. At the State level, power-sharing arrangements were introduced, making it impossible to adopt decisions against the will of the representatives of any “constituent people”, including a vital interest veto, an Entity veto, a bicameral system (with a House of Peoples composed of five Bosniacs and the same number of Croats from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and five Serbs from the Republika Srpska) as well as a collective Presidency of three members with a Bosniac and a Croat from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and a Serb from the Republika Srpska (for more details, see paragraphs 12 and 22 below).\n8.  The applicants were born in 1956 and 1943 respectively. They have held and still hold prominent public positions. Mr Sejdić is now the Roma Monitor of the Organisation on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, having previously served as a member of the Roma Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the highest representative body of the local Roma community) and a member of the Advisory Committee for Roma (a joint body comprising representatives of the local Roma community and of the relevant ministries). Mr Finci is now serving as the Ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Switzerland, having previously held positions that included being the President of the Inter-Religious Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Head of the State Civil Service Agency.\n9.  The applicants describe themselves to be of Roma and Jewish origin respectively. Since they do not declare affiliation with any of the “constituent peoples”, they are ineligible to stand for election to the House of Peoples (the second chamber of the State Parliament) and the Presidency (the collective Head of State). Mr Finci obtained official confirmation in this regard on 3 January 2007.\n10.  The Dayton Agreement, initialled at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton (the United States of America) on 21 November 1995 and signed in Paris (France) on 14 December 1995,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4973", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Nowogród Bobrzański.\n6.  On 4 February 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant.\n7.  On 2 January 2007 the applicant was indicted before the Jelenia Góra Regional Court. He was charged with several counts of robbery. The bill of indictment comprised 14 accused.\n8.  On 9 March 2007 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court found that it had no competence to deal with the case and referred it to the Zielona Góra Regional Court.\n9.  On 22 June 2007 the case was remitted to the Zielona Góra Regional Prosecutor in connection with another investigation conducted against one of the applicant’s co-accused.\n10.  The first hearing was set down for 23 January 2008; however, on 22 January 2008, it was adjourned as the applicant’s co-accused’s counsel had not been properly summoned.\n11.  The hearing, scheduled for 28 February 2008 was adjourned as a motion for the judge to step down was to be considered.\n12.  A subsequent hearing, listed for 15 April 2008, was cancelled because it was not possible for the police to bring the applicant’s co-accused from prison.\n13.  The hearing, scheduled for 20 May 2008, was adjourned as priority had been given to another case.\n14.  The hearing, scheduled for 21 May 2008, was adjourned as another motion for the judge to step down was to be considered.\n15.  As of August 2009 the proceedings were still pending.\n16.  On 16 June 2008 the applicant filed with the Poznań Court of Appeal a complaint about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in respect of the criminal proceedings instituted against him and asked for just satisfaction. He relied on the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”), which entered into force on 17 September 2004.\n17.  The applicant stressed that he had been detained while awaiting his trial and sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Zielona Góra Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (the equivalent of approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).\n18.  On 19 June 2008 the Poznań Court of Appeal gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Zielona Góra Regional Court, finding that there had been a period of unjustified inactivity from 26 March 2007 until 5 December 2007. However, the court did not grant any just satisfaction to the applicant, pointing out that the decision whether to grant compensation in such proceedings was facultative.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4974", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Kraków.\n8.  On 5 September 2000 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed rape and uttered threats against a certain I.K. On 7 September 2000 he was brought before the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) and, upon the application of the Kraków-Śródmieście District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy), detained on remand for 3 months starting from the date of his arrest, that is, until 5 December 2000.\n9.  The court held that the evidence against the applicant, in particular his partial confession, justified a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged. It also considered that there was a considerable risk that the applicant, if released, would obstruct the proceedings against him or induce witnesses to give false testimony. Moreover, one of the offences in question (rape) carried a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, which made it likely that a severe penalty would be imposed on him. In sum, in the court’s opinion, keeping the applicant in custody was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\nEarlier, the applicant and I.K. had been in a relationship that had lasted some 4 years, but they had terminated it several months before the above events.\n10.  As regards the circumstances surrounding I.K.’s decision to ask the prosecution to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant, the Government submitted that, when testifying during the initial stage of the proceedings, she had stated that she had been afraid to terminate their relationship because she had been threatened by the applicant, and that on several occasions he had beaten her. On 21 December 2000, when the District Prosecutor again heard evidence from her, she confirmed her decision.\n11.  In the meantime, on 27 November 2000, the Kraków-Śródmieście District Court had extended the applicant’s detention until 5 January 2001, holding that the grounds stated in the initial decision remained valid. It added that his detention was necessary to secure the process of obtaining evidence from experts in sexology, forensic psychiatry and psychology.\n12.  The applicant appealed on 1 December 2000. He contested the factual basis for the rape charge, arguing that it was doubtful whether his acts could be qualified as rape, in particular as they had been directed against his co-habitee, I.K., whom he had beaten during intercourse because she had told him that she had had a relationship with another man. He had already confessed to battery. Moreover, since in his view it was the victim’s evidence, not his, that was the most relevant for the outcome of the proceedings, there was no risk of his exerting pressure on her. He also relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, maintaining that, in these particular circumstances, his detention amounted to serving a prison sentence.\n13.  The appeal was examined and rejected by the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 16 January 2001. The court held that the charges against the applicant were supported by the existing evidence and that keeping him in detention was justified by a serious risk of collusion and of his interfering with the collection of evidence. These conclusions were based on the fact that the applicant had threatened the victim and used physical violence against her, and that one of the offences carried a severe penalty.\n14.  Meanwhile, on 3 January 2001, the Kraków-Śródmieś", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4975", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Bratislava. Between 1995 and 1998 he was the Director of the Slovak Information Service (Slovenská informačná služba), the Slovakian intelligence service. In September 1998 he was elected as a member of the National Council of the Slovak Republic (the Parliament) for a four-year term.\n6.  The applicant was summoned to give an explanation to a police investigator on 5 December 2002. On that day the investigator arrested the applicant and issued a decision in which he accused him of incitement to commit murder, abuse of authority and the mishandling of information classified as a State secret. The decision stated that the applicant was suspected of having prevented the proper investigation of the offence of abduction of the son of the then President of Slovakia abroad (for further details concerning that case see also Lexa v. Slovakia, no. 54334/00, §§ 9-63, 23 September 2008).\n7.  In particular, the decision referred to an extensive investigation including several statements of experts, documentary evidence obtained from the Slovak Intelligence Service, the examination of 58 witnesses including 8 witnesses whose identity was not disclosed and other evidence. The information thus obtained sufficiently justified the conclusion that the applicant, in his capacity as Director of the Slovak Intelligence Service, had taken the action described below with a view to (i) preventing the offence of abduction of the President’s son in 1995 from being elucidated, (ii) threatening F., a former member of the Slovak Intelligence Service, who had confirmed the involvement of the secret service in that offence and who had later been forced to hide abroad and (iii) preventing witness R. from maintaining contact with F. and killing the former. The applicant was accused of offering 2 million Slovak korunas (SKK) to S. to kill R. In that context, the applicant was suspected of having arranged for the monitoring of several persons and had transmitted the information thus obtained to S. despite the fact that it had been classified as “strictly secret”. S. had asked at least five persons to kill R. After the first attempt had failed, the perpetrators had activated, in April 1996, an explosive device which had been attached to R.’s car. The car had caught fire and R. had died inside. The investigator’s decision referred to a different set of proceedings brought against two persons accused of having activated the device.\n8.  The applicant immediately filed a complaint against the decision which a public prosecutor dismissed on the same day. The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be remanded in custody pursuant to Article 67 § 1 (a), (b) and Article 67 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n9.  On 7 December 2002 the applicant, in the presence of two lawyers, was heard by a judge of the Bratislava I District Court. The applicant stated that he knew neither R. nor the persons allegedly involved in his killing. His deprivation of liberty was arbitrary. The evidence on which the investigator relied had not been obtained in accordance with the relevant provisions of the criminal law and, as such, it could not be used in proceedings before a court. The applicant also complained that the investigator had not allowed him or his lawyers to consult the file without relying on any relevant reason. The judge informed the applicant that he would not put the file at his disposal as, at that stage of proceedings, such a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4976", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Krutoyarovka, Ukraine.\n6.  On 2 January 2001 the applicant's son was hit by a car and died a few hours later in hospital. The driver fled from the scene of the accident. A criminal investigation was initiated, but was suspended on 14 November 2001 because it had been impossible to identify the driver. The car had belonged at some stage to a police officer (S.) working in Chişinău. On the same day, a prosecutor sent a letter to the applicant informing him of the decision taken and of his right to read that decision in the prosecutor's office.\n7.  On 29 November 2002 Mr Papuc, the Moldovan Minister of Internal Affairs, informed the applicant that the investigation had established the identity of the driver, and that the case had been sent for further investigation by the prosecution. According to the letter, the criminal investigation had started on 11 January 2001. In response to the applicant's complaint that his son had been killed in order to obtain his internal organs for a transplant, the Minister informed him that the autopsy of the applicant's son's body had not revealed any missing internal organs.\n8.  On 8 September 2003 a prosecutor decided to reopen the investigation into the applicant's son's death. He found that the decision of 14 November 2001 (see paragraph 6 above) had been taken unlawfully since the investigation into the circumstances of the case had been carried out “in a manifestly unilateral and superficial manner”. He noted, in particular, that during the interviews in early 2001 witness R.H., who had said that she was a passenger in the car which had hit the applicant's son, had mentioned that her son B.H., who was 13 years old at the time and could not be held criminally liable, had been driving the car at the time of the accident. B.H. confirmed that statement. However, subsequently both withdrew their statements. B.H. declared that I., his relative living in Tatarbunar, had been driving the car. Moreover, it became clear during the investigation that B.H. did not know how to drive a car. The prosecutor had not identified and interviewed the driver of the taxi which had allegedly taken R.H. home from the scene of the accident. The list of telephone calls made by R.H. and by S. before and after 2 January 2001 had not been obtained and analysed. In addition, eyewitness P.O. remembered the face of the driver and subsequently recognised him at an identity parade as being officer S.\n9.  In reply to a complaint made by the applicant on an unknown date, on 31 January 2003 the Prosecutor General's Office informed him that operational measures were being taken to identify the person responsible for his son's death.\n10.  On an unspecified date in August 2004 the applicant wrote to the Prosecutor General's Office, asking about the reasons for the delays in the investigation. He also inquired as to why no complaint had been lodged and no investigation had been carried out into the theft of the car which had hit his son. If that car had not been stolen, then it was unclear why its owner had not been prosecuted.\n11.  In a letter dated 10 October 2004, the Prosecutor General's Office informed the applicant that it had established a failure to perform, in a timely manner, the required investigation and operational measures. Consequently, the decision to discontinue the investigation was annulled and the case was sent for further investigation. The case was transferred to a group of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4977", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 25 November 2002 the applicant company dismissed M. from his job. On 20 December 2002 M. initiated court proceedings seeking his re-instatement.\n7.  After numerous postponements of the hearing at M.’s request, the Buiucani District Court found in his favour on 5 February 2004.\n8.  The applicant company appealed. On 22 April 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and adopted a new one, rejecting all of M.’s claims. The court found that M. had not submitted any evidence to support his claim that on 1 November 2002, when he was absent from work, he had been at a close relative’s funeral.\n9.  M. lodged an appeal in cassation. The first hearing before the Supreme Court of Justice was scheduled for 23 June 2004. On 18 June 2004 the applicant company informed the court that its representative would be away for the day and asked for a postponement of the hearing.\n10.  According to the applicant company, it did not hear from the court and thus did not submit its written reply to M.’s appeal, as it was waiting for a summons for a new date. On 15 July 2004 it enquired about the new date of the hearing. In response, it was informed that M.’s appeal had been examined on 7 July 2004 and fully allowed.\n11.  In its judgment, the court relied, inter alia, on evidence of M.’s presence at a close relative’s funeral and on the trade union association’s opposition to the dismissal.\n12.  Having examined the materials in the file, the applicant company found that its request for a postponement had been accepted by the court on 23 June 2004 and a new date for the hearing had been set for 7 July 2004. There was also a summons for that date, which had been signed only by M.\n13.  The applicant company lodged a request for revision of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice. It informed the court that it had not received any summons for 7 July 2004 and drew the court’s attention to the absence in the file of any evidence regarding the delivery of the summons. It invoked Article 6 of the Convention.\n14.  On 27 October 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the request. It found that the court had sent the summons to the applicant company’s address on 24 June 2004 and that the applicant company had failed to appear at the hearing on 7 July 2009 without informing the court. The court did not see any reason to believe that the applicant company had not received the summons since the stub from the summons proved that it had been sent out and since “there was no evidence that the summons had not been received”. It added that, under Article 444 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP, see below), the failure of one of the parties to appear did not prevent the court from examining the case and that, under Article 449 CCP, the examination of the case in the absence of a party was not a ground for the revision of the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4978", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 15 December 1993 a State-owned bank, Lietuvos valstybinis komercinis bankas, brought a civil action against the applicant, alleging that the latter had failed to repay a number of loans granted to his companies.\n6.  On 30 August 1994 the Kėdainiai District Court granted the bank’s claim in the sum of 97,563.60 Lithuanian litas (LTL) against the applicant’s personal venture “Nida”. On 28 May 1997 another State owned bank, the Turto bankas, became the successor of the creditor’s claim.\n7.  On 24 January 1995 in the above-mentioned civil case the Kėdainiai District Court ordered the seizure of the applicant’s company’s vehicles.\n8.  On the same day the prosecution instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion that the loans from the Lietuvos valstybinis komercinis bankas had been obtained by fraud on a large scale (sukčiavimas stambiu mastu) (Article 274 § 3 of the Criminal Code as then in force).\n9.  The applicant was summoned as a witness for questioning before the prosecutors on 23 February 1995. However, he failed to appear.\n10.  On 12 April 1995 the Lietuvos akcinis inovacinis bankas submitted a civil claim in the sum of LTL 97,536 in the criminal proceedings against the applicant.\n11.  On 13 April 1995 the prosecution opened a new set of criminal proceedings under the then Article 274 § 3 of the Criminal Code concerning another episode of alleged large-scale fraud and Article 316 of the Criminal Code for deliberate failure to repay loans (skolininko nesąžiningumas ir apgaulė). 15.  On 31 August 1995 the Lietuvos valstybinis komercinis bankas submitted a civil claim against the applicant in the sum of nearly 3,000,000 LTL. On 30 March 1998 the Turto bankas took over the former creditor’s claim against the applicant. 17.  On 23 October 1996 the Kėdainiai District Court found that the pre-trial examination had been incomplete and returned the case to the prosecution. The court also decided to charge two Lietuvos valstybinis komercinis bankas employees, M.B. and R.L., who were suspected of aiding and abetting the applicant. 18.  On 29 January 1997 a new set of criminal proceedings was opened. The applicant was accused of selling or hiding property that could have been used for the repayment of his loans (Article 316 § 1 of the Criminal Code). 20.  On 11 February 1998 the civil proceedings against the applicant were discontinued, since the civil claim was submitted in the criminal proceedings against him. 23.  On 26 October 1998 new charges on three counts of forgery of official documents (the then Article 207 § 2 of the Criminal Code) were brought against the applicant. 24.  On 7 January 1999 the prosecution approved the bill of indictment. During the pre-trial investigation it was established that the applicant, together with M.B. and R.L., had acted in an organised group and from 1991 to 1993 had embezzled and stolen (iššvaistė ir pasisavino) money from the Lietuvos valstybinis komercinis bankas in the sum of LTL 750,181 (approximately 217,254 euros (EUR)). They were also suspected of having forged nine credit and mortgage agreements (kredito sutartis ir turto įkeitimo sutartis), thereby having caused significant damage to the State. The charges against the applicant and the two co-accused amounted to 44 counts of fraud, forgery and unlawfully obtaining the property of another. 25.  On 28 March 2001 the Kėdainiai District Court, at the request of the applicant’s counsel, returned the case for additional pre-trial investigation. O", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4979", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and is currently serving a life sentence in Kocaeli prison.\n6.  The facts of the case are disputed between the parties. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in section B below (see paragraphs 7‑13). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in section C below (see paragraphs 14-17). Documentary evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in section D below (see paragraphs 18‑48).\n7.  On 24 October 1997 the applicant, his wife, their 11-year old son, the applicant’s brother and the latter’s partner and a female friend were arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely Türkiye Komünist Emek Partisi/Leninist (the Communist Labour Party of Turkey/Leninist, (“the TKEP-L”)). They were taken into custody at the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul police headquarters. The applicant was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment amounting to torture while in police custody and was coerced into signing statements.\n8.  On 27 October 1997 the applicant was taken to a doctor. The doctor observed that both of the applicant’s wrists were swollen, that the functioning of his right wrist was restricted and that the left wrist was sensitive.\n9.  On 31 October 1997 the applicant and the other detainees were brought before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court. The applicant denied the veracity of the statements that had been taken from him by the police. He further alleged that he had been subjected to torture, and gave a detailed account of the treatment he had suffered. He also requested the public prosecutor to initiate an investigation against the police officers who had ill-treated him.\n10.  On the same day, the applicant was examined by a forensic expert who observed that the applicant’s wrists and fingers were unable to perform certain movements.\n11.  The prosecutor’s office at the Istanbul State Security Court asked for an investigation to be carried out into the applicant’s allegations of ill‑treatment. On an unspecified date, the Fatih public prosecutor instigated an investigation against the police officers working at the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul police headquarters. This investigation was concluded by a decision taken by the prosecutor on 3 February 1998 not to prosecute the police officers for want of sufficient evidence. The objection lodged by the applicant against that decision was rejected by the Beyoğlu Assize Court on 17 May 2000.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to Kandıra prison. During that transfer he was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment by military officers.\n13.  On 16 February 2001 the applicant’s lawyer visited him in Kandıra prison. The prison authorities prevented the lawyer from giving the applicant a number of documents concerning the applicant’s appeal because the lawyer had refused to submit those documents to the authorities for inspection first.\n14.  The applicant was arrested by police officers on 24 October 1997 in the course of an investigation into the activities of the TKEP/L. He was placed in police custody at the anti-terrorist branch of the Diyarbakır (sic) police headquarters. It was established that the applicant was the Secretary General of the TKEP/L.\n15.  On 25 October 1997 the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court authorised the applicant’s detention in custody until 28 October 1997. On 28 October 1997, a judge at the Istanbul Security Cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4980", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  In 1997 the Vilnius City tax authorities investigated the applicant company’s book-keeping. On 21 April 1997 they drew up a report in which the results of the investigation were recorded.\n5.  From 21 April 1997 to May 1997 the tax authorities conducted a further investigation into the applicant company’s accounting practices. On 27 May 1997 the Vilnius City tax authority drafted a supplement to the report of 21 April 1997. The report stated that the company’s book-keeping was fraudulent. The tax authorities fined the applicant company in the amount of 4,044,643 Lithuanian litai (LTL, about 1,171,409 euros (EUR)), which corresponded to 25% of the company’s annual income. In addition, the law enforcement authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the company’s director and chief financial officer.\n6.  Refusing to pay the fine, on 18 September 1997 the applicant company instituted court proceedings.\n7.  On 23 December 1997 the Vilnius City First District Court granted the applicant company’s action. The Vilnius City tax authority appealed, and on 10 April 1998 the Vilnius Regional Court quashed the lower court’s decision, returning the case for a fresh examination. The court noted that additional evidence had to be established.\n8.  On 13 January 1999 the law enforcement institutions, who had been investigating the criminal case against the company’s director and chief financial officer, commissioned the Department of Revisions to carry out an expert examination of the company’s documents.\n9.  On 16 May 2000 the Vilnius City First District Court granted the applicant company’s action. On 26 June 2000 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the lower court’s decision. On 20 December 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions on the ground that not all the relevant circumstances had been established. In particular, the lower courts had failed to obtain the results of the above mentioned expert examination, those results being necessary to rule on the lawfulness of the tax authorities’ decision to fine the applicant company. The Supreme Court returned the case for fresh examination.\n10.  As transpires from the minutes of the hearing of the Vilnius City First District Court of 31 May 2001, the applicant company’s representative requested that court to stay the proceedings pending the result of the expert examination of the company’s documents. The Vilnius City tax authority’s representative did not object to that demand. Noting the Supreme Court’s instruction to the same effect, the Vilnius City First District Court granted an adjournement.\n11.  Having finished the expert examination, on 6 September 2002 the Department of Revisions drew up the report and on 14 February 2003 submitted it to the Vilnius City First District Court. On 17 February 2003 the investigators informed the court that they had discontinued criminal proceedings against the company’s director and chief financial officer.\n12.  On 6 March 2003 the court proceedings resumed.\n13.  On 17 March 2003 the tax authority reduced the fine to the amount of LTL 808,929 (approximately EUR 231,122 or 5% of the company’s annual income) in the light of amendments to the tax legislation.\n14.  On 14 April 2003 the Vilnius City First District Court dismissed the applicant company’s action. It established that a significant part of the applicant company’s books were damaged or missing, and that the records of financial transactions had been deleted from its databases. The c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4981", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Bozieni.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  At the time of the events, the applicant was a student at the State University in Tiraspol located in Chişinău.\n8.  On 3 February 2000 P. complained to the Centru Police Station in Chişinău that he had been robbed on 27 December 1999 by three unidentified persons. He suspected that one of those persons was the applicant.\n9.  A criminal investigation was initiated. On 31 March 2000 a student of the police academy, A.P., knocked at the applicant’s door at approximately 7.30 in the morning. Having opened the door, the applicant was forced to follow A.P. out to the street, where he was forced into a car belonging to P. Another student from the police academy, A.R., was waiting in the car.\n10.  According to the applicant, he received blows from A.P. and A.R. all the way to the Centru Police Station. Upon his arrival at the station, the applicant was taken up to office no. 508. The applicant alleges that he was ill-treated in that office by A.P. and A.R. and by another plain-clothed person, whose identity he did not know at the time. He made this complaint to the prosecution.\n11.  The applicant was invited to confess to having robbed P. When he refused, A.P. and A.R. tied his hands and feet together behind his back and he was suspended on a metal bar placed on two adjacent tables (a position called “swallow” akin to “Palestinian hanging”). He then received truncheon blows to the soles of his feet and was kicked and punched in various parts of his body. A gas mask was put on his face and cigarette smoke was blown into the air access tube, causing him to suffocate. That tube was later attached to his penis. His captors also inserted a glass bottle into his anus three times. At one time he lost consciousness.\n12.  Later on that day the applicant was taken to a prosecutor’s office. In view of clear signs of ill-treatment on the applicant’s body, the prosecutor ordered a medical examination to establish whether he had been ill-treated.\n13.  According to the applicant, the investigator responsible for the criminal investigation into P.’s complaint was officer O. This officer had never delegated any power of investigation or arrest to any other officer, including officers C., A.P. and A.R..\n14.  On 3 April 2000 the applicant was examined by a group of forensic doctors, who found that he had been injured. In particular, he had a black eye and a bruise on his chest of 10 x 7 cm, and had suffered head trauma and anal damage. The doctors excluded the possibility that the injuries could have been sustained as a result of a fall. Later that day he was admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of head trauma.\n15.  On the same date the criminal investigation against the applicant was discontinued, but he was allegedly not informed about it until much later, on an unspecified date.\n16.  In a statement made on 12 April 2000 A.P. mentioned, inter alia, that while the applicant was being questioned a person who was not part of the police force, R.B., was also present. No violence had been used against the applicant, who had been arrested on the orders of investigator C.\n17.  On 15 June 2000 a criminal investigation was initiated against A.P. and A.R.\n18.  The applicant underwent two more medical examinations, on 28 June and 24 July 2000, which confirmed the injuries caused to him. The last examination concluded that it c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4983", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Gorno Lakocerej.\n5.  On an unspecified date in 1991, the applicant, as a successful litigant, instituted enforcement proceedings against the Croatian company “Fruktus”, (“the debtor”), for payment of a debt.\n6.  On 6 June 1991 the then Ohrid Municipal Court (“the first-instance court”) upheld the applicant's request ordering the debtor to transfer the amount due on his account (“the 1991 order”).\n7.  On 20 June 1991 the Zagreb Payment Exchange Bureau (Служба за општествено книговодство Загреб) (“the Bureau”) transferred part of the debt on the applicant's account.\n8.  On 4 February 1992 the applicant requested the court to enforce the remainder. On 19 February 1992 the first-instance court granted this request.\n9. On 9 November 1992 it rejected as out of time the debtor's objection on the 1991 order. On 19 March 1993 the Bitola District Court dismissed an appeal of the debtor against this latter decision rejecting its argument that normal communication had been disrupted because of the war conflict in Croatia at the material time.\n10.  On 20 September 1993 the first-instance court unsuccessfully requested the applicant to propose an alternative means of enforcement. On 8 November 1994 it stayed the proceedings finding that the enforcement of the remainder, by the means proposed by the applicant, had become impossible due to the dissolution of the then Federal Bureau of Yugoslavia and the creation of the Bureau, as an autonomous institution of the independent Croatia.\n11.  On 11 July 1995 the Bitola District Court upheld the applicant's appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It held that the dissolution of the then Federal Bureau of Yugoslavia could not be regarded as a valid ground for suspending the enforcement. It ordered the lower court to contact the Ministry of Justice so as to establish whether an inter-state agreement existed between the respondent State and Croatia concerning the payment exchange operations. No further decision has been taken.\n12.  On 31 August 2001 the case-file was destroyed. According to the Government, all case-files involving a foreign debtor were destroyed on the basis of an internal act of competent courts. There is no evidence that that was brought to the applicant's attention. The queries which he made at an unspecified date in 2003 revealed that the case had been archived.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4985", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n13.  The applicant, Mr Nikolay Mikhaylovich Rantsev, is a Russian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Svetlogorsk, Russia. He is the father of Ms Oxana Rantseva, also a Russian national, born in 1980.\n14.  The facts of the case, as established by the submissions of the parties and the material submitted by them, in particular the witness statements taken by the Cypriot police, may be summarised as follows.\n15.  Oxana Rantseva arrived in Cyprus on 5 March 2001. On 13 February 2001, X.A., the owner of a cabaret in Limassol, had applied for an “artiste” visa and work permit for Ms Rantseva to allow her to work as an artiste in his cabaret (see further paragraph 115 below). The application was accompanied by a copy of Ms Rantseva’s passport, a medical certificate, a copy of an employment contract (apparently not yet signed by Ms Rantseva) and a bond, signed by [X.A.] Agencies, in the following terms (original in English):\n“KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that I [X.A.] of L/SSOL Am bound to the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Cyprus in the sum of £150 to be paid to the said Minister of the Interior or other the [sic] Minister of Interior for the time being or his attorney or attorneys.\nSealed with my seal.\nDated the 13th day of February 2001\nWHEREAS Ms Oxana RANTSEVA of RUSSIA\nHereinafter called the immigrant, (which expression shall where the context so admits be deemed to include his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns) is entering Cyprus and I have undertaken that the immigrant shall not become in need of relief in Cyprus during a period of five years from the date hereof and I have undertaken to replay [sic] to the Republic of Cyprus any sum which the Republic of Cyprus may pay for the relief or support of the immigrant (the necessity for which relief and support the Minister shall be the sole judge) or for the axpenses [sic] of repatriating the immigrant from Cyprus within a period of five years from the date hereof.\nNOW THE CONDITION OF THE ABOVE WRITTEN BOND is such that if the immigrant or myself, my heirs, executors, administrators and assigns shall repay to the Republic of Cyprus on demand any sum which the Republic of Cyprus may have paid as aforesaid for the relief or Support of the immigrant or for the expenses of repatriation of the immigrant from Cyprus then the above written bond shall be void but otherwise shall remain in full force.”\n16.  Ms Rantseva was granted a temporary residence permit as a visitor until 9 March 2001. She stayed in an apartment with other young women working in X.A.’s cabaret. On 12 March 2001 she was granted a permit to work until 8 June 2001 as an artiste in a cabaret owned by X.A. and managed by his brother, M.A. She began work on 16 March 2001.\n17.  On 19 March 2001, at around 11a.m., M.A. was informed by the other women living with Ms Rantseva that she had left the apartment and taken all her belongings with her. The women told him that she had left a note in Russian saying that she was tired and wanted to return to Russia. On the same date M.A. informed the Immigration Office in Limassol that Ms Rantseva had abandoned her place of work and residence. According to M.A.’s subsequent witness statement, he wanted Ms Rantseva to be arrested and expelled from Cyprus so that he could bring another girl to work in the cabaret. However, Ms Rantseva’s name was not entered on the list of persons wanted by the police.\n18.  On 28 March 2001, at around 4 a.m., Ms Rantseva was seen in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4986", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1922 and 1957 respectively and live in Bonn and Wiesbaden.\n6.  The first applicant was the owner of a plot of land with a landmarked house at the corner of Rheinstrasse, a main traffic artery with six lanes, and a square known as “Luisenplatz” in Wiesbaden. In 1983/84 that square was reshaped and an underground car park was built close to the first applicant's property. Between 1988 and 1993 several events and demonstrations took place on the square which caused noise. Furthermore several new road traffic regulations in Wiesbaden city resulted in an increased volume of traffic next to the first applicant's property. He therefore instituted several different sets of proceedings against the Wiesbaden local authorities.\n7.  In the end of 1995 the first applicant agreed before a notary to transfer the property to his son, the second applicant. In 1997 the second applicant was listed as the real estate's owner in the land register (Grundbuch). The first applicant was granted a right of enjoyment over his son's property (Nießbrauch). The second applicant represented the first applicant throughout the proceedings before the German courts.\n8.  On 29 April 1985 the second applicant asked the Wiesbaden trade supervision department (Gewerbeamt) to inform him whether there were plans to examine the influence of noise emissions on the first applicant's property. Between 1986 and 21 December 1990 the first applicant requested the Wiesbaden local authorities on several occasions to reimburse him the costs (notwendige Aufwendungen) incurred by him for noise remediation measures taken to protect him against noise caused by the construction works and, thereafter, the events and demonstrations carried out on Luisenplatz and by the increased volume of traffic. Furthermore he made official liability claims concerning his noise remediation measures and claimed damages for depreciation of his property.\n9.  On 2 April 1991 the first applicant lodged an action for failure to act (Untätigkeitsklage) with the Wiesbaden Administrative Court pursuant to section 75 of the Code of Administrative Court Procedures (see “Relevant domestic law” below) because the local authorities had not yet decided on his request of 21 December 1990.\n10.  On 4 June 1991 the Wiesbaden Administrative Court declared his action inadmissible.\n11.  On 14 August 1991 the first applicant appealed to the Hessen Administrative Court of Appeal.\n12. On 3 January 1992 he submitted a statement of grounds, which the Administrative Court of Appeal sent to the defendants on 7 January 1992.\n13.  On 12 July 1996 the Administrative Court of Appeal asked the parties whether they would waive an oral hearing and consent to a decision by a single judge. On 22 April 1997 and on 20 July 1997 they gave their consent.\n14.  On 24 February 1998 the Administrative Court of Appeal severed the official liability claims and the claim for damages in relation to the depreciation of the property and gave them a new file number (14 UE 794/98).\n(b) Reimbursement of costs of noise protection measures (no. 4 E 299/91)\n15.  By a judgment of 24 February 1998 the Administrative Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the Administrative Court of 4 June 1991 as to the reimbursement of costs for noise protection measures and referred the case to the Administrative Court for fresh consideration.\n16.  On 28 April 1998 the Administrative Court received the case files from the Administrative Court of App", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4987", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1936 and 1960 respectively and live in Sofia. The first applicant is the second applicant’s mother.\n6.  In 1969 the first applicant and her husband bought from the Sofia municipality an apartment which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1947.\n7.  On 22 February 1993 the heir of the pre-nationalisation owner of the apartment brought proceedings against the first applicant and her husband, alleging that their title to the apartment was null and void and seeking the restoration of his own title.\n8.  The case was examined by the Sofia District Court, which dismissed the action in a judgment of 17 July 1995. On an appeal by the former owner’s heir, on 10 June 1996 the Sofia City Court reversed and allowed the claim.\n9.  On an unspecified date in the summer of 1996 the first applicant and her husband filed a petition for review (cassation). While the case was pending before the Supreme Court of Cassation, on an unspecified date, most likely in 1998, they also sought the reopening of the proceedings. Under domestic law at the time, they were entitled to do so in view of the fact that the judgment of the Sofia City Court was formally considered to be final. The first applicant and her husband sought reopening on the basis of newly-discovered evidence, namely an instruction of the Ministry of Architecture and Public Works of 1968 concerning the sale of State-owned apartments.\n10.  The Supreme Court of Cassation held a hearing on 10 November 1998 and dealt both with the petition for review (cassation) submitted in 1996 and the request for reopening submitted in 1998. In a judgment of 2 March 1999 it reopened the proceedings, finding that the first applicant and her husband could not have been aware of the newly-discovered document earlier. It quashed the judgment of the Sofia City Court of 10 June 1996 and remitted the case. Accordingly, it held that it would not examine the petition for review (cassation).\n11.  The case was remitted to the Sofia City Court, which held its only hearing on 21 June 2001. Although it took into account the 1968 instruction of the Ministry of Architecture and Public Works on the basis of which the proceedings had been reopened, the domestic court reached again the conclusion that the title of the first applicant and her husband was null and void. In a judgment of 3 August 2001 it allowed the claim against them.\n12.  On 29 October 2001 the first applicant and her husband appealed against that judgment in cassation.\n13.  On 9 March 2002 the first applicant’s husband passed away and was succeeded by the two applicants. The second applicant joined the proceedings.\n14.  The Supreme Court of Cassation held two hearings on 18 March and 4 November 2003. In a final judgment of 9 December 2003 it upheld the Sofia City Court’s judgment of 3 August 2001 whereby the title of the first applicant and her husband had been found to be null and void.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4988", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1926 and 1927 respectively. The second applicant lives in Sofia. The two applicants were spouses.\n8.  In 1966 they bought from the Sofia municipality an apartment of 81 square metres, located in the centre of the city, which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following years.\n9.  At the beginning of 1993 the heir of the former pre-nationalisation owners of the property brought proceedings against the applicants under section 7 of the Restitution Law.\n10.  By judgments of 24 September 1996 and 10 July 1998 the Sofia District Court and the Sofia City Court allowed the claim. They found the applicants’ title to be null and void on two grounds: 1) no decision of the mayor to initiate the sale procedure had been found in the case file; nor had the applicants established that such a decision had existed but had been lost or destroyed; 2) the sale had not been approved by the Minister of Finance, as required by law, but by one of his deputies.\n11.  The applicants did not submit a petition for review (cassation).\n12.  On an unspecified date in 1998 they vacated the apartment. In May 1999 they were granted the tenancy of a municipal apartment of 51 square metres.\n13.  Following the judgment of 10 July 1998 the applicants applied to receive compensation bonds, which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. In December 2000 they obtained bonds with a total face value of 62,400 Bulgarian levs (BGN), in accordance with a valuation of the apartment prepared by an expert.\n14.  On 9 July 2003 the second applicant sold her half of the bonds for BGN 7,434.01, the equivalent of 3,810 euros (EUR).\n15.  On 17 February 2004 the first applicant sold his half of the bonds for BGN 7,387.68, the equivalent of EUR 3,780.\n16.  The relevant background facts, domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’ s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4989", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1963, 1940 and 1962 respectively and live in Sofia.\n6.  The applicants are heirs of Mr Parvan Vasilev Parvanov, Mr Vasil Parvanov Parvanov and Mrs Tsvetanka Parvanova Koleva who owned a house in Sofia with a yard with a total surface area of 581.2 square metres.\n7.  By a mayor’s order of 8 April 1987, based on section 98 of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act (“the TUPA”), the house and the yard were expropriated “for embassy needs”, but with a view to realising two separate public works’ projects: (a) the construction of a block of flats and shops (Project A); and (b) the construction of an embassy (Project B). The area designated for Project A (Plot A) was 328.2 square metres and the area designated for Project B (Plot B) was 253 square metres. The applicants’ ancestors’ house remained in Plot A. The value of the entire expropriated property was assessed at 25,118.06 old Bulgarian levs (BGL).\n8.  The mayor’s order of 8 April 1987 also provided that for the expropriation of the property “for embassy needs” each of the applicants’ antecedents would be compensated with an apartment, situated in a building to be constructed by the Bureau for Servicing the Diplomatic Corps (“the BSDC”).\n9.  By three supplementary orders of 15 April 1988, based on section 100 of the TUPA, the mayor determined the exact location, area and other details in respect of the future apartments offered as compensation. The three apartments had a total value of BGL 59,155.\n10.  A two-room apartment of 64 square metres was designated for Mr Parvan Vasilev Parvanov, who had passed away on an unspecified date in 1987. By virtue of his will, the property was to be received by his grandson, the first applicant.\n11.  Mr Vasil Parvanov Parvanov, whose heirs were the first and second applicants, his son and wife, was to receive a three-room apartment with an area of 94 square metres.\n12.  And lastly, Mrs Tsvetanka Parvanova Koleva was entitled to a three‑room apartment of 98 square metres, which was to be received by her daughter, the third applicant.\n13.  The value of the expropriated property (BGL 25,118.06) was directly credited against the value of the apartments offered as compensation. As the latter sum was higher, on unspecified dates the applicants and their ancestors paid the difference, BGL 34,036.94, to the State.\n14.  By orders of 4 and 27 April 1988 Mr Vasil Parvanov Parvanov and the first applicant were provided with temporary housing in two flats owned by the BSDC. It appears that after Mr Vasil Parvanov Parvanov’s death the second applicant continued to use the apartment provided for him.\n15.  Construction of the block of flats in which the apartments offered as compensation were to be located was never commenced.\n16.  On 13 April 1992, following the entry into force of the 1992 Restitution Law (see paragraph 29 below), the applicants made a request to the mayor of Sofia for the restitution of the entire property, because neither of the public works projects had commenced and the expropriated house was still standing. No response was received and on an unspecified date in May or June 1992 the applicants appealed against the tacit refusal.\n17.  On an unspecified date, most likely in August 1992, the expropriated house was pulled down and the BSDC commenced the realisation of Project B (see paragraph 7 above), the construction of a Polish embassy complex.\n18.  Upon the applicants’ appeal against the mayor’s tacit refusal, on ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4990", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Sofia.\n7.  In July 1998 the Plama oil refinery, a joint stock company with its main office in Pleven (“Plama” or “the company”), was declared insolvent. On 18 May 1999 the applicant was appointed its trustee in insolvency.\n8.  On 21 May 1999 Mrs L.T., a former trustee of Plama, lodged a statement of claim on behalf of the company in the Pleven Regional Court.\n9.  On 22 June 1999 the Pleven Regional Court advised the applicant to specify whether he would confirm this action. The applicant decided to retain a lawyer, Mr Y.N. On 5 July 1999 he obtained the authorisation of the insolvency court to pay Mr Y.N. a fee of 150,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of approximately 76,900 euros (EUR), for Plama’s legal representation in the proceedings.\n10.  On 7 July 1999 Mr Y.N. attended a court hearing and requested in writing that the proceedings be terminated, since the action had been brought by Mrs L.T., who did not represent Plama at the time. Upon request by the defendant, the case was transferred to the Sofia City Court where the proceedings were subsequently terminated.\n11.  Meanwhile, the creditors of Plama agreed upon a plan for the company’s recovery. On 8 July 1999 the plan was approved by the insolvency court and the applicant’s functions as trustee in insolvency were terminated. However, he retained some supervisory functions.\n12.  On 15 July 1999 the applicant signed two orders for the transfer of BGN 150,000 to Mr Y.N.’s bank account.\n13.  Later in 1999 an investigation was opened in relation to the applicant’s actions. On 7 June 2001 the prosecution filed an indictment against him. He was indicted with exceeding his powers (Article 282 § 2 of the Criminal Code, see paragraphs 24 and 26 below) in that, acting as an official with whom powers were vested by virtue of law (длъжностно лице), he had retained a lawyer to represent the company before obtaining the insolvency court’s authorisation to pay the fee agreed upon, and that on 15 July 1999 he had ordered that the sum of BGN 150,000 be paid to Mr Y.N., even though by that time he had ceased to act as a trustee in insolvency of the company and was no longer authorised to act for it.\n14.  On an unspecified date Plama was constituted as a civil party in the criminal proceedings against the applicant and brought an action for damages in the amount of BGN 150,000.\n15.  On 5 December 2001 the Pleven District Court convicted the applicant as charged, sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment and allowed in full Plama’s civil claim.\n16.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Pleven District Court.\n17.  On 18 December 2002 the verdict was upheld by the Pleven Regional Court, which dismissed an objection by the applicant that he had not had an official capacity (длъжностно лице). It held that it was sufficient that as a trustee he had assumed managerial functions and responsibility for the company’s assets.\n18.  On the first charge against the applicant, that he had exceeded his powers in retaining a lawyer to represent the company, the Regional Court found that it had certainly not been necessary to retain a lawyer, provided that the only thing the latter had done had been to request the termination of the proceedings. Thus, the applicant had indebted the company with the lawyer’s fee whereas it had not received any gain in return. The applicant had not therefore acted in accordance with the rights and powers veste", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4991", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and is currently detained in Nicosia Central Prison. He is serving concurrent eighteen-year sentences pursuant to his conviction for two counts of attempted murder.\n7.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant was permitted to leave detention on twenty-four hour leave granted by the prison director. He did not return to the prison when his leave expired. Following a search to trace his whereabouts, he was arrested on 21 September 2003. At the time of his arrest he was in possession of a gun and cartridges and was wearing a bullet-proof vest and a woman’s wig. He was transferred to the maximum security wing of the prison and placed in solitary confinement. He was thus confined until 7 November 2003, that is, for a total of 47 days.\n8.  The parties’ submissions concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention during the period of his solitary confinement differed.\n9.  The Government agreed that the applicant had been detained in the prison’s maximum security wing but maintained that he was detained in a normal cell. The dimensions of the cell were 2.8 metres by 2.1 metres, that is, 5.88 square metres. It was furnished with a bed, a cupboard and a table. The cell had two windows: an exterior one (0.8m by 0.6m) and a smaller one above the cell door (0.4m by 0.4m). The cell was opened about three times a day for a total of about an hour. This time was used for personal hygiene purposes and taking meals. It was the applicant’s responsibility to clean his cell and he was provided with all the necessary equipment. He had regular direct contact with prison personnel. Moreover, newspapers had been provided in the wing and he had access to books from the prison library. There was a television set in the wing corridor to which the applicant could listen and he would have been provided with a radio if he had requested one.\n10.  During the applicant’s confinement he had spent considerable time outside prison when attending court hearings on 2, 10, 13, 16, 22 and 29 October and 4 and 6 November 2003. He was seen on four occasions by the prison doctor (7, 18, 20 and 31 October 2003). He was also visited by a welfare officer on 14 October 2003 and was seen by the prison psychologist on 3 and 30 October 2003.\n11.  Although the applicant was allowed to send letters to his family and friends twice a week, he did not attempt to send any such letters. He did not ask to make or receive telephone calls. Visits from family members while the applicant was in solitary confinement were not permitted but during the applicant’s visits to the court, he could meet with his family and friends, and was in fact supplied with food, soft drinks and clothes by his family which he was allowed to take back to prison. On one occasion, a mobile telephone given to the applicant by a family member was confiscated upon his return to prison after a hearing.\n12.  The applicant disputed the Government’s description of the conditions of his confinement. He alleged that following his return to prison on 21 September 2003 he was confined in a cold, damp cell of a maximum of five square meters without food, water or suitable clothing. The cell had no external window and the window of the cell door was considerably smaller than the Government had indicated. The applicant was excessively restricted in his ability to use the toilet or have a shower: for the first four days of his solitary confinement he was forced to use an empty water bottle to urinate and", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4993", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1927 and 1951 respectively and live in Varna. They are a father and his son.\n7.  In 1959 the first applicant and his wife bought from the State, through the Ministry of Defence, an apartment of 115 square metres in the centre of Varna. The apartment had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following years. It had been a part of a bigger apartment, which had on an unspecified date before 1959 been divided into two smaller ones.\n8.  In the beginning of 1993 the heirs of the former pre-nationalisation owner of the property brought proceedings against the first applicant and his wife under section 7 of the Restitution Law.\n9.  In 2003 the first applicant’s wife died and was inherited by the two applicants.\n10.  The proceedings under section 7 of the Restitution Law ended by final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 20 February 2004. The courts found that the applicants’ title was null and void because the division of the initial bigger apartment into two smaller ones (see paragraph 7 above) had not been carried out in accordance with the law.\n11.  Immediately after the final judgment in their case, it became possible for the applicants to obtain compensation from the State, in the form of bonds which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The applicants did not avail themselves of this opportunity.\n12.  In December 2006 the heirs of the former owner of the apartment brought a rei vindicatio action and an action for damages against the first applicant who was still living in the apartment. The proceedings are still pending. The first applicant’s request to be accommodated in a municipally‑owned dwelling, lodged in 2004, has not yet been granted due to the unavailability of free apartments.\n13.  These have been summarised in the Court’ s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4994", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1944, 1946 and 1973 respectively and live in Sofia.\n7.  The first and the second applicants are husband and wife and the third applicant is their daughter.\n8.  In 1974 the first and the second applicants bought from the Sofia municipality an apartment of 95 square metres, which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following years.\n9.  In the beginning of 1993 the heirs of the former pre-nationalisation owner of the property brought proceedings against the first and the second applicants under section 7 of the Restitution Law.\n10.  The proceedings ended by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 8 January 2001. The courts restored the former owners’ title, finding that the first and the second applicants’ title had been null and void ab initio on three grounds: 1) the sale contract had not been signed by the mayor, as required by law, but by another official of the municipality. Although the mayor had been authorised to delegate the power to sign contracts, he had not made a valid delegation in the case at hand; 2) the initial decision to sell the property had not been signed by the mayor of the region, as required by law, but by another official; and 3) the disputed apartment had been a part of a bigger apartment, which had on an unspecified date before 1974 been divided into two smaller ones; this division had not been carried out in accordance with the respective construction rules.\n11.  The first and the second applicants could apply, within two months following the judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 8 January 2001, for compensation bonds from the State. Those bonds could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers. The first and second applicants did not avail themselves of this opportunity.\n12.  By 2001 the three applicants were living in the apartment. In May 2001 they vacated the property.\n13.  In June 2001 the heirs of the former owner brought an action for damages against them for having used the apartment unlawfully, as they had not been its owners. The claim concerned the period from 1996 to 2001 as for the preceding years it was barred by the general five-year statutory limitation.\n14.  In a judgment of 31 May 2004 the Sofia District Court allowed the claim accepting that as the first and second applicants’ title had never been valid, the former owners’ title had been restored as of the date of entry into force of the Restitution Law in 1992. After that date, the applicants had had no right to use the apartment.\n15.  On 7 March 2006 the Sofia City Court upheld that judgment. The applicants did not submit a cassation appeal considering that it would stand no chances of success.\n16.  In June 2007 the first and second applicants paid to the former owners of the apartment 31,265 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of approximately EUR 16,000, and the third applicant paid BGN 15,632, the equivalent of EUR 8,000.\n17.  The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice concerning the effect on third parties of the denationalisation legislation adopted in Bulgaria in the 1990s have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.\n18.  In a judgment of 10 July 2003 (judgment no. 1127 in case no. 891/2002) the Supreme Court of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4995", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant company was set up in 1991 and is based in Sofia.\n7.  On 1 October 1991 it entered into a lease agreement with a municipally-owned supermarket chain, under which it rented one of its shops (“the shop”). The term of the agreement was until 1 October 1994.\n8.  By a supplementary agreement of 1 September 1992 the term of the agreement was extended until 1 September 1997.\n9.  On 29 June 1995 the applicant company submitted a proposal to the Sofia Municipal Council to purchase the shop under the preferential privatisation procedure for lessees of State and municipally-owned properties provided for in section 35(1) of the Privatisation Act (see paragraph 20 below).\n10.  By a further supplementary agreement of 2 January 1996 the term of the lease agreement concerning the shop was amended and was set to expire on 2 July 1996.\n11.  In a decision of 27 September 1996 the Municipal Council rejected the applicant company’s request of 29 June 1995 on the grounds that the conditions under section 35(1) of the Privatisation Act had not been met because the lease agreement for the shop “bore a date later than 15 October 1993”.\n12.  On 24 October 1996 the applicant company appealed against the refusal.\n13.  In a judgment of 5 March 1998 the Sofia City Court found in favour of the applicant company, quashed the decision of the Municipal Council of 27 September 1996 and referred to it the matter for re-examination. It found that on 15 October 1993 the applicant company had been a lessee of the shop and that in rejecting its privatisation proposal on the ground that it had not been a lessee the Municipal Council had acted in contravention with the law.\n14.  The Municipal Council did not appeal against the judgment and it became final on 2 April 1998.\n15.  On 7 May 1998 the applicant company informed the Municipal Council of the judgment in its favour and invited the latter to implement the court’s decision by selling it the shop in accordance with the applicable rules. No action was taken in response by the Municipal Council.\n16.  On 4 May 2001 the applicant company once again petitioned the Municipal Council to implement the City Court’s judgment of 5 March 1998.\n17.  In response, by letter of 9 July 2001, the Sofia Municipal Privatisation Agency informed the applicant company that on 27 April 1998 the Municipal Council had transformed the municipally-owned supermarket chain and had spun off two companies from it; the shop had been included in the capital of one of these companies which had been privatised on 24 February 1999.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4996", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1922 and died in 2006. The other two applicants were born in 1948 and 1946 respectively and live in Bucharest.\n5.  In 1950, Apartments nos. 203 and 215 situated in Bucharest, Vasile Conta no. 7-9, the property of B.M., were seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation. B.M. was S.D.’s stepfather, S.D. being the husband of the first applicant and the father of the other two applicants.\nA  Recovery of property\n6.  In 1994 S.D. together with his brother B.R. sought to have the seizure declared null and void and to recover ownership of the two apartments.\n7.  On 8 February 1995 the Bucharest Court of First Instance allowed the action by S.D. and ordered restitutio in integrum of the two apartments. However, on the basis of an inheritance certificate, it held that B.R. had no standing in the proceedings.\nAn appeal by the authorities was dismissed on 20 November 1995 by the Bucharest County Court, which considered the seizure as being unlawful. That judgment became final.\n8.  On 12 May 1997, at the request of S.D., the Bucharest Town Council, having regard to the fact that the judgment of 8 February 1995 had become enforceable, ordered the restitution of Apartments 203 and 215.\n9.  Although S.D. had secured judicial recognition of his property right, he was not able to recover possession of those apartments because the State had sold them on 23 December 1996 and 13 January 1997 respectively to the then tenants, under Law no. 112/1995.\n10.  In 1998 S.D. lodged two requests to have the sales by the State declared null and void. S.D. died in 2000 and the applicants continued the proceedings.\n11.  On 7 February 2001 the Bucharest Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed the action regarding Apartment 215, considering that the sale had complied with the provisions of Law no. 112/1995 and that the former tenants had made the purchase in good faith.\n12.  On 13 August 2001 the applicants applied to the administrative authorities for restitution of Apartment 215 under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. By a letter of 12 April 2006 the Town Council informed the Agent of the Government that the file was incomplete as it lacked some of the necessary documents.\n13.  On 12 December 2002 the Court of Appeal, by a final decision, upheld the other action lodged by S.D. in 1998 and declared the sale of Apartment 203 null and void.\n14.  On 22 February 2008 the Bucharest Court of First Instance allowed a request by the second and third applicants to have the former tenants of Apartment 203 evicted from that apartment.\nOn 4 December 2008 the Bucharest County Court dismissed an appeal by the former tenants. The latter lodged a further appeal on points of law. The proceedings are still pending.\n15.  On 20 September 1999 the Bucharest Town Council, at the request of the former tenants of Apartment 203, sought the revision of the judgment of 8 February 1995 (cerere de revizuire), on the basis of alleged new documents attesting the lawfulness of the 1950 nationalisation. The former tenants also intervened in the proceedings.\n16.  The Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed that request as being out of time, by a final decision of 20 September 2001.\n17.  On 12 June 2002 the Town Council again sought to have that judgment revised, following a request by the same former tenants of Apartment 203, alleging that there were new documents proving that S.D. was not the only heir", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4997", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 in Pakistan. He entered the United Kingdom on 5 October 1978, when he was three years old, as a dependant of his father. He was granted indefinite leave to remain. He was educated in the United Kingdom and spent his formative years there.\n6.  On an unidentified date in 1993 he was found guilty of the theft of an insurance document. On an unidentified date in 1998 he was fined following a conviction for the use of a forged banker’s draft.\n7.  On 22 January 2003 he was convicted by a Crown Court of involvement in the importation of a class A controlled drug. The conviction related to the attempted importation of 2.5 kilograms of heroin with an estimated street value of GBP 210,470.00. The applicant pleaded guilty. In his sentencing remarks the judge noted that he was not the principal in the criminal activity but concluded that he was a “knowledgeable, able and willing assistant”. He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment but he was released on 3 April 2006 because of his good conduct in prison.\n8.  On 2 May 2006 the Secretary of State for the Home Department served on the applicant a notice of decision to make a deportation order pursuant to section 3 (5) of the Immigration Act 1971. The Secretary of State regarded as particularly serious those offences involving violence, sex, arson and drugs. Therefore, in view of the nature and severity of the applicant’s offence, the Secretary of State concluded that his removal from the United Kingdom would be necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder and crime and for the protection of health and morals.\n9.  The applicant appealed to an Immigration Judge. He indicated that he had been in the United Kingdom since he was three years old and was not familiar with the culture in Pakistan. All of his immediate family were in the United Kingdom. His mother and his siblings were all in poor health and he was the main person who kept the house clean. His mother had diabetes and a heart condition. His siblings suffered from asthma and/or eczema. The applicant suffered from ulcerative colitis for which he received treatment in the United Kingdom. He therefore submitted that his removal would be disproportionate in the circumstances and would violate his rights under Article 8 of the Convention.\n10.  On 9 August 2006 an Immigration Judge dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the deportation order. He agreed that the applicant’s deportation would be conducive to the public good and that the crime he had committed was sufficiently serious to warrant deportation. With regard to the applicant’s family life in the United Kingdom, he found that it did not go beyond the natural ties of affection. In particular, he noted that the family had managed to cope without the applicant while he was in prison. He also found that the applicant would be able to adapt to life in Pakistan. He relied on the fact that he was an unemployed, single man of 28 years of age who, apart from having ulcerative colitis, was in good health. It was accepted that he could speak Punjabi. Moreover, the Immigration Judge observed that the medical evidence suggested that the applicant’s attendance at hospital for treatment of his ulcerative colitis had been inconsistent and he could therefore continue to attend hospital sporadically in Pakistan.\n11.  On 22 August 2006 the Asylum and Immigration Trib", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4998", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Espoo.\n6.  In 1992 he became a member of a police rally driving club called Handcuff Team Police Finland ry. In 1997, he was elected Chairman of the club.\n7.  In May 1998, the applicant took part in a rally in Belgium with a car he had rented. As he was bringing the car back to Finland, the Customs Authorities took note of the fact that the registration of the car had been changed. They started a criminal inquiry into the matter. On 7 July 1998, the Office of the Prosecutor General (Valtakunnansyyttäjänvirasto, Riksåklagarämbetet) decided that a police investigation should be carried out into whether the applicant had been aware of the change in the registration.\n8.  On the same date, the Office of the Prosecutor General decided that a police investigation should also be carried out into whether the applicant had accepted bribes while collecting funds for the rally club. In exchange for the money received, the donor’s sticker appeared on the car. The present application concerns these proceedings.\n9.  The police investigation of the bribery case commenced on 7 July 1998 and the applicant was arrested the next day. It appears that the applicant was informed about the suspicion of offences only when arrested. He was suspended from his post in the Police Department of the Ministry of the Interior (sisäasiainministeriön poliisiosasto, inrikesministeriets polisavdelning) from 8 July 1998 until 15 February 2001, that is, for a period of two years and seven months. The Ministry of the Interior withheld half of the applicant’s salary for the periods from 9 July 1998 to 9 August 1998 and from 8 November 1998 to 14 February 2001.\n10.  On 4 October 1999 R., a State Prosecutor (valtionsyyttäjä, statsåklagare), preferred charges against the applicant for a bribery violation under Chapter 40, Section 3, of the Penal Code (rikoslaki, strafflagen). Alternatively, the applicant was charged with negligent violation of official duty under Section 11 of the same Chapter. On 18 October 1999 the applicant was notified of the charge. Because he held the position of a referendary to the Council of State (Valtioneuvosto, Statsrådet), the case was to be tried in the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten).\n11.  Following a plea by the applicant challenging the impartiality of the State Prosecutor, the Court of Appeal held two oral hearings on 19 and 25 November 1999 after which it held, in a decision given on 29 November 1999, that the State Prosecutor was disqualified. The applicant had claimed that the investigation had started after receipt of a letter of denunciation from a police officer, and that the prosecutor had made this letter disappear in order not to have to show it to the defence. The Court of Appeal did not confirm any such action on the part of the prosecutor, but nevertheless held that, due to these issues, the impartiality of the prosecutor might appear to be undermined and he was therefore disqualified.\n12.  Subsequently, the applicant’s case was assigned to another State Prosecutor, K. On 2 February 2000 the applicant received from the new prosecutor a document entitled “Revised charge” which was dated 31 January 2000. It stated that the applicant had requested, and the club had subsequently received, contributions totalling 18,000 Finnish marks (FIM: approximately 3,000 euros (EUR)) from a company which had a business relationship with the Ministry of the Interior. The money in questio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-4999", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1977 and 1971 respectively and live in London.\n7.  Between 9 and 12 September 2003 there was a Defence Systems and Equipment International Exhibition (“the arms fair”) at the Excel Centre in Docklands, East London, which was the subject of protests and demonstrations.\n8.  At about 10.30 a.m. on 9 September 2003 the first applicant was riding a bicycle and carrying a rucksack near the arms fair, on his way to join the demonstration. He was stopped and searched by two police officers who told him he was being searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (“the 2000 Act”: see paragraphs 28-34 below) for articles which could be used in connection with terrorism. He was handed a notice to that effect. The first applicant claimed he was told in response to his question as to why he was being stopped that it was because a lot of protesters were about and the police were concerned that they would cause trouble. Nothing incriminating was found (although computer printouts giving information about the demonstration were seized by the officers) and the first applicant was allowed to go on his way. He was detained for roughly 20 minutes.\n9.  At about 1.15 p.m. on 9 September 2003, the second applicant, wearing a photographer's jacket, carrying a small bag and holding a camera in her hand, was stopped close to the arms fair. She had apparently emerged from some bushes. The second applicant, a journalist, was in the area to film the protests. She was searched by a police officer from the Metropolitan Police notwithstanding that she showed her press cards to show who she was. She was told to stop filming. The police officer told her that she was using her powers under sections 44 and 45 of the 2000 Act. Nothing incriminating was found and the second applicant was allowed to go on her way. The record of her search showed she was stopped for five minutes but she thought it was more like thirty minutes. She claimed to have felt so intimidated and distressed that she did not feel able to return to the demonstration although it had been her intention to make a documentary or sell footage of it.\n10.  The applicants sought to challenge the legality of the stop and search powers used against them by way of judicial review. Prior to the High Court hearing, the Secretary of State offered the applicants a procedure which would have enabled the High Court to review in closed session, with the benefit of submissions from a special advocate, the underlying intelligence material which had been the basis for the Secretary of State's decision to confirm the authorisation (section 46 of the 2000 Act: see paragraphs 30-31 below). The applicants, however, indicated that they did not consider it necessary or appropriate to proceed in this way, since they did not intend to challenge the assessment that there was a general threat of terrorism against the United Kingdom. Instead, they contended, first, that the authorisation and confirmation in question, since they formed part of a rolling programme of authorisations covering the entire London area, were ultra vires and unlawful, since there were a number of clear indications that Parliament had intended an authorisation under section 44 of the 2000 Act (“a section 44 authorisation”) to be given and confirmed only in response to an imminent terrorist threat to a specific location in respect of which normal police powers of stop and search were inadequate. Secondly, the applicants claimed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5001", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Chełm.\n5.  On 9 March 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing and uttering threats while acting in an organised criminal gang. On 11 March 2004 the Lublin District Court decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention. The court held that there was a strong likelihood that the applicant committed the offences with which he was charged.\n6.  On 1 June 2004 the Chełm District Court extended the applicant’s detention. In addition to the grounds originally given, the court relied on the likelihood that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant and the probability that he would interfere with the course of the proceedings. On 1 September 2004 the Chełm District Court again extended the applicant’s detention, relying on the complexity of the investigation.\n7.  Between 3 and 17 February 2005 the applicant served a prison sentence which had been imposed on him in another set of criminal proceedings.\n8.  On 28 February 2005 a bill of indictment was filed with the Chełm District Court. The applicant was charged with drug dealing and uttering threats while acting in an organised criminal gang.\n9.  The first hearing was held on 6 June 2005. Subsequent hearings were held at regular intervals of one month. On many occasions the trial court imposed fines on witnesses for failure to appear at hearings. In addition, some of the witnesses were brought to the court under police escort.\n10.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended on several occasions, in particular on 7 March, 7 June, 5 September and 5 December 2005.\n11.  Between 21 March 2005 and 21 May 2006 the applicant served two different prison sentences which had been imposed on him in another set of criminal proceedings. On 21 May 2006 the applicant began serving a prison sentence of nine years and six months.\n12.  On 5 June 2006 the Chełm District Court again extended the applicant’s detention.\n13.  On 24 July 2006 the Chełm District Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment and a fine. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 13 February 2007 the Lublin Regional Court gave judgment, partly quashing and remitting the District Court’s judgment (in respect of one of the charges).\n15.  On 7 May 2007 the Chełm District Court again extended the applicant’s detention.\n16.  On 7 August 2007 the Chełm District Court gave a decision and discontinued the applicant’s pre-trial detention.\n17.  According to the information available to the Court at the date of adoption of the present judgment, the criminal proceedings concerning one of the charges against the applicant are still pending before the Chełm District Court.\n18.  On 25 July 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n19.  It was dismissed by the Lublin Regional Court on 25 July 2007. The court stressed that the proceedings had been very complex, that they had concerned ten co-accused and that evidence had to be obtained from twenty three witnesses.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5002", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1954, 1954 and 1978 respectively and live in Tunceli and Istanbul respectively.\n5.  The first and the second applicants’ son and the third applicant’s brother, Önder Babat, was a fourth-year student at the Law Faculty of Istanbul University. Önder Babat had been the subject of disciplinary investigations at the University and at the time of the events had criminal proceedings pending against him for participating in an illegal demonstration. The applicants maintained that he was Kurdish, Alawite, and had strong left-wing political views.\n6.  According to the witness statements given to the public prosecutor on 22 March 2004 by Mr E.Ö., Mr B.Y. and Ms P.A., the events unfolded as follows: On 3 March 2004 Önder Babat and his three friends went to watch a documentary film at the French Cultural Centre at Istiklal Street in Taksim, Istanbul. Afterwards they visited the office of the Devrimci Hareket Dergisi (Revolutionary Movement Magazine), a magazine with left-wing political views located in Imam Adnan Street right next to Istiklal Street. Immediately after they left the office, at approximately 6.50 p.m., Önder Babat suddenly collapsed in the street bleeding heavily from the head. His friends, with the help of other people, took him to Taksim Ilkyardım Hospital where Önder Babat died. He was twenty-five years old.\n7.  According to a report drafted by two police officers and signed by Mr B.Y., one of Önder Babat’s friends, the police received information about the incident at 7.20 p.m. and arrived at Taksim Ilkyardım Hospital where, after taking oral statements from Önder Babat’s friends, the police, with Mr B.Y., returned to the scene of the incident. They noted blood trails on the ground. The police were told by people in the vicinity that they had not witnessed anything unusual and that the injured person had been taken to the hospital by his friends.\n8.  At approximately 8.10 p.m. a second group of police officers from the Beyoğlu police headquarters arrived at the scene of the incident to make a preliminary investigation on behalf of the public prosecutor, who had been notified of the incident by telephone. A sketch was made of the scene of incident and seven sets of photographs were taken. The police noted a 10 x 10 cm stone on the floor approximately 1.80 metres from the blood trail. They considered that the stone might have caused his death by falling on his head from one of the surrounding buildings. They collected the stone and blood samples for the criminal laboratory. In the report drafted by the police the weapon is stated as unidentified. The police left the scene at 9.40 p.m. The officers in charge of the preliminary investigations issued an incident report. It was noted in this report that a hole of 5 cm x 5 cm was found on the upper left side of Önder Babat’s head and an ecchymotic lesion of 2 cm was observed around his right eyebrow.\n9.  On the same date between 8.00 p.m. and 8.40 p.m. officers from the Beyoğlu police headquarters took statements from Önder Babat’s three friends who had been with him at the time of the incident and from a waiter who worked at a nearby café. They all affirmed that they had no idea what had caused Önder Babat’s injuries.\n10.  On 4 March 2004 at 11.30 a.m. Önder Babat’s cousin gave a statement to officers from the Beyoğlu police headquarters, where he stated that Önder Babat did not have any enemies.\n11.  On the same day a post-mortem examination was carried ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5003", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Trzebinia.\n5.  On 9 August 2005 the applicant was arrested by officers of the Internal Security Agency (Agencja Bezpieczeństwa Wewnętrznego) on suspicion of revealing State secrets and bribery. As submitted by the applicant, the officers had handcuffed and beaten him. He was taken to the Internal Security Agency and subsequently to the Kraków District Prosecutor’s Office where he was again beaten and urged to confess. At the same time another group of armed officers had broken into his apartment and handcuffed and terrorised his wife. Their apartment was ransacked during the search for documents and other evidence.\n6.  On 11 August 2005 the Kraków District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It also considered that it was necessary to keep the applicant in detention in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence or induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court also stressed the severity of the likely sentence to be imposed and the complexity of the case. The court found that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant, while at liberty, would have had unlimited opportunities to contact other persons who were directly linked to his criminal activities. In particular, the court considered that the applicant had presumably been acting with accomplices.\n7.   An appeal by the applicant against the detention order was dismissed on 8 September 2005 by the Kraków Regional Court.\n8.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was prolonged on several occasions, inter alia on 7 November and 29 December 2005 by the Szczecin District Court, on 17 March and 12 September 2006 by the Szczecin Regional Court, on 19 February and 27 April 2007 by the Szczecin Regional Court and on 4 July 2007 by the Szczecin Court of Appeal (until 15 October 2007). In all their decisions regarding detention the authorities repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention. In addition, they considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, especially in view of the considerable number of witnesses to be heard and confronted, as well as the extensive body of evidence to be examined, justified holding him in custody.\n9.   Numerous appeals by the applicant against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent applications for release were unsuccessful.\n10.  On 20 December 2005 the Szczecin Regional Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and twelve other co-accused. The applicant was charged with revealing state secrets and bribery. One hundred and four persons were listed to be examined as witnesses.\n11.  On 12 January 2006 a request to transfer the case to the Szczecin Regional Court was filed owing to the special nature of charges brought against the applicant, including, inter alia, revealing State secrets and involvement in the case of high-ranking police officers. On 27 January 2006 the request was granted by the Szczecin Court of Appeal.\n12.  On 3 October 2007 the Szczecin Court of Appeal decided not to allow the Szczecin Regional Court’s request for a further extension of the applicant’s detention. It ordered the imposition of another preventive measure. The court held that even if grounds for the initial detention of the applicant still remained valid, they no longe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5004", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Sosnowiec.\n5.  On 14 January 1998 the applicant filed a claim for payment against J.M. and K.M. with the Katowice Regional Court.\n6.  On 23 February 1999 the Katowice Regional Court ruled that J.M. and K.M. (“the debtors”) were to pay the applicant the sum of 25,000 Polish zlotys (PLN), with statutory interest, and issued a writ of execution in respect of this judgment.\n7.  On 21 September 1999, following the applicant’s request of 16 September, the bailiff of the Sosnowiec District Court (Komornik Sądu Rejonowego) instituted enforcement proceedings against the debtors.\n8.  On 28 February 2000, because the debt was proving impossible to recover, the bailiff initiated proceedings for possession of the debtors’ apartment. On 5 April 2000 the bailiff had the apartment valued.\n9.  On 28 April 2000 the debtors complained about the actions taken by the bailiff (skarga na czynności komornika). On 29 June 2000 the Sosnowiec District Court dismissed the debtors’ complaint for procedural reasons.\n10.  On 11 May 2001 the bailiff ordered execution of the payment by attaching the debtors’ remuneration for work and other assets. By 22 April 2002 the applicant had received the sum of PLN 9,218.16. Further, the bailiff ordered execution of the payment by auctioning the debtors’ car, various domestic appliances and electronic equipment, but without success.\n11.  The debtors filed numerous complaints against the actions taken by the bailiff. On 7 March 2000 they filed a request with the Sosnowiec District Court to have the enforcement proceedings discontinued. On 5 October 2000 the debtors’ complaint was dismissed.\n12.  On 15 November 2001 the Katowice Regional Court determined that the remaining sum to be paid by the debtors amounted to PLN 16,288.80.\n13.  The first auction of the debtors’ apartment was scheduled for 20 September 2002. It failed owing to the lack of any interested buyers.\n14.  On 30 October 2002 the bailiff organised a second auction of the apartment. On 4 November 2002 the Sosnowiec District Court confirmed that the applicant had acquired the debtors’ apartment. The debtors appealed against the court’s decision.\n15.  On 26 August 2003 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the debtors’ appeal.\n16.  On 16 April 2004, at the applicant’s request, the Sosnowiec District Court offset the value of the apartment against the applicant’s claim. On 12 May 2004 the debtors appealed against the District Court’s decision. On 2 November 2004 the Katowice Regional Court quashed the decision and remitted the case to the District Court. The appellate court observed that the first-instance court had overlooked the debtors’ liabilities to the Social Security Board. It noted that liabilities arising from an employer’s failure to make social-insurance contributions took precedence over other liabilities.\n17.  On 5 May 2006 the Sosnowiec District Court ordered the bailiff to take all relevant enforcement measures to attach the debtors’ assets. On 1 August 2006 the President of the Katowice Regional Court informed the President of the Sosnowiec District Court that the enforcement proceedings at issue, as well as related court proceedings, were henceforth subject to his supervision.\n18.  On 8 June 2006 the Sosnowiec District Court dismissed the applicant’s request to offset the value of the apartment against his claim. It found that the sum obtained at the auction was not enough to cover both the liabilities towa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5005", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Yambol. At the material time she was employed as a human resources specialist at a steel production company.\n5.  In February 1998 the applicant’s employment was terminated and she was offered another position with the same company for a lower salary.\n6.  On 17 September 1998 she brought a claim against her employer, complaining about the loss of income resulting from her reassignment to a less well-paid job.\n7.  In a judgment of 29 June 1999 the Sofia District Court dismissed the claim, and the applicant appealed to the Sofia City Court.\n8.  The court held two hearings, one of which was adjourned owing to the defective summoning of the applicant’s employer. At the third hearing, held on 23 November 2000, the applicant asked for the proceedings to be stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings brought in May 1999 (see paragraph 11 below). On 4 June 2001 the court turned down her request. The applicant appealed against this ruling. On 22 November 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation found that it could not examine the appeal as it had no access to the case file of the May 1999 proceedings. It therefore sent the case back to the Sofia City Court, instructing it to enclose the case file and return all the materials to it for an examination of the appeal. After this was done, on 6 August 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the Sofia City Court’s ruling, holding that the determination of the case was not dependent on the outcome of the 1999 proceedings.\n9.  The proceedings on the merits then resumed before the Sofia City Court. On 27 October 2004, after holding four more hearings, it upheld the Sofia District Court’s judgment. The text of the court’s judgment indicated that it was appealable on points of law.\n10.  The applicant lodged an appeal, but on 14 March 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation declared it inadmissible, observing that following a legislative amendment which had entered into force in 2002, appellate judgments in certain employment disputes were no longer subject to appeal on points of law.\n11.  In February 1999 the applicant was dismissed from her employment, and on 25 May 1999 she instituted proceedings against her former employer, seeking a declaration that the dismissal had been unfair, reinstatement and compensation for six months of lost wages.\n12.  After holding five hearings, two of which were adjourned owing to the failure of an expert to file her report in time, in a judgment of 17 July 2000 the Sofia District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim.\n13.  On 6 October 2000 the applicant appealed. After holding six hearings, in a judgment of 29 April 2004 the Sofia City Court upheld the lower court’s judgment.\n14.  On 29 November 2004 the applicant appealed on points of law. After holding a hearing on 8 February 2008, in a final judgment of 1 July 2008 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court’s judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5006", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is currently detained in prison no. 72/1 in the Ulyanovsk Region.\n7.  On 15 May 2000 the applicant, together with Mr S. and another unidentified person, broke into the premises of a private company and stole several items of property.\n8.  On 19 September 2000 the applicant, together with Mr S. and Mr I., committed another theft.\n9.  Mr S. was arrested on an unspecified date and was questioned by the investigating authority. At the interview, in the presence of counsel, he admitted to the thefts. He gave a detailed account of the events, stating that the applicant had forced the window frames in order to enter into the buildings, and described how they had then shared the proceeds from the sale of the stolen items.\n10.  On 6 December 2001 the investigator set up a face-to-face confrontation between S. and the applicant (see paragraph 38 below for “Relevant domestic law and practice”). According to the record, the investigator asked them if they knew each other and whether they had committed the offences. The applicant replied that he was acquainted with S. but had not committed any criminal offence with him; S. insisted that they had committed the above offences together. The record contained a note saying that they had been apprised of their right to put questions to each other; that they had waived this right and that they had no comments to add to the record. The copy of the record submitted by the Government bears S.’s and the applicant’s signatures. According to the applicant, he did not sign the record.\n11.  On 28 September 2001 the applicant, together with Mr A. and two other unidentified accomplices, robbed a warehouse belonging to a private company. During the preliminary investigation A. confessed to the robbery and named the applicant and another person as his accomplices. Allegedly, no counsel was present at this interview.\n12.  The applicant and A. were detained pending trial. S. and I. were not detained but were ordered not to leave the town.\n13.  In April 2002 the prosecutor signed the bill of indictment. The criminal case against the above persons was scheduled to be tried before the Vyshniy Volochek Town Court of the Tver Region. At the trial the applicant denied his involvement in the offences with which he was charged. He also argued that S. and A. had wrongly accused him, alleging that A. had admitted to the charges against him during the preliminary investigation following ill-treatment by the police.\n14.  On an unspecified date, S. went into hiding from justice. On 18 June 2002 the judge issued an arrest warrant in respect of S. On 19 June 2002 this order was sent to the Vyshniy Volochek police department. As is clear from an undated letter submitted by the Government, the trial judge asked the police department to speed up the enforcement of her earlier order. On 5 September 2002 the Town Court resumed the trial proceedings. On 6 September 2002 the trial court suspended the proceedings noting that S. had previously named the applicant and I. as his accomplices and that an arrest warrant had been issued against S., who went into hiding. The trial court also extended the applicant’s detention. The applicant appealed against the preventive measure. On 24 October 2002 the Regional Court upheld the preventive measure but decided that the suspension of the proceedings was not justified.\n15.  The trial proceedings resumed. At the hearing on 3 December 2002 A. retracted the statement ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5007", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 23 December 2001, at approximately 10.30 p.m., the applicant was a passenger in a car that was stopped for an identity check by a police patrol outside a cafeteria in the district of Ano Toumpa in Salonika. Dimitrios Zelilof, an acquaintance of the passengers who was passing by, proceeded to ask one of them, Mr Giorgos Kalaitsidis, what was going on. A police officer, who was subsequently identified as Police Sergeant Apostolos Apostolidis, flashed his torch on him and asked him to identify himself. Mr Zelilof replied that he wanted to know whether his friend had a problem. The latter was then asked by another police officer, later identified as Police Constable Zaharias Tsiorakis, to produce his identity card. Mr Zelilof replied that he did not have his identity card with him and suggested that they all go to the nearby police station for an identity check, as his identity card had been issued there. Then, allegedly, one of the police officers asked him whether he was “being the tough guy”. Seconds later, Police Officer Tsiorakis wrapped handcuffs around Dimitrios Zelilof’s fist and then punched him in the mouth. This made him feel dizzy and, as he was falling down, Police Officer Tsiorakis kicked him twice in the chest and abdomen.\n6.  The applicant submitted that he had witnessed the above incident and also reported hearing gunshots before he entered the cafeteria, where he headed to the toilets. Police officers went into the cafeteria and violently dragged the applicant out of the toilets into the cafeteria’s main room. They threw him against a pool table and handcuffed him, while allegedly beating him all this time, including twice with a pool cue on his back. The applicant and three other civilians were taken handcuffed to the nearby Ano Toumpa Police Station, where he was allegedly violently beaten by police officers. As a result of the beating, the applicant’s lower jaw was fractured and his gums started bleeding. Following this incident, the applicant was taken to the Aghios Dimitrios State Hospital, from where, after an X-ray to his jaw and some stitches to his head, he was taken back to the police station. After several hours of detention the applicant was charged with attacking and injuring police officers and resisting arrest.\n7.  On 24 December 2001, at 4 a.m., the applicant made his defence statement before the Salonika investigating judge, facing charges of releasing a prisoner, assaulting a police officer and causing grievous bodily harm. He mentioned his ill-treatment, while also denying the charges against him. Subsequently, he was taken back to his detention cell until 10 a.m., when he was taken to another police station for fingerprints; he was subsequently referred by the prosecutor to an investigating judge. All this time the applicant allegedly remained handcuffed and, at one point during his transfers from office to office, he fainted. Around noon, he was taken to the investigating judge, who granted him a postponement until 28 December 2001 to prepare his defence statement, and then he was released. The applicant stated that neither the prosecutor nor the investigating judge had reacted to his obvious wounds and his allegations of ill-treatment.\n8.  The Government maintained that the identity check on the passengers of the car had been almost complete when Dimitrios Zelilof, who was passing by, had headed towards the police officers. Despite their initial warning, Mr Zelilof ignored the police officers, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5008", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is serving a prison sentence in Orenburg.\n8.  On 6 May 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. On 7 June 2001 he was released on an undertaking not to leave town.\n9.  The applicant was subsequently apprehended on suspicion of another murder. According to him, the arrest took place on 18 October 2001. The Government submitted that he was arrested on 19 October 2001. It appears that the applicant was not provided with any legal assistance when questioned by the investigator. A lawyer was appointed to represent him on 13 January 2002. It appears that the applicant was dissatisfied with the quality of the lawyer’s services and dismissed him.\n10.  On 17 January 2002 the Shadrinsk Town Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment. On 26 February 2002 the Kurgan Regional Court quashed the applicant’s conviction on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.\n11.  On 6 May 2002 the Shadrinsk Town Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. On 28 May 2002 the Kurgan Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal.\n12.  On 15 February 2002 the Kurgan Regional Court opened another trial. Lawyer V. was appointed to represent the applicant.\n13.  On 26 February 2002 the applicant asked the court to dismiss the lawyer, alleging that he was not performing his duties properly. His request was denied.\n14.  On 13 June 2002 the Kurgan Regional Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 10 January 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld his conviction on appeal. The applicant, who was not represented, made oral submissions to the court by means of a video teleconference. The prosecutor was present and argued in favour of dismissing the applicant’s appeal.\n15.  On 21 September 2004 the Sol-Iletskiy District Court of the Orenburg Region commuted the applicant’s sentence to twenty-two and a half years’ imprisonment.\n16.  Between 8 and 10 April 2003 the applicant was detained at transit prison IZ-56/1 in Orenburg. According to the Government, the relevant internal regulations required that, for the time of the applicant’s stay there, his personal property was withheld from him for security reasons. His personal belongings were duly logged and then returned to him at the end of his stay. According to the applicant, neither the documents nor many of his personal belongings were returned to him.\n17.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the General Prosecutor’s Office on 16 April 2003 alleging that his documents had been unlawfully seized and his personal property had been stolen. The complaint was transferred to the regional department of corrections. They questioned one of the guards and the applicant. The guard claimed that all the applicant’s belongings had been returned to him against a signed receipt. According to the Government, the applicant withdrew his allegations. They submitted a copy of a statement by the applicant dated 22 September 2003 where he confirmed in writing that he did not have any claims against the administration of the transit prison.\n18.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg in respect of the loss of his personal effects. On 31 August 2005 the court dismissed it without consideration on the merits due to the applicant’s failure to comply with certain proce", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5009", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants’ names and other details are indicated in the table below. All the applicants except Ms Odintsova are Russian retired servicemen entitled to payment of pensions by the State. Ms Odintsova is the widow of a colonel who died in the crash of a training aircraft.\n7.  On various dates the applicants sued the military commissions in their regions and, in case of Kazakevich and Osipov, the Ministry of Defense and the Federal Security Service (FSB) respectively, claiming payment of a pension or increase of pensions on account of their military service and, in the case of Odintsova, on account of her husband’s death.\n8.  The domestic courts granted the applicants’ claims (see details of the judgments in the table below). The judgments in cases of Sukchev and Zamakhayev were upheld on appeal; other judgments were not appealed against by the defendant authorities. All the judgments in the applicants’ favour thus became binding and enforceable on the dates indicated in the table below.\n9.  On various dates the Presidiums of higher courts allowed the defendant authorities’ applications for supervisory review and quashed the judgments in the applicants’ favour, considering that the lower courts misapplied the material law (see details of the judgments in the table below). In the cases of Odintsova and Osipov the Presidiums dismissed the applicants’ claims by the same judgments. In the other cases the Presidiums sent the cases back to the first instance courts, which later dismissed the applicants’ claims.\n10.  In five cases (Kazakevich, Odintsova, Osipov, Sukchev and Zamakhayev), the judgments in the applicants’ favour were not enforced. In the other five cases (Legkov, Afanasyev, Polyanskiy, Malakhov and Zorin), the judgments in the applicants’ favour were enforced as regards the lump sum and/or monthly awards. It appears that the payment of monthly awards was stopped a short time before or after the quashing of the judgments on supervisory review.\n11.  In the case of Odintsova, the Samarskiy District Court of Samara delivered on 27 May 2003 another judgment in the applicant’s favour, granting pension arrears and a sum of 2,500.00 Russian roubles (RUB) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs. The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable on 6 June 2003. The Government submitted that all awards had been credited to the applicant’s bank account on 12 August 2003 and that a separate sum of RUB 2,500.00 had again been credited to the applicant’s account on 9 November 2004 as a result of a clerical error. The applicant submitted that the pension arrears awarded by the court had been credited to her account on 3 September 2003 but the remainder award of RUB 2,500.00 had only been credited in November 2004.\n12.  On 24 December 2001 Ms Odintsova filed a separate lawsuit against the Ministry of Defense, claiming compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 2 October 2003 the Kirovskiy District Court of Samara rejected her claims. On 11 November 2003 the Samara Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5010", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Gabrovo. At the relevant time he was unemployed.\n6.  At about 9 p.m. on 11 November 1999 the applicant and Mr D.M., after having consumed alcohol, went to the flat of Mr G.I., apparently with the intention of recovering certain items which Mr D.M.’s former girlfriend had left there. A violent incident ensued and the police, who were called by neighbours, arrested the applicant and Mr D.M.\n7.  On 12 November 1999 a police officer drew up a report describing the applicant’s conduct on the previous evening. On the basis of this report, in a decision of 19 November 1999 the mayor of Gabrovo found the applicant guilty of breaching section 2(1) of municipal by-law no. 3 (see paragraph 25 below) and fined him 50 Bulgarian levs (BGN). The mayor explained that, while drunk, the applicant had broken down the door of Mr G.I.’s flat and had beaten him up. These actions had constituted a breach of public order and an expression of manifest disregard towards society, contrary to the above-mentioned provision. The decision, which specified that it was subject to judicial review within seven days after being served on the offender, was not served on the applicant, whose address was unknown. It was put in the file and considered as constructively served under section 58(2) of the 1969 Administrative Offences and Penalties Act (see paragraph 28 below). The applicant did not learn about it within the time‑limit for seeking judicial review and the decision became final.\n8.  Some time later the prosecution authorities charged the applicant with inflicting “intermediate” bodily harm on Mr G.I., contrary to Article 129 § 1 of the 1968 Criminal Code, and breaking into his home, contrary to Article 170 § 2 of that Code (see paragraphs 18 and 19 below). They alleged that he had acted in concert with Mr D.M.\n9.  The applicant’s trial took place before the Gabrovo District Court between 9.30 a.m. and 12.40 p.m. on 1 December 2000 and between 1.30 p.m. and 4 p.m. on 14 November 2001. He was represented by two lawyers. It is unclear whether they were retained by him or appointed by the court. The court heard the two co‑accused, three experts and five witnesses. It admitted numerous documents in evidence and heard the parties’ closing argument.\n10.  In a judgment of 14 November 2001 the Gabrovo District Court found the applicant guilty of inflicting “intermediate” bodily harm on Mr G.I. It found him not guilty of committing this offence in concert with others and not guilty of entering another’s home by force. It sentenced him to eighteen months’ imprisonment. The court found that Mr D.M. alone had broken down the door of Mr G.I.’s flat and that the applicant had entered the flat after him. The court further found that in the ensuing scuffle the applicant had broken two of Mr G.I.’s teeth, which amounted to “intermediate” bodily harm, but at the same time held that in committing this act the applicant had not acted in concert with Mr D.M., because the latter had not hit Mr G.I. in the head.\n11.  The applicant appealed to the Gabrovo Regional Court. He drafted the appeal himself. Mr D.M. did not appeal.\n12.  The Gabrovo Regional Court held a hearing on the morning of 2 April 2002. The counsel previously appointed by the court for the applicant did not show up and new counsel was thus appointed. The applicant said that the new counsel was acquainted with his arguments and the case, and that he agreed to be defended by her", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5011", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Bitola. He worked for “Aparati za domakinstvo”, a socially-owned company which was later restructured under the Government’s decision of August 1997 allowing its transformation.\n6.  On 21 February 1997 the applicant was reassigned to the post of technologist with the stated aim of increasing productivity and efficiency and improving operations.\n7. On 17 March 1997 the applicant brought a civil action seeking to have the reassignment annulled since, in thirty years with the same employer, he had never worked as a technologist.\n8.  On 21 May 1997 the Bitola Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 29 September 1997 the Bitola Court of Appeal quashed this decision ordering the lower court to examine what had been the applicant’s status with the employer; whether and how had the bankruptcy proceedings, initiated meanwhile against the employer, affected the applicant’s employment and whether the employer had been restructured.\n9.  On 30 September 1998 the first-instance court annulled the employer’s decision of 27 May 1997 dismissing the applicant (in respect of which the applicant had brought a separate action). According to the Government, in these proceedings the applicant had sought to have the proceedings concerning his reassignment suspended.\n10. On 29 March 1999 the applicant’s claim was upheld at first instance. The court held that although the reassignment decision had referred to the relevant provisions of the Labour Act and the General Collective Agreement (see “Relevant domestic laws” below) it had not provided the applicant with concrete reasons for his reassignment. In this connection, it stated that section 27 of the Labour Act had been of a declaratory nature without providing any concrete reason for reassignment. On 29 September 1999 the Bitola Court of Appeal quashed this decision finding that the reassignment decision had provided reasons for the applicant’s reassignment. However, it ordered the first-instance court to determine whether the reassignment had been justified.\n11. On 26 March 2001 the first-instance court, deciding the case for the third time, upheld the applicant’s claim and annulled the reassignment decision. The court established that the applicant had worked for the same employer since 1966 in different posts and that no concrete reasons had been given for his reassignment. In this latter respect, it referred to a court annulment, for lack of concrete reasons, of the reassignment of Mr R.V., the applicant’s colleague, which had been based on the same grounds, as the applicant’s (see paragraph 6 above, П.бр. 680/97 of 9 June 1999). Noting that the reassignment decision had been rendered under section 27 of the Labour Act and section 11 of the General Collective Agreement, it stated, inter alia,\n“... in case of reassignment, an employee should be provided with a reasoned decision in writing so that he or she can protect his or her rights and the court may review its lawfulness. In the present case, the disputed decision does not set out any reasonable ground, which implies that the employer had not established the need for the [applicant’s] reassignment. If no reasonable grounds are provided, the reassignment of any employee, including the [applicant], is unlawful. [The employer] has only quoted the terms for reassignment, as specified in the Collective Agreement, without providing any reasonable ground ...”\n12. T", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5012", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  On 2 July 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and assault and taken to a police station for questioning. He was released the next day on an undertaking not to leave town. On an unspecified date he retained a lawyer to represent him.\n8.  According to the applicant, on 5 July 1999 P., one of the victims of the assault, identified the applicant as one of the perpetrators. P. confirmed his allegations during the confrontation with the applicant.\n9.  On 31 August 1999 the prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention pending investigation and trial. On 17 September 1999 the applicant was taken into custody.\n10.  The bill of indictment prepared by the police investigator on 22 September 1999 was approved by the prosecutor on 1 October 1999 and subsequently forwarded to the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow.\n11.  On 12 May 2000 the District Court remitted the matter for additional investigation to the police. The court noted, inter alia, that the investigator had failed to communicate to the applicant the materials from the case file, including the forensic expert’s reports. Following the completion of the investigation, the case file was resent to the court.\n12.  On 10 October 2000 the District Court granted the applicant’s request to appoint his mother to represent him before the court.\n13.  On 7 March 2001 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years and six months’ imprisonment. The Moscow City Court quashed the applicant’s conviction and remitted the matter for fresh consideration on 5 June 2001.\n14.  It appears that during the new trial, the District Court refused to appoint the applicant’s mother to represent him. The applicant retained counsel B. as his defender.\n15.  On 14 September 2001 the applicant asked the court to release him pending trial. He referred to appalling conditions of his detention and his deteriorating health. The court dismissed the applicant’s request.\n16.  On 14 February 2002 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years and six months’ imprisonment. The court based its findings, inter alia, on forensic evidence and the testimonies of the applicant’s accomplice and one of the victims of the assault, who testified in court. Their testimonies were corroborated by the statements made by P., another victim of the assault. The court could not establish P.’s whereabouts and relied on the transcripts of his earlier questioning by the police.\n17.  The applicant appealed against his conviction. He challenged the lawfulness of the trial court’s findings and alleged that the sentence imposed on him had been too severe. In that respect he mentioned that he had by then spent more than three years in appalling conditions awaiting determination of the criminal charges against him.\n18.  On 26 June 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal, dismissing, inter alia, the applicant’s argument that the sentence was too severe.\n19.  According to the Government, from 17 September 1999 to 13 March 2001 the applicant was detained at remand prison no. IZ-48/2 in Moscow. Between 13 March and 5 July 2001 he was placed in remand prison no. IZ-48/3 in Moscow. On 5 July 2001 the applicant was transferred back to remand prison no. 48/2, where he stayed until 30 May 2002. The applicant did not dispute the information submitted by the Government.\n20.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5014", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Karlovac.\n5.  From 5 August 1990 the applicant served as a police officer in the Karlovac Police Department (Policijska uprava karlovačka), namely as the Assistant Chief of the Ribnik sector for State border security. On 28 May 1996 he was called in to a police station by his colleagues and then questioned in connection with a suspicion that he had acted as an intermediary in procuring a forged certificate on citizenship for a certain H.Ć. In a written statement of 28 May 1996 made by the police the applicant confessed to having acted as an intermediary in procuring an illegal certificate of Croatian citizenship for H.Ć. The police also took written statements from two other persons, H.Ć. and B.J., without the applicant being present. These statements were not communicated to the applicant.\n6.  On 29 May 1996 the Chief Officer of the Karlovac Police Department asked that disciplinary proceedings be instituted against the applicant on suspicion that he had committed a serious breach of work discipline. This suspicion was based on a criminal complaint meanwhile lodged against the applicant, his own written confession and statements of several other individuals given before the police.\n7.  On 26 June 1996 disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the applicant before the Karlovac Police Department Disciplinary Court. A hearing was held on 10 October 1996 in the presence of the applicant and his counsel. At the hearing the applicant's confession of 28 May 1996 was read out. The applicant stated that he had been questioned by his colleagues in a police station about the case of H.Ć. The questioning had lasted the whole night, and at the end he had signed the statement because he had not wanted to be questioned any longer. The applicant further stated that he knew H.Ć. but that he had not participated in any dealings concerning his certificate of citizenship. He also explained that immediately afterwards he had lodged an objection on his questioning with the officer on duty. In his closing arguments the applicant's defence counsel, inter alia, objected that the statements of B.J. and H.Ć. had not been read out and that therefore the defence had no opportunity to analyse these statements because they did not know their content.\n8.  In a judgment of 10 October 1996 the Disciplinary Court found it established that the applicant had acted as an intermediary between H.Ć. and two other persons in order to obtain a forged certificate of Croatian citizenship for H.Ć. and that he had passed on a sum of 3,000 German Marks (DEM) from H.Ć. to a certain B.P. who had passed it on to a certain L.P., a clerk in the citizenship registry, asking the latter to make a forged certificate. The operative part of the judgment reads:\n“Zdravko Vanjak ...\nis guilty\nbecause during January 1996 he took from H.Ć. ... a sum of DEM 3,000 and gave it to B.P. ..., so that the latter would act as a further intermediary in bribing L.P. ... to issue a forged certificate of Croatian citizenship in the name of H.Ć., which L.P. did on 26 January 1996,\nby which he committed a serious breach of work discipline under section 82 paragraph 1(14) of the Interiors Act (Zakon o unutarnjim poslovima) and section 49 paragraph 1(11) of the Rules on employment of the employees of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Croatia,\nOwing to which a disciplinary measure under section 87 of the Interiors Act\ntermination of employment\nis to b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5015", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company has its seat in Nastola and the second and third applicants live in Villähde and Orimattila respectively.\n5.  The applicant company has operated a service station in Nastola since 1965. The service station is located in the industrial zone of the municipality which is situated in a groundwater basin. The second and third applicants are the only owners of the applicant company.\n6.  In 1998 new regulations concerning handling and storage of dangerous chemicals (including fuels for motor vehicles) entered into force and service stations needed to comply with these new requirements by 31 December 2002. In order to comply with the new regulations, the applicant company had to undertake some restructuring works.\n7.  On 1 March 2000 the Environmental Protection Act (ympäristönsuojelulaki, miljöskyddslagen, Act No. 86/2000) entered into force requiring, inter alia, an environmental permit to be held for activities which might cause environmental pollution. As the activities of the applicant company fell within the scope of application of the Act, it applied for an environmental permit for the restructuring works on 8 December 2000. More specifically, the application concerned an environmental permit for enlarging the storage capacity of liquid fuel.\n8.  On 20 March 2001 the Nastola Environmental Board (ympäristölautakunta, miljönämnden) granted the applicant company the permit and set several conditions for the restructuring works.\n9.  By letter of 17 April 2001, the Häme Regional Environment Centre (ympäristökeskus, miljöcentralen) appealed against the Board’s decision to the Vaasa Administrative Court (hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen) claiming that, despite the proposed protective measures, there was still a risk that the quality of groundwater could be jeopardised and that the environmental permit should therefore be withdrawn.\n10.  On 26 October 2001 the Administrative Court rejected the Centre’s appeal but amended one of the conditions for the permit.\n11.  By a letter of 22 November 2001, the Centre appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen), reiterating the grounds of appeal relied on before the Administrative Court.\n12.  On 11 February 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decisions of the Board and the Administrative Court and referred the case back to the Board, ordering it to clarify whether it was possible to eliminate the risk of pollution of groundwater by using more efficient protective measures. The court found that the activity in question was to be compared to a new activity as regards the environmental permit as this was the first time that the effects of the activities on groundwater were being assessed. The environmental permit could not be granted as the applicant company had not shown that the proposed protective measures would eliminate the risk of pollution of the groundwater.\n13.  On 29 April 2005 the applicant company lodged an amended application for an environmental permit with the Nastola Environmental Board. More specifically, this application concerned an environmental permit for reducing the storage capacity of liquid fuel. On 13 December 2005 the Board decided to grant the permit with several conditions.\n14.  By letter dated 18 January 2006 the Häme Regional Environment Centre again appealed against the Board’s decision to the Vaasa Administrative Court, claiming that the environmental permit should be withdraw", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5016", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Tabor, Czech Republic.\n7.  On 27 August 1982 the applicant was involved in a major traffic accident in Serbia. Her car was destroyed in a head-on collision with an inter-city bus while the applicant and her family members all sustained serious injuries.\n8.  On 16 May 1985 the applicant filed a compensation claim against a Serbian insurance company with the Municipal Court in Novi Sad (Opštinski sud u Novom Sadu).\n9.  Following two remittals, both of which took place before Serbia ratified the Convention, on 25 October 2002 the parties in the domestic proceedings informed the Municipal Court that they were willing to consider a friendly settlement.\n10.  On 18 March 2003 the Municipal Court suspended the proceedings, stating that they would be continued should the parties fail to reach a settlement.\n11.  Since the friendly settlement negotiations were unsuccessful, on 13 February 2004 the applicant urged the Municipal Court to resume the proceedings.\n12.  Following at least three scheduled hearings and the receipt of an expert's report, on 14 June 2007 the Municipal Court ultimately ruled partly in favour of the applicant. On an unspecified date thereafter this judgment became final since neither party filed an appeal against it.\n13.  The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement which reads as follows:\n“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”\n14.  The Government contested that argument.\n15.  The Court observes that the proceedings in question ended by 14 June 2007. Since the respondent State ratified the Convention on 4 March 2004, they have thus been within the Court's competence ratione temporis for a period of more than three years and three months at one level of jurisdiction.\n16.  The Court also recalls that, in order to determine the reasonableness of the delay at issue, regard must be had to the state of the case on the date of ratification (see, mutatis mutandis, Styranowski v. Poland, 30 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998‑VIII) and notes that on 3 March 2004 the impugned proceedings had already been pending for almost nineteen years in all.\n17.  The Government raised various objections to the admissibility of the applicant's complaint. However, the Court has rejected similar objections in many previous cases (see, for example, Cvetković v. Serbia, no. 17271/04, §§ 38 and 42, 10 June 2008; Tomić v. Serbia, no. 25959/06, §§ 81 and 82, 26 June 2007; V.A.M. v. Serbia, no. 39177/05, §§ 85 and 86, 13 March 2007).  It finds no particular circumstances in the instant case which would require a departure from this jurisprudence. It therefore declares this complaint admissible.\n18. The Government further stated that there had been no violation of Article 6.\n19.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).\n20.  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1of t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5017", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On 11 August 1994 the applicant, a building contractor, was charged by the Ardahan public prosecutor with forgery of official documents for his personal financial benefit to the detriment of the administrative authorities.\n6.  On 18 October 1994 the Ardahan Assize Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case (case no. 1994/47).\n7.  During the second hearing held on 29 November 1994, the Ardahan Assize Court decided to await the outcome of certain administrative proceedings against a civil engineer working at the Kars governor’s office.\n8.  On 21 May 1998 criminal proceedings brought against the aforementioned civil engineer were joined to the case against the applicant.\n9.  On 2 March 1999 the first-instance court was notified of the outcome of the administrative proceedings against the civil engineer.\n10.  On 13 February 2001 the Ardahan Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged.\n11.  On 15 November 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n12.  On 9 January 2003 the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation objected to the decision of the Court of Cassation, arguing, inter alia, that the first-instance court had failed to conduct a graphological examination of the allegedly forged documents.\n13.  On 1 April 2003 the Plenary Court of Cassation (Criminal Divisions) (Yargıtay Ceza Genel Kurulu) dismissed the Principal Public Prosecutor’s objection regarding the graphological examination, holding that such an examination was not justified by the facts of the case, and upheld the judgment of 13 February 2001 with one minor technical amendment (düzelterek onama).\n14.  On 23 June 2003 the decision of the Plenary Court of Cassation (Criminal Divisions) was deposited with the registry of the first-instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5018", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, Mrs Anna Sobiecka and Mr Ignacy Sobiecki, were born in 1957 and 1959 respectively and live in Chalin.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The applicants are farmers and they own a property in Borowo, Poland.\n9.  On 19 October 1998 the Włocławek Regional Governor (Wojewoda[1]) gave a decision limiting the applicants’ right to use their property because of a building permit granted to Europol Gaz S.A. (“the investor”) for the construction of an underground gas pipeline which would pass through the applicants’ property. The decision in question also obliged the applicants to make the property accessible to the investor in order that he could maintain the gas pipeline. It also imposed an obligation on the investor to restore the property to its previous condition and to pay the applicants compensation once the construction works were completed.\n10.  On 1 December 1999 the investor informed the Lipno District Mayor (Starostwo Powiatowe) that the construction works on the gas pipeline had been completed.\n11.  On 21 February 2000 the applicants requested the Lipno District Mayor to calculate the compensation due.\n12.  On 28 March 2001 the Mayor gave a decision determining the amount of compensation due at 24,510 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n13.  On unspecified dates the applicants and the investor lodged appeals.\n14.  On 7 June 2001 the Kujawsko-Pomorski Regional Governor quashed the decision and remitted the case to the Lipno District Mayor.\n15.  On 1 October 2002 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) that the administration had taken no action.\n16.  On 6 March 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the complaint and ordered the Mayor to give a decision and determine the amount of compensation within two months.\n17.  That time-limit expired and no decision was given. However, the Mayor gave several procedural decisions (on 27 February, 30 April, 30 July and 29 October 2004, 31 January, 25 March, 31 May, 18 July, 13 September, 28 October and 30 November 2005, and 29 March and 31 May 2006), each time setting a new time-limit for the case to be decided (postanowienie o wyznaczeniu nowego terminu załatwienia sprawy). The Mayor relied on similar reasons for each postponement, which in his view were beyond his control, namely that there had been difficulties in finding a person who could draft an expert report on the value of the property (operat szacunkowy), a document which was indispensable in determining the amount of compensation.\n18.  On unspecified dates the applicants and the investor again lodged complaints that the administration had taken no action, arguing that the Mayor had done nothing except set new time-limits for issuing the decision in question.\n19.  On 28 January 2004 the Bydgoszcz Regional Administrative Court (Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny) gave judgment and dismissed the applicants’ complaint. The parties did not produce a copy of the reasoning in this judgment.\n20.  On 24 August 2005 the Bydgoszcz Regional Administrative Court likewise dismissed the investor’s complaint. It held that the delay in issuing the decision requested was not attributable to the Mayor, who had experienced objective difficulty in finding an expert to draw up a report on the value of the property.\n21.  On 21 February 2007 the Lipno District Mayor gave a decision determining the amount of compensation at PLN 12,226, a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5019", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company is a limited liability company which at the material time carried on a business of buying debts.\n6.  On 14 February 2002 the applicant company instituted civil proceedings before the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) against the Dolnyśląsk Sickness Fund (Dolnośląska Regionalna Kasa Chorych). The applicant company had agreed to buy from four hospitals the debts owed by the Sickness Fund to the hospitals in the amount of 60,000,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) provided that the company won its case against the Fund. The applicant company sought payment of the above-mentioned sum together with interest, which amounted to PLN 89,316,240 (approximately 22,000,000 euros (EUR)). The hospitals claimed that the Fund should be liable for paying the cost of medical treatment that had exceeded the contract that every hospital had negotiated with the Fund but which had been necessarily sustained by them in providing medical services to insured persons.\n7.  The applicant company also asked for exemption from court fees, submitting that it had been involved in several court disputes in order to claim debts for medical services.\n8.  On 12 March 2002 the Wrocław Regional Court partly allowed the claim and exempted the company from court fees in excess of PLN 50,000 (EUR 12,000). The court examined the profit generated by the company and found that the assets deposited in its bank account amounted to PLN 50,000. Moreover, in December 2001 the president of the board had received PLN 43,000 as payment for an unknown service. The court thus concluded that the company had been able to pay this amount of court fees without damaging its operation.\n9.  On 27 September 2002 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the action. The court agreed with the arguments of the defendant, who had refused liability for costs in excess of the amounts agreed in the contracts between the Fund and the hospitals. The court established that the contracts had not been renegotiated and had remained valid, which excluded the Fund’s liability for expenses sustained by the hospitals that exceeded the contracts.\n10.  The applicant company lodged an appeal against the judgment.\n11.  On 4 November 2002 the Wrocław Regional Court ordered the applicant company to pay a further PLN 50,000 in court fees for pursuing its appeal. On 8 November 2002 the applicant company applied for an exemption from those fees, claiming that the company had already been exempted from fees and should not be ordered to pay any more at the appeal stage. In its supplementary documents the applicant company submitted that the company did not have the required sum of money in its bank account and that previously it had had to borrow from a private individual. The company was small and new on the market, thus it would not be able to obtain a bank loan. In sum it had not been possible for it to pay a further PLN 50,000 and the refusal to exempt it from court fees would amount to a violation of its right to court.\n12.  On 26 November 2002 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the application for exemption from the court fees. The court established that the monthly turnover of the company had reached PLN 30,000 (EUR 7,500) although in its bank account it only had PLN 3,000. The court, in one point of its reasoned decision, found that the company had generated over PLN 230,000 gross income (przychód), but it had then taken this amount to be net profit (dochód). The court also acknowledged that the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5020", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Helsinki.\n5.  In July 1994 the applicant was on a boating trip with his family. While the boat was secured to a jetty off Helsinki harbour, it began to rock heavily up and down against the jetty in a sudden surging of the waves. The applicant, standing on the jetty at the time, tried to protect his boat and his family on board, by clutching the bow with his hands. In consequence, he fell between the boat and the jetty and sustained injuries to his neck and shoulder. Due to the accident he became permanently disabled for work and on 1 August 1995 his insurance company granted him a full disability pension.\n6.  According to the applicant the rough waves were caused by a passing passenger ship which, in his view, had used excessive speed for the prevailing conditions. The applicant filed a criminal complaint with the police, which conducted a pre-trial investigation. The public prosecutor subsequently filed an application for a summons against the ship’s captain, who was a citizen of Estonia. The authorities failed, however, to serve the summons in due time and the alleged offences became time-barred.\n7.  On 3 July 1996 the applicant lodged a civil action for damages with the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) against the captain and the Estonian shipping company, which was in charge of the ship.\n8.  In their written response of 20 December 1996 the defendants pleaded firstly that the Helsinki District Court had no jurisdiction in the matter, the correct forum being the relevant court in Tallinn, Estonia. They also pleaded that the summons had not been properly served on the shipping company and that the claims against the captain were premature, as he could only be held liable for the amount not received from his employer. On 6 March 1998 the District Court rejected those pleas and continued with the proceedings.\n9.  While the proceedings were underway, the shipping company was declared bankrupt. The bankruptcy proceedings were discontinued for lack of assets and the shipping company was removed from the business register on 26 August 1999.\n10.  On 14 December 1999 the Helsinki District Court held a preliminary hearing in the compensation proceedings. During that hearing the applicant withdrew his claims against the shipping company. Both remaining parties requested adjournment of the proceedings in order to supplement their case. The date of the next hearing was left open.\n11.  It turned out that the shipping company had been insured against liability with a Norwegian insurance company. As the relevant provisions governing insurance contracts in Finland and in Norway, respectively, allowed an action to be brought against the company in the event of bankruptcy of the insured, the applicant decided to do so in the sphere of the ongoing proceedings. However, under the Finnish legislation an action for damages based on marine insurance could not be examined by a court before the relevant authority, the Average Adjuster (merivahingonlaskija, dispaschör), had issued a damage report. On 20 November 2000 the applicant filed a request with the Average Adjuster to that end.\n12.  In its written response of 28 September 2001 to the Average Adjuster the insurance company claimed that the authority was not competent to deal with the matter. It referred to the insurance contract and the relevant insurance terms, which stated that any dispute between the insurer and the insured was to be d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5021", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, a daughter (the first applicant) and a mother (the second applicant), were born in 1993 and 1967, respectively, and live in Niš.\n6.  On 6 May 2003 M.D., the first applicant's father, filed a claim with the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Niš, seeking the dissolution of his marriage to the second applicant.\n7.  On 12 February 2004 the applicants jointly filed a counterclaim (protvtužba), requesting that M.D. be ordered to pay monthly child maintenance to the first applicant.\n8.  On 18 January 2005 the Municipal Court: dissolved the marriage; awarded custody of the first applicant to the second applicant; regulated M.D.'s access rights; ordered him to pay monthly child maintenance; and decided that each party should bear its own costs.\n9.  Due to the Municipal Court's failure to properly serve this judgment on the applicants, the latter, who had clearly continued living at the same address, only managed to file an appeal against it on 27 April 2007.\n10.  On 18 September 2007 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Niš quashed the Municipal Court's judgment in so far as it concerned the maintenance sought and ordered a retrial.\n11.  Having held four separate hearings, on 26 December 2007 the Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of the applicants. In so doing, it ordered M.D. to pay monthly child maintenance, as well as the costs incurred by the applicants.\n12.  On 26 February 2008 this judgment was upheld by the District Court on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5022", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Zonguldak.\n5.  On an unspecified date the Land Registry Commission attached to the General Directorate of Land Registration conducted a land registry survey of plots of land in Belen village in the Ereğli district of Zonguldak. Following this survey, plot nos. 2 and 3 were registered in the Land Registry in the names of A.G. and K.G. respectively.\n6.  On 22 February 1985 the applicant brought a case before the Karadeniz Ereğlisi Cadastral Court requesting that plot nos. 2 and 3 be registered in his name.\n7.  On 12 December 1986 the court joined the case in question to another claim, having regard to the fact that the parties and the subject matter of the cases were the same.\n8.  On 6 December 2000 the court granted the applicant's request in part. The parties appealed.\n9.  On 12 December 2002 the Court of Cassation remitted the case to the first-instance court on grounds of incorrect service.\n10.  On an unspecified date the first-instance court rectified the error in service and sent the case to the Court of Cassation for re-examination.\n11.  On 29 April 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 6 December 2000.\n12.  On 11 October 2006 the first instance court dismissed the case.\n13.  On 13 March 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 11 October 2006.\n14.  The case was remitted to the first-instance court for further examination.\n15.  According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the first-instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5023", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and is currently held in the Kırklareli Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre, in Turkey.\n7.  The applicant first entered Turkey on 24 September 2002 using a false passport. She began living and working in Istanbul without informing the Turkish authorities or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”).\n8.  On 22 October 2003 the applicant applied to the UNHCR and asked to be recognised as a refugee. On an unspecified date in 2004 she was detained by the Turkish authorities and deported to Iran, where she claims to have been imprisoned for nine months and subjected to ill‑treatment.\n9.  Following her release from prison in Iran, the applicant re‑entered Turkey illegally on 3 February 2005. She learned that her case before the UNHCR had been closed in her absence.\n10.  In June 2006 the applicant was diagnosed with myomatosis of the uterus and operated in a private hospital on 5 June 2006. The medical reports, in particular the pathology results, revealed that there were no cancerous cells.\n11.  In the meantime, she became interested in Christianity and began attending Bible classes. On 7 September 2007 the applicant was baptised in a Protestant church in Istanbul. On an unspecified date the applicant's son, who was attending the Iranian Consulate School in Istanbul, was expelled on the ground of “conduct against the school's faith”. Some time within a year of that incident the applicant applied to the Iranian Consulate in Istanbul for a passport. While there, she was asked to complete a form stating that she was a Christian.\n12.  On an unspecified date at the end of 2007, the applicant applied to the UNHCR and requested that her case be re-examined.\n13.  On 3 May 2008 the applicant went to the Fatih police headquarters in Istanbul in order to make statements as a witness regarding a criminal offence committed by third persons. As she was found to have identity documents with different names on them, an investigation was initiated into this and she was arrested. On an unspecified date she was released.\n14.  On 9 May 2008 the applicant was rearrested on suspicion of infringement of visa requirements and forging official documents. According to a letter sent by the Istanbul police to the Department responsible for foreigners, borders and asylum attached to the General Police Headquarters on the same day, the applicant had stated that she did not wish to live in Iran and that she had come to Turkey in order to apply to the UNHCR. The same letter stated that the applicant had been placed in the Foreigners' Department of the Istanbul police headquarters with a view to her deportation from Turkey.\n15.  On 13 May 2008 the director of the department responsible for foreigners, borders and asylum attached to the General Police Headquarters requested the Istanbul police headquarters to obtain statements from the applicant regarding a number of issues, including her failure to apply to the Turkish authorities when she had applied to the UNHCR, the reason why she had made multiple entries and exits between Iran and Turkey and why she was staying illegally in Turkey. The director also requested that the possible security risks that the applicant may pose in Turkey be determined.\n16.  On 16 May 2008 the applicant sent another letter to the Ministry of the Interior. Referring to her medical condition, she requested urgent treatment and asked to be released and issued with a temporary reside", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5024", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  In 1964 the applicant’s grandfather died and inheritance proceedings were instituted.\n6.  On 12 January 1966 the State Notary approved the inheritance settlement. In the settlement the applicant’s mother waived her right to a share of the estate although her legal capacity was restricted. An apartment in which she lived with the applicant was included in the estate.\n7.  In 1983 the property in issue was confiscated by the State.\n8.  In 1991 the heirs under the inheritance settlement of 1966 applied for the property in restitution proceedings, signed a restitution agreement and became owners of the property.\n9.  On 17 August 1992 the applicant requested the State Notary Bratislava I that the inheritance settlement be served on her.\n10.  After its receipt, on 9 October 1992, the applicant appealed against the settlement to the Bratislava City Court.\n11.  On 8 December 1993 the Bratislava City Court dismissed the appeal.\n12.  On 14 February 1994 the applicant appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court.\n13.  On 31 August 1994 the Supreme Court quashed the decision and returned the case to the Bratislava City Court.\n14.  On 2 November 1994 the Bratislava City Court quashed the decision of the State Notary of 12 January 1966 and returned it to the Bratislava I District Court.\n15.  On 2 January 1995 the Bratislava I District Court appointed a notary to pursue the inheritance proceedings.\n16.  On 5 March 1996 the Bratislava I District Court issued a decision.\n17.  On 22 March 1996 the applicant appealed.\n18.  On 5 September 1996 the Bratislava City Court quashed the decision and returned it to the Bratislava I District Court.\n19.  On 15 May 1997 the Bratislava I District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of a different set of proceedings before the Bratislava I District Court. Those proceedings ended with the Bratislava Regional Court’s decision of 8 November 2004.\n20.  After receipt of a certificate of ownership of the property in issue, the Bratislava I District Court, on 28 May 2007, discontinued the proceedings stating that the deceased did not possess any estate at the time when the decision was made.\n21.  On 5 August 2008 the applicant appealed against the decision.\n 2. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action of 23 December 1996\n22.  On 23 December 1996 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava I District Court for the determination of the property in her grandfather’s estate.\n23.  On 11 March 2005 the Bratislava I District Court dismissed the action on the ground that the current owner of the estate had not been included in the applicant’s action as a defendant.\n24.  Subsequently, the applicant appealed.\n25.  On 10 November 2005 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the decision. It stated that the applicant had not proved any pressing need for the determination of the property in the estate and that her right to claim the property in issue had lapsed after the restitution proceedings which had ended in 1991. According to the court’s reasoning previous legal transactions prevented the applicant from claiming that the property still continued to belong to the estate.\n26.  On 7 February 2006 the applicant appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court.\n27.  On 21 February 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as inadmissible.\n 3. Constitutional proceedings\n28.  On 2 March 2006 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5025", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. In December 1993, the applicant concluded a lease contract (“the contract”) with the company “M.” (“the debtor”) under which it rented a warehouse (“the property”) for a period of five years.\n5. On an unspecified date in 1996, the applicant claimed repossession (враќање во владение) of the property since on 12 November 1996 the debtor had broken in, removed its belongings and rented the property to a third person. The applicant’s claim was upheld in two court levels, the last being the Skopje Court of Appeal’s decision of 21 October 1998 ordering the debtor to restore the property in the applicant’s actual possession.\n6. On 3 February 1999 the Skopje Court of First Instance   (“the first-instance court”) granted the applicant’s enforcement request of 16 December 1998 by ordering the debtor to vacate the property and to restore it in its actual possession (“the enforcement order”). It also made a charging order over the debtor’s bank account concerning the payment of trial costs.\n7. On 16 February 1999 the debtor objected, inter alia, that the validity of the contract had expired and that the enforcement was accordingly, inadmissible. This objection was finally rejected by the Skopje Court of Appeal’s decision of 17 November 1999.\n8.  On 11 February 2000 the first-instance court dismissed the debtor’s request for postponement of the enforcement. On 7 February and 16 March 2000 respectively, it also dismissed same objections submitted by third parties, which had meanwhile joined the proceedings.\n9.  On 16 May 2000 the public prosecutor lodged a legality review request (барање за заштита на законитоста) with the Supreme Court against the decision of 16 March 2000 arguing that inter alia the enforcement order could not be executed since the validity of the contract had meanwhile expired. On 29 September 2000 the first-instance court postponed, on the public prosecutor’s request, the enforcement proceedings pending the outcome of the legality review proceedings. On 9 October 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the public prosecutor’s legality review request.\n10.  Between 19 January 2000 and 29 May 2003, the first-instance court fixed five hearings to be held on-site. On two occasion, the debtor unsuccessfully requested exclusion of the sitting judge. On 20 July 2000 and 10 July 2003 the President of the first-instance court ordered removal of the sitting judge. On 4 March and 13 June 2003 respectively, it issued an eviction order against the debtor. On 29 May 2003 it refused the debtor’s request that the enforcement proceedings be suspended pending the outcome of other civil proceedings, instituted in the meantime, in which the latter had claimed revocation of the enforcement order (see paragraph 12 below).\n11.  On 22 November 2005 the first-instance court adjourned the enforcement advising the debtor to challenge the admissibility of the enforcement (недопуштеност на извршувањето) in separate civil proceedings.\n12.  On 9 February 2006 the Skopje Court of Appeal rejected the debtor’s claim for revocation of the enforcement order, under section 53 of the 1997 Act, as having not been advised by the first-instance court to do so (see paragraph 15 below).\n13.  On 15 December 2005, in separate civil proceedings, the debtor challenged the admissibility of the enforcement. On 30 December 2008 the Skopje Court of Appeal finally upheld its claim declaring the execution of the enforcement order inadmissible since the validity of the contract had expir", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5026", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Harmstorf, Germany.\n5.  The applicant and Mrs W-L (born in 1965) married in May 1994. Their son P. was born on 30 November 1994. The applicant also adopted Mrs W-L’s son J. M., who had been born on 19 April 1991. Since the spouses’ separation in May 1997 both children have lived with Mrs W-L. The applicant then entered into a relationship with another woman, Ms N. They had a daughter (A.) born in 1998.\n6.  On 13 January 1998 the applicant filed a divorce petition with the Winsen (Luhe) District Court. By submissions dated 15 January 1998 he requested sole custody of the two children J. M. and P. On 27 February 1998 his wife, Mrs W-L, requested sole custody of their children.\n7.  In March and April 1998 the District Court (Judge R.) requested the parties and their insurers to submit all information necessary for the adjustment of the parties’ pension rights (Versorgungsausgleich). The information requested reached the court by July 1998.\n8.  On 14 September 1998 the Harburg Youth Office submitted a report. It argued that in view of their continual quarrels Mrs W-L and the applicant were unable to exercise custody of their children jointly.\n9.  On 18 September 1998 the District Court held a hearing. The parties subsequently submitted their observations concerning Mrs W-L’s claim for maintenance, which she had lodged only at the hearing.\n10.  In two notes for the records dated 14 January and 16 March 1999 the District Court judge stated that in view of his increased caseload, he could not currently take the present proceedings further.\n11.  On 7 April 1999 the Harburg Youth Office confirmed that it was impossible for the parties to agree on issues concerning their children and urged the court to decide speedily.\n12.  On 17 May 1999 and on 21 June 1999 the Winsen (Luhe) District Court refused requests made by the applicant, inter alia, on 1 June 1999 by reference to Article 623 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 48 below) to separate the divorce proceedings from the proceedings concerning ancillary matters (Folgesachen), in particular custody and maintenance, in order to decide on his divorce beforehand. It found that the legal requirements to do so laid down in Article 628 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 49 below) had not been met. There had not been an extraordinary delay in the divorce proceedings. This was, as a rule, only the case when proceedings had been pending for more than two years. Moreover, the applicant was not suffering undue hardship as a result of the fact that the decision on the divorce and on all ancillary matters would be given at the same time.\n13.  On 28 June 1999 the applicant refused to return the children to their mother following the exercise of his right of contact and absconded with them.\n14.  By an interim order of 20 July 1999 the District Court, having held a hearing in the presence of the parties on 16 July 1999 concerning the applicant’s divorce petition and all ancillary matters, awarded Mrs W-L sole custody of J. M. and P. and ordered the applicant to return the children immediately to her. The applicant had been asked by the court to bring the children along to the hearing, but had not done so.\n15.  On 27 August 1999 the court cancelled the hearing scheduled for that day to pronounce its judgment and fixed another hearing instead, arguing that in view of recent events both children would have to be heard again on the question of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5027", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1974 and 1970 respectively and are currently detained in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 19 January 2000 the applicants were taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of the Hizbullah, an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 31 January 2000 a single judge at the Second Chamber of the Ankara State Security Court ordered the applicants' pre-trial detention.\n7.  On 24 May 2000 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants, charging them under Article 146 §1 of the former Criminal Code with attempting to undermine the constitutional order.\n8.  On 10 July 2000 the first hearing was held before the Third Chamber of the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n9.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicants was transferred to the Sixth Chamber of the Diyarbakır Assize Court.\n10.  At the end of each hearing, the Diyarbakır State Security Court, and subsequently the Diyarbakır Assize Court, considered the applicants' detention either of their own motion or at the applicants' request. Each time, they ordered the applicants' continued detention pending trial, having regard to the nature of the offence with which they were charged, the existence of a strong suspicion that they had committed the offence and the state of evidence.\n11.  According to the information in the case file, the proceedings are still pending before the Sixth Chamber of the Diyarbakır Assize Court and the applicants are still remanded in custody.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5028", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in İstanbul.\n5.  On 2 July 1998 the applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the İstanbul Administrative Court against the İstanbul Stock Exchange (“the IMKB”). He requested 47,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRL 5,000,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the period between November 1990 and 16 December 1996 during which, as had previously been established by the domestic courts, he ought to have been recruited by the IMKB.\n6.  On 18 July 1998 the IMKB unsuccessfully challenged the jurisdiction of the İstanbul Administrative Court. On 8 February 1999 the IMKB repeated its challenge and requested that the matter be referred to the Jurisdiction Disputes Court. On 7 July 1999 the Court of Cassation confirmed the public corporative nature of the IMKB and held that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts.\n7.  On 30 November 2001 the İstanbul Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage and awarded him TRL 3,117,228,526[1] in respect of pecuniary damage, plus default interest running from the date on which the debt arose until the date of payment. Both parties appealed.\n8.  On 11 May 2005 the IMKB paid the applicant TRL 17,275,000,000[2].\n9.  On 24 May 2005 the Council of State upheld the judgment. On 9 September 2005 the applicant requested rectification. On 10 December 2007 the Council of State dismissed the applicant's request. The applicant was notified of this on 7 February 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5029", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Both applicants, who are brothers, were born in 1946: Mr Nicolae Veniamin lives in Boulogne and Mr Lascăr Veniamin in Paris.\n6.  On an unspecified date, the State seized possession of an apartment belonging to the mother of the applicants, on the 4th floor of no.43, Dacia Street, in Bucharest.\n7.  By a final decision of 19 June 1998, the Bucharest District Court allowed the action brought by the applicants against the State for recovery of possession (acţiune în revendicare). The applicants were granted possession of the apartment on 19 January 1999.\n8.  Within less than one month from the final decision favourable to the applicants, on 6 July 1998, the State sold the apartment to the tenants under Law no. 112/1996. Subsequently, on 11 February 1999 the Mayor of Bucharest issued a decision for the restitution of the apartment to the tenants who had bought it.\n9.  The applicants lodged an action against the tenants, seeking to have the contract of sale concluded by them with the State set aside and the restitution of ownership of the apartment. By a final decision of 2 November 2004, the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the action on the ground that the buyers had concluded the contract in good faith.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5031", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  On 29 September 1994, the applicant was arrested mainly on charges of robbery and trespassing. The criminal proceedings against him and three other persons were opened the same day.\n6.  On 28 November 1994, he was released from custody.\n7.  In an indictment dated 29 September 1995, the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Bucharest County Court committed the applicant and the three other persons for trial.\n8.  On 12 October 1995 the case was registered with the Bucharest District Court.\n9.  On 2 April 1996, on an appeal by one of the co-accused against an interlocutory judgment rendered in the case, the file was sent to the Bucharest County Court, from where it was returned on 13 May 1996 and was entered into the court's list on 29 May 1996. However, none of the contents of the file could be found after this date.\n10.  Consequently, on 7 March 1997, the District Court sent the case back to the County Prosecutor's Office to reconstitute the file.\n11.  On 6 June 1997, under Article 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the County Prosecutor's Office referred the case back to the District Court, this being the appropriate judicial authority to reconstitute the file at that stage of the proceedings.\n12.  Therefore, on 30 June 1997, the case was re-entered into the District Court's list.\nSeveral items, such as the indictment and the arrest warrants, were requested from the Prosecutor's Office.\n13.  On 7 December 2001 the District Court considered the file reconstituted. It gave judgment on 7 February 2003, sentencing the applicant to six years' imprisonment.\n14.  Most of the adjournments of the hearings were caused by the failings of the judicial authorities in summoning the defendants or civil parties\n15.  Following an appeal by the applicant, the sentence was upheld in a decision of 12 May 2004 of the Bucharest County Court and lastly in a final decision of 29 July 2004 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5032", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  On 23 September 1994 N.B., the applicant's father lodged a criminal complaint with the Strehaia District Court for injuries against G.M. seeking compensation for damage.\n6.  On 19 January 1995, the Supreme Court of Justice, acting at the request of N.B. for the file to be transferred to another jurisdiction, transferred the case to the Timişoara District Court. The case was registered with this latter court on 21 February 1995.\n7.  The applicant's father joined a civil complaint to the criminal proceedings on 26 April 1995.\n8.  On 31 May 1995, the Timişoara District Court gave judgment, acquitting G.M. on the ground that the evidence in the case did not support N.B.'s allegations. It consequently dismissed the claim for damages.\n9.  In a final decision of 15 January 1996, the Timiş County Court dismissed N.B.'s appeal and confirmed the lower court's decision.\n10.  On an unknown date, the Procurator-General, acting at the request of N.B., lodged an application with the Supreme Court of Justice to have the final decision of 15 January 1996 quashed (recurs în anulare) on the ground that the decision had seriously infringed the law because it had inaccurately interpreted the evidence, in particular, the forensic report.\n11.  In a final decision of 27 May 1997, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the two decisions of the ordinary courts and sent the case back to the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Strehaia District Court for further investigations.\n12.  On 13 April and 9 October 1998, the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Mehedinţi County Court allowed complaints by the applicant that there had been unjustified delays in the investigations. The applicant continued the proceedings after his father's death.\n13.  On 25 February 1999, the same Prosecutor's Office decided not to start criminal proceedings against G.M., on the ground that the evidence gathered did not prove that the latter had committed an offence.\n14.  However, on 18 June 1999, when this decision was contested by the applicant, the Prosecutor's Office reversed its decision and sent the case back to the Mehedinţi police for further investigation.\n15.  On 2 March 2000, the Prosecutor's Office upheld its earlier decision not to start criminal proceedings against G.M. However, on 16 May 2001, the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Craiova Court of Appeal reversed the decision of 2 March 2000.\n16.  On 12 October 2001, the Mehedinţi Prosecutor's Office confirmed its previous decisions. Following complaints by the applicant, this decision was upheld by the Craiova Prosecutor's Office on 26 June 2002 and by the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice on 11 April 2003.\n17.  Subsequently, on 19 May 2003, the applicant lodged an action with the Strehaia District Court to have the prosecutors' decisions quashed.\n18.  In a judgment of 1 September 2003, the District Court confirmed the decision adopted by the prosecutors, on the grounds that a new forensic opinion of 24 September 2001 contradicted the previous findings concerning the trauma that N.B. had allegedly suffered and, in these circumstances, G.M.'s guilt could not be established.\n19.  This judgment was confirmed following an appeal by the applicant, in a final decision of 24 October 2003 of the Mehedinţi County Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5033", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Ms Andrea AnnaMaria Ţuluş and forty-six other applicants are Romanian nationals. They are judges and auxiliary personnel of the Cluj County Court.\n6.  Twenty of the forty-seven applicants have two given names. However, only one of these names appeared in the decisions of the domestic courts. For example, the main applicant's full name is Andrea AnnaMaria Ţuluş, while in the domestic decisions she is referred to as Andrea Ţuluş.\n7.  In a judgment of 17 May 2002, the Cluj County Court allowed an action concerning the restitution of the amounts retained as health insurance contributions from the salaries of the applicants for the period between 1 January 2000 and 30 March 2001. The action was lodged by the applicants against the County Court of Cluj and the Ministry of Justice.\n8.  In a final decision of 2 July 2002, the Cluj Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal filed by the Ministry of Justice against that judgment.\n9.  At the end of 2003, the applicants obtained the restitution of the amounts retained from their salaries through forced execution.\n10.  On 2 July 2003, the Procurator-General lodged an application with the High Court of Cassation and Justice to have the final decision quashed (recurs în anulare) on the ground that the decision had seriously infringed the law and that it was, in any case, manifestly ill-founded.\n11.  In its decision of 11 May 2004, the High Court allowed the extraordinary appeal, quashed the final decision of 2 July 2002 and the judgment of 17 May 2002 and, as a result, rejected the applicants' action, on the ground that the ordinary court had incorrectly interpreted the applicable law.\n12.  In their last letter addressed to the Court, on 7 August 2008, the applicants stated that the High Court's decision of 11 May 2004 had never been executed and consequently they had not returned the amounts obtained through forced execution.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5034", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1983, 1946 and 1936 respectively. The first and the third applicant live in Diyarbakır and the second applicant resides in Manisa. The application concerns the wounding of the first applicant, who was eleven years old at the time, and the death of the second and third applicants' sons, Çetin Alican and İlhami Alican, who were fourteen and thirteen years old respectively, as a result of the explosion of an RPG-7 (anti-tank grenade launcher) grenade outside the applicants' village, Kıyıdüzü, in Van.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 22 April 1994 Kamuran Alican, Çetin Alican and Ilhami Alican took their animals out to graze. When the animals returned to the village without the children, the villagers launched a search party and informed the military nearby; the Van 6th Armoured Brigade Barracks. A search was also unsuccessfully conducted within the military confines. The next day, the dead bodies of Çetin Alican and Ilhami Alican were found in a wheat field between the army barracks and Nemrut Mountain. The first applicant, who had injuries to his eyes and legs, was found a few hundred metres away. He was immediately taken to Tatvan State Hospital for treatment. As a result of the explosion, the first applicant suffered partial loss of the sight of one eye and the total loss of sight in the other.\n7.  According to the first applicant's testimony, given to a prosecutor on 10 June 1994, the children were grazing their sheep in the field when they found an object with an iron head which looked like a bullet. The first applicant left the other two children to find water while they were trying to hit the iron head with pieces of metal. At that moment the bullet exploded.\n8.  On 23 April 1994 the Tatvan public prosecutor instigated an investigation into the incident. The prosecutor noted that there were numerous trenches around the area for tank and gun practice. The remains of the ammunition at the scene were secured. Reports and sketches were drafted and a post‑mortem examination was conducted on the deceased. The cause of death was attributed to hemorrhagic shock and the doctor deemed it unnecessary to conduct a classic autopsy of the deceased.\n9.  On 4 May 1994 the Tatvan public prosecutor decided that he lacked jurisdiction to investigate the incident and forwarded his decision to the military prosecutor's office at the Van 21st gendarmerie border brigade commandership (“the military prosecutor”).\n10.  The military prosecutor instigated an investigation into the incident. In particular, he requested the official records regarding the use of grenade launchers by the military during training, and medical reports regarding the health of the first applicant.\n11.  In the course of the investigation evidence was gathered from the first applicant, the third applicant, the head of the village, Mr M. M. Alican, a fellow villager, the soldiers on patrol duty on the day of the incident and a higher-ranking military official.\n12.  On 6 May 1997 the military prosecutor gave a decision that there was no need to initiate criminal proceedings on the ground that there was no fault or negligence attributable to anyone except Kamuran Alican, Çetin Alican and İlhami Alican. In his decision, the prosecutor noted that the children, while they were grazing their animals, had collected, near the trenches, a grenade fro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5035", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Skopje.\n5. On 27 November 1997 she complained to her employer about her treatment at work.\n6.  On 9 December 1997 the employer dismissed the applicant, considering her complaint as a request for resignation. The applicant's objection remained undecided.\n7.  On 26 February 1998 she claimed before the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) annulment of the dismissal decision, her reinstatement and payment of unpaid salary.\n8.  On 17 February 1999 the court ordered expert examination of the applicant's mental state of health on 27 November 1997, the date when she had submitted her complaints to the employer. The applicant was ordered to pay the expert fees within fifteen days. On 12 June 2000 the first-instance court noted that the applicant had failed to pay the fees.\n9.  On 4 May 2001 the court ordered expert examination of the applicant's mental health again. The applicant paid the expert fees on 26 October 2001. The expert opinion was submitted on 15 November 2001.\n10.  During the trial proceedings, three hearings were adjourned due to the incorrect delivery of court summons to the applicant and her lawyer.\n11.  On 19 September 2002 the first-instance court dismissed (одбива) the applicant's claim as having been submitted out of the fifteen-day statutory time-limit. On 27 March 2003 the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed this decision since the applicant's claim should have been rejected (отфрла) instead.\n12.  On 15 October 2003 the first-instance court rejected the applicant's claim as out of time. On the same date the applicant was exempted of court fees (судска такса). On 17 March 2004 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal of 5 December 2003.\n13.  On 20 April 2004 the applicant submitted to the Supreme Court an appeal on points of law (ревизија) arguing that the fifteen-day time-limit had been of a non-binding (инструктивен) nature. In this connection, she referred to a decision of 28 December 1999 in which the Supreme Court allegedly had given such reasoning.\n14.  On 30 March 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal stating that the statutory time-limit had been of a preclusive nature. This decision was served on the applicant on 27 June 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5036", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant lives in Großau.\n6.  The applicant is a practitioner of general medicine. He has an individual contract (Einzelvertrag) with the Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board (Niederösterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse). The applicant has also obtained special diplomas in the areas of echocardiology and sonography and performs these types of examination on his patients.\n7.  One part of the individual contract between the applicant and the Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board is the Remuneration Regulation (Honorarordnung) which states that certain types of examinations will only be reimbursed if they are performed by a specialist doctor.\n8.  The Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board refused to reimburse echocardiologic and sonographic examinations as the applicant was not a specialist doctor but a general practitioner.\n9.  On 2 February 1998 the applicant claimed payment for echocardiologic and sonographic services amounting to 1,900.31 euros (EUR) for the third quarter of 1997 before the Joint Arbitration Committee (Paritätische Schiedskommission); on 23 April 1998 he submitted another claim for payment amounting to EUR 1,896.65 for the fourth quarter of 1997; at an unknown date this claim for payment was increased to EUR 1,944.57. On 6 July 1998 the applicant submitted a claim for payment of EUR 1,184.81 for the first quarter of 1998.\n10.  The Joint Arbitration Committee held hearings on 1 April 1998 and 16 September 1998.\n11.  As the Joint Arbitration Committee did not reach a decision because of a tie, the applicant filed an application for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) to the Regional Appeals Commission (Landesberufungskommission) on 2 July 1998 and 7 October 1998, respectively.\n12.  Meanwhile, on 6 October 1998 the applicant had claimed payment for echocardiologic and sonographic services amounting to EUR 1,169.75 for the second quarter of 1998. At a later date this claim was reduced to EUR 1,098.63.\n13.  On 25 November 1998 the Regional Appeals Commission refused to grant the applicant’s claims concerning the third and fourth quarters of 1997 and the first quarter of 1998.\n14.  On 12 April 1999 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) which, on 27 November 2000, set aside the decision of the Regional Appeals Commission of 25 November 1998. It found that the applicant’s right to have his case heard by an impartial tribunal had been violated as one of the assessors nominated by the Lower Austrian Medical Association had negotiated the disputed clause of the Remuneration Regulation. Consequently, the Regional Appeals Commission did not appear independent and impartial.\n15.  As regards the claim for the second quarter of 1998, the applicant had filed an application for transfer of jurisdiction to the Regional Appeals Commission on 6 April 1999 owing to a tie in the Joint Arbitration Committee. As at that time the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 25 November 1998 was pending before the Constitutional Court, the Regional Appeals Commission decided to stay the proceedings until the Constitutional Court had given its decision. On an unknown date the Regional Appeals Commission decided to join the proceedings in respect of all the applicant’s claims, that is to say; those for the third and fourth quarter of 1997 and for the first and second quarters of 1998.\n16.  After the Constitutional Court had set aside the Regional Appeals Commission’s decision of 25 November ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5037", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are the joint owners of a house in Salzburg which they had acquired in 1996. In spring 1997 they discovered that the distance between an annex to their house and the neighbouring plot of land did not correspond to the minimum distance required by the building permit.\n5.  On 24 November 1997 the applicants applied to the Salzburg Municipal Authority (Magistrat) for a retrospective building permit including, among other points, the authorisation to go below the minimum distance between the annex to their house and the neighbouring plot.\n6.  The Salzburg Municipal Authority fixed a date for a hearing on the property in question, but cancelled that date on the applicants’ request. Subsequently, the applicants and their neighbours filed comprehensive submissions and the applicants submitted substitute plans which were then examined by a court-appointed expert, A.\n7.  A hearing on the applicants’ property was held on 4 November 1998. On the applicants’ request the time-limit for commenting on the results of the hearing was extended from 4 to 31 December 1998. Having announced to submit a private expert opinion by the end of January 1999 the applicants did so on 2 June 1999. On 1 August 1999 the applicant’s neighbours filed comments. The Salzburg Municipal Authority granted the applicants’ request on 7 December 1999.\n8.  On 23 December 1999 the applicants’ neighbours appealed against the authorisation to reduce the minimum distance between their property and the applicants’ house.\n9.  Until August 2000 the Appeals Commission (Bauberufungs-kommission) tried to achieve a settlement between the applicants and their neighbours. As these efforts failed, it took further evidence, asking expert A. to supplement his opinion. The parties were asked to comment by 21 February 2001. That time-limit was extended several times on the applicants’ request until 30 March 2001. The Appeals Commission held an on-site hearing on 6 July 2001.\n10.  On 17 October 2001, after a further attempt to achieve a friendly settlement had failed, the Appeals Commission requested the applicants for further comments by 6 November. On their request the time-limit was extended until 28 November 2001. Following a change in the designation of the applicants’ property, the Appeals Commission asked them to comment by 13 February 2002. On that date the applicants submitted comments and amended their request which was subsequently submitted to expert A. The latter submitted his opinion, after the applicants had made further necessary amendments of the plan, on 24 September 2002. On the applicants’ request, the time-limit for filing comments was extended from 12 November until 9 December 2002. The time-limit for replying to their neighbours’ comments was extended from 2 January until 28 January 2003.\n11.  On 18 March 2003 the Appeals Commission confirmed the Municipal Authority’s decision.\n12.  On 2 May 2003 the applicants’ neighbours lodged a complaint to the Administrative Court. The Appeals Commission submitted its observations on 3 July and the applicants submitted their observations in reply on 24 July 2003.\n13.  On 27 March 2007 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) dismissed the neighbours’ complaint as being unfounded. The judgment was served on the applicants’ counsel on 19 April 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5038", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Golubinci, Serbia.\n5.  On 14 March 1988 the applicant brought a civil action against his then employer in the Zagreb Basic Court of Associated Labour (Osnovni sud udruženog rada u Zagrebu), seeking damages in connection with an employment-related accident. The case was later on transferred to the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).\n6.  On 29 May 2006 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings.\n7.  On 14 March 2007 the Zagreb Municipal Court orally pronounced its ruling as to the applicant’s civil claim and awarded him compensation for the employment-related accident. At this moment in time, however, the applicant did not receive a written copy of the judgment ( see paragraph 12 below).\n8.  On 25 April 2007 the Zagreb County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded him compensation in the amount of 6,500 Croatian kuna (HRK), and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to decide the case as quickly as possible but in any case within six months.\n9.  On 21 May 2007 the applicant appealed against the Zagreb County Court decision, contesting the amount of compensation awarded, the six-month time-limit and the dismissal of his claim for the costs of proceedings.\n10.  On 4 October 2007 the applicant’s appeal was forwarded to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).\n11.  On 11 January 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint as he did not receive the Municipal Court decision within six months as ordered by the County Court. In a letter of 23 January 2008 the Constitutional Court notified the applicant that it was not competent to supervise the implementation of the higher court’s decisions ordering lower courts to decide a case within a certain time-limit.\n12.  The written copy of the Zagreb Municipal Court’s judgment of 14 March 2007 (see paragraph 7 above) was served on the applicant’s counsel on 22 February 2008. In the meantime, on 14 January 2008 the defendant had lodged an appeal against the first instance judgment with the Zagreb County Court.\n13.  On 30 June 2008 the Supreme Court accepted the applicant’s appeal of 21 May 2007 against the County Court’s decision of 25 April 2007, concerning the length of proceedings and awarded him an additional amount of HRK 6,500 in compensation.\n14.  On 13 January 2009 the County Court partly upheld the first instance judgment of 14 March 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5039", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant lives in St Oswald.\n6.  The applicant is a medical practitioner. He has an individual contract (Einzelvertrag) with the Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board (Niederösterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse).\n7.  In two submissions to the Joint Arbitration Committee (Paritätische Schiedskommission) dated 7 September 1998 and 5 October 1998, the applicant demanded payment for laboratory tests carried out in the first and second quarters of 1998. The claims against the Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board amounted to 8,022.41 euros (EUR) and EUR 6,603.81, respectively.\n8.  The Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board claimed that the applicant had not participated in the test series for quality checking of laboratory parameters in 1997, and refused to pay for the tests.\n9.  The applicant argued that he had participated in the quality checks in previous years with positive results and had – as previously – submitted the relevant samples for the period in question.\n10.  The Joint Arbitration Committee held an oral hearing and on 25 February 1999 it dismissed the applicant’s claim of 7 September 1998.\n11.  The applicant appealed against that decision to the Regional Appeals Commission (Landesberufungskommission).\n12.  On 17 May 1999 the applicant filed an application for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag), requesting a decision on his submission of 5 October 1998 from the Regional Appeals Commission, as the Joint Arbitration Committee had failed to decide within the statutory six-month time-limit.\n13.  The Regional Appeals Commission held a hearing and rejected both of the applicant’s claims. The decision was dated 24 August 1999, and was served on the applicant on 7 July 2000.\n14.  The applicant complained about this decision to the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). On 27 November 2000 the Constitutional Court set aside the decision for violation of the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. It noted that one of the assessors of the Regional Appeals Commission had negotiated the clause on remuneration for laboratory tests on behalf of the Lower Austrian Medical Association (Ärztekammer für Niederösterreich), and thus the tribunal could not be regarded as impartial and/or independent.\n15.  An amendment to the Social Insurance Act (Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz) entered into force on 1 September 2002; it provided for changes in the composition of, inter alia, the Regional Appeals Commission.\n16.  The newly composed Regional Appeals Commission held a hearing on 15 May 2002, during which the applicant gave evidence.\n17.  On 24 March 2003 the applicant requested that the decision be served on him. As the Regional Appeals Commission did not react, the applicant repeated his demand on 18 July 2003.\n18.  The applicant was summoned to another hearing by a newly composed Regional Appeals Commission on 26 November 2003. During that hearing the entire subject was examined anew. Apparently the Regional Appeals Commission reached a decision on the same day. It dismissed the applicant’s claims, finding that he had failed to participate in the required tests and had therefore not complied with the conditions for payment of the laboratory tests. The Regional Appeals Commission did not find any reasons to doubt the lawfulness of the underlying provision of the Remuneration Regulation (Honorarordnung). The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 30 November 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5040", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Mr Işık was born in 1962 and lives in İzmir. He is a member of the Alevi religious community, which is deeply rooted in Turkish society and history. Their faith, which is influenced, in particular, by Sufism and certain pre-Islamic beliefs, is regarded by some Alevi scholars as a separate religion and by others as the “essence” or “original form” of Islam. Its religious practices differ from those of the Sunni[1] schools of law in certain aspects such as prayer, fasting and pilgrimage (see Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, no. 1448/04, § 8, 9 October 2007).\n6.  The applicant stated that his identity card, issued by the registrar of births, marriages and deaths, contained a “religion” box which indicated “Islam”, even though he was not a follower of that religion.\n7.  On 7 May 2004 he applied to the İzmir District Court seeking to have his identity card feature the word “Alevi” rather than the word “Islam”. The relevant parts of his application read as follows:\n“... the word ‘Islam’ featuring on my identity card does not reflect the true situation. As an Alevi citizen of the Republic of Turkey, I thought, on the basis of my knowledge and beliefs, that a person could not be at once ‘Alevi’ and ‘Islam’ (sic!). As a citizen of the secular Republic of Turkey, which, under its Constitution, protects freedom of religion and conscience, I refuse to continue to bear the weight of this injustice and this contradiction stemming from the desire to offset a fear, which is wholly unfounded and deeply offensive.”\n8.  On 9 July 2004, following a request by that court, the legal adviser to the Directorate of Religious Affairs issued his opinion on the applicant’s request. He considered in particular that to indicate religious interpretations or subcultures in the religion box on identity cards was incompatible with national unity, republican principles and the principle of secularism. He argued in particular that the word “Alevi”, designating a sub-group within Islam, could not be considered to be a separate religion or a branch (mezhep) of Islam. It was an interpretation of Islam influenced by Sufism and having specific cultural features.\n9.  On 7 September 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s request on the basis of the following considerations:\n“1.  ... the religion box on identity cards contains general information about citizens’ religion. It is accordingly appropriate to examine whether the Alevi faith (Alevilik) constitutes a separate religion or an interpretation of Islam. It is clear from the opinion issued by the Presidency of the Directorate of Religious Affairs that the Alevi faith is an interpretation of Islam which is influenced by Sufism and which has specific cultural features ... Accordingly, that faith constitutes an interpretation of Islam and not a religion as such, in accordance with the general principles laid down in this regard. Furthermore, only religions in general are indicated on identity cards and not an interpretation or branch of any particular religion. No error has therefore been made in indicating ‘Islam’ on the identity card of the applicant, who claims to be ‘Alevi’. 2.  Books and articles submitted by the applicant reveal that Ali[1] is described as the ‘lion of Allah’ or similar. The fact that certain poems contain different expressions does not mean that the Alevi faith is not part of Islam. Since Ali is one of the four caliphs of Islam and the son-in-law of Muhammad, he must be considered to be one of Isla", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5041", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Olkusz.\n5.  On 1 December 1999 a bill of indictment was filed against the applicant with the Olkusz District Court, after as it appears a short pre-trial stage. Two charges were brought against her: threatening to kill, and assaulting, a certain J. B.-D. The prosecutor requested that 12 witnesses be heard.\n6.  On 12 January 2000 the applicant requested that the case be transferred to the Kraków District Court. She further requested that all the judges of the Olkusz District Court be excluded from the examination of her case. It appears that both applications were dismissed.\n7.  On 4 September 2000 the applicant lodged an application requesting the hearing to be recorded on tape; this was also dismissed.\n8.  The first hearing in the case took place on 5 October 2000. The Olkusz District Court heard submissions from the applicant.\n9.  A hearing scheduled for 21 November 2000 was adjourned on account of the justified absence of the applicant.\n10.  A subsequent hearing scheduled for 14 December 2000 was also adjourned on account of the absence of a lay judge.\n11.  On 16 January 2001 the applicant again requested that all the judges of the Olkusz District Court be excluded from the examination of her case.\n12.  On account of that application, hearings scheduled for 23 January and 9 February 2001 were cancelled.\n13.  On 18 April 2001 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the the applicant's application.\n14.  On 3 January 2002 the court scheduled a hearing for 17 January 2002.\n15.  On 7 January 2002 the applicant requested 49 certified copies from the case file. On 10 January 2002 she further requested that a lay judge be excluded.\n16.  On 17 January 2002 the court heard the applicant and set the date for the next hearing for 12 March 2002.\n17.  On 22 January 2002 the applicant made a request for 2 certified copies from the case file and 11 copies of other documents.\n18.  On 4 March 2002 the applicant's counsel requested that the hearing be rescheduled. A new hearing was listed for 26 April 2002.\n19.  On 22 April 2002 the applicant requested that the chairman of the judicial panel be excluded from the examination of her case. She further requested the exclusion of all the judges of the Olkusz District Court. On account of this application the hearing was cancelled.\n20.  On 30 April 2002 the applicant again requested that the chairman of the judicial panel be excluded from the examination of her case.\n21.  On 12 June 2002 the Kraków Regional Court granted the applicant's application concerning the exclusion of all the judges. It found that the applicant had slandered the judges in numerous applications she had filed with the court and for this reason it decided to transfer the case to the Miechów District Court.\n22.  On 9 July 2002 the court scheduled a hearing for 30 August 2002. During the hearing it was disclosed that the applicant had been seeing a psychiatrist on a regular basis. The prosecutor filed an application to have her examined by a psychiatrist to determine whether she had been sane at the time of the alleged crime.\n23.  On 18 October 2002 an expert opinion was submitted to the Miechów District Court. The psychiatrist had found that there were still doubts as to the applicant's mental health; hence it was necessary to examine her in a hospital. The Miechów District Court granted this request.\n24.  On 30 October 2002 the applicant's counsel appealed against the decision ordering her h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5042", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Kleczew.\n7.  At the material time the applicant was a member of the Kleczew Municipal Council.\n8.  On 22 March 2000, in the course of a session of the Kleczew Municipal Council, the applicant gave a speech in his capacity as a member of the Council. The purpose of the debate was to take a vote on whether the Municipal Board (Zarząd Gminy) had made appropriate use of the 1999 municipal budget. In this context the applicant made the following statements:\n“What the members of the Municipal Council received is all lumped together; it is unclear what costs how much ...\nAccording to the Municipal Council’s resolution of 22 June 1999, spending on investments was to be increased. The money was to be spent on modernising and renovating the purification plant and building access to it.”\n9.  The applicant had doubts as to whether that investment had in fact been made. He also referred to another investment project, the sanitary sewage system, saying:\n“It is unclear how many metres have been built. It is important, because this is public money. Everyone knows how to spend his own money, but where public money is concerned, it is being spent as much as possible.”\n10.  The applicant further compared the Kleczew municipality with the neighbouring Wilczyn municipality, which had had a small budget but had managed to construct an interceptor sewer at much less expense, which was an example of rational public spending (gospodarność), and said:\n“And this is shocking; with contractors earning 660,880 zlotys, is this not money laundering in our municipality?”\n11.  The applicant asked the members of the Board many other questions relating to the 1999 budget.\n12.  During a break in the session the applicant gave an interview to a journalist from the local newspaper, the Local Express (Ekspres Powiatowy).\n13.  On 24 March 2000 the “Local Express” published an article entitled “Where is the million?” with the subtitle “Kleczew municipal councillor accuses Municipal Board of money laundering”. The article read that “according to the councillor’s statement made at the session of the Municipal Council, one million zlotys from the municipal budget allocated for the autonomous activity of the municipality has disappeared”. The article went on to cite the following statement made by the applicant:\n“... I made these calculations because there was something not right here, a million is missing and I am sure of that. Maybe the Municipal Board is money laundering? I will inform the institutions which deal with controlling the municipalities of the matter”\n14.  On 10 May 2000 seven members of the Kleczew Municipal Board lodged a claim with the Konin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) for the protection of their personal rights. Among other things, they sought an order requiring the applicant to publish an official apology in the local newspaper.\n15.  On 17 April 2002 the Poznań Regional Court gave judgment finding that the statements made by the applicant at the Council meeting on 22 March 2000 and given to the press had been untrue and had infringed the plaintiffs’ personal rights (by tarnishing their good name and reputation). The court further found that the plaintiffs were public officials and their good name, reputation and reliability were of great importance. It ordered the applicant to publish an official apology in the Local Express and to make a statement of apology at the next Municipal Council session for his statemen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5044", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant lives in Białystok.\n6.  In 1991 the applicant married Mr S.D. On 21 December 1998 their son J. was born.\n7.  In February 2006 the applicant's husband took their son for a winter holiday but afterwards failed to return with him to the family's flat. The applicant's husband rented a new flat and started hindering the applicant's contact with her son.\n8.  In February 2006 the applicant filed for divorce.\n9.  On 24 May 2006 the Białystok District Court (Sąd Okręgowy) gave an interim order which stipulated that, during the divorce proceedings, the child's place of residence would be with the applicant. The court ordered the applicant's husband to pay child maintenance and granted him access to J. on Thursdays and every other Saturday and Sunday. The interim order became final and enforceable on 25 May 2006.\n10.  On 5 July 2006 the District Court ordered the court-appointed guardians to enforce the decision of 24 May 2006 and to remove the child from his father's care.\n11.  On 14 July 2006 one of the guardians made a first attempt to enforce the court's order, which failed owing to the attitude of the father who refused to hand J. over to his mother. The guardian refused to call for police assistance or to inform the public prosecutor about the events.\n12.  The applicant informed the prosecutor that her child had been kidnapped by her husband. However, on 25 July 2006 the Kolno District Prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings, finding that no offence had been committed. This decision was upheld by the Białystok District Court on an unspecified later date.\n13.  The applicant was unable to assist the same guardian in her next attempt to remove the child from his father's care, which had been scheduled for 11 August 2006. Consequently, it had to be cancelled.\n14.  Given the subsequent inactivity of the guardians, the applicant lodged a complaint with the District Court on 6 December 2006.\n15.  In reply, she was informed by the President of the Łomża District Court that the guardians had received an instruction from a family court judge to cease their attempts to remove the child.\n16.  Following her second complaint about the court-appointed guardians, on 16 and 17 January and 5 February 2007, the President of the Białystok Regional Court (Prezes Sądu Okręgowego) wrote to the applicant informing her that he agreed that there had been shortcomings in the guardians' attempts to remove the child from his father's care and that new measures would shortly be taken. He noted, in particular, that before ordering a forced removal of the child, the applicant's husband should have been invited to voluntarily hand J. over. This had resulted in the unsuccessful enforcement of the court's order.\n17.  On 12 February 2007 the guardians made another attempt to remove the child. However, the applicant's husband had gone with the child to the adjacent flat. Both the guardians and the police refused to enter that flat.\n18.  On 20 February 2007 the Białystok District Court ordered the applicant's husband to hand over the child voluntarily to his mother within three days.\n19.  Since the father had failed to comply with this order, on 19 March 2007 the Białystok District Court gave a decision in which it authorised the court-appointed guardians to forcibly remove the child.\n20.  At a hearing held on 30 March 2007, in the course of the divorce proceedings, the court heard experts who had prepared an expert opinion requested by the court. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5045", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Łódź.\n5.  On 27 July 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for payment against the Łódź Municipality.\n6.  On 8 April 1998 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) gave judgment. The court partly allowed the applicant’s claim. The defendant appealed.\n7.  On 28 September 1998 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.\n8.  On 11 August 2005 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s claim against the Łódź Municipality. The applicant appealed.\n9.  On 22 March 2006 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the appellate court’s judgment.\n10.  On 12 January 2007 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain her cassation appeal.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged with the Łódź Court of Appeal a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n12.  On 16 September 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Łódź Regional Court finding that there had been several periods of unjustified inactivity for which the Łódź Regional Court had been responsible. It referred to the periods between 29 January and 16 April 2004, 24 June and 27 October 2004, 12 January and 18 May 2005 and qualified them as unjustified delays. The court did not examine, however, the period prior to the entry into force of the 2004 Act.\n13.  The court awarded the applicant 1,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 285 euros (EUR)) in just satisfaction.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5046", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 3 September 2001 an arrest warrant was issued by the Izmir Criminal Court in respect of the applicant due to his alleged involvement in fraud and the forgery of identity cards.\n6.  On 13 August 2001 the Izmir Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with these offences under Article 350 (1), (2) and (3) of the former Criminal Code.\n7.  On 12 October 2001 the Bakırköy Magistrates' Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand in accordance with the arrest warrant.\n8.  On 10 December 2001 the Izmir Criminal Court issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction and referred the case to the Izmir Assize Court.\n9.  On 11 December 2001 the applicant was heard by the Bakırköy Magistrates' Court upon the instruction of the Izmir Criminal Court. The applicant pleaded not guilty and requested his release.\n10.  Between 19 December 2001 and 3 February 2003, the first-instance court postponed nine hearings since the applicant, who was detained in the Metris Prison, was not brought before it as he could not be transferred to the Buca Prison in Izmir.\n11.  Between 19 December 2001 and 7 July 2003, the Izmir Assize Court examined the applicant's continued detention at the end of every hearing, either of its own motion or upon the applicant's requests. On each occasion, the court ordered the applicant's continued detention, having regard to the state of the evidence and nature of the offence.  On 7 July 2003 the court ordered the applicant's release.\n12.  On 8 November 2004 the applicant was acquitted for lack of evidence.\n13.  On 10 February 2005 the applicant brought an action before the Bakırköy Assize Court requesting compensation for his unjustified detention.\n14.  On 8 October 2007, the Bakırköy Assize Court partially granted the applicant's compensation claim.\n15.  On 20 November 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 8 October 2007.\n16.  According to the information in the case file, the compensation proceedings are currently pending before the first instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5047", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The Christian Democratic People’s Party (“the CDPP”) is a political party in the Republic of Moldova which was represented in Parliament and was in opposition at the time of the events.\n6.  On 3 December 2003 the applicant party applied to the Chişinău Municipal Council for an authorisation to hold a protest demonstration in the Square of the Great National Assembly, in front of the Government’s building, on 25 January 2004. According to the application, the organisers intended to express views on the functioning of the democratic institutions in Moldova, the respect for human rights and the Moldo-Russian conflict in Transdniestria.\n7.  On 20 January 2004 the Chişinău Municipal Council rejected the applicant party’s request on the ground that “it had convincing evidence of the fact that during the meeting, there will be calls to a war of agression, ethnic hatred and public violence”.\n8.  The applicant party challenged the refusal in court and argued, inter alia, that the reasons relied upon by the Municipal Council were entirely baseless.\n9.  On 23 January 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant party’s action. The court found that the Municipal Council’s refusal to authorise the CDPP’s demonstration was justified because the leaflets disseminated by it contained such slogans as “Down with Voronin’s totalitarian regime” and “Down with Putin’s occupation regime”. According to the Court of Appeal, these slogans constituted a call to a violent overthrow of the constitutional regime and to hatred towards the Russian people. In this context, the court recalled that during a previous demonstration organised by the applicant party to protest against the presence of the Russian military in Transdniestria, the protesters burned a picture of the President of the Russian Federation and a Russian flag.\n10.  The applicant party appealed against the above decision arguing, inter alia, that the impugned slogans could not have reasonably been interpreted as a call to a violent overthrow of the Government or as a call to ethnic hatred and that the refusal to authorise the meeting constituted a breach of its rights guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.\n11.  On 21 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant party’s appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5048", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On 15 January 1977 the applicant bought seven plots of land in the Bozcaada region of Çanakkale from a private person by way of a bill of sale.\n6.  On an unspecified date, a land registry survey was carried out in the region, as a result of which the plots in question were registered in the name of the Treasury.\n7.  On 21 August 1991 the applicant raised an objection before the Bozcaada Cadastral Court against the land registry survey and requested its annulment.\n8.  The first hearing was held on 5 November 1991. The applicant did not attend the hearings held between 16 June 1992 and 17 November 1998. Moreover, the hearings were adjourned between 16 June 1992 and 22 February 1994 pending the determination of the applicant's address by the Treasury.\n9.  At the hearing held on 3 May 1994 the Bozcaada Cadastral Court ordered an on-site inspection of the plots in question. However, the official notice for the payment of the inspection fee was only served on the applicant on 21 July 1998, and the inspection was conducted on 4 September 2000.\n10.  On 29 March 2002 the Bozcaada Cadastral Court partially granted the applicant's request in relation to three of the plots in question. The court held that there was no record of ownership in the land register in respect of these three plots and the applicant had therefore acquired title to them by way of adverse possession. The remaining four plots, however, were registered in the Treasury's name in the land register and could not, therefore, have changed ownership by way of adverse possession. The bill of sale executed in 1977 to convey the title of the disputed land was also void for the same reason. Moreover, even if the Treasury had held no valid title to the plots in question, the conditions for adverse possession of unregistered land had not been fulfilled by the applicant in the instant case. The applicant, therefore, could not claim title to them. In reaching its decision the Bozcaada Cadastral Court relied on a number of sources, including on‑site inspection reports, statements from witnesses and local experts, title deeds, tax records, bills of sale, sketch plans and agricultural and technical expert reports.\n11.  After holding a hearing on the merits of the case, on 4 February 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Bozcaada Cadastral Court. On 18 June 2003 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant's rectification request. This decision was served on the applicant on 11 July 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5049", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Kraków.\n6.  The realities of the international situation following the end of the Second World War prevented the Republic of Poland from asserting any claims arising out of persecution of its citizens by Nazi Germany, including as forced labourers.\n7.  In the period immediately following the Second World War Poland did not conclude a specific agreement with Germany regarding the issue of reparations. It relied on the Potsdam Agreement of 1 August 1945, concluded by the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.\n8.  On 27 February 1953 the London Agreement on Germany’s External Debts (London Debt Agreement) was concluded by the United States of America, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union. Under this Agreement, consideration of claims arising out of the Second World War by countries which were at war with or were occupied by Germany during that war, and by nationals of such countries, against the Reich or agencies of the Reich was deferred until final settlement of the issue of reparations.\n9.  On 23 August 1953, a day after a similar declaration by the Government of the Soviet Union, the Government of Poland declared that it renounced any claims against Germany in respect of war reparations as of 1 January 1954. In a declaration of 27 September 1969, made at the United Nations, the Government of Poland clarified that the renouncement of 1953 did not affect individual claims arising out of unlawful acts.\n10.  In 1972 the Federal Republic of Germany made an ex-gratia payment of DM 100 million to the Polish Government for the victims of pseudo-medical experiments.\n11.  It was only after the conclusion of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with respect to Germany of 12 September 1990 (the so‑called Two‑Plus‑Four Treaty) and the conclusion of two treaties between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Poland in 1990[1] and 1991[2] that the issue of persons persecuted by the Nazi regime was addressed in the bilateral Agreement of 16 October 1991 (see paragraph 30 below).\n12.  The issue of compensation for slave and forced labour during the Second World War was addressed in the Joint Statement of 17 July 2000 and the German Law of 2 August 2000 on the Creation of the “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” Foundation (see relevant law below).\n13.  In June 1942 the applicant was deported from Grójec, which was then part of the Polish territories annexed by the Third Reich, to Wadów, located on the territory of the General Government (Generalna Gubernia, an administrative entity established by the German authorities in occupied Poland). He worked as a forced labourer on a German farm in Wadów until the liberation in January 1945.\n14.  In August 2001 the applicant applied to the “Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation” (“the Foundation” or “the Polish Foundation”) for payment of compensation for his forced labour during the war. That request was made under the scheme for slave and forced labourers (“the second compensation scheme”). On 23 July 2004 the Foundation’s Verification Commission dismissed the applicant’s claims. It found that the applicant’s forced labour did not entitle him to receive benefits under any of the categories for eligibility. The applicant appealed on 31 August 2004. He argued that he had worked on a German farm and submitted three documents in support ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5050", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Nowe Brzesko.\n6.  In March 1940 the applicant was deported to Germany where he was subjected to forced labour on three different farms until the end of the Second World War. He worked on the same farm as M.P., his future wife. On 30 April 1945 their daughter was born in Germany. After the end of the war they all returned to Poland. They registered their daughter as having been born in Poland on 13 May 1945, for fear of negative consequences had they revealed that she was born in Germany.\n7.  On 9 June 2001 the applicant applied to the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation (“the Foundation”) for compensation on account of his forced labour during the war. That request was made under the scheme for slave and forced labourers (“the second compensation scheme”) established under the Joint Statement of 17 July 2000, the German Law of 2 August 2000 on the Creation of the “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” Foundation (“the German Foundation Act”) and the subsequent Agreement of 16 February 2001 between the Remembrance, Responsibility and Future Foundation (“the German Foundation”) and the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation.\n8.  It appears that on 1 July 2004 the Foundation’s Verification Commission found that the applicant was eligible for benefits, as his persecution fell under the 4th category, which included persons who had been deported to Germany and subjected to forced labour in agriculture. It consequently awarded him the sum of EUR 1,124.84. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.\n9.  On an unspecified date the husband of the applicant’s daughter applied to the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation for compensation on account of her birth at a time when her parents had been forced labourers in Germany. That request was made under the second compensation scheme. On 28 August 2003 the Foundation’s Verification Commission refused the request by the applicant’s daughter. The applicant appealed against that refusal. He relied on a number of statements provided by his fellow forced labourers. On 23 July 2004 the Foundation’s Appeal Commission upheld the refusal. The applicant was informed that during the negotiations in the framework of the so-called “openness clause” it was agreed that children born to parents deported to Germany and subjected to forced labour there were eligible for benefits. However, according to the documents in the file, including his daughter’s identity card, she had been born on 13 May 1945 in Poland. Furthermore, there were no other documents in the file to confirm the applicant’s assertion that his daughter had been born in Germany and had returned with her parents to Poland.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5051", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n5.  On 6 August 1998 a criminal investigation was started in respect of the murder of a taxi driver whose body had been found a week earlier in a forest. His car had been set on fire.\n6.  On 28 January 1999 the criminal investigation was suspended as the identity of the perpetrator could not be established.\n7.  On 10 August 1999 the investigation was resumed, K. being a suspect. On the following day the applicant was interviewed as a witness. He said that he had not used a taxi to get from Tallinn to Sillamäe in May 1998, had not sold a mobile phone to F. and had heard nothing about the murder of a taxi driver from Tallinn. The interview lasted for ten minutes.\n8.  On 16 August 1999 the investigation was again suspended.\n9.  On 19 April 2001 a resumption of the investigation was ordered.\n10.  Also on 19 April 2001 the chairperson of the Tallinn Administrative Court (halduskohus) authorised the installation of covert listening devices in T.’s home and covert audio recording of conversations. The authorisation was for a ten-day period and remained valid until 18 May 2001. According to a report concerning the surveillance activity, on 11 May 2001 the applicant and T. talked about the murder of the taxi driver.\n11.  On 30 July 2001 a police investigator drew up a decision by which the offence, initially qualified as manslaughter, was requalified as murder. K. and the applicant were identified as suspects. The investigator ordered that they should be taken to the police station the following day.\n12.  On 1 August 2001 the investigator requested that the applicant and K. be detained in case they attempted to leave the country.\n13.  On 17 August 2001 the police attempted to arrest the applicant, who was not at home. His neighbour had not seen him for a week.\n14.  On the same date the investigator drew up charges against the applicant. He was charged, together with K., with murder, aggravated robbery and destruction of property. According to the charges the offences had been committed on the night of 17 May 1998. As the applicant was evading the criminal investigation, he was declared a fugitive and the investigation was suspended.\n15.  Also on 17 August 2001 the Ida-Viru County Court (maakohus) authorised, at the investigator’s request, the applicant’s detention for ten days after his arrest.\n16.  On 5 October 2001 a criminal investigation was started in respect of T., who was charged with failure to report the murder of the taxi driver.\n17.  On 1 December 2003 the applicant was arrested.\n18.  On 2 December 2003 he was presented with the charges drawn up on 17 August 2001.\n19.  On 4 December 2003 the Narva City Court (linnakohus) authorised his detention for one month. Subsequently, the court regularly extended his detention (on 31 December 2003 and on 29 January, 26 March, 27 May, 23 July and 26 August 2004).\n20.  In the meantime, on 23 July 2004, the criminal case concerning the failure by T. to report a crime was joined to the case in which the applicant and K. were defendants.\n21.  On 21 September 2004 the bill of indictment was drawn up and the criminal case file was sent to the Narva City Court.\n22.  By a decision of 1 February 2005 the City Court committed the applicant for trial together with K. and T. The applicant and K. were charged with murder and destruction of property; T. was charged with failure to report a crime. The City Court endorsed the preventi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5052", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the village of Rosen.\n5.  In 1992 the applicant was acting as a liquidator of an agricultural co‑operative.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 1993 a preliminary inquiry was opened against him by the police in Pazardzhik. It concerned his alleged mismanagement of property of the co-operative between April and December 1992. On 2 February 1993 the police confiscated the applicant's passport. In April 1993 and in the beginning of June 1993 he was questioned.\n7.  On 29 June 1994 the Pazardzhik regional public prosecutor's office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for mismanaging the assets of the co-operative thus causing it substantial pecuniary damage.\n8.  On an unspecified date in 1994 the investigator to whom the case had been assigned imposed a prohibition on the applicant's leaving the country.\n9.  No investigative steps were taken after the opening of the criminal proceedings and the applicant was never formally charged or indicted.\n10.  On at least thirteen occasions between 26 September 1994 and 5 November 2003, pursuant to oral requests by the applicant to terminate the proceedings and lift the travel ban, the Pazardzhik regional public prosecutor's office sent letters to the Pazardzhik Regional Investigation Service with instructions to close, and forward to it, the applicant's case file. Apparently, those instructions were not complied with.\n11.  On 2 July 2004 the Pazardzhik regional public prosecutor's office terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant, finding that the limitation period for the prosecution of the respective offence had expired in 1997.\n12.  On 11 November 2004 the police lifted the travel ban imposed on the applicant (see paragraph 8 above).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5054", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a company with its registered office in Viničné.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 23 March 1998 the applicant lodged an action with the Rožňava District Court concerning the payment of a sum of money.\n8.  On 30 March 1998 the case was transferred to the Košice Regional Court.\n9.  On 26 November 2000 the Regional Court granted the action.\n10.  On 26 January 2001 the defendant appealed.\n11.  On 28 February 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the decision and returned the case to the Regional Court.\n12.  On 15 May 2003 the Regional Court dismissed the action.\n13.  On 23 June 2003 the applicant appealed.\n14.  On 26 October 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the decision and returned the case to the Regional Court.\n15.  On 14 March 2005 the Regional Court granted the action.\n16.  On 17 May 2005 the defendant appealed.\n17.  On 19 May 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the overall length of the proceedings in its action.\n18.  On 21 September 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed a part of the applicant’s complaint concerning the delays in the proceedings before the Supreme Court as being belated. It stated that in relation to the appeal proceedings the applicant had failed to lodge the complaint within the statutory 2 months’ period as the Supreme Court’s decisions had become final on 24 April 2002 and 27 December 2004.\n19.  On 10 October 2005 the case was transferred to the Supreme Court.\n20.  On 9 November 2005 the Supreme Court returned the case to the Regional Court without a decision on the merits.\n21.  On 11 January 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Regional Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay.\n22.  It ordered the Regional Court to proceed without delay and awarded 30,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK), (the equivalent of 800 euros (EUR) at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the Regional Court to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs.\n23.  On 6 September 2007 the Supreme Court partly upheld the Regional Court’s decision of 14 March 2005 and on 28 September 2007 it returned the case for a decision on the matter of costs and expenses to the Regional Court.\n24.  On 20 February 2008 the Regional Court requested the applicant’s legal representative to submit all necessary documents.\n25.  On 16 April 2008 the Regional Court imposed a fine on the applicant’s legal representative.\n26.  On 12 May 2008 the applicant’s legal representative specified the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses.\n27.  On 12 June 2008 the Regional Court quashed the decision imposing a fine on the applicant’s legal representative.\n28.  On 5 November 2008 the Regional Court issued a decision on costs and expenses. The decision became final on 29 November 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5055", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Yerevan.\n5.  On 23 September 2005, at 5.50 p.m., the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of attempted murder.\n6.  On 26 September 2005 formal charges were brought against the applicant.\n7.  On the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (Երևան քաղաքի Կենտրոն և Նորք-Մարաշ համայնքների աոաջին ատյանի դատարան) granted the investigator’s relevant motion and ordered the applicant’s detention on remand for a period of two months, to be calculated from 23 September 2005.\n8.  On 14 November 2005 the investigator filed a motion with the District Court, seeking to have the applicant’s detention on remand prolonged for another two months.\n9.  On 22 November 2005 the District Court examined and dismissed this motion. This decision was subject to appeal.\n10.  On 23 November 2005 at around 11 a.m. a copy of this decision was presented by the applicant’s lawyer to the Chief of the Yerevan-Kentron Detention Facility («Երևան-Կենտրոն» քրեակատարողական հիմնարկի պետ) where the applicant was held.\n11.  On the same date the prosecutor lodged an appeal against the above decision.\n12.  Later that day at 5.30 p.m. the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal (ՀՀ քրեական և զինվորական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարան) commenced the examination of the prosecutor’s appeal. The applicant was escorted to the hearing by four national security officers in an official car.\n13.  At 5.45 p.m. the applicant’s lawyer arrived and requested a ten-minute recess to be able to consult with the applicant. The Government alleged that the lawyer was deliberately late for the hearing, while the applicant claimed that her lawyer was informed by telephone about this hearing only at 5.30 p.m.\n14.  At 5.50 p.m. the applicant’s detention period authorised by the decision of 26 September 2005 expired.\n15.  Following the recess, the lawyer challenged the impartiality of the bench. He first alleged that the court had not given the applicant sufficient time to prepare her defence and also failed to ensure equality of arms. Furthermore, there were four national security officers in the court building who prevented the applicant, who was formally already at liberty, from going out of the building. Thus, the fact that such things were happening in the building of the Court of Appeal suggested that the outcome of the proceedings was already pre-determined.\n16.  The court departed to the deliberation room to examine this challenge, after which it returned and announced its decision dismissing it.\n17.  Thereafter another twenty-minute recess was announced by the court for the defence to be able to familiarise itself with the prosecutor’s appeal and the materials of the case. During the recess an ambulance was called because the applicant felt unwell. Her blood pressure rose to 180/100 but no injections could be administered as she was allergic, so the doctor recommended adjourning the hearing.\n18.  The hearing resumed at 8.03 p.m. The applicant’s lawyer requested the adjournment of the hearing in view of the deterioration of the applicant’s health and in order for him to be able to familiarise himself with the prosecutor’s appeal in adequate conditions. The court granted this request and adjourned the hearing until 1 p.m. on 24 November 2005.\n19.  The court hearing was over at around 8.30 p.m.\n20.  The applicant alleged and the Government did not dispute that during the entire court hearing she was monitored by four national sec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5056", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  The applicant inherited a 300 sq. m plot of land situated in Eforie Sud at 11 Vlad Ţepeş Street.\n6.  On 13 February 2001 the applicant brought civil proceedings to have removed an electrical transformer which occupied 25 sq. m of her land or to be allocated land in the neighbouring plot. She submitted that her intent was to build a house, but she had not obtained an authorisation to build on that land because of that transformer.\n7.  On 18 March 2002 the Constanţa District Court, considering that the applicant was prevented from enjoying the prerogatives conferred by her right of property, ordered the local administrative authorities to give her in compensation a plot of land with the same area and characteristics as her land. That judgment became final.\n8.  On 22 April 2003 the Constanţa District Court, at the applicant’s request, ordered the local administrative authorities to pay a pecuniary penalty for each day’s delay in enforcement of that judgment.\n9.  On 15 December 2003 the local council decided to compensate the applicant with land in another location than the plot adjacent to her land. The applicant sought annulment of that decision and on 19 May 2005 the Constanţa County Court allowed her action, considering that the land offered to the applicant was not equivalent to her land. Therefore it ordered the local administrative authorities to allocate the applicant another plot of 300 sq. m of land with the same characteristics as her land, as provided by the judgment of 18 March 2002. That judgment became final.\n10.  On 30 November 2005, at the applicant’s request, the Constanţa District Court, by an interlocutory decision, declared that the judgment of 19 May 2005 could be enforced. On 22 December 2005 the bailiff ordered the local administrative authorities to issue a new decision allowing the applicant to take possession of 300 sq. m of land as provided by the judgment of 18 March 2002.\n11.  On 17 March 2006 the local council decided to draw up evaluation reports in respect of the applicant’s land and of a plot of 676.67 sq. m in a different location. The applicant declined that offer, considering that the land proposed had not the same characteristics as her land.\n12.  On 10 April 2006 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the mayor alleging abuse of authority and non-compliance with court decisions. On 18 April 2007 she requested the prosecutor to inform her about the solution. On 21 February 2008 the Government informed the Court that the proceedings were still pending.\n13.  On 8 August 2006 the town council decided to draw up evaluation reports in respect of the applicant’s land and of the same area of land in the neighbouring plot.\n14.  In 2008 the local administrative authorities informed the applicant that they would compensate her with land from the plot adjacent to her land.\n15.  By a decision of 31 July 2009 the town council ordered compensation with land from the neighbouring plot. The applicant agreed with that decision.\n16.  So far the applicant has not received an ownership title for the land allocated in compensation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5057", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company, Evrim İnşaat A.Ş., is a construction firm operating in Istanbul.\n5.  On 10 June 1987 the applicant company signed a contract with a cooperative called Ülkü Kent Yapı Kooperatifi (“the cooperative”) for the construction of dwellings on land belonging to the latter.\n6.  In November 1991 the applicant company completed the construction of 65% of the project. However, following the election of a new board of directors by the general assembly of the cooperative, the applicant company’s contract was terminated by the cooperative.\n7.  On 22 July 1992 the cooperative brought an action in the 5th Chamber of the Istanbul Commercial Court (“the first case”) claiming damages from the applicant company on the ground that it had failed to fulfil the terms of the contract. The cooperative argued that the construction of the dwellings should have been completed by 31 August 1991, whereas the applicant company had only done 65% of the work by November 1991.\n8.  On the same date the applicant company brought a counter action in the 7th Chamber of the Istanbul Commercial Court (“the second case”) claiming damages from the cooperative. The applicant company argued that the cooperative had terminated the contract without giving any reasons.\n9.  On an unspecified date the two cases were joined by the 5th Chamber of the Istanbul Commercial Court. In the course of the proceedings the court sought expert opinions five times, which caused substantial delays. For example, on 23 June 1993 the court decided to obtain an expert opinion on the dispute. The case file was transmitted to the experts on 10 September 1993 but their report was not submitted to the court until 13 December 1995.\n10.  On 12 May 1999, in the first case, the Istanbul Commercial Court ruled in favour of the cooperative and allowed part of its claim for damages. The parties appealed.\n11.  On 22 December 1999, in the second case, the Istanbul Commercial Court dismissed the applicant company’s claim for damages, holding that it had failed to prove the damage caused by the termination of the contract by the cooperative.\n12.  On 15 June 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the lower court’s judgment in the first case. The applicant company requested rectification of that decision.\n13.  On 8 December 2000 the Court of Cassation ruled in favour of the applicant company and quashed its decision of 15 June 2000. The case was remitted to the lower court.\n14.  On 19 March 2001 the Istanbul Commercial Court decided to obtain a new expert opinion on the matter. This opinion was submitted to the court on 3 May 2001.\n15.  On 12 December 2001 the Istanbul Commercial Court ruled in favour of the applicant company and ordered the cooperative to pay 1,806,424,884 Turkish liras. The cooperative appealed.\n16.  On 30 September 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld the above judgment. That decision was sent to the Istanbul Commercial Court on 30 October 2002 and was served on the applicant on 14 March 2003.\n17.  On 4 June 2003 the applicant company brought an action in the Istanbul Commercial Court (Istanbul Asliye Ticaret Mahkemesi) against the cooperative requesting additional compensation (munzam zarar), under Article 105 of the Code of Obligations, for the damage it had sustained as a result of the low interest rate applied to the debt.\n18.  On 30 December 2005 the Istanbul Commercial Court dismissed the action, holding that the applicant company had failed to prove the alleged damage. The ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5058", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in İstanbul.\n5.  In 1970 the applicant bought a share in some land (plot no. 195) which was jointly owned by several other persons, in the Kadıköy district of İstanbul. According to the title-deed the applicant’s share corresponded to 275/21672 of the plot. The applicant submitted a copy of a map dated 17 June 1970 where he is mentioned as the owner of the part of the land designated as no. 46 in plot no. 195 (hereinafter “land no. 46”), which was around 329,50 m2 in size.\n6.  By decision no. 92/5 dated 12 May 1992, the Kadıköy Municipality divided the property amongst its owners and created separate titles. The applicant was allocated the part of the land designated as no. 6 in plot no. 195. It appears that the Municipality allocated parcel no. 46 to a firm.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed an action with the İstanbul Administrative Court against the Kadıköy Municipality, requesting the annulment of decision no. 92/5.\n8.  On 5 October 1994, upon the applicant’s request to prevent the transfer of the allocated plot of land to third persons, the İstanbul Administrative Court stayed the execution of the Municipality’s decision no. 92/5. The court noted, in particular, that, in view of the circumstances of the case file, the application of the Municipality’s decision no. 92/5 would engender irremediable damage.\n9.  On 10 April 1995 the firm sold its land to another person, Mr T.M., who in turn sold it to Mr G.Y. on 22 August 1996.\n10.  On 29 May 1995 the İstanbul Administrative Court annulled the part of the Municipality’s decision affecting the applicant on the ground that it was unlawful. The court, after having examined the evidence in the case file and the experts’ report, held that the value of the land allocated to the applicant by the Municipality’s decision was inferior to the value of the applicant’s parcel, and that there was a building on it which belonged to third persons. Therefore the Municipality had attributed the impugned land to the applicant without sufficient investigation and examination.\n11.  In the meantime, on 8 December 1994 the applicant filed an action requesting the Kadıköy Civil Court of First Instance to annul the title deed of the firm to land no. 46 and to register it under his name in the land registry. Mr T.M., the owner of the land at that time, also joined the proceedings. It appears that on 29 May 1995 the court issued a temporary injunction to prevent to transfer of the land to third parties. On 21 December 1995 the court dismissed the case. This action ended with dismissal on the ground that the applicant did not have locus standi since the administrative proceedings concerning the annulment of decision no. 92/5 were still pending before the courts. This judgment became final on 20 June 1996 when the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal and subsequent rectification request. On 14 August 1996 the first-instance court lifted the temporary injunction.\n12.  On 9 April 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. On 25 February 1997 it dismissed the Municipality’s request for rectification of its decision.\n13.  The criminal proceedings instigated, upon the applicant’s complaint, against the mayor of Kadıköy, the director and co-director of construction affairs of the Municipality and the vice chairman in charge of construction affairs were suspended, pursuant to Law no. 4616, on 24 April 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5059", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Glasgow. He is an advocate by profession. He owned a flat in a tenement building in Edinburgh. A number of the flats in the building were also owned by a commercial property company. In August 1988, when the proprietors of the building failed to carry out repairs mandated by the city council under statutory notices, the city council itself instructed works to be carried out (provided for by section 99 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982). It sought advice from a private architect, awarded the contract for the repairs to a private preservation company and apportioned the cost of the repairs among the various proprietors of the building. In October 1988, a fire occurred in the building which damaged part of the applicant’s flat and part of the flat below belonging to the commercial property company. Whilst the applicant was living elsewhere, the commercial property company instructed repair work. The applicant claimed that both sets of repairs constituted trespass to his property, that in each case the repairs were in fact inadequate and unsatisfactory, and that he was entitled to damages in the sum of GBP 100,000.\n5.  When the applicant refused to pay the council for his share of the repair costs, the council brought proceedings in the Sheriff Court (the civil court of general jurisdiction). The applicant filed a counter-claim alleging that the council had instructed further repairs that had damaged his property. The applicant further sought referral of the whole case to the Court of Session (the highest civil court in Scotland).\nOn 14 November 1994 the Sheriff Court upheld the council’s claim, rejected the applicant’s counter-claim and found that the case did not meet the criterion for referral to the Court of Session. On 11 May 1995, the applicant’s appeal to the Sheriff Principal was rejected.\nIn 1998, the applicant then brought proceedings against the architect and chief executive of the preservation company for contempt of court in relation to an alleged failure to produce documents in the initial action. By judgments of 17 February 1999, the Sheriff Court rejected the applicant’s claims.\n6.  On 26 March 1997, the applicant obtained a summons to bring proceedings against the commercial property company (“the first defenders”) and the city council (“the second defenders”) in the Outer House of the Court of Session, alleging that the statutory notices were invalid on grounds of fraud and illegal conspiracy. The second defenders were served on 15 April 1997. The first defenders were served on 14 May 1997. Defences were lodged by both defenders on 12 June 1997. Between that date and 7 January 1998 the record in the case (the parties’ written pleadings) was open and closed on a number of occasions at the request of the parties and with the leave of the court to allow for adjustment of their pleadings.\n7.  The applicant was then informed by the court that, since part of his claim challenged one of the orders made in the Sheriff Court proceedings, he was required to intimate a copy of the closed record to the relevant sheriff clerk. On 26 February 1998, the court gave him leave to do so. There was then further correspondence between the parties as to the future procedure in the case, which led the applicant to apply to the court first, for an order for disclosure of certain documents and second, for a warrant to direct the relevant sheriff clerk to transmit the record of the Sheriff C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5060", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in the village of Sosnovo in the Leningrad Region.\n6.  As transpires from a copy of the applicant’s medical record, submitted by him to the Court, on a number of occasions in 1987 he applied to the Sosnovo village hospital complaining of headaches. On 16 November 1987 he was diagnosed with hypertension. The diagnosis was recorded in his medical history.\n7.  In 1996 the Priozersk District Military Board registered the applicant for compulsory military service.\n8.  On 12 February 1997 the Priozersk District Military Medical Commission, comprising a surgeon, a general practitioner, a neuropathologist, a psychiatrist, an oculist, a dentist, a dermatologist and an otolaryngologist, examined the applicant for the purpose of making a preliminary assessment of the state of his health to determine whether he was fit for military service. The commission diagnosed the applicant with “hypotrophy of unknown genesis”, and assigned him category “D” on the medical scale of eligibility for service, finding him “temporarily unfit”. The diagnosis was made on the basis of the disproportionate correlation between the applicant’s height of 167 centimetres and his weight of 50 kilograms. The commission concluded that an additional medical examination of the applicant by an endocrinologist was necessary in relation to the diagnosis of hypotrophy. The applicant’s conscription was deferred for six months on medical grounds.\n9.  According to the applicant, the commission did not provide him with a medical certificate or any other medical documents directing him to a particular public health institution for further medical examinations, monitoring and, if necessary, treatment, as required by the Instruction on Military Medical Examinations in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, adopted on 22 September 1995 by Decree no. 315 of the Russian Defence Ministry and in force at the material time. However, as transpires from the applicant’s medical history submitted to the Court, on 18 February 1997 he was examined by an endocrinologist, who noted the disproportionate ratio between the applicant’s weight and height, but considered that his state of health was satisfactory. At the same time the endocrinologist diagnosed the applicant with a diffuse enlargement of the thyroid gland of the first degree, connected to puberty.\n10.  In October 1998 the applicant was again examined by the military medical commission and found to be “fit for military service”. The report of the commission indicated that he had not complained about the state of his health. The applicant’s call-up was scheduled for April 1999.\n11.  No further medical examinations of the applicant were performed until April 1999, when the military medical commission re-examined him. The commission concluded that the applicant was fit for military service without any restrictions. As transpires from the applicant’s personal file of a conscript produced to the Court, his height of 175 centimetres and his weight of 63 kilograms meant that the diagnosis of “hypotrophy” was no longer an issue. The applicant countersigned the medical report indicating that he had no complaints pertaining to the state of his health.\n12.  On 3 June 1999 the applicant was drafted into the army. He was assigned to military unit no. 22336 in Volgograd. The applicant alleged that in the unit he had on many occasions been beaten up and harassed by senior conscripts. They had allegedly forced h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5061", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1959 and 1967 respectively and live in Belgorod.\n5.  On 16 November 2002 the applicants’ minor son died in a building site accident.\n6.  Considering that the private construction company working on the site was responsible for the accident, the applicants sued the company for non‑pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 26 December 2003 the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Belgorod granted their claim in part and ordered the company to pay the applicants 400,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for non-pecuniary damage and RUB 5,000 for legal assistance costs.\n8.  On 24 February 2004 the Belgorod Regional Court, acting on appeal, reduced the award to RUB 300,000.\n9.  In March 2004 the enforcement proceedings were stayed as the respondent had applied for supervisory review of the case.\n10.  On 29 April 2004 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court quashed the judgment of 26 December 2003 and the appeal judgment of 24 February 2004 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n11.  On 8 June 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court granted the applicants’ claims in part and awarded them RUB 100,000 for non‑pecuniary damage.\n12.  On 3 August 2004 the Belgorod Regional Court, acting on appeal, amended the judgment increasing the sum to RUB 200,000. The appeal judgment became enforceable on the same day.\n13.  In September 2004 the enforcement proceedings were stayed as the respondent had again applied for supervisory review of the case.\n14.  On 7 October 2004 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court reassessed the evidence, quashed the appeal judgment of 3 August 2004 and remitted the case for fresh consideration on appeal.\n15.  On 26 October 2004 the Belgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment of 8 June 2004 on appeal. The award to be paid to the applicants was, accordingly, RUB 100,000.\n16.  In November 2004 the judgment was enforced.\n17.  On an unspecified date one of the applicants, Mr Kucherov, sued the construction company for pecuniary damage.\n18.  On 11 February 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court granted the claim in part and awarded him RUB 59,273.\n19.  On 13 April 2004 the Belgorod Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n20.  On 6 July 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court awarded Mr Kucherov RUB 94,468.\n21.  On 17 August 2004 the Belgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment with minor changes, having reduced the award due to RUB 86,326. The judgment became final and binding on the same day.\n22.  Following an application for supervisory review lodged by the defendant, on 20 October 2004 a judge of the Belgorod Regional Court referred the case to its Presidium for consideration on the merits.\n23.  On 28 October 2004 the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court reassessed the evidence, quashed the judgment of the Sverdlovskiy District Court of 6 July 2004 and the appeal judgment of the Belgorod Regional Court of 17 August 2004 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n24.  On 28 December 2004 the Sverdlovskiy District Court awarded Mr Kucherov RUB 19,068 for burial expenses and RUB 10,000 for legal assistance costs.\n25.  On 15 March 2005 the Belgorod Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for new consideration.\n26.  On 27 April 2005 the Sverdlovskiy District Court awarded Mr Kucherov RUB 19,068 for burial expenses and dismissed the remainder of the claim.\n27.  On 21 June 2005 the Belgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5062", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Novoaltaysk.\n5.  On 3 July 2003 the Industrialniy District Court of Barnaul granted, in part, claims brought by a certain Z. against the applicant and, inter alia, recognised his title to a share in a flat owned by the applicant.\n6.  On 13 August 2003 the Altai Regional Court quashed the judgment of 3 July 2003 on the applicant's appeal and dismissed Z.'s claims. This appeal judgment became final and binding.\n7.  On 9 February 2004 the applicant sold the flat to a third person, S.\n8.  On 27 July 2004 Z. lodged an application for supervisory review of the case.\n9.  On 5 November 2004 a judge of the Altai Regional Court sent the case to its Presidium for consideration by way of supervisory review.\n10.  On 7 December 2004 the Presidium of the Altai Regional Court reassessed the evidence, quashed the appeal judgment of 13 August 2003 and upheld the judgment of 3 July 2003, granting Z.'s claims in part.\n11.  According to the applicant, neither she nor her lawyer attended the hearing due to the authorities' failure to notify them of its date and time.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5063", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Sharan, Bashkortostan Republic.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with disorderly conduct. On 25 April 2003 he signed an undertaking not to leave the town.\n8.  On 8 July 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the Sharanskiy District of the Bashkortostan Republic found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year and nine months' imprisonment, conditionally suspended for two years. It ordered the applicant to remain in the town until the conviction became final. The applicant and the prosecutor appealed.\n9.  On 19 August 2003 the Sharanskiy District Court of the Bashkortostan Republic upheld the applicant's conviction on appeal. It revoked the suspension of the sentence, however. On the same day the applicant was taken into custody.\n10.  Further to a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant, on 9 October 2003 the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic quashed the District Court's judgment of 19 August 2003 and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh examination. The Supreme Court noted that the District Court had failed to observe the procedure pertaining to the presentation of the final submissions by the parties and to classify the conviction in full compliance with the applicable substantive law.\n11.  The applicant remained in custody. He allegedly complained to the director of the remand prison that his continued detention was not based on a judicial decision and asked to be released. The director responded by informing him that a certain “Judge K.” had told him not to release the applicant until further notice. The applicant also complained to the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic but received no reply.\n12.  On 5 November 2003 the District Court fixed an appeal hearing for 13 November 2003. Neither the applicant nor his counsel attended the hearing. As regards the applicant's detention, the court noted as follows:\n“The preventive measure, notably placement of [the applicant] in custody, should remain unchanged.”\n13.  According to the applicant, he received a copy of the decision of 5 November 2003 on 25 November 2003. Therefore, he considered that he had missed the ten-day time-limit for challenging the decision in question and did not lodge an appeal against it.\n14.  On 5 December 2003 the District Court upheld the applicant's conviction on appeal and revoked the suspension of his conditional sentence. The applicant was represented by Mr G., state-appointed counsel. Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed.\n15.  The Supreme Court scheduled a hearing for 17 February 2004. On 29 January 2004 the court dispatched summonses to the parties, including the applicant and his counsel, notifying them of the date and time of the hearing.\n16.  On 17 February 2004 the Supreme Court held the cassation hearing. It heard the prosecutor and granted his request to reclassify the charges against the applicant. It found the applicant guilty of battery and sentenced him to one year, eight months and fifteen days' imprisonment. The applicant was neither present nor represented.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5064", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Athens. He is a businessman, who married M.A. on 20 September 2003. At the time of their marriage M.A. was already a member of the Greek parliament (MP). On 24 March 2004 their son was born.\n6.  At the end of 2004 the applicant's marriage broke down. It was pronounced dissolved by mutual consent by the Athens Court of First Instance on 7 July 2005.\n7.  The applicant and M.A. concluded an agreement on 14 December 2004 resolving issues of custody and access in relation to their son. These arrangements were endorsed by a formal decision of the Athens Court of First Instance of 20 January 2005 (decision no. 528/2005). In particular, M.A. was to have custody of the child until he came of age, and he was to live with her. The applicant was entitled to open access to his son, subject to the child's needs, and certain minimum periods and days of contact were specified. In fact, he was entitled to see his son every day between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m.\n8.  On a number of occasions the applicant was unable to have contact with his son in accordance with the provisions of the court's order.\n9.  On 20 October 2005 the applicant lodged an indictment with the prosecutor of the Athens Court of First Instance based on Article 232A of the Criminal Code. He requested the sum of ten euros by way of nominal compensation for the non-pecuniary damage which M.A.'s breach of decision no. 528/2005 had caused him, reserving his right to seek further compensation before the civil courts.\n10.  On 24 August 2006 the prosecutor of the Athens Court of First Instance referred the indictment to the prosecutor of the Supreme Court. The matter was referred to the Minister of Justice on 30 August 2006 for onward transmission by him to the President of the Greek parliament, so that leave of Parliament to bring the proceedings could be sought under Article 62 of the Greek Constitution. The file was received by Parliament on 3 October 2006.\n11.  On 28 November 2006 the Parliament's Ethics Committee gave the opinion that M.A.'s immunity should not be lifted. In its report the Committee considered that “one of the grounds provided for by Article 83 § 3 of Parliament's Regulations applied in this case”.\n12.  On 6 December 2006, by a majority of 107 votes to 68 following a secret ballot, Parliament, sitting in plenary session, refused to grant leave. No reasons were given for its decision.\n13.  In the meantime, on 31 March 2005, M.A. had brought criminal proceedings against the applicant for placing a security guard outside her building after having allegedly received telephone calls threatening him and his family. These proceedings were subsequently dismissed both at first instance and on appeal.\n14.  On 20 December 2005 the Athens Court of First Instance varied the custody arrangements. The court's order made specific provision for the payment of a 1,000-euro fine by M.A. should she breach any of its provisions (decision no. 9599/2005). M.A. has allegedly consistently failed to comply with these revised arrangements. On 20 March 2007 and 26 March 2007 the applicant lodged two further indictments with the prosecutor of the Athens Court of First Instance following alleged breaches of the court's decision. The applicant again sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n15.  On 9 May 2007 the prosecutor of the Athens Court of First Instance referred the indictment dated 26 March 2007 to the prosecutor of the Supreme Court. The matter was r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5065", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and is now serving a prison sentence in Kazan UE-148/19 correctional colony.\n6. On 16 December 2001 he was arrested. On 28 December 2001 the prosecutor’s office of the Novosheshminskiy District of the Republic of Tatarstan authorised his detention on charges of inflicting severe injuries which had caused the death of the victim.\n7. By a judgment of 5 March 2002, the Novosheshminskiy District Court of the Republic of Tatarstan convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten years and six months’ imprisonment in a correctional colony with a special regime. On 14 May 2002 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan upheld the judgment on appeal.\n 8. During the relevant periods the applicant was detained in the following detention facilities. From 16 December 2001 to 9 January 2002 he was held in the temporary detention facility at Novosheshminskiy police station (изолятор временного содержания Новошешминского РОВД). He was then transferred to Bugulma IZ-16/03 remand centre (следственный изолятор ИЗ-16/3 Главного управления Федеральной службы исполнения наказаний по Республике Татарстан) where he was held from 9 January to 20 August 2002, except for a short period from 28 to 29 January 2002, which he spent in the temporary detention facility at Novosheshminskiy police station. From 20 August 2002 to 26 August 2003 he was held in Chistopol UE-148/T prison (тюрьма УЭ-148/Т г. Чистополя Республики Татарстан).\n 9. The parties’ descriptions of the conditions of the applicant’s pre-trial and post-trial detention significantly differ on a number of counts. 22. The applicant was held in Bugulma IZ-16/3 detention facility from 9 January to 20 August 2002, except for a short period from 28 to 29 January 2002. 23. According to his submissions, at the material time the cells where he was detained measured 5 x 1.5 metres on average, had six beds and accommodated between twelve and fifteen inmates, who had to take turns to sleep and were not provided with personal bedding. The lights were permanently on. The windows had no glass and were sealed with metal shutters. It was very hot in the summer and freezing in the winter. The toilet was placed very close to the dining table, with no privacy. Despite regular complaints about insects, the administration took no action to fumigate the cells. A shower was available twice a month. No outside exercise was offered to the applicant. The detainees’ food consisted mainly of vegetables and soya products. The medical assistance was inadequate. 2. The Government’s account\n 24. Relying on a certificate dated 27 December 2006 issued by the facility management, the Government submitted that the applicant had been held in five cells:\n- cell no. 212, measuring 21 sq. m and accommodating five inmates including the applicant;\n- cell no. 311, measuring 12 sq. m with six sleeping places;\n- cell no. 312, measuring 12 sq. m with six sleeping places;\n- cell no. 317, measuring 21 sq. m with fourteen sleeping places;\n- cell no. 407, measuring 21 sq. m, with fourteen sleeping places.\n 25. In cell no. 212 the applicant was detained from 8 to 20 August 2002. Due to the destruction of the facility’s records on the expiry of the statutory storage time-limit, it was not possible to establish the exact periods during which the applicant was detained in the other four cells and the exact number of inmates detained with him.\n 26. All cells were equipped with a sink and a lavatory separated ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5066", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the village of Suponevo, in the Bryansk Region.\n5.  The applicant has been the editor of a weekly newspaper, Bryanskiye Budni (Брянские будни), since he founded it in 1999.\n6.  In 2003 a leaflet was distributed in Bryansk and the Bryansk Region concerning a member of parliament (MP), Mr Shandybin, who was going to stand in the forthcoming elections. The leaflet read as follows:\n“Enough of telling fairy tales!!! Let us turn to the facts! Read the Israeli weekly newspaper Beseder. The fortune of the member of the State Duma Vasiliy Shandybin is estimated by the newspaper at 13,123,400 dollars!! You do not believe it? Where does the money come from??? Vasiliy Shandybin charges 1,000 US dollars for a letter with the letterhead of a member of the State Duma, and 5,000 dollars for an MP's inquiry concerning a delicate matter!!! Lobbying on behalf of Vladimir Bryntsalov's interests in the State Duma – 300,000 dollars per year. The profit from trading in medicines and from the sale of overpriced medicines to the Bryansk Region – 600,000 dollars per year. Vote for our fellow countryman Vasiliy Shandybin and you will surely turn him into a billionaire!!!”\n7.  The leaflet was either quoted or its contents were described in a number of newspapers including Desnyanskaya Pravda (Деснянская правда) of 8 October 2003 and Komsomolets Bryanska (Комсомолец Брянска) of 14 October 2003 and internet news sites, including posts on www.news.nashbryansk.ru, www.gazeta.ru, www.vlasti.net and www.sem40.ru of 3 October 2003, a post on www.sobesednik.ru of unspecified date in October 2002 and a post on www.globalrus.ru of 20 October 2003. The applicant has provided copies of the newspaper articles and printouts from the internet sites.\n8.  On 9 October 2003 in Bryanskiye Budni no. 206 (no. 41) the applicant published an article entitled “Vasya and Israel” (“Вася и Израиль”). The article reads as follows:\n“Vasya was slandered. Ivanych. Shandybin. The hand reaches for an axe. Revenge! For our workers' conscience!\nThe circulation of the leaflet distributed through towns and villages, according to Vasiliy himself and his associates, is half a million copies, and it says that Shandybin scraped up a fortune of more than 13 million dollars. An angry rebuff of this allegation was made by the Bryanskaya Pravda. He did not take it, says Pravda, Bryntsalov did not chuck him 300,000 dollars for assistance in the sale of medicines either, and 5,000 bucks for an MP's inquiry is unheard of.\nActually, when we are talking about Vasya, it is appropriate to say that one should not look a gift horse in the mouth. Vasya gave medical equipment as a present to two outpatient clinics, and it is impossible to count how many music boxes he gave to schools and orphans' homes. It is clearly improper to ask the donor where he got the money for all these goods. The benefactors paid for Shandybin's pretty haircut, and he justly distributed the catch among those in need.\n If there are doubts, they are caused by the unsightly history of Russian 'parliamentarism'. Recently, in connection with the events of 1993, we were reminded how cynically Yeltsin bought MPs who had not yet decided which side of the barricades to run to. He promised them a rich piece of cake, and they slyly ran for this piece, swallowing their spittle. Zhirinovskiy's party was accused of bribery many times, but all our elected representatives take [bribes] (except Vasya, of course)", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5067", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Baku.\n6.  On 1 December 1998 the applicant was issued with an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) for a flat in a recently constructed residential building in Baku on the basis of an order of the Baku City Executive Authority of 20 November 1998.\n7.  At the same time, the applicant became aware that the flat had been occupied since 1 January 1998 by M. and his family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Shusha, a region under the occupation of the Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.\n8.  According to the applicant, despite numerous demands, M. refused to vacate the flat, pointing out that he was an IDP and had no other place to live.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of M. and his family from the flat.\n10.  On 21 July 2003 the Yasamal District Court granted the applicant’s claim and ordered that M. and his family be evicted from the flat. The court held that the applicant was the sole lawful tenant of the flat on the basis of the occupancy voucher of 1 December 1998 and therefore that the flat was being unlawfully occupied by M. and his family.\n11.  No appeals were lodged against this judgment and, pursuant to the domestic law, it became enforceable within one month of its delivery. However, M. and his family refused to comply with the judgment and, despite the applicant’s complaints to various authorities, it was not enforced.\n12.  On an unspecified date in 2006, the applicant and a group of other persons who were in the same situation lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court complaining that the Yasamal District Department of Judicial Observers and Enforcement Officers (“the Department of Enforcement Officers”) had not taken measures to enforce the judgments.\n13.  On 27 December 2006 the Yasamal District Court dismissed that complaint as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed against this judgment. On 2 May 2007 the Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance court’s judgment and delivered a new judgment on the merits in the applicant’s favour. The Court of Appeal held that the Department of Enforcement Officers’ inaction had been unlawful and that the judgment of 21 July 2003 should be enforced.\n14.  On an unspecified date in 2008 the applicant lodged an action against different authorities, seeking compensation for non-enforcement of the judgment of 21 July 2003. On 19 December 2008 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. On 3 March 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal and on 3 July 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.\n15.  It appears from the case file that, after the lodging of the present application with the Court, M. lodged a request with the Yasamal District Court asking for postponement of the execution of the judgment of 21 July 2003. He alleged that, as he was an IDP, he had no other place to live but the flat in question.\n16.  On 2 July 2008 the Yasamal District Court granted M.’s request and ordered the postponement of the execution of the judgment of 21 July 2003 until M. could move to one of the houses recently constructed for temporary settlement of IDPs. The court relied on the Presidential Order of 1 July 2004 on Approval of the State Programme for Improvement of Living Conditions and Increase of Employment of Refugees and Internally", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5068", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n(1)  Mr Nikolay Ivanovich Malysh, born in 1949,\n(2)  Mr Vasiliy Aleksandrovich Bogomolov, born in 1944,\n(3)  Mr Sergey Stepanovich Iglin, born in 1949,\n(4)  Ms Zinaïda Aleksandrovna Sannikova, born in 1954,\n(5)  Ms Lyubov Vasilyevna Nazarenko, born in 1953, and\n(6)  Mr Sergey Nikolaevich Malysh, born in 1979.\n7.  All the applicants are Russian nationals living in the Amur Region. They are all holders of Urozhay-90 bonds.\n8.  In 1987 the General Secretary of the USSR Communist Party Mikhail Gorbachev presented his “basic theses”, which laid the political foundation for economic reform heralding the transition to a market economy. Several laws were enacted which opened up the State-dominated planned economy to private enterprise. However, the Government preferred to keep control over consumer prices rather than leaving them to be determined by the free market.\n9.  By 1990 Government spending increased sharply as a growing number of unprofitable enterprises required State support, whereas more resources were diverted to subsidise consumer prices. At the same time, the elimination of central control over production decisions, especially in the consumer-goods sector, led to a breakdown in traditional supply-demand relationships. This resulted in pervasive shortages of food and basic consumer goods. The Government reacted by introducing ration stamps for food and certain hygiene articles.\n10.  In addition to ration stamps, the Government of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR)[1] put into circulation several types of so-called “commodity bonds” (товарные чеки) which gave their bearers the right to purchase consumer goods, such as refrigerators, washing machines, tape recorders and passenger cars. The Urozhay-90 (“Harvest-90”) bonds were one of many types of bonds; they were distributed among agricultural workers and companies which had sold grain and other agricultural produce to the State in 1990 and 1991. Those bonds were designed to encourage agricultural workers to sell produce to the State in exchange for the right to priority purchasing of goods in high demand (see paragraph 43 below). The State paid workers for the produce at fixed prices and also gave them bonds in amounts proportionate to the value of the produce sold.\n11.  The Urozhay-90 bonds were not legal tender, but they had a certain nominal value indicated on their face. That value determined the maximum purchase price of consumer goods which could be sold on production of the bonds. The bonds were not intended for payment but merely for certification of the right to purchase specific goods; the sale of goods was conditional on payment of the full purchase price by the bond-holder and production of the bonds for the same amount. The bonds were not registered in the person's name or otherwise personalised and the Government Resolution did not prevent them from being transferred among individuals and legal entities.\n12.  On 2 January 1992 the Russian Government decided to put an end to the regulation of retail prices. Shops began to fill up with merchandise but prices increased at a staggering speed (the inflation rate in 1992 was 2,600%). In March 1992, the Government established that goods available under the bonds would be sold at the prices fixed before 2 January 1992 (see paragraph 44 below).\n13.  In August 1992 the Government introduced the possibility of buying out the bonds with a coefficient of 10. In 1994, the coefficient was", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5069", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  In 2001 the applicant purchased a flat from a private company P.\n5.  In September 2002 another company, N., lodged a civil action against the company P., the applicant and several other persons claiming title to the flat.\n6.  On 25 July 2003 the Nizhegorodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod rejected the claim.\n7.  On 19 December 2003 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it became final and binding.\n8.  The courts found, inter alia, that when the company N. claimed title to the flat the latter had been already in the applicant’s possession, and therefore, under the relevant law, could not be given to the claimant.\n9.  On unspecified date the company N. applied for supervisory review of the judgments of 25 July 2003 and 19 December 2003.\n10.  On 9 March 2004 a judge of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court refused to refer the case to the Presidium for consideration by way of supervisory review.\n11.  On 28 April 2004 the acting President of the Regional Court disagreed and requested the case from the District Court. On 25 May 2004 he referred the case to the Presidium of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court.\n12.  On 17 June 2004 the Presidium of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court quashed the judgment of 25 July 2003 and the appeal judgment of 19 December 2003 for incorrect interpretation of the domestic law, and remitted the case for a fresh examination. It found, inter alia, that the inferior courts did not take into account that the flat was given to the applicant under a void agreement, and therefore the applicant’s possession of the flat did not preclude the company N. from claiming a title to it.\n13.  On 5 April 2005 the Nizhegorodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod found against the applicant. On 6 September 2005 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n14.  On 30 March 2006, under the applicant’s initiative, the Presidium of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court quashed these judgments by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n15.  On 2 February 2007 the Nizhegorodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod held against the applicant. It deprived the applicant of the title to the disputed flat on the grounds that the sales agreement had been null and void. The court also ordered that company P. pay the applicant compensation for the flat and that the applicant and her daughter be evicted from the flat.\n16.  On 24 April 2007 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5070", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1958 and 1963 respectively. The first applicant was removed to Kazakhstan in April 2003; the second applicant lives in Moscow.\n6.  Both applicants come from families of ethnic Chechens who were forcibly deported to Kazakhstan in the 1940s. The second applicant's family returned to Chechnya in 1981. On 1 March 1992 the first applicant acquired Kazakh nationality, since at that time he was living with his family in Kazakhstan. Some time later in 1992 the first applicant and some of his family moved to Russia and settled in Chechnya. His parents and two adult sisters remained in Kazakhstan. Since the creation of the independent states of Russia and Kazakhstan in 1991 citizens of Kazakhstan have not needed a visa to enter Russia.\n7.  In 1994 the applicants married in Chechnya. Between 1994 and 1999 the couple had three children – P.Z. born in 1994, I.Z. born in 1996 and K.Z. born in 1999. The family lived in the village of Gikalo in the Grozny district of Chechnya, as attested in September 2003 by the head of the village authority. It does not appear that the first applicant took any steps to obtain Russian nationality or to regularise his stay during that period.\n8.  At some point between 1994 and 1995 the family went to Kazakhstan, fleeing from the hostilities in Chechnya. However, as soon as the situation calmed down they returned to Chechnya.\n9.  In October 1999 a second round of hostilities started in Chechnya. In December 2000 the second applicant moved to Moscow. The three children joined her there in August 2001. The first applicant was in Kazakhstan between August 2001 and March 2002, when he came to Moscow to live with his family.\n10.  In February 2002 the second applicant was living in a room let to her by the proprietor, who had left to receive medical treatment abroad. Hence, as she submitted, she was unable to obtain a temporary registration permit in Moscow, since that required written permission from the landlord. The second applicant submitted that she had informed the local police station about the practical difficulties she had faced in obtaining registration and that they had been willing to allow her to resolve those difficulties.\n11.  On 28 October 2002 the first applicant was arrested at home and taken to the local police station (the Levoberezhny ROVD of Moscow) for about two hours. He submitted that he had been questioned about the hostage-taking in the Moscow “Nord-Ost” theatre on 23-26 October 2002 by a group of Chechen fighters, of which he had denied any knowledge.\n12.  On 15 November 2002 the first applicant was asked to come to the Levoberezhny ROVD. He was again questioned about his status in Moscow and about Chechen illegal armed groups and was released several hours later. The Government submitted a copy of the registration log of the ROVD for 15 November 2002, which contained an entry concerning the first applicant's questioning. It did not refer to any offences or sanctions.\n13.  On 22 November 2002 a member of the State Duma Mr Igrunov, at the request of the NGO Civic Assistance, wrote to the head of the Levoberezhny ROVD requesting permission for the applicants to remain in the flat without registration until the family were able to resolve the practical difficulties encountered in obtaining the necessary documents.\n14.  Also on 22 November 2002 Mr Igrunov wrote a letter to the Prosecutor General asking him whether the police in Moscow had been instructed to conduct check", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5071", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1969 and 1975 respectively and live in Sofia.\n7.  Mr Raza left Pakistan in 1998, allegedly to flee from religious persecution. For a short time he remained in Iran and in Turkey, and later that year arrived in Bulgaria. Initially he sought asylum. However, after he married Mrs Raza on 20 February 2000, he withdrew his asylum claim and was granted a temporary residence permit on the strength of his marriage. In 2003 he was granted a permanent residence permit. He learned Bulgarian and started a small business, distributing electronic devices. He has not travelled out of Bulgaria since he first arrived there and has never been charged with any offence.\n8.  On 6 December 2005 the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ National Security Service made an order for Mr Raza’s expulsion. He also barred him from entering or residing in Bulgaria for a period of ten years, “in view of the reasons set out in proposal no. M‑2922/24.11.2005 and the fact that his presence in the country present[ed] a serious threat to national security”. The order relied on section 42 of the 1998 Aliens Act. No factual grounds were given, in accordance with section 46(3) of the Act. The order further provided that the first applicant was to be detained until it could be enforced, in line with section 44(6) of the Act. Finally, it stated that it was subject to appeal to the Minister of Internal Affairs, but not subject to judicial review, in keeping with section 46(2)(3) of the Act, and that it was immediately enforceable, in accordance with section 44(4)(3) of the Act (see paragraphs 31, 33 and 38 below).\n9.  Mr Raza was not served a copy of the order and learnt about it on 18 January 2006, after being placed in detention (see paragraph 10 below).\n10.  On 30 December 2005 the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ Migration Directorate issued an order under section 44(6) and (8) of the 1998 Aliens Act (see paragraphs 38 and 39 below) to place Mr Raza in a special detention facility pending enforcement of the expulsion order. The order relied on the need to have him sent back to his country of origin. It said that it was subject to appeal before the Minister of Internal Affairs and to judicial review by the Sofia City Court. Mr Raza was arrested on the same day.\n11.  After it was found that Mr Raza did not have a valid passport, on 24 January 2006 the Ministry of Internal Affairs requested the consular department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to contact the closest embassy of Pakistan – the one in Bucharest, Romania – with a view to obtaining a passport or other travel documents. Further requests were made on 1 and 30 March 2006, 10 October 2007 and 3 June 2008, without success. It is unclear whether the consular department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs forwarded those requests to the Pakistani embassy.\n12.  On 18 July 2006 the detention facility where Mr Raza was being kept was closed down and he was transferred to another facility.\n13.  On 11 July 2007 Mr Raza applied for release. On 28 December 2007 the head of the Migration Directorate turned down his request.\n14.  On 15 July 2008 the head of the Migration Directorate decided to release Mr Raza. He also stayed the enforcement of the order for his expulsion, citing technical difficulties, and placed him under an obligation to report daily to his local police station.\n15.  On 8 August 2008 Mr Raza asked the head of the National Security Agency to re‑consider the order fo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5072", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Makhachkala.\n5.  In 2000 he bought a part of a house from a certain Y. The co-owner of the house, G., brought a court action against the applicant for annulment of the agreement, on the grounds that she (G.), having a pre-emption right, had not been informed about the agreement in advance in accordance with the domestic law.\n6.  On 18 February 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Makhachkala held in favour of G., transferred to her the property rights on the applicant’s part of the house and obliged her to reimburse the applicant its value.\n7.  On 3 March 2004 Y., a co‑defendant to the proceedings along with the applicant, appealed against the judgment. On 16 March 2004 the applicant joined the appeal.\n8.  On 2 April 2004 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan quashed the judgment of 18 February 2004 on appeal and dismissed G.’s action.\n9.  On 2 July 2004 G. lodged an application for supervisory review of the appeal judgment of 2 April 2004 with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan.\n10.  On 16 September 2004 the President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan referred the case to its Presidium.\n11.  On 23 September 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan quashed the appeal judgment of 2 April 2004 for wrong assessment of evidence and upheld the judgment of 18 February 2004.\n12.  The applicant submits that he was not duly informed about the date and the time of the hearing before the Presidium and therefore could not attend it. The other party’s representative was present and made submissions.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5073", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant in application no. 30613/05 is Mr Rizvan Dubayev, born in 1955 (the first applicant). The applicant in application no. 30615/05 is Ms Saudat Bersnukayeva, born in 1949 (the second applicant). Both applicants live in the town of Urus-Martan, Chechnya.\n6.  The first applicant is the father of Islam Dubayev, born in 1982. The second applicant is the mother of Roman (also known as Zelimkhan) Bersnukayev (also spelled Bersunkayev), born in 1983.\n7.  The applicants were not eye-witnesses to the abduction and the following account is based on the witness statements collected by them after the disappearance of their relatives.\n8.  In the autumn of 1999 Russian federal troops launched an antiterrorist operation in Chechnya. In December 1999 Islam Dubayev joined an illegal armed group (“the armed group”) which was fighting the federal troops in the mountains of the Urus-Martan district, in the vicinity of the village of Martan-Chu. In December 1999 the Russian federal forces took control of the valley of the Urus-Martan district.\n9.  It appears that around the same time Roman Bersnukayev also joined an armed group.\n10.  On 13 March 2000 three members of an armed group, Mr A., Mr M. and Mr P., left the mountains to go to the village of Martan-Chu. It appears that on the outskirts of the settlement they were stopped at the Russian military checkpoint by military servicemen from infantry regiment no. 245 of the Russian Federal Forces Group “West” (245 мотострелковый полк группировки федеральных сил «Запад»). The servicemen were assisted by the local militia. The three men were detained and questioned. The military servicemen told them that the State Duma of the Russian Federation had announced an amnesty for those who gave up fighting with armed groups in Chechnya. They assured them that the amnesty would apply to any fighter as long as he had not been involved in serious crimes, such as hostage taking or kidnapping and he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities. The three men then confessed to being members of an armed group. They told the Russian servicemen that there were more young men in the mountains who would be willing to surrender under the above conditions and explained where those men could be found.\n11.  It appears that after the questioning Mr A., Mr M. and Mr P. were taken away in an unknown direction and their whereabouts have not been established since.\n12.  On 14 March 2000 two members of the Martan-Chu militia went into the mountains and found a group of young men. They told them about the amnesty. They also told the group that if by 3 p.m. on 14 March 2000 they did not come down from the mountains the area would be subjected to artillery and air strikes.\n13.  Ten young men decided to surrender. They left the mountains and went to the checkpoint of infantry regiment no. 245. Among them were Islam Dubayev and Roman Bersnukayev.\n14.  It appears that on the outskirts of Martan-Chu the men who had surrendered were given food. About twenty minutes later the servicemen bound their hands, put them into a Ural truck and took them to the headquarters of the Russian Federal Forces Group “West”.\n15.  On 17 March 2000 the military commander of the Urus-Martan district, General-Major N., and the head of the Federal Security Service (FSB) department of the Urus-Martan district, Major F., co-signed two documents, issued to Islam Dubayev and Roman Bersnukayev. Each document stated that the person in question had voluntarily su", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5074", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, who is a Croatian national, was born in 1939 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 30 December 1993 the applicant brought a civil action against a private party in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu), seeking payment of a debt and damages related to a breach of contract.\n6.  In the period before the ratification of the Convention by Croatia (5 November 1997), the court held four hearings.\n7.  On 16 May 1995 and 8 February 2000 the Municipal Court invited the applicant to specify his claim. Since he failed to comply, the Municipal Court decided on 13 March 2000 that the applicant had withdrawn his action.\n8.  On 24 March 2000 the applicant lodged a request for restoring the proceedings to the status quo ante (prijedlog za povrat u prijašnje stanje), which the Municipal Court granted on 3 November 2000 and set aside its decision of 13 March 2000.\n9.  On 24 December 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the above proceedings.\n10.  On 13 April 2006 the Municipal Court adopted a judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).\n11.  On 1 February 2007 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It also found that the delays in the proceedings in the period before November 2000 were entirely attributable to the applicant while the further delays in the period from 17 September 2001 until 24 December 2004 were attributable exclusively to the inactivity of the Municipal Court. The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant 4,500 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and ordered the County Court to give a decision in the applicant’s case as quickly as possible but in any case within six months following the publication of its decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court’s decision was published on 7 March 2007.\n12.  Meanwhile, on 13 February 2007 the County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Zagreb Municipal Court before which the proceedings are currently pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5075", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the village of Suponevo, in the Bryansk Region.\n5.  The applicant has been the editor of a weekly newspaper, Bryanskiye Budni (Брянские будни), since he founded it in 1999.\n6.  In 2004-2005 the state of educational system in the Bryansk Region became the subject of media attention.\n7.  The newspaper Bryanskoye Vremya (Брянское время), in issue no. 30 of September 2004, published an article entitled “Textbook for an Alchemist” (“Учебник для алхимика”). The article discussed the shortage of textbooks in schools and problems related to their publication and supply. In particular, the article mentioned a “mysterious” publisher of textbooks which it linked to the dismissal of the then head of the Bryansk Department of Education, I. Geraschenkov, who was later reappointed to the post. The article also referred to an audit report which had revealed numerous financial irregularities in the supply of textbooks.\n8.  On 6 July 2005 Rossiyskaya Gazeta (Российская газета), a newspaper of the Russian Government, published an abridged version of an article by S.F. and A.G. entitled “Question for an official. Where does the ‘children’s money’ disappear’ to?” (Экзамен для чиновника. Куда исчезают «детские» деньги), which criticised the poor state of the education system in the Bryansk Region. The article read as follows:\n“The Bryansk Department of Education headed by I. Geraschenkov and his first deputy N. Prokopenko spends more than 13,000 [roubles] a month per boarding school pupil. Education in a vocational school is more expensive than in a prestigious commercial college. According to the Department’s reports, each year 36,000 roubles are allocated to each school for the additional training of teachers. However, the schools do not receive it.\nThe Bryansk Region broke all records for the number of children playing truant from boarding schools and has been subject to harsh criticism as a result. A shocking number of children are put on a missing list every day. All right, now it is summer and the weather is warm. However, the number of children playing truant from the boarding schools is no smaller in winter, when it is freezing outside and the child has neither a place to sleep nor food. What is the explanation for this? Children are being kept in boarding schools in unbearable conditions. Material resources there are very scarce and there is a high turnover of tutors because of low wages.\nOne third of a billion roubles is allocated annually to 38 vocational schools in Bryansk. However, the picture is not any better in these schools. Ugly walls, obsolete equipment, low wages for the teachers ... The quality of training also leaves much to be desired. It is notable that 90% of the school leavers do not take up their chosen profession.\nFortunately, school financing is not within the competence of the local education officials. However, significant finances aimed at the development of school education pass through the Department. And very strange things happen there!\nFor instance, take the ‘School Textbook’ programme. The Department’s senior officials manage to convince the councillors that there are not enough textbooks in the schools and that children from low-income families are in a particularly difficult situation. However, as soon as the councillors take a decision on the allocation of funds, these officials immediately forget the acuity of the problem. Nobody remembers the children from low-income f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5076", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n6.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in Grozny.\n7.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Ramzan Guluyev, born in 1967, and of the second and third applicants. At the material time they lived at 1 Mariupolskaya Street, Staropromyslovskiy District, Grozny, in the Chechen Republic. Their household comprised two neighbouring houses with a common courtyard.\n8.  Between 12 and 13 July 2002 the Guluyev family were at home: the applicants spent the night in one of the houses at 1 Mariupolskaya Street, while Mr Ramzan Guluyev and Sh., his seven-year-old cousin, were in the other. At about 11 p.m. they heard two gunshots apparently coming from the courtyard of an abandoned neighbouring house. Mr Ramzan Guluyev stepped outside to look around but noticed nothing suspicious; the family went to bed.\n9.  At about 2 a.m. the first applicant was awakened by some noise; she looked out of the window and saw in the courtyard a group of armed men wearing camouflage uniforms. Some of them rushed to the house in which Mr Ramzan Guluyev slept.\n10.  The first applicant screamed and woke her daughters. The applicants tried to get out of the house but the door appeared to be blocked. A few minutes later the door opened and two armed men entered; they smelled of alcohol. They wore no masks, had Slavic features and spoke unaccented Russian; the first applicant believed that they belonged to the Russian military. Shouting and swearing, the two servicemen ordered the applicants to keep quiet.\n11.  The second applicant eventually slipped into the courtyard and went towards Mr Ramzan Guluyev's house; she heard screams coming from it. Then she was seized by several servicemen. She asked them what was happening; they replied that they had received a call from the police and were carrying out a check; they promised to release Mr Ramzan Guluyev once the check was over. Then they hit the second applicant with gun butts. The first and third applicants rushed into the courtyard and tried to protect the second applicant, but the servicemen started beating them as well. The first applicant, who had been suffering from breast cancer, received a particularly severe blow and lost consciousness. Coming to her senses a few minutes later she saw the servicemen taking Mr Ramzan Guluyev out of the courtyard.\n12.  There were around twenty-five servicemen; two or three of them wore masks. The servicemen appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. They took Mr Ramzan Guluyev to the street where several khaki UAZ vehicles and a grey all-terrain UAZ vehicle («таблетка») were parked. Some vehicles had no registration numbers while those of the others were covered with mud. The servicemen put Mr Ramzan Guluyev in one of the vehicles and drove away.\n13.  Later Sh. told the applicants that the servicemen had demanded money and gold from Mr Ramzan Guluyev.\n14.  Apart from their own statements the applicants submitted to the Court a statement by their neighbour, Mr V. Ya. According to Mr V. Ya., at approximately 2 a.m. on 13 July 2002 he heard screaming and went outside his house. He saw several UAZ vehicles and about thirty armed men in the street. They were taking Mr Ramzan Guluyev, who was not dressed, from his house. Mr V. Ya. tried to intervene, but the armed men ordered him to get back inside, threatening him with their weapons. He obeyed. When the cars left, he went to see the applicants. The three women had been severely beaten. They did not know", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5077", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Istanbul.\n4.  Following the privatisation of the public institute where he was employed as an inspector, on 19 March 1999 the applicant was appointed to a new post at the Social Security Institution for the Self‑Employed (Bağ‑Kur).\n5.  On 16 April 1999 the applicant brought a case before the Ankara Administrative Court against the Prime Minister's Office and Bağ-Kur to challenge his appointment.\n6.  On 2 December 1999 the administrative court dismissed the applicant's request, holding that his appointment had been effected in accordance with the relevant domestic law.\n7.  On 14 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the administrative court and on 1 February 2006 it rejected the applicant's rectification request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5078", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Chmielno.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant applied to the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation (“the Foundation”) for compensation on the ground that he and his parents had been deported to Germany with a view to performing forced labour in agriculture. That request was made under the scheme for slave and forced labourers (“the second compensation scheme”) established under the Joint Statement of 17 July 2000, the German Law of 2 August 2000 on the Creation of the “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” Foundation (“the German Foundation Act”; “the GFA”) and the subsequent Agreement of 16 February 2001 between the Remembrance, Responsibility and Future Foundation (“the German Foundation”) and the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation.\n7.  On 3 September 2003 the Foundation's Verification Commission decided that the applicant was not eligible for compensation. It informed him that under section 11 of the GFA only those forced labourers who had been deported to Germany or to an area occupied by it had been eligible for compensation. In the case of citizens of the Third Reich or persons placed on the List of German Nationals (Deutsche Volksliste; niemiecka grupa narodowościowa) their assignment to work by the German authorities was not considered compulsory. The Verification Commission established on the basis of documentary evidence that the applicant's parents had been placed on the List of German Nationals and that accordingly their assignment to work in Germany had not been compulsory.\n8.  On 27 October 2003 the applicant appealed against that decision. He strongly contested the Verification Commission's finding that the assignment to work of the persons who had belonged to the German Nationals' List had not been compulsory. He submitted that the farm of his parents had been sequestered by the German authorities without compensation. Subsequently, the applicant and his parents had been placed in the Jabłonów germanization camp. On account of his internment in the camp as a child the applicant was granted a veteran status by the Polish authorities. The applicant further argued that the seizure of his parents' prosperous farm without payment of compensation had been certainly effected against their will, as had been their transfer to work on a farm in Germany. He submitted that the placement on the German Nationals' List had resulted in most cases from various forms of coercion, in particular in Silesia and Pomerania where his family had been from. He concluded that his and his parents' deportation to perform forced labour in Germany had been compulsory.\n9.  On 20 August 2004 the Foundation's Appeal Commission dismissed the applicant's appeal. It reiterated that the applicant had not met the conditions specified in section 11 of the GFA. The Appeal Commission did not reason its decision.\n10.  On 29 November 2004 the applicant filed an appeal against that decision with the Appeal Commission for transmission to the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court. Since the appeal had not been transmitted, on 3 October 2005 the applicant made an application to the administrative court to impose a fine on the Appeal Commission.\n11.  On 19 October 2005 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court rejected his application, finding that it did not have jurisdiction to examine appeals against decisions or inactivity of the Foundation. The court relied on the Supreme Administrative Court's Resolution", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5079", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Wittenborn.\n5.  The applicant and his siblings inherited real property from their father. The property is situated in Piispankylä, Vantaa. At the time, a master plan (yleiskaava, generalplan) had been drawn up for the area but it had not reached the town planning stage.\n6.  On 17 June 1996 they sold the property for 210,000 Finnish marks (FIM) (some 35,420 euros) (EUR). The buyer was a company which was to be set up later and it was represented by the applicant.\n7.  On 26 August 1996 the city decided to use its first call on the property, since it had already negotiated the purchase of the surrounding properties and the purchase price was considered advantageous.\n8.  On 24 September 1996 the applicant challenged the city’s decision.\n9.  On 2 May 1997 the Uusimaa County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten) rejected his appeal, finding that pursuant to the Pre-emption Act (etuostolaki, förköpslagen; Act no. 608/1977) the city had a first call on the property since the sellers and the buyer were not close relatives (sections 1 and 5). It did not uphold the applicant’s argument that the pre-emption was manifestly unfair (section 6).\n10.  On 26 June 1997 the applicant appealed. On both parties’ request, the consideration of the case was postponed pending negotiations with a view to reaching a friendly settlement.\n11.  On 10 March 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) rejected the appeal.\n12.  On 10 September 1999 the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal, arguing that the parties had been taken by surprise by the decision of March 1999 since they had been given to understand that the proceedings would be stayed until a settlement was reached.\n13.  On 18 June 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and annulled its earlier decision. Having examined the applicant’s procedural complaint, and since the case file contained clarifications which had not been available to the County Administrative Court when it took its decision on 2 May 1997, the case was referred back to the lower court.\n14.  The Helsinki Administrative Court (hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen, which had replaced the County Administrative Court), received the parties’ submissions, including, inter alia, a certificate according to which the property had a taxation value of FIM 611,776 in 1994 and an appraisal document according to which the property’s market value was FIM 2.5 million. Both documents were lodged by the applicant. The city contested the appraisal document’s relevance, arguing that it started from the wrong assumptions as to, inter alia, the size of the property and the planning situation. The city maintained that the purchase price, FIM 210,000, reflected the real value at the time of the purchase. The applicant also relied on a draft preliminary agreement (drawn up in 1998) between his father’s estate and the city of Vantaa, which stated an aggregate purchase price of FIM 3.36 million concerning the property in issue and another property. However, that price had been fixed on the understanding that the area would be the subject of town planning before the conclusion of the contract.\n15.  On 13 February 2002 the Administrative Court revoked the city’s decision. Although there was no evidence before it showing the market value of the property, it could however be concluded on the basis of an overall assessment of the ca", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5080", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Iaşi.\n5.  In 1985, Apartment 8 situated in Constanţa at 17 Aleea Hortensiei, the property of the applicant and of her husband, was seized by the State under Decree no. 223/1974, following their decision to leave the country. No compensation was paid and no copy of the decision to seize the property was sent to them. The applicant's husband later died in 1998, the applicant being his only heir.\n6.  On 2 October 1991 and 15 September 1995 the applicant and her husband informed the Constanţa Town Council that they intended to recover their property, requesting the eviction of the tenants.\n7.  On 29 October 1996 the State sold that apartment to the then tenants under Law no. 112/1995.\n8.  On 18 August 1997 the applicant and her husband sought to have the seizure declared null and void, to recover ownership of Apartment 8 and to have the former tenants evicted; they also sought damages in respect of the furniture which had been in the apartment and which had allegedly been destroyed.\n9.  On 17 November 1997 the Constanţa Court of First Instance allowed the action in part and annulled the seizure as unlawful, but dismissed the claim for restitutio in integrum on the grounds that the apartment was in the possession of third parties who were not party to those proceedings. It also dismissed the claim for damages in respect to the furniture for lack of payment of stamp duty.\nEventually, on 20 March 2000, the Constanţa Court of Appeal upheld that ruling in a final decision.\n10.  On 17 October 2001 the Constanţa Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed an action by the applicant for recovery of possession of immovable property lodged against those who had bought the apartment. The court considered that when proceedings are brought by a former owner against those who have acquired ownership under Law no. 112/1995, preference is given to the protection of the good faith principle. Thus, the former tenants had made the purchase in good faith and had complied with the provisions of Law no. 112/1995.\nOn 11 October 2002 the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice informed the applicant that there were no reasons to lodge an application for review (recurs în anulare) against that final decision.\n11.  On 19 October 2001 the applicant sought to recover Apartment 8 under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State.\nOn 16 May 2005 the Constanţa Town Council dismissed her request, since that apartment had been sold in accordance with Law no. 112/1995, but proposed compensation in the equivalent of 11,074 euros (EUR). Then the file was sent to the Constanţa Prefecture and subsequently to the Secretariat of the Central Commission for Compensation.\nOn 28 May 2008 the Central Commission for Compensation decided to award the applicant 235,076.09 Romanian lei, the equivalent of EUR 64,025 according to the rate of exchange displayed on that day by the National Bank of Romania.\nAccording to the documents in the file, the applicant has neither contested that decision nor has she followed the administrative procedure provided under Law 247/2005, as amended by Government Emergency Ordinance no. 81/2007, for opting between cash compensation or shares in the fund Proprietatea.\n12.  On 14 February 2005 the Constanţa Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed a request by the applicant to have the sale declared null and void, considering that the former tenants h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5081", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Lozova, Kharkiv region.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 10 July 1998 the applicant's son, Mr Y. M., was found dead in his house, in which he lived alone.\n7.  On 10 and 11 July 1998 the police questioned relatives, neighbours and friends of Mr Y. M. They were informed that the late Mr Y. M. lived alone and was not known to have been on bad terms with anyone. According to the applicant no on-site inspection was conducted.\n8.  On 11 July 1998 an autopsy was conducted. The forensic expert concluded that Mr Y. M. died of cerebral trauma caused by being hit on the head with a hard object and that the trauma could have been the result of a fall from his own height. No other bodily injuries were identified. The expert further noted that at the time of death Mr Y. M. was sober.\n9.  On 17 July 1998 investigator S. refused to institute criminal proceedings into the death of the applicant's son on the basis of the above autopsy report.\n10.  On 5 October 1998, however, criminal proceedings were instituted following information received by the police from the applicant, her other son and several other individuals, that on the eve of Mr Y. M.'s death he had had a drinking party in his house with several of his acquaintances and that two of them, Mr Z. and Mr K., had severely beaten him.\n11.  Mr Z. and Mr K. were arrested. Police questioned the persons who had provided this information or were eyewitnesses to the fight. The investigator also requested additional forensic examination as to the time and cause of death of Mr Y. M.\n12.  On 29 December 1998 the forensic medical examination confirmed the conclusions of the first autopsy report. It also noted that the head trauma did not have any traces which could identify the object which had caused this trauma.\n13.  During additional questioning of the witnesses to the events of 8 July 1998 they retracted their statements.\n14.  Following this, Mr Z. and Mr K. were released and the criminal proceedings were terminated on 26 March 1999 for lack of proof of crime, given that there were no signs of a fight on the body of Mr Y. M. and that participants in the party had denied that any conflict took place during the party.\n15.  By a letter of 19 April 1999 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that the investigation had been conducted by officer S., who had failed to establish comprehensively, fully and objectively all the circumstances of the crime and to identify all those involved.\n16.  By a letter of 30 June 1999 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that they had established that the investigation was incomplete and that disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against investigator S.\n17.  By a letter of 29 September 1999 the deputy head of the Kharkiv Regional Police Department informed the applicant, among other things, that they had established that there had been delays in the investigation, which had not been completed, and that for these reasons investigator S. had been disciplined.\n18.  On 29 October 1999 the forensic expert examination repeated the same conclusions and stated that with this trauma Mr M. would still have been able to move for up to several hours.\n19.  On 30 October 1999 the investigator terminated the proceedings again. He established that the forensic examination did not confirm any signs of a fight or self-defence on th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5082", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Trnovec Bartolovečki.\n5.  He was employed by the Varaždin Police Department where he worked in the catering service. In October 1999 he received his employment booklet (radna knjižica) by registered mail, and his employer had noted in it that his employment had been terminated on 4 October 1999. Enclosed with it, for the applicant to sign, was a draft mutual agreement to terminate his employment, reference no. 511-14-07/1-4767/1-99, dated 4 October 1999 and signed by the employer.\n6.  The applicant refused to sign the draft agreement. Instead, on 4 November 1999 he made a request to the employer for the protection of his rights (zahtjev za zaštitu prava) arising from the employment relationship. However, no formal decision was given by the employer in response to the applicant's request. Rather, in a letter of 8 November 1999 the applicant was merely notified that his employment had been terminated because the catering service of the Varaždin Police Department had been outsourced to a third party for whom the applicant had refused to work.\n7.  On 11 November 1999 the applicant brought a civil action in the Varaždin Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Varaždinu) seeking reinstatement. He argued that his employment had been terminated against his will as he had never agreed with the employer to terminate it. Thus, the employer's actions had amounted to a dismissal, which was unlawful since no formal decision had been issued.\n8.  On 15 November 1999 the Municipal Court, considering that the Administrative Court was competent to hear the applicant's case, declined jurisdiction in the matter and declared his action inadmissible. On 3 December 1999 the Varaždin County Court (Županijski sud u Varaždinu) dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the first-instance decision. On 7 February 2001 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared inadmissible the applicant's subsequent appeal on points of law (revizija) against the second-instance decision. The case was then transferred to the Administrative Court.\n9.  On 4 November 2002 the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) issued a decision whereby it invited the applicant's representative to specify which decision, that is, which administrative act, the applicant was challenging, and to submit two copies of it. The decision read as follows:\n“In the administrative dispute of the plaintiff Dražen Lesjak ... against the decision of the respondent, the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia (Varaždin Police Department) concerning the termination of his employment, [the plaintiff's] representative is invited, within the meaning of section 29 of the Administrative Disputes Act, to provide this court within ten days with:\n- an express statement indicating which specific administrative act he is contesting by his action – it is necessary to indicate the [reference] number of the act, as well as its date of issue, and to provide this court with two copies of that decision.\nIf the [plaintiff's] representative does not correct the above shortcomings of the action, the court will declare it inadmissible as deficient.”\nOn 14 November 2002 the applicant's representative replied as follows:\n“Acting upon the decision of the [Administrative Court] of 4 November 2002, the plaintiff states that he is unable to indicate the specific [reference] number of the administrative act, that is to say, a potential decision, because such ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5083", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Pskov.\n5.  The applicant, a retired military serviceman, brought court proceedings against the Military Service Commissariat of Pskov Region (“the Commissariat”).\n6.  On 25 October 2002 the Pskov Town Court of Pskov Region ruled that the applicant was entitled to a monthly allowance for health damage related to professional hardship of 4,540.52 Russian roubles (RUB) and a monthly allowance for food expenses of RUB 544.80. The court also found that the debt accrued as a result of previous underpayment of the monthly allowance for health damage was RUB 49,566.56, the debt in respect of the allowance for food expenses was RUB 734.40 and the debt in respect of the annual allowance for health damage accrued in 2001 was RUB 281.50. The court also ordered that the monthly allowances awarded to be subsequently adjusted in line with inflation.\n7.  The judgment was not appealed against and on 5 November 2002 became final.\n8.  On 19 December 2003 and 23 March 2004 the arrears awarded for the period from 1 August 2001 to 31 March 2004 were paid to the applicant.\n9.  On 11 November 2003 the Commissariat applied for the supervisory review of the judgment.\n10.  On 12 March 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia, by way of supervisory review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 25 October 2002 in the part obliging the respondent Commissariat to index-link the payments and upheld the remainder of the first instance court’s findings.\n11.  On 5 August 2004 the Pskov Town Court rejected the Commissariat’s request to annul the judgment of 25 October 2002 due to discovery of new circumstances. The applicant made written submissions and, apparently, was present at the court room.\n12.  On 30 December 2004 the Commissariat introduced a new application for the supervisory review of the judgments of 24 October 2002 and 12 March 2004 with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.\n13.  On 30 September 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, by way of supervisory review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 25 October 2002 on the ground of incorrect application of the domestic law and remitted the case for a new examination. The Presidium also annulled the judgment of 12 March 2004 insofar as the latter upheld the award made on 25 October 2002.\n14.  On 27 January 2006 the Pskov Town Court examined the case afresh and granted the applicant’s claims in full. The court ordered the Commissariat to pay the applicant RUB 37,896.38 in arrears in food allowance for the period from 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2005 RUB 36,930.96 in arrears in compensation for health damage. The applicant was further awarded RUB 1,640.91 monthly in respect of the food allowance and RUB 6,838.04 in compensation for health damage. On 4 April 2006 the judgment was upheld by the Pskov Regional Court. On 5 May 2006 the award was enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5084", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is serving a prison sentence in correctional colony IK-3 in the Bashkortostan Republic.\n7.  On 14 September 1998 the applicant was arrested in the town of Glazov on suspicion of murder and several robberies. He was searched and police officers allegedly withheld his money and jewellery and beat him up. They took him to Glazov town police station where the beatings allegedly continued.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with aggravated robbery, murder, unlawful detention of an individual, extortion, unlawful possession of firearms and use of force against a State official – offences under Articles 162, 105, 127, 163, 222 and 318 of the Criminal Code. The applicant was placed in custody.\n9.  On 12 October 1999 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic found the applicant guilty of robbery committed with a view to acquiring others' property on a large scale and accompanied by infliction of grievous bodily harm on the victim (Article 162 § (b) and (c)); unlawful detention of a person entailing grave consequences (Article 127 § 3); murder with a lucrative aim accompanied by a robbery (Article 105 § 2 (i)); extortion aimed at acquisition of others' property on a large scale (Article 163 § 3 (b)); unlawful possession of a firearm (Article 222 § 1) and assault on a State official (Article 318 § 1). The court established that the applicant had instigated his two co-defendants to rob employees of a trading company. Accompanied by the co-defendants and carrying a firearm, the applicant had stopped the employees' car, had robbed them, tied them to a tree in the forest and shot one of them dead. The court further found that the applicant had blackmailed another victim, extorting a sum of money from him and had assaulted police officers during his arrest. The court based the applicant's conviction on testimonies by his co-defendants, the surviving victims and witnesses and the material evidence. The applicant was sentenced to twenty-three years' imprisonment. He appealed against the judgment.\n10.  On an unspecified date in May 2000 the applicant was transferred to remand centre SIZO-3 in Moscow in order to secure his presence at the appeal hearing. He was allegedly placed in a cell where he was severely beaten by other inmates.\n11.  On 4 October 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the applicant's conviction on appeal.\n12.  On 16 April 2001 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation lodged with the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation an application for supervisory review of the judgments of 12 October 1999 and 4 October 2000. The prosecutor requested a different legal characterisation of the applicant's criminal acts, in particular that the charge of “unlawful detention of an individual by an organised group” under Article 127 § 3 of the Criminal Code be reclassified as “unlawful detention of two or more individuals by a group of persons with the use of weapons and violence dangerous to [their] health” under Article 127 § 2 (a), (c), (d) and (h). Furthermore, he requested that the charge of “murder for financial gain coupled with robbery” under Article 105 § 2 (i) be reclassified as “murder coupled with robbery” under the same provision.\n13.  According to the Government, a copy of the prosecutor's application was sent to the applicant “simultaneously” and on 27 July 2001 he was informed that the hearing before the Presidium was scheduled for ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5085", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  In January 1999 the applicant brought an action with the Korabelnyy District Court of Mykolayiv against several companies (the successors of her former employer) seeking compensation for damage to her health inflicted at work.\n5.  On 11 April 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s action against the respondents and ordered the Social Insurance Fund to make certain monthly insurance payments to the applicant with their further recalculation.\n6.  On 20 October 2005 the Mykolayiv Regional Court of Appeal partly changed the above judgment by increasing the amounts of monthly payments and ordering the Social Insurance Fund to pay the applicant certain amounts in arrears.\n7.  On 4 January 2006 the applicant appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court. After she had rectified her appeal on 27 February 2006 and the District Court had sent the case file to the Supreme Court on 21 April 2006, the latter took the case for examination. On 4 October 2007 the Supreme Court forwarded the appeal in cassation to the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal, which on 26 November 2007, acting as a court of cassation, rejected it as unsubstantiated.\n8.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicant modified her claim on four occasions, lodged about ten procedural requests and lodged several appeals which were not in accordance with procedural requirements or requested the courts to extend the time-limits for lodging them. Of fifty-seven hearings, one hearing was adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to attend it, two hearings following her requests that they be adjourned, and one due to both parties’ failure to attend it. The above delays on the applicant’s part protracted the proceedings to approximately seven months. Furthermore, ten hearings were adjourned due to the sickness or absence of a judge and twenty-six due to the respondents’ or experts’ failure to attend them or the respondents’ requests to adjourn them, or for other reasons (public holidays, end of working day, and so on). The case was twice remitted for fresh consideration and four expert examinations were ordered by the domestic courts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5086", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in the town of Yalta, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant was the owner of several underground garages. On 13 September 1995 the applicant and the private company OJSC Alima-K (“the company”) signed a joint venture contract (“the contract”) under which the company took on an obligation to construct two office buildings above the garages (“the disputed property”).\n6.  On 25 September 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings against the company in the Yalta Court, alleging that it had failed to comply with the terms of the contract. The applicant requested that the court declare the contract void. He also sought a ruling requiring the company to destroy the unfinished buildings. Lastly, he claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 7 June 1999 the Yalta Court allowed the applicant's claims in part. The judgment became final.\n8.  On 22 October 1999, following an objection (протест) by the Prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea quashed the judgment of 7 June 1999 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.\n9.  On 11 December 2000 the Yalta Court found against the applicant. On 15 December 2000 the Yalta Court adopted an additional judgment in the case. These judgments became final.\n10.  On 19 February 2001 the applicant lodged a new claim against the company seeking a ruling requiring the latter not to hinder him in use of the garages.\n11.  On 20 March 2001 the company instituted proceedings against the applicant seeking division of the disputed property and claiming ownership rights to half of it. The company also claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n12.  On 20 April 2001, following an objection (protest) by the Deputy Prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea quashed the judgment of the Yalta Court of 11 December 2000 and the additional judgment of 15 December 2000 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.\n13.  On 30 July 2001 the Yalta Court joined the proceedings.\n14.  On 28 May 2002 the Yalta Court dismissed the applicant's claims and allowed the company's claims in part. On 16 September 2002 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea upheld that judgment.\n15.  On 19 May 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.\n16.  By a judgment of 31 January 2006 the Yalta Court found against the applicant. By the same judgment the court partly allowed the company's claims. The court, inter alia, recognized the company's right to use a half of the disputed property.\n17.  On 15 November 2006 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea remitted the case to the first-instance court since the latter failed to examine all the claims lodged by the parties to the proceedings.\n18.  By additional judgment of 26 January 2007 the Yalta Court examined the remainder of the claims. The court partly allowed the company's claim for ownership and rejected the remainder of the applicant's claim in respect of pecuniary damage.\n19.  On 24 April 2007 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea upheld the judgment of 31 January 2006. By the same ruling the court of appeal dismissed the company's claim for ownership and upheld the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5087", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1962, 1960, 1971 and 1963 respectively and currently live in Kyiv.\n7.  At the end of 2002 the applicants left Kazakhstan, allegedly because of political persecution by the authorities. They arrived in Ukraine in 2005 and have remained there.\n8.  By four separate decisions of 28 March 2006, the Ukrainian State Committee on Nationalities and Migration granted the applicants’ requests for refugee status, finding that there were legitimate grounds to fear that the applicants would risk political persecution in Kazakhstan for their activities in 2001-02. In particular, the Committee noted that in November 2001 several top political and business figures in Kazakhstan had formed the opposition group Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan. The applicants took part in the activities of that group, mainly by providing it with financial and technical support, particularly through a television company owned by the first and second applicants. The fourth applicant held posts in the governing body (political council) of that group. Shortly afterwards, the Kazakh authorities arrested the leaders of the group. The authorities also instituted criminal proceedings against the applicants on various charges, including conspiracy to murder, abuse of power and fraud, annulled the broadcasting licence of their television company, and blocked the activities of their other companies. As pressure from the authorities mounted, the applicants fled the country.\n9.  By four separate requests issued in September 2007 and April and May 2008, the Office of the General Prosecutor of the Republic of Kazakhstan requested the applicants’ extradition with a view to criminal prosecution for organised crime and conspiracy to murder (first applicant, Articles 28, 96 and 237 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan), tax evasion and money laundering (second and third applicants, Articles 193 and 222 of the Criminal Code) and abuse of power (fourth applicant, Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Code). Pursuant to Article 96 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, murder was punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of from ten to twenty years or by the death penalty, or by life imprisonment with or without confiscation of property. As regards other crimes of which the applicants were accused, the relevant provision of the Criminal Code provided for punishment not exceeding ten years’ imprisonment. The Kazakh prosecutors provided assurances that the criminal prosecution of the applicants was not related to their political views, race, nationality or religion, and that the prosecutors would not request the domestic courts to sentence the first applicant to death for the crimes for which he was wanted.\n10.  On 19 and 21 May 2008 the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged objections (protests) with the State Committee on Nationalities and Religion (the former State Committee on Nationalities and Migration) seeking reconsideration and subsequent annulment of its decisions of 28 March 2006. She submitted that the applicants were wanted by the Kazakh authorities on charges of “grave” crimes and that the Office of the General Prosecutor of the Republic of Kazakhstan guaranteed that the criminal prosecution of the applicants was not related to their political views, race, nationality or religion.\n11.  On 30 May 2008 the Committee rejected the objections and confirmed its previous findings.\n12.  On 17 June 2008 the Deputy General Prosecutor ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5088", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the town of Cherkassy, Ukraine.\n5.  In 1987 the applicant had an accident. Later he was registered disabled.\n6.  On 24 April 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Cherkassy Regional Department of the State Social Insurance Fund, the Cherkassy Commerce, Catering and Services Trade Union and the Cherkassy Cooperative Association in the Sosnivsky District Court of Cherkassy claiming compensation for the damage caused to him as a result of the accident. The applicants also sought the rectification of his work records.\n7.  On 8 July 1997 the case was transmitted to the Pridneprovsky District Court of Cherkassy (“the first-instance court”).\n8.  On 11 December 2002 the first-instance court partly allowed the applicant’s claims. On 27 January 2003 it gave an additional judgment by which the remainder of his claims were left without consideration.\n9.  On 18 April 2003 the Cherkassy Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 11 December 2002 and the additional judgment of 27 January 2003 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.\n10.  On 16 April 2004 the first-instance court found against the applicant.\n11.  On 8 July 2004 the Cherkassy Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.\n12.  The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court against the judgment of 16 April 2004 and the ruling of 8 July 2004. According to the applicant’s submissions, he also challenged a number of the procedural decisions taken by the lower courts before the Supreme Court.\n13.  On 22 December 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation.\n14.  In respect of the applicant’s appeals in cassation against the procedural decisions, the Supreme Court informed him that they were not subject to appeal according to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. However, the applicant tried to institute administrative proceedings against the Supreme Court, claiming that the latter had taken no action to consider his appeals in cassation. His efforts were to no avail.\n15.  The applicant’s subsequent requests to have the judgment of 16 April 2004 and the rulings of 8 July 2004 and 22 December 2005 reviewed under the extraordinary review procedure were rejected by the domestic courts as unsubstantiated.\n16.  In October 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint against the Cherkassy Regional Federation of Trade Unions for refusing to employ him. On 3 July 2003 the Sosnivsky District Court of Cherkassy found against the applicant. On 28 October 2003 the Cherkassy Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 6 April 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts. Later, the applicant tried to institute criminal proceedings against the judge of the Sosnivsky District Court of Cherkassy who had considered his case, alleging that he had forged the court records and destroyed important documents. His efforts were to no avail.\n(c) Proceedings against Mr D.\n17.  In February 2006 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Head of the Cherkassy Regional Department of the State Social Insurance Fund, Mr D., in the Sosnivsky District Court of Cherkassy, challenging his actions. On 10 April 2007 the court partly allowed his claims. On 24 November 2008 the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.\n(d) Proceedings against the judges\n18.  In 2008 and 2009 the applicant instituted a number of administrative proceedings in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5089", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in the village of Stari Bogorodchany, Ivano-Frankivsk Region, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant and Mr L. co-owned a small estate which comprised a plot of land, a house, a shed, a well and a fence (“the estate”). On 4 January 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings against Mr L. in the Bogorodchany Court seeking division of the estate.\n6.  On 18 January 1995 Mr L. lodged a counterclaim seeking a larger share of the estate. On the same day the Bogorodchany Court joined the proceedings.\n7.  On 12 April 1995, following an order of the Deputy President of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court[1], the case was transferred to the Tismenitsky Court.\n8.  On 16 June 1999 the latter allowed the applicant's claim in part. The applicant appealed in cassation. On 4 January 2000 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 16 June 1999. The judgment became final.\n9.  On 14 July 2000, following an objection (protest) by the President of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court, the Presidium of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 16 June 1999 and remitted the case to the Tismenitsky Court for fresh consideration.\n10.  On 29 June 2005, following an order of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal, the case was transferred to the Galitsky Court.\n11.  On 8 April 2008 the Galitsky Court partly allowed the applicant's and Mr L.'s claims.\n12.  On 6 May 2008 the Galitsky Court gave an additional judgment, ordering the applicant to reimburse legal expenses to Mr L.\n13.  The applicant appealed against these judgments.\n14.  On 30 September 2008 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 8 April 2008 and the additional judgment of 6 May 2008.\n15.  The applicant appealed in cassation. On 10 March 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5090", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Sergey Vasilyevich Gribanenkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1949 and lives in the Leningrad Region. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n5.  In 1986 and 1987 the applicant took part in the clean-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. He was subsequently granted disability status and became entitled to various social benefits. The present case concerns disputes over these benefits.\n6.  On 3 December 2000 the applicant brought a civil action against the authorities seeking an increase in the monthly disability allowance he was entitled to receive.\n7.  On 17 April 2001 the Moskovskiy District Court of St. Petersburg ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim and remitted the case to the Sosnoviy Bor Town Court. After receiving the applicant's case file on 6 June 2001, the President of the Sosnoviy Bor Town Court applied, without success, for supervisory review of the decision of 17 April 2001. Eventually the case was remitted to the Sosnoviy Bor Town Court for consideration on the merits.\n8.  On 7 August 2002 the Sosnoviy Bor Town Court informed the applicant that his case could not be heard before 17 October 2002 because there were a large number of cases pending and the judge was on leave.\n9.  On 17 October 2002 the hearing was adjourned until 19 December 2002.\n10.  On 23 December 2002 the Sosnoviy Bor Town Court granted the applicant's claim in part.\n11.  On 29 January 2003 the Leningradskiy Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.\n12.  The hearing of the case was then adjourned on 1 and 10 April, 24 September and 16 and 28 October 2003.\n13.  On 28 November 2003 the Sosnoviy Bor Town Court awarded the applicant 624,653.85 Russian roubles (RUB) in arrears and increased the monthly disability allowance to RUB 28,205.27 as from December 2003. On 14 January 2004 that judgment was upheld by the Leningradskiy Regional Court.\n14.  In August 2005 the judgment was enforced in full.\n15.  On 31 January 2006 the Sosnoviy Bor Town Court adjusted the sums awarded under the judgment of 28 November 2003, which had been paid belatedly, to allow for inflation and awarded the applicant RUB 83,185. The decision became final on 16 March 2006 and was enforced on 4 December 2007.\n16.  On 3 March 2004 the applicant brought a new action against the authorities seeking an increase in the monthly disability allowance he was entitled to receive.\n17.  On 6 December 2004 the Sosnovoborskiy Town Court awarded the applicant RUB 63,445 in arrears for the period from 1 July 2000 to 1 January 2004 and RUB 225,721.98 in arrears for the period from 1 January to 30 November 2004, and increased the monthly disability allowance from RUB 28,205.27 to RUB 30,000 as from December 2004. The parties did not appeal against the judgment and it became final on 17 December 2004.\n18.  The judgment was enforced in full on 20 April 2007.\n19.  On 29 March 2006 the Sosnoviy Bor Town Court adjusted the sums awarded under the judgment of 6 December 2004, which had been paid belatedly, to allow for inflation and awarded the applicant RUB 36,688.91. The decision was enforced on 4 December 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5091", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently detained.\n6.  On 30 March 2004 the Prague City Court (městský soud) found the applicant guilty of murder and unlawful possession of arms under Articles 219 §§ 1, 2 (h) and 185 § 1 of the Criminal Code, sentenced him to fourteen years' imprisonment and ordered his expulsion from the Czech Republic, in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Code. The court considered the applicant a fugitive and therefore decided in his absence. The applicant's interests were represented by defence counsel pursuant to Article 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n7.  On 8 September 2004 the High Court (Vrchní soud), on an appeal by the applicant's defence counsel, upheld the judgment of the City Court. It pointed out that an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court lay against its decision; the appeal on points of law had to be lodged within two months from the date of its notification through defence counsel.\n8.  Pursuant to Article 306 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the aforesaid decisions were notified only to the applicant's defence counsel.\n9.  On 7 October 2004 the City Court ordered the applicant's arrest.\n10.  The applicant received a copy of the Prague City Court's judgment on 19 April 2006.\n11.  According to the applicant, on 27 April 2003 he came back from the Czech Republic, which he had been visiting as a tourist. Thereafter he lived at his registered place of residence and worked in Ukraine.\n12.  On 28 January 2006 officers of the Kyiv City Department for Combating Organised Crime of the Ministry of the Interior (the Kyiv COC Department) arrested the applicant under the international arrest warrant issued by the Czech authorities. This fact was mentioned in a letter of 17 February 2006 from the Deputy Head of the Kyiv COC Department to the applicant's mother. According to the applicant, the officers asked him about his stay in the Czech Republic and informed him that he was wanted by the Czech law-enforcement authorities for murder. Later the same day he was taken to the Kyiv Holosyiyvskyy District Police Department.\n13.  According to the Government, the police arrested the applicant for swearing in public and resisting the police.\n14.  On 30 January 2006 the applicant was taken to the Kyiv Holosyiyvskyy District Court (the District Court), which considered materials submitted by the Kyiv Holosyiyvskyy District Police Department and found the applicant guilty of swearing in public and resisting the police and sentenced him to five days' administrative detention. The applicant's detention took effect from 1 p.m. on 28 January 2006.\n15.  According to the Government it was on 30 January 2006 that the National Central Bureau of Interpol in Ukraine informed the Kyiv COC Department that the applicant's name appeared in the database of international arrest warrants.\n16.  On 3 February 2006 the applicant was taken to the Kyiv COC Department.\n17.  The same day the National Central Bureau of Interpol in Ukraine sent a copy of the applicant's arrest warrant to the Kyiv COC Department. The same day the applicant was arrested as a criminal suspect under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 106).\n18.  On 7 February 2006 the applicant was taken to the District Court, which decided to detain him for forty days under Articles 12 and 16 of the 1957 Convention on Extradition, on the basis of the arrest warrant issued by the Prague City Court on 30 March 2004. The decision mentioned that th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5092", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and is currently detained in Simferopol pre-trial detention centre (the “Simferopol SIZO”) awaiting his extradition to Belarus.\n5.  The applicant has already been convicted twice in Belarus for drug-related offences. The second time, in 2004, he was sentenced to four years' and three months' imprisonment. After having served part of his sentence, he was granted early release.\n6.  On 1 April 2006 the Sovetskyy District Police Department of Minsk instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion that he had illegally purchased a psychotropic substance (Section 328 § 1 of the Belarus Criminal Code).\n7.  On 12 June 2006 the Belarus authorities issued an international arrest warrant for the applicant.\n8.  On 29 September 2008 the Head of the Sovetskyy District Police Department of Minsk sent a request to the Crimea Police Department for the applicant to be arrested and detained pending extradition to Belarus.\n9.  On the same day the applicant was arrested by officers of the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Police Department of Simferopol.\n10.  On 30 September 2008 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Simferopol (the “District Court”) ordered the applicant's detention for forty days pending his extradition to Belarus.\n11.  On 17 October 2008 the Deputy General Prosecutor of Belarus requested the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine to extradite the applicant to Belarus. The request contained the following assurances: that the applicant would not be prosecuted for a crime committed prior to extradition without the consent of the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine; that he would not be removed to a third country without the consent of the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine; that he would not be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; that after the termination of the criminal proceedings or after serving his sentence, if one was imposed, the applicant would be free to leave Belarus; and that the applicant would not be prosecuted for political, racial, religious or ethnic reasons.\n12.  On 26 October 2008, during a meeting with his lawyer, the applicant signed a power of attorney for the purpose of bringing his case to the Court.\n13.  On 28 October 2008 the applicant was questioned by the assistant prosecutor of the Zheleznodorozhnyy Prosecutor's Office as to whether he or his lawyers had made any claims or complaints to the State authorities or institutions alleging violation of his rights and freedoms. The applicant replied that his lawyer had told him to ask for an authority form and explained that he would be further defended by the Kharkiv group of lawyers, which intended to lodge a complaint with the “European Commission on Human Rights”. He said that he had signed no other documents and made no complaints or petitions to any other institutions. If his lawyers had done so, he would learn about it later. The minutes of this interview also mentioned that the applicant was informed of his right to remain silent under Article 63 of the Constitution.\n14.  On the same date, 28 October 2008, the President of the Chamber indicated to the Ukrainian Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that they should not extradite the applicant to Belarus.\n15.  On 7 November 2008 the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine informed the Government's Agent that no decision on the applicant's extradition would be taken prior to the examination of his case by the Court.\n16", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5093", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and lives in the Ivano-Frankivsk Region.\n5.  In October 1994 the applicant was injured by a private individual, V. Shortly afterwards, criminal proceedings were instituted against that person in the course of which the applicant claimed compensation for damage.\n6.  On 8 December 1995 the Bogorodchany Court found V. guilty of inflicting bodily injuries on the applicant and ordered him to pay the applicant 8,000,000 karbovantsi (former Ukrainian currency) in compensation.\n7.  On 10 January 1996 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court quashed the part of that judgment which concerned the applicant’s compensation claim and remitted that part of the case for fresh consideration. In May 1996 the applicant modified her claims.\n8.  Between 10 January 1996 and 10 September 1997 the case was twice reconsidered by the courts of first and appeal instances. On the latter date the applicant requested the first-instance court to suspend the proceedings until January-February 1998 for health reasons.\n9.  On 29 September 1997 the court granted her request.\n10.  In October 1998 the proceedings were resumed.\n11.  On 19 November 1998 the Tysmennytsa Court, to which the case had earlier been transferred, ordered, of its own motion, a forensic examination to assess the gravity of the applicant’s bodily injuries. The examination was completed on 2 February 1999.\n12.  On 22 July 1999 the court ordered an additional forensic examination at the applicant’s request. That examination was completed on 27 December 2000.\n13.  On 8 February 2002 the court allowed the applicant’s claim in part and awarded her 22,316 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in compensation for her medical treatment, loss of earnings, non-pecuniary damage and legal fees.\n14.  On 28 May 2002 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal changed that decision and decreased the award to UAH 9,315[2].\n15.  In June 2002 the applicant and V. appealed in cassation.\n16.  Following several reconsiderations of the admissibility of V.’s appeal, on 24 April 2003 the case was referred to the Supreme Court.\n17.  On 4 June 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals lodged by the applicant and V. as unsubstantiated.\n18.  According to the Government, the judgment of 8 February 2002 (as amended by the judgment of 28 May 2002) was enforced in full by the end of 2004.\n19.  In the course of the court proceedings, nine hearings were adjourned either at the applicant’s request or due to her failure to appear, four were adjourned due to both parties’ failure to appear, and one was adjourned due to the absence of the judge.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5094", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Chervonopartizansk.\n5.  On 11 November 1997 the applicant broke into the apartment of Ms M. and took a bicycle which had belonged to her ex-husband, who had died three days earlier.\n6.  On receiving a complaint from Ms M., on 18 November 1997 the Sverdlovskiy District Prosecutor’s Office (“the SDPO”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for burglary and theft.\n7.  In November and December 1997 the investigation was suspended several times because of the applicant’s illness.\n8.  On 5 January 1998 the applicant was charged with burglary and theft. The same day she was placed under an obligation not to abscond.\n9.  In January, April, May and August 1998 the investigation was suspended several times because of the applicant’s illness.\n10.  In November 1998 the investigation was completed and the criminal case against the applicant was referred to the Sverdlovskiy Local Court, Lugansk Region (“the Sverdlovskiy Court”).\n11.  On 25 December 1998 the Sverdlovskiy Court remitted the case for additional investigation.\n12.  On 20 September 1999 the SDPO reclassified the applicant’s actions and charged her with burglary and robbery.\n13.  On 3 November 1999 the SDPO completed the additional investigation and referred the case to the court.\n14.  On 2 December 2000 the Sverdlovskiy Court convicted the applicant, but on 28 March 2000 the Lugansk Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for fresh investigation.\n15.  On 15 June 2000 the SDPO reclassified the applicant’s actions from robbery to forcible assertion of right.\n16.  On 12 July 2000 the applicant was charged with robbery.\n17.  On 5 August 2000 the charges against the applicant were changed back to forcible assertion of right. The SDPO terminated the criminal case against the applicant because further prosecution was time-barred.\n18.  On 20 September 2000 the Lugansk Regional Prosecutor’s Office (“the LRPO”) quashed the decision of 5 August 2000 and took over the investigation into the case.\n19.  On 21 December 2000 the investigation was completed and on 29 December 2000 the criminal case was transferred to the court.\n20.  On 26 March 2002 the court remitted the case for further investigation.\n21.  On 10 November 2003 the investigator changed the charges against the applicant to concealment of a crime.\n22.  In May 2004 the investigation was completed and the case was referred to the court.\n23.  On 17 June 2004 the court remitted the case for further investigation.\n24.  On 17 August 2004 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 17 June 2004.\n25.  In October 2004 the charges against the applicant were changed to forcible assertion of right. The investigation was completed and the case was referred to the court.\n26.  In November-December 2004 the court held three hearings.\n27.  On 28 December 2004, 26 January and 16 February 2005 the hearings were adjourned because of the applicant’s absence.\n28.  In 2004 Ms M., the aggrieved party, died.\n29.  On 11 April 2005 the Rovensky Local Court closed the criminal case against the applicant as time-barred for further prosecution. On 17 June 2005 the Lugansk Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n30.  Between September and November 2005 court hearings were postponed four times due to the applicant’s failure to appear.\n31.  On 27 December 2005 the court remitted the case for further investigation.\n32.  On 30 June 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5095", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Nizhnevartovsk, a city in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous District.\n5.  In 1987 the applicant was convicted of fraud and complicity in bribery. In 1988 a supervisory instance court quashed the conviction and ordered a new investigation. The investigation was pending until 1999. In February 1999 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued.\n6.  The applicant sued the Ministry of Finance for compensation. On 14 September 2001 the Nizhnevartovsk District Court awarded the applicant 37 016 Russian roubles (RUB) in pecuniary damage and 800 000 RUB in non-pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 28 November 2001 the Khanty-Mansi Regional Court upheld on appeal the judgment in respect of the pecuniary damage, but reduced the amount of the compensation of non-pecuniary damage to 80 000 RUB.\n8.  The applicant applied for a supervisory review of the appeal decision of 28 November 2001. On 7 December 2001 the Khanty-Mansi Regional Court quashed the appeal decision of 28 November 2001 and restored in full the validity of the judgment of 14 September 2001.\n9.  On 10 December 2002 the applicant received the money awarded to him in pecuniary damage by the judgment of 14 September 2001.\n10.  On 26 September 2003 the Supreme Court quashed, by means of supervisory review, the judgments of 14 September 2001 and 7 December 2001, and restored the validity of the appeal decision of 28 November 2001.\n11.  On 13 May 2004 the applicant received the money awarded to him in non-pecuniary damage by the appeal decision of 28 November 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5096", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the village of Lazarevo in the Jewish Autonomous Region, Russia.\n6.  The applicant worked as a driver for a private company.\n7.  It appears that at the time there were several reported cases of the company workers allegedly pouring out diesel from their service vehicles. Thus the company's director asked the competent authorities to carry out checks.\n8.  On 21 February 2001 while driving home in the company of another person (Mr Kh), the applicant's car was stopped and inspected by the police. Two cans of diesel were discovered in the car.\n9.  According to the applicant, in reply to the questioning by the police he did not tell about the purchase of the fuel because he felt intimidated and did not have a receipt to prove the purchase (see also paragraph 14 below). That is why he explained that he had poured the fuel from the tank of his service vehicle (see also paragraph 11 below).\n10.  Immediately, a vehicle inspection record was drawn under Article 178 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure (CCrP) in force at the material time (see paragraph 26 below). The record reads as follows:\n“Vehicle Inspection Record [drawn] at Birofeld village on 21 February 2001 from 8.50 to 9.20 [pm].\nOfficers B and L in the presence of attesting witnesses K and P and [the applicant] have carried out an inspection of VAZ-21061 car in compliance with Articles 178 and 179 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure and have drawn this record under Article 182 of the Code.\nBefore the start of the inspection all the above persons have been informed of their rights to be present throughout the proceeding and to make comments in relation to the inspection...\nThe attesting witnesses have been informed of their obligation to attest the fact of the inspection and its results (Article 135 of the Code)...\nDuring the inspection one passenger was present in the car; there was a white plastic can with fuel (ten litres). There was another metallic can of fuel (twenty litres) in the car boot...\nThe physical evidence has been seized in order to be attached to a criminal file: the plastic can with fuel (ten litres) and the metallic can with twenty litres of fuel...\nRequests and comments by the participants: [the applicant] explained that he had poured out the fuel from the company premises.\nI have read the record and agree with its contents.\nSignatures: Officer B, attesting witnesses K and P, [the applicant], officer L.”\n11.  Having completed the inspection record, officer B put in writing a statement entitled “Explanations”, which included a note concerning Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on the privilege against self-incrimination (see paragraph 21 below). The “Explanations” read as follows:\n“Explanations [put in writing] on 21 February 2001 at Birofeld village.\nI, officer B..., have interviewed [the applicant]...\nThe contents of Article 51 of the Constitution have been explained to me. {[the applicant's signature]}\nI [the applicant] make the following statement. Since 1997 I have been employed as a driver by a private company. On 21 February 2001 I arrived to my workplace at 9 am. During the day I was repairing my service vehicle. In the evening I poured out thirty litres of fuel from the tank of my service vehicle. I have previously brought the cans, ten and twenty litres each, from home. After work, at around 8 pm, I was driving home in my car and was stopped by the police. The car was inspected in th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5097", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1957 and 1955 respectively. They live in Samashki, Chechnya. They are the parents of Zurab Iriskhanov, who was born in 1980.\n6.  At the material time Zurab Iriskhanov was a student at the Grozny State Oil Academy and was positively assessed by its administration. His brother Gilani Iriskhanov was in the 10th grade at the local school. The brothers lived with their parents and other relatives at 10 Novaya Street in Samashki village in the Achkhoy-Martan district of Chechnya. At the material time the settlement was under a curfew. Russian military checkpoints were situated on the roads leading to and from the village.\n7.  In the evening of 19 June 2002 the applicants, their sons Zurab and Gilani Iriskhanov and other relatives were at home. At about 7 p.m. three APCs (armoured personnel carriers) with a group of armed men arrived at the house. Another APC arrived in a neighbouring street and parked close to the applicants' house.\n8.  The group consisted of approximately thirty to forty men of Slavic appearance. They were armed with machine guns and spoke unaccented Russian. The men neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen.\n9.  The servicemen surrounded the applicants' house. The first applicant heard one of the officers, whom the others called “Lyekha” ('Лëха'), calling somebody on his portable radio and reporting: “These men are not here...” and the response: “Take the other ones as well”. When the first applicant asked the officers what was going on, they swore at her and threatened to shoot her.\n10.  When Zurab and Gilani Iriskhanov heard the APCs they ran outside. The servicemen opened fire on them. As a result, Zurab Iriskhanov was wounded and Gilani Iriskhanov was hit on the head with a gun butt and forced to the ground. The servicemen handcuffed Zurab and Gilani Iriskhanov, put sacks over their heads, kicked them and beat them with gun butts. After that they dragged the brothers to the APCs and put them into different vehicles.\n11.  Meanwhile some of the servicemen searched the applicants' house. They did not inform the applicants of what they were looking for. It appears that they did not find anything of interest to them. After the search the APCs drove away in the direction of the Samashki military commander's office.\n12.  The abduction of Zurab and Gilani Iriskhanov was witnessed by a number of the applicants' relatives and neighbours.\n13.  The description of the events of the evening of 19 June 2002 is based on the following accounts: two accounts by the first applicant, one dated 20 February 2005 and one undated; an account by the applicants' neighbour Ms A.Sh. (undated); an account by the applicants' neighbour Ms A. M. (undated); an account by the applicants' neighbour Ms A.A. (undated); an account by the applicants' neighbour Ms Z.K. dated 21 August 2005; an account by the applicants' neighbour Ms A.M. (undated); two accounts by a number of residents of Samashki (undated); a hand-drawn map of the premises and an article published in the newspaper Pravo-Zashchita (“Право-Защита”) in the issue for 5 June 2003.\n14.  The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicants. According to their submission “...the reason for the opening of the criminal case was the complaint by Z. Iriskhanova lodged on 21 June 2002 about the abduction of her sons Zurab Iriskhanov, who was born in 1980, and Gila", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5098", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Khava Aliyeva, was born in 1967 and lives in Grozny.\n6.  At the material time the applicant, her husband, Mr Abu Aliyev, born in 1962, and their five children lived in flat no. 77 at 141 Khmelnitskaya Street, Grozny, in the Chechen Republic. Mr Abu Aliyev was disabled as he had had one leg amputated.\n7.  At 2.00 a.m. on 29 October 2002 several armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and UAZ vehicles arrived at 141 Khmelnitskaya Street and around thirty armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks got out of the vehicles. They broke down the door of the Aliyevs' flat and entered. The men did not identify themselves but the applicant believed that they belonged to the Russian military because they spoke unaccented Russian and had blue eyes.\n8.  The servicemen searched the flat and took money in the amount of 1,500 roubles, certain personal items and books on Islam. Then they dragged Mr Abu Aliyev out of the bed, forced him onto the floor and beat him. Meanwhile some of them ordered the applicant to go into the kitchen. She obeyed; once in the kitchen she grabbed a knife, but the servicemen threatened to shoot her unless she dropped it. The men tied the applicant up with adhesive tape and threw her on to the floor. Then they took with them Mr Abu Aliyev, who was wearing only his underwear, and left.\n9.  The applicant's neighbour, Ms B., looked through the window and saw masked men in camouflage uniforms dragging out the half-naked Mr Abu Aliyev. She rushed to the Aliyevs' flat and found the applicant tied up with adhesive tape and her children crying. After Ms B. had untied the applicant they rushed into the street, but heard only the sound of the vehicles. The applicant has enclosed a written statement by Ms B. to corroborate her account of the events.\n10.  The next day relatives of Mr Yu. A., who lived in the neighbouring district of Grozny, came to see the applicant. She had never met them before and believed that her husband did not know Mr Yu. A. either. They said that Mr Yu. A. had also been abducted the previous might by armed men in APCs and asked her whether she had any information about the captives. The applicant replied that she had no information. The applicant has not furnished any statements by the relatives of Mr Yu. A. concerning the latter's alleged abduction.\n11.  According to the Government, on 1 November 2002 the Grozny Prosecutor's Office received from the Prosecutor's Office of the Chechen Republic the applicant's request to take measures to find her husband, Mr Abu Aliyev, taken on 29 October 2002 to an unknown destination by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms armed with automatic weapons and who had UAZ vehicles.\n12.  On 30 October 2002 the applicant, requesting assistance in the search for her husband, reported his abduction to various State agencies, such as the prosecutors' offices of Grozny and the Chechen Republic, the Security Council of the Chechen Republic and the Chechen Administration.\n13.  On 11 November 2002 the Chechen Administration informed the applicant that her complaint had been forwarded to the Grozny Prosecutor's Office.\n14.  On 12 November 2002 the Grozny Prosecutor's Office informed the applicant that an investigation into her husband's kidnapping had been instituted on 11 November 2002 under Article 126 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (“aggravated kidnapping”). The decision to institute the investigation stated, inter alia:\n“On 29 October 2002 at approximately 2 a.m. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5099", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Vinnytsya.\n5.  On 1 June 2000 the applicant’s son was beaten to death. On 8 June 2000 the prosecutors instituted criminal proceedings against M., D., Z. and C. (“the defendants”) on suspicion of having murdered the applicant’s son. On 29 December 2000 the prosecutors issued a bill of indictment and referred the criminal case to courts.\n6.  According to the applicant, on 11 December 2000, in the framework of the criminal proceedings, she introduced a civil claim against the defendants for compensation and on 21 February 2003 she amended her claim by increasing the claimed compensation. Despite the Court’s request, the applicant has failed to provide a copy of her claim. In their observations, the Government submitted a copy of the applicant’s civil claim dated 21 February 2003.\n7.  Following the Supreme Court’s two remittals of the case for fresh consideration, on 19 June 2009 the Staromiskyy District Court of Vinnytsya found M. guilty of intentional infliction of grievous bodily injuries on the applicant’s son that led to the latter’s death and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. It further found C., Z. and D. guilty of hooliganism, sentenced them to various terms of restriction of liberty and discharged them because the limitation period had expired. The court also allowed the applicant’s civil claim and ordered M. and C. to pay her certain amounts in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n8.  On 20 August 2009 the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment. There is no information in the case file whether the case was further considered on cassation.\n9.  In the course of the proceedings, two forensic expert examinations were carried out, the hearings were 25 times adjourned due to the defendants’ lawyers’ and once due to the witnesses’ failure to attend them. The hearings were also four times adjourned due to the applicant’s and the defendants’ lawyers’ failure to attend them (which delayed the proceedings to two months approximately).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5100", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  On 15 November 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Podilskyy District Court of Kyiv against the Doktor Aibolit Private Clinic seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused to her by inappropriate dental treatment. Mr S., the doctor who had treated the applicant, joined the proceedings as a third party.\n6.  On 14 December 2000 the court ordered a forensic examination, which was completed in July 2001.\n7.  On 26 September 2001 Mr S. lodged a counter-claim against the applicant seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused to his reputation. On an unspecified date the counter-claim was disjoined from the proceedings.\n8.  On 30 April 2002 the court found against the applicant.\n9.  On 23 September 2002, following an appeal by the applicant, the Kyiv Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the same court for fresh consideration.\n10.  On 21 November 2002 the applicant requested the court to join the Cabot Private Clinic to the case as a co-defendant. On an unspecified date that request was granted.\n11.  On 3 July 2003 the Podilskyy Court declined to consider the applicant's claim because she had failed to appear before the court on that day.\n12.  On 11 September 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld that ruling.\n13.  On 1 June 2005, following an appeal in cassation by the applicant, the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 3 July and 11 September 2003 and remitted the case for fresh consideration on the merits to the Podilskyy Court.\n14.  On 11 May 2007 the Podilskyy Court rejected the applicant's claims as unsubstantiated.\n15.  On 11 June 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal.\n16.  On 19 March 2009 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 11 May 2007.\n17.   On 7 August 2009 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's request for leave to appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated.\n18.  The applicant modified her claims on three occasions and lodged several requests which concerned various procedural matters, including audio recording of hearings, withdrawal of judges, securing of evidence and so on. Out of thirty-five hearings held in the course of the proceedings, nine were adjourned on account of the absence of a judge, three were adjourned because of the unavailability of audio equipment used to record hearings, two were adjourned at the request of the applicant, five were adjourned owing to the defendants' failure to appear, one was adjourned owing to both parties' failure to appear, and two were adjourned owing to witnesses' failure to appear.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5101", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in the town of Gorlovka, Ukraine.\n5.  From 30 January 1991 to 12 June 1998 the applicant was married to S.D. During this period they lived in an apartment situated in a private house owned by S.D. (hereafter “the apartment”).\n6.  On 23 May 1998 S.D. made a written undertaking to pay a debt to K.A., a third person, by 30 May 1998. On the latter date S.D. made another written undertaking to pay a debt to S.N., a third person, by 30 June 1998.\n7.  On 18 June 1998 S.D. made a gift of his apartment to the applicant which was certified by a notary officer.\n8.  Subsequently K.A. and S.N. sued S.D. By two separate judgments of 7 October 1998 the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Court of Gorlovka (“the District Court”) ordered S.D. to pay the claimed debts. In consequence, enforcement proceedings were instituted.\n9.  On 4 January 1999 S.D. instituted proceedings in the District Court against the applicant, asking the court to declare the gift of the apartment of 18 June 1998 void.\n10.  On 7 February 2000 the District Court ordered the attachment of the apartment upon S.D.'s request.\n11.  On 1 March 2000 the District Court declared the gift of 18 June 1998 null and void. On 29 May 2000 the Donetsk Regional Court (after June 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal - hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) upheld this judgment.\n12.  On 2 April 2001 the District Court lifted, upon S.D.'s request, the attachment order of 7 February 2000 as the judgment of 1 March 2000 had already become final. The applicant appealed.\n13.  On 9 July 2001 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 2 April 2001 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n14.  On 5 November 2001 the District Court lifted the attachment order of 7 February 2000.\n15.  On 24 March 2003 the Supreme Court of Ukraine, acting under the new cassation procedure, dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decisions of 1 March and 29 May 2000.\n16.  On 3 August 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the District Court against S.D., K.A. and S.N., claiming ownership of a part of the apartment.\n17.  Meanwhile, in the course of the proceedings on enforcement of the judgments of 7 October 1998, two public auctions managed by the Ukrspetsjust State Company and aiming to sell the disputed apartment were held but nobody expressed the wish to buy it. On 28 May 2001, following these unsuccessful auctions, the State Bailiffs' Service decided to transfer the property right over this apartment to K.A. and S.N. in payment of the debts awarded to them. On 12 June 2001 this transfer was certified by the relevant notary office.\n18.  On 30 July 2001 the District Court suspended the proceedings pending outcome of the proceedings against the Bailiffs' Service (see paragraph 28 below). The next hearing was held on 14 October 2002.\n19.  On 24 February 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 14 October 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration.\n20.  On 16 September 2004 the local prosecutor entered the proceedings on behalf of the applicant.\n21.  On 25 October 2004 the applicant lodged an additional claim challenging the decision of 28 May 2001 and the transaction of 12 June 2001.\n22.  In April 2005 the applicant amended her claims, challenging the property right of K.A. and S.N. over the disputed apartment.\n23.  On 12 May 2005 the District Court ordered the attachment of the half of the house in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5102", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971. He is currently serving a prison sentence at the Berdychiv Town Correctional Colony (Prison) No. 70, Zhytomyr Region (“the Berdychiv Colony”).\n5.  On 4 November 1998 the Deputy Prosecutor of Chernivtsi initiated criminal investigations into the murder of Mrs S.\n6.  On 30 July 1999 the applicant’s wife was arrested on suspicion of the murder of Mrs S. On 2 August 1999 she was released.\n7.  On 4 August 1999 the prosecutors placed Mr V. on the list of persons suspected of the crime. The investigations were suspended.\n8.  On 2 September 1999 the applicant was arrested following the issue of a warrant by the Head of the Investigation Unit of the Chernivtsi Town Prosecutor’s Office on suspicion of the murder of Mrs S., and the criminal investigations resumed. The applicant chose Mr Shelepa to defend him in the proceedings.\n9.  On 4 September 1999 the Chernivtsi Town Prosecutor remanded the applicant in custody in view of the pending criminal investigations against him. The applicant remained in detention throughout the proceedings.\n10.  On 7 September 1999 the applicant and Mr V. were charged with aggravated murder.\n11.  On 18 October 1999 the Chernivtsi Town Prosecutor extended the maximum period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention to three months.\n12.  On 23 November 1999 the investigations were completed and the applicant, together with his lawyer, was given access to the case file.\n13.  On 20 December 1999 the applicant and his lawyer completed their study of the case file.\n14.  On 28 January 2000 the prosecutors referred the case together with the indictment, containing charges of aggravated murder and theft, to the Chernivtsi Regional Court (“the Chernivsti Court”). The latter received the case file on 4 February 2000.\n15.  On 25 February 2000 the court remitted the case for additional investigation as it was incomplete. It also ordered the applicant to remain in detention. On 6 March 2000 the prosecutors received the case file.\n16.  On 9 March 2000 the prosecutors resumed the pre-trial investigations.\n17.  On 13 March 2000 the Chernivtsi Regional Prosecutor extended the maximum period of the applicant’s detention to five months on the ground that it was not possible to complete the investigation.\n18.  On 15 May 2000 the investigations were completed and the applicant, together with his lawyer, was given access to the case file. On 5 June 2000 the latter finished consulting the file.\n19.  On 22 June 2000 the prosecutors referred the case to the Chernivtsi Court.\n20.  On 30 June 2000 the court received the case file and on 19 September 2000 it remitted the case for additional investigation. The court refused to change the applicant’s preventive measure.\n21.  On 26 September 2000 the prosecutors received the case file.\n22.  On 10 October 2000 the Chernivtsi Regional Prosecutor extended the maximum period of the applicant’s detention to six months.\n23.  On 25 October 2000 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine extended the maximum period of the applicant’s detention to nine months.\n24.  On 28 November 2000 the investigations were completed and the applicant, together with his lawyer, was given access to the case file. On the same day they completed their study of the case file.\n25.  On 22 December 2000 the case was referred to the Chernivtsi Court.\n26.  On 12 January 2001 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Chernivtsi Region withdrew the case from the court and resumed the investigations.\n27.  On 18 Januar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5103", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Zaporizhzhya, Ukraine.\n5.  On 9 March 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in connection with several straightforward episodes of smuggling goods to Ukraine.\n6.  In the period from 9 March 1998 to 22 May 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against Mrs T., Mrs K. and four other persons in connection with the same episodes.\n7.  On 8 May 1998 the applicant gave a written undertaking not to abscond.\n8.  On 30 July 1998, while undergoing a course of treatment in a hospital, the applicant was arrested and remained under arrest in the hospital. On 28 August 1998 the applicant finished his treatment. On the same date he was placed in custody.\n9.  On 11 August 1998 the proceedings against the applicant, Mrs T. and Mrs K. were joined.\n10.  On 7 September 1998 the case was transferred to the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court[1] for examination. On 12 May 1999 it sentenced the applicant to five years and six months' imprisonment.\n11.  On 16 September 1999 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court on the ground that the latter had failed to examine all the circumstances of the case. On 16 March 2000 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court sentenced the applicant to one year, seven months and sixteen days' imprisonment. Since the applicant had already spent an equivalent time in prison he was considered to have served his sentence. By the same judgment the court placed the applicant under an obligation not to abscond. On the same date the applicant was released.\n12.  On 1 June 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 16 March 2000 and remitted the case to the prosecutor's office for further investigation.\n13.  On 25 December 2000 the further investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya.\n14.  On 15 October 2001 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. The applicant was exempted from serving his sentence under the Amnesty Act. By the same judgment the court released the applicant from the undertaking not to abscond.\n15.  On 10 December 2001 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of appeal, upheld that judgment.\n16.  On 8 October 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of 10 December 2001 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the court of appeal since the latter had failed to consider the applicant's appeal in a due manner.\n17.  On 18 December 2002 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 15 October 2001 and remitted the case for further investigation to the prosecutor's office.\n18.  On 17 September 2003 the case was transferred to the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya.\n19.  On 24 September 2003 the Leninsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant since the charges against him had become time-barred. On 16 February 2004 and 17 May 2005 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld that ruling.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5104", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Novyy Urengoy, the Tyumen Region.\n5.  The applicant is a military serviceman with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Between 1996 and 2000 he was employed as the head of road construction department no. 1393 in the Tyumen Garrison.\n6.  On 2 June 2000 the Military Prosecutor of the Tyumen Garrison (“the prosecutor”) brought criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated theft.\n7.  The applicant was arrested and searched on the same date. The arrest warrant mentioned the existence of witnesses who had indicated the applicant's involvement in criminal activity.\n8.  On that date police officer Pe. reported that the applicant had actively resisted arrest and that the police had had recourse to physical force to apprehend him. It does not appear that the report was ever mentioned by the courts in their assessment of the need to detain the applicant on remand pending the criminal proceedings.\n9.  On 5 June 2000 the prosecutor also initiated proceedings in respect of the applicant on suspicion of aggravated fraud.\n10.  On the same date the applicant was officially charged with several counts of theft and fraud, abuse of power and obstructing the course of justice and the preliminary investigation.\n11.  On 6 July he was also charged with bribery.\n12.  On 5 July 2000 the prosecutor authorised the applicant's detention on remand, having noted the risk that he might flee or impede the investigation, as well as the gravity of the charges brought against him.\n13.  The detention order was appealed against by the applicant and then upheld by the Military Court of the Tyumen Garrison on 26 September 2000.\n14.  On 22 September 2000 the Military Prosecutor of the Ural Military District extended the applicant's detention on remand to five months, that is, until 2 November 2000. In making the order, the prosecutor described in detail all the steps that had been taken by the investigation authorities until then, such as questioning several dozen witnesses, organising confrontations with witnesses and the co-accused, searching the co-accused's flats and seizing various documents.\n15.  On 2 November 2000 the acting Military Prosecutor of the Tyumen Garrison approved the bill of indictment and the case was sent to the trial court.\n16.  On 4 November 2000 the Military Court of the Tyumen Garrison accepted the case for trial.\n17.  By a decision of 18 November 2000 the court scheduled the first hearing for 6 December 2000 and noted, without going into further detail, that the preventive measure should remain unchanged.\n18.  On 6 December 2000 judge S. and two lay assessors, officers Ya. and M., started the examination of the applicant's case. The applicant was represented by a lawyer, Mr Trofimov.\n19.  In a decision dated 6 December 2000 the court granted a request by the prosecutor for a psychiatric expert examination of the applicant. The court noted the prosecutor's description of the applicant's behaviour during the investigation of the case, including occasional threats and verbal attacks against escorting policemen, attempts to punch them, and banging his head against the wall. In addition, the applicant was said to have eaten the schedule of his access to the case file.\n20.  The proceedings in the applicant's criminal case were therefore suspended. In the same decision the court made the applicant available for examination in the Tyumen Regional Psychiatric Clinical Hospital and", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5105", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  In 1950 the State seized under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation the building situated in Bucharest, Cobălcescu no. 36, property of the applicant's ancestor.\n6.  On 1 June 1999 company R.V., a State-owned company responsible for the management of property belonging to the State, sold a 104,98 sq. m. flat of the building and the appurtenant land to the tenants, V.D and D.M., under Law no. 112/1995.\n7.  On 20 November 2002, the applicant sought annulment of the contract before the Bucharest Court of First Instance requesting the court to declare the nationalisation of her property unlawful and to order its return to her.\n8.  On 9 September 2005, the Bucharest Court of Appeal, in the operative part of a final decision, dismissed as groundless an appeal on points of law by the applicant. In the reasoning of the judgment the court considered that although the seizure was null and void the bona fide principle should apply to the tenants who bought the flat from the State, who at that time was its legal owner.\n9.  On an unknown date the applicant lodged an application with the administrative authorities for restitution in kind of the property under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. Since she had not received any answer, she brought court proceedings against the Mayor of Bucharest seeking to have him ordered to issue a reasoned decision upon her request. She also claimed a daily pecuniary penalty until execution.\n10.  On 25 January 2007 the Bucharest County Court upheld in part her action and ordered the Mayor to issue a reasoned decision regarding the restitution of the building located in Bucharest, Cobălcescu no. 36 as the applicant requested. On 22 May 2007 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the Mayor appeal. There is no evidence in the file as to the course of the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5106", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Novi Sad.\n6.  On 24 March 2003 the competent authorities opened a criminal investigation against the applicant on suspicion of abuse of power (“zloupotreba službenog položaja”) and forging of official documents (“falsifikovanje službenih isprava”). On the same day, the applicant was examined by the investigating judge, at which time he submitted a temporary address.\n7.  On 5 May 2003 the police searched the flat owned by the applicant situated at the address of his permanent residence (prebivalište). The applicant's mother, who was present at the search, stated that the applicant had not lived in that flat for over two years. According to the official police report, the police then contacted the applicant by telephone and he informed them that he was looking for a new flat.\n8.  Subsequently, following a request by the Novi Sad District Public Prosecutor's Office (Okružno javno tužilaštvo Novi Sad), on 2 June 2003 the Novi Sad District Court (Okružni sud u Novom Sadu) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand under section 142(2)(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (risk of flight) and that an arrest warrant be issued against him. The applicant appealed against that decision. On 4 June 2003 his lawyer submitted the applicant's new address to the Novi Sad District Court, alleging that he had already done so on 8 May 2003. However, on 23 June 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the detention order.\n9.  On 17 October 2003 the Public Prosecutor's Office indicted the applicant and shortly thereafter, on 11 December 2003, the District Court quashed the detention order against the applicant and set bail at EUR 40,000. The applicant appeared at the court hearing in person. However, the Supreme Court quashed the bail decision and remitted the case. Thereafter, the District Court again ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody because his behaviour thus far had indicated a high risk of flight; the Supreme Court upheld that decision.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 6 February 2004 the applicant was brought before the District Court (investigating) judge (“istražni sudija”), and was remanded in custody. The applicant claimed that he had gone to the police station of his own accord, but the Government disagreed. There appears to have been no official police report on the applicant's arrest. The only document relating to the event of that date – a note made by the investigating judge of the Novi Sad District Court – states as follows:\n“It is established that the [police] officers... at 10.30 a.m. brought [the applicant] before the... investigating judge of this court... The accused states that at 9 a.m. this morning he voluntarily reported to the Novi Sad police department, because he heard that they were looking for him...”\n11.  The applicant requested to be released on bail and offered EUR 50,000. His request was dismissed as insufficient, since “the amount [he had] obtained by unlawful actions was several times higher than the amount offered” and thus provided no guarantee that he would not abscond. His detention was thereafter regularly extended because of such a risk.\n12.  On 9 November 2004 the Novi Sad District Court sentenced the applicant to four and a half years' imprisonment. On 15 June 2005 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case, extending at the same time the applicant's pre-trial detention to prevent his absconding.\n13.  The applicant filed several app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5107", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Batman.\n5.  On 12 October 1995 the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. On 25 October 1995 she was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered her detention on remand.\n6.  On 29 November 1995 the Istanbul State Security Court Public Prosecutor declared a lack of jurisdiction and transferred the case file to the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n7.  On 29 December 1995 the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court accusing her, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of involvement in activities that undermined the constitutional order of the State. The prosecution requested that the applicant be sentenced pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  The trial commenced before the Diyarbakır State Security Court. In the subsequent hearings, the court refused to release the applicant on account of the nature of the alleged offence and the state of evidence.\n9.  On 12 June 2001 the applicant submitted a petition to the Diyarbakır State Security Court, alleging that she had been ill-treated during police custody.\n10.  The case against the applicant continued before the Diyarbakır State Security Court until 7 May 2004 when, following a constitutional amendment, State Security Courts were abolished. Thereafter, the applicant's case was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.\n11.  On 3 November 2004 the applicant was released pending trial.\n12.  On 26 January 2005 the Diyarbakır Assize Court declared its lack of jurisdiction and transferred the applicant's case to the Diyarbakır Juvenile Court, holding that the applicant had been a minor at the time of the events.\n13.  On an unspecified date, the Diyarbakır Juvenile Court also declared its non-jurisdiction and the case file was then transferred to the Batman Assize Court.\n14.  9 May 2005 the Batman Assize Court declared a lack of jurisdiction and transmitted the case file to the Court of Cassation to resolve the jurisdictional conflict.\n15.  On 17 October 2006 the Court of Cassation decided that the case should be heard by the Batman Assize Court.\n16.  On 4 December 2007 the Batman Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against her.\n17.  Subsequently, the applicant applied to the Midyat Assize Court seeking compensation for both non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage pursuant to Law no. 466 pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unjustifiably arrested or detained. On 24 April 2008 the Midyat Assize Court awarded the applicant 11,881 Turkish[1] liras (TRY) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY 10,000[2] in respect of non-pecuniary damage. According to the information submitted by the applicant, the proceedings are still pending before the Court of Cassation, following her appeal, and she has not yet received the due amount.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5108", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1929 and formerly lived in Slatina.\n5.  On 24 October 1991, the Slatina Local Commission responsible for the application of Law 18/1991 (“the local commission”) issued in the applicant's favour an ownership certificate (“adeverinţă de proprietate”) for a plot of land measuring 2.13 hectares located in the city of Slatina, but did not put him into possession of the land.\n6.  The applicant brought administrative proceedings against the local commission, seeking to take possession of the land granted to him by the ownership certificate. On 19 January 1998, the Olt County Court allowed the action and ordered the local commission to enable him to take possession of the land on the original placement held by his father. That judgment became final.\n7.  In 2000, the applicant filed another action against the local commission, the Olt County Commission responsible for the application of Law 18/1991 (“the county commission”) and a natural person, D.E., seeking to take possession of the 2.13 hectares of land, to obtain the ownership title for that land and the partial annulment of an ownership title issued in favour of D.E. for the area of 0.75 hectares that should have been restored to him in accordance with the final judgment of 19 January 1998. The District Court of Slatina allowed the action on 12 February 2001. Appeals filed by the commissions and D.E. were dismissed by the Olt County Court on 27 September 2001. By a decision of 2 April 2002, the Craiova Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on points of law filed by the commissions, quashed the decision rendered in appeal and remitted the file to the Olt County Court for a fresh examination of the appeals. The appeals were again dismissed on 4 June 2002. On 23 September 2002, the Craiova Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on points of law filed by the local commission. It partially dismissed the action filed by the applicant with respect to the obligation of the commissions to authorise him to take possession of the land and to issue the ownership title, on the ground that the judgment of 19 January 1998 rendered in his favour had the force of res judicata.\n8.  By an interlocutory judgment of 2 December 2002, the Slatina District Court allowed the applicant's claim for the payment of 300,000 Romanian lei (ROL) in damages per day of delay until the enforcement of the final judgment of 19 January 1998.\n9.  In 2003, the applicant filed another action against the local commission seeking to obtain payment by the latter of damages for the loss of profit caused by the non-enforcement of the final judgment of 19 January 1998. On 7 November 2003, the Slatina District Court partially allowed the applicant's claim and awarded him 18,898,880 ROL. The judgment was upheld by Olt County Court on 26 November 2004.\n10.  On 31 November 2003, the county commission issued two ownership titles, but for other plots of land than those to which the applicant was entitled. The applicant lodged an action seeking to obtain the annulment of the ownership titles and new ownership titles in accordance with the judgment of 19 January 1998, namely on the former placement. During the proceedings, on 6 June 2005, the applicant died and his daughter, Ms Mariana Dinu, expressed her wish to pursue the action. The Slatina District Court allowed the applicant's claim on 31 March 2006. It ordered the county commission to issue on behalf of the applicant's daughter an ownership title for 2.13 hectares of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5109", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Miercurea Ciuc.\n5.  The applicant lodged a complaint under Law 18/1991 for the recovery of 1.45 hectares of land that had belonged to her ancestor, N.L. In 2001 the Harghita County Commission for the application of Law 18/1991 rejected the applicant's complaint for restitution of the land and established her entitlement to damages.\n6.  The decision of the Commission was challenged by the applicant before the Miercurea Ciuc District Court. By a judgment of 14 October 2004, the applicant's claim was dismissed. An appeal filed by the applicant was allowed and by a decision of 22 March 2005 the Harghita County Court ordered the restitution of 1.45 ha of land situated in Szeradai Rat.\n7.  By a final decision of 30 November 2005, the Târgu-Mureş Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on points of law filed by the local commission and ordered the restitution of other land on the original site of 9,300 square meters and the payment of damages for the 5,200 sq. m of land that could not be returned.\n8.   So far the applicant has not received any title deed to the 9,300 sq. m of land and has not obtained any compensation for the remaining 5,200 sq. m.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5111", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  In 1989 the applicant started working at a privately owned factory in the city of Ordu. On 4 February 1993 he had an accident in the factory and seriously injured his leg. Subsequently, on 13 August 1993 the applicant's employment at the factory was terminated on the ground that he had failed to report to work between 2 and 13 August 1993 without a reason.\n6.  On 4 June 1996, the applicant brought a legal action against the factory before the Ordu Civil Court of General Jurisdiction (“the Civil Court”) and claimed pecuniary compensation in respect of the accident. In the meantime, in 1997 the applicant's leg had to be amputated following the diagnosis of a malignant tumour in his injured leg.\n7.  On 11 November 1998, while the proceedings were pending before the Civil Court, the applicant brought another action before the Ordu Labour Court (“the Labour Court”) against the factory and asked the court to issue a declaration to the effect that the incident had been an “occupational accident”.\n8.  On 5 February 1999, at the applicant's request, the Civil Court decided to adjourn its examination of the compensation claim pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Labour Court.\n9.  On 17 December 1999 the Labour Court, relying on two expert reports, decided that the accident had been occupational. Nevertheless, the decision of the Labour Court was quashed on 17 February 2000 by the Court of Cassation, which held that the Social Security Institution (Sosyal Sigortalar Kurumu “the SSK”) should also be a party to the proceedings.\n10.  Proceedings recommenced before the Labour Court, which found on 17 October 2000 that the applicant had introduced the same claim in 1994, and dismissed the case.\n11.  On 26 March 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Labour Court and pointed to the fact that the case which had been brought in 1994 had had different parties and its subject matter had also been different to that of the present one.\n12.  On 12 October 2001, after a further review of the case, the Labour Court gave a decision and held that the accident had been occupational.\n13.  On 1 February 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment once more and held that the Labour Court should have considered whether a causal link existed between the tumour in the applicant's leg and the accident. The Court of Cassation considered that this could be done by obtaining a report from the Forensic Medicine Institution (“the Institution”).\n14.  On 26 April 2002, after re-examining the case, the Labour Court confirmed its judgment of 12 October 2001. In its decision, the Labour Court maintained that any causal link between the tumour and the accident was irrelevant to the case at hand. It considered that this was a matter for the Civil Court to consider in its examination of the applicant's compensation claim.\n15.  On 3 July 2002 the Plenary Court of Cassation quashed the Labour Court's decision of 26 April 2002 and upheld the Court of Cassation decision of 1 February 2002.\n16.  On 18 October 2002 the Labour Court asked the Institution to draft a report as required by the Court of Cassation. On 8 November 2002 the Institution requested the Labour Court to forward to it all medical reports pertaining to the applicant's medical treatment. Following the failure of the Labour Court to comply with its request, the Institution repeated its request on two further occasions. The Labour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5112", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1931 and 1958 and live in Oulu and Espoo respectively.\n5.  The applicants are father and son. On 17 June 2000 they were involved in an incident in which the first applicant was attacked by a group of men. The second applicant went to his rescue. They both sustained injuries and the second applicant's camera and mobile phone were broken.\n6.  The applicants filed a criminal complaint with the police on that same date. On the following day, one of the alleged attackers filed a criminal complaint against the second applicant alleging that he had kicked and hit him during the incident.\n7.  On 19 June 2000 the police questioned the second applicant as an injured party. He then informed the police that he would make a claim for damages in the court proceedings. At the end of the interview the police took a brief statement from the second applicant in respect of the criminal complaint filed against him. He did not contest the alleged conduct but maintained that it had been justified.\n8.  On 6 July 2000 the police questioned the first applicant as an injured party. He also informed the police about his intention to make a claim for damages in the court proceedings.\n9.  On 19 March 2003 the second applicant was again questioned by the police. He was first heard as a suspect and then as a victim.\n10.  On 8 July 2003 the public prosecutor filed an application for a summons with the Iisalmi District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). Charges were brought against two persons, L. and R., for robbery. R. was also charged with having physically assaulted the second applicant. The second applicant, for his part, was charged with having physically assaulted L. The applicants later joined the charges as far as they were the alleged victims.\n11.  On 23 September 2003 the first applicant submitted to the court a specified claim for damages. Apparently the second applicant also filed such a claim prior to the trial.\n12.  On 4 May 2005 the District Court held an oral hearing during which it received witness testimonies and written evidence.\n13.  On 1 June 2005 the court issued its judgment. It found that L. and R. had used physical violence against the first applicant. They were convicted of assault and sentenced to a fine respectively. They were also ordered to pay the first applicant some EUR 400 in damages and the second applicant EUR 300 for the camera. The court further found that the second applicant had physically assaulted L. for the purpose of defending his father. As he had used more violence than had been necessary in the circumstances, he was convicted of assault and sentenced to a 30 days' conditional prison term. He was also ordered to pay damages to L. The court dismissed the charge concerning the alleged assault against the second applicant for lack of evidence.\n14.  Both applicants appealed against the judgment to the Itä-Suomi Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) renewing their initial claims regarding punishment and damages, in so far as they had been rejected by the District Court. The second applicant also requested that he be acquitted or, in the alternative, exempted from punishment and liability in damages. On 18 September 2007, having held an oral hearing, the court came to the same conclusion as the District Court. It upheld the lower court's judgment giving some further reasons of its own.\n15.  On 11 April 2008 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicants leave to appe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5113", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Kayseri.\n5.  In February 2001 the Kayseri Law and Order Department received intelligence about the address of a person involved in fraud. They suspected that the applicant, who resided at this address with his parents, might be this person.\n6.  On 22 February 2001, when police officers arrived at the building where the applicant lived, he tried to escape and broke into his neighbours' flat, taking them hostage. According to the police reports, the applicant had a knife and resisted the police officers. The police entered the flat with the help of the fire brigade and arrested the applicant by using force. An unregistered gun and a number of bullets were found on the premises.\n7.  At 10.15 a.m. the same day, the applicant was taken to the Barbaros Health Clinic, where a medical report was issued. According to this report there was no sign of ill-treatment on the applicant's body.\n8.  The applicant was subsequently taken to the police station. He was allegedly beaten while in police custody.\n9.  At 8.15 p.m. the same day, after the police had apparently written an official report, not signed by the applicant, to the effect that he was harming himself, the latter was taken to the Kayseri State Hospital, where he was examined by a doctor once again. According to the doctor's report, the applicant was anxious, exhibited signs of restlessness and appeared weak, and there was a 0.5 cm x 2 cm patch of redness and a graze on his forehead, which had possibly been caused by a blow with a blunt object.\n10.  On 23 February 2001 the applicant was handed over to the military officials, as he was found to be a deserter.\n11.  At 2.30 p.m. that day the applicant was examined at the Barbaros Health Clinic, where the doctor noted that there were no new signs of ill‑treatment on the applicant's body.\n12.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor where, in the presence of his legal representative, he stated that he had been beaten by seven or eight police officers both in the police car and at the police station. He further maintained that he had blood in his urine and that the police officer who put him in the detention unit had witnessed this.\n13.  Afterwards the applicant was brought before a judge at the Kayseri Magistrates' Court, where he repeated that he had run away because he was a military deserter; that he had pointed his knife at police officers because they had pointed their guns at him, and that he had not kidnapped his neighbours but had merely been their guest for a short time.\n14.  On the same day the prosecutor transferred the applicant to the Kayseri Forensic Medical Institute for a medical examination which took place at around 5.45 p.m. The doctor noted that the applicant had a 5 x 3 cm ecchymosed skin lesion on his forehead and scratches on both wrists. The doctor also noted that the applicant complained of being dizzy and of having been laid down and stepped upon.\n15.  The applicant was detained in a military detention centre between 23 February 2001, at 8.30 p.m., and 28 February 2001, 1.30 p.m. It appears that during this time he was medically examined three times, on 23 February, 27 February and 28 February 2001, and the doctors noted no health problems. The only medical finding during this time was the presence of a mildly scabbed laceration of 0.5. x 2 cm on the applicant's forehead.\n16.  On 28 February 2001, at 7.45 p.m., the applicant was received at t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5114", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1980 and 1949 respectively and they live in Łódź.\n6.  On 23 August 2002 Mr Przemysław Kałucki, who at the material time was 26 years old, arrived at the Spała Sports Centre accompanied by two persons, G.B. and T.N. They parked their car, a Volkswagen Passat, next to a fence surrounding the Centre.\n7.  Suddenly, a column of four vehicles, three minibuses and one saloon car, arrived. Several armed men jumped out of the vehicles. It later turned out that they were police officers from the Łόdź and Tomaszów Mazowiecki Police Forces and from a special anti-terrorist group.\n8.  Some of the officers wore plain clothes and others combat uniforms with bulletproof vests and helmets. Not all the police officers were wearing fluorescent vests and they bore no other visible signs that would indicate that they were from the police. In particular one police officer, later named witness no. 2, as was visible on the film recorded by the camera of the private television station TVN, was not wearing such a vest. The TVN television had been preparing a documentary on the work of the police and had placed cameras in the police cars. A short documentary “Criminal Games” was prepared following the operation.\n9.  Mr Kałucki and the other two occupants of the car thought they were about to be robbed and tried to escape in the direction of the swimming pool which led to a dead end. G.B. took the driver's seat and Mr Kałucki climbed into the back-seat behind him. The third man, T.N., did not manage to get inside the car and tried to run away.\n10.  Mr Kałucki and G.B. drove between the second and third police vehicles while the police opened fire, shooting repeatedly at the driver and the passenger. The orders of the commanding officer had not been complied with as he had ordered that the police officers from the last vehicle should arrest the suspects. Instead many other officers had left their vehicles and attempted to stop the car by firing automatic weapons.\n11.  The whole operation lasted fifteen seconds during which about 40 bullets were fired at the car as it was driving off, according to an expert, at no more than 20 k.p.h. In spite of the claims by the police officers that they had been aiming at the tyres, none of the tyres had been damaged.\n12.  The driver lost control of the vehicle and hit the fence. Mr Kałucki was severely wounded and was removed from the car by one of the police officers, who pulled him by the head. The first applicant submitted that Mr Kałucki was of a heavy build, weighing about 120 kg, and at the time of the events was observed to have five bullet wounds.\n13.  No arrangements had been made for an ambulance to be present. Although the police officers testified that they had attempted to resuscitate Mr Kałucki and stop the haemorrhage, the autopsy reports made no mention of this. Mr Kałucki died before the arrival of an ambulance twenty minutes after the shooting. The driver of the car, G.B., was seriously wounded.\n14.  On an unspecified date both applicants requested the Łόdź District Prosecutor to initiate a criminal investigation into the death of Mr Kałucki.\n15.  The prosecutor took testimony from all the police officers who had taken part in the operation, as anonymous witnesses (świadek incognito).\n16.  On 18 August 2003 the Łόdź Regional Prosecutor decided to discontinue the investigation. The prosecutor established that the operation had been initiated upon information that two armed criminal", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5115", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 6 February 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud. On the following day, the Prague 1 District Court (obvodní soud) ordered his pre-trial detention pursuant to Article 67 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP”). The court held that, given the applicant’s British citizenship and lack of residence in the Czech Republic, and the fact that he was likely to be sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence, there was a risk that he would abscond to avoid the criminal proceedings.\n7.  On 29 April 2003 an indictment against the applicant on a charge of fraud was filed in the District Court.\n8.  On 6 May 2003, 1 July 2003 and 24 September 2003 the District Court dismissed requests for release from custody filed by the applicant. The court held that the reasons for the applicant’s detention continued to apply. Two appeals by the applicant directed against the second and third of the District Court’s decisions were dismissed by the Prague Municipal Court on 7 August 2003 and 29 October 2003, respectively.\n9.  On 22 September 2003 the applicant filed a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) against the Municipal Court’s decision of 7 August 2003, alleging a violation of his right to personal liberty under Article 8 §§ 2 and 5 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Listina základních práv a svobod), of his freedom of movement under Article 14 of the Charter and of the right to judicial protection under Article 36 § 1 of the Charter, in that the reasoning of the court decisions was insufficient. He added that Article 5 § 3 of the Convention had also been violated.\n10.  On 9 December 2003 the District Court dismissed a request for release from custody filed by the applicant on 5 December 2003 and decided, under Article 71 §§ 4 and 6 of the CCP, that the applicant was to remain in detention. The court did not accept the applicant’s written pledge.\n11.  In a judgment of 17 December 2003 the District Court convicted the applicant of fraud, sentenced him to three and a half years’ imprisonment and ordered his expulsion from the Czech Republic.\n12.  On 12 January 2004 the applicant supplemented his constitutional appeal, alleging that despite his request the Municipal Court’s decision of 7 August 2003 had not been translated into English, in violation of Article 6 § 3 (e) of the Convention. He also complained that in the decision of 9 December 2003 the District Court had decided to renew the order for his detention for the first time since the pre-trial detention had been ordered on 7 February 2003. The applicant thus regarded the period of detention after 7 May 2003, that is after the expiry of an initial three months period covered by the first detention order, as unlawful. In this respect he relied, inter alia, on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.\n13.  On 26 February 2004 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against the District Court’s decision of 9 December 2003.\n14.  On 31 March 2004 the Municipal Court varied the District Court’s judgment of 17 December 2003 but the applicant’s prison sentence remained unchanged. In response to the applicant’s argument that the trial court had not given him the opportunity to question one of the witnesses, the appellate court held that this witness had been heard at trial in the applicant’s and his counsel’s presence and that they had used this opportunity to ask him questions.\n15.  In a decision of 25 November 2004 the Constitutional Court (Ústavn", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5116", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were both born in 1978 and live in Zadar.\n5.  On 24 May 2000 at about 8.00 a.m., on a road in Zadar, three persons, dressed in black and wearing black masks, used a VW Golf II vehicle to block a vehicle belonging to a bank in Zadar which was carrying money. The perpetrators, who were armed, forced the driver of the bank vehicle to abandon it, took the money and drove away from the scene in the bank's vehicle. After they had reached the nearby coast, they abandoned the vehicle and continued in a motorboat in the direction of the small coastal village of Bibinje. They abandoned the motorboat a couple of metres from the shore of Bibinje.\n6.  Meanwhile, the police had been alerted and a police vehicle on its way to the Bibinje marina passed a black BMW vehicle driven by the second applicant, driving from the seashore in the direction of the centre of Bibinje. The registration number of the vehicle was noted by the police. Later on it turned out that the vehicle belonged to the first applicant. The police found the abandoned boat floating along the shore.\n7.  Soon afterwards the police stopped the first and the second applicants, who were riding a motorbike. It was noted by the police that the motorbike seat was wet.\n8.  On 24 May 2000 at 8.55 a.m. both applicants were arrested by the police and taken to the Zadar Police Department. At 3 p.m. on the same day the applicants were brought before an investigating judge of the Zadar County Court who immediately ordered their further detention for twenty-four hours.\n9.  The applicants' defence counsel lodged an appeal complaining that the applicants' detention had been illegal since under the relevant domestic law initial detention could not exceed twenty-four hours. They argued that the applicants had been detained from 8.55 a.m. on 24 May 2000 and their detention had been ordered until 3 p.m. on 25 May 2000, and had therefore exceeded twenty-four hours.\n10.  During the preliminary investigation by the police a VW Golf II vehicle, stolen from its owner at the time of the robbery in question and subsequently found by the police, was searched by the police without the presence of the applicants or their representatives. The search was carried out on 24 May 2000 from 8.15 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. and the written record of the search established that the plastic mould of one of the locks was missing. Samples of traces were taken and sent for examination.\n11.  A BMW vehicle belonging to the first applicant was seized as evidence on 24 May 2000 and kept by the police. On the same day the vehicle was searched by police officers K.B., T.J. and T.Z. on the basis of a search warrant issued by the investigating judge in the presence of the applicants' defence counsel. The official record of the search shows that it lasted from 4.10 p.m. to 7 p.m. A number of photographs of the inside of the vehicle were taken but they were not included in the case file. Several items of evidence were found and collected for further examination, including a wet towel, a car carpet, a black sweater, samples from the back seat cover and the cover of the front passenger seat, traces of earth and of all four tyres. The vehicle was taken to the car park of the Zadar Police Department and kept there. The keys of the vehicle were left in the possession of the police.\n12.  On 26 May 2000 police officers of the Zadar Police Department, where the vehicle was being kept, entered it without a search warrant and without the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5117", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the village of Tri Protoka in the Astrakhan Region.\n5.  On 6 December 2003 the applicant was dismissed from his position in a private company. He sued his former employer claiming reinstatement in the position and damages.\n6.  On 11 March 2004 the Krasnoyarskiy District Court of Astrakhan rejected his claims.\n7.  On 8 June 2004 the Astrakhan Regional Court set it aside on appeal, reinstated the applicant in his position and awarded him 157,427.98 Russian roubles (RUB) of outstanding salary, RUB 5,000 of non-pecuniary damages and RUB 4,000 of legal fees. The appeal judgment became final and enforceable on the same date.\n8.  On 28 June 2004 the defendant company lodged an application for supervisory review of the appeal judgment of 8 June 2004. On 12 July 2004 the local public prosecutor, who had earlier participated in the proceedings, lodged a similar application.\n9.  On 3 August 2004 a judge of the Astrakhan Regional Court referred the case to its Presidium.\n10.  On 18 August 2004 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court, having heard the parties and the prosecutor, quashed the appeal judgment of 8 June 2004 and reinstated the judgment of 11 March 2004, on the grounds that the appeal court had made wrong findings of fact.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5118", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant's aunt (V.) inherited a plot of land with a barn in 1964. In 1967 the barn was converted for residential use by a number of families. The building is close to the runway of the Spangdahlem military airport, built in 1952.\n6.  On 26 August 1994 V. brought an action against the Federal Republic of Germany (“the defendant”) before the Trier Regional Court. She claimed compensation for depreciation in the value of her property due to the noise generated by the Spangdahlem airport.\n7.  On 30 September 1994 the Regional Court granted V. a time-limit of three weeks to make further observations. On 21 December 1994 V. made her submissions.\n8.  On 24 January 1995 the Regional Court requested V. to make her observations on the defendant's submissions within four weeks. On 18 April 1995 she submitted her observations and on 24 April 1995 the defendant replied to them.\n9.  On 17 January 1996 the Regional Court ordered V. to comment on the question as to whether she had been entitled to bring the proceedings in question (Aktivlegitimation) within a time-limit of one month.\n10.  On 22 September 1999 the Regional Court scheduled a hearing and requested V. to comment on the defendant's further observations of 16 September 1999.\n11.  On 18 November 1999 V.'s representative informed the court that V. had died on 1 February 1996 and that the applicant would continue her proceedings before the Regional Court as the successor of the deceased.\n12.  In an oral hearing of 23 November 1999 the court adjourned the proceedings until 18 January 2000. The hearing scheduled on the latter date was cancelled because one judge's post in the chamber of the Regional Court had been abolished.\n14.  By a judgment of 5 December 2000 it ordered the defendant to grant the applicant reasonable compensation for the depreciation in the value of his property caused by the noise at the airport. The court relied on the findings of several pilot judgments rendered on 6 May 1998 in respect of other residents who owned property near the airport and who had lodged actions for compensation in 1990. It pointed out that, “in view of the long period during which the applicant and his predecessor had patiently awaited the end of the pilot proceedings (ten years), it had to be expected that the defendant would speedily take the necessary measures to compensate for the depreciation of the value of the property in question”.\n15.  On 4 January 2001 the defendant appealed to the Koblenz Court of Appeal. At the defendant's request the Court of Appeal extended the time-limit for the submission of its statement of grounds of appeal to 8 May 2001. On 20 March 2001 the statement of grounds of appeal was submitted to the court, which forwarded it to the applicant, granting him a time-limit for submissions of 18 June 2001. On 28 May 2001 the applicant requested the court to dismiss the appeal.\n16.  On 11 June 2001 the Court of Appeal made a proposal for a friendly settlement and invited the parties to comment on it by 27 July 2001. On 15 August 2001 the defendant informed the court that it preferred a clarification of the legal issues at stake to a resolution by way of a friendly settlement. On 15 October 2001 the defendant made further submissions. On 30 January 2002 it declared that in principle it would be willing to reach a friendly settlement on the basis of the court's proposal of 11 June 2001 provided that all plaintiffs (including those in the parallel proceedings) gave their f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5119", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Syzran, Samara Region.\n5.  On 14 June 1994 the applicant opened a deposit account with a bank at 190% per annum for ten years on behalf of her granddaughter, a minor at the material time (she was born in 1986).\n6.  Subsequently the bank decreased the interest rate down to 16% and the applicant brought proceedings against it claiming the decrease unlawful.\n7.  On 21 April 2003 the Syzran Town Court of the Samara Region granted the applicant's claim in part, ordering the bank to make payments on the basis of the interest rate of 85% per annum.\n8.  On 2 June 2003 the Samara Regional Court amended the judgment on appeal and granted the applicant's claims in full, ordering the bank to maintain the interest rate in accordance with the initial conditions of the deposit, namely 190% per annum. The appeal judgment became final on the same date.\n9.  After the deposit period expired on 18 June 2004, the appeal judgment was enforced and the applicant's granddaughter received the required sums.\n10.  However, on the bank's initiative, on 20 January 2005 the Presidium of the Samara Regional Court quashed the previous judgments via supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration, on the grounds that the lower courts had made errors in applying the domestic law.\n11.  On 7 February 2005 the town court dismissed the applicant's claim.\n12.  On 14 March 2005 the Samara Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n13.  On an unspecified date the bank was awarded back the sums paid to the applicant's granddaughter.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5120", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first and the second applicants are spouses. They were both born in 1952. The third and the fourth applicants are their children. They were born in 1979 and 1983 respectively. The applicants live in the Tula region.\n5.  Since 1994 the applicants occupied a flat provided by the first applicant's employer (“the company”). In 1996 the first applicant was dismissed. In 1997 the local administration provided the applicants with another flat. The second applicant moved there with the children and the first applicant continued to live in the first flat.\n6.  On 29 October 1997 the company brought a court action for eviction of the applicants from the flat provided to them in 1994 before the Suvorovskiy District Court of the Tula Region (“the District Court”).\n7.  On 6 March 1998 the applicants filed a counterclaim against the company for the provision of another flat and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The case was assigned to Judge K.\n8.  Between May 1998 and March 1999 the District Court scheduled eight hearings. However, the hearings of 4 September, 15 October and 18 December 1998 did not take place because the applicants did not attend them. Four hearings were adjourned because the parties amended their claims. On one occasion the proceedings were postponed because the judge was on sick leave.\n9.  On 12 March 1999 the District Court granted the applicants' objection to Judge K. and reassigned the case to Judge B. The latter contested that decision before the Tula Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). On 11 November 1999 the Regional Court dismissed his complaint and referred the case to the District Court for examination on the merits.\n10.  On 31 March 2000 the company withdrew its claim for eviction of the applicants and the District Court discontinued the proceedings in that part.\n11.  On 3 April 2000 the District Court decided to examine the applicants' counter claims against the company in separate proceedings, adjourned the case on the applicants' request and scheduled the next hearing for 4 August 2000. The Government submitted that it had not been possible to schedule the hearing for an earlier date since the judge had been busy in unrelated proceedings.\n12.  The hearing of 4 August 2000 was adjourned on the parties' request and those of 8 September, 30 October and 27 November 2000 did not take place because the parties did not attend them.\n13.  On 10 April 2001 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 31 March 2000 to discontinue the proceedings in the part concerning the eviction of the applicants and remitted the matter for re-examination to the District Court.\n14.  In August 2001 the apartment building in which the disputed flat was situated burnt down.\n15.  On 24 August 2001 the case was adjourned because the parties to the proceedings did not appear.\n16.  On 26 September 2001, after a fresh examination, the District Court discontinued the eviction proceedings.\n17.  On 12 November 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicants' claims for the provision of housing and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 12 March 2002 it referred the case to the Regional Court for examination on appeal. The Regional Court set the examination of the case for 26 March 2002. However, on that date it had to refer the case back to the District Court in order to decide on the reinstatement of the time-limit for the applicants to lodge an appeal against the decision of 3 April 2000.\n18.  On 5 June 2002 the District Court dismiss", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5121", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 14 August 1995 police arrested the applicant on suspicion of hooliganism and unlawful possession of firearms. On 17 August 1995 he was placed in custody.\n7.  In December 1995 the prosecution authorities referred the case to the Pervomayskiy District Court of the Tambov Region (“the District Court”) for trial. The case was assigned to Judge V. However, in January 1996 the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor for additional investigation.\n8.  In February 1996 the applicant was released under a written undertaking not to leave the town.\n9.  According to the Government, between 1996 and 1999 the proceedings were suspended on several occasions, either because the applicant was sick or because he had breached the undertaking not to leave the town. The Government did not provide any details in respect of those adjournments.\n10.  On 10 February 1999 the applicant was again placed in custody and on 23 February 1999 he was released under an undertaking not to leave the town.\n11.  On 2 March 1999 the prosecution authorities referred the case to the District Court for trial. The District Court set the case down for trial on 25 March 1999 and held that the applicant should remain under an undertaking not to abscond.\n12.  In 1999 the hearings of 25 March, 15 April were adjourned because the applicant and the victim did not appear. The hearing of 26 May did not take place because the witnesses did not appear. On 1 November the case was postponed until 2 December because the applicant had not received a copy of the indictment bill. However, on that date the case was adjourned until 18 January 2000 because the victim and witnesses did not appear.\n13.  On 18 January 2000 the District Court again referred the case to the prosecution authorities for additional investigation. On 17 February 2000 the Tambov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed that decision on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh examination to the District Court.\n14.  On 4 October 2000 the case was adjourned until 8 November 2000 because Judge V. was busy in unrelated proceedings. On the latter date it was postponed until 14 December 2000 because the applicant was sick. On that date the case was adjourned until 28 February 2001 because the applicant, his counsel, but also the victim and witnesses did not appear.\n15.  In 2001 the case was adjourned on 28 February until 7 July because the applicant's counsel and witnesses did not appear, and on that date until 15 November because the applicant did not appear. The hearing of 15 November did not take place because the witnesses did not attend the hearing.\n16.  In 2002 the case was adjourned on 28 March and 16 May because the victim and the witnesses did not appear. On 15 August the case was adjourned because the applicant and the victim did not appear, but also because the judge was busy in unrelated proceedings. The hearing of 25 November did not take place because the applicant was sick and the victim and the witnesses did not appear, and that of 5 December because the applicant's counsel, the victim and the witnesses did not appear.\n17.  In 2003 the hearing of 28 March was adjourned because the victim and the witnesses were absent and that of 24 April did not take place because the applicant was sick.\n18.  In 2004 the hearings of 28 January and 11 March did not take place because the victim and the witnesses did not appear, that of 25 May was adjourned ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5122", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Szczecin.\n6.  In 1989 the applicant moved in to a council flat at K. street, rented by T.B., the applicant's partner, with whom he had lived in a homosexual relationship. Earlier, in 1986 or 1987, they had lived together in a flat rented by T.B. at N. street. The applicant and T.B. shared the expenses for the flat. On 28 May 1989 the applicant was registered as a permanent resident of the flat in the residents' register kept by the Szczecin Municipality (Gmina).\n7.  On 1 April 1998 T.B. died.\n8.  On an unspecified later date the applicant applied to the Mayor of Szczecin (Prezydent Miasta), asking him to conclude a lease agreement with him, replacing thereby the agreement with the late T.B. He was informed orally by one of the municipality's clerks that he should first pay arrears in rent since otherwise a fresh agreement would not be effected. The applicant paid the arrears, which amounted to 4,671.28 Polish zlotys (PLN) and also renovated the flat, paying PLN 5,662 for the work.\n9.  On 19 June 1998 the Szczecin Town Office's Department for Municipal Buildings and Dwellings (Wydział Budynków i Lokali Komunalnych Urzędu Miejskiego) sent a letter to the applicant, informing him that his application could not be granted because he did not meet the relevant criteria. One such criterion was to live in a council flat at least from 11 November 1992. The authorities held that the applicant had not lived in the flat but had moved in after 1 April 1998, the date of T.B.'s death. Moreover, meanwhile – on 3 April 1998 – the applicant's name had been struck out of the register of the flat's residents due to the fact that he had not lived there for more than five years (see also paragraphs 14-23 below). Accordingly, the authorities ordered the applicant to vacate the flat and surrender it to the municipality, on pain of being evicted from it at his expense and risk, the eviction being effected regardless of his presence.\n10.  Subsequently, the applicant tried to negotiate an agreement with the municipality but to no avail.\n11.  The Government maintained that at some unspecified time the applicant and T.B. had come into conflict. T.B. asked the authorities to strike the applicant's name out of the residents' register and intended to start eviction proceedings against him. They stopped running the common household some one and a half years before T.B.'s death and, at the same time, the applicant stopped paying the rent for the flat. Three months before his death T.B. stayed in his brother's home but returned to the flat in mid-February 1998. The applicant did not live in the flat at the time of T.B.'s death.\nThe Government further stated that the applicant had not assumed responsibility for T.B.'s funeral.\nIn support of their submissions, the Government relied on the findings made by the administrative authorities and courts and in proceedings concerning permanent residence (see paragraphs 14-23 below) and eviction (see paragraphs 24-28 below). They produced copies of the relevant decisions.\n(b)  The applicant\n12.  The applicant acknowledged that he and T.B. had started to argue some one and a half years before the latter's death and that he had stopped paying the rent and moved out for some time. However, nine months before T.B.'s death they had reconciled and they had resumed their relationship.\n13.  The applicant submitted that until and upon T.B.'s death they both had lived in the flat. He had looked", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5124", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On 22 October 1997 the applicant, who worked in a private company at the material time, had an accident during working hours that led to his partial disability.\n6.  On 19 June 1998 the applicant lodged an action with the Ankara Labour Court against his employer, requesting compensation for the pecuniary damage he had suffered as a result of the accident.\n7.  On 30 April 2003 the applicant lodged another action with the same court against his employer, this time requesting compensation for non‑pecuniary damage.\n8.  On 27 May 2003 the court joined two cases.\n9.  During the proceedings the first-instance court postponed the hearings awaiting information and documents from a number of State authorities, such as the public prosecutor's office and the Social Security Institution, as well as the reports of experts appointed by the court.\n10.  On 21 June 2004 the Ankara Labour Court partially accepted the applicant's claims and awarded him compensation for non-pecuniary damage, plus interest at the statutory rate, running from the date of the incident.\n11.  On 4 November 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first instance court.\n12.  In his submissions of 4 August 2008 and 29 May 2009, the applicant informed the Court that he had filed a case with the Ankara Labour Court against the company, requesting additional compensation (munzam zarar) for the damage he had sustained as a result of the delay in payment. This case was dismissed on 21 April 2009.\n13.  In his letter of 7 August 2009 to the Court, the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the courts' refusal to grant him additional compensation violated his right to property.\n14.  The applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was separated from the present application and was registered under application no. 53791/09.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5125", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The facts of the case and the relevant legal framework may be summarised as follows.\n10.  On 20 March 2003 a coalition of armed forces (the Multinational Force or “MNF”), led by the United States of America with a large force from the United Kingdom and smaller contingents from Australia and Poland, commenced the invasion of Iraq.\n11.  Major combat operations in Iraq ceased at the beginning of May 2003. The United States of America and the United Kingdom thereafter became occupying powers within the meaning of section III of the Hague Regulations on the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907) and the Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva, 1949) (“the Fourth Geneva Convention”). Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention placed an obligation on the United Kingdom, within the area it occupied, to protect the civilian population against all acts of violence and Articles 41, 42 and 78 gave the United Kingdom the power, inter alia, to intern Iraqi civilians where necessary for imperative reasons of security.\n12.  The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) was created by the government of the United States of America as a “caretaker administration” until an Iraqi government could be established. It had power, inter alia, to issue legislation. On 13 May 2003 the US Secretary for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, issued a memorandum formally appointing Ambassador Paul Bremer as Administrator of the CPA with responsibility for the temporary governance of Iraq. The CPA administration was divided into regional areas. CPA South remained under United Kingdom responsibility and control, with a United Kingdom regional coordinator. It covered the southernmost four of Iraq’s eighteen provinces, each having a governorate coordinator. British troops were deployed in the same area. The United Kingdom was represented at CPA headquarters through the office of the United Kingdom Special Representative. Although the United Kingdom Special Representative and his office sought to influence CPA policy and decisions, he had no formal decision-making power within the CPA. All the CPA’s administrative and legislative decisions were taken by Ambassador Bremer.\n13.  CPA Regulation No. 1 gave the CPA authority to issue binding regulations and orders and memoranda in relation to the interpretation and application of any regulation and order. CPA Order No. 7, dated 9 June 2003, modified the Iraqi Penal Code to remove certain offences and, in section 3(1), suspended the operation of the death penalty in Iraq. CPA Memorandum No. 3 of 18 June 2003 was entitled “Criminal Procedures” and contained, inter alia, the following provisions:\nSection 6: Criminal Detentions\n“(1)  Consistent with the Fourth Geneva Convention, the following standards will apply to all persons who are detained by Coalition Forces solely in relation to allegations of criminal acts and who are not security internees (hereinafter ‘criminal detainees’):\n(a)  Upon the initial induction into a Coalition Force detention centre a criminal detainee shall be apprised of his rights to remain silent and to consult an attorney.\n(b)  A criminal detainee suspected of a felony offence may consult an attorney 72 hours after induction into a Coalition Force detention centre.\n(c)  A criminal detainee shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which they understand, of the particulars of the charges preferred against them.\n(d)  A criminal detainee shall be brought before", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5126", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Isperih. At the relevant time she was a sole trader, registered under the name ET GATZI-92 Galina Patrikova. Under Bulgarian law her business did not have a distinct legal personality. She traded in alcoholic beverages and tobacco, which are considered as excise duty products under Bulgarian tax law.\n5.  The applicant possessed a licence, issued in 1994, for wholesale trading in excise duty products.\n6.  On 6 June 2000 the Razgrad tax authority inspected one of the two storehouses where the applicant held her merchandise, seized all tobacco and alcoholic products found therein and by decision of 27 June 2000 fined the applicant. The decision was based on the tax authority's opinion that the relevant law required a separate license for storage of excise duty products whereas the applicant only had a trading license.\n7.  The authorities seized a significant quantity of tobacco products, 11,864 bottles of wine and 86,638 bottles of other alcoholic beverages with higher alcohol content (98,502 bottles in total). They were moved to a storage building used by the Razgrad tax authority. At the time of seizure, the total value of the merchandise was the equivalent of approximately 150,000 euros (EUR). The fine imposed on the applicant was in the amount of 221,139 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of approximately EUR 115,000.\n8.  It appears that, during the seizure, part of the merchandise was damaged or destroyed due to improper handling.\n9.  The applicant lodged an appeal. On 20 July 2000 the Isperich District Court decided in her favour and quashed the Razgrad tax authority's decision. The court found that the relevant law did not require a storage license separate from the trading license. In the ensuing cassation proceedings, on 11 December 2000 the Razgrad Regional Court reversed the decision and upheld the seizure and fine.\n10.  In January 2001 the applicant filed a request for reopening on the basis of newly obtained information that storage licenses had never been issued in the practice of the relevant authorities. On 5 October 2001 the District Court agreed to reopen the proceedings and quashed the Razgrad tax authority's decision of 27 June 2000, stating, inter alia, that there was no support in the relevant law for the view that a separate storage license was required. On 18 January 2002 the Regional Court upheld the District Court's judgment.\n11.  On 7 June 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of tax evasion, selling excise tax goods without the requisite tax labels and illicit trading in excise goods.\n12.  On 11 September 2000, the Isperih District Prosecutor's Office ordered the attachment as evidence of the merchandise that had already been seized by the Razgrad tax authority.\n13.  The applicant's ensuing appeals were dismissed on 16 October 2000 by the Razgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office and on 17 January 2001 by the Isperih District Court.\n14.  In January 2001 a prosecutor from the Razgrad Regional Prosecutor's Office, having inspected the file, noted that there was no evidence of a criminal offence, that the charges against the applicant were unclear and incoherent and that the investigation had not been conducted properly. Ensuing instructions were given to the Isperih District Prosecutor.\n15.  On 23 August 2001 the criminal proceedings were terminated by the Isperih District Prosecutor for lack of evidence. The decision stated that t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5127", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Krasnogorsk, the Moscow Region.\n5.  In May 1995 the applicant signed a contract with a building partnership. Under the terms of the contract the applicant was obliged to pay the company a certain sum, and the company was obliged to provide the applicant with a garage.\n6.  Since the company failed to comply with its obligation, on 4 December 1996 the applicant brought court proceedings seeking to oblige the company to provide her with a garage and compensate her for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 19 March 1997 the Krasnogorsk Town Court scheduled a hearing for 31 March 1997.\n8.  In the period between 31 March 1997 and 29 October 1997 the hearing was adjourned on two occasions because of the absence of the parties, and on two occasions because the judge was sitting in unrelated proceedings.\n9.  On 29 October 1997 the applicant's case was joined to twenty-four similar cases initiated by other plaintiffs against the same defendant, and the hearing was adjourned until an unspecified date.\n10.  On 4 December 1997 the applicant modified her claims in so far as they concerned the amount of interest and compensation for legal costs to be paid to her by the defendant.\n11.  Following a request by the parties, on 9 December 1997 the hearing was adjourned until 14 January 1998.\n12.  On 14 January 1998 some of the cases were assigned to be examined separately. The hearing was adjourned until an unspecified date.\n13.  On 18 February 1998 the hearing was adjourned until 18 March 1998 because the judge was sitting in unrelated proceedings.\n14.  On 18 March 1998 the Krasnogorsk Town Court examined the merits of the applicant's claim and dismissed it. The judgment was given in the applicant's absence, and she learned of it from other plaintiffs on 28 May 1998, that is, after the procedural time-limit for appealing had already expired.\n15.  On 8 October 1998 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment of 18 March 1998 in respect of all the plaintiffs except the applicant.\n16.  The applicant applied for the restoration of the procedural time-limit for appeal against the judgment of 18 March 1998, and on 15 February 1999 her request was granted.\n17.  On 28 April 1999 the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment of 18 March 1998 in respect of the applicant because it had been given in her absence.\n18.  On 16 June 1999 the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court quashed the appeal decision of 8 October 1998 by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n19.  On 2 August 1999 the case in respect of all the plaintiffs, including the applicant, was submitted to the Krasnogorsk Town Court.\n20.  On 5 October 1999 the hearing was adjourned until an unspecified date because the applicant had failed to appear.\n21.  On 15 November 1999 the proceedings were suspended until an unspecified date because the defendant's representative was ill.\n22.  Following a complaint by the applicant, on 10 April 2000 the proceedings were resumed, and a hearing was scheduled for 5 May 2000.\n23.  On 5 May 2000 the Krasnogorsk Town Court again dismissed the applicant's claims. On 4 June 2000 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n24.  Following a request filed by the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Russia on behalf of the applicant and other plaintiffs, on 25 July 2001 the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment of 5 May 2000, as upheld on 4 June 2000, by", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5129", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  On 12 July 2002 the applicant rented out his flat to M.\n6.  On 26 September 2002 M. allegedly forgot to turn off water in the bathroom and thus damaged neighbouring flats of Sh. and A.\n7.  Subsequently M. compensated damages to Sh., but refused to pay A., considering the sums claimed excessive.\n8.  On 20 November 2002 A. brought proceedings against the applicant for damages. M. took part in the proceedings as a co‑defendant.\n9.  On 12 November 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the 3rd Court Circuit ordered the applicant to pay A. 40,983 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages and to pay the authorities RUB 1,639.49 of legal costs.\n10.  The applicant lodged an appeal and on 28 April 2004 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh quashed the judgment, found that there was no fault by the applicant in the damage caused to the A.'s flat and awarded A. RUB 15,261 from M.\n11.  On 27 August 2004 A. lodged an application for supervisory review of the appeal judgment.\n12.  On 14 February 2005 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court quashed that appeal judgment and upheld the judgment of 12 November 2003. The Presidium reassessed the evidence and found that though on 25 September 2002 the applicant concluded an agreement under which he should have obtained the right of property to the flat, this right was duly registered only on 10 April 2003. Therefore before that date the applicant could not rent out his flat to anyone. Thus he remained the flat's sole de jure owner and should have been responsible for it.\n13.  On 7 Mach 2007 the applicant transferred to the bailiffs RUB 42,322.49 in accordance with the Presidium decision of 14 February 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5130", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Tambov.\nThe applicant's arrest and pre-trial detention\n7.  The applicant's father and Mrs K. co-owned a cottage in Tambov. The applicant's father decided to sell his share of the cottage and authorised the applicant to organise the sale.\n8.  On 4 July 2001 Mrs K. was murdered. On the same date Mr Z., who had carried out certain repair works for the applicant, was arrested by the police and confessed to the murder. He told the police that the applicant had instigated the crime and promised him remuneration for the murder. On the same day the police conducted a search of the applicant's flat.\n9.  The date and time of the applicant's arrest are disputed between the parties. According to the applicant, she was arrested at 6 p.m. on 4 July 2001. According to the Government, she was arrested at 2.40 a.m. on 5 July 2001, the time indicated in the arrest report drawn up by the investigator and signed by the applicant.\nOn 6 July 2001 the Prosecutor of the Oktyabrskiy District of Tambov authorised the applicant's pre-trial detention. The order stated as follows:\n“[Taking into account] the gravity of the crime committed by [Mrs] Savenkova, and also the fact that at the present time there are insufficient grounds for bringing charges against her, the fact that she may abscond from the investigation and fail to appear at court, commit another crime or interfere with the establishment of the truth in the criminal case, [the investigator] has decided to choose with regard to [Mrs] Savenkova Tatyana Rafailovna ... detention in the Tambov SIZO-1 as a measure of restraint ...”\n10.  On 13 July 2001 the applicant was charged with incitement to murder.\n11.  On 6 August 2001 the applicant changed her legal counsel.\n12.  On 9 August 2001 the applicant made an application for the measure of restraint to be changed to an undertaking not to leave her place of residence. She submitted that her second son, having been injured in an accident, was in hospital, and her younger daughter of three needed to be taken care of.\n13.  On 22 August 2001 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Tambov dismissed the application as follows:\n“On 6 July 2001 a measure of restraint was chosen by the Prosecutor of the Oktyabrskiy District in respect of [Mrs] Savenkova.\n[Mrs] Savenkova requests that the measure of restraint be changed as she is not guilty, has three children, and her son has been injured in an accident.\nThe measure of restraint was chosen lawfully and reasonably, and took into consideration the gravity of the charges.\nPursuant to Article 220-2 of the [RSFSR] Code of Criminal Procedure, [the court] has decided to dismiss the complaint.\nThis decision may be appealed against to the Tambov Regional Court within seven days.”\n14.  The applicant did not appeal against the decision.\n15.  On 29 August 2001 the acting Prosecutor of the Oktyabrskiy District of Tambov extended the applicant's pre-trial detention to 5 October 2001, referring to the gravity of charges as grounds.\n16.  On 2 October 2001 the acting Deputy Prosecutor of the Tambov Region extended the applicant's pre-trial detention to 4 November 2001, referring to the gravity of charges and the risk of fleeing justice and obstructing the investigation.\n17.  On 29 October 2001 the acting Deputy Prosecutor of the Tambov Region extended the applicant's pre-trial detention to 4 December 2001, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk of fleeing justice and obstructing t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5131", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is currently in detention.\n5.  According to the applicant, on 26 October 1998 he found a small-bore rifle and cartridges. He checked whether the rifle worked and then practised shooting. While doing this he was accompanied by his friend T. At one moment the applicant needed to go to the toilet and went over to some bushes near the road. Behind the bushes he came face to face with two strangers, later identified as E. and D., who allegedly behaved aggressively towards him. According to the applicant, one of the strangers was holding an object in his hand which the applicant took for a gun. Fearing for his life, he fired at one of them in self-defence and left. Soon he joined T., who was waiting for him at some distance. The applicant told T. that he had fired into the river.\n6.  Later the same day the applicant separated the breechblock from the rifle and threw them both into the river.\nOn 27 October 1998 E. and D. were found shot dead and criminal proceedings were instituted.\n7.  On 30 October 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of the murder of E. and D. The applicant confessed to firing at D. in self-defence.\n8.  On 31 October 1998 investigating prosecutor Z. conducted a videotaped on-site reconstruction of the events. During the reconstruction the applicant asked to be represented by a lawyer. This request was rejected by prosecutor Z.\n9.  On 2 November 1998 the Yenakiyevo Prosecutor ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention on the ground that he was suspected of having committed a crime punishable by imprisonment and that he might abscond. The applicant's detention was extended on several occasions by the prosecutors: to three months on 21 December 1998, to five months on 25 January 1999 and to six months on 25 March 1999, without indicating any grounds for the detention.\n10.  On 4 November 1998 K. was appointed as the applicant's lawyer.\n11.  Between 2 November 1998 and 27 April 1999 the investigation conducted several different forensic examinations and questioned several witnesses. In ordering a medical examination, the investigator requested the expert to check whether the findings of the examination corresponded to the applicant's statements as to the circumstances of the crime.\n12.  On 27 April 1999 the applicant requested that Ms P. be appointed his lawyer. This request was granted.\n13.  From 27 April to 1 July 1999 the applicant and his lawyer were given time to study the case file materials. On several occasions they requested extension of the period of access to the case file.\n14.  On 1 July 1999 the bill of indictment was completed by the investigation and referred to the Donetsk Court of Appeal (the Donetsk Court), acting as a first-instance court.\n15.  On 15 July 1999 the applicant was committed for trial. The Donetsk Court also continued to remand him in custody having decided to leave the chosen preventive measure without changes.\n16.  On 10 December 1999 the court ordered two additional forensic examinations in respect of the victims and the weapon which had been used to commit the crime.\n17.  An additional forensic medical examination in respect of the victims was concluded on 14 June 2000.\n18.  An additional ballistic examination was concluded on 5 January 2001.\n19.  On 1 March 2001 the judicial examination of the applicant's case was resumed. The Donetsk Court also continued to remand the applicant in custody without indicating any grounds.\n20.  In September 2001 t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5133", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Kostroma. He is currently serving a sentence in correctional facility ZhKh–385/5 in the village of Lepley, Mordoviya.\n5.  On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on charges of abuse of powers by a public official, aggravated bribery and forgery.\n6.  On 8 April 2000 the applicant was arrested and placed in custody on suspicion of aggravated murder and robbery.\n7.  On 18 April 2000 the applicant was officially charged with aggravated murder and robbery.\n8.  On 9 December 2000 the applicant was convicted of abuse of powers, aggravated bribery and forgery and sentenced to five years' imprisonment.\n9.  On 15 and 18 January 2001, whilst the pre-trial investigation into the murder and robbery was pending, the State local television company, KTRK, broadcast the Na grani (“On the Edge”) programme which contained an interview with Mr T., an investigator from the prosecutor's office of the Kostroma Region (“the prosecutor's office”), who informed the public that the applicant had committed a series of offences. In particular, he stated that:\n“The murder was committed while the investigation into bribery and abuse of power [with which the applicant had been charged] had been pending for a sufficiently long time and it was possible to refer the case to a court. And we found out that Mokhov had committed a second, more serious, crime – a murder, connected to the robbery and attack.”\n10.  On 26 January 2001 the applicant lodged a civil claim against the prosecutor's office and KTRK. Referring to Article 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, he sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from the alleged violation of the presumption of innocence.\n11.  On 13 June 2001 the Leninskiy District Court of Kostroma (“the district court”) held a hearing in the applicant's presence and decided that it could not examine the claim while the criminal proceedings against the applicant were pending, because it was essential to know the outcome of those proceedings in order to determine whether the disseminated information was true or false. Therefore, the district court ordered the proceedings to be suspended.\n12.  On 30 July 2001 the Kostroma Regional Court upheld the decision of 13 June 2001.\n13.  On 5 September 2002 the Kostroma Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and robbery and sentenced him to twenty-two years' imprisonment. On 26 May 2003 the judgment became final.\n14.  On 25 June 2003 the district court informed the applicant that the proceedings in respect of his defamation claim had been resumed and a hearing had been scheduled for 9 July 2003. The court asked the applicant if he wished to continue with his claim, and requested him to submit written explanations.\n15.  In his reply of 28 June 2003 the applicant modified his statement of claims, withdrew the claim against KTRK and affirmed his wish to continue with his claim against the prosecutor's office. He also asked the court to examine the case in his presence.\n16.  On 9 July 2003 the district court held the hearing in the applicant's absence. It does not appear from the case materials that it examined the applicant's request to appear in the courtroom. Having studied the applicant's written submissions and having heard the representative of the prosecutor's office, it rejected the claim. According to the Government, the representative of the prosecutor's office advanced no new a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5134", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1938, 1939, 1965 and 1963 respectively and live in Novosemeykino, Samara Region.\n6.  The applicants are owners of two vehicles. Following the refusal of the Samara Region State Inspectorate for Road Safety (ОГИБДД по Самарской области) (the “Inspectorate”) to register their property title to the vehicles, in October 2000 the applicants brought judicial proceedings against the Inspectorate.\n7.  On 7 May 2003 the Samarskiy District Court of Samara found for the applicants and ordered the Inspectorate to register their title to the vehicles. On 9 June 2003 the Samara Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n8.  On 30 June 2003 the writ of execution was sent to one of the applicants, Mr Yuriy Belyayev, who however did not receive it. On 8 August 2003 the writ was sent to him for the second time, and Mr Yuriy Belyayev received it on 9 August 2003.\n9.  On 29 May 2006 the enforcement proceedings were opened at the applicants' request.\n10.  On 31 August 2006 the Inspectorate informed the bailiff that it could not register the applicants' title and that the writ of execution should be sent to a special state body responsible for vehicles' registration (Samara Inter‑District Department of Registration and Examination – Межрайонный регистрационно-экзаменационный отдел г. Самары). On the same day the bailiff asked the court to accordingly change the debtor in the enforcement proceedings.  On 20 September 2006 the Samara District Court of Samara granted the request.\n11.  On 30 November 2006 the same court, on the bailiff's initiative, ordered the enforcement proceedings to be discontinued. The applicants appealed, claiming that they had not been duly informed about the proceedings, and on 27 August 2007 the Samara Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. On 26 September 2007 the Samara District Court rejected the bailiff's request to discontinue the enforcement proceedings. The decision came into force on 10 October 2007.\n12.  On 27 June 2008 the applicants' title to one of the vehicles was duly registered.\n13.  On 28 June 2008 the applicants informed the bailiff of their decision not to register their title to the second vehicle on the grounds that it had become worthless.\n14.  On 24 November 2008 the enforcement proceedings were closed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5135", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is currently in Sweden.\n8.  On 18 October 2003 the applicant arrived in Sweden and three days later he requested the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) to grant him asylum and a residence permit in Sweden.\n9.  The Board held a first interview with the applicant on 27 May 2004 during which he stated that he was Shia' Muslim and came from a city in the south of Iran where his wife and two minor sons remained. A smuggler had arranged for his travel to Sweden and he had travelled all the way hidden in a lorry. He claimed that he had criticised the Iranian government on several occasions and, the last time he had participated in a student demonstration to show his sympathy, he had been arrested. He had spent seven months in Sepah prison and then been transferred to a prison in his home town where he had spent another seventeen months. He had never been formally tried in court but every third month there had been a sort of religious trial where he had been put before a priest who had decided on his continued imprisonment. While imprisoned, he had been subjected to torture and still suffered from headaches because of it. He knew others who had participated in the demonstration and who were still imprisoned without trial.\n10.  A complete asylum investigation was conducted by the Migration Board on 4 June 2004 where the applicant maintained his initial statements and essentially added the following. In 1993 he had quit his job and returned to his village to work as a farmer. He had discussed with other villagers about the lack of human rights and freedom in Iran. One night the Basij (a “people's militia”, loyal to the Supreme Leader) had come and destroyed his fields with a tractor. When he had tried to report the incident to the police, they had advised him not to, since it would lead nowhere. He had also expressed his opinion of the government when he had watched television in public places. The Basij had later destroyed his car, thrown stones at his house and sent messages that he should stop his activities and “information evenings”. He had received the threats through a relative of his wife who worked for the regime. The threats had commenced in 1997 but had become more serious after he had participated in his first demonstration in 2000. It had been a student demonstration and he had escaped when the police intervened. On 9 July 2001 he had participated in his second student demonstration where he had been arrested because police had closed off all escape routes and had been filming the protesters as evidence. Many others had also been arrested. During the demonstration they had shouted slogans against the president and the government and demanded the release of student prisoners. In Sepah prison he had been tortured. He had been stabbed twice in the thigh, boiling water had been poured over his chest and his captors had hit him with their fists. However, on 11 February 2002, he had been transferred to the prison in his home town. He had been planning to escape for almost nine months by being very co-operative with the prison guards so that he had earned their trust. The “religious trials” had taken place at a court outside the prison and the applicant had spoken with three of his friends, who had visited him in prison to help him. On 19 July 2003 he had been taken to the court and his friends had been there. He had worn his normal clothes under his prison outfit and he had not had any handcuffs as th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5136", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant, A.D., is a female British national who was born in 1966 and lives in Whitefield, Manchester. The second applicant, O.D., is the first applicant's son. He is a British national who was born in 1996 and currently resides with the first applicant.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 8 August 1996 O.D. was delivered by caesarian section at 36 weeks because of his failure to grow in the womb. He weighed 1.9 kg. He was not diagnosed with any particular condition. He was initially fed via feeding tube.\n9.  The first applicant was concerned about O.D.'s small size and his failure to pick up weight. On 24 October 1996 she asked her general practitioner to refer him to a paediatrician. She was referred to Dr S., the paediatrician who had seen O.D. after his birth. Following a consultation in November 1996 the first applicant was told that the situation would be reviewed on 2 January 1997. As O.D.'s weight and length had fallen below the third centile chart, tests were carried out on 16 January 1997.\n10.  On 21 January 1997 the consultant radiologist informed Dr S. that X-rays revealed evidence of three, possibly four, healing fractures to the right ribs. The first applicant and her partner were informed the same day.\n11.  On 23 January 1997 O.D. was admitted to hospital as a patient and a full skeletal survey was carried out, which confirmed four fractures. The local authority were informed.\n12.  The first applicant took legal advice and also undertook some research, herself noting that O.D. had eight of the ten indicators for the condition of Osteogenesis Imperfecta (brittle bone disease), including the genetic factor of her own joint laxity or double-jointedness. She states that she raised this possibility with Dr S. who dismissed it without giving any reasons.\n13.  On 24 January 1997 a report by Dr S. concluded that the injuries were sustained “non-accidentally” in view of the nature of the fractures and the lack of any other explanation for them. He noted, however, that O.D.'s parents had appeared very caring and concerned for his welfare at their three meetings.\n14.  On 30 January 1997 the local authority held a case conference and placed O.D. on the “At Risk Register”. At the meeting Dr S. mentioned that she had looked at O.D.'s bones to see if they appeared thin but considered that they were normal.\n15.  Ms M., the social worker assigned to the case, conducted six sessions with the family. When the first applicant raised the possibility of Osteogenesis Imperfecta with her, she was told that she was in denial over the injuries to her son. The first applicant and her partner were very distraught over O.D.'s feeding problems and injuries and by the accusations of child abuse.\n16.  The first applicant attended assessment meetings held at the Upland Centre, the purpose of which she was told was to assess the risk she and her partner posed to O.D. She and her partner fully co-operated and attended all meetings.\n17.  On 13 March 1997 O.D. was admitted to hospital following further weight loss and a nasogastric tube was inserted.\n18.  On 24 March 1997 the first applicant and her partner removed O.D. from the ward, against medical advice, as he had contracted a viral infection which caused vomiting and diarrhoea and was negating any advantages of feeding by tube. They took him to see a consultant paediatric gastroenterologist concerning his slow weight gain, but did n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5138", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born between 1988 and 1994 and live respectively in Orehovica, Podturen and Trnovec. Their names and details are set out in the appendix.\n10.  During their education, the applicants at times attended separate classes, comprising only Roma pupils, at a primary school in the village of Podturen for nine applicants (the second to tenth applicants) and at a primary school in the village of Macinec, in Međimurje County, for five applicants (the eleventh to fifteenth applicants). In Croatia, primary education consists of eight grades and children are obliged to attend school from the age of seven to fifteen. The first four grades are considered as lower grades and each class is assigned a class teacher who in principle teaches all subjects. The fifth to eighth grades are upper grades in which, in addition to a class teacher assigned to each class, different teachers teach different subjects. The curriculum taught in any primary school class, including the Roma-only classes which the applicants attended, may be reduced by up to 30% in comparison to the regular, full curriculum.\n11.  The proportion of Roma children in the lower grades (from the first to the fourth grade) varies from 33% to 36%. The total number of pupils in Podturen Primary School in 2001 was 463, 47 of whom were Roma. There was one Roma-only class, with 17 pupils, while the remaining 30 Roma pupils attended mixed classes.\n12.  In 2001 a pre-school programme called “Little School” (Mala škola) was introduced in the Lončarevo settlement in Podturen. It included about twenty Roma children and was designed as a preparatory programme for primary school. Three educators were involved, who had previously received special training. The programme ran from 11 June to 15 August 2001. This programme has been provided on a permanent basis since 1 December 2003. It usually includes about twenty Roma children aged from 3 to 7. The programme is carried out by an educator and a Roma assistant in cooperation with Podturen Primary School. An evaluation test is carried out at the end of the programme.\n13.  In December 2002 the Ministry of Education and Sports adopted a decision introducing Roma assistants in schools with Roma pupils from the first to fourth grades. In Podturen Primary School, there was already a Roma assistant who had worked there since September 2002. A statement made by one such assistant, Mr K.B., on 13 January 2009 reads:\n“I started work at Podturen Primary School in September 2002. At that time there were two classes in the fourth grade. Class four (b) had Roma pupils only and it was very difficult to work with that class because the pupils were agitated and disrupted the teaching. I contemplated leaving after only two months. At the request of teachers, I would give written invitations to the parents or I would invite them orally to come to talk with the teachers at the school. Some parents would come, but often not, and I had to go and ask them again. A lot of time was needed to explain Croatian words to the pupils because some of them continued to speak Romani and the teachers could not understand them. I told the pupils that they should attend school regularly. Some pupils would just leave classes or miss a whole day. I helped pupils with homework after school. I helped the school authorities to compile the exact list of pupils in the first grade. I no longer work at the school.”\n14.  Since the school year 2003/04 there have been no Roma-only clas", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5139", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Yerevan.\n5.  On 17 August 2003 criminal proceedings were instituted on account of a traffic accident the previous day which had caused the death of a person. The victim, P., was taking a walk in the street with his friend, Z., when he was run over by a car.\n6.  On 9 October 2003 the applicant, who was the driver of the car in question, was charged under Article 242 § 2 with involuntary manslaughter resulting from a violation of traffic rules.\n7.  A number of witnesses made statements during the investigation, including three eyewitnesses Z., M. and O. Witness Z. stated that he was taking a walk with P., when he noticed a car driving down the road at a speed of 70-80 km per hour. When the car was about 13 metres away from them, it suddenly made a sharp turn and headed towards them. He managed to dodge, but P. was run over. No sound of brakes was heard before the collision. Similar statements were made by witnesses M. and O., although the latter stated that the car was going at a speed of about 90-100 km per hour. It appears that a confrontation was supposed to be held between the applicant and witness O. but the latter failed to appear.\n8.  On 25 December 2003 the indictment was finalised and transmitted to the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan (Երևան քաղաքի Էրեբունի և Նուբարաշեն համայնքների առաջին ատյանի դատարան).\n9.  On 18 October 2004 the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment. This judgment was based on the statements of witnesses Z. and M., the statements of three other witnesses, the statements of an auto-technical and medical experts, all of whom were questioned in court, the statement of witness O. made during the investigation, an auto-technical and medical expert opinions, and the results of examinations of the scene of the accident and of the applicant's car.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal, in which he apparently raised the issue of non-appearance of witness O.\n11.  On 27 December 2004 the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal (ՀՀ քրեական և զինվորական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարան) dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the District Court. As regards witness O.'s non-appearance at the confrontation, the Court of Appeal found:\n“[Witness O.] has stated ... that he was indeed unable to come to the confrontation but wishes to indicate that [the applicant] is a police officer, has connections and is able somehow to hurt his family. On 16 December 2003 at around 12.20 p.m. he noticed [the applicant] and a group of men next to the building of the district prosecutor's office[. R]ealising the reason why they were gathered there, he did not step out of the car and left from [there]. He is ready to confirm his statements at a confrontation with [the applicant], including in court, if his security is ensured.\nAccording to a certificate present in the case file [(case page 176a)], the confrontation between [witness O.] and [the applicant] was not possible.”\n12.  On 31 December 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against this judgment. In his appeal, he indicated that the court judgment was unlawful since it had been adopted with a substantial violation of procedural law. The applicant requested that the judgment of the District Court be quashed and a new judgment be adopted. He also requested that the judgment of the Court of Appeal be", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5140", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 14 December 1998 the Business Support Centre entered into an agreement with the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to set up a business incubator for small and medium-sized enterprises in the town of Ruse. In the course of implementing the project, the applicant organisation undertook to renovate a property of the Ruse municipal council against being granted the right to use it for the needs of the business incubator for a period of ten years. The renovation was completed on 9 February 2000 and cost BGN 192,761 (EUR 98,558) all of which was paid by the applicant organisation.\n6.  On 20 July 1999, apparently in the course of renovating the municipal property, the Business Support Centre received a supply from a sole trader (“the supplier”). It is unclear whether the transaction was for a supply of goods or services. As both entities were registered under the Value Added Tax Act of 1999 (“the VAT Act”) the transaction constituted a taxable supply under the said Act.\n7.  The total cost of the received supply was BGN 68,400 (EUR 34,972), of which BGN 57,000 (EUR 29,144) was the value of the goods or services and BGN 11,400 (EUR 5,828) was value-added tax (“VAT”). The supplier issued invoice no. 126/20.07.1999 to the applicant organisation, which the latter paid in full, including the VAT. The applicant organisation recorded the supply in its accounting records for the month of July 1999 and filed its VAT return for that period on 16 August 1999. The supplier, on the other hand, failed to record the transaction in its accounting records, to file a VAT return and to settle its obligations with the State budget.\n8.  On 11 April 2000 the tax authorities initiated an audit of the applicant organisation, covering, in respect of VAT, the period from 1 July 1999 to 29 February 2000. In the course of the inspection a cross-check of the supplier was conducted in order to ascertain whether it had properly reported and recorded the supply in its accounting records. As a result, its failure to comply with its VAT reporting and payment obligations was discovered (see paragraph 7 above).\n9.  On 31 August 2000 the Central Tax Office of the Ruse Territorial Tax Directorate issued the applicant organisation with a tax assessment. In respect of VAT it found that the Business Support Centre had mistakenly deducted five payments it had made to suppliers for input VAT amounting to BGN 25,944.80 (EUR 13,265) and had failed to charge output VAT, in the amount of BGN 38,552.30 (EUR 19,711), on a taxable service it had provided.\n10.  In particular, in respect of the transaction under invoice no. 126/20.07.1999 the tax authorities refused the applicant organisation the right to deduct the input VAT it had paid, amounting to BGN 11,400 (EUR 5,828), because the supplier had failed to record the transaction in its accounting records, to file a VAT return and to settle his obligations towards the State budget. Thus, they considered that no VAT had been “charged” on the supply in question and that the applicant organisation could not therefore deduct the input VAT.\n11.  Based on the above conclusions, the tax authorities adjusted the applicant organisation's input and output VAT for the relevant reporting period. In respect of the supply under invoice no. 126/20.07.1999, this had the effect that the applicant organisation had to pay a second time the input VAT of BGN 11,400 (EUR 5,828). In addition, it was ordered to pay interest of BGN 1,396.83 (EUR 714) on that", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5141", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is the agricultural production co-operative “Dimskiy” (сельскохозяйственный производственный кооператив «Димский»), a legal entity under the Russian law, established in 1992 in the village of Novoaleksandrovka in the Tambov District of the Amur Region. The applicant was subsequently re-organised into a joint-stock company “Dimskoye” (ОАО «Димское»).\n7.  In 1987 the General Secretary of the USSR Communist Party Mikhail Gorbachev presented his “basic theses”, which laid the political foundation for economic reform heralding the transition to a market economy. Several laws were enacted which opened up the State-dominated planned economy to private enterprise. However, the Government preferred to keep control over consumer prices rather than leaving them to be determined by the free market.\n8.  By 1990 Government spending increased sharply as a growing number of unprofitable enterprises required State support, whereas more resources were diverted to subsidise consumer prices. At the same time, the elimination of central control over production decisions, especially in the consumer-goods sector, led to a breakdown in traditional supply-demand relationships. This resulted in pervasive shortages of food and basic consumer goods. The Government reacted by introducing ration stamps for food and certain hygiene articles.\n9.  In addition to ration stamps, the Government of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR)[1] put into circulation several types of so-called “commodity bonds” (товарные чеки) which gave their bearers the right to purchase consumer goods, such as refrigerators, washing machines, tape recorders and passenger cars. The Urozhay-90 (“Harvest-90”) bonds were one of many types of bonds; they were distributed among agricultural workers and companies which had sold grain and other agricultural produce to the State in 1990 and 1991. Those bonds were designed to encourage agricultural workers to sell produce to the State in exchange for the right to priority purchasing of goods in high demand (see paragraph 26 below). The State paid workers for the produce at fixed prices and also gave them bonds in amounts proportionate to the value of the produce sold.\n10.  The Urozhay-90 bonds were not legal tender, but they had a certain nominal value indicated on their face. That value determined the maximum purchase price of consumer goods which could be sold on production of the bonds. The bonds were not intended for payment but merely for certification of the right to purchase specific goods; the sale of goods was conditional on payment of the full purchase price by the bond-holder and production of the bonds for the same amount. The bonds were not registered in the person’s name or otherwise personalised and the Government Resolution did not prevent them from being transferred among individuals and legal entities.\n11.  On 2 January 1992 the Russian Government decided to put an end to the regulation of retail prices. Shops began to fill up with merchandise but prices increased at a staggering speed (the inflation rate in 1992 was 2,600%). In March 1992, the Government established that goods available under the bonds would be sold at the prices fixed before 2 January 1992 (see paragraph 27 below).\n12.  In August 1992 the Government introduced the possibility of buying out the bonds with a coefficient of 10. In 1994, the coefficient was raised to 70 (see paragraphs 28 and 29 below). It appears that a significant nu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5142", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Grafengehaig.\n6.  On 26 February 2003 at 3.03 p.m. the car of which the applicant is the registered keeper was recorded by police officers using a radar speed detector travelling at a speed of 181 k.p.h., thus exceeding the speed limit of 130 k.p.h.\n7.  On 26 March 2003 the Graz-Umgebung District Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) ordered the applicant to disclose within two weeks the full name and address of the person who had been driving his car at the material time. The order referred to section 103(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Kraftfahrzeuggesetz) as its legal basis. The applicant did not reply.\n8.  On 14 April 2003 the Graz-Umgebung District Authority issued a provisional penal order (Strafverfügung). Relying on sections 20(2) and 99(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act, it sentenced the applicant to pay a fine of 181 euros (EUR) with three days' imprisonment in default for speeding. In addition, relying on sections 103(2) and 134(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it sentenced the applicant to pay a fine of EUR 181 with three days' imprisonment in default for failure to comply with the order of 26 March 2003 to disclose the driver's identity.\n9.  The applicant lodged an objection against this decision. On 19 May 2003 he filed submissions stating that he had not been driving his car but that he refused to disclose the driver's identity as he considered this obligation to be at variance with Article 6 of the Convention.\n10.  Subsequently, the Graz-Umgebung District Authority heard evidence from the police officer who had initiated the proceedings for speeding. On 15 July 2003 the statement of the police officer, who had confirmed that the radar detector, which had been duly calibrated, had measured a speed of 181 k.p.h. and that he had recorded the number of the car, was communicated to the applicant and he was requested to submit his defence in respect of the speeding offence. At the same time he was informed that the proceedings for failure to disclose the identity of the driver had been discontinued.\n11.  By letter of 31 July 2003 the applicant, represented by counsel, maintained his defence.\n12.  On 15 October 2003 the Graz-Umgebung District Authority dismissed the applicant's objection and issued a penal order (Strafverfügung) in which it convicted him of speeding and imposed a fine of EUR 180 with three days' imprisonment in default. It also ordered him to pay procedural costs in the amount of EUR 18.\n13.  The authority noted that the applicant had refused to disclose who had driven his car on 26 February 2003 when it had been recorded exceeding the speed limit. The authority therefore concluded that he had himself been the driver. It observed that this presumption was based on the case-law of the Administrative Court, which had considered that in a case in which the registered keeper of a car did not disclose the driver's identity and did not submit any exculpating evidence in his defence, the authority could reasonably conclude that the keeper himself had been the driver.\n14.  The applicant appealed to the Styria Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat). He maintained that the obligation to disclose the identity of the driver pursuant to section 103(2) was incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention, as was the drawing of inferences from the mere fact that he had refused to disclose the driver's identity. In this connection the applicant referred to John Murray ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5143", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Krasnoyarsk.\n7.  On 2 March 2000 two police officers came to the applicant's country house, intending to search it. The applicant objected and the police officers left. According to the applicant they returned later that day, climbed over the fence and broke it.\n8.  On 23 December 2001 the applicant, having been unsuccessful in his attempts to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers, lodged an action against the local prosecution authorities seeking compensation for damage resulting from their refusal to open a criminal case.\n9.  On 10 September 2002 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court, at final instance, dismissed the action, finding that the prosecution authorities had no cause to institute criminal proceedings as the police officers had not searched the applicant's house.\n10.  On 24 April 2000, at 2.30 a.m., two police officers, Mr N. and Mr Ne., and officer N.'s relative, Mr V., acting on information that the applicant owned an unregistered weapon, broke into his country house. The applicant and his fifteen-year-old daughter were in the house. The officers told the applicant that a man had been killed in a nearby house and demanded that the applicant hand over his hunting rifle and cartridges.\n11.  In response to the applicant's assertion that he did not own a weapon, officer N. twice hit him in the head with the hilt of his gun. Threatening to use a gun, he then ordered the applicant to stand with his face to the wall, his hands against the wall and his legs spread. Having learnt that the applicant's daughter was also in the house, officer N. ordered her to come downstairs. When she refused, officer N. shot into the air. As the applicant's daughter still refused to comply, officer N. approached and hit her at least four times in the head with the hilt of his gun. According to the applicant, having dragged the girl downstairs, officer N. continued beating him and his daughter, threatening them with murder.\n12.  The police officers and Mr V. searched the house. Having found no weapons, officer N. again beat the applicant up. The applicant alleged that officer N. had pressed the gun against his head and had pulled the trigger. No shot was fired because the gun was not loaded. More murder threats followed.\n13.  The police officers tied the applicant's hands behind his back and took him to another house where the beating and threats continued. The applicant was released several hours later after having promised to come to a police station on the following day.\n14.  On 25 April 2000 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Yemelyanovskiy district prosecutor, describing the events of the previous night. Criminal proceedings were instituted.\n15.  On 24 July 2000 an investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings, finding that the applicant's complaints were manifestly ill-founded. The investigator observed that medical experts had examined the applicant and his daughter and had diagnosed both of them with closed craniocerebral injuries and concussion. The experts also recorded compound wounds in the parietal region of the applicant's head and four tear-contused wounds on his daughter's head. However, the investigator concluded that there was no evidence in support of the applicant's allegations that the injuries had been caused by officer N.\n16.  Four days later the Yemelyanovskiy district prosecutor quashed the decision and reopened the investigation.\n17.  On an unspecified ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5144", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Novoaltaysk, in the Altay region.\n7.  In 1987 the General Secretary of the USSR Communist Party Mikhail Gorbachev presented his “basic theses”, which laid the political foundation for economic reform heralding the transition to a market economy. Several laws were enacted which opened up the State-dominated planned economy to private enterprise. However, the Government preferred to keep control over consumer prices rather than leaving them to be determined by the free market.\n8.  By 1990 Government spending increased sharply as a growing number of unprofitable enterprises required State support, whereas more resources were diverted to subsidise consumer prices. At the same time, the elimination of central control over production decisions, especially in the consumer-goods sector, led to a breakdown in traditional supply-demand relationships. This resulted in pervasive shortages of food and basic consumer goods. The Government reacted by introducing ration stamps for food and certain hygiene articles.\n9.  In addition to ration stamps, the Government of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic (RSFSR)[1] put into circulation several types of so-called “commodity bonds” (товарные чеки) which gave their bearers the right to purchase consumer goods, such as refrigerators, washing machines, tape recorders and passenger cars. The Urozhay-90 (“Harvest-90”) bonds were one of many types of bonds; they were distributed among agricultural workers and companies which had sold grain and other agricultural produce to the State in 1990 and 1991. Those bonds were designed to encourage agricultural workers to sell produce to the State in exchange for the right to priority purchasing of goods in high demand (see paragraph 21 below). The State paid workers for the produce at fixed prices and also gave them bonds in amounts proportionate to the value of the produce sold.\n10.  The Urozhay-90 bonds were not legal tender, but they had a certain nominal value indicated on their face. That value determined the maximum purchase price of consumer goods which could be sold on production of the bonds. The bonds were not intended for payment but merely for certification of the right to purchase specific goods; the sale of goods was conditional on payment of the full purchase price by the bond-holder and production of the bonds for the same amount. The bonds were not registered in the person's name or otherwise personalised and the Government Resolution did not prevent them from being transferred among individuals and legal entities.\n11.  On 2 January 1992 the Russian Government decided to put an end to the regulation of retail prices. Shops began to fill up with merchandise but prices increased at a staggering speed (the inflation rate in 1992 was 2,600%). In March 1992, the Government established that goods available under the bonds would be sold at the prices fixed before 2 January 1992 (see paragraph 22 below).\n12.  In August 1992 the Government introduced the possibility of buying out the bonds with a coefficient of 10. In 1994, the coefficient was raised to 70 (see paragraphs 23 and 24 below). It appears that a significant number of bonds were bought out by the State before the buyout operations were stopped in 1996 (see paragraph 26 below).\n13.  In 1995 the status of the commodity bonds was codified in the Commodity Bonds Act passed by Parliament (see paragraph 25 below). Its text was very laconic, shorter ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5145", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Plovdiv.\n5.  On 20 July 1997 she brought proceedings before the Madan District Court against her five siblings for the division of a piece of real property. Between January and April 1998 the court held three hearings and admitted two expert reports in evidence. On 30 April 1998 it allowed the division of only part of the property.\n6.  The applicant appealed to the Smolyan Regional Court, claiming that the lower court should have allowed the division of the whole property. A hearing listed for 30 June 1998 was adjourned owing to improper summoning of one of the respondents. The court held two hearings, in May and October 1998, and on 30 April 1999 upheld the lower court's judgment.\n7.  The applicant appealed on points of law. A hearing listed for 28 February 2000 was adjourned owing to improper summoning of four of the respondents. It was held on 25 September 2000. On 7 November 2000 the Supreme Court of Cassation, finding, inter alia, that the Smolyan Regional Court had seriously breached basic rules of procedure, quashed its judgment and remitted the case back to that court.\n8.  Between December 2000 and March 2002 eight hearings were listed. Medical and financial expert reports were prepared. The case was adjourned once because the applicant and some of the respondents had not been summoned in due time. Another adjournment was ordered because an expert report had not been filed in due time, and another because an expert could not attend the hearing. Two adjournments were ordered because the applicant requested additional tasks to be assigned to the experts.\n9.  On 28 March 2002 the Smolyan Regional Court partly reversed the Madan District Court's judgment of 30 April 1998. The applicant appealed on points of law. After hearing the appeal on 10 February 2003, on 4 March 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court's judgment.\n10.  After that the second phase of the proceedings, during which the court was due to carry out the division of the property (see paragraph 14 below), began before the Madan District Court. The court held hearings on 14 April and on 2 June 2003. At the hearing on 2 June 2003 it ordered the case to be sent to the Smolyan Regional Court for the correction of two obvious factual errors in the operative provisions of the judgment of 28 March 2002. That entailed the suspension of the proceedings before the Madan District Court.\n11.  On 21 July 2003 the Smolyan Regional Court agreed to make one of the requested corrections but refused to make the other one. One of the respondents appealed. After hearing the appeal on 13 April 2004, on 29 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the ruling of the Smolyan Regional Court.\n12.  The proceedings then resumed before the Madan District Court. The court held two hearings at which it admitted in evidence a technical expert report and a number of documents. On 1 December 2004 it allocated the property to one of the respondents. None of the parties appealed against that judgment and it became final.\n13.  As the Madan District Court omitted to award costs, on an unspecified date the parties lodged requests seeking a costs order. In additional decisions of 10 and 14 January 2005 the court ordered the respondents to reimburse part of the applicant's costs. After that, there were appeal proceedings and proceedings for correction of obvious factual errors in the two decisions. Those proceedings ended on 5 July 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5146", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Vilnius.\n10.  On 1 November 1997 the applicant was recruited by the embassy of the Republic of Poland in Vilnius (“the embassy” or “the Polish embassy”), to the post of secretary and switchboard operator (korespondentė-telefonistė).\n11.  The contract of employment provided in Article 1 that the applicant’s responsibilities and tasks were limited by the scope of her (secretarial and switchboard-related) duties. If the applicant agreed, she could be assigned other tasks not covered by this agreement. In such circumstances, a new contract would have to be signed. According to Article 6 of the contract, the applicant had to comply with Lithuanian laws, was liable for any damage she might cause to her employer and could be subjected to disciplinary action for failing to fulfil her professional obligations or to observe safety regulations at work. In return for extra work, the applicant could receive remuneration, bonuses, discretionary benefits or compensatory leave. Article 8 provided that any disputes arising under the contract were to be settled in accordance with the laws of Lithuania: the Constitution, the Employment Contracts Act, the Labour Remuneration Act, the Leave Act and the Employees’ Social Security Act. Lastly, the contract could be terminated in accordance with sections 26, 27, 29 and 30 of the Employment Contracts Act (enacted on 28 November 1991 with a number of subsequent amendments).\n12.  The applicant’s duties – as set out in a schedule to her employment contract – included the following:\n“1.  Operating the switchboard of the embassy and Consulate-General and recording international telephone conversations.\n13.  In 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint before the Equal Opportunities Ombudsman, alleging sexual harassment by one of her male colleagues, a member of the diplomatic staff of the embassy. Following an inquiry, the Ombudsman reported that the applicant was indeed a victim of sexual harassment. The applicant alleged that she had fallen ill because of the tension she was experiencing at work.\n14.  The applicant was on sick leave from 1 September to 29 October 1999. On 29 October 1999 she went to work but was not authorised to enter the embassy building. On 22 November 1999 the applicant was again refused entry when she arrived for work. The same thing occurred again on 23 November 1999.\n15.  On 26 November 1999 the applicant wrote a letter to the ambassador, informing her about the incidents. On 2 December 1999 the applicant was notified that she had been dismissed on the ground of her failure to come to work from 22 to 29 November 1999.\n16.  The applicant brought a civil claim, requesting compensation for unlawful dismissal. She did not claim reinstatement. The Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs issued a note verbale claiming immunity from the jurisdiction of the Lithuanian courts. On 2 August 2000 the Vilnius Regional Court discontinued the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. On 14 September 2000 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision. The final decision was taken by the Supreme Court on 25 June 2001.\n17.  The Supreme Court established, inter alia, that the 1993 agreement on legal assistance between Lithuania and Poland had not resolved the question of State immunity, that Lithuania had no laws on the question, and that the domestic case-law in this area was only just being developed. The Supreme Court therefore considered it appropriate to decide the case in t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5147", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Paşcani.\n6.  Mr Victor Iorga (V. I.), the applicant's son, was in the seventh month of his compulsory military service as a soldier when he disappeared from his military unit on 9 June 2001. On 14 June 2001 his dead body was found hanging from a tree near the military unit.\n7.  A criminal investigation (no. 2001019048) was initiated on the same day. According to documents submitted by the Government, during the investigation numerous witnesses were heard and several expert reports were made, including an autopsy, a post-mortem psychiatric report and a report on the samples of various substances gathered from the scene of the event. On 28 December 2001 a military prosecutor decided to discontinue the investigation into the case, finding that V. I. had committed suicide. The applicant considered that her son had been murdered and that the authorities were trying to cover up the case.\n8.  At the applicant's request, on 6 February 2002 she was for the first time given access to the materials in the file. On 15 August 2002 she challenged in court the decision of 28 December 2001.\n9.  On 7 November 2002 the Buiucani District Court rejected the applicant's challenge to the decision of 28 December 2001 as lodged out of time. The applicant appealed, claiming that she had never received a summons to the hearing of 7 November 2002.\n10.  On 11 February 2003 the Chişinău Regional Court ordered a re-examination of the complaint by the Buiucani District Court. In her complaint, the applicant noted that the passage of time made increasingly irrelevant an exhumation of the body in order to carry out another autopsy to verify the cause of her son's death. She also noted that she was still unsure whether she had seen her son's body when she had been asked to verify the identity of the body found on 14 June 2001. She mentioned the absence of a number of marks which her son had had on his body and that she had been pressured into saying that it was her son's body. She also mentioned that her son had complained of violence among the soldiers. It appears that the applicant's complaint was forwarded to the Buiucani District Court. According to the applicant, she was presented with a corpse in an advanced state of decomposition which she was not sure to have identified as her son. Moreover, the photos of the corpse suggested that the victim had received a blow to the head and revealed two strangulation marks, suggesting that he had been hanged from the tree after being asphyxiated. She expressed her doubts to the authorities and asked for an exhumation in order to verify that information, but this was refused.\n11.  On 24 April 2003 the Buiucani District Court found that, even though many investigative measures had been carried out, including several expert reports, there had been shortcomings in the investigation. In particular, V. I.'s interests had not been represented, the applicant having been treated only as a witness and not as the victim's representative as required by law. That omission had prevented the applicant from exercising her procedural rights under Article 47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”, see paragraph 18 below), taking into account that she had a number of objections to the manner in which the investigation had been carried out. The applicant's rights had not been explained to her by the investigators, in violation of Article 51 CCP (see paragraph 18 below). The court found that, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5148", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 29 April 2001 at approximately 2.30 p.m. the applicant was apprehended by a large group of police officers in Istanbul while she was walking to her sister's house. She did not have her identity papers at the time of her apprehension.\n7.  She was subsequently handcuffed and taken to the Bahçelievler police headquarters, where she was questioned for an hour. She was allegedly subjected to inhuman treatment during the questioning, which involved being beaten with a truncheon, hosed down with cold water and banged against walls. She remained handcuffed and blindfolded throughout.\n8.  At approximately 9.30 p.m. the applicant's family contacted the local police station to report her missing. The police identified the missing person as the applicant from the descriptions provided and referred her family to the anti-terrorist branch, located on the second floor of the Bahçelievler police headquarters.\n9.  The applicant's family were subsequently taken to the interview room where the applicant was being held. They found the applicant in a hysterical state, screaming and cursing the police officers, hurling herself against the walls and attempting to throw herself out of the window. The applicant also had bruises and scratch marks on her head and wrists, which she claimed were caused by the handcuffs. When they asked why the applicant, who was only 15 at the material time, had been apprehended, the police informed the family that the applicant was a suspected terrorist and that she had not given them her name or age. The police further told them that the applicant had refused to talk despite the treatment through which they had put her.\n10.  The applicant, however, had informed the authorities of both her and her father's name and her identity and age could be readily discovered from the diary which was in her bag. Moreover, her age had been changed from 14 to 19 in the diary by the police officers.\n11.  The applicant's handcuffs were subsequently removed pending the verification of her identity information and she was given a glass of water. The applicant, however, broke this glass and cut her wrists. She was thereupon taken to Yenibosna Hospital by the police for treatment.\n12.  After her treatment, at approximately 1.00 a.m., the police took the applicant to her house, where she again became hysterical. When the applicant refused to talk to her family about the treatment she had undergone at the police station, she was sent to her sister's house where she felt more at ease. Once at her sister's house, which was on the fourth floor, the applicant attempted to commit suicide by jumping out of the window.\n13.  The applicant spent the following fourteen days in the intensive care unit at Istanbul University Hospital and was, allegedly, still undergoing psychological treatment at the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey at the time this application was lodged.\n14.  During her stay at the hospital, officers from the Bahçelievler police headquarters, including the chief constable, came to visit her regularly and asked her family not to lodge a criminal complaint or inform the press of the incident. They explained that they had only apprehended the applicant because they had received a tip-off about her, which they now believed to have been made by the applicant herself. They then had the applicant's father listen to a recording of the tip-off call. The applicant's father claimed that the v", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5149", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1996, 1973 and 1961, respectively, and live in Izmir.\n6.  The first applicant was born prematurely on 6 May 1996 at the Dr Behçet Uz Children's Hospital in Izmir.\n7.  On 7 May 1996 he was diagnosed with an “inguinal and umbilical hernia” by doctors working in the same hospital.\n8.  On an unspecified date in May or June 1996, the third applicant, who is the first applicant's father, purchased a unit of red blood cells and a unit of plasma from the Izmir Directorate of the Kızılay (the Turkish Red Cross, hereinafter “the Kızılay”). A number of blood and plasma transfusions were carried out on 19 May 1996, 24 May 1996, 26 May 1996, 29 May 1996 and 6 and 7 June 1996. The first applicant was discharged from the hospital on 17 June 1996.\n9.  Approximately four months after the blood transfusion, the second and third applicants learned that the first applicant had been infected with the HIV virus which could develop into the more severe Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).\n10.  According to the information given by the Government, on 31 October 1996 a donor (no. 1294, code MUALAB-43) donated blood to the Kızılay. Subsequent to screening and tests carried out on the donated blood (serial no. 210619), HIV was found and the blood in question was destroyed. Following two more tests, it became certain that donor no. 1294 had been infected with HIV. The authorities conducted an investigation with a view to determining whether donor no. 1294 had donated blood previously. It appeared that the unit of plasma (serial no. 202367) used for the first applicant's treatment had been given by donor no. 1294. The first applicant was admitted to the Hacettepe University Hospital for treatment. The costs of treatment were paid by the Izmir Social Solidarity and Mutual‑Aid Foundation.\n11.  On 7 May 1997 the applicants filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor's office in Izmir. They claimed that the Kızılay had provided contaminated blood and the Ministry of Health had been negligent in conducting the requisite screening and testing in accordance with the relevant domestic legislation. They requested that criminal proceedings be initiated against the doctors and laboratory personnel involved in the transfusion process, as well as against the Director of the Izmir Health Department (İzmir İl Sağlık Müdürü) and the Director of the Kızılay Izmir Branch.\n12.  On 2 October 1997 the Audit Department of the Ministry of Health prepared a report in which it stated that the unit of plasma used for the first applicant's treatment had been screened and tested for the HIV virus. However at that stage the HIV antibodies had not yet been produced in the unit of plasma donated by donor no. 1294. The report further noted that all around the world the HIV infection had been screened by Anti-HIV (ELISA) tests on the recommendation of the World Health Organisation. Therefore, it had been scientifically impossible to diagnose the HIV contained in the unit of plasma in question by the routine tests. Thus, relying on the statements given by health personnel and expert reports, the report concluded that there was no negligence attributable to the health personnel involved in the incident or to any other authority.\n13.  Notwithstanding, the Audit Department advised that (1) a circular be issued to relevant departments; (2) the health personnel be reminded to ensure that questionnaires were properly filled in by blood donors; (3) questions be aske", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5150", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company is a Romanian commercial company whose registered office is in Braşov. It is represented before the Court by its sole shareholder and administrator, Mr Gheorghe Vlădău.\n5.  By a judgment of 11 October 2002, the Braşov District Court allowed the applicant company's claim for damages against another commercial company for non-compliance with its contractual obligations.\n6.  On 6 February 2003, the Braşov Court of Appeal upheld the judgment by a final decision.\n7.  On 2 July 2003, the Procurator-General filed an extraordinary appeal with the High Court of Cassation and Justice to have the final decision quashed (recurs în anulare) on the ground that the Braşov Court of Appeal's decision contained an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law. The Procurator-General stated that the penalty clause in favour of the applicant company was not valid.\n8.  In a decision of 3 December 2003, the High Court of Cassation and Justice allowed the extraordinary appeal, quashed the final decision of 6 February 2003 and the judgment of 11 October 2002 and, as a result, rejected the applicant company's action, for the reason given by the Procurator-General.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5151", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Bursa.\n5.  The applicant had been previously convicted of burglary on 21 March 2001 and his prison sentence had been commuted to a fine.\n6.  On 11 January 2002 at approximately 12.40 a.m. the applicant was arrested, together with a friend, and taken into custody on suspicion of having committed several burglaries. The arrest was effected on the basis of incriminating information received regarding the applicant and his friend.\n7.  Later, at approximately 2.40 a.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor, who noted a 2 x 2 cm graze on his left shoulder and a graze under his right knee.\n8.  It appears that at some point the applicant and his friend confessed[1] to committing a number of burglaries and, as a result, on 11 and 12 January 2002, were required to participate in a number of reconstructions of events. According to the record drafted by police officers and signed by the applicant, the latter indicated one by one the houses and other premises he had broken into, the times of the incidents, the methods used to enter the buildings and the exact amount of goods which had been stolen from each place.\n9.  On 11 January 2002 the police heard evidence from the applicant's father. It appears from Mehmet Duman's police statement and the seizure report drafted on that day that the applicant's father helped the police recover two stolen guns, one from his own basement and another near a bus stop, on the basis of information he had received from a certain Mr H.P., who had participated in burglaries with his son.\n10.  On 12 and 13 January 2002 the police heard evidence from the owner of one of the guns and the person to whom the suspects had sold it.\n11.  In the meantime, on an unspecified date, the applicant signed a pre‑printed form explaining the rights of arrested persons, including the right to remain silent and the right to legal assistance.\n12.  On 13 January 2002 the applicant was questioned by two police officers in respect of five incidents he had confessed to during the reconstruction of events. According to the verbatim records signed by the applicant, he was reminded of his legal rights, including his right to remain silent and his right to legal assistance.\n13.  On the same day the applicant's friend was also questioned. He admitted committing two offences with the applicant. The statements provided by him regarding these incidents were worded in similar fashion to the applicant's statements.\n14.  Between 11 January and 14 January 2002, the police heard evidence from the owners of the houses and businesses which had been robbed. It appeared that some of the owners had not made any prior complaints to the police about the burglaries committed in their houses.\n15.  On 14 January 2002 the police returned a watch found on the applicant's friend to its owner.\n16.  On 14 January 2002, on the release of the applicant from police custody, the Bursa Forensic Medicine Institute issued a medical report indicating that no signs of beating or violence had been observed on his body and that the applicant did not have any complaints.\n17.  On the same date the Bursa Magistrates' Court heard evidence from the applicant. According to the minutes of the hearing he was reminded of his legal rights and his statements to the police were read out to him and accepted by him. He further stated that, at that juncture, he did not remember with whom and where he had committed the burglaries. The reports and ot", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5152", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  Between 16 May and 30 May 1996 the applicant was detained in police custody in connection with an investigation into an illegal organisation. He claimed to have been subjected to various forms of ill‑treatment whilst in custody. In the application form the applicant complained, in particular, that he had been blindfolded, suspended from the arms, electrocuted, stripped and beaten. He further submitted that he had been arrested on either 13 or 14 May 1996.\n6.  On 30 May 1996 the applicant was examined at the Istanbul State Security Court by a doctor from the Forensic Medicine Institute, who found that the applicant had pain and difficulty in hearing in his right ear and numbness in his left arm. The doctor recommended the applicant be transferred to a hospital for a neurological and an EGM test (an electromyogram is a test that is used to record the electrical activity of muscles).\n7.  An additional medical examination of the same date at the Taksim State Hospital revealed that there were no pathological findings in the applicant's ears but that there were symptoms of brachial plexitis (damage to nerves) on the left arm. The doctor recommended an EGM test, which revealed no pathology at the time of the test, 18 October 2000.\n8.  On 30 May 1996 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court, where he accepted the contents of his statements given to the police and gave information about various events. He also requested to be transferred to a State hospital on the ground that he had some complaints. Afterwards the applicant was brought before a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, where he accepted his earlier submissions. The judge remanded him in custody.\n9.  On the same day the applicant and five other suspects arrested and detained on the same grounds as the applicant (“complainants”) lodged an official complaint with the Istanbul public prosecutor's office against the police officers who had taken part in their questioning, claiming that they had been ill‑treated.\n10.  On 3 July 1997 the Istanbul public prosecutor transferred the complainants' case to the Fatih public prosecutor's office.\n11.  On 13 April 1998 the Fatih public prosecutor heard evidence from the applicant, who complained in particular of being blindfolded, suspended from his arms, electrocuted, stripped and beaten. He submitted that he had been arrested on either 13 or 14 May 1996, and that during his custody period he had been transferred to different anti-terrorism headquarters in various parts of Turkey. The applicant further claimed that his arm had been injured because he had struggled while he was being suspended and that the problem in his ear resulted from a blow. He alleged that he had been ill‑treated by at least twenty to twenty-five police officers and that he would be able to identify most of them.\n12.  On 12 May 1998 the prosecutor decided that; in the absence of evidence proving the allegations, there was no need to prosecute any police officer at the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters.\n13.  The applicant objected to this decision before the Beyoğlu Assize Court.\n14.  Meanwhile, by an indictment dated 27 June 1996, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and ten others, accusing them, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5153", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant's daughter, who is the second applicant, was born on 6 March 1989.\n6.  On 9 September 1997 the first applicant took the second applicant to see their general practitioner because he and his wife were concerned about what appeared to be bruising on her legs. A clotting test was carried out but it showed no abnormality.\n7.  On 25 February 1998 the first applicant took the second applicant back to the general practitioner because her swimming teacher had expressed concern about the marks on her legs. The first applicant asked for a referral to hospital and an appointment was made for 17 March 1998 with Dr W., a consultant paediatrician.\n8.  On 15 March 1998 the second applicant hurt herself in the genital area while riding her bike. She complained to her mother of hurting between her legs. Her mother did not examine her and she did not tell the first applicant of the incident.\n9.  On 17 March 1998 the first applicant took the second applicant to the appointment with Dr W. Dr W. said that the bruising did not appear to be a skin disease and admitted the second applicant to hospital for further examination. The first applicant had to go to work but before leaving the hospital he told Dr W. that his wife would arrive soon and there should be no further examination or tests until she came and gave any necessary consent.\n10.  When the first applicant's wife arrived one hour later, she found that a sample of the second applicant's blood had been taken for testing, photographs had been taken of her legs and the local authority had been notified. A social worker informed her that Dr W. thought the second applicant had been abused. The first applicant's wife then gave consent for a further examination. Dr W. and a police surgeon examined the second applicant's legs and genitalia. The second applicant was given no explanation for the examinations and she was not questioned about the allegations of abuse. Following the examination, Dr W. informed the first applicant's wife that the second applicant had been sexually abused and that it had probably been going on for eight months on account of the bruising. The social worker interviewed the second applicant generally, but asked no direct questions about sexual abuse. No record was made of the interview. During the interview the social workers told the first applicant's wife to ask the first applicant and their eldest son to move out of the family home until further investigations had taken place. At this point she recalled that the second applicant had “hurt between her legs” while on her bicycle. She informed the social worker, who said that she would pass the information on to the doctor.\n11.  At 17.30 that evening, when the first applicant and his wife attempted to visit the second applicant on the ward, a nurse told them that there were orders that the first applicant should not be allowed to see her. This exchange was witnessed by other people on the ward. News was passed through the community and reached acquaintances in India. The following day, hospital staff were correctly informed that there could be no restrictions on visitors. The first applicant was thereafter permitted to visit the second applicant in hospital, although all visits were supervised on account of the suspicion that she had been sexually abused.\n12.  On 18 March 1998 the first applicant's wife informed Dr W. that the second applicant had “hurt between her legs” on her bicycle. Dr W. told her that there", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5154", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first and second applicants were born in 1930 and 1953. The remaining applicants did not inform the Court of their dates of birth. They all live in Istanbul.\n6.  On 16 May 1951 the owner of the neighbouring plot of land (“the neighbour”) brought an action in the Istanbul Civil Court of First Instance against the applicants' ancestor, Ahmet Muhtar Merter, claiming that the actual area of his land exceeded the amount indicated in the land registry records. He further claimed that, since the actual boundaries were not clear between his and the neighbouring plot of land, the applicants' ancestor was interfering with his use of the property (men-i müdahale davası). He therefore requested the court to resolve this dispute by determining the correct boundaries between the plots of land and ordering the accurate registration thereof.\n7.  On 10 October 1954, as a result of the construction of a road passing through the land in question, the Cadastral Commission carried out a land survey in Bakırköy. The records concerning the plot in question were amended as a result of this exercise. Following this amendment, the plot in question was divided into nine different parts, namely, plots nos. 110, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119 and 168. Plot no. 113 was allocated as meadowland and registered in the name of the Treasury. It was decided that plots nos. 115, 116, 119 and 168 should be entered in the land register in the name of the applicants' ancestor and plots nos. 110, 114, 117 and 118 in the name of the neighbour. No dispute arose with regard to plot no. 168, therefore this allocation became final and the plot in question was registered in the name of the applicants' ancestor.\n8.  By a decision of 10 November 1954, following the above registration process and the establishment of the Cadastral Courts, the Istanbul Civil Court of First Instance issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and transferred this lawsuit to the Bakırköy Cadastral Court. This decision was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 15 July 1955.\n9.  By a decision of 5 February 1959, the Bakırköy Magistrate's Court designated Mehmet Rauf Merter and Hasan Tahsin as the heirs (“the heirs”) of Ahmet Muhtar Merter following his death.\n10.  On 23 July 1960 the Bakırköy Cadastral Court decided that plots nos. 115, 116 and 119 should be registered in the names of the heirs, plots nos. 113 and 118 in the name of the Treasury, and plots nos. 110, 114 and 117 in the name of the neighbour. On 13 March 1961 the Court of Cassation quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the Bakırköy Cadastral Court.\n11.  In 1967 the Treasury, the Municipality of Istanbul and the heirs of four other persons intervened in the proceedings. Relying on the Ottoman land registry records (temessük kayıtları), they claimed ownership rights over the plots in question.\n12.  On 17 July 1970 the second applicant, Ahmet Attila Merter, also intervened in the proceedings before the Bakırköy Cadastral Court as a testamentary heir.\n13.  On 9 May 1988 the Bakırköy Cadastral Court decided that plots nos. 115 and 119 should be registered in the names of the applicants (as heirs of Ahmet Muhtar Merter) and plots nos. 113 and 118 in the names of the Municipality of Istanbul and the Treasury respectively. The court also held that plots nos. 110, 114, 116 and 117 should be registered in the names of the heirs of the neighbour. The court further allowed the request to intervene by the heirs of Ahmet Kethüda who stated that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5155", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The individual applicants were born in 1938, 1938, 1926, 1963, 1942, 1970 and 1954 respectively and live in Albania, the United States of America and Italy.\n7.  The applicant company is incorporated under Albanian law and is registered in Tirana.\n8.  The individual applicants are the heirs of a certain Mr M. who, in 1947, was the owner of a three-storey villa and an adjacent plot of land situated in the centre of Tirana. On an unspecified date in 1947 the authorities confiscated the property, which remained in their possession until 1994.\n9.  On 30 December 1994, following the individual applicants' request in accordance with the Property Act 1993, the Tirana Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties (“the Commission”) allowed their claim to the villa and 1,100 sq. m of land. The Commission rectified that decision on 8 August 2002, recognising the individual applicants' property rights to a plot of land measuring 1,515 sq. m, which corresponded to the original property. The property title was entered in the Land Register.\n10.  From 1996 to 1998 the property concerned was leased by the individual applicants to the Libyan Embassy in Tirana.\n11.  On 30 April 1998 the individual applicants entered into an agreement with the applicant company for the construction of a tower block on their property. Under that agreement the applicant company was given authority to obtain the administrative authorisations needed for the construction. A final contract was to be concluded when the requisite permit had been obtained.\n12.  On 23 October 1998 and 22 December 1998 the Tirana Municipality's Council for Territorial Planning (Këshilli i Rregullimit Territorit të Bashkisë së Tiranës – “the municipal CTP”) granted the applicant company a planning permit and a building permit authorising it to erect a sixteen-storey building on the property. Consequently, on15 July 1999 the Tirana Municipality Technical Council (Këshilli Teknik i Bashkisë së Tiranës) authorised the applicant company to demolish the existing three-storey villa and erect the new construction in its place.\n13.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the applicant company demolished the villa and developed the site according to the permits and plans approved by the Tirana Municipality (“the Municipality”).\n14.  On 31 August 1999, while the construction work was under way, the Prefect of Tirana, (“the Prefect”) issued a notice suspending the work. The notice stated that the building permit should have been granted by the national Council for Territorial Planning (“the national CTP”) and that the Municipality had exceeded its competence by authorising the construction of such a large building in the centre of Tirana (see paragraph 59 below).\n15.  On 6 September 1999 the Municipality informed the Prefect that the building permit was in order and had been issued on the basis of the relevant legal provisions. Notwithstanding this, on 4 October 1999, the Tirana Construction Police (Policia Ndërtimore) enforced the Prefect's notice and suspended work on the construction site.\n16.  On 12 January 2000, acting on the applicant company's request, the Prefect annulled his previous notice and the building work resumed.\n17.  On 22 January 2000 the Minister of Public Works (“the Minister”) ordered the suspension of the construction work on the basis that the municipal CTP's decisions (see paragraph 12 above) had to be examined and approved by the national CTP. On the same day the Tirana Construct", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5156", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 1 October 1992 the applicant, acting as sole trader, entered into a contract with the State-owned company SIME ECO (“the company”) under which he leased part of its real estate – a production facility and fittings (“the property”) – for ten years.\n6.  The rental contract stipulated, inter alia, that if the company terminated the lease prematurely then it would compensate the lessee for any improvements to the property.\n7.  On 11 October 1994 the applicant submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Industry to purchase the property under the preferential privatisation procedure for lessees of State-owned properties or parts thereof provided for in section 35(1)(2) of the Privatisation Act.\n8.  In a letter of 26 April 1995 the Minister of Industry rejected the applicant's proposal. On an unspecified date the latter appealed against the decision.\n9.  In a final judgment of 4 December 1996 the Supreme Court found in favour of the applicant, quashed the decision of the Minister of Industry as unlawful, and, finding that he fulfilled the statutory conditions to purchase the property under the preferential privatisation procedure, explicitly instructed the Minister of Industry to adopt the required decision in order to sell him the property under section 35(1)(2) of the Privatisation Act. In particular, the court stated as follows:\n“Thus, it should be accepted, in view of the outlined considerations, that the refusal made by the Minister of Industry to allow the purchase of the disputed property under the procedure of section 35(1)(2) of the [Privatisation Act] is unlawful and must therefore be quashed and ... the file remitted to the [competent] body under section 3 of the [Privatisation Act] for the matter to be decided in conformity with instructions given by the court above, in particular for an order to be issued for the privatisation of the property under the procedure of section 35(1)(2) of the [Privatisation Act].”\n10.  The Minister of Industry did not issue an order for the applicant to purchase the property under the procedure of section 35(1)(2) of the Privatisation Act.\n11.  On 19 December 1995 the National Assembly adopted a programme for mass privatisation (the “privatisation programme”) which provided that ninety per cent of the company's shares would be privatised. On 24 September 1996 the Tender Commission promulgated a list of companies whose shares would be sold in the first tender of the said programme. It included the company.\n12.  On an unspecified date, the privatisation of the majority stockholding of the company was performed, together with the property as an asset. It is unclear whether this took place before or after the Supreme Court's judgment of 4 December 1996.\n13.  Thereafter, the company had three private shareholders and the State, which retained a ten per cent stockholding.\n14.  In 1997 the applicant, in his capacity of sole trader, initiated a civil action against the company, the Council of Ministers and the Ministry of Industry. He sought to have the privatisation contract of the company declared partially null and void, to the extent that it related to the property, on the basis of the Supreme Court's judgment of 4 December 1996 in his favour. In a final judgment of 21 August 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the applicant's claim, as it found that no privatisation contract had been executed between the respondent parties in implementation of the results of the first tender of the privatisa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5157", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Trud, in the Plovdiv region. She is a Bulgarian citizen and belongs to the Roma ethnocultural minority.\n6.  In 2005, on an undisclosed date, the Plovdiv District Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal proceedings against the applicant for fraud; she was reproached in particular for the fraudulent appropriation of the sum of 2,600 Bulgarian levs (approximately 1,300 euros) and the jewels of a certain G.S. On 23 December 2005, she was sentenced to trial in the District Court of Plovdiv.\n7.  During the proceedings, the District Court heard the prosecution and defence witnesses, gathering documentary evidence and the conclusions of experts. The concerned party claimed that on the day of the events in question, 12 July 2005, she was in Zlatitsa, a town about 100 kilometres from the victim’s village, and that she had consulted a doctor because she had felt ill. She submitted a doctor’s medical certificate and had her son’s companion interviewed. In her defence speech, her lawyer emphasised that the police had not found significant amounts of money or jewellery at the applicant’s home. She challenged the reliability of the identity parade carried out at the preliminary stages of investigation and drew the court’s attention to the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses as to the age and the physical appearance of the applicant who had defrauded the victim. The lawyer insisted that the first of three prosecution witnesses, a neighbour, had seen a woman of Roma origin approaching and speaking with the victim, but that she was not in a position to recognize the individual. In addition, during the identity parades and in the courtroom, the second witness, another neighbour, had stated that she was not sure whether the applicant was the woman who had defrauded the victim. As for the third of these witnesses, the counsel for the applicant noted that she was the granddaughter of the victim and invited the court not to grant credit to her statements. The lawyer admitted that the applicant had previously been sentenced for theft. However, her last conviction was more than twenty years old.\n8.  In her defence speech, the district prosecutor invited the court to recognize the applicant guilty of the alleged facts: she had been recognized by the victim and two witnesses against her. The testimony of a third witness corroborated the conclusion that the concerned party had fraudulently taken the money and jewels of the victim. She invited the court not to grant credit to the evidence of the defence’s witness, who was among those close to the applicant. In view of the preponderance of mitigating circumstances in the present case and of the applicant’s state of health, the prosecutor argued in favour of a suspended conviction and a sentence close to the minimum provided for by the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 29 May 2006, the Plovdiv District Court, consisting of a professional judge and of two lay assessors (съдебни заседатели), pronounced its judgment in which it found the applicant guilty of defrauding G.S. and sentenced her to three years of imprisonment. The reasons for the judgment were issued to the applicant in June 2006 and bore the signature of the professional judge who had presided over the District Court’s trial. At the beginning of these reasons, among other personal information used to identify the applicant, such as her place and date of birth, her home address and her unique identific", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5158", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  In 1990 the applicant passed her tax consultant's examination. She then concluded a contract for a professional partnership with another tax consultant. However, when that consultant later breached his contractual obligations, the applicant terminated the contract in 1993. Subsequently, she requested the public prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against her former partner and requested a court order (Mahnbescheid).\n7.  On 12 September 1994, following her former partner's opposition to the court order, she introduced a claim with the Hanover Regional Court against her former partner for payment of a settlement (Abfindung) in the amount of 310,179.51 euros (EUR). On 9 January 1995 the applicant paid the court fees.\n8.  On 2 June 1995 a first hearing took place. The parties agreed to await the outcome of a further set of proceedings on the disclosure of information. These proceedings were finally decided upon on 17 July 1996 by the Celle Court of Appeal.\n9.  On 26 August 1996 the Hanover Regional Court scheduled a hearing for 14 February 1997. In particular on the defendant's request, it later had to be postponed three times. On 12 September 1997 the second hearing took place before the Hanover Regional Court.\n10.  On 21 November 1997 the court decided that an expert opinion on the value of the professional partnership as of 31 December 1993 and further values relevant for the final dissolution of the partnership should be obtained. It also requested an advance which the applicant paid in January 1998. On 10 February 1998 the court informed the parties that it intended to commission an expert opinion from a Dr. K. as soon as documents seized by the public prosecutor had been submitted.\n11.  On 11 August 1998 the files (in September 1998 also the public prosecutor's files) had been transferred to the expert. In November 1998 the expert re-transferred the files to the public prosecutor and informed the parties that (in order to save costs) he would await the final report of the public prosecutor which would contain information as to the business value of the applicant's former partner. Subsequently, he repeatedly enquired the state of the report. On 26 June 2000 the public prosecutor's files again were transferred to the expert. The final report of the public prosecutor was submitted on 14 August 2000. On 20 November 2000 Dr. K. submitted his expert report.\n12.  On 12 February 2001, on the applicant's request, the court summoned the expert to the hearing scheduled for 4 May 2001. On the expert's request (the court had not transmitted the parties' submissions to the expert), and once also on account of the absence of the defendant's legal counsel, it later had to be postponed three times.\n13.  On 23 May 2001 the applicant's former partner introduced a counterclaim (Widerklage) in particular on the disclosure of further information as regards clients. At the hearing in August 2001 he extended this claim and sought compensation; partly the issue was settled. In September 2001 the case had been assigned to a new rapporteur.\n14.  In October 2001 the court scheduled a new hearing for 19 April 2002. That day the parties failed to reach a friendly settlement. By a decision of 29 April 2002 the Hanover Regional Court requested the expert to supplement his report as regards explanations given in August 2001. On 8 June 2002 Dr. K. submitted this report.\n15.  In October 2002 the court scheduled a new hearing for March 2003. On 21 March 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5159", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bitola.\n5.  On 9 November 1987 the applicant entered into an agreement with Mr  V.G. (“the defendant”) under which the latter had agreed to produce and install some furniture in the applicant's house. The applicant made an advance payment.\n6.  On 12 April 1993 the applicant claimed annulment of the agreement since the defendant had not complied with it.\n7.  On 1 February 1994 the applicant specified his claim and sought compensation.\n8.  On 16 June 1995 the applicant lodged another compensation claim on a different ground. On the same date, the then Bitola Municipal Court (“the first-instance court”) ruled partly in favour of the applicant ordering a cross-cancellation of debts (пребивање). It made no decision in respect of the applicant's compensation claim since it had not been specified. On 26 March 1996 the Bitola Court of Appeal confirmed the decision on the merits and quashed it in respect of the trial costs.\n9.  After the defendant died, the first-instance court invited defendant's heirs (“the heirs”) to submit a court decision recognising them as his successors.\n10.  On 10 March 1997 the applicant successfully requested removal of the judge.\n11.  On 8 December 1998 the applicant further specified his claim.\n12.  After one hearing being adjourned due to the applicant's absence, the first-instance court dismissed the applicant's compensation claim on 19 January 2000. This decision was confirmed on the merits by the Bitola Court of Appeal's decision of 26 October 2000. On 10 April 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law of 31 March 2001. This latter decision was served on the applicant on 25 August 2003.\n13.  The applicant's dismissal was annulled by a decision of the Bitola Court of Appeal of 16 October 1997. He was reinstated on 7 November 1997.\n14.  On an unspecified date in 1998, the applicant brought an action against his employer claiming compensation for the unlawful dismissal.\n15.  On 8 December 2000 the first-instance court ruled partly in his favour. This decision was upheld by the Bitola Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court with decisions of 22 May 2001 and 13 March 2003, respectively. This latter decision was served on the applicant on 13 June 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5160", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Hildesheim.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  In January 2000 the Magdeburg Public Prosecutor received two anonymous reports. The applicant, who acted as a court-appointed liquidator, a judge and two other liquidators were accused of collaborating to the detriment of other liquidators and creditors.\n7.  On 31 January 2000 the Magdeburg Public Prosecutor opened preliminary investigations against the applicant and six other persons. The applicant was suspected of having granted an undue benefit (Vorteilsgewährung) and of embezzlement (Unterschlagung). The investigations concerned, inter alia, the judge's alleged free stay at the applicant's ski lodge and benefits in connection with the purchase of two cars and two computers. By a letter dated 7 February 2000 the applicant was informed of the investigations.\n8.  In the following months, the Magdeburg Public Prosecutor (and also the Sachsen-Anhalt State Office of Criminal Investigations) questioned numerous witnesses and public officials of the court – partly, moreover, with the help of Vienna Interpol –, and searched, inter alia, the applicant's business premises, seized documents and computers and requested information from the Credit Control Company. The applicant and his co-defendants, on their part, including after the submission of an interim report by the Sachsen-Anhalt State Office of Criminal Investigations in August 2000, made rather extensive submissions and repeatedly requested access to the files. The Magdeburg District Court also decided on an appeal against the search of premises; proceedings against one of the co-defendants were stayed.\n9.  On 23 October 2000 the applicant requested the public prosecutor not to close the investigations and announced further submissions, which he submitted on 5 December 2000. In the meantime, further information on insolvency proceedings in respect of the applicant over the previous years had been obtained.\n10.  On 16 January 2001 the Magdeburg Public Prosecutor brought charges against the applicant, the judge and two more lawyers. The applicant was accused of having granted undue benefits to a public official, namely, the accused judge.\n11.  On 23 January 2001 two judges of the Magdeburg Regional Court indicated possible grounds for bias.\n12.  In February 2001, and also three times in March 2001, the applicant requested an extension of the time-limit set. Two of his co-defendants changed their legal representatives; further access to the files was also granted.\n13.  In April 2001 the Magdeburg Public Prosecutor challenged one of the judges on the grounds of bias. In May 2001 the Magdeburg Regional Court rejected this request. In June 2001 the Naumburg Court of Appeal quashed that decision and found that the judge was biased. In July 2001 two more judges indicated that there were grounds for bias on their part. In August 2001 the Magdeburg Regional Court decided that one of the judges was to be excluded on the grounds of bias.\n14.  In August 2001 it decided to obtain an expert opinion and heard other witnesses. On 3 September 2001 it commissioned the expert. In October 2001 it further amended its decision. On 13 November 2001 the expert submitted his report.\n15.  Between November 2001 and March 2002 a number of memorandums, a report on the state of the investigations and further submissions by the accused were obtained.\n16.  On 12 March 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5161", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1978 respectively and live in Sofia. They are father and son.\n6.  On 8 August 1999 the applicants and friends of theirs were holidaying beside a lake near Sofia. In turns, members of the group were riding a jetboat. On several occasions some of them rode close to a sports centre on the opposite shore.\n7.  Some time later, unexpectedly, two cars without licence plates arrived at the lakeside location where the applicants' group was situated. Seven men wearing camouflage uniforms got out of the cars, some of them wore vests with “Police” written on the back. The men were armed with sub-machine guns. They started insulting the applicants and their friends and threatening them, both verbally and by pointing their guns at them. The men made the applicants and their friends lie flat on the ground and then hit and kicked them repeatedly. The beating continued for several minutes. At the same time, the men repeatedly shot at the applicants' jetboat. After that they left.\n8.  On 10 and 11 August 1999 the first applicant was examined by doctors who established that he had four broken ribs, a superficial wound on his left temple and several bruises on his face, back and legs. The second applicant suffered bruises on his face, head and right leg.\n9.  On 11 August 1999 the applicants complained to the prosecution authorities. On 16 and 19 August 1999 the first applicant lodged additional submissions, stating that he and his son were being followed and that he had been threatened in an attempt to induce him to withdraw his complaints.\n10.  The prosecution authorities opened criminal proceedings in relation to the beating and, on unspecified dates, brought charges against seven police officers working in the Operative Investigation Directorate, a specialised unit of the Ministry of the Interior. It was established that, at the relevant time, the accused had been dispatched to the area where the beating had taken place, with the task of guarding a Ministry of the Interior training centre and a forest reserve.\n11.  The prosecution authorities collected witness testimonies from the applicants and their friends, as well as from other witnesses, including eye‑witnesses to the beating. They commissioned a ballistic expert and carried out confrontations and identity parades.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicants were admitted as civil claimants in the criminal proceedings.\n13.  Up to June 2003 the investigation had not resulted in indictments against the accused.\n14.  On an unspecified date after June 2003 the accused, relying on a new Code of Criminal Procedure provision, Article 239a (see paragraph 24 below), requested that their case be brought to court or terminated.\n15.  In October or November 2003 the prosecution indicted the seven police officers for causing bodily harm and for disorderly conduct.\n16.  On 19 December 2003 the Sofia Military Regional Court remitted the case, finding that the prosecution authorities had committed procedural violations. In particular, it found that: 1) it was not clear from the indictment whether the accused had been armed with sub-machine or automatic guns during the attack against the applicants; 2) the indictment had been based on insufficient evidence, and, in particular, on no material evidence; 3) two of the witnesses had been examined superficially; and 4) the prosecution had failed to comment on exonerating witness testimony.\n17.  On 21 January 2004 the prosecution fi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5162", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Kicevo.\n6.  At 11.30 a.m. on 12 February 2009 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody. On 13 February 2009 an investigating judge from the Gostivar Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) questioned the applicant, who was assisted by counsel. An investigation was opened on the grounds of reasonable suspicion of extortion of money from a minor. The investigating judge refused a request by the public prosecutor for the applicant to be detained in prison, but ordered, instead, thirty days' house arrest (куќен притвор). That measure required the applicant to remain at home and to refrain from using any means of communication for the duration of the order. His passport was also seized and the police were ordered to check his presence in the house twice a day. The judge considered that there were reasonable grounds for suspecting the applicant of having committed the offence, but that in the light of his clean record and family circumstances, a non-custodial measure, such as house arrest, was preferable. The applicant's house arrest was ordered on all the grounds specified in section 199 of the Criminal Proceedings Act (see paragraph 14 below). This decision was served on the applicant and his lawyer at 5 p.m.\n7. At 7 p.m. the same day, the public prosecutor appealed on the ground that the investigating judge had not provided sufficient reasons for refusing to detain the applicant in prison and had not examined whether house arrest could be supervised effectively. The applicant did not appeal.\n8. On 14 February 2009 a three-judge panel of the trial court (“the panel”), sitting in private, allowed the appeal and replaced the order for the applicant's house arrest with an order for his detention in prison. It further quashed the order for the confiscation of the applicant's passport. The panel found that there was a danger that the applicant would interfere with the investigation, in particular by putting pressure on witnesses who had not been heard yet and on the victim, who, being a minor, was vulnerable. Having regard to the gravity of the offence and the way in which it had been committed, the panel ruled that house arrest was an inadequate measure in the applicant's case. This decision was served on the applicant at noon. No appeal lay against the panel's decision.\n9. On 26 February 2009 the investigating judge terminated the panels' order for the applicant's detention in prison and ordered thirty days' house arrest accompanied by the same security measures described above (see paragraph 6 above). The judge found no justification for the applicant's continued detention in prison since the investigation had been completed. In this connection, he noted that evidence had been taken from the victim and witnesses proposed by both parties. Given the accompanying measures ordered, there was no likelihood of reoffending or obstructing the course of justice by influencing other witnesses, if any.\n10. On 27 February 2009 the panel dismissed the public prosecutor's appeal, finding the house arrest and accompanying measures adequate to ensure the applicant's attendance at the trial.\n11. The panel, sitting in first instance, extended the applicant's house arrest on two occasions, namely, on 26 March and 24 April 2009, with the stated aim of ensuring his attendance at trial. In doing so, it relied on the gravity of the charges and potential penalty. The applicant unsuccessfully appeale", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5163", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Hamburg.\n5.  On 30 March 1985 the applicant was attacked in an urban train by one or two men and his right leg and his back were seriously injured.\n6.  By a decision of 24 April 1986, as amended by an acknowledgement (Anerkenntnis) before the Hamburg Social Court on 21 November 1988, the Hamburg Pension Office (Versorgungsamt) granted the applicant a pension under the Victims Compensation Act (Opferentschädigungsgesetz) because of a reduction in his earning capacity of 50 per cent for four months and of 30 per cent for another six months covering the period from 30 March 1985 until 31 January 1986. It found that as of 1 February 1986, the loss of earning capacity amounted to less than 25 per cent, so that no pension was payable.\n7.  On 21 November 1988 the Hamburg Social Court dismissed the applicant's claim for a higher pension.\n8.  On 20 March 1990 the applicant, represented by counsel, lodged a request to amend the Pension Office's decision of 24 April 1986. He argued that the damage to his health suffered as a result of the attack on 30 March 1985 had increased following the Hamburg Social Court's judgment of 21 November 1988. He claimed the payment of a pension under the Victims Compensation Act from March 1990 onwards as the loss of his earning capacity now amounted to at least 50 per cent.\n9.  On 26 September 1990 the Hamburg Pension Office, having consulted its surgical expert, refused to amend its decision, arguing that there had not been an essential change in the damage caused by the attack.\n10.  On 17 October 1990 the applicant brought an action in the Hamburg Social Court against the decision of the Hamburg Pension Office dated 26 September 1990.\n11.  Between 22 April and 6 June 1991 the statements of three doctors treating the applicant were submitted to the Social Court.\n12.  On 25 July 1991 surgical expert K., who had been appointed by the Social Court on 13 June 1991, submitted his report. He found that the applicant's loss of earning capacity since March 1990 for surgical reasons alone was below 25 per cent.\n13.  On 13 December 1991 Bo., a neurological and psychiatric expert appointed by the court on 9 August 1991, submitted his report. He found that the applicant had not suffered any damage to his mental health as a result of the attack in 1985.\n14.  On 15 April 1992 expert Bo. further commented on his report dated 3 December 1991 at the court's request.\n15.  On 5 January 1993 the Social Court granted the applicant legal aid.\n16.  On 13 January 1994 Bi., a neurological and psychiatric expert appointed by the court on 23 July 1993, submitted his report. He diagnosed the applicant as suffering from post-traumatic stress caused by the attack in 1985 and estimated the total loss of his earning capacity (including surgical and psychological aspects) at 30 per cent.\n17.  By a statement dated 16 March 1994 a neurological and psychiatric doctor working for the Pension Office contested expert Bi.'s findings.\n18.  On 26 June 1995 W., a neurological and psychiatric expert appointed by the court on 17 August 1994 at the applicant's request under section 109 of the Social Courts Act (see paragraph 48 below), submitted his report at the court's repeated requests. He found that the applicant had also suffered mental damage due to the constant pain in his right knee and assessed the total loss of his earning capacity (including surgical and psychological aspects) since March 1990 at 30 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5166", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were crew members on a merchant ship named the Winner, registered in Cambodia. The ship had attracted the attention of the American, Spanish and Greek anti-drug services when the Central Office Against Illegal Drug Trafficking (l’Office Central de Répression du Trafic Illicite des Stupéfiants – “the OCRTIS”), a ministerial body attached to the Central Police Directorate of the French Ministry of the Interior, requested authorisation to intercept it. The OCRTIS suspected the ship of carrying large quantities of drugs, with the intention of transferring them to speedboats off the Canary Islands for subsequent delivery to the coasts of Europe.\n10.  In a diplomatic note dated 7 June 2002, in response to a request from the French embassy in Phnom Penh, the Cambodian Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation gave his government’s agreement for the French authorities to take action, in the following terms:\n“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation presents its compliments to the French embassy in Phnom Penh and, referring to its note no. 507/2002 dated 7 June 2002, has the honour formally to confirm that the royal government of Cambodia authorises the French authorities to intercept, inspect and take legal action against the ship Winner, flying the Cambodian flag XUDJ3, belonging to ‘Sherlock Marine’ in the Marshall Islands.\nThe Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation takes this opportunity to renew its assurance of its high esteem.”\n11.  In a diplomatic telegram dated the same day, the French embassy in Phnom Penh passed on the information to the Ministry of Defence in Paris.\n12.  The commander of the French frigate Lieutenant de vaisseau Le Hénaff, which lay at anchor in Brest harbour and had been assigned a mission off the coast of Africa, was instructed by the French naval authorities to locate and intercept the Winner. The frigate left Brest harbour the same day to search for and intercept the Winner, with the French navy commando unit Jaubert, a special forces team specialised in boarding vessels at sea, on board for the duration of the mission. On 10 June 2002, during a technical stopover in Spain, three experts from the OCRTIS also boarded the frigate.\n13.  On 13 June 2002, at 6 a.m., the French frigate spotted a merchant ship travelling at slow speed through the waters off Cape Verde, several thousand kilometres from France. It was not flying a flag, but was identified as the Winner. The merchant ship suddenly changed course and began to steer a course that was dangerous both for the frigate and for members of the armed forces who had boarded a speedboat. While the Winner refused to answer the attempts of the commander of the frigate to establish radio contact, its crew jettisoned a number of packages into the sea; one of the packages, containing about 100 kilos of cocaine, was recovered by the French seamen. After several warnings and warning shots fired under orders from France’s maritime prefect for the Atlantic went unheeded, the French frigate fired a shot directly at the Winner. The merchant ship then answered by radio and agreed to stop. When they boarded the Winner, the French commando team used their weapons to open certain locked doors. When a crew member of the Winner refused to obey their commands, a “warning shot” was fired at the ground, but the bullet ricocheted and the crew member was wounded. He was immediately evacuated onto the French frigate", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5167", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 1 March 1993 the applicant filed for divorce before the Pest Central District Court.\n6.  On 6 January 1995 the court dissolved the marriage and placed the couple's minor child with the respondent. It regulated the child maintenance and the use of the family home. On 25 August 1995 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision.\n7.  In the ensuing proceedings concerning the matrimonial property, on 2 February 1999 the court gave the ownership of the commonly used flat and a weekend-house to the applicant while granting the possession of their shop to her ex-husband. It also ordered the applicant to pay the difference in value of the different properties.\n8.  On appeal, on 25 March 2000 the Budapest Regional Court reversed the first-instance decision. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 23 April 2002 the Supreme Court, finding that the Regional Court's decision had been in compliance with the law, upheld it. This decision was served on the applicant on 19 June 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5168", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant Sami villages are all situated in the municipality of Härjedalen in the county of Jämtland.\n7.  The Sami have, since ancient times, inhabited the northern parts of Scandinavia and the Kola Peninsula. Originally living by hunting, fishing and collecting, the Sami activities changed over time to concern mainly reindeer herding. Their historical use of the land has given rise to a special right to real estate, the reindeer herding right (renskötselrätten). Presently regulated in Sweden by the Reindeer Husbandry Act (Rennäringslagen, 1971:437), it comprises the right to use land and water for the Sami's own sustenance and that of his reindeer. The right may only be exercised by the members of a Sami village. Such villages are both geographical grazing areas and economic entities. They do not have any public legal status (see Könkämä and 38 Other Sami Villages v. Sweden, no. 27033/95, Commission decision of 25 November 1996, Decisions and Reports 87, p. 85 in fine). The reindeer herding area comprises approximately one-third of the surface of Sweden and is divided into all-year land and winter grazing land. In certain parts of the country, the borders of the herding area are controversial and have not been statutorily defined, especially as concerns the winter grazing land.\n8.  On 20 September 1990 a large number of private owners of land in the municipality of Härjedalen instituted proceedings against five Sami villages, the four applicants and the Idre Nya Sami village, before the District Court (tingsrätten) of Sveg. On 4 June 1991 more landowners initiated a similar action against the Sami villages. The landowners sought a declaratory judgment (negativ fastställelsetalan) that the Sami villages had no right to reindeer grazing on their land without a valid contract to that effect concluded between the landowner and the village.\n9.  On 26 June 1991 the District Court issued a summons and decided that the two cases were to be examined jointly. At a preparatory meeting on 16 September 1991, the court rejected the villages' request for dismissal of the cases on procedural grounds.\n10.  On 25 November 1991 the Sami villages submitted their response, contesting the landowners' action. The villages claimed that they had the right to winter grazing within their respective areas based on (1) prescription from time immemorial (urminnes hävd), (2) the provisions of the reindeer grazing and reindeer husbandry acts of 1886, 1898, 1928 and 1971, (3) custom, or (4) public international law, more specifically Article 27 of the UN Convention on Civil and Political Rights, as compared with Chapter 1, section 2, of the Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen).\n11.  Following three extensions of the time-limit fixed by the District Court, the landowners replied to the Sami villages' submissions on 10 April 1992. An additional preparatory meeting was held on 27 August 1992, at which the parties discussed, inter alia, the possibility of reaching a settlement. Furthermore, the villages were ordered to elaborate on their claim based on custom and to specify their means of evidence. They did so on 23 December 1992 following two extensions of the time-limit set. At the same time, they requested that the court inspect some of the properties concerned.\n12.  On 27 May 1993, having been granted several extensions, the landowners submitted a specification of the means of evidence offered. During the following months, the parties exchanged views on ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5169", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Mandel.\n5.  On 15 June 1986 the applicant had a traffic accident with a head-on collision. Subsequently, the other party's insurance company recognised its liability to compensate her for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and paid her 11,539.63 German marks (DEM) (5,900.11 Euros (EUR)).The applicant claimed further payments on the ground of permanent eye complaints and whiplash injury. The insurance company contested the existence and causality of that damage, and in particular contested that the applicant had suffered any permanent damage to her health.\n6.  On 9 February 1992 the applicant brought a claim against the insurance company for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as a result of the traffic accident.\n7.  On 27 March 1992 the Munich Regional Court held a first hearing in which it assigned the case to a single judge as it did not display any legal or factual difficulties. On the same day, the single judge ordered an expert opinion in the field of orthopaedics and appointed an orthopaedist from Munich.\n8.  On 30 April 1992 the applicant, referring to a medical certificate, informed the court that she was unable to travel due to illness, and asked the Regional Court to appoint an orthopaedist closer to her place of residence. After discussion on how to proceed it was decided that the originally appointed expert should examine the applicant at her place of residence.The expert opinion was delivered in July 1993.\n9.  In August the expert opinion was forwarded to the parties for comments within two week. Upon request of the applicant's lawyer this time limit was extended until 29 September 1993.\n10.  On 30 November 1993 the court, upon request of the applicant, ordered another expert opinion regarding her eye complaints. After the applicant had in December informed the court that she continued to be unable to travel new experts were appointed on 22 February and 9 June 1994; the opinion was delivered on 21 July 1994. The court put supplementary questions to the ophthalmologist as to whether the accident had caused the applicant's eye complaints and on his diagnostic methods on 12 September 1994, 31 January, 2 May and 22 June 1995. The competent judge sitting in the case changed twice during this period.\n11.  On 11 January 1996 the court decided to consult the files of the applicant's social court proceedings concerning her disability pension and requested further information from the applicant, setting a time limit of three weeks. After an extension of this time limit the applicant submitted the requested information on 14 February 1996.\n12.  On 16 July 1996 the court ordered an expert opinion in the field of bio-mechanics on whether the accident had caused the applicant's eye complaint. After a reminder by the court of 12 February 1997 the experts delivered the opinion on 10 April 1997, a first supplementary opinion was submitted on 23 June 1997. On 25 July 1997 a hearing was set, to which the experts were summoned. The hearing on 27 October 1997 was postponed due to the experts' failure to appear. On 11 December 1997 a hearing took place and the experts made submissions. On 14 April 1998 another supplementary opinion was delivered.\n13.  On 17 August 1998 the Munich Regional Court awarded the applicant a further DEM 10,000 (EUR 5,112.92) for non-pecuniary damage and declared that the applicant was entitled to compensation for any further damage resulting from the accid", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5170", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Velenje.\n5.  On 18 December 2000 the applicant requested the Regional Pension Office (Landesversicherungsanstalt Niederbayern-Oberpfalz) (“the Pension Office”) to grant him a pension on account of his reduced earning capacity (Rente wegen verminderter Erwerbsfähigkeit).\n6.  On 9 March 2001 the Pension Office dismissed his request.\n7.  On 26 April 2001 the Pension Office dismissed the applicant's administrative appeal lodged on 2 April 2001.\n8. On 4 July 2001 the applicant appealed to the Landshut Social Court.\n9. On 2 August 2001 the Pension Office made its submissions. However, it sent the required medical records only on 5 November 2001.\n10. Between 5 November 2001 and 21 March 2003 no progress was made in the proceedings.\n11. In the meantime, on 17 January 2003, the applicant had applied to the Pension Office for an early old age pension for disabled persons (Altersrente für Schwerbehinderte); this was refused on 21 March 2003. Subsequently, the applicant lodged an administrative appeal against this decision. The Social Court decided to await the outcome of the administrative appeal proceedings, as the administrative authority likewise had to examine the applicant's potential occupational invalidity. On 2 June 2003 his administrative appeal was dismissed. These proceedings were the object of application no. 847/04 (see “II. Proceedings before the Court” below).\n12. In May 2004 the Social Court resumed the proceedings.\n13. On 8 June 2004 the Social Court commissioned an expert report on the applicant's earning capacity. On 15 June 2004 the expert gave his report.\n14.  On 27 July 2004, after holding an oral hearing, the Social Court dismissed the applicant's action, as it could not be established that his earning capacity had been reduced at the time when he had made the required number of contributions to the statutory pension insurance (gesetzliche Rentenversicherung).\n15.  On 9 October 2004 the judgment was served on the applicant.\n16.  On 18 December 2004 the applicant appealed to the Bavarian Social Court of Appeal. In his appeal he informed the court for the first time that he had previously applied for a pension from the Slovenian pension authorities. On 30 December 2004 the court received the appeal and requested the Pension Office to submit its observations. On 10 February 2005 the Pension Office requested information from the Slovenian pension authorities in respect of the applicant's former pension requests.\n17. On 27 April 2005 the Pension Office received the information from the Slovenian authorities. However, they were translated only on 27 June 2005 and submitted to the court on 28 June 2005. On the same day the Pension Office requested additional information from the Slovenian pension authorities which it received on 26 July 2005. On 26 September 2005 it translated them and submitted the information to the court on 4 October 2005.\n18.  On 11 October 2005 the Social Court of Appeal sent the applicant's file to the Pension Office for an examination of the question whether the criteria for the requested pension had been met on the basis of the information given by the Slovenian pension authorities.\n19. On 20 December 2005 the Pension Office replied that the requirements for the requested pension had not been fulfilled.\n20. On 30 December 2005 the Social Court of Appeal requested the applicant to indicate who his employers in Germany had been and what work he had done there.\n2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5171", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Chişinău. He was, at the time of the events to which the present application pertains, the Chairman of the Association of Historians of the Republic of Moldova and a university professor and is the author of the 1996 school curriculum on “Universal History”.\n6.  On 4 April 2002 the official newspaper of the Moldovan Government, Moldova Suverană (“Sovereign Moldova”), published an article written by a historian and former deputy minister for education, S.N., headed “Commentary on Mr Petrenco's reply on the Internet” (Comentariul la răspunsul de pe Internet al domnului Petrenco). The article made negative remarks about the applicant's competence as a historian. It went on to suggest that the applicant's university place as a postgraduate student and his subsequent career as a historian were the result of his cooperation with the Soviet secret services. In particular, the article contained the following statements:\n“That is, Mr Petrenco, it is not a political question but has to do with your 'feeble' memory or the lack of professional dignity.”\n“But, you see, they did not properly understand this exorcising priest ...”\n“... for his special merit (confirming the confidence of the AUCP (b)[1] – KGB[2]), [the applicant] was sent for postgraduate studies ...”\n“... as a student, he excelled ... due to his 'special accomplishments' (he was a well-educated person who knew how to knock politely and respectfully at his superiors' doors: knock-knock-knock?!? [stuk-stuk-stuk][3]), and he became a member of CPSU[4] – AUCP (b) during his student years ...”\n“...the Party once sent a 'Volga' especially for [the applicant] (how much faith did those from the CC – KGB have in comrade Petrenco Anatolii Mihailovici!!) to take him to Chişinău ...”\n7.  On 18 April 2002, the applicant brought defamation proceedings against S.N. and the newspaper, seeking the publication of a retraction and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n8.  During the proceedings before the Centru District Court, the court heard evidence from a witness who was questioned about the allegation that, as a student, the applicant had collaborated with the Soviet secret services. The witness was unable to confirm whether the applicant had been involved with the secret services and merely stated that the KGB had been operating undercover.\n9.  In its judgment of 30 April 2003 the Centru District Court granted the applicant's claims in part. The court found that it had been confirmed that the applicant had been a member of the Communist Party. However, it held that the reference to the applicant's links with the secret services (“confirming the confidence of the AUCP (b) – KGB”) was defamatory as it had not been proved that he was an agent of the KGB. The court's judgment stated, inter alia:\n“... S.N.'s assertion that A. Petrenco 'was sent for postgraduate studies' ... only for his 'special accomplishments' for the KGB and 'confirming the confidence of the AUCP (b) – KGB', cannot, in the court's opinion, be interpreted other than as meaning that the applicant had collaborated with the KGB, which is recognised as having been a repressive organisation during the Soviet period. Any such collaboration is seen as highly reprehensible by civil society. Taking into consideration that this fact has not been confirmed, the statements seriously affect the applicant's honour and dignity and cause him non-pecuniary damage and, therefore, should be retracted ...", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5172", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Liverpool.\n6.  On 6 October 2005 the applicant was charged with two offences of conspiracy to supply Class A drugs.\n7.  On 7 October 2005 the applicant was produced at Liverpool City Magistrates' Court. Following a contested bail application she was granted bail by the Deputy District Judge.\n8.  The prosecution gave notice that it wished to appeal against the grant of bail and the applicant remained in detention. The appeal hearing was to take place at Liverpool Crown Court on 11 October 2005 and the applicant's solicitors arranged with the Prison Service for her to be present at the court building.\n9.  The prosecution's appeal came before Judge Globe on 11 October 2005. At the start of the hearing, counsel for the applicant requested that the judge exercise his discretion to allow the applicant to be present while the appeal was heard. It was contended on the applicant's behalf that she had been led to believe that she would be released following the grant of bail at the magistrates' court and that she had not properly understood the implications of the prosecution's appeal. Counsel for the applicant asserted that if she were present she would see that her case was being dealt with fairly and he further clarified that the basis for his application was “common humanity” and “not technical”. Judge Globe declined the request, reasoning that the applicant could be given a full report of what had happened from her counsel. Moreover, her attendance would be undesirable as one of the applicant's co-accused had not been present at the hearing of the appeal against the grant of bail to him, and it would therefore be unfair to treat the applicant more favourably.\n10.  When the applicant later arrived in the court building, her counsel again requested that she be allowed to attend the hearing in person. He emphasised that this was a re-hearing and rather unusual as it was the prosecution which had sought to appeal the Deputy District Judge's ruling on bail. As the applicant was already present in the building, her production would cause little inconvenience. Judge Globe again refused, this time explaining that if he allowed the applicant to be present it would set a precedent for any defendant in custody wishing to attend an appeal against bail in the future.\n11.  The applicant's counsel submitted to the judge:\n“You have considerable experience of looking at people and taking into account their demeanour. This woman is, on the defence case, a respectable woman of good background and a vulnerable person. I would like you to see her, frankly, because you will be able to tell and see that she does not fall into a category of so many of those who appear before you ... I was able to address the learned District Judge on precisely those terms. I believe that it had some impact on his decision to grant bail because he was able to see her and make an assessment of that person. She is here and you could make that assessment if she was brought up before you.”\n12.  In refusing the applicant permission to attend, Judge Globe stated:\n“I am not going to alter my view in relation to [the applicant] being present during the hearing. I will listen to your submissions. If there is anything during your submissions that causes me to hear evidence from her or to have to do something different to what I am doing at the moment in relation to the hearing of the matter, I will reconsider it at that stage.”\n13.  At a later s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5173", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1943 respectively and live in Beauvoir-sur-Niort, in France.\n5.  In March 1995 the applicants were involved in a road traffic accident in Germany. The driver of the other car also resided in France where he had registered and insured his car.\n6.  On 20 February 1998 the applicants lodged an action against the driver of the other car and his insurance company before the Landau Regional Court. They claimed pecuniary damages amounting to some 23,900 German marks (DEM) for both applicants as well as damages for pain and suffering (Schmerzensgeld).\n7.  On 19 May 1998 the court granted them a two-week extension of the time-limit to make further submissions. On 29 May 1998 and on two further occasions the applicants extended their claims.\n9.  On 17 September 1998 the Regional Court held an oral hearing in which the parties agreed to adjourn the proceedings until 29 October 1998. However, the hearing scheduled for 29 October 1998 had to be postponed to 26 November 1998 because of the judge's holidays.\n10.  On 17 December 1998 the Regional Court commissioned a medical expert report for both applicants. After examining them on 28 April 1999 the Regional Court received the expert's report on 22 July 1999.\n11.  On 27 October 1999, having been granted an extension of the time-limit by one month, the applicants submitted further comments on the expert report and requested the court to commission a supplementary report.\n13.  On 19 June 2000 it reopened the proceedings and scheduled a further hearing for 13 July 2000, as the expert had used documents in his report which had not yet been introduced in the proceedings. It granted the parties two weeks to make their comments. At the applicant's request, the Court postponed the hearing to 11 September 2000.\n14.  On 26 October 2000 the Regional Court ordered the defendants to pay the applicants pecuniary damages amounting to DEM 15,100 for both applicants and rejected their further claims.\n15.  On 28 November 2000 the applicants appealed that judgment before the Zweibrücken Court of Appeal.\n16.  On 16 January 2001, after having been granted a further extension of one month, the applicants submitted their statement of grounds.\n17.  On 11 April 2001, after holding a hearing on 14 March 2001, the Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Court's judgment. It remitted the case to the Regional Court and ordered the court to obtain an accident-related and biomechanical expert report (unfall- und biomechanische Gutachten) and a neurootologic expert report, and to apply French law instead of German law as both parties had stronger links to France than to Germany.\n18.  On 6 December 2001 the Landau Regional Court informed the parties that according to the Court of Appeal it had been necessary to commission an interdisciplinary expert report on the circumstances of the accident and the injuries caused thereby. Thereafter a neurootologic expert report would be commissioned. It invited the parties to make their comments and to make suggestions as to the appointment of experts by 22 January 2002.\n19.  After an extension of this time-limit the defendants made their comments on 27 February 2002. On 16 April 2002 the Regional Court ordered an interdisciplinary expert report. On 4 July 2002 it appointed the experts agreed upon by the parties after the applicants had paid the court fees and exempted the expert from complying with his obligation of confidentiality (Schweigepflicht).\n20.  On", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5174", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Tekirdağ.\n5.  On 27 January 1999 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody in Istanbul on suspicion of involvement in the activities of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party, an illegal organisation). The applicant had a forged identity card in his possession when arrested. In his police statement, taken in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant accepted the charges against him.\n6.  On 3 February 1999 he was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered his pre-trial detention. In his statements before the public prosecutor and the judge, taken in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant denied that he had been involved in the activities of an illegal organisation.\n7.  On 11 February 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and nine other persons. The applicant was charged with membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 § 2 of the former Criminal Code.\n8.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of State Security Courts were replaced by civilian judges.\n9.  On 21 December 2000 Law no. 4616 on Conditional Release, Deferral of Procedure and Punishments was promulgated. On 18 July 2001 the Constitutional Court annulled Section 1 § 4 of this Law.\n10.  Of the twenty hearings held between 30 April 1999 and 14 May 2003, six were adjourned at the applicant's request or at the request of other accused. Two hearings were adjourned at the public prosecutor's request. Seven witnesses were heard in the course of the proceedings.\n11.  Between 15 May 2002 and 24 July 2002, the court awaited the enactment of a new provision to replace the annulled Section 1 § 4 of Law no. 4616.\n12.  On 14 May 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months' imprisonment.\n13.  On 31 October 2003 the written opinion of the Principal Public Prosecutor submitted to the Court of Cassation was communicated to the applicant.\n14.  On 9 December 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n15.  On 28 April 2004 the applicant was served with the committal order (müddetname) concerning the execution of his sentence.\n16.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant and his co-accused was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.\n17.  On 21 October 2004 the applicant was released.\n18.  On 1 June 2005 the new Criminal Code (Law no. 5237) entered into force.\n19.  On 14 June 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court reviewed the applicant's conviction in the light of the provisions of the new Criminal Code and decided to reduce his sentence of imprisonment to six years and three months.\n20.  On 14 August 2005 the judgment became final as no appeal was made.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5175", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 8 and 10 November 1993 three criminal proceedings were opened against unknown perpetrators for three thefts from motor vehicles.\n5.  On 10 November 1993 the first applicant, Mr S. Rangelov, was questioned and confessed to having participated in the perpetration of the offences. On the next day, the 11th, the second applicant, Mr R. Stefanov, was also questioned and confessed. Two other individuals were also questioned.\n6.  On 15 November 1993 the investigating authorities proposed to transfer the three investigation files to the prosecution authorities as it had been established that the applicants, given their confessions, and their two accomplices had been the perpetrators.\n7.  There was no apparent development until 24 April 1996 when the investigating authorities proposed to the prosecution authorities to stay the first criminal proceedings. There was another period of inactivity until 23 April 1999 when the investigating authorities transformed the third criminal proceedings into a police investigation (дознание).\n8.  Subsequently between 7 May 2001 and 14 May 2002 the second criminal proceedings were stayed, then resumed and joined to the third criminal proceedings; the first proceedings were also resumed and joined to the third proceedings; and two expert reports were commissioned.\n9.  Between 22 October and 12 December 2002 the two applicants and their accomplices were charged with the three thefts. On 13 and 14 March 2003 the charges were amended.\n10.  On 10 May 2003 an indictment was filed against the applicants and their co-accused in respect of the three thefts.\n11.  At a hearing held on 19 December 2003 the Plovdiv District Court approved a plea bargain agreement and discontinued the proceedings. The applicants were each sentenced to one year's imprisonment, suspended.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5176", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Graz.\n6.  The applicant was, at the time of the events, a civil servant in a public employment relationship with the Styria Regional Government (Landesregierung). He worked at the Department for Legal Affairs (Traffic Department).\n7.  On 17 May 1993 the Department for Legal Affairs (Human Resources) laid disciplinary information against the applicant.\n8.  The Disciplinary Commission at the Office of the Regional Styria Government (Disziplinarkommission des Amtes der Landesregierung) decided, on 21 June 1993, to institute the main disciplinary proceedings on account of seventeen specific charges dating from December 1990 to April 1993 and suspended the applicant from his duties (Einleitungs- und Suspendierungsbeschluss).\n9.  On 21 September 1994 the Disciplinary Commission decided to hold a hearing (Verhandlungsbeschluss) in the disciplinary matter against the applicant, charging him on twenty-four counts. However, in the summons for the hearing the Disciplinary Commission informed the applicant on 2 October 2005 that only counts 1 to 14 would be subject matter of the hearing.\n10.  A hearing was held in presence of the applicant and his counsel on 7 December 1995 following which the Disciplinary Commission held the applicant liable in respect of ten counts of misbehaviour. It imposed a disciplinary penalty of immediate retirement with a deduction of 20% of his pension benefits. On the remaining four counts the Disciplinary Commission found no reason to take further action.\n11.  On 7 November 1996 the Senior Disciplinary Board at the Office of the Styria Regional Government (Disziplinaroberkommission des Amtes der Landesregierung) on the basis of the result of an oral hearing upheld this decision with regard to six counts, but found no reason for criticism as regards the remaining four counts. As a result the disciplinary penalty was reduced by setting the deduction of the applicant's pension benefits at 15%.\n12.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court on 9 January 1997. The applicant also requested the Constitutional Court to hold a public hearing.\n13.  The Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant's complaint for lack of prospect of success on 9 June 1998 and, on 24 June 1998, remitted the case to the Administrative Court at the applicant's request.\n14.  On 23 September 1998 the applicant supplemented his complaint as requested by the Administrative Court and requested again a public hearing to be held. In his complaint he argued that the Senior Disciplinary Board had not been properly composed and that there were inconsistencies as to the number of charges in the decision to institute proceedings, the decision to hold a hearing and for which he was eventually held liable. Further, the authorities had not properly gathered the evidence and had erred in its assessment.\n15.  On 15 December 1999 (served on the applicant's counsel on 24 January 2000) the Administrative Court, without a hearing, dismissed the applicant's complaint as unfounded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5177", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 18 June 1993 a car was broken into and a number of items were stolen. Shortly thereafter the police apprehended the applicants and took them to a police station. There they confessed that they had committed the offence and gave explanations on the manner in which they had acted. On the same day the victim of the offence was questioned.\n5.  On 29 July 1993 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicants for the theft of the items from the car.\n6.  On 21 April 1999 the preliminary investigation (предварително следствие) was transformed into a police investigation (дознание).\n7.  On 3 February 2002 an expert report for assessing the value of the stolen items was commissioned.\n8.  On 5 and 12 February 2002, respectively, the two applicants were charged and questioned as suspects. On 14 October 2002 they were questioned by a judge.\n9.  Between February and June 2002 four witnesses were questioned.\n10.  On 2 April 2003 the prosecution authorities filed an indictment with the Plovdiv District Court and on the 11th the President of the Court scheduled the first hearing for 15 January 2004.\n11.  At the hearing held on 15 January 2004 the court approved a plea bargain agreement between the applicants and the prosecuting authorities and discontinued the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5178", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1978 respectively and live in Moscow. They are wife and daughter of Mr Valentin Moiseyev, who was also an applicant before the Court (see Moiseyev v. Russia, no. 62936/00, 9 October 2008).\n6.  On 3 July 1998 the Investigations Department of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (the FSB) opened criminal proceedings against Mr Moiseyev. At 11.30 p.m. a search was conducted at the applicants' flat. Foreign currency, the keys and registration papers for a VAZ car, and the second applicant's personal computer were seized. Simultaneously a search was carried out at Mr Moiseyev's office. In total, the investigators seized 5,747 US dollars.\n7.  On 10 July 1998 the investigator seized from the first applicant the keys to garage no. 178.\n8.  On 13 July 1998 Mr Moiseyev was formally charged with high treason, an offence under Article 275 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 22 July 1998 the investigator ordered a charge to be placed on the VAZ car with a view to “securing possible forfeiture of the defendant's property in accordance with Article 175 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure”.\n10.  On 1 September 1998 the investigator informed the director of the SBS-Agro bank of the freezing of Mr Moiseyev's foreign currency and Russian rouble accounts.\n11.  On 16 September and 12 November 1998 the investigator issued charging orders in respect of the garage and the computer. On 16 November 1998 the computer was physically removed from the applicants' flat and placed in the material evidence room of the Federal Security Service.\n12.  On 29 March 1999 the second applicant asked the investigator to return the computer, which was her personal property. On 12 April 1999 the investigator replied that the computer had been seized with a view to securing possible forfeiture of Mr Moiseyev's property and that certain files edited by Mr Moiseyev had been discovered on the hard disc. The second applicant was informed that, if necessary, her text files would be copied and handed over to her.\n13.  On 8 June 1999 the investigator ordered attachment of the seized 5,747 US dollars as a material exhibit. On 15 June 1999 the Finance and Planning Department of the “USSR State Security Committee”[1] issued a receipt for the money.\n14.  On 14 August 2001 the Moscow City Court convicted Mr Moiseyev of high treason committed between 1992 and 1998, sentenced him to four years and six months' imprisonment and issued a confiscation order in respect of his property. The parts of the judgments relevant to the determination of the property matters read as follows:\n“Mr Moiseyev's pre-trial deposition that he had received remuneration for information transmitted to a representative of a foreign state has been confirmed by the search records, noting the discovery of US dollars both in his office and at his place of residence. The witness B. confirmed that the search had uncovered 4,647 US dollars sorted into non-standard envelopes.\nBoth Mr Moiseyev and his wife Ms Denisova who was interviewed as an additional witness at trial, had been present during the search but raised no objections. Accordingly, the court considers that the decision attaching the 1,100 US dollars seized in Mr Moiseyev's office, the 4,647 US dollars, and seven envelopes as material exhibits was justified...\nHaving regard to the public dangerousness of the committed crime, the court orders confiscation of Mr Moiseyev's property. The court decides on the destiny", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5179", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Tel-Aviv. He is currently detained in remand prison IZ-77/4 in Moscow.\n8.  On 23 February 2001 the Criminal Court of the Manizales District, Colombia (“Juzgado Penal del Circuito de Manizales”) convicted the applicant of a crime provided for by Article 15 of Decree no. 180 (1988), acknowledged as permanent law of Colombia by Extraordinary Decree no. 2266 (1991), (“instruction in and teaching of military and terrorist tactics, techniques and methods, committed with mercenaries and accomplices”) and sentenced him to fourteen years' imprisonment.\n9.  On 22 June 2001 the Superior Court of the Manizales District, Colombia (“Tribunal Superior de Manizales”) reduced the applicant's sentence on appeal to ten years and eight months' imprisonment, combined with a fine.\n10.  On 28 February 2001 the Criminal Court of the Manizales District issued an arrest warrant against the applicant on the basis of his conviction.\n11.  On 28 March 2007 Interpol issued Red Notice No. A-666/3-2007 for the applicant's provisional arrest with a view to extradition.\n12.  At 6.40 p.m. on 27 August 2007 a group of servicemen of the Russian Ministry of the Interior, assisted by Interpol officers, arrested the applicant in Domodedovo Airport, Moscow.\n13.  On 28 August 2007 the Moscow prosecutor's office with responsibility for supervision of the implementation of laws on marine and air-borne transport ordered the applicant's placement in custody, pursuant to Article 466 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”), until his transfer to the country which had requested extradition. The decision gave the following reasons for application of a measure of restraint:\n“Gal Klein Yair is a national of a third State, has no permanent place of residence and employment on the territory of the Russian Federation, and his extradition for the purpose of serving the sentence imposed by the judgment of the District Special Criminal Court of Manizales would be impossible without ensuring [his] placement in custody.”\n14.  On 31 August 2007 Rossiyskaya Gazeta (“Российская газета”), a federal newspaper, published an article on its website entitled “The Mafia's Teacher Awaits Extradition” (“Учитель мафии ждет экстрадиции”), covering the applicant's story. The article read, in particular:\n“Having learned of the wanted mercenary's arrest in Moscow, the Vice-President of Colombia Francisco Santos Calderon, stated that 'it should be ensured that this gentleman rots in jail for [his] participation in the training of armed groups'..\nThe article did not contain any reference to the source of the information on the Vice-President's statement.\n15.  On 28 September 2007 the Ambassador of the Russian Federation in Bogota informed the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the Russian Prosecutor General's Office had been examining the possibility of extraditing the applicant, on condition that they be provided with a copy of the judgment against the applicant and with certain guarantees.\n16.  On 4 October 2007 the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs of the following:\n“Henceforth Colombia, acting on the basis of the reciprocity principle, shall transfer persons wanted by Russian law enforcement agencies to Russia for relevant criminal prosecution or execution of sentences against such persons. Mr Yair Gal Klein shall be provided with an opportunity to appeal against his conviction by the Colombian", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5180", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Shakhty, the Rostov Region.\n5.  In the 1990s the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme which would entitle him to receive a passenger car in 1993. He paid the car's full value but never received the car.\n6.  On 17 July 2002 the applicant received 31,375.48 Russian roubles (RUB) of compensation in accordance with the State Programme for the redemption of the State internal debt (see paragraphs 20-22 below). This amount equalled to 33.41% of the car value.\n7. The applicant brought the court action against the authorities, claiming the full monetary value of the promissory notes for purchasing of a car.\n8. On 1 April 2003 the Ust-Yanskiy District Court of the Sakha Republic (Yakutiya) allowed the applicant's action, having found that the State had failed in its obligation to grant the applicant a car and had only provided a partial compensation instead. The court further held that a unilateral change of the conditions of the redemption of the commodity bonds by the State in accordance with the Federal Law of 2 June 2000 and the respective State Programme (see below) did not “comply with the constitutional principles and principles of the civil law”, because a partial payment of a car's value did not constitute a sufficient remedy of the damage caused to the bond holders. The court awarded the applicant RUB 66,693.35, that is the full car price less the amount already paid to him in July 2002, to be paid at the expense of the Federal Treasury.\n9.  On 30 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment and it became final. The award remained unenforced.\n10.  In June 2004 the respondent authority lodged a request for supervisory review of the case with the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.\n11.  On 14 October 2004 the Presidium reviewed the lower courts' judgments by way of the supervisory review proceedings and established, in particular, that the lower courts had failed to take into account the provisions of the amended State Commodity Bonds' Act and the Government's Resolution no. 1006. The Presidium ruled as follows:\n“Having regard to the substantive violation of the material law, the judicial decisions taken in the case under consideration cannot be held lawful and well-founded and should be quashed [...].”\n12.  The Presidium annulled the judgment of 1 April 2003 and the appeal decision of 30 April 2003 and delivered a new judgment in which it dismissed the applicant's claim in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5181", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in St. Petersburg.\n5.  In 1979 the applicant was convicted of engaging in an illegal business activity and sentenced to four years' imprisonment. The court also ordered the confiscation of his property, namely an art collection. As part of this collection allegedly disappeared, in 1985 the applicant was convicted of fraudulent theft of State property.\n6.  In 1989 both judgments were quashed and the proceedings against the applicant were terminated on the ground that no criminal offence had been committed.\n7.  Between 1989 and 1998 the applicant unsuccessfully tried to recover his art collection.\n8.  In July 1998 the applicant lodged a claim with the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg (“the district court”) against the local departments of the Ministries of Justice, the Interior and Finance and the St. Petersburg Prosecutor's Office, seeking compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the confiscation of his property.\n9.  On 22 July 1998 the district court scheduled a hearing on 1 December 1998.\n10.  On 1 December 1998 the district court held a hearing, acceded to the defendant's requests and postponed the proceedings until 18 May 1999.\n11.  On 19 February 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against third persons for misappropriation of the applicant's art collection; on an unspecified date the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.\n12.  Between 18 May and 31 August 1999 the district court postponed hearings on four occasions at the defendants' request.\n13.  On 31 August 1999 the district court granted the applicant's request to hear three witnesses and postponed the hearing until 16 September 1999.\n14.  On 16 September 1999 the district court heard two witnesses, granted the applicant's request to summon two other witnesses and postponed the hearing until 17 December 1999.\n15.  On 17 December 1999 the hearing was postponed because the judge was ill.\n16.  On 12 January 2000 the hearing was postponed because of the applicant's absence.\n17.  On 20 January 2000 the district court heard two witnesses and postponed the hearing until 22 February 2000 at the applicant's request.\n18.  On 22 February 2000 the hearing was postponed because the judge was ill; a new hearing was scheduled on 9 June 2000.\n19.  Between 9 June and 17 October 2000 hearings were postponed on three occasions at the applicant's request.\n20.  On 17 October 2000 the hearing was postponed until 21 November 2000 pending receipt of information from other courts confirming the applicant's claims.\n21.  On 21 November 2000 the district court granted the applicant's application to request materials from the criminal case in which the applicant had been granted victim status in substantiation of his pecuniary damage claims; the hearing was postponed until 13 February 2001.\n22.  The 13 February 2001 hearing was postponed until 26 April 2001 because of the applicant's absence.\n23.  The 26 April 2001 hearing was postponed because of a defendant's absence.\n24.  On 12 July 2001 the applicant requested the district court to amend his statement of claims; the hearing was rescheduled on 20 November 2001.\n25.  On 20 November 2001 the hearing was postponed because of a defendant's absence and the applicant's failure to submit an additional list of his lost property.\n26.  On 12 March 2002 the applicant provided the district court with an additional list of his lost property; the hearing was pos", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5182", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the town of Orenburg.\n5.  The applicant was in active military service between 1972 and 1998. In February 1998 while he was on leave he was refused a free plane ticket on account of the debt accrued by the Federal Ministry of Defence to the air carriers. The applicant purchased a ticket for himself expecting to be reimbursed by the employer later.\n6.  After his retirement from active service, the applicant took paid leave in September 1998.\n7.  Apparently, in March 1999 the military authority informed the applicant that he would not be reimbursed for the ticket he had bought in February 1998 because he was entitled to only one period of paid leave per year.\n8.  It appears that in May 2001 the applicant brought civil proceedings in the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg claiming compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the above refusal. Apparently, the District Court dismissed his claim.\n9.  In June 2001 the applicant brought proceedings in the Military Court of the Yekaterinburg Garrison against two military authorities: the Urals-Tyumen regional department of the Federal Air Service and the financial department of the Privolzhsko-Uralskiy military command. He claimed annulment of a 1996 contract between the Ministry of Defence and an air company, as well as a compensation in respect of pecuniary damage (426 Russian roubles, RUB) and non-pecuniary damage in the amount of RUB 300,000 in relation to the refusal of the ticket in February 1998.\n10.  By a judgment of 15 March 2002 the Military Court of the Yekaterinburg Garrison dismissed the applicant's claims for failure to comply with the statutory time-limit (see paragraph 13 below). The court heard the applicant, the first defendant's representative and the second defendant's lawyer.\n11.  The applicant lodged an appeal before the Military Court of the Urals Command. The court heard the applicant, a representative of the Privolzhsko-Uralskiy military commander. A prosecutor was also present. At the end of the hearing, he made a statement, exercising a right conferred on him by the Civil Procedure Code 1964, in force at the material time (see paragraph 14 below). The applicant was not afforded an opportunity to comment on the above statement. On 25 April 2002 the Military Court of the Urals Command upheld the judgment on appeal. It considered that, as confirmed by the applicant, he had first learnt about the violation of his right on 27 February 1998; that his references to the contracts concluded by the State authorities had been irrelevant for his claim.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5183", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Chelyabinsk.\n8.  In 1996 the applicant was detained in connection with criminal proceedings instituted against him and placed in remand prison IZ-70/3 in the Chelyabinsk Region.\n9.  On 30 December 1998 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court found the applicant, who had previous convictions, guilty of a number of criminal offences, including banditry, kidnapping and unlawful use of weapons. He was sentenced to the death penalty and to confiscation of property.\n10.  Between 14 December 1999 and 26 April 2000 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-77/2 in Moscow pending the examination of his appeal.\n11.  On 28 February 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation altered the sentence, commuting the death penalty to fifteen years' imprisonment, ten years of which to be served in a prison and five years in a correctional facility.\n12.  From 10 May 2000 until an unspecified date in 2006 the applicant was held in prison YaV-48/T-1, Chelyabinsk Region (учреждение ЯВ-48/Т-1 по Челябинской области).\n13.  On an unspecified date in 2006 the applicant was transferred to prison no. T-2 in the Vladimir Region.\n14.  On 29 February 2007 the Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk reviewed the sentence. Under the revised sentence, the applicant was to serve the entire term of his imprisonment in a correctional facility.\n15.  Since 1993 the applicant has suffered from a cavernous haemangioma of the right parietotemporal area.\n16.  In 1995 the applicant underwent examination and carotid ligation in the Microvascular Surgery Centre at Chelyabinsk Regional Hospital no. 1.\n17.  Following the applicant's placement in remand prison IZ-70/3 in 1996, he was examined by the prison doctors in connection with his complaints concerning the growth of the tumour and occasional haemorrhages of the tumour and the right auricle. The doctors subsequently applied antiseptic dressings and haemostatic medicines.\n18.  During the applicant's detention in remand prison IZ-77/2, Moscow, from 14 December 1999 to 26 April 2000 he was regularly examined by the prison doctors.\n19.  On 10 May 2000, following the applicant's transfer to prison YaV-48/T-1, he was examined by the deputy head of the prison medical unit. He was diagnosed with cavernous haemangioma of the head and right auricle and aseptic dressings were applied regularly.\n20.  On 24 May and 20 August 2000 the applicant was placed in the surgical department of penitentiary hospital IK-3. There he was examined by a neurosurgeon and oncologist and diagnosed with a cavernous haemangioma of the right temporal and parotid area involving the right auricle.\n21.  On 19 November 2000 the applicant was placed in penitentiary hospital IK-3 for surgery. On 14 December 2000 he underwent ligation of the occipital artery and of branches of the carotid artery with a view to reducing the blood supply to the tumour. A short-term improvement was observed after the surgery: the tumour decreased in size and the sores epithelised. The applicant was discharged from hospital on 15 January 2001 in a satisfactory state.\n22.  On 11 June 2001 the applicant was against placed in the surgical department of penitentiary hospital IK-3 on account of a growth in the tumour. There he was examined by M., microsurgeon of the Microvascular Surgery Centre at Chelyabinsk Regional Hospital no. 1, who had operated on the applicant in 1995 and 2000, with a view to determining the prospects for radical surgery.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5184", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Magadan, the Magadan Region.\n5. The applicant sued the Magadan Regional Hospital and the Magadan Town Children Hospital for medical negligence in respect of her minor son.\n6.  On 28 November 2001 the Magadan Town Court of the Magadan Region awarded the applicant 150,000 Russian roubles (RUB) of non‑pecuniary damages and RUB 8 for the court fee against the Magadan Regional Hospital and dismissed the claims against the Magadan Town Children Hospital as unfounded.\n7.  On 22 January 2002 the Magadan Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The award remained unenforced.\n8.  On 13 June 2002, upon the Magadan Regional Hospital's request, the Presidium of the Magadan Regional Court quashed by way of supervisory review the judgment of 28 November 2001, as upheld on 22 January 2002, in the part related to the award made in favour of the applicant, because the lower courts incorrectly assessed the facts of the case. The court remitted the case in that part for a fresh examination in the first instance and upheld the remainder of the lower courts' findings.\n9.  On 13 January 2002 the applicant lodged a request for annulment of the judgment of 28 November 2001 in the part concerning the Magadan Town Children Hospital's liability on account of discovery of the new circumstances, i.e. evidence of the Town Hospital's liability.\n10.  On 17 December 2003 the Magadan Town Court allowed her request, annulled the judgment of 28 November 2001 as amended by the ruling of 13 June 2002 in the part concerning the rejection of the applicant's claims against the Magadan Town Children Hospital and reopened the case.\n11.  On the same date the Town Court partially granted the applicant's claims against both defendants and awarded her RUB 80,000 to be paid by the Magadan Regional Hospital and RUB 80,000 to be paid by the Magadan Town Children Hospital in non-pecuniary damages.\n12.  On 3 February 2004 the Magadan Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it acquired legal force.\n13.  On 24 May 2004 the Magadan Regional Hospital and on 26 October and 2 November 2004 December 2004 the Magadan Town Children Hospital each paid the non-pecuniary damages to the applicant in the amounts specified by the domestic court.\n14.  The judgment debt in the amount of RUB 8 awarded for the court fee on 28 November 2001, has not been enforced. According to the Government, since 2006 the authorities have made numerous attempts to contact the applicant and pay the awarded sum, but the applicant has not provided her banking details.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5185", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Cetinje (Montenegro).\n6.  On 15 October 1991 the Titograd Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud u Titogradu) gave judgment no. P-437/87 ordering the companies C.O. and P. – both incorporated under Croatian law and with their head offices in Croatia – to pay the applicant jointly and severally damages in the total amount of 600,000 Yugoslav dinars for injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, together with accrued statutory default interest and the costs of proceedings. The judgment became final on 6 January 1992.\n7.  On 16 October 2001 the applicant instituted non-contentious proceedings before the Koprivnica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Koprivnici) seeking that the above foreign judgment be recognised in Croatia.\n8.  On 20 November 2001 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant's request and issued a decision recognising the Montenegro court's judgment.\n9.  On 4 March 2002 the applicant applied for rectification of that decision because it incorrectly stated that the case number of the recognised judgment was P-437/97 instead of P-437/87.\n10.  On 13 March 2002 the Koprivnica Municipal Court issued a decision rectifying the error. It served it on the applicant's representatives two days later.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 3 December 2001 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings before the Koprivnica Municipal Court against the companies C.O. and P. by submitting an application for enforcement of the recognised judgment.\n12.  On 6 February 2002 the court issued a writ of execution (rješenje o ovrsi) by garnishment of funds from the debtors' bank accounts.\n13.  The judgment debtors appealed, arguing that number P-437/97 figured in the decision on recognition as a number of the recognised judgment while the actual number of the judgment sought to be enforced was P-437/87. In his reply, the applicant submitted that the decision on recognition contained a clerical error, that he had applied for its rectification and that the proceedings instituted thereby were still pending.\n14.  On 16 April 2002 the Koprivnica County Court (Županijski sud u Koprivnici) quashed the writ of execution of 6 February 2002 and remitted the case. It held that the decision on recognition of the foreign judgment indeed contained the number P-437/97 as a number of the recognised judgment whereas the judgment sought to be enforced had the number P-437/87. The court observed that this discrepancy might have been caused by a clerical error but nevertheless quashed the writ of execution, giving precedence to the principle of strict formal legality in enforcement proceedings. The second-instance decision was served on the applicant's representatives on 10 May 2002.\n15.  In the resumed proceedings, on 13 June 2002 the Koprivnica Municipal Court issued an instruction, which the applicant's representatives received four days later, inviting him to submit within fifteen days the proper enforcement title (that is, the judgment with the same number as the one stated to be the number of the recognised judgment in the decision of 20 November 2001) or a rectified decision on recognition.\n16.  As the applicant failed to do so, on 6 August 2002 the court declared his application for enforcement inadmissible.\n17.  The applicant appealed and enclosed that court's decision on rectification of 13 March 2002 (see paragraph 10 above).\n18.  On 17 September 2002 the Koprivnica County Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. It held that t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5186", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Taganrog.\n6.  On 27 April 1998 the applicant made a deposit in the amount of 7,218.00 United States dollars (USD) with a private bank, Bank Rossiyskiy Kredit ( “the Bank”).\n7.  On 7 September 1998 the Bank repaid USD 1,200 to the applicant.\n8.  On 16 September 1998 the applicant tried unsuccessfully to recover the outstanding amount.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought an action against the Bank seeking the withdrawal of the deposit, payment of the interest and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n10.  On 21 September 1998 the Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov-on-Don Region granted the applicant's claims in part and ordered the Bank to pay the applicant USD 6,085.20. The court dismissed the claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n11.  On 30 September 1999 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 21 September 1998 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter to the Town Court for fresh consideration. It appears that on 14 March 2000 the Town Court dismissed the applicant's claims without consideration on the merits.\n12.  On 5 December 1998 the applicant accepted the Bank's offer to have the outstanding amount converted into Russian roubles (RUB) at the rate of RUB 9.33 to USD 1 and to have it transferred to his account with another bank. On 5 March 1999 the amount was transferred to his account in the Sberbank.\n13.  On 1 April 1999 the Sberbank paid the applicant RUB 54,148.54.\n14.  On 19 October 1999 the management of the Bank was taken over by the Agency on Restructuring of Depositary Institutions (the “ARKO”), set up by the State in accordance with applicable legislation aimed at mitigating the consequences of the financial crisis of 1998.\n15.  On 15 May 2000 the association of the Bank's creditors adopted the terms and conditions of a friendly settlement agreement between the Bank's creditors, the Bank and the ARKO. The agreement substantially limited the Bank's liability before its creditors. The Bank had to repay its creditors only the amounts of the deposits. No interest or late payment fees were to be paid. On 15 August 2000 the Moscow Commercial Court approved the friendly settlement agreement.\n16.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought an action against the Bank seeking compensation for his pecuniary losses arising from the Bank's failure to repay the deposit promptly. He also sought payment of interest, late payment fee and non-pecuniary damage.\n17.  On 5 October 1999 the Taganrog Town Court of the Rostov Region dismissed the applicant's claims. The said judgment was quashed on appeal by the Rostov Regional Court on 7 June 2000.\n18.  On 13 September 2000 the Town Court dismissed the applicant's claims. On 6 December the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 13 September 2000 on appeal and remitted the matter for reconsideration.\n19.  On 28 March 2001 the Town Court considered the applicant's claims for the third time. The Bank's representative was present and made submissions to the court asking it to dismiss the claims in full as manifestly ill-founded. She asserted, inter alia, that the applicant had agreed for his monies to be transferred to another bank and accordingly had forfeited his right to claim the interest. No reference to the friendly settlement agreement was made. The Town Court granted the applicant's claims in part and awarded him RUB 23,535.04 (USD 819.19). The applicant appealed. On 22 August 2001", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5187", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Irkutsk Region.\n6.  In November 1999, July 2000 and September 2000 criminal inquiries were opened following discoveries of the dismembered bodies of women (victims K., Ok. and A., Os.).\n7.  On 22 August 2000 the applicant was questioned in the presence of counsel in relation to an accusation of rape by victim G. On 15 September 2000 the case was discontinued for lack of a corpus delicti, in view of the apparently consensual nature of the relations.\n(b)  Interrogation on 3 February 2001\n8.  Thereafter, on 3 February 2001 a Ms F. accused the applicant of rape and unlawful deprivation of liberty. It appears that on 3 February 2001 the applicant either came to the Barnaul police or was arrested with regard to that complaint. The applicant explained that he had consumed alcohol with the victim at his home on the previous evening, but denied any sexual assault. It appears that, having been apprised of his procedural rights, including the right to legal assistance, he waived this latter right. He was then questioned but apparently made no further statement. The investigator ordered his placement in custody and asked the administration of the temporary detention centre to ensure that the applicant, then a State official (a driver in a sobering-up centre), be kept separately from other detainees (see also paragraphs 43 and 44 below).  According to the applicant, on the same date he was refused permission to contact his family in order to retain counsel. The case against the applicant was entrusted to four investigators in view of the case's “complexity and the large amount of work to be done”. On the same day, the investigator heard a Ms S. in relation to the accusations against the applicant.\n9.  In addition to the investigators, on 4 February 2001 investigator P. of the Altay Regional Prosecutor's Office requested the police department to assign officers for a “series of operational and search measures” to verify whether the applicant had been involved in recent cases concerning the disappearances of female students from a local university (see also paragraphs 14 and 25 below).\n10.  According to the applicant, after his arrest he asked to be represented by Mr K., an advocate at the local bar association. It appears that the investigator decided that K. could not represent the applicant, given a potential conflict of interest arising from the fact that at the time K. already represented a Mr P. According to the applicant, however, P. retained K. as counsel not earlier than on 19 February 2001.\n(c)  Further questioning and the applicant's confessions\n11.  On 6 February 2001 investigator A. listed charges against the applicant in relation to victim F. The applicant was informed of his right to remain silent and his right to legal assistance and admitted his guilt “in part”. He did not want to be represented by the on-duty legal-aid lawyer and thus required adjournment until the following day in order to be represented by (unspecified) counsel retained by his parents.\n12.  According to the applicant, his mother first learnt about his arrest on 6 February 2001 from his girlfriend, who in turn had learnt about it from a relative, a former law-enforcement officer. When the applicant's mother came to the investigator's office, she was reassured that the applicant did not wish other counsel. She was later told that the applicant was satisfied with the services of counse", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5188", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Groningen.\n6.  On 27 July 2001 the Ahrensburg District Court (Amtsgericht) issued a warrant for the applicant's arrest.\n7.  On 30 January 2002 the applicant was arrested in Germany and remanded in custody at Oldenburg Prison.\n8.  On 22 May 2002 the Lübeck Public Prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant on several counts of trafficking and importing narcotic substances (cannabis and marihuana).\n9.  On 20 June 2002 the Lübeck Regional Court (Landgericht) opened the applicant's trial.\n10.  On 22 July 2002 the Schleswig-Holstein Court of Appeal quashed the arrest warrant for failure to comply with the obligation to expedite criminal proceedings where an applicant is in detention pending trial. Following his release from detention, the applicant returned to the Netherlands.\n11.  Following negotiations with the applicant's legal representatives, the Lübeck Public Prosecutor gave the applicant an assurance that the prosecution service would institute proceedings under Article 11 of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (European Treaty Series no. 112, “the Transfer Convention”) if the applicant returned to Germany for his trial and confessed to the alleged crimes.\n12.  During the oral hearing before the Lübeck Regional Court, which took place on 16 September 2002, the applicant, who had voluntarily returned from the Netherlands, gave a full confession. The Public Prosecutor gave the following statement, as recorded in the transcript of the hearing:\n“In this case the current view is that there are no objections to the transfer of the defendant to the Netherlands under the Transfer Convention of 21 March 1983 or against the application of Article 11 of the Transfer Convention.”\n13.  Following the hearing, the Lübeck Regional Court, on the basis of the applicant's confession, convicted him on twenty-six counts of unlawful importing and unlawful trafficking of narcotic substances, and sentenced him to three and a half years' imprisonment.\n14.  The court accepted as mitigating factors the applicant's confession and the fact that he had voluntarily returned from the Netherlands in order to stand trial. It considered that the oral hearing could probably not have taken place without his cooperation. The applicant having waived his right to appeal, the judgment became final on 16 September 2002.\n15.  Following the hearing, the applicant returned to the Netherlands.\n16.  On 17 September 2002 the applicant applied to the Schleswig-Holstein Ministry of Justice for the institution of transfer proceedings under Article 11 of the Transfer Convention. In his pleadings, the applicant's counsel relied upon the agreement between the defence, the criminal chamber of the Lübeck Regional Court, and the Public Prosecutor's Office at the Lübeck Regional Court.\n17.  On 7 October 2002 the Ministry of Justice forwarded the application to the Head of the Chief Public Prosecutors (Leitender Oberstaatsanwalt) in Lübeck with a request for him to submit a report.\n18.  On 22 November 2002 the Head of the Chief Public Prosecutors stated that, as a general rule, execution of sentence in the home country was not an option in such serious cases of drug trafficking. However, the special circumstances of this particular case justified lodging an application for execution assistance with the Dutch Justice Ministry.\n19.  On 19 December 2002 the Schleswig Holstein Justice Ministry wrote to the Dutch Justice Min", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5189", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Świdnica, Poland. He immigrated to Germany in February 1987.\n6.  On 28 July 1995 the applicant applied to the Aschaffenburg Labour Office for child benefits for his daughter under the Federal Child Benefits Act.\n7.  On 18 August 1995 the Labour Office dismissed the applicant's request under Section 1 § 3 of the Federal Child Benefits Act. It considered that the applicant only had a limited residence entitlement for exceptional purposes, and not an unlimited residence permit or provisional residence permit, as required under that section.\n8.  On 15 September 1995 the applicant filed an administrative objection against the decision of the Labour Office. On 12 October 1995 the Federal Labour Office rejected his objection. On 14 November 1995 the applicant lodged an action with the Würzburg Social Court.\n9.  Following a reform of the law on child benefits with effect from 1 January 1996, an equivalent provision on child benefits was introduced in Section 62 § 2 of the Income Tax Act, replacing Section 1 § 3 of the Federal Child Benefits Act. Persons subject to income tax were to receive child benefits on the basis of Section 62 § 2 of the Income Tax Act; persons not subject to income tax received child benefits on the basis of an amended provision in the Federal Child Benefits Act.\n10.  In April 1997 the applicant obtained an unlimited residence permit. The applicant received child benefits from April 1997 until July 1997, after which the payments were stopped due to the applicant's lack of cooperation.\n11.  On 21 April 1997 the Social Court dismissed the applicant's action regarding child benefits for the period from July 1995 to March 1997. As to the child benefits from April 1997, the Social Court noted that the action was moot; the transcript of the hearing indicated that the parties had agreed that the matter before the Social Court solely concerned the child benefits prior to April 1997. The applicant requested amendment of the transcript and amendment of the Social Court judgment to include his claim for child benefits from April 1997. The Social Court rejected the request for amendment of the transcript on 29 August 1997 and the request for amendment of the judgment in a further judgment dated 8 September 1997. The applicant appealed against both judgments.\n12.  On 20 October 1997, in order to decide whether following the reform of the law on child benefits the social courts were competent to decide on the applicant's claim for child benefits from 1 January 1996, the Social Court of Appeal asked the applicant to submit documents to show that he was subject to income tax. The Social Court of Appeal reiterated this request several times, the last time on 8 January 1998, but the applicant failed to submit the relevant documents.\n13.  By decisions of 22 January 1998 and 23 April 1998, as the applicant did not submit the relevant documents for the period from 1 January 1996 and in order to expedite proceedings, the Social Court of Appeal decided to sever the proceedings on the appeal lodged against the judgment of 21 April 1997, separating the claim for child benefits into two periods: until 31 December 1995 and from 1 January 1996. The latter part was joined with the appeal against the judgment of 8 September 1997.\n14.  On 29 January 1998 the applicant filed a motion of bias against the judge who had decided to sever the proceedings. The motion was dismissed on 24 March 1998. Against the j", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5190", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  At the material time the applicant held the position of Head of the Department of Justice of the Sakhalin Region (начальник Управления юстиции Сахалинской области).\n7.  On an unspecified date an external audit commenced in the said Department and embezzlement of budgetary assets was subsequently established.\n8.  On 25 February 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted in this connection.\n9.  On 28 February 2000 at 8 a.m. the applicant retained a lawyer.\n10.  On 28 February 2000 at 8:30 a.m. the applicant was arrested and placed in custody. Being questioned as a suspect in the case, the applicant availed herself of the right to remain silent and applied for release on bail or subject to personal surety.\n11.  On 29 February 2000 the investigator in charge refused to release the applicant, stating that, according to Article 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “a measure of restraint could only be changed in the circumstances when it was no longer needed” and that “there were no such circumstances” in the applicant's case.\n12.  On the same date the applicant resigned from her position.\n13.  On 1 March 2000 the investigator in charge remanded the applicant in custody. The order, which was approved by a deputy prosecutor of the Sakhalin Region, referred to the danger of the applicant's absconding, the risk of her obstructing the establishment of the truth and influencing the witnesses who had been her subordinates, and to the gravity of the charges against her.\n14.  The applicant's request to release her subject to the imposition of another measure of restraint was examined and refused by the investigator on 2 March 2000.\n15.  On 6 March 2000 the applicant's lawyer appealed to the court against the applicant's pre-trial detention.\n16.  The application was examined by judge A. of the Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk Town Court (“the Town Court”) on 10 March 2000. At the hearing the applicant and her counsel reiterated their request for the applicant's release in view of her poor health, the fact that she had family commitments and a good reference from her former place of work. The judge confirmed the lawfulness of the applicant's remand in custody, having based this decision on “the evidence in the applicant's case file, proving that she might abscond or influence the witnesses if released”.\n17.  According to the applicant, the evidence referred to by Judge A. was a transcript of an audio tape recording of telephone conversations of another suspect, K. During one such conversation K. stated that “on Monday Nina Ivanovna will leave forever”.\n18.  On 12 April 2000 the Sakhalin Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the decision of 10 March 2000 on appeal.\n19.  Meanwhile, on 7 March 2000, formal charges of embezzlement and abuse of power had been brought against the applicant. Since the applicant's counsel was unable to attend the police station that day, the investigating authorities appointed another lawyer to assist her. However, in the absence of her counsel, the applicant refused to read and sign the decision to charge her.\n20.  On 15 March 2000 the applicant's lawyer challenged the decision of 7 March 2000 before the court, claiming that the applicant's right to defence had been violated. He also requested the court to release the applicant pending trial.\n21.  On 4 April 2000 judge A. of the Town Court disallowed the above complaint, having noted that the allegations advanced by the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5191", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Amsterdam.\n6.  On 20 November 2001 the applicant was arrested in Lübeck in Germany. On 21 November 2001 the Lübeck District Court (Amtsgericht) issued a warrant for the applicant's arrest on suspicion of trafficking in and importing narcotic substances. He was subsequently remanded in custody.\n7.  Following negotiations with the applicant's legal representatives, the Lübeck Public Prosecutor gave the applicant an assurance that the prosecution service would institute proceedings under Article 11 of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (European Treaty Series no. 112, “the Transfer Convention”) if the applicant confessed to the alleged crimes. Furthermore, they would refrain from requesting a sentence exceeding eight years' imprisonment.\n8.  On 25 March 2002 the applicant confessed in writing to having committed the crimes specified in the arrest warrant.\n9.  On 6 May 2002 the Lübeck Public Prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant.\n10.  Prior to the oral hearing, the applicant's counsel informed the trial court of the agreement reached between the applicant's defence lawyers and the public prosecution service.\n11.  During the oral hearing before the Lübeck Regional Court (Landgericht), which took place on 26 August 2002, the applicant gave a full confession. The Public Prosecutor requested a sentence of eight years' imprisonment. According to the transcript of the hearing, the Public Prosecutor moreover declared as follows:\n“....the Public Prosecution Office does not see any reason not to proceed in accordance with Article 11 of the Council of Europe's Transfer Convention.”\n12.  On 26 August 2002 the Lübeck Regional Court, on the basis of the applicant's confession, convicted him of unlawful trafficking in and importing narcotic substances and sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment. The court accepted the applicant's confession as a mitigating factor. The applicant having waived his right to appeal, the judgment became final on the same day.\n13.  On 28 August 2002 the applicant applied to the Schleswig-Holstein Ministry of Justice to institute transfer proceedings under Article 11 of the Transfer Convention. In his pleadings, the applicant's counsel relied upon the agreement between the defence, the criminal chamber at the Lübeck Regional Court and the Public Prosecutor's Office at the Lübeck Regional Court.\n14.  On 9 September 2002 the Ministry of Justice acknowledged receipt of the applicant's request and informed him that the Head of the Chief Public Prosecutors (Leitender Oberstaatsanwalt) in Lübeck had been invited to submit comments on it.\n15.  On 20 February 2003 the Head of the Chief Public Prosecutors stated that he would only endorse a transfer under Article 10 of the Transfer Convention on condition that the Dutch authorities gave an assurance of continued enforcement and did not release him before two-thirds of the sentence had been served.\n16.  By a letter of 5 March 2003 the applicant reminded the Justice Ministry that, during the oral hearing held on 26 August 2002, the Public Prosecutor had given an assurance that he would support the applicant's request to be transferred under Article 11 of that Convention.\n17.  On 12 March 2003 the Justice Ministry sent the applicant's submissions to the Head of the Chief Public Prosecutors for comment. They pointed out that it was no longer standard practice in Germany to institute transfer proceedings unde", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5192", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a Croatian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Dubrovnik.\n5.  On 25 July 1984 the applicant brought a civil action in the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) against two private individuals, seeking to be declared the owner of a flat in Dubrovnik.\n6.  In the period before the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia (5 November 1997), the Municipal Court held fourteen hearings.\n7.  In the period after 5 November 1997 the Municipal Court held further sixteen hearings and on 22 November 2001 gave its judgment for the applicant.\n8.  On 6 February 2002 the respondents lodged an appeal with the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu). However, since it was established that one of the respondents had died in May 2004, the case was returned to the Municipal Court which, after the inheritance proceedings had been completed in February 2006, stayed the proceedings on 28 June 2006.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 12 January 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above proceedings.\n10.  After the Municipal Court established that the inheritance proceedings after the respondent who had died had ended with a final decision on 24 February 2006, the court invited his son to take over the proceedings and on 27 November 2006 again sent the case-file to the Split County Court to decide on the appeal by the respondents.\n11.  On 1 March 2007 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded him 12,500 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and ordered the Split County Court to give a decision in the applicant's case in the shortest time possible but no longer than ten months following the publication of its decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 13 April 2007. The Constitutional Court found that the delays in the proceedings had been caused by the inefficiency of the Municipal Court.\n12.  On 19 December 2008 the Split County Court dismissed the appeal by the respondents and upheld the first-instance judgment of 22 November 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5193", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Zakhidat Mutsolgova, born in 1946;\n2) Mr Adam Mutsolgov, born in 1943;\n3) Mr Magomed Mutsolgov, born in 1973;\n4) Ms Aminat Buzurtanova, born in 1982, and\n5) Ms Dzhannat Mutsolgova, born in August 2003.\n6.  The applicants live in the town of Karabulak, in the Ingushetiya Republic. The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Bashir Mutsolgov, born in 1975. The third applicant is his brother. The fourth and fifth applicants are Bashir Mutsolgov's wife and daughter.\n7.  At the material time the fourth and the fifth applicants together with Bashir Mutsolgov lived at 83 Oskanova Street in the town of Karabulak, Ingushetia. The first and second applicants lived in a house nearby, about 50 metres away.\n8.  The applicants were not eyewitnesses to Bashir Mutsolgov's abduction and the following account of events is based on the witness statements collected by them after his disappearance and on other documents furnished by them to the Court.\n9.  At about 3.20 p.m. on 18 December 2003 Bashir Mutsolgov, who was heading from the grocery store to his home, met a neighbour, Kh. Kh. The men were talking next to Bashir Mutsolgov's house when a white VAZ-2121 (“Niva”) vehicle with blacked-out windows and a dark blue VAZ-2106 car pulled over. Although the vehicles' registration plates were covered with mud, the Niva had part of its number, “26”, visible. Five to eight masked men in camouflage uniforms emerged from the cars. They were armed with AK assault rifles and spoke unaccented Russian. The men ran up to Bashir Mutsolgov and Kh. Kh. and hit the latter in the face so that he fell to the ground. They then forced Bashir Mutsolgov into the white Niva vehicle. According to the statement by V.G., Bashir Mutsolgov was forced to the ground and then put in the Niva vehicle. Kh. Kh. submitted in his statement that, before being forced into the Niva vehicle, Bashir Mutsolgov had been hit with a rifle-butt in the stomach.\n10.  Bashir Mutsolgov's neighbour, Ya. Kh., heard a noise and looked out of the window of her house. She saw across the street a group of men throw Bashir Mutsolgov into the white Niva vehicle. After that the vehicles with Bashir Mutsolgov drove away in the direction of the Karabulak department of the interior (“the GOVD”) and the local road police station (“the GAI station”) located about 700-900 metres from Bashir Mutsolgov's house.\n11.  A number of other local residents witnessed the abduction of Bashir Mutsolgov. In particular, prior to arriving at Bashir Mutsolgov's house, the white Niva vehicle had caused a traffic accident with two minivans which both had about 25-30 passengers on board. The passengers in the minivans, as well as their drivers, including V.G., and the crowd gathered at the place of the accident witnessed the abduction of Bashir Mutsolgov by a group of armed masked men.\n12.  One of the local residents, M. B., was driving past the applicants' house when he saw a group of armed men throw a man into a white Niva vehicle. Several minutes later, passing by the GAI station, he informed the on-duty officer Ch. about the incident and told him that two vehicles, a white Niva and a dark blue VAZ with the abducted man, were driving behind him on the same road. Ch. stopped the two cars. A man of Slavic appearance, about 35-40 years old, got out of the white Niva vehicle. He spoke unaccented Russian and produced a special permit of the Regional Operational Headquarters of the Federal Security Ser", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5194", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Iaşi.\n5.  On 1 October 2002 the applicant was appointed to the post of director of the Economics Department of the Romanian Waters Agency (“the Agency”), a public institution under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Water and the Environment (“the Ministry”).\n6.  In July 2003 the audit office of the Ministry investigated the Agency's activity and discovered some irregularities. As a result, on 21 July 2003 the Agency dismissed the applicant for alleged mismanagement.\n7.  On 5 August 2003 the Ministry certified mismanagement on the applicant's part and on 12 August 2003 it lodged a criminal complaint against her. It appears from the file that the proceedings are still pending.\n8.  On 26 November 2003 the Bucharest County Court set aside the decision of 21 July 2003 and ordered the applicant's reinstatement and payment of the salary due until her effective reinstatement. The court found that no preliminary investigations had been carried out prior to that decision.\nThat judgment was quashed on grounds of incompatibility ratione loci, but on 15 April 2005 the Iaşi County Court set aside that decision and ordered the applicant's reinstatement and payment of the difference between the salary earned before and after the decision, until the applicant's effective reinstatement. That ruling was upheld by a final decision of 4 October 2005 by the Iaşi Court of Appeal.\n9.  On 12 January 2004 the agency reinstated the applicant in her previous position, but on 2 February 2004 it suspended her from office. That decision was based on the existence of a criminal complaint against the applicant, and stated that during the applicant's suspension, which would remain in place until the end of the criminal proceedings, she would be offered another post corresponding to her qualifications. On 3 February 2004 she was appointed as economic adviser in a local branch of the Agency.\n10.  On 30 June 2004 the Iaşi County Court set aside the decision of 2 February 2004 and ordered the Agency to reinstate the applicant in her previous position as director of the Economics Department and to pay her the difference between the salary earned before and after that decision. The court considered that decision to be unlawful, inter alia, because the criminal complaint against the applicant had not been lodged by the Agency, which was the applicant's employer, but by the Ministry, which had no professional relationship with the applicant.\n11.  On 27 July 2004 the Agency therefore declared void its decision of 2 February 2004, reinstated the applicant in her previous post and paid her the outstanding salary.\n12.  However, on 2 December 2004 the Iaşi Court of Appeal, by a final decision, allowed an appeal on points of law by the Agency and dismissed the applicant's complaint against the decision of 2 February 2004.\n13.  According to the Agency, on 6 August 2004 it lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant.\n14.  On 16 August 2004 the Agency again suspended her from her post, on the basis of that criminal complaint.\n15.  On 29 October 2004 the Iaşi County Court set aside that decision and ordered the Agency to reinstate the applicant in her previous post and to pay her, from 16 August 2004 until her effective reinstatement, compensation for pecuniary damage in the form of an increased and updated salary, together with all the other benefits to which she would have been entitled. The court held that the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5195", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1951, 1963 and 1969 respectively and live in Helsinki. The applicant company is based in Helsinki. The first applicant is the editor-in-chief and the second and third applicants are journalists in the nationwide 7 päivää magazine which is published by the applicant company.\n6.  On 4 December 1996 A., the National Conciliator (valtakunnansovittelija, riksförlikningsmannen) at the time, and B., his female friend, entered late at night A.'s home where his wife was present. The situation escalated, the police were called and the incident, which subsequently involved also A.'s grown-up children, led to A.'s arrest. Criminal charges were brought against both A. and B. on 18 December 1996. On 16 January 1997 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) sentenced A. to a four-month conditional prison sentence for resisting arrest and for criminal damage (vahingonteko, skadegörelse), and B. to a fine for assault. On 17 January 1997 the Council of State (valtioneuvosto, statsrådet) dismissed A. from his post as National Conciliator. On 25 June 1998 the Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the judgment with respect to B. As regards A., the case was discontinued as he had died on 14 May 1998. On 15 December 1998 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused B. leave to appeal.\n7.  On 23 January, 6 February and 13 March 1997 the 7 päivää magazine published in total four articles about A. and B. Prior to these articles, the identity of B. had been revealed and her picture had been published in the media.\n8.  The first article published on 23 January 1997 was entitled “B. broke up A.'s marriage” and it concerned A.'s marriage and his relationship with B. The article, which covered a whole double page spread, mainly concerned A.'s marriage and it included an interview with his wife. It also mentioned B. by name as well as her age, the name of her workplace, her family relationships and her relationship with A. Moreover, the changes in her career and assignments after the incident of 4 December 1996 which led to the arrest of A., the incident itself as well as the subsequent criminal proceedings and convictions of A. and B. were mentioned in the article. The caption of the article stated that “A.'s marital problems began eight years ago when B. entered his life”. The article also included pictures of A. and B. as well as of A.'s wife and children. Linked to this article there was, in the same issue, a news clip which was entitled “B. danced samba without A.”. It contained only a few lines but B.'s name, together with her picture, and the fact that she was convicted for having assaulted A.'s son were mentioned in the clip. Both items were written by the third applicant and approved by the first applicant. A. and B.'s pictures and statements concerning them were also published on the cover of the magazine.\n9.  In the next two articles published on 6 February 1997 B.'s name, career, family relationships and her relationship with A. were mentioned together with pictures of her. The articles were written by a journalist, who has lodged a separate application with the Court (see Soila v. Finland, no. 6806/06, 6 April 2010), and approved by the first applicant.\n10.  The fourth article, published on 13 March 1997, was entitled “B. divorces her husband”. It mentioned, together with pictures of A. and B., her name, age, assignments, family relationships and her relationship with A. The article descr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5196", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1957 and 1988 respectively and live in Ödemiş.\n6.  On 30 September 1999 the first applicant's wife instituted divorce proceedings and asked for the custody of their two children; Armağan (the second applicant) and his younger sister Damla who was born in 1993.\n7.  The Ödemiş Civil Court of First Instance (“the Ödemiş Court”) granted the couple's divorce on 23 June 2000. Having regard to the “parties' incomes and the ages of the two children”, the Ödemiş Court awarded custody of Armağan to the first applicant and that of Damla to her mother. It also decided that the parents would exchange the children between 1 and 15 February every year, during the month of July and for a total period of four days during the two religious holidays.\n8.  On 30 November 2000 the first applicant requested the Ödemiş Court to grant an interim measure to the effect that he would have both children one weekend and his ex-wife would have them the next. This way, he argued, the children would not lose contact with each other and he would have the opportunity to spend every other weekend with both his children. This request was rejected on 19 December 2000 by the Ödemiş Court which considered that its decision concerning the custody issue had been correct.\n9.  The appeal lodged by the applicant against the Ödemiş Court's decision of 23 June 2000 was rejected by the Court of Cassation on 8 December 2000. A request made by the first applicant for a rectification of that decision was rejected on 8 February 2001.\n10.  On 11 September 2001 the first applicant brought a court case on behalf of his son and on his own behalf against his ex-wife. He claimed that although he and his son were living in the same town and very close to his ex-wife and his daughter, the decision of the Ödemiş Court had prevented the two children from seeing each other and him from spending time with both his children. This, he claimed, was causing irreversible psychological problems for the children. Even when the children saw each other in the street they were prevented from talking to each other by their mother. He requested that the children be able to see each other every weekend.\nHe also asked the court to order his ex-wife to pay maintenance to him in respect of Armağan.\n11.  The Ödemiş Court refused the applicants' requests on 1 February 2002. It held that, although diligence had to be shown to satisfy the needs of the parents and their children and to improve the ties between them, ordering Damla to spend every weekend with her father would mean a continual change of environment for her and would confront her with variations in discipline.\n12.  The applicants appealed and referred in their appeal to a number of decisions of the Court of Cassation. According to those decisions, the applicable law and procedure required domestic courts to ensure that access arrangements do not prevent the children of divorced parents from seeing each other. The applicants maintained that ensuring this was a matter for a court of law to consider of its own motion. They also argued that the children's best interests should be given paramount importance. They drew the Court of Cassation's attention to the fact that the two siblings had not seen each other for two years.\n13.  The appeal was rejected by the Court of Cassation on 29 April 2002 which considered that the Ödemiş Court had “adequately examined the evidence available to it and that its conclusion had been in accordan", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5198", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1963, 1954, 1971, 1963, 1975 and 1956 respectively and, according to their application forms, live in Istanbul.\n5.  Between 22 February and 6 March 1997 the applicants were detained in police custody at the Istanbul Security Headquarters on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party); they claimed that they were subjected to various forms of ill-treatment there. In particular the applicants complained in their application form of the following types of treatment.\na)  Arif Çelebi\n6.  The applicant complained, in particular, that he had been blindfolded, forced to remain standing or sitting for a long time, deprived of sleep, forced to listen to loud music, suspended, squeezed in the testicles, beaten, stripped and made to lie in cold water.\nb)  Mukaddes Çelik\n7.  The applicant complained, in particular, that she had been blindfolded, forced to remain standing or sitting for a long time, left exposed to the circulation of cold air, sworn at, refused toilet breaks and sexually harassed.\nc)  Sultan Arıkan (Seçik)\n8.  The applicant complained, in particular, that she had been blindfolded, suspended, sexually harassed, raped by insertion of a finger, sworn at, beaten and forced to listen to loud music and remain sitting for a long time.\nd)  Bayram Namaz\n9.  The applicant complained, in particular, that he had been beaten, subjected to “Palestinian hanging”, forced to remain standing, hosed with cold water, squeezed in the testicles, deprived of sleep, threatened with death and sworn at.\ne)  Sedat Şenoğlu\n10.  The applicant complained, in particular, that he had been beaten, suspended, hosed with cold water, sworn at, threatened and deprived of sleep.\nf)  Necati Abay\n11.  The applicant complained, in particular, that he had been suspended several times, squeezed in the testicles, hosed with cold water, forced to listen to loud music, threatened and forced to remain standing or sitting for a long time.\n12.  On 26 February 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at a hospital, who noted that he had difficulty in moving his upper limbs.\n13.  On 4 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Forensic Medicine Institute at the Istanbul State Security Court, who found that he had pain and difficulty in moving his right arm and that the skin on his scrotum had peeled away.\n14.  On 6 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Forensic Medicine Institute at the Istanbul State Security Court, who noted that the previous findings remained valid.\n15.  On 15 October 1999 the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute, on the basis of the above-mentioned medical reports on the applicant, issued a final report in which it concluded that the injuries noted in those reports rendered him unfit for work for two days.\nb)  Mukaddes Çelik\n16.  On 27 February 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at a hospital, who noted that she complained of stomach pain and of FMF (Familial Mediterranean Fever), which she had suffered from for the past thirty-two years.\n17.  On 3 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Fatih Forensic Medicine Institute, who found no signs of ill-treatment on her body.\n18.  On 6 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Forensic Medicine Institute at the Istanbul State Security Court, who found no signs of ill-treatment on her body.\nc)  Sultan Arıkan (Seçik)\n19.  On 27 February 1997 the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5199", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1948, 1951, 1962 and 1951 respectively and live in Helsinki, except for Ms Isosaari who lives in Ikkala.\n6.  The first and second applicants are editors-in-chief of the nationwide magazine Seura and the third and fourth applicants are an editor-in-chief and a journalist of the nationwide magazine Nykyposti.\n7.  On 4 December 1996 A., the National Conciliator (valtakunnansovittelija, riksförlikningsmannen) at the time, and B., his female friend, entered late at night A.’s home where his wife was present. The situation escalated, the police were called and the incident, which subsequently involved also A.’s grown-up children, led to A.’s arrest. Due to the incident, criminal charges were brought against both A. and B. on 18 December 1996. On 16 January 1997 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) sentenced A. to a four-month conditional prison sentence for resisting arrest and for criminal damage (vahingonteko, skadegörelse), and B. to a fine for assault. On 17 January 1997 the Council of State (valtioneuvosto, statsrådet) dismissed A. from his post as National Conciliator. On 25 June 1998 the Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the judgment with respect to B. As regards A., the case had lapsed as he had died on 14 May 1998. On 15 December 1998 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused B. leave to appeal.\n8.  On 31 January and 1 March 1997, respectively, the magazines published an article about A. The article of 31 January 1997 in Seura magazine was based on A.’s interview, and B.’s name and age, together with her picture, were mentioned once in the article. The article was entitled “A.’s sincerity in the balance” and it concerned A.’s feelings about his dismissal and his possible divorce in the aftermath of the incident of 4 December 1996. The article of 1 March 1997 in Nykyposti magazine, which was entitled “Divorced wives’ club”, also dealt inter alia with A.’s possible divorce and his feelings about his dismissal. It was claimed that A.’s divorce proceedings had accelerated due to the incident of 4 December 1996, and B.’s name was mentioned once in that context. This article contained no pictures of B. Prior to these articles, B.’s identity had been revealed at least in a Swedish newspaper on 21 January 1997 and in a Finnish nationwide television broadcast on 23 January 1997.\n9.  In the spring of 1997 A. and B. requested that criminal investigations be conducted against journalists who had written about the incident on 4 December 1996 and the circumstances surrounding it. They made such a request with respect to the applicants, claiming that the articles published in Seura and Nykyposti had invaded B.’s privacy. It appears that in regard to all but one of these requests no charges were brought. On 17 September 1998 the public prosecutor decided not to bring charges against the applicants as, according to him, there was no indication of any crime.\n10.  On 25 October 1998 B. complained to the Prosecutor General (valtakunnansyyttäjä, högsta åklagaren) about the decisions not to prosecute and asked him to reconsider the cases. On 5 October 1999, after having considered the charges, the Deputy Prosecutor-General requested the public prosecutor to bring charges, inter alia, against the applicants. He reasoned his decision by stating, inter alia, that the facts revealed in the articles fell within the scope of private life and that no derogation could be made in this ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5200", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Helsinki. He was a journalist on the nationwide magazine 7 päivää.\n6.  On 4 December 1996 A., the National Conciliator (valtakunnansovittelija, riksförlikningsmannen) at the time, and B., his female friend, entered late at night A.'s home where his wife was present. The situation escalated, the police were called and the incident, which subsequently involved also A.'s grown-up children, led to A.'s arrest. Following the incident, criminal charges were brought against both A. and B. on 18 December 1996. On 16 January 1997 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) sentenced A. to a four-month conditional prison sentence for resisting arrest and for criminal damage (vahingonteko, skadegörelse), and B. to a fine for assault. On 17 January 1997 the Council of State (valtioneuvosto, statsrådet) dismissed A. from his post as National Conciliator. On 25 June 1998 the Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the judgment with respect to B. As regards A., the case was discontinued as he had died on 14 May 1998. On 15 December 1998 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused B. leave to appeal.\n7.  On 6 February 1997 7 päivää magazine published two articles written by the applicant about A. and B. The first article was entitled “A. collects his female friend every day from work, the relationship continues” and it concerned A.'s and B.'s relationship. B.'s conviction as well as her workplace were mentioned as background information but the major part of the article concerned the journalist's eyewitness statements about how A. and B. spent their free time. The caption of the article stated that “A.'s female friend B. visits his home daily”. Also, several pictures of B. were published. The second article was entitled “The police laughed at the ex-national conciliator, A. arrested the journalists”. It was about A. and his behaviour in certain encounters with the media, and B.'s name was mentioned only in passing. The caption of the article stated that “A. requested executive assistance from the police in order to take his female friend secretly to his home”. Prior to these articles, B.'s identity had been revealed and her picture had been published in the media.\n8.  In the spring of 1997 A. and B. requested that criminal investigations be conducted against journalists who had written about the incident of 4 December 1996 and the circumstances surrounding it. On an unspecified date they made such a request with respect to the applicant, claiming that the articles published in 7 päivää had invaded B.'s privacy.\n9.  On 28 November 2001 the public prosecutor brought charges under Chapter 27, section 3(a), paragraph 2, of the Penal Code against the applicant as well as the editor-in-chief (see Jokitaipale and others v. Finland, no. 43349/05, 6 April 2010), in Vantaa District Court. The charges brought against the applicant clearly indicated that the applicant was charged only for having written the articles in question. He was not charged for having been responsible for the headings, pictures or in which part of the magazine the articles were to be published.\n10.  B. concurred with the charges brought by the public prosecutor. She pursued a compensation claim jointly and severally against the applicant, the editor-in-chief and the publishing company, which was joined to the criminal charges. Charges brought against the other journalists of the magazine as well as the editor-i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5201", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company is based in Helsinki. The second applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Helsinki. The applicant company publishes a nationwide newspaper called Iltalehti and the second applicant is the editor-in-chief of that newspaper.\n6.  On 4 December 1996 A., the National Conciliator (valtakunnansovittelija, riksförlikningsmannen) at the time, and B., his female friend, entered late at night A.'s home where his wife was present. The situation escalated, the police were called and the incident, which subsequently involved also A.'s grown-up children, led to A.'s arrest. Following this incident, criminal charges were brought against both A. and B. on 18 December 1996. On 16 January 1997 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) sentenced A. to a four-month conditional prison sentence for resisting arrest and for criminal damage (vahingonteko, skadegörelse), and B. to a fine for assault. On 17 January 1997 the Council of State (valtioneuvosto, statsrådet) dismissed A. from his post as National Conciliator. On 25 June 1998 the Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the judgment with respect to B. As regards A., the case was discontinued as he had died on 14 May 1998. On 15 December 1998 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused B. leave to appeal.\n7.  On 17 January 1997, one day after the Helsinki District Court judgment, the Iltalehti newspaper published an article about A. and B. with a title “A. defends fiercely his post”. The article focused mainly on A.'s conviction but in the caption to B.'s picture, her name, conviction and the fact that she was A.'s female friend were mentioned. Prior to this article, the identity of B. had been revealed at least in a Finnish magazine on 7 January 1997 (see Tuomela and others v. Finland, no. 25711/04, 6 April 2010).\n8.  In the spring of 1997 A. and B. requested that criminal investigations be conducted against journalists who had written about the incident on 4 December 1996 and the circumstances surrounding it. On an unspecified date they made such a request with respect to the second applicant, claiming that the article published in Iltalehti had invaded B.'s privacy. Investigations started in respect of the second applicant on 20 April 1997.\n9.  On 14 March 2000 the public prosecutor brought charges under chapter 27, section 3(a) of the Penal Code against the second applicant in Vantaa District Court. B. concurred with the charges brought by the public prosecutor and pursued a compensation claim against both applicants, which was joined to the criminal charges. The applicant company was summoned on 10 April 2000.\n10.  On 8 November 2002 the court, after having held an oral hearing on 4 November 2002, first decided to declare all parts of the case file secret for ten years except for the applicable legal provisions, the conclusions and the summary of the case. Additionally, the identity of B. was not to be revealed in the public parts of the case file. As to the merits of the case, the court sentenced the second applicant to pay twenty day-fines, amounting to 2,040 euros (EUR), for invasion of B.'s private life. Moreover, the applicants were jointly ordered to pay B. EUR 10,000 plus interest for non-pecuniary damage as well as her costs and expenses.\n11.  The District Court found that the facts mentioned in the articles were of a kind to which the protection of private life typically applied. The Supreme Court had already found in 2002 that the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5202", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1968 and 1946 respectively and live in Helsinki. The applicant company is based in Helsinki. The first applicant is a journalist and the second applicant the editor-in-chief of the third applicant, a publishing company.\n6.  On 7 January 1997 they published in the nationwide magazine Hymy an article about A., the National Conciliator (valtakunnansovittelija, riksförlikningsmannen) at the time, and B., his female friend. The article, which was entitled “A.'s long-lasting relationship with his female friend and booze”, concerned an incident that had taken place at A.'s home on 4 December 1996. A. together with B. had entered late at night his home where his wife was present. The situation escalated, the police were called and the incident, which subsequently involved also A.'s grown-up children, led to A.'s arrest. The article also concerned A.'s drinking problem and B.'s background and identity: her name and age were mentioned in the article as well as the fact that she was the female friend who had been involved in the incident at A.'s home. Moreover, her workplace, the location of her home and her family relationships were mentioned in the article. The caption of the article stated that “Hymy reveals now the identity of A.'s long standing female friend and tells her background...”.\n7.  Due to the incident on 4 December 1996, criminal charges were brought against both A. and B. on 18 December 1996. On 16 January 1997 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) sentenced A. to a four-month conditional prison sentence for resisting arrest and for criminal damage (vahingonteko, skadegörelse), and B. to a fine for assault. On 17 January 1997 the Council of State (valtioneuvosto, statsrådet) dismissed A. from his post as National Conciliator. On 25 June 1998 the Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the judgment with respect to B. As regards A., the case was discontinued as he had died on 14 May 1998. On 15 December 1998 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused B. leave to appeal.\n8.  In the spring of 1997 A. and B. requested that criminal investigations be conducted against journalists who had written about the incident on 4 December 1996 and the circumstances surrounding it. On 24 March 1997 they made such a request with respect to the applicants, claiming that the article published in Hymy had invaded B.'s privacy as her workplace and name had been revealed. In regard to all but one of these requests no charges were brought. On 8 September 1998 the public prosecutor decided not to bring charges against the applicants as, according to him, there was no indication of any crime.\n9.  On 25 October 1998 B. complained to the Prosecutor-General (valtakunnansyyttäjä, högsta åklagaren) about the decisions not to prosecute and asked him to reconsider the cases. On 5 October 1999, after having considered the charges, the Deputy Prosecutor-General requested the public prosecutor to bring charges, inter alia, against the first and second applicants. He reasoned his decision by, inter alia, stating that some of the facts revealed in the article fell within the scope of private life and that no derogation could be made in this case as B. was not a public figure.\n10.  On 15 November 1999 the public prosecutor, by order of the Deputy Prosecutor-General, brought charges under Chapter 27, section 3 (a), paragraph 2, of the Penal Code against the first and second applicants. At the same tim", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5203", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Yakutsk.\n5.  She was an employee of the municipal company, Yakutskgorteploset (the Yakutsk Town Heating Supply Municipal Company, “the company”).\n6.  The company was founded by a decision of the Municipal Property Management Committee of Yakutsk Town Council of 30 June 1992. Sections 3 and 4 of the company’s statute stipulated that the company’s main objective was to provide uninterrupted heating supply to all the people of Yakutsk, with maintenance work and transportation services, as well as commercial activity. The town of Yakutsk retained ownership of the company’s property, while the company exercised the right of economic control in respect of it. Any change to the company’s statutory capital was a prerogative of the founder committee. The company could not sell or in any other way alienate or dispose of the property under its economic control without the consent of the founder. The founder received 10% of the company’s net income. In accordance with section 7 of the statute, the higher management body of the company was its founder. Only the founder committee could liquidate or reorganise the company, appoint a liquidation commission or approve a liquidation balance sheet in respect of the company.\n7.  The company was under an obligation to use its assets in accordance with the statutory objectives. Section 5 of the statute stipulated that the company could independently undertake a wide range of economic activities, make contracts and plan its commercial activity. It could also decide on the salary scales for the company’s employees and determine the amount of funds to be allocated for salaries.\n8.  In August 2000 the applicant was dismissed from the company.\n9.  On 7 December 2000 the Yakutsk Town Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic reinstated the applicant and ordered the company to pay her 16,632.32 Russian roubles (RUB) in arrears. The judgment was not appealed against and became enforceable on 17 December 2000. The applicant was immediately reinstated at the company.\n10.  According to the Government, the company paid the applicant RUB 16,632.32 between October 2000 [sic] and February 2001, thus voluntarily completing the enforcement of the award. They have not submitted any documents in this respect.\n11.  At some point the Municipal Property Management Committee of Yakutsk Town Council withdrew a major part of its assets from the company and transferred it to a newly-created municipal unitary enterprise called the Yakutsk Municipal Unitary Enterprise, MUP Teploenergiya «МУП Теплоэнергия») (“MUP Teploenergiya”). It appears that the newly-created enterprise had the same designated goal, that is, the supply of heating, assumed the same functions and was registered at the same address in Yakutsk as the company. The exact date of the transfer is unclear.\n12.  On 16 January 2001 the head of Yakutsk Town Council ordered the liquidation of the company, because it had become unprofitable, and appointed a liquidation commission.\n13.  According to a letter from the head of the Supreme Commercial Court of the Russian Federation of 11 October 2007, the applicant had not forwarded the writs of execution in respect of the judgment of 7 December 2000 to the company’s insolvency manager.\n14.  On 14 June 2001 the applicant was again dismissed. She brought a court action challenging the dismissal.\n15.  On 3 December 2001 the Yakutsk Town Court allowed the applicant’s action against the employ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5204", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the town of Kryvyy Rig, Ukraine.\n5.  On 12 August 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Saksaganskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig (“the District Court”) against a private company, his former employer, seeking the rectification of his work records, recovery of various payments, and claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  On 17 May 2004 the District Court ordered an expert examination and suspended proceedings. The next hearing was held on 6 April 2005.\n7.  On 7 June 2005 the District Court ruled in part for the applicant, ordering the company to pay him 17,237.47 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] and to rectify the applicant's work records.\n8.  According to the records provided by the Government, out of seventeen hearings scheduled between 12 August 2002 and 7 June 2005, six were adjourned because of the absence, or at the request, of the defendant or his representative, and one was adjourned because of the absence of both parties.\n9.  On 27 December 2005 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment in part and reduced the award to UAH 1,925[2]. On 10 February 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court.\n10.  Meanwhile, the judgment given in the applicant's favour was enforced on 18 January 2007.\n11  On 2 April 2008 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, sitting as a court of cassation, upheld the judgments of the lower courts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5205", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Zagreb.\n6.  The applicant was a vice-president of the Croatian Privatisation Fund (Hrvatski Fond za privatizaciju – “the CPF”), a State-run agency which is in charge of privatisation of all publicly owned property. On 16 June 2007 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of accepting bribes. The applicant was placed in Zagreb Prison, where he stayed until 18 March 2009, when he was released. The case was known in the national press as the “Maestro” affair.\n7.  Following a request filed on 19 June 2007 by the Anti-Corruption and Prevention of Organised Crime Office (Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminala – “the Anti-Corruption Office”), on 20 June 2007 an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court opened an investigation in respect of the applicant, several other employees of the CPF and some other persons. As regards the applicant, a reasonable suspicion was established that he had accepted bribes. Several times the investigation was extended to cover further criminal acts discovered subsequently.\n8.  Several defendants lodged an appeal against the decision ordering the investigation.\n9.  Between 12 and 21 June 2007 the police carried out searches of the offices the defendants used in the CPF, certain other premises, computer equipment and some of the vehicles the defendants used, and confiscated a large number of documents which were eventually submitted to the prosecuting and investigating authorities.\n10.  Between 21 and 26 June 2007 the State Attorney's Office carried out interviews with two persons.\n11.  On 2 July 2007 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the appeals against the decision ordering the investigation.\n12.  Between 4 and 13 July 2007, following warrants issued by the investigation judge assigned to the case, searches of computer software and cellular telephones of some of the defendants and other persons were carried out.\n13.  On 5 July 2007 the investigation judge ordered the Zagreb Bank and the Erste & Steiermärkische Bank to submit data concerning the defendants' accounts.\n14.  On 11 July 2007 the police informed the Anti-Corruption Office, which acted as prosecuting authority in the case, of the steps taken, such as informative interviews with two persons and confiscation of further voluminous documentation relevant to the case. During August and September 2007 the police collected further documentation connected to the defendant's alleged criminal activities. On 20 September 2007 the police interviewed another person.\n15.  On 3 October 2007 the investigation in respect of the applicant was extended to charges of abuse of his position.\n16.  On 29 November 2007 the police interviewed another witness.\n17.  On 30 November 2007 the investigation judge ordered an expert to make a transcript of 100 video recordings and 219 audio recordings and numerous telephone calls.\n18.  During the investigation, the investigation judge heard evidence from the defendants on 18 and 20 June 2007, 2, 3 and 22 October 2007, and 3, 12 and 14 December 2007. He also heard evidence from fifty-four witnesses on 17, 19, 23 and 24 July 2007, 17, 19 and 21 September 2007, 3 October 2007, 19, 21 and 26 November 2007, 3 and 4 December 2007, and 8, 9 and 11 January 2008.\n(b) Criminal trial\n19.  On 13 February 2008 the Anti-Corruption Office submitted an indictment against ten persons, including the applicant. The charges preferred against the applicant consisted ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5206", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine.\n5.  At the material time the applicant and four other shareholders had equal shares in the private company A. (“the company”). In 1993 the company bought certain premises from a private company in a building previously owned by the State.\n6.  In November 1993 the shareholders decided to liquidate the company and the liquidation procedure was initiated. On 27 March 1995 the liquidation procedure was completed and the company was removed from the relevant companies' register. As a result of the distribution of the company's property, the applicant acquired the title to the aforesaid premises (“the disputed property”). However, according to the applicant's submissions, he did not register his ownership of them.\n7.  On 14 February 2000 Mrs K. and her minor children, the heirs of one of the shareholders of the company, instituted proceedings in the Kyivsky District Court of Donetsk against the applicant, challenging his title to the disputed property. The other shareholders and the Donetsk Regional Department of the State Property Fund were involved in the proceedings as third parties. The applicant lodged a counterclaim, seeking recognition of his title to the disputed property.\n8.  On 20 September 2000 the court ordered the attachment of the disputed premises.\n9. In May 2004 the applicant lodged a claim against the State Property Fund before the Kyivsky District Court of Donetsk alleging that the latter had sold a part of the premises situated in the same building to a private company. The applicant challenged the sales contract alleging that these premises formed part of the disputed property. Initially the court considered the claim within the proceedings which were already pending. By a ruling of 14 June 2004 the court disjoined the claim into separate proceedings.\n10.  On 14 June 2004 the Kyivsky District Court of Donetsk found for Mrs K. It held, in particular, that the shareholders had failed to comply with the relevant legal procedure for the company's liquidation and the distribution of its property. In consequence, the court declared the related shareholders' decisions null and void, and redistributed the company's property. The court acknowledged Mrs K.'s title to the disputed property apart from the premises in question (see paragraph 9 above). The court awarded the applicant and the other shareholders 64,056[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) each, to be paid by Mrs K. By the same ruling the court lifted the premises' attachment.\n11.  On 16 August 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.\n12. On 21 September 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation. On 21 August 2007 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, dismissed the applicant's appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5207", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, who are father and daughter, were born in 1936 and 1975 respectively. They are the husband and the daughter of Bilkis Askhabayeva, who was born in 1942, and the father and sister of Sarali Seriyev, who was born in 1980. At the material time the applicants and their relatives lived in Belgatoy, Chechnya; the applicants currently live in Shali, Chechnya.\n6.  On 26 December 2002 a projectile struck the applicants' house, hit Bilkis Askhabayeva and severely wounded her. She died on the same day from the injuries.\n7.  On 27 December 2002 the district prosecutor's office instituted an investigation into the death of Bilkis Askhabayeva under Article 105 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated murder). The case file was given number 59281.\n8.  On 29 December 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case. On 30 December 2002 the investigative authorities ordered a forensic examination of Bilkis Askhabayeva's body.\n9.  At some point between January 2003 and November 2004 the investigation of the criminal case was transferred to the military prosecutor's office of military unit no. 20116 (the military prosecutor's office), where the case file was given number 34/35/0191-03.\n10.  On 25 November 2004 the military prosecutor's office terminated the proceedings in the criminal case. The decision stated that the investigation had established that on 26 December 2002 military unit no. 23132 had participated in a special operation against illegal armed groups. At about 8 p.m. an illuminating shell launched by a cannon 2C3 No. 221 from the position of the military unit, due to a technical malfunction, had hit the house at 41 Kirova Street in Belgatoy, Chechnya. The death of Bilkis Askhabayeva was a result of an accident and therefore no personal responsibility could be established for it. The decision further stated that the criminal investigation in case no. 34/35/0191-03 should be terminated for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the military servicemen.\n11.  On 7 December 2004 the military prosecutor's office informed the first applicant about the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings. The applicants did not appeal this decision.\n12.  On 13 June 2005 the military prosecutor's office took another decision to terminate the proceedings in the criminal case on the grounds of lack of corpus delicti and the amnesty act applied to the military officers. The applicants did not appeal this decision either.\n13.  On 29 March 2005 the first applicant brought proceedings against military unit no. 23132. He demanded compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage caused by his wife's death.\n14.  On 13 June 2005 the Shali town court partially granted the claim. The court granted the applicant 168,105 Russian roubles (RUB - about 5,000 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage and RUB 10,000 (about EUR 300) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.\n15.  On an unspecified date the first applicant lodged a request with the town court asking for an extension of the time-limits for appeal of the judgment. The applicant submitted that he had not complied with the time-limits for the appellate procedure because of illness.\n16.  On 25 August 2005 the Shali town court rejected his request. The court stated that the applicant had failed to provide any evidence, such as a medical certificate, to justify his failure to comply with the statutory time‑limits for the appeal.\n17.  On an unspecified date the first applicant ag", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5208", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is serving a prison sentence in correctional colony YuK-25/8 in the Orenburg Region.\n6.  On 24 June 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated concerted robbery and taken to the Leninskiy District police station of the Orsk town police department. He refused legal assistance, signed a record confirming his refusal and denied the accusations made. He was released on the same day.\n7.  On 22 July 2002 the applicant was again remanded in custody. He was charged with aggravated robbery and questioned after he had refused legal assistance. Police officers allegedly threatened and humiliated him with a view to extracting a confession from him. The applicant did not confess. Two days later he was released on a written undertaking not to leave the town.\n8.  On 23 July 2002 the local bar association appointed counsel M. to represent the applicant in the criminal proceedings. It appears that M. was appointed to represent the applicant as legal-aid counsel.\n9.  On 31 October 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk started examining the applicant's criminal case. On the same day the applicant lodged a written request with the trial court, by which he declined the services of M. and sought leave to represent himself. He explained that it was a voluntary decision and had not been caused by financial difficulties. M. submitted to the court that he agreed with the applicant's request. Having discussed the issue, the court allowed the applicant's request and granted him leave to represent himself.\n10.  By a judgment of 10 November 2002, the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment. It established that the applicant, together with his two co-defendants, had attacked, robbed and severely beaten up the victim. The applicant's role, previously agreed upon by the co-defendants, consisted, among other things, in threatening the victim with a knife. The court based its findings on partial confessions by the applicant's co-defendants, statements by victims and witnesses and material evidence. It was finally stated in the judgment that it could be appealed against to the Orenburg Regional Court within ten days of its pronouncement or, for the detained defendants, within the same period after receipt of its copy. It was also stated that if the remanded convicts were submitting an appeal statement, they had a “right to request to participate in the examination of the criminal case by the appellate court”.\n11.  On 21 November 2002 the applicant appealed against his conviction to the Orenburg Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). He did not dispute that he had taken the money from the victim but disagreed with the way the trial court had established the relevant facts, the distribution of roles between him and his co-defendants and the classification of his own acts. He submitted, in particular, that the trial court had disregarded his testimony and statements by witnesses which supported it, in particular, regarding the trial court's findings about the distribution of responsibility between him and his co-defendants and the classification of his acts as a premeditated robbery. In his appeal statement the applicant neither requested the Regional Court to secure his presence at the appeal hearing nor sought legal representation. According to the Government, the applicant's co-defendants who also appealed against the conviction expressly requested the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5209", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic. Their names and dates of birth are indicated in the appended table.\n6.  In 1990, since cars were not available in free trade, the applicants chose to obtain State special-purpose promissory notes which would entitle them to Russian-made cars. Mrs Valentina Plotnikova should have received a car in 1992 and the other applicants in 1993-1995. The applicants paid the car's full value but never received the cars.\n 7.  In 1998 Mrs V. Plotnikova and in 2002 Mrs Gladkova and I. Plotnikova received partial compensation of a car's monetary value in accordance with the State Programme for the redemption of the State internal debt (see paragraphs 20-22 below).\n8.  All applicants brought court actions against the authorities, seeking to recover the full monetary value of the State promissory notes for purchasing of Russian-made cars.\n9.  On the dates listed in the Appendix the domestic courts found, in respect of each applicant, with reference to the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995 as amended on 2 June 2000 (see paragraph 19 below) that the State could not be absolved from an obligation to compensate them the full value of the cars. In particular, in the case of Mrs Sizintseva the Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya) held as follows:\n“In accordance with the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1 June 1995 the State commodity bonds, including the special-purpose settlement orders, were to be recognised as the State internal debt. [...]\nThe State has not complied with its obligation to provide [the applicant] with a car as specified in a special-purpose settlement order.\nArticle 55 of the Constitution [...] stipulates that in the Russian Federation no laws shall be adopted cancelling or derogating human rights and freedoms.\nTherefore, the Federal law of 2 June 2000 amending the [State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995] cannot be regarded as well-founded and lawful insofar as it provides for the payment of the compensation in the amount equalling to a part of the car's value specified in the special-purpose settlement order.\nThese [amendments] do not comply with the constitutional principles [cited above]”\nThe court accordingly refused to take account of the amendments of 2 June 2000 and chose to apply the price scale for the cars to be purchased under the settlement orders as in force on the date of delivery of the judgment. Similarly, in the case of Mr Titov the Mirninskiy Town Court held on 16 October 2001 that the amendments introduced by the Federal Law of 2 June 2000 “constituted an interference with the citizen's rights to receive a car” and “contradicted to Article 55 of the Constitution”. When determining the claim by Mrs Gladkova, the first instance court reached a similar conclusion and ruled that the amendments in question were adopted “in violation of [...] the Constitution, the Civil Code and the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995”. In the case of Irina Plotnikova the Neryungri Town Court hold that the ex parte change of the conditions of redemption by the Government was to the detriment of the applicant's interests and therefore was unlawful.\n10.  The domestic courts accordingly awarded the applicants compensation in the amounts specified below payable by the State authorities, these sums representing the full monetary value of the cars on the date of the delivery of the judgments. In cases of Mrs Gladkova, Valentina Plotnikova and Irina Plotnikova the domestic courts deducted fro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5210", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Belgorod.\n6.  The applicant is a businessman and a former controlling shareholder of a private company OAO “Restoran Belgorod”. According to the applicant, in 1997 a number of third persons produced a fake sales contract in respect of his shares in the company, as well as a fake register of the shareholders. They then tried to gain control over the company. Thereafter the matter was brought before the domestic courts.\n7.  On 27 April 1998 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Belgorod, presided by judge B., dismissed the applicant's action to have the sale annulled and the register of shareholders declared fake and illegal. The court refused to order a forensic examination of the evidence, including a copy of the register of shareholders and the registrar's book of records, which the applicant had claimed were fake, and having admitted and considered them, rejected the applicant's action as groundless.\n8.  On 10 September 1998 that judgment was upheld on appeal by the Belgorod Regional Court.\n9.  On 18 September 1998, at the applicant's request, a police investigator initiated criminal proceedings for fraud against a number of third persons. On 28 October 1998 the investigator ordered an expert examination of the documents which the applicant had claimed were fake in the proceedings presided over by judge B.\n10.  On 4 and 12 November 1998 the respective examinations were completed. They confirmed that the copy of the register of shareholders and the registrar's book of records had been tampered with and that some of the entries had been fraudulently deleted or altered.\n11.  It appears that on 22 November 2001 the criminal investigation was discontinued.\n12.  Thereafter the case was repeatedly suspended and resumed.\n13.  The latest decision to resume the proceedings was taken on 5 September 2002. The outcome of the investigation is unclear.\n14.  On 23 March 2000 the applicant wrote a letter to the Prosecutor of the Belgorod Region with a copy to the Prosecutor General of Russia, alleging that in the course of the proceedings in his case in 1998 judge B., “acting in the exercise of her duties, had committed a crime by delivering a deliberately unjust decision knowingly based on incorrect and sometimes even openly forged documentary evidence”. The letter set out the applicant's views on the circumstances of his case, referred to the outcome of forensic examinations carried out by the investigator in the criminal case and requested the responsible officials to bring criminal proceedings against judge B.\n15.  Identical letters were sent to the President of the Belgorod Regional Court and the head of the Judiciary Qualification Board on 12 May 2000.\n16.  In response to the letter of 23 March 2000, on an unspecified date the President of the Belgorod Regional Court and judge B. requested the Regional Prosecutor's office to bring criminal proceedings against the applicant for libel.\n17.  By decision of 6 April 2000 an investigator instituted proceedings against the applicant for libel.\n18.  On 27 September 2000 the applicant was questioned as a witness and stated that judge B. had received bribes.\n19.  On 18 May 2001 those proceedings were discontinued because of an amnesty law.\n20.  On an unspecified date judge B. sued the applicant for defamation, claiming 75,000 roubles (RUB - approximately 3,000 euros (EUR)) in damages and seeking an order for the retraction of the impugned statements.\n21.  By jud", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5211", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the city of Odessa.\n5.  On 5 October 1995 the Leninsky District Department of the Ministry of Interior in Odessa (“the Department”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, being a director of a private company, G., on account of tax evasion. The applicant gave a written undertaking not to abscond. On 30 October 1998 the department terminated the criminal proceedings. The applicant alleged that despite the above ruling the criminal proceedings against him were still pending.\n6.  On 16 April 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Department, the Leninsky District Tax Inspectorate of Odessa (“the Inspectorate”) and the Leninsky District Prosecutor's Service of Odessa in the Suvorovsky District Court of Odessa (“the Suvorovsky Court”) seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the criminal proceedings.\n7.  On 22 June 2000 the Suvorovsky Court allowed the applicant's claim in part and awarded him 80,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, to be paid by the Inspectorate. The judgment became final. It remained unenforced.\n8.  On 21 June 2001 the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure entered into force. They provided a right to lodge a cassation appeal within a three-month period with the Supreme Court of Ukraine against court decisions adopted before 21 June 2001 and which had entered into force before that date. The applicant and the Inspectorate appealed in cassation against the judgment of 22 June 2000.\n9.  In the period prior to 3 January 2003 courts at three levels considered the admissibility of the applicant's and the Inspectorate's appeals in cassation. On 16 July 2002 the first-instance court left the applicant's appeal in cassation unexamined.\n10.  On 3 January 2003 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court of Ukraine transferred the Inspectorate's appeal in cassation to a chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine for consideration.\n11.  On 18 February 2004 the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal in cassation by the Inspectorate, quashed the judgment of 22 June 2000 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the first-instance court.\n12.  On 16 May 2005 the Suvorovsky Court appointed the State Treasury co-defendant in the case.\n13.  On 14 April 2009 the Suvorovsky Court partly allowed the applicant's claim. The court awarded the applicant UAH 120,000 (about 11,413 euros) to be paid by the State Treasury.\n14.  On 25 November 2009 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 14 April 2009.\n15.  On 26 November 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court; the proceedings before the latter are still pending.\n16.  In May 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings against the company, Reklama, seeking salary arrears.\n17.  On 8 April 1999 the Leninsky Court partly allowed the applicant's claim.\n18.  On 25 May 1999 the Odessa Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n19.  On 7 June 2000 the Leninsky Court allowed the applicant's claim.\n20.  On 18 April 2001 the Presidium of the Regional Court, following an objection (protest) by its President, quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n21.  On 20 September 2002 the Malinovsky District Court of Odessa left the applicant's claim unexamined because he had failed to appear before the court.\n22.  On 5 February 2003 the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5212", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1956, 1956 and 1983, respectively, and live in Lipetsk.\n5.  The applicants are a married couple and their son.\n6.  The applicants lived in a flat that in 1992 became unsuitable for living owing to break-down of the sewage system. In July 1993 the first and second applicants, also acting on behalf of their then underage son, brought court proceedings seeking housing from the Lipetsk Town Council (“Town Council”). By judgment of 21 October 1999 the Sovetskiy District Court of Lipetsk (“District Court”) acknowledged that the applicants' flat was unsuitable for living and ordered the Town Council to provide them with a “comfortable housing suitable for four persons in compliance with the applicable legislation”.\n7.  On 17 January 2000 the Lipetsk Regional Court, acting on appeal, amended the judgment. It specified, in particular, that “the flat should be in a brick building situated within the town centre”. The appeal court also awarded each applicant 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in non-pecuniary damage.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicants submitted a writ of execution to the Sovetskiy District Bailiffs' Service of Lipetsk. On 28 February 2000 an authorised bailiff opened enforcement proceedings.\n9.  Further to the applicants' complaint, on 9 April 2001 the District Court declared unlawful the bailiff's failure to enforce the judgment.\n10.  On 25 September and 2 October 2001 the bailiff and officials of the Town Council inspected two municipal flats and considered them eligible to be offered to the applicants. The latter however refused both flats.\n11.  By letter of 28 August 2003 the bailiff informed the applicants that the Town Council had allocated funds for purchasing a flat for them.\n12.  In November 2003 the Council offered to the applicants to buy a flat or, in the alternative, to pay compensation.\n13.  In March 2004 the Council made two new offers. On 24 June 2004 the applicants accepted resettlement into one of those flats. On 27 August 2004 they obtained an occupancy voucher and the enforcement proceedings were terminated.\n14.  On 6 September 2004 the applicants received keys to the flat. On the same day the flat was inspected by the housing committee and the applicants signed the inspection record.\n15.  Thereafter, the applicants complained to various authorities that the judgment of 21 October 1999 had not been properly enforced because repair works were still required. Those were carried out in August 2005.\n16.  On an unspecified date the applicants brought a court action against the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice for the loss of profit and compensation for non-pecuniary damage incurred through the belated enforcement of the judgment of 21 October 1999. By a judgment of 23 August 2005 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow dismissed their action. It found, in particular, that the flats offered to the applicants in September and October 2001 had met the requirements of the housing legislation. Therefore, their refusal to accept those offers had been ungrounded and the delays in the enforcement occurred afterwards could not be imputed to the bailiffs' service. On 18 July 2006 the Moscow City Court upheld the said judgment on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5213", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Lutsk, Ukraine.\n5.  By judgment of 14 December 1998 the Lutsk City Court partitioned a property inheritance between the applicant's mother and her relatives.\n6.  On 26 August 1999 the applicant's mother gifted the applicant part of an apartment in Lutsk awarded to her by the above-mentioned judgment.\n7.  In September 1999 the applicant's mother instituted proceedings in the Lutsk City Court against Z.V., M.V. and three other persons (her relatives), seeking their eviction from her apartment.\n8.  On 18 December 1999 the applicant's mother died. On 12 January 2000 the applicant was admitted to the proceedings as her next of kin.\n9.  In February 2000 Z.V. and M.V. lodged a counterclaim, seeking to have the contract of 26 August 1999 declared void; subsequently they sought invalidation of the applicant's mother's will which was in favour of the applicant. They also sought to have property rights over the relevant parts of the disputed apartment acknowledged as theirs.\n10.  On 29 January 2003 the court found for the applicant and ordered the defendants to vacate the apartment. It dismissed the counterclaim by Z.V. and M.V.\n11.  The defendants appealed but due to the shortcomings of their appeal the proceedings were protracted for four months.\n12.  On 13 August 2003 the Volyn Regional Court of Appeal, having found, inter alia, that the lower court had failed to examine crucial pieces of evidence, set aside that judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n13.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant appealed in cassation against the latter decision; on 12 October 2006 the Supreme Court of Ukraine dismissed her appeal.\n14.  Of almost thirty hearings held between September 1999 and 12 October 2006 seven were adjourned due to the defendants' failure to appear before the court. Within this period three forensic examinations were held staying the proceedings in total for one year and four months.\n15.  In November 2006 the Lutsk City Court took over the case.\n16.  From 15 March to 23 July 2007 the proceedings were stayed as the additional forensic examination had been ordered.\n17.  On 20 December 2007 the Lutsk City Court declared the contract of 26 August 1999 and the applicant's mother's will void. It dismissed the applicant's request to have the defendants evicted.\n18.  Of the eleven hearings held by the first instance court one was adjourned due to the applicant's and two due to the defendants' failure to appear before the court.\n19.  On 2 April and 7 October 2008 the Volyn Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine dismissed the applicant's appeals and upheld the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5214", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Sevastopol.\n5.  She worked at the State-owned company “Sevastopolskyy Morskyy Zavod” (“the SMZ”). Following her retirement from the SMZ on 30 September 1996 the applicant worked for the SMZ's subsidiary company “Sovmorsudokorpus” (“the SMSK”) until July 1997.\n6.  She instituted several sets of court proceedings against her former employers, seeking initially recovery of salary arrears and subsequently compensation for late payment of salary pursuant to Article 117 of the Labour Code. Under that provision, retired employees were entitled to claim compensation if their salary or related payments due to them were not paid on the day of termination of employment, i.e. such compensation concerned delays in payment after termination of employment.\n7.  In July 1997 the applicant lodged a claim with the Nakhimovskyy District Court of Sevastopol (“the Nakhimovskyy Court”) against the SMZ. She sought recovery of salary arrears.\n8.  On 8 July 1997 the court awarded her 492.17[2] Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) in salary arrears. The period of the applicant's work concerning which she was awarded the above sum in salary arrears was not specified.\n9.  On 26 November 1997 the applicant instituted a new set of proceedings in the same court against the SMZ, seeking compensation for the latter's failure to pay her salary arrears in due time.\n10.  On 5 August 1998 the court, referring to paragraph 1 of Article 117 of the Labour Code, awarded her UAH 1,574.40[3] in compensation for non-payment of salary arrears for the period of 1 October 1996 – 5 August 1998, during which her salary arrears had remained unpaid. The court noted that the respondent company failed to appear before it without informing about the reasons for its absence. It further observed that in his written statement submitted to the court on 13 March 1998 the company's representative accepted the applicant's claim as regards the amount of compensation for the period of 1 October 1996 – 13 March 1998.\n11.  The judgments of 8 July 1997 (salary arrears) and 5 August 1998 (compensation for late payment) were not appealed against and became final. The enforcement proceedings in respect of these judgments were instituted on 15 October 1997 and 5 October 1998 respectively. On 18 March 1999 the applicant received the full amounts of the awards.\n12.  On 1 October 2001 the SMZ lodged a request with the Supreme Court for leave to appeal against the judgment of 5 August 1998 under the new cassation procedure. In its appeal the SMZ alleged that it had not been responsible for the delay in payment of salary arrears to the applicant, that its representative before the first instance court had not been given the right to accept the applicant's claim, that the SMZ had not been duly informed about the date and time of the hearing before that court, and that the latter's judgment did not contain calculations of the awarded amount. On 23 April 2003 the Supreme Court granted such leave and invited the applicant to participate in the hearing on the SMZ's appeal scheduled for 29 May 2003. On the latter date the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 5 August 1998 on the ground that the Nakhimovskyy Court had examined the case in the absence of the SMZ and remitted it for fresh consideration.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 15 March 1999 the applicant lodged a new claim with the Nakhimovskyy Court, seeking compensation for the period of 6 August 1998 – 15 March 199", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5215", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the city of Odessa, Ukraine.\n5.  On 22 May 1992 the applicant was dismissed.\n6.  On 20 August 1992 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Suvorovsky District Court of Odessa (“the District Court”) against her former employer, seeking recovery of salary arrears and other payments owed to her, and compensation for failure to observe the correct procedure for her dismissal.\n7.  On 28 October 1992 the proceedings in the case were suspended pending the outcome of another set of proceedings concerning the applicant's reinstatement.\n8.  The next hearing was scheduled for 10 June 2002.\n9.  On 27 June 2002 the District Court found against the applicant.\n10.  On 30 July 2002 the same court declared her appeal inadmissible owing to its procedural shortcomings.\n11.  On 7 November 2002 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed that ruling and declared the appeal admissible.\n12.  On 2 June 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 27 June 2002 and referred the case back for fresh consideration. On the same date the court adopted a separate ruling, drawing the attention of the President of the District Court to the length of the proceedings in question.\n13.  On 6 July 2004 the District Court again found against the applicant.\n14.  On 7 December 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and rendered a new one, finding in part for the applicant. It awarded the applicant 29,483,71 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH, about 4,082 euros) in salary arrears and other payments and UAH 2,000 (about 277 euros) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On the same date the court adopted another separate ruling, drawing the attention of the President of the District Court to the length of the proceedings in question.\n15.  The applicant appealed in cassation against the judgment of 7 December 2004. On 13 July 2007 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a cassation court, upheld that judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5216", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947. She lives in the village of Martan‑Chu, in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya.\n6.  At the material time the applicant's son Aslan Sadulayev lived in a village in the Naurskiy district of Chechnya while the applicant and his other relatives lived in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya.\n7.  On 9 December 2002 Aslan Sadulayev went to Urus-Martan to celebrate a holiday with his relatives. There he met an acquaintance, Mr M.M., who gave him a lift in his purple VAZ-2109 car to the nearby village of Alkhazurovo. In the early afternoon of 9 December 2002, on their way back from the village to Urus-Martan, Mr M.M. also agreed to give a lift to his acquaintance Ms T. S. and a young man.\n8.  The car with Mr M.M., Aslan Sadulayev, Ms. T.S. and the young man was stopped by Russian military servicemen at the intersection of the roads to Komsomolskoye village, Alkhazurovo and Urus-Martan. That day a mobile checkpoint of Russian military forces on two APCs (armoured personnel carriers) was conducting identity checks at the intersection. The servicemen let Ms T. S. go; she managed to get a lift in another car and left.\n9.  At that time a bus going from Urus-Martan to Alkhazurovo was also stopped at the intersection. The bus had many passengers, including Ms Khamila D., Ms Kaypa A. and Ms Tamara S. The servicemen checked the identity documents of two young men who were on the bus.\n10.  Meanwhile, the bus passengers saw from the windows that the servicemen at the intersection were checking the documents of the three men in the purple VAZ car. Ms Tamara S. and Ms Khamila D. recognised one of them as their acquaintance Aslan Sadulayev. They saw that the servicemen were not letting the three men go and that the APCs moved and surrounded the VAZ car. Ms Khamila D. tried to get out of the bus and ask the officers why they were detaining Aslan Sadulayev, but the servicemen ordered her to stay on board.\n11.  The three women and other bus passengers saw the VAZ car surrounded by the APCs drove away in the direction of Urus-Martan.\n12.  In support of her statements, the applicant submitted: an account of events by her; an account by Ms Kh. E.; an account by Ms Kaypa A.; an account by Ms Khamila D. and an account by Ms Tamara S., all dated 1 August 2006.\nb. Subsequent events\n13.  On 14 December 2002 a resident of Martan-Chu, known to the applicant under the name of Mr Rizvan (also spelled as Rezvan), visited the applicant. He told her that Mr M. M. had asked him to inform her that her son Aslan Sadulayev had been abducted by Russian military servicemen. Mr Rizvan agreed to take the applicant the next day to his meeting with Mr M.M. in Urus-Martan.\n14.  In the morning of 15 December 2002 the applicant with Mr Rizvan arrived at Urus-Martan. At about midday they met Mr M.M., who informed the applicant about his car journey with Aslan Sadulayev on 9 December 2002. He told her that their car had been stopped at the intersection by Russian military servicemen. The officers had told the men in the car that they would take them to the Urus-Martan district military commander's office (the district military commander's office) for questioning and would release them afterwards. At the entrance to the district military commander's office Mr M.M. had met an acquaintance of his who worked there and who arranged his immediate release. Mr M.M. also told the applicant that the military officers had not returned his purple VAZ car and that he ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5217", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the town of Kolomna in the Moscow Region.\n6.  By judgment of 16 September 1999 the Elektrostal District Court of the Moscow Region examined the criminal case against the applicant and three other co-accused. The court convicted the applicant of aggravated blackmail and kidnapping and sentenced him to sixteen years' imprisonment. That sentence was upheld on appeal by the Moscow Regional Court on 25 January 2000.\n7.  Thereafter the applicant sought to initiate supervisory review of his case.\n8.  The applicant's supervisory review request to the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court was partly successful. On 18 January 2001 the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court, sitting as a supervisory review body, re-examined his case and partly changed the judgment of 16 September 1999.\n9.  On 26 February 2002 the applicant requested one of the Deputy Presidents of the Supreme Court to initiate supervisory review proceedings in his case before the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts wrongly assessed the evidence in the case and failed to apply the domestic law correctly.\n10.  Apparently in response to that request, on 11 June 2002 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court decided to initiate supervisory review proceedings in respect of the decisions of the lower courts in the applicant's case. The main reason for that decision was that while the lower courts had made a correct assessment of the facts of the case, they had erred in the legal characterisation of the offence committed by the applicant.\n11.  According to the Government, on 5 November 2002 notifications that the supervisory review hearing would take place on 19 November 2002 were sent to the applicant and the lawyer who had represented him at the trial. They were also invited to respond to the arguments of the Deputy President of the Supreme Court.\n12.  According to the applicant, he received a notification in the form of a telegram about the hearing of 19 November on 6 November 2002. From the documents submitted by the applicant it follows that he received a copy of the request of 11 June 2002 only on 27 November 2002, that is already after the supervisory review hearing in his case.\n13.  The applicant explained that once the main set of criminal proceedings was over, the lawyer in question had ceased to represent him. He submitted a copy of the lawyer's letter dated 29 January 2006, in which the lawyer had confirmed the absence of any agreement to act on the applicant's behalf in the supervisory review proceedings of 19 November 2002. The lawyer also confirmed the receipt of the notification of 5 November 2002, along with a copy of the request of 11 June 2002, but stated that he had been unable to react to these documents for lack of authority.\n14.  The parties agreed that the applicant asked to attend the supervisory review hearing in person.\n15.  The applicant submitted a copy of that request. The request was made on 10 November 2002 but was not received by the Supreme Court until 26 November 2002.\n16.  On 19 November 2002 the Supreme Court, in the presence of the prosecutor and one of the other co-defendants' lawyers, examined the arguments of the Deputy President's supervisory review appeal and amended the sentence by changing the charges of aggravated kidnapping to aggravated deprivation of liberty. The applicant's sentence was thus reduced from sixteen to thirteen years of imprisonment accordingly.\n17.  By letter of 4 Dec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5218", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978. She lived in the village of Solnechnoye in the Khasavyurt district of Dagestan, Russian Federation. Currently she lives abroad after seeking asylum. The applicant is the mother of Summaya (also spelled Sumaya) Abdurashidova, born in 1998.\n6.  At about 5.30 a.m. on 14 March 2005 approximately fifty men in two APCs (armoured personnel carriers) and a white VAZ 2121 Niva car with the registration plate 008 26 arrived at the applicant's house in Solnechnoye.\n7.  The men were armed and equipped with portable radio sets. They neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. The applicant thought that they were State servicemen. It appears that the servicemen arrived to apprehend the applicant's husband and two men who were staying in the house that night. The men broke into the applicant's house and opened gunfire. The applicant's husband shouted to the servicemen: “Do not shoot! There are children in the house.” In spite of the warning the servicemen continued shooting. They took the applicant's husband outside; the applicant's three children remained in their rooms and the applicant was in the corridor.\n8.  During the shooting the applicant's two sons Bilal (born in 1997) and Ilyas (born in 2002) ran out from their bedrooms into the corridor. At some point Bilal ran out of his sister's bedroom, screaming that Summaya had been wounded and was bleeding. It appears that Summaya Abdurashidova had been hit by a fragment of a rifle grenade.\n9.  The applicant tried to go into her daughter's room, but the servicemen pushed her outside the house into the yard. When the applicant asked them to let her go inside, the servicemen forbade her under gun point. She was made to lie down on the ground with her hands behind her head.\n10.  When the shooting was over, their neighbour Mr I.I. went into the house and carried out the body of Summaya Abdurashidova.\n11.  As a result of the shooting the two men who were staying in the applicant's house were killed, and the applicant's husband was taken to the Department of the Interior of the Khasavyurt district (“the Khasavyurt ROVD”).\n12.  After the shooting the applicant saw that her house, as well as her family possessions in it, had been damaged by the gunfire. In addition, the family's identity documents, including passports and birth certificates, had been taken away by the servicemen.\n13.  The applicant submitted that after the shooting, the servicemen had taken away two plastic bags with the applicant's family documents and valuables, including the applicant's golden bracelet and two rings.\n14.  The applicant's description of the events of 14 March 2005 is based on several undated accounts provided by her to her representatives and on the letters which the applicant sent to the authorities. The applicant also submitted articles published in the newspaper “Druzhba” (Дружба) on 8 April 2005 and on 15 April 2005 and an article published in the newspaper “Niyso-Dagestan” (Нийсо-Дагестан) on 14 April 2005.\n15.  The Government submitted, with reference to the documents from the criminal investigation file (see below), that the two men who had been at the applicant's house on the night of 14 March 2005 had been suspected of the armed robbery of a woman and of an attack on a serviceman of the traffic police, Mr M.M., who had later died. The crimes had been committed by three persons on 31 December 2004, and on 1 January 2005 the Khasavyurt district prosecutor's office (th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5219", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Zhytomyr no. 8 Prison (“the prison”).\nA  Use of force by prison wardens on 9 June 2004 and subsequent investigation\n6.  In the morning of 9 June 2004 the wardens conducted a routine cell inspection and body searches of life prisoners. Following such an inspection in the applicant's cell an incident took place, the parties' accounts of which differ.\n7.  According to the applicant, he requested warden P. to clean up the mess left behind after the search, after which the latter handcuffed him, took him out into the corridor and repeatedly threw him against the walls until the applicant pushed him away in self-defence. At that point another warden, T., joined in the applicant's beating. Both wardens continued kicking and punching him even after he had been knocked on to the floor. Later the applicant was conveyed to the operational unit, where he was beaten again by wardens whose identities and number he was not able to establish. The applicant was left on the floor for several minutes, examined superficially by two medical assistants who found his condition to be satisfactory, and then taken back to his cell. Although he had a fever and was suffering from pain in the chest which severely constrained his movements, the applicant felt discouraged from seeking any medical assistance by what he perceived to be indifference and mockery on the part of the prison's medical staff.\n8.  As submitted by the Government with reference to the information provided by the prison administration, the applicant resisted being body-searched by warden P., using obscene language and attempting to hit the latter with his head. Although warned that force might be used against him if he resisted further, the applicant tried to kick officer P., who, in his turn, knocked him down using a martial art technique (sambo). The applicant was then convoyed to the prison's operational unit where he was held until he had calmed down.\n9.  On the same date warden P. completed a “Form regarding application to a prisoner (detainee) of handcuffs, straitjacket or other special measures”, in which he reported to the prison governor that he had used a sambo technique against the applicant caused by the latter's “physical resistance”. Two other wardens certified the form as accurate. The prison surgeon, in his turn, issued a report on the applicant's examination “following the usage of a sambo technique”, in which he noted that the applicant's condition was satisfactory with no pathology of the internal organs discovered, while the applicant himself had not raised any complaints.\n10.  According to the Government's submissions based on the domestic investigation materials, on 9 June 2004 the applicant was X-rayed with no bone fractures discovered. The applicant denied having been X-rayed before November 2004 (see paragraph 20 below).\n11.  On 15 June 2004 the prison governor disciplined the applicant for the incident of 9 June 2004 by way of a written reprimand.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the prison's medical unit of pain in the left part of his chest which worsened with a deep inhalation or sharp movement.\n13.  On 16 July 2004 the head of the prison's medical unit, a therapist, a surgeon and a radiographer examined the applicant and diagnosed him with “osteochondrosis”.\n14.  On 25 August 2004 the applicant's mother complained to the prosecution authorities that p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5220", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1950 and 1949 respectively. They live in Urus-Martan, Chechnya. The applicants are sisters-in-law; they are married to two brothers. The first applicant is the mother of Aslan Tasatayev, who was born in 1975, and the second applicant is the mother of Aslanbek Tasatayev, who was born in 1979. Aslan Tasatayev and Aslanbek Tasatayev are cousins.\n6.  At the material time the applicants, their sons Aslan and Aslanbek Tasatayev and other relatives lived in a household situated at 5 Shvernika Street, Urus-Martan, Chechnya. At some point later the number of the house was changed to 7 Shvernika Street. The applicants' household consisted of several dwellings occupied by eight related families and was located in the town centre, in the vicinity of the local law enforcement agencies. At the time the town of Urus-Martan was under curfew. Military checkpoints were situated on the roads leading to and from the town. In addition, two watch posts set up by local residents were situated in the vicinity of the applicants' household. One of the posts was a hundred metres from the applicants' household; the other one was sixty or seventy metres from it.\n7.  On the night of 31 May to 1 June 2001 (in the submitted documents the date is also referred to as 31 May and 1 June 2001) the applicants, their sons and other relatives were at home. At about 3 a.m. a group of twenty‑five to thirty armed men arrived at their household. They were wearing black masks, were equipped with a portable radio station and had a grey sniffer dog. Some of the men were armed with sniper rifles with telescopic sights. When the men spoke to each other, they did so in unaccented Russian; they mainly communicated by gesturing and behaved like an organised group with a chain of command. The intruders neither identified themselves nor produced any documents. The applicants and their relatives thought they were Russian military servicemen.\n8.  The servicemen split into several groups and went into the different dwellings through the windows. They searched the houses and demanded and checked identity documents.\n9.  In the first applicant's house one of the men demanded in unaccented Russian that the first applicant hand over her husband's passport for checking; after that he took the document and went outside, ordering everyone to stay inside and threatening to shoot if anyone disobeyed.\n10.  The first applicant managed to go onto the porch. In the yard she saw around twenty-five to thirty servicemen who were accompanied by a sniffer dog. At the gates the applicant saw Aslanbek Tasatayev standing with his hands up against the wall. Meanwhile the officers took Aslan Tasatayev out of the house where he lived with his family. The servicemen refused to answer the applicants' questions about the reasons for their sons' abduction and referred to an order of their superiors. One of them, who was unmasked and of Slavic appearance, told the second applicant that her son was being arrested “by order” and that Aslan and Aslanbek Tasatayev would be home by the next morning.\n11.  In the yard one of the officers called someone on his portable radio and requested a car. About ten minutes later a grey UAZ minivan ('tabletka') arrived at the gate. Its back windows were covered with plywood instead of glass. Aslan and Aslanbek Tasatayev were placed in the vehicle and taken in the direction of the town centre. The rest of the servicemen followed the car on foot; the group went", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5221", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently serving his sentence in Makeyevka.\n5.  On 16 September 1997 the applicant confessed to the murder of Mrs R. On 17 September 1997 he was arrested. On the same day he was questioned. The applicant was remanded in custody.\n6.  On 18 September 1997 he was charged with the murder.\n7.  On 10 December 1997 the pre-trial investigation was terminated and the case was assigned to the Novoazovsky Court for consideration.\n8.  On 22 July 1998 the Novoazovsky Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment.\n9.  On 25 August 1998 that judgment was quashed by the Donetsk Regional Court[1], which remitted the case for additional pre-trial examination.\n10.  On 21 November 1998 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was sent to the court.\n11.  On 31 December 1999 the Novoazovsky Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment.\n12.  On 13 June 2000 that judgment was quashed by the Donetsk Regional Court. The case was remitted for additional pre-trial investigation.\n13.  On 18 August 2000 the pre-trial investigation was completed.\n14.  On 15 May 2001 the Novoazovsky Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment.\n15.  On 20 November 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the court of appeal”) quashed the judgment and ordered additional pre-trial investigation. By the same ruling the court of appeal lifted the preventive measure of detention pending trial. The applicant gave an undertaking not to abscond and was released.\n16.  On 4 July 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of 20 November 2001 and remitted the case to the court of appeal for fresh consideration.\n17.  On 19 November 2002 the court of appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment of 15 May 2001. The applicant was then arrested.\n18.  On 20 November 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of 19 November 2002 and the judgment of 15 May 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5222", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1950 and 1948 respectively. They live in Raduzhnoye, in the Grozny district, Chechnya. The applicants are the father and aunt of Aslan Mudayev, who was born in 1985, and Mokhmad Mudayev, who was born in 1982. The first applicant had a third son, Mr Akhmad Mudayev, who was killed in July 2003.\n6.  On 29 January 2003 Russian military servicemen conducted a special operation in the village of Raduzhnoye in the Grozny district of Chechnya. More than twenty persons were apprehended as a result of the operation, including Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev and another of the applicants' relatives, Mr Islam A. At the material time the village was under the full control of the federal forces.\n7.  At about 8 a.m. on 29 January 2003 the first applicant and his sons Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev and other relatives, including Mr Israil M. and Mr Islam A., were in their family home situated in Raduzhnoye. The first applicant heard noise coming from the street and looked out of the window. He saw a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks running into his yard. The men entered the house and ordered everyone to lie face down on the floor. They neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents.\n8.  The intruders ordered the first applicant to hand over his family members' passports and the family photographs. Upon receiving the documents and the photographs, the men took Aslan Mudayev, Mokhmad Mudayev and the first applicant's nephew Mr Islam A. outside.\n9.  The first applicant attempted to follow his relatives, but the armed men in the yard threatened to kill him. Meanwhile, the applicant's sons and nephew were put in a grey UAZ car (“таблетка”).\n10.  Sometime later the first applicant managed to go outside and saw a convoy of ten to twelve vehicles, including a grey UAZ car, two or three khaki coloured UAZ-469 cars and an APC (armoured personnel carrier) driving away in the direction of Grozny.\n11.  On the following day of 30 January 2003 all persons detained during the special operation, except for Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev, were released.\nb. The subsequent events\n12.  Immediately after the apprehension of Aslan and Mokhmad Mudayev the applicants and their relatives started searching for them.\n13. The applicants' relative, Mr Israil M., who was at the first applicant's house during the abduction, immediately followed the convoy of military vehicles in his VAZ car with two female relatives. On the way to Grozny the abductors' vehicles split into two groups. One of them, comprised of the APC and several UAZ cars, drove in the direction of the nearby village of Znamenskoye in the Nadterechniy district, while the other proceeded in the direction of Grozny.\n14.  When the group arrived at Znamenskoye, the vehicles drove to the building of the Nadterechniy district department of the Federal Security Service (“the Nadterechniy district department of the FSB”) and the Nadterechniy district department of the interior (“the Nadterechniy ROVD”). Some of the vehicles drove onto the agencies' premises.\n15.  Mr Israil M. and relatives of other men apprehended during the operation in Raduzhnoye decided to wait at the entrance to the FSB building. Several hours later Mr Israil M. managed to talk to the head of the Nadterechniy district department of the FSB Mr Mayrbek Kh. (also known as Mairbek Kh.; in the documents submitted he was also referred to as Mr M. Kh.) The latter told him that he would not release his relatives until ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5224", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Arua Abayeva, born in 1949,\n2) Ms Raminat Zhansayeva, born in 1983,\n3) Mr Siddyk Abayev, born in 2000 and\n4) Ms Malika Shaipova, born in 1947.\nThe applicants are two distantly related families of Russian nationals who live in the town of Urus-Martan, Chechnya. The first applicant is the mother of Magomed-Ali Abayev, who was born in 1970. The second applicant is his wife and the third applicant is his son. The fourth applicant is the mother of Anvar Shaipov, who was born in 1976.\n6.  At the material time the town of Urus-Martan was under curfew. The first applicant lived there with Magomed-Ali Abayev and other relatives at 12 Lenin Street. Their house was in the town centre and less than a hundred metres from the nearest checkpoint of the Russian military forces. The checkpoint and its staff occupied two buildings; one was the building of the former Siluet clothing factory and the other was a nearby smaller building in Lenin Street.\n7.  At about 4 p.m. on 13 September 2000 Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov left the first applicant's house. They were walking to the town centre when two Russian servicemen at the checkpoint stopped them. The servicemen took their passports and one of the soldiers went with them into the factory building. A few minutes later he came out, took Magomed‑Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov into the building and returned to the checkpoint without them.\n8.  The applicants' neighbours Mr R.G. and Mr M.A. witnessed Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov being taken into the factory building and did not see them come out. Several minutes later Mr R.G. asked the servicemen at the checkpoint why Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov were still in the building; he did not receive any response. Meanwhile Mr M.A. went to the first applicant's house and informed her and the second applicant about the arrest of Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov at the checkpoint.\n9.  The first and the second applicants immediately went to the checkpoint and asked the soldiers why Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov had been arrested. They were told that the two men had been taken into the building for an identity check and that they would be released shortly. The applicants decided to wait for the men at the entrance to the building. While they were waiting, a grey military UAZ vehicle with open windows drove up to the factory building. The soldiers opened the factory gates and let the car into the yard. Shortly after its arrival the car left with its windows closed.\n10.  After the car drove away the second applicant asked one of the soldiers about Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov. The soldier spoke with someone on his portable radio set and told her that the two men had been released from the other side of the factory building.\n11.  At that time the father of Magomed-Ali Abayev, Mr V.A., arrived at the checkpoint and went to the other side of the building to meet his son and Anvar Shaipov. About five minutes later he returned and told the first and the second applicants that Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov had not left the building. He further informed them that he had met an acquaintance who had been waiting for someone on the other side of the building for two hours and that this man had not seen Magomed-Ali Abayev and Anvar Shaipov leaving the factory building.\n12.  Then the second applicant went to the fourth applicant's house and told her Anvar Shaipov had been arrested. The second and the fourth ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5225", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Simferopol.\n6.  On 6 September 2005 the Court found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 in the applicant's case having established the lack of an effective remedy against the decision of 1 December 1998 by the first-instance court ordering the applicant's administrative arrest and detention (see Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, §§ 59-62, 6 September 2005).\n7.  After the above judgment of the Court became final, the applicant was paid the awarded amount of non-pecuniary damage.\n8.  On 4 January, 20 February and 2 October 2006, the applicant sent requests for review of the decision of 1 December 1998 to the President of the Supreme Court but to no avail.\n9.  On 8 May 2003 the applicant and two other individuals instituted proceedings in the Kievsky District Court against the Krymenergo Power Supply Company for cutting off the electricity supply to the apartment in which the plaintiffs had an office.\n10.  On 27 April 2005 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered the defendant to restore the electricity supply. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. According to the applicant it was enforced on 14 October 2005.\n11.  On 3 March 2004 the applicant failed to appear before the Simferopolsky District Court in the civil proceedings in which he was participating as a representative of the plaintiff. The same day, in the applicant's absence, the court registry drew up a report on the administrative offence of contempt of the court on account of the applicant's failure to appear for the hearing which demonstrated his disrespect to the court.\n12.  On 19 April 2004 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court found the applicant guilty of contempt of court under Article 185-3 of the Code on Administrative Offences and fined him 136 hryvnias (UAH, around 20 euros (EUR) at the material time). The applicant was not present at the hearing. In the court's decision it was mentioned that the applicant had been duly informed of the court's hearing. According to the applicant, he was not summoned to the above hearing.\n13.  On 8 August 2004 the applicant requested the President of the Crimea Court of Appeal to review the decision of 19 April 2004.\n14.  By a letter of 30 August 2004, the Acting President of the Crimea Court of Appeal informed the applicant that there were no grounds for review of his case, since the decision of 19 April 2004 had been well-founded and there had been no procedural violations.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5226", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1940, 1969 and 1943 respectively. They live in the Chechen Republic (Chechnya).\n6.  The first applicant is the father of Usman Umalatov, born in 1969. The second applicant is his wife. The third applicant is the father of Shamad Durdiyev, born in 1976.\n7.  The applicants stated that on 15 October 2002 at 7.00 a.m. a joint operation of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the Ministry of the Interior and the military took place in the village of Nagornoye situated in the Grozny district of Chechnya.\n8.  Usman Umalatov was apprehended in his home in Nagornoye in the presence of his next-of-kin, including the second applicant, and brought to the FSB office for the Nadterechny district in the village of Znamenskoye.\n9.  Shamad Durdiyev lived in Beno-Yurt and worked as a driver for the Grozny Town Prosecutor's Office. On 15 October 2002 at about 6 a.m. he left his home village and went towards Grozny in his service car, a black “Volga”. On the same day he was apprehended during the security operation and brought to the FSB office in Znamenskoye.\n10.  Two or three days later nine men apprehended on that day in Nagornoye were released, but Usman Umalatov and Shamad Durdiyev were not among them.\n11.  The applicants have had no news of Usman Umalatov and Shamad Durdiyev since 15 October 2002.\n12.  In support of their allegations, the applicants submitted the statements of the first and second applicants, as well as an affidavit signed by eight men who had been detained on 15 October 2002 together with Usman Umalatov.\n13.  In their observations the Government confirmed that both men had been detained on 15 October 2002 in Nagornoye in the course of a special security operation. Later on the same day they were transferred to the FSB office in Znamenskoye and then released after their identities had been ascertained.\n14.  Since 15 October 2002 the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies. In their letters to the authorities the applicants and their family members referred to their relatives' detention and asked for assistance and details of the investigation. These enquiries have mostly remained unanswered, or purely formal replies have been given in which the applicants' requests have been forwarded to various prosecutors' offices. The applicants submitted some of the letters to the authorities and the replies to the Court, which are summarised below.\n15.  The first applicant submitted that several days after his son's disappearance the head of the FSB office for the Nadterechny district had told him in a personal conversation that Usman Umalatov and Shamad Durdiyev had been released on the day of their detention. However, they have not been found since.\n16.  On 24 October 2002 an investigator of the prosecutor's office of the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya opened criminal proceedings (case file no. 65049) in response to the first applicant's complaint about his son's abduction. The investigator noted that the applicant's son had been taken into custody by unknown masked persons and taken away to an unknown destination. It appears that at some later point the investigation was transferred to the Nadterechny district prosecutor's office (“the district prosecutor's office”).\n17.  On 25 October 2002 the first applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings.\n18.  On 29 January 2003 the investigator of the district prosecutor's office adjourned the criminal proceedings ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5227", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the city of Kharkiv.\n5.  On 2 October 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kyivsky District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) against his former employer seeking various payments owed to him upon his retirement, including compensation for belated salary payments.\n6.  On 10 October 2000 the case was transferred to another court for consideration but on 14 August 2001 it was sent back to the District Court.\n7.  On 16 October 2002 the District Court found in part for the applicant. Both parties appealed against that judgment.\n8.  In the period from February 2003 to March 2004 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, having taken over the case, remitted it back to the District Court on several occasions in view of the procedural flaws.\n9.  On 30 March 2004, the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal amended the judgment of 16 October 2002, increasing the amount awarded to the applicant. On the same date the court adopted a separate ruling, drawing the attention of the President of the District Court to the numerous shortcomings in the way the judge of the first instance court had examined the case. According to the Court of Appeal, these shortcomings had caused delays in the proceedings.\n10.  In April 2004 the applicant and the defendant lodged their cassation appeals before the Supreme Court. On 24 May 2006 it upheld the decisions taken by the lower courts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5228", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in the town of Dneprodzerzhinsk, Ukraine.\n5.  As of August 1996, the applicant, then a minor, was registered as a resident in a State-owned apartment (“the first apartment”) along with S.B., her mother, A.Z., her maternal grandmother, and R.Z., her maternal uncle. According to the law in place at the material time, all residents had the right to privatise the apartment with equal shares.\n6.  However, at the material time the applicant's uncle was serving a sentence in a penitentiary, the applicant's mother was missing, and the applicant lived with G.G., subsequently appointed her legal guardian, at a different address. On 9 August 1996, A.Z. privatised the apartment and became its sole owner. The officers of the housing authority, who had issued her with the necessary documents, were subsequently indicted for fraud and negligence and later amnestied.\n7.  On 16 August 1996 A.Z. sold the apartment to Y.K. On 15 November 1996 Y.K. exchanged it for an apartment owned by T.M. (“the second apartment”). On 27 January 1997 he sold the second apartment to O.V., who then gave it as a gift to N.K. In 1998 T.M. died and her two minor sons, who remained the owners of the first apartment, were taken into public care and accommodated in boarding schools.\n8.  The first apartment has remained empty since its first sale.\n9.  On 15 December 1998 the Zavodsky District Prosecutor of Dniprodzerzhinsk, having determined that the applicant had insufficient means to pay for representation of her lawful interests before the court, instituted civil proceedings on her behalf in the Zavodsky District Court of Dniprodzerzhinsk (“the Zavodsky Court”) seeking annulment of the privatisation and of the sale of the first apartment to Y.K.\n10.  The applicant's legal guardian, G.G. was summoned and participated in the proceedings as the applicant's statutory representative. On an unspecified date the applicant was summoned to the proceedings as a third party.\n11.  Between December 1998 and February 2000 there were no further procedural actions.\n12.  On 7 February 2000 the Prosecutor amended his claims, requesting annulment of all the transactions with regard to the first and the second apartments, restitution of the applicant's right to reside in the first apartment, as well as the return of the title to the second apartment to T. M.'s children.\n13.  The first hearing was scheduled for 12 October 2000.\n14.  Between October 2000 and June 2002 the court scheduled some nineteen hearings, some thirteen of which were adjourned on account of the absences of one or more of the defendants or their representatives. On three other occasions the Prosecutor failed to appear, and on one occasion the hearing was adjourned on account of the judge's sickness.\n15.  On 14 June 2002 the Zavodsky Court dismissed the Prosecutor's claims, having found that Y.K. had purchased the first apartment in good faith, while the requests for annulment of the subsequent transactions were unsubstantiated in this context. The Prosecutor appealed.\n16.  On 22 July 2002 the Zavodsky Court found that the Prosecutor had failed to provide full details of the parties in his appeal and gave him a fixed time-limit to rectify these shortcomings.\n17.  On 16 October 2002 the Zavodsky Court returned the Prosecutor's appeal as “not lodged” as he had not rectified the shortcomings as instructed.\n18.  On 6 March 2003 the Prosecutor appealed against the decision of 16 October 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5230", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.\n6.  The applicant was the Vice-President, founder and majority shareholder of the Bank Slavyansky (hereinafter – the Bank). On 2 February 2000 the State Tax Police instituted criminal proceedings into tax evasion by the management of the Bank.\n7.  On 10 March 2000 the State Tax Administration instituted another set of criminal proceedings for abuse of office by the management of the Bank.\n8.  On 13 March 2000 the applicant was arrested and detained first in the temporary detention centre (the ITU) and then in the pre-trial detention centre (the SIZO) (see below the part on the applicant's pre-trial detention).\n9.  On 14 March 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for abuse of office with particularly aggravated consequences.\n10.  On the same day the State Tax Administration issued a press release, the relevant extract of which reads as follows:\n“...During the investigation into a criminal case concerning financial fraud related to the transfer of significant funds abroad, it was established that the founders and chairpersons of the Bank Slavyansky had abused their power and had increased the interest rates on their and their relatives' deposit accounts....\n... The activities of the above persons were aimed at artificially decreasing the Bank's income, which would make it possible to pay less taxes to the State Budget.... All these funds were redistributed by the bankers among a narrow circle of chairpersons who were, in fact, the real owners of the Bank...”\n11.  In April 2000 the Ukrainian News Agency “UNIAN” provided information about the session of the Coordinating Committee on Combating Corruption and Organised Crime. The relevant extract reads:\n“It is a matter of honour for the General Prosecutor's Office and the State Tax Administration to bring the story of the Bank Slavyansky to a logical conclusion” – said the President of Ukraine during his speech at the session... He stated that the chairpersons of the Bank had turned it into a source of uncontrolled personal income. “Such money-makers have powerful patrons, and there is great pressure on the investigation”, - mentioned the President.”\n12.  These statements were reproduced by several Ukrainian newspapers – Pravda Ukrainy, no. 61, 25 April 2000; Kyivskie Vedomosti, no. 90, 22 April 2000; Galitski Kontrakty, no. 36, September 2001.\n13.  On 18 April, 2 and 16 June 2000 the Tax Police instituted three more sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant and subsequently joined all these criminal cases against the applicant together.\n14.  On 21 August 2000 the applicant was formally charged with tax evasion, abuse of power, embezzlement and bribery.\n15.  On 1 February 2001 the investigation in the case was completed.\n16.  In April 2001 the Radio Svoboda web-site made available recordings of conversations which had allegedly taken place between the President of Ukraine, Mr Kuchma, and the Head of the State Tax Administration, Mr M. A. There recordings were provided by Mr Melnychenko, who claimed to have made them using a digital recorder placed under the sofa in the office of the President of Ukraine[1]. According to these records, the criminal proceedings against the applicant and the activities of his lawyers were being closely monitored and an arrangement had been made to secure the applicant's conviction by changing the territorial jurisdiction of the case to courts in which the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5231", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Gatchina, Leningrad Region.\n5.  On 10 July 2002 the Leningrad Regional Court convicted the applicant of abduction, robbery, aggravated robbery and extortion, and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment.\n6.  The conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal on 19 December 2002.\n7.  By a decision of 27 October 2006 the Volgograd Town Court of the Volgograd Region released the applicant on parole.\n8.  The applicant was apprehended on 12 April 2001 and was placed in a temporary confinement ward of the police department of Gatchina (изолятор временного содержания отдела внутренних дел г. Гатчины). On 16 April 2001 he was transferred to remand centre IZ-47/1 of Saint Petersburg (следственный изолятор ИЗ-47/1 г. Санкт-Петербурга) where he was detained until 11 March 2003.\n9.  The parties' descriptions of the conditions of his detention differ on a number of counts.\n10.  The applicant submitted that his cell in the temporary confinement ward of the police department of Gatchina (“the temporary confinement ward”) had measured 20 m2, had been equipped with twenty-four sleeping places and had been shared by thirty-six people at the time. Inmates had received no bedding. The only window had been blocked with an iron blind that had allowed almost no ventilation.\n11.  As regards his detention in the remand centre, he had been held in six cells that had measured 8 m2 and had had six sleeping places. One of them, used for transfer purposes, had been shared by twenty-five people. The others had accommodated from eight to thirteen people. Inmates had received no individual bedding.\n12.  Ventilation had hardly been existent. The cells had been stuffy and damp. Iron blinds attached to cell windows had become extremely hot in the summer. During the winter time, inefficient heating had resulted in icing up of the exterior wall. The average inside temperature in the summer had risen up to +50o C and had fallen to -10o C in the winter.\n13.  The lighting had been insufficient and had been turned on round the clock.\n14.  A forty-minute walk in a small yard had been allowed only occasionally.\n15.  He had never witnessed any disinfection measures.\n16.  Hygiene conditions had been inadequate. A lavatory pan in the cells had not been partitioned from the living room and had allowed no privacy. It had not worked properly for a lack of pressure. Hot water had not been provided in the cells. Detainees had been allowed to shower in a common room for fifteen minutes once in ten-twelve days.\n17.  The nutrition and medical assistance had been poor.\n18.  The Government submitted no information as regards the conditions of the applicant's detention in the temporary confinement ward.\n19.  As to his detention in the remand centre, during the relevant period of time the applicant had been held in six cells. The size of the cells had been 8 m2. The exact number of inmates could not be established owing to a destruction of the facility's relevant records.\n20.  All cells had been equipped with six sleeping places and a dining table. A sink and a lavatory pan installed in the cells had been separated from the living area by a partition.\n21.  Each cell had had a window measured 1 x 1,1 m2 and had been equipped with ventilating shafts.\n22.  The cells had been lit with artificial lighting. The natural light coming through the windows had been sufficient to allow reading.\n23.  The applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5232", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is currently being held in the Kırklareli Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre (Kırklareli Yabancılar Misafirhanesi) (the “Kırklareli Accommodation Centre”).\n7.  The applicant left Iran on 30 December 2002 and joined the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (“PMOI”) in the Al-Ashraf camp in Iraq on 11 January 2003. Following the disarmament of the PMOI on 3 June 2004, he started living at the Temporary Interview Protection Facility (“the TIPF”), also in Iraq. On 5 May 2006 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) in Iraq recognised the applicant as a refugee.\n8.  With the assistance of a people-smuggler, the applicant left Iraq at the end of June. In his application form the applicant stated that he was arrested on 4 July 2008, whereas in his two subsequent statements given to the Turkish authorities he stated that he was arrested in Turkey on 7 July 2008. Among the documents submitted by the Government is a list of individuals arrested on 7 July 2008 and the applicant's name is included therein.\n9.  The applicant was initially taken to a police station following his arrest. It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that at this station the applicant's fingerprints were taken on 5 July 2008 and, during his questioning on 7 July 2008, he was informed that he had been arrested for illegal entry into the country. The statement form dated 7 July 2008 bears the applicant's signature as well as that of a translator.\n10.  On 7 July 2008 the applicant was transferred to the Tunca Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre (Tunca Yabancılar Misafirhanesi, the “Tunca Accommodation Centre”) in Edirne where, on 22 July 2008, he was questioned about his entry into Turkey, his political background and the reasons for his flight from his country of origin.\n11.   The authorities initially transferred the applicant to a larger building at the Tunca Accommodation Centre on 7 December 2008, then to the Kırklareli Accommodation Centre on 1 June 2009.\n12.  The applicant, an Iranian national, was born in 1951 and is currently being held at the Kırklareli Accommodation Centre.\n13.  The applicant was living in Iran with his wife and five children when he became involved with the PMOI. In 1990 they fled to Turkey, where he was recognised as a refugee by the UNHCR. At the time the applicant's wife was pregnant with their sixth child. The applicant and his family resettled in Finland in 1992. The following year the applicant left Finland to join the PMOI in Iraq. In 2004 he defected from the PMOI and initially stayed at the TIPF and then at the Al-Ashraf camp until 2008.\n14.  Some time in early 2008 the applicant re-established contact with his family in Finland and left the Al-Ashraf camp on 4 March 2008. With the assistance of a people-smuggler he entered Turkey illegally in either May or June 2008 and went to İstanbul. He lodged a request with the Finnish authorities in Turkey for a visa to enter Finland. While waiting for the outcome the applicant decided to flee to Greece.\n15.  The applicant stated before the Court that he was arrested by the Turkish authorities on the night of 4 August 2008 and taken to a gendarmerie station in Didim, Aydın, where he asked for asylum and temporary leave to remain in Turkey. He was then transferred the same night to an abandoned warehouse operated by the Didim Gendarmerie Headquarters and kept there for ten days, before being transferr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5233", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1972, 1982, 1985, 1978 and 1983 respectively and currently live in Sweden.\n9.  The applicants fled Iran and entered Turkey illegally on various dates in 2005 and 2006.\n10.  On various dates between 19 April 2005 and 3 October 2006, the applicants appeared at the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) in Turkey, which recognised their refugee status and issued them with refugee certificates on 24 August 2007.\n11.  On unspecified dates the applicants lodged asylum applications with the Turkish authorities and sought residence permits. They were questioned twice by police officers from the Aliens Department on various dates in November 2006 for an assessment of their asylum request. During the questioning the applicants stated that they had been members of different illegal organisations and had been involved in anti-regime activities in Iran. They had either been detained on numerous occasions or sentenced to imprisonment and/or punishment by lashing. They all maintained that they would face a personal risk of ill-treatment or death if they were to be returned to Iran.\n12.  The applicants were permitted to live in Van pending the asylum proceedings and were allowed to leave the city boundaries subject to specific permission. In this connection one of the applicants (Mostaba Naderani Vatanpur) was issued with a permit allowing him to travel to Ankara between 22 and 31 August 2007 for various resettlement interviews.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicants' asylum request was rejected by the authorities on the ground that they had not complied with the relevant criteria. In respect of the fourth applicant, the interview forms indicated that the authorities did not find the applicant's replies credible and considered that he had left his country for higher economic standards.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicants were apprehended and held at the Van Security Directorate for an undetermined period before they were notified of the deportation orders on 22 August 2007 at 12.30 p.m. The deportation orders bear the signatures of the applicants and a translator. The applicants were deported to Iraq on the same day.\n15.   Upon their arrival in Iraq the applicants claimed to have been held in detention for about a month. They then had lived in Northern Iraq for some five months before they were resettled in Sweden on 10 February 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5234", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Niš, Serbia.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 23 May 1993 the applicant married N.C. and on 1 February 1994 their son O.C. was born.\n9.  The applicant and N.C., at some point thereafter, started having marital problems.\n10.  In August 1999 the applicant moved out, but O.C. apparently remained with N.C.\n11.  In 2000 the applicant filed a claim with the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Niš, seeking the dissolution of the marriage, the custody of O.C. and a contribution to his maintenance.\n12.  On 7 October 2002 the Municipal Court: (i) dissolved the marriage; (ii) granted custody of O.C. to N.C.; (iii) ordered the applicant to pay monthly child maintenance; and (iv) ruled that the applicant could spend every first and third weekend of each month with O.C., as well as a part of his winter and summer holidays, respectively. This judgment became final on 18 November 2002.\n13.  Having been refused access to O.C., on 5 February 2003 the applicant filed an enforcement request with the Municipal Court.\n14.  On 10 February 2003 the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order.\n15.  On 30 July 2003 the Municipal Court fined N.C. in the amount of 5,000 Serbian dinars (RSD) for failing to comply therewith.\n16.  On 21 May 2003 the Social Care Centre (Centar za socijalni rad) in Niš modified the applicant's rights, granting her access to O.C. every other Saturday between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. At the same time, however, it placed N.C. under formal supervision (nadzor nad vršenjem roditeljskog prava) for refusing to comply with the applicant's access rights.\n17.  On 28 August 2003 this decision was confirmed on appeal.\n18.  On 17 November 2003 the Municipal Court repealed its decisions of 10 February 2003 and 30 July 2003.\n19.  On 5 April 2004 the Social Care Centre informed the Municipal Court of its decision adopted on 21 May 2003 and observed that, despite her keen interest, the applicant had only been able to see her child briefly at the centre's own premises.\n20.  On 16 April 2004 the Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the judgment rendered on 7 October 2002, as amended by the decision of the Social Care Centre of 21 May 2003. In so doing, it held that, should N.C. fail to respect the applicant's access rights, he would be fined in the amount of RSD 5,000 and, further, that forcible enforcement might itself ultimately be called for.\n21.  On 28 October 2004 the Municipal Court confirmed its decision of 16 April 2004.\n22.  Following N.C.'s two brief appearances before the Municipal Court on 23 September 2005 and 5 October 2006, on an unspecified date the court informed the applicant that her case file could not be found.\n23.  On 13 March 2008 the applicant therefore requested the reconstruction of the case file and on 5 June 2008 the Municipal Court accepted this request.\n24.  On 2 October 2008, however, the Municipal Court repealed its own decision, noting that the case file had been found in the meantime. Simultaneously, the court ordered the enforcement of the fine imposed previously and stated that a new fine in the amount of RSD 10,000 would be imposed should N.C. fail to comply with the order of 16 April 2004 within an additional period of three days. Lastly, the court stated that should repeated fines fail to secure the needed compliance, the applicant's access rights would have to be executed forcibly.\n25.  On 2 December 2008 the S", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5235", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and is currently held in the Kırklareli Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre in Turkey.\n6.  In 2003 the applicant left his home country and, via Libya, arrived in Syria, where he received religious training. Six months after his arrival in Syria, the applicant was detained for two months under the Syrian Government's policy of detaining and deporting nationals of North African countries. After his release from detention in Syria, the applicant left that country in March 2005 and arrived in Istanbul. He then went to Hatay, a province in the south of Turkey, where he began working. His identity documents were stolen and subsequently the applicant obtained a false passport.\n7.  On 15 August 2006 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Hatay police headquarters on suspicion of membership of an international terrorist organisation, namely Al-Qaeda. The search carried out in the apartment he had shared with another person revealed some materials used for manufacturing bombs. During his questioning by the police, in the presence of an interpreter, the applicant stated that he was not a member of Al-Qaeda but of Ennahda, an illegal organisation in Tunisia.\n8.  On 17 August 2006 the applicant made statements before the Adana public prosecutor and subsequently the Adana Magistrate's Court, which remanded the applicant in custody.\n9.  On 18 August 2006 the applicant lodged an objection against the detention order, which was dismissed on the same day.\n10.  On 14 September 2006 the Adana public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Adana Assize Court charging the applicant with membership of Al-Qaeda under Article 314 of the Criminal Code and section 5 of Law no. 3713. In the indictment the public prosecutor noted, inter alia, that an arrest warrant had been issued in respect of the applicant in Tunisia for membership of Ennahda and that the applicant had left his country for that reason in 2003.\n11.  On 25 September 2006 the Adana Assize Court allowed the bill of indictment lodged against the applicant and decided to hold the first hearing on the merits of the case on 9 November 2006.\n12.  On 9 November 2006 the applicant made statements before the Assize Court. He contended, inter alia, that he did not have any connection with Al-Qaeda and that the material found in his apartment did not belong to him but to his flatmate.\n13.  On 25 January 2007 the applicant's representative requested the first-instance court to order the applicant's continued detention. He submitted in this respect that the applicant had applied to both the Turkish authorities and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to be granted refugee status and that, if he were released, he might be deported to Tunisia. The applicant himself also requested that he be kept in detention until the outcome of his application for refugee status. On the same day, the Assize Court ordered the applicant's continued detention, taking into consideration the nature of the offence and the applicant's request.\n14.  On 12 April 2007 the Adana Assize Court ordered the applicant's release pending trial.\n15.  On 19 February 2008 the Adana Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the charge of membership of Al-Qaeda.\n16.  Appeal proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Cassation.\n17.  On 19 January 2007 the applicant applied to the Ministry of the Interior requesting asylum.\n18. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5236", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and is currently being held in the Kırklareli Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre.\n6.  In 1985 the applicant joined the People's Mojahedin Organisation in Iran (“the PMOI”, also known as the “Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization”).\n7.  In 1986 he arrived in Iraq. He lived in Al-Ashraf camp, where PMOI members were accommodated in Iraq, until he left the organisation in 2003, because he disagreed with the PMOI's goals and methods. After leaving the PMOI, he went to the Temporary Interview and Protection Facility (“TIPF”), a camp created by the United States forces in Iraq. This facility was subsequently named the Ashraf Refugee Camp (“ARC”).\n8.  On 5 May 2006, after being interviewed, the applicant was recognised as a refugee by the UNHCR Headquarters in Geneva during his stay in Iraq.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant arrived in Turkey with a false passport.\n10.  On 1 June 2008 the applicant was arrested by the Turkish security forces while attempting to leave for the island of Kos, in Greece, from the port of Bodrum, with a false passport.\n11.  In his statements to the Turkish police, the applicant stated that he had fled from the regime in Iran and arrived in Iraq, where he was recognised as a refugee by the UNHCR. He did not mention that he was a former member of the PMOI. He then described the circumstances in which he had arrived in Turkey and had attempted to leave for Greece. The applicant noted that he had contacted the UNHCR branch office in Ankara and that he had been told that he had to wait. He did not feel able to wait and attempted to leave Turkey illegally.\n12.  On 2 June 2008 the UNHCR branch office sent a letter to the Ministry of the Interior informing the latter that the applicant had been recognised as a refugee under their mandate.\n13.  On an unspecified date the UNHCR branch office asked the national authorities to grant the applicant access to the asylum procedure in Turkey. This request was rejected in view of the fact that the applicant's presence in Turkey constituted a threat to national security given his membership of the PMOI.\n14.  Following his detention in police custody, a detention order was made in respect of the applicant and he was transferred to Muğla prison as charges were brought against him for illegal entry into Turkey and falsifying identity documents.\n15.  On 1 August 2008 the applicant was transferred to the city of Van in eastern Turkey, apparently with a view to deporting him to Iran.\n16.  On invocation of the interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the applicant was transferred to the Kırklareli Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5237", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Bytom.\n7.  On 27 April 1996 the applicant married M.N. In November 1996 M.N. gave birth to their daughter, D.Z.\n8.  In 2000, following a conflict between the spouses, the applicant moved out of their place of residence.\n9.  On 15 May 2000 the applicant requested the Bytom District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) to regulate contact with his child.\n10.  On 6 July 2000 the Bytom District Court allowed the application and regulated contact with the applicant's daughter. In particular, the court granted him the right to visit his daughter on given days of each week and to spend summer holidays with her in August without the presence of the child's mother.\n11.  On 4 September 2000 the applicant requested the Bytom District Court to seize his daughter's passport. He reasoned his request by a reasonable fear that M.N., who had many contacts in Scandinavian countries, could try to take their daughter to Norway. It is unclear from the case file whether the request was granted.\n12.  On 29 September 2000, following an appeal by M.N., the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the decision of the District Court of 6 July 2000.\n13.  The court's order was not enforced and therefore, on 8 January 2001, the applicant requested the court to impose a fine on his former wife.\n14.  In October 2000 the applicant's former wife and their daughter moved from Bytom to Zakopane, so the case file had to be transmitted to the court with jurisdiction there. The relevant decision was taken on 3 July 2001. However, the transfer did not take place until November 2001.\n15.  On an unspecified date M.N. filed for divorce. The issue of the applicant's visiting rights was therefore examined by the divorce court.\n16.  On 30 March 2001 the Katowice Regional Court gave a decision regulating the applicant's contact with his daughter. In particular, the court granted him the right to visit his daughter every Friday between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. at a location other than the flat in which she lived with her mother. The applicant was also allowed to collect his daughter from kindergarten. The contact was to take place in the presence of a court officer (kurator sądowy).\n17.  The decision of 30 March 2001 was not complied with by the applicant's former wife, who prevented the applicant from exercising his visiting rights.\n18.  Between 20 April 2001 and 8 March 2002 the applicant saw his daughter on 27 occasions. A further sixteen meetings were cancelled for various reasons: eight for the daughter's failure to appear, one at M.N.'s request, three for the applicant's failure to appear and four for the guardian's failure to appear.\n19.  On 5 March 2002, relying on Article 1050 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant requested the court to impose a fine on M.N.\n20.  The applicant's request was not examined by the court.\n21.  In the summer holiday period of 2002 the applicant's former wife moved from Zakopane to Bytom, so the Zakopane District Court transmitted the case file concerning the application for a fine to be imposed on M.N. to Bytom.\n22.  On 20 May 2003 the Bytom District Court gave a decision and gave M.N. one month to comply with the court order. At the same time the court conditionally imposed on her a fine of 1,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in the event of default.\n23.  M.N. continued to prevent the applicant from exercising his visiting rights.\n24.  On 5 July 2003 the applicant again requested the court to impose a fine on his forme", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5238", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Gdynia.\n6.  On 17 March 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking.\n7.  On the same date the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. The court indicated that the evidence which had been gathered in the case, in particular the testimonies of other suspects, showed that there was a sufficient probability that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. It attached importance to the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or, by other means, would obstruct the proceedings. The latter risk was considered of the utmost importance in the light of the fact that the case involved a large number of alleged accomplices.\n8. An appeal by the applicant against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all of his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeals, he argued that his lengthy detention had violated the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the imposition of this measure.\n9.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was extended on several occasions, namely, on 8 June 2006 (to 2 September 2006), 24 August 2006 (to 2 December 2006) and 16 November 2006 (to 15 December 2006). In their decisions, which also concerned several other suspects, the courts stressed the fact that some of the accused – not the applicant however – had been acting in an organised criminal group. Furthermore, they referred to the fact that, owing to the complexity of the case, the investigation had still not been completed. Lastly, the courts underlined the unique nature of the proceedings involving drug-trafficking, which often took more time because offences and suspects emerged gradually.\n10.  On 5 December 2006 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The applicant was charged with drug trafficking. The bill of indictment comprised numerous charges of drug trafficking brought against twenty-one defendants. Although several defendants were charged with acting as part of an organised criminal group, the applicant himself was not charged with being a member of such a group.\n11.  On 29 March 2007 the trial court held the first hearing. Between 29 March 2007 and 26 June 2008 the trial court scheduled nineteen hearings, seven of which were adjourned or cancelled for various reasons, such as: the failure of the police to take some of the accused from the detention centres to the court, the summer break, the resignation of one of the defence lawyers and the illness of one of the co-accused.\n12.  During the court proceedings, Gdańsk Regional Court further extended the applicant's pre-trial detention on several occasions, namely, on 12 December 2006 (to 31 May 2007), an unspecified subsequent date, 25 October 2007 (to 31 January 2008) and 29 January 2008 (to 15 March 2008). The applicant appealed against the last two decisions.\n13.  On 29 November 2007 and on 12 February 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), in its decisions dismissing the applicant's appeals, underlined the complexity of the case, the severity of the penalty to which t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5239", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  Late in the night of 2 July 1998, a Ms P. was assaulted at the entrance of her house. Two of her neighbours apprehended the applicant on suspicion that he had committed the crime and handed him over to the police. The applicant was taken to the Moscow Pechatniki District Police Department (ОВД «Печатники») for questioning. It appears that at a certain point the applicant's glasses were partially broken and the police took them away from the applicant, who was short-sighted (according to the applicant, he needed glasses of 3.5 dioptres).\n8.  At the police station the applicant signed a written statement in which he confessed that he had tried to rob Ms P. using a gas handgun, and that there had been a short fight between him and one of her neighbours. The neighbours confirmed that testimony in written statements taken by the police officers.\n9.  On 3 July 1998 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of armed robbery of Ms P. and illegal possession of firearms. On an unspecified date the applicant was also charged with three counts of fraud, which were not related to the episode with Ms P.\n10.  On 4 July 1998 the applicant was taken by the policemen to see a doctor. It appears that the applicant did not complain to the doctor about any injury.\n11.  On 6 July 1998 the applicant was questioned again in connection with the robbery, now in the presence of his lawyer. This time the applicant retracted his initial statement of confession.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred from the police department to a pre-trial detention centre (isolation unit IZ-48/1) in Moscow. The applicant alleged that he had asked the administration of the unit to provide him with new glasses, but his request had been refused. According to the applicant, he also asked the investigator in charge of his case to arrange for him to have his eyesight examined by an oculist.\n13.  On 14 July 1998 the applicant filed an application for release with the Preobrazhenskiy District Court, in which he gave his version of the events of 2 July 1998. He contended that Ms P. had stolen money from him, and that he had tried to retrieve his money or have her arrested. He claimed that he was not guilty of robbery and that his arrest had been unlawful. Among many other arguments, he indicated that he was short-sighted, that his glasses had been taken from him by the police, and that his eyesight was deteriorating.\n14.  According to the applicant, on 1 September 1998 he had complained to the investigator about the deterioration of his eyesight. On 9 September 1998 the investigator ordered the applicant's examination at the Moscow Helmholtz Eye Disease Institute.\n15.  On 14 September 1998 the applicant's wife filed a complaint with the district prosecutor, claiming that the applicant had been beaten up by the police shortly after his arrest. She also requested the prosecution to return the glasses to her husband.\n16.  The prosecutor opened a preliminary inquiry (прокурорская проверка) into those allegations. On 16 October 1998 the prosecutor informed the applicant's wife that he had decided not to pursue the case.\n17.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained about the deterioration of his eyesight to the investigator, who ordered the applicant's examination by an oculist.\n18.  On 25 November 1998 the applicant underwent a medical examination at an eye hospital. The d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5241", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Adana. The second applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Hatay. The first applicant is the wife of Mr Murat Bektaş and the second applicant is the sister of Mr Erdinç Arslan. Mr Bektaş and Mr Arslan were killed by police officers on 5 October 1999.\n6.  On 5 October 1999 at around 9.30 p.m. six police officers from the anti‑terrorist and special forces of Adana police headquarters raided a block of flats where Murat Bektaş, aged 32, and Erdinç Arslan, aged 22, had been living. The following day at 4.00 a.m. a police report (olay-yakalama-ev arama-zapt etme-görgü tespit tutanağı) was drawn up and signed by thirty‑six police officers.\n7.  According to this report, at 9.00 p.m. on 5 October 1999 Adana police headquarters received an anonymous telephone call. The caller stated that several persons had been acting suspiciously and carrying bags and suitcases into one of the flats on the third floor of a building.\n8.  A total of thirty-six police officers arrived outside the block of flats at around 9.30 p.m. and secured the surrounding area. Seven officers went up to the landing on the third floor, where there were three doors. There was no lighting in the building and it was dark. As the police officers did not know which flat to enter, they decided to raid all of them at the same time. Immediately thereafter, shots were fired from one of the flats but the police officers were unable to determine from which of the three flats the shots were coming.\n9.  At that moment one of the doors was opened by a man carrying a gun who, upon seeing the police officers, closed the door immediately and locked it. The officers told this person that they were police officers and ordered him to surrender. As he did not reply, the police officers broke the door and, without entering the flat which was also in the dark, started firing towards the ceiling and the upper parts of the walls.\n10.  At around that time the police officers realised that the gunfire had in fact been coming from the flat on the opposite side of the landing and ordered the persons in that flat to surrender. However, the occupants chanted slogans and continued shooting. The officers then broke down their door, entered the flat – which was also in the dark – and returned fire. The occupants of the flat then retreated to a room and the police officers intensified their fire towards that room. When the officers realised that no more gunfire was coming from the occupants of the room they stopped firing. In this room the police officers captured a certain Mr Mustafa Köprü alive, and found Mr Erdinç Arslan's body. Upon discovering that there were explosives in the flat the police officers left the building for their own safety and notified bomb disposal experts, who subsequently arrived and defused the explosives.\n11.  Meanwhile, a number of other officers entered the first flat and found the second applicant and her three-year-old son as well as the body of Murat Bektaş.\n12.  The same evening the Istanbul prosecutor arrived at the scene of the incident. In his presence the police officers searched Erdinç Arslan's flat and found a Kalashnikov machine gun numbered SG29101, a Unique firearm, empty cartridges and bullets. The police officers found a Star firearm numbered 1898622 in Murat Bektaş's flat. They also recovered empty Kalashnikov cartridges and bullets by the entrance to Mr Bektaş's flat.\n13.  On 6 October 1999 at 12.30 a.m. the Adana ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5242", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 26 October 1999 the Koyulhisar Magistrates' Court found Yılmaz Özcan guilty of violating the Forest Law because the trunks of unlawfully cut down trees were found in his garden. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. On 13 July 2000 the Koyulhisar prosecutor issued a warrant for his arrest. What followed, particularly the events which took place on 24 September 2000, is disputed by the parties.\n6.  The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below (see paragraph 7). The Government's submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 8-10). The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D (see paragraphs 11-45).\n7.  Early in the morning of 24 September 2000 the commander of the Koyulhisar Gendarme Squadron, first lieutenant Muhammet Sevinç, non‑commissioned officer Resul Askerden, Koyulca prosecutor Mehmet Çömük and a number of gendarme soldiers arrived at the applicants' house to arrest Yılmaz Özcan. Yılmaz Özcan was then handcuffed and taken out of the house and into the garden. Other occupants of the house, who were not allowed to leave the house, then heard four or five rounds of gunfire. When they looked out of the window, they saw the first lieutenant hitting Yılmaz Özcan on the head with the butt of his rifle. When Yılmaz Özcan asked the first lieutenant to stop, four or five soldiers began kicking him and hitting him with the butts of their rifles. The first lieutenant then shouted “kill him”. When one of the soldiers asked them to stop because “otherwise they would kill” Yılmaz Özcan, the first lieutenant told the soldier to shut up, before shooting Yılmaz Özcan in the back of the neck at close range. The soldiers then threw Yılmaz Özcan's body over the fence surrounding the garden and dragged it down the slope. After the incident the soldiers cleaned up the blood in the garden and took the spent bullet cases with them.\n8.  On 23 September 2000 first lieutenant Muhammet Sevinç put together a plan to arrest Yılmaz Özcan. The following day the first lieutenant, accompanied by his soldiers and the Koyulca prosecutor Mehmet Çömük, left for the applicants' village. Approximately one kilometre from the village one of the tyres of the vehicle carrying the prosecutor blew out. As a result, the prosecutor and his driver remained there. The rest of the group continued on their way.\n9.  The soldiers took positions in the form of two circles around Yılmaz Özcan's house before the first lieutenant knocked on the door. Yılmaz Özcan opened the door, ran back inside the house and jumped from the window into the garden at the rear of the house. There he was met by expert sergeant Ömer Davut Akyol, who was one of the soldiers forming the first circle around the house. When Yılmaz Özcan managed to evade him, the expert sergeant gave chase but was unable to catch up. The expert sergeant then fired into the air at least twice.\n10.  Yılmaz Özcan ran down the slope surrounding the garden for approximately seventy-six metres but was caught by private Fatih Yılmaz, who was in the second circle and who had by then heard the gunfire and cocked his rifle. A scuffle then ensued between private Yılmaz and Yılmaz Özcan and they rolled down the slope, which was very steep. At some point, private Yılmaz was lying on his back when Yılmaz Özcan made an attempt to escape. Private Yılmaz then fired his rifle at least twice. One of the bullets entered the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5243", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Klaipėda.\n5.  Following a report to the police by two witnesses, D.K. and S.N., on 22 April 1998 a pre-trial investigation was started regarding several crimes. The investigation of other crimes was joined to the case on various dates. Ultimately 11 different crimes were investigated. On 28 April 1998 the applicant's place of residence was searched. On 30 July 1998 the seizure of the applicant's assets was ordered. However, according to the Government, no assets were discovered. On 17 August 1998 the applicant was questioned as a suspect. On 8 September 1999 the applicant was officially informed of the accusations, questioned as an accused and ordered not to leave his place of residence. On 13 August 2001 the public prosecutor again informed the applicant of the accusations against him and questioned him. On 20 August 2001 the investigation was officially concluded and, as of that date until 21 December 2001, the applicant and his co-accused had the possibility to acquaint themselves with the case file. On 29 December 2001 the public prosecutor concluded the pre-trial investigation in the case by issuing the final bill of indictment and transferred the case to the courts.\n6.  The Government specified that the case file consisted of 10 volumes and concerned 9 victims and 10 defendants facing 11 charges. The Government also submitted that, in the course of the pre-trial investigation, D.K. and S.N. had disappeared in June 1998. They were found abroad and returned to Lithuania in November 1998, but absconded again after June 1999. The authorities later received information that D.K. had been killed in March 2000. S.N. was never found again.\n7.  On 14 January 2002 the Klaipėda Regional Court set the dates for trial. The court held 39 hearings, 17 of which were adjourned because one of the parties, other than the applicant, failed to be present. Several hearings were postponed because one of the co-accused went missing. On 29 January 2003 the court separated the part of the case which concerned the missing co-accused, and continued the examination of remainder of the case. The hearing of 1 September 2003 was delayed until 15 September 2003 as the applicant's lawyer had died and a replacement had to be organised. On 9 December 2003 the applicant failed to appear at the hearing and it was postponed until 17 December 2003, when it was decided to continue the examination of the case in his absence. The court took into account the fact that the applicant had already submitted his final statement at the hearing of 28 November 2003.\n8.  On 19 January 2004 the Klaipėda Regional Court sentenced the applicant to five years' imprisonment for an organised burglary with 3 other co-accused. He was acquitted of several charges: two due to a lack of evidence and another for being time-barred. The court examined the testimonies of 7 witnesses and 4 victims, as well as the submissions of the police and other evidence. It found that the applicant had not provided any credible evidence to negate the testimonies of the various witnesses. D.K. and S.N.'s testimonies given during the pre-trial investigation were read out at the hearings. One of the co-accused, M.M., also gave a deposition incriminating the applicant. M.M. was sentenced by the same judgment but he was dispensed from carrying out the sentence on mitigating grounds.\n9.  On 19 January 2005, after four hearings, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5244", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 12 October 1989 the first applicant concluded a joint venture agreement with the “Hotel Intercontinental Belgrade”, concerning the setting-up and joint operation of a casino on its premises.\n8.  At that time, the said hotel was owned by “Generalexport” (hereinafter “Genex”), a major “socially-owned company” (see paragraph 70 below) with an annual turnover in excess of seven billion US Dollars (“USD”).\n9.  Article 12 of the joint venture agreement provided that the first applicant was entitled to collect 80% of any earnings made as part of the joint operation of the casino in question, whilst Genex had the right to collect the remaining 20% thereof. Article 19 of the agreement, however, stated that Genex would, in any event, be entitled as guaranteed minimum earnings to a payment of no less than USD 500.000 annually by the first applicant.\n10.  The casino opened in October 1990. By 1993, however, it closed due to various financial difficulties, and a number of disputes between the parties followed.\n11.  In 1995 the first applicant brought proceedings against Genex before the Foreign Trade Arbitration Court of the Yugoslav Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter the “Arbitration Court”), seeking repossession of the casino as well as compensation for breach of contract.\n12.  On 10 April 1996 the Arbitration Court, having resolved issues regarding the first applicant's status, ruled partly in its favour. Specifically, Genex was ordered to: (a) pay compensation in the amount of USD 1,999, 992, plus 6 % interest, on account of the first applicant's inability to operate the casino in question between 1 April 1995 and 31 March 1996; (b) allow the first applicant to retake possession thereof; and (c) effectively manage its operation for five years after reopening it. The sum of USD 1,999,992, i.e. USD 166,666 monthly, was arrived at by multiplying Genex's minimum annual earnings on the basis of the agreed ratio (see paragraph 9 above).\n13.  On 7 June 1996 the Commercial Court in Belgrade ordered the enforcement of the arbitration award of 10 April 1996, in its entirety.\n14.  Following several suspensions and adjournments, on 15 October 1997 the National Bank of Yugoslavia informed the Commercial Court that USD 1,672,437.06 had been transferred to the first applicant's bank account.\n15.  On 4 May 1998 the Commercial Court ordered the payment of the remaining USD 618,542.23, together with the interest accrued.\n16.  By 6 May 1998 the debtors, Generalexport and International CG as two successor companies of the original Genex company, appear to have fully complied with this order.\n17.  On 22 March 2004 the first applicant requested repossession of the casino and sought to be allowed to effectively manage it for a period of five years after reopening it.\n18.  Following three oral hearings, on 28 May 2004 the Commercial Court accepted this request and ordered the debtors to comply therewith.\n19.  On 30 November 2004 the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Serbia dismissed the applicants' motion to order the full and effective enforcement of the arbitration award, stating that it did not have the competence, ratione materiae, to consider complaints alleging individual human rights violations.\n20.  On 3 December 2004 the Commercial Court fined the debtors for their failure to comply with the repossession order and mandated repossession within an additional period o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5245", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Pepeni. He is a journalist.\n6.  The applicant is a member of Hyde Park, an unincorporated non-governmental organisation from Chişinău lobbying, inter alia, for freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly. Following a demonstration organised by the organisation on 8 May 2008, the applicant's brother, also a member of the organisation, was arrested and placed in detention. As the applicant was unable to trace his brother for two days, he decided to go on hunger strike.\n7.  On 10 May 2008 at 10 a.m. the applicant stood outside the Government building in Chişinău's main square, positioned a placard with the inscription “Hunger strike for rights” and started his silent protest. Shortly afterwards, police officers approached him and some asked him questions while others filmed him.\n8.  At approximately 10.45 a.m. the applicant was approached by two persons wearing plain clothes. In a video filmed by the applicant, one of the persons can be seen ordering him to stop filming. The applicant refuses and says that he is a journalist on hunger strike. He asks them for identification. One of the two persons hits the applicant, apparently in the hand holding the camera, and threatens him in rude terms with violence if he does not stop filming. The applicant backs away, insisting that he has the right to film, and asks for the identity of the aggressor. The aggressor says that he is C.A., Commander of the Special Forces police regiment “Scut”. He says that he only wants to talk and insists that the applicant stop filming. The applicant asks why he does not want to talk with the camera on. C.A. retorts that he is not an actor to be filmed. The applicant asks for identification documents and, at that moment, he receives another blow from Mr C.A. He continues to back away while being followed by the second police officer who appears to forcefully put an end to the filming. The video resumes for several seconds in what appears to be a police van taking the applicant away from the scene of the event.\n9.  In another video, filmed by the police from another angle, the scene with the two police officers and the applicant can be seen from a distance. The camera approaches when the second police officer forcefully puts an end to the applicant's filming, seizing the applicant by his clothes and hands. The applicant asks the police officer not to use force and insists that he has the right to protest. The police officer retorts that by protesting the applicant is breaching the rights of other persons. At that moment two uniformed police officers approach and apprehend the applicant. They take him to a police van without any resistance from the applicant.\n10.  The applicant arrived at the police station at approximately 11 a.m. His personal effects were taken away and he was questioned for approximately two hours. According to him, he insisted on being informed of the reasons for his arrest, but to no avail.\n11.  He was detained for forty-eight hours in solitary confinement in a cell without windows. The temperature in the cell was approximately fourteen degrees centigrade and he was wearing light clothes. There was a concrete bed in the cell, covered with wooden boards but without any bedding. There were no sanitary facilities and the applicant had to ask the guards to be taken to a toilet. The guards reacted to his request only one or two hours later, when he screamed out loud in order to be heard by t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5246", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Warszawa.\n5.  On 29 March 1995 the applicant brought an action for division of matrimonial property.\n6.  On 25 October 1995 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) held the first hearing.\n7.  Between October 1995 and March 2007 the Warsaw District Court scheduled approximately 25 hearings. At least eight of them were adjourned – on three occasions because of the absence of a witness, on two occasions because of the illness of the judge, on one occasion because the court had to deal with the request of R.W., the applicant's former husband, to appoint a legal-aid lawyer and on two occasions due to the large number of documents and motions filed by the parties. Three expert's opinions evaluating the market value of the property were delivered during this period.\n8.  On 23 March 2007 the Warsaw District Court decided on the equitable distribution of property between the applicant and R.W. The applicant was granted, in particular, the ownership of the common apartment together with the furniture and was obliged to pay R.W. a certain amount of money.\n9.  On 4 May 2007 the applicant was served with the written reasoning for the decision.\n10.  On 18 May 2007 the applicant appealed against the impugned decision.\n11.  On 3 December 2007 the Warsaw District Court sent the case file to the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n12.  On 11 March and 24 June 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court held hearings.\n13.  On 8 July 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court amended the Warsaw District Court's decision in respect of the amount of money that the applicant was obliged to pay R.W. and upheld the remainder of the decision.\n14.  On 24 September 2008 the applicant was served with the written reasoning for the decision.\n15.  On 24 November 2008 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the Warsaw Regional Court's decision.\n16.  On 9 June 2009 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to examine the applicant's cassation appeal.\n17.  On 23 May 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Warsaw District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n18.  On 27 July 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act had taken full legal effect on the date of its entry into force, i.e. 17 September 2004. It acknowledged that there had been some periods of inactivity for which the Warsaw District Court had been responsible. However, it found that in the period after 17 September 2004 there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the authorities. It accordingly held that there had been no breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time during the relevant part of the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5247", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were both born in 1980 and are currently serving prison sentences in Burrel Prison, Albania.\n7.  On 31 March 2001, at dawn, three persons wearing blue and white balaclavas robbed a minibus on the line between Tirana and Kukës. The aggressors were armed with two Kalashnikovs and a knife. Having taken the passengers' money and jewellery, they left the scene without causing casualties.\n8.  Some hours after the event, the police searched houses near the scene of the crime, including that of Mr Lika (“the second applicant”), where he was having lunch with his father, his brother, B.L., and his friend, Mr Laska (“the first applicant”).\n9.  The police officers conducted the said search in the absence of the applicants' lawyer.\n10.  According to the police report of the search, the police found in the pocket of the first applicant's jacket two white T-shirts and a blue cloth, made into balaclavas. Moreover, near the house they found some grenades, but failed to find the stolen goods or the weapons that had been in the possession of the aggressors.\n11.  The applicants, B.L, and the father were escorted to the police station for questioning. The first applicant requested, but was refused, the presence of his lawyer (H.B). He disputed having had in his possession a balaclava or other form of mask and accused the police of manipulating the evidence.\n12.  On the same day, the police officers in charge of the investigation proceeded to the identification of persons and items by the victims of the robbery, pursuant to Articles 171 and 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”). The applicants' lawyer was not present.\n13.  As to the identification of persons, the applicants and B.L., wearing blue and white home-made balaclavas, and two other persons, wearing black balaclavas, were put in a row in the same room in order to be identified. Notwithstanding the fact that the police changed the position of the persons in the room, the victims consistently identified the persons wearing blue and white balaclavas as the aggressors, that is to say the applicants and B.L..\n14.  As to the identification of objects, the victims were asked to identify the balaclavas used by the aggressors, choosing among two black balaclavas, two white balaclavas and a blue one. The victims identified the white and blue balaclavas as those worn by the aggressors.\n15.  At 9.30 p.m. on the same day the applicants and B.L. were arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. They were questioned by the police in the absence of a lawyer, notwithstanding the fact that B.L. was a minor at the time and that the applicants had explicitly requested a lawyer to be present. The first applicant accepted that he had in his possession a white T-shirt, transformed by F.N, a police officer in charge of the investigations, into a home-made balaclava. The second applicant stated that the white T-shirt which had been found in the possession of the first applicant was not his.\n16.  On 2 April 2001 the applicants and B.L. were charged with one count of armed robbery and one count of illegal possession of arms. On the same day they were questioned by the prosecutor. The first applicant asked to be represented by H.B. The second applicant sought to be defended by counsel.\n17.  On 29 June 2001 the General Prosecutor's Office (GPO) requested to inspect the criminal investigation file in respect of the second applicant. On 10 September 2001 the GPO consented to the case being committed to tria", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5248", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Baku.\n6.  On 21 January 1998 the applicant was issued with an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) for a flat in a recently constructed residential building in Baku on the basis of an order of the Baku City Executive Authority of 19 January 1998.\n7.  At the same time, the applicant became aware that the flat had been occupied by M. and his family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Shusha, a region under the occupation of the Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno‑Karabakh.\n8.  According to the applicant, despite numerous demands, M. refused to vacate the flat, pointing out that he was an IDP and had no other place to live.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 1998 the applicant lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of M. and his family from the flat.\n10.  On 23 June 1998 the Yasamal District Court granted the applicant's claim and ordered that M. and his family be evicted from the flat. The court held that the applicant was the sole lawful tenant of the flat on the basis of the occupancy voucher of 21 January 1998 and therefore that the flat was being unlawfully occupied by M. and his family.\n11.  No appeals were filed against this judgment and, pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, it became enforceable within ten days of its delivery. However, M. and his family refused to comply with the judgment and, despite the applicant's complaints to various authorities, it was not enforced.\n12.  On an unspecified date in 2006, the applicant and a group of other persons who were in the same situation lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court complaining that the Yasamal District Department of Judicial Observers and Enforcement Officers (“the Department of Enforcement Officers”) had not taken measures to enforce the judgments.\n13.  On 27 December 2006 the Yasamal District Court dismissed that complaint as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed against this judgment. On 2 May 2007 the Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance court's judgment and delivered a new judgment on the merits in the applicant's favour. The Court of Appeal held that the Department of Enforcement Officers' inaction had been unlawful and that the judgment of 23 June 1998 should be enforced. Following a cassation appeal of M. and other persons against this judgment, by a decision of 18 September 2007, the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remitted the case for a new examination. On 12 November 2007 the Baku Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 27 December 2006 and terminated the civil proceedings. The Baku Court of Appeal held that the judgments should be enforced under the domestic law and there was no need to deliver a new judgment on that issue. It appears from the case file that the Court of Appeal's judgment was not challenged by the parties in the proceedings.\n14.  On 5 July 2007 M. and a group of other persons who were in the same situation lodged a request with the Yasamal District Court asking for postponement of the execution of the judgment of 23 June 1998. M. alleged that, as he was an IDP, he had no other place to live but the flat in question.\n15.  On 10 July 2007 the Yasamal District Court granted M.'s request and ordered the postponement of the execution of the judgment of 23 June 1998 until M. could move to one of the houses recently constructed for temporary", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5249", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Ivanovo Region.\n6.  On 28 October 2000 victims B. and M. were killed in the latter's house. On 31 October 2000 the applicant was questioned in the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor's office of Ivanovo in relation to the murders. Having been apprised of the privilege against self-incrimination, the applicant stated that he had spent most of the relevant day with his girlfriend Y. and his friend Ov., as well as several other persons (I., K. and V.), except for some time in the afternoon when Ov. and the applicant went to M.'s place but the latter was absent. The applicant added a note to the interview record alleging that he had been threatened with death or violence if he refused to make certain admissions. The record was also signed by a lawyer, Mr O. Immediately thereafter, the applicant signed a suspect arrest record, in which he indicated that he would like to be represented by O.\n7.  On the same evening, the investigator twice heard Y., who stated at the second interview around midnight that the applicant had told her that he had killed victim M. The investigator also interviewed Ov., who confirmed in substance the applicant's account of the events but added that the applicant had told him that he had killed victims M. and B. with an axe; Ov. had also heard the applicant discuss an alibi with Y.\n8.  On 1 November 2000 the applicant was brought for further interrogation. He was assisted by counsel and refused to testify. According to the applicant, a police officer or several officers exerted pressure on him and hit him on the head with a folder in order to force him to make self-incriminating statements. On the same day Y. gave a more detailed statement in addition to her second statement made on 31 October 2000.\n9.  On 2 November 2000 the applicant refused the services of O., allegedly under pressure from unnamed officers. As follows from his written statement, he declined the services of counsel O. due to “contradicting positions on the case” and sought the appointment of a Ms Z. instead. The investigator appointed Z. as counsel and she assisted the applicant during the interview on the same day. The Government referred to the interview record from which it would follow that the applicant had made admissions on that date; that he had felt well and had been willing to give an oral testimony in the presence of counsel Z.; that he had been provided with an opportunity to have a consultation with counsel before the interview; and that he had had no complaints against any police officers. Ov. was also interviewed and provided a more detailed account of the events.\n10.  On 3 November 2000 the applicant was examined by a medical expert. The applicant had scratches on his left elbow, bruises and scratches on his right arm and legs, several cuts and scratches on his hands, scratches below the ribs, and a scratch on his head. According to the expert, the above injuries had been sustained four to nine days before the date of the examination.\n11.  On 10 November 2000 the applicant expressed a wish to be represented by O. again. However, on 7 December 2000 the applicant retained the services of another counsel, Mr S., who assisted him in the subsequent pre-trial and trial proceedings.\n12.  On 20 December 2000 O. (instead of counsel S.) requested the investigator to order an expert report to verify if the applicant had been emotionally disturbed when, according to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5250", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a Greek national of Roma origin, who was born in 1985 and lives in Athens. He was sixteen years old at the time of the events.\n6.  On 5 August 2001, P.P., a kiosk owner in Argostoli, on the island of Cephalonia, reported to the local police that approximately 9,500,000 Greek drachmas (GRD, 28,000 euros (EUR)) had been stolen from him. During the summary investigation that was immediately carried out by the local police, four Roma youths were taken to Argostoli police station. On the same day the four youths were transferred to the Cephalonia prosecutor's office and then, on 6 August 2001, taken to court for an immediate summary trial, where they were acquitted of all charges.\n7.  The applicant, who was a friend of the four youths, turned up at the police station spontaneously on 5 August 2001 out of fellow feeling for his friends. He was also shown to the kiosk owner but was not recognised by him.\n8.  According to the applicant, while he was at the police station he was questioned as to whether or not he had been involved in the theft. The applicant submitted that he had been punched and slapped hard in the face for over a quarter of an hour by a police officer, N.K., and in the presence of the commander of the police station, who questioned him to make him confess that he had participated in the theft. He was subsequently allowed to leave the police station. However, the applicant maintained that the police officer kept his mobile phone to find out whether it was stolen.\n9.  A few hours after his release on 5 August 2001 the applicant was admitted to the local hospital, the General Prefectural Medical Hospital of Cephalonia, and had a medical examination there. He stayed there for four hours. The hospital certificate indicated the following:\n“[The applicant] came to our hospital's emergency department on 5 August 2001 and was found to be suffering from: a head injury reportedly inflicted by beating, dizziness, severe headache, swelling and sensitivity of the nose and difficulty in maintaining eye focus. No trace of fracture of the skull was detected. He remained at the hospital for a short period, of four hours. He was treated with Lonarid ...”\n10.  On 7 August 2001, the applicant went to the Cephalonia prosecutor's office. He was intending to lodge a complaint against the policemen involved in the alleged beating but the prosecutor was not in his office. The applicant alleged that the prosecutor's secretary was so struck by the bruises on his face that she called the police station and asked the policemen to leave him alone in future. The applicant did not submit a complaint on that occasion.\n11.  On 5 September 2001, the applicant was arrested by police officer N.K. because he could not provide a receipt to show that he had bought the mobile phone and the police officer thought he had stolen it. He was taken to the police station, questioned and released again.\n12.  On 27, 28 and 29 September 2001, two local newspapers published a statement made on 25 September 2001 by the World Organisation Against Torture (OMTC) which denounced the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant. The statement, whose title read 'Appeal of the OMTC in relation to the ill-treatment of two Roma youth in Argostoli – two Roma in the Cephalonia slaughterhouse', indicated that the [applicant], who had been questioned in connection with a theft, was punched and slapped hard in the face by a policeman whose first name was Nikos, in the presence ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5251", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Zadar, Croatia.\n5.  On 15 March 1995 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) against the Croatian Privatisation Fund and other two companies, seeking annulment of the share purchase contract whereby the Fund sold the shares of one company, in which the applicant holds the shares, to the other one.\n6.  On 23 May 1995 the court issued a decision dismissing the second respondent's plea of lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae (stvarna nadležnost). Following an appeal by the second respondent, on 21 December 1995 the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) reversed the first-instance decision finding that the ordinary courts had no jurisdiction in the matter and transferred the case to the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske). On 11 September 1997 the Administrative Court declined its jurisdiction in the matter and applied to the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) to resolve the conflict of jurisdiction created thereby. On 1 October 1998 the Supreme Court decided that the ordinary courts had competence in the matter. On 11 December 1998 the case was transferred back to the Zadar Municipal Court.\n7.  The Municipal Court held hearings on 3 May 2000 and 19 February 2002.\n8.  On 23 March 2004 the court stayed the proceedings on account of the insolvency proceedings that had been opened against the second respondent on 16 November 2000. Those insolvency proceedings ended on 4 October 2004 when the P.P. company was deleted from the business register.\n9.  Because of the insolvency proceedings, on 9 February 2005 the Zadar Municipal Court declined its jurisdiction in the matter and transferred the case to the Zadar Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Zadru).\n10.  On 24 May 2006 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the High Commercial Court which request was dismissed on 3 November 2006. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court.\n11.  On 18 October 2006 the Zadar Commercial Court stayed the proceedings because the second respondent had ceased to exist as a legal entity.\n12.  On 10 November 2006 the applicant appealed against that decision to the High Commercial Court (Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske).\n13.  On 17 May 2007 the Supreme Court reversed the High Commercial Court's decision of 3 November 2006 (see paragraph 10 above) by finding a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded him 14,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and ordered the Commercial Court to give a decision in the applicant's case within six months of service of its decision.\n14.  The Supreme Court's decision was served on the Zadar Commercial Court on 29 June 2007.\n15.  Since at that time the case was pending before the High Commercial Court, on 3 July 2007 the judge of the Zadar Commercial Court, assigned to hear the case, wrote a letter to the High Commercial Court urging it to decide on the appeal by the applicant of 10 November 2006 against the first-instance decision. He explained that otherwise he could not proceed in the case and comply with the Supreme Court's order of 17 May 2007 to give a decision in the applicant's case within six months.\n16.  On 31 December 2008 the High Commercial Court dismissed the applicant's appeal from 10 November 2006 in part and upheld the fi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5252", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948. She lives in the village of Assinovskaya, in the Chechen Republic. The applicant is the mother of Luiza Mutayeva, born in 1984.\n6.  The applicant, with her husband and two daughters, Luiza and Madina, lived at 60 Bershchanskaya Street in the village of Assinovskaya, in the Achkhoy-Martanovskiy district (in the submitted documents the district is also referred to as Sunzhenskiy district), in the Chechen Republic. Their house was located near a local hospital. At the material time the village was under the firm control of the federal forces, which maintained manned checkpoints at the entry and exit points to and from the village.\n7.  In the night of 19 January 2004 (in the submitted documents the date is also referred to as 9 January 2004) the family was sleeping in their house at the above address.\n8.  At about 2.30 a.m. on 19 January 2004 the applicant and her family members were woken up by someone knocking at the entrance door. The applicant approached the door and asked in Chechen: “Who is it?” The answer was given in Russian: “Passport check”. When the applicant wondered why the passport check was being conducted so late at night, she was told: “You better open the door; we have an order!” The applicant opened the door and fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms without insignia entered the house. All but five or six of the intruders were wearing masks. The applicant and her relatives noticed that the men without masks were of Slavic appearance. The intruders spoke unaccented Russian. The applicant inferred that they were Russian servicemen.\n9.  The servicemen asked the applicant whether there were any men in the house. The only man in the household was the applicant's husband, a disabled person with one leg. The servicemen checked the family's passports and returned them to the applicant. Then the unmasked servicemen said to their colleagues that they should leave the applicant's house as no men were to be found there. However, one of the masked servicemen told them that they should search the house. The servicemen searched the house, turning everything upside down. It appears that they did not find anything of interest to them other than a few video cassettes which they took away.\n10.  Having searched the house, the servicemen ordered the applicant's daughters, Luiza and Madina, to put on warm clothing as they were being taken to the vehicles for questioning. The applicant's younger daughter, fifteen-year old Madina, started crying. One of the masked servicemen told her: “Do not be afraid; we will just question you and will let you go. I promise that nothing will happen to you.” Before leaving the house, Luiza Mutayeva insisted that she should be the only one to go for questioning. The servicemen let Madina stay in the house; they took Luiza outside to the vehicles.\n11.  The applicant managed to run outside and saw that Luiza Mutayeva was handcuffed and was standing next to a white GAZ minivan. Beside the minivan the applicant saw a white VAZ-2107, two grey UAZ vehicles, two military all-terrain UAZ vehicles (“таблетка”) and a grey VAZ-2109 vehicle, which were all parked around the applicant's house. The vehicles did not have number plates. According to the applicant, further vehicles belonging to the intruders were parked near her house but she was unable to recall their models or their colour. The applicant shouted at the servicemen and asked them to take her for questioning with he", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5253", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lived in St Petersburg until his arrest. He is now serving his sentence in a correctional colony in Omsk.\n6.  On 4 October 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud. Two days later he was charged with aggravated robbery. On the following day the St Petersburg City Prosecutor authorised his detention, finding that the applicant was liable to reoffend, pervert the course of justice and abscond, as he was charged with a particularly serious criminal offence, had been living unregistered in St Petersburg and in 1995 had been placed on the wanted persons' list owing to his absconding from an investigation into aggravated fraud. The prosecution authorities used the same grounds while further extending on 25 October and 17 December 1999 and 23 June 2000 the detention of the applicant and his eight co-defendants.\n7.  On 12 May 2000 the applicant was charged with organisation of a criminal enterprise, twelve counts of robbery, unlawful possession of a weapon, theft of a weapon, forgery of documents, fraud, aggravated theft and intentional destruction of property. On 7 September 2000 he was committed to stand trial before the St Petersburg City Court.\n8.  On 6 October 2000 the St Petersburg City Court fixed the first trial hearing for 24 October 2001 and, without providing any grounds, held that the applicant should remain in custody. The Government, relying on a letter drafted on 17 July 2007 by the acting first deputy of the St Petersburg City Court President, stressed that it had been impossible to schedule the first trial hearing for an earlier date because the City Court judges had been overburdened with cases. In particular, 502 cases were pending before twenty judges.\n9.  The first hearing fixed for 24 October 2001, as well as the following one listed for 27 November 2001 had been adjourned because the presiding judge was participating in other unrelated proceedings. The hearing fixed for 10 January 2002 was rescheduled because a co-defendant was ill and two counsel failed to appear. The hearing on 25 January 2002 also did not take place owing to the absence of free courtrooms.\n10.  Between 29 January and 18 March 2002 the City Court held eighteen hearings. Of four hearings fixed between 18 March and 25 September 2002, two were postponed because the presiding judge was participating in other proceedings and two were rescheduled because two co-defendants and a lawyer were ill.\n11.  On 1 July 2002 a new Code of Criminal Procedure became effective. On the same day the St. Petersburg City Court extended the applicant's and his co-defendants' detention until 30 September 2002, holding that they were charged with especially serious criminal offences and were liable to reoffend, pervert the course of justice and abscond. The defendants and their lawyers were not present at the hearing.\n12.  On 7 October 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the decision of 1 July 2002, finding that the City Court had not summoned the defendants and their lawyers.\n13.  On the following day the City Court re-examined the detention issue and retrospectively extended the applicant's detention for three months, until 30 September 2002. It held that the applicant and his co-defendants were charged with serious criminal offences and that if released they could pervert the course of justice, reoffend or abscond. The City Court did not cite any factual circumstances supporting its conclusion of the defe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5254", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969. A native of Chechnya, from 1996 she lived in the settlement for internally displaced persons from Chechnya in the village of Ordzhonikidzevskaya (also known as Sleptsovskaya), in the Ingush Republic of the Russian Federation (Ingushetia). The applicant later left Russia with her children and sought asylum in another country, where she now resides. She is the wife of Sultan Khatuyev, who allegedly disappeared in 2004 following his arrest by the security forces.\n6.  On 2 August 2004 at about 8.00 a.m. an operation was carried out in the Ordzhonikidzevskaya settlement by the security forces with a view to finding members of illegal armed groups. More than one hundred servicemen and numerous vehicles were involved in the operation.\n7.  The applicant stated that her home had been searched during this operation by two servicemen who neither introduced themselves nor produced any document. They checked Sultan Khatuyev's passport and ordered him to follow them to their car. In response to the applicant's questions, the servicemen told her that her husband would be taken along with some of their neighbours to the Sunzhensky district department of the Interior (ROVD) for an identity check. Six other persons were apprehended and taken to the Sunzhensky ROVD during the same operation. They were all neighbours and knew each other.\n8.  As soon as the operation was over the applicant went by car to the Sunzhensky ROVD together with R.A., a relative of another apprehended person. They saw the seven apprehended men being taken from the yard into the ROVD building.\n9.  Three of these men were released at approximately midnight. Two of them later stated that they had initially been detained for several hours in a wing on the ground floor and then taken to the second floor for questioning.\n10.  On 3 August 2004 at approximately 1 a.m. a ROVD officer informed the applicant and the three men who had just been released that the other detainees, including Sultan Khatuyev, would be released in the morning.\n11.  Around 8.00 a.m. on 3 August the applicant went back to the ROVD with relatives of the other detainees. They were told that the four remaining detainees had been taken to the Federal Security Service (FSB) office in Magas. The applicant and the other detainees' relatives immediately went there. While they were not allowed to enter the premises, an officer confirmed that the four people, including Sultan Khatuyev, were being detained at that office.\n12.  In response to the applicant's repeated requests an officer came out of the building at 4.00 p.m. and released two more persons. He also told the applicant that the other two persons, Sultan Khatuyev and U.I., had already been released. According to U.I.'s relatives, he had indeed been released in an extremely poor condition by FSB officers between 1.00 and 2.00 p.m. and left alone at a rubbish dump. The applicant went to the rubbish dump to look for her husband but did not find him or any of his personal belongings.\n13.  U.I. later told the applicant that he and Sultan Khatuyev had been detained in two neighbouring cells on the FSB premises and that he had heard Sultan Khatuyev groaning. He told her that he had been beaten by the FSB officers and that, given the sounds coming from the other cell, Sultan Khatuyev had been beaten as well. The lawyer representing the applicant submitted a written statement about his conversation with U.I. to that effect; however, he noted", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5255", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  On 27 May 2002 the applicant's mother requested Psychiatric Outpatient Clinic No. 21 (Психоневрологический диспансер N 21) (the “Clinic”) to examine her son, expressing concern about a change in his behaviour. He was afraid to leave the flat where he lived, had cut out all social contacts and was frightened by noises or the sound of the telephone ringing.\n8.  The applicant refused to be examined by the doctors at the Clinic and on 29 May 2002 Dr N., a psychiatrist from the Clinic, applied for a court order authorising the applicant's psychiatric assessment without his consent. She noted, on the basis of the information submitted by the applicant's mother, that the applicant might be suffering from a severe mental disorder that impaired his ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, and that his condition might deteriorate should he be left without psychiatric treatment.\n9.  On 31 May 2002 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow authorised the psychiatric assessment. According to the applicant, he was informed of that decision at a later date.\n10.  On 5 June 2002 Dr N. examined the applicant at his home. The applicant's mother was present. The applicant was agitated, he shouted at the doctor and his mother and threatened them. He refused to talk and made them both leave. Dr N. concluded that the applicant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and that his condition warranted committal to a psychiatric hospital for further assessment and treatment. At 7.20 p.m. the applicant was admitted to Psychiatric Hospital No. 15 (Психиатрическая клиническая больница N 15) (the “Hospital”). According to the applicant, he was first taken to a police station and then to the hospital.\n11.  On 7 June 2002 the applicant consented to treatment in the Hospital until 14 June 2002.\n12.  On Friday 14 June 2002 the applicant refused to stay in hospital any longer. At noon he was examined by three psychiatrists who provisionally diagnosed him as suffering from depressive syndrome and schizophrenia. They noted that the applicant was solitary and antisocial; he was unaware of his condition and expressed delusional ideas about his mother trying to manipulate him. They concluded that his mental disorder was serious enough to require inpatient treatment.\n13.  On Monday 17 June 2002 the Hospital administration applied to the court seeking an extension of the applicant's stay there. According to the medical report submitted, the applicant was suffering from a severe mental disorder and might cause serious harm to himself or others. On the same day the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow provisionally authorised the applicant's further hospitalisation pending consideration of the case. The court stated no reasons in its decision.\n14.  On 21 June 2002 the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow authorised the extension of the applicant's stay in the Hospital. The hearing was held on the Hospital's premises. The applicant attended the hearing but was not represented. In particular, the court noted:\n“After having heard [the applicant], the hospital's representative..., and the prosecutor who considered that the [hospital's] request should be granted, and after having studied the materials [in its possession], the court considers that the [hospital's] request to commit the applicant to the [hospital] against his will is well-substantiated and should be granted.”\n15.  On 27 June 2002 the applicant consented in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5256", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Baku.\n7.  The applicant was the founder and chief editor of the newspapers Gündəlik Azərbaycan, published in the Azerbaijani language, and Realny Azerbaijan (“Реальный Азербайджан”), published in the Russian language. The newspapers were widely known for often publishing articles harshly criticising the Government and various public officials.\n8.  Prior to the events complained of in this application, the applicant had been sued for defamation in a number of sets of civil and criminal proceedings instituted following complaints by various high-ranking government officials, including cabinet ministers and members of parliament. In the most recent set of proceedings, on 26 September 2006 the applicant was convicted of defamation of a cabinet minister and conditionally sentenced to two years' imprisonment. Moreover, according to the applicant, at various times he and his staff had received numerous threatening phone calls demanding him to stop writing critical articles about high-ranking officials or even to completely cease the publication of his newspapers.\n9.  In 2007 two sets of criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant in connection with, inter alia, two articles published by him in Realny Azerbaijan.\n10.  In 2005 the applicant visited, as a journalist, the area of Nagorno‑Karabakh and other territories controlled by the Armenian military forces. This was one of a few exceptionally allowed and organised visits by Azerbaijani nationals to those territories and to Armenia in the years following the Nagorno-Karabakh war, as movement across the front line in Nagorno-Karabakh and across the Armenian-Azerbaijani border remains severely restricted to this day from both sides. During his visit he met, among others, some officials of the self-proclaimed, unrecognised “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” and some ordinary people. In the aftermath of this visit, in April 2005 the applicant published an article called “The Karabakh Diary” (Russian: “Карабахский дневник”) in Realny Azerbaijan.\n11.  In the article, styled as a diary, the applicant described his visits to several towns, including Lachin, Shusha, Agdam and Khojaly, which had formerly been inhabited primarily by ethnic Azerbaijanis who had been forced to flee their homes during the war. He described both the ruins of war and the new construction sites that he had seen in those towns, as well as his casual conversations with a number of local Armenians he had met during his visit.\n12.  One of the topics discussed in “The Karabakh Diary” concerned the Khojaly massacre of 26 February 1992. Discussing this topic, the applicant made certain statements which could be construed as differing from the commonly accepted version of the Khojaly events according to which hundreds of Azerbaijani civilians had been killed by the Armenian armed forces, with the reported assistance of the Russian (formerly Soviet) 366th Motorised Rifle Regiment, during their assault on the town of Khojaly in the course of the war in Nagorno-Karabakh. Specifically, the article contained the following passages:\n“Having seen Khojaly, I could not hide my astonishment. This Azerbaijani town, which had been razed to the ground, has been completely reconstructed and converted into a town called Ivanovka, named after an Armenian general who had actively participated in the occupation of Khojaly. The Khojaly tragedy and the deep wounds inflicted on our soul by the Armenian e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5257", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Baku.\n 6.  On 25 February 1998 the applicant was issued with an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) for a flat in a recently constructed residential building in Baku on the basis of an order of the Baku City Executive Authority of 19 February 1998.\n7.  At the same time, the applicant became aware that the flat had been occupied by H. and his family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Lachin, a region under the occupation of the Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno‑Karabakh.\n8.  According to the applicant, despite numerous demands, H. refused to vacate the flat, pointing out that he was an IDP and had no other place to live.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 1998 the applicant lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of H. and his family from the flat.\n10.  On 20 April 1998 the Yasamal District Court granted the applicant's claim and ordered that H. and his family be evicted from the flat. The court held that the applicant was the sole lawful tenant of the flat on the basis of the occupancy voucher of 25 February 1998 and therefore that the flat was being unlawfully occupied by H. and his family.\n11.  No appeals were filed against this judgment and, pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, it became enforceable within ten days of its delivery. However, H. and his family refused to comply with the judgment and, despite the applicant's complaints to various authorities, it was not enforced.\n12.  On an unspecified date in 2006, the applicant and a group of other persons who were in the same situation lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court complaining that the Yasamal District Department of Judicial Observers and Enforcement Officers (“the Department of Enforcement Officers”) had not taken measures to enforce the judgments.\n13.  On 27 December 2006 the Yasamal District Court dismissed that complaint as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed against this judgment. On 2 May 2007 the Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance court's judgment and delivered a new judgment on the merits in the applicant's favour. The Court of Appeal held that the Department of Enforcement Officers' inaction had been unlawful and that the judgment of 20 April 1998 should be enforced. Following a cassation appeal of H. and other persons against this judgment, by a decision of 18 September 2007, the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal's judgment and remitted the case to the latter court for a new examination. It appears from the case file that the proceedings are still pending before the Court of Appeal.\n14.  On an unspecified date in 2008 the applicant lodged an action against the State Committee on deals of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons, the Ministry of Finance and other authorities, seeking compensation for non-enforcement of the judgment of 20 April 1998. On 7 May 2008 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. On 7 July 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal and on 10 November 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance court's judgment.\n15.  On 4 July 2007 H. lodged a request with the Yasamal District Court asking for postponement of the execution of the judgment of 20 April 1998. He alleged that, as he was an IDP, he had no other place to live but the flat in question.\n16.  On 10 July 2007 the Yasamal District Court granted H.'s requ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5258", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1961 and 1966 respectively and live in the village of Stryama.\n5.  On different dates in 1991 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants and four other persons. The applicants were charged with the theft of a car tyre. An indictment against them was introduced at court on 29 June 1992.\n6.  On 3 December 1992 the Plovdiv Regional Court remitted the case to the investigation authorities finding that there had been procedural violations.\n7.  No investigative measures were taken until September 1998 when one of the accused was questioned. In the following months the remaining accused were also questioned and other evidence was collected.\n8.  On several occasions during these months a prosecutor from the Plovdiv regional prosecutor’s office instructed the investigation authorities to take further investigative measures and make up for certain earlier breaches of the procedural rules.\n9.  On an unspecified date towards the end of 1999 the investigation was completed. The prosecution filed an indictment with the Plovdiv Regional Court and the applicants were brought to trial.\n10.  In a judgment of 24 June 2002 the Plovdiv Regional Court acquitted the applicants. One of the remaining accused was also acquitted and the others were convicted and received suspended sentences.\n11.  Upon appeal by the prosecution, on 8 October 2004 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal upheld fully the Regional Court’s judgment. In affirming the suspended sentences of three of the accused, it referred, inter alia, to the excessive length of the proceedings, finding that\n“the criminal proceedings [had been] subject to excessive delays without there having been an objective justification for that delay ”.\n12.  Upon cassation appeal by the prosecution, on 1 November 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower courts’ judgments and reiterated the Court of Appeal’s findings in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5259", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. On 10 May 1995 the applicant was dismissed by his employer for work-related irregularities.\n5.  On 16 June 1995 the applicant claimed annulment of his dismissal and his reinstatement.\n6.  On 15 February 1996 the Delčevo Municipal Court (“the first-instance court”) annulled the dismissal decision and ordered the employer to reinstate the applicant to a post commensurate to his qualifications. On 19 September 1996 the Štip Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n7.  On 11 November 1996 the first-instance court terminated the proceedings because insolvency proceedings had been launched against the employer on 24 April 1996.\n8.  On 19 November 1996 the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings for a number of reasons, including the fact that the employer's receiver (стечаен управник) appointed in the insolvency proceedings had not requested termination of his proceedings.\n9.  On 13 January 1997 the first-instance court declared itself incompetent to decide the applicant's case and transferred it to the Kočani Court of First Instance.\n10.  On 7 November 1997 the Kočani Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant's claim relying on the latter's criminal conviction of 19 July 1995 for work-related offences. On 10 February 1998 the Štip Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the lower court's decision.\n11.  On 29 December 1998 the Kočani Court of First Instance stayed the insolvency proceedings in respect of the employer and noted that they had no bearing on dismissal decisions.\n12.  On 2 December 1999 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant's appeal on points of law (ревизија) and quashed the lower courts' decisions of 7 November 1997 and 10 February 1998.\n13.  On 22 March 2000 the Kočani Court of First Instance declared itself incompetent ratione loci to decide the applicant's case.\n14.  On 22 December 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the employer's request that the first-instance court be declared incompetent to deal with the applicant's case.\n15.  On 17 April 2001 the first-instance court annulled the dismissal decision and dismissed the applicant's claim for his reinstatement finding that the employer's insolvency had entailed ipso jure termination of all employment agreements, including the applicant's. This decision was upheld by the Štip Court of Appeal's and the Supreme Court's decisions of 27 December 2001 and 7 May 2003, respectively. This latter decision was served on the applicant on 9 July 2003.\n16.  On 28 July 2003 the applicant brought a civil action against the employer claiming employment emoluments (надомест на штета од работен однос). His claim referred to compensation for unpaid salary and an allowance for provisional unemployment that he should have received from the State Employment Bureau (Биро за вработување) pending the employer's insolvency proceedings.\n17.  On 1 March 2004 the first-instance court ruled partly in favour of the applicant. This decision became final on 5 April 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5260", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, who is a Croatian national was born in 1957 and lives in Zadar, Croatia.\n5.  On 16 July 1996 the applicant brought a civil action against the company Z. in the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) challenging her dismissal from work and seeking salary arrears.\n6.  The court held six hearings and on 10 October 1997 dismissed the action. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 15 March 2000 the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case to the court of first instance.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings, the Zadar Municipal Court held six hearings and on 16 April 2003 stayed the proceedings (prekid postupka) because the bankruptcy proceedings had meanwhile been opened against the defendant.\n9.  On 14 July 2003 the Municipal Court found that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter because of the opening of the bankruptcy proceedings and transferred the case to the Zadar Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Zadru). The Commercial Court held three hearings and on 1 June 2004 adopted a judgment. The applicant appealed to the High Commercial Court (Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske).\n10.  On 3 May 2006 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).\n11.  On 12 September 2006 the High Commercial Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. In the resumed proceedings the Zadar Commercial Court gave its judgment on 6 February 2007 against which both parties appealed to the High Commercial Court.\n12.  On 6 March 2007 the Supreme Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time and attributed delays in the proceedings to the inefficiency of the Zadar Municipal Court and the High Commercial Court. It awarded the applicant 15,000 Croatian kuna in compensation and ordered the High Commercial Court to give a decision in the applicant's case within one month following the service of its decision. The Supreme Court's decision was served on the High Commercial Court on 2 July 2007, although the latter already gave its decision in that case (see § 11 above).\n13.  On 26 September 2007 the High Commercial Court quashed the first-instance judgment of 6 February 2007 and remitted the case. On 22 January 2009 the Zadar Commercial Court gave its judgment against which both parties appealed to the High Commercial Court.\n14.  On 7 October 2009 the High Commercial Court upheld the first instance judgment in part and in the remaining part quashed and remitted to the Zadar Commercial Court before which the proceedings are currently pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5261", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Shali, Chechnya. She is the mother of Vakhit (also known as Akhmed) Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1976.\n6.  At the material time the town of Shali was under the full control of Russian federal forces. Military checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the town. The area was under curfew.\n7.  The applicant's house at 56 Kirova Street, Shali, Chechnya, consisted of three dwellings. One of the applicant's sons, Vakhit, lived with her in one dwelling; two other sons of the applicant lived with their families in the others.\n8.  On the night of 2-3 January 2003 the applicant, Vakhit Dzhabrailov and their relatives were at home. At about 5.30 a.m. a group of fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at their house in a white GAZ minivan with tented body ('Газель') and a grey UAZ minivan ('Таблетка'). The vehicles did not have registration numbers. The men unloaded a ladder and used it to climb over the fence into the applicant's yard.\n9.  The men neither identified themselves nor produced any documents. They had Slavic appearance and spoke Russian without accent. The applicant and her relatives thought that they were Russian military servicemen.\n10.  The men split into two groups and went into the dwellings. Some of the soldiers remained on the street and ordered the neighbours to get back in their houses. The first group broke into the house where the applicant's son Mr R. Dzh. lived with his family. They took him outside and put him on the floor of the UAZ minivan. Mr R. Dzh. was shown to a man in the vehicle and then immediately released.\n11.  In another house the servicemen detained Vakhit Dzhabrailov and took him outside. They put him face down on the ground. Vakhit Dzhabrailov, who was suffering from tuberculosis, was not allowed to put on warm clothing. The applicant asked the soldiers where they were taking Vakhit, but did not receive any response. After that the soldiers put Vakhit in the UAZ minivan. Immediately afterwards one of the officers contacted someone via a portable radio and reported that they had taken someone. After that the vehicles drove away in the direction of the local mosque and the Shali district department of the interior (the ROVD).\n12.  The abduction of Vakhit Dzhabrailov was witnessed by a number of the applicant's relatives and neighbours. The applicant has had no news of Vakhit Dzhabrailov since the day of his abduction.\n13.  The description of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the applicant's son is based on the following documents: an account by the applicant dated 22 December 2003, an account by the applicant's neighbour Ms N. U. dated 12 December 2003, an account by the applicant's son Mr R. Dzh. dated 10 November 2005, accounts by the applicant's relatives Ms A. Al. and Ms S.T., both dated 10 November 2005, and an account by the applicant's neighbour Ms A. Ak. dated 17 November 2005.\n14.  The Government did not challenge most of the account presented by the applicant. According to their submission “... criminal case no. 22015 was opened by the Shali district prosecutor's office after Ms E. Tupchiyeva (Dzhabrailova) had complained that unidentified persons had abducted V. Dzhabrailov from 56 Kirova Street in Shali, Chechnya at about 10 a.m. on 3 January 2003...”\n15.  In the morning of 3 January 2003 the applicant and her relatives started searching for Vakhit Dzhabrailov. They also contacted, both in person an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5262", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Rijeka, Croatia.\n5.  On 3 August 1994 he obtained a final and enforceable judgment from the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci) ordering a private individual, M.Č. to pay the applicant a sum of money.\n6.  On 11 November 1994, as no payment had been made, the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings in the Makarska Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Makarskoj), seeking the enforcement of the above judgment through the seizure of movable property owned by M.Č in Makarska.\n7.  In February 1998, the Makarska Municipal Court initiated the seizure of the said movable property in order to satisfy the applicant's claim. However, this attempt failed because of the lack of movable property suitable for seizure.\n8.  On 26 November 2001 the applicant requested that the value of a flat owned by M.Č. be assessed by the Makarska Municipal Court for the purposes of the enforcement proceedings.\n9.  On 21 July 2003 the applicant sought enforcement through the seizure of the above-mentioned flat.\n10.  On 3 July 2006 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the Split County Court, complaining about the length of the above-mentioned enforcement proceedings.\n11.  On 1 March 2007 the Split County Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded him compensation in the amount of 7,000 Croatian kuna (HRK) and ordered the Makarska Municipal Court to decide the case as quickly as possible but in any case within six months. The County Court's decision was served on the applicant on 23 March 2007.\n12.  On 2 October 2007 the applicant lodged another request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the Split County Court, complaining that the enforcement proceedings were still pending at first instance. On 10 March 2008 the Split County Court dismissed the applicant's complaint.\n13.  On 2 April 2008 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the decision of the Split County Court, contesting it as being ineffective in his case and claiming compensation in the amount of HRK 500,000.\n14.  On 9 June 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant's appeal in part and ordered the Makarska Municipal Court to complete the enforcement proceedings as quickly as possible but in any case within six months. The Supreme Court did not award the applicant any further compensation. The Supreme Court's decision was served on the applicant on 3 July 2008.\n15.  On 5 September 2008 the Makarska Municipal Court decided that the enforcement was not permissible under the relevant domestic law. The applicant appealed. On 15 January 2009 the Split County Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Makarska Municipal Court.\n16.  On 23 January 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the above-mentioned enforcement proceedings and also complained about the fact that both time-limits, the first one ordered by the Split County Court and the second by the Supreme Court, had not been complied with.\n17.  On 19 February 2009 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant's constitutional complaint, treating it as an appeal against the Supreme Court's decision of 9 June 2008, on the ground that the findings of the lower courts had been correct.\n18.  On 6 April 2009", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5263", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is at present detained in Bobov dol Prison.\n6.  Criminal proceedings for murder were opened against him on 11 January 2000. They continued until 27 November 2003 when he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by means of a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation.\n7.  From 8 March 2000 to 5 November 2008 the applicant was detained in Lovech Prison, initially being held there in pre-trial detention and after 27 November 2003 as a prisoner serving a life imprisonment sentence. On 5 November 2008 he was transferred to Bobov dol Prison.\n8.  On 4 August 2003 the applicant received a letter dated 1 August 2003 from the lawyer representing him in the criminal proceedings. The letter concerned the possible outcome of the proceedings and the strategy of the defence. The envelope had been opened and bore the signature of an official of the prison administration.\n9.  After the conclusion of the domestic proceedings, between 12 January and 13 April 2004 the applicant received two more letters from the same lawyer and two letters from another lawyer. All four envelopes had been opened and bore the signatures of officials of the prison administration.\n10.  On 10 December 2003 the applicant received a letter from the Registry of the Court, dated 2 December 2003 and concerning his application in the present case. The envelope had been opened and bore the signature of an official of the prison administration.\n11.  On 5 February and 16 April 2004 the applicant complained to the prison administration of the practice of opening and reading his letters. In reply, he was informed that the monitoring of detainees' and prisoners' correspondence was envisaged by section 33 of the Execution of Punishments Act, that it concerned all inmates and that it pursued “security-related” and “educational” aims.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5265", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants' relative and another person were sued in the District Court in Trebišov. The plaintiffs in the case claimed that real property in respect of which the defendants were registered as owners belonged to the estate of the plaintiffs' predecessors.\n6.  On 5 October 1999 the District Court dismissed the action.\n7.  On 26 October 2000 the Regional Court in Košice quashed the first‑instance judgment.\n8.  On 9 October 2001 the applicants joined the proceedings as defendants.\n9.  On 18 September 2002 the District Court allowed the plaintiffs' action.\n10.  On 16 September 2003 the Regional Court upheld the decision of the District Court.\n11.  The applicants filed an appeal with the Supreme Court on points of law. They alleged that the Regional Court had not assessed the relevant facts correctly. In particular, the applicants challenged the conclusion that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had acquired the property in question pursuant to a document issued on 6 April 1948. In any event, they argued that the document was invalid as it contained incorrect information. Finally, the applicants alleged that the property in question had not been specified with sufficient certainty in the document.\n12.  On 27 July 2004 the Supreme Court publicly delivered a judgment dismissing the applicants' appeal on points of law. The judgment stated that the Supreme Court had examined the case without a hearing pursuant to Article 243a § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It indicated that the plaintiffs had submitted observations on the applicants' appeal on points of law. In their observations the plaintiffs had alleged that their predecessors had acquired the property in question by virtue of the document of 6 April 1948 or, in any event, by prescription.\n13.  The Supreme Court upheld the conclusions reached by the Regional Court. It held that, despite several inconsistencies in the text of the administrative document of 6 April 1948, it was evident that the land in question had been allocated to the plaintiffs' predecessors. Similar administrative documents were to be presumed correct and binding to the extent that they had been delivered by a competent authority and had become final. The ordinary courts could not subsequently review the merits of such decisions. The fact that, according to the document, further action had been needed with a view to completing the allocation of the property to the persons concerned was irrelevant as regards the acquisition of the property by the plaintiffs' predecessors by virtue of that document. Such situation was in conformity with the law in force at that time.\n14.  The applicants filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. They complained that the Supreme Court had had before it observations submitted by the plaintiffs which had not been communicated to the applicants. They further contended that the Regional Court had not taken into account the fact that the document in issue did not clearly indicate the persons to whom the land had been allocated and that the Supreme Court had not remedied that shortcoming.\n15.  On 2 February 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants' complaint. It found that the parties had had ample opportunity to submit their arguments on the relevant issues before the ordinary courts at two levels. With reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court held that th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5266", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Chişinău. He is a writer and a professor of French.\n6.  The applicant's parents, Dumitru Ciubotaru and the late Sofia Caraiman were born in 1927 and 1928 respectively, in Bălţi, province of Bessarabia, Romania. Their Romanian civil status documents did not contain any information concerning their ethnic identity. In their marriage certificate issued by the Soviet authorities in 1949, the entry for ethnicity was left blank. However, the applicant's birth certificate issued by the Soviet authorities in 1952 recorded his parents as ethnic Moldovans. On the applicant's mother's birth certificate issued by the Soviet authorities in 1965 the ethnicity was also left blank. Later, the applicant's parents were recorded as ethnic Moldovans on their Soviet identity cards issued in 1976 and 1979, in accordance with applications completed and signed by them in which Moldovan ethnicity was indicated. On his Soviet identity card the applicant was also indicated as an ethnic Moldovan.\n7.  In 2002 the applicant applied to the Moldovan authorities to have his old Soviet identity card replaced by a Moldovan identity card. On the application form he wrote “Romanian” under ethnicity. However, he was told that his application would not be accepted unless Moldovan ethnicity was indicated on it. The applicant complied.\n8.  Shortly thereafter the applicant wrote to the local civil registration authority and requested, inter alia, that his ethnicity entry be changed from Moldovan to Romanian. In an answer dated 11 February 2003 the applicant was informed that since his parents were not recorded as ethnic Romanians in their birth and marriage certificates, it was impossible for him to be recorded as an ethnic Romanian.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant wrote to the central civil registration authority and again requested that his ethnic identity entry be changed from Moldovan to Romanian. In an answer of 2 July 2004 he was informed that Romanian ethnicity had not been indicated in his parents' documents and that, therefore, he could not claim such an ethnic identity. He was advised to search the National Archives for traces of Romanian origin of his grandparents and other ancestors. The applicant wrote numerous complaints to the Prime Minister, the President of the country and other officials, but to no avail.\n10.  On 26 July 2004 the applicant initiated proceedings against the State authority responsible for civil registration and identity papers and requested, inter alia, that his ethnicity entry and that of his parents be changed to Romanian in the State Population Registry database and in his identity papers. He argued that he did not consider himself to be an ethnic Moldovan and that it was contrary to his right to freedom of conscience and to his personal dignity to be considered part of an ethnic group which he believed to be an artificial creation of the Stalinist regime.\n11.  On 15 November 2004 the Rascani District Court dismissed the applicant's action on the ground that he had failed to prove that his parents were of Romanian ethnic identity as no such identity had been recorded in their identity papers. The applicant appealed and relied, inter alia, on the provisions of the Law on National Minorities (see paragraph 15 below) and on Article 8 of the Convention.\n12.  On 15 December 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal on the same grounds, stating that the applicant had", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5267", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Vörður Ólafsson, is an Icelandic national who was born in 1961 and lives in Reykjavik.\n7.  The applicant is a master builder and is a member of the Master Builders’ Association (“the MBA”). Under the Industry Charge Act (Law no. 134/1993 – “the 1993 Act”), he was under an obligation to pay a levy known as the “industry charge” to the Federation of Icelandic Industries (“the FII”), an organisation of which the applicant was not a member and to which the MBA was not affiliated. The 1993 Act provided that a charge of 0.08% should be levied on all industrial activities in Iceland as defined in the Act. The definition included all activities coming under activity code numbers enumerated in an appendix to the Act. Private-sector enterprises not covered by the code numbers were not subject to the industry charge. This was the case, for example, for enterprises in the meat-processing, milk-processing and fish-processing industries. Other enterprises in the food and drink industry were covered. Enterprises entirely under public ownership or established by special statute were not covered (section 2). Revenues from the industry charge were to be transferred to the FII, and were to be used for the promotion and development of industry in Iceland (section 3). The State Treasury was to receive 0.5% of the charge collected in order to cover the costs of its collection (section 1).\n8.  More than 10,000 persons (legal persons and self-employed individuals) paid the industry charge. The FII had between 1,100 and 1,200 members (enterprises and self-employed individuals).\n9.  The Government supplied copies of the FII’s reports to the Ministry of Industry regarding the disbursement of the industry charge for the years 2000, 2003 and 2006.\n10.  The FII’s report for the year 2003 (dated 4 July 2004) stated:\n“The Federation’s accounts have not indicated whether particular operational items are paid for with funds from membership fees, capital income or the industry charge, because an overwhelming proportion of its work benefits industrial companies whether they are members of the Federation or not. The Ministry of Industry has not expressed any reservation regarding this arrangement, and legislation concerning the industry charge imposes no other requirements.\nThe Federation and the Ministry of Industry are, however, in agreement about the requirement for a more detailed account of how the industry charge is disbursed, and that has been done in this report.”\n11.  Under the title “Disbursement of the industry charge in 2003 according to the Federation’s accounts”, the report included a table showing the “Income and expenditure according to the Federation’s audited accounts for the year 2003”. In a separate column the table indicated the percentage of funds originating from the industry charge in relation to each item and sub-item. This included the following items: “Operating profits” and “Operating expenses”. It also detailed “Further itemisation of disbursement of the industry charge according to the accounts”, namely: (1) “Wages and related expenses”; (2) “Meetings and conferences”; (3) “Promotional activities”; (4) “Publications”; (5) “Branches and special projects”; and (6) “General and administrative expenses”.\nFor each of these sub-items the report contained explanatory notes, providing information on the treatment of members as compared with non-members. For example, under sub-item (1) it was stated that 2.5 of the 20 man-years co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5268", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Krasnystaw.\n5.  On 28 October 2005 the applicant was detained on remand by the decision of the Puławy District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n6.  The pre-trial detention was subsequently extended by the domestic courts.\n7.  During the detention the applicant served two prison sentences (of ten and four months respectively), ordered in different sets of criminal proceedings against him.\n8.  On 6 March 2007 the Puławy District Court convicted the applicant of numerous counts of robbery and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment.\n9.  On 27 September 2007 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the judgment of the District Court.\n10.  On 21 November 2007 the applicant's legal-aid counsel found no grounds for lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).\n11.  While detained in the course of the above-mentioned proceedings, the applicant's correspondence was censored on several occasions.\n12.  All envelopes produced by the applicant bear a stamp that reads: “The Puławy District Court, Censored, date ...” (Sąd Rejonowy w Puławach, Ocenzurowano, dnia...) and an illegible signature. Those envelopes contained the following:\na) one letter from the Lublin Oncological Centre (sent on 3 March 2006 and stamped on 15 March 2006);\nb) one letter from a hospital in Lublin (sent on 10 March 2006 and stamped on 20 March 2006);\nc) two letters from a sheltered-work factory (the first letter sent on 7 March 2006 and stamped on 20 March 2006; the second letter sent on 11 April 2006 and stamped on 24 April 2006);\nd) one letter from a bank in Poniatowa (sent on 5 September 2006 and stamped on 18 September 2006);\ne) one letter from the Opole Lubelskie District Employment Office (Powiatowy Urząd Pracy) (sent on 31 March 2006 and stamped on 11 April 2006);\nf) three letters from the Lublin Municipal Disability Evaluation Board (Miejski Zespół do Spraw Orzekania o Niepełnosprawności) (the first letter sent on 27 February 2006 and stamped on 6 March 2006; the second letter sent on 26 January 2007 and stamped on 1 February 2007; the third letter sent on 8 March 2007 and stamped on 15 March 2007);\ng) one letter from the ING Bank (sent on 10 May 2007 and stamped on 22 May 2007);\nh) three letters from the Lublin Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) (the first letter sent on18 April 2006 and stamped on 10 May 2006; the second letter sent on 17 August 2006 and stamped on 24 August 2006; the third letter sent on 20 February 2007 and stamped on 1 March 2007).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5270", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Rzeszów.\n6.  During the evening of 23 December 2002 the applicant had an argument with his wife. The applicant's wife called the police and four policemen arrived. Both the applicant and his wife had been drinking. The applicant's wife wanted him to be taken by the police to a sobering-up centre.\n7.  The applicant wanted to get dressed to go out and when he tried to get out of his armchair he was attacked by one of the policemen, who started strangling him. Three other police officers joined their colleague. They pulled the applicant's arms backwards and tried to push him to the ground. The applicant resisted. The police officers called another police car and three or four other policemen arrived. The police officers pushed the applicant to the floor and then they punched him on the head. Subsequently the applicant was handcuffed with his arms behind his back and taken downstairs. The police officers did not let him get dressed to go out or put on his shoes. He was taken outside barefoot. It was minus twenty degrees. While being taken downstairs he was also pushed and kicked. The events in the street were observed from a window on the fourth floor by the applicant's neighbour.\n8.  He was put in the back of the police vehicle together with two police officers. In the police van he was beaten on the head. On the way to the sobering-up centre the police van stopped at Ciepłownicza Street and the applicant was “kicked out” of the car. He was then pushed to the ground with his face in the snow and kicked and beaten by four policemen for about twenty minutes. One of them tightened the applicant's handcuffs. The applicant was then put back in the van and taken to the sobering-up centre. The applicant informed the doctor in the sobering-up centre that he had been beaten up by the police officers. The doctor decided that the applicant should be taken first to the hospital.\n9.  The police officers took the applicant to the hospital, where his wounds were dressed. While he was leaving the hospital he was again hit by one of the police officers on the back of the head. He was taken back to the sobering-up centre where he was qualified as “dangerous” and attached to a bed with safety belts. For about four hours he was not allowed to go to the toilet.\n10.  Subsequently, the applicant was taken from the sobering-up centre to a police station where he was charged with insulting police officers and questioned.\n11.  During the evening of 23 December 2002 the applicant had an argument with his wife. The applicant was aggressive and hit his wife several times on the head. Both the applicant and his wife had been drinking. The applicant's wife called the police and ran out of their building; she waited outside for the police. Two police officers arrived and they went with the applicant's wife to the applicant's flat. The police officers asked the applicant for his identity card. This request made the applicant aggressive; he started punching them. Therefore the police officers decided to use force; they pushed him to the ground. The applicant resisted and the police officers called another police patrol. Shortly afterwards two other police officers arrived and helped put handcuffs on the applicant's wrists with his hands behind his back.\n12.  During the police intervention the applicant's mother-in-law was in the flat, but she stayed in her room and did not witness the whole incident.\n13.  The police officers ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5271", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is serving a prison sentence in the Magadan Region.\n7.  On 3 January 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter and placed in a temporary detention facility at the Severo-Evensk District police station in the Magadan Region (ИВС Северо-Эвенского РУВД). According to the applicant, he was kept in a windowless cell without any other access to fresh air or daylight. It was dim and stuffy. There was no ventilation. The cell was not equipped with a toilet. During the day time, if requested, the guards took the applicant to a bathroom in the hallway. At night, if the applicant wished to go to toilet, he had to use a plastic bucket. There was no outdoor exercise area at the police station, so the applicant had to stay indoors all the time. His daily one-hour walk took place in a room which measured thirty-seven square metres and had two windows covered with metal bars.\n8.  The supervising prosecutor visited the applicant every week. The applicant complained to him about the conditions of his detention. On 25 March 2005 the applicant asked in writing for a transfer to a remand centre in Magadan. The prosecutor dismissed his request, referring to the distance between Severo-Evensk and Magadan and a lack of funds.\n9.  The applicant repeated his complaints in written applications to the prosecutor and the courts. All of them were to no avail.\n10.  On 5 July 2005 the applicant was found guilty of manslaughter. On 23 August 2005 he was transferred to a remand prison in Magadan.\n11.  On 7 July 2006 the Magadan Regional Police Department conducted an inquiry in response to the Government's request in connection with the present application pending at the time before the Court. In particular, Colonel S. in charge of the inquiry stated the following in his report:\n“The inquiry confirms the truthfulness of the [applicant's] allegations about the lack of proper living conditions in the temporary detention facility at the [police station] in the Severo-Evensk District.\nAccording to the technical passport, in March 1999 the [police station] and the temporary detention facility were deployed at the former premises of a [local] newspaper.\nNo funds, either from the federal or local budget, had been allocated for the construction and equipping of the temporary detention facility, so all the work had to be carried out by [police station] personnel.\n...\n... Until 2006, no finance had been obtained for the repair and reconstruction of the [police station]. Accordingly, at the temporary detention facility, it had been impossible to comply with the standards set forth in the [federal legislation].\nThere are four cells at the temporary detention facility. The cells have no windows. There is no water supply or sewage system. Nor is there an outdoor exercise area or surrounding fence.\nFrom 3 to 17 January and from 11 February to 23 March 2005 [the applicant] was detained in cell no. 1, which measured 7.2 square metres.\nFrom 17 January to 11 February and from 23 March to 23 August 2005, he was detained in cell no. 2, which measured 10.9 square metres.\nAll the cells at the temporary detention facility are equipped with individual sleeping places. The detainees are provided with bed linen, plates, janitorial supplies, soap, detergent and drinking water tanks.\nThe cells are connected to the municipal central-heating system. The lighting is provided by electricity.\nAt the time of the applicant's detention, cell no. 2 w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5272", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in the village of Ivolginsk in the Republic of Buryatiya.\n5.  On 29 January 1995 the Ivolginskiy District police department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and several other individuals. They were accused of severely injuring Mr I. during a public disturbance. An investigator questioned the applicant in the presence of legal-aid counsel, Mrs N. On the same day the applicant was remanded in custody.\n6.  In September 1995 the applicant was served with a bill of indictment and the case was committed for trial to the Ivolginskiy District Court.  On 1 December 1995 the District Court found the applicant guilty of disorderly conduct and causing serious injury. It sentenced him to four years' probation. The applicant was released on the same day. The judgment of 1 December 1995 was upheld on appeal and became final on 14 March 1996.\n7.  On 16 October 1998 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatiya, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgments of 1 December 1995 and 14 March 1996, having established that the District Court had been composed in violation of the domestic requirements, and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n8.  Ten days later the Ivolginskiy District Court received the case file. Of the nine hearings fixed between 27 October 1998 and 7 April 1999, three were adjourned because a co-defendant, having been drafted into the army, could not attend, two hearings were rescheduled because the applicant or his counsel were ill, one was postponed because the applicant's counsel was participating in other proceedings and one was annulled owing to the absence of a co-defendant's counsel.\n9.  On 7 April 1999 the District Court accepted a request by the applicant and his counsel for the trial court and the prosecutor to step down. That decision was amended on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatiya. In particular, on 22 June 1999 the Supreme Court held that the District Court was correct in accepting the challenge to the composition of the bench. However, it should have rejected the request for the prosecutor's dismissal.\n10.  The District Court, sitting in the new composition, fixed a hearing for 25 August 1999. That hearing, as well as the subsequent one scheduled for 1 October 1999, was adjourned due to failure to attend on the part of a co-defendant and of victims and witnesses.\n11.  On 15 November 1999 a new presiding judge was assigned to the case following the applicant's request for a change in the composition of the bench. Hearings were held between 15 and 23 November 1999.\n12.  On 23 November 1999 the District Court changed the composition of the bench, having dismissed the presiding judge at counsel's request. That decision was quashed on appeal a month later and the examination of the case on the merits was ordered.\n13.  On 11 January 2000 the President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatiya transferred the case to the Sovetskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude for an examination on the merits.\n14.  The first trial hearing scheduled by the Sovetskiy District Court for 1 February 2000 was adjourned because of the absence of counsel for a co-defendant.\n15.  On 21 February 2000 the applicant's counsel successfully asked the District Court to return the case for an additional inquiry, alleging gross defects in the initial pre-trial investigation.\n16.  On 30 March 2000 the head of the investigating depa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5273", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lived in Moscow until his arrest.\n6.  On 10 November 2006 the Prosecutor General’s office instituted criminal proceedings on charges of aggravated bribery and abuse of position against a number of officials of the Federal Mandatory Health Insurance Fund (“the Fund”), including the applicant. The latter was employed as the first deputy director of the Fund until August 2006, when he resigned.\n7.  The applicant was not arrested, as on 24 November 2006 he gave a written undertaking to comply with investigators’ orders and summons. During the subsequent eight months he fully complied with the written undertaking and actively participated in the criminal investigation, attending investigative actions whenever summoned by the Prosecutor General’s office (at least fifteen times in eight months).\n8.  On 2 July 2007 the deputy head of the Trade Security Service of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”), lieutenant-general V., sent a letter to a senior investigator of the Prosecutor General’s Office responsible for the applicant’s criminal case. The relevant part of the letter read as follows:\n“[We] have received information that the former first deputy director of the Fund, [the applicant], if informed that documents [for his arrest] are being prepared, will take steps similar to those [taken] in November 2006 when he, having used his extensive connections in medical institutions, admitted himself to a hospital for inpatient treatment.\nFurthermore, according to the received information [the applicant], being a very cautious person and responding to all summons by the investigator, at the same time takes measures to pervert the investigation by inciting individuals who have information about his criminal activities to distort that information.\nThis is just to inform you.”\n9.  On the following day, at approximately 2.30 p.m., the applicant was arrested. A record of the arrest, in so far as relevant, read as follows:\n“It is suspected that [the applicant] in 2005 [and] 2006, having acted as the first deputy director of [the Fund] in Moscow together with an organised group and using his official position, had received bribes in large amounts from heads of regional mandatory medical insurance funds and representatives of pharmaceutical companies in exchange for provision of resources from the fixed insurance reserve of the Federal Fund and insurance funds set aside to supply citizens with medicines..., that is [the applicant is suspected] of a criminal offence proscribed by Article 290 § 4 (a) [and] (d) of the Russian Criminal Code.\n...\nIn respect of his arrest [the applicant] stated: there are no grounds for the arrest; [I] did not attempt to abscond from the investigation; [I] did not try to prevent the establishment of the truth in the case; [I] did not make attempts to influence the participants in the proceedings or to destroy evidence; [I] did not commit any crime while at liberty. [I] have a permanent place of residence in Moscow.\nThe lawyer adds that [the applicant] is in a poor state of health.”\nThe applicant’s lawyer present during the arrest made a handwritten note in the arrest record, insisting on an immediate medical examination of the applicant, arguing that the latter was suffering from a number of serious illnesses, felt ill during the arrest and could not adequately respond to the investigator’s actions.\n10.  On 3 July 2007 the applicant was brought before a judge of the Basmanniy District Cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5274", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Solyanoye in the Krasnodar Region.\n6.  On 25 March 1993 Ms N., the applicant's former partner, brought an action against him seeking recognition of her rights in respect of the house registered in the applicant's name. The applicant brought a counter-action seeking division of her property.\n7.  On 16 February 1995 the Dinskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region granted N.'s claims in part and dismissed the applicant's claims. On 16 April 1996 the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgment of 16 February 1995 on appeal and sent the matter for fresh consideration.\n8.  On 10 June 1996 the Prikubanskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region approved a friendly settlement agreement entered into by the applicant and N. and discontinued the proceedings. The applicant appealed. On 18 July 1996 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 10 June 1996 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.\n9.  On 15 August 1997 the Prikubanskiy District Court granted N.'s claims in part and dismissed the applicant's claims. On 18 September 1997 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 15 August 1997 on appeal and again remitted the matter for fresh consideration.\n10.  On 27 March 1998 the Dinskiy District Court dismissed all the claims and counterclaims in full. On 21 May 1998 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 27 March 1998 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.\n11.  On 21 June 2001, the Dinskiy District Court granted N.'s claims in part. On 6 September 2001 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 21 June 2001 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.\n12.  On 4 March 2002 the Dinskiy District Court ordered the applicant to pay N. 103,960 Russian roubles (RUB) in reimbursement for her expenses incurred during the construction of his house. The applicant's counterclaims were dismissed. On 2 April 2002 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 4 March 2002 on appeal.\n13.  On 10 April 2002 the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 4 March 2002.\n14.  On 5 July 2002 the bailiff seized the applicant's house and car. On an unspecified date, at the applicant's request, the courts lifted the seizure order in respect of the car.\n15.  On 24 October 2002 the applicant paid the judgment debt owed to N. and the bailiff closed the enforcement proceedings.\n16.  It appears that on an unspecified date the seizure order was lifted in respect of the house and the applicant sold it.\n17.  On 23 January 2003 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court quashed the judgments of 4 March 2002 and 2 April 2002 by way of a supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.\n18.  On 17 April 2003 the Dinskiy District Court dismissed N.'s claims.\n19.  On 23 December 2003 the Regional Court gave a final judgment ordering N. to repay the applicant the monies awarded to her by the judgment of 4 March 2002. It appears that that decision was enforced shortly thereafter.\n20.  On 14 September 2004 the Regional Court gave a final judgment dismissing the applicant's complaint about the allegedly unlawful seizure of his house by the bailiff as time-barred.\n21.  On 17 June 2005 the Pervomaiskiy District Court of Krasnodar dismissed the applicant's action against the bailiff for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The court, however, ordered that the applicant be repaid the enforcement fee of RUB 7,278.\n22.  On an unspecified date, the applicant sub", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5275", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1917, 1947 and 1957 respectively and live in Sofia.\n6.  In 1993 the heirs of the pre-nationalisation owners of an apartment, purchased by the first applicant's husband from the State in 1968, brought an action for restitution against the latter, seeking a declaration that the 1968 transaction had been null and void and that therefore the apartment should be restored to its original owners before the nationalisation.\n7.  On 18 October 1995 the Sofia District Court granted the restitution claim.\n8.  On appeal, on 14 July 1997 the Sofia City Court quashed the District Court's judgment and dismissed the claim of the pre-nationalisation owners' heirs.\n9.  The heirs of the pre-nationalisation owners submitted a petition for review (cassation).\n10.  By a final judgment of 22 February 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Sofia City Court's judgment and upheld the District Court's judgment. As a result, the title of the first applicant's husband to the apartment at issue was declared null and void.\n11.  The number of hearings held in the course of the proceedings is not clear.\n12.  On 6 May 1999 the first applicant's husband died. The first applicant and her two sons (the second and third applicants) were his heirs.\n13.  On 20 May 1999 the first applicant, who had not been a party to the 1993-1999 proceedings, submitted a request for reopening, stating that in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure she should have been cited as a party since she was the owner of one half of the apartment at issue and the judgment of 22 February 1999 was binding on her.\n14.  The second and third applicants also became parties to these proceedings as they replaced their deceased father, being his heirs.\n15.  By a judgment of 30 January 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 22 February 1999, reopened the case and remitted it to another panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation. The court found that, in violation of the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the first applicant had not taken part in the 1993-1999 proceedings.\n16.  At least two hearings were held before the Supreme Court of Cassation - one on 15 May 2001 and one on 6 November 2001, the first of them was adjourned upon the first applicant's request.\n17.  By a judgment of 13 November 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 14 July 1997 and remitted the case to the Sofia City Court for new examination.\n18.  The first hearing before the City Court was scheduled for 27 May 2002 and was adjourned upon the first applicant's request. The following hearing was held on 6 February 2003. At least three more hearings were held - on 13 March 2003, 20 November 2003 and 9 February 2004, the first of which was adjourned because the third applicant had not been properly summoned as his address had changed.\n19.  On 1 March 2004 the Sofia City Court quashed the Sofia District Court's judgment of 18 October 1995 and decided to refer the case for renewed examination by the Sofia District Court.\n20.  On an unspecified date in March or in April 2004 the heirs of the pre-nationalisation owners appealed before the Supreme Court of Cassation, which held a hearing on 11 March 2005. By judgment of 24 March 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the lower court's judgment, as the reopened case fell to be examined by the Sofia City Court.\n21.  The Sofia City Court held a hearing on 14 November 2005.\n22.  On 9 January 2006 the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5276", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Skopje.\n6.  On 20 February 1994 the applicant, a minor at the time, was injured in a fight with Mr T.P. and Mr N.Z. (“the defendants”).\n7. On 10 February 1995 an investigating judge discontinued the investigation after the public prosecutor had stayed the prosecution. On 20 February 1995 the applicant took over the prosecution as a subsidiary complainant. On 24 April 1997 the public prosecutor joined and took over the prosecution. Prior to that date, the trial court had set five hearings and obtained an expert opinion, according to which the applicant had sustained serious bodily injuries.\n8. Thirteen hearings were rescheduled between 18 August 1997 and 11 December 1998 because of the absence of the defendants or the expert. On 11 June 1999 an alternative expert report was drawn up regarding the nature and severity of the injuries sustained by the applicant.\n9. On 10 January 2000 the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) found the defendants guilty of causing grievous bodily harm and sentenced them to a suspended prison term. It found that they had hit the applicant on the head, as a result of which he had sustained concussion (потрес на мозог). The court further advised the applicant, under section 101 of the Criminal Proceedings Act (see paragraph 22 below) to pursue a compensation claim which he had made in the course of the proceedings by means of a separate civil action before the civil courts. It was noted that this latter claim had not been specified.\n10. On 6 July 2000 the Skopje Court of Appeal allowed the defendants' appeals and quashed the trial court's decision.\n11. On 12 February 2002 the Forensic Institute submitted to the court another expert opinion which stated that the applicant had sustained concussion, a serious injury.\n12. On 19 November 2002 the trial court convicted the defendants again and sentenced them to a suspended prison term. It reiterated its earlier decision as regards the applicant's claim for reparation of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss related to the injury, namely, that he should pursue it in separate civil proceedings.\n13. At a public hearing held on 10 July 2003, the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n14. On 18 March 2004 the trial court discontinued the proceedings because the prosecution had become time-barred. It further advised the applicant that he could claim compensation by means of a separate civil action before the civil courts. No appeal having been submitted, this decision became final on 14 May 2004.\n15. During the proceedings, the applicant complained to many State institutions about the way the proceedings in question had been conducted.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5278", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Khunzhand, Tajikistan. He is currently residing in Moscow.\n6.  The applicant is a practising Muslim. He states that he has not been a member of any political organisations, including Hizb ut-Tahrir (“HT”), an Islamic organisation banned in Russia, Germany and some Central Asian republics, but has nonetheless been persecuted by the Tajikistani authorities on account of presumed membership of that organisation.\n7.  By a decision of 22 June 2000 the Ministry of Security of Tajikistan instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his membership of “the illegal extremist-religious party 'Hizb ut-Tahrir'”. The decision stated that the applicant had committed a number of serious and particularly serious crimes, namely, incitement to overthrow the political regime in Tajikistan and dissemination of material containing incitement to religious hatred. On the same date the Ministry of Security of Tajikistan placed the applicant on a search list, drew up an arrest warrant in his name and suspended the investigation because the applicant's whereabouts were unknown.\n8.  The applicant fled to Moscow in 2001.\n9.  Between 27 October and 7 December 2001 the applicant was kept in detention in Russia with a view to his extradition. He was subsequently released because no formal request for his extradition was received.\n10.  The applicant registered his place of residence in Russia with the relevant authorities.\n11.  On 28 November 2007 the applicant was arrested by servicemen of the Moscow Department of the Federal Security Service and police of the Odintsovo District.\n12.  In the morning of 30 November 2007 the applicant was questioned in the absence of a lawyer. The servicemen who carried out the interview threatened to use violence against the applicant and his family unless he voluntarily agreed to leave Russia for Tajikistan. According to the applicant, he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest in the course of the interview. Neither did he have access to a lawyer during the two following weeks in detention.\n13.  On 30 November 2007 the Odintsovo Town Court of the Moscow Region (“the Town Court”) ordered the applicant's placement in custody pending his extradition. The term of detention was not specified.\n14.  Between 30 November 2007 and 30 January 2008 the applicant was kept in a temporary detention facility of the Odintsovo District Department of the Interior. In the meantime his wife was expelled to Tajikistan.\n15.  On 21 December 2007 the Prosecutor General of Tajikistan sent a request for the applicant's extradition to the Prosecutor General of Russia and enclosed a copy of the decision of 22 June 2000 to charge the applicant with membership of a proscribed organisation and copies of the search and arrest warrants.\n16.  On 4 June 2008 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia ordered the applicant's extradition to Tajikistan to face criminal prosecution. The order stated that the applicant had been charged with membership of a proscribed religious-extremist organisation and dissemination of material containing incitement to religious hatred.\n17.  The applicant challenged the extradition order of 4 June 2008 in court.\n18.  On 22 August 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld the order of 4 June 2008. It reasoned that there were no legal grounds impeding the applicant's extradition to Tajikistan because the applicant was a Tajik national and his request for political asylum had ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5279", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in the town of Urus-Martan, in the Chechen Republic. She is the mother of Mr Adam Khurayev, born in 1978.\n6.  The applicant's house in Urus-Martan was destroyed during the military campaign in the Chechen Republic in the autumn of 1999. The applicant's family had to move temporarily to Ingushetia, where they lived at the material time. Adam Khurayev frequently visited his aunt, Ms M.M., who lived in Urus-Martan, and stayed at her house no. 14, Lomonosova Lane (the street name and the house number were later changed to 74, Kutuzova Street).\n7.  In the summer of 2002 Adam Khurayev and his twin brother Arbi Khurayev submitted their documents to the Urus-Martan District Department of the Interior (the ROVD) to exchange their old Soviet passports for new Russian ones. On 22 November 2002 Adam and Arbi Khurayev went to Urus-Martan to pick up their new passports. The brothers stayed at their aunt's house at the above address. At the material time the town of Urus-Martan was under curfew. The authorities maintained manned checkpoints at the entry and exit points to the town.\n8.  At about 10 p.m. on 23 November 2002 the family of M.M. was at home. When Adam Khurayev went outside, to the toilet located in the courtyard, a group of over fifteen armed masked men in camouflage uniforms broke into the house. The intruders neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. The applicant's relatives thought that they were Russian servicemen. They dispersed into different rooms, pointed their guns at the family members and ordered everyone to stay in their rooms. M.M.'s daughter, Ms L.M., rushed to the window and heard the intruders order someone in Russian: “Lie on the ground!” She thought that the order must have been given to Adam Khurayev, as he was the only family member in the yard.\n9.  Without providing any explanations or reasons for their actions, the servicemen conducted a quick but thorough search of M.M.'s house. They did not find anything of interest to them.\n10.  After that the servicemen returned to the yard and walked out into the street. Shortly thereafter M.M. and L.M. heard the sound of heavy military vehicles in the street.\n11.  Ms. A.M., one of M.M.'s neighbours, residing at 47 Lomonosova Street, was woken up at about 10 p.m. on 23 November 2002 by the sound of heavy military vehicles in the street. She looked out of the window and saw an APC (armoured personnel carrier) and two military UAZ vehicles (“таблетка”) parked in the street. A.M. did not go outside because of the curfew. According to A.M., at the material time APCs were frequently driven in Urus-Martan at night and servicemen often took young men away. About fifteen minutes later the vehicles started their engines and drove away.\n12.  After the servicemen had left, the applicant's relatives realised that Adam Khurayev, who had been in the courtyard, had disappeared.\n13.  The applicant has had no news of Adam Khurayev since 23 November 2002.\n14.  The above account of the events is based on the applicant's application form and written statements by M.M. and A.M., dated 10 and 11 November 2005 respectively.\n15.  The Government submitted that on 23 November 2002 Adam Khurayev had been abducted by unidentified persons.\n16.  In the morning of 24 November 2002 Arbi Khurayev went to Ingushetia to inform the applicant about the disappearance of Adam Khurayev. The applicant immediately went to Urus-Martan and started searching for ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5280", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Berdsk, a town in the Novosibirsk Region.\n6.  The applicant is a public prosecutor.\n7.  On an unspecified date in early 2003 he applied for a free housing provided by law for this category of state officials.\n8.  By judgment of 21 April 2003 the Tsentralny District Court of Novosibirsk ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the local and regional authorities jointly\n“...to provide [the applicant] with a flat in a State or municipal housing for a family of four people with a living surface measuring 36 sq. metres, and taking into account the applicant's right to an additional living area of not less than 20 sq. metres or in the form of a separate room...”\n9.  Upon the respondent's appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Novosibirsk Regional Court on appeal on 17 June 2003. On that day the judgment became binding.\n10.  The respondents did not enforce the judgment immediately. On 28 and 30 July 2003, the Bailiff's Office (“the bailiffs”) initiated enforcement proceedings.\n11.  According to the Government, the Novosibirsk Regional Administration was unable to execute the judgment as, pursuant to Decree of 27 December 1991, the property rights in respect of all State housing in the Novosibirsk Region had been transferred to municipal authorities.\n12.  On 20 April 2004 the Tsentralny District Court of Novosibirsk rejected the authorities' request to adjourn the execution of the final judgment.\n13.  On 24 September 2004 and 19 November 2004 the same court rejected the applicant's requests to award him compensation which would allow him to purchase a flat.\n14.  The prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the bailiff on 11 December 2004. On 19 January 2005, in response to the applicant's complaint, the Berdsk Town Court found the acts of the bailiff in the applicant's enforcement proceedings arbitrary and unlawful and ordered the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings in this respect. On 25 May 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court once again urged the prosecutor to open criminal proceedings.\n15.  On 1 February 2006 the Berdsk Town Council sent a letter to the applicant, offering to provide him with a three-room flat of 77.5 sq. metres in total surface.\n16.  By letter of 2 February 2006 the applicant sent a letter to the bailiffs in which he agreed to this offer.\n17.  On 13 February 2006 the Novosibirsk Regional Administration allocated 1,500,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for acquisition of a flat for the applicant.\n18.  By decision of 17 May 2006 the bailiffs terminated the proceedings in the case as the judgment of 21 April 2003, as upheld on 17 June 2003, had been enforced.\n19.  According to the parties, the applicant was granted a three-room flat of 77.5 sq. metres in total surface under a social tenancy agreement.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5281", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Noginsk, a town in the Moscow Region.\n7.  The applicant is a retired serviceman. He enlisted in 1980, and at the material time he was a captain of the Space Force, occupying on a contractual basis the post of a deputy director of social and political education.\n8.  On 24 July 1998 the Noginsk Town Court ordered the command to grant the applicant an early discharge because of the command's failure to fulfil their obligations under the contract. On 4 August 1998 this judgment became binding but was not enforced immediately, and the applicant resubmitted his claim.\n9.  On 21 June 2002 the 94th Garrison Military Court ordered the command to discharge the applicant for health reasons, to provide him with housing, and to pay 7,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages. On 24 July 2002 this judgment became binding in the part concerning the discharge and housing. The part concerning the damages was referred for a retrial.\n10.  On 3 September 2002 the 94th Garrison Military Court ordered the command to pay RUB 23,817.60 in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 9 October 2002 this judgment became binding.\n11.  On 9 June 2003 the applicant received the flat.\n12.   On 27 June 2003 the applicant was discharged from service.\n13.  On 26 April 2004 the applicant submitted enforcement papers in respect of the damages, and on 5 February 2005 he received the sum due.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5282", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Kaliningrad.\n7.  On 17 October 1999 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of the murder of Ms M. On 20 October 1999 an investigating officer charged the applicant and detained him in remand prison IZ-39/1 in Kaliningrad. On 20 April 2000 the Central District Court of Kaliningrad found the applicant guilty of the murder of Ms M. The applicant was sentenced to fourteen years' imprisonment. On 22 August 2000 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal.\n8.  The applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-39/1 from 20 October 1999 to 20 September 2000.\n9.  On his admission, he was put in a quarantine cell occupied by young offenders, some of whom had already been convicted. This cell measured12-13 square metres and housed fourteen to sixteen prisoners. Of the eight available bunk beds, only six had bedding. The applicant was only able to sleep for three to four hours a day. The window was covered with metal shutters that let through neither light nor fresh air. The air inside was stuffy, the walls were damp. A 60-watt ceiling light stayed on day and night: too dim to read by, too bright to sleep under. The toilet had no flush or ventilation. It stood above the floor exposed to onlookers. Several prisoners had lice, tuberculosis or syphilis. The cell swarmed with cockroaches, bed bugs, ants and rats. Cleaning of the toilet was limited to sprinkling it with bleach.\n10.  After about a week, the prison administration moved the applicant to a cell meant for former policemen. This cell was located in the basement and measured seven square metres. It housed between eight and nineteen prisoners, even though there were only six bunk beds. The prisoners had to sleep in shifts of three to four hours a day. The window was covered with a metal shutter in which there were 1 cm holes; too small to let through either light or fresh air. There was no ventilation. The walls had a thick, dirty, wet concrete coating. A weak filament light stayed on day and night. In one corner of the cell, there was a toilet – a concrete cube raised above the floor. The toilet was not partitioned off from the cell, offered no privacy, and lacked a flush. Above it, there was a service water tap used for washing. The dining table stood one metre away from the toilet. The cell swarmed with cockroaches, bed bugs and ants.\n11.  In both cells, the applicant had to share bunk beds, and had no bedding, or toiletries. A fifteen-minute shower was available once every fortnight. Because the cells were constantly overcrowded, and because many prisoners smoked, the applicant remained immobile in the stuffy air for long periods of time. Relief came from outside walks, but they were rare and short (thirty to forty minutes a day), and the yard was also overcrowded (seven to fourteen people in seven to eight square metres). There was no drinking water in the cells. The food was cold, tasteless and slovenly served. During his stay in the prison the applicant, who usually weighed sixty kilograms, lost ten kilograms in weight.\n12.  Along with his own description, the applicant submitted three witness statements by persons who had been detained in the prison at about the same time as him. Mr A. K. was detained in the prison from December 1998 to August 2000 and confirmed the applicant's description of the prison. Mr M. T. was detained in the prison from February 1996 to October 1999. He confirmed the applicant's description ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5283", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Gekhi, Chechnya. She is the mother of Ramzan Suleymanov, who was born in 1965 and the mother‑in-law of Petimat Aydamirova, who was born in 1972. The applicant also is the grandmother of Ibragim Suleymanov, who was born in 1991 and a relative of Aslanbek Aydamirov, who was born in 1970.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  At the material time the applicant's son Ramzan Suleymanov lived in the village of Gekhi in the Urus-Martan district of Chechnya with his wife Petimat Aydamirova, who was pregnant, and their son Ibragim Suleymanov. Ramzan Suleymanov worked as a driver of a KAMAZ lorry, transporting goods in the area. The vehicle belonged to his neighbour, Mr R. Dz. At the time Gekhi and the surrounding area were under curfew.\n9.  On 16 May 2000 Petimat Aydamirova's brother, Aslanbek Aydamirov, came to Gekhi to visit his sister. He told her that their mother, who lived in the village of Roshni-Chu, in the Urus-Martan district, was ill. The family decided to visit her on the same day. Ramzan Suleymanov obtained the permission of Mr R. Dz. to use the KAMAZ lorry to get to Roshni-Chu. At about 7 p.m. he, Petimat Aydamirova, Ibragim Suleymanov and Aslanbek Aydamirov left Gekhi and drove in the lorry in the direction of Roshni-Chu.\n10.  At about 2 a.m. on the night between 16 and 17 May 2000 a resident of Gekhi Mr R. S. came to the house of Mr R. Dz. and told him that his KAMAZ lorry was burning about 500 metres away from the outskirts of Gekhi. Mr R. Dz. immediately got in the car and drove to the outskirts of the village. There he left his car next to the house of the head of the Gekhi village administration, Mr S.-S. A., and continued on foot towards Roshni‑Chu.\n11.  When Mr R. Dz. approached the burning lorry he saw the naked body of Petimat Aydamirova next to the right side of the vehicle. Mr R. Dz. immediately returned to the village and woke up Mr S.-S. A. The latter was already aware of the events as he had heard Petimat Aydamirova screaming. According to him, in the evening of 16 May 2000 the KAMAZ lorry had been driving from Gekhi in the direction of Roshni-Chu. When the vehicle had been about 500 metres away from the outskirts of the village, Russian military servicemen in an APC (armoured personnel carrier) had approached it through the wheat field and opened gunfire. After the shooting a woman had started screaming; her screams had been heard by residents of Gekhi, including Mr S.-S. A. Then the residents had heard gunfire and the screaming had stopped. About half an hour later the servicemen had shot at the lorry from a grenade launcher, setting it on fire, before driving away.\n12.  Mr S.-S.A. told Mr R. Dz. that due to the curfew they had to leave immediately and return in the morning. Upon returning home Mr R. Dz. informed the applicant's nephew, whose house was nearby, about the events. The men agreed to return to the lorry in the morning on 17 May 2000. The applicant's nephew informed the applicant about the events on the same night.\nb. Information provided by local residents about the events of the night between 16 and 17 May 2000\n13.  Early in the morning of 17 May 2000 the applicant went to the KAMAZ lorry with her relatives, Mr R. Dz., the head of the administration and a number of local residents.\n14.  According to the witnesses, next to the vehicle they saw numerous bullet holes in the ground whose positioning indicate", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5284", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Kursk.\n5.  On 4 November 1992 the Presidium of the Kursk Regional Council of People's Deputies issued the applicant with a certificate showing that he had participated in mine cleaning in the Kursk Region in 1943-1948.\n6.  On 8 December 2000 the Kursk Social Security Office upon applicant's request exchanged the above certificate for a certificate of a war veteran. The new document made the applicant eligible for an increased pension.\n7.  In March 2005 the Kursk Social Security Office asked the Kursk Military Commission to remove the applicant's status as a war veteran on the ground that the police had established forgery of the war-time document, in which the applicant's name was mentioned. In May 2005 the Social Security Office stopped paying the increased pension to the applicant and decided to withhold the amount which it had overpaid in the preceding period.\n8.  The applicant challenged the discontinuation of payments as unlawful. The Social Security Office counterclaimed, seeking a court order for annulment of the veteran certificate. The Military Commission joined the proceedings as a co-defendant.\n9.  On 20 April 2006 the Leninskiy District Court of Kursk found for the applicant. It determined that the allegedly forged document had not been the basis for granting the applicant the veteran status and could not be invoked as a ground for annulment of the certificate. The discontinuation of payments had been therefore unlawful.\n10.  Neither the Social Security Office nor the Military Commission filed an ordinary appeal and the judgment became final and enforceable.\n11.  In September 2006 the Military Commission lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 20 April 2006.\n12.  On 15 November 2006 the Presidium of the Kursk Regional Court granted the application, quashed the contested judgment and remitted the matter for a new examination by the District Court. In so doing, it held that the District Court had gone beyond the scope of the claims since it had found that the veteran certificate had been lawfully issued to the applicant, whereas the Social Security Office had not raised that issue. It also found that the District Court had not examined the administrative decision to suspend the monthly payments to the applicant and had not indicated the statute regulating seizure of certificates in court proceedings.\n13.  On 29 December 2006 the Leninskiy District Court issued a new judgment. On the applicant's claim, it held that the discontinuation of payments had been lawful, but awarded the applicant the amount outstanding and interest on it. The District Court also granted the Social Security Office's counterclaim and annulled the veteran certificate on the ground that he had failed to produce any documents showing that he had taken part in mine cleaning prior to 9 May 1945 (the official date of the end of the war).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5285", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 24 May 2000 the applicant sued a company before the Bratislava I District Court. He claimed that the defendant should be ordered to comply with its contractual obligations and to compensate damage caused to the applicant. Courts at two levels of jurisdiction dealt with mainly procedural issues (such as payment of court fees and request for legal assistance) until 26 May 2008 when the Bratislava Regional Court, on appeal, discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had not paid the court fees of 10,270 Slovakian korunas (SKK) the equivalent of 340 euros (EUR) at the time. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law on 3 July 2008. The proceedings are still pending.\n6.  The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the above proceedings. On 6 July 2002 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's request for a legal-aid lawyer, with reference to the applicant's financial situation. As the latter had not appointed a lawyer, his complaint was declared inadmissible on 10 July 2002.\n7.  On 10 November 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected, for the same reason, the applicant's fresh request for a legal-aid lawyer to be appointed. The applicant subsequently appointed a lawyer to represent him in the constitutional proceedings and paid SKK 10,000 to that lawyer.\n8.  On 20 April 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. It awarded the applicant SKK 30,000 (the equivalent of EUR 755 at that time) as just satisfaction and ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay. The applicant's lawyer requested reimbursement of SKK 14,028 in respect of legal costs. The Constitutional Court ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's costs by paying SKK 11,991 to the lawyer.\n9.  The applicant complained that the legal costs should have been reimbursed directly to him. In a letter of 16 February 2006 a constitutional judge explained to the applicant that it had been the practice of the Constitutional Court to order the payment of costs of successful applicants to the bank account of their legal representatives. The details were subject to the agreement between the individual applicants and their lawyers.\n10.  In the subsequent period the applicant lodged with the Constitutional Court several complaints about the length of the proceedings. They were declared inadmissible on 30 November 2006 (for non-compliance with formal requirements as the applicant was not legally represented) and on 16 December 2008 (the applicant complained exclusively about a period of the proceedings which had already ended). According to the internet database of the Constitutional Court's decisions, the applicant's latest complaint was rejected on 21 October 2009 for the same reason.\n11.  On 6 March 2008 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded another complaint. The applicant alleged a violation of Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 in that, on 30 March 2007, the Regional Court, on appeal, had not exempted him from the obligation to pay the court fees and had dismissed his request for a legal-aid lawyer in civil proceedings. The Constitutional Court held that the Regional Court had not refused to deal with the applicant's appeal, but examined it and upheld the first-instance decision. It observed that i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5286", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in New York, USA.\n6.  On 19 January 1987 the applicant lodged a request for the division of matrimonial property with the Poznań District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n7.  A hearing, held on 14 December 1987, was adjourned to give the parties an opportunity to settle the case. However, they apparently failed to do so and on 13 April 1988 the first hearing on the merits was held.\n8.  Between 18 May 1988 and 26 April 1993, the District Court scheduled 21 hearings, 13 of which were adjourned mostly due to the failure of witnesses to appear or for lack of documents which the parties were expected to supply. During that period the court asked experts to prepare six opinions and supplementary opinions on the value of the matrimonial property.\n9.  In the meantime, on 2 February 1993, the case was assigned to another judge.\n10.  Between 1 July 1993 and 28 May 2004 the District Court scheduled 49 hearings, 28 of which were adjourned. One hearing was adjourned due to the failure of the applicant to appear. During that period the court asked experts to prepare 10 reports and supplementary opinions on the value of the matrimonial property.\n11.  On 4 June 2004 the Poznań District Court gave a decision. The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 21 March 2006 the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) partly quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.\n13.  Between 13 November 2006 and 18 February 2008 the District Court scheduled 6 hearings, during which the witnesses and the applicant were heard.\n14.  On 17 March 2008 the Poznań District Court gave a decision. The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 22 December 2008 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed the appeal.[1]\n16.  On 29 February 2008 the applicant lodged with the Poznań Regional Court a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) which entered into force on 17 September 2004.\nShe sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Poznań District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).\n17.  On 29 April 2008 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed her complaint. It limited its examination of the length of the proceedings to the period after 15 November 2005. On that date the Poznań Regional Court had analysed the conduct of the District Court following the complaint lodged by the applicant's former husband ‑ the other party to the proceedings. The excessive length of the proceedings in question had been acknowledged and just satisfaction in the amount of 4,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 1,000 euros (EUR)) was granted to him. Having analysed the conduct of the District Court during the period after 15 November 2005, the Regional Court found that the proceedings had been conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time. The court stressed that the conduct of the District Court could not be analysed twice, especially since there had been no undue delay after this date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5287", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  According to the prosecution, M. was invited to a bar on 19 May 1997 by several persons, including R. M. and U., her former neighbours, and the applicant, in whose apartment R. M. and U. rented a room.\n8.  In the bar they all consumed alcohol and then added a soporific to M.'s glass, after which she fell asleep. R. M. took M., U. and the applicant in his car to a remote area. R. M. and the applicant took M. out of the car and tried to strangle her with a cord. When this failed they tied her limbs and threw her into a well, where she drowned.\n9.  On 1 June 1997 S. P., a police officer, reported that he was trying to locate T., who could have information regarding M.'s whereabouts. Officer S. P. proposed indentifying the person(s) offering M.'s apartment for sale in order to find T.\n10.  On 3 June 1997 T., one of M.'s neighbours, made a written statement, giving details about M.'s murder as allegedly told to her by U. She named R. M., U. and S. as perpetrators of the crime. She also mentioned her intention to move to Tashkent, Uzbekistan, where her grandmother lived. On 4 June 1997 officer S. P. filed a report on a conversation with T. in which he reported that T. had stated that the applicant had also been involved in the crime. On 5 June 1997 T. was interviewed by investigator G. and confirmed the events as described in the officer's report. She declared that U. had told her about the details of the crime on 20 May 1997. She did not mention the applicant's name or that he had participated in any manner in the crime.\n11.  On 4 June 1997 the police found the applicant at his friends' address and told him that he owed them money. He was requested to follow them to the police station, where he was arrested. He was then informed that he, R. M. and U. were suspected of having murdered M.\n12.  According to the applicant, immediately after his arrest he told the investigator all the details about the murder of M. which he had found out from R. M., including the place where the body had been left. He had not reported the crime earlier for fear of R. M.'s retaliation. However, he was then ill-treated for six hours by the investigators to make him own up to the crime: he was allegedly nearly asphyxiated several times with a gas mask. He was also verbally abused and threatened with more serious forms of ill-treatment.\n13.  In the evening of 4 June 1997 the applicant made a self-incriminating statement in the presence of a State-appointed lawyer and two witnesses. That lawyer allegedly never participated in the proceedings after the confession had been made. In his statement the applicant described the manner of M.'s murder and the place where her body had been left. He stated that he and R. M. had attempted to strangle M. with a cord, and then tied her up and threw her into a well. No mention was made of hitting M. or causing other injuries to her. The confession was filmed. Before the filming of the confessions, a medical expert was requested to verify the presence of any signs of ill-treatment on the applicant's body. He found no such signs. The applicant expressly stated that he had not been ill-treated. He later declared in court that the filming of his confession had been rehearsed with the investigator, that it was a farce and that he had been warned about further ill-treatment if he were to deny ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5288", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Przemyśl.\n6.  During the Second World War the applicant was subjected to forced labour on a farm owned by a German family B. in Leutz (currently Lucień in Poland).\n7.  On an unspecified date she submitted a request for compensation to the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation.\n8.  On 17 April 2002 the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation awarded the applicant financial assistance in the amount of EUR 1,124.84. It considered that the applicant's persecution fell under the 4th category. This category comprised persons who had been deported to Germany and subjected to forced labour. The amount was to be paid in two instalments, the first one in the sum of PLN 2,823 to be paid from 24 April to 8 May 2002.\n9.  On 29 July 2004 the Foundation gave a decision confirming payment of the second instalment, in the amount of PLN 1,247, to be paid from 6 August to 20 August 2004.\n10.  On 25 October 2004 the Director of Veterans' Office gave a decision by which he confirmed that the applicant complied with the conditions set out in the applicable domestic law for obtaining the status of a veteran on the strength of her imprisonment in the concentration camp Gross-Rosen in January and February 1945.\n11.  On 27 October 2005 the Przemyśl Regional Court gave a judgment by which it confirmed that the applicant satisfied the requirements which the applicable laws attached to the grant of war veteran status and that she was permanently and totally unable to work. It further stated that the applicant's health made it impossible for her to live independently. The court referred to medical reports prepared for the purposes of the proceedings and to a unanimous medical opinion given by a medical panel of the Social Insurance Authority which had also confirmed that the applicant's disability had been caused by her stay in the German concentration camp during the Second World War.\n12.  On 22 June 2006 the Foundation refused to award further payment to the applicant for her internment in the concentration camp, finding that the available evidence, in particular written statements submitted by witnesses, was insufficient proof that the applicant had been imprisoned there. The applicant appealed.\n13.  The Foundation, by a decision of 4 July 2006, refused to allow her appeal, reiterating the arguments on which it had relied in its first‑instance decision.\n14.  On 25 July 2002 the Oleśnica District Court rejected the applicant's statement of claim under Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure by which she had requested recognition (ustalenie) that she had been working as a forced labourer in Leutzen during the war, at a farm belonging to family B. The court had regard to a resolution of the Supreme Court of 5 October 2001 (III CZP 46/01), by which the latter court had held that civil courts lacked jurisdiction to examine any claims concerning forced labour during the Second World War and that it could not be accepted that such jurisdiction could be based on Article 189 of the Civil Code.\n15.  The applicant appealed. By a decision of 14 August 2002 the Wroclaw Regional Court upheld the contested decision, fully sharing the conclusions of the first-instance court. On an unspecified later date the Regional Court refused to grant her legal aid for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n16.  On 5 February 2008 the Warsaw District Court dismissed the applicant's action by which she claimed PL", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5289", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Kościan.\n7.  During the Second World War, in 1940, the applicant's entire family – her parents and their children – were expelled from their house and farm in the vicinity of Poznań by German occupying forces. Subsequently, they were for some time placed in a camp for expelled persons in Poznań and then shipped off to eastern Poland, referred to at that time as General Government (“Generalna Gubernia”), which was occupied by the German authorities. The applicant and her family were assigned to live on a farm of local farmers in Szaniawy. At the time of the expulsion, imprisonment and resettlement the applicant was six years old.\n8.  On 16 June 2001 the applicant submitted a request for financial assistance from the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation under the so-called second compensation scheme (see paragraph 16 below). She declared that she had been a victim of persecution by the German occupying authorities during the Second World War. In support of her claims the applicant submitted the following documents: a form certifying registration of her stay in Szaniawy during the war, a certificate of her first communion issued by the rector of the parish of Trzebieszów, a certificate of her mother's death in Szaniawy, statements by three witnesses certifying that the applicant had been expelled from the Poznań Province to Szaniawy during the war, the workbook (“Arbeitsbuch”) of her father's sister, issued by the German authorities, and a number of documents from various Polish archives informing the applicant about difficulties in obtaining documents confirming the persecution to which she had been subjected.\n9.  In 2002 the Verification Commission of the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation, established under the Agreement of 16 October 1991 between the Polish and German Governments and operating on the basis of its statute, refused to pay financial assistance to the applicant, considering that persons expelled from their homes and properties by the German forces of occupation during the war were not entitled to compensation.\n10.  It further stated that the evidence submitted by the applicant, in particular the witness statements, was insufficient to confirm that the applicant and her family had been imprisoned in the camp for expelled persons.\n11.  The Foundation in its letter referred to the requirements of eligibility which were laid down by regulations governing the functioning of the second compensation scheme operated by the Foundation (on the basis of a Law of 2000 on the Creation of the “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” Foundation enacted by the German Parliament and the subsequent agreement between that Foundation and the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation, see paragraph 16 below).\n12.  The applicant appealed. On 21 November 2003 the Appeals Commission of the Foundation upheld the contested decision. It informed the applicant that she was not eligible for financial assistance under the scheme in respect of her deportation. Neither she nor her family had been deported for the purposes of forced labour to the territory of the German Reich within its borders of 1937.\nMoreover, the evidence which she had submitted did not allow it to be established that the applicant and her family had indeed been imprisoned in the camp in Poznań. It further informed the applicant that no appeal lay against this decision.\n13.  On 12 January 2007 the public prosecution services lodged", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5290", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Orneta.\n6.  The applicant submitted that M.C., her husband, had been deported (dislocated) from Vilnius to the territories occupied by Germany (Lithuania and Belarus) and had performed forced labour for a railways company under German management from July 1941 until July 1944. He constructed railway trucks. In July 1944 he returned home and continued to work for the same company. In 1945 the applicant's husband was “repatriated” from the Soviet Union to Poland. The applicant submitted that all his documents had been seized by the Soviet military.\n7.  M.C. died on 28 February 2001. On 11 December 2001 the applicant, as an eligible successor of her late husband, applied to the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation (“the Foundation”) for compensation on account of her husband's forced labour during the war. That request was made under the scheme for slave and forced labourers (“the second compensation scheme”) established under the Joint Statement of 17 July 2000, the German Law of 2 August 2000 on the Creation of the “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” Foundation (“the German Foundation Act” or “GFA”) and the subsequent Agreement of 16 February 2001 between the Remembrance, Responsibility and Future Foundation (“the German Foundation”) and the Polish-German Reconciliation Foundation.\n8.  On 3 March 2003 the Foundation's Verification Commission refused the request for compensation. It found that in the case of the applicant's husband the condition of deportation had not been fulfilled.\n9.  The applicant appealed against that decision. She submitted that in July 1941 the German work office had assigned her husband to perform forced labour as a railways track builder. He had been performing that forced labour in various places in Lithuania, Belarus and in the General Government (Generalna Gubernia; administrative entity established by the Nazi government in occupied Poland) until July 1944. The applicant submitted various documents in support of the claim. One of the documents was a certificate issued by the German Railways Social Security Office. It attested that M.C. had worked as a forced labourer for the Lithuanian Railways under German Administration from July 1939 to May 1945. The second document was a certificate issued by the Lithuanian Railways. It stated that the applicant's husband had been employed by the Lithuanian Railways from 1939 to June 1945.\n10.  On 11 February 2004 the Appeal Commission upheld the impugned decision. It informed the applicant that under section 11 of the GFA only those forced labourers who had been deported to the German Reich or to an area occupied by it had been eligible for compensation. In addition, under the so-called “openness clause” (klauzula otwartości) forced labourers who had been relocated (osoby dyslokowane) outside their province of residence to a province with a different administrative status had been also eligible for compensation.\n11.  The Appeal Commission noted that M.C. had worked on a labour train (Bauzug) whose home station had been Vilnius (located on the territory of Poland as its national borders had stood before the outbreak of the Second World War). Furthermore, the documents submitted by the applicant did not demonstrate that M.C. had been deported or relocated to the German Reich or to occupied territories. Accordingly, no award could have been made as M.C. had performed forced labour without having satisfied the condition", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5291", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Lopatnic.\n6.  She is the mother of Ion Anuşca, who was born in 1985 and who died on 5 October 2004, during his military service.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The applicant's son commenced his mandatory military service in November 2003, assigned to the Guard Regiment within the Basic Air Forces, where he performed farm work. The following August he was transferred to other duties. According to the Government, this was because of certain behavioural problems, including intoxication and aggressiveness.\n9.  On 3 October 2004 the applicant's son was absent from his unit for two-three hours without permission. Two days later, he was ordered to provide a written explanation for this absence. He explained orally that he had visited an acquaintance in the nearby village, to whom he had entrusted a number of his personal objects for safe-keeping. One of his superiors who was acquainted with both the applicant and her son spoke sharply to him. At approximately 8.10 p.m., following the evening meal, the applicant's son asked another soldier for a pen. A few minutes later he returned the pen along with a piece of paper and a bullet. He told the soldier not to read what was written on the paper and left the room. The soldier nevertheless read the paper, which contained a few words including a farewell addressed to a person by the name of Olesea. He informed his commander of the situation, who immediately gave the order to fall in. When the applicant's son failed to respond, the other soldiers were sent to search for him. He was found some minutes later lying dead under a tree behind the barracks with a broken cord around his neck, the other end of which was tied to a branch overhead.\n10.  The commander-in-chief of the regiment contacted the Bălţi military prosecutor's office, which sent a prosecutor, V.M., to the scene to investigate. The investigation commenced shortly before midnight. A number of details were verified and recorded in the official report: presence of a military cap near the body; the length of each piece of cord; the diameter of the branch to which it was tied. The investigator took possession of the piece of paper and the bullet referred to above.\n11.  An external examination of the body was made later that night by a forensic doctor, who commenced his examination at 1.56 a.m. He noted that the only sign of injury on the body was to the neck. As pointed out by the applicant, the temperature of the body was not recorded, making it impossible to establish the exact time of death.\n12.  According to the Government, the investigator interviewed 15 soldiers and commanders about Ion Anuşca's time in the regiment and the circumstances of his death. Nothing that was said gave grounds to suspect foul play. The person named on the piece of paper was also interviewed, as was the applicant herself. She told the investigation that her son had not had any difficulties in entering into military service, nor had he ever complained to her about military life. He had even been contemplating a career in the military, and had plans to rent a house close to the base.\n13.  The investigation also included a post-mortem psychiatric assessment of the deceased performed by a panel of three psychiatrists. In their first report, dated 19 November 2004, they stated that on the basis of the elements before them it was not possible to state whether Ion An", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5292", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Viničné.\n5.  On 30 September 1997 she lodged an action against a limited liability company with the Bratislava Regional Court. She requested that the decisions, which had been adopted at the general meeting of the company members held on 1 July 1997, be declared void.\n6.  On 24 February 2004 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded her the equivalent of 985 euros (EUR) (at that time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ordered the Regional Court to proceed without further delay and to reimburse the applicant's costs.\n7.  On 2 September 2004 the civil proceedings were discontinued on the ground that the defendant company had been dissolved and wound up. In the absence of an appeal, the decision became final on 20 October 2004.\n8.  On 18 January 2006 the Constitutional Court rejected a fresh complaint lodged on 6 December 2004 as being manifestly ill-founded (as to the length of proceedings) and for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (as to the alleged unfairness of the proceedings and interference with the applicant's property rights). The decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on 5 May 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5293", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 3 December 2001 the applicant lodged an action for damages against two individuals. The Trnava District Court's decisions concerning the applicant's obligation to pay court fees and the appointment of a legal‑aid lawyer to the applicant were examined by the Trnava Regional Court for approximately half a year.\n6.  On 11 October 2006 the Trnava District Court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had not paid the court fees. On 28 September 2007 the Regional Court upheld that decision. The latter was served on the applicant on 14 January 2008 and thus became final.\n7.  On 23 August 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. It held that the case was not complex and that the applicant's conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. It awarded the applicant 20,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK), which was the equivalent of 531 euros (EUR) at that time in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered the District Court to proceed without further delay. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's legal costs by paying SKK 5,788 to the lawyer. The amount corresponded to approximately half of the sum claimed by the applicant.\n8.  On 23 April 2008 the Constitutional Court declared another complaint inadmissible. The complaint was lodged on 19 January 2008 and delivered to the Constitutional Court on 23 January 2008. To the extent the applicant alleged that his right of access to a court had been violated, the view was expressed that the applicant had not exhausted the available remedies as he had not lodged an appeal on points of law. The Constitutional Court further rejected the applicant's length of proceedings complaint. That finding was based on the Constitutional Court's long established practice to examine length of proceedings complaints only when proceedings were still pending at the moment when a constitutional complaint was lodged.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5294", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 14 and 18 November 2003 the applicant lodged an action for damages against the Bratislava II District Labour Office. Originally his two identical submissions were given two file numbers and were assigned to two judges. As from 16 December 2003 they were dealt with together by one judge under one file number.\n6.  The Bratislava II District Court and the Bratislava Regional Court examined a number of procedural issues. The applicant repeatedly modified his action, requested that the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Justice join the proceedings as defendants, challenged the lack of impartiality of a judge, requested that the District Court exempt him from the obligation to pay court fees and appoint a legal-aid lawyer to represent him in the proceedings.\n7.  On 6 August 2008 the applicant informed the District Court that his legal-aid lawyer had died.\n8.  On 27 November 2008 the District Court dismissed a part of the applicant's claim and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the remaining part.\n9.  On 7 January 2009 the mail with the above judgment sent to the applicant's lawyer was returned to the District Court. The postal delivery report indicated that the lawyer had not collected the mail.\n10.  The stamp on the judgment indicates that the latter became final on 23 January 2009.\n11.  Following the applicant's request, the judgment was served on him on 19 May 2009. He appealed on 1 June 2009. The proceedings are pending.\n12.  On 10 May 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's length of proceedings complaint inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, concluding that the applicant had not complained thereof to the President of the District Court. The complaint about the assignment of the applicant's case to another District Court judge in 2003 was declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.\n13.  On 7 February 2008 his second complaint was declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. The Constitutional Court acknowledged that there had been a short period of inactivity in 2004 but stated that this fact did not warrant the conclusion that the length of the proceedings had been excessive. It held that the applicant's conduct had notably contributed to their duration and due to his actions the District Court had been prevented from proceeding with the case. It further rejected the complaint about the assignment of the case to another judge as being manifestly ill-founded.\n14.  On 4 November 2008 the Constitutional Court rejected a third length of proceedings complaint on the ground that it concerned the matter already examined on 7 February 2008. It held that the period of several months that had elapsed was too short to examine the complaint. It also noted that that conclusion did not prevent the Constitutional Court from examining the applicant's fresh complaint in the future.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5295", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Braşov.\n5.  On 25 March 1992 the applicant crushed three fingers of his left hand in an accident at work. He was taken to hospital, where he underwent a surgical intervention resulting in the amputation of two fingers.\n6.  On 26 March 1992 an investigating commission was constituted within the private company where the applicant was working. After investigating the accident, the commission considered that the applicant was at fault because he had not observed the relevant safety rules.\n7.  The applicant complained before the Braşov County Inspectorate for Labour Safety against the way in which the investigation had been carried out. On 15 April 1993 the Inspectorate concluded that the investigation had been in line with labour legislation.\n8.  Beginning on 17 April 1992 the applicant lodged several criminal complaints with the Prosecutor's Office against the Inspectorate's conclusions, against the doctors and against his employer in respect of the causes of the accident. According to the documents in the file, until 1997, several public prosecutors refused or confirmed the refusal to initiate a criminal action, considering that the applicant was responsible for the accident and that he had accepted the surgical intervention. In a letter of 10 November 1997 addressed to the General Prosecutor, the applicant mentioned, inter alia, that he had given up struggling with the prosecutors and that he had brought a civil action.\n9.  On 6 August 1997 the applicant brought civil proceedings against his employer, the County Public Health Agency, the County Department for Labour and Social Protection and the Ministry of Finance. He sought an order requiring the Public Health Agency to send him, at its expense, to a medical institution abroad with a view to the replacement of his two fingers. He further claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicant alleged that the amputation of his two fingers had been due to the doctor's incompetence and that he had not consented to the surgical intervention.\n10.  Of the twenty-five hearings held between 18 September 1997 and 14 May 1999, four were adjourned at the applicant's request because his lawyer was ill or in order to study the file previously drawn up by the public prosecutor. At ten other hearings, he asked if he could produce evidence in the proceedings. The court upheld the applicant's requests to hear witnesses and to produce documents as well as medico-legal and graphological expert reports, but also mentioned on two occasions that the defendants were not properly summoned. The defendants' statements were also made available.\nTen other hearings were adjourned because the court had failed to properly summon the other parties in the proceedings.\n11.  On 21 May 1999 the Braşov County Court dismissed the action, considering that the applicant had been exclusively at fault and, on the basis of the medico-legal expert report, that surgical intervention had been necessary and that the applicant had consented to it. The court also considered that a request by the applicant to hear some extra witnesses was pertinent but not conclusive because it was difficult to believe that witnesses might invalidate documents produced by specialised bodies.\n12.  On 14 January 2000 the Braşov Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant, taking into consideration that, besides it being his fault, he had not lost his capacity to work and conti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5296", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  On 22 March 1993 the applicant's mother lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a claim for a declaration that a notarial deed was null and void (in the framework of inheritance proceedings). The action was instituted against five defendants.\n7.  On 30 September 1993 the proceedings were stayed.\n8.  On 15 January 1994 the applicant's mother died. On 10 January 1995 the applicant confirmed that she wished to continue the proceedings in her stead and requested that the proceedings be resumed.\n9.  On 22 October 1996 the court refused to resume the proceedings, stating that the applicant had failed to comply with the court's order to produce the inheritance decisions concerning the defendants.\n10.  The applicant lodged numerous requests for the resumption of the proceedings, to no avail. She submitted that the courts had refused to serve on her the requested decisions, since she was not the defendants' relative.\n11.  On 20 September 2004 the proceedings were eventually resumed on the applicant's request.\n12.  On 16 November 2004 the court held a hearing.\n13.  On 13 April 2005 the court stayed the proceedings. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision.\n14.  The applicant lodged two motions for the resumption of the proceedings. They were dismissed by the court on 23 October and 15 December 2006. The applicant lodged an appeal against the second decision.\n15.  On 23 October 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended the decision of 15 December 2006 and resumed the proceedings. The court held that the decision of 13 April 2005 was ill-founded since there were no legal grounds for staying the proceedings.\n16.  On 22 October 2008 the court held a hearing.\n17.  On 23 October 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant's plea as unfounded. On 3 December 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal. It appears that the proceedings are still pending.\n18.  On 30 July 2007 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Court of Appeal a complaint under section 5 of the Law on 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) which entered into force on 17 September 2004. She sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Warsaw Regional Court had been excessive. She asked for the acceleration of the proceedings and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).\n19.  On 6 September 2007 the Warszawa Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. The court held that on 17 September 2004, the date on which the 2004 Act had entered into force, the proceedings in the case had been stayed. Therefore, in the court's opinion, there was no undue delay on the part of the trial court. The court further found that after the resumption of the proceedings on 20 September 2004 there had been no inactivity for which the Regional Court could be held responsible.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5297", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  In 1999 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on two charges ‑ a traffic offence in June 1999 which resulted in infliction of bodily harm, and a burglary in August 1999.\n8.  On 6 October 1999 the Moscow prosecutor's office transferred the case for trial to the Moscow Savelovskiy District Court and asked to be notified of the hearing and examine the case with a prosecutor's participation.\n9.  On 12 October 1999 Judge F. of the Moscow Savelovskiy District Court ordered that the applicant's case be examined on 26 October 1999 at a public hearing with the participation of a state prosecutor and defence counsel.\n10.  On 25 November 1999 the Savelovskiy District Court composed of Judge F. and two people's assessors held an open hearing. The applicant, his counsel and the victims appeared before the court. The prosecutor failed to appear, for unknown reasons.\n11.  According to the court records, the court asked whether the participants in the proceedings had any requests. There were none. The court then asked whether it was possible to begin the court investigation with those present. The participants in the proceedings responded in the affirmative and the court, having deliberated, decided to do so.\n12.  The indictment was read out in court. The applicant was accused under Article 264 § 1 of the Criminal Code of a violation of traffic rules which caused bodily harm and, under Article 158 § 2 of the Code, of concerted burglary by a group of people causing significant damage.\n13.  The applicant was asked if he understood the charges against him and whether he pleaded guilty. He answered that he understood the charges, that he pleaded guilty to the traffic offence and not guilty to burglary. The participants in the proceedings were then asked about the order of examination of evidence. They left that question to the court's discretion and the court decided first to hear the applicant, then the victims, and then to examine written evidence and the statements by witness Mr L. It then proceeded with the examination of evidence in that order.\n14.  Having deliberated, the court of its own motion decided to examine, as an additional witness, a police officer, Mr Y., who had arrested the applicant at the site of the crime. It announced a forty-minute break, after which Mr Y. appeared before the court and was examined. Mr Y. stated that he had arrived at the scene of the burglary in a police patrol car with other police officers. He had seen a man and tried to pursue him but he had run away. They had found a car which was open and some time later he had caught the applicant, who was approaching the car and who looked similar to the man he had been pursuing earlier. The applicant had denied any connection with the burglary and stated that he had been visiting friends but could not give his friends' names or address.\n15.  The court then asked whether it was possible to conclude the court investigation with those present. The participants in the proceedings responded in the affirmative and the court proceeded to pleadings. In particular, it heard the applicant's counsel.\n16.  On 26 November 1999 the Savelovskiy District Court delivered a judgment in which it convicted the applicant under Article 264 § 1 of the Criminal Code of a violation of traffic rules which caused bodily harm and under Article 158 § 2 of the Criminal Code of concerted burglary by a group of people causing sig", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5299", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Viničné.\n5.  On 12 November 1997 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava Regional Court against a limited liability company. She claimed, among other issues, to have the right to consult the company's documentation and to enter its premises. In this way the applicant wished to receive information allowing her to lodge an action for damages against the company. The Supreme Court, on appeal, found in her favour. The decision was served on the applicant on 7 July 2003, it thus became final.\n6.  At the applicant's request, on 29 September 2003, the Pezinok District Court appointed an enforcement officer to enforce the above decision. Due to the inactivity of the enforcement officer, the applicant requested that the decision be enforced by a court. The enforcement by the enforcement officer was discontinued on 9 March 2005.\n7.  The enforcement proceedings were then pending before the Bratislava III District Court. On 14 April 2005 they were discontinued on the ground that the defendant company had been dissolved and wound up. The decision became final on 17 May 2005.\n8.  In the meantime, on 18 April 2005, the applicant complained about the inactivity of the enforcement officer to the Association of Enforcement Officers. On 24 October 2005 the complaint was rejected as being manifestly ill-founded. On 19 March 2007 the Ministry of Justice concluded that the applicant's complaint was justified. It informed the enforcement officer that no disciplinary proceedings would be initiated.\n9.  On 13 July 2005 the applicant complained before the Constitutional Court about, among other issues, the overall length of the proceedings. On 21 September 2005 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the complaint about the length of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Constitutional Court held that the civil proceedings had ended on 7 July 2003, that is more than two months before the applicant had lodged the constitutional complaint. As regards the period of the enforcement by the enforcement officer, it held that the applicant did not use the available remedies pursuant to the Act on Enforcement Officers and Enforcement Proceedings, that is a complaint against an enforcement officer or a request that her case be assigned to another enforcement officer. It examined the period of the enforcement proceedings pending before the District Court and found no delays in that phase.\n10.  The Constitutional Court rejected the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as being manifestly ill-founded and noted that at the time when the applicant had requested enforcement of the judgment of 2003, the defendant company had already been dissolved. The decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on 14 November 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5300", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960.\n6.  In March 2003 the State authorities of Belarus arrested Mr D., a former Deputy President of the Belarus Customs Committee for neglect of his official duties. The applicant was involved in the case as a witness. The arrest of Mr D. was part of the campaign organised by the Republic of Belarus on “combating corruption and offences committed by public officials.”\n7.  According to the applicant, in the autumn of 2004 the investigating authorities put pressure on him to testify against Mr D., stating that if he refused he would also be prosecuted.\n8.  In December 2004 the applicant went to Zhytomyr, Ukraine, to visit his grandmother. While he was there he had a heart attack, underwent in-hospital treatment for four months and was eventually declared “second category disabled” by the local medical commission. According to the applicant, his wife informed the investigating authorities of Belarus where he was staying in Ukraine and about his illness.\n9.  In the beginning of 2005 the applicant obtained a residence permit from the Ukrainian authorities.\n10.  On 8 June 2005 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant in Belarus for abuse of power during his employment in 2002-2003 as a customs officer under the third paragraph of Article 424 of the Criminal Code of Belarus, for which the maximum punishment was ten years' imprisonment. The same day the investigating authorities of Belarus decided that the applicant had absconded and should be detained\n11.  On 7 July 2005 the Belarusian authorities issued an international arrest warrant.\n12.  On 29 July 2005 police officers from the Department of Combating Organised Crime of the Ministry of the Interior apprehended the applicant in Zhytomyr. He was detained in Zhytomyr's Temporary Detention Centre (“the ITU”).\n13.  On 1 August 2005 the applicant was brought before the Korolyovsky District Court of Zhytomyr (“the Korolyovsky Court”), which ordered the his provisional detention for ten days.\n14.  On 3 August 2005 the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine (“the GPO”) received a request by fax from the General Prosecutor's Office of Belarus for the applicant's extradition. The original version of the request and the accompanying documents were received on 12 August 2005.\n15.  On 4 August 2005 the applicant complained of a headache and dizziness and an ambulance was called for him. He was diagnosed with hypertension and given medicaments to lower his blood pressure. The ambulance team concluded that the applicant's condition did not preclude his staying in the ITU.\n16.  On 8 August 2005 the Korolyovsky Court decided that the applicant should be further detained for a period of one month to ensure his extradition to Belarus.\n17.  On 16 August 2005 the GPO decided that the applicant should be extradited to Belarus. It gave orders to the State Department on Enforcement of Sentences to proceed with the applicant's extradition.\n18.  On 19 August 2005 the applicant's representatives appealed to the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv (“the Pechersky Court”) against the decision on the applicant's extradition. They maintained that the prosecution of the applicant was part of a politically motivated campaign against some senior custom officers in order to demonstrate to the people of Belarus that there was an ongoing “fight against corruption”. They also noted that the applicant had previously been questioned as a witness in the case against Mr D., a former Dep", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5301", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Slavyanovka village, Kaliningrad region.\n7.  On 6 April 2001 the Gusevskiy Town Court of the Kaliningrad Region convicted the applicant of theft, robbery and forgery and sentenced him to seven years and six months' imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Kaliningrad Regional Court on 5 June 2001. The courts found, inter alia, that the applicant had paid for a car, purchased from Mr O., with counterfeit United States dollars. The court further indicated that Mr O. might bring civil proceedings against the applicant.\n8.  In June 2001 Mr O. lodged a civil claim against the applicant, seeking to recover his car from the applicant. It was received by the Gusevskiy Town Court on 19 June 2001.\n9.  On 20 June 2001 Judge G. of the Gusevskiy Town Court forwarded a copy of the statement of claim to the administration of the detention centre where the applicant was being detained (remand prison IZ-39/1). In a cover letter, the judge instructed the administration to hand the statement of claim to the applicant and obtain his written observations in reply by 11 July 2001.\n10.  According to the Government, on 21 June 2001 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony OM-216/13 where he was to serve his sentence. That colony was situated in Slavyanovka village, Kaliningrad region. The documents sent by Judge G. to the applicant were forwarded to his new address in that colony. The colony received them on 13 July 2001.\n11.  On 11 July 2001, the Gusevskiy Town Court examined the civil claim in the applicant's absence. On the same day the Town Court, by a default judgment, ordered the applicant to return the car to Mr O. The court indicated, inter alia, that the defendant (the applicant) had been properly notified of the date of the hearing but had failed to appear. Mr O. was present and made oral submissions to the court.\n12.  The applicant alleged that he had been notified of the hearing only on 16 July 2001. The following day he had approached the Town Court seeking the reopening of the proceedings and reversal of the judgment on the ground that the hearing had taken place in his absence. The applicant had also requested legal aid and insisted on his personal presence at the hearing. On 19 July 2001 his letters were dispatched to the Town Court by the administration of the correctional colony. They were received by the court on 25 July 2001.\n13.  On 17 August 2001 the court set a date for hearing the applicant's request and informed the applicant thereof. The Government maintained that the notification had been received by the applicant on 28 August 2001.\n14.  On 31 August 2001 the applicant wrote a letter to the Town Court asking them to examine the case in his presence and provide him with a lawyer. That letter was dispatched to the court by the head of the correctional colony. His cover-letter was dated 4 September 2001; however, according to the postal stamp, the applicant's letter was actually posted on 7 September 2001.\n15.  On 6 September 2001 the hearing took place in the applicant's absence. Mr. O was present and made oral submissions. The applicant alleged that he had been unable to attend the hearing for want of a court's “conveyance request” (заявка на этапирование) ordering the correctional colony administration to escort him to the court.\n16.  By a decision of 6 September 2001 the Gusevskiy District Court refused to re-examine the case. The court found that the applicant had not", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5302", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Philadelphia, the United States.\n6.  The applicant lived and studied in Turkey at various times from 1972 onwards. In 1983 she received a postgraduate degree from Boğaziçi University in Istanbul. Between 1983 and 1984 she worked as a lecturer at Istanbul University. In 1984 she started working as a lecturer at the Middle East Technical University (Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi) in the city of Gaziantep in southern Turkey.\n7.  On 23 September 1985 the deputy governor of Gaziantep sent a letter to the Ministry of the Interior, recommending that the applicant be expelled from Turkey on account of her “harmful activities”. According to the deputy governor, the applicant had said to her students and colleagues at the university that the Turks had expelled the Armenians and had massacred them. Moreover, the Turks had assimilated the Kurds and exploited their culture. In January 1986 the applicant's contract of employment was terminated by the university. On 4 April 1986 the National Intelligence Service also recommended that the applicant be expelled from Turkey. On 12 August 1986 the Ministry of the Interior ordered that the applicant be expelled and a ban imposed on her return. The applicant left Turkey in 1986.\n8.  At some stage the applicant returned to Turkey, where she was arrested in 1989 while distributing leaflets protesting against the film The Last Temptation of Christ. The applicant was subsequently expelled from Turkey.\n9.  At the time, and following the applicant's expulsion from Turkey, the Ministry of the Interior allegedly compiled classified reports about the applicant containing phrases such as “[the applicant, who] works as a missionary in our country” and “[the applicant, who] was put under surveillance following her attendance at a service in a Protestant church in Turkey”. The applicant did not submit a copy of these reports to the Court.\n10.  At some stage in 1996 the applicant entered Turkey again. On 31 August 1996, while she was leaving Turkey, an entry was made in her passport by the authorities, stating that she was banned from entering Turkey. She was urged by the authorities not to return.\n11.  On 14 October 1996 the applicant, with the assistance of her lawyer in Turkey, brought proceedings against the Ministry of the Interior before the Ankara Administrative Court and asked for the ban to be lifted. She argued that the decision to ban her from entering Turkey had been taken on the basis of a decision adopted by the Ministry of the Interior on 12 August 1986. She maintained that the reason for the decision had been her religion. This, she argued, had been in breach of domestic legislation, the Constitution and international conventions, including Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.\n12.  The Ministry of the Interior submitted written observations to the Ankara Administrative Court on 25 December 1996, stating that, while she was teaching at the university in Gaziantep, the applicant had had discussions with her students and colleagues about Turks assimilating Kurds and Armenians, and Turks forcing Armenians out of the country and committing genocide. On account of her separatist activities against the national security of Turkey, her name had been included in the Ministry's list of persons whose entry into Turkey was prohibited. Her contract of employment had subsequently been annulled and she had been expelled on the advice of the National Intelli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5303", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Voronezh.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant sued the local branch of the Pension Fund claiming that his monthly pension had been calculated in a wrong manner.\n8.  On 10 September 2002 the Levoberezhny District Court of Voronezh granted his claims and ordered that the pension due to the applicant be recalculated and increased.\n9.  On 19 December 2002 the Voronezh Regional Court dismissed the respondent's appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment, which became final on the same day.\n10.  On 23 December 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia granted the respondent's application for supervisory review and transferred the case for a fresh examination on the merits to the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court.\n11.  On 1 February 2006 the Presidium of the Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgments of 10 September and 19 December 2002 and delivered a new judgment dismissing the applicant's claims in full.\n12.  As from February 2006, the amount of the applicant's monthly pension has been decreased by 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5304", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Frunze, in the Kherson region.\n5.  On 13 February 2001 the applicant was transferred to Pivnichna Correctional Colony no. 90 (“Colony no. 90”) to serve a prison sentence. The applicant was held in Colony no. 90 for the duration of his post-conviction detention except for several periods during which he was placed in prison hospitals and the Simferopol Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the Simferopol SIZO”), as specified below.\n6.  On 7 December 2005 the applicant was released.\n7.  At the time of his arrival at Colony no. 90 the applicant was suffering from tuberculosis, weight loss, and chronic hepatitis.\n8.  Following a medical examination in Colony no. 90, the applicant was prescribed a special diet in view of the weight loss. According to the applicant, the diet was unsatisfactory.\n9.  In May and August 2001 and February 2002 the applicant was medically examined, X-rayed, and diagnosed with a dormant form of tuberculosis.\n10.  On 11 May 2002, in response to complaints by the applicant, he was transferred to the hospital at Correctional Colony no. 10, where he was treated for chronic hepatitis for one month.\n11.  In October 2002 and February and March 2003 the applicant was X-rayed but, apparently, no treatment followed.\n12.  According to the Government, following complaints made by the applicant on 2 and 19 January and 17 September 2003, the medical department of Colony no. 90 diagnosed him with a neurological disorder and provided him with ambulatory treatment. According to the applicant, on several occasions during that period of time he was administered a psychotropic agent by force, which was detrimental to his health. The applicant did not complain to the domestic authorities on this account.\n13.  Between 2 and 23 April 2003 the applicant was held in the hospital at Colony no. 10 and provided with medical treatment for weight loss.\n14.  In October 2003 and May 2004 the applicant was again X-rayed without any further specific treatment being provided.\n15.  Between September and November 2004 the applicant was held in the hospital at Colony no. 7 and treated for tuberculosis.\n16.  According to the applicant, the medical treatment provided to him while in post-conviction detention did not improve his health in any manner.\n17.  According to the Government, while in detention in Colony no. 90 the applicant was held with 15 other detainees in a unit measuring 60.1 m2. The unit was supplied with the required number of bunks and other furniture. The applicant had sufficient access to daylight, fresh air, and washing facilities. The nutrition was appropriate and complied with the domestic requirements.\n18.  According to the applicant, in Colony no. 90 he was primarily held in a unit measuring 150 m2 with a total number of 200 detainees. Subsequently he was transferred to a unit measuring 50 m2 and was held there with 15 other detainees. He had to sleep on a worn-out mattress and pillow; the water supply and catering were inadequate. Overall, the hygienic and sanitary conditions were unsatisfactory.\n19.  Between 4 November 2003 and 26 February 2004 the applicant was held in the Simferopol SIZO.\n20.  According to the Government, in that facility the applicant was held in cells measuring:\n-  28.5 m2, in which the number of detainees varied from 10 to 14;\n-  27.5 m2, in which the number of detainees varied from 8 to 13;\n-  20.1 m2, in which the number of detainees varied from 3 to 5;\n-  15 m2, in wh", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5305", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in the town of Kremenchug, Ukraine.\n5.  At the material time the applicant worked as an accountant at the Cherkasytransgas State company.\n6.  In May 1998 the authorities revealed a shortfall of 70,000[1] Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) in the Cherkasytransgas accounts. On 30 November 1998 the local police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for embezzlement of State funds. On 20 January 1999 criminal proceedings for forgery and negligence were also instituted.\n7.  On 26 January 1999 criminal proceedings against M. were instituted in connection with the same episode of embezzlement. On 1 April 1999 criminal proceedings against the applicant and M. were joined.\n8.  On 21 September 1999 the applicant gave a written undertaking not to abscond.\n9.  The criminal proceedings against M. were terminated on 22 October 1999.\n10.  On 1 December 1999 the applicant's case was sent to the court.\n11.  On 18 April 2000 the Kremenchug Court found the applicant guilty of embezzlement of State funds and sentenced her to ten years' imprisonment. The court also ordered confiscation of any property belonging to the applicant.\n12.  On the same day the applicant was imprisoned.\n13.  On 7 June 2000 the Poltava Regional Court (since June 2001 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal) quashed this judgment and remitted the case for additional investigation.\n14.  On 15 August 2000 the applicant was released.\n15.  In the course of the investigation several expert reports on handwriting, accountancy and technical criminal questions were submitted.\n16.  By 11 January 2001 the additional investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the court.\n17.  On 3 December 2003 the Kremenchug Court found the applicant guilty of embezzlement and sentenced her to five years' imprisonment. The court also disqualified the applicant from holding positions of financial responsibility for three years and ordered confiscation of any property belonging to her.\n18.  On 12 March 2004 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal reduced the applicant's sentence to three years and six months' imprisonment.\n19.  On 11 November 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine lifted the three year disqualification from holding positions of financial responsibility and upheld the remainder of the decisions of 3 December 2003 and 12 March 2004.\n20.  Subsequently the applicant requested the Supreme Court of Ukraine to review the case under the extraordinary review procedure but to no avail.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5306", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Rudolf Yakovych Myrskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1932 and lives in Lviv. He is a Doctor of Philosophy and a political science professor, who also holds leading positions in the Holocaust International Centre, the Association of National Minorities in the Lviv Region, and the International Anti-Fascist Congress.\n7.  In March 1999 the applicant took part in a round table organised by the association “For Inter-Ethnic Peace and Concord in Ukraine” on the occasion of the International Week against Racism.\n8.  On 26 March 1999 the newspaper Ukraine and the World Today (Україна і світ сьогодні) published selected excerpts (compiled by its journalist Mr L.) from statements by certain participants, including the applicant, under the headline 'Judaeophobia at the political level?' ('Юдофобія на рівні політики?'). One of the arguments ascribed to the applicant read as follows:\n“Unfortunately, judaeophobia may be observed not only in social behaviour, but also in politics. For example, the self-styled Party of Ukrainian Unity [«Партія української єдності»], which professes the aim of instilling in people an ideology and a psychology of national extremism, is kicking off its activities in Lviv.”\n9.  On 28 April 1999 thirteen members of the founding committee of the Party of Ukrainian Unity brought defamation proceedings against the applicant and the newspaper's editorial office before the Zaliznychnyy District Court of Lviv (“the Zaliznychnyy Court”). They alleged, in particular, that the applicant's statement, as cited above, was untruthful, defamatory and injurious to their honour, dignity and reputation, as well as debasing the future party's image. The plaintiffs sought a public disclaimer and apologies by the applicant and the editorial office, as well as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n10.  On 11 August 1999 the court requested the plaintiffs to specify their claim concerning the non-pecuniary damage and to submit additional documents, which they did on 27 October 1999.\n11.  On 21 June 2001 the court further requested the plaintiffs to submit some other documents concerning the party's registration.\n12.  On the same date the judge dealing with the case sent the defendants a copy of the above claim for comments. The same letter informed them that the hearing of the case was scheduled for 9 July 2001.\n13.  According to the judge's explanation given to the applicant in July 2003 on the latter's request, the claim remained unexamined during the period from 28 April 1999 to 2 October 2001 “due to the pre-judicial preparations”. It was also noted in the aforementioned letter that the judge, by virtue of his status, was under no obligation to provide the applicant with further explanations.\n14.  The applicant objected to the claim, contending that the impugned sentence was the journalist's own interpretation of his words taken out of context. Relying on his right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 34 of the Constitution, the applicant submitted that during the round table he had expressed his view of a political scientist as regards an emerging political force. He also brought to the attention of the court several publications concerning the foundation of the Party of Ukrainian Unity in Lviv, which had appeared in the local newspapers in 1998-99 and which contained, according to him, an indication of that party's extremist trends.\n15.  The Zaliznychnyy Court heard one of the round table's organ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5307", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. He is currently detained in a remand prison in Moscow.\n6.  In May 1992 a civil war erupted in Tajikistan when ethnic groups under-represented in the ruling elite rose up against the national government of President Nabiyev. Politically, the discontented groups were represented by liberal democratic reformists and Islamists, who fought together and later organised themselves under the banner of the United Tajik Opposition (“UTO”). By June 1997 fifty to one hundred thousand people had been killed. On 27 June 1997 a peace agreement was signed by President Rakhmonov and the UTO leader. However, in August 1997 fighting again erupted in several regions of Tajikistan, incited by an opposition group. Government forces retaliated and drove the armed faction of the opposition group to seek sanctuary in Uzbekistan.\n7.  The applicant, an ethnic Uzbek, lived in the village of Tajikistan in the Shakhrinavskiy District of Tajikistan. The village was mainly populated by ethnic Uzbeks. In the late 1990s large-scale persecution of ethnic Uzbeks commenced in Tajikistan. There were several armed attacks on the applicant's village; some of his acquaintances were killed.\n8.  The local administration of the applicant's village decided to create a number of checkpoints on the way to the village to protect the inhabitants and provided those who manned those checkpoints with firearms. The applicant himself was not given any firearms.\n9.  In August 1997 the village was attacked once again; after that, several members of the local militia and the applicant fled to Uzbekistan.\n10.  In February 1998 the applicant moved to Russia.\n11.  On several occasions the applicant travelled from Russia to Tajikistan. He obtained internal Tajik identity papers and a foreign passport in 2002 and 2004 respectively. His last visit to Tajikistan took place in September 2005.\n12.  On 6 February 2001 the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office instituted criminal proceedings against Mr M., a fellow villager of the applicant who had participated in the militia and fled to Uzbekistan in August 1997, charging him with banditry and organisation of an illegal armed group. The applicant was listed as one of the members of the group.\n13.  On 16 January 2006 the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office decided to bring charges against the applicant, stating that in August 1997 he had been a member of Mr M.'s illegal armed group and that such actions constituted an act of banditry punishable under Article 74 of the Tajik Criminal Code. It was also decided that the applicant should be put on a wanted list.\n14.  On 17 February 2006 the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office decided, in the absence of the applicant, to place him in custody.\n15.  On 15 April 2006 the applicant was put on an international wanted list.\n16.  On 19 July 2006 the investigation in the applicant's case was suspended as the applicant was at large.\n17.  On 13 March 2008 the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office severed the applicant's case from Mr M.'s criminal case. The decision read, in so far as relevant, as follows:\n“At the beginning of August 1997 [Mr M.], taking advantage of the unstable situation in Tajikistan, created an illegal armed group to attack legal entities and private individuals; the group was active until the end of August 1997.\n...\nAt the beginning of August 1997 Mr Khaydarov was a voluntary member of the illegal armed group and participated in armed hosti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5308", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1973 and 1965 respectively. At the time of lodging the application, they were in Bayrampaşa and Edirne prisons respectively.\n5.  On 21 July 1995 a hand grenade was thrown at a police service vehicle in the Gaziosmanpaşa district of Istanbul. Around fifteen police officers were injured. An illegal armed organisation, namely the TDP (the Turkish Revolutionary Party), took responsibility for the incident. Following this incident the police carried out an operation against members of the TDP.\n6.  On 4 and 5 August 1995 respectively, the applicants were arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of their involvement in the TDP. They remained in police custody until 17 August 1995.\n7.  On 11 and 13 August 1995 respectively, the second and first applicants were questioned by police officers at the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters, where they gave a detailed signed account of the activities in which they had taken part within the TDP. On 14 August 1995 the second applicant was questioned again. On that date the first applicant took part in a reconstruction of events concerning the bombing of the police vehicle. On various dates the applicants also took part in identification procedures via photographs.\n8.  In the application form the applicants complained that they had been subjected to torture while they were being held in police custody. In this connection, they maintained that they were put in a dirty and unventilated cell, deprived of sleep, food and water, blindfolded, sworn at and threatened, made to listen to loud music, beaten, stripped, hosed with water from a high-pressure hose, made to stand in front of a fan and suspended. The first applicant further claimed to have been subjected to sexual harassment, stripped and suspended, and that her hair and fingers had been pulled and a weight put on her feet.\n9.  On 17 August 1995 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Forensic Medicine Institute at the State Security Court, who noted that she had a bleeding nose, pain in the groin, two 1-cm grazes on her right arm and a circular swelling on the right wrist, weakness and numbness on both arms, pain in two of the fingers of the right hand and a 2 x 1 cm graze on the right knee. The doctor further mentioned bleeding due to a gynaecological trauma which had occurred approximately fifteen days previously. However, he stated that the applicant had refused a gynaecological examination.\n10.  On 18 August 1995 the applicant was examined by the prison doctor, who noted, inter alia, that she had widespread back and waist pain, together with a loss of power and numbness in both arms. The doctor further found a number of bruised and swollen areas of various sizes on the applicant's body, notably under her armpits, right arm and wrist, left arm, knees, legs and ankles. Finally, he mentioned that the applicant had pain in her left ovary and bladder region.\n11.  On 30 October 1995 the applicant was examined by doctors at the Third Section of Expertise of the Forensic Medicine Institute. The doctors also checked the applicant's previous medical reports and the results of an EGM test[1]. They concluded that the applicant was suffering from bilateral brachial plexitis (damage to nerves).\n12.  According to a number of reports, consultation notes, a medical scan and the analysis contained in the case file, the applicant, who has been diagnosed with irreversible brachial plexitis in her right ar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5309", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Poltava, Ukraine.\n5.  By judgment of 1 February 1999 the Kyivsky District Court of Poltava (hereafter “the District Court”) ordered U., a private company, to reinstate the applicant at work and pay him salary arrears in the amount of 1,916.20 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH, about 425.95 euros). This judgment remained unenforced.\n6.  On an unspecified date the debtor company had undergone a reorganisation, changing, inter alia, its name from U. to K.\n7.  In view of that fact, on 28 May 2001 the applicant lodged a claim with the same court, seeking a declaration that K. had succeeded U. In this regard he also claimed salary arrears in the sum of UAH 1,916.20 (which corresponded to the amount already awarded to him by judgment of 1 February 1999) and other payments allegedly owed to him by K. company.\n8.  The first hearing was scheduled on 20 September 2001. It was adjourned since the case was transferred to another judge.\n9.  Between 21 September 2001 and 20 December 2002 the District Court scheduled six hearings, two of them were adjourned since the company's representative failed to appear. On two other occasions the hearings were adjourned since the both parties failed to appear. One hearing was adjourned at the applicant's request, and one since the judge was involved in other proceedings.\n10.  In the period from 21 December 2002 and 19 May 2003 there was no procedural activity.\n11.  Between 20 May 2003 and 17 February 2004 the District Court scheduled three hearings, two of them were adjourned since the company's representative failed to appear and one because the judge was ill.\n12.  The hearings scheduled for 18 February and 8 April 2004 were not held as neither of the parties appeared before the District Court. For this reason, on the latter date the District left the applicant's claim without consideration. On 24 February 2005 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal, ruling on the applicant's appeal, found that the applicant had not been properly summoned and, accordingly, quashed the decision of 8 April 2004 and remitted the case for further examination on the merits.\n13.  On 26 August 2004 the Poltava Commercial Court liquidated K. company and the latter was subsequently removed from the relevant companies' register.\n14.  Between March 2005 and July 2005 the District Court scheduled two hearings. The both were adjourned since the company's representative failed to appear.\n15.  On 30 May 2005 the District Court asked the Poltava Tax Inspectorate to provide it with information about the company. On 15 June 2005 the latter informed the District Court that the company had been liquidated.\n16.  In July 2005, after the applicant had learned that K. company had ceased to exist, he requested the District Court to terminate the proceedings. Accordingly, on 27 July 2005 the District Court discontinued the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5310", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 3 July 1999 the applicant, who was seventeen years old at the material time, was taken into police custody by police officers from the anti‑terrorist branch of the Istanbul police headquarters.\n6.  On 12 July 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the former Criminal Code with membership of an illegal armed organisation.\n7.  On 5 November 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged, along with ten other persons.\n8.  On 25 June 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. The case was thus remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court and registered under case no. 2002/220.\n9.  On 25 September 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court decided to separate the case against the applicant from case no. 2002/220, since he was under the age of eighteen at the time of committing the alleged offences. The Istanbul State Security Court accordingly declared its lack of jurisdiction and referred the case to the Istanbul Juvenile Court.\n10.  On 21 October 2003 the Istanbul Juvenile Court decided that it would be to the applicant's benefit to be tried alongside the other defendants before the Istanbul State Security Court. The Istanbul Juvenile Court accordingly declared non-jurisdiction and referred the case back to the Istanbul State Security Court.\n11.  On 10 December 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court accepted the Istanbul Juvenile Court's decision and re-joined the applicant's case to no. 2002/220.\n12.  On 11 May 2004 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant's release pending trial.\n13.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court which, on 27 February 2007, convicted him.\n14.  According to the information in the case file, the case is currently pending before the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5311", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, was born in 1932 and lives in Belgrade, Serbia.\n5.  On 31 May 2000 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru), seeking payment for a house he had sold to a private individual, M.G.\n6.  The first hearing scheduled for 6 November 2000 was adjourned owing to the failure of the applicant's representative to submit a proper authority form. Further hearings were held on 16 January, 15 February, 19 March, 10 and 22 May, 13 June and 9 August 2002.\n7.  At the hearing held on 29 August 2002 the applicant's representative asked that the applicant give his evidence before a court in Belgrade by means of legal assistance between the two States. On the same day the Zadar Municipal Court requested the competent Municipal Court in Belgrade for legal assistance in that respect.\n8.  On 19 March 2003 the Zadar Municipal Court received the record of the applicant's evidence given before the First Municipal Court in Belgrade.\n9.  The Zadar Municipal Court held further hearings on 8 June, 9 September, 18 October, 4 November and 2 December 2004 and 5 April 2006.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 24 October 2005, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings.\n11.  In the period between March and September 2006 the Zadar Municipal Court and the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) were deciding on the applicant's requests for transfer of jurisdiction to another court and withdrawal of the presiding judge.\n12.  On 12 December 2006 the Municipal Court delivered a judgment ruling for the applicant in part. Both parties appealed to the Zadar County Court.\n13.  On 12 February 2007, the applicant sought an interim measure (privremena mjera) from the Zadar Municipal Court so as to prohibit M.G. from disposing of the house in question. On 24 April 2007 the Zadar County Court returned the case to the Municipal Court in order to decide on the applicant's request for an interim measure.\n14.  On 24 May 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings finding that the delays in the proceedings had been attributable to the applicant. The Constitutional Court's decision was served on the applicant on 8 September 2007.\n15.  On 1 June 2007 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant's request for the interim measure and forwarded the case to the Zadar County Court. On 19 September 2006 the latter quashed the first-instance judgment of 12 December 2006 and remitted the case. In the resumed proceedings the Municipal Court invited the applicant to specify his claim according to the instructions given by the County Court.\n16.  On 30 October 2007 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Zadar County Court complaining about the length of the proceedings upon his request for the interim measure.\n17.  On 8 November 2007 the County Court declared the applicant's request inadmissible because the applicant, who resided abroad, had not appointed a special representative in Croatia who would receive the courts' summons on behalf of the applicant (punomoćnik za primanje pismena), as required by the relevant legislation. On 21 April 2008 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) upheld the County Court's decision.\n18.  In the resumed civil procee", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5312", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1966 and 1972 respectively and live in Istanbul. Mr Saygılı (“the first applicant”) is the owner of a daily newspaper, Günlük Evrensel, and Mr Bilgiç (“the second applicant”) is its editor-in-chief. Until 22 July 2001 the first applicant owned another daily newspaper named Yeni Evrensel.\n6.  On 23 November 2000 the First Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court convicted Mr Bülent Falakaoğlu, the editor-in-chief of Yeni Evrensel, of the offence defined in Article 312 § 2 of the Penal Code for certain articles published therein. The conviction entailed certain measures being taken against Yeni Evrensel. Pursuant to Additional Article 2 § 1 of the Press Act (law no. 5680) then in force, the court ordered the newspaper to cease publication for a period of one month.\n7.  On 18 June 2001, while the closure order was yet to be executed, the applicants notified the office of the Istanbul Governor of their intention to publish a new newspaper, named Günlük Evrensel.\n8.  On 22 July 2001 Mr Saygılı ceased Yeni Evrensel's publication. The following day he launched Günlük Evrensel with a new editor-in-chief, Mr Bilgiç, and a new team of columnists.\n9.  On 8 September 2001 a number of police officers came to the applicants' printing headquarters to execute the closure order. They found that the applicants had discontinued Yeni Evrensel and started to publish Günlük Evrensel. The officers informed the public prosecutor in Zeytinburnu who, in return, concluded that Günlük Evrensel was Yeni Evrensel's successor.\n10.  On 13 September 2001 the public prosecutor applied to the Zeytinburnu Magistrates' Court (Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi) for a seizure warrant. The court issued the warrant authorising the seizure of Günlük Evrensel's two recent issues.\n11.  The same day the applicants filed an objection with the higher criminal court, the Zeytinburnu Criminal Court of First Instance (Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi), asserting that Günlük Evrensel was not Yeni Evrensel's successor. Unconvinced by the applicants' assertions, the court rejected the application without giving any reasons, other than stating that “it was established that Günlük Evrensel was Yeni Evrensel's successor”.\n12.  For the following 29 days the same sequence of events took place; the prosecutor requested a seizure warrant for the latest issue, the Magistrates' Court granted it and the applicants unsuccessfully lodged a number of objections against those decisions with the Zeytinburnu Court, which repeated its above conclusion in each of its decisions. In their objections the applicants drew the Zeytinburnu Court's attention to the fact that as Günlük Evrensel had first been published on 23 July 2001 and Yeni Evrensel was not officially closed down until 8 September 2001, it could not possibly be Yeni Evrensel's successor. Moreover, Günlük Evrensel had a different editorial team than that of Yeni Evrensel. The applicants also argued that the seizure of Günlük Evrensel was in breach of Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention because, inter alia, the seizure decisions were not adequately reasoned.\n13.  On 25 September 2001 the applicants wrote to the Ministry of Justice and requested that a written order be issued against the seizure orders. They repeated their arguments under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention.\n14.  Meanwhile, the Zeytinburnu prosecutor filed a number of criminal charges against the applicants on the ground that they had breached the shutdown order by issui", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5313", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company is a bank incorporated under the laws of Germany and is located in Stuttgart.\n6.  In 1994 the applicant company had acquired real estate consisting of land, parts of which are designated as agricultural land, and a house in Tyrol. The land was subsequently sold to the company “de Vos Hotelbetriebs GmbH” (hereinafter “de Vos”), a limited liability company incorporated under Austrian law that was active in the hotel business. The contract was signed by the parties on 4 and 20 September 1996 respectively.\n7.  On 23 September 1996 de Vos notified the transaction to the Real Property Transactions Authority (Grundverkehrsbehörde). Under the Tyrolean Real Property Transaction Act (Grundverkehrsgesetz), transactions concerning certain categories of real estate are subject to approval by the said authority.\n8.  On 6 May 1997 de Vos filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) to the Tyrolean Real Property Transactions Commission (Landes-Grundverkehrskommission) as the Real Property Transactions Authority had failed to decide on the case within thesix-month period provided for by law.\n9.  In its decision of 16 October 1997, the Real Property Transactions Commission refused to authorise the transaction. This and subsequent decisions of the Real Property Transactions Commission were served on both de Vos and the applicant company.\n10.  On 9 February 1998 de Vos complained to the Constitutional Court.\n11.  On 26 February 2001 the Constitutional Court set aside the Real Property Transactions Commission's decision of 16 October 1997 and referred the case back to it.\n12.  On 29 November 2001 de Vos filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction to the Tyrol Regional Government, which the latter rejected on 31 January 2002 for lack of jurisdiction, holding that there was no higher authority to which jurisdiction could be transferred after the Real Property Transactions Commission.\n13.  On 20 February 2002 the Real Property Transactions Commission refused authorisation of the transaction as regards certain parts of the real estate; it granted the transaction as regards other parts of the property.\n14.  On 25 April 2002 de Vos complained to the Constitutional Court about the refusal to authorise the transaction with regard to parts of the real estate.\n15.  On 1 March 2005 the Constitutional Court set aside the decision refusing authorisation.\n16.  In January 2008 the parties were asked whether there had been any essential changes regarding the facts. In the end of May 2008 the applicants were asked to submit their comments on the question whether the land in issue was being used for agricultural purposes. On 9 July 2008 the Real Property Transactions Commission again refused to authorise the transaction regarding parts of the real estate.\n17.  On 26 August 2008 de Vos complained to the Constitutional Court; the case is still pending before that court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5314", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are four Russian nationals.\n6.  As victims of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster they were entitled to social housing under domestic law. Because the authorities had failed to provide them with housing in good time, the applicants sought relief in courts. In October and December 2004 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Krasnodar (“the District Court”) held for the applicants, the judgments became binding. The details of the judgments are shown in the appended table.\n7.  In March 2006 the writs of execution were issued in respect of the judgments. According to the writs, the applicants were to be granted housing, as ordered by the domestic court.\n8.  In 2006 the respondent authority offered the applicants to settle the case by providing them with cash payment in the amount allegedly representing the value of the flat. The applicants submitted that the amounts proposed were manifestly lower than the market value of the flats granted by the domestic judgments.\n9.  By four separate written statements the applicants refused the offer. They stated in their refusals that in accordance with the judgments in their favour and with the writs of execution the authorities were under obligation to provide them with flats, and not with the sums of money.\n10.  On 24 May 2007 the District Court instructed the bailiffs to enforce the judgments in accordance with the writs of execution.\n11.  On 20 November 2007 the bailiffs informed the applicants that the execution of the judgments in compliance with the writs was impossible, “since the Administration of the Krasnodar Region could only use the monetary funds allocated from the federal budget”.\n12.  The authorities sought to alter the mode of enforcement of the judgments from in-kind provision of flats to delivery of housing certificates. By a decision of 6 April 2009, upheld on appeal on 7 May 2009, the District Court refused to change the mode of execution of the judgments.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5315", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1975 and 1976 respectively.\n5.  On 10 July 1999 the applicants were apprehended by the police and taken to Torez Town Police Station. According to the applicants, at the station the police officers ill-treated them in order to extract confessions to the attempted robbery and murder of a Mr L.\n6.  On 12 July 1999 the applicants were identified by witnesses S. and Gn. and the victim Mr L.\n7.  The applicants' detention at the police station was not recorded until 13 July 1999, when they were formally arrested. According to the Government, on this day Mr Lopatin resisted while being placed in his cell and had refused to give up items prohibited in detention facilities – a belt and shoe laces. Mr Lopatin objected to this latter assertion, stating that he had been detained for three days already at that time and could not possibly have had any prohibited items on him.\n8.  On 15 July 1999 both applicants were examined by a forensic medical expert, who drew up reports on the same date. The expert found that Mr Medvedskiy had bruises and scratches on his face, wrists, left elbow, legs, buttocks, hips and back. The expert concluded that the bruises could have been caused by blows with hard objects and could be classified as light bodily injuries. In particular, the bruises on the buttocks and hips could have been caused between 10 and 12 July 1999 by blows with a truncheon. He further concluded that the scratches on the applicant's wrists could have been caused between 10 and 12 July 1999 by the use of handcuffs. With respect to Mr Lopatin, the expert found that he had bruises and scratches on his forehead, neck, wrists, shoulders, back, legs and hips. The expert concluded that the bruises could have been caused by blows with hard objects and could be classified as light bodily injuries. He further concluded that the scratches on the wrists could have been caused between 10 and 12 July 1999 by the use of handcuffs.\n9.  On 6 August 1999 the Torez Prosecutor's Office refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicants' allegations of ill-treatment by the police. The decision mentioned that although the applicants had been identified by witnesses on 12 July 1999 they had only been arrested on 13 July 1999. The investigator further noted that, according to the police, Mr Lopatin had resisted when being placed in his cell and that lawful force had been used against him. As to Mr Medvedskiy, the investigator noted that, according to the police, he had had a fight with G., a cellmate. The investigator concluded that there was no evidence that the police had inflicted any bodily harm on the applicants.\n10.  By a letter of 24 November 1999, the Head of the Torez Police Department informed the Torez Prosecutor that the applicants had been taken to the police station on 10 July 1999. As they had made contradictory statements and referred to witnesses who could prove their alibi, their statements had to be verified by the police officers and this took until 13 July 1999.\n11.  On 7 December 1999 the prosecutor severed the materials concerning the applicants' detention between 10 and 13 July 1999 from the criminal case file in order to conduct an additional inquiry into the alleged unlawful detention.\n12.  The investigation into the criminal case against the applicants was completed on 9 February 2000. On the same day the case was sent to the Donetsk Regional Court for examination.\n13.  On 17 March 2000 the criminal ca", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5316", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Mykola Mykolayovych Pelevin, is a Ukrainian national who was born in Rostov-on-Don in 1938 and who currently resides in L'viv.\n6.  On 22 July 1999 a private dispute arose between the applicant and M.M.E. (a private person) over access to the attic of a building. As a result the applicant inflicted bodily injury on M.M.E. with an axe.\n7.  On 18 August 1999 M.M.E. instituted a private prosecution (приватне обвинувачення) against the applicant before the Zaliznychny District Court of L'viv and claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n8.  On 7 June 2000 the applicant sought to institute criminal proceedings against M.M.E. before the Zaliznychny District Court of L'viv for inflicting minor bodily injury.\n9.  On 13 July 2000 the Zaliznychny District Court of L'viv, in particular Judge U.P.F., instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant. He also decided that M.M.E. should be granted victim status in these proceedings.\n10.  On 9 June and 3 August 2000 and 27 April 2001 the applicant applied to the President of the Zaliznychny District Court of L'viv, seeking the withdrawal of Judge U.P.F. from his case. The applicant submitted, inter alia, that Judge U.P.F. had not allowed him to use the Russian language in court, in particular to put questions to witnesses. On 18 October 2000 and 27 April 2001 the President of the Zaliznychny District Court of L'viv dismissed the applicant's request as unsubstantiated.\n11.  On 18 May 2001 the Zaliznychny District Court of L'viv refused the applicant's request to institute criminal proceedings against M.M.E and his family members on suspicion of inflicting minor bodily injury on the applicant in May 2000. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 25 December 2001 the L'viv Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n12.  On 21 June 2001 the Zaliznychny District Court of L'viv found the applicant guilty of inflicting minor bodily injury and of arbitrary behaviour in July 1999, sentenced him to an administrative fine and released him from criminal liability because of his advanced age, on the basis of the amnesty law in force at the time. It also ordered the applicant to pay M.M.E. compensation for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs in the amount of 2,406 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH). The court also acquitted M.M.E. of inflicting minor bodily injury on the applicant. The applicant was allowed to submit his oral plea to the court in Russian. According to the record of the court hearings, the applicant did not lodge a request for leave to use the Russian language, nor did he request the assistance of an interpreter.\n13.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of 21 June 2001. On 25 September 2001 the L'viv Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal as unsubstantiated. In the proceedings before the first-instance court and the court of appeal the applicant was assisted by a lawyer practising in L'viv (a licensed advocate).\n14.  On 16 March 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court. In his appeal the applicant relied on Articles 383 - 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which governed the examination of criminal cases within the ordinary cassation review proceedings. In his appeal he mentioned that he had not been able to participate effectively in the proceedings because he had not been allowed to use Russian while putting questions to the witnesses and had not been provided with the assistance of an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5317", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Simferopol.\n6.  On 24 June 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking. He was initially placed in a cell of the Kyivskyy District Police Department of Simferopol and subsequently moved to the Simferopol Pre-Trial Detention Centre (the “Simferopol SIZO”).\n7.  On 24 December 2004 in view of his poor health the applicant was released from custody under a written obligation not to abscond.\n8.  On 12 November 2005 the applicant, with two accomplices, picked a quarrel with and then beat up Mr. A and his son, who were walking by in the street. During the scuffle the applicant took a jacket, money, a mobile phone and a bicycle which belonged to the victims.\n9.  On 16 November 2005 the applicant was arrested for that crime.\n10.  On 19 May 2006 the Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopol found the applicant guilty of the above crimes and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment with confiscation of property. The judgment was based on a number of witness statements, expert opinions, documentary and material evidence. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 25 July 2006 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court of 19 May 2006. The applicant appealed in cassation.\n12.  On 13 February 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's cassation appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.\n13.  On 3 October 2007 the Hola Prystan Town Court, having regard to the applicant's poor health and its further deterioration, granted him early release from prison. On 18 December 2007 that decision came into effect.\n14.  On 21 December 2007 the applicant was released.\n15.  Subsequently, the applicant's part of the flat, which is owned jointly by the applicant and his mother, was attached in the course of enforcement of the confiscation order.\n16.  According to the applicant, for an unspecified period of time he was not paid an invalidity allowance to which he was entitled.\n17.  Between 16 November 2005 and 20 July 2006 the applicant was detained in the Simferopol Temporary Detention Centre (the “Simferopol ITT”). The cell in which the applicant was held measured 21 sq. m. It was equipped with six bunks while the number of detainees ranged from eight to fourteen persons including the applicant. The cell was dim and badly ventilated because there was only a small window equipped with metal bars. During that period the applicant was never offered outdoor exercise; showers were unavailable.\n18.  By letter of 22 December 2005, the Simferopol Prosecutor's Office, replying to the applicant's complaint, informed him that the Simferopol ITT was built in 1977 and did not include a yard for daily exercise outside the cell, nor did it have a bathroom or shower cabin. He further noted that the Simferopol SIZO refused to accept detainees with tuberculosis.\n19.  According to the Government, in the Simferopol ITT the applicant was initially held with the other three detainees in a cell measuring 10 sq. m. Subsequently, he was held with other five detainees in a cell measuring 14 sq. m.\n20.  The cells were equipped with a sufficient number of bunks, and sanitary units were available there. The ventilation and lighting systems were operating properly. A shower cabin was installed in the Simferopol ITT and the detainees could wash themselves weekly.\n21.  According to the applicant, he contracted tuberculosis in June 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5318", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant lives in Rijeka.\n5.  The applicant owns a part of a house in Rijeka where she lives with her family. Since December 1999 a bar, F., has been run by a third person in the other part of the house.\n6.  On 16 March 2001 the applicant wrote to the Primorsko-Goranska County Sanitary Inspection, the Rijeka Office for Employment, Health and Social Welfare (Sanitarna inspekcija Ureda za rad, zdravstvo i socijalnu skrb primorsko-goranske županije u Rijeci – “the Sanitary Inspection”), reporting that her flat had constantly been exposed to excessive noise from the F. bar, which was open from 7 a.m. to midnight each day. She invited the Sanitary Inspectorate to measure the noise. On 30 March 2001 the applicant urged action on her request.\n7.  Measurements were carried out on 1 May 2001 at night by an independent expert firm. The expert found that the level of noise at night had exceeded the permitted level. In a room situated in the western part of the applicant's flat the noise level at night reached 35,9 dB (decibels) which exceeded the permitted level by 5,9 dB. In a room situated in the eastern part of the applicant's flat the noise at night reached 38,5 dB which exceeded the permitted level by 8,5 dB.\n8.  In a decision of 1 June 2001 the Sanitary Inspection ordered the company L., the owner of the bar F., to reduce the level of noise from their equipment for reproduction of music. The decision relied on the measurements carried out on 1 May 2001 for the purposes of these proceedings which had established that the noise from F. exceeded the prescribed limit. The decision was however quashed on 24 August 2001 by the Ministry of Health, upon an appeal lodged by the respondent and the case was remitted to the Sanitary Inspectorate.\n9.  Measurements carried out on 13 October 2001 at night again showed that noise from F. exceeded the permitted level by 1.8 dB to 6.9 dB depending on the exact place of measurements. The maximum levels measured inside the applicant's flat were 36.9 dB and the external noise level, at the house entrance, 57 dB.\n10.  Measurements carried out on 17 November 2001 again showed that noise from F. exceeded the permitted level by 2.1 to 5.2 dB depending on the exact place of measurements. The maximum level measured at the applicant's flat was 35.2 dB, and the external noise level 55.2 dB.\n11.  By decision of 15 February 2002 the Sanitary Inspectorate ordered the owner of the bar to add sound insulation to the walls and the inter-floor construction according to the Croatian standards in that respect.\n12.  An inspection carried out on 24 April 2002 established that the above decision had not been complied with.\n13.  On 3 May 2002 the Sanitary Inspectorate ordered the enforcement of the above decision if the owner did not comply with it by 31 May 2002. On the latter date an inspection established that the bar F. had been closed and that the owner had lodged a request with the local Tourism Office to allow the bar to be closed in order to install the required sound insulation.\n14.  A further inspection in the bar F., carried out on 12 June 2002 showed that sound insulation had been installed. Measurements were not carried out because the applicant sought the replacement of the Sanitary Inspector assigned to the case. On 10 July 2002 the request was denied.\n15.  On 20 September 2002 a further measurement showed that the level of noise insulation on the first floor was insufficient. The owner of the bar objected to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5319", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant lives in Vrlika.\n5.  He is a serviceman employed by the Ministry of Defence (Ministarstvo obrane Republike Hrvatske). In 1996, 1997 and 1998, as a member of the 40th Engineering Brigade of the Croatian Army, the applicant occasionally participated in demining operations in the newly liberated territories in Croatia.\n6.  On the basis of the Decision of the Minister of Defence of 18 September 1995 (see paragraph 36 below), he was entitled to a special daily allowance for such work.\n7.  Since the allowances had not been paid to him, on 21 May 2002 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Knin Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Kninu), seeking payment of the unpaid allowances. He sought in total the sum of 16,142.83 Croatian kunas (HRK) together with accrued statutory default interest.\n8.  The State responded that his action was time-barred because the three-year limitation period for employment-related claims had expired.\n9.  In reply, the applicant argued that on several occasions he had asked his commanding officer why the allowances had not been paid. His commanding officer had made enquiries of his superior, who had then contacted the General Staff of the Croatian Armed Forces (Glavni stožer Oružanih snaga Republike Hrvatske). Eventually, the applicant had been informed through his commanding officer that his claims were not being disputed and that they would be paid once the funds for that purpose had been allocated in the State budget. Relying on that information, the applicant argued that the State had acknowledged the debt within the meaning of section 387 of the Obligations Act and that the running of the statutory limitation period had thus been interrupted.\n10.  The court heard the applicant's commanding officer B.B. and the head of the Split Regional Finance Department of the Ministry of Defence, Brigadier I.P.\n11.  B.B., who had been the commander of the 40th Engineering Brigade between January 1996 and April 1999, testified that lists of servicemen who carried out demining work, together with the number of days worked and the corresponding amount of allowances, had been submitted to him by platoon commanders within the brigade. As the commander of the unit, he had signed them after checking them for accuracy and had then submitted them for certification to the commander of the 3rd Operational Zone. After the commander of the 3rd Operational Zone had signed the lists, they had been submitted for payment to the Regional Finance Department in Split. He had informed the applicant that the lists had been submitted for payment. When the allowances were not paid, the applicant and other members of the unit had approached him, as their commanding officer and the only person they were authorised to approach under internal regulations, asking him when the payment would be made. In their name he had then contacted the commander of the 3rd Operational Zone. Each time he had been informed that the right to receive payment and its amount were not being disputed and that payment would follow after the funds had been allocated for that purpose. Each time he had transmitted that information to the members of his unit, including the applicant.\n12.  I.P. had since 1996 been the head of the Split Regional Finance Department of the Ministry of Defence, which was in charge of financial matters for the 3rd Operational Zone. He testified that he had been aware that members of the 40th Engineering Brigade had been ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5321", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are Mr Aslan (also known as Lukman) Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1979, Ms Umkusu Dzhabrailova, who was born in 1949 and Ms Larisa Dzhabrailova, who was born in 1977. They live in Grozny, Chechnya. The first applicant is the brother of Valid (also spelled as Volid and also known as Lecha) Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1973; the second applicant is his mother and the third applicant is his sister.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  At the material time the applicants and Valid Dzhabrailov lived at 104 Sovetskaya Street in the settlement of Pervomayskiy, in the Grozny district, Chechnya. At about 7 a.m. on 16 February 2003 (in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as 15 February 2003) the applicants and Valid Dzhabrailov were at home, when a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms arrived at their gate. The men arrived in a white GAZ car (“Газель”), a blue VAZ-2121 car (“Нива”), a khaki-coloured military UAZ car (“таблетка”) and a UAZ car. The men broke into the house and dispersed into different rooms. The intruders, who spoke unaccented Russian, neither identified themselves nor produced any documents. The applicants thought that they were Russian servicemen.\n9.  The intruders woke up the second and third applicants, lined them up against a wall and threatened to shoot them if they moved. After that the servicemen went into the room where the first applicant and Valid Dzhabrailov were sleeping. They woke them up, forced the brothers to the floor, handcuffed them and blindfolded Valid Dzhabrailov with the hood of his sweater. Then they took Valid and Aslan Dzhabrailov's passports, beat them, dragged them outside and forced them to the ground. When the second applicant asked the intruders where they were taking her sons, the servicemen told her that they were taking them to a local department of the interior (“в отдел”) for an identity check. After that they forced Valid and Aslan Dzhabrailov, who were already bleeding, into the military UAZ car and drove away to an unknown destination. While travelling in the car, the servicemen beat and kicked the brothers.\nb. Detention of Valid and Aslan Dzhabrailov\n10.  Upon arrival at the point of destination, the servicemen took Valid Dzhabrailov and the first applicant out of the car, put plastic bags over their heads and bound the bags with adhesive tape. The brothers did not know where they had been taken, but they could hear the sound of military vehicles and helicopters. The first applicant thought that they had arrived at the main base of the Russian military forces in Khankala, Chechnya.\n11.  After that Valid and Aslan Dzhabrailov were forced to crawl on their hands and knees into a basement where they were thrown on to a cement floor. The brothers were cold and bleeding. Some time later the abductors came into the cell. Valid Dzhabrailov asked them why they had been abducted. In response one of the servicemen gave him several blows to the head and in the stomach with his rifle butt. Valid Dzhabrailov fell unconscious and was dragged outside. After that the brothers were separated and placed into different cells.\ni. Detention and ill-treatment of the first applicant\n12.  The first applicant was taken into a small cell in a basement, measuring approximately 2 x 3 metres. The cell had an electric light, a bunk bed and no windows. From the cell he could hear his brother Valid Dzhabrailov being interr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5322", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lived in Szeged.\n6.  On 13 May 2003 the applicant was caught in the act of committing armed robbery. In the ensuing exchange of shots, he killed a police officer and wounded another. He was also injured in his spine, as a consequence of which he became paralysed in both his legs from the waist down. Ever since, he has also been suffering from incontinence. He is now 100% disabled, only capable of moving in a wheelchair; moreover, he has to use diapers.\n7.  The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment. Between 25 February 2005 and 15 December 2006 he was detained in Szeged Prison.\n8.  The applicant described the conditions in Szeged Prison as follows: Since he was unable to fulfil the obligations incumbent on healthy inmates, he needed to sleep in his clothes in an undone bed and use his jacket as a blanket in order to avoid being sanctioned for violating the daily routine of making the bed on time. With no assistance from staff, he could wash or relieve himself only if his cellmates helped him do so. He was not provided with a proper bath chair; instead, he was given a wooden toilet-seat which – unfit for the purposes of bathing – rotted away fast and on one occasion, broke under him. Because of harassment from fellow inmates on account of his disability and incontinence, he did not participate in the daily open-air stays. Classified as a 'Grade 4' security-level prisoner, he was transported with his hands handcuffed to his belt at all times. While being transported in this posture in a van without a safety belt, he could keep himself in his wheelchair only by supporting his body by leaning his head against the door of the transport cabin. As a consequence, he regularly suffered swellings on his head. When entering or exiting the transport van, staff dragged him by his belt, sometimes on the floor causing him bruises; an incident of this kind took place on 12 June 2006. On other occasions, his wheelchair – with the applicant, weighing 110 kilograms, sitting in it – was rolled down the van's steps.\n9.  The applicant's complaint about the above conditions to the Csongrád County Chief Public Prosecutor's Office was to no avail.\n10.  According to the prison's medical service, the applicant suffered inter alia from high blood pressure, overweight, paraplegia and a neurogenic bladder. His transfer to a specialised penitentiary was recommended but not taken up by the prison administration. Upon the applicant's complaint, the National Prison Administration investigated his situation. Its findings included the following:\n“The applicant's cell is located on the ground floor ..., next to the medical consultancy room. It is suitable for accommodating four inmates, but only two or three inmates, including the applicant, are actually placed in it. The furniture is refurbished and adjusted to the applicant's health needs: the table is elevated, the beds are single rather than bunk beds, the wardrobe and the mirror are placed at a height reachable by the applicant, entrance obstacles have been removed and a handrail has been fitted next to the toilet. A cellmate has voluntarily undertaken the task of keeping the cell tidy and helping the applicant perform his everyday duties. The applicant has never been reproached for a violation of the prison cell order.\nA hot water shower (bath) has been provided to the applicant on a daily basis. A hand shower and a bath chair are available to him. ... A cellmate has volun", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5323", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kyiv.\n6.  On 26 July 2004 the applicant and his wife, Mrs K., adopted V.G., an orphan boy born in 1993.\n7.  From January 2005, due to conflicts between the applicant's wife on one hand and the applicant and V.G. on the other, they ceased to keep a joint household and the applicant's wife subsequently moved to their summer house.\n8.  In October 2006 the applicant sought annulment of his marriage with Mrs K. before the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv (the Shevchenkivsky Court).\n9.  On 27 October 2006 the child welfare authority of the Vyshgorod Administration (Вишгородська районна державна адміністрація Київської області) delivered its opinion, at the request of Mrs K., on annulment of the adoption of V.G. It found that the relations between the adoptee and Mrs K. were negative, while the applicant had authority over the adoptee and positive relations with him. The report also mentioned that the boy had expressed the wish to stay with his adoptive father and that the applicant was willing to take care of the boy's upbringing. It finally recommended cancelling the adoption with respect to the applicant and his wife, as the relations between the latter had deteriorated, which had a negative effect on the boy, so that it would not serve his interests to stay in his adoptive family.\n10.  In November 2006 the applicant's then wife requested the Vyshgorod Court to annul the adoption of the child by her and her husband, on the grounds that the child had attacked her physically on several occasions and that her husband, who had been present during one of the incidents, had refused to stop the attacks. She supported her claim by the report of 27 October 2006.\n11.  In the course of the proceedings both the applicant and the child objected to Mrs K.'s request for annulment of the adoption by the applicant. The applicant did not object to the annulment of the adoption in respect of Mrs K. He also denied that he had ever witnessed Mrs K. being physically attacked by V.G.\n12.  Meanwhile, on 6 March 2007 the applicant and Mrs K. divorced.\n13.  On 20 July 2007 the applicant married Ms V.T.\n14.  On 9 August 2007 the Shevchenkivskyy Court allowed the request of the applicant's former wife and annulled the adoption of V.G. by her and by the applicant. In particular, referring to Article 238 § 1 (3) of the Family Code, the court held that the adoption by the applicant's former wife was to be annulled in view of the fact that relations between her and the adoptee had worsened, rendering it impossible for them to live as a family. The court based its findings on the statements of Mrs K. and medical evidence of injuries sustained by her. The court also referred to the testimonies of neighbours of the family and a report on V.G.'s personality of 9 August 2006 provided by his school that stated that he behaved aggressively, insulted and threatened the neighbours and on some occasions had beaten some of his schoolmates. The report of 9 August 2006 also mentioned that this aggressive attitude and lack of respect for others were hereditary traits and required treatment by specialists. The child welfare authority supported the claims of Mrs K. and submitted that annulment of the adoption would be to the benefit of the boy.\n15.  The court further held that the adoption of V.G. by the applicant was also to be annulled in the best interest of the child, regardless of the child's wish to stay with his adoptive father", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5324", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 11 September 1996 Mr Z., the applicant's business partner, was killed.\n7.  In 1997 Mr Zh. and 17 other persons were charged as an organised group with numerous counts of robbery and murder, including the murder of Mr Z. and the planning of the murder of Ms A., Mr Z.'s girlfriend.\n8.  On 9 April 1997 the applicant was arrested. He was charged with aiding and abetting the murder of Mr Z. and the planning of the murder of Ms A. The applicant remained in custody pending investigation and trial. His case was joined to the case of Mr Zh. and the others. The applicant's numerous requests to disjoin the cases were rejected both by the prosecutor and the court.\n9.  On 24 March 1999 the preliminary investigation was completed and the case file was transferred to the Moscow City Court for consideration.\n10.  On 6 April 1999 the Moscow City Court scheduled the trial for 20 April 1999.\n11.  The trial lasted from 6 April 1999 until 18 July 2001. The court held 82 hearings. On 36 occasions the court adjourned the proceedings on account of the illness of some of the defendants, a quarantine in place in their detention facilities or their lawyers' failure to appear. The proceedings were interrupted twice on account of a security threat in the courthouse. On six occasions the proceedings were adjourned on account of clashes in the judge's schedule, his illness or the authorities' failure to transport the defendants to the court house.\n12.  On 18 July 2001 the Moscow City Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to eleven years' imprisonment.\n13.  From 20 July 2001 until 15 October 2002 the defendants studied six volumes of the minutes of the court hearings.\n14.  On 10 September 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation heard the case on appeal. The court upheld the applicant's conviction in substance and reduced his sentence to ten years' imprisonment.\n15.  From 26 November 1997 to 17 August 2001 the applicant was detained in Lefortovo remand prison. He was held in a cell measuring 8 sq. m and had to share it with one or two other inmates. There was no hot water or shower facility in the cell. A partition separating the toilet from the living area of the cell was installed only in 1999.\n16.  On 17 August 2001 the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. IZ-77/3 where he was detained until October 2003.\n(a)  Description provided by the applicant\n17.  According to the applicant, the cell where he was detained measured 33 square metres and was equipped with twenty-four bunk beds. The minimum number of inmates detained with the applicant at any one time was twenty-three. In August 2001 the cell housed forty inmates; that number had increased to forty-seven by the end of the year. The inmates took turns to sleep due to the lack of beds. By the beginning of 2003 twenty-three inmates were kept in the cell. The cell did not have any ventilation. It was stiflingly hot in the summer and very cold in the winter. Most of the inmates smoked and the applicant, a non-smoker, was exposed the tobacco smoke of others. The cell was infested with cockroaches and lice. Disinfection of the cell was performed once every three months and was to no avail. The television and the light were constantly on. Window panes were installed only in late 2002. The toilet was elevated from the floor by 0.5 metres. It was separated from the living area of the cell by a partition measuring one met", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5325", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Kurakhove, Donetsk region, Ukraine. He is currently serving his sentence apparently in the Donetsk Pre-Trial Detention Centre, Ukraine.\n5.  On 16 July 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated murder, robbery and arson.\n6.  On 19 July 2003 the Maryinka District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might go into hiding and obstruct the investigation, without, however, specifying the grounds for such an opinion. The court also stressed the severity of crimes allegedly committed by the applicant.\n7.  In the course of the investigation, the Maryinka District Court prolonged the applicant's detention on 15 September and 15 October 2003. In these decisions the court repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant's detention.\n8  The applicant's appeal against the detention order was dismissed as lodged out of time. His further numerous applications for release were unsuccessful.\n9.  Later, certain S. and G. were detained and charged in connection with the investigation against the applicant. Subsequently their cases were joined to the applicant's one.\n10.  On 17 November 2003 the Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal. The applicant was charged with an aggravated murder, robbery and arson.\n12.  On 9 December 2004, after several hearings, the court remitted the case for additional investigation.\n13.  By 1 March 2005 the additional investigation was completed and the case was sent to the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal. On 21 March 2005 the latter again remitted the case for additional investigation which was completed by 30 June 2005.\n14.  During the above additional investigations the authorities further prolonged the applicant's pre-trial detention on 30 January and 27 May 2005. No copy of the former decision is available. In the latter decision the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's continued detention and additionally relied on the severity of the anticipated sentence. The court also argued that the applicant could induce witnesses to give false testimony. Again, it did not specify the grounds for such an opinion.\n15.  On 1 November 2006 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. The court also convicted S. and G.\n17.  On 14 February 2008 the Supreme Court of Ukraine partly quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for retrial.\n19.  In the retrial proceedings the applicant made several, unsuccessful applications for release. In his applications he repeatedly contested the factual basis for the charges against him and invoked the principle of the presumption of innocence. The court, dismissing his applications, reasoned that they were either “premature” or “inappropriate” at that stage of proceedings.\n20.  On 21 September 2009 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal convicted the applicant as originally charged.\n21.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed to the Supreme Court of Ukraine but the destiny of their appeals is not known.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5327", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and currently lives in Belgorod, in the Russian Federation.\n6.  He owned a house located at 54 Mazniashvili Street in Batumi, in the Ajarian Autonomous Republic (“the AAR”), Georgia. The house and its adjacent premises were located on a plot of land of some 284 square meters.\n7.  Under a contract of 8 April 1994 (“the contract of sale”), the applicant ceded to Mr G., by then the Ajarian Deputy Minister of the Interior, half of his house (“the Mazniashvili estate”) for the price of 150,000,000 coupons (the provisional Georgian currency introduced at the beginning of the 1990s for purposes of monetary reform). According to the case file, the purchasing power of that sum corresponded to some 300 euros (EUR) at the material time. The contract of sale was certified by a notary. As further disclosed by a written statement of a witness to that transaction, after the signing of the contract Mr G. gave the applicant 3,000 United States dollars (EUR 2,199[1]) in cash. Shortly after the sale of the Mazniashvili estate, the applicant left Batumi and settled, together with his family, in the Russian Federation. Allegedly, a reason for that hasty departure was Mr G.'s continuous pressure on the applicant to cede the remaining part of the house.\n8.  As a result of tensions between the central and local authorities (see The Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, no. 9103/04, § 52, 8 July 2008), members of the Ajarian government, including Mr G., fled the country in May 2004.\n9.  On 7 June 2004 the applicant brought a civil action against Mr G., requesting that the contract of sale be declared null and void for having been entered into under duress (“the civil case”). In particular, the applicant, referring to the relevant factual circumstances, claimed that the respondent, by then an extremely powerful person in the AAR, had forced him to cede the Mazniashvili estate for a ludicrously small price under threats to his person and family. The applicant also sought an injunction to have the estate attached until after the final resolution of the dispute.\n10.  In a decision of 30 June 2004, the Batumi City Court granted the injunction and ordered the attachment of the Mazniashvili estate. The City Court transmitted its decision, describing the facts of the dispute, to the Chamber of Notaries of the Ajarian Ministry of Justice for enforcement. In the absence of an appeal, the decision became final after five days, and, as disclosed by the case file, the relevant attachment record was duly entered in the Land Register.\n11.  On 25 August 2004 the Ajarian Public Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal case against Mr G. for various offences committed in public office. On the basis of those criminal proceedings, the prosecutor requested the Ajarian High Court to confiscate the movable and immovable property of the accused, including the Mazniashvili estate, under Article 37(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”, “the confiscation proceedings”). According to the prosecutor's submissions, the Mazniashvili estate measured some 68 square meters and was valued at GEL 50,000 (EUR 21,275).\n12.  On 10 September 2004 the Ajarian Supreme Court partially allowed the prosecutor's request, ordering the confiscation of some of Mr G.'s property, including the Mazniashvili estate. The prosecutor appealed against that partial confiscation to the Supreme Court of Georgia.\n13.  On 18 November 2004 the Batumi City Court, in the absence of the r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5328", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  The applicant lodged a criminal complaint of defamation against a journalist, A.A., together with a civil claim for damages. At a hearing held on 19 December 2001, attended by the applicant's representative, the Bucharest District Court postponed the delivery of a judgment to 28 December 2001. By a first-instance judgment delivered on the latter date the Bucharest District Court dismissed both the criminal complaint and the civil claim.\n6.  On 9 January 2002, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. The Bucharest County Court, by a final decision of 15 May 2002, upheld the first-instance judgment in respect of the criminal complaint and reversed the decision in respect of the civil claim. Thus, the county court established the tort liability of the journalist and awarded the applicant 100,000,000 Romanian lei (approximately 3,300 euros (EUR) at the time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. By the same decision, the county court dismissed the objection to the effect that the appeal on points of law was inadmissible as having been lodged outside the 10-day time-limit. The county court referred to the provisions of Article 363 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), according to which the period during which an appeal may be lodged starts to elapse on the date of delivery of the judgment if the party concerned was present either at the hearing or at the delivery. As the applicant was not present at the hearing, although her representative was, the period did not start to elapse on the date of delivery of the judgment, and thus the appeal was lodged within the legal time-limit.\n7.  On an unspecified date the Procurator–General filed an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice to have the final decision quashed on the ground that the appeal on points of law had been lodged out of time and should have been dismissed as inadmissible.\n8.  In a decision of 26 June 2003 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the extraordinary appeal, quashed the final decision of 15 May 2002 and dismissed the applicant's appeal on points of law as having been lodged outside the legal time-limit. The Supreme Court ruled that the presence of the party's representative at the hearing was equivalent to the presence of the party herself and therefore the time-limit had started to run on the date of delivery of the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5329", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Skopje.\n6.  On 24 February 2000 a criminal complaint was lodged against the applicant accusing her of abuse of office (злоупотреба на службената положба). On 17 May 2000 the investigating judge ordered a preliminary investigation in respect of the applicant, after hearing her evidence. On 13 June 2000 the public prosecutor lodged an indictment in which the applicant, as a former director of the Inter-county Centre for Social Care (“the Centre”), was suspected of granting requests for a social allowance for two persons (“the claimants”) despite an official report that had been drawn up by a team of experts from the Centre (“the report”) attesting that the claimants had not met the statutory requirements.\n7.  On 28 August 2000 the Kičevo Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) convicted the applicant, who was represented by counsel, and sentenced her to a suspended prison sentence of six months.\n8. On 13 November 2000 the applicant appealed against that decision. In a separate request, she asked the Bitola Court of Appeal to notify her of the date of the session so that she could elaborate on the grounds of her appeal.\n9. On 27 February 2001 the Bitola Court of Appeal gave its decision in the presence of the public prosecutor, but not the applicant. It stated that the applicant's presence would not have contributed to establishing the truth. It allowed the appeal and quashed the trial court's decision. It further instructed it to establish whether the report had been binding for the applicant. At the session, the public prosecutor submitted written pleadings for the appeal to be dismissed.\n10. On 19 July 2001 the trial court ordered an expert examination so as to determine whether the claimants had been entitled to receive the allowance. The expert report was submitted on 19 September 2001. Since it was incomplete, on 17 January 2002 the court ordered the Forensic Institute to draw up an alternative expert report regarding the same issue. This was drawn up on 23 April 2002 (“the 2002 expert report”) and stated that the claimants had been granted the allowance unlawfully. The applicant objected to this report, arguing that only a body such as the Social Care Bureau (“the Bureau”) would be suitably qualified to give such an opinion.\n11. On 18 June 2002 the trial court again found the applicant guilty and pronounced the same sentence. It established that the applicant and another employee of the Centre had carried out an on-site assessment of the claimants' houses. In this connection, minutes had been produced, on the basis of which the report had been drawn up. However, the applicant granted the claimants' requests despite the binding nature of the report. The trial court reached this decision on the basis of evidence taken from two witnesses, the 2002 expert report and other documentary evidence.\n12. On 8 October 2002 the applicant appealed against this decision, requesting the Bitola Court of Appeal to summon her to the session. On 10 December 2002 the Bitola Court of Appeal, in the presence of the public prosecutor and the applicant, allowed the appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It instructed the trial court to reassess the evidence, to hear the claimants and to obtain other evidence so as to establish whether the claimants had been eligible to receive the social allowance. It found the 2002 expert report inappropriate to attest to that fact.\n13. On 3 April 2003 the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5330", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in İstanbul. He was a member of the board of directors of the Istanbul Bar Association at the time of lodging the application, and was the Istanbul department director of the Contemporary Lawyers' Association at the time of the events. The applicant also pursued various activities for the furtherance of human rights protection in Turkey.\n5.  On 21 April 1998 the applicant was injured during a commotion amongst the public which took place at the Aydın Assize Court, following the delivery of a verdict convicting six police officers of torturing and killing a detainee. A number of the public consisted of off-duty police officers in civilian clothes, journalists, representatives of various associations and relatives of the victim. The applicant claims that he attended the hearing as one of the legal representatives of the victim's relatives (see paragraph 9 below, however). During the incident seventeen people, including seven police officers, sustained injuries of different degrees of severity.\n6.  In the application form the applicant maintained that as soon as the sentence of the defendant police officers was read out, the off-duty police officers in civilian clothes and the defendant police officers started to verbally and physically attack the plaintiffs, their lawyers and the victims' relatives. Later the rapid reaction police force entered the court room and started to beat and drag people out of the room. The applicant further claimed that police officers in civilian clothes barricaded the corridor of the Assize Court and attempted to lynch him and others.\n7.  According to the incident scene report drafted by police officers on duty that day the events unfolded as follows: After receiving information that the hearing would be attended by a substantial number of persons from various cities following a decision taken by various political parties and associations, the police arrived at the courthouse and by 1 p.m. all the necessary security measures had been taken within and outside the perimeter of the courthouse. The security forces were warned to be prepared for possible provocations and all those who had entered the hearing room were searched. The hearing commenced at 3.40 p.m. As soon as the court delivered its verdict at 6 p.m., one of the sisters of the deceased started dancing with her hands in the air and another person shouted out that the justice had been done and that the fascist police would serve their sentence. A verbal and physical confrontation between the two groups ensued. The rapid reaction police officers entered the hearing room and had to use force in order to restore public order. The incident report noted that five persons, including the applicant, who had been injured in the course of the commotion at the courthouse, had been transferred to a doctor for medical treatment.\n8.  At 6.45 p.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Aydın State Hospital who noted superficial grazes on the right side of the applicant's neck, a superficial cut on his chin and widespread redness on the upper side of his right leg.\n9.  On 21 April 1998 the applicant gave evidence to a public prosecutor where he admitted that he had not been representing the plaintiff at the hearing but had been there as an observer on behalf of the Contemporary Lawyers' Association. He claimed that when the judge read out the sentences of the defendants, the plain clothes police officers sitting on th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5331", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 29 October 2003, while attempting to participate in a demonstration in the form of “a press conference” held on Istiklal Street in the Beyoğlu district of Istanbul, the applicant was arrested, together with some 50 to 60 other participants, by police officers at approximately 4.10 p.m. The applicant alleged that the police officers had used disproportionate force to disperse the crowd and to arrest the demonstrators, whereas the Government claimed that the demonstrators had resisted the police and had refused to disperse.\n7.  Following her arrest the applicant was taken to hospital for a medical examination. The doctor who examined her reported that there were no signs of injury on the applicant's body. The doctor noted, however, that the applicant complained of pain in her right upper arm.\n8.  On the same date, at 7.30 p.m., the applicant was questioned by the Beyoğlu public prosecutor. The applicant informed the public prosecutor that she had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police, who had used disproportionate force during her arrest. She claimed that she had attended the meeting, organised by a group called “the Peace Mothers' Initiative”, as the President of the Istanbul Human Rights Association, and that she had been arrested by the police for no reason. She stated that she had merely exercised her legal rights and that she had not breached the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act (Law no. 2911).\n9.  The applicant was released from police custody on the same day, after being questioned by the Beyoğlu public prosecutor.\n10.  On 6 November 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Beyoğlu public prosecutor against the police officers who had been involved in the incident and had arrested her. She complained, inter alia, of the unlawfulness of her arrest and the excessive use of force by the police during the arrest.\n11.  On the same date the applicant was referred to the Istanbul branch of the Forensic Medical Institute by the Beyoğlu public prosecutor. The doctor who examined the applicant noted a 2 x 6 cm ecchymosis on the back of her left leg and concluded that the injury rendered the applicant unfit for work for five days. The doctor further noted that the applicant was suffering from pain in her right shoulder and right arm.\n12.  On 12 November 2004 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute the police officers who had been on duty at the press conference of 29 October 2003. Relying on the incident report prepared by the police officers, the public prosecutor noted that, despite warnings by the police, the demonstrators, who had gathered illegally without obtaining permission and had disturbed public order by blocking the pedestrian zone and tramway, had refused to disperse and the police had therefore been obliged to use some degree of force to disperse them and restore public order. The public prosecutor considered that the force used by the security forces had been in line with section 24 of the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act and had been justified in the circumstances. In the public prosecutor's opinion, the applicant's injuries were the result of a proportionate use of force which did not amount to ill-treatment or abuse of authority.\n13.  On 23 December 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Istanbul Assize Court against the above-mentioned decision of the public prosecutor. She claimed that on 29 October 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5332", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first and second applicants are husband and wife. They were both born in 1937. Their son, the third applicant, and his wife, the fourth applicant, were born in 1964 and 1970 respectively. The fifth and sixth applicants are the daughters of the first and second applicants and were born in 1962 and 1971 respectively.\n7.  The applicants, with the exception of the fourth applicant, are internally displaced persons (“IDPs”) from Abkhazia, Georgia. As a result of the armed conflict in 1992-93, they, along with approximately 300,000 other mostly ethnic Georgians, fled Abkhazia, abandoning their homes and property there.\n8.  As the first applicant had been a high-ranking official of the Abkhazian Ministry of the Interior, the Georgian Minister of the Interior offered him, in January 1994, the post of Head of the Investigative Department within his Ministry. After the first applicant accepted the offer, he and his family were settled in a cottage belonging to the Ministry situated at no. 15 Avtchala Street, in the outskirts of Tbilisi (“the cottage”).\n9.  According to the case file, the cottage became the Ministry's property on 29 October 1993. Under Order no. 531 of the Minister of the Interior issued on the above-mentioned date, the Ministry retrieved possession of the cottage from the State sports club Dinamo, and the Ministry's Department of Finances and Logistics became responsible for its use. The order of 29 October 1993 stated that the retrieval of the cottage was justified in the light of “a substantial increase in the number of staff members, ... coupled with the fact that, in view of the current hostilities in Abkhazia, exiled staff members of the Ministry need to be provided with employment and accommodation.”\n10.  The first applicant and his family started using premises adjacent to the cottage to create a small household economy by installing various fixtures and fittings for growing fruit and vegetables, and keeping poultry and small livestock. Later, the Saghinadze family gave free accommodation to eight homeless relatives who had been similarly displaced from Abkhazia (“the Saghinadze family's relatives”). In 1998 or 1999 the third applicant married the fourth applicant, and the couple also stayed in the cottage.\n11.  In 1998 the first applicant retired from service with the Georgian Ministry of the Interior.\n12.  On 20 April 2000 the Ministry issued a letter confirming the legitimacy of the possession of the cottage and the adjacent premises by the first applicant (“the Ministry's letter of 20 April 2000”). The letter stated that the first applicant and his family had been settled in the cottage in 1994 on the basis of an ordinance issued by the then Minister under the Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees Act of 28 June 1996 (“the IDPs Act”). The letter further noted that the possession was of a temporary nature, its period not being specified, and that the possessor had a duty of care. A copy of that letter was also addressed to the relevant local government authorities for information.\n13.  As made clear by the case materials, in 2001 the fifth applicant left the cottage to settle with her husband in Ukraine. On 31 August 2001 the sixth applicant became the registered owner of part of the land adjacent to the cottage.\n14.  Almost immediately after the Rose Revolution in November 2003 (for more details, see The Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, no. 9103/04, §§ 11-13, 8 July 2008), the newly appointed Minister of t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5333", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1963 and 1950 respectively and live in Sivas. They had two daughters, Nermin Karabulut and Serap Karabulut.\n6.  According to the applicants, on 29 July 1998 at about 1 p.m. the two girls were hitchhiking to Sivas when a military vehicle stopped and the soldiers who got out started shooting at them. Nermin Karabulut, who was fourteen years old, was shot and died later in the day in a hospital. Serap Karabulut, who was sixteen, was beaten by the soldiers before being taken to a gendarmerie station. She was released the same evening.\n7.  The same day a scene of incident report was drawn up by the gendarmerie officers. According to that report, a person who wanted to remain anonymous telephoned the gendarmerie and stated that he had seen a female behaving suspiciously. A number of gendarme officers and soldiers arrived at the scene at around 2 p.m. and saw the female in question. When the female saw the soldiers she began to run away. The soldiers unsuccessfully called out to her to stop and then fired fifteen to twenty warning shots in the air. The female responded by throwing a hand grenade at the soldiers and the soldiers continued firing warning shots. When she attempted to throw another grenade, the soldiers shot her. When they searched her the soldiers found a stick, two knives, a screwdriver, a two-metre-long electricity cable, a syringe with a yellow liquid inside and a hand grenade. None of the soldiers were injured in the incident. Nermin Karabulut was then taken to a hospital in the city of Sivas where she died later the same day.\n8.  On 30 July 1998 the second applicant and his surviving daughter Serap Karabulut made statements to a prosecutor. The second applicant maintained that his two daughters had been trying to flag down a car in order to go to a hospital in Sivas where they had had operations previously. When no cars stopped, the girls had decided to walk to their uncle's house but then the soldiers arrived and told the two girls to stop. Serap Karabulut raised her hands and stopped but Nermin Karabulut started to run away from the soldiers because she was scared. The soldiers then shot her. The second applicant asked the prosecutor to find and prosecute those responsible for the killing of his daughter.\n9.  Serap Karabulut confirmed the version of the events described by her father and added that she would recognise the soldier who shot her sister. She also stated that the soldiers had beaten her up.\n10.  The same day Serap Karabulut was taken to the Sivas Numune Hospital where she was examined by a doctor. The medical report indicated that there was an area of bruising measuring 4 x 5 cm, on her right shoulder and a scratch measuring 3 x 4 cm on her left shoulder.\n11.  Also the same day an autopsy was conducted on Nermin Karabulut's body at the Cumhuriyet University Medical Department, with the attendance of a prosecutor. Just before the autopsy her mother formally identified her deceased daughter. She told those present at the hospital that her daughter Nermin Karabulut had been carrying the knives and the screwdriver in order to defend herself from any possible attacks while she was herding animals. She added that the syringe was hers and contained a tranquilliser which had been prescribed to her by her doctor; she did not know why her daughter had taken it from the house. She asked for those responsible for the killing of her daughter to be prosecuted and punished.\n12.  According to th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5334", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lived until his arrest in the town of Gvardeysk, Kaliningrad Region.\n7.  On 8 September 1999 the Gvardeyskiy District Court of the Kaliningrad Region found the applicant guilty of aggravated blackmail and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment.\n8.  In separate proceedings, on 16 November 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in the final instance, convicted the applicant of disruption of order in a detention facility and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment.\n9.  From 16 August 1998 to 14 April 1999 the applicant was detained in Kaliningrad no. IZ-39/1 detention facility. According to the applicant, that detention facility was built in 1929 and no construction works to the cells have been carried out since.\n10.  According to certificates issued on 20 December 2005 by the director of the facility and produced by the Government, the applicant was kept in twenty-two different cells which measured 7.8, 14 and 31.1 square metres. The Government submitted that the information on the exact number of inmates detained together with the applicant was not available. They noted that the cells could have occasionally been overcrowded, but at all times the applicant had had an individual bunk and bedding. Relying on the information provided by the director of the facility, the Government further argued that the sanitary conditions in the cells were satisfactory.\n11.  The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements. However, he alleged that the cells which measured 14 square metres had had ten sleeping places and usually had housed from 24 to 30 inmates. The smaller cells had either six or eight sleeping places and accommodated from 14 to 22 detainees. Given the lack of beds, inmates had slept in shifts. The applicant further submitted that the sanitary conditions had been appalling.\n (b)   Proceedings for compensation for damage\n12.  On 12 June 2002 the applicant lodged an action against facility no. IZ-39/1 and the Ministry of Finance, seeking compensation for damage. He described the conditions of his detention in minute detail and claimed that his detention had amounted to torture. He also sought leave to appear before the court.\n13.  On 17 June 2002 the Tsentralniy District Court of the Kaliningrad Region refused leave to appear because the domestic law did not require the applicant's presence. A month later the applicant again unsuccessfully sought leave to appear and asked to be assisted by legal aid counsel, arguing that he had no means to pay for legal assistance.\n14.  On 15 July 2002 the Tsentralniy District Court dismissed the action because the applicant had failed to prove that the facility administration had been liable for damage allegedly caused to him and he had not produced evidence showing that his rights had been violated. That judgment was quashed by the Kaliningrad Regional Court on 13 November 2002. The case was remitted for fresh examination.\n15.  On 21 January 2003 the applicant received a letter from a judge of the Tsentralniy District Court informing him that he could not be granted leave to appear as the law did not allow a transfer of detainees from facilities where they are serving their sentence to enable them to take part in civil proceedings. The judge noted that the District Court had no right to bring the applicant to the hearing, as his regime of detention would be violated. The judge further informed the applicant that he could appoint a representative or", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5335", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941.\n5. On 9 April 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud. On 10 April 1998 he was brought before an investigating judge of the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”). The minutes of the hearing held on that date recorded that he had an insufficient command of Macedonian, but that he would agree, if need be, to have some phrases re-read or explained in detail. However, in the absence of his lawyer he remained silent. The investigation started and the applicant was remanded in custody. On 16 April 1998 he was again brought before the investigating judge and this time, in the presence of his lawyer, he produced evidence in Serbian stating that he had a limited command of Macedonian. He gave his testimony in the presence of Ms O.T., a court-certified interpreter. He signed the minutes without making any comment or objection.\n6. On 29 April 1998 the public prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment. On 8 May 1998 the applicant objected on the ground that the bill was defective because it was not supported by sufficient evidence. On 15 May 1998 the trial court dismissed the applicant's objection.\n7.  On 23 June 1998 the applicant appointed another lawyer to represent him in the proceedings.\n8. Four hearings fixed between July and September 1998 were adjourned owing to the applicant's request to use Hebrew, his mother tongue.\n9. On 6 August 1998 he was released on bail.\n10. On an unspecified date between September and December 1998, the trial court, at the applicant's suggestion, appointed Mr E.F., a Hebrew-speaking employee in a Skopje-based non-governmental organisation, as interpreter.\n11. A hearing fixed for 15 January 1999 was rescheduled owing to the absence of Mr E.F.\n12. On 29 April 1998 an investigation started in respect of the applicant into two other counts of fraud. On 1 June 1998 the public prosecutor lodged an indictment against the applicant. On 11 June 1998 the applicant objected on the ground of lack of evidence to support the charges against him. He also requested that the bill of indictment be translated into Hebrew. On 20 October 1998, in the presence of the applicant and his second lawyer, the trial court dismissed the applicant's objection.\n13.  On 10 March 1999 the trial court joined the two sets of proceedings.\n14. Between 15 January 1999 and 12 September 2001, the trial court fixed nineteen hearings of which three were adjourned at the applicant's request, five owing to the absence of either an expert, who was called upon to provide an opinion of the applicant's signature, the public prosecutor or Mr E.F. and two owing to the absence of the trial judge and a strike by the court administration. During this time, the proceedings were conducted with the assistance of Mr E.F. In his presence, the court heard the applicant, the expert and several witnesses, two of which were foreign nationals, and obtained an expert report on the applicant's signature. At hearings on 10 March and 12 October 1999, and 12 September 2001, the applicant confirmed his testimony given in the pre-trial proceedings and stated that he had understood the bills of indictment communicated to him.\n15. On 30 September 2001 Mr E.F. left the State and informed the trial court that he could no longer provide interpretation. By 3 March 2004, fifteen hearings were postponed because the trial court could not secure the attendance of Mr E.F. or another interpreter into Hebrew. At a hearing of 21 June 2002,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5336", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is serving a prison sentence in Tirana Prison in Albania.\n7.  On the early morning of 5 July 1996 a murder took place in a bar in Kuçovë, committed by two persons wearing motorcycle helmets (kokore).\n8.  In the evening of the same day, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of premeditated murder while walking on a secondary road. The applicant fitted the description given to the police, namely that one of the perpetrators had long hair. The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention. The other perpetrator of the murder remained unidentified and could not be traced.\nWitnesses J., K. and L. made statements to the investigation team on that day in the absence of the applicant's counsel. Whereas the content of such statements was not submitted by the parties, it would appear that they implicated the applicant in the commission of the murder.\n9.  The police searched the route the applicant had travelled and they found a red motorcycle with a flat front tyre a few kilometres away.\n10.  On 6 July 1996 the prosecutor requested the validation of the applicant's arrest. On 7 July 1996 the Kuçovë District Court ordered the applicant's release for lack of reasonable suspicion and evidence. The applicant was represented by his lawyer A.\n11.  On 9 July 1996 the prosecutor appealed.\n12.  On 19 July 1996 the Tirana Court of Appeal quashed the Kuçovë District Court's decision and remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant could not be arrested as he had fled the country after his release on 17 July 1996, fearing a vendetta by the victim's relatives. It would appear that a few years prior to the murder, the victim had murdered the applicant's brother.\nMinutes of the crime scene investigation and other reports\n13.  A report on the examination and collection of material evidence of 5 July 1996 (proces-verbal për kqyrjen dhe sekuestrimin e provave materiale) contained information about the finding of seven bullet cartridges at the crime scene which were taken for ballistics examination. It was reported that the perpetrators had been on a red motorcycle and one of them had long hair.\n14.  A body search report (process-verbal i kontrollit personal) of the applicant, at the time of the arrest, stated that he was found to have “...one belt with a metal stud (me një tokëz metalike).” No other items were recorded in the body search report.\n15.  Another report on the examination and collection of material evidence contained information about a red Suzuki motorcycle found on the side of the road between Kuçovë and Fier.\n16.  There is no documented information regarding any developments from 19 July 1996 to 6 January 1997. It appears that on an unspecified date the proceedings were transferred to the Berat District Court (“the District Court”).\n17.  On 6 January 1997 the applicant was declared a fugitive, following unsuccessful efforts by the police to find him. The court assigned lawyer B. to represent him.\n18.  All hearings scheduled between 11 January 1997 and 28 October 1998 were adjourned. Two hearings scheduled between 15 February and 2 March 1999 were also adjourned owing to the absence of the prosecutor. No witnesses, including police officers, even though they had been summoned by the court, appeared. No other procedural measures were taken.\n19.  On 18 March 1999 the District Court decided to continue the proceedings in absentia. It was decided that B. would continue to defend the applicant. On the same day B.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5337", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Mr Isa Khutsayev, born in 1956,\n2) Ms Birlant Khutsayeva, born in 1961,\n3) Ms Maryam Khutsayeva, born in 1989,\n4) Mr Aslan Khutsayev, born in 1988,\n5) Mr Ibragim Khutsayev, born in 1993,\n6) Ms Marina Turasheva, born in 1983,\n7) Ms Aynat Sugaipova, born in 1957,\n8) Mr Amsody[1] Didayev, born in 1953,\n9) Ms Ayshat Sugaipova, born in 1986,\n10) Ms Milana Sugaipova, born in 1987.\n6.  They belong to two families who live in the village of Gekhi, in the Urus-Martan district, Chechnya.\n7.  The first applicant family consists of six persons (the first to sixth applicants). The first applicant is married to the second applicant. They are the parents of Beslan Khutsayev, born in 1981, and Movsar Khutsayev, born in 1984. The third applicant is the daughter of the first and second applicants; the fourth and fifth applicants are their sons and the sixth applicant is their daughter-in-law.\n8.  The second applicant family consists of four persons (the seventh to tenth applicants). The seventh applicant is married to the eighth applicant. They are the parents of Adam Didayev, born in 1977. The ninth and the tenth applicants are their daughters.\n9.  On the night of 16 December 2001 the first applicant family, together with Movsar and Beslan Khutsayev, stayed at their house at 40 Sportivnaya Street, in the village of Gekhi, Chechnya. The family were not sleeping as they were preparing for the celebration of a Muslim holiday. Between 2 and 3 a.m. on 16 December 2001 a group of about ten armed masked men in camouflage uniforms rushed into the house. The men neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They spoke Russian without an accent. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen. At some point the first applicant heard one of the officers calling somebody on his portable radio set and saying: “Fog, Fog, go out. We are ready. We are leaving.” (“Туман, Туман, выходите. Мы уже все. Выходим”)\n10.  One of the servicemen put a gun to the second applicant's head and shouted: “Everybody lie down or we will blow up the house and shoot your wife”. The first applicant asked what was wrong. He was told that the group had arrived to carry out an identity check. The leader of the group ordered the first applicant and Movsar Khutsayev to lie down on the floor. The servicemen bound their hands. One of the servicemen swore at the first applicant, repeatedly kicked him in the face, broke his jaw and said: “Any Chechen is a natural-born bandit”. The serviceman stopped the beatings only after his commander ordered him to do so. Movsar Khutsayev was laid on the floor next to the first applicant. He received several blows from the servicemen in the presence of the first applicant.\n11.  The servicemen searched the house and seized the applicants' possessions, in particular money (12,000 roubles), clothes, a tape recorder, a vacuum cleaner, watches and all the dishes cooked for the holiday celebration. They also shot through the tyres of the first applicant's MAZ car, which was parked near the house.\n12.  The first applicant and Movsar Khutsayev were taken outside to the yard and made to lie face down under a shed. Beslan Khutsayev was already there. He was covered in blood. The officers conducted an identity check. Upon completion of the procedure one of them hit Beslan Khutsayev in the back with a rifle butt. The servicemen seized the passports of Beslan and Movsar Khutsayev as well as that of the first applicant. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5338", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and is currently detained in the Tekirdağ F-Type Prison pending the criminal proceedings against him.\n5.  On 19 June 1996 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party), an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 15 July 1996 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and seven other persons, accusing him of membership of the PKK (case no. 1996/276). On 2 December 1996 the public prosecutor filed a second bill of indictment, charging the applicant, along with sixteen other persons, under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory (case no. 1996/302).\n7.  On 10 April 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court decided to join the two cases against the applicant under case no. 1996/302.\n8.  On 13 June 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced him to the death penalty.\n9.  On 12 February 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court.\n10.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was transferred to the Fourteenth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court.\n11.  On 12 April 2007 the applicant objected to his detention during the judicial proceedings and requested his release.\n12.  On 28 May 2007 the Ninth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court dismissed the applicant's objection, having regard to the nature of the offence in question, the existence of a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence and that a heavy sentence would be imposed if he were to be found guilty. No hearing was held.\n13.  At a hearing held on 4 June 2008, the Fourteenth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court ordered the applicant's continued detention in view of the nature of the offence, the existence of a strong suspicion that he had committed the offence and the possibility that he would abscond if released.\n14.  In the meantime, between 5 May 2006 and 24 October 2008, the applicant's lawyers requested several extensions from the trial court to submit his defence.\n15.  According to the information submitted by the parties, the proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court and the applicant remains in pre-trial detention.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5340", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Varna.\n5.  The applicant worked as a stoker at the Varna port. In 1999 he was dismissed as new requirements he did not meet were introduced for his position.\n6.  On an unspecified date in October 1999 the applicant brought an action for unfair dismissal alleging that: 1) the dismissal order had not been reasoned; 2) it had been indicated in it that it had been effective as of a date preceding the date when it had been issued; and 3) it had not been necessary to change the requirements for his position.\n7.  In a judgment of the Varna District Court of 8 June 2000, upheld by the Varna Regional Court on 12 January 2001, the applicant's dismissal was found to be unlawful.\n8.  Upon appeal by the applicant's former employer, in a judgment of 8 May 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Regional Court's judgment, finding that the latter had misapplied the law.\n9.  Following a fresh examination of the case, on 1 August 2002 the Varna Regional Court delivered a new judgment whereby it dismissed the applicant's claim.\n10.  On 3 September 2002 the applicant appealed in cassation.\n11.  The Supreme Court of Cassation held a hearing to examine the applicant's appeal on 14 October 2004. In a final judgment of 19 November 2004 it upheld the Regional Court's judgment and dismissed the applicant's arguments in respect of the alleged unlawfulness of the dismissal order, finding that: 1) the order indicated the legal ground for the applicant's dismissal, namely that he did not meet the relevant requirements; this represented sufficient reasoning in the case; 2) the order had entered into force on the date it had been served on him, any other date indicated in it as a date of entry into force was irrelevant; and 3) the applicant's former employer had enjoyed discretion, which could not be subject to judicial review, to set the requirements for the applicant's position.\n12.  In December 2004 and February 2005 the applicant requested the Varna District Court, where the case file was to be archived, for copies of all court judgments in the case. According to him, the District Court refused to provide him with a copy of the judgment of the Varna Regional Court of 12 January 2001 (see paragraph 7 above). Nevertheless, the applicant has enclosed a copy of the said judgment with his application.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5341", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1981 and 1961 respectively and lived in Diyarbakır.\n6.  On 5 May 1999 the applicants were laid off by the Diyarbakır Sur Municipality (“the Municipality”), with which they had been temporarily employed.\n7.  The applicants subsequently brought separate actions before the Diyarbakır Labour Court against the Municipality, claiming outstanding salaries, dismissal indemnities, severance pay and other pecuniary rights.\n8.  On 23 December and 11 November 1999, respectively, the labour court granted the applicants' request and ordered the payment of 324,681,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] to the first applicant and TRL 927,531,000[2] to the second applicant, together with interest. In the absence of an appeal, these judgments became final on 3 January 2000 and 22 November 1999, respectively.\n9.  At the date of introduction of the applications, the judgment debts were still outstanding. However, in the meantime, friendly settlement agreements were reached between the applicants and the Municipality on 31 July 2008 and 10 February 2005, respectively, and the relevant payments were made to the applicants.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5342", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Flats represented nearly 20% of the pre-war housing stock of Bosnia and Herzegovina[1] (around 250,000 housing units out of 1,315,000). By local standards, they were a particularly attractive type of home, equipped with modern conveniences and located in urban centres. Practically all flats were under the regime of “social ownership” – a concept which, while it does exist in other countries, was particularly highly developed in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”). They were generally built by socially owned enterprises or other public bodies for allocation to their employees, who became “occupancy right holders”[2]. All citizens of the SFRY were required to pay a means-tested contribution to subsidise housing construction. However, the amount an individual had contributed was not amongst the legal criteria taken into account in the waiting lists for allocation of such flats.\n6.  The rights of both the allocation right holders (public bodies which nominally controlled the flats) and the occupancy right holders were regulated by law (the Housing Act 1984, which is still in force in Bosnia and Herzegovina[3]). In accordance with this Act, an occupancy right, once allocated, entitled the occupancy right holder to permanent, lifelong use of the flat against the payment of a nominal fee. When occupancy right holders died, their rights transferred, as a matter of right, to their surviving spouses (indeed, spouses held occupancy rights in common) or registered members of their family households who were also using the flat (sections 19 and 21 of this Act). In practice, these provisions on transfer meant that occupancy rights originally allocated by public bodies to their employees could pass, as of right, to multiple generations for whom the initial employment-based link to the allocation right holder no longer existed. Occupancy rights could be cancelled only in court proceedings (section 50 of this Act) on limited grounds (sections 44, 47 and 49 of this Act), the most important of which was failure by the occupancy right holders to physically use their flats for their own housing needs for a continuous period of at least six months, without justified grounds (such as, military service, medical treatment, prison sentence, or temporary work elsewhere in the SFRY or abroad). Although inspections were foreseen to ensure compliance with this requirement (section 42 of this Act), occupancy rights were rarely, if ever, cancelled on these grounds prior to the 1992-95 war. Moreover, on 24 December 1992 the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina annulled the inspection provisions[4].\n7.  Following its declaration of independence on 6 March 1992, a brutal war started in Bosnia and Herzegovina. More than 2.2 million people left their homes as a consequence of “ethnic cleansing” or generalised violence. As a rule, they fled to areas controlled by their own ethnic groups. All parties to the conflict quickly adopted procedures allowing the flats of those who had fled the territory under their control to be declared “abandoned” and allocated to new occupancy right holders. While the alleged rationale for the allocation of “abandoned” properties was to provide humanitarian shelter to displaced persons, particularly attractive properties – typically urban flats – were commonly awarded to the military and political elites. In some cases, occupancy rights were cancelled pursuant to the aforementioned secti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5343", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  On 19 February 2001 the applicant was arrested by the Bucharest Police on suspicion of drug trafficking.\nThe next day he was placed in pre-trial detention by the prosecutor attached to the Bucharest District Court.\n7.  On 15 March 2001 the prosecutor committed the applicant for trial.\n8.  On 19 November 2001 the District Court convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to ten years and four months' imprisonment.\n9.  The sentence was upheld on appeal by the Bucharest County Court (decision of 3 April 2002) and on appeal on points of law by the Bucharest Court of Appeal (final decision of 25 June 2002).\n10.  On 30 August 2002 the applicant requested the revision of the judgment, arguing that he was in possession of new relevant evidence that would prove his innocence and that he was willing to deliver it in person to the prosecutor. On 3 February 2003 the Bucharest District Court declared his application inadmissible.\n11.  The applicant was held in detention from 19 February 2001 until his release on 19 May 2009.\n12.  Between 19 February 2001 and 4 July 2001 he was held in the detention facilities at Bucharest Police Station. From 4 July 2001 he was detained for the most part in Jilava Penitentiary and Rahova Penitentiary in Bucharest. For short periods of time, from March 2008, he served his sentence in the penitentiaries in Mărgineni, Tîrgu Jiu, Craiova and Aiud.\n13.  The applicant described the cells in Jilava Penitentiary as overcrowded and dirty, alleging that he contracted skin infections and scabies and caught fleas.\n14.  As for Rahova Penitentiary, he claimed that he shared a 6 sq. m room equipped with 10 beds with 11-13 other detainees. The room was infested with bedbugs and the walls were mouldy. Warm water was available once a week for one hour and heating was available in the evenings for one hour. The cell was ventilated through a window, but the door was constantly closed. The window pane was missing and the inmates put up a blanket in order to cover it.\n15.  Outdoor exercise was allowed twice a week for one hour.\n16.  The food was bad, and meat was available only on Christian holidays and in the event of inspections.\n17.  The detainees were taken for medical check-ups once a week and when treatment was needed they were advised to seek medicine from their families.\n18.  The Government provided official information, submitted by the Penitentiary authorities, concerning the size and facilities of all the cells that the applicant had occupied during his detention.\n19.  In Jilava, he stayed in the following cells: nos. 301, 209, 210, 310 and 314 which were all 32.99 sq. m in size and accommodated 19-44 inmates at the time; no. 510 which was 42.39 sq. m in size and accommodated 41-44 inmates at that time; and in no. 308 which was 51.23 sq. m in size and accommodated 23 inmates.\nThe official documents did not give the exact number of bunks per cell.\n20.  Each cell had a window and separate sanitary facilities with two toilets and a sink with drinking water. Hot water was available only in a special bathing area where the inmates were taken once a week.\nEach winter heating was available between 1 November and 31 March, according to a pre-established schedule.\n21.  The inmates were responsible for the cleaning of their cells, using products put at their disposal by the penitentiary. Pest control measures and insecticide treatments were carried out each", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5344", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Bydgoszcz.\n5.  In 1948 the applicant's legal predecessor, his great-grandfather Mr Roman Pawłowski, lodged an application under Article 7 of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on real property in Warsaw for temporary ownership of a plot of land situated in Warsaw. This application remained unanswered.\n6.  In 1981 the Bydgoszcz District Court declared that the applicant had acquired 2/12 of his late great-grandfather's estate and had thereby become his legal successor.\n7.  On 20 December 1988 the applicant, together with his mother, Ms Z. Berent-Derda, another legal successor of Mr Pawłowski, reiterated the request submitted in 1948.\n8.  In 1993 the Board of Association of Districts of Warsaw City (Zarząd Związku Dzielnic-Gmin Warszawy), by a decision of 17 June, declared that ownership of the property concerned had been acquired by the City of Warsaw Taxi Enterprise. The applicant and Ms Berent-Derda appealed, pointing out that the decision was unlawful because the request submitted in 1948 and reiterated in 1988 had already been pending before the authorities at that time.\n9.  On 23 February 1995 the Land Administration Division of the Warsaw Municipality found that it was not competent to examine the case. The case file was subsequently transmitted, on an unknown later date, to the Board of Warsaw City (Zarząd Miasta st. Warszawy).\n10.  On 12 June 2001 the Board of Warsaw City examined the request and dismissed it in its part concerning a surface area of 2,205 square metres. Apparently the plot had been divided, on an unspecified earlier date, into two parts, the other part covering 478 square metres, with the State Treasury listed as its owner in the local land register. The applicant appealed. On 21 September 2001 the Local Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) quashed the contested decision and remitted the case.\n11.  On 11 October 2001 the applicant and his mother complained to the Local Government Board of Appeal about the City Board's failure to issue a decision regarding the plot of 478 square metres. On 18 February 2002 they submitted an identical complaint, concerning the area of 2,205 square metres. On 21 January 2002 the Local Government Board of Appeal, in reply to the complaint of 11 October 2001, fixed a time-limit for a decision on the merits to be given by the Warsaw Board within thirty days. On 3 March 2002 the applicant and his mother reiterated their complaint.\n12.  On 22 March 2002 the Local Government Board of Appeal quashed the decision of 17 June 1993 (see paragraph 8 above) by which the ownership of the plot had been given to the City of Warsaw Taxi Enterprise. On 10 April 2002 the Mayor requested the Board to reconsider the case.\n13.  By a decision dated 25 June 2002, the Local Government Board of Appeal found that the applicant's complaint of 18 February 2002 about the excessive length of the proceedings in the part concerning the establishing of ownership of the plot was unfounded as the first-instance authority was conducting investigatory proceedings.\nOn 25 June 2002 the Local Government Board of Appeal dismissed the applicant's complaint concerning the Warsaw's Board failure to issue a decision.\n14.  On 8 July 2002 Ms Z. Berent - Derda complained to the Supreme Administrative Court about the authorities' failure to give a decision on the merits of the case. On 13 August 2002 the Board fixed the time-limit for giving a decision on the merits", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5345", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently detained in Schwalmstadt Prison, Germany.\n10.  J. was the youngest son of a banking family in Frankfurt am Main. He got to know the applicant, a law student, as an acquaintance of his sister.\n11.  On 27 September 2002 the applicant lured J., aged 11, into his flat in Frankfurt am Main by pretending that the child’s sister had left a jacket there. He then killed the boy by suffocating him.\n12.  Subsequently, the applicant deposited a ransom note at J.’s parents’ place of residence stating that J. had been kidnapped and demanding one million euros. The note further stated that if the kidnappers received the ransom and managed to leave the country, then the child’s parents would see their son again. The applicant then drove to a pond located on a private property near Birstein, approximately one hour’s drive from Frankfurt, and hid J.’s corpse under a jetty.\n13.  On 30 September 2002 at around 1 a.m. the applicant picked up the ransom at a tram station. From then on he was under police surveillance. He paid part of the ransom money into his bank accounts and hid the remainder of the money in his flat. That afternoon, he was arrested at Frankfurt am Main airport with the police pinning him face down on the ground.\n14.  After having been examined by a doctor at the airport’s hospital on account of shock and skin lesions, the applicant was taken to the Frankfurt am Main police headquarters. He was informed by detective officer M. that he was suspected of having kidnapped J. and was instructed about his rights as a defendant, notably the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer. He was then questioned by M. with a view to finding J. Meanwhile, the police, having searched the applicant’s flat, found half of the ransom money and a note concerning the planning of the crime. The applicant intimated that the child was being held by another kidnapper. At 11.30 p.m. he was allowed to consult a lawyer, Z., for thirty minutes at his request. He subsequently indicated that F.R. and M.R. had kidnapped the boy and had hidden him in a hut by a lake.\n15.  Early in the morning of 1 October 2002, before M. came to work, Mr Daschner (“D.”), deputy chief of the Frankfurt police, ordered another officer, Mr Ennigkeit (“E.”), to threaten the applicant with considerable physical pain, and, if necessary, to subject him to such pain in order to make him reveal the boy’s whereabouts. D.’s subordinate heads of department had previously and repeatedly opposed such a measure (see also paragraph 47 below). Detective officer E. thereupon threatened the applicant with subjection to considerable pain at the hands of a person specially trained for such purposes if he did not disclose the child’s whereabouts. According to the applicant, the officer further threatened to lock him in a cell with two huge black men who would sexually abuse him. The officer also hit him several times on the chest with his hand and shook him so that, on one occasion, his head hit the wall. The Government disputed that the applicant had been threatened with sexual abuse or had been physically assaulted during the questioning.\n16.  For fear of being exposed to the measures he was threatened with, the applicant disclosed the whereabouts of J.’s body after approximately ten minutes.\n17.  The applicant was then driven with M. and numerous other police officers to Birstein. He had refused to go with detective officer E. The police waited for a vi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5347", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  At the beginning of April 2002 the police division responsible for fighting organised crime and drug trafficking (“the police”) received information that the applicant and his friends P.T. and D.C. were trafficking in drugs. The three friends were ecstasy users. At the time of the events, the applicant and D.C. were students.\n6.  On 18 April 2002 the police sought authorisation from the prosecutor's office to use undercover agents and a collaborator to follow the lead regarding the suspects' alleged criminal activities. On the same day the organised crime and drug-trafficking section of the prosecutor's office at the Supreme Court of Justice (“the prosecutor's office”) authorised two agents, referred to in the proceedings as “Toni” and “Sven” (the latter being introduced to the applicant and his friends as “Alex”), and a collaborator, “Gotti”, to participate in the operation.\n7.  On 29 April 2002 Sven met the applicant, D.C. and P.T. in a restaurant (“restaurant E”) and agreed to meet with them again later the same day.\n8.  At 9.15 p.m. the applicant and P.T. were sitting with Alex on the terrace of restaurant M and D.C. was sitting at the adjacent table with some friends, when plain clothes police officers rose from the neighbouring tables and arrested the three suspects. A yellow plastic bag was taken from under the applicant's table and its contents checked; the police noted that it contained bread, under which were several packets fastened with brown tape which together contained 2,016 white tablets which later proved to be ecstasy.\n9.  The three suspects were arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking. The police took photographs and videotaped the events. Images from the operation were shown on the evening news.\n10.  On her arrest D.C. confessed to the prosecutor that she and P.T. had taken part in drug trafficking. However, she withdrew her confessions before the first‑instance court, claiming that she had been coerced into making them by the police with the promise that if she wrote down what she was told to write, she would be released after ten minutes.\n11.  The applicant and his friends claimed that they had been contacted by Gotti, whose real name was Bogdan, and who was a friend of D.C. They gave the authorities his full name and address for further investigation. Gotti had told them that Alex had various objects (clothes and watches) for sale at reasonable prices. They finally agreed to meet Alex and at 4.30 p.m. on 29 April they, together with Bogdan, went to restaurant E. They sat down with Alex, who did not have the merchandise with him. Later that day the three friends were at bar N. when Bogdan told them that Alex was at restaurant M and could meet them again. The applicant and Bogdan left in Bogdan's car. After a while, they called D.C. and P.T., who had stayed behind, and told them that Bogdan had forgotten a yellow plastic bag under their table at the bar and asked them if they could bring it to restaurant M as it contained food for Bogdan's wife, who was ill.\n12.  At 9.15 p.m. the applicant and Bogdan arrived at restaurant M and sat at Alex's table. Ten minutes later P.T., who was carrying Bogdan's plastic bag, and D.C., joined them. P.T. sat at Alex's table while D.C. sat at the next table with some acquaintances.\n13.  When Alex went to the toilet, plainclothes police officers intervened, expecting to find exactly 2,000 tablets of ecstasy in the bag un", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5349", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1961 and 1984, respectively. They live in the village of Sernovodsk, in the Sunzhenskiy District, the Chechen Republic.\n6.  The first applicant is the mother and the second applicant is the wife of Mr Salambek Alapayev, born in 1982.\n7.  At the material time the first applicant, Salambek Alapayev, the second applicant and their son, and Salman Alapayev (Salambek Alapayev's 75-year old grandfather, now deceased) lived together at 24, Demiyana Bednogo Street, in the village of Sernovodsk, in the Sunzhenskiy District, the Chechen Republic.\n8.  Salambek Alapayev was employed in a private company trading in medical equipment, “Med-Intel”, until November 2004. The company's seat was in Nalchik, in the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic.\n9.  On the night of 26 December 2004 the family, except the first applicant, who was attending funerals in another village, was sleeping in their house at the above address. At about 3 a.m. on 27 December 2004 the second applicant and Salambek Alapayev were woken up by a noise coming from the front door. A group of eight to twelve armed men in camouflage uniforms burst into the house. They were not wearing masks and were speaking Russian. They neither introduced themselves nor presented any documents. The second applicant inferred that they were servicemen.\n10.  Three servicemen started kicking Salman Alapayev, while four others grabbed Salambek Alapayev and started beating him with rifle-butts and their boots. The servicemen ordered the second applicant to stay in her room; two of them guarded her. From there the applicant heard the sound of her husband being beaten and begged the servicemen to stop. She also heard the intruders binding Salambek Alapayev's hands with adhesive tape. The servicemen ordered the second applicant to fetch her husband's passport. When she brought it over, together with his driving licence, they took it away. After that the servicemen conducted a quick search of the house. They did not provide any explanation for their actions or reply to her questions as to where and why they were taking her husband.\n11.  Having spent a short time in the applicant's house, the intruders went outside, dragging Salambek Alapayev, bound and barefoot, with them. Despite the servicemen's orders, the second applicant followed them outside. At the front door she saw Salman Alapayev lying on the ground. He was bleeding and unconscious. At the entrance to the house the servicemen had left the claw hammer with which they had taken the door off its hinges. Outside the second applicant saw the servicemen leave with Salambek Alapayev in a grey UAZ vehicle and a white Gazel vehicle. The abductors' vehicles passed through the roadblock located at the exit from the village to the Baku motorway.\n12.  A number of neighbours witnessed the abduction of Salambek Alapayev. In particular, at about 3 a.m. on 27 December 2004 L.U. and M.T. saw an APC (armoured personnel carrier) and other vehicles stop at the applicants' house. Both women heard screaming and noise coming from the house, and people speaking Russian. At about 3 a.m. on 27 December 2004 Kh.Kh., who was at her grandmother's house at 22, Demyana Bednogo Street, and Zul.A., another neighbour, were woken up by noise coming from the applicants' house. When they rushed outside, they saw Salambek Alapayev, being taken away tied up and barefoot by unidentified persons. The abductors had several vehicles, including a grey UAZ vehicle and a wh", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5350", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1919, 1930, 1939 and 1941 respectively and live in Moscow.\n6.  Mrs Zharkova filed the application also on behalf of her husband, Mr Evsey Matveyevich Pisman, who had died on 17 January 2005.\n7.  On 12 April 2002 the applicants were charged with aggravated fraud, a serious offence punishable with up to ten years' imprisonment at the material time. On 25 June 2002 the pre-trial investigation was concluded and on 12 July 2002 the case was allocated to the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow for judicial examination. The first hearing was scheduled for 11 August 2003.\n8.  By a decision of 5 May 2004, the trial court suspended the criminal proceedings in respect of Ms Konashevskaya and Ms Gorokhova owing to their serious illnesses.\n9.  On 21 February 2006 the court ordered an expert psychiatric examination of Mr G., the applicants' co-defendant, and suspended the examination of the case. The date when the proceedings were resumed is unknown.\n10.  By a decision of 29 May 2007, the court suspended the proceedings in respect of Ms Belikova and Mrs Zharkova owing to their illnesses.\n11.  On 25 February 2008, at the requests of Ms Belikova, Mrs Zharkova and Ms Gorokhova, the court resumed its examination of the case.\n12.  On 31 March 2008 the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow delivered a judgment by which applicants Belikova, Zharkova and Gorokhova were acquitted of the charges. On 25 June 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld the acquittal on appeal.\n13.  The criminal proceedings in respect of Ms Konashevskaya are still pending. On 25 December 2008 the presiding judge telephoned a competent hospital in order to establish the actual state of her health and was informed that the latter suffered from multiple illnesses, including stenocardia, post-infarct cardiosclerosis and chronic cerebral ischemia.\n14.  Mr Pisman was charged with aggravated fraud and forgery of documents on 12 April 2002. He stood trial alongside the applicants. On 17 January 2005 he died.\n15.  On two occasions the trial court suspended the criminal proceedings against him, that is from 5 May 2004 to 17 May 2005 owing to his illness and his subsequent death and from 29 May 2007 to 25 February 2008 owing to the illness of his widow, Mrs Zharkova.\n16.  The decision of 17 May 2005 to resume the proceedings against Mr Pisman was rendered by the trial court at the request of his widow for the purpose of restoring his reputation.\n17.  By judgments of 31 March 2008 and 25 June 2008, he too was acquitted of the charges.\n18.  By a procedural decision of 25 July 2003, the trial court appointed legal-aid lawyers to represent the applicants.\n19.  On 12 August 2003 the applicants filed applications where they refused to accept the assistance of the lawyers. By a decision of 12 August 2003, the trial court declined to discharge the appointed legal representatives.\n20.  During the hearing of 24 September 2003, Ms Belikova and Mrs Zharkova did not object to the assistance of the lawyers.\n21.  During the hearing of 27 September 2003, Mrs Zharkova did not object to the assistance of the lawyer. The trial court, however, dismissed her request to appoint a representative of her own choosing.\n22.  By a decision of 26 May 2005, the trial court admitted Mr M., a lawyer called upon by Ms Belikova, to the proceedings.\n23.  During the hearing of 12 March 2008, Ms Belikova, Mrs Zharkova and Ms Gorokhova agreed to accept the assistance of the appointed lawyers.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5351", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Novokuybyshevsk, the Samara Region.\n9.  The applicant was born in the Minsk Region, Belarus. In 1992 he moved to live with his father in Tatarstan, Russia. He had a Soviet passport issued by the USSR in 1990.\n10.  From 1993 to 1996 the applicant served a prison sentence in Belarus. Upon his release in June 1996 he moved to the Kursk Region, Russia.\n11.  From 1998 to 2004 the applicant served another prison sentence in Belarus. Upon his release he went to Orel, Russia.\n12.  On 9 March 2004, in Orel, the applicant was issued with a Russian passport.\n13.  Later in 2004 he moved to Novokuybyshevsk, Russia.\n14.  In a decision of 21 September 2005 an officer of the Samara Region Department of the Interior recognised the applicant as a Russian citizen. The decision was upheld by the Russian Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”).\n15.  On 14 March 2007 the Department for Citizenship and Migration of the Belarus Ministry of the Interior informed the FMS that, according to the Belarusian Law on Citizenship of 18 October 1991, the applicant was a citizen of Belarus.\n16.  On 23 August 2007 the Samara District Court found that the applicant had been unlawfully granted Russian citizenship since he had concealed the fact that he was a national of another State and ordered the FMS to revoke its decision to that effect. The applicant appealed.\n17.  On 1 October 2007 the Samara Regional Court upheld the decision.\n18.  On 28 November 2007 the FMS revoked its decision to recognise the applicant as a Russian citizen.\n19.  On 17 and 20 December 2007 respectively, the Ministry of the Interior of Belarus and the Embassy of Belarus in Moscow informed the applicant's counsel that the applicant was not a citizen of Belarus.\n20.  The applicant's requests for supervisory review of the decisions of 23 August and 1 October 2007 were refused by the Samara Regional Court on 23 January and 1 December 2008, and by the Supreme Court on 10 July 2008. The applicant also submitted a request for the proceedings to be reopened on the grounds of newly discovered evidence. The request was refused by the Samara District Court on 23 October 2008.\n21.  On 15 August 2005 the Belarus prosecuting authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and Z. They were suspected of extorting 18,000 United States dollars from a private person in Belarus in 2003. The Belarus prosecuting authorities put the applicant's name on a wanted list and ordered his arrest.\n22.  On 16 December 2006 the applicant was arrested in Moscow.\n23.  On 18 December 2006 the Russian General Prosecutor's Office refused his extradition to Belarus as, according to the decision of the FMS of 21 September 2005, he was a Russian citizen.\n24.  On 30 March 2007 Russian prosecuting authorities took over responsibility for the investigation.\n25.  On 8 July 2008 the applicant was arrested in Novokuybyshevsk and placed in custody.\n26.  On 9 September 2008, after the decision to recognise the applicant as a Russian citizen had been revoked, the Belarus Prosecutor's Office requested his extradition.\n27.  On 16 December 2008 the Russian General Prosecutor's Office authorised his extradition.\n28.  On 4 March 2009 the Samara Regional Court upheld the extradition decision. The applicant's counsel appealed to the Supreme Court, contending, in particular: “at present it is impossible to assess the reasons why [the applicant] considers that he might be subjected to ill-trea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5352", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Ryazan.\n5.  On 17 February 2000 the applicant filed with the Bilibinskiy District Court of the Chukotka Autonomous Region (“the District Court”) an action against the regional pension authorities and the district social security authority (Отделение Пенсионного фонда РФ по Чукотскому Автономному Округу и Отдел социальной защиты населения Администрации Билибинского района) for recovery of arrears of her old-age pension. She also requested to index-link the arrears.\n6.  As the District Court consistently failed to schedule a hearing, the applicant filed a complaint about its lack of action to the Supreme Court of Russia. On 19 October 2000 the Supreme Court in the final instance refused to consider the complaint on its merits as out of the court's competence.\n7.  The first hearing in the case was scheduled for 13 November 2000.\n8.  On 13 November 2000 the judge failed to appear, and the hearing was fixed for 19 January 2001.\n9.  On 9 January 2001 the District Court decided not to consider the applicant's complaints about the judge's inaction ruling that such a complaint could be entertained only by the Judicial Qualifications Board (Квалификационная коллегия судей).\n10.  On 19 January 2001 the hearing was adjourned until 22 March 2001 on account of the applicant's failure to appear. The applicant's counsel attended the hearing.\n11.  The Government submitted that on 16 February 2001 the applicant applied for supervisory review seeking to quash the above decision to adjourn the hearing on account of certain procedural flaws. The applicant submitted an application for supervisory review with the date shown as 2 February 2001.\n12.  On 22 March 2001 the District Court partly granted the applicant's claims. In the same hearing the applicant's counsel informed the court of her actual place of residence which differed from the one indicated in the original statement of claim.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed an appeal. She submitted that in her appeal she had complained, among other things, about the first-instance court's decisions to adjourn the hearings.\n14.  The applicant's appeal was first fixed to be considered by the Chukotka Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) on 17 May 2001 but was re-scheduled for 19 July 2001.\n15.  On 19 July 2001 the Regional Court overturned the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for fresh examination to the District Court. The applicant's complaint about the adjournment decisions was not addressed.\n16.  On 23 July 2001 the case was transferred to the Presidium of the Regional Court for consideration pursuant to the applicant's application for supervisory review of 16 February 2001.\n17.  On 1 August 2001 the application for supervisory review was rejected, and the case was returned to the District Court.\n18.  On 17 August 2001 the District Court fixed the first hearing for 5 December 2001. The court invited the applicant's counsel to provide the applicant's actual address.\n19.  On 28 August 2001 the applicant's counsel informed the District Court that the applicant resided at the address indicated in the statement of claim.\n20.  On 5 December 2001 the hearing was adjourned till 21 January 2002 on account of the applicant's failure to appear. The applicant's counsel attended the hearing.\n21.  On 18 January 2002 the applicant applied for supervisory review of the above decision to adjourn the hearing.\n22.  On 21 January 2002 the hearing had been adj", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5353", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant, a former military student, was born in 1981 and lives in Yalova.\n4.  On an unspecified date the applicant was expelled from the naval academy in accordance with the Law of Military Academies (Law no. 4466) for failing his class twice.\n5.  On 1 August 2001 he brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court seeking the annulment of the expulsion order. Claiming that his exam in Mathematics 1 had not been graded correctly, he demanded the reassessment of his paper in the relevant subject.\n6.  On 10 July 2002 the Supreme Military Administrative Court refused the applicant's request. The court acknowledged that the reassessment of the applicant's paper by a group of three experts revealed that the paper had indeed been misgraded, yet even the modified grade did not entitle the applicant to pass his class.\n7.  Upon the applicant's request for rectification, on 5 March 2003 the Supreme Military Administrative Court annulled the expulsion order on account of procedural illegalities.\n8.  The applicant subsequently retook the exams he had previously failed, yet failed them once again, which led to the issue of a second expulsion order by the naval academy.\n9.  On 25 July 2003 the applicant brought another case before the Supreme Military Administrative Court for the annulment of the expulsion order. He again requested reassessment of his paper in Mathematics 1.\n10.  On an unspecified date an expert report was submitted to the Supreme Military Administrative Court which confirmed the accuracy of the grading of the applicant's exam paper.\n11.  On 29 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court held a hearing, where it dismissed the applicant's request for annulment of the expulsion order. The written opinion submitted by the principal public prosecutor to this court prior to the hearing was not communicated to the applicant.\n12.  On 12 January 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant's rectification request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5355", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1966, 1977, 1979 and 1965 respectively.\n5.  On 30 November 1999 the applicants were arrested by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Ankara Police Headquarters. On the same day the applicants' representatives applied to the principal public prosecutor's office at the Ankara State Security Court seeking information about the applicants' arrest and the duration of their custody, as well as authorisation to provide them with legal assistance during their questioning by the police. The principal public prosecutor informed them that, under section 16 of Law no. 2845 and sections 30 and 31 of Law no. 3842, the applicants were not entitled to receive legal assistance during their police custody.\n6.  On 3 December 1999 the applicants were brought before a public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court and questioned about their alleged affiliation with the Turkish Communist Party/Marxist‑Leninist - Turkish Workers and Peasants' Liberation Army - Marxist-Leninist Youth Union of Turkey (“the TKP/ML-TIKKO-TMLGB”), an armed, illegal organisation. Before the public prosecutor, Mr Ercan Gül stated that he was not a member of the organisation in question. He maintained that the periodicals found in his apartment were legal publications and that the poster allegedly found there did not belong to him. He had therefore refused to sign the arrest and search report. The applicant further stated that he was one of the founders and directors of the Tüm Maliye-Sen (Tüm Maliye Çalışanları Sendikası – the Financial Sector Trade Union) and that, consequently, as a member of this trade union, he had participated in several demonstrations, such as the one on May Day and demonstrations to commemorate the 1993 Sivas Massacre. Mr Ercan Gül lastly contended that he had never shouted slogans in support of the TKP/ML-TIKKO-TMLGB.\n7.  Mr Erkan Aslanbenzer stated before the public prosecutor that he was not a member of the organisation in question. He maintained that the periodicals found in his apartment were legal publications and not propaganda tools for the TKP/ML-TIKKO-TMLGB. He further contended that he was a member of the Confederation of Public Employees' Trade Unions (“KESK”) and that he had participated in several demonstrations. When the applicant was shown a photograph, allegedly of him at a demonstration behind a banner bearing the name Partizan, a periodical, he maintained that the person in the photograph could not have been him. Lastly, he stated that he did not remember whether on 2 July 1998 he had participated in the demonstration to commemorate the 1993 Sivas Massacre.\n8.  Mr Deniz Kahraman maintained that he had no affiliation with the TKP/ML. He said that he had taken part in the May Day Workers demonstration in 1997 and in the demonstration of 2 July 1998. When the applicant was shown a photograph allegedly of him at a demonstration behind a Partizan banner, he maintained that the person in the photograph was not him.\n9.  Finally, Ms Zehra Delikurt stated that she was not a member of the TKP/ML‑TIKKO-TMLGB. She denied the allegation that she had written slogans in favour of the TKP/ML-TIKKO on the walls of schools in Ankara. When she was shown a photograph in which she was allegedly carrying a picture of the general secretary of the TKP/ML-TIKKO, Ms Zehra Delikurt contended that she had participated in the demonstration of 2 July 1998 and that she did not know the person in the picture.\n10.  On ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5357", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Łódź.\n6.  On 20 October 2004 the Łódź District Court ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention for a period of fourteen days. The court referred to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant was guilty of fraud while acting in an organised group.\n7.  On 6 June 2006 the applicant was arrested. On 13 June 2006 the Łódź District Court ordered his detention for a period of three months. The court held that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged (including establishing and leading an organised criminal group). Furthermore, he had confessed to the charges. The court also stressed that the detention was necessary in order to ensure the proper course of the proceedings, in particular as the applicant had been in hiding.\n8.  In July his detention was extended until 6 November 2006. The court repeated the reasons previously given.\n9.  On 14 June and 3 July 2006 the applicant's wife, M.G., asked for permission to visit her husband in prison. On 20 June and 5 July 2006 respectively, the Łódź Regional Prosecutor refused her requests. The prosecutor made handwritten notes on M.G.'s applications – “no permission” and “permission refused” respectively (“brak zgody”, “nie wyrażam zgody”).\n10.  On 24 July 2006 the applicant was again refused permission to be visited by his wife and children by the Piotrków Trybunalski District Court. The prosecutor made a handwritten note on the applicant's motion “permission refused” (“nie wyrażam zgody”).\n11.  On 24 September 2006 the applicant was visited by his daughter.\n12.  On 26 October 2006 the Łódź District Court extended the applicant's detention until 6 May 2007. The court held that the original reasons for his detention were still valid. The court also referred to the likelihood of a heavy sentence and the fact that the applicant had acted in a criminal group. The court further refused the applicant's request for release.\n13.  On 21 February 2007 the Łódź District Court refused the applicant's application for release and the replacement of detention by more lenient preventive measures. The court referred to the grounds given in previous decisions.\n14.  The trial began on 4 April 2007. There were sixteen other co‑accused in the proceedings. The prosecutor asked the court to hear 106 witnesses.\n15.  At the hearing held on 29 May 2007 the applicant again asked for the preventive measure to be changed. The court refused his request and extended the detention until 31 July 2007.\n16.  Between 8 June 2007 and 2 May 2008 the applicant was visited by his wife on twelve occasions.\n17.  The applicant's detention was subsequently extended on several occasions, in particular on 23 August and 5 October 2007.\n18.  On 8 May 2008 the applicant was released from detention.\n19.  It would appear that the proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5358", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 27 February 1995 the applicant filed a civil claim with the Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud) in Belgrade, seeking payment of 34,975 Euros by its former business partners.\n7.  Following three remittals, the Commercial Court scheduled the next hearing for 13 September 2005 at 11 a.m.\n8.  On the morning in question, the applicant's lawyer was on unrelated business at the Third Municipal Court (Treći opštinski sud) in Belgrade. The applicant maintains that at 10.30 a.m. his lawyer took a taxi in order to reach the Commercial Court as soon as possible. Some 700 meters before its destination, however, the taxi broke down and the applicant's lawyer had to continue on foot. He ultimately arrived in court at 11.04 p.m., just in time to see the judge finish the dictation of the minutes in the applicant's case to his secretary. One of the lawyers acting on behalf of the respondents was also present.\n9.  On an unspecified date thereafter the applicant received the Commercial Court's decision (rešenje) dated 13 September 2005, wherein it was stated that neither party had duly appeared before the court, which is why the proceedings had to be terminated (see paragraph 18 below).\n10.  On 19 September 2005 the applicant requested procedural reinstatement, i.e. restoration of proceedings to status quo ante (see paragraph 16 below). It explained why its lawyer had been late and proposed that the taxi driver, as well as the respondents' counsel, be heard.\n11.  On 26 September 2005, in the absence of an oral hearing, the Commercial Court rejected the applicant's request (doneo rešenje kojim se odbija predlog), stating that procedural reinstatement could only be granted in a case of force majeure. Moreover, the applicant's lawyer should have acted with greater diligence and left the Third Municipal Court fifteen minutes earlier, which would even have allowed him, after the taxi broke down, to reach the Commercial Court on foot in time for the scheduled hearing.\n12.  On 3 October 2005 and 7 November 2005 the applicant appealed against the Commercial Court's decisions of 13 September 2005 and 26 September 2005, respectively.\n13.  On 19 December 2005 the High Commercial Court (Viši trgovinski sud), in the absence of an oral hearing, rejected both appeals. In so doing, it upheld the reasoning of the Commercial Court, added that the applicant had not provided relevant evidence to the effect that the taxi had indeed broken down, and noted that, in any event, “a vehicle defect could not be proved by means of witness testimony” but rather by documentary evidence such as repair receipts.\n14.  The applicant received this decision on 26 January 2006.\n15.  On 23 April 2009, in response to the Agent's request, Beotaxi, an association of taxi drivers, explained that, given the usual traffic congestion and the location, a replacement taxi would not have been a viable option for the applicant's lawyer. In any event, the Commercial Court was some 700 metres away, which is why it would have taken their client some 5-7 minutes on foot to reach his destination.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5359", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Raciborz.\n6.  On 20 October 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence. On 22 October 2007 the Wodzisław Śląski District Court ordered his detention. The court considered that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant might commit another offence.\n7.  On 15 and 26 November 2007 the applicant asked to be released from detention.\n8.  On 16 November 2007 two expert psychiatrists considered that the applicant should be examined in a psychiatric hospital. On 30 November 2007 the District Court ordered that the applicant be observed for six weeks in a psychiatric hospital. On 18 January 2008 the court again extended the applicant's detention. The court relied on the grounds previously invoked, namely, the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he was charged and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n9.  Between 28 February and 10 April 2008 the applicant was examined in a psychiatric wing of the Wroclaw Detention Centre. On 10 April 2008 the experts delivered an opinion and considered that the applicant suffered from a delusional disorder and should be placed in a psychiatric hospital.\n10.  On 30 April 2008 the Wodzislaw District Prosecutor lodged a request with the District Court for the proceedings to be discontinued on the ground that the applicant could not be held criminally liable.\n11.  On 14 May 2008 the applicant's detention was extended by the Wodzisław Śląski District Court. The court considered that there was a high probability that the applicant had committed the offence with which he was charged. On 18 August 2008 the court again extended the applicant's detention. The court held that there had been a delay in the proceedings resulting from the fact that the expert psychiatrists and the applicant's lawyer had been on holiday and could not have appeared before it.\n12.  On 16 October 2008 the District Court extended the applicant's detention yet again. The court referred to the difficulties in scheduling a hearing date.\n13.  On 20 November 2008 the District Court held a hearing and discontinued the proceedings against the applicant. The court found it established that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. However, he could not be held criminally responsible as he had been suffering from a delusional disorder. It further referred to the experts' opinion and ordered that the applicant be placed in Rybnik Psychiatric Hospital. On the same day the court also refused the applicant's request to be released. The court considered that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant might commit another crime.\nOn a further appeal, the decision to discontinue the proceedings was upheld by the Gliwice Regional Court on 3 February 2009.\n14.  On 8 December 2008 the Wodzisław District Court extended the applicant's detention until 20 March 2009. The court referred to the reasons given previously. In addition, it relied on the risk that the applicant might commit another offence. It stressed that it was necessary to keep the applicant in detention until his admission to a psychiatric hospital. The applicant's detention was subsequently extended on 19 March and 17 June 2009.\n15.  On 23 March 2009 the Commission on Preventive Measures (Komisja Psychiatryczna ds. środków zabezpieczająych) recommended that the applicant be placed in Rybnik Psychiatric Hospital. On 22 April 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5361", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Katowice.\n6.  On 11 April 1997 the parliament passed the Law on disclosing work for or service in the State's security services or collaboration with them between 1944 and 1990 by persons exercising public functions (ustawa o ujawnieniu pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z nimi w latach 1944-1990 osób pełniących funkcje publiczne; “the 1997 Lustration Act”). It entered into force on 3 August 1997. Persons falling under the provisions of the 1997 Lustration Act, i.e. candidates or holders of public office such as ministers and members of parliament, were required to declare whether or not they had worked for or collaborated with the security services during the communist regime. The provisions of the Act extended to, inter alia, judges, prosecutors and advocates.\n7.  In December 1998 the applicant, who was an advocate, declared that he had not collaborated with the communist-era security services.\n8.  On 30 March 2004 the Commissioner of Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) informed the applicant that he had doubts as to the truthfulness of his lustration declaration and invited him for an interview on 19 April 2004.\n9.  On 12 May 2004 the Commissioner dismissed the applicant's request for access to the case file.\n10.  On 8 December 2004 the Commissioner applied to the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) to institute lustration proceedings against the applicant on the grounds that he had lied in his lustration declaration by denying that he had collaborated with the secret services.\n11.  On 20 December 2004 the Warsaw Court of Appeal decided to allow the Commissioner's request and instituted lustration proceedings against the applicant. The applicant was informed that he could consult the case file in the secret registry of the Court of Appeal.\n12.  On 9 March 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first‑instance lustration court, found that between 1987 and 1989 the applicant had been an intentional and secret collaborator with the Security Service and had therefore submitted an untrue lustration declaration.\n13.  The applicant lodged an appeal in which he maintained, in particular, that the lustration proceedings had been in breach of the Resolution 1096 (1996) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. He also complained that the Commissioner had applied to the court to institute the lustration proceedings after the expiry of the time-limit of six months, calculated from the date he had notified the applicant about his doubts regarding the truthfulness of his declaration.\n14.  On 10 January 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the second‑instance lustration court, upheld the impugned judgment. In particular the court established that the time-limit had been of a non‑binding nature and its expiry had not precluded the institution of the proceedings.\n15.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment. On 22 May 2007 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed his cassation appeal.\n16.  The applicant was removed from the Bar Association with the result that he is unable to practise as an advocate for a period of ten years in application of the 1997 Lustration Act.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5363", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and is serving a prison sentence in colony no. 18 in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region.\n5.  The applicant was arrested on 27 March 2003. He was suspected of unlawful possession of firearms and two robberies of local post offices, as well as robbery, triple murder and attempted murder of security officers transporting money. It appears that the applicant was informed of his procedural rights, including the privilege against self-incrimination. The investigator interviewed him in the presence of a lawyer; the applicant made admissions in relation to the above offences. A search was carried out of the applicant's garage and another location indicated by the applicant; certain evidence such as coins, guns and gun cartridges were seized. On 28 March 2003 one of the victims identified the applicant in a line-up procedure as the alleged perpetrator.\n6.  On 29 March 2003 the applicant was brought before a judge of the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude. Having heard the parties, the district judge authorised the applicant's continued detention on account of the admissions, the identification of the applicant by one of the victims and the evidence seized. The judge excluded any less intrusive preventive measure on account of the number and gravity of the offences of which the applicant was suspected and the risk that he would reoffend or abscond.\n7.  The applicant's detention was examined again on 17 April 2003 and he was remanded in custody on the same grounds. The judge also referred to the applicant's personality and that he “had committed several criminal offences within a short period of time”. Lastly, the judge noted that the period asked for (more than two months) by the investigating authority was justified by the need to carry out specific investigative measures and to obtain ten expert reports.\n8.  According to an out-patient psychiatric report dated 26 May 2003, the applicant had symptoms of “an accentuated personality” prone to gambling; however, this condition was not considered as requiring treatment or entailing any legal consequences (see also paragraph 22 below).\n9.  At a remand hearing on 19 June 2003 the applicant chose to remain silent; his counsel made no comment on the prosecution's extension request. The judge extended the applicant's detention with reference to the number and gravity of the charges, and the risk that he would abscond or interfere with the course of the investigation.\n10.  The investigator applied for a further extension on 15 August 2003. The judge heard the applicant and his counsel, none of whom objected to the remand request, referring to their wish to continue the study of the case file. The judge granted the prosecutor's request, referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk that the applicant would abscond, reoffend or interfere with the course of the proceedings. A further detention order was issued on 17 September 2003. The applicant and his counsel raised no objection to the extension request.\n11.  On 14 October 2003 the criminal case against the applicant was listed for trial before the Supreme Court of the Buryatiya Republic (“the Regional Court”). The selection of a jury panel was carried out between 27 November and 9 December 2003. Between 11 December 2003 and 23 March 2004 the jury heard evidence and witnesses. On an unspecified date the applicant retracted statements that he had made previously. On 23 March 2004 the jury found the applicant guilty as ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5364", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1981 in Bukhara, Uzbekistan and is currently detained in a remand facility in Baku awaiting extradition to Uzbekistan. He holds a valid Uzbek passport and is considered to be a national of Uzbekistan by both the Azerbaijani and Uzbek authorities. The applicant, however, also claims to be an Azerbaijani national (see below).\n7.  The applicant's father, Firudin Garayev, of Azerbaijani ethnic origin, was born in 1953 in Beylagan, Azerbaijan. The applicant's mother, Olima Garayeva, of Uzbek ethnic origin, was born in 1960 in Bukhara, Uzbekistan. The applicant had an elder brother, Jeyhun Garayev, and a younger sister, Nargiz Garayeva. The family was living in Bukhara, Uzbekistan at the time the events described below took place.\n8.  On 21 December 2000 the applicant's entire family, including himself and his then twelve-year-old sister, were arrested in Bukhara on suspicion of killing six persons and mutilating their corpses. It appears that prior to the arrest the Uzbek law-enforcement authorities found remains of mutilated human corpses inside the house of the applicant's family and in a rubbish dump near their house. The applicant's mother was the primary suspect, while all the other family members were suspected of being accomplices. The applicant claimed to have been out of town at the time the alleged crimes were committed.\n9.  It appears from the case file that their arrest generated much media coverage in Uzbekistan. The media reports also allegedly included false rumours that the applicant's family had been engaged in the trafficking of human organs and even cannibalism. The ethnic origin of the applicant's father and his children was also usually mentioned.\n10.  According to the applicant, while in detention he and all his family members had been constantly subjected to torture and other forms of ill‑treatment with the aim of extracting confessions from them. They were kept in separate cells for most of the time. The applicant provided a very detailed account of the types of ill-treatment to which he had been subjected, which included, inter alia, various forms of beating, deprivation of food and drink, and suffocation.\n11.  It appears that, initially, no charges were brought against the applicant or most of his family members in connection with the murders and on various dates they were all released, with the exception of his mother, owing to lack of evidence. However, after the release all of the family (except the applicant's sister) were arrested again on various grounds.\n12.  After a few days in detention, the applicant was released on 26 December 2000 owing to lack of evidence in connection with his involvement in the murder. However, only a few minutes after his release, the applicant was stopped on the street by other police officers, who asked him for identity documents. The applicant was then taken to a police station where, after a body search, the police allegedly found some heroin concealed in his shoes. The applicant argued that the drugs had been planted on him by the police, as he had been released from detention only a few minutes earlier and would not have been able to acquire any heroin and hide it in the soles of his shoes during this extremely short time period, especially while suffering from the effects of ill-treatment and having had nothing to eat or drink since his initial arrest.\n13.  On 30 April 2001 the Tokhuculug District Court of Bukhara convicted the applicant of posses", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5365", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant is the religious community of Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow (“the applicant community”) established in 1992. The other applicants are members of that community. All of them live in Moscow.\n8.  The second applicant, Mr Ivan Stepanovich Chaykovskiy, was born in 1955. He has been with the Jehovah's Witnesses since 1977 and is a community elder.\n9.  The third applicant, Mr Igor Vasilievich Denisov, was born in 1961. He has been a member of the applicant community since 1993.\n10.  The fourth applicant, Mr Stepan Vasilievich Levitskiy, was born in 1925. He was twice convicted in Soviet times – in 1957 and 1980 – for disseminating Jehovah's Witnesses' religious literature and officially rehabilitated in 1992 as a victim of religious persecution.\n11.  The fifth applicant, Mr Oleg Nikolaevich Marchenko, was born in 1965. He is a third-generation Jehovah's Witness whose grandparents were exiled to Siberia in 1951 under an order deporting Jehovah's Witnesses.\n12.  Jehovah's Witnesses have been present in Russia since 1891. They were banned soon after the Russian Revolution in 1917 and persecuted in the Soviet Union.\n13.  After the USSR Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organisations was enacted in 1990, on 27 March 1991 the RSFSR Ministry of Justice registered the charter of the Administrative Centre of The Religious Organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses in the USSR.\n14.  On 11 December 1992 the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation registered the charter of the Administrative Centre of the Regional Religious Organisation of Jehovah's Witnesses.\n15.  The applicant community, which is the Moscow branch of the Jehovah's Witnesses, obtained legal-entity status on 30 December 1993 from the Moscow City Justice Department. According to its charter, the purpose of the applicant community was “joint profession and dissemination of [their] faith and carrying on religious activity to proclaim the name of God the Jehovah”.\n16.  In 1995 the Committee for the Salvation of Youth from Totalitarian Cults (“the Salvation Committee”), a non-governmental organisation aligned with the Russian Orthodox Church, filed a complaint against the members of the applicant community's management with the Savyolovskiy district prosecutor's office in Moscow. It alleged in particular that Jehovah's Witnesses burdened their followers with exorbitant membership dues that put their families in a financially precarious situation and that they incited hatred toward “traditional” religions.\n17.  On 11 August 1995 the prosecutor's office refused to institute a criminal investigation, finding no breaches of the community's registered charter, the Constitution or other laws. It was also noted that no complaints from private persons or legal entities concerning the activity of the applicant community had been filed.\n18.  In 1996 the Salvation Committee complained again and the inquiry into the same allegations was reopened. On 21 April 1997 the prosecutor of the Northern District of Moscow discontinued the investigation. Having heard several Jehovah's Witnesses and completed a study of their literature, the prosecutor found that the applicant community did not cause any harm to the health of citizens or their rights and did not incite citizens to refuse to fulfil their civil duties or commit disorderly acts.\n19.  Following a third complaint by the Salvation Committee, the prosecutor in charge of supervising compliance with laws on inter-ethnic relatio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5366", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lived in the town of Kazan of the Republic of Tatarstan.\n6.  The applicant is currently serving his sentence of imprisonment in penitentiary facility ZhKh-385/5 in the Republic of Mordoviya.\n7.  On 29 August 1998 the applicant was detained on suspicion of having committed a number of serious crimes.\n8.  By a judgment of 11 June 1999 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, consisting of two lay assessors and a professional judge, convicted the applicant of murder, affray, abuse of office, a traffic offence and illegal use of firearms. The court sentenced the applicant to twenty-one years of imprisonment. The conviction was based on various items of evidence including testimony from a number of witnesses and expert examinations. It does not appear that the applicant challenged the participation of the two lay assessors sitting in the trial court in his case.\n9.  The applicant appealed against the judgment, having maintained that the proceedings had been unfair and that he had not been guilty of the crimes in question. The applicant did not challenge the participation of the lay assessors.\n10.  On 18 January 2000 the Supreme Court of Russia examined and rejected appeals lodged by the applicant and his counsel against the judgment of 11 June 1999. On the same day the judgment came into force.\n11.  On 21 September 2001 the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged a special appeal with the Presidium of the Supreme Court. In the appeal he argued that the lower courts had erred in the application of the domestic law and invited the Presidium of the Supreme Court to reduce the applicant's overall sentence of imprisonment.\n12.  On 24 October 2001 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia examined the Deputy Prosecutor's special appeal and reopened the applicant's criminal case by way of supervisory review. Having examined the case, the Supreme Court on the same date upheld the conviction, but reduced the applicant's sentence by one year.\n13.  The applicant was not notified of that hearing or given an opportunity to participate.\n14.  The applicant was notified about the decision of 24 October 2001 by letter of 1 November 2001.\n15.  In his application form the applicant submitted that he had been detained in pre-trial detention facilities IZ-16/1 and IZ-16/2 in the town of Kazan. Thereafter he was transferred to remand prison IZ-77/3 in Moscow and remained there until February 2000. After his criminal case had been heard on appeal by the Supreme Court, the applicant was transferred through prisons situated in Kazan, Ekaterinburg, and Krasnoyarsk to penitentiary establishment UK-272/3 in Irkutsk.\n16.  The applicant submitted in respect of the above-mentioned detention facilities that the conditions had been appalling, that cells had been overcrowded and that there had been a lack of fresh air and sleeping space.\n17.  The Government submitted that from 9 to 24 September 1998, 5 October to 29 November 1998, 29 January to 5 September 1999, as well as from 8 to 16 February 2000, the applicant had been held in pre-trial detention centre IZ-16/2 situated in the town of Kazan. From 28 December 1998 to 29 January 1999 he was detained in pre-trial detention centre IZ­16/1, also located in the town of Kazan. Between 7 September 1999 and 7 February 2000, the applicant was held in IZ-77/3 in the city of Moscow. From 18 February to 1 March 2000 the applicant was detained in pre-trial detention centre IZ-66/1 in the town ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5367", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Skopje.\n6.  On 10 February 2002 the applicant was seriously injured in an explosion caused by a bomb placed in a house located in the municipality of Aracinovo (“the municipality”). The incident happened after the 2001 armed conflict in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.\n7. On 30 January and 1 June 2004 respectively the applicant, represented by counsel, brought two separate actions seeking compensation from the municipality and the State. They were subsequently joined.\n8. On 8 November 2004 the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) accepted the applicant's claim in respect of the State and ordered the latter to pay 750,000 Macedonian denars (MKD) (approximately 12,230 euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus interest. It relied on section 166 of the Obligations Act (see paragraph 13 below), stating that it had been in force at the time of the incident and that it was still in force. It dismissed the claim in respect of the municipality, stating that it was not liable to be sued (поради немање на пасивна легитимација). It found that section 3 of the amended Obligations Act (see paragraph 14 below), under which it falls to local self-government units rather than the State to pay compensation for any damage caused by acts of violence, had been set aside by the Constitutional Court's decision of 17 July 2002. The court declared the State liable to pay compensation for the damage, because the applicant was the victim of a clear act of violence and no investigation had been carried out by State authorities. This decision was served on the applicant on 15 December 2004.\n9. The State appealed arguing that the Constitutional Court's decision had not been retroactive and that the State accordingly, could not be held liable to be sued. The appeal was received by the first-instance court on 27 December 2004 and communicated to the applicant on 13 January 2005. The applicant did not submit any observations in reply.\n10. On 21 April 2005 the Skopje Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and overturned the lower court's decision in part related to the State. It confirmed the remainder, because no appeal had been lodged in that respect. The court endorsed the facts established by the first-instance court but held that the substantive law had been incorrectly applied. It found that section 3 of the amended Obligations Act had already entered into force at the time of the incident and applied in the applicant's case given the non-retroactive legal effect of the Constitutional Court's decision. This decision was served on the applicant on 8 June 2005.\n11. On 23 August 2005 the applicant asked the public prosecutor to institute legality review proceedings (барање за заштита на законитоста) before the Supreme Court. He argued that both courts had accepted that he had sustained a bodily injury as a result of acts of violence or terrorism. However, no compensation had been awarded owing to the contradictory decisions of the first and second-instance courts as to who had been the proper defendant to his action.\n12. On 27 October 2005 the public prosecutor informed the applicant that there were no grounds for lodging such a request against the Court of Appeal's decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5369", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Shumist Vakayeva, born in 1953;\n2) Ms Rovzat Tatayeva, born in 1956;\n3) Ms Marina Otsayeva, born in 1980; and\n4) Mr Daud Abdurazakov, born in 1951.\n6.  The first, second and third applicants live in the village of Duba-Yurt, the Shali District, in the Chechen Republic; the fourth applicant lives in the village of Chiri-Yurt, the Shashnskiy District, in the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The first applicant is married to Mr Shamsudi Vakayev, born in 1949; they are the parents of Mr Shamil Vakayev, born in 1976, and Mr Shamkhan Vakayev, born in 1975. The second applicant is the mother of Mr Salambek Tatayev, born in 1976. The third applicant is married to Mr Ramzan Dudayev, born in 1969. The fourth applicant is the father of Mr Yunus Abdurazakov, born in 1979.\n8.  On 15 March 2001 Salambek Tatayev, Ramzan Dudayev, Yunus Abdurazakov, Shamil Vakayev and Shamkhan Vakayev were at the Vakayevs' house. Shamkhan Vakayev and his wife, Ms D., were in an upstairs bedroom; the other four men were downstairs.\n9.  At about 12.45 p.m. on 15 March 2001 two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”), a Ural vehicle and a UAZ all-terrain vehicle arrived at the Vakayevs' house; their registration numbers were not clearly visible. Around thirty armed men wearing camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles. The men were unmasked. They had Slavic features and spoke Russian with no accent.\n10.  The armed men opened fire and wounded Shamil Vakayev and Ms Ch., the Vakayevs' neighbour. The armed men gave an injection to the wounded Shamil Vakayev.\n11.  At some point one of the armed men was also wounded.\n12.  The third applicant was in her house nearby the Vakayevs' house. Having heard gunshots, she rushed outside to find out what was happening and saw the Ural vehicle and the APCs. The third applicant was frightened and went back inside her house.\n13.  The armed men beat up Salambek Tatayev, Ramzan Dudayev, Yunus Abdurazakov and Shamil Vakayev. Ramzan Dudayev started bleeding. The armed men also beat up Mr Kh., the Vakayevs' neighbour, who happened to be in their courtyard.\n14.  Meanwhile some of the armed men captured Shamkhan Vakayev in the upstairs bedroom in Ms D.'s presence. Then they took the five men outside. They put Shamil Vakayev in a UAZ vehicle and the four other men in one of the APCs. The vehicles drove away in the direction of the village of Dachu-Borzoy where the military base of the 34th brigade of the internal troops was located. Later someone saw a helicopter leaving the military base; for reasons which are not clear, the applicants concluded that the helicopter had transported their relatives to the Khankala military base.\n(b) Media coverage of the abduction of the five men\n15.  On 19 March 2001 a spokesman for the Federal Security Service (“FSB”) stated on the local television channel that five persons had been arrested in the village of Duba-Yurt and named the applicants' missing relatives.\n16.  On 14 May 2001 RTR television, a State-owned channel, aired a programme produced by Mr S., which contained a video recording of the abduction of the five applicants' relatives.\n17.  The applicants obtained a one-minute extract of Mr S.'s programme, which shows the journalist commenting on a special operation carried out by the FSB servicemen to detain an insurgent commander named Vakayev.\n18.  At about 1 p.m. on 15 March 2001 unidentified men in camouflage uniforms kidnapped Yunus Abdurazakov, Ramzan Dudayev, Salambek Tatayev, Shamil ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5370", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in St Petersburg. The applicant is a lawyer.\n7.  On 25 June 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of financial wrongdoings. On 27 June 2003 the Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg remanded him in custody.\n8.  On 20 August, 21 October and 23 December 2003 and 21 January 2004 the period of the applicant's detention was extended. It does not appear that the applicant lodged appeals against the extension orders.\n9.  On 17 February 2004 the first deputy prosecutor of St Petersburg set aside the investigator's decision to change the applicant's procedural status to that of an accused.\n10.  On 18 February 2004 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg extended the applicant's detention until 24 March 2004. The applicant did not lodge an appeal.\n11.  On 1 March 2004 the investigator issued a new decision to change the applicant's status to that of an accused.\n12.  On 24 March 2004 the St. Petersburg Prosecutor's Office referred the case against the applicant to the Kirovskiy District Court for trial.\n13.  On 29 March 2004 the Kirovskiy District Court issued a decision fixing the date of a preliminary hearing for 26 April 2004. The decision did not mention the question of the applicant's detention.\n14.  On 26 April and 26 May 2004 hearings were adjourned.\n15.  On 24 August and 21 December 2004 and 18 March 2005 the Kirovskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention, each time for a further three months.\n16.  On 11 April 2005 the St Petersburg City Court examined the applicant's appeal against the decision of 29 March 2004. The applicant complained that he had been unlawfully held in custody because the authorised period of his detention had expired on 24 March 2004 and because the District Court had not taken any decision on the remand measure. The City Court rejected the appeal, finding as follows:\n“The court finds that the said decision is lawful, justified and reasoned... The court had examined the issues listed in Article 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was reflected in the subsequent legal acts – of 24 August 2004 and others – including the remand matters.”\n17.  On 3 and 4 May 2005 the applicant made an objection to the trial judge. He alleged that someone had approached his father and his counsel on the judge's behalf and told them that the judge would set the applicant free in exchange for a large sum of money. Replying to the prosecutor's questions, the applicant was unable to furnish any details of the alleged extortion, such as the date of the phone call. Furthermore, the applicant claimed that the judge was biased because she had not promptly dispatched his appeals to the City Court.\n18.  The trial judge rejected the objections as not supported by concrete evidence. On 3 October 2005 the City Court upheld that decision on appeal.\n19.  On 6 June 2006 the Kirovskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of misappropriation of a private company's property and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment. On 29 May 2007 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the conviction on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5371", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1969 and 1971 respectively. They are serving their prison sentences in the Kurgan Region.\n5.  On 5 May 1999 the first applicant (Mr Sharkunov) was brought to the Organised Crime Unit of the Kurgan Regional Department of the Interior in the town of Shadrinsk. He was suspected of a Mr M.'s murder. As can be seen from the arrest report drawn up at 2.25 a.m. on 6 May 1999, the applicant's family and next of kin were not informed. According to the applicant, the police officers placed a canvas bag on his head, beat him and administered electric shocks with the purpose of extracting a confession from him. The applicant made no confessions.\n6.  During the same night, from 2.35 to 3.15 a.m., the first applicant was brought before investigator P. The record of interview contains the following pre-typed standard wording:\n“I have been informed that under Article 51 of the Russian Constitution, no one is required to testify against himself, his spouse or next of kin... I have also been apprised of the rights of the suspect during the preliminary investigation under Articles 52 and 64 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure:\nA suspect has the following defence rights: to know the accusation against him; to make statements; to adduce evidence; to make requests; to have access to the records of investigative measures carried out in his presence and to have access to the file submitted to the court confirming the lawfulness of and reasons for remanding him in custody; to lodge challenges and complaints against the investigator's decisions and actions; to read this record after the interview, request its amendment and to make observations, which must be included in the record.\nI have also been informed that under Articles 47-52 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure a suspect has a right of defence. For this investigative measure I required ___ counsel (appointed by an advocates' office; a lawyer named by me; if no counsel requested – indicate a reason...).”\nThe applicant made a handwritten statement indicating that he did not require counsel and that he would defend himself. This note bears his signature.\nThe record of the interview also contains another handwritten note by the applicant in the following terms:\n“I have been apprised of the content of Article 51 of the Constitution. For the time being I refuse to speak.”\nThis note bears the applicant's signature.\n7.  On the same night a medical assistant in the local sobering-up centre carried out a medical check of the upper part of his body; no injuries were recorded. The applicant was then placed in the Shadrinsk temporary detention centre. The applicant was examined by a medical assistant and complained of “pain all over the body”. Blue bruises on the hip/thigh and blue injection marks on his arms were recorded. The medical assistant ascribed the marks to drug addiction and withdrawal symptoms. As can be seen from the applicant's written statement made on the same day, he had been horse riding the day before and had no complaints against any public official.\n8.  On the investigator's order, on 7 May 1999 the applicant was examined by a medical expert. The examination was carried out in the presence of two convoy officers. The report drawn up on 7 May 1999 stated that the first applicant had no physical injuries.\n9.  On 8 May 1999 the applicant was examined by paramedics, who concluded that he was suffering from withdrawal syndrome. On 15 May 1999 the applicant was ex", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5372", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1979, 1986 and 1941 respectively and live in Skopje.\n6.  On 19 November 2004 the Gevgelija Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) convicted the applicants of drug trafficking and sentenced them to three, six and four years' imprisonment respectively. The trial court established that on 22 June 2004, a certain N. (the last name of Mr K.N., as established in the course of the domestic proceedings, later referred to as Mr K.N.) and the third applicant had arrived at the first applicant's house where she lived with the second applicant, her stepson. The applicants bought 1,012 g of heroin from N. for 7,500 euros (EUR). After keeping some drugs back at the house, the applicants divided the remaining 952 g into two packs to sell to Mr N.N., an unidentified end buyer whom they had arranged to meet in a car park near Gevgelija. The second applicant hired a taxi and the remaining applicants took N.'s car to meet Mr N.N. The police stopped the cars and found the drugs in the taxi. N. escaped. The trial court established these facts on the basis, inter alia, of the statements of the second and third applicants given in the pre-trial proceedings. The court also referred to the first and third applicants' statements at the hearing, notably that they had been victims of a constructed scenario and that they had not known N. before the date when the offence was committed, but disregarded them as self-serving. The testimonies of two witnesses, as well as items of real evidence, were also taken into account.\n7.  The applicants complained, inter alia, that they had been set up to commit the offence by N., an alleged agent provocateur, whom police had allowed to leave the scene. They further complained that no attempt had been made to uncover the truth as regards N.'s involvement in the commission of the offence.\n8.  At a public session (јавна седница) of 25 March 2005, in the presence of the public prosecutor, the applicants and their lawyer, the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' appeal and upheld the trial court's decision. It stated that efforts to discover N.'s whereabouts had been unsuccessful. It further argued that the trial court had based its decision on considerable evidence which, taken as a whole, had confirmed the applicants' involvement in the commission of the crime.\n9.  The trial court sent this decision to the applicants by mail. A stamp “Skopje-Madzari” of 13 April 2005 was affixed on the post slip returned to the trial court. According to the Government, this stamp was affixed by the detention centre where the applicants were being detained pending the proceedings in question. According to three other return receipts bearing the detention centre's receipt stamp, this decision was received by the latter on 14 April 2005. Each applicant signed and dated these receipts: the first applicant received the decision on 18 April 2005, the second applicant on 14 April 2005 and the third on 16 April 2005.\n10.  On 16 May 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. They set out its general basis in a succinct manner and stated that detailed submissions would follow.\n11.  In submissions of 30 May 2005, the applicants provided full factual and legal grounds of appeal. They complained, inter alia, of having been entrapped into committing the offence by N., whose real name was Mr K.N. They provided his whereabouts and stated that he had been actively involved in the cri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5373", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944. She lives in the village of Katyr‑Yurt, in the Chechen Republic. The applicant is the mother of Magomed-Salekh Ilyasov, born in 1979, and Magomed-Ali Ilyasov, born in 1981.\n6.  At the material time the applicant lived with her sons Magomed‑Salekh and Magomed-Ali Ilyasov and other relatives at 25 Sadovaya Street, Katyr-Yurt, in the Achkhoy-Martanovskiy District in the Chechen Republic. The authorities maintained manned checkpoints at the entry and exit points to and from the village, which was under curfew at the material time.\n7.  On the night of 12 November 2002 the applicant and her family were sleeping in their house at the above address. At about 4 a.m. two APCs (armoured personnel carriers) and a UAZ vehicle without registration numbers arrived in the applicant’s street. One of the APCs pulled over by the applicant’s gate and the other one by her neighbour’s house. A group of armed men in camouflage uniforms emerged from the vehicles and walked to the applicant’s house. Another group consisting of several armed men blocked the perimeter of the applicant’s house. They took up their positions at intervals, preventing the applicant’s neighbours from getting into the street.\n8.  At about 4 a.m. the applicant and L.Sh., her daughter-in-law, got up and went into the kitchen to prepare a meal. They had to cook at night because it was Ramadan. The women were in the kitchen when an armed masked man in a camouflage uniform broke into the room. He neither identified himself nor produced any documents. Pointing his assault rifle at the applicant, he asked in unaccented Russian: “Is anybody here?” and without even listening to the applicant’s reply he went back outside.\n9.  The applicant rushed to the room of her son Magomed-Ali. She saw him on the floor, with his hands bound behind his back. He was surrounded by a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms. The men spoke Russian without an accent and behaved aggressively. The applicant and her relatives thought that they were Russian servicemen.\n10.  At about the same moment five or six servicemen burst into the room where the applicant’s other son, A.I., was sleeping. They pushed him into another room and ordered to furnish his identity papers. When he asked his relatives in Chechen to fetch those documents, the servicemen ordered him in Russian to remain silent and to lie down. The servicemen spoke unaccented Russian.\n11.  Shortly thereafter the servicemen took Magomed-Ali to the yard and put him into a shed. The applicant and her daughter-in-law ran outside and started screaming. One of the armed men ordered the applicant to stay quiet and hit her with his rifle butt. The applicant fell to the ground. The applicant’s daughter-in-law asked the servicemen if she could help the applicant to get up. In response one of the officers threatened to shoot the applicant’s daughter-in-law if she did not get back into the house.\n12.  The applicant remained in the yard. She got up and saw her second son, Magomed-Salekh, in the yard, surrounded by a large group of the servicemen. His hands were bound behind his back; his head was covered with his T-shirt. The applicant saw an APC parked next to her gate and the other one parked nearby, next to her neighbours’ house. The applicant ran up to Magomed-Salekh and stood up next to him. At this moment she saw the servicemen taking her fourth son, M.I., from the house into the yard. The applicant fainted.\n13.  Meanwhile ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5374", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Veliko Tarnovo.\n5.  The applicant worked as the medical director of a psychiatric hospital. In 1996 she was laid off. On 17 February 1997 she brought an action for unfair dismissal against the Ministry of Health.\n6.  On 7 July 1999 the Sofia District Court found that the applicant's dismissal had been unlawful and restored her to her position. The Ministry of Health filed an appeal.\n7.  The Sofia City Court, which examined the appeal, held hearings on 18 February, 10 March and 2 June 2000, with the next hearing being scheduled for 8 November 2000. On 13 June 2000 the applicant filed a complaint about delays (see paragraph 15 below). On 23 June 2000 the President of the Sofia Court of Appeal found that the complaint was well-founded and instructed the lower court to schedule the hearing earlier.\n8.  The Sofia City Court held a hearing on 20 July 2000. On 15 September 2000 it gave a judgment, finding that the applicant's action against the Ministry of Health was inadmissible.\n9.  On an appeal by the applicant, on 30 May 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Sofia City Court's judgment and remitted the case. The Sofia City Court gave a new judgment on 9 August 2004, upholding the Sofia District Court's judgment of 7 July 1999.\n10.  On 23 December 2004 the Ministry of Health filed an appeal on points of law.\n11.  On 20 June 2006, 4 July 2007 and 1 February 2008 the applicant filed requests with the Supreme Court of Cassation that the case be examined more expeditiously.\n12.  The Supreme Court of Cassation held a hearing on 15 February 2008. In a judgment of 4 March 2008 it quashed the Sofia City Court's judgment of 9 August 2004 and remitted the case for new consideration.\n13.  The Sofia City Court examined the case once again and in a judgment of 12 January 2009 upheld the Sofia District Court's judgment of 7 July 1999, finding the applicant's dismissal to be unlawful and reinstating her to her position.\n14.  On 20 February 2009 the Ministry of Health lodged a new appeal on points of law. On 19 August 2009 the Supreme Court of Cassation declared it admissible. A hearing on the merits is scheduled for 17 November 2010.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5375", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Krasnoyarsk.\n6.  On 29 January 2002 Ts. and V. were drinking beer at a bus stop, where they saw the applicant and B., a nine-year-old boy. They were under the impression that the applicant was making sexual advances to B. and asked the assistant from a shop nearby to call the police. The shop assistant called the security guards from her company. Two guards, T. and S., arrived and took the applicant and B. to the police station at about 1 a.m. on 30 January 2002.\n7.  At the police station, the applicant was placed in an “administrative” cell with three other detainees. According to K. and N., police officers on duty at the police station at the time, N. had to remove the applicant from the cell because other detainees verbally and physically attacked him. The applicant did not dispute the account of his placement in the cell provided by K. and N. However, he denied having been beaten by the other detainees. According to him, the police officer removed him from the cell as soon as one of the detainees started making threats to him. The detainee did not have time to hit him.\n8.  At about 4 a.m. on 30 January 2002 the applicant was taken to a separate room for questioning. According to the applicant, three police officers handcuffed him, verbally insulted him and hit him on the head, legs, back and crotch with rubber truncheons. They kicked and punched him. Then they removed the handcuffs, took off his sweater and a jacket and continued the beatings, questioning him about the boy. At about 6 a.m. they brought a rubber truncheon with a condom put over it. They pulled down the applicant's pants, inserted the truncheon up his anus and put a gas mask over his head. He screamed and they stopped. After that he wrote a confession dictated by the policemen, who held the rubber truncheon in front of him throughout that time. At about 1 p.m. the applicant was taken to the investigator's office. The applicant told the investigator about the beatings. The policemen took him out of the office and punched him again.\n9.  According to policeman Nik., he took part in the applicant's questioning together with policemen Gr. and P. The applicant had bruises and scratches on his face when they saw him for the first time. It was obvious that he had been beaten up. His clothes were covered with dust and shoe prints were visible on them. Nik. realised that other detainees had beaten the applicant up. The applicant was at first ashamed to tell them what had happened but then confessed. None of the policemen put any psychological or physical pressure on him. Gr. confirmed Nik.'s version of the events. P. later testified that he had no recollection of the applicant's questioning.\n10.  On the same day at 10 p.m. the applicant was taken to the temporary detention centre, where the officer on duty documented his injuries. Then the applicant was taken to State Hospital no. 7. The doctor examined him and noted numerous bruises, scratches on the face, neck, back and arms, and abrasions on the back and chest. The doctor stated that those injuries were not of a serious nature and had not caused any “health impairment” or “loss of working capacity”.\n11.  According to the applicant, other persons detained at the temporary detention centre could see bruises and abrasions on his face. He also had scratches on his chin caused by the gas mask. The handcuffs left abrasions on his wrists. There were scratches on the neck and bruises o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5376", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Plovdiv.\n6.  On 22 July 2000 the applicant and another person were charged with extortion. The investigation continued until 7 June 2001, when the prosecution filed an indictment against them with the Plovdiv Regional Court for extortion, illegal possession of firearms and handling of stolen goods.\n7.  The Plovdiv Regional Court conducted seventeen hearings, which were scheduled at intervals of one to five months, with the two last hearings being scheduled at an interval of eight months. Four of the hearings were adjourned as the applicant or his counsel failed to attend, while another three were adjourned on request by the other accused or the victim.\n8.  On 9 January 2006 the Plovdiv Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. No appeal was lodged against that judgment and it became final.\n9.  The applicant was held in detention from 25 July 2000 to 5 November 2001 and then from 2 January to 6 October 2002, when he was released on bail.\n10.  On 10 September 2003 the applicant failed to attend a court hearing. On 12 September 2003 he was arrested in another city under an arrest warrant issued in another set of proceedings several months earlier, after on 26 June 2003 he had been declared a fugitive.\n11.  On 10 October 2003 the Plovdiv Regional Court ordered that the applicant be placed in detention because his absence at the hearing of 10 September 2003 had not been justified. On 5 November 2003 that decision was upheld by the Plovdiv Court of Appeal.\n12.  The applicant's detention continued until 9 November 2005, when the Plovdiv Regional Court discontinued it, taking into account the fact that the applicant had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in another set of criminal proceedings.\n13.  The applicant requested release on six occasions between 5 November 2003 and 9 November 2005. The Plovdiv Regional Court and the Plovdiv Court of Appeal dismissed his requests and ensuing appeals finding that: 1) he had been charged with serious offences, and 2) there was a risk of him absconding or reoffending as there were other criminal proceedings pending against him and he had earlier convictions, and also because he had once failed to attend a hearing and had been declared a fugitive (see paragraph 10 above).\n14.  The courts dismissed the applicant's argument that he had health problems, pointing out, on the basis of the opinion of medical doctors, that he could be treated adequately in prison. To another argument raised by the applicant, namely that his family was in a dire financial situation, the courts responded that the other members of the family, namely his mother and his brother, were capable of taking care of themselves. As to the argument that the applicant's detention had lasted too long, the courts responded that the case was already at the trial stage and that hearings were being scheduled at reasonable intervals.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5377", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Velingrad. He describes himself as being of Roma/Gypsy ethnic origin.\n6.  According to his assertions, at about 2 a.m. on 14 January 1999, in foggy weather, the applicant went to a vacant yard in Velingrad to intoxicate himself by inhaling liquid bronze, as he did frequently at that time. When he left the yard some time later, two police officers saw him and yelled at him to stop. He did not and instead started running. Suddenly he saw a torch in front of him and veered to the left to evade capture. Then he heard shots but kept on running. After a few more steps, he felt a stinging pain in his stomach and fell to the ground. The officers approached and saw that he had a wound on his stomach. One of the officers recognised him.\n7.  During the ensuing investigation (see paragraphs 9‑20 below), the two officers, sergeants I.S. and D.N., stated that they saw the applicant jump over a fence, enter the yard of a Mr A.V., and head towards A.V.'s henhouse. After waiting for a few minutes and making certain that the applicant was trying to steal hens, the officers, both of whom were armed with pistols loaded with live cartridges, intervened. They split up and approached the yard from different directions. When the applicant noticed them, he jumped the fence and started running through empty plots towards the nearby Roma neighbourhood. Despite several warnings, he did not stop. Then one of the officers drew his pistol and fired at him with the intention of stopping him. At that moment the applicant was at about four metres from the officer and turned sideways. After that he kept on running. The other officer continued the chase, fired twice in the air, and caught up with the applicant about sixty metres from the place where he had been shot. The officer recognised the applicant, noticed that he was intoxicated, and saw a small wound on his stomach, but allegedly did not realise that it had been caused by a bullet.\n8.  The officers immediately took the applicant to a hospital, where he was bandaged and sent home. They did not mention that they had used firearms against the applicant. The doctor who treated him did not realise that his wound had been caused by a firearm. Not long after that the applicant's condition worsened and several hours later he returned to the hospital, where he underwent a five‑hour surgical operation. The doctors found that the applicant's kidney had been ruptured by a bullet which had broken up into three pieces, that his liver was damaged and he had been haemorrhaging into the abdominal cavity. The applicant's kidney and part of his liver had to be removed.\n9.  On 27 January 1999 Pazardzhik police informed the Plovdiv Regional Military Prosecutor's Office about the incident. On 22 February 1999 that office opened an investigation against the two officers.\n10.  On 12 March 1999 the investigator in charge of the case interviewed the officers, the applicant and his father. On 23 March 1999 he interviewed the doctor who had treated the applicant immediately after the incident and the person in charge of the hospital ward to which the applicant was later admitted. In their statements, the two officers predominantly referred to the applicant as a “person”. At one point sergeant I.S. said that when they approached the applicant after he had fallen to the ground he saw that he was “an eighteen or nineteen year‑old Gypsy” and that he reckoned that “the Gypsy had pricked himself on s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5378", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970. He is now serving his sentence in the Perm Region.\n7.  On 15 October 1999 the applicant was arrested in Yekaterinburg on suspicion of robbery. He was allegedly beaten up by the police. At about midnight he was put in a cell at the Kirovskiy District police station.\n8.  The applicant stayed in the cell until 5.40 p.m. on 16 October 1999. The cell was not equipped with a bunk or a bench. The applicant remained handcuffed all the time. He was not given any food and was escorted to the toilet only once, in the morning.\n9.  By letter of 11 June 2003, the head of the Kirovskiy District police station of Yekaterinburg confirmed that the cells in the police station were not equipped with bunks or benches and that detainees were not provided with food.\n10.  On 16 October 1999 the applicant was transported to the Yekaterinburg temporary detention facility.\n11.  A certificate issued on 29 August 2002 by the doctor of the Yekaterinburg temporary detention facility indicates that the applicant was held in the facility from 16 to 25 October 1999. A medical examination revealed a bruise on his right eye and abrasions on his face.\n12.  On 25 October 1999 the applicant was transferred to remand centre no. IZ-66/1 in Yekaterinburg.\n13.  On 2 November 1999 he was escorted to the prosecutor's office, where he was questioned. After questioning he was transported to the Ozersk Town temporary detention facility in the Sverdlovskiy Region. On his way there the escorting officers allegedly beat him and urged him to confess. Once in the detention facility, the applicant signed a confession statement.\n14.  The applicant remained in the Ozersk Town temporary detention facility until 25 November 1999. He was held in a solitary cell measuring 2 sq. m. The cell was not equipped with a bunk or toilet facilities. The applicant was escorted to the toilet twice a day. He was given bread and tea three times a day. The window allegedly had no glazing and it was extremely cold in the cell. A certificate issued by the Federal Meteorological Service indicates that the outside temperature in November 1999 ranged from 6º C to - 21º C.\n15.  On 25 November 1999 the applicant was transported to remand centre no. IZ-66/1 in Yekaterinburg, where he remained for the entire duration of the criminal proceedings against him.\n16.   On 2 and 3 December 1999 the applicant allegedly complained to the prosecutor's office that he had been ill-treated by the police. He did not receive any reply. He did not produce copies of his complaints.\n17.  The trial started on 18 December 2001 in the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court. It transpires from the trial record that on 20 March 2002 the presiding judge Ms G. chose by lot, from a list of ten names, two lay judges and a substitute lay judge to examine the applicant's case. The formation thus included the presiding judge Ms G., two lay judges, Ms T. and Ms O., and a substitute lay judge, Ms Ye.\n18.  On 19 September 2002 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court convicted the applicant of several counts of armed robbery, murder and attempted murder of a policeman and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed, complaining, in particular, about the allegedly unlawful composition of the trial court.\n19.  On 3 June 2003 Ms Perevoshchikova, counsel for the applicant, asked the President of the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court for information about the appointment and terms of office of the lay judges Ms T., Ms O. and Ms Ye.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5379", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first two applicants, Urszula and Czesław Grzelak, were born in 1969 and 1965 respectively. They are married and live in Sobótka. They are the parents of Mateusz Grzelak (“the third applicant”), who was born in 1991. The first two applicants are declared agnostics.\n7.  The third applicant began his schooling in primary school no. 3 in Ostrów Wielkopolski in 1998 (at the age of seven). In conformity with the wishes of his parents he did not attend religious instruction. It appears that he was the only pupil in his class who opted out of that subject. Religious instruction was scheduled in the middle of the school day, between various compulsory courses. The school, despite the wish expressed by the first two applicants, did not offer their son an alternative class in ethics. It appears that when other pupils in his class were following religious instruction the applicants' son was either left without any supervision in the corridor or spent his time in the school library or in the school club.\n8.  The Government, for their part, maintained that appropriate supervision had been provided for Mateusz Grzelak while religious instruction classes were in progress. The school had a general obligation of care and supervision towards all pupils who were on its premises at any time.\n9.  According to the first two applicants, their son was subjected to discrimination and physical and psychological harassment by other pupils on account of the fact that he did not follow religious instruction. For that reason, in the course of the third year of primary school the applicants moved their son to primary school no. 9 and subsequently to primary school no. 11 in the same town.\n10.  On 11 April 2001, when their son was in the third year of primary school, the applicants sent a letter to the headmistress of primary school no. 9 in Ostrów Wielkopolski. They drew her attention to the fact that their son had been ridiculed and harassed by other pupils in the class. They stated that their son was being discriminated against by the majority of his classmates because he did not attend religious education classes. The applicants requested the assistance of the school in resolving the issue.\n11.  According to the Government, the applicants did not wait for a reply to their letter of 11 April 2001 and moved their son to primary school no. 11. In a letter of 26 June 2001 the headmistress of primary school no. 9 explained that Mateusz Grzelak had attended that school from 23 October 2000 to 19 April 2001. She noted that he had frequently provoked his colleagues by mocking religious symbols and children who attended religious instruction. The class tutor had informed Mr and Mrs Grzelak about their son's behaviour but they had not responded. The headmistress explained further that the school did not ask for a written declaration as to children's attendance at religious instruction. It sufficed for a parent who did not wish for his or her child to attend religious instruction to report that fact to the class tutor.\n12.  The Government further maintained that Mr and Mrs Grzelak had requested primary school no. 11 to provide their son with a course in ethics. According to the Government, the headmistress of that school had contacted the Poznań Education Authority (kuratorium oświaty) to establish whether it was possible to provide such a course for an inter-school group. Since that was not possible owing to the lack of sufficient numbers of interested pupils and pa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5380", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicants were born in 1973 and 1965, respectively, and live in Samsun and Ankara.\n4.  On 17 October 2001 the applicant was discharged from his civil service post following his previous criminal conviction by a martial law court. The conviction had been finalised by the Military Court of Cassation's decision of 11 November 1997.\n5.  On 4 January 2002 the applicant brought an action before the Samsun Administrative Court to annul the discharge order.\n6.  On 5 June 2002 the Samsun Administrative Court rejected the applicant's request.\n7.  On 7 February 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Samsun Administrative Court. The written opinions of the public prosecutor and of the judge rapporteur (“tetkik hakimi”) concerning his appeal request were not communicated to the applicant.\n8.  On 31 December 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's request for rectification of its previous decision.\n9.  On 11 January 2002 the applicant was discharged from his civil service post after a disciplinary decision. Criminal proceedings were also commenced against the applicant on the same grounds as those which had led to his discharge.\n10.  On 15 March 2002 the applicant brought an action before the Ankara Administrative Court to annul the discharge order.\n11.  On 25 June 2002 the Ankara Assize Court acquitted the applicant of the offences with which he had been charged. On 22 March 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant's acquittal.\n12.  In the meantime, on 31 March 2003 the Ankara Administrative Court refused the applicant's request to annul the discharge order. Relying on Section 131 of the Law on Civil Servants (Law no. 657), the administrative court held that the applicant's acquittal of the criminal charges did not absolve him from the disciplinary sanction.\n13.  On 26 April 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Ankara Administrative Court. The written opinions of the public prosecutor and of the judge rapporteur concerning his appeal request were not communicated to the applicant.\n14.  On 23 January 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's rectification request. The final decision was served on the applicant on 4 March 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5381", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Nürnberg.\n6.  On 2 October 1998 the applicant, who was then working at the Turkish Consulate in Nürnberg, was laid off for misconduct by his employer, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.\n7.  On 18 December 1998 he lodged a case with the Ankara Administrative Court against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for unfair dismissal and compensation.\n8.  On 16 November 1999 the court dismissed the case.\n9.  On 26 March 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 16 November 1999.\n10.  On 18 May 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's rectification request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5382", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Bhutan is a remote kingdom in the Himalayas, which borders China and India. According to a census carried out in 2005, the current population is 682,321, of whom 35% are estimated to be ethnic Nepalese. The majority of ethnic Nepalese are Hindu, while the Drukpa, who account for 50% of the population, are predominantly Buddhist.\n6.  It is believed that the ethnic Nepalese (sometimes referred to as Lhotshampa”, meaning “southerners”) settled in southern Bhutan in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They were granted Bhutanese citizenship by the Citizenship Act of 1958. In 1988, however, a Government census led to the branding of many ethnic Nepalese as illegal immigrants. There were reports that many ethnic Nepalese who had previously been recognised as Bhutanese were forced to sign “voluntary migration certificates”, thereby forfeiting their citizenship under Bhutanese law. Local Lhotshampa leaders responded with anti-government rallies demanding citizenship and inciting attacks against government institutions. Between 1988 and 1993, more than 100,000 ethnic Nepalese fled to refugee camps in Nepal alleging ethnic and political repression.\n7.  Since 1907 Bhutan has been ruled by the Wangchuck hereditary monarchy. Although traditionally an absolute monarchy, in recent years the country has witnessed significant political reform. In March 2005 a draft of the country's first constitution was unveiled, which introduced major democratic reforms. Democratic elections for seats to the country's first parliament were completed in March 2008 and the King ratified the country's first constitution in July 2008.\n8.  The refugee population are housed mostly in UNHCR-funded camps in eastern Nepal. In 2008, after many years of failed bilateral talks between the Nepalese and Bhutanese Governments to repatriate the refugees, many opted for third-country re-settlement with the help of UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration (“IOM”). More than 8,000 Bhutanese refugees have now been resettled. The United States of America has offered to resettle over 60,000 refugees from Bhutan over the next five years, and a number of other countries have volunteered to host a further 10,000. Bhutan, however, has not agreed to the repatriation of any of the refugees. Those who attempted to return to Bhutan illegally were returned to the refugee camps in Nepal by Indian border police. Some refugees managed to cross the border into Bhutan in order to stage protests, but all were eventually sent back.\n9.  Bhutan's transition to a constitutional democracy has not been an entirely smooth one. A wave of bombings rocked Bhutan in the run-up to the 2008 parliamentary elections, and security forces believed that a number of insurgent groups from among the Nepalese refugees were responsible.\n10.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Huddersfield. He is a Bhutanese national who claims to be of Nepalese ethnic origin.\n11.  The applicant states that he was employed by the Bank of Bhutan as an office assistant on 3 January 2000. On 3 January 2001, he was asked to produce a security clearance certificate (SCC). He approached the domestic authorities for the SCC and was refused. He sought the SCC until December 2001 but was unable to obtain one.\n12.  The applicant further states that on 12 February 2002, when he attended his village annual census, he and his family were declared non-nationals and ordered to leave Bhutan immediately. When he refused to surrender his n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5383", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952. At the time of his death he was serving his sentence at the Kosh penitentiary institution.\n6.  On 29 November 2001 criminal proceedings were instituted in respect of the applicant on account of fraudulent acquisition of property and falsification of documents. The applicant, who had no previous convictions, was suspected of defrauding his business partner, V.G.\n7.  On 8 February 2002 the investigating authority ordered an opinion to be prepared by a handwriting expert. On 8 May 2002 the investigating authority ordered two accounting expert opinions to be prepared by two accounting experts V.A. and A.M.\n8.  On 8 July 2002 the investigating authority recognised V.G. as a victim and as the civil plaintiff.\n9.  On 14 March 2003 the applicant was formally charged with the above offences, and a new charge of tax evasion.\n10.  On 6 May 2003 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (Երևան քաղաքի Կենտրոն և Նորք-Մարաշ համայնքների առաջին ատյանի դատարան) decided to detain the applicant.\n11.  On 12 June 2003 the prosecutor approved the indictment, which was then submitted to the courts. Attached to the indictment was the list of persons subject to be called to court. This list included the accused, the victim, ten witnesses, including the applicant's accountant K.S. and treasurer K.M., and the two accounting experts V.A. and A.M.\n12.  On 14 June 2003 the criminal case against the applicant was put before the Malatia-Sebastia District Court of Yerevan (Երևան քաղաքի Մալաթիա-Սեբաստիա համայնքի առաջին ատյանի դատարան).\n13.  On 3 December 2003 the victim lodged his civil claim seeking damages in the amounts of 34,159,008 Armenian drams (AMD) and 119,000 United States dollars (USD).\n14.  On 27 January 2004 the Malatia-Sebastia District Court of Yerevan found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years in prison. The court also fully granted the victim's civil claim for damages. The court based its judgment on, inter alia, the statements of ten witnesses examined in court, including accountant K.S. and treasurer K.M, an act prepared by the tax authority specialists, two court-ordered accounting expert opinions, the statements of accounting experts V.A. and A.M., and a handwriting expert opinion.\n15.  On 10 February 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal (ՀՀ քրեական և զինվորական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարան). The applicant also submitted written explanations concerning the civil claim, in which he requested the Court of Appeal to call and examine the victim's accountant S.H. as a witness. He also requested that accountant K.S. and treasurer K.M. be called for additional examination. He further asked to call three other persons, K., H. and Z. To substantiate his request to have accountants S.H. and K.S. called and examined, the applicant submitted to the court two accounting reports prepared by them which, according to him, contained exculpatory information.\n16.  On 19 March 2004 the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal held its first hearing. In the courtroom the applicant was placed in a metal cage which measured about 3 sq. m. The applicant was represented by two defence counsel. At the hearing, the applicant's defence counsel filed a motion with the court, arguing that the applicant's placement in a metal cage in the presence of many people, including relatives and friends, amounted to degrading treatment and humiliated him. Furthermore, this vi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5384", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1959, 1989 and 1984, respectively. The first and the second applicants are married. They are the parents of the third and fourth applicants. The applicants were living in Hakkari at the time of the events giving rise to the present application. Their current address is unknown.\n10.  On 28 July 1999 the applicants arrived in Turkey. According to the applicants' submissions, they had fled Iran because the first applicant, a police officer, had aided political dissidents in Iran and had therefore feared for his life and that of his family.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicants applied to the national authorities in Hakkari for temporary residence permits. According to the Government's submissions, on 2 August 2002 the applicants' request was dismissed by domestic authorities since the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (the “UNHCR”) had refused to recognise the applicants' refugee status.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicants moved to Istanbul.\n13.  In 2002 the applicants converted to Christianity and began working for the Gedik Paşa Armenian Protestant Church in Istanbul. They acted as servers during the Sunday services. The fourth applicant also worked as a Sunday school teacher for the children in the church. The third applicant further worked for the International Protestant Church in Istanbul. In letters dated 28 August 2005 and 17 January 2007, the leaders of the Iranian Fellowship in Istanbul and the president of the Touch of Christ ministries confirmed that the applicants were involved in the Gedik Paşa Church. The third and fourth applicants were not accepted to study at the Iranian Consulate School in Istanbul because the Iranian authorities were aware of their religious faith.\n14.  On 1 and 9 April 2008, after being interviewed, the applicants were recognised as refugees by the UNHCR in Ankara. The UNHCR found that the first applicant's claims that he had been imprisoned for not following religious practices in 1991, and that he had disobeyed orders which he had received during the student demonstrations in 1999 as he was a supporter of the student movements, were credible. The UNHCR also found that the applicants had been converted to Christianity and were involved in proselytising Iranian tourists in Turkey, as a result of which the Iranian Consulate in Istanbul and the domestic authorities in Iran had become aware of their conversion. The UNHCR concluded that the first applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution based on his conversion to Christianity and his activities to promote Christianity during his stay in Turkey and, therefore, recognised him as a refugee on the ground of his religion.\n15.  After having been recognised as refugees by the UNHCR, the applicants moved back to Hakkari on the instructions of the UNHCR in order to legalise their status in Turkey.\n16.  On 14 May 2008 the applicants applied to the foreigners' department at the Hakkari police headquarters and the Hakkari public prosecutor's office for residence permits. Statements were taken from them by police officers. When the first and fourth applicants were asked how they could have stamps on their passports showing that they had travelled to Iran during their stay in Turkey between 2002 and 2008, they maintained that they had gone to Iran illegally with falsified Iranian passports and re-entered Turkey in order to validate their visas and to take Bibles in Farsi to Iran. The applicants furthe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5385", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Cluj Napoca.\n5.  The applicant worked as a consultant veterinary surgeon in the Sanitary Veterinary Direction of Cluj County (“the DSV”), a public institution. He was the chief of the food control division. In 2001, the Ministry of Agriculture, Alimentation and Forests requested the DSV to reorganise its activity and to abolish a number of posts. The applicant's salary in May 2001 was 5,368,605 old Romanian lei (ROL).\n6.  On 29 May 2001, following reorganisation, the applicant was given a post of veterinary surgeon in a regional sanitary-veterinary station, with effect from 1 June 2001.\n7.  On 20 June 2001 the DSV, following an assessment of the applicant's professional achievements, reduced his salary to ROL 2,075,000, with effect from 1 July 2001.\nThe applicant challenged the two decisions before the courts.\n8.  On 1 October 2001 the Cluj County Court (“the County Court”) dismissed the complaint against the decision of 20 June 2001, since the applicant had not used the correct administrative complaints procedure before addressing the courts. The applicant did not lodge an appeal and that judgment became final.\n9.  On 10 October 2001 the County Court set aside the DSV's decision of 29 May 2001, on the grounds that the applicant's previous post had not been discontinued following reorganisation and that the new post had invested him with attributions totally different than those he had previously. Therefore, it ordered the applicant's reinstatement in his previous job and payment by the DSV of the difference between the salary earned before that decision and his present salary, with effect from 1 June 2001 until the date of his reinstatement.\n10.  The DSV appealed alleging, inter alia, that following an assessment of the applicant's professional achievements he was found unsuitable for the post and therefore reallocated another post.\nOn 3 April 2002 the Cluj Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed that appeal by a final decision. It held, inter alia, that the applicant's professional unsuitability had not been taken into account when he was allocated a new post. That allocation was determined by the need to abolish a number of posts.\n11.  On 22 February 2002 the DSV granted the applicant, for the month of June 2001, an indemnity corresponding to his leadership position.\n12.  On 17 April 2002 the DSV authorised the applicant's reinstatement in his previous job, with effect from 22 April 2002, with a salary of ROL 3,794,000.\nThe applicant contested that decision and on 17 October 2002 the Court of Appeal, by a final decision, set it aside. The court considered that the DSV had infringed the judgment of 10 October 2001, which stated that the applicant was to be given not only his previous job, but also the salary he had before 1 June 2001.\n13.  On 24 June 2002 the bailiff certified that the applicant had been reinstated in his previous job, in accordance with the judgment of 10 October 2001, and ordered the DSV to pay the amount due between 1 June 2001 and effective reinstatement.\n14.  The DSV raised an objection to this, considering that the judgment of 10 October 2001 had been enforced, since the applicant had been reinstated in his previous job and since his salary was in accordance with the judgment of 1 October 2001.\n15.  On 22 July 2002 the Cluj-Napoca District Court upheld the objection and ordered the bailiff to cease execution. The court considered that on 1 June 2001 there", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5386", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Warsaw.\n5.  On 15 January 1999 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a counterclaim for payment against the “Adwokat” Housing Co-operative (Spółdzielnia Mieszkaniowa “Adwokat”). The proceedings for payment instituted by the housing co-operative had been pending since 10 October 1997.\n6.  On 2 February 1999 the applicant lodged a motion for joinder of the cases.\n7.  On 17 June 1999 the court held a hearing; however it did not give any decision on the applicant's motion.\n8.  After three years and ten months, on 20 October 2002, the court gave a decision that the case should be examined separately in another set of proceedings and returned the statement of claim to the applicant because of procedural shortcomings. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal.\n9.  On 30 January 2003 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.\n10.  On an unspecified date the Warsaw District Court again returned the statement of claim to the applicant because of procedural shortcomings. The applicant lodged another interlocutory appeal.\n11.  On 15 November 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court quashed the contested decision and remitted the case.\n12.  Hearings scheduled for 25 January and 6 March 2008 were adjourned as another case had been given priority.\n13.  On 12 May 2008 the Warsaw District Court gave a default judgment.\n14.  On 9 June 2008 the court supplemented the judgment by ordering its immediate enforceability.\n15.  On 30 June 2008 the defendant filed an objection (sprzeciw) against the default judgment.\n16.  On 8 July 2008 the Warsaw District Court quashed the order of immediate enforceability.\n17.  On 19 August, 30 September, 18 November, 16 December 2008 the Warsaw District Court held hearings. Hearings scheduled for 19 February and 2 April 2009 were adjourned due to the absence of one of the witnesses. On 26 June and 17 November 2009 the court held hearings.\n18.  The case is still pending before the first-instance court.\n19.  On 20 March 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n20.  The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Warsaw District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).\n21.  On 25 April 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the complaint. The court did not analyse the conduct of the trial court. It limited its consideration to the applicant's conduct, namely to the fact that she had made use of her procedural rights, which, in the court's view, had led to delays in the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5387", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  At the material time the applicants were the owners, executive directors, editors-in-chief, news directors and journalists of two weekly newspapers published in Turkey: Yedinci Gün and Toplumsal Demokrasi. The publication of these newspapers was suspended pursuant to section 6(5) of Law no. 3713 (the Prevention of Terrorism Act) by the Istanbul Assize Court on 12 and 5 January 2008, respectively, for a period of one month, on account of various news reports and articles. The impugned publications were mainly deemed to be propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation, the PKK/KONGRA-GEL[1], and constituted an approval of crimes committed by that organisation and its members.\n6.  Neither the applicants nor their representative participated in these ex parte procedures, and their written objections to the suspension orders were dismissed. Consequently, the orders were executed.\n7.  The applicants, Ali Turgay and Hüseyin Aykol, the owner and the editor-in-chief, respectively, of Yedinci Gün, were prosecuted under sections 6(2) and 7(2) of Law no. 3713, as well as Articles 215 and 218 of the Criminal Code, for disseminating propaganda in favour of and praising crimes committed by the aforementioned organisation and its members, on account of various articles published in the said newspaper (case no. 2008/30).\n8.  The applicant, Hüseyin Bektaş, the owner of Toplumsal Demokrasi, was similarly prosecuted under sections 6(2) and 7(2) of Law no. 3713 and Article 215 of the Criminal Code (case no. 2008/14).\n9.  According to the information in the case file, these criminal proceedings are still pending at first instance.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5388", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Kırklareli.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant was divorced from her husband in Iran. The applicant's ex-husband was appointed the legal guardian of the couple's children.\n8.  On 2 October 2005 the applicant arrived in Turkey with her children, whom she had brought without the consent of her ex-husband. According to her submissions, the applicant had escaped from the violence of her ex-husband. The applicant applied to the national authorities and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) requesting temporary and permanent asylum soon after her arrival in Turkey.\n9.  On 28 September 2006 the applicant married an Iranian national who had converted to Christianity. In October 2006 the applicant also converted to Christianity.\n10.  On an unspecified date the UNHCR dismissed the applicant's asylum request.\n11.  On 22 December 2006 the applicant and her husband were served with the decisions of the Ministry of Interior rejecting their temporary asylum requests. The Ministry of the Interior considered that the applicant and her husband wished to use the temporary asylum system in Turkey in order to go to a European country where they could improve their financial situation. The applicants were also informed that they had the right to object to the decisions concerned.\n12.  On 7 November 2007 the applicant was informed that she would be deported. On the same day she was granted a residence permit for fifteen days in order to facilitate her departure from Turkey.\n13.  On 15 November 2007 the applicant lodged a case with the Ankara Administrative Court requesting the latter to annul the decision to deport her and to order a stay of execution of that decision pending the proceedings. The applicant also requested legal aid.\n14.  On 30 November 2007 the applicant's request for legal aid was rejected as she was not considered to be in need of it.\n15.  On 2 January 2008 the Sixteenth Chamber of the Ankara Administrative Court issued a decision according to which the applicant was required to pay the court fees within thirty days.\n16.  On 18 February 2008 the applicant was placed in the Kumkapı Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre attached to the Istanbul police headquarters.\n17.  The decision of 2 January 2008 could not be served on the applicant as she could not be found at her place of residence. On 29 February 2008 the administrative court decided to discontinue the proceedings until the applicant informed the court of her new address.\n18.  On 13 March 2008 the UNHCR reopened the applicant's file.\n19.  On 10 April 2008, after being interviewed, the applicant was recognised as a refugee under the mandate of the UNHCR. The UNHCR found credible the applicant's claims that her children had been sexually and physically abused by their father; that she had been subjected to conjugal violence and that she had escaped from Iran in order to save her children and herself. The report of the UNHCR further notes that the applicant's act was punishable under Iranian law. The UNHCR also found that the applicant had married a converted Christian; that she had converted to Christianity and had given birth to a daughter who had been baptised and had a Christian name. Moreover, the applicant was known to be an asylum seeker in Turkey. The UNHCR concluded that the applicant had a well- founded fear of persecution on account of her faith, gender and political opinion, a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5389", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants in application no. 11354/05 are:\nThe applicant in application no. 32952/06 is:\n7. All applicants live in the Chechen Republic (Chechnya), Russia.\n8.  The applicants belong to six families. Their seven male relatives were detained in two separate incidents in 2000 in Grozny or the Grozny district and subsequently disappeared. None of the applicants had witnessed the detention of their family members and their account is based on the witnesses' accounts. The first nine applicants have been conducting the search for their relatives together.\n9.  The second and third applicants are the parents of the first applicant and of Khasan Batayev, who was born in 1979. The fourth applicant is the mother of Zaur Ibragimov, who was born in 1975. The fifth applicant is his wife. The sixth applicant is the mother of Magomed Temurkayev, who was born in 1974 and is married to the seventh applicant. The eighth applicant is the mother of Rizvan Ismailov, who was born in 1974. The ninth applicant is the mother of Sayd-Ali Musayev, born in 1973, and Kharon Musayev, born in 1976.\n10.  On 18 September 2000 Zaur Ibragimov, Magomed Temurkayev, Rizvan Ismailov, Sayd-Ali Musayev, Kharon Musayev and Khasan Batayev were at Khasan Batayev's home at 44 Vostochnaya Street, Grozny. Two cars, a VAZ-21099 used by Magomed Temurkayev and a VAZ-2106 driven by Zaur Ibragimov, were parked in the courtyard.\n11.  At about 4 p.m. two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and a UAZ vehicle with the registration number 480-20-RUS arrived at 44 Vostochnaya Street. A group of men wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns got out of the vehicles and burst inside. They seized Khasan Batayev, Zaur Ibragimov, Magomed Temurkayev, Rizvan Ismailov, Sayd-Ali Musayev and Kharon Musayev and took them away. The armed men also took the two VAZ cars. The men spoke unaccented Russian.\n12.  The applicants have had no news of Khasan Batayev, Zaur Ibragimov, Magomed Temurkayev, Rizvan Ismailov, Sayd-Ali Musayev and Kharon Musayev since 18 September 2000.\n13.  The Government in their observations did not dispute most of the facts as presented by the applicants. They stated that on 18 September 2000 “unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms” had entered the house at 44 Vostochnaya Street in Grozny and taken away Khasan Batayev, Zaur Ibragimov, Magomed Temurkayev, Rizvan Ismailov, Sayd-Ali Musayev and Kharon Musayev, whose whereabouts remained unknown. The Government denied that the stolen cars had belonged to Magomed Temurkayev and Zaur Ibragimov. They also challenged certain aspects of the applicants' version of the events with reference to the documents from the criminal investigation file (see details below).\n14.  The tenth applicant is the wife of Usman Mavluyev, who was born in 1972.\n15.  In the autumn of 1999, during the counter-terrorist operation in Chechnya, she lived with her husband and their two sons at 81 Zabolotnogo Street in Grozny.\n16.  In November 1999, fearing for her sons' safety, the applicant went with them to stay with her mother, who lived in the village of Zakan-Yurt in the Achkhoy-Martan District. Her husband remained in Grozny.\n17.  On 7 January 2000 Ms Z.A., a friend and a remote relative of the Mavluyevs who also lived in Grozny, heard from other residents that, owing to the intensification of the military operations, on 8 January 2000 a “humanitarian corridor” would be arranged for civilians so as to let them escape from the fighting i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5390", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960[2] and at present resides in the city of St. Petersburg.\n6.  On 25 December 1999 the applicant, the then deputy mayor of the town of Magadan, took a bribe from a third person and was caught in the act by officials of the Federal Security Service (Федеральная служба безопасности).\n7.  The applicant alleged that between January and December 1999 his telephone had been tapped by the authorities. The case file contains no evidence which could confirm the allegation. It does not appear that the applicant raised these grievances before any domestic authority.\n8.  On the following day an investigator of the Magadan Regional Prosecutor's office initiated criminal proceedings for bribery and arrested the applicant as a suspect.\n9.  By a decision of 30 December 1999 the investigator brought charges of bribery against the applicant.\n10.  On 3 April 2001 the Magadan Regional Court convicted the applicant of bribery and sentenced him to eight years of imprisonment and confiscation of his property.\n11.  By a decision of 28 November 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment on appeal. It does not appear that the applicant complained about the confiscation of his property ordered by the Regional Court.\n12.  Between 27 and 30 December 1999 the applicant was detained in a temporary isolation facility.\n13.  On 30 December 1999 the applicant was transferred to detention facility IZ-49/1 of the town of Magadan (also known as IZ-47/1), in which he remained until 28 August 2003.\n14.  The applicant submitted that between 31 December 1999 and 22 February 2000 he was kept in cell no. 38 measuring 25 square metres and designed for nine inmates. At all times the number of inmates varied between seventeen and nineteen.\n15.  Since the number of beds was insufficient, the inmates took it in turns to sleep. The applicant's turn started at 4 o'clock in the morning. According to him, proper sleep was impossible as the television was on around the clock and the light in the cell was never turned off. Being surrounded by heavy smokers, the applicant was forced to become a passive smoker.\n16.  The cell had no ventilation and was very cold in winter. Because of the poor quality of the air in the cell, a window had to remain open all the time. The applicant claimed that he was never provided with proper bedding. The cell was heavily infected with bugs and had no anti-infestation treatment.\n17.  The lavatory pan in the corner of the cell offered no privacy, being separated, by a partition of 1.1 m only, from a wash stand but not from the living area and dining table. As a result a person using the toilet was in plain view of both his cellmates and any prison guard who happened to be observing the inmates through the peep-hole in the door.\n18.  The applicant alleged that in general hot showers and changes of bed sheets were irregular and daily walks outside his cell were restricted to one hour.\n19.  The Government submitted that cell no. 38 measured 8.4 square metres and had one window. They were unable to provide any exact information concerning the overall number of detainees during the relevant period of time, since the original prison records in this connection had been destroyed.\n20.  The Government submitted a written statement by prison officer K. dated 17 February 2006, who recalled that there had been two inmates, including the applicant, in that cell at the relevant time.\n21.  On 22 February 2000 the applicant was transferred to ce", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5391", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1984 and is serving a prison sentence in the Ivanovo Region.\n7.  On 2 January 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter.\n8.  On 5 January 2002 the prosecutor's office authorised the applicant's detention pending investigation. The applicant's detention was extended on several occasions. The parties did not submit copies of the relevant court orders. According to the Government, when deciding on the applicant's pre‑trial detention, the domestic authorities noted that he had been charged with very serious offences, including two counts of manslaughter, and that he might abscond or interfere with administration of justice if released.\n9.  On 26 June 2003 the Regional Court authorised the applicant's detention pending the study of the case-file. In particular, the court noted:\n“... [the applicant] is charged with several criminal offences, including very serious ones. It is still necessary to keep him in custody. The court does not consider it possible to apply any other restrictive measure ...\nThe materials submitted show that ... at school [the applicant] received satisfactory references concerning his character. He had a criminal record. In May 2001 he was found guilty by the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo of robbery, extortion and theft and received a conditional sentence. His criminal record was erased by virtue of the amnesty decree. He also has a history of administrative misdemeanours. The references concerning his character obtained from the place of his residence are negative. His parents cannot control his behaviour. His conduct is socially dangerous. He has [repeatedly] failed to comply with internal regulations at the remand centre.\nIn such circumstances, the court concludes that the applicant should be detained pending the study of the case-file ...”\n10.  On 22 April 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo concluded the trial of six defendants. The District Court found the applicant guilty of trespassing and manslaughter and sentenced him to nine years and four months' imprisonment.\n11.  On 25 May 2004 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the applicant's conviction on appeal. The applicant and F., one of his co-defendants, sought supervisory review of the judgments.\n12.  On 23 May 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation granted their request for supervisory review.\n13.  On 22 June 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the judgments of 22 April and 25 May 2004 in respect of the applicant and F. and remitted the matter to the lower courts for fresh consideration. It further extended, without specifying the grounds, the defendants' detention pending trial until 22 September 2005.\n14.  On 12 July 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo received the case file.\n15.  On 28 July 2005 the District Court scheduled the hearing of the case for 11 August 2005 and dismissed a request by the defendants for release. In particular, the court noted:\n“F. and [the applicant] are charged with ... a very serious criminal offence against life and health.\nIn view of the above, the restrictive measure used in respect of F. and [the applicant] should remain unchanged.”\n16.  On 11 August 2005 the District Court stayed the proceedings owing to F.'s counsel's failure to appear. On 8 September 2005 the Regional Court found the decision of 11 August 2005 unlawful and quashed it on appeal.\n17.  The decision of 28 July 2005 was upheld on appeal by the Ivanovo Regional Court on 25 August 2005.\n18. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5392", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951. She is the mother of Said-Magamed (also spelled as Said-Magomed) Tovsultanov, who was born in 1970. At the material time she lived in Sleptsovskaya (also known as Ordzhenikidzovskaya), Ingushetia. Currently she lives in Katar-Yurt (also spelled as Katyr-Yurt), Chechnya.\n6.  The applicant did not witness the disappearance of Said-Magamed Tovsultanov. The account below is based on the anonymous statements of third persons summarised by the applicant and submitted by her to the Court.\n7.  In September 1999, before the beginning of the large-scale military operations in Chechnya, the applicant and Said-Magamed Tovsultanov moved from Katar-Yurt, Chechnya, to the village of Sleptsovskaya in Ingushetia. The applicant and her son, who were registered as forced migrants in the village, stayed with their relatives, the family of Ms Zh.S. In 2002 the applicant returned to Katar-Yurt, whereas her son Said-Magamed Tovsultanov stayed on in Sleptsovskaya with their relatives.\n8.  On 14 June 2004 (in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as 13 June 2004) the applicant was at home in Katar-Yurt. At about 3 p.m. a woman came to her house and told her that her son had been abducted in Sleptsovskaya. The applicant immediately went to her relative's home in that village. The applicant and Mrs Zh.S. were in the yard when a woman named Roza, who was from Roshni-Chu in Chechnya, stopped by. She told the women that on 14 June 2004 she had been in the forced migrants' tent camp when one of her female acquaintances had told her that at about 1 p.m. on the same day a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms in five VAZ and UAZ cars had apprehended a young Chechen man in a white VAZ-2107 car with registration number C897 ME. The incident had taken place in the centre of Sleptsovskaya, on the corner of Pobeda and Rabochaya Streets. During the apprehension, right before he had been put in one of the cars, the man, who had been dressed in a white shirt, had managed to shout out to the bystanders that his name was Said‑Magamed Tovsultanov and that he was from Katar-Yurt. After that the group of armed men had driven away with him and his car.\n9.  The applicant immediately went to the centre of Sleptsovskaya to obtain information about her son, but to no avail. On the following day she left for Katar-Yurt. A day later she went to Sleptsovskaya again. On the way there she got out of the vehicle at the crossroads in the vicinity of the village of Assinovskaya in Chechnya, next to the “Kavkaz” motorway. The applicant was standing there when she saw a convoy of five VAZ cars of different colours driving quickly on the motorway from the direction of the “Kavkaz” checkpoint located on the border of Chechnya and Ingushetia. A white VAZ-2107 car without a registration number was in the middle of it.\n10.  When the convoy was passing by the applicant, she saw that in one of the cars a man in white shirt moved towards the car window. The applicant recognised the man as her son Said-Magamed Tovsultanov.\n11.  Immediately after that the applicant boarded a bus and went to Sleptsovskaya through the “Kavkaz” checkpoint. On her way there, before the checkpoint, she saw a black velvet pillow on the ground. The applicant recognised it at once as the pillow that had belonged to her son Said‑Magamed Tovsultanov, who had used it as a seat cushion in his car. The applicant thought that the men who had driven by her in the convoy must ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5393", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and is now serving a prison sentence in the Tula Region.\n6.  On 10 April 2003 the police apprehended the applicant and two other individuals near a psychiatric hospital which had been robbed shortly before. The applicant was carrying a firearm and offered resistance to the arresting officers.\n7.  The applicant claimed that the police officers had ill-treated him and compelled him to make a confession. On 23 October 2003 a deputy Leninskiy District prosecutor of the Tula Region found the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment unsubstantiated and decided not to institute criminal proceedings. An appeal against that decision lay to a court of general jurisdiction; the applicant did not make use of that procedure.\n8.  On 12 April 2003 the Leninskiy District Court of the Tula Region remanded the applicant in custody for an initial two-month period.\n9.  On 16 April 2003 the applicant was charged with the armed robbery of the hospital. On 8 May and 7 June 2003 the applicant was additionally charged with five offences of theft and robbery committed in 2002 and 2003.\n10.  On 5 June, 5 August and 14 October 2003 the Uzlovaya Town Court extended the applicant's detention until 31 December 2003.\n11.  On 15 September 2003 the applicant was transferred to Moscow for an in-patient psychiatric examination at the State Scientific Centre for Forensic Psychiatric Examinations. On 26 December 2003 the examination was completed and the applicant was transferred to remand centre no. IZ-77/2 in Moscow. On 15 January 2004 he left IZ-77/2 and on the following day he returned to the remand centre in Tula.\n12.  In the meantime, on 30 December 2003 the Uzlovaya Town Court heard an application by the prosecutor for a further extension of the applicant's detention. On the previous day legal-aid counsel Mr S., who had been appointed to represent the applicant, had informed the Town Court that he would not be able to attend because of his involvement in another trial. Mr L. was appointed instead to represent the applicant.\n13.  Counsel for the applicant pleaded for his release, maintaining that there were no lawful grounds for granting a further extension. The prosecutor submitted that there were no reasons to vary the preventive measure.\n14.  The Town Court granted the application for an extension, finding as follows:\n“...Taking into account the gravity of the charge concerning a premeditated particularly serious crime against property, information about the defendant's character, arguments by the State prosecutor to the effect that Mr Shulenkov may commit a more serious crime, flee from the investigation and justice and thereby interfere with the establishment of the truth, as well as the impossibility of finalising the pre-trial investigation within the remaining time because many investigative steps must be carried out in several areas of the region, the court finds that there are no grounds for revoking or varying the preventive measure in the form of remand in custody and that there exist justified grounds for extending the defendant's detention...”\n15.  On 30 January 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal against the extension order. He submitted that by 26 December 2003 the forensic examination had already been completed and that his presence at the hearing on 30 December could easily have been secured. He pointed out that the prosecutor's arguments concerning the risk of his fleeing or reoffending had not been corroborated wi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5394", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in the town of Tula.\n6.  On 23 May 1995 the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of involvement in a murder. From that date and until the decision of 15 July 2002 to discontinue the proceedings the applicant remained in custody.\n7.  In July 1996 he was charged with several counts of murder, abduction, bribery, unlawful possession of firearms and participation in a criminal gang.\n8.  Between July 1996 and July 2002 various trial courts examined the applicant's case on six occasions, but each time they either returned it for an additional investigation or declined to examine it with reference to various reasons relating to jurisdiction.\n9.  By a decision of 15 July 2002 the Tula Regional Court (Судебная коллегия по уголовным делам Тульского областного суда, “the Regional Court”) discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant for lack of evidence of his involvement in the imputed crimes. The court ordered the applicant's release and recognised his right to claim damages in connection with a wrongful prosecution.\n10.  The authorities placed the applicant in remand prison IZ-71/1 (Следственный изолятор ИЗ-71/1, “the remand prison”) of the town of Tula on 31 October 1995.\n11.  Between 28 November 1999 and 12 May 2000 the applicant was held in a detention facility in the town of Ryazan. Thereafter he was returned to the remand prison and stayed there until his release on 15 July 2002.\n12.  The parties presented different accounts of the conditions of detention in the remand prison.\n13.  The applicant's cells were overcrowded. The detainees had to take turns to sleep because there was usually one sleeping place for two to three of them. There was almost no light in the cells because of the metal shutters on the windows, as well as no fresh air. The lack of air was aggravated by the detainees' smoking and the applicant, a non-smoker, became a passive smoker. There was one hour of daily exercise. The applicant's eyesight deteriorated and he developed respiratory problems. In summer the average air temperature was around thirty degrees which, combined with the high humidity level, caused skin conditions to develop. The sanitary conditions were below any reasonable standard. In particular, the cells were supplied with water for only one or two hours a day and on some days there was no water supply at all. The lack of water caused intestinal problems and in 1999 the administration had to announce quarantine in that connection.\n14.  The lavatory pan usually stank. It was separated from the living space by a partition which was one metre high and offered no privacy. The cells were infested with bugs, lice, cockroaches and rats and the administration did nothing to disinfect the facility. The applicant contracted scabies on two occasions. The quality of food was wholly unsatisfactory. The medical assistance was grossly inadequate. Finally, the applicant was usually convoyed by a prison officer with a dog, which he considered particularly humiliating.\n15.  In his observations the applicant submitted a number of statements from his acquaintance Mr S. and fellow prisoners Mr K. and Mr M.\n(a)  Statement by Mr S.\n16.  In a statement dated 29 March 2007 Mr S., who at the time was a police officer employed in the department of criminal investigations of the Soviet District Department of the Interior of the town of Tula and frequently visited IZ-71/1 for professional reasons, submitted that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5396", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1961 and 1946 respectively and live in the Tula Region.\n7.  The applicants are a married couple and have a daughter born in 1992. The first applicant also has a daughter from her previous marriage, born in 1985. Both daughters are Russian nationals.\n8.  Prior to their arrival in Russia, the applicants and their daughter were living in Turkmenistan. There the second applicant and their daughter acquired Russian citizenship in 2002. On 15 November 2005 criminal proceedings were brought against the first applicant's employer on economic charges. The first applicant was questioned as a witness on several occasions and allegedly threatened by the investigator.\n9.  On 10 December 2005 the applicants and their daughter moved to Russia. The first applicant's elder daughter was already living in Russia.\n10.  The applicants purchased a house in the Tula Region. In May 2006 the first applicant obtained a temporary residence permit. In September 2006 the first applicant also applied for Russian citizenship.\n11.  On 22 February 2007 her application for Russian citizenship was refused on the ground that criminal proceedings were pending against her in the State of her nationality. It does not appear that the first applicant appealed against this decision to a court.\n12.  On 24 July 2007 the first applicant applied to the Federal Migration Service (the FMS) seeking refugee status.\n13.  On 26 July 2007 the FMS refused to examine the merits of the request, on the ground that the first applicant had a temporary residence permit, was married to a Russian national and was on a wanted list in Turkmenistan.\n14.  The first applicant complained about the refusal to the Central District Court of Tula. In her complaint she did not raise any arguments concerning her fears that in Turkmenistan she would be subjected to ill-treatment and separated from her family.\n15.  On 28 January 2008 the Central District Court of Tula upheld the decision of the FMS and dismissed the first applicant's complaint. The first applicant appealed.\n16.  On 29 May 2008 the Tula Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision.\n17.  On 2 July 2008 the first applicant applied for temporary asylum in Russia. In her application she stated briefly that she would be subjected to torture and other forms of ill-treatment if expelled to Turkmenistan.\n18.  On 23 July 2008 the first applicant was interviewed in this connection while in custody.\n19.  On 25 July 2008 her application was accepted for examination, and on 22 October 2008 the FMS refused the application. The first applicant appealed, referring to a threat of inhuman treatment in Turkmenistan and to family ties in Russia.\n20.  On 17 February 2009 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow ruled that the FMS decision should be upheld. The first applicant did not appeal against this decision to a higher court.\n21.  On 28 January 2006 the Turkmen authorities, in the context of the criminal proceedings commenced in 2005, charged the first applicant with economic crimes and fraud and placed her on a wanted list.\n22.  On 6 September 2006 the prosecutor of the Kopetdagsky District of Ashgabat remanded the first applicant in custody.\n23.  On 10 October 2006 the Turkmen authorities sent the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia a request to extradite the first applicant.\n24.  On 15 December 2006 the first applicant learned from the deputy prosecutor of Donskoy town that an “extradition check” was being cond", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5397", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 12 August 2003 a Ms T. lodged a complaint with the Kuzminskiy District Prosecutor's Office of Moscow alleging that she had been kidnapped and raped by a group of men.\n7.  On 13 August 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and rape.\n8.  On 14 August 2003 the District Court authorised the applicant's detention pending trial. The applicant was represented by counsel of his own choosing.\n9.  According to the applicant, he could not appeal against the decision of 14 August 2003 since he was not provided with stationery by the administration of the temporary detention facility where he was being held at the time.\n10.  On 8 October 2003 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant's pre-trial detention until 12 December 2003. The applicant attended the hearing. His counsel asked the court to consider the case in his absence and did not appear at the hearing. The applicant was represented by a court-appointed lawyer.\n11.  On 14 October 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal against the court order of 8 October 2003. He asked the appeal court to ensure his and his lawyer's presence at the hearing.\n12.  On 3 November 2003 the Moscow City Court examined the appeal. The hearing was held in the absence of the applicant and his counsel. The prosecutor considered that the applicant's appeal should be dismissed. The City Court found that the extension of the applicant's pre-trial detention was in accordance with the law and upheld the decision of 8 October 2003.\n13.  The District Court further extended the applicant's detention pending trial. Extensions were granted at the prosecutor's request on 3 December 2003 and 10 February 2004. The City Court upheld those decisions on appeal on 21 January and 9 March 2004 respectively. The applicant did not provide any other details in respect of the detention orders.\n14.  On several occasions in 2004 the applicant asked the investigator to question additional witnesses and examine forensic evidence. The investigator dismissed the applicant's requests, indicating, inter alia, that:\n“The guilt of [the defendants] ha[d] been fully proved”.\n15.  On 30 January 2004 the District Court dismissed the applicant's complaint about the prosecutor's refusal to open a criminal investigation against the police officers who had allegedly ill-treated him during his arrest. The applicant did not appeal.\n16.  On 1 April 2004 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow received the case file.\n17.  On 20 December 2004 the District Court found the applicant guilty of kidnapping and rape and sentenced him to four and a half years' imprisonment.\n18.  On 19 April 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant's conviction on appeal.\n19.  From 13 to 20 August 2003 the applicant was held in cell no. 2 of the Maryinskiy temporary detention facility. The cell measured 8 sq. m. The applicant was detained there alone. According to him, the cell was poorly lit, and the cement floor was dirty. The cell was infested with bedbugs and other insects. The corners were covered in cobwebs. No bed sheets, mattresses or blankets were provided. The radio was left on during the whole night. Water was available twice a day. There was no sink and the applicant had to wash himself over the toilet. The applicant received one meal a day.\n20.  On 20 August 2003 the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. 77/1. On arrival he was placed in a cubicle measuring 1 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5398", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Knyszyn.\n6.  At the material time the applicant was the President of the City Council in Knyszyn (Przewodniczący Rady Miasta).\n7.  On 30 December 2004 a session of the City Council took place. One of the points on the agenda was a vote on whether to adopt a resolution requesting the Education Inspector (Kurator Oświaty) to give a positive report on the continued operation of the Knyszyn School Complex (Zespół Szkół Ogólnokształcących w Knyszynie). Since 1998, the manager of the school complex had been K. Ch.\n8.  During the session on 30 December 2004 the applicant, together with other representatives, voted against the planned resolution. The City Council adopted another resolution and decided that they would not request from the Education Inspector a positive report referred to above.\n9.  At the next session of the City Council, on 28 February 2005, further discussion about the future of the school complex was held. During the session the applicant took the floor and presented some arguments which in his view supported the resolution adopted on 30 December 2004. The applicant accused K. Ch of:\n-  adopting an inappropriate timetable, unjustified division of students into groups, increasing overtime, which caused additional costs;\n-  ismanagement of the school complex finances, increase of heating costs;\n-  reating the school complex as private property, the lease of school premises without remuneration;\n-  poor organisation of the students' free time during the school holidays;\n-  spending money on teachers' training which was not appropriate or objective and which did not correspond to the school's needs;\n-  lack of discipline at school;\n-  irresponsibility – organising a disco above a room in which a mock exam was being held;\n-  failure to appoint the school council;\n-  failure to adopt clear and transparent rules for granting awards to teachers; awards were granted publicly to some and in private to others;\n-  failure to provide reliable information on granting “incentive bonuses” to teachers;\n-  granting overtime work only to certain teachers;\n-  failure to advertise the school complex;\n-  failure to cooperate with the municipality;\n-  disorder in the teachers' personal files;\n-  intimidating teachers with threats that they would be fired or deprived of bonus payments, and so on;\n-  inadequate educational standards; only ten out of twenty-six students passed their final exams.\n10.  K. Ch., the school manager, found the accusations defamatory and untrue. He demanded that the applicant provide the participants at the session with evidence substantiating his allegations.\n11.  The events that took place during the session of the City Council on 28 February 2005 were subsequently described in an article published in the local edition and on the internet site of Gazeta Współczesna and on the internet site of the Mońki Municipality.\n12.  On 4 April 2005 K. Ch. lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant with the Białystok District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), complaining that the applicant's statements of 28 February 2005 were defamatory.\n13.  On 2 December 2005 the Białystok District Court found the applicant guilty of presenting untrue statements during the session of the City Council as regards the performance of K. Ch. in his professional duties, which amounted to defamation which could impact negatively on the necessary public respect and esteem required by K. Ch. in the execution", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5399", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently detained at the detention centre in Chełmno.\n5.  On an unspecified date at the beginning of 1999 a criminal investigation was opened against the applicant.\n6.  On 18 June 1999 the applicant was indicted before the Świecie District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) on charges of burglaries committed in the period between 9 December 1998 and 17 February 1999. The bill of indictment concerned also five other accused.\n7.  The first hearings listed for 26 and 27 October 1999 were cancelled due to the judge rapporteur's reassignment to another court.\n8.  Hearings which were to be held on 8 and 9 December 1999 were adjourned as one of the co-accused failed to appear.\n9.  On 1 March 2000 the first hearing took place.\n10.  Further hearings were held on 22 March, 12 April and 17 May 2000.\n11.  The hearing listed for 7 June 2000 was adjourned.\n12.  On 12 July and 25 August 2000 the next hearings took place.\n13.  The hearing listed for 12 October 2000 was adjourned due to the absence of one of the co-accused.\n14.  On 21 November and 20 December 2000 the court held hearings.\n15.  On 26 January 2001 the court decided to recommence the trial from the beginning owing to the necessity of the participation of the applicant's lawyer. The court ordered also that an expert report be obtained in order to determine the applicant's mental condition.\n16.  The hearing listed for 2 March 2001 was cancelled due to the fact that the judge rapporteur had been changed.\n17.  The next hearing was not scheduled until 13 August 2003. However, it was adjourned four times until 31 March 2004 due to the absence of the co-accused – a certain Z.W.\n18.  In the following period until 3 December 2007, 11 hearings were held and 17 others were adjourned or cancelled. In particular, all hearings scheduled in the period between 12 April and 13 October 2005 were adjourned.\n19.  On 3 December 2007 a new judge rapporteur was assigned to the case.\n20.  During the hearing scheduled for 25 January 2008 the court decided that it was necessary to conduct the proceedings from the beginning. The court adjourned the hearing on the request of the applicant.\n21.  Subsequently, the court held hearings on the following dates: 28 March, 15 May and 25 August 2008.\n22.  On 20 January 2009 the Świecie District Court sentenced the applicant to one year and three months' imprisonment. It appears that the applicant failed to appeal and the judgment became final.\n23.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). He sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Gliwice District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 15,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n24.  On 8 July 2008 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. The court found that the Świecie District Court had undertaken the necessary steps to conclude the proceedings. The court stressed, in particular, that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the unjustified inactivity on the part of the trial court. Instead, he had generally only claimed that the proceeding had lasted too long.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5400", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Kranj.\n6.  On 7 July 2001 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The motorist responsible for the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company Zavarovalnica Maribor d.d.\n7.  On 17 October 2001 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the insurance company in the Kranj District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Kranju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,187,433.00 Slovenian tolars (approximately 4,966 euros) for the injuries sustained.\n8.  Between 7 May 2002 and 20 September 2006 the applicant lodged four sets of preliminary written submissions.\n9.  Between 4 September 2002 and 8 October 2004 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.\n10.  Between 24 January and 21 September 2006 three hearings were held.\n11.  On 23 February 2007 the applicant informed the first-instance court that he wished to withdraw the claim.\n12.  On 30 March 2007 the Kranj District Court issued a decision that the proceedings be discontinued, following an out-of-court settlement between the parties.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5401", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Bautzen.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicant had been a member of the German Democratic Republic police service since December 1975. In 1990 he became an employee (Angestellter) of the police service of the Federal Republic of Germany and with effect from 1 January 1992 was appointed police officer in the capacity of civil servant on probation (Beamtenverhältnis auf Probe).\n7.  On the occasion of a car accident that occurred on 8 August 1992 while the applicant was on duty, his shoulder and head were injured. The accident was recognised as an occupational accident by the relevant authorities. Due to his injuries the applicant was on sick leave until 21 March 1993. From 8 April 1994 he was certified permanently unfit for service by his doctor.\n8.  By a letter dated 8 December 1994 the applicant was informed by the Dresden Police Headquarters (Polizeipräsidium) that it was intending to dismiss him from his duties on the ground that he lacked the necessary professional qualifications for his post.\n9.  By a decision of 23 February 1995 his probationary period was extended until 31 December 1995.\n10.  On the basis of a medical expert opinion obtained at the request of the Medical Service of the Dresden Police Headquarters on 27 January 1995, which established that the applicant was suffering from personality disorders and organic brain damage which were unlikely to be consequences of the said car accident, the Medical Service certified on 26 July 1995 that the applicant was permanently unfit for the police service and expressed its concerns regarding his appointment as a civil servant for life.\n11.  On 2 August 1995 the applicant was informed that it was intended to dismiss him from the police service on the ground that he lacked the necessary physical fitness to carry out his duties. The applicant asked for the involvement of the District Staff Council (Bezirkspersonalrat) and pointed out that his state of health would justify his retirement. The District Staff Council approved the dismissal on 15 August 1995.\n12.  On 24 August 1995 the Dresden Police Headquarters ordered the applicant’s dismissal on the ground that he was physically incapable of performing his functions as a police officer. It further ordered the immediate enforcement of its decision.\n13.  By a letter dated 6 September 1995 the applicant objected to the Police Headquarters’ notice of dismissal, giving as a reason that his state of health was a consequence of an occupational accident and was no fault of his own.\n14.  On 11 September 1995 he applied to the Dresden Administrative Court for reinstatement of the suspensive effect (Wiederherstellung der aufschiebenden Wirkung) of his objection in accordance with the relevant provisions of domestic law. The Dresden Police Headquarters thereupon lifted the order for the immediate enforcement of the dismissal order by letter dated 15 September 1995.\n15.  By a decision of 26 February 1996, which was served on the applicant on 1 March 1996, the Dresden Police Headquarters dismissed the applicant’s objection of 6 September 1995 and reordered the immediate enforcement of the dismissal order of 24 August 1995. They found that the applicant’s incapacity was not a consequence of the said car accident but of unrelated physical and mental conditions and that he was thus not eligible for retirement and to claim pension benefi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5402", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1964 and previously resided in the town of Baku, in the Republic of Azerbaijan.\n8.  He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in penitentiary establishment IK-4 in the town of Vyazniki of the Vladimir Region, Russia.\n9.  On 26 February 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having taken part in multiple episodes of organised armed robbery, along with eight other people.\n10.  Since that date he has remained in custody.\n11.  On 28 February 2004 the Frunzenskiy District Court of the town of Vladimir (“the District Court”), having heard submissions from a prosecutor and from the applicant in person, authorised the applicant's arrest and pre­trial detention.\n12.  The court examined the materials of the case file and noted that the applicant was suspected of having committed a series of particularly serious crimes, had no fixed place of residence, work or registration in Russia, that he was a foreign national, that there were grounds to believe that being at large the applicant might flee from justice or continue his criminal activity, and that the application of less drastic preventive measures was generally not justified.\n13.  It does not appear that the applicant brought appeal proceedings in respect of this detention order.\n14.  On 2 March 2004 the charges were brought against the applicant on suspicion of his involvement in multiple episodes of organised armed robbery.\n15.  Subsequently, on an unspecified date, the applicant's case was merged with other cases which concerned the applicant's criminal activity in the Vladimir, Ivanovo and Saratov Regions.\n16.  By order of 22 April 2004 the District Court, having heard submissions from the applicant, his counsel and the prosecutor, extended the applicant's detention until 6 July 2004, for a total period of 4 months and 10 days.\n17.  The court mentioned the same reasons as in the order of 28 February 2004, adding that the applicant could put pressure on other participants in the criminal case, attempt to eliminate evidence and otherwise impede the proceedings.\n18.  The decision also noted the need to finalise investigative actions in the Vladimir, Ivanovo and Saratov Regions. The prosecutor estimated that these actions could take at least two months and ten days. The court examined the materials in the case file as collected so far and agreed with the investigator's reasons.\n19.  It does not appear that the applicant brought appeal proceedings in respect of this decision.\n20.  On 6 July 2004 the District Court extended the pre-trial detention until 6 September 2004, for a total period of 6 months and 10 days. The court noted that the applicant had been accused of a serious crime, that he was unemployed, and that from the case-file materials it followed that further investigative actions were required.\n21.  According to the court, there was reason to believe that being at large the applicant might flee, continue his criminal activity or impede the criminal proceedings.\n22.  It is not clear whether the judge heard submissions from the applicant or his counsel in person or whether any appeal proceedings were brought in respect of this extension.\n23.  On 25 August 2004 further charges were brought against the applicant on account of other alleged criminal activity on his part.\n24.  On 6 September 2004 the applicant's pre-trial detention was further extended by the District Court, this time until 6 November 2004, for a total period of 8 months. The ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5403", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Berlin.\n5.  The applicant is 80 % physically disabled. On 23 July 2001 the applicant submitted a request to the Berlin Pensions and Allowances Office for an allowance on the basis of his reduced earning capacity. The Pensions and Allowances Office dismissed the request on 29 October 2001 on the grounds that the applicant was still able to work for more than six hours a day.\n6.  On 26 November 2001 the applicant lodged an administrative objection, which was rejected on 26 February 2002.\n7.  On 12 March 2002 the applicant brought an action before the Berlin Social Court. On 6 May 2002 the Social Court requested further documentation, which the applicant submitted on 3 June 2002. On 14 June 2002 the Social Court commissioned a socio-medical expert report. The expert report was completed on 22 July 2002.\n8.  On 7 April 2003 the applicant suggested that a neurological-psychological expert report be commissioned. The Berlin Pensions and Allowances Office proposed an expert, to whom the applicant objected, for the neurological-psychological report. On 21 May 2003 the Social Court commissioned the report from a different expert. On 23 April 2003 and on 20 August 2003 the applicant submitted further medical documents. On 18 December 2003 the applicant received the neurological-psychological expert report dated 9 December 2003, and commented on it on 5 January 2004. On 19 January 2004 the applicant requested that the neurological-psychological expert amend his report.\n9.  The applicant suggested commissioning an orthopaedic expert report, which the Social Court did on 14 January 2004. On 23 March 2004 the applicant received the orthopaedic expert report, dated 15 March 2004.\n10.  On 3 November 2004 the Social Court asked the parties whether they agreed to a decision without a further oral hearing; on 16 November 2004 the applicant refused to agree. On 17 January 2005 a scheduled hearing could not take place as one of the lay judges had fallen ill in the morning; on the same day, the parties agreed to a decision through the written procedure.\n11.  On 2 August 2005 and 1 September 2005 the applicant requested a progress report. The Social Court’s judgment of 20 June 2005 was served on the applicant on 17 October 2005. It partially granted the applicant’s action. It rejected the applicant’s request in relation to an allowance for fully or partially reduced earning capacity, but awarded an allowance for incapacity to work.\n12.  On 10 November 2005 the Berlin Pensions and Allowances Office lodged an appeal with the Berlin-Brandenburg Social Court of Appeal. The Social Court of Appeal informed the applicant on 31 January 2006 that he had yet to submit his respondent’s brief in the appeal proceedings; he did so on 21 February 2006. On 18 April, 22 May, and 2 June 2006 the applicant made further submissions.\n13.  On 14 July 2006 the judge rapporteur responsible for the appeals proceedings became unable to work due to illness. The president’s office assigned a different judge, who was delegated for one year from the labour court, to the chamber dealing with the case.\n14.  On 26 July 2006 the Social Court of Appeal requested information from the applicant’s former employer, which it received on 1 August 2006. On 28 July 2006 the applicant submitted a medical certificate. On 1 August 2006 the Social Court of Appeal stayed the execution of the first-instance judgment. On 3 November 2006, 22 January 2007, and 29", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5404", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Bad Berleburg.\n6.  The applicant has a daughter who was born out of wedlock on 25 July 1997. He lived with the mother of the child from April 1997 until their separation on 29 June 1998. The daughter remained with the mother.\n7.  Following a request of the applicant for regulation of his contact rights lodged with the Bad Berleburg District Court (Amtsgericht), the parents concluded an agreement on 2 August 1999, pursuant to which the applicant had the right to have contact with the child every Sunday from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. The last contact between the applicant and his daughter took place on 24 October 1999.\n8.  In November 1999 the mother and the daughter moved from Bad Berleburg to Stralsund without notifying the applicant. The mother has refused to allow any further contact between the applicant and the child ever since.\n9.  On 20 January 2000 the applicant lodged a request with the Stralsund District Court for a new regulation of his contact rights on the ground that following his daughter’s move to Stralsund the considerable distance between their respective places of domicile required a review of the relevant stipulations in the agreement concluded on 2 August 1999. The mother objected by written submissions dated 16 February 2000, alleging that following meetings between the applicant and their daughter prior to her move to Stralsund, the latter had shown signs of behavioural disorders.\n10.  The Stralsund District Court obtained the opinions of the Siegen Wittgenstein District’s and Stralsund Youth Welfare Offices dated 9 and 29 March 2000, respectively stating that the mother alleged that the applicant had sexually abused their daughter on the occasion of previous reunions.\n11.  On 15 May 2000 the Stralsund District Court held a first hearing.\nOn 18 May 2000 the District Court ordered a psychological expert report, which was rendered on 14 July 2000. The expert opinion did not confirm the mother’s allegations of sexual abuse and recommended a regulation of the applicant’s contact rights in the interest of the child’s welfare.\n12.  On 14 August 2000 the District Court scheduled a second hearing for 18 September 2000, which was postponed at the request of the mother’s lawyer and finally cancelled following notification by the applicant that he and his lawyer were not able to attend on the rescheduled date.\n13.  By a letter to the District Court dated 13 October 2000 the applicant pointed out that the mother had meanwhile refused him contact with the child for almost a year, and asked for an indication when a further hearing in the matter would take place.\n14.  On 26 October 2000 the District Court scheduled a hearing for 16 November 2000, which was postponed to 25 January 2001 at the request of the mother’s lawyer. The District Court heard the parents, the appointed expert, the representative of the Stralsund Welfare Office and an expert witness presented by the mother.\n15.  By decision of 14 February 2001, the Stralsund District Court held that the suspicion of sexual abuse had not been confirmed and granted the applicant the right to have supervised contact with the child from 9 am to 12 midday every third Friday of the month, in the presence of a representative of the Stralsund Youth Welfare Office.\nThe decision was served on the applicant on 10 April 2001.\n16.  On 9 May 2001 the mother lodged an appeal with the Rostock Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) asking for the rejection ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5405", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in Vienna.\n6.  In 2002 the applicant company published a book about K., Federal President of Austria at that time, and his family. The book included a passage suggesting that K. had forced his wife to undergo an abortion in the Netherlands. It was distributed to bookshops on 9 April 2002.\n7.  On 22 April 2002 the Vienna Commercial Court (Handelsgericht) issued a preliminary injunction (einstweilige Verfügung) against the applicant company prohibiting it from disseminating statements concerning the alleged abortion. The preliminary injunction became enforceable on 24 April 2002.\n8.  Since the applicant company allegedly did not comply, K. and his wife requested the enforcement of the injunction (Unterlassungsexekution). This request was granted by the Innere Stadt Vienna District Court (Bezirksgericht) on 2 May 2002.\n9.  On 3 May 2002 the District Court, upon request of the opposing party, imposed for the first time a fine of EUR 10,000 on the applicant company for failure to comply with the injunction.\n10.  On the basis of the enforcement order of 2 May 2002 the District Court subsequently, upon request of the opposing party, imposed fines between EUR 10,000 and EUR 75,000 on the applicant company 36 times, since the applicant company was found still not to have complied with injunction of 22 April 2002. All 37 decisions included costs orders, which amounted to EUR 741.76 in each case.\n11.  The applicant company appealed against the enforcement order of 2 May 2002 to the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht). It also opposed the 37 fines which had subsequently been imposed on it. On 12 June 2002 the Vienna Regional Court quashed the decision of 2 May 2002, by which enforcement of the injunction had been granted, because, on the basis of the preliminary injunction, the applicant company could not be ordered to dispose of the books which had already been disseminated before the entry into force of that injunction. Subsequently, on 26 July 2002, the Regional Court also quashed all 37 decisions imposing fines and cost orders on the applicant company.\n12.  On an unspecified date K. and his wife lodged extraordinary appeals against the decisions of the Regional Court.\n13.  On 18 December 2002 the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) gave a lengthy judgment on the appeals against the Regional Court's decisions of 12 June 2002 and 26 July 2002. Whereas the Supreme Court agreed with the Regional Court that the injunction ordering the applicant company not to distribute the book in question could not relate to copies of the book which had already been distributed to book shops, it found it established that the applicant company had also offered the book for mail order on its internet site. In this respect the applicant company had not complied with the injunction and enforcement through imposition of fines was in those instances justified.\n14.  In the operative part of its judgment the Supreme Court accordingly granted the appeal in so far as it related to the imposition of fines in 11 cases, namely as regards decisions no. 4, 6, 8-11, 13, 14 and 18-20.\n15.  As regards decision no. 4 the Supreme Court reformulated it to cover only a breach of the injunction for offering the book on the internet site, reduced the fine to EUR 1,000 but upheld the cost order of EUR 741.76.\n16.  As regards the remaining 10 decisions the Supreme Court likewise held the applicant company responsible for a b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5407", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Düsseldorf.\n5.  The applicant and his brother are the only grandchildren and heirs of their grandmother who died in 1988.\n6.  In a will recorded by a notary on 27 February 1982 the grandmother appointed the applicant and his brother heirs of her estate in equal parts and bestowed on the applicant’s brother, by means of a preferential legacy (Vorausvermächtnis), her participation in an enterprise. By a notarial deed of 2 December 1982 she supplemented the previous legacy and further assigned a plot of land with a house built on it to the applicant’s brother.\n7.  On 4 May 1983 the grandmother concluded a notarial contract of inheritance (Erbvertrag) with the applicant. The contract amends the previous wills in so far as the applicant was assigned the grandmother’s deposit and securities accounts (Depot- und Wertpapierkonten) as well as her entire real property including the plot of land that had previously been bequeathed to the applicant’s brother.\n8.  On 4 January 1984 the Charlottenburg District Court appointed a guardian for the then ninety-year-old grandmother. On 21 and 22 February 1984 the grandmother as well as the guardian challenged the contract of inheritance for error and fraudulent misrepresentation (Irrtum und arglistige Täuschung). They claimed that the grandmother had only entered into the contract because the applicant had pretended that this was necessary to achieve equal treatment for her grandsons, whereas in reality such equal treatment had already been achieved by her wills of 27 February 1982 and 2 December 1982.\n9.  On 23 February 1988 the grandmother, represented by her guardian, instituted proceedings before the Düsseldorf Regional Court (Landgericht) against the applicant, alleging that the contract of inheritance of 4 May 1983 was null and void.\n10.  A hearing took place on 2 November 1988.\n11.  On 22 February 1989 the applicant lodged a counterclaim.\n12.  Following the grandmother’s death the applicant’s brother, by written submissions of 31 May 1989, declared that he wished to continue the proceedings as a plaintiff.\n13.  By written submissions of 9 October 1989 the applicant requested that the action be dismissed and requested that his brother be obliged to consent to the division of the deceased’s estate pursuant to the terms and conditions as stipulated in the contract of inheritance dated 4 May 1983 since the latter was valid.\n14.  A hearing that was scheduled for 31 October 1989 was not attended by the applicant’s brother and therefore postponed to 21 November 1989.\n15.  On 28 February 1990 the Düsseldorf Regional Court ordered the hearing of witnesses including in particular the notaries who had recorded the wills and the contract of inheritance as well as the taking of an expert opinion regarding the value of the deceased’s participation in the enterprise. On 27 March 1990 the Chamber of Industry and Commerce suggested two possible experts.\n16.  In the following, hearings had to be postponed on several occasions by the Regional Court on the ground that the witnesses were unable to attend at the scheduled dates or had to be exempted from their professional obligation of confidentiality.  On 7 November 1990 a hearing took place, on the occasion of which, inter alia, the notary who had been involved in the recording of the deceased’s legacies in 1982 was heard as witness.\n17.  On 15 March 1991 the notary who had recorded the contract of inheritance of 4 May ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5408", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979. At the material time he lived in the town of Kalush, Ivano-Frankivsk Region.\n6.  At about 4 p.m. on 17 May 2003, when the applicant was driving from Ivano-Frankivsk to Kalush, he was stopped by police because they had received information that the applicant, who had previously been convicted of theft, might have been involved in recent burglaries committed in the neighbourhood.\n7.  When searching the applicant's car, the police officers seized an adjustable wrench, gloves, two pocket torches and some other things. They further allegedly found in the car and the applicant's pocket small amounts of cannabis. According to the applicant, he had no cannabis on him and there was none in his car.\n8.  Following the search, the police officers decided to formalise the applicant's arrest under Articles 44 and 263 of the Administrative Offences Code for possession of illegal drugs in small amounts (administrative offence). In the meantime they sent the seized adjustable wrench to an expert for an opinion as to whether it might have been used to break down the doors of the recently burgled apartments.\n9.  During the questioning, the applicant informed the police officers that the cannabis did not belong to him and stated that it had been planted on him and his car by the police officers. In response the applicant was allegedly beaten up.\n10.  According to the applicant, he was hung over a horizontal crowbar when handcuffed and with his head pointing downwards; when held in this position, he was threatened with being killed.\n11.  On 20 May 2003, after the expert confirmed that the adjustable wrench had been used for a number of burglaries, the police officers took the applicant to the investigator, who at 1 a.m. on 21 May 2003 formalised the applicant's further detention in the status of criminal suspect in respect of the burglaries.\n12.  When questioned, the applicant rejected the accusations of burglary. In response, he was allegedly beaten up by police officers. According to the applicant, he was hung over a horizontal crowbar when handcuffed and with his head pointing downwards; when he was in that position his head was beaten with a plastic bottle filled with water and his feet with a wooden bat; a gas mask filled with liquid was placed over his head, which made it impossible to breathe. During this treatment the applicant lost consciousness several times and when he came round he was told he had to confess to the crimes. Finally, he signed a confession to one burglary. Subsequently, he signed a number of other documents given to him by police officers.\n13.  During the night of 24 May 2003 the applicant, still being detained at the police station, asked to use the toilet. When allowed to use it, he cut his left-hand arterial vein. When the resultant bleeding was seen he was delivered to a local public hospital. The same day, having been provided with the requisite medical assistance, the applicant was released. The medical examinations and treatment provided to the applicant in connection with that injury were documented by medical officers.\n14.  On 26 May 2003 medical officers examined the applicant and issued a medical report. According to the letter of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Prosecutor's Office (“the Regional Prosecutor's Office”) of 16 October 2003, the report attested that the applicant had suffered (in addition to the cut on the left arm) three abrasions to his right shoulder and arm, three bruise", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5409", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Ipteh SA, is a company incorporated in Moldova. The other applicants are Worldway Limited (“the second applicant company”) – a company incorporated in the United Kingdom and holder of 35.29% of the shares of the first applicant; Kapital Invest SA (“the third applicant company”) – a company incorporated in Romania and holder of 49.63% of the shares of the first applicant; and Ion Rusu (“the fourth applicant”) – a Romanian national born in 1962, living in Iaşi and holder of 11.72% of the shares of the first applicant company.\n6.  At the end of the 1990s, Ipteh SA and a third company, I., were owners of a six-floor building located on the main boulevard of Chişinău (“the building”). Both companies were State-owned and had as their only asset different parts of the building.\n7.  In 1999 the State decided to privatise the companies and sold their shares to a private company, U.\n8.  In 2000 and 2001 the new owner of the companies transferred all parts of the building to the first applicant company.\n9.  Also in 2000 the former director of the first applicant company challenged the privatisation in the courts. However, his action was dismissed by a final judgment of the Economic Court of the Republic of Moldova of 11 July 2000, the courts having found that the privatisation had been legal in all respects.\n10.  In July 2001 the fourth applicant bought 141,772 shares in the first applicant company.\n11.  In August 2001 the second applicant company bought the rest of the shares of the first applicant company.\n12.  In August 2006 the first applicant company issued 510,000 new shares and sold them to the third applicant company.\n13.  On an unspecified date in 2002 the Prime Minister requested the Prosecutor General's Office to conduct an investigation into the lawfulness of the privatisation. On 17 February 2002 the Prosecutor General informed the Prime Minister that he had verified the lawfulness of the privatisation and had found it to be “in strict compliance with the legislation in force”. The Prosecutor General also informed the Prime Minister that the lawfulness of the privatisation had been thoroughly verified during the proceedings ending with the final judgment of 11 July 2000.\n14.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the President of Moldova requested the Prosecutor General's Office to examine the possibility of challenging the privatisation of 1999. In a letter of 26 June 2003 the Prosecutor General informed President V. Voronin that the transaction had been lawful and that there were no grounds to challenge it. Moreover, he indicated that after the entry into force of the new Code of Civil Procedure on 12 June 2003 it had become impossible to bring an appeal in cassation against the final judgment of 11 July 2000.\n15.  On 19 April 2007 the Prosecutor General's Office instituted proceedings on behalf of the State in which it contested the lawfulness of the 1999 privatisation of the first applicant company and of company I. on the ground that two Government regulations concerning the sale of State- owned shares had been breached. In particular, the Prosecutor argued that the size of the down payment made by company U. was smaller than the one provided in the regulations and that the final price offered for the shares had been too low. The Prosecutor relied on Article 50 of the Civil Code as a legal basis for his action (see paragraph 16 below). As a consequence of the alleged illegality of the privatisation, the Prosecut", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5410", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  The applicant filed claims with the Budapest Labour Court on 25 August and 7 September 1993, respectively, alleging unlawful dismissal by, and claiming compensation from, his former employer (“proceedings A and B”).\n6.  On 30 November 1993 the applicant and 182 other plaintiffs including three trade unions – one of which was represented by the applicant as a member of its legal advice service – filed an action with the same court claiming unlawful legal succession of their former employer (“proceedings C”).\n7.  Following a successful motion for bias by the applicant, the Pest County Labour Court was appointed to hear both cases on 13 December 1994. On 22 November and 20 December 1995, respectively, the Labour Court ordered the suspension of the proceedings pending the outcome of proceedings C.\n8.  On 12 August 2002 the applicant requested that both cases be resumed, since proceedings B had been discontinued by the appeal court (see paragraph 16 below).\n9.  The Labour Court gave judgments dismissing the applicant's actions on 22 January and 22 April 2004, respectively.\n10.  On appeal, the Pest County Regional Court delivered judgments, partly accepting the applicant's claims, on 10 June 2005. These decisions were served on the applicant on 3 August and 5 September 2005, respectively. Concerning one of them, a rectification order was issued on 7 September 2005.\n11.  On 2 December 1994 the Budapest Labour Court dismissed the action in respect of 123 plaintiffs including the applicant. On 25 August 1995 the Supreme Court appointed the Veszprém County Regional Court to hear the appeal. On 14 February 1996 this court quashed the first-instance decision for formal shortcomings, holding that the applicant had not been authorised to represent some co-plaintiffs.\n12.  On 26 February 1997 the Pest County Labour Court was appointed to hear the case.\n13.  On 21 April 1998 the applicant requested supplementation of the order of 2 October 1996. On 28 October 1998 the Veszprém County Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request.\n14.  The Labour Court held hearings on 18 January, 11 March and 20 May 1999 and delivered a judgment on 27 May 1999. On appeal, on 3 November 1999 the Pest County Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case. On 18 February 2000 the applicant requested the rectification and supplementation of this decision which was done on 19 June 2000.\n15.  The Labour Court held further hearings on 21 December 2000 and 18 January 2001. On 26 March 2001 it delivered a judgment dismissing the action in respect of most plaintiffs including the applicant, and discontinuing the proceedings in respect of others. On appeal, the Pest County Regional Court held hearings on 8 October and 26 November 2001. On 15 October 2001 the respondents declared that they would not claim costs from those plaintiffs who withdrew their action and appeal.\n16.  On 8 February 2002 the applicant informed the court that, like other plaintiffs, he withdrew his action and appeal. On 18 February 2002 the Regional Court discontinued the proceedings. This decision was served on the applicant on 6 August 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5411", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Varaždin.\n5.  On 30 March 1988 the applicant brought a civil action in the Varaždin Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Varaždinu) against a certain J.V., seeking to recover possession of a house in Varaždin, claiming that the house had been donated to him. In his statement of claim (tužba) he indicated 1,000,000 former Yugoslav dinars (YUD) as the value of the subject matter of the dispute.\n6.  In his submission to the court of 1 March 2001 the applicant indicated that the value of the subject matter of the dispute was 101,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) and explained that he had adjusted the value in line with inflation, the change of currency (see paragraphs 20-22 below) and the increase of his claim.\n7.  On 25 September 2001 the applicant amended his claim, seeking also to register ownership of the house in his name in the land register.\n8.  On 5 July 2002 the Municipal Court ruled against the applicant. On 26 November 2002 the Varaždin County Court (Županijski sud u Varaždinu) dismissed an appeal (žalba protiv presude) by the applicant and upheld the first-instance judgment.\n9.  On 6 March 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija protiv presude) against the second-instance judgment. On 26 March 2003 the Varaždin Municipal Court declared his appeal on points of law inadmissible ratione valoris because it considered that the value of the subject matter of the dispute was below the statutory threshold of HRK 100,000. It found that the value of the subject matter of the dispute indicated by the applicant in his statement of claim had been YUD 1,000,000, which, when converted into kunas, was HRK 1 (one kuna).\n10.  The applicant appealed against that decision (žalba protiv rješenja), arguing, inter alia, that in his submission of 1 March 2001 he had adjusted the value of the subject matter of the dispute and that the new value exceeded the statutory threshold of HRK 100,000. On 20 May 2003 the Varaždin County Court dismissed his appeal. It held that, pursuant to the Civil Procedure Act, the relevant value of the subject matter of the dispute was the one indicated by the plaintiff in the statement of claim and that subsequent changes were of no relevance. It also corrected the calculation of the first-instance court, stating that, when converted into kunas, the value of the subject matter of the dispute which the applicant had indicated in his statement of claim in fact amounted to only HRK 0.10 (ten lipas).\n11.  The applicant then lodged with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) a procedural appeal on points of law (revizija protiv rješenja) against that decision. On 25 February 2004 the Supreme Court, sitting as a panel composed of judges B.G., V.P.R., I.M., P.M. and G.G., quashed the lower-instances' decisions of 26 March and 20 May 2003. It held that, while it was true that the relevant value of the subject matter of a dispute was the one indicated by the plaintiff in the statement of claim, that rule did not apply if the plaintiff subsequently amended his or her claim. Because, in the present case, the applicant did amend his claim in his submission of 25 September 2001, in which he also demanded costs corresponding to the new value of the subject matter of the dispute indicated in his previous submission of 1 March 2001, the Supreme Court concluded that the applicant's appeal on points of law of 6 March 2003 was admissible. The Supreme Court returned the case t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5412", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Kopeysk in the Chelyabinsk Region.\n6.  On 5 December 2003 the applicant was taken into custody in connection with criminal proceedings against him and placed in Chelyabinsk remand prison no. IZ-74/1. On the same day he had a medical examination including an X-ray of his lungs, which revealed no signs of tuberculosis.\n7.  On various dates between 25 December 2003 and 5 August 2004 the applicant was taken from the remand prison to the temporary detention centre (IVS) located on the premises of the Kopeysk police department. His stays in the centre lasted at least overnight and up to four consecutive days. In total, he spent thirty-six days there.\n8.  The building in which the Kopeysk IVS was located had been constructed in 1935. Since it had been designed for short-term detention only, its cells were not equipped with flush toilets or running water. Instead, water tanks and water fountains were put at the inmates' disposal. The toilet was located in the courtyard.\n9.  The applicant submitted that all ten cells of the Kopeysk IVS had been overcrowded and had housed up to six persons. The one-hour outdoor exercise was divided between ten cells, with the consequence that each cell was only allowed some six minutes for outdoor exercise and a visit to the toilet. The Government claimed that it was impossible to establish the number of detainees because the documents had been destroyed upon the expiry of the statutory storage period.\n10.  The cells were furnished with bunk beds but no mattresses or bed linen were given to inmates. In the absence of dining tables, inmates had to eat while sitting on the beds or on the floor.\n11.  According to the applicant, cells were infested with insects and small rodents. The Government denied that allegation and submitted that the IVS had regularly undergone disinfection and rat extermination.\n12.  The applicant complained to the prosecutor's office about the conditions of his detention.\n13.  On 9 August 2004 the Kopeysk town prosecutor sent a formal representation to the acting head of the Kopeysk IVS, requiring him to remedy “most serious violations of the law and of orders of the Ministry of the Interior” which had been established by an inquiry instituted upon numerous complaints from inmates held in the Kopeysk IVS. The representation read in particular as follows:\n“The conditions of detention in the Kopeysk IVS do not meet hygienic and sanitary requirements. Each cell accommodates on average six persons, which is in excess of the maximum population.\nSanitary and hygienic conditions in the Kopeysk IVS have remained unsatisfactory:\n14.  On 4 September 2004 the applicant underwent a medical examination in prison hospital no. GLPU-17 and was diagnosed with tuberculosis.\n15.  In 2005, the prosecutor's office for the Chelyabinsk Region launched a comprehensive review of the conditions of detention in the IVS facilities of the Chelyabinsk Region. On 16 September 2005 the regional prosecutor sent a formal representation to the head of the regional Department of the Interior. He noted that the conditions of detention in a large majority of regional IVS facilities were in breach of the requirements of the Detention of Suspects Act (see below). In the Kopeysk IVS, among others, the sanitary norm of no less than four sq. metres of personal space per inmate was not respected and detainees were not allowed to go outdoors for exercise.\n1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5413", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Osijek.\n5.  On 19 September 2007 the applicant was indicted in the Osijek Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Osijeku) on charges of aggravated larceny. On 6 December 2007 the Osijek Municipal Court appointed D. Omrčen as defence counsel for the applicant.\n6.  On 12 December 2007 the Osijek Municipal Court ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted against him. The relevant part of the decision reads:\n“... the defendant Ðerđet Hađi has been charged with repeated criminal offences of aggravated larceny under Article 217 § 1(1) of the C[riminal] C[ode] which he committed on fifteen occasions between 17 December 2006 and 27 August 2007.\nIn view of the following facts: that the defendant Ðerđet Hađi has been charged with repeated criminal offences of aggravated larceny over a period of eight months; that according to the criminal records he has already been convicted of that same offence; that before this court several sets of criminal proceedings are pending [against him on charges] of the criminal offence under Article 217 of the C[riminal] C[ode]; that he has neither income nor property – this panel finds that these circumstances justify the suspicion that he could commit the same or similar criminal offence were he to remain at large, which makes ordering his detention under Article 102 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure justified.”\n7.  The applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on 14 December 2007. He lodged an appeal against the decision of 12 December 2007. On 27 December 2007 the Osijek County Court (Županijski sud u Osijeku) allowed the applicant's appeal and quashed the decision of 12 December 2007, but did not lift the applicant's detention.\nThe operative part of this decision reads:\n“the appeal by the defendant Ðerđet Hađi is allowed, the first-instance decision (but not the applicant's detention) is quashed and the case is to be remitted to that court for fresh deliberation.”\nThe relevant part of the reasoning reads:\n“The appeal is well-founded.\nThe defendant's allegations that the impugned decision was adopted in breach of the provisions of criminal procedure under Article 367 § 1 in conjunction with Article 105 § 1 of the C[ode of] C[riminal] P[rocedure] are well-founded. The reasoning of the impugned decision states that the meeting, held after the indictment had been lodged, at which the panel deliberated on [the defendant's] detention, was held in the absence of D.O., the defence lawyer officially appointed for the defendant Ðerđet Hađi, in accordance with Article 105 § 2 of the CCP. However, the defendant questioned the finding of the first-instance court that defence counsel had been properly summoned to the panel meeting in question, pursuant to Article 105 § 1 of the CCP. The defendant alleged in his appeal that his officially appointed defence counsel had not been served with the decision of his appointment prior to the panel meeting of 12 December 2007 where [the panel] had been deliberating on his detention. Defence counsel had not been summoned to the panel meeting in question. The defendant maintained that the summons for the panel meeting had been sent to his defence counsel by fax on 12 December 2007 at 10.55 a.m. He enclosed a copy of the minutes of a different hearing held before the Slavonski Brod Municipal Court on 12 December 2007 in proceedings no. P-1831/00 showing that [the lawyer appointed f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5414", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is now serving a sentence in Kostroma.\n7.  On 28 December 2003 the applicant was apprehended, allegedly in an inebriated state, on the railway line by Mr S. and Mr L., police officers from Nerekhta station police department (линейный пост милиции станции Нерехта). Subsequently he was transported to Nerekhta district police station (Нерехтский ГРОВД) and placed in a temporary detention cell.\n8.  After a while a police officer took the applicant from his cell to the second floor of the police station. The officer pointed to a young man and woman in one of the offices and asked the applicant whether he knew them. The applicant said that he knew the woman. The officer then noticed a blood stain on the sleeve of the applicant's jacket and allegedly accused him of having robbed the man and woman. The applicant was taken to the officer on duty and his jacket was seized as material evidence.\n9.  The applicant spent the night in the temporary detention wing.\n10.  On the morning of 29 December 2003 another police officer who did not introduce himself took the applicant from his cell to an office on the third floor of the police station. He told the applicant to write a confession statement which the applicant refused to do. The officer left and then returned with his colleagues. Together they beat the applicant up and later took him back to the cell.\n11.  Later on that day the applicant was brought before the Justice of the Peace of the 19th Court Circuit who found him guilty of disturbing public order and sentenced him to five days' detention.\n12.  On 30 December 2003 the applicant was interviewed as a witness in a robbery case. He refused to make any statements and asked for his injuries to be recorded and for an inquiry to be opened into the beatings he had received.\n13.  On 31 December 2003 an investigator from Nerekhta district police station, Mr S., commissioned a forensic examination of the applicant's injuries with a view to determining their extent and origin.\n14.  On 19 February 2004 the expert returned the following findings:\n“Mr Nikiforov had a fractured nose, abrasions and a bruise on his face [measuring 7 x 4 cm]. The injuries could have been caused by the impact of a hard blunt object or as a result of falling on such an object... It is impossible to establish when Mr Nikiforov's nose was broken because of his belated request for it to be X-rayed...”\n15.  On 20 February 2004 an investigator of Nerekhta District Prosecutor's Office, Mr V., refused to institute criminal proceedings into the alleged beatings. He found that since the applicant's jacket had been stained with blood at the moment of his arrival at the police station, the injuries must have been caused at some earlier point in time.\n16.  On 12 May 2004 the Nerekhta District Prosecutor quashed the investigator's decision and directed him to hear the arresting police officers and to examine the detainees' registration log.\n17.  On 16 May 2004 the investigator Mr V. again refused to institute criminal proceedings. On the basis of an entry in the registration log, he established that from 8.30 to 9.20 a.m. on 29 December 2003 the applicant had not been in the temporary detention wing but with police officer Mr A. However, since both Mr A. and the arresting police officers had denied using any force on the applicant, there were no indications of a criminal offence.\n18.  On 25 June 2004 a deputy prosecutor of the Kostroma Region quashed the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5415", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The majority of the applicants were detained in Zamkova Prison, during the events the applicants complained of (see paragraph 4 above).\n12.  The facts surrounding the applicants' alleged ill-treatment by the special forces in the course of training exercises conducted by the latter on two occasions, namely 30 May 2001 and 29 January 2002, while the applicants were held in Zamkova Prison in Iziaslav of the Khmelnytsky region, the manner in which these training exercises were conducted and the investigation into the circumstances of these events are disputed by the parties.\n13.  The developments in the presentation of facts of the present case may be summarised as follows.\n14.  The applicants' allegations of the conduct of the special forces' training were denied by the Government, who in their submissions as to admissibility of applications lodged on 28 March 2006 relied on the summary presentation of the facts made by the Registry of the Court. Simultaneously they stated that special tactical trainings in Zamkova Prison on 30 May 2001 and 29 January 2002 were organised without involvement of the prisoners and did not involve the applicants (see paragraph 17 below). They further stated that there was no evidence of the applicants' ill‑treatment. Presentation of facts, based on the applicants' allegations and Government's reliance on these alleged facts, appeared in the admissibility decision of 15 January 2007.\n15.  Before the hearing of witnesses in the case, the Government witnesses made written statements in which most of them admitted that regular searches and training were organised in Zamkova Prison on 30 May 2001 and 29 January 2002. However, they categorically denied participation of special forces in searches of the residential premises of Zamkova Prison, which were conducted with involvement of Zamkova Prison staff only. The Government witnesses mainly underlined that tactical training sessions in Zamkova Prison did not involve the prisoners and were organised as strictly internal training exercises for the Prison Department staff and involved staff only.\n16.  Additional facts were established by the Delegates in the course of the oral hearing before them, in the light of the oral statements made by the applicants and witnesses who appeared at the hearing. In particular, it was established that several rapid reaction units, among them Zhytomyr special rapid reaction unit of the Prison Department (hereafter – Zhytomyr special unit), were involved in the trainings organised on 30 May 2001 and 29 January 2002. Complementary factual and legal elements to the cases also came into view after the visit to Zamkova Prison on 27 June 2007 and from the post-hearing submissions made by the parties.\n17.  Following the oral hearing, the Government again maintained that, based on the evidence heard, special forces did not participate in the training exercise as it was prohibited for police forces to participate in such exercises involving Prison Department and for Prison Department to use such police forces. They further maintained that no special forces ever entered the residential zone of Zamkova Prison. The applicants maintained their position as to the facts.\n18.  Based on the above, the Court is confronted with several different versions of the facts. In particular, additional factual elements were discovered in the course of examination of the present applications and the fact-finding mission organised in the instant case. The Cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5416", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Kaunas.\n6.  In 1999 the applicant was granted a licence to keep a firearm.\n7.  On 17 July 2002 the validity of the licence was extended.\n8.  On 15 November 2002 the applicant submitted a request for a licence to keep another type of firearm.\n9.  On 19 December 2002 police officials decided not to grant a new licence, given that on 13 December 2002 the applicant had been listed in an “operational records file” (policijos operatyvinė įskaita), that is, a database containing information gathered by law-enforcement authorities (see paragraphs 17-19 of the 'Relevant domestic law' below).\n10.  On 16 April 2003 the police wrote to the applicant informing him that his licence to keep a pistol and a hunting rifle had been revoked. The applicant was informed that, pursuant to Article 38 of the Law on the Control of Guns and Ammunition, he was to hand in these firearms to the authorities and would receive money for them.\n11.  The applicant instituted court proceedings challenging the entry of his name in the operational records file.\n12.  On 25 September 2003 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court dismissed his action. The decision was based on classified material submitted by the police and analysed by the judges without it being disclosed to the applicant. The court concluded that the applicant's listing in the operational records file had been lawful and reasoned, in view of the information about the applicant held by the police.\n13.  The applicant appealed, complaining that he had had no access to the operational records file. He alleged that the court had not examined the classified evidence during the hearing, and that it had not assessed whether any parts of that information could have been disclosed to him.\n14.  On 29 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld that decision. The court noted, inter alia, that the impugned evidence was classified as a State secret and, although reviewed by the court, could not be disclosed to the applicant.\n15.  The Government submitted that in July 2004, after the applicant had been granted a new firearms licence, his guns were returned to him.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5417", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Norrnäs.\n6.  The applicant was born out of wedlock. His mother, grandmother and everyone around him always considered N.S. as his father. N.S. never married or had other children.\n7.  On 1 October 1976 the Paternity Act came into force. The transitional provisions in the Implementing Act of the Paternity Act state that paternity proceedings with regard to a child born before the entry into force of the law had to be initiated within five years, that is, before 1 October 1981. Moreover, no claim could be examined after the death of the father. No such restrictions exist for children born after the entry into force of the Paternity Act.\n8.  N.S. was placed under guardianship in 2000.\n9.  In May 2002 the applicant requested the Korsholm District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) to establish paternity. The court ordered DNA tests, which established with 99.4 % certainty that N.S. was the applicant's biological father.\n10.  On 7 April 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim. It found that as the applicant was born before the entry into force of the Paternity Act, he should have lodged his claim within the time-limit of five years, that is, before 1 October 1981. As he had lodged his claim only in May 2002, his claim was time-barred.\n11.  The applicant appealed to the Vasa Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) claiming, inter alia, that the paternity of N.S. could not be established otherwise as, due to his state of health, he could no longer make a legally valid acknowledgement of paternity with respect to the applicant. This fact would place the applicant in a worse position vis-à-vis the children who were born after the entry into force of the Paternity Act. N.S's guardian supported the claim to have paternity established.\n12.  N.S. died in March 2004 while the case was pending before the Appeal Court. The inventory of his estate was made in June 2004. The estate, worth some 140,500 euros, was divided among N.S.'s siblings and their heirs.\n13.  On 8 July 2004 the Appeal Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n14.  The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), reiterating his grounds of appeal already presented before the Appeal Court.\n15.  On 14 April 2005 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5418", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Adam Jarkiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives Warszawa.\n6.  On 24 April 2005 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of drug trafficking.\n7.  On 26 April 2005 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.\n8.  The inquiry against the applicant was initially conducted by the Warsaw District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy). It appears that a few months after the applicant's arrest the Lublin Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) opened another inquiry against the applicant, who was suspected of further drug-related offences. As a consequence, the Lublin Regional Prosecutor took over the Warsaw case.\n9.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was extended by the Warsaw District Court on 14 July 2005 (decision upheld on 13 September 2005), by the Lublin District Court on 19 October 2005 (upheld on 1 December 2005) and 6 January 2006 (upheld on 2 February 2006), and by the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 12 April 2006 (upheld on 5 July 2006).\n10.  The courts justified the applicant's pre-trial detention by the strong evidence against him, the severity of the offences with which he had been charged, the heavy penalty which might be imposed if convicted and the risk of inducing witnesses to give false testimony, which was particularly high in light of the fact that one of the witnesses was the applicant's close friend.\n11.  During the pre-trial proceedings the applicant made several requests to be granted access to the investigation files. On 1 February 2006 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor rejected the applicant's request for security reasons (dla dobra śledztwa).\n12.  On 6 April 2006 the Lublin Appellate Prosecutor (Prokurator Prokuratury Apelacyjnej) dismissed an interlocutory appeal against that decision. It was noted that at the preliminary phase of a criminal inquiry the case files were, in principle, confidential and were to be presented to the suspected person only at the end of that phase of the proceedings. In light of the fact that the authorities were still engaged in their investigation, releasing confidential information to the applicant could impede the proceedings.\n13.  The applicant's subsequent request was likewise dismissed by the Lublin Regional Prosecutor on 6 May 2006.\n14.  On 28 June 2006 the inquiry was closed and the bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Zamość District Court. The applicant was indicted on several charges related to drugs trafficking.\n15.  Pending trial the applicant's detention was extended by the decisions of the Zamość District Court of 6 July 2006, of the Lublin District Court of 12 September 2006 and 24 January 2007, and of the Lublin Court of Appeal of 18 April 2007.\nIt appears that the applicant appealed against all of the above-mentioned decisions with the exception of the decision of 24 January 2007.\n16.  The authorities relied on the original grounds for the applicant's pre‑trial detention and noted that the proceedings were complex. At the relevant time twenty-three people were suspected of being accomplices to the applicant's alleged crimes, seven of whom were in pre-trial detention.\n17.  The interlocutory appeals lodged by the applicant's lawyer against the decisions to uphold the detention measure and his requests for release were examined on the merits and dismissed.\n18.  Meanwhile, on 25 August 2006 the Zamość District Court ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5419", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company is a joint stock company based in Ploieşti.\n5.  On 24 June 1998 the Supreme Court of Justice, by a final decision, ordered the S.C. Safa Impex S.R.L. company (“the S. company”) to pay the applicant company 533,683,270 old Romanian lei (ROL) as due payment resulting from a contract they had entered into and ROL 21,254,421 for the costs of proceedings. The court based its findings on an expert report which had updated the due amount on the basis of the inflation rate.\n6.  In August and September 1998 the S. company sold a part of its movable and immovable property to the S.C. Safa Comimpex S.R.L. company, which had as manager the wife of one of the two managers of the S. company.\n7.  Following refusal of payment by the S. company, on 17 September 1998 the applicant company requested the Prahova County Court to enforce that judgment.\n8.  On 19 January 1999 the S. company further sold a building to the same SC Safa Comimpex SRL company.\n9.  On 10 February 1999 the Ploieşti District Court decided in private to attach the S. company's assets in the T. bank up to the total due amount of ROL 554,937,691.\n10.  On 5 April 1999, at the applicant company's request, the Ploieşti District Court upheld that attachment and ordered the bank to transfer that amount into the applicant company's account. An appeal by the bank was dismissed as groundless on 12 October 1999.\n11.  On 3 December 1999 the applicant company informed the Prahova County Court that the debtor had taken its money out of the T. bank and requested to continue enforcement by sale by public auction of debtor's immovable and movable property.\n12.  On 6 December 1999 the bailiff R. served notice to the S. company to pay the debt. The debtor refused to receive that notice and the bailiff posted it on its door.\n13.  On 16 December 1999 the bailiff requested information from the public finance office in respect of S company's movable and immovable property. In the absence of an answer by the finance office, the bailiff renewed that request on 15 February 2000.\n14.  On 6 April 2000 the public finance office submitted to the bailiff the debtor's balance sheet.\n15.  On 1 May 2000 the S. company sold a vehicle to the wife of one its two managers.\n16.  On 18 May 2000 the public finance office informed the bailiff about the S. company's assets, which included a building and four vehicles. Therefore, at an unknown date the bailiff R. seized the four vehicles and on 22 September 2000 he put them on sale by public auction. The sale was scheduled for 13 October 2000.\n17.  However, on 13 October 2000, following a visit to the S. company's premises, the bailiff R. certified in an official record that the debtor had sold the four above-mentioned vehicles to the S.C. Safa Comimpex S.R.L. company. The debtor also refused to pay, alleging that it had no other assets and had ceased to function.\n18.  It appears from the file that the proceedings brought for the annulment of those sales were dismissed by the courts.\n19.  On 9 October 2002, following failure by the bailiff R. to enforce that judgment, the applicant company requested his replacement. The execution file was transferred to the bailiff M.\n20.  On 30 October 2002 the bailiff M. requested the Ploieşti District Court to authorise the enforcement and the town council to inform him about the debtor's assets. On 12 November 2002 the court approved the enforcement by an interlocutory decision. By a letter of 18 December 2002 the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5420", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Muurola.\n7.  In December 1997 the applicant, a tax expert, was the defendant's witness in a case where the public prosecutor had brought charges for tax fraud. The evidence in the case was based, inter alia, on a tax inspection report drawn up by tax inspectors A. and B. The applicant provided her own calculation of the defendant's taxable income. The defendant was convicted of tax fraud and the judgment became final in June 1999.\n8.  The difference between the applicant's estimation of the defendant's taxable income and the estimation given by the tax inspectors was about 2.5 million Finnish Marks (FIM; about 494,000 euros). When asked by the defendant's counsel whether the difference could be explained by the tax inspectors' negligence or professional incompetence, the applicant answered, under oath:\n“No, to my mind they have done it intentionally.”\nWhen the defendant's counsel asked whether it was by incompetence or intentionally that the tax inspectors had found that the taxable income was FIM 1,435,000 instead of FIM 49,815, she replied:\n“Intentionally.”\nThe public prosecutor asked:\n“Do you say under oath that the tax inspectors have intentionally made mistakes in this matter?”\nThe applicant replied:\n“Yes, the figures cannot be explained otherwise. The tax inspectors have not a single ground to arrive at these figures.”\n9.  The court proceedings as well as the applicant's statements were reported in several newspapers but the tax inspectors' names were not mentioned in any of them. Moreover, the court proceedings were open to the public and the applicant's witness statements were recorded word for word in the minutes, to which anyone had access.\n10.  In 1998 the applicant published a book about taxation in which the above-mentioned court case was cited. It was mentioned that “[i]n any event, the senior tax inspector [A.] committed perjury fully knowingly and intentionally. But why not as her husband is the public prosecutor [X.]. who works for [name of the office]”. Five thousand copies of the book were printed, of which about a thousand copies had been given away by the end of August 1999.\n11.  On 18 November 1999 the applicant was questioned by the police for the first time. The applicant gave her closing statement in the pre-trial investigation on 27 January 2000.\n12.  On 8 December 2000 the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant for aggravated defamation. Tax inspectors A. and B. joined the charges and extended them to cover other statements made by her during the above-mentioned tax fraud proceedings. The summons was served on the applicant on 11 February 2001.\n13.  On 15 March 2001 the applicant requested the Raahe District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) to extend the time-limit for her reply until 30 September 2001. The applicant informed the District Court that she would request the National Bureau of Investigation (keskusrikospoliisi, centralkriminalpolisen) to conduct an investigation and that she would also request the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) to annul certain decisions of administrative courts underlying her case. The District Court extended the time-limit for the reply until 30 September 2001.\n14.  On 26 September 2001 the applicant requested the District Court to grant another prolongation of the time-limit for her reply as the above-mentioned criminal investigation and the annulment proceedi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5421", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n15.  The applicants were born in 1959 and 2003 respectively and live in Lausanne (Canton of Vaud).\n16.  The facts as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.\n17.  The first applicant, who refers to herself as Jewish, decided to settle in Israel in 1999. There she met an Israeli national, who is also Jewish, and they were married on 23 October 2001 in Israel. They had a son, Noam, who was born in Tel Aviv on 10 June 2003. He has Israeli and Swiss nationality.\n18.  According to the applicants, in the autumn of 2003 the child’s father joined the Jewish “Lubavitch” movement, which they have described as an ultra-orthodox, radical movement that is known for its zealous proselytising.\n19.  Marital difficulties then arose, and the first applicant, fearing that her husband would take their son to a “Chabad-Lubavitch” community abroad for religious indoctrination, applied to the Tel Aviv Family Court for a ne exeat order to prevent Noam’s removal from Israel. On 20 June 2004 the court made a ne exeat order that was to expire when the child attained his majority, that is to say on 10 June 2021, unless annulled by the court in the meantime.\n20.  In an interim decision of 27 June 2004, the same court granted “temporary custody” of the child to the mother and requested the Tel Aviv social services to draw up an urgent welfare report. The “guardianship” of the child was to be exercised jointly by both parents.\n21.  In a decision of 17 November 2004, the court, on the recommendation of a social worker, confirmed the first applicant’s custody of the child and granted a right of visitation to the father.\n22.  On 10 January 2005 the Israeli social services were obliged to intervene. They instructed the parents to live apart, in the interest of the child. The letter they sent to the parents read as follows:\n“1.  We take the view that to maintain a common home and live, as you have been doing, under the same roof is not in the child’s interest – and that is an understatement. It appears to us that the environment of constant recrimination and invective created by Shai against Isabelle has caused her permanent stress that may prevent her from fulfilling her role as a mother, when she is already faced with the need to find a job in order to support herself and pay the rent. It should be noted that Shai pays neither the maintenance ordered by the court nor the rent.\nWe felt that some of Shai’s recriminations verged on the absurd. He has decided that the child’s illness, like the glandular fever and the epileptic fit that the child has suffered, are the mother’s fault. Shai persists in asserting that Isabelle ‘is not a good mother’; he does not accept the fact that the child attends nursery school, and claims that the medical certificates are insufficient. We advise Shai to speak to the doctors who are treating the child.\nAlthough he is maintained by Isabelle, Shai demands that the food complies to a very strict degree with Jewish dietary laws, observing one dietary rule or another ...\nThere is no doubt that living apart will resolve some of these problems.\nWe find that Shai creates a hostile environment at home – an atmosphere of verbal aggression and threats that terrorise the mother.\nIn the light of the foregoing, we cannot but find that the mother is exposed to mental harassment and that the maintaining of a common home is harmful to the child. 2.  Under the powers conferred on us by sections 19 and 68 of the Law on legal capacity, we reitera", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5422", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  The applicant is a lawyer. In September 2004 the Buda Surroundings District Court ordered the search of her office, in application of section 149 subsections (4) and (5) of the Code on Criminal Procedure, and the seizure of documents concerning one of her clients, A.F., who had been suspected of having been engaged in illegal financial activities.\n7.  On 20 October 2004 the police searched the applicant's office. The search lasted from 9.45 a.m. until 12.55 p.m. in the presence of a public prosecutor. The applicant herself did not arrive on the premises before 10.25 a.m.\n8.  The Government claimed that until the applicant's arrival, another lawyer, Dr M., whose practice was in the neighbouring but entirely separate office, had been present. The applicant contended that Dr M. had not been present inside her office under search, nor had she represented her. According to the documents submitted, Dr M. was not formally appointed to defend the applicant's interests, nor did she sign the minutes of the search in such a capacity. Moreover, the parties' submissions diverged as to whether the police seized all the documents stored in the office or only those relating to A.F.\n9.  Subsequently, the applicant complained about the allegedly unlawful search and the indiscriminate seizure of all documents found.\n10.  On 5 November 2004 the Public Prosecutor's Office dismissed the applicant's complaint concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the search. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 25 November 2004 the District Court ordered the restoration of part of the documents, which were unrelated to the case of the suspect.\n12.  On 19 May 2005 the Pest County Public Prosecutor's Office reversed the decision of 5 November 2004 and established that the search had been unlawful in that neither the applicant nor a representative had been present. It observed that Dr M. could not be considered a person appointed to represent the applicant's interests; she had not been appointed to this end by the authority in charge. The Office was however of the view that the lawfulness had been restored by virtue of the District Court's decision of 25 November 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5423", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first and second applicants were born in 1952 and 1948 respectively and live in Helsinki. The applicant company has its seat in Helsinki. The first applicant is a freelance journalist and the second applicant editor-in-chief of Seura magazine.\n6.  On 20 December 1996 an article written by the first applicant was published in issue no. 51-52/1996 of Seura magazine. It stated in the headline that the Child Ombudsman in the Mannerheim League for Child Welfare (Mannerheimin lastensuojeluliitto, Mannerheims barnskyddsförbund), which is a non-governmental organisation, had been removed from office (in Finnish: “Lapsiasiamies hyllylle”) and in the text, inter alia, that the Ombudsman (henceforth “X.”) had been transferred to do research work and that she would not be replaced as Ombudsman (“... [hänet] siirretään tutkijaksi, eikä hänelle palkata sijaista lapsiasiamieheksi”). The article also stated that the Ombudsman had no training or experience in research work. The general tone of the article was critical. During the subsequent court proceedings the first applicant argued that when writing it he had relied on information given in a tabloid article published on 11 December 1996. He considered that no reason had emerged to believe that the information contained therein was not true.\n7.  Issue no. 4/1997 of Seura magazine included a rectification by the press officer of the Mannerheim League for Child Welfare, stating that the information concerning removal from office was groundless. The rest of the rectification stated the following:\n\"[i]n 1995 X. was awarded a grant for three months which she used last autumn. X. will also have three months' research leave in 1997. X will take this leave at a later stage to be agreed upon.\n\"The research leave does not affect X.'s position as the Child Ombudsman in the Mannerheim League for Child Welfare in any way.\"\n8.  On 29 October 1997 X. requested the police to investigate the matter. On 28 April and 30 April 1998 the first and the second applicants were questioned by the police. In her concluding statement of 16 December 1998 X. pursued a compensation claim against all the applicants. The pre-trial investigation was completed on 1 November 1998.\n9.  On 3 April 2000 the public prosecutor preferred charges against the first and second applicants. The next day the case became pending before the Espoo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). X. concurred with the charges brought by the public prosecutor and supplemented the description of the defamation charges. On an unknown date X.'s compensation claim, together with her claim for costs and expenses, was joined to the criminal charges.\n10.  On 5 May 2000 the District Court invited the parties' written submissions. According to the applicants they were served with the summonses only in November 2000.\n11.  On 26 May 2003 the District Court held a preparatory hearing. A second preliminary hearing was held on 19 September 2003.\n12.  The District Court heard the case over three days during the period from 1 to 9 December 2003. It heard thirteen witnesses and received a significant amount of documentary evidence.\n13.  On 19 January 2004 the District Court gave judgment, convicting the first and second applicants of defamation (painotuotteen kautta tehty julkinen herjaus, offentlig smädelse skett genom tryckalster), sentencing them to forty day-fines, amounting to EUR 240 and EUR 2,360 respectively, and ordering them, together with Yhtyneet Kuvalehde", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5424", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Hajnówka.\n6.  On 23 August 2000 the Bielsko Podlaskie District Court convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to 2 years' imprisonment. On 12 December 2000 the Białystok Regional Court upheld the first‑instance judgment.\n7.  On 12 January 2001 the court granted the applicant's request to assign a legal-aid lawyer to the case for the purposes of filing a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n8.  In a letter to the applicant dated 7 February 2001 the Białystok Regional Court informed him that the legal‑aid lawyer had found no grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal. The applicant was not informed of the further procedural steps available to him to lodge a cassation appeal.\n9.  In reply to the applicant's subsequent three queries as to what his procedural situation was and whether there was any possibility for him to pursue the cassation proceedings, in particular by having his own draft of a cassation appeal signed by another legal-aid lawyer, on 19 February, 23 and 29 May 2001 the Regional Court stated that it was not for the court to oblige a legal‑aid lawyer to prepare a cassation appeal if he or she had refused to do so and that it was impossible for a lawyer to sign a cassation appeal drafted by the defendant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5425", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Mäntsälä.\n6.  The applicant was born out of wedlock. In 1969 her father R.J. was ordered, on the initiative of the social services and by a decision of a District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten), to pay child support until the applicant's 17th birthday.\n7.  On 1 October 1976 the Paternity Act came into force. The transitional provisions in the Implementing Act of the Paternity Act state that paternity proceedings with regard to a child born before the entry into force of the Act had to be initiated within five years, that is, before 1 October 1981. Moreover, no claim could be examined after the death of the father. No such restrictions exist for children born after the entry into force of the Paternity Act.\n8.  In 1985 the applicant's mother and R.J. agreed on one additional year of child support. The agreement was certified by the social services. The applicant attained majority in 1986.\n9.  R.J. died in November 1999 and the applicant found out that he had never been legally registered as her father. All of the parties had always been under the impression that paternity had been established when the duty to pay child support was ordered by the District Court.\n10.  In October 2000 the applicant brought a civil claim against R.J.'s legal heir and requested the Orimattila District Court to confirm the paternity. She stated that neither she nor her mother had known that they needed to bring a claim against R.J. to establish paternity, nor did they know that there was a time-limit. They further stated that the social services had been obliged by law to inform them of these issues. No such information had been given to them although the mother of the applicant's half-sister had been informed at the relevant time.\n11.  The District Court ordered DNA tests to be performed on the applicant, her mother and R.J.'s two brothers. The test was conclusive as to the paternity, with 99.8 % certainty.\n12.  On 12 April 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim. The court stated that the transitional provision with regard to the death of the father was no longer relevant in the case as modern technology enabled testing that had not been possible in the 1970s when the Act had been enacted. R.J.'s death was thus no longer an obstacle for bringing a paternity claim against him. However, the claim had been brought after the expiry of the five-year time-limit. The reason why the claim had been brought late was that the applicant and her mother had been mistaken about the legal character of the child support decision but this mistake was not of a kind that would have justified a derogation from the five-year time-limit. The time-limit itself was not unreasonable or discriminatory nor was it incompatible with the Constitution, the Convention or the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child. The court thus concluded that the applicant's claim was time-barred.\n13.  On 6 February 2002 the Kouvola Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten) upheld the District Court's decision on the same grounds as the latter.\n14.  The referendary of the Appeal Court considered in her report (mietintö, betänkande) that, since it had been established with DNA tests that R.J. was actually the biological father and since the applicant had a half-sister born in 1976 who had been acknowledged by R.J. in 1981, it would not be against the spirit of the Act to allow the establishment of paternity with regard to the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5426", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and currently lives in Certeze, Satu Mare.\n6.  On 12 May 1997 the applicant and his associate (“T.L.”), through their company, S.C. Harmony Shipping International S.R.L., made an offer to buy the Romanian Company for Oceanic Fishing Tulcea (Compania Română de Pescuit Oceanic Tulcea, “the company”), a State-owned company specialising in oceanic fishing, which was in the process of being privatised by the Bucharest State Property Fund (Fondul Proprietăţii de Stat, “FPS”). While negotiations were taking place, FPS expressly forbade the sale of the company's ships. The applicant and his associate gave their agreement to the prohibition in a statement signed with FPS on 4 June 1997.\n7.  On 26 November 1997 FPS agreed to sell the applicant and T.L. 51% of the company's stocks.\n8.  During criminal proceedings against the applicant the courts found that he and his associate had sold five of the company's ships as scrap. They had used part of the money to pay the price asked for by FPS. With the remaining money they had paid some of the company's debts in order to substitute themselves for the company's creditors and thus obtain the remaining 49% of the company's stocks.\n9.  The applicant was arrested on 10 March 1998 and released from prison on 22 June 2009, after having served his sentence. He described as follows the conditions of detention in the various penitentiaries where he was held. The Government's view, based on the official documents issued by the penitentiaries, is also presented.\n10.  On 10 March 1998 the applicant was taken to the Constanţa police detention rooms, situated in the basement of the police headquarters. He remained there until 4 June 1998. His pre-trial detention was endorsed and extended on several occasions by the prosecutor attached to the Constanţa Court of Appeal.\n11.  He claimed that during his detention there he had not been allowed to contact his family, counsel or co-accused either by telephone or in writing. He had not been allowed to have a pen and paper in the cell.\nHe had shared a cell with ten other detainees. The cell had been equipped with three-tier bunk beds which occupied 12 sq. m. There was no toilet in the cell (the inmates used a bucket for that purpose), no running water or sewerage system, no light and no fresh air.\n12.  According to the information from the Constanţa police, the cells in the police detention facilities measured 12-15 sq. m with three to four beds each, electric light and one window. The detainees were allowed to walk outside for one to two hours per day. Toilets were in the corridor.\nNo concrete information about the applicant's contacts with family and counsel or about his correspondence rights was furnished by the police, as, according to the regulations, the relevant documents are only kept by the authorities for five years.\n13.  In June 1998 the Galaţi County Court ordered the applicant's transfer to Bucharest Jilava Penitentiary, on health grounds. He was detained in this penitentiary on three occasions: from 4 June to 12 August 1998 and from 10 to 21 May 2005 (in the hospital section); and from 9 October to 19 November 2003 (in the penitentiary itself).\n14.  The applicant claimed that during his first stay in the hospital section, he had been handcuffed to his bed with chains around his legs after attempting suicide. He was awoken from a period of unconsciousness by bites from lice and bedbugs and recollected having been refused water b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5427", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Kaunas.\n6.  By letter of 28 May 2002, Kaunas City Police informed the applicant that his permits to keep and carry a firearm for defence purposes as well as a hunting rifle had been revoked because on 19 April 2002 the applicant had been listed in an “operational records file” (policijos operatyvinė įskaita), a database containing information gathered by law-enforcement authorities (see paragraphs 24-26 in 'Relevant domestic law' below). The applicant was informed that he was to hand in these firearms to the authorities and would receive money for them.\n7.  On 19 September 2002 the applicant requested the Kaunas City District Court to order the removal of his name from the operational records database. The applicant stated that he had only discovered that his name had been so listed from the aforementioned police letter.\n8.  On 11 October 2002 the Kaunas City District Court refused the applicant's request, finding that he should have brought his claims before the administrative courts.\n9.  The applicant appealed to the Kaunas Regional Court, arguing that he had never been informed of the reasons for the listing of his name in the operational records file and requesting that it be removed. The applicant also asked the court to order the police to provide him with all the written materials concerning the listing of his name.\n10.  On 21 October 2002 the Kaunas Regional Court found that it was necessary to decide which court – of general or administrative jurisdiction – was competent to hear the applicant's case.\n11.  On 29 October 2002 Kaunas city police officials instituted criminal proceedings on charges of theft when acting in an organised group (Article 271 § 3 of the Penal Code). The applicant was charged on 16 November 2002 and placed under house arrest.\n12.  On 26 November 2002 the special chamber responsible for questions of jurisdiction, composed of the judges of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court, decided that the applicant's case should be examined by the administrative courts.\n13.  On 27 March 2003 the applicant was charged with covering up a crime committed by others (Article 295 of the Penal Code). In particular, the investigators suspected that in October and November 2002 the applicant had helped to hide stolen cars on the premises of the company where he worked as the director. In his application the applicant maintained that this was not a fresh charge against him but a substitution for the previous charge of theft (see paragraph 11 above).\n14.  On 27 May 2003 the Kaunas City District Court ordered that the applicant be released from house arrest.\n15.  On 29 May 2003 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court allowed the applicant's action, holding that the listing of his name in the police file was contrary to the principles of the presumption of innocence and the rule of law. Having reviewed the classified materials submitted by the police, the court found no evidence showing that the applicant had been engaged in any criminal activity. The court also noted the absence of any accusatory judgment against the applicant. On the contrary, testimony to his positive attributes, submitted to the court by environmental protection agencies and non-governmental associations, showed the applicant's goodwill and dedication (principingumą) to protecting nature. For the above reasons, the court ordered the Kaunas police officials to remove the applicant's name from the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5429", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix each applicant was issued with an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) for a flat in the same recently constructed residential building in Baku (see Table I).\n7.  At the same time, the applicants became aware that their respective flats had been occupied by families of internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from different regions under the occupation of the Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.\n8.  According to the applicants, despite their numerous demands the IDP families refused to vacate the flats, pointing out that they were IDPs and had no other place to live.\n9.  On different dates the applicants lodged civil actions with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of these families from their flats.\n10.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix (Table I), the Yasamal District Court granted the applicants' claims and ordered that the IDP families be evicted from the flats. In all cases, the court held that the applicants were the sole lawful tenants of the flats on the basis of the occupancy vouchers and therefore the flats were being unlawfully occupied by the IDP families.\n11.  No appeals were lodged against the judgments of the Yasamal District Court and, pursuant to the domestic law, they became enforceable upon the expiry of the relevant appeal periods. However the IDP families refused to comply with the judgments and despite the applicants' complaints to various authorities, the judgments were not enforced.\n12.  On an unspecified date in 2006, the applicants, who were in the same situation, lodged a joint action with the Yasamal District Court complaining that the Yasamal District Department of Judicial Observers and Enforcement Officers (“the Department of Enforcement Officers”) had not taken measures to enforce the judgments.\n13.  On 27 December 2006 the Yasamal District Court dismissed that complaint as unsubstantiated. The applicants appealed against this judgment. On 12 November 2007, after a series of appeals and quashings, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' request and terminated the case noting that there was no need to deliver a separate judgment on enforceability of the judgments.\n14.  It appears from the case file that, after the lodging of the present applications with the Court, the defendant IDP families lodged a joint request with the Yasamal District Court asking for postponement of the execution of the judgments on their eviction from the applicants' flats. They alleged that, as they were IDPs, they had no other place to live but the flats in question.\n15.  After a series of appeals by the applicants and defendants, by a decision of 6 June 2008, the Yasamal District Court declared the defendants' request inadmissible for non-compliance with procedural norms. The court explained that the IDPs should lodge their requests separately.\n16.  On different dates, the defendants IDP families lodged separate court actions asking for postponement of the judgments ordering their eviction from the applicants' flats. The proceedings can be summarised as follows:\n(a)  As for application no. 50766/07, on 3 July 2008, the Yasamal District Court upheld the postponement request. On 27 January 2009 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the postponement decision.\n(b)  As for application no. 50786/07, on 26 November 2008, the Yasamal District Court upheld the postponement request. On 9 January 2009 the Baku Court ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5430", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1937 and 1935 respectively and live in Sofia.\n6.  Between 1995 and 1998 two sets of criminal proceedings for car theft, illegal possession of arms and robbery were opened against their son, Mr Gancho Vachkov, born in 1971. In 1996 a warrant for his arrest was issued and his name was placed on the list of wanted suspects. In May 1998 the police published a call for information about him.\n7.  On the afternoon of 6 June 1999, a Sunday, Mr Gancho Vachkov and friends of his were playing football in a school playground in central Sofia. At one point Mr Vachkov found out that the police had located him and were watching him. He decided to leave the place and drove away at high speed. He was accompanied by Mr A.M. A police car followed his car.\n8.  During the ensuing chase through the streets of Sofia, Mr Gancho Vachkov or Mr A.M. opened fire on the police with an automatic weapon. The police fired back and after some time managed to shoot out the tyres of Mr Vachkov’s car. Mr Vachkov and Mr A.M. abandoned the car and started running. Apparently the exchange of gunfire continued. Mr Vachkov and Mr A.M. split up as the latter had been shot in the leg. Shortly after that Mr A.M. was caught by the police.\n9.  Mr Gancho Vachkov continued to run, followed by the police. He entered a building situated on Murphy Street, in a residential area of Sofia, and went up the staircase of the building to the top floor. The police sealed off the area, urging the inhabitants to stay in their homes. Several masked police officers entered the building. Gunfire was heard. Thereafter, Mr Gancho Vachkov was taken out of the building by police officers, who were still masked. He had been shot in the head but was still alive. His hands were tied behind his back.\n10.  He was taken to a hospital, where he died later that day.\n11.  A masked officer took out of the building a handgun wrapped in a cloth and handed it over to the police officers who were standing around after the incident. The weapon was later identified as a “PSM handgun”, calibre 5.45 mm. In the early hours of 7 June 1999 it was delivered by a police officer to an investigator on duty in the hospital where Mr Gancho Vachkov had been taken.\n12.  Subsequently it was established that the masked officers who had followed Mr Gancho Vachkov in the building and had directly participated in his arrest were from the Special Anti-Terrorism Squad (Специализиран отряд за борба с тероризма, “the SATS”) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. They were not under the command of the police forces who had participated in the earlier stages of Mr Vachkov’s chase.\n13.  A criminal investigation of the events was opened on 6 June 1999.\n14.  On the same day an on-site inspection was carried out at the staircase of the building on Murphy Street. The record stated that the site had not been preserved. Traces of blood and body tissue were found at the site, as well as a number of cartridge shells, metal splinters and projectiles.\n15.  Mr Gancho Vachkov’s abandoned car was inspected on the same day. The inspection established that the car’s front left tyre was torn and flat and the rear left tyre was flat as well. The rear window was broken and marked by bullets. On the front seats the police found a Kalashnikov automatic rifle and numerous cartridge shells. In the boot they found munitions and false passports.\n16.  A Makarov handgun was found on the street in the area around the car.\n17.  A post-mortem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5431", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in the town of Pestovo in the Novgorod Region.\n6.  On the evening of 14 April 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed murder and remanded in custody in detention facility IVS of police station no. 36 in the Vyborgskiy District of St Petersburg (ИВС при 36 отделении милиции Выборгского района г. Санкт-Петербурга).\n7.  The arrest report drawn up on 15 April 2000 at 1 p.m. contains the typed description of the applicant's procedural rights, in particular “the right to be represented by a lawyer from the moment of drawing up of the arrest report” and “the right not to incriminate oneself”. It was signed by the applicant and also includes the applicant's statement that he “wishes to give evidence in the presence of counsel G.”. Lastly, the report contains the following hand-written statement, also signed by the applicant:\n“I did commit, together with V., the murder of P. on 5 April 2000.”\n8.  A record of the applicant's questioning on 15 April 2000, signed by the applicant and counsel G., according to which the applicant was questioned from 1.15 to 4 p.m. in the presence of counsel G., contains a detailed description of the murder and robbery of P.\n9.  According to a subsequent record of 17 April 2000 signed by the applicant and counsel G., the applicant “confirmed his testimony contained in the record of 15 April 2000”.\n10.  According to the records of subsequent interviews, also signed by the applicant and his representative, the applicant refused to give further evidence and stated that he confirmed his confession, but only in part.\n11.  The records do not contain any indication of or complaints about coercion or ill-treatment.\n12.  On 17 April 2000 the prosecutor of the Vyborgskiy District of St Petersburg authorised the applicant's further detention.\n13.  According to the applicant, he was transferred to remand prison IZ­45/4 in St Petersburg (SIZO no. 4).\n14.  The Government submitted that the transfer had taken place on 20 April 2000.\n15.  In his application to the Court the applicant gave the following account of the events of 15 April 2000.\n16.  The applicant was escorted for questioning to an office, where he was fettered to the floor with handcuffs and put in an uncomfortable sitting position. The applicant was then beaten up by men who did not state their names.\n17.  The applicant submitted that they had beaten him “professionally”, inflicting blows in such a way as to leave no traces and using, in particular, plastic bottles filled with water. They had also held a knife to his throat, threatened him with death and promised to chop his head off. At first, the officers had beaten the applicant without asking him to do or say anything, but after some time they had invited him to confess. When the applicant refused, they had shown him a written statement of his friend V., who had been arrested in connection with the same criminal case and had “confessed to things he had never done”.\n18.  The applicant submitted that, being demoralised and fearing for his life, he had confessed to a murder and a robbery but had refused to incriminate V.\n19.  The applicant submitted that he had told his counsel about the ill­treatment but his counsel had failed to react.\n20.  It does not appear that the applicant requested medical assistance or complained to any domestic authority in connection with the alleged ill­treatment.\n21.  By a judgment of 5 December 2000 the St Petersburg C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5432", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix each applicant was issued with an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) for a flat in the same recently constructed residential building in Baku (see Table I).\n7.  At the same time, the applicants became aware of the fact that their respective flats had been occupied by families of internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from different regions under the occupation of Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno‑Karabakh.\n8.  According to the applicants, despite their numerous demands, the IDP families refused to vacate the flats, pointing out that they were IDPs and had no other place to live.\n9.  On different dates the applicants lodged civil actions with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of these families from their flats.\n10.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix (Table I), the Yasamal District Court granted the applicants' claims and ordered that the IDP families be evicted from the flats. In all cases, the court held that the applicants were the sole lawful tenants of the flats on the basis of the occupancy vouchers and therefore the flats were being unlawfully occupied by the IDP families.\n11.  No appeals were lodged against the judgments of the Yasamal District Court and pursuant to the domestic law, they became enforceable upon the expiry of the relevant appeal periods. However the IDP families refused to comply with the judgments and despite the applicants' complaints to various authorities, they were not enforced.\n12.  On an unspecified date in 2006, the applicants, who were in the same situation, lodged a joint action with the Yasamal District Court complaining that the Yasamal District Department of Judicial Observers and Enforcement Officers (“the Department of Enforcement Officers”) had not taken measures to enforce the judgments.\n13.  On 27 December 2006 the Yasamal District Court dismissed that complaint as unsubstantiated. The applicants appealed against this judgment. On 12 November 2007, after a series of appeals and quashings, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants' request and terminated the case noting that there was no need to deliver a separate judgment on enforceability of the judgments.\n14.  It appears from the case file that after the lodging of the present applications with the Court, the defendant IDP families lodged several requests with the Yasamal District Court asking for postponement of the execution of the judgments on their eviction from the applicants' flats. They alleged that, as they were IDPs, they had no other place to live but the flats in question. At the time of the latest communications with the applicants, it appears that after a series of appeals and quashings, none of the IDPs' requests for postponement were upheld. These proceedings can be summarised as follows.\n15.  On 6 June 2008 the Yasamal District Court declared the defendants' joint postponement request inadmissible for non-compliance with procedural norms. The court explained that the IDPs should lodge their requests separately.\n16.  Such separate requests were lodged by the IDP families concerned only by two applications (nos. 50848/07 and 50894/07):\n(a)  As for the IDPs concerned by application no. 50848/07, on 10 November 2008, the Yasamal District Court upheld the postponement request. On 19 December 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal upheld the postponement decision. On 23 February 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the post", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5433", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently detained in Tyumen.\n7.  The facts of the case, which were partially disputed by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  In 1981 the applicant, who was born and lived in Uzbekistan, received an Uzbek passport. In 1989 he moved from Uzbekistan to Russia. From 1989 to 1995 the applicant resided on Shishkova Street, Tyumen, Russia.\n9.  It appears that in June 1995 the applicant officially informed the Uzbek authorities that he had changed his permanent residency from Uzbekistan to Russia. From 1995 to 2001 the applicant was officially registered as residing in Chikcha, the Tyumen Region. Since 13 March 2001 the applicant has been officially registered as residing on Doronina Street in Tyumen.\n(b)  Proceedings concerning the validity of the applicant's Russian passport\n10.  In December 2000 the applicant exchanged his USSR passport for a Russian passport in Department of the Interior no. 6 in the Tsentralniy district of Tyumen (ГОМ-6 УВД Центрального района Тюмени).\n11.  On 13 July 2005 the Passport and Visa Service of the Tyumen Regional Department of the Interior (the UVD) examined the validity of the applicant's Russian passport and stated that the document had been issued unlawfully, that it should be confiscated as invalid and that the applicant was not a Russian citizen.\n12.  On 14 March 2008 the Department of the Federal Migration Service of the Tyumen Region (the FMS) informed the Tyumen regional prosecutor's office that “... in 2005 the issuance of the Russian passport to A.M. Isakov was declared unsubstantiated as he was not a Russian citizen ... the passport was declared invalid and it was supposed to be confiscated. However, as it has been impossible to establish A.M. Isakov's whereabouts, at the time of writing the passport has not been confiscated...”\n13.  On 15 August 2008 (the document is also dated 15 August 2005) the applicant complained to the Tsentralniy district court of Tyumen and requested that the decision of 13 July 2005 be overruled as unlawful. The applicant stated, among other things, that he was a Russian citizen and that he had not been informed about the decision concerning the invalidity of his passport until the hearing conducted on 27 March 2008 by the Tsentralniy district court on the issue of his detention pending extradition to Uzbekistan (see part 3,-“Extradition proceedings”, below).\n14.  On 22 August 2008 the Tsentralniy district court refused to examine the applicant's complaint. The applicant appealed and on 29 September 2008 the Tyumen regional court overruled that decision and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n15.  On 15 October 2008 the Tsentralniy district court again refused to examine the applicant's complaint.\n16.  The applicant lodged a civil claim challenging the validity of the decision of 13 July 2005. On 25 February 2009 the Tsentralniy district court rejected the claim, stating that the applicant had failed to substantiate his allegation that he had been a legal resident of Russia since 6 February 1992 and that therefore he could not be a Russian citizen.\n17.  On 20 April 2009 this decision was upheld on appeal by the Tyumen Regional Court.\n18.  On 12 June 1998 the Namangan regional prosecutor's office of Uzbekistan (the Namangan prosecutor's office) opened a criminal case against the applicant under Article 159 § 4 of the Uzbek Criminal Code (attempt to violently overthrow the State's constitutional order). The applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5434", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in Uzbekistan in 1972.\n7.  Prior to May 2005 the applicant lived and worked in Uzbekistan in a shoe factory. On 13 May 2005 the applicant and his colleagues attended a demonstration held on Bobur square in Andijan, Uzbekistan. The meeting was organised to protest against government policies. At some point the authorities opened fire on the protesters. The applicant managed to escape from the square. When he returned home his relatives told him that he was being sought by the Uzbek law-enforcement agencies on suspicion of organising the events in Andijan.\n8.  On 26 May 2005 the applicant fled to Russia fearing prosecution by the Uzbek authorities. He did not have a permanent place of residence in Russia.\n9.  On 2 June 2005 the Fergana Region Prosecutor's Office issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant for his alleged participation in the Andijan events. The applicant's name was put on a search list.\n10.  On 31 October 2007 the applicant was arrested in Russia (see paragraph 14 below).\n11.  On 7 November 2007 the applicant was charged in absentia with a number of crimes, including commission of terrorist acts, membership of extremist organisations, attempts to overthrow the State's constitutional order and organisation of mass disorder.\n12.  On 26 November 2007 the Uzbek Prosecutor General's Office requested the Russian Prosecutor General's Office to extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan for prosecution.\n13.  On 21 April 2008 the Uzbek Prosecutor General's Office reiterated its request for the applicant's extradition to the Russian Prosecutor General's Office, stating that “the prosecution of M.T. Yuldashev will be conducted in strict compliance with the Uzbek legislation”.\n14.  On 31 October 2007 the applicant was arrested in Krasnoyarsk, Russia, on the grounds that his name had been put on a cross-border wanted list by the Uzbek authorities.\n15.  On 28 April 2008 the Russian Prosecutor General's Office granted the request of the Uzbek authorities and decided to extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan.\n16.  On 20 May 2008 the applicant was informed about the extradition order.\n17.  On 10 October 2008 the applicant appealed against the extradition order to the Moscow City Court, stating, inter alia, that he was being sought by the Uzbek authorities for political crimes and that the Russian Prosecutor General's Office had disregarded his allegations that there was a real risk of ill-treatment if he was extradited to Uzbekistan. The applicant requested the court to overrule the extradition order as unlawful and to release him from detention.\n18.  On 26 December 2008 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the extradition order. The court stated, inter alia, that the applicant's allegations that there was a risk of ill‑treatment in Uzbekistan\n“...were of a general nature and could not be taken into consideration during the examination of the specific information received in M.T. Yuldashev's case...\n...the letter of the Prosecutor General's Office of Uzbekistan guarantees that the prosecution of M.T. Yuldashev will be conducted in strict compliance with the Uzbek legislation.”\n19.  On 11 January 2008 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (the Supreme Court).\n20.  On 13 January 2009 the European Court of Human Rights granted the applicant's request for the application of interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to su", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5435", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicant was born in 1984 and, at the time of lodging his application, he was being held in the Edirne Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre in Turkey.\n13.  The applicant was an active member of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran and the Freedom and Equality Seeking Students Movement in Iran. He was also on the board of editors of a well-known student journal.\n14.  According to the applicant's submissions, on Students' Day in Iran in 2007, which was held annually by university students across the country, more than fifty students were arrested and placed in solitary confinement in Evin Prison, in Tehran. Other members of the board of editors of the student journal that the applicant worked for were among those who were arrested. Subsequently, more students were arrested and imprisoned during the crackdown on students.\n15.  On an unspecified date in early 2008, the applicant arrived illegally in Turkey.\n16.  On 5 April 2008 the applicant was arrested by Turkish security forces while trying to leave Turkey illegally. He was subsequently placed in the Edirne Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre.\n17.  On 22 April 2008 the applicant lodged an application for temporary asylum with the Ministry of the Interior (the “Ministry”).\n18.  On 24 July 2008 the applicant's request was rejected. According to a letter addressed to the Edirne governor's office by the Deputy Under- Secretary of the Ministry, the applicant had stated that he had been involved in the same activities as a certain P.P., an Iranian national who had been deported to Iraq on 22 August 2007 since his presence in Turkey constituted a risk for national security. The Deputy Under-Secretary maintained that the applicant's request had been rejected for the same reason and that this type of person should be not granted temporary asylum in general. He also requested that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) should not be informed of these facts and that their access to this information should be restricted on national security considerations. The Deputy Under-Secretary finally requested the Edirne governor's office to notify the applicant of the decision taken in his case and to inform him that he could lodge an objection within two days against this decision.\n19.  On the same day the applicant was served with the decision rejecting his temporary asylum request and was informed that, unless he lodged an objection within two days, he would be deported to his home country.\n20.  On 25 July 2008 the applicant lodged, with the Edirne governor's office, a petition written in Farsi containing his objection against the decision rejecting his temporary asylum request.\n21.  On the same day the applicant made statements to two police officers in the presence of an interpreter. He maintained that he was an active member of the Worker-Communist Party of Iran and the Freedom and Equality Seeking Students Movement. He noted that he had participated in a number of demonstrations held by these organisations and that he had digital photographs of these demonstrations in his possession. He stated that he had left Iran subsequent to the arrest and imprisonment of his friends, who had been involved in the same activities on behalf of those organisations. He asked the Turkish authorities to contact the office of the UNHCR, his lawyer and a national non-governmental organisation, the Helsinki Citizens' Assembly, in order to receive documents and d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5436", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5. The applicants, Ms Barbara Czajkowska, Mr Tadeusz Korsak, Ms Danuta Korsak, Mr Tadeusz Łagowski, Mr Tomasz Świeczak, and Ms Agata Wicherek, are Polish nationals who were born in 1963, 1926, 1925, 1927, 1956 and 1963 respectively and live in Warsaw. They were represented before the Court by the first applicant, Ms Barbara Czajkowska.\n6.  Ms Wacława Korsak, the first applicant's grandmother, owned a plot of agricultural land measuring a total surface area of 46,000 sq. m located in Warsaw. The applicants are Ms Wacława Korsak's heirs.\n7.  By virtue of the Decree of 26 October 1945 on the Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw, ownership of all private land was transferred to the City of Warsaw. Subsequently, under section 32(2) of the Law of 20 March 1950 on Local Organs of the Uniform State Power (ustawa o terenowych organach jednolitej władzy państwowej), all this land became the property of the State Treasury.\n8.  In 1961 Ms Wacława Korsak applied for compensation for the nationalised property.\n9.  On 13 February 1965 the Board of the Warsaw National Council (Prezydium Rady Narodowej) granted the application in part and awarded Ms Korsak compensation for 23,000 sq. m of the land in question.\n10.  On 20 November 1969 the Board awarded further compensation for a house and trees under section 53(1) of the Expropriation of Property (Conditions and Procedures) Act of 12 March 1958. The decision contained a statement that the question of compensation for the remaining part of the land would be decided at a later stage. That decision was amended in 1970 as regards the amount of the compensation awarded to the first applicant's grandmother.\n11.  On 29 March 1978 Ms Wacława Korsak's son, Mr Jerzy Korsak, applied for compensation for the remaining part of the property. It appears that other applicants joined the proceedings and that between 1991 and 2007 they made repeated requests for compensation.\n12.  In 1992 the administrative proceedings, pending before the Warsaw District Office (Urząd Rejonowy), were stayed.\n13.  In 1998 the second applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of Warsaw (Prezydent Miasta Warszawy), but this was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court on 11 March 1998.\n14.  In the meantime, on 15 January 1998, the Head of the Warsaw District Office had informed the Supreme Administrative Court that the administrative proceedings concerning the property in question had now been completed. The Office did not, however, have the necessary financial means to pay the compensation under section 215(1) of the 1997 Land Administration Act. The letter then stated:\n“In the light of the above, payment of the compensation could be finalised after the Office receives the necessary funds.”\n15.  The Warsaw District Office having failed to reach a decision, the applicants lodged a complaint about its inactivity with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n16.  On 8 May 2003 the court allowed the complaint and ordered the District Office to issue a decision regarding the applicants' claim for compensation within two months.\n17.  Subsequently, the Mayor of Warsaw resumed the proceedings, and then discontinued them on 30 September 2003. The applicants appealed.\n18.  On 6 February 2004 the Mazowiecki Governor (Wojewoda) quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n19.  On 27 May 2005 the Mayor of Warsaw gave a decision in which he dismissed the application for compensation. The Mayor relied on s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5437", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Vladimir Parnov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1986 and lives in Chişinău. At the time of the events he worked as a security guard in a café in Chişinău.\n7.  According to the applicant, on 22 March 2005, he was approached by four individuals while walking along a street. They offered him a package, the content of which was unknown. At that moment two plain-clothed persons shouted: “Police, don't move”. All the persons started to run, including the applicant. According to the applicant, he was not convinced that the person running after him was a police officer. After being chased for approximately seven hundred metres, the applicant stumbled not far from his house and was arrested by the chasing police officer. The applicant was wrestled to the ground and a pistol with tear gas, which he possessed by virtue of his job, was removed from its holster. The police officer beat him up and then called other police officers to the scene. Later, several passers-by and the applicant's brother-in-law approached the scene, stopped the police officer from beating the applicant and forced him to let the applicant go. The applicant and his brother-in-law were handcuffed and taken to the police station. The former was arrested on charges of aiding the latter to resist arrest.\n8.  The applicant submitted that he was ill-treated in the car on the way to the police station and at the police station by several police officers. In particular, he was punched and kicked all over and hit on his head and other parts of his body with a plastic bottle full of water. His head was banged against walls, the floor and furniture.\n9.  According to the Government, during the chase the applicant shot at the chasing police officer from his pistol and then resisted arrest. The Government contested the applicant's allegations about any ill-treatment after the arrest and submitted that all of his injuries were a result of his resisting arrest.\n10.  On 23 March 2005 the applicant was taken to a court and charged with the administrative offence of resisting arrest. He confessed during proceedings to having fired at the police officer from his tear-gas pistol. On the same date he was found guilty of firing from a tear-gas pistol at a police officer during the chase and sentenced to five days' imprisonment. The next day the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the applicant's appeal and changed the sentence to a fine of 180 Moldovan lei (MDL).\n11.  On 23 March 2005 the police officer who had arrested the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant complaining that he had shot at him with a tear-gas pistol. On the same date he underwent a forensic examination which showed that he had scratches and bruises on his knees, the palms of his hands and elbows. The injuries were qualified as “light injuries” needing between six and twenty-one days of medical care. The criminal complaint was finally dismissed on 20 May 2005 on the grounds that the applicant had already been convicted for the same offence in the administrative proceedings which ended with the judgment of the Chişinău Court of Appeal of 23 March 2005.\n12.  On 23 March 2005 the applicant was visited in custody by a prosecutor. He complained that he had suffered ill-treatment by the police officers and the prosecutor ordered a forensic examination of the applicant's injuries. That examination was carried out on 31 March 2005. In the meantime the applicant was released from custody on ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5438", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Viorel Carabulea, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1963. He lives in Bucharest.\n7.  On 3 May 1996 his brother, Gabriel Carabulea, aged 27, died in police custody in Bucharest following his arrest on suspicion of robbery. The ensuing investigations conducted by the prosecution authorities ended with the conclusion that Gabriel Carabulea died of natural causes, against a background of pre-existing ailments.\n8.  The applicant contested that conclusion. In a written statement submitted to his lawyer on 27 September 1998 he indicated that before his brother's arrest, he had been living with him and his family – his brother's wife Nela and their baby daughter. His brother had been in good health. His wife Nela was suffering from tuberculosis, which had prompted Gabriel to have an X-ray, the results of which had confirmed his good health.\n9.  On 21 March 1996 Bucharest Police Station no. 9 circulated a notice to all police stations in Bucharest for the arrest of Gabriel Carabulea, who was known to the police, and described as “author of several crimes of robbery”. The notice contained Mr Carabulea's nickname, his home address and his full identity, including his parents' names. At the time, no formal charge existed against him.\n10.  On 13 April 1996 Mr Carabulea was apprehended by three police officers from Bucharest Police Station no. 14. They alleged that while on patrol in a police car, they saw Mr Carabulea driving a car and they gave chase. A few minutes later, allegedly, they witnessed a minor accident between his car and another car. They claim that Mr Carabulea jumped out of his car and ran towards some nearby apartment buildings and that they ran after him and effected an arrest. They then took him to Police Station no. 14, where an investigation was started for the offence of driving a car without a valid licence plate. According to the police incident report and a witness statement given by the other driver, no physical injuries or damage to property were sustained as a result of the accident.\n11.  The applicant submits that on 13 April 1996, Nela received a telephone call from Police Station no. 14, informing her that her husband had been arrested and that she could bring him clothes and food. The applicant and Nela went to see Gabriel at around lunchtime. He was in good health, did not complain of any ill-treatment and his clothes were in good condition, being neither torn nor creased. Gabriel told them that he was going to be transferred to Police Station no. 9 and asked the applicant to take care of his wife and daughter. The applicant went home, while Nela stayed with Gabriel until around 4 p.m., when he was transferred to Police Station no. 9.\n12.  According to a police report dated 13 April 1996, Mr Carabulea was taken to Police Station no. 9 for questioning in connection with an alleged robbery that had been committed on 20 March 1996. There, he was informed that he was “guilty of aiding and abetting robbery and of the possession of counterfeit foreign currency” and that he would be “detained for the next 24 hours”. The report was signed by a police officer and an officially appointed lawyer, A.M., but not by Mr Carabulea.\n13.  Still on the same day, 13 April 1996, Mr Carabulea was officially charged with the aforesaid robbery. In a written statement made before the prosecutor he allegedly admitted the offence when questioned about the charge. This statement was submitted by the Government.\n14.  An ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5439", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Ms Tatiana Panov, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1954 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  Since the 1980s the applicant rented an apartment owned by the Municipality.\n7.  In 1989 the building in which the apartment was situated was damaged with the result that it was formally declared to be no longer fit for habitation. The Municipality therefore decided to provide all the inhabitants with other accommodation.\n8.  Between 1990 and 2000 the applicant requested the Municipality on numerous occasions to provide her with other accommodation, but to no avail.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Municipality. On 19 February 2001 the Centru District Court granted the application and ordered that the applicant be provided with alternative accommodation. On 27 November 2001 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the District Court and the judgment became final.\n10.  Since the final judgment was not complied with by the Municipality, the applicant lodged an action with the Centru District Court seeking a change in the manner in which the enforcement of the judgment was to be carried out. In particular, she claimed money from the Municipality in lieu of alternative accommodation.\n11.  On 22 July 2003 the Centru District Court upheld the applicant's action and ordered the Municipality to pay her the price of the apartment in the amount of 11,000 United States Dollars (USD). However, that decision was also not enforced. On 18 August 2004 the applicant lodged her application with the Court, complaining of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 22 July 2003. On 14 September 2004, the Centru District Court quashed the judgment of 22 July 2003 following a revision request lodged by the Municipality and reinstated the judgment of 19 February 2001.\n12.  The judgment of 27 November 2001 has not been enforced to date and the applicant continues to live in her old apartment.\n13.  According to the Government an apartment building in which the applicant's apartment will be located is currently under construction by the Chişinău Municipality.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5441", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Bystra Podhalańska.\n5.  In 1995 the applicant's neighbours, K.G. and J.G., constructed a sawmill on a plot of land adjacent to his property without the required building permit. The applicant informed the authorities about the illegal construction.\n6.  On 22 November 1995, the Nowy Targ District Office ordered the applicant's neighbours to demolish part of the building by 30 April 1996.\n7.  On a motion lodged by the applicant, on 29 September 1997 the Director of the Nowy Targ District Office ordered K.G. and J.G. to demolish the building by 30 January 1998 as it had been built without the appropriate permit. That decision was upheld on appeal by the Nowy Sącz Regional Office on 4 December 1997.\n8.  On 24 June 1998 the District Office fined K.G. and J.G. for failure to comply with the decision of 4 December 1997. Upon a further appeal, on 25 August 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court declared part of the decision of 4 December 1997 null and void in so far as it related to the time‑limit for carrying out the demolition.\n9.  On 20 November 2002 part of the sawmill burned down. It appears that, subsequently, the applicant's neighbours reconstructed the destroyed part of the building without the required building permit.\n10.  On an unknown date in 2004 the applicant complained to the Małopolski Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision, alleging that the length of the enforcement proceedings had been excessive.\n11.  In its decision of 12 October 2004 the Regional Inspector considered that the applicant's complaint was well-founded and ordered the Nowy Targ District Office to take the necessary measures in order to enforce the decision of 29 September 1997 within one month. The Regional Inspector's decision was subsequently upheld on 4 December 1997.\n12.  On 27 January 2005 the applicant filed a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court, alleging that the length of the enforcement proceedings had been excessive. He further stressed that the illegal construction and the operation of the sawmill constituted a significant nuisance. The complaint was referred to the Cracow Regional Administrative Court.\n13.  On 25 May 2006, in response, the Cracow Regional Administrative Court delivered a judgment. It ordered the Sucha Beskidzka District Inspector of Construction Supervision to take all the necessary measures with a view to enforcing the decision of 29 September 1997, as upheld by the decision of 4 December 1997, within one month of the date on which it received the case file.\n14.  On 7 June 2006 the Sucha Beskidzka District Prosecutor instituted an investigation into the non-enforcement of the decision of 29 September 1997.\n15.  On 4 October 2006 the Małopolski Regional Inspector of Environmental Protection informed the Mayor of Such Beskidzka that the sawmill operated by the applicant's neighbours created excessive noise during the daytime.\n16.  On 18 December 2006 the Mayor of Sucha Beskidzka gave a decision and established that the maximum noise level caused by the sawmill should not exceed 55dB during daytime and 45dB at night. It further held that that decision was without prejudice to the legality of the construction of the building located on the plot in question.\n17.  On 28 April 2008 the Sucha Beskidzka District Prosecutor filed an act of indictment against the Sucha Beskidzka District Inspector of Construction accusing him of breach of duty concerning the non‑enforcement of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5442", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and resided before his arrest in the village of Akhunovo, in the Bashkortostan Republic.\n7.  On 3 August 2000 the applicant was arrested along with several other village residents and placed in the temporary detention centre of the Uchaly police station (ИВС Учалинского ГРОВД, “the police station”). He was allegedly beaten and pressurised to confess to the murder of a certain Mr D. in the village of Akhunovo. The applicant remained in detention for fourteen days; the legal basis for his detention remains unclear. After fourteen days of detention he was released.\n8.  On 5 September 2000 the applicant was again arrested and taken to the police station. On the same day he was questioned by Kh.A., an investigator at the Uchaly district prosecutor's office (“the district prosecutor's office”), V.G., a senior operational officer of the Ministry of the Interior of the Bashkortostan Republic, Ya.M., the deputy head of the police station, and I.M., head of the criminal police. According to the applicant, throughout the interview they put pressure on him to confess to D.'s murder. In particular, V.G. explained to him in detail why he had killed D, saying that the applicant had committed the crime because he had found his daughter and D. making love. The applicant denied having murdered D.\n9.  According to the Government, on 5 September 2000 Kh.A. formally explained to the applicant the rights of an accused, including the right to free legal assistance, and assigned a certain Ur. to represent him. A copy of the related record produced by the Government is signed by Kh.A. and does not bear the signature of either the applicant or Ur.\n10.  On 6 September 2000 the applicant retained private defence counsel, A.A., to represent him. It appears that on that day and on the following day she visited him in the police station.\n11.  On 8 September 2000 Kh.A., who was in charge of the investigation into D.'s murder, authorised the applicant's detention on remand. The applicant was accused of murdering D., a friend of the applicant's daughter, on the night of 29-30 July 2000.\n12.  In a six-page typed and undated attachment to the supervisory review application lodged with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in April 2001, the applicant presented the following description of the ill-treatment to which he had allegedly been subjected on 8-9 September 2000. His submissions may be summarised as follows.\n13.  At about 3 p.m. on 8 September 2000 the applicant was brought to an office in the Uchaly police station where V.G. and Ya.M. were already present. Kh.A. was not there. VG. and Ya.M. pressurised the applicant to write a voluntary “confession statement” (явка с повинной) and promised in exchange to ask the investigator to reclassify the applicant's offence as involuntary manslaughter in a fit of passion. The applicant did not admit to being guilty and refused to make any statements to that effect.\n14.  Ya.M. and V.G. started beating the applicant. They hit his head against the wall, twisted his arms, punched his neck and kicked him in the groin. The beatings alternated with admonitions to him to confess. On three occasions the applicant was placed with his hands against the wall, legs wide apart, and V.G. hit his ankles so that the applicant's legs slid apart and the applicant fell. The applicant refused to confess and told the police officers that he would not tell them anything in the absence of his lawyer, which tri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5443", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and is currently being held in the Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre in Kırklareli.\n6.  In 1986 the applicant became an active sympathiser of the Islamic Tendency Movement, an illegal organisation in Tunisia. In 1989 the organisation was renamed Ennahda. He was arrested and questioned by the police on various occasions. As a result of persecution by Tunisian security forces, the applicant left Tunisia in 1990 and arrived in Syria, via Libya and Egypt. In 1992 he went to Italy and in 1994 he returned to Syria.\n7.  According to the applicant's submissions, in 1996, when the applicant went to the Tunisian consulate in Damascus, Syria, to renew his passport, he was detained and questioned by Tunisian officials there. Subsequently, he left Syria and arrived in Turkey.\n8.  Between 1996 and 2007 the applicant lived in the province of Şanlıurfa without a residence permit.\n9.  On 19 June 2007 the applicant was arrested by officers from the Anti‑Terrorist Branch of the Şanlıurfa Police Headquarters within the context of a police operation conducted against al-Qaeda. On 20 June 2007 he was transferred to the Bursa police headquarters. On 22 June 2007 the Bursa Magistrates' Court ordered his pre-trial detention.\n10.  On 9 August 2007 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court, charging the applicant and twenty-two others with membership of al-Qaeda. As regards the applicant, the public prosecutor noted that he was protected by another suspect, the person who was responsible for the Bursa area, and gave Arabic lessons to members of al-Qaeda.\n11.  On 24 January 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case. During the hearing the applicant made statements to the effect that his asylum request had been rejected at the end of 1996 and he had been living in Turkey for more than ten years. He further maintained that he had not been involved in the activities of al-Qaeda and that he could not return to Tunisia because he risked ill-treatment and the death penalty in his home country. At the end of the hearing, the court decided to release the applicant pending trial. The court however banned the applicant from leaving the country.\n12.  According to the information in the case file, the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the first-instance court.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicant reapplied to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) and requested to be recognised as a refugee.\n14.  Following his release from pre-trial detention and prior to his placement in a foreigners' admission and accommodation centre, on 25 January 2008 the applicant was questioned by two police officers at the foreigners' department of the Kocaeli police headquarters. According to the document containing his statements, the applicant was informed that a procedure for his deportation had been initiated. He was then asked to make statements as to his application to the UNHCR. The applicant maintained that his lawyer had contacted the UNHCR on his behalf and that he had been interviewed by the UNHCR on 18 January 2008. The applicant further contended that he did not wish to be sent to Tunisia, as he risked the death penalty and ill-treatment in his country of origin.\n15.  On 5 March 2008 the director of the department responsible for foreigners, borders and asylum attach", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5444", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1973 and 1978 respectively. They currently live in Sweden.\n7.  In 1999 and 2000 the first applicant, Mohammad Jaber Alipour, a veterinary surgeon, opened a veterinary clinic in Iran. Following the denunciation by the State authorities in Iran on religious grounds of the feeding of cats and dogs (since keeping pets was seen as propagating Western culture), the authorities began to put pressure on the applicant to close down his clinic. As the applicant failed to do so, the clinic was closed down by the authorities. Despite this, the applicant continued to be harassed by State officials.\n8.  On 28 November 2000 the applicant arrived in Turkey. He claimed that he had had to flee Iran as he had been harassed and persecuted by the State authorities for having opened a veterinary clinic in the city of Oromoyeh.\n9.  In 2004 the applicant's request for asylum was rejected by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and subsequently by the Ministry of the Interior. The applicant's objection to the Ministry's decision was also dismissed. While the applicant claimed that he had not been notified of the outcome of his objection, the Government submitted that in March 2005 the applicant had gone to the Afyon police headquarters but refused to be served with the decision dismissing his objection.\n10.  On 6 November 2007 the applicant filed a petition with the Ministry of the Interior requesting a residence permit on the ground that he wished to marry an Iranian refugee in Afyon.\n11.  On 29 November 2007 the director of the department responsible for aliens, borders and asylum attached to the General Police Headquarters requested the Afyon police to apprehend and deport the applicant as soon as possible. The director's letter gave the applicant's home address and his mobile telephone number.\n12.  On an unspecified date the UNHCR reopened the applicant's file.\n13.  On 10 January 2008 the applicant was arrested by police officers in Afyon, his city of residence. He claimed that the officers had told him that he was being arrested with a view to his deportation to Iran. Although he explained to the police that his file was under examination by the UNHCR, he was taken to Ağrı, where he escaped from the police. The deportation order was not served on him. The applicant further claimed that, when they had arrested him, the police had confiscated his passport, with the result that he could not appoint a lawyer to represent him.\n14.  On 12 January 2008 a police director from the Afyon police headquarters sent a letter to the General Police Headquarters and all provincial police headquarters. He explained in his letter that the applicant had gone missing while being deported. Noting that the applicant might go to the UNHCR's Ankara office for his interview, which was to be held on 28 January 2008, he asked the police directors to take all necessary steps to apprehend him.\n15.  On 17 January 2008 the UNHCR's Ankara office interviewed the applicant.\n16.  On 6 February 2008 the first applicant was granted refugee status under the UNHCR's Mandate.\n17.  On 22 February 2008 the President of the Second Section decided to extend until further notice the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. She also decided to request the applicant to inform the Court whether he would be applying to the relevant domestic authorities for his identity documents, so that his representative could take the necessary ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5445", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 21 and 22 February 1997 the applicant and a number of other suspects were taken into police custody by officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters, where they were kept until 6 March 1997 and allegedly ill-treated by police officers. The applicant stated in particular that she had been beaten, and subjected to sexual harassment and Palestinian hanging.\n7.  On 26 February 1997 the applicant was taken to a State hospital for a medical examination. The report drawn up by a doctor indicated that the applicant did not bear any signs of ill-treatment.\n8.  On 4 March 1997 the applicant was taken to a forensic doctor who reported a lightly bruised area on her left shoulder, old scabs of various sizes on the lower parts of her legs, sensitivity in her thumbs and index fingers on both hands and pain in her arms. During the subsequent domestic proceedings, on 15 October 1999 the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute established that the injuries noted on the applicant's body had rendered her unfit to work for three days.\n9.  On 6 March 1997 the applicant was brought before the Istanbul Public Prosecutor. She denied all accusations against her and mentioned the ill-treatment she had been subjected to. She was subsequently detained pending trial.\n10.  Following the complaints of ill-treatment lodged by the applicant and fourteen other detainees, an investigation concerning eight police officers on duty at the time was initiated. On 8 May 1997 the Fatih Public Prosecutor took statements from the police officers concerned and, on 23 June 1997, prepared a summary of the case (fezleke) proposing that the eight police officers who had questioned the fifteen complainants at the Istanbul Security Headquarters be charged with inflicting torture under Article 243 of the former Criminal Code.\n11.  On 4 July 1997 the Istanbul Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment, charging the police officers as proposed.\n12.  On 17 July 1998 the Disciplinary Board of the Istanbul Police (İl Polis Disiplin Kurulu) decided not to impose any disciplinary measures on the police officers owing to a lack of evidence establishing that they had committed the acts complained of.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicant intervened in the criminal proceedings as a civil party. During a hearing held on 29 April 1999, the applicant identified one of the police officers in the hearing room as another one of those who had allegedly been among the perpetrators of her ill-treatment. On 25 October 2000 an additional bill of indictment was issued in respect of that officer.\n14.  In his opinion delivered on 8 July 2002, the public prosecutor recommended that the police officers be convicted as charged.\n15.  On 2 December 2002 the Istanbul Assize Court acquitted five of the police officers for lack of evidence. The remaining four officers were sentenced to eleven months and twenty days' imprisonment and disbarred from public service for two months and twenty-seven days. This sentence was suspended at the discretion of the trial court judges, who noted that the police officers did not have criminal records and were not likely to perpetrate any crimes if their sentence was suspended. One of the judges expressed a dissenting opinion.\n16.  The applicant appealed. On 1 April 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the acquittal decision regarding the police officer who had been identified by the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5446", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Westcliff on Sea.\n6.  On 30 April 1994 the applicant was sentenced to eighteen years' imprisonment for serious crimes including attempted murder, which carried a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Under the legislative regime applicable at the time, he became eligible for release on parole on 13 March 2002 and entitled to release on 18 March 2005 (see paragraphs 24 and 27 below).\n7.  On 25 March 2002 the Parole Board recommended the applicant's release on parole on the grounds that the risk to the public had been significantly reduced; that the proposed resettlement plan would secure his rehabilitation; and that the applicant would comply with the licence conditions.\n8.  Under the legislation in force at the time, the final decision on early release in cases involving prisoners serving determinate sentences (i.e. fixed-term sentences) of more than fifteen years' imprisonment lay with the Secretary of State (see paragraphs 27-29 below). For prisoners serving determinate sentences of less than fifteen years and for prisoners serving indeterminate (i.e. life) sentences, the approval of the Secretary of State following a positive recommendation of the Parole Board was not required. On 25 October 2002 the Secretary of State rejected the recommendation of the Parole Board in the applicant's case, concluding that the release of the applicant would present an unacceptable risk to the public. As a result, the applicant was not released.\n9.  On 17 February 2003, the applicant was granted leave to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the decision of the Secretary of State to refuse his early release. His principal ground of challenge was that it was a breach of Article 5 of the Convention taken together with Article 14 that the Secretary of State should retain the power to determine the release on parole licence of only one group of prisoners, i.e. those who were serving determinate terms of imprisonment of fifteen years or more (see paragraphs 23-31 below for details of the law in force at the relevant time).\n10.  The Parole Board subsequently reconsidered the applicant's case and on 17 March 2003 did not recommend release. The Court has not been provided with details of the reasons for this decision.\n11.  On 9 June 2003, the Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's judicial review claim. For the purposes of the proceedings, the Secretary of State accepted that the question of early release from a determinate sentence fell within the ambit of Article 5 of the Convention and that Article 14 was therefore engaged. Hooper J found that there was differential treatment between analogous groups, namely those serving sentences of fifteen years or more and those serving sentences of almost fifteen years, in that prisoners serving sentences of fifteen years or more had to secure a recommendation from the Parole Board and approval from the Secretary of State whereas those serving almost fifteen years needed only a recommendation from the Parole Board. However, he considered that the differential treatment pursued the legitimate aim of reserving to a politically and democratically accountable minister the power to control the release of those serving long determinate sentences. He further considered that the power was proportionate in light of the problems posed by such prisoners for public safety and public order. Accordingly, he found that there was no violation of Article 5 together with Ar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5447", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kovarditsy, the Vladimir Region.\n5.  In 1998 the applicant's father died in a fire. The applicant alleged that the death had been caused by the firemen's manifest failure to comply with the fire-fighting instructions. In 2001 K., an investigator of the Murom Division of the State Fire Department, reported to a local prosecutor about the incident. In his official explanatory note issued in reply to the prosecutor's inquiry K. stated that the applicant's repeated unfounded complaints demonstrated that she must have been suffering from some mental disorder and that he strongly recommended subjecting her to a psychiatric examination.\n6.  The applicant sued K. and the State Fire Department of the Vladimir Region for defamation.\n7.  On 22 July 2004 the Murom Town Court found in the applicant's favour. The court held, in particular, that K. had acted in his official capacity of an investigator when making the defamatory statements about the applicant. The court awarded her 3,030 Russian roubles (RUB) in non‑pecuniary damages against the State Fire Department of the Vladimir Region and ordered K. to retract the false information about the applicant. On 21 September 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the judgment in substance, and it entered into force. The judgment has not been executed to date.\n8.  On 1 April 2005 pursuant to order no. 487 of 26 October 2004 issued by the Ministry of the Emergency Response of Russia, the State Fire Department of the Vladimir Region was liquidated by way of removal from the State tax register. The functions of the State Fire Department have since been executed by the previously existing Vladimir Region Office of the Ministry of the Emergency Response of Russia.\n9.  On 27 March 2006 two writs of execution issued by the Murom Town Court on 22 July 2004 were received by the bailiff service of the Vladimir Region, which initiated the enforcement proceedings on the same day. In the course of the proceedings the bailiff service established that the judgment could not be enforced due to the debtor's liquidation. On 21 June 2007 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir terminated the enforcement proceedings.\n10.  On 29 December 2006 the Murom Town Court refused to replace the respondent authority by the Ministry of the Emergency Response of Russia on the ground that the latter was not a legal successor to the defunct State Fire Department. The judgment was upheld by the Vladimir Regional Court on 19 April 2007.\n11.  The applicant further sued the Ministry of Finance for damages resulting from the firemen's negligence. On 17 April 2007 the Vladimir Regional Court in the final instance rejected her complaints as unfounded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5448", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5. The applicants are:\n(1) Mr Vakhit Gelayev, born in 1949,\n(2) Ms Amint (also spelled as Aminat) Gelayeva, born in 1952,\n(3) Ms Zarema Gelayeva, born in 1983,\n(4) Ms Pakanat Gelayeva, born in 1928,\n(5) Mr Shakhit Gelayev, born in 1925 and\n(6) Mr Akhmat Gelayev, born in 1951.\n6.  The applicants live in Gikalo, Chechnya. The first and second applicants are the parents of Murad Gelayev (also known as Murat or Edik Gelayev), who was born in 1976. The third applicant is his sister, the fourth applicant is his grandmother, the fifth applicant is his grandfather and the sixth applicant is his uncle.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  At the material time the settlement of Gikalo in the Grozny district of Chechnya was under the full control of the Russian federal forces; checkpoints of the Russian military were located on the roads leading to and from the village. On 26-27 February 2000 the Russian federal forces conducted a special operation in the village. The operation was carried out with APCs (armoured personnel carriers) and Ural vehicles.\n9.  In the morning of 27 February 2000 Murad Gelayev and the second and third applicants were at home at 20, Mira Street, Gikalo. The fourth applicant lived nearby.\n10.  At about 7 a.m. the second applicant heard some noise and looked out of the window. She saw armed military servicemen jumping over the fence. Some of the men were wearing masks. When the second applicant went outside, one of the men ordered her to stand up against the wall and pointed his machine gun at her.\n11.  Then a large group of the servicemen broke into the house. The second applicant went back inside. There she saw her son, Murad, and her daughter, the third applicant, standing against the wall. The intruders, who were of Slavic appearance and spoke unaccented Russian, demanded that the second applicant give them her son's passport; while she was looking for it, they kept hitting her in the back with rifle-butts and saying: “Hurry up, search faster”. After the second applicant found the passport and handed it over to the men, one of them took it outside, to an APC which was parked next to the house. Shortly after that the man brought Murad Gelayev's passport back. The second applicant attempted to put clothing on Murad, but the servicemen started beating her, Murad Gelayev and his sister with rifle-butts.\n12.  After that the servicemen dragged Murad Gelayev outside. The second and third applicants asked the servicemen to release Murad saying that his identity documents had already been checked by them. The servicemen told the applicants that they would release him after a check; the applicants kept begging the men to release their relative and the servicemen beat them with rifle-butts. Then the third applicant ran to the neighbours screaming for help and the second applicant kept following the servicemen. One of them pressed his machine gun against her chest and ordered her to get out of the way.\n13.  Meanwhile the fourth applicant, who had been told by her neighbours that the servicemen were raiding her son's house, arrived at the yard and joined the second applicant in attempts to prevent the abduction of Murad Gelayev. A crowd of neighbours started gathering and the servicemen began shooting above the crowd's heads to disperse it. Continuing the beating of the second and fourth applicants in front of the neighbours, the servicemen put Murad Gelayev in a Ural vehicle whic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5449", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Orenburg.\n5.  On 3 October 2000 the applicant filed a suit with the justice of peace of judicial circuit no. 7 of the Leninskiy District of Orenburg against a municipal enterprise. She alleged that certain actions of the respondent had led to grave damage to her privately owned house and claimed that the respondent should repair it or provide equivalent monetary compensation, fix construction flaws and pay her compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  On 5 October 2000 the justice of peace left the claim without consideration for lack of competence.\n7.  On 10 October 2000 the justice of peace of the judicial circuit no. 6 also left the claim without consideration for the same reason.\n8.  On 31 October 2000 the claim was admitted by the justice of peace of the judicial circuit no. 1 of the Tsentralnyy District of Orenburg.\n9.  On 20 December 2000 the hearing was adjourned due to the respondent's representative's failure to appear.\n10.  On 18 January 2001 the court granted the applicant's motion to identify a co-respondent and adjourned the hearing.\n11.  On 19 July 2001 the court ordered a technical examination, which lasted until 25 March 2002. Two questions were put to the experts.\n12.  On 19 April 2002 the case was transferred to the Tsentralnyy District Court of Orenburg (“the District Court”) as falling within the latter's competence.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicant altered her claims.\n14.  On 10 June 2002 the hearing was adjourned to 26 June 2002 as the applicant's counsel failed to appear.\n15.  On 22 August 2002 the District Court disallowed the applicant's claims. The judgment was overturned on appeal by a decision of the Orenburg Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) on 10 October 2002, for erroneous application of the substantive law. The case was remitted to the first instance for fresh examination.\n16.  On 2 December 2002 the hearing was adjourned at both parties' requests.\n17.  Two following hearings were adjourned at the applicant's request due to her counsel's failure to appear and to enable her to secure additional evidence.\n18.  On 20 January 2003 the District Court ordered a technical examination. Eleven questions were put to the experts.\n19.  On 10 February 2003 head of the State forensic examinations bureau informed the court that the examination would start in April once the snow melted.\n20.  On 9 July 2003 the same official informed the court that the examination was delayed because it was necessary to carry out an additional survey and to invite another expert.\n21.  On 20 October 2003 the District Court requested information on the date of completion of the examination. In their reply the forensic examinations bureau referred to a heavy workload.\n22.  The technical examination was completed on 9 December 2003, and on 30 January 2004 the District Court resumed the proceedings.\n23.  Two following hearings were adjourned at the applicant's request to enable her to secure additional evidence and specify her claims.\n24.  On 2 March 2004 the court granted the applicant's motion for a new technical examination, which lasted until 20 March 2004. The experts had to answer one question.\n25.  On 5 April 2004 the District Court resumed the proceedings. The court adjourned two following hearings to enable the applicant to specify her claims and for a new respondent to familiarise themselves with the claims.\n26.  On 11 June 2004 the District Court granted the applicant's ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5450", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in the city of Lugansk, Ukraine.\n5.  On 30 March 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, being a director of a small private company, and Ms E., a chief accountant of the company, on suspicion of credit fraud.\n6. According to the materials in the case-file, on 3 September 1998 the Prosecutor of the Leninsky District of Lugansk ordered the applicant's detention on remand. The parties did not provide a copy of that order.\n7.  On 4 September 1998 the proceedings were suspended since the applicant failed to appear before the investigator. On the same date he was put on the list of wanted persons.\n8.  On 27 September 2001 the applicant, who at that time resided in Russia, was arrested by the Russian police pursuant to an international warrant for his arrest issued by the Ukrainian authorities.\n9.  According to the Government's observations, on 2 October 2001 the preventive measure of detention on remand was upheld. The Government failed to provide a copy of that order.\n10.  On 22 October 2001 the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine made a request to the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation for the applicant's extradition under the 1993 Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases (the “Minsk Convention”). On 25 October 2010 the request was granted.\n11.  On 1 February 2002 the Prosecutor of the Leninsky District of Lugansk extended the applicant's detention on remand until 15 March 2002.\n12.  Once in Ukraine on 6 February 2002, the applicant was detained on remand.\n13.  On 5 March 2002 the applicant was charged with financial fraud and forgery.\n14.  Between 5 March 2002 and 21 May 2002 the applicant was acquainted himself with the case-file.\n15.  On 21 May 2002 the applicant asked the investigator to replace the detention with another preventive measure alleging that he had health problems. On the same date the request was dismissed since the applicant failed to provide any proves in support of his allegations.\n16.  On 2 July 2002 the Leninsky District Prosecutor's Office of Lugansk submitted the applicant's case to the court for examination on the merits.\n17.  On 15 August 2002 the Leninsky District Court of Lugansk (hereafter “the Leninsky Court”) held a preparatory hearing. It found that the bill of indictment needed redrafting. The case-file was sent back to the Prosecutor's Office. The Leninsky Court also rejected the applicant's request for release, having found that the detention on remand had been ordered at the investigation stage in accordance with law and that there was no reason to replace it with another preventive measure.\n18.  On 20 September 2002 the applicant's criminal case was sent to the Leninsky Court. On 4 November 2002 the latter terminated the criminal proceedings against Ms E.\n19.  On 4 October 2002, 9 December 2002, 10 December 2002, 19 December 2002 and on an unspecified date in June 2003 the applicant asked the Leninsky Court to replace the detention on remand with another preventive measure. On 4 November 2002, 9 December 2002, 16 December 2002, 10 January 2003 and 27 June 2003 the Leninsky Court respectively dismissed his requests, having found that the detention on remand had been ordered at the investigation stage in accordance with law and that there was no reason to replace it with another preventive measure.\n20.  On 21 July 2003 the Leninsky Court convicted the applicant of fina", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5451", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Feodosiya.\n5.  On 10 June 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Feodosiya Court against the State-owned company Krymenergo seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by allegedly unlawful electricity cuts and inaccurate calculation of her electricity charges.\n6.  Between January 1998 and March 1999 the applicant modified her claims on six occasions.\n7.  On 12 March 1998 the Feodosiya Prosecutor's Office lodged a counter-claim on behalf of Krymenergo seeking recovery of electricity charges not paid by the applicant.\n8.  On 5 January 1999 the applicant lodged with the same court a defamation claim against Krymenergo.\n9.  On 12 March 1999 the court joined that claim to the original proceedings.\n10.  On 17 March 1999 the court dismissed the applicant's claims as unsubstantiated and allowed the counter-claim, ordering the applicant to pay 269 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] to Krymenergo.\n11.  On 2 June 1999 the Crimea Supreme Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.\n12.  According to the Government, on 28 September 1999, the applicant requested the court to suspend the proceedings. On the same day the request was granted. The applicant denied that she had made such a request.\n13.  On 5 December 2000 the proceedings were resumed.\n14.  By a procedural decision of 5 December 2000 the court ordered the parties to check the payments already made for electricity and to inform the court accordingly. According to the Government, the applicant failed to comply with that decision. The applicant denied that contention. On 28 February 2001 the court reiterated its order and, by April 2001, the parties had submitted the information concerning the payments.\n15.  On 20 August 2001 the Feodosiya Court rejected the applicant's claims and ordered her to pay UAH 180.85[2] in debts.\n16.  On 17 September 2001 the applicant appealed.\n17.  On 18 January 2002 the applicant's appeal was rejected for failure to comply with procedural requirements. The applicant disagreed and challenged the ruling of 18 January 2001 on appeal. Between January 2002 and June 2005 her appeals were dealt with by the court of first instance and on appeal. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed and on 30 August 2005 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 20 August 2001 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.\n18.  Meanwhile, on 14 March 2003 the Council of Judges examined the applicant's complaint that the judge of the first-instance court dealing with her case had taken too long to examine her appeals. The Council of Judges allowed the applicant's complaint and issued an official reprimand against the judge.\n19.  Following reconsideration of the case, on 4 July 2006 the Feodosiya Court found against the applicant and ordered her to pay UAH 259.73[3] in debts.\n20.  On 12 September 2006 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal as lodged out of time.\n21.  On 26 April 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of 12 September 2006.\n22.  Out of thirty-six court hearings held in the course of the proceedings, one was adjourned due to the applicant's failure to appear, two were adjourned due to the prosecutor's failure to appear, four were adjourned due to both parties' failure to appear, seven were adjourned due to Krymenergo's representative's failure to appear, and three were adjourned due to the judge'", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5452", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company is the editorial body of a limited liability company called the Ukraina-Tsentr Newspaper and is registered in the city of Kirovograd, Ukraine.\n5.  In June 2002 the mayoral elections were conducted in the city of Kirovograd. On 12 June 2002, during the election campaign, two press conferences relating to those elections were held at the Ukrainian Independent News Agency (“the UNIAN”). During one of those press conferences, a local Kirovograd journalist, Mr M. accused one of the candidates, Mr Y., of ordering him to be murdered for 5,000 US dollars (USD). The wording of the accusation made by Mr M., as later established by the domestic courts, contained the following paragraph:\n“He (Mr Y.) went to his friend, the one locally known politician, whom I will not name yet, but if necessary we will provide [his name], we have facts. Upon his request, the other took out five thousand dollars of his money and handed it to his head of security service and said the following, that it is necessary to reserve for me a place in the morgue.\nSo, at present, they “ordered” me for five thousand dollars. Who ordered? I say: [Mr] Y. [full name], I declare it officially.”\n6.  This information among other news was disseminated by the UNIAN via e-mail and posted on its website. According to the applicant company, it received this information by electronic mail in the following form:\n“Furthermore, [Mr] M. accused the Kirovograd mayoral candidate and President of the Kirovskiy District Court, [Mr] V. Y., “of ordering him to be murdered”. The journalist reported that for safety reasons he had taken his family away from the region. According to him, all four journalists participating in the press conference addressed the General Prosecutor's Office, the Security Service of Ukraine and the Ministry of the Interior concerning the threats to them and claimed that they had proof of pressure being applied to them”.\n7.  According to the applicant company, on the same day, the STB TV channel in its Vikna-Novyny news programme disseminated similar information, indicating that Mr M. had also mentioned the sum of USD 5,000 for “ordering him to be murdered”.\n8.  On 14 June 2002 the applicant company published an article which was titled “The metropolitan tour” in which the above-mentioned press conferences of 12 June 2002 were described. Among other things, the article contained the following paragraph:\n“[Mr] M. accused [Mr] Y. of 'ordering him to be murdered' and even stated the amount paid for the 'order' – 5,000 US dollars. The journalist stated that for safety reasons he had taken his family away from the region. According to him, all four journalists participating in the press conference addressed the General Prosecutor's Office, the Security Service of Ukraine and the Ministry of the Interior concerning the threats to them. He also claimed that they had proof of the pressure being applied to them.”\n9.  In August 2002 Mr Y. lodged a civil claim in the Kirovograd Leninsky District Court (the Leninsky Court) against the applicant company and Mr M. complaining that the phrase “[Mr] M. accused [Mr] Y. 'of ordering him to be murdered' and even stated the amount paid for the 'order' – 5,000 US dollars” published by the applicant company was untrue and abased his human dignity. He maintained that that publication had affected his professional and private life and damaged his reputation as an individual, lawyer and politician. Taking the view that the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5453", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Vinnitsa.\n5.  In 1983, while undergoing training at the SU-26 company, the applicant had an accident. As a result of this accident he was classed as a disabled person.\n6.  Starting in 2000 the applicant instituted four sets of proceedings against the Vinnitsa specialised collective company no. 26 (“the company”), the successor of the company responsible for the accident, in the Zamostyansky District Court of Vinnitsa (“District Court”).\n7.  On 21 September 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings against the company, seeking a ruling to oblige the company to provide him with a wheelchair for home use and a wheelchair for outside use. The applicant also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n8.  By its judgment of 19 June 2001 the District Court ordered the company to provide the applicant with two wheelchairs. It also partly allowed the applicant's claim for compensation. By an additional judgment of 3 July 2001 the District Court amended its previous judgment and ruled that the company should provide the applicant with all components for wheelchairs.\n9.  On 23 October 2001 the Vinnitsa Regional Court of Appeal quashed the above judgments and remitted the case for a new consideration to the District Court. The applicant appealed in cassation. In the period from November 2001 to December 2002 the District Court mainly examined the admissibility of the applicant's appeal in cassation against the ruling of 23 October 2001.\n10.  In December 2002 the applicant's appeal in cassation was sent to the Supreme Court. On 22 December 2003 the latter dismissed it.\n11.  Between 30 June 2004 and 11 April 2005 no hearings were scheduled.\n12.  Between 12 April 2005 and 27 March 2006 the District Court scheduled some ten hearings, two of them were adjourned on account of absence of the company's representative, two other on account of the judge's absence. Three hearings were adjourned since the applicant's representative failed to appear.\n13.  Between 21 April 2006 and 04 August 2006 no hearings were held.\n14.  In the period from 6 November 2006 to 12 December 2007 the District Court scheduled some twelve hearings. Three of them were adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings and one on account of his illness. Three hearings were adjourned because the Fund's representative failed to appear, four due to the absence of the company's representative.\n15.  On 12 December 2007 the case was transferred to another judge.\n16.  Between 13 December 2007 and 14 May 2009 the District Court scheduled some thirteen hearings, six of them were adjourned since the judge was ill and one because he was involved in other hearings.\n17.  On 15 May 2009 the District Court left the applicant's claim without consideration. The applicant in his submissions alleged that he learned about that decision from the Government's observations sent to him in July 2009.\n18.  On 18 February 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings against the company. The applicant claimed nursery allowance and compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused to him by the company.\n19.  The first hearing was held on 16 December 2003. On unspecified dates the prosecutor and the Vinnitsa Regional Department of the State Social Security Fund (“Fund”) joined the proceedings.\n20.  According to the records provided by the Government, of around sixty-five listed hearings three were adjourned since the Fund's representative failed to appear. On ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5454", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Taganrog, the Rostov Region.\n5.  On 18 December 1998 the applicant was arrested and allegedly beaten up by the police officers. On the same day he was remanded in custody on suspicion of robbery.\n6.  On 21 December 1998 the charges were brought against the applicant and he was provided with a legal-aid counsel.\n7.  On 14 March 2000 the applicant was released on a written undertaking not to leave the town.\n8.  On 13 June 2000 the Rostov Regional Court convicted the applicant of robbery and imposed a suspended sentence of five years' imprisonment on him. On 2 November 2000, however, the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial.\n9.  On 14 May 2001 the Rostov Regional Court convicted the applicant of fraud, kidnapping, illegal deprivation of liberty, extortion, burglary and theft and sentenced him to seven years and six months' imprisonment. The applicant was taken straight from the courtroom to the detention unit.\n10.  On 16 January 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment of 14 May 2001 on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. The Supreme Court held that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”.\n11.  On 12 February 2002 the Rostov Regional Court listed the new trial hearing for 27 February 2002 and ordered that the preventive measure applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”.\n12.  On 1 July 2002 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 October 2002.\n“The defendants [the applicant and four other persons] are charged with kidnapping, illegal deprivation of liberty, burglary and other crimes.\nThey have been in custody: ..., [the applicant] – since 18 December 1998, ...\nThe Prosecutor requested that the defendants' detention be extended by 3 months.\nHaving examined the Prosecutor's request, and having heard the parties to the proceedings, the court considers it necessary to extend the defendants' detention by 3 months, that is, until 1 October 2002 inclusive, because they are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences.\nUnder Articles 255 and 256 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the defendants' detention on remand is extended by 3 (three) months, that is, from 1 July 2002 to 1 October 2002.”\n13.  On 6 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the extension order, finding that it was sufficiently justified.\n14.  On 1 October and 31 December 2002 and 31 March, 26 June, 25 September and 15 December 2003 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 January, 31 March, 30 June, 26 September, 25 December 2003 and 15 March 2004 respectively. The wording of the decisions was identical to that applied in the decision of 1 July 2002.\n15.  The applicant appealed against each of the above-mentioned extension orders of the Supreme Court arguing that they were not sufficiently reasoned and that the court had not taken into consideration his individual situation. On 12 February, 14 May, 16 July, 16 October and 24 December 2003 and 31 March 2004 respectively, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above-mentioned decisions on appeal.\n16.  In the meantime, on 19 February 2004 the Rostov Regional Court, composed of presiding judge Mr Zh. and lay judges Ms S. and Ms M., extended the applicant's detention until 19 May 2004. The court used the same stereotyped wording and referred to the seriousness of the charges agains", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5455", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Zaporizhia, Ukraine.\n5.  In June 2002 the applicant had a work-related accident in which he was injured. Later he received the status of a partially disabled person.\n6.  On 14 August 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings against his employer, the OJSC “Zaporizhshaskloflyus, seeking a declaration that his disability had been caused by the injury. He also claimed payment of UAH 33,000 (about 6,724 euros, EUR) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage resulting from his disability.\n7.  On an unspecified date the State Insurance Fund for Work-Related Accidents and Diseases (“the Fund”) joined the proceedings.\n8.  On 11 August 2003 the Zavodsky District Court of Zaporizhia (“the District Court”) found against the applicant. On 1 December 2003 the Zaporizhia Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal) quashed that judgment and awarded the applicant UAH 500 (about EUR 76) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, to be paid by the Fund.\n9. On 24 December 2003 the applicant and the Fund lodged their appeals in cassation with the Supreme Court.\n10.  On 17 March 2004 the Fund enforced the judgment.\n11.  In January 2005 the applicant sent a request to the Supreme Court seeking information about the state of the proceedings. By letter of 22 February 2005 the Supreme Court informed him that his appeal had not yet been considered and that he would be informed in due course of any decision taken by the Supreme Court.\n12.  On 22 November 2005 the Supreme Court, in the applicant's and the Fund's absence, dismissed their appeals in cassation.\n13.  In October 2007 the applicant sent a new request to the Supreme Court seeking information about the outcome of his cassation appeal.\n14.  By letter of 2 November 2007 the Supreme Court informed the applicant that, due to a clerical error, a copy of the ruling of 22 November 2005 had been sent to a wrong address in December 2005.\n15.  The applicant received the letter of 2 November 2007 and the copy of the ruling of 22 November 2005 on an unspecified date in November 2007.\n16.  On 10 October 2002 the applicant was dismissed from his job at the OJSC “Zaporizhshaskloflyus”.\n17.  On 4 November 2002 he challenged his dismissal before the District Court. On 28 January 2003 the latter found against the applicant. On 6 February 2003 the applicant appealed. In accordance with the requirements of the applicable law, the applicant filed his appeal with the District Court. The latter then transmitted it to the Court of Appeal for consideration.\n18.  On 26 February 2003 the Court of Appeal ordered the rectification of some shortcomings of the applicant's appeal and remitted the case to the District Court. On 14 March 2003 the District Court declined the applicant's appeal against the judgment of 28 January 2003 since the applicant failed to rectify the shortcomings within a time-limit allotted by the District Court. The applicant appealed against the ruling of 14 March 2003. On 15 April 2003 the District Court declined his appeal since the applicant failed to comply with procedural formalities. The ruling of 15 April 2005 was not appealed against.\n19.  In April 2003 the applicant lodged a new appeal against the judgment of 28 January 2003, having filed it with the District Court. On 9 April 2003 the District Court declined this appeal since it had been lodged outside the statutory time-limit. On 8 May 2003 the District Court declined the applicant's appeal a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5456", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The individual applicants were born in 1934, 1967 and 1976 respectively and live in Yevpatoriya, Ukraine.\n5.  In August 1998 L. instituted proceedings against the first applicant in the Yevpatoriya Town Court requesting the return of a photocopier, forty packets of paper and twelve toner cartridges. He alleged that in May 1998 the first applicant, together with the third applicant, had come to the office of L. and asked Z., the secretary of L., to lend him a photocopier. At the material time L. was in pre-trial detention in the course of criminal proceedings against him. Z., knowing that there were friendly relations between L. and the first applicant, had allowed him to take the photocopier and other materials. Later L. also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  On 6 November 1998 the court found for L. and ordered the first applicant to return the photocopier and related materials to L. or to pay him 6,446.92 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in pecuniary damages. In the text of the judgment the court also mentioned that the first applicant was to pay UAH 6,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, but made no reference to this sum in the operative part of the judgment. On the same date the court also adopted an interim decision by which it froze the accounts of the applicant company and banned any transactions with the first applicant's property and apartment over UAH 12,446.92.\n7.  On 4 January 1999 the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the ARC”) quashed the judgment of 6 November 1998 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. The court however upheld the decision of 6 November 1998 concerning the interim measures.\n8.  On 18 February 1999 the Yevpatoriya Town Court found for L. and ordered the first applicant to return the photocopier to L. or to pay him its value of UAH 5,480. The court also ordered the first applicant to pay UAH 274 in court fees. The remainder of L.'s claims were rejected as unsubstantiated. The court found in particular, that there was no evidence that the first applicant had taken paper and toner. The first applicant appealed against this judgment, but his appeal was not accepted for failure to comply with procedural formalities. L. did not appeal against the judgment in question.\n9.  The first applicant further tried to have the judgment of 18 February 1999 reviewed under the new cassation procedure, in the light of new circumstances and under the extraordinary review procedure, but to no avail.\n10.  In August 1999 L. instituted another set of proceedings in the Yevpatoriya Town Court against the first applicant, claiming additional payments, since the amount awarded to L. by the court decision of 18 February 1999 did not correspond to the current price of a photocopier, which, according to L., was UAH 8,177.40. On 17 January 2000 the court found against L. It held that in the judgment of 18 February 1999 the court had found that the photocopier cost UAH 5,480. On 20 March 2000 the Supreme Court of the ARC upheld the judgment of 17 January 2000.\n11.  As the first applicant did not honour the judgment of 18 February 1999, on an unidentified date the Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n12.  On 15 May 1999 the State Auto-Transport Inspection informed the President of the Yevpatoriya Town Court, following his request, that certain petrol tankers (a МАZ-5334, registration number 7561 KРТ and a MAZ 5334, registration number 1403 KPT) belonged to the first applica", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5457", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Yevpatoriya.\n6.  On 26 March 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft. He was taken to Yevpatoriya Police Base Station No. 8 («Опорний пункт охорони правопорядку № 8»), where the police body-searched him and discovered, in the presence of two attesting witnesses, two packets of opium extract. The record of the search and seizure, which contained a signature appearing to be that of the applicant, indicated that he had admitted having bought those drugs for his own use. However, once the drug seizure was documented, the applicant cut his neck with his key-ring as an indication of protest. The police called an ambulance, which documented the injury as being of a minor nature and provided the applicant with the required aid.\n7.  The applicant was placed under three-day administrative detention pending clarification of all the circumstances of the supposed drug offence.\n8.  On the same date he was delivered to the Yevpatoriya Local Police Precinct («РОВД м. Євпаторія»), where, according to the applicant, police officer R. beat him severely.\n9.  According to the applicant, R. asked him not to raise any complaints in exchange for a promise that the police would turn a blind eye to any future misdemeanours from his side. The applicant accepted this.\n10.  On 26 March 2002 he was delivered to the Yevpatoriya Temporary Detention Facility, where he was placed in a cell shared by some twelve inmates. According to the registration journal, he arrived there without any visible bodily injuries. During the three days of his detention he did not request or receive any medical assistance.\n11.  On 29 March 2002 the applicant was released.\n12.  On 15 April 2002 he complained to a traumatologist in the Yevpatoriya hospital that he was suffering from pain in the chest and was prescribed some antibacterial medication.\n13.  Having repeatedly sought medical assistance for continuous pain, on 22 April 2002 the applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic intercostal neuralgia and painful hypodermic indurations from both sides of the rib cage. He told the doctor that he had accidentally fallen down some stairs on 13 April 2002.\n14.  On 25 April 2002 the applicant was hospitalised with the following diagnoses: right-lung pneumonia concentrated in the inferior lobe, fracture of the middle third of the breastbone and closed fracture of the seventh rib on the right side. He underwent treatment as an in-patient until 8 May 2002.\n15.  On 22 January 2003 the applicant complained to the Yevpatoriya Town Prosecutor's Office (“the Yevpatoriya Prosecutor”) that on 26 March 2002 he had been beaten up by police officer R., as a result of which he had several rib fractures. He explained the delay in bringing that complaint by the alleged agreement with R. (see paragraph 9 above), which he considered to have been breached.\n16.  On 29 January 2003 the hospital where the applicant had been treated submitted all the related medical documentation (namely the X-ray films, the medical history sheet and other medical records) to the Yevpatoriya Deputy Prosecutor at the latter's request. As it would be later admitted in the course of the investigation, the content of those documents was never reflected in the investigation paperwork.\n17.  Overall, in the period from January 2003 to December 2007 the Yevpatoriya Prosecutor refused thirteen times to open a criminal case against R. on the basis of the applicant's complaints. All t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5458", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Krasnoselka, Odessa region, Ukraine.\n6.  Between 1990 and 2001 the law enforcement authorities of the Odessa region instituted thirteen sets of criminal proceedings on different accounts of murder, rape and robberies committed by several individuals. On 8 May 2000, in particular, the Lyubashivskiy Police Department instituted criminal proceedings concerning the robbery of Mr Sh.\n7.  On 19 March 2001 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of the aforementioned robbery of Mr Sh.\n8.  On 22 March 2001 the Lyubashivskiy District Prosecutor ordered the applicant's detention until 14 May 2001 − on the ground that he might abscond.\n9.  On 8 May 2001 the prosecutor, without indicating any grounds, extended the applicant's detention until 14 June 2001.\n10.  On 13 June 2001 the prosecutor further extended the applicant's detention until 19 June 2001.\n11.  On 20 June 2001 the applicant lodged a request for release with the prosecutor. He maintained that the authorised period of his pre-trial detention had expired on 19 June 2001 and that he was only given access to his case-file on 20 June 2001.\n12.  On 21 June 2001 the prosecutor rejected his request on the ground that the applicant had been informed that the investigation had been completed on 19 June 2001, after which he was given access to the case file.\n13.  On 13 July 2001 the Lyubashivskiy Local Court of Odessa region rejected the applicant's complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention after 19 June 2001−on the ground that the time given to an accused for studying his case-file was not to be taken into account. The applicant appealed to the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal but to no avail.\n14.  On 6 August 2001 the head of the Lyubashivskiy Police Department rejected the applicant's request for his immediate release on the ground that the time given to an accused for studying a case-file was not to be taken into account.\n15.  On 5 November 2001 the Ananiyvskiy Court held the committal hearing. The court joined the proceedings in the criminal case concerning the robbery of Mr Sh. with those of several other cases (given that the applicant's co-defendants were involved in other cases too (see paragraph 6 above)). The applicant and six others were committed for trial. The court rejected the applicant's complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention having found no irregularities therein. It also maintained his detention without giving any grounds or fixing any time limit.\n16.  On 15 November and 19 December 2001 the court held hearings in the case.\n17.  On 20 December 2001 the Ananiyvskiy Court rejected the applicant's request for release on the grounds that he had previous convictions, that he had committed a serious crime and that he might abscond and interfere with the course of justice. The hearing was then adjourned owing to the non-appearance of one of the lawyers.\n18.  On 7 January 2002 the applicant submitted a complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention with the Ananiyvskiy Court.\n19.  On 21 January 2002 the Ananiyvskiy Court rejected the applicant's complaint referring to its previous findings during the committal hearings (see paragraph 15 above). The hearing was then adjourned owing to the non-appearance of the aggrieved parties and one of the accused.\n20.  On 18 February 2002 the applicant lodged an application for release with the court. It was rejected the same day. The hearing was then adjourned owing to the n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5459", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  In the early morning of 22 February 2001 the applicant entered the grounds of a furniture depot, where he was spotted by security guards. The guards called the police, and, soon after, the applicant was arrested. He claimed that he had been beaten by the police officers and the guards when he was being arrested. After searching the premises, the police discovered a handgun, allegedly belonging to the applicant. The applicant was taken to Vidnovo police station (Moscow Region) for questioning.\n7.  The applicant alleges that in the course of the questioning police officers M. and E. tortured him: they put a gas mask over his head and blocked air access, so that he started suffocating. They also hit him with a rubber stick. The applicant agreed to confess to theft and, moreover, to give them money so that they would stop. At about 4 a.m. the applicant went to his flat, accompanied by two police officers, where, at gunpoint, he handed over 5,000 US dollars. Then the police officers returned to the police station with him and he was locked in a cell. However, the policemen promised him that if he confessed to the alleged crimes the town prosecutor would soon release him on bail. The applicant wrote a statement in which he confessed to attempted theft and illegal possession of a handgun.\n8.  The Government produced an extract from the police station record of arrests. Entry no. 296 concerned the applicant; it read as follows: “22.02.2001/[the applicant] made no complaints [about his condition]/no visible injuries [on him]”.\n9.  In the afternoon the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of theft and illegal possession of a firearm (criminal case no. 39697). In connection with these proceedings the town prosecutor authorised the applicant's pre-trial detention.\n10.  On 23 February 2001 the applicant met with his lawyer. Through him the applicant transmitted to the town prosecutor a written statement in which he described the circumstances of his arrest, the ill-treatment and extortion of money. According to the applicant, his complaint of ill‑treatment was handed to the investigator in charge of his case on that date; however, the case file does not contain any proof of that.\n11.  On 5 March 2001 the applicant lodged a formal complaint with the town prosecutor about the ill-treatment and extortion, seeking the criminal prosecution of the police officers involved. He also requested to be released on the grounds that he might easily be subjected to further pressure and physical violence by those police officers while in the pre-trial detention facility.\n12.  The applicant claimed that, as a result, officers M. and E. had been dismissed from service. The Government confirmed that M. had been dismissed for underperformance and E. had been transferred to another unit. However, neither of these disciplinary measures was related to the events at issue.\n13.  On 21 May 2001, after a preliminary inquiry into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment, the town prosecutor decided not to proceed with the investigation. The materials of the inquiry were added to the file in the applicant's case.\n14.  On 25 May 2001 the Vidnovo town prosecutor issued a bill of indictment in the applicant's case and transmitted it with the case-file to the Vidnovo Town Court for examination on the merits.\n15.  In July 2001 the applicant's lawyer lodged similar complaints of ill‑t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5460", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1998 and 2002 respectively and live in Linz.\n6.  The applicants have a maintenance claim against their father Mr W (“the debtor”). Apparently the debtor fell into arrears with maintenance payments (Unterhaltsrückstand) amounting to the sum of EUR 3,006. The applicants applied for enforcement of their payment orders to the competent District Court (Bezirksgericht) in Enns. The enforcement order (Exekutionsbewilligung) provided for the sale of the debtor's movable property (Fahrnisexekution) and granted the applicants a lien on outstanding claims which the debtor held against his own debtors (Forderungsexekution).\n7.  On 21 July 2006 the debtor lodged an action under Section 35 of the Enforcement Act (Oppositionsklage) to have the claim underlying the enforcement order dismissed and also applied to postpone enforcement (Aufschiebung der Exekution) until a decision on his action had been reached. In support of his case to have the enforcement order set aside, the debtor stated that during the period of time in which he had not made maintenance payments, the applicants had been living with him and he had paid all their living expenses.\n8.  In support of his application to postpone enforcement regarding the sale of movable property, the debtor claimed he would risk losing his property rights over the objects seized for enforcement. He also argued that if a lien against outstanding claims from his own debtors was enforced, the recovery of the money from the applicants, who did not have any funds, would be nearly impossible if the enforcement order was, in fact, set aside.\n9.  On 27 July 2006 the District Court, without hearing the applicants, allowed the postponement of enforcement by granting the applicants a lien on outstanding claims if a deposit of EUR 3,500 was lodged with the court but the postponement of the sale of the debtor's movable property was not granted. On 2 August 2006 the debtor appealed, claiming that the deposit was too high. The applicants were not notified of the appeal.\n10.  The Steyr Regional Court (Landesgericht) quashed the decision, ordering both kinds of enforcement to be postponed until the decision on the action under Section 35 of the Enforcement Act was rendered and re-setting the deposit at EUR 1,000. The applicants were not heard in the proceedings. It held that an appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court was not admissible. The applicants, having lost the case on postponement of the enforcement, were obliged to reimburse legal costs amounting to EUR 305.40 to the debtor.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5461", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Vinkovci.\n5.  On 13 November 2001 the Vukovar State Attorney's Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Vukovaru) indicted the applicant in the Vukovar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vukovaru) of the criminal offence of abuse of position and authority (zlouporaba položaja i ovlasti). On 11 December 2001 a representative of the State Attorney's Office withdrew the charges against the applicant, stating that the facts of the case did not show that the applicant had committed any criminal offence liable to public prosecution. Hence, the Municipal Court dismissed the charges against him on 11 December 2001. The relevant part of this judgment reads as follows:\n“In respect of the defendant Hrvoje Šikić ...\nPursuant to Article 353(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,\nthe indictment is dismissed\nthat he:\non the night of 10 to 11 December 1999, in Vukovar, in his capacity as vice-chief of traffic crime-scene investigation and as chief constable of the Vukovar Police Station, after [having received] a report of a road accident caused by police officer M.V. while driving a police car ...[and] with the intention of helping M.V. avoid responsibility [for the accident] and to conceal the whole incident, did not allow the obligatory on-site inspection to be carried out although he had personally visited the site of the accident and ordered the officers in charge, S.M. and R.M., not to register the said accident in the events register. He certified the register with his signature, thus confirming that during the shift there had been no incidents to be registered, although he knew that it was not true\n...\nReasoning\n...\nAt a hearing held on 11 December 2001 the Deputy Vukovar Municipality State Attorney, G.D., withdrew the charges against the defendant ... on grounds that he had not committed the said criminal offence, or any other criminal offence liable to public prosecution.\n...”\n6.  On 29 October 2001 a criminalist of the Vukovar Police Station (Policijska postaja Vukovar) drew up a report on the events of the night of 10 to 11 December 1999. On 30 October 2001 the applicant was removed from his post. On the same day the Vukovar-Srijemska Police Department lodged a request with the Vukovar Police Station that disciplinary proceedings against the applicant be instituted. On 11 December 2001 the applicant made his statement to an officer of the Vukovar-Srijemska Police Department (Policijska uprava vukovarko srijemska), in the presence of his counsel. However, subsequently no disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the applicant. Instead, in a decision of 7 January 2002 the Minister of the Interior (Ministar unutarnjih poslova Republike Hrvatske), on the basis of the police reports and the written record of the applicant's statement given on 11 December 2001, dismissed the applicant with effect from 31 January 2002 on the ground that in respect of the road accident which had occurred on the night of 10 to 11 December 1999 he had acted contrary to his duties as a policeman. The applicant lodged an appeal on 18 February 2002 and the impugned decision was quashed by the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 12 September 2002.\n7.  In a fresh decision of the Minister of the Interior on 8 January 2003 the applicant was again dismissed with effect from 31 January 2002. It was found that on the night of 10 to 11 December 1999, in his capacity as vice-chief for traffic crime-scene inve", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5462", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1933, 1938, 1952, 1948 and 1945 respectively, and live in Balıkesir and Istanbul.\n5.  On 8 December 1972 the applicants' mother lodged a case with the Gönen Civil Court against the Treasury and the Office of the Headman of the Paşaçiftlik village (muhtarlık), requesting that plots of land nos. 117, 130, 135, 168, 274, 438, 494, 497 and 578 be registered in her name. Six other persons intervened in the case, laying claim to the same plots.\n6.  On 28 March 1977 the Gönen Civil Court delivered a decision of non‑jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Gönen Cadastre Court.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicants' mother died. On 24 October 1984 the applicants informed the first-instance court that they wished to become parties to the proceedings, as heirs.\n8.  On 18 March 2005 the court dismissed the applicants' case and held that the land should have been registered in the name of the interveners' heirs.\n9.  On 22 June 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.\n10.  On 4 March 2007 the first-instance court resumed the examination of the case following its remittal by the Court of Cassation.\n11.  On 28 January 2009 the last hearing was held.\n12.  According to the information submitted to the case file in June 2009, the proceedings are currently pending before the Gönen Cadastre Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5463", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Šiauliai.\nThe facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 9 November 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery. While remanded in custody the applicant was held in Šiauliai Remand Prison, Šiauliai Police Detention Facility and other remand establishments.\n9.  On 11 November 1998 the Šiauliai City District Court authorised the applicant's remand in custody until 19 November 1998. In ordering the detention, the court referred to the nature and gravity of the charges against the applicant, and stated that “it was likely that the applicant could attempt to abscond from investigators and the trial as well as obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case”. The applicant and his defence counsel were present at the hearing.\n10.  On 18 November 1998 the Šiauliai City District Court extended the term of the applicant's detention until 18 January 1999 due to the fear “that he would abscond”. The applicant's lawyer was present at the hearing.\n11.  On 24 December 1998 the applicant appealed against that ruling.\n12.  Having received the appeal on 4 January 1999, on 7 January 1999 the Šiauliai Regional Court dismissed it, arguing that the applicant “had been charged with a serious crime and if released would obstruct the investigation and the establishment of the truth”. The applicant's counsel was present at the hearing.\n13.  On 15 January 1999 the Šiauliai City District Court extended the term of the applicant's detention until 18 March 1999. Having briefly summed up the charges against the applicant the court stated that “the applicant had been charged with a serious crime, therefore there was a reason to believe that if at liberty he could attempt to hide from investigators and the court, obstruct the establishment of the truth and commit fresh crimes”. The applicant and his lawyer were present at the hearing.\n14.  On 18 February 1999 the applicant appealed against the order to extend his detention. On 26 February the appeal was received by the Šiauliai Regional Court, which on 2 March 1999 dismissed the applicant's appeal, his defence counsel being present. The court again stated that “the applicant had been charged with a serious crime, therefore there was a reason to believe that if at liberty he could attempt to hide from investigators and the court and would obstruct the investigation”.\n15.  On 17 March 1999 the Šiauliai City District Court extended the term of the applicant's detention until 9 May 1999. Listing the charges against the applicant the court stated that “the applicant had been charged with a serious crime, therefore there was a reason to believe that if at liberty he would try to abscond from the investigators, commit fresh crimes and influence witnesses”. The applicant and his lawyer were present.\n16.  On 7 May 1999 the Šiauliai Regional Court extended the term of the applicant's detention until 9 July 1999 on the ground that “he had been charged with a serious crime, therefore there was a reason to believe that if at liberty he would commit fresh crimes and obstruct the establishment of the truth”. The applicant and his defence counsel were present at the hearing. The applicant appealed, stating, inter alia, that he had to undergo surgery.\n17.  The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 25 May 1999, with his defence counsel present. The court stated that “the applicant had been charged with ser", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5464", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Eindhoven.\n8.  The applicant entered the Netherlands on 25 November 1997 and applied for asylum. In the course of interviews held with immigration officials on 25 November 1997 and 16 December 1997, he stated that he feared persecution in Libya for his involvement since 1988 in a clandestine, nameless opposition group and its activities which consisted in holding regular meetings, distributing pamphlets and informing people about the Libyan regime by inter alia distributing publications by the Libyan resistance abroad. This group had begun having problems with the Libyan authorities as from late 1992 or early 1993 when a first group member was arrested. More arrests of group members followed and when virtually all his friends in this group had been arrested and detained, the applicant decided to flee Libya which he actually did by the end of 1994 without, however, having himself encountered any problems with the Libyan authorities. He had left the country via an official Libyan border crossing-point and holding his own, authentic passport. After his departure for Saudi Arabia, the applicant's younger brother and brother‑in-law were arrested. After a brief illegal stay in Saudi Arabia where he lost his passport, the applicant travelled on to Yemen where he stayed for about eight months, mostly in an aliens' detention centre. Attempts by the Libyan consul in Yemen to have him expelled to Libya failed due to the applicant's refusal to cooperate. In August 1996, after having obtained a forged Libyan passport and released from detention in Yemen, the applicant travelled to Sudan. After the Libyan authorities had sent officials to Sudan in order to trace Libyans in Sudan who were listed as opponents of the Libyan regime and to seek the transfer of these persons to Libya, the applicant no longer felt safe in Sudan and travelled to the Netherlands.\n9.  On 27 February 1998, the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) rejected the applicant's asylum request. The Deputy Minister did not find it established that the applicant had attracted the negative attention of the Libyan authorities. His alleged membership of a nameless opposition group had remained unsubstantiated and he had failed to give clear information about the group's aims and manner in which it sought to realise these aims. Even assuming that the applicant was associated with this group, he had never held any function of significance within this group and had never encountered any personal problems with the Libyan authorities. On this point, the Deputy Minister noted that about 10‑15 persons belonging to that group had allegedly been arrested and detained in 1993 whilst the applicant had stayed in Libya until the end of 1994 without having encountered any problem. Moreover, he had left Libya holding an authentic passport in his own name. The Deputy Minister therefore concluded that, even assuming that the applicant had been involved in this opposition group, this had not become known to the Libyan authorities. The Deputy Minister further did not find it established that the applicant, if expelled to Libya, would be exposed to a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. On 3 March 1998 the applicant filed an objection (bezwaar) against that decision with the Deputy Minister.\n10.  As the applicant's objection was denied suspensive effect as regards his expulsion from", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5465", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1930, 1933, 1928, 1925, 1957 and 1959 respectively and live in Albania and Austria.\n8.  On 22 June 1994 the Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties (Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave - “the Commission”) recognised the applicants' property title over a plot of land and a building on the land. As reconstruction works which had started on an unspecified date before 1990 had not been completed, the building had become uninhabitable. For that reason, the Commission also awarded damages to the applicants in the amount of 997,230 Albanian leks (“ALL”).\n9.  The applicants contested the amount of damages awarded by the Commission. On 14 March 1995 the Saranda District Court, relying on an expert report, awarded the applicants damages in the amount of ALL 4,600,000, approximately 33,065 euros (“EUR”). That judgment became final on 14 April 1995.\n10.  In a letter dated 11 November 1998, the Ministry of Finance informed the applicants that joint guidelines had to be issued by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Justice concerning the enforcement of judicial decisions that had an impact on the State budget.\n11.  On 25 May 2000 the Saranda District Court issued an execution writ in respect of its 1995 judgment.\n12.  In a letter of 5 July 2000 the Ministry of Finance informed the applicants that they were to be compensated by means of State bonds.\n13.  In a letter of 7 November 2002 Mr Refat Puto requested the Saranda Bailiff's Office to execute the District Court's judgment.\n14.  In response to the applicants' letter, the Ministry of Justice's General Director for the Bailiff's Office requested the Saranda Bailiff's Office on 16 February 2002 to enforce the District Court's judgment. A similar letter was sent by the General Directorate of the Bailiff's Office to the Saranda's Bailiff's Office on 7 April 2004.\n15.  On 22 October 2005 and 3 March 2006 the applicants sent two letters to the Ministry of Justice. No response had been received by the date on which the application was introduced with this Court.\n16.  In their comments to the applicants' claims for just satisfaction, the Government submitted that on 25 April 2002 the applicants had sold the plot of land and the building thereon to third parties. The sale contract, concluded by a notary deed, was submitted in support.\n17.  By a letter of 4 July 2008 the Saranda Office for the Registration of Immovable Property (Zyra Vendore e Regjistrimit te Pasurive te Paluajtshme Sarande) certified that the applicants' property had been transferred to third parties by virtue of the sale contract of 25 April 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5466", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1976, 1973 and 1999 respectively and live in Yerevan.\n5.  According to the applicants, they enjoyed a right of use of accommodation in respect of 33.8 sq. m of a flat which in total measured 66.8 sq. m. and was situated at 17 Byuzand Street, Yerevan. It appears that the flat was owned by their family member, K.H. The Government contested this allegation and claimed that only the applicants Hovhannes Hovhannisyan and Astghik Hovhannisyan (“the first applicant” and “the second applicant”) enjoyed such a right, while the applicant Diana Shiroyan (“the third applicant”), who was a minor, was only entitled to live in the flat in question.\n6.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the immovable property (plots of land, buildings and constructions) situated within the administrative boundaries of the Central District of Yerevan to be taken for the needs of the State for the purpose of carrying out construction projects, covering a total area of 345,000 sq. m. Byuzand Street was listed as one of the streets falling within such expropriation zones.\n7.  On 17 June 2004 the Government decided to contract out the construction of one of the sections of Byuzand Street – which was to be renamed Main Avenue – to a private company, Vizkon Ltd.\n8.  On 1 October 2004 Vizkon Ltd and the Yerevan Mayor's Office signed an agreement which, inter alia, authorised the former to negotiate directly with the owners of the property subject to expropriation and, should such negotiations fail, to institute court proceedings on behalf of the State, seeking forced expropriation of such property.\n9.  By a letter of 25 February 2005 Vizkon Ltd informed the first and second applicants that the flat in question was situated within the expropriation zone of the Main Avenue area and was to be taken for State needs. Each applicant was offered a total of the Armenian dram (AMD) equivalent of 3,500 United States dollars (USD) as financial assistance, pursuant to paragraphs 7(c) and 8(e) of the compensation procedure approved by Government Decree no. 950 of 5 October 2001 (see paragraphs 26 and 27 below; hereafter, “the compensation procedure”).\n10.  It appears that the first and second applicants did not accept this offer.\n11.  On an unspecified date, Vizkon Ltd instituted proceedings against the first and second applicants on behalf of the State, seeking to terminate their right of use through payment of financial assistance and to evict all the applicants with reference to, inter alia, Articles 218 and 220 of the Civil Code. The plaintiff claimed that persons enjoying a right of use were entitled, pursuant to paragraph 8 of the compensation procedure, to receive assistance in the Armenian dram equivalent of USD 3,500.\n12.  It appears that in the course of the court proceedings Vizkon Ltd offered the same amount of compensation also to the third applicant, since she was also registered at the flat in question. The third applicant joined the proceedings as a co-defendant.\n13.  On 2 March 2005 a contract was signed between Vizkon Ltd and the owner of the flat, K.H., according to which she agreed to cede the flat to the State in exchange for another flat. It appears that two other persons who also enjoyed a right of use in respect of the same flat accepted the price offers made to them and gave up their rights.\n14.  On 16 March 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (Երևան", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5467", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 4 September 1997 the applicant brought an action before the Diyarbakır Civil Court of First Instance against the National Water Board for compensation for the damage suffered due to a flood.\n6.  On 12 February 1998 the Diyarbakır Civil Court of First Instance issued a decision of non-jurisdiction.\n7.  On 25 May 1998 the applicant lodged a case with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court against the National Water Board for compensation.\n8.  On 12 May 2000 that court dismissed the case.\n9.  On 5 December 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 12 May 2000.\n10.  On 14 March 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's rectification request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5468", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a Maltese national who was born in Damascus, Syria, in 1967, and lives in Sliema, Malta.\n6.  In 1993 the applicant acquired Maltese citizenship by registration in consequence of his marriage to a Maltese national. Subsequently, on 22 March 2002 the marriage was annulled by court order as it had been found to be a marriage of convenience. However, the applicant retained Maltese nationality according to the law in force at the time.\n7.  On 30 July 2003 the applicant married a Russian national in Moscow.\n8.  In the days following 30 June 2004 the applicant applied to the Public Registry Office to have his marriage registered in Malta.\n9.  On several occasions, notwithstanding the presentation of his Maltese identity card and a Maltese passport, the Public Registry required “as a matter of policy” that the applicant submit a letter from the Department of Citizenship declaring that he was a citizen of Malta.\n10.  According to the Government the authorities also noted that the requisite translation of the Russian marriage certificate presented by the applicant had not been apostilled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Moscow.\n11.  Despite his contention that the request for a letter from the Department of Citizenship did not have a legal basis in domestic law, the applicant requested the Department to issue the letter. The Head of Department refused to issue such a letter, allegedly replying that he was not bound to issue it then, if at all.\n12.  Following the applicant's request, by a decision of the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts dated 31 May 2005, the Director of the Public Registry was directed to register the marriage, upon the applicant submitting his original act of marriage in Russian together with an English translation authenticated by his lawyer.\n13.  The applicant's request remained unsatisfied notwithstanding this decision.\n14.  On 5 April 2006 the decision of 31 May 2005 was revoked by the Court of Appeal. The latter, while expressing doubts as to whether the applicant could apply to the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, held that a Maltese passport was not conclusive evidence of citizenship. Furthermore, the Director was vested with discretion to demand documents which he considered reasonable to prove the authenticity of what was submitted to him. The court therefore agreed that the Russian certificate of marriage produced by the applicant was not sufficiently authenticated evidence satisfying the Director of the Public Registry, having regard to Article 244 (1) of the Civil Code (see relevant domestic law, below).\n15.  On 20 June 2005 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional jurisdiction. He complained that the refusal to register his marriage was in violation of his Article 8 rights alone and in conjunction with Article 14.\n16.  It appeared from the evidence given by an official employed at the Marriage Registry that there were two reasons for the refusal to register the marriage. Firstly, the documents presented by the applicant had not been authenticated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Moscow, which is the competent authority to attach apostilles to such public documents, and, secondly, that every person who applied for registration was asked to produce a letter of citizenship.\n17.  According to the evidence of the relevant Minister, the request for such a certificate did not result from a law or legal notice but from an internal regu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5469", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1982 and, at the time of the introduction of the application, was detained in Ter Apel, the Netherlands.\n7.  On 30 January 1998, after having been apprehended by the Flushing brigade of the Royal Military Constabulary (Koninklijke Marechaussee) whilst he was attempting to leave for the United Kingdom in a lorry, the applicant applied for asylum in the Netherlands. During his interview by the Netherlands immigration authorities, the applicant stated that he had largely been brought up in an orphanage in Algeria, that he had never known his natural parents and that he had spent a short period with foster parents who gave him the name Ramzy. The applicant explained that he had left Algeria given the general unsettled and dangerous situation there. He had not been involved in any political activities against the Algerian authorities. He further claimed that, a long time before leaving Algeria, he had been approached by the Islamic fundamentalist movement FIS (Front Islamique du Salut). The applicant did not want to divulge any further details about this claim.\n8.  As the applicant did not hold any travel documents and had not immediately applied for asylum upon his arrival in the Netherlands, the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) rejected the applicant's asylum request on 7 October 1998. The applicant did not avail himself of the possibility to appeal this decision, which thus became final.\n9.  On 9 September 1999, the applicant filed a second asylum application, submitting that he could not return to Algeria because young people were being killed there, that he had no one in Algeria any more and that he wished to build a new life in the Netherlands. He further stated that he had never had any problems with the Algerian authorities.\n10.  On 14 September 1999, the Deputy Minister dismissed this second asylum request as a repeat application based on similar grounds to those relied upon in a previous asylum application that had been rejected in a final decision. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision in appeal proceedings. The final decision on the second asylum application was taken on 6 October 1999 by the Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague sitting in Zwolle. The applicant continued to reside illegally in the Netherlands.\n11.  On 19 December 2001 and 22 April 2002, respectively, the Netherlands National Security Service (Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst – “BVD”) sent an official report (ambtsbericht) to the national public prosecutor responsible for combating terrorism (landelijk officier van justitie terrorismebestrijding), containing information about an Islamic extremist group active in the Netherlands and which was associated with Islamic terrorist organisations abroad. In the latter official report, the applicant was mentioned as forming a part of this group in the Netherlands.\n12.  In a subsequent official report of 24 April 2002, the Head of the BVD informed the national public prosecutor responsible for combating terrorism of the mobile telephone number that was being used by the applicant.\n13.  On 29 May 2002, pursuant to the 2002 Intelligence and Security Services Act (Wet op de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten), the BVD was succeeded by the General Intelligence and Security Service (Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst – “AIVD”).\n14.  On 12 June 2002, the applicant was arrested in the Netherlands and detained on remand on suspicion o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5470", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1976, 1975, 1971, 2001, 2004, 1994, 1999 and 1978 respectively and live in Yerevan.\n5.  According to the applicants, they enjoyed a right of use of accommodation in respect of a house which measured 60.2 sq. m and was situated at 15 Byuzand Street, Yerevan. The house was owned by their family member, A.Y. The Government contested this allegation and claimed that only the applicants Vahan Yeranosyan, Vardan Yeranosyan, Ruzanna Yeranosyan and Siranush Khachatryan enjoyed such a right, while the remaining applicants, who were minors, were only entitled to live in the house in question.\n6.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the immovable property (plots of land, buildings and constructions) situated within the administrative boundaries of the Central District of Yerevan to be taken for the needs of the State for the purpose of carrying out construction projects, covering a total area of 345,000 sq. m. Byuzand Street was listed as one of the streets falling within such expropriation zones.\n7.  On 17 June 2004 the Government decided to contract out the construction of one of the sections of Byuzand Street – which was to be renamed Main Avenue – to a private company, Vizkon Ltd.\n8.  On 1 October 2004 Vizkon Ltd and the Yerevan Mayor's Office signed an agreement which, inter alia, authorised the former to negotiate directly with the owners of the property subject to expropriation and, should such negotiations fail, to institute court proceedings on behalf of the State, seeking forced expropriation of such property.\n9.  It appears that by a letter of 8 June 2005 Vizkon Ltd informed the applicants that the house in question was situated within the expropriation zone of the Main Avenue area and was to be taken for State needs. It further appears that each applicant was offered USD 2,000 as compensation.\n10.  It appears that the applicants did not accept this offer.\n11.  On an unspecified date Vizkon Ltd instituted proceedings against the applicants on behalf of the State, seeking to terminate their right of use of accommodation and to have them evicted.\n12.  On 30 June 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan (Երևան քաղաքի Կենտրոն և Նորք-Մարաշ համայնքների աոաջին ատյանի դատարան) granted the claim of Vizkon Ltd, terminating the applicants' right of use and awarding each of them the Armenian dram equivalent of USD 2,000 in compensation. In doing so, the court referred to Article 218 § 1 of the Civil Code.\n13.  On 15 July 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal.\n14.  On 8 August 2005 the Civil Court of Appeal (ՀՀ քաղաքացիական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարան) granted the claim of Vizkon Ltd on the same grounds as the District Court.\n15.  On 22 August 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law which they supplemented on 19 September 2005.\n16.  On 23 September 2005 the Court of Cassation (ՀՀ վճռաբեկ դատարան) dismissed the applicants' appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5471", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Fagersta.\n7.  On 13 August 2004 the applicant and her husband, X, arrived in Sweden and on 16 August 2004 they applied to the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) for asylum and residence permits. The applicant was interviewed on 4 October 2004 and 8 March 2005. She had no identity papers and could not prove her identity. She stated that she was born and grew up in Kabul, where her parents, one of her two brothers, an aunt and an uncle resided. Her other brother had left Afghanistan a long time ago. She also had an uncle in Mazar-e-Sharif. The applicant had attended school for twelve years in Kabul and had studied at the university.\n8.  The applicant and her spouse also submitted that they had been persecuted since 1996 because X had been a politically active member of the communist party, leading to his arrest on two occasions. Following his second release they had moved to Kabul, but they alleged that some fundamentalists had come looking for X there as well with the intention of killing him. The applicant submitted that she also had shown her political stance by acting as a teacher for women, which was not accepted by parts of the leading elite in Kabul. Therefore, they had fled the country. When they had left their home, they had stayed with her uncle in Mazar-e-Sharif and the latter had helped them finance their journey to Sweden by paying a smuggler 24,000 US Dollars. Lastly, X invoked his poor mental health, stating that he was suffering from anxiety, sleeplessness and aggressive behaviour.\n9.  On 29 March 2005 the Migration Board rejected the couple's application. It first noted that the security situation in Afghanistan varied between different parts of the country but that it was better in Kabul than in other parts of the country. The Board then considered that X had given vague information about his activities and had failed to demonstrate that he had held a prominent or leading position within the communist party. Hence, it questioned the claim that his life would be endangered because of his membership of that party. The Board therefore found that neither X nor the applicant had shown that they had been persecuted in Afghanistan or that they would risk persecution upon return. Thus, even having regard to X's poor mental health, the Board found that there were no grounds on which to grant them leave to remain in Sweden.\n10.  The applicant and her husband appealed against the decision to the then Aliens Appeal Board, which subsequently transmitted the case to the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen). The applicant maintained her claims and added that the threats against her and X stemmed from X's previous political activities and from her activities in educating women and that the authorities had not been able to protect them, not even in Kabul. The applicant further submitted that she had separated from X in June 2005, lived alone and intended to obtain a divorce although X opposed it. Due to this, she had been criticised by some of X's friends, been called a “bad woman” and some other Afghans had spread untrue rumours about her. By separating from X, she had broken with Afghan traditions which meant that she risked serious persecution if forced to return to her home country. In this respect, she pointed out that she would not be able to obtain a divorce in Afghanistan and that by trying to obtain a divorce in Sweden she had dishonoured both her own and X's family. Consequently,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5472", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Chişinău. He works for “Social Amnesty”, an organisation which provides legal help to persons in detention.\n6.  On 11 October 2000 the applicant underwent an operation to drain fluid from his liver. He was released from hospital on 21 October 2000.\n7.  On 23 October 2000 he was arrested by the Department for Fighting Organised Crime and Corruption on suspicion of fraud and was placed in detention at the Hînceşti police station. He alleged that he was suspended from an iron bar and beaten with machine guns and rubber truncheons and that the beating re-opened his surgical wound. He was placed in a small cell in the police station, without a bed, mattress or blankets and without access to a toilet or washing facilities, where he had to sleep on the concrete floor. He was seen by a doctor on 29 October 2000, who observed that the applicant's surgical wound had reopened and recommended that he be admitted to hospital immediately. However, police officer Ş. refused a transfer to the hospital.\n8.  On 6 November 2000 the applicant was transferred to prison no. 13, where he was placed into the medical treatment unit with the diagnosis “post-surgery state” (see further Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, 19 June 2007). According to medical reports, on 7 November 2000 the applicant swallowed a nail and was hospitalised in order to extract it. According to medical evidence, during 2000-2001 the applicant underwent 10 operations made necessary by acts of self-harm, such as swallowing sharp objects and cutting himself (see Ciorap v. Moldova (dec.), no. 12066/02, 11 October 2005).\n9.  The applicant made a number of complaints in respect of his alleged ill-treatment by the police, the failure to give him medical treatment and the inhuman conditions of detention. The prosecutor opened a criminal investigation and interviewed the applicant, the police officers involved and their colleagues, as well as the medical personnel who had examined the applicant during his arrest. The doctors confirmed that they had been called twice to attend the applicant on the night of his arrest but that this had been in connection with a post-surgery problem. The prosecutor found that the applicant had made no complaint of ill-treatment when examined by the doctors or by the superior police officers (see Ciorap v. Moldova (dec.), no. 12066/02, 11 October 2005). All the applicant's complaints were dismissed as unfounded. This decision was confirmed by the investigating judge on 21 June 2006 and 30 October 2006.\n10.  In a final judgment of 7 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice found that on 7 October 2002 and 29 April 2003 the applicant had been informed of the prosecutor's decision to reject his request for the initiation of a criminal investigation into his alleged torture in October 2000. He was also informed of his right to challenge that decision in court within ten days of the date on which he was informed of it. However, the applicant did not challenge that decision until three years later, without having asked for an extension of the time-limit. The court therefore rejected his complaint for failure to challenge the prosecutor's decision within the time-limit provided for by law.\n11.  On an unspecified date, the applicant initiated new court proceedings against the Hînceşti police station, the Prosecutor's Office and the Ministry of Finance, claiming compensation for the damage caused to him through his ill-treatment", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5473", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1963 and 1959 respectively and live in Vienna.\n7.  The applicants live together in a homosexual relationship. The second applicant is a civil servant and, for the purpose of accident and sickness insurance cover, he is insured with the Civil Servants Insurance Corporation (“the CSIC”) (Versicherungsanstalt Öffentlicher Bediensteter). On 1 July 1997 the first applicant asked the CSIC to recognise him as the dependent (Angehöriger) and to extend the second applicant's insurance cover to include him. He submitted that section 56(6) of the Civil Servants Sickness and Accident Insurance Act (“the CSSAIA”) (Beamten-Kranken- und Unfallversicherungsgesetz) only referred to persons of the opposite sex living with the principally insured person and running the common household without receiving any payment. But, because there were no good reasons for excluding persons living in a homosexual relationship from the privilege of extended insurance cover, section 56(6) should be interpreted as also including homosexual partners.\n8.  On 2 September 1997 the CSIC dismissed the request, holding that, because the first applicant was of the same sex as the second applicant, his request had to be dismissed. This decision was served on the second applicant who, on 1 October 1997, filed an objection.\n9.  On 21 November 1997 the Mayor of Vienna, acting as the Regional Governor, quashed the decision on procedural grounds. He held that the CSIC should have served its decision on the first applicant.\n10.  On 13 January 1998 the CSIC dismissed a request by the first applicant and this time served the decision on him. The first applicant filed objections.\n11.  The mayor of Vienna confirmed the CSIC's decision on 19 March 1998. Thereupon the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court in which he argued that the exclusion, under section 56(6) of the CSSAIA, of homosexual couples from the extension of insurance cover was in breach of Article 14, read in conjunction with Article 8, of the Convention and was therefore unconstitutional.\n12.  On 15 June 1998 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the first applicant's complaint. Referring to its previous case-law, the Constitutional Court found that, in the issue at hand, the legislator had had a very wide margin in which to reach a decision and the decision taken had been within that margin.\n13.  On an unspecified date the Constitutional Court granted a request by the first applicant for the case to be transferred to the Administrative Court. On 7 September 1998 the first applicant supplemented his complaint to the Administrative Court.\n14.  On 4 October 2001 the Administrative Court dismissed the first applicant's complaint. It found that the authorities had correctly concluded that section 56(6) of the CSSAIA only applied to heterosexual partnerships. There was no issue under Article 14, read in conjunction with Article 8, of the Convention, because Article 8 did not guarantee specific social rights, and the case at issue did not therefore fall within the ambit of that provision. The exclusion of homosexual partnerships from the scope of section 56(6) of the CSSAIA also complied with the principle of equality because that difference in treatment was justified. While it was true that, where persons of different sex living together in a household in which one of them was running that household while not being gainfully employed, it was, as a rule, safe to conc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5474", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Bilat Akhmatkhanova, who was born in 1956,\n2) Mr Sharpudi Akhmatkhanov, who was born in 1952,\n3) Ms Toita Akhmatkhanova, who was born in 1989, and\n4) Ms Taisa Akhmatova, who was born in 1986.\nThe applicants live in Shali, Chechnya. The first and the second applicants are the parents of Artur Akhmatkhanov (also spelled Akhmetkhanov), who was born in 1980. The third applicant is his sister and the fourth applicant is his wife.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  At the material time Artur Akhmatkhanov was a third-year student at the Grozny Oil Institute; he received positive character references from his neighbours, the head of the Shali district department of the interior (the ROVD) and the imam of the Shali district.\n7.  At about 9 a.m. on 2 April 2003 the first applicant went with Artur Akhmatkhanov to the Shali town centre to run errands. In the centre the first applicant realised that she had left a document at home. She returned to the family house, situated at 86 Melnichnaya Street in Shali, whereas her son remained in the town centre as he was going to talk to his cousin Mr A.A., who worked in the ROVD.\n8.  About ten minutes after the applicant returned home she heard shooting coming from the former medical storehouse located about  250 metres from her house. The first applicant thought the Russian military were conducting a special operation to catch one of their neighbours, Mr R.Ch., who was an active member of illegal armed groups.\n9.  Having fetched the document, the applicant walked back to the town centre. On her way there she approached the storehouse and saw that the area was cordoned off by Russian military servicemen, who were not letting people in or out of the cordon. About half an hour later the applicant saw the military leaving in four APCs (armoured personnel carriers). About ten masked soldiers in new camouflage uniforms with white stripes on their sleeves were on each vehicle. One of the APCs was painted in camouflage colours.\n10.  As soon as the military left, the applicant and other locals went to the site. There the applicant found a white bandage with traces of blood on it and blood spattered around it on the ground.\n11.  After that the first applicant went to the town centre where she was supposed to meet her son. She did not find him there and decided to ask their relative Mr A.A. whether Artur Akhmatkhanov had called in at his office. She went to the ROVD, where she was told that her son had stopped off, looking for Mr A.A., but the latter had not been in the office and the applicant's son had left.\n12.  Meanwhile, the second applicant informed the ROVD that his son's yellow cap had been found at the site of the shooting. When the first applicant returned home, she was told that her son's cap had been found on the site of the medical storehouse.\n13.  After that one of the applicants' neighbours, Mr A.Sh., told the applicants that at about 10.30 a.m. he had been walking through the yard of the medical storehouse when he had met Artur Akhmatkhanov and had a brief conversation with him. According to Mr A.Sh., after that he had continued walking to the town centre when, about a minute later, he had heard shooting coming from the direction in which Artur Akhmatkhanov had gone.\n14.  According to the applicant's neighbour, Ms L.Yu., at about 10 a.m. on 2 April 2003 she was walking home when she saw a group of masked armed men in c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5475", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Zayra Benuyeva, born in 1951,\n2) Ms Kheda Benuyeva, born in 1985,\n3) Ms Razet Benuyeva, born in 1976,\n4) Ms Larisa Benuyeva, born in 1977,\n5) Ms Khava Benuyeva, born in 1994,\n6) Ms Rezida Benuyeva, born in 1982,\n7) Mr Saydmagomed Benuyev, born in 1986,\n8) Mr Zelimkhan Benuyev, born in 1989,\n9) Mr Magomed Zhanalayev, born in 1941,\n10) Ms Lula Zhanalayeva, born in 1951,\n11) Ms Billant Musayeva, born in 1975,\n12) Ms Kheda Zhanalayeva, born in 1979,\n13) Mr Denis Zhanalayev, born in 1971,\n14) Mr Ilyas Zhanalayev, born in 1983, and\n15) Mr Imam Zhanalayev, born in 1993.\n7.  The applicants live in the Chechen Republic. The third applicant lives in the town of Urus-Martan. The twelfth applicant lives in the village of Grushevoye, the Urus-Martan District. The other applicants live in the village of Martan-Chu, the Urus-Martan District.\n8.  The first applicant was married to Mr Mumad Benuyev, born in 1951. The couple were the parents of the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth applicants, and of Mr Sayd-Selim Benuyev, born in 1982. Mumad Benuyev died in 2005.\n9.  The ninth and tenth applicants are the parents of the eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth applicants, and of Mr Abu Zhanalayev, born in 1973.\n10.  Abu Zhanalayev and his parents lived at 31 Pervomayskaya Street, in the village of Martan-Chu. Their house shared a courtyard with three other houses belonging to their relatives, including that of Mr Khasmagomed Dzhanalayev, Abu Zhanalayev's uncle.\n11.  In the evening of 24 November 2002 around twelve armed men wearing masks entered Khasmagomed Dzhanalayev's house without identifying themselves and started searching it. They asked if someone named Ayup lived there; Khasmagomed Dzhanalayev replied in the negative.\n12.  In the meantime, other armed men searched the houses of two other relatives of the Zhanalayevs. Abu Zhanalayev's house was not searched.\n13.  At some point the armed men decided to leave Khasmagomed Dzhanalayev's house. In the courtyard they met Abu Zhanalayev and ordered him to produce his identity papers. Abu Zhanalayev asked his uncle to bring the papers. Khasmagomed Dzhanalayev went to the Zhanalayevs' house and told the tenth applicant about the armed men; then they took Abu's identity papers and rushed to the courtyard. They saw no trace of Abu Zhanalayev or the armed men and noticed a UAZ vehicle driving away from their courtyard.\n(b)  Abduction of Sayd-Selim Benuyev\n14.  In the evening of 24 November 2002 Sayd-Selim Benuyev, his parents, siblings and other relatives were at their family home at 24 Pervomayskaya Street, in Martan-Chu. It appears that on that night there was a blackout in the village as the electricity had been cut off.\n15.  At about 9 p.m. around twelve armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns burst into the Benuyevs' house. All but four of them wore masks; those that were unmasked had Slavic features. The armed men spoke unaccented Russian. The Benuyev family inferred that the armed men belonged to the Russian military.\n16.  The servicemen locked the first applicant in one of the rooms. Then they forced Mumad Benuyev to the floor and asked him where his sons were. Then they asked for Sayd-Selim Benuyev. When Sayd-Selim identified himself, the servicemen kicked and beat him and his father with machine gun butts until the two Benuyev men started to bleed. The servicemen also beat the second applicant.\n17.  At some", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5476", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1967 respectively and are now serving their sentence in the Chelyabinsk Region.\n6.  On 14 January 1995 the first applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder, an offence punishable with up to fifteen years' imprisonment or capital punishment. On 28 February 1996 he was formally charged with murder and on 6 December 1996 committed to stand trial before the Chelyabinsk Regional Court.\n7.  On 26 February 1997 and 5 February 1999 the Regional Court returned the case to the prosecutor for additional investigation.\n8.  On 9 November 2000 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court convicted the first applicant of inflicting grievous bodily harm and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment. However, he was immediately released on the basis of a general amnesty.\n9.  On 31 October 2001 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the judgment on appeal and ordered a retrial by a different bench.\n10.  The new trial opened on 6 December 2001. Owing to the absence of co-defendants, the hearing was first adjourned until 29 December 2001 and then again until 11 February 2002. The first applicant failed to appear at that hearing and on 20 February 2002 the Regional Court issued a search warrant and severed his case from the proceedings against the other defendants.\n11.  On 25 April 2002 the first applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. The trial resumed on 22 August 2002.\n12.  On 19 September 2002 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court convicted the first applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to eleven years' imprisonment.\n13.  Counsel for the first applicant filed a statement of appeal.\n14.  On 27 December 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The hearing was conducted by means of a videolink connecting the courtroom with the remand prison where the first applicant was held. Counsel for the first applicant was not invited to take part in the appellate proceedings.\n15.  On 10 September 2007 the first applicant sent an application for supervisory review to the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, complaining that he had not been represented in the appellate proceedings. It appears that the institution of supervisory review proceedings was refused.\n16.  In 2002 both applicants were charged with beating a Mr O., and fraudulently gaining possession of his car.\n17.  On 16 August 2002 the second applicant was remanded in custody for an initial two-month detention period.\n18.  On 10 October 2002 the first applicant and his counsel asked the investigator, among other matters, to secure the attendance of the witnesses Ms E., Mr B., Mr U., as well as unnamed garage employees and others, at the trial. On the following day the investigator acceded to that request and directed that the witnesses be included in the witness list accompanying the charge sheet.\n19.  The case was sent for trial to the Miass Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region on 17 October 2002.\n20.  On 6 November 2002 the Town Court returned the case-file to the prosecutor on the ground that the charge sheet had not been properly served on the defendants.\n21.  On 25 February 2003 the Town Court held a preliminary hearing. The court rejected the first applicant's request to call further witnesses, other than those already listed on the charge sheet. The applicants did not appeal against the decision.\n22.  On 11 March 2003 the Town Court noted that the witnesses had not appeared but decided to proceed with the trial. It", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5477", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1973 and 1978 respectively. The first applicant resides in Turkey whereas the second applicant lives in Sweden.[1]\n5.  The applicants, refugees under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), arrived in Turkey on an unspecified date. They were arrested by security forces and, as they had entered Turkish territory illegally, were deported back to Iraq on 17 June 2008.\n6.  The applicants immediately re-entered Turkey.\n7.  On 21 June 2008 they were arrested by road checkpoint gendarmerie officers from the Gökyazı gendarme station, in Muş, as their passports were found to be false.\n8.  The applicants were subsequently placed in the police headquarters in the Hasköy district of Muş.\n9.  On 30 June 2008 the applicants lodged an application with the Court and requested not to be deported to Iran or Iraq (application no. 30471/08). On the same day the President of the Chamber to which the case was allocated decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, to indicate to the Government of Turkey, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicants should not be deported to Iran or Iraq until 4 August 2008. On 22 July 2008 the President of the Chamber decided to extend until further notice the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.\n10.  Between 21 June and 26 September 2008 the applicants were detained at the Hasköy police headquarters. On the latter date the applicants were transferred to the Kırklareli Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre, where they were held until 26 October 2009.\n11.  The applicants submitted that the detention facility where they were held was in the basement of the building. Therefore, it was damp and received insufficient natural light. The facility measured 70 square metres in total and consisted of three open rooms. The rooms measured 12‑16 square metres. There was one bathroom and a hallway, where there were two beds. There were eight and four bunk beds in the first and the second rooms respectively. The third room was empty.\n12.  For the first five weeks of the detention the applicants were held with eighty-three other detainees. From the sixth to the tenth week of their detention the number of detainees dropped to thirty-one. During the final two weeks those remaining were also deported. At the end of their detention in Hasköy the applicants were alone in the facility.\n13.  The mattresses and blankets were dirty and infested with lice. No pillows or bedding were provided. During the first weeks of their detention, the applicants had to sleep on the floor without mattresses, with blankets only, due to the overcrowding. The facility did not have showers or hot water. The applicants were taken to a public bathhouse only twice during the three months that they spent in that facility. Nor were they provided with towels, toilet paper, toothbrush, toothpaste, shaving items or shampoo. The toilets were very dirty and were never cleaned. Nor did the administration provide proper cleaning material to the detainees for them to do the cleaning. The facility was infected with cockroaches and mosquitoes. As a result of the poor detention conditions, the applicants suffered from dermatological diseases and infections. They were taken to a doctor for the skin problems, but they were never given the prescribed medication. They were ill as a result of water contamination at the begi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5478", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 6 March 1995 the applicant and another plaintiff brought an action before the Pest Central District Court, seeking the invalidation of a contract.\n6.  On 7 May 1996 the court held a hearing and, on 21 June 1996, appointed an expert who filed an opinion on 24 June 1998.\n7.  On 20 October 1998, 12 January, 9 March, 11 May and 22 June 1999 hearings were held. Subsequently the proceedings were interrupted on account of the death of the applicant's co-plaintiff. On 28 January 2000 a successor joined the proceedings.\n8.  On 10 March 2000 the case was suspended pending the termination of criminal proceedings against the respondents which the court considered a preliminary question. This prosecution, conducted on charges of financial fraud, originated in 1997. On 13 May 2005 the plaintiffs informed the court of the termination of the criminal case by the appellate criminal court and requested the continuation of the civil proceedings.\n9.  On 30 August, 5 and 8 November 2005 the court held hearings. On 15 November 2005 it gave judgment, finding for the plaintiffs. On 29 November 2005 the respondents appealed.\n10.  On 5 October 2006 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and, by judgment of 15 February 2007, upheld the first-instance decision.\n11.  On 11 May 2007 the respondents filed a petition for review. By its review judgment of 27 November 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the final judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5479", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Gdynia.\n6.  On 29 August 2000 the applicant was charged with having committed various offences, inter alia robberies, and was detained on remand. Subsequently criminal proceedings were instituted against him before the Gdańsk Regional Court.\n7.  On 15 May 2001 the bill of indictment comprising initial charges brought against the applicant was filed with the Gdańsk Regional Court.\n8.  On 24 June 2004 the applicant was released from detention by the decision of the Gdańsk Regional Court.\n9.  On 11 July 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court decided that it was not competent to examine the case and ordered that it be transferred to the Brodnica District Court. On 9 August 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld this decision.\n10.  On 20 September 2007 the Brodnica District Court ordered that the case be transferred to the Toruń Regional Court finding the latter court competent to examine the case having regard to the recent amendments in the applicable law.\n11.  On 14 November 2007 the Brodnica District Court quashed its previous decision concerning the question of competence.\n12.  It appears that the proceedings are currently still pending before the Brodnica District Court acting as a court of first-instance and no hearing has yet been held in the case.\n13.  On 5 October 2004 the Gdańsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) on formal grounds.\n14.  On 25 March 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal examined the applicant’s second complaint under the 2004 Act and dismissed it as ill‑founded. The court established that the bill of indictment had been lodged as early as 15 May 2001; however, the case had been very complex, which justified the overall length of the proceedings.\n15.  The applicant’s subsequent complaints under the 2004 Act were rejected on 15 November 2005 and 27 April 2006 for various procedural reasons.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5480", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1940 and 1942 respectively and live in Budapest.\n5.  In a real estate dispute, on 11 October 1995 the applicants brought an action against the Budapest Administrative Office. The Pest Central District Court dismissed their action on 6 May 1997. On 26 February 1998 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed their appeal.\n6.  In the context of the above dispute, on 14 May 1996 and 4 July 1997, respectively, the applicants filed criminal reports against various individuals on charges of fraud and other offences. Their complaints against the non-pursuit of these proceedings were finally dismissed on 31 March 1999.\n7.  On 26 May 1997 the applicants filed an action with the Buda Central District Court for judicial constitution of a contract of sale of a property. On 16 December 1997 they requested the suspension of the proceedings pending another action of theirs, introduced on 3 October 1997, in which they sought deletion of a related land register entry. On 6 January 1998 the District Court decided to suspend the proceedings since the issues to be determined in the other case were found to be preliminary ones.\n8.  In the case concerning the land register entry, on 7 April 1998 the applicants modified their action; therefore, the action had to be extended to include further respondents. However, the applicants did so only on 21 April 1999. After several hearings, the proceedings had to be interrupted between 5 June 2000 and 19 April 2001, pending the succession of a deceased respondent. On 21 March 2002 the District Court dismissed the action. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held several hearings and on 15 January 2004 upheld the first-instance decision in a final judgment. The applicants filed a petition for review. On 23 May 2005 the Supreme Court's review bench refused to deal with the merits of the petition holding that the conditions thereof were not met. A further so-called appeal, not recognised under the law, was dismissed on 1 March 2006.\n9.  Subsequently the applicants notified the District Court of the termination of the case concerning the land register issue, and the one concerning the constitution of a contract was resumed. Several hearings took place between 10 January 2007 and 18 April 2008. On 28 August 2008 the District Court dismissed the action. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held hearings on 28 May and 24 September 2009 and delivered a judgment on 1 October 2009, overruling the first-instance judgment in favour of the applicants and constituting the contract as requested. On 27 November 2009 the respondent filed a petition for review. The case is still pending before the Supreme Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5482", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Ankara.\n4.  The applicant was dismissed from his job at military facilities following disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Supreme Disciplinary Board of the Ministry of Defence against him for misconduct in office. He subsequently lodged an application with the Supreme Military Administrative Court against the Ministry of Defence for the annulment of his dismissal.\n5.  The Ministry of Defence submitted certain documents and information to the Supreme Military Administrative Court regarding the applicant's dismissal, which were classified as “secret documents” under Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602 on the Supreme Military Administrative Court. These documents were not disclosed to the applicant.\n6.  On 1 July 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court held a hearing where it rejected the applicant's request. The written opinion submitted by the principal public prosecutor to this court during the proceedings was not communicated to the applicant.\n7.  On 23 September 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's rectification request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5483", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lived in Senglea, Malta.\n6.  He is currently in detention.\n7.  The applicant was facing proceedings before the Magistrates’ Court, sitting as a court of criminal judicature, for drug trafficking.\n8.  On 13 August 2001 the applicant was granted bail under certain conditions, including a guarantee of approximately 23,300 euros (EUR). One of these conditions stipulated that the applicant could only leave his residence to accompany his son to and from school, and was therefore only authorised to go out, accompanied by his son, between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. On 14 August 2001 the applicant signed a declaration stating that he agreed to comply with the above-mentioned obligation and to pay the guarantee in the event that he breached any of the conditions. He further paid the sum of EUR 1,165 by way of deposit.\n9.  Following a complaint that the applicant had been seen in Valletta, on an unspecified date, between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m., the Criminal Court, by a decision of 6 June 2006, held that the applicant had breached one of his bail conditions, namely being home by the established curfew. The Criminal Court therefore revoked his bail, ordered his arrest and decreed that the EUR 1,165 deposit he had already paid as well as the EUR 23,300 guarantee were to be paid to the government.\n10.  As he was unable to pay the guarantee, proceedings were initiated by the Registrar of Courts under Article 585 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”) to convert the debt into imprisonment. As stipulated in Article 586 of the CC the length of the detention could not exceed more than one day per EUR 13 (see ‘Relevant domestic law’ below).\n11.  On 28 July 2006 the Criminal Court ordered the guaranteed sum to be converted into a period of detention at the rate of one day per EUR 11.50, namely two thousand days (more than five years and six months), and the applicant was placed in detention.\n12.  On 12 June 2007 the applicant instituted constitutional proceedings, claiming that Article 586 of the CC and the Criminal Court decision of 28 July 2006 constituted a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in that they provided for an excessive and disproportionate punishment. Unlike other similar provisions of the law, Article 586 did not apply a ceiling on the length of the imprisonment to which a debt could be converted and it therefore gave rise to a degrading punishment in the applicant’s case.\n13.  On 19 October 2007 the Civil Court (First Hall) dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It noted that the applicant did not complain under Articles 5 or 6 of the Convention that the conditions imposed – which he had freely accepted, knowing the consequences they could entail – had been excessive, but solely under Article 3 on the ground that the length of his penalty had been “excessive” and disproportionate. It held that the length of imprisonment had been clear as soon as the amount of the guarantee had been fixed; accordingly, after knowingly accepting these conditions the applicant could not now complain that the penalty was excessive, since it was linked to the amount of the guarantee. Furthermore, the Convention did not afford a right to call into question the length of a sentence imposed by a competent court and in no way had the penalty imposed on the applicant been shown to have reached the threshold required to fall within Article 3.\n14.  On 12 February 2008 the Constitutional Court rejected an appeal lodged by t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5484", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1947 and live in Érd.\n5.  On 6 January 1991 the applicants and others brought an action before the Buda Surroundings District Court for ascertainment and designation of the boundary of a real property. On 7 November and 11 December 1991 hearings were held.\n6.  On 15 September 1994 and 7 July 1995 further hearings took place and, on 12 July 1994, an expert was appointed who filed his opinion on 22 August 1995.\n7.  On 27 March 1996 the applicants instituted land registry proceedings seeking the rectification of the land registry title plan.\n8.  On 20 March 1996 a hearing was held. On 2 April 1996 the court gave judgment.\n9.  On appeal, on 5 June 1997 the Pest County Regional Court held a hearing and suspended the case pending the land registry proceedings.\n10.  Subsequently, on 6 April 2004 the Regional Court held a hearing and again suspended the proceedings pending the termination of the same land registry proceedings which had been reopened in the meantime.\n11.  On 7 February 2006 the Regional Court suspended the proceedings yet another time, pending an action concerning the rectification of the title plan, still in progress before the Budaörs District Court.\n12.  The case is pending before the Regional Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5485", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 28 December 1994 the predecessor of the second applicant, represented by the first applicant, filed an action for damages against a company before the Budapest Regional Court. On 17 October 1995 the Regional Court ordered intermission of the proceedings for six months at the joint request of the parties. On 11 April 1996 the plaintiff requested continuation of the proceedings and extended its action to involve another respondent.\n6.  On 6 March 1997 the Regional Court delivered a judgment dismissing the action.\n7.  On appeal, on 17 November 1997 the Supreme Court's appellate bench quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court.\n8.  On 31 August 1998 the plaintiff extended the action to include a claim of invalidity of a contract. On 10 November 1998 the plaintiff stated its intention to extend the action to involve further respondents including a company based in Japan. It was therefore instructed to advance the costs of translation but complied with this order only on 4 November 1999.\n9.  On 20 April 2000 the Regional Court held a hearing and delivered a judgment dismissing the action. The plaintiff appealed on 5 June 2000.\n10.  On 27 September 2000 the plaintiff was struck out of the register of companies and ceased to exist as a legal entity. Its successor was the second applicant. However, neither itself nor its attorney, the first applicant, informed the courts or the parties of this fact.\n11.  On 24 September 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the first instance judgment for deficient facts and remitted the case.\n12.  In the resumed proceedings, a respondent notified the Regional Court on 22 May 2002 that the plaintiff had been struck out of the register of companies. On 23 May 2002 the first applicant, representing the second one, declared that he could not make a statement on the legal succession of his client. He was ordered to do so within 15 days. On 17 July 2002 he informed the court that, by way of a deed of cession, the successor of the plaintiff was his own mother, a pensioner eligible for exemption from court fees.\n13.  At the hearing of 26 September 2002 the first applicant produced a contract of 2 January 1996 by which part of the claims of the original plaintiff had been ceded to himself. He also submitted another document of 31 October 1998 by which he had further ceded some of those claims to his mother. He stated that he wished to enter the proceedings as party.\n14.  On 15 October 2002 the Head of the Economic College of the Budapest Regional Court informed the President of the Budapest Bar Association of the first applicant's conduct, deemed profoundly unethical. The applicant was subsequently reprimanded.\n15.  On 9 September 2003 the parties were heard as to the first applicant's claim to become a plaintiff. On 7 October 2003 the first applicant was granted leave to become a plaintiff in the proceedings. However, on the respondents' appeal against the leave, the Budapest Court of Appeal quashed the order on 1 June 2004.\n16.  On 13 July 2004 the Budapest Regional Court declared interruption of the proceedings on the ground that the plaintiff had ceased to exist. On 30 May 2005 the court quashed this order finding that the second applicant was the legal successor. On 28 June 2005 the first applicant stated that he did not wish to become a party to the proceedings. However, on 23 February 2006 he stated that he nevertheless", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5486", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  On 8 February 1998 the applicant was arrested under suspicion of fraud and remanded in custody until 12 February 1998. His detention was not extended as it was already covered by the arrest warrant issued in another proceeding (see paragraph 9 below).\n6.  The Bucharest County Court examined the facts of the case, heard evidence – notably expert reports and witness testimony – proposed by the parties, including the applicant.\nOn 3 March 2000 the County Court convicted the applicant of fraud (înşelăciune) and sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment; it also noted that the applicant was remanded in custody in connection with another investigation (the proceeding described below at paragraphs 9-15) and maintained his continued detention.\n7.  On appeal, on 29 December 2000 the Bucharest Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to ten years' imprisonment.\n8.  Deciding on the appeal on points of law, in a final decision of 10 April 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice reduced the sentence to eight years.\n9.  On 12 February 1998 the applicant was arrested under suspicion of having falsified documents.\n10.  On 22 June 1998 the prosecutor attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal indicted the applicant on several accounts of fraud and forgery.\n11.  In a judgment of 13 September 1999 the Bucharest County Court convicted the applicant of fraud.\nOn 13 April 2000 the Bucharest Court of Appeal modified the sentence on appeal, and on 24 October 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed both previous decisions and sent the case back to the first-instance court. The Supreme Court considered that the lower courts had made errors in their judgments and had examined superficially the facts and evidence.\n12.  The County Court held some thirty hearings in the case, at steady intervals of approximately one month. About six hearings were postponed because defence counsel was absent or asked for more time to prepare the defence. The other hearings were mainly postponed because of errors in the summonsing procedure or absence of the civil parties.\nOn 20 April 2006 the applicant was again convicted by the County Court and sentenced to eight years, two months and thirteen days' imprisonment. The court noted that he had already served the sentence and ordered his release.\n13.  On the same day, he was released from detention.\n14.  On 27 April 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal held almost thirty hearings, at steady intervals of approximately one month; the defence requested about five postponements.\nThe decision on appeal was adopted on 18 June 2008; the court upheld the first instance judgment.\n15.  On 3 December 2008 the High Court of Cassation and Justice adopted the final decision in the case, upholding the previous decisions.\n16.  In 1991 the applicant and three other persons founded company A. On 7 March 1996 the applicant bought the shares from the other individuals and became the sole owner of the company.\n17.  While the criminal proceedings described above were pending against the applicant, company A.'s creditors initiated the insolvency proceedings against it. It appears that the applicant empowered A.I. to represent the company in some of the litigation with the creditors. A.I. represented the company in the insolvency proceedings as well. He hired counsel and on several occasions objected to the measures taken by the liquidators.\n18.  On 8 December 2000 the Bucharest Count", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5487", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is an Algerian national who was born in 1960 and was, at the time of the introduction of the application being detained in Safi Military Barracks, Safi.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant arrived in Malta on 24 June 2006 without documents, having travelled by boat from Libya in an irregular manner. Upon his arrival he was served with a removal order in accordance with Article 14 of the Immigration Act (“the Act”). The reason for his detention was given as being that under Article 5 of the Act, he was in Malta without leave. He was consequently detained at the police headquarters.\n8.  On 26 June the applicant was questioned by the police and he gave a statement. On 28 June 2006 he was arraigned in court charged with aiding, assisting, counselling or procuring other persons to enter or to attempt to enter Malta or having conspired to that effect. He was remanded in custody.\n9.  On 1 October 2006, pending proceedings, the applicant made a late preliminary application for refugee status, which was considered by the Refugee Commissioner as expressing his desire for recognition of refugee status.\n10.  On 25 October 2006 the Court of Magistrates found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to eighteen months' imprisonment.\n11.  While in prison, on 17 April 2007, the applicant made a formal application for asylum and was interviewed on the same day.\n12.  After serving his sentence, the applicant was released from prison on 27 June 2007 and was placed in a detention centre pending the determination of his asylum claim.\n13.  The applicant's asylum application was rejected on 24 April 2007 and subsequently on appeal on 18 July 2007 as he had failed to provide convincing evidence that he would face a real risk or had a well-founded fear of persecution.\n14.  The applicant remained in detention awaiting removal under the Government's immigration policy until 6 January 2009 when his removal order was lifted in view of the lack of prospects of his eventual deportation. The applicant claimed that the conditions of detention in Blocks C and B had been inappropriate. Both facilities had been overcrowded, particularly in the summer months, with inadequate sanitary and other facilities, limited medical care, no possibility of constructive activities and limited recreational opportunities. The applicant made reference to reports of the CPT, the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner and the LIBE Committee of the European Parliament documenting such conditions.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5488", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 19 June 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court against several respondents, seeking ownership of a real estate.\n6.  On 14 September 1995 a hearing was held. The court appointed an expert graphologist who filed an opinion on 12 March 1996. On 18 April 1996, 30 April 1997 and 21 January 1998 further hearings took place.\n7.  On 15 September 1998 the court transferred the case to the Budapest Regional Court for reasons of competence. On 2 February 1999 the Budapest Regional Court established its lack of competence. On 6 October 1999 the Supreme Court appointed the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court to hear the case.\n8.  On 25 May 2000, 9 January, 20 February, 18 April, 12 September 2001 and 18 January 2002 hearings were held. On 17 May 2002 a real estate expert was appointed whose opinion was filed on 9 September 2002. On 10 December 2002 the expert was invited to complete his opinion. The opinion was re-submitted on 17 February 2003.\n9.  On 20 March 2003 and 14 January 2004 hearings took place. On 20 February 2004 the court gave judgment.\n10.  On appeal, on 24 February, 2 June and 15 September 2005 the Budapest Regional Court, sitting as a second instance court, heard the parties. On the latter date, it suspended the proceedings pending the termination of a closely related land register procedure.\n11.  After the resumption of the case, on 19 December 2006 the Budapest Regional Court gave judgment. On 19 June 2009 the review bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5489", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Zarubino in the Primorye Region.\n5.  On 12 February 2001 the Khasanskiy District Court of the Primorye Region (the District Court) partly granted the applicant's tort action against a municipal housing maintenance company of the Khasanskiy District and awarded her 48,461.01 Russian roubles (RUB) as compensation for pecuniary damage and RUB 1,200 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The district court also ordered that the housing authority should repair the roof, the heating system and the water-pipes in the applicant's house.\n6.  On 28 March 2001 the Primorye Regional Court amended the judgment on appeal, increased the amount of compensation for pecuniary damage by RUB 8,994.12 and upheld the remainder of the judgment.\n7.  On 16 January 2002 the respondent company was declared insolvent and the insolvency procedure started.\n8.  On 26 May 2003 the District Court index-linked the award of 12 February 2001 and held that the respondent company was to pay the applicant RUB 13,441.20. The judgment became final ten days later.\n9.  By letter of 18 May 2005 an insolvency manager of the housing maintenance company had notified the applicant that the respondent company had been declared insolvent and that the debtor was to be released from claims that were unsatisfied in the insolvency proceedings, since there was a lack of assets. Accordingly, the applicant's claims could not be satisfied. The case materials do not contain further information on the insolvency proceedings.\n10.  The judgments of 12 February 2001 and 26 May 2003 have not been enforced to date.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance and the Primorye Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice for compensation for damage caused by the bailiffs' failure to enforce the judgment of 12 February 2001.\n12.  On 4 February 2003 the District Court partly granted her action. The court found that the bailiff had failed to send the enforcement documents to the applicant in time and was inactive in obtaining the execution of the judgment. The court awarded the applicant RUB 5,000 against the local department of the Ministry of Justice as compensation for non-pecuniary damage and RUB 4,678.42 as compensation for expenses related to the enforcement and court proceedings against the regional department of the Ministry of Justice. The district court also held that the respondents were not under an obligation to pay the applicant RUB 40,642.50 because the bankruptcy proceedings in respect of the municipal company were pending and the applicant had been included in the register of the housing maintenance company creditors' claims. On 19 March 2003 the Primorye Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n13.  On 12 August 2003 RUB 9,678 of the court award had been paid to the applicant by the respondent authority.\n14.  According to the Government, at some point the bailiff was dismissed on account of her failure to ensure timely enforcement of the judgments in the applicant's favour. On 12 February 2004 the District Court held that the bailiff should repay RUB 7,078 of damages to the authorities.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5490", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in Kyrgyzstan in 1966. It appears that he currently lives in Kyrgyzstan.\n6.  On 21 August 1996 the Investigation Department of the Ministry of National Security of Kyrgyzstan (“the Investigation Department”) indicted the applicant on serious fraud charges. According to the decision on indictment, the applicant had failed to pay for 150 TV sets which he had received under a consignment agreement with a joint stock company. On the same date the Investigation Department ordered the arrest of the applicant. On 27 August 1996 the applicant's name was put on a wanted list.\n7.  On 9 July 2003 the applicant was arrested in Russia (see paragraph 13 below).\n8.  On 29 August 2003 the General Prosecutor's Office of Russia received a request from their counterpart in Kyrgyzstan for the extradition of the applicant.\n9.  On 6 April 2004 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia authorised the extradition of the applicant to Kyrgyzstan. The applicant challenged the extradition order in court.\n10.  On 13 May 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the extradition order as lawful and justified. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 29 July 2004 the Supreme Court of Russia (“the Supreme Court”) upheld the decision of 13 May 2004 on appeal.\n12.  From the submitted materials, it appears that, on an unspecified date after 29 July 2004, the applicant was extradited to Kyrgyzstan.\n13.  On 9 July 2003 the applicant was arrested in Russia and held in custody, first at the Moscow-Paveletskiy temporary detention facility and then at remand prison no. 77/4 in Moscow.\n14.  On 14 October 2003 the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow authorised the detention pending extradition of the applicant under Article 466 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) without providing a time-limit for his detention.\n15.  On 9 June 2004 the applicant appealed against the decision of 13 May 2004 to the Supreme Court (see paragraph 10 above). In his appeal, he also stated that his detention from 9 July to 29 August 2003 had been unlawful because he had been detained without a court order and that the overall length of his detention had been excessive.\n16.  In its decision of 29 July 2004 the Supreme Court (see paragraph 11 above) left without examination the complaints concerning the lawfulness of the applicant's detention.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5491", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Ulyanovsk.\n7.  On 16 September 2004 he was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking.\n8.  On 18 September 2004 the applicant was charged with the attempted sale of a particularly large quantity of drugs. On the same date the Dmitrovgrad Town Court of the Ulyanovsk Region (“the Town Court”) authorised his pre-trial detention. The court did not set any time-limit. However, it referred to Article 108 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“the CCrP”, see paragraph 19 below).\n9.  On 16 December 2004 the investigation was completed and the prosecution submitted the case to the Town Court for trial.\n10.  On 22 December 2004 the Town Court scheduled a preliminary hearing for 30 December 2004 and held, without further details, that the applicant should stay in detention. The time-limit for the extension was not specified.\n11.  On 30 December 2004 the Town Court carried out a preliminary examination of the case and noticed various shortcomings and defects in the investigation. With reference to Article 237 § 1 of the CCrP (see paragraph 24 below) the court decided to return the file to the prosecutor to remedy the violations within five days. The court further ruled that the measure of restraint applied to the applicant “should remain unchanged”, without setting any time-limit or providing any reasons for that decision.\n12.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor of the Town Court received the case file. On 11 January 2005 the prosecutor forwarded the file to the investigator.\n13.  By a decision of 12 January 2005 the investigator observed that the five-day time-limit set out to remedy the violations had expired on 4 January 2005. However, the decision stated that the time-limit was not respected for a valid reason, namely because 1-10 January 2005 were public holidays in Russia and it was therefore impracticable to complete the actions required by the Town Court's decision of 30 December 2004. The investigator accordingly decided to “reinstate the missed five-day time-limit for remedying the violations” and “to consider 14 January 2005 as the expiry date of the five-day time-limit”.\n14.  On the same date the investigator applied to the Town Court for an extension of the investigation period until 25 January 2005 on account of the impossibility of remedying the violations by 14 January 2005. By a separate motion the investigator applied for an extension of the applicant's pre-trial detention until 25 January 2005 because the time-limit for the investigation had been extended for a valid reason and the corrections to the investigation file could not have been made by 14 January 2005. The investigator, in particular, reasoned as follows:\n“On 12 January 2005 the period of the investigation of the present criminal case was extended until 25 January 2005, and therefore it has become necessary to extend the period of [the applicant's] detention, which is due to expire on 14 January 2005, for a further eleven days, that is until 25 January 2005”\n15.  On 13 January 2005 the Town Court allowed the application, having found, in particular, as follows:\n“The investigator applied for an extension of [the applicant's] detention ... until 25 January 2005... in order to complete the investigation ... on the ground that the period of the investigation had been extended...while the period of the applicant's detention was due to expire.\n[...] The court considers the request well-founded and upholds it because", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5492", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The eighty-seven applicants were born on the dates listed in Annex I and live in Novocherkassk, the Rostov Region.\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  The applicants, retired military officers, sued the military commissariats of Novocherkassk and the Rostov Region for recalculation of their pensions. One group of the applicants sought adjustment of the pension to the minimum wage and claimed arrears for 1995-1998 in line with the increase in the latter. Another group of the applicants claimed recalculation of their pensions on account of the increase of the monetary compensation paid in respect of the food allowance. Several applicants raised both types of claims before the domestic courts.\n10.  On the dates listed in Annex I the domestic courts found in the applicants' favour. As regards the case no. 25442/06 by Mr Pavlov, the judgment of 22 September 2004 was issued by the Justice of the Peace of the 6th Circuit of Novocherkassk. The judgment of 30 August 2004 in favour of Mr Pavlov, as well as all the judgments in favour of the remaining eighty-six applicants, were issued by the Novocherkassk Town Court of the Rostov Region.\n11.  The court ordered in respect of the first type of the claims that the pensions be adjusted to the minimum wage and that the arrears be paid to the applicants. As concerns the second type of the claims, the court held that the pensions should be increased in line with the increase of the daily food allowance and awarded the applicants the respective lump sums in arrears. The awards were made against the Military Commissariat of the Rostov Region, while the respective claims against the commissariat of Novocherkassk had been dismissed.\n12.  The representatives of the Military Commissariat of the Rostov Region were present at the court room on 30 August and 15 September 2004.\n13.  In several cases the respondent authority introduced the grounds of appeal with the Town Court. However, on various dates in 2004 the respondent authority revoked their applications. For example, in case of Mr Turutin (no. 18952/06) the grounds for appeal were revoked on 10 November 2004. As a result, none of the judgments was appealed against. They entered into force ten days later.\n14.  The applicants took various steps to obtain execution of the judgment. In particular, the Government submitted that in September-October 2004 Mr Sobolev, Mr Sedlyar and 31 other applicants sent the writs of execution to the respondent authority. It follows from the incoming correspondence log of the Rostov Regional Military Commissariat that the latter received the writs.\n15.  In 2005 the military prosecutor's office started an inquiry into lawfulness of proceedings concerning military pension arrears throughout the Rostov Region and detected several instances of fraud. In particular, they found out that the respondent commissariat on several occasions had made payments against forged writs of execution issued in the similar but unrelated proceedings. On various dates the enforcement proceedings in the cases at hand were suspended pending the region wide inquiry, because the prosecutor's office had to establish authenticity of the writs of execution issued in the applicants' cases. It appears that the investigation did not reveal any evidence of fraud in the present cases.\n16.  According to the Government, in September 2005 judge A. who had issued the judgments in question was dismissed by ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5493", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Yoshkar-Ola, the Republic of Mari-Al.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The applicant was born and used to live in Ayim, Uzbekistan. From 1997 to 2005 he owned a small grocery shop there.\n9.  On 13 May 2005 the applicant went to the town of Andijan to pick up merchandise from a wholesale market. On that date a demonstration was taking place in the town's Bobur square; the applicant decided to join the event. At some point the local authorities opened fire on the demonstrators. The applicant managed to escape, but lost his passport in the crowd. Fearing prosecution by the authorities for participation in the Andijan demonstration, he left the country.\n10.  On 18 June 2005 the Prosecutor General's Office of Uzbekistan charged the applicant in absentia with a number of crimes including commission of terrorist acts, membership of a number of extremist organisations including Hizb-ut-Tahrir, attempts to overthrow the State's constitutional order and organisation of mass disorder. The applicant's name was put on the wanted list. The prosecutor's office issued an arrest warrant against the applicant.\n11.  On 5 July 2008 the Prosecutor General's Office of Uzbekistan forwarded a request for the applicant's extradition to Uzbekistan to the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation.\n12.  On 2 August 2008 the Andijan regional prosecutor's office additionally charged the applicant with a number of crimes including conducting a holy war to create an Islamic state, financing terrorist activities, membership of extremist organisations and organisation of mass disturbances.\n13.  On an unspecified date in June 2005 the applicant arrived in Yoshkar-Ola, the Republic of Mari-Al, Russia. From June 2005 to 11 June 2008 he lived with his brother, Mr Kh.K., and worked in the construction business.\n14.  On an unspecified date in 2007 the applicant obtained a false passport of a Kirgiz national.\n15.  On 19 June 2008 the Tsentralniy Department of the Interior of Yoshkar-Ola (“the Tsentralniy UVD”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 327 of the Criminal Code (forgery of documents).\n16.  On 30 December 2008 the Yoshkar-Ola Town Court (“the Town Court”) found the applicant guilty of forging documents and ordered him to pay a fine of 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The applicant did not appeal against the sentence.\n17.  On 11 June 2008 the applicant was arrested in Russia (see paragraph 31 below). On the same date and on 19 June 2008 he was questioned and stated that he was being subjected by the Uzbek authorities to politically motivated persecution in connection with events in Andijan in May 2005. He denied any involvement in illegal activities.\n18.  On 2 July 2008 the applicant was questioned again. He reiterated that he was being sought by the Uzbek authorities for alleged participation in the Andijan events in May 2005 and denied any involvement in extremist organisations.\n19.  On 5 July 2008 the Prosecutor General's Office of Uzbekistan forwarded a request for the applicant's extradition (see paragraph 11 above).\n20.  On 17 July 2008 the Federal Migration Service (“the FMS”) informed the Prosecutor General's Office that the applicant did not have Russian citizenship.\n21.  On 6 August 2008 the Mari-Al FMS informed the Mari-Al prosecutor's office that on 1 August 2008 the applicant's request for asylum had been reject", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5494", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Azerbaijani nationals who were born in 1951, 1956 and 1978 respectively and live in Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan.\n6.  The applicants were members of a cooperative (“Əlincə” Kooperativi – “the Cooperative”) incorporated in Nakhchivan. The Cooperative was created by a decision of a general meeting of 5 April 1989 and was initially composed of five members, including the first applicant.\n7.  The Cooperative's charter was officially registered on 19 September 1994 by the Ministry of Justice of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. According to this charter, the Cooperative was to be liquidated, inter alia, if the number of its members dropped to less than three.\n8.  According to the minutes of the Cooperative's general meetings available in the case file, there were subsequently some changes in the membership of the Cooperative. Following the departure of four members of the Cooperative, on 18 December 1996 the second and third applicants became its new members and the total number of the members amounted to three. In all these documents the first applicant was mentioned as the chairman of the Cooperative.\n9.  Pursuant to a number of contracts concluded in the period from 1997 to 2000, the Cooperative supplied one of the units of the Chief Department of Border Troops of the Ministry of National Security (“the Department of Border Troops”) with various foodstuffs.\n10.  Although the Cooperative had fulfilled its contractual obligations, it was not fully paid.\n11.  On an unspecified date the Cooperative brought an action against the Department of Border Troops and Border Troops Unit No. 2006, asking for payment of an accrued debt in the amount of 290,167,334 old Azerbaijani manats (AZM) plus 10% interest, as stipulated by the contract.\n12.  On 9 July 2002 Local Economic Court No. 1 dismissed the claim against the Department of Border Troops. However, Local Economic Court No. 1 upheld the claim against Border Troops Unit No. 2006 and ordered the latter to pay AZM 319,183,067 in total to the Cooperative. This amount included the principal debt of AZM 290,167,334 and the penalty charge of AZM 29,016,733.\n13.  No appeals were lodged against that judgment and, pursuant to the domestic law, it became enforceable within one month of its delivery.\n14.  On 21 October 2002 Local Economic Court No. 1 issued a writ of execution of the judgment. However, Border Troops Unit No. 2006 refused to comply with the judgment and, despite the applicants' complaints to various authorities, it was not enforced.\n15.  In the meantime the Department of Border Troops was reorganised and renamed as the State Border Service.\n16.  The documents in the case file show that, on the basis of a request by the Cooperative dated 9 March 2004, signed by the first applicant, the Cooperative's activity as a taxpayer was ceased and this fact was recorded by the Ministry of Taxes.\n17.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the Cooperative brought an action against the State Border Service and the Ministry of Finance complaining about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 9 July 2002. The Cooperative claimed AZM 58,033,446 for lost earnings, AZM 649,900,896 for material damage and AZM 300,000,000 for non-pecuniary damage.\n18.  On 7 November 2005 Local Economic Court No. 1 dismissed the claim, finding that neither of the defendants could be held responsible for the non-enforcement of the judgment, because the amount awarded to the Cooperative by the judgment of 9 July 2002 had n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5495", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n(1)  Mr Oleg Aleksandrovich Shchukin, who was born in 1962;\n(2)  Ms Anna Ivanovna Chaplyga, born in 1969;\n(3)  Ms Marina Ivanovna Stankova, born in 1963;\n(4)  Mrs Yelena Leonidovna Punt (at the material time Yelena Leonidovna Lavrentyeva), born in 1971;\n(5)  Mr Anatoliy Mikhaylovich Mikitin, born in 1959;\n(6)  Mr Aleksandr Ivanovich Korotnian, born in 1960;\n(7)  Mr Yaroslav Vladimirovich Onopriyenko, born in 1971;\n(8)  Mr Vadim Alekseyevich Rossokhan, born in 1974;\n(9)  Mr Nikita Vladimirovich Dombrovskiy (at the material time Oleg Vladimirovich Sokolenko), born in 1977;\n(10)  Mr Toomas Punt, born in 1967; and\n(11)  Miss Diana Punt, born in 2002.\n6.  The fifth applicant lives in Khrystynivka and all the remaining applicants live in Odessa.\n7.  The eleventh applicant, Diana Punt, is the daughter of the fourth and tenth applicants, Mrs Yelena Leonidovna Punt and Mr Toomas Punt, who have brought the application on her behalf. She was born in Cyprus on 25 October 2002 and at the material time she was 3 months and 24 days old.\n8.  The applicants were employed by a Ukrainian travel company as catering and hotel staff on the cruise ship Primexpress Island, a vessel registered in Ukraine. On 7 September 2001 the ship arrived and anchored in Limassol Port in Cyprus with 142 crew members and 112 passengers aboard.\n9.  On 10 September 2001 the ship was placed under arrest and forbidden from sailing by a court order, pending proceedings brought by crew members before the Supreme Court (Court of Admiralty jurisdiction; hereinafter “the Admiralty Court”) claiming unpaid wages from the ship and its owners. The fifth, sixth, seventh and ninth applicants also instituted like proceedings in February 2002. They were represented by a Cypriot lawyer. It appears that the crew members who had initiated proceedings before the Admiralty Court were not represented by the same lawyers and that the crew members, including the four applicants, who were working as hotel and casino staff were represented by a different lawyer from the captain and other crew members who were employed by the ship's owners.\n10.  Following the ship's arrest the applicants and other crew members were issued with landing permits allowing them to disembark. These stated that they were revocable at any time.\n11.  The ship's passengers were repatriated in the initial days following the arrest.\n12.  As the owners of the ship were unable to bear the expense of running the ship and meeting their financial obligations to the crew, on 11 February 2002 the Admiralty Court issued an order for the sale of the ship.\n13.  On 18 December 2002 a public auction was held for the ship's sale. Only one offer was made. The Admiralty Marshal, who was responsible for supplying the remaining crew with the necessary facilities for their upkeep, considered, however, that the offer was far too low. Consequently, on the same day, he applied to the Admiralty Court for directions. He suggested that the offer be rejected and raised the question of the crew's stay on the ship as it was no longer possible to continue their upkeep in view of the cost involved.\n14.  By that time most of the crew members, who had instituted legal proceedings in Cyprus in respect of their wages, had been repatriated. In addition to the ship's captain, 53 crew members, including the applicants, continued to remain on board following the ship's arrest.\n15.  By a decision of 23 December 2002, the Admiralty Court rejected", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5496", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Lipetsk.\n7.  On 22 January 2001 at about noon the applicant was arrested and escorted to the Interior Department of the Lipetsk Region. It appears from a report by the arresting police officer that the applicant had been arrested on 22 January 2001 on suspicion of drug trafficking. However, no drug-related charges were ever brought against him. According to the applicant, he was told that he was suspected of murdering a policeman. He denied any involvement.\n8.  In the evening of the same day the applicant was transferred to Dolgorukovskoe police station, of the Lipetsk Region, where he was beaten up by Mr Gerasimov (the head of the police station) and Mr Abakumov (the head of the Investigations department). According to the applicant, they slapped and kicked him in the head, trunk and solar plexus. They forced him to kneel down in front of a picture of the murdered policeman and to apologise for killing him. They undressed him and threatened to rape him. Mr Gerasimov smacked his hands over the applicant's ears. He lost consciousness and was handed over to the police officers Mr Kondratov and Mr Trubitsyn, who continued the beatings. They tied his hands behind his back with a rope and hung him down, then put a gas-mask on him and blocked the air vent.\n9.  At about midnight the applicant was placed in a punishment cell at the police station.\n10.  On 23 January 2001 the applicant was formally detained and questioned. He denied his guilt and signed an undertaking not to leave the town. However, instead of being released, he was again placed in a cell at Dolgorukovskoe police station. It is apparent from the register of detainees at the police station that the applicant was held there from 23 to 26 January 2001.\n11.  According to the applicant, during his detention at Dolgorukovskoe police station he was repeatedly beaten up by Mr Lukin (the head of the public safety department), Mr Abakumov, Mr Gerasimov and Mr Butsan (a deputy head of the police station). He was also punched by the police officers Mr Kondratov, Mr Trubitsyn, Mr Alyabyev, Mr Panteleyev and Mr Savvin. They slapped and kicked him in the head, back, stomach, kidneys and liver, hit his eyes with their fingers, smacked their hands over his ears and spat at him. They threatened to rape and kill him. They put a gas-mask on him and blocked the vent, and forced him to inhale cigarette smoke.\n12.  On 26 January 2001 the applicant was formally remanded in custody on suspicion of murder. He was then transferred to Volovskoe police station of the Lipetsk Region, where he remained until 28 January 2001. He was questioned by Mr Shubin, who threatened to beat him up if he did not confess to the murder.\n13.  On 28 January 2001 the applicant was taken back to Dolgorukovskoe police station. He stated that every day from 28 to 31 January 2001 he had been severely beaten up by the same policemen as before. Mr Alyabyev, Mr Lukin and Mr Kavyrshin administered electric shocks to various parts of his body through wires connected to a dynamo and insisted that he should refuse legal assistance and confess. The applicant lost consciousness several times. An investigator from the prosecutor's office of the Lipetsk Region, Mr Andreyev, witnessed the ill-treatment.\n14.  On 29 January 2001 the applicant had a talk with Mr Ibiyev, an investigator from the prosecutor's office of the Lipetsk Region in charge of the inquiry into the policeman's murder. Mr Ibiyev", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5497", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the village of Tenistoye, Crimea, Ukraine.\n5.  On 19 July 2001 the applicant's son, Mr Fedin, who was born in 1969, was fishing in the River Karacha with a teenager, D. According to D.'s testimony in the subsequent proceedings, the water started to “bite” their feet when they reached Ayvove village. They saw a wire hanging from a wooden support pole for power lines, dangling in the water. Mr Fedin, saying that the wire was not dangerous and should be removed, stepped into the water and tried to pull the wire from the river. When he grasped the wire he cried out, fell into the water and died. D. tried to pull the wire out of Mr Fedin's hands. Unable to do so, he ran to the village for help.\n6.  Mr Z., an engineer with the Bakhchisaray District Electricity Network (hereinafter “the Network”) – forming a part of the public company, Krymenergo, owned by the Ukrainian State – carried out an initial, immediate investigation into the accident. In his report of 26 July 2001, Mr Z. concluded that the applicant's son had died as a result of electrocution. This occurred because a live wire, which had been incorrectly fixed to a wooden support pole, had come loose during strong winds. He further concluded that the security trip switch had failed on account of an ineffective earth connection.\n7.  A further internal inquiry was subsequently carried out by a commission composed of six Network officials (hereinafter “the commission”). Its report, drawn up on 20 August 2001, states that the Network owned two wooden poles on opposite banks of the River Karacha, supporting a power line strung across the river. In addition to that power line, those two poles also supported a bare radio wire that had been attached to the poles – above the power line – by the local telecommunications service of the Ukrtelecom Company. Owing to stormy weather conditions, the hook with which the radio wire had been attached had come loose, the wire had snapped and one end had fallen into the river. The commission found that, although in principle it was not unlawful to attach a power line and a radio wire to a single pole, the local telecommunications service had failed to obtain the relevant consent from the Network.\n8.  On 6 August 2001 the applicant asked the Bakhchisaray District Prosecutor's Office (hereafter “the Prosecutor's Office”) to conduct an inquiry into the circumstances of her son's death, claiming that his death had been caused by negligence and carelessness on the part of the Network in that it had failed to repair a broken power line, whereas the Ayvove villagers had already reported a power failure as early as 5 July 2001.\n9.  The autopsy report, issued on 20 August 2001 by an expert with the local Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations at the request of the Prosecutor's Office, stated that Mr Fedin had suffered a sudden death as a result of an electric shock.\n10.  On 20 August 2001 the Prosecutor's Office asked the Network to make available documents relating to the accident, including the records of previous inspections and repairs of the power line. In its reply of 30 August 2001 the Network stated, inter alia, that it had not given its consent to the radio wire being attached to the pole, and that the manner in which it had been done contravened technical safety rules. It further stated that it had notified the telecommunications service several times of the potential danger of the installation and had uns", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5498", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk.\n6.  On 3 July 2002 the applicant manoeuvred his car negligently in the street and crashed into another car which was being driven by a Ms Kh. As a result of the incident, Ms Kh. sustained concussion and injuries of medium severity.\n7.  Following the incident, the applicant was charged with the crime, set out in Article 286 § 1 of the Criminal Code, of breaching traffic rules resulting in injuries of medium severity to the victim. As a preventive measure, the applicant signed a written undertaking not to abscond.\n8.  On 5 June 2003 the Dnipropetrovskyy District Court (“the District Court”), taking note of the fact that the applicant had failed to appear at the hearing of his case, scheduled for that day, replaced the written undertaking by the applicant for his detention in custody.\n9.  Between 19 and 23 June 2003, the applicant was undergoing medical treatment in Dnipropetrovsk no. 7 City Hospital. According to the applicant, he was visited there by police officers who handcuffed him and guarded him until the end of the medical treatment. The officers allegedly did not allow him to use the toilet and prevented him from seeing his relatives and friends. The applicant did not complain to the investigating authorities on account of the conduct of the police officers.\n10.  On 23 June 2003 the applicant was arrested and placed in a cell at the Dnipropetrovsk District Police Department.\n11.  On 25 June 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) rejected the applicant's appeal against the decision of 5 June 2003 of the District Court, stating that, under domestic law, the decision was not subject to appeal.\n12.  On 27 June 2003 the applicant was transferred to the Dnipropetrovsk no. 3 Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO”).\n13.  On 3 July 2003 the District Court found the applicant guilty of a crime under Article 286 § 1 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to two years' “restriction of liberty” and a one-year driving ban. It further stated that the sentence should be calculated from 23 June 2003 and maintained the preventive measure (detention in custody) in respect of the applicant.\n14.  On 14 and 15 July 2003 the applicant complained to the President of the Court of Appeal and the President of the Supreme Court, alleging that his detention in custody had been unlawful. The complaints were unsuccessful.\n15.  On 21 July 2003 the applicant appealed against the judgment of 3 July 2003, alleging specifically that his detention had been unlawful since, first, under the provisions of Article 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the crime he was charged with did not entail the possibility of pre-trial detention, and, secondly, Article 342 of the same Code provided that he should have been released immediately after the court hearing of 3 July 2003.\n16.  On 6 October 2003 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal as unfounded and upheld the judgment of 3 July 2003, which then came into effect. The Court of Appeal ordered that the period of the applicant's detention in custody should be reckoned as a part of the applicant's sentence.\n17.  On 19 December 2003 the applicant was released from the Dnipropetrovsk SIZO, and moved to no. 133 Correctional Centre to serve his sentence.\n18.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment of 3 July 2003, contending, in particular, that his detention in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5500", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Ryazan.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  In 1986 the applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. The applicant's entitlement to certain social benefits is linked to the category of disability assigned to him due to deterioration of his health as a result of these events.\n7.  In 1999 the applicant, who has been residing in a hostel room of 11 square metres with his wife and two daughters, asked the relevant local authority to provide him with free housing. The authorities found that his housing conditions were substandard and he was placed on a waiting list for concluding a social tenancy agreement.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against the Ryazan Town Administration to challenge its failure to make free housing available to him within three months after placing him on the waiting list.\n9.  On 5 July 2000 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ryazan ruled in the applicant's favour and ordered the Ryazan Town Administration to provide the applicant with an appropriate housing for a family of four, in accordance with the housing and sanitary standards.\n10.  On appeal, the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the judgment on 13 September 2000.\n11.  On 5 February 2001 enforcement proceedings were opened. However, on 9 February 2001 they were stayed pending the examination of the authorities' request for supervisory review.\n12.  On 21 February 2001 the Prosecutor of the Ryazan Region lodged with the Ryazan Regional Court a request for supervisory review of the judgment in the applicant's favour.\n13.  On 10 April 2001 the Ryazan Regional Court declined the Prosecutor's request and refused to initiate the supervisory review procedure.\n14.  On 22 June 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the bailiffs' service challenging their failure to enforce the judgment of 5 July 2000.\n15.  On 16 July 2001 the Prosecutor of the Ryazan Region lodged another request for supervisory review of the judgment of 5 July 2000 with the Supreme Court of Russia.\n16.  On an unspecified date the Prosecutor's request was granted and a hearing before the Supreme Court of Russia scheduled. The applicant and his lawyer were not informed of the institution of the supervisory review proceedings and were not summoned to the hearing before the Supreme Court.\n17.  On 10 August 2001 the Supreme Court of Russia held a supervisory review hearing in the presence of a representative of the defendant, the Ryazan Town Administration, and a prosecutor of the Prosecutor General's Office, who argued that the applicant should be provided with a flat in accordance with the order of precedence on the waiting list for improvement of housing conditions. Having heard the defendant's representative and the prosecutor and having examined the facts of the case, the Supreme Court modified the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of Ryazan of 5 July 2000 and held that the applicant was to be provided with a flat in accordance with the order of precedence on the waiting list.\n18.  On 3 April 2002 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ryazan discontinued the proceedings against the bailiffs' service for the reason that the applicant had withdrawn his complaint of 22 June 2001.\n19.  Subsequently, on an unspecified date, the applicant filed with the same court another complaint against the bailiffs' service.\n20.  On 25 A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5501", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Sofia.\n7.  In 1966 his grandparents bought from the Sofia municipality an apartment of 73 square metres in the centre of the city, which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1946.\n8.  After the death of the applicant's grandparents his father inherited from them. In 1995 he conveyed the property to the applicant.\n9.  On 19 February 1993 the heirs of the former pre-nationalisation owner of the apartment brought an action against the applicant's father under section 7 of the Restitution Law, arguing that his title to the property was null and void and seeking the restoration of their own title. They also brought a rei vindicatio action.\n10.  In 2003 the applicant's father died and the applicant succeeded him in the proceedings.\n11.  The proceedings ended with a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 27 May 2005. The courts allowed the plaintiffs' claims, finding that the contract whereby the applicant's grandparents had acquired the apartment had been null and void since the sale had not been approved by the Minister of Finance, as required by the relevant provisions applicable at the time, but by his deputy.\n12.  In July or August 2005 the applicant and his family vacated the apartment. In November 2005 they were granted the tenancy of a municipally-owned apartment at a regulated price, where they moved in.\n13.  The applicant could apply to receive compensation bonds within two months of the judgment of 27 May 2005. However, he only applied for bonds on 7 October 2005. On 26 March 2008 the regional governor dismissed the request as time-barred. On an appeal by the applicant, this decision was upheld by the courts.\n14.  The relevant background facts, domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court's judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5502", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1935 and 1957 respectively and live in Varna. They are mother and daughter.\n7.  In 1985 the first applicant and her husband bought from the Varna municipality an apartment of 54 square metres, situated in the centre of the city, which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1945.\n8.  On an unspecified date after that the first applicant's husband died and his property was inherited by the two applicants.\n9.  In February 1992 the Restitution Law entered into force.\n10.  On 8 July 1992 one of the heirs of the former pre-nationalisation owner of the flat brought proceedings against the applicants under section 7 of the Restitution Law. In a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 7 July 1997 the action was allowed partially, the domestic courts finding that the plaintiff could only claim half of the property.\n11.  The courts found that the applicants' title over half of the property was null and void on two grounds: 1) their apartment had been part of a bigger apartment, which had, prior to 1985 and in breach of the relevant construction requirements, been divided by the State into two; and 2) the area where the apartment was located had been earmarked for the construction of buildings of more than three storeys and the applicants' building was of two storeys; the relevant legislation at the time prohibited the sale of apartments in such buildings.\n12.  On 20 November 1998 the applicants requested to be compensated with compensation bonds for half of the property. The request was granted and in January 2003 the applicants received bonds for 10,300 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of approximately 5,280 euros (EUR), in accordance with an expert valuation of a half of their apartment drew up in 2001 or 2002. On 25 November 2004 the applicants sold their bonds for approximately 50% of their face value and received BGN 5,145, the equivalent of EUR 2,640.\n13.  In the meantime, on 8 December 1997, following a legislative amendment whereby the time-limit to bring an action under section 7 of the Restitution Law was renewed, the remaining heirs of the former pre-nationalisation owner brought such an action against the applicants regarding the second half of the apartment.\n14.  The action was granted in a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 14 July 2004. Putting forward arguments identical to the ones concerning the first half of the apartment (see paragraph 11 above), the courts found that the applicants' title to the second half of the property was likewise null and void.\n15.  The applicants did not apply for compensation bonds for that half of the apartment, as they were entitled to.\n16.  On several occasions after 1997 the first applicant requested to be provided with municipal housing but was informed that no such housing was available. By 2003 the two applicants and the second applicant's family were still living in the disputed flat. In December 2003 they vacated it and rented another apartment. In 2004 the second applicant bought another flat and her family and the first applicant moved in there.\n17.  The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court's judgments in the cases of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007) and Tsonkovi v. Bulgaria (no. 27213/04, §§", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5503", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Sofia.\n7.  In 1968 the applicant and his wife bought from the Sofia municipality a two-room apartment of 49 square metres which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following years.\n8.  In February 1992 the Restitution Law entered into force.\n9.  In December 1992 the applicant and his wife conveyed their title to their grandson, retaining for themselves the right to use the apartment. The applicant's wife died in 1995; the applicant and their daughter were her heirs.\n10.  On 30 December 1997, following a renewal of the initial one-year time-limit to bring an action under section 7 of the Restitution Law, the heir of the former owner of the apartment brought such an action against the applicant and his daughter, seeking to establish that the title of the applicant and his wife had been null and void.\n11.  The ensuing proceedings ended by final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 14 July 2005. The domestic courts found that the title of the applicant and his wife had been null and void ab initio because the sale of the property in 1968 had been flawed as three of the requisite documents, namely the initial decision to sell the property, its approval, and the sale contract, had not been signed by the mayor or, respectively, the mayor of the region, as required by law, but by their deputies.\n12.  In the meantime, on 15 March 2002 the heir of the former owner of the apartment brought a rei vindicatio action and an action for damages against the applicant who was still living in the apartment. In a judgment of 14 March 2006 the Sofia District Court allowed the claims and ordered the applicant to vacate the property. It found also that the applicant was liable for damages as his title had been found to be null and void ab initio and he had thus used the flat without any valid legal ground.\n13.  The domestic court noted that the former owner's rights to the apartment at issue had been restored ex lege by virtue of the Restitution Law's entry into force in February 1992. Therefore, the applicant's liability for damages for having used the apartment without any valid ground had arisen on that date. On that basis, the Sofia District Court ordered the applicant to pay to the former owner 1,807.50, Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of 927 euros (EUR), in damages for the period from February 1992 to March 2002. The applicant's liability was limited to the latter date because this was when the action for damages had been brought. Apparently, the applicant failed to rely on the rules of statutory limitation, which under Bulgarian law was five years and could have led to the restriction of his liability to the period after March 1997. The applicant was also ordered to pay BGN 440, the equivalent of EUR 225, for the other party's expenses.\n14.  Upon appeal by the applicant, on 15 October 2007 the Sofia District Court's judgment was upheld by the Sofia City Court. Considering that he stood no chance in cassation, the applicant did not appeal against that judgment.\n15.  On 23 August 2006 the applicant and his daughter applied to receive compensation through bonds for the loss of the apartment. At the time of the applicant's latest communication to the Court of May 2010 the regional governor had not yet decided on the application for bonds.\n16.  In October 2006 the applicant vacated the apartment and was granted", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5504", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1935, 1956, 1963 and 1973 respectively. The first, third and fourth applicants live in Sofia and the second applicant lives in Adelaide, Australia.\n6.  In 1977 the first applicant and her husband, who are the parents of the second, third and fourth applicants, bought from the Sofia municipality a flat of 261 square metres which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria in 1947 and the following years.\n7.  On 18 August 1992 the heirs of the pre-nationalisation owner of the flat brought proceedings under section 7 of the 1992 Law on the Restitution of Ownership of Nationalised Real Property against the first applicant and her husband, seeking to establish that their title was null and void. They also sought a rei vindicatio order.\n8.  On 30 November 1995 the first applicant's husband died and the second, third and fourth applicants joined the proceedings as his heirs.\n9.  On 17 April 1997 the Sofia District Court allowed the claimants' actions. On an appeal by the applicants, on 24 September 2002 its judgment was upheld by the Sofia City Court. On further appeal, the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower courts' judgments on 28 July 2004. The courts found that in 1977 the first applicant and her husband had purchased the flat in breach of the law and their title had therefore been null and void.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5505", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  Mr Petar Hristov Bekirski (“the first applicant”) and Mrs Kate Dimitrova Bekirska (“the second applicant”) are the parents of Mr Bekirski, while Mrs Krasimira Petrova Bekirska (“the third applicant”) is his sister. Mr Bekirski was born in 1972 and was twenty-four years old at the time of the events.\n9.  In May 1996 a criminal investigation was opened into the activities of the so-called Komatevska gang, of which Mr Bekirski and five other individuals, including the first applicant, were allegedly members. The investigation was carried out in connection with several murders and armed robberies.\n10.  On 13 May 1996 Mr Bekirski was charged with premeditated murder (Article 115 of the Criminal Code of 1968) and placed in pre-trial detention.\n11.  Mr Bekirski was held at the detention facility of the Plovdiv Regional Investigation Service (“the detention facility”) located on the sixth and seventh floors of a building it shared with the Plovdiv Fourth District Police Station. Accordingly, there were two sets of guards – one stationed on the sixth or seventh floor for the detention facility and another on the ground floor for the entire police station. In addition, a metal door barred access to the floors of the detention facility.\n12.  Initially, Mr Bekirski was held in cell no. 5 on the seventh floor together with another detainee, whose help he tried to enlist in an attempted escape. As a result, on 7 August 1996 Mr Bekirski was moved and placed alone in cell no. 14 on the same floor.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 9 July 1996 the first applicant had been detained in the course of the same criminal proceedings. He was also being held at the detention facility on 30 August 1996 when the events outlined below took place.\n14.  At around 7 p.m. on 30 August 1996, while the detainees were being served dinner, Mr Bekirski allegedly tried to escape.\n15.  Using the sharpened handle of a wooden spoon as a makeshift weapon, Mr Bekirski attacked and apparently wounded two duty officers – first S.G. and then G.G. S.G. was injured and received several cuts in the area of his left eye while G.G. was stabbed in the left eye. The latter subsequently lost the sight in his left eye. Taking G.G. as a hostage and threatening to stab him in the neck with the makeshift weapon Mr Bekirski allegedly tried to leave the detention facility.\n16.  Taking advantage of Mr Bekirski being briefly distracted, G.G. knocked the makeshift weapon out of Mr Bekirski's hand and moved away. A fight then ensued between Mr Bekirski and approximately three or four duty officers, among which were duty officers G.P., N.S. and B.Z. The duty officers kicked, punched and used a truncheon in the course of the encounter, which continued for five to ten minutes. During the fight, Mr Bekirski and some or all of the duty officers fell down the stairs between the seventh and sixth floors. Eventually, Mr Bekirski was subdued and handcuffed.\n17.  The first applicant maintains that he and the other detainees heard the screams and cries which accompanied the subduing of his son. Some of those witnesses later gave testimony before the investigators (see part D below).\n18.  At around 9 p.m. on the same day Mr Bekirski was examined by doctor I.D. who was head of the Department of Forensic Medicine at the Medical University of Plovdiv (“the University”).\n19.  In medical report no. 1220/96 (“the first medical report”) he described the incident of that evening and Mr Bekirski's overall condition as follows:\n“[M", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5506", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the town of Shakhty, in the Rostov Region.\n6.  On 10 July 1995 the Shakhty Prosecutor's Office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and Mr P. for rape and attempted rape of two victims. On 10 October 1995 the proceedings were terminated for lack of evidence.\n7.  On 13 December 1995 the decision of 10 October 1995 was quashed and the case was remitted for a further investigation.\n8.  On 1 July 1996 the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of rape and attempted rape. On an unspecified date he was released. A preventive measure in the form of an undertaking not to abscond was applied both to the applicant and Mr P.\n9.  On 1 July 1997 the Shakhty Town Court acquitted the applicant and Mr P. of rape and attempted rape.\n10.  On 15 January 1998 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the first‑instance judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n11.  On 6 August 1998 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 15 January 1998 and remitted the case for a new examination in the second instance.\n12.  On 26 August 1998 a hearing before the Rostov Regional Court was postponed because the applicant's counsel, Mr K., was occupied.\n13.  On 9 September, 14 October and 4 November 1998 the Rostov Regional Court postponed appeal hearings because the applicant was ill.\n14.  On 9 December 1998 the Rostov Regional Court postponed a hearing because they had received a telegram from an anonymous sender requesting that the applicant's case be taken off the list of appeals to be heard.\n15.  On 29 December 1998, as well as on 3 February and 3 March 1999 the Rostov Regional Court postponed appeal hearings because of the applicant's illness.\n16.  On 14 April 1999 the Rostov Regional Court decided to examine the appeal in the applicant's absence, quashed the judgment of 1 July 1997 and remitted the case for a fresh examination in the first instance. The applicant's counsel was not present at the hearing.\n17.  On 11 May 1999 the Shakhty Town Court scheduled a hearing for 8 June 1999.\n18.  On 8 June 1999 the Shakhty Town Court ordered Mr P. to be summoned to a hearing. It appears that Mr P. failed to comply with the summons.\n19.  On 2 July 1999 the criminal proceedings against the applicant and Mr P. were suspended. The preventive measure in Mr P.'s respect was changed to custodial detention and he was put on a wanted list. The Shakhty Town Court decided not to proceed with the examination of the case. The applicant and his lawyer did not appeal against the decision.\n20.  On 4 January 2002 the criminal proceedings were resumed in respect of the applicant.\n21.  On 10 January 2002 the Shakhty Town Court postponed a trial hearing owing to the applicant's failure to appear.\n22.  On 23 January 2002 a trial hearing was postponed to 18 February 2002.\n23.  On 18 February 2002 a hearing was postponed owing to witnesses' and the applicant's counsel's failure to appear. Mr K. was absent because of a business trip.\n24.  On 26 February 2002 a hearing was postponed because of the applicant's illness.\n25.  On 14 March 2002 a hearing was postponed on a prosecutor's request in charge of the search for Mr P.\n26.  On 18 March 2002 a hearing was postponed because one of the victims failed to attend.\n27.  On 21 March 2002 a hearing was postponed until 22 March 2002 on the applicant's request, to allow him to study the case file.\n28.  On 21 March 2002 the Shakhty Town Court dis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5508", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Plovdiv.\n6.  On 30 November 1992 the heirs of the pre-nationalisation owners of a dwelling, purchased by the applicant's father form a subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence in 1967, brought an action for restitution against the applicant and Ms P.P., as heirs of the applicant's father, seeking restitution and a declaration that the 1967 transaction was null and void.\n7.  Between February 1993 and January 1997 at least sixteen hearings were held. At least four of them were adjourned due to improper summoning and one upon the applicant's request.\n8.  In a judgment of 15 May 1997 the Plovdiv District Court dismissed the claim.\n9.  On appeal, at least six hearings were held before the Plovdiv Regional Court. One hearing was adjourned because the expert opinion had not been obtained in time, one was adjourned due to improper summoning, and one upon the applicant's request.\n10.  In a judgment of 28 December 1999 the Regional Court upheld the previous court's judgement.\n11.  On further appeal, on 10 January 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Regional Court's judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination due to unspecified procedural breaches.\n12.  By a judgment of 30 November 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court set aside the judgment of 1997 and declared the plaintiffs owners of the disputed real estate.\n13.  On 23 April 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the lower court's judgment.\n14.  On an unspecified date the Executive Agency “Management of the Private State Property of the Ministry of Defence” filed a request for reopening, claiming that under the relevant legislation it should have been a party to the proceedings as a successor of the relevant subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence.\n15.  On 14 May 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation granted reopening, set aside the judgment of 23 April 2003 and remitted the case to the Plovdiv Regional Court for new examination. The court held that in February 2000 the Executive Agency “Management of the Private State Property of the Ministry of Defence” had succeeded the subsidiary of the Ministry of Defence, which had been constituted as a party in the proceedings in 1993, and therefore should have been summoned in its stead.\n16.  By a judgment of 16 December 2005 the Plovdiv Regional Court again declared the plaintiffs owners of the real estate. On 17 April 2006 the applicant appealed.\n17.  By a final judgment of 13 April 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the lower court's judgment and rejected the plaintiffs' claims, thus deciding the case in favour of the applicant.\n18.  The number of hearings held between December 1999 and April 2003 and between May 2004 and April 2007 is not clear.\n19.  On 6 June 2007 the plaintiffs filed a request for reopening.\n20.  By a judgment of 6 November 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5509", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Ingelheim.\n7.  Since 1979 the applicant has operated a personal security service (Personenschutzunternehmen).\n8.  On 1 June 1992 he lodged an application for gun licences (waffenrechtliche Erlaubnis) with the county of Querfurt (Saxony-Anhalt), which was granted. Subsequent requests for a renewal of these licences in May and October 1993 were only provisionally granted and were finally dismissed on 23 November 1993.\n9.  On 30 November 1993 the applicant lodged an administrative appeal (Widerspruch) against the decision of 23 November 1993, which was dismissed on 18 March 1994.\n10.  The applicant also applied to the Administrative Court for interim measures. This application was dismissed in January 1994, which decision was confirmed on appeal by the Administrative Court of Appeal in August 1994.\n11.  On 22 April 1994 the applicant brought an action with Halle Administrative Court, initially without detailed reasoning.\n12.  On 30 June 1994 the statement of defence and the administrative files were submitted to the court. On 7 October 1994 the applicant appointed additional legal counsel, who resigned again in November 1994.\n13.  In June 1995 Halle Administrative Court ordered the applicant to reason his action within six weeks. After the applicant's lawyer had twice requested an extension of the time-limit set by the court he submitted the reasoning on 19 September 1995. In October 1995 the applicant appointed additional legal counsel.\n14.  On 5 March 1996 Halle Administrative Court scheduled a hearing for 11 April 1996, which was subsequently rescheduled for 30 May 1996 upon the defendant's request.\n15.  After the hearing on 30 May 1996 the judgment was delivered and on 4 and 5 July 1996 served on the applicant's counsel.\n16.  On 22 July 1996 the applicant appealed the judgment. On 5 August 1996 the files were transferred to the Administrative Court of Appeal. On 22 October 1996 the reasoning of the appeal was submitted. On 23 December 1996 and 21 February 1997 answers to the appeal were lodged.\n17.  On 2 July 1997 the Administrative Court of Appeal informed the applicant's counsel, at his request, that it was not foreseeable when a decision would be rendered.\n18.  On 10 September 1998 a hearing was scheduled for 18 November 1998. On 10 November 1998, after inspection of the files, the applicant's counsel informed the Administrative Court of Appeal that the files were incomplete. On the same day the court started an enquiry in this respect and informed counsel on 12 November 1998 that its investigations had been to no avail. On 16 November 1998 the applicant's counsel asked for the hearing to be postponed in order for the missing files to be reassembled. On 18 November 1998 the hearing took place; however, the case was adjourned.\n19.  On 8 December 1999 the Administrative Court of Appeal requested the missing files from the administrative authorities without success. In January and March 2000 the applicant's counsel enquired about the state of the proceedings. On 3 August 2000 the Administrative Court of Appeal requested the files from Halle Administrative Court, without success. On 29 May 2001 the court informed counsel that its efforts to locate the missing files had failed and that a hearing was planned for July 2001.\n20.  On 12 June 2001 a hearing was scheduled for 12 July 2001. On 9 July 2001 the applicant's counsel asked for the hearing to be postponed because he had not yet been abl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5510", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Mr Rajesh Kaushal, born in 1967, settled in Bulgaria in 1990. Soon after that he met the second applicant, born in 1974. Their first daughter, the third applicant, was born on 13 November 1992. The first and second applicants married on 17 April 1994. Their second daughter, the fourth applicant, was born on 19 February 1998. On an unspecified date Mr Kaushal was granted a permanent residence permit in Bulgaria. He learned Bulgarian and started his own business. He owns a hotel and a restaurant in Sofia.\n6.  On 28 November 2005 the head of the Ministry of the Interior's National Security Service ordered the expulsion of Mr Kaushal. He also deprived him of the right to reside in Bulgaria and excluded him from Bulgarian territory for a period of ten years. The order, which was based on sections 42 and 44(1) of the 1998 Aliens Act (see paragraph 17 below), relied on\n“the reasons set out in proposal no. M-2886/22.11.2005 and the fact that [Mr Kaushal's] presence in the country represent[ed] a serious threat to national security”.\nNo factual grounds were given. It was indicated in the order that it was immediately enforceable, as provided for in section 44(4) of the Aliens Act (see paragraph 17 below).\n7.  On 28 November 2005 Mr Kaushal was detained. On 1 December 2005 he was deported to India. Subsequently he settled in Thessaloniki, Greece, where his wife and daughters visit him.\n8.  Once abroad, Mr Kaushal retained a lawyer who lodged with the Sofia City Court an application for judicial review of the expulsion order of 28 November 2005. He argued that no reasons had been given for the order and that the relevant factual circumstances had not been duly established. Furthermore, he pointed out that he had a family in Bulgaria.\n9.  In the course of the ensuing proceedings the Sofia City Court accepted in evidence the classified proposal referred to in the impugned order (see paragraph 6 above). The proposal apparently stated that Mr Kaushal was suspected of affiliation to extremist groups and trafficking in human beings. It is unclear whether Mr Kaushal's representative was also given an opportunity to familiarise himself with the document.\n10.  The Sofia City Court gave judgment on 16 December 2006. Relying on the Court's judgment in the case of Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria (no. 50963/99, 20 June 2002), it found that the bar to judicial review set out in section 46(2) of the Aliens Act (see paragraph 17 below) was contrary to Article 13 of the Convention and was thus to be disregarded.\n11.  Examining Mr Kaushal's application on the merits, the Sofia City Court found that the order of 28 November 2005 was lawful as it had been issued by a competent authority and in accordance with the law. Referring to different legal provisions relating to national security, it continued as follows:\n“As can be seen from the text of proposal no. M-2886/22.11.2005, the measures imposed [on Mr Kaushal] by virtue of the disputed order are aimed at the prevention of unlawful activity, as described in [the provisions on national security], namely affiliation of Rajesh Kaushal to extremist groups and participation in organised trafficking in human beings into countries of the European Union. The data related to these activities have been collected lawfully, by operational means within the competence of the Ministry of the Interior's National Security Service.”\n12.  Lastly, the Sofia City Court found that it was not necessary to examine Mr Kaushal", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5511", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was imprisoned in Northern Ireland in 1975 for his involvement in a bombing for which the Irish Republican Army (“IRA”) was held responsible. On 25 September 1983 he escaped from prison.\n10.  In December 1983 a high profile kidnapping in Ireland ended in a gunfight with the security forces. The kidnapped man was released but a soldier and policeman were killed. A forensic report identified fingerprints found on items at the crime scene as those of the applicant. On 7 January 1984 an internal police circular was issued stating that the applicant was wanted on serious charges connected to the kidnapping.\n11.  In January 1986 the applicant was arrested in the Netherlands. In December 1986 he was extradited to Northern Ireland where he resumed serving his sentence. The Irish police did not interview the applicant about the kidnapping while in prison in Northern Ireland for the reasons later outlined by the Supreme Court (see paragraph 30 below).\n12.  From 1993 the applicant was granted periods of temporary release during which he visited Ireland. In January 1998 he was released on parole from prison in Northern Ireland.\n13.  On 5 January 1998 the applicant was arrested in Ireland by the Irish police under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939, as amended (“OASA”). He was questioned and charged before the Special Criminal Court (“SCC”) with offences relating to the kidnapping: false imprisonment, unlawful possession of firearms and kidnapping (a life sentence was the maximum prison term for the first and third charge). The SCC later noted (prior to dismissing the charges in 2008) that the evidence against the applicant was an admission he had made during his police interviews that he had been at the kidnap location (which admission he had denied in evidence before the SCC) as well as the fingerprint evidence.\n14.  On 5 January 1998 an official of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform received a printed notice of the report of the applicant's arrest and he made handwritten notes thereon (“memorandum of 5January 1998”). The applicant submitted that those notes proved that the Irish police had been aware of his presence in Ireland prior to his arrest.\n15.  He applied for bail and on 13 January 1998 he was released on bail, subject to certain reporting conditions. The Supreme Court later noted that he had to sign on once a month at a police station in Ireland (a 160 km round trip from his home in Belfast) and that he had also to attend on approximately 40 occasions since 1998 at the SCC in Dublin (a round trip of 320 km) during the criminal proceedings against him.\n16.  On 14 July 1998 the Book of Evidence (statement of the evidence on which the prosecution proposed to rely) was served on the applicant. The Government maintained that the applicant informed the SCC on that date that he might bring judicial review proceedings to prohibit his trial on grounds of delay prior to his arrest.\n17.  Correspondence took place between the prosecution and the applicant from July 1998 to March 1999 on disclosure by the prosecution of any other relevant evidence not in the Book of Evidence: it concerned correspondence between the Irish and other authorities as regards his whereabouts prior to his arrest in 1998 and matters relating to the fingerprint issue. The case was put in for mention on the SCC list four times between October 1998 and 18 March 1999. On the latter date the disclosure issues were resolved with", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5513", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954. She lives in Gdańsk-Zaspa.\n6.  By a judgment of 30 March 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against a second‑instance administrative decision by which she had been refused a monthly social assistance benefit. This judgment, with its written reasons, was served on the applicant on 28 April 2006.\n7.  On an unspecified later date the applicant was granted, by a decision of an official of the court's registry, legal aid for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n8.  By a further decision of a registry official given on 25 April 2006 the registry requested the local Bar Association to assign a legal-aid lawyer to the case. That order was complied with on 12 June 2006.\n9.  On 19 June 2006 the Gdańsk Bar informed the court that Mr M. S. had been assigned to the case. Mr M.S. was so informed on 20 June 2006.\n10.  On 21 June 2006 he examined the case file and found that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal had expired on 28 May 2006.\n11.  By a letter to the court dated 1 July 2006 the lawyer informed the court that he saw no legal grounds on which he could draft a cassation appeal. He presented a detailed legal analysis of the case and an explanation why he considered that legal grounds for a cassation appeal did not obtain. He further observed that in the circumstances of the case he could not, in any event, be required to prepare an appeal, having been served with the judgment after the time-limit for its submission had already expired.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5514", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, husband and wife, were born in 1966 and 1969 respectively and live in Braşov.\n5.  On 17 March 2000 the applicants lent 4,000 United States dollars to E.I. and G.I., at a 6,000,000 old Romanian lei (ROL) monthly interest. The deadline for returning the loan was 30 August 2000. Following refusal of payment by the third parties, the applicants brought court proceedings.\n6.  On 6 February 2001 the Baia de Aramă District Court (“the District Court”), by a final decision, ordered E.I. and G.I. to return the loan, calculated at the date of payment, and to pay the applicants ROL 42,000,000 representing interest until 17 December 2000, as well as interest until effective repayment. It also ordered G.I. to pay the applicants ROL 8,150,000 for the costs of proceedings.\n7.  On 29 May 2001 the applicants requested the bailiff I.M. to enforce the judgment. On the same day the District Court upheld the enforcement.\n8.  On 5 June 2001 the bailiff ordered E.I. to pay his part of the debt.\n9.  On 13 June 2001 the bailiff certified in an official record that G.I. had no movable or immovable assets to be seized. At an unknown date in the summer of 2001, G.I. left the country.\n10.  On 8 August 2001 the bailiff seized a bus belonging to E.I. He then scheduled the sale for 13 March 2002. However, in the absence of any potential buyer, the bailiff adjourned the sale for 20 March 2002.\n11.  On 26 November 2001 the applicants requested the bailiff to seize an apartment belonging to E.I. On 29 January 2002 the bailiff seized that apartment.\n12.  On 8 February 2002 the applicants requested replacement of the bailiff, alleging failure to enforce the judgment. However, on 11 February 2002 the District Court refused replacement. The applicants filed further complaints against the bailiff before the Bailiffs' Chamber, but received no answer.\n13.  The bailiff scheduled the sale of the apartment for 13 May 2002. However, in the absence of any potential buyer, the bailiff decided to postpone it until a new request by the applicants. On 23 July 2002 the applicants requested the bailiff to put the apartment on sale.\n14.  On 11 June 2002 the District Court dismissed an objection to execution by E.I.\n15.  On 10 September 2002 the bailiff requested an expert to evaluate the apartment. The expert report was finalized on 29 November 2002.\n16.  The sale of the apartment was scheduled for 6 January and then for 7 February 2003, when the applicants bought it. On 18 February 2003 the bailiff certified in an official record that the applicants became the new owners and that they had paid an amount of ROL 100,000,000 for that apartment, which was to be deducted out of the total debt. However, due to a mortgage held by a bank as a security for a loan of money, the apartment was later sold (see paragraph 29 below).\n17.  On 10 March 2003 the bailiff also put the bus on sale. On 26 March 2003 he received ROL 30,000,000 as the price of the bus, but collected that amount for his personal use.\n18.  On 12 June 2003 the applicants lodged an objection to execution against the bailiff, seeking from the court to order the bailiff to allocate them ROL 35,000,000, approximately 920 euros (EUR) at that time, representing the price of the bus. On 10 July 2003 the District Court declared their request null and void for non-payment of the stamp duty. The stamp duty amounted to ROL 174,000, approximately EUR 5 at that time. In the absence of any appeal, that judgment became final.\n1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5515", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant company is based in Hoofddorp. Its business is publishing and marketing magazines, including the weekly Autoweek, which caters for readers who are interested in motoring.\n10.  On 12 January 2002, an illegal street race was held in an industrial area on the outskirts of the town of Hoorn. Journalists of Autoweek attended this race at the invitation of its organisers.\n11.  The applicant company state that the journalists were given the opportunity to take photographs of the street race and of the participating cars and persons on condition that they guarantee that the identities of all participants would remain undisclosed. The Government, for their part, dispute the existence of any agreement involving more than a small number of organisers or participants at most.\n12.  The street race was ended by the police, who were present and eventually intervened. No arrests were made.\n13.  The applicant company intended to publish an article about illegal car races in Autoweek no. 7/2002 of 6 February 2002. This article would be accompanied by photographs of the street race held on 12 January 2002. These photographs would be edited in such a manner that the participating cars and persons were unidentifiable, thus guaranteeing the anonymity of the participants in the race. The original photographs were stored by the applicant company on a CD-ROM, which was kept in the editorial office of a different magazine published by the applicant company (not Autoweek).\n14.  The police and prosecuting authorities were afterwards led to suspect that one of the vehicles participating in the street race had been used as a getaway car following a ram raid on 1 February 2001 (see paragraphs 27-29 below).\n15.  On the morning of Friday 1 February 2002, a police officer contacted the Autoweek editorial office by telephone, summoning the editors to surrender to the police all photographic materials concerning the street race of 12 January 2002. This police officer was informed by the staff member whom she had called, namely the features chief editor (chef reportage), that this request could not be met as the journalists had only been given permission to take photographs of the street race after having guaranteed the anonymity of the participants in the race. The features chief editor further told this police officer that he thought that the press was reasonably protected against this kind of action and advised her to contact the editorial office in writing.\n16.  In the afternoon of 1 February 2002, at 2.30 p.m., two police detectives visited the Autoweek editorial office and, after having unsuccessfully tried to obtain the surrender of the photographs, issued Autoweek’s editor-in-chief with a summons, within the meaning of Article 96a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering). This summons had been issued by the Amsterdam public prosecutor; it ordered the applicant company to surrender, in the context of a criminal investigation into offences defined in Articles 310-312 of the Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht) against an unspecified person, the photographs taken on 12 January 2002 during the illegal street race in Hoorn and all related materials. On behalf of the applicant company, Autoweek’s editor-in-chief Mr Broekhuijsen refused to surrender the photographs, considering this to be contrary to the undertaking given by the journalists to the street race participants as regards their anonymity.\n17.  Later that day, a telephon", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5516", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  The applicant worked as chief of the catering division of TAROM company (the Romanian Air Transport company), a State-owned company. In 1990, by a Government decision, the catering branch of TAROM became a new company, CASROM. In 1998 CASROM merged into the COMCHIM company, a private company. In 2004 that company changed its name into ROMAQUA.\n6.  On 8 February 1990 the applicant was dismissed from his job. He challenged that decision and on 9 November 1992 the Ilfov District Court ordered CASROM to reinstate the applicant in his previous job or in an equivalent post, and TAROM to pay him 154,043 Romanian lei (ROL) as overdue salary for the period February 1990 to September 1992, and also to pay him salary until effective reinstatement. That judgment became final on 28 May 1993.\n7.  On 6 June 1996 the applicant lodged an action against TAROM and CASROM for payment of salary until effective reinstatement and for bringing the amount of ROL 154,043 up-to-date in accordance with inflation. On 3 February 2005 the Bucharest Court of Appeal, by a final decision, ordered TAROM to pay the applicant that amount indexed to take account of inflation.\n8.  In March and April 2004, and then in April 2005, the bailiff sought to attach the company's financial assets in several banks in respect of the salaries due. Those seizures were endorsed by the courts.\n9.  On 28 April 2004 the Bucharest District Court declared that the judgment of 9 November 1992 could be enforced.\n10.  On 19 May 2004 TAROM lodged an objection to execution, alleging that the applicant's right to request enforcement of that judgment had become time-barred. The Bucharest County Court upheld that request by a final decision of 17 June 2005, declaring that the applicant's right to request enforcement of the judgment of 9 November 1992 was time-barred.\n11.  On 23 March 2007 the Bucharest County Court dismissed as time–barred an action by the applicant for payment of salaries from 1990 to 1999 and of other pecuniary rights related to his employee capacity. However, on 27 September 2007 the decision was quashed by the Bucharest Court of Appeal and the case sent for fresh consideration. No information on the outcome of the proceedings is available to the Court.\n12.  On 26 April 2007 the Bucharest County Court dismissed an action by the applicant for payment of salary and connected rights from 1999 onward, for lack of responsibility of TAROM. The court considered that the applicant should have taken action against COMCHIM/ROMAQUA. That judgment became final.\n13.  On 13 March 1995 the applicant sought comminatory damages from CASROM for non‑compliance with the judgment of 9 November 1992.\n14.  On 13 June 1996 the Bucharest District Court set comminatory damages of ROL 50,000 per day until the applicant's effective reinstatement. The court held that CASROM had systematically refused to reinstate the applicant. That judgment became final on 9 June 1997.\n15.  On 5 December 1997 the applicant requested quantification and payment of comminatory damages.\n16.  On 11 January 1999 the Bucharest District Court upheld his request and set to ROL 69,250,000 the amount corresponding to damage for non-compliance between 5 October and 14 December 1998. On 6 October 1999 Bucharest County Court upheld that judgment.\nOn 16 November 1999 ROMAQUA paid that amount.\n17.  On 5 June 1999 the applicant sought again quantification and payment of comminator", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5517", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  At the time of the events in question, Hyde Park was registered with the Moldovan Ministry of Justice as a non-governmental organisation lobbying, inter alia, for freedom of expression and the right to free assembly. In 2007 its members decided to discontinue registration on grounds of alleged pressure and intimidation from the State. In particular, they complained of the refusal of the Ministry of Justice to register amendments to the organisation's articles of association, the repeated freezing of its bank account, arbitrary arrest of its members, attempts to shut down its newspaper and other such interferences. Several of the organisation's leaders requested political asylum in western countries and it was decided to continue the activity under the same name but without being registered with the State authorities. It was also decided that the new unincorporated association would become the former organisation's successor. After the striking of the organisation out of the Government's list of non-governmental organisations, on 2 June 2008, Hyde Park's activity continued on the basis of new articles of association and all the activities were carried on. The association continued editing its newspaper and its internet page and continued staging protests and demonstrations.\n7.  On 23 July 2007 Hyde Park applied to the Municipal Council of Chişinău for authorisation to stage a protest on 30 August 2007 in front of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General's Office against alleged acts of harassment of Hyde Park by those bodies.\n8.  On 20 August 2007 the Municipal Council authorised the protest, to be staged on 30 August 2007 in front of the building of the Ministry of Internal Affairs between 7.30 a.m. and 8.15 a.m. and in front of the Prosecutor General's Office between 8.15 a.m. and 9 a.m. at a distance of at least fifty metres from the buildings.\n9.  On 30 August 2007, at 7.30 a.m., the applicants started their protest in front of the Ministry of Internal Affairs but were immediately approached by a police officer who ordered them to stop the protest because the Municipality's authorisation had been challenged by the Prosecutor General's Office in court on 29 August 2007. The police officer argued that according to the Law on the Prosecutor's Office, the prosecutor's appeal against an administrative act suspended the latter's action until after a court examined it. The applicants refused to comply and argued that the authorisation was valid and that their protest was peaceful. They relied on the provisions of the Constitution of Moldova and on the Convention. Shortly thereafter a police van arrived and Mr Ghenadie Brega, Mr Oleg Brega, Mr Hristea-Stan and Mr Juraveli were arrested and taken to a police station where they were questioned. At approximately 9.30 a.m. they were released without explanation. They could not continue their protest because the time indicated in the authorisation had lapsed.\n10.  The same day a criminal complaint was lodged against the police officers who carried out the arrests; however, the complaint was dismissed by the head of the police station of the Centru District on 19 September 2007 on the ground that the authorisation contained numerous flaws such as a failure to indicate the exact place of the protest and the number of participants.\n11.  It appears that the Prosecutor Office's appeal against the Municipality's authorisation of 20 August 2007 has never been examined by the court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5518", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant, a former lieutenant, was born in 1975 and lives in Istanbul.\n4.  After being expelled from the armed forces for disciplinary and ethical reasons, mainly on account of his excessive indebtedness and his failure to discharge his debts, the applicant brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court against the Ministry of Defence for the annulment of the expulsion order.\n5.  An action for fraud was subsequently filed against the applicant before the criminal courts.\n6.  The Ministry of Defence submitted certain documents and information to the Supreme Military Administrative Court regarding the applicant’s expulsion, which were classified as “secret documents” under Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602 on the Supreme Military Administrative Court. These documents were not disclosed to the applicant.\n7.  On 11 November 2003 the Supreme Military Administrative Court held a hearing, which the applicant attended, and on 30 March 2004 it rejected the applicant’s case. The court refused to hear the applicant’s witnesses, holding that the witness statements would not make any difference to the applicant’s position in the circumstances of the present case and that the examination could be sufficiently conducted on the basis of the documents in the case file.\n8.  On 6 July 2004 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s rectification request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5519", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Mr Tadeusz Iskrzycki and Mrs Janina Iskrzycka, were born in 1941 and 1949 respectively and live in Rabka.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 1992 the Grassroots Committee for the Construction of a Communal Cemetery in Ponice (Komitet Czynu Spolecznego Budowy Cmentarza Komunalnego w Ponicach) applied to the Head of the Nowy Targ District Office (Kierownik Urzędu Rejonowego) for permission to build a cemetery in the applicants' neighbourhood.\n7.  On 18 May 1993 the Head of the Nowy Targ District Office granted permission.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicants appealed against that decision.\n9.  On 7 July 1993 the Nowy Sącz Governor (Wojewoda Nowosądecki) upheld the decision of 18 May 1993.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a complaint (skarga) against that decision with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n11.  On 12 February 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court gave judgment and quashed both decisions.\n12.  Following an inspection of the site and having found that the building works were almost complete, on 9 July 1996 the Head of the Nowy Targ District Office ordered that the building works be suspended.\n13.  On 9 September 1996 the Head of the Nowy Targ District Office gave a decision ordering the investor to carry out some additional activities, including obtaining a report from a hydrological expert on the land around the cemetery and a survey of all the land within a 150-metre radius of the cemetery.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicants appealed against that decision.\n15.  On 11 December 1996 the Nowy Sącz Governor upheld the challenged decision.\n16.  On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court against the Mayor of Rabka (Burmistrz) about the non-enforcement of the Supreme Administrative Court's judgment of 12 February 1996. They relied on Article 31 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings in force at the relevant time and requested that a fine be imposed on the Mayor of Rabka.\n17.  On 12 November 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the complaint about the inactivity on the part of the administrative authorities, finding that the applicants had failed to lodge their complaint in accordance with procedural requirements.\n18.  The administrative authorities failed to carry out the duties imposed on them by the decision of 9 September 1996. Therefore, on 5 September 2003, the Nowy Targ District Inspector of Construction Supervision (Powiatowy Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) gave a decision and ordered the demolition of the technical infrastructure of the cemetery (the fence, access ways and plots and the storm drainage system). The demolition order did not concern the graves which were already in the cemetery.\n19.  On an unspecified date the Nowy Sącz Governor appealed against that decision.\n20.  On 12 January 2004 the Małopolski Inspector of Construction Supervision remitted the case for re-examination.\n21.  On 22 November 2004 the Nowy Targ District Inspector of Construction Supervision gave a decision allowing the Mayor of Rabka and the Grassroots Committee for the Construction of a Communal Cemetery in Ponice to use the cemetery in accordance with its purpose (pozwolenie na użytkowanie).\n22.  On 8 December 2004 the applicants appealed.\n23.  On 13 December 2005 the Małopolski Inspector of Construction Supervision declared the decision of 22 November 2004 null and void.\n24.  On 27 February 2006 the Chief Inspector of Constructor Super", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5520", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant worked for a Turkish company in Libya between 1992 and 1994. Following the termination of his contract by the company the applicant brought civil proceedings before the Libyan courts and requested compensation. On 3 October 1995 the Libyan courts partially awarded the applicant's claims. Upon his return to Turkey the applicant brought the following proceedings before the Turkish courts.\n5.  Without specifying before which court, the applicant stated that he instituted domestic proceedings on 29 April 1998 for the recognition of the Libyan court order. According to the applicant, these proceedings had later been abrogated. The applicant did not present any document regarding these proceedings.\n(b)  Proceedings before the Üsküdar 3rd Civil Court\n6.  On 20 October 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Üsküdar 3rd Civil Court requesting the recognition of the Libyan court order. On 24 March 1999 the Üsküdar 3rd Civil Court rejected the applicant's request. The applicant appealed and on 4 October 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision on the ground that the first instance court did not have jurisdiction. On 29 February 2000 the Court of Cassation further rejected the rectification request. On 29 March 2001 the Üsküdar 3rd Civil Court issued a decision of non-jurisdiction.\n(c)  Proceedings before the Istanbul 5th Labour Court\n7.  On 9 April 2001 the applicant requested the proceedings to be referred to the competent labour court. On 10 October 2002 the Istanbul 5th Labour Court held that the case before it concerned the recognition of the Libyan court order, the contents of which were the subject matter of the proceedings pending before the Istanbul 4th Labour Court that the applicant had introduced separately on 20 December 2000. Therefore there was no need to continue the proceedings. The applicant appealed. On 18 September 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.\n(d)  Proceedings before the Istanbul 4th Labour Court\n8.  On 20 December 2000 the applicant initiated proceedings before the Istanbul 4th Labour Court and requested compensation for the same period that had been examined and concluded by the Libyan court as well as a number of other damages. After holding 24 hearings the Istanbul 4th Labour Court partially awarded the applicant on 31 May 2007. The applicant appealed. The Court of Cassation upheld the judgment on 17 February 2009.\n9.  The applicant also instituted proceedings before the İstanbul 6th Labour Court against the Libyan company and requested the payment of five months' salary. These proceedings which started on 22 April 1999 ended on 5 April 2001 when the court partially upheld the applicant's request. The applicant appealed and the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment on 16 October 2001. The sum awarded was paid to the applicant.\n10.  In 1986 the applicants brought proceedings before the Çatalca Civil Court and requested additional compensation for their property that had been expropriated. Claiming that the additional compensation amount to be awarded by the court would not have met their actual loss, the applicants later stopped pursuing their case and on 11 August 1994 the court decided not to continue the proceedings.  On 9 December 1997 the applicants initiated proceedings before the Büyükçekmece Civil Court and requested determination of the value of the expropriated property and their damages due to the expropriation. The court issued a decision of non-jurisdic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5521", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  On 10 February 2001 at about 11 a.m. the applicant, who at the material time was a student, was arrested in a yard of school no. 970 by police officers while receiving a sum of money from another student.\n8.  The applicant was suspected of extortion and was taken to Moscow police station no. 184 (“the Otradnoe District Police Station of Moscow”) where he was locked in an office.\n9.  The applicant submits that one of the police officers who had arrested him periodically entered the office, asked him questions and beat him.\n10.  The applicant was then taken to another office where two more police officers were present. The officers explained to him that he had the right not to give evidence against himself.\n11.  According to the applicant, they then started to ask him questions, which he refused to answer. All three officers started to beat him. One of them forced the applicant to stay in a half-squatting position while holding a metallic plate in his hands. The officer warned the applicant that if he failed to maintain the position, he would “get a kick in his chest”.\n12.  Allegedly, when the applicant dropped the plate, he was kicked in the chest and the beatings resumed. At one point the applicant was kicked in the face. On the verge of losing consciousness, the applicant agreed to “sign all the papers”, after which he was placed in a cell.\n13.  On the same day at about 10.10 p.m. the applicant was taken by a police officer to the casualty department of polyclinic no. 218 where he was examined by a doctor. The doctor concluded that the applicant's lower jaw was fractured and that he needed an urgent in-patient examination by a surgeon.\n14.  Following the doctor's examination, the applicant was taken back to the police station where he was once again placed in a cell. About an hour later the applicant was taken to another police station, no. 141, where his fingerprints were taken.\n15.  On 11 February 2001 at about 2 a.m. the applicant was released.\n16.  On the day of his release, the applicant was taken to Moscow City Hospital no. 1 (Городская клиническая больница № 1 г. Москвы) for in­patient treatment. The applicant was diagnosed as having a “fracture of the lower jaw in the area of the right condylar process accompanied by a dislocation of the articular head”. The medical report further stated that “the lower jaw was abnormally mobile and the configuration of the face had changed due to a post-traumatic oedema in the right parotid area”. In the course of his treatment the applicant underwent surgery to replant the articular head.\n17.  The applicant was discharged from hospital on 2 March 2001.\n18.  On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, who was charged with extortion.\n19.  On 18 December 2001 the Butyrskiy Inter-Municipal Court of Moscow (Бутырский межмуниципальный суд северо-восточного административного округа г. Москвы) decided, on a request by the applicant, to terminate the criminal proceedings against him on the basis of an Amnesty Act in respect of minors and women passed by the State Duma on 30 November 2001.\n20.  On an unspecified date the applicant's defence counsel lodged an appeal against the decision of the Inter-Municipal Court claiming that the applicant was not guilty and that he should have been acquitted. The outcome of that appeal is unclear.\n21.  On 15 February 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Head ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5523", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  In April 2000 the authorities brought criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of robbery. During the trial the applicant was also accused of theft.\n7.  By a judgment of 20 July 2001 the Zelenogradskiy District Court (“the District Court”) convicted the applicant on both counts.\n8.  The applicant appealed against the judgment and on 23 October 2001 the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) quashed the conviction on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination at the first instance.\n9.  On 4 June 2002 the District Court again convicted the applicant of robbery and theft and sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment.\n10.  The applicant's appeal against the judgment was dismissed by the City Court on 9 July 2002.\n11.  On 15 April 2004 the City Court, acting by way of supervisory review, upheld the judgment of 4 June and the decision of 9 July 2002 in part relating to the count of robbery and quashed the rest of the applicant's conviction.\n12.  The court established that there had been various irregularities in the criminal proceedings in so far as they related to the count of theft and, in particular, the fact that the applicant had not been given a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defence and state his case properly. The applicant was accordingly acquitted on this charge and the overall sentence was reduced to five years.\n13.  The applicant was taken into custody by the authorities on 6 April 2000 and remained in pre-trial detention until 19 July 2002.\n14.  From 6 April 2000 to 26 July 2001 and from 22 November 2001 to 9 June 2002 the applicant was held in pre-trial detention centre IZ-77/5 in the city of Moscow (“SIZO no.5”).\n15.  From 26 July to 22 November 2001 and from 9 June to 19 July 2002 the applicant was detained in pre-trial detention centre IZ-77/3 in the city of Moscow (“SIZO no. 3”)\n16.  The applicant submitted that throughout his detention the cells in SIZO no. 5 and SIZO no. 3 had been heavily overcrowded and that the prisoners had had to take turns to sleep.\n17.  In both prisons the cells were dirty and lacked ventilation. The applicant also submits that the food was of poor quality.\n18.  In respect of SIZO no. 5 the Government submitted that the applicant had been held in cells 205 (measuring 25.3 square metres and containing two windows and ten sleeping places), 303 (measuring 37.1 square metres and containing three windows and fourteen sleeping places), 312 (measuring 33.5 square metres, containing two windows and twelve sleeping places), 322 (measuring 27.4 square metres) and 403 (measuring 36.8 square metres, containing three windows and fourteen sleeping places).\n19.  The Government were unable to provide the Court with original documentation concerning numbers of prisoners detained in SIZO no. 5 along with the applicant. They relied on record no. 50/5-8 dated 31 March 2006 of the administration of SIZO no. 5 confirming the destruction of the relevant prison records in this respect.\n20.  As to SIZO no. 3, the Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in cells 213 (measuring 28.5 square metres, containing two windows and twenty-eight sleeping places) and 608 (measuring 32.7 square metres, containing two windows and thirty-two sleeping places.)\n21.  The Government submitted that there had been twenty-five to twenty-eight detainees in cell 213 along with the applicant and were unable to provide information in respect o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5524", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Petro Ivanovych Baloga, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Fediyivka village, Kirovograd region, Ukraine.\n5.  At the material time, the applicant was a district police officer.\n6.  On 25 October 2000 the local prosecutor's office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, charging him with abuse of authority and forgery. It was alleged, in particular, that during February and March 1999 the applicant had drawn up a number of reports of administrative offences and forged the signatures of imaginary offenders in order to embellish his work statistics. However, the offenders mentioned therein did not exist.\n7.  On 27 June 2002 the Bobrynets District Court (hereinafter referred to as “the District Court”) found that the acts imputed to the applicant had ceased to be a danger to society. Accordingly, it ruled that he was no longer liable and discontinued the proceedings against him. The applicant appealed.\n8.  On 26 November 2002 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “the Court of Appeal”) quashed the decision of 27 June 2002, having noted that the lower court had not verified whether the applicant had consented to the discontinuation of the proceedings against him, and that it had examined the case in the applicant's absence. It ruled, however, to discontinue the proceedings against the applicant. According to the applicant's submissions he was not provided with a copy of that decision in due time and this therefore caused delays in appealing in cassation against it.\n9.  From 27 November 2002 to 8 March 2004 no hearings were held.\n10.  On 9 March 2004, having allowed the applicant's appeal in cassation, the Supreme Court found that, contrary to the requirement of the law, the courts in both instances had examined the case in the applicant's absence and that they had discontinued the proceedings against him without his consent. Accordingly, it quashed the ruling of 26 November 2002 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the Court of Appeal.\n11.  On 22 June 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 27 June 2002 and ordered a retrial.\n12.  On 7 September and 12 November 2004 the court hearings were adjourned owing to the applicant's failure to attend them. The applicant asserted in this regard that he had not been duly summoned.\n13.  On 12 November 2004 the District Court ordered the police to secure the applicant's attendance at the next court hearing. According to the applicant, he was brought to the hearing on 24 November 2004.\n14.  According to the applicant, on 25 January 2005, he was again brought by the police to the District Court. However, he alleges that this was without a proper court order.\n15.  According to the Government's submissions, the applicant failed to appear on 8 February 2005.\n16.  On 16 February 2005 the District Court found the applicant guilty of abuse of authority and forgery but amnestied him.\n17.  On 12 April 2005 the Court of Appeal, pointing out a number of shortcomings of the lower court (for example, the failure to indicate in the judgment the punishment given to the applicant, the failure to indicate the date of the amnesty act referred to, the failure to resolve the matter of court fees), quashed the judgment of 16 February 2005 and ordered a retrial.\n18.  The applicant appealed in cassation. On 18 July 2005 the Supreme Court rejected his request for leave to appeal.\n19.  Meanwhile, on 11 and 18 May 2005 th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5525", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Nikolay Anatolyevich Vitruk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Kiev.\n6.  On 8 May 1999 the Kyiv Vatutinsky District Prosecutor Office instituted proceedings into the murder of Mr S.\n7.  On 10 May 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and two other individuals – Mr Suptel[1] and Mr N.\n8.  On 13 May 1999 the police apprehended the applicant. According to the applicant, the police officers severely beat him for several hours, forcing him to confess to the murder.\n9.  On 14 May 1999 a medical expert examined the applicant and established that he had four scratches on his finger and a black eye. The expert noted that the applicant could have injured his finger with the knife used to stab the victim Mr S. Later, at the court hearing, the applicant claimed that he had injured his finger while moving furniture.\n10.  On 16 May 1999 the Vatutinsky District Prosecutor ordered the applicant's detention on the grounds that he was suspected of a serious crime and that there was a danger that he could abscond and interfere with the course of justice.\n11.  On 24 May 1999 the applicant was questioned in the presence of a lawyer and claimed his innocence. The same day he was officially charged with murder.\n12.  On 23 June 1999 the applicant sent a complaint to the Kyiv Vatutinsky District Prosecutor's Office (the VDPO) alleging ill-treatment by the police on 13 May 1999.\n13.  On 9 July and 7 September 1999 the military prosecutor of the Central Region extended the applicant's pre-trial detention to four and six months respectively.\n14.  On 22 September 1999 the applicant complained again to the VDPO with respect of his alleged ill-treatment on 13 May 1999.\n15.  On 29 October 1999 the VDPO refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment. It was established that the applicant had a black eye which had been inflicted by the police at the moment of arrest because of the applicant's resistance. The only other injuries found were the scratches on one of the applicant's fingers which had occurred prior to the date of his arrest. The decision referred also to the fact that the applicant's father who was himself a police officer had seen his son during the questioning and the applicant had made no complaints to him about any ill-treatment. On the same day a copy of this decision was sent to the applicant. It does not appear from the case-file materials or the applicant's submissions that he appealed against this refusal to the court.\n16.  On 5 November 1999 the investigation was completed and the applicant was given access to the case file.\n17.  On 23 November 1999 the Vatutinsky District Court rejected the applicant's complaint against the detention order having found that it had been issued in accordance with the law.\n18.  On 19 April 2000 the defendants finished examining the case-file materials.\n19.  On 24 April 2000 the criminal case was referred to the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (the Kyiv Court).\n20.  On 10 May 2000 the Kyiv Court held the committal hearing and decided to maintain the applicant's detention.\n21.  On 5 October 2000 the Kyiv Court refused to change the preventive measure (detention) in respect of the applicant.\n22.  On 31 October 2000 the Kyiv Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment. The court considered the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment and found them unsubstantiated ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5526", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in the town of Buzuluk in the Orenburg Region.\n6.  Late in the evening of 16 April 2001 the applicant was arrested at his home on suspicion of having committed theft and robbery. He was placed in the isolation wing of the Buzuluk police station.\n7.  According to the applicant, in response to his requests for legal aid, he was beaten up by police officers Z. and V. They pressurised him to confess to the above-mentioned crimes. The applicant attempted to commit suicide but, as it appears, was promptly provided with medical assistance. It does not appear that this incident had any adverse consequences on his health.\n8.  Following the arrest the applicant remained in detention.\n9.  The Government submitted that according to the information provided by the Supreme Court of Russia the applicant's first documented interview took place on 18 April 2001 in the presence of his lawyer, S.\n10.  The applicant complained about the ill-treatment to the police and to a local prosecutor's office.\n11.  It appears that the prosecutor's office did not take any steps in connection with the applicant's complaints, other than remitting the case to a police investigator, K., from the same police station.\n12.  On 19 April 2001 K. ordered the applicant's medical examination.\n13.  The examination was carried out on the same date. According to the expert's report, the applicant had a bruise of 3.5×5 cm on his back in the right lumbar region and the right temple area was sensitive on palpation. Noting that no harm to the applicant's health could be established, the expert concluded that the bruise could have been inflicted at the time and in the circumstances described by the applicant.\n14.  By a decision of 3 May 2001 a senior assistant to the Prosecutor of the Buzuluk Prosecutor's Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against police officers Z. and V. for lack of evidence of a crime.\n15.  The decision referred to the statements of Z. and V., who denied the allegations of ill-treatment. Investigator K. stated that he had ordered a medical examination in response to the applicant's complaint and noted that the applicant had not complained about the alleged ill-treatment to the prosecutor when the latter had authorised his detention on remand. Finally, having regard to the expert's report, the prosecutor concluded that he was unable to establish any ill-treatment on the part of the police officers and noted that the injury sustained by the applicant could have occurred “in other circumstances”.\n16.  The applicant submitted that he had learned about this decision “much later”.\n17.  The Government did not make any comments concerning the date of notification of this decision to the applicant.\n18.  On an unspecified date the applicant's criminal case concerning the charges of theft and robbery was transferred to the Buzuluk Town Court for examination.\n19.  During the court hearing of his criminal case on 9 July 2001 the applicant repeated his allegations of ill-treatment. The two co-accused in the applicant's case also alleged ill-treatment by the police officers. The prosecutor participating in the examination of the case moved to adjourn the proceedings in order to carry out an inquiry into their submissions.\n20.  By a decision of the same date the trial court entrusted the Buzuluk Prosecutor with the inquiry and adjourned the proceedings.\n21.  On 27 July 2001 the Senior Assistant to the Prosecutor of the Buzulu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5527", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  In 1995 the applicant deposited his money with the Savings Bank of Russia (Sberbank). Subsequently, the Savings Bank unilaterally reduced the interest rate on his deposit. The applicant sued the Savings Bank for the damages incurred through the unilateral modification of the interest rate.\n7.  On 10 March 1998 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. On 26 May 1998 the Moscow City Court upheld that judgment.\n8.  On 10 June 1999 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the judgments of 10 March and 26 May 1998 by way of supervisory review and remitted the claim for fresh consideration. The Presidium's decision was set aside by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 16 November 1999. However, on 9 December 1999 the City Court's Presidium re-examined the supervisory-review application, quashed the earlier judgments and ordered a new examination of the applicant's claim.\n9.  On 17 October 2000 the Tverskoy District Court granted a small portion of the applicant's claims to the amount of 386,63 Russian roubles and rejected the remainder. On 27 October 2000 the District Court adopted a supplementary judgment, by which it declared the deposit agreement, in relation to the right of the Savings Bank to change unilaterally the interest rate, invalid. On 16 February 2001 the Moscow City Court rejected an appeal by the applicant.\n10.  The applicant lodged a claim against the Ministry of Finance, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages incurred through the inappropriate administration of justice, and notably the excessive length of proceedings in respect of his claim against the Savings Bank.\n11.  On 23 July 2001 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant's claim. Referring to the Constitutional Court's Ruling of 25 January 2001 (see paragraph 16 below), the District Court noted that Parliament had not yet adopted a law determining jurisdiction over claims concerning State liability for the damage caused by a court's or judge's failure to adjudicate a case within a reasonable time, and dismissed the claim in the following terms:\n“According to Article 1 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure, the rules of civil procedure in federal courts of general jurisdiction are determined by the Russian Constitution, the Judicial System Act, the Code of Civil Procedure and other federal laws.\nThe law has not determined the territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction over civil claims for compensation of damages incurred in civil proceedings in cases where a dispute has not been heard on the merits as a consequence of unlawful acts (or failures to act) of a court (a judge), including the breach of a reasonable-time guarantee.\nThe court must dismiss the statement of claim if there are grounds listed in Article 129 (1) and (7) of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure, that is if the claim may not be examined in civil proceedings and if the court is not competent to examine the claim.”\n12.  On 20 December 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision to dismiss the applicant's claim, finding as follows:\n“In dismissing the claim, the judge correctly stated that the law had not determined the territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction over civil claims for compensation of damages incurred in civil proceedings in cases where a dispute had not been heard on the merits as a consequence of unlawful acts (or failure", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5528", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Włodawa.\n8.  On 28 June 2000 the Rzeszów District Court remanded the applicant in custody for two months. The court relied on a statement given on 27 June 2000 by the applicant's mentally ill son, G.M., who accused the applicant of homicide. The court also referred to the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed on the applicant.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed and requested that the preventive measure imposed on him be reduced in severity. He relied on his age (he was seventy-two years old at the time) and on the fact that he was undergoing medical treatment.\n10.  On 12 July 2000 the Rzeszów Regional Court, relying on the same grounds as the District Court, upheld the challenged decision.\n11.  On 23 August 2000 the Rzeszów Regional Prosecutor requested the court to extend the applicant's detention.\n12.  On 25 August 2000 the Rzeszów District Court granted the request and extended the applicant's detention for another month, until 28 September 2000.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicant's lawyer appealed against that decision.\n14.  On 12 September 2000 the Rzeszów Regional Court upheld the challenged decision. The court recognised that the only evidence against the applicant was the statement by the applicant's son, who had undergone a psychiatric examination. It stressed, however, that according to the results of the psychiatric report, the applicant's son's mental condition had improved. The court also relied on the risk that the applicant could obstruct the proceedings.\n15.  The Rzeszów Regional Court, relying on the same grounds as previously, extended the applicant's detention on 22 September 2000 for three months, and then, on 22 December 2000 for a further three months.\n16.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed against the latter decision.\n17.  On 18 January 2001 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal gave a decision and released the applicant. The court referred to a psychiatric opinion of 2 January 2001 concerning the applicant's son and found that his statements could not be considered reliable evidence.\n18.  On 20 December 2001 the Rzeszów Regional Court gave judgment and acquitted the applicant.\n19.  On an unspecified date the Regional Rzeszów Prosecutor appealed against that judgment.\n20.  On 9 May 2002 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment.\n21.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for manifestly unjustified detention with the Rzeszów Regional Court.\n22.  On an unspecified date the Rzeszów Regional Court gave judgment, against which the applicant appealed.\n23.  On 22 December 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal remitted the case.\n24.  On 29 June 2005 the Rzeszów Regional Court granted the applicant compensation in the amount of 10,360 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n25.  The applicant appealed against that judgment, arguing that the instructions given by the Court of Appeal, which had remitted the case, had not been followed.\n26.  On 22 September 2005 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal granted the appeal in part, amended the first-instance judgment and increased the compensation to PLN 10,809. The court considered that the compensation should also include the travelling costs borne by the applicant's family to visit him in prison.\n27.  On 10 July 2000 J.M., the applicant's wife, and R.M., the applicant's second son, asked the Rzeszów Regional Prosecutor for permission to see the applicant. They also requested information", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5529", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 1 and 11 August 2003 the Bratislava IV District Court dismissed the applicant's objections to a notification of enforcement and its costs. The decisions were served on the applicant on 13 September 2003.\n6.  On 10 January 2000 enforcement proceedings were initiated against the applicant before the Bratislava IV District Court.\n7.  On three occasions the District Court submitted prematurely the case file to the Bratislava Regional Court. On 30 May 2003 the Regional Court decided not to exclude the District Court judge for bias.\n8.  On 10 December 2003 the District Court discontinued the proceedings and the decision was confirmed by the Regional Court on 24 September 2004.\n9.  On 3 December 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the above proceedings before the Bratislava IV District Court. On 28 April 2004 the Constitutional Court accepted his length of proceedings complaint in respect of proceedings 15 E 22/00 and rejected the remainder as having been lodged outside the statutory two‑month time-limit.\n10.  On 18 August 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava IV District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay. It ordered the District Court to avoid further delays and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs. The Constitutional Court further concluded that the finding of a violation represented in itself sufficient just satisfaction in the circumstances of the case. It reasoned its decision not to award any just satisfaction with reference to the position of the applicant in the enforcement proceedings, the applicant being the party liable. It further noted that it had been the applicant's conduct that had given rise to enforcement of the decision in issue. It further reasoned that, if the applicant had complied with the enforcement decision, the enforcement proceedings would never have had to be brought.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5530", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Chişinău. The facts of the case are disputed by the parties. Their respective accounts may be summarised as follows.\n5.  The applicant submitted that at 9 p.m. on 27 July 2004 she and her sister were stopped on the street by a police officer (“AC”) who ordered them to accompany him to a District Police Station. When they refused to comply with AC’s request, he forcibly took them to the police station and, according to the applicant, at one point he pushed her while she was on a flight of stairs at the police station. The applicant submitted that while she was at the police station she was beaten severely by three drunk men in plain clothes. In particular, she claimed that the three men pushed her from her chair, hit her head against a steam radiator, tried to strangle her and punched and kicked her in the head and body. She claimed that all these acts took place in the presence of police officers. The applicant and her sister were later driven to the Rîşcani Police Station and held in custody until she was brought before a judge the following morning. During this period she was not examined by a doctor.\n6.  The Government contested the applicant’s account of the events surrounding her arrest on 27 July 2004. In doing so they relied on statements provided by AC, the applicant’s brother-in-law, another police officer (“R”), and a civilian who was present at the police station when the applicant arrived. The Government submitted that on the evening of 27 July 2004 the applicant had been celebrating her birthday at her sister’s home. She got into a physical fight with her sister’s husband. It is not clear from the statements whether the applicant’s brother-in-law went to the police station to report the applicant’s behaviour or whether AC was walking past the applicant’s sister’s home when he noticed the fighting. Nevertheless, the statements of AC and the applicant’s brother-in-law both indicated that when AC arrived at the scene, the applicant was assaulting her brother-in-law and would not calm down. In particular, the applicant’s brother-in-law told the prosecutor that the applicant had pushed him to the ground and was hitting him with her fists.\n7.  AC confirmed in his statement to the prosecutor that when he arrived at the scene the applicant insulted him and her brother-in-law. After he cautioned her, she began to hit and kick her brother-in-law. The applicant’s brother-in-law also stated that:\n“Tanea [the applicant] picked a fight with AC and was pulling his epaulettes with a view to tearing them off, called him “a rotten cop”, told him that she was living with a former prisoner and that he would eliminate him.”\n8.  AC therefore asked the applicant, her sister and her brother-in-law to accompany him to the station. In his statement to the prosecutor he conceded that he had to use some force to bring the applicant there. In his evidence given to the District Court he stated that he grabbed the applicant by the hand but did not use any other form of physical force. At the police station the applicant continued to be aggressive towards AC. The applicant’s brother-in law stated that:\n“At the police station, Chilat Angela and the sister in law Tatiana were continuing to make noise, calling the policemen “rotten cops” and other explicit words.”\n9.  A civilian who happened to be at the police station when the applicant, her sister and her sister’s husband arrived, stated that:\n“The people [th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5531", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Mr Gavin Kay, born in 1951, Mr Peter Armstrong, born in 1959, Mr Ian Ballantine, born in 1946, Ms Cherry Barnett, born in 1965, Mr Ian Constantine, born in 1962, Mr Christopher Cole, born in 1951, Mr Thomas Greenhalgh, born in 1956, and Mr Martin Breschinsky, born in 1960, are British nationals who live in London. Mr William Gorman, born in 1951, is an Irish national and also lives in London.\n6.  The London Borough of Lambeth (“Lambeth”) owned a number of properties which were unsuitable for normal housing use. The properties formed part of the “short life” property of Lambeth, meaning that they were scheduled for demolition, redevelopment or works. Following aggressive squatting, which exacerbated the poor condition of the properties, and an increase in responsibilities on local housing authorities to provide shelter for homeless people, Lambeth began to consider a scheme under which housing associations would take over short life property and find and manage tenants until the property was required by Lambeth for demolition or redevelopment. In around 1977, Lambeth began informally licensing short life property to the London and Quadrant Housing Trust (“LQHT”), a charitable housing trust, in order that the latter could provide temporary accommodation for homeless people to whom Lambeth owed a statutory duty to arrange accommodation. However, some of the short life property could not be made suitable for use by homeless families and so, in a separate arrangement in 1979, Lambeth began to pass properties to LQHT and other bodies to use as housing for those to whom no statutory duty was owed and who would not generally be allocated housing by Lambeth. This was called the “singles scheme”. The applicants were all provided with housing under the singles scheme.\n7.  Until 1986, LQHT had an informal arrangement with Lambeth which covered the properties occupied by the applicants. This arrangement was replaced by a licence in 1986, reflecting the previous arrangement and terminable on three months' notice. In 1995, the licence arrangement was replaced by individual ten-year leases of each property granted to LQHT by Lambeth. The leases were subject to a break clause allowing either party to terminate the leases early on just over six months' notice. One purpose of the grant of the individual head leases was to allow LQHT to replace its licences to the applicants with assured shorthold tenancies, which would prevent them from acquiring security of tenure under the Housing Act 1985 (“the 1985 Act”). In fact, few of the applicants agreed to enter into assured shorthold tenancies with LQHT.\n8.  In 1999, Lambeth gave notice to terminate the head leases to LQHT. In November 1999, LQHT advised the applicants that the head leases had been terminated.\n9.  In August 2000, Lambeth brought summary possession proceedings against Mr Kay, Ms Barnett, Mr Constantine, Mr Cole and Mr Greenhalgh (“the Kay proceedings”). They defended the proceedings on the basis that they were secure tenants of Lambeth. In August 2000, Mr Gorman brought an action against Lambeth for a declaration making the same claim. Lambeth sought an order for possession by way of counterclaim in Mr Gorman's proceedings.\n10.  The applicants argued that they were tenants of Lambeth and had secure tenancies under Part IV of the 1985 Act. They argued in the alternative that an order for possession against them would breach their right to respect for their homes under Article ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5532", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Białystok.\n5.  On 15 December 1994 the applicant brought before the Białystok District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a civil action for payment against Ms K. S-O. The defendant owned a company producing kitchen furniture and allegedly failed to carry out a contract that she had concluded with the applicant; the latter sought reimbursement of sustained costs and damages.\n6.  The court held the first hearing on 30 March 1995.\n7.  On 30 November 1995 the Białystok District Court gave a judgment.\n8.  The defendant appealed.\n9.  On 10 May 1996 the Bialstok Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case.\n10.  The first hearing was held in September 1996.\n11.  On 16 April 1997 the Białystok District Court gave a judgment in which it granted the applicant's action and ordered the defendant to pay her 1,400 Polish zlotys (PLN) together with interest from 1994.\n12.  The defendant appealed against the judgment.\n13.  On 17 October 1997 the Białystok Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment.\n14.  On 27 October 1997 the court declared that the decision was enforceable (klauzula wykonalności).\n15.  On 25 November 1998 the applicant obtained a decision that the judgment was also enforceable against the defendant's husband.\n16.  Subsequently different court bailiffs were responsible for enforcement of the final judgment of 16 April 1997. The applicant complained that their actions were inefficient and that the enforcement proceedings had been lengthy.\n17.  On 5 May 2004 the bailiff again attempted to enforce payment from the defendant in the sum of PLN 10,000.\n18.  It appears that on 21 April 2005 the court bailiff discontinued this set of enforcement proceedings after having established that the defendant had no assets. However, subsequently, the applicant instituted another set of proceedings aiming at enforcement of the judgment of 16 April 1997.\n19.  The Government submitted that on 18 December 2006 the bailiff had finally discontinued all pending sets of enforcement proceedings. The applicant did not contest this submission.\n20.  On 25 May 2005 the applicant lodged with the Białystok District Court a civil claim for damages under section 16 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”) read in conjunction with Article 417 of the Civil Code. She sought compensation for damages suffered due to the excessive length of proceedings. The action was directed against two court bailiffs and the State Treasury represented by the President of the Białystok District Court.\n21.  On 21 October 2005 the court partly exempted the applicant from court fees. Subsequently, the applicant extended her claim for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to PLN 23,000.\n22.  On 29 September 2006 the Białystok District Court granted the applicant's action and awarded the applicant PLN 3,192 compensation. The court examined the judicial phase of the proceedings and considered there had been no delays attributable to the courts. However, it found delays and shortcomings on the part of the court bailiff at the enforcement stage of the proceedings.\n23.  The applicant and the defendants lodged appeals against the judgment. On 8 November 2006 the applicant was exempted from court fees for pursuing her appeal.\n24.  At the hearin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5534", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and currently lives in Budva.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 26 April 1998 the applicant and V.K. married and on 12 October 1998 their twins, A and B, were born.\n8.  On 5 June 2003, due to marital problems, the applicant moved back to her parents' house in Nikšić, together with the children.\n9.  On 22 July 2004 the Social Care Centre in Nikšić (“the NSCC”) issued a decision regulating V.K.'s access to A and B.\n10.  It would appear that during this period V.K. had been seeing the children in accordance with this decision.\n11.  On 5 January 2005 V.K. took the children for the winter holiday and subsequently refused to return them to the applicant.\n12.  On 8 March 2005 the NSCC ordered that the children be returned to the applicant and entrusted the enforcement of that order to the Social Care Centre in Budva (“the BSCC”).\n13.  On 14 March 2005 the BSCC, with police assistance, attempted to enforce the order in question, but it appears that V.K.'s parents physically prevented that from happening.\n14.  Between April and June 2005, at the applicant's requests, the NSCC issued three additional decisions, urging V.K. to surrender the children. They provided that should V.K. fail to comply with the applicant's custody rights he would be fined, and that, ultimately, forcible enforcement might be called for.\n15.  On one occasion thereafter V.K. brought the children to the BSCC but refused to surrender them to the applicant, claiming that the children did not want to live with her.\n16.  There is no evidence in the case file indicating that V.K. had been fined or, indeed, that a forcible transfer of custody had been attempted again.\n17.  On 23 June 2003 V.K. lodged a claim with the Court of First Instance in Kotor, seeking the dissolution of his marriage to the applicant as well as custody of the children.\n18.  On 1 September 2003 the applicant lodged a counter-claim to the same effect.\n19.  On 9 March 2004 the presiding judge joined the two claims into a single set of proceedings.\n20.  On 5 January 2006 the Court of First Instance: (i) dissolved the marriage, (ii) granted custody of the children to the applicant, and (iii) ordered V.K. to pay monthly child maintenance.\n21.  On 5 May 2006 the High Court upheld that judgment and it thereby became final.\n22.  On 12 September 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed V.K.'s appeal on points of law (revizija).\n23.  On 12 June 2006 the applicant submitted a request for the enforcement of the final judgment.\n24.  On 22 June 2006 the Court of First Instance in Kotor issued an enforcement order whereby V.K. was given three days to surrender the children to the applicant. He was also warned that if he failed to comply he could be fined or even subjected to a forcible transfer of custody.\n25.  On 21 July 2006 the High Court upheld this order.\n26.  On 26 February 2009 the applicant submitted a request for a review (kontrolni zahtjev; see paragraph 46 below) with the Court of First Instance, seeking execution of the enforcement order.\n27.  On 5 March 2009 the execution judge (izvršni sudija) informed the President of the court that as it was “impossible to reach an agreement [...] by which the children would be surrendered” to the applicant, the bailiff was ordered to enforce “without delay” the fine of EUR 500 in respect of V.K. He finished his report by stating “that it [was] impossible to say when and how the enforcement", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5536", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Podgorica. She is also a paraplegic.\n6. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7. On 4 October 2000 the applicant lodged a property-related claim with the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica, seeking declaratory relief. In so doing, she failed to specify the exact value of the claim in question (vrijednost spora). However, on 2 November 2000 she paid court fees of approximately 10 euros (EUR), which corresponded to the value of claims ranging between EUR 50 and EUR 150.\n8.  On 29 April 2004, at the end of the main hearing (glavna rasprava) and after additional evidence had been examined, the applicant specified that the value of the claim was EUR 37,000.\n9. On the same day the Court of First Instance ruled in favour of the applicant. The judgment stated, inter alia, that the value of the claim was EUR 37,000 and noted that “[an expert witness had assessed that] on 10 October 1984 ... the total value of ... the property ... [at issue had been] ... EUR 72,877.79”.\n10. On 22 October 2004 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica quashed that judgment and ordered a re-trial.\n11. On 15 June 2005 the applicant, after the main hearing had ended and on the court's request, specified that the value of the claim was EUR 9,900. On the same day the respondent's representative submitted his claim for costs based on the value of the claim being EUR 11,637.\n12. On 19 July 2005 the Court of First Instance ruled against the applicant. The judgment specified, inter alia, that the value of the claim was EUR 11,500 and once again referred to the said expert's findings.\n13. On 7 April 2006 the High Court upheld that judgment on appeal.\n14. On 10 October 2006 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) in Podgorica rejected the applicant's appeal on points of law (revizija) as inadmissible, stating that the court fees (sudska taksa) paid by the applicant had indirectly set the value of the claim significantly below the statutory threshold (see Article 382 § 3 at paragraph 19 below).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5537", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and is currently detained at a remand centre in Gdańsk.\n6.  On 26 November 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a robbery. Subsequently several sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against him under the supervision of the Gdańsk District Prosecutor. They were all later joined to be conducted together by the prosecutor's decision of 12 April 1999.\n7.  On 26 June 1999 the Gdańsk District Prosecutor officially launched a criminal investigation against the applicant.\n8.  On 25 October 2005 the applicant was indicted before the Gdańsk District Court on an initial charge.\n9.  The first hearing, scheduled for 24 January 2006, was cancelled due to the absence of the applicant and the co-accused.\n10.  On 1 March 2006 the Gdańsk District Court quashed the applicant's detention.\n11.  The next two hearings, listed for 11 April and 17 May 2006, were cancelled due to the absence of the applicant and the co-accused.\n12.  On 17 May 2006 the applicant was again detained on remand by the decision of the Gdańsk District Court; however, following the judgment of the Gdańsk District Court given in another set of criminal proceedings the applicant started to serve a sentence of four years' imprisonment.\n13.  At the hearing held on 6 July 2006 the court ordered that an expert's report on the applicant's mental health be prepared.\n14.  Between 31 August 2006 and 6 June 2007 the court held seven hearings, of which three were cancelled (one was adjourned due to the applicant's illness whereas the other because it was not possible to secure the applicant's transport from prison).\n15.  On 3 August 2007 the case was assigned to another judge who held the first hearing on 23 October 2007.\n16.  The hearings, scheduled for 14 and 18 December 2007, were adjourned as the applicant filed a motion for access to the case-file.\n17.  At the hearing held on 19 December 2007 witnesses were heard.\n18.  The hearing scheduled for 13 February 2008 was adjourned.\n19.  The next hearings were held on 5 August, 17 October and 25 November 2008 and 15 January 2009.\n20.  On 22 January 2009 the Gdańsk District Court gave a judgment sentencing the applicant to two years and three months' imprisonment. He appealed.\n21.  On 26 June 2009 the Gdańsk Regional Court upheld the judgment given in the first-instance.\n22.  On 11 April 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gdańsk Regional Court under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). He sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Gdańsk District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n23.  On 10 June 2008 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the complaint. The court observed that the length of the proceedings in the applicant's case could not be considered as unreasonable. It further held that the trial court could not be held responsible for delays caused by the absence of witnesses. It referred to the complexity of the case and the number of witnesses and held that the proceedings had been conducted diligently.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5538", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and is serving a prison term in the Ryazan Region.\n6.  The applicant was a student of a State University, which trained law enforcement officers. On 3 March 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. By a judgment of 23 April 2002, the Omsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of theft and murder, and sentenced him to seventeen years' imprisonment. On 10 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment.\n7.  From 5 to 13 March 2001 the applicant was detained in a temporary detention centre in the town of Omsk. From 14 March 2001 to 10 June 2003 the applicant was detained in Omsk remand centre no. 55/1.\n8.  According to the applicant, he was kept in the remand centre in cell no. 163 (designed for eight persons) together with at least twenty other inmates. Owing to an insufficient number of beds, they had to sleep in shifts. The cell windows were covered with metal shutters that barred access to natural light and air. In 2003 the applicant was kept in the cell together with eight to ten other persons.\n9.  The applicant subsequently indicated that in 2001-02 he had been afforded less than two square metres of living space in the cell. The toilet was not separated from the living area. In the absence of any ventilation, the smell spread into the cell. He also alleged that on the days of court hearings in April 2001 he had to get up at 4 a.m. and was taken back at 8 p.m. without any food or drink.\n10.  The applicant was kept in the remand centre from 15 March 2001 to 10 June 2003. The applicant was placed in cell no. 163, which measured twenty-one square metres and had five beds. This cell was assigned to former law enforcement officers, who had to be kept separately from the other (potentially hostile) detainees. With reference to certificates issued in February 2008 by the acting director of the remand centre, the Government stated that this cell had accommodated three to five detainees during the relevant periods. In support of the above, the Government enclosed statements made in 2008 by three officers serving in the remand centre, who confirmed that the above information was correct and that the conditions of the applicant's detention during the relevant periods had been appropriate. The Government also enclosed a statement made in 2008 by a convict who had been detained in cell no. 163 from April to July 2001. This person stated that during that period there had been five beds and only four detainees and that the material conditions had been acceptable. A similar statement was made in 2008 by another detainee who had been kept in that cell from December 2002 to February 2003.\n11.  From 30 August to 4 September 2002 the applicant was also kept in cell no. 53, which measured 4.8 square metres and had one bed.\n12.  According to the Government, the applicant was provided with an individual bed and bedding in both cells. He had access to a shower once a week. He had daily outdoor walks. The metal shutters on the cell window(s) were aimed at preventing inter-cell communication and did not impede access to natural light. The works for removing the shutters were carried out between November 2002 and March 2003.\n13.  On the days when investigative measures were carried out or hearings were held (June 2001 – September 2002), the applicant had had to get up 6 a.m. and was taken back to the cell before 10 p.m. On those days, he had been fed and had also been able to take fo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5539", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Dushanbe.\n5.  In May 1992 a civil war erupted in Tajikistan when ethnic groups under-represented in the ruling elite rose up against the national government of President Nabiyev. Politically, the discontented groups were represented by liberal democratic reformists and Islamists, who fought together and later organised themselves under the banner of the United Tajik Opposition (“UTO”). By June 1997 fifty to one hundred thousand people had been killed.\n6.  During the civil war in Tajikistan, the applicant was one of the leaders of the UTO.\n7.  On 27 June 1997 a peace agreement was signed by President Rakhmonov and the UTO leader. The applicant was appointed as the head of the State Committee for Extraordinary Situations and Civic Defence of Tajikistan. While in office, he was awarded the rank of Major-General.\n8.  In 1999 the President of Tajikistan appointed the applicant as the director of the unitary enterprise Tajikkommunservis.\n9.  On 13 September 1999 the applicant was elected chairman of the Democratic Party of Tajikistan.\n10.  On 4 June 2001 the applicant was appointed as the director of the unitary enterprise Tajikgaz.\n11.  At some point the applicant openly criticised the President of Tajikistan.\n12.  On 1 December 2004 the applicant moved to Russia.\n13.  On 25 November 2004 the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office charged the applicant in his absence with terrorism, gangsterism, unlawful possession of firearms and embezzlement.\n14.  On 26 November 2004 the Tajik authorities chose placement in custody as a preventive measure to be imposed on the applicant.\n15.  On 29 November 2004 the applicant was put on an international “wanted” list.\n16.  On 1 December 2004 the Russian Prosecutor General's Office received a request for the applicant's extradition from the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office.\n17.  On 9 December 2004 the Russian authorities arrested the applicant on the basis of the request for his extradition.\n18.  On an unspecified date the applicant was placed in remand prison no. IZ-77/4 in Moscow.\n19.  On 23 December 2004 the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow authorised the applicant's detention pending extradition.\n20.  On 24 December 2004 the applicant appealed against the first‑instance decision. On an unspecified date the Moscow City Court dismissed the appeal.\n21.  On 29 December 2004 and 18 January 2005 the applicant requested the Russian Prosecutor General's Office not to extradite him, arguing that the request for his extradition had been filed for purely political reasons.\n22.  In January 2005 the applicant requested the Department for Migration Affairs of the Moscow Department of the Interior to grant him political asylum.\n23.  On 1 April 2005 the Russian Prosecutor General's Office dismissed the extradition request by the Tajik authorities for the reason that the applicant had filed an asylum application.\n24.  On 4 April 2005 the prosecutor's office of the Babushkinskiy District of Moscow ordered the applicant's release from custody.\n25.  Upon his release on 4 April 2005 the applicant stayed at his friend's flat in the town of Korolev, in the Moscow Region, awaiting examination of his asylum application.\n26.  In the evening of 15 April 2005 the applicant and his friend, Mr L., were walking a dog. At some point the applicant saw two persons wearing uniforms of the Russian State Inspectorate for Road Safety («ГИБДД», “GIBDD”). He assumed that those men intended to a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5540", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant lives in Engelhartstetten.\n6.  The applicant is a practitioner of general medicine. He has an individual contract with the Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board (Niederösterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse).\n7.  One part of the contract between the applicant and the Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board is the Remuneration Regulation (Honorarordnung) which states that certain types of examinations will only be reimbursed if they are performed by a specialist doctor.\n8.  In 1995 the applicant treated two patients carrying out minor chirurgical interventions. He claimed payment for these treatments from the Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board, submitting that the chirurgical interventions had been so urgent that he could not obtain the necessary visa from a chief physician (Chefarztgenehmigung). Moreover, the restriction excluding general practitioners from administering certain types of therapy (Fachgruppenbeschränkung) was arbitrary and against honest practices (gute Sitten).\n9.  The Lower Austrian Health Insurance Board refused to pay the fees claimed as the applicant is not a specialist doctor but a general practitioner.\n10.  Thereupon, on 2 May 1996, the applicant claimed fees in the amount of 1,770 Austrian Schillings (ATS), approximately 128.63 euros (EUR), before the Joint Arbitration Committee (Paritätische Schiedskommission).\n11.  On 4 September 1996 the Joint Arbitration Committee held a hearing but, because of a tie vote, it could not take a binding decision.\n12.  Therefore the applicant filed an application for the transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) to the Regional Appeals Commission (Landesberufungskommission) on 23 September 1996.\n13.  On 11 December 1996 the Regional Appeals Commission dismissed the applicant's claim as it found that the applicant had failed to obtain the necessary visa from a chief physician.\n14.  On 9 May 1997 the applicant filed a complaint with Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) and on 13 October 1999 that court quashed the Regional Appeals Commission's decision. The Constitutional Court found that the alleged unlawfulness of the restriction excluding general practitioners from administering certain types of therapy was a preliminary question which the Appeals Commission had failed to address.\n15.  On 3 May 2000 the applicant filed a request for proceedings to be resumed and, on 8 November 2000, the Appeals Commission held an oral hearing in which it decided to appoint an expert for examining the question of urgency of the chirurgical interventions forming the basis of the dispute.\n16.  Since the expert did not deliver the report, the applicant, on 15 January 2001, urged the Appeals Commission to continue its examination.\n17.  After the expert finally delivered the report a further hearing in camera was scheduled for 15 May 2002.\n18.  At the hearing the applicant's lawyer argued that the applicant was professionally competent to do the interventions at issue and that to give such treatment was his basic contractual obligation. Any conflicting restriction was therefore unlawful.\n19.  Subsequently the Appeals Commission scheduled a further hearing, this time in public, for 26 November 2003 as in the meantime the Constitutional Court, on 25 November 2002, had found that Article 6 of the Convention required the Appeals Commissions to hold their hearing in public.\n20.  Thus, on 26 November 2003 a public hearing before the Appeals Commission took place in which the taki", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5541", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Essen.\n7.  On 15 November 1983 the applicant took up the position of organist and choirmaster at the Catholic parish church of Saint Lambertus (“the parish church”) in Essen.\n8.  Article 2 of his contract of employment dated 30 January 1984 stipulated, inter alia, that the Ecclesiastical Employment and Remuneration Regulations (see paragraph 37 below), as currently in force, formed an integral part of the contract and that any serious breach of the Church’s principles constituted a material ground for termination of contract without notice, in accordance with Article 42 of those regulations.\n9.  After the contract had been approved by the Bishop’s Vicar General, the applicant took the following oath:\n“I hereby undertake to discharge my professional duties and to fulfil and observe ecclesiastical obligations.”\n10.  From 1 January 1985 onwards he also held the position of head musician in the deanery and was paid a gross monthly salary of 5,688.18 marks (about 2,900 euros).\n11.  In 1994 the applicant left his wife, who was the mother of his two children. The separation was made public in January 1995. Since then the applicant has been living with his new partner, who has also been his representative before the employment tribunals and the Court.\n12.  On 2 July 1997, after the applicant’s children had told people at their kindergarten that their father was going to have another child, the Dean of the parish discussed the matter with the applicant.\n13.  On 15 July 1997 the parish church dismissed the applicant with effect from 1 April 1998 on the ground that he had breached his duty of loyalty under Article 5 of the Catholic Church’s Basic Regulations (the “Basic Regulations” – see paragraph 38 below). In the light of the Catholic Church’s fundamental principles enshrining the sanctity of marriage, the applicant, by having an extramarital relationship with another woman, who was expecting his child, was accused not only of committing adultery but also of bigamy.\n14.  Following the applicant’s dismissal his wife petitioned for divorce, which was granted on 13 August 1998.\n15.  On 24 July 1997 the applicant took his case to the Essen Employment Tribunal.\n16.  On 9 December 1997 the Employment Tribunal granted the applicant’s claim and found that the dismissal of 15 July 1997 had not terminated his contract of employment. Observing the findings of the Federal Employment Court’s judgment of 9 April 1997 (see Obst v. Germany, no. 425/03, §§ 12-19, 23 September 2010), which had applied the principles set out by the Federal Constitutional Court in its leading decision of 4 June 1985 (see paragraph 35 below), it took the view that the applicant’s conduct did not yet (noch nicht) justify his dismissal, under section 1(1) of the Protection from Dismissal Act (see paragraph 36 below). In the Tribunal’s view, he had not been bound by heightened duties of loyalty (gesteigerte Loyalitätsobliegenheiten) because he did not perform pastoral or catechistic duties, did not have a canonical mandate (missio canonica) and was not a member of the managerial staff (leitender Mitarbeiter) within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Basic Regulations. In the Tribunal’s view, the respondent had not proved that the applicant’s duties as head musician of the deanery were equivalent to managerial office; accordingly, pursuant to Article 5 §§ 1 and 2 of the Basic Regulations, the parish church should first have summoned him ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5543", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Vladimir.\n5.  On 28 September 1998 he was convicted of theft by a competent court and given a suspended sentence of two years' imprisonment with a three-year delay in the execution of the sentence.\n6.  On an unspecified date the authorities brought a different set of criminal charges against the applicant. The Court is in possession of a letter written by the prosecutor's office of the Vladimir Region and dated by 30 April 1999 which contains the following statement: “...your son A.A. Isayev was arrested on 15 January 1999 in accordance with Section 122 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic, after which, taking into account the circumstances of the case including his engagement in criminal activities during the service of a previous sentence, he was placed in detention and charged”. According to the Government, the authorities did not arrest the applicant on 15 January 1999 as at the material time he was already in detention on account of a different criminal investigation against him, which ended in his conviction by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Vladimir on 12 April 2000.\n7.  Between 7 and 9 June 2000 the applicant and his legal counsel studied the case file.\n8.  On 7 June 2000 and on 1 August 2001 the applicant requested that his case be examined by a jury.\n9.  On 2 July 2001 the criminal case against the applicant and his two co‑defendants was forwarded to the Vladimir Regional Court (“the trial court”) for trial.\n10.  On 16 July 2001 the trial court set the examination of the case for 30 July 2001.\n11.  On 30 July 2001 the trial court, composed of judge Sh. and two lay judges (народные заседатели) K. and S. started the examination of the case. The applicant was represented by legal counsel. However, at the hearing he sought leave to be represented also by his mother and by Mr Kuvshinov. The trial court dismissed his request.\n12.  The applicant and his legal counsel appealed against the above decision to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the appeal court”). On 15 October 2001 the appeal court held that it was not possible to examine the applicant's appeal against an interlocutory decision.\n13.  On 15 November 2001 the trial court, which was now composed of judge Sh. and lay judges G. and Ka., allowed Mr Kuvshinov to defend the applicant along with his legal counsel.\n14.  On the same date the trial court rejected the applicant's request to have his case heard by a jury on the ground that the jury trial had not been set up in the Vladimir Region.\n15.  On 4 December 2001 the trial court dismissed the applicant's objection to the composition of the trial court. Regarding the lay judges, the trial court held that they had been elected by the Vladimir Regional Council of People's Deputies (Владимирский областной совет народных депутатов) during its session of 4‑11 April 1990 in accordance with law. According to the presidential decree of 25 January 2000 their terms of office had been extended until the court received a new list of lay judges confirmed by the regional legislature.\n16.  On 24 December 2001 the applicant received a similar answer from the President of the Vladimir Regional Court.\n17.  On 29 April 2002 the trial court found the applicant guilty of two premeditated murders, damage to private property and several other crimes and sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment with confiscation of his possessions. The se", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5545", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1966, 1947, 1947, 1972 and 1968 respectively and live in the village of Stryama near Plovdiv.\n5.  On 24 August 1993 the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants and the son of the second and third applicants, Mr R.R., were caught by the police when attempting to transport stolen fruit. The police officers ordered the second applicant who was driving the cart with the stolen goods to bring the goods to the police station. He did not comply and drove the cart away. The remaining applicants and Mr R.R. went home.\n6.  On 27 August 1993 the third and fourth applicants and Mr R.R. were questioned in connection to the theft, admitted to it and stated that the fifth applicant had also participated in the theft. The second applicant was questioned and confessed to the offence on 2 September 1993.\n7.  Apparently these questionings were carried within the framework of police investigation (дознание) no. 582/93.\n8.  On 20 September 1993 a police officer from the Rakovski district police department proposed to the prosecution authorities to initiate preliminary investigation (предварително производство) for theft against the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants and Mr R.R. He stated in his report that the fifth applicant had not been questioned as he was hiding.\n9.  Thereafter the case remained dormant until January 2002.\n10.  On 3 January 2002 a witness was questioned and on 27 January an expert opinion was commissioned.\n11.  On 29 January 2002 the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants and Mr R.R. were questioned as suspects (уличени) under police investigation no. 582/93 and were charged with theft on the basis of the materials from that police investigation.\n12.  In February 2003 the case was brought to the Plovdiv District Court, which on 20 February remitted it back to the prosecution authorities because of procedural breaches.\n13.  On an unspecified date thereafter the charges against Mr R.R. were dropped.\n14.  On an unspecified date in the end of 2003 or the beginning of 2004 the case was again brought to the District Court.\n15.  On 24 November 2004 the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants concluded a plea bargain agreement and were sentenced to three months' imprisonment suspended for a period of three years. On the same day the agreement was approved by the Plovdiv District Court.\n16.  The first applicant did not take part in the above events and was never a party to the criminal proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5546", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 20 January 2004 a mother contacted the police on account of a suspicion that her child A., a boy born in 1999, had been sexually abused by a family friend, the applicant. On the same date the police took a statement from the mother.\n7.  On 26 February 2004 A. was interviewed at the children's hospital at the request of the police. The interview was conducted by a psychologist. The investigating police officer, the head psychologist of the hospital, and the deputy head physician Dr S., specialised in child psychiatry, followed the interview behind a mirrored wall. The interview was recorded on video-tape. The applicant was not present when the interview was conducted and apparently he had not even been informed about the investigation at that point.\n8.  A psychological examination was performed on A. on two occasions, namely 1 and 15 March 2004, by the head psychologist. A physical examination was also performed. The mother was interviewed by a specially trained nurse on 1, 12 and 15 March 2004.\n9.  On 21 May 2004 Dr S. and the two psychologists gave a written statement of their findings. They concluded that A.'s account seemed reliable, that is, he was recounting events that had very likely taken place. Certain changes in A.'s behaviour were also mentioned which, according to those medical experts, reflected sexual abuse to which he had been subjected. According to Dr S. and the two psychiatrists, no such circumstances had emerged in the examinations, or the previous information produced in the case, which supported some alternative explanation to A.'s account and symptoms. No specific findings of A.'s physical examination were mentioned in the statement.\n10.  On 30 June 2004 Dr S. gave another statement noting, inter alia, that issues regarding the suspected abuse had disturbed A.'s psychological balance and caused him confusion, insecurity and anxiety. In her opinion, subjecting A. to more questions about the matter would be harmful to him and he should not be interviewed again.\n11.  On 1 July 2004 the police questioned the applicant as a suspect. He denied all allegations of sexual abuse. On 8 July 2004, after having taken another statement from A.'s mother, the police closed the pre-trial investigation.\n12.  On 12 October 2004 the public prosecutor preferred charges against the applicant with the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt) accusing him of having sexually abused A.\n13.  After having been served with the summons, the applicant contacted a lawyer. On 4 February 2005 he submitted a communication to the District Court noting that, apparently, the prosecutor intended to present the video recording of A.'s interview as evidence before the court. The applicant agreed that, in the light of Dr S.'s last statement, A. should not be heard again. He pointed out, however, that he had not been afforded an opportunity to put questions to A. during the pre-trial investigation as required by section 39(a) of the Criminal Investigations Act (esitutkintalaki, förundersökningslagen, Act No. 449/1987 with later amendments). Nevertheless, instead of requesting the court to exclude A.'s account due to that procedural error, the applicant wished to submit the video recording as evidence on his behalf. In the applicant's view the recording contained certain absurdities and showed that A. was merely repeating sentences that he had been rehearsed to say.\n14.  On 10 February 2005 the District Court held its first session. Having heard the p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5548", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is the divorced mother of two children, born in 1991 and 1993. Her children live mostly with their father (the “parent with care”) spending two and a half days per week with her (the “non-resident” parent). Since 1998, the applicant has lived with a woman in what was described during the domestic proceedings as a “close, loving and monogamous relationship characterised by long-term sexual intimacy”. She and her partner own the house they live in as joint tenants. They purchased the property with a joint mortgage, and have held a joint bank account since 2000.\n6.  The applicant is required to contribute to the cost of her children's upbringing in accordance with the applicable regulations on child maintenance (see paragraph 21 below). On 12 September 2001, the Secretary of State decided that the applicant's maintenance payment should be GBP 46.97 per week, with effect from the previous 13 August. The applicant disputed that decision on a number of grounds, including that it did not make full allowance for her housing costs. On 11 November 2001, the Secretary of State declined to revise his decision. On 18 February 2002, the maintenance assessment was reduced to GBP 12.67 per week, due to changed circumstances unrelated to the applicant's complaint of discrimination. Her complaint thus relates to the period that began on 13 August 2001 and ended on 18 February 2002.\n7.  The applicant appealed against the initial maintenance assessment. The Appeals Tribunal allowed the appeal on 8 November 2002. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to compare the applicant's situation to that of an individual who was part of a heterosexual couple (married or unmarried), and that there clearly was a difference in treatment in the determination of the child maintenance obligation. It held that the situation came within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which was not confined to situations in which property was transferred to the State. The direct involvement of the Child Support Agency in the process and its powers of enforcement meant that the responsibility of the State was engaged. The Tribunal found that the Government had not advanced any specific explanation or justification for the difference in treatment, which it therefore held to be discriminatory. It further found that it was possible to provide a remedy to the applicant by re-interpreting the definition of an “unmarried couple” in the applicable regulations so that it included same‑sex couples.\n8.  The Secretary of State appealed against this decision to the Child Support Commissioner, who rejected the appeal on 1 October 2003. The Commissioner held that “a gay relationship can be a family for the purpose of [A]rticle 8”. He saw no reason, in the context of child support legislation, to distinguish between families according to the sexual orientation of the partners. The purpose of the regulations was to determine the financial obligation of the absent parent, a matter on which his or her sexual orientation should have no bearing. Accordingly, the applicant's situation was within the ambit of the right to respect for family life. He rejected, however, the applicant's argument that the situation also came within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Turning to Article 14, the Commissioner found that, in the context of child support payments, the applicant's situation was analogous to that of an absent parent living with a heterosexual partner, who, all other things ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5550", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Mírov.\n6.  On 6 March 2001 the applicant was arrested. On this occasion he received a written notice of accusation that there was a strong suspicion that on 13 October 2000 at around 3.45 a.m., he, acting with a certain J.F., murdered M.H. in order to acquire property, which constituted an offence under Article 219 §§ 1 and 2 h) of the Criminal Code committed in complicity under Article 9 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The applicant was escorted to Prague Ruzyně remand prison.\n7.  On 8 March 2001 the applicant was heard by a judge at the Prague 3 District Court (obvodní soud). His lawyer could not attend the hearing and the applicant refused to testify in the latter's absence. The lawyer arrived a little later and the hearing resumed. At the end of the hearing, the judge remanded the applicant in custody, under Articles 67 § 1 a) and c) and 67 § 2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), referring to a danger that he would abscond and influence witnesses, with backdated effect from 6 a.m. on 6 March 2001\n8.  According to the applicant, the detention order was notified to him on 14 March 2001, but according to the Government, he had already made a complaint against it on 12 March 2001.\n9.  The applicant's wife and a certain Ž. were also charged with complicity in murder. The applicant's wife was not remanded in custody.\n10.  On 2 April 2001 the Prague Investigation Office (Úřad vyšetřování hl.m. Prahy) discontinued a criminal prosecution against the applicant's co‑defendant, a certain F., which had been pending since 6 December 2000. The applicant allegedly learned this fact on 18 September 2001, when he was allowed to study his case file.\n11.  On 18 April 2001 the applicant was questioned. At the end of the interview, he asked to be allowed to study the case file; this was refused by the investigator. No specific reason was given for the refusal. On the next day, the applicant was transferred to Prague Pankrác remand prison where, according to him, the conditions of detention were much more rigorous.\n12.  On 24 April 2001 the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud), sitting in private, dismissed the applicant's complaint against the District Court's detention order of 8 March 2001, upholding the grounds for his detention pursuant to Article 67 a) and c) of the CCP, referring, inter alia, to the applicant's earlier prosecution on suspicion of murder. The court made it clear that from the material evidence gathered so far, including records of telephone tapping and from the statements of the applicant's wife, the criminal prosecution against the applicant was justified. According to the applicant, this decision was notified to him on 11 May 2001.\n13.  On 16 May 2001 the applicant complained that he had been denied the opportunity to consult his investigation case file. On the same day, he also complained that the investigator was not impartial.\n14.  On 28 May and 7 August 2001 the Prague Municipal Prosecutor (městská státní zastupkyně) informed the applicant that submissions which he had earlier addressed to the Municipal Prosecutor and the Prague High Prosecutor's Office (vrchní státní zastupitelství) respectively had been included in his case file as part of his defence, and dismissed his complaints about the course of the investigation. In respect of the applicant's complaint that he had been refused access to the case file by the investigator, the prosecutor stated on 28 May 2001 that hi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5552", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Sofia.\n6.  On an unspecified date he married Ms Y.C. Their son, Savestin Todorov Deyanov, was born on 22 September 1988. In 1992 the applicant and Ms Y.C. divorced. The custody of Savestin was allocated to the applicant.\n7.  In the afternoon of 6 May 1997 Savestin went out to play with another boy, B. However, in the evening he did not return home. The applicant called the police and later visited a police station to report that his son had gone missing.\n8.  On 7 May 1997 several police officers visited Savestin's school and found B. The boy explained that in the afternoon of the previous day he and Savestin had played with a ball by a small lake in the neighbourhood and Savestin had fallen in the water. However, when the police visited the place, they found that there was very little water in the lake. After they questioned B. again, he explained that in fact he and Savestin had taken a bus and had gone to the city centre, in the area where a large market was located. There they had played with a ball alongside a small canal dividing the two carriageways of a busy main road. Savestin had dropped the ball into the water and, in trying to retrieve it, had fallen into the water too. B. had tried to help, but Savestin had been carried away by the water current. B. had returned home.\n9.  A passer-by questioned subsequently said that in the evening of 6 May 1997 he had seen a ball floating in the canal.\n10.  On 7 or 8 May 1997 the police searched the canal, which, at the place indicated by B., was 60-70 centimetres deep. The reservoir into which the canal emptied was searched by divers. All alluviums along the canal were also searched. No trace of Savestin's body was found.\n11.  Hospital emergencies were also checked but Savestin had not been admitted to any of them.\n12.  On 9 and 12 May 1997 Savestin was officially declared missing. On 15 May 1997 and the following days a photograph of him was shown on national television and published in other media.\n13.  In the following days the police gathered information on Savestin's parents and on B.'s family. They visited Savestin's mother, who was at the time living in Targovishte. On 15 May 1997 they questioned Ms O., a friend of the family, who alleged to have received an anonymous telephone call concerning Savestin. Later on, the police investigated at least five other anonymous calls, which did not reveal anything as to Savestin's whereabouts and were most likely hoaxes provoked by the wide publicity which the case had attracted.\n14.  On 23 July 1997 a friend of B.'s explained that the latter had told him that Savestin had not drowned but had in fact been taken away by two men in a yellow car. Apparently, B. had also mentioned this version earlier but it is unclear in what circumstances.\n15.  In 1998 or early 1999 B. was questioned in the presence of psychiatrists and psychologists from the Ministry of Internal Affairs' Institute of Psychiatry. The Court has not been provided with the experts' conclusions, which apparently stated that B. had lied when he had said that Savestin had fallen in the canal. However, on other occasions B. was examined in the presence of other experts who considered that he was telling the truth.\n16.  On 17 January and 21 December 2000 and on 6 December 2001 B. was questioned in relation to the criminal proceedings concerning Savestin's disappearance (see paragraphs 25-26 below). He repeated that Savestin had fallen in th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5553", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Orel.\n6.  On 21 October 2000 the applicant called an ambulance for her son, who was forty-two years old at the time. He had a fever and was complaining of chest pains. The paramedic examined him, and, assuming that he was suffering from intercostal neuralgia, administered a pain-killing injection.\n7.  On 22 October 2000 Mr Korogodin was examined by a general practitioner, who believed him to be suffering from pyelonephritis and advised him to go to hospital. At the hospital Mr Korogodin underwent a medical examination including an ECG of his kidneys and liver and an X‑ray of his lungs. The doctors who examined him confirmed the diagnosis of intercostal neuralgia. Mr Korogodin was discharged from hospital.\n8.  On 23 October 2000 the general practitioner examined Mr Korogodin again and diagnosed him with osteochondrosis. Subsequently, M., a doctor whom the applicant's family knew, examined Mr Korogodin, diagnosed him with pneumonia and urged him to go to hospital. Upon arrival at the Zheleznodorozhniy Hospital in Orel, Mr Korogodin was taken to an intensive care unit.\n9.  On 27 October 2000 Mr Korogodin died in hospital. According to the autopsy, the cause of his death was cardiovascular deficiency provoked by pneumonia and purulent pleurisy.\n10.  On 24 November 2000 and 10 January 2001 the applicant asked the local prosecutor's office to open a criminal investigation into the matter, alleging that the doctors' negligent failure to diagnose her son correctly at the onset of his disease had caused his death.\n11.  In response to the applicant's complaints, the assistant prosecutor of the town of Orel, conducted an inquiry. Within its framework, the regional department of public health formed a commission which comprised specialists from the medical institutions where the applicant's son had undergone treatment. The commission questioned the doctors who had treated Mr Korogodin and concluded that the doctors had provided competent medical service.\n12.  On 21 January 2001 the applicant submitted Mr Korogodin's medical history file and X-ray examination results. An additional inquiry ensued. On 24 January 2001 the applicant lodged another complaint with the prosecutor's office.\n13.  On 6 March 2001 the assistant prosecutor refused to open a criminal investigation against the doctors for lack of corpus delicti. He noted that the death of the applicant's son had resulted from the rapid development of pneumonia coupled with weakened immunity. The assistant prosecutor referred to the findings made by the commission set up by the regional department of public health. The applicant appealed to a superior prosecutor.\n14.  On 16 April 2001 the regional prosecutor in charge of the investigation quashed the decision of 6 March 2001 and ordered a criminal investigation into the matter. The prosecutor noted, in substance, that the commission had not been impartial. He referred to the commission's findings as inconclusive and contradictory.\n15.  On 7 May 2001 the applicant was recognised as a victim of the crime under investigation. She was advised of her rights, including the right to submit a civil claim against the hospital.\n16.  On 19 June 2001 the investigator commissioned a forensic medical expert report to determine whether Mr Korogodin had received proper medical treatment.\n17.  On 16 July 2001 the investigator found it impossible to identify those responsible and suspended the investigation into the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5554", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are spouses. They were born in 1966 and live in Tokmak.\n5.  According to the applicants, in the period between January 2000 and August 2001 the first applicant lived and worked outside Tokmak.\n6.  On 21 January 2001 an unknown person broke six windows in a building near the applicants' flat.\n7.  On 30 January 2001 the Tokmak Town Police Office (“the Police Office”) instituted a criminal investigation into that event.\n8.  On 20 March 2001 the Police Office, suspecting that the first applicant might have been involved in that event, ordered a search of his residence. The decision to carry out the search was based on the reason that evidence related to the event could be found in the first applicant's home. On the same day the search order was approved by the local prosecutor.\n9.  On 21 March 2001, when the applicants' son was celebrating his birthday with a number of his friends, the police officers entered the applicants' flat to carry out the search. The second applicant, who was in the early stage of pregnancy, objected to the search, stating that the search order contained no reasonable explanation for her or her husband's possible involvement in the crime or for the need to search the flat. In response, the police officers allegedly threatened her and began the search operation in the presence of the guests. The first applicant was absent.\n10.  In the course of the search nothing was identified or seized for the purpose of the investigation.\n11.  On unspecified date the applicants complained to the Zaporizhzhya Region Prosecutor's Office (“the Regional Prosecutor's Office”) alleging that the search had been unlawful.\n12.  On 12 October 2001 the Regional Prosecutor's Office informed the applicants that following an inquiry it had been established that the search had been carried out without a valid reason, in breach of Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n13.  On 13 November 2001 the Regional Prosecutor's Office informed the applicants that the police officers who had carried out the search had been disciplined.\n14.  On 19 August 2002 the applicants instituted proceedings in the Tokmak District Court against the Police Office, the Regional Prosecutor's Office, and the Zaporizhzhya Region State Treasury Department, seeking to have the search operation declared groundless and unlawful. The second applicant additionally claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the unlawful act. She relied on Articles 440-1 and 443 of the Civil Code and on the Act “On the procedure for compensation for damage caused to citizens by unlawful acts of bodies of inquiry, pre-trial investigation authorities, prosecutor's offices and courts” (“the Compensation Act”).\n15.  On 22 May 2003 the Tokmak District Court considered the applicants' claims. As to the first applicant, the court found that the search had been carried out two months after the crime and there had not been sufficient grounds to believe that evidence could be found in the applicants' home. The court therefore allowed his claim and declared that the search had been groundless and unlawful. As to the second applicant, the court examined the invoked provisions of the Civil Code and the Compensation Act and concluded that damage caused by the procedural acts of bodies of inquiry, investigative authorities, prosecutor's offices and courts could be compensated only in cases provided for by the Compensation Act. It further stated that the search had been carr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5555", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Košice.\n5.  On 4 September 2002 the applicant sought an increase of the maintenance payments from her ex-husband before the Košice I District Court. On 21 July 2005 she complained to the President of the Košice I District Court about undue delays in the proceedings.\n6.  On 1 August 2005 she was informed that her complaint had been transmitted to the Košice II District Court where the case file had been transferred by a decision of 5 February 2003.\n7.  On 5 September 2005 the President of the Košice II District Court informed the applicant that her complaint would be dealt with after an expert had returned the case file.\n8.  On 16 September 2005 the President of the Košice II District Court informed the applicant that the case file concerning the maintenance dispute had been erroneously attached to the file in separate proceedings concerning her ex-husband's contact with their son. The latter proceedings had also been initiated before the Košice I District Court and the case file had been transferred to the Košice II District Court, for reasons of local jurisdiction, by a decision of 2 October 2002. The President of the Košice II District Court noted that the maintenance dispute had not been duly transferred to his court and instructed the judge dealing with the case “to take immediate measures”.\n9.  In view of the statements of the Presidents of the Košice I and II District Court, on 2 November 2005 the applicant complained of undue delays before the Constitutional Court. The applicant directed her constitutional complaint against the Košice II District Court where, according to the information from the President of the Košice I District Court, the case file had been transferred in 2003. The applicant did not indicate the file number under which the proceedings had been pending before the Košice II District Court as no number had been assigned to the case at that time.\n10.  On 10 November 2005 the Constitutional Court invited the applicant to indicate the file number of the proceedings before the Košice II District Court. On 11 January 2006 the applicant's representative obtained the requested information and forwarded it by telephone to the Constitutional Court.\n11.  On 18 January 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's complaint concerning delays in the proceedings before the Košice II District Court admissible.\n12.  On 17 February 2006 the President of the Košice II District Court informed the Constitutional Court in writing that the case file concerning the proceedings complained of had been returned (as erroneously attached to another file) to the Košice I District Court on 22 November 2005. The letter further stated that on 30 November 2005 the Košice I District Court had formally re-transferred the case file to the Košice II District Court.\n13. At the same time, the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to amend her constitutional complaint as formally directed also against the Košice I District Court.\n14.  On 15 March 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant's right to a hearing without undue delays had not been violated by the Košice II District Court. The Constitutional Court stated that it was bound by the formulation of the complaint and by its decision on admissibility and could examine the length of proceedings complaint only in respect of the proceedings before the Košice II District Court where the case file had been duly transferred on 30 November", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5556", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Wołów prison.\n6.  On 23 August 2005 the Kłodzko District Court convicted the applicant of sexual abuse of a minor and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 20 February 2006 the Świdnica Regional Court upheld the first‑instance judgment. On a later unknown date the applicant requested that a legal‑aid lawyer be assigned to the case to prepare a cassation appeal. On 10 April 2006 the court allowed his request. The court's decision was served on the applicant on 20 April 2006.\n8.  By a letter to the court dated 11 May 2006 the lawyer refused to prepare a cassation appeal, finding no grounds for it. This letter was subsequently forwarded by the court to the applicant.\n9.  On 6 June 2006 the applicant requested the court to assign a new legal‑aid lawyer to the case. In letters to the applicant dated 14 June and 10 July 2006 the court refused to do so. The court referred to the legal-aid lawyer's refusal of 11 May 2006.\n10.  Neither in the letter accompanying the lawyer's refusal of 11 May 2005 nor in its later letters the court informed the applicant of his further procedural rights.\n11.  On an unknown date in 2005 the applicant instituted criminal proceedings alleging that correspondence sent by him to courts, prosecutors and other authorities had been destroyed by prison officers. On 22 August 2005 the Kłodzko District Prosecutor refused to institute proceedings in the case. On 30 November 2005 the Kłodzko District Court upheld the decision of the Kłodzko District Prosecutor.\n12.  On an unknown date in 2006 the applicant, who was serving a prison sentence, filed a request for temporary leave. On 6 July 2006 the Gdańsk District Court dismissed his request. On 15 September 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed his appeal as unfounded.\n13.  On a later date in 2006 the applicant requested the penitentiary judge to grant him another temporary leave. On 9 October 2006 the judge refused his request. On 21 December 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed his appeal as unfounded.\n14.  In 2005 the applicant requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against a judge examining his case, alleging that he had destroyed certain documents from his case file. On 6 December 2006 the Kłodzko District Prosecutor refused the request. On 11 February 2008 the Nysa District Court upheld this decision.\n15.  In criminal proceedings concerning an assault against the applicant by his fellow-prisoner, on 29 June 2007 the Kwidzyn District Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to 10 months' imprisonment. The court also obliged him to pay the applicant damages in the amount of PLN 8,000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5557", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Mr Slobodan Rakić (“the first applicant”), Mr Živorad Ivković (“the second applicant”), Mr Damjan Šapić (“the third applicant”), Mr Dragan Jevtić (“the fourth applicant”), Mr Darko Glišović (“the fifth applicant”), Mr Radoš Mihajlović (“the sixth applicant”), Mr Ljubiša Janićijevic (“the seventh applicant”), Mr Nenad Jovanović (“the eight applicant”), Mr Milan Vitković (“the ninth applicant”), Mr Velibor Terentić (“the tenth applicant”), Mr Radojko Radosavljević (“the eleventh applicant”), Mr Dragoš Tomović (“the twelfth applicant”), Mr Predrag Todić (“the thirteenth applicant”), Mr Nebojša Milutinović (“the fourteenth applicant”), Mr Bojan Ilić (“the fifteenth applicant”), Mr Darko Trifunović (“the sixteenth applicant”), Mr Janko Janković (“the seventeenth applicant”), Mr Dragiša Zdravković (“the eighteenth applicant”), Mr Miljojko Đorđević (“the nineteenth applicant”), Mr Slavko Milošević (“the twentieth applicant”), Mr Miroslav Vučković (“the twenty-first applicant”), Mr Ljubinko Ćirković (“the twenty-second applicant”), Mr Veselin Božović (“the twenty-third applicant”), Mr Nebojša Đorđević (“the twenty-fourth applicant”), Mr Srećko Janićijević (“the twenty-fifth applicant”), Mr Siniša Milić (“the twenty-sixth applicant”), Mr Vladimir Avdalović (“the twenty-seventh applicant”), Mr Slavoljub Vukić (“the twenty-eighth applicant”), Mr Rodoljub Obradović (“the twenty-ninth applicant”) and Mr Dejan Pantić (“the thirtieth applicant”) are all Serbian nationals.\n6.  All applicants are employed as police officers with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia (Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova Republike Srbije, hereinafter “the Ministry”). They reside and work in Kosovo.[1]\n7.  The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 24 January 2000 and 17 July 2003, respectively, the Serbian Government adopted two decisions whereby, inter alia, all of its employees who resided and worked in Kosovo were to be paid double salaries.\n9.  On 31 January 2000 the Ministry issued a decision stating that the police officers in question were entitled to have their salaries increased based on a coefficient of 2.5 or 4.5, depending on the circumstances.\n10.  In reality, the applicants only received the increase approved by the Ministry, amounting to significantly less than the envisaged doubling of their salaries.\n11.  In 2006 and 2007, therefore, they filed separate civil claims against the Ministry with the First Municipal Court (Prvi opštinski sud) in Belgrade, seeking payment of the difference between the salary increase received and the one granted by the Government (the value of the seventh, thirteenth, seventeenth, twentieth, twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth applicants' claims, respectively, exceeded 500,000 dinars, whilst the claims of all other applicants were below this threshold). The applicants further requested payment of unspecified amounts on account of the related pension and disability insurance contributions.\n12.  Certain applicants were successful before the Municipal Court; others were not. However, all the applicants were unsuccessful at second instance before the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade (hereinafter “the District Court”). The applicants received those decisions on the following dates:\n- the first applicant on 26 April 2007;\n- the second and third applicants on 7 May 2007;\n- the fourth applicant on 26 June 2007;\n- the fifth applicant on 3 September 2007;\n- the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5558", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Dębica.\n7.  The applicant was a party to civil proceedings concerning division of co-ownership of a certain plot of land. The proceedings were instituted in 2001. On 12 February 2003 the Lwówek Slaski District Court awarded the plot to a certain M.K. and ordered that a certain amount should be paid to the applicant.\n8.  On 9 October 2003 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court partly amended the first‑instance decision increasing the amount awarded to the applicant and dismissed the remainder of his appeal.\n9.  On 14 October 2003 the applicant requested to be served with written grounds to that judgment. On 12 December 2003 the court served him with them and the thirty‑day time‑limit for lodging of a cassation appeal started to run.\n10.  By a letter of 12 December 2003, served on the court on 18 December 2003, the applicant requested that a legal‑aid lawyer be assigned to the case to prepare a cassation complaint. On the same day the court requested the applicant to submit a statement of his financial situation in order to be able to examine his request.\n11.  On 6 January 2004 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court granted the applicant's request for legal aid. On 13 January 2004 the Wałbrzych Bar Association assigned a legal‑aid lawyer to the case.\n12.  On 16 and 20 January 2004 the applicant and the lawyer had a telephone conversation. In a letter to the lawyer dated 20 January 2004 the applicant explained in a detailed manner the legal context of the case and the reasons for which he was of the view that a cassation complaint offered prospects of success.\n13.  In a letter to the court dated 22 January 2004 the lawyer explained in detail why she saw no grounds on which to prepare a cassation complaint in the applicant's case.\n14.  On 3 March 2004 the legal-aid lawyer sent a copy of his opinion to the applicant. It was served on the applicant on 8 March 2004. On 8 March 2004 also the court sent the lawyer's opinion to the applicant.\n15.  On 30 August 2007 the applicant requested the Lwówek Slaski District Court to exempt him from costs of making copies of documents in the case-file. On 6 September 2007 the Lwówek Slaski District Court dismissed the applicant's request as unfounded. The court established that the applicant owned property of 4,16 ha and the proceedings had ended in 2003 so he had enough time to collect founds for that purpose. On 12 October 2007 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court dismissed the applicant's interlocutory appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5559", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Medoševac.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7. Following the applicant's arrest on 19 June 2002, on 21 May 2003 the District Court of Niš convicted the applicant of forgery and sentenced him to four years and six months in prison.\n8.  The Supreme Court of Serbia upheld both the conviction and the sentence on 28 January 2004.\n9.  On 19 November 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's further appeal on points of law as unavailable under domestic law in the particular circumstances of the case (odbacio kao nedozvoljen zahtev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravnosnažne presude).\n10.  The applicant served his sentence in the Niš Penitentiary (Kazneno-popravni zavod u Nišu; hereinafter “the prison”).\n11.The applicant's letter of 21 May 2004 to the District Court in Niš bore the prison stamp of the same date and registration number 24-6274/2004.\n12.  The applicant's first letter of 22 October 2004, sent to the Court on 27 October 2004, also bore the prison stamp dated 25 October 2004 and registration number 24-13588/2004.\n13.  In its own letter of 6 December 2004, inter alia, the Court's Registry therefore informed the applicant in Serbian of the said stamp, assuming that he may not have been aware of it.\n14.  In his application form submitted on 23 December 2004, the applicant stated that all his mail addressed to State bodies or his family had to be submitted opened to the prison administration, where it was read. He alleged that this was standard practice based on the provisions of the applicable prison regulations. He also submitted that, in accordance with the said practice, all incoming mail was delivered to prisoners opened, stamped and registered. This letter did not bear any prison stamp.\n15.  Finally, the above decision of the Supreme Court of 19 November 2004, which was subsequently sent to the applicant, also bore the prison stamp dated 4 February 2005 and registration number 713-1237/2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5560", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company was established in 1997 and has its seat in Trenčín.\n6.  In the late 1990s the applicant company commenced proceedings against two major companies, seeking the enforcement of financial claims against the companies through seizure of their shares and transfer of title to the shares to the applicant company.\n7.  The companies in question had been involved in arms production and had gone through a restructuring that resulted in a large number of job losses and a high rate of unemployment in the region. The relevant events therefore received media attention.\n8.  The judicial enforcement officer (súdny exekútor), A., who had been involved in the enforcement of the claims in issue, was charged with abuse of authority. A. was eventually acquitted of that charge by the Bratislava III District Court (Okresný súd) on 7 February 2003. Criminal proceedings were also brought against other individuals.\n9.  Further details concerning the background can be found in the Court's judgment of 2 June 2009 in the case of Borovský v. Slovakia (no. 24528/02).\n10.  On 23 September 1998 the applicant company petitioned A. to enforce a claim for payment of an amount equivalent to approximately 2,900,000 euros (EUR) against B., a private joint-stock company. A. subsequently sought judicial authorisation of the enforcement.\n11.  On 30 September 1998 the President of the Martin District Court, C., sitting as a single judge, authorised A. to carry out the enforcement proceedings against B.\n12.  In the course of the enforcement proceedings, A. seized B.'s movable property and certain shares relating to B. A. attempted to sell the seized property at two public auctions. As the auctions failed, the shares and movable property were transferred to the applicant company at fifty percent of their officially estimated value.\n13.  On 20 April 1999 the applicant company requested that the enforcement proceedings be ended, as its claim had been satisfied by the above-mentioned award of property.\n14.  In a decision (uznesenie) of 30 June 1999, D., the newly appointed President of the District Court sitting as a single judge, ruled that the enforcement of the applicant company's claim by means of selling the shares was improper (neprípustná). At the same time, judge D. discontinued the enforcement proceedings.\nJudge D. observed that the shares had been sold by way of a procedure that applied to movable property. However, as shares were not deemed to be movable property, a different procedure requiring special authorisation should have been used.\nThe two-page decision was not subject to appeal.\n15.  The distribution of cases and organisation of work at the District Court is regulated by a work schedule (rozvrh práce).\n16.  The work schedule for the District Court in 1999 was drawn up in 1998 by the then President of the District Court, judge C. According to this work schedule, all enforcement proceedings – including the proceedings for the enforcement of the applicant company's claim – were assigned to the District Court's Ninth Section, which was presided over by judge C. The work schedule provided that judge C. and judge D., who was at that time with the District Court's Seventh Section, were to substitute for each other if necessary.\nA copy of the work schedule was sent to the Žilina Regional Court for information on 7 December 1998.\n17.  On 21 January 1999 judge D. was appointed as President of the District Court. He occupied that position until 5 Jun", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5561", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 14 December 2006 the applicant lodged with the Kłodzko District Court an action against his former employer, concerning his social insurance entitlements.\n7.  On 26 April 2007 the Kłodzko District Court dismissed the applicant's action.\n8.  On 15 May 2007 the applicant appealed. On 23 October 2007 the Świdnica Regional Court dismissed his appeal.\n9.  On 5 November 2007 the applicant was served with the judgment with its written grounds. The court informed him at the same time that he had sixty days as of the date of the service of the judgment (until 5 January 2008) to lodge a cassation appeal.\n10.  In his letter of 28 December 2007, received by the court on 31 December 2007, the applicant requested the court to appoint a legal‑aid lawyer for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal.\n11.  On 9 January 2008 the applicant was granted legal aid. In a letter of the same date the court requested the Wałbrzych Regional Bar Association to assign a legal-aid lawyer to the case. This letter was served on the addressee on 14 January 2008. A legal-aid lawyer was assigned to the case on the same day.\n12.  In his fax of 25 January 2008 to the Świdnica Regional Court the applicant requested the court to extend the statutory time limit for lodging the cassation appeal in his case. He explained that he had been trying to find a lawyer; to no avail. Finally, he stated that he was “delighted with the legal-aid lawyer assigned to his case, who was superb”.\n13.  In a letter of 24 January 2007 to the Świdnica Regional Court, the legal-aid lawyer stated that she had found no points of law on which a cassation appeal in the applicant's case could be based and submitted a legal opinion as to why a cassation appeal did not, in her view, offer any prospects of success. A copy of that letter was sent to the applicant on the next day.\n14.  In his letter of 30 January 2008, served on the Świdnica Regional Court on 1 February 2008, the applicant requested that the case be re‑examined by that court. The applicant also applied to have the power of attorney of the defendant enterprise invalidated for the purpose of safeguarding the equality of arms in the proceedings as he intended to present his case to the court without legal representation.\n15.  By a letter of 28 February 2008 the President of the Labour Division of the Świdnica Regional Court informed the applicant that there were no grounds on which to envisage a re-examination of the case in which a final and valid judicial decision had been given.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5562", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Košice.\n5.  On 13 January 2000 the applicant's former husband lodged an action against the applicant for distribution of matrimonial property.\n6.  On 10 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice II District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded the applicant the equivalent of 876 euros (at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ordered the District Court to proceed and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.\n7.  On 15 March 2006 it rejected the applicant's fresh complaint about the length of these proceedings as being manifestly ill-founded.\n8.  On 8 December 2009 the District Court delivered a judgment in the case. The applicant appealed and the proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5563", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Jastrzębie Zdrój.\nA  The criminal proceedings\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 2 May 1990 the applicant was arrested by the police and detained on remand.\n8.  On 31 May 1991 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) convicted the applicant of homicide and sentenced him to twelve years' imprisonment and a fine, to be paid to a charity. The court also sentenced the applicant to four years' deprivation of his civic rights.\n9.  The applicant appealed. On 17 December 1991 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal.\n10.  The applicant served the twelve-year sentence during the following periods: from 2 May 1990 to 14 February 1993; from 17 February 1993 to 20 June 1993; from 18 September 1993 to 31 January 1995; from 12 April 1995 to 22 May 1999; and from 10 October 2001 to 6 March 2005.\n11.  On 22 September 1994 the applicant was convicted of burglary by the Dąbrowa Górnicza District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) and sentenced to two years and three months' imprisonment. That judgment was partly upheld on appeal by the Katowice Regional Court on 22 December 1994. The applicant served this sentence between 7 May 2005 and 7 August 2007.\n12.  On 25 September 2005 the applicant, who was at that time serving his sentence in the Katowice Detention Centre, unsuccessfully attempted to vote in the parliamentary elections. On the same date he wrote a “declaration” in which he complained to the Katowice Local Electoral Commission (Obwodowa Komisja Wyborcza) about not being allowed to vote. The following handwritten note, accompanied by a stamp of the Katowice Local Electoral Commission and an illegible signature, was made on the applicant's declaration:\n“On 25 September 2005 Mr Leszek Hinczewski came to cast his vote. He did not vote, however, because he was still deprived of his civic rights and his name had been deleted from the list of voters. The Municipal Office was consulted and confirmed that it had been notified by the Katowice Regional Court [about the applicant's conviction in] case IVK 165/90. The date of notification: 22 August 2005.”\n13.  On 9 July 2006 the applicant sent the Court a letter from the Sosnowiec Detention Centre. The envelope in which the letter was delivered to the Registry bears the following stamp: “Będzin District Court Censored” (Sąd Rejonowy w Będzinie Cenzurowano) and an illegible signature. An identical stamp “Bedzin District Court Censored” with an illegible signature can be found on the second page of the applicant's letter addressed to the Registrar. The envelope bears signs of having been opened: its right side has been cut open and then resealed with sellotape.\n14.  The applicant submitted that his letter from the Ombudsman had been interfered with by the authorities. He provided the original envelope in which the letter was delivered to him. The envelope bears the stamp of the sender, the Office of the Ombudsman in Warsaw, and is postmarked 27 July 2005. According to other stamps, it appears that the letter arrived at the Sosnowiec Detention Centre on 1 August 2005 (Areszt Śledczy w Sosnowcu), and was then sent to the Dabrowa Gornicza District Prosecutor (Prokuratura Rejonowa... Dabrowa Gornicza), who returned it to the Detention Centre on 11 August 2005. On the stamp of the Dabrowa Gornicza District Prosecutor there is a handwritten note: “Censored” (Ocenzurowano) and an illegible sign", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5564", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1981.\n8.  On 28 January 2004 the Radom Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to 25 years' imprisonment as a recidivist offender. The applicant appealed. On 14 April 2005 the Lublin Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment. On the same day the applicant's lawyer, who represented him under the legal-aid scheme, requested the court to prepare written grounds for the judgment of the appellate court and stated that this request should be regarded as an announcement of an upcoming cassation appeal against it.\n9.  On 25 April 2005 the same lawyer requested the court to release him from the obligation to represent the applicant since the applicant had announced that he had lost confidence in him.\n10.  On 19 May 2005 the applicant lodged with the Lublin Court of Appeal a motion to have a new legal-aid lawyer assigned to the case. On 13 June 2005 the court allowed his request, assigned Mr J. Ż. to represent the applicant and ordered the registry to serve the written grounds of the judgment of 14 April 2005 on the lawyer.\n11.  The lawyer was served with the grounds on 20 June 2005.\n12.  In a letter to the applicant, dated 14 July 2005 the Lublin Court of Appeal informed the applicant that Mr J. Ż. had found no grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal. The relevant passage of the letter read as follows:\n“I inform you that the legal-aid lawyer assigned to prepare a cassation appeal against the ... judgment of 14 April 3005, advocate Mr J. Ż. submitted a letter to the court that he had found no grounds, stipulated in Article 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on which to prepare a cassation appeal in the present case. Accordingly, I am obliged to inform you that Article 84 of that Code confers on a defence counsel a right to issue such an opinion and that no regulations are available which would empower the court to compel a legal-aid lawyer to prepare a cassation appeal ... Therefore the Court of appeal will abstain from taking any further measures in the present case, having found that the convicted person's defence rights were properly guaranteed through legal-aid assistance having been granted in the case.”", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5565", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Rogoźno.\n7.  After the applicant's husband had died in April 2002, she instituted proceedings in which she claimed her widow's pension. On 25 September 2002 the Poznań Social Security Board dismissed the applicant's request. On 24 April 2006 the Poznań District Court dismissed her appeal against that decision. On 11 October 2006 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed the applicant's further appeal.\n8.  On 13 October 2006 the applicant requested to be served with the written grounds to that judgment. They were served on her on 6 November 2006.\n9.  On 27 December 2006 the applicant requested the court to assign a legal-aid lawyer to the case with a view to lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n10.  On 12 January 2007 the Poznań Regional Court allowed the applicant's request for legal aid. On 17 January 2007 the Poznań Bar Association assigned a lawyer to the case. On 23 January 2007 the Poznań Regional Court informed the applicant accordingly.\n11.  In a letter to the court dated 9 February 2007 the lawyer explained that she saw no grounds on which to prepare a cassation complaint in the applicant's case.\n12.  On 20 March 2007 the court informed the applicant about the lawyer's refusal and that the time‑limit for the lodging of a cassation complaint had expired on 6 January 2007. The court's letter was served on the applicant on 23 March 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5566", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Lyubertsy, Moscow Region.\n6.  On 23 May 2001 D., who was the director general of a commercial bank, was kidnapped by four men. They took him to a park outside the city where they took the cash they found on him, his watch and mobile phone, and the keys and documents for his car, a Toyota Land Cruiser. Later the same day one of the kidnappers stole D.'s car from the garage. The kidnappers then released D., who reported the incident to the police.\n7.  On 14 March 2002 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of involvement in D.'s kidnapping. According to the applicant, the police stopped the car in which he was travelling with two other persons. The applicant was asleep in the back seat of the car. He had no shoes or jacket on. The policemen pulled him out of the car, put his arms behind his back and handcuffed him. They then pushed him to the ground and kicked and punched him. His ear started bleeding from one of the blows.\n8.  The police operation lasted over three hours. The temperature was no more than 20C. The applicant was not allowed to put his jacket or shoes on. His feet were numb with cold.\n9.  The applicant was then taken to a police station to take part in an identification parade in front of D. The applicant waived his right to be represented during the parade. D. identified him as one of the kidnappers. According to the applicant, the identification parade was carried out with numerous procedural violations. In particular, it was held at night between 2.25 and 2.45 a.m. D. was not asked before the parade for a description of the alleged kidnappers; D. saw the applicant, who was handcuffed, in the hallway of the police station before the parade; two other participants were easily distinguishable from the applicant (M. was nine years older and six centimetres taller and K. was eleven years younger). Besides, the applicant had a swollen face and was wearing creased and dirty clothes.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with kidnapping, robbery, extortion and organising a criminal gang and placed in custody pending the investigation and trial.\n11.  On an unspecified day the Moscow City Court started hearing the case in respect of the applicant and three other defendants.\n12.  D. testified during the trial. He identified the defendants, including the applicant, as the people who had kidnapped him. He also denied having seen the applicant in the hallway of the police station before the identification parade. D. claimed that he had a very clear recollection of the face of his kidnappers.\n13.  The applicant claimed that on 23 May 2001, the day D. was kidnapped, he had been at his friends' place at a birthday party. His alibi was confirmed by his mother and six other persons, who testified on his behalf in court. He further asked the court to obtain from the investigator the photographs that had been taken by his friends at the party on 23 May 2001 and the negatives. The court dismissed his request as unsubstantiated.\n14.  On 30 June 2004 the Moscow City Court found the applicant guilty of organising a criminal gang, robbery and kidnapping and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. The court relied on D.'s testimony, which was supported by the statements made by other witnesses, including the police officers in charge of the investigation phase, and forensic evidence. As regards the evidence of the witnesses called by the applicant, the court rejected ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5567", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975. Before his imprisonment he had been living in Staryy Krym.\n6.  On 26 February 2005 the Prosecutor's Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Prosecutor's Office”) instituted criminal proceedings into allegations that the applicant, a police officer at the time, had abused his power. The applicant was suspected of having abused his police power which resulted, inter alia, in the ill-treatment of suspects he had been working with and unlawful searches of their homes.\n7.  On 28 February 2005 the applicant was arrested on this account.\n8.  On 3 March 2005 the applicant was brought before the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol (“the District Court”) which decided to extend the applicant's detention until 10 March 2005. The District Court also ordered the Prosecutor's Office to find more information on the applicant's personality, his state of health, his role in the alleged crime, so that it could reach a reasoned decision regarding the applicant's further detention.\n9.  On 10 March 2005 the District Court extended the applicant's detention for two months, stating that he had been charged with a serious crime and, if at liberty, could impede the investigation. The District Court rejected the applicant's contention that, for health reasons, he could not be detained in custody, noting that the evidence presented in that respect had been unreliable.\n10.  On 22 March 2005, following an appeal by the applicant, the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the decision of 10 March 2005.\n11.  On 26 April 2005, following a submission by the Prosecutor's Office, the District Court extended the applicant's detention until 28 June 2005, stating that he had been charged with a serious crime and, if at liberty, could impede the investigation.\n12.  On 17 May 2005, having considered an appeal by the applicant against the decision of 26 April 2005, the Court of Appeal rejected it as unsubstantiated. It stated, however, that, under the applicable rules, the applicant's detention could only be extended to 26 June 2005 and therefore amended the decision of 26 April 2005 accordingly.\n13.  On 24 June 2005 the Prosecutor's Office referred the case file to the Chairman of the Court of Appeal to determine which trial court would consider the applicant's case.\n14.  On 4 July 2005 the Chairman of the Court of Appeal referred the case to the Feodosiya Town Court (“the Town Court”) for trial.\n15.  On 10 August 2005 the Town Court committed the applicant for trial. It also upheld the preventive measure applied to the applicant (detention in custody). No time-limit or reasons for the applicant's further detention were offered in that decision.\n16.  On 4 January 2006, having examined the case, the Town Court found the applicant guilty of abuse of power and sentenced him to five years and six months' imprisonment. The court also prohibited the applicant from occupying law-enforcement posts for three years and ordered his property to be confiscated. The applicant appealed.\n17.  On 20 January 2006 the local newspaper “T.” published an interview with the Prosecutor of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Mr Sh. The interview was entitled “The criminals will be put in prison”. In the interview Mr Sh. stated, in particular, the following:\n“... The criminal proceedings have been instituted against three police officers of the Kirovskyy Police Department — Mr Znaykin, Mr M., and Mr V. — wh", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5568", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Grozny.\n8.  According to the applicant, he experiences difficulties in reconstructing the events during and following his detention coherently and chronologically. On account of his ill-treatment in custody, the applicant suffers from memory lapses. He also finds it psychologically difficult to recall the details of the abusive treatment he was subjected to in detention.\n9.  The applicant owned real estate consisting of a house and outhouses at 94 Flotskaya Street, the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny. At the material time he lived there alone, since his relatives had left the Chechen Republic after the renewal of hostilities in October 1999. The applicant remained in Grozny to look after the house and other possessions. The latter comprised personal belongings of the applicant and his relatives, furniture, an audio system, a satellite dish, two Subaru vehicles and an Oldsmobile car. Between late 1999 and early 2000 the applicant lived in the house only occasionally because of frequent attacks. From late January 2000 onwards he lived there permanently.\n10.  At the material time the applicant, a school teacher by profession, was working in a “burial group” (группа захоронения) for the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Situations of the Chechen Republic (Министерство Чеченской Республики по делам гражданской обороны и чрезвычайным ситуация). He was also helping the residents of the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny to obtain drinking water and food.\n11.  On 5 March 2000, at around 10 a.m., the applicant was distributing drinking water among the residents of the Oktyabrskiy District when a group of federal servicemen in two UAZ vehicles arrived and enquired as to how they could get to a certain street. The applicant and some other residents explained to them how to find that street, but the commander of the group asked the applicant to come with them and show them the way. The applicant agreed. The applicant submitted eyewitness statements by two residents of the Oktyabrskiy District confirming the above-mentioned episode.\n12.  When the servicemen arrived at the street they were looking for, the applicant asked them to let him out. Instead, the military hit the applicant in the kidneys and put a bag over his head. They ordered him to be silent and delivered him to the Temporary Office of the Interior of the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny (“the Oktyabrskiy VOVD”, временный отдел внутренних дел Октябрьского района г. Грозного). According to the applicant, the officers who apprehended him could not know his identity because they did not check his identity papers.\n(ii)  The applicant's detention on 5 March 2000\n13.  At the Oktyabrskiy VOVD the officers intimidated and ill-treated the applicant for several hours. In particular, they severely beat him, cut his hair and forced him to chew and swallow it, pressed a red-hot nail into his hands, forehead, nostrils and tongue and carved a derogatory word “Chichik” on his forehead with a nail or knife.\n14.  The officers also questioned the applicant, but made no written record of the interrogation. They asked the applicant where he had fought as a rebel fighter and why there was a list of names in his pocket. The applicant replied that he was a teacher, had never fought and that the list included the residents of the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny to whom he distributed water. It appears that the officers did not believe him. They told him that he would", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5569", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants in application no. 27315/06 are:\nThe applicant in application no. 27449/06 is:\n7.  All applicants live in the Chechen Republic (Chechnya), Russia.\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  The applicants belong to two families. Their two male relatives were detained in two separate incidents in 2003 and 2002 in Lenina Street in the village of Katyr-Yurt (also spelled as Katar-Yurt), in the Achkhoy-Martan district of Chechnya, and subsequently disappeared. The first six applicants were present during the abduction of their relative. The seventh applicant was not an eyewitness to the events and her account is based on testimonies collected by her in the aftermath of the disappearance.\n10.  The first applicant is a sister of Khamzat Merzhoyev, who was born in 1963. The second applicant is his wife. The third to sixth applicants are the children of Khamzat Merzhoyev and the second applicant.\n11.  At the material time the first six applicants, Khamzat Merzhoyev and other relatives lived in two houses at no. 129 Lenina Street (in the documents submitted, the address is also stated as 167 Lenina Street or 167 Kadyrova Street) in Katyr-Yurt. The settlement was under curfew.\n12.  On the night of 23 November 2003 the first applicant, her mother and the second, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants were sleeping in the first house. The first applicant shared a room with her mother. The second applicant and her children were in another room. The third applicant, Khamzat Merzhoyev and his elderly father, Mr M.M., who subsequently died, were sleeping in the second house.\n13.  At about 3 a.m. a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants' gate in several armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and military UAZ cars. Four tall men wearing body armour emerged from the vehicles and burst into the first house. They entered the first applicant and her mother's room and told them to be quiet in unaccented Russian. The women thought that the intruders were Russian servicemen. The men then took the second applicant and her children to the first room. After a warning that a bomb was hidden under the porch, they ordered the women to remain seated and not to leave the house. Some two minutes later the men walked out.\n14.  In the meantime, at around 2 a.m. in the second house the third applicant had switched off the television before going to bed. He went to Mr M.M.'s bedroom. Some five minutes later three or four tall men in camouflage uniforms broke into the house. The third applicant thought that they were servicemen. One of them put his rifle barrel to the applicant's neck. The men then pulled Mr M.M. from his couch. While he was trying to get up, they flailed him with a rifle butt. The applicant begged the men to leave Mr M.M. alone. Instead, one of the men slapped the applicant on his neck and shoulders three or four times. Another man tied up the applicant's hands, legs and mouth with adhesive tape. The same was done to Mr M.M. The men ordered the applicant not to leave home and, after spending about ten minutes there, went away.\n15.  At the same time the third applicant heard a noise coming from Khamzat Merzhoyev's room, as if there was a fight. The applicant thought that the servicemen were trying to arrest his father. They took Khamzat Merzhoyev outside, put him in one of the vehicles and drove away in an unknown direction.\n16.  As soon as the men departed, the third appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5570", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Irkutsk.\n5.  In 1989 the applicant's husband received a fatal work-related injury. In 1990 the applicant was granted compensation by her husband's former employer, a private company (“the company”).\n6.  On 10 March 1997 the applicant brought court proceedings against the company, following numerous re-calculations of the amount to be paid and regular failures of the company to effectuate the payments. In particular, she sought compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, penalties for the belated payments and indexation of such payments and re-calculation of monthly payments with subsequent indexation.\n7.  On 11 February 1998 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Irkutsk (“the District Court”) granted the applicant's claims in part. The judgment was set aside on appeal on 26 June 1998 by the Irkutsk Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) which required a new hearing of the case. The appeal court also issued a special statement reprimanding the judge in charge of the applicant's case for erroneous application of the law that resulted in the quashing of the judgment and delays in the proceedings.\n8.  Once back at the trial court, the case was assigned to judge V., and on 7 December 1998 it was transferred for unspecified reasons to judge T.\n9.  On 16 December 1998 the hearing did not take place as the respondent failed to appear.\n10.  On 24 March 1999 the hearing again did not take place due to the judge's illness.\n11.  On 13 August 1999 the respondent's representative requested to adjourn the proceedings as he was ill. The proceedings were adjourned to 18 October 1999 with account of the judge's vacation. The parties were requested to provide some additional evidence.\n12.  On 18 October 1999 the proceedings again were adjourned at the respondent's representative's request. The respondent was notified that in the event of a default in appearance on 30 November 1999 the case would be examined in its absence.\n13.  On 30 November 1999 the court invited the applicant to provide some additional evidence and adjourned the hearing to 7 February 2000.\n14.  On 7 February 2000 at the applicant's request the hearing was adjourned to 21 April 2000. On the latter date the hearing did not take place as the judge was away for training.\n15.  The hearing of 7 June 2000 did not take place due to the judge's illness.\n16.  On 28 October 2000 the case was transmitted back to judge V.\n17.  On 27 December 2000 the hearing was adjourned to 14 February 2001 at the respondent's representative's request.\n18.  On 22 February 2001 the applicant submitted the amended claims and calculations.\n19.  On 27 June 2001 the hearing was adjourned as the respondent's representative requested the court to obtain certain evidence.\n20.  From 31 July to 10 December 2001 no hearings were scheduled due to the judge's illness and subsequent vacation.\n21.  On 25 January 2002 the hearing did not take place as the applicant's representative failed to appear.\n22.  The hearing of 4 March 2002 was adjourned on account of a need to obtain certain evidence.\n23.  On 10 April 2002 the case was transferred to judge P., again for unspecified reasons. A hearing was scheduled for 29 August 2002.\n24.  Between 29 August and 15 October 2002 three hearings did not take place due to the applicant's failure to appear.\n25.  On 13 November 2002 the District Court granted the applicant's claims in part awarding her a lump sum of 7,311 Russian roubles (RUB), ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5572", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Sofia. She was married to a Kenyan national, Mr Robert Karandja, who died in 1993. In 1977 they had a son, Mr Peter Robert Karandja, who died on 7 June 1997 after being shot by the police on 5 June 1997.\n6.  Two sets of criminal proceedings were opened against Mr Karandja on unspecified dates in 1995. In the first set he was charged, together with two others, with breaking into a car on 15 December 1994 and stealing 706 pairs of stockings with a total value of 15,120 Bulgarian levs (equivalent at the material time to approximately 1,000 United States dollars). In the second set he was charged with driving a car without a valid licence on 10 October 1995. He has not been convicted of other offences and there is no indication that other charges have ever been lodged against him.\n7.  On 18 December 1996 the Sofia District Court revoked Mr Karandja's earlier release on bail and ordered his pre‑trial detention. As a result, he was put on the list of persons wanted by the police.\n8.  Mr Karandja was arrested on 5 June 1997. He was placed in a cell in the Third District Police Station in Sofia. After 7 p.m. the police tried to transfer him to Bobov Dol Prison. However, the escort brigade refused to take him in their custody because it was late and at about 8 p.m. he was returned to the police station. The on‑duty officers – Chief Sergeant G.P. and Captain V.S. – placed Mr Karandja in a cell on the third floor of the station. The Chief Sergeant searched him, but did not handcuff him because he looked “calm and was not boisterous”. Mr Karandja's shoe laces were removed and the door of the cell was closed.\n9.  At about 8.30 p.m. Mr Karandja managed to open the door of the cell, apparently by forcing one the chains which was keeping it closed, rammed Chief Sergeant G.P. with it, and ran down the stairs and out of the building. Once outside, he continued to run down the streets adjacent to the police station. The Chief Sergeant chased after him.\n10.  The escape from the police station was witnessed by Major N.C. and Captain V.S. However, neither they nor any other officers assisted Chief Sergeant G.P. in the chase.\n11.  The chase continued down Pirotska Street. When Mr Karandja reached the intersection with Konstantin Velichkov Boulevard, where he attempted to cross, Chief Sergeant G.P., according to his later statement, drew out his handgun and fired a warning shot in the air. Mr Karandja did not stop, dodged the traffic, crossed the boulevard and continued to run towards the city centre. Chief Sergeant G.P. continued the chase and ran down Pirotska Street. According to his later statement, he carried on shouting at Mr Karandja to stop and fired two more warning shots in the air. Mr Karandja then turned down Zaychar Street, followed by Chief Sergeant G.P. who ran after him in the middle of the street.\n12.  Before turning into Zaychar Street, Mr Karandja was spotted by two officers, Chief Sergeants I.I. and T.B., who were in a patrol car travelling from the opposite direction. The officers later stated that they had seen Mr Karandja running towards them and then turning into Zaychar Street. They also stated that they had seen Chief Sergeant G.P. running after him, shouting at him to stop, and firing two or three times in the air. The patrol car followed the two of them down Zaychar Street.\n13.  Somewhere around that time, the chase was witnessed by Chief Sergeant A.V. who was going to the police stati", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5573", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Kerava. The second applicant was born in 1949 and was resident in Helsinki at the time of his death. The applicant company is based in Helsinki. The first applicant is a journalist and the second applicant was the editor-in-chief of the newspaper called Ilta-Sanomat which was published at the time of the events by the publishing company Sanoma Osakeyhtiö. On 1 January 2005 Sanoma Osakeyhtiö transferred all its business relating to the publishing of Ilta-Sanomat, including court cases, to the applicant company. The newspaper has a circulation of approximately 200,000.\n6.  On 3 February 2000, during the presidential election campaign, the applicant company published a short article, written by the first applicant and approved by the second applicant, entitled “The ex-husband of [R.U.] and the person in charge of communications for the Aho campaign have found each other”.\n7.  The article stated that P.N., who had separated from his wife, had found a new partner, O.T. P.N.'s wife was known as a political reporter in the election-related TV debates and previously as a news reader. It was mentioned in the article that O.T. was in charge of communications for the Aho campaign and that, in her civilian life, O.T. was the communications manager in a specified pension insurance company and a mother.\n8.  The article went on to state that, before joining the campaign, O.T. had been active in the same political party as P.N. and that she had been involved in some “insider committees”. The article continued to note that P.N. worked as a director for Finnpro, the company promoting Finnish exports, and that in the 1990s he had been posted in New York, where his wife had followed him, taking leave from her own job. The article stated that P.N. and his wife had two children and that they had separated in the autumn of 1999. Pictures of O.T. and P.N.'s wife were included in the article.\n9.  On 13 March 2000 O.T. asked the police to investigate the matter. She requested compensation for suffering and distress and for financial losses.\n10.  On 4 July 2001 the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicants under Chapter 27, section 3(a), of the Penal Code. O.T. concurred with the charges and pursued a compensation claim against all the applicants, which was joined to the criminal charges.\n11.  On 1 February 2002 the Forssa District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) convicted the applicants for having violated O.T.'s private life. The first applicant was sentenced to a fine of 270 euros (EUR) and the second applicant to a fine of EUR 650. The applicants were jointly ordered to pay damages to O.T. for suffering amounting to EUR 5,045.64 and her legal fees and witness costs amounting to EUR 6,500, both sums with interest.\n12.  The court found that O.T., despite her position in the presidential campaign, was not a public figure and that her relationship with P.N. was not such that the applicants would have been allowed to write about it without her consent. The information published, however accurate, was not necessary for examining any matter of interest to society.\n13.  The applicants appealed to the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) claiming that, due to her position in the presidential campaign and as a local politician, O.T. was a so-called public figure, that the facts in the article were true and that the issue was important for public discussion since one of the main focuses of t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5574", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Nadarzyn.\n6. On 8 March 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of numerous counts of forgery of identity documents (including passports) committed in an organised criminal group.\n7.  On 10 March 2006 the applicant was remanded in custody by a decision of the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The court based its detention order on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and on the severity of the likely penalty. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he could go into hiding, particularly as he had had at his disposal a number of forged identity documents.\n8.  The applicant's appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and his subsequent applications for release were unsuccessful.\n9.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged by decisions of the Warsaw District Court delivered on 1 June, 30 August and 24 November 2006, 21 February and 10 July 2007. In the decision of 1 June the court stressed that an expertise on several documents, due at the end of May, had not yet been submitted.\nIn all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses. They attached importance to the fact that they had been committed in an organised criminal group. They further stressed that the applicant, if released, could cross the Polish border with ease, having established contacts with criminal groups abroad. In that respect they stressed that the applicant had access to forged identity documents which could help him flee Poland and establish a new identity abroad. Lastly, the courts found no special grounds, as specified in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that would justify lifting the detention and imposing a more lenient measure.\n10.  In the meantime, on 3 July 2007, the bill of indictment against the applicant and four other defendants was lodged with the Warsaw District Court. It appears that three defendants, including the applicant, were charged with offences committed in an organised criminal group.\n11.  On 9 January 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) further extended the applicant's detention.\n12.  On 15 February 2008 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held, until 24 October 2008, some seventeen hearings in the case.\n13.  During the court proceedings the applicant's detention was further prolonged by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 4 March 2008. The court repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's continued detention.\n14.  On 3 July 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal lifted the applicant's detention. The court decided that the applicant could be released under police supervision and a prohibition on his leaving the country.\n15.  Following the introduction of additional charges of organising illegal border crossings, the applicant was again arrested in the same set of criminal proceedings. It appears that he was arrested on 5 February 2009 and on 7 February 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) remanded him in custody.\n16.  The applicant's detention was further extended by decisions of the Warsaw Regional Court delivered on 27 April and 27 July 2009. The applicant's ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5575", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Zamostne. The applicant is the legal successor of his mother, Mrs K.A.P., who died in May 2003.\n6.  On 1 September 1944 a property owned by L.B. – the applicant's grandfather and the father of K.A.P.- M.B. and H.L., was taken over by the State pursuant to provisions of the Decree of the Polish Committee of National Liberation on the Agricultural Reform of 6 September 1944 (Dekret PKWN o przeprowadzeniu reformy rolnej). No decision was delivered in the proceedings.\n7.  The applicant submits that on 16 October 1991 his mother, K.A.P., who was the legal successor of L.B., informed the Siedlecki Governor (Wojewoda Siedlecki) that she had undertaken certain steps seeking restitution of her property or pecuniary compensation in lieu.\n8.  It appears that the Governor informed the applicant's mother by a letter of 20 November 1991 that no laws regulating this matter had been enacted yet.\n9.  On 1 December 1995 K.A.P. lodged a request with the Minister of Agriculture and Food Economics (Minister Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej) for restitution of the property. She argued that the property in question had been unlawfully expropriated, since the 1944 Decree had entered into force on 13 September 1944, i.e. after the date of the expropriation.\n10.  On 9 January 1996 the Minister referred the case to the Siedlecki Governor.\n11.  On 19 February 1996 the Siedlecki Governor gave a decision on the expropriation of the property in question, confirming that the property had been taken over by the State on 1 September 1944.\n12.  On 27 February 1996 the applicant's mother appealed against the decision.\n13.  On 7 March 1996 she reiterated her arguments. She added that the property in question had comprised a brickyard, a distillery, a glass-works and a power station and, should have therefore been as such, exempted from expropriation within the framework of the agrarian reform law.\n14.  On 13 March 1996 the Minister of Agriculture informed K.A.P. that her appeal would be examined in the first quarter of 1997.\n15.  On 20 March 1996 K.A.P. lodged a complaint with the Council of Ministers (Rada Ministrów) about the inactivity of the Minister of Agriculture.\n16.  By a letter of 22 July 1996 the Office of the Council of Ministers (Biuro Rady Ministrów) requested the Minister of Agriculture to accelerate the proceedings.\n17.  On 7 July 1997 K.A.P. enquired about the state of the proceedings pending before the Minister of Agriculture.\n18.  On 11 August 1997 the Minister of Agriculture upheld the decision of 19 February 1996.\n19.  The applicant's mother appealed.\n20.  On 17 July 1998 she asked the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) about the state of the proceedings.\n21.  Subsequently, by a letter of 25 November 1998, she complained to the Ombudsman about the excessive length of the proceedings.\n22.  On 23 November 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed both the 1997 decision of the Minister of Agriculture and the preceding decision of the Siedlecki Governor. It held that the administrative authorities had failed to address the applicant's arguments concerning the non agricultural status of certain components of the property.\n23.  On 27 October 2000 the Lubelski Governor (the Siedleckie Province had ceased to exist in the meantime) gave a decision declaring that the property had been taken over by the State in 1944 without compensation.\n24.  On 17 November 2000 K.A.P. lodged an appea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5576", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Warszawa.\n5.  The applicant inherited a property from his ancestors (now divided into two plots of land - no. 209/1 and no. 224/1) located in Podkowa Leśna, Poland, at the crossroad of 11 Listopada Street and Wiązowa Street. It appears that on an unspecified date after World War II the possession of the land was transferred to the State.\n6.  On 1 January 1999 the applicant's land, which had remained, as of 31 December 1998, in the possession of the State and which had been expropriated for the purposes of constructing roads became ex lege the property of the local self-government authority in accordance with section 73 of the Act of 13 October 1998 – introductory provisions concerning acts reforming public administration (Ustawa - przepisy wprowadząjace ustawy reformujące administrację publiczną).\n7.  On 1 September 2003 the applicant asked the Podkowa Leśna Municipality Office (Urząd Miejski) for compensation for the expropriated land located at 11 Listopada Street. It appears that by this request the applicant claimed compensation for both plots of land, as the expropriated land is located at a junction where 11 Listopada Street crosses Wiązowa Street.\n8.  On 30 September 2003 the Podkowa Leśna Municipality Office informed the applicant that the legal status of the property in question had not yet been clarified. The applicant was also informed that compensation for expropriation would be paid following the adoption of the next year's budget.\n9.  On 6 July 2005 the applicant yet again requested compensation from the Podkowa Leśna Municipality Office.\n10.  On 9 August 2005 the Municipality Office informed the applicant that some uncertainty had arisen as to whether the compensation for the expropriated plots of land was to be paid by the Municipality or by the State Treasury. The applicant was further informed that the municipality had not yet lodged an application with the Governor (Wojewoda) for a decision confirming the transfer of ownership, which was necessary for the determination and payment of compensation.\n11.  On 6 February 2007 the applicant requested the Mazowiecki Governor to issue a decision confirming the transfer of ownership.\n12.  On 26 March 2007 the applicant complained to the Mazowiecki Governor about his inactivity and requested the Governor to deliver a decision in the proceedings.\n13.  On 2 May 2007 the Department of Geodesy of the Governor's Office informed the applicant that the Governor was not in possession of certain documents, necessary to take a decision.\n14.  On 8 May 2007 the Mazowiecki Governor Office referred the application for compensation to the Mayor of the Warsaw District Municipality (Starosta Powiatu Warszawskiego).\n15.  On 9 May 2007 the Mayor of the Warsaw Municipality referred the application to the Mayor of the Grodzisk Mazowiecki District Municipality (Starosta Powiatu Grodziskiego), being the competent authority to examine the case.\n16.  On 28 September 2007 the Mayor of the Grodzisk Mazowiecki District Municipality stayed the proceedings for compensation pending the termination of the above-mentioned proceedings confirming the transfer of ownership of the plots of land.\n17.  On 16 October 2007 the applicant requested the Mazowiecki Governor to accelerate the proceedings for delivery of the decision confirming the transfer of the ownership of the property.\n18.  On 18 October 2007 the applicant sent a letter to the Podkowa Leśna Municipality O", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5577", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first two applicants, Mrs Maria Atanasiu and Mrs Ileana Iuliana Poenaru, were born in 1912 and 1937 respectively and live in Bucharest. The third applicant, Mrs Ileana Florica Solon, was born in 1935 and lives in Bucharest.\n7.  Following the establishment of the communist regime in Romania in 1947, the State proceeded to nationalise buildings and agricultural land on a large scale.\n8.  One of the nationalisation decrees applicable in relation to immovable property was Decree no. 92/1950, under which buildings belonging to former industrialists, owners of large estates, bankers and owners of large trading enterprises were nationalised. Although this decree did not cover workers, civil servants, academics or retired persons, numerous properties belonging to those social categories were also nationalised. Between 1949 and 1962 virtually all agricultural land passed into the ownership of the agricultural cooperatives.\n9.  After the fall of the communist regime the State enacted a series of laws aimed at affording redress for breaches of property rights by the former regime.\n10.  Laws nos. 112/1995 and 10/2001 established the principle of restitution of nationalised immovable property and compensation in cases where restitution was no longer possible. Law no. 112/1995 introduced a cap on compensation, but this was subsequently abolished by Law no. 10/2001.\n11.  With regard to agricultural land, Laws nos. 18/1991, 169/1997 and 1/2000 increased successively the surface area of land that could be returned to its owners. The last of these laws established a right to compensation in respect of land which could no longer be returned.\n12.  Law no. 247/2005 harmonised the administrative procedures for restitution of properties covered by the above-mentioned laws.\n13.  According to a partial calculation made by the Government, over two million claims under the reparation laws have been registered; the amount needed to pay the corresponding compensation is estimated at twenty-one billion euros (EUR).\n14.  In 1950, under Decree no. 92, the State nationalised several buildings belonging to Mr Atanasiu, the first applicant's husband and the second applicant's father. One of the buildings was located at 189 Calea Dorobanţilor in Bucharest.\n(a)  Attempts to obtain restitution of the building on Calea Dorobanţilor\n15.  On 15 May 1996, relying on the provisions of Law no. 112/1995, Mr Atanasiu applied to the local board established to deal with applications lodged under that Law, seeking the return of the building. He received no response. On 25 October 1996 Mr Atanasiu died and the applicants were recognised as his sole successors in title.\n16.  Under the terms of contracts entered into in accordance with Law no. 112/1995, the company managing the building sold the nine flats located therein to the tenants.\n17.  On 15 November 1999 the applicants lodged a claim with the domestic courts for restitution of the building. They relied on the provisions of ordinary law concerning respect for the right of property and alleged that the nationalisation of the property had infringed Mr Atanasiu's legal rights. Subsequently, on the basis of a letter from Bucharest city council stating that three of the flats had not been sold, the applicants restricted their claim to that part of the building.\n18.  In a judgment of 24 March 2000 the Bucharest Court of First Instance allowed the claim and ordered that the above-mentioned part of the building be returned to the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5578", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Bierutów.\n6. On 8 March 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of numerous offences of assisting in the forgery of identity documents and aiding illegal border crossing, committed in an organised criminal group.\n7.  On 10 March 2006 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence and go into hiding, particularly as he had had at his disposal a number of forged identity documents.\n8.  The applicant's appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful.\n9.  It appears that between 8 August and 27 September 2006 the applicant served a sentence of fifty days' imprisonment ordered in another set of proceedings against him.\n10.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged by decisions of the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) delivered on 2 March and 1 June 2007. In the latter decision the court stressed that an expertise on several documents, due at the end of May, had not yet been submitted\n11.  On 3 July 2007 the bill of indictment against the applicant and four other defendants was lodged with the Warsaw District Court. It appears that three defendants, including the applicant, were charged with offences committed in an organised criminal group.\n12.  Further decisions extending the applicant's pre-trial detention were taken by the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 8 October 2007 and by the Warsaw District Court on 9 January 2008.\n13.  In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses. They attached importance to the fact that the offences had been committed in an organised criminal group. They further stressed that the applicant, if released, could easily abscond, having access to forged identity documents and being in contact with criminal groups abroad. In this respect the courts stressed that in the initial stage of the investigation the applicant had used a false identity and appeared under the name of Petro Polyansky, a Ukrainian national. Lastly, the courts found no special grounds, as specified in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that would justify lifting the detention.\nIn a decision of 9 January 2008 the Warsaw District Court stressed that two wanted notices had been issued in the applicant's case.\n14.  On 15 February 2008 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held, until 24 October 2008, some seventeen hearings in the case.\n15.  During the court proceedings the applicant's detention was further prolonged by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 4 March 2008. The court repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's continued detention.\n16.  On 3 July 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal lifted the applicant's detention. The court decided that the applicant could be released under police supervision and a prohibition on his leaving the country.\n17.  It seems that on 2 February 2009 the applicant was again arrested in the same s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5579", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, Mr Zygmunt Florczyk, Ms Grażyna Florczyk, Mr Wojciech Florczyk and Ms Maria Florczyk, are Polish nationals who were born in 1951, 1949, 1950 and 1974 respectively and live in Łódź and Cracow, Poland.\n7.  On 18 January 2002 the applicants requested the Cracow Municipal Office to pay compensation for part of their predecessor's plots of land which had been expropriated as a part of the land development plans, namely for the construction of a road.\n8.  On 9 August 2002 the Cracow Municipal Office requested the Małopolski Governor to issue a formal confirmation that the expropriation had taken place.\n9.  On 25 September 2002 the applicants submitted a copy of the Cracow District Court's decision declaring them successors as to 1/6 of the property of their predecessor in title.\n10.  On 12 May 2003 the Małopolski Governor informed the applicants that there had been a delay in the proceedings and that they would not end until 30 August 2003. The Governor also summoned them to submit certain documents.\n11.  On 12 May 2003 the applicants lodged a complaint with the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development about inactivity on the part of the Małopolski Governor. On 30 June 2003 the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development dismissed their complaint finding that the delay in the proceedings was caused by difficulties in finding other successors.\n12.  On 3 October 2003 the Cracow Municipal Office informed the applicants that the proceedings would lie dormant until the delivery of a decision by the Małopolski Governor.\n13.  On 17 November 2003 the applicants requested the Cracow Municipal Office to take action with a view of establishing the whereabouts of other parties to the proceedings.\n14.  On 27 November 2003 the Cracow Municipal Office informed the applicants that they had established a address of a certain W.P.\n15.  On 23 January 2004 the Governor informed the applicants about further delays in the proceedings and that they would not end until 23 March 2004.\n16.  On 23 March 2004 the Governor again informed the applicants about further delays in the proceedings.\n17.  On 21 May 2004 the Cracow Municipal Office informed the Governor of the addresses of two successors in title, W.P. and E.S-S.\n18.  In October 2004 the Governor requested the Cracow District Court to appoint a guardian for persons whose whereabouts remained unknown.\n19.  On 13 January 2005 the Cracow District Court stayed the proceedings since the Governor's representative had failed to comply with the court's order to submit certain information concerning the case. The proceedings were resumed on a later unknown date.\n20.  On 21 March 2005 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Cracow Regional Administrative Court about inactivity on the part of the Małopolski Governor. On 29 March 2006 the Cracow Regional Administrative Court allowed the applicants' complaint, held that the proceedings had not been conducted with necessary diligence and obliged the Governor to issue a decision on the merits.\n21.  On 11 July 2006 the Małopolski Governor informed the applicants about further delays in the proceedings.\n22.  On 25 October 2006 the Małopolski Governor appointed an expert to prepare an estimate of the value of plots.\n23.  On 12 December 2006 the Małopolski Governor gave a decision confirming that on 1 January 1999 the Cracow Municipality had acquired ownership of the property concerned which had been expropriated for the purposes ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5580", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lived in Voronezh until his arrest. He is now serving his sentence in the correctional colony in the town of Semiluki, Voronezh Region. The applicant is a former military officer.\n6.  On 12 July 2001 the bodies of two military officers were found at the checkpoint of a military unit. The officers had been brutally killed with an axe. The service gun of one of the officers had been stolen.\n7.  Four days later, on 16 July 2001, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of two counts of murder. He was taken to the Sovetskiy District police department in Voronezh where police officers allegedly spent several hours beating him up. According to the applicant, policemen offered him contaminated alcohol. While under the influence of alcohol he signed a statement confessing to the murder of the military officers.\n8.  Later on 16 July 2001 the applicant was placed in the Police department temporary detention centre. As follows from a letter sent by the head of the detention centre to the applicant’s lawyer on 21 November 2001, on admission to the centre the applicant was examined by a doctor, who recorded bruises on his nose and under both eyes. The doctor also noted that the injuries had been acquired prior to the applicant’s admission to the centre and that the applicant had not requested any medical assistance.\n9.  On the same day the applicant, questioned as a suspect in the murder investigation, complained to a military prosecutor that he had written the confession statement under violent duress by the police officers. The applicant, supported by his lawyer, Ms Bautina, requested the investigator to authorise a medical examination for him.\n10.  On 20 July 2001 a senior military prosecution investigator and a doctor examined the applicant in the presence of two attesting witnesses. According to the applicant, a police officer who had taken part in the beatings on 16 July 2001 escorted him to that medical examination and observed it. The senior investigator drew up a report, which in the relevant part read as follows:\n“The examination established:\n... fading bruises on the skin of the median third of the both shoulders, a fading bruise on the left infrascapular region, ([the bruise] was inflicted three to seven days ago). There is a subconjunctival haemorrhage in the pericorneal zone of the right eye ...”\n11.  On 19 December 2001 the case was committed for trial to the Military Court of the Fourth Circuit.\n12.  At the hearing on 4 July 2002 the applicant complained to the Military Court that he had been beaten up after his arrest and that the confession had been extracted from him under torture. In particular, the applicant stated that on 16 July 2001 he had been taken to the police department where three policemen had struck him and kicked him in the face and stomach. They had also thrown him against a wall several times. He had had no choice but to write that confession. After he had signed the statement, he had been given some vodka. A military prosecutor had questioned him in the presence of his lawyer and he had renounced the confession, alleging that it had been extracted under duress. On 20 July 2001 he had written another confession statement. The applicant stressed that he had not been beaten up, but he had been afraid that torture would have been applied if he had not confessed.\n13.  On 16 July 2002 the Military Court of the Fourth Circuit found the applicant guilty of two counts of manslaughter a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5581", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant lives in Imst, Austria.\n7.  The applicant is the co-owner of a plot of land in Lech, Austria which had been designated as building land (Bauland); one building had already been constructed on the land. On 22 July 1987 the Lech municipal authorities informed the applicant that they intended to modify the area zoning plan (Flächenwidmungsplan) and to designate the remaining part of the land as open land (Freihaltefläche) because, being located on a steep slope, they considered that the remaining part was not suitable for construction under the Vorarlberg Regional Planning Act (Raumplanungs‑gesetz).\n8.  On 6 August 1987 the applicant lodged an application for a building permit in order to construct a hotel on the plot of land at issue.\n9.  On 14 June 1988 the Lech municipal authorities issued a building prohibition in respect of the applicant's plot of land.\n10.  The Bludenz District Administrative Authority (“the District Administrative Authority”) (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) held a hearing on 23 September 1988 concerning the applicant's application for a building permit.\nOn 4 July 1991 the Lech municipal authorities extended the building prohibition.\n11.  On 31 July 1991 the applicant lodged an application for a transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) because the District Administrative Authority had not reached a decision within the statutory six-month time-limit.\n12.  The Vorarlberg Regional Government (“the Regional Government”) allowed that application on 10 October 1991 but dismissed the applicant's application for a building permit on the ground that the permit would contravene the building prohibition. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court.\n13.  On 19 March 1992 Lech Municipal Council (“the Municipal Council”) issued a decree determining the maximum building density (Baunutzungszahl) for the category of land which included the applicant's land, and on 2 July 1992 it lifted the building prohibition. The applicant thereupon asked the Regional Government to reopen the building permit proceedings.\n14.  On 28 September 1992 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint against the decision of 10 October 1991. It found that the building prohibition was lawful.\n15.  On 29 September 1992 the Regional Government dismissed the request to reopen the building permit proceedings. The applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court.\n16.  On 28 January 1993 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. It found that the conditions for reopening the building permit proceedings had not been met. That decision was served on 24 February 1993.\n17.  The applicant requested a partition of land (Grundstücksteilung) on 26 September 1995, but withdrew this request on 30 April 1996.\n18.  On 11 November 1996 the applicant lodged a fresh application for a building permit to enable him to carry out construction work on his land.\n19.  On 26 February 1997 the District Administrative Authority informed the applicant of the Lech municipal authorities' submissions to the effect that the maximum building density laid down by the decree of 19 March 1992 did not allow the construction of another building on his plot of land. The applicant commented on this information. After the Lech municipal authorities had submitted further comments on 6 October 1997, the applicant asked the District Administrative Authority to decide on his application.\n20.  On 25 June 1997 the Municipal Counci", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5582", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Dachne village in Crimea.\n6.  On 23 March 2004 a massive fight between youngsters took place in the centre of Simferopol in which a number of persons sustained injuries varying from slight to serious.\n7.  On the same day the applicant was questioned by the police as a witness at the hospital where he had accompanied a friend who had been injured in the fight.\n8.  In March and April 2004 the applicant was summoned by and appeared before the investigator on a number of occasions.\n9.  On 28 April 2004 the applicant, having been questioned as a witness by the investigator, was detained on police premises on suspicion of armed hooliganism in respect of the events of 23 March 2004.\n10.  On 1 May 2004 the Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopol (“the Kyivskyy Court”), in allowing the investigator's application, remanded the applicant in custody and rejected a request by him to be placed instead under an undertaking not to abscond. The court gave as grounds for that decision the seriousness of the charges against the applicant, his mediocre character reference from the university where he was studying, his medical fitness for detention, and the risk that he might abscond or impede the investigation if at liberty. Although the management of the school from which he had graduated two years earlier and the authorities of the village where he had been living before his arrest gave the applicant positive character references, the court decided that they “could not provide grounds for the rejection of the [investigator's] application, as law-abiding behaviour is a requisite for life in society, and not an exception to the rule.”\n11.  On 5 May 2004, in the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Crimea Court of Appeal”), the applicant's lawyer challenged the detention of his client, arguing that the applicant had a permanent place of residence, positive character references, suffered from Vitiligo (a chronic disorder which causes depigmentation in patches of skin) which could worsen in detention, and that he had no criminal record. He further noted that the applicant had always appeared voluntarily before the investigator and that his parents could pay bail for his release.\n12.  On 18 May 2004 the Crimea Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, referring to the seriousness of the charges brought against the applicant.\n13.  On 15 June 2004 the Kyivskyy Court extended the term of his detention to 28 August 2004 on grounds of the necessity to complete the investigation, the seriousness of the charges and the inherent risk that the applicant would abscond, influence witnesses or reoffend.\n14.  On 22 June 2004 the applicant was provided access to the case file.\n15.  On 16 July 2004 the Crimea Court of Appeal extended his detention to 28 November 2004 following a request by the investigator, who maintained that the other co-accused needed more time to study the case file. The court rejected a request by the applicant to be released under an undertaking not to abscond, on grounds of the seriousness of the charges and the risk that he would abscond.\n16.  In August 2004 the investigation was completed and the applicant, together with the other co-accused, was committed for trial.\n17.  On 13 September 2004 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol (“the Tsentralnyy Court”) held a preparatory hearing during which the applicant again asked to be released under an undertaking not to abscond. He argued", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5583", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Baku.\n6.  The applicant was the owner of non-residential premises with an area of 350 square metres situated in Baku (“the Premises”). The ownership certificate relative to the Premises was delivered to the applicant on 17 July 1998 and her ownership right was duly registered in official records.\n7.  Since 1993 the Premises had been occupied by Police Station no. 17 of the Narimanov District Police Department (“the Police Station”).\n8.  The applicant wrote numerous letters to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Baku City Executive Authority, the Ombudsman's Office, and other public authorities, complaining of unlawful occupation of the Premises by the Police Station. In 2002 and 2003, the applicant was informed by letters from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Baku City Executive Authority that the Police Station would vacate the Premises as soon as it was provided with other premises by the Ministry of Economic Development.\n9.  On 13 May 2003 the applicant lodged a lawsuit with the Narimanov District Court claiming that she was the lawful owner of the Premises and asking the court to order the eviction of the Police Station.\n10.  On 3 July 2003 the Narimanov District Court granted the applicant's request. The court held that the applicant was the lawful owner of the Premises on the basis of the ownership certificate of 17 July 1998 and that there was no legal basis for the installation of the Police Station there. Moreover, the court stated that the Ministry of Economic Development should provide the Police Station with other premises.\n11.  No appeals were filed against that judgment and, pursuant to domestic law, it became enforceable within one month after its delivery.\n12.  According to the case file, between 2003 and 2006 the Ministry of Economic Development offered the Police Station different premises. However the Head of the Police Station refused to move to those premises stating that they were not suitable for a police station.\n13.  On 10 November 2008 the Narimanov District Executive Authority allocated a plot of land for the construction of a building for the Police Station.\n14.  In 2009 the Ministry of Internal Affairs commenced an action against the applicant challenging the lawfulness of the applicant's ownership rights in respect of the Premises. On 8 April 2009 the Narimanov District Court rejected the Ministry's claim. The court found that the Ministry of Internal Affairs had no right to lodge a claim concerning the Premises, that the time-limits provided for challenging the applicant's ownership right in respect of the Premises had expired, and that the matter was res judicata as the applicant's ownership had been confirmed by the judgment of 3 July 2003.\n15.  On 15 April 2009 a criminal case was launched by the Ministry of Internal Affairs concerning the allegedly unlawful acquisition of the Premises by the applicant and her husband. On 17 April 2009 the Sabayil District Court authorised a search and seizure at the office of a company managed by the applicant's husband. The case file does not contain any other material concerning subsequent developments and the results of this investigation and of the criminal case.\n16.  Moreover, it appears from the case file that in April 2009 the State Committee for the Management of State Property lodged a civil action against the applicant alleging that her ownership had been unlawful.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5584", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Innsbruck.\n5.  On 23 September 1997 the applicant instituted divorce proceedings against his wife, A., before the Innsbruck District Court (Bezirksgericht).\n6.  On 16 January 1998 the District Court dismissed A.'s request for legal aid (Verfahrenshilfe).\n7.  Hearings were held in the divorce proceedings on 4 and 27 February 1998.\n8.  On 6 November 1998 a further hearing was held in the divorce proceedings, in the course of which A.'s lawyer asked the court to adjourn the hearing in order to examine whether a guardian should be appointed to represent A. He considered that there were strong indications that she was mentally ill and lacked full legal capacity. Subsequently, in separate proceedings, a guardian was appointed for her.\n9.  A further hearing in the divorce proceedings was fixed for 7 April 1999 and, at the request of A.'s lawyer, postponed until 21 April 1999. During the hearing on 21 April 1999 A.'s guardian stated that he was unable to approve the previous steps taken in the proceedings.\n10.  In order to establish how long A. had lacked legal capacity and to what extent this had affected the previous proceedings, the District Court, on 12 May 1999, appointed Dr H., a psychiatrist, as an expert. On 7 October 1999 the expert submitted his report. On 26 November 1999 this report was discussed by the parties before the District Court.\n11.  On 7 January 2000 the District Court declared the proceedings void because A. had been incapable of following the proceedings conducted so far. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 3 March 2000 the Regional Court (Landesgericht) dismissed his appeal.\n12.  On 11 April 2000 the applicant requested the District Court to serve the petition for divorce on A.'s guardian.\n13.  On 7 June 2000 the District Court scheduled a hearing in the fresh proceedings. The hearing was postponed and eventually took place on 20 September 2000. In the course of that hearing the District Court decided what evidence was to be taken. The applicant objected to the appointment of Dr H. as the expert as he considered him biased.\n14.  A further hearing was fixed for 21 November 2000 but, at the applicant's request, was adjourned until 1 December 2000.\n15.  Meanwhile, in August 2000, A. requested an interim injunction on the payment of maintenance. The District Court stayed these proceedings pending the receipt of expert opinions on A.'s legal capacity. Proceedings were resumed in December 2003. The request was eventually refused at second instance by the Regional Court on 30 April 2004.\n16.  A., represented by her guardian, also requested an interim measure to prevent the applicant from selling parts of the real property that he had acquired during their marriage. This request was partly granted by the District Court on 7 December 2000. On 23 March 2001 the Regional Court dismissed an appeal by A. against that decision.\n17.  Meanwhile, on 9 January 2001, the applicant had requested the District Court to hear witnesses in the main proceedings.\n18.  On 27 February 2001 Dr H. commented on the applicant's allegation of bias. On 18 June 2001 the District Court appointed another expert, Dr K., to prepare a report on the legal capacity of A. prior to 1996.\n19.  Between 19 April 2002 and 4 November 2002 the expert was repeatedly urged by the District Court to submit his report. Although the AKH hospital, where Dr K. had worked until the summer of 2002, repeatedly told the D", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5585", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Omsk.\n7.  She stood as a candidate for the elections to the legislative assembly of the Omsk Region scheduled for 24 March 2002. One of her competitors was Mr K., a local businessman.\n8.  On 20 March 2002 thirty-nine minority shareholders and former employees of the local department store “Oktyabrskiy” asked the applicant to finance a campaign against Mr K., the majority shareholder of Oktyabrskiy and the chairman of its Board of Directors.\n9.  On the same day the applicant arranged for the printing of 1,500 copies of the following leaflet, drafted by the shareholders:\n“The Truth about K[.]\nWe, shareholders of the Oktyabrskiy department store, have suffered from K[.] We are thirty-nine employees taken hostage by that voracious big wheel. K[.]:\n– depreciated our stock;\n– coerced us into selling the stock for a song, threatening us with dismissal;\n– forced thirty-nine employees to resign by not letting them work;\n– paid a miserable salary and often paid us with rotten groceries;\n– having ousted the shareholders by unlawful means, he has become the department store owner.\nFor more than a year we have been fighting for our rights in courts and other instances. The law-enforcement agencies are still powerless. In Omsk and its region many people have suffered because of K[.]’s unlawful conduct; but everyone is silent and money does not smell.\nWe, as victims of K[.]’s conduct, propose to write a book entitled ‘The story of K[.]’s dark fortune’. Let it include the story of everyone who has met that terrible man on his or her way and become his victim. His fortune was made from our tears. Do not taint yourself by supporting this man. Whatever he undertakes is damned: every spring the renovated city hall is flooded with sewage, and the Patriarch did not come to bless the Church on the left bank which had been built in breach of Orthodox canons.\nWe have suffered much harassment, repression and many a misfortune because of this man. Do not trust his promises, they build on our sorrows and lack of rights.\nVoters! Sign your fair judgment of K[.]! Say ‘no!’ to the fortune made from the woes and tears of simple people.\nWe are firmly convinced that a man who breaks the Law should not be a parliamentarian and lawmaker.\nOn behalf of the shareholders: G. F[.], L. K[.], V. A[.]” (emphasis added)”\n10.  On 26 March 2002 the applicant was elected a member of the legislative assembly of the Omsk Region.\n11.  Mr K. challenged the election results before the Omsk Regional Court. In particular, he claimed that by publishing the leaflet the applicant had resorted to unlawful electoral campaigning. The parties to the proceedings were Mr K. and the electoral commission. The applicant was cited as a third party.\n12.  On 4 June 2002 the Omsk Regional Court rejected Mr K.’s application. It found that the leaflet had called on electors to vote against Mr K., which was a permissible form of electoral agitation. The publication of that leaflet had not breached the electoral laws. If Mr K. believed that the leaflet contained untrue information damaging to his honour and reputation, it was open to him to bring defamation proceedings.\n13.  Mr K. sued the applicant and the three signatories of the leaflet for defamation. He submitted that the italicised extracts above were untrue and that the leaflet had damaged his reputation and gravely affected the voters’ freedom of choice. He claimed compensation in respect of non-pecuniary ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5586", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Plovdiv.\n5.  On 11 September 1993 criminal proceedings were opened against an unknown perpetrator for a theft of objects of considerable value from a private apartment, committed the same day.\n6.  On 22 September 1993 the applicant was questioned in connection to the theft and admitted to having taken part in its commission.\n7.  On 20 October 1993 a police report in connection to the theft was prepared. The applicant was mentioned as one of the perpetrators. On 26 October 1993 the case was sent to the Plovdiv regional public prosecutor’s office.\n8.  Apparently thereafter the case remained dormant.\n9.  On 11 December 1998 the preliminary investigation (предварително производство) was transformed into a police investigation (дознание). Thereafter, until January 2002 the case again remained dormant.\n10.  A number of investigative actions were carried out between January and August 2002.\n11.  On 6 August 2002 the applicant was charged with the theft and was questioned.\n12.  A number of investigative actions were carried out between August 2002 and February 2003.\n13.  In March 2003 the applicant’s case was brought before the Plovdiv District Court. The first hearing was held on 8 October 2003 and was adjourned upon the applicant’s request.\n14.  On 7 April 2004 the District Court approved a plea bargain agreement and the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5587", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Kharkiv.\n6.  In March 2002 the applicant submitted to the Oktyabrskyy District Tax Inspectorate of Kharkiv (the “Tax Inspectorate”) his 2001 income tax declaration. The declaration specified the amount of income tax paid by the applicant in 2001 and distinguished, in particular, two types of income: (a)  income earned at the applicant's principal place of business and (b)  income earned outside his principal place of business.\n7.  In respect of the first type of income, the tax had been calculated under the progressive tax-rate rule, as required by Article 7 § 1 of Cabinet of Ministers Decree no. 13-92 “On citizens' income tax” of 26 December 1992 (the “Income Tax Decree”).\n8.  In respect of the second type of income, the tax had been calculated at the fixed 20% rate, as required by Article 7 § 3 of the Income Tax Decree.\n9.  On 9 April 2002, on the basis of the applicant's declaration, the Tax Inspectorate reassessed the amount of income tax due from the applicant and requested him to pay the outstanding balance in the amount of 1,774.61 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH). The amount payable had been increased as a result of applying the progressive tax rate in respect of the income earned by the applicant outside his principal place of business. The recalculation had been effected in accordance with Instruction no. 12 “On citizens' income tax” issued by the Principal Tax Inspectorate on 21 April 1993 (“the Instruction”).\n10.  On 27 May 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Oktyabrskyy District Court of Kharkiv (the “District Court”) against the Tax Inspectorate, seeking to have the decision of 9 April 2002 invalidated. He claimed, in particular, that the amount of tax payable in respect of his income earned outside his principal place of business should have been determined by reference to the special tax rate laid down in Article 7 § 3 of the Income Tax Decree (having legal force as the law of Parliament) whereas the Tax Inspectorate had recalculated and increased that amount relying on the Instruction. However, the Instruction was a by-law which, according to Article 67 of the Constitution, could not change the applicable tax rates.\n11.  On 4 July 2002 the District Court considered the applicant's claim. It found that the Income Tax Decree envisaged a special tax rate for income earned outside the principal place of business. Despite the Instruction, the Income Tax Decree did not provide for any recalculation of that type of income on the basis of the progressive tax rate. It noted that according to Article 67 of the Constitution the citizens were obliged to pay taxes only in accordance with the procedure established by the laws and not by the by-laws. In conclusion the District Court allowed the applicant's claim and quashed the decision of 9 April 2002. The Tax Inspectorate appealed.\n12.  On 18 December 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (the “Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment of 4 July 2002, stating that the Instruction had been validly issued and purported to expand on the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Decree. Accordingly, the Tax Inspectorate had acted lawfully when applying the Instruction.\n13.  On 16 April 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's judgment, stating that there had been no irregularities in the application of the law in the case.\n14.  In March 2003 the applicant submitted his 2002 income tax declaration to the Tax Inspectorate. The a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5588", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in St Petersburg. At the time of introduction of the application he was detained in remand prison IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg.\n7.  On 18 May 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and third persons for attempted swindling. At 9.10 p.m. on the same day the applicant was arrested. He was placed in the temporary detention facility of the Nevskiy District of St Petersburg.\n8.  On 20 May 2004 the Nevskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the trial court”) remanded the applicant in custody. He was transferred to remand prison IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg (“the remand prison”). The court held that the applicant was charged with a serious crime, had a disposition to commit crimes and could continue to pursue criminal activities if at liberty. The ruling was not appealed against.\n9.  On 15 July 2004 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg granted a request by the investigator to extend the applicant's detention until 26 August 2004, holding that investigative measures could not be taken prior to that date. The ruling was not appealed against.\n10.  On 23 August 2004 the Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg prolonged the applicant's detention until 26 October 2004.\n11.  On 25 October 2004 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg prolonged the applicant's detention until 26 December 2004.\n12.  On 24 December 2004 the bill of indictment was drawn up and the case file was transferred to the trial court.\n13.  On 4 February 2005 the trial court scheduled a hearing for 25 March 2005. The issue of the application of a preventive measure to the applicant was not decided upon pursuant to Article 236 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”).\n14.  At the preliminary hearing of 24 March 2005 the trial court, relying on Article 237 of the CCP, returned the case to the prosecutor because certain procedural rules had not been complied with. In particular, some pages of the case file had been wrongly numbered and the accused had not been provided with the opportunity to study some documents. The trial court further noted that no application to vary the preventive measure had been lodged. The trial court found that the measure applied was lawful and appropriate in view of the gravity of the charges and the information about the accused, and ordered that it should remain unchanged. The trial court observed that the decision could be appealed against to the St Petersburg City Court within ten days from the date of its delivery. The applicant and his counsel N. were present at the hearing.\n15.  The ruling of 24 March 2005 was not appealed against and became final on 4 April 2005. On 5 April 2005 the case file was transmitted to the prosecutor.\n16.  On 7 April 2005 the prosecutor returned the case to the investigator for additional investigative measures. Having obtained the endorsement of the St Petersburg City Prosecutor, the investigator requested a court to extend the applicant's custodial detention for one month until 5 May 2005 so that the aggregate term of his detention amounted to eight months and five days. He argued that the extension sought would allow him to take the requisite investigative measures and to comply with the trial court's instructions.\n17.  On 8 April 2005 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg, relying on Article 109 of the CCP, granted the investigator's request to extend the applicant's detention for “one month, up to eight months and f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5589", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Sofia.\n5.  On 7 March 1994 the applicant was charged with aiding and abetting large scale embezzlement. The charges were brought within the framework of criminal proceedings for abuse of power and embezzlement against several persons.\n6.  On 8 March 1994 the applicant was questioned in connection to the above charges and a search of his business premises was carried out.\n7.  On 11, 15, 23 and 24 March 1994 the applicant, some of the other persons charged and witnesses were questioned.\n8.  On 28 March 1994 the applicant was also charged with documentary fraud, was questioned in that connection and bail was fixed for him.\n9.  Between April and November 1994 at least fifteen questioning sessions and a search were carried out and several other persons were charged with abuse of power and embezzlement.\n10.   As the applicant did not pay the bail and could not be found for questioning, on an unspecified date in 1994 the Bulgarian authorities, with the assistance of Interpol, initiated a national and an international search for him.\n11.  On 5 December 1994 the applicant was found in Switzerland and on 26 January 1996 he was extradited to Bulgaria.\n12.  Meanwhile, the criminal proceedings against him were still pending and between 9 November 1994 and 8 January 1996 at least fourteen questioning sessions were carried out and two expert opinions were commissioned.\n13.  On 26 January 1996 the applicant was questioned and the findings of the investigation were presented to him.\n14.  Between January and October 1996 a number of questioning sessions and several other investigative actions took place and the charges against the applicant were separated from these against the other persons involved.\n15.  On 5 July 1997 a prosecutor from the Sofia city public prosecutor’s office dropped some of the charges against the applicant and prepared an indictment. Thus, the applicant remained charged only with aggravated documentary fraud, as a result of which he unlawfully received a large amount of money.\n16.  On 5 September 1997 the indictment was sent to the Sofia City Court.\n17.  During the first hearing of 5 March 1998 it became clear that the applicant had returned the allegedly embezzled amount to the victim company.\n18.  For the period between 5 March 1998 and 12 January 1999 the Sofia City Court held at least fourteen hearings.\n19.  By a judgment of 12 January 1999 the Sofia City Court acquitted the applicant.\n20.  The prosecutor appealed.\n21.  The Sofia Court of Appeal held at least three hearings. By a judgment of 13 March 2000 it upheld the acquittal.\n22.  The prosecutor appealed further. On 22 May 2000 the Supreme Court of Cassation held a hearing.\n23.  By a judgment of 3 October 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Sofia Court of Appeal judgment because of procedural breaches and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n24.  After the remittal the Sofia Court of Appeal held hearings on 20 May and 23 September 2002.\n25.  In a judgment of 21 November 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the Sofia City Court judgment of 12 January 1999.\n26.  So did the Supreme Court of Cassation in a final judgment of 24 June 2004.\n27.  Apparently, no civil claim was brought against the applicant throughout the proceedings.\n28.  During the search of the applicant’s business premises, carried out on 8 March 1994, a metal safe was seized. On 11 May 1994 an investigator from the Sofia National Investigation Service o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5590", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Z.\n5.  On 21 April 2001 the applicant married B and on 14 May 2001 a daughter, C, was born of the marriage. On 13 December 2005 the applicant brought a civil action in the Z. Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Z.), seeking a divorce from B. On 7 November 2006 the court dissolved the marriage of the applicant and B.\n6.  For the purposes of criminal proceedings instituted against him in 2003, B, who was still the applicant's husband at the time, underwent a psychiatric examination. The relevant part of the report drawn up by two psychiatrists on 6 December 2004 indicated that B had been captured during the Homeland War and detained in a concentration camp from 3 April to 14 August 1992, where he had been tortured and had sustained serious bodily injuries. It also indicated that since 1992 he had been suffering from mental disorders such as anxiety, paranoia, epilepsy and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).\nThe relevant part of the report reads:\n“The patient is primarily an emotionally immature person who shows symptoms of chronic PTSD (lowered tolerance of frustration, egocentrism, latent aggressiveness, a tendency towards depressive reactions in stressful situations, as well as a worsening of his condition and impaired social functioning, in particular in family life).\n...”\n7.  On 21 November 2005 B was arrested and detained on suspicion that he had committed the criminal offence of violent behaviour within the family. On 20 December 2005 the Z. State Attorney's Office indicted B in the Z. Municipal Court on charges of violent behaviour within the family. The indictment alleged that from 12 November 2003 to 21 August 2005 B had verbally insulted and threatened the applicant, prevented her from leaving the house and physically assaulted her; on 12 November 2003 he had physically assaulted her by punching her in the belly, throwing her on the floor and continuing to hit and kick her in the body and head; on 7 August 2005 he had hit the applicant in the face, back and hands, causing lacerations; and on 21 August 2005 he had kicked her in the leg.\n8.  On 20 December 2005 B was released, after his mother gave a statement saying that she would immediately take B to their house in P. However, after having been released, he continued abusing the applicant and therefore on 9 January 2006 the applicant, together with C, moved to a women's shelter in Z. (hereinafter “the shelter”) run by a non-governmental organisation.\n9.  The first hearing scheduled before the Z. Municipal Court for 29 March 2006 was adjourned because B did not appear. The second hearing was held on 25 April 2006.\n10.  On 22 May 2006 the Z. State Attorney's Office extended the indictment to the criminal offence of neglecting and molesting a child or a minor. The extended indictment alleged that between November 2003 and February 2006 B had continually abused the applicant, both verbally and physically, in front of their daughter C, as well as using inappropriate language in respect of C, and had on several occasions punched and kicked C. Consequently, the case was transferred to the juvenile division (odjel za mladež) of the Z. Municipal Court.\n11.  Further hearings scheduled for 7 December 2006 and 20 February 2007 were adjourned because B did not appear. A hearing scheduled for 17 April 2007 was adjourned until 9 May 2007 at the request of B's legal representative. At that hearing the judge ordered a psychiatric examination of B.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5591", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is currently serving a life sentence in Kherson.\n6.  On 2 March 2001 the applicant was arrested and placed in the Kyivskyy District police station of Simferopil on suspicion of murder.\n7.  On 7 March 2001 the applicant was transferred to the Simferopil police temporary detention centre (the “ITT”).\n8.  On 27 April 2001 the applicant was transferred to the Simferopil no. 15 pre-trial detention centre (“the SIZO”) and on the same date placed in the Crimean Psychiatric Hospital for in-patient psychiatric assessment.\n9.  On 24 May 2001 the applicant was transferred back to the SIZO.\n10.  On 26 October 2001 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n11.  On 28 February 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld this judgment and it became final.\n12.  In October 2004 the applicant was transferred to Sokalska no. 47 Penitentiary, Lviv Region (“Penitentiary no. 47”).\n13.  In November 2006 the applicant was transferred to Kherson no. 61 Penitentiary (“Penitentiary no. 61) and placed in the prison hospital.\n14.  In spring 1997 (prior to his detention) the applicant was diagnosed with infiltrated tuberculosis of the lung. In February 2000 he was also diagnosed with late stage of HIV (Aids).\n15.  According to the applicant, throughout the period of 2001-2008 the medical assistance afforded to him on account of his HIV and tuberculosis was grossly inadequate, while the physical arrangements of his detention were incompatible with his state of health.\n16.  In particular, as regards HIV, no treatment was offered whatsoever. Furthermore, in spite of the doctors' recommendations and the applicant's numerous requests, throughout the period of his detention he was denied blood tests to establish his count of CD-4 immunity cells, which are instrumental in combating tuberculosis and possibly inhibited as a result of HIV. On several occasions the applicant was informed that antiretroviral therapy would become available to him after the successful treatment of his tuberculosis.\n17.  As regards the treatment for tuberculosis, it was irregular and insufficient. In particular, in spite of the applicant's numerous complaints about his state of health (namely, shortness of breath, fever, chest pain, and so on), no medical assistance whatsoever was provided to him between March and May 2001.\n18.  On 28 May 2001 the applicant was examined by a panel of the SIZO medical officers, who found that he was at risk of death if his state of health was not promptly addressed and recommended his release in view of the fact that the SIZO lacked the necessary facilities for his treatment. The applicant submitted a copy of the letter from the medical panel addressed to the SIZO governor and a letter from the governor to the district court dated 16 July 2001 requesting his release on humanitarian grounds. It is not clear whether these letters generated any reaction from the court. The applicant, however, remained in detention.\n19.  Since June 2001 the applicant has been receiving treatment for tuberculosis, but it has not been effective. On many occasions he was denied routine consultations in spite of his demands. However, even when he was able to obtain consultations, the recommendations of the doctors were not followed through effectively. For example, on 13 July 2006 the applicant consulted a panel of medical specialists and was advised to undergo a num", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5592", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the town of Roslavl, Smolensk Region.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on 31 January 1996 and detained in Smolensk remand centre no. 67/1. Following a medical check on 24 October 1997 the applicant was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis. In April 1998 he was transferred to a prison.\n7.  In 2004 the applicant sued the remand centre for damage to health and sought compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by the allegedly appalling conditions of detention between January 1996 and April 1998. By a judgment of 8 June 2004, the Leninskiy District Court of Smolensk rejected the applicant's claims. The court found that the applicant had not adduced any evidence that the administration of the remand centre had wilfully caused him any damage. On 22 February 2005 the Smolensk Regional Court upheld the judgment.\n8.  Thereafter, the applicant unsuccessfully sought access to certain documents relating to the conditions of his detention in the remand centre in 1996. He asked for criminal proceedings to be brought against the centre's administration. On 5 September 2005 a prosecutor refused his request. On 10 April 2006 the District Court upheld that refusal.\n9.  From 26 December 2004 to 12 January 2005, from 22 March to an unspecified date in late 2005, and in 2006 the applicant was detained in Smolensk remand centre no. 67/1.\n10.  In December 2004 he was placed in cell no. 173, measuring twelve square metres and designed for thirteen detainees. It actually housed no fewer than seventeen detainees. In March 2005 the applicant was placed in cell no. 203, measuring twelve square metres and designed for twelve detainees. It actually housed no fewer than seventeen inmates. Thereafter he was detained in cell no. 205.\n11.  In all cells the beds had dirty mattresses and no other bedding was provided. No tableware was provided. Food had to be kept on the floor next to the lavatory pan. The pan was not separated from the living area; the area around it was damp; the walls and ceiling were black with dust and mould. There were recurring problems with the water supply. Showers were allowed less than once a week.\n12.  The applicant submitted to the Court written statements from his cellmates from early 2005, who confirmed his description of the conditions of detention in the remand centre. He also submitted four photographs, apparently showing the cell(s) in which he had been detained in 2004 and/or 2005.\n13.  The applicant was detained in the remand centre from 25 December 2004 to 13 January 2005, from 21 March to 10 April 2005, and from 10 March to 15 June 2006. In the intervening periods of time the applicant was detained in colonies.\n14.  The applicant was kept in the remand centre in cells nos. 143, 173 and 203. During the first period of time the applicant was afforded around one square metre of cell space; the cell population exceeded the number of beds. In March and April 2005, as well as in March and June 2006, the applicant had been afforded less than 1.5 square metres of the cell space and did not have his own bed. The remaining time there were between three and seven square metres per detainee in the cell.\n15.  On 12 and 22 January 2005 the applicant complained to the Regional Prosecutor's Office and the Regional Supervising Prosecutor's Office about the allegedly appalling conditions of detention. On 25 March 2005 he raised a similar complaint before the Leninskiy District Court of Smolen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5594", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Košice.\n5.  On 15 March 2002 the applicant lodged an action against her former husband, the municipality of Košice and a third party, challenging the validity of two contracts by which the applicant's former husband had firstly bought an apartment and then sold it to a third party.\n6.  On 26 October 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's complaint about the length of these proceedings inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.\n7.  On 12 January 2009 she lodged a fresh constitutional complaint.\n8.  On 17 March 2009 the Košice II District Court found against the applicant. The applicant appealed.\n9.  On 21 October 2009 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. Having regard to the overall length of proceedings, it awarded the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's legal costs. It did not order the District Court to proceed with the case on the ground that that court had already adopted a decision on merits.\n10.  On 4 March 2010 the Košice Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n11.  The District Court adopted a judgment in the applicant's favour on 2 July 2010. One of the defendants appealed and the proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5595", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 15 May 1991 the applicant and other plaintiffs filed an action for restitution of real property to the Bratislava V District Court.\n7.  On 11 January 1994 the District Court dismissed the action. On 12 October 1994 the Bratislava City Court remitted the case to the District Court following an appeal by the applicant.\n8.  On 23 June 1995 the District Court again dismissed the action. On 14 December 1995 the court of appeal upheld the relevant part of the first‑instance judgment. On 20 March 1997 the Supreme Court quashed the court of appeal's judgment. The case was remitted to the District Court.\n9.  In its third judgment given on 18 February 1999 the District Court decided in the applicant's favour. On 17 March 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed that judgment in part. In December 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law filed by other plaintiff.\n10.  On 5 March 2003 the District Court granted the action. On 30 March 2004 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment in part and remitted it to the first-instance court; it dismissed the remainder of the claim.\n11.  On 29 April 2005 the Supreme Court quashed a part of the court of appeal's judgment a remitted the case to it.\n12.  On 30 June 2005 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the relevant part of the first-instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings. The decision was served on the parties on 30 August 2005.\n13.  On 18 June 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava V District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. The facts of the case were complex and the applicant by his conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. The Constitutional Court awarded 70,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK)[1] to the applicant in just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5596", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant, a retired military officer, was born in 1955 and lives in Bolu.\n4.  By an order of the Turkish General Staff dated On 9 May 2002, the applicant's access to the army's social facilities (orduevi) was prohibited due to his non-compliance with the rules of conduct set out in the Internal Service Regulation of the Turkish Armed Forces (“the Internal Service Regulation”). It appears that while lodging in an army guesthouse in Ankara, the applicant had insisted on performing the Muslim prayer (namaz) in a communal area despite warnings. It further appears that the order of the Turkish General Staff was never served on the applicant.\n5.  On 24 December 2002 the applicant was refused entry to the army's social facilities in Ankara on the basis of the order of the Turkish General Staff.\n6.  On 9 January 2003 the applicant brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court against the Ministry of Defence and requested the annulment of the order of the Turkish General Staff, along with the reinstatement of his right to benefit from the social facilities of the army.\n7.  The Ministry of Defence submitted certain documents and information to the Supreme Military Administrative Court during the course of the proceedings, which were classified as “secret documents” under Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602 on the Supreme Military Administrative Court. These documents were not disclosed to the applicant.\n8.  On 3 October 2003 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's case. The court held that the decision of the Turkish General Staff had been in compliance with the Internal Service Regulation, considering in particular that the applicant had refused to perform his prayer in the area allocated to him and had acted in a disorderly fashion and argued with the officer who had warned him. It appears that this decision was served on the applicant on 26 October 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5597", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Daugavpils.\n6.  On 2 June 1998 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of rape and brought to the Ventspils Police Department. The applicant contended that he had been beaten by police officers immediately after his arrest and later during police questioning. On the same day he was placed in custody in a cell in the Ventspils Police Department.\n7.  According to the applicant, the cell where he was placed was dirty and infested with fleas and bedbugs. Food was limited to one meal per day and the drinking water had a strong taste of bleach. Moreover, receiving food parcels from relatives was prohibited. It was impossible for the applicant to keep himself clean because of the lack of water and personal hygiene products. In order to prevent him from writing complaints, his pen and paper were seized.\n8.  Between 2 and 4 June 1998 the applicant was questioned by the police without being represented by a lawyer. A State-appointed lawyer assisted the applicant during questioning from 4 June 1998 onwards.\n9.  In the course of the pre-trial investigation and after its completion, the applicant allegedly filed numerous complaints with the Ventspils Public Prosecutor's Office and with other State authorities, complaining about the conditions in which he had been held and his ill-treatment by the police. However, according to him, he received only standard replies and no investigation was carried out. On 25 November 1998 the applicant filed a complaint with the Kurzeme Regional Public Prosecutor's Office complaining about the conditions of his detention. On 26 November 1998, in reply to his complaint, a prosecutor stated that the facts complained of, such as the alleged lack of personal hygiene products and the inability to wash, fell outside the competence of the Prosecutor's Office. On an unspecified date the applicant announced a hunger strike to protest against the conditions of his detention.\n10.  Later, the applicant was transferred to the Ventspils Police short-term detention facility. On 18 November 1998 he submitted a complaint to the Ventspils Public Prosecutor's Office complaining about misconduct on the part of one of the police officers on duty. On 26 November 1998 a prosecutor visited the applicant and found his complaints unsubstantiated.\n11.  According to the applicant, on 26 November 1998, immediately after the prosecutor's visit, the same police officer on duty, while giving the applicant a bottle of water through the security hatch in the cell door, sprayed gas in his face and shut the ventilation outlets. During the next six hours, at some forty-minute intervals, he poured gas into the cell from gas canisters through the ventilation outlets and subsequently shut them. The applicant and his cellmate asked for the ventilation outlets to be opened; the police officer agreed on condition that the applicant withdrew his complaint.\n12.  On 29 November 1998 the applicant applied to the Kurzeme Regional Public Prosecutor's Office complaining about the aforementioned facts and seeking to institute criminal proceedings against the police officer. It appears that no investigation was carried out in respect of the facts complained of and that the applicant was not provided with any reply.\n13.  On 13 January 1999 the Kurzeme Regional Court found the applicant guilty of the aggravated rape and sexual assault of a fifteen-year-old girl and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. Th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5598", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Košice.\n5.  On 6 March 2001 the applicant lodged a civil action against several individuals and State organs, requesting that the Košice II District Court declare null and void a contract by which she had transferred her title to a flat to two of the defendants. She also asked the court to order another defendant to vacate the flat and leave it at the applicant's disposal.\n6.  The file was transferred to the Košice I District Court on 19 April 2001 for reasons of jurisdiction.\n7.  On 10 February 2003 she complained to the President of the Košice I District Court about the length of the proceedings.\n8.  On 3 July 2003 the District Court admitted another defendant to the proceedings. The latter appealed and the file was transferred to the Košice Regional Court.\n9.  On 22 September 2003 the applicant complained to the President of the Regional Court about the length of the proceedings.\n10.  On 7 October 2003 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 3 July 2003.\n11.  On 25 April 2005 the District Court found in the applicant's favour. It discontinued the proceedings in respect of two State organs. Following an appeal, the case was transferred to the Regional Court on 25 October 2005.\n12.  On 19 September 2006 the applicant inquired about any obstacles preventing the Regional Court from dealing with the case.\n13.  On 9 October 2010 she complained to the President of the Regional Court about the length of the proceedings.\n14.  On 31 May 2007 the Regional Court quashed the judgment, except of the part concerning the discontinuation of the proceedings, and remitted the case to the District Court.\n15.  On 4 May 2009 the District Court found against the applicant.\n16.  The applicant appealed and the proceedings are still pending.\n17.  On 23 December 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the overall length of proceedings.\n18.  On 7 July 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's length of proceedings complaint inadmissible. It held that the part of the complaint concerning the proceedings before the District Court was manifestly ill-founded, as this period of the proceedings had already ended and the District Court could no longer violate Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalent.\n19.  It expressed the view that the applicant had not exhausted the available domestic remedies in respect of the period of the proceedings before the Regional Court, as she had not lodged a complaint of their length to the President of the Regional Court. The decision stated that the applicant's complaint of 22 September 2003 could not be considered as such remedy because it had been lodged during another stage of the proceedings, when the Regional Court was examining the first-instance decision to admit another defendant to the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5599", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicant was living in Grozny, Chechnya. Fearing for his life he left for Azerbaijan in August 2000, from where he flew to Istanbul on 4 September 2000.\n7.  On 23 June 2004 the applicant and a number of other individuals were taken into custody by police officers of the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters, within the framework of the security measures implemented for the 2004 NATO summit in Istanbul.\n8.  On 25 June 2004 the applicant was transferred to the Foreigners' Department of the Istanbul Security Headquarters with a view to deportation. On 29 June 2004 the Istanbul State Security Court issued a decision of non-prosecution, holding that there was no evidence to initiate criminal proceedings against the applicant or other individuals taken into detention in connection with the 2004 NATO summit.\n9.  The applicant then continued to be held in the Foreigners' Department of the Istanbul Security Headquarters under section 23 of Law no. 5683 as an administrative measure pending deportation proceedings.\n10.  On 25 September 2004 the applicant was released and since then has been living in Istanbul on renewable temporary residence permits.\n11.  The applicant alleged that he had been detained for a period of ninety-one days in an overcrowded room at the Foreigners' Department of the Istanbul Security Headquarters, which had no windows, hence no natural light. According to the applicant it had thirty-six beds for a number of asylum seekers varying from 100 to 200. Due to the large number of asylum seekers present in the establishment the applicant, on numerous occasions, had been forced to sleep on the ground without sheets or blankets. He had not been allowed to get any fresh air or exercise throughout his stay. The hygienic conditions were extremely poor, in particular the showering facilities. There were three toilets and two showers serving a minimum of one hundred asylum seekers. The food served was insufficient and was the same every day. In support of his complaints the applicant presented drawings of the facility and referred to the reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), in particular CPT/Inf (2002)8 dated 24 April 2002 and CPT/Inf (2000)17 dated 7 December 2000.\n12.  The Government stated that the applicant had been held in the men's section of the Foreigners' Department of the Istanbul Security Headquarters, which measured 220 square metres. There were three toilets, two showers, twenty bunk beds, a television, two telephones, two air conditioners and a cafeteria. According to the Government all the rooms were sufficiently lit and ventilated. They were cleaned twice a day. Breakfast, lunch and dinner were served every day. Asylum seekers could be visited by their relatives in the visitors' room. Those who needed medical help were taken to the local State hospital and their medical expenses were born by the State.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5600", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Frankolovo.\n6.  On 7 March 1997 the applicant was injured in an accident at work. The applicant's employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZM.\n7.  On 3 September 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZM in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages for the injuries sustained. He also sought an exemption from paying court fees.\n8.  Between 27 December 1999 and 28 February 2001 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions and adduced evidence four times.\n9.  The first hearing was held on 27 September 2000.\n10.  On 27 October 2000 the court appointed a medical expert. On 18 December 2000 the appointed expert submitted his report.\n11.  On 4 April 2001 the court held another hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant's claim in part, was served on the applicant on 25 October 2001.\n12.  On 7 November 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). He also requested the first-instance court to rectify its judgment.\n13.  On 9 November 2001 the first-instance court rectified the judgment of 4 April 2001.\n14.  On 14 May 2003 the Celje Higher Court upheld the applicant's appeal in part and modified the first-instance court's judgment accordingly. That decision was served on the applicant on 5 June 2003.\n15.  On 20 June 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče), which was rejected on 1 April 2004 as the value of the claim fell below the statutory threshold. That decision was served on the applicant on 23 April 2004.\n16.  On 23 May 2007 the respondent Government were given notice of the application. The Government was asked to provide information as to whether section 25 of the 2006 Act applied in respect of the present case, which would enable the applicant to avail himself of domestic settlement proceedings before the State Attorney's Office (see Relevant domestic law below).\n17.  Subsequently, on 12 October 2007, the Government submitted that section 25 of the 2006 Act was not applicable in the present case since the applicant's right to a trial within a reasonable time had not been infringed in the impugned domestic proceedings. Therefore, the Government refused to offer the applicant a settlement proposal under section 25 of the 2006 Act.\n18.  The applicant did not comment on this issue.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5601", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Novotroitsk, Orenburg Region.\n6.  On 22 April 2004, at 9.05 p.m., the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in drug dealing and taken to a police station for questioning. According to the applicant, the police officers handcuffed him and beat him. Then they hung him up by the handcuffs with his legs not touching the floor. In the morning he was left in a tiny cell where he could not even lie down and had to stand.\n7.  On 23 April 2004, at 8.55 p.m., the applicant was taken to a temporary detention centre. During the questioning which took place on the same date, he complained that he had been beaten by police officers at the police station.\n8.  On 24 April 2004, at 12.15 p.m., the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert. The applicant reported that he had been beaten by the police officers on 22 April 2004. They had punched him and hit him with a chair on the head and other parts of his body. He further complained that he was experiencing pain in the lumbar area, in the neck, the buttocks and the right calf. The expert noted abrasions on the applicant's upper lip and wrists, a bruise on the upper left eyelid, and multiple bruises on the left temple. The applicant was also suffering from nausea and dizziness. According to the doctor, the injuries could have resulted from the impact of blunt objects and could have occurred up to one day before the medical examination. They did not cause any impairment to the applicant's general health.\n9.  On 25 April 2004 a medical emergency team was summoned to see the applicant, who was suffering from diabetes and neurasthenia.\n10.  On 26 April 2004 the applicant's counsel complained to the prosecutor's office about the applicant's ill-treatment in police custody.\n11.  On 29 April 2004 the senior investigator of the Leninskiy District Prosecutor's Office of Orsk dismissed the complaint. The investigator noted that the applicant had sustained the injuries on the afternoon of 23 April 2004, whereas he alleged that he had been subjected to ill-treatment on 22 April 2004.\n12.  The investigator based his findings on the forensic medical report of 24 April 2004, and the testimony provided by three police officers, who denied the applicant's allegations and claimed that he had actively resisted arrest and even managed to break his handcuffs.\n13.  On 18 May 2004 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Leninskiy District of Orsk quashed the investigator's decision of 29 April 2004. The prosecutor stated that the investigator's findings were inconclusive and that the inquiry had been incomplete.\n14.  On 28 May 2004 the investigator dismissed the applicant's complaint. The investigator noted that the applicant had actively resisted arrest and questioning and that the police officers had had to use physical force to restrain him. The investigator further noted that, according to the statement submitted by the temporary detention centre where the applicant had been taken on 23 April 2004, he did not have any injuries upon arrival. As to the injuries documented on 24 April 2004, the investigator decided that the applicant must have sustained them no earlier than 12 noon on 23 April 2004, that is, after his arrest and search, which he had actively resisted.\n15.  On 7 June 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk quashed the decision of 28 May 2004. The court noted that the investigator's findings were inconclusive and contradictory. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5602", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lived before his arrest in the town of Khudzhand, Tajikistan. He is currently residing in Moscow.\n6.  In 2005 the applicant lost his job at a telephone exchange in Khudzhand and started earning his living by printing various texts for people on his computer, including theses and extracts from the Koran.\n7.  In 2005 several persons were arrested in Khudzhand on suspicion of membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir (“HT”), a transnational Islamic organisation, banned in Russia, Germany and some Central Asian republics. Subsequently, the applicant learnt that some of the arrestees had testified before the prosecuting authorities that he was a member of HT and had printed various materials for it from the Internet. The applicant denies being a member of HT.\n8.  On 16 February 2006 the prosecutor's office of the Sogdiyskiy Region of Tajikistan (“the Sogdiyskiy prosecutor's office”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of membership of an extremist organisation (Article 307 § 2 of the Tajikistani Criminal Code (“TCC”)). In particular, the applicant was suspected of having actively worked with HT by printing out leaflets and religious literature for that organisation with a view to their dissemination. The case was assigned the number 9615.\n9.  On 19 February 2006 the Sogdiyskiy prosecutor's office ordered the applicant's placement in custody. Shortly thereafter the applicant was arrested and placed in the basement of the Ministry of National Security (MNS). According to the applicant, he was held there for about three months. He was systematically beaten up and was tortured at least six times with electricity. He was held in premises with nothing to rest on, was refused access to the toilet for lengthy periods of time and received no food.\n10.  On 6 May 2006 the prosecutor's office of the Bobodzhon‑Gafurovskiy District (“the Bobodzhon-Gafurovskiy prosecutor's office”) opened a further criminal case against the applicant in connection with his alleged activities within HT. In particular, the applicant was suspected of: having secretly studied extremist literature provided by other members of HT; having worked for the organisation as an IT specialist; having printed out the organisation's leaflets and other literature and secretly distributed it among non-members of the organisation; having paid membership fees to the organisation and trained another member to work with the PC. On the same day the applicant was charged with membership of a criminal organisation banned owing to its extremist activities (Articles 187 § 2 and 307.2-3), incitement to religious and other hatred (Article 189 § 3) and public appeals to overthrow the constitutional order and to engage in extremist activities (Articles 307 and 307.1). The criminal case was joined with case no. 9615 and given the number 9431.\n11.  According to the applicant, in May 2006 he and other detainees were taken to a construction site for a recreation zone for officers of the MNS, where they were ordered to dig, working in a bending position. When they tried to straighten up, the guards beat them severely.\n12.  On 24 May 2006, fearing further beatings, the applicant escaped.\n13.  According to the applicant, his relatives told him that after his escape law enforcement officials had tortured his co-accused to find out where he had gone and whether they had helped him to make good his escape.\n14.  On 25 May 2006 the Bobodzhon-Gafurovskiy prose", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5603", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Biysk of the Altay Region.\n5.  On 2 March 1995 the applicant and other individuals were arrested on suspicion of causing lethal injury to Mr B. They were remanded in custody.\n6.  On 9 June 1995 the case against the applicant, Mr K. and Mr S. was referred for trial to the Priobskiy District Court of the Altay Region (“the District Court”).\n7.  Before 5 May 1998 when the Convention entered into force in respect of Russia, trial hearings were adjourned on many occasions for carrying out a psychiatric examination of Mr S., Mr K.’s illness, obtaining the attendance of the victim and the witnesses, the legal counsels’ default in appearance, and the judge’s involvement in different proceedings. The case was also once remitted to the prosecutor for further investigation. On 5 December 1997 the Altay Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) asked the president of the District Court to take measures to ensure compliance with the procedural time-limits.\n8.  From 25 May to 4 June 1998 the court examined the case at regular hearings. On the latter date the applicant was released from custody on an undertaking not to leave the town.\n9.  Two other hearings scheduled in 1998 and 1999 did not take place due to Mr S.’s representative’s failure to appear and Mr K.’s illness. In late 1999 the case was handed over to judge D.\n10.  By letter of 22 November 1999, the Regional Court reported to the applicant’s mother that delays in the examination of the case were due to a substantial number of pending cases.\n11.  On 24 January 2000 the hearing was postponed to 14 August 2000 following the witnesses’ failure to appear.\n12.  On 11 April 2000 the case was remitted to the prosecutor for lack of competence of the investigative body. Upon return of the case, the trial court held two hearings in August 2000 and stayed the proceedings to carry out another psychiatric examination of Mr S.\n13.  Once the proceedings resumed, the next hearing was scheduled for 5 February 2001. However, it did not take place on that date as the authorities had failed to deliver Mr K., who was serving his sentence out of town, to the court.\n14.  On 22 February 2001 the case was once again remitted to the prosecutor to remedy certain procedural defects. Upon return of the case, it was examined at regular hearings from 13 to 20 August 2001.\n15.  On 20 August 2001 the District Court handed down conviction by which the applicant was acquitted.\n16.  On 4 October 2001 the Regional Court quashed the judgment on procedural grounds and remitted the case for a new trial.\n17.  On 2 November 2001 the trial court adjourned the proceedings to carry out another psychiatric examination of Mr S. citing the significant period of time that had elapsed since the previous examination and taking into account new medical data in his respect. Once the proceedings resumed, two hearings were adjourned due to the failure to obtain the case file back from the medical institution and the applicant’s counsel’s default in appearance.\n18.  On 17 January 2002 the District Court gave a new judgment by which it again acquitted the applicant.\n19.  On 21 March 2002 the Regional Court set aside the judgment, finding that the District Court had failed to evaluate several witnesses’ statements. A new hearing was required.\n20.  On 22 April 2002 the trial court adjourned the hearing due to Mr K.’s illness. On 20 May 2002 the case was remitted to the prosecutor for unspecified reasons.\n2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5604", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1960 and 1962 and live in Karbinci and Štip respectively.\n6.  They worked as wardens at a weekend retreat run by the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (“the employer”).\n7.  On 2 April 2001 the applicants lodged a civil claim against the employer, seeking payment of the following employment-related benefits: an overtime allowance (надоместок за прекувремена работа), night‑work allowance (надоместок за ноќна работа) and family separation allowance (надоместок за одвоен живот). They also claimed compensation in respect of annual leave in 2000 (надомест на штета поради неискористен годишен одмор) (“the compensation claim”).\n8.  On 20 November 2001 the Štip Court of First Instance (“the first‑instance court”) appointed an expert who, by a letter of 12 December 2001, requested to be excluded from the case. On 6 February 2002 another expert was appointed. He drew up a report on 6 April 2002, which was supplemented on three occasions, namely 24 October 2003, 25 November 2003 and 9 January 2004.\n9.  Hearings fixed for 26 June 2002, 18 December 2002, 12 and 27 February 2003 and 25 November 2003 were adjourned because of the absence of the employer, which was represented by the Attorney-General (Jавен Правобранител). On 30 January 2004 the first-instance court granted the applicants' claims. This decision was quashed by the Štip Court of Appeal on 1 September 2004. The parties did not provide a copy of the latter decision.\n10.  At a hearing on 17 November 2004 the applicants supplemented their claims. On that date the employer was asked to submit documentation on the benefits claimed by the applicants, which it did on 6 July 2005. On 24 October and 16 November 2005 the expert submitted additional expert reports in view of the applicants' amended claims.\n11.  On 3 February 2006 the first-instance court ruled partly in favour of the applicants and ordered the payment of the employment benefits. It relied, inter alia, on the expert reports, the employer's Rules on Salary and Other Allowances (“the Rules”), and a court decision in case П.бр.1262/97 (see paragraph 16 below). It established that the applicants' residence had been 40 km away from their place of work, that they had carried out their working duties for one week at a time without interruption, and that during that time they had been separated from their families. The employer did not have special rules regarding the payment of employment-related benefits for such employees. The applicants' salary had been calculated as if they had worked full-time despite the fact that they had actually worked fewer hours. The shortfall in the regular working hours (редовно работно време) had been compensated for by night work, for which the employer had not paid any allowance to the applicants. The court did not award the applicants the night-work allowance, but only a 35% increase, as specified in the Rules. On the other hand, it awarded them the allowances for overtime and family separation, plus the increase set forth in the Rules. The court dismissed the applicants' compensation claim.\n12.  On 15 March 2006 the employer appealed. On 13 April 2006 the Štip Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and overturned the lower court's decision in respect of the benefits claimed. It endorsed the statement of facts, but found that the substantive law had been applied incorrectly. It held that the applicants had not been entitled to receive the benefits claimed since they had obtaine", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5605", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Budennovsk of the Stavropol Region.\n5.  On 5 February 1998 the applicant was stopped by the police and brought to a sobering-up centre. He was examined by a doctor who found that he was sober. The applicant was immediately released.\n6.  On 18 November 1998 the applicant sued the local police department for compensation for unlawful arrest. The applicant’s complaint was admitted by the Budennovsk Town Court of the Stavropol Region (“the Town Court”). The first hearing was scheduled for 25 December 1998, but on that date it did not take place. No action was taken on the case until December 2001.\n7.  On 25 December 2001 the Town Court identified the Ministry of the Interior Affairs as the respondent and involved the local police department as a third party in the proceedings.\n8.  On 30 December 2002 the Town Court held in a default judgment that the applicant’s arrest had been unlawful and partly allowed his claim for compensation.\n9.  On 29 January 2003 the Town Court granted an extension of the time allowed for submission by the respondent of their grounds of appeal.\n10.  On 6 February 2003 the Stavropol Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) overturned the judgment on appeal for failure to notify the respondent about the hearing in a timely manner and remitted the case to the first instance.\n11.  On 20 February 2003 the Town Court again allowed the applicant’s claim in part, but on 23 April 2003 the judgment was set aside on appeal by the Regional Court for failure to involve the finance authorities in the proceedings. The appeal court required a new hearing. It also delivered a special ruling in which it reprimanded the judge in charge of the applicant’s case for breaches of the procedural time-limits for consideration of the case.\n12.  On 6 June 2003 the Town Court judge withdrew from the proceedings.\n13.  On 4 July 2003 the Town Court rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated.\n14.  On 20 August 2003 the Regional Court set aside the judgment on appeal and allowed the applicant’s claim in part. It held that his arrest had been unlawful and ordered that the Budennovsk town administration pay the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB).\n15.  On an unspecified day the town administration lodged an application for supervisory review of the decision of 20 August 2003.\n16.  On 8 December 2003 the Presidium of the Regional Court granted the application, quashed the judgment of 20 August 2003 for failure to notify the town administration about the hearing and remitted the case to the Regional Court.\n17.  On 1 March 2004 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 4 July 2003 and remitted the case to the Town Court.\n18.  On 7 May 2004 the Town Court designated the Ministry of Finance of the Stavropol Region as a co-respondent.\n19.  On 12 July 2004 the Town Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and ordered that the Ministry of Finance of the Stavropol Region pay the applicant RUB 15,000.\n20.  On 8 September 2004 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5606", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Ryazan.\n5.  On 29 March 2000 the applicant and two other individuals were detained on suspicion of having committed an assault and infliction of grave bodily harm resulting in death. The applicant’s challenge of the custodial measure of restraint was rejected on 11 August 2000.\n6.  On 8 September 2000 the preliminary investigation was completed. The applicant did not study the case materials as his legal counsel were unable to assist him at the time due to illness and involvement in different proceedings.\n7.  On 29 September 2000 the applicant signed the undertaking not to leave the town and was released. He and his counsel did not appear at the investigator’s summons to study the case materials.\n8.  From 12 October to 13 November 2000 the applicant stayed in hospital. Following his and his counsel’s repeated failure to familiarise themselves with the case materials, the investigator set the deadline at 25 April 2001.\n9.  On 3 May 2001 after finalising the bill of indictment the prosecutor decided again to place the applicant in detention, which was subsequently extended by the court on several occasions and upheld by decisions of 27 February 2003, 4 December 2003, 24 February 2004, 10 June 2004 and 12 August 2004 of the Ryazan Regional Court (“the Regional Court”).\n10.  The Ryazhskiy District Court of the Ryazan Region received the applicant’s case for examination on 8 May 2001. By decision of 22 May 2001 the court adjourned the proceedings due to the applicant’s illness.\n11.  The next hearing scheduled for 2 July 2001 did not take place due to the counsels’ failure to appear.\n12.  At the hearing of 17 July 2001 the applicant requested that he be given one month to study the case-file but could not do so as both of his counsel were on vacation. On 28 September 2001 the court limited the time granted to the applicant to study the case-file by 1 November 2001.\n13.  The next hearing scheduled for 20 November 2001 did not take place due to the judge’s illness.\n14.  On 8 January 2002 president of the Ryazhskiy District Court requested that president of the Regional Court assign the applicant’s case to a different trial court due to the fact that the judge who was considering it was ill and the other judges had already taken part in the proceedings in some form and could not examine the case. On 22 January 2002 the applicant’s case was transferred to the Ukholovskiy District Court of the Ryazan Region (“the District Court”).\n15.  At the next hearing scheduled for 27 February 2002 the court granted the defence’s request for an outpatient psychiatric examination and a graphologic examination.\n16.  On 20 June 2002 the court commissioned an inpatient psychiatric examination which was held on 2 December 2002. The applicant did not object to the composition of the trial court and did not challenge the judges.\n17.  Between 14 January 2003 and 14 September 2004 twenty two scheduled hearings did not take place due to the counsels’ failure to appear; on twenty occasions it was the default of the applicant’s counsel. Following the applicant’s refusal to continue examination of the case in his counsel’s absence, on several occasions president of the District Court requested replacement of the counsels at the Tambov and Ryazan regional bars as well as the Ryazan Region Lawyers’ Council. It is not clear whether or when this measure became successful.\n18.  On 21 September 2004, in presence of the applicant’s ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5608", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kyiv.\n6.  According to the applicant, on 16 September 2001 he was assaulted by officers of the Anti-Drug Police Unit at the entrance to his apartment. When he lost consciousness the police allegedly planted evidence on him, putting a wrap of heroin into his pocket. Later, the police conducted a search of his apartment. As a result, some more wraps of drugs (allegedly also planted), a gun and chemical equipment were discovered. The applicant alleges that certain property items (for example, money and jewellery) were unlawfully taken during this search.\n7.  After the search the applicant was taken to the police station, where he remained until 25 September 2001 when the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv (“the District Court”) remanded him in custody. The applicant further contends that he had no means (namely that he lacked stationery) to appeal against the court detention order and that subsequently, although he sent an appeal, it was not examined and allegedly was lost.\n8.  The applicant was provided with a lawyer through the legal aid scheme on 21 September 2001 and the latter's performance was allegedly poor and of little help to his defence. In particular, notwithstanding the applicant's requests that the lawyer visit him more frequently and consult on his case, that lawyer allegedly visited him only on 24 September and 12 December 2001; furthermore, the lawyer allegedly did not attend the court hearings on 25 September and 19 November 2001 when the court remanded the applicant in custody. During the trial, the applicant was legally represented but it is not clear whether this representation was undertaken by another lawyer or by the same lawyer that the applicant claims was deficient.\n9.  According to the applicant, he requested on several occasions that the trial court summon K., his partner, but the court rejected his requests.\n10.  On 18 November 2003 the District Court found the applicant guilty of drug dealing and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment. In doing so, the court relied on evidence seized during the search on 16 September 2001, forensic examinations and witnesses' testimonies.\n11.  The applicant appealed, challenging, inter alia, the lawfulness of the search and the evidence produced against him as a result of it. On 11 June 2004, the Kyiv City Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's appeal in part and reduced his sentence to four years. It found that the search was lawful as the applicant had consented to it and that the conviction was not based solely on evidence produced as a result of the search.\n12.  The applicant, who was no longer legally represented, appealed to the Supreme Court of Ukraine, challenging his conviction on points of law. He also expressed his wish to be present at the hearing.\n13.  On 5 April 2005, in the presence of the public prosecutor but in the absence of the applicant, a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court of Ukraine considered the appeal on points of law submitted by the applicant. Having heard the prosecutor, who maintained that the appeal was unsubstantiated, the panel found that there were no grounds for the cassation review of the case and dismissed the applicant's appeal. In doing so it nevertheless examined the case on the merits. According to the applicant, he was not informed of the date of the hearing at the Supreme Court of Ukraine. He was notified of the Supreme Court's decision on 2 June 2005.\n14.  On 29 September", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5609", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1984 and 1951 respectively and live in Kharkiv.\n6.  On 16 May 2003 Ms Shch., on the instructions of the police, bought four grams of cannabis from the first applicant. Following this, the first applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of supplying drugs. The 20-hryvnia (Ukrainian hryvnias, UAH) note given by the police to Shch. to buy the drugs had been found on him. During a search conducted at the applicant's house later the same day another twenty grams of cannabis were revealed.\n7.  During pre-trial investigation the applicant confessed to selling drugs to Shch., whom he knew by her first name, and to keeping drugs at his house.\n8.  On 19 May 2003 the applicant was released on an undertaking not to abscond.\n9.  On 23 July 2003 the criminal case against the applicant was referred to the Chervonozavodsky District Court of Kharkiv (the District Court).\n10.  At the end of November the first applicant was summoned to appear before the court on 2 December 2003. According to the applicant, he fell ill on 31 November 2003. The next day the doctor gave him a sick note.\n11.  On 2 December 2003, despite the fact that the second applicant had informed the court of the reasons for the first applicant's absence, the court decided to replace the undertaking not to abscond with detention.\n12.  On 8 December 2003 the first applicant was arrested, and on 16 December 2003 he was brought before the judge, who rejected his request for release.\n13.  During the hearing of 16 December 2003 the court rejected the applicant's request for Shch. to be summoned on the ground that in accordance with the law the buyer participating in a police drug test purchase operation should not be summoned to court.\n14.  On 26 January 2004 the court rejected another request for release lodged by the first applicant.\n15.  On 19 July 2004 the District Court found the applicant guilty of supplying drugs and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment, with confiscation of his property. The court established that the applicant had bought cannabis from an unknown person on 11 May 2003 and had kept it at home for selling. On 16 May 2003 he sold some cannabis to Shch. and more cannabis was found at his home. The court noted that during the trial the applicant retracted his confession and first claimed that a certain A. had forced him to keep the drugs and that Ms M. had taken them from him. Then the applicant denied completely that any drugs had ever been in his possession and stated that the police had planted money and drugs and forced him to confess. The court considered that despite this retraction the applicant's guilt was confirmed by the body of evidence, including the written statements of Shch., as well as statements made at the hearing by police officers N. and K., who had conducted the operation, and witnesses K. and E. who had been invited by the police to observe the operation. All of them confirmed that Shch. had gone to the applicant with a banknote and come back with a small packet of a substance later established to be cannabis.\n16.  The applicant appealed against his conviction, complaining, among other things, that despite numerous requests on his behalf, Ms Shch. had not been summoned and questioned by the court and that it had not been proven that he had sold drugs to Ms Shch.\n17.  On 29 July 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal changed the applicant's sentence to a suspended one of three years. The court did not repl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5610", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Chelyabinsk.\n5.  On 30 September 1996 the applicant sued Chelyabinsk municipal hospital No. 9 (Городская клиническая больница № 9) seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused by medical malpractice. In particular, the applicant submitted that she had become disabled as a result of a poorly performed leg surgery.\n6.  On 6 June 1997 the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk (“the District Court”) ordered a medical examination and stayed the proceedings.\n7.  On 28 May 1998 the District Court received a letter from head of the State regional forensic examinations bureau containing a request to provide a copy of the court’s decision and to obtain certain medical documents. The court was also informed that it was necessary to make an advance payment for the examination.\n8.  On 19 June 1998 the District Court demanded the case file back from the forensic examinations bureau.\n9.  Upon receiving the case file, on 21 October 1998 the District Court scheduled a hearing to decide whether it was necessary to conduct a medical examination and to allocate the expenses.\n10.  On 23 February 1999 the case file was sent back to the forensic examinations bureau.\n11.  In April and June 1999 the court sent inquiries to the State health care department and to the municipal hospital in an effort to obtain the documents required for the medical examination.\n12.  On 27 December 1999 the remaining documents were sent to the forensic examinations bureau.\n13.  On 16 February 2000 head of the forensic examinations bureau decided to return the case file to the court as, in his opinion, the court’s order for a medical examination was addressed to the State health care department.\n14.  On 10 April 2000 the District Court again sent the case file to the forensic examinations bureau with explanations.\n15.  On 27 September 2000, 15 January, 30 July and 21 August 2001 the District Court inquired with the forensic examinations bureau about the reasons of the delay in carrying out the examination.\n16.  On 15 August 2001 the forensic examinations bureau informed the court of the cost of the pending examination.\n17.  On 24 August 2001 the court invited the applicant to make the payment but she refused.\n18.  On 7 September 2001, following the applicant’s complaint of the delays in her proceedings to the Chelyabinsk Regional Court (“the Regional Court”), the judge in charge of the applicant’s case informed her in a letter about the reasons of the delays. The Court is not in possession of this document.\n19.  Following the respondent’s refusal to pay for the medical examination, on 2 October 2001 the District Court demanded the case file back from the forensic examinations bureau.\n20.  On 29 October 2001 the applicant amended her claims. The court adjourned the hearing and invited the applicant’s surgeon as a third party to the proceedings.\n21.  By a judgment of 13 November 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 11 February 2002.\n22.  On 12 March 2002 the applicant requested that the region’s prosecutor lodge an extraordinary appeal for supervisory review of the court decisions adopted in her case.\n23.  The prosecutor’s appeal was granted, and on 15 May 2002 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 13 November 2001 and the appeal decision of 11 February 2002 by way of supervisory review, and remitted t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5612", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Russian citizens whose names and years of birth are tabulated below.\n6.  The fact of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarized as follows.\n7.  The applicants were claimants in civil proceedings concluded by judgments in their favour.\n8.  Subsequently, on the defendants' initiatives, Presidia of regional courts concerned quashed these final judgments by way of supervisory review on the grounds that the inferior courts had incorrectly applied the domestic law or wrongly assessed the evidence.\n9.  The judgments' particulars are tabulated below.\n10.  In the case of Mr Bobarykin subsequently, on 16 March 2007, the applicant signed an agreement under which the local authorities allocated him a place for a new garage and paid a compensation for demolition of the old one.\n11.  In the case of Ms Kolesnikova the regular payments were made under the final judgment up until it was quashed via supervisory review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5613", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Simbach am Inn.\n5.  In November 1994, the applicant pressed criminal charges against her father, alleging several acts of sexual assault and rape in the 1970s. The Office of the Prosecutor initiated a criminal investigation against the father. It also commissioned a psychological expert report on the credibility of the applicant. On 6 September 1995 the Office of the Prosecutor discontinued the investigation, relying, inter alia, on the expert report, which had found several inconsistencies in the applicant’s account of events and which had come to the conclusion that doubt as to her credibility could not be excluded.\n6.  In July 1995, the applicant requested compensation under the Damages for Victims of Acts of Violence Act (Gesetz über die Entschädigung für Opfer von Gewalttaten) (“the Act”). She claimed that she was suffering from the consequences of the acts committed by her father.\n7.  On 16 January 1996 the Family Office dismissed the applicant’s request. It found that the allegations of the violent acts could not be confirmed with certainty and relied on the expert report which had been commissioned by the Office of the Prosecutor.\n8.  On 7 February 1996 the applicant lodged an administrative objection against the Family Office’s refusal, which was dismissed on 20 August 1996. On 5 September 1996 the applicant brought an action with the Bayreuth Social Court.\n9.  On 5 July 1997 the Social Court commissioned an expert report on the applicant’s credibility. The Social Court sent reminders to the expert on 22 October 1997, 10 February 1998, 10 March 1998, 12 May 1998; on 25 June 1998 the Social Court sent a last reminder setting a deadline until 15 August 1998. On 2 March 1999 the Social Court received the expert report dated 4 November 1998, in which the expert concluded that the applicant’s statements were credible as far as the essence of her allegations was concerned. On the basis of this expert opinion, the Office of the Prosecutor decided to renew the investigations against the father.\n10.  Because of the institution of investigations, the Social Court adjourned the proceedings on 21 May 1999 until the criminal investigations had been concluded. The Office of the Prosecutor commissioned a further expert report to explain the two previous expert reports, which had each come to a different conclusion. This expert report concluded that the plausibility of the applicant’s statements could no longer be ascertained with sufficient reliability. Consequently, the Office of the Prosecutor discontinued the investigation on 4 October 2000. The Chief Public Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s objection on 25 October 2000. During the criminal investigation, the Social Court on 9 December 1999, 16 March 2000, 11 September 2000 and 14 November 2000 requested a progress report from the Public Prosecutor’s office. Having been informed of the applicant’s waiver to file an appeal on 14 December 2000, the Social Court resumed the proceedings on 20 December 2000. On 27 March 2001 the Social Court continued its investigation into the facts.\n11.  On 6 June 2001 the applicant’s counsel requested access to the case-file; the Social Court sent the file to counsel on 4 October 2001. On 28 February 2002 the applicant requested that two further witnesses be heard; on 8 May 2002 the Social Court informed the applicant that the reports of those two witnesses were already on the record.\n12.  On 25 September 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5614", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Mr Hans Walter Schädler, was born in 1945, Mr Tobias Johann Schädler was born in 1983, Mr Helmut Julius Beck in 1964, Mr Edmund Eugen Gassner in 1947, Mr Herbert Victor Beck in 1953, Mr Karl Roman Beck in 1951, Mr Werner Benjamin Hilbe in 1953, Mr Franz Josef Schädler in 1946, Mr Oswald Schädler in 1946 and Mr Norbert Schädler in 1960. They live in Triesenberg (Liechtenstein).\n6.  On 25 and 27 February 2000 a land development plan (Zonenplan) was adopted by referendum in the Municipality of Triesenberg. According to that plan, the main part of a plot of land owned jointly by the applicants fell within a zone in which the construction of buildings was not authorised.\n7.  By submissions dated 3 April 2000 the first applicant lodged an objection with the Municipality of Triesenberg which received these submissions on 5 April 2000. He contested the lawfulness of the land development plan and of the procedure by which it had been approved and requested that the plot of land in question be designated as building land.\n8.  On 22 November 2000 the Municipality of Triesenberg dismissed the first applicant’s objection. It found, in particular, that the applicants’ plot of land had not been classified as building land prior to the adoption of the land development plan either. The decision was issued and sent to the first applicant on 22 January 2001.\n9.  On 22 October 2002 the Liechtenstein Government dismissed the complaint made by the first applicant on 6 February 2001 about the municipality’s decision. That decision was issued on 23 October 2002.\n10.  By letter of 11 June 2003 the first applicant informed the Administrative Court that he intended to pursue his complaint lodged on 11 November 2002 regarding the Government’s decision in person, his counsel having informed him that his complaint had no sufficient prospects of success.\n11.  On 4 August 2003 the Liechtenstein Administrative Court (Verwaltungsbeschwerdeinstanz), having held a hearing on 25 June 2003 in which it heard a witness and inspected the locus in quo, dismissed the applicants’ complaint. It noted that the first applicant, following doubts expressed by it regarding his standing in the proceedings, now brought the complaint both on his own behalf and on behalf of ten further joint owners (nine of whom are applicants before this Court). The latter had also authorised the previous proceedings instituted by the first applicant alone (a written authorisation dated 25 June 2003 was submitted in the hearing). The Administrative Court found that the municipality’s decision not to incorporate the applicants’ plot of land into an area designated as building land had not been arbitrary, particularly when compared to the classification of other plots of land in the land development plan. The applicants’ plot of land had not previously been in an area classified as building land and was not suitable for construction for lack of water installations.\n12.  By submissions dated 15 August 2003, which were received at the Liechtenstein Constitutional Court (Staatsgerichtshof) on 19 August 2003, the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Liechtenstein Constitutional Court in respect of the decision taken by the Administrative Court. Relying on the principles of legality and proportionality, the prohibition of arbitrariness and the right to property, they argued, in particular, that their plot of land, designated as non-building land, had been treated less fa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5616", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Vinnytsya.\n5.  In 1983, while undergoing training at the SU-26 company, the applicant had an accident. As a result of this accident he was classed as a disabled person.\nFirst set of proceedings\n6.  On 20 November 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Vinnytsya against the successor of the company responsible for the accident, Vinnytsya specialised collective company no. 26, (“the company”), seeking a ruling obliging the latter to allocate him money to purchase a car for disabled people. He also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused to him. The final decision in the case was given by the Supreme Court on 29 December 2002.\nSecond set of proceedings\n7.  On 5 June 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Vinnytsya seeking a ruling obliging the company to allocate him money to purchase a car for disabled people.\n8.  On 8 November 2002 the court declined to consider this claim.\n9.  On 15 January 2003 the Vinnitsa Regional Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of the first-instance court and remitted it to the first-instance court.\n10.  On 29 December 2003 the court partly allowed the applicant’s claim. On 19 April 2004 the Vinnytsya Regional Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n11.  On 16 November 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5617", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Moscow. He is a gay rights activist.\n6.  In 2006 the applicant, together with other individuals, organised a march to draw public attention to discrimination against the gay and lesbian minority in Russia, to promote respect for human rights and freedoms and to call for tolerance on the part of the Russian authorities and the public at large towards this minority. The march was entitled “Pride March” that year, and “Gay Pride” in subsequent years, to replicate similar events held by homosexual communities in big cities worldwide. The date chosen for the march, 27 May 2006, was also meant to celebrate the anniversary of the abolition of criminal liability in Russia for homosexual acts.\n7.  On 16 February 2006 the Interfax news agency published a statement by Mr Tsoy, the press secretary of the mayor of Moscow, to the effect that “the government of Moscow [would] not even consider allowing the gay parade to be held”. Interfax further quoted Mr Tsoy as saying: “The mayor of Moscow, Mr Luzhkov, has firmly declared: the government of the capital city will not allow a gay parade to be held in any form, whether openly or disguised [as a human rights demonstration], and any attempt to hold any unauthorised action will be severely repressed”.\n8.  On 22 February 2006 Interfax quoted the mayor of Moscow as having said, on a different occasion, that if he received a request to hold a gay parade in Moscow he would impose a ban on it because he did not want “to stir up society, which is ill-disposed to such occurrences of life” and continuing that he himself considered homosexuality “unnatural”, though he “tried to treat everything that happens in human society with tolerance”.\n9.  On 17 March 2006 the first deputy to the mayor of Moscow wrote to the mayor about the imminent campaign to hold a gay parade in Moscow in May that year. She considered that allowing the event would be contrary to health and morals, as well as against the will of numerous petitioners who had protested against the idea of promoting homosexuality. Having noted that the Federal Law on Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations, Marches and Picketing (“the Assemblies Act”) did not provide for the possibility of banning the event, she stated that the authorities could suggest changing the venue or time or that, if the event turned out to be a real public threat, it could be interrupted. She requested the mayor's agreement on developing an effective action plan for the prevention of any actions – public or otherwise – aimed at promoting or holding a gay parade or festival.\n10.  On 24 March 2006 the mayor of Moscow instructed his first deputy, five other officials of his office and all prefects of Moscow “to take effective measures for the prevention and deterrence of any gay-oriented public or mass actions in the capital city”. He called for action proposals based on the legislative and regulatory framework and demanded an “active mass-media campaign and social commercials with the use of petitions brought by individuals and religious organisations”.\n11.  On 15 May 2006 the organisers submitted a notice to the mayor of Moscow stating the date, time and route of the intended march. It was to take place between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 27 May 2006, with an estimated number of about 2,000 participants, who would march from the Moscow Post Office along Myasnitskaya Street to Lubyanskaya Square. The organisers undertook to cooperate with the law-e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5618", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Magadan.\n7.  The applicant was the president of a non-governmental organisation known as Investory Kolymy (Investors of Kolyma). In 2001 he wrote an article entitled “Shares for the Moor of Moscow” (“Акции для московского мавра”). The article was about the acquisition of shares in Kolymaenergo Plc (a local energy‑producing company which was at the time a part of the State holding Edinye Energeticheskiye Systemy Rossii) by a group of Moscow-based firms. In the article the applicant described the purchase as a crooked deal and alleged that a high-level official from Moscow, one of the leaders of the pro‑government political party, was behind the transaction. The article reads as follows:\n“Shares for the Moor of Moscow\nWhere are the 1,300,000,000 roubles [obtained from] the placement of shares in Kolymaenergo Plc?\nWe meant well ...\nEverything started with an advertisement in [the official daily] Rossiyskaya Gazeta of 1 July 2000, in which Kolymaenergo Plc informed us about the next step in its exploration of market in the country – namely, about the official registration of the issue of 3,231,000,000 simple non-documentary nominal shares. [In that advertisement Kolymaenergo] described in great detail the conditions and procedure for the issue of the shares, including the distribution of the shares amongst prospective buyers in the first priority group and the second priority group, explained how to formulate a request for acquisition of shares, and, naturally, indicated the bank account into which payments for the shares should be made. The payments were supposed to go through a commercial bank situated in Krasnodar [a city in southern Russia]. In other words, a reputable firm got involved, and, as a consequence, the business was put on a solid footing. At least, that was the appearance that the sponsors of the project wanted to create for those who they hoped would “swallow the bait” and, under the influence of the very promising advert – published, by the way, in all the mass media of the Magadan Region – would be prepared to play for high stakes.\nAt the local level the preparations had started long before the publication of the advert. First of all, the issuer (the corporation issuing the securities) took care to develop convincing arguments which would help to get support for their project from public officials. On 29 April 1999 a consultation meeting took place in the office of the head of the Yagodninskiy District [of Magadan Region], where the question of payment of the local taxes due by Kolymaenergo Plc was discussed. It was no accident that that question was on the agenda of the meeting: by that time the outstanding fiscal debt of the energy industry [vis-a-vis the local authorities], including the carryovers from previous years, amounted to 228,700,000 roubles – a very significant amount for the District [budget]. As a result of the discussion an agreement was reached which provided, in particular, that (direct quote) “the administration of the Yagodninskiy District discharges Kolymaenergo Plc from the payment of 228,700,000 roubles in local taxes. In return, Kolymaenergo Plc transfers [to the administration] its shares worth 228,700,000 roubles, at the market rate applicable at the moment of the transfer”. Both parties signed the minutes of the meeting containing that clause. Naturally, among the signatures were those of Mr F.I.T., the head of the local administration, and Mr G.I.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5619", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Okha of the Sakhalin Region.\n5.  The applicant was employed as head of the legal department at a branch of a state-owned oil company. On 29 May 1998 the employer informed the applicant that she was dismissed from her position following staff reduction.\n6.  On 30 June 1998 the applicant brought a court action against her former employer before the Okha Town Court of the Sakhalin Region (“the Town Court”). She submitted that her dismissal had been unlawful as de facto she had been dismissed following the reorganisation of the company. She sought to change the ground of her dismissal and to obtain compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n7.  The first hearing of her case was scheduled for 7 July 1999. On that date the applicant did not appear at the court hearing as she had not received the summons. On an unspecified date the prosecutor joined the proceedings.\n8.  On 14 July 1999 she changed the subject-matter of her claim against the former employer, now seeking reinstatement in her previous post, salary arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of her dismissal.\n9.  The hearings scheduled for 12 October and 9 November 1999 did not take place as the judge was involved in different proceedings.\n10.  On 9 November 1999 the applicant brought a separate court action against her new employer.\n11.  Between 1998 and 2000 the applicant’s claim against the oil company was examined by judges Ch. and Sh. respectively. In 2000 the case was transferred to judge S.\n12.  On 24 March 2000 the applicant requested the court’s assistance in obtaining certain evidence.\n13.  On 22 January and 16 March 2001 the applicant complained to the president of the Sakhalin Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) of the trial court’s inactivity in her case.\n14.  On 19 April 2001 the Town Court granted the respondent’s motion to adjourn the case until 18 July 2001, the date of the hearing of the applicant’s claim against her new employer, and ordered the parties to submit documents relevant to the case. The applicant appealed against this decision. She also requested that her case be re-assigned to another judge as judge S. had been on vacation.\n15.  On 10 May 2001 the president of the Regional Court informed the applicant that in order to speed up the proceedings her case had been reallocated to judge P. and a hearing had been scheduled for 23 May 2001.\n16.  On 5 June 2001 the Regional Court set aside the decision of 19 April 2001 on appeal and remitted the matter to the Town Court.\n17.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Sakhalin Region of lengthy examination of her case.\n18.  On 8 August 2001 the prosecutor confirmed that there had indeed been periods of inactivity in the examination of the case between 1998 and 2000. He informed the applicant that the case was set down for examination on 3 September 2001.\n19.  On 10 August 2001 the prosecutor replied to the applicant’s complaint that the president of the Regional Court had been informed about the delays in the examination of her case. He also advised her to forward her complaints to the Higher Board of Judicial Qualifications.\n20.  On 3 September 2001 the Town Court allowed the applicant’s objection to judge S. and adjourned the examination of the case.\n21.  On 26 October 2001 the applicant requested that the examination of her case be postponed until her claim against her new employer had been con", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5620", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Cologne (Köln).\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 1 December 2003 the applicant and her husband entered into a notarial purchase agreement regarding the acquisition of real property with a house for the purchase price of 325,000.00 euros (EUR). The vendor assured them in the notarial purchase deed that the house disposed of two separate apartments and had all necessary permits for use by two parties.\n7.  In January 2004 the applicant learned that parts of the construction had been carried out without the required permission and that the use of the building by two parties had not been authorised.\n8.  The applicant then set time-limits for the vendor to rectify the corresponding defects on various occasions and retained part of the purchase price. Following the expiry of a final deadline set for August 2004 without the defects being removed, the applicant, who had meanwhile paid part of the purchase price in the amount of EUR 262,000.00, set off the residual sum in the amount of EUR 63,000.00 against her claim for compensation for the damage incurred by her due to the defects. The vendor for his part refused transfer of title.\n9.  In the following the vendor commissioned structural alteration works to be carried out on the real property in line with a construction permit obtained on 1 September 2004. However, the applicant found the alteration works to be insufficient and maintained the set-off.\n10.  On 28 October 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings against the vendor of the property before the Cologne Regional Court (Landgericht) for transfer of title and possession (file No. 8 O 391/04).\n11.  On 26 November 2004 upon receipt of advance payments for court costs by the applicant, the Regional Court scheduled a first hearing for 21 April 2005.\n12.  In January 2005 the vendor announced the commencement of execution as regards the outstanding part of the purchase price.\n13.  On 17 January 2005 the applicant lodged an action to oppose execution of the vendor’s claim for payment of the residual amount of the purchase price (Vollstreckungsabwehrklage) with the Cologne Regional Court (file No. 8 O 23/05) and requested an interim order for suspension of execution until a judgment in the case had been rendered.\n14.  On 19 January 2005 the Regional Court also scheduled a first hearing in this matter for 21 April 2005.\n15.  On 28 January 2005 the Regional Court ordered the provisional discontinuation of the execution of the vendor’s claim for payment of the remaining purchase price against provision of security (Sicherheitsleistung).\n16.  On 21 April 2005 a hearing took place in both proceedings (file No. 8 O 391/04 and file No. 8 O 23/05), upon which the applicant and the vendor agreed that transfer of the real property should take place on 28 or 29 April 2005 in accordance with the stipulations of the notarial purchase deed. The parties also asked for both proceedings to be suspended. It appears that the applicant took possession of the property on the agreed dates.\n17.  Following a request by the vendor on 14 June 2005 for both proceedings to be resumed, the Regional Court summoned the parties by order of 24 June 2005 to a hearing that took place on 10 November 2005. On the occasion of the hearing the applicant submitted written observations requesting in addition to her claim for transfer of title and possession, compensation in the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5621", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, an arts teacher, was born in 1946 and lives in Munich.\n6.  On 19 November 1996 she underwent elective surgery on her right eye. Subsequently, her vision deteriorated, causing her, in 2003, to become incapable of working.\n7.  On 24 June 1998 the applicant lodged a claim of medical malpractice against the hospital and three of its physicians with the Munich I Regional Court. Prior to the first hearing on 26 October 1998 the court ordered the applicant to file medical records and a declaration releasing her physicians from their medical confidentiality. In November 1998 the applicant withdrew her action against two of the defendants, and the Regional Court requested medical records from the physicians. On 30 December 1998 the court ordered the applicant to file additional medical records, which were partly filed in March 1999. On 20 April 1999 the applicant’s counsel informed the court that no more records existed.\n8.  On 3 December 1999, following another hearing on 20 October 1999 the Regional Court ordered an expert report from S. which he submitted on 19 April 2000. On 8 May 2000 the date of the next oral hearing was fixed for 13 September 2000. In view of the parties’ comments on the expert opinion, this hearing was cancelled on 13 July 2000, and S. was asked to supplement his report; he produced the supplement on 13 October 2000.\n9.  On 9 April and 30 August 2001, following oral hearings on 31 January and 13 August 2001, the Regional Court ordered further supplements from S. which were submitted on 18 June and on 17 October 2001. On 17 December 2001 the applicant increased her claim for pecuniary damage and was ordered to make a further advance payment of court fees.\n10.  On 29 January 2002 the Regional Court cancelled the hearing set for 6 February 2002 because payment of the further court fees could not be confirmed. On 12 June 2002 the applicant informed the court that her insurance had already paid the additional court fees in January; actual confirmation of the payment was only made on 23 August 2002. On 9 December 2002, after the expert had not replied to the court’s letters from August 2002, the Regional Court informed the parties that he could not be located.\n11.  On 23 January 2003 the applicant increased her pecuniary damage claim. On 8 April 2003 an oral hearing set for 16 April 2003 was cancelled. On 3 July 2003 the Regional Court ordered a new expert report from O. since S., who had meanwhile been traced, was not available for a hearing. On 31 July 2003 the applicant again increased her pecuniary damage claim. After comments on the claim extension by the defendants the court on 8 September commissioned O. On 7 November 2003 he informed the court that he was unable to accept the assignment but recommended his colleague, K. On 5 December 2003 the applicant objected to the appointment of K.\n12.  On 1 April 2004 O. returned the files to the court. On 20 April 2004 G. was appointed as expert. He submitted his report on 6 December 2004 after a reminder of the court dated 15 November 2004.\n13.  On 4 February 2005, after having received comments from the parties, the Regional Court ordered a supplement to the report, which G. submitted on 28 February 2005. An oral hearing scheduled for 25 May 2005 was cancelled on 15 April 2005 upon both parties’ request; a new date was set for 16 November 2005. On 21 September 2005 G., who could not come to a hearing due to health problems, submitted written answers to furthe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5622", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently serving a life sentence in Sokalska Correctional Colony no. 47 (Сокальська виправна колонія № 47).\n6.  On 6 June 2001 policemen attached to the Kominternovsky District Police Department of Kharkiv (Комінтернівський РВ ХМУ УМВС України в Харківській обл.), acting on information from an unknown source, arrested and detained the applicant on suspicion of murder and robbery. The applicant stated that he had been arrested the day before, on 5 June 2001.\n7.  On 8 June 2001 the applicant was questioned. He indicated that he did not need a lawyer.\n8.  On 9 June 2001 the applicant was transported to Kyiv, where he was placed in the Minsky District Temporary Detention Centre (Мінський районний ізолятор тимчасового тримання).\n9.  On 12 June 2001 the Prosecutor's Office of the Minsky District of Kyiv (Прокуратура Мінського району м. Києва) remanded the applicant in custody on the grounds that the applicant could escape and obstruct justice.\n10.  On 21 June 2001 formal charges were brought against the applicant on several counts of murder and attempted murder, attempted murder of police officers on duty, robbery and participation in an organised gang. When questioned on the same day in the presence of his lawyer, the applicant confessed to these charges.\n11.  On 2 August 2001 the Minsky District Court of Kyiv extended the applicant's pre-trial detention to a maximum of four months since “it was necessary to carry out a large scale investigation”.\n12.  On 5 October 2001 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (hereinafter - “the Court of Appeal”) decided to extend the term of his pre-trial detention until 8 December 2001 given “the information on the applicant's personality” and the gravity of charges.\n13.  On 29 November 2001 the investigator declared the pre-trial investigation complete and granted the applicant and his lawyer access to the case file, which they finished studying on 30 October 2002.\n14.  On 9 December 2002, in the course of a preparatory hearing attended by the applicant and his lawyer, the Court of Appeal found that the case was not ready for consideration on the merits and decided to remit it to the prosecution for further investigation. It also held that the applicant should remain in pre-trial detention as he could obstruct justice if released.\n15.  On 24 April 2003, after a hearing attended by the applicant's lawyer, the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the decision of 9 December 2002 on the main points and decided that the applicant should remain in pre-trial detention as he could obstruct justice if released.\n16.  On 19 June 2003 the applicant's case file arrived from the Supreme Court at the Prosecutor's Office of the Obolonsky District of Kyiv (Прокуратура Оболонського району м. Києва).\n17.  On 18 July 2003 the Court of Appeal examined the prosecution's application to extend the applicant's pre-trial detention. The applicant's lawyer was present at this hearing and lodged an unsuccessful request for the release of her client. The Court of Appeal decided to extend the applicant's pre-trial detention for up to a maximum of nine months (according to the relevant legal provisions, at the material time, the terms of pre-trial detention applied only to the periods when the case was being investigated. The time when the case was in the court, when the accused was studying the case-file etc. were not taken into consideration). In doing so, the court referred to the complexity of the case, t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5623", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977.\n5.  The applicant is a former police officer, who resigned from the police force in May 2000. As he maintained good relations with his former colleagues, on 21 June  2000 he participated in a party at the police station. A couple of hours later he was again passing by the police station when he saw S., who was on the night shift, and suggested that they share a bottle of cognac. S. agreed. Soon, alone at the station, the applicant and S. began to practise disarming techniques with S.'s service pistol. A fatal shot was fired accidentally in the process. The applicant had believed that the pistol was empty; however, one cartridge had been left inside by S. According to the forensic autopsy report, at that time S. had been heavily drunk (blood alcohol content of 4.59 ‰). Anticipating accusations of murder, the applicant decided to fake an attack on the police station. To that end he broke a door leading to the office of the commander of the police station and took away S.'s pistol, wallet and bag. The bag contained, inter alia, the official stamp of the police station and the deceased's police ID. He hid the pistol at his father's country residence and destroyed the stamp and ID.\n6.  On the next morning the applicant was arrested. Upon arrival at the police station the applicant was beaten up allegedly in order to force him to confess to the murder of S. At one point one of the police officers kicked the applicant so hard his head hit the window and broke the window pane.\n7.  A legal-aid lawyer invited by the police to advise the applicant during his first interrogation saw him being beaten up and informed his father about his arrest and ill-treatment.\n8.  In the morning of 23 June 2000 the applicant was taken to the Mykolaiv Temporary Detention Facility (Ізолятор тимчасового тримання, hereafter “the ITT”). According to a letter of the Mykolayiv City Police Department, dated 26 January 2001, because of the absence of a paramedic on admission to the ITT the applicant was examined by the officers on duty. The letter stated that the officers were now unable to confirm whether the applicant had had any bodily injuries at that time.\n9.  Later on 23 June 2000, at the request of the commander of the police station, the applicant was examined by an expert from the Mykolaiv Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations. The expert established that the applicant had a 1 cm long wound surrounded by fresh blood on his forehead, a rounded abrasion (0.5 cm. diameter) on his palm, and two bruises of 2x1.5 cm and 0.7x0.5 cm on his left forearm. These injuries had, according to the expert, been inflicted on 21-22 June 2000. In particular, the head injury had been inflicted not earlier than the afternoon of 22 June 2000.\n10.  On 25 June 2000 the Prosecutor of the Leninsky District of Mykolaiv ordered the applicant's detention on remand.\n11.  On 26 June 2000 the police officers allegedly again subjected the applicant to ill-treatment by beating him and painfully tightening his handcuffs. Following the applicant's complaint, the investigator from the Leninsky District Prosecutor's Office, assigned to deal with his case, ordered that further medical evidence be obtained. On 28 June 2000 an expert from the Mykolaiv Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations drew up a report, stating that the applicant had an abrasion on his temple of 1.5x1 cm in size, two 0.2 cm-wide abrasions around his wrists, an abrasion of 1.5x1 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5624", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Rossdorf.\n5.  On 4 July 1996, together with originally three and later on six of her siblings, the applicant filed an action by stages (Stufenklage) against the wife and heiress of their late father, seeking information regarding the estate, an affidavit as to the completeness of the information provided and, at the last stage, payment of their statutory shares (Pflichtteil).\n6.  On 19 February 1997, following an oral hearing on 18 December 1996 and further submissions by the plaintiffs, the Darmstadt Regional Court decided to consult the relevant files from the probate court.\n7.  The second oral hearing, scheduled for 17 December 1997, was rescheduled, because one of the judges had fallen ill; it took place on 10 February 1998. At this hearing the defendant was ordered to submit the extensive private expert opinion she had previously referred to. On 15 April 1998 the court proposed a friendly settlement which the parties did not accept. In June and July 1998 three additional plaintiffs joined the action.\n8.  A third oral hearing, scheduled for 3 March 1999, was cancelled after the parties had consented to written proceedings. The date of delivery of a decision was set for 3 March 1999; it was subsequently postponed to 14 April 1999, on which date the Regional Court issued an informative decision (Hinweisbeschluss). On 30 June 1999 the court handed down a partial judgment, ordering the defendant to provide information on the estate.\n9.  On 23 August 1999 the defendant appealed. The plaintiffs had to retain new counsel for the appeal proceedings. The time-limit for reasoning the appeal was extended once as was the time-limit for the plaintiffs for the submission of an answer to the appeal. In May 2001 the applicant retained again different counsel. At a hearing on 19 June 2001 three plaintiffs entered into a friendly settlement with the defendant. At the second hearing on 13 November 2001 the defendant withdrew the appeal.\n10.  On 14 November 2001 the applicant’s counsel applied to the Regional Court to proceed with the second and third stage of the action. On 19 December 2001 the reasoning in this regard was forwarded to the defendant’s counsel who, after having been granted two extensions of the time-limit, submitted the answer in April 2002. On 14 March 2002 another plaintiff joined the second stage of the action. On 24 July 2002, after the plaintiffs had submitted further observations within an extended time-limit, the Regional Court requested additional information. On 21 August 2002 the applicant and another plaintiff extended their claim. On 16 September 2002 the fourth plaintiff joined the second stage of the action. On 2 December 2002 the plaintiffs submitted further observations.\n11.  On 18 December 2002 an oral hearing was scheduled for 26 March 2003. On 24 March 2003 the Regional Court cancelled the hearing and announced a further informative decision which was issued on 10 June 2003; the time-limit for additional observations was 31 July 2003. After an extension of this time-limit for the defendant the parties submitted their observations on 10 July 2003 and 28 August 2003 respectively.\n12.  On 1 September 2004, following an oral hearing on 17 March 2004, the Regional Court requested further information by 30 September 2004. On 24 November 2004 the Regional Court ordered three expert opinions. On 29 December 2004 the applicant and two other plaintiffs applied for that evidence ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5625", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Zweibrücken.\n6.  On 24 February 2000 she suffered a heart attack. With regard to her treatment before and after this incident she accused her family practitioner of medical malpractice.\n7.  At the beginning of February 2002, after having been granted legal aid, the applicant lodged a claim of medical malpractice against her family practitioner with the Zweibrücken Regional Court.\n8.  On 3 April 2002 the Regional Court ordered an expert report and on 31 May 2002 appointed the expert. By letter of 28 June 2002 the expert informed the court that due to illness he was unable to take up his work. On 21 August 2002 the court appointed a new expert who had been recommended by the medical association in late July.\n9.  On 7 January, 4 and 21 February 2003 the court enquired about the report but did not receive an answer. On 15 April 2003 it ordered the expert to submit his report until 30 May 2003 on pain of a fine of 250 EUR. On 8 July 2003 the court again requested, to no avail, information from the expert as to the current state of affairs.\n10.  On 13 February 2004 the court ordered the expert to return the files by 27 February 2004. On 20 April 2004, after it had received no response from the expert, the court once more ordered the return of the files. On 28 May 2004 the court unsuccessfully tried to contact the expert by telephone. On 15 June 2004 the court again ordered the return of the files, setting a deadline of 15 July 2004 and threatening to forward the case to the Office of the Public Prosecutor. On 22 October 2004 the parties were informed that the matter had been handed over to the Regional Court’s president for further action. On 28 October 2004 the court imposed on the expert all costs caused by his refusal to draw up the report and return the files. On 4 November 2004 the court notified the parties that the delivery of the files was now to be enforced. On 16 December 2004 the parties were informed that in the meantime the files had been returned to the court.\n11.  On 28 June and 7 December 2005 the court held two hearings, in the course of which it heard eight witnesses.\n12.  On 12 January 2006, after the single judge had referred the case to the chamber, a new expert report was ordered, to be submitted at the latest on 15 May 2006. On the same day the court also scheduled an oral hearing for 27 June 2006. On 7 May 2006 the expert submitted his report. On 12 June 2006 the court ordered a supplement to the report and rescheduled the hearing for 5 December 2006. On 4 December 2006 this hearing was cancelled.\n13.  On 27 August 2007 a new hearing was scheduled for 8 January 2008. Upon request of defendant’s counsel the hearing was subsequently rescheduled for 19 February 2008.\n14.  On 14 February 2008 the oral hearing was postponed until 4 March 2008. On 1 April 2008 the applicant applied for an amendment of the transcript of this hearing. The application was dismissed on 22 April 2008. On 9 May 2008 the court ordered another expert report. On 21 August 2008 the expert submitted his report. On 9 December 2008 the court held another hearing.\n15.  On 9 February 2009 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The judgment was served on 26 February 2009.\n16.  On 20 March 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal. After it had informed the applicant that her appeal was inadmissible, because it had not been filed by a lawyer, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on 26 June 2009.\n17. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5627", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Athens.\n5.  On 15 June 1999 he brought an action for declaratory judgment (αναγνωριστική αγωγή) before the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens. In particular, he asked the court to declare that the Welfare fund of the Staff of the Greek Railways Organisation (Ταμείο Πρόνοιας Προσωπικού ΟΣΕ), which is a legal person governed by public law, owed him € 3,901.10. This sum corresponded to an allowance the applicant alleged he was entitled to when he retired.\n6.  On 30 May 2001 the action was dismissed (judgment no. 3648/2001).\n7.  On 10 April 2002 the applicant filed an appeal before the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence.\n8.  By judgment dated 11 March 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the findings of the First Instance Court (judgment no. 898/2004).\n9.  On 8 December 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on cassation with the Supreme Administrative Court. On 6 November 2007 he withdrew his appeal and a relevant report, to that effect, was delivered by the Supreme Administrative Court on 19 November 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5628", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company is a legal entity registered under Ukrainian law with its office in Kyiv.\n6.  On 17 May 2001 a company Yu. (“Yu.”), pledged in favour of the applicant company real estate located in the town of Yevpatoriya (“the real estate”). The pledge was notarised and provided that in the event of default by Yu. under the main agreement the applicant company could request a notary to issue a writ of execution regarding the real estate.\n7.  On 4 July 2001, following the applicant company's request, the notary issued a writ of execution ordering that the real estate be sold by the State bailiffs at public auction and the applicant company's claims be satisfied from the funds received.\n8.  On 11 July 2001 the Yevpatoriya Department of the State Bailiffs' Service (“the Bailiffs”) instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the writ of execution.\n9.  On 7 May 2002 the Commercial Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea ordered that Yu. pay 171,728.86 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) to the applicant company. The Bailiffs instituted separate enforcement proceedings in respect of that judgment.\n10.  On 6 June 2002 the Bailiffs joined the enforcement proceedings in respect of the writ of execution and the judgment.\n11.  On 12 September 2002 the Bailiffs, having failed to sell the real estate at public auction, transferred its ownership to a company, M. (“M.”), which was one of the other creditors of Yu. The applicant company challenged those acts of the Bailiffs.\n12.  On 3 December 2002 the Commercial Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea declared the applicant company's complaint against the Bailiffs inadmissible. The court noted that the complaint had been time‑barred and, in view of Article 121-2 of the Code of Commercial Procedure (“the CCP”), could not be considered by the commercial courts, since it raised the issue of the allegedly inappropriate enforcement of a notary's writ of execution, which was outside the competence of the commercial courts.\n13.  On 12 February 2003 the Sevastopol Commercial Court of Appeal (“the Commercial Court of Appeal”), considering the applicant company's appeal, decided that the complaint had been lodged in time but endorsed the conclusion of the first-instance court that the commercial courts had no jurisdiction over the complaint. The applicant company appealed in cassation against that resolution.\n14.  On 13 May 2003 the Higher Commercial Court imposed an interim measure, by which it attached the real estate pending consideration of the case.\n15.  On 19 May 2003 the Higher Commercial Court quashed the resolution of 12 February 2003 as unsubstantiated and remitted the case to the Commercial Court of Appeal for fresh consideration.\n16.  On 23 June 2003 the Commercial Court of Appeal found that the commercial courts did have jurisdiction over the applicant company's complaint, since the enforcement proceedings in question also concerned a judgment of a commercial court (namely, the judgment of 7 May 2002). It further declared the decision of the Bailiffs of 12 September 2002 unlawful and obliged them to sell the real estate at public auction at a reduced price.\n17.  On 27 October 2003 the Higher Commercial Court quashed the resolution of 23 June 2003, for the reason that the parties had not been duly informed of the hearing, and remitted the case to the Commercial Court of Appeal for reconsideration.\n18.  In the meantime, under the agreements of 11 and 18 September and 2 October 2003 M. sold", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5629", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Peseux, Switzerland.\n7.  On 7 January 2003 the Slovakian police arrested the applicant. On 8 January 2003 the Regional Office of the Judicial Police in Nitra accused her of forgery and attempted fraud. She and another person were suspected of having attempted to cash two cheques for more than seven million pounds sterling (GBP) and 1,800,000 United States dollars (USD) in November 2002. Those cheques were considered to have been forged.\n8. The applicant denied involvement in any unlawful action. She maintained that the cheques had been issued by foreign investors interested in a business activity which she had been planning to launch in Slovakia. She further argued that the British bank concerned had never contested the validity of the cheque in pounds sterling.\n9.  On 12 January 2003 the Nitra District Court remanded the applicant in custody with effect from 7 January 2003. Her detention was considered necessary as there was a risk of her absconding within the meaning of Article 67 § 1 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judge considered it relevant that the applicant was a foreign national and that she risked a prison term of between ten and fifteen years for the offences in issue. Reference was also made to Article 67 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The District Court heard the applicant and referred to the statement of the applicant's co-accused and available documentary evidence.\n10.  On 27 June 2003 the District Court extended the applicant's detention to 7 January 2004. It held that, in addition to the above-mentioned grounds, her detention was also necessary as she might influence witnesses or otherwise hamper the investigation within the meaning of Article 67 § 1 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In particular, important witnesses had to be heard in Spain whom the applicant had contacted by phone and fax prior to her detention. The District Court found no delays in the investigation and noted that the authorities of the United Kingdom, Spain and the United States of America had to be asked for assistance.\n11.  On 30 June 2004 the District Court extended the applicant's detention until 7 November 2004. As the Spanish authorities had not complied with the requests for legal assistance it had been impossible to complete the investigation. It risked being jeopardised if the applicant was released.\n12.  On 28 October 2004 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court granted a further extension of the detention, until 7 January 2005. That decision was justified by the fact that the General Prosecutor's Office had requested the assistance of the Spanish authorities in obtaining witness statements and that those statements had not yet been submitted. The statements were necessary to establish the relevant matters in respect of which the statements of the accused differed. Reference was also made to the applicant's nationality, the serious nature of the offence of which she was accused and the risk that she might influence witnesses if released. The Regional Court relied on Articles 67 §§ 1(a), (b) and 2 of the Court of Criminal Procedure.\n13.  On 22 December 2004 the Supreme Court extended the applicant's detention until 7 July 2005. It noted that no procedural steps had been taken between May and December 2004. That was, however, due to the absence of a reply from the Spanish authorities. The Supreme Court expressed the view that the applicant's detention was strictly necessary ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5630", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bielsko - Biała.\n7.  On 8 June 2006 the Bielsko-Biała Social Security Board refused to grant the applicant a disability pension. On 20 March 2007 the Bielsko‑Biała Regional Court dismissed his appeal against that decision. On 9 October 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's further appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 15 November 2007 and two-month time-limit for lodging of a cassation appeal started to run on that date.\n8.  On 9 November 2007 the applicant requested that a legal‑aid lawyer be assigned to the case for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 27 November 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal granted his request for legal aid and requested the Katowice Bar Association to assign a lawyer to the case. Subsequently, as the first lawyer assigned by the Bar Association suffered from certain health problems at that time, on 23 January 2008 the Katowice Bar Association assigned another lawyer, Mr J.R., to the case. He was served with the letter informing him of the assignment on 28 January 2008.\n9.  Subsequently the lawyer requested the Court of Appeal to serve on him its judgment of 9 October 2007. The judgment with the written grounds was served on him on 14 February 2008.\n10.  In a letter to the applicant dated 29 February 2008 the lawyer explained in detail why he had found no grounds on which to prepare a cassation complaint in the case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5631", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Košice.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 16 July 1985 the applicant lodged an action with the Vranov nad Topľou District Court seeking division of matrimonial property.\n7.  In the subsequent period two first-instance judgments of 30 June 1987 and 31 October 1989 were quashed by decisions of the Košice Regional Court of 30 December 1987 and 21 May 1990 an the case was remitted to the District Court.\n8.  On 20 November 1990 the Košice Regional Court decided that the first-instance judge was biased and on 17 December 1992 it transferred the case to the Prešov District Court for a decision.\n9.  On 21 October 1998 the applicant challenged the judges of the Prešov District Court.\n10.  On 5 November 1998 the Regional Court decided that, except for one judge, the judges of the Prešov District Court were not biased.\n11.  On 24 November 1998 the applicant challenged another       first-instance judge. By a decision of the Regional Court of 6 October 1999 the judge was excluded from the case.\n12.  On 31 August 2001 the Prešov District Court decided to obtain an expert opinion on the value of a real estate.\n13.  On 17 July 2002 the Prešov Regional Court, following the defendant's and the applicant's appeal, upheld the above decision.\n14.  On 3 September 2003 the Prešov District Court delivered          a judgment.\n15.  On 21 October 2003 the applicant appealed and challenged another   first-instance judge.\n16.  On 9 February 2005 the Prešov Regional Court decided that the judge was not biased and overturned the first-instance judgment. The decision became final on 11 March 2005.\n17.  On 7 April 2005 the applicant appealed on points of law.\n18.  On 28 November 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.\n19.  The applicant turned to the Constitutional Court complaining that the District Court and the Regional Court had violated his right to a hearing within a reasonable time.\n20.  On 1 March 2006 the Constitutional Court decided that the Prešov District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. It also decided that the Prešov Regional Court had not violated the above right. The Constitutional Court awarded 100,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK)[1] to the applicant in just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant's costs and expenses.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5634", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Prague. She is the owner of some 3,000 hectares of forest situated in Pöls.\n5.  By decision of 13 July 1998 the Styria Regional Health Insurance Board (Gebietskrankenkasse) ordered the applicant to pay surcharges on social security contributions amounting to 960,500 Austrian schillings (ATS), equivalent to 69,802 euros (EUR). Referring to an investigation into the payment of contributions (Beitragsprüfung) carried out in March 1998, it found that the applicant had, in 105 cases, failed to comply with her obligation to register employees with the social security system.\n6.  The applicant filed an objection (Einspruch) on 12 August 1998, arguing that it had not yet been established that the persons concerned were subject to compulsory insurance. She submitted that the persons concerned were not employees but limited partners in the von Pezold limited partnership (Kommanditgesellschaft). Finally, she argued that the amount of the surcharges was excessive.\n7.  On 22 September 1998 the Regional Health Insurance Board issued a decision with the following content:\nPoint I: contained a retroactive finding of compulsory insurance in respect of 41 persons. The Health Insurance Board found it established that these persons had been the applicant's employees within the meaning of section 4 of the General Social Security Act (Allgemeines Sozial‑versicherungsgesetz) at specified periods between 1993 and 1996. Referring to the file concerning the investigation into the payment of contributions which had been carried out between November 1997 and March 1998, the file concerning investigations (Betriebsprüfung) by the Judenburg Tax Office and the results of a salary tax investigation (Lohnsteuerprüfung) by the tax authorities, the Regional Health Insurance Board held that the von Pezold limited partnership was a sham company, aimed at concealing the fact that the workers were in reality employed by the applicant.\nPoint II: ordered the applicant to pay arrears in social security contributions in the amount of some 4 million ATS (about EUR 293,000) for the above-mentioned employees.\n8.  The applicant filed an objection against the decision on 22 October 1998, challenging the finding of compulsory insurance. She complained in particular that she had not been given an opportunity to submit her arguments and that the Regional Health Insurance Board had failed to establish relevant facts concerning the question whether or not the persons concerned worked in a relationship of personal and economic dependency, as required by section 4 of the General Social Security Act. In that connection she requested to hear Mr S., her forest administrator, Mr von Pezold, who had participated in running her forestry operation, and Mr K. as witnesses.\n9.  Subsequently, the proceedings concerning the surcharges on social security contributions fixed by the decision of 13 July 1998 and the proceedings concerning the payment of arrears in social security contributions fixed in point II of the decision of 22 September 1998 were suspended, pending the decision on the question whether or not the persons concerned were subject to compulsory insurance. According to the Government, the applicant agreed to the suspension of these two sets of proceedings.\n10.  On 17 October 2001 the Styria Regional Governor held a hearing on site, at the applicant's property in Pöls.\n11.  According to the minutes of the hearing, which were issued on 12 Apri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5635", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is serving a prison sentence in Yagul, Udmurtiya Republic.\n7.  On an unspecified date D., M., Gil. and Gut. were arrested and charged, inter alia, with the murders of P. B. and S. When questioned, D. and Gil. testified that the applicant had hired them to kill B.\n8.  On 23 April 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aiding and abetting the murder of B. He remained in custody pending trial and was repeatedly questioned by the investigator.\n9.  On 9 October 2001 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic set the trial for 23  October 2001.\n10.  On 19 October 2001 the head of the organised crime unit of the regional department of the interior informed the Supreme Court as follows:\n“Since December 2000, [the organised crime unit] has been investigating [S.'s murder] ... Defendants [D]., [M]. and [Gil.] ... pleaded guilty and gave truthful statements. On the basis of those statements and the evidence collected it was possible to establish that a leader of the Izhevsk organised criminal gang [V.] had been involved in S.'s murder, committed in April 1998. V. has been put on the federal wanted list.\n... [The organised crime unit] received information that the organised crime leaders had decided to kill D. after he testified against V. ... Furthermore, the police believe that D. knows about other crimes committed by organised crime leaders in Udmurtiya.\nHaving regard to the above..., we consider it possible that an attempt might be made to assassinate D. We hereby request that the trial be closed to the public and conducted at correctional colony no. 9 ...\n11.  On 22 October 2001 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic decided to dispense with the public hearing of the criminal case against the applicant and D., M., Gil. and Gut. The defendants or their lawyers were not present. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“The Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic received a letter from the head of the [organised crime unit] concerning the possibility that D. would be assassinated during the trial. D. had earlier testified about V. being involved in the crimes under investigation.\nHaving regard to the fact that [(1)] the defendants are charged with particularly serious offences, including involvement in organised crime and [(2)] the court is under obligation to ensure the safety of D. and all parties to the proceedings, the employees of the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic and other persons, [the court] decides to close the trial and to conduct [it] at remand prison no. 1. Another reason to justify the closure of the trial is the fact that D. is accused of murdering [S.] because the latter had raped [D.'s sister].”\n12.  On 23 October 2001 the Supreme Court opened the trial at remand prison No. 1. The applicant was represented by counsel of his own choice. The court granted his request to hear additional witnesses on his behalf. The applicant pleaded not guilty and testified in court.\n13.  On 13 December 2001 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment. The court based its findings on the confessions provided by the applicant's co-defendants D. and G., statements from eight witnesses, the crime scene investigation and forensic reports.\n14.  The applicant appealed against the conviction. He complained about the lack of a public hearing of the criminal case against him and assessment of evidence by the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5636", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Sebastopol.\n5.  In January 2001 the applicant lodged a claim with the Nakhimovskyy Court against his former employer, the Akademstroy Company, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as a result of an occupational injury. In the course of the proceedings, he also lodged a similar claim against several local departments of the Social Insurance Fund.\n6.  On 17 November 2004 the court delivered a judgment in the case. On 27 October 2005 the Sebastopol Court of Appeal quashed it and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the same court.\n7.  On 16 July 2007 the Nakhimovskyy Court allowed in part the applicant’s claim and awarded him certain amounts in health insurance payment arrears, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and court fees. It also ordered the recalculation of the applicant’s insurance payments.\n8.  On 31 January 2008 the Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment in the part concerning the award of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and court fees and upheld the remainder of the judgment.\n9.  On 24 March 2010 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions in the part concerning the award in respect of insurance payments and remitted the case for fresh consideration by the first-instance court, before which the proceedings are still pending.\n10.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant twice amended his claims. He lodged his appeal in cassation not in accordance with the procedural requirements and the Supreme Court gave him a new time-limit for rectifying it. Five hearings were adjourned as the applicant failed to attend them. Fifteen hearings were adjourned mainly due to the respondents’ failure to attend them or due to the absence of judges. Two forensic expert examinations were ordered by the courts (between 25 September 2001 and 28 February 2002 and between 2 October 2003 and 25 November 2003).\n11.  The applicant submitted that he had not attended only two hearings, without providing any further details.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5637", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Sebastopol.\n5.  On 23 July 1998 she lodged a claim with the Nakhimovskyy Court against her former employer for the recovery of salary arrears.\n6.  By a judgment of 21 January 1999, the court allowed the claim and awarded the applicant certain amounts in salary arrears.\n7.  On 3 June 1999 the applicant requested the court to review the above judgment in the light of the newly discovered circumstances. On 2 July 1999 the court allowed the request and reopened the proceedings.\n8.  By a judgment of 5 October 1999, the court rejected the applicant’s claim as lodged out of time. On 2 November 1999 the Sebastopol Court upheld that judgment.\n9.  On 23 June 2000, following a protest of the President of the Sebastopol Court, the Presidium of the same court quashed the decisions of 5 October and 2 November 1999 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n10.  By a judgment of 18 September 2003, the Nakhimovskyy Court rejected the applicant’s claim for the same reasons as in its judgment of 5 October 1999.\n11.  On 25 November 2003 the Sebastopol Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment. The applicant stated that she had not been present at the hearing on appeal because she had not been informed of it.\n12.  On 15 March 2006 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court, sitting in camera, rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation against the lower courts’ decisions as unsubstantiated.\n13.  In the course of the proceedings fourteen hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the judge dealing with the case, the defendant’s failure to appear, the latter’s requests to adjourn the hearings, the absence of an expert and the need to collect further evidence. A forensic examination was ordered in the proceedings and lasted for about eleven months (June 2001 - May 2002).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5639", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is currently serving life imprisonment in Yenakiyeve Prison no. 52.\n6.  In its judgment of 14 November 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Donetsk Court”) outlined the factual background of this case as follows. On 22 December 2001 the applicant and an acquaintance, G., stopped a taxi and asked the driver, L., to take them to a destination out of town. According to the applicant, they were planning a robbery and carjacking. The applicant had a knife hidden in his sleeve, which he had prepared in advance, and G. had a rope with him. Once the car reached a forest, the applicant and G. ordered the driver to stop. G. put the rope around the driver's throat while the applicant threatened him with the knife. The applicant got into the driver's seat and drove further into the forest, where they removed L., unconscious by that time, from the car. Later in December 2001 the dead body of L. was found in the forest with multiple stab wounds.\n7.  After the applicant and G. had unsuccessfully tried to sell L.'s car, it was found and seized by the police on 4 January 2002.\n8.  The applicant submitted that he had been arrested on 4 January 2002. According to the arrest report, he was arrested on 5 January 2002 on suspicion of the murder of L., which the investigator classified as falling under Article 115 § 1 of the Criminal Code (a premeditated murder). The applicant was recorded in the arrest report as having stated that he had no complaints or requests. The case file also contains a waiver of legal assistance by the applicant dated 5 January 2002.\n9.  On 8 January 2002 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who found his right wrist to be injured. The applicant explained that he had sustained the injury as a result of a fall during his arrest.\n10.  As confirmed in a note by the town hospital, on 11 January 2002 the applicant was taken there by the police for an examination of the aforementioned injury. An X-ray revealed that he had a closed fracture of a bone in his right wrist, and the wrist was put in plaster.\n11.  Between 5 and 16 January 2002 the applicant was held in the Petrovskyy District Police Station of Donetsk (“the police station”), after which he was moved to Donetsk Pre-Trial Detention Centre no. 5 (“the SIZO”). During that period, in the absence of a lawyer and allegedly after being subjected to beatings and threats, the applicant signed a confession, which was further confirmed in the course of a reconstruction of the events. He confessed that, acting together with G. and by their prior conspiracy, he had robbed and murdered L. The applicant admitted, in particular, that he had stabbed L. once with a knife. Later on, apparently after moving to another place of detention, the applicant withdrew his confession to murder, stating that it had been given under duress. He continued, however, to admit to the robbery and carjacking throughout the proceedings.\n12.  On 16 January 2002 the applicant wrote a note to the investigator, in which he stated that he had injured his wrist on 3 January 2002 after accidentally falling down some stairs. He also stated that he had no complaints against the police.\n13.  On an unspecified date, after the applicant's confession and after the reconstruction of the events, a lawyer was appointed for him.\n14.  On 20 May 2002 the Petrovskyy District Prosecutor's Office dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant's complaint regarding his alleged ill-treatment by", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5641", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1949, 2002, 1982, 2001, 1995 and 1982 respectively and live in Grozny, the Chechen Republic.\n8.  The first two applicants are the parents of Mr Ilyas Movldiyevich Yansuyev, born in 1978, Mr Isa Movldiyevich Yansuyev, born in 1980, and the sixth applicant. Ilyas Yansuyev was married to the seventh applicant; they are the parents of the third and fifth applicants. Isa Yansuyev was married to the fourth applicant.\n9.  It was the seventh applicant who witnessed the events of 13 February 2003, and the account below is based on her submissions.\n10.  In the early morning of 13 February 2003 Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev, their families and a friend, Mr D., slept in Ilyas Yansuyev's flat no. 110 at 24 Ioanisiani Street, Grozny.\n11.  At about 4 or 5 a.m. around fifteen armed men wearing camouflage uniforms broke the entrance door of Ilyas Yansuyev's flat and entered; some of them were masked. Although the armed men did not introduce themselves, the Yansuyevs concluded that they belonged to the Russian military because they spoke Russian without an accent.\n12.  The servicemen hit the seventh applicant on the head with an automatic rifle butt, tied her arms behind her back and put adhesive tape over her mouth. Then they put her on the floor and covered her body with a blanket. One of them sat on the seventh applicant's back so that she could not move for about an hour. The eight-month-old third applicant slept in her bed; the servicemen put a pillow on her face.\n13.  Meanwhile the servicemen searched the flat without producing any warrant but did not seize anything. They also beat Ilyas Yansuyev with automatic rifle butts. Then they forced Mr D., Ilyas and Isa Yansuyev out into the street and took them away. A few minutes later neighbours came and untied the seventh applicant who rushed to take a pillow off her daughter's face.\n14.  The applicants' submitted that the neighbours had seen the abductors arrive in two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) which they had parked in the courtyard. The applicants did not produce any witness statements to corroborate this allegation.\n15.  According to the fourth applicant, who had spent that night at her parents' flat in the same block of flats, she was woken by the noise. She looked out of a window and saw about twenty servicemen. After they had left, she rushed into the street and saw the tracks of APCs leading in the direction of the main federal military base in the village of Khankala.\n(b)  The Government's account of events\n16.  In the Government's submission, on 13 February 2003 at about 4 a.m., unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms and masks armed with automatic firearms entered flat no. 110 at 24 Ioanisiani Street in Grozny, where they beat and tied the seventh applicant, abducted Mr Ilyas Movldiyevich Yanusov, Mr Isa Movldiyevich Yanusov and Mr D. and took them away in an unknown direction.\n17.  According to the applicants, they started searching for their relatives on the morning of 13 February 2003. It was the first, fourth and seventh applicants who contacted various official bodies, such as the local administration, the Chechen administration, the Chechen President, the military commander's office of the Leninskiy District of Grozny (“the district military commander's office”) and the prosecutors' offices at different levels. In those applications they described the events of 13 February 2003 and asked for assistance in establishing their relatives' whereab", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5642", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Tomsk Region.\n7.  During the night of 4 to 5 November 2001 there was a theft from an administrative building in the village of Pospelikha, Altay Region. A fax machine, an electric kettle, a wristwatch and a desk clock were stolen. On 6 November 2001 the authorities opened a criminal inquiry and arrested a Mr A. During his interview, from 6 to 6.30 p.m., he admitted the theft and named the applicant as his accomplice. A search was carried out in the applicant's house; several compact discs, a radio receiver and a telephone set were seized.\n8.  It appears that at about 6 p.m. on the same evening the applicant was arrested at his home by two officers from the Pospelikha district police station in the Altay Region. The applicant was taken to the police station and placed in the temporary detention centre. At an unspecified time on the same day Mr S., an investigator with the Pospelikha district police, notified the Pospelikha district prosecutor of the applicant's arrest. The notification had no reference number and no indication of the hour.\n9.  According to the applicant, at 11 a.m. on 7 November 2001 he swallowed an open safety pin in order to protest against his allegedly unlawful arrest. He was taken to a public hospital for an X-ray examination, which confirmed the presence of a safety pin in his stomach. At about noon the applicant was brought back to the police station. Policemen stripped him down to his underwear and handcuffed both his hands to the bars in the lobby of the detention centre. At 7 p.m. he was given a chair. During the night he was allowed to sleep on the floor. He remained handcuffed, was given some water and tea but no food. The applicant was interviewed by an investigator on the morning of 8 November 2001. At 2 p.m. he felt sick and was examined by paramedics. At 5 p.m. the applicant was released.\n10.  According to the Government, at 8 p.m. on 7 November 2001 the applicant swallowed an open safety pin. After he had been examined at the hospital, he was brought back to the police station. He threatened to slit his veins. He was taken out of the cell, inspected and handcuffed with one hand to metal bars. He remained under the supervision of the on-duty officer. At night the applicant was given a mattress and bedding. The handcuffs were regularly moved from one hand to the other. The applicant was taken to a toilet, at his request, and was given water and tea. On the morning of 8 November 2001 investigator S. interviewed the applicant. At or around 1 p.m. the applicant alleged that he felt sick because he had swallowed a razor blade. He was examined by paramedics, who found that the complaint was false.\n11.  On 9 November 2001 Mr A. was interviewed again and stated that he had committed the theft alone. It does not appear that the applicant was subsequently prosecuted for the theft committed during the night of 4 to 5 November 2001. It appears, however, that he was sentenced to a prison term in relation to other criminal offences.\n12.  As can be seen from an undated certificate issued by the Prosecutor's Office of the Pospelikha District, the arrested persons' register and the arrest notification register for 2001 did not contain any information that the applicant had been arrested between 6 and 8 November 2001 under Article 122 of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure.\n13.  In February 2003 the applicant sued the Pospelikha district p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5643", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lived until his arrest in the town of Ishim in the Tyumen Region. He is now serving a life sentence in the Vladimir OD-1/T-2 detention facility, known as Vladimirskiy Tsentral.\n6.  On 17 June 2003 the applicant was transferred to Vladimirskiy Tsentral to serve the first ten years of his sentence of life imprisonment. It appears that he was among 150 new inmates who had arrived at Vladimirskiy Tsentral in the summer of 2003 and one of five detainees sentenced to life imprisonment. On admission to the prison the applicant was examined by a prison doctor who found no injuries on his body.\n7.  In July 2003, at the request of the acting head of Vladimirskiy Tsentral, a group of officers of a special-purpose unit of the Vladimir Regional Directorate for the Execution of Sentences arrived at the prison for the purpose of “accompanying inmates in outdoor exercise, to shower rooms, and so on”.\n8.  On 11 July 2003, at approximately 10.30 a.m., an officer of the special-purpose unit, Mr L., ordered the applicant and two other inmates to leave their cell. The applicant provided the following description of the subsequent events.\n9.  According to the applicant, he complied with Mr L.’s order, stepped out into a corridor, stood with his face to the wall and put his hands above his head on the wall as required by internal prison regulations. Six other warders were in the corridor at the time. Mr L. started kicking the applicant and hitting him with a rubber truncheon. The applicant submitted that he had asked for an explanation but in response he had received an additional three blows to the neck with the rubber truncheon. The applicant fell to the floor and Mr L. continued hitting him with the rubber truncheon on the head, back, stomach and legs. The applicant crawled to the wall in an attempt to dodge the blows. He sat near the wall and tried to cover his head with his hands. Mr L. kicked him a number of times, ordering him to get up and go outside for exercise. When the applicant refused Mr L. shoved him into the cell and took the applicant’s inmate, Mr Li., outside for exercise. The applicant asked for medical assistance. Twenty minutes later Mr L. again entered the cell and began hitting the applicant in the face and head using his fists and the rubber truncheon. Mr L. knocked out the applicant’s front tooth when he cut a finger on his left hand. Trying to escape, the applicant jumped on to a bunk, where Mr L. continued hitting him on the legs. Mr L. grabbed the applicant by his clothes, dragged him to a punishment cell and locked him up.\n10.  The applicant felt dizzy and called for a doctor. A nurse came to the punishment cell and the applicant complained to her that Mr L. had beaten him up. He showed the nurse his injuries and complained that he was not feeling well. Half an hour later Mr L. took the applicant out of the punishment cell and dragged him back to his own cell, continuing to hit and kick him.\n11.  The Government, relying on written statements by prison warders, including Mr L., submitted that on 11 July 2003 the applicant and two fellow inmates had resisted the warders’ attempt to take them outside for exercise. In particular, the applicant had grabbed Mr L. by his uniform, had threatened him with violence, and had tried to hit the other warders. Considering the applicant’s conduct as an offence, the warders hit him a number of times with rubber truncheons to put a stop to his unlawful behavio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5644", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, Franz Bachmayer, Sr. and Franz Bachmayer, Jr. were born in 1939 and 1968 respectively and live in Stuhlfelden.\n5.  The applicants have an inalienable and indefinite right to the use of wood (Einforstungsrecht) from certain plots of land now owned by the Republic of Austria and managed by the Austrian Federal Forestry Administration (Österreichische Bundesforste). In 1870 and 1876 the applicant's predecessors were granted the right to exchange their right to the use of the wood for ownership of the land.\n6.  On 6 September 1978 the first applicant and Jakob Bachmayer, the second applicant's legal predecessor, requested this exchange.\n7.  On 27 June 1985 the Salzburg Office of the Regional Governor in its capacity as Agricultural Authority (Amt der Landesregierung als Agrarbehörde) dismissed the request (“count 1”, divided into “lit.a”, “lit.b” and “lit.c” with regard to different rights). However, in the same decision the authority granted a request by the Austrian Federal Forests to pay compensation in exchange for the right to use the wood (“count 2”). The first applicant and Jakob Bachmayer appealed against this decision to the Regional Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat – hereafter “the Regional Board”). Subsequently, on 30 April 1986, they filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag).\n8.  On 2 July 1986 the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat – Supreme Board) dismissed the request for transfer of jurisdiction, because the questions at issue were of a high complexity and several expert opinions were required.\n9.  A further request for transfer of jurisdiction by the first applicant and Jakob Bachmayer was dismissed by the Supreme Land Reform Board on 27 February 1991. They filed a complaint against this decision with the Administrative Court, which was dismissed on 8 October 1991.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 16 January 1991, the second applicant and Mr Jakob Bachmayer concluded a contract on the transfer of the rights of the latter to the second applicant.\n11.  On 15 April 1992, after having held oral hearings in 1991 and 1992 the Regional Board, in a partial decision, dismissed the appeal against the Office of the Regional Governor of 27 June 1985 as regards “count 2” of the decision and also determined a new amount of compensation. As regards “count 1” several hearings were held between 1992 and 17 November 1995. On the latter date the Regional Board dismissed the applicants' appeal against “count 1 lit.c”.\n12.  On 21 February 1996 the applicants again requested a transfer of jurisdiction concerning their appeal against “count 1 lit.a” and “lit.b”.\n13.  On 5 June 1996 the Supreme Land Reform Board granted the transfer of jurisdiction, and subsequently appointed an expert, inspected the location and gave the applicants and the Austrian Federal Forestry Administration the possibility to submit comments on the expert opinion.\n14.  On 1 April 1998 the Supreme Land Reform Board granted the appeal and amended the decision of 27 June 1985. It determined the size of the land the applicants would receive in exchange for their right to the use of the wood and determined the compensation payments to be made by the applicants.\n15.  On 4 June 1998 the Austrian Federal Forestry Administration lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court against that decision.\n16.  The Administrative Court, on 21 February 2002, quashed the decision of the Supreme Land Reform Board. It held, inter alia, that the calcu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5645", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born between 1947 and 1985 and live in different cities in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.\n6.  They were toll collectors, controllers or senior staff (инкасанти на наплатна рампа или раководители) in a public roads enterprise.\n7.  The applicants were detained in several police stations in Skopje, some on 18 and some on 24 November 2007 on suspicion of abuse of office, namely that they had acted as an organised group and misappropriated over 5 million euros (EUR) from toll charges collected between April and November 2007. An individual report was drawn up for the detention of each applicant.\n8.  A group of applicants were brought before an investigating judge of the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) on 19 November 2007, and the remainder on 25 November. By two separate decisions of 20 and 26 November 2007 respectively, after having heard oral evidence from the applicants, the investigating judge started the investigation and remanded them in custody. The orders were based on all the grounds specified in section 199 of the Criminal Proceedings Act (“the Act”, see paragraph 32 below), namely a risk of absconding and reoffending, and of interference with the investigation. The judge relied on the gravity of the charges and the potential penalty and the fact that the applicants had acted as a well organised group.\n9.  Nine applicants and other co-accused appealed against the detention order, requesting its replacement by a more lenient measure. The appellants relied on their family situation in the respondent State, the absence of a previous criminal record, the fact that some of them had appeared voluntarily in police stations and the failure of the investigating judge to give concrete reasons justifying the detention of each of them separately. A three-judge panel of the trial court (“the panel”), set up under section 22 § 6 of the Act, dismissed appeals submitted by two applicants. No evidence was produced that the panel decided the remaining appeals.\n10.  On 18 and 21 December 2007 respectively, the panel extended the applicants' detention for thirty days on all three counts specified under section 199 of the Act. The risk of absconding was justified by the gravity of the charges, the potential penalty and the fact that ten applicants had no possessions and no family in the respondent State. Eighteen applicants appealed, alleging lack of reasons. Their requests for a more lenient measure were supported with evidence about their poor health, copies of their passports and certificates attesting to their possessions in the respondent State. Some of them also requested release on bail.\n11.  On 31 December 2007 and 4 January 2008 respectively, the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and confirmed the orders. Only in respect of Mr Z. Pankovski, who produced the original copy of his employer's decision dismissing him from work, did the court exclude “the possibility of reoffending” from the list of grounds for his detention. It did not admit in evidence the uncertified copies of the dismissal decisions submitted by the other appellants. As to the remainder, it stated inter alia:\n“... circumstances related to the type and nature of the criminal offence for which the investigation has started against the accused, the potential penalty prescribed for the offence, as well as the personal circumstances of the accused, taken as a whole, suggest that there is a real risk of flight if they a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5646", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1982. He is currently serving a prison sentence at Cherkasy Correctional Colony (Prison) (Черкаська Виправна Колонія № 62) (“the Colony”).\n5.  On 12 September 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm to D. According to the police, on 11 September 2001 the applicant broke into D.'s house and attacked him with a knife as he was sleeping. D. received wounds to the left side of the chest, the left forearm and the left knee. As D. resisted the attack, the applicant pulled back. The applicant stayed at the scene of the crime and called the police and an ambulance.\n6.  On 12 September 2001 the applicant was questioned by the police concerning the incident. The applicant was not assisted by a lawyer during his questioning.\n7.  On 21 September 2001 the applicant was officially charged with aggravated hooliganism (Article 296 § 4 of the Criminal Code).\n8.  For an unspecified period before the end of 2001 the applicant was assisted by a lawyer of his own choosing, Mr N.\n9.  On 25 December 2001 the investigations were completed and the case was referred to Tarasha Court (Таращанський районний суд Київської області) for trial.\n10.  At a preliminary hearing on 18 January 2002 the court decided to remit the case for additional investigation.\n11.  On 23 April 2002 the additional investigation was completed and the case was sent to the same court.\n12.  On 12 August 2002 Tarasha Court granted the applicant leave to be defended in the proceedings by his mother, who was not a lawyer.\n13.  Between May 2002 and March 2003 the court held several hearings on the merits of the case and ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant, which was completed by March 2003. In the course of the court proceedings during the aforementioned period and during the ensuing investigations the applicant was assisted by a lawyer of his own choosing, Mr M.\n14.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor taking part in the proceedings requested the court to remit the case for additional investigation, stating that there was evidence that the applicant had committed a more serious crime than the one with which he had been charged.\n15.  On 12 March 2003 the court found that the criminal qualification of the applicant's actions was incorrect and remitted the case to the prosecutors for additional investigation. On 28 May 2003 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд Київської області) dismissed an appeal by the applicant's lawyer against that decision, holding that the reasons for the remittal were based on the case materials and the prosecutor's request. The decision of the Court of Appeal did not suggest that it was subject to a further appeal.\n16.  On 17 July 2003 the prosecutors brought new charges against the applicant, accusing him of attempted murder for hooligan motives and of unlawful entry into a private residence (Articles 15 § 2, 115 § 2 (7), and 162 § 1 of the Criminal Code). One of the possible sanctions under Article 115 § 2 of the Criminal Code was life imprisonment.\n17.  On 25 July 2003 the case was referred to the Court of Appeal for trial.\n18.  On an unspecified date a new lawyer, Mr T., appointed by the applicant, joined the proceedings before that court.\n19.  On 15 October 2003 the court found the applicant guilty of unlawful entry into a private residence and aggravated hooliganism and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment.\n20.  On 25 March 2004 the Supreme Court quashe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5647", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Zaporizhzhya.\n5.  In October 1995 the applicant lodged a claim with the Ordzhonikidzevskyy Court against the local prosecutor’s office and the police department for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. In the course of the proceedings he also lodged a similar claim against the State Treasury.\n6.  On 22 October 1998 the court delivered a judgment in the applicant’s case. On 21 January 1999 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court quashed it and remitted the case for fresh consideration. On 19 February 1999, following the protest of the President of the Regional Court, the Presidium of the same court quashed the ruling of 21 January 1999.\n7.  On 22 April 1999 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 22 October 1998 and remitted the case for fresh consideration by the first instance court.\n8.  On 9 February 2004 the Ordzhonikidzevskyy Court allowed in part the applicant’s claims and awarded him certain amounts of compensation.\n9.  On 23 November 2004 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. On 12 December 2007 the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of 23 November 2004 and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for fresh consideration.\n10.  On 4 March 2008 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 9 February 2004 and rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated.\n11.  On 21 May 2008 the Supreme Court refused to grant leave for the applicant’s appeal in cassation.\n12.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant amended his claim and appeals on ten occasions. The courts adjourned twelve hearings following the applicant’s requests or due to his failure to appear, which resulted in several delays of the overall duration of one and a half years. Some thirteen hearings were also adjourned due to the respondents’ failure to appear, absence or sickness of a judge or because the courts needed to collect additional evidence.\n13.  In October 1990 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the domestic courts against the local police department, seeking compensation for damages. These proceedings ended on 19 October 1994 with the court decision partly granting the applicant’s action.\n14.  In 1989-1999 the applicant unsuccessfully sought institution of criminal proceedings against certain police officers, who had allegedly taken some of his personal belongings and inflicted light bodily injuries on him.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5648", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a company limited by shares with its seat in Budapest.\n6.  By way of assignments for consideration, done in October 2001 and July 2002, the applicant acquired – through intermediaries – the debts of V. Rt and M. Rt from the Tax Authority. The debts consisted mostly of unpaid payroll taxes and social security contributions and originated in the period before 1998.\n7.  Since the debtors had become insolvent, the applicant brought an action against the State-owned Hungarian Privatisation and State Holding Company (ÁPV Rt) before the Budapest Regional Court in order to recover the assigned claims. Relying on section 328 of the (Old) Companies Act 1988, it argued that ÁPV Rt – the majority owner of the two debtor companies – bore vicarious liability for the outstanding debts.\n8.  On 25 September 2003 the Regional Court partly found for the applicant. The court awarded some 47.3 million Hungarian forints (HUF) to the applicant, which corresponded to the debts of V. Rt other than the payroll taxes and social security contributions. It dismissed the action in respect of the latter items. The applicant was obliged to pay HUF 9.6 million to the respondent in legal fees.\n9.  The applicant appealed. It claimed 22,482,500 Hungarian forints (HUF) plus accrued interest on account of the remaining debts of V. Rt and HUF 177,975,985 plus accrued interest on account of those of M. Rt.\n10.  The Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision on 9 July 2004. The applicant was obliged to pay HUF 3 million as procedural fees.\n11.  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court in respect of the social security contributions owed by M. Rt. It submitted that their amount altogether was approximately HUF 160 million – a sum including the principal of HUF 84,515,225 – but susceptible to further taking of evidence in resumed proceedings.\n12.  On 5 April 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision. It was satisfied that ÁPV Rt indeed bore vicarious liability in the circumstances. Relying on Uniformity Decision no. 2/2004.PJE, it held however that – pursuant to sections 3(3) and 25(2) of the (Old) Taxation Order Act 1990 – for the impugned social security contributions to be enforceable by the applicant, a decision should have been issued by the Tax Authority establishing the vicarious liability. For want of such a decision, the contributions could not be enforced by the applicant, since the assignment had not conferred any public law powers on it. The applicant was obliged to pay once more HUF 3 million as procedural fee.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5650", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company was founded in 1992 and is based in Baia Mare.\n5.  On 14 March 1996 the applicant company lodged an action seeking to compel company A. (a State-owned private company) to return 2,934,854,487 Romanian lei (ROL), representing the price of merchandise delivered by the applicant and not paid by A., plus interest. The defendant objected, claiming that the debt had already been paid.\n6.  The applicant paid ROL 10,000 in court fees but was asked by the court to make a supplementary payment to cover a percentage of the total claim. On 31 May 1996 the court calculated the fee at ROL 270,162,136.\nOn 28 June 1996 the company contested the new court fee and argued that according to the law, as interpreted by the higher courts, it should only pay ROL 10,000.\nOn 4 October 1996 it reiterated its position on the matter.\n7.  On the same day the court started deliberations in the case.\n8.  On 11 October 1996 the court restored the case to its list and summoned the parties to a hearing on 29 November 1996 to discuss the need for an expert evaluation of the claims.\n9.  On 20 January 1997 company A. accepted the calculation of the debt.\n10.  An evaluation of the debt was ordered and the report was submitted to the court on 11 December 1997.\n11.  On several occasions during the proceedings the defendant asked that the applicant company be requested to pay court fees. Several adjournments were granted to this end.\n12.  On 26 September 1997 the defendant informed the court that insolvency proceedings had been initiated against it (see paragraph 19 below).\n13.  On 5 February 1998 the Maramureş County Court cancelled the action for failure to pay the court fees. It also noted that the applicant company had never contested the level of the court fee.\n14.  The applicant company appealed, arguing that according to the law on which it based its initial action the court fee was set at a lump sum of ROL 10,000 irrespective of the amount claimed, a sum which it had already paid over at the start of the proceedings. The applicant paid the court fees for the appeal in the amount of ROL 10,000 and ROL 3,000 in judicial stamps.\n15.  On 27 May 1998 the Cluj Napoca Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as unfounded. The decision was enforceable.\n16.  On 24 June 1998 the applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law.\n17.  On 9 May 2006 the applicant company sought information on the proceedings from the Maramureş County Court. In reply, on 12 May 2006 the County Court informed the applicant company that due to an administrative error the appeal on points of law had only been forwarded to the Supreme Court of Justice on 12 May 2006.\n18.  In a final decision of 15 February 2008 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the appeal as ill-founded. It noted that in so far as the debtor contested the claim, the first‑instance court was correct in seeking court fees proportionate to the value of the claim.\n19.  On 5 April 1995 one of company A.'s creditors sought institution of insolvency proceedings against company A., under the relevant Articles of the Commercial Code.\n20.  From 10 May 1995 to 25 June 1997 the proceedings were stayed at company A.'s request, as the Government had adopted programmes for the financial rehabilitation of the company (Government Ordinance no. 13/1995 on restructuring State-owned companies).\n21.  On 18 March 1998 the Maramureş County Court declared company A. insolvent. Following the reports on the company's finan", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5651", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1979. He is currently serving his sentence in the Novosibirsk Region.\n11.  On 30 April 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having murdered his father and uncle. The applicant made a written request to be provided with a legal-aid lawyer. On the same day an expert examination of fingerprints and a forensic examination were ordered and on 3 May 2001 the applicant was remanded in custody.\n12.  On 4 May 2001 legal-aid counsel, Ms P., was appointed to assist the applicant, and he was charged with aggravated murder on 10 May 2001.\n13.  From May to September 2001 a number of expert examinations were carried out. Subsequently the applicant received copies of orders for such examinations. He signed each of them confirming their receipt and indicating that he had no comments or requests.\n14.  On 30 September 2001 the detention order was lifted and replaced with an undertaking not to leave his place of residence.\n15.  In October 2001 the applicant's former cellmate in the detention facility, Mr Zh., testified that the applicant had told him in detail how he had murdered his father and another man.\n16.  On an unknown date the applicant's friend, Mr R., gave a witness statement alleging that the applicant had asked him to murder his father and that when R. refused the applicant seemingly intended to do it himself.\n17.  On 5 November 2001 the applicant was again remanded in custody.\n18.  On 20 December 2001 the Novosibirskiy Regional Court examined the criminal charges against the applicant. The applicant pleaded not guilty. The court examined seventeen witnesses including Zh. and R., and found the applicant guilty of the murder of two persons, sentencing him to eighteen years' imprisonment. In its judgment the court referred to witness statements, forensic reports and extensive material evidence.\n19.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed, alleging that Zh. and R. had given their statements under pressure from the police and claiming that the investigation had been vitiated by numerous violations of the applicant's defence rights. They also complained that they had received the expert examination orders belatedly.\n20.  On 12 May and 29 July 2002 the applicant requested to be assigned another lawyer to represent him in the appeal proceedings because Ms P. was unable to attend the hearing, as she was already engaged in another trial.\n21.  On an unknown date the applicant was informed that his participation in the appeal hearing would be ensured by video link. On 26 and 30 July 2002 he requested leave to attend the appeal proceedings in person because he did not consider that the video link would provide him with an adequate opportunity to participate in the hearing.\n22.  On 16 October 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ordered the Moscow IZ-77/3 detention centre to ensure the applicant's participation in the appeal hearing, which was to take place on 31 October 2002, by video link.\n23.  On 31 October 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined the applicant's appeal. The applicant participated in the proceedings by video link. No defence counsel attended the hearing. The court dismissed the applicant's appeal, having found no proof that the testimony of Zh. and R. was false. As regards the alleged breach of his defence rights, the court found this to be unsubstantiated.\n24.  In the following months the applicant filed several supervisory review complaints. In letters of 24 April an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5652", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants were born in 1940, 1941, 1938, 1952, 1946, 1953, 1925, 1940, 1929, 1952, 1926, 1948 and 1948 respectively and live in southern Cyprus.\n11.  The applicants alleged that their homes, as well as other immovable properties, had been in the districts of Famagusta and Kyrenia (northern Cyprus). In July 1974, as the Turkish troops were advancing, they had been forced to leave their houses and belongings.\n12.  The properties claimed by the applicants were described as follows in the Court's final decision on the admissibility of the application.\n13.  Properties of applicant no. 1, Mr Constantinos G. Lordos:\n(1) Kyrenia, Livera, Fyrades-Tsounni, Plot No. 1, Sheet/Plan: 5/54, Area: 47:2:335m² Use: Land, Share: 1/15;\n(2) Famagusta, Egkomi, Salamina, Plot No. 56/1, Sheet/Plan: 24/42, Area: 0:8:900m², Use: Land, Share: 1/12;\n(3) Famagusta, Trikomo, Finikoudia/Leivadia, Plot Nos. 209, 211, 199/1, Sheet/Plan: 15/43, Area: 0:3:213, 0:1:894, 1:3:409, Use: Land, Share: 1/3, 1/3, ½ respectively;\n(4) Famagusta, Trikomo, Pervolia Trikomou/Kokkines, Plot No. 140/1, Sheet/Plan: 15/43, Area: 1:6:92, Use: Land, Share: 1/3;\n(5) Famagusta, Vasili, Ammos, Plot Nos. 172, 173, 179, Sheet/Plan: 8/21, Area: 0:8:455m², 0:8:848, 0:4:977, Use: Land, Share: 1/8 in total;\n(6) Famagusta, Vasili, Ammos, Plot Nos. 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, Sheet/Plan: 8/21, Area: 0:6:924, 0:9:912, 0:1:800, 0:1:791, 0:2:370, 0:2:568, Use: Land, Share: ½ in total;\n(7) Famagusta, Avgorou, Mantres tou Tzipou, Plot No. 187, Sheet/Plan: 32/40, Area: 0:6:331, Use: Land, Share: ¼;\n(8) Famagusta, Avgorou, Mantres tou Tzipou, Plot Nos. 204, 205, 206, 207, 208/1, 208/2, Sheet/Plan: 32/40, Area: 1:1:3, 1:3:704, 0:4:513, 0:4:696, 0:2:655, 0:2:508, Use: Land, Share: ¼;\n(9) Famagusta, Ayios Theodoros, Valia, Plot No. 14, Sheet/Plan: 15/24, Area: 1:1:520, Use: Land, Share: 1/5;\n(10) Famagusta, Ayios Nicolaos, Plot No. 1265, Sheet/Plan: 33/13.4.4, Use: Shop A Lordos Cyprian Court, Share: No. 1265, Sheet/Plan: 33/13.4.4, Use: Shop D - Lordos Cyprian Court, Share: 100%;\n(11) Famagusta, Chrysi Akti, Plot No. 777, Sheet/Plan: 33/21.1.2, Block A, Area: 0:1:864, Use: Land and buildings, Share: ¼;\n(12) Famagusta, Ayios Nicolaos, Plot No. 1009, Sheet/Plan: 33/12.6.2, Block D, Area 0:0:660, Use: Land and building 10 shops, 8 flats, 2 underground stores, Share: ¼;\n(13) Famagusta, Ayios Memnon, Plot Nos. 370, 379, Sheet/Plan: 33/29.3.4, Block E, Area: 0:3:821, Use: Land, Share: 7/20;\n(14) Famagusta, Acropolis, Plot No. 463, Sheet/Plan: 33/21/4.3, Block J, Area: 0:0:260, Use: Building site, Share: ¼;\n(15) Famagusta, Ayios Loucas, Plot Nos. 83, 85, Sheet/Plan: 33/3, Block C, Area: Unknown, Use: Land under development, Share: ¼;\n(16) Famagusta, Salamina, Plot No. 19, Sheet/Plan: 24/59, Block D, Area: 1:8:80, Use: Land in industrial area, Share: 1/6;\n(17) Famagusta, Salamina, Plot Nos. 1192, 1194, 1181, 1183, Sheet/Plan: 24/60, Block C, Area: 0:0:521, 0:0:535, 0:0:518, 0:0:530, Use: Building site, Share: 1/10, 1/10, ¼, ¼ respectively;\n(18) Famagusta, Salamina, Plot No. 49, Sheet/Plan:. 24.60, Block D, Area: 6:5:350, Use: Land, Share: 11/80;\n(19) Famagusta, Salamina, Plot No. 949, Sheet/Plan: 24/60, Block C, Area: 4:7:9, Use: Land under development, Share: 1/10;\n(20) Famagusta, Salamina, Plot Nos. 180, 181, 183, Sheet/Plan: 24/59, Block D, Area: 0:0:970, 0:0:838, 0:0:731, Use: Building sites, Share: ¼;\n(21) Famagusta, Salamina, Plot Nos. 192, 194, 195, Sheet/Plan: 33/3, Block D, Area: 0:0:793, 0:0:771", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5653", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were both born in 1970 and live in Chişinău. They are married to each other.\n6.  The first applicant is the owner of an Internet café. On 22 October 2006 at around 6.10 p.m. he ejected a boy from the café because he had prevented another boy from using the Internet. The first applicant then went to another address and brought a plumber (C.) back in order to do some repair work at the café.\n7.  While he was away, two persons (C.A. and D.A.; C.A. was the Commander of the Special Forces police regiment “Scut”) came to the café and asked L.C., the café manager who was on duty on that day, about the first applicant's whereabouts.\n8.  L.C. told them that the first applicant would return shortly and they went outside. L.C. then called the second applicant, the first applicant's wife, and told her that two men had been looking for the first applicant. She asked L.C. to ask one of the men to come to the telephone. When L.C. went outside to do so, he saw the first applicant on the ground, unconscious. One of the men who had been looking for him earlier was giving him emergency assistance. He informed the second applicant of what he had just seen and then called an ambulance and the police.\na.  The first refusal to open a criminal investigation\n9.  On 25 October 2006 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the police, stating that when he had approached the Internet café he had seen two men and a boy near the entrance. The boy was the one whom he had ejected earlier from the café. One of the men asked the boy: “Is that him?”. Having received an affirmative response, the man punched the first applicant in the face. When the first applicant tried to resist, the second man hit him on the back of his head with a hard object, following which he lost consciousness. When he regained consciousness, he was on the ground and one of the attackers was giving him emergency medical assistance. That man told the persons who had gathered around that the first applicant had had an epileptic fit.\n10.  The first applicant was taken to hospital and was prescribed in-patient treatment. On 25 October 2006 he was examined by a doctor, who noted that he had a hematoma around his right eye and on his nose (5x3 and 2.5x3 cm), and one on the back of his head measuring 0.3x0.2 cm. The specialist also noted a neurologist's diagnosis dated 23 October 2006, according to which the first applicant had suffered a head trauma. The specialist finally established that, given the location of the various injuries suffered by the first applicant, it was “unlikely that they could have been caused by a fall”.\n11.  On 23 November 2006 the prosecutor's office decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against C.A. and D.A., “because the act was not prohibited by criminal law”. The prosecutor found that C.A. had offered the first applicant medical help and had not attacked him.\nb.  The second refusal to open a criminal investigation\n12.  On 10 January 2007 the hierarchically superior prosecutor annulled that decision, finding it premature and taken in the absence of a thorough examination of the circumstances of the case. In particular, there had been no verification of whether the first applicant had had an epileptic fit and whether he had previously suffered from epilepsy. In addition, the statements of C.A. and D.A. were contradicted by the statement by L.C., according to which they had been looking for the first applicant before the alleged attack. Moreover, othe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5654", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are all Romanian citizens.\n6.  The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicants are all former employees of B., a bank, which was involved in a large restructuring process of State-owned companies in Romania, entailing collective dismissals.\n8.  The collective dismissal of employees of B. took place in different stages between September 1998 and October 1999. It affected hundreds of persons across Romania working either in the central office or in the local branches of the bank as follows: 632 persons dismissed in September 1998, seventy persons dismissed in February 1999 and 725 persons dismissed in May 1999. No precise numbers were available for the final stages of the dismissal process. From the case file, it appears that the applicants were dismissed during the period September 1998-October 1999.\n9.  The applicants made several attempts to receive compensatory sums for collective dismissal (see paragraph 14 below) before the Bucharest Employment and Vocational Training Agency (“the agency”), a State agency entrusted with the disbursement of these payments, but did not have any success.\n10.  On 3 December 2000, they brought an action against the agency, seeking to be granted the compensatory payments. They argued that according to the applicable law, their right had arisen on the date on which their contracts had been terminated. The fact that B. had failed to submit to the agency a list of the persons whose contracts had been terminated could not be imputed to the employees. Moreover, there was established case-law upholding applications submitted by other former employees in a similar situation from the same court of first instance in Bucharest and in final decisions of higher courts across the country.\n11.  By a judgment of 9 August 2001, Bucharest District Court upheld the applicants' claim. It established that B. had only submitted to the local agency a list of persons dismissed after 8 October 1999 and had failed to send a list of persons dismissed before that date, even though they were part of the same collective dismissal process. The court considered that this failure gave rise to inequalities among the people dismissed.\n12.  Allowing an appeal by the agency, the Bucharest County Court, by a final decision of 25 March 2002 (drafted on 1st July 2002), reversed the first-instance decision and concluded that the applicants did not meet the requirements for receiving the compensatory payments. For the applicants dismissed between September 1998 and May 1999, the appellate court referred to another condition provided by the national legislation, namely that the State Property Fund (FPS) should have mandated its special representatives on the board of shareholders to proceed with the reorganisation, in particular with the collective dismissal. In the case at issue, the appellate court established that such a mandate did not exist on the date when the applicants were dismissed and therefore they were not entitled to compensatory payments. For the applicants dismissed between August and October 1999, the county court established that they did not meet another condition, namely that they did not prove that they had taken part in the pre-dismissal procedures. It concluded that the applicants did not satisfy these specific conditions and dismissed their claims.\n13.  The applicants submitted requests to the Procurator General for leave to lodge an extraordinary appeal against t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5656", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The circumstances of the present case are similar to those in the case Tarnopolskaya and Others v. Russia (nos. 11093/07 et seq., §§ 6-13, 7 July 2009).\n6.  The applicants' names and other details are indicated in the appended table.\n7.  The applicants emigrated to Israel from the USSR in the 1980s and 1990s and obtained Israeli nationality. Before immigration they had been receiving old-age pensions from the Soviet authorities. However, once the applicants left the USSR, the payments were discontinued in accordance with the USSR pension law applicable at the material time. As they left the USSR prior to its collapse, they were not entitled to a pension under the new Russian legislation.\n8.  In early 2000 the applicants unsuccessfully applied to the regional departments of the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (“the Pension Fund”) for the payment of their pensions to be restored. On unspecified dates they brought civil proceedings against the Pension Fund requesting restoration of the payment of their pensions.\n9.  By the final judgments listed in the appended table the applicants' claims were allowed and the Pension Fund was ordered to restore pension payments.\n10.  In the case of Ms Eydelman the final judgment of 5 July 2004 was being enforced from April 2005 until July 2006, when it was quashed.\n11.  In the case of Ms Margulis the applicant submitted to a State body responsible for enforcement, the required additional documents, including her bank account, by 30 June 2005. The final judgment in her favour in part of the periodical payments due in 1998-2005 was subsequently enforced on 20 January 2006. The judgment has not been enforced since then.\n12.  In the cases of Ms Shinkova and Ms Rogatskaya the judgments have never been enforced.\n13.  In the cases of Ms Itskovich and Ms Orlova the payments were restored and were stopped only after the subsequent quashing of the judgments in their favour.\n14.  In the case of Ms Lyalina the payments under the judgment were made in part.\n15.  In the cases of Ms Rozhnikovskaya and Ms Mnushkina the monthly payments were made in full until January 2008, that is one month before the judgment was quashed by way of supervisory review.\n16.  In the cases of Ms Soltanova and Ms Litvinova the payments were not made due to the applicants' alleged failure to provide the necessary documents.\n17.  In the case of Ms Vcherashnyaya the judgment in her favour was being enforced in full before the quashing via supervisory review.\n18.  Subsequently, earlier than 7 January 2008, the Pension Fund, as a party to the proceedings in the present case, lodged requests with the competent regional courts for supervisory review of the final judgments in the applicants' favour. The Presidia of the regional courts granted the requests, quashed the judgments and dismissed the applicants' claims.\n19.  The Presidia found that according to the relevant USSR legislation, under which the pensions had been awarded, there was no possibility to continue the payments to the applicants, as they had left the country. They considered that the payments were to be restored only if the pensions had been awarded in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, not the USSR. The Presidia accordingly concluded that there was no basis under the domestic law for the payments to be awarded to the applicants.\n20.  The relevant data on the Presidia decisions is listed below.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5658", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1971, 1962, 1966 and 1965 respectively. The second applicant is currently detained in Plovdiv Prison. The third applicant lives in Nicosia, Cyprus. The remaining applicants live in the village of Stryama in Bulgaria.\n6.  On 6 and 12 May 1992 the police in Rakovski opened two investigations into several thefts of sheep and goats. Between 13 and 19 May 1992 the applicants submitted written explanations admitting to having committed the thefts.\n7.  The proceedings remained dormant until January 2002 when a police investigator questioned several witnesses and commissioned two expert reports concerning the value of the stolen animals. Between 21 and 24 January 2002 the investigator brought charges against the four applicants.\n8.  On 15 March 2002 the first and third applicants were questioned before a judge.\n9.  In November 2003 the investigation was concluded and on 8 December 2003 the applicants were indicted for theft. On 1 June 2004 they entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution, accepting short suspended sentences. At a hearing held on the same day the Plovdiv District Court affirmed the agreement and discontinued the proceedings. Its decision was final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5659", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lived until his arrest in the town of Teykovo in Ivanovo Region.\n6.  On 6 April 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated extortion. Two days later an investigator asked the Teykovo Town Court to remand him in custody. On the same day the Town Court adjourned consideration of the investigator's request for seventy-two hours. The applicant did not appeal.\n7.  On 9 April 2003 the investigator ordered the applicant's release on a written undertaking not to leave the town, reasoning as follows:\n“The present criminal case was opened on 6 April 2003, at 5 p.m. On the same day at 5.15 p.m. an investigator, Ms S., arrested [the applicant] in compliance with Article 91 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. On 8 April 2003, at 3.15 p.m., the applicant was charged under Article 163 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code and a decision on bringing a request to a court for authorisation of [the applicant's] detention was issued. That request was examined by the court and by virtue of Article 108 § 3 (7) of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure [the court] adjourned the examination of the request until 2 p.m. on 11 April 2003. In his decision the judge did not mention that [the applicant's] detention had been extended.\nDue to the fact that [the applicant's] detention has expired, he should be released.”\n8.  On 11 April 2003 the Teykovo Town Court resumed consideration of the investigator's request of 8 April 2003 and authorised the applicant's placement in custody, finding that he had been charged with a serious criminal offence, had a criminal record, was a danger to society, was unemployed and did not have a permanent source of income. The court concluded that the applicant was liable to abscond and interfere with the course of justice.\n9.  On the same day the applicant appealed against the decision of 11 April 2003, arguing that there were no grounds for his placement in custody. He had a permanent place of residence, had started working and had no intention of absconding.\n10.  On 15 April 2003 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld the decision of 11 April 2003, endorsing the Town Court's reasoning.\n11.  A transcript of a telephone conversation produced by the Government reveals that on 5 June 2003 an investigator of the Teykovo town police department informed the applicant's lawyer, Mr Shkryuba, that a request for extension of the applicant's detention was to be sent to the Teykovo Town Court on the following day. The investigator asked for confirmation of the lawyer's availability for the court hearing. Mr Skhryuba replied that he would not be able to attend as he had to take part in a seminar starting on 9 June 2003.\n12.  On 9 June 2003 the Teykovo Town Court extended the applicant's detention for twenty-six days, until 6 July 2003, finding that he had been charged with a serious criminal offence and had a previous conviction, also that he was unemployed and did not have a permanent source of income and thus, if released, he was liable to pervert the course of justice and abscond. The Town Court noted that by 6 July 2003 the total period of the applicant's detention would amount to two months and twenty-six days. The applicant's lawyer did not attend the hearing on 9 June 2003. The record of that hearing provided to the Court by the Government shows that the Town Court read in open court thirty-two pages of material presented to it by the investigator and attached to the case file. The materia", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5660", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants took part in the cleaning-up operation at the Chernobyl nuclear disaster site. They were registered disabled and became entitled to various social benefits, including food allowance.\n5.  On unspecified dates they sued the competent authorities for adjustment of the monthly food allowance in line with the inflation rate.\n6.  By two separate judgments of 4 June 2007, one in favour of Mr Pavlenko and another in favour of the remaining applicants, the Mineralniye Vody Town Court of the Stavropol Region upheld their actions in part. The court ordered the local department of the State Treasury to pay 1,283.86 RUB Russian roubles (RUB) to Mr Pavlenko and RUB 1,925.45 to each of the remaining applicants in monthly disability pension payments, to be adjusted in accordance with legal requirements. The court further ordered the local welfare authority to provide monthly the Treasury with the documents necessary to make the payments. It also awarded RUB 67,616.22 to Mr Pavlenko and RUB 104,405.82 to each of the seven other applicants in respect of the outstanding benefits, to be paid by the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.\n7.  The judgments were not appealed against and became final on 19 June 2007.\n8.  The enforcement proceedings were opened and the lump sums and the monthly payments were made in accordance with these judgments. Thus, as from July 2007 all the applicants were receiving the monthly payments in good time. On 24 September 2007 the applicants (except for Mr Pavlenko) received RUB 104,405.82 each. On 1 October 2007 Mr Pavlenko received RUB 67,616.22 due to him under the judgment of 4 June 2007.\n9.  On 10 October 2007 the Ministry of Finance applied to the Stavropol Regional Court requesting to institute supervisory-review proceedings in respect of the judgments in the applicants' favour.\n10.  On 29 November 2007 the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court, by two separate judgments, quashed the awards of 4 June 2007 and remitted the cases for a fresh examination. The Presidium found that the lower court had erred in applying the provisions of the Law No. 1244-1 “On Social Protection of Citizens Exposed to Radiation as a Result of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station Explosion” (“the Chernobyl Law”) and, as a result, incorrectly determined the defendant authority in the case. The Presidium had not specified a due defendant.\n11.  In December 2007 the State Treasury discontinued the monthly payments in respect of food allowance due to the applicants under the quashed judgments. Instead, the authorities started to pay the applicants monthly disability benefits in accordance with the relevant legislation.\n12.  On 15 February 2008 the Town Court discontinued the proceedings in all cases except for that of Mr Pavlenko, due to the applicants' failure to appear before the first instance court. On 19 February 2008 the proceedings in Mr Pavlenko's case were discontinued by the Town Court on the same ground.\n13.  In February 2009 the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation brought proceedings against all applicants claiming repayment of the lump sums they had received pursuant to the quashed judgments. On 4 March 2009 the Town Court rejected the claim. It appears that the judgment was not appealed against and became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5661", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lived in Zhytomyr.\n7.  At about 11 p.m. on 6 September 2002 two police officers, responding to a call from the applicant's girlfriend's sister, brought the applicant to the Zhytomyr Detoxification Centre for treatment of severe alcohol intoxication. A medical employee who examined him recorded that the applicant had several abrasions on his buttocks.\n8.  At 7.58 a.m. on 7 September 2002 the applicant was released.\n9.  Later that day he was arrested and detained by the police on a charge of disobeying a police officer. Two records of his arrest were drawn up by two different police officers, both indicating the time of the arrest as 6 p.m. At an unspecified time on the same date a doctor certified that the applicant had no bodily injuries.\n10.  On the same date an ambulance was called to the police station in connection with the deterioration of the applicant's health and apparent loss of consciousness. The ambulance records note that the call was registered at 4.05 p.m. Upon arriving at the police station, the ambulance team found the applicant conscious but in a very agitated state and trembling. In addition, he had haematomas on his buttocks. He was diagnosed as suffering from alcohol withdrawal, given medication and left in the police station.\n11.  On 9 September 2002 the Korolyovsky District Court of Zhytomyr convicted the applicant of disobeying a police officer and ordered his detention for ten days. At an unspecified time during his detention the applicant was questioned as a witness concerning the murder of a Mr K., whose body had been found on 7 September 2002 in the vicinity of the applicant's house. On 9 September 2002 he confessed to the murder.\n12.  On 10 September 2002 the applicant, who had still not been officially charged, participated as a witness in a reconstruction of the crime scene. In the course of the reconstruction he showed in detail how he had killed Mr K.\n13.  On the same date an ambulance was called again and the applicant was transferred to the detoxification centre, where he was diagnosed as suffering from “psychotic and behavioural disorders, [a] state of delirious withdrawal from alcohol, [and] hallucinations”. In addition, he was found to have sustained haemorrhages on his shoulders, legs and buttocks. On 13 September 2002 the applicant was returned to the police station.\n14.  By 20 September 2002 the applicant had obtained a lawyer in connection with possible murder charges against him, had retracted his confession – alleging that it had been given under duress – and had denied any involvement in the killing of Mr K.\n15.  At 6 p.m. on 20 September 2002 the applicant was released following the expiration of the term of his detention.\n16.  At 8.10 p.m. on the same day the applicant was arrested again on a charge of having committed a breach of the peace (in particular, for urinating in public and swearing) and, pursuant to a court order issued on 23 September 2002, was again remanded in custody for eight days starting from the date of his arrest.\n17.  On 28 September 2002 he was released.\n18.  On 1 October 2002 the applicant underwent a medical assessment in the course of which he was found to be suffering from two surface wounds (on the left shoulder and the left buttock) which qualified as minor bodily injuries.\n19.  On 2 October 2002, following complaints by his girlfriend about his aggressive behaviour, the applicant was arrested for the third time on a charge o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5662", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in Uzbekistan in 1979. In March 2008 he left Uzbekistan and moved to Russia.\n7.  On 4 June 2008 the Main Investigations Department of the Uzbek Ministry of the Interior charged the applicant in absentia with organisation of a criminal group, attempts to overthrow the State's constitutional order and dissemination of the views of a radical extremist movement. The applicant's name was put on the wanted list.\n8.  On 5 June 2008 Namangan Criminal Court authorised the applicant's arrest.\n9.  On 9 July 2008 the Uzbek Prosecutor General's Office requested the Russian Prosecutor General's Office to extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan for prosecution.\n10.  On 18 September 2008 the Russian Prosecutor General's Office decided to extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan. The extradition order stated, inter alia, the following:\n“... the Main Investigations Department of the Uzbek Ministry of the Interior is investigating a criminal case against N.N. Sultanov ...\nThe charges against N.N. Sultanov state that between 2000 and 2008, in the Namangan region of Uzbekistan, with the aim of overthrowing the State's constitutional order, he organised a criminal group... directed its units...actively participated in the criminal activities of the supporters of an extremist religious movement ... publicly called for the overthrow of the constitutional order of the Republic of Uzbekistan by carrying out “jihad” holy war and for the creation of an Islamic state ...\n... The actions of N.N. Sultanov are punishable under Russian criminal law and correspond to part 1 of Article 210 (organisation of a criminal group), Article 278 (actions aimed at violent change of the constitutional order), part 1 of Article 280 (public calls for extremist activities) of the Russian Criminal Code; the penalties envisaged under those Articles exceed one year of deprivation of liberty. The limitation period for the above crimes under Russian and Uzbek law has not expired ...”\n11.  On 25 September 2008 the applicant was informed about the extradition order. According to him, he signed the documents certifying that he had been familiarised with the extradition order and refused to appeal against it without being aware of the contents of the document owing to his lack of Russian.\n12.  On 10 November 2008 the applicant's lawyer requested Moscow City Court to reinstate the statutory time-limits for the appeal procedure against the extradition order. On 20 November 2008 Moscow City Court refused the request. The applicant appealed, and on 9 February 2009 the Russian Supreme Court granted his request and reinstated the time-limits.\n13.  On 17 March 2009 Moscow City Court rejected the applicant's complaint against the extradition order and upheld his extradition to Uzbekistan.\n14.  On 19 March 2009 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.\n15.  On 20 March 2009 the European Court of Human Rights granted the applicant's request for application of interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to suspend his extradition to Uzbekistan.\n16.  On 7 May 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the Moscow City Court decision and the extradition order became final. Referring to the applicant's complaints that he risked ill-treatment and torture in Uzbekistan, the court stated:\n“... the [applicant's] references to human rights violations in Uzbekistan... are of a general nature and there is no objective information in the case file ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5663", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Lviv.\n6.  At about 1.40 p.m. on Saturday, 20 April 2002 police officers V.Z. and S.P. saw the applicant playing with a knife at a public bus stop and took him to the Lychakivsky District Police Station of Lviv for questioning. In the police station the officers seized the knife and forwarded it for an expert assessment to determine whether it qualified as an offensive weapon. After questioning the applicant was released without his detention being recorded.\n7.  On Monday, 22 April 2002 the applicant complained to the Lychakivsky District Prosecutors' Office of Lviv that police officers had severely beaten him during the questioning, had handcuffed him without reason and had attempted to hang him from a pipe. Following this complaint the applicant was referred for a medical expert assessment.\n8.  On 23 April 2002 the medical experts found that the applicant had several abrasions and numerous bruises on his head and different parts of his body, cumulatively qualifying as minor bodily injuries.\n9.  On the same date it was decided not to institute any proceedings against the applicant, as the knife seized from him could not qualify as an offensive weapon.\n10.  On 30 April 2002 the investigative unit of the Lychakivsky District Prosecutors' Office refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant's complaint of ill-treatment. The decision referred primarily to the depositions by the two police officers, who had stated that the applicant might have been injured when they escorted him to the police station, as he had refused to follow them and they had applied martial arts techniques to subdue him.\n11.  On 24 May 2002 the Lychakivsky District Prosecutor quashed this decision as “unlawful and unjustified”, in particular in view of the fact that the applicant himself had not been questioned and that the circumstances of his detention in the police station had not been clarified. The prosecutor further demanded an additional medical assessment of the applicant's injuries.\n12.  According to the findings of a new medical assessment carried out between 3 and 7 June 2002, the applicant was additionally found to have several rib fractures, which could have been sustained on 20 April 2002. The applicant's injuries were accordingly re-qualified as “bodily injuries of moderate severity”.\n13.  Between June and October 2002 three more decisions not to institute criminal proceedings (of 7 June, 1 August and 13 September 2002) were taken, with reference to the likelihood that the applicant had been injured as a result of the application of proportionate force while he was being escorted to the police station. These decisions were quashed on 11 July, 28 August and 29 October 2002 respectively. By this latter decision it was simultaneously decided to initiate formal criminal proceedings in respect of the incident.\n14.  On 31 March 2003 the criminal proceedings were discontinued for want of evidence of criminal conduct of the police officers.\n15.  In April 2003 the applicant appealed to the Lychakivsky District Court of Lviv against the decision to discontinue criminal proceedings.\n16.  On 1 August 2003 the District Court allowed the applicant's appeal and reopened the proceedings. It noted in particular that in the course of questioning the applicant had provided detailed and consistent descriptions of the circumstances leading to his injuries. The two police officers, on the other hand, had m", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5664", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lived, before his arrest, in Lipetsk.\n7.  On 3 February 2004 the Sovetskiy district prosecutor opened an investigation into the murder of a Ms B. An investigator, Mr N., was assigned to take charge of the proceedings.\n8.  According to the applicant, at about 4 p.m. on 19 February 2004 he came back from work to his flat on Lavochkina Street; his wife and fifteen‑year-old son were at home. His mother and his wife's sister were visiting at the time. At about 7 p.m. four police officers barged into the flat and searched the premises in the presence of two attesting witnesses. The applicant was told that he was a suspect in a murder case; they handcuffed him and took him away in a blue Zhiguli car. Once in the car, an officer punched the applicant in the head and body and then pulled his cap down so that it covered his eyes. After a fifteen-minute ride the applicant was pushed out of the car into the snow. Police officers kicked and punched him, demanding that he tell them about the murder he had allegedly committed. Sometimes the officers took breaks from the beatings and drank vodka. At one point the applicant felt a sharp pain in his left side and realised that his rib had been broken.\n9.  The applicant further related that at about 10 p.m. he was taken by car to the Sovetskiy district police station. He was taken to the office of Mr Ry., whom the applicant had met before. Another officer, Mr Ro., was also present. Four officers started beating him, demanding that he confess to the murder of Ms B. and reveal where he had hidden her cell phone. Whenever he fainted, they poured water on him. The officers drank alcohol and verbally assaulted the applicant and his relatives. The applicant was beaten with a baseball bat on his shoulders, arms and upper body. He started bleeding and stained the wallpaper with his blood.\n10.  The beatings continued for two hours. The applicant was then taken into the detention cell within the police station, whereas the police officers left to search the applicant's parents' flat at 40 Let Okryabrya Street.\n11.  While in the cell, the applicant slit open a vein on his left forearm with a shard of a broken light bulb. His cellmate alerted the wardens. An ambulance arrived and took him to the trauma unit where the doctor sutured the wound. The police officers, who had in the meantime come back from the search, accompanied the applicant. The doctor wanted to X-ray the applicant but the police officers would not let him.\n12.  Upon his return from the trauma unit, the beatings continued in the Sovetskiy district police station. The applicant felt that his ribs were broken on the other side. The officers kicked him in the groin and burned his genitals with a lighter. They took his trousers off, inserted an empty plastic bottle into his anus and took a photo, threatening to show the photo to his cellmates and tell them that he was a homosexual. They also stripped him naked, threw cold water on him and made him stand in front of an open window.\n13.  The Government submitted copies of two search-and-seizure records dated 19 February 2004. In so far as it can be ascertained, one record concerned the search carried out in the applicant's flat from 6.30 to 7.35 p.m. and the other related to the search of a flat at 40 Let Oktyabrya Street, which lasted from 10.05 to 11.15 p.m. In both records the applicant was listed as having been present during the search; however, the signatures are ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5665", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Piotrków Trybunalski.\n5.  On 4 November 2005 the applicant was arrested by the police.\n6.  On 5 November 2005 the Zgierz District Court decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence of illegal possession of weapons and ammunition.\n7.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was extended on 22 November 2005 and on 31 January, 21 March, 20 June, 1 August, 25 October and 20 December 2006. The courts relied on the severity of the possible sentence, which created a risk of the applicant's going into hiding or interfering with the proper course of the proceedings, and the necessity of gathering evidence in this particularly complex case. The court relied heavily on the complexity of the proceedings which involved many co‑accused who had allegedly participated in an organised, armed gang.\n8.  On 25 April and 27 June 2007 the Łódź Court of Appeal further extended the pre-trial detention of the applicant and other co-accused. In the meantime additional charges were brought against the applicant.\n9.  On 6 September 2007 the applicant and 21 other co‑accused were indicted before the Łódź Regional Court. The applicant was charged with illegal possession of weapons and ammunition, abetting to murder and robbery committed while acting in an organised criminal gang. The prosecutor requested the court to hear evidence from 24 witnesses.\n10.  On account of the complexity of the case the first hearing was scheduled for 8 April 2008.\n11.  Between 11 April 2008 and 8 January 2010 the court held thirty three hearings. No hearing was held between 10 June and 10 November 2009 due to the absence of either the accused or the defence lawyers.\n12.  The applicant's detention was further extended on 11 September 2007, 23 May and 17 December 2008, 22 April, 23 September and 22 December 2009.\n13.  During this detention the applicant served several sentences of imprisonment imposed in different sets of criminal proceedings. In particular between 13 December 2005 and 13 December 2007 he served a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Zgierz District Court on 10 May 2005. Between 13 December 2007 and 16 April 2009 he served a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Zgierz District Court on 25 July 2001. Since 16 April 2009 he has been serving a prison sentence imposed on 6 February 2003. The release date is planned for 11 December 2011.\n14.  The applicant is also involved in a second set of criminal proceedings.\n15.  On 10 March 2009 the applicant and 27 co-accused were indicted before the Łódź Regional Court on multiple charges related to burglaries, thefts, extortions, kidnappings, robberies, drug dealing and stolen cars, committed while acting in an organised, armed criminal gang. This set of proceedings is pending before the first-instance court.\n16.  On 28 January 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). He complained about the length of the investigation and the length of the court proceedings.\n17.  On 10 March 2010 the Lódź Court of Appeal considered the length of the proceedings to be reasonable and dismissed the applicant's complaint.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5666", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Baku. He was the Minister for Economic Development of Azerbaijan from 2001 until the events of the present case.\n6.  Shortly after 2 p.m. on 19 October 2005 the applicant was taken to the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) from his office in the Ministry of Economic Development. He was not informed why he was taken there. He was taken to the MNS in his own car driven by his personal driver, accompanied by two deputies to the Minister for National Security.\n7.  Shortly after that, television channels broadcast a presidential order for the applicant's dismissal from ministerial office. At around 3 p.m. the text of the presidential order was published by AzerTAG, a State-owned news agency.\n8.  After the arrest, the applicant was taken to the office of one of the MNS investigators inside the MNS building. He was then moved from one office to another until 10 p.m. and was unable to leave the MNS building during this time. He was not allowed to contact his family by phone when he asked to do so. At about 10 p.m. he was informed about his dismissal from ministerial office. He was also briefly informed that he was suspected of being one of the accomplices to organising mass unrest and a coup d'état allegedly planned by a group of current and former high-ranking State officials.\n9.  From 11.45 p.m. on 19 October to 12.50 a.m. on 20 October 2005, the applicant was questioned for the first time after his arrest earlier that day. A State-appointed lawyer was present during the questioning. The applicant was asked about a loan of 100,000 euros (EUR) that he had allegedly made to Fikret Yusifov, one of the alleged organisers of the coup d'état. He was told that this money had been found in Mr Yusifov's house and that the latter had explained that he had received it from the applicant. The applicant was asked to confirm this and to explain the reason for the loan. The applicant stated that he had indeed lent that amount to Mr Yusifov at the latter's request owing to personal financial difficulties. The applicant was also asked about his relationship with Rasul Guliyev, a former Parliament Speaker, who at the time lived abroad and was sought by the Azerbaijani authorities for a number of crimes allegedly committed by him while in office. The applicant stated that he had never been in touch with Mr Guliyev.\n10.  Following the questioning, the applicant was informed that he was being detained as a suspect. He was then taken to the MNS Detention Facility.\n(b)  The Government's version of the events\n11.  Shortly after 8 p.m. on 19 October 2005 officials of the MNS entered the applicant's office and informed him about the criminal offences of which he was suspected. They then accompanied the applicant to the MNS in his car. The car entered the courtyard of the MNS building at 8.25 p.m.\n12.  By letter of 19 October 2005 the applicant's family was notified that he was detained in the MNS detention facility on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence under Article 278 of the Criminal Code.\n13.  At 11 p.m. a State-appointed lawyer was introduced to the applicant, since he had not expressed a wish to be assisted by a lawyer of his choice. The applicant did not object to being assisted by the State-appointed lawyer.\n14.  From 11.15 to 11.25 p.m. an MNS investigator drew up a record of the applicant's arrest as a person suspected of committing a criminal offence (tutma protokolu), in accordance with, i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5668", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Alsónémedi.\n6.   It appears that from early 1997 the volume of cross-town traffic in Alsónémedi increased, since a toll had been introduced on the neighbouring, privately owned motorway M5. In order to avoid the rather high toll charge, many trucks chose alternative routes including the street (a section of national road no. 5201) in which the applicant's house is situated.\n7.  To counter this situation, from 1998 onwards three bypass roads were built; and several measures, including a 40 km/h speed limit at night, were implemented in order to discourage traffic in the neighbourhood. Two nearby intersections were provided with traffic lights. In 2001 road signs prohibiting the access of vehicles of over 6 tons and re-orientating traffic were put up along an Alsónémedi thoroughfare, an arrangement which also affected the applicant's street. The Government submitted that compliance with these measures had been enforced by the increased presence of the police in general in Alsónémedi and in particular in the applicant's street; in the applicant's view, however, no effective enforcement was in place.\n8.  In or about 1997 the applicant observed damage to the walls of his house. He obtained the opinion of a private expert, who stated that the damage was due to vibrations caused by the heavy traffic. The applicant also alleges that, because of the increased noise and pollution due to exhaust fumes, his home has become almost uninhabitable.\n9.  On 23 February 1999 the applicant brought an action in compensation against the Pest County State Public Road Maintenance Company before the Buda Central District Court. He claimed that, due to increased freight traffic in his street, the walls of his house had cracked. The case was transmitted to the Budapest Regional Court for reasons of competence on 11 March 1999. On 11 November, 16 December 1999 and 30 March 2000, the court held hearings. On 6 April 2000 it dismissed the claims.\n10.  On appeal, the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, held a hearing on 30 January 2002, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 2 June 2002 the Regional Court appointed as expert the Department of Road Construction at Budapest Technical University. The latter presented an opinion on 20 January 2004 which was discussed at the hearing of 29 April 2004. The expert stated that the level of noise outside the applicant's house had been measured as 69.0 dB(A) on 5 May and 67.1 dB(A) on 6 May 2003, daytime on both occasions, as opposed to the applicable statutory limit of 60 dB(A). On 10 June 2004 the court held another hearing and ordered the supplementation of the opinion, which was done on 15 September 2004.\n12.  On 17 February 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claims. It relied on the opinion of the expert, documentary evidence and the testimony of the parties. It refused the applicant's motion to obtain the opinion of another expert since it was of the view that the original opinion was thorough and precise.\n13.  The court noted the expert's opinion that the vibration, as measured on the scene, was not strong enough to cause damage to the applicant's house, nor could the traffic noise entail cracks in its walls although it was higher than the statutory level. The court therefore concluded that no causal link could be established between the measures adopted by the respondent authority and the d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5669", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Baku.\n6.  The applicant was a member and former President of the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan. He has been awarded a number of Soviet and Azerbaijani prizes and honours for his scientific achievements in the fields of physics and mathematics. He was elected to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR several times and between 1995 and 2000 was a member of the Milli Mejlis (Parliament) of the Republic of Azerbaijan.\n7.  At the time of the events in question the applicant was in retirement.\n8.  On 27 October 2005 the applicant was summoned to the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) as a witness in a criminal case concerning an attempted coup d'état by several incumbent and former high-ranking government officials, as well as the incumbent Ministers of Healthcare and Economic Development and the self-exiled former Speaker of the Milli Mejlis. The alleged means by which this attempted coup d'état were to be accomplished was to overthrow the current Government by organising mass disorder after the parliamentary elections of 6 November 2005.\n9.  At approximately 10 a.m. on 27 October 2005 the applicant arrived voluntarily at the MNS building.\n10.  According to the applicant, he was forcibly kept inside the MNS building after his arrival there and was not allowed to leave it even for lunch. During this time he was not allowed to contact his family or a lawyer of his choosing and he was subsequently provided with a State-appointed lawyer.\n11.  At 8.15 p.m. the Chief Investigator of the Investigation Department of the MNS issued a record of the applicant's forty-eight-hour detention as a suspect (tutma protokolu) in the presence of the applicant and a State-appointed lawyer. The investigator noted that the applicant was suspected of the crimes of attempted organisation of mass disorder and attempted usurpation of state power by force, as provided by Articles 28, 220 and 278 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  According to the applicant, he wrote by hand on the second page of the document that he denied all the accusations. However, his lawyer was given only a copy of the first page of this two-page document.\n13.  The applicant was summoned to the MNS as a witness within the framework of a criminal case and he arrived at the MNS building at approximately 10.45 a.m.\n14.  His questioning by an investigator began at 11.40 a.m. and lasted until 2.30 p.m. Following this questioning, the investigator decided to hold a face-to-face confrontation between the applicant and an accused person in the criminal case in question. This confrontation began at 5.10 p.m. and continued until 6 p.m. The applicant's State-appointed lawyer entered the MNS building at 7.57 p.m. and the record of the applicant's forty-eight-hour detention as a suspect was issued at 8.15 p.m.\n15.  From the moment of the applicant's arrival at the MNS building to the end of the confrontation, there was no restriction on the applicant's liberty. He was not held in a special room or cell and he was not prohibited from leaving the MNS building. Moreover, he was in a room for witnesses in which there was a telephone line and, despite the investigator's explicit suggestion that he go for lunch after the end of questioning at approximately 2.30 p.m., the applicant did not want to go for lunch, noting that he was keeping a religious fast.\n16.  On 29 October 2005, by a decision of the prosecutor of the Prosecutor General's Office, the applicant was ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5670", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, Mrs Krystyna Misiak (“the first applicant”) and Jan Misiak (“the second applicant”) were a married couple. They were born in 1925 and 1923 respectively and lived in Staszów. The second applicant died on 1 March 2006. By letters of 14 September and 19 November 2007 the first applicant informed the Court of the identity of the second applicant's heirs, Ms Marta Misiak, Ms Teresa Macias, Ms Anna Wójcikowska and Mr Stanisław Misiak. They expressed a wish to continue the application in the second applicant's stead.\n5.  On 20 January 1980 the applicants brought an action for the division of an inheritance with the Staszów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n6.  Between 12 September 1981 and 7 January 1983 the court held ten hearings in the proceedings.\n7.  On 31 August 1983 the Staszów District Court stayed the proceedings. They were resumed on an unknown date in 1984.\n8.  On 17 October 1986 the applicants challenged the impartiality of the judge dealing with the case. The challenge was dismissed as unfounded by the Staszów District Court on 3 February 1987.\n9.  On 14 January 1992 the court stayed the proceedings.\n10. On 22 March 1992 an expert who had been called to give an opinion informed the court that he had not been admitted to the applicant's property. On 1 October 1992 another expert submitted his opinion.\n11.  On 22 April 1997 the applicants asked the court to resume the proceedings.\n12.  On 30 June 1997 the proceedings were resumed.\n13.  By a decision of 11 July 1997 the Staszów District Court discontinued the proceedings because no motion for the resumption of the proceedings had been lodged within a period of three years. On 5 February 2000 the applicants lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision.\n14.  By a decision of 25 April 2000 the District Court rejected the interlocutory appeal, as lodged outside the prescribed time-limit.\n15.  On 16 August 2000 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the above-mentioned decision and remitted the case.\n16.  On 25 October 2000 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 11 July 1997.\n17.  On 13 February 2001 the proceedings were stayed because the applicants had failed to comply with a court order to submit necessary documents.\n18.  On 6 March 2001 the court dismissed the applicants' motion to resume the proceedings.\n19.  On 27 May 2001 the applicants complained to the President of the District Court about the delay in the proceedings. On 29 June 2001 the President of the District Court informed them that he had already instructed the judge dealing with the case to proceed promptly with the trial.\n20.  The proceedings were resumed on an unspecified date in August 2001.\n21.  Between 12 October 2001 and 6 March 2002 the court scheduled five hearings, two of which were adjourned.\n22.  On 8 April 2002 the Staszów District Court gave a preliminary decision (postanowienie wstępne) by which it declared that the applicants had acquired the ownership of the real estate at issue by positive prescription as of 2 June 1978.\n23.  A further hearing was held on 18 June 2002.\n24.  On 22 November 2002 the proceedings were stayed due to the death of one of the parties.\n25.  In the meantime the case file was referred to the Kielce Regional Court and later to the Kraków Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), before which the applicants' claim for damages has been examined (see paragraphs 45-63 below).\n26.  The proceedings are still pending.\n27.  On 13 July 2005 the applicants lo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5671", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Bratislava.\n6.  On 20 June 2005 a judge of the Trenčín District Court issued a warrant for a search of the applicant's home under Articles 82 § 1 and 83 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n7.  The decision was issued at the request of a public prosecutor. It stated that criminal proceedings had been brought in January 2004 against several persons suspected of having produced and sold forged paintings. The applicant had bought one such painting in 2003. It was therefore considered likely that he had it in his house. Accordingly, there was a suspicion that there was an object on the premises which was important for the purposes of the criminal proceedings.\n8.  The police arrived at the applicant's house at 6 a.m. on 22 June 2005 to carry out the search. The applicant was on holiday in Egypt. His partner's son, who was eighteen years old, was present and, according to the police record, he was requested under Article 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to hand over the painting. He informed the police that the painting was unlikely to be in the house and expressed the view that it might be at the premises of the applicant's company, that is, at a different address. All the rooms of the applicant's house were visually searched between 6.10 and 6.45 a.m. by four policemen, in the presence of the applicant's partner's son and a third person who was not involved in the case. The painting in issue was not found.\n9.  Upon his return on 24 June 2005, the applicant complained to the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Justice and the General Prosecutor's Office, alleging that the search had been inappropriate. He argued, in particular, that he had purchased the painting through an auction house and that it had been open to the prosecuting authorities to ask him for it. The search had interfered with his right to respect for his private life, as he had been on holiday and had had to make the necessary arrangements through his lawyer, and because his reputation had been compromised at his place of residence. The applicant also complained that the police had damaged his good name in that they had interviewed the employees of his company about his private collection of paintings.\n10.  On 20 July 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, he argued that he was an injured party and that he had no interest in concealing the painting, which he had bought at an auction. He was himself interested in having its origin established. He would have cooperated with the prosecuting authorities if requested. However, those authorities had not contacted him prior to the search. The applicant alleged a breach of Article 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also complained that the police who had searched his flat had later attempted, without authorisation, to search his private art collection, which was held at a different location, and had interviewed the employees of the applicant's company, thereby damaging his good name and reputation.\n11.  On 9 August 2005 the police contacted the applicant and requested, under Article 78 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the painting be handed over to them. The applicant complied with the request immediately.\n12.  On 29 March 2006 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint on the following grounds. To the extent that the applicant complained about the warrant and the search, he ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5672", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and is currently detained in the Łódź Detention Centre.\n6.  On 6 October 2005 the applicant was arrested by the police.\n7.  On 7 October 2005 the Łódź District Court decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed various offences related to extortions, attempted murders, kidnappings and robberies while acting in an organised criminal gang.\n8.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was extended on 20 December 2005 and on 21 March, 20 June, 1 August, 20 September and 20 December 2006. The courts relied on the severity of the possible sentence, which created a risk of the applicant's going into hiding or interfering with the proper course of the proceedings, and the necessity of gathering evidence in this particularly complex case. The court relied heavily on the complexity of the proceedings which involved many co‑accused who had allegedly participated in an organised, armed gang.\n9.  On 25 April and 27 June 2007 the Łódź Court of Appeal further extended the pre-trial detention of the applicant and other co-accused. In the meantime additional charges were brought against the applicant.\n10.  On 6 September 2007 the applicant and 20 other co‑accused were indicted before the Łódź Regional Court.\n11.  Subsequently, the Łódź Regional Court began the trial. The first hearing was held on 8 April 2008. The applicant's detention was subsequently extended on 11 and 19 September 2007, 11 June and on 17 December 2008 and 23 May 2008.\n12.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was extended by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 17 December 2008. The court referred to the complexity of the case and stressed that only the application of isolative measure could prevent the applicant from interfering with the course of the proceedings.\n13.  On 22 April, 23 September and 22 December 2009 the applicant's detention was again extended. The court referred to the reasons given previously.\n14.  The applicant unsuccessfully complained against some of the decisions extending his pre-trial detention.\n15.  Between 4 January 2008 and 23 September 2009 the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed in another set of criminal proceedings against him.\n16.  The applicant did not complain about the unreasonable length of the proceedings under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”).\n17.  The applicant remains in detention and the proceedings are pending before the first-instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5673", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 3 September 1996 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava II District Court. He claimed reimbursement of a purchase price.\n6.  On 4 May 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay had been violated, awarded him the equivalent of 1,782 euros (EUR) at that time as just satisfaction, ordered the court concerned to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.\n7.  On 30 May 2006 the district court delivered a judgment.\n8.  On 31 October 2007 the Bratislava Regional Court, on the defendant's appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for further examination to the district court.\n9.  On 22 September 2009 the district court delivered a judgment. Following the defendant's appeal, the proceedings are pending before the Regional Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5674", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Bucharest. He has had Romanian nationality since 1999, has been in business and is married to a Romanian national.\n5.  On 29 May 2001 the police division responsible for combating organised crime and drug trafficking (“the drug traffic division”), of their own motion, began an investigation into allegations of drug trafficking offences being committed by three persons – the applicant, together with K.M. and D.H. – with the intention of selling 1.5 kg of heroin for 10,000 United States dollars (USD).\nThe same day, the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice authorised the use of two undercover police agents with a view to determining the facts of the case, identifying the offenders and obtaining evidence. It also authorised them, together with one collaborator, to procure 2 kg of heroin. The Prosecutor's Office justified the issuing of the authorisation on the ground that it had good reason to believe that a drug trafficking offence was about to be committed.\n6.  On the same day, 29 May 2001, the applicant and D.H. met the undercover agents. According to the indictment issued in the case, D.H. asked for USD 10,000 for 1 kg of heroin. On 31 May 2001, the undercover agents met the three persons again, to discuss the details of the transaction.\n7.  On 1 June 2001, the undercover police agents met the suspects again in the applicant's apartment, where K.M. came with a bag. The agents reported later that they had been offered 1 kg of heroin for USD 10,000. When they left the building together, police surrounded them and took away the three suspects, while the undercover police agents left by car. The bag brought by K.M. was opened and a packet containing powder was found in it, along with shoes and food samples.\nAt the police headquarters the applicant was informed that there were drugs in the bag.\n8.  The undercover agents prepared a report on the flagrant offence. The suspects denied drug trafficking; in particular the applicant declared that he thought the money was for other merchandise and not for drugs (see paragraph 13 below).\n9.  The police searched the suspects' apartments and found a pack of 36.56 g of heroin in K.M.'s home. No drugs were found in the applicant's home. The search reports were attached to the file.\n10.  During the investigation, K.M. confessed to the crime and explained that he had received the drugs (one pack of 1 kg and another of 36.56 g) from a certain “Ahmed” and that the other two suspects were also aware of the drug sale.\nOn 4 July 2001 the police separated the investigation in respect of Ahmed and three other persons from that in respect of the applicant, D.H. and K.M.\n11.  On 2 June 2001 the applicant was remanded in the custody of the General Inspectorate of Police by order of the public prosecutor F.C. from the Prosecutor's Office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice.\n12.  On 9 July 2001 the Prosecutor's Office committed the applicant for trial for drug trafficking, an offence prohibited under Article 2 § 2 of Law no. 143/2000. F.C. drafted the indictment.\n13.  On 18 October 2001 the applicant gave a statement before the court. He averred that he had a company in Romania selling clothes and shoes and the two co-defendants had been his business partners. In May 2001 when K.M. asked the applicant to buy some merchandise from him, the applicant told him that he was no longer doing business but could put him in contact with D.H. The appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5675", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Chervonograd, Lviv region, Ukraine.\n6.  On 30 November 1998 several schools organised a collective visit by pupils to a local cinema, which was owned by the municipal company E., for a film showing. The applicant's daughter, Ms Galyna Igorivna Krivova, born in 1985, was among the pupils who visited that cinema. While the first group of pupils was still watching the film, another group of pupils for the next showing entered the auditorium. As a result of a lack of control of entry to the auditorium during the film, there was a stampede in which four children were trampled to death and fourteen children, including the applicant's daughter, received varying degrees of injury. The applicant's daughter, in particular, was diagnosed with, inter alia, severe post-traumatic hypoxic damage to the central nervous system (посттравматичне постгіпоксичне ураження центральної нервової системи важкого ступеню), a right sided pneumothorax, and other injuries. According to the applicant, her daughter was in a coma for two months.\n7.  On 17 January 1999 the applicant's daughter was classified as temporarily Category 1 disabled. Three years later, on 17 January 2002, she was classified as permanently disabled.\n8.  The applicant's daughter underwent inpatient medical treatment at least until 18 February 1999, after which she periodically had medical treatment and rehabilitation therapy.\n9.  By a judgment of 13 March 2004 the Chervonograd Town Court (“the Town Court”) declared the applicant's daughter incapacitated. Apparently that judgment became final and on 29 April 2004 the Chervonograd Town Council appointed the applicant as the legal guardian of her disabled daughter.\n10.  At the present time the applicant's daughter still suffers the consequences of post-traumatic consequences and needs medical assistance and nursing.\n11.  On 30 November 1998 the Prosecutor's Office instituted criminal proceedings and on an unspecified date indicted S., the head of the E. company (it appears from the submitted documents that criminal proceedings against other persons were also instituted but were subsequently abandoned for various reasons).\n12.  On 2 December 1998 a medical expert reported on the aforesaid injuries to the applicant's daughter and identified them as serious.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 1 December 1998 a special administrative committee composed of nine experts was set up to investigate the accident of 30 November 1998. On 10 December 1998 that committee drew up a report which recommended that six persons be dismissed and five others subjected to disciplinary sanctions.\n14.  According to the applicant, the pre-trial investigation was completed by 22 September 2000 and the case was transferred to the Town Court.\n15.  On 20 March 2001 the applicant lodged a civil claim against S., seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. Five other claims were also lodged with the court by other victims.\n16.  On 10 October 2003 the Town Court found S. guilty of abuse of authority and forgery and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment. The court also banned S. from holding managerial positions for one year. As to the civil claims, the court allowed them in part, awarding, in particular, the applicant 15,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH; about 2,464.91 Euros (EUR) at the material time) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be paid by S.\n17.  On 27 April 2004 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”)", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5676", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Slovyansk.\n6.  On 1 January 2002 the applicant, with a number of his friends, including K., celebrated a New Year party at the bar 'Tor' in Slovyansk. At around 3 a.m. K. picked a quarrel with P., another visitor to the bar. The quarrel turned into a big fight in which the applicant took part on the side of K.\n7.  On 14 January 2002 the Slavyansk town police instituted criminal proceedings for disorderly conduct in relation to the above fight.\n8.  In the evening of 24 January 2002 the applicant and K. were attacked by unknown persons. As a result of the attack, the applicant was injured and K. died.\n9.  At 2.30 a.m. on 25 January 2002 the police officers, in the knowledge that the applicant and K. were both attacked that night, visited the applicant's home and took him to the local police station in order to question him as an eyewitness to K.'s death. According to the Government, the applicant agreed to go to the police station voluntarily and there was no coercion on the part of the police officers. However, according to the applicant, the police officers forced him to go to the police station without regard for the injuries he was visibly suffering from.\n10.  Upon arrival at the police station the applicant was questioned about the circumstances of K.'s death. That questioning, though with some pauses, lasted until 1 p.m. of the same day.\n11.  As from 11 a.m. on that day the police, knowing that on the night of 1 January 2002 the applicant had been present at the bar 'Tor', decided also to question the applicant as a witness in respect of the fight which had taken place at the bar that night. The applicant was questioned in respect of that incident till 7 p.m.\n12.  Between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. the police also questioned P. and other victims of the fight, who, when confronted with the applicant, identified him as one of the persons who had injured them.\n13.  At 9.30 p.m. on that day the police investigator, pursuant to Articles 106 and 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 33 below), drew up an arrest order (протокол затримання) authorising the applicant's preliminary detention as a suspect in the crime of disorderly conduct in the bar 'Tor'.\n14.  On 26 January 2002 the police instituted criminal proceedings on account of K.'s death.\n15.  On 28 January 2002 the applicant was charged with the crime of disorderly conduct in the bar 'Tor', and brought before the Slavyanskyy Town Court (the “Town Court”). The Town Court, relying on Article 165-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, extended the applicant's preliminary detention, as a temporary preventive measure, up to 31 January 2002. It noted that the case file did not contain sufficient information characterising the applicant and, in particular, the evidence that the applicant might intend to abscond.\n16.  On 31 January 2002 the Town Court ordered the applicant's detention in custody as a preventive measure. It had regard to the “character of the applicant”, the circumstances in which the crime had been committed, the fact that he had been charged with a serious crime, and the necessity to ensure the execution of procedural decisions.\n17.  On 26 April 2002, after the investigation had been completed, the case file was transferred to the Town Court for committing the applicant for trial.\n18.  On 11 May 2002 the Town Court committed the applicant for trial. It also upheld the preventive measure, in respect of the applicant, witho", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5677", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1932 and 1933 respectively and live in Lisbon.\n10.  The applicants owned a piece of land measuring 128,619 m² in the region of Evora. By order of the Ministry of Public Works, published in the Official Gazette on 11 September 1995, the land was expropriated in favour of BRISA – Auto-Estradas de Portugal S.A. (“BRISA”), a publicly owned company at the time, to build a motorway.\n11.  As no agreement was reached between the applicants and the authorities, the case was submitted, in accordance with the applicable legislation, to the President of the Evora Court of Appeal, who appointed an arbitration committee to value the land. The committee assessed its value at 177,987.17 euros (EUR)[1].\n12.  On 3 March 1997 the Evora first-instance court issued an order notifying the applicants of the arbitration committee's decision.\n13.  On 21 March 1997 the applicants lodged an appeal against the arbitration decision with the Evora court. In their opinion the experts had underestimated the value of their farmland and omitted to place a value on a quarry located on the land. They argued that the potential profit from exploiting the quarry should be taken into account when calculating the amount to be paid in compensation for the expropriation. In their opinion they were entitled to EUR 20,864,292 in compensation.\n14.  BRISA also challenged the arbitration value, which they considered too high. They thought the value should not exceed EUR 72,643. Their appeal was initially rejected by the Evora court as being out of time, but it was later admitted after the Evora Court of Appeal had delivered a judgment on 11 December 1997 setting aside the initial decision.\n15.  On 7 April 1997 the Evora court registry calculated the total court fees due in the applicants' case to be EUR 158,381.\n16.  On 24 April 1998 the Evora court decided that no compensation should yet be paid to the applicants as the court fees might well be higher than the minimum sum that might be awarded to the applicants in compensation according to the appeals lodged by the parties, BRISA having requested that the sum be fixed at EUR 72,643. The court then appointed a new arbitration committee made up of three experts appointed by the court and two appointed by the parties (one each). On 11 March 1999, by a majority, the arbitrators set the compensation at EUR 191,116. The arbitrator appointed by the applicants expressed the view that they should be paid EUR 4,040,897.\n17.  By an order of 25 March 1999 the court, of its own motion, requested a new expert report, restricted this time to the question of the economic potential of the quarry located on the land. Three geologists from the University of Evora were accordingly appointed as experts. They submitted their report on 9 February 2000, concluding that the maximum amount the exploitation of the quarry could be expected to yield was EUR 9,704,113.\n18.  By a judgment of 30 June 2000 the court dismissed both parties' appeals. Considering that the potential gain from the quarry was not to be taken into account, it fixed the compensation for the expropriation at EUR 197,236.25.\n19.  On 14 July 2000 the applicants lodged an appeal against that judgment with the Evora Court of Appeal.\n20.  In a judgment of 10 July 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment in full.\n21.  On 11 November 2003 the applicants appealed to the Supreme Court but, in an order dated 30 September 2004, the judge rapporteur of the Supreme Co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5678", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 5 December 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninsky Court of the Crimea (“the Leninsky Court”) against the Leninsky District Police Office (“the police office”) and the Leninsky Prosecutor's Office. She challenged their actions in investigating the criminal case against Mr R., who had inflicted light bodily harm on the applicant in August 1999. The applicant also claimed compensation for the damage caused to her.\n5.  Between 16 September 2002 and 20 November 2002 no hearings were held since the judge sitting in the case was on holiday.\n6.  On 20 January 2003 the Leninsky Court left the applicant's claim without consideration since she failed to appear. On 19 May 2003 the Leninsky Court reviewed its decision and the proceedings were resumed.\n7.  On 6 April 2004 the Leninsky Court partly allowed the claim and awarded the applicant UAH 15,000 (about EUR 2,278) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, to be paid by the police office.\n8.  The applicant and the police office lodged their appeals against the judgment.\n9.  On 10 June and 23 June 2004 the Leninsky Court left the applicant's and the police office's appeals, respectively, without consideration due to their procedural shortcomings.\n10.  On 28 February 2005 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the applicant's appeal against the ruling of 10 June 2004. On 25 April 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the ruling of 28 February 2005 with the Supreme Court.\n11.  There was no procedural activity from 25 April 2005 to 19 May 2007.\n12.  On 19 May 2007 the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal for consideration. On 27 November 2007 the latter, acting in its cassation jurisdiction, quashed the ruling of 28 February 2005 and transmitted the case to the Court of Appeal for consideration of the applicant's appeal against the ruling of 10 June 2004.\n13.  On 8 April 2008 the Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of 10 June 2004. On 20 May 2008 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 6 April 2004 and terminated the proceedings since the first instance court had no jurisdiction to consider the case.\n14.  The applicant stated in her submissions that she had challenged the decision of 20 May 2008 before the Higher Administrative Court and the proceedings are still pending. However, she provided no documents in support of that statement. According to the records provided by the Government, the applicant lodged no appeal against the decision of 20 May 2008.\n15.  In the period from September till December 1989 the applicant's apartment was used by the acquaintances of her son, Mr B. and Mr S, who moved in without her permission and, according to the applicant's submissions, damaged it.\n16.  On 11 January 1990 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninsky Court against Mr B. and Mr S. seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On an unspecified date the case was transferred to the Kerch Court. On 29 October 1991 the latter left the applicant's claim without consideration. On 6 May 1992 the Court of Appeal of the Crimean Region quashed that ruling.\n17.  On 18 August 1995 the Kerch Court left the applicant's claim without consideration and discontinued the proceedings.\n18.  On 3 April 1998 the Presidium of the High Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea allowed the protest (extraordinary appeal) of its Deputy President against the ruling ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5679", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in the city of Kyiv, Ukraine.\n5.  On 23 August 1996 the applicant instituted proceedings against his former employer, the State Institute for Electric Welding, in the Leningradsky District Court of Kyiv (“the District Court”) challenging his dismissal and claiming payment of salary arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  In the period from August 1996 to 25 February 1998 the applicant's case was considered by the courts at two levels of jurisdiction.\n7.  The last hearing in 1998 was held by the District Court on 25 February 1998. Then the case file was lost. On 31 May 2000 the District Court resumed the proceedings.\n8.  On 9 June 2000 the District Court ordered reconstruction of the case file.\n9.  On 26 July 2001 the District Court partly allowed the applicant's claims.\n10.  On 14 March 2002 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.\n11.  On 17 October 2002 the District Court partly allowed the applicant's claims.\n12.  On 23 January 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 17 October 2002 and found against the applicant.\n13.  On 15 April 2003 the Supreme Court gave a final decision in the applicant's case by which it dismissed his appeal in cassation.\n14.  The applicant tried to review his case under extraordinary procedure, but his efforts were to no avail.\n15.  In March 2005 the applicant instituted proceedings against the President of the State Institute for Electric Welding in the Svyatoshin District Court of Kyiv challenging the orders issued by his former employer under which he had been dismissed. On 31 March 2005 the court declined to consider his claims on the ground that the same claim had already been considered by the domestic courts and there had been a final decision in that respect.\n16.  On 12 May 2005 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld this ruling.\n17.  According to the applicant's submissions, in June 2005 he lodged an appeal in cassation against the rulings of 31 March 2005 and 12 May 2005 with the Supreme Court. The applicant did not inform this Court about the outcome of the cassation proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5680", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Letychivka, Cherkasy region.\n5.  In March 2005 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Monastyryshche Court against her former employer, the Monastyryshche Department of Land Resources, seeking reinstatement as an employee and recovery of salary arrears. In the proceedings, the applicant was represented by a lawyer.\n6.  On 23 May 2005 the court allowed the applicant's claims in full.\n7.  The defendant party appealed against that judgment. The applicant submitted comments on the appeal.\n8.  At a preliminary hearing on 1 July 2005 the Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal issued a ruling scheduling a hearing on the merits of the appeal for 17 August 2005.\n9.  According to the Government, a copy of the ruling of 1 July 2005 was delivered to the applicant in person on 15 July 2005. The Government submitted a copy of the acknowledgment of receipt completed and signed by a postman and a copy of a report from the Cherkasy Post Office, indicating that the applicant had received a copy of the ruling in person. In that report the post office mentioned that the register of delivered mail containing the applicant's signature in that connection had been destroyed and that a copy of it was not available.\n10.  The applicant stated that neither she nor her lawyer had been informed of the hearing on appeal in advance. According to her, the documents submitted by the Government could not prove that she had received a copy of the ruling of 1 July 2005, as the acknowledgment of receipt did not bear the post mark of Post Office No. 16 of Cherkasy, which normally delivered mail to her place of residence.\n11.  From 10 to 29 August 2005 the applicant underwent treatment at the Monastyryshche Central Hospital.\n12.  On 17 August 2005 the Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal heard the case in the absence of the applicant and her lawyer. It found that the applicant's dismissal had been lawful, quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and rejected the applicant's claims in full. According to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, it could be appealed against in cassation to the Supreme Court within one month.\n13.  According to the applicant, on 7 September 2005 her lawyer learned that the Court of Appeal had decided on the case on 17 August 2005. On the same day he lodged with the Monastyryshche Court a request for a copy of the decision on appeal.\n14.  On 5  October 2005 the lawyer received a copy of the decision of 17 August 2005.\n15.  At the applicant's request, a copy of that decision was also provided to her by the Monastyryshche Court on 6 October 2005.\n16.  On 3 November 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court, challenging the factual findings and application of law by the Court of Appeal. The applicant also requested the Supreme Court to renew the time-limit for lodging her appeal in cassation, stating that she had not been informed of the decision of 17 August 2005 in due time.\n17.  On 15 November 2005 a judge of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal in cassation as lodged out of time, stating, without any further explanation, that the ground on which the applicant had relied in requesting the renewal of the impugned time-limit was not sufficient to justify the requested course of action.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5681", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were both born in 1977. The first applicant lives in Ružomberok while the second applicant lives in Prievidza.\n6.  At 11.10 p.m. on 21 February 2005 the applicants were arrested (zadržaný) by the police and subsequently charged with assaulting a public official (Article 155 § 1 (a) of the Criminal Code (Law no. 140/1961 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time) – “the CC”) and with breaching the peace (Article 202 § 1 of the CC).\nIt was suspected that, earlier that evening, the applicants had caused damage to goods in a hypermarket, had behaved in an offensive manner in public and had insulted, punched and grabbed by the uniform a policeman who had been called to the scene.\n7.  On 17 May 2005 the applicants were charged with a further count of assaulting a public official (Article 156 § 1 (b) of the CC) and with criminal damage (Article 251 § 1 of the CC).\nIt was alleged that, while being escorted to the police station after the incident of 21 February 2005 and while at the police station, they had made death threats against the above-mentioned policeman and another police officer, and that they had damaged their handcuffs, a bench, a wall and a radiator in their cell.\n8.  On 21 July 2005 the Prievidza District Public Prosecutor's Office (Okresná prokuratúra) indicted the applicants to stand trial on the above‑mentioned charges before the Prievidza District Court (Okresný súd).\n9.  On 18 January 2006 the District Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to two years' imprisonment. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Trenčín Regional Court (Krajský súd) on 4 May 2006. It thereby became final and binding.\n10.  On 18 September 2006 the second applicant was released from prison on parole. The first applicant was released on 21 February 2007 after having served his sentence.\n11.  After the arrest at 11.10 p.m. on 21 February 2005, the applicants were taken to the police station and placed in a cell.\n12.  At 2.21 p.m. on 23 February 2005, the District Public Prosecutor's Office lodged a request with the District Court for the applicants to be placed in detention pending trial. The request relied, inter alia, on a video-recording by the hypermarket's camera system.\n13.  On 23 February 2005 both applicants were examined by a single judge of the District Court in connection with the prosecutor's request. The second applicant was brought before him at approximately 5.15 p.m.. The first applicant was brought before him at approximately 6 p.m.\nAssisted by a lawyer of their choosing, who then represented both applicants throughout the proceedings, the applicants denied the charges and argued that there was no admissible evidence against them because all existing witness statements had been taken by officers of the local police force, who had been directly involved in the incident. Those officers were therefore biased by definition.\nMoreover, the applicants contended that they had not been brought before a judge within twenty-four hours of their arrest, as required by Article 8 of the Charter of Basic Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Law no. 23/1991 Coll.) (Listina základných práv a slobôd – “the Charter”).\nThe applicants asked to be released; they offered a pledge, under Article 73 § 1 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 141/1961 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time – “the CCP”), that they would live in accordance with the law and, in the alternative, applied for bail, under ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5682", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and detained in Kandıra prison.\n5.  On 3 March 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 14 March 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor. The medical report drawn up by the doctor indicated that there was hyperaemia on the applicant's thighs.\n7.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor, where he stated that he had been stripped and hosed with water under police custody.\n8.  On the same day the judge at the İstanbul State Security Court ordered his pre-trial detention. Before the judge the applicant stated that his statement in police custody had been taken under torture, but he did not give any details.\n9.  On 28 April 1997 the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court issued an indictment charging the applicant with attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code.\n10.  On 7 July 1997 the applicant stated before the İstanbul State Security Court that his statement in police custody had been taken under torture, without giving any details.\n11.  On 26 April 2002 the İstanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code.\n12.  On 12 May 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 26 April 2002.\n13.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was subsequently resumed before the İstanbul Assize Court.\n14.  On 25 December 2008 and 9 April 2009 the applicant objected to his continued detention and requested his release. The 11th Chamber of the İstanbul Assize Court dismissed the applicant's objections on 14 January and 15 April 2009 respectively, having regard to the nature of the offence in question and to the state of the evidence. No hearing was held.\n15.  On 2 April 2009 the İstanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant.\n16.  According to information in the case file, the case is pending before the Court of Cassation.\n17.  Throughout the proceedings, the first instance courts examined the applicant's continued detention at the end of each hearing, either on their own motion or upon the applicant's requests. Each time the courts ordered the applicant's continued detention having regard to the state of the evidence, the nature of the offence, the strong suspicion of his having committed the offence in issue, the danger of flight, the overall period of the pre-trial detention, and the persistence of the grounds for the continued detention.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5684", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1947, 1986 and 1986 respectively and live in Bratislava.\n5.  On 7 April 1995 the applicants claimed compensation for damage to their health (infection with Hepatitis C).\n6.  On 6 November 2007 the Bratislava I District Court dismissed their action.\n7.  On 29 May 2009 the Bratislava Regional Court, upon the applicants' appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case file for further examination to the district court.\n8.  On 18 January 2010 the applicants complained to the President of the district court about undue delays. On 2 February 2010 the President of the court concerned acknowledged that there had been delays in the proceedings.\n9.  On 4 March, 18 May and 1 July 2010 the district court held hearings.\n10.  The proceedings are pending.\n11.  On 8 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicants' right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court awarded 30,000 Slovakian Korunas (SKK) to each applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ordered the district court to avoid further delays and to reimburse the applicants' legal costs.\n12.  On 15 March 2007 the Constitutional Court found that, in the period after its previous ruling, the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicants' right to a hearing without unjustified delay. The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 50,000 to each applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage, ordered the district court to avoid further delays and to reimburse the applicants' legal costs.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5685", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Rimavská Baňa.\n5.  The applicant's father was a member of an agricultural co-operative. He died in 1995.\n6.  The cooperative underwent a transformation and a monetary value of the membership interests of individual members was established. In a decree of 4 September 1998 the co-operative certified the financial value of the ownership interest that had once belonged to the applicant's father.\n7.  The applicant subsequently made a claim for compensation in respect of his father's membership interest (see below).\n8.  On 3 March 1998 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court declared the co-operative insolvent.\n9.  On 25 June 1998 the applicant registered his compensation claim in the insolvency proceedings.\n10.  On 18 May 1999 the regional court held a hearing (prieskumné pojednávanie) with a view to establishing the claims of the different creditors. At the hearing the receiver rejected the applicant's claim on the ground that he had filed it in his own name but had failed formally to show that the claim, which had originally belonged to his father, had actually devolved on him. The applicant was referred to the possibility of seeking judicial establishment of his claim by way of a separate action (incidenčná žaloba). The applicant brought such an action and was successful (see below).\n11.  In the following period, the regional court agreed to the sale of the co-operative's individual assets.\n12.  On 1 December 2005 a final report on the sale of the co-operative's assets was submitted to the regional court. It was amended on 14 March 2006 and displayed on the regional court's official notice board on 6 March 2007.\n13.  On 4 April 2007 a hearing took place. On 18 October 2007 a meeting of the insolvency creditors took place and a new receiver was appointed.\n14.  On 21 June 2010 the applicant informed the Court that the insolvency proceedings were still pending.\n15.  On 1 June 1999 the applicant brought an action against the insolvency receiver in the regional court seeking judicial establishment of his compensation claim.\n16.  On 30 April 2002 the regional court granted the action and decided that the applicant had a claim in an amount equivalent to 18,537 euros. The applicant alleged that the judgment had not been served on him but on his daughter and therefore had not yet become final.\n17.  The Government stated that the judgment had become final on 3 July 2002.\n18.  On 8 July 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court in respect of the length of the insolvency proceedings and the proceedings in the action for establishment of his claim.\n19.  On 10 September 2003 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. As for the proceedings in the applicant's action, it observed that they had ended in 2002. They had thus no longer been pending at the time when the constitutional complaint had been lodged. In these circumstances, in line with the Constitutional Court's established practice, the complaint of the length of those proceedings was manifestly ill‑founded. As for the insolvency proceedings, the Constitutional Court observed that the sale of the co-operative's assets was still under way and had not yet been completed. As the Constitutional Court had not found any undue delays, it concluded that the complaint in respect of the insolvency proceedings was manifestly ill-founded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5686", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 17 August 1998 she lodged an action to determine the validity of the termination of employment[1]. The defendant introduced a counterclaim.\n6.  The parties reached an out-of-court settlement and withdrew their claims on 22 May 2006.\n7.  As a result, the Bratislava III District Court discontinued the proceedings on 25 May 2006. The decision was served on the applicant on 1 July 2006 and, in the absence of an appeal, it became final on 16 August 2006.\n8.  On 31 May 2006 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings.\n9.  On 7 July 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It held that the protection of one's right to a hearing without unjustified delay by the Constitutional Court was intended to eliminate the state of legal uncertainty of a party to proceedings. Legal uncertainty could be eliminated either by a final judicial decision or by other means stipulated by the law. The latter also included a procedural decision of a court, based on the plaintiff's wish not to pursue the proceedings as regards the entire claim or where, as in the present case, both parties withdrew their claims. It had been the Constitutional Court's practice to reject complaints filed when the applicants' right to a hearing without unjustified delay was not being violated, even if the relevant decisions had not yet become final.\n10.  It finally noted that the applicant had lodged her complaint after the District Court had adopted the decision to discontinue the proceedings following the withdrawal of the parties' claims. As a result, the District Court was no longer dealing with the merits of the case and the complaint of the length of the proceedings was thus manifestly ill-founded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5687", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Bakhchysaray (Бахчисарай; Bağçasaray), in the Crimea. The applicant is the mother of E., who died after having received serious bodily injury in private premises.\n5.  During the night of 5-6 June 1993 a group of several persons were present inside the director's room of the “Kardinal” bar (hereafter “the K. bar”) when E., who was in the room, received serious head injuries from which he fainted. He died in the early morning of 6 June 1993. E. also lost his golden jewellery as a result of an incident which occurred inside the room. Two other men, D. and S., were also in the director's room.\n6.  According to the applicant, the events had taken place in the presence of a number of identifiable witnesses and an officer of the local police department S-v. The witnesses included E.'s former girlfriend K-va, D.'s former fiancé K., and E.'s friends W. and G.\n7.  On 7 June 1993 the Bakhchysaray District Prosecutor (“the District Prosecutor”) transferred the file on the investigation into E.'s death to the Bakhchysaray Police Department of the Ministry of the Interior (“the Police Department”). It contained in particular twelve cigarette butts, two fragments of wallpaper with stains resembling blood, a bedcover, a tablecloth and a disassembled pneumatic rifle. It also stated that relevant photos were available from the forensic expert.\n8.  On the same date an expert from the Bakhchysaray Forensic Examination Department of the Ministry of Health found that E.'s death had occurred two or three hours after he had sustained the injuries, including concussion, bruises below both eyelids and on the chin, a broken nose, bruises and bleeding of the upper lip, numerous facial scratches on the right side of the forehead, subdural haematoma and brain contusion. He stated that E.'s death had resulted from multiple injuries (no less than seven blows to the right side of the forehead, the cheekbone, the bridge of the nose, the chin, the left cheek and the left parietal part of the head) and that he had suffered knees injuries and internal bleeding, apparently from a broken nose, which had caused him difficulties in respiration.\n9.  On 8 June 1993 the investigator of the Police Department initiated a criminal investigation into E.'s death.\n10.  On 30 June 1993 he instituted criminal proceedings into allegations of theft of jewellery from E. The two investigation files were joined under no. 76662 (hereafter “case no. 76662”).\n11.  In a resolution of 30 June 1993 the investigator decided that D. should be detained as a suspect in connection with the premeditated infliction of bodily injuries to E. He stated that the investigation had established that E. had been beaten in the director's room following a prior conspiracy between D. and S., and that D. had had personal motives (a hostile personal attitude to E.) to commit the crime.\n12.  On 30 July 1993 the investigator indicted D. and S. for inflicting bodily injuries leading to death, and issued a nationwide search warrant in respect of them as they absconded. Consequently, the investigation was suspended on 30 August 1993.\n13.  On 13 February 1997 the Russian General Prosecutor's Office informed its Ukrainian counterpart that S. had been arrested in Russia, but released a month later, the Ukrainian authorities having failed to ask his extradition in time. The nationwide search for S. was resumed.\n14.  On 2 March 2000 D. was arrested in Russia. He was extradited to ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5688", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in the town of Kaliningrad.\n6.  In April 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. On 15 June 2000 the Nesterovskiy District Court of the Kaliningrad Region discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charge of acquisition of stolen goods in connection with an act of general amnesty adopted by Parliament. The applicant was released.\n7.  On 4 May 2001 the applicant was arrested and charged with armed robbery and unlawful possession of weapons. By a judgment of 22 October 2001 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years' imprisonment. On 18 December 2001 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the conviction on the charge of robbery but ordered a new trial on the charge of unlawful possession of weapons. The proceedings were then discontinued because the prosecution dropped the case.\n8.  In relation to the above proceedings, the applicant was detained in Kaliningrad remand centre no. 39/1 from 25 April 1999 to 15 June 2000, from 24 May 2001 to 16 January 2002, and from 23 January to 8 August 2002. On this last date the applicant was transferred to colony no. 13 in the Kaliningrad Region to serve his prison sentence.\n9.  The applicant provided the following description of the conditions of his detention in the remand centre. During the first period he was held in a cell measuring ten square metres. The cell was equipped with twelve beds but housed up to twenty-four inmates who took turns to sleep. There was constant noise and movement within the cell. The windows were covered with metal blinds blocking access to daylight and fresh air. There was no sink and the water tap was positioned above the toilet pan, which gave off a fetid smell. Inmates were allowed no more than one hour of outdoor exercise per day. The cell was infested with bugs and cockroaches. In support of his description of the conditions the applicant submitted an affidavit by his former cellmate, Mr B., who had been held in the same cell between February and June 2000. B. stated that the cell measured twelve square metres and had housed between twenty-one to twenty-seven persons, while it had had only twelve beds.\n10.  During the second and third periods applicant was held in a six‑square-metre cell that contained three two-tier bunks and housed seven inmates. The windows were covered with metal blinds blocking access to natural light and air. There was no ventilation in the cell and in summer, the temperature peaked at 45ºC. In the absence of a sink the water tap was positioned directly above the toilet pan, which was not separated from the rest of the cell. The dining table was only 50 cm away from the toilet. The cell was infested with bugs and cockroaches. The applicant contracted chronic bronchitis. In support of his submissions the applicant produced a written affidavit by his former cellmate, Mr R., who had been held in the same cell from 7 June 2001 to 6 July 2002.\n11.  The applicant also submitted a copy of a letter dated 28 June 2001 sent by the Kaliningrad Regional Ombudsman to a Mr G., who was detained in remand centre no. 39/1 at the time. As follows from this letter, an inquiry carried out by the Office of the Ombudsman disclosed that detainees in that remand centre were provided with less than one square metre of space per person in the cells. The inquiry also disclosed unspecified deficiencies in the sanitary installations and medical s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5689", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Stavropol.\n7.  At the material time the applicant was a physical education teacher in School no. 15 in Stavropol.\n8.  At about 10 a.m. on 5 June 2001 police officer B. and trainee Ch. went to the applicant's school and asked him to go with them to the police station to give an explanation with regard to a complaint by a parent, alleging that the applicant had hit his son. The policemen did not produce a summons to appear or an arrest warrant. The applicant agreed to go with them.\n9.  On arrival at the police station the applicant saw a red Moskvich car near the entrance and three men nearby. One of them was police officer P. and another was subsequently identified as former chief of police G.\n10.  B. and Ch. were the first to go up the stairs and into the office. The applicant followed them and G. was behind him. G. pushed the applicant in the back. The applicant turned round and asked him why he had done that. G. replied that since the applicant considered himself tough enough to beat his pupils, he should take him on instead. With these words G. hit the applicant twice in the chest with the palm of his hand. Then the applicant was pushed into an office and G. told him that he had two options, either to apologise to the pupil's father and pay damages, or to be reported to the Ministry of Education and fired. In reply, the applicant denied that he had ever beaten the pupil. G. said that he had no time to deal with the matter and left, while B. and Ch. stayed.\n11.  Officer B. took the applicant's statement and asked him to sign it. The applicant spotted an incorrect recording of his words, crossed a sentence through and signed the paper. B. got angry, jumped up from the table and hit the applicant in the face. Protecting his face with his hands, the applicant turned round to leave the office.\n12.  B. ordered Ch. to stop the applicant, search him and put him in a cell, because their discussion was not yet over. Ch. pulled the applicant out of the office into the hallway and put him against the wall. The applicant told B. that he needed to call the school and tell them that he would be late. B. and Ch. started beating him; the applicant fought back. B. stepped behind his back, bent his arms and pushed his head down, then made him lie on his stomach and handcuffed him. Claiming that the applicant had broken his glasses, Ch. kicked him twice in the left shoulder. B. put the applicant in a cell behind bars and locked himself in the office with Ch. After a while P., a former classmate of Ch., arrived at the police station.\n13.  B. and Ch. took the applicant to T., an investigator with the Promyshlennyi district prosecutor's office, where he stayed until 5 p.m. The applicant was then allowed to call the school. At 5.15 p.m. the headmaster and two teachers picked him up. The applicant was taken to city hospital no. 4 by ambulance. He underwent treatment in hospital until 28 June 2001.\n14.  On 6 June 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint of ill-treatment in police custody and unlawfulness of his detention there with a district prosecutor's office. He submitted, inter alia, that police officers had beaten him, handcuffed him and put him in a cell in order to make him confess to a crime he had not committed.\n15.  On the same day a medical expert from the Stavropol Bureau for Forensic Medical Expert Studies examined the applicant. According to report no. 1560, the expert observed the following injuries", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5690", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants in application no. 43449/02, Ms Pepa Vladimirova Mileva and Ms Meri Vladimirova Mileva, were born in 1934 and 1936 respectively and live in Sofia. They are sisters.\n8.  The applicants in application no. 21475/04, Mr Hristo Ivanov Evtimov, Ms Lilia Kirilova Evtimova and Ms Kalina Hristova Evtimova, were born in 1939, 1943 and 1977 respectively and live or lived in Sofia. The first two were husband and wife, and the third is their daughter. As mentioned in paragraph 2 above, Mr Hristo Evtimov died in 2007.\n9.  At the material time the applicants in application no. 43449/02 (“the Milevi sisters”), both of whom are retired, owned a flat on the first floor of entrance “B” of a U‑shaped block of flats in the centre of Sofia. Both of them had lived in that flat since 1963. They submitted that as a result of the events described below, they were forced to move out of the flat. On 11 March 2004 they sold it to a limited liability company for 61,000 euros. On 22 April 2004 they bought a smaller flat in another neighbourhood, and on 15 June 2004 went to live there.\n10.  The applicants in application no. 21475/04 (“the Evtimovi family”) own and live in a flat on the first floor of entrance “C” of the same block of flats. Ms Kalina Evtimova’s daughter, born on 28 September 2000, also lives there.\n11.  In May 2000 a company rented a flat on the ground floor of entrance “B” of the block, below the flat of the Milevi sisters. It started operating a computer club there, without obtaining the necessary permits.\n12.  In March 2002 the club moved into a flat situated opposite the original one, again on the ground floor of entrance “B”. That flat was located diagonally below both the flat of the Milevi sisters and that of the Evtimovi family.\n13.  According to four affidavits, the first of which was drawn up by Mr Hristo Evtimov and Ms Lilia Evtimova, and the rest by witnesses asked by the applicants to describe the situation, the club had forty‑six computers and two vending machines. It was open twenty‑four hours a day, seven days a week. The services it offered were chiefly computer gaming and Internet surfing. The club’s clients, mostly teenagers and young adults, often gathered in front of the building, chatting loudly and shouting, drinking alcohol, and smoking cigarettes and allegedly even narcotic drugs. They would often break the door of the building and enter the passageway, where they drank and smoked. The noise and the vibrations generated by them, both while inside the club and while entering or leaving the premises, could be clearly heard and felt in the flats of the Milevi sisters and of the Evtimovi family.\n14.  The Milevi sisters produced a certificate in which their general practitioner attested that from the middle of 2002 both of them started complaining of constant headaches, insomnia, irritability and anxiety, had high blood pressure, and had lost weight. In 2003 Ms Meri Mileva developed a sinus tachycardia. As a result of her increasingly frequent cardiac crises, she had to be hospitalised. According to the doctor, those health problems were due to the constant disturbance and noise caused by the club’s operations, and gradually subsided after the Milevi sisters went to live elsewhere in June 2004.\n15.  On 28 June 2002 the general meeting of the block’s occupants resolved, by twelve votes and three abstentions, that the club’s operations should be stopped, and that no commercial activities should be allowed in the bu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5691", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\nThe applicant's detention on remand and the criminal proceedings against him\n7.  On 5 April 1999 the applicant, who was a police officer, was arrested and on 8 August 1999 he was charged with embezzlement and abuse of power.\n8.  On 20 March 2000 the criminal case against the applicant was forwarded to the Cheryemushkinskiy District Court of Moscow (the District Court) for trial. On 5 May 2000 the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor's office for additional investigation.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the criminal case against the applicant was again forwarded to the District Court for examination. On 18 November 2000 the District Court again returned the case for additional investigation.\n10.  On an unspecified date in February-March 2001 the prosecutor's office again forwarded the criminal case for trial. On 3 April 2001 the District Court returned the case for additional investigation for the third time.\n11.  On 15 May 2001 the applicant was released from detention subject to an undertaking not to abscond.\n12.  On 7 June 2001 the criminal case against the applicant was once more forwarded to the District Court for examination. On an unspecified date between June 2001 and July 2004 the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor's office for further investigation for the fourth time.\n13.  On an unspecified date in 2004 the criminal case was again forwarded to the District Court for trial. On 22 September 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment. The applicant was detained immediately. He appealed against the judgment to the Moscow City Court and requested to be released.\n14.  On 1 December 2004 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The court upheld the applicant's detention on remand without providing an explanation.\n15.  On 27 January 2005 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the decision of 1 December 2004 and sent the case for a fresh examination on appeal.\n16.  On 3 March 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 22 September 2004.\n17.  On 23 November 2005 the Supreme Court, acting by way of supervisory review on the applicant's request, quashed the decisions of 27 January and 3 March 2005 and upheld the decision of 1 December 2004. The Supreme Court further ordered the applicant's detention for three months, until 23 February 2006, “in order to secure the examination of the case”, without giving other grounds. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this decision, claiming that his detention on remand had been extended unlawfully and unreasonably (see paragraph 21 below).\n18.  On 9 and 19 December 2005 the District Court scheduled the preliminary hearing of the applicant's case. On both occasions the court stated that “the preventive measure applied in respect of the applicant should remain the same – detention on remand” and did not provide any time-limits for the detention.\n19.  On 27 February 2006 the applicant lodged a request for release, stating that the period of his detention ordered by the Supreme Court (see paragraph 17 above) had expired on 23 February 2006.\n20.  On 28 February 2006 the District Court rejected the applicant's request and ordered his further detention until 23 May 2006, referring to the gravity of the charges aga", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5692", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Sabir Jafarov, was born in 1958 and lives in Azerbaijan. He is the sole founder and the director of the applicant company incorporated in Baku. He submitted the present application on his own behalf and on behalf of the applicant company.\n6.  By an order of 24 July 2000, issued by the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), the applicant company was provided with a plot of land of 400 square metres situated in Baku with the purpose of construction of an automobile showroom. On 13 April 2002 the applicant company concluded a tenancy agreement with the BCEA concerning a right of use of this plot of land for a period of forty-nine years.\n7.  It appears from the case file that after obtaining the relevant construction permit from the competent authorities, the applicant company began to carry out construction work on the land in question. However, in August 2002 the BCEA requested the applicant company to suspend the construction work. By an order of 2 January 2003 the BCEA annulled its order of 24 July 2000 and instructed that all the construction carried out by the applicant company up to that point be destroyed.\n8.  On an unspecified date, the applicant company brought an action against the BCEA, asking for annulment of the order of 2 January 2003. The applicant company also claimed compensation in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the destruction of the structures already built on the land plot.\n9.  On 10 August 2005 Local Economic Court No. 1 delivered a judgment granting the applicant company's claim in part. The court held that the BCEA's order of 2 January 2003 had been unlawful and that the applicant company's right of use of the plot of land should be restored. Moreover, the court awarded the applicant company 104,822,212 Old Azerbaijani manats (AZM) in compensation for pecuniary damage, leaving the claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage unexamined. The judgment was appealed by both parties in the proceedings.\n10.  On 12 October 2005 the Economic Court (acting as an appellate instance) delivered a new judgment on the merits. The Economic Court upheld the lower court's judgment in the part concerning the unlawfulness of the BCEA's order of 2 January 2003. However, the Economic Court dismissed the remainder of the applicant company's claims, including the claim in respect of pecuniary damage.\n11.  On 23 December 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the Economic Court's judgment, noting that the material and procedural law had been applied correctly.\n12.  It appears from the case file that, despite the applicant company's numerous demands and the fact that the writ of execution had been sent several times to BCEA for execution, the applicant company's right of use of the plot of land was not restored.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5693", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Kherson.\n5.  In 1996-1997 the applicant’s neighbours, Mr and Mrs P., who lived on the second floor of a two-storey dwelling house, reconstructed their two flats. As a result of this, the applicant’s flat on the first floor of the same house and the property in it were flooded and damaged.\n6.  On 10 September 1997 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Komsomolskyy Court against Mr and Mrs P., by which she asked it to declare unlawful the reconstructions they had made, sought elimination of obstacles in using the house and claimed damages. Subsequently, the applicant lodged a similar claim against the local authorities, by which she also sought refutation of information published in a local newspaper concerning the applicant’s alleged failure to pay for the utilities and claimed damages in this respect.\n7.  Between 9 September 1998 and 24 April 1999 the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of the applicant’s criminal complaint concerning the matter, which was eventually dismissed as unsubstantiated.\n8.  On 28 August 2001 the court discontinued the proceedings in respect of Mr P. because of his death.\n9.  Following two reconsiderations of the case, on 31 August 2005 the court allowed in part the applicant’s claim, declared the reconstructions made by Mrs P. unlawful, obliged her to repair the house and the applicant’s flat and ordered Mrs P. to pay the applicant certain amounts in compensation. The court rejected, as unsubstantiated, the applicant’s claim against the local authorities.\n10.  On 12 December 2005 and 24 January 2008, respectively, the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal and the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal (the latter court acting as a court of cassation) upheld the above judgment. On 14 April 2008 the applicant was served with a copy of the decision of 24 January 2008.\n11.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant amended or specified her claims on six occasions and on one occasion she requested the courts to extend the time-limit for lodging her appeal. Nineteen hearings were adjourned upon the applicant’s request or due to her failure to attend them. Thirty-five hearings were adjourned mainly due to the respondents’ or third parties’ failure to attend them and because of the absence of the judge. Three expert examinations were ordered in the course of the proceedings and lasted for about three months (in June-July 1999 and in May 2004).\n12.  The applicant disagreed that she had been responsible for the adjournment of some of the hearings mentioned by the Government.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5694", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Sevastopol.\n6.  On 29 August 2002 the applicant was detained on suspicion of illegal drug possession and attempted drug smuggling. He was taken to Sevastopol Temporary Detention Centre (“the Sevastopol ITT”), where he was held until his release in December 2005 (see paragraph 24 below).\n7.  In August and September 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted against four other persons on similar charges.\n8.  On 31 August 2002 the Leninskyy District Court of Sevastopol (“the Leninskyy Court”) extended the applicant’s detention to eight days.\n9.  On 5 September 2002, following a hearing in which the applicant’s lawyer participated, the court allowed the prosecutor’s request for the applicant’s detention for two months. It examined the lawyer’s arguments about the applicant’s frail health – second-degree hypertension and cerebral atherosclerosis – but found no indication that this was incompatible with detention. On the other hand, the court noted that if left at liberty the applicant might abscond, obstruct justice or reoffend.\n10.  On 25 October 2002, after a hearing in which the prosecutor participated, but at which the applicant and his lawyer were absent, the Leninskyy Court extended the detention to four months at the investigator’s request. It justified the extension with the need to carry out further investigation and the potential risk of the applicant’s absconding.\n11.  On 23 December 2002, following a hearing which was also held in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer, but in which the prosecutor participated, the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) allowed the prosecutor’s request for an extension of the detention to six months. It justified it with the fact that investigation was yet to be completed, the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and the inherent risk of his absconding. This ruling of the court was final.\n12.  On 21 February 2003, following a hearing in which the applicant’s lawyer participated, the Court of Appeal extended, by a final ruling, the applicant’s detention to nine months (until 28 May 2003) at the investigator’s request. The court relied on the same arguments as before. It refused the lawyer’s request for the applicant’s release on health grounds, referring to a lack of evidence that his state of health was incompatible with detention.\n13.  On 15 May 2003 the pre-trial investigation was declared complete.\n14.  From 19 May to 9 June 2003 the applicant and his lawyer studied the case file.\n15.  The applicant complained to the prosecution authorities on a number of occasions that his continued detention after 28 May 2003 had been unlawful, referring to the fact that it was not covered by any decision. His complaints were forwarded to the Leninskyy Court, where they allegedly remained without response.\n16.  On 10 June 2003 the charges against the applicant, as well as against the other co-accused, were extended to participation in a criminal organisation and unlawful production, possession and smuggling of drugs and drug precursors by an organised group.\n17.  On 12 June 2003 the pre-trial investigation, which had been resumed following the modification of the charges, was declared complete.\n18.  From 17 June to 18 July 2003 the applicant and his lawyer studied the case file.\n19.  On 30 July 2003 the criminal file was sent to the Leninskyy Court.\n20.  On 29 August 2003 the court held a preparatory hearing for the trial, durin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5695", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are:\n(1)  Mrs Imani Amuyeva, born in 1972;\n(2)  Mr Eti Dzhabrailov, born in 1932;\n(3)  Mr Uvays Israilov, born in 1918; and\n(4)  Mrs Liza Makhmutmirzayeva, born in 1977.\n5.  On 6 July 2008 the third applicant died. His son Mr Abdul-Rakhim Israilov, born in 1959, provided a letter of authority expressing his intention to continue the application in his name. For the sake of convenience, he will hereinafter be referred to as “the fifth applicant”.\n6.  The applicants live in Gekhi-Chu, Urus-Martan district, Chechnya.\n7.  The first, third, fourth and fifth applicants belong to the same extended family. The third applicant was the father of Adam (also spelled Adlan) Israilov, born in 1965; Turpal Israilov, born in 1972; and Aslambek Israilov, born in 1971. His son, the fifth applicant, is the brother of Adam, Turpal and Aslambek Israilov. The first applicant is Adam Israilov’s wife. The fourth applicant is Aslambek Israilov’s wife.\n8.  The second applicant is the father of Aslanbek (also spelled Alik) Dzhabrailov, born in 1968.\n9.  In the autumn of 1999 military operations by the Russian military and security forces started in Chechnya. According to the applicants, the village of Gekhi-Chu in the Urus-Martan district came under full control of the Russian military forces in December 1999. A military unit was stationed at the outskirts of the village, the state authorities were functioning and there were no clashes in the area. For these reasons the residents had considered that their lives were no longer endangered by the hostilities.\n10.  In the evening of 6 February 2000 the village came under fire by automatic weapons from the position of the Russian forces about fifty metres away from the edge of the village. The residents were aware that a large group of Chechen fighters had entered the village from the direction of Katyr-Yurt and many had taken shelter in the basements of their houses.\n11.  In the morning on 7 February 2000 two military helicopters fired missiles upon the village. The village then came under shelling by artillery and from planes.\n12.  The first, third and fourth applicants live at 72 Shkolnaya Street in Gekhi-Chu in a large residential compound comprised of several houses. One house belonged to the third applicant and another one belonged to his elder son, the fifth applicant. A large number of neighbours and relatives took shelter in their compound. According to them, there were about twenty-five people in the basement of only one of the houses.\n13.  The second applicant lives at 76 Shkolnaya Street. On 6 and 7 February 2000 he, together with his son Aslanbek Dzhabrailov, was also taking shelter in the basement of the first applicant’s house.\n14.  At about 2 p.m. on 7 February 2000 the shelling stopped. One of the men looked into the courtyard and saw a group of military servicemen. The soldiers ordered everyone to come out and lined up the men, women and children in the courtyard.\n15.  After the residents came out, one serviceman threw a hand-grenade into the basement of the third applicant’s house. The explosion damaged the house.\n16.  The servicemen, who behaved in an aggressive manner, took aside four young men: the third applicant’s three sons Aslambek, Adam and Turpal Israilov, and Aslanbek Dzhabrailov, the second applicant’s son. The third applicant approached the group because he feared for his sons. The military servicemen told him that they would check whether the young men had participate", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5696", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Syktyvkar, Komi Republic.\n5.  The applicant and his family were living in a wooden house owned by the municipality on the riverside in Sedkyrkeshch settlement of Syktyvkar. From 1995 the applicant had repeatedly informed the local authorities that the river was overflowing and the house was at risk of destruction.\n6.  In the spring of 1998 the town administration made the applicant a few offers of a temporary dwelling. However, the applicant found it unsatisfactory and refused to move. On 18 May 1998 the applicant’s house was flooded, and the applicant’s family moved to his parents’ flat.\n7.  On 13 July 1998 the applicant lodged a claim against the Syktyvkar town administration, seeking to be provided with a flat of a total surface area of not less than 36 sq. m. or to receive housing subsidy. He also sought compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n8.  The first hearing was scheduled for 10 August 1998, but it did not take place due to the parties’ default in appearance. The hearing of 26 April 1999 did not take place for the same reason.\n9.  On 20 May 1999 the town administration requested that examination of the case be postponed until their representative returned from vacation. The applicant and his representative appeared at the hearing of 7 June 1999, which was adjourned to 21 September and then to 26 October 1999 on account of involvement of the Sedkyrkeshch settlement administration as a co-respondent and to give the applicant time to specify his claims.\n10.  On 26 October 1999 the Syktyvkar Town Court (“the Town Court”) partly found for the applicant and obliged the town administration to provide him with a flat. His other claims were dismissed.\n11.  On 7 December 1999 in a separate judgment the Town Court awarded the applicant legal expenses in the amount of 2,008 Russian roubles (RUB).\n12.  On 27 January 2000 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic (“the appeal court”) overturned the judgment of 26 October 1999 on appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n13.  The parties did not appear at the hearing of 28 March 2000, which was adjourned to 25 September 2000. On the latter date the hearing took place and was adjourned, with the applicant having been invited to specify his claims.\n14.  On 26 January 2001 the trial court required that the town administration supply certain documents.\n15.  The hearing of 30 October 2001 did not take place as the respondent’s representative failed to appear. On 26 February and 10 October 2002 the hearings were adjourned to give the applicant time to adjust his claims for non-pecuniary damage and to resolve an unspecified motion. On 29 November 2002 the hearing was adjourned following a default in appearance of one of the lay judges sitting in the case.\n16.  On 22 January and 8 May 2003 the applicant challenged judge L. on account of procrastination in consideration of the case. On 16 September 2003 the case was assigned to judge N.\n17.  On an unspecified date the applicant renounced his claim for provision of housing, now seeking to be placed on the waiting list of persons entitled to State-funded housing subsidy, for the amount of the subsidy to be determined and to receive compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. He also sought reimbursement of legal expenses.\n18.  On 2 October 2003 the court gave a new judgment in which it ordered the authorities to place the applicant on the waiting list and to determine the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5697", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Vladimir.\n5.  The applicant is a lawyer who used to provide legal services to a certain enterprise.\n6.  On 11 January 1999 the applicant was detained on suspicion of having appropriated the enterprise’s funds. On the same day his case was joined to the case of his co-accused A. A week later a local newspaper published an article accusing the applicant of the crime that he was being charged with.\n7.  In February and March 1999 the investigation authorities commissioned two expert examinations and apprised the applicant and his privately-retained counsel of their results.\n8.  From 31 May to 13 October 1999 the applicant studied the case-file.\n9.  On 15 November 1999 the case-file arrived at the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk (“the District Court”) which scheduled the first hearing for 17 April 2000.\n10.  On 10 April 2000 one of the applicant’s counsels informed the court by a letter that he would not defend the applicant in court due to the applicant’s failure to pay for his services. He also mentioned that he would not be available due to a vacation. The hearing of 17 April 2000 did not take place following the applicant’s counsel’s default in appearance. Nor did they appear at the next hearing scheduled for 4 July 2000.\n11.  At the hearing of 12 September 2000 the applicant was represented by a new privately-retained counsel who requested that the case be remitted to the prosecutor for curing of the investigation defects. His request was granted on 19 September 2000. The District Court reasoned that the investigation authorities had failed to ensure that the applicant was provided with legal assistance while studying the case-file, ignored his requests for additional expert examinations and committed certain procedural irregularities.\n12.  On 17 November 2000 the applicant was again invited to study the case-file. Following his refusal to do so, the investigator informed him that it was open to him to familiarize himself with the case materials from 27 December 2000 to 11 January 2001.\n13.  On 2 February 2001 the case arrived to the court. The hearing was first scheduled for 7 May and then for 14 May 2001 due to the judge’s involvement in different proceedings.\n14.  On 14 May 2001 the court again granted the defence’s request for remittal of the case to the prosecutor. However, this decision was set aside on appeal on 16 July 2001. The trial court was ordered to continue examination of the case.\n15.  The next hearing scheduled for 1 October 2001 did not take place due to the failure to deliver the accused to the court.\n16.  On 8 October 2001 the court allowed the applicant to study the case-file until 15 October 2001. From 15 October to 1 November 2001 the court held regular hearings examining the case.\n17.  On 1 November 2001 the court released the applicant from detention on an undertaking not to leave the town and granted the defence’s request for remittal of the case to the prosecutor. The decision to remit the case was again overturned on appeal on 29 November 2001.\n18.  The next hearing was scheduled for 20 May 2002. However, the court had to stay the proceedings until 1 October 2002 due to the applicant’s illness. From 1 October 2002 to 2 April 2003 the court held regular hearings.\n19.  On 2 April 2003 the District Court acquitted the applicant of all charges. This judgment was overturned on appeal on 23 June 2003. The appeal court required a new hearing.\n20.  On 11 Augus", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5698", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Budapest.\nProceedings “A”\n5.  On 17 August 1994 Mr E.H. brought an action against the applicant before the Pest Central District Court seeking the vacation of a real property. After several hearings, on 30 November 1999 a judgment was delivered. On 10 November 2000 the Budapest Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case.\n6.  In the resumed proceedings, hearings were held on 8 January, 28 March, 14 June, 22 October 2002 and 24 January 2003. On 23 May 2003 a judgment was adopted. On 17 September 2004 the Regional Court upheld this decision.\n7.  On 31 March 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review in a reasoned decision, holding that the second-instance judgment had not been unlawful to an extent that had a bearing on the merits of the case. This decision was served on 1 June 2005.\nProceedings “B”\n8.  On 3 December 1996 the same plaintiff brought an action against the applicant before the District Court, challenging his disinheritance. On 13 and 27 November 1997, 24 March, 2 July and 26 November 1998 hearings were held. On the latter date an interim judgment was adopted. On appeal, the Regional Court held a hearing on 30 September 1999. On 24 February 2000 it partly upheld the interim ruling and partly remitted the case.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, on 31 October 2000 the District Court held a hearing and appointed a graphology expert. He filed his opinion on 10 January 2001. On 27 March, 13 November 2001 and 23 April 2002 hearings took place. Subsequently, the opinions of two more experts were obtained. Further hearings were held on 28 January, 6 May, 30 September 2003, 11 May 2004, 25 January and 19 April 2005, 8 February, 8 March, 10 April, 24 May, 12 July, 11 September and 6 October 2006.\n10.  On 13 October 2006 the District Court gave judgment, partly finding for the plaintiff. On 14 June 2007 the Regional Court dismissed the appeals. On 6 November 2007 the Supreme Court refused to deal with the applicant's petition for review, since the value of the dispute was under the statutory threshold.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5699", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and normally lives in Sereď.\n6.  At 3.30 p.m. and 7.55 p.m. respectively on 3 April 2006 the applicant was taken to a police station (predvedený) and detained (zadržaný) on suspicion of illegal production, possession and trade in dangerous drugs. Official charges to that effect were brought against him the following day.\n7.  At 3.03 p.m. on 5 April 2006 the Galanta District Office of Public Prosecution (Okresná prokuratúra, “the District Prosecutor”) lodged a request with the Galanta District Court (Okresný súd) for the applicant to be remanded in custody pending trial.\n8.  At 11.05 a.m. on 6 April 2006 the applicant was brought before a single judge of the District Court to be heard in connection with the request for a detention order against him.\nThe applicant complained that he had not been brought before a judge within twenty-four hours of his arrest, as required by Article 8 § 3 of the Charter of Basic Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Law no. 23/1991 Coll.) (Listina základných práv a slobôd – “the Charter”), requested release and offered a pledge under Article 80 § 1 (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 301/2005 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time) (“the CCP”) that he would live in accordance with the law.\nIt was true that the time-limit for bringing a detained person (zadržaná osoba) before a judge under Article 17 § 3 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll.), as amended with effect from 1 July 2001 (Constitutional Law no. 90/2001 Coll.) was forty-eight hours.\nHowever, neither the Constitution nor any other legislation had expressly repealed the Charter and an implicit repeal was not permissible. The Charter guaranteed him broader legal protection and had to be applied in his case.\n9.  Following the hearing, on the same day, the District Court remanded the applicant in custody pending trial and rejected his pledge under Article 80 § 1 (b) of the CCP. It found that there were fears that if released the applicant might commit a previously attempted offence, continue to offend, or carry out new criminal activities within the meaning of Article 71 § 1 (c) of the CCP. The applicant submitted an oral interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť) and stated that he would lodge his reasons for the appeal within three days.\n10.  A written version of the detention order of 6 April 2006 was served on the applicant at an unspecified later point. The District Court summarised the charge against the applicant and the submissions of the District Prosecutor and those made orally by the applicant. It referred to the conclusions of an expert analysis concerning the substance found on the applicant and observed that illegal drugs had been found on him for the second time. The applicant's explanation that he had found and had been going to dump the drug so that it would not be found by anyone else was implausible because the applicant had had the opportunity to report the find to the police and had not done so.\n11.  On 7 April 2006, which was a Friday, the applicant's lawyer requested that he be allowed to inspect the case file. Arrangements were made for the inspection to take place on 10 April 2006, which was a Monday.\n12.  The applicant subsequently sent the grounds of his appeal in writing to the District Court, where they arrived on 13 April 2006. The applicant developed the twenty-four-hour time-limit argument in detail and sought release.\n13.  On 25 April 2006, sitting in private (neve", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5701", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Brwinów.\n5.  On 15 June 1994 the applicant filed an application for the distribution of an inheritance left by his grandmother.\n6.  On numerous occasions the proceedings were suspended, mostly due to the successive deaths of the parties. The proceedings were:\n- suspended on 30 November 1995;\n- resumed on an unknown date in 1999;\n- suspended on 25 January 2000;\n- resumed on an unknown date in 2000 or 2001;\n- suspended on 6 June 2001;\n- resumed on 25 October 2004;\n- suspended on 18 January 2005;\n- resumed on 24 April 2006;\n- suspended on 5 July 2006;\n- resumed on 27 August 2007;\n- suspended on 7 December 2007 but immediately resumed;\n- suspended on 15 February 2008.\n7.  The proceedings are still pending before the court of first instance.\n8.  On 10 April 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”). He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings was excessive and compensation.\n9.  On 7 May 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. In its assessment of the length of the proceedings, the Regional Court did not take into account the period before the entry into force of the 2004 Act. It then went on to analyse in detail the course of the proceedings, finding that the District Court had conducted them in a correct and timely manner. It further concluded that the long duration of the proceedings had resulted from numerous requests and motions filed by the parties as well as from the successive deaths of the parties. This obliged the District Court to suspend the proceedings each time. The Regional Court finally pointed out that it was incumbent on the parties and not on the court to determine the identity of the heirs of the deceased parties in order for the proceedings to be continued.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5702", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 7 November 1997 enforcement proceedings were initiated against the applicant.\n6.  On 21 January 1999 the Bratislava IV District Court dismissed the applicant's objections against the enforcement and its costs.\n7. On 31 January 2000 the district court dismissed the applicant's request for adjournment of the enforcement. On 30 June 2000 the decision was upheld by the Bratislava Regional Court.\n8.  On 29 January 2001 the applicant requested the district court to issue an interim measure and to discontinue the enforcement.\n9.  On 21 May 2001 the district court adjourned the enforcement pending its decision on the applicant's request for the enforcement to be discontinued. On 30 November 2001 the regional court quashed the above decision.\n10.  On 29 October 2003 the applicant again requested discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings.\n11.  On 25 October 2007 the district court rejected the applicant's request for interim measures.\n12.  On 17 March 2009 the district court dismissed the applicant's request for discontinuation of the proceedings.\n13.  On 28 January 2010 the regional court, on the applicant's appeal, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the district court for further examination.\n14.  On 20 May 2010 the district court discontinued the proceedings and held that it would deliver a decision on costs once the decision to discontinue the proceedings became final.\n15.  On 24 June 2010 the applicant's representative informed the Court that the decision has not yet become final.\n16.  On 6 October 2003 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about length of the proceedings before the Bratislava IV District Court and claimed the equivalent of 2,426 euros (EUR) at that time as just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage suffered.\n17.  The Constitutional Court examined the period of the proceedings after 29 January 2001.\n18.  On 2 February 2005 it found that the district court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay, ordered the latter to avoid further delays and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.\n19.  It concluded that these represented a sufficient just satisfaction and did not award the applicant any award for non-pecuniary damage. It referred to the fact that the applicant was the liable party in the proceedings. It further held that the applicant had failed to specify the allegedly suffered harm.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5703", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Košice.\n6.  On 21 August 2001 the applicant's (now former) husband, A., attacked her both verbally and physically while they were in a public place. The applicant suffered a minor injury and feared for her life and safety. This led her and her children to move out of the family home and into the premises of a non-governmental organisation in Košice.\n7.  On 27 and 28 August 2001 A. repeatedly threatened the applicant, inter alia, to kill her and several other persons. Criminal proceedings were brought against him and he was remanded in custody.\n8.  On 29 November 2001 a public prosecutor indicted A. before the Košice I District Court (“the District Court”). The indictment stated that the accused had been convicted four times in the past. Two of the offences had been committed in the last ten years and involved breaches of court or administrative orders.\n9.  In the course of the criminal proceedings, experts established that the accused suffered from a serious personality disorder. His treatment as an in‑patient in a psychiatric hospital was recommended.\n10.  On 7 January 2002 the District Court convicted A. The court decided not to impose a prison sentence on him and held that he should undergo psychiatric treatment. At the same time, the court released him from detention on remand. A. was then transported to a hospital in Košice. That hospital did not carry out the treatment which A. required, nor did the District Court order it to carry out such treatment. A. was released from the hospital on 14 January 2002.\n11.  After his release from hospital on 14 January 2002, A. verbally threatened the applicant and her lawyer. On 14 and 16 January 2002, respectively, the applicant's lawyer and the applicant herself filed criminal complaints against him. They also informed the District Court (which had convicted him on 7 January 2002) about his behaviour and of the new criminal complaints they had filed.\n12.  On 21 January 2002 A. visited the applicant's lawyer again and threatened both her and her employee. On the same day he was arrested by the police and accused of a criminal offence.\n13.  On 22 February 2002 the District Court arranged for psychiatric treatment of A. in accordance with its decision of 7 January 2002 (see paragraph 10 above). He was consequently transported to a hospital in Plešivec.\n14.  On 7 March 2002 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. She alleged a violation of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention and of Articles 16 (§ 1) and 19 (§ 2) of the Slovak Constitution, in that the District Court had failed to ensure that her husband be placed in a hospital for the purpose of psychiatric treatment immediately after his conviction on 7 January 2002.\n15.  The Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's complaint on 2 October 2002. In its decision it found that there had been no interference with the applicant's rights under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, as interpreted by the Convention organs. As to the alleged violation of the applicant's rights under Articles 16 (§ 1) and 19 (§ 2) of the Constitution, the applicant should have pursued an action for the protection of her personal integrity before the ordinary courts. Reference was made to the Constitutional Court's decisions on cases nos. I. ÚS 2/00 and II. ÚS 23/00.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5704", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr I. D., is a Moldovan national who was born in 1977 and is currently detained in Cricova prison.\n7.  On 13 October 2003 the applicant was arrested on charges of theft. The next day an investigating judge ordered his detention for a period of ten days.\n8.  During detention the applicant was allegedly beaten on a regular basis by police officers with a view to extracting confessions. According to the applicant, he was beaten all over his body with rubber batons, administered electric shocks, suspended on a metal bar and suffocated.\n9.  During the seventh day of his detention he was taken to the office of B.R. and L.C. where he was cuffed and raped with a bottle. One of the police officers was photographing him during this time.\n10.  On 24 October 2003 the applicant was taken to a judge for the prolongation of his detention. The judge ordered the applicant's examination by a doctor.\n11.  The same day the applicant was visually examined by a forensic doctor who found numerous bruises on his body and limbs and concluded that they could have been caused by a blunt object with a limited surface, possibly in the circumstances indicated by the applicant.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Prosecutor's Office about his ill-treatment at the hands of the police.\n13.  On 2 May 2006 the Prosecutor General's Office dismissed the applicant's complaint. The applicant's appeal was dismissed by the Prosecutor General's Office on 27 February 2007.\n14.  In the meantime the applicant was detained in four different detention facilities of the Ministry of Interior Affairs and the Ministry of Justice.\n15.  Between the date of his arrest and 23 October 2004 the applicant was detained in the DGCCO detention facility. He was then transferred to the Botanica Police Station where he was detained for twenty-three days. Between November 2004 and December 2005 the applicant was detained in Prison no. 13. Subsequently he was transferred to the Soroca Prison where he was detained until 6 February 2006. Between 6 February and October 2006 the applicant was again detained in Prison no. 13 in Chişinău. After that he was transferred to the Cricova Prison, where he is detained to date.\n16.  According to the applicant the conditions of detention in all the detention facilities amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. In respect of the DGCCO detention facility the applicant did not describe the conditions of detention but only made reference to the Court's Ostrovar v. Moldova judgment (no. 35207/03, 13 September 2005) in which the conditions were described. As to the Botanica Police Station, the applicant submitted that the conditions were similar to those in the DGCCO detention facility with the exception that the cells were in the basement and were not equipped with windows. In respect of his first detention in Prison no. 13, the applicant submitted that an important aspect had been his frequent transfer from one cell to another, which, in his view, amounted of itself to inhuman and degrading treatment. Moreover, the cells were overcrowded, poorly lit and humid. The prisoners were not provided with bedding and had no laundry facilities. As to the conditions in the Soroca prison, the applicant submitted that the cells were overcrowded and humid. In respect of the Cricova prison, the applicant complained about the conditions there for the first time in his observations on the admissibility and merits of the case in January 2010 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5705", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Diyarbakır. He was sixteen years old at the time of the events and according to the official documents in the case file he had a criminal record concerning ten different incidents, inter alia, of robbery and pickpocketing.\n5.  In the application form the applicant submitted that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while he was held in police custody. In this connection, he claimed to have been blindfolded, punched, kicked, hit with a truncheon, isolated, threatened, starved and sworn at.\n6.  On 9 July 1998 Mr M.S. lodged a complaint with the Gaziosmanpaşa police station, in Istanbul, that he had been robbed by three people pointing a knife at him as he was leaving an exchange bureau. One of the suspects, who was arrested shortly after the incident, was identified by Mr M.S. This suspect gave the names of the applicant and the other suspects involved in the robbery as well as that of the hotel where they were staying. On 10 July 1998 the public prosecutor, at the request of the police, extended this suspect's custody period for four days.\n7.  According to the incident report drafted on 11 July 1998 at 2.30 a.m. and signed by the applicant and two other suspects, when the police officers arrived at the hotel room and asked for identification the applicant and other suspects refused to comply and started cutting themselves with razors and hitting their heads against the wardrobes and they smashed the glass door of the hotel while trying to escape.\n8.  The police drafted a similar report at 3.00 a.m. which was signed by one member of the hotel staff and the hotel owner.\n9.  On 11 July 1998 at 10.45 a.m. Mr M.S. identified the applicant as one of the individuals who had taken money from him that day. On the same day the police took Mr M.S.'s statement.\n10.  According to the custody records the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on 11 July 1998 at 2 a.m. The applicant claims that he was arrested on 8 July 1998.\n11.  On 11 July 1998 at 6.50 p.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor at Duygu Hospital who noted an old wound of 3 cm on the right side of the applicant's head.\n12.  On the same day the applicant met his lawyer appointed by the bar, Mrs F. Karakaş Doğan. After the meeting the applicant's lawyer wrote to the Gaziosmanpaşa public prosecutor and the Magistrates' Court; she stated that her client claimed to have been arrested on 8 July 1998 and that therefore the legal detention period had expired. She further maintained that the applicant had a head injury and redness on his back and requested that he receive medical treatment for his injuries.\n13.  On 12 July 1998 Mr A.A., the owner of the hotel, gave a statement to the police. In his testimony he submitted that he was told of the incident by the receptionist who had escorted the police to the suspects' room and that after the incident he noted that the glass door of the hotel was broken and that there were bloodstains in the hotel room.\n14.  On the same day the receptionist, Mr M.A.S., gave a statement to the police where he maintained that he had witnessed, inter alia, the applicant and other suspects cutting themselves and hitting their heads against the wardrobes.\n15.  On 13 July 1998 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Gaziosmanpaşa Forensic Medicine Institute who noted redness in fifteen places on the applicant's back, swelling on the head and redness on various parts of the applicant's legs.\n16.  On", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5706", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1947 respectively and live in Hódmezővásárhely.\n6.  On 26 August 1994 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants, a married couple and both archaeologists. On 5 July 1995 a bill of indictment was preferred and the applicants were charged with several counts of aggravated embezzlement, punishable in the circumstances by up to three years of imprisonment. The alleged offences concerned the alienation of numerous artefacts retrieved by the applicants.\n7.  After a remittal, on 21 May 1998 the Békéscsaba District Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to one year of imprisonment, suspended for two years. On 7 January 1999 the Békés County Regional Court upheld this judgment. The review bench of the Supreme Court confirmed the final judgment on 7 March 2000. The courts relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of experts and the testimony of witnesses and the parties and recognised the lapse of time from the commission of the offences as a mitigating factor. After the lapse of the two-year period of suspension on 7 January 2001, the applicants became exempted (mentesülés) from all legal consequences of their conviction.\n8.  On 5 September 2001 the applicants nevertheless requested a retrial. On 9 July 2002 the Békés County Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, ordered the retrial.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, after a remittal, the Gyula District Court held two oral hearings and dismissed the applicants' retrial motion on 15 September 2004. The court relied on documentary evidence, the opinions of several newly appointed experts as well as the testimony of witnesses and the defendants. The main question of taking evidence was whether the items embezzled by the applicants – that is, archaeological findings – had commercial value for the purposes of the offence of embezzlement.\n10.  The applicants appealed seeking acquittal. The Békés County Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision on 26 January 2005, without holding an oral hearing.\n11.  The applicants lodged a petition for review. On 1 June 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as inadmissible, without an examination on the merits, since it was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5707", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Prešov.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 23 March 2000 the applicant claimed a sum of money before the Prešov District Court.\n7.  On 5 April 2001 the District Court issued a payment order in summary proceedings. As the defendant filed an objection to the order, the court started dealing with the case in ordinary proceedings.\n8.  On 10 November 2004 the District Court dismissed the action. On 10 February 2005 it submitted the case to the court of appeal following the applicant's appeal.\n9.  On 24 August 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. The case was not complex and the applicant by his conduct had contributed to the length of the proceedings by not responding to a District Court' request and by asking for adjournment of three hearings. The Constitutional Court also concluded that the District Court had failed to proceed with the case in an efficient manner. It held that in view of the very simple legal question to be determined and the value of the claim, the court was obliged to organise its work in a way enabling it to decide the case within one hearing.\n10.  The Constitutional Court refused to award the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage since the case had already been decided by the first-instance court and the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings. It ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings (should the case be returned to it) and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.\n11.  On 14 September 2005 the court of appeal upheld the first-instance judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5709", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1960 respectively and live in Uherce Mineralne.\n6.  Both applicants were charged with the administrative offence (wykroczenie) of refusing to disclose their identity to the police. Henryk Urban (“the first applicant”) was also charged with using offensive language in a public place.\n7.  On 13 September 2006 the Lesko District Court, in summary proceedings, convicted the applicants as charged. They lodged an objection to the ruling. Consequently, their case was examined by the District Court in ordinary proceedings.\n8.  On two occasions the applicants requested the court to admit a certain Z.W. to the proceedings as a representative of a civil society organisation and/or their counsel. The District Court refused their requests as inadmissible in law. The second applicant was represented by legal-aid counsel.\n9.  On 7 November 2006 the first applicant filed a request for the withdrawal of all judges and “assessors” (junior judges) of the Lesko District Court on the ground that he had lost faith in them. On 21 December 2006 the Krosno Regional Court decided to exclude two Lesko District Court judges, J. Ł. and L. R.-S., from examining the first applicant's case as they had been victims and witnesses in an earlier criminal case against the first applicant. In respect of the other judges and assessors of the Lesko District Court, the applicant's request was dismissed. The Regional Court held that the general dissatisfaction of the first applicant with the decisions given by the District Court in his cases had not undermined the impartiality of those judges and assessors.\n10.  On 29 December 2006 the District Court decided to examine the two applicants' cases jointly.\n11.  On 31 August 2007 the first applicant requested that the assessor (asesor sądowy) B. R.-G. withdraw from the case on the ground that she had not accepted a medical certificate excusing his mother from attending a hearing. On 24 September 2007 the Lesko District Court, sitting as a single judge, dismissed the first applicant's request as ill-founded and prompted only by his subjective assessment of the assessor.\n12.  On 2 October 2007 the Lesko District Court, sitting as an assessor, gave judgment. Both applicants were convicted of failing to disclose their identity to the police and sentenced to a fine of PLN 100. The first applicant was acquitted of the other charge.\n13.  The applicants appealed. They objected, inter alia, to the fact that their case had been decided by an assessor, alleging that she was not a judge. They referred to the Constitutional Court's judgment of 24 October 2007 and submitted that the assessor could not exercise judicial powers because she did not offer sufficient guarantees of independence.\n14.  On 10 December 2007 the Krosno Regional Court upheld the District Court's judgment. It considered the applicants' objections to the composition of the first-instance court, based on the Constitutional Court's judgment, unfounded. No further appeal lay against the Regional Court's judgment.\n15.  According to the Government, the applicants did not question the ability of an assessor to give judgments, but they alleged that the particular assessor who had judged them had not been impartial. The applicants referred to the assessor as an institution only after the Constitutional Court's judgment, in the supplement to their appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5712", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Osijek.\n7.  In 1991 and 1992 the Osijek Police reported finding, at various locations in Osijek, a number of corpses showing signs that the victims had been murdered. At some point in 2001 the police, at the request of the State Attorney, commenced an inquiry into allegations that during the years 1991 and 1992 a number of civilians had been tortured and executed in Osijek, Croatia. A large number of individuals who had knowledge of these events were interviewed by the police. A voluminous case file was compiled and the inquiry resulted in the identification of the supposed perpetrators, one of whom was the applicant.\n8.  On the afternoon of 18 October 2006 at about 8 p.m. the applicant, accompanied by her father, arrived at the Osijek Police Department, having answered a telephone call from the chief of the Osijek Police for an interview in connection with a suspicion that she had committed war crimes against the civilian population. The applicant was questioned until the early morning of 21 October 2006.\n9.  On 20 October 2006 the Osijek-Baranja Police Department filed a criminal complaint against five individuals, including the applicant, alleging that there was a reasonable suspicion that during 1991 and 1992 they had committed war crimes against the civilian population.\n10.  On 21 October 2006 the investigating judge heard evidence from the five suspects.\n11.  On 22 October 2006 the investigating judge of the Osijek County Court opened an investigation in respect of the applicant and five other suspects in connection with suspected war crimes against the civilian population in 1991 and 1992 in Osijek. Several defendants lodged an appeal against the decision ordering the investigation. The appeals were dismissed on 2 November 2006 by a three-judge panel of the Osijek County Court.\n12.  On 3 and 13 November 2006 two other investigations in respect of two further suspects were joined to that concerning the applicant.\n13.  On 3 and 6 November 2006 the investigating judge of the Osijek County Court heard evidence from six witnesses. On 13 November 2006 the investigating judge examined the applicant. Since her counsel denied her further services, the judge appointed new counsel for the applicant.\n14.  On 24, 27, 29 and 30 November and 1 December 2006 the investigating judge heard evidence from twenty witnesses.\n15.  On 4 December 2006 the applicant found new counsel for herself.\n16.  On 5 December 2006 the investigating judge ordered the exhumation of two unidentified corpses for DNA analysis.\n17.  On 7 December 2006 the investigating judge heard evidence from four witnesses. On 11 December 2006 he heard evidence from two medical experts and six witnesses. On 12, 13 and 14 December he heard evidence from eighteen witnesses. On 15 December 2006 the judge ordered that a forensic examination be carried out. On the same day he heard evidence from a further six witnesses. On 18 December 2006 the forensic expert submitted his report. On the same day the investigating judge heard evidence from six witnesses and on 20 December 2006 from one more witness. On 21 December 2006 the judge heard evidence from the forensic expert. On 22 December 2006 the exhumation of two corpses was carried out.\n18.  On 28 December 2006 the judge heard evidence from the applicant.\n19.  On 5 January 2007 medical experts submitted their report on the DNA analysis of the two exhumed corpses.\n20.  On 12, 17, 22 and 30 Januar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5713", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Shuya in the Ivanovo Region.\n6.  The applicant is a holder of 1982 State premium loan bonds (облигации Государственного внутреннего выигрышного займа 1982 года) having a total nominal value of 19,845 “promissory roubles” (see paragraph 17 below).\n7.  In 1982, the USSR issued a State internal premium loan to finance certain State programmes (see paragraph 13 below). According to the conditions of the loan, individuals could invest their money in State premium bonds and redeem them at any time during the term of the loan with interest at three per cent per annum. The term of the loan was fixed at twenty years. In that period, 160 State-organised draws were to be held in which some bonds would win cash prizes.\n8.  In 1992, the Government of the Russian Federation acknowledged its succession in respect of the obligations of the USSR under the 1982 loan and suspended payments under the 1982 State premium bonds (see paragraph 14 below).\n9.  Between 1995 and 2000, a series of Russian laws was adopted which provided for conversion of Soviet securities, including the 1982 loan bonds, into special Russian promissory notes (see paragraphs 16 to 20 below). The Government was mandated to devise a procedure for the conversion and fix the value of the promissory notes. Although a regulation on the conversion was adopted in 2000 (see paragraph 21 below), the actual conversion did not start and application of the regulation has remained suspended to the present day (see paragraph 22 below).\n10.  In early 2002, the applicant wrote to the Ministry of Finance to inquire about possibilities and time-limits for converting his 1982 bonds into Russian promissory notes. By a letter of 27 April 2002, a deputy director of the Internal Debt Department confirmed to the applicant that his bonds should be converted into the Russian promissory notes in accordance with the Savings Protection Act. The deputy director went on to explain why the conversion had not yet been possible:\n“Section 10 of the [Conversion Procedure] Act provides that the procedure for calculating the interest accrued on the Russian promissory notes and the procedure for servicing the [internal] debt would be set out in a special federal law, which has not yet been enacted. In this connection, actual payments in [Russian] roubles under the promissory notes – as provided in the [Conversion Procedure] Act – cannot be made and the determination of the value of the ['promissory rouble'] would be of no practical significance since its application has not yet been defined by the legislator.\n...\nOnce the legislation on the procedure for calculating the interest and the debt-servicing procedure has been adopted, the Ministry of Finance will make the necessary arrangements for the conversion of USSR securities... into promissory notes and the servicing of them; it will also launch an open tender for selection of the conversion agent ...”\n11.  In November 2002 the applicant brought proceedings before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation challenging the Government for inactivity and failure to put the redemption programme into effect.\n12.  On 4 December 2002 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant's claim. It found as follows:\n“By virtue of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, the court may not, in civil proceedings, require the Government of the Russian Federation to enact a specific legal act if the law does not explicitly se", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5714", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant worked as a prosecutor’s assistant in the Pridniprovsky Transport Prosecutor’s Service, situated in Simferopol. In March 1996 she accepted a transfer in Sevastopol to work as a Transport Prosecutor’s assistant. In March 1997 she was dismissed. Since June 1997 the applicant has been on a pension.\n5.  On 3 July 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Pridniprovsky Transport Prosecutor’s Service in the Gagarinsky District Court of Simferopol (“the Gagarinsky Court”) seeking reinstatement and claiming payment of salary arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. She also claimed payment of her removal expenses and other payments allegedly due to her, and challenged some orders given by her superior.\n6.  On 10 March 1998 the court found against the applicant.\n7.  On 16 June 1998 the Sevastopol City Court (since July 2001 – the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal) quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a new consideration to the Gagarinsky Court.\n8.  On 1 October 1998 the Pridniprovsky Transport Prosecutor’s Service was closed down. Consequently, the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Prosecutor’s Service and the Prosecutor’s Service of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea joined the proceedings as defendants.\n9.  On 7 May 1999 the court partly allowed the applicant’s claims.\nOn 20 July 1999 the Sevastopol City Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the Gagarinsky Court.\n10.  By ruling of 3 November 1999 the Gagarinsky Court ordered that the claims concerning the reinstatement, payments of salary arrears, and compensation for non-pecuniary damage should be considered separately from the remainder of her claims. By judgment adopted the same date the Gagarinsky Court partly allowed the disjoined claims. On 14 December 1999 the Sevastopol City Court upheld the judgement of 3 November 1999. On 31 January 2001, following an objection (протест) by the Deputy Prosecutor General, the judgment of 3 November 1999 and the ruling of 14 December 1999 were quashed and the case in that part was remitted for a new consideration to the Gagarinsky Court. On 8 May 2001 it found against the applicant. On 19 June 2001 the Sevastopol City Court upheld that judgment with minor amendments. On 21 December 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation.\n11.  Meanwhile, the Gagarinsky Court continued considering the remainder of the applicant’s claims. On 31 December 2003 it dismissed them. On 29 April 2004 the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 31 December 2003 with minor amendments. On 19 August 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts.\n12.  From 1997 to 2000 the applicant instituted a number of proceedings against the Sevastopol City State Administration and the Gagarinsky District Department of the Ministry of Interior of Sevastopol (“the department”). She challenged the refusal of the Sevastopol City State Administration to provide her with a free apartment and sought a ruling obliging the Gagarinsky District Department of the Ministry of Interior in Sevastopol to register her address at the apartment in which she was living.\n13.  In February 2000 she challenged her dismissal by the Prosecutor’s Service of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea before the Gagarinsky District Court of Sevastopol.\n14.  The proceedings in the above cases were terminated at the latest in 2000.\n15.  On 10 November 2007 the applicant instituted proceedings in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5715", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Isa Aytamirov, born in 1983. The second applicant is her sister and Isa Aytamirov's aunt. The applicants were born in 1955 and 1960 respectively. The first applicant lives in the town of Argun and the second applicant lives in the village of Novy Tsentoroy, in the Chechen Republic.\n7.  At the material time the first applicant lived with Isa Aytamirov in the town of Argun, in the Grozny district of Chechnya. The second applicant lived at 36 Gagarina Street, in the village of Novy Tsentoroy, in the Grozny district of Chechnya. Isa Aytamirov frequently stayed at his aunt's place in the village.\n8.  On the night of 19 February 2003 the second applicant, Isa Aytamirov and other relatives were sleeping in the house in Novy Tsentoroy. There was a power cut in the village that night. As a result of previous bombardments the windows of the second applicant's house were covered with sheets of plastic instead of glass.\n9.  At about 4 a.m. a group of about thirty Russian servicemen arrived at the second applicant's gate on three armoured personnel carriers (APCs). They climbed over the fence, took the entrance door off its hinges and broke into the house. The intruders were wearing masks and military uniforms; they spoke Russian and Chechen. Using their flashlights, they dispersed into different rooms, pointed their guns at the second applicant and her relatives and ordered them not to move. Then the intruders went into the room where Isa Aytamirov was. They woke him up, pointed their guns at him and took him outside. Isa Aytamirov, barefoot and in his underwear, was taken to a shed in the yard and placed with his hands up against the wall. Meanwhile, Ms M. Dzh., another aunt of Isa Aytamirov, tried to call for help from a window. One of the servicemen ordered her in Chechen to stay quiet.\n10.  The second applicant and her relatives asked the servicemen to let them go outside. Permission was given only to the second applicant. When she went into the yard, she saw her nephew standing with his hands up against the wall. The second applicant asked the servicemen if she could give them her nephew's passport so they could give it to him. When she had brought it to them they forced her back into the house. Then the second applicant saw the servicemen put Isa Aytamirov into one of the APCs. She tried to follow her nephew and tried to climb on to the APC, but one of the servicemen hit her with a rifle butt and she fell on the ground and lost consciousness. The APCs drove away with Isa Aytamirov in an unknown direction. After that the applicants' relatives went outside and found the second applicant on the ground, unconscious and bleeding.\n11.  According to the second applicant, the following day she sought medical help at the military hospital in Grozny, where she underwent an X‑Ray of both legs. Subsequently, the second applicant was examined in the Argun town hospital, where her legs were bandaged and then plastered.\n12.  The description of the events of the night of 19 February 2003 is based on the accounts given to the applicants' representatives by the following witnesses: an account by Ms M. Dzh. given on 23 September 2005; two accounts by the second applicant given on 1 December 2004 and 23 September 2005; an account by Ms T. Dzh. given on 23 September 2005; a joint account by Ms M. and Ms G. given on an unspecified date; a joined account by Ms A.I. and Ms M.K. given on 25 February 2006; and also on two ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5717", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are the twenty-nine Russian nationals listed below:\n6.  Mr Mamudtsalya Akhtakhanov, born in 1951;\n7.  Mr Avgazar Byutukayev, born in 1943;\n8.  Ms Malizh Byutukayeva, born in 1957;\n9.  Ms Raisa Vakhayeva, born in 1959;\n10.  Ms Khava Vakhayeva, born in 1987;\n11.  Ms Madina Vakhayeva, born in 1990;\n12.  Ms Nurzhan (also spelled as Nurshan) Vakhayeva, born in 1964;\n13.  Ms Elita Vakhayeva, born in 1986;\n14.  Mr MuslimVakhayev, born in 1981;\n15.  Mr Salambek Vakhayev, born in 1992;\n16.  Ms Aset Gaskalova, born in 1965;\n17.  Ms. Luiza Guchigova, born in 1969;\n18.  Ms. Khava Dadayeva, born in 1978;\n19.  Ms Tamara Dzhamaldinova, born in 1966;\n20.  Ms Aliya Debirova, born in 1932;\n21.  Ms Khadisht (also spelled as Khadishat) Ismailova, born in 1970;\n22.  Ms Maret Musayeva, born in 1970;\n23.  Ms Malizha Osmayeva, born in 1964;\n24.  Ms Bela Orsamikova, born in 1977;\n25.  Mr Makhmud Satuyev, born in 1967;\n26.  Mr Zula Soslambekova (also spelled as Zulay and Zura Soslanbekova), born in 1956;\n27.  Ms Zara Sulimanova (also spelled as Suleymanova), born in 1964;\n28.  Ms Mani (also spelled as Moni) Umalatova, born in 1957; and\n29.  Ms Roza Khankerkhanova (also spelled as Razet Khametkhanova), born in 1962. 6.  Malika Abdulkerimova lives in Urus-Martan, Tamara Dzhamaldinova lives in Achkhoy-Martan and Bela Orsamikova lives in Grozny, Chechnya. The other applicants live in the village of Katyr-Yurt, in the Achkhoy‑Martan district, Chechnya. 7.  The facts of the case are connected to the application Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, 24 February 2005, in that the applicants and their relatives were victims of the attack on the village of Katyr-Yurt that took place between 4 and 7 February 2000. In the Isayeva case the applicant and her relatives were trying to escape the fighting on 4 February 2000 when an aviation bomb exploded near their minivan, wounding the applicant and killing three of her relatives. In that case the Court established a number of facts relevant to the present case which can be summarised as follows. 8.  Since the beginning of military operations by the Russian military and security forces in Chechnya in the autumn of 1999, the village of Katyr-Yurt had been treated as a “safe zone.” By the beginning of February 2000 up to 25,000 persons lived there, including local residents and internally displaced persons from elsewhere in Chechnya. Prior to 4 February 2000 the residents of Katyr-Yurt had not been informed by the State authorities about the possible advance of Chechen insurgent formations into the village, whereas such information had been available to federal military commanders. On 4 February 2000 the village was captured by a large group of Chechen fighters escaping from Grozny and the federal military forces subsequently carried out an assault, using weapons such as heavy free‑falling aviation bombs, missiles and other arsenal. The two roads out of the village were controlled by the military by means of roadblocks. While the roadblock leading towards the district centre of Achkhoy-Martan allowed the residents to leave, the other one, placed on the road leading towards the neighbouring village of Valerick, remained closed for the majority of the fighting. The shelling of Katyr-Yurt continued until – and throughout – 7 February 2000. 9.  At the material time, all of the applicants lived in Katyr-Yurt. As a result of the bombardment, twenty-four of the applicants' relatives died (see table attached). Some applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5718", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, mother and son, were born in 1945 and 1975 respectively and live in Kyiv.\n6.  On 16 July 1992 Mrs Y.B., born in 1908, officially registered the first applicant as a permanent tenant in her flat and in March 1993 signed it off to her in a will, purportedly in exchange for the first applicant being her live-in aide. On 5 January 1993 the second applicant, then a minor, was also officially registered as a permanent resident in Mrs Y.B.'s flat as his mother's family member. The applicants moved into the flat, took care of the charges and maintenance fees and did some renovation work.\n7.  On 23 August 1994 the Kyiv City Administration promised to provide the applicants with a new flat in view of the fact that a decision had been taken to demolish the building of which Mrs Y.B. was co-owner. That decision, however, was never complied with.\n8.  In 1995 and 1996 the second applicant's wife and two children from her previous relationship, born in 1988 and 1989, were also registered as permanent tenants in the same flat. Subsequently the second applicant adopted the children (in 1996) and divorced their mother (in 1998).\n9.  On 18 December 1998 Mrs Y.B. died.\n10.  After her death, the first applicant learned that in 1996 and 1998 Mrs Y.B. had drafted two more wills, signing the same flat off to other individuals, and on 12 March 1999 instituted judicial proceedings seeking to have those two wills annulled. The first applicant claimed that since 1995 Mrs Y.B. had been under severe stress resulting from her participation in an ongoing court dispute with Mrs G.D., a co-owner of the building, and, consequently, her mental health and judgment had deteriorated.\n11.  On 26 February 2001 a panel of experts conducted an assessment of Mrs Y.B.'s mental health and found that in March 1993, December 1995 and October 1998 Mrs Y.B. had suffered from organic psychiatric disorders giving rise to moderate intellectual and memory impairment and paranoia. Consequently, during these periods she had been unable “to understand the meaning of her actions or control them”.\n12.  As a result of those conclusions, on 3 April 2001 the Leningradsky District Prosecutor joined the first applicant's proceedings on behalf of the State, seeking annulment of all Mrs Y.B.'s wills, including the one drafted in 1993 in the first applicant's favour.\n13.  On 8 June 2001 the Leningradsky District Court of Kyiv allowed the prosecutor's claim. The parties' appeals against this judgment were eventually dismissed as inadmissible on procedural grounds and it became final.\n14.  On 29 April 2002 the Svyatoshynsky District Tax Administration registered the State's (the municipality's) title to the late Mrs Y.B.'s flat as intestate estate.\n15.  On 28 May 2002 the Tax Administration instituted court proceedings against the applicants, seeking to annul their tenancy registration as lacking any legal basis on account of the impaired judgment of the former flat owner when authorising it. The Administration further sought to evict the applicants, claiming that their occupancy impeded the authorities' ability to sell the flat at the highest possible price.\n16.  The second applicant lodged a counterclaim, seeking to be acknowledged as a lawful tenant of the flat. He maintained, in particular, that he and his mother had occupied it for a considerable period of time in good faith and on lawful grounds and took care of maintenance fees and renovations. In addition, the family had no al", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5719", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in the Krasnodar Region.\n7.  On 18 May 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud. On 18 December 1999 she was released on bail.\n8.  On 14 March 2000 the Rostov Regional Court received the case file and opened the trial against the applicant and four other persons.\n9.  On 13 June 2000 the Rostov Regional Court found the applicant guilty of fraud and extortion and conditionally sentenced her to five years' imprisonment. However, on 2 November 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial.\n10.  On 14 May 2001 the Rostov Regional Court found the applicant guilty of fraud, extortion, robbery, kidnapping, and theft and sentenced her to seven and a half years' imprisonment. She was taken into custody from the courtroom.\n11.  On 16 January 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment of 14 May 2001 on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. The applicant was remanded in custody pending the determination of the criminal charges against her.\n12.  On 1 July 2002 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 October 2002. It found as follows:\n“The defendants [the applicant and four other persons] are charged with kidnapping, illegal deprivation of liberty, burglary and other crimes.\nThey have been in custody: ... [the applicant] – since 18 May 1999 ...\nThe Prosecutor requested that the defendants' detention be extended by 3 months.\nHaving examined the Prosecutor's request, and having heard the parties to the proceedings, the court considers it necessary to extend the defendants' detention by 3 months, that is, until 1 October 2002 inclusive, because they are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences.\nUnder Articles 255 and 256 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the defendants' detention on remand is extended by 3 (three) months, that is, from 1 July 2002 to 1 October 2002.”\n13.  On 6 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the extension order, finding that it was sufficiently justified.\n14.  On 1 October and 31 December 2002 and 31 March, 26 June, 25 September and 15 December 2003 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 January, 31 March, 30 June, 26 September, 25 December 2003 and 15 March 2004 respectively. The wording of the decisions was identical to that applied in the decision of 1 July 2002.\n15.  The applicant appealed against each of the above-mentioned extension orders to the Supreme Court, arguing that they were not sufficiently reasoned and that the court had not taken into consideration her individual situation. On 12 February, 14 May, 16 July, 16 October and 24 December 2003 and 31 March 2004 respectively, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above-mentioned decisions on appeal.\n16.  In the meantime, on 19 February 2004 the Rostov Regional Court extended the defendants' pre-trial detention until 19 May 2004, citing the gravity of the charges against them. The applicant appealed against the extension to the Supreme Court.\n17.  On 10 March 2005, that is, after the applicant's conviction by the Regional Court (see paragraph 19 below), the Supreme Court of Russia terminated the examination of the applicant's appeal because she had been convicted by the Regional Court in the meantime. Neither the applicant nor her counsel were summoned to appear at the hearing.\n18.  As regards the trial proceedings in the period", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5720", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Taganrog, in the Rostov Region.\n6.  On 15 June 1998 a prosecutor opened a criminal investigation against the applicant.\n7.  On 18 December 1998 the applicant was arrested and allegedly beaten up by police officers. On 19 December 2002 the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers.\n8.  On 15 December 1999 she was released on bail.\n9.  On 14 March 2000 the Rostov Regional Court received the case file and commenced the trial against the applicant and four other persons.\n10.  On 13 June 2000 the Rostov Regional Court found the applicant guilty of fraud and extortion and conditionally sentenced her to five years' imprisonment. However, on 2 November 2000 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial.\n11.  On 14 May 2001 the Rostov Regional Court found the applicant guilty of fraud, extortion, robbery, kidnapping, and theft and sentenced her to seven and a half years' imprisonment. She was taken into custody from the courtroom.\n12.  On 16 January 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 14 May 2001 on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial. The applicant was remanded in custody pending the determination of the criminal charges against her.\n13.  On 1 July 2002 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 October 2002. It found as follows:\n“The defendants [the applicant and four other persons] are charged with kidnapping, illegal deprivation of liberty, burglary and other crimes.\nThey have been in custody: ..., [the applicant] – since 18 December 1998, ...\nThe Prosecutor requested that the defendants' detention be extended by 3 months.\nHaving examined the Prosecutor's request, and having heard the parties to the proceedings, the court considers it necessary to extend the defendants' detention by 3 months, that is, until 1 October 2002 inclusive, because they are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences.\nUnder Articles 255 and 256 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, the defendants' detention on remand is extended by 3 (three) months, that is, from 1 July 2002 to 1 October 2002.”\n14.  On 6 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the extension order, finding that it was sufficiently justified.\n15.  On 1 October and 31  December 2002 and 31 March, 26 June, 25 September and 15 December 2003 the Rostov Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 1 January, 31 March, 30 June, 26 September, 25 December 2003 and 15 March 2004 respectively. The wording of the decisions was identical to that applied in the decision of 1 July 2002.\n16.  The applicant appealed against each of the above-mentioned extension orders to the Supreme Court, arguing that they were not sufficiently reasoned and that the court had not taken into consideration her individual situation. On 12 February, 14 May, 16 July, 16 October and 24 December 2003 and 31 March 2004 respectively, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the above-mentioned decisions on appeal.\n17.  In the meantime, on 19 February 2004 the Rostov Regional Court extended the defendants' pre-trial detention until 19 May 2004, citing the gravity of the charges against them. The applicant appealed against the extension to the Supreme Court.\n18.  On 10 March 2005, that is, after the applicant's conviction by the Regional Court (see paragraph 20 below), the Supreme Court of Russia discontinued the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5721", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1939 and 1933 respectively and live in Sofia.\n6.  They are the parents of Mr Ivaylo Zashev, who was shot and killed by people trying to rob him in his aunt’s house in the village of Stavertsi, in the Pleven region, in the late hours of 3 February or the early hours of 4 February 1997.\n7.  In the morning of 3 February 1997 Mr Ivaylo Zashev and his brother, Mr Valeri Zashev, both of whom had come to Stavertsi for a business venture, went to a neighbouring village to see if they could buy cattle. Later that day they went to Pleven to exchange 2,000 German marks and 1,000 United States dollars. They were also carrying 200,000 old Bulgarian levs. They did not exchange the money and in the evening went back to Stavertsi. At about 10.45 p.m. they went to sleep. Their aunt, Ms T.L., was sleeping in the adjoining room.\n8.  Around midnight the two brothers woke up and saw in the room three men wearing masks and gloves. One of them was carrying a shotgun, the other a metal pipe, and the third was unarmed. The two armed assailants started fighting with Mr Ivaylo Zashev and Mr Valeri Zashev, while the unarmed one sifted through the items in the room. While the assailant with the pipe was hitting Mr Valeri Zashev, Mr Ivaylo Zashev was trying to protect himself with a chair from the one with the shotgun. The assailants ordered the brothers to hand over the money they had. Mr Ivaylo Zashev replied that it was in his trousers and, while the assailants were checking them, he managed secretly to slip the bag with the money under his bed. At that point Ms T.L. entered the room. The assailants were startled. One of them told the one with the shotgun to fire. He pulled the trigger, but the gun jammed. However, after that he fired two shots, the second of which hit Mr Ivaylo Zashev in the chest and pierced his heart and lungs; about a minute later he died. The assailants pushed Ms T.L. to the ground, face down. Then they went out of the house despite Mr Valeri Zashev’s efforts to stop them. They reached their car, which was parked nearby, and left the village.\n9.  Approximately two hours after the events, at 1.55 a.m. on 4 February 1997, an investigator from the Pleven Investigation Service inspected the crime scene with two police officers, an expert and a forensic doctor. He found and seized a hunting bullet, a hunting cartridge case, a pistol cartridge case, four rubber bullets and two hunting‑bullet caps.\n10.  Later that day the investigator asked an expert to express an opinion on the extent of the injuries suffered by Mr Valeri Zashev and Ms T.L. and the manner in which they had been inflicted. He also asked a clinic in Pleven to clarify the exact cause of Mr Ivaylo Zashev’s death, the distance and the position from which the shot had been fired, and the relative positions of the victim and the shooter.\n11.  Between 12 February and the end of March 1997 the investigator interviewed Mr Valeri Zashev, Ms T.L. and a number of other witnesses.\n12.  One of those witnesses was a Mr V.K., the personal driver of a Mr P.T., a local businessman. He was arrested by the police on 8 February 1997, and after that kept in custody for a few days in a house in the country near Pleven and repeatedly questioned. According to his subsequent allegations, he was ill‑treated and pressured into testifying in line with the instructions of the police, as well as into identifying certain individuals and objects during identity parades. The police d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5722", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in the village of Volodarske, Donetsk Region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 24 February 1998 the Novogrod Court ordered the State mine, “Rossiya”, to pay the applicant’s husband 2,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH, about USD 1,000) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused to him as a result of a work-related accident. On 12 March 1998 the court sent the enforcement writ in respect of that judgment to the State Bailiffs’ Service. Later, the applicant and her husband appealed against that judgment under the extraordinary procedure. However, their efforts were unsuccessful.\n6.  The applicant’s husband died on 14 January 2003. According to the applicant’s submissions, her daughter received the award under the judgment on an unspecified date in 2003 and then transferred the money to the applicant. In 2006 the applicant lodged several requests with the Bailiffs’ Service and the Novogorod Court requesting information about the enforcement proceedings. However, her efforts were unsuccessful. In their observations, the Government provided no information about the date of the enforcement of the judgment in question either.\n7.  In November 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Novogrod Department of the State Pension Fund in the Novogrod Court, seeking recalculation of her pension. On 29 March 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 10 June 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. In July 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation. On 19 October 2006 the Higher Administrative Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts.\n8.  On 10 November 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings against the State Insurance Fund for Work-Related Accidents and Diseases in the Novogrod Court, alleging that her husband had died as a result of a work-related disease. She claimed compensation for the damage caused to her as a result of her husband’s death. On 27 October 2004 the court found against the applicant. On 24 January 2005 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation on 23 February 2005. On 4 May 2007 the Supreme Court sent the applicant’s appeal in cassation to the Kyiv City Court of Appeal for consideration. On 30 October 2007 the latter, acting in its cassation jurisdiction, upheld the decisions of the lower courts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5723", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are hereditary successors in title to individuals who held 9.375 per cent of the share capital in the company which operated the “Kamentiza – Frick & Sultzer” brewery (the “Brewery”) situated in the town of Plovdiv.\n7.  In 1947 the State nationalised the Brewery, together with its properties and the shares held by shareholders in the Brewery, under the Nationalisation of Private Industrial and Mining Enterprises Act (“the Nationalisation Act”: Закон за национализация на частни индустриални и минни предприятия).\n8.  In February 1992 the Restitution of Ownership of Nationalised Real Estates Act (“the Restitution Act”: Закон за възстановяване собствеността върху одържавени недвижими имоти) entered into force. In accordance with the terms of the Restitution Act, the applicants successfully restituted 9.375 per cent of 20,539 square metres of land and a number of buildings situated on it, all of which still formed part of the Brewery (“the Properties”), as restitution for the 9.375 per cent of the share capital in the Brewery held by their predecessors in title and which had been seized by the State under the Nationalisation Act. In particular, the first applicant restituted 4.6875 per cent of the Properties and the second and third applicants jointly restituted a further 4.6875 per cent of the Properties.\n9.  Thereafter, the applicants successfully sued the Brewery, on at least one occasion, for rental payments in respect of the Properties.\n10.  In May 1992 the Transformation and Privatisation of State and Municipal Enterprises Act (“the Privatisation Act”: Закон за преобразуване и приватизация на държавни и общински предприятия) entered into force (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below). On an unspecified date prior to 30 September 1994, the applicants made a request under section 18 of the Privatisation Act to be compensated with shares in the Brewery.\n11.  During the autumn of 1993, the first applicant discovered from local media reports that the Government had sold a majority stake in the Brewery to “Brau und Brunnen GmbH”, a German limited liability company. However, the sale was not completed.\n12.  On 12 November 1993 the first applicant obtained a notary deed for his 4.6875 per cent ownership of the Properties. On the same day the second and third applicants also obtained a notary deed for their joint ownership of 4.6875 per cent of the Properties. Thus, in total, the applicants were registered owners of 9.375 per cent of the Properties.\n13.  On 25 January 1995 the State sold seventy per cent of the shares in the Brewery to “Interbrew”, a Belgian brewer.\n14.  On 2 December 1993 the first applicant wrote to the Privatisation Agency, querying the valuation of the Brewery and requesting confirmation of the number of shares to be allotted to the applicants. The Privatisation Agency responded to the first applicant in a letter dated 3 February 1994, informing him that the valuation of the Brewery that it had undertaken was in the context of its privatisation and that it was confidential because it served as an indicative basis for negotiating the sale price of the shares to be sold by the State. In addition, the Privatisation Agency stated that the privatisation valuation was not a relevant basis for determining the number of shares to be allotted to the applicants. The letter went on to state that the decision would be undertaken by the Ministry of Industry on the basis of a separate expert valuation.\n15.  Sec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5724", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 13 September 2004 two men went on trial in the High Court of Justiciary sitting at Glasgow on charges of importing and supplying controlled drugs. The proceedings were filmed and relayed through a closed-circuit television system to a remote viewing room in the court building. On 23 September 2004, it was discovered that police officers and prosecution staff had been watching the proceedings in the remote viewing room with the risk that defence conversations might have been overheard. When this was brought to the attention of the trial judge on 28 September 2004, he took the decision to desert the trial diet simpliciter since he believed that no fair trial could continue before him. This decision had the effect of bringing the prosecution case to an end resulting in the acquittal of the accused. The desertion simpliciter meant that the accused could not be reindicted.\n6.  The same day, the trial judge heard argument from counsel for BBC Scotland before making an interim order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 preventing the publication of any report of the proceedings. That order was to become final on 30 September 2004 unless any interested party applied to the court for its recall (quashing) or variation. On 29 September 2004, BBC Scotland appeared before the trial judge and made representations in respect of the order. The trial judge varied the interim order to the effect that publication of any report of the proceedings was prohibited until the completion of any appeal and any further trial. The varied order was to become final on 1 October 2004 unless there was another application to recall or further vary it.\n7.  The Crown appealed against the decision of the trial judge to desert the trial diet simpliciter. The appeal was scheduled to be heard by the High Court of Justiciary (sitting as an appeal court in Edinburgh) on 15 February 2005.\n8.  In advance of the hearing, BBC Scotland sent a number of letters to the Clerk of the High Court of Justiciary, seeking an opportunity to address the court should an application to prevent publication of any report of the appeal proceedings be made. On 5 February 2005, counsel for BBC Scotland was told verbally by court officials that no opportunity would be made available for it to make representations in court. A further fax asking for a hearing was sent by BBC Scotland the same day. No response was received.\n9.  On the morning of 15 February 2005, the High Court of Justiciary, on the unopposed motion of the Crown, made a section 4(2) order prohibiting the publication of a report of any part of the appeal hearing until completion of the appeal. The applicants, in their observations to this Court, maintain that their representative attended the High Court hearing that morning but was not heard. The order made by the High Court was to become final on 17 February 2005 unless an application was made to recall or vary it. The order was posted on the Scottish Courts Service website and circulated to the Scottish media.\n10.  On the afternoon of 15 February 2005, BBC Scotland sent another fax to the High Court stating that it wished to be heard on the order as soon as possible. BBC Scotland were then contacted and advised that a hearing would be fixed but not before 18 February 2005. The Government, in their observations to this Court, maintain that BBC Scotland did not challenge that decision. On 18 February, BBC Scotland sent another fax to the High Court advising that a ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5726", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Sanok. She owns a plot of land with a house where she lives with her son and his family. The application relates to plot no. 1681 (at present 1444/3).\n6.  In the 1970s a general land development plan for the municipality of Sanok was adopted. The applicant's property, which was at that time owned by her relatives, was designated for public purposes.\n7.  On 28 May 1977, acting under the Act of 1958 on Rules and Procedures of Expropriation of Real Estate (ustawa o zasadach i trybie wywłaszczania nieruchomości), the Governor of Krosno (Wojewoda Krośnieński) decided to enter a notice about the institution of expropriation proceedings in respect of the property in the land and mortgage register kept by the local Public Notary Office.\n8.  An official expropriation decision was never issued. However, experts appointed by the Governor subsequently conducted numerous visits to estimate the property's value with the purpose of assessing the compensation payable for the future expropriation.\n9.  The applicant submitted that she had been informed several times by the Town Office that in view of the expropriation an earlier purchase of her property by the municipality was possible and that she and her family would be entitled to obtain new apartments and compensation.\n10.  The applicant carried out minor necessary repairs, but as the house had been built in 1934, it required general renovation. She submitted that in the late 1970s she had been told by a local official that she would not receive permission for a general renovation of the house because of the expropriation notice in the land register. The Government contest this submission.\n11.  In February and November 1979 the Public Roads Maintenance District Authority (Rejon Eksploatacji Dróg Publicznych), a State‑owned enterprise, carried out some demolition works on the property concerned. The applicant was neither requested to give her assent to them nor informed of them beforehand. The works involved cutting down trees and shrubs in her garden and extensive excavations. As a result of these works the applicant's garden was destroyed, her garage collapsed, apparently in March 1981, and water accumulating in ditches penetrated into the cellar. The works were suddenly interrupted without reason. The applicant was paid compensation for plants and fruit which had been destroyed.\n12.  Upon the applicant's protests she had been repeatedly reassured by the authorities that the land would soon be expropriated and she would receive appropriate compensation. At the same time, extensive construction works had continued on the neighbouring properties, which had already been expropriated.\n13.  In March 1981 the applicant informed the Town Office that as a result of the works water had been gathering on the land and endangering the stability of the house. In May 1981 the Town Office informed the applicant that her land would be bought out after the relevant estimates had been drawn up. On an unspecified later date in the 1980s the applicant obtained compensation for the fact that following the works she could not use her land as a garden for several years.\n14.  During the 1980s and 1990s the applicant repeatedly applied to the Town Office demanding that her land be restored to its previous condition or that it be purchased and new accommodation granted to her, but to no avail.\n15.  On 4 February 1987 she complained to the Krosno Governor. She pointed out that h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5727", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is currently detained in Nowogród Prison.\n6.  Since 20 June 2003 the applicant has been serving an eight-year prison sentence imposed by the Poznan Regional Court following his conviction for rape.\n7.  He was previously held in Goleniów Prison. On several occasions he requested to be served meat-free meals on account of his religious dietary requirements. He submitted that he was a Buddhist and that he adhered strictly to the Mahayana Buddhist dietary rules which required refraining from eating meat.\n8.  On 19 January 2006 the prison dermatologist recommended that the applicant be placed on a meat-free diet in view of his health problems. For three months he was granted a “no pork” diet (PK diet) that included very little meat and was also applied to six Muslims detained in the Goleniów Prison.\n9.  On 20 April 2006 a doctor who examined the applicant considered that there were no medical grounds to continue granting the PK diet to the applicant. Consequently, the diet was discontinued. The applicant objected and threatened to go on a hunger strike.\n10.  On 27 April 2006 the applicant asked the District Prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the employees of Goleniów Prison. The applicant claimed that despite having requested on several occasions to be provided with a meat-free diet, he was receiving meals containing meat products. Since he could not eat meat for religious reasons he depended on food parcels from his family. He was forced to accept the meals and then throw them away. The refusal to accept them would have been regarded as a decision to start a hunger strike and would have entailed disciplinary punishment. On 13 June 2006 the Goleniów District Prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant's allegations.\n11.  On 3 July 2006 the Buddhist Mission in Poland sent a letter to the prison authorities supporting the applicant's request for a meat-free diet. They submitted that the Mahayana Buddhists had a serious moral problem when they were forced to eat meat. According to the rules, a Mahayana Buddhist should avoid eating meat to cultivate compassion for all living beings. They further asked the authorities simply to eliminate meat products from the applicant's meals.\n12.  On 17 July 2006 the applicant requested the Director of Goleniów Prison to be served meat-free meals in view of his religious dietary requirements. He noted that the PK diet contained meat products and therefore it did not satisfy his needs. The applicant's request was refused on 16 October 2006. That decision did not contain any reasons.\n13.  On 21 August 2006 and 31 August 2006 the applicant asked the Goleniów District Prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the prison guards. He alleged that there had been an interference with his religious convictions, in particular as the guards had referred to the Buddhist Mission in Poland as “a sect”. They had also thrown religious publications belonging to the applicant into a toilet. On 19 August 2006, after receiving a family visit, he was ordered to undergo a body search. The applicant took off his clothes except for his underwear, whereupon the prison guard allegedly touched his private parts. He was further ordered to squat and other prison guards ridiculed him.\n14.  On 29 October 2006 the Goleniów District Prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against the persons concerned. It considered that the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5728", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Ingarö.\n7.  In September 1996 the applicant submitted an occupational injury report (arbetsskadeanmälan) to the Social Insurance Office (Försäkringskassan –hereinafter “the Office”) of the County of Stockholm in which he requested that his lower back and hip joint problems be considered work-related, thereby making him eligible for occupational injury compensation (arbetsskadeersättning).\n8.  In a decision of 13 December 1996, the Office noted that the applicant had carried out heavy work as a slaughterhouse worker until 1982 when he had moved to the USA and worked on renovating walls. In 1988 the applicant had informed the Office that he could no longer carry out his work because of his hip joint problems. Thus, in June 1988, he had been granted early retirement pension on the ground that he suffered from lumbar spondylosis and coxarthritis (a degenerative joint disease of his lower back and right hip). On the basis of the above, the Office considered that it was possible that the applicant’s work in the USA had harmed him and, since it could only consider injuries which had occurred while working in Sweden, it could not examine the request.\n9.  Upon request by the applicant, the Office, on 17 February 1997, reconsidered its previous decision but decided not to change it.\n10.  The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Stockholm, claiming that his injuries had been caused by his work in Sweden. He stated that he had created a company in the USA to import Swedish fibreglass fabric but that, in order to get his business going, he had had to include measuring, installing and painting. However, since he already had pain in his hip joint and lower back, he had not been able to carry out the work and had sold the company. He further added that he had worked in slaughterhouses between 1948 and 1980, which had involved very heavy work in difficult conditions. In support, he submitted a medical certificate from Dr S.R., who had been working as a company doctor for more than 20 years in the food industry and had been the applicant’s company doctor between 1967 and 1980. According to Dr S.R., the applicant’s injuries were work-related, noting that he had carried animal carcasses and heavy pieces of meat up and down stairs, causing extreme strain on the back, hips, knees and ankles. Moreover, the work had been carried out in humid, draughty premises and with slippery floors.\n11.  On 15 September 1997 the County Administrative Court repealed the Office’s decision and sent the case back for renewed examination. It found that the applicant’s injuries could well have been caused by his work in Sweden and that the Office had the duty to evaluate whether this was the case.\n12.  To prepare the case, the Office requested the opinion of one of its own medical doctors (försäkringsläkare), Dr S.H., as to whether the applicant’s injuries were work-related. The doctor, who was a specialist in orthopaedics, gave his opinion on 23 September 1997. It was based on the information in the Office’s case-file and stated essentially the following.\n13.  It appeared from other medical certificates that the applicant had been healthy until his hip joint problems began in 1985-86. In 1988 his right hip and lower back had been x-rayed, which showed that the hip joint had degenerative alterations, whereas the lower back was not remarked on, having regard to the applicant’s age. In Ju", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5729", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Lipiany.\n5.  On 15 November 1996 the applicant brought before the Poznań – Stare Miasto District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an action for the division of the estate of his late father. The estate comprised, inter alia, real property located in Poznań.\n6.  Shortly afterwards, the applicant asked the same court for a decision declaring that he had acquired his late father's estate. On an unspecified subsequent date both actions were consolidated into one.\n7.  On 16 July 1998 the case was referred to the Stargard Szczeciński District Court as most of the parties to the proceedings lived in that region.\n8.  On 21 September 1999 the court gave a partial decision (postanowienie częściowe) declaring that the applicant had acquired 3/16 of the estate.\n9.  On 11 May 2004 the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) referred the case in its part concerning the division of an inheritance to the Poznań District Court. It further decided that the inheritance proceedings should be joined with another set of proceedings concerning the dissolution of co‑ownership of the real property in question.\n10.  On 24 September and 30 November 2004, 4 February, 25 March, 17 May, 2 August, 18 October and 9 December 2005 the Poznań District Court held hearings.\n11.  In August 2005 the Poznań District Court ordered that an expert report estimating the market value of the real property be prepared within four months.\n12.  In January 2006 the expert informed the court that he would not be able to submit the report within the above time-limit because of a heavy workload.\n13.  In August 2006 the expert notified the court that he was denied access to 9 out of the 15 apartments which made up the property.\n14.  On 1 December 2006 the expert submitted a report estimating the value of eight apartments only. In the report, the expert noted that he could not inspect the rest of the apartments as their current tenants had not allowed him to do so.\n15.  Between 1 December 2006 and 7 August 2008 the Poznań District Court gave several interlocutory decisions concerning the estimate of the value of the real property.\n16.  A hearing scheduled for 18 May 2010 was adjourned due to the illness of the judge. The next hearing was scheduled for 14 September 2010.\n17.  The proceedings are still pending before the Poznań District Court.\n18.  On 7 August 2008 the applicant lodged with the Poznań Regional Court a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n19.  On 24 October 2008 the Poznań Regional Court acknowledged that there had been some periods of inactivity for which the Poznań District Court had been responsible, in particular that an expert report had not been prepared within the time-limit fixed and that little effort had been made by the court to discipline the expert. In its analysis the court did not examine the course of the proceedings prior to the date of the entry into force of the 2004 Act.\n20.  The Poznań Regional Court refused to grant the applicant any compensation considering that he had failed to duly justify the amount sought.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5730", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Vlore.\n8.  In 1996 the applicant was appointed a judge at the Vlora District Court. In December 2001 a disciplinary inquiry was opened against her by the inspectors of the High Council of Justice (“HCJ”). On the basis of the results of this inquiry, the prosecutor's office was asked to open a criminal investigation against the applicant. The investigation was opened on 12 January 2002. This resulted in the applicant being suspended from work on the same day.\n9.  On 26 April 2002 the prosecutor discontinued the criminal investigation for lack of evidence. However, on 15 July 2002 the HCJ, during the applicant's absence on sick leave, dismissed her on account of flagrant violations of professional discipline. The records of previous HCJ meetings indicated that the applicant had been summoned on several occasions to appear before it. However, she was on extended sick leave because of depressive neurosis. The HCJ continued the proceedings in absentia.\n10.  On 22 July 2002 the applicant challenged the HCJ's decision of 15 July 2002 by filing an appeal with the Supreme Court, which was competent to determine issues of both fact and law. On 18 November 2002 the Supreme Court Joint Benches rejected the appeal.\n11.  The applicant's subsequent constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court was accepted on 12 November 2004. The Constitutional Court found violations of Article 42 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the Convention given the in absentia proceedings. It quashed both decisions (of the Supreme Court Joint Benches and the HCJ) and remitted the case for re-examination to the HCJ.\n12.  In response to the applicant's request for reinstatement at the Vlora District Court, the President of the District Court replied on 23 December 2004 that he was not competent to consider her request.\n13.  On 28 December 2004 the applicant filed a request for reinstatement with the HCJ. She requested that the HCJ re-hear her case in accordance with the Constitutional Court's decision.\n14.  On 24 October 2008 the HCJ decided to dismiss the applicant on account of flagrant violations that seriously discredited the position and image of a judge. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court Joint Benches.\n15.  On 6 February 2009 the Supreme Court Joint Benches quashed the HCJ decision of 24 October 2008. It found that the proceedings relating to the disciplinary measure had taken too long and as a result the said measure could not produce any effect and was therefore invalid (masa disiplinore e marrë tej një afati të arsyeshëm ndaj kësaj gjyqtareje është e paefektshme dhe konsiderohet e pavlefshme ... Prandaj vendimi i KLD-së duhet të shfuqizohet).\n16.  On 27 February 2009 the applicant was reinstated as a judge at the Vlora District Court.\n17.  Following the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings on 26 April 2002, the applicant requested the HCJ and the Minister of Justice on 30 April 2002 to pay her salary arrears for the period during which she was suspended from her duties.\n18.  On 10 April 2003 the applicant, relying on sections 27 and 38 of the Judiciary Act, lodged an application with the Vlora District Court requesting the payment of salary arrears from 12 January 2002 to 15 July 2002 and consequential damages. On 13 February 2004 the Vlora District Court (“the District Court”) decided in favour of the applicant. It found that since the criminal proceedings had been discontinued, the applicant sho", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5731", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Przemyśl.\n7.  In 1998 the applicant was charged with assaulting a certain A.B. On 15 April 1999 criminal proceedings against him and a co-accused were instituted. On 9 May 2000 the bill of indictment was filed with the Szczecin District Court. On 27 June 2000 both accused were present. However the hearing was adjourned since the applicant had not been served with the bill of indictment. The trial eventually began on 13 January 2004. The applicant was present at the hearing.\n8.  The applicant subsequently left Poland. He submitted that before leaving, he informed the court that he could be contacted at a correspondence address in Przemysl. He also called the court a few times, asking about progress on his case. The Government disagreed and maintained that the case filed contained no proof that the applicant had attempted to contact the court. They stated that the applicant had not informed the court about his new correspondence address.\n9.  On 12 February 2004 the applicant failed to appear at the hearing. The Szczecin District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody for a period of three months. The decision reads as follows:\n“the court orders that Piotr Nowak be remanded in custody for a period of three months, since he failed to comply with a summons”.\n10.  In March 2004 the applicant started working in L'viv, Ukraine.\n11.  On 20 January 2005, at around 11 a.m., the applicant went to a police station in L'viv to report that his friend's car had been stolen. The police checked his passport, verified his personal details and locked him up in a cell. When he asked for the reasons for his arrest he was told that he was an “international thief”. He was subsequently questioned by the officers. He submits that during the questioning the officers severely beat him and extinguished cigarettes and matches on his wrist and forearm.\n12.  On 24 January 2005 a decision of the police concerning his voluntary expulsion was served on him.\n13.  The applicant was kept at the police station until the afternoon of 24 January 2005, when he was transported to the Polish border control post in Medyka, where he arrived at around 7 p.m. At around 8 p.m. he was examined by a doctor who noted that the applicant had cigarette burns on his left forearm and provided him with medical aid.\n14.  The applicant was arrested on the basis of the detention order of 12 February 2004 and a wanted notice issued by the Szczecin police station on 2 August 2004. He was then transferred to the Przemysl Detention Centre.\n15.  On 25 January 2005 the applicant asked the court to release him from detention. He submitted that he would stay in Poland until the end of the trial. The letter reached the trial court on 1 February 2005.\n16.  On 31 January 2005 the applicant was examined by a prison doctor. The doctor stated that the applicant had two 0.5 cm cigarette burns on his left hand, plus two similar marks on his left wrist and one on his forearm. He also had abrasions on his lower and upper lip and a broken front tooth.\n17.  According to the applicant, he was served with the detention order of 12 February 2004 on 2 February 2005. The Government disagreed maintaining that the applicant received the letter from the court on 1 February 2005.\n18.  On 4 February 2005 the Szczecin District Court dismissed the applicant's motion of 25 January 2005. The court held that the applicant had left the country and failed to appear at ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5733", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1943 and the second applicant in 1948 respectively. They both live in Chrzanów, Poland.\n5.  The applicants' late parents owned a plot of land in Chrzanów. On 14 April 1980 part of that land was taken over by the Chrzanów Municipality for the purpose of constructing a bus station there.\n6.  On 29 May 1992 the Katowice Governor declared that the Chrzanów Municipality had acquired ex lege the ownership of the plots of land in question.\n7.  On 24 May 1994 the applicants lodged an application with the Katowice Governor's Office asking for reconsideration of the 1980 decision. On 22 November 1994 the Katowice Governor gave a decision and refused the applicants' request.\n8.  On the applicants' appeal, on 8 July 1997, the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.\n9.  On 13 August 1997 the municipality appealed against this decision to the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court. On 28 September 1999 the Warsaw Regional Administerative Court dismissed the municipality's appeal.\n10.  On 21 November 2000 the Malopolski Governer (who had meanwhile become competent to examine the case) refused the applicants' request for reconsideration of the 1980's decision. On the parties' subsequent appeal, the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development again quashed the first-instance decision on 31 January 2001.\n11.  On 9 August 2001 the Governor for the third time refused the applicants' request. On 7 December 2001 the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development once again quashed the first-instance decision.\n12.  On 26 July 2002 the Governor for the fourth time refused the applicants' application. On 10 June 2003 on the parties' appeal, the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development quashed the Governor's decision.\n13.  On 23 October 2003 the Governor for the fifth time refused to declare the decision of 1980 null and void.\n14.  On 6 February 2004 the Minister of Infrastructure (meanwhile competent to examine the case) upheld the first-instance decision. On a parties' subsequent appeal, on 6 May 2005 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court quashed the latter decision.\n15.  On 2 January 2006 the applicants complained to the Minister of Transport and Construction about the delay in the proceedings. On 20 January 2006 the Minister dismissed their complaint as manifestly ill‑founded since meanwhile the Governor had delivered a decision.\n16.  On 12 January 2006 the Governor gave its sixth decision in the applicants' case and declared the decision of 1980 null and void. On the municipality's appeal, on 26 April 2006 the Minister of Transport quashed the first-instance decision. On 10 October 2006 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court quashed the Minister's decision. On 22 March 2007 the Minister upheld the Governor's decision of 12 January 2006. On 30 May 2007 the Minister's decision became final since none of the parties appealed.\n17.  On 6 February 2008, upon their requests, the Kraków Governor informed the applicants that even though the decision of 1980 had been declared null and void, the applicants' names could not be entered in the Land Register because the decision of 29 May 1992 remained valid and the local municipality was still indicated as the rightful owner.\n18.  On 4 March 2008 the applicants filed a motion for reopening of the proceedings terminated by the decision of 29 May 1992.\n19.  On 9 April 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5734", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Warszawa.\n5.  On 8 February 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for payment against the State Treasury.\n6.  On 16 December 1999 and on 23 March 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) held hearings.\n7.  On 26 June 2000 the applicant amended his claim.\n8.  On 24 October 2000 the court held a hearing.\n9.  On 26 February 2001 the applicant again amended his claim.\n10.  On 27 February 2001, 9 August 2001 and 17 January 2002 the court held hearings.\n11.  On 19 March and 10 April 2002 the applicant amended his claim.\n12.  On 21 March 2002 the applicant's legal-aid lawyer informed the court that he had requested the Regional Bar Association to release him from his duties as the applicant's representative.\n13.  On 8 April 2002 the Regional Bar Association appointed a new legal-aid lawyer to represent the applicant.\n14.  On 28 May 2002 the applicant's legal-aid lawyer requested the court to be given time to get acquainted with the case.\n15.  In October 2003 the applicant requested the court to appoint a different legal-aid lawyer as the current one failed to protect his interests.\n16.  On 9 October and December 2003 the court held hearings.\n17.  On 8 December 2003 the Regional Bar Association assigned a new legal-aid lawyer to represent the applicant.\n18.  On 19 February 2004 the applicant amended his claim.\n19.  On 24 February 2004 the court held a hearing. A hearing scheduled for 14 October 2004 was cancelled as the presiding judge assigned to the case resigned from his job.\n20.  On 20 January 2005 the court held a hearing.\n21.  On 25 January 2005 the court requested the defendant to submit copies of case-files concerning enforcement proceedings instituted against the applicant which were necessary for preparing an expert report.\n22.  A hearing scheduled for 11 April 2005 was cancelled as the defendant failed to submit the relevant documents within the prescribed time-limit.\n23.  In May 2005 an expert submitted a report.\n24.  On 8 June and 12 October 2005, 25 January and 17 May 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court held hearings.\n25.  Between May and November 2006 the court dealt with the applicant's requests to order another expert report.\n26.  On 24 November 2006 an expert submitted a report.\n27.  On 25 January and 16 May 2007 the court held hearings.\n28.  On 12 June 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claim.\n29.  On 1 August 2007 the applicant appealed.\n30.  On 18 August 2007 the applicant's legal-aid lawyer informed the court that she requested the Regional Bar Association to be released from her duties pointing out to the applicant's lack of trust in her.\n31.  On 17 September 2007 the Regional Bar Association assigned T.L. as the applicant's legal-aid lawyer.\n32.  On 17 September 2007 and 18 February 2008 the applicant amended his claim.\n33.  On 27 May 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held a hearing.\n34.  On 8 October 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the contested judgment and remitted the case.\n35.  On 17 December 2008 and again on 19 February 2009 the applicant amended his claim.\n36.  On 2 April 2009 the applicant informed the court that he resigned from being represented by T.L. and requested the court to appoint a new legal-aid lawyer: a legal adviser and not an advocate. On the same date the court ordered another expert report.\n37.  On 17 June 2009 the court dismissed the applicant's request to appoint another legal-aid lawyer. The ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5735", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are churches of a Reformist denomination which are registered as religious communities under Croatian law and which have their seats in Zagreb (the first and second applicant churches) and Tenja (the third applicant church).\n6.  The first applicant church has been present in Croatia since 1993, the second since 1989 and the third since the sixteenth century as part of the Reformed Church and since 2001 as an independent church. The applicant churches were entered in the register of religious communities in Croatia on 18 December 2003 (the first applicant church), 3 December 2003 (the second applicant church) and 14 October 2003 (the third applicant church), in accordance with the Religious Communities Act.\n7.  On 21 June 2004 the applicant churches submitted a request to the Government’s Commission for Relations with Religious Communities (Komisija za odnose s vjerskim zajednicama – “the Religious Communities Commission”) in order to conclude an agreement with the Government of Croatia, as envisaged in section 9(1) of the Religious Communities Act (see paragraph 18 below), which would regulate their relations with the State. They explained that without such an agreement they were unable to provide religious education in public schools and nurseries, to provide pastoral care to their members in medical and social-welfare institutions, as well to those in prisons and penitentiaries, or to perform religious marriages with the effects of a civil marriage.\n8.  On 23 December 2004 the Government of Croatia adopted an instruction (zaključak – “the Instruction”) setting out the criteria which religious communities had to satisfy in order to conclude such an agreement with it (see paragraph 19 below).\n9.  In a letter of 12 January 2005 the Religious Communities Commission informed the applicant churches that they did not satisfy, either individually or jointly, the historical and numerical criteria set out in the above Instruction, that is to say, that they had not been present in the territory of Croatia since 6 April 1941 and that the number of their adherents did not exceed 6,000 (see paragraph 19 above). Referring to section 21 of the 2003 Health Care Act (see paragraph 21 below) and sections 14, 78(1) and 95 of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act (see paragraphs 23-26 below), it also remarked that members of religious communities which had not concluded the relevant agreement with the Government of Croatia had a right to receive pastoral care in medical and social-welfare institutions as well as in prisons and penitentiaries.\n10.  On 10 February 2005 the applicant churches submitted another request to conclude an appropriate agreement with the Government of Croatia, this time addressing it to the Prime Minister directly.\n11.  In a letter of 15 June 2005 the Religious Communities Commission replied to the applicant churches’ request of 10 February 2005, informing them again that they did not satisfy, either individually or jointly, the criteria set forth in the Instruction of 23 December 2004, this time without specifying which particular criteria had not been met. It again referred to section 21 of the 2003 Health Care Act and sections 14, 78(1) and 95 of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act, reiterating its opinion that the members of religious communities which had not concluded appropriate agreements with the Government of Croatia had a right to receive pastoral care in medical and social-welfare institutions an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5736", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Odessa.\n6.  In 1993 the applicant was responsible for the privatisation of a State company “A.” by way of a buyout of A. by its employees.\n7.  On 26 August 1995 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on suspicion of having defrauded A.’s employees in the privatisation process.\n8.  On several occasions between September 1995 and March 1999 the proceedings were suspended (in particular, between 9 July 1997 and 3 April 1997; 25 March and 1 September 1999; and 5 September and 1 December 1999).\n9.  On 26 January 1999 the applicant was placed under an obligation not to abscond.\n10.  On 15 December 1999, in response to a complaint by the applicant’s advocate, the Odessa Prosecutors’ Office acknowledged that the proceedings had suffered unnecessary delays and inactivity on the part of the investigative authorities and informed him that disciplinary measures had been taken against the investigator in charge.\n11.  In April 2000 the Malinovskiy District Prosecutors’ Office of Odessa approved the final indictment and committed the applicant for trial. According to the indictment, the applicant was accused of fraud and an attempt to misappropriate State property by way of abuse of his position (Articles 17, 84 § 2 and 172 § 1 of the Criminal Code in force at the material time).\n12.  Between September 2000 and October 2003 the Primorskiy District Court of Odessa scheduled some thirty-three hearings in the applicant’s case. Twenty-four of these hearings were adjourned: nine on account of the absence of the prosecution or at the prosecution’s requests; five on account of the absence of one of the injured parties; six on account of other court business; and four on account of the applicant’s absences.\n13.  On 3 October 2003 the Primorskiy District Court of Odessa ruled that the applicant’s actions did not fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Criminal Code relied upon by the prosecution. His actions did, however, qualify as abuse of position punishable by Article 165 § 1 of the Criminal Code in force at the material time. Consequently, the court convicted the applicant of abuse of position and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment, but absolved him from punishment, granting him an amnesty.\n14.  The applicant appealed, contending that the prosecution had never charged him with violating Article 165 § 1 of the Criminal Code. Consequently, the trial court had acted ultra vires in convicting him of the crime punishable by that statute. The applicant next presented various arguments in his appeal against the charge of abuse of position under Article 165 of the Criminal Code.\n15.  On 19 August 2004 the applicant complained to the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal of unreasonable delays in the proceedings against him, in particular, a protracted failure by the trial court to submit the case file to the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal.\n16.  On 21 August 2004 the Primorskiy District Court informed the applicant that his case had been transferred to the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal on 27 July 2004.\n17.  On 9 December 2004 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal held an oral hearing in the applicant’s presence and upheld the applicant’s conviction. It found, in particular, that by re-qualifying the applicant’s charges under a different Article of the Criminal Code, the first-instance court had correctly assessed the facts and had in no way increased the burden on the applicant. It had ther", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5737", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  Between September 1999 and November 2000 she was a director of a local branch of the U. private company (“the branch”). On 24 November 2000 the branch was liquidated. However, according to the applicant, the local tax authorities continued referring to her as “the director of the branch” in their fiscal documents, obliged her to provide and sign certain documents on behalf of the branch and to provide comments on the fiscal documents related to its activities.\n6.  On 21 March 2001 the applicant lodged an administrative law complaint with the Kagarlyk Court challenging the lawfulness of the actions of the tax authorities. In the course of the proceedings, she also asked the court to declare that the statements made by the respondent’s officials at the court hearings concerning her involvement in the activities of the branch after its liquidation were untruthful.\n7.  On 26 April 2001 the court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of a commercial dispute concerning the lawfulness of the liquidation of the branch. On 28 December 2001 the Kyiv City Commercial Court discontinued the proceedings concerning the latter matter.\n8.  On 12 November 2001 and 14 January 2002 the applicant requested the Kagarlyk Court to resume the proceedings in her case.\n9.  On 6 October 2003 the court resumed the proceedings.\n10.  On 25 December 2003 the court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the dispute had already been determined by the courts. On 23 March 2004 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration. On 9 November 2006 the Higher Administrative Court upheld the decision of 23 March 2004.\n11.  On 20 April 2007 the Kagarlyk Court partly allowed the applicant’s complaint and found that the tax authorities had unlawfully required her to act as the director of the branch in the course of an audit of its activities in February 2001. As regards the statements made by the respondent’s officials at the court hearings, the court found that those statements had not been “dissemination of information” within the meaning of the civil legislation.\n12.  On 12 February and 17 December 2009 respectively, the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal and the Higher Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Kagarlyk Court.\n13.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant amended her complaint on three occasions. According to the Government, she lodged a request for the adjournment of the proceedings for an unspecified period. The applicant stated that she had not sought adjournment of the proceedings.\n14.  In February 2001 M., a tax officer, instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for tax evasion. On 17 March 2004 the Kagarlyk Court discontinued those proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the applicant’s actions.\n15.  In 2001 the applicant lodged with the prosecutors a criminal complaint against M. about his allegedly unlawful actions in the course of the criminal proceedings. There has been no final decision given on the applicant’s complaint so far.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5738", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant (“the applicant”) was born in 1963 and lives in Chernigiv. The second applicant (“the applicant company”) is a limited liability company owned by the applicant and registered and based in Chernigiv.\n6.  On 8 January 2001 the applicant was arrested in the street by plain-clothes police officers – Mr S., Mr K., Mr A. and Mr G. The applicant resisted his arrest, being unaware at the time that they were police officers. According to the applicant, during the arrest and later on at the police station he was beaten by the police officers.\n7.  On 11 January 2001 the applicant was hospitalised with a broken rib, pneumothorax, head concussion and numerous bruises on his body. A forensic medical examination conducted between 11 January and 1 February 2001 revealed numerous bruises on different parts of the applicant's body and brain concussion. At the same time it did not confirm that the applicant had a broken rib.\n8.  On 18 January 2001 the applicant complained to the Chernigiv City Prosecutor's Office (the CCPO) about the beatings.\n9.  On 26 January 2001 the CCPO refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant's allegations. It noted that according to the explanations of the police officers the applicant had violently resisted his arrest and therefore they had applied force and had used handcuffs. Furthermore, the police investigator Mr Z. had explained that he and other police officers had not committed any unlawful actions involving the applicant at the police station. Therefore, it concluded that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful.\n10.  On 12 March 2001 the Chernigiv Regional Prosecutor's Office (the CRPO) quashed the decision of 26 January 2001 owing to incompleteness of the investigation and instructed the CCPO to conduct additional investigative actions, including questioning of the applicant and detailed questioning of each police officer involved in the incident about the circumstances of the applicant's arrest and the individual actions of each police officer involved.\n11.  An additional forensic examination of 16 March 2001 concluded that the applicant had numerous bruises resulting from the application of force 45 to 50 times, a broken rib, chest trauma, pneumothorax and brain concussion.\n12.  On 5 April 2001 the CCPO refused to institute criminal proceedings on the ground that, as it transpired from the testimony of the police officers involved in the incident, they had applied force lawfully during the arrest and had not used any unlawful means against the applicant in detention.\n13.  On 17 April 2001 the Chernigiv Desnyansky District Court (the Desnyansky Court) quashed the decision of 5 April 2001 on the ground that the applicant and eyewitnesses to the incident had not been questioned and that the decision of the CCPO had not established the circumstances in which the applicant had received so many injuries. The court ordered criminal proceedings to be instituted in the case.\n14.  On 17 May 2001 the CCPO started the criminal investigation. Between 28 May and 5 July 2001 seven witnesses were questioned.\n15.  Between 20 May and 6 December 2001 the applicant was summoned five times by the investigator but failed to appear.\n16.  On 27 June 2001 the applicant was found guilty of inflicting medium bodily harm on one of the arresting officers – Mr G. This decision was upheld on appeal but quashed in cassation proceedings on 7 September 2004.\n17.  On 24 July 2001 the cri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5739", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Baku.\n6.  The applicant worked as the Head of the Administrative Department of the Office of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan before the events described below.\n7.  During a telephone conversation of 20 October 2005, he and the Minister of National Security agreed to meet the following day to discuss the case of the attempted but failed coup d'état, allegedly planned by a number of incumbent and former high-ranking officials to be carried out immediately after the parliamentary elections of 6 November 2005. Several persons had already been arrested in connection with this case.\n8.  On the morning of 21 October 2005 the applicant arrived at the building of the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) where he met with the Minister for about thirty minutes. After this meeting, he met with several other MNS officers in their offices.\n9.  From 5.20 p.m. to 7.15 p.m. on the same day the applicant was questioned as a witness. At around 10 p.m. he met with the Deputy Minister of National Security. That night, he wrote a statement (of unspecified content) addressed to the Minister of National Security.\n10.  The next day, on 22 October 2005, the applicant was questioned again. At 10.55 p.m. on 22 October 2005 the investigator ordered the applicant's detention as a suspect (tutma protokolu) for a period of forty‑eight hours. The investigator stated that the applicant was suspected of having known about, but having failed to inform the authorities, contrary to Article 307.1 of the Criminal Code, of the attempted coup d'état allegedly organised by former Speaker Rasul Guliyev, former Minister of Finance Fikret Yusifov, Minister of Economic Development Farhad Aliyev, Minister of Healthcare Ali Insanov, and others. The investigator also gave the possibility of the applicant's absconding as a reason for his detention.\n11.   The applicant was invited to the MNS as a witness within the framework of criminal case no. 76586 and he arrived at the MNS building on 21 October 2005 at 5.10 p.m. On the same day he was questioned as a witness from 5.20 p.m. to 7.15 p.m. and he left the MNS building at 7.25 p.m.\n12.  On 22 October 2005 the applicant was again invited to the MNS, where he arrived at 1.00 p.m. On the same day, he was questioned as a witness from 1.10 p.m. to 3.15 p.m. and from 4.20 p.m. to 5.50 p.m. According to the Government, the applicant left the MNS building during the break between the above-mentioned questionings and he did the same at 6.00 p.m. after the second questioning. On the same day, the applicant returned to the MNS building at 9.55 p.m. and at 10.55 p.m. the investigator in charge of the case ordered that the applicant be detained as a suspect for a period of forty-eight hours.\n13.  On 24 October 2005, by a decision of the investigator of the Prosecutor General's Office issued in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer, the applicant was formally charged in criminal case no. 76586 with the criminal offences of attempted organisation of mass disorder and attempted usurpation of State power by force, as provided by Articles 28, 220.1 and 278 of the Criminal Code.\n14.  At approximately 5.30 p.m. on 24 October 2005 a judge of the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor's request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri), ordered the applicant's detention for a period of thre", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5740", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  On 27 June 2000 the applicant was arrested. The applicant, Mr D., and Mr B. were charged with one count of robbery. The applicant was also charged with handling of two handguns with cartridges.\n6.  On 25 September 2000 the proceedings against Mr B. were disjoined.\n7.  On 27 July 2001 the applicant was released having given a written undertaking not to abscond.\n8.  In the period prior to 10 October 2002 the Darnitsky District Court of Kyiv (the district court) remitted the case twice for additional pre-trial investigation.\n9.  On 10 October 2002 the district court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The applicant was arrested.\n10.  On 4 June 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (the court of appeal) quashed the part of the judgment concerning the applicant’s conviction and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the district court. The court of appeal upheld the applicant’s detention on remand.\n11.  On 14 November 2003 the district court remitted the case for additional pre-trial investigation. The applicant was remanded in custody.\n12.  On 14 April 2004 the court of appeal quashed the ruling of 14 November 2003 and remitted the case to the district court for consideration. By the same decision it upheld the applicant’s detention on remand.\n13.  On 9 June 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation against the ruling of 14 April 2004.\n14.  On 7 July 2004 the applicant was released having given a written undertaking not to abscond.\n15.  On 23 December 2005 the district court sentenced the applicant to four years and 10 days’ imprisonment.\n16.  On 22 November 2006 and 12 June 2007 the court of appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld the judgment of 23 December 2005.\n17.  According to the records provided by the Government, the applicant challenged a judge sitting in his case on six occasions, and once he challenged a prosecutor. On three occasions the applicant failed to appear.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5741", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Sebastopol. The second applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Lysychansk.\n5.  On 21 December 2004 the first applicant instituted proceedings in the Zaliznodorozhnyi District Court of Sympheropil against the enlistment office, seeking recalculation of his pension.\n6.  On 4 July 2005 the court rejected the first applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. On 13 December 2005 the Crimea Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. In the operative part of its decision the Court of Appeal stated that the first applicant could challenge the decision before the Supreme Court within two months.\n7.  On 20 January 2006 the first applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n8.  On 6 February 2006 a judge of the Supreme Court ruled that the first applicant's cassation appeal should be referred to the Higher Administrative Court, stating that the latter court was the court of cassation in administrative cases pursuant to Article 210 of the Code of Administrative Justice of 2005.\n9.  In a ruling of 7 August 2006 a judge of the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the first applicant's cassation appeal as having been lodged out of time. The judge, relying on Article 212 paragraph 2 of the Code of Administrative Justice, held that the first applicant's cassation appeal ought to have been lodged within one month of the date of the decision of the Court of Appeal.\n10.  In a letter of 29 August 2006 the First Vice-President of the Higher Administrative Court informed the first applicant that he could resubmit his cassation appeal with a request for an extension of the expired time-limit.\n11.  On 23 September 2006 the first applicant resubmitted his cassation appeal to the Higher Administrative Court.\n12.  In June 2007 the first applicant received a letter from the Higher Administrative Court, enclosing a copy of a ruling dated 15 March 2007. By that ruling, the Higher Administrative Court declined jurisdiction to consider the first applicant's cassation appeal on the grounds that the case had been determined by the Court of Appeal under the rules of civil procedure subsequent to the entry into force of the Code of Administrative Justice on 1 September 2005, and thus that the Supreme Court was the court of cassation for the first applicant's case.\n13.  The rulings of 6 February and 7 August 2006 and 15 March 2007 each stated that they were final and not subject to appeal.\n14.  On 8 November 2005 the second applicant instituted proceedings in the Lysychansk Town Court against his former employer, the Lysychansk Town Police Department, seeking recovery of salary arrears.\n15.  On 16 March 2006 the court rejected the second applicant's claim, doing so partly on the basis that it found the claim to be unsubstantiated and partly as having been lodged out of time. On 22 May 2006 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. In the operative part of its decision the Court of Appeal stated that its decision could be appealed against to the Supreme Court by way of a cassation appeal within two months.\n16.  On 18 July 2006 the second applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n17.  On 11 September 2006 a judge of the Supreme Court dismissed the second applicant's cassation appeal, holding that it was to be considered by the Higher Administrative Court.\n18.  On 18 December 2006 the second applicant submitted his cassation appeal", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5743", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Vinnytsia.\n5.  On 20 May 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his position of managing director of a private company, V.Ph.\n6.  In May 1997 he instituted proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Vinnytsia (“the Leninsky Court”) against a joint-stock company, V.M., the owner of V.Ph., seeking: reinstatement as director; recovery of salary arrears for the period of involuntary leave between dismissal and reinstatement; recovery of court fees; and compensation for loss of working time.\n7.  On 17 April 2001 the Zhytomyr Regional Court (“the Regional Court”), following several hearings in the case, endorsed a friendly settlement between the applicant and V.M., pursuant to which V.M. undertook to reinstate the applicant and pay him the amounts claimed.\n8.  V.M. paid the applicant the amounts due to him pursuant to the friendly settlement. On 17 April 2001 it approved his reinstatement but on 18 April 2001 it issued a resolution abolishing the position of the director of V.Ph. on the grounds of a reduction in staff. On 19 April 2001 V.M. made the applicant redundant as of 20 April 2001.\n9.  On 14 May 2001, at the applicant’s request, the Regional Court issued a warrant of execution in relation to its ruling of 17 April 2001. The applicant lodged the warrant with the State Bailiffs’ Service (“the bailiffs”).\n10.  On 7 August 2001 the bailiffs terminated the enforcement of the Regional Court’s judgment. On 7 September 2001 the Leninsky Court quashed the termination, holding that the ruling in question had only been partially enforced because the applicant had not in fact been allowed to perform his job.\n11.  On 9 August 2002, 8 July and 20 August 2003 and 12 August 2005 respectively, the Leninsky Court quashed the bailiffs’ subsequent resolutions terminating the enforcement and ordered them to enforce the ruling of 17 April 2001.\n12.  On 17 February and 26 April 2004, the Leninsky Court and the Regional Court respectively issued reminders to the bailiffs that the ruling of 17 April 2001 remained unenforced.\n13.  On 14 June 2004 the Regional Court issued a duplicate of the warrant. On 16 July 2004 it reprimanded the bailiffs for their continued non‑enforcement.\n14.  According to the applicant, the ruling at issue remains unenforced.\n15.  On 16 July 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninsky Court against the bailiffs, complaining of their failure to enforce the ruling of 17 April 2001 and claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n16.  In a judgment of 28 October 2002 the Leninsky Court awarded the applicant damages and ordered the bailiffs to enforce the ruling concerned.\n17.  On 18 March 2003 the same court, following the bailiffs’ request for review in the light of newly discovered facts, quashed its above-mentioned judgment.\n18.  In two separate rulings of 23 October 2003 it terminated the proceedings, leaving the applicant’s claim for compensation without consideration. The applicant appealed against the first ruling.\n19.  On 2 December 2003 the Vinnytsia Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the ruling at issue. The applicant appealed in cassation.\n20.  On 27 September 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine transferred the case to the Higher Administrative Court which, on 25 July 2007, returned the case to the Supreme Court for lack of jurisdiction. According to the Government, on 13 August 2007 the case was transferred to the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5744", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Baku.\n6.  On 22 January 1998 the applicant was issued an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) to an apartment in a recently constructed residential building in Baku on the basis of the Baku City Executive Authority's order of 19 January 1998.\n7.  At the same time, the applicant became aware that the apartment was occupied by M. and his family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Lachin, a region under occupation of Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.\n8.  According to the applicant, despite her numerous demands, M. refused to vacate the apartment noting that he was an IDP and he had no other place to reside in.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 1999, the applicant lodged a lawsuit with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of M. and his family from the apartment.\n10.  On 9 June 1999 the Yasamal District Court granted the applicant's request. The court held that the applicant was the sole lawful tenant of the apartment on the basis of the occupancy voucher of 22 January 1998 and, therefore, the apartment was unlawfully occupied by M. and his family. No appeals were filed against this judgment and, pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, it became enforceable within ten days after its delivery.\n11.  According to the applicant, M. and his family refused to comply with the judgment and the competent authorities did not take any measures to enforce it.\n12.  It appears from the case file that in 2008 the applicant lodged compensation proceedings against the State Committee for Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons claiming EUR 72,000 for unlawful use of her flat by an IDP family. On 7 May 2008 the Yasamal District Court dismissed the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. On 7 July 2008 the Court of Appeal and on 10 November 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the Yasamal District Court's judgment of 7 July 2008.\n13.  At the time of the latest communication with the applicant, the judgment of 9 June 1999 in the applicant's favour remained unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5745", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a join-stock company with its registered seat in Warszawa.\n6.  By way of an administrative decision of 29 November 1948 a property owned by the applicant and located in Warsaw was expropriated pursuant to provisions of the 1946 Law on transfer to the State of the ownership of the main branches of the national economy (Ustawa z 3 stycznia 1946 r. o przejęciu na wlasność Państwa podstawowych gałęzi gospodarki narodowej).\n7.  On 12 June 1991 the applicant lodged with the Ministry of Industry and Agriculture an application to have the expropriation decision declared null and void. The proceedings were subsequently conducted before the Minister of Finance.\n8.  On 30 October 2000 the Minister of Finance gave a decision and refused to declare the expropriation decision null and void.\n9.  On 17 November 2000 the applicant's lawyer requested the Minister of Finance to re-examine the case.\n10.  On 9 January 2001 the Minister of Finance upheld his own decision of 30 October 2000.\n11.  On 12 February 2001 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n12.  On 18 November 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed both decisions of the Minister of Finance.\n13.  On 27 March 2003 the Minister of Finance gave a decision and stayed the proceedings finding that the examination of the case was dependent on the establishment of the components of the applicant's enterprise (ustalenie składników przedsiębiorstwa skarżącego), which fell within the competence of the Minister of Agriculture. On the same day the Minister of Finance requested the Minister of Agriculture to resolve the preliminary issue (zagadnienie wstępne) referred to above. Since then, the proceedings have been pending before the Minister of Finance.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings.\n15.  On 30 April 2003 the Minister of Finance upheld the challenged decision. Since that date the proceedings have been stayed before the Minister of Finance.\n16.  On 2 February 2005 the Minister of Agriculture gave a decision and stayed the proceedings.\n17.  The applicant requested a re-examination of the case.\n18.  On 18 April 2007 the Minister of Agriculture upheld his decision.\n19.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Regional Administrative Court.\n20.  On 25 September 2007 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court found the complaint well-founded and quashed both decisions of the Minister of Agriculture.\n21.  Subsequently, on 20 March 2008 the Minister of Agriculture gave a decision and discontinued the proceedings.\n22.  The applicant again requested a re-examination of the case.\n23.  On 5 February 2009 the Minister of Agriculture upheld his decision.\n24.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Regional Administrative Court.\n25.  On 17 July 2009 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court quashed both decisions of the Minister of Agriculture.\n26.  The proceedings are pending before the Minister of Agriculture.\n27.  On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture.\n28.  On 19 October 2004 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court found the complaint well-founded and ordered that the Minister of Agriculture give a decision on the preliminary issue within one month of the court's judgment.\n29.  The Minister failed to comply with the court's order and therefore, on 3 August 2005, the applicant requested the Warsaw Regional", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5747", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Włocławek.\n5.  The applicant's parents co-owned a carpenter's workshop and a house located in Włocławek. On 17 December 1976 a local land development plan was adopted under which a rain and a sanitary ditch were to be built on their land. By a notarial deed of 23 June 1980 the representative of the State Treasury, the applicant's parents and the remaining co-owners concluded a contract of sale, under the provisions of the Law on Expropriation of 12 March 1958 (Ustawa o zasadach i trybie wywłaszczaniu nieruchomości). They agreed to sell the plot of land listed in the local land register as plot no. 143 for the agreed price.\n6.  After the sale, the property was leased back to the applicant's parents.\n7.  The applicant's father died on 7 November 1988. The applicant and her mother, G.S., inherited from him.\n8.  On 8 February 1989 the applicant's mother lodged a motion with the Włocławek Town Office (Urząd Miejski) for restitution of the property. She argued that the local land development plan had not been implemented and therefore the State no longer required her property for the reasons of public interest for which it had been expropriated.\n9.  It appears that by letters of 7 March and 3 April 1989 the applicant's mother contacted the authorities requesting them to conclude a new lease contract. It seems that her letters have not been answered.\n10.  On 15 March 1989 the Włocławek Town Office dismissed her motion, arguing that only a property which had been expropriated, and which had not been sold, could be recovered under the Law on Expropriation.\n11.  On 5 May 1989 the Governor's Office (Urząd Wojewódzki) quashed the decision of 15 March 1989 and discontinued the proceedings, noting that the claim should have been lodged before the civil courts.\n12.  On 7 December 1989 the Company of Housing Economy (Przedsiębiorstwo Gospodarki Mieszkaniowej) informed the applicant's mother about the termination of the lease contract. This decision was enforced on 21 August 1991, when the applicant and her mother had left the property.\n13.  On 14 March 1990 the Supreme Administrative Court (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny) quashed the decisions of 15 March and 5 May 1989. It referred to the Supreme Court's resolution of 20 February 1986, which held that a transfer of a real estate to the State Treasury under a sale contract was to be considered an expropriation for the purposes of the restitution proceedings.\n14.  By a decision of 7 May 1991 the Mayor of Włocławek (Prezydent Miasta) stayed the proceedings, pending the adoption of the new local land development plan.\n15.  On 18 July 1991 the Self-Government Board of Appeal (Samorządowe Kolegium Odwoławcze) quashed the decision of 7 May 1991.\n16.  On 12 August 1992 the Mayor of Włocławek discontinued the proceedings.\n17.  It appears that on 7 September 1992 the applicant's mother lodged yet another motion for restitution with the Włocławek District Office (Urząd Rejonowy).\n18.  On 13 May 1993 the Włocławek District Office dismissed the motion. The decision was served on the applicant, her mother and other co‑owners of the property.\n19.  On 6 July 1993 the Governor's Office quashed the decision of the District Office and remitted the case.\n20.  On 22 November 1993 the Head of the District Office (Kierwonik Urzędu Rejonowego) dismissed the motion for restitution.\n21.  On 11 January 1994 the Governor's Office quashed the decision of 22 November 1993 and remitted ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5748", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Života Milanović, was born in 1961 and lives in the village of Belica, Jagodina Municipality, Serbia. Occasionally, however, he stays in his relative's vacant flat in Jagodina, a town comprised of some 35,000 inhabitants.\n7.  The applicant has been a leading member of the Vaishnava Hindu religious community in Serbia, otherwise known as Hare Krishna, since 1984.\n8.  In 2000 and 2001 the applicant, apparently, began receiving anonymous telephone threats. On one such occasion, he was allegedly told that he would be “burned for spreading his Gypsy faith”.\n9.  Later in 2001 the applicant informed the Jagodina Police Department (SUP Jagodina, hereinafter “the police”) about these threats and expressed his impression that they were made by members of an organisation called Srpski vitezovi, a local branch of a better known far-right organisation called Obraz.\n10.  On an unspecified date in September 2001, in the evening hours, the applicant was attacked from behind by an unknown man, in front of his relative's flat in Jagodina, and was hit over the head by what seemed like some sort of a wooden bat.\n11.  On 24 September 2001, at approximately 12.30 a.m., the applicant was assaulted once again by one of three unidentified men present. The assailant inflicted several cuts to the applicant's head and chest and cut off his pigtail. The attack, once more, occurred in front of his relative's flat in Jagodina.\n12.  On the same day, after having received medical assistance, the applicant reported the latter incident to the police. He stated, inter alia, that his attackers probably belonged to an extremist organisation called Srpski vitezovi.\n13.  Later that day, the police conducted an on-site investigation, and unsuccessfully attempted to contact the applicant. The neighbours apparently said that the applicant rarely stayed in his relative's flat.\n14.  On 25 September 2001 the police re-interviewed the applicant, who stated that the men who had attacked him on 24 September 2001 had been “big and strong”, but that it had been too dark for him to see anything else. He also recounted the earlier attack, but explained that he had not reported it to the police since he had “not seen his attacker”.\n15.  On the same day the police issued an internal document wherein they outlined a “plan of action”. As part of that plan, the police apparently questioned three members of a local skinhead group, but these persons provided them with “no useful information”.\n16.  On 30 September 2001 and 5 October 2001 the police interviewed all local school headmasters in an attempt to gather information about the organisations referred to by the applicant. Once again, however, “no useful information” was obtained.\n17.  On the evening of 11 July 2005 the applicant suffered another attack. In the proximity of his relative's flat in Jagodina, one of three unknown youths present stabbed the applicant in his abdomen. The incident was reported to the police by the local hospital which had provided the applicant with urgent medical care.\n18.  The police thereafter arrived at the hospital and interviewed the applicant, who described the attack and insisted that it had been religiously motivated.\n19.  On five separate occasions between 13 July 2005 and 27 July 2005 the police attempted to contact the applicant at his relative's address in Jagodina, but to no avail. They learned from the neighbours that the applicant mostly lived with his parents in the village of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5749", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Košice.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  In an action of 19 July 1991 filed with the Košice II District Court the applicant sought the distribution of her and her former husband's matrimonial property.\n7.  The District Court held a number of hearings and obtained evidence including an expert opinion. The Košice Regional Court dealt twice with a challenge of bias against the District Court judge and once with the applicant's appeal against a decision to pay an advance for the costs of an expert opinion.\n8.  On 23 January 2007 the District Court determined the merits of the case. Both the applicant and the defendant appealed. The District Court transmitted the case to the court of appeal on 9 January 2008. The court of appeal quashed the first-instance judgment on 8 July 2009 and remitted the case to the District Court for a new determination.\n9.  On 10 May 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Košice II District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay. The applicant by her conduct had contributed to the length of the proceedings. The District Court was responsible for delays totalling 6 years and 8 months during the period subsequent to 15 February 1993 which fell within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.\n10.  The Constitutional Court awarded 100,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5750", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In 2005 the Secretary of State for the Home Department introduced the first version of the Certificate of Approval Scheme (“the first version”). Section 19 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2004 provided a statutory basis for the scheme and further details were set out in the Immigration (Procedure for Marriage) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/15) (“the 2005 Regulations”) and the Immigration Directorate's Instructions (“IDIs”).\n6.  The first version of the scheme required that in order to marry, persons subject to immigration control had to have either entry clearance expressly granted for the purpose of enabling them to marry in the United Kingdom or a Certificate of Approval. The definition of “persons subject to immigration control” excluded European Economic Area nationals and persons who had been granted Indefinite Leave to Remain.\n7.  In order to obtain a Certificate of Approval, a person subject to immigration control had to submit an application to the Secretary of State for the Home Department together with an application fee of GBP 295. If both parties to the proposed marriage were subject to immigration control, each party had to submit an application form and pay the required fee. The IDIs provided that in order to qualify for a Certificate of Approval, an applicant had to have been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a period of more than six months and he or she had to have at least three months of that leave remaining at the time of making the application.\n8.  The first version of the scheme did not apply to persons seeking to marry in accordance with the rites of the Church of England.\n9.  On 10 April 2006 Mr Justice Silber delivered judgment in the case of R (on the applications of Baiai and Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWHC 823 QB (Admin), in which he considered whether the first version of the scheme interfered with the Articles 12 and 14 rights of those who were subject to immigration control and who were in the United Kingdom lawfully.\n10.  He found that it was permissible, according to the Court's jurisprudence, to introduce legislation to prevent marriages entered into for the purpose of avoiding immigration control even though this legislation might interfere with the right to marry. Furthermore, the legislative objective relied on by the Government of preventing sham marriages was sufficiently important to justify limiting an Article 12 right.\n11.  However, in the case of the first version of the scheme, the measures designed to meet the legislative objective were disproportionate as they were not rationally connected to it. First, all religious marriages other than those in the Church of England required a Certificate despite the fact that the evidence showed that sham marriages predominantly took place in registry offices. The treatment of religious marriages outside the Church of England was therefore a matter of concern as they were treated like registry office marriages even though evidence indicated that the same precautions which prevented sham marriages taking place in the Church of England were also present in other religious ceremonies. Secondly, there was no basis for the assumption that all religious marriages outside the Church of England were automatically to be treated as sham marriages, thus requiring a Certificate, while in contrast all marriages conducted according to the rites of the Church of England were to be ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5751", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  HADEP was a political party which had been established on 11 May 1994. At the time of its dissolution on 13 March 2003 its general secretary was the second applicant, Mr Ahmet Turan Demir, who had been elected to that post in February 2003.\n6.  In the general election held on 24 December 1995 HADEP received 1,171,623 votes, which represented 4.17% of the total number of votes cast. In the general election held on 18 April 1999 HADEP received 1,482,196 votes. However, as HADEP did not succeed in passing the required threshold of 10%, it was unable to be represented in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey following these two general elections (see HADEP and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 51292/99, 13 November 2008). In local elections held on 18 April 1999 HADEP won control of 37 municipalities. It had branches in 47 cities and in hundreds of districts. In 2002 HADEP became a member of the Socialist International.\n7.  The applicants submitted that, during a National Security Council (Milli Güvenlik Kurulu) meeting held on 18 December 1996, a decision had been taken to dissolve HADEP. In support of this assertion the applicants submitted to the Court a report which, they claimed, had been adopted by the National Security Council and which had subsequently been leaked to the press. The report, which is classified 'Secret', details a number of recommendations including “the control and pursuit of HADEP by the State in order to quell its activities”. Following this decision HADEP branches had been raided and its administrators had been subjected to physical pressure. In support of this latter argument the applicants submitted to the Court two reports, detailing the physical attacks on and the killings and forced disappearances of dozens of HADEP members, some of which have been examined by the Court (see, inter alia, Tanış and Others v. Turkey, no. 65899/01, ECHR 2005–VIII).\n8. On various dates criminal proceedings were brought against a number of members of HADEP who were holding executive positions within the party. Some of the proceedings were suspended while some ended in convictions. Some of them were convicted of spreading “separatist propaganda”, in breach of section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, while others were convicted of “incitement to racial hatred and hostility in society on the basis of a distinction between social classes, races or religions”, in breach of Article 312 of the Criminal Code. A number of others were convicted of lending assistance to the PKK[1] in breach of Article 169 of the Criminal Code, for making speeches, allowing hunger strikers to use HADEP premises and for possessing a number of documents prepared by PKK members in a law-firm owned by one of them[2]. Some served their prison sentences while execution of the sentences of a number of others was stayed.\n9.  On 29 January 1999 the chief prosecutor at the Court of Cassation brought proceedings before the Constitutional Court and demanded that HADEP be dissolved. The chief prosecutor argued that HADEP had become a “centre of illegal activities against the integrity of Turkey”. In support of his allegations the chief prosecutor referred to the criminal proceedings pending against members of HADEP and a number of activities of its members. One incident relied on by the chief prosecutor was that during HADEP's annual general meeting in 1996 the Turkish flag had been taken down and replaced with a PKK flag.\n10.  On 25 February 1999 the chief prosecutor", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5752", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Žabokreky.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 9 June 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Martin District Court. He claimed the ownership and restitution of a motor car.\n7.  On 10 October 2003 the applicant modified his claim and asked for leave to join another person as a defendant. The District Court granted the request.\n8.  On 5 December 2003 the District Court remitted the case file to the Žilina Regional Court which decided on the defendant's appeal on 26 January 2004.\n9.  On 13 July 2004 an expert was asked to prepare an opinion. The expert opinion was submitted on 27 April 2006.\n10.  On 8 June 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time.\n11.  The Constitutional Court held that the case was not particularly complex and that the applicant by his conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings. Substantial delays imputable to the District Court had occurred. The proceedings had lasted 11 years and no decision had been delivered on the merits.\n12.  The Constitutional Court awarded 80,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also ordered the District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant's legal costs.\n13.  On 12 October 2006 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 31 October 2007 the Žilina Regional Court upheld the judgment. The decision became final on 27 February 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5753", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mrs Miluša Mižigárová, is a Slovak national who was born in 1979 and lives in Poprad. She is represented before the Court by Ms L. Gall of the European Roma Rights Centre, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  At approximately 8.00 to 8:30 p.m. on 12 August 1999 police officers G. and J. apprehended the applicant's husband, Mr Ľubomír Šarišský, and another person (“R.K.”) on suspicion of having stolen bicycles. At the time of his arrest, Mr Šarišský was twenty-one years old and in good health.\n8.  Following their arrest Mr Šarišský and R.K. were driven to the District Police Department in Poprad. After four policemen questioned him, Mr Šarišský was taken to another room for further interrogation by Lieutenant F., an off-duty officer with whom he had had previous encounters. At some point during the interrogation, Mr Šarišský was shot in the abdomen. He died after four days in hospital as a result of the bullet wound sustained in the police station during his interrogation.\n9.  The following is a more detailed description of the relevant facts as alleged by the applicant.\n10.  After being taken to the District Police Department, Mr Šarišský and R.K. were questioned by police officers H. and K., who were on duty at the time. Officers G. and J. were present during the interrogation. When later testifying before the investigator, Sgt. H. stated that “Šarišský was aggressive during the interrogation, he kept getting up from the chair, banged his head against the wall saying he would jump from the window”. Sgt. H. stated that Mr Šarišský had not been handcuffed during interrogation. According to police officer G., however, Mr Šarišský remained handcuffed, at least for the time he was present.\n11.  According to officer H., Lt. F. joined the interrogation when Mr Šarišský was signing the record of the interrogation. Mr Šarišský and Lt. F. started arguing, shouting at each other using their first names. Lt. F. was off duty at the time. His shift was to start at 11 p.m.\n12.  Lt. F. subsequently phoned his superior, the Director of the Criminal Police Department in Poprad, and informed him that Mr Šarišský and another person had been apprehended. The Director told Lt. F. that he had been informed about the arrest by the operations officer, that he would come to the task assignment meeting at 10.30 p.m. to decide who would question the suspects, and that “it might as well be him”.\n13.  Lt. F. considered that he had been authorised to question Mr Šarišský. He volunteered to take over the questioning. He took Mr Šarišský to his office in the District Police Directorate, which was located in a different part of the same building. Lt. F. handcuffed Mr Šarišský to a radiator and left his office for a while.\n14.  Upon his return Lt. F. removed the handcuffs from Mr Šarišský and resumed the questioning. Mr Šarišský was subsequently shot in the abdomen with Lt. F.'s service pistol. Lt. F. telephoned the operations officer and asked him to call the emergency services. He then ran to the operations centre to repeat his request. Lt. F. returned to his office and carried Mr Šarišský down to the vestibule. From there he was transported to a hospital.\n15.  At midday on 13 August 1999 Capt. T., a police officer of the Department of Supervision and Inspection Service of t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5754", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1972. When the application was lodged he was being held in Schrassig Prison. He is currently being held under a semi‑custodial regime in Givenich Prison.\n11.  On 15 December 1998 the applicant was remanded in custody.\n12.  In a judgment of 22 October 2001 the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment, of which three years were suspended, for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, rape and false imprisonment accompanied by acts of torture, committed on 10 December 1998.\n13.  The applicant was granted a divorce on 19 October 2000. He provided the Court with various judicial decisions given between 14 June 2001 and 13 April 2005 concerning his right of contact with his three minor children.\n14.  While in prison the applicant submitted several requests for temporary leave of absence (“prison leave”), which are the subject of the present case.\n15.  The applicant stated that he had submitted a request for prison leave to the Attorney General in October 2003.\n16.  At the request of the counselling service’s psychologist the applicant explained on 16 October 2003 that he was requesting prison leave for one day and had no objection to being escorted while on leave. He stated that the reason for the request was to complete certain administrative formalities, which he detailed as follows:\n“- go to a photographer or photo booth to obtain passport photos;\n- go to the Transport Ministry to renew my driving licence (medical certificate already obtained);\n- go to the Embassy to renew my consular registration card;\n- go to see Mr [B.] at Luxembourg police station, Investigations Division, to pick up an envelope containing documents needed by a former client;\n- go to see the manager of [B.] bank in Esch/Alzette;\n- go to the taxation office in Esch/Alzette;\n- meet a group of friends in a restaurant near Esch/Alzette;\n- go to my flat in Differdange to collect the remaining documents for the same client;\n- take some measurements for items I might make in the [prison] workshop;\n- go to Differdange town hall for a personal interview with the mayor;\n- go to the home of Mrs [S.] in Luxembourg to meet her husband;\n- go to my lawyer’s office to hand over the missing documents for my former client;\n- if possible, go to the bookshop near [S.]’s house.”\nIn his letter, the applicant stated further:\n“... Unfortunately, the civil damages are still far from being paid, as I have not even had enough funds to make a down-payment. At the moment I am still engaged in repaying my loans and other debts to the various authorities under the arrangements entered into with the legal service in order to avoid an unending series of seizures of my property. ...”\n17.  On 29 October 2003 a psychologist issued a certificate (confirmed on 25 November 2003 by a second psychologist) stating that the applicant had begun a course of psychotherapy on 19 May 1999 which had been discontinued on 30 September 2002 for reasons beyond his control. The psychologist stressed that the applicant had been anxious to understand what had driven him to commit the offences and to do everything possible to avoid reoffending.\n18.  On 5 November 2003 the Attorney General’s representative sent a memorandum to the prison governor worded as follows:\n“...please inform the prisoner Thomas Boulois\nthat by decision of the Prison Board\n[the] request for prison leave ... [is] refused in view of the risk of deportation (an application was made ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5755", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Smižany.\n5.  Following the death of the applicant's father on 24 June 1999, inheritance proceedings were instituted in respect of his estate. The parties to the proceedings were the applicant, his brother and his mother. In the course of the proceedings only the applicant's brother was heard and, according to the applicant, his brother incorrectly declared that the deceased had not left an estate. The Nitra District Court discontinued the proceedings on 2 September 1999.\n6.  The decision was served on the applicant and his brother on 7 and 8 September 1999, respectively. On 8 September 1999 the decision was served on Ms Veronika Pintérová. The applicant alleges that the decision was erroneously served on his brother's wife instead of his mother who had the same name and lived at the same address. The applicant alleges that the decision had not yet become final as the delivery slip was not signed by the addressee. He presented evidence to that effect to the Constitutional Court.\n7.  The decision of 2 September 1999 to discontinue the proceedings stated that no appeal was available against it, with the exception of the costs of the proceedings.\n8.  The Government stated that the decision of 2 September 1999 had become final on 23 September 1999.\n9.  The applicant's mother died on 18 August 2000.\n10.  On 29 January 2001 the applicant lodged a request for the above proceedings to be resumed as new assets had been found and accused the public notary, who had been appointed to deal with the case in the above proceedings, of having a conflict of interests. The applicant alleged that the public notary had erred in the above proceedings when he had stated, after having heard only his brother (and not the applicant or his mother), that no estate existed and that the proceedings had been erroneously discontinued as a result. Furthermore, the applicant objected that his mother had no knowledge of the fact that inheritance proceedings in respect of his father's estate had ended.\n11.  On 13 November 2001 the district court decided not to exclude the public notary in question from dealing with or deciding on the case.\n12.  On 25 August 2003 the applicant, when visiting the appointed public notary, became aware of the erroneous service on his brother's wife of the above decision of 2 September 1999.\n13.  On 26 August 2003 the applicant complained of undue delays in the proceedings and requested the Nitra District Court to withdraw the appointment of the public notary. Following the public notary's request to be excluded from dealing with the case because of a conflict of interests, the district court replaced him on 27 October 2003. The newly appointed public notary proceeded with the case.\n14.  At the hearing of 8 July 2004 the applicant argued that the district court's decision of 2 September 1999 in the original inheritance proceedings had not become final as it had never been served on one of the parties, namely his mother.\n15.  On 20 September 2004 and 9 May 2005 hearings took place.\n16.  On 6 June 2005 the district court delivered a decision which became final on 8 September 2005.\n17.  On 15 October 2004 the applicant complained about the length of the above proceedings to the Constitutional Court. He requested the Constitutional Court to order the court concerned to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to pay him 80,000 Slovakian korunas (the equivalent of 2,075 euros at that time) as just s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5756", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Dunajská Lužná.\n5.  On 23 July 1996 the applicant challenged his dismissal from a job. The Bratislava II District Court and, on appeal, the Bratislava Regional Court found against the applicant. The decision was served on the applicant and became final on 17 December 2003.\n6.  On 13 January 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n7.  On 22 September 2005 the Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible, stating that this remedy could be lodged only in certain circumstances. The applicant had not invoked any such circumstances and the Supreme Court had not established their existence when examining ex officio the issue of admissibility of the appeal on points of law.\n8.  On 23 August 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant's complaint about the overall length of the above proceedings, lodged on 16 July 2004. It held that the District and the Regional Court's proceedings had already ended in 2003 and the applicant's complaint in respect of that part was belated. It found no delays in the Supreme Court's proceedings.\n9.  On 3 June 2008 the applicant requested reopening of the above civil proceedings. No decision in this respect has been adopted yet.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5757", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the Zaporizhzhya Region.\n5.  In July 2001 the police instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of murder.\n6.  Following three remittals of the case for additional investigations (on 12 February 2002, 9 July 2003 and 2 June 2004), on 7 April 2005 the Melitopol Court found the applicant guilty of negligent homicide, sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment and amnestied him.\n7.  In a separate ruling issued on the same date, the court noted that the case had been three times remitted for additional investigations as the investigators had repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s rulings, which had resulted in the protraction of the proceedings and in the breach of the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.\n8.  On 29 June 2005 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 7 April 2005 and remitted the case for additional investigations.\n9.  Following two further remittals of the case by the Melitopol Court for additional investigations (on 28 March and 5 October 2006), on 3 March 2007 the police discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant for want of proof against him.\n10.  In the course of the proceedings the investigators and the courts heard thirty-eight witnesses, a victim’s relative and experts. Eleven forensic examinations were carried out, their overall duration amounting to approximately seven months. Two hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to appear. Between 15 and 29 September 2005 the investigations were suspended due to the applicant’s illness. Some fifteen hearings were adjourned due to the experts’, witnesses’ or victim’s relatives’ failure to appear, illness of a judge or for unspecified reasons.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5758", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicants reside in Ireland and are women over 18 years of age.\n12.  The facts, as submitted by the applicants, are summarised immediately below. The Government’s position was that these factual submissions were general, unsubstantiated and untested either by a domestic court, or through any other form of interaction with the Irish State, and they made further factual submissions as regards each applicant (summarised at paragraphs 115-18 and 122 below).\n13.  On 28 February 2005 the first applicant travelled to England for an abortion as she believed that she was not entitled to an abortion in Ireland. She was nine and a half weeks pregnant.\n14.  She had become pregnant unintentionally, believing her partner to be infertile. At the time she was unmarried, unemployed and living in poverty. She had four young children. The youngest was disabled and all four children were in foster care as a result of problems she had experienced as an alcoholic. She had a history of depression during her first four pregnancies, and was battling depression at the time of her fifth pregnancy. During the year preceding her fifth pregnancy, she had remained sober and had been in constant contact with social workers with a view to regaining custody of her children. She considered that a further child at that moment of her life (with its attendant risk of post-natal depression and to her sobriety) would jeopardise her health and the successful reunification of her family. She decided to travel to England to have an abortion.\n15.  Delaying the abortion for three weeks, the first applicant borrowed the minimum amount of money for treatment in a private clinic and travel from a money-lender (650 euros (EUR)) at a high interest rate. She felt she had to travel to England alone and in secrecy, without alerting the social workers and without missing a contact visit with her children.\n16.  She travelled back to Ireland by plane the day after the abortion for her contact visit with her youngest child. While she had initially submitted that she was afraid to seek medical advice on her return to Ireland, she subsequently clarified that on the train returning from Dublin she began to bleed profusely and an ambulance met the train. At a nearby hospital she underwent a dilation and curettage. She claims she experienced pain, nausea and bleeding for weeks thereafter but did not seek further medical advice.\n17.  Following the introduction of the present application, the first applicant became pregnant again and gave birth to her fifth child. She is struggling with depression and has custody of three of her children whilst two (including the disabled child) remain in care. She maintained that an abortion was the correct decision for her in 2005.\n18.  On 17 January 2005 the second applicant travelled to England for an abortion believing that she was not entitled to an abortion in Ireland. She was seven weeks pregnant.\n19.  The second applicant became pregnant unintentionally. She had taken the “morning-after pill” and was advised by two different doctors that there was a substantial risk of an ectopic pregnancy (a condition which cannot be diagnosed until six to ten weeks of pregnancy). She was certain of her decision to travel to England for an abortion since she could not care for a child on her own at that time of her life. She waited several weeks until the counselling centre in Dublin opened after Christmas. She had difficulty meeting the costs of the travel and, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5759", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Lohne. He is a dentist and member of the Lower Saxony Association of Contractual Dentists (Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Niedersachsen) (“the Association”), the self-governing body of the contractual dentists practising in the Land Lower Saxony. The Association is responsible for, inter alia, entering into contracts with public health insurers on behalf of its members, checking costs claimed by its members, distributing reimbursements for contractual work paid by public health insurers, and allocating the effects of austerity measures in the public health sector among its members.\n5.  On 19 June 2002 the applicant brought an action against the Lower Saxony AOK- Die Gesundheitskasse, a public health insurance company, before the Hanover Social Court (“the Social Court”), seeking assistance in the institution of compensation proceedings for alleged mistreatment of his mother during hospitalisation preceding her death caused by cardiac arrest at the age of 83.\n6.  On 10 December 2002 the Social Court dismissed the action.\n7.  On 5 February 2003 the applicant appealed. The Lower Saxony‑Bremen Social Court of Appeal (“the Social Court of appeal”) held oral hearings on 30 September 2005 and on 18 April 2007. It dismissed the appeal on the last-mentioned date, holding that the respondent had sufficiently assisted the applicant by commissioning an expert opinion and declaring the applicant's further complaints inadmissible because they had not been raised before the Social Court.\n8.  On 13 May 2007 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint.\n9.  On 26 July 2007 the Federal Constitutional Court declared the applicant's constitutional complaint inadmissible without giving further reasons (1 BvR 1800/07).\n10.  On 30 March 1999 the Association determined the applicant's remuneration as a contractual dentist for the year 1998.\n11.  On 28 April 1999 the applicant made an unsuccessful administrative complaint.\n12.  On 20 October 1999 he brought an action against the Association before the Social Court which suspended the proceedings at the parties' request on 22 April 2003.\n13.  On 29 August 2005 the Association modified the impugned decision, stipulating that the applicant was entitled to 195,769.35 Deutschmarks (DEM) of the DEM 207,892.64 claimed.\n14.  On 26 September 2007 the Social Court dismissed the action after having rescheduled an oral hearing at the applicant's request. The applicant's requests for rectifications of the judgment and the transcript of the hearing were to no avail. His attempts to institute criminal proceedings against the presiding judge were unsuccessful.\n15.  On 12 May 2010 the Social Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n16.  Furthermore, the applicant unsuccessfully pursued inactivity and constitutional complaint proceedings before the Social Court of Appeal and the Federal Constitutional Court.\n17.  On 29 March 2005 the Association determined the applicant's remuneration as a contractual dentist for the year 2004, stipulating that he was entitled to 204,324.53 Euros (EUR) of the EUR 221,875.07 claimed.\n18.  On 7 April 2005 the applicant made an unsuccessful administrative complaint.\n19.  On 10 March 2006 he brought an action against the Association before the Social Court, which rejected the claim on 26 September 2007.\n20.  The applicant appealed before the Social Court of Appeal.\n21.  On 23 April 2008 the Federal Constitutional Court declared the applica", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5760", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and is currently serving a prison sentence in correctional colony no. 7 in the Tula Region.\n6.  In 2002 the applicant was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to seven years and three months' imprisonment. In 2005 he was granted an early release.\n7.  In the summer of 2006 the police received an anonymous complaint stating that the applicant and his friend Mr O. were making and selling drugs in their flats. The police questioned the applicant's neighbours, who confirmed unanimously that the applicant and Mr O. were drug dealers.\n8.  The police made a series of test purchases of drugs from the applicant and Mr O. In September and early October 2006 two persons code-named “Shadow” and “Yermak” asked the applicant and Mr O. to make drugs for them. They went on several occasions to Mr O.'s flat accompanied by their acquaintance Ms G. The applicant and Mr O. made opium from the ingredients bought by the applicant with Shadow's and Yermak's money. They then consumed the opium together.\n9.  On 18 October 2006 Yermak called the applicant, complained of withdrawal symptoms and asked him to procure him drugs. The applicant asked Ms G. to take 500 Russian roubles from Yermak and to change it in a nearby pharmacy. He then bought opium ingredients with that money and made opium in his flat. He met Yermak several hours later, handed a part of the opium over to him and left the remainder for himself. Yermak gave the opium received from the applicant to the police.\n10.  On the same day the applicant was arrested and charged with drug trafficking.\n11.  During the trial the Proletarskiy District Court of Tula heard numerous witnesses, including Shadow, Ms G., the applicant's neighbours and the police officers who had supervised the test purchases. Yermak's pre-trial depositions were read out as he had died before the start of the trial. The trial court also examined expert opinions and material evidence, such as the opium received by Shadow and Yermak from the applicant and Mr O. and utensils for making opium found in the applicant's and Mr O.'s flats.\n12.  On 19 September 2007 the Proletarskiy District Court of Tula acquitted the applicant of drug trafficking in respect of the episodes of September and early October, finding that on those occasions he had made drugs for personal consumption with his acquaintances rather than for sale. It further convicted the applicant of drug trafficking for selling drugs on 18 October 2006. The applicant was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.\n13.  On 12 December 2007 the Tula Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n14.  From 20 October 2006 to 27 December 2007 the applicant was held in remand centre no. IZ-71/1 in Tula.\n15.  According to certificates of 23 October 2009 issued by the remand centre administration and submitted by the Government, from 20 October to 13 November 2006 the applicant was held in cell no. 77, which measured 80.4 sq. m and housed thirty-one to forty inmates. From 13 November 2006 to 31 January 2007 he was held in cell no. 76, which measured 37.4 sq. m and housed thirteen to twenty inmates. From 31 January to 26 September 2007 he was held in cell no. 17, measuring 76.9 sq. m and housing twenty-two to forty inmates. The Government also produced the plan of those cells confirming the cell measurements.\n16.  The same certificates state that the inmates were allowed to take a shower once a week for forty minutes and had an hour-long daily walk. It ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5761", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1956. The second and third applicants were born in 2001 and 2003, respectively. They live in the village of Prigorodnoe, the Groznenskiy District, in the Chechen Republic.\n6.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Ruslan Taymuskhanov, born in 1981. Ruslan Taymuskhanov is the father of the second and third applicants.\n7.  On the morning of 30 December 2002 the first applicant, Ruslan Taymuskhanov and Mr Z., a police officer, were driving home in a UAZ SUV vehicle. At some point they passed by the village of Starye Atagi, where the special task force units of the Chechen Republic and the Russian federal troops had been carrying out a special “sweeping” operation.\n8.  At the military checkpoint near Starye Atagi federal servicemen stopped the UAZ SUV car. Some of the servicemen were wearing masks and camouflage uniforms; they all spoke Russian. The servicemen ordered the first applicant, Ruslan Taymuskhanov and Mr Z. to get out of the car, searched them and tied Ruslan Taymuskhanov and Mr Z.'s arms behind their backs.\n9.  The servicemen put the first applicant, Ruslan Taymuskhanov and Mr Z. in a UAZ minivan. The first applicant noticed that its registration number contained the digits “655”. The minivan drove off in the direction of Grozny. It was followed by a Gazel vehicle. While the minivan was moving, one of the servicemen made a phone call. The first applicant overheard the words “woman, woman”. Shortly afterwards the servicemen pushed her out of the minivan.\n10.  The first applicant lost consciousness as a result of the fall. Some passers-by discovered her lying by the side of the road and took her home. Four or five hours later the first applicant recovered her senses.\n11.  At some point Mr Z. was thrown out of the UAZ minivan.\n12.  The first applicant has not seen her son since.\n13.  At about 11 a.m. on 30 December 2002 in the vicinity of the village of Starye Atagi unidentified armed persons wearing camouflage uniforms abducted Ruslan Taymuskhanov and took him away to an unknown destination.\n14.  At some point Mr D., Mr Z.'s uncle, suggested that the first applicant contact Mr G., the head of the special task force unit who had been in charge of the special “sweeping” operation of 30 December 2002 in Starye Atagi. Mr G. promised to release Ruslan Taymuskhanov, but then left for a business trip; at some point he died. Later Mr G.'s deputy denied that Ruslan Taymuskhanov had been arrested.\n15.  On 31 March 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Groznenskiy District (“the district prosecutor's office”) instituted an investigation in case no. 42061 into the kidnapping of Ruslan Taymuskhanov.\n16.  On 21 April 2003 the first applicant complained about her son's abduction to the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic and the military prosecutor's office of the United Group Alignment (“the UGA prosecutor's office”).\n17.  On 24 April 2003 the prosecutor's office of the Chechen Republic forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the district prosecutor's office.\n18.  On 30 April 2003 the UGA prosecutor's office forwarded the first applicant's complaint to the prosecutor's office of Grozny.\n19.  On 30 November 2003 the district prosecutor's office suspended the investigation in case no. 42061 for failure to identify those responsible.\n20.  On 5 March 2004 the district prosecutor's office issued a report stating the following. At about 11 a.m. on 30 December 2002 in the area of Starye Atagi unidentifi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5762", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the city of Kaliningrad, in the Kaliningrad Region.\n6.  On 15 August 2002 the applicant and two other persons were arrested in Moscow on suspicion of drug trafficking during an undercover police operation.\n7.  According to the applicant, the police officers allegedly ill-treated him during the arrest, planted a sachet of drugs into his pocket, and took his money and car documents.\n8.  On 17 August 2002 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow authorised the applicant's placement in custody. On 19 August 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal against that detention order but it was never examined.\n9.  On an unspecified date the investigating authorities allegedly seized the applicant's car.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with drug trafficking and the case was transferred to the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow for trial.\n11.  On 28 March 2003 the Ostankinskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of having acquired, transported and sold drugs in an organised criminal group on a particularly large scale. The court established that the applicant, his two co-accused and several other persons had organised a criminal group with a view to drug trafficking. The applicant had transported the drugs and had surveyed the sales. Before the court, he claimed that he had never sold drugs and that the undercover agents had planted them on him. The court dismissed the applicant's submissions, relying on the testimonies of his co-accused and the police officers, including anonymous witness A., and other physical evidence. It sentenced the applicant to nine years' imprisonment and a confiscation of property.\n12.  On 22 July 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment.\n13.  From 17 August 2002 to 2 April 2003 the applicant had been held in remand centre IZ-77/2 in Moscow.\n14.  For the first ten days the applicant was held in cell no. 157 where the conditions of detention were satisfactory.\n15.  On 28 August 2002 the applicant was transferred to cell no. 283 which was designed for six persons and had five or six bunks but accommodated eight inmates. The applicant was afforded less than one square metre of cell space. For six months he did not have daily walks. He was not provided with bedding. The lavatory was not separated from the living area and was two metres away from the dining table and one metre away from the bunks. The windows were covered with bars and metal shutters which limited access to natural light. In December 2002, while the outside temperature dropped to between -20º and -28ºC, the cell was not heated; the walls were covered with frost and the applicant had to sleep in his jacket. In November and December 2002 he did not have access to shower. The cell was full of smoke because all inmates smoked, the applicant being a non-smoker. The cell was infested with lice and cockroaches. The applicant's complaints to the administration were left without reply.\n16.  On an unspecified date after the trial the applicant was transferred to a cell for convicts where four to five detainees had to share one bunk and slept in shifts.\n(b)  Remand centre IZ-77/3 in Moscow\n17.  From 2 April to 16 August 2003 the applicant was held in remand centre IZ-77/3 in Moscow, firstly in cell no. 213 and later in cell no. 714.\n18.  Cell no. 213 was designed for 30 persons but housed over one hundred inmates. The detainees had to sleep in shifts. The applicant was not provided with bedding", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5763", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant is a former officer of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB). In 1998 he participated in a much publicised press conference together with three other FSB officers. Some time after the press conference the applicant remained in the country but was dismissed from the FSB. From 1998 to 2002 he served in the tax police and he later became a practising lawyer and a member of the bar association.\n8.  On an unspecified date the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office initiated an inquiry relating to the period of the applicant's service in the FSB. The inquiry concerned the alleged disclosure of certain classified material by the applicant.\n9.  On 22 January 2002 the prosecution carried out a search of the applicant's home and discovered certain documents allegedly containing classified information. Assorted cartridges for various types of weapons were also found in a cardboard box on a shelf above the applicant's writing table. The applicant alleged that the cartridges did not belong to him and had been planted by an FSB agent, posing as a plumber, shortly before the search.\n10.  During the search the prosecution also seized a video recording made by the applicant on 3 May 1999 in a forest near Bryansk. It showed the applicant and his friend Mr S. shooting for fun from the applicant's service weapon. The applicant explained that for the shooting he had used a gun cartridge he had received from Mr S.\n11.  On 28 January 2002 the prosecution charged the applicant with disclosure of State secrets and abuse of his official powers (“criminal case no. 1”) and unlawful possession of firearms (the ammunition found in his flat and the gun cartridge he had used to shoot in the forest).\n12.  From 24 March 2003 the applicant was under an obligation not to leave Moscow without authorisation from an investigator, a prosecutor or the court. On 18 April 2003 the investigation was completed and the prosecution handed the case file to the applicant and his lawyers for examination. The defence had the file at their disposal until 21 June 2003. On 24 June 2003 the case file was sent to the court. The date of the first hearing was set.\n13.  Pending the investigation in case no. 1, the applicant continued his professional activities as a lawyer. On the evening of 22 October 2003 his car was stopped by traffic police. The car was searched and a handgun was discovered on the back seat of the applicant's car. On 24 October the Dmitrov Town Court remanded the applicant in custody on the ground that he was suspected of committing a criminal offence punishable under Article 222 of the Criminal Code (unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition). The detention order was confirmed on 5 November 2003 by the Dmitrov Town Court, and, on 13 November 2003, by the Moscow Regional Court. The applicant was eventually acquitted of the charges against him in criminal case no. 2 (for more details see Trepashkin v. Russia (no. 1), no. 36898/03, 19 July 2007).\n14.  In November 2003 the file in criminal case no. 1 and the bill of indictment were forwarded to the Military Court of the Moscow Circuit. The Military Court, referring to certain classified information contained in the file, decided to examine case no. 1 in camera.\n15.  On 1 December 2003 the Military Court of the Moscow Circuit held a preparatory hearing in the applicant's case no. 1. The judge heard evi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5764", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1962 respectively and live in Baku, Azerbaijan.\n7.  According to the applicants, on 5 September 1998 at about 4 p.m. the police entered their house, searched it and seized their belongings. The police officers searched the applicants, handcuffed them and took them into the police car. On the way to the car the police officers allegedly struck the applicants on the neck and back with gun butts and shouted obscene words at them. The police officers also aimed their guns at the applicants and shouted that “all dark-faced Caucasians should be killed”. The applicants were taken to Nizhnevartovsk police station no. 1. They were not informed about the reasons for their arrest.\n8.  The first applicant was held at Nizhnevartovsk police station no. 1 for more than twenty-four hours. He was allegedly not given any food or drink, and was not allowed to go to the toilet or sleep. The police officers hit him several times on the neck and threatened to kill him. On 6 September 1998 he was placed in a temporary detention centre.\n9.  As to the second applicant, three hours after the arrest he was transferred to Nizhnevartovsk police station no. 4. On the way there the police officers allegedly beat him on the head many times. In the morning of 6 September 1998 the second applicant was transferred to Nizhnevartovsk police station no. 3, where he was held until the next morning. He was not allowed to sleep and was not given any food. On 7 September 1998 the second applicant was placed in a temporary detention centre.\n10.  According to the Government, the applicants were arrested on 6 September 1998. On the same day they were placed in the temporary detention centre of Nizhnevartovsk.\n11.  On 9 September 1998 the prosecutor of Nizhnevartovsk authorised the applicants’ detention.\n12.  On 15 or 16 September 1998 the applicants were charged with the attempted murder of the mayor of Nizhnevartovsk.\n13.  During the investigation the applicants were allegedly repeatedly ill‑treated by police officers, who sought to make them confess. In particular, the officers threatened to kill the applicants and their relatives. They kicked the first applicant in the stomach and kidneys, put a gas-mask on him and made him inhale cigarette smoke, put plastic bags on his head and blocked access to the air until he fainted, and raped him with a truncheon. The first applicant alleged that as a result of the ill-treatment his ears had bled and he had urinated blood.\n14.  The second applicant contended that the police officers had beaten him on the head, and in the stomach and kidneys, put a plastic bag on him and suffocated him, put him handcuffed on the floor and stepped on his back. They had also put a gas-mask on him and made him inhale cigarette smoke. On several occasions in September 1998 the police officers had blindfolded him and put him on the floor of a police car. The police officer Mr Sh. had pushed his head against the floor with his feet. He had been taken to a cemetery where the police officers ill-treated him and threatened to kill him. They had put a gun against his head and shot blanks.\n15.  On 14 September 1998 the second applicant was taken to Nizhnevartovsk police station no. 1, where he was allegedly beaten up by four drunken police officers until he lost consciousness. They also threatened to sodomise him with a truncheon.\n16.  On 15 and 17 September 1998 the applicants confessed to the attempted murder. However, once", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5766", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n(1)  Ms Khava Tumayeva, born in 1947;\n(2)  Ms Aset Khatuyeva, born in 1983;\n(3)  Ms Ms Kheda Gigayeva, born in 1979;\n(4)  Ms Rukiyat Tumayeva, born in 1981; and\n(5)  Ms Zinaida Tumayeva, born in 1954.\n6.  The applicants are Russian nationals, who live in the village of Valerik in the Achkhoy-Martanovskiy District of the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Shamkhan Tumayev, born in 1982. The second applicant is Shamkhan Tumayev's common-law wife; they are the parents of two minor children. The third and fourth applicants are Shamkhan Tumayev's sisters. The fifth applicant is his aunt.\n8.  At the material time the Tumayev family lived at 13 Titova Street in the village of Valerik. The second applicant was pregnant with her second child. Shamkhan Tumayev occupied the right wing of the house together with the second applicant and their child, whilst the first and third to fifth applicants occupied the left wing.\n9.  According to the applicants, at the material time the village of Valerik was under the firm control of the Russian federal troops, who maintained manned checkpoints on the roads at the entry to and exit from the village. Moreover, at the time of the events described below, the village was under a curfew and around forty Russian servicemen were stationed there on a permanent basis.\n10.  In the applicants' submission, between 18 and 19 September 2004 about a hundred servicemen from units operating under the direction of Ramzan Kadyrov, the then deputy prime minister of the Chechen Republic, arrived in Valerik with a view to carrying out a sweeping operation. They deployed, amongst other things, tanks, armoured personnel carriers and UAZ all-terrain vehicles.\n11.  At about 2 a.m. on 19 September 2004, around fifteen to twenty armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants' house. They spoke unaccented Russian and all but one of them wore black masks. They shouted: “Open the doors! Police!”. The second applicant opened the door. Several armed men entered the premises and put the second applicant onto the floor. Some armed men stayed in the courtyard. The intruders took the keys from the second applicant and confiscated several video cassettes of various movies, a video cassette with a recording of Shamkhan Tumayev's father, and Shamkhan Tumayev's mobile phone from the safe. They also took Shamkhan Tumayev's passport, checked it and brought Shamkhan Tumayev away.\n12.  In the meantime, the first applicant also opened the door. The intruders immediately asked her to give them a passport. The first applicant inferred that they were servicemen carrying out a passport check. She started looking for her own passport. According to the first applicant, in the meantime the servicemen turned everything upside down. Shortly thereafter they locked the first applicant and her relatives in their part of the house. After a while she heard some movements coming from outside, a shot being fired and the noise of leaving vehicles. The first applicant managed to get outside through the window, whereupon she found out that the intruders had taken away Shamkhan Tumayev, his mobile phone and several video cassettes. Her neighbours told her that they had seen a silvery UAZ-469 vehicle. The first applicant also found two spent cartridges in the yard.\n13.  Some of the applicants' neighbours and relatives, who had been woken up because of the noise, tried to follow the abductors but the servicemen t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5767", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is currently serving a sentence in Polytska no. 76 Prison in the Rivne region.\n6.  The applicant had had a relationship with his neighbour, Ms M. He received from her a duplicate of the key to her house, which he never returned. The relationship was terminated in December 2002 at the instigation of Ms M., whose husband had returned home from a long business trip.\n7.  During the night of 18-19 April 2003 Mr M., the husband of Ms M., was sleeping in his house, which was locked from the inside, while his wife was at work, and was attacked by a man wearing a mask. The victim's son, ten years old, who was sleeping in the same room, was woken by the noise and saw the intruder leaving the room with an object which looked like a stick. After the incident the entrance door to Mr M.'s house remained locked. Mr M. died without regaining consciousness.\n8.  On 19 April 2003, at 11:20 p.m., the applicant was arrested on police premises on suspicion of infliction of grievous bodily harm on Mr M. causing his death (see also paragraph 18 below).\n9.  On 22 April 2003 the Sarny Town Court (“the Sarny Court”) remanded the applicant in custody in Rivne no. 24 Detention Centre (“the SIZO”) at the investigator's request. The court based its decision on the seriousness of the charges against the applicant, as well as the fact that he had no family of his own and might therefore abscond.\n10.  On 19 June 2003 the Sarny Court extended the applicant's pre-trial detention to four months. It justified this decision with the necessity to undertake a number of investigative measures, the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and the inherent risk of his absconding or hindering the investigation if at liberty. The court examined the applicant's argument about his frail health and noted, referring to a medical report, that his condition was not incompatible with detention.\n11.  During both the pre-trial investigation and the judicial proceedings the applicant's lawyer introduced numerous requests for the applicant's release on bail, referring to his illness and specific medical needs which could not be accommodated by the SIZO administration and placed an excessive financial burden on his parents (for more details see paragraphs 45-47 below). It was also noted in the requests that the applicant did not have a criminal record and had a permanent place of residence and elderly parents to care for. By way of bail the applicant's father offered his minibus, whose value was estimated at 24,732 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH), which at the time was equal to about 3,700 euros (EUR).\n12.  By rulings of 15 and 26 March, 26 April, 27 May, 23 June, 13 and 22 July, 12 August and 2 September 2004, the Sarny Court rejected the aforementioned requests for the applicant's release. The reasoning of all those nine rulings was identical and read as follows:\n“[The applicant] is accused of a serious crime punishable by imprisonment of over seven years. Therefore, to prevent [him] from attempting to abscond or hindering the establishment of the truth, the preventive measure – detention – should remain unchanged.”\n13.  Seven of the rulings contained an additional phrase following the first sentence in the above quotation:\n“There are considerable discrepancies in the witnesses' testimonies concerning the same circumstances of the case.”\n14.  All the rulings, with the exception of that of 15 March 2004, also noted that the applicant was “free to addres", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5768", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  He owns a house in that city. It stands on State-owned plot of land. On 11 June 1986 the local authorities ordered the demolition of the above house and the return of the land, with a view to building a new block of flats in its place, pursuant to the urban development plan. The authorities offered the applicant a three-room apartment and fixed him certain amounts in compensation. However, the house has not been demolished so far and remains in the applicant’s possession.\n6.  On 21 August 1997 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv against the local authorities claiming the right to privatise the plot of land on which his house stood.\n7.  On 8 January 2002 the court rejected the claim as unsubstantiated. The applicant requested an extension of the procedural time-limit for lodging his appeal against the above judgment, as he had found out about it only on 18 March 2002, and the courts granted the extension requested.\n8.  On 17 September 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n9.  On 27 March 2003 the Dzerzhynskyy Court rejected the applicant’s claim. It found that the authorities had fixed compensation for the land, but he had not applied for it. The court explained that the applicant was entitled to apply to the local authorities to receive the compensation.\n10.  On 15 July 2003 the Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment.\n11.  On 12 May 2005 the Supreme Court, sitting in camera as a panel of three judges, upheld the lower courts’ decisions and rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated. The applicant was served with a copy of the final ruling on 18 June 2005.\n12.  In the course of the proceedings the courts adjourned four hearings upon the applicant’s requests or due to his failure to appear. Furthermore, nineteen hearings were adjourned due to the absence or illness of the judge dealing with the case, absence of the respondents, their requests for adjournments or for unspecified reasons.\n13.  In 1999 the local authorities annulled the State registration of the applicant’s title to the house.\n14.  On 19 April 2006 the Dzerzhynskyy Court invalidated the authorities’ decision. It also invalidated their decision of 11 June 1986 (see paragraph 5 above). On 16 October 2008 the same court confirmed the applicant’s title to the house in question.\n15.  As it appears from the case file, subsequently the applicant lodged a new request with the authorities for privatisation of the land surrounding his house and its examination is under-way.\n16.  The local authorities sought a review of the judgment of 16 October 2008, allegedly because their representatives had been unable to be present in the hearing, but their request was dismissed. According to the applicant, the authorities also requested the courts to review the judgment of 19 April 2006. He provided no details as to the outcome of the latter request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5769", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Eugen Sofranschi, was born in 1946 and lives in Briceni.\n6.  After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the land and property of the former collective farms (kolkhozes) were divided among the villagers who had been members of the collective farms. In some localities new collective farms were formed, to which the villagers contributed their land and other goods inherited from the former collective farms. The collective farms were headed by leaders. In some cases the villagers worked in the collective farms, whereas in other cases they merely received a part of the revenue of the farm at the end of the year. At the time of the events in question, the applicant was a member of such a collective farm and had a tense relationship with its leader, V.P., whom he suspected of abusing his position. It does not appear that the applicant and V.P. had an employer-employee relationship.\n7.  In May 2003 during a local election campaign, the applicant, who was a member of the electoral staff of one of the candidates, wrote a letter to the President of Moldova, the Speaker of Parliament and the local Prosecutor's Office which was critical of V.P., who was also a candidate for the position of mayor of their village. In the letter, the applicant accused V.P. of numerous abuses. The applicant requested that the State authorities intervene in order to solve the problems of: (i) access to a lake and pasture on the part of local villagers; and (ii) V.P.'s abusive behaviour.\n8.  In August 2003 V.P. initiated civil defamation proceedings against the applicant and claimed compensation of 20,000 lei (MDL). He argued, in particular, that the following passages from the applicant's letter had been defamatory of him:\n“[1]  V.P. who, as a matter of coincidence, was the leader of the collective farm is shameless ... [2] He has no education and only attended primary school... He obtained false diplomas and cannot even read properly... [3] He illegally possesses shares in the collective farm ... [4] The property [of the collective farm] which was gathered by the people over a very long period of time is now used by shameless people. [5] He has guns and threatens people with them ...” V.P. also submitted that the applicant had been spreading such rumours in the village and that because of this he had lost the elections for the position of mayor.\n9.  In his written defence before the Briceni District Court, the applicant rejected V.P.'s accusations and stated that the information concerning V.P.'s education and diplomas had been provided to him and to many other villagers by a person named N.C. and that it had been common knowledge in the village. As to V.P.'s reading skills, the applicant submitted that all the members of the collective farm could confirm that V.P. had had difficulty reading a text during a meeting. As to V.P.'s threatening people with guns, the applicant stated by way of example that during a village festival V.P. had fired twice from a gun into the air in order to intimidate two people. As to the allegation that V.P. had abusively limited the villagers' access to the lake, the applicant submitted that a court had deprived V.P. of possession of the lake in the interim.\n10.  On 28 November 2003 the Briceni District Court found in favour of V.P. and ordered the applicant to pay him MDL 10,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and MDL 500 for costs and expenses. The judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal but quashed by the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5770", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Łódź.\n6.  On 11 October 2005 the applicant was arrested on charges of aggravated assault and theft.\n7.  On 13 October 2005 the Łódz District Court ordered his pre-trial detention, which was subsequently extended on several occasions.\n8.  The applicant's mother and wife were witnesses during the investigation stage of the proceedings.\n9.  On 30 March 2006 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Łódź District Court. The applicant was charged with aggravated assault and theft.\n10.  On an unknown date the applicant's wife and mother applied to be allowed to visit the applicant in prison. Their applications bear handwritten notes “refusal, the person is a witness”, illegible signatures and the date of 3 April 2006.\n11.  On 17 July and 2 August 2006 the applicant requested to be allowed to maintain personal contact with his family. His applications were rejected. The authorities noted that the family members themselves should apply for permission to visit the applicant in prison.\n12.  On 14 November 2006 the applicant's mother applied for permission to visit the applicant in prison. Her application bears a note “refusal, witness in the case”, an illegible signature and the date of 14 November 2006.\n13.  During a hearing held on 3 April 2007 the applicant's mother and wife stated that they refused to testify at the trial. On the same day, the applicant's mother was granted permission to visit the applicant in prison.\n14.  On 27 June 2007 the applicant and his wife were granted a divorce.\n15.  On 29 July 2008 the Łódź District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment.\n16.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was lifted on 8 October 2008. After that date he was visited by his mother on 11 occasions.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5771", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in the Lviv Region.\n5.  In 1991 Mr A. (the applicant’s relative) lodged a claim with the Staryy Sambir Court against the applicant challenging her title to a house which she had inherited under her aunt’s will. In 1993, following the request of Mr A., the court discontinued the proceedings.\n6.  On 24 July 1997, following the request of the widow of Mr A. (who had died in the meantime), the same court re-opened the case under the newly-discovered circumstances procedure.\n7.  On 6 September 2000 the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv delivered a judgment in the case. On 18 December 2000 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal quashed it and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n8.  On 18 March 2003 the Galytskyy Court invalidated a part of the will.\n9.  On 23 June 2003 and 15 November 2004 respectively the Lviv Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the above judgment. The applicant received the decision of 15 November 2004 on 29 January 2005.\n10.  Subsequently, the applicant unsuccessfully sought review of the case under the newly-discovered circumstances procedure.\n11.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings two hearings were adjourned upon the applicant’s requests, three hearings due to her failure to appear and three other hearings due to both parties’ failure to appear. The applicant disagreed. According to her, between 3 and 30 June 2000 she underwent in-patient treatment and thus could not attend one of the hearings referred to by the Government. Three hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the judge or upon the other party’s request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5772", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Lugansk. The second applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Slatino.\n6.  In April 2005 the first applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyi District Court of Lugansk against the Lugansk Regional Enlistment Office, seeking recalculation of his pension.\n7.  On 12 July 2005 the court rejected the applicant's claim as not based on the law. On 13 October 2005 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal considered the case under the rules of civil procedure and upheld the lower court's judgment. In the operative part of its decision, the Court of Appeal stated that the applicant had the right to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court within two months.\n8.  On 1 December 2005 the applicant submitted an appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court, to which he annexed copies of the lower courts' decisions.\n9.  On 26 December 2005 a judge of the Supreme Court, relying on paragraphs 7 and 10 of the Final and Transitional Provisions of the Code of Administrative Justice, ruled that the applicant's appeal in cassation should be remitted to the Higher Administrative Court.\n10.  By a ruling of 24 March 2006, a judge of the Higher Administrative Court, relying on Article 212 of the Code of Administrative Justice, dismissed the applicant's appeal in cassation as having been lodged out of time.\n11.  In October 2004 the second applicant instituted proceedings in the Leninskyi District Court of Kharkiv against the Kharkiv Regional Enlistment Office, seeking recalculation of his pension.\n12.  On 20 May 2005 the court rejected the applicant's claim as not based on the law. On 13 September 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal considered the case under the rules of civil procedure and upheld the lower court's judgment. In the operative part of its decision, the Court of Appeal stated that the applicant had the right to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court within two months.\n13.  On 11 November 2005 the applicant submitted an appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court, to which he annexed copies of the lower courts' decisions.\n14.  By letter dated 30 November 2005, the Supreme Court informed the applicant that his appeal in cassation had been remitted to the Higher Administrative Court.\n15.  By a ruling of 11 April 2006, a judge of the Higher Administrative Court, relying on Article 212 of the Code of Administrative Justice, dismissed the applicant's appeal in cassation as having been lodged out of time.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5773", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bratislava.\n6.  On 17 September 2001 the applicant as seller entered into a contract with A. as buyer concerning some real property essentially comprising arable land.\n7.  On an unspecified date A. lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant accusing her of having received the purchase price of some 8,600 euros (EUR) only to renege on the contract without returning the price.\n8.  On 27 May 2005 the applicant was charged with fraud on the basis of A.'s criminal complaint. The decision containing the charge was not served on the applicant until 3 February 2006, when she was questioned by a judge following her arrest (see below).\n9.  On 19 and 29 September 2005, respectively, a national search for the applicant was launched and the Dunajská Streda District Public Prosecutor's Office (Okresná prokuratúra) asked the Dunajská Streda District Court (Okresný súd) for a warrant for the applicant's arrest.\nIt was argued that it was proving impossible to summon the applicant for questioning because she was not responding to summonses, was not living at her registered address (trvalé bydlisko) and her whereabouts were unknown.\n10.  On 3 December 2005 the District Court issued the arrest warrant. It indicated as the underlying reason for the warrant that “[the applicant] [was] not living at her registered address; her whereabouts [were] unknown”.\n11.  From 2 February to 14 March 2006 the applicant was held in pre‑trial detention (see below).\n12.  On 14 and 21 March 2006 the applicant challenged the charge by way of an interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť).\n13.  On 24 March and 12 April 2006, respectively, the investigator interviewed a notary who had drawn up the contract and, following her release from detention, also the applicant.\n14.  On 25 April 2006 the District Public Prosecutor's Office granted the applicant's interlocutory appeal and dismissed the charge against her on the grounds that the matter was of a civil-law nature and the applicant's actions did not constitute a criminal offence.\n15.  At 2 p.m. on 2 February 2006, on the basis of the warrant of 3 December 2005, the applicant was arrested by the police and taken into police custody.\n16.  At 10.30 a.m. on 3 February 2006 the applicant was brought before a single judge of the District Court for questioning.\n17.  A record of the questioning was made on a pre-printed form. In so far as the pre-printed section of the record was filled out, it indicates that the applicant was questioned as a person charged (obvinený) / suspect (podozrivý), that she was informed of the rights that pertain to a person in that procedural position and that she had been handed (doručené) / read out (prečítané) the decision containing the charge of fraud.\n18.  The verbatim section which follows the pre-printed section of the record indicates that the applicant acknowledged that she had neither a permanent nor a temporary registered place of residence (trvalé/prechodné bydlisko) and that she mainly stayed in monasteries and pastors' offices. She admitted having received and not returned the purchase price and expressed readiness to return it. She explained that she had health problems and that on 13 January 2006 she had fainted in the street.\n19.  The verbatim section of the record also indicates that, thereafter, the applicant was handed the decision containing the charge of 27 May 2005.\nAccording to the applicant, the decision containing the charges had been hande", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5774", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are:\n1)  Ms Malika Dzhamayeva, born in 1957\n2)  Ms Kheda Mamayeva, born in 1978,\n3)  Mr Imam Mukayev, born in 2002, and\n4)  Mr Ovkhad Mukayev, born in 2004.\n8.  The applicants live in Katyr-Yurt, in the Chechen Republic.\n9.  The first applicant is the mother of Khamid Mukayev, born in 1978. The second applicant is Khamid Mukayev's wife and the third and fourth applicants are their children.\n10.  At the material time the first applicant lived with her son Khamid Mukayev, the second to fourth applicants and other relatives at 10 Pervogo Maya Street (in the submitted documents the address is also referred to as 10 Pervogo Maya Lane and 25 Pervomayskaya Street), Katyr-Yurt, in the Achkhoy-Martanovskiy district of the Chechen Republic.\n11.  On the night of 15 September 2004 the above-mentioned persons and P.B. were staying at the applicants' house.\n12.  Between 4 and 5 a.m. on 16 September 2004 a convoy of military vehicles, including an armoured personnel carrier (APC) and Gazel and UAZ vehicles, arrived at the applicants' gate. The vehicles had no registration numbers. A group of about twenty-five to thirty armed masked men in camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles. Some of them stayed outside, securing the perimeter of the applicants' house.\n13.  At about 4 a.m. on 16 September 2004 the first applicant was woken up by the barking of her dog. Shortly afterwards seven or eight armed masked men in camouflage uniforms and bullet-proof jackets burst into the house.\n14.  The intruders did not introduce themselves or explain the reason for their actions. They pointed their guns at the first applicant and her relatives and ordered them in unaccented Russian to get outside. The applicants inferred that the intruders were servicemen. In the courtyard the first applicant saw a large group of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks. The servicemen tied the first applicant's and her relatives' hands with adhesive tape. They also tied the first applicant and her other son, Kh.M., to a shed post. The first applicant's eighty-four-year-old mother‑in‑law, Ms M. M., stayed in the house. In a state of stress, Ms M. M. started shouting and the servicemen hit her several times with their rifle butts.\n15.  Meanwhile some of the servicemen who were in the house started searching it and some burst into the room where the second to fourth applicants and Khamid Mukayev were staying. They pointed their guns at the second applicant and ordered her in unaccented Russian to stay quiet. The servicemen then ordered Khamid Mukayev to lie down. After a quick search of the room they took Khamid Mukayev, who was in his underwear, to the yard. The second applicant tried to follow them but was forced back into the room under the threat of being shot dead. In the yard one of the servicemen took the tape off the first applicant's mouth and asked her where her husband was. She replied that she did not know and that he had left the family in 1992.\n16.  Having checked the house and attic, the servicemen started beating Khamid Mukayev up, requesting him to give them his passport. He replied that the first applicant had it. The servicemen untied her hands and brought her into the house. In the house she saw her mother-in-law Ms M. M., who was leaning against the wall and coughing up blood. The first applicant gave Khamid Mukayev's passport to the servicemen. At that moment one of the servicemen in the yard ordered the others to retreat. While the fi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5775", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.\n5.  On 11 December 1998 a local hospital, upon the request of the applicant’s employer, issued a certificate (“the Certificate”) confirming that the applicant had undergone an eight-month medical treatment. The Certificate also specified the applicant’s diagnosis and recommended that his employment should not include night-watchman duties, emotional stresses or irregular working hours.\n6.  On 17 December 1998 the applicant was dismissed from his job for health reasons. His claim against the former employer in respect of reinstatement and recovery of salary arrears was rejected by final decision of the Supreme Court on 7 September 2001. The courts established, inter alia, that the Certificate was lawful and did not breach the applicant’s right to private life as the diagnosis had also been reflected in the sick-leave certificates possessed by the employer.\n7.  On 22 August 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings against the local hospital in the Leninskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk claiming that the Certificate was unlawful in so far as it had been issued in breach of his right to private life and seeking damages.\n8.  On 5 May 2001 the court referred the claim to the Amur-Nyzhnyodniprovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”) in view of its lack of territorial jurisdiction over the case.\n9.  By a letter of 20 November 2001 the President of the District Court returned the claim to the applicant noting that the latter had failed to comply with the procedural rules. No formal decision was taken.\n10.  On 17 December 2001, following a complaint by the applicant, the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) ordered the President of the District Court to decide on the admissibility of the applicant’s claim in accordance with the procedural requirements.\n11.  On 13 February 2002 the District Court declared the applicant’s claim inadmissible.\n12.  On 23 April 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 13 February 2002 as unfounded and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh consideration of admissibility.\n13.  On 27 June 2002 the District Court declared the claim admissible and scheduled a hearing in the case.\n14.  On 19 April 2004 the District Court, having held a number of hearings, rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. It noted in particular that the lawfulness of the Certificate had already been verified by the courts in the applicant’s proceedings against his employer and the relevant court decisions had become final and binding.\n15.  On 14 July 2004 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal as unfounded and upheld the judgment of 19 April 2004.\n16.  On 12 August 2004 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. On 11 July 2005 the Supreme Court informed the applicant that its case list was overloaded but some administrative solutions were to be implemented.\n17.  On 16 June 2007 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, acting as a court of cassation, rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal as unfounded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5776", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Katowice.\n6.  On 19 October 1999 the applicant, a doctor, was charged with domestic violence (assault on her mother).\n7.  Between 26 June 2000 and 3 August 2000 she was examined in a psychiatric hospital in Morawica. The expert psychiatrists gave an opinion and concluded that she suffered from paranoid schizophrenia.\n8.  On 18 October 2001, on the prosecutor's motion, the Kielce District Court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant. It found that she could not be held criminally responsible as she was of unsound mind. It ordered her confinement in a psychiatric hospital and her suspension from medical practice.\n9.  Following the court's decision, the applicant failed to report to a psychiatric hospital.\n10.  On 14 January 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal against the first instance decision; however it was rejected as lodged outside the prescribed time-limit.\n11.  For five years the applicant remained in hiding and her whereabouts were unknown to the authorities. In 2006 the police eventually established her address in Poland.\n12.  On 19 June 2006 the applicant was arrested by the police at her home in Katowice. She was transferred to the Rybnik Psychiatric Hospital. She submits that she was not examined by a doctor until several days after her arrival there.\n13.  On 19 June 2006 the Kielce Regional Court resumed the enforcement proceedings as regards the judgment of October 2001, observing that the applicant has been ordered to stay in a psychiatric hospital, but had been evading justice for five years.\n14.  On 7 September 2006 the Kielce District Court ordered that the applicant be examined by expert psychiatrists, in order to establish whether her continued confinement in the mental institution was necessary.\n15.  On 11 September 2006 the Psychiatric Commission on Preventive Measures submitted its opinion dated 17 August 2006 to the Kielce District Court. The commission examined the documents relating to the applicant's mental health and considered that her confinement in a psychiatric hospital was necessary. It referred to the experts' opinion of 2000, which stressed that the applicant had behaved aggressively during her period under psychiatric observation in Morawica Hospital (in 2000). The commission considered that the applicant should be transferred to Lublin Hospital. The applicant was subsequently admitted to the Lublin Hospital on 23 September 2006.\n16.  On 7 November 2006 three expert psychiatrists submitted their opinion on the applicant's mental health. They stressed that it was necessary to continue the applicant's detention in a psychiatric hospital.\n17.  On 11 January 2007 the Kielce District Court held that it was necessary to continue the applicant's detention in the psychiatric hospital. The court referred to the experts' opinion of 7 November 2006 supplemented on 11 January 2007. According to the experts the applicant suffered from a mental disorder which justified placing her in a psychiatric hospital. It was further highly unlikely that the applicant would continue the treatment after release from the hospital. On 15 January 2007 the applicant filed an appeal against that decision. She stressed that over the previous five years her health had significantly improved and that her relations with her mother were very good. On 23 February 2007 the Kielce Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision referring to the reasons given by the District Court.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5777", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lived before his arrest in Kaliningrad, Kaliningrad Region.\n7.  On 13 December 1999 the applicant was arrested and two days later he was placed in detention facility no. IZ-39/1 in Kaliningrad. On his admission to the facility he received a fluorography examination which revealed no signs of tuberculosis. On 20 June 2000 the applicant underwent another fluorography test which also showed no symptoms of the illness.\n8.  On 16 January 2001 the applicant was once again subjected to a fluorography examination which detected tuberculosis changes in his left lung. On the basis of that examination the applicant was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis (“TB”) of the upper lobe of the left lung and transferred to the pulmonary tuberculosis ward of the medical department of the detention facility, where he remained until 28 January 2002.\n9.  Despite the Court's request for them to produce the applicant's complete medical record, the Government only submitted medical documents drawn up after 28 January 2002. Relying on a certificate issued by the head of the medical department of the Kaliningrad Regional Department of Execution of Sentences, the Government argued that in facility no. IZ-39/1 the applicant had undergone an intensive course of anti-tuberculosis chemotherapy comprising two unidentified drugs. As follows from that certificate, in May 2001 a positive dynamic in the treatment of the illness was registered. However, on 5 August 2001 the applicant's state of health seriously deteriorated. A medical examination by a tuberculosis specialist on 16 August 2001 led to the applicant being diagnosed with acute viral respiratory infection. He was prescribed “symptomatic treatment”. A fluorography examination performed on 3 September 2001 revealed a negative dynamic of the tuberculosis process showing an increase in the number of disintegration cavities. The doctor's diagnosis was “infiltrative tuberculosis of the upper lobe of the left lung in the disintegration phase, [presence of mycobacterium tuberculosis (“MBT”)], progress of the tuberculosis process and 1-2 stage hypotrophy”. According to the same certificate, the regimen of anti-tuberculosis treatment received by the applicant was amended to take the deterioration of his health into account. The applicant was prescribed “infusion chemotherapy”, including a number of drugs (izoniazid, ethambutol, and rifampicin) and detoxication therapy.\n10.  An extract from the applicant's medical record drawn up on 26 June 2003 shows that the deterioration of the applicant's health in August 2001 was linked to “irregular medication”.\n11.  On 28 January 2002 the applicant was discharged from the medical department of the detention facility with a final diagnosis of infiltrative tuberculosis of the upper lobe of the left lung in the disintegration phase, and sent for subsequent treatment to tuberculosis hospital no. 5 in Kaliningrad. On the applicant's admission to the hospital the attending doctor made an entry in his medical record noting that the applicant was calm and collected, exhibiting strong determination to continue anti-tuberculosis treatment. The applicant did not make any complaints about the quality of the treatment provided to him in the tuberculosis hospital.\n12.  On 11 November 2002, following a series of examinations by a forensic medical commission, the applicant was assigned second degree disability status because of his tuberculosis. In July 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5778", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Pečovská Nová Ves.\n5.  On 16 February 1996 the Prešov District Court delivered a judgment in an inheritance dispute. The judgment became final on 14 March 1996.\n6.  On 28 August 1996 the Košice Regional Court rejected the applicant's appeal as lodged by a person who lacked standing in the proceedings.\n7.  On 5 May 2001 the applicant sought a determination of the ownership rights in respect of a plot of land which had also been the subject matter of the above inheritance proceedings.\n8.  On 26 November 2003 the Prešov District Court dismissed his claim and the judgment was upheld by the Prešov Regional Court on 7 December 2005.\n9.  On 13 April 2006 the district court transmitted the case file to the Supreme Court for a decision on the applicant's appeal on points of law. On 22 May 2006 the Supreme Court returned the case file to the district court as having been transmitted prematurely. The Supreme Court stated that the judgment of 7 December 2005 had not been served on one of the defendants and, therefore, had not become final. It further stated that the district court should decide whether to grant the applicant exemption from his obligation to pay court fees and to instruct the applicant to eliminate shortcomings in his appeal on points of law.\n10.  On 23 and 26 June and 6 October 2006 the applicant amended his appeal on points of law. On 25 July the district court exempted the applicant from his obligation to pay court fees. On 14 October 2006 the judgment was served on the defendant and became final.\n11.  On 13 November 2006 the case file was again transmitted to the Supreme Court. On 19 March 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal on points of law. The decision became final on 4 May 2007.\n12.  On 2 March 2006 the applicant complained about a violation of his right to judicial protection and to a “fair trial” within a “reasonable time” as a result of (i) the course of the above sets of proceedings and (ii) the judgments of the district court of 16 February 1996 and of the regional court of 7 December 2005.\n13.  On 22 November 2006 the Constitutional Court rejected his complaint for various reasons. As to the inheritance proceedings, the complaint was rejected as being belated.\n14.  As to the civil proceedings, the Constitutional Court noted that at the time of lodging the constitutional complaint the judgment of the regional court had not become final as it had not yet been served on one of the parties to the proceedings. However, the Constitutional Court held that the appellate court had already delivered its judgment and thus the applicant's legal uncertainty had been eliminated at the time of lodging his constitutional complaint. Therefore, the Constitutional Court rejected the length of proceedings complaint as being manifestly ill-founded.\n15.  It rejected the complaint about unfairness as being manifestly ill‑founded, holding that there was no causal link between the alleged violation and the course of the proceedings before the regional court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5779", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Odessa.\n5.  On 23 December 1999 the applicant lodged a claim with the Kyivskyy District Court of Odessa against the local land department. He sought the acknowledgement of his ownership title over a land plot which according to him was within his family estate.\n6.  On 27 September 2000 the applicant lodged a claim with the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Odessa against the municipal council seeking the ownership certificates in respect of the disputed land to be declared invalid. The two claims were subsequently joined into one case.\n7.  K., a private person and the owner of the disputed land plot, participated in the proceedings as a third party.\n8.  On 16 August 2001 the Kyivskyy District Court of Odessa left the applicant’s claims without examination in view of his repeated failure to appear before the court. On 27 November 2001 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of 16 August 2001 and sent the case for further examination.\n9.  On 24 May 2002 the Kyivskyy District Court of Odessa found that the applicant had no legal basis to claim a title to the land plot and rejected his claims as unsubstantiated.\n10.  On 6 September 2004 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal which he had to re-submit on several occasions in order to comply with procedural requirements and upheld the judgment of 24 May 2002.\n11.  On 5 October 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation.\n12.  On 20 July 2007 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.\n13.  The applicant received a copy of the ruling of 20 July 2007 in September 2009 after he had lodged a number of enquiries with the courts.\n14.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant lodged a number of procedural requests, some of which were allowed, including those concerning the application of provisional measures, withdrawal of the judges from his case, suspension of the proceedings in view of his health problems and pending the outcome of a criminal case against a private person concerning the matter. He also lodged appeals against some of the procedural rulings and requested copies of documents from the case-file. On six occasions the applicant failed to appear before the courts or requested adjournment of the hearings because of his health problems which caused a delay of about seven months. Another five-month delay was caused by respondents’ non-appearance before the courts.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5780", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962. He currently serves a prison sentence in the Mykolayiv Region.\n5.  On 12 October 1998 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of extortion.\n6.  On 28 December 1999, following the completion of the pre-trial investigations, the case was referred to the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol, which on 4 May 2000 remitted the case for additional investigations.\n7.  On 14 September 2000, following the completion of the additional investigations, the case was referred to the same court.\n8.  Following three reconsiderations of the case by the courts of first and appeal instances, on 2 February 2005 the Tsentralnyy Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment with confiscation of property.\n9.  On 29 March 2005 and 28 February 2006 respectively the Crimea Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the above judgment.\n10.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings against the applicant the investigators also brought charges against five other persons (in respect of three of them the criminal proceedings were subsequently discontinued) and questioned eighty-seven witnesses and four aggrieved parties. During the trial the courts had to hear three co-defendants, forty witnesses and several aggrieved parties, which took them about four months. One forensic examination was carried out between 26 May and 18 July 2000. Twenty hearings were adjourned due to the witnesses', aggrieved parties' or co-defendants' failure to appear or illness of a judge.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5781", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Melitopol.\n5.  On 23 October 1995 Mrs P., the applicant's former wife, instituted divorce proceedings in the Melitopol Court against the applicant. She also sought separation of their property.\n6.  On 19 March 1996 the applicant lodged a counter-claim.\n7.  On 10 January 1997 the court disjoined the divorce proceedings from the proceedings concerning separation of property.\n8.  By a judgment of 15 May 2002, the court allowed the applicant's counter-claim in part and ordered the separation of property comprising of various household items (furniture, kitchen utensils, etc.).\n9.  On 25 July 2002 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment.\n10.  On 16 October 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the above decisions and on 11 November 2002 he requested the courts to renew the procedural time-limit for lodging it. On 2 December 2002 the Melitopol Court rejected the applicant's request as unsubstantiated. On 24 March 2003 the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal upheld the above decision. On 19 August 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the above decisions as unsubstantiated and on 27 September 2004 the Melitopol Court renewed the applicant the time-limit for lodging his appeal in cassation.\n11.  On 24 March 2007 the Supreme Court forwarded the applicant's appeal in cassation to the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal, which, acting as a court of cassation, rejected it as unsubstantiated on 7 May 2007.\n12.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant amended his counter-claim on several occasions. The courts adjourned eight hearings following his requests or due to his failure to appear. Some nine hearings were further adjourned following the requests of Mrs P., her failure to appear or due to the illness of a judge.\n13.  The applicant stated that in September 2005 he had been deprived of a flat he had lived in together with Mrs P. The applicant instituted court proceedings against Mrs P. concerning his right to live in the flat. He has not provided any information as to their outcome.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5782", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Budapest.\n7.  On 31 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on charges of drug trafficking. The case involved eight further suspects including a foreigner and concerned a criminal organisation suspected of trafficking in drugs on an important scale.\n8.  On 3 April 2003 the Buda Central District Court ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention. Observing his dual nationality, the court held that there was a risk of absconding. This decision was reviewed and upheld on appeal by the Budapest Regional Court. On 29 April 2003 the District Court prolonged the pre-trial detention as the underlying grounds continued to exist. On 26 June 2003 the Regional Court extended the pre-trial detention of all suspects. On appeal, on 25 July 2003 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the suspects' pre-trial detention until 1 October 2003, holding that there was a danger of absconding, in view of the severity of the charges, and of collusion.\n9.  On 25 September 2003 the District Court released the applicant on bail. However, on 2 October 2003 the Regional Court reversed the decision and upheld his detention with the following reasoning:\n“... Tibor Szepesi [is] prosecuted for very serious offences and the proceedings are still pending. The foreign source of drug supply and the presumed accomplices in Hungary are still to be identified; the circle of domestic buyers and the scope of drug distribution are still to be revealed. Having regard to the nature of the offence and the fact that the suspects' accomplices are still unknown, the risk that the suspects would obstruct or jeopardise the taking of evidence by influencing the witnesses or by destroying or hiding physical evidence continues to exist.”\n10.  On 22 December 2003 the District Court prolonged the pre-trial detention by referring to the continued existence of the underlying grounds. On 7 January 2004 the Regional Court upheld this decision with the following reasoning:\n“[I]n respect of Tibor Szepesi ... a well-founded suspicion of cross border crime has arisen. The investigation authority is carrying on with procedural acts whose success would, if [Mr Szepesi is] left at liberty, be frustrated by the suspects through collusion or otherwise.”\n11.  On 30 March 2004 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant's pre-trial detention by referring to the continued existence of the underlying grounds.\n12.  On 26 May 2004 the Regional Court maintained the detention on remand on the following ground:\n“[... I]t can be established that the general condition for employing the strictest coercive measure is fully met and that in the present stage of the proceedings, a well-founded risk of absconding exists in respect of all suspects, in view of the extremely severe punishment imposable for the offence. This risk is especially significant in respect of [... Mr Szepesi], who has dual nationality.”\n13.  On 5 July 2004 the Budapest Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant and the other suspects. They were charged with aggravated drug trafficking committed in the framework of a criminal organisation.\n14.  On 15 July 2004 the Regional Court upheld the applicant's pre-trial detention, holding that, in view of the weight of the offences at hand, there was a risk of his absconding. On 30 July 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld this decision, endorsing its reasons.\n15.  On 19 January 2005 the Regional Court extended the applicant's pre-trial d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5783", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Balvi. He is the father of Mr Valdis Jasinskis (“the applicant's son”), a Latvian national who was born in 1962 and who died on 28 February 2005.\n6.  On 26 February 2005 the applicant's son (who had been deaf and mute since birth) and several of his friends were drinking beer in a bar in Balvi. Witness statements differ somewhat as to how much alcohol the applicant's son consumed that night. After the applicant's son's death, a forensic expert took into the account witness testimonies and used Widmark's equation to arrive at the estimate that, after finishing his last drink, the alcohol concentration in the applicant's son's blood would have been 4.52 ‰, which meant that all traces of alcohol would have left his body approximately thirty hours later. The expert, however, noted that this figure was approximate. The applicant disagreed with the estimate, noting that such a concentration of alcohol would be deadly.\n7.  After leaving the bar, the applicant's son and his friends walked to a nearby school where a party was taking place. In front of the school entrance M.I. – a minor – pushed the applicant's son, who fell backwards down the stairs in front of the school, hit his head against the ground and lost consciousness for several minutes. The persons present then tried to attract the attention of the security guards, who were inside the school, by knocking on the locked doors. In the process a glass pane of the entrance doors was cracked. It appears from the subsequent investigation that the glass was broken by one of the students of the school.\n8.  The security guards came outside and saw the applicant's son lying unconscious on the ground. They called an ambulance and the police. After the applicant's son had regained consciousness, the security guards sat him down on the stairs of the school.\n9.  The police arrived on the scene at 1.40 a.m. They later reported that the applicant's son had been unable to stand up on his own and had been flailing his arms. Upon their arrival the officers were informed that the applicant's son was deaf and mute and that he had fallen down the stairs. They were also told that he was probably responsible for breaking the glass of the entrance doors.\n10.  The policemen decided not to wait for the ambulance that had been called and took the applicant's son to the Balvi District Police station in order to initiate administrative proceedings for petty hooliganism and public drunkenness. The policemen alleged that in the car on the way to the police station the applicant's son had behaved aggressively and had been flailing his arms and kicking.\n11.  The record of the administrative detention of the applicant's son indicates that the reason for the detention was to “sober up” the detainee. The only injury that was noted was a graze on his face. The same record also notes that at 5.50 p.m. on the following day the applicant's son was released from detention because he had “sobered up” (but see paragraph 16 below).\n12.  The policemen alleged that on the premises of the police station the applicant's son had continued to behave aggressively by flailing his arms. The applicant submits that it is probable that his son was trying to communicate with the policemen by using gestures, because they had taken away the notebook he normally used to communicate with persons who did not understand sign language.\n13.  Shortly afterwards the ambulance crew contacted the police sta", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5784", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lived in Achern, Germany, before moving to Spain in 2008.\n8.  The applicant, who was born in Nigeria, entered Germany in 2003 and applied for asylum. His asylum request was dismissed, a decision which became final in February 2006.\n9.  Starting in June 2003 the applicant had a relationship with Mrs B. who was married to Mr B.; the spouses have three children born in 1996, 1998 and 2000. Although she initially considered a divorce, Mrs B., who never lived with the applicant, left the applicant in August 2005 and lived with her husband, Mr B., and the children again.\n10.  In December 2005 Mrs B. gave birth to twins. The applicant is the biological father of the twins. Mr and Mrs B. are bringing up the twins together. According to Article 1592 no. 1 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 28 below), Mr B. is their legal father. Mr and Mrs B. repeatedly refused requests made by the applicant, both before and after the twins’ birth, to be allowed contact with the twins.\n11.  On 27 September 2006 the Baden-Baden District Court, having heard the applicant and Mr and Mrs B. in three hearings, granted the applicant contact with the twins once per month for one hour, initially in the presence of a third person and of either Mr or Mrs B. if they wished to be present.\n12.  The District Court found that the applicant was entitled to access under Article 1685 § 2 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 27 below) as he was a person with whom the children had close ties. The fact that he had not yet borne any responsibility for the children did not hinder that entitlement, as the applicant had had no possibility to take such responsibility since the twins had been born in December 2005. Hence his access rights could not be denied.\n13.  The District Court further considered that contact between the applicant and the twins was in the children’s best interest. It agreed with the findings of the psychological expert it had consulted, who, having heard Mr and Mrs B. and the applicant, had concluded that contact with the applicant was beneficial for the children’s welfare. Particularly in view of their African-German origins, a relationship with the applicant, their natural father, would be essential for them to get to know their roots, to build up their identity, to understand why they were different and to develop normal self-esteem. The District Court also found that the applicant’s access rights could not be delayed any further as they were being increasingly contested by Mr and Mrs B. The applicant’s access to the twins would not adversely affect Mr and Mrs B.’s other three children because, as the psychologist had convincingly argued, dealing frankly with the realities would be in the best interest of all concerned.\n14.  In coming to its decision, the District Court took into consideration that when Mrs B. and the applicant had separated in August 2005, the applicant had agreed that the twins could stay with the B. family but had stated that “he wanted to have a chance in the asylum proceedings”. He had subsequently asked to be granted access to the twins after their birth, which Mr and Mrs B. had refused. He had argued that if he did not stay in Germany, it would be impossible in practice for him to have any contact with his children and build up a relationship with them. In Mr and Mrs B.’s submission, the applicant wanted access to his children only in order to obtain a residence permit in Germany. The psychological expert, f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5785", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were clients of a private non-banking investment company, Sun a.s. (“the company”), which was open for investment by the public.\n5.  Under various types of private-law contracts, the applicants and more than seven hundred other individuals made financial investments in the company, which failed to meet its contractual obligations.\n6.  In December 1999 and subsequently, several individuals lodged criminal complaints against the management of the company about defaults on payments. In a report of 2 June 2000 the police observed, inter alia, that the company's customers were scattered all over the country, and that a relatively high number of criminal complaints could be expected in the matter.\n7.  On 27 April 2000 a criminal investigation was opened against Š., the owner and chief executive officer of the company. However, on 18 May 2000 the decision was quashed on appeal due to formal shortcomings and lack of evidence.\n8.  Numerous other criminal complaints in the matter were lodged, inter alia, by the applicants and the Supervisory Board and the Board of Directors of the company. They finally resulted in criminal proceedings being taken against Š. (see below).\n9.  On 25 April 2002 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed a petition for an insolvency order against the company, on the ground that the value of its estate was not sufficient to cover the costs of the proceedings.\n10.  The company was consequently wound up and on 14 February 2005 erased from the Register of Companies, whereby it ceased legally to exist.\n11.  In the period between 10 April 2000 and 17 June 2002 four applicants lodged criminal complaints accusing the management of the company of fraud and embezzlement.\n12.  On 16 August 2000 the Bratislava V District Office of Investigation took a formal decision under Article 160 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to open criminal proceedings against one or more unknown persons, on suspicion that they had committed the offence of embezzlement within the meaning of Article 248 §§ 1 and 5 of the Criminal Code in connection with the management of the company.\n13.  Later in 2000 the investigators obtained information from the Police Criminal Forensics Institute, the Police Financial Intelligence Unit, the tax authorities, the National Property Fund, the Bratislava Stock Exchange, the National Employment Authority, the Financial Market Authority and the Slovak Securities Centre.\n14.  In the course of the proceedings the applicants were interviewed by investigators. They lodged specific quantified claims under Article 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for damages in the period between 9 March 2001 and 24 June 2003 (see the appendix).\n15.  The applicants appointed representatives from among themselves to act on their behalf. In the subsequent period, through their representatives, they complained on numerous occasions to various governmental institutions and the media about the course of the investigation and especially about undue delays.\n16.  From August 2001 to March 2002 the investigators interviewed several aggrieved parties and witnesses and obtained further information concerning the company, from a sworn expert, the Police Financial Intelligence Unit, the tax authorities and the Securities Centre.\n17.  On 21 March 2002 the Minister of the Interior ordered the matter to be investigated by a special team. The team was set up and took up the investigation on 1 April 2002.\n18.  On 2 May 2002 the Bratislava", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5786", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Rudnik.\n6.  On 6 July 1995 the Zamość District Court declared the company “Wojewódzkie Przedsiębiorstwo Przemysłu Mięsnego” insolvent and appointed the applicant (a practising lawyer) as an insolvency trustee. Judge M.B was appointed as an insolvency judge.\n7.  On 9 August 2000, the court discharged M.B. from his position and appointed M.S as the new insolvency judge.\n8.  On 6 September 2000 the applicant asked the insolvency judge to determine the amount of his remuneration.\n9.  At the hearing held on 9 October 2000 the question of payment of the applicant's expenses was examined. The hearing was adjourned since the court decided to wait for an opinion from an expert accountant.\n10.  On 11 September 2001 the applicant asked to be granted an advance payment on his remuneration. The insolvency judge – M.S. – submitted that the applicant had already been granted an advance payment of 6,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) and he had already obtained PLN 8,650. In addition, he had obtained, for his alleged expenses, a total of PLN 45,668.32.\n11.  At the hearing held on 5 October 2001 the Zamość District Court sitting as a panel composed of three judges, including judge M.S., granted the applicant an advance payment of PLN 6,000.\n12.  On 8 April 2002 the applicant applied to the District Court in Zamość and requested the sum of PLN 577,292 as payment for his eight years of trustee duties.\n13.  M.S., the insolvency judge, in her submissions to the court (przedstawienie), asked it to grant the applicant remuneration in a lower amount, namely PLN 317,989. She submitted that the applicant had been responsible for a lengthy and expensive liquidation proceedings. She also requested the offsetting of the sum of PLN 200,600 that had already been paid to the applicant in the form of advance payments.\n14.  At the hearing held on 28 September 2004 the court heard evidence from the applicant. On 30 September 2004 the Zamość District Court at a session held in camera granted the applicant's request in part, and awarded him 317,989. The sum of PLN 266,318.82 already paid to the applicant was offset from the amount. The bench that gave this decision was composed of three professional judges including both M.B and M.S.\n15.  On 18 October 2004 the applicant appealed against this decision. He disagreed with the court's decision in general terms. He further argued that the proceedings had been invalid since the insolvency judge, M.S., had acted both as a claimant and as a member of the court, which called into question the court's impartiality.\n16.  On 5 January 2005 the Lublin Regional Court at a session held in camera dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court considered that the first-instance court had correctly calculated the trustee's remuneration, in particular because the applicant was responsible for delays in the proceedings. It referred to the fact that the applicant was heard at the hearing held on 28 September 2004 and he was able to present his arguments. In the court's opinion, judge M.S. was entitled to sit on the bench of the commercial court deciding on the applicant's remuneration, given that the Insolvency Act did not provide for any limitations in this respect.\n17.  The applicant filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n18.  On 3 March 2005 the Lublin Regional Court rejected his cassation appeal as inadmissible in law.\n19.  On 16 March 2005 the applicant appealed against this decision. On 14 Sep", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5787", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1968 and live in Kremenchug.\n5.  On 7 August 1997 they instituted court proceedings against the U. bank in a dispute over a contract of pledge of a car.\n6.  On 18 February 2002 the Svitlovodsk Court delivered a judgment in the case. On 27 June 2002 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal upheld it. On 10 November 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the above decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n7.  On 8 November 2005 the Svitlovodsk Court partially allowed the applicants' claim, declared the contract of pledge invalid and ordered the U. bank to pay the applicants certain amounts for the cost of the car, inflation losses and exemplary damages.\n8.  On 23 December 2005 the Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment in the part concerning the award and upheld its remainder.\n9.  On 16 June 2006, following the applicants' failure to lodge their appeal in cassation in accordance with the procedural requirements, the Supreme Court returned it unexamined.\n10.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings three hearings were adjourned due to the applicants' failure to appear and four hearings were adjourned due to both parties' failure to appear. The applicants disagreed stating that they had not attended only two hearings. Seven other hearings were adjourned upon the respondent's request, for third party's failure to appear or due to the absence of a judge.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5788", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Ms Ichina was born in 1960, Mr Ichin was born in 1991, Ms Dmitriyeva was born in 1969 and Mr Dmitriyev was born in 1990. They live in Sevastopol.\n6.  On 31 December 2003 Mr Ichin, Mr Dmitriyev and another individual Mr K., all of them minors, stole food supplies and kitchen appliances from a school canteen.\n7.  On 5 January 2004 they were questioned by the police and confessed to the theft. They returned some of the stolen goods.\n8.  On 7 January 2004 the investigator instituted criminal proceedings into the theft, after having noted that, between 30 December 2003 and 2 January 2003, unknown persons had broken into a school canteen and stolen food supplies and kitchen appliances.\n9.  On 13 January 2004 the investigator, with the approval of the District Prosecutor, lodged requests with the Sevastopol Nakhimovskiy District Court (“the Nakhimovskiy Court”) to place Mr Ichin and Mr Dmitriyev in a juvenile holding facility in accordance with Article 7-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigator noted that Mr Ichin and Mr Dmitriyev had committed deliberate actions that could be classified as a crime under part 3 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code, that both of them came from big families with low incomes, had contact with criminals, had poor references from school, had a tendency to take part in illegal activities and could not be influenced by their parents. The investigator noted that, in view of the above considerations, there were sufficient grounds to believe that Mr Ichin and Mr Dmitriyev could commit socially dangerous acts (суспільно небезпечні діяння) again.\n10.  The same day the applicants were summoned by the investigator to appear before the court on 14 January 2004 as witnesses, with their lawful representatives, for having committed socially dangerous acts foreseen by part 3 of Article 185 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  On 14 January 2004 the Nakhimovskiy Court examined the requests in the presence of the applicants and the prosecutor. By two decisions of the same day, the court ordered Mr Ichin and Mr Dmitriyev to be placed in a juvenile holding facility. The court noted that Mr Ichin and Mr Dmitriyev were accused of socially-dangerous acts and that criminal proceedings had been instigated against them on 7 January 2004. With regard to the reasons given in the investigator's requests (see paragraph 9 above), the court concluded that there were sufficient grounds to believe that Mr Ichin and Mr Dmitriyev could evade the investigation and the course of justice and could continue their criminal activities. The court's decision was final and not subject to appeal.\n12.  Mr Ichin and Mr Dmitriyev remained in the juvenile holding facility until 13 February 2004.\n13.  On 3 March 2004 the investigator instituted criminal proceedings against Mr Dmitriyev and Mr Ichin for stealing food supplies and kitchen appliances from the school canteen.\n14.  On 3 and 4 March 2004 respectively, Mrs Dmitriyeva and Mrs Ichina wrote to the President of the Nakhimovskiy Court complaining of degrading treatment of their sons by the personnel of the juvenile holding facility. In his reply of 15 March 2004 the President of that court informed them that he lacked the power to instigate criminal proceedings against the personnel of the holding facility.\n15.  According to Mrs Ichina, her complaints to the prosecutor alleging degrading treatment of Mr Ichin in the juvenile holding facility were answered only by a letter from the prosecutor informing ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5789", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Hîrbovăţ.\n6.  The applicant is the president of the non-governmental organisation Dumitriţa, which specialises in providing assistance to people in need. She suffers from epilepsy with organic personality changes and low frequency tonic epileptic fits. She was treated on an in-patient basis in the Clinical Psychiatric Hospital during the period 22 May to 12 June 2006.\n7.  On 27 July 2006 the applicant was summoned to appear before an investigator of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (“the CFECC”). When she appeared, she was arrested on suspicion of having misappropriated funds donated by a Swedish charity to her organisation for distribution to persons in need. The applicant was placed in the CFECC detention centre.\n8.  The applicant informed the investigator of her illness and told him that she needed to regularly take medication prescribed for her by her psychiatrist. The officer allegedly replied that detainees were not allowed to have any medication in their possession.\n9.  According to the applicant, on being taken to her cell she had an epileptic fit and an ambulance was called to give her emergency assistance. She was then placed in an unventilated cell with another woman, who smoked continually. The applicant does not smoke and was thus exposed to passive smoking, which exacerbated her epilepsy problems.\n10.  On 29 July 2006 the investigator asked the investigating judge to issue a warrant for the applicant's arrest. On the same date Judge Drosu, the investigating judge of the Buiucani District Court, rejected the request, finding it unsubstantiated. The judge noted that the applicant had pleaded not guilty and that the investigator had not proved there was an absolute need to detain the applicant. There was no evidence that she might abscond, put pressure on witnesses or interfere with the course of the investigation. Moreover, the judge took into account the criteria of Article 176 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which had been invoked by the applicant's lawyer, namely, that the applicant “had a stable residence and a job, was of an advanced age and not in good health, and did not have a criminal record”.\n11.  Immediately after the hearing of 29 July 2006, the prosecutor informed the applicant that a provisional measure requiring her not to leave her village for thirty days had been imposed.\n12.  In reply to a request by the prosecutor of 28 July 2006, on 31 July 2006 the Clinical Psychiatric Hospital of the Ministry of Health and Social Protection (“the CPH”) confirmed that the applicant had been treated for epilepsy in the hospital during the period 22 May to 12 June 2006. The CPH added that urgent medical assistance could be provided to the applicant by calling an ambulance and that she was eligible to receive free medication on the basis of a prescription issued by her local psychiatrist.\n13.  On 1 August 2006 the prosecutor appealed against the decision of the investigating judge. He noted that the criminal case had been initiated on 16 June 2006 and that the evidence obtained so far, including an audit of the non-governmental organisation's activities, attested to a misappropriation of funds (amounting to 950,970 Moldovan lei (MDL) or 55,957 euros (EUR) at the time). As the director of Dumitriţa, the applicant was directly responsible for the manner in which the money and items had been used. Since many of the persons receiving aid from the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5790", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Plevník - Drienové.\n5.  Inheritance proceedings in respect of the applicant's father's estate were concluded by a decision of 31 July 1962. The stamp on that decision indicates that it became final on 27 October 1962.\n6.  On 17 February 1995 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court, upon the appeal of an heir lodged on 15 October 1962, quashed the above decision on the ground that it (i) had been issued without sufficient establishment of the facts and (ii) could not be reviewed for lack of reasons. On 6 March 1995 the case file was remitted for further examination to the Považská Bystrica District Court which had taken over similar cases in the meantime.\n7.  On 13 July 1998 the district court discontinued the proceedings since the matter at issue was a res iudicata. The district court stated that the decision of the State Notary of 31 July 1962 had become final on 27 October 1962 and that no new assets had been found. On 31 May 1999 the Trenčín Regional Court quashed the decision of 13 July 1998 and remitted the case file for further examination to the first-instance. It reasoned that the decision of the State Notary of 31 July 1962 had been quashed by the Banská Bystrica Regional Court on 17 February 1995 and the case file had been remitted for further examination. On 25 May 2000 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeal on points of law lodged against the decision of the Trenčín Regional Court of 31 May 1999.\n8.  On 25 March 2004 the district court stayed the inheritance proceedings pending the outcome of another set of civil proceedings (file no. 6 C 156/04, see below). On 15 July and 18 November 2004 the district court corrected errors in its decision. The district court decided on the applicant's appeal in its decision of 5 May 2005. The decision to stay the inheritance proceedings became final on 3 June 2005.\n9.  In the subsequent period, the district court repeatedly verified whether the related civil proceedings had ended. The inheritance proceedings are still stayed.\n10.  On 18 March 2010 the Považská Bystrica District Court delivered a judgment. Those proceedings are now pending before the appellate court.\n11.  On 7 March 2002 the Považská Bystrica District Court dismissed the applicant's claim to have a donation contract declared null and void. On 22 April 2003 the Trenčín Regional Court confirmed the judgment.\n12.  On 10 May 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Považská Bystrica District Court had violated the applicant's right to a hearing without unjustified delay in proceedings nos. D1133/98, Dnot 652/96.\n13.  The Constitutional Court awarded 60,000 Slovakian korunas to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered reimbursement of the applicant's legal costs. It did not order the district court to avoid further delays as the inheritance proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of related civil proceedings.\n14.  The Constitutional Court noted that (i) it had jurisdiction to examine the duration of the proceedings only as from 15 February 1993 and (ii) until 6 March 1995 the district court had correctly assumed that the inheritance proceedings had been concluded by a final decision. Therefore, it examined the delays which had occurred in the proceedings only after 6 March 1995. It further stated that even after that date the proceedings had lasted nine years and the district court had been responsible for four years and nine m", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5791", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  On 30 July 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv against his former wife and mother-in-law, Ms R. and Ms I., seeking division of their jointly owned property, a three-room flat. In particular, the applicant requested the court to rule that one room be separated from the flat and to grant him title to that room. He submitted that the defendants did not allow him to enter the flat and that he had been forced to reside elsewhere.\n6.  The defendants lodged a counterclaim, asking the court to grant them joint title to the applicant's part of the flat and to fix the amount of compensation they would have to pay the applicant. They argued that, due to personal conflicts with the applicant, they could not all live together in one flat.\n7.  On 28 May 2004 the court ruled in favour of the defendants. It found, relying on an expert's report, that it was not technically possible to separate a single room from the flat. Relying on Article 115 of the Civil Code of 1963, the court granted the defendants title to the entire flat and ordered them to pay the applicant 121,747.60[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation.\n8.  The applicant appealed, stating in particular that he had been deprived of his property against his will and in violation of the law, and that the defendants had failed to transfer the money to the deposit account of the court in order to prove their ability to pay the amount awarded to him in compensation.\n9.  On 14 September 2004 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal partially changed the judgment of the first-instance court. It ruled that the latter court had wrongly relied on Article 115 of the Civil Code of 1963, instead of Articles 364 and 365 of the Civil Code of 2003, which were applicable in the case. The Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal, holding, inter alia, that the defendants' ability to pay the award had been confirmed by a bank statement, according to which the applicant's former wife had a balance of 23,000[2] United States dollars (USD) on her deposit account.\n10.  The applicant appealed in cassation, alleging that the lower courts had misinterpreted the law. According to him, the courts had failed to take into account the fact that he had not given his consent for compensation pursuant to Article 364 of the Civil Code of 2003 and that they had failed to ensure that the requirement laid down in paragraph 2 of Article 365 of the Civil Code of 2003 had been fulfilled by the defendants.\n11.  On 16 June 2005 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's appeal, finding no grounds on which to transfer the case for consideration by the chamber of the Supreme Court.\n12.  The applicant did not institute enforcement proceedings in order to recover the sum awarded to him by the courts. According to the applicant, he did not receive the compensation awarded in the judgment of 28 May 2004 because the debtors refused to pay it as they did not have sufficient funds.\n13.  By a judgment of 11 July 2006, the Shevchenkivskyy District Court ruled to discontinue the applicant's registration at the flat. On 23 August 2006 an appeal by the applicant against that judgment was rejected as lodged out of time. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5792", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Bratislava.\n6.  On 22 March 2004 the Bratislava regional police headquarters commenced a criminal investigation into a suspicious claim for a contractual fine, the mortgage taken out on real property to secure that claim, the expert evaluation of the property and the attempt to sell the property via public auction.\n7.  On 29 March 2004 the applicant and three other individuals were charged with conspiracy and attempted fraud in connection with the transaction referred to above. The applicant for his part was suspected of having organised the public auction. The charges against him fell within the category of serious offences specified in Article 62 § 1 of the 1961 Criminal Code (Law no. 140/1961 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time – “the CC”) (see paragraph 71 in “Relevant domestic law” below).\nThe document setting out the charges refers, inter alia, to a statement by the alleged victim, documentary evidence and the results of a search of non‑residential premises.\nThe applicant and the other suspects denied the charges and challenged the decision by way of an interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť).\n8.  On 31 March 2004 the Bratislava Regional Prosecutor’s Office (Krajská prokuratúra) dismissed the interlocutory appeal and upheld the charges. The decision contains a detailed factual description of the charges. A general reference was made to the materials in the investigation file and the evidence previously obtained.\n9.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending.\n10.  On 29 March 2004 at 12.40 p.m. the police detained the applicant as a suspect (zadržaný ako podozrivý) immediately before the public auction mentioned above was due to commence.\n11.  On 30 March 2004 at 10.10 p.m. the regional prosecutor lodged a request with the Bratislava I District Court (Okresný súd) for the applicant and the other suspects to be placed in detention pending trial.\n12.  On 31 March 2004 the applicant was brought before a single judge of the District Court in order to be examined in connection with the prosecutor’s request.\n13.  The minutes of the hearing indicate that it commenced at 1 p.m. The applicant denied any wrongdoing and submitted that he had no intention of evading trial or interfering with the administration of justice. He had no knowledge of any other criminal charges against him.\nIn response to a question put by the regional prosecutor, the applicant acknowledged that the previous day he had been handed a document containing a charge against him for bribery.\nAt the conclusion of the hearing the District Court ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial and the applicant submitted an oral interlocutory appeal.\n14.  A written version of the detention order of 31 March 2004 was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 6 April 2004.\nIn a two-page document, of which no more than half a page dealt with questions of substance, the District Court observed that the accused, including the applicant, were being prosecuted for extremely serious offences and that the applicant was facing tax evasion charges in Košice.\nIt could therefore be said that the accused had a manifest inclination to commit property offences, which gave rise to fears that the persons concerned, including the applicant, would continue their criminal activities within the meaning of Article 67 § 1 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 141/1961 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time – “the CCP”).\n15.  O", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5793", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 24 February 1994 the applicants were taken into police custody in Istanbul on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.\n5.  On 11 March 1994 the applicants were brought before the investigating judge at the İstanbul State Security Court, who ordered their detention pending trial.\n6.  On 23 June 1994, the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants, charging them under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.\n7.  On 5 May 1999 the İstanbul State Security Court convicted the first applicant as charged and sentenced him to death. As regards the second applicant, the court decided that his case should be disjoined from the file as his defence had not been submitted to the court.\n8.  On 29 February 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 5 May 1999.\n9.  The case was remitted to the İstanbul State Security Court for further examination.\n10.  On 5 February 2001 the second applicant's case was joined to the file again.\n11.  On 21 June 2004 the applicants were released pending trial.\n12.  By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicants was subsequently resumed before the İstanbul Assize Court.\n13.  According to the information submitted to the case file on 3 February 2010 the proceedings are currently pending before the İstanbul Assize Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5794", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Šaľa.\n5.  On 3 June 1999 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Bratislava IV District Court against the Slovak Television (a State-owned public television network). He mainly claimed compensation for the damage allegedly caused by the defendant company in breach of the applicant’s intellectual property rights. The claim was based on a contract concluded between the parties, under which the applicant had been obliged to create documentaries and several short films.\n6.  The applicant’s requests for an exemption from the obligation to pay the court fees were repeatedly examined by the District, Regional and Supreme Courts. Finally, in 2004 the applicant was exempted from the obligation to pay 50 % of the court fees.\n7.  On 26 January 2005 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had not paid the fees. The applicant appealed.\n8.  On 31 August 2005 the above decision was quashed by the Bratislava Regional Court and the case was remitted to the District Court. It was established that the District Court had not correctly calculated the amount of the fees.\n9.  On 19 October 2005 the District Court judge asked the applicant to pay the court fees. The applicant was also notified that his failure to pay the fees would lead to the discontinuation of the proceedings.\n10.  On 16 November 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal which was directed against “any future decision to discontinue the proceedings for a failure to pay the court fees”.\n11.  As the applicant had not paid the fees, the District Court discontinued the proceedings on 29 November 2005. The decision was served on the applicant on 8 December 2005. It became final on 26 December 2005.\n12.  On 10 August 2006 the applicant learned that his appeal of 16 November 2005 had been archived by the District Court and had not been transferred to the court of appeal.\n13.  On 1 December 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded the applicant 20,000 Slovakian korunas in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ordered the reimbursement of the applicant’s costs. Despite the applicant’s request, it did not order the District Court to proceed without further delay.\n14.  On 8 September 2006 the applicant relied on Article 6 of the Convention and complained that the District Court had refused to deal with his appeal of 16 November 2005. On 4 October 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It noted that pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure an appeal could be filed within fifteen days counted from the date when a decision had been served on the party to the proceedings. The law clearly set the beginning and the end of the time-limit. Although the applicant could have foreseen the consequences of his failure to pay the fees, there was no possibility, envisaged by the law, to appeal against a decision which had not yet been adopted. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 13 November 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5795", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in the town of Orsk, Orenburg Region.\n6.  In the evening of 22 September 2001 police officers arrested the applicant's husband on suspicion of indecent behaviour in a public place and took him to a nearby police station situated in a dormitory building. The applicant accompanied him. According to the applicant, in response to her pleas for her husband's release, a police officer, Mr Sh., grabbed her hair and hit her head against a wall three times. Then he handcuffed her to a radiator in a corridor of the dormitory. She was released few hours later.\n7.  The Government disputed the applicant's version of events, arguing that the applicant, who was drunk, had followed the police officers and her husband to the station, demanding to be informed of the reasons for her husband's arrest and for him to be released. According to the Government, the applicant attempted to resist her husband's arrest, grabbing the officers' uniforms and using obscene language. On arrival at the station the applicant attempted to block the entrance door and kicked officer Sh. on the leg. After the police officers had locked the entrance door, the applicant broke a pane of glass in the door, unlocked it and entered the station. She accompanied her actions with threats of violence against the officers and said she would get them dismissed from the police force. Faced with violence and resistance on the applicant's part, police officer Sh. used physical force and handcuffed her.\n8.  In the afternoon of 23 September 2001 the applicant went to Orsk Town no. 2 Hospital complaining of headache, nausea, dizziness and vomiting. She was diagnosed with concussion and prescribed outpatient treatment. The attending doctor also noted that the applicant had bruises on the forehead, chest, shoulders and occipital region of the head.\n9.  Criminal proceedings were instituted against officer Sh. on a charge of abuse of position. The prosecutor's office accused him of having caused the applicant injuries in the form of concussion, tissue damage and bruising on the left side of the face and of exceeding the limits of his official powers by handcuffing the applicant to a radiator.\n10.  On 28 September 2001 the applicant was subjected to a forensic medical examination. Following the exam the expert issued a report which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:\n“[there are] a swelling of the soft tissues on the left side of the [applicant's] forehead accompanied by a bluish and yellow bruise measuring three centimetres in width and six centimetres in length ..., [and] three bruises measuring between seven centimetres in width and seven centimetres in length and two centimetres in width and two centimetres in length on the back surface in the lower third part of her right shoulder. There are similar bruises on the palmar surface of the right forearm (a bruise one centimetre long and one centimetre wide) and on the rear of the right forearm (two bruises: one centimetre wide and one centimetre long and three centimetres wide and three centimetres long); [there is a bruise], measuring four centimetres in width and four centimetres in length, on ... the left shoulder, [there are] numerous similar bruises on the back of [the applicant's] left wrist and left forearm ... measuring between three to three and four to five centimetres.”\nThe expert concluded that the applicant had concussion and an injury and bruise on the face which had been caused recen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5796", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in the Rivne Region.\n5.  On 28 March 2001 she lodged a claim with the Mlyniv Court against a collective enterprise N. and the Mlyniv State Administration seeking recovery of her share in N. According to applicant, the share was worth UAH 29,767 (EUR 2,680)[1] on 15 June 2009.\n6.  On 10 April 2003 that court scheduled the first hearing for 6 May 2003, and then the next one for 21 January 2005.\n7.  On 28 January 2005 the court refused to examine the applicant's complaint owing to her repeated failure to appear at the hearings. On 14 November 2005 the applicant appealed against the refusal.\n8.  On 21 March 2006 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) having found no indication that the applicant had been informed of the hearings quashed the decision of 28 January 2005 and remitted the case to the first instance court.\n9.  On 1 September 2006 the Mlyniv Court dismissed the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated. On 2 October and 12 December 2006 the applicant lodged respectively an appeal and a rectified appeal.\n10.  On 25 January 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 1 September 2006. This decision was not appealed against and became final.\n11.  According to the Government, out of the nine court hearings scheduled in the course of the proceedings (six in the first instance court, three in the second instance court), three were adjourned following the respondents' failure or inability to appear, one each was adjourned due the presiding judge being on sick leave, both parties failure to appear and the applicant's failure to appear. Also during the proceedings, the applicant filed four procedural requests.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5797", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 22 March 1993 the applicant, who was working as an armed guard in a greenhouse, after having argument with a certain S.G. – a client of the greenhouse, shot the latter in the chest in the presence of a large number of witnesses.\n5.  On the same day the applicant went to the police, handed in his gun and allegedly made a statement about the incident, admitting that he had opened fire against S.G. The gun was held by the police as physical evidence.\n6.  On 29 March 1993 a preliminary investigation was opened against the applicant for having inflicted minor bodily harm on S.G. Apparently, the applicant was not informed about the opening of the criminal investigation against him. However, on the same day the leading investigator asked the applicant to sign a declaration as to his income and possessions. The latter was done in the course of the measures to secure the satisfaction of a civil claim which S.G. could file against the applicant.\n7.  On 18 October 1993, upon S.G.’s request the leading investigator on the case was changed.\n8.  For the period between October 1993 and 9 February 1995 the case remained dormant.\n9.  In February 1995 S.G. and several witnesses were questioned.\n10.  On 6 December 1995 the investigator requested from the competent authorities information on the applicant’s right to carry firearms, which was submitted to him the following day.\n11.   The case remained dormant for the period between December 1995 and December 2002.\n12.  On 17 December 2002 a medical expert opinion was commissioned.\n13.  On 25 February 2003 the applicant was charged with inflicting intermediate bodily harm, was questioned and was presented with the findings of the investigation.\n14.  On 25 April 2003 the charges against him were amended to attempted murder.\n15.  For the period between 25 April 2003 and 10 May 2003 the applicant and several witnesses were questioned.\n16.  On 22 May 2003 the indictment was filed with the Pazardzhik Regional Court and a hearing was scheduled for 25 June 2003.\n17.  On 24 June 2003 S.G. filed a civil claim for damages against the applicant and the company Oranzherii – Kozarsko AD.\n18.  In a judgment of 23 December 2003 the Pazardzhik Regional Court found the applicant guilty of attempted murder, sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay S.G. the amount of 10,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of 5,112 euros (EUR) in damages, plus interest as of 22 March 1993, plus expenses. The court rejected the civil claim against Oranzherii-Kozarsko AD as it was not established that it was the successor of Co-operative Oranzherii Kozarsko, which had been the applicant’s employer at the time of the incident.\n19.  Upon appeal, in a judgment of 1 April 2004 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal partly quashed the lower court’s judgment, reducing the applicant’s sentence to four years’ imprisonment and the amount of the awarded damages to BGN 5,000 (the equivalent of EUR 2,556), plus interest as of 22 March 1993. In determining the applicant’s reduced sentence, the court had regard to a number of factors, among which the long lapse of time between the offence and the sentence, the applicant’s good behaviour and the fact that he had not committed other offences and his family status. It further held that the applicant was not responsible for the delay in the criminal proceedings, which was clearly attributable to the authorities.\n20.  On further appeal, in a final judgment of 25 January 2005 the Supreme Cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5798", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Mykolayiv.\n5.  On 21 February 2001 the prosecutors instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, co-founder of a private company S., on suspicion of embezzlement. In particular, the applicant was accused of having misappropriated the funds of the company S.\n6.  On 21 May 2001 the applicant was charged with embezzlement. He gave an undertaking not to abscond.\n7.  On 27 July 2001 the prosecutors completed the investigations, issued an indictment and sent the case to the Bilozerka Court for trial.\n8.  On 10 September 2001 the prosecutors refused the applicant's request to institute criminal proceedings against M., a co-founder of the same company, on charges of embezzlement of the company's property.\n9.  On 22 October 2001 the Bilozerka Court found the applicant guilty of embezzlement and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and a prohibition on holding managerial positions for two years. It ordered the applicant's placement in detention pending the judgment's entry into force.\n10.  On 26 February 2002 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 22 October 2001 and sent the case for additional investigations. It found that the prosecutors and the first-instance court had failed to investigate and assess all the circumstances of the case and that the court had not provided the applicant with a translation of the judgment. The Court of Appeal also ordered the applicant's release.\n11.  On 1 July 2002 the prosecutors changed the charges against the applicant and accused him of arbitrary behaviour.\n12.  On 21 October 2002 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Kherson Region quashed the ruling of 1 July 2002 and stated that the charges against the applicant should be qualified as embezzlement.\n13.  Between 29 November 2002 and 28 March 2005 the applicant was put under an undertaking not to abscond.\n14.  On 17 December 2003 the prosecutors re-qualified the charges against the applicant as arbitrary behaviour.\n15.  On 28 March 2005 the Bilozirka Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant for the absence of a victim's complaint.\n16.  On 26 July 2005 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 28 March 2005. It found that the criminal case on charges of arbitrary behaviour should be terminated, that the case against the applicant should be examined on the charges of embezzlement and ordered further investigation.\n17.  On 6 September 2005 and 16 February 2006 the Supreme Court left the applicant's appeal in cassation without examination as the decision of 26 July 2005 was not subject to appeal in cassation.\n18.  On 8 February 2006 the prosecutors discontinued the criminal proceedings on charges of embezzlement for lack of proof.\n19.  On 27 March 2006 the Prosecutor General's Office quashed the decision of 8 February 2006 and ordered further investigations.\n20.  On 12 July 2006 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv quashed the decision of 27 March 2006 and upheld the decision of 8 February 2006.\n21.  On 2 June 2007 the prosecutors discontinued the proceedings instituted against the applicant on suspicion of arbitrary behaviour.\n22.  On 29 January 2001 the applicant lodged a claim with the Bilozirka Court against M. and S. seeking the division of the property of the company S. and the recovery of his property share.\n23.  On 10 January 2002 the Bilozirka Court rejected the applicant's claims.\n24.  On 18 June 2003 and 24 September 2004, respective", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5799", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1963 and 1960 respectively and live in Urus-Martan. The first applicant is the mother of Ali Udayev, who was born in 1990. The second applicant is the mother of Ramzan Yusupov, who was born in 1988.\n7.  In October 2000 Urus-Martan was under the full control of the Russian military forces. The military troops were stationed in the town and its vicinity, in the settlement of Michurina (also spelled as Michurino). The applicants' families lived in the same neighbourhood on the outskirts of Urus‑Martan. Their sons, Ali Udayev and Ramzan Yusupov, attended the same school.\n8.  In the afternoon of 17 October 2000 Ali Udayev and Ramzan Yusupov were walking home from school down Obyezdnaya Street, which was situated between the local cemetery and a field. At about 3.45 p.m. they were seen walking by Ramzan Yusupov's brother, Mr T. Yusupov. He was next to his house when at about 4 p.m. he saw an explosion in the vicinity.\n9.  The applicants' neighbour Ms D.M. was at home and heard the sound of a flying projectile coming from the Michurina settlement. Then she heard an explosion, saw clouds of black smoke coming from the road next to the cemetery and rushed to the place. A number of the applicants' relatives and neighbours also rushed to the place, where they found fragments of the bodies of Ali Udayev and Ramzan Yusupov.\n10.  About half an hour later a group of military servicemen arrived at the scene. One of them said that it must have been an explosion of a landmine. But a number of local residents told the officers that they had heard the sound of a flying projectile, and that therefore the explosion could not have been caused by a landmine. The head of the Urus-Martan town administration also arrived at the scene. In the evening of 17 October 2000 the local TV station reported the events in a news programme.\n11.  On 18 October 2000 the applicants buried their sons. Many residents of Urus-Martan attended the funeral. One of them, Ms Z.G., told the second applicant that on 17 October 2000 she had been working at the wheat processing plant located next to the road from Urus-Martan to Michurina. Russian military troops were stationed nearby. At about 4 p.m. she heard a projectile being launched from a tank.\n12.  According to another local resident, Ms L.M., on 17 October 2000 she was walking from Michurina to Urus-Martan. About 500 metres from Michurina she saw a group of servicemen on a tank. They told her that the roads to Urus-Martan were blocked and nobody was allowed to go into the town. About 200 metres from the place she met a fellow villager. He told her that drunken soldiers were down the road and that she should return to Michurina. At about 4 p.m., when Ms L.M. was at home, she heard a projectile being launched from a tank and the sound of an explosion on the outskirts of Urus-Martan.\n13.  Three residents of Michurina, Ms Z.P., Ms D.A and Ms Ay.T., informed the applicants that at about 4 p.m. on 17 October 2000 they had heard a projectile being launched from the area where the Russian military troops had been stationed and they had heard it explode on the outskirts of Urus-Martan.\n14.  On 30 October 2000 the Urus-Martan district hospital issued two statements certifying the deaths of Ali Udayev and Ramzan Yusupov on 17 October 2000 from numerous missile wounds.\n15.  The Government did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicants. At the same time they pointed out that, according to the informat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5800", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Rivne.\n5.  In July 1997 Mr Y. (a private individual) lodged a civil claim against the applicant in a dispute over a house and a plot of land. The applicant lodged a counter-claim against Mr Y., some other private individuals and the local authorities seeking invalidation of several contracts of gift of parts of the house at issue and declaration of his title to premises he had built in that house.\n6.  On 3 July 1998 the Rivne Court delivered a judgment in the case. On 30 July 1998 it renewed the applicant's procedural time-limits for lodging his appeal in cassation against the above judgment and on 2 November 1998 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal quashed that judgment having remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n7.  On 1 December 2005 the Rivne Court rejected the claim of Mr Y. as unsubstantiated, allowed the applicant's counter-claim to the extent that he requested invalidation of the contracts of gift and rejected, as unsubstantiated, his claim concerning declaration of title to the aforementioned premises.\n8.  On 13 April 2006 the Rivne Court of Appeal partly amended the above judgment having declared the applicant's title to part of the household and the plot of land.\n9.  On 6 May 2006 and 23 October 2008 respectively, the Supreme Court rejected, as unsubstantiated, the requests of the applicant and the local prosecutor (the latter acting in the applicant's interests) for leave to appeal in cassation.\n10.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant twice amended or specified his claim; five hearings were adjourned upon his or his representative's requests or due to his or his representative's failure to appear; nine hearings were adjourned due to both parties' failure to appear. The above delays on the applicant's part protracted the proceedings to approximately one and a half years. Twenty three further hearings were adjourned due to the other party's and third parties' failure to appear or upon their requests and because of the absence or illness of a judge; fifteen hearings were adjourned for unspecified reasons.\n11.  Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully sought review of his case in the light of the newly-discovered circumstances.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5801", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 2 April 2002 the Novaya Gazeta v Voronezhe newspaper (“the newspaper”) published an article by Mr E.P. entitled “Atomic Mayor” («Атомный мэр»). The article concerned abuses and irregularities allegedly committed by Mr S., the mayor of Novovoronezh, and by other municipal officials, including Mr B., a deputy head of administration and director of the economy and finance department, and Mr P., the chairman of the education committee. The article also mentioned certain private parties who supplied goods or performed services for the municipal authorities, including Mr F., a local businessman who did renovation work for State‑funded institutions.\n5.  The article quoted extensively from the Report on the Composite Audit of the Novovoronezh Town Administration, carried out by the Audit Department of the Ministry of Finance for the Voronezh Region from 13 November to 27 December 2001 (“the audit report”).\n6.  On 8 May 2002 Mr S., Mr B., Mr P. and Mr F. lodged an action for defamation against the applicant. They claimed that the following extracts from the article were untrue and damaging to their reputation:\n“... In autumn 2001 a group of campaigners in Novovoronezh collected signatures for a vote of no confidence in Vladimir S. They collected nearly three thousand signatures ...” [paragraph 4]\n“... For a long time the Novovoronezh town administration failed to transfer payments to the compulsory medical insurance fund. In the mayor's opinion, these transfers were not mandatory, but a commercial court decided otherwise. Thanks to S., in 2002 the town budget will lose a further twenty million [roubles] ...” [21]\n“... Mayor S. still adheres to the ideas of Socialism and Communism; not only once did he enter the ranks of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation ... occasionally he left its ranks ...” [23]\n“... [In addition to the budget, Novovoronezh has an off-budget fund. And a substantial one.] One would only wonder at the way the mayor and his faithful companion, comrade B., the head of the economy and finance department doubling as executive director of all funds, handled its assets ...\nThus, thanks to the efforts of two prominent economists, the town lost an amount comparable to nearly one half of the annual budget ...” [34, 47]\n“The chairman of the education committee of the Novovoronezh administration, Mr P., did not produce any documents showing that these students came from needy or large families as he claimed ...”\nWhat kind of needy families were these if even Mr P., the chairman of the education committee, does not know them?” [57, 58]\n“Inquisitive readers would ask: why did Mr B. care so much about the military unit in the village of Boevo and the regional psychiatric hospital (let's recall the charitable contribution of 300,000 roubles made to the hospital)? And they would start looking for an answer.\nIs it not in military unit no. 51205 that the son of the aforementioned official is doing his military service?\nIs it not in the regional psychiatric hospital that a relation or a namesake of Mr B. has just undergone a medical examination in order to escape punishment for a serious criminal offence? ... [67-69]\nAnd what about the honest Mayor S.? He does not know, perhaps, about the tricks of his deputy?\nOn the contrary. He does know and he even personally signs payment orders for the transfer of money to the State enterprise 'Voronezh regional clinical psychiatric hospital'...” [71, 72]\n“The thing is that the notion of co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5803", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Bialystok.\n6.  In 2007 the applicant filed a motion for a disability pension with the Social Security Board. Subsequently, the Board found that he was not entitled to it.\n7.  On 13 November 2007 the Białystok Regional Court refused to grant the pension to the applicant.\n8.  On 7 May 2008 the Białystok Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 15 May 2008. By a decision of 27 May 2008 the Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's request for a legal-aid lawyer to be assigned to the case for the purposes of cassation proceedings.\n9.  On 2 June 2008 a lawyer was assigned by the Regional Bar Council to represent the applicant. The lawyer was informed by the Bar at the same time that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal was to expire on 15 July 2008.\n10.  In her letter to the court of 23 June 2008 the lawyer stated that she had found no points of law on which a cassation appeal could be based in the applicant's case.\n11.  On 9 July 2008, upon the applicant's request, the Court of Appeal transmitted the lawyer's letter to him. The applicant filed a motion to be granted a second legal-aid lawyer. The motion was dismissed on 15 July 2008, the court finding that the applicant had already been granted a legal‑aid lawyer.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5804", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Turkish nationals.\n6.  They are all serving sentences in Turkish high-security prisons, where the authorities refused to dispatch their letters written in a language other than Turkish. They all brought proceedings before the competent domestic courts to oblige the prison authorities to dispatch their letters, but to no avail.\n7.  At the time they lodged their applications, the applicants were serving their sentences in the F-type prison in Tekirdağ or the Bolu prison high‑security prison.\n8.  On 14 January 2008 the Disciplinary Board at the applicant’s prison proceeded, in accordance with section 68 § 3 of Law no. 5275 on the execution of sentences and preventive measures (“Law no. 5275”), to check a letter the applicant had written to another prisoner in Kurdish. After reminding him that letters should in principle be written in Turkish, they informed him that they could not have the letter translated, for lack of staff, so they were unable to ascertain, as required under Rule 122 § 1 of the Regulations on prison management and the execution of sentences (“the Prison Regulations”), whether the content of the letter was “inoffensive”. They therefore decided to return the letter to the applicant.\n9.  On 28 January 2008, on the basis of the case file, the Bolu enforcements judge dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision.\n10.  On 12 February 2008 the Bolu Assize Court, also dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against that decision.\n11.  On 21 and 26 September 2007 the Disciplinary Board decided to keep one letter written by each of the applicants in Kurdish. Arguing that the prison had neither the staff nor the money to have them translated, they explained that the letters could be sent once they had been translated, at the applicants’ expense, by a sworn translator and their content had been found to be inoffensive.\n12.  On 6 November 2007, based on the case file, the Tekirdağ enforcements judge dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicants. That decision was reached after the judge examined the public prosecutor’s submissions, according to which “it [was] necessary to have the correspondence – which was written in a language other than the official language – translated in order to have it verified in accordance with section 68 § 3 of Law no. 5275; there [were] no legal provisions requiring the prison to cover the cost of the translation; as the interested parties themselves had not paid for a translation, there [was] nothing unlawful about the impugned decisions”.\n13.  On 19 and 27 November 2007, based on the case file, the Tekirdağ Assize Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against that decision, having found no legal or procedural defect.\n14.  On 10 October 2007 the Disciplinary Board decided, pursuant to section 68 § 3 of Law no. 5275 and Rule 91 § 3 of the Prison Regulations, to seize a letter the applicant had written to his mother in Kurdish. They explained that they had been unable to decipher the content of the letter because the prison staff did not understand Kurdish.\n15.  On 22 November 2007, based on the case file, the enforcements judge dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant. That decision was reached after the judge examined the public prosecutor’s submissions, according to which “it [was] necessary to have the correspondence – which was written in a language other than the official language – translated in order to have it verified in accordance with section 6", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5805", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Miske.\n5.  On 2 August 1992 two plaintiffs brought an action in trespass against the applicant before the Kalocsa District Court. After several hearings, a judgment was given on 8 September 1994. On 28 February 1995 the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case.\n6.  In the resumed proceedings several hearings took place. On 18 December 1998 the District Court delivered a partial judgment. On appeal, on 24 August 1999 the Regional Court suspended the proceedings pending the adjudication of those claims which were unaffected by the partial judgment.\n7.  On 10 January 2000 the District Court held a hearing. On 2 May 2000 it suspended the proceedings pending the termination, on 7 February 2002, of a related land registry dispute.\n8.  Upon the resumption of the case on 11 December 2002 another hearing was held and an expert appointed. The expert opinion was submitted on 16 June 2003. Between 8 July 2003 and 14 March 2004 the proceedings were again suspended pending the termination of related administrative proceedings.\n9.  On 5 July 2004 the District Court adopted a partial judgment concerning damages. On appeal, on 6 January 2005 the Regional Court partly upheld the first instance decision while remitting some claims.\n10.  On 13 September 2005 the first instance proceedings continued. Another expert was appointed who filed his opinion on 12 October 2005. On 17 November 2005 and 7 February 2006 further hearings took place.\n11.  On 15 February 2006 the District Court gave judgment, finding partly for the plaintiffs. On appeal, on 22 November 2006 the Regional Court heard the parties and appointed an expert who filed his opinion on 5 January 2007.\n12.  On 20 November 2007 the Regional Court gave judgment. On 24 June 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5806", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Tököl.\n6.  In 1999 the applicant was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment for armed robbery by the Rimini Court in Italy. (The European Court of Human Rights subsequently held that the unfairness of the underlying proceedings gave rise to a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by the Italian authorities and awarded the applicant just satisfaction: Somogyi v. Italy, no. 67972/01, ECHR 2004‑IV). The end date of this sentence was 28 December 2007.\n7.  On 19 May 2003 the applicant was transferred to Hungary. On 20 October 2003 the Budapest Regional Court in Hungary held that he was to serve the remainder of his sentence under a strict regime in a Hungarian prison (fegyház) and that he could be released on parole after serving four-fifths of the term, i.e. on 23 May 2006.\n8.  The applicant appealed. On 16 February 2006 the Attorney General's Office intervened in the case, filing a motion for remedy in support of the applicant. The Office argued that the service of the applicant's sentence under a strict regime constituted an undue aggravation of his penal situation, in breach of Article 11 of the Transfer Convention, which entailed that he could be released on probation only belatedly.\n9.  On 14 March 2006 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court's decisions concerning the regime of the applicant's transferred sentence and his conditional release, holding that they were unlawful. It held that the best approximation of the Italian sentence in Hungarian law was to have imposed a medium regime (börtön) on the applicant for the remainder of his prison term, release on parole then being possible after having served three-quarters of the sentence.\n10.  On 17 March 2006 the applicant was released.\n11.  Subsequently, the applicant brought an official liability action against the Regional Court. He claimed compensation for the fact that, because of that court's wrong reconciliation of the Italian and Hungarian penitentiary rules, he had been released on parole only on 17 March 2006, whereas under the medium regime he could have already been released in November 2005. He also sought damages for having erroneously spent two years and five months in a strict-regime prison.\n12.  After divergent decisions, on 15 May 2008 the Supreme Court finally dismissed the action. Concerning the belated release, it held that, although the Regional Court's interpretation of the law had been overruled, there was no indication that it had carried out the complex task of reconciling the inconsistent Italian and Hungarian rules with gross negligence giving rise to tort liability. As to the period wrongly spent in a strict-regime prison, it noted that the applicant had not substantiated that he had sustained any actual damage.\n13.  From 1994 onwards, criminal proceedings were conducted against the applicant in Hungary for the abuse of firearms. On 6 February 2004 the Buda Central District Court sentenced him to four months' suspended imprisonment. The court observed that unlicensed firearms had been found in the applicant's car and, in so doing, it relied on the testimony of several witnesses. It took into account the extreme protraction of the case since 1994 as a crucial mitigating circumstance entailing a suspended sentence.\n14.  On 12 May 2005 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this judgment. On 15 November 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.\n15.  The Convention on the Transf", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5807", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Warszawa.\n6.  The applicant is a co-owner of a plot of land in Poznań and a building situated on that plot. On 4 February 2000 the Poznań Mayor issued a building permit for spouses P., her neighbours and co-owners of that building, concerning an extension to it.\n7.  On 12 June 2000, shortly after the construction works had started, the applicant requested the Mayor to have the works stopped, submitting that spouses P. had made changes to the original construction plans which had served as a basis of the building permit and of her agreement which had been a necessary condition for having the permit granted. The Mayor regarded her application as a request for the re-opening of the proceedings and refused it. The applicant appealed, submitting that the building permit had not been served on her properly and that, as a result, she had not been properly informed about the manner in which the future construction would affect the use of her property.\n8.  On 29 August 2000 the Wielkopolski Governor quashed the Mayor's refusal and remitted the case, noting that the applicant had not been properly informed about the conditions of the permit which affected her situation. Spouses P. complained about this decision to the Poznań Administrative Court which dismissed their appeal by a judgment of 10 October 2001. The court noted that the applicant and spouses P. were co-owners of the building concerned. Therefore the fact that the applicant had not been properly informed about details of the building project had to be taken into account by the second-instance authority when deciding on her request to have the proceedings re-opened.\n9.  Subsequently, by a decision of 5 June 2002 the Mayor refused to reopen the proceedings in which spouses P. had been granted the building permit, because the construction works had already been finished. The applicant appealed.\n10.  On 26 July 2002 the Wielkopolski Governor quashed the Mayor's refusal and remitted the case, finding that the extension erected by spouses P. should have complied with an agreement which the applicant had concluded with them before they had applied for the permit.\n11.  On 22 January 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint about inactivity on the part of the Mayor. On 5 February 2003 the Wielkopolski Governor found that the complaint about the inactivity was well-founded and ordered the Mayor to issue a decision on the merits of the case within one month.\n12.  In the meantime, on 28 January 2003 the Mayor refused to set aside the building permit. The applicant appealed. On 27 March 2003 the Wielkopolski Governor allowed the appeal.  He noted that it had not been properly established in the proceedings whether spouses P. had informed the applicant about the technical conditions of the building project and whether the alterations made in the building on the basis of that project did not excessively affect the applicant's unhindered use of the property.\n13.  On 28 April 2003 spouses P. appealed to the Poznań Regional Administrative Court.\n14.  On 13 April 2005 the Poznań Regional Administrative Court dismissed their appeal. It observed that throughout the proceedings the applicant had been submitting that she had accepted the project on the basis of information provided by spouses P. that the roof of the planned extension of the building would be flat, while ultimately they had a sloping roof built. The applicant had reiterated that this had made impos", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5809", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are a married couple. The first applicant was born in 1962 and the second applicant was born in 1960. They live in Jelenia Gora.\n5.  In 1987 the applicants bought a plot of land with a partially constructed main house and an outhouse. In 2001 they made a few alterations to the outhouse.\n6.  On 8 November 2001, on a request of one of the neighbours, the Jelenia Góra District Inspector of Construction Supervision (Powiatowy Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) instituted administrative proceedings contesting the legality of the outhouse.\n7.  On 3 December 2001 the District Inspector ordered the applicants to stop all alterations to the building in question.\n8.  On 9 January 2002 the administrative proceedings were stayed in order to verify whether the works were carried out in accordance with the local development plan.\n9.  On 8 May 2002 the District Inspector gave a decision and ordered the applicants to carry out certain works in order for the building to be considered legal. The applicants were to do these works within a time-limit of one month.\n10.  On 24 June 2002 the District Inspector quashed its previous decision.\n11.  On 8 August 2002 the District Inspector gave another decision ordering the applicants to carry out extensive alterations to the outhouse. The applicants appealed.\n12.  On 24 October 2002 the Wrocław Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision (Dolnoslaski Wojewódzki Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.\n13.  On 1 April 2003 a viewing of the site was held.\n14.  On 9 June 2003 the applicants submitted an expert's opinion relating to the legality of the building in question.\n15.  On 18 November 2003 the District Inspector informed the applicants that the expert's opinion was not complete. They submitted the relevant document on 20 December 2003.\n16.  On 13 April 2004 the District Inspector informed the applicants that the proceedings were pending and the legality of the building was being considered.\n17.  On 1 December 2004 the District Inspector gave a decision and ordered the applicants to demolish the outhouse. The applicants appealed. On 14 March 2005 the Regional Inspector of Construction Supervision again quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.\n18.  On 15 December 2005 the District Inspector again ordered the applicants to demolish the building in question. On the applicants' appeal, on 21 February 2006 the Regional Inspector upheld the first-instance decision.\n19.  On 19 October 2006 the Wrocław Regional Administrative Court quashed both decisions and remitted the case to the first-instance authority.\n20.  On 27 July 2007 the applicants lodged a complaint under Article 37 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure with the Regional Inspector (about the delay in the proceedings).\n21.  On 22 August 2007 the Regional Inspector replied that the District Inspector was thoroughly examining the case in order to avoid any errors. While indeed the proceedings were conducted slowly, at this stage of the procedure he did not see any reason to intervene.\n22.  On 11 September 2007 the District Inspector asked the applicants to submit an expert's opinion on the technical conditions of the outhouse. The opinion was submitted on 26 October 2007. Subsequently, the District Inspector on several occasions asked the applicants to submit additional information in particular as regards the expert's qualifications. They submitted the required docum", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5810", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Hatvan.\n5.  In February 1999 the applicant was dismissed from his job; his former employer also required him to make certain payments in respect of damage allegedly caused while in service. The applicant challenged these measures before the courts as of 16 March 1999.\n6.  On 14 September 1999 the Eger Labour Court dismissed his action. On 8 February 2000 the Heves County Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case.\n7.  The resumed proceedings were suspended on 26 March 2000 pending the simultaneous criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant. After the termination of this case, the procedure restarted and the Labour Court gave judgment on 9 March 2004, dismissing the applicant's claims.\n8.  On appeal, on 28 May 2004 the Regional Court, in a partial judgment, accepted some of the applicant's claims, holding that his dismissal had been unlawful and reducing the reimbursement payable.\n9.  However, on 18 May 2005 the Supreme Court reversed this decision, dismissed the applicant's case and upheld the District Court's judgment. This decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on 22 June 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5811", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975.\n5.  On 2 March 2000 the applicant was first questioned by the police on suspicion of offences in relation to his business activities. The last questioning of the applicant took place on 26 June 2001.\n6.  The first pre-trial investigation reports were completed and sent to the public prosecutor on 25 October 2000, 4 December 2000 and 4 October 2001. The last pre-trial investigation report was submitted to the prosecutor on 16 November 2004.\n7.  On 22 December 2004 the prosecutor, who according to the Government had decided to join the cases concerning the applicant, preferred charges against him at the District Court. The court held a preliminary hearing on 16 November 2005 and later an oral hearing over a number of days. The applicant was heard before the court for the first time on 12 January 2006.\n8.  On 12 April 2006 the District Court issued its judgment with regard to the applicant and 24 other defendants in 11 cases which had been joined. The applicant was convicted of aggravated tax fraud and other economic offences and sentenced to one year and two months’ imprisonment. Jointly with other defendants, he was also ordered to pay some EUR 89,000 with interest to the tax authorities.\n9.  In its reasoning the District Court stated that the majority of the criminal acts in respect of all defendants had been committed in 1998 and 1999. The bulk of cases had been lodged with the court on 22 December 2004. The last application for a summons in the joined cases had been filed with the court on 27 July 2005. The court noted that the case concerned particularly wide-ranging economic crimes. The examination of the cases needed to be joined due to the connections between different companies and persons involved. For that reason the court, in sentencing the defendants, took into account only to a lesser degree the time that had elapsed since the commission of the criminal acts and the length of the proceedings as mitigating circumstances. The amount of reduction in the respective sentences was not specified by the court. As regarded the applicant, the court also took into account his previous community service and noted that he had committed the crimes partly while on probation.\n10.  On 27 November 2007, having held an oral hearing, the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, including his complaint concerning the length of the proceedings.\n11.  On 31 March 2008 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5812", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are siblings. They were born in 1984 and 1983 respectively and live in Košice.\n5.  On 29 March 2000 the applicants claimed payment of an amount then equivalent to 428 euros (EUR) from three defendants before the Košice II District Court.\n6.  On 19 March 2007 the applicants informed the district court about their intention to withdraw their action and requested the district court to discontinue the proceedings. They did so after they had learned that it was impossible to verify a signature on a relevant document.\n7.  On 7 June 2007 the district court discontinued the proceedings and obliged the applicants to pay the court fees.\n8.  On 31 August 2007 the Košice Regional Court, upon the applicants' appeal in respect of the court fees, upheld the first-instance decision. The proceedings finally ended on 24 October 2007.\n9.  On 19 March 2007 the applicants complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings before the district court. On 24 May 2007 the Constitutional Court declared their complaint admissible.\n10.  On 11 October 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants' complaint. It stated that it could examine complaints concerning length of proceedings only where the proceedings were still pending and the applicants had a genuine legal interest in their continuation. The Constitutional Court held that there had been no legal uncertainty in the case following the applicants' withdrawal of the action and therefore their lodging of the constitutional complaint had been formalistic and unfounded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5813", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  At the relevant time, the applicant was working for the Turkish company A., which in January 1999 started a joint venture in the oil industry with the Romanian company P. based in Constanţa. From February 1999 the applicant worked in Constanţa at company P.'s headquarters.\n7.  On 19 July 1999 the joint venture ended and, on the basis of a prior agreement between the two companies, A.'s employees based in Constanţa were requested to return all documents belonging to company P.\n8.  On 26 July 1999 at 10 a.m. the applicant unsuccessfully tried to take some documents from company P.'s headquarters, following which P.'s management ordered that all company A.'s employees leave the headquarters by the end of that day.\n9.  At 4 p.m. the applicant left the premises with documents classified “confidential”, concerning, in particular, human resources strategies, redundancy proposals, maps of company P.'s properties and of the port, and information on the management team and on the company's export deals. At his home in Constanţa he put the documents in envelopes and then handed them to O.M. at the latter's petrol station in Lazu. O.M. gave the envelopes to a Turkish bus driver, who was instructed to take them to Istanbul and to call upon his arrival for further instructions; the phone number was written on the envelopes.\n10.  On 25 August 1999 the Romanian border guards at Vama Veche confiscated the documents from the bus driver.\n11.  On the evening of 30 August 1999 the applicant was arrested when trying to leave Romania at the Ostrov border checkpoint and taken to the Constanţa Police headquarters. According to the indictment, he was:\n“invited to give explanations to the criminal investigation authorities concerning the documents found at Vama Veche checkpoint; it had been already established at that time that he was the person who had facilitated the illegal transportation of the documents belonging to P.”\nAt 8 a.m. on the next day, he was taken to a prosecutor who issued an arrest warrant and placed him in police custody in the Constanţa Police detention facilities. According to the applicant's statements, he was not allowed to contact anyone between 30 and 31 August.\n12.  The applicant was held in the police detention facilities from his arrest until 29 October 1999.\n13.  The applicant described the conditions in custody as follows: he was not given food for the first twenty-four hours of his detention in the police headquarters and was not given any written information in Turkish. He was not allowed a pen and paper to write to his family. During the investigations he was not allowed to talk with his family or counsel in private and was prevented from contacting the Turkish Embassy.\n14.  According to the information from the Constanţa Police, the cells in the police detention facilities measured 20 sq. m and had three to four beds each. The toilets were situated on the corridor. No concrete information about the applicant's stay was furnished, as, according to the applicable regulations, the relevant documents are only kept by the prison authorities for a five-year term, which has already expired in the applicant's case.\n15.  The applicant was transferred to Poarta Albă Prison on 29 October 1999. He remained there until his conditional release on 15 May 2002, with the exception of the period from 24 August 2000 to 16 May 2001 when he was detained in Rahova Prison.\n16.  He alleged t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5814", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1974, 1956 and 1961 respectively and live in Tvrdošín.\n5.  On 27 September 2000 the first applicant initiated civil proceedings before the Bratislava I District Court against a company claiming a sum of money.\n6.  On 28 March 2003 the District Court issued an interim measure upon the first applicant's request of 3 October 2002. The defendant appealed.\n7.  On 24 September 2003 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the decision and remitted the case to the District Court.\n8.  On 23 January 2004 the second and third applicants joined the proceedings as plaintiffs.\n9.  On 10 August 2004 the District Court dismissed the first applicant's interim measure request. The applicants appealed.\n10.  On 21 April 2005 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and returned the case to the District Court.\n11.  On 21 February 2006 the District Court issued the interim measure.\n12.  On 4 August 2006 the District Court granted the action in part and dismissed the remainder. The first applicant appealed.\n13.  On 31 October 2008 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court. The decision was served on the applicants' legal representative on 19 December 2008.\n14.  On 5 November 2009 the District Court granted the action. The judgment became final in January 2010.\n15.  On 15 March 2004 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court complaining of delays in the proceedings before the Bratislava I District Court.\n16.  On 30 June 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the first applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It awarded him of 20,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK) as just satisfaction and ordered the District Court to proceed without further delays and to reimburse the first applicant's legal costs.\n17.  On 9 March 2005 the applicants complained to the Constitutional Court that the District Court and the Regional Court in the proceedings on the merits had violated their right to a hearing within a reasonable time. They also complained that the courts had not respected the statutory time‑limit of thirty days for deciding on the interim measure.\n18.  On 23 August 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants' complaint. It found that the entire proceedings had lasted quite a long time. Nevertheless, the conduct of both courts could not be considered to have violated the applicants' right to a hearing within a reasonable time.\n19.  On 15 August 2007 the first applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the appeal proceeding before the Regional Court had lasted too long. On 11 October 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the first applicant's complaint as manifestly ill-founded. It held that the length of the appeal proceedings could not be considered unreasonable.\n20.  In December 2008 the first applicant again complained to the Constitutional Court that the appeal proceedings before the Regional Court had lasted too long.\n21.  On 21 January 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the first applicant's complaint as manifestly ill-founded. It held that on 15 December 2008, when the constitutional complaint was filed with the Constitutional Court, the court file had been returned to the District Court for a new decision. Thus, at the moment of the lodging of the constitutional complaint, the Regional Court could no longer violate the first applicant's rights.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5816", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Ajka.\n6.  On 5 December 2004 the applicant was arrested on charges of drug abuse. On 7 December 2004 the Veszprém District Court held a hearing and ordered his house arrest. On appeal, on 15 December 2004 the Veszprém County Regional Court changed this decision and ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention for fear of collusion and reoffending. However, on 13 April 2005 he was released.\n7.  In another case, on 20 May 2005 the applicant was arrested on charges of aggravated drug trafficking, essentially because substantial amounts of various drugs and packaging material had been found in a garage of which he had been the tenant. On 22 May 2005 his pre-trial detention was ordered at a court hearing, for fear of collusion with members of the presumed drug network. His detention was subsequently prolonged at the statutory intervals in decisions which included rather stereotypical references to the risks of his absconding and collusion without any detailed reasoning in regard to his individual circumstances or the evidence obtained against him.\n8.  On 9 February 2006 the applicant made a request for release on bail, pledging a substantial sum of money as a security. On 16 February 2006 the request was rejected. His appeal was dismissed on 24 February 2006.\n9.  On 12 June 2006 the investigation was terminated.\n10.  On 19 July 2006 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 22 August 2006. The court rejected the arguments of the applicant's lawyer to the effect that the results of the investigation did not support a reasonable suspicion against the applicant. It was satisfied that his continued detention was necessary for fear of his absconding and could not be substituted by home arrest as suggested. It held that there was a well-grounded suspicion that the applicant had participated in the storage and dispatch of drugs which constituted an offence punishable with very severe sanctions. On 27 July 2006 the Győr Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal, holding that the potential sanctions justified the fear of the applicant's absconding.\n11.  On 10 August 2006 a bill of indictment was preferred concerning twenty-one defendants, including the applicant. It combined the facts of the two criminal proceedings outlined above. The applicant was charged with complicity in aggravated drug trafficking.\n12.  On 21 August 2006 the Győr-Moson-Sopron County Regional Court prolonged the applicant's pre-trial detention. The court held that the sanction which the applicant was potentially facing entailed the danger of his absconding.\n13.  The applicant's lawyer appealed, arguing that no specific reasons, as required by the Court's case-law, had been given for the applicant's continued detention. In particular, he maintained that nothing in the case file supported the applicant's involvement in selling drugs. In the light of the jurisprudence of the courts, no such sanction was, in his view, to be envisaged as automatically justifying detention for fear of absconding. To refute this point, the lawyer submitted that the applicant's personal circumstances were decent: he was being supported by his family with which he had good relations and he had been fulfilling his educational and professional duties diligently before his arrest. The lawyer proposed that the applicant's detention be replaced by house arrest.\n14.  On 21 September 2006 the Court of Appeal dismis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5817", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the town of Kamenka-Dniprovska, Ukraine.\n5.  On 5 February 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings for compensation in the Energodar Local Court (“the Energodar Court”) against a private company, G., for selling her a defective television set.\n6.  On 18 June 1998 the case was transferred to the Kamenka-Dniprovskiy Local Court (“the Kamenka-Dniprovskiy Court”).\n7.  On 28 July 1998 the latter court found against the applicant. On 8 September 1998 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court (“the Zaporizhzya Court”) quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.\n8.  On 19 October 1998 the Kamenka-Dniprovskiy Court found for the applicant. On 24 November 1998 the Zaporizhzhya Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the Kamenka-Dniprovskiy Court for fresh consideration.\n9.  On 19 May 1999, following a decision by the President of the Zaporizhzhya Court, the case was transferred to the Vasylivskiy Local Court (“the Vasylivskiy Court”).\n10.  On 6 September 1999 the case was transferred to the Energodar Court, which, in a hearing on 26 January 2000, left the applicant's claim unexamined. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 14 March 2000 the Zaporizhzhya Court quashed the decision of 26 January 2000 and remitted the case to the Kamenka-Dniprovsky Court for fresh consideration.\n12.  On 13 November 2000 the case was transferred to the Vasylivskiy Court, which on 1 February 2001 left the applicant's claim unexamined. On 6 March 2001 the Zaporizhzhya Court quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the same court.\n13.  On 13 December 2001 the Vasylivskiy Court left the applicant's claim unexamined. On 6 June 2002 the Zaporizhzhya Court upheld that decision. On 13 March 2003 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the first-instance court.\n14.  On 12 February 2004 the Energodar Court allowed the applicant's claim in part, awarding her 17,614 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n15.  On 28 April 2004 the Zaporizhzhya Court upheld that judgment with minor amendments.\n16.  The applicant did not appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court.\n17.  In 2004 insolvency proceedings were initiated against the defendant company.\n18.  The judgment of 12 February 2004 remains unenforced.\n19.  On 26 May 2004 the Bailiffs' Department of the Energodar Town Department of Justice (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби міського управління юстиції в Запорізькій області – “the Bailiffs' Department”) initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 12 February 2004.\n20.  The Bailiffs' Department did not enforce the judgment and the applicant complained to the Energodar Court, which, by judgments of 17 January, 23 June and 25 October 2005 and 27 April 2006, found the Bailiffs' Department liable for the failure to enforce the judgment of 12 February 2004.\n21.  Following the reorganisation of the State mechanism for enforcing judgments, the State Bailiffs' Departments were closed down without legal successors. The State Bailiffs' Services were created as the new enforcement bodies (see Relevant Domestic Law below).\n22.  In July 2006 the applicant instituted proceedings against the newly created Energodar Bailiffs' Service (Державна виконавча служба у м. Енергодар – “the Bailiffs' Service”) in the Energodar Court, seeking compensation ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5818", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in St Petersburg.\n5.  Between 1989 and 2001 the applicant initiated several sets of civil proceedings.\n6.  By judgment of 17 January 1989, the Vyborg Town Court ordered the applicant’s former husband to pay alimony. A writ of execution was issued.\n7.  In August 2000 the bailiff service notified the applicant that the writ had been lost and advised her to obtain a new one.\n8.  On 12 October 1999 the applicant brought proceedings in the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg against her husband R. seeking judicial recognition of her and her children’s right to use a room in a certain flat. The case was assigned to judge K.\n9.  The applicant submitted that hearings had been scheduled for 27 February 2000, which fell on a weekend, and then for an unspecified date in March 2000 when the respondent had failed to appear.\n10.  The next hearing scheduled for 19 April 2000 did not take place due to the parties’ default in appearance. The summons sent to the respondent whose address had been indicated by the applicant in her statement of claim had returned to the court upon expiry of the time-limit for its storage at the post office.\n11.  The hearing of 16 May 2000 did not take place due to the respondent’s failure to appear. The summons returned to the court for the same reason as before.\n12.  The hearing of 19 September 2000 did not take place as the judge was on vacation. On account of judge K.’s heavy workload, the case was transferred to the newly appointed judge Ch.\n13.  The next hearing scheduled for 15 November 2000 was adjourned at the applicant’s request to give her time to specify her claims and obtain legal assistance. On the same date the court granted her motion for an injunction order.\n14.  At the hearing of 24 January 2001 the applicant supplemented her claims by asking the court to declare unlawful an exchange of the contested room for a house carried out by R. Following involvement of a third party P., the hearing was adjourned, the parties were summoned to a new date, and the court sent an inquiry to some State bodies for evidence.\n15.  The respondent and the third party did not appear at the next hearing of 17 April 2001. The summons sent to P. returned to the court upon expiry of the time-limit for its storage at the post office. The hearing was adjourned. To ensure the correct address of the summonses, the court suggested that P. be summoned by the housing authorities of the respective city district, and R. by the town council of the village where he resided.\n16.  At the next hearing of 1 August 2001 the applicant supplemented her claims seeking to declare all of the transactions with the room unlawful. Three other individuals who had been parties to these transactions were involved by the court as co-respondents. On the same day the court stayed the proceedings pending outcome of another dispute at the Frunzenskiy District Court of St Petersburg which involved the applicant’s claim for annulment of her marriage to R. The applicant did not challenge this decision.\n17.  The proceedings were resumed on 12 May 2003, three months after the Frunzenskiy District Court gave a judgment. The next hearing was scheduled for 3 February 2004; however it had to be postponed to 15 September 2004 following the request of the applicant and one of the respondents, as well as the other parties’ default in appearance. In response to the applicant’s complaint of lengthy proceedings, on 21 August 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5819", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Hamburg.\n7.  On 13 November 1996 K., a dentist, brought an action in the Hamburg Regional Court against the applicant. He claimed the payment of medical fees amounting to DEM 20,708 (some EUR 10,587) for the applicant's dental treatment.\n8.  On 6 March 1997 the Regional Court held a hearing with the parties, represented by counsel. On 3 July 1997 it heard the submissions of the parties and a witness, the applicant's fiancée.\n9.  On 31 July 1997 the Regional Court decided to consult a medical expert, M., on the question of whether K. had carried out the applicant's dental treatment correctly.\n10.  On 14 May 1998 M., having examined the applicant on 19 December 1997, submitted his report to the Regional Court, which had asked him on three occasions to finalize the report and had finally fixed a deadline for its submission. He found that there had not been any malpractice in the applicant's dental treatment.\n11.  On 24 September 1998 the Regional Court dismissed the objection the applicant had made to expert M. on 15 June 1998. The applicant's appeal against this decision to the Hamburg Court of Appeal was to no avail.\n12.  On 12 February 1999 the Hamburg Regional Court asked expert M. to supplement his report and granted the applicant legal aid.\n13.  On 24 September 1999 the applicant requested the court to fix a deadline for submission of the additional expert report on pain of a fine in the event of non-compliance.\n14.  On 29 February 2000 expert M., having been asked by the Regional Court on 24 June 1999, 30 August 1999, 17 September 1999 and 14 January 2000 to submit his additional report without undue delay, informed the court that he had examined the applicant on 22 October 1999 but that, in the light of the present state of the art, it was impossible to answer the court's questions.\n15.  On 20 July 2000, having consulted the parties, the Hamburg Regional Court decided to obtain another expert opinion on the question of whether K. had carried out the applicant's dental treatment correctly. By a decision of 14 December 2000, it appointed S. as expert.\n16.  On 11 June 2001 expert S. submitted his report to the court. Having examined the applicant on 27 February 2001, he found that there had been malpractice in some aspects of the applicant's dental treatment by K.\n17.  On 15 January 2002 the Regional Court informed the applicant, on his request, that despite its heavy workload, it intended to continue the proceedings soon.\n18.  On 6 June 2002 the Regional Court held a hearing in which it discussed the results of the expert reports submitted by M. and S. with the parties. The applicant rejected the court's proposal to conclude a friendly settlement.\n19.  On 27 June 2002 the Regional Court, having regard to the diverging conclusions of the two experts it had consulted, decided to obtain a decisive expert opinion (Obergutachten) on the question of whether the applicant's dental treatment had been carried out correctly.\n20.  On 25 October 2002 the Hamburg Regional Court decided to appoint W. as expert. The latter fixed the date for the applicant's examination for 9 December 2003.\n21.  On 1 December 2003, in compliance with an expulsion order made by the Hamburg Aliens Office, the applicant left Germany. His attempt to obtain a postponement of his expulsion for ten days in order to allow him to be examined by expert W. had been to no avail.\n22.  On 9 September 2004 the Regional Court fixed th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5821", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in the Krasnodar Region.\n5.  In August 1995 tax authorities carried out an inspection of the enterprise owned by the applicant and found some breaches of tax law. In September 1995 criminal proceedings were initiated against him on suspicion of tax offence. The applicant successfully challenged the results of the inspection in a commercial court. In June 1998 the criminal proceedings against him were discontinued for lack of corpus delicti.\n6.  On 15 March 2001 the applicant lodged an action with the Maykop Town Court of the Republic of Adygeya (“the Town Court”) against the local branch of the Federal Tax Police Department of Russia (Управление федеральной налоговой полиции Российской Федерации по Республике Адыгея) seeking compensation for unlawful criminal proceedings against him and reimbursement of legal costs incurred before the commercial courts and during the criminal proceedings.\n7.  At the first hearing that took place on 16 April 2001 the applicant motioned for obtainment of the documents contained in his criminal and commercial case-files. The respondent requested that the hearing be adjourned due to its representative’s unavailability.\n8.  The hearings scheduled for 24 May and 4 October 2001 were postponed at the applicant’s request, first due to the delay in arrival of the commercial case-file and then pending the outcome of another dispute at a commercial court.\n9.  On 20 December 2001 the court granted the applicant’s request for adjournment as he needed to re-calculate the amount of his claims.\n10.  On 7 March 2002 the court granted the applicant’s motion for an audit expert examination. The examination was completed on 14 August 2002, following which the court scheduled the next hearing for 4 December 2002.\n11.  On 18 February 2003 the Town Court granted the claims in part. The applicant appealed and requested that the appeal hearing be postponed due to his illness. On 22 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Adygeya (“the appeal court”) overturned the judgment on appeal for erroneous application of the substantive law, suggested that the Town Court replace the incompetent respondent and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n12.  The Town Court joined the local branch of the Federal Treasury of Russia to the proceedings. On 30 June 2003 it again granted the applicant’s claims in part. The applicant appealed and again requested that the appeal hearing be postponed due to his illness.\n13.  On 5 September 2003 the appeal court held that the first-instance court had failed to implement its previous instructions and had erroneously applied substantive law. The judgment was set aside, and a new hearing was required.\n14.  On 3 November 2003 the Town Court granted the applicant’s claims in part.\n15.  On 5 December 2003 the appeal court ruled that the first-instance court had failed to adequately establish the facts of the case, reversed the judgment and ordered new examination of the case.\n16.  On 10 February 2004 the Town Court terminated the proceedings in the part concerning reimbursement of legal costs incurred before the commercial courts and during the criminal proceedings on the ground that those claims could not be examined in civil proceedings. The applicant did not challenge that decision.\n17.  On 31 March 2004 the Town Court awarded the applicant 1,982 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of pecuniary damage and RUB 50,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5822", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Novovoronezh, the Voronezh Region.\n5.  He sued the authorities for recovery of a number of unpaid social benefits due to him, being a victim of the Chernobyl nuclear accident.\n6.  On 27 October 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court of the Voronezh Region (“the Town Court”) allowed the applicant's claim against the Social Welfare Office of Novovoronezh (“the Welfare Office”) and ordered the respondent authority to pay him 949.70 Russian roubles (RUB) in pension arrears and RUB 47.48 for court fees.\n7.  On 7 November 2000 the judgment became enforceable. On 16 November 2000 the bailiff's office opened the enforcement proceedings. On 29 May 2003 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued, for the debtor's lack of funds.\n8.  On 29 July 2008 the award was paid to the applicant.\n9.  On 7 December 2000 the Town Court decided that the Welfare Office should pay the applicant RUB 3,593.51 as a penalty relating to certain unpaid compensation for health damage. The court further index-linked the applicant's food allowance in line with the domestic legislation and awarded him RUB 1,625.28 in this respect. On 27 February 2001 the Voronezh Regional Court upheld the judgment and it entered into force.\n10.  On 26 November 2002 RUB 3,593.51 of the judgment debt was paid to the applicant. The remainder of the award was not executed.\n11.  On 17 February 2003 the Presidium of Voronezh Regional Court quashed the judgment of 7 December 2000, as upheld on 27 February 2001, on supervisory review following the request by the respondent authority and remitted the case to the first instance. The Presidium found that the lower court had incorrectly applied domestic law in the part relating to the calculation of the penalty.\n12.  On 3 April 2003 the Novovoronezh Town Court examined the case afresh. It found that the respondent authority was liable to pay the applicant the unpaid food allowance in the amount of RUB 1,625.28. It further rejected the applicant's penalty claim and ordered him to reimburse RUB 3,593.51 to the Novovoronezh Welfare Office.\n13.  At some point the applicant returned to the Welfare Office RUB 3,593.51 already paid to him.\n14.  On 3 June 2003 the Voronezh Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment. Enforcement proceedings commenced against the Welfare Office for payment of RUB 1,625.28. On 16 March 2004 the bailiffs discontinued the proceedings, because the respondent authority lacked funds for the execution of the award.\n15.  According to the Government, the judgment of 3 April 2003 has not been enforced by the Welfare Office to date.\n16.  The applicant brought a court action against the Welfare Office claiming compensation for belated payments in respect of his pension as a Chernobyl victim. He considered that such compensation should be in line with the increase of the minimum subsistence amount in the Voronezh Region.\n17.  On 14 May 2001 the Town Court granted the claim and awarded the applicant RUB 605.52, to be paid by the Welfare Office.\n18.  On 24 May 2001 the judgment acquired legal force.\n19.  On 24 September 2003 the award was paid to the applicant.\n20.  The applicant claimed recalculation of the amount of compensation for health damage due to him since 1997. He submits, without further details, that he introduced a respective action with a domestic court at some point in 1999.\n21.  On 11 April 2000 the Novovoronezh Town Court rejected his claim as having no ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5823", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a retired military officer and lives in Athens.\n5.  On 31 January 2003 he lodged a recourse with the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal seeking the annulment of a presidential decree dated 26 November 2002, according to which compulsory retirement was ordered, because he had been found to be incapable of working, due to health problems. The applicant also challenged the legality of the medical opinion given by the members of the military committee who had evaluated his physical abilities.\n6.  On 10 February 2006 the Administrative Court of Appeal dismissed his recourse. First, the court held that the applicant's allegations regarding the legality of the medical opinion given by the members of the military committee had to be rejected as inadmissible because, under the national legislation, the applicant had to exhaust a preliminary administrative procedure before having recourse to a court. Moreover, the court found that the decree in question was well reasoned (judgment no. 214/2006).\n7.  On 14 July 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n8.  On 3 April 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the findings of the Administrative Court of Appeal. In particular it found that the appellate court had rightly declared inadmissible a part of the applicant's allegations on the ground that he had not used the preliminary administrative remedy. Further, it was pointed out that the medical opinions in question had been brought to the applicant's notice in good time so that he could lodge an application with the responsible administrative authority. Finally, the court ruled that the Court of Appeal had adequately reasoned its findings concerning the legality of the abovementioned presidential decree (judgment no. 1148/2008). The judgment was finalised on 12 June 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5824", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and is currently in Aachen Prison.\n6.  Since 1981 the applicant has been convicted seven times of offences including assault and dangerous assault, theft, joint serious robbery, coercion and sexual coercion. He was notably found guilty in 1984 of assaulting in a humiliating manner and over a period of several days another man locked up in the same cell, and of forcing him to take part in oral sex.\n7.  On 22 July 1991 the Duisburg Regional Court convicted the applicant of dangerous assault combined with joint coercion, with sexual coercion, with joint extortion and coercion and with attempted sexual assault committed in 1990. It sentenced him to six years' imprisonment and ordered his preventive detention under Article 66 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 22-23 below). The Regional Court found that the applicant, partly acting jointly with others and acting with diminished criminal responsibility due to drug consumption, had assaulted a man who had allowed the applicant to share his apartment using objects including shoes, belts, scissors and cigarettes, had forced him to let the applicant masturbate into his mouth, to eat rubbish and grass and to withdraw money from his account for the applicant. Moreover, the applicant had beaten up another prisoner locked up in the same cell several times and had attempted to force the other man to perform sex acts on him. Having consulted a medical expert, the Regional Court found that the applicant, acting with full criminal responsibility, had a tendency to commit offences against the physical integrity and property of others by violence and was therefore dangerous to the public.\n8.  The applicant served his full prison sentence. He was then placed in preventive detention, for the first time, on 4 January 1997; he had thus served ten years in preventive detention by 3 January 2007. The continuation of the applicant's preventive detention was ordered by the Arnsberg Regional Court in 1999, 2002 and 2004. Since March 2006, the applicant's preventive detention is executed in Aachen Prison.\n9.  On 25 October 2006 the Arnsberg Regional Court ordered the continuation of the applicant's preventive detention beyond ten years. It found that there was still a risk that the applicant, owing to his criminal tendencies, might commit serious offences resulting in considerable psychological or physical harm to the victims if released (Article 67d § 3 of the Criminal Code; see paragraph 27 below).\n10.  Relying on the report submitted by a psychiatric expert, M., the Regional Court found that on account of his psychotherapeutic treatment, the applicant had made progress in the course of his detention. He no longer attempted to solve conflicts by violence and now abused alcohol and drugs less than before. He now had a stable heterosexual identity and felt guilty about his offences. However, he still lacked social skills, including the capacity to resolve conflicts himself, and had no social contacts outside prison. He was therefore liable to commit further thefts, robberies and dangerous assaults if released. He first had to be prepared for release through relaxations in the conditions of his detention.\n11.  By a decision of 19 December 2006, which the applicant received on 8 January 2007, the Hamm Court of Appeal, endorsing the reasons given by the Regional Court, dismissed the applicant's appeal. It added that, contrary to the applicant's view, his continued preventive det", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5825", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1951 respectively and live in Heilbronn and Weinheim.\n7.  On 8 October 1997 the applicants distributed four-page folded pamphlets to passers-by in front of a Nuremberg medical centre. The front page contained the following text:\n“'Killing specialist' for unborn children Dr. F. [is] on the premises of the Northern medical centre, Nuremberg”.\n8.  The middle pages contained information on the development of the human foetus and about abortion techniques. It further contained the appeals:\n“Please support our struggle against the unpunished killing of unborn children”\nand\n“Therefore: No to abortion”\nThe verso read as follows:\n“Support our protest and our work. Help to ensure that the Fifth Commandment “Thou shall not kill” and the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany are in future respected by all doctors in Nuremberg!\nStop the murder of children in their mother's womb on the premises of the Northern medical centre.\nthen: Holocaust\ntoday: Babycaust\n(damals: Holocaust heute: Babycaust)\nWhoever remains silent becomes guilty too!”\n9.  The pamphlet bore the name and address of the second applicant as the person legally responsible for its content.\n10.  On behalf of the medical centre and Dr F., the City of Nuremberg brought criminal charges against the applicants for defamation.\n11.  On 16 July 1998 the Nuremberg District Court (Amtsgericht) acquitted the applicants on the grounds that their action was justified under section 193 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, see Relevant domestic law below). According to the District Court, the dissemination of the pamphlets was covered by the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 5 of the German Basic Law, since the pamphlet, taken as a whole, was not intended to debase Dr F. or the medical centre, but to express the applicants' general rejection of the performance of abortions. The District Court noted that the applicants considered the number of abortions performed in Germany to be crimes which were as abhorrent as the Holocaust. It was not up to the court to evaluate this statement, which was covered by the right to freedom of expression.\n12.  Following an examination of the statements contained in the pamphlet, the District Court considered that the applicant's right to freedom of expression had to prevail over the doctor's interest in the protection of his personal honour.\n13.  On 26 May 1999 the Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court (Landgericht) quashed the District Court's judgment and convicted the applicants of defamation to the detriment of the medical centre and of Dr F. The Regional Court considered that the statement “then: Holocaust / today: Babycaust”, seen in the context of the other statements made in the pamphlet, had to be interpreted as putting the lawful activity performed by Dr F. on a level with the Holocaust, a synonym for the most abhorrent and unjustifiable crimes against humanity. According to the Regional Court, this statement was not covered by the applicants' right to freedom of expression, as it debased the doctor in a way which had not been necessary in order to express the applicants' opinion. While expressions of opinion which related to questions of public interest enjoyed a higher degree of protection than those relating to purely private interests, it had to be taken into account if and to which extent the person addressed had participated in the public debate. Furthermore, it had to be considered if the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5826", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Freiburg.\n6.  On 6 March 1985 the Stuttgart Regional Court convicted the applicant of two counts of rape and abduction and of one count of attempted rape and deprivation of liberty committed in 1984. It sentenced him to five years' imprisonment and ordered his placement in preventive detention pursuant to Article 66 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 35-36 below). The court found that the applicant, acting with full criminal responsibility, had raped two young women and had attempted to rape another woman all of whom he had taken with him in his car. It further noted that the applicant had previously been convicted by juvenile courts of attempted rape and of rape; in respect of the second offence he had been placed in a psychiatric hospital.\n7.  The applicant served his full prison sentence in Freiburg Prison. He was then placed in preventive detention, executed in that same prison, for the first time on 27 June 1989; he had thus served ten years in preventive detention by 26 June 1999.\n8.  The continuation of the applicant's preventive detention was ordered by the Freiburg Regional Court on several occasions.\n9.  On 11 December 2001 the Freiburg Regional Court, in judicial review proceedings under Article 67e of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 38 below), refused to suspend the applicant's preventive detention and grant probation.\n10.  The Regional Court considered that the applicant's continued preventive detention was necessary because there was still a risk that the applicant, owing to his criminal tendencies, might commit serious offences resulting in considerable psychological or physical harm to the victims if released (Article 67d § 3 of the Criminal Code; see paragraph 40 below). Since the court's last order of 18 June 1999, to the reasoning of which it referred, no circumstances leading to a more positive conclusion had become known.\n11.  The Regional Court had consulted a psychological expert on the question whether there was a risk that the applicant, if released, might commit offences by which his victims would suffer serious physical or mental harm. However, the expert could only submit a view on the basis of the case file as the applicant had refused to talk to her.\n12.  The Regional Court further noted that in his report of 11 November 1991 a neurologic expert had found that the applicant suffered from a personality disorder which had resulted in his acts of sexual aggression. The Regional Court acknowledged that the applicant had accepted social-therapeutic treatment from August 1985 until June 1988. However, he had then terminated that treatment. In 1992 the detention authorities had proposed certain relaxations in the conditions of the applicant's detention, but the applicant had refused to cooperate. In his report of 12 April 1999 the neurologic expert had found that the applicant still suffered from the said personality disorder. In recent years the applicant had refused any therapy. Therefore, there was nothing to indicate that the applicant was no longer dangerous. In any event, his release could only be taken into consideration after his conditions of detention had been relaxed, combined with a successful social-therapeutic treatment.\n13.  The Regional Court further stated that it did not consider the new version of Article 67d of the Criminal Code of January 1998 (see paragraph 40 below) to breach constitutional law in so far as it applied also to persons convict", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5827", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1938, 1968 and 1978 respectively and live in Maryivka.\n6.  On 29 April 2003 the first applicant requested the Kompaniyivsky District Police to take Vasiliy Mikhalkov, born in 1963, her son and the brother of the second and third applicants, to a sobering-up facility because of his severe alcohol intoxication. Two police officers, S. and P., arrived in response to her call. According to the first applicant, they mocked and kicked Vasiliy Mikhalkov, notwithstanding the first applicant's protests, dragged him into their police car and took him to the police station.\n7.  On 30 April 2003 the first applicant went to the police station and discovered that Vasiliy Mikhalkov was dead.\n8.  Following an autopsy, on 14 May 2003 it was established that Vasiliy Mikhalkov had died on 29 April 2003 of an acute internal haemorrhage and the laceration of the small intestine resulting from abdominal trauma sustained on the same date.\n9.  In the meantime, on 10 May 2003 the Kompaniyivsky District Prosecutor's Office refused to institute criminal proceedings into the incident. On 2 June 2003 this decision was quashed and the case remitted for further inquiry.\n10.  On 9 June 2003 a post-mortem forensic assessment of Vasiliy Mikhalkov's body confirmed the earlier conclusion concerning the cause of his death. It was also established that the abdominal injury could have resulted from a fall on to a blunt object, such as a kerb or a concrete pole. Other injuries found on his arms, legs and buttocks could have resulted from his body being dragged.\n11.  Following this assessment, on 10 June 2003 the Kompaniyivsky District Prosecutor's Office took a fresh decision not to initiate criminal proceedings.\n12.  On 20 June 2003 the Kompaniyivsky District Prosecutors' Office annulled this decision and initiated criminal proceedings into the circumstances of Vasiliy Mikhalkov's death. This investigation is currently under way.\n13.  The applicants have provided no documents concerning the course of the investigation, maintaining that they had been denied access to the case file and any meaningful opportunity to participate in the proceedings, regardless of their repeated complaints to various authorities, including the General Prosecutor's Office. By way of response, the General Prosecutor's Office kept forwarding their complaints to the Kirovograd Regional Prosecutor's Office, which assured the applicants, without providing any details, that the criminal proceedings were well under way. On several occasions the first applicant requested a meeting with the employees of the Prosecutors' Office to discuss the progress of the case; however, her requests were not accommodated.\n14.  On 16 December 2003 the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv, seeking to oblige the General Prosecutor's Office to ensure meaningful monitoring of the proceedings and to address omissions by the local authorities. She claimed, in particular, that there was sufficient evidence to charge two named police officers with abuse of position and a violent assault on her son.\n15.  On 23 April 2004 the court dismissed this claim. It found, in particular, that the investigation was pending, the necessary investigative measures were under way, the persons responsible for inflicting injuries on her son had not yet been identified, the Regional Prosecutor's Office was monitoring the proceedings and the General Prosecutor's Office had referred", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5828", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, a retired military officer, was born in 1944 and lives in Elos Lakonias.\n5.  On 2 March 2000 he lodged an application with the 44th Division of the State's General Accounting Office (thereafter “Accounting Office”) asking an increase in the disability pension that he received because of injuries incurred during his service in the army.\n6.  On 20 June 2001 his request was dismissed (decision no. 12018/2001).\n7.  On 1st February 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the State Audit Council (Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο) challenging the decision of the Accounting Office.\n8.  By judgment dated 13 May 2005 the State Audit Council dismissed the applicant's appeal after having concluded that the legal requirements for recognition of disability pension were not satisfied (judgment no. 908/2005).\n9.  On 12 July 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n10.  On 5 December 2007 the Plenary of the State Audit Council upheld judgment no. 908/2005 (judgment no. 2413/2007). The applicant was served with the decision on 5 February 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5830", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The eight applicants were born on the dates listed in the Annex and live in Attiki.\n5.  The applicants are employed as nursing staff in the General Hospital of Athens “Georgios Gennimatas”.\n6.  On 15 June 1998 the applicants lodged an action against the hospital with the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens seeking the payment of a premium to their salary, ranging between 476,200 drachmas (approximately 1,397 euros) and 720,000 drachmas (approximately 2,112 euros), plus interest.\n7.  On 31 January 2000 their claim was partially accepted (judgment no. 467/2000).\n8.  On 14 February 2001 the hospital lodged an appeal.\n9.  On 27 February 2007 the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the First Instance court's decision (judgment no. 1754/2007). The applicants were served with the decision on 22 November 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5831", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kostroma.\n5.  On 20 January 1999 the applicant lodged an action before the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma (“the District Court”) against the Kostroma Regional Military Commissariat seeking compensation for damage caused to his health.\n6.  The first hearing scheduled for 17 March 1999 did not take place due to the parties' failure to appear.\n7.  On 14 May and 3 June 1999 the applicant informed the court that he would not be available for a short period of time and requested that any scheduled hearings be postponed.\n8.  On 29 June 1999 the applicant amended his claims, following which the hearing was adjourned to obtain additional evidence. Upon arrival of the respondent's comments on the claim, on 16 September 1999 the hearing was again adjourned to collect evidence.\n9.  On 20 September 1999 the court granted the applicant's request for assistance in obtaining certain documents from his former military unit and sent an inquiry.\n10.  On 3 May 2000 the court postponed the hearing pending the applicant's convalescence.\n11.  On 20 June 2000 the applicant again amended the claims, following which the hearing was adjourned to obtain evidence from certain State bodies.\n12.  On 16 February 2001 the court granted the respondent's motion for adjournment of the proceedings pending the outcome of an inquiry at the Constitutional Court of Russia that concerned compliance of relevant legal provisions with the Constitution. On 23 October 2001 the Kostroma Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) dismissed the applicant's application for supervisory review of the above decision.\n13.  The Government submitted that the Constitutional Court had ruled on the relevant issues on 19 June 2002 and 25 March 2003.\n14.  The proceedings were resumed on 14 April 2005. Following the parties' failure to appear at two hearings, on 29 April 2005 the court left the claims without consideration. On 21 June 2005 this decision was quashed for lack of proper notification of the parties, and the proceedings were resumed.\n15.  The proceedings were stayed from 6 July to 17 November 2005 pending the outcome of another inquiry with the Constitutional Court of Russia, which was resolved on 7 October 2005.\n16.  After resumption of the proceedings the parties did not appear at two hearings, and on 28 December 2005 the court again left the claims without consideration.\n17.  In April and May 2006 the applicant requested that the above decision be quashed and amended his claims. The proceedings resumed on 19 May 2006.\n18.  Between 22 June and 31 August 2006 three hearings were adjourned at the initiative of the respondent and for the public prosecutor's default in appearance. The applicant in the meantime supplemented his claims and motioned for examination of the case in his absence.\n19.  On 14 September 2006 the District Court granted the applicant's claims in part awarding him 1,008,083 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages and RUB 14,049 in monthly payments of disability pension.\n20.  On 29 November 2006 the Regional Court overturned the judgment for errors of fact and ordered a new hearing. The appeal court also issued a decision in respect of the president of the District Court to reprimand him for breaches of procedural law and excessively long examination of the case. In particular, the appeal court pointed out that the applicant, or both parties, had not been duly notified of the hearings of 17 March 1999, 14 and 21 April, 17 No", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5832", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Stuttgart.\n7.  The applicant has been practising as a lawyer since 1989. In November 2001 the applicant applied for one of the six posts of advocate notary (Anwaltsnotar) officially advertised by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Justice (hereafter: “the Ministry of Justice”) enabling qualified lawyers to practise simultaneously as a solicitor and as a notary in the Stuttgart court circuit.\n8.  On 18 March 2002 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that it intended to appoint six other lawyers as advocate notaries. The applicant's subsequent request to compel the Ministry of Justice to review its decision was dismissed by the Stuttgart Court of Appeal.\n9.  On 31 March 2003 the Federal Court of Justice rejected the applicant's appeal.\n10.  On 3 April 2003 the applicant informed the Ministry of Justice that he intended to lodge a constitutional complaint with and apply for interim legal protection to the Federal Constitutional Court. He requested the Ministry of Justice to await the outcome of the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court before appointing the advocate notaries.\n11.  On 7 April 2003 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant it would no longer wait to make the appointments.\n12.  On 9 April 2003 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint and requested the Federal Constitutional Court to grant him interim legal protection, arguing that there was a danger that the Ministry of Justice would appoint the advocate notaries and thus create irreparable damage to him.\n13.  On 10 April 2003 the Federal Constitutional Court granted the applicant interim legal protection and ordered the Ministry of Justice to keep one post of advocate notary free until the statutory time-limit for the submission of the grounds for the applicant's constitutional complaint had elapsed. On the same day the Federal Constitutional Court sent its decision by fax to the Ministry of Justice.\n14.  Nonetheless, on 10 April 2003 the Ministry of Justice appointed five notaries. On the following day it appointed the sixth notary.\n15.  On 29 April 2003 the Ministry of Justice informed the Federal Constitutional Court that it had received the court's interim injunction on 10 April 2003, but that this had been submitted to the competent head of division in the Ministry only on 14 April 2003. However, it also announced that it would advertise a further post as advocate notary as of 30 June 2003.\n16.  On 14 May 2003 the applicant submitted the reasons for his constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court, which extended its interim injunction on 3 June 2003, 19 November 2003 and 4 May 2004, until such time as it had issued its final decision on the applicant's constitutional complaint.\n17.  On 8 October 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court found for the applicant. First, it held that the applicant's constitutional complaint had not become inadmissible following the appointment of the six notaries by the Ministry of Justice. In particular, the applicant had an interest in a declaration that the application procedure had been unconstitutional and in a fresh examination of his application or, if that was impossible, in being granted compensation. The right to an effective remedy under Article 19 § 4 of the German Basic Law permitted the continuation of the proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court, since the Ministry of Justice had failed to abide by its interim injunctio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5833", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and he is currently imprisoned in Korydallos.\n5.  On 22 October 2004 criminal complaints were brought against him by the Athens First Instance Prosecutor for procuring and repeated rape.\n6.  In 2006, on an unspecified date, the Indictment Division of the Athens\nCourt of Appeal decided to prosecute the applicant and remitted the case to the Athens First Instance Criminal Court (decision no. 303/2006).\n7.  On 19 July 2006 the Athens First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment (judgment no. 2439/2006).\n8.  On 21 July 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal challenging the First Instance court's findings and its evaluation of the evidence.\n9.  By judgment dated 4 May 2009 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's allegations (judgment no. 1245/2009).\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation. The appeal was set for hearing on 3 February 2010. It transpires from the case file that these proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5834", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and is currently detained in a psychiatric hospital in Bayreuth.\n6.  On 27 July 1994 the Freyung District Court convicted the applicant of three counts of sexual abuse of children and gave him a cumulative suspended sentence of eight months' imprisonment with probation. The applicant was found to have sexually abused a nine-year-old girl on three occasions in the spring of 1993. As confirmed by an expert, the applicant suffered from a pathological mental disorder such that diminished criminal responsibility (Article 21 of the Criminal Code) could not be excluded. On 10 December 1997 this sentence was remitted.\n7.  On 16 March 1999 the Passau Regional Court convicted the applicant of two counts of rape and gave him a cumulative sentence of three years and six months' imprisonment (two years and nine months for each count of rape). The Regional Court found that the applicant had raped twelve-year-old S. twice within two weeks by use of force in the summer of 1986. It was reported by a psychiatric and a psychological expert that the applicant suffered from a continuous cerebral decomposition, due to which his criminal responsibility was diminished.\n8.  According to the Regional Court's finding of facts, the applicant had had an extra-marital relationship with S.'s mother A. since 1980. Since then he had sexually abused S., then aged seven, at least once a week. Since 1982 he had had himself sexually satisfied also by P., A.'s elder daughter, then aged fourteen. These offences were time-barred when the victims reported them to the prosecution authorities. In the summer of 1982 the applicant persuaded fifteen-year-old P. to have sexual intercourse with him in exchange for his paying the family's electricity bill. P., who had initially consented, then asked the applicant to stop due to severe pain caused by the intercourse and resisted heavily, whereupon the applicant raped her by use of force. The prosecution of this offence was discontinued in view of the two counts of rape of which the applicant was convicted.\n9.  The Regional Court did not examine whether preventive detention was to be ordered against the applicant because the relevant Article 66 § 3 of the Criminal Code was not applicable to offences which, as was the case for those of which the applicant was found guilty, had been committed prior to 31 January 1998 (section 1a § 2 of the Introductory Law to the Criminal Code, see paragraph 41 below).\n10.  The applicant served his full sentence of three years and six months' imprisonment until 13 April 2002. Some two and a half months prior to that date, on 28 January 2002, the applicant was informed by the psychologist of Bayreuth prison that he could possibly be detained beyond that date under the Bavarian Act for the placement of particularly dangerous offenders very liable to reoffend (“Bavarian (Dangerous Offenders') Placement Act”) of 1 January 2002 (see paragraphs 43-46 below).\n11.  On 10 April 2002 the Bayreuth Regional Court, sitting as a chamber responsible for the execution of sentences composed of three professional judges, having heard the applicant and his counsel as well as the representatives of Bayreuth prison and two medical experts, ordered the applicant's placement in prison for an indefinite duration under sections 1 and 2 of the Bavarian (Dangerous Offenders') Placement Act (see paragraphs 44-45 below).\n12.  The Regional Court found that the applicant was liable to be placed in pri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5835", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Chelyabinsk.\n5.  The applicant receives disability allowance following health damage in his previous work in the mining industry.\n6.  On 8 September 1999 the applicant seized the Vorkuta Town Court of the Komi Republic (“the Town Court”) with a claim against the local branch of the Social Security Fund of Russia alleging incorrect calculation of his disability allowance and seeking the unpaid damages. On the same day the Town Court scheduled the first hearing for 8 September 2000.\n7.  The hearing scheduled for 8 September 2000 did not take place following the respondent’s representative’s default in appearance. The court adjourned the next hearing of 20 October 2000 after granting the respondent’s motion for obtainment of certain archive documents.\n8.  On 19 July 2001 the applicant’s representative motioned for adjournment of examination of the case to 16 September 2001 due to her vacation.\n9.  At the hearing of 18 September 2001 the applicant’s representative specified the claims and requested that the court join the Ministry of Energy of Russia to the proceedings as a co-respondent. The request was granted by the court, and the hearing was adjourned.\n10.  The hearing scheduled for 5 November 2001 did not take place due to the judge’s illness.\n11.  By letter of 28 December 2001 the applicant requested that the case be examined in his absence, with participation of his representative.\n12.  On 21 February 2002 the applicant’s representative renounced the claims against the Ministry of Energy.\n13.  The hearing scheduled for 22 February 2002 did not take place as the parties did not show. The applicant’s representative requested that the court examine the case in her absence as she was involved in different proceedings.\n14.  On 11 April 2002 the applicant again motioned for examination of the claims in his absence.\n15.  The court postponed the hearing of 16 April 2002 at its own initiative to obtain the applicant’s trade union membership records.\n16.  On 11 May 2002 the applicant’s representative specified the claims in writing. At this date the hearing did not take place due to the respondent’s default in appearance.\n17.  On 15 May 2002 both the respondent and the applicant’s representative motioned for examination of the case in their absence. The applicant’s claims were once again specified, and the claims against the Ministry of Energy were resumed.\n18.  On 16 May 2002 the court ordered an expert examination and adjourned the proceedings.\n19.  On 29 October 2002 the expert examination was completed. The next hearing was scheduled for 24 December 2002.\n20.  On 23 and 24 December 2002, respectively, the applicant’s representative and the respondent motioned for examination of the claims in their absence. The former once again specified the claims.\n21.  On 8 January 2003 the Town Court gave a judgment awarding the applicant 621,999 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages and legal expenses, and RUB 34,350 as monthly payments with further indexation in accordance with the minimum wage. Both parties appealed.\n22.  On 31 March 2003 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic acting as the appeal court remitted the case to the first instance for clarification of the judgment in the calculation part. On 22 May 2003 the trial court clarified the judgment as ordered.\n23.  The appeal hearing of 30 June 2003 was adjourned to obtain the documents referred to in the judgment, which were not included in the case-fi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5836", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and is currently in Aachen Prison.\n6.  On 7 May 1993 the Bochum Regional Court convicted the applicant of sexual assault and sexual abuse of a minor committed in 1992. It sentenced him to three years and six months' imprisonment and ordered his preventive detention pursuant to Article 66 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 26-27 below). The court found that the applicant had sexually assaulted and abused a thirteen-year-old boy who, after having drunk alcoholic beverages with the applicant in front of the Bochum train station, had agreed to spend the night in the applicant's apartment for fear of disputes with his mother. The court, having consulted a medical expert, considered that the applicant had acted with full criminal responsibility. He suffered from a dissocial personality disorder which was characterized notably by a lack of feelings of guilt. That disorder did not, however, amount to an illness diminishing his criminal responsibility.\n7.  The Bochum Regional Court further noted that the applicant had previously been convicted, in particular, of sexual assault and abuse of a nine-year-old girl committed in 1981, attempted sexual abuse of a nine-year-old girl committed shortly after his release from prison in 1985 and sexual abuse of a five-year-old boy and an eight-year-old boy committed in May 1986 shortly after his previous conviction. He had committed all previous offences with full criminal responsibility.\n8.  Since 28 March 1996 the applicant, having served his full prison sentence, has been in preventive detention for the first time, initially in Werl Prison and since May 1998 in Aachen Prison.\n9.  The continuation of the applicant's preventive detention was ordered at regular intervals. In the course of such judicial review proceedings, the Aachen Regional Court had also examined the applicant's request that his preventive detention be executed in a psychiatric hospital. On 10 March 2003 it dismissed that request, considering that the applicant should make a therapy aimed at changing his conduct, but that this did not necessitate his treatment in a psychiatric hospital.\n10.  The applicant had served ten years in preventive detention by 27 March 2006.\n11.  On 31 May 2006 the Aachen Regional Court, having held a hearing, dismissed the applicant's request to declare his preventive detention terminated after expiry of a period of ten years or to suspend its further execution and grant probation.\n12.  The Regional Court considered that the applicant, if released, would commit further serious offences, in particular sexual assault and abuse of minors, resulting in considerable psychological or physical harm to the victims (Article 67d § 3 of the Criminal Code, see paragraph 31 below). It agreed in this respect with the conclusions drawn by two medical experts in a psychiatric expert report dated 7 April 2006 and in an additional psychological expert report dated 3 April 2006 who had also found that the applicant suffered from a serious dissocial personality disorder. The Regional Court further took the view that the therapies the applicant had made in the past years had not brought about any change in his propensity to commit offences.\n13.  On 27 July 2006 the Cologne Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal. Having regard to the medical expert reports obtained by the Regional Court, it equally considered that the applicant suffered from a serious personality disorder owing to which ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5837", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  All of the applicants have either tenancy rights to their flats on the basis of occupancy vouchers (yaşayış sahəsi orderi) issued by the relevant executive authorities or ownership rights to them on the basis of an ownership certificate issued by the competent domestic authority (see Table I).\n5.  In all ten cases, the applicants' flats were unlawfully occupied by internally displaced persons (“IDPs”) from different regions of Azerbaijan under occupation of Armenian military forces following the Armenian‑Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.\n6.  The applicants lodged separate civil actions before the domestic courts seeking the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.\n7.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix (Table I), the applicants' claims were granted by different domestic courts which ordered the eviction of the IDPs from the flats.\n8.  The respective judgments became final and enforceable. However the IDP families refused to comply with the judgments and despite the applicants' complaints to various authorities, the judgments were not enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5838", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the city of Kharkiv.\n5.  In 1989 a family consisting of husband and wife, S.N. and P.V., respectively, and P.O., the daughter of P.V., was granted the tenancy of a publicly-owned apartment. In 1995 S.N. and P.V. divorced.\n6.  In November 1996 P.V. and P.O. instituted civil proceedings in the Kyivsky District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) against S.N., seeking to declare that the latter was no longer entitled to live in the apartment in question. S.N., in turn, lodged a counterclaim, seeking to have his property right over the disputed apartment acknowledged.\n7.  On 18 March 1997 the court allowed the claim of P.V. and P.O.\n8.  In March 1998, following privatisation procedures, a “property certificate” (приватизаційний сертифікат) was issued to P.V. and P.O. for the apartment.\n9.  However, on 14 July 2000, following an application for supervisory review (protest), the Kharkiv Regional Court (after June 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal; “the Court of Appeal”) set aside the judgment of 18 March 1997 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n10.  On 16 December 2000 P.V. and P.O. sold the apartment to the applicant.\n11.  On an unspecified date in November or December 2001, S.N. lodged additional claims, seeking to have the apartment’s sales contract declared null and void and to have the applicant evicted. According to a copy of the court records provided by the applicant, he has been participating in the proceedings as a third party since 16 January 2002. On the same date the District Court attached the disputed apartment. Subsequently, on a number of occasions, the applicant requested the court to lift its attachment but this was to no avail.\n12.  On 2 June 2002 the applicant lodged a counterclaim against S.N., seeking a declaration that the contract was valid and that he was a bona fide purchaser. On 5 June 2002 the District Court ruled to consider this claim at the same time as other claims lodged by S.N.\n13.  On 17 March 2004 the District Court allowed the claims of P.V., P.O. and the applicant, and dismissed the claims of S.N. In particular, it found that S.N. was no longer entitled to live at the disputed apartment, declared the sales contract valid and acknowledged that the applicant was a bona fide purchaser. S.N. appealed.\n14.  Between June 2004 and April 2005 the courts examined the admissibility of S.N.’s appeal. On 7 April 2005 the Court of Appeal extended the time-limit during which the parties could lodge an appeal against the judgment of 17 March 2004. According to the applicant, the courts did not inform him about the hearings on the appeal and the decisions were not delivered to him in good time.\n15.  On 26 May 2005 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 17 March 2004 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. On 6 July 2007 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of cassation, dismissed the appeals in cassation of P.V., P.O. and the applicant, and upheld the decision of 26 May 2005.\n16.  On 20 November 2007 the District Court took over the case.\n17.  On 10 December 2007 S.N. lodged a request to transmit the case to another court. On 26 December 2007 the District Court allowed his request. On 7 February 2008 the Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of 10 December 2007.\n18.  The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5839", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Rowner Gosport Hants, United Kingdom.\n6.  On 3 June 1997 the Split State Attorney's Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo) indicted A.B., D.D., G.A. and E.R. before the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) for participation in an affray (sudjelovanje u tučnjavi) and D.Š. for the murder of the applicant's son on 8 September 1996. The applicant participated in the proceedings as the injured party (oštećenik).\n7.  On 19 July 2000 the Split County Court delivered a judgment finding the first four accused guilty while acquitting D.Š. It also instructed the applicant to pursue his claim for non-pecuniary damage against the four accused in separate civil proceedings.\n8.  Following an appeal by the State Attorney, on 5 December 2002 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) reversed the lower-instance judgment in the part concerning the first four accused by acquitting them, as their prosecution had become time-barred. It also quashed the judgment in the part concerning D.Š. and remitted the case.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, at the hearing held on 27 November 2003, the applicant stated that he had already instituted civil proceedings for damages concerning the death of his son (see paragraph 15 below).\n10.  However, on 10 February 2006 the applicant made a civil claim (imovinskopravni zahtjev) in the criminal proceedings, seeking compensation of non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 300,000 Croatian kunas (HRK).\n11.  In the resumed proceedings the court held five of fourteen scheduled hearings, whereas the others were adjourned due to the inability of domestic authorities to locate a witness and the non-attendance of the defendant's lawyer and experts.\n12.  On 10 July 2007 the Split County Court delivered a judgment acquitting D.Š. and instructing the applicant to pursue his compensation claim against the accused in separate civil proceedings that he had already instituted.\n13.  Following an appeal by the State Attorney, on 22 January 2008 the Supreme Court again quashed the lower-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n14.  The proceedings are still pending before the Split County Court.\n15.  On 21 July 2003 the applicant brought a civil action in the Kaštel Lukšić Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Kaštel Lukšiću) against D.Š., seeking non-pecuniary damages in connection with the death of his son.\n16.  On 7 June 2004 the Municipal Court, at the request of the parties, stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the above-mentioned criminal proceedings.\n17.  On 22 March 2004 the applicant brought a civil action in the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) against the State, also seeking non-pecuniary damages in connection with the death of his son. On 26 April 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant since the defendant had failed to respond to his civil action (presuda zbog ogluhe).\n18.  Following the defendant's request, on 9 July 2004 the Municipal Court restored the proceedings to the status quo ante (povrat u prijašnje stanje).\n19.  On 21 September 2004 at the applicant's request, the Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the above-mentioned criminal proceedings.\n20.  On 13 February 2006 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Supreme Court complaining about the length of the above-mentioned criminal ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5840", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Biskupiec.\n5.  On 19 June 2002 the applicant was arrested on charges of arson and uttering threats. On an unknown later date he was indicted before the Biskupiec District Court.\n6.  Between 19 March and 19 June 2006 the applicant was detained on remand.\n7.  On 3 June 2003 the District Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 26 June 2003 the applicant appealed against his conviction.\n9.  On 16 October 2003 the Olsztyn Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case.\n10.  Between 19 October 2005 and 29 March 2006 the District Court held seven hearings. On several occasions the applicant who was duly summoned, refused to appear at hearings. However, the court proceeded with the trial in his absence.\n11.  On 31 March 2006 the Biskupiec District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.\n12.  On 14 September 2006 the Olsztyn Regional Court again quashed the judgment and remitted the case.\n13.  On 3 June 2009 the Gizycko District Court again convicted the applicant as charged.\n14.  On 27 July 2009 the applicant filed his appeal against this judgment. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Olsztyn Regional Court.\n15.  On 16 and 21 August 2007 the applicant lodged complaints with the Białystok Court of Appeal under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Olsztyn Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction.\n16.  On 7 November 2007 the Court of Appeal gave a decision and dismissed the applicant’s complaint.\n17.  On 19 June 2008 the Olsztyn Regional Court dismissed yet another complaint under 2004 Act lodged by the applicant. The court considered that there had been no significant delays in the proceedings.\n18.  The applicant was also involved in several other sets of criminal and civil proceedings, in particular, proceedings concerning assaulting a judge and contempt of court. The proceedings were terminated respectively on 24 October 2005 and 14 March 2007 by the Olsztyn Regional Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5841", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Krásno Nad Kysucou.\n5.  On 3 May 1996 the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, brought an action against 35 individuals before the Čadca District Court. He sought a judicial ruling declaring that certain immovable property belonged to the estate of his late grandfather.\n6. Between June 1996 and July 1998 the District Court gathered information concerning identification and value of the property in question and identification of the defendants, it also appointed official representatives of missing defendants and requested observations from the defendants.\n7.  Between June 1996 and October 1997 the District Court requested the applicant three times to submit a certificate of the quality of the disputed land. In July 1996 the applicant responded that according to the existing legal regulation it was not possible to submit it. At the court's following request of July 1997 the applicant requested twice for extension of time to submit the relevant information. After the court's last request of October 1997 the applicant submitted a different valuation of the property which the Court accepted.\n8.  Between 19 October 1998 and 22 April 2005 the District Court held five hearings, heard witnesses, sought to establish who were the actual defendants and secured documentary evidence. \n   9.  At the last hearing on 16 May 2005 the District Court handed down a judgment dismissing the action. The District Court held that the applicant had no legal standing to lodge a claim for a judicial ruling declaring that the real estate belonged to the estate of his late grandfather since he was not one of the heirs. Therefore the applicant could not be considered as having a “pressing legal interest” in obtaining the declaratory ruling sought in respect of his late grandfather's patrimony.\n10.  The District Court was unable to have the judgment served on seven defendants since some of them had died, had not taken over the court's correspondence, had moved or their address was unknown.\n12.  On 4 October 2005 the District Court delivered a decision correcting a mistake in one of the defendant's identification. Subsequently the District Court repeatedly attempted to have the decision served on the defendants. The last defendant received the judgment and the correcting decision on 6 April 2006.\n13.  On 3 May 2006 the District Court transmitted the case file to the court of appeal which on 2 April 2008 upheld the first-instance judgment. The judgment became final on 28 October 2008.\n14.  In February 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. Relying on Articles 48 § 2 and 127 of the Constitution, he complained that the length of the proceedings in his action of 1996 had been excessive.\n15.  In a judgment of 2 July 2003 the Constitutional Court found that there had been no violation of the applicant's constitutional right to a “hearing without undue delay”. The Constitutional Court observed that the subject-matter of the proceedings was of a certain factual complexity in that it had been difficult to determine who were the actual defendants to the action. It was also noted that the circle of defendants had been changing in the course of the proceedings. The District Court had to invite the applicant nine times to provide updated information in this respect and it was necessary to examine court files in other matters which were relevant to the applicant's action. In this context the applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5843", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Ankara.\n4.  On 17 June 2003 the applicant brought compensation proceedings against the Governor of Kayseri, along with another person, before the First Chamber of the Kayseri Civil Court (case no. 2003/570).\n5.  On 22 April 2005 the Governor of Kayseri brought counter‑proceedings for compensation before the Fourth Chamber of the Kayseri Civil Court (2005/168). On 11 September 2006 the cases were joined.\n6.  On 5 June 2008 the court of first instance rejected both claims.\n7.  On 11 May 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Kayseri Civil Court and on 8 October 2009 it rejected the applicant's rectification request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5844", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Klaipėda.\n6.  From 15 October 1993 until 30 October 1995 the applicant was the chairman of the commercial bank Vakarų Bankas.\n7.  On 6 September 1995 a criminal case was instituted regarding embezzlement of the bank's property.\n8.  The Government submitted that on 6 November 1995 the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the case. The questioning of the applicant lasted for three to four hours, including breaks and examination of documents.\n9.  On 21 October 1996 the applicant was charged with embezzlement of property of a high value. He was later also charged with forgery of an official document. A prosecutor imposed a remand measure on the applicant pending further action – the obligation not to leave his place of residence.\n10.  On 30 July 1997 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. On 26 January 1999 the Vilnius Regional Court decided to release the applicant from pre-trial detention on 29 January 1999, as on that date the statutory eighteen-month time-limit for holding him in detention would end.\n11.  From 30 January 1999 until 29 July 1999 the applicant was held under house arrest.\n12.  From 29 July 1999 until 3 October 2005 the applicant was under an order not to leave his place of residence.\n13.  On 29 July 1999 the prosecutor brought the case before the Klaipėda City District Court.\n14.  On 12 August 1999 the Klaipėda City District Court committed the applicant for trial and set 2 December 1999 as the date of the first hearing.\n15.  By a judgment of 20 April 2001, the Klaipėda City District Court acquitted the applicant, dismissing both charges against him. The court also acquitted the applicant's co-defendant in the case.\n16.  Following an appeal by the prosecutor, on 23 April 2002 the Klaipėda Regional Court upheld the lower court's judgment acquitting the applicant. The appellate court quashed the trial court's judgment in respect of the co-defendant and remitted that part of the case to the prosecutor's office for further investigation.\n17.  The prosecution and the applicant's co-defendant submitted cassation appeals.\n18.  On 15 October 2002 the Supreme Court decided that the prosecution had failed to properly formulate the charges against the applicant and his co-defendant. The court concluded that this failure was a violation of essential procedural rules and therefore remitted the case to the Klaipėda Regional Prosecutor's Office for further investigation.\n19.  On 6 August 2004 the applicant's lawyer requested the prosecutor not to proceed with the case, as the applicant had not committed the crimes with which he had been charged.\n20.  On 13 August 2004 the prosecution dismissed his request.\n21.  On 3 September 2004 the Klaipėda Regional Prosecutor's Office concluded its pre-trial investigation and notified the applicant thereof. Having submitted a new bill of indictment, in which the applicant was charged with embezzlement of property of a high value, the prosecution transferred the case to the Klaipėda Regional Court on 9 September 2004.\n22.  By a judgment of 27 May 2005, the Klaipėda Regional Court dismissed the charges against the applicant as unfounded. As to the applicant's co-defendant, he was acquitted of some charges; criminal action on the remaining charges lapsed through the term of prescription.\n23.  The prosecution and the applicant's co-defendant appealed.\n24.  On 3 October 2005 the Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant's co-defendant of all ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5845", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Košice.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  In 1998 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against an individual.\n7.  On 9 June 2000 the Košice I District Office of Investigation commenced an investigation against the latter in relation to damage allegedly caused to the applicant.\n8.  On 22 June 2000 the Košice I District Office of Investigation heard the applicant who in his statement claimed damages of 220,000 Slovakian korunas (SKK).\n9.  The accussed was indicted before the Košice I District Court on 26 September 2000.\n10.  Between October 2000 and June 2002 the District Court scheduled nineteen hearings. Nine hearings were adjourned on the ground of the failure of the accused or his attorney to appear, whereby in some cases the reasons for their absence were not supported by any evidence. Four hearings had to be adjourned due to one of the chamber's member's illness and two hearings were adjourned due to absence of a witness.\n11.  On 17 December 2001 the District Court joined the proceedings with a different criminal case concerning the same accused.\n12.  On 5 June 2002 the District Court convicted the accused of an offence and ordered him to pay SKK 220,000 to the applicant in compensation for damage.\n13.  On 30 October 2002 the court of appeal quashed the first-instance judgment.\n14.  In the subsequent period from February 2003 until February 2006 twelve hearings were scheduled out of which ten had to be adjourned due to absence of the accused or his attorney. At several hearings both the attorney and the accused failed to inform the court of the reasons for their absence.\n15.  On 1 July 2005 the President of the Košice I District Court, in reply to the applicant's complaint of the length of the proceedings, admitted that the proceedings had lasted a long time, which was due to absence of the accused and illness of one member of a chamber. However, the President found that there were no subjective delays attributable to the court.\n16.  On 10 November 2005 the District Court requested an expert opinion relating to the state of health of the accused with regard to his ability to attend a hearing.\n17.  On 22 February 2006 a hearing took place at which the accused refused to give a statement.\n18.  On 4 April 2006, after the accused had failed to appear before the court for the hearing scheduled for 27 March 2006, the District Court issued a warrant for his arrest.\n19.  On 19 April 2006 the warrant was quashed since the accused had proved that he had been ill at the time of the hearing.\n20.  On 22 May and 21 June 2006 the District Court adjourned the hearing as the attorney of the accused and the accused failed to appear.\n21.  From June 2006 until October 2006 the District Court sent several inquiries to the doctor of the accused including a request for a second expert opinion relating to the state of health of the accused with regard to his ability to attend a hearing.\n22.  On 15 October 2007 a hearing took place. On 15 November 2007, after the accused had failed to appear before the court for the hearing scheduled for 7 November 2007, the District Court issued a new warrant for his arrest.\n23.  On 25 January 2008 the accused was remanded in custody.\n24.  On 12 March 2008 the accused was found guilty of fraud and ordered to pay an amount of money in compensation for damage to the injured parties including the applicant. The prose", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5846", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Mažeikiai.\n5.  On 17 January 1996 the Lithuanian authorities decided to charge the applicant with the embezzlement of 1,000,000 Lithuanian litas (LTL), which his company had given him to purchase certain equipment. Given that prior to the latter date the applicant had fled Lithuania, the prosecutors ordered a search for him. It was also decided that, once apprehended, the applicant would be placed in detention.\n6.  On 16 May 1996 the authorities apprehended the applicant in Latvia, brought him to Lithuania and placed him in detention. The same day the applicant was informed about the charges against him.\n7.  On 15 August 1996 the applicant was released from detention and placed under house arrest. When questioned before a pre-trial judge, the applicant asserted that, whilst staying in Latvia, he had no information about his search. The applicant admitted that his wife had visited him in Riga a couple of times; however, she had never told him about pending criminal charges against him.\nThe applicant remained under house arrest until 19 April 2006.\n8.  Later on in 1996 the prosecution charged the applicant with having fraudulently reported a crime and with forgery of an official document.\n9.  On 22 June 1998 the pre-trial investigation was concluded and the case was transferred to the Mažeikiai District Court.\n10.  On 2 December 2002, 3 and 22 April 2003 the hearing of the case was postponed, since some of the applicant's co-accused failed to appear in court.\n11.  On 2 September 2004 the Mažeikiai District Court dismissed as time-barred the charges against the applicant for forgery of documents and fraudulent reporting of a crime.\n12.  The same day the Mažeikiai District Court convicted the applicant and six of his co-accused of having acted in an organised group of persons who fraudulently acquired property of a significant value. The applicant was sentenced to two years and six months of deprivation of liberty.\n13.  The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 25 November 2004, 12 September 2005 and 9 February 2006 the examination of the case on appeal was postponed because the lawyers for the applicant and the co-accused failed to appear in court.\n15.  On 19 April 2006 the Šiauliai Regional Court amended the lower court's judgment. It convicted the applicant of assisting in fraudulently acquiring property of a significant value, and reduced the sentence imposed by one year.\n16.  On 14 November 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5847", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is the publisher of a national daily newspaper in the United Kingdom known as The Daily Mirror (formerly known as the Mirror). It is represented before the Court by Mr K. Bays of Davenport Lyons, a solicitor practising in London.\n6.  On 1 February 2001 the “Mirror” newspaper carried on the front page an article headed “Naomi: I am a drug addict”, placed between two colour photographs of Ms Naomi Campbell, a well-known model. The first photograph, slightly indistinct, showed her dressed in a baseball cap and had a caption: “Therapy: Naomi outside meeting”. The second showed her glamorously partially covered by a string of beads.\n7.  The article read as follows:\n“Supermodel Naomi Campbell is attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings in a courageous bid to beat her addiction to drink and drugs.\nThe 30-year old has been a regular at counselling sessions for three months, often attending twice a day.\nDressed in jeans and baseball cap, she arrived at one of NA's lunchtime meetings this week. Hours later at a different venue she made a low-key entrance to a women-only gathering of recovered addicts.\nDespite her £14million fortune Naomi is treated as just another addict trying to put her life back together. A source close to her said last night: 'She wants to clean up her life for good. She went into modelling when she was very young and it is easy to be led astray. Drink and drugs are unfortunately widely available in the fashion world. But Naomi has realised she has a problem and has bravely vowed to do something about it. Everyone wishes her well.'\nHer spokeswoman at Elite Models declined to comment.”\n8.  The story continued inside the newspaper with a longer article across two pages. This article was headed “Naomi's finally trying to beat the demons that have been haunting her” and the opening paragraphs read:\n“She's just another face in the crowd, but the gleaming smile is unmistakeably Naomi Campbell's. In our picture, the catwalk queen emerges from a gruelling two-hour session at Narcotics Anonymous and gives a friend a loving hug.\nThis is one of the world's most beautiful women facing up to her drink and drugs addiction - and clearly winning.\nThe London-born supermodel has been going to NA meetings for the past three months as she tries to change her wild lifestyle.\nSuch is her commitment to conquering her problem that she regularly goes twice a day to group counselling ...\nTo the rest of the group she is simply Naomi, the addict. Not the supermodel. Not the style icon.”\n9.  The article made mention of Ms Campbell's efforts to rehabilitate herself and that one of her friends had said that she was still fragile but “getting healthy”. The article gave a general description of Narcotics Anonymous (“NA”) therapy and referred to some of Ms Campbell's recently publicised activities including an occasion when she had been rushed to hospital and had her stomach pumped: while she had claimed it was an allergic reaction to antibiotics and that she had never had a drug problem, the article noted that “those closest to her knew the truth”.\n10.  In the middle of the double page spread, between several innocuous pictures of Ms Campbell, was a dominating picture with a caption “Hugs: Naomi, dressed in jeans and baseball hat, arrives for a lunchtime group meeting this week”. The picture showed her in the street on the doorstep of a building as the central figure in a small group. She was being embraced by two people whose faces had been ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5848", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Kaunas.\n5.  The applicant was a director of a holding company.\n6.  In 1994 the applicant became a suspect in a criminal case of fraud.\n7.  By investigator's decisions of 29 October 1994, 13 and 23 August 1996 the applicant's property was seized.\n8.  On 27 August 1996 the applicant was charged with unlawful financial activities, fraud, and breaching the currency and securities regulations. Four other persons were charged as his accomplices. It was suspected that the co-accused had misappropriated large sums of money which had been deposited by private persons and companies. More than hundred victims were identified.\n9.  On 15 October 1998 the Kaunas City District Court convicted the applicant, sentencing him to four years' imprisonment under strict regime. The applicant was arrested in open court.\n10.  On 22 March 1999 the Kaunas Regional Court amended the judgment, acquitting the applicant of some charges and reducing the sentence to two years' imprisonment.\n11.  On 30 September 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts' judgments due to various procedural irregularities. It was established that the applicant had not been given access to the case file, and that the reasoning in the judgments was too vague. The case was returned for fresh examination. The applicant's detention was replaced by an obligation to stay in his place of residence.\n12.  On 25 October 1999 the Kaunas City District Court returned the case for an additional pre-trial investigation. On an unspecified date, the case was transmitted to the court for trial.\n13.  On 5 January 2004 the Kaunas City District Court again decided to remit the case for additional investigatory measures.\n14.  On 25 March 2004 the Kaunas Regional Court quashed the decision, ordering the first instance court to proceed to trial.\n15.  On 22 June 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision.\n16.  On 3 December 2004 the Kaunas City District Court terminated the criminal proceedings because the statutory time-limit for prosecution had lapsed. The civil claims against the applicant and the co-accused were left unexamined. The court also lifted the seizure of the applicant's property.\n17.  The applicant appealed against the decision to terminate the proceedings on procedural basis, arguing that he should have been acquitted. By a final ruling of 10 November 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court refused to examine the appeal as the applicant had missed the time-limit for lodging it.\n18.  The applicant also brought an action for damages, alleging a judicial error resulting in his imprisonment under the strict regime. His action was rejected as unsubstantiated by the Panevėžys Regional Court on 30 September 1999, the Court of Appeal on 23 November 1999, and finally the Supreme Court on 22 March 2000.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5849", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Ig.\n6.  On 9 May 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani) against two hunting clubs seeking damages in the amount of 557.20 euros sustained in a car accident, caused by a roe deer.\n7.  Between 9 February 2001 and 31 August 2005 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or requests for a hearing.\n8.  During the proceedings the court appointed one expert and held three hearings\n9.  At the last hearing, on 22 March 2007, the court delivered a judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 26 April 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5850", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1992 and 1996 respectively and live in Belgrade.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 28 December 2000 the Third Municipal Court (Treći opštinski sud) in Belgrade dissolved the marriage between the applicants' parents and ordered their father (hereinafter “the defendant”) to pay each of them 25% of his monthly income in child maintenance.\n9.  On 27 June 2001 this judgment became final.\n10.  On 2 April 2003 the applicants' mother filed a criminal complaint against the defendant, alleging his failure to pay the child maintenance awarded.\n11.  On 13 May 2003 the Third Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office requested the opening of the investigation.\n12. On 29 May 2003, in the course of the preliminary proceedings before the Third Municipal Court, the applicants' mother, acting on behalf of the applicants, sought payment of the child maintenance accrued on the bases of the judgment adopted on 28 December 2000 (i.e. submitted a “civil-party complaint”; “podnela predlog za ostvarivanje imovinsko-pravnog zahteva”).\n13.  On 14 July 2003 the Third Municipal Public Prosecutor's Office formally indicted the defendant in this respect.\n14.  The first hearing scheduled for 9 December 2003 was adjourned.\n15.  Between March 2004 and April 2005 two hearings were held whilst another three hearings were adjourned on various procedural grounds.\n16.  On 25 April 2005 the Third Municipal Court decided to consider the applicants' civil complaint on the merits and requested an expert opinion in respect of the amount of accrued maintenance between January 2001 and June 2005.\n17. The expert produced his report on 7 July 2005.\n18.  Between August 2005 and October 2006, four hearings were adjourned either because of the failure of the defendant's lawyer to appear before the court or the court's failure to summon him properly.\n19.  In view of a possibility of settling the problem with the defendant, the applicants' legal representative requested the court to grant a short adjournment of the hearing of 22 November 2006. The court rescheduled the hearing for 8 December 2006.\n20. Between December 2006 and October 2007, another two hearings were held whilst three hearings were adjourned on procedural grounds, one of them because of the presiding judge's “other commitments” (zbog sprečenosti).\n21. In a letter of 11 September 2007, addressed to the President of the Third Municipal Court, the applicants alleged that the presiding judge had herself indicated that she “did not know what to do with the case” and would gladly be replaced by another judge.\n22.  On 22 November 2007 the Third Municipal Court requested an updated version of the expert's opinion.\n23.  The expert submitted his report on 8 January 2008.\n24.  The court served this report on the parties at the hearing of 8 February 2008, which was adjourned to allow them to submit their written comments.\n25. The hearing scheduled for 6 March 2008 was adjourned because the prosecutor and the applicants' representative had failed to appear, and re-scheduled for 1 April 2008.\n26.  Given the defendant's failure to appear in court, the court adjourned the hearing of 1 April 2008 and scheduled the next hearing for 9 July 2008. This hearing would appear to have been also adjourned.\n27.  On 8 October 2008 the Third Municipal Court found the defendant guilty of failing to pay child maintenance and sentenced him to three months' in prison, sus", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5851", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Szczecin.\n6.  On 20 March 2003 the Krakow District Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand. The court referred to the fact that the evidence collected in the case indicated a high probability that the applicant had committed fraud and money laundering while acting in an organised criminal gang. It further stressed that it was impossible to establish the applicant's domicile and it appeared that he resided outside the country.\n7.  On 22 July 2003 the Kraków Appeal Prosecutor issued an international wanted notice for the applicant.\n8.  On 16 September 2004 the Kraków Regional Court issued an European Arrest Warrant for the applicant.\n9.  On 8 March 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud and money laundering committed while acting in an organised criminal gang.\n10.  On 10 March 2005 the Krakow District Court remanded the applicant in custody. The court stressed that the evidence collected in the case indicated a high probability that the applicant had committed the offences in question. In addition, it referred to the need to secure the proper course of the proceedings as there was a fear that the applicant would attempt to avoid the trial and also influence witnesses.\n11.  During the proceedings the applicant's detention was extended on 7 June, 2 September, 5 December 2005 and 7 March 2006. The court referred to the reasons previously given.\n12.  On 23 June 2006 a bill of indictment against the applicant and twenty three co-accused was lodged with the Kraków District Court. It appears that only two other co-accused were remanded in custody. The applicant was charged with various counts of fraud, money laundering, and organising and leading a criminal group. The bill of indictment comprised 1,092 pages and the prosecutor requested to hear evidence from 200 witnesses.\n13.  On 28 June 2006 the Kraków District Court extended the applicant's detention. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It attached importance to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings.\n14.  On 12 July 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. He claimed that the investigation of the present case had already been terminated. In addition, he stressed that he had reported himself voluntarily to the District Prosecutor on 8 March 2005. It appears that his appeal was dismissed at a later, unknown date.\n15.  During the trial, the courts further extended the applicant's detention on several occasions, namely on 27 September 2006 (to 30 December 2006), 21 December 2006 (to 8 March 2007), 2 March 2007 (to 8 September 2007) and 6 September 2007 (to 8 March 2008). The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's continued detention. They attached importance to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings.\n16.  The applicant's further appeals against some of the decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him were unsuccessful.\n17.  On 10 November 2006 the Kraków District Court considered itself not competent to examine the case and decided to refer it to the Zielona Góra District Court. The applicant appealed against this decision. It was upheld by the K", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5852", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  In 1997 the officers of the Vilnius City tax inspectorate investigated the applicant's declaration and payment of taxes. On 31 October 1997 they drew up a report in which the applicant was ordered to pay a sum of 906,566 Lithuanian litai (LTL; 262,444 euros (EUR)). The sum was comprised of LTL 457,139 (EUR 130,155) in tax arrears and interests, and LTL 449,427 (EUR 132,289) in fines.\n5.  The applicant company contested the tax authorities' decisions before the Commission on Tax Disputes, a pre-trial tax-dispute settlement institution, which on 27 July 1999 partly granted its appeal and lowered the amount of fine to be paid to LTL 129,986 (EUR 37,644).\n6.  On 19 August 1999 the tax authorities decided to seize some of the applicant company's property to secure the payment of tax arrears and penalties. The seizure remained in force until 28 September 2004.\n7.  On 15 June 2001 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court partly granted the applicant company's appeal.\n8.  On 13 September 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the lower court's decision. It ordered the State tax inspectorate to freshly examine the tax dispute. It was established that the company, in breach of accounting rules, had failed to keep proper book-keeping records and therefore the tax authorities could not properly establish the tax base directly relying on the company's documents. The court concluded that in assessing the tax arrears the authorities could have recourse to the indirect method for establishing the tax base (Mokesčio bazės netiesioginio nustatymo metodas), when as a source of information the tax authorities rely on the financial documents of other companies, that the applicant company had business transactions with. The indirect method for establishing the tax base came into force by the Government's regulation of 3 September 1998.\n9.  Between October 2001 and March 2004 the tax authorities conducted several new investigations of the company's tax payment records. Having had recourse to the indirect method for establishing the tax base, on 24 March 2004 the inspectors adopted a new decision as to the tax arrears and penalties which the applicant company was liable to pay, including those for the accounting years 1994-97.\n10.  On 10 February 2005 the Commission on Tax Disputes upheld the tax authorities' decision.\n11.  On 19 May 2005 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant company's appeal as not founded.\n12.  On 4 October 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court's decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5853", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1956 and 1982 and live in Maribor.\n6.  On 10 March 1997 the applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 8,202.697 Slovenian tolars (SIT, approximately 34,000 euros) for the death of a family member in a car accident.\n7.  Between 25 August 1997 and 6 March 2000 the applicants lodged fourteen preliminary written submissions and requests that a date be set for a hearing.\n8.  On 7 April 2000 a hearing was held and the first-instance court delivered a partial judgement. All three defending parties appealed.\n9.  On 27 September 2001 the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) delivered a judgment upholding the appeal in part. An appeal on points of law was lodged against the rejected part of the appeal by one of the defending parties.\n10.  On 16 December 2004 the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) rejected the appeal on points of law and the proceedings continued before the first-instance court.\n11.  On 19 September 2005 the Celje District Court delivered a judgment upholding the applicants' claim in part. An appeal was lodged.\n12.  On 7 February 2007 the Celje Higher Court issued a judgment upholding the appeal in part. An appeal on points of law was lodged.\n13.  On 7 June 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the appeal on points of law in part and changed the second-instance judgment. The judgment was served on the applicants on 29 June 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5854", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Košice.\n6.  On 30 June 2000 the applicant's husband filed a complaint with the police alleging that the applicant had beaten and wounded him on 25 June 2000.\n7.  On 3 July 2000 the police department in Košice issued a decision by which it dropped the case on the ground that the applicant's husband did not agree to criminal proceedings being brought against her. The decision stated that although the police “investigation” had established that the applicant had committed a criminal offence, criminal prosecution was barred as the victim, the applicant's husband, had not given his consent as required under Article 163 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant was not notified of this decision, nor is there any evidence in the case file that she was questioned or otherwise made aware of her husband's complaint.\n8.  On 28 January 2002 a health insurance company wrote to the applicant asking her to reimburse the costs of her husband's medical treatment. According to the letter, the applicant's husband had been treated in a hospital on 25 June 2000 as a result of injuries which the applicant had inflicted on him. Reference was made, inter alia, to the decision issued by the police department in Košice on 3 July 2000.\n9.  In a letter dated 3 July 2002 the insurance company explained the position to the applicant in reply to her request. A copy of the police decision of 3 July 2000 was enclosed with the letter which was delivered to the applicant's lawyer on 15 July 2002. The relevant part of the decision of 3 July 2000 read as follows:\n“The investigation showed that [the applicant's] action met the constituent elements of the offence of causing injury to health pursuant to Article 221(1) of the Criminal Code in that she had deliberately inflicted an injury on another person.”\n10.  On 16 July 2002 the applicant informed the competent police department in Košice that the text of its decision violated her right to be presumed innocent. She requested an apology and that the police inform the health insurance company of this breach. On 9 August 2002 the director of the police department replied to the applicant, stating that the above decision had been given in accordance with the relevant law.\n11.  In a letter of 17 July 2002 the applicant requested that the Košice II District Prosecutor's Office quash the police decision of 3 July 2000. On 26 August 2002 the applicant was informed that the decision was not contrary to constitutional principles. The letter stated, in particular, that the task of the police had been to determine whether a justified reason existed to consider that a particular person had committed the offence in issue. The relevant text of the contested decision had been drafted and was to be read in that context.\n12.  On 12 September 2002 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. She alleged, inter alia, that by issuing its decision of 3 July 2000, the police department in Košice had violated her constitutional rights to be presumed innocent and to respect for her honour and reputation.\n13.  On 27 November 2002 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as having been filed outside the statutory two month time-limit. The decision referred to section 53 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act of 1993, which provided that the time-limit was to be counted from the day on which the plaintiff learned or could have learned about the contested measure. In rejecting th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5855", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Niš.\n5.  Following the applicant's arrest in 1999 and detention in 2000, there were two sets of criminal proceedings brought against him. By 17 February 2004 the applicant was convicted for the crimes charged with.\n6.  On 24 November 2005, in view of all applicant's convictions and sentences, the competent domestic court imposed a single sentence (jedinstvena kazna zatvora) against the applicant. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment.\n7.  It would appear that the applicant served incarceration alternating between Požarevac-Zabela Correctional Institution and Niš Penitentiary.\n8.  The applicant's letters to the District Courts in Kraljevo and Šabac, the Supreme Court, the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Serbian Ministry of Justice, of 4 March 2004, 15 March 2004, 31 March 2004, 13 April 2004, 7 October 2004, 3 December 2004, 10 September 2005, 26 September 2005 and 25 October 2005, all bore prison stamps dated 4 March 2004 (24-2879/2004), 15 March 2004 (24-3211/2004), 1 April 2004 (24-4105/2004), 13 April 2004 (24-4557/2004), 7 October 2004 (1-713-3064/2004), 3 December 2004 (713-12568/2004), 10 September 2005 (1-713-1965/2005), 26 September 2005 (1-071-2172/2005) and 25 October 2005 (1-071-2419/2005), respectively.\n9.  The Supreme Court's letter of 25 March 2004, addressed to the applicant, bore the prison stamp of 31 March 2004 and registration number 1-713-4038/2004. Furthermore, the decisions of the District Court in Šabac of 25 November 2004, the Supreme Court of 8 February 2005, as well as the District Court in Kraljevo of 23 August 2005 and 24 November 2005, also bore the prison stamps dated 1 December 2004 (713-12391/2004), 18 April 2005 (713-4624/2005), 7 September 2005 (713-9801/2005) and 5 December 2005 (713-13783/2005), respectively.\n10.  The applicant's letter of 26 April 2004, sent to the Court, bore the prison stamp dated 26 April 2004, as well as registration number 24-5086/2004.\n11.  In its own letter of 22 December 2004, inter alia, the Court's Registry therefore informed the applicant in Serbian of the said stamp, assuming that he may not have been aware of it.\n12.  In his subsequent letter of 18 January 2005, the applicant acknowledged that his letter addressed to the Court had born the prison stamp and stated that he would like to additionally complain about the State's ongoing interference with his correspondence. This letter did not bear any prison stamp or registration number.\n13.  In his letter of 24 November 2005, the applicant informed the Court that, as of 1 November 2005, prisoners were allegedly allowed to send their letters without leaving them opened to be stamped by the prison authorities.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5858", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Heidelberg.\n6.  The applicant and his former wife married in 1996. They have two children, a son born in December 1992 and a daughter born in May 1996. Until 1997 the applicant assumed a major part of the child care while the mother completed her studies. In July 1997 the couple separated and the children remained with the mother. The applicant had regular contact with his children until the beginning of 1998 when the mother and children moved from Heidelberg to Rees in North Rhine-Westphalia. Following the move the mother's parents assumed a large part of the child care because the mother was in full-time employment.\n7.  The applicant subsequently found that his regular contacts with the children were obstructed by the mother and her parents and lodged an application for the regulation of his contact rights (Umgangsrecht) with the Emmerich District Court in March 1998. By a court decision of 23 July 1998 (file no. 5 F 105/98) he was granted contact with his children every second and fourth weekend of the month from 6 p.m. Friday to 6 p.m. Sunday.\n8.  Since disputes regarding the applicant's contact with his children persisted, the applicant instituted further proceedings for the regulation of his contact rights. At the same time, proceedings for a provisional decision on custody were opened, as well as divorce proceedings which also dealt with the issues of custody and contact rights as ancillary matters (Folgesachen). The proceedings were to a large extent conducted jointly until the applicant's former wife's petition for divorce was granted by a judgment dated 29 November 2001 and custody of the children was decided as an ancillary matter to the divorce. However, no decision on the applicant's contact rights was taken at that time.\n9.  The parties continued to argue about the applicant's contact rights with the children and regular contact was interrupted repeatedly and for longer intervals. The applicant instituted several further proceedings for the regulation of his contact rights on his own behalf and on behalf of his children, as well as proceedings to restrict contact between the children and their grandparents who, according to the applicant, were manipulating the children so as to alienate them from him. A court settlement on the regulation of the applicant's contact rights, concluded on 9 September 2002, was never accepted by the applicant, and he later challenged it.\n10.  On 31 August 1998 the applicant filed an application with the Emmerich District Court to be granted contact with his children in accordance with the aforementioned decision of 23 July 1998, arguing that the mother was not complying with the regulations set out therein. The proceedings were instituted under file no. 5 F 272/98. At approximately the same time custody proceedings were opened before the same court under file no. 5 F 283/98. A first hearing in the custody and contact rights proceedings was held on 29 September 1998, during which the older child was heard.\n11.  In 1999 the applicant's wife filed a petition for divorce with the Emmerich District Court under file no. 5 F 18/99.\n12.  A joint hearing in the custody, contact rights and divorce proceedings took place on 22 April 1999. The parties agreed to the commissioning of an expert opinion on a possible regulation of custody and contact rights. They further agreed that until the completion of the expert opinion the contact of the applicant with his ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5859", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  On 20 April 1999 the applicant lodged a claim with the Kominternivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Kominternivskyy Court”) against her brother. She sought the annulment of her father’s will.\n6.  On 26 November 2001 the Kominternivskyy Court left the claim without examination because the parties had failed to attend.\n7.  On 14 January 2002 the applicant lodged the same claim with the Kominternisvkyy Court. On the same date the court allowed the applicant’s request for securing the claim and seized the respondent’s property.\n8.  On 24 November 2008 the Kominternivskyy Court rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated.\n9.  On 12 December 2008 the applicant appealed against the judgment. On 12 January 2009 the Khrakiv Regional Court of Appeal left the appeal without examination as lodged out of time.\n10.  On 12 August 2009 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal in cassation, which she had to resubmit on one occasion in order to comply with procedural requirements, quashed the decision of 12 January 2009 and sent the case for examination to the Court of Appeal.\n11.  On 14 October 2009 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal examined the applicant’s appeal on the merits, after she had rectified certain shortcomings in her appeal. The court of appeal quashed the judgment of 24 November 2008, finding that the case had not been duly examined by the first-instance court and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n12.  The case is currently pending before the first-instance court.\n13.  In the course of the proceedings before the first-instance court, on 1 June 2004 and 15 March 2006 the applicant supplemented her claims. There were three expert examinations ordered on the applicant’s request and the proceedings were accordingly suspended for a total period of approximately eight months. The hearings were adjourned twenty-two times because of the applicant’s failure to appear or on her requests. On thirty-two occasions the hearings were adjourned because of the other participants’ failure to appear and of the judge’s absence or for technical reasons.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5861", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Stryy, the Lviv Region.\n5.  On 18 March 2004 the applicant lodged a claim with the Stryy Court against the State Social Protection Department and the State Pension Fund for recovery of a yearly allowance, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and for re-calculation of her pension.\n6.  On 23 June 2004 the Stryy Court rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated. On 12 August 2004 the Stryy Court rejected the applicant’s request for interpretation of the judgment.\n7.  On 4 October 2004 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 23 June 2004 and remitted the case for new consideration.\n8.  On 28 October 2004 the parties appealed in cassation. The applicant had to re-lodge her appeal in cassation as she had initially failed to comply with procedural requirements.\n9.  On 2 March 2007 the Supreme Court transferred the case for consideration to the Higher Administrative Court.\n10.  On 11 February 2009 the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the parties’ appeals in cassation.\n11.  On 1 April 2009 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for extraordinary review of the decision of 11 February 2009.\n12.  The case is currently pending before the first-instance court.\n13.  In the course of the proceedings before the first-instance court and court of appeal there were seventeen hearings held. The applicant supplemented her claims on two occasions. She lodged requests for rectification of the hearing records, for studying the case-file, for obtaining additional evidence and for interpretation of the judgment.\n14.  In October 2004 the applicant and her daughter instituted defamation proceedings before the Stryy Court against the State Pension Fund and S., a private person.\n15.  On 1 December 2004 the Stryy Court left the claim without examination for the claimants’ failure to substantiate it and to pay the court fee.\n16.  On 28 February 2005 and 10 September 2007, respectively, the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal and the Khmelnytsk Regional Court of Appeal (acting as a court of cassation) upheld the decision of 1 December 2004.\n17.  In December 2004 the applicant and two other persons lodged with the Lychakiv Court an administrative claim against the Lviv Regional State Administration, alleging incorrect calculation of their pension and unlawfulness of the claim for debts issued by the local gas supplying company.\n18.  On 14 February 2005 the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv found that the claim did not fall to be examined in the framework of the administrative procedure and was to be dealt under the rules of civil procedure. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim.\n19.  On 18 April 2005 and 23 August 2006 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal and the Higher Administrative Court, respectively, upheld the decision of 14 February 2005.\n20.  On 24 October 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for extraordinary review of the ruling of 23 August 2006.\n21.  In April 2005 the applicant and her daughter instituted defamation proceedings in the Stryy Court against the State Pension Fund and S., a private person.\n22.  On 20 May 2005 the Stryy Court left the claim without examination for the claimants’ failure to pay the court fee.\n23.  On 18 July 2005 and 25 October 2007, respectively, the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal and the Khmetlnytsk Regional Court of Appeal (acting as a court of cassation) upheld the decision of 20 May 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5862", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Nikopol, the Dnipropetrovsk Region.\n5.  On 22 December 1987 the Nikopol Court found the applicant guilty of violating road traffic rules and sentenced her to a fine and withdrawal of her driving licence for three years. It allowed the civil claim of the victim R. and obliged the applicant to pay him a certain amount in compensation.\n6.  On 16 February 1988 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 22 December 1987 as regards a part of R.’s claim for compensation, which did not concern the damaged parts of his car (see paragraph 7 below). It found that that part of the claim could be determined within the framework of civil proceedings. The remainder of the judgment of 22 December 1987 was upheld.\n7.  In July 1990 the applicant lodged a claim with the Nikopol Court for recovery of property from R. She sought recovery of the parts of the R.’s car (the damaged car body) which had been replaced by new ones at her expense.\n8.  Between July 1990 and September 1997 the case was re-examined on four occasions.\n9.  On 2 September 1997 the Nikopol Court ordered R. to pay the applicant 1,260.85 Ukrainian hryvnias[1] (UAH) in compensation for the value of the property claimed and court expenses.\n10.  In the course of the proceedings the car maintenance service joined the case as a co-respondent.\n11.  On 20 October 1997 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 2 September 1997 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n12.  On 7 December 1999 the Nikopol Court ordered an expert examination in the case.\n13.  On 12 June 2000 the Nikopol Court allowed the applicant’s claims against R. On 17 July 2000 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 12 June 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n14.  On 28 January 2003 the Nikopol Court allowed the applicant’s claims against R.\n15.  On 22 May 2003 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 28 January 2003 and discontinued proceedings in the case. It found that the issue of compensation for damage caused to the vehicle had been determined in the course of the criminal proceedings and that the applicant should have raised the claim within those proceedings. On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of 22 May 2003.\n16.  In the course of the civil proceedings the applicant once requested the court to postpone a hearing. She also lodged requests for an expert examination, for experts to be summoned and for certain documents to be joined to the case. The respondent in the applicant’s case failed to appear before the court on twelve occasions.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5865", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in the city of Grozny, in the Chechen Republic.\n8.  In the morning of 23 October 2003 the applicant, his parents Kh.G. and S.B. and three siblings, Z.G., M.G. and Z.Kh.G., were at home at 25, Shakespeare Street, Katayama district of Grozny.\n9.  At about 7 a.m. on 23 October 2003 five grey UAZ vehicles without registration numbers arrived at the house. A group of twenty to thirty men got off the vehicles and burst into the applicant's house. The intruders were wearing camouflage uniforms with insignia on the forearm indicating “Armed Forces of Russia” (Вооруженные Силы России), black masks and green helmets with plexiglass parts to protect their faces, those helmets being, according to the applicants, a usual part of the equipment of special‑purpose squads of the Russian security forces, such as the Federal Security Service (“FSB”). All intruders carried sub-machine guns, wore bullet-proof jackets and vests used for carrying full sub-machine gun cartridges. Some of them were, in addition, armed with pistols and were carrying black Kenwood walkie-talkies, through which they were communicating. They spoke unaccented Russian. According to the applicant and his relatives, the intruders' actions were very well co-ordinated.\n10.  The intruders took the applicant's family members outside and searched the house, without giving any explanations or presenting any warrants. One of the armed men ordered the Gisayevs to produce their identity papers. Having checked them, he ordered his subordinates to put the applicant in one of the UAZ vehicles. Shortly thereafter the applicant was placed in the vehicle and one of the intruders, sitting in the front passenger seat, ordered another man, whom he referred to as “Number 12”, to put a shirt over the applicant's head. He also told someone over his walkie-talkie: “To the base station, we carry out an arrest, do not disturb” (“По опорному пункту, у нас задержание, не беспокоить”).\n11.  After the applicant had been put in the vehicle, his father repeatedly requested the intruders to explain the reasons for the applicant's arrest, to name the State authority to which they belonged and to which he could apply in connection with the applicant's detention. Although the armed men initially disregarded his questions, one of them finally replied: “We will check him and let him go. You can request further information from the FSB.”\n12.  Shortly thereafter the intruders got into their vehicles and drove off in the direction of the Staropromyslovskoye highway in Grozny. While the applicant and his relatives were outside, they had an opportunity to memorise several details concerning the vehicles. In particular, they noticed that they were armoured and equipped with loopholes for riflemen and had on their roofs square boxes with long antennas. Subsequently, the applicant and his relatives learnt that those boxes were containers for radio-frequency suppression, which formed part of the special equipment of the FSB and the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian army (the “GRU”).\n13.  When the applicant's relatives went back inside, they discovered that some items and money had been taken.\n(b)  The applicant's detention and ill-treatment between 23 October and 8 November 2003\n(i)  Detention and ill-treatment in the first facility\n14.  After the abductors had taken off with the applicant, they drove for about twenty minutes. On its way the vehicle honked while passing thro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5867", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Sofia.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 1992 the Sofia district public prosecutor's office opened criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of large-scale embezzlement from the trade union where he worked as a financial assistant.\n7.  On an unspecified date the fact that criminal proceedings had been opened against the applicant was publicised in the local press. The applicant contends that he was dismissed from his job as a result and subsequently had difficulties finding employment as a specialist in the field of finance.\n8.  On 22 March 1993 the charges against the applicant were amended to embezzlement.\n9.  Thereafter the case was apparently transferred several times back and forth between the public prosecutor's office and the investigation authorities, the last such remittal being on 6 February 1996.\n10.  On an unspecified date it was discovered that the applicant's case file was missing. On 9 July 2003 the district public prosecutor's office ordered that the applicant's case file be restored.\n11.  Between October 2003 and May 2004 the applicant submitted several requests to the Sofia District Court for a procedure to be initiated under Article 239a of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1974 (CCP) to have his case examined by a court. In order to deal with the requests the District Court repeatedly requested the district public prosecutor's office to send it the applicant's case file, which apparently they failed to do.\n12.  On 11 March 2004 the District Court remitted the case to the prosecution authorities with instructions to file an indictment against the applicant within two months or discontinue the criminal proceedings against him.\n13.  On 8 April 2004 the district public prosecutor's office discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the grounds that no evidence had been gathered that he had committed an offence.\n14.  On 2 June 2004 the Sofia Regional Court confirmed the discontinuation of the proceedings.\n15.  In an order of 20 January 1994 the district public prosecutor's office imposed a prohibition on the applicant's leaving Bulgaria, under section 7 of the Foreign Travel Passports Act. The prohibition remained in force throughout the criminal proceedings.\n16.  On an unspecified date in 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Sofia regional public prosecutor's office, seeking that the prohibition on leaving the country be lifted so that he could make a trip to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. On 27 December 2002 the request was transmitted to the district public prosecutor's office.\n17.  In an order of 14 July 2003 the district public prosecutor's office refused to completely lift the prohibition on leaving the country, as more investigative actions had to be carried out. She suspended it however for a period of one month from 1 August 2003 in order to allow the applicant to make the desired trip. The applicant did not appeal against the order to the higher-level prosecutor's office.\n18.  On an unspecified date in August 2003 the applicant obtained a foreign travel passport. He attempted to leave the country on 5 September 2003 but was not allowed and his passport was seized at the border because his temporary right to travel abroad had expired.\n19.  The applicant asserts that on an unspecified date thereafter he requested the lifting of the prohibition to leave the country but received no reply.\n20.  On 8 April 2004 the distric", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5868", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the village of Solontsievka, Kharkiv Region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 15 March 1998 the applicant’s husband, who worked as an electrician at the construction site, died as a result of a work-related accident. On 10 September 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Dzerzhynsky District Court of Kharkiv against a joint stock company “T.”(“the company”) claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of his death.\n6.  On 15 September 1998 the case was transferred to the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kharkiv, which on 24 January 2001 allowed in part the applicant’s claims.\n7.  On 24 April 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Court[1] upheld this judgment. It became final.\n8.  On 21 June 2001 the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure entered into force. They provided a right to lodge a cassation appeal within a three-month period with the Supreme Court against court decisions adopted before 21 June 2001 and which had entered into force before that date. On 19 July 2001 the company lodged an appeal in cassation.\n9.  On 28 February 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first instance court.\n10.  In the course of the proceedings before the first instance court three other companies and the local department of the State Insurance Fund for Work-Related Accidents and Diseases (“the Fund”) were joined as co-defendants.\n11.  On 10 March 2006 the Zhovtnevy District Court of Kharkiv found in part for the applicant. The court awarded her, inter alia, UAH 68,648.34 (about EUR 11,366) to be paid by the Fund.\n12.  The Fund appealed against that judgment; however, on 24 October 2006 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal declined its appeal as lodged out of time. The Fund appealed in cassation. On 13 December 2007 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of cassation, quashed that decision and remitted the matter of the admissibility of the appeal for a fresh consideration.\n13.  On 5 November 2008 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal partly allowed the appeal by the Fund and ruled that the above amount of UAH 68,648.34 should be paid by the company and not by the Fund. It upheld the remainder of the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5870", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Osijek.\n7.  The events at issue took place in Vukovar, a Croatian town near the Serbian border which was heavily attacked by the Yugoslav People's Army and paramilitary Serbian armed forces during the Homeland War from August to November 1991 and finally occupied at the end of November 1991. Between 1992 and 1996 Vukovar was a part of the United Nations Protected Area (the “UNPA”).\n8.  In 1996 the United Nations Security Council established the United Nations Transitional Administration in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (the “UNTAES”), which included Vukovar. On 15 January 1998 the UNTAES mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the Croatian authorities began.\n9.  According to the applicant, on 17 September 1991 several members of the Serbian paramilitary forces came to her home, took some money and ransacked the house looking for money and gold. The applicant recognised three of them as P.Z., S.Z. and V.Z.\n10.  On 3 October 1991 three men, dressed in Yugoslav People's Army uniforms, one of whom was M.S. and personally known to the applicant, came to the applicant's family house in Vukovar. They hit her husband, A.J., before taking him away. A few minutes later the applicant heard shots from an automatic weapon. The uniformed men then also took the applicant and her grandson, M.J., together with some other persons, including S.M., to the military headquarters. On the way there the applicant saw the dead body of her husband, his head battered, lying on a path in front of a house; the persons who had brought him out of the house were standing next to the body.\n11.  In autumn 1991 the applicant reported the above-mentioned event to the Vukovar police station, which was located in Zagreb at that time.\n12.  On 18 March 1992 the Vinkovci Police Department lodged a criminal complaint with the Osijek Military Prosecution against ten alleged offenders (G.J., M.S., S.S., M.N., B.G., M.K., Z.R., P.N., S.Z. and V.Z.), alleging that on 3 October 1991 they had arrested several individuals and then killed two of them, one of whom was the applicant's husband, and had thus committed a war crime against the civilian population. Following a request of the Osijek Military Prosecution, dated 14 May 1992, the Osijek Military Court opened an investigation in respect of the ten suspects on 31 August 1992 on the criminal charge of armed rebellion. The Military Court also ordered the suspects' detention and issued a warrant to find and arrest them, as they had absconded.\n13.  On 9 February 1993 the Military Court heard evidence from the applicant and her son. The applicant said that in September and October 1991, after the Serbian forces had entered Vukovar, but before the city finally fell, several persons, including her former neighbours M.S., S.S. and three brothers Z., all dressed in Yugoslav People's Army uniforms and equipped with shotguns and Kalashnikovs, had been coming to the yard in front of her house daily, threatening her and asking for her sons. She further stated that one of the persons who had come to her house on 3 October 1991 and taken her husband away was M.S., but she did not know the names of the others. A few minutes later, while she was being taken to the military headquarters, the applicant had passed the dead body of her husband. Her neighbour, S.M., who had been with her at the time, knew the names of the men who had taken the applicant's husband away.\n14.  On 17 Decembe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5871", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in the town of Konotop, Ukraine.\n5.  The applicant worked as a customs officer at the Konotop railway border checkpoint.\n6.  According to the records provided by the Government, on 18 February 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in connection with one episode of smuggling forty electronic devices of the same type, intended for military use. On 9 October 2002 and 18 November 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr K. and Ms T., respectively, in connection with the same episode of smuggling.\n7.  On 7 October 2002 the applicant was arrested on the suspicion that he had committed the above crime. On 10 October 2002 the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv ordered the applicant’s detention on remand relying on the suspicion that he had committed a crime punishable by imprisonment. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might leave Ukraine and obstruct the investigation.\n8.  On 22 November 2002 the proceedings against the applicant, Mr K. and Ms. T. were joined.\n9.  On an unspecified date in March 2003 the applicant’s criminal case was sent to the Konotop Court for consideration.\n10.  On 4 April 2003, 22 August 2003, and 10 October 2003 the Konotop Court dismissed the applicant’s requests for release, having found that the detention on remand had been ordered at the investigation stage in accordance with law and that there was no reason to replace it with another preventive measure.\n11.  On 8 December 2003 the Konotop Court convicted the applicant of smuggling, abuse of authority and tax evasion. The court sentenced the applicant to eleven years’ imprisonment.\n12.  On 15 April 2004 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case for a new consideration to the Krolevetsky Court. By the same ruling, the court of appeal continued the applicant’s remand in custody without indicating any reason.\n13.  On 5 May 2004 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s and Mr K.’s requests for leave to appeal in cassation against the decision of 15 April 2004.\n14.  On 7 December 2004 the applicant lodged a request for release which was dismissed the same day. The Krolevetsky Court found that the detention on remand had been ordered at the investigation stage in accordance with law and that there was no reason to replace it with another preventive measure.\n15.  On 20 January 2005 the Krolevetsky Court ordered an expert examination of the smuggled devices.\n16.  On 11 April 2005 the applicant lodged a request with the trial court asking the court to lift the preventive measure of detention. On 14 April 2005 the court dismissed his request, having found that the detention on remand had been ordered at the investigation stage in accordance with law and that there was no reason to replace it with another preventive measure.\n17.  On 30 January 2006 the expert report was sent to the court.\n18.  According to the records provided by the Government, between 15 April 2005 and 31 March 2006 the Krolevetsky Court scheduled no hearings.\n19.  On 12 May 2006 the Krolevetsky Court convicted the applicant of smuggling, abuse of authority and tax evasion. The court sentenced the applicant to four years’ imprisonment with confiscation of his movable property.\n20.  On 10 August 2006 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 12 May 2006 with minor a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5872", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Malyn, the Rivne Region.\n5.  On 25 December 2003 the prosecutors started criminal investigations concerning infliction of a bodily injury on Z.\n6.  On 21 January 2004 the applicant was accused of that crime and had to give an undertaking not to abscond.\n7.  On 2 March 2004 the pre-trial investigations were completed.\n8.  On 10 March 2004 the case was sent to the Mlyniv Court for trial.\n9.  On 18 April 2008 the Mlyniv Court found the applicant guilty of the crime of which he had been accused and sentenced him to one year of liberty restriction. By the same decision it amnestied the applicant.\n10.  On 16 December 2008 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal, which he had to resubmit on one occasion in order to comply with the procedural requirements, quashed the judgment of 18 April 2008 and remitted the case for a fresh reconsideration to the first-instance court.\n11.  On 29 December 2009 the Mlyniv Court terminated proceedings as time-barred.\n12.  On 23 February 2010 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 29 December 2009 and remitted the case for re-consideration to the first-instance court. It found that the applicant’s right to defence had been breached and that the applicant had not consented to the termination of the criminal proceedings against him.\n13.  The case is still pending before the first-instance court.\n14.  In the course of the proceedings the hearings were adjourned once because of the applicant’s failure to appear, once on his request because of his illness, eight times because of the failure of the applicant’s representative to appear before the court and on two occasions the hearings were adjourned to give the applicant and/or his representative a possibility to study the case-file. The applicant had lodged four requests for withdrawal of the judges. Between May 2004 and February 2006 four hearings were scheduled, none of which was held. Between 25 December 2006 and 14 November 2007 three hearings were scheduled and two hearings were held at intervals of approximately five months.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5873", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Sosnovyy Bor in the Leningrad Region.\n6.  On 20 May 2001 the applicant was arrested. On 23 May 2001 he was placed in detention.\n7.  By judgment of 6 September 2001 the Sosnovyy Bor Town Court of the Leningrad Region convicted him of robbery and sentenced him to five years and three months' imprisonment. On 27 March 2002 the Leningrad Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and ordered that the case be remitted for an additional investigation.\n8.  On 8 August 2002 the Town Court again convicted the applicant of robbery. It sentenced him to four years and eight months' imprisonment. The applicant brought an appeal.\n9.  On 11 February 2004 the Regional Court held an appeal hearing. By a decision of the same date, it changed the crime's qualification and upheld the rest of the trial court's judgment.\n10.  In the period from 30 May 2001 to 2 March 2004 the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-47/1 of St Petersburg.\n11.  The applicant submitted that he had been detained in overcrowded cells and that the prisoners had had to take turns to sleep. Besides, his cells had been dirty and had lacked ventilation. He also submitted that the food had been of poor quality.\n12.  According to the Government's submissions, the applicant was held in following cells:\n(a)  cell no. 840 that measured 7,568 square metres and accommodated seven detainees;\n(b)  cell no. 844 that measured 7,568 square metres and accommodated seven detainees;\n(c)  cell no. 941 that measured 21,367 square metres and accommodated thirteen detainees;\n(d)  cell no. 859 that measured 7,568 square metres and accommodated seven detainees.\n13.  The Government conceded that the cells had been “overcrowded”. They pointed out, however, that the applicant at all times had been provided with an individual sleeping place and bed linen and that there had been enough space to move around and to do exercises in the cells.\n14.  They further submitted that the cells had been naturally and artificially ventilated and lit. The average air temperature in winter had been +18ºC and in summer +22ºC. The cells had been equipped with heating devices and a dining table. Toilet facilities had been separated from the cells' living area by a partition of 1.5 m in height. The applicant had never complained to the authorities of any insects or rodents.\n15.  The food had been of a proper quality. The applicant had never been limited in fresh water. He had had a possibility of taking a daily one-hour walk. As to the medical assistance, he had undergone various medical examinations and had been treated against tuberculosis. The appropriate treatment had resulted in the favourable dynamics of his disease.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5874", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and is currently serving a life term in Sofia Prison.\n6.  On 5 August 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having abducted a person. On 14 August 1996 he was charged with that offence. In September 1996 he was charged with murdering three police officers, and on 4 June 1997 with at least ten other offences.\n7.  On an unspecified date in 1998 the prosecuting authorities submitted an indictment against the applicant to the Sofia City Court. However, on 18 September 1998 the judge rapporteur referred the case back to them, citing irregularities in the manner in which some of the charges and evidence had been presented to the applicant.\n8.  On 12 October 1998 the prosecuting authorities submitted to the Sofia City Court an indictment against the applicant and three others. The charges included the murder of three police officers, several attempted murders, robberies, thefts, unlawful deprivation of liberty, and unlawful possession of firearms. On 29 December 1998 the judge rapporteur set the case down for trial over several days in May 1999.\n9.  The Sofia City Court held at least seven hearings between May 1999 and 8 March 2000, and on the latter date convicted the applicant of aggravated murder, hooliganism, attempted armed robbery, deprivation of liberty and unlawful possession of firearms, and acquitted him of the other charges. It sentenced him to life imprisonment without commutation and ordered that he should begin serving his sentence under the strictest prison regime (the so-called “special regime” – see paragraph 21 below).\n10.  On appeal, the Sofia Court of Appeal held at least five hearings, the last of which took place on 14 January 2002. On 10 February 2003 it partly quashed the lower court's judgment, acquitting the applicant of one of the charges of attempted armed robbery and of the charges of unlawful possession of firearms, and re-qualifying one of the other charges. It upheld the remainder of the judgment, including the applicant's sentence.\n11.  On 27 February 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation partly quashed the Sofia Court of Appeal's judgment and remitted the case to that court for reconsideration of the charges of attempted robbery. It upheld the remainder of the judgment, including the applicant's sentence.\n12.  On remittal, the Sofia Court of Appeal held at least two hearings. On 31 August 2004, it upheld the Sofia City Court's judgment, acquitting the applicant of the charges of attempted armed robbery. No appeal was lodged, and the judgment became final on 6 October 2004.\n13.  On 7 February 1997 the applicant was moved to the detention centre of the National Investigation Service. On 2 December 1997 he was transferred to Sofia Prison. Between 1997 and 2004, he was held there as a detainee awaiting the final determination of the criminal charges against him. Since 17 November 2004, his stay in the prison has been continued on the basis of his final sentence of life imprisonment.\n14.  On 4 December 1997 the prison's governor, relying on the relevant regulations (see paragraphs 17 and 18 below) and having regard to a note in which the investigating authorities had described the charges against the applicant, his character, and their assessment of the risk that he could pose to prison staff, ordered that he be placed within an isolated group of prisoners subjected to stringent security measures and be deprived of the right to take part in communal activities. In a follow", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5875", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  At the material time the applicant was a head of the structural unit of a joint stock company, “G.”, and the head of a limited liability company, “U.” (hereinafter “the U. company”). He was also a major shareholder in the last-mentioned company.\n6.  On 17 September 1997 the U. company, concluded a sale contract with the local department of the State Property Fund of Ukraine within the privatization procedure, acquiring thereby a property right over non‑residential premises in Kharkiv.\n7.  On 15 September 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in connection with several counts of abuse of power, financial fraud and forgery concerning the aforesaid companies. A substantial part of the charges was related to acquiring of the above-mentioned premises. Later, criminal proceedings were instituted against Mrs G., Mrs Ga. and Mrs Sh. on account of the same charges.\n8.  On 18 November 1998 the District Prosecutor ordered the applicant’s detention on remand relying on the seriousness of the charges against him. In his decision he also noted that the applicant had failed to appear before the investigator and that he could not be found at his permanent residence. The applicant was put on the wanted list. Following this event, the proceedings were suspended. On 15 June 1999 the disputed premises, being evidence in the criminal proceedings against the applicant, were attached. In the period prior to 22 October 1999 they were resumed in order to perform certain investigative actions and then, on several further occasions they were suspended again. On 22 October 1999 the applicant was arrested. He was remanded in custody.\n9.  On 11 December 1999 and 18 January 2000 the District Prosecutor extended the duration of the applicant’s pre-trial detention since the investigation had not been yet completed. In his decisions the prosecutor advanced the severity of the penalty to which the applicant was liable and the risk of his absconding.\n10.  In the course of the pre-trial investigation the law-enforcement authorities carried out, inter alia, some eighty interviews, thirty-three confrontations, and four forensic examinations.\n11.  Several persons and the District Prosecutor brought civil actions against the accused within these criminal proceedings, seeking salary arrears, rescission of a number of contracts, in particular, the sale contract of 17 September 1997, and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n12.  On 17 April 2000 and 12 June 2000 the proceedings against Sh. and Ga., respectively, were terminated.\n13.  According to the applicant, by 20 April 2000 when he was officially charged, he had already hired a lawyer. However on that date the investigator refused to notify his lawyer regardless of the applicant’s respective requests to be legally represented while being served with his indictment. For this reason the applicant refused to familiarise himself with the bill of indictment and the investigator drew up a report about this.\n14.  By June 2000 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Leninsky District Court of Kharkiv (hereinafter “the District Court”).\n15.  On 11 February 2002 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release relying on the seriousness of the charges against him. The District Court further pointed out that not all the evidence had been yet examined. It found no medical reasons for the applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5876", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the village of Kalepia, in the district of Paphos.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on 23 July 2000.\n7.  On 28 July 2000 he was charged under the Criminal Code (Cap. 154) with rape and various offences against morality.\n8.  On the same date he was taken before the Paphos District Court which referred the case to the Paphos Assize Court (“the Assize Court”).\n9.  On 5 September 2000 the applicant appeared before the Assize Court and pleaded not guilty to the charges. His detention was ordered until his trial which was fixed to commence on 9 October 2000.\n10.  Between 9 October 2000 and 22 March 2002 the case was adjourned on five consecutive occasions by the Assize Court owing to hearings in other cases.\n11.  In the meantime, on 4 December 2000, the applicant was released on bail.\n12.  The hearing commenced on 22 March 2002 and ended on 6 February 2003. One hundred and four hearings in camera were held within this period. There were no adjournments. During the trial the Assize Court heard approximately thirty witnesses and examined a considerable amount of material which included thousands of pages of evidence.\n13.  On 19 March 2003 the Assize Court gave judgment in the case convicting the applicant of rape, defilement of a girl under 13 years of age, defilement of a girl between 13 and 17 years of age and abduction under sections 144, 153(1), 159 and 154 of the Criminal Code respectively.\n14.  The court, in a lengthy judgment of 157 pages, examined the evidence given by the witnesses in depth and, after warning itself of the dangers of acting on uncorroborated evidence, accepted the complainant's evidence in its entirety without recourse to corroborating evidence. It found that the complainant's evidence was credible and that the main and intrinsic body of her evidence was characterised by clarity, consistency and firmness. It noted that the differences in her evidence were minimal and immaterial and that her credibility remained intact. The Assize Court, however, pointed out that, even if it had decided that corroborating evidence had been necessary, such evidence did exist in support of the applicant's conviction. The Assize Court referred to examples of such evidence.\n15.  On 20 March 2003 the applicant received one sentence of four years' imprisonment for the offence of rape, seven sentences of four years' imprisonment for the offence of defilement of a girl under 13 years of age, one sentence of one year's imprisonment for defilement of a girl between 13 and 17 years of age and two sentences of six months' imprisonment for abduction. All sentences were to be served concurrently.\n16.  On 28 March 2003 the applicant appealed against his conviction (appeal no. 7426). The Attorney-General lodged an appeal against the sentences (appeal no. 7347).\n17.  The applicant raised a total of forty grounds of appeal. The first ground concerned the manner in which the prosecution had presented its case and its conduct throughout the proceedings; the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh grounds challenged the Assize Court's assessment of the evidence given by the complainant and its decision to rely on it without recourse to corroborating evidence; the remaining grounds challenged the Assize Court's evaluation of the evidence given by the other witnesses.\n18.  On 3 April 2003 the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court sent a letter to the Registrar of the Paphos District Court requesting to be informed of the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5878", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1957, 1985 and 1982 respectively and live in Otočac.\nBackground to the case\n5.  On 3 November 1991, during the Homeland War in Croatia, an arrest warrant, signed by the then head of Otočac police station (Policijska postaja Otočac) J.O., was issued in respect of M.S., the first applicant's husband and the second and third applicants' father, born on 23 June 1948 and of Serbian ethnic origin, who was suspected of having committed the criminal offence of terrorism. On the same day two police officers from the station, D.R. and J.R., went to the applicants' flat in Otočac and arrested M.S., who was taken to J.O.\n6.  On the same day, at an unspecified time, two other police officers from the same police station, D.V. and M.Č., took M.S. to the Police Department of the nearby town of Gospić and handed him over to I.O., the Head of the Gospić Operational Headquarters (Operativni štab Gospić). They saw I.O. handcuffing M.S. and then went back to Otočac. The whereabouts of M.S. have remained unknown ever since.\n7.  At the request of his family, M.S. was presumed dead from 2 November 1996 onwards by virtue of a decision of the Otočac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Otočcu) of 26 March 1998.\n8.  The applicants allege that in the same period a number of individuals of Serbian ethnic origin had disappeared or had been killed in the area around the nearby town of Gospić.\nCriminal investigation\n9.  In the days following the arrest of her husband by the police, the first applicant telephoned the local authorities in Otočac and Gospić on numerous occasions to enquire about his fate, but to no avail.\n10.  On 17 December 1991, after the first applicant had made enquiries to the Ministry of the Interior (the “Ministry”) regarding her husband, the Ministry sent an official letter to Otočac police station enquiring as to the whereabouts of M.S. since his arrest on 2 November 1991. On 18 December 1991 J.O. replied that M.S. had been arrested on 3 November at 11 a.m. and taken to Gospić County Prison (Okružni zatvor Gospić) the same day.\n11.  On 20 December 1991 the Ministry sent an official letter to the Gospić Police Department enquiring as to M.S.'s whereabouts.\n12.  On 21 December 1991 the Gospić Police Department replied that M.S. had been arrested by officers from Otočac police station and that the Gospić Police Department had not been informed of his arrest. They further stated that, to their knowledge, M.S. had been taken to Zagreb County Prison (Okružni zatvor Zagreb). Further to this, on 11 January 1992 the Gospić Police Department informed the Ministry that M.S. had never been detained in Gospić County Prison.\n13.  On 27 October 1992 the Ministry sent a letter to both Otočac police station and the Gospić Police Department enquiring as to the whereabouts of M.S. and whether he had been listed as a missing person.\n14.  On 29 October 1992 M.Č., one of the above-mentioned police officers from Otočac police station, drew up a report stating that after he had been arrested on 3 November 1991 M.S. had been taken to the Gospić Operational Headquarters and handed over to its head, I.O. He also stated that there was no further information as to M.S.'s whereabouts.\n15.  On 14 July 1999 the first applicant sent a letter to the Minister of Justice calling for an official investigation into the disappearance of her husband. On 4 February 2000 the letter was forwarded to the State Attorney with a request that appropriate steps be t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5879", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Dzerzhynsk.\n5.  On an unspecified date in April 1999 the applicant lodged a claim against the State Company “Dzerzhynskvugillia” (“the company”, Державне Підприємство «Дзержинськвугілля»). In particular, he claimed damages for a discrepancy in the calculations of compensation for a professional illness. On 5 April 1999 the Dzerzhynsk City Court (“the City Court”) opened proceedings on the applicant’s claim.\n6.  On 6 December 1999 the City Court warned the company of a penalty for its failures to appear before the court.\n7.  On 15 January 2002 the applicant lodged a new claim with the City Court against the company seeking indexation of his salary.\n8.  Having been joined on 2 December 2002, the claims were dismissed by the City Court on 1 July 2004.\n9.  In the meantime, the applicant had modified his claims four times and the Dzerzhynsk City Department of the State Insurance Fund for Industrial Accidents and Diseases joined the proceedings as a second defendant. Between 7 February 2000 and 30 May 2002, the Court of Appeal quashed four first-instance judgments and ordered fresh hearings.\n10.  On 10 February 2005 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment of 1 July 2004 in part related to the compensation of a professional illness. The court, out of UAH 6,028 (EUR 844[1]) claimed by the applicant for pecuniary and UAH 50,000 (EUR 7,000) for non-pecuniary damage, awarded the applicant UAH 177 (EUR 25). The applicant appealed in cassation.\n11.  On 4 June 2007 the Supreme Court, according to the Judicial System Act (as amended on 22 February 2007), transmitted the applicant’s appeal to the Kyiv Court of Appeal which, on 9 October 2007, finally upheld the decisions of 1 July 2004 and 10 February 2005.\n12.  In the course of the proceedings, two expert examinations were ordered and a number of procedural rulings were adopted. During the same period of time, the applicant filed nine procedural requests and eleven appeals, two of which did not meet procedural requirements.\n13.  According to the Government, of the seventy one hearings scheduled between 5 April 1999 and 9 October 2007, nineteen were adjourned due to the company representative’s failure to attend, eleven were adjourned at request of one or both defendants, six were adjourned at the applicant’s request, four were adjourned owing to the presiding judge’s sickness or absence, one was adjourned due to both parties’ failure to attend, and two were adjourned for other reasons beyond the parties’ control.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5880", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Rivne.\n5.  On 10 July 1998 M.B., a private person, lodged a claim with the Rivne Court requesting a contract by which a flat had been sold to him by the applicant and her husband to be declared valid.\n6.  In November 1998 the applicant lodged a counter-claim seeking the eviction of M.B. and M.A. from the flat.\n7.  On 3 December 1998 the Rivne Court allowed the M.B.’s claims. It found the applicant’s counter-claim unsubstantiated and dismissed them.\n8.  On 15 March 1999 the Rivne Regional Court quashed the judgment of 3 December 1998 and remitted the case for fresh consideration finding that the first-instance court had failed to examine all the aspects of the case.\n9.  On 22 December 2004 the Rivne Court, hearing the case in the presence of the applicant and her lawyer, allowed the claims of M.B. and rejected the applicant’s counter-claim. It found that the applicant and her son had moved from the disputed flat in May 1998 to live with her parents and she had voluntarily transferred the flat to M.B., though subsequently she refused to have the contract certified by a notary due to a disagreement with her husband.\n10.  On 17 January 2005 the applicant and her lawyer appealed against the judgment of 22 December 2004.\n11.  On 27 April 2005 the Rivne Regional Court of Appeal heard the case in the presence of the applicant. The applicant requested the court to postpone the examination of her case as her lawyer could not participate in that hearing. The court rejected her request, dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of 22 December 2004.\n12.  On 15 August 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.\n13.  In the course of the proceedings the first-instance court scheduled thirty-one hearings, out of which two were not held because of the applicant’s failure to attend, one was adjourned for nine days to allow the applicant to study the case-file and one was adjourned for twenty-three days on the applicant’s request. Nineteen hearings were not held because of the other parties’ failure to appear or on their request for adjournment of the hearings. Between May 2000 and December 2002 there were five hearings scheduled, of which one was held. In 2003 there were six hearings scheduled and one held.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5881", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Piddubne, the Lviv Region.\n5.  On 20 October 1999 the applicant lodged a claim with the Chervonohrad Court against his former employer for re-calculation of monthly allowance for a work-related disease.\n6.  On 27 March 2001 the court scheduled its first hearing for 2 April 2001 which was subsequently adjourned because of the applicant’s failure to appear.\n7.  On 5 June 2001 the Chervonohrad Court left the applicant’s claim without examination for his repeated failure to appear before the court.\n8.  On 28 January 2003 the applicant appealed against the decision of 5 June 2001. He submitted that he had not been summoned to appear before the court and that he had become aware of that decision in January 2003.\n9.  On 28 July 2003 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal found that there was no evidence in the case that the applicant had been duly informed of the time and date of the court hearings scheduled for 2 April and 5 June 2001. It quashed the decision of 5 June 2001 and remitted the case for a consideration by the first-instance court.\n10.  On 1 December 2003 the Chervonohrad Court allowed the respondent’s request for transferring the case to a court of different territorial jurisdiction, the Sokal Court.\n11.  On 9 January 2004 the Sokal Court received the case. On 25 February 2005 it scheduled its first hearing for 10 March 2005.\n12.  On 30 December 2005 the Sokal Court rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated. On 24 January 2006 the applicant appealed against the judgment.\n13.  On 21 August 2006 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 30 December 2005.\n14.  On 18 October 2006 the applicant lodged his appeal in cassation.\n15.  On 27 December 2007 the Khmelnytsk Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a court of cassation, dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.\n16.  In the course of the proceedings the hearings were adjourned five times because of either the applicant’s or his representative’s failure to appear or his requests for documents or adjournment of the case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5882", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant left Kabul early in 2008 and, travelling via Iran and Turkey, entered the European Union through Greece, where his fingerprints were taken on 7 December 2008 in Mytilene.\n10.  He was detained for a week and, when released, was issued with an order to leave the country. He did not apply for asylum in Greece.\n11.  On 10 February 2009, after transiting through France, the applicant arrived in Belgium, where he presented himself to the Aliens Office with no identity documents and applied for asylum.\n12.  The examination and comparison of the applicant’s fingerprints generated a Eurodac “hit” report on 10 February 2009 revealing that the applicant had been registered in Greece.\n13.  The applicant was placed initially in the Lanaken open reception centre for asylum-seekers.\n14.  On 18 March 2009, by virtue of Article 10 § 1 of Council Regulation No. 343/2003/EC (“the Dublin Regulation”; see paragraphs 65-82 below), the Aliens Office submitted a request for the Greek authorities to take charge of the asylum application. When the Greek authorities failed to respond within the two-month period provided for in Article 18 § 1 of the Regulation, the Aliens Office considered this to be a tacit acceptance of the request to take charge of the application, pursuant to paragraph 7 of that provision.\n15.  During his interview under the Dublin Regulation on 18 March 2009, the applicant told the Aliens Office that he had fled Afghanistan with the help of a smuggler to whom he had paid 12,000 United States dollars and who had taken his identity papers. He said that he had chosen Belgium after meeting some Belgian NATO soldiers who had seemed very friendly. He also requested that the Belgian authorities examine his fears. He told them that he had a sister in the Netherlands with whom he had lost contact. He also mentioned that he had had hepatitis B and had been treated for eight months.\n16.  On 2 April 2009 the UNHCR sent a letter to the Belgian Minister for Migration and Asylum Policy criticising the deficiencies in the asylum procedure and the reception conditions of asylum-seekers in Greece and recommending the suspension of transfers to Greece (see paragraphs 194-95 below). A copy was sent to the Aliens Office.\n17.  On 19 May 2009, in application of section 51/5 of the Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry, residence, settlement and expulsion of aliens (“the Aliens Act”), the Aliens Office decided not to allow the applicant to stay and issued an order directing him to leave the country. The reasons given for the order were that, according to the Dublin Regulation, Belgium was not responsible for examining the asylum application; Greece was responsible and there was no reason to suspect that the Greek authorities would fail to honour their obligations in asylum matters under Community law and the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. That being so, the applicant had the guarantee that he would be able, as soon as he arrived in Greece, to submit an application for asylum, which would be examined in conformity with the relevant rules and regulations. The Belgian authorities were under no obligation to apply the derogation clause provided for in Article 3 § 2 of the Dublin Regulation. Lastly, the applicant did not have any health problems that might prevent his transfer and had no relatives in Belgium.\n18.  On the same day, the applicant was taken into custody with a view to the enforcement of that decision and placed i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5883", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1987, and is the son of the second applicant, who was born in 1966. They live in Chişinău. The first applicant was 17 years old at the time of the events giving rise to the present application. According to the second applicant, he has an intellectual impairment and has been medically supervised by a psychiatrist since childhood. In view of his condition, he received his schooling at home.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  According to police records, the first applicant was arrested by police officers at 10 a.m. on 24 October 2004 after they were called to a private apartment building where the applicant had already been apprehended by some of the residents.\n8.  According to the applicants, he had been taken to the building forcibly by two persons of his acquaintance who had accosted him in the street some hours earlier and assaulted him. Their intention had been to push him from the roof of the building, but their presence had been detected by three of the residents. Believing that there was a robbery in progress, these men seized the first applicant and beat him. He had already sustained some injuries when the police arrived. The applicants maintained that he received a further beating from the police.\n9.  According to the Government, at the time of his arrest the first applicant was already under police suspicion of having committed a number of thefts. An ordinance had been issued against him charging him under Article 186(2) of the Criminal Code. As he had failed to present himself to the police to be informed of the charge, an ordinance to search for him was issued by a prosecutor on 22 October 2004. On the morning of 24 October the first applicant was caught in the act of theft inside an apartment building. As for his injuries, the Government speculated that these could have been caused by the persons who apprehended him, or may have been self-inflicted when the applicant had tried to conceal himself in a ventilation duct.\n10.  The applicants alleged that following his arrival at Ciocana police station, the first applicant was punched by police officers and beaten with rubber truncheons in an attempt to make him confess to a number of thefts. He was repeatedly sworn at and refused food, drink and access to the toilet. No medical treatment was provided for his injuries.\n11.  The second applicant stated that she came to the police station that same day to visit him and to give him food and clothes, but was not permitted to see him. The applicants maintained that the following day, 25 October, the first applicant was taken by the police to a marketplace for certain procedural acts. No lawyer was present. The applicant's other son witnessed this, and noted his brother's visible injuries. That afternoon, between 3 p.m. and 5.30 p.m., the first applicant was questioned by police officers in the presence of a lawyer as well as of the second applicant. During the interrogation, the first applicant complained of pain in his head and of strong nausea. It appeared to the second applicant that he had been badly beaten, and he was hungry. Despite his complaints, he was required to answer the questions put to him and was refused access to the toilet. After the interrogation he was returned to his cell, having received no medical assistance.\n12.  On the morning of 27 October 2004, the second applicant returned to the police station, expecting that her so", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5884", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Warsaw. He is currently detained in the Warsaw Remand Centre.\n6.  On 26 October 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking, while acting in an organised and armed criminal group.\n7.  On 27 October 2005 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question that was supported by the crown witness's testimony. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the complex nature of the case.\n8.  Later, twenty-eight members of the same criminal group were detained and charged in connection with the investigation against the applicant.\n9.  The applicant's appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release were unsuccessful.\n10.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged by decisions of the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okregowy) delivered on 12 January, 20 April and 28 August 2006, and by decisions of the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) delivered on 24 October 2006, 24 April, 21 August and 23 October 2007 and 26 February 2008.\n11.  In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses, in particular by a crown witness's testimony. They underlined the grave nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. The courts attached great importance to the complexity of the case, the significant number of persons involved (around 100 persons) and the voluminous documentation gathered in the proceedings. These considerations led the courts to assume that the applicant, if released, could tamper with evidence, induce the witnesses to change their testimonies and obstruct the proper course of the proceedings. The courts stressed, on several occasions, that a number of experts' opinions had to be requested and legal help had to be sought from Sweden and Bulgaria. They found no special grounds, as specified in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that would justify lifting the detention and imposing a less severe measure.\nOn one occasion the court noted that a special room had to be reserved for hearings in the present case, as it concerned a dangerous criminal group.\nFurthermore, in its decision of 23 October 2007 the court stressed the importance of holding hearings regularly, in order to have the proceedings conducted within a reasonable time.\n12.  On 26 September 2007 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court. There were twenty-nine defendants in the case, all charged with, inter alia, numerous counts of drug trafficking and illegal possession of arms, committed in an organised criminal group.\n13.  On 25 March 2008 the trial court held the first hearing.\n14.  During the court proceedings the authorities further prolonged the applicant's detention pending trial. The applicant's detention was extended by the Warsaw Court of Appeal's decisions of 26 June and 4 December 2008 and 18 June 2009. The cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5885", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Bad Brückenau, Germany.\n6.  The Budapest Public Prosecutor's Office indicted the applicant for preparation to counterfeit money (section 304 of the Criminal Code).\n7.  On 30 November 2006 the Budapest Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine.\n8.  On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal held a public session and completed the findings of fact as established by the Regional Court. It observed that the defendant's act could be re-characterised as attempted aggravated fraud (section 318 of the Criminal Code) and enquired as to whether he wished to have an adjournment on that account. The applicant replied in the negative.\n9.  On 10 October 2007 the Budapest Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance judgment and re-characterised the applicant's offence as forgery of public documents (section 274 of the Criminal Code). The applicant submitted that there had been no taking of evidence in this regard before the Court of Appeal. His sentence remained unchanged; nevertheless, he filed a petition for review.\n10.  On 30 April 2009 the Supreme Court held a public session and upheld the applicant's conviction without taking evidence. In the reasoning of that decision, it was observed that the judgment of the Court of Appeal amounted to a violation of the substantive provisions of the Criminal Code in that although the applicant, a national of Germany, had committed the crime in question abroad, the lower courts had not explored whether his act was punishable under German law or obtained the Attorney General's requisite endorsement of the indictment. However, the Supreme Court held that the applicant's deed in fact constituted the offences of complicity in attempted aggravated fraud (section 318 of the Criminal Code) and in forgery of private documents (section 276 of the Criminal Code). It did not change the sanction imposed on the applicant. This decision was served on 18 June 2009.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5886", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5. The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Warsaw. He is currently detained in the Warsaw Remand Centre.\n6.  On 26 October 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of, inter alia, drug trafficking and extortion, committed in an organised and armed criminal group.\n7.  On 27 October 2005 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the complex nature of the case.\n8.  Later, twenty-eight members of the same criminal group were detained and charged in connection with the investigation against the applicant.\n9.  The applicant's appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release were unsuccessful.\n10.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was extended by decisions of the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okregowy) delivered on 19 January, 20 April, 28 August and 28 December 2006, 21 May, 3 September and 23 October 2007 and 11 February 2008.\n11.  In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses. They underlined the grave nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. The courts attached great importance to the complexity of the case, the significant number of persons involved (around 100 persons) and the voluminous documentation gathered in the proceedings. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings justified holding the applicant in custody, as he could otherwise tamper with evidence or induce the witnesses to change their testimonies.\nIn its decision of 20 April 2006 the court noted that the prosecutor's arguments for having the applicant's detention extended had been of a very general nature and instructed the prosecutor to provide a detailed list of tasks that still needed to be completed during the investigation if he wished to have the applicant's detention extended further.\nFurthermore, in its decision of 11 February 2008 the court noted that a special room had to be reserved for hearings in the present case, as it concerned a dangerous criminal group.\n12.  On 26 September 2007 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court. There were twenty-nine defendants in the case, all charged with numerous counts of drug trafficking and extortion committed in an organised criminal group.\n13.  On 25 March 2008 the trial court held the first hearing.\n14.  During the court proceedings the authorities further prolonged the applicant's detention pending trial. The applicant's detention was extended by decisions of the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) delivered on 4 December 2008, 18 June 2009 and 29 December 2009. The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's continued detention and stressed, on several occasions, that a number of experts' opinions had to be requested and legal help had to be sought from Sweden.\n15.  During his detention the applicant served ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5887", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Egypt.\n6.  The applicant moved from Egypt to the TRNC on 14 February 2001 to study law at a university. He did not speak Turkish. With the help of another individual, Mr Yassir Faathelrahman Amer, the applicant rented a flat and started living in the TRNC. He also started working for Mr Amer in the latter's music business.\n7.  In the evening of 29 May 2001 a businessman was found dead in his office in the TRNC. His throat had been slit and he had also sustained a number of injuries caused by blows to his head. On 30 May 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having killed the businessman and was placed in police custody, where he remained until he was charged with the offence of homicide and transferred to a prison on 22 June 2001. Mr Amer was also arrested in respect of the same offence and kept in police custody.\n8.  According to the documents submitted by the parties, in the course of his detention in police custody the applicant was questioned by police officers on 3 June, 9 June and 22 June 2001 in the presence of an interpreter. On 22 June 2001 he was charged with the offence of homicide and his pre-trial detention in prison was ordered by a judge. According to three handwritten statements, no lawyer was present on the three occasions that the applicant was questioned by the police.\n9.  The applicant claims that while in police custody he asked to be represented by a lawyer but police officers laughed at him and told him that “lawyers charge 50,000 US dollars, go and find 50,000 dollars”. Moreover, his requests to contact the Egyptian Embassy in Ankara were met with the angry refusals of a police chief.\n10.  According to the applicant, during his questioning in police custody he had been ill-treated by both police officers and the interpreter. He also claims that he had subsequently been encouraged by police officers – through being given privileges such as adequate food, clothing and sanitary facilities – to make statements implicating his co-defendant Mr Amer in the killing. Approximately twenty statements had been prepared by the police and he had been forced to sign them to avoid further ill-treatment. As he did not speak Turkish, he had not been able to take cognisance of their contents. In any event, the statements had been handwritten and illegible. Two of these statements had subsequently been dated “3 June 2001” and “9 June 2001” (see paragraph 8 above) and used against him at trial.\n11.  During a remand hearing held on 11 June 2001 a lawyer was present in the courtroom. According to the applicant, however, he had not been advised about the appointment of that lawyer and, in any event, he had not authorised that lawyer's representation of him. During remand hearings held on 31 May, 3 June and 19 June 2001 no lawyer was present. The applicant claims that during one of the remand hearings he had unsuccessfully repeated his request to be represented by a lawyer.\n12.  Subsequently, both the applicant and Mr Amer were tried by the Lefkoşa Assize Court (“the trial court”). In the course of the trial the applicant denied the accuracy of the statements signed by him in police custody. On 4 March 2002 the applicant and Mr Amer were found guilty of the offence of manslaughter and thirteen other charges. They were sentenced to life imprisonment[1]. In convicting the applicant the trial court had regard, amongst other things, to the three statements made by the applicant to the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5888", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  On 8 July 1999 the İzmir Public Prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant, charging him with a violation of the Associations Law.\n6.  On 19 November 2003 the İzmir Criminal Court sentenced him to a fine.\n7.  On 9 March 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 19 November 2003.\n8.  On 28 November 2006 the İzmir Criminal Court decided to discontinue the proceedings against the applicant, holding that the prosecution was time-barred.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5890", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Warsaw. He is currently detained in the Warsaw Remand Centre.\n6.  On 26 October 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking committed in an organised and armed criminal group.\n7.  On 27 October 2005 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the complex nature of the case.\n8.  Later, twenty-eight members of the same criminal group were detained and charged in connection with the investigation against the applicant.\n9.  The applicant's appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release were unsuccessful.\n10. In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged by decisions of the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okregowy) and the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) delivered on 12 January, 20 April, 28 August and 24 October 2006, 24 April, 21 August, 8 and 23 October 2007 and 11 and 26 February 2008.\nIn all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses, in particular – by the crown witness's testimony. They underlined the grave nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. The courts attached great importance to the complexity of the case, the significant number of persons involved (around 100 persons) and the voluminous documentation gathered in the proceedings. These considerations led the courts to assume that the applicant, if released, could tamper with evidence, induce the witnesses to change their testimonies and obstruct the proper course of the proceedings. The courts stressed, on several occasions, that a number of experts' opinions had to be requested and legal help had to be sought from Sweden and Bulgaria. They found no special grounds, as specified in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that would justify lifting the detention and imposing a less severe measure.\nIn its decision of 20 April 2006 the court noted that the prosecutor's arguments for having the applicant's detention extended had been of a very general nature and instructed the prosecutor to provide a detailed list of tasks that still needed to be completed during the investigation if he wished to have the applicant's detention extended further.\n11.  On 26 September 2007 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court. There were twenty-nine defendants in the case, charged with, inter alia, numerous counts of drug trafficking and illegal possession of arms, committed in an organised criminal group.\n12.  On 25 March 2008 the trial court held the first hearing.\n13.  During the court proceedings the authorities further prolonged the applicant's detention pending trial. The applicant's detention was extended by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 26 June and 4 December 2008 and 18 June and 29 December 2009. The court repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5892", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Amasya.\n5.  On 29 August 2000 he brought proceedings before the Samsun Administrative Court for annulment of an administrative penalty imposed on him.\n6.  On 20 December 2000 the court dismissed the applicant's request.\n7.  On 22 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of 20 December 2000.\n8.  On 18 February 2004 the court dismissed the applicant's request once again.\n9.  On 6 December 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court's General Council of Administrative Divisions quashed the judgment of 18 February 2004.\n10.  On 28 February 2008 the court granted the applicant's request and annulled the administrative penalty imposed on the applicant.\n11.  On 7 October 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 28 February 2008.\n12.  On 28 February 2001 the applicant lodged a case with the Samsun Administrative Court for annulment of his appointment to a new post.\n13.  On 31 October 2001 the court dismissed the applicant's request.\n14.  On 21 February 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 31 October 2001.\n15.  On 29 November 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment.\n16.  On 8 January 2007 the applicant was notified of the decision dated 29 November 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5893", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first and second applicants were born in 1963 and 1948 and live in Helsinki. The applicant company is based in Helsinki. The applicant company is the publisher of a daily newspaper called Helsingin Sanomat which has a circulation of approximately 430,000. The first applicant was a journalist and the second applicant the editor-in-chief of the publication at the relevant time.\n6.  On 3 February 2000, during the presidential election campaign, a short article was published in the newspaper Ilta-Sanomat, entitled “The ex-husband of [R. U.] and the person in charge of communications for the [E.A.] campaign have found each other”. The article stated that P.N., who was separated from his wife, had found a new partner, O.T. The wife of P.N. was known as a political reporter in the election-related TV debates and previously as a news reader. It was mentioned in the article that O.T. was in charge of communications for the E. A. campaign and that, in her civilian life, O.T. was the communications manager in a specified pension insurance company and a mother.\n7.  The article went on to state that, before joining the campaign, O.T. had been active in the same political party as P.N. and that she had been involved in some “insider committees”. The article continued to note that P.N. worked as a director for F., a company promoting Finnish exports, and that in the 1990s he had been posted in New York, where his wife had followed him, taking leave from her own job. The article stated that P.N. and his wife had two children and that they had separated in the autumn of 1999. Pictures of O.T. and P.N.'s wife were included in the article.\n8.  On 1 February 2002 the journalist and the editor-in-chief of Ilta-Sanomat were convicted by the Forssa District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) for having violated O.T.'s private life by publishing the original article. On 12 December 2002 and 4 July 2005, respectively, the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) and the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) upheld the judgment. These proceedings were public.\n9.  On 2 and 10 February 2002 the applicant company published two articles on the trial and the judgment of the Forssa District Court, written by the first applicant and approved by the second applicant.\n10.  The first article summarised the judgment of the District Court, including O.T.'s full name and the court's sentence. It also described the court proceedings and stated that the decision had required a vote as one of the lay members of the court would have preferred to dismiss the charges. Moreover, the first article also included some of the details about O.T.'s private life already published in the original article of 3 February 2000.\n11.  The second article was published as a legal column in a Sunday edition of the paper. The article reproduced the content of the original article without mentioning any names. It made reference to the trial and went on to explain the history of the Penal Code section concerning invasion of privacy that had been introduced in 1974. The article went on to state that the law did not define privacy, but left it to the courts to interpret on a case-by-case basis. The section was amended in 2000, but the only change in essence, according to the article, was the title of the section, now known as dissemination of information violating private life. The article further noted that the worst fears of the press had never materialised but there had been so", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5894", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Ankara.\n5.  On 21 April 1998 he lodged a case with the Ankara Administrative Court for annulment of a decision to reject his dissertation.\n6.  On 29 September 2004 the court dismissed the applicant's request.\n7.  On 2 December 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 29 September 2004.\n8.  On 2 October 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment.\n9.  On 7 November 2006 the applicant was notified of the decision dated 2 October 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5895", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kraków.\n6.  In 1998 the applicant was in a car accident which left him disabled. He suffered a fracture of the spine which resulted in paraplegia. He was also diagnosed with paralysis of the urethral and anal sphincters. Since then the applicant has suffered from severe back pain and sudden pain in the legs. From 2000 until 29 October 2006 the applicant had been using a special morphine pump made for him in Germany which had been implanted in his body and infused morphine directly into his spinal fluid.\n7.  On 26 October 2006 the applicant was arrested by the police.\n8.  On 27 October 2006 the Kielce District Court decided to remand him in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had been leading an organised criminal gang, the “Kantor Wielopole” group, specialising mainly in money laundering and usury. The applicant’s lawyer argued before the court that the applicant’s state of health was incompatible with detention. However the court considered that the applicant could be detained and that the morphine pump he had been using could be managed in the detention centre. In particular, the doctors from the detention centre would be able to operate the pump and refill it with morphine.\n9.  The applicant appealed against the decision.\n10.  On 23 November 2006 the Kielce Regional Court dismissed his appeal. The court considered that if the applicant continued to receive treatment for his pain he could stay in detention.\n11.  After the applicant’s arrest the morphine in his pump ran out, but the detention centre authorities filled it with sodium chloride (saline solution) as a substitute to keep the pump working.\n12.  The applicant’s lawyer requested an expert opinion to evaluate his client’s state of health. He submitted that the court, when deciding on his detention, had been misled by the detention authorities as regards the functioning of his pump, and the expert opinion could clarify the importance of the latter in the treatment of the applicant’s chronic pain.\n13.  On 24 January 2007 the applicant’s detention was extended by the Kraków Regional Court. The court also dismissed the applicant’s lawyer’s request for an expert opinion. As regards the applicant’s state of health, the court expressed, in one sentence, the opinion that it was not incompatible with detention. An appeal by the applicant against this decision was dismissed on an unspecified date.\n14.  On 16 April 2007 the applicant’s detention was further extended. The court relied on the risk that a severe sentence would be imposed and on the possibility that the applicant would interfere with the proper course of the proceedings. As regards the applicant’s state of health, the court reiterated that he had available to him a specialised machine to administer the painkiller – the morphine pump – and that it was thus possible to treat him in the detention centre. Specialist cleaning of the pump would take place in the near future in the civil hospital in Radom or in the Warsaw Prison hospital. The court made no reference to the fact that the pump had not been working properly for at least four months.\n15.  The applicant appealed against this decision. He argued that the pump had not been functioning properly since the beginning of his detention, as it had not been possible for the detention centre to refill the pump with the special mixture of morphine and other drugs put together individually for the applicant in a clinic i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5899", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Volgograd.\n6.  On 21 October 1999 he was arrested on suspicion of having committed several robberies.\n7.  On 10 November 1999 the case against him and three other accused was submitted for trial to the Svetloyarskiy District Court of Volgograd.\n8.  On 13 March 2000 the District Court convicted the applicant of theft and several counts of aggravated robbery. On 15 August 2000 the Volgograd Regional Court quashed his conviction on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n9.  A new conviction was handed down on 23 March 2001. It was upheld on appeal on 9 October 2001 but was set aside on 7 December 2001 by the Presidium of the Volgograd Regional Court by way of supervisory review proceedings. The case was then sent for a new trial to the Krasnoarmeyskiy District Court of the Volgograd Region.\n10.  On 21 May 2002 the District Court, composed of judge S., as president, and two lay assessors, held the first hearing. The applicant and two of his co-defendants appeared before the court. At the beginning of the hearing, it was found that all victims and certain witnesses had failed to appear. Messrs. P. and R., victims in the case, did not appear because they lived far from Volgograd. The summons which had been sent to Mr M.Kh., a victim, had not been delivered as he had moved house. Mr M.M., also a victim in the case, was on a business trip and could not attend. Mr V., the fifth victim, and the witnesses defaulted for various reasons. The prosecutor did not appear either. Though all defendants protested against the continuation of the hearing in the absence of the prosecutor, the victims and the witnesses, the court decided to proceed with the trial. The presiding judge read out the bill of indictment and questioned the defendants who all protested their innocence.\n11.  On the following day, 22 May 2002, the fifth victim and several witnesses appeared in court. The prosecutor was not present. The presiding judge again questioned the defendants, examined the victim and witnesses and studied documents in the file. The applicant asked the court to summon and examine attesting witnesses who had been present when the victims, in particular Messrs. M.Kh. and M.M., had identified him on a photograph. The court refused. It then decided to read out the written depositions to the investigative authorities by defaulting witnesses and by Messrs. R., M.Kh., M.M. and P. The last three were direct eyewitnesses of the applicant's actions. The defendants and counsel unsuccessfully objected to doing so and insisted that all the victims and witnesses should be examined in open court. After the written depositions had been read out, the applicant expressed doubts as to the credibility of some of them.\n12.  On 23 May 2002 the trial court continued reading out of the depositions by the defaulting witnesses and then proceeded to hear the final pleadings for the defence. The defendants and counsel objected to the concluding of the judicial inquiry but their objection was dismissed.\n13.  By a judgment of the same date, the District Court convicted the applicant of theft and several counts of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment in a high-security colony. The judgment was based to a significant extent on the written depositions by victims and the report on the identification of the applicant from a photograph by Messrs. M.Kh. and M.M. The court found that the statements made by the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5900", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first and second applicants were born in 1956 and 1975 respectively.\n6.  The applicants are of Roma origin. The first applicant is the mother, the second applicant the wife, and the third and fourth applicants the brothers of Mr Georgi Gerasimov, also of Roma origin, born in 1976.\n7.  In the afternoon of 30 May 2003 Mr Gerasimov and three other persons of Roma origin, Mr V.V., Mr I.I. and Mr M.G., were digging out coal in an abandoned opencast coal mine in Pernik. The area was open, with little vegetation, and accessible by a dirt road.\n8.  At one point another man, Mr B.I., to whom Mr M.G. apparently owed money, passed by on horseback. He asked Mr M.G. when he would pay back the debt and the two of them entered into a short argument. Mr Gerasimov intervened in defence of Mr M.G. After that Mr B.I. left.\n9.  Some time later Mr Gerasimov and his companions finished digging out the coal and were getting ready to leave. At this moment Mr B.I. returned, accompanied by three friends of his, Mr Z.E., Mr P.K. and Mr N.S., in two cars. A fight flared up between the two groups. The parties disagree as to who started it. Some time later Mr V.V., Mr I.I. and Mr M.G. went to a nearby petrol station, where they asked the staff to call the police, explaining that a friend of theirs had been beaten up. When the police officers reached the scene of the fight they found only Mr Gerasimov, lying on the ground. As he was seriously injured, he was taken to hospital.\n10.  Later that day the police initiated a search for Mr B.I. and Mr Z.E., suspecting that they had beaten up Mr Gerasimov, but could not find them.\n11.  Mr Gerasimov was admitted to the hospital in a coma, with a severe cerebral contusion and four wounds to the head. He died in hospital on 4 June 2003.\n12.  A criminal investigation was opened on 30 May 2003 by the Pernik regional public prosecutor's office.\n13.  An inspection of the scene of the fight was carried out on 30 May 2003. The record of the inspection stated that the site had not been preserved. The police officers found the van which had been used by the Mr Gerasimov and his companions abandoned at the site. The windscreen was cracked, the side rear-view mirrors were broken and one of the doors had marks of blows from a hard object. Traces of blood were found near the van. Subsequent analysis showed that the blood might have been Mr Gerasimov's. Traces of blood were also found inside the van. Subsequent analysis showed that it might have been Mr B.I.'s.\n14.  The police also inspected the cars Mr B.I. and his companions had been travelling in. Traces of blood were found in one of them. Subsequent analysis showed that the blood might have been Mr B.I.'s.\n15.  On 31 May 2003 the police inspected Mr N.S.'s car (not one of those which had been used the day before) and seized two bats and a knife.\n16.  On 2 June 2003 Mr B.I., Mr Z.E., Mr P.K. and Mr N.S. were examined by a doctor, who found that Mr B.I. had a small knife wound on the lower part of the back and several bruises on the face and body. The other men also had bruises.\n17.  The clothes worn by Mr B.I. on 30 May 2003 were also examined by an expert, who found matching cuts in his T-shirt and jacket, most likely caused by a knife.\n18.  A post-mortem examination of Mr Gerasimov's body, carried out on 5 June 2003, concluded that the death had been caused by a severe cerebral trauma. It found a multi-fragment fracture of the parietal bone, with fragments of the bone depressed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5901", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lived until his arrest in the town of Kuybyshev in the Novosibirsk Region. He is now serving his prison sentence in a correctional colony in the Novosibirsk Region.\n8.  On 12 October 2001 the Kuybyshev Town Court found the applicant guilty of having threatened a person with murder and sentenced him to a suspended term of one year's imprisonment.\n9.  In December 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter. On 24 April 2002 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic found the applicant guilty of unintentional manslaughter and aggravated disorderly behaviour and sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment.\n10.  On 16 January 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of robbery. On an unspecified date the criminal charges against him were amended: he was charged with several counts of aggravated robbery, unlawful possession and manufacturing of weapons, car hijacking and theft of identification documents.\n11.  On 17 June 2002 the applicant was served with the bill of indictment. A month later the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant was committed to stand trial before the Supreme Court of the Udmurtiya Republic.\n12.  On 5 August 2002 the Supreme Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 13 August 2002. At that hearing the Supreme Court returned the case to a prosecutor's office for five days, finding that the applicant had been served with an illegible copy of the bill of indictment. The following preliminary hearing was fixed for 30 September 2002. That hearing was rescheduled for 3 December 2002 because the applicant was participating in a hearing before another court.\n13.  On 3 December 2002 the Supreme Court remitted the case to the prosecutor's office for the drafting of a new bill of indictment. It noted that the bills of indictment which had been served on the defendants did not include the list of evidence on which the prosecution grounded their accusations. The following preliminary hearing scheduled for 4 January 2003 was adjourned because two counsel for the defendants had failed to attend.\n14.  From 13 to 20 January 2003 the Supreme Court held four preliminary hearings. At the hearing on 20 January 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully sought the removal of the entire bench, alleging that the judges could have been influenced by various publications concerning his case.\n15.  On 20 January 2003 the Supreme Court fixed the first trial hearing for 18 February 2003. The applicant and his co-defendants were to be tried by a jury.\n16.  On 19 February 2003 the Supreme Court remitted the case to the prosecutor's office for correction of defects in the bill of indictment. At the beginning of March 2003 the prosecutor's office returned the case file to the Supreme Court and the first preliminary hearing was fixed for 19 March 2003. At that hearing the prosecution dropped certain charges against the defendants and the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Industrialniy District Court of Izhevsk, which acquired subject-matter jurisdiction. The applicant was to be tried by professional judges. The District Court fixed a preliminary hearing for 29 April 2003.\n17.  At the hearing of 29 April 2003 the District Court remitted the case file to the prosecutor's office because a defendant, Mr H., had been served with an illegible copy of the bill of indictment. On 19 May 2003 Mr H. received the bill of indictment and on 4 June 2003 the Distr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5902", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and is currently serving his prison sentence in the Altay Region.\n5.  The applicant was charged with possession of firearms and several counts of robbery. The pre-trial proceedings were concluded in September 2003 and then the case against the applicant and four other persons was submitted to the Altay Regional Court for trial.\n6.  During the preliminary hearing on 28 November 2003, the presiding judge informed the defendants of their procedural rights, including, in particular, the right to free legal assistance, the right to meet with their lawyers without restrictions, the right to bring an appeal against a trial court's judgment, the right to participate in the appeal hearing and the right to defend themselves through all lawful means.\n7.  On 11 February 2004 the Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years' imprisonment.\n8.  In the operative part of its judgment, the trial court informed that any appeal had to be lodged with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation within ten days. The time-limit for the defendants started running from the day when they were served with a copy of the judgment. For other participants in the proceedings, it would run from the day of pronouncement of the judgment. There was no further information as to the right of the defendants to ask the authorities to ensure their participation in an appeal hearing.\n9.  Both the applicant and his counsel, who he had chosen and who had represented him at the trial, lodged their appeals challenging the Regional Court's judgment on factual and legal grounds, without stating the wish to take part in the appeal hearing. They claimed, in particular, that the trial court's findings had not been based on the facts of the case and that the court had used for the applicant's conviction the evidence obtained in breach of the criminal procedural law. It appears that some time later the applicant discharged his representative owing to a lack of financial means.\n10.  On 13 July 2004 the Registry of the Supreme Court despatched a summons for an appeal hearing. It contained several words:\n“For information ... the case of Kononov Krasnov Lukyanov Miroshnichenko Nepomnyashchikh is to be heard on 27 July 2004 at 10”.\nThe applicant was served with the court notification on 15 July 2004.\n11.  On 27 July 2004 the Supreme Court held an oral hearing. The applicant and his lawyer did not appear. The appeal court did not examine the question whether they had been duly summoned and, if they had not, whether the examination of their appeals should have been adjourned. The public prosecutor and one of the applicant's co-defendants were present and made their submissions. The prosecutor, in particular, asked to re-categorise the crime and uphold the trial court's judgment in the remaining part. On the same date the Supreme Court delivered a judgment by which it dismissed the applicant's appeal as being unsubstantiated and upheld his conviction and sentence in their entirety.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5903", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the town of Kansk, Krasnoyarsk Region.\n6.  On 19 March 2001 the applicant resisted a lawful arrest during a robbery and allegedly caused bodily harm to Mr F., officer of the Achinsk Department of the Interior, who was passing by with his wife. By a decision of 19 May 2001 an investigator of the Investigations Unit of the Achinsk Department of the Interior ordered the applicant's arrest.\n7.  The applicant was arrested on 10 July 2002 and brought to the Achinsk police station (see also paragraph 13 below). It is unclear whether any investigative measures were taken during the initial period of his detention. On 24 July 2002 the applicant was charged with robbery.\n8.  On 26 July 2002 the Achinsk Town Court considered that the applicant's arrest and detention had been unlawful because there had been deficiencies in the arrest record, in particular because he had not been informed of the above decision dated 19 May 2001; the applicant had not been brought before a court within the statutory time-limits. The applicant was released and ordered not to leave his place of residence. On 22 August 2002 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court quashed the Town Court's order and ordered a re-examination of the matter. On the same date, the applicant was charged with the assault of officer F.\n9.  On 3 September 2002 the applicant was served with a copy of the indictment. On 4 September 2002 he was arrested. On 5 September 2002 the judge extended the applicant's detention and listed the case for trial on 26 September 2002. On 28 February 2003 the trial judge extended the applicant's detention until 4 June 2003. On 3 June 2003 the judge extended the applicant's detention until 4 September 2003 with reference to the gravity of the charges against him, his previous criminal record and attempts to flee justice. On 15 July 2003 the Regional Court upheld that order.\n10.  The applicant pleaded not guilty. At a court hearing on 19 August 2003 the prosecutor dropped the charges of assault because the case had been investigated, in breach of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the Department of the Interior where the victim, officer F., was employed. By a decision issued on the same day, the Town Court terminated the proceedings concerning the charge of assaulting F. By a judgment of 20 August 2003, the Town Court convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment. On 2 December 2003 the Regional Court upheld the aforementioned judgments.\n11.  In separate proceedings, by a judgment of 28 October 2005 the Town Court recognised the applicant's right to compensation on account of the dropped charges. However, the court refused to award compensation, given the factual basis of the dropped and pursued charges.\n12.  The applicant was released in 2006.\n13.  On 10 July 2002 several police officers arrived at the applicant's flat. In the presence of his wife and child, officer B. struck him several times on the back and insulted him and his wife.\n14.  The applicant was then taken to the Achinsk police station, where he was beaten up by officer F. for nearly one hour. The officer inflicted blows to the applicant's chest, abdomen, legs and head. Such actions were due to the animosity of the officer toward the applicant after the events in 2001 and in order to extract a confession for the robbery. The applicant was forced to sign unspecified documents.\n15.  Instead of being placed in a standard cell, the ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5904", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Sofia. He was one of the three co-owners of a house with a yard and a garage located there.\n6.  On 24 July 1979 the mayor of Sofia decided to expropriate the house and the garage with a view to the construction of several residential buildings. His order was based on section 98(1) of the 1973 Territorial and Urban Planning Act (“the 1973 Act” – see paragraph 20 below), and said that the applicant was to be compensated with a flat and a garage in a building which the Ministry of the Interior intended to construct.\n7.  The expropriated properties were valued at 14,639.07 old Bulgarian levs (BGL)[1]. Following judicial review proceedings brought by the applicant and the other co‑owners, on 16 November 1981 the Sofia City Court increased the valuation to BGL 30,004.65.\n8.  In the meantime, by a supplementary order of 2 July 1980 based on section 100 of the 1973 Act (see paragraph 20 below), the mayor indicated the exact flat to be given to the applicant by way of compensation, specifying the building in which it would be located and its exact size and price.\n9.  The flat was built and delivered to the applicant in 1984.\n10.  In 1987 the applicant was informed that he had not been compensated with a garage because there were none in the building where the flat was located. It was confirmed that he would be offered a garage as soon as the Ministry of the Interior constructed a building with garages.\n11.  On 21 January 1999 the deputy mayor of Sofia invited the Ministry to provide a garage for the applicant. In a letter of 3 February 1999 the Ministry replied that it could not satisfy the applicant's request because its buildings had no garages.\n12.  On 29 December 1999 the applicant requested the municipality to compensate him with another garage, or to make a new valuation of the expropriated garage, based on its current market price, and compensate him with cash on the basis of that new valuation. On 13 July 2000 the deputy mayor asked a municipal company to carry out a fresh valuation of the garage. In a report of August 2000 three experts employed by that company valued it at 14,867 new Bulgarian levs (BGN). However, the municipality did not act on that report and did not compensate the applicant with cash.\n13.  On 22 November 2000 the applicant requested to be compensated in cash on the basis of the fresh valuation. The municipality did not reply.\n14.  On 27 December 2000 the applicant sought judicial review. He referred to his request of 29 December 1999 and enclosed a copy of it, but did not mention the request that he had made on 22 November 2000.\n15.  In a judgment of 13 November 2001 the Sofia City Court examined the application on the merits and dismissed it, holding that at the time when the applicant had requested a fresh valuation – 29 December 1999 – there had been no legal basis to allow such a request.\n16.  The applicant appealed. The Supreme Administrative Court heard the appeal on 26 March 2002. At the hearing counsel for the municipality argued that the Sofia City Court's judgment was correct, and that at the time when the applicant had made his request there had been no legal basis for requesting a fresh valuation. The public prosecutor who took part in the proceedings ex officio submitted that the application for judicial review had been made out of time and should not have been examined on the merits.\n17.  On 22 April 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Sofia", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5905", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Békéscsaba.\n6.  On 15 September 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant – who had lived in Hungary since 1986 – and his accomplices on charges of aggravated fraud and other offences.\n7.  On 8 March 1999 the police withdrew the applicant's passport in view of the pending prosecution. The applicant did not appeal against an administrative decision of 15 April 1998 confirming this measure, which thus became final on 18 May 1999.\n8.  In 1999, and then on 15 August and 12 December 2000 and 16 December 2002 the applicant requested that his passport be returned to him; the last occasion related to his attending his grandmother's funeral in the Ukraine. His requests were to no avail. In pursuit of his subsequent request of 17 October 2005, on 11 January 2006 he was informed that the authority in charge was unable to locate his passport. The passport was found and returned to him only on 11 September 2006.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 24 July 2002 the Budapest Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment in the case.\n10.  After several hearings, on 26 April 2007 the applicant was acquitted.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5906", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Gdańsk.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on 4 June 2004.\n7.  On 5 June 2004 the Kartuzy District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained until 4 September 2004 in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings and in view of the reasonable suspicion that he and other co-accused had committed the crime of harassment, deprivation of liberty and homicide.\n8.  The applicant's detention was repeatedly extended by several decisions of the Kartuzy District Court, the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) and subsequently the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). The applicant's appeals were unsuccessful. In their decisions, the courts relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged, on the serious nature of the offence and on the complexity of the case.\n9.  The applicant lodged three applications for release and for the preventive measure to be varied. On 14 October, 3 November and 3 December 2004 the Kartuzy District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) refused to vary the preventive measure, relying on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant would obstruct the proper course of the proceedings.\n10.  On 15 February 2005 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with homicide, among other charges. The bill of indictment concerned four co-accused all of whom had been remanded in custody.\n11.  On 27 April 2006 the Regional Court made an application under Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal for the applicant's detention to be extended until 31 July 2006, because the statutory two-year time-limit on detention pending trial would soon be exceeded (Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). It emphasised that the grounds originally given for his detention were still valid and that the court was not able to proceed with the hearing of evidence, for reasons beyond its control.\n12.  On 4 May 2006 the Court of Appeal granted the Regional Court's application. The court relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. It attached importance to the seriousness of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. The court emphasised, however, that the trial court should take all necessary measures to organise the proceedings in a diligent manner so as to terminate the trial by 31 July 2006.\n13.  On 28 June 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention until 30 September 2006. The court again relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. It additionally considered that the need to carry out further evidence justified the extension of the applicant's detention.\n14.  The applicant's lawyer appealed against this decision.\n15.  On 12 July 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the challenged decision, basically repeating the reasons given previously.\n16.  On 26 September 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal again extended the applicant's detention, until 15 November 2006. The Court relied on the same grounds as in its decision of 28 June 2006.\n17.  The applicant appealed.\n18.  On 11 October 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the challenged decision. The Court did not rely on any new arguments; it admitted that the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5908", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Krefeld (Germany).\n8.  On 25 August 2001 she gave birth to a child in Germany whose father, A., is a Portuguese national.\n9.  In October 2001 the child’s father was sentenced by the court of Krefeld to five years’ imprisonment for drug trafficking. His exclusion from Germany having been ordered, he was deported to Portugal in November 2004.\n10.  The applicant and the child’s father separated while he was in prison.\n11.  In January 2005, accompanied by a paternal uncle, the child went to Portugal to visit his father.\n12.  On 14 January 2005 the applicant travelled to Portugal to collect her child. She returned alone to Germany on 22 February 2005.\n13.  In March 2005 the applicant lodged, with the Federal Attorney-General, a request for the child’s return to Germany in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 25 October 1980 (“the Hague Convention”).\n14.  On 27 October 2005 the German public prosecution service sent a request to the Portuguese authorities to obtain the child’s return, alleging that the child had been wrongfully removed from Portugal in breach of Article 3 of the Hague Convention.\n15.  The request was served on the child’s father, who opposed the return. A. denied, in particular, that the child’s removal had been wrongful and stated that the decision for the child’s trip had been taken by both parents. He explained that the child’s movement had been decided by both parents because the child’s mother had envisaged settling in Portugal.\n16.  On 24 January 2006 the Braga Family Court gave a judgment to the effect that the child should not be returned to Germany, finding that the child’s retention in Portugal was not wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention or of Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) no. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (“Council Regulation no. 2201/2003”).\n17.  On 2 February 2006 the applicant appealed against the judgment before the Guimarães Court of Appeal arguing, among other things, that she had not been heard by the Braga Family Court.\n18.  In a judgment of 21 June 2006, the Guimarães Court of Appeal granted the applicant’s request. Annulling the judgment of the Braga Family Court, the Court of Appeal referred the case back to it, directing in particular that it should hear the child’s mother.\n19.  The child’s father appealed against the judgment of the Guimarães Court of Appeal before the Supreme Court, which dismissed his appeal on 7 November 2006.\n20.  On 15 August 2007, pursuant to an international letter of request from the Braga Family Court dated 14 February 2007, the mother was heard by the Krefeld court.\n21.  On 13 September 2007 the Krefeld court reported back to the Braga Family Court, sending the record of the hearing.\n22.  In a judgment of 21 May 2008, the Braga Family Court again rejected the request for the child’s return, finding that the child’s removal had not been wrongful as it had been agreed between the two parents.\n23.  On 12 June 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal before the Guimarães Court of Appeal. Her appeal was dismissed by a judgment of 9 January 2009.\n24.  In its judgment, the Court of Appeal stated:\n“... it must be concluded that from the time when the mother of L. returned to Germany without her son, he began to b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5909", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Kranj.\n6.  On 29 March 2002 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the insurance company Zavarovalnica Triglav before the Ljubljana District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani) seeking damages for the injuries sustained in a car accident.\n7.  Between 30 May 2002 and 14 March 2003 the applicant lodged thirteen preliminary written submissions.\n8.  On 14 January 2003 the first hearing was held.\n9.  Between 11 February 2003 and 8 May 2003 three hearings were held.\n10.  On 12 May 2003 the applicant lodged a preliminary written submission.\n11.  Between 19 June 2003 and 18 December 2003 three more hearings were held. At the last of these three hearing the first-instance court appointed a road traffic expert and adjourned the case indefinitely.\n12.  On 7 October 2004 the applicant urged the court to set a date for a hearing.\n13.  On 15 February 2005 the expert submitted his opinion.\n14.  Between 10 March 2005 and 19 April 2005 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions.\n15.  Between 14 September 2005 and 23 November 2005 three hearings were held.\n16.  Between 13 March 2006 and 4 April 2006 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions.\n17.  On 29 January 2007 a hearing was held.\n18.  The applicant lodged preliminary written submissions on 12 and 20 February 2007.\n19.  At the last hearing, on 19 March 2007, the parties reached a settlement and the proceedings were concluded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5910", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is a German national who was born in 1959 and lives in Berlin.\n7.  On 9 July 2002 at 2 p.m. the applicant was taken into police custody while travelling in Izmir. According to the arrest report, a search warrant had been issued by the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Izmir Security Headquarters in respect of the car in which the applicant was travelling.\n8.  At 3.10 p.m. on the same day, prior to his detention in police custody, the applicant was taken to the Izmir Atatürk Eğitim Hospital. The doctor who examined the applicant noted that there was no sign of violence on the applicant's body. The applicant was then taken to the Izmir Security Headquarters by Anti-Terrorist Branch officers.\n9.  The applicant alleges that he was subjected to various forms of ill‑treatment while in police custody. In particular, he was kept in a cell with strong light and insufficient ventilation. He was deprived of food and sleep. While being questioned he was blindfolded, stripped naked and insulted. He was also threatened with death and beaten. In particular, he received blows to his chest, back and head. The applicant was further forced to kneel down while police officers rubbed an object around his anus.\n10.  On 11 July 2002 the applicant was once again examined by a doctor at the Izmir Atatürk Eğitim Hospital, who noted that there was no sign of physical violence on the applicant's person.\n11.  On 11 July 2002 an identification parade was organised by the police. Individuals named M.Ö., H.H.T. and E.Y., who were arrested in the course of a police operation, identified the applicant as a senior member of an illegal organisation, Bolşevik Parti-Kuzey Kürdistan/Turkiye (Bolshevik Party-North Kurdistan/Turkey). They stated that the applicant used the code name “Hıdır” and was an active member of the said organisation. It is to be noted that the above-mentioned persons denied these statements before the trial court, alleging that they had been obtained under duress.\n12.  In a police report dated 12 July 2002 it was stated that the applicant had refused to answer questions relating to his activities within the aforementioned illegal organisation and that he wished to exercise his right to remain silent. The applicant however alleges that he had given statements under torture.\n13.  On 13 July 2002 the applicant was brought to the Izmir Atatürk Eğitim Hospital for the third time. According to the applicant's submissions, which were not contested by the Government, a doctor examined him and nine other persons (his co-accused) between 10.47 and 11 a.m; thus, ten people were examined in thirteen minutes. The doctor noted in the medical certificate that there was no sign of violence on the applicant.\n14.  On the same day, the applicant was questioned by a public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court. He claimed that he had not been involved in the activities of the Bolşevik Parti. The applicant was then brought before the Izmir Magistrates' Court, where he contended that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. In particular, the police officers had sexually abused him and hit him on the back and chest. The applicant's lawyer requested the court to order that an investigation be initiated into their allegations. The Izmir Magistrates' Court held that it was in the public prosecutor's discretion to order a medical examination of the applicant. The court also remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant was subsequent", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5911", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a limited partnership under liquidation, with its seat in Pécs.\n6.  In 1996 the Tax Authority established that the applicant owed some 10 million Hungarian forints (HUF) in outstanding taxes. To secure this claim, on 10 April 1997 it attached a 100%-share the applicant had in another company, which was nominally worth over HUF 103 million. Aware of the applicant’s own intention to sell the share by 30 June 1997, the Tax Authority forbade the transaction but did not proceed to auctioning it within the statutory two-month deadline or afterwards.\n7.  In the ensuing two-year-long administrative procedure, the applicant’s tax debt was eventually cancelled and the asset unfrozen. However, by that time the company in which the share belonged had been liquidated – as of July 1997 – and the share had lost its value altogether.\n8.  Some time in 1999 the applicant sued the Tax Authority for damages. On 12 December 2000 the Baranya County Regional Court awarded it HUF 103 million. On 13 June 2002 the Supreme Court quashed this decision. On 3 June 2003 the Regional Court again found for the plaintiff.\n9.  On appeal, on 6 May 2004 the Pécs Court of Appeal reversed this judgment and rejected the applicant’s action. It held in essence that there had been no causal link between the Tax Authority’s unlawful omission to hold an auction to sell the attached asset within two months from its attachment, as required by section 116(1) of the Enforcement Act 1994, and the damage the plaintiff had sustained. In the court’s view, the burden of proof to show that had there been a timely auction the share could have successfully been sold to a buyer with the requisite liquidity lay with the applicant. However, the applicant could not prove this assertion. The court observed that the buyer suggested by the applicant had never had, according to its books, the capital needed for the acquisition; that the company in which the share belonged had lost all its own capital by early 1997 and been in liquidation as of July 1997; and that its manager had been convicted of fraudulent bankruptcy.\n10.  On 16 March 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review. This decision was served on 22 April 2005. The applicant’s request for a re-opening was to no avail.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5912", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Izmir.\n5.  On 9 July 2002 at 4 p.m., the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Izmir Security Directorate. Immediately, he was taken to the Atatürk Teaching and Research Hospital, where he was examined by a doctor. The medical report stated that there was no trace of ill-treatment on his body. The applicant was then taken to the Izmir Security Directorate Building for interrogation.\n6.  According to a form dated 9 July 2002 that explained arrested persons' rights, and which was signed by the applicant, he had been reminded of his right to remain silent.\n7.  On 10 July 2002 the applicant was interrogated at the Anti-Terrorist Branch in the absence of a lawyer. In his statement, the applicant gave a detailed description about his involvement in an illegal organisation, namely the Bolşevik Parti - Kuzey Kürdistan/Türkiye (Bolshevik Party – North Kurdistan/Turkey). The applicant further took part in an identification parade with other accused persons and identified certain persons as members of the said organisation.\n8.  On 12 July 2002 the applicant was visited by a lawyer, Mr M.R., for a short period of time. The applicant told the lawyer that he did not need anything and that during his trial he wished to be represented by Mr H.D., a lawyer practising in Izmir.\n9.  On 13 July 2002 the applicant was again examined by a doctor, who stated that there were no traces of ill-treatment on his body.\n10.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively, again in the absence of a lawyer. Before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant repeated his police statement. After the questioning was over, the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody.\n11.  On 6 September 2002 the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed an indictment with that court accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation, an offence under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code and Section 7 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713). During the proceedings, the applicant was represented by his lawyer, and he denied his police statement alleging that it had been extracted under duress.  On 21 January 2003 the applicant was released pending trial.\n12.  On 24 July 2003 the Izmir State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years and two months' imprisonment under Section 7 of Law no. 3713.\n13.  On 8 April 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, holding that the first instance court should have taken into account the recent amendments made to Law no. 3713 when giving its judgment. By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was therefore transferred to the Izmir Assize Court.\n14.  On 12 October 2004 the Izmir Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years and six months' imprisonment. In convicting him, the court had regard to the applicant's statements to the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively. The applicant appealed against this decision. While the appeal was pending before the Court of Cassation, in 2005 new legislation amending the Criminal Procedure Code came into force. By a decision dated 10 November 2005, the Chie", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5913", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Oleg Choumakov, is a Russian national who was born in 1971. He is currently serving a prison sentence in the Gdańsk Detention Centre.\n5.  On 29 May 2003 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of robbery and the murder of a taxi driver.\n6.  On 30 May 2003 the Braniewo District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to remand the applicant in custody, relying on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question and the high probability that a heavy sentence would be imposed on him. The court further considered that there was a risk that the applicant might interfere with the course of the proceedings and bring pressure to bear on witnesses.\n7.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was subsequently extended on several occasions.\n8.  On 30 June 2005 the Elbląg Regional Court convicted the applicant and his co‑accused and sentenced them to twenty-five years' imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment.\n9.  On 21 December 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. On the same day, the appeal court extended the applicant's pre‑trial detention.\n10.  The applicant's pre-trial detention was further extended.\n11.  On 30 April 2007 the Elbląg Regional Court again convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-five years' imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal.\n12.  On 28 December 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned judgment. It remitted the case to the Elbląg Regional Court. The court further extended the applicant's detention until 28 June 2008. In addition to the grounds invoked previously, the court found that the applicant and the second co-accused had made an attempt to contact each other illegally and to exchange information about the trial, which justified the finding that the applicant might interfere with the proper course of the proceedings. Moreover, the court found that the co‑accused had contacted the witnesses through other persons.\n13.  On 30 April 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed a request by the applicant for release.\n14.  On 17 June 2008 the Elbląg Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 30 December 2008, relying on the high probability that the applicant had committed the offence in question. It also noted that he had already been convicted twice by the first-instance court. The court also considered that the likelihood of a severe sentence being imposed on the applicant created a presumption that he would obstruct the proceedings, and that the fact that the applicant had contacted third persons created a presumption that he might tamper with evidence.\n15.  The applicant appealed against that decision.\n16.  On 2 July 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the challenged decision, repeating the grounds invoked by the Regional Court.\n17.  On 1 December 2008 the applicant's lawyer requested the court to release the applicant from detention and apply a less severe measure, namely police supervision combined with the seizure of the applicant's passport. He relied, inter alia, on the fact that on 29 July 2008 the European Court of Human Rights had given judgment and found that the applicant's detention had exceeded a reasonable time.\n18.  On 5 December 2008 the Elbląg Regional Court refused the applicant's lawyer's request. The court considered that the grounds for the applicant's detention remained valid an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5914", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Zabrze.\n6.  On 27 April 2006 the applicant was remanded in custody by an order of the Katowice District Court on suspicion of having committed money laundering while acting in an organised criminal gang.\n7.  The applicant appealed. On 31 May 2006 the Katowice Regional Court upheld the decision to remand her in custody.\n8.  Shortly after her arrival in Lubliniec Detention Centre, the applicant was examined by the prison doctor. She informed him that she did not suffer from any illnesses and that she was not taking any special medication.\n9.  On 2 June 2006 the applicant complained to the prison doctor of pain in the chest area. The doctor diagnosed vegetative neurosis and prescribed the appropriate medication.\n10.  On 24 July 2006 the Katowice District Court extended the applicant's detention, referring to the need to conduct further investigations. This decision was upheld by the Regional Court on 30 August 2006.\n11.  On 28 July 2006 the applicant again complained of chest pain and was placed under observation. On 1, 13 and 20 September 2006 she reported the same symptoms and was prescribed medication.\n12.  On 11 September 2006 the District Court again extended the applicant's detention. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. It also relied on the risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence, given the nature of the charges against her and the fact that she had acted in concert with the co-accused. This decision was upheld by the Katowice Regional Court on 11 October 2006.\n13.  The applicant submits that in September 2006 she discovered a lump in her breast during a self-examination. She informed the prison doctor on 27 October 2006. The prison doctor confirmed that there was a lump in the applicant's left breast and sent her to the Breast Disease Clinic in Zabrze. During the consultation, which took place on 12 December 2006, a doctor confirmed the existence of the lump and ordered that she undergo a mammography.\n14.  The applicant's detention was subsequently extended on 7 December 2006. The District Court referred to the reasons previously given.\n15.  The mammography was performed on 11 January 2007.\n16.  On 16 January 2007 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor refused the applicant's motion for a change of the preventive measure. He considered that according to a cardiologist's opinion the applicant could be kept in detention pending trial. He also stressed that an expert oncologist had been asked to prepare an opinion on the applicant's state of health.\n17.  The applicant subsequently again asked for a change of the preventive measure. On 7 February 2007 the prosecutor considered that since he had not yet received the expert oncologist's opinion he could not decide on the applicant's release. However, he stressed that, according to the information provided by the expert, the applicant could, if necessary, be operated on in the surgical ward of the prison hospital.\n18.  The expert oncologist submitted his opinion on 16 February 2007. He stated that the lump should be removed and sent for a histopathological examination. He confirmed that the operation could be performed in the surgical ward of the prison hospital. Referring to the opinion, on 27 February 2007 the prosecutor dismissed the applicant's motion for a change of the preventive measure.\n19.  On 1 March 2007 the District Court extended the applicant's detention, refer", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5916", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1943, 1964 and 1953 respectively and live in Sofia.\n5.  In 1966 the first applicant and her husband bought from the Sofia municipality a three-room flat of 78 square metres, situated in the centre of the city, which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1946.\n6.  On an unspecified date in the beginning of 1993 the heirs of the former pre-nationalisation owner of the property brought proceedings against the first applicant and her husband under section 7 of the Restitution Law. They also sought a rei vindicatio order.\n7.  In 2001 the first applicant’s husband died, leaving as heirs the three applicants (the second and third applicants were his children). Accordingly, after that the first applicant owned two-thirds of the flat and the second and third applicants one sixth each.\n8.  The proceedings under section 7 of the Restitution Law ended by final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 January 2006. The courts found that the applicants’ title was null and void because the mayor’s decision in 1966 to sell the disputed flat to the first applicant and her husband had not been approved by the Minister of Finance, as required at the time, but by another official. The applicants disputed this conclusion in their appeals lodged in the framework of the proceedings.\n9.  The courts also allowed the claimants’ rei vindicatio action and ordered the first applicant, who was at the time living alone in the flat, to vacate it. She did so in August 2006. In May 2008 she was provided with the tenancy of a small municipally-owned flat, where she moved in.\n10.  On 19 April 2006 the applicants applied to receive compensation bonds. By an order of the Sofia regional governor of 25 September 2006 this was refused as the applicants had not complied with the statutory requirement to apply for such bonds within two months after the final judgment given in the proceedings under section 7 of the Restitution Law.\n11.  The applicants appealed, pointing out that they had missed the relevant time-limit because the first applicant had been ill. Nevertheless, in a final judgment of 19 May 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the governor’s refusal.\n12.  The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, §§ 110-41, 15 March 2007).\n13.  Pursuant to section 9(4) of the Compensation Law persons who have lost property under section 7 of the Restitution Law can apply for compensation bonds within two months after the final judgment under section 7 given in their case. It is the constant practice of the domestic courts to apply strictly this time-limit, without regard to the reasons which might have led to the interested parties having missed it (see, for example, judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court no. 12745 of 25 November 2008, case no. 2988/2008, and no. 3413 of 16 March 2009, case no. 5928/2008).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5918", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Schalchen.\n7.  The applicant’s son K. was born out of wedlock on 26 May 2000. The child was given the applicant’s family name by decision of the Braunau District Administrative Authority of 29 June 2000.\n8.  At that time K.’s mother was living as a tenant in the applicant’s house, in a separate apartment. The applicant was sharing an apartment with his long-term partner, U., who later became his wife, and their son D. aged six at that time. During K.’s first year the applicant took parental leave and took care of him together with U. Subsequently, K.’s mother took parental leave.\n9.  In early January 2002 K.’s mother moved out of the applicant’s house.\n10.  On 28 January 2002 the applicant asked the Mattighofen District Court (Bezirksgericht) to transfer sole custody of K. to him under Article 176 of the Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch). He submitted in particular that he and U. had mainly taken care of K. and that the child’s mother was not capable of doing so. The latter opposed the transfer of custody. At that stage and at all subsequent stages of the proceedings the applicant was assisted by counsel.\n11.  By letter of 12 February 2002 the Youth Office (Jugendamt), which had been following the case since summer 2001, expressed the view that both parents were capable of exercising custody.\n12.  On 12 March 2002 the applicant and K.’s mother appeared before the District Court and were heard by the judge.\n13.  According to the minutes, the applicant requested that the opinion of an expert in child psychology be taken. K.’s mother agreed to that request. The court appointed Dr J.-W., an expert in child psychology, and ordered him to submit an opinion on whether the interests of the child were better served by leaving sole custody with the mother or by awarding it to the applicant. The judge then proceeded to discuss the factual and legal issues with the parties. The parties then concluded an agreement to the effect that, pending a decision on custody, K. would spend three days with his mother and three days with the applicant.\n14.  The expert, Dr J.-W., submitted his opinion to the Court on 17 April 2002. The opinion was based on interviews which the expert had conducted with K.’s mother and the applicant and his partner. He had also paid a visit to the applicant’s home during which he had observed how the applicant and the other members of his family interacted with K. The expert opinion was served on the applicant.\n15.  On 8 July 2002 the District Court held a hearing in the presence of the applicant, his counsel, K.’s mother, Dr J.-W. and a representative of the Youth Office.\n16.  According to the minutes, the contents of the file were read out. Subsequently, Dr J.-W.’s opinion was discussed. In the course of the hearing Dr J.-W. supplemented his opinion. He expressed the view that K.’s mother was very immature and not yet capable of taking care of him and recommended the transfer of sole custody to the applicant. The representative of the Youth Office opposed the view that K.’s mother was not capable of raising the child. None of the parties made further submissions.\n17.  On the following day, that is, on 9 July 2002, the District Court ordered a second expert in child psychology, Dr R., to submit an opinion on whether or not K.’s mother was capable of taking care of him. In her opinion of 15 July 2002, Dr R. came to the conclusion that K.’s mother was sufficiently matur", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5919", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lived in Bilgorod-Dnistrovsky.\n7.  In the early morning on 18 November 2002, responding to P.'s complaint about having been robbed, the police arrived in a bar and arrested the applicant, a minor at the material time, and V., his acquaintance, and took them to the police station for questioning. The applicant explained that he knew nothing about the robbery and left the police station. It is unclear whether he was officially released.\n8.  At about noon on 18 November 2002 the applicant was arrested when walking down a street. According to the applicant, he was seized by force by two policemen dressed in civilian clothes, without any explanations. According to the police officers, they invited him for questioning concerning P.'s robbery and he swore at them and attempted to escape, making it necessary to arrest him by force.\n9.  On the same date the applicant was charged with refusal to comply with the lawful demands of the police officers, presented before the Bilgorod-Dnistrovsky Court without his parents being informed or a lawyer being appointed, and sentenced to seven days' administrative detention.\n10.  On 19 November 2002 the police formally initiated criminal proceedings concerning P.'s robbery.\n11.  On 21 November 2002 the Bilgorod-Dnistrovsky Court reviewed the applicant's sentence after an objection from the Bilgorod-Dnistrovsky Prosecutor, reduced it to three days' detention and ordered the applicant's release. Subsequently (on 4 January 2003) the President of the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decisions of 18 and 21 November 2002 by way of supervisory review, having found that the applicant should not have been subjected to administrative detention as he was a minor. He did find, however, that the applicant's malicious insubordination rendered him liable to a fine of 136 hryvnias (UAH).\n12.  Before his release on 21 November 2002, the applicant was questioned concerning P.'s robbery, in the presence of his mother and a lawyer appointed by the police, and confessed to having participated in the robbery.\n13.  Following his release, the applicant hired a new lawyer and retracted his confessions. He alleged that he had neither participated in, nor witnessed P.'s alleged robbery and that his previous confessions had been made under duress. He further explained that on 21 November 2002 he had confirmed his confession in presence of his mother and the advocate because the police had threatened that otherwise he would not be released from detention.\n14.  In December 2003 the applicant was committed for trial on charges of robbery. On 3 May 2005 the Bilgorod-Dnistrovsky Court remitted his case for additional investigation. The parties did not provide any further information concerning the outcome of the criminal proceedings.\n15.  According to the applicant, while he was serving his administrative detention sentence he was severely ill-treated by police officers, who tried to make him confess to participating in P.'s robbery. In particular, he was handcuffed to a radiator and beaten on the head and body with a plastic water bottle. On several occasions the applicant lost consciousness. As a result of the ill-treatment, on 18 and 19 November 2002 the applicant, who had not been given access to either a lawyer or his parents, wrote self-incriminating statements, dictated by the police. By way of evidence that he was so questioned, the applicant presented copies of his confession statem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5920", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Shebekino, the Belgorod Region.\n6.  In March 1994 he signed a five-year serviceman contract with the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation. In January 1999 he applied for his discharge from military service on the grounds that his commander had failed to fulfil its contractual obligations, in particular to pay him certain allowances in due time. His application was refused.\n7.  In October 1999 the applicant instituted judicial proceedings before the Tambov Garrison Military Court. By a judgment of 10 November 1999 the latter upheld his action and ordered his commander to discharge him from service, to pay the amounts that were due to him and “to solve the question of providing the applicant with housing in accordance with law prior to his discharge”.\n8.  On 24 October 2002 the Tambov Housing Committee (Тамбовская КЭЧ) assigned to the applicant and his family (his wife and two sons) a flat in a newly built residence in Chicherina Street in Tambov (“the flat”).\n9.  On 20 February 2003 the applicant was issued with an occupancy voucher (ордер на жилое помещение), a document that entitled him, his wife and their two sons to occupy and use the flat on the basis of a social tenancy agreement with the State.\n10.  On an unspecified date he brought an action seeking “the suspension of the occupancy voucher”. He alleged that the building had not yet been registered and that this prevented him from disposing of the flat. Besides, there were certain construction defects that had to be fixed. On 26 May 2003 the Sovetskiy District Court of Tambov upheld his action.\n11.  In November 2004 the applicant brought an action against the Tambov Housing Committee seeking ownership of the flat. By a judgment of 9 December 2004 the Oktyabriskiy District Court of Tambov granted joint title to the applicant and his two sons, whilst his wife waved her possibility to be granted title in respect of the flat.\n12.  On 25 August 2000 the Bailiff Service of the Sovetskiy District of Tambov opened enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of 10 November 1999 (see paragraph 7 above).\n13.  The proceedings were discontinued and resumed several times. On 25 December 2002 the Bailiff in charge issued a notice stating that the relevant domestic law prohibited the discharge of long-serving servicemen in need of housing if their commander had not provided them with such housing. In reply to an enquiry by the applicant of 30 June 2003 about measures taken in order to enforce the judgment of 10 November 1999, the Bailiff responded that his discharge from military service could not be executed because his commander had not yet provided him with housing.\n14.  The applicant and his family moved into the flat on 1 November 2004.\n15.  On 28 February 2005 the unit commander discharged the applicant from military service.\n16.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the Prosecutor of the Tambov Garrison instituted proceedings against the applicant before the Tambov Garrison Military Court, seeking annulment of the occupancy voucher (see paragraph 9 above). The prosecutor submitted that the applicant had failed to inform his commander that his wife held joint title in respect of a flat in another town which she had obtained by way of a privatisation measure and that the concealment of this information had resulted in the applicant and his family having been provided with a larger accommodation than that to which they had been entitle", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5921", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Baku.\n6.  The applicant was a lawyer and a member of the opposition Musavat Party.\n7.  On 11 June 2005 the applicant was arrested by agents of the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) on suspicion of attempted deliberate destruction of property. The applicant was charged with the criminal offence of attempted deliberate destruction of property as set out Articles 29 and 186 of the Criminal Code.\n8.  On 13 June 2005, a judge of the Nasimi District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor's request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered the applicant's detention for a period of two months.\n9.  The applicant appealed against the Nasimi District Court's decision of 13 June 2005, complaining of a lack of evidence or justification to support the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody. On 22 June 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal noting that the lower court's decision was justified.\n10.  The applicant's detention was subsequently extended twice by the Nasimi District Court, by its decisions of 6 August and 3 October 2005. Both decisions were upheld by the Court of Appeal following the applicant's appeals.\n11.  On 14 June 2005 the official newspaper Azərbaycan published a joint statement headlined as “Special Information of the Prosecutor General's Office and the Ministry of National Security of the Republic of Azerbaijan”. This joint statement officially informed the public of the institution of criminal proceedings against a group of persons, including the applicant, in connection with the attempted destruction of property. It was noted in the joint statement that the applicant and other persons had intended to blow up the private cars of a judge of the Court of Appeal and the chairman of ATV, a private television channel.\n12.  The joint statement of 14 June 2005 stated, inter alia:\n“A.N. confirmed that preparations were being made to carry out an explosion and stated that the people behind this act were Orujov Pirali Maharram oglu, who was born in 1958 and resides in Baku, a person close to the Musavat Party who had worked in different positions in the internal affairs and military prosecutor authorities of the Republic of Azerbaijan and has been a retired lieutenant colonel since 1994, and G.R., who was born in 1958 and works in Moscow as a businessman.\nIt has been found that Pirali Orujov introduced A.N., known in the circle of the people close to the opposition by the nickname of “Saboteur” because of his radicalism, to R.G. in order to discuss the details of the plan to carry out this act and that they thus entered into criminal complicity. They promised A.N. a large amount of money for carrying out the explosion and decided not to communicate with each other by telephone and to discuss any details only in their private meetings.\nThe persons mentioned above intended first to blow up the car of the Court of Appeal's judge B.S. and a few days later the car of the president of the independent television company ATV ...”\n13.  On 20 June 2005 the applicant wrote to the Prosecutor General and the Ombudsman complaining, inter alia, of a violation of his right to the presumption of innocence caused by the joint statement of the law‑enforcement authorities of 14 June 2005. On 27 June 2005 the applicant again wrote to the Prosecutor General reiterating his complaint.\n14.  On an unspecified date ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5922", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Arkhangelsk.\n7.  The applicant, an advocate at the time, acted as defence counsel for a Mr R.\n8.  On 5 August 2003 the Primorskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk, chaired by judge V., removed the applicant from his position as Mr R.'s counsel. The District Court found that the applicant had acted contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Advocate's Code of Ethics. The court noted, in particular:\n“Persistent and repeated voluntary statements made by [the applicant] that he provided legal advice to witnesses N. and S. and at the same time acted as counsel for defendant R. ... show that [the applicant], in violation of the formal requirements of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, provided legal advice and acted as counsel in respect of persons whose interests were in conflict. Therefore, it is not possible for [the applicant] to continue to participate in the trial as legal counsel for defendant R. or to provide legal advice to N. and S.”\n9.  On 26 September 2003 the District Court found Mr R. guilty as charged.\n10.  On 16 December 2003 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court quashed Mr R.'s conviction and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The court also upheld on appeal the decision of 5 August 2003.\n11.  On 22 December 2003 the applicant asked the Presidium of the Regional Court for supervisory review of the judicial decisions to remove him from being Mr R.'s representative.\n12.  On 2 February 2004 judge A. of the Regional Court dismissed the above complaint. In particular, the judge noted as follows:\n“I hereby return your complaint against ... the decisions ... of 5 August 2003 and 16 December 2003 without having considered it on the merits. [The reason for this is that] the Primorskiy District Court of the Arkhangelsk Region opened R.'s trial on 22 January 2004 and it is impossible to verify the lawfulness and inconsistency of the decisions in question.”\n13.  On 9 February 2004 the applicant filed a complaint against the judges who had participated in the proceedings for the determination of the criminal charge against Mr R., alleging that they had acted in violation of the rules of criminal procedure by refusing to consider his application for supervisory review in respect of the decision of 5 August 2003. The complaint was addressed to the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation with a copy to the President of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court. The applicant asked for the President's intervention which would prompt, in his opinion, the Arkhangelsk Regional Court to respond to his application for supervisory review.\n14.  In particular, the applicant made the following comments in the complaint:\n“... Judges A. and V. used to “plough the fields of justice together” at the Arkhangelsk Regional Prosecutor's Office, and, apparently, they “continue their joint efforts now” at the Arkhangelsk Regional Court ...\n... In my opinion, either judge A. is not quite familiar with the law, which is sad, or judge A. wilfully and knowingly restricts my access to court, which is twice as sad ...\n... On 2 February 2004 I received an absolutely unlawful “brush-off” reply from judge A ...\n... [Judge A.] could have unglued his posterior from [his] seat and brought it to the premises of the Primorskiy District Court ...\n... Otherwise, why would judge A. receive such a salary which I, as a tax payer, contribute to? ...\n... But judge A. simply pushed away my [request for] supervisory r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5924", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Baku.\n6.  The applicant worked as an inspector at the Baku Audit Department (Bakı şəhəri üzrə Nəzarət-Təftiş İdarəsi - “the Department”) of the Ministry of Finance (“the Ministry”). On 1 May 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his job by an order of the Ministry for unsatisfactory work performance.\n7.  The applicant lodged an action against the Ministry, claiming unlawful dismissal. By a judgment of 23 February 1998 the Sabayil District Court allowed the applicant's claim, ordering his reinstatement in his previous job. Moreover, the court ordered the Ministry to pay the applicant his unpaid salary in an unspecified amount for the period from 1 May 1997 (date of dismissal) to 23 February 1998 (date of delivery of the judgment). No appeals were lodged against the judgment of 23 February 1998 within the time-limits specified by law and, pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, it entered into legal force ten days after its delivery.\n8.  Despite the applicant's numerous demands and the fact that the writ of execution had been sent several times to the Ministry for execution, the competent authorities did not take any measures to enforce the judgment.\n9.  By a letter of 18 January 2000 the Ministry informed the applicant that, upon the reorganisation of the Ministry, the Department had been abolished by an internal order of 28 January 1999 of the Ministry and that therefore it was not possible to reinstate him in his previous job.\n10.  On 14 November 2002 the applicant lodged an action against the Ministry, seeking compensation for non-execution of the judgment of 23 February 1998. On 17 January 2003 the Nasimi District Court delivered a judgment in the applicant's favour. The court noted that the judgment of 23 February 1998 was still in force and awarded the applicant 4,704,000 Old Azerbaijani manats (AZM, approximately 920 euros (EUR)) as his unpaid salary calculated from 23 February 1998 to 17 January 2003 (date of delivery of this judgment). This amount was calculated on the basis of the applicant's previous average salary.\n11.  On 17 February 2003 the applicant appealed against the judgment of 17 January 2003, claiming a higher amount of compensation. In the meantime, it appears from the case file that the Ministry requested the Court of Appeal to suspend the proceedings due to the Ministry's cassation appeal lodged with the Supreme Court against the judgment of 23 February 1998. After the Ministry's above-mentioned request, the proceedings before the Court of Appeal were formally suspended.\n12.  By a judgment of 10 May 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance court's judgment, noting that the amount of compensation had been calculated correctly. On 15 March 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's judgment.\n13.  On 28 January 2009 the judgment of 17 January 2003 was executed and the applicant received the amount awarded by the judgment (approximately EUR 920).\n14.  On 8 April 2009 the Ministry executed the judgment of 23 February 1998: the applicant was reinstated in his previous post and an amount of AZN 9,155.12 (approximately EUR 9,063) was paid to him as compensation for lost earnings, in addition to compensation awarded by the judgment of 17 January 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5925", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Donetsk. The applicant company also has its seat in Donetsk.\n5.  On 13 December 1999 and 29 June 2000 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court awarded the applicant company, 27,159.11[1] and 30,786.83[2] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) respectively against the Y. private open joint-stock company. Between November 2000 and January 2001 the Yenakiyevo Bailiffs' Service instituted enforcement proceedings.\n6.  In December 2001 the applicant company instituted proceedings in the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court against the Yenakiyevo Bailiffs' Service, challenging its inactivity in the enforcement of the above judgments. On 18 June 2003 the court found for the applicant company and ordered the Bailiffs' Service to enforce the judgments. On 17 September 2003 the Donetsk Commercial Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.\n7.  The judgments of 13 December 1999 and 29 June 2000 in the applicant company's favour were enforced by November 2003.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant company instituted proceedings in the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court against the Yenakiyevo Bailiffs' Service, claiming UAH 11,657.42[3] in compensation for pecuniary damage (inflation losses) caused by the lengthy delay in enforcing the judgments of 13 December 1999 and 29 June 2000 in its favour.\n9.  On 3 March 2004 the court found against the applicant company. On 18 May 2004 the Donetsk Commercial Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.\n10.  On 17 June 2004 the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine refused to examine an appeal by the applicant company as it had failed to pay a court fee. The applicant company appealed against that decision, arguing that in accordance with section 86 of the Enforcement Proceedings Act, the creditor was dispensed from paying court fees in cases against a legal person, entrusted with enforcing a judgment, for compensation for damage sustained as a result of the non-enforcement of a judgment.\n11.  On 3 November 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant company as unsubstantiated.\n12.  During the period from 2000 to 2002 the applicant company instituted numerous proceedings against the Voroshylovskyy District Tax Administration challenging tax payments, fines etc.\n13.  In June 2003 the Voroshylovskyy District Tax Administration instituted insolvency proceedings in the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court against the applicant company. The Tax Administration stated that the applicant company had failed to pay UAH 57,840.91[4] in tax in 2000 and had already had a tax lien imposed on it. Moreover, the last transaction on the applicant company's account had taken place more than a year ago and the applicant company's location was unknown. Apparently, the applicant company was not informed about these proceedings.\n14.  On 4 September 2003, in the applicant company representative's absence, the court declared the applicant company insolvent for failure to pay UAH 57,840.91 in taxes to the State budget. The Voroshylovskyy District Tax Administration was appointed its liquidator.\n15.  According to the applicant company, it was informed about this decision only by letter of 10 March 2004. Subsequently, the applicant company requested the court to fix a new time-limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of 4 September 2003. On 22 April 2004 the Donetsk Commercial Court of Appeal refused this request because, in accordance with Article 93 of the Code of Comme", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5926", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960. She died in June 2008. Her widower, Mr Kutsenko Oleh Mykolayovych, submitted that he wished to pursue the application.\n5.  On 14 June 2000 the applicant lodged a claim with the Bahliyskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk (“the Bahliyskyy Court”) against the State Bailiffs’ Service. She sought compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage allegedly caused by lengthy non-enforcement of two judgments given in her favour against a State enterprise. The debtor State enterprise participated in the proceedings as a third party.\n6.  On 10 July 2001 the Bahliyskyy Court found no fault on the part of the Bailiffs and rejected the applicant’s claims.\n7.  On 26 November 2001 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 10 July 2001 because of the failure of the first‑instance court to assess all the circumstances of the case and to give reasons for its decision and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n8.  On 25 September 2003 the Bahliyskyy Court rejected the applicant’s claims. It noted that the judgments of 15 March 2000 and 25 February 2001 had been enforced in full on 6 July 2000 and 5 April 2002, respectively, and found no fault on the part of the Bailiffs for the alleged lengthy enforcement of the judgments.\n9.  On 30 June 2004 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal which she had to re-submit on two occasions in order to comply with procedural requirements and upheld the judgment of 25 September 2003.\n10.  On 26 July 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation.\n11.  On 29 May 2007 the Crimea Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, found no grounds to review the applicant’s case in cassation.\n12.  In the course of the proceedings before the first-instance court the applicant supplemented her claims on four occasions. Six times the proceedings were adjourned on the applicant’s request or because of her or her representative’s failure to appear which in total caused a delay of about six months. Sixteen times the proceedings were adjourned because of other participants’ (respondent, third party, experts) failure to appear or on their requests and on two occasions because of the absence of the judge which in total caused a delay of one year and five months.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5927", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Gdańsk.\n5.  On 7 March 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking.\n6.  On 9 March 2006 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n7.  The applicant's appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release, were unsuccessful.\n8.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged on several occasions by the Gdańsk Regional Court's (Sąd Okręgowy) decisions delivered on 25 May, 24 August, 16 November and 12 December 2006.\nIn all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses. They attached importance to the complexity of the case, the significant number of persons involved and the voluminous documentation. They stressed the grave nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation, especially the need to collect and verify evidence from suspects and witnesses justified holding him in custody.\n9.  On 4 December 2006 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with drug trafficking. The bill of indictment comprised numerous charges of, inter alia, drug trafficking, brought against twenty-one defendants. Three defendants were additionally charged with having committed the offences while acting as members of an organised criminal group.\n10.   The trial started on 29 March 2007.\n11.  During the court proceedings the authorities further prolonged the applicant's detention pending trial. The applicant's detention was extended by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 17 May, 25 October 2007 and 29 January 2008 and by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 20 February and 19 March 2008. The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's continued detention.\nIn the relevant part of its decision of 19 March 2008 the Court of Appeal stated that:\n“The need for further applying the isolation-type of preventive measure is additionally justified by the fact that the defendants had committed the offences with which they had been charged while acting in an organised criminal group or cooperating with that group. The group aimed at committing crimes of distribution of substantial amounts of intoxicants and psychotropic drugs.”\n12.  The applicant appealed against that decision. He alleged, in particular, that the grounds for the court's decision containing a suggestion that he had committed the offences in question violated the principle of the presumption of innocence.\nOn 8 April 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal, sitting in a different panel of three judges, upheld the contested decision. It stressed that the impugned statement read in the context of the whole decision described a state of suspicion rather than a finding of the applicant's guilt.\n13.  On 26 June 2008 the applicant's detention was lifted.\n14.  The proceedings are", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5928", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was a security guard who was born in 1969 and lived in Bălţi.\n6.  The applicant, together with Messrs Nicolae Ninescu and Anatolie Tripăduş who have also lodged applications with the Court, was involved in a series of complex commercial arrangements concerning the building of eighteen blocks of flats in Chişinău by a construction company (“the company”).\n7.  On 29 March 2004 S.F. and L.B. created the above-mentioned company with a capital of 5,400 Moldovan lei (MDL). Each of the parties was the holder of 50% of the company's shares. On 17 December 2004 L.B. sold 10% of her shares to S.F. and on 11 February 2005 the remaining 40% of her shares were sold to F.M., a German national. The relevant documents were registered by the State Registration Chamber.\n8.  On 14 February 2006 Mr Nicolae Ninescu, on behalf of F.M., brought an action against S.F., seeking the exclusion of the latter from the company on the ground that S.F. had not paid his part of the shares since 29 March 2004.\n9.  On 15 March 2006 the Bălţi District Court upheld F.M.'s action and ordered the exclusion of S.F. from the company. F.M. thus became the sole shareholder. On 31 March 2006 the judgment became final and enforceable. The court issued an enforcement warrant and on the same date the State Registration Chamber registered the changes in the company's statutory documents.\n10.  On 2 April 2006 F.M. sold 10% of his shares to the applicant and 70% of his shares to V.S., who in turn sold them to three other persons, who were represented by the applicant in these transactions.\n11.  On 3 April 2006 the Bălţi Territorial Office of the State Registration Chamber added 3,024,000 euros (EUR) to the company's capital. This corresponded to the value of the project documentation for the construction site which had been estimated at EUR 3,024,358.80 in an audit report dated 9 December 2005.\n12.  Later in 2006, on an unspecified date, S.F. appealed against the judgment of 15 March 2006. He asked the Bălţi Court of Appeal to strike the case out of its list on the grounds that Mr Nicolae Ninescu did not have the powers to bring an action on behalf on F.M. The Court of Appeal examined the appeal despite the fact that the appealed decision was final, since it found that the merits of the case had been examined by the Bălţi District Court in F.S.' absence, who had not been legally summoned to that hearing. On 30 May 2006 the Bălţi Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and rejected the request to strike the case out of its list of cases. S.F. lodged an appeal on points of law.\n13.  On 11 July 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the appeal on points of law. It quashed the judgment of the Bălţi District Court of 15 March 2006 and the Bălţi Court of Appeal's decision of 30 May 2006 and ordered that the case be remitted to the first-instance court.\n14.  On 2 August 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal joined F.M.'s action to a counter action filed by S.F. against F.M. and the State Registration Chamber, seeking the annulment of all documents which had led to his exclusion from the founding members of the company and for an acknowledgement of his sole ownership of the company's shares.\n15.  By a final judgment of 19 October 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed F.M.'s action and upheld in full the action lodged by S.F.\n16.  Meanwhile, on 16 May 2006, the Prosecutor General's Office ordered the opening of a criminal investigation into the alleged forgery of the power of attorney w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5929", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Poprad.\n6.  On 14 August 2002 the Prešov Regional Investigation Office commenced a criminal investigation into a suspicious money transfer between two bank accounts.\n7.  On 9 October 2002 the Prosecutor General ruled that the investigation should be supervised by the Trenčín Regional Prosecutor. It was observed that the suspected offence had been committed in the region of Prešov and that the Prešov Regional Prosecutor would normally have had jurisdiction to deal with it. It was, however, presumed that the offence had been part of a larger criminal transaction involving several individuals in various places and requiring extensive investigation. In order to ensure the effectiveness and expeditious determination of the proceedings, it was necessary to transfer jurisdiction to the Trenčín Regional Prosecutor.\n8.  On 29 November 2002 the Prosecutor General took a similar measure in respect of an investigation into irregularities in insolvency proceedings concerning bank A.\n9.  On 9 December 2002 the applicant and seven other individuals were charged with conspiracy and embezzlement on suspicion of having fraudulently and in an organised fashion drained money from the insolvency estate of A.\nThe applicant for his part was suspected of having organised a bank transfer of the money in question. The decision was based on “previously obtained testimonies and documentary evidence”.\n10.  On 14 December 2002 the applicant was placed in detention pending trial. He remained detained until his release on 22 January 2004. The circumstances and decisions relating to his detention are described in paragraphs 19 to 80 below.\n11.  On 24 April 2003 the investigation in question was joined to inquiries in two other cases concerning murders which had connections with the insolvency proceedings in respect of bank A.\n12.  After the investigation had been completed, the applicant was invited to inspect the investigation file. He did so on 21 June and 30 July 2004. He discovered, inter alia, that the file contained information which had been obtained by monitoring his telephone calls. This information comprised the transcript of a specific phone call from the applicant’s mobile telephone and a list of outgoing and incoming calls in a specific period.\n13.  The applicant unsuccessfully complained to the prosecution service and the Constitutional Court that the monitoring of his telephone communications had been unlawful and unjustified. The details concerning his constitutional complaint are set out in paragraphs 81 and 82 below.\n14.  On 10 September 2004 the Trenčín Regional Prosecutor indicted the applicant and committed him to stand trial before the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd) on charges of conspiracy and embezzlement. The indictment was also directed against 13 other individuals, including two lawyers, and included charges of money laundering, murder and illegal possession of firearms.\n15.  On 14 October 2004 the Prešov Regional Court ruled that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the Special Court (Špeciálny súd), which had been established a short time before in order to try cases involving corruption, organised crime and other serious offences. Both the applicant and the prosecution service challenged this ruling.\n16.  On 19 January 2005 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) upheld the jurisdiction of the Special Court. The applicant then unsuccessfully challenged this decision before the Constitutiona", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5930", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Sontheim an der Brenz (Germany).\n6.  On 25 November 2003 the applicant was charged in Slovakia with blackmail within the meaning of Article 235 of the Criminal Code (Law no. 140/1961 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time).\n7.  The charge was based on the suspicion that the applicant had sent a number of text messages from a German mobile telephone number to A. in Slovakia which contained serious threats that he would harm and kill her and their child.\n8.  On 10 March 2004 the applicant was handed over to the Slovakian authorities to be prosecuted in Slovakia. He was subsequently detained in Slovakia pending trial there (see below).\n9.  On 22 November 2004 the Levice District Court (Okresný súd) found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment, suspended for thirty months. The applicant waived his right of appeal and, on the same day, the judgment became final and binding and the applicant was released.\n10.  In so far as can be established from the applicant's submissions and the content of the documents in the case file, on 11 March 2004 a single judge of the District Court gave an order (uznesenie) for the applicant to be detained pending trial. The order was upheld following an interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť) by the applicant examined by the Nitra Regional Court (Krajský súd) on 20 May 2004. The decision on the appeal was served on the applicant's lawyer on 5 August 2004.\n11.  On 5 October 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) under Article 127 of the Constitution.\nThe applicant relied on Article 5 of the Convention and contended that his detention was unlawful and arbitrary since there was neither any “reasonable suspicion” with a basis in admissible evidence against him nor sufficient reasons to detain him. The applicant also argued that the impugned decisions lacked adequate reasoning and that the proceedings on his interlocutory appeal had not been speedy. He sought, inter alia, that the decision of 20 May 2004 be quashed, that he be released and that the Regional Court be ordered to determine his interlocutory appeal anew.\n12.  On 22 June 2005 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible.\n13.  In a written submission of 31 August 2005 the applicant, inter alia, requested for comment a copy of any observations that the District Court and the Regional Court, as the defendants in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, might have submitted in reply to his complaint.\n14.  On 15 February 2006 the Constitutional Court gave a judgment (nález) in which it found that the Regional Court had violated the applicant's rights under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in that it had failed to provide adequate reasoning for its decision of 20 May 2004 and in that the proceedings on the applicant's interlocutory appeal had not been speedy.\n15.  The Constitutional Court quashed the decision of 20 May 2004. It observed that the applicant had meanwhile been released. The part of his constitutional complaint, which was aimed at his release and at a fresh examination of his interlocutory appeal, had therefore become moot. Nevertheless, while accepting that the applicant had sustained non-pecuniary damage, the Constitutional Court did not award him any just satisfaction on the ground that the finding of a violation of the applicant's rights was sufficient redress for him. However, the Constitutional Court ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5931", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Ankara. He is the owner of “Yurt Books and Publishing”, a small independent firm that has published numerous books in Turkey.\n6.  In the 1990s a number of books published by the applicant's company were found to contain propaganda in breach of various provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3712), as well as “insults to the memory of Atatürk” in breach of Law no. 5816. He was convicted and served a total period of one year, five months and twenty days in prison and paid the equivalent of 5,121 euros (EUR) in fines. Most of the books in question were confiscated. On 21 December 1994 he introduced an application with the Court in relation to that conviction and the confiscation of the books. On 4 October 2005 the Court found a violation of Articles 7 and 10 of the Convention (see Ünsal Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 29365/95, 4 October 2005).\n7.  Following the repeal of section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in July 2003, the applicant made applications to the First Chamber of the Ankara State Security Court on various dates in 2003 and asked for the confiscation orders to be lifted.\n8.  The First Chamber of the Ankara State Security Court rejected the claims and the applicant lodged objections against those rejections with the Second Chamber of the same court.\n9.  The Second Chamber of the Ankara State Security Court lifted the confiscation orders in respect of a number of the books but held that, as the confiscation orders had already been executed, there were no books to return.\n10.  On 9 January 2004 the Second Chamber of the Ankara State Security Court held in respect of sixteen books that, although section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act had been repealed, the contents of those books amounted not only to “separatist propaganda” but were also unlawful “under various laws”, and rejected the objection.\n11.  On 22 November 2005 a further decision was adopted by the Ankara Assize Court in respect of the same sixteen books. Having regard “to the legislation in force” and “considering that the contents of the books might be in contravention of section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act” it refused the applicant's request for the lifting of the confiscation order in respect of the sixteen books.\n12.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 22 November 2005. The prosecutor at the Court of Cassation also requested that the decision be quashed because he considered that rejecting the applicant's request on account of the assumption that the contents of the books “might be unlawful”, rather than examining the substance of the applicant's request in the light of the legal developments, was not in accordance with the law and procedure.\n13.  On 8 April 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5932", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  On 7 July 2006 the applicant was charged with drug trafficking, committed in an organised and armed criminal group.\n7.  On 22 September 2006 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision, ordering the applicant's detention on remand for a period of fourteen days. The applicant submitted that this decision has not been served on him and that he had been unaware of the charges introduced against him.\nThe Government contested that fact, submitting that the applicant had been in hiding.\n8.  On 12 October 2006 a wanted notice (list gończy) was issued by the Warsaw District Court with a view to locating the applicant.\n9.  On 24 October 2006 the applicant was arrested. In the applicant's record of arrest (protokół zatrzymania), the reasons for his arrest read as follows: 'wanted notice; transport to the closest remand centre or prison (...)' (“list gończy, doprowadzenie do najbliższego AŚ lub ZK”).\n10.  On 3 November 2006 the Warsaw District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might go into hiding and induce witnesses to give false testimony, particularly given that a wanted notice had been issued in the course of the investigation with a view to locating the applicant. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the fact that the applicant was charged with an offence committed in an organised and armed criminal group.\n11.  Later, several other members of the same criminal group were detained and charged in connection with the investigation against the applicant.\n12.  The applicant's appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeals he argued that the charges against him were based on unreliable evidence. He also relied on his personal circumstances, in particular the need to ensure care for his elderly mother.\n13.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged by decisions of the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okregowy) delivered on 28 December 2006 and 21 May 2007.\nIn all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses. They underlined the grave nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. The courts attached great importance to the complexity of the case, the significant number of persons involved (around 100 persons) and the voluminous documentation gathered in the proceedings. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings justified holding the applicant in custody, as he could otherwise induce the witnesses to change their testimonies or go into hiding, regard being had in particular to the fact that a wanted notice had been issued in the course of the investigation with a view to locating the applicant. The courts stressed, on several occasions, that a number of experts' opinions had to be requested and legal help had to be sought from Sweden.\n14.  On 11 April 2007 the Warsaw District Court d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5933", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 20 June 1996 the applicant brought an action against several private individuals before the Pest Central District Court, seeking the review of a resolution adopted by the community of flatowners of the house in which she lives.\n6.  Following several hearings and an interruption of two years due to the death of two of the respondents, the District Court delivered a judgment on 27 May 2004.\n7.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court adopted a partial judgment concerning the substitution of a legal statement, while remitting some claims on 24 June 2005.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings the first instance court discontinued the proceedings on 25 March 2008. However, the review bench of the Supreme Court quashed this decision and instructed the first instance court to resume the proceedings.\n9.  On 15 December 2009 the District Court gave judgment which was appealed by the applicant. The proceedings are now pending before the Budapest Regional Court.\n10.  On 4 April 2000 the applicant brought an action against several private individuals before the Pest Central District Court, requesting the court to establish the invalidity of yet another resolution of the flatowners.\n11.  On 5 October 2004 the District Court gave judgment, finding partly for the applicant. On appeal, on 12 October 2005 the Budapest Regional Court gave judgment. On 17 January 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5934", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1960 and 1959 respectively and live in Kyiv.\n6.  The applicants are owners and residents of apartments in a multi-apartment building. By 1998 all but three of some fifty apartments located in this building had been privatised by their residents pursuant to the Law of Ukraine “On Privatisation of the State Housing Stock”. The three non-privatised apartments remained in municipal ownership.\n7.  On 29 April 1998 the Kyiv City State Administration authorised Mrs N.N. to renovate the attic of the building and construct a mansard floor with a view to obtaining title to the renovated and newly constructed premises on condition that the residents' consent was sought for the project.\n8.  On 29 May 1998 Mrs N.N. signed an investment contract for renovation and construction works with the Radyansky District Housing Maintenance Company (Державне підприємство по утриманню житлового фонду Радянського району м. Києва) acting for the building's owner. According to the contract, the building was municipally owned, and the municipality was to grant Mrs N.N. title to the construction on completion of the works. Subsequently Mrs V.G. became party to this contract as the second investor. Neither the applicants nor the other apartment owners were asked for their consent to the project. On a number of occasions the apartment owners unsuccessfully contacted various authorities to object to the construction works.\n9.  In July 2001 the apartment owners formed the Apartment Owners Association (“the Association”), which was joined by the applicants.\n10.  In April 2002 the investors started the works on the building.\n11.  According to the applicants, their apartments suffered damage on account of the construction works (such as cracks in the ceiling and the walls, flooding and pieces of plaster falling off).\n12.  In October 2002 the Association instituted civil proceedings in Svyatoshynsky District Court, Kyiv, seeking to annul the investment contract and to restore the attic to its previous state, alleging, in particular, that the municipality owned only three apartments in the building and should have sought the consent of the other apartment owners in order to conclude the contract. The applicants, who were represented by the Association, subsequently also joined the proceedings on their own behalf, along with two other apartment owners.\n13.  The Shevchenkivsky District State Administration (the successor of the Radyansky District State Administration; “the Administration”) lodged a counterclaim, seeking to prevent the plaintiffs from interfering with the works and to have their refusal to consent to them declared illegitimate. By way of reasoning, the Administration submitted that the building, and particularly its attic and roof, were old and in very poor condition. They urgently needed investment for renovations. The construction works were therefore beneficial for all the apartment owners and residents of the building.\n14.  On an unspecified date Svyatoshynsky Court ordered the suspension of the construction works in connection with the dispute. Nevertheless the works continued and were completed by 6 December 2002.\n15.  On 26 December 2002 the Shevchenkivsky District Council granted the title to the renovated and newly constructed premises to the investors. On an unspecified date the applicants and the Association amended their claims, seeking to have this decision quashed.\n16.  On 29 January 2003 Svyatoshynsky Court di", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5935", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and is currently serving his sentence in correctional colony IK-10 in Rubtsovsk in the Altay Region.\n5.  On 10 July 2004 the applicant was charged with manslaughter. On the same date by a decision of the Leninskiy District Court of Barnaul (“District Court”) he was placed in detention pending trial.\n6.  On 27 April 2005 the District Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment. On 16 June 2005 the Altay Regional Court upheld the trial court's judgement with minor changes.\n7.  In the period from 13 July 2004 to 10 July 2005 the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-22/1 in Barnaul in the Altay Region.\n8.  The parties' descriptions of his detention conditions differ on a number of counts.\n9.  According to the applicant, he was detained in the following cells:\n- from 20 July to 25 October 2004 in cell no. 2 that housed from 9 to 16 inmates;\n- from 25 October to 3 December 2004 in cell no. 52 that housed from 19 to 25 inmates;\n- from 3 December 2004 to 27 April 2005 in cell no. 41 that housed from 14 to 18 inmates;\n- from 27 to 29 April 2005 in cell no. 29 that housed more than 15 inmates;\n- from 29 April to 10 July 2005 in cell no. 142 that housed from 18 to 24 inmates.\n10.  The applicant did not provide a detailed description of each cell but maintained in general terms that all cells had been overcrowded, that he had not had an individual sleeping place and that ventilation and sanitary conditions had been inadequate. Owing to the unsatisfactory sanitation, he had suffered skin diseases and psychological problems. No adequate medical assistance had been provided to him.\n11.  The applicant complained about conditions of his detention in remand prison IZ-22/1 to various authorities. On one occasion, the Prosecution Office of the Altay Region commissioned an inspection to investigate his allegations. According to a report of 18 February 2005, the inspector found that at the material time the applicant was not provided with an individual sleeping place. He stated that the failure of the prison authorities to provide detainees with individual sleeping places was a continuous problem resulting from a slum state of one of the prison wings. Other aspects of the applicant's detention, notably medical assistance, sanitation and communication with authorities, were found to be satisfactory.\n12.  On the basis of certificates and photographs prepared by the prison administration in February 2009, the Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in the following cells:\n- from 13 July to 25 October 2004 in cell no. 2 measuring 12.8 square metres and accommodating maximum three inmates;\n- from 25 October to 3 December 2004 in cell no. 52 measuring 23.9 square metres and accommodating maximum five inmates;\n- from 3 December 2004 to 27 April 2005 in cell no. 41 measuring 21 square metres and accommodating maximum five inmates;\n- from 27 to 29 April 2005 in cell no. 29 measuring 19.7 square metres and accommodating maximum four inmates;\n- from 29 April to 10 July 2005 in cell no. 142 measuring 20.3 square metres and accommodating maximum five inmates.\n13.  The Government further stated that the applicant's cells had been ventilated through casement windows and had in addition been equipped with ventilation shafts. The average temperature and the average level of humidity had met sanitary and hygiene requirements. Cleaning and disinfection of the cells and checks on the co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5936", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is now serving his sentence in the Tula Region.\n6.  At about 11.30 a.m. on 10 April 2003 the cashier desk of the Petelino psychiatric hospital in the Tula Region was robbed by three men armed with a submachine gun and a sawn-off shotgun. Two police patrols arrived at the scene less than five minutes later.\n7.  The police officers who apprehended the applicant described the events in the following manner. Officer B. stated, in particular (his statement to the investigator is dated 17 June 2003):\n“I saw three men cross the motorway and disappear behind the forest shelter belt ... I started running across the forest to intercept the criminals. At that moment I heard a burst of submachine gun fire. As I emerged out of the forest, I saw two men in front of me who later turned out to be [the applicant] and D. [The applicant] wore light-blue jeans and a dark jacket, and D. wore dark tracksuit bottoms. [The applicant] carried a Kalashnikov submachine gun with no butt, and D. had a sawn-off rifle ... I told the criminals to freeze, drop the guns and offer no resistance. [The applicant] and D. ... crossed the motorway. Then I shot a few rounds in burst mode in the direction of the criminals but above their heads and told them again to freeze. D. fell on the roadside, and the rifle flew out of his hands... [The applicant] turned around, saw the police car and fired several shots in its direction. Then he slipped and fell. I ran up to him, pointed my gun at him and told him to stop resistance and drop the weapon. The muzzle of his submachine gun was pointed at my face, so I kicked the gun out of his hand and used physical force on him in accordance with section 12 of the Police Act ... After the apprehension, we took them all to the Shatskoye police station. During the arrest I saw that [the applicant] shot at the patrol car ... [because] he wanted to stop the chase and run away from the police ... During the arrest we had to use physical force on [the applicant], D., and Sh. because they actively resisted us. As a result, they sustained injuries but I cannot say what injuries and where because they were covered in mud.”\n8.  Officer M., in his statement to the investigator made on 11 April 2003, testified as follows:\n“Three men were running some seventy metres ahead of us ... One of them – the one who was a bit taller, in light-blue jeans and black jacket – turned to us and fired a burst from his submachine gun in our direction ... [Officer B.] fired two shots at the running men ... The men had already crossed to the roadside in the direction of Novomoskovsk ... The man in blue jeans and black jacket fired a burst at the police car and started going down towards the forest but slipped and fell on his back. He held the submachine gun in front of his chest and pointed it at [Officer M.] who had also pointed his submachine gun at him and told him to drop his weapon ... I ran up to [Officer B.] and told the man in blue jeans to throw the gun away. The man reclined on his back and put the gun aside. I kicked it away and, using martial arts, bent his arm behind his back, led him away and put him on the ground where handcuffs were applied to him. [Officer Shch.] and I stayed next to the detained men ... [The third man] was also detained but I did not see him because he was brought directly to the Shatskoye police station where the other men were also taken ...”\n9.  On the same day Officer S. testified in the same vei", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5937", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Kyiv.\n6.  Between 1998 and 2002 the applicant worked with Mr Zhakiyanov, who was working in opposition to the Kazakhstan Government.\n7.  After 2002 he worked in companies belonging to Mr Y. Baysakov and Mr Z. Baysakov[1], who had been associates of Mr Zhakiyanov.\n8.  In 2004 the applicant left Kazakhstan but continued working for Mr Y. Baysakov and Mr Z. Baysakov. His business activities included cooperation with the TuranAlem Bank (“the BTA Bank”) which had been headed by Mr Ablyazov, who had been involved in politics at the beginning of the 2000s and was one of cofounders of the Democratic Choice party. In 2002 Mr Ablyazov was tried for corruption. Many international and domestic observers considered his trial to be politically motivated. Following his release in 2003, Mr Ablyazov announced that he would devote his time to his businesses and refrain from active participation in politics (see paragraph 25 below). In 2005-2009 he chaired the biggest bank in Kasakhstan – the BTA Bank.\n9.  In February 2009 the BTA Bank was nationalised due to its difficult financial situation. On 2 March 2009 criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Ablyazov and other persons for misappropriation of funds by an organised group. On 25 December 2009 twelve former staff members of the BTA bank were found guilty and sentenced to between two and eight years' imprisonment for stealing particularly large quantities of financial resources.\n10.  At the same time the Kazakh authorities started prosecuting those who had worked in cooperation with the BTA.\n11.  On 25 March 2009 the General Prosecutor's Office (“the GPO”) of Kazakhstan instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for participating with the management of the BTA in misappropriation of financial resources by organised group in particularly large amounts (under Article 176 part 3 paragraphs “a” and “b” of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which provides for a maximum penalty of ten years' imprisonment). On the same day, the Medeuskiy District Court of Almaty ordered the applicant to be arrested. The applicant was placed on a list of nationally and internationally wanted persons.\n12.  By letter dated 8 July 2009, the GPO of Kazakhstan asked its Ukrainian counterpart to extradite the applicant.\n13.  On 13 August 2009 the GPO of Ukraine requested the GPO of Kazakhstan for additional guarantees, asking whether, in the event of the extradition of the applicant, the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention would be respected and whether the applicant would be given a fair trial and, if necessary, appropriate medical treatment.\n14.  By letter dated 19 August 2009, the GPO of Kazakhstan sent assurances that the applicant would not be ill-treated and that his rights guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and by Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13 and 14 of the Convention would be respected.\n15.  On 15 February 2010 the GPO of Ukraine passed a resolution on the temporal restriction of the applicant's right to leave the territory of Ukraine following its examination of a request for the applicant to be extradited on the basis of Articles 31 and 98 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, section 26 of the Legal Status of Foreigners and Stateless Persons Act and sections 19 and 20 of the State Border Guards of Ukraine Act. The decision contained no time-limit.\n16.  On 18 February 2010 the applicant received a letter ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5938", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are Ukrainian nationals residing in the hamlet of Vilshyna in the Lviv region.\n7.  The first to fifth applicants are members of an extended family residing in a house owned by the first applicant (the Dubetska-Nayda family house). This house was built by the family in 1933.\n8.  The remaining applicants are members of an extended family residing in a house constructed by the sixth applicant (the Gavrylyuk-Vakiv family house). This house was built by him in 1959. It is unclear whether a permit for construction of this house was obtained in 1959. Subsequently the house was officially registered, to which a property certificate of 1988 is witness.\n9.  The applicants' houses are located in Vilshyna hamlet, administratively a part of Silets village, Sokalskyy district, Lviv Region. The village is located in the Chervonograd coal-mining basin.\n10.  In 1955 the State began building, and in 1960 put into operation, the Velykomostivska No. 8 coal mine, whose spoil heap is located 100 metres from the Dubetska-Vakiv family house. In 2001 this mine was renamed the Vizeyska mine of the Lvivvugillya State Holding Company (“the mine”; Шахта «Візейська» ДХК «Львіввугілля»). In July 2005 a decision was taken to close the mine as unprofitable. The closure project is currently under way.\n11.  In 1979 the State opened the Chervonogradska coal processing factory (“the factory”; Центрально-збагачувальна фабрика «Червоноградська») in the vicinity of the hamlet, initially managed by the Ukrzakhidvugillya State Company. In 2001 the factory was leased out to the Lvivsystemenergo Closed Joint Stock Company (ЗАТ «Львівсистеменерго»). Subsequently the Lvivsystemenergo CJSC was succeeded by the Lviv Coal Company Open Joint Stock Company. In 2007 a decision was taken to allow the factory to be privatised. It is not clear whether the factory has already been privatised.\n12.  In the course of its operation the factory has piled up a 60-metre spoil heap 430 metres from the Dubetska-Nayda family house and 420 metres from the Gavrylyuk-Vakiv family house. This spoil heap was not subject to privatisation and remained State property.\n13.  According to a number of studies by governmental and non‑governmental entities, the operation of the factory and the mine has had adverse environmental effects.\n14.  In particular, in 1989 the Sokalskyy District Council Executive Committee (“the Sokalskyy Executive Committee”; Виконавчий комітет Сокальської районної ради) noted that the mine's and the factory's spoil heaps caused continuous infiltration of ground water, resulting in flooding of certain areas.\n15.  According to an assessment commissioned by the State Committee for Geology and Mineral Resource Utilisation, jointly with the Zakhidukrgeologiya State geological company (Державний комітет України по геології та використанню надр; Державне геологічне підприємство «Західукргеологія») in 1998, the factory was a major contributor to pollution of the ground water, in particular on account of infiltration of water from its spoil heap. The authors of the assessment contended, in particular, that:\n“All the coal-mining industry operational in the region for over forty years has been negatively affecting the environment: spoil heaps from the mines and the coal-processing factory have been created, from which dust with a high concentration of toxic components spreads into the atmosphere and the soil ... systems of water drainage of the mines ... and cesspools... of the co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5939", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1981 and 1953 respectively and live in the town of Surgut in the Tyumen Region. They are son and father.\n5.  On 19 January 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted against the first applicant. He was suspected of having broken into the online security system of an American bank, Green Point Bank (hereafter – the Bank), and having stolen the Bank’s client database. According to the prosecution, in November 2001 the first applicant contacted the Bank using a fake name. He demanded money in exchange for a promise not to publish the Bank’s database on the Internet. The Bank agreed to pay and the first applicant provided it with his real name and address. At the same time he published a part of the Bank’s database on the Internet. The Bank transferred 10,000 United States dollars to the first applicant.\n6.  At the beginning of April 2002 the first applicant was charged with aggravated extortion. He gave a written undertaking not to leave the town.\n7.  On 23 April 2002 a deputy prosecutor general of the Russian Federation authorised the first applicant’s placement in custody on the ground that he had been charged with a serious criminal offence and was liable to pervert the course of justice, reoffend or abscond.\n8.  The first applicant was arrested on 7 May 2002 and placed in a detention ward at Surgut police station. On the following day he lodged a complaint with the Surgut Town Court challenging the grounds for his placement in custody. His lawyer submitted a separate complaint. On 9 May 2002 the first applicant was transferred to a detention facility in Tyumen.\n9.  On 24 May 2002 the Surgut Town Court declined to examine the first applicant’s and his lawyer’s complaints, noting that it did not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The Town Court advised the first applicant and his lawyer to lodge complaints with a court in Yekaterinburg.\n10.  On 11 July 2002 the first applicant’s counsel, Mr Ch., lodged a complaint with the Surgut Town Court arguing that the first applicant’s arrest and detention were unlawful.\n11.  On 17 July 2002 the Surgut Town Court declined to examine the complaint giving the same reasons as those cited in its decision of 24 May 2002. On 20 August 2002 the Khanty-Mansi Regional Court upheld the Town Court’s findings.\n(b)  Complaint of 22 July 2002\n12.  On 22 July 2002 Mr Ch. complained to the Surgut Town Court that the first applicant’s arrest and subsequent detention were unlawful and asked for his release.\n13.  Three days later the Surgut Town Court declined to examine the complaint, once again relying on a lack of territorial jurisdiction. On 20 August 2002 the Khanty-Mansi Regional Court, acting in its appellate jurisdiction, confirmed the lawfulness of the Town Court’s decision.\n14.  On 25 July 2002 the Sverdlovsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital carried out a psychiatric examination of the first applicant and issued an expert report. The relevant part of the report read as follows:\n“... the psychiatric examination concludes that [the first applicant] is showing signs of brief reactive psychosis.\nThe examinee reports that the illness emerged after the offence, during his stay in the temporary detention facility where he developed strong feelings of fear and hopelessness accompanied by psychologically understandable feelings of depression as a result of additional traumatic experiences, systematic ill-treatment, and physical and psychological abuse inflicted on him by his f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5940", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and is now serving his sentence in the Tula Region.\n6.  At about 11.30 a.m. on 10 April 2003 the cashier desk of the Petelino psychiatric hospital in the Tula Region was robbed by three men armed with a submachine gun and a sawn-off shotgun. Two police patrols arrived at the scene less than five minutes later.\n7.  The police officers who apprehended the applicant described the events in the following manner. Officer B. stated, in particular (his statement to the investigator is dated 17 June 2003):\n“I saw three men cross the motorway and disappear behind the forest shelter belt... I started running across the forest to intercept the criminals. At that moment I heard a burst of submachine gun fire. As I emerged out of the forest, I saw two men in front of me who later turned out to be K. and [the applicant]. K. wore light-blue jeans and a dark jacket, and [the applicant] wore dark tracksuit bottoms. K. carried a Kalashnikov submachine gun with no butt, and [the applicant] had a sawn-off rifle ... I told the criminals to freeze, drop the guns and offer no resistance. K. and [the applicant] ... crossed the motorway. Then I shot a few rounds in burst mode in the direction of the criminals but above their heads and told them again to freeze. [The applicant] fell on the roadside, and the rifle flew out of his hands ... K. turned around, saw the police car and fired several shots in its direction. Then he slipped and fell. I ran up to him, pointed my gun at him and told him to stop resistance and drop the weapon. The muzzle of his submachine gun was pointed at my face, so I kicked the gun out of his hand and used physical force on him in accordance with section 12 of the Police Act ... During that time, [Officer M.] was trying to tie up [the applicant] because he was trying to get up and run away ... During the arrest we had to use physical force on K., [the applicant], and Sh. because they actively resisted us. As a result, they sustained injuries but I cannot say what injuries and where because they were covered in mud.”\n8.  Officer M., in his statement to the investigator made on 11 April 2003, testified as follows:\n“Three men were running some seventy metres ahead of us... One of them – the one who was a bit taller, in light-blue jeans and black jacket – turned to us and fired a burst from his submachine gun in our direction ... [Officer B.] fired two shots at the running men ... The men had already crossed to the roadside in the direction of Novomoskovsk ... but the man in tracksuit bottoms fell on the roadside and covered his head with his hands. The man in blue jeans and black jacket fired a burst at the police car and started going down towards the forest but slipped and fell on his back ... He pointed his submachine gun at [Officer B.] who, in turned, pointed his gun at him and told him to drop the weapon. Meanwhile, I ran up to the second man who had fallen on the ground, covered his head with his hands and pushed away his sawn-off rifle ... and I told [Officer S.] to cuff his hands which he did. I ran up to [Officer B.] and told the man in blue jeans to throw the gun away. The man reclined on his back and put the gun aside. I kicked it away and, using martial arts, bent his arm behind his back, led him away and put him on the ground where handcuffs were applied to him ...”\n9.  On the same day Officer S. testified in the same vein:\n“... the man in tracksuit bottoms fell on the roadside and covered h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5941", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Willstät, Germany.\n6.  The applicant was a minority shareholder in Sokolovská uhelná, a.s. (“the company”), a joint-stock company incorporated under Czech law.\n7.  On 4 May 2005 the general meeting of the company adopted, by a vote of the main shareholder, a resolution on the winding up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder.\n8.  On 25 June 2005 the applicant lodged with the Plzeň Regional Court (krajský soud) an action to have the resolution set aside, asserting that it had been adopted contrary to applicable law, bilateral investment treaties and her property rights. She also asserted that the law on which the resolution had been based was itself unconstitutional. At the same time, she informed the court administering the Companies Register (obchodní rejstřík) about her action and asked it not to allow the entry in the register of the winding up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder until the legality of the resolution had been decided by the Regional Court. These set-aside proceedings are still pending.\n9.  The applicant received cash compensation based on the value of her shares as at 31 December 2001. The amount of compensation was based on an evaluation made by an expert appointed by a court on the proposal of the main shareholder.\n10.  On 30 June 2005 the court in charge of the Companies Register approved the registration of the transfer and the deletion of the company from the Companies Register. No hearing was held prior to that decision, which was not served on the applicant as she did not have standing to participate in the proceedings.\n11.  On 11 July 2005 the Prague High Court (vrchní soud) rejected the applicant's appeal contesting the above-mentioned decision. It ruled that since the applicant did not have standing to take part in the impugned proceedings, she was not entitled to appeal their outcome.\n12.  On 11 May 2006 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) rejected the applicant's constitutional appeal, in which she claimed an impairment of her right to a fair trial and the right to property in relation to the companies register proceedings on the basis that (i) she had not been allowed to be a party to those proceedings as a result of the application of Article 220h(4) of the Commercial Code and (ii) that this had created an irreversible situation. The Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as manifestly ill-founded, holding that the Commercial Code had not impaired her right of access to court because, apart from the companies register proceedings, there were other proceedings available to the applicant in which she could have asserted her rights. It further held that the applicant's claims that such other proceedings would not guarantee adequate protection of her rights could not be reviewed, because the present appeal had been directed only against the decisions in the companies register proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5942", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in St Petersburg.\n5.  On 15 April 2004 the applicant was apprehended.\n6.  On 17 April 2004 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg authorised his detention on remand. The court based its decision on the grounds that the applicant had a criminal record and was suspected of having committed several serious criminal offences, notably robbery and participation in a criminal gang, that he was unemployed and had no income to support himself and his family. Moreover, as some accessories to robbery had not yet been identified, the applicant, if remained at large, could have alerted his accomplices and thus interfere with the investigation.\n7.  It appears that by decisions of 10 June and 17 August 2004 the District Court extended the applicant's detention. On the latter occasion it did so until 21 October 2004. According to the applicant, the court relied mainly on the gravity of charges against him.\n8.  On 21 October 2004 the case against the applicant and his fourteen co-defendants was referred to the Leningrad Regional Court for trial.\n9.  On 5 November 2004 the trial court in a closed meeting decided to fix a date for the preliminary hearing. Besides, without referring to any grounds, it ordered that the detention measure imposed on the applicant and his co-defendants “should remain unchanged”.\n10.  On 28 December 2004 the Regional Court held the preliminary hearing. The applicant and his counsel pleaded for his release on factual and legal grounds. They submitted that the applicant's criminal record had been purged and that he had dependants, namely a disabled mother and under-age daughter. They also asserted that the authorised detention had expired on 21 October 2004 and that a further detention – from 5 November 2004 afterwards – had been extended unlawfully, that is outside the time-limit and in the absence of the applicant and his representative. The court acknowledged that the applicant's previous conviction had expired and that he had two dependants. However, it attached decisive weight to the gravity of the charges and found no reason to vary the preventive measure because “the initial grounds for detention still obtained”. The court thus authorised the applicant's further detention. It did not set any time-limit. On the same occasion, the Regional Court returned the case to the prosecutor for remedying defects of the bill of indictment.\n11.  Counsel for the applicant filed an appeal, maintaining that any extension of the custodial measure after the initial detention period had expired on 21 October 2004 had been unlawful.\n12.  On 21 April 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the appeal. The relevant part of its decision reads:\n“... It appears from the materials that the case against [the applicant and others] was received by the [Regional] Court on 21 October 2004. The authorities in charge of the preliminary investigation had authorised their detention until that date.\nNeither at the directions hearing, nor at the preliminary hearing did the [Regional] Court detect any violations of law in the application of the preventive measure to the defendants and its extension during the pre-trial investigation.\nThere existed no grounds for revoking or varying the chosen measure.\nTaking into account those considerations and also the gravity of the charges against the defendants, the [Regional] Court correctly decided not to vary the preventive measure in the form of placement in cu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5943", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1964 and is currently serving several sentences in Varna prison. The second and the third applicants were born in 1964 and 1979 respectively and live in Plovdiv.\n6.  In three sets of criminal proceedings, which ended in October 1995, January 2002 and February 2002 respectively, the applicant was found guilty of robbery, fraud and forgery and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.\n7.  The first applicant has been detained in Varna prison since 15 March 1999. On a number of occasions − in particular from 4 to 25 October 2002; 18 to 25 November 2002; 24 March to 2 April 2003; 21 April to 1 May 2003; 19 June to 3 July 2003; and 11 September to 17 October 2003, he was transferred to Sofia prison in order to appear in court at criminal proceedings against him.\n8.  According to the first applicant, during his detention in Varna prison he was held in a cell situated on the third floor, which measured four by seven metres and accommodated seven other individuals. The cell was dirty and the plaster was peeling off the walls. The available natural light was insufficient as was the artificial lighting provided by the two 75W bulbs. There were no sanitary facilities in the cell and access to such was provided only during the day from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. However, there were only two sinks and two cubicles for over eighty prisoners. During the night, the prisoners had to use a bucket for their sanitary needs in front of everyone else in the cell. There was no hot water and bathing was provided once a fortnight or, sometimes, once every twenty to twenty-five days.\n9.  Separately, the first applicant submitted that every time he was transferred to court he was placed in another cell, measuring two by three metres, with all the other prisoners who were being transferred on that day (usually fifteen to twenty-five persons). They were kept there from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and were not normally provided with access to a toilet. During the winter it was very cold in the cell, while in summer it was extremely hot and stuffy due to the number of people there.\n10.  According to the first applicant, on the occasions he was transferred to Sofia prison (see paragraph 7 above) he was held in cell no. 1 of group no. 1, which measured four by nine metres and accommodated fourteen people. Fresh air and sunlight were insufficient as there was only a window measuring 40 by 60 centimetres which was covered with a hole-ridden metal sheet. The artificial light was also insufficient. The cell was dirty, stinking and damp and the plaster was peeling off the walls. The mattresses and covers were old, worn and dirty. There were no sanitary facilities in the cell and access to such was provided twice a day for a short period of time. The rest of the time the prisoners had to use a bucket for their sanitary needs in front of everyone else in the cell. The first applicant was not allowed to bathe or wash his clothes. In addition, the cell was flooded from 15 September to 1 October 2003, so he had to sleep on wet bed linen and was ill as a result.\n11.  On 30 October 2003 the first applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Justice, claiming a total of 1,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN, 511 euros (EUR)) in non-pecuniary damages stemming from the conditions in which he had been detained at Sofia prison during the periods specified in paragraph 7 above. In a judgment of 4 May 2005 the Sofia District Court partly granted the claim. It found that th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5944", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Shumen. At the relevant time he was an officer in the Bulgarian Army.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 1989‑91 he was charged with stealing instruments and technical equipment belonging to individuals with whom he was acquainted. On 30 July 1991 he was indicted.\n7.  On 28 October 1991 he was convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment, suspended.\n8.  On 30 October 1991 the former Supreme Court (Върховен съд) quashed his conviction and sentence and referred the case back to the prosecuting authorities for additional investigation (реш. № 360 от 30 декември 1991 г. по н. д. № 369/1991 г., ВС, военна колегия).\n9.  It seems that the case remained dormant until 2001.\n10.  On 6 June 2001, following a request by the prosecuting authorities, the migration authorities decided to prohibit the applicant from leaving the territory of Bulgaria and requested that he surrender his international passport. They relied on section 75(3) of the 1998 Bulgarian Identity Papers Act (see paragraph 24 below). On 22 August 2001 the applicant surrendered his passport. He did not seek judicial review of the decision.\n11.  After that the applicant was indicted and put on trial. On 20 March 2002 the Varna Military Court (Варненски военен съд) found him guilty of theft and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment, suspended for four years. It noted that the stolen items had been found in the applicant's cellar and recognised by their owners, and held that the applicant's assertion that he had bought the items was not credible. Lastly, the court found that even though the applicant had been on night duty at the time when one of the thefts had been committed, he did not have an alibi, because his barracks were close to the building where the theft had taken place, he had come to work by car, and had not been seen by his colleagues for several hours.\n12.  On an appeal by the applicant, on 5 June 2002 the Military Court of Appeal (Военноапелативен съд) reversed the Varna Military Court judgment and acquitted the applicant.\n13.  On an appeal by the prosecution, on 10 February 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation (Върховен касационен съд) quashed the Military Court of Appeal judgment and remitted the case (реш. № 636 от 10 февруари 2003 г. по н. д. № 546/2002 г., ВКС, II н. о.).\n14.  On 20 April 2003 the Military Court of Appeal upheld the applicant's conviction and sentence.\n15.  On an appeal by the applicant, on 23 February 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the Military Court of Appeal judgment (реш. № 42 от 23 февруари 2004 г. по н. д. № 657/2003 г., ВКС, I н. о.). It noted that all the applicant's evidentiary requests had been allowed and that the charges against him had been sufficiently established on the basis of the available evidence.\n16.  On 13 October 2004 the Shumen Regional Directorate of Internal Affairs, having received the applicant's criminal record, decided to take away his international passport until he had been rehabilitated. It relied on section 76(2) of the 1998 Bulgarian Identity Papers Act (see paragraph 25 below). The applicant did not seek judicial review of the decision.\n17.  Article 35 § 1 of the 1991 Constitution provides that “[e]veryone shall have the right to ... leave the country” and that this right “may be subject to restrictions provided for by act of Parliament, in the interest of national security, for the protection of public health and the rights and freedoms of others.”\n18", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5945", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Belgorod, Russia.\n6.  On 29 May 2003 a criminal case was opened against him, along with some other persons, on suspicion of trafficking in human beings, and on 31 May 2003 the applicant was arrested.\n7.  On 30 July 2003 the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Kyivskyy Court”) released him subject to an undertaking not to abscond.\n8.  On 21 November 2003 the pre-trial investigation was declared complete and the case was sent to the trial court, which commenced the proceedings on 10 December 2003.\n9.  On 25 May 2004 the Kyivskyy Court, in a hearing in which the victims' representative took part, allowed the prosecutor's application for the applicant's (as well as the other co-defendant) remand in custody. The court agreed with the prosecutor's argument that the applicant had been putting pressure on the victims, which had led to changes in their testimonies. According to the applicant, his own argument, on which the court allegedly failed to comment, was that the changes in the victims' statements in the court might have been explained by the investigator's pressure on them in the course of the pre-trial investigation, which they were not any longer subjected to during the trial. The applicant was arrested in the hearing room.\n10.  He repeatedly and unsuccessfully requested to be released under an undertaking not to abscond. The applicant argued that there was no evidence of his guilt, that he had never faced any criminal charges before and had received some government awards. Furthermore, he referred to the facts that he had a permanent place of residence and elderly parents to take care of, and that his health had deteriorated in detention.\n11.  On 24 September 2004, 13 and 15 April, 31 May and 5 December 2005 the Kyivskyy Court rejected the applicant's requests for release. The reasoning of those rulings was practically identical. The court supported the prosecutor's opinion, which referred to the serious nature of the charges against the applicant and an inherent risk of his absconding. It further noted:\n“The court considers that the issue of changing the preventive measure is premature. The issue of the preventive measure [“of the penalty” – in the rulings of 24 September 2004 and 5 December 2005] will be resolved when the verdict is pronounced in the case and [the applicant] is convicted or acquitted.”\n12.  The applicant unsuccessfully complained about the length of the trial to the Council of Judges of Ukraine, to the Kharkiv Court of Appeal and to various other authorities. He was informed in reply that it was caused by the complexity of the case and the large number of victims, as well as by the need to handle numerous requests and petitions from the applicant.\n13.  On 31 July 2006 the Kyivskyy Court found the applicant guilty of trafficking in human beings and production and distribution of pornographic materials, and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment, with prohibition on working in any film, video or computer programme production and distribution area.\n14.  Overall, the Kyivskyy Court held over sixty hearings. It issued rulings requiring the presence of the victims and witnesses, enforceable by the police, on some ten occasions.\n15.  On 13 February 2007 the Kharkiv Court of Appeal quashed that verdict and remitted the case to the same first-instance court for fresh examination. The main point of criticism was the vagueness of the verdict, including, in particular, the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5946", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  On 21 April 2000 the Prosecutor of the Vatutinsky District of Kyiv (“the Vatutinsky District Prosecutor”) instituted proceedings with regard to embezzlement of funds of the company R. The applicant was originally a witness in the case.\n6.  On 4 April 2001 the Vatutinsky District Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of his involvement in the embezzlement.\n7.  On 7 April 2001 the Vatutinsky District Prosecutor decided that the applicant should be detained, as he was suspected of a crime punishable by imprisonment.\n8.  On 17 May 2001 the investigator instituted another criminal case against the applicant on suspicion of his involvement in embezzlement and joined it to the first criminal case against the applicant.\n9.  On 3 June 2001 the same prosecutor decided that the applicant's detention should be extended to 4 July 2001.\n10.  Between 27 June and 6 September 2001 and on 14 September 2001 the applicant and his lawyer studied the criminal case file.\n11.  On 14 September 2001 the applicant was indicted for theft.\n12.  On 28 September 2001 the indictment was approved by the Vatutinsky District Prosecutor. The case was transferred for examination on its merits to the Vatutinsky District Court of Kyiv (“the Vatutinsky Court”).\n13.  On 26 September 2001 the applicant's advocate lodged a request with the Vatutinsky Court seeking the applicant's immediate release.\n14.  On 5 October 2001 the Vatutinsky Court received the case file and on 12 October 2001 Judge K. of the Vatutinsky Court held a preparatory hearing in the case.\n15.  On 15 October 2001 Judge K. decided that the criminal case against the applicant should be remitted for additional investigation. He also rejected the applicant's request for release of 26 September 2001, finding no grounds for changing the preventive measure applied by the prosecutor. In particular, the court stated that the applicant had been detained on the basis of the prosecutor's decision since 7 April 2001 in order to prevent him from avoiding investigation and appearance in court, obstructing the establishment of the truth in the criminal case and continuing with criminal activity, and in order to ensure compliance with procedural decisions in cases where the law provides for deprivation of liberty for more than three years. No time-limit for detention was fixed.\n16.  On 29 January 2002 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the resolution of 15 October 2001 and remitted the case for examination on the merits to the Desnyansky District Court, Kyiv (formerly Vatutinsky District, but after changes to the judicial districts in Kyiv “the Desnyansky Court”).\n17.  On 4 March 2002 the Desnyansky Court held a preparatory hearing in the case. It examined the applicant's request to be released on bail and found no reasons for allowing it. It also noted that the applicant had been detained lawfully, given that criminal proceedings against him were pending.\n18.  On 11 March 2002 the applicant's lawyer requested the Desnyansky Court to order the applicant's release. This request was refused the same day. The court considered that the applicant might evade and obstruct justice and, given his age, state of health, family status and economic status there were no grounds for replacing the detention with another preventive measure. On 14 March 2002 the court rejected a similar request by the applicant on the sa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5947", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1963, 1983 and 1988, respectively, and live in Makariv. Ms Lyudmyla Marchenko is the mother of the other two applicants.\n5.  From 1987 onwards Ms Lyudmyla Marchenko lived in a house together with Mr M., her husband, Mrs O.N., her mother in law, and Ms Svitlana Marchenko. In 1988 Ms Bozhena Marchenko was born. In 1989 Mrs O.N. acquired a property title over the said house. In 1992 Mr M. died. In 2000 Mrs O.N. concluded a deed of gift with Mr O.O. and transferred the ownership over the house to him.\n6.  In August 2000 Ms Lyudmyla Marchenko instituted proceedings in the Makariv Court against Mrs O.N. and Mr O.O. on her own behalf and on behalf of the other two applicants seeking division of the house and partial invalidation of the deed of gift.\n7.  On 20 October 2000 the court ordered a forensic examination and suspended the proceedings.\n8.  Having received the results of the examination on 3 May 2001, the court resumed the proceedings on 28 May 2001.\n9.  On 6 August 2001 the court found in part for the applicants.\n10.  On 31 August 2001 Mrs O.N. and Mr O.O. appealed.\n11.  On 12 October and 14 December 2001 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal returned the appeal to the first instance court due to procedural shortcomings. On 6 November and 16 December 2001 the first instance court allowed the appellants time to rectify their appeal. Finally, on 13 February 2002 the first instance court rejected that appeal without examination due to its procedural shortcomings.\n12.  On 21 May 2002 the court of appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first instance court for a decision on the admissibility of the appeal lodged by Mrs O.N. and Mr O.O.\n13.  Following a decision on admissibility, on 1 July 2002 the Makariv Court sent the appeal to the court of appeal for consideration.\n14.  On 11 October 2002 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 6 August 2001 and remitted the case to the Makariv Court for a fresh consideration.\n15.  On 18 April 2003 the court suspended the proceedings in the case upon the applicants' request.\n16.  On 22 August 2003 the Makariv Court ordered resumption of the proceedings.\n17.  On 13 February 2004 the court found in the applicants' favour.\n18.  On 10 March 2004 Mrs O.N. and Mr O.O. appealed. On 4 June 2004 the court of appeal quashed the first instance court judgment and found against the applicants.\n19.  On 5 July 2004 the applicants appealed in cassation.\n20.  On 9 November 2006 the Supreme Court rejected that appeal as unsubstantiated.\n21.  Out of sixteen hearings in the case four were adjourned upon the applicants' request or due to their failure to appear, four were adjourned upon the respondents' requests or due to their failure to appear, and three were adjourned due to the necessity to call a witness or to examine proof or information.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5948", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is currently detained in Bobov Dol Prison.\n6.  On 26 May 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and placed in the detention centre at the Ruse Investigation Service. On 8 March 2000 he was transferred to Lovech Prison. Initially, he was detained in the prison as an accused, pending the outcome of his trial. After 27 November 2003, when he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, he remained there to serve his sentence. On 5 November 2008 he was transferred to Bobov Dol Prison.\n7.  After 27 November 2003 the applicant was placed under a “special regime” (see paragraphs 22-23 below).\n8.  While in Lovech Prison, for an unspecified initial period of time the applicant was in an individual cell measuring four square metres. Subsequently he was placed in a cell measuring 12.6 square metres which he shared with other inmates. None of those cells was equipped with toilet facilities, sinks or running water, and the inmates were allowed to go to the toilet only three times a day, for ten minutes each time. Outside those periods they had to relieve themselves in a plastic bucket which they could empty and clean when going to the toilet.\n9.  According to the applicant, the food served was insufficient and not of satisfactory quality.\n10.  Neither the Government nor the applicant submitted information about the conditions of the applicant's detention in Bobov Dol Prison.\n11.  On 27 April 2004 the applicant complained to the prison administration of the practice of using buckets and of the quality of the food. It is unclear whether he received a reply. After his transfer to Bobov Dol Prison the complaint was destroyed. The Court has not been informed of the administration's reply.\n12.  On 27 October 2004 the applicant brought a claim before the Lovech District Court against the Ministry of Justice. He sought 3,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) under section 1 of a 1988 Act governing State liability for damage (see paragraph 25 below), alleging that he had suffered distress and humiliation as a result of the poor conditions of his detention. The claim concerned the period from 8 March 2000 to 27 October 2004.\n13.  The judges who dealt with the case visited the prison and inspected the cells in which the applicant had been kept. They heard witnesses and gathered other evidence.\n14.  In a judgment of 8 July 2005 the Lovech District Court partly allowed the claim. It found that by failing to ensure access to toilet facilities and running water the authorities had failed to comply with their obligation to ensure conditions of detention compatible with human dignity. It held:\n“There is no doubt that having to use a bucket for toilet needs, in a cell measuring around ten square metres, without sufficient ventilation, in the presence of others, diminishes human dignity, falls foul of all sorts of criteria of hygiene [and] poses a serious risk to the inmates' health. The conditions, in which [the applicant was] placed, amounted to degrading treatment ...”\n15.  In the court's opinion, that situation was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and several provisions of domestic law. In reaching that conclusion the court had regard to this Court's case-law and the recommendations of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture concerning the use of buckets in the cells (see paragraph 27 below).\n16.  The court went on to examine the applicant's allegation that the food had been insufficient and of poor q", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5949", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1927 and 1936 respectively and live in Písek.\n6.  On 16 January 2002 a certain S., the applicants' neighbour, received a building permit to build an apartment building.\n7.  The applicants appealed against the permit, and on 23 April 2002 the Písek District Office (okresní úřad) partly modified it. The District Office did not hold a hearing.\n8.  On 29 April 2002 the applicants, through their legal representative, filed an action against the administrative decision (žaloba proti správnímu rozhodnutí) with the České Budějovice Regional Court (krajský soud), requesting, at the same time, postponement of the building of the flats\n9.  In a decision of 23 May 2002 the Regional Court invited the applicants to give reasons, within ten days, for their request for the building permit to be suspended. The court also provided the applicants with the following notice:\n“The court invites the party to the procedure to clarify whether he agrees to it proceeding without a public hearing ... on the basis of the documents submitted by the parties (Article 250f § 1 (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure). If no reply to this notice is received within the statutory time-limit, the court will assume that the party to the procedure does not oppose the court deciding without a hearing (Article 250f § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure).”\n10. The applicants were represented in the proceedings by counsel on the basis of a procedural power of attorney (procesní plná moc) and the decision was served on him on 24 May 2002. Apparently, the representative's son collected the court's decision instead of the representative himself. No reply was sent to the court within the fifteen-day time-limit.\n11.  On 14 June 2002 the Regional Court dismissed the applicants' action. It did not hold a public hearing, assuming that the applicants, not having responded to the court's notice, agreed to such a procedure.\n12.  On 27 August 2002 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) alleging, inter alia, a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Articles 35 and 38 of the Charter. They further requested that Article 250a of the Code of Civil Procedure be repealed.\n13.  In her written observations of 3 October 2002, the presiding judge at the Regional Court submitted that the court had dealt with the arguments the applicants had put forward in their action and had applied Article 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure, having informed the applicants' legal representative about their procedural rights and duties in conformity with that provision.\n14.  On 5 December 2002 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud), without holding a public hearing, rejected the applicants' appeal as manifestly ill-founded. It included the written observations of the presiding judge at the Regional Court on the applicants' constitutional appeal in its summary of the facts. The court found that the Regional Court had reviewed the decision of the District Office of 23 April 2002, had rightly proceeded under Article 250f § 1b) of the Code of Civil Procedure and had exhaustively dealt with all the arguments raised by the applicants after having interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of national law.\n15.  On 6 September 2007, the Ministry of Justice rejected the applicant's request for damages pursuant to Act no. 82/1998.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5950", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946.\n6.  The applicant lived in a house in Plovdiv situated in the same yard as the house of Ms N.K. The applicant’s family had bad relations with Ms N.K.’s family.\n7.  On 27 July 1996 a quarrel erupted in the yard between Ms N.K., accompanied by friends of hers, and the applicant, accompanied by some relatives. The quarrel grew into a fight between the two groups. According to the applicant, one of Ms N.K.’s friends entered the applicant’s house to prevent her husband from calling the police. Allegedly, one of Ms N.K.’s friends had a gun and threatened to kill the applicant.\n8.  On 27 July 1996 the applicants filed a complaint with the Plovdiv district public prosecutor’s office describing the events of the same day and requesting that Ms N.K. and her companions be prosecuted. In September 1996 the Plovdiv district public prosecutor’s office opened criminal proceedings. However, until August 1999 it did not take any investigative action.\n9.  In August and September 1999 the prosecuting authorities questioned the applicant and several other witnesses.\n10.  On an unspecified date Ms N.K. was charged with having threatened the applicant and having, together with other persons, forcibly entered into her house.\n11.  On 9 August 1999 the applicant filed with the investigator in charge of the case a civil claim against Ms N.K., seeking 3,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) in non-pecuniary damages. On the same day, by a decision of the investigator, the applicant was formally admitted as a civil party in the criminal proceedings.\n12.  Between 1999 and 2004 the Plovdiv district public prosecutor’s office discontinued the criminal proceedings against Ms N.K. on two occasions, finding that she had committed no publicly prosecutable offences. However, on both occasions its decisions were quashed upon appeals by the applicant, either by the Plovdiv appellate public prosecutor’s office or by the Plovdiv District Court, which remitted the case for further investigation. During that period the prosecuting authorities questioned several more witnesses.\n13.  On 3 June 2004 the Plovdiv district public prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings once again, on the ground that the time-limit for prosecuting the offences Ms N.K. had been charged with had expired. That decision was upheld by the Plovdiv District Court on 25 June 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5951", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Kherson.\n5.  On 18 August 1998 she lodged a claim with the Komsomolsky District Court of Kherson (“the District Court”) against the Komsomolsky District Hospital of Kherson seeking compensation for occupational illness and non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  Between 23 September 1998 and 22 February 2005, the applicant lodged seven additional claims that were joined to the main one amounting overall to UAH 102,225 (14,312 euros, EUR)[1].\n7.  On 15 June 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal (“the Regional Court of Appeal”) seeking to speed up the proceedings in her case. There is no indication whether and, if so, how the court replied.\n8.  At a hearing of 21 November 2005 the District Court, in the presence of the applicant's lawyer, partly allowed the applicant's claims. On 14 December 2005 the applicant informed the District Court that she could not attend the hearing due to her sickness.\n9.  On 4 April 2006 the Regional Court of Appeal, in the presence of the applicant's lawyer, upheld this judgment. On 31 May 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation.\n10.  By a final ruling of 26 September 2006, sent to the applicant on 10 October 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions.\n11.  According to the Government, between 18 August 1998 and 26 September 2006, there were about twenty four hearings scheduled in the case and three expert examinations ordered. During the same period of time, the applicant filed three procedural requests and six appeals, of which one appeal was returned to the applicant after the period of fifty days during which the applicant had failed to amend it.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5953", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Byshiv.\n5.  On an unspecified date in April 1998 he lodged an action against a collective farm B., seeking damages for a discrepancy in the calculation of compensation for his professional illness that had been paid since 1982. On 9 April 1998 the Makariv District Court (“the District Court”) opened proceedings.\n6.  In a judgment of 28 December 1998 it dismissed the applicant's action. On 6 April 1999 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed that judgment and ordered a fresh hearing.\n7.  On 20 April 2000 the District Court ordered an accounting expert examination. It held the next hearing on 2 June 2003.\n8.  On 4 July 2003 the Makariv Department of State Insurance Fund for Industrial Accidents and Diseases (“the Fund”) joined the proceedings as a second respondent and B. was replaced by its legal successor, private company L.\n9.  On 21 October 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim for damages that after a modification amounted to UAH 16,018 (EUR 2,563[1]). On 9 January 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 9 February 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation.\n10.  On 17 May 2006 the Supreme Court rejected his appeal in cassation.\n11.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings, the applicant filed one procedural request and three appeals, one of which did not meet procedural requirements. Out of the sixteen hearings scheduled between April 1998 and May 2006, six were adjourned for unknown reasons, two were adjourned either at the applicant's request or due to his failure to attend, one was adjourned due to one of the respondents' failure to attend, one was adjourned for the parties to reach a friendly settlement, and two were adjourned for other reasons beyond parties' control.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5954", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1953, the second applicant was born in 1958 and the third applicant was born in 1983. They live in the village of Starye Atagi, the Groznenskiy District, in the Chechen Republic.\n6.  The first and second applicants are spouses and the parents of Mr Movsar Nasukhanov, born in 1980, Mr Movladi Nasukhanov, born in 1981, and the third applicant.\n7.  Between 14 and 18 February 2002 the Russian federal military carried out a special “sweeping” operation in the village of Starye Atagi.\n8.  At about 9.30 a.m. on 14 February 2002 an armed clash commenced between a group of insurgents and the Russian servicemen. The insurgents hid inside a house at Argunskaya Street located in the vicinity of the applicants' family home and fired at the military. At some point Russian servicemen killed the insurgents and started checking other houses in the area.\n9.  At that time the applicants, Movsar and Movladi Nasukhanov and the first applicant's two daughters were inside their house. At some point a group of servicemen wearing blue camouflage uniforms and masks arrived at the applicants' house in armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and entered it. The first applicant believed that the men belonged to the State Intelligence Department (“GRU”). The servicemen in blue uniforms checked the Nasukhanovs' identity papers, asked why they had been hiding insurgents and left.\n10.  Another group of armed men who had arrived in UAZ vehicles entered the applicants' house. Those men had badges with a “B” letter and an eagle pinned to sleeves of their camouflage uniforms. The first applicant inferred that they were members of the Pennant unit (подразделение «Вымпел»). They ordered the male members of the Nasukhanov family to lie down on the floor, lined up the women next to a wall, checked the identity papers and left.\n11.  A few moments later a group of armed and masked men in yellow camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants' house in UAZ vehicles with illegible registration plates. The first applicant peeked out of the window and saw a motorcade of military vehicles and several APCs parked outside his house. The servicemen in the yellow uniforms checked the identity papers of the first applicant's sons and asked them if they knew any insurgents. The young men replied in the negative. The servicemen in yellow uniforms said that it was necessary to run a check on them, and took the third applicant and Movsar and Movladi Nasukhanov away.\n12.  Shortly after the arrest of their sons the first and second applicants learned that the Russian military had established a filtration point near a poultry-house and a mill in Starye Atagi. Some 500 persons were being kept at the filtration point.\n13.  On the day following the arrest the second applicant went to the poultry-house. Relatives of other detained persons had gathered near the building to wait for news of their family members.\n14.  The servicemen started releasing the detainees. Some of them told the second applicant that her three sons were being kept inside the poultry‑house. The second applicant waited for her sons' release for the next three days.\n15.  On 16 February 2002 the third applicant was released. He had been severely beaten by the servicemen and could not walk, so he had to be carried home. His body was bruised. Once at home, the third applicant said that for three days the servicemen had questioned and beaten him. Before the release they had made him sign a declaration st", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5955", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Taraclia.\n6.  On 14 February 2003 the applicant was arrested at his home by masked and armed police officers, who allegedly tortured him until he confessed to several crimes of theft and robbery.\n7.  The applicant lodged a complaint of ill-treatment by the police and asked the prosecutor's office to investigate. On 28 February 2004 his complaint was dismissed as unfounded by the Chişinău chief of police. The applicant challenged that decision before the prosecutor's office. On 11 August 2005 a prosecutor from the Chişinău prosecutor's office decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers, finding that there was no evidence of the applicant's ill-treatment or of any other unlawful act. The applicant challenged that decision before the investigating judge, who decided to forward it to the trial court for examination as part of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.\n8.  On 8 June 2005 the applicant was convicted by Rîşcani District Court. That conviction was upheld by the Chişinău Court of Appeal on 27 October 2005 and the Supreme Court of Justice on 15 March 2006. On 6 October 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed an extraordinary appeal (recurs în anulare) by the applicant, but only in respect of reducing his sentence in accordance with a new law that was more favourable to him.\n9.  On 19 March 2003 the applicant was transferred to Chişinău Prison no. 13. Between 16 April and 2 November 2006 he was treated at the Pruncul prison hospital. He was then transferred to Soroca Prison no. 6, where he served the rest of his sentence.\n10.  The applicant made a number of complaints to the authorities that the conditions of his detention were inhuman. He received numerous replies from the Ministry of Justice, the Prosecutor General's Office and Parliament. Many of these replies noted that he had been found to be “healthy for all practical purposes” and not in need of medical assistance. Some of the letters also noted that, due to insufficient funding of the prison system, detainees were not provided with bed linen, and food was available in less than the minimum prescribed quantities. In a letter of 10 August 2004 the Prosecutor General's Office informed the applicant that it was aware that cell no. 24 in which he was detained was overcrowded and that not all its inmates had a bed and bed linen. The prison authorities were asked to remedy the situation. In a letter of 5 November 2004 the Ministry of Justice informed a group of nine detainees, including the applicant, that medical assistance was available when needed and that only minor repairs could be made to the cells, due to lack of funds; the Ministry was aware of the problems in ensuring the proper functioning of the prison system, and was taking all necessary measures to improve the situation. The Minister added that no detainees suffering from tuberculosis were being held in the nearby cell 24A. In April 2006 the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis.\n11.  In a letter to the Parliament dated 4 May 2004 the applicant complained that the cells in the prison were overcrowded, damp and full of parasitic insects. He also complained of a lack of legal information in the prison. This letter was forwarded to the Prison Department of the Ministry of Justice. In its reply of 8 June 2004 the Ministry acknowledged that the prison lacked legal information, and confirmed that after 7 April 2003 the applicant had bee", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5956", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Helsinki.\n6.  The applicant was under suspicion of having organised illegal immigration (laittoman maahanmuuton järjestäminen, ordnande av olaglig inresa). The pre-trial investigation in her case was conducted by the criminal investigators of the Finnish Border Guard (Rajavartiolaitos, Gränsbevakningsväsendet) who, inter alia, conducted a search at her domicile on 9 July 2009 at 10 p.m. The applicant was not at home at the time of the search. She was not contacted about the search nor was her counsel informed about the search. During the search her computer, among other items, was seized.\n7.  When the applicant returned home later that night, she found a handwritten note indicating that the Finnish Border Guard criminal investigators had searched her apartment and that some items had been seized.\n8.  According to the records of the search and seizure, dated 11 July 2009, the seized materials, with the exception of the computer, were returned to the applicant on that same date.\n9.  The applicant was later questioned as a suspect.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5957", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and was detained in the Üsküdar prison as at the time of his application to the Court.\n6.  On 6 January 1993 the applicant was taken into police custody in Istanbul on suspicion of membership of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation).\n7.  On 13 January 1993 he was brought before a single judge at the Istanbul Security Court who remanded him in custody.\n8.  On 25 January 1993 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicant and seventeen other people. The applicant was charged with membership of the PKK under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code.\n9.  On 10 October 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court, after having held ten hearings, found the applicant guilty of activities carried out for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. The applicant was sentenced to death, commuted to life imprisonment.\n10.  On 12 February 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on the grounds that the Istanbul State Security Court had found that the applicant had committed certain acts which had not been included in the indictment of 25 January 1993.\n11.  On 12 September 2002 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an additional indictment against the applicant, containing allegations that the applicant had committed the acts referred to in the State Security Court’s judgment of 10 October 2001.\n12.  On 5 November 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court once again convicted the applicant under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. (This judgment was not submitted to the Court).\n13.  On 12 April 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 5 November 2003.\n14.  On 23 September 2004 the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification of the decision of 12 April 2004.\n15.  On 19 November 2003 the Prison Disciplinary Board seized a letter written by the applicant and addressed to the “President of the United Kingdom” with a view to destroying it, considering that it “would stir up trouble” (“sakıncalı” in Turkish).\n16.  On 3 December 2003 the applicant lodged an objection to the decision of 19 November 2003 with the Üsküdar Post-Sentencing Judge.\n17.  On 10 December 2003 the Üsküdar Post-Sentencing Judge upheld the Prison Disciplinary Board’s decision. The judge held that the letter had been written as propaganda in favour of the PKK terrorist organisation and its leader, because it contained allegations that Abdullah Öcalan had been pressurised and isolated in prison.\n18.  On 25 December 2003 the Üsküdar Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s objection to the decision of 10 December 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5959", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Košice.\n5.  On 30 January 2002 the applicant initiated divorce proceedings and asked the Košice II District Court to determine her and her husband's rights and duties in respect of their minor daughters.\n6.  On 7 April 2006 the District Court adopted a judgment in the case.\n7.  On 19 April 2006 the applicant lodged a length of proceedings complaint with the Constitutional Court.\n8.  The District Court's judgment was served on the applicant on 12 May 2006 and, in the absence of an appeal, it became final on 4 July 2006.\n9.  On 13 September 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It held that the District Court, by adopting the judgment and delivering it to the parties, had taken all required steps in order to eliminate the state of the applicant's legal uncertainty. This role of the District Court had ended by adopting the decision on the merits, that is before the complaint was lodged with the Constitutional Court. This decision became final on 4 July 2006 and the District Court could not deal with the merits of the case after the initiation of the constitutional proceedings. It was the Constitutional Court's practice to protect one's right to a hearing without unjustified delay only if the length of proceedings complaint was lodged at a time when the alleged violation still persisted. The decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on 19 October 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5960", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Helsinki.\n6.  The applicant is an attorney. Some business transactions of her client's spouse were investigated by the police but she herself was not a suspect.\n7.  On 7 October 2009 police investigators conducted a search at the applicant's office. During the search some e-mail correspondence were copied from her computer and certain documents were seized.\n8.  By letter dated 12 October 2009 the head of the investigation (tutkinnanjohtaja, undersökningsledaren) informed the applicant that the seizure of the data had not been successful due to the fact that the wrong files had been copied, and that the information copied had been destroyed. The applicant allegedly never received a copy of the seized files so it was not possible to verify whether the seizure of the data really had been unsuccessful. The seized documents remained in the police's possession.\n9.  The pre-trial investigation has been concluded and the case has been submitted to the public prosecutor for consideration of charges. No court proceedings have been initiated yet.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5961", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Lapua.\n5.  After a request made by a complainant on 8 January 2002 the police started to investigate the applicant's alleged involvement in aggravated fraud and aggravated embezzlement which had taken place in 2001. The applicant was questioned for the first time by the police on 22 June 2003. The pre-trial investigation was concluded on 27 August 2003 and the case file was submitted to the public prosecutor on 16 April 2004.\n6.  On 16 July 2004 the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant for aggravated fraud and aggravated embezzlement. On the same date the case became pending before the Lahti District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten).\n7.  The date of the initial oral hearing in respect of the applicant was set for 9 September 2004 but he could not be heard as all witnesses could not be summoned.\n8.  On 29 November 2004 the applicant gave a written statement in the case.\n9.  Other hearings were also planned, for example for 7 December 2004, 12 December 2005 and 8 May 2006, but they were all eventually either cancelled or the applicant could not be heard for other reasons.\n10.  The hearing of the applicant's case was dependent on the proceedings against M.T., who was the co-defendant in both of the two counts of indictment concerning the applicant. The domestic authorities tried to summon the applicant's co-defendants including M.T. and the relevant witnesses on various occasions but these efforts remained unsuccessful. An order for M.T.'s apprehension was issued but annulled on 7 March 2006.\n11.  T.L., a witness whose hearing was considered indispensable with regard to all counts of indictment against the applicant, was present at the hearings of 23 August 2004 and 7 December 2004 as far as the counts of indictment against him were concerned but he could not be reached for hearing as a witness in the applicant's case. While waiting for the clarification of T.L.'s whereabouts, the District Court decided to stay proceedings from 8 May 2005 to 16 June 2009. As T.L. could not be reached for trial in Finland, a European Arrest Warrant was issued for his apprehension on 11 November 2007. He was surrendered to Finland on an unspecified date.\n12.  On an unspecified date the District Court decided to sever the applicant's case from that of his co-defendants.\n13.  On 27 May 2009 the District Court issued a summons to be served to the applicant who was to appear for an oral hearing on 16 June 2009. The hearing was cancelled as the applicant could not be summoned at his place of residence.\n14.  From 31 July 2009 onwards the applicant was serving a prison sentence. While in prison, the applicant was summoned to the oral hearing held on 27 October 2009.\n15.  On 3 November 2009 the District Court dismissed all charges against the applicant. As the judgment was not appealed against, it became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5962", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1968 and 1958 respectively and live in Istanbul. The first applicant is the owner of a publishing house in Istanbul which published a book giving rise to the present application. The second applicant is the editor and author of the book in question.\n6.  On 25 April 2000 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court commenced an investigation in connection with a book, entitled Hücreler[1], published and written by the first and second applicants respectively as a critique of the Turkish penitentiary system. The book contains nine articles, five of which are written by the second applicant, in which the authors criticise the cell system in Turkish prisons. By way of examples from other countries and personal anecdotes, the second applicant claims in her articles that the cell system facilitates ill‑treatment and leads to deaths in prison. The introductory part of the book states the following:\n“This book is a salute to the new generations who fascism is trying to separate from our history of resistance and tradition of unity. It is a white page handed over by those who made courage and sacrifice the norm and created future revolutionary fighters. It is a message from those who, like a magnet, carried new powers from generation to generation to our ranks. We did not and will not allow [future generations] to forget the traditions and norms that were created during humanity's, revolutionists' and communists' struggle and revolt against slavery, genocide, fascism and national and class exploitation ... In this book, we transmit our conscience and hearts to those who are fighting for a better future.”\n7.  The book also contains four other articles written by persons serving prison sentences, following their conviction for having been involved in an illegal armed organisation called the TIKB (Bolşevik).[2] In their articles, entitled “Isolation cells are death cells”, “She was in [prison], I was out”, “Empty the dungeons, free the prisoners” and “Prisons and health”, the authors criticise the isolation of prisoners, ill-treatment of detainees and poor prison conditions and recount their personal experiences of imprisonment. Furthermore, the book comprises newspaper clippings concerning the real events on which the articles are based.\n8.  On 23 October 2000 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicants, accusing them of disseminating propaganda that undermined the territorial integrity and the indivisible unity of the Republic of Turkey through publishing, and of aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation, namely, TIKB (Bolşevik), in certain parts of the book. The charges were brought under sections 5 and 8 subsections 1, 2 and 4 of Law no. 3713[3] and Articles 36 and 169 of the now defunct Criminal Code. The Government noted that TIKB (Bolşevik) had been involved in a number of terrorist acts with a view to detaching part of the territory of Turkey and forming a political regime based on Marxist-Leninist ideology. The organisation, which was qualified as a terrorist organisation under the domestic law of Turkey, disseminated separatist propaganda within the Kurdish community and incited hatred and hostility by making distinctions on the basis of race and region.\n9.  At the first hearing, held on 24 January 2001, the Istanbul State Security Court invited the applicants to present their defence arguments against the bill of indictment filed by the public prosecutor. B", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5964", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Batumi.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 2 June 2005 the applicant's son, Zurab Tsintsabadze, who was born in 1975, was sentenced to prison as a reoffender for having resisted police officers who were trying to stop him from committing an offence at the residence of his former wife, named Maka (violence and damage to the property of others). He was sentenced to three years in prison. Once the judgment became final, the applicant's son was transferred, on 6 July 2005, from Rustavi no. 1 prison to Khoni no. 9 Prison (“the Khoni prison”) in Western Georgia. According to the applicant, her son was in good health both physically and psychologically at the time.\n8.  On 30 September 2005 the applicant's son was discovered hanged in the prison's storeroom.\n9.  On the same day A.L-iani, the Khoni prison governor, informed in writing the head of the Western Georgian investigation department of the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry's investigation department”), the authority in charge of custodial institutions, and the Georgian General Prosecutor's Office, an unrelated authority which supervised investigation procedures within the Ministry of Justice, that Mr Tsintsabadze had committed suicide by hanging himself in the storeroom of the prison between the hours of 7 and 8 p.m. on 30 September 2005.\n10.  On 1 October 2005 between 12.15 and 1.40 a.m., an investigator from the Ministry's investigation department (“the investigator”) examined the scene. Two deputy governors of the Khoni prison took part in this procedure. The investigator noted that the storeroom in question was a room standing alone, situated near the prisoners' quarters and the administrative building, which was used to house prisoners' belongings. It could be accessed through an iron door with a faulty lock. At the front of the building there were two windows in the wall with panes that were half glass and half covered in plastic. The room itself was 2.20 metres high. The windows closed from the inside. No items relevant to the investigation were found there.\n11.  One of the deputy governors explained that he had found Zurab Tsintsabadze hanging from a rope and handed the rope over to the investigator. The deputy governor also brought from his office a pair of shoes, stating that they had been found on the deceased at the site. The rope and the shoes were placed under seal by the investigator. The deputy governor then explained that he had found two wooden chairs beneath the feet of the deceased. He brought the chairs from his office to the investigator, who did not place them under seal. The deputy governor also stated that he had found a packet of cigarettes, a lighter and an analgesic tablet in the pockets of the deceased. All three objects were placed under seal by the investigator.\n12.  The investigator, along with the prison's therapist, then carried out a visual examination of the body in the therapist's office. A strangulation mark on the neck and scars from old wounds were noted. No other lesions were found. The investigator stated in his report, without any further explanation, that there was a real risk that the evidence would be tampered with, and that, consequently, Zurab Tsintsabadze's body should be transferred to a place suitable for a forensic examination.\n13.  The same day Z.L-iani, an inmate in the Khoni prison, was questioned. He explained that on 30 Septe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5965", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Switzerland.\n5.  In 1990 the applicant fled from Iran to Turkey to escape arrest by the Iranian authorities for assisting a member of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (“the PMOI”) to flee Iran.\n6.  In early 1991 he crossed the border from Turkey to Iraq and joined the PMOI there. In Iraq the applicant lived in the Al-Ashraf camp, where PMOI members were accommodated. In 2003 or 2004 he left the PMOI, as he no longer agreed with its goals and methods. After his departure from the Al-Ashraf camp, he went to the Temporary Interview and Protection Facility (“the TIPF”), a camp created by the United States forces near Al‑Ashraf.\n7.  On 12 September 2007 the applicant applied to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) in Iraq for refugee status. In April 2008, however, before he could be interviewed by the UNHCR and possibly granted refugee status, the TIPF was closed down and the applicant was transferred to Erbil in northern Iraq, along with other former PMOI members.\n8.  In September 2008 the applicant fled from Iraq to Turkey, on account of the constant fear of being attacked or being sent back to Iran, coupled with the difficulties encountered in the extension of his residence permit in Iraq.\n9.  On 14 September 2008 the applicant attempted to escape to Greece from Turkey by boat together with a friend, but they were stranded in the water for approximately eighteen hours when their inflatable boat capsized. On 15 September 2008 at approximately 11.00 a.m. they were rescued and arrested by Turkish coastguards. They were also examined by a doctor at the Güzelçamlı Health Clinic at 2.10 p.m. on the same day; no injuries or other abnormalities were identified. The applicant was later transferred to the Güzelçamlı gendarmerie station in Kuşadası, Aydın.\n10.  The applicant was questioned at the gendarmerie station in the absence of a lawyer, where he informed the authorities of his political background and requested leave to stay in Turkey temporarily pending resettlement in a third country. According to a form explaining arrested persons' rights which the applicant had signed, he had been reminded of his right to remain silent and to appoint a lawyer. It appears that the applicant was not provided with an interpreter during the interview. He tried to communicate with the police with his limited knowledge of Turkish and with the assistance of his friend, who was of Azeri ethnic origin and spoke some Turkish.\n11.  On the same day the applicant was subjected to an administrative sanction by the Kuşadası public prosecutor for attempting to leave Turkey illegally without a passport or other valid identification document, in contravention of Section 33 of the Passport Act (Law no. 5682). The applicant was fined 100 Turkish liras (TRY).\n12.  The applicant was detained at the Güzelçamlı gendarmerie station until 26 September 2008, under allegedly deplorable conditions. More specifically, for the first three days of his detention he was detained in the basement of the gendarmerie station, which measured less than thirty square metres and accommodated over forty detainees and had no sanitary facilities, ventilation or bedding. The applicant alleges that the detainees were taken to the toilet four at a time and only every twenty-four to thirty hours, which forced them to relieve themselves in empty bottles and bags in each other's presence. When they were taken to the toi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5968", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Sevastopol.\n5.  On 25 March 1998 the applicant was dismissed from her position of Head of Department at the State-owned bank, O. (“the bank”).\n6.  On 21 April 1998 she lodged a claim against the bank seeking the reinstatement and compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n7.  On 14 December 1998 Gagarinsky District Court of Sevastopol (“the District Court”) fined the bank following its three consecutive failures to appear before the court.\n8.  On 13 January 1999 the District Court partly allowed the applicant’s claim.\n9.  On 13 April 1999 the Sevastopol City Court (“the Court of Appeal”, since June 2001, the Sevastopol Court of Appeal) quashed that judgment and sent the case back to the District Court which, on 17 February 2000 dismissed the applicant’s claim. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 21 March 2000.\n10.  On 20 November 2002 the Supreme Court, dealing with the applicant’s appeal in cassation lodged under the Code of Civil Procedure (as amended by the Law of 21 June 2001), quashed the lower court’s decisions and remitted the case to the District Court which, in a judgment of 24 May 2004 partly granted the applicant’s claim awarding her UAH 114,837 (EUR 17,226)[1] and UAH 50,000 (EUR 7,500) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage respectively.\n11.  On 6 August 2004, the Court of Appeal amended that judgment reducing the compensation for non-pecuniary damage to UAH 5,000 (EUR 750). This ruling was executed in February 2005.\n12.  On 9 November 2005 the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions in respect of the non-pecuniary damages upholding the remainder of their decisions.\n13.  On 26 June 2006 the District Court, being bound by the Supreme Court’s decision, ordered the applicant to reimburse the defendant UAH 5,000. On 31 August 2006 the Court of Appeal quashed this decision. The parties did not appeal.\n14.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicant modified her claims three times, filed one procedural request and five appeals or supplements to appeals, which all met procedural requirements.\n15.  According to the Government, of the 37 hearings scheduled during the periods from 22 April 1998 to 21 March 2000 and from 20 November 2002 to 31 August 2006, seven hearing were adjourned due to the defendant’s failure to attend, three were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to attend, and one hearing was adjourned due to the both parties’ failure to attend.\n16.  On 12 January 1999 the Nakhimovsky District Prosecutor of Sevastopol opened a criminal investigation against the applicant on suspicion of abuse of authority. Until 28 December 2001, the investigation was terminated and reopened three times.\n17.  On 31 May 2008 the investigation was reopened for the fourth time. This decision was quashed on 15 July 2008 by the Nakhimovsk District Court of Sevastopol. On 31 July 2008 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision. The investigation was pending for about two years and two months overall.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5969", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Negotino.\n6.  On 22 November 2001 the public prosecutor requested an investigating judge of the Negotino Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) to open an investigation against the applicant on the count of forgery of a notice convening a meeting of shareholders of a company, N., in which he was also a shareholder (“the notice”). The applicant was accused of having deceived a considerable number of shareholders into signing the notice by misleading them in the belief that there would be only one item on the agenda, instead of eight, as was actually the case. The investigating judge heard the applicant and 47 witnesses. After the investigation had been completed, on 29 May 2002 the public prosecutor lodged an indictment against the applicant.\n7.  The trial court fixed twelve hearings, including that of 6 May 2004, which the applicant did not attend, although he had been summoned properly. During the trial, the court again heard oral evidence from the applicant, who had a court-appointed lawyer, and the 47 witnesses and admitted other documentary evidence. On 31 May 2005, in the presence of the applicant's lawyer only, the trial court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to four months' imprisonment suspended for one year. It did not rely on the statements made by the witnesses before the company's management denying that they had been informed about the remaining items on the agenda. The court rejected the applicant's defence as self-serving and the testimony of 6 defence witnesses as inconsistent and implausible.\n8.  On 13 July 2005 the applicant who, at the relevant time, was not represented by counsel, appealed against that decision. He did not request to be notified of the date of the session (седница) of the Court of Appeal.\n9.  On 2 November 2005 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the trial court's decision. The court decided in private. The public prosecutor was present, but not the applicant. The court addressed the public prosecutor's written submission of 17 October 2005 and her oral pleadings requesting that the applicant's appeal be dismissed.\n10.  The decision was served on the applicant on 21 November 2005.\n11.  On 19 January 2006 the public prosecutor informed the applicant that there were no grounds for lodging a request with the Supreme Court for the protection of legality (“legality review request”).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5970", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is currently serving a term of imprisonment in correctional colony IK-3, Altay Region.\n7.  On 14 September 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and taken to the police station.\n8.  On 15 September 2003 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).\n9.  On the same day a certain Sh. was questioned on the issue of the applicant's involvement in the crime. He submitted, in particular, that\n“... Yuriy [the applicant] grabbed Andrey [the victim] by his foot, stood up sharply and threw him through the broken window ...”\nSh. was then questioned as a witness.\n10.  On 17 September 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Barnaul decided to remand the applicant in custody pending investigation. The decision was not appealed against and entered into force on 22 September 2003.\n11.  On 24 September 2003 charges of murder were brought against the applicant. The applicant was placed in remand prison IZ-22/1, Barnaul.\n12.  In the meantime, on 6 October 2003 the investigator instructed the head of the Oktyabrskiy District police station to establish the whereabouts of witness Sh., who lived in Barnaul, in order to be able to carry out the investigation with his participation.\n13.  On 5 November 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District police operative agent produced a certificate to the effect that it had been impossible to discover the whereabouts of Sh.: he did not live at the address in Barnaul indicated by the investigator, and his partner had explained that Sh. had left for an unknown destination.\n14.  On 13 November 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court extended the applicant's detention until 15 December 2003.\n15.  On 25 November 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court set a time-limit of 27 November 2003 for the applicant to study the material of the case file.\n16.  On 27 November 2003 the Altay Regional Court upheld the decision of 13 November 2003 on appeal.\n17.  On 27 November 2003 the investigation was completed and the case submitted to Oktyabrskiy District Court for trial.\n18.  Following the applicant's complaint, on 5 December 2003 the Barnaul City Prosecutor's Office acknowledged the unlawfulness of the applicant's detention at the police station from 10.05 p.m. on 14 September to 6.15 p.m. on 15 September 2003.\n19.  On 17 December 2003 Oktyabrskiy District Court held a preliminary hearing and ordered that the custodial measure in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged. On 8 January 2004 Altay Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal.\n20.  On 5 January 2004 Oktyabrskiy District Court adjourned the hearing until 8 January 2004 because of the failure of several witnesses, including witness Sh., to appear. The court ordered them to be compelled to attend.\n21.  On 8 January 2004 the bailiff in charge of bringing Sh. to the court submitted that the attendance of Sh. could not be secured since he could not be found at his address in Barnaul, and, according to his partner, he had left to live permanently in Slavgorod. On the same day the court adjourned the hearing until 20 January 2004 and again ordered Sh. to be compelled to attend.\n22.  According to the report of the investigator of the Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor's Office of 20 January 2004, Sh.'s sister confirmed that in the second half of September 2003 Sh. had been in Slavgorod. He had told her that he had witnessed a crime in Barnaul and given a statement to the in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5971", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants in application no. 45081/06 are:\n7.  Ms Taus Temergeriyeva, born in 1957,\n8.  Ms Eset Timirgereyeva, born in 1923,\n9.  Ms Luiza Temirgeriyeva, born in 1961,\n10.  Ms Aminat Temirgeriyeva, born in 1983,\n11.  Ms Khava Temirgeriyeva, born in 1985,\n12.  Mr Magomed Temirgeriyev, born in 1988,\n13.  Ms Selima Temirgeriyeva, born in 2002 and\n14.  Ms Perdous Temergeriyeva, born in 1957. 9.  The applicants belong to two families. Two of their male relatives, Lema Khakiyev and Musa Temergeriyev, were detained in 2002 in two separate incidents in Mikhaylika Street (also referred to as Visaitova Street) in the settlement of Michurina in the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny, Chechnya, and subsequently disappeared. The third, sixth to ninth, thirteenth and fourteenth applicants were present during the abduction of their relatives. The other applicants were not eyewitnesses to the events and based their accounts on testimonies collected by them in the aftermath of their relatives’ disappearance. 10.  The first and the second applicants are sisters of Lema Khakiyev, born in 1960. The third applicant is his wife. The fourth to sixth applicants are their children.\n(a)  Events prior to the abduction 11.  From 1995 to 1996 Lema Khakiyev worked at a local military commander’s office near Khankala. From 24 May 1996 to 12 December 1996, during the first counterterrorist campaign in Chechnya, he served in the Russian military. 12.  On 20 June 2002 Mr E.B., the head of the Oktyabrskiy district administration, wrote a complaint to the head of the Grozny town administration, accusing Lema Khakiyev of having been a sniper for illegal armed groups from 1995 to 1996. 13.  According to the first applicant, at some time between 18 and 20 August 2002 a white VAZ-2106 car without registration numbers had been parked for several hours in the vicinity of Lema Khakiyev’s house. Several men were sitting in the car and watching the house. The applicants’ neighbours, who lived across the street, saw one of the men clearly. A man got out of the car, climbed onto a nearby pile of rubbish and looked over the fence into the applicants’ yard. The third applicant and Lema Khakiyev also saw the men in the car. The very same car was seen along with an APC on the night of Lema Khakiyev’s abduction. 14.  On 20 August 2002 the Oktyabrskiy district department of the Federal Security Service (“the district FSB department”) requested that Lema Khakiyev visit its office and provide explanations for the accusations against him. After interviewing him, the FSB officers told him that nothing incriminating had been found against him.\n(b)  Abduction of Lema Khakiyev\n15.  On the night between 20 and 21 of August 2002 the third and sixth applicants, together with Lema Khakiyev, were sleeping in the family house at no. 59 Mikhaylika Street in the settlement of Michurina. The settlement was under curfew. The first applicant was in Nazran.\n16.  At about 4 a.m. a group of six or seven masked men armed with machine guns broke into the house. The intruders spoke unaccented Russian. The applicants thought that they were Russian servicemen.\n17.  The servicemen neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. They ordered Lema Khakiyev to follow them, threatening to kill his son. In the meantime, they conducted a quick search of the house. The servicemen ordered the third applicant to stay in the house and not to make any noise. When they were about to leave, Lema Khakiyev told the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5973", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Łódź.\n6.  On 27 December 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and attempted murder committed in an organised criminal group.\n7.  On 28 December 2001 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It attached importance to the serious nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on the applicant. It further considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence, induce witnesses to give false testimony or go into hiding.\n8.  An appeal by the applicant against the detention order, and likewise his further appeals against some of the decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeals, he argued that his lengthy detention had violated the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n9.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was extended on several occasions, namely, on 22 March 2002 (to 29 May 2002), 21 May 2002 (to 29 September 2002) and 20 September 2002 (to 14 October 2002). In all their decisions on the matter the courts relied on the original grounds given for the applicant's detention. They also stressed that owing to the complexity of the case and the large volume of evidence, the investigation had still not been completed.\n10.  On an unspecified date, the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The bill of indictment comprised numerous charges of murder, attempted murder, extortion and illegal possession of firearms brought against fifteen defendants. The applicant was charged with murder and attempted murder committed in an organised criminal group.\n11.  During the trial the courts further extended the applicant's pre-trial detention on several occasions, namely, on 24 December 2002 (to 27 December 2003), 9 December 2003 (to 30 April 2004), 14 April 2004 (to 31 December 2004), 21 December 2004 (to 30 June 2005), 22 June 2005 (to 31 December 2005), 21 December 2005 (to 30 April 2006), 26 April 2006 (to 31 July 2006), on 21 November 2007 (to 9 March 2008) and 26 February 2008 (to 9 September 2008). They repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's continued detention. The courts relied especially on the complexity of the case, the large number of co-accused and the substantial volume of evidence to be examined. Finally, they attached importance to the relations between the accused who were all alleged members of an organised criminal group.\n12.  On 4 November 2003 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held some 78 hearings in the case.\n13.  On 9 June 2006 the Łódź Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 13 and 15 November 2007 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) held hearings.\n15.  On 21 November 2007 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment in respect of the applicant and remitted the case.\n16.  On 26 September 2008 the applicant was released from custody and placed under police supervision.\n17.  The proceedings before the Łódź Regional Court are still pending.\n18.  On 27 December 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5974", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Delft.\n6.  On 7 June 2006 a person was stopped for questioning in connection with an offence against the General Municipality Bye-laws (Algemene Plaatselijke Verordening) of The Hague. He had no proof of his identity on his person.\n7.  The police officer identified the person as the applicant from a police photograph. The applicant was fined 50 euros (EUR) for not being able to show proof of identity. The fine was not paid, and the applicant was summoned to appear before the District Court judge (kantonrechter) of The Hague to answer a charge of failing to present an official identity document (see paragraph 16 below).\n8.  On 15 January 2007 the applicant appeared before the District Court judge. He claimed to be innocent, suggesting that the culprit might have been his brother. He stated that he had been acquitted of similar charges several times before. The District Court judge then adjourned the hearing in order to enable the reporting police officer and the applicant to check an identity photograph together. The applicant gave a mobile telephone number so that an appointment could be made.\n9.  On 9 May 2007 instructions were sent on the public prosecutor's behalf to the police for the applicant to be shown the police identity photograph, a new official record to be made and a photograph of the applicant and if possible his brother also to be attached thereto.\n10.  On 27 June 2007 a police officer drew up an official record of his various attempts to contact the applicant by telephone; he had been met with a recording of the voice of a man asking callers not to leave any messages because he had insufficient prepaid credit to listen to them and call back. The Government state that the police officer who had first identified the applicant (paragraph 7 above) wished to persist in his statement that he had recognised the accused as the applicant from the photograph in the possession of the police. Clear police photographs of the applicant and his brother, which the Government state show that there was little resemblance between them, were dispatched in addition.\n11.  The hearing was resumed on 11 October 2007 at 12 noon. The applicant had been summoned in writing but failed to turn up in time to take part. The District Court judge then tried him in absentia, convicted him and sentenced him to a fine of EUR 60 or one day's detention in lieu. Judgment was given orally. The official record of delivery reads as follows:\n“OFFICIAL RECORD OF DELIVERY OF ORAL JUDGMENT (AANTEKENING MONDELING VONNIS)\nJudgment given by District Court judge C. on 11 October 2007 in the case against the accused\nName:Lalmahomed\nFirst names:Goelzeer\nBorn on:30 October 1962 in District Suriname (Suriname)\nAddress:[etc.]\nPlace of residence:Delft\nDefended case, [accused] failed to turn up after adjournment\nQUALIFICATION:\nMinor offence defined in Article 447e of the Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht), section 2 of the Compulsory Identification Act (Wet op de identificatieplicht)\nCOMMITTED:\non 7 June 2006\nDECISION:\nFine of EUR 60,00 or 1 day's detention in lieu\nThe judge states that for lodging an appeal this case is subject to a special procedure, the so-called leave-to-appeal system.\n(signed) the District Court judge”\n12.  The applicant lodged an appeal the same day by filling in a form at the registry. He stated his reasons for wishing to appeal as follows:\n“I did not attend the hearing because:\nI was mistaken about th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5975", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Plovdiv.\n5.  On 4 October 1990 the applicant and his alleged accomplice D.E. were charged with attempt to theft of two boxes of ham. On the same day the investigator questioned them and interviewed one witness. Two more witnesses were interviewed on 22 May 1992.\n6.  On 6 July 1992 the preliminary investigation was concluded and the file was sent to the prosecutor. On 14 August 1992 the proceedings were stayed because the investigating authorities could not find and question D.E.\n7.  From 14 August 1992 until December 1999 the case remained dormant.\n8.  In December 1999 the investigation authorities started working on the case. On 7 November 2001 the investigator ordered a fresh expert report to assess the value of the stolen goods. On 6 February and 4 June 2002 the applicant was charged again with the same offence. In the meantime the investigator questioned the applicant and interviewed witnesses.\n9.  On 23 August 2002 the investigation was concluded. On 22 November 2002 an indictment was filed with the Plovdiv District Court. Between November 2002 and February 2006 the court held six hearings. One of them was adjourned on the ground of the absence of a member of the panel and three of them on the ground of the absence of witnesses. Two hearings were adjourned because either the applicant or his lawyer did not appear.\n10.  Upon the prosecutor’s request, on 21 December 2005 the court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the ground that the statute of limitations had expired.\n11.  On 8 June 1992 the applicant was questioned by the police in relation to an attempted aggravated theft of various domestic equipment items perpetrated the previous day. He confessed to the offence. The investigating authorities heard witnesses and seized some of the stolen items.\n12.  On 17 July 1992 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant and his alleged accomplice A.M.\n13.  From 17 July 1992 until 7 February 2002 the case remained dormant.\n14.  On 7 February 2002 the investigation authorities questioned a witness. Between February and April 2002 the investigating authorities questioned several witnesses and ordered an expert report to assess the value of the stolen domestic equipment. On 2 April 2002 the applicant was charged and questioned. The investigation was concluded on 28 May 2003.\n15.  On 8 July 2003 an indictment was filed with the Plovdiv District Court. The first hearing, listed for 2 March 2004, was adjourned because of the applicant’s absence. Following a court’s decision ordering the applicant’s detention, on 17 March 2004 the applicant was remanded in custody.\n16.  The court held another hearing on 13 October 2004. On 11 January 2005 the court approved a plea bargain agreement between the applicant and the prosecuting authorities where the applicant confessed to the offence and was sentenced to three months of imprisonment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5976", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Slovenj Gradec, Slovenia.\n6.  In June 1992 criminal charges were brought against five people (“the defendants”) on suspicion of having caused grievous bodily harm to the applicant. On 16 September 1992 an investigating judge of the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) opened an investigation against the defendants. According to statements taken on 25 September 1992 as part of the pre-trial proceedings, the applicant sought damages for loss of income and injuries sustained. He stated that he would subsequently specify his claim.\n7.  During the proceedings, the trial court fixed about forty hearings. Most of them were postponed because it could not secure the attendance of the defendants, their representative or witnesses. No adjournment of any of the hearings was ordered on the applicant’s request. The trial court also obtained several expert opinions during the proceedings.\n8.  On 4 July 2003 the trial court found three of the defendants guilty of grievous bodily harm and sentenced them to a suspended prison term. It further advised the applicant to pursue a compensation claim by means of a separate civil action. In this connection it observed that the applicant had hitherto sought compensation only for non-pecuniary damage.\n9.  On 11 December 2003 the public prosecutor appealed against the above-mentioned decision. At a public hearing held on 27 January 2005, the Skopje Court of Appeal overturned the decision in respect of the sentence and confirmed the remainder. The three defendants were sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. According to the Government, on 10 November 2005 the Supreme Court confirmed this decision by dismissing the defendants’ appeal on points of law (барање за вонредно преиспитување на правосилна пресуда).\n10.  On 6 December 2005 the applicant brought a civil action against the defendants and their employer, claiming compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss he had sustained as a result of his injuries.\n11.  On 26 June 2008 the trial court ruled partly in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendants and their employer jointly to pay him 1,200,000 Macedonian denars (equivalent to 19,500 euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 4 September 2008 the defendants appealed. The case is pending before the Skopje Court of Appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5977", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, BENet Praha, spol. s r.o., is a limited liability company incorporated under Czech law with its registered seat in Prague.\n6.  Between 1994 and 1997 the applicant company dealt in ferrous alloys.\n7.  In April 2001 customs authorities initiated a set of administrative proceedings against the applicant company in order to check the accuracy of the customs debt (concerning customs plus VAT) the company had paid during the aforementioned period of time.\n8.  Simultaneously, criminal proceedings were instituted against a person, who was a manager (jednatel) of the applicant company during that period of time, on suspicion of tax evasion while he was managing the applicant company. According to the Government the damage caused to the State exceeded 200,000,000 Czech korunas (CZK; 7,770,000 euros (EUR)).\n9.  Within the framework of the criminal proceedings a search of the applicant company's premises was carried out on 24 April 2001. Cash in several currencies in the total amount of approximately CZK 20,000,000 (EUR 770,000) and several documents such as financial files, books of accounts and business documents were seized. According to the applicant company these documents and most of the cash have not yet been returned to it.\n10.  On 25 and 27 April 2001 the prosecuting authorities seized all of the applicant company's assets deposited on its five bank accounts on the suspicion that they constituted profits from the criminal activities of the former manager. The applicant company's bank accounts contained at that time funds equivalent to CZK 98,458,516 (EUR 3,786,866). The seizure orders, which were notified to the applicant company on 8 October 2001, did not specify what assets had been seized, nor to what amount. This was remedied on 28 November 2001 by the Prague High Prosecutor (vrchní státní zástupce) who amended the original decisions by writing in the sums to be seized. While doing so, he froze all assets deposited on the applicant company's accounts on that day, which included payments which had come in after 25 April 2001 and 27 April 2001 respectively. The applicant company's assets amounting to CZK 101,909,105 (EUR 3,919,580) were thus seized.\n11.  Simultaneously with the criminal investigation, the customs and tax administrative proceedings resulted in the delivery of numerous payment orders assessing duty payable by the applicant company. With all of its assets frozen, the applicant company requested the prosecuting authorities on a number of occasions to lift the seizure in order to discharge these duties, but only few of these requests were granted. Its appeals did not suspend the effect of those orders payable within thirty days of delivery. Consequently, the company had to take out a loan, among other measures adopted to overcome this situation, and avoid insolvency, as it was obliged to pay under these orders a sum totalling CZK 55,000,000 (EUR 2,115,385).\n12.  Between 2004 and 2005, upon the applicant company's appeals, all of the payment orders and other decisions adopted by tax and customs authorities imposing the duties on the applicant company were quashed as unlawful either by superior authorities or administrative courts. The tax proceedings were discontinued and sums paid by the applicant company upon the orders reimbursed accordingly.\n13.  The former manager has been prosecuted for acts committed in his capacity as the manager of the applicant company and in the context of its business activities.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5978", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and resides in Bulgaria.\n5.  The applicant was a defendant in several criminal proceedings for different offences and was convicted a number of times.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 1992 criminal proceedings for murder committed in Bulgaria were opened against the applicant and another person.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant moved to the Czech Republic. In September 1993 he was charged with, inter alia, robbery and unlawful possession of firearms committed in the Czech Republic and was detained in a prison in Prague. On 7 April 1995 he was released and on 31 May 1995 the criminal proceedings against him for robbery and unlawful possession of firearms in the Czech Republic were discontinued as the Bulgarian authorities undertook to prosecute him for these offences in Bulgaria instead.\n8.  In a decision of 7 March 1996, taken in camera, the Prague City Court allowed the applicant’s extradition to Bulgaria, noting that there he would also be prosecuted for the robbery and the unlawful possession of firearms committed in the Czech Republic.\n9.  On 8 July 1996 the applicant was extradited from the Czech Republic on account of criminal proceedings opened against him in Bulgaria for a number of offences, including murder.\n10.  The Court has not been provided with information about the course of the proceedings for murder between 1992 and 2005.\n11.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant’s case was brought to the Plovdiv Regional Court.\n12.  By a judgment of 26 May 2006 the Plovdiv Regional Court acquitted the applicant.\n13.  The judgment was upheld on 27 June 2007 by the Sofia Court of Appeal. From the materials at the Court’s possession it appears that in so far as the judgment concerned the applicant’s acquittal, it was not appealed against and entered into force.\n14.  In March 1999, pursuant to a commitment undertaken before the Czech authorities in 1995 (see paragraph 7 above), the Bulgarian authorities opened criminal proceedings against the applicant for the robbery and unlawful possession of a gun, offences committed in the Czech Republic.\n15.  On 25 October 2001 the applicant was charged with the above offences.\n16.  On 12 July 2002 the proceedings were stayed as the victims of the robbery could not be found for questioning. On 22 July 2003 they were resumed upon the applicant’s request.\n17.  In August 2003 the Bulgarian authorities requested form the Czech and the Spanish authorities to carry out certain investigative actions and to provide information and documents in connection to the above offences.\n18.  On 11 September 2003 the proceedings were divided into two separate cases.\n19.  The case for unlawful possession of firearms ended on 1 April 2004 by a judgment of the Plovdiv District Court that became final on 19 April 2004. The court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to one year imprisonment, which was close to the minimum sentence for this offence. In determining the sentence it took into account, among other mitigating circumstances, the fact that the offence had been committed more than ten years ago.\n20.  Meanwhile, on 2 October 2003 the charges for robbery against the applicant were dropped. On 18 July 2005 the applicant was informed that he was not subject to charges under these proceedings. However the proceedings continued.\n21.  On 7 July 2006 the prosecution authorities discontinued the proceedings against the applicant for lack of sufficient evidence that he h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5979", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Sofia.\n5.  In 1992 the applicant and three other individuals entered into a contract with a company engaged in cigarette production.\n6.  On 6 July 1993 the applicant was remanded in custody. Shortly after that charges were raised against him and the other three individuals for documentary fraud and aggravated fraud committed in respect of the cigarette company as well as for making false declarations. They were accused, in particular, of organising a fictitious export of cigarettes in order to avoid paying excise tax.\n7.  On 26 July 1993 the applicant was released on bail.\n8.  On 5 December 1994 the prosecutor discontinued the proceedings in respect of some of the charges. On 4 April 1995 the prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant with the Plovdiv Regional Court for aggravated documentary fraud.\n9.  In a judgment of 16 November 1998 the Plovdiv Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to seven years of imprisonment.\n10.  On an unspecified date, apparently following the applicant’s appeal, the Plovdiv Appellate Court quashed the judgment of the Regional Court and remitted the case to the prosecutor for further investigation.\n11. On 27 October 1999 the prosecutor filed a fresh indictment with the Plovdiv District Court for aggravated fraud. The applicant and his alleged accomplices were accused, in particular, of causing significant material damage to the company as the stipulated export of cigarettes never took place and the company had to pay the excise tax.\n12.  On an unspecified date the company brought a civil claim against the applicant which was accepted by the court for examination. On 16 December 1999 and 26 January 2000 the District Court held hearings which were adjourned as the applicant failed to appear.\n13. On 3 March 2000 the applicant was remanded in custody.\n14. On 30 June 2000 the District Court acquitted the applicant and his alleged accomplices and dismissed the civil claim against them. The court found that there had been no casual link between the behaviour of the accused and the damage sustained by the company as in any event the latter had been bound by law to pay the excise tax.\n15.  Upon the prosecutor’s appeal, on 20 February 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court upheld the judgment.\n16.  Upon the prosecutor’s appeal, on 12 February 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the acquittal and remitted the case to the Regional Court for new examination.\n17.  In a judgment of 20 May 2004 the Plovdiv Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment.\n18.  Upon the applicant’s appeal, in a judgment of 4 April 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the judgment for procedural breaches and remitted the case to the Regional Court for new examination.\n19.  In a judgment of 1 March 2006 the Plovdiv Regional Court upheld the judgment of 30 June 2000 (see paragraph 14 above).\n20.  Upon the prosecutor’s appeal, on 17 April 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Plovdiv Regional Court, stating, inter alia, that the lower court had failed to examine the case thoroughly, and remitted the case to the Regional Court for new examination.\n21.  In a decision of 12 February 2008 the court discontinued the proceedings in its criminal part as time barred. The decision became final on an unspecified date, not later than May 2008.\n22.  Following the decision of 12 February 2008, the proceedings on ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5980", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Skopje. He is the manager and sole owner of a limited liability company, the Tehno‑Interexport company (“T.”), the acquirer and legal successor of the Unimont company (“U.”), which ceased to exist on 4 February 1994.\n5.  On 13 June 1990 U. brought a compensation claim against another company.\n6.  After the case was remitted for reconsideration by the Supreme Court on 18 November 1998, the Gevgelija Court of First Instance, which had meanwhile become the court with jurisdiction in the matter, partly upheld T.’s claim on 24 October 2005. That decision was upheld by the Skopje Court of Appeal on 28 June 2006. On 16 April 2008 the Supreme Court rejected as out of time an appeal on points of law submitted by T.\n7.  On 3 November 1992 U. requested the enforcement of a court decision given in its favour. On 6 November 1992 the then competent court made an enforcement order against a private company (“the debtor”). On 21 December 1992 the order was set aside. The proceedings continued on a contentious basis.\n8.  In proceedings to settle a conflict of jurisdiction (постапка за решавање на судир на надлежности), the case was assigned to the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”), as the court with jurisdiction in the matter.\n9.  On 20 November 1998 T. appealed against the decision of 21 December 1992. The Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in a decision of 21 February 2001.\n10.  On 6 December 2004 the first-instance court stayed the civil proceedings as the debtor, now the defendant, had meanwhile ceased to exist. The parties disagreed as to whether that decision was served on the applicant. According to the Government, the case was archived on 25 December 2005. No evidence was produced as to whether that information was communicated to the applicant.\n11.  On 31 January 1994 U. lodged a claim for damages against the then Payment Exchange Office (“the Office”) (Служба за Општествено Книговодство Скопје), a State-run institution. The claim concerned alleged irregularities in the enforcement of U.’s claim, which formed the subject of the eighth set of proceedings (see section H. below).\n12.  At a hearing on 27 November 2002 T. indicated the Ministry of Finance, the legal successor of the Office, as the defendant in the proceedings.\n13.  On 19 September 2003 the Skopje Court of First Instance dismissed T.’s claim as it found that the Ministry of Finance had acted in accordance with the law. That decision was upheld by the Skopje Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in judgments of 3 February 2005 and 14 June 2006 respectively.\n14.  On 7 April 1995 the applicant requested the enforcement of a final judgment of 20 May 1988 by which three physical persons (“the debtors”) had been ordered jointly to pay him a certain amount of money. On 14 April 1995 the then competent court granted the request and ordered the debtors to pay the debt, together with interest.\n15.  On 2 September 1996 the first-instance court annulled the court order of 14 April 1995 in respect of the interest. It upheld the remainder of the order and ordered a recalculation of the interest. In the meantime, two of the debtors died. Their successors took over the debt. On 5 June 1997 the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the first-instance court and ordered the lower court to continue with the enforcement.\n16.  The judgment debt was subsequently partly settled. It remained unenforced in respect of o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5981", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Marius Lalas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1978. The place where the applicant lives is unknown, as he is in hiding (see paragraph 23).\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 19 February 2003 the Kaišiadorys District Court convicted the applicant, together with his accomplice M., of attempted drug dealing in large quantities (Articles 16 § 2 and 232-1 § 5 of the Criminal Court as then in force). The court established that the offence had been disclosed using a “criminal conduct simulation model” (“the model”), which had been authorised against M. by the Prosecutor General on 29 May 2002.\n8.  The court found that in June 2002 (4 June according to the Government) V., a policeman acting as an undercover agent under the model, had approached M. and, during their conversation on various topics, asked where he could get psychotropic drugs. M. had said that he could procure and sell samples to the policeman straight away and more thereafter if the samples were good. The samples would cost from 15 to 21 Lithuanian Litai (“LTL”) (about 5 euros) per gram, depending on the quantities required. He had refused to lower the price for the first transaction, but suggested that it might be cheaper if V. needed a regular supply. However, the officer had replied that he could not wait and they had agreed to telephone each other on the matter. V. had to undergo a hospital intervention. Thereafter, it was M. who contacted V., suggesting a meeting so that he could provide V. with drug samples.\n9.  On an unknown date, M. had contacted the applicant with a request to obtain the drugs (0,5 kg), as V. liked the samples. The applicant had agreed to procure the narcotics. The Government contended that the applicant had contacted an acquaintance who had provided him with drugs.\n10.  On 21 June 2002, the applicant and M. had sold V. a few samples. The Government contended that the applicant had provided just one sample of amphetamines and stressed that he had stayed in the car while M. went to V.'s car.\n11.  On 23 June, V. had telephoned M., requesting more drugs for a total sum of USD 3,000. On 25 June the applicant and M. had provided V. with 250 grams of amphetamines. The applicant and his accomplice had been arrested immediately. Both had pleaded guilty to the attempted drug offence.\n12.  The court questioned V. as an anonymous witness in private, outside the courtroom via an audio relay. His identity was not disclosed in order to protect him and the proper functioning of the police drug squad. At that stage the defence did not put any questions to V. After V.'s testimony had been read out by the trial judge, the defence formulated some questions which were put to him by the judge and answered. The other evidence examined by the court included the transcripts of the conversations between V. and M., the testimony of another police officer who had acted as V.'s back-up during the operation, of their supervising officer and of the applicant and his co-accused, as well as an expert's findings.\n13.  The documents relating to the use of the model were classified as secret and were not disclosed to the defence because they would have disclosed the identity of the police officers involved and the operational methods of the drug squad. The Government contended that the applicant was not, however, denied access to information about the execution of the model.\n14.  Defence counsel, in h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5983", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1978, 2001 and 1997 respectively and live in Istanbul. The first applicant is the wife and the second and third applicants are the children of Mr Yusuf Kaba, who was an officer in the Turkish Navy and died of cancer in 2003. According to the applicants, Mr Kaba's exposure to asbestos at Hasköy Dock had caused his cancer. They were also concerned about the allegedly inadequate treatment he received at the GATA military hospital.\n5.  Following Mr Kaba's death, on 22 August 2003 the applicants initiated compensation proceedings in the Military Supreme Administrative Court against the Ministry of Defence. They requested a total of 650,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 400,000 euros (EUR) at the time) in both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. In their application, the applicants complained that Mr Kaba's death was the result of the asbestos levels at Hasköy Dock and stated that he had not received adequate medical treatment at the GATA military hospital. In their submissions the applicants relied on the medical records of the applicant, a report on the asbestos levels at Hasköy Dock and an expert report. The applicants also requested legal aid for the court fees. In their legal-aid claim they submitted documents attesting to their poor financial situation. The official documents attested that the applicants had no income.\n6.  On 19 November 2003 the Military Supreme Administrative Court, without giving any reason, decided that the applicants did not qualify for legal aid. The applicants were notified that they had to pay TRL 8,758,870,000 (approximately EUR 5,000) in court fees within one month for the proceedings to be continued, and that failure to do so would result in the discontinuation of the proceedings. In January 2004 the applicants again requested legal aid to pay the court fees. On 21 January 2004 the Military Supreme Administrative Court refused to grant the applicants legal aid, once again without giving reasons. The applicants were requested to pay the fees due within one month in order to be able to continue the proceedings. They were warned that failure to do so would result in the discontinuation of the proceedings.\n7.  On 22 April 2004 the applicants requested a rectification of the decision dated 21 January 2004. Subsequently, on 26 April 2004 the applicants' lawyer also lodged a request with the Military Supreme Administrative Court and requested clarification (tavzih) of the decision dated 21 January 2004. In his request the applicants' lawyer referred to the relevant statements of means provided by the domestic authorities. He further stated that while lodging the case he had submitted the relevant medical records concerning Mr Yusuf Kaba, a report on the asbestos levels at Hasköy Dock and an expert report, and that this evidence should be sufficient to prove that they had a well-founded case.\n8.  On 12 May 2004 the Military Supreme Administrative Court examined both requests and decided that, as the decision dated 21 January 2004 was not a final decision on the merits of the case, a rectification or a clarification request was not possible under domestic law. The court also decided to discontinue the compensation proceedings because the applicants had not paid the necessary court fees. This decision was served on the applicants on 4 June 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5984", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 20 December 1994 the applicant's mother died in hospital. In April 2000 the applicant brought an action in compensation against the hospital, the head of the hospital, his mother's doctor and finally a nurse, requesting the court to establish a violation of his privacy rights in relation to his mother's treatment in hospital and to order the respondents to surrender all medical documentation related to her treatment.\n6.  In its interlocutory judgment of 26 February 2002 the Pest Central District Court dismissed the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary damages. This judgment was quashed by the Budapest Regional Court on 21 November 2002.\n7.  In the course of the resumed proceedings, one of the respondents died on 22 December 2002. The proceedings were thus discontinued in this respect pending the establishment of the heirs.\n8.  On 19 June 2003 the District Court partly found for the applicant. This judgment was reversed by the Budapest Regional Court, which dismissed his action on 13 January 2004, finding inter alia that the applicant was not able to prove that a particular image of computer tomography, deemed to be of crucial importance, was in the possession of the respondent hospital – if it existed at all.\n9.  The proceedings continued thereafter solely in respect of the doctor who had once been in charge of the applicant's mother. Since this doctor had meanwhile died (see paragraph 7 above), her legal successors entered the case on 3 January 2005. The Pest Central District Court dismissed the applicant's action in this respect on 4 November 2005, which was finally upheld by the review bench of the Supreme Court on 21 February 2007. The courts found inter alia that the late doctor or her successors held no personal liability in the circumstances and that, in any event, the respondent hospital (against which the applicant's action had already been dismissed, see paragraph 8 above) could not have possibly been ordered to release the image in question since it had been made and preserved in another institution. The judgment was served on the applicant on 5 April 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5985", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 8 November 1994 a private individual brought an action against the applicant before the Budapest II/III District Court concerning the performance of an agreement on the modification of their respective shares held in a commonly owned real property.\n6.  After several hearings, on 23 January 1996 the court delivered a partial judgment in which it dismissed the action in its part seeking the annulment of the agreement. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first instance court on 13 November 1996.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court delivered a partial judgment on 23 April 1997 in which it again dismissed the plaintiff's action. This decision was upheld by the Budapest Regional Court on 24 June 1998.\n8.  On 21 February 2003 the District Court delivered a judgment which was partially quashed on 5 February 2004 by the Budapest Regional Court in its part concerning the termination of the co-ownership.\n9.  On 17 March 2004 the proceedings were suspended by the Budapest Regional Court, pending the registration of a relevant note on the title deed.\n10.  On 1 April 2009 the change of ownership ratios was registered on the title deed. The proceedings concerning the termination of the co-ownership are pending before the first instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5986", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Érd.\n5.  On 27 November 1998 the applicant brought an action against a private company seeking compensation for injuries he had suffered in an accident on the premises of a hotel operated by the respondent. The dispute essentially concerned the amount of compensation payable.\n6.  In its interlocutory judgment delivered on 7 July 1999, the Budaörs District Court established the respondent's full liability for the accident. The review bench of the Supreme Court finally upheld this decision on 30 April 2002.\n7.  After obtaining the opinion of a medical expert, the District Court awarded the applicant compensation in the amount of 102,632 Hungarian forints (370 euros (EUR)) on 5 November 2003. Being dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the applicant appealed. Following a remittal, the Pest County Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, significantly raised the amount of compensation on 26 April 2005.\n8.  On 30 January 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review in a reasoned decision. Examining the merits of the case in detail, it held that the second-instance judgment had not been unlawful to an extent that had a bearing on the merits of the case. This decision was served on 3 March 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5987", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Slovyansk.\n5.  In December 1994 she was injured while working at the State-owned company Donetska Zaliznytsia (“the company”, Донецька залізниця) and became partially disabled. Shortly afterwards the company voluntarily accepted full liability for the applicant’s disability.\n6.  In December 1995 the applicant lodged a claim against Ch., the head physician of a hospital where she had been treated after having sustained the injury, seeking damages for allegedly inadequate medical treatment. In a judgment of 24 April 1996 the Slovyansk City Court (“the City Court”) rejected her claim. On 6 June 1996 and 28 March 2003, the Donetsk Regional Court (since June 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal) and the Supreme Court respectively, upheld this judgment.\n7.  On 6 December 1996 the applicant lodged four separate claims with the City Court against the company seeking respectively: compensation for salary arrears, medical expenses and issuance or compensation of cost of sanatorium voucher; annulment of a reprimand; payment of health allowances; and placement to a certain post. On 9 December 1996 the court requested her to rectify shortcomings in her fourth claim. On 17 April 1997 she lodged a fifth claim seeking redeployment to a certain post at the company.\n8.  On 5 May 1997 the applicant was dismissed for repeated failure to perform her duties.\n9.  On 27 May 1997 she lodged a sixth claim seeking her reemployment and payment of damages.\n10.  On 3 June 1997 the City Court returned the fourth claim to the applicant. On 17 June 1997 it left the second claim unexamined, the applicant having failed to appear before it. On an unspecified date in July 1997 the court held the first hearing on the applicant’s claims. There is no indication whether the claims were joined, and if so when.\n11.  On 15 October 1997 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 17 June 1997. In a judgment of 11 June 2003, the City Court rejected the applicant’s claims, including the overall claim for UAH 183,183 (EUR 29,309 euros, EUR)[1] in damages. On 3 February and 17 December 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) and the Supreme Court respectively, upheld this judgment. On 11 January 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request for a re-hearing of her case by way of extraordinary review.\n12.  According to the Government, between 11 September 1997 and 17 December 2004 the applicant modified her claims on four occasions, filed four procedural requests and three appeals, always complying with the procedural requirements. Of the seventy three hearings scheduled during the same period of time, eleven were adjourned due to the defendant’s or witness’s failure to attend, ten were adjourned at the applicant’s request, seven were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to attend, three were adjourned due to the both parties’ failure to attend, three were adjourned at the both parties’ request, two were adjourned at the defendant’s request, and four were adjourned for reasons beyond parties’ control.\n13.  On 16 March 2004 the applicant brought an action against the company seeking recovery of her work book (трудова книжка) with rectified records, work-related arrears and non-pecuniary damages. In a judgment of 26 November 2004 the City Court dismissed her action. On 28 March 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. On 21 May 2007 the Supreme Court, according to the Judicial System", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5988", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957. At the material time she lived in Saveliyevskaya, Chechnya. She now lives in Poland. The applicant is the mother of Mr Timur (also spelled Temur) Khambulatov, who was born in 1980.\n7.  At the material time the applicant and her son Timur Khambulatov lived together at 8 Dzerzhinkskogo Street in the village of Saveliyevskaya in Naurskiy District, Chechnya.\n8.  On the night of 17-18 March 2004 the applicant and her son were at home. At about 2.30 a.m. two armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and two UAZ vehicles without registration numbers arrived at the applicant’s house. Around ten or fifteen armed men in camouflage uniforms broke down the outer door and rushed in. The intruders spoke unaccented Russian; the majority of them were masked and those without masks were of Slavic appearance.\n9.  The servicemen locked the applicant in one of the rooms and woke up Timur Khambulatov. Then, without producing any warrant, they searched the house. They found a bottle-shaped object wrapped in foil and asked Timur Khambulatov if he knew what it was; he replied in the negative.\n10.  The servicemen handcuffed Timur Khambulatov, took him out of the house, put him into one of the vehicles and drove away.\n11.  In the morning of 18 March 2004 the applicant visited the Naurskiy district department of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) and unsuccessfully inquired about her son’s whereabouts.\n(ii)  Timur Khambulatov’s confession\n12.  In the morning of 18 March 2004 Mr V.T., an officer of the Naurskiy district department of the interior (“the Naurskiy OVD”), wrote down Timur Khambulatov’s confession. The text of the document, signed by the applicant’s son, included the following:\n“... Today the policemen found at my place a home-made explosive device made from a plastic bottle, which contained a TNT explosive cartridge, ball bearings and an electric detonator... I made that device because I have no money and my family members are unemployed... I thought that the policemen would not find that home-made explosive device. The device was seized, packed and sealed in my presence and that of the attesting witnesses; a [search and seizure] report was drawn up and I signed it. I plead guilty and repent of what I have done.”\n(iii)  Timur Khambulatov’s death\n13.  In the morning of 18 March 2004 (in the submitted documents the date is also stated as 19 March 2004) Timur Khambulatov was found dead in a detention cell of the Naurskiy OVD. On the same date the Naurskiy district prosecutor’s office (“the district prosecutor’s office”) notified the applicant of this and told her that she could pick up the body from the Mozdok town morgue. The applicant brought her son’s dead body home and took photographs of it. On an unspecified date in 2004 Timur Khambulatov was buried.\n14.  The Government disputed some of the circumstances of the case. They submitted that Timur Khambulatov had been arrested and taken to the Naurskiy OVD. According to their submission on the admissibility and merits of the application of 17 December 2007 (page 5),\n“... On 18 March 2004 as a result of the special operation ... servicemen of the 231st special separate battalion of the Internal Troops of the Ministry of the Interior took Mr T. Khambulatov, in whose household a home-made explosive device had been discovered, to the Naurskiy OVD.\nOn 18 March 2004 an investigator of the Naurskiy OVD opened criminal case no. 40560 under Article 222 of the Criminal Code [i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5989", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Dudarkiv.\n6.  On 30 April 1997 Oleksandr Lanetskyy, the applicant's son, was beaten up by A.Y., an acquaintance. The next day he felt ill and was admitted to hospital for in-patient treatment. On 14 May 1997, after several operations, Oleksandr Lanetskyy died in hospital.\n7.  On 15 May 1997 the Bilozerskyy District Prosecutor's Office instituted criminal proceedings against A.Y. for inflicting grievous bodily harm on Oleksandr Lanetskyy. On the same day the applicant was granted leave to join the proceedings as an injured party.\n8.  On 19 May 1997 A.Y. was placed under an obligation not to abscond.\n9.  On 20 May 1997 a medical expert gave an assessment, according to which Oleksandr Lanetskyy's death was a direct effect of the injuries inflicted on him by A.Y.\n10.  On 16 October 1997 another forensic assessment was carried out by a panel of experts, which confirmed the direct link between the injuries and Oleksandr Lanetskyy's eventual death.\n11.  On 27 October 1997 the applicant's civil claim was accepted for examination by the court.\n12.  Between May and November 1997 the investigative authorities carried out numerous interviews of witnesses, two reconstructions of the crime scene and other measures. On 17 November 1997 the case was referred to court for trial.\n13.  On 20 March 1998 the Nova Kakhovka Town Court referred the case back for additional investigation on account of numerous procedural shortcomings in the investigation.\n14.  On an unspecified date A.Y. went into hiding and on 16 April 1998 he was placed on the wanted list.\n15.  On several occasions the applicant complained to various authorities about omissions by the police during their inquiries into A.Y.'s whereabouts, in particular their failure to react promptly when she had notified them of his probable home visits.\n16.  Following A.Y.'s disappearance the criminal proceedings against him were suspended. However, on several occasions they were reopened in order to carry out certain investigative measures, such as the examination of additional witnesses.\n17.  On 27 August 2000 and 20 November 2001 the General Prosecutor's Office acknowledged that the police had failed to take all the necessary steps to trace A.Y.\n18.  On 16 October 2002 the failings of the police were further acknowledged by the Kherson Department of the Ministry of the Interior, which decided to transfer responsibility for the investigation to the Kherson Regional Police and advised them of additional measures to be taken to establish A.Y.'s whereabouts.\n19.  In May 2003 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Kherson Regional Police and the State Treasury, seeking damages on account of the police's omissions in investigating the case against A.Y. Her claims were rejected by the courts at three levels of jurisdiction, the final decision being taken on 5 October 2005 by the Supreme Court of Ukraine.\n20.  In the meantime, on 19 June 2003 A.Y. was arrested in the Magadan Region of the Russian Federation and detained pending extradition to Ukraine.\n21.  On 6 October 2003 the Magadan Regional Court released A.Y. following the expiry of the time-limit established by the provisions of a relevant bilateral treaty concerning extradition for preparation of the necessary paperwork.\n22.  On 17 November 2003 the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation consented to the extradition of A.Y.\n23.  On 8 June 2004 A.Y. was arrested in Samara (Russi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5990", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1989 and lived in St Petersburg until the time of his arrest.\n5.  On 12 March 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of killing and/or causing grievous bodily injuries to several individuals. On the following day the Pushkinskiy District Court of St Petersburg remanded him in custody.\n6.  On 10 May, 14 June, 29 August and 3 December 2007 and 18 January 2008 the Pushkinskiy District Court extended the authorised period of the applicant's detention for up to a total duration of one year.\n7.  On 26 February, 2 April and 3 June 2008 the St Petersburg City Court authorised further extensions of the applicant's pre-trial detention until 4 August 2008. No appeal was lodged against the extension orders.\n8.  On 21 July 2008 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant was granted access to the case file.\n9.  On 30 July 2008 the St Petersburg City Court granted the prosecutor's application for a further extension of the applicant's detention until 12 September 2008, that is, for a total duration of eighteen months. The City Court referred to the gravity of the charges against the applicant, the existence of a reasonable suspicion of his involvement in the commission of the alleged offences and certain “objective circumstances”, in particular, the fact that the defendants had not yet finished studying the case file.\n10.  On 5 August 2008 counsel for the applicant lodged an appeal against the extension order. Counsel pointed out that the City Court had failed to identify any concrete facts to justify the risks of absconding, reoffending or obstructing justice. She alleged a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. On 22 September 2008 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation rejected the appeal, finding that the gravity of the charges could be taken into account when deciding to extend the pre-trial detention.\n11.  In the meantime, the prosecution applied for a further extension of the applicant's detention. It was submitted that he stood accused of a serious criminal offence and had not yet finished reading the case file. The defence objected to the extension and emphasised that the applicant had a place of permanent residence, no criminal record and positive references.\n12.  On 10 September 2008 the City Court granted the extension sought by the prosecution, referring to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the medical findings that he did not have any health issues which could have required his release. The extension was granted until 4 October 2008, by reference to Article 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n13.  On 17 September 2008 counsel for the applicant appealed against the extension order. She submitted that neither the gravity of the charges nor the fact that the applicant had not finished studying the file were relevant or sufficient grounds for extending his pre-trial detention. On 5 November 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. Neither the applicant nor his counsel were present at the appeal hearing.\n14.  On 1 October 2008 the City Court granted a further extension of the applicant's detention until 4 December 2008, finding in particular as follows:\n“The gravity and public dangerousness of the crimes imputed to Mr Tsarenko are such that an undertaking to appear would not be sufficient to guarantee his appearance before the investigator or in court or to ensure his law-abiding conduct.”\n15.  In the statement of appeal, counsel for the applicant pointe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5991", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant is a former lawyer who was born in 1932 and lives in Vienna.\n8.  On 24 March 1964 he was admitted to the bar and started to practice as a lawyer in Vienna.\n9.  On 15 November 1995 the Disciplinary Council (Disziplinarrat) of the Vienna Chamber of Lawyers (Rechtsanwaltskammer) provisionally suspended the applicant's right to practice and on 18 December 1995 bankruptcy proceedings were opened against him. Taking note of that fact, on 23 January 1996 the Executive Committee of the Chamber of Lawyers (Ausschuß der Rechtsanwaltskammer) decided that the applicant had lost his right to practise as a lawyer pursuant to section 34(1a) of the Practising Lawyers Act (Rechtsanwaltsordnung). This provision, as in force at that time, provided that the right to exercise the profession of a practising lawyer shall be revoked following the binding opening of bankruptcy proceedings until their binding termination and the final dismissal of a request to open bankruptcy proceedings for lack of sufficient means. It further appears that, in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings, the applicant was convicted of embezzlement by the Vienna Regional Court on 28 January 1997 and sentenced to four years imprisonment and on 28 October 1997 an additional sentence of one year was imposed on him.\n10.  On 31 March 1996 the applicant asked the Chamber of Lawyers to strike him out of the List of Lawyers (Rechtsanwaltsliste) for health reasons. On 30 April 1996 the Chamber of Lawyers informed the applicant that it had taken note of his request. However, the Government submitted that the plenary assembly of the Chamber of Lawyers had struck the applicant out of the List of Lawyers on 16 April 1996. The applicant though submitted that no such decision had been taken by the plenary assembly.\n11.  It appears that the Chamber of Lawyers continued to address invoices for membership fees (including contributions to the pension fund) to the applicant until August 1997. The Government submitted that those requests were based on a clerical error by the Chamber's administration and that the respective invoices were subsequently declared void.\n12.  On 4 August 1997 the applicant made an application to the Vienna Chamber of Lawyers asking it to grant him an old-age pension. In his request he referred to the fact that he had practised as a lawyer between 1964 and 1995.\n13.  On 16 June 1998 Division IV of the Executive Committee of the Chamber of Lawyers (Ausschuß der Rechtsanwaltskammer) dismissed the applicant's application. It found that, under the relevant provisions of the Statute of the Chamber of Lawyers Pension Fund, an old-age pension is granted to a lawyer when he or she reaches the retirement age, that is, sixty‑five years old. However, he or she must also have renounced his or her right to practise as a lawyer. Given that, before he reached the retirement age, the applicant had already lost his right to practice as a lawyer, he was not entitled to an old-age pension.\n14.  On 3 July 1998 the applicant filed an objection (Vorstellung). He submitted that the above-mentioned decision had been unlawful. If, however, the findings of Division IV were correct, the regulations on the entitlement to an old-age pension were unconstitutional because the decision to refuse him a pension after he had paid contributions to the pension fund for more than thirty-two years had been arbitrary.\n15.  On 14 July 1998 the Plenary of the Executive Committee rejected the object", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5992", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and serves his sentence.\n6.  In 1996 the applicant moved from Ukraine to the Sakha Republic in the Russian Federation.\n7.  On 21 June 1998 a Mr G. was murdered in the city of Yakutsk, Russia. According to the applicant, the murder was committed by Mr Gl. and the applicant only helped to transport and hide the body.\n8.  On 14 September 1998 the police instituted criminal proceedings into the murder of Mr G. The same day the applicant was arrested and questioned as a suspect. He showed the police the place where the decapitated corpse of Mr G. was hidden.\n9.  On 10 October 1998 the applicant’s girlfriend Ms R. indicated to the police the place where the head of the murdered Mr G. was hidden.\n10.  The investigation conducted a number of forensic examinations and questioning, including cross-examination by the applicant of some of the witnesses.\n11.  On 12 February 1999 the applicant was released under an obligation not to abscond.\n12.  On 11 March 1999 Mr Gl., who had been on the run, was arrested. The next day the applicant breached his undertaking not to abscond and left for Ukraine.\n13.  On 19 November 1999 the Supreme Court of the Sakha Republic (the Russian Federation) sentenced Mr Gl. to fifteen years’ imprisonment for the murder of Mr G. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and became final on 19 April 2000.\n14.  On 2 December 1999 the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation requested the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine under the CIS Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters 1993 (“the Minsk Convention”) to prosecute the applicant for the crime committed on the territory of the Russian Federation, given that the applicant, a Ukrainian national, could not be extradited to Russia.\n15.  On 4 April 2001 the applicant was arrested within another set of criminal proceedings and on 31 July 2001 the Chornobayivsky Local Court sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment for another, unrelated offence. On 25 September 2001 the Cherkassy Regional Court of Appeal (the Cherkassy Court) upheld that judgment.\n16.  On 4 October 2001, under the request of 2 December 1999, the applicant was charged with murder committed on the territory of the Russian Federation in June 1998.\n17.  On 18 December 2001 the Cherkassy Court, sitting as a court of first instance, held its first hearing in the criminal case against the applicant. The applicant’s lawyer requested the court to summon and examine the witnesses who had participated in the judicial proceedings on the territory of the Russian Federation, and also Mr Gl.\n18.  The Cherkassy Court summoned the witnesses to appear before it on 15 January and then on 19 February 2002\n19.  On 22 February 2002 the Cherkassy Court granted the request of the applicant’s defence counsel to cross-examine the witnesses in the criminal proceedings who lived in the Russian Federation. The court noted that some witnesses had confirmed their statements by cable and stated that they could not travel to Cherkassy for financial reasons[1]. The court ruled that it was necessary to examine the witnesses either in Ukraine or at their place of residence by a local judicial authority with jurisdiction under the Minsk Convention. Taking into account lack of sufficient funds for travel and accommodation for the witnesses from the city of Yakutsk in the city of Cherkassy, the court opted for the internati", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5993", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Nikolayevich Prasov, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Zaporizhzhya.\n5.  The applicant is a co-founder and former managing director of a private limited liability company, P. At a meeting of 18 December 1999, the company’s shareholders struck him off the list of the company’s shareholders and re-distributed his shares that, according to applicant, were worth UAH 162,962 (EUR 26,074)[1] on 14 August 2003.\n6.  On 30 December 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Leninsky Court of Zaporizhzhya (“the Leninsky Court”) seeking to set aside the decision of 18 December 1999.\n7.  On 17 November 2000 the court, relying on the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1963 that, among other things, governed examination of complaints against officials, allowed his complaint in part.\n8.  On 26 December 2000 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court, following the respondent’s appeal, quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the Leninsky Court which, in a judgment of 25 May 2001, found for the applicant.\n9.  On 19 September 2001 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed that judgment and ordered a fresh consideration by the first instance court. The applicant filed an appeal in cassation which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16 November 2001.\n10.  In May 2002 the Court of Appeal transferred the case to another District Court and in July 2004 it sent it back to the Leninsky Court.\n11.  On 3 March 2005 the Leninsky Court found in part for him.\n12.  On 30 May 2005 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and left the applicant’s complaint without consideration stating that the case fell to be dealt with in civil contentious proceedings. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.\n13.  In July 2005 the applicant instituted civil contentious proceedings before the Leninsky Court with the same object as the first set of proceedings.\n14.  On 29 March 2006 the court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated.\n15.  On 23 May 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. The court in particular found that the claim was submitted out of the statutory time limit of three years. The applicant appealed in cassation.\n16.  On 23 October 2007 the Supreme Court, according to the Judicial System Act (as amended on 22 February 2007), transferred the appeal to the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal.\n17.  On 28 November 2007 the Odesa Regional Court of Appeal, having found that the appeal was outside its jurisdiction, transferred it to the Higher Commercial Court which, on 26 March 2008, dismissed the appeal. The applicant again appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court.\n18.  By the final ruling of 12 June 2008, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal in cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5994", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Boryspil, the Kyiv Region.\n5.  On 28 May 1998 the applicant lodged with the Inter-Regional Court a claim against his former employer for recovery of salary arrears and salary‑related payments.\n6.  On 6 December 1999 the court dismissed the applicant’s claims as lodged out of time. The applicant appealed in cassation.\n7.  On 12 January 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 6 December 1999 and remitted the case for new consideration, having found that the lower court had incorrectly applied the law.\n8.  On 14 November 2000 the Inter-Regional Court allowed in part the applicant’s claims.\n9.  On 14 December 2000 the same court, following the applicant’s request, quashed the judgment of 14 November 2000 in view of the newly discovered circumstances.\n10.  On 31 May 2001 the court allowed in part the applicant’s claims. He appealed in cassation. On 21 November 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 31 May 2001 and remitted the case for new consideration to the Inter-Regional Court.\n11.  On 20 December 2001 the Supreme Court sent the applicant’s case for examination to the Obolonskyy District Court of Kyiv.\n12.  On 17 May 2002 the latter court allowed the applicant’s claims in part. The applicant appealed against that judgment.\n13.  On 19 August 2002 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 17 May 2002 for the first-instance court’s failure to examine all the circumstances of the case and remitted the case for new consideration.\n14.  On 28 February 2003 the Obolonskyy District Court of Kyiv suspended the proceedings in view of the applicant’s health problems preventing him from participating in the hearings.\n15.  On 7 May 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal, on the appeal lodged by the applicant’s representative, quashed the ruling of 28 February 2003 and sent the case to the first-instance court for further examination.\n16.  On 4 August 2003 the Obolonskyy District Court of Kyiv allowed the applicant’s claims. It ordered his reinstatement at his previous post and awarded him 34,472.11 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in salary arrears, salary‑related payments and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n17.  On 25 November 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 4 August 2003 because of the failure of the first-instance to examine all the circumstances of the case and the parties’ submissions and remitted the case for re-consideration.\n18.  On 21 June 2004 the Obolonskyy District Court of Kyiv dismissed the applicant’s claims for reinstatement as lodged out of time, allowed in part his claims for recovery of salary arrears and salary-related payments awarding him UAH 732.08[2], and rejected the remainder of his claims. The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n19.  On 1 October 2004 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 21 June 2004. On 28 October 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation.\n20.  On 18 December 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation and upheld the decisions of 21 June and 1 October 2004.\n21.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant supplemented his claims, in particular by lodging a claim for reinstatement, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and indexation of the payments claimed on 12 April and 13 December 2000, 25 January 2001 and 23 March 2002. On 22 April 1999 and 28 February 2002 he unsuccessfully requested withdrawal of the judge from his case. The applicant failed to appear befo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5995", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in St Petersburg.\n6.  On several occasions (in 1988, 1992, 1994 and 1999) the applicant was convicted in Uzbekistan of disorderly conduct and attempted escape. In the applicant’s submission, in 1988, 1992, 1994, 1998, 1999, 2003 and 2004, while in the hands of Uzbek officials, he was subjected to ill‑treatment.\n7.  On 7 June 2004, in Uzbekistan, the applicant inflicted numerous cuts on himself and was placed in a hospital. He was discharged from the hospital on 16 June 2004.\n8.  In February 2008 the applicant arrived in Russia to look for work. He was registered as a migrant in St Petersburg.\n9.  On 28 March 2008 the Kumkurgan District Court of Uzbekistan ordered the applicant’s placement in custody under suspicion of having committed aggravated theft of cattle.\n10.  On 10 April 2008 an Uzbek investigator placed the applicant’s name on a wanted list.\n11.  On 27 April 2009 the applicant was arrested by Russian police at his place of residence in St Petersburg.\n12.  On 25 May 2009 the Uzbek Prosecutor General’s Office requested the applicant’s extradition. On 4 June 2009 the request was received by the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office.\n13.  On 28 September 2009 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office decided to extradite the applicant to Uzbekistan.\n14.  On 12 October 2009 the applicant’s counsel lodged an appeal against the extradition order, arguing the following: proceedings concerning the applicant’s request for temporary asylum were still pending (see paragraphs 18‑21 below); the applicant’s extradition would entail a breach of Article 3 of the Convention because the Court had already found violations in the cases of Ismoilov and Others v. Russia and Muminov v. Russia involving extradition to Uzbekistan; according to independent international observers ill-treatment was widespread in the Uzbek prison system and fair trial guarantees were not respected. No reference was made to the applicant’s alleged previous experience while in detention in Uzbekistan.\n15.  On 10 November 2009 the St Petersburg City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the extradition order. It reasoned, in particular, that the applicant’s references to possible ill-treatment in Uzbekistan had been unsubstantiated and that the applicant had not argued that he might be persecuted on racial, religious, social or political grounds.\n16.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 10 November 2009, arguing that his submission that he would face ill-treatment in Uzbekistan had not been examined by the court. Again no reference was made to the applicant’s alleged previous experience while in detention in Uzbekistan.\n17.  On 24 December 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the decision of 10 November 2009. It reasoned as follows: the applicant had absconded from the Uzbek authorities; the decision to arrest the applicant had been taken by a competent Uzbek court; the applicant was not a Russian national; the Uzbek Prosecutor General’s Office had guaranteed that the applicant would not be extradited to a third State or punished for another crime, and that he would be free to leave Uzbekistan when he had served his sentence; there were no reasons to reject the extradition request; the applicant’s allegations that torture of detainees was a widespread practice in Uzbekistan had not been substantiated; the applicant had not proved that he might be persecuted on the grounds of race, religion, membership of a social", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5996", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are a son and his mother. They were born in 1987 and 1962 respectively and live in Volgograd.\n7.  On 29 October 2002 the first applicant, a minor at that time, was arrested on suspicion of several counts of robbery committed in conspiracy with others. Until 6 November 2002 he was held at the Krasnoarmeyskiy District police station. On 6 November 2002 he was transferred to remand centre no. 4 in Volgograd.\n8.  During the night of 29 to 30 October 2002 the first applicant was held in cell no. 1 together with adults. The cell was overcrowded. Inmates had to take turns to sleep.\n9.  On 30 October 2002 he was transferred to cell no. 4. The cell measured about 8 sq. m and accommodated ten inmates. The cell had no windows. It was equipped with a dim lamp which was never switched off.\n10.  Inmates slept on a bench about 20 cm wide and 2 m long or on the concrete floor. They were not provided with bedding. They had to remain standing during the day as the bench was not big enough for all of them to sit on.\n11.  Inmates were not allowed to exercise outdoors. Two or three times a day they were escorted to the toilets.\n12.  Inmates were not provided with any food or drinking water. They ate food supplied by relatives and drank tap water from the toilets.\n13.  According to the Government, the Krasnoarmeyskiy District police station did not have a temporary detention facility. All detained persons were held in five cells for temporarily arrested persons (комнаты для временно доставленных). The cells were not equipped with beds. Bedding and food were not provided. Drinking water was provided upon request. Outdoor exercise was not organised as the police station had no exercise yard. The police station had toilet facilities which inmates could use upon request. It was not possible to establish in which cells the first applicant had been held or the number of inmates in those cells, as the registers for that period had been destroyed on the expiry of the statutory storage period.\n14.  It can be seen from an undated report issued by the Ministry of the Interior, submitted by the Government, that the cells for temporary arrested persons at the Krasnoarmeyskiy District police station had no windows. Each cell had forced ventilation and artificial lighting and was equipped with benches. The cells had no beds or lavatory bowls. Inmates were allowed to use communal toilet facilities upon request. The same information is contained in the report of 26 April 2007 prepared by the Volgograd Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior.\n15.  Further, it follows from an affidavit by an acting head of the Krasnoarmeyskiy District police station that the police station's registers for 2002 had been lost. It was therefore impossible to establish the cell in which the first applicant had been held.\n16.  The Government also submitted black and white photographs of cells nos. 1 and 4. The photographs show small windowless rooms with bare concrete walls, narrow benches along one of the walls and an electric lamp above the door. No other furniture or equipment is visible.\n17.  On 30 October 2002 the first applicant was questioned by the investigator and admitted his guilt. The second applicant was present during the questioning. Ms S., who had been appointed by the investigator to act as the first applicant's counsel, was also present.\n18.  On 31 October 2002 the Krasnoarmeyskiy District Court of Volgograd remanded the first applicant in custody. T", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5997", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1971 and 1997, respectively, and live in Kherson.\n5.  On 8 November 2000 S., the first applicant’s former husband, lodged a claim with the Komsomolskyy District Court of Kherson (“the Komsomolskyy Court”) against the first applicant, challenging her right to use a flat.\n6.  On 13 November 2000 the Komsomolskyy Court, hearing the case in the absence of the first applicant, allowed the claims of S. and found that the applicant had lost the right to use the disputed flat. The judgment became final.\n7.  On 30 November 2000 the first applicant lodged with the Komsomolskyy Court a claim against S. and the Kherson Town Council challenging the right of S. to use the disputed flat. It was subsequently joined to the proceedings instituted against the applicant by S.\n8.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor lodged with the Presidium of the Kherson Regional Court a protest seeking the annulment of the judgment of 13 November 2000, stating that the case had been heard in the absence of the first applicant who had not been notified of the date and time of the hearing.\n9.  On 26 April 2001 the Presidium of the Kherson Regional Court allowed the protest, quashed the judgment of 13 November 2000 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n10.  At the hearings on 22 March 2001, 28 February 2002 and 1 April 2004 the first applicant, acting also on behalf of the second applicant, her minor son, lodged additional claims against S. and a number of private persons for compensation for damage based on the same circumstances. She also sought the annulment of the contracts by which the disputed flat had been transferred to those persons.\n11.  On 16 October 2001 the Komsomolskyy Court allowed the applicants’ claims in full. It found that S. had lost the right to use the disputed flat and acknowledged the applicants’ right to use it. It obliged the Kherson Town Council to conclude a residential lease agreement with the applicants.\n12.  On 5 February 2003 the Kherson Court of Appeal, on an appeal by S. which he had had to resubmit on several occasions because of his failure to comply with procedural requirements, quashed the judgment of 16 October 2001 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration.\n13.  On 20 July 2004 the Komsomolskyy Court rejected the applicants’ claims. It found that the applicants had voluntarily left the disputed flat in 1997 and subsequently resided elsewhere. The flat was privatised by the first applicant’s former husband. The applicants therefore lost their right to use the disputed flat.\n14.  On 12 August 2004 the applicants appealed against the judgment of 20 July 2004.\n15.  On 8 December 2004 the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of 20 July 2004.\n16.  On 11 February 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal in cassation and a request for extension of the relevant time-limit. On 1 March 2005 the Komsomolskyy Court granted the applicants the extension requested.\n17.  On 12 May 2007 the Supreme Court transferred the case for examination to the Kirovohrad Regional Court of Appeal.\n18.  On 2 October 2007 the Kirovohrad Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, quashed the ruling of 8 December 2004 and remitted the case for re-consideration by the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal, having found that the latter had failed to notify the applicants about the date and time of its hearings.\n19.  Following a new consideration on appeal and an examination i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-5998", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Stadthagen.\n5.  On 7 June 1999, following the introduction of preliminary investigations against the applicant on account of money laundering (Geldwäsche), the Stadthagen District Court ordered the seizure of 40,000 German marks.\n6.  On 18 December 2001 the Hannover Public Prosecutor introduced a formal accusation against the applicant and three others, including her former partner. The applicant was accused of having committed in 1997 and 1998 by one and the same act (Tateinheit) money laundering and accessory after the fact (Begünstigung).\n7.  Thereafter the applicant’s legal counsel, who had been jointly accused, resisted his exclusion as defence counsel. On 12 August 2002, following decisions of the Hanover Regional Court and the Celle Court of Appeal (this court had already rendered a similar judgment in a parallel case in 2001), the Federal Court of Justice rejected his appeal. A request to the Federal Constitutional Court for interim protection was also to no avail. On 4 October 2002 the files were returned to the Hanover Regional Court.\n8.  On 11 November 2002 the applicant’s new legal counsel requested access to the files, which was granted.\n9.  On 2 December 2002 the Hannover Regional Court decided, on the basis of the accusation, to open the trial against the applicant and three co‑accused.\n10.  By a letter dated 6 December 2002 the applicant’s lawyer requested a subsequent hearing pursuant to Article 33(a) of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (see “Relevant domestic law” below).\n11.  By a letter dated 10 December 2002 the applicant’s counsel opposed both accusations. As regards the opening of the trial on account of money laundering, he submitted that at the time of the offences in question the applicant’s acts were not yet punishable.\n12.  By further letters dated 6 February 2003, 10 and 24 April 2003, 2 July 2003 and 21 July 2003 he again opposed the accusation on legal grounds (no fair hearing, no legal ground for the accusation) and found that, on account of this, the main proceedings had not yet been validly opened and that therefore no hearing could be scheduled.\n13.  On 24 July 2003 the Hannover Regional Court separated the proceedings against three of the then six co-accused, including those of the applicant. On the same day the court informed the applicant’s legal counsel that the decision to open the trial could not be challenged. It also informed him that, even though he had been heard sufficiently in the meantime, it would decide on his numerous respective motions.\n14.  On 20 August 2003 the Celle Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against the Regional Court’s inactivity regarding her motion under Article 33(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n15.  Thereafter a new dispute arose on account of the fact that the applicant’s first legal counsel also wanted to defend her former partner. The files again had to be transferred to the Celle Court of Appeal and the Federal Court of Justice. On 5 March 2004, after that court’s decision of 17 December 2003, the files were returned to the Hannover Regional Court\n16.  On 4 February 2004 the applicant’s (new) legal counsel again referred to his motion of 6 December 2002 and requested the court to further the proceedings.\n17.  On 10 September 2007 the Hannover Regional Court again joined the proceedings. On 13 September 2007 it scheduled five hearings to take place between 18 October 2007 and 10 January 2008. On", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6000", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1950 and 1953 respectively and live in Podgorica.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 19 May 1995 the Public Construction Fund based in Podgorica (“the PCFP”) requested the expropriation of a plot of land belonging to the applicants in order to build a road.\n8.  On 14 September 1995 the applicants requested that their house and the remainder of their land also be expropriated.\n9.  By the end of 1995 the planned road was built, passing through the plot in question.\n10.  On 11 October 1996 the Real Estate Office in Podgorica (“the REOP”) expropriated only the plot specified by the PCFP, without considering the applicants’ request.\n11.  On 29 October 1996 the applicants lodged an appeal, but by 11 December 1996 this appeal had been rejected.\n12.  On 5 February 1998 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) quashed the above decisions.\n13.  By 3 March 2004, following eight remittals, the requests were still pending before the REOP.\n14.  Between 3 March 2004 and 28 March 2005 three hearings were adjourned, as either the municipality’s representative or the court’s expert witnesses had failed to appear.\n15.  On 18 February 2005 the applicants sought an “inspection” (inspekcijski nadzor) of the proceedings at issue. By 16 March 2005 the Ministry of Justice had “established irregularities” in the proceedings and ordered that they be rectified (otklanjanje utvrđenih nepravilnosti).\n16.  On 28 March 2005 the REOP accepted both expropriation requests and on 1 September 2005 this decision was confirmed on appeal.\n17.  On 6 June 2006 the Administrative Court (Upravni sud) quashed the latter decision.\n18.  On 3 October 2006 the Ministry of Finance (“the MOF”) quashed the REOP’s decision of 28 March 2005.\n19.  Since the REOP had failed to render a decision thereafter, on 11 June 2007 and 14 August 2007 respectively the applicants lodged complaints with the MOF.\n20.  On 30 August 2007 the applicants also initiated a dispute (upravni spor) before the Administrative Court.\n21.  On 7 September 2007 the MOF accepted the applicants’ appeal and ordered the REOP to decide on the matter within thirty days.\n22.  On 24 October 2007 the Administrative Court stayed the administrative dispute.\n23.  On 3 November 2007 the REOP accepted both expropriation requests, but on 28 May 2008 the MOF quashed this decision on appeal.\n24.  On 16 December 2008 the applicants re-instituted their dispute before the Administrative Court.\n25.  As of 19 May 2010 the proceedings were still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6001", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Mr Šekerović was born in 1932 and lives in Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ms Pašalić was born in 1926 and lives in Belgrade, Serbia.\n6.  Mr Šekerović was granted an old-age pension in 1984 and Ms Pašalić in 1981.\n7.  In 1992 they moved from what is today the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Federation”) to what is today the Republika Srpska (each of the Federation and the Republika Srpska being an “Entity”). While they were internally displaced, they received their pensions from the Republika Srpska Pension Fund (“the RS Fund”).\n8.  Having returned to the Federation in 2000 and 2001 respectively, the applicants unsuccessfully sought to have their pension entitlements transferred from the RS Fund to the Federation Pension Fund (“the FBH Fund”). Therefore, in 2002 they lodged applications with the Human Rights Chamber, a domestic human-rights body set up by Annex 6 to the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n9.  On 10 January 2003 the Human Rights Chamber delivered a landmark decision concerning three applicants, including one of the applicants in the present case (Ms Pašalić) and the applicant in Karanović (cited above), who had been granted pensions in what is today the Federation before the war, who had then moved to what is today the Republika Srpska during the war, and who, for that reason only, continued to receive RS Fund pensions despite their return to the Federation after the war (pursuant to the Pension Agreement, see paragraph 16 below). They were thus treated differently from those who had stayed in what is today the Federation during the war. The Human Rights Chamber considered that difference in treatment to be discriminatory and an obstacle to the return of displaced persons to their pre-war homes (RS Fund pensions were normally lower than FBH Fund pensions, and the cost of living was normally higher in the Federation). Furthermore, it held that the situation complained of had racist connotations (given the nature of the war, the population that had moved from what is today the Federation to what is today the Republika Srpska during the war had primarily been Serbs, and those who had stayed were mostly Bosniacs and Croats). The Human Rights Chamber ordered the Federation: (a) to take all necessary legislative and administrative actions by 10 July 2003 to ensure that the applicants were no longer discriminated against, particularly in comparison to those pensioners who had remained in what is today the Federation during the war; and (b) to compensate the applicants for the difference between their RS Fund pensions and the amount they would have received from the FBH Fund from the date of their application to the Human Rights Chamber until the date of the Federation’s compliance with the order under (a) above.\n10.  Having assessed that her pension from the FBH Fund would have been lower than the nominal amount of her pension from the RS Fund, on 22 July 2003 the FBH Fund informed Ms Pašalić that she would not be paid any compensation. The FBH Fund disregarded the fact that, at that time, pensioners in the Republika Srpska, as opposed to those in the Federation, did not receive the nominal amount of their pensions, but only a fraction thereof, owing to fiscal difficulties in that Entity.\n11.  Mr Šekerović’s case was still pending when the Human Rights Chamber ceased to exist on 31 December 2003. The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”) took over ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6002", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1932, 1934 and 1942, respectively, and live in Albania.\n7.  In 1950 a plot of land measuring 1,600 sq. m., which belonged to the applicants' father, was confiscated without compensation by the State, which subsequently constructed a building on the plot of land.\n8.  On 1 July 1991 the Italian Embassy in Albania purchased two buildings in Tirana, one of which was situated on the applicants' inherited plot of land. The transaction was concluded through an inter-State agreement validated by means of note verbale exchanges between the two governments. The relevant property titles were not entered in the Tirana Property Register.\n9.  The Albanian Government subsequently used the income from the transaction to purchase the premises of the Albanian Embassy in Rome (see also Vrioni and Others v. Albania and Italy, nos. 35720/04 and 42832/06, §§ 7-16, 29 September 2009 for a similar description of facts).\n10.  Under the Property Restitution and Compensation Act, the applicants lodged an application with the Tirana Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties (Komisioni i Kthimit dhe Kompensimit të Pronave – “the Commission”) claiming title to their father's property.\n11.  On 28 July 1999 the Commission recognised the applicants' father's property title over 1,600 sq. m. and acknowledged the fact that the plot of land was occupied by the Italian Embassy in Albania. Since buildings had been constructed on the land, the Commission ruled that their owner, the Italian Government, had to pay rent for the land or repurchase the land by agreement.\n12.  The applicants were also issued with a certificate of registration of property by the Registry Office: registration no. 137, dated 9 August 1999.\n13.  The applicants claimed that they sent letters to the Italian Embassy to enter into a lease or to sell the plot of land according to the Commission's decision. However, the Italian Embassy explained that the property had been transferred to them through the exchange of notes verbales in 1991.\n14.  The applicants filed an action on 16 January 2003 to recover the property and to obtain damages from the Italian authorities.\n15.  On 22 June 2004 the Tirana District Court quashed the Commission's decision as regards the physical return of the property to the applicants, since that plot of land had been lawfully occupied by the Italian Embassy since 1991. Instead, it ruled that the applicants should be compensated for 1,600 sq. m in one of the ways provided for by law. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, by way of reasoned decisions, upheld the District Court's decision on 25 March 2005 and 6 June 2006, respectively. On 24 November 2006 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court.\n16.  On 8 December 2006 the Constitutional Court, sitting as a bench of three judges, declared the application inadmissible.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6003", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is an association from Piteşti (Argeş County) whose registration as a professional association was refused in a final decision delivered by the Argeş County Court on 4 October 2004. Its name in Romanian is Colegiul Consilierilor Juridici Argeş (The Argeş College of Legal Advisers). The application on its behalf was lodged by Mr Victor Horia Panduru, the dean of the association.\n6.  On 8 December 2003 Law no. 514/2003 regarding the organisation and functioning of the profession of legal adviser entered into force. It allowed legal advisers to form professional associations and set a ninety-day time-limit from its coming into force for those professional associations to be established and their statutes to be adopted. It entered into force three days after its publication in the Official Journal on 5 December 2003.\n7.  On 6 January 2004 the constituent assembly of the applicant association took place. On the same date its statute was adopted.\n8.  On 14 January 2004 the applicant requested the opinion (“aviz”) of the Ministry of Justice, which was required by Government Ordinance no. 26/2000 on the establishment of associations and foundations, in its version in force at the time.\nOn 21 January 2004 the Ministry of Justice issued a favourable opinion on the statute of the applicant, referring specifically to the purposes of the association described in Articles 6 and 7. Article 6 stipulated that the goal of the association was the unitary organisation and functioning of the profession of legal adviser in Argeş County and the promotion of the principle that this profession had a complementary place within the national judicial system. Article 7 of the statute provided further that the aim of the association was “the protection and promotion of the rights of its members, (...) concerning a consistent practice of the profession for the protection and promotion of the rights and freedoms of legal entities, authorities and public institutions, as well as of private persons in their relations with judicial institutions (...)”.\n9.  On 4 February 2004 the applicant lodged an application with Piteşti District Court seeking registration in the Register of Associations and Foundations kept by that court. By an interlocutory judgment delivered in private on 9 February 2004 the court granted the request and ordered the registration of the applicant in that register. The decision also provided that the Public Prosecutor's Office could lodge an appeal on points of law within five days from communication.\n10.  The Public Prosecutor and the Argeş Bar Association lodged an appeal on points of law against that decision. The National Association of the Romanian Bar joined the proceedings in the Argeş Bar Association's interest.\n11.  In the appeal, the prosecutor argued that the interlocutory judgment of 9 February 2004, in approving the purposes stipulated in the association's statute, had infringed Articles 4 and 10 of Law no. 514/2003 in so far as it had allowed the applicant to protect and promote the rights of private individuals, whereas only lawyers had the right to represent or assist private individuals in their relations with judicial institutions. The prosecutor also criticised Article 20 § 3 (j) of the statute, which allowed the council of the association to give its opinion (“aviz”) on the creation, within its geographical area, of companies providing freelance consultancy, assistance and legal representation, as well as to resol", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6004", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul.\n4.  The applicant, a navy captain at the material time, brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court against the Ministry of Defence (“the Ministry”) for the annulment of his appointment to a different post, which he deemed to be unlawful.\n5.  On 1 May 2007 a hearing was held on the case. Following the hearing, the Supreme Military Administrative Court adopted an interim decision, where it put further questions to the Ministry. The applicant was neither provided with the interim decision, nor was he informed of the Ministry's replies.\n6.  On 29 May 2007 the Supreme Military Administrative Court delivered its judgment and refused the applicant's request regarding the annulment of his appointment.\n7.  The applicant subsequently requested rectification of this judgment, along with the disqualification of the judges that delivered it, alleging their lack of independence and impartiality (hakimin reddi).\n8.  On 13 July 2007 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's request for the disqualification of the judges, as it found his allegations to be groundless.\n9.  On 9 October 2007 it rejected the applicant's rectification request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6005", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Tirana.\n7.  On 28 December 1994 the Vlora Commission on Property Restitution and Compensation (“the Commission”) recognised the applicant’s and other heirs’ inherited title to a number of plots of land, amongst which a plot of land measuring 10,500 sq. m. As the restitution of that plot of land was impossible since it was occupied, the Commission decided that the applicant and the other heirs would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law.\n8.  On 11 September 1997, relying on the right of first refusal, the applicant concluded a sale contract with the Vlora regional office of the National Privatisation Agency for the purchase of a pharmacy and its corresponding plot of 79.5 sq. m, which was allegedly part of the plot of land measuring 10,500 sq. m.\n9.  The chemist of the pharmacy lodged a complaint with the Vlora prosecutor office alleging that the sale contract was unlawful.\n10.  On 12 February 1998 the Vlora prosecutor initiated civil proceedings with the Vlora District Court (“the District Court”) seeking the nullity of the sale contract and the nullity of the Commission decision. The chemist intervened as a third party.\n11.  On 15 December 1999 the District Court declared null and void, in part, the Commission’s decision in so far as it had restored to the applicant the plot of 79.5 sq. m which corresponded to the site of the pharmacy. Relying on an expert’s report, it found that the plot of 79.5 sq. m had been expropriated in 1920, as a result of which the Property Act was inapplicable ratione temporis. Thus, the applicant could not claim a property right over that plot of land pursuant to the Property Act in so far as it had not been expropriated by the communist regime. Furthermore, the court decided to annul the contract for the purchase of the pharmacy since any such contract was based on the premise that only the owner of the site had the right of first refusal over the buildings constructed on it. However, the operative part of the judgment stated that the applicant would be compensated only in respect of 79 sq. m, the remainder of the property rights over 10,500 sq. m having been declared null and void.\n12.  On 21 March 2000 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision. It found that the prosecutor had locus standi to lodge a civil action in accordance with the Prosecutor’s Office Organisation and Operation Act. It also held that the civil action was not time-barred as it had been lodged pursuant to the Property Act. It further dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the assessment of evidence and the credibility of the expert’s report.\n13.  On 20 March 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal since it did not contain any lawful ground of appeal in accordance with Article 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n14.  On 21 May 2001 the applicant filed a supervisory review request (rekurs në interes të ligjit) with the Supreme Court Joint Benches.\n15.  On 28 January 2003 the Supreme Court Joint Benches dismissed the applicant’s supervisory review request in the light of impending review proceedings that she had instituted (see “The review proceedings” below).\n16.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed a constitutional appeal.\n17.  On 4 November 2005 the Constitutional Court, sitting in plenary session, dismissed the applicant’s appeal finding that there had been no breach of the right to fair hearing. It found that the prosecutor’s civil", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6007", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) of the Soviet Union in 1971 and acquired citizenship of Uzbekistan following the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).\n7.  In October 2002 his brother bought a house with a plot of land in the village of Lesnoy in the Oryol Region of Russia. In 2003 the applicant, his half-brother and their mother came from Uzbekistan to live there.\n8.  On 18 July 2003 the applicant married a Russian national and they had a daughter in January 2004.\n9.  In the meantime, in August 2003 the applicant applied for a residence permit. He was required to undergo a medical examination during which he tested positive for HIV. On account of that circumstance, his application for a residence permit was refused. The refusal was upheld at final instance by the Oryol Regional Court on 13 October 2004.\n10.  In April 2009 the applicant filed a new application for a temporary residence permit. Following his application, on 6 May 2009 the Federal Migration Service determined that he had been unlawfully resident in Russia (an offence under Article 18.8 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences) and imposed a fine of 2,500 Russian roubles.\n11.  By a decision of 26 June 2009, the Federal Migration Service of the Oryol Region rejected his application for a residence permit by reference to section 7(1)(13) of the Foreign Nationals Act, which restricted the issue of residence permits to foreign nationals who could not show their HIV‑negative status. The decision indicated that the applicant was to leave Russia within three days or be subject to deportation. The applicant challenged the refusal in court.\n12.  On 13 August 2009 the Severniy District Court of the Oryol Region rejected his complaint, finding as follows:\n“Taking into account that Mr V.V. Kiyutin is HIV-positive, the court considers that his application for temporary residence in the Russian Federation was lawfully rejected.”\n13.  The applicant lodged an appeal, relying on the Constitutional Court’s decision of 12 May 2006 (see paragraph 24 below) and the relevant United Nations documents on Aids prevention. On 16 September 2009 the Oryol Regional Court rejected his appeal in a summary fashion.\n14.  On 20 October 2009 the applicant underwent a medical examination at the Oryol Regional Centre for Aids Prevention. He was diagnosed with the progressive phase of HIV, and hepatitis B and C, and was prescribed “highly active antiretroviral therapy” (HAART) for life-saving indications.\n15.  On 25 November 2009 the Oryol Regional Court refused to institute supervisory-review proceedings and upheld the previous judgments as lawful and justified, finding:\n“In his application for supervisory review, Mr Kiyutin argued that the courts did not take into account his family situation and state of health when deciding on his application for a residence permit, which was at variance with the Constitutional Court’s decision of 12 May 2006. This argument is not a ground for quashing the judicial decisions.\nThe applicable laws governing the entry and residence of foreign nationals in Russia do not require the law-enforcement authorities or the courts to determine the state of health of HIV-infected foreign nationals or the clinical stage of their disease for the purpose of deciding whether a residence permit may be issued.\nWhen deciding on the issue of temporary residence for an HIV-positive individual, the courts may, but are not obliged, to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6008", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the city of Poltava.\n6.  In November 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Poltava Kyivsky District Court against his former employer – the Poltava Regional Fire Safety Department – claiming payment arrears of a monthly subsistence allowance for the years 1999 and 2000.\n7.  On 27 September 2002 the court found in part for the applicant and awarded him 767.04 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH).\n8.  On 11 October 2002 the same court rectified its judgment of 27 September 2002 and increased the amount awarded to UAH 797.04.\n9.  On 15 April 2003 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decisions of 27 September and 11 October 2002 and rejected the applicant's claims. The appellate court based its findings on the fact that the Budget Act 2000 had not foreseen expenditure for the payments under the applicable Presidential Decree, and therefore held that the applicant had no entitlement to such payments during the impugned period under the Budgetary System Act.\n10.  On 15 September 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of 15 April 2003.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6009", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Tver.\n5.  On 4 November 2002 the applicant brought proceedings against a private housing construction company in the Zavolzhskiy District Court of Tver (“the District Court”), seeking conclusion of a co-investment agreement and registration of his property title to a flat.\n6.  The court scheduled the first hearing for 4 January 2003.\n7.  On 18 March 2003 the respondent filed its objections to the claim.\n8.  The hearing of 2 April 2003 did not take place following the respondent’s failure to appear.\n9.  On 8 July 2003 the applicant informed the court that he would be out of town until September 2003.\n10.  It appears that the next hearing was scheduled by the court for 13 October 2004. The applicant did not appear at this hearing, following which it was adjourned. According to the applicant, he had not been notified of the hearing. The parties did not supply any evidence to support their accounts of the event.\n11.  The hearing of 27 December 2004 did not take place as the judge was ill.\n12.  On 29 April 2005 the case was handed over to a different judge.\n13.  On 26 May 2005 the court adjourned the hearing in view of the insufficiency of evidence. According to the applicant, at the same hearing he learned that the respondent had filed objections to his claim on 18 March 2003.\n14.  On 30 May 2005 the applicant requested a certified copy of the respondent’s objections.\n15.  On 4 July 2005 the respondent supplemented its observations on the claim. The applicant received a copy of the supplementary observations on 20 October 2005.\n16.  On 9 August 2005 the applicant replied to the objections of 18 March 2003.\n17.  The hearing of 12 August 2005 did not take place as the judge was on vacation.\n18.  The hearing of 11 October 2005 had to be postponed following the respondent’s failure to appear.\n19.  On 2 and 21 December 2005 the applicant specified and supplemented his claim. The hearing of 21 December 2005 could not proceed as the respondent’s representative produced an expired power of attorney.\n20.  On 27 January and 21 March 2006 the applicant effectively requested that the hearings be adjourned due to his failure to obtain certain evidence from a municipal agency.\n21.  On 3 May 2006 the court adjourned examination of the case till September 2006 having required the applicant to supply the documents concerning registration of his property title to the disputed flat.\n22.  The hearing of 3 September 2006 was adjourned to enable the court to make an inquiry for some additional evidence on behalf of the applicant.\n23.  The hearings of 13 and 14 September 2006 took place as scheduled.\n24.  On 18 September 2006 the court sent an inquiry seeking to obtain the materials of the applicant’s another civil action.\n25.  The hearings of 19 and 21 September 2006 had to be adjourned as the sought materials had not arrived to the court.\n26.  The hearing of 16 October 2006 did not take place as the applicant was ill.\n27.  On 23 November 2006 the District Court disallowed the claims. At the time only the operative part of the judgment was read out.\n28.  On 1 December 2006 the applicant filed an appeal.\n29.  On 4 and 8 December and 9 January 2007 the applicant requested a copy of the reasoned judgment.\n30.  At the appeal hearing of 23 January 2007 the applicant filed a supplement to his appeal challenging the reasoning of the first-instance judgment in a detailed manner, following which the court returned the case ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6010", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Krasnoyarsk.\n6.  On 4 July 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion. However, on 6 July 2003 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk dismissed the prosecutor's request to place the applicant in detention and released the applicant under an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. It held, in particular, as follows:\n“... [the prosecuting authorities] did not submit sufficient evidence justifying the [applicant's] remand in custody. He has never been subject to criminal prosecution, he has a job and a permanent place of residence; he played a passive role in the offences of which he was suspected and he intends to continue his studies.\nIn such circumstances, the applicant's attendance during investigation and trial can be ensured by a less strict preventive measure.”\n7.  In December 2003 the case was referred to the Tsentralnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk for trial.\n8.  On 7 October 2004 unidentified persons set fire to three cars which were considered as evidence in the criminal case against the applicant and had been left in the charge of the victims S. and U. The victims told the trial court that they suspected the applicant and two other defendants of having set fire to the cars to put pressure on them. They thought that their lives were in danger.\n9.  On 12 October 2004 the District Court remanded the applicant and his co-defendants Zh. and T. in custody. The court did not set the time-limit for their pre-trial detention. In particular, it stated as follows:\n“... [the victims'] statement were joined to the case file, whereby they stated that... on 7 October 2004 ... three cars admitted as evidence in the criminal case and transferred to the care of the victims had been set on fire. The victims interpreted that circumstance as an attempt to put psychological pressure on them by the defendants. They expressed concern for their lives.\nTo date it is not known who burnt the cars. Nevertheless, the court does not have any evidence exculpating Zh., T. or [the applicant].\nHaving regard to the above circumstances, and in compliance with Article 255 of the [Russian Code of Criminal Procedure] the court\nHEREBY DECIDES\n...\nTo remand Zh. ..., T. ... and [the applicant] in custody.”\n10.  On 16 November 2004 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 12 October 2004 on appeal.\n11.  On 15 December 2004 the police investigator suspended the investigation in respect of vehicle arson on the grounds that the persons responsible for burning them had not been indentified.\n12.  On 14 February 2005 the District Court convicted the applicant along with his co-defendants on several counts of extortion and acquitted them on one count. The applicant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment.\n13.  On 24 May 2005 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 14 February 2005 and remitted the case to the trial court for examination by a different panel. The defendants' detention was extended until 24 August 2005. In particular, the court indicated as follows:\n“The court considers that the preventive measure imposed on Zh., [the applicant] and T., notably [pre-trial detention], should remain unchanged. The court does not discern any grounds for its changing or lifting.”\n14.  On 15 June 2005 the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor, at his request, to be joined to the cases against two other presumed accomplices, V. and P. As regards the defendants' detentio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6011", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1956. At the time the application was lodged he lived in Elgoibar (Gipuzkoa).\n7.  At the time of the events, the applicant was spokesperson for Sozialista Abertzaleak, a left-wing Basque separatist parliamentary group in the Parliament of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country.\n8.  On 21 February 2003, following an order issued by central investigating judge no. 6 of the Audiencia Nacional, the premises of the daily newspaper Euskaldunon Egunkaria were searched and then closed, on account of the newspaper’s alleged links with the terrorist organisation ETA. Ten persons were arrested, including the newspaper’s senior managers (members of the board and the editor-in-chief). After spending five days in secret detention the persons concerned complained that they had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody.\n9.  On 26 February 2003 the President of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country received the King of Spain at the opening of an electricity power station in the province of Biscay.\n10.  At a press conference held the same day in San Sebastián, the applicant, as spokesperson for the Sozialista Abertzaleak parliamentary group, outlined his group’s political response to the situation concerning the newspaper Euskaldunon Egunkaria. Replying to a journalist he said, with reference to the King’s visit to the Basque Country, that “it [was] pathetic”, adding that it was “a genuine political disgrace” for the President of the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country to be inaugurating the project with Juan Carlos of Bourbon and that “their picture [was] worth a thousand words”. He went on to say that inaugurating a project with the King of the Spaniards, who was the Supreme Head of the Civil Guard (Guardia Civil) and the Commander-in-Chief of the Spanish armed forces, was absolutely pitiful. Speaking about the police operation against the newspaper Euskaldunon Egunkaria, he added that the King was in charge of those who had tortured the persons detained in connection with the operation. He spoke in the following terms:\n“How is it possible for them to have their picture taken today in Bilbao with the King of Spain, when the King is the Commander-in-Chief of the Spanish army, in other words the person who is in charge of the torturers, who defends torture and imposes his monarchical regime on our people through torture and violence?”\n11.  On 7 April 2003 the public prosecutor lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant for “serious insult against the King” within the meaning of Article 490 § 3 of the Criminal Code read in conjunction with Article 208, on account of his remarks made on 26 February 2003.\n12.  In the proceedings before the Basque Country High Court of Justice, which had jurisdiction to try the applicant because of his status as a member of parliament, the applicant argued that his remarks had constituted political criticism directed against the Head of the government of the Basque Country. He added that to say that the King of Spain was the Supreme Head of the Civil Guard did not imply any intention to undermine dignity or honour; it was merely a statement of the political reality in the Spanish State, where the King exercised supreme command over the armed forces. The applicant further argued that there was no insult or attempt to dishonour in saying that the Civil Guard had tortured the persons detained in connection with the closure of the newspaper Euskaldunon Egunkari", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6012", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Fier, Albania.\n7.  On 20 May 1947 the authorities confiscated the applicant's father's one-storey villa and the appurtenant plot of land measuring 360 sq. m which was situated in the city of Fier.\n8.  On 6 June 1953 the authorities transferred the confiscated villa and the plot of land to S.\n9.  Pursuant to the 1993 Property Act, on an unspecified date the applicant and his nine siblings lodged an application with the Fier Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties (“the Commission”) seeking the restitution of their father's property. On 27 October 1993 the Commission dismissed their request.\n10.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Lushnjë District Court (“the District Court”) claiming that the Commission's decision was unlawful.\n11.  On 22 February 2000 the District Court recognised the applicant's and his siblings' inherited property rights over the villa and the plot of land. However, the District Court found that, in so far as the plot of land was occupied and in so far as the one-storey villa had been lawfully transferred to S, they were not recoverable by the applicant and his siblings. It awarded them compensation in the amount of 204,902 Albanian leks (“ALL”).\n12.  The applicant and his siblings appealed arguing that the District Court had wrongly assessed the evidence.\n13.  On 30 June 2000 the Vlora Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) awarded the applicant and his siblings compensation in-kind for the value of the plot of land as opposed to monetary compensation. The applicant and his siblings appealed.\n14.  On 18 June 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that it did not contain any of the grounds of appeal envisaged by Article 472 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicant and his siblings lodged a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court.\n15.  On 10 June 2002 the Constitutional Court, sitting as a bench of three judges, declared the appeal inadmissible.\n16.  To date, the Court of Appeal decision has not been enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6013", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1958. The second applicant was born in 1978. Both of them live in Vilnius. The first applicant is the second applicant's mother.\n6.  According to the second applicant, at about 5 p.m. on 3 August 2004 a police officer, in plain clothes, arrived at the applicants' apartment block to conduct a search for stolen goods in a flat which was situated next door to that of the applicants. The police officer was accompanied by a technical expert who worked for the company which owned the goods in question. The applicants' neighbour refused to let the police officer in, alleging that he was not the owner of the flat and that the officer was not wearing a uniform. At the same time, the second applicant, her uncle, O.B., and her brother, V.I., came out on to the staircase for a smoke. According to the second applicant, she and her brother told the police officer that he had no right to enter the flat by force. The policeman went for reinforcements, but before leaving said “get ready to go [with the police]”.\n7.   The further circumstances of the conflict on the staircase are in dispute between the parties.\n8.  According to the second applicant, two more uniformed policemen arrived later at the scene of the incident. One of them suddenly grabbed V.I., loaded his gun and pointed it at V.I. The second applicant screamed for help and the policeman pointed the gun at her. The other policemen told the first officer to put away the gun and both policemen started hitting V.I. The officers called for more reinforcements, and more policemen arrived; they hit V.I. and O.B. with rubber truncheons and punched and kicked them. At that time the second applicant's father, A.I., returned from work and asked the police to explain what was happening. Instead of replying, the police started hitting him on the head, shoulders and hands with a rubber truncheon. The second applicant's daughter, who was one year and seven months old, attempted to come out of the flat to see what was happening in the corridor; a policeman tried to push and close the flat's reinforced door. The second applicant placed her foot between the door and the wall to prevent her daughter from being hurt; consequently, the second applicant's foot was injured. O.B., V.I. and A.I. were arrested. The second applicant telephoned the first applicant.\n9.  According to the first applicant, she received a telephone call from her daughter and went straight to the scene of the incident. In the courtyard of the apartment block she saw three police cars and several policemen. O.B., V.I. and A.I. were in the police cars and there were a lot of people milling around. She asked the police officers what was going on. However, no explanation was given, and the officers started pushing people further away from the police cars. The first applicant tried to stop the police officers and lay down on the bonnet of a police car. The policemen started driving the car and the applicant felt pain in her whole body. An officer forcibly dragged her away from the car, tore off her blouse, kicked her bottom and threw her, wearing no blouse but only a bra, onto the grass. She came round as the police were leaving.\n10.  In their submissions of 3 December 2008 the Government stated that as reinforcement, two more police officers arrived at the staircase. V.I. again came out of his flat and used offensive language towards the officers. The second applicant and her friend S.Š. came out on to the stai", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6014", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Brestovitza.\n6.  In 1977 a plot of land measuring 1,870 square metres belonging to the applicant was expropriated for public needs in order to build an administrative and cultural centre and a road. The applicant received compensation of 3,314.52 old Bulgarian levs.\n7.  On 28 April 1992, after the entry into force of the 1992 Law (see paragraph 23 below), the applicant made a request to the mayor of the Rodopi Municipality in Plovdiv (“the mayor”) for the revocation of the expropriation because neither of the public works for the purposes of which it had been expropriated had commenced.\n8.  On 10 September 1992 the applicant paid back the compensation he had received in 1977 at the time of the expropriation.\n9.  In a decision of 14 September 1992 the mayor revoked the expropriation. Because of administrative omissions in that decision, on 30 August 1993 the mayor issued a new one to the same effect.\n10.  It appears that for a certain period of time the applicant was able to use and to benefit from the whole property or at least from part of it (see paragraphs 14 and 20 below).\n11.  On 7 November 1995, 11 April 1996 and 27 June 1996 the applicant requested the mayor to modify the land register in order to include the returned land. A procedure to that effect commenced in November 1995.\n12.  As by 11 April 1996 the mayor had not yet ordered the modification of the land register, the applicant lodged an appeal against his tacit refusal to do so.\n13.  On 4 October 1996 the mayor approved the modification and on 29 October the applicant's son in his capacity as owner of a neighbouring plot was officially informed about it.\n14.  According to the applicant on 23 June 1998 an administrative sanction was imposed on him for having used the land after the expropriation. He appealed against the sanction to the domestic courts. It appears that the appeal was granted and the sanction was quashed on an unspecified date not later than March 2002.\n15.  On an unspecified date the applicant found out that in the land register as modified in 1996 the area of the returned land had been reduced to 910 square metres and a note had been added indicating that the remaining 960 square metres were part of a road the construction of which had already started.\n16.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the applicant asked the court to declare the order of 4 October 1996 null and void as it did not comply with the restitution orders.\n17.  In a judgment of 2 March 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court declared the mayor's order of 4 October 1996 null and void as not being in compliance with the orders of 14 September 1992 and 30 August 1993 and thus being in violation of paragraph 1(2) of the additional provisions of the 1992 Law (see paragraph 23 below). This judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on 18 April 2001.\n18.  Subsequently, on 19 November 2001, the mayor approved the modification of the land register to include the whole area of the land.\n19.  In 2001 the applicant initiated an action for damages under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (“the SMRDA”) against the Plovdiv Rodopi Municipality. Relying on the Constitution and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 he alleged that due to the problems with the inclusion of the whole surface of the property in the land register, he had been unable “to enter into possession, use and dispose of the returned land in the period between September 199", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6015", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 20 February 1999 the applicant was arrested by officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Police Headquarters on suspicion of membership of the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), an illegal organisation; he was arrested in a restaurant along with a woman, G.B. According to the arrest report signed by four police officers, the applicant and G.B. attempted to escape, following which the officers were obliged to use force in order to effect their arrest. Thereupon, the applicant and G.B. were found to possess false identity cards.\n5.  On the same day the applicant was medically examined by a doctor who noted that he was suffering from pain and restricted movement in his shoulders.\n6.  The applicant was subsequently placed in the Istanbul Police Headquarters. He was allegedly ill-treated there. In particular, he claimed to have been subjected to hanging, to have had his testicles squeezed and to have been forced to lie in ice covered by a wet blanket.\n7.  On 25 February 1999, at 3.10 p.m., the applicant was again examined by a doctor, who noted the following:\n“There is a bruise of 2 cm. on the right ...”[1]\n8.  On 27 February 1999, at 12 p.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor from the Istanbul branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute, who observed the following on the applicant's body:\n“An ecchymosis of yellow-green colour of 4 x 3 cm under the left eye; a haematoma of 3 x 2 cm on the exterior of the right eyebrow; a scabbed wound of 1 cm on the vertex; scabbed grazes on the exterior of the left wrist; an ecchymosis of yellow colour of 10 x 10 cm and a hyperaemia of 4 x 3 cm in the right armpit; sensitivity in the right testicle...”\n9.  On the same day the applicant was taken before the public prosecutor and a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. On both occasions the applicant maintained that he had been subjected to torture while in police custody. He submitted that he had been subjected to hanging, that his testicles had been squeezed and that he had been forced to lie in ice covered by a wet blanket.\n10.  On the same day the judge at the State Security Court ordered the applicant's pre-trial detention. The applicant was subsequently placed in Ümraniye prison.\n11.  On 6 April 1999 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Fatih Public Prosecutor's Office against the police officers who had allegedly inflicted the ill-treatment on him. He stated that he had been beaten, hung by the arms, immersed in cold water and forced to lie in ice. Furthermore, his testicles had been squeezed. Stating that he would recognise the police officers who had been responsible for his ill-treatment, the applicant requested that an investigation be initiated into his allegations.\n12.  On 31 December 2002 the Fatih Public Prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute anyone in relation to the applicant's allegations. He noted in the decision that the applicant had refused to go to the public prosecutor's office from prison to make statements and that the police officers had denied the veracity of the allegations against them.\n13.  On an unspecified date the decision of 31 December 2002 was quashed.\n14.  On 1 August 2003 the Fatih Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Fatih Criminal Court against four police officers from the anti-terrorist branch of the Istanbul Police Headquarters, charging them with ill-treatment under Article 245 of the former Criminal Code.\n15.  On 2 April 2004 the Fati", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6016", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965. He lives in Sagopshi, in the Malgobek district of Ingushetia.\n6.  The applicant is the brother of Suleyman Tsechoyev, born in 1956.\n7.  At the material time the applicant studied law in Yekaterinburg, Russia. The applicant was not an eyewitness to his brother's arrest and the following account is based on the witness statements collected by him later.\n8.  On the night of 23 October 1998 the applicant's brother Suleyman Tsechoyev was arrested in the family house situated at 40, Shosseynaya Street, in the settlement of Sagopshi in the Malgobek district of Ingushetia. The arrest was apparently carried out by the officers of the North Caucasus Regional Department for the Fight against Organised Crime (Северокавказское Региональное Управление по Борьбе с Организованной Преступностью – “the RUBOP”). The applicant submitted that at the time of the arrest the officers did not introduce themselves and did not present any documents or justification for their action. Nor did they inform the family where they were taking Mr Tsechoyev.\n9.  On 28 October 1998 the applicant, alerted by his mother, arrived at Sagopshi. His relatives told him that there had been no news of Suleyman Tsechoyev's whereabouts.\n10.  According to the documents submitted by the Government, on 3 November 1998 Suleyman Tsechoyev had been charged with aiding and abetting the kidnapping of Magomed K. on 5 September 1998, together with two other men and unidentified persons from Chechnya. The kidnapped man had been taken to Chechnya in two VAZ cars.\n11.  On 6 November 1998 the applicant, together with his sister, met with Mr Magomed Ye., the deputy prosecutor of Malgobek. The latter informed them that their brother had been arrested on his orders by officers of the RUBOP and was being detained in the town of Nazran, Ingushetia. Mr Magomed Ye. refused to tell the applicant and his sister where exactly their brother was detained and what charges had been brought against him.\n12.  On 20 November 1998 the applicant found out that his brother had been detained at the temporary detention centre (“the IVS”) of the Malgobek district police department (ROVD).\n13.  The applicant hired a lawyer, who unsuccessfully tried to reach Suleyman Tsechoyev at the detention centre.\n14.  In the beginning of December 1998 the applicant had a meeting with Mr Magomed Ye. The latter allegedly told him that he would release his brother in exchange for 6,000 US dollars (USD) and threatened to have Suleyman Tsechoyev transferred to the headquarters of the RUBOP in Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkaria, where he would be subjected to severe ill‑treatment, if the applicant refused to pay the money. The applicant refused to pay.\n15.  On 24 February 1999 the applicant saw his brother at the IVS. Suleyman Tsechoyev told the applicant that he had been pressured to confess to the crime and that he had been threatened with transfer to the RUBOP headquarters in Nalchik.\n16.  On 25 February 1999 the applicant returned to the detention centre to see his brother. He was told by the employees that the night before, at around 10 p.m., Suleyman Tsechoyev had been taken to the prosecutor's office and that after that, at about midnight, he had been taken away in a vehicle in the direction of Nalchik.\n17.  The Government confirmed that on 23 October 1998 Suleyman Tsechoyev had been detained by the law-enforcement bodies in accordance with the provisions of the criminal procedural legislation in force a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6017", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Raduzhnyy, Moscow Region.\n6.  In the morning of 31 July 2001 Mr E., armed with a machine gun and explosives, took passengers in a bus hostage in the Stavropol Region. The applicant was amongst the hostages. In the evening of that day police forces stormed the bus, killed Mr E. and liberated the hostages. However, during the storming Mr E. detonated a hand grenade and the applicant was injured. He was admitted to a local hospital. The next day, after having received medical assistance, he was discharged. During the criminal investigation into the hostage taking the applicant was granted the status of a victim of the crime.\n7.  On 5 May 2003 the applicant sued the Government of the Stavropol Region seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the terrorist attack. The applicant relied on Section 17 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act, according to which regional authorities should compensate damage caused by a terrorist attack committed on their territory.\n8.  On 15 December 2003 the Kolomenskiy District Court of the Moscow Region granted the applicant's claims in part. The Government of the Stavropol Region appealed. They did not deny that the applicant had suffered as a result of a terrorist attack. However, in their view the law did not provide for strict liability on the part of the regional authorities for non-pecuniary damage caused by a third party, which in the applicant's case had resulted from the actions of Mr E.\n9.  On 16 February 2004 the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination.\n10.  At a preliminary hearing on 28 April 2004 the Kolomenskiy District Court of the Moscow Region decided to transfer the case to the Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol pursuant to the rules of jurisdiction.\n11.  On 9 August 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol rejected the applicant's claim in his absence. The applicant appealed.\n12.  In November 2004 the applicant learned that on 27 October 2004 the Stavropol Regional Court had held a hearing in his absence and rejected his appeal. The applicant received a copy of the decision of 27 October 2004 in December 2004.\n13.  The applicant made several unsuccessful attempts to institute supervisory review proceedings in his case. On 27 November 2006 the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court finally accepted the applicant's request for supervisory review.\n14.  On 18 December 2006 the Presidium of the Stavropol Regional Court quashed the judgment of 9 August 2004 and the decision of 27 October 2004 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination.\n15.  On 28 May 2007 the Leninskiy District Court of Stavropol held a hearing in the applicant's absence. Having examined the evidence presented by the parties the court rejected the applicant's claims. The relevant extracts from the District Court's judgment read as follows:\n“The applicant did not appear at the hearing. He was duly notified about the date and the place of the hearing. He asked the court to examine the case in his absence on the basis of the materials submitted [by him]. ...\nThe court has established that [the applicant] has never received any compensation from the regional authority or any other authority. This was confirmed by [the applicant]. He does not raise any claim with respect to pecuniary damage. He seeks to recover non-pecuniary damage. ...\nFrom the law cited above it", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6018", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 15 September 1989 the applicant brought an action against a private individual before the Pest Central District Court, seeking to recover the possession of some specific movable property.\n6.  After several hearings, a judgment was delivered on 19 November 1992, which was quashed by the Budapest Regional Court on 14 September 1993.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings several forensic expert opinions were obtained. Two hearings had to be rescheduled as the applicant and his representative failed to appear, despite having been duly summoned. On 3 June 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment. On 11 October 2004 the Budapest Regional Court remitted the case.\n8.  The District Court delivered a partial judgment on 12 April 2006, which was decided on appeal by the Regional Court on 22 March 2007.\n9.  In respect of the respondent's counterclaim, the first-instance court delivered a judgment on 7 July 2006 which was upheld by the Regional Court on 22 March 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6019", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1935 and 1939 respectively and live in Szolnok.\n5.  In 1993 administrative proceedings started concerning the grant of a building permit to the applicants' neighbours. In pursuit of the applicants' administrative appeals and their ensuing request for judicial review dated 14 October 1993, on 14 November 1994 the Kaposvár District Court quashed the existing decisions and remitted the case to the second-instance administrative authority. It held that the building permit issued had approved some irregular plans. On 13 July 1995 the Somogy County Regional Court upheld this judgment.\n6.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 10 October 1995 the Somogy County Administrative Office remitted the case to the Balatonszárszó Notary. It appears that, by this time, the neighbours had already constructed the building in question. In March 1996 the Notary approved the continued existence of the building. On 13 June 1996 the County Administrative Office dismissed the applicants' appeal in which they had requested the removal of part of the building, constructed irregularly in their view.\n7.  On 2 April 1997 the Kaposvár District Court quashed these decisions and again remitted the case to the administrative instances. It held that the permit allowing the continued existence of the building had been adopted in defiance of the relevant administrative law because the interests of the other neighbours (including the applicants) had not been taken into account. On 28 August 1997 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. However, this decision was quashed in review proceedings by the Supreme Court on 20 March 2000. The Supreme Court remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n8.  Due to a change in the law, in the resumed judicial review proceedings the Regional Court heard the case as a first-instance court. On 27 February 2001 it ordered the administrative instances to resume the proceedings, because their previous decisions had approved some irregular plans. On 9 December 2002 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, upheld this decision.\n9.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 17 December 2003 the Balatonföldvár Notary granted the neighbours a permit for the continued existence of the building in question. On 24 May 2004 the Fejér County Administrative Office dismissed the applicants' appeal in which they had alleged that the building had been constructed in defiance of the regulations and that its continued existence infringed their rights as neighbours.\n10.  In judicial review proceedings, on 30 November 2004 the Regional Court dismissed the applicants' action. The court pointed out that, under section 48 of Act no. 78 of 1997 on Construction, the authority in charge of construction may take measures in respect of an irregularly constructed building within one year from its taking cognisance of the irregularity but in any event not later than ten years from the certification of the building for use. In the court's view, the one-year time-limit had been triggered by the Regional Court's decision of 28 August 1997; therefore – the one-year time-limit having been elapsed – the neighbours could no longer be denied a permit for the continued existence of the building in question.\n11.  This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court's appeal bench on 23 November 2005. It stressed that – contrary to what was apparently argued by the applicants – the running of the one-year time-limit had not been ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6020", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Kharkiv, Ukraine.\n5.  In June 1995 a certain G. was murdered and criminal proceedings were instituted.\n6.  On 9 July 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed the above-mentioned crime; on 11 July 1995 he was charged with the above-mentioned crime and remanded in custody. Alongside the applicant, three other persons (a certain B., K. and D., who were also suspected of the crime and who had been present when G. had been murdered) were also charged. At the later stage of the proceedings the charges against the applicant were disjoined from the rest of the charges and the outcome of the proceedings against B., K. and D. is not clear.\n7.  According to the applicant, he was ill-treated during the initial period of the pre-trial investigation by the authorities with the aim of obtaining a confession. It is not clear whether the applicant complained of ill-treatment at the domestic level. Furthermore, on 10 July 1995 he was not provided with a legal-aid lawyer, notwithstanding his request. Apparently, the applicant was legally represented from 18 July 1995.\n8.  During the pre-trial investigation B., K. and D. stated that the applicant had murdered G. Later, B. and K. changed their statements in the applicant’s favour, asserting that it was D. who had murdered G.\n9.  By November 1995 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Kharkiv.\n10.  On 6 February 1996 the court remitted the case for additional investigation. On 9 April 1996 this decision was upheld by the Kharkiv Regional Court.\n11.  By December 1996 the pre-trial investigation had been completed and the case was transferred back to the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Kharkiv.\n12.  On 4 August 1998 the court remitted the case for additional investigation. On 3 November 1998 this decision was upheld by the Kharkiv Regional Court. On 19 February 1999 the presidium of the latter court rejected the prosecutor’s protest against that remittal.\n13.  On 24 March 1999 the applicant was released subject to an undertaking not to abscond. It was noted in the release decision that the applicant had been detained for more than three years, the statutory time‑limit for the applicant’s detention on remand had already expired and there was no need for further detention given the applicant’s permanent place of residence and other circumstances of the case.\n14.  On 5 July 1999 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Leninskyy District Court of Kharkiv.\n15.  On 12 October 2000 the applicant was again remanded in custody. The aforesaid court held that the applicant had threatened his legal-aid lawyer and, as the latter refused to defend him, it was the applicant’s conduct which was thwarting the progress of the case. It also referred to the severity of the charges against the applicant and of the anticipated sentence.\n16.  On several occasions the hearings were postponed because of the accused, victim’s, witnesses’ and defence lawyers’ failure to appear before the trial court.\n17.  On 25 December 2001, although the applicant pleaded not guilty, the Leninskyy District Court of Kharkiv convicted him of murder and other crimes and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment. In doing so the court relied on statements by the accused, witness testimonies, forensic reports and other pieces of evidence. In particular, it established that on 20 Ju", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6021", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  On 11 April 2002 soon after 8 a.m. the applicant was arrested at his home by officers from the Kharkiv City Police Department (Харківське міське управління Головного Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ в Харківській області)[1]. He was then taken to the forest, where the police officers beat him severely, forcing him to confess that he was storing weapons and ammunition. Later the police took him to the Kharkiv City[2] Police Station, where they beat him again and put a gas mask on him to induce suffocation. The applicant then confessed to storing and trading weapons.\n6.  The applicant was taken home after 2 p.m. and the police conducted a search and seizure of weapons and ammunition at his house and in his garage.\n7.  The same day he was taken to the Moskovskiy District Police Station, where he was asked to sign several documents including a paper that said he had no complaints about the police officers.\n8.  On 12 April 2002 the applicant was released around 6 p.m.\n9.  On 11 April 2002, officers of the Criminal Investigation Unit of the Kharkiv City[3] Police Department summoned the applicant for questioning. The applicant arrived at the Kharkiv City[4] Police Station and was questioned. On the same date, the police officers carried out a seizure of ammunition at the applicant's place of residence and in his garage. After the seizure, the police officers took the applicant to the Kharkiv Moskovskiy District Police Station. On the same date, the applicant was released. In the evening of the same day, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of storing drugs and taken to the district police station. A report of an administrative offence was drafted in respect of the applicant.\n10.  On 12 April 2002, the officers of the Moskovskiy District Police Department (Московський районний відділ Харківського міського управління Головного Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ в Харківській області)[5] took the applicant outside the city and, there, the applicant indicated the place where the rest of the ammunition had been stored. On the same date, the applicant was released at 5 p.m. Criminal proceedings against the applicant were instituted on charges of ammunition storage.\n11.  Following his release, the applicant went home and felt unwell. An ambulance brought him to hospital the same day at about 8 p.m. The applicant told the doctors that he had been ill-treated by the police. The diagnosis on admission contained the following: closed head trauma, chest injuries, rib fractures, bruises on the back of the head, concussion, kidney trauma and post-traumatic pneumonia. According to the applicant, the doctors did not report all of his injuries, but only the most serious ones.\n12.  On 18 April 2002 the applicant lodged a formal complaint about his ill-treatment by three officers of the Kharkiv City[6] Police Department – Messrs O.V.S., D.M.S. and D.N.S. – with the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor's Office (“the KRPO”).\n13.  On 23 April 2002 the applicant's complaint was readdressed to the Moskovskiy District Prosecutor's Office (“the MDPO”).\n14.  On 4 May 2002 the applicant was discharged from the hospital. Afterwards, he requested an examination by a forensic expert and received a letter of referral from the prosecutor handling the matter.\n15.  On 7 May 2002, following a query by the applicant, the MDPO informed him that they had been reviewing the lawfulness of his detention at the Mosk", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6025", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company, a public broadcasting corporation serving the French Community in Belgium, produced a long-running monthly news and investigation programme called Au nom de la loi (“In the name of the law”), focusing in particular on legal matters in the broad sense of the term. The programme was described as follows on the RTBF website:\n“Right from the start, Au nom de la loi sought to operate on the basis of two main principles: standing up for the underdog, so that ordinary citizens were always given a say, and looking for the hidden agenda, so that its journalists’ investigative skills came to the fore.”\n6.  In 1999 Dr D.B., a specialist neurosurgeon, ran a neurosurgery practice together with a colleague, including an on-call service at Jolimont Hospital. A number of Belgian newspapers, both regional (La Nouvelle Gazette in December 2000 and May 2001) and national (Le Soir in December 2000 and La Dernière Heure in four articles between 7 and 28 December 2000), reported on complaints by various patients who had been operated on by Dr D.B. Only two of the articles mentioned his name. According to information provided by the parties, none of the articles prompted any reaction on the doctor’s part.\n7.  The applicant company subsequently decided to devote a segment of its programme Au nom de la loi to medical risks and, more generally, communication and information problems encountered by patients and the rights available to them, using as an example the complaints by Dr D.B.’s patients as reported in the press.\n8.  While preparing the programme, journalists from the applicant company contacted a number of patients, medical specialists, representatives of the Council of the Medical Association (Ordre des médecins) and Dr D.B. himself. The doctor refused to give a televised interview but agreed to answer questions from the applicant company’s journalists during a series of meetings lasting several hours, in the presence of his lawyers. The programme was scheduled to be broadcast on 24 October 2001.\n9.  By a summons served on 3 October 2001, Dr D.B. instituted proceedings against the applicant company before the President of the Brussels Court of First Instance, as the judge responsible for hearing urgent applications. He sought an injunction preventing the broadcast of the programme in question, with a penalty of five million Belgian francs each time it was shown on a television channel. In the alternative, should the injunction not be granted immediately, he sought an order requiring a videotape of the programme to be made available for advance viewing.\n10.  On 24 October 2001 the President of the Court of First Instance granted an interim injunction preventing the programme in question from being broadcast, with a penalty of two million Belgian francs each time it was shown on a Belgian television channel; the injunction was to remain in place until a decision was given on the merits, provided that the claimant himself instituted proceedings on the merits within one month of the injunction, failing which it would cease to have effect.\n11.  The injunction stated that there was no cause, on the face of it, to doubt the good faith and professionalism of the applicant company’s journalists or the objective nature of their investigations, and that the claimant had a number of remedies by which to seek redress ex post facto for the damage sustained. It concluded that an application for prior restraint should not be granted unless i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6026", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1937 and 1939 and live in Darłowo. They are a married couple.\n6.  On 25 November 1970 the Board of the Sławno District National Council (Prezydium Powiatowej Rady Narodowej) informed the Board of the Darłowo Municipal National Council (Prezydium Gromadzkiej Rady Narodowej) that pursuant to the decision of the Minister of Municipal Economy (Minister Gospodarki Komunalnej) of 25 September 1970 a cemetery located in Rusko was to be closed. The closure was to be carried out on the basis of the 1959 Cemeteries Act.\n7.  On 12 September 1973 the Sławno District National Council issued a preliminary decision in which the applicants were informed of the conditions subject to which they could build a house on plot no. 59 located in Darłowo Municipality, Rusko settlement.\n8.  On 15 March 1974 the Head of Darłowo Municipality (Naczelnik Gminy) issued a decision in which he named Mr Potomski as the buyer of plot no. 59, owned by the State Land Fund (Państwowy Zasób Ziemi).\n9.  On 14 November 1974 the applicants bought from the State a plot of land with a surface area of 12 acres. The plot, no. 59, was classified as farming land. The applicants intended to build a house and a workshop on it.\n10.  On 4 May 1987 the Koszalin Regional Inspector of Historic Monuments (Wojewódzki Konserwator Zabytków) issued a decision adding the applicants’ property to the register of historic monuments (rejestr zabytków) on the grounds that a Jewish cemetery had been established on it at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It was one of the few remnants of the former Jewish culture in the region. The Inspector found that the layout of the cemetery was discernible and that certain parts of the cemetery were intact (the foundations of a house of prayer, a stone wall and some gravestones). The applicants were advised as to the scope of their obligations deriving from the 1962 Protection of the Cultural Heritage and Museums Act (ustawa o ochronie dóbr kultury i o muzeach). They were prohibited from developing their property unless they obtained a permit from the Regional Inspector of Historic Monuments. The applicants did not appeal against the decision.\n11.  On 30 May 1988 the applicants requested the Governor of Koszalin to offer them an alternative plot of land on which they could construct a house. On 15 June 1988 the Koszalin Regional Inspector of Historic Monuments requested the Mayor of Darłowo to grant the applicants’ request. On 5 July 1988 the Mayor of Darłowo informed the applicants that the exchange of plots requested by them would be possible only in the event of the Mayor receiving a subsidy from the Governor of Koszalin.\n12.  On 30 September 1988 Darłowo Municipality adopted a local development plan. The plan provided that the applicants could build a house on their property (zabudowa zagrodowa).\n13.  On 28 January 1991 the Mayor of Darłowo (Burmistrz) requested the Koszalin Governor’s Office to expropriate the applicants’ plot. On 12 March 1991 the Koszalin Governor’s Office transmitted that request to the Koszalin District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) as the competent authority in the matter.\n14.  On 4 May 1992 the Governor of Koszalin requested the Koszalin Regional Inspector of Historic Monuments to apply to the Head of the Koszalin District Office (Kierownik Urzędu Rejonowego) to institute expropriation proceedings pursuant to section 46(2)(2) of the 1985 Land Administration and Expropriation Act. The Governor considered t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6027", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Mr Vakha Murtazov, born in 1955;\n2) Ms Kumset Murtazova, born in 1958;\n3) Mr Alikhan Murtazov, born in 1990,\n4) Mr Dzhakhar Murtazov, born in 1995,\n5) Mr Aslan Murtazov, born in 1981, and\n6) Mr Adam Murtazov, born in 1980.\n6.  The applicants live in the village of Naurskaya, Naurskiy District, in the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The first applicant is a brother of Mr Ayub Murtazov, born in 1952. The second applicant is Ayub Murtazov’s wife; the couple are the parents of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants.\n8.  Prior to 2000 Ayub Murtazov was the head of the local administration of Naurskaya. In 2001 he sued his former employer for salary arrears.\n9.  At about 3 a.m. on 18 October 2001 fifteen or twenty armed men came to Ayub Murtazov’s house. Most of them were wearing masks. The masked men identified themselves as servicemen of the Federal Security Service (“FSB”). There were also two unmasked persons; the FSB servicemen explained that those were attesting witnesses. The FSB servicemen’s breath smelt of alcohol. Five or six of them forced Ayub Murtazov to the floor and started beating him. Meanwhile the others hid a package in the house, which later was “discovered” during a search. The package was full of a substance that looked like soap. The FSB servicemen said it was explosive material. They searched the house and the courtyard and left, taking Ayub Murtazov with them.\n10.  Later the same day the FSB servicemen transferred Ayub Murtazov to the police. He was kept in the temporary detention facility of the Naurskiy District department of the interior. The police opened a criminal investigation into the discovery of the explosive materials. At some point Ayub Murtazov was released, after signing an undertaking not to leave his place of residence. Later the criminal case against him was closed.\n11.  At about 3.30 a.m. on 19 November 2002 around twenty masked men wearing dirty camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns burst inside Ayub Murtazov’s house. They spoke Russian without an accent. The second applicant inferred that they were federal servicemen. She also observed that the men were either drunk or drugged.\n12.  The servicemen did not identify themselves. They forced the second applicant to the floor and went to Ayub Murtazov’s room. When he asked them to explain their actions, the servicemen started swearing in Russian. They searched the house while some of them took the second applicant and her two minor sons into a room, tied them up with adhesive tape and left them there.\n13.  The servicemen left the house, taking Ayub Murtazov with them. The second applicant did not hear the sound of any vehicles. She was later told by her neighbours that several armoured personnel carriers had been seen in the village that night.\n14.  The Government submitted that it would be premature to give any information pertaining to the kidnapping prior to completion of the investigation in case no. 67061. They further asserted that the applicants’ account of events did not in general contradict to the information collected in the course of the investigation.\n15.  Despite specific requests by the Court the Government did not disclose most of the materials from the investigation file in case no. 67061. Neither did they produce their account of the course of the investigation. They submitted copies of what they described as “main investigation file materials”, some of which are barely legible. The account of the even", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6028", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lived, before his arrest, in Nizhniy Novgorod. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Nizhniy Novgorod.\n8.  On 27 June 2003 police arrested the applicant on suspicion of several murders and other serious crimes. The applicant alleged that policemen had refused to get him a lawyer and had beaten him to make him sign an acknowledgment of guilt. The applicant remained in detention pending the investigation and trial.\n9.  On 2 March 2004 the regional prosecutor's office charged the applicant with planning several murders and the unlawful acquisition and possession of firearms.\n10.  The applicant alleged that during the pre-trial proceedings he had been transferred on several occasions from the Nizhniy Novgorod remand prison to different police stations in Nizhniy Novgorod and was kept there for several days under the pretext of investigative activities. On 29 March 2004 the regional prosecutor replied to the applicant's complaint in this connection that he had been transferred to police stations on the lawful orders of the investigator in charge of his case to take part in investigative activities. The prosecutor further stated that his reply could be appealed against to a higher prosecutor or to a court. It appears that the applicant did not lodge any appeal before those authorities.\n11.  By a final decision of 27 April 2004 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) dismissed the applicant's complaint against the prosecutor's refusal to initiate criminal proceedings against police officers who had allegedly beaten the applicant.\n12.  On 14 October 2004 the Regional Court convicted the applicant, along with seven co-defendants, as charged and sentenced him to nineteen years' imprisonment. The court held that the applicant's guilt in the impugned crimes had been proven by an extensive body of evidence examined during the trial, such as statements by the applicant's co-defendants and witnesses, expert examinations and other evidence. The court also observed that the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment by police to make him sign a confession had already been investigated by the prosecutor's office, which had refused to initiate criminal proceedings in this respect. The court also noted that the applicant's confessions could not be regarded as an acknowledgment of guilt since they had been made after he had been arrested on suspicion of the impugned crimes.\n13.  On 29 April 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the applicant's conviction on appeal.\n14.  During the criminal proceedings against him the applicant was detained in Nizhniy Novgorod remand prison IZ-52/1 (“remand prison no. 52/1”) and Moscow remand prison IZ-77/3 (“remand prison no. 77/3”). The parties agreed on the following timeline of the applicant's detention in those prisons:\n-  between 8 July 2003 and 12 January 2005 the applicant was detained in remand prison no. 52/1\n-  between 13 January and 5 December 2005 he was detained in remand prison no. 77/3\n-  between 6 December 2005 and 14 February 2006 the applicant was again detained in remand prison no. 52/1.\n15.  On 14 February 2006 the applicant was transferred to serve his prison sentence at a correctional colony in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region.\n16.  The applicant was detained in different cells. All of them were overcrowded. Most of the time (between November 2003 and 12 January 2005 and between 6 December 2005 and 14 February 2006) the applica", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6029", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Volgograd. He is a retiree.\n6.  On 13 May 2003 the Kirovskiy District Court of Volgograd (“the District Court”) allowed the applicant's claim against his former employer and regional health care authority. It ruled that the applicant's illnesses should be considered occupational diseases. That finding entitled the applicant to receive additional social security payments.\n7.  The judgment of 13 May 2003 was not appealed against and became final and enforceable ten days after its delivery.\n8.  The health care authority lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 13 May 2003 with the Volgograd Regional Court (“the Regional Court”).\n9.  On 3 September 2004 the Presidium of the Regional Court (“the Presidium”) examined the case by way of supervisory review and set aside the judgment of 13 May 2003.\n10.  The Presidium noted that the District Court had erred in finding for the applicant as recognition of a certain illness as occupational disease was within “the prerogative” of the competent health care authorities. The case was remitted back to the District Court.\n11.  Following determination de novo, the applicant's claim was dismissed in the final instance by the Regional Court on 17 March 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6030", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Kars.\n4.  On 2 March 1998 the applicant, a civil engineer at the Directorate of the Esenboğa Airport, was appointed to the Directorate of the Şanlıurfa Airport.\n5.  On 20 March 1998 the applicant brought a case before the Ankara Administrative Court against the General Directorate of National Airports (Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü) (“the General Directorate”) to challenge his transfer to the Şanlıurfa Airport. He claimed that his transfer had a purely punitive motive, aimed at penalising him for having uncovered certain irregular conduct at the General Directorate. He also requested the suspension of his transfer pending the outcome of the court’s final decision.\n6.  On 27 March 1998 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Ankara Public Prosecutor against his employers in respect of the aforementioned irregularities. On 30 November 1998 the public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute.\n7.  On 29 April 1998 the Ankara Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request for suspension of his transfer. On 22 May 1998 the applicant objected to that decision. On 3 June 1998 the Ankara District Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s objection.\n8.  On 15 July 1998 the applicant requested the Ankara Administrative Court to hold an oral hearing.\n9.  On 11 November 1998 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s case, without holding a hearing. It ruled that the applicant’s appointment to the Şanlıurfa Airport had been effected in view of the needs of the General Directorate and that the administration had thus acted within its legal discretion and in accordance with the relevant laws.\n10.  On 22 December 1998 the applicant appealed against the judgment of the administrative court and requested the suspension of the transfer. He also requested the Supreme Administrative Court to hold an oral hearing.\n11.  On 7 April 1999 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request for suspension.\n12.  On 21 May 1999 the applicant once again requested the suspension of the administrative act. His request was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court on 9 July 1999.\n13.  On 30 October 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court issued an interim decision requesting certain information and documents from the respondent administration, including the applicant’s classified appraisal records (gizli sicil raporları) and a description of his duties at the new place of assignment. It appears that the administration submitted the requested information and documents to the Supreme Administrative Court on 13 December 2002. However, neither the interim decision nor the responses of the administration were communicated to the applicant.\n14.  On 30 January 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Ankara Administrative Court’s judgment of 11 November 1998 by a majority decision, without holding a hearing. The dissenting judge opined that the replies provided by the General Directorate to the questions put to it in the interim decision indicated that the applicant’s transfer had been based on subjective grounds and not on any public need as alleged. Upon service of the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision, the applicant found out about the interim decision of 30 October 2002 and the administration’s submissions in reply, including his appraisal grades which had apparently fallen following the various actions he had brought against the administration.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6031", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are residents of various villages in the Republic of Dagestan.\n9.  At the material time the applicants were residents of the village of Kogi in the Shelkovskiy District of the Chechen Republic. The village of Kogi, also known as farm no. 2 of the “Shelkovskiy” State farm or Runnoye, is situated on the steppe close to the administrative border of the Republic of Dagestan. The village is nine kilometres away from the village of Kumli in Dagestan. Prior to the events described below Kogi was inhabited by people belonging to the Nogay ethnic group and consisted of thirty houses comprising twenty-six to thirty families. Its residents made their living from agriculture, mostly raising sheep and cows.\n10.  According to the applicants, Kogi was a peaceful village; no rebel fighters ever lived there. In 1999 it was regularly patrolled by federal servicemen from a checkpoint situated near Kumli. In the night of 11 to 12 September 1999 an armoured personnel carrier arrived from the checkpoint on the outskirts of Kogi and fired a “lightning bomb” (осветительная бомба) into the air. According to the third applicant, there was a flare hanging from a parachute for about five minutes which lit the village very brightly. The next day the seventeenth applicant found duralumin casing which was 1 metre long and 10 centimetres in diameter near the electricity transformer. It was black inside. A white parachute was hanging on the wires above the transformer.\n11.  In the late afternoon of 12 September 1999 most of the adult villagers were working in the field and most of the children were at school. The weather was bright and sunny.\n12.  At about 5.15 p.m. two military planes flying at a low altitude appeared from the direction of Kumli. The planes flew away but several minutes later reappeared. They were narrow at the front, had wide wings and resembled Russian military SU-25 planes.\n13.  The planes circled over Kogi for about five minutes and then one of them swooped down and opened fire with machine guns and bombed the western end of the village. The first bomb exploded in the courtyard of the first applicant’s house. His two sons – Elmurat, aged eight, and Eldar, aged two – were playing there at that moment. The children were instantly killed.\n14.  The first applicant, his wife – Ms Borambike Dormalayevna Esmukhambetova, born in 1969 – and the thirteenth applicant were inside the house when the bombing began. The first applicant and his wife rushed towards the boys, whilst the thirteenth applicant, who was wounded in her leg by shrapnel, ran to her house. In the courtyard the first applicant saw his sons lying near a bomb crater of approximately one metre in diameter. He grabbed the boys, clasped them to his chest and realised they were dead. At that moment the second bomb hit the first applicant’s house. The first applicant shouted to his wife not to approach him and the children and to lie down. Instead, Borambike ran screaming towards them. The first applicant noticed that she was wounded in the hip. The third bomb exploded near the Esmukhambetovs immediately after the second one. The first applicant’s wife was fatally wounded with shrapnel in the abdomen and died in his arms. In the first applicant’s submission, he is unable to recall the further sequence of events from that point until several hours later. According to eyewitness statements, the first applicant was in a state of deep shock, screaming that all his family members had", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6032", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Vojnić.\n6.  In 1980 the applicant became the holder of a specially protected tenancy (stanarsko pravo) of a flat in Vojnić. He lived in the flat with his family until 1 October 1991 when Vojnić was occupied. He then fled the occupying forces and went to live in Karlovac.\n7.  The applicant found a job in Karlovac and, as an internally displaced person, on 30 January 1992 he was awarded a flat there on a temporary basis. In July 1996 the competent authorities terminated his status as an internally displaced person. Following a civil action by Mr T.M., the applicant was forced to leave the flat in Karlovac on 21 January 1999.\n8.  The applicant claimed that – following the military operation “Storm” by which Croatia regained control of almost its entire territory in August 1995 – on 8 October 1995 he had visited Vojnić, where he had found the flat in respect of which he had the specially protected tenancy uninhabitable and in a very bad state of repair. This had been confirmed on 4 March 1996 by the findings of the Commission for the Assessment of War Damage. He further submitted that he had immediately commenced rebuilding work on the flat with a view to moving into it.\n9.  However, on 23 August 1996, while the applicant was working in Karlovac, the local authorities, accompanied by the police, entered into the flat, made a list of personal belongings, changed the locks and gave the keys of the flat to a certain Z.H., a local policeman. Five days later the Commission for Temporary Takeover and Use of Certain Property of the Municipality of Vojnić (Komisija za privremeno preuzimanje i korištenje određene imovine Općine Vojnić – “the Sequestration Commission”) issued a decision letting the flat to Z.H. and his family on a temporary basis.\n10.  On 20 December 1996 the applicant and his wife made a request for the purchase of the flat to the Municipality of Vojnić. In doing so they relied on the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act, which entitled holders of specially protected tenancies of flats in social or state ownership to purchase their flats under favourable conditions (see paragraph 29 below). They received no reply.\n11.  On 7 August 1998 the Ministry of Reconstruction and Development (Ministarstvo razvitka i obnove) adopted a decision letting the flat to Z.H. and his family for their use.\n12.  On 16 October 2000 the Municipality of Vojnić issued a decision allowing the applicant to live in the flat. The applicant has been living in the flat ever since.\n13.  Meanwhile, on 12 May 2000, the applicant and his wife brought a civil action against the State in the Vojnić Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vojniću) with a view to obtaining a judgment which would allow them to purchase the flat in accordance with the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act. On 9 January 2001 the court dismissed their action. It found that the applicant's flat was owned by the State and not the Municipality of Vojnić and that therefore the plaintiffs should have directed their request for its purchase to the State and not to the Municipality. Following an appeal by the applicant and his wife, on 26 September 2001 the Karlovac County Court (Županijski sud u Karlovcu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. It found, inter alia, that the fact that the plaintiffs had made their request for the purchase of the flat to the Municipality and not the State should not have been ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6033", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Irpin.\n5.  On 23 March 2005 the applicant sent to the State Tax Administration a letter in which she complained that the management of the Academy of the State Tax Service, which was under the authority of the State Tax Administration and at which her son had studied before being expelled in 2004, were engaging in unlawful and corrupt activities.\n6.  The relevant parts of the letter read as follows:\n“I address you concerning the real situation at the Academy ... [This letter] will concern the flagrantly unfair attitude towards students of the Law Faculty, headed by [S.], to students' parents, with the complete ... support ... of the President of the Academy [M.]...\nThe reason for [addressing you] is a television report, broadcasted on 22 March 2005, concerning the student protest organised by [M.] against [his] dismissal from the post of President of the Academy. I really hope that my letter can influence the course of events.\nMy son, Mr Yaroslav Siryk, [who] had successfully and independently entered the Law Faculty of [the Academy], was expelled from it ... I could not even imagine that the methods described below were applied in a State educational institution ...\n... My son missed the beginning of studies because of a severe infectious disease ... Subsequently, I was called [to the Law Faculty] and during a private conversation [S.] told me that [students] like my son could not study at her faculty under the normal conditions, and that if I did not want to have problems with [graduation] I had to agree to additional financial conditions, in particular, to pay her 200 [United States dollars] for every exam, and 50 [United States dollars] for every test ... After my unconditional refusal, my road of sorrows began ...\nTwo or three times a week I was called to the office of the Dean [of the Law Faculty] for numerous [discussions of problems], one of the first of which concerned the checking of [my son's] medical documents ... the [professors] shouted at me, called me a swindler and so on ...\nBecause he had been on sick leave ... and because of the enduring tense discussions with the Dean and the Deputy Dean ... my son did not have normal conditions in which to study... When I tried to enter the office of the Dean in order to discuss that matter, she ... simply ... pushed me out of the office ...\nAnd I wrote a detailed complaint to the President [of the Academy] ... (a copy is enclosed) ... [T]he President ordered that my son be allowed additional time to take the winter exams... [H]owever, afterwards arbitrariness on a larger scale began: professors were simply receiving from [S.] and [the Deputy Dean B.] ... categorical instructions not to allow my son to take exams... Those instructions were rigorously complied with, as the staff of the Academy was hired on the basis of personal loyalty towards the management or dependency on the management [of the Academy]: numerous relatives ... close friends ... former students [of the Academy] ... about whose knowledge, competence and work experience it is not possible to speak. It is difficult for them to find another job, therefore they are ready to fulfil any assignments, obey any wishes of the management ...\n... [S.] and [B.] became so impudent that together they conducted negotiations with me concerning extra-contractual payments [for my son's studies] at the office of [S.]. In a normal civilised country [people] would have already compared the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6034", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Przemyśl.\n6.  In 1998 the applicant was charged with assaulting a certain A.B. On an unknown date criminal proceedings against him were instituted.\n7.  In January 2004 the applicant left Poland for Ukraine. Before leaving, he informed the court that he could be contacted at a correspondence address in Przemyśl. He also telephoned the court several times to ask about progress on his case. He was informed that the proceedings had been stayed.\n8.  In March 2004 he started working in Lviv, Ukraine. In June 2004 his residence registration was extended until 20 May 2005 and at the same time the applicant was reprimanded by the administrative court for submitting his registration documents late.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 12 February 2004 Szczecin District Court in Poland remanded the applicant in custody for three months for failure to comply with a summons.\n10.  At around 11 a.m. on 20 January 2005 the applicant went to a police station in Lviv to report that his friend’s car had been stolen. The police checked his passport, verified his personal details and locked him up in a cell. When he asked for the reasons for his arrest he was told that he was an “international thief”. He was subsequently questioned by officers. The applicant submits that during the questioning the officers severely beat him and extinguished cigarettes and matches on his wrist and forearm. He further maintains that he was not given any food or drink for four days.\n11.  On 24 January 2005 a decision of the Ukrainian police of 21 January 2005 to expel him from the country was served on him. The decision stated that the applicant had arrived in Ukraine for private purposes in March 2004 and held a residence permit, valid until 20 May 2005. It further mentioned that on 20 January 2005 the Lviv police received a cable to the effect that the applicant was wanted by the Polish law-enforcement authorities on a charge of theft. On those grounds and in accordance with section 32 of Ukraine Law “on the Legal Status of Foreigners and Stateless Persons”, it was decided to expel the applicant from Ukraine with a three-year ban on re-entry.\n12.  The applicant was kept at the police station until the afternoon of 24 January 2005, when he was transported to the Polish border control post in Medyka, where he arrived at around 7 p.m. He was arrested there by the Polish police on the basis of the detention order of 12 February 2004 and a wanted notice issued by the Szczecin police station on 2 August 2004. He was then transferred to the Przemyśl Detention Centre in Poland.\n13.  At 8.20 p.m. on 24 January 2005 the applicant was examined by a doctor in an emergency centre for cigarette burns on his left hand and prescribed treatment.\n14.  On 31 January 2005 the applicant was examined by a prison doctor, who stated that the applicant had two 0.5 cm cigarette burns on his left hand, plus two similar marks on his left wrist and one on his forearm. He also had abrasions on his upper and lower lip and a broken front tooth.\n15.  On 9 March 2005 the applicant complained to the Przemyśl District Prosecutor that he had been ill-treated in police custody in Lviv on 20 January 2005. He submitted that he had been severely beaten by the Ukrainian police. He further claimed that they had stolen 5,000 euros (EUR), 200 United States dollars (USD) and 100 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) from him.\n16.  On 31 August 2005 the Przemyśl Regional Prosecutor’s Office sent the inves", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6035", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is detained in Tver remand centre no. 69/1.\n6.  In April 2003 he was taken into custody on suspicion of armed robbery. He was detained in Smolensk remand centre no. 67/1. It appears that the medical record indicated that the applicant had had a brain contusion earlier in the same year.\n7.  At 4 p.m. on 20 June 2003 two police officers from the Rudnyanskiy district police station (Rudnya, Smolensk Region) came to the remand centre to take the applicant and his co-defendant Mr P. to the temporary detention centre of the Rudnyanskiy police station, where they were to await the court hearing scheduled for 23 June 2003. According to the register of the temporary detention centre, the applicant had no visible injuries on 20 June 2003.\n8.  On arrival at the temporary detention centre officer Sh. told the applicant to go to a cell located across the corridor from the cell where Mr P. had been placed. Apparently, this was intended to prevent any communication between P. and the applicant.\n9.  The applicant refused to comply with Sh.'s order because from his previous stay at the detention centre he knew that that cell was only fit for short-term detention. There was no bed or mattress in the cell but only a wooden board.\n10.  Officer Sh. then brought in a very tall man in plain clothes. The officers addressed that man as “Dima”. The applicant unsuccessfully tried to explain to “Dima” why he did not want to be kept in the cell in question. Officer Sh. went out but immediately returned with a rubber truncheon and accompanied by three officers. He hit the applicant on his left leg with the truncheon and the applicant collapsed on the floor. Another officer began twisting the applicant's arms; another officer squeezed his scrotum; a third officer strangled him and pulled his head backwards. Sh. and “Dima” both punched him in the face. More blows then followed but the applicant closed his eyes and could not see who dealt them.\n11.  The beating lasted for a couple of minutes. The applicant cried out in pain. After they had stopped, another officer in uniform told him to go to the cell. The officer was blond and dumpy and had a golden finger-ring with a black stone. He reeked of alcohol. The applicant told him that he had acted lawlessly because he was drunk. The officer replied that his shift was over and he could allow himself to drink a bit after a hard working day. Then “Dima” intervened and told the officer not to make excuses to the applicant.\n12.  A few minutes later a short man entered. The applicant knew that the man worked in the investigations division of the police station. He asked the applicant to explain what had happened. The applicant told him about his refusal to go to a cell without a bed and about the beatings. The man spoke to Sh. and the applicant was put in another cell.\n13.  The Government relied on the findings made in the domestic proceedings (see below). In particular they referred to the statements made to their superiors by officers Sh., S., Pon. and Pod. in relation to the use of force against the applicant. Officers Sh. and S. reported that the applicant had grabbed at the officers' uniforms, used coarse language, shouted and threatened to self-inflict injuries; after his failure to comply with verbal orders physical force, a truncheon and handcuffing had been applied. Officers Pon. and Pod. made similar reports affirming that the applicant had shouted, used coarse language, threatene", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6036", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the town of Yelizovo, the Kamchatka Region. He is a military serviceman.\n6.  On 22 March and 20 May 2004 the Pacific Ocean Fleet Military Court (“the Fleet Court”), sitting in Vladivostok, in the final instance dismissed the applicant's claims against his commanding officers.\n7.  On 22 July 2004 the Fleet Court in the final instance allowed the applicant's other claim. It made the following order:\n“The commanding officer of military unit no. 27120 shall provide [the applicant] with data about the constitutive elements of his monetary allowance paid to him from 1 January 2003 until 13 March 2004, as well as about reasons and grounds for him being deprived of bonus in 2003”.\n8.  The Fleet Court's judgment of 22 July 2004 was final and immediately enforceable.\n9.  On 4 April 2005 the bailiffs of the Kamchatka Regional Department of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service (“the Regional Department”) commenced the enforcement proceedings. They requested the commanding officer to enforce the judgment of 22 July 2004 in the applicant's favour voluntarily within a five-days period.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 1 April 2005 the 35th Garrison Military Court (“the Garrison Court”), sitting in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, allowed another claim lodged by the applicant. It ordered the commanding officer of the military unit no. 51401 to provide the applicant with an annual leave starting from 29 May 2005. The judgment of 1 April 2005 was not appealed against and became final and enforceable on 15 April 2005.\n11.  On 10 June 2005 the bailiffs of the Regional Department commenced the enforcement proceedings. They requested the commanding officer to enforce the judgment of 1 April 2005 in the applicant's favour voluntarily within a five-days period. The judgment was enforced before October 2005.\n12.  On 4 June 2009 the commanding officer of the military unit no. 27120 wrote to the applicant providing him with the relevant information, as he had been ordered to do by the Fleet Court's judgment of 22 July 2004. The letter of 4 June 2009 indicated that it was sent in compliance with the judgment of 22 July 2004. It was received by the applicant on 8 June 2009.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6037", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Kurgan.\n8.  In 2002 the criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant. On 19 May 2003 he was acquitted by the Kurgan Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). That acquittal was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia and became final.\n9.  The applicant lodged a claim for compensation. On 22 October 2003 the Kurgan Town Court partly allowed that claim and awarded the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB), this sum was equal to approximately 140 euros (EUR) at the material time. The award was payable from the federal budget.\n10.  The judgment of 22 October 2003 was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 11 December 2003 and thus became final. Writ of execution was issued.\n11.  On 17 February 2004 the court bailiffs returned the writ of execution to the applicant who was advised to address himself directly to the Ministry of Finance in Moscow. He apparently did so.\n12.  On 17 February 2005 the Director of Legal Department at the Ministry of Finance wrote to the applicant assuring him that the final judgment of the Town Court of 22 October 2003 in his favour had been in the course of being enforced.\n13.  That judgment remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6038", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a Netherlands national who was born in 1968 and lives in Maastricht.\n6.  On 4 November 2003, the applicant went to the home of one Ms E. and demanded that she give him an obituary card of her sister who had recently died. On being met with a refusal, he forced his way into Ms E.'s home, causing her to fall, and hit her over the head several times. He then made his way over to the sideboard, where he had noticed a stack of documents; of these, he took several – a magazine and some giro form stubs – before leaving.\n7.  In the course of the subsequent criminal proceedings it emerged that the applicant was a pathological collector of devotional obituary cards for the recently deceased. Whenever possible – on the applicant's own admission, whenever he was not detained under civil or criminal law – the applicant would gatecrash funerals in the Maastricht area. He had met Ms E. at her sister's funeral, from which he had been turned away by the undertaker. At the time of his visit to Ms E.'s home, he had been under the mistaken impression that he had propitiated Ms E. by sending her a blessed candle beforehand.\n8.  The applicant was taken into police custody the same day on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence. He remained in pre-trial detention pending the criminal proceedings that were subsequently brought against him and the order for his pre-trial detention was duly prolonged.\n9.  Examinations of the applicant's mental state by two psychiatrists and a psychologist showed that the applicant was, at the time of the crime, suffering from a mental impairment. The report of the psychiatrists diagnosed it as “a paranoid form of schizophrenia in which autistiform characteristics are unusually prominent and ... an obsessive compulsive personality disorder”. Both the psychiatrists' report and that of the psychologist considered it very likely that the applicant would reoffend if given the chance. Both reports mentioned the applicant's lack of awareness of his condition, which made him difficult to treat. They concurred in recommending that the applicant undergo compulsory treatment in a closed setting. In addition, a psychologist attached to a mental hospital where the applicant had been held previously, under the Psychiatric Hospitals (Compulsory Admission) Act (Wet bijzondere opnemingen in psychiatrische ziekenhuizen; see paragraph 20 below), gave evidence in open court to the effect that the applicant had absconded before and would resist “all possible forms of interference in his personal life” if he could.\n10.  On 18 May 2004 the criminal law section of the Maastricht Regional Court (rechtbank), following adversarial proceedings, convicted the applicant of theft preceded by violence and sentenced him to seven months' imprisonment with deduction of the time spent in pre-trial detention. Having found that the applicant was able to understand the unlawful nature of his acts but that on account of the limited development of his mental faculties he could only be held responsible for this offence to a limited degree whereas there was considerable danger of his reoffending, it further imposed a TBS order with confinement in a custodial clinic (terbeschikkingstelling met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege; “TBS order”). Referring to Article 72 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering), it further ordered the termination of the applicant's pre-trial detention as from the moment on which the d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6040", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Balzan, Malta.\n7.  The applicant is the owner of a property, known as Palazzo Bonici, in Valetta. She partly owns some of the ground floor shops, and entirely owns the house, from the rest of the ground floor and the basement to the top floors.\n8.  The property had been damaged during the Second World War and the applicant's ancestors, from whom she inherited the property, had on 11 January 1945 applied to the War Damage Commission to obtain the necessary funding to have the property restored. At the time, the building consisted of a large eighteenth century town house including a few rooms on the ground floor which were rented out as shops. Between 1945 and 1950 the War Damage Commission had paid out a sum corresponding to EUR 1,307, for the premises excluding the shops in respect of which no amount had been paid as a consequence of undefined claims. According to the applicant the sums awarded covered expenses for required temporary works to secure the premises, as had originally been claimed, and not the entire works to repair the whole of the property. While the Government contended that, despite the payments, the building was left in a state of neglect, the domestic courts acknowledged that the applicant had attempted to reconstruct the damaged area (page 21 of the Constitutional Court judgment of 8 January 2007)\n9.  In 1958 the then Colonial Government issued an order taking control of the property under title of possession and use, that is, a forced temporary taking of property subject to the payment of annual compensation, known as a “recognition rent”, to the owners.\n10.  Despite this order, the applicant's ancestors refused to hand over the keys of the building. Thus, the property was left unused until 1972 when the building was forced open by the Government, by which time it had deteriorated considerably.\n11.  In 1972 the Government commenced works to repair the property with a view to using it as a cafeteria and offices in conjunction with the Manoel Theatre situated nearby. The Government evicted the tenants of the shops on the ground floor which had been leased on the basis of controlled rents, and a hall in the upper floors was converted into a performance hall for small audiences. Subsequently a theatre restaurant was housed in the basement of the building and another floor was added to house the foundation for Maltese patrimony “Fondazzjoni Patrimonju Malti”, a Government foundation promoting national heritage, which also serves as a commercial company dealing in publications.\n12.  On 5 August 1976 the Government issued a “notice to treat” by which the owner was informed that the compensation offered by way of recognition rent amounted to 210 Maltese Liras (MTL – approximately 490 euros (EUR)). The amount was based on the 1914 rental value (according to rent laws relating to renting of residences – not commercial premises – in force at the time) increased by 40 % to allow for inflation. By a judicial letter of 1976 the applicant's ancestors rejected the offer and in the same year the Commissioner of Lands instituted compensation proceedings before the Land Arbitration Board (“LAB”). These proceedings were suspended sine die on 10 October 1996 (see Annex A for a detailed chronological list of hearings in the proceedings). Pending these proceedings, the applicant inherited the property of which she gained possession by public deed on 26 March 1990. The applicant submitted tha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6041", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in the town of Oryol.\n7.  On 14 February 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter. He was allegedly severely beaten up after police officers took him to a police station.\n8.  On 31 October 1997 the Sovetskiy District Court of the Oryol Region found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. The judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 16 December 1997. Ten days later the applicant was sent to serve his sentence in correctional colony no. 2, Oryol Region.\n9.  Relying on a copy of the applicant’s medical record and certificates issued in December 2007 by the acting head of temporary detention facility no. IZ-57/1 in Oryol (“facility no. 1”), the Government argued that on 25  February 1997, on admission to facility no. 1, the applicant had undergone  a chest fluorography examination, which revealed no signs of tuberculosis. The Government further submitted that every six months the applicant had been examined by medical specialists and had been subjected to chest fluorography examinations for the purpose of tuberculosis screening. The examinations revealed no presence of the illness. As follows from the list of X-ray examinations enclosed with the applicant’s medical record, between March 1997 and 30 October 2001 the applicant received seven fluorography examinations. The authorities had fully complied with the schedule of one exam every six months at the beginning of the applicant’s detention. However, almost a year passed between the chest fluorography examinations in 2000 and 2001.\n10.  On 29 October 1998 a tuberculosis specialist at correctional colony no. 2 made the following entry in the applicant’s medical record:\n“[The applicant] is assigned to the 4th [group] of tuberculosis regular medical supervision as [he] has been in contact with inmate A. who suffers from tuberculosis...\n[The applicant is prescribed] izoniazid 0.6 [mg] once,... [multivitamins] [and] diet for two months.”\nThe applicant’s medical history (record no. 3607/415) drawn up in the tuberculosis hospital of facility no. 1 identified the applicant’s detention with inmate A. in October 1998 as the cause of his tuberculosis.\n11.  According to the applicant, in September 2000 he had been detained for several days in a punishment cell with an inmate, Mr Ye., who was suffering from an active form of tuberculosis. Mr Ye. had been constantly coughing up blood. The applicant’s requests for a transfer to another cell received no response from the colony administration. Soon after release from the punishment cell the applicant had fallen ill. However, his numerous complaints to the colony medical division had been to no avail. Relying on a certificate issued by the Oryol Regional police department, the applicant further argued that in March 2001 Mr Ye. had died from tuberculosis. The Government averred that the applicant had never been detained with the late Mr Ye. However, he had been detained with a person bearing the same last name as Mr Ye. The applicant’s cellmate at the time had not been suffering from an active form of tuberculosis and therefore had not presented a danger to other detainees.\n12.  On 30 October 2001 the applicant was once again subjected to a fluorography examination, which detected tuberculosis changes in the form of dense foci and local fibrosis in his left lung.\n13.  According to the Government, on 15 November 2001 the applicant was transferred", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6042", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and at the time of lodging her application was serving a prison sentence in Buca Prison.\n5.  On 19 February 2004 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Denizli Security Directorate, upon intelligence reports that she was a member of the illegal organisation PKK/KONGRA‑GEL (the Kurdistan Workers' Party). When she was arrested, the applicant was in possession of a fake identity card.\n6.  On the same day the applicant was examined by a doctor, who noted that there was no sign of ill-treatment on her body. The applicant was subsequently taken to the Denizli Security Directorate for interrogation.\n7.  According to a form dated 19 February 2004 which explained an arrested person's rights, the applicant was reminded of her right to remain silent and was informed that she could request the assistance of a lawyer. The applicant marked this form with her fingerprint and stated that she did not want to be represented by a lawyer. Subsequently, a police officer prepared a further report, in which it was stated that although the applicant had been reminded of her right to legal assistance she had expressed her wish to defend herself in person. The applicant marked this report with her fingerprint as well.\n8.  On 20 February 2004 the applicant was questioned by the police in the absence of a lawyer. Before the questioning commenced the applicant was once again reminded of her right to have legal assistance, but she refused. In her police statement the applicant gave a detailed account of her involvement in the illegal organisation.\n9.  On 20 and 21 February 2004 respectively, the applicant was examined by a medical doctor. The medical reports indicated that there was no sign of ill-treatment on her body.\n10.  On 21 February 2004 the applicant was taken before the public prosecutor. During her questioning, the applicant was represented by a lawyer, Mr A.O. from the Denizli Bar Association, and she availed herself of her right to remain silent. The prosecutor questioned the applicant about the fake identity card that had been found on her during her arrest and the applicant accepted that she had been using a fake identity paper. The lawyer left the public prosecutor's office without signing the applicant's statement, stating that although the applicant had expressed her wish to remain silent, the prosecutor had continued asking questions.\n11.  The same day, the applicant was questioned by the investigating judge, again in the absence of a lawyer. Before the judge, the applicant retracted her police statement, stating that it had been taken under duress. When asked about her involvement in the illegal organisation, the applicant accepted that when she was a teenager she had joined the PKK and moved to Iraq. She denied however having taken part in any terrorist activity. She stated that she had come back to Turkey to benefit from the Reintegration of Offenders into Society Act (Law no. 4959). After the questioning was over, the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody.\n12.  On 8 March 2004 the public prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation, an offence under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).\n13.  The proceedings commenced before the Izmir State Security Court and during the proceedings the applicant wa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6043", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Pyotr Vladimirovich Kirilenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1985 and lives in the village of Sreznevo in the Ryazan Region.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 7 May 2001 Neryungri Town Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (“the town court”) ordered the Russian Government and the Savings Bank to jointly pay 106,989.50 Russian roubles (RUB) to the applicant’s father.\n9.  On 18 June 2001 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (“the Supreme Court”) upheld the judgment on appeal.\n10.  On 30 August 2001 half of the amount, i.e. RUB 53,494.75, was credited to the account of Ms Yu., the representative of the applicant’s father.\n11.  On 16 May 2002 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic (“the Presidium”) quashed those judgments and remitted the case to the town court.\n12.  By a judgment of 26 June 2002, the town court ordered the Treasury to pay RUB 53,494.54 to the applicant’s father, which corresponded to the difference between the amount awarded on 7 May 2001 and the amount paid out on 30 August 2001.\n13.  On 21 August 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n14.  On 7 October 2002 the applicant’s father submitted a writ of enforcement to the Ministry of Finance.\n15.  On 9 October 2002 the applicant’s father died.\n16.  Having learnt about his father’s death and being his sole heir, the applicant, represented by Ms Yu., sought an extension of the time-limit for claiming his right to receive the debt under the judgment of 26 June 2002. On 30 March 2005 the town court granted the extension. On 1 June 2005 a public notary issued a succession certificate, confirming that the applicant had acquired the right to receive the judgment debt.\n17.  Since 2002 the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance have sought supervisory review of the judgment of 26 June 2002, as upheld on 21 August 2002.\n18.  On 13 May 2003 the Supreme Court refused the application for supervisory review submitted by the Treasury.\n19.  On 22 May 2003 the Ministry of Finance informed Ms Yu. that it had applied for supervisory review of the judgment of 26 June 2002 and therefore would not execute it pending a decision on the application. On 3 September 2003 the Ministry of Finance submitted another application for supervisory review. It appears that these applications were unsuccessful.\n20.  In 2006 the Ministry of Finance filed a new application for supervisory review, asking the town court to extend the expired time-limit for introduction of their application.\n21.  On 8 August 2006 the town court extended the time-limit for unspecified reasons and accepted the Ministry’s application for consideration.\n22.  On 30 November 2006 the Presidium quashed the judgment of 26 June 2002, as upheld on 21 August 2002, and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the town court. The applicant was not notified of the date of the hearing and was not provided with a copy of the respondent’s review application.\n23.  On 25 December 2006 Ms Yu. submitted a request to review the above decision on the ground that no copy of the respondent’s review application had been served on her. It appears that the request remained without response.\n24.  The town court re-examined the case on 25 May 2007 and rejected the claims. Ms Yu. attended the hearing and produced the applicant’s succession certificate and the town court’s decision of 30 March 2005. It does not appear", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6044", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Zaporizhzhya.\n5.  On an unspecified date the Zavodsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya (“the District Court”) gave an unspecified decision on the claim of the applicant’s former husband, Z., lodged against the applicant for division of their property. By a final ruling of 5 February 1985, the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court (“the Regional Court”, since June 2001, the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal), ordered Z. to compensate the applicant for her share of their property.\n6.  In 1985 the Prosecutor’s Office of Zaporizhzhya and the Zavodsky District Police Department invited the applicant to discuss the residence registration of her daughter, O.\n7.  In 1988-1989 the applicant lodged claims with the Budenovsky District Court of Donetsk and Donetsk Regional Court seeking division of her common property with Z. There is no indication whether and, if so, how these claims were handled by the courts.\n8.  In 1991-2005 the applicant unsuccessfully tried to have her brothers, K.Vi. and K.Vo., prosecuted for hooliganism and theft. She was not found to be a civil party to these proceedings.\n9.  On 9 November 1992 K.Vi. and K.Vo. lodged a claim against the applicant challenging the validity of their mother’s will over a house and belongings.\n10.  On 25 September 1998 the District Court partly allowed the claim.\n11.  Following a “protest” of the Zaporizhzhya Regional Prosecutor of 25 September 1998, the Regional Court quashed this judgment on 25 December 1998 and remitted the case to the Distrcit Court which, on19 February 2004 partly allowed the applicant’s claim.\n12.  On 26 May 2004 the Regional Court upheld this judgment. On 22 June the applicant appealed in cassation. On 12 July 2006 she requested the Supreme Court to speed up examination of her case. By a final ruling of 4 October 2006, notified to the applicant on 19 October, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decisions.\n13.  According to the Government, between 11 September 1997 and 4 October 2006, the applicant filed three procedural requests and two appeals which all met procedural requirements. Moreover, of the twenty nine hearings scheduled, eleven were adjourned at the claimants’ request, five were adjourned at the applicant’s request, four were adjourned due to the claimants’ or witness’s failure to attend, one was adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to attend, one was adjourned at the parties’ request, and three were adjourned for reasons beyond the parties’ control. Overall, due to the applicant’s requests or her failure to attend, the proceedings were delayed for about eleven moths.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6045", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 19 December 2000 security operations were conducted in a number of prisons in Turkey, during which scores of detainees were killed and hundreds injured (for details of these operations, see İsmail Altun v. Turkey, no. 22932/02, 21 September 2010; Keser and Kömürcü v. Turkey, no. 5981/03, 23 June 2009; and Gülbahar and Others v. Turkey, no. 5264/03, 21 October 2008).\n7.  The operation in Gebze prison, where the applicant was serving a prison sentence, started in the early hours of the day. As the remaining facts of the case are disputed between the parties, they will be set out separately.\n8.  At around 5.00 a.m. on 19 December 2000 a large number of gendarmes went into the prison by the main entrance and started firing without giving any warning. At that moment the applicant was in the corridor just outside his dormitory. He was hit in the leg by a bullet fired by the gendarmes. A doctor friend of the applicant who was a remand prisoner in the same prison provided first aid to the applicant.\n9.  When the inmates set up barricades to protect themselves, the gendarmes threw in explosives containing various gases and smoke. They also continued firing. Heavy machinery was used to make large holes in the prison roof, through which the gendarmes poured boiling water and sprayed gases.\n10.  At around 7.00 p.m. the same day the applicant and the other injured inmates were taken into the courtyard of the prison. There the applicant was handcuffed and dragged through a 100-metre-long human corridor formed by the gendarmes. While this was being done the gendarmes kept hitting the applicant until he passed out. While the prison governor and other civilian authorities were checking the inmates' identity documents, a gendarme dragged the applicant into a corner and beat him up there. He was subsequently taken to Gebze State Hospital but was brought back to the prison four days later, before his treatment was complete.\n11.  The operation, named “Return to Life”, began at around 4.30 a.m. on 19 December 2000, when members of the security forces went into the prison through the main entrance. At that moment one of the inmates tried to close the door and told fellow inmates that the security forces were there. The inmates then locked and barricaded the second door of the main hall. The gendarmes heard a gunshot coming from the barricaded side where the inmates had gathered.\n12.  Despite a number of warnings given by the security forces, the inmates did not lift the barricades. The security forces overcame the inmates' resistance and went into the cells. Seven inmates who were on hunger strike at the time and a further six who had been injured during the operation were taken to Gebze State Hospital. The applicant was wounded by a bullet and was among those who were taken to the hospital.\n13.  The operation ended at around 9.00 p.m. the same day. Materials used by the inmates as weapons, namely wooden sticks and iron bars, were found in the dormitories and confiscated by the security forces.\n14.  The following information is disclosed by the documents submitted by the parties.\n15.  According to two reports drawn up by a prosecutor and gendarmerie personnel on 19 December 2000, the operation in the prison started at 4.30 a.m. the same day. The reason for the operation was to take a number of prisoners who were on hunger strike to a hospital. When the inmates refused to co-operate, force had to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6046", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Strzelce Opolskie prison.\n6.  In January 2002 the applicant was detained on suspicion of murder and membership of a criminal gang.\n7.  On 21 June 2004 the Gliwice Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n8.  On 25 November 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal in part quashed and in part upheld the first-instance judgment.\n9.  On 18 January 2005 the applicant was served with written grounds for that judgment. The court informed him that it was open to him to lodge a cassation appeal against it with the Supreme Court.\n10.  By a decision of 16 February 2005 the court allowed the applicant's request for legal aid.\n11.  In a letter to the Court of Appeal dated 3 March 2005 the legal‑aid lawyer informed the court that she had found no grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal. A copy of that letter was served on the applicant on 14 March 2005.\n12.  By a letter of 13 April 2005 the court informed the applicant about the legal-aid lawyer's refusal to prepare and lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. By the same letter the court informed the applicant that as he had already been granted legal aid, no grounds existed on which to grant him assistance by another legal aid lawyer.\nThe court further informed the applicant that the thirty-day time‑limit for lodging a cassation appeal would start to ran anew on the day on which the applicant was served with that letter.\n13.  On 6 June 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal refused to entertain a cassation appeal filed by the applicant himself as it did not comply with the applicable formal requirements.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6047", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The Republican Party of Russia was created in November 1990 by consolidation of the Democratic Wing of the USSR Communist Party and its subsequent secession from that party.\n7.  On 14 March 1991 the Ministry of Justice formally registered the public association “Republican Party of the Russian Federation”.\n8.  Following changes in domestic legislation, on 27 April 2002 a general conference of the public association decided on its reorganisation into a political party by the name of “Republican Party of Russia”.\n9.  On 12 August 2002 the applicant was registered as a party by the Ministry of Justice.\n10.  Its articles of association list among its aims the nomination of candidates for election to state and municipal bodies and participation in the activities of those bodies, the development of civil society in Russia and the promotion of the unity and territorial integrity of the country and of the peaceful coexistence of its multi-ethnic population.\n11.  On 17 December 2005 an extraordinary general conference of the applicant elected its management bodies. In particular, Mr Zubov was elected chairman of the Political Council and Mr Sheshenin chairman of the Executive Committee. In accordance with the articles of association they became ex officio representatives of the party. The general conference also decided to change the party’s address and to create several regional branches.\n12.  On 26 December 2005 the applicant asked the Ministry of Justice to amend the information contained in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities. In particular, it asked that its new address and the names of its ex officio representatives be entered in the Register.\n13.  On 16 January 2006 the Ministry of Justice refused to make the amendments because the party had not submitted documents showing that the general conference had been held in accordance with the law and with its articles of association.\n14.  On 2 March 2006 the applicant re-submitted its request. It produced the minutes of the conferences of its regional branches at which delegates to the general conference had been nominated, the list of the delegates and the minutes of the general conference.\n15.  On 4 April 2006 the Ministry of Justice refused for the second time to register the amendments. It found that the applicant had not submitted documents confirming the number of its members. Moreover, the minutes of the Irkutsk, Chelyabinsk and Sverdlovsk regional conferences did not include the lists of participants. The minutes of the Arkhangelsk and Yaroslavl regional conferences were flawed because they indicated that those conferences had been convened at the initiative of the Novosibirsk regional branch. The Vladimir regional conference had not actually been held. Some of the participants at the general conference were not members of the party or had not been elected delegates. Due to those and other omissions it was not possible to establish whether the regional conferences had been quorate and whether the general conference had been legitimate.\n16.  The applicant challenged the refusal before a court. It argued that it was not required to submit documents confirming the number of its members. In any event, that information was already in the Ministry’s possession because the party had submitted it in its annual activity report in 2005. The Ministry of Justice was not empowered to verify whether the general conference and the regional conferences were legitimate. Domestic law require", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6048", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 15 June 2000 the applicant was charged with the offence of membership of Hizbullah, a proscribed organisation in Turkey.\n8.  While the criminal proceedings against the applicant were continuing before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, Law no. 4616 entered into force on 22 December 2000. Law no. 4616 provides for the suspension of criminal proceedings in respect of certain offences committed before 23 April 1999, without reaching a definitive finding as to guilt.\n9.  On 13 March 2001 the Diyarbakır State Security Court considered that there was no evidence to show that the applicant had been a member of the illegal organisation or that she had carried out “any activities on behalf of the illegal organisation in an active and continuous manner”. According to the Diyarbakır State Security Court, the applicant's activities “had remained within the scope of the offence of aiding and abetting the illegal organisation”, which was one of the offences in respect of which Law No. 4616 was applicable. The Diyarbakır State Security Court thus suspended the criminal proceedings against the applicant.\n10.  In the meantime, on 4 October 2000, that is before the criminal proceedings were suspended, the applicant was dismissed from her post as a primary school teacher because the Ministry of Education considered that the evidence in the possession of the prosecuting authorities showed that she was a member of the illegal organisation.\n11.  The applicant challenged her dismissal by bringing a case against the Ministry of Education before the Diyarbakır Administrative Court on 3 November 2000.\n12.  On 7 March 2002 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court rejected the applicant's request for the Ministry's decision dismissing her from her post to be quashed. In its decision the Diyarbakır Administrative Court referred to the Diyarbakır State Security Court's above-mentioned decision of 13 March 2001, and held that the dismissal of the applicant “whose criminal activities were deemed in the criminal proceedings to constitute the offence of aiding and abetting” had been lawful.\n13.  The appeal lodged by the applicant against the Administrative Court decision was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court on 12 November 2004. The Supreme Court decision was notified to the applicant on 16 March 2005.\n14.  On various subsequent dates the applicant made job applications to the education authorities. One of the applications she made, on 13 February 2008, was rejected by the local education authority in Istanbul on the basis of the Diyarbakır State Security Court decision of 13 March 2001.\n15.  According to an official document dated 22 February 2008, the applicant has no criminal record.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6049", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Rijeka.\n5.  In February 1999 the applicant married A. However, in July, while she was pregnant, A. left the applicant and on 25 December 1999 gave birth to a daughter, I.K.\n6.  Several separate proceedings concerning contact between the applicant and his daughter I.K. were conducted before the Rijeka Municipal Court as well as before the Rijeka Social Welfare Centre (hereinafter “the Social Welfare Centre”).\n7.  At the beginning of 2000 the applicant asked the Social Welfare Centre to issue a decision regulating his contact with I.K.\n8.  On 26 April 2000 the applicant complained to the Social Welfare Centre that he saw his daughter only for one hour a week and that the child, who had started to recognise human faces, was scared of him because his face was not familiar to her. He requested to be allowed to see the child every four days, because he worked in Italy and his work schedule was organised in such a way that he worked for three whole days and then had a fourth day off.\n9.  On 4 May 2000 the applicant saw a psychiatrist at the suggestion of the Social Welfare Centre's personnel. A medical report drawn up by the psychiatrist indicated that the applicant was suffering from paranoid psychosis and recommended that contact between the applicant and I.K. be supervised by the child's mother or another person. The psychiatrist reiterated that conclusion in his report of 1 June 2000.\n10.  On 10 June 2000 the Social Welfare Centre issued a decision giving custody of I.K. to the child's mother and ordering that meetings between the applicant and I.K. take place every Tuesday – between 9.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. at the Rijeka Counselling Centre for Marriage, Family and Youth (hereinafter “the Counselling Centre”) in the presence of the child's mother and an employee of the Counselling Centre.\n11.  On 16 June 2000 the Ministry for Work and Social Welfare quashed the first-instance decision on the ground that it was necessary to hold an oral hearing before adopting a decision in the case. Nevertheless, the meetings between the applicant and I.K. were arranged at the Counselling Centre.\n12.  On 19 January 2003 the Social Welfare Centre issued a decision ordering meetings between the applicant and I.K. every Tuesday – between 9.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. at the Counselling Centre in the presence of an employee of the Counselling Centre.\n13.  The applicant lodged an appeal on 19 January 2003 which was dismissed on 7 December 2004 by the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. 2.  The contact issue in the civil proceedings before the Rijeka Municipal Court in the course of the divorce and custody proceedings\n14.  Meanwhile, on 21 March 2000 A. brought a civil action in the Rijeka Municipal Court seeking a divorce from the applicant. On 24 July 2002 the Rijeka County Court adopted a divorce judgment ordering the applicant to pay maintenance for I.K. and also granting him contact with I.K. every Tuesday between 9.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. in the presence of a third person. The applicant lodged an appeal arguing, inter alia, that it was difficult for him to come to Rijeka every Tuesday, due to his work schedule in Italy. He further explained that in order to see his daughter on Tuesdays, he often had to drive at night and was obliged to ask his colleagues to replace him at work, which caused him significant difficulties.\n15.  On 15 January 2003 the Rijeka County Court quashed the part of the judgment concerning c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6050", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Salzburg.\n6.  The case concerns criminal charges against the applicant and other persons for participating in a so-called “carousel fraud” scheme. Such a scheme, in which at least three seemingly unconnected undertakings in different countries cooperate to defraud the exchequer, entails selling cheap products at an artificially high price to a domestic trader. The seller charges turnover tax on the price and would normally have to pay the tax to the exchequer. The trader would then export the goods. Since export sales are exempt from turnover tax, the trader could claim reimbursement of the turnover tax he had paid to the seller. However, the seller had never paid the tax to the exchequer, and – in cases where the scheme is successful – the trader receives reimbursement, and the seller receives turnover tax he has not paid to the exchequer. The foreign buyer often sends the cheap products back to the seller and a new circle begins, hence the name “carousel fraud”.\n7.  The applicant was exporting goods to countries outside the EU and used a limited liability company (Mirabell Bequemschuh & Beautytrend Versandgesellschaft m.b.H, hereinafter “MV”) for the transactions. Apparently the applicant’s brother was the chief executive of MV and the applicant had authority to act on MV’s behalf. The applicant had started the transactions after being contacted by Mr W.R., an Austrian residing in Brazil, in April 1993. The applicant at first exported royal bee jelly to Brazil; later on he exported computer software parts, filtering devices and electrodes. He quit these transactions in spring 1994 and continued trading in perfume oils. His last transactions were carried out in August 1995.\n8.  The first tax examination with regard to turnover tax was carried out by the Salzburg City Tax Authority (Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt) in November 1993; according to the applicant, no irregularities were detected by the authority.\n9.  In February and March 1994, the Salzburg City Tax Authority carried out another examination of the company’s turnover tax conduct and decided to extend its examination to the entire company (MV); the officials told the applicant that some irregularities regarding turnover tax with MV’s suppliers had occurred.\n10.  On 18 May 1995 and 22 May 1995 the Corporate Tax Authority (Finanzamt für Körperschaften) submitted a statement of facts to the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Vienna concerning suspicion of tax fraud committed by eight persons. Apparently the applicant was not among these eight suspects. On 23 May 1995 the Regional Criminal Court authorised the Corporate Tax Authority to investigate.\n11.  On 16 August 1995 a search warrant for MV was issued – it appears that since the company had moved to another address, on the same day the Tax Authority applied for further search warrants for MV. The searches were carried out on 16 and 17 August 1995.\n12.  On 23 August 1995 the applicant was questioned as a suspect by the Tax Authority about his business and sales of low-grade products.\n13.  Apparently, in the meantime the Tax Authority had seized perfume oils at Mr W.R.’s mother’s house; an expert was asked to carry out a chemical analysis of samples of the perfume oil and to give an expert opinion on the quality and the value of the oils.\n14.  The applicant was questioned again on 7 September 1995 and on 13 October 1995. Another search of storage rooms and offices of MV and the applicant too", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6051", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953. When lodging his application, he was detained in Bruchsal Prison. He has been released on 28 August 2009.\n6.  Since 1972 the applicant has been convicted of five counts of rape and two counts of attempted rape of women aged between sixteen and nineteen and has been sentenced three times to terms of imprisonment. Between May 1976 and his arrest in 1989 he spent only some eight and a half months outside prison.\n7.  On 23 May 1990 the Heilbronn Regional Court convicted the applicant of attempted sexual coercion. It sentenced him to three years' imprisonment and ordered his placement in preventive detention pursuant to Article 66 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 22-23 below). The Regional Court found that in October 1989 the applicant, returning to methods similar to those he had used to commit some of his previous offences, had simulated a breakdown of his car and had asked a twenty‑three-year-old woman to help him restart it. He had then attempted to force his victim to submit herself to sexual acts, but she had managed to escape. The preventive detention of the applicant, who had acted with full criminal responsibility, was necessary as he had a tendency to commit serious sexual offences in order to humiliate and abuse women and was thus likely to reoffend.\n8.  The applicant served his full prison sentence. He was then placed in preventive detention, for the first time, on 24 October 1992; he had thus served ten years in preventive detention by 23 October 2002.\n9.  The continuation of the applicant's preventive detention was ordered by the Karlsruhe Regional Court at regular intervals.\n10.  On 15 October 2002 the Karlsruhe Regional Court, sitting as a chamber responsible for the execution of sentences, having heard the applicant, his counsel and a psychiatric expert, W., in person, ordered the applicant's preventive detention to continue pursuant to Article 67d § 3 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 25 below). It found that there was still a risk that the applicant, owing to his criminal tendencies, might commit serious sexual offences if released resulting in considerable psychological or physical harm to the victims.\n11.  The Regional Court subscribed to the opinion given by expert W. in his report of 3 October 2002. The expert, who had to give his view on the basis of the case file as the applicant had refused to make any submissions to him, had concluded that there was nothing to indicate that the applicant, who had committed numerous sexual offences and suffered from a personality disorder, had changed. He was therefore likely to reoffend if released.\n12.  The Regional Court further found that neither the applicant's personal situation nor his attitude had changed since its last decision. As had also been confirmed by expert W., without submitting himself to a therapeutic treatment, notably to a social therapy, which the applicant kept refusing to do, the conditions for suspending the applicant's preventive detention on probation could not be met.\n13.  Contrary to the applicant's view, the Regional Court further considered that Article 67d of the Criminal Code, as amended in 1998 (see paragraph 25 below), was constitutional.\n14.  On 21 November 2002 the Karlsruhe Court of Appeal, endorsing the reasons given by the Regional Court, dismissed the applicant's appeal.\n15.  On 13 December 2002 the applicant, represented by counsel, lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitution", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6052", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Kropyvna, the Cherkassy Region.\n5.  On 8 April 2002 the prosecutors instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, then the founder and director of the agricultural company K. and the director of the company Z., on suspicion of tax evasion.\n6.  On 7 May 2002 the applicant’s property was seized.\n7.  On 10 May 2002 the applicant gave an undertaking not to abscond.\n8.  On 17 May 2002 the prosecutors instituted another criminal case against the applicant on suspicion of tax evasion.\n9.  On 26 June 2002 the prosecutors instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of forgery. The criminal cases against the applicant were subsequently joined.\n10.  On 13 July 2002 the applicant was arrested by the police.\n11.  On 15 July 2002 he was released under an undertaking not to abscond.\n12.   On 30 July 2002 the investigations were completed and the case was sent to the Zolotonosha Court for trial.\n13.   Between May 2004 and March 2006, the case was remitted twice for additional investigations.\n14.  Meanwhile, by the decisions of the Cherkassy Regional Commercial Court of 19 July 2005 and 16 March 2006, the company K. was declared insolvent and liquidated.\n15.  On 4 July 2006 the additional investigations were completed and on 5 July 2006 the case was sent to the Zolotonosha Court for trial.\n16.  On 10 September 2007 the Zolotonosha Court found the applicant guilty of tax evasion and forgery and sentenced him to a fine of 6,800 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1], two-year liberty restriction with a prohibition of engaging in any business activity for the same period. The applicant was exempted from the punishment for the expiry of statute of limitations.\n17.  On 22 January 2008 the Cherkassy Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 10 September 2007 and sent the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court. It found that the latter had breached the procedural requirements of the criminal law.\n18.  On 18 March 2009 the Zolotonosha Court found the applicant guilty of tax evasion and forgery and sentenced him to a fine of UAH 6,800[2], one‑year liberty restriction with a prohibition of engaging in any business activity for the same period. The applicant was exempted from the punishment for the expiry of statute of limitations.\n19.  On 2 June 2009 the Cherkassy Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 18 March 2009 and remitted the case for additional investigations.\n20.  On 10 August 2009 the prosecutors dropped part of the charges against the applicant for the absence of corpus delicti in his actions.\n21.  The case is currently pending before the first-instance court.\n22.  In the course of the proceedings a number of expert examinations were ordered which delayed the proceedings for about three months. There were thirty-three witnesses questioned. The hearings were adjourned thirty‑seven times mainly because of the failure of the applicant or his representative to appear which in total caused a delay of two years. The witnesses failed to attend the hearings on fourteen occasions which delayed the proceedings for about six months. The applicant and witnesses were compelled by the authorities to attend the hearings in view of their repeated failure to appear before the court. The applicant also lodged a number of requests for withdrawal of the judge from the case and for studying the case-file, some of which were allowed.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6053", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Elektrostal, the Moscow Region.\n6.  He had been receiving a retirement pension since 1984. In November 2005 he asked a pension authority to up-rate his pension on the basis of the fact that he had worked in hazardous industries. The latter disagreed and the applicant appealed to the Elektrostal Town Court (“Town Court”).\n7.  By judgment of 20 July 2006 the Town Court chaired by Judge T. ordered the pension authority to up-rate the applicant's pension starting from 1 December 2005. The court based its findings on the Law on Labour Pensions of 2001 (“Pension Law”). The judgment was not appealed against and on 5 August 2006 became final.\n8.  On 4 June 2007 the Chief Department of the Pension Fund no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region (“Pension Fund”) lodged with the Moscow Regional Court (“Regional Court”) an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 20 July 2006. This application was never examined. However, on 14 August 2007 the President of the Regional Court wrote a letter to the first-instance court which stated as follows:\n“The Moscow Regional Court sends a statement of complaint by the GU UPF RF no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region against the judgment of the Elektrostal Town Court of 20 July 2006 in the case of Khrykin I.S. v. GU GUPF RF no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region...\n[The Town] Court examined the scope of the pension rights of the plaintiff...\n[The principles] of the examination of the scope of the pension rights ... have been set out in the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation no. 25 of 20 December 2005 ... and the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 2 March 2007 in the case of Nitsievskaya v. State Agency - Chief Department of the Pension Fund no. 5 of Moscow and the Moscow Region.\nDelivering a judgment ... at variance with the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation no. 25 of 20 December 2005 and the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 2 March 2007 discloses a judicial error, such judgment cannot be regarded lawful. With the purpose of securing consistency in the case-law ... the statement of complaint by the GU UPF RF no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region ... against the above said judgment in the case of Khrykin I.S. v. GU GUPF RF no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region is being sent for reconsideration on the ground of newly discovered circumstances.”\n9.  On 27 September 2007 the Pension Fund lodged with the Town Court an application for quashing of the judgment of 20 July 2006 and re-opening of the applicant's case on the ground of newly discovered circumstances. It stated that the Supreme Court's judgment of 2 March 2007 in the Nitsievskaya case, which gave a different interpretation of the Pension Law, had been a circumstance warranting the re-opening of the Khrykin case. The applicant argued that the application had been introduced outside the three-month time-limit.\n10.  By decision (определение) of 23 October 2007, the Town Court presided over by the same judge who examined the applicant's case in 2006 granted the application. It held as follows:\n“[T]he method of the assessment of pension rights ... has been set out in paragraph 13 of the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation no. 25 of 20 December 2005... and in the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 2 March 2007 in the case of Nitsievskaya v. State Agency - C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6054", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant is the wife and the second applicant is the mother of Mr Khamzat Tushayev, born in 1959. They live in the village of Duba‑Yurt, the Shalinskiy District, in the Chechen Republic.\n6.  According to the applicants, since 1996 Khamzat Tushayev had been suffering from a mental disorder.\n7.  In autumn 1999, before the launching of the military operation in the Chechen Republic, the applicants and Khamzat Tushayev had been residing in the village of Duba-Yurt. At the time when Russian federal troops approached the village and most of its residents left, Mr Tushayev’s brother stayed in the village and joined rebel fighters to resist the federal troops. Although Khamzat Tushayev also stayed behind, he did not join the rebels.\n8.  In 2000 Khamzat Tushayev left Duba-Yurt together with his brother’s insurgent group and some other residents and joined his family which had meanwhile moved to an adjacent village. By March 2000 federal troops had regained control over Duba-Yurt and Khamzat Tushayev returned there together with his brother and the first applicant.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 2001 armed men broke into the first applicant’s house. They came in several armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and were looking for Khamzat Tushayev and his brother. After the incident the brothers went into hiding. On several occasions armed men broke into the first applicant’s house, searching for them. During yet another similar incident on 17 February 2002 Mr Tushayev’s brother was allegedly killed while trying to escape.\n10.  Khamzat Tushayev stayed in hiding until June 2003, fearing reprisals for the fact of his leaving Duba-Yurt together with insurgents. In June 2003 the first applicant learnt from the head of the local administration that Khamzat Tushayev would be amnestied if he surrendered his arms. According to the applicants, he had never had any arms but bought a submachine gun and was provided with a walkie-talkie by an acquaintance who had found it somewhere.\n11.  On 12 June 2003 Khamzat Tushayev surrendered the gun and the walkie-talkie to the Department of the Federal Security Service in the Chechen Republic (“the Chechen Department of the FSB”). According to a certificate issued by that State authority on 12 June 2003, Khamzat Tushayev declared that he no longer participated in illegal armed groups and had surrendered his arms of his own free will. It was further stated that an inquiry into his case was under way, that he had given an undertaking to appear before the Chechen Department of the FSB for questioning, that his right to freedom of movement had not been restricted, and that, should any law-enforcement authorities arrest him, they were to inform the Chechen Department of the FSB immediately.\n12.  At the turn of the year 2003 the first applicant and Khamzat Tushayev moved to Grozny.\n13.  On an unspecified date in March 2006 several persons who did not identify themselves broke into the flat occupied by the first applicant and Khamzat Tushayev and took him away. Eight days later his relatives found out that he was being held at the Shali district police station and that a criminal case (no. 56006) had been opened against him on suspicion of participation in illegal armed groups. On an unspecified date Khamzat Tushayev was released on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence.\n14.  On 7 June 2006 the first applicant received a call on her mobile phone from a hidden number. A man who introduced himself as “Ser", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6055", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  On 4 June 1992 the Minister of Internal Affairs, Mr Antoni Macierewicz, submitted to Parliament and made public a “list of secret collaborators with the security services between 1945 and 1990”. The list, unofficially called “the Macierewicz list”, contained names of public officials who appeared in the archives of the Ministry and included the President and many Members of Parliament. The publication of the list sparked uproar in the Sejm, a Chamber of the Polish Parliament, which led to the fall of the government of Jan Olszewski a couple of hours later.\n7.  The applicant, who had been a Member of Parliament, appeared on the list.\n8.  On 11 April 1997 the parliament passed the Law on disclosing work for or service in the State’s security services or collaboration with them between 1944 and 1990 by persons exercising public functions (ustawa o ujawnieniu pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z nimi w latach 1944‑1990 osób pełniących funkcje publiczne; “the 1997 Lustration Act”). It entered into force on 3 August 1997. Persons falling under the provisions of the 1997 Lustration Act, i.e. candidates or holders of public office such as ministers and members of parliament, were required to declare whether or not they had worked for or collaborated with the security services during the communist regime.\n9.  On 26 March 1999 the applicant applied to the court to institute the so‑called “auto‑lustration” proceedings under section 18a § 3 of the Lustration Act. He submitted his lustration declaration, in which he stated that he had not been an intentional and secret collaborator with the secret services.\n10.  The applicant was the first of many persons from the Macierewicz list who applied for auto‑lustration claiming that they had not been secret collaborators with the communist‑era secret services. In some cases the lustration courts agreed and cleared the name of the person concerned.\n11.  On 6 May 1999 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) decided to institute lustration proceedings in the applicant’s case.\n12.  On 6 November 2001 the Court of Appeal gave a judgment in which it found that his lustration declaration had been truthful and that the applicant had not been an intentional and secret collaborator with the secret services. The panel of the court was composed of three judges.\n13.  The Commissioner of the Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) appealed against the judgment.\n14.  On 30 July 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the second‑instance lustration court allowed the appeal and remitted the case. The court was constituted of a panel of three judges which included judge R.K.\n15.  On 6 April 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal acting as the first‑instance lustration court, found that the applicant had been an intentional and secret collaborator with the security services between 1969 and 1977.\n16.  The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n17.  On 12 September 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment. The court was constituted of a panel of three judges which again included Judge R.K.\n18.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal complaining inter alia about the lack of impartiality of Judge R.K. The applicant submitted that this judge had participated in the preparation of his lustration proceedings and was a member of a lustration court between 1999 and 2000. The latter panel was later", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6056", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, born in 1968, is a journalist by profession. At the relevant time he was employed by Sega, a national daily newspaper, working as a correspondent in his hometown of Burgas.\n7.  In the Bulgarian education system, after the seventh or eighth grade, when pupils complete their primary education, they can continue either in an ordinary or in a specialised secondary school. The ordinary secondary schools’ curriculum does not usually involve the intensive teaching of a special subject such as mathematics, foreign languages or engineering. Enrolment in them is on the basis of documents only and does not typically present a problem. The curriculum of the specialised secondary schools does include the teaching of such subjects, and pupils are admitted to them exclusively on the basis of competitive examinations, which take place in June (the school year in Bulgaria starts on 15 September). Under regulations issued by the Ministry of Education and Science, pupils with certain medical conditions can be admitted to specialised secondary schools without an examination, as an exceptional measure.\n8.  On 5 May 2000 the head of the Burgas education inspectorate, a territorial division of the Ministry of Education and Science, appointed a commission to select for admission to specialised secondary schools pupils with certain chronic medical conditions or special educational needs. The commission’s members were four employees of the inspectorate, Ms T.K., Ms A.M., Mr R.E. and Mr G.D., and a paediatrician, Dr N.P.\n9.  On 12 June 2000 fourteen parents of children who were sitting competitive examinations to gain admission to specialised secondary schools wrote a letter to the Ministry of Education and Science. They said that one hundred and fifty‑seven children had been admitted to specialised secondary schools in Burgas on the basis of a medical condition and not following a competitive examination. Most of those were apparently the children of medical doctors, paramedical staff and teachers. The parents complained that whereas they were paying thousands of levs for private preparatory lessons, certain pupils had been bragging that they would be admitted to the English Secondary School in Burgas in exchange for paying 300 Bulgarian levs (BGN); indeed, only a month later this had become a fact. They cited several examples of perfectly healthy children who had been diagnosed as suffering from serious chronic illnesses. They said that they were not blaming the admissions commission, which had merely been taking note of the prior conclusions of medical doctors and allocating the pupils to schools depending on the nature of their purported health problems. They insisted that the Ministry should set up a special commission to investigate. A number of parents subsequently staged daily public protests in front of the building of the Burgas education inspectorate.\n10.  Following this complaint, on 7 July 2000 the Minister of Education and Science appointed three officials of the Ministry to inspect the work of the admissions commission. Having done so between 10 and 14 July 2000, the three officials produced a five‑page report on 18 July 2000. The report, which was not made public, found that the commission had committed a number of violations of the school admissions regulations, such as admitting pupils who did not have the requisite medical conditions, making findings on the basis of invalid medical documents and poorly documenting its activit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6057", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Elektrostal, the Moscow Region.\n6.  She had been receiving a retirement pension since 1991. In November 2005 she asked a pension authority to up-rate her pension on the basis of the fact that she had worked in hazardous industries. The latter disagreed and the applicant appealed to the Elektrostal Town Court (“Town Court”).\n7.  By judgment of 31 May 2006 the Town Court chaired by Judge T. ordered the pension authority to up-rate the applicant's pension starting from 1 November 2005. The court based its findings on the Law on Labour Pensions of 2001 (“Pension Law”). On 4 August 2006 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the first-instance court's judgment on appeal.\n8.  On 10 May 2007 the Chief Department of the Pension Fund no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region (“Pension Fund”) lodged with the Moscow Regional Court (“Regional Court”) an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 31 May 2006. This application was never examined. However, on 29 August 2007 the President of the Regional Court wrote a letter to the first-instance court which stated as follows:\n“The Moscow Regional Court sends the case Baturlova V.A. v. GU GUPF RF no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region ... and a statement of complaint by the GU UPF RF no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region against the judgment of the Elektrostal Town Court of 31 May 2006 for the re-examination in accordance with Chapter 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.\n[The Town] Court examined the scope of the pension rights of the plaintiff...\n[The principles] of the examination of the scope of the pension rights ... have been set out in the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation no. 25 of 20 December 2005 ... and the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 2 March 2007 in the case of Nitsievskaya v. State Agency - Chief Department of the Pension Fund no. 5 of Moscow and the Moscow Region.\nDelivering a judgment ... at variance with the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation no. 25 of 20 December 2005 and the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 2 March 2007 discloses a judicial error, such judgment cannot be regarded lawful. With the purpose of securing consistency in the case-law ... the statement of complaint by the GU UPF RF no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region ... against the above said judgment in the case of Baturlova V.A ... v. GU GUPF RF no. 19 of Moscow and Moscow Region is being sent for reconsideration on the ground of newly discovered circumstances.”\n9.  On 1 October 2007 the Pension Fund lodged with the Town Court an application for quashing of the judgment of 31 May 2006 and re-opening of the applicant's case on the ground of newly discovered circumstances. It stated that the Supreme Court's judgment of 2 March 2007 in the Nitsievskaya case, which gave a different interpretation of the Pension Law, had been a circumstance warranting the re-opening of the Baturlova case. The applicant argued that the application had been introduced outside the three-month time-limit.\n10.  By decision (определение) of 23 October 2007, the Town Court presided over by the same judge who examined the applicant's case in 2006 granted the application. It held as follows:\n“[T]he method of the assessment of pension rights ... has been set out in paragraph 13 of the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation no. 25 of 20 December", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6058", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Negotino.\n7.  The applicant was an employee and shareholder of the company N. (“the company”). He was also Chairman of the company's Union of Workers.\n8.  On 28 June 2002 a letter was published in the newspaper M.D. under the following title: 'Unusual alliances have destroyed the Negotino cable-production factory' (“Неприродни сојузи ја уништија Неготинската фабрика за кабли”). The applicant's name was indicated as the author of the text. The latter spoke about the problems of the company's employees and shareholders. It alleged that since Mr B.J. had become the company's Chief Executive, the shareholders had been deprived of their rights and pressed to withdraw lawsuits against the company's management. The latter had dismissed the Union of Workers and appointed its own union. It further stated, inter alia:\n“... I, as the Chairman of our Union, was laid off in unfair disciplinary proceedings ... I've already said that Mr I.G. and Mr B.J., the Chief Executives of the company, had taken over the factory from us and engaged in criminal activities in these two and a half years. We, the employees, are laid off in fake disciplinary proceedings, while more senior employees are under continuing pressure to leave the factory as redundant. Why the law cannot reach ... Mr B.J.? ...”\n9.  On 1 July 2002 Mr B.J. submitted to the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) a private criminal complaint against the applicant for defamation. On 24 March 2003 he supplemented the complaint and requested that the applicant be held responsible for defamation in respect of another article published on 5 March 2003 in a weekly newspaper S.\n10.  On an unspecified date in 2004, the trial judge ordered that the police assist in securing the applicant's attendance at a hearing. The applicant relied inter alia on that order in his request for withdrawal of the trial judge, which was to no avail.\n11.  According to the minutes of a hearing of 25 January 2005, Mr A.M., a journalist, and a chief editor of the newspaper M.D. did not appear since they had not been properly summoned. On this occasion, the applicant stated the following:\n“... I consider the criminal complaint unsubstantiated since the only evidence against me was the extract of the newspaper bearing my name. There is no other evidence that I'm the author of the letter. It is well known that a letter or statement is to be published only if signed by the author ...”\n12.  Mr B.J. stated, inter alia:\n“... regarding the letter in question, which was signed by [the applicant], I knew that it was sent by him since another letter with similar content, signed by [the applicant], had been earlier published by the newspaper ... the defamatory statements are similar to some previous statements that he was making continuously directly to me or by e-mail. At every meeting [the applicant] made the same allegations as described in the criminal complaint. He has a web page where many others and I are mentioned and described in the same manner as in the newspaper M.D. ...”\n13.  According to the minutes, the trial court ordered that Mr A.M. and the chief editor of the newspaper be summoned for the next hearing.\n14.  In a letter of 23 June 2005 (the date of 20 June 2003 was also indicated) Mr G.A., the Director of the newspaper stated, inter alia:\n“... we inform you that the author of the published letter ... is [the applicant], whose signature was under the text. By rul", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6059", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Mr Gheorghe Pastor (application no. 30911/06) and Mrs Roxana Ţiclete (application no. 40967/06) were born in 1957 and 1967 respectively and live in Cluj-Napoca, Romania.\n6.  The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In December 1989 Mr Gheorghe Pastor and Mrs Roxana Ticlete's husband, among others, took part in the anti-communist demonstration in Cluj-Napoca. Following the intervention of the army to crush the demonstration, Mr Pastor suffered a bullet wound, which required months of medical treatment and which left him with a long-term physical disability. Mrs Ticlete's husband was killed. In total twenty-six people were killed during the demonstration and fifty-two others received bullet wounds.\n8.  In January 1990 the Cluj-Napoca Military Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal investigation in respect of several civilians and military officers as a result of the violent crushing of the anti-communist demonstration. The investigation was focused mainly on the role played by some of the prominent members of the former communist party and by military officers in the crushing of the demonstration. Consequently, several ballistic and forensic expert reports were made and the military prosecutors heard the victims and a number of witnesses.\n9.  On 15 October 1992 the Cluj-Napoca Military Prosecutor's Office ordered the discontinuance of the criminal investigation in respect of the individuals suspected of organising and participating in the crushing of the anti-communist demonstration, on the ground that no unlawful acts had been committed. At the same time, however, the Cluj-Napoca Military Prosecutor's Office ordered that the criminal investigation continue, so that the identity of alleged “unidentified shooters” could be discovered. The applicants contested the Cluj-Napoca Military Prosecutor's Office order.\n10.  On 22 September 1997 the Court of Cassation Military Prosecutor's Office (“the Military Prosecutor's Office”) quashed the order of 15 October 1992 and ordered the reopening of the criminal investigation in respect of a member of the former communist party and the military officers who had organised and/or taken part in the crushing of the demonstration. The Court of Cassation Military Prosecutor's Office was given jurisdiction to investigate the case, and the prosecutors heard once again some of the witnesses and the parties to the proceedings.\n11.  On an unspecified date in 1998 the military personnel involved in the crushing of the demonstration and subject to investigation were assigned to the military reserves.\n12.  On 29 May 1998 the Military Prosecutor's Office issued an indictment and charged six individuals, in particular the former secretary of the local branch of the communist party and six military officers, with murder and incitement to murder. At the same time, the Romanian Ministry of Defence was summoned to take part in the proceedings as a civilly liable third party.\n13.  On 8 June 1998 the file was lodged with the Registry of the Court of Cassation.\n14.  At the first hearing of 2 November 1998 the Court of Cassation heard some of the civil parties and ordered the adjournment of the hearing on the ground that the accused lacked mandatory legal representation. On 16 and 30 November the Court of Cassation heard other civil parties and decided to adjourn the hearing on account of procedural errors concerning the summoning of some of the other parties.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6061", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Jadranska Lešnica.\n6.  The applicant lived with her partner, P.J., in Belgrade from May 2001 until January 2006, when she moved to her parents’ house, as a result of alleged “psychological abuse” by her partner. Their daughter M.J., who was born in 2002, continued to live with her father.\n7.  On 20 February 2006 the applicant lodged a civil claim against P.J. (“the respondent”) with the First Municipal Court (Prvi opštinski sud) in Belgrade (“the Municipal Court”), seeking sole custody of M.J. and child maintenance (vršenje roditeljskog prava i izdržavanje).\n8.  On 1 March 2006 the respondent lodged a separate claim against the applicant, with the Municipal Court, also seeking sole custody of M.J. and child maintenance.\n9.  On 16 May 2006 the Municipal Court obtained an opinion from the Palilula Social Care Centre (Gradski centar za socijalni rad, Odeljenje Palilula), which stated that the custody should be given to the mother.\n10.  On 17 May 2006 the applicant requested the court to issue an interim measure regulating her right of access to M.J.\n11.  At the hearing held on 8 June 2006, the respondent also requested an interim measure awarding him temporary custody of M.J.\n12.  On 15 June 2006 the Municipal Court ordered the respondent to allow the applicant access to M.J. by bringing their daughter at 2 p.m. every last Friday of the month to the Loznica Social Care Centre and collecting her from the applicant in Belgrade at the same time the following Friday.\n13.  On 20 June 2006 the respondent objected to the Social Care Centre’s opinion of May 2006 and subsequently, on 10 July 2006, appealed against the interim access order. It would appear that the latter appeal was forwarded to the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade on 27 August 2006.\n14.  The next hearing, scheduled for 3 July 2006, was adjourned because the Municipal Court had failed to secure the presence of lay judges (sudija porotnika) for family matters as required under the relevant provisions of the domestic law.\n15.  The hearing scheduled for 5 September 2006 was also adjourned, because at that time the case file was physically in the possession of the District Court, which was about to rule in respect of the adopted interim access order.\n16.  On 14 September 2006 the District Court in Belgrade rejected the respondent’s appeal and upheld the interim access order of 15 June 2006.\n17.  On 30 November 2006 the Municipal Court considered whether to join the two sets of civil proceedings into a single case file, and adjourned the case until 30 January 2007.\n18.  Meanwhile, on 6 November 2006 the Palilula Social Care Centre informed the Municipal Court that the respondent’s objection to their first opinion of 16 May 2006 had been accepted, because the competent Ministry had found irregularities in its work. The Centre also warned the court that it could not have reliably assessed whether the conclusion of this opinion had been in the best interest of the child, in particular due to the need to ascertain the applicant’s state of mental health.\n19.  Following the Centre’s additional updated opinion of 4 December 2006 (see paragraph 52 below), on 11 December 2006 the Municipal Court issued a new interim access order, restricting the applicant’s access to M.J. to two hours on Fridays at the premises of the Palilula Social Care Centre in Belgrade, thereby rendering the interim access order of 15 June 2006 obsolete.\n20.  On 22 Dece", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6062", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Tula.\n5.  On 1 April 1994 the applicant brought a court action against a troop unit no. 92914 (войсковая часть № 92914), her former employer. She sought reinstatement in her job, lost wages and non-pecuniary damages.\n6.  By a judgment of 17 April 1996, the Tsentralniy District Court of Tula upheld the applicant’s action in part. In 1997 both parties to the case brought their appeals. However, the applicant subsequently withdrew her appeal and the defendant’s appeal was not accepted by the court. The exact date when the judgment became final is unknown.\n7.  On 1 June 1998 the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court, on request of the Chairman of the Tula Regional Court, by way of supervisory review proceedings quashed the judgment of 17 April 1996 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination.\n8.  The first hearing, which was scheduled for 13 November 1998, was postponed because the judge was involved in the examination of another case.\n9.  The next hearing was scheduled for 3 March 1999. It did not take place owing to both parties’ failure to appear.\n10.  On 5 May 1999 the applicant asked the court to conduct an expert examination. The court adjourned the hearing in view of the need to request additional documents from the defendant.\n11.  The following hearings, which were scheduled for 25 June and 2 August 1999, did not take place because of the involvement of the judge in the examination of another case and the judge’s illness, respectively.\n12.  On 11 September 1999 the defendant’s representative did not attend.\n13.  On 20 September 1999 the court ordered the expert examination and stayed the proceedings.\n14.  On 13 March 2000 the District Court decided to resume the proceedings. The first hearing was scheduled for 19 May 2000. It was not held owing to the expiry of the presiding judge’s term of office.\n15.  The hearing of 18 September 2000 did not take place because the presiding judge was involved in the examination of another case.\n16.  On 16 November 2000 the defendant’s representative failed to attend the hearing.\n17.  On 6 December 2000 the court decided to give the applicant time to amend her claims.\n18.  The hearings on 16 January and 20 February 2001 were postponed owing to the involvement of the judge in the examination of another case and the judge’s illness, respectively.\n19.  The hearing on 30 March 2001 was adjourned because the court decided to give parties time to negotiate the arrears.\n20.  On the next hearing, which was scheduled for 14 May 2001, the defendant’s representative did not appear.\n21.  On 1 June 2001 the court, at the applicant’s request, asked certain documents from the defendant.\n22.  The hearing on 7 September 2001 was adjourned owing to the need to summon and examine witnesses.\n23.  On the next hearing, which was scheduled for 1 October 2001, the defendant’s representative did not appear.\n24.  Between 30 October and 15 November 2001 the court held seven hearings during which the applicant amended her claims and the defendant lodged a counter-claim.\n25.  The first hearing in 2002 did not take place due to the illness of the defendant’s representative.\n26.  Three hearings scheduled between 15 May and 16 December 2002 were postponed at the applicant’s request.\n27.  The first hearing in 2003 was scheduled for 20 February. It is unknown whether it took place.\n28.  On 1 April 2003 the applicant’s case was transferred to another presid", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6063", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Trabzon.\n6.  The facts, as presented by the applicant and as they appear from the documents submitted by the parties, are as follows.\n7.  The applicant used to work as the driver of a security van for Akbank, a private bank in Turkey (hereinafter “the bank”). On 16 July 1998, on their return from one of the branches of the bank, the applicant and his two colleagues in the same van realised that a sum of money (approximately 10,000 euros (EUR)) was missing.\n8.  On 21 July 1998 the bank made an official complaint to the Trabzon prosecutor against the applicant and his two colleagues. On the same day the applicant was arrested and questioned by police. The applicant denied the accusations against him, and told the police officers that when they had visited the branch he had stayed in the van and that his colleague had gone in to collect the money. On his return to the van his colleague had put the bag containing the money in the back of the van. On their return to the bank's headquarters in Trabzon he and his colleagues had realised that the sum of 20,000 Turkish liras (TRL) was missing. They had then gone back to the branch and looked for the money, without success.\n9.  On 3 September 1998 the Trabzon prosecutor filed an indictment formally charging the applicant and his two colleagues with the offence of breach of trust.\n10.  On 22 December 2000, while the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his colleagues were in progress, Law no. 4616 entered into force. Law no. 4616 provides for the suspension of criminal cases in respect of certain offences committed before 23 April 1999.\n11.  On 22 December 2003 the Seventh Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court considered the following:\n“...[the applicant] has committed the offence of breach of trust. Nevertheless, the offence was committed before 23 April 1999 and it thus falls within the ambit of Law no. 4616. It is accordingly decided not to convict [the applicant] but to suspend the proceedings in accordance with Law no. 4616”.\n12.  On 13 February 2004 the applicant appealed against the Assize Court decision, arguing that if the proceedings had not been suspended his innocence would have been proved.\n13.  On 8 June 2006 the Court of Cassation decided that the Istanbul Assize Court decision was not appealable, because it was not a decision containing a definitive conclusion. It considered, however, that the applicant's appeal could be examined as an “objection” and forwarded it to the Court of Cassation's prosecutor for the necessary action to be taken.\n14.  On 25 August 2006 the Eighth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court examined the objection and rejected it. This decision was communicated to the applicant on 13 October 2006.\n15.  On 24 August 1998 the applicant's contract of employment was terminated by the bank.\n16.  On 30 August 1998 lawyers representing the bank lodged a claim with the Trabzon Labour Court for the return of the missing money from the applicant and his two colleagues.\n17.  On 17 June 2004 the Trabzon Labour Court ordered the applicant and his two colleagues to repay the bank the missing money, with the “highest rates of interest applicable”. In its decision the Trabzon Labour Court considered the following:\n“The case concerns the compensation of the plaintiff bank's damages caused by the respondents who worked for the plaintiff bank and who, instead of bringing [a sum of] money they had collected from one of the bank", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6064", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, born in 1964, is a journalist by profession. Between 1 August 2000 and 28 February 2001 she was employed at Compass, a leading daily newspaper in her hometown of Burgas. According to a certificate issued by her employer, in 2000 her gross monthly salary there was 190 Bulgarian levs (BGN), and in 2001 it rose to BGN 210.\n8.  In the Bulgarian education system, after the seventh or eighth grade, when pupils complete their primary education, they can continue either in an ordinary or in a specialised secondary school. The ordinary secondary schools’ curriculum does not usually involve the intensive teaching of a special subject such as mathematics, foreign languages or engineering. Enrolment in these schools is on the basis of documents only and does not typically present a problem. The curriculum of the specialised secondary schools does include the teaching of such subjects, and pupils are admitted to them exclusively on the basis of competitive examinations, which take place in June (the school year in Bulgaria starts on 15 September). Under regulations issued by the Ministry of Education and Science, pupils with certain medical conditions can be admitted to specialised secondary schools without an examination, as an exceptional measure.\n9.  On 5 May 2000 the head of the Burgas education inspectorate, a territorial division of the Ministry of Education and Science, appointed a commission to select for admission to specialised secondary schools pupils with certain chronic medical conditions or special educational needs. The commission’s members were four employees of the inspectorate, Ms T.K., Ms A.M., Mr R.E. and Mr G.D., and a paediatrician, Dr N.P.\n10.  On 12 June 2000 fourteen parents of children who were sitting competitive examinations to gain admission to specialised secondary schools wrote a letter to the Ministry of Education and Science. They said that one hundred and fifty‑seven children had been admitted to specialised secondary schools in Burgas on the basis of a medical condition and not following a competitive examination. Most of those were apparently the children of medical doctors, paramedical staff and teachers. The parents complained that whereas they were paying thousands of levs for private preparatory lessons, certain pupils had been bragging that they would be admitted to the English Secondary School in Burgas in exchange for paying BGN 300; indeed, only a month later this had become a fact. They cited several examples of perfectly healthy children who had been diagnosed as suffering from serious chronic illnesses. They said that they were not blaming the admissions commission, which had merely been taking note of the prior conclusions of medical doctors and allocating the pupils to schools depending on the nature of their purported health problems. They insisted that the Ministry should set up a special commission to investigate. A number of parents subsequently staged daily public protests in front of the building of the Burgas education inspectorate.\n11.  Following this complaint, on 7 July 2000 the Minister of Education and Science appointed three officials from the Ministry to inspect the work of the admissions commission. Having done so between 10 and 14 July 2000, the three officials produced a five‑page report on 18 July 2000. The report, which was not made public, found that the commission had committed a number of violations of the school admissions regulations, such as admitting pupils", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6065", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Konstancin‑Jeziorna.\n6.  On 11 April 1997 the parliament passed the Law on disclosing work for or service in the State’s security services or collaboration with them between 1944 and 1990 by persons exercising public functions (ustawa o ujawnieniu pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z nimi w latach 1944‑1990 osób pełniących funkcje publiczne; “the 1997 Lustration Act”). It entered into force on 3 August 1997. Persons falling under the provisions of the 1997 Lustration Act, i.e. candidates or holders of public office such as ministers and members of parliament, were required to declare whether or not they had worked for or collaborated with the security services during the communist regime. The provisions of the Act extended to, inter alia, judges, prosecutors and advocates.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant, who was an advocate, declared that he had not collaborated with the communist‑era secret services.\n8.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) decided to institute lustration proceedings against the applicant following a request made by the Commissioner of the Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) on the grounds that the applicant had lied in his lustration declaration by denying that he had co‑operated with the secret services.\n9.  On 27 June 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first‑instance lustration court, found that the applicant had submitted an untrue lustration declaration. The operative part of the judgment was served on the applicant. However, the reasoning was considered “secret” and, in accordance with Article 100 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could only be consulted in the secret registry of that court.\n10.  The applicant lodged an appeal in which he maintained, in particular, that his rights had been breached because he could not freely consult the reasoning of the judgment.\n11.  On 16 May 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the second‑instance lustration court, upheld the impugned judgment.\n12.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment.\n13.  On 9 December 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as being manifestly ill‑founded. The applicant was removed from the Bar Association with the result that he is unable to practise as an advocate for a period of ten years in application of the 1997 Lustration Act.\n14.  The judgment was notified to the applicant’s representative on 17 January 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6066", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Heidelberg.\n5.  The applicant is the father of a son born out of wedlock on 21 December 2003. Shortly after the child was born, the mother refused the applicant any contact with the child. In 2004 the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to establish contact with his son.\n6.  On 19 May 2005 the applicant lodged a request for the regulation of contact rights with the Frankfurt/Main District Court (Amtsgericht). On 29 May 2005 the court served the request on the mother and requested the Youth Office to submit comments, which were submitted on 29 August 2005, following a reminder by the court. On 7 October 2005 the court scheduled a hearing for 27 October 2005, which was postponed at both parties’ request to 1 December 2005.\n7.  Both parties having agreed to institute supervised contacts, the District Court ordered the Youth Office to name, within a time-limit of one month, a suitable institution to supervise the visits. It further decided to issue a decision on contact rights after having been informed about the concrete dates for contacts.\n8.  Between October 2005 and May 2006 the Youth Office unsuccessfully attempted to mediate an agreement on a suitable institution.\n9.  On 31 May 2006 the District Court informed the parties that it would attempt to find a suitable institution on its own motion. On 6 June 2006 the District Court ordered that contact visits should be supervised by a centre for psychological counselling. Between July and October 2006, five supervised contacts took place.\n10.  On 30 October 2006 the District Court requested the counselling centre to submit a report. On 5 December 2006 the Youth Office, following a further reminder by the court, submitted a report by the counselling centre dated 9 November 2006. Both the Youth Office and the counsel centre did not have any objections to contacts between father and son. The next step should be to limit the supervision to the accompanied handover of the child. However, having regard to the mother’s opposition, the Youth Office was not in a position to propose how contact rights should be established.\n11.  On 12 December 2006 the District Court informed the parties of its intention to hear expert opinion on the regulation of access rights and invited the parties to submit comments within two weeks. On 22 December 2006 and 11 January 2007 new counsel for the applicant requested to be granted access to the case file and asked the court to allow submissions within 14 days after the receipt of the case-file that was returned by letter of 16 January 2007. On 5 February 2007 the applicant’s counsel submitted her comments.\n12.  On 8 February 2007 the District Court commissioned a psychological expert and ordered her to submit the expert opinion within three months.\n13.  On 5 March 2007 the applicant requested the District Court to regulate further contact rights by interim order. On 27 March 2007 the District Court rejected the applicant’s request on the grounds that a regulation of contact rights had to be based on the result of the expert examination. It pointed out that the expert had declared that she would be able to terminate her report by the end of April, if both parents attended the proposed meetings.\n14.  On 29 March 2007 the Youth Office declared that it did not have any objections to further contacts. On 12 April 2007 the applicant requested the applicant to hold a hearing on his interim request.\n15.  On 19 April 2007 the Dist", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6067", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1982 and 1981 respectively. The first applicant is serving a prison sentence in Kolomyya Prison no. 41. The second applicant lives in Khmelnytskyy[1].\n6.  On 13 March 2004 two persons wearing masks, one of whom was armed with a gun, attacked a certain Ms I. and her son at the door of their flat in Khmelnytskyy. In the course of the fight the armed intruder shot at Ms I., after which they both retreated without any further action and without their faces being seen. Some minutes later Ms I. died.\n7.  On 20 May 2004, at about 1 p.m., the police apprehended the first applicant in the street and took him to the Pivdenno-Zakhidna Police Station. According to a written explanation addressed by one of the arresting officers to the Chief of the Pivdenno-Zakhidna Police Department, the apprehension was occasioned by the suspicious behaviour of the applicant, whom the police had seen “walking fast and looking around”, entering a building (according to the case-file materials, that was the building in which the applicant lived), leaving it when approached and trying to re-enter it later. In the applicant's submission, he was asked by two officers to go to the police station “to clarify some issues”, to which he agreed.\n8.  The applicant was body-searched in the police station. As a result, a packet containing a “green substance of plant origin” was discovered in his pocket. According to the applicant, it had been planted on him by the police.\n9.  On the same day, at 10.45 p.m., on the premises of the police station, the applicant was placed in “administrative detention” on suspicion of illegal drug possession. As noted in the respective police report, the offence on suspicion of which the applicant was detained was “a breach of Article 44 of the Code on Administrative Offences”.\n10.  The applicant's relatives, while learning about his detention from a witness, were not informed of his whereabouts and enquired unsuccessfully at various police stations and detention facilities in the town, including the Pivdenno-Zakhidna Police Station.\n11.  On 22 May 2004 an expert report was issued, according to which the substance discovered in the applicant's pocket was not a drug.\n12.  On 23 May 2004 the applicant was released in the administrative offence proceedings “given the fact that all the circumstances of the case [had] been established and that [his release would] not impede further investigation”. He was however immediately re-arrested in the framework of the criminal proceedings (see below).\n13.  On 29 May 2004 the police terminated the administrative offence proceedings, finding that there was no case to answer.\n14.  The applicant's account of the events of 21 May 2004 is as follows. During the night of 20 to 21 May 2004 he was taken from the cell to an office in the Pivdenno-Zakhidna Police Station, where the police officers R.O. and M.D. urged him, under threat of violence, to confess that he had murdered Ms I. As the applicant refused to confess, at about 4 a.m. those officers brought in a manual electricity generator. The applicant was handcuffed and suspended from a metal bar between two tables, with naked wires from the generator attached to his ankles and coccyx. One of the officers, R.O., administered electric shocks to the applicant, while the other officer, M.D., gagged his mouth with a sofa cushion. At about 6.30 a.m. the applicant lost consciousness. After he had recovered consciousness, several officers to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6068", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Tokat.\n4.  While performing his compulsory military service, the applicant was injured. He was subsequently declared medically unfit to serve in the armed forces on account of his injury and was thus discharged.\n5.  The applicant subsequently applied to the Social Security Institution (“Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu”, “SGK”), claiming a special service disability pension. Upon the SGK’s refusal of this claim, he brought an action before the Supreme Military Administrative Court for the annulment of the SGK’s decision denying him a service disability pension.\n6.  On 14 April 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, holding that no causal link could be established between the applicant’s disability and the functions he performed in the armed forces. The written opinion of the principal public prosecutor submitted to this court prior to the delivery of the decision was not communicated to the applicant.\n7.  On 9 June 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification of its previous decision as the request had been lodged outside the statutory time-limit.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6069", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n14.  The first applicant was born in 1956. She died on 24 August 2007. The second applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Tbilisi.\n15. On 27 January 2006, at around 11 p.m., a group of friends met at the Café Chardin in Tbilisi. In the group were T.S.-aia, the Minister of the Interior’s wife, D.A.-aia, Director of Constitutional Security at the Interior Ministry, his deputy O.M.-ov, V.S.-dze, Director of the General Inspectorate of the Interior Ministry, G.D.-dze, Head of Press at the Ministry and the Minister’s spokesman, and A.K.-dze, a lady friend of T.S.‑aia. Another woman, Th.M.-dze, a friend of A.K.-dze, was also with them.\n16. Mr Sandro Girgvliani, the applicants’ 28-year-old only son, and a friend of his, L.B.-dze, were sitting at another table in the same room.\n17.  According to the applicants D.A.-aia, O.M.-ov, V.S.-dze and G.D.‑dze are very well-known public figures in Georgia who, with V.M.‑shvili, the Georgian Minister of the Interior, played an active part in the so-called Rose Revolution that brought about the resignation of President E. Shevardnadze in November 2003 (see The Georgian Labour Party v. Georgia, no. 9103/04, §§ 11-13, 8 July 2008). According to the applicants, the government relies on the support of these trusted aides.\n18.  As submitted by the applicants, on the evening in question Sandro Girgvliani and L.B.-dze, both young bankers, arrived at the Café Chardin later than the group of friends mentioned above. The applicants’ son was actually hoping to see Th.M.-dze, whom he was apparently courting. On entering the café, he went up to the table where T.S.-aia, the Interior Minister’s wife, and her friends were sitting to say hello to Th.M.-dze. After greeting Th.M.-dze with a kiss, he went to sit with L.B.-dze at a nearby table. At one point he signalled to Th.M.-dze to join them at his table and she temporarily changed tables. The discussion between Sandro Girgvliani and Th.M.-dze, which lasted between 20 and 30 minutes, was apparently quite tense, punctuated with lively gestures that suggested they were disagreeing about something. Because of this, A.K.-dze went up to Th.M.‑dze twice, to ask her if everything was all right and if she needed any help. Th.M.-dze said all was well and she would soon be going back to A.K.‑dze’s table. When she finally did so the Minister of the Interior’s wife asked her if there was anything wrong. Th.M.-dze said that the young man she had been talking to was a friend and that there was no problem.\n19.  On 28 January 2006, at about 3 p.m., Sandro Girgvliani’s body was found by three friends, with the help of a local man, near the cemetery in Okrokana, a suburb of Tbilisi, 6.3 km from the Café Chardin.\n20.  According to an expert report drawn up by forensic specialists on 28 January 2006, after inspecting the crime scene, and the photographs appended to it, Sandro Girgvliani’s body, naked from the waist up, was discovered lying in the snow in the woods near the cemetery. Visual examination of the body revealed numerous parallel linear wounds on the left arm and shoulder, three 8 cm wounds to the neck, a similar wound to the throat and numerous bruises and lesions, some deep, to the chest. A pocketknife was found in the victim’s trouser pocket.\n21.  The autopsy carried out on 28 January 2006 by the National Forensic Bureau established that the victim had 12 cuts of different sizes on his throat, caused by a sharp object, and one lesion on the left shoulder. Three of the wounds to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6070", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and currently lives in London.\n7.  The applicant worked at the Institute of the USA and Canada at the Russian Academy of Science as the head of the Military-Technical and Military-Economic Policy Department. He resided in Obninsk, Kaluga Region.\n8.  On 26 October 1999 the Kaluga Region Department of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (Управление Федеральной службы безопасности Российской Федерации по Калужской области, the “FSB”) opened criminal proceedings under Article 283 of the Criminal Code in connection with the publication in 1998 of the book “Strategic Nuclear Weaponry of Russia” which allegedly contained State secrets.\n9.  On 27 October 1999 the FSB, acting on the basis of a search warrant, searched the applicant’s flat in the presence of the applicant and his wife and seized notes, books, press clippings, computers, money in foreign currencies (cash) and other items. They took the applicant to their office in Obninsk. Over the next three days an investigator questioned him as a witness, having warned him about his criminal liability if he refused to testify or made false statements. The applicant had no access to a lawyer, nor did he request that one be appointed.\n10.  On 29 October 1999 the FSB brought criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of high treason in the form of espionage, punishable under Article 275 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  On the same day an investigator joined the two cases and ordered the applicant’s detention on remand under Article 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The detention order, upheld by the prosecutor of Obninsk on the same day and served on the applicant at 12.30 a.m. on 30 October 1999, stated that the applicant had gathered, systematised and summarised information of a military-technical nature and then passed it on to representatives of a foreign organisation, Alternative Futures, for remuneration, during meetings with them outside Russia. Thus, in September 1998 in Budapest the applicant had allegedly handed over analytical materials containing State secrets on the state of the Russian rocket attack warning system. In July 1999 in Brussels he had allegedly passed on materials concerning the latest Russian aircraft complexes and had been requested to collect information on the Akula submarine and the MIG-29 aircraft. He had prepared that information and obtained an entry visa for Italy, intending to hand it over in Rome in October 1999. He had failed to do so for reasons beyond his control. The investigator concluded that the applicant’s actions contained elements of treason, punishable under Article 275 of the Criminal Code. The order also stated that the preparation of charges against the applicant had not been completed, that he might obstruct the investigation and continue his criminal activities and that he might abscond.\n12.  On 1 November 1999 the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the presence of his lawyer.\n13.  On 5 November 1999 the applicant was charged with high treason in the form of espionage under Article 275 of the Criminal Code. The charges were formulated in a one-page document. The applicant was accused of collecting and handing over to the UK-based consultancy firm Alternative Futures information containing State secrets and other information damaging to Russia’s national security, in the manner described in the detention order of 29 October 1999.\n14.  On 24 December 1999 the prosecutor’s offic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6071", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n(1) Mr Vakha Shokkarov (also spelled Vakhi Shokarov), who was born in 1941,\n(2) Ms Amani Shokkarova (also spelled Shokarova), who was born in 1939,\n(3) Ms Khava Shokkarova (also spelled Shokarova), who was born in 1964, and\n(4) Ms Zulay Tatsegova[1].\nThe first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Visadi (also known as Murad) Shokkarov (also spelled Shokarov and Shakarov), who was born in 1972, and Mr Visita (also spelled Visit) Shokkarov, who was born in 1966. Visita Shokkarov was married to the third applicant; Visadi Shokkarov was married to the fourth applicant. At the material time the Shokkarovs were residing in the Satsita camp for internally displaced persons in Ordzhenikidzovskaya, Ingushetia. At some point later they moved back to Grozny, Chechnya, where they are currently residing.\n7.  At about 7 a.m. on 6 January 2003 a group of policemen from the Sunzhenskiy district department of the interior (ROVD) in Ingushetia arrived at the Satsita camp in four vehicles. They arrested Visadi Shokkarov and took him away without any explanation.\n8.  Later that day Visadi Shokkarov’s relatives came to the ROVD; the policemen told them that Visadi was detained in the police station.\n(b)  Criminal proceedings against Visadi Shokkarov\n9.  On 21 January 2003 Visadi Shokkarov was charged with the aggravated murder of two officials from the Nadterechniy district administration in Chechnya.\n10.  On 22 January 2003 the Nadterechniy District Court authorised Visadi Shokkarov’s detention on remand until 20 March 2003, stating that there was a risk of his absconding from the authorities.\n11.  At some point the first applicant retained a lawyer to represent his son’s interests. On 27 and 31 January, as well as on 5 February 2003, the lawyer requested that he be allowed to contact Visadi Shokkarov, but to no avail.\n(c)  Visadi Shokkarov’s death\n12.  On 2 February 2003 Visadi Shokkarov and his co-accused Mr V.B. were taken for the reconstruction of events to the site of the murder in the Nadterechniy district. They were in a car driven by Mr B., an officer of the Federal Security Service (FSB). Near Bena-Yurt (also spelled Beno-Yurt) in the Nadterechniy district the car fell into a pit and exploded. Visadi Shokkarov and Mr V.B. died, whereas officer B. survived.\n13.  On 10 February 2003 Visadi Shokkarov’s lawyer again requested the investigators to allow him to visit Visadi Shokkarov and was informed that his client had died.\n(d)  Forensic examinations of Visadi Shokkarov’s corpse\n14.  On 3 February 2003 the Nadterechniy district prosecutor’s office (the Nadterechniy prosecutor’s office) ordered a post-mortem examination of Visadi Shokkarov’s corpse. The applicants were not informed about this decision.\n15.  Between 3 February and 1 March 2003 an expert of the Mozdok forensic bureau carried out the autopsy. According to the report, Visadi Shokkarov had died from blunt complex trauma to the head and chest, which had been probably inflicted on him in the car crash. The expert also stated that the body had burned and charred after the death.\n16.  On 11 February 2003 Visadi Shokkarov’s lawyer informed the applicants about his client’s death. On the same date in the Mozdok town morgue the applicants collected a burnt and unidentifiable corpse without internal organs; they were told that it was Visadi Shokkarov’s body.\n17.  On 11 February 2003 the Mozdok forensic bureau issued a death certificate stating that Visadi Shokkarov ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6072", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently detained in Szczecinek Prison.\n6.  On 1 July 1999 the applicant was arrested by the German police on suspicion of having committed a murder in Germany. On the same date he was remanded in custody by the German authorities.\n7.  On 28 January 2000 the applicant was surrendered to the Polish authorities.\n8.  On the same date, the Poznań District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It attached importance to the serious nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on the applicant.\n9.  On 17 April 2000 the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to 26 July 2000. It stated that it resulted from the other suspects’ testimonies, expert reports and other evidence that the applicant had committed the offences of which he was suspected. It stressed that the investigation was in its final stage but some additional time would be necessary for the suspects to acquaint themselves with the large volume of evidence. Finally, it drew importance to the fact that there were several suspects in the case and that the less restrictive measure would not secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n10.  The applicant’s appeals against several decisions extending his detention were unsuccessful.\n11.  On 30 June 2000 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Poznań Regional Court. There were five defendants in the case, all charged with numerous offences. The applicant was charged with murder.\n12.  On 4 December 2000 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held some thirteen hearings in the case.\n13.  During the court proceedings the Poznań Regional Court further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on several occasions, namely, on 17 July 2000 (to 30 January 2001), 22 January 2001 (to 30 April 2001) and 23 April 2001 (to 30 June 2001) repeating the reasons given previously.\n14.  On 28 June and 28 December 2001 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) repeated the earlier arguments given for the applicant’s continued detention, underlining the complexity of the case and the substantial volume of evidence to be examined, including expert reports from abroad.\n15.  On 27 June 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to 30 September 2002 stating merely that the evidence collected during the proceedings seemed to indicate that he had committed the offences with which he was charged.\n16.  On an unspecified date the Poznań Regional Court decided that the criminal proceedings had to start anew as more than the statutory period of 35 days elapsed between two consecutive hearings.\n17.  On 3 September 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention to 28 February 2003. It did not rely on any new arguments. It considered that the applicant’s detention for the subsequent months was reasonable given that the criminal proceedings in his case had to start anew.\n18.   On 2 October 2002 the trial started anew. Subsequently, the court held seven hearings.\n19.  On 20 February 2003 the Poznań Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed. He remained detained pending appellate proceedings.\n20.  On 10 March 2004 the Poznań Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment in respect of the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6074", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1937, 1964 and 1971 respectively. The last two applicants live respectively in Moscow and in the village of Pliyevo, Ingushetia.\n8.  At the material time the first two applicants and Mr Mayrbek Abdullayevich Khamzayev, who is not a party to the proceedings before the Court, owned property at 24a Dostoevsky Street in the town of Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic. The third applicant was the first applicant’s relative and had been living in the house with her family with the latter’s permission since October 1997.\n9.  The first two applicants submitted a certificate dated 29 January 1982 confirming that they and Mr Mayrbek Abdullayevich Khamzayev inherited in equal shares the real estate situated at 24a Dostoyevskiy Street from their deceased relative. The certificate also indicated that the property comprised a brick house with a usable surface area of 90 square metres, a summer kitchen, an awning and other outhouses situated on a plot of land measuring about 180 square metres. The certificate was signed and stamped by a notary public.\n10.  In early October 1999 the Russian Government commenced a counter-terrorism operation in the Chechen Republic.\n11.  On 19 October 1999 the federal military air forces attacked the town of Urus-Martan. The bombing killed six people and wounded sixteen as well as destroying thirteen houses, including the one at 24a Dostoevsky Street, and damaging twenty-seven. According to the third applicant, her belongings were destroyed with the house.\n12.  In the applicants’ submission, after the attack an unexploded bomb was found at 15 Dostoevsky Street.\n13.  It appears that on 10 November 1999 a video record of the site of the incident was made by local residents.\n14.  On 24 January 2000 the Urus-Martan Administration (aдминистрация г. Урус-Мартан) drew up an evaluation report (дефектный акт) describing in detail the damage inflicted on the house at 24a Dostoevsky Street as a result of the attack.\n15.  On an unspecified date in November 2000 the Urus-Martan Administration issued the first applicant with a certificate confirming that the house at 24a Dostoevsky Street belonging to him had been partly destroyed as a result of the bomb strike on 19 October 1999.\n16.  On 25 February 2002 the Urus-Martan Administration issued the second applicant with a certificate confirming that the house at 24a Dostoevsky Street had been partly destroyed as a result of warfare in the Chechen Republic and that it was presently unfit for human habitation.\n17.  After the attack the applicants sought the opening of an investigation into the events of 19 October 1999. It was mostly the first applicant who, in his own name and on behalf of the other applicants, applied, both in person and in writing, to various public bodies.\n(a)  Replies from military and administrative authorities\n18.  Between January 2000 and November 2001 the first applicant received a number of similar letters from the General Headquarters of the Russian Air Force (Главный штаб Военно-воздушных сил), the acting commander-in-chief of the Air Force (временно исполняющий обязанности Главнокомандующего Военно-воздушными силами) and the General Headquarters of the Armed Forces of Russia (Генеральный штаб Вооруженных Сил РФ), stating that the Air Force had never flown in the vicinity of Urus-Martan or launched any bomb strikes in October 1999 or later. The letters added that air strikes were only aimed at targets which had been pre-selected ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6075", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are residents of the town of Urus-Martan in the Chechen Republic.\n8.  At the material time all the applicants lived at various addresses in Urus-Martan.\n9.  The first applicant lived with her family in a block of flats at 224 Kalanchakskaya Street.\n10.  According to the second applicant, she had owned a private house at 15 Dostoyevskiy Street. In support of her submission, the second applicant adduced a certificate from the Urus-Martan Administration (aдминистрация г. Урус-Мартан), dated 2 December 2004, stating that she had lived on real estate measuring 428 square metres at 15 Dostoyevskiy Street. The certificate indicated that the property had been damaged as a result of the military actions in the Chechen Republic in 1999. It did not specify whether the second applicant had any property rights in respect of that estate.\n11.  According to the third applicant, she had lived with her husband and children in a private house at 25 Mayakovskiy Street. She adduced an extract from a housing inventory (похозяйственная книга) issued by the Urus-Martan Administration on 26 March 2009, stating that she had real estate at 25 Mayakovskiy Street and that the property, measuring 40 square meters, had been built or acquired in 1995.\n12.  According to the fourth applicant, he had lived with his family in a private house at 24 Mayakovskiy Street. He submitted a certificate from the Urus-Martan Administration, dated 3 July 2002, stating that he had lived on real estate measuring 365 square metres at 24 Mayakovskiy Street. The certificate indicated that the property had been damaged as a result of the military actions in the Chechen Republic in 1999. It did not specify whether the fourth applicant had any property rights in respect of that estate. The fourth applicant also adduced an extract from a housing inventory issued by the Urus-Martan Administration on 26 March 2009, stating that he had real estate at 27 Mayakovskiy Street and that the property, measuring 235 square meters, had been built or acquired in 1993.\n13.  According to the fifth applicant, he had lived with his family in a private house at 19 Dostoyevskiy Street. He submitted a certificate issued by the Urus-Martan Administration on an unspecified date in July 2002, stating that he had lived on real estate measuring 348 square metres at 19 Dostoyevskiy Street. The certificate indicated that the property had been damaged as a result of the military actions in the Chechen Republic in 1999. It did not specify whether the fifth applicant had any property rights in respect of that estate.\n14.  According to the sixth applicant, he had lived with his family in a private house at 32 Pervomayskaya Street. He submitted a certificate from the Urus-Martan Administration, dated 3 July 2002, stating that he had lived on real estate measuring 310 square metres at 32 Pervomayskaya Street. The certificate indicated that the property had been damaged as a result of the military actions in the Chechen Republic in 1999. It did not specify whether the sixth applicant had any property rights in respect of that estate. The sixth applicant also adduced an extract from a housing inventory issued by the Urus-Martan Administration on 27 March 2009, stating that he had real estate at 46 Pervomayskaya Street and that the property, measuring 300 square meters, had been built or acquired in 1978.\n15.  The seventh to thirteenth applicants are relatives. The seventh applicant is a brother of Mr Vakha T", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6076", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a company with limited liability, with its registered office in Poprad.\n5.  On 6 July 1997 the applicant company’s predecessor sued a private limited company for a sum due for construction works carried out by the former.\n6.  Courts at two levels granted the claim in part, but the Supreme Court, in proceedings on the defendant’s appeal on points of law, quashed the lower courts’ judgments on 27 September 2001.\n7.  In subsequent proceedings, in December 2001, the plaintiff argued that the relevant part of the contract was void, as it had been signed by Mr K., who did not have the authority to act on behalf of the defendant company, on 22 April 1996.\n8.  On 5 February 2002 the Prešov Regional Court dismissed the action. It established that the parties had concluded a contract for the reconstruction of a spa house on 22 April 1996. The contract included a provision under which the plaintiff was liable to pay a penalty in case of delay. That penalty amounted to 0.5% of the contractual price for each day of delay, the maximum amount being 20%. The court established that the work under the contract had been completed on 13 December 1996 instead of 21 October 1996 as agreed in the contract. The defendant had therefore rightly deducted the sum in issue from the payment of the price.\n9.  As to the above argument concerning the validity of the relevant part of the contract, the Regional Court held that Mr K. had been elected to the company’s board of directors at an extraordinary general meeting held on 12 April 1996. He had therefore been authorised to sign the contract on the defendant’s behalf. The fact that he had been entered in that capacity in the companies’ register on 28 May 1996 could not affect the position, as such an entry was of a declaratory nature only.\n10.  On 27 March 2002 the applicant company appealed. Its representative argued that the first-instance court had disregarded the relevant evidence when concluding that Mr K. had been authorised to sign the contract for the defendant company. In particular, the applicant company relied on the minutes of a meeting of that company’s supervisory board held on 26 April 1996. Point 4 on the agenda was entitled “Election of the Board of Directors” and the minutes indicate that “the supervisory board approved Mr K. as a new member of the company’s board of directors”. The applicant further argued that there was nothing to prove that K. had been effectively appointed to that post at the general meeting held on 12 April 1996, contrary to what was stated in the Regional Court’s judgment.\n11.  On 12 June 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court judgment of 5 February 2002. As regards the standing of Mr K. to sign the contract in particular, it held that the Regional Court had correctly established that that person had been elected as a member of the company’s board of directors at the general meeting held on 12 April 1996. He had therefore been entitled to sign the contract on 22 April 1996. According to one of the documents from the court’s file, on 24 May 1996 the defendant company had requested that the responsible court register Mr K. as a member of the company’s board of directors with effect from 12 April 1996. The judgment became final on 2 September 2003.\n12.  On 23 September 2003 the applicant company appealed on points of law against the judgment of 12 June 2003. It maintained that the appeal court had not examined its arguments concerning the evidence i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6077", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Krasnodar.\n5.  On 24 July 2003 the applicant was arrested in Moscow on suspicion of facilitating the sale of a forged promissory note, an offence under Article 186 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n6.  On 26 July 2003 the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow remanded the applicant in custody. On 25 September, 17 October and 19 December 2003 the applicant’s detention was extended. On 30 January 2004 the District Court fixed the opening of the trial for 16 February 2004 and extended the applicant’s detention. It appears that the applicant did not lodge an appeal against any of the extension orders.\n7.  During the investigation, on 25 July and 17 December 2003 the investigator interviewed, among other witnesses, Captain P., whose position was described as “senior operational officer of the 4th Interior Department of the 1st Operative Field Division of the Economic Crime Directorate of Moscow”. According to the interview record, his identity was certified by a police badge issued by the Main Police Directorate of Moscow. It follows from the record that Captain P. testified, in particular, that he had been asked to pose as the purchaser of the forged promissory note which the applicant’s co-defendant, Mr K., had undertaken to procure for him. He also stated that he had seen Mr K. take the envelope containing the forged note from the applicant.\n8.  Although Captain P. was listed as a witness for the prosecution, he did not appear at the trial hearings on 23 March, 8 April, 21 April, 18 May and 1 June 2004. The applicant’s defence did not object to the closing of the judicial inquiry in Captain P.’s absence or to his written statement made during the pre-trial investigation being read out. However, since the prosecutor insisted on the attendance and examination of Captain P. in court, the final hearing was adjourned until 3 June 2004.\n9.  At the hearing on 3 June 2004 the prosecutor orally informed the court that, according to information from Captain P.’s superior, Captain P. had been sent on a long-term mission to another town. The prosecutor asked to read out his written deposition and the defence had no objections. That was the last trial hearing.\n10.  In the meantime, counsel for the applicant launched his own inquiries about the whereabouts of Captain P. First he unsuccessfully attempted to reach him at the phone number which was listed in the interview record, and subsequently, on 28 May and 16 June 2004, he asked the head of the Economic Crime Directorate of the Moscow Police to confirm in writing that Captain P. was or had been one of their employees. By letters of 2 and 25 June 2004, the head of the Economic Crime Directorate replied as follows:\n“In response to your inquiry, I inform you that all the available information concerning Mr P[.] is present in the materials of criminal case no. 193476. Detailed information may be provided upon request of the trial judge.”\n11.  On 8 June 2004 the Gagarinskiy District Court delivered judgment. It found the applicant and Mr K. guilty of selling a forged promissory note and sentenced the applicant to five years and nine months’ imprisonment in a high-security correctional colony. In finding the applicant guilty, the District Court referred to the following testimonies by witnesses:\n“The witness [Major] Kr. of the Organised Crime Unit of the South-Western Department of the Moscow Police testified in court that on 24 July 2003 he and Officer B. had taken p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6078", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant is the editorial board of Pravoye Delo, a newspaper officially registered in Odessa in May 2000. The second applicant is the editor-in-chief of Pravoye Delo. He lives in Odessa.\n5.  At the material time Pravoye Delo was a local newspaper published three times a week with a circulation of 3,000 copies. It published reports and material on political and social matters in Ukraine and, in particular, the Odessa Region. Due to lack of funds, the newspaper often reprinted articles and other material obtained from various public sources, including the Internet.\n6.  On 19 September 2003 Pravoye Delo published an anonymous letter, allegedly written by an employee of the Security Service of Ukraine, which the second applicant’s colleague, Ms I., had downloaded from a news website. The letter contained allegations that senior officials of the Odessa Regional Department of the Security Service had been engaging in unlawful and corrupt activities, and in particular that they had connections with members of organised criminal groups. One of the paragraphs of the letter read as follows:\n“... The Deputy Head of [the Odessa Regional Department of the Security Service] [I. T.], a close friend and assistant of the Head of the Department P., established ‘business’ contacts with [the organised criminal group] of [A. A.] ... A member of [the organised criminal group] G. T., an agent of [A. A.], who is in charge of the main areas of activities of the gang [is] a coordinator and sponsor of murders, [he] meets with [I. T.] and resolves financial issues for the top officials of the Department of [the Security Service] in the Odessa Region ...”\n7.  The letter was followed by these comments, prepared by Ms I. on behalf of the editorial board:\n“When publishing this letter without the knowledge and consent of the editor-in‑chief, I understand that I may not only face trouble ... but I may also create problems for the newspaper. Because, if this letter is [misinformation], then [the media], in which it appears may be endangered. On the other hand, if this letter is genuine, then its author faces a higher risk. Besides, given that this anonimka [anonymous letter] has already been published on the Odessa website Vlasti.net (to which we refer, in accordance with their requirement), we have the blessing of God [to publish it]. We are proceeding on the understanding that, in accordance with the Act on Democratic Civil Control over the Military Organisation and Law-Enforcement Organs of the State, we are carrying out civil control and, under section 29 of the Act, we would like to receive open information concerning the facts described in this letter from the relevant authorities. Moreover, [it is to be noted] that the Department [of the Security Service] in the Odessa Region did not react to an analogous publication in the Top Secret [newspaper] ... I remind [you] that the [Pravoye Delo] newspaper ... is wide open for letters in reply and comments from all interested agencies.”\n8.  In October 2003 G. T., who lived in Odessa at the time and was the President of the Ukraine National Thai Boxing Federation, brought defamation proceedings in the Prymorskiy District Court of Odessa against the applicants. G. T. alleged that the information in the 19 September 2003 issue of Pravoye Delo concerned him, and that it was untrue and had damaged his dignity and reputation. He asked the court to order the applicants to publish a retraction and an apology and to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6081", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1934, 1968 and 1966 respectively and live at the same address in Athens. The first applicant is the father of the other two.\n5.  On 26 February 1998 the applicants lodged an action for damages with Lasithi (Crete) First Instance Civil Court against K.K., a contractor to whom they had entrusted the construction of a building on a plot of land the first applicant owned. On 5 March 1999 K.K. filed a counter-action (ανταγωγή). The hearing, which was originally set for 4 November 1998, was adjourned to 21 April 1999 at the request of the defendant.\n6.  On 28 March 2000 and 29 June 2001, by two interim decisions, the court ordered preparatory inquiries (decision nos. 62/2000 and 280/2001 respectively). On 28 January 2002, the applicants asked for a new hearing date, which was set for 20 March 2002.\n7.  On 15 September 2002 the action and counter-action were granted in part (judgment no. 267/2002).\n8.  On 11 and 14 February 2003 respectively, both K.K. and the applicants lodged appeals against the aforementioned decision. The hearing was set for 16 September 2003.\n9.  On 20 April 2004 the Crete Court of Appeal quashed the first instance decision and partially allowed the appeal (judgment no. 179/2004).\n10.  On 11 June 2004 K.K. lodged an appeal on points of law.\n11.  On 1st March 2006 the Court of Cassation partially quashed the appellate decision and remitted the case to a different division of the Court of Appeal (judgment no. 383/2006). On 5 May 2006, the applicants asked for a new hearing date. The hearing was fixed for 27 February 2007.\n12.  On 21 January 2008, by an interim decision, the appellate court ordered preparatory inquiries (judgment no. 29/2008).\n13.  On 4 March 2008 the applicants asked for a new hearing date. The hearing, originally set for 21 October 2008, took place on 20 October 2009.\n14.  On 5 February 2010 the Crete Court of Appeal ordered new preparatory inquiries (judgment no. 32/2010).\n15.  On 18 February 2010 K.K. asked for a new hearing date.\n16.  On 21 September 2010 a hearing took place before the Crete Court of Appeal and the decision was reserved.\n17.  On 7 February 2011 the appellate court quashed judgment no. 267/2002 of the Lasithi (Crete) First Instance Civil Court and partially allowed the appeal (judgment no. 58/2011). The applicant was served with the judgment on 2 March 2011. This became final on 3 April 2011.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6082", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1977 and 1963 respectively and live in Plovdiv.\n7.  On 21 September 1995 Mr Dimitrov was arrested by the police while trying to break into a car with two other individuals, M.M. and S.D. He was taken to a police station, where he made a written confession. M.M., who was apparently also taken into custody, made a confession as well and turned over to the police two radio cassette players stolen from two cars which he had broken into earlier. On the same day a police officer drew up a report on the incident.\n8.  On 1 November 1995 a police investigator interviewed S.D. who confessed that he had committed the offence in concert with Mr Dimitrov and M.M.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 1995 the case was given the number 1074/95.\n10.  On 19 February 2002 the investigator in charge of the case interviewed one of the police officers who had arrested Mr Dimitrov. On 21 February 2002 he interviewed the owner of one of the cars, and on the same day ordered an expert report on the value of the stolen goods. The report was ready the same day. On 1 March 2002 the investigator interviewed the owner of another car.\n11.  On 4 March 2002 Mr Dimitrov was formally charged with attempted theft committed in concert with M.M. and S.D. He was interviewed in the presence of his counsel and pleaded guilty. On the same day the investigator interviewed S.D. as a witness. It seems that neither M.M. nor S.D. were charged.\n12.  On 22 May 2002 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor’s Office, noting that in January 2000 M.M. had left Bulgaria and was in Spain, that it was impossible to establish the facts without interviewing him, and it was necessary to charge him as well, decided to stay the proceedings pending his return. On 11 April 2005, noting that on 28 March 2005 M.M. had come back from Spain, the same Public Prosecutor’s Office decided to resume the proceedings.\n13.  On 18 April 2005 M.M. was interviewed as a witness. He was interviewed again on 15 June 2005 in the presence of a judge. S.D. was also interviewed as a witness in the presence of the judge. It seems that neither M.M. nor S.D. were charged.\n14.  On 11 July 2005 Mr Dimitrov was allowed to acquaint himself with the case file. On 19 July 2005 the investigator recommended that he be brought for trial, and on 25 August 2005 the Plovdiv District Prosecutor’s Office indicted him.\n15.  The Plovdiv District Court (Пловдивски районен съд) heard the case on 18 May 2006. The prosecution and Mr Dimitrov stated that they had entered into a plea bargain. The court approved the bargain, sentenced the applicant to five months’ imprisonment, suspended, and terminated the proceedings.\n16.  On 11 March 1996 a criminal investigation was opened against Mr Hamanov, a bank branch manager, and several other individuals in connection with a number of financial transactions. After March 1996 the case went through a preliminary investigation, trial and appeal. Following a remittal to the preliminary investigation stage in June 2000, in April 2003 it was again pending before the prosecuting authorities. The detailed course of the proceedings up to April 2003 has been set out in paragraphs 11‑32 of the Court’s judgment in the case of Hamanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44062/98, 8 April 2004).\n17.  In September 2003 one of Mr Hamanov’s co‑accused made a request under the new Article 239a of the 1974 Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraphs 38‑40 below). On 31 October 2003 the Plovdiv District Court requested the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6083", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Korinthia.\n5.  On 28 July 2000 he was involved in a car accident. On 20 November 2001 criminal proceedings were brought against him for manslaughter and bodily harm caused by a negligent act.\n6.  On 15 November 2005 the Korinthos First Instance Criminal Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a suspended prison sentence of sixteen months (judgment no. 3625/2005). The same day, the applicant lodged an appeal.\n7.  By judgment dated 29 January 2008 the Korinthos Court of Appeal reduced his sentence to a suspended prison sentence of thirteen months (judgment no. 129/2008).\n8.  On 25 February, 2008, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. He challenged the reasoning of the appellate decision and alleged that his rights under Articles 6 §§ 2 and 3 (e) of the Convention had been violated.\n9.  By judgment dated 12 June 2008 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal. It held that the appellate court’s decision was well reasoned and that there was no indication that the applicant’s defence rights had been infringed (judgment no. 1566/2008). This judgment was finalised on 9 July 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6084", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  On 11 April 2005 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the local administration seeking formal acknowledgment of his entitlement to child benefits and the relevant arrears.\n6.  On 27 July 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh (“the District Court”) dismissed his claims finding that he was not eligible for the sought benefits. The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n7.  On 4 October 2005 the District Court summoned the applicant to appear at the appeal hearing fixed for 27 October 2005. There is no evidence that the summons was dispatched or that the applicant indeed received it.\n8.  On 27 October 2005 the Voronezh Regional Court examined and dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s appeal. The applicant was absent from the appeal hearing, and the appeal court did not examine the question of his due notification at the hearing.\n9.  According to the applicant, on 1 December 2005 he inquired about the date of the appeal hearing at the registry of the District Court and was told that the Voronezh Regional Court had already examined and dismissed his appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6085", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Rhodes. He is a doctor.\n5.  On 11 June 2000, C.R., a British national, after a fall while being drunk, was transported to the hospital of Rhodes, where he died several hours later.\n6.  On 5 January 2001 the Rhodes First Instance Prosecutor ordered a preliminary investigation against all doctors involved in the care of C.R. The applicant, who had examined the victim when he was admitted to the hospital, was prosecuted for manslaughter.\n7.  The hearing before the Criminal Court of Rhodes was held, after one adjournment, on the 24, 25 and 26 September 2003. The mother of the victim, assisted by an interpreter, participated as a civil claimant seeking EUR 30 for moral damages. She reiterated her status as a civil claimant throughout the proceedings.\n8.  On 26 September 2003 the court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment convertible into a fine (judgment no. 3016/2003). The applicant lodged an appeal on the same day.\n9.  On 9 February 2005, the Dodecanese Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant (judgment no. 52/2005). This decision was certified on 17 January 2006.\n10.  On 15 February 2006 the Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation lodged an appeal on points of law. The hearing took place on 10 January 2007.\n11.  On 6 August 2007, the Court of Cassation quashed the appellate decision for lack of reasoning and remitted the case to a different division of the Court of Appeal (judgment no. 1648/2007). The hearing before the Dodecanese Court of Appeal took place on 5 and 6 February 2008.\n12.  On 6 February 2008 the Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to a suspended prison sentence of fifteen months (judgment no. 53/2008). This decision was certified on 29 February 2008.\n13.  On 14 March 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. In his pleadings he challenged the legality of the civil claimant status of the victim’s mother and the appointment of his interpreter during the hearing of 5 February 2008, the reasoning of the appellate decision and the assessment of evidence. The hearing was held on 14 May 2008.\n14.  On 4 June 2008 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal as unfounded (judgment no. 1484/2008). This decision was finalised on 22 July 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6086", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.\n6.  On 12 February 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, at the material time Deputy Head of the Transport Safety Department, and he was arrested on suspicion of bribe-taking. The arrest took place in the absence of the lawyer. A search was carried out at the flat where he was staying. The applicant was released on the same day.\n7.  The applicant challenged the lawfulness of the institution of the criminal proceedings against him and of his arrest. However, on 3 August 2004 and 8 February 2005 respectively the Rostov Regional Court in the final instance dismissed his claims.\n8.  The applicant further challenged the lawfulness of the search carried out at his flat. On 14 February 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don held that the search had been carried out in compliance with the domestic law. The applicant alleged that he had not been informed of the above decision until 18 May 2004. Thus, he had been prevented from lodging an ordinary appeal against it. Later, the applicant tried to initiate a supervisory review of the decision of 14 February 2004. However, on 31 May 2004 the Rostov Regional Court found that there were no grounds for quashing the decision of 14 February 2004.\n9.  On 10 March 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don remanded the applicant in custody. The decision read as follows:\n“... From the material submitted by the prosecution, it follows that [the applicant] was charged with several particularly serious offences, and there are grounds to suspect him of having committed other similar crimes ... Besides, as it follows from the submitted material, during the search carried out at the applicant’s flat on 12 February 2004, [the applicant’s wife] went to the balcony and threw out [documents], suggesting that she was therefore trying to hide material evidence from the investigation ... This gives grounds to believe that, if not detained, [the applicant] may interfere with the proper administration of justice by destroying or hiding evidence, preventing the investigative authorities from uncovering other instances of his illegal activities, as well as putting pressure on those witnesses who had not yet been identified or questioned.\n[The applicant] did not provide any medical documents certifying that his state of health prevented him from being held in detention ...”\n10.  The applicant’s detention interrupted the inpatient treatment he had meanwhile been undergoing for an aggravated chronic kidney condition (acute pyelonephritis).\n11.  On 22 March 2004, on appeal, the Rostov Regional Court upheld the detention order of 10 March 2004, finding that it had been lawful and justified.\n12.  On 7 May 2004 the Leninskiy District Court, citing the gravity of the charges against the applicant, extended his detention until 12 June 2004. On 19 May 2004, on appeal, the Rostov Regional Court upheld the above decision.\n13.  On 9 June 2004 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 12 August 2004. The court held as follows:\n“... [The applicant] is charged with several particularly grave crimes committed by an organised group; until now, the investigating authorities have not identified all those involved in the criminal activities in respect of which [the applicant] has been charged; [the applicant] knows the persons in question. In view of the above, the court considers that, if not detained, the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6087", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1979 and is currently serving a term of imprisonment in correctional colony IK-18, Yamalo-Nenetsk Autonomous Region.\n7.  On 16 April 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.\n8.  On 18 April 2005 the Vsevolozhsk Town Court of the Leningrad Region decided to remand the applicant in custody.\n9.  On 23 April 2005 the applicant absconded, and on 25 April 2005 he was apprehended by the police.\n10.  On 29 May 2006 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation approved the bill of indictment against the applicant, and on 2 June 2006 the case was sent to the Leningrad Regional Court for trial.\n11.  On 5 June 2006 the Leningrad Regional Court scheduled the preliminary hearing for 15 June 2006. It was subsequently adjourned until 20 June 2006 following requests filed by the applicant and some of his co‑defendants who had not received a copy of the decision of 5 June 2006.\n12.  On 23 June 2006 the criminal case was returned to the public prosecutor for rectification of the bill of indictment.\n13.  On 27 September 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the above-mentioned decision on appeal, and the case was resubmitted to the Leningrad Regional Court.\n14.  As a result of the preliminary hearing held on 7 November 2006, on 8 November 2006 the Leningrad Regional Court fixed the opening date of the trial for 6 December 2006. It was subsequently adjourned until 14 December 2006.\n15.  On 14 December 2006 the applicant requested the court to let K. represent him. However, on 21 December 2006 the court dismissed his request in view of the fact that K. had no law degree.\n16.  On 11 January 2007 the court began the examination of the evidence. However, owing to the non-attendance of certain witnesses, the applicant’s hospitalisation and the non-attendance of an interpreter, the hearing was adjourned until an unspecified date.\n17.  On 20 March 2007 the applicant requested leave for A. to represent him, but his request was dismissed because A. was the brother of one of the witnesses. Legal-aid counsel was appointed to represent the applicant.\n18.  Following the submission of the pleadings the proceedings were adjourned until 9 July 2007 to permit the parties to prepare their comments as to the substance and the wording of the questions to be put to the jury.\n19.  On 6 November 2007 the Leningrad Regional Court, following a jury trial, convicted the applicant of aggravated murder, theft, robbery and escape and sentenced him to life imprisonment. When determining the applicant’s sentence the court refused to take into account the time that the applicant had allegedly overspent in prison while serving his sentence in an unrelated criminal case.\n20.  During the trial the applicant requested the court to obtain the attendance of a witness on his behalf. However, the court refused his request in view of the fact that the testimony which the witness in question could have given was irrelevant to the establishment of the factual circumstances of the case by the jurors.\n21.  However, the trial court granted the prosecutor’s request to read out the testimony given by one of the applicant’s co-defendants at the stage of the pre-trial investigation.\n22.  Later, the presiding judge several times drew the jury’s attention to the fact that the information provided during the trial concerning acts other than those with which the applicant was charged, including the statement by the applicant’s co-defendant, was of no rel", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6088", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and is currently serving a prison term in Lepoglava State Prison.\n5.  On 26 January 2007 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention in Split Prison in connection with an investigation into suspected drug possession.\n6.  A psychiatric report of 15 February 2007, commissioned for the purposes of the criminal proceedings against the applicant before the Split County Court, indicates that the applicant was a long-term drug addict and that this, together with his long stays in prison, his way of life and behavioural patterns, manifested in inappropriate responses to various personal and social circumstances. He showed signs of a personality disorder with emotional distance, paranoid elements and histrionic disorder. Long-term drug abuse had caused some organic changes together with altered perception, concentration, thought processes and behaviour. Intense therapy was recommended.\n7.  After the investigation was complete, a bill of indictment was filed by the Split County State Attorney’s Office on 2 March 2007 and the criminal trial began before the Split County Court.\n8.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been identified as a difficult prisoner and had caused several incidents such as disturbing mass in the prison chapel on 11 March 2007; shouting through the window of his cell during the night of 26 March 2007; and kicking the door of his cell on 28 March 2007.\n9.  On 29 March 2007 two prison guards, Z.V. and F.K., each drew up a report on the use of force on the applicant.\nThe report drawn up by Z.V. reads:\n“On 29 March 2007 at 8.20 a.m. when I was doing my round of the prisoners’ cell no. 29 I heard four or five strong blows of a bench against the door of cell no. 44. After that the Head of the Second Ward, F.K., in the presence of J.Č. and me, opened the cell door. The detainee Nebojša Gladović was shouting and threw himself at F.K. F.K. attempted to resist him with physical force but [the detainee] ignored his order to stop resisting, after which I used a rubber truncheon twice on his left arm. The detainee stopped resisting and I stopped using force. F.K. put him in an elbow lock and took him to the isolation cell no. 14. After a detailed search of him we tied him up to ensure order and security.”\nThe report drawn up by F.K. reads:\n“On 29 March 2007 at 8.20 a.m. detainee Nebojša Gladović threw a metal bench against the cell door four or five times while shouting: ‘I want to make a telephone call’. I opened the cell door in the presence of Z.V. and apprentice J.Č. and the detainee started to walk towards me while shouting and moving his hands. I tried to calm him by using physical force and ordering him to stop resisting. He ignored my order and [F.]V. used a rubber truncheon twice on his left arm. The detainee then stopped resisting and the use of force also stopped. I put him in an elbow lock and took him to the isolation cell no. 14 where, together with [F.]V., I carried out a detailed search of the detainee and then tied him up to ensure order and security. The Head of the Ward, Ž.R., was informed of everything.”\n10.  On 30 March 2007 the Head of the Security Ward, Z.R., drew up a report for the prison governor, the relevant part of which reads:\n“... During his time in detention, detainee Nebojša Gladović ... has consistently behaved improperly towards the prison personnel, and in the past few days he has regularly breached prison rules by shouting during the night and day in h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6089", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives predominantly in Germany.\n7.  Upon the death of her parents, the applicant, together with her brother, B.R., inherited a house and plot of land in Sofia, a plot of land in the village of Dolni Pasarel, and two fields.\n8.  On 9 July 1996 B.R. brought a claim against the applicant with the Sofia District Court (Софийски районен съд), seeking the division of the house and of the two plots.\n9.  At the first hearing, held on 10 December 1996, the applicant requested that the two fields be included in the division as well. The court allowed the request and adjourned the case, instructing the parties to submit evidence, including plans of the two plots.\n10.  A hearing listed for 6 March 1997 was adjourned because the plans, which had to be provided by the municipal authorities, were not ready, and another hearing, scheduled for 6 May 1997, failed to take place because counsel for B.R. was absent.\n11.  On 23 September 1997 the court asked an expert to determine the value of the properties and say whether it was possible to divide them up. A hearing listed for 20 January 1998 did not take place because the expert report was not ready. The report was apparently never drawn up.\n12.  On 19 March 1998 the court, on a request by the parties, stayed the proceedings to allow them to settle the case. However, as they could not reach an agreement, the proceedings resumed on an unspecified later date in 1998.\n13.  Two hearings, fixed for 29 October 1998 and 2 February 1999, did not take place because the applicant was not duly summoned and was absent. A hearing was held despite the applicant’s absence on 16 March 1999.\n14.  In a judgment of 15 April 1999 the Sofia District Court allowed the division of the properties into two equal shares. As neither party appealed, the judgment became final and the court proceeded with the second phase of the proceedings.\n15.  At a hearing held on 19 October 1999 the applicant requested that the house be allotted exclusively to her. B.R. requested the appointment of an expert to answer the same questions as the one appointed during the first phase of the proceedings.\n16.  A hearing listed for 18 November 1999 was adjourned because the expert report was not ready.\n17.  At a hearing held on 16 December 1999 the court admitted the report in evidence. Its conclusion was that none of the properties was divisible. The parties did not contest that conclusion.\n18.  In a judgment of 10 January 2000 the Sofia District Court allotted the house and plot of land in Sofia to the applicant, and the plot in Dolni Pasarel and the two fields to B.R.\n19.  B.R. appealed, requesting, among other things, an expert report on the value of the properties and on the possibilities of their being divided up.\n20.  The first hearing before the Sofia City Court (Софийски градски съд) was held on 6 July 2000. The court refused to order the expert report requested by B.R., and adjourned the case to allow the parties to call witnesses and present additional evidence.\n21.  At the next hearing, held on 25 October 2000, the court heard two witnesses. It agreed to order the expert report sought by B.R.\n22.  Two hearings, listed for 31 January and 3 May 2001, were adjourned because the report had not been drawn up.\n23.  The report, which concluded that the house in Sofia was divisible but that the plot in Dolni Pasarel was indivisible, was ready on 23 October 2001. It was admitted in evidence at a hearing held on 3", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6090", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in Tirana in 1978 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment.\n7.  On 6 June 2001 two people were killed. K was an eye-witness to the incident.\n8.  On 9 June 2001 the prosecutor decided to proceed with the identification of the perpetrator and invited K to participate. K was given eight photographs and he pointed to the applicant as the perpetrator, after having given a physical description of him. The applicant’s lawyer was not present.\n9.  On 9 June 2001 the police unsuccessfully searched the applicant’s home. His whereabouts were unknown.\n10.  On 9 July 2001 the prosecutor charged the applicant with the offences of murder in aggravating circumstances and unlawful possession of firearms. The notification of the prosecutor’s charges was acknowledged by the signature of a lawyer officially-appointed to represent the applicant.\n11.  On 21 July 2001 the Tirana District Court (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s arrest. However, the order could not be enforced as the applicant could not be located.\n12.  On 3 October 2001 the police unsuccessfully conducted a further search of the applicant’s home. His whereabouts remained unknown.\n13.  On 11 October 2001 the applicant was declared a fugitive from justice by the District Court in accordance with Article 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”).\n14.  On 12 October 2001 the prosecutor decided to commit the applicant for trial. The applicant’s officially-appointed lawyer was duly informed.\n15.  On 21 December 2001 the prosecutor submitted his final conclusions in which he requested that the applicant be sentenced to life imprisonment. On the same day the applicant’s officially appointed lawyer submitted his final conclusions in which he challenged the lawfulness of the identification procedure which had been conducted in the absence of the applicant’s lawyer. He requested that the sentence of imprisonment be less than twenty-five years having regard to the fact that the applicant was not a recidivist and that he was young and had a low level of education.\n16.  On the same day the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. It would appear that the applicant was living in Greece at the material time.\n17.  On 28 December 2001, in accordance with Article 48 § 3 of the CCP, the applicant’s father authorised a lawyer to represent the applicant and lodge all necessary appeals.\n18.  On 31 December 2001 the lawyer lodged an appeal against the applicant’s conviction. The appeal, which also bore the applicant’s signature, was based on points of fact and law.\n19.  On 26 April 2002, following proceedings in absentia, the Tirana Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the District Court’s decision. It found that the applicant had been declared a fugitive after unsuccessful attempts to trace his whereabouts and that the first-instance court’s notifications had been addressed to his officially-appointed lawyer in accordance with the law.\n20.  On 17 May 2002 the applicant appealed, through his family‑appointed lawyer, to the Supreme Court. He complained inter alia that his absence during the lower courts’ proceedings had adversely affected him and that he had not been notified of the proceedings in accordance with the law. The applicant stated that he did not deny the charges against him but the circumstances of the case were unique and required a different view of the merits of the case. The appeal ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6091", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, a retired military officer, was born in 1932 and lives in Athens.\n5.  On an unspecified date in 2001 he lodged an application with the State’s General Accounting Office (thereafter “Accounting Office”) asking the readjustment of his pension.\n6.  On 10 January 2002 his request was dismissed (decision no. 45977/2002).\n7.  On 16 May 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the State Audit Council (Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο) challenging the decision of the Accounting Office. The hearing took place on 3 June 2005.\n8.  By judgment dated 7 October 2005 the State Audit Council upheld the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the Accounting Office (judgment no. 2047/2005).\n9.  On 10 April 2006 the State lodged an appeal on points of law. The hearing took place on 7 May 2008.\n10.  On 1st October 2008 the Plenary of the State Audit Council dismissed the appeal (judgment no. 2052/2008). The applicant was served with the decision on 11 December 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6092", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Kraków.\n6.  Between 20 September 1994 and 11 January 1995 the applicant was detained on charges of trafficking in children on account of his suspected involvement in illicit adoptions, and incitement to false testimony. The proceedings as regards the charge of trafficking in children were discontinued on 24 November 2000 by the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court. The court found that the applicant’s actions did not fulfil the description of such an offence. The decision was upheld on 30 January 2001 by the Rzeszów Court of Appeal. The remainder of the charges against the applicant were discontinued on 26 August 2003.\n7.  On 16 May 2000 the applicant was charged with using a forged power of attorney authorising him to represent Mr and Mrs C. On 16 June 2005 the Tarnobrzeg District Court found him guilty on this charge and sentenced him to a fine of 2,280 Polish zlotys (PLN), calculated as 228 daily rates, each equivalent to PLN 10. At the same time the court decided, under Article 63 § 1 of the Criminal Code, to credit the period of the applicant’s pre‑trial detention from 20 September 1994 to 11 January 1995 towards the fine. Since, according to the Criminal Code, one day of deprivation of liberty equalled two daily rates of a fine, the period of the applicant’s detention of 114 days was credited in its entirety towards the fine. An appeal by the applicant against that judgment was dismissed on 10 October 2005 by the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court.\n8.  On 21 January 2002 the applicant lodged an application for compensation for unjustified detention. He sought PLN 500,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and PLN 150,000 for pecuniary damage (at the material time these sums amounted to 160,000 euros (EUR) in total).\n9.  On 15 December 2005 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed the application. On 18 April 2006 the Rzeszow Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case.\n10.  On 30 June 2006 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed the application. The court established that the applicant’s detention between 20 September 1994 and 11 January 1995 had undoubtedly been unjustified within the meaning of Article 552 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation to the effect that pre‑trial detention was undoubtedly unjustified if it had been imposed in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as if it had caused the applicant suffering to which, taking into account all the circumstances and particularly the outcome of the case, he should not have been subjected. Accordingly, the final outcome of the case was to be considered decisive for finding that the pre‑trial detention in a case had been “undoubtedly unjustified”. In this connection the court established that the applicant had not been convicted of any of the offences which had been the basis of his pre‑trial detention. Moreover, it pointed to the findings of the courts, which had discontinued the proceedings against him on the ground that the applicant’s actions did not fulfil the description of the offences he had been charged with. Taking into account all these arguments, the court concluded that the applicant’s pre‑trial detention had undoubtedly been unjustified.\n11.  However, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s application for compensation, reiterating that on 16 June 2005 he had been convicted of forgery, for which he had been fined PLN 2,280 (approximately EUR 550). In accor", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6093", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  On 20 October 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Radyansky Nursery School No. 154 in Kyiv (“the school”), a municipal institution, where she was working as a teacher. The other defendant was the school’s principal. The applicant in particular claimed compensation for belated return of her work-record book (трудова книжка).\n6.  On 13 April 2000 she lodged another claim seeking the issue of the work-record book’s duplicate containing rectified records. This claim was subsequently joined to the previous one.\n7.  On 22 May 2000 the Radyansky District Court of Kyiv (“the Radyansky Court”), later on renamed into the Svyatoshynsky District Court of Kyiv (“the Svyatoshynsky Court”), rejected the applicant’s claim. On 18 October 2000, the Kyiv City Court (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld this judgment. On 2 February 2001 the Radyansky Court rejected the applicant’s request to reverse its judgment in the light of newly discovered facts. This decision was upheld on 11 April 2001 by the Court of Appeal.\n8.  According to the Government, during the proceedings leading up to 18 October 2000, the applicant filed five procedural requests, two requests to extend the time-limit for lodging an appeal, and two appeals, which met procedural requirements, but delayed the proceedings for about ten days.\n9.  By a final judgment of 2 October 2002, the Supreme Court partly allowed the applicant’s appeal in cassation and changed the first instance judgment. Relying on section 2.10 of the Instruction on keeping work-record books of employees, it ordered the school to issue a duplicate of the rectified work-record book containing no record of the applicant’s dismissal that had been found unlawful in other court proceedings.\n10.  On 26 December 2002 the applicant obtained a writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 2 October 2002 and on the next day, she filed it with the State Bailiffs’ Service (“the bailiffs”) which, on 22 January 2003, commenced enforcement of this judgment. In the period to May 2005 the bailiffs twice suspended and re-opened the enforcement proceedings. In May 2005 they requested the Svyatoshynsky Court to interpret the final judgment as it was not sufficiently clear for enforcement purposes. Their request was, however, rejected on 15 June 2005.\n11.  On 16 August 2005 the bailiffs ordered the return of the writ of execution to the applicant. On 4 April 2006 the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv (“the Shevchenkivsky Court”) quashed the order.\n12.  On 27 June 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s and the bailiffs’ request to interpret its judgment.\n13.  In April 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Shevchenkivsky Court against the bailiffs alleging irregularities in the enforcement proceedings. On 16 June 2009 the bailiffs suspended the enforcement proceedings pending the outcome of this complaint. On 20 October 2009 the complaint was sent to the Svyatoshynsky Court which, on 21 September 2010, ordered the school to hand in the issued duplicates.\n14.  According to the applicant, as of 15 November 2010, her work-record book and unduly issued duplicates were with the domestic courts and for this reason she was not able to become employed.\n15.  In February 2003 the applicant lodged another claim with the Shevchenkivsky Court against the same defendants. She requested in particular to quash her dismissal order. On 20 October 2003 the court reje", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6094", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Sevastopol.\n5.  In February 1996 the applicant, who was later joined by a certain B., instituted proceedings in the Gagarinskyy District Court of Sevastopol (“the District Court”) against six individuals seeking annulment of a sale contract and a deed of gift in respect of a flat.\n6.  On 21 October 1999 the District Court refused to examine the applicant’s claims owing to her repeated failure to attend the hearings. On 12 January 2001 the Sevastopol Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), upon the Sevastopol Prosecutor’s “protest” of December 2000, quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first instance court which, on 26 January 2004, rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated. In its judgment, the court enumerated the main arguments of the parties, analysed the evidence obtained, made references to the substantial and procedural laws and gave reasons for its conclusion.\n7.  On 25 August 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment, having in particular analysed the evidence obtained by the first-instance court and having rebutted two of the applicant’s statements.\n8.  On 21 September 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation. She was subsequently twice invited to rectify her appeal to meet procedural requirements. On 30 December 2004 the District Court allowed her request to extend the time-limit for lodging the appeal in cassation. On 3 August 2007 the Crimea Court of Appeal, acting as a cassation court and having agreed with the lower courts’ findings, rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated.\n9.  According to the Government, between 11 September 1997 and 3 August 2007, two expert examinations were ordered and the applicant filed five procedural requests. She also filed three appeals that did not meet procedural requirements. Of the forty six hearings scheduled during the same period of time, ten were adjourned at the applicant’s request, nine were adjourned owing to the presiding judge’s absence, six were adjourned due to one or more of the defendants’ or witness’s failure to attend, two were adjourned due to the both parties’ failure to attend, and one was adjourned at request of one or more defendants. Overall, due to the applicant’s requests or her failure to attend, the proceedings were delayed for about one year and nine moths, excluding the period between 21 October 1999 and 12 January 2001.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6095", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1984, 1980, 1955 and 1979 respectively and live in Istanbul.\n6.  On 17 October 2003 the applicants took part in an anti-war demonstration in Istanbul. The gathering was dispersed by police officers and the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody where they remained until their release the following day. The applicants allege that they were subjected to ill-treatment during their arrest and their detention in custody.\n7.  According to an incident report drawn up by a number of police officers on 17 October 2003, fifty to sixty persons, including the applicants, gathered in a square in Istanbul at 7.45 p.m. and chanted anti-war slogans, protesting against the Government’s proposals to send soldiers to participate in the invasion of Iraq. The police had warned them with loudspeakers that they were disturbing the flow of traffic and had unsuccessfully asked them to disperse. When the police had attempted to arrest some of the demonstrators and put them into the police vehicles, a number of the demonstrators had displayed “rowdy behaviour” and the police had had to use force against them. A total of six persons, including the applicants, had been arrested and taken to a police station at 8.30 p.m. the same evening. This incident report was signed by six police officers who were only referred to in the report with their identification numbers.\n8.  The same day the applicants were examined by a doctor. According to the medical reports, the second and third applicants had no signs of ill-treatment on their bodies. The first applicant had bruising on her lower lip and on her lower right leg. The fourth applicant had bruising on the left side of his lower back and on the back of his right ear. His legs were also sensitive and he had redness in his left eye.\n9.  The same evening the applicants were questioned by the police in the presence of a duty lawyer. With the exception of the third applicant, all the applicants exercised their right to remain silent.\n10.  The following day the applicants were examined by a doctor once more. According to the medical reports, there were no signs of ill-treatment on the applicants’ bodies other than those mentioned in the medical reports drawn up the previous day.\n11.  At around 2 p.m. the same day the applicants were brought before the Bakırköy prosecutor. The applicants told the prosecutor that by attending the demonstration they had been exercising their democratic rights. They also alleged that the police had arrested them without any previous warnings. The fourth applicant complained that he had been beaten up by the police officers. The first and fourth applicants also complained that police chief M. T. had sworn at them during their time in police custody. The same day the applicants were released.\n12.  On 21 October 2003 the Bakırköy prosecutor asked for an investigation to be opened into the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment.\n13.  The applicants submitted a formal complaint to the Bakırköy prosecutor on 5 November 2003. With the exception of the third applicant, Mr Hacı Badem, the applicants complained of ill-treatment. Referring to Article 3 of the Convention the three applicants stated that the police officers had punched and kicked them in the course of their arrests, as well as during their detention at the police station.\n14.  Between 10 December 2003 and 13 April 2004 the Bakırköy prosecutor questioned eleven police officers. Ten of the police", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6096", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are two married couples who were born in 1968, 1966, 1970 and 1969 respectively and live in Chişinău.\n6.  On 3 June 2005 all the applicants were attending a wedding party. At 9.30 p.m. the wedding party was interrupted by masked police officers who arrested the first and second applicants. The applicants were informed later that they had been arrested on suspicion of forging a contract and swindling a large amount of money from a third company.\n7.  Later in the evening, between approximately 12 midnight and 3 a.m., masked police officers conducted a search of the applicants’ houses. On unspecified dates the third and fourth applicants contested the legality of the search arguing that it had been carried out in breach of the law. They complained that the searches had been conducted during the night and that the police officers had not had a court order indicating what they were authorised to search for. The complaint was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court of Justice on 11 October 2005.\n8.  In the days following the applicants’ arrest the prosecutor’s office issued a press statement in which it was said that the first and second applicants were members of a criminal gang.\n9.  On 6 June 2005 a judge from the Râscani District Court issued a detention warrant for the first and second applicants for a period of thirty days. The reasons relied upon by the judge were that the applicants were suspected of having committed a serious offence punishable with more than two years’ imprisonment and that they could abscond or obstruct the investigation.\n10.  The applicants’ lawyers appealed arguing, inter alia, that there was no reasonable suspicion that the first and second applicants had committed a criminal offence. In any event, there were no reasons to believe that the applicants, who had families and children, would abscond or hinder the investigation.\n11.  The appeals were dismissed by the Court of Appeal and the first two applicants’ detention was extended several times on similar grounds until 11 November 2005. All the habeas corpus requests made by the applicants were dismissed up until that date.\n12.  In the meantime the first and second applicants were detained in the detention facility of the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (“the CFECC)”. On a few occasions the first applicant was taken to a prison hospital as a result of a hunger strike and health problems. He was also seen on several occasions by independent doctors. On 12 October 2005 the first applicant was seen by a doctor of his choice who concluded that he would need to be programmed for repeated surgery to his back. The second applicant was detained for fifty-three days in solitary confinement in a room which was poorly lit and had only a small window. According to him, his sight diminished by at least ten per cent as a result.\n13.  At one point in July 2005 both applicants requested to be transferred temporarily to another detention facility and their request was granted on 5 August 2005. On 26 September 2005 the applicants asked for cable television to be installed in their cells. This request was not granted on the ground that the applicants had been moved in the meantime to another detention facility. The applicants requested permission to receive numerous visits from family and lawyers which appear to have been granted.\n14.  On 6 September 2005 while the first applicant was being detained in a prison hospital, several police officers co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6097", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1980 and 1979 and live in Hatay and Urfa respectively.\n6.  On 3 May 1998 Kenan Mak, a student at the Abant İzzet Baysal University in Bolu (“the university”), was killed in an attack. Thereafter, on 3 May of every subsequent year students at the university have held a meeting to mark the anniversary of the killing.\n7.  On 3 May 2002 the two applicants were studying at the university when they attended the remembrance meeting. The day before the meeting the chancellor of the university had indicated his approval of the meeting taking place in the canteen of the university.\n8.  According to a report drawn up by gendarmes who were responsible for the security of the university, seventy to eighty “left wing students” wearing photographs of Kenan Mak gathered in the university’s canteen on 3 May 2002. The students then proceeded to the university’s garden where they were met by the gendarme Captain, F.Y. Captain Y. told the students that their gathering was in breach of the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act (Law no. 2911) because they were not holding it in the designated place, namely the canteen. He asked the students to disperse, and warned that “otherwise force would be used” to disperse them. Instead, the students displayed a banner stating “down with fascism, Kenan Mak is immortal” and chanted slogans such as “shoulder to shoulder against fascism”. The students then started walking towards the chancellor’s offices. The gendarmes present in the vicinity used force and dispersed the students. The applicants and seven other students were arrested by the gendarmes. During the scuffle Captain Y.’s little finger and a gendarme’s leg were injured by the students.\n9.  The applicants were questioned the same day by gendarme officers, and stated that they were aware that prior permission had been sought and granted for the meeting.\n10.  The same day the applicants were examined by a doctor. The applicants did not complain about any ill-treatment and the doctor did not observe any injuries on their bodies. They were then sent to the prosecutor’s office where their release was ordered.\n11.  The gendarme whose leg was injured during the incident informed the prosecutor on 28 May 2002 that the name of the student who injured him was C.G.\n12.  On 5 July 2002 the Bolu prosecutor filed an indictment with the Bolu Criminal Court of First Instance (hereinafter the “trial court”), and accused the applicants and the remaining seven students of “breaching Law no. 2911”. The prosecutor also stated in his indictment that the applicants and C.G. had punched and kicked the gendarme captain and the gendarme.\n13.  In the course of the criminal proceedings the applicants rejected the allegations of the use of force by them, but accepted that they had taken part in the demonstration. Captain Y. was not heard by the trial court, but was questioned by a court in another city, pursuant to a letter rogatory sent to that court by the trial court.\n14.  On 6 May 2003 the trial court, on the basis of statements given by eyewitnesses, gendarmes, as well as “video footage of the incident”, convicted the applicants of having taken part in an illegal demonstration and of having used force when the gathering was being dispersed by the gendarmes, in breach of section 32 § 3 of Law no. 2911. According to the judgment, in addition to Captain Y. and the gendarme mentioned above, four other gendarmes had also apparently been injured by the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6098", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Athens.\n7.  From 1985 he was a professor of international relations at the Panteion University in Athens. From 1990 to 1995 he was President of the University. At the time of the 1996 general elections the applicant was appointed Press Minister ad interim. From 1997 to 1999 he was Minister Plenipotentiary to the Council of Europe.\n8.  In September 1998 an administrative investigation into the pre-1997 financial management of the Panteion University was ordered by the university authorities. The resulting report was submitted to the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of Appeal, who brought criminal proceedings against fifty-four members of the University’s teaching staff who had been President or Vice-President in the period 1992 to 1998, including Mr Konstas. The applicant was charged with being an accomplice to forgery, defrauding the State of more than fifty million drachmas (approximately 146,000 euros (EUR)), misrepresentation and misappropriation of public funds. By decision of the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of Appeal, he and eighteen other accused were immediately committed to stand trial (summons no. 2284/2005). The case attracted considerable media attention.\n9.  On 7 September 2005 the Indictment Division of the Athens Court of Appeal endorsed the public prosecutor’s decision and decided to drop the criminal charges against some of the accused. As to the applicant, it considered that he had “played a major role in the commission of the offences” (decision no. 1969/2005).\n...\n12.  On 6 June 2007 the Athens Assize Court sentenced the applicant and nine others to 14 years’ imprisonment for misappropriation of public funds, fraud against the State and misrepresentation (judgment no. 2444/2007). Mr Konstas immediately appealed and the Athens Assize Court ordered a stay of execution of his sentence pending the judgment on appeal.\n...\n14.  On 11 June 2007, during a plenary debate in the Greek Parliament, the Deputy Minister of Finance referred to the proceedings in question, stating that certain opposition MPs had been heard by the Athens Assize Court as witnesses for the defence. In particular, he said:\n“Who are these incorruptible people? The denigrators, the renowned MPs of the Socialist Party (PASOK) and former PASOK Ministers who rushed to the defence of the Panteion bunch of crooks? Were they or were they not your personal and political friends? Didn’t you appoint them acting Ministers for the Press, Ministers Plenipotentiary to the Council of Europe, when the Panteion scandals were coming to light? They were your friends, dear colleagues, and you hastened to defend them before the Parliament. You even steal from each other. According to the newspaper ’To Vima’, your friends even stole money from Mr Simitis [a former Prime Minister]!”\n15.  On 2 July 2007, during a plenary debate in Parliament, the Prime Minister referred to the case saying that it was “an unprecedented scandal of deliberate and planned embezzlement of eight million euros for the benefit of those involved, to the detriment of Panteion University”.\n16.  On 12 February 2008, addressing the opposition in Parliament, the Minister of Justice said:\n“Remember the Panteion scandal. The Greek courts boldly and resolutely convicted all those you were protecting all this time.”\n17.  According to the case file, the case is still pending before the Athens Court of Appeal. Judgment no. 2444/2007 of the Athens Assize", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6099", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1969 and 1979 respectively and live in Motala, Sweden. At the date of the facts in the present application, they were living in Romania.\n5.  The first applicant was granted refugee status by the Romanian authorities in 1998, along with his father and brothers. In 2000 he married the second applicant. Their daughter was born in 2001 and acquired Romanian nationality at birth. At the date of the facts, the applicant was legally residing and working in Romania.\n6.  In March 2003 the applicants and their daughter visited family in Egypt.\n7.  Meanwhile, on 25 March 2003, at the request of the Romanian Intelligence Service (Serviciul român de informaţii) and in accordance with Government Emergency Ordinance no. 194/2002 on the rules governing aliens in Romania (“Ordinance no. 194”), the prosecutor at the Bucharest Court of Appeal issued an order in which the first applicant was declared an “undesirable person” and banned from Romania for ten years on the ground that there was “sufficient and serious intelligence” that he was “engaged in activities capable of endangering national security”.\n8.  Based on that order, on 28 March 2003 the prosecutor decided to take the applicant into public custody in the Otopeni Centre for the Reception, Selection and Accommodation of Foreigners (“the Otopeni Centre”), until his deportation was possible. The decision was taken for an initial period of thirty days, until 26 April 2003.\n9.  On 6 April 2003, in the morning, when the applicants and their daughter returned to Romania, the first applicant was served with the order of 25 March 2003 and the decision of 28 March 2003 and prohibited from leaving the airport and entering Romania. He was informed of the reasons for that interdiction and asked to leave the territory immediately.\n10.  At 1 p.m., after a brief meeting with his wife, the first applicant bought a ticket for Zurich and boarded a flight to that destination. As entry into Switzerland was denied, on 7 April he returned to Romania, where he was kept in the airport’s transit zone.\nAccording to the applicant’s statements he was placed in the airport’s basement, in a room without heating, with only a thin cover to protect him from the cold. There was no bathroom. He had access to a toilet but had to be escorted there. Food was scarce and of poor quality. His wife was not allowed to see him or to send him clothes and food.\n11.  On 8 April he was visited by a representative of the Romanian Council for Refugees (Consiliul Român pentru Refugiaţi). On that occasion, he did not complain about his detention. On the same day he was seen by a doctor who reported that he was in good general health.\n12.  On the same day, through the offices of his lawyers, the applicant challenged the prosecutor’s order of 25 March 2003 before the Bucharest Court of Appeal. He argued that he had not done anything that would harm national security and that the order had disrupted his family life.\n13.  On 8 April at 9.45 a.m. the authorities tried to repatriate the applicant to Egypt, which also refused him access to the territory and returned him to Romania on 9 April.\nThe authorities kept him in the transit area while they attempted to get him a visa for Egypt.\n14.  On 11 April 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal stayed the execution of the prosecutor’s order of 25 March 2003, pending the outcome of the proceedings for its annulment. The decision to take the applicant into public custody remained ope", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6101", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968. She resides in the town of Shali, in the Chechen Republic. The applicant is the wife of Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev, born in 1963.\n6.  At the material time, the applicant and Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev resided at 97, Suvorova Street in Shali. Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev’s brother, Mr Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev, and his family resided at the same address.\n7.  Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev had not participated in illegal armed groups since the authorities launched the counter-terrorist operation in the Chechen Republic in 1999.\n8.  In May 2000 Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev, who had been the speaker of the Chechen Parliament (“the Parliament of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria”) in 1997-99, was abducted from his house and disappeared (see Alikhadzhiyeva v. Russia, no. 68007/01, 5 July 2007).\n9.  According to the applicant, Ruslan Alikhadzhiyev’s previous involvement in political activities and his ensuing disappearance provoked a heightened interest in their whole family on the part of the domestic authorities. In particular, members of the military commander’s office of the Shalinskiy District often came to their house, searched it and checked the family members’ identity papers.\n10.  Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev had a silver-grey Volga with licence plate no. A 577 BB 95. He had acquired it in 1995 from his relative, Kh.A., in exchange for another car.\n11.  Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev was about 170 cm tall.\n12.  On 20 April 2005 Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev drove his Volga to Gudermes to take a TV set to a repair shop. He gave a lift to Kh.A., who also needed to go to Gudermes. Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev was wearing black velvet trousers and a black shirt with white stripes.\n13.  It appears that at a certain moment Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev and Kh. A. parted and the former drove alone back to Shali.\n14.  At about noon on 20 April 2005 Ruslanbek Alikhadzhiyev’s car was stopped at the checkpoint of the Russian federal forces located at the intersection of the Kavkaz motorway and the Argun-Shali road, in the vicinity of the village of Mesker-Yurt. The checkpoint was located in the middle of a roundabout. The servicemen at the checkpoint always requested that the vehicles slowed down while passing through. Moreover, there were many holes in the road which also made the drivers slow down while they were passing the area.\n15.  At about noon on 20 April 2005 the minibus in which M.E. was going to Shali approached the above-mentioned checkpoint. From the minibus M.E. saw that a young man had stopped his silver-grey Volga at the checkpoint and was heading towards the hatch at which the servicemen usually registered the passing drivers. The man was wearing dark trousers and a dark shirt and was about 170 cm tall. A white Gazel vehicle was stationed at the checkpoint nearby. At the moment when the man approached the hatch to present his identity papers for registration, three servicemen rushed towards him. Two servicemen twisted his arms behind his back and the third serviceman handcuffed him. They then took the man inside the checkpoint which was surrounded by blocks and slabs made of concrete.\n16.  M.E. immediately wrote down the numbers on the Volga’s licence plate which he was able to see: 577 BB 95. He also asked the minibus driver to stop but the latter refused, saying that if he did so the servicemen could fire on them. According to M.E., his daughter and other passengers of the minibus witnessed the abduction of the man from the Volga.\n17.  At about noon t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6102", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and is currently detained in Kırklareli E‑type Prison pending the criminal proceedings against him.\n5.  On 5 February 1997 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Police Headquarters on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 19 February 1997 a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.\n7.  On 20 May 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment with that court, charging the applicant with attempting to undermine the constitutional order, an offence proscribed by Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code.\n8.  On 8 February 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to death.\n9.  On 15 October 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court on account of a procedural defect which had prejudiced the rights of the defence.\n10.  In the meantime on 4 September 2002 the Head Office of the Institute of Forensic Medicine issued a report noting that the applicant suffered from Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome and recommended the suspension of the execution of his sentence for a period of six months for medical reasons. It appears that this recommendation was not taken into account by the authorities.\n11.  State Security Courts were abolished by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004. The case against the applicant was therefore transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.\n12.  At the hearing held on 6 August 2008, the applicant asked to be released in view of the excessive amount of time he had already spent in pre-trial detention. The Fourteenth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court, however, ordered the applicant’s continued detention in view of the nature of the offence, the existence of a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence and the possibility that he would abscond if released.\n13.  On 13 August 2008 the applicant objected to the decision of 6 August 2008 and again requested his release.\n14.  On 25 August 2008 the Ninth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s objection without holding a hearing and without providing any reasons for its decision.\n15.  On 18 December 2009 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged under Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code and sentenced him to aggravated life imprisonment. The applicant appealed this judgment.\n16.  According to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before the Court of Cassation.\n17.  On an unspecified date the applicant was temporarily transferred from Kırklareli E-type Prison to Istanbul Bayrampaşa Prison to attend the final exams at Marmara University, where he was registered as a student.\n18.  On 11 June 2007, before he was transferred from Istanbul back to Kırklareli following the end of the exam period, he was medically examined by the resident doctor at Bayrampaşa Prison, who noted no signs of ill‑treatment on his body. On the same day the applicant also signed a document stating that he had not been ill‑treated or subjected to any other adverse treatment during the course of his transfer to Kırklareli and that the gendarmerie personnel had not confiscated his money or other valuables. At 10.00 p.m. on the same day he was handed back to the pris", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6103", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant is the mother and the second applicant is the father of Mr Isa Maayev, born in 1975. The applicants were born in 1957 and 1942 respectively. They live in the town of Urus-Martan, in the Chechen Republic.\n6.  At the material time the applicants and Isa Maayev resided at 64 Titova Street in Urus-Martan. Their property consisted of two houses.\n7.  On 10 March 2003 the applicants and Isa Maayev were at home in one of the houses.\n8.  At about 2 a.m. on 10 March 2003 about ten men in camouflage uniforms burst into the applicants’ bedroom. All of the intruders wore masks, were armed with sub-machine guns and spoke unaccented Russian. The intruders blinded the applicants with their flashlights. When the first applicant asked them why they were there, they ordered her in Russian to lie on the floor and pushed her to the ground. One of the intruders stepped on her back, pressed his gun against her neck and told her to remain quiet. At the same time several other armed men pushed the second applicant out of bed, tied his hands and asked him where he kept his weapons. He replied that there were no weapons in the house and they then ordered him to be silent. One of the armed men pressed his gun against the second applicant’s head. While the applicants stayed on the ground, several intruders went into another room where Isa Maayev was sleeping. After a while the armed men in the applicants’ bedroom ordered the applicants not to move and left the room.\n9.  The first applicant immediately ran to the window and saw four other men in the courtyard. One of them punctured the tyres of the applicants’ car. Another man broke the lamp above the entrance to the house. All of the men then left the courtyard. The first applicant followed them outside and saw that they had turned right into Mayakovskogo Street. She then heard the noise of a vehicle and a sound as if someone was being thrown into it. When she returned home she realised that the armed men had taken Isa Maayev away and she started crying and shouting for help.\n10.  According to a written statement by M.K., enclosed by the applicants, on the night of 10 March 2003 she felt unwell and went outside. She heard shouting coming from the applicants’ house. Immediately thereafter she saw a group of men moving quickly from the applicants’ house in the direction of Mayakovskogo Street. M.K. immediately rushed to the applicants’ house.\n11.  According to a written statement by A.M., at about 2 a.m. on 10 March 2003 she was returning home from her late shift at a bakery where she worked at the time. On her way home she saw several UAZ vehicles parked at the corner of Mayakovskogo and Bolnichnaya streets, and a number of camouflaged men whom she identified as servicemen. The servicemen were armed and some of them were masked. They were standing one metre apart from each other and kept themselves in formation. She quickly passed by them without being stopped (despite the curfew) and initially went in the direction of her home, but then heard the first applicant’s screaming and turned back to go to the applicants’ house. She found the first applicant and M.K. there. A.M. untied the second applicant and then accompanied the applicants to the place where she had seen the UAZ vehicles, but by the time they arrived there the vehicles and the servicemen had already left.\n12.  According to the statement by M.K., all of the people present in the applicants’ house heard the noise of departing vehicl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6104", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is a German citizen, born in 1947, who lives in Moosthenning, Germany.\n7.  In 1993, the applicant and M.G., a Romanian citizen, decided to set up a commercial company.\n8.  The envisaged company was registered in Romania on 9 November 1993 under the name Fivarog Impex SRL (hereinafter called “the company”).\n9.  In September 1993, the two associates bought in Germany a truck and merchandise on behalf of the company to be registered. The vehicles and the merchandise were registered on the name of a company belonging to M.G (“company P.”) and should have been registered in the accounting books of the company after its setting up.\n10.  In March 1994, the applicant bought a trailer for the company that was registered by M.G. in the name of his company P.\n11.  M.G. used both vehicles to carry out the activity of company P. and did not register the counter value of the rendered transport services in any accounting books.\n12.  In 1995, the applicant transferred the majority of his shares to M.G., who became the main shareholder and administrator of the company. By an act under private signature, the latter undertook the obligation to deliver to the applicant the truck and the trailer.\n13.  In 13 August 1996, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against M.G., accusing him of forgery, use of forged items, fraud, fraudulent management of the company and selling goods placed under judicial seizure. He maintained that M.G. used the money obtained by commercial operations performed on behalf of the company for his personal use, without registering them in the accounting books of the company. He added that the truck and the trailer bought for the company and mostly paid for by him were never registered in the name of the company and were used by the company P., which belonged to M.G.\n14.  On 11 March 1998, the police opened a criminal investigation against the applicant and M.G., on suspicion of several offences of an economic nature, namely fraud, fraudulent management of the company and intellectual forgery related to the accounting books of the company.\n15.  The applicant joined a civil complaint to the criminal proceedings, asking for the return of the trailer and the truck and damages. He evaluated the damages only on 25 March 1998, after an accounting report had been prepared.\n16.  On 5 March 1999, the prosecutor attached to the Buftea District Court decided to terminate the investigation against the applicant and M.G.\n17.  The applicant lodged a complaint against this decision, which was allowed by the prosecutor attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 26 August 1999. He decided to continue the criminal investigation against M.G.\n18.  By a bill of indictment of 17 October 2001 the prosecutor attached to the Buftea District Court accused M.G. of fraudulent management, smuggling and fiscal evasion. In respect of the offences of use of forged documents and fraud, the prosecutor decided to terminate the investigation. The prosecutor also decided to terminate the investigation related to all the offences of which the applicant was accused.\n19.  By a judgment of 26 March 2002, the Buftea District Court convicted M.G. of smuggling, fraudulent management and fiscal evasion, and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, suspended, and placed him on probation. He was also ordered to award pecuniary damages to the company, while the applicant’s request for damages was dismissed on the ground that there was no causal link between ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6105", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant, the Association “21 December 1989” (Asociaţia 21 Decembrie 1989) is an association of participants, injured victims or relatives of those who died in the crackdown on anti-government demonstrations in Romania in December 1989, around the period that the then Head of State, Nicolae Ceauşescu, was overthrown, events which are also referred to as “the Revolution”. The association, which was set up on 9 February 1990, protects the victims’ interests in the criminal proceedings currently being conducted by the prosecution service at the High Court of Cassation and Justice. Those proceedings concern the death or injury by gunshot and the ill-treatment and deprivation of liberty experienced by several thousand persons in a number of cities and towns across the country.\n10.  The second applicant, Mr Teodor Mărieş, was born in 1962. He took part in the anti-government demonstrations in Bucharest in December 1989, and in subsequent demonstrations until June 1990. He is currently the president of the applicant association.\n11.  The third and fourth applicants, Mrs Elena Vlase and Mr Nicolae Vlase, are the parents of Nicolae N. Vlase (known as Nicuşor), aged 19, who died during the crackdown on demonstrations which took place in Braşov in December 1989.\n12.  On 16 December 1989 demonstrations broke out in Timişoara against the totalitarian regime. On 17 December 1989, on an order from Nicolae Ceauşescu, President of the Republic, several high-ranking military officers were sent to Timisoara to re-establish order. There ensued a violent crackdown, resulting in numerous victims. From 21 December 1989 demonstrations began in Bucharest, Braşov and other cities and towns across the country.\n13.  The military operations which were conducted at this time caused many civilian victims. According to a letter sent to the first applicant on 5 June 2008 by the military prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, “more than 1,200 people died, more than 5,000 people were injured and several thousand people were unlawfully deprived of their liberty and subjected to ill treatment”, in Bucharest, Timişoara, Reşiţa, Buzău, Constanţa, Craiova, Brăila, Oradea, Cluj, Braşov, Târgu Mureş, Sibiu and other towns in Romania. In addition, it appears from Ministry of Defence documents, declassified by Government decision no.  94/2010 of 10 February 2010, that thousands of servicemen, equipped with combat tanks and other armed vehicles, were deployed in Bucharest and other cities. During the period of 17 to 30 December 1989 they used considerable quantities of ammunition.\n14.  Many people were killed or wounded by gunshot from 17 December 1989 in Timişoara, and from 21 December 1989 in Bucharest. According to a report of 24 July 1990 by the Directorate of Military Prosecutor’s Offices (Direcţia procuraturilor militare), in the night of 21 to 22 December 1989 “48 persons died and 150 persons were injured in Bucharest as a result of the violent crackdown by the armed forces, including through the use of firearms”.\n15.  Many victims were also killed or wounded by gunfire after 22 December 1989, the date on which the then Head of State was deposed.\n16.  Thus, in Braşov, the city where Mr and Mrs Vlase’s son was hit by gunshot and died, thirty-eight other persons were killed by gunshot in the night of 22 to 23 December 1989 and even more over the following days. According to a document entitled “Conclusions on the result of the investiga", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6106", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Seraing, Belgium.\n9.  On 24 October 1994 her son, Mr Zhivko Todorov Todorov, who was born in 1972 and lived in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, was involved in a road traffic accident. On 2 November 1994 he died from his injuries.\n10.  In the autumn of 1994 Mr Todorov befriended S.N. On the morning of 24 October 1994 the two travelled from Plovdiv to Varna. They were travelling by car, a BMW 5 Series belonging to a company owned by S.N.’s family. In the afternoon they left Varna and headed back to Plovdiv. On their way back, they passed through the town of Chirpan at about 10 p.m., where they met S.N.’s brother and two friends of his, I.M. and I.I. According to later statements of S.N. and a friend of his, S.S. (see paragraphs 27 and 28 below), shortly after that on the road to Plovdiv they saw S.S., whose car was stopped at the side of the road because he had a flat tyre. They lent him the BMW’s spare tyre and continued on their way.\n11.  When, some time after 11 p.m., they were passing through the village of Plodovitovo, where the speed limit was fifty kilometres per hour, they started overtaking a lorry with a trailer. The lorry, driven by P.P., reached a crossroad and started turning left. The BMW was moving behind it at about one hundred kilometres per hour. It did not slow down and collided head‑on with the lorry’s trailer. Immediately after the crash the BMW caught fire. P.P., who had not sustained any injuries, got out of the lorry and, with the help of the driver of a Lada Niva with registration plates from the town of Yambol, took Mr Todorov and S.N. out of the burning BMW.\n12.  At about midnight Mr Todorov and S.N. were taken to a hospital in Chirpan. Mr Todorov was in a very bad condition and unconscious. S.N.’s injuries, although serious, were not as critical. Some time later a police officer came to the hospital. He was unable to interview Mr Todorov or S.N., the former being unconscious and the latter apparently being in a state of shock and incapable of making coherent statements. After that the officer visited the scene of the accident and took notes and pictures.\n13.  On 28 October 1994 Mr Todorov was transferred to a hospital in Plovdiv. He did not regain consciousness and died on 2 November 1994.\n14.  On 3 November 1994 a doctor from the forensic medicine department of the Plovdiv Medical University performed an autopsy on Mr Todorov’s body. He found numerous traumatic injuries to his head, limbs and internal organs. The doctor’s conclusion was that he had died from his brain injuries. In his opinion, these injuries had been caused by the impact of the collision.\n15.  On the night of the accident the police opened an inquiry into the actions of S.N. on suspicion that, by breaching road traffic regulations, he had caused the accident and had thus negligently inflicted bodily injury on Mr Todorov.\n16.  On 25 October 1994 the police interviewed P.P. He described the accident and said that he had taken the two injured men out of the BMW with the help of other drivers who had stopped nearby. The same day he gave a blood sample. The sample was analysed on 1 November 1994 and it was determined that his blood had no alcohol content.\n17.  On 16 December 1994 the officer investigating the case asked an expert to determine whether Mr Todorov’s death had been a result of the accident.\n18.  On 3 January 1995 the police sent the case to the Chirpan District Prosecutor’s Office, proposing to conver", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6107", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973.\n7.  Early in December 2001 the applicant visited Dr S.B. in a hospital in T., in the region covered by the then Małopolska Regional Medical Insurance Fund (replaced later by the countrywide National Health Fund). Having performed an ultrasound scan, Dr S.B. estimated that the applicant was in the 6th or 7th week of pregnancy.\n8.  On 2 January 2002, in the 11th week of her pregnancy, the applicant – who was at that time 29 years old, was married and had two children – was registered as a pregnant patient in her local clinic.\n9.  On 23 January and 20 February 2002 ultrasound scans were performed, in the 14th and 18th weeks of the applicant’s pregnancy. On the latter date Dr S.B. estimated that it could not be ruled out that the foetus was affected with some malformation and informed the applicant thereof. The applicant told him that she wished to have an abortion if the suspicion proved true.\n10.  The Government submitted that in January and February 2002 the applicant had visited Dr S.B. at a private clinic. They argued that such an institution had no right to issue a referral to any public health institution.\n11.  The applicant disagreed. She first submitted that at the material time Dr S.B. worked both at a public hospital in T. – where she had visited him in December 2001 and in February 2002, after the second scan – and at a non-public clinic. She further submitted that the Polish health care system was composed of so-called public health units and non-public health units. The latter, most often being first contact and basic care institutions, had financing contracts with the public National Health Fund (and had had such contracts with its predecessors, the Regional Medical Insurance Funds, at the material time). Medical services available in non-public clinics were partly financed by public funds, constituted by premiums paid by all persons covered by the universal system of health insurance. Doctors working for non-public units had the same rights and duties to provide health care to patients as doctors employed by public units, including a right to refer a patient to a public unit.\n12.  Subsequently, the applicant went to a hospital in T. The results of a third ultrasound scan performed in that hospital confirmed the likelihood that the foetus was suffering from some malformation. A genetic examination by way of amniocentesis was recommended by Dr O., in order to confirm or dispel this suspicion.[1]\n13.  On 28 February 2002 the applicant had another ultrasound scan in a private clinic in Łódź. She had no referral from Dr S.B. and had therefore to pay for the service herself. Under the applicable laws, her expenditure could not be reimbursed. The results of that scan confirmed the likelihood that the foetus was affected with an unidentified malformation. Genetic tests were recommended again.\n14.   She was subsequently received by Professor K.Sz. in Łódź, a specialist in clinical genetics. A genetic test was again recommended. Professor K.Sz. recommended that the applicant should obtain a formal referral from her family doctor, S.B., to have the test carried out in a public hospital in Łódź, which was outside her region covered by the then Universal Medical Insurance Fund.\nSubsequently, Dr S.B. refused to issue a referral, because in his view the foetus’ condition did not qualify the applicant for an abortion under the provisions of the 1993 Act (see paragraph 66 below).\n15.  The Government submit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6108", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Miloš Ťupa, is a Czech national who was born in 1970 and lives in Bystřice nad Pernštejnem.\n6.  He lives in a house with his mother, brothers and sisters. On 4 January 2007 the police came to their house with a doctor and took the applicant against his will to Jihlava Psychiatric Hospital.\n7.  On the morning of 8 January 2007 the hospital informed Jihlava District Court (okresní soud) of the applicant’s involuntary detention pursuant to Article 191a § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n8.  On the afternoon of the same day a senior clerk at the District Court went to the hospital and interviewed the applicant and his treating doctor. A one-paragraph record of the interview with the doctor shows that the latter stated that the applicant had been hospitalised at the recommendation of his general practitioner who had asserted that the applicant had suffered from auditory hallucinations for about a year, thought that his food was being poisoned, slept in a gas mask because he thought somebody had tried to poison him with gas and threatened to kill his brother. It seems that the hospital called the applicant’s family to confirm this last event. The doctor further said that the applicant had disputed the information given by the general practitioner, that he had been cooperating only formally and that there was considerable paranoia and lack of logic in his thinking. According to the doctor, because the applicant had not given his consent, it had been decided to admit him involuntarily.\n9.  The applicant, in his statement to the clerk, disputed these allegations maintaining that he had not seen his general practitioner for several months and that he had had disputes with his mother and brothers who had orchestrated his detention. He further claimed that he had never been treated by a psychologist or psychiatrist before and had never taken psychiatric medication. He also requested his immediate release because the hospital had not informed the court of his detention within twenty-four hours of his admission.\n10.  The District Court decided a few hours later, based solely on this record of the interview, that the applicant’s involuntary admission to the psychiatric hospital was lawful. The decision, after taking note of the content of the record, contains only the following reasoning:\n“The court is of the opinion that at the time of the applicant’s admission to [the hospital] he was not able, considering his health condition influenced by his mental illness, to express his qualified consent to his admission to [the hospital] which appears to be necessary to protect his life and health. The court has thus decided that his admission was lawful.”\nThe decision was served only on the applicant’s court-appointed lawyer and not on the applicant himself.\n11.  The applicant appealed arguing that his detention was not justified and that it was not in accordance with law because the hospital had not informed the court of his admission within twenty-four hours.\n12.  On 22 February 2007 Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) upheld the first-instance decision. It held that the record of the interview had been sufficient evidence for the first-instance court to base its decision on, given that it had had to decide without delay. It added that the applicant’s claims of disputes in the family had not been concrete enough and that in any case his hospitalisation had been recommended by his general practitioner. It also held that the twenty-four-", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6109", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Stochov, the Czech Republic.\n6.  On 2 May 1988 the applicant’s former wife (“the claimant”) instituted civil proceedings for the division of matrimonial property before Kladno District Court.\n7.  Between January 1989 and August 1993 the District Court sought a valuation by five sworn experts of the movable and immovable property in dispute. On 18 April 1994 it divided the property.\n8.  In February 1995 Prague Regional Court, on an appeal by the applicant, quashed the judgment of 18 April 1994 and remitted the case to the District Court which, in March 1995, ordered a new expert report to assess the value of the real estate belonging to the matrimonial property. In September 1995 the District Court requested the applicant to find alternative counsel in the specified time period, as it had been impossible to serve documents on his original counsel.\n9.   In May 1995 and February 1996 the expert witness informed the District Court that the applicant had prevented him from entering his house to estimate the value of the real estate. On 26 February 1996 the District Court fined the applicant for preventing the expert witness from collecting data for his report. The report was drawn up in January 1997.\n10.  In March 1999 the District Court delivered a judgment by which it made a new decision on the division of the matrimonial property. In February 2000 the Regional Court, following the applicant’s appeal, quashed the judgment and sent the case back to the District Court which, on 5 June 2001, adopted a third judgment.\n11.  This judgment was modified by the Regional Court on 16 July 2002 on appeals by the parties.\n12.  In November 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law alleging, inter alia, that the real estate should not have been included in the matrimonial property.\n13.  In the meantime, on 28 February 2003, the District Court had ordered enforcement of the last two judgments. On 30 October 2003 it appointed an expert witness to evaluate the real estate for the purpose of the enforcement, and ordered the applicant to cooperate with him.\n14.  On 29 January 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the last judgments of 2001 and 2002 and remitted the case to the District Court which, on 10 October 2006, discontinued the enforcement proceedings.\n15.  On 23 August 2004 the claimant died and her new husband entered the proceedings as a legal successor.\n16.  On 14 February 2007 the District Court divided the matrimonial property for the fourth time. On 21 September 2007 it corrected clerical errors in the judgment.\n17.  On 8 January 2008 the Regional Court quashed this judgment and sent the case back to the District Court which, on 6 March 2008, ruled that the claimant’s three children were also entitled to join the proceedings.\n18.  On 28 March 2008 the claimant’s new husband died and his two children entered the proceedings as his legal successors. On 8 August 2008 the applicant withdrew the power of attorney from his counsel.\n19.  On 10 February 2009 the District Court delivered its fifth judgment on the division of the property.\n20.  On 30 April 2009 the Regional Court, following an appeal lodged by the applicant on 19 March 2009, quashed this judgment. In June 2009 the applicant waived his right to court-appointed counsel.\n21.  On 24 June 2009 the District Court discontinued the proceedings, as the claimants had withdrawn their claims. In response to an appeal by the applicant, on 12 November", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6110", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in the Lugansk Region.\n5.  The applicant is an entrepreneur. Between April 2001 and August 2002, following an inspection of his business activities, the local tax authorities drew up several reports revealing tax evasion and decided to impose taxes and fines on him.\n6.  On 7 May 2001 the local tax police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of tax evasion based on one of the above reports. Subsequently, the police also instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on similar charges based on the remainder of the reports, all the proceedings having been joined.\n7.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer. The applicant’s mother also acted as his defence counsel.\n8.  On 25 June 2001 the applicant was required to give a written undertaking not to abscond implying that he could not leave his place of residence (town of Sverdlovsk) without the investigator’s permission. The applicant was explained that in case of a breach of that undertaking a stricter preventive measure could be applied to him.\n9.  On 4 July 2001 the case was referred to the Sverdlovsk Court for trial.\n10.  Following a request by the applicant, on 27 September 2001 the court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of commercial proceedings instituted by the tax authorities against him. Upon the completion of those proceedings, on 30 November 2001 the court resumed the criminal proceedings.\n11.  On 28 January 2002 the court remitted the case for additional investigation. It stated that the applicant should remain subject to the undertaking not to abscond.\n12.  On 25 October 2002 the case was referred to the court for trial.\n13.  Following a request by the applicant, on 16 December 2002 the court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of proceedings instituted by him against the tax authorities (see paragraphs 27‑29 below). On 14 May 2004 the court resumed the proceedings.\n14.  On 20 July 2004 the court remitted the case for additional investigation. It stated that the applicant should remain subject to the undertaking not to abscond.\n15.  On 3 November 2004 the case was referred to the court for trial.\n16.  Following a new request by the applicant, on 17 February 2005 the court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings brought by the applicant against the tax authorities.\n17.  On 18 and 25 February 2005 the applicant appealed against that decision. He asked, inter alia, that the proceedings be resumed in respect of the charges based on one of the tax reports and that the suspension be maintained in respect of the remaining charges. The appeals were returned unexamined as the above-mentioned decision was not subject to appeal.\n18.  On 6 July 2005 and 21 June 2006 the applicant requested that the court maintain the suspension of the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings against the tax authorities.\n19.  On 3 April 2007 the court resumed the proceedings.\n20.  By a judgment of 6 June 2007, it found the applicant guilty of large-scale tax evasion (Article 212 § 3 of the Criminal Code) and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property. The applicant’s prison sentence was suspended on probation. The court based its judgment on the statements of several witnesses, an expert examination and the findings of the commercial courts in the related civil case against the applicant. The court also hel", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6111", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, who are former military students, were born in 1988, 1987 and 1991 respectively and live in Ankara, Kocaeli and Adana.\n5.  On different dates the applicants were expelled from military schools following disciplinary decisions, which held that the applicants did not possess the requisite attributes of a military student as defined in the relevant legislations. The applicants were not provided with any further information regarding the reasons for their expulsions.\n6.  The applicants subsequently brought separate actions before the Supreme Military Administrative Court against the Ministry of Defence, requesting this court to quash the disciplinary decisions ordering their expulsions.\n7.  The Ministry of Defence submitted certain documents and information to the Supreme Military Administrative Court during the course of the proceedings, which were classified as “secret documents” under Article 52 (4) of Law no. 1602 on the Supreme Military Administrative Court. These documents were not disclosed to the applicants.\n8.  On 27 September 2006, 22 November 2006 and 3 October 2007, respectively, the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ request. The judgment of 3 October 2007 was served on the third applicant on 25 October 2007. Citing the relevant legislation, the Supreme Military Administrative Court held that a student could be lawfully expelled from a military school by a disciplinary board decision if he was found to have lost the attributes of a military student during the course of his studies or if it became apparent at such time that he did not possess the necessary qualifications from the start. The applicants, who were found to lack the requisite attributes of a military student following a secret security investigation conducted on them and their families, were thus lawfully expelled from their schools.\n9.  On 15 November 2006 and 12 September 2007, respectively, the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the first and second applicants’ rectification request. The third applicant did not seek rectification.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6112", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Warsaw. He is a retired professional soldier.\n6.  On 11 April 1997 the parliament passed the Law on disclosing work for or service in the State’s security services or collaboration with them between 1944 and 1990 by persons exercising public functions (ustawa o ujawnieniu pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z nimi w latach 1944-1990 osób pełniących funkcje publiczne; “the 1997 Lustration Act”). It entered into force on 3 August 1997. Persons falling under the provisions of the 1997 Lustration Act, i.e. candidates or holders of public office such as ministers and members of parliament, were required to declare whether or not they had worked for or collaborated with the security services during the communist regime.\n7.  In 2002 the applicant became involved in politics. In 2004 he intended to stand as a candidate in the elections for the European Parliament on behalf of the Self‑defence party. However, the party withdrew its support for the applicant after he informed it that during his military service he had collaborated with the counter-intelligence agency.\n8.  At the end of 2004 the Institute of National Remembrance drew up a list of officials, collaborators and candidates for collaborators of the communist security services. In November 2004 the list was published on the Internet and unofficially named “the Wildstein list” after a journalist who had allegedly removed it from the Institute. The name “Jerzy Zawisza” was on the list and the applicant asked the Institute whether it concerned him. The Institute informed the applicant that it did not concern him.\n9.  The applicant was elected a Member of Parliament in the elections held in September 2005.\n10.  On 9 October 2005 the applicant in his lustration declaration stated that he had not collaborated, served or worked for the communist-era security services. On 12 October 2005 he informed the Speaker of the Sejm that he had had contacts with the military counter-intelligence.\n11.  On an unspecified date the Commissioner of Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) informed the applicant that he had doubts as to the truthfulness of his lustration declaration and invited him for an interview on 10 October 2006. At the next interview the applicant was invited to read the records concerning his alleged collaboration.\n12.  On 21 December 2006 the Commissioner applied to the Warsaw Court of Appeal to institute lustration proceedings against the applicant on the grounds that he had lied in his lustration declaration by denying that he had collaborated with the secret services.\n13.  On 28 December 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal decided to allow the Commissioner’s request and instituted lustration proceedings against the applicant.\n14.  On 17 and 24 January 2007 the applicant’s lawyers consulted the classified part of the case file in the secret registry of the court. On both occasions the lawyers were entitled to take notes in the special notebook kept by the Head of the secret registry. However, they did not avail themselves of that possibility.\n15.  On 7 March 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first‑instance lustration court, found that between 1964 and 1975 the applicant had been an intentional and secret collaborator of the military counter-intelligence service and had therefore submitted an untrue lustration declaration. One judge from the panel of three expressed a dissenting opinion. The ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6113", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  The applicant was a shopkeeper. On 14 January 1999, following a complaint made by an individual, Y.G., the applicant was arrested by three police officers in civilian clothes and taken to a police station on suspicion of robbery. On the same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Haseki Hospital, who noted no signs of injury to his body.\n6.  At the police station, the applicant was forced to sign self-incriminating statements. When he refused to do so, he was beaten up. More specifically, he was blindfolded, stripped naked, insulted, hosed with water, beaten, and subjected to falaka (beating on the soles of the feet).\n7.  According to a police report dated 16 January 1999, the applicant banged his head on the walls of his cell and punched himself in the stomach.\n8.  On 17 January 1999 the applicant was released from police custody. Before he was released, he was taken to the Bakırköy Branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute for a medical examination. According to the medical report prepared by the Forensic Medicine Institute, there were several injuries on the applicant’s body and it was noted that he was unfit to work for seven days. The medical report revealed that the applicant had a 20x15 cm reddish purple bruise on the right shoulder blade, another 20 cm reddish purple bruise on the left shoulder blade, a 13x14 cm purple bruise on the left side of his waist, a 5x2 cm purple bruise on the right side of his waist, a 16x6 cm purple bruise around the navel, and several other small bruises.\n9.  At night on the same date, the applicant went to the emergency department of the American Hospital. The doctor who examined him noted in his report that the applicant had complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment whilst in police custody. According to the report, the applicant had a 30x5 cm bruise on the right shoulder blade, two bruises measuring 40x5 cm and 30x5 cm on the left shoulder blade and a 25x7 cm bruise around the navel.\n10.  On 18 January 1999 the applicant was further examined at the Marmara University Hospital. It was noted that the applicant was unable to work for two weeks, as he was suffering from psychological trauma caused by having been ill-treated in police custody.\n11.  On an unspecified date, the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the Bakırköy public prosecutor and alleged that he had been ill-treated whilst in police custody. He requested the identification and prosecution of the police officers responsible.\n12.  By an indictment dated 22 June 1999, the Bakırköy public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings in the Bakırköy Assize Court against three police officers, accusing them of ill-treatment of the applicant under Article 243 of the Criminal Code. The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party.\n13.  During the trial, the court heard evidence from the accused officers and the applicant.\n14.  On 28 December 2001 the Bakırköy Assize Court, on the basis of the evidence in the case file, found the three police officers guilty of ill-treating the applicant. The court found it established that the police officers had intentionally ill-treated the applicant to extract a confession. It therefore sentenced each of the accused to a year’s imprisonment under Article 243 of the former Criminal Code and banned them from public service for three months. Having regard to the attitude of the police officers during the trial, the co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6115", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Rīga.\n5.  On 30 August 1998 the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of murders and robbery.\n6.  On 2 September 1998 a judge of the Ogre District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n7.  On 21 October 1998 the Ogre District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 November 1998. An appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed on 13 November 1998 by the Rīga Regional Court.\n8.  The Ogre District Court further extended the term of the applicant’s detention on the following dates: on 24 November 1998 until 30 January 1999; on 21 January 1999 until 30 March 1999; on 22 March 1999 until 30 May 1999; on 24 May 1999 until 30 July 1999; on 22 July 1999 until 30 September 1999; on 24 September 1999 until 30 October 1999; on 26 October 1999 until 30 December 1999. All the decisions contained an identical phrase which stated that the judge had taken into account the severity of the crime the applicant was suspected of, the danger of his possible absconding and the possibility that he could impede the investigation. The applicant did not appeal to the Rīga Regional Court against the aforementioned decisions.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 8 October 1999 the Latgale Regional Court sentenced the applicant to one year and one month imprisonment for an unauthorised acquisition and storage of weapons. The period of detention on remand from 30 September 1998 to 8 October 1999 was included in the term of the sentence, which the applicant served until 30 October 1999.\n10.  On 26 May 2000 the final indictment was presented to the applicant, and on 30 May 2000 the judge of the Rīga Regional Court remitted the criminal case for trial. The latter was scheduled to take place on 3 January 2002. By the same decision the preventive measure was left unchanged without giving reasons or setting a time-limit.\n11.  In November 2001 the applicant’s lawyer asked the Rīga Regional Court to adjourn the proceedings. On 3 January 2002 the proceedings were adjourned for an unlimited period.\n12.  On 6 March 2002 the court informed the applicant that the trial was scheduled to take place on 25 September 2002.\n13.  On 1 October 2002, the court granted the request of a co-accused to undergo a psychiatric examination, and stayed the criminal proceedings.\n14.  At the lower court’s request, on 1 November 2002 the Senate, in absence of the applicant or his lawyer, extended the applicant’s detention until 1 May 2003. The Senate relied on the serious nature of the charges, and on the necessity to ensure proper conduct of the court proceedings. The decision was not subject to an appeal.\n15.  On 28 December 2002 the forensic experts asked for an extension of fifteen days in order to complete their report.\n16.  On 27 January 2003 the Rīga Regional Court repeatedly requested the Senate to extend the applicant’s detention on remand. It relied on the fact that the case was particularly complex and that the hearing had been scheduled to take place on 4 June 2003. The Senate, in absence of the applicant or his lawyer, extended the applicant’s detention until 1 July 2003.\n17.  From 4 to 11 June 2003 the hearings were repeatedly postponed due to the absence of witnesses.\n18.  On 25 June 2003 the applicant was found guilty of two murders and sentenced to sixteen years’ imprisonment. On 2 December 2003 the Rīga Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, and on 20 August 2004 the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6116", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1938, 1942, 1939, 1942 and 1940 respectively, and live in Italy.\n7.  Mr Maggio worked in Switzerland from 1980 to 1992.\n8.  On 25 June 1997 Mr Maggio requested the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (“INPS”), an Italian welfare entity, to re-examine his old-age pension and to liquidate it on the basis of the real remuneration received (“retribuzione effettiva”) during his years of employment in Switzerland, in accordance with the 1962 Italo-Swiss Convention.\n9.  On an unspecified date the INPS rejected his request, since the calculation had to be based on the remuneration received in Switzerland and then be re-adjusted on the basis of the tables supplied in Circular no. 324 of 4 January 1978.\n10.  Mr Maggio instituted proceedings before the Lecce Tribunal, claiming that the payment of old-age pensions had to be calculated on the basis of the real remuneration received (in the last five years of employment) and of the contributions paid in part in Switzerland and in part in Italy.\n11.  By a judgment filed in the registry on 8 May 2002, his claim was rejected.\n12.  Mr Maggio appealed to the Lecce Court of Appeal which, by a judgment filed in the registry on 30 October 2003, rejected his claim. It took into consideration a technical expert report in relation to Article 23 of the Italo-Swiss Convention (see Relevant Domestic Law below), which provided for the transfer of contributions paid in Switzerland to the Italian insurance scheme for use in the calculation of old-age pensions, and guaranteed the benefits of Italian legislation. Consequently, it held that the pension calculation was to be made on the basis of Italian criteria, even though they were less favourable than the Swiss ones. Indeed, Italian law (decree of 27 April 1968 no. 488) provided for a calculation based on higher contributory rates than those in Switzerland, thus providing a lower pension than that expected by Mr Maggio.\n13.  By a judgment of 11 December 2008 filed in the registry on 13 February 2009, the Court of Cassation dismissed Mr Maggio’s claim, after rejecting his request for a preliminary reference to the ECJ. It held that the criteria used by the Court of Appeal were eventually acknowledged in Article 1, paragraph 777, of Law no. 296 of 27 December 2006 (“Law 296/2006”), which had retroactive effect. This Law had not been found to be unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in a judgment of 23 May 2008 (see Relevant Domestic Law below).\n14.  In 2005 Mr Gabrieli requested the INPS to establish his pension on the basis of the contributions paid in Switzerland for work he had performed there between November 1963 and June 2001. As a basis for the calculation of his pension, the INPS employed a theoretical remuneration (“retribuzione teorica”) instead of the real remuneration (“retribuzione effettiva”). The former resulted in a re-adjustment on the basis of the existing ratio between the contributions applied in Switzerland (8%) and in Italy (32.7%), which led to a reduction of 25% in the basic amount used to calculate the pension and therefore a reduction in the pension itself. Consequently, in 2006 Mr Gabrieli instituted judicial proceedings.\n15. By a judgment of the Brescia Tribunal (Labour Section) of 2 October 2006, Mr Gabrieli’s claim was upheld on the basis of the relevant Court of Cassation case-law at the time (see Relevant Domestic Law below).\n16.  The INPS appealed.\n17.  By a judgment of 7 August 2007, the B", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6119", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963. He was detained in a penal colony in Krasnokamensk, Chita Region, and he is currently detained in Moscow in connection with another criminal case pending against him.\n7.  Before his arrest in 2003 the applicant was a businessmen and one of the richest persons in Russia. Thus, he was a board member and the major shareholder of Yukos, a large oil company (hereinafter “the company”, liquidated in 2007). He also controlled several other mining, industrial and financial companies affiliated with Yukos (hereinafter referred to as “the Yukos group”). Most of those companies were created as a result of the privatisation of State-controlled enterprises in the mid-1990s.\n8.  In the period 2002-2003 the Yukos group was pursuing a number of large-scale business projects. Thus, Yukos was engaged in merger talks with Sibneft, another large Russian oil company, and with the US-based company Exxon Mobil. Yukos was also planning to build a pipeline to the Arctic Ocean in order to export natural gas to the western part of Europe. Lastly, Yukos and the State company Rosneft were involved in a public struggle for control of certain oilfields.\n9.  At the same time the applicant became involved in politics. At the beginning of 2003 he announced that he would allocate significant funds to support the opposition parties Yabloko and SPS (Soyz Pravykh Sil) He also made certain public declarations criticising alleged anti-democratic trends in Russian internal policy. The applicant funded a non-profit NGO, “Open Russia Foundation” in order to promote certain political values in Russian society.\n10.  One of the companies affiliated with Yukos was Apatit, a large mining enterprise, producing apatite concentrate. Yukos controlled a 20 % shareholding in Apatit.\n11.  Apatit was privatised in 1994. In the following years the authorities made several attempts to return Apatit to State control, claiming that the money due under the privatisation contract had not been paid by the buyers. In March 2002 Mr Lebedev, one of the top managers in the Yukos group and the applicant’s personal friend, proposed a friendly settlement of the dispute on behalf of the buyers. The State privatisation authority having accepted that offer, on 19 November 2002 a friendly settlement was reached. It was approved by a commercial court.\n12.  In November 2002 the governors of the Smolensk Region, the Tula Region and the Tambov Region wrote a letter to the then General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation, Mr Ustinov. In that letter they complained that Apatit was abusing its dominant position on the apatite concentrate market and boosting prices of phosphate fertilisers, which, in turn, increased food prices. They also alleged that Apatit was using various schemes to evade or minimise taxes. They urged General Prosecutor Ustinov to return Apatit to State control and to apply anti-trust measures in order to make Apatit reduce prices.\n13.  In December 2002 the governor of the Pskov Region wrote to the then President of the Russian Federation, Mr Putin. He drew the President’s attention to the friendly settlement in respect of the Apatit shares and claimed that its terms were contrary to the interests of the State, since the amount received by the State in pursuance to that settlement was significantly lower than the market price of the shares.\n14.  On 16 December 2002 the then President Putin issued Directive No. Pr-2178 requiring reports to be obtained in relati", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6120", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Koszalin.\n6.  On 11 April 1997 the parliament passed the Law on disclosing work for or service in the State’s security services or collaboration with them between 1944 and 1990 by persons exercising public functions (ustawa o ujawnieniu pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z nimi w latach 1944‑1990 osób pełniących funkcje publiczne; “the 1997 Lustration Act”). It entered into force on 3 August 1997. Persons falling under the provisions of the 1997 Lustration Act, i.e. candidates or holders of public office such as ministers and members of parliament, were required to declare whether or not they had worked for or collaborated with the security services during the communist regime. The provisions of the Act extended to, inter alia, judges, prosecutors, advocates and members of the supervisory boards and boards of directors of the “Polish Television SA” and “Polish Radio SA” as well as their local branches.\n7.  On 15 December 1998 the applicant, a member of the supervisory board of the Koszalin Branch of the National Radio (Rada Nadzorcza Rozgłośni Regionalnej Polskiego Radia, Radio Koszalin SA) declared that he had not collaborated with the communist‑era secret services.\n8.  In 2002 the applicant became a member of the board of directors of the same radio (Zarząd).\n9.  In February 2005 the Commissioner of the Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) informed the applicant that he had doubts as to the truthfulness of his lustration declaration.\n10.  On 23 September 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) decided to institute lustration proceedings against the applicant following a request made by the Commissioner on the grounds that the applicant had lied in his lustration declaration by denying that he had cooperated with the secret services.\n11.  The Court of Appeal held hearings on 23 November, 8 December 2005 and 25 July and 20 September 2006. The applicant, who was not represented, attended the hearings although he lived in Koszalin, 450 kilometres away from the court. The hearings were not open to the public.\n12.  On 20 September 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first‑instance lustration court, found that the applicant had submitted an untrue lustration declaration since he had been an intentional and secret collaborator with the State’s secret services. The court established that between 1971 and 1974 the applicant, at that time a student at Torun University, had been a secret collaborator (TW, tajny współpracownik) and had signed a so‑called collaboration commitment (zobowiązanie do współpracy). The court based its findings on the statements made by Mr A.W., an officer of the Security Service (Służba Bezpieczeństwa, “the SB”) who had recruited him. The court established that the applicant had met with Mr A.W. several times and had once received financial payment. All the documents collected in the case were classified as confidential and could be consulted by the applicant in the secret registry of the lustration court.\n13.  The applicant appealed against the decision. He submitted that he had never collaborated with the SB and had not passed any information to it. He contested the authenticity of the documents, the originals of which had been destroyed and only microfilms of which had been preserved.\n14.  On 10 January 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the second‑instance lustration court, upheld the impugned judgmen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6121", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Herceg Novi.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 6 February 2003 a Montenegrin daily newspaper published an article about the quality of the water in the Herceg-Novi area, entitled “Taps full of bacteria” (Slavine pune bakterija). The article stated that all of the current water sources contained various bacteria. These assertions were based on a report produced by the Institute for Health (Institut za zdravlje Crne Gore), which had been requested by the Chief State Water Inspector (Glavni republički vodoprivredni inspektor, hereinafter “the Chief Inspector”), apparently with a view to exploring the possibility of connecting additional sources to the water-supply grid. The same article also included a statement by the applicant, at that time the Director of a public corporation called “The Water Supply and Sewage Systems” (JP Vodovod i Kanalizacija, hereinafter “the Water Supply Company”) and a member of the Socialist People’s Party (SNP)[1], that he was not familiar with the analysis at issue, but that the water was regularly tested and always filtered before being pumped into the system.\n8.  On the same day the applicant held a press conference in response to the above-mentioned article. The applicant stated that, firstly, all tap water was filtered before being pumped into the water-supply system and was thus safe for use by the public. Secondly, the Chief Inspector had been promoting the interests of the two private companies which had already been granted licences to develop additional water sources and, lastly, the Chief Inspector had been directed to do so by the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS)[2] and the companies in question had themselves obtained their licences unlawfully. The statement was published in several daily newspapers.\n9.  On 7 April 2003 the Chief Inspector lodged a private criminal action (privatna krivična tužba) against the applicant for defamation (kleveta), claiming that the latter’s statements were untrue and, therefore, harmful to his honour and reputation.\n10.  On 4 September 2003 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica held the main hearing, during which the applicant said that his statement was not defamatory, but that “it was a value judgment, which he could prove”. He stated that he had been informed about the results of the water analysis three days after the press conference, and the analysis clearly stated that the water from the water-supply system was of the necessary quality and was not a danger to health. He explained that there were obviously two reports, one concerning the water sources and one concerning the filtered water. He did not dispute the right of the Chief Inspector to ask for a water analysis, as it was his duty to do so, but the applicant did not think that the analysis of unfiltered water should have been published, but rather the analysis of the filtered water. Finally, he proposed that the court should read the article “Taps full of bacteria” to understand the context in which the impugned statement had been made, and that it should obtain the files concerning other proceedings ongoing at the time between the Water Supply Company and the two private companies in question.\n11.  At the same hearing the court also heard the Chief Inspector. He stated that he had always worked professionally and that he did not work under anybody’s orders, he himself having fil", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6123", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Kirovohrad.\n5.  On 21 June 2005 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Kirovskyy District Court of Kirovohrad (“the Kirovskyy Court”) against the Military Unit A-1405 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  On 21 February 2006 the court decided to discontinue the proceedings as a result of the applicant’s failure to attend the hearings.\n7.  On 19 September 2007 the applicant requested an extension of time to lodge the appeal against the above ruling and submitted that he had become aware of the impugned ruling in July 2007.\n8.  On 24 October 2007 the Kirovohrad Regional Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of 21 February 2006. It remitted the case for examination by the first-instance court, having found that the applicant had not been duly notified of the time and date of the hearings. The Court of Appeal ruled that the first-instance court had erred in its decision to discontinue the proceedings.\n9.  On 18 July 2008 the Kirovskyy Court considered that it was not competent to deal with the case because it lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae. It discontinued the civil proceedings and held that the case should be examined within the framework of the administrative proceedings.\n10.  Following examination of the applicant’s appeal on its merits, on 24 December 2008 the Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of 18 July 2008. It held that the first-instance court had erred in its decision to discontinue the proceedings and considered that the case should be examined within the framework of civil proceedings. The Court of Appeal remitted the case for examination to the Kirovskyy Court.\n11.  On 25 February 2009 the Kirovskyy Court decided to discontinue the proceedings because of the applicant’s failure to attend the hearings.\n12.  On 24 June 2009 the Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of the Kirovskyy Court on the ground that the applicant had not been duly notified of the time and date of the hearings and remitted the case for examination to the first-instance court.\n13.  On 16 June 2010 the Kirovskyy Court for the third time decided to discontinue the proceedings because of the applicant’s repeated failure to attend the hearings. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision.\n14.  In the course of the proceedings sixteen hearings were adjourned, out of which three times because of the applicant’s failure to attend the hearings, once because of the failure of the respondent’s representative and five times because of the parties’ failure to attend the hearings. On seven occasions the hearings were adjourned for a total period of about nine months because of the judge’s or secretary’s absence or for technical reasons. The applicant adjusted his claims once.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6124", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicants, Ms Zorica Rašković and Ms Dana Milunović, were born in 1961 and 1953 respectively and live in Novi Pazar.\n7.  Both applicants were employed by Pamučna predionica DOO from Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the debtor”). On 14 January 2001 and 15 May 1996 they were respectively placed on compulsory paid leave until such time when normal production could be resumed and the debtor’s business performance had improved sufficiently.\n8.  Whilst on this leave, in accordance with the relevant domestic legislation, the applicants were entitled to a significantly reduced monthly income, as well as the payment of their pension, disability and other social security contributions.\n9.   Since the debtor failed to fulfil these obligations, the applicants brought numerous separate civil claims before the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the Municipal Court”).\n10.  On an unspecified date the debtor’s mother company (see paragraph 62 below) proposed the Redundant Employees Programme (Program rešavanja viška zaposlenih– hereinafter “the redundancy programme”). The redundancy programme set out the criteria for determining redundant employees and, once declared redundant, provided them with two options for benefits: to receive a single redundancy payment from the employer (otpremnina); or to claim monthly unemployment benefits from the social security of the State (novčana naknada). These benefits were provided for all employees, regardless of whether they had any other outstanding claim towards the company.\n11.  On 7 October 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant. On 23 December 2004 the Municipal Court supplemented this judgment, and ultimately ordered the debtor to pay to the applicant:\ni. the monthly paid leave benefits (minimalna zarada) due from 1 August 2001 to 31 July 2004 (RSD 155,002 in all[1]; EUR 2,400 at the relevant time[2]), indexed in accordance with the relevant regulations, together with statutory interest;\nii. RSD 7,800 (EUR 100) for her legal costs; and\niii. the pension and disability insurance contributions (“doprinosi za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje”) due from 1 January 1997 to 19 July 2004.\n12.  On 18 July 2005 this judgment became final.\n13.  On 24 December 2004 the applicant filed a request for its enforcement, in relation to the payment of paid leave benefits and costs, proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the debtor’s specified movable and/or immovable assets.\n14.  On 24 January 2005 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order, at the same time awarding the applicant the additional amount of RSD 2,400 in respect of enforcement costs (EUR 30).\n15.  On 29 July 2005 the applicant filed an identical enforcement request, which was accepted on 22 September 2005. She was awarded another RSD 2,800 (EUR 35) in respect of enforcement costs.\n16.  On 18 August 2005 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay her:\ni. the monthly paid leave benefits due from 1 August 2004 to 30 June 2005 (RSD 70,533 in all; EUR 900), indexed in accordance with the relevant regulations, together with statutory interest;\nii. RSD 9,750 (EUR 120) for her legal costs; and\niii. the pension and disability insurance contributions due from 27 July 2004 to 18 August 2005.\n17.  The judgment of 18 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6125", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952. He is currently detained in Czerwony Bór Prison.\n6.  On 12 January 2005 the applicant was arrested in Poland and charged with trafficking large amounts of drugs from Venezuela.\n7.  On 14 January 2005 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. The decision was upheld on 18 April 2005 by the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n8.  In its decision to detain the applicant, the District Court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the aforementioned offence. It attached particular importance to the likelihood that a severe sentence of imprisonment would be imposed on the applicant and to the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings.\n9.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was subsequently extended by decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court given on 22 March 2005 (upheld by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 27 April 2005), on 23 June 2005, on 15 September 2005 (upheld by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 11 October 2005), on 13 January 2006 and on 18 April 2006 (upheld by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 26 April 2006).\n10.  In its decisions extending the applicant’s detention, the Regional Court observed that it had been necessary to extend the pre-trial proceedings in order to obtain translations of certain relevant case documents from Spanish into Polish, to hear new witnesses and to supplement the original charges. It took into account the fact that the applicant had a handicapped mother, but concluded that she had been receiving adequate care and, therefore, that there were no special reasons, family-related or other, militating against the applicant’s detention.\n11.  On 17 June 2005 the bill of indictment was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court.\n12.  On 6 October 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release, finding that the initial grounds for his detention continued to apply.\n13.  On 28 December 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention, restating the grounds initially invoked for the detention order. It emphasised that the offence with which the applicant had been charged had been committed in an organised criminal group. Consequently, the court took the view that detention on remand constituted the only measure capable of securing the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n14.  The applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal was dismissed by the same court on 16 January 2007.\n15.  On 25 April 2007, 11 December 2007 and on further unspecified dates the Gdańsk Court of Appeal again extended the applicant’s detention. In its decision of 11 December 2007 the court held that another extension of the applicant’s detention was necessary in order to allow the trial court to examine additional evidence and hear more witnesses. The court moreover observed that one of the co-accused had also been charged in another set of proceedings and remained at the disposal of the Kraków Regional Court, which made it necessary to have him escorted from there to each of the hearings before the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on 28 December 2007.\n16.  On 30 December 2008 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment.\n17.  On 2 March 2010 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment.\n18.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal and the proceedings bef", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6126", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Hanover. She has been married to a German national since 1996.\n6.  On 18 September 1992 an investigation was opened in Bulgaria against the applicant, who lived in Germany at that time, on suspicion that she had issued fraudulent cheques. On 28 September 1992 the applicant was charged in absentia and her pre-trial detention was ordered. A warrant for her arrest was issued and the proceedings were suspended.\n7.  The applicant learned of the proceedings against her on an unspecified date in late 1995 during a telephone conversation with the Bulgarian prosecuting authorities. On 14 December 1995 she was arrested by the German police in connection with extradition proceedings opened against her. Later on she was released. On 13 March 1998 the German authorities decided to extradite her. On 5 October 1998 they invited her to appear before the Bulgarian authorities by 26 October 1998, which she did not do. On 12 December 1998 the applicant was extradited to Bulgaria and taken to Sliven prison.\n8.  The criminal proceedings were resumed on 29 January 1999. On 17 May 1999 the applicant was charged again and questioned.\n9.  On 9 July 1999 the Sofia district prosecutor terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant, finding that the charges had not been proved.\n10.  It appears that thereafter the applicant returned to Germany.\n11.  On 11 October 2001 the Sofia city prosecutor quashed the decree of 9 July 1999 and remitted the case for further investigation.\n12.  On 2 July 2002 the applicant travelled to Bulgaria and was arrested at Varna airport. The next day she was informed that the proceedings had been resumed and was questioned. She was released on bail on 11 July 2002.\n13.  In the period from 3 December 2002 to 4 June 2004 the investigator proposed on two occasions that the criminal proceedings be discontinued but the Sofia city prosecutor ordered a further investigation and on the latter date sent the case to Sliven regional public prosecutor’s office. In a decree of 2 July 2004 the latter discontinued the criminal proceedings and referred the file to the Sofia district public prosecutor’s office. A jurisdiction dispute arose, which was settled on 9 November 2004 when Burgas appeals public prosecutor’s office quashed the decree of 2 July 2004 and held that the Sofia city public prosecutor’s office had authority to deal with the case.\n14.  Meanwhile, on 14 October 2004 the applicant made a request under Article 239a of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the case against her be examined by a court. On 3 December 2004 the prosecuting authorities sent the file to the Sofia District Court. It appears that a jurisdiction dispute arose between the District Court and the Sofia City Court, which was settled on 7 February 2005.\n15.  On 18 February 2005 the District Court invited the Sofia city prosecutor to indict the applicant within two months. It appears that this was done on an unspecified date in 2005.\n16.  On 26 October 2007 the District Court terminated the proceedings against the applicant as time-barred.\n17.  On 22 July 2002 the Sofia city prosecutor imposed a ban on the applicant’s leaving Bulgaria without permission.\n18.  In 2002 the applicant made two requests to be allowed to visit Germany, which were dismissed by the Sofia city prosecutor on 27 September and 12 December 2002, respectively.\n19.  On 13 May 2003 the applicant again requested to be allowed to travel to Germany, stat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6127", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Pleven.\n5.  On 3 April 1992 the applicant was appointed general manager of the state-owned company Republika EOOD (“the company”) under a contract executed between him and the Ministry of Industry (“the Ministry”).\n6.  On 30 June 1995 the applicant signed a new contract with the Ministry pursuant to which he was to remain the general manger of the company until 1998.\n7.  On 25 July 1995 the Ministry rescinded the latter contract and the applicant had to leave the position of a general manager.\n8.  Believing the rescission to have been unlawful, on 16 August 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Sofia City Court, seeking remuneration under the contract of 1995. The action was directed against the company as a main defendant and the Ministry of Industry (“the Ministry”) as an additional defendant in the event of dismissal of the action against the company.\n9.  The number of hearings held between August 1995 and October 1996 is not clear. It appears that a hearing was held in February 1996.\n10.  For the period between October 1996 and March 2001 the Sofia City Court held hearings on 15 October 1996, 4 February 1997, 28 March 1997, 4 November 1997, 21 April 1998, 30 October 1998, 20 April 1999, 5 October 1999, 15 February 2000, 23 May 2000, 7 November 2000 and 27 March 2001. Four of these hearings were adjourned upon requests of the defendants or because of the absence of experts.\n11.  In examining the case the court heard the parties and several experts who had to give an estimate of the amount of the applicant’s remuneration.\n12.  By a judgment of 19 July 2001 the Sofia City Court dismissed the applicant’s action against the company and partially granted it against the Ministry. The court held that a party under the contract of 1995 and the proper defendant in the case before it was the Ministry which had been responsible for rescinding the contract. The Ministry was liable to pay the full amount of the agreed remuneration, which was established to be 5,631.28 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of 2,879.23 euros (EUR). The court ordered the Ministry to pay this amount, plus interest and BGN 230 (EUR 117.57) in costs.\n13.  The applicant and the company did not appeal.\n14.  The Ministry appealed, contending, inter alia, that it had acted on behalf of the company as a representative of the owner of its capital and that therefore the company was the proper defendant in the proceedings. Moreover, the contract explicitly stipulated that the applicant’s remuneration was to be paid by the company.\n15.  By a judgment of 30 June 2002 the Sofia Court of Appeal quashed the Sofia City Court’s judgment in so far as it granted the claim against the Ministry. It held that although the contract had been signed by the Minister, the company was a party to it because the Minister had not acted as a head of the Ministry but as a representative of the owner of the capital, appointing the general manager of the company. Therefore, it was the company’s responsibility that had to be engaged. The court, however, was barred from examining the action against the company because neither the applicant, nor any of the other parties had appealed against the dismissal by the Sofia City Court of the action against the company. The judgment of the Sofia City Court had thus become final in respect of the company.\n16.  The applicant filed a cassation appeal.\n17.  By a final judgment of 13 January 2004 the Supreme Co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6128", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lived in Ryazan. On 29 September 2008 the applicant died. On 3 August 2009 Mr Yaroslav Voblikov, the late applicant’s son (born on 19 August 1977), expressed his wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court.\n6.  On 6 April 1999 the applicant brought a claim against the regional social security service for pension arrears.\n7.  On 25 December 2000 the Bilibino District Court of the Chukotka Region granted the applicant’s claim in part. The applicant appealed. On 15 February 2001 the Chukotka Regional Court quashed the judgment of 25 December 2000 on appeal and remitted the matter to the District Court for fresh consideration.\n8.  On 28 April 2001 the District Court partly granted the applicant’s claims. On 4 October 2001 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 28 April 2001 on appeal.\n9.  On 25 October 2001 the applicant obtained a writ of execution. Subsequently the judgment was enforced.\n10.  On 17 September 2002 the applicant brought an action against the Treasury of the Russian Federation, seeking compensation for non‑pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the excessive length of the proceedings concerning her claim for pension arrears. She argued that the courts had failed to observe the time-limits prescribed by the Russian Code of Civil Procedure.\n11.  On 13 January 2003 the Anadyr Town Court of the Chukotka Region partly granted the applicant’s claims.\n12.  On 27 March 2003 the Chukotka Regional Court quashed the judgment of 13 January 2003 on appeal and remitted the matter to the Town Court for fresh consideration.\n13.  On 9 October 2003 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claims without consideration on the merits. Referring to Ruling No. 1-P adopted by the Constitutional Court on 25 January 2001, the court noted that current laws did not determine the grounds or procedure for adjudicating a claim for damages on account of the courts’ failure to comply with statutory time‑limits. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“... pursuant to this Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, claims for compensation for damage arising from unlawful actions of a judge should be adjudicated in accordance with the rules – other than the rules of civil procedure which are yet to be determined by the legislature (including the rules governing the jurisdiction of this type of case). The court does not contest the applicant’s constitutional right to sue the state for compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage. However, given that Ruling No. 1-P of the Constitutional Court refers to certain rules of adjudication, which have not yet been determined, the court considers that it should discontinue the consideration of the [applicant’s] claims.”\n14.  On 13 May 2004 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 9 October 2003 on appeal, finding as follows:\n“The current rules governing the adjudication of civil claims, as set forth in the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, do not take into account all the specifics of the matters concerning compensation for damage caused by unlawful actions or failure to act on the part of a court (or judge) when the case is not considered on the merits. This is supported by the prescription made by the Constitutional Court for the [Parliament of Russia] to legislate on the issue. Therefore, the current rules [of civil procedure] do not apply to the adjudication of the applicant’s claims.”", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6129", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Groningen.\n6.  The applicant’s parents’ relationship ended in 1990. The applicant’s mother was granted parental authority.\n7.  In 2001 the Child Care and Protection Board (Raad voor de Kinderbescherming) investigated the applicant’s situation because he had been displaying severe behavioural difficulties, had dropped out of school, had committed a number of offences and appeared disinclined to respect authority in any shape or form.\n8.  By a decision of 9 October 2002, the Juvenile Judge of the Groningen Regional Court (kinderrechter bij de rechtbank) placed the applicant under the supervision (ondertoezichtstelling) of the Groningen Juvenile Care Foundation (Stichting Jeugdzorg – “the Foundation”) for a period of one year and also issued an authorisation to the Foundation for the applicant’s custodial placement in a confined institution for treatment (gesloten uithuisplaatsing) for a period of three months. On 14 November 2002 the applicant was admitted to “Het Poortje” Juvenile Institution, a confined institution for treatment, in order to be observed and psychologically examined.\n9.  On 8 January, 6 March and 3 April 2003 the Juvenile Judge extended the authorisation for the applicant’s custodial placement in a confined institution. The last such extension was set to expire on 9 October 2003 – one full year after the first decision.\n10.  On 1 August 2003 the Juvenile Judge of the Groningen Regional Court received the Foundation’s request (dated 29 July) for a prolongation of the authorisation for the applicant’s custodial placement for the duration of the supervision order. Reference was made to a report containing the results of an examination of the applicant’s personality by a remedial educationalist/psychologist that had been issued on 1 February 2003.\n11.  On 10 September 2003 a hearing was held before the Juvenile Judge. The applicant stated that he did not want to be placed in a confined institution for treatment and that his behaviour had improved. On behalf of the Foundation it was submitted that the applicant had recently been placed at Rentray, a confined orthopsychiatric institution for persons with severe behavioural difficulties, that the intended treatment would take one to one and a half years, and that it was out of the question that the applicant would be able to live with his father or his grandmother as he had indicated he wished to do. The Juvenile Judge stated that the report on the applicant’s personality was clear and that a relapse, which was considered to be a real possibility, had to be prevented at all costs. Treatment was necessary, also in view of his age, and he had already been admitted to Rentray.\n12.  On 17 September 2003 the Juvenile Judge decided to extend the period of supervision for a further year, with effect from 9 October 2003, and to prolong the authorisation issued to the Foundation for the applicant’s custodial placement in a confined institution for treatment for the duration of the supervision order.\n13.  On 17 October 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Leeuwarden Court of Appeal against the decision of 17 September 2003, in so far as it concerned the custodial placement.\n14.  A hearing was held on 11 December 2003. At the hearing the applicant’s counsel, emphasising that the case was not a particularly complicated one, requested the applicant’s immediate release as the case at issue had not been dealt with speedily within the mea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6130", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n(1) Ms Khalimat Kosumova (also spelled as Kasumova), who was born in 1978;\n(2) Mr Arbi Kasumov, who was born in 1952;\n(3) Ms Taus Kasumova, who was born in 1959;\n(4) Mr Usman Kasumov, who was born in 1988;\n(5) Ms Marina (also spelled as Milana) Kasumova (also known as Shadidova), who was born in 1982; and\n(6) Mr Ali Kasumov, who was born in 2001.\nThe first applicant is the sister of Abdul Kasumov (also spelled as Abdula or Abdulla Kosumov), who was born in 1982; the second and third applicants are his parents; the fourth applicant is his brother; the fifth applicant is his wife; and the sixth applicant is his son. The applicants live in Mesker-Yurt, Chechnya.\n6.  At the material time the village of Mesker-Yurt was under the full control of the Russian military forces. Checkpoints manned by military servicemen were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement.\n7.  The applicants lived at 22 Partizanskaya Street (in the documents submitted the address was also referred to as 65 Lenina Street), Mesker‑Yurt, in the Shali district of Chechnya. The household consisted of several dwellings around a courtyard. Abdul Kasumov lived in one of the dwellings with the fifth and sixth applicants.\n8.  On the evening of 21 November 2002 the applicants were at home. At about 9 p.m. they heard military Ural vehicles driving around in the village. According to the applicants, on the same evening their neighbours saw armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) driving around the settlement.\n9.  On the night of 21 November 2002 the applicants, their relatives and Abdul Kasumov were sleeping at home. At about 4 a.m. a group of armed men in spotted camouflage uniforms broke into the applicants’ household. The men were not wearing masks, spoke unaccented Russian and were of Slavic appearance. They neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen.\n10.  The men pointed their guns at the applicants and their relatives. Then they broke down the door into the dwelling where Abdul Kasumov was sleeping with his wife and son. The men grabbed him, pulled a mask over his head and took him outside in his underwear. Next, they took Abdul Kasumov’s sweater, shirt and trousers. When the fifth applicant attempted to follow them, the men ordered her to get back inside the house and threatened to kill her if she disobeyed.\n11.  While some of the abductors were raiding Abdul Kasumov’s dwelling, others went into his brother’s quarters. According to Abdul Kasumov’s sister-in-law, Ms M.T., the intruders started shooting at the entrance door; some of the bullets hit a sideboard and broke its glass doors. The men swore at Ms M.T. and asked her: “Where is your husband? Where did he go? Is he planting a mine somewhere?”\n12. Having spent about thirty minutes at the applicants’ house, some of the men left with Abdul Kasumov whereas others remained in the yard and prevented the applicants from going outside.\n13.  The abduction of Abdul Kasumov was witnessed by a number of local residents. According to the applicants, another resident of Mesker‑Yurt who lived about 300 meters away from the applicants, Mr E.M., was abducted on the same night and another resident of Mesker‑Yurt had been abducted a day before.\n14.  The applicants stayed in the house until the sunrise. Then they followed the footprints left by the men in the snow. The prints led to the place where the abductors had parked the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6131", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1956 and 1946 respectively and live in İslahiye, Gaziantep.\n5.  Each of the applicants, who were employees of the İslahiye Municipality, brought proceedings before the İslahiye Civil Court of First Instance acting as a labour court, claiming unpaid wages and other pecuniary rights on 10 October 2001 and 21 November 2001, respectively.\n6.  On 21 May 2004 and 23 May 2003, respectively, the İslahiye Civil Court of First Instance granted the applicants’ requests partially and ordered the payment of 14,288 Turkish Liras (TRY)[1] to the first applicant and TRY 18,514[2] to the second applicant, together with interest. These judgments became final as no appeal was filed against them.\n7.  The first applicant further initiated execution proceedings before the İslahiye Execution Office to obtain the amount ordered by the İslahiye Civil Court of First Instance (file no. 2005/8415).\n8.  At the date of introduction of the applications, the aforementioned judgment debts were still outstanding.\n9.  On 14 November 2002 and 14 September 2002, respectively, the applicants retired from their jobs at the İslahiye Municipality. The town council calculated the applicants’ severance benefits accordingly.\n10.  On 18 March 2003, not having been paid the amounts awarded, the applicants brought proceedings before the İslahiye Civil Court of First Instance acting as a labour court, claiming severance benefits and other pecuniary rights.\n11.  On 15 July 2004 the labour court ordered the Municipality to pay TRY 11,918[3] to the first applicant and TRY 12,119[4] to the second applicant, together with interest. These judgments became final as no appeal was filed against them.\n12.  The applicants further initiated execution proceedings before the İslahiye Execution Office to obtain those amounts ordered by the İslahiye Civil Court of First Instance (file nos. 2004/351 and 2004/352).\n13.  At the date of introduction of the applications, the aforementioned judgment debts were still outstanding.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6132", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Zenica Prison.\n6.  On 1 May 2002 the applicant killed three people. He was remanded in custody on the same day.\n7. On 23 September 2002 the Tuzla Cantonal Court found the applicant guilty of manslaughter, as well as of possessing a firearm without a licence, and sentenced him to twenty-one years’ imprisonment. In view of the applicant’s diminished responsibility at the time the offences were committed, it imposed a concurrent hospital order, pursuant to Article 63 of the Criminal Code 1998 (obavezno psihijatrijsko liječenje i čuvanje u zdravstvenoj ustanovi).\n8. On 21 February 2003 the applicant was placed in the Psychiatric Annex.\n9.  On 30 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina increased the prison sentence from twenty-one to twenty-four years and upheld the remainder of the first-instance judgment of 23 September 2002.\n 10.  On 17 March 2004 the applicant lodged his first application with this Court, complaining, among other things, that his detention in the Psychiatric Annex was unlawful. On 11 October 2005 the Court struck it out of its list of cases following a friendly settlement between the parties (see Hadžić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 11123/04, 11 October 2005). The Government undertook as part of that settlement to move all patients held in the Psychiatric Annex (including the applicant) to an adequate facility by 31 December 2005 and to pay ex gratia 9,000 euros (EUR) to the applicant. The applicant, in return, waived any further claims against Bosnia and Herzegovina in respect of the matters giving rise to that application. On 27 February 2006 the Government paid the amount due, but the applicant continued to be detained in the Psychiatric Annex despite the Government’s undertaking mentioned above.\n11.   On 21 December 2006 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found a breach of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention in the applicant’s case. It held, among other things, that the Psychiatric Annex was not an appropriate institution for the detention of mental health patients. It ordered certain general measures, such as the establishment without further delay of an adequate health care institution. Furthermore, it held that those who complained that their detention in the Psychiatric Annex was unlawful did not have an effective remedy at their disposal after 1 August 2003 other than an appeal to the Constitutional Court itself. The applicant was not awarded any compensation.\n12.  On 20 August 2007 the applicant instituted civil proceedings seeking damages from the State for a breach of the right to liberty and security under the Civil Obligations Act 1978. He referred to the Constitutional Court decision of 21 December 2006 mentioned above. It would appear that the case is pending before the Tuzla Cantonal Court. On 21 August 2007 the applicant instituted similar proceedings against the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It would appear that the case is pending before the Sarajevo Cantonal Court.\n13. Pursuant to a proposal of the Psychiatric Annex, on 31 March 2008 the Tuzla Cantonal Court established, on the basis of a report prepared by the Sarajevo Psychiatric Hospital, that the applicant’s mental condition no longer required his confinement in that Annex. It relied on Article 63 § 2 of the Criminal Code 1998 and Article 480 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1998 (although they ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6134", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bucharest. He is the father of Mr Marian Predică (“the applicant’s son”), a Romanian national who was born on 11 August 1983 and who died on 5 October 2003 while he was serving his prison sentence.\n6.  On 20 March 2000 the applicant’s son had been arrested under suspicion of having committed theft; he was taken into custody in the Gaeşti Correctional Institution for Minors on 2 November 2000. At that time, a medical examination was carried out, the report stating that he was clinically healthy. A copy of the results of a medical examination dated 18 June 1999, with similar conclusions, was attached to the medical file. A subsequent medical examination carried out on 12 March 2001 did not note any chronic or acute illness.\n7.  On 25 August 2001 the applicant’s son was transferred to Jilava Prison, and on 11 September 2003 he was transferred to Rahova High Security Penitentiary. He was placed in cell no. 626.\nOn that date, a medical examination was carried out, stating that the applicant’s son was clinically healthy and that he did not show symptoms of any medical condition. The medical record showed no indication as to the existence of any illness that would require treatment.\nAccording to the same medical file, for the duration of his stay in Rahova Penitentiary, the applicant’s son never asked for any medical assistance.\n8.  In the morning of 1 October 2003, at 10.15, in answer to repeated calls by one of the prisoners, the guards went to cell no. 626, where prisoner T.P. reported that the applicant’s son needed to be taken to hospital urgently, as he had lost consciousness and had started to shake.\nThe supervising officers transported him to the consulting room of the penitentiary. Following an examination performed at 10.27, it was concluded that the detainee was in a generally altered state, disoriented in time and space; a “suspicion of (medical) intoxication” was noted by the doctor, who also recommended that he be taken to Rahova Surgery Hospital urgently. There, at 10.40 he was diagnosed with “convulsions/symptoms of grand mal seizures” (criza comitiala). A consultation by a specialist was recommended.\n9.  As the condition of the patient kept deteriorating, artificial respiration was applied. The applicant’s son was then transported to the nearest emergency hospital, Bucharest University Hospital, where he was hospitalised at 11.15 in a coma. The diagnosis upon arrival was “intercerebral haemorrhage, left temporoparietal, with panventricular inundation”. The doctors noted that there were no signs of trauma on the cranium or vertebra.\nThe patient underwent laboratory tests, tomography and surgical and neurosurgical tests. As there was no indication that neurosurgical intervention was necessary, he was moved to another ward, where his breathing was assisted with a mechanical ventilator and his heart beat maintained by perfusion.\n10.  In spite of the medical care provided, the applicant’s son never came out of the coma. His hospital medical record stated that he died on 5 October 2003, at 13.30,\n“due to a cardiac arrest, [while] under artificial respiration and perfusion with adrenaline. Severe damage to the cerebral trunk. Intercerebral haemorrhage, left temporoparietal, with panventricular inundation and compressive effects on the cerebral trunk.”\nThe medical certificate attesting the death of the applicant’s son was issued on 8 October 2003. It stated that the direct cause of death", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6135", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on 7 February 2005. In 2006 he was convicted of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in a strict-regime prison. Following the delivery of a non-final judgment, on 24 April 2006 he was transferred to Sopronkőhida Strict and Medium Regime Prison, where he was placed in a special security cell. On 28 April 2006 the applicant’s defence counsel filed a request for transfer with the Ministry of Justice. On 27 June 2006 the Head of the Penitentiary Administration Unit of the Detention Affairs Department of the National Headquarters of the Penitentiary Service (“the Penitentiary Administration”) authorised the applicant’s transfer to Vác Strict and Medium Regime Prison.\n7.  Upon a subsequent decision of the Committee for Ordering Special Detention (“the “Committee”), on 17 August 2006 the applicant was transferred to Sátoraljaújhely Strict and Medium Regime Prison in order to be placed in a special security department. In this context the Government submitted that the prison authorities had been informed that his escape had been under preparation; that under Section 30(3) of Act no. CVII of 1995 on the Penitentiary Service this kind of information relating to the security of detention could not be communicated to the detainee; that, besides, further criminal proceedings were being conducted against him; and that these elements had warranted his placement in an appropriate, closed institution and his separation, as far as possible, from his accomplices. The applicant’s placement in a special security department was also supported by information received from the National Bureau of Investigation, classified as a State secret. The information which served as the basis for the decision has never been revealed to the applicant. None of the applicant’s accomplices were placed in a special security department.\n8.  Between 17 August 2006 and 23 September 2008 the applicant was detained as a “Grade 4 security” inmate in Sátoraljaújhely prison’s special security department (“KBK”), apart from the period between 15 February and 27 March 2007, which he spent in similar circumstances in Budapest Prison. His classification as a “Grade 4 security” inmate and his placement in the “KBK” department were reviewed and prolonged at regular intervals, but without any reasoning. His complaints about the conditions of detention to the National Commander of Penitentiaries, the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Attorney General’s Office were to no avail. Upon the applicant’s enquiry, on 25 June 2007 the County Public Prosecutor’s Office stated that “decisions concerning placement in KBK departments falls within the jurisdiction of the National Headquarters of the Penitentiary Service, therefore the County Public Prosecutor’s Office is not entitled to take measures in this regard.” The Public Prosecutor’s Office found that all the measures taken by the prison authorities had a proper legal basis.\n9.  The rules pertaining to the conditions prevailing in the KBK departments are outlined in the chapter on Relevant domestic law (see paragraphs 13 to 16 below). The applicant submitted that there was only artificial light in his cell, the ventilation was insufficient, the toilet had neither a seat nor a cover, and he had to endure full cavity searches on a daily basis. Moreover, the range of objects he was allowed to possess in his cel", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6136", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Thessaloniki.\n5.  On 6 March 2000 he lodged an action (no. 2145/2000) with the civil courts seeking the annulment of his late uncle’s will, according to which certain property had been bequeathed to A.A. The applicant alleged that his late uncle had made A.A. his heir after being deceived and blackmailed by her.\n6.  On 25 April 2000 A.A. brought criminal complaints against the applicant for malicious defamation, claiming that he had maliciously made false statements in action no. 2145/2000 causing damage to her reputation.\n7.  On 29 January 2001 the applicant was prosecuted by the Athens First Instance Prosecutor and the case was remitted to the Athens First Instance Criminal Court.\n8.  On 27 June 2005 the Athens First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a suspended prison sentence of eight months (judgment no. 46411/2005).\n9.  On the same day the applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal challenging the First Instance court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence.\n10.  By judgment dated 18 September 2006 the Court of Appeal reduced the applicant’s sentence to a suspended prison sentence of five months (judgment no. 6800/2006).\n11. On 27 October 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation. On 29 March 2007 he lodged additional grounds of appeal. The appeal on points of law was heard on 16 October 2007.\n12.  By judgment dated 28 May 2008 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal (judgment no. 1396/2008). This judgment was finalised on 23 July 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6137", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Mr Vaysu Gerasiyev, born in 1938;\n2) Ms Asiyat Gerasiyeva, born in 1942;\n3) Mr Khasmagomed Gerasiyev, born in 1962; and\n4) Ms Zarema Gerasiyeva, born in 1971.\n6.  The applicants are Russian nationals and residents of the village of Gekhi, the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The first applicant is the father and the second applicant is the mother of Mr Valid Gerasiyev, born in 1977. The third and fourth applicants are, respectively, brother and sister of Valid Gerasiyev.\n8.  In the autumn of 1999 the applicants and Valid Gerasiyev resided in their privately owned house in the village of Gekhi. After the launch of the counter-terrorist operation in Chechnya, the first applicant and some of his relatives moved to Ingushetiya. Valid Gerasiyev, the first applicant’s other son and the fourth applicant stayed in Gekhi to look after the family house.\n9.  In December 1999 federal forces regained control over Gekhi. The hostilities ceased and the civil population began to return to the area. Valid Gerasiyev, the fourth applicant and their brother decided to stay in Gekhi and not to move to Ingushetiya as they had previously planned.\n10.  On an unspecified date in February 2000 the Gerasiyev family ran out of firewood to heat their house. There being no forest area in the vicinity of Gekhi, Valid Gerasiyev went to the neighbouring village of Shaami-Yurt where O.V., a relative of the Gerasiyevs, resided and where he could obtain firewood.\n11.  On 3 February 2000 Valid Gerasiyev and O.V. went to the forest to collect firewood in the latter’s tractor. At a certain moment the tractor started skidding and O.V. had to return to the village to fetch a rope. When he returned to the forest on his bike and found Valid Gerasiyev, both men came under fire. They decided to leave the area and abandon the vehicles. While they were trying to leave, a shell hit the tractor and the bike. Valid Gerasiyev was hit by a shell splinter in the back of his arm. The wound did not seem particularly serious but his arm was bleeding.\n12.  Later on the same day Valid Gerasiyev and O.V. returned to Shaami‑Yurt. The village was also under fire and the residents tried to shelter from the bombing. The men learnt from the local residents that federal forces were bombing the village because a group of rebels had passed through it earlier. Those rebels had been previously forced out of Grozny by federal forces.\n13.  Having arrived at O.V.’s house, Valid Gerasiyev and O.V. went to the basement to shelter from the bombing. Later on the same day about ten residents of the village joined them in the basement, among them A.D., S.D. and Sh.M. They bandaged Valid Gerasiyev’s arm because the wound was still bleeding.\n14.  On 4 February 2000 the bombing continued and the people stayed in the basement.\n(b)  Abduction of Valid Gerasiyev on 5 February 2000\n15.  On 5 February 2000 federal forces started a “sweeping” operation in Shaami-Yurt. The servicemen ordered everyone to come out of O.V.’s basement and checked their identity documents. They immediately spotted Valid Gerasiyev’s bandaged arm and asked him how he had been wounded. He did not speak Russian and could not answer the question. When O.V. and others tried to explain that he had been wounded while collecting firewood, the servicemen threatened them with their submachine guns and ordered them to remain silent.\n16.  At the same time the servicemen brought people out of the neighbouring houses and checked their identiti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6138", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Sochi.\n6.  On 13 May 2002 the applicant’s husband entered into an agreement with a building company. Under the terms of the contract the company had to build within twelve months an individual house in accordance with the approved project, and the applicant’s husband had to pay them the price of the house in monthly instalments.\n7.  On 25 January 2003 the applicant’s husband died.\n8.  The building company sued the applicant and her daughter (heirs to the applicant’s husband) seeking to recover the contract arrears and to invalidate their title to the unfinished construction project.\n9.  On 20 December 2004 the Tsentralniy District Court of Sochi (“the District Court”) granted the company’s claims. The applicant appealed. The appeal hearing was scheduled for 21 April 2005.\n10.  During the hearing of 21 April 2005 the Krasnodar Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) decided to postpone the appeal hearing at the request of the plaintiff. The applicant’s representative was present. According to the applicant, the Regional Court did not specify the date of the next hearing.\n11.  On 27 April 2005 the court notified the applicant that the hearing had been adjourned to 12 May 2005. The applicant received that notification on 12 May 2005, the very date of the hearing. The postmark on the envelope submitted by the applicant showed that it had reached her on 12 May 2005. The Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal in the absence of the applicant and her representative. It follows from the appeal decision of 12 May 2005 that the other party was present at the hearing and made oral submissions.\n12.  On 9 June 2005 the applicant requested the Regional Court to re-examine the case, alleging that she had not been duly notified of the appeal hearing of 12 May 2005.\n13.  On 29 September 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request, finding that the materials of the case contained evidence that she had been properly notified. However, the Regional Court did not specify what evidence the case file contained.\n14.  In 1999 the applicant’s husband joined a building partnership with a view to acquiring a flat. From 1999 to 2002 he paid construction fees.\n15.  Following her husband’s death in January 2003 the applicant brought proceedings against the partnership, seeking to join it as a member in her husband’s stead.\n16.  On 17 October 2003 the District Court granted the applicant’s claim. On 2 December 2003 the Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal.\n17.  On 10 June 2004 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the above decisions by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n18.  On 19 April 2005 the District Court granted the applicant’s claim. However, on 21 June 2005 the Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination.\n19.  On 21 August 2006 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. On 26 October 2006 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6139", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Athens.\n5.  She is employed as a cleaning lady at the General Hospital of Athens “Laiko”.\n6.  On 17 June 1996 she lodged a civil action with the Athens First Instance Civil Court asking for a sum of 29,151,114 drachmas (GRD) (i.e. 85,739 euros) in respect of unpaid salaries.\n7.  On 2 October 1997 her action was accepted. This decision was certified (θεώρηση) on 8 July 1998 (judgment no. 2927/1997).\n8.  On 29 March 1999 the hospital lodged an appeal.\n 9. On 21 September 1999 the Athens Civil Court of Appeal accepted the appeal and rejected the applicant’s action as unfounded (judgment no. 7938/1999).\n11.  On 4 December 2001 the Court of Cassation accepted the appeal and remitted the case to a different division of the Court of Appeal (judgment no. 1684/2001).\n12.  On 20 December 2001 the applicant filed an application before the Court of Appeal asking for a hearing date to be set. The hearing was held on 5 March 2002.\n13.  By judgment dated 28 November 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed judgment no. 2927/1997 of the Athens First Instance Civil Court and partially allowed the applicant’s appeal (judgment no. 9275/2002).\n15.  On 24 June 2008 the Court of Cassation partially accepted the appeal and remitted the case to a different division of the Court of Appeal (judgment no. 1394/2008). This judgment was finalised on 5 November 2008. It does not transpire from the case file that these proceedings have been concluded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6140", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n(1) Ms Zalina Vitayeva, who was born in 1982;\n(2) Ms Yakhita Kudayeva, who was born in 1959; and\n(3) Mr Murad Kudayev, who was born in 2002.\nThe applicants live in Grozny. The first applicant is the wife of Magomed-Emi (also known as Magomed-Emin, Magomed or Zema) Kudayev, who was born in 1982; the second applicant is his mother; and the third applicant is his son.\n6.  At the material time the applicants and Magomed-Emi Kudayev lived in one household at 63-65 Ippodromniy Lane in the Leninskiy district of Grozny. The household consisted of several dwellings around a yard. Magomed-Emi Kudayev and the first and third applicants lived together in one dwelling with a separate entrance. The second applicant and a number of other relatives, including Magomed Kudayev’s grandparents, lived in the other dwellings. Magomed Kudayev was a fourth year student at the Grozny Oil Institute. He worked as an unarmed security guard for a private company. At the material time the area was under curfew.\n7.  On the evening of 27 March 2004 the applicants, their relatives and Magomed-Emi Kudayev were at home. At about 11.45 p.m. the first applicant heard a noise and looked out of the window. She saw a group of about ten armed masked men. The men were fairly short and were wearing camouflage-coloured jackets and black trousers as well as green camouflage outfits. The applicant thought that they were military servicemen. One of them was not particularly tall and was of a rather heavy build. He spoke unaccented Russian and was wearing a camouflage jacket and camouflage trousers. The applicants thought that this man was Russian, whereas the rest of the intruders were Chechens as they spoke Russian with an accent.\n8.  Having woken up her husband, the first applicant went to the door. One of the men asked her: “Where is Zelimkhan?” Magomed Kudayev answered that it was he. Then a man ordered him in accented Russian to get dressed and follow them. The men did not ask for any documents. When the first applicant asked where they were taking her husband, one of the intruders pointed his gun at her and ordered her to go into another room. Meanwhile the second applicant, who had been alerted by the noise, entered the room. Some of the men entered the dwelling of Magomed Kudayev’s grandparents. When Magomed Kudayev’s grandfather asked the intruders what they were looking for, one of them answered in Chechen that they would find what they were looking for.\n9.  The second applicant kept asking the men about the reasons for her son’s arrest, but she did not receive any explanation. The Russian man ordered the others to hurry up and take Magomed Kudayev away. Next, the men put Magomed Kudayev’s hands behind his back and took him outside, where they grabbed Magomed Kudayev and quickly carried him from the yard to two UAZ vehicles parked in the street. Both vehicles had tinted windows; one of them had an antenna and the other one was a minivan (“Таблетка”).\n10.  The second applicant attempted to follow the intruders and threw a rock at them. In response they opened fire with their guns. Magomed Kudayev asked them not to shoot at the household premises. The men quickly placed Magomed Kudayev in the minivan and drove away.\n11.  Immediately after the abduction, alarmed by the shooting, a number of neighbours gathered at the applicants’ house. One of the applicants’ acquaintances, who worked at the Leninskiy district department of the interior (“the ROVD”), im", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6141", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Vinnytsya.\n6.  In March 1988 the local authorities decided to allocate to the Podilskprommontazh Association, a State company (“the Association”), a plot of land, on which the applicant’s father’s house stood, in order to build a block of flats on that land. In July 1991 the domestic courts rejected, as unsubstantiated, the Association’s claim against the applicant’s father, who had refused to vacate the house in return for compensation.\n7.  In May 1992 the applicant’s father died and the applicant and his relatives (Mrs D., Mrs M. and Mr Z.) inherited the house. According to the applicant, in November 1992, despite the above-mentioned court decision, the Association partially destroyed the house and he could no longer live in it.\n8.  In September 1994 the applicant instituted court proceedings against the Association, seeking compensation for the partial destruction of the house and reimbursement of the cost of renting a flat due to the impossibility of living in the damaged house.\n9.  On 19 November 1996 the Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya partially granted the applicant’s action. On 3 April 1997, following an objection (протест) lodged by a local prosecutor, the Presidium of the Vinnytsya Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n10.  On 5 April 2000 the Leninskyy Court partially granted the applicant’s action, awarded him 167,847[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (“UAH”) for pecuniary damage and UAH 5,000[2] for non-pecuniary damage and rejected, as unsubstantiated, his claim for reimbursement of rental fees. The court based its pecuniary-damage award on a report of 5 August 1999, prepared upon a request it made on 1 June 1999, by the experts of the Kherson State Technical Inventory Bureau (“the Bureau”). As no appeal was lodged, the judgment became final.\n11.  On 22 June 2000 the Presidium of the Vinnytsya Regional Court rejected, as unsubstantiated, a local prosecutor’s objection against the judgment.\n12.  Between 5 April 2000 and 28 September 2007 the Association repeatedly challenged the initiation of the enforcement proceedings, sought their suspension or variation of the manner of the enforcement of the judgment. According to the Government, the judgment was enforced in the amount of UAH 8,856.77[3].\n13.  On 10 April 2006 the Association requested the Leninskyy Court to reopen the proceedings in the light of newly-discovered circumstances. It argued that the expert report had been prepared not by the Bureau but, instead, by its experts acting in a private capacity. It stated that it had learned about that from letters of the Bureau and the local department of the State Security Service issued, respectively, on 13 and 14 March 2006. The applicant filed his comments challenging the request.\n14.   On 30 May 2006 the local police rejected, as unsubstantiated, a criminal complaint by the Association’s chairman of 26 May 2006 against the above experts, based on the same submissions as the Association’s request to the court, for lack of corpus delicti in the experts’ actions.\n15.  On 28 September 2007 the court granted the request, quashed the judgment of 5 April 2000 and ordered a fresh examination of the case. Referring to the aforementioned letters of the Bureau and the State Security Service, it found that the experts of the Bureau, who had prepared the impugned report, had acted in a private capacity and not on behalf of the Bureau. In this respe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6143", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the town of Trostyanets.\n5.  On 8 September 2000 a security officer of the applicant’s former employer, a private company, drew up a report in which he stated that in the course of the applicant’s work on 7 September 2000 she had stolen thirty-five labels, the total value of which was 0.42 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1]. These labels were found in the applicant’s possession when she was leaving the company’s premises. The applicant acquainted herself with the report and explained to the company administration that she had not had any intention of using the labels, but had been going to throw them away.\n6.  On the same day the report was submitted to the Trostyanets Court with a request that the applicant be found guilty of having committed an administrative offence within the meaning of Article 51 § 1 of the Code on Administrative Offences.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the court to provide her with free legal assistance.\n8.  Between 10 September and 1 November 2000 the applicant could not appear before the court as she was undergoing inpatient examinations and treatment in several medical institutions; she informed the court of this.\n9.  Between 3 and 22 November 2000 the applicant’s six-year-old grandson was undergoing specialised treatment in the Okhtyrka Town Clinic for Skin and Venereal Diseases, to which there was restricted public access. The applicant was staying with him in the clinic in view of his young age.\n10.  On 6 November 2000 the judge of the Trostyanets Court who was dealing with the applicant’s case came to the clinic and informed the applicant that he was going to hold a hearing in the room where she was staying with her grandson. All other patients were asked to leave the room. The applicant objected to the holding of the hearing in the room at the clinic. She also requested the judge to withdraw from the case. Her objection and request were dismissed and she refused to participate in the hearing, but remained in the room. The hearing was held in the presence of a lawyer appointed by the judge to defend the applicant. There were also four witnesses heard in person, all of whom were employees of the company. No other persons were allowed to enter the room.\n11.  On the same day the court found the applicant guilty of petty theft and imposed a fine amounting to UAH 51[2]. In its resolution the court explained that the hearing had been held in the clinic because of the applicant’s repeated failure to appear before it.\n12.  The applicant lodged requests for supervisory proceedings with various authorities, including prosecutors and courts, claiming, inter alia, that the proceedings before the Trostyanets Court had not been public and that she had not been able to exercise her rights to defence, or to present evidence, and other procedural rights. According to the applicant, she was not informed about the hearing in advance and she did not consent to be represented by the court-appointed lawyer, as the latter had allegedly represented the company in other proceedings to which she had been a party.\n13.  On 3 April 2001 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Sumy Region lodged a request with the Sumy Court for supervisory review (protest) of the applicant’s case. The prosecutor submitted that the Trostyanets Court had wrongly assessed the evidence in the case and had misapplied domestic law. The prosecutor also alleged that because the hearing had been held in the clin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6145", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Koszalin. He began to practise as an advocate in 1971.\n7.  On 11 April 1997 the parliament passed the Law on disclosing work for or service in the State’s security services or collaboration with them between 1944 and 1990 by persons exercising public functions (ustawa o ujawnieniu pracy lub służby w organach bezpieczeństwa państwa lub współpracy z nimi w latach 1944-1990 osób pełniących funkcje publiczne) (the “1997 Lustration Act”). Persons falling under the provisions of the Lustration Act, i.e. candidates or holders of public office such as ministers and members of parliament, were required to declare whether or not they had worked for or collaborated with the security services during the communist regime. The provisions of the Act extended to, inter alia, judges, prosecutors and advocates.\n8.  In May 1999 the applicant in his lustration declaration stated that he had not been an intentional and secret collaborator of the communist-era security services.\n9.  On 11 May 2005 the Commissioner of Public Interest (Rzecznik Interesu Publicznego) notified the applicant that he had instituted proceedings aimed at verifying the truthfulness of the applicant’s declaration.\n10.  The Commissioner heard the applicant on 2 June 2005. The applicant stated that in the 1980s he had been harassed by two officers of the security service. However, he averred that his contacts with the security service had not amounted to secret and conscious collaboration. He stated that he had ceased all the contacts with the security services in August 1984. The applicant unsuccessfully requested the Commissioner to hear eight advocates of the Koszalin Regional Bar Association.\n11.  On 8 August 2005 the Commissioner made an application to the Lustration Chamber of the Warsaw Court of Appeal, in which he challenged the truthfulness of the applicant’s declaration.\n12.  On 11 August 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal instituted lustration proceedings in the applicant’s case.\n13.  On 15 September 2005 the court held a hearing. The applicant stated that he would not make any statements and would not answer any questions put to him by the court. He upheld his statements given before the Commissioner on 2 June 2005. The applicant did not request the court to call advocates of the Koszalin Bar as witnesses. However, the court decided to hear two of those advocates (K.G. and R.K.). They stated that the applicant had informed them about the meetings with the security services but not about their contents.\n14.  On 5 January 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, acting as the first‑instance lustration court, held that the applicant’s declaration had been untruthful. The court relied, in particular, on evidence given by J.B., an officer of the security services who had managed the applicant as a secret collaborator. It further had regard to the applicant’s statements given before the Commissioner and documentary evidence. It found that the applicant, albeit for a limited period of time, had been an intentional and secret collaborator with the security services within the meaning of the Lustration Act.\n15.  The applicant lodged an appeal. He argued that his meetings with the officers of the security services had not amounted to secret collaboration as he had informed his fellow advocates (K.G. and R.K.) about those meetings. Furthermore, he had never consented to collaborate with the security services and there had been no material evidence o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6146", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in Somalia on 1 November 1987 as the youngest of five siblings. Currently she lives in Esbjerg.\n7.  From 1991 to 1995 the applicant lived with her family in Kenya.\n8.  In April 1994 the applicant’s father and a sister were granted asylum in Denmark.\n9.  Having been granted a residence permit in November 1994, on 11 February 1995 the applicant, who at the relevant time was seven years old, her mother and three siblings joined them. A few years later, the applicant’s parents divorced. The parents maintained joint custody of the applicant, who lived with her mother. From 1995 until August 2002, the applicant attended various schools, some of which expelled her due to disciplinary problems.\n10.  The applicant also had difficulties with her parents, who disapproved of certain aspects of her behaviour. Consequently, in May 2003, when the applicant was fifteen years old, her father decided to take her to Kenya to take care of her paternal grandmother, who was living at the Hagadera refugee camp in north‑eastern Kenya. It appears that the applicant’s mother did not want her to go but reluctantly agreed on the understanding that it would be a short trip. It also appears that the applicant believed that she was going on a short trip to visit her grandmother.\n11.  When the applicant’s father returned to Denmark, he was summoned for an interview with the Immigration Service on 10 November 2003 because the latter had been informed that he, who had been recognised as a refugee, had visited his country of origin. On 17 December 2003 the Immigration Service (Udlændingeservice) took the stand that the applicant’s father’s residence permit had not lapsed. In that connection, the applicant’s father was advised on the regulation regarding lapse of residence permits.\n12.  On 9 August 2005, three months before the applicant turned eighteen years old, she contacted the Danish Embassy in Nairobi with a view to returning to live with her mother and siblings in Denmark. Her father had joined her in Nairobi to help her submit the application for family reunification. He also remarried in Nairobi at the relevant time. An interview was conducted with the help of an English/Somali interpreter although it was stated that the applicant spoke Danish. The applicant explained that she had taken care of her grandmother, who had fallen seriously ill, until some of the grandmother’s children had arrived from Somalia to take over the care of their mother.\n13.  In a letter of 24 November 2005 to the Immigration Service the applicant’s mother stated, inter alia, that at the relevant time it had been decided temporarily to send the applicant to Kenya where the family had a network so that she could attend school and that the applicant had been living with her father’s friends.\n14.  On 21 December 2006 the Immigration Service found that the applicant’s residence permit had lapsed pursuant to section 17 of the Aliens Act because she had been absent from Denmark for more than twelve consecutive months; because she had not contacted the Immigration Service until August 2005; and because there was no information indicating that she could not have contacted the authorities in due time. They also considered that the applicant was not entitled to a new residence permit under section 9, subsection 1 (ii), of the Aliens Act, in force at the relevant time, since the applicant was 17 years old and the said provision only extended a right to family reunification t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6147", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in the village of Gereykhanova, the Republic of Dagestan.\n6.  In November 2006 the applicant got married to F.Kh. In September 2007 she gave birth to their son, A. The applicant, her son and husband lived at his parents’ house in the village of Stepnoy near the town of Makhachkala.\n7.  In February 2008 the family’s relationship deteriorated and the applicant left the house. According to her, her husband and his parents forced her to leave and did not let her take her son, then aged some five months.\n8.  Thereafter the applicant applied to a court, seeking to divorce her husband and asking for alimony payments and custody of her son.\n9.  On 12 August 2008 the Leninskiy District Court of Makhachkala examined the applicant’s case. The court essentially granted the applicant’s claims, having pronounced the divorce, awarded the applicant alimony payments and custody of her son.\n10.  On 14 November 2008 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan (the Supreme Court) upheld the judgment of 12 August 2008. 1.  First round of the enforcement proceedings\n(a)  Writ of execution and the bailiffs’ attempts to locate the applicant’s former husband\n11.  On 5 December 2008 the Leninskiy District Court of Makhachkala issued a writ of execution, which quoted the ruling of the judgment of 12 August 2008 as follows:\n“[The court decided that] the place of residence of child Khanamirov Anrid Faridovich, born on 20 September 2007, should be with [the applicant].”\nThe writ specified that the applicant’s former husband’s resided in the village of Stepnoy, near Makhachkala.\n12.  The applicant applied for enforcement within a few days and in December 2008 the bailiffs of the Leninskiy District of Makhachkala of the Department of the Federal Court Bailiffs Service of the Republic of Dagestan opened enforcement proceedings in this connection.\n13.  Having learned that in the meantime the applicant’s former husband had moved to another house belonging to his family and identified the actual place of his residence in the village of Magaramkent, on 18 February 2009 the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings and transferred the case to the Magaramkentskiy District Department of the Federal Service of Court Bailiffs of the Republic of Dagestan.\n(b)  First attempt to enforce the judgment of 12 August 2008\n14.  On 5 March 2009 the competent local bailiffs opened the enforcement proceedings.\n15.  On an unspecified date the bailiffs informed the applicant’s former husband of his duty to hand the child over to the applicant and set a five-day time-limit for for him to comply with the request voluntarily. It appears that the applicant’s former husband did not comply with the bailiffs’ request and refused to transfer the child to the applicant voluntarily.\n16.  On 3 April 2009 a bailiff, along with the applicant, paid a visit to the home of the applicant’s former husband and his parents. In the presence of a paediatrician, a psychologist, a representative of the local child welfare service and two attesting witnesses the bailiff physically removed the applicant’s son from his father and handed him over to the applicant. The child was seriously stressed during the procedure and resisted.\n17.  According to the bailiff’s report of 3 April 2009, the applicant had “refused to take her son and to enforce the judgment of 12 August 2008”. The applicant, along with her former husband, the paediatrician, the psychologist, the representa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6148", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Kraków.\n8.  The applicant is a doctor, specialising in cardiac surgery. He is one of the few specialists in Poland qualified to perform heart transplants. At the relevant time he was the Director of the Cardiac Surgery Clinic in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration Hospital in Warsaw and an assistant professor at the Jagiellonian University Medical College in Kraków.\n9.  Following information submitted by doctors employed in the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration Hospital, on 12 December 2006 the Warsaw Regional Prosecution Office instituted an investigation into cases of alleged medical negligence and several counts of harassment of hospital staff by the applicant. It appears that the applicant was also suspected of receiving bribes from his patients.\n10.  On 12 February 2007 the applicant arrived at work at about 7 a.m. and started preparing for an operation which was planned for that morning.\n11.  At 7.40 a.m. a dozen masked and armed officers of the Central Anti‑corruption Bureau (CAB) stormed the Cardiac Surgery Clinic. Some of the officers burst into the applicant’s office pointing their firearms and shouting. The officers threw the applicant to the floor, pinned his head to the floor and then handcuffed his hands behind his back. They searched the applicant’s office. Subsequently, they allowed him to change his clothes and handcuffed him again, this time with his hands in front.\n12.  The applicant was taken, in handcuffs, out of his office to the hospital’s outdoor car park. There were a large number of masked and armed officers in the car park and some were in plain clothes. The applicant’s car was searched over a period of about one hour. A sniffer dog was also used. During this time the applicant stood nearby with his hands visibly handcuffed. The events were viewed by hundreds of hospital staff, patients and visitors. The applicant’s arrest was filmed continuously by one of the officers.\n13.  Subsequently the applicant was taken to his flat in Warsaw. Several dozen officers searched the flat over a period of nine hours. They seized several hundred objects, including bottles of alcohol, watches, fountain pens, cutlery, porcelain, and so on which were to be used as evidence of the applicant’s bribe-taking. The search of his flat was also filmed.\n14.  The applicant was then taken to a hospital for a medical check. At about midnight on 12 February 2007 the officers took the applicant to see Mr Mariusz Kamiński, the Head of the CAB, who shouted at him using offensive language. He said, among other things, that the applicant would not leave prison before turning seventy. The Government submitted that there was no information in the case file concerning the meeting between the Head of the CAB and the applicant.\n15.  The applicant was detained at Warsaw Police Headquarters.\n16.  According to the Government, the applicant did not appeal against his arrest (zażalenie na zatrzymanie) or object to the way in which the CAB’s officers executed the search of his flat.\n17.  On 13 February 2007 at about 3 p.m. the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor charged the applicant with twenty offences, including exposing a patient to a direct danger to his life or health (Article 160 § 1 of the Criminal Code (“CC”)), homicide of a patient (Article 148 § 1 of the CC), harassing a member of staff, forgery of medical documentation, and sixteen counts of taking bribes from patients. The pro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6149", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1965 and 1946 respectively. They live in Chechen-Aul in the Grozny district, Chechnya. The first applicant is the wife of Salambek (also known as Aslambek) Movsayev, who was born in 1966; the second applicant is his brother.\n7.  At some point in the 1990s the first applicant, her husband Salambek Movsayev and their son moved from Chechen-Aul in Chechnya to Ingushetia. At the material time they lived in Achaluki, Ingushetia, and occasionally visited their relatives in Chechnya. The second applicant lived in Chechen-Aul, which had been under the full control of the Russian federal forces since 2000; checkpoints manned by military servicemen were on the roads leading to and from the settlement.\n8.  The applicants’ and Salambek Movsayev’s relative, Mr T.M., was suspected of active membership in illegal armed groups and had been on the authorities’ wanted list since 2000. Officers of local law-enforcement agencies, including a district police officer, Mr S., had visited the second applicant’s house on a number of occasions looking for Mr T.M.\n(b)  Abduction of Salambek Movsayev\n9.  On 24 February 2006 the first applicant, Salambek Movsayev and their twelve-year-old son visited the second applicant in Chechen-Aul. After the visit, at about 2 p.m. on the same day, they got into their VAZ-2104 car and drove to a repair shop in Chechen-Aul. Salambek Movsayev stopped at the shop to inquire whether a tape recorder belonging to him had been fixed. After spending just a few minutes there, he got back in the car and the family continued driving in the direction of Grozny.\n10.  The family was driving down Ordzhonikidze Street, about three houses away from the repair shop, when their car was stopped by two men in uniform, who had gotten out of a white VAZ-2107 car and a light‑coloured VAZ-21010 car parked on the right side of the road.\n11.  One of the men, who was holding a gun, approached the driver’s window. The other one was standing on the other side of the car. The man with the gun asked Salambek Movsayev’s name; the latter told him that his name was Aslambek. Then the man grabbed him by the collar and dragged him out of the car. Without providing any explanations or asking for documents he dragged Salambek over to the two cars parked nearby and pushed him into one of them. Meanwhile, another seven or eight armed men got out of the two cars. Two or three of them were in spotted camouflage uniforms; the rest were in black ones. None of them were wearing masks; some of them were of Slavic appearance.\n12.  When the first applicant saw her husband being forced into one of the cars, she and her son got out of their vehicle and ran after him. One of the armed men pointed his gun at her and told her in Chechen to get out of the way. After that the abductors drove away with Salambek Movsayev in the direction of Grozny. According to the applicants, a number of local residents witnessed the abduction of Salambek Movsayev. However, they did not provide the Court with any witness statements concerning the events.\n(c)  Events following the abduction\n13.  Immediately after her husband’s abduction, the first applicant and her son drove back to the second applicant’s house. They informed him about the abduction. The applicants called the district police officer Mr S., who had visited the second applicant’s house looking for Mr T.M., and asked him about the whereabouts of Salambek Movsayev. The officer promised to help them find Sal", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6150", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Gdańsk.\n7.  On 16 May 2005 the applicant was arrested.\n8.  On 17 May 2005 he was charged with having assisted in counterfeiting a secondary education diploma (udzielenie pomocy w podrobieniu świadectwa maturalnego). The applicant was released on the same day, after having paid a bail of 6,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n9.  On 30 August 2005 a bill of indictment against the applicant and two other persons was lodged with the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n10. On an unspecified date, one of the co-accused, A.D., requested the court to sentence her without carrying out the whole proceedings and her case was severed for separate examination. A judgment against A.D. was given on 5 October 2005.\n11. A first hearing, scheduled on 30 November 2005, was adjourned. No reasons for this decision were provided.\n12.  The trial started on 22 December 2005.\n13.  On one occasion a hearing was adjourned, as the applicant’s co‑accused failed to appear.\n14.  Two hearings were adjourned, as the applicant and his co-accused have not been transferred to the court from prison.\n15.  On five occasions the applicant’s lawyer failed to attend the hearings. It appears that on two of those occasions he has not been properly summoned.\n16.  Two hearings, scheduled on 9 October and 6 November 2007, were adjourned, as the case-file concerning another set of criminal proceedings has not been delivered to the trial court.\n17.  Two hearings, scheduled on 11 December 2007 and 18 January 2008, were adjourned, without any reasons being provided.\n18.  A hearing scheduled on 27 February 2008 was cancelled due to the judge-rapporteur’s illness.\n19.  On 11 April 2008 the District Prosecutor (Prokurator Prokuratury Rejonowej) requested the trial court to exclude judge J.M., to whom the applicant’s case was assigned, from the proceedings. The prosecutor relied on the fact that J.M. had given a judgment against A.D. and that, according to the recent case-law of the Supreme Court, in circumstances like those of the present case, the same judge could not examine a case against several co-accused on the basis of the same evidentiary material.\n20.  On 21 April 2008 the Gdańsk District Court granted the prosecutor’s request and excluded J.M. from the proceedings. The trial has recommenced.\n21.  On 9 October 2008 the Gdańs Distirct Court quashed the preventive measure imposed on the applicant (see paragraph 8 above). The amount paid as bail was returned to the applicant.\n22.  The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.\n23.  On 10 April 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint about a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time with respect to the first set of criminal proceedings against him. He relied on the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). The applicant sought PLN 10,000 in just-satisfaction.\n24.  On 1 July 2008 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) acknowledged that the proceedings have indeed been lengthy and awarded PLN 1,000 to the applicant. It underlined that the trial court has failed to ensure that the hearings were adequately prepared and organised. It also noted that the applicant’s lawyer has partly contributed to the overall length of the proceedings. In that respect the trial court was criticis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6151", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Érd.\n5.  The applicant was arrested on 5 October 2000 on suspicion of having committed several counts of fraud and forgery of private documents.\n6.  The Budapest X/XVII District Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment in respect of the applicant and forty-two other defendants on 19 June 2003.\n7.  After issuing numerous arrest warrants, the Pest Central District Court held several hearings. On 19 February 2009 it delivered a judgment in respect of sixteen defendants. The public prosecutor submitted an appeal in case of two defendants, where the District Court stated in the reasoning of its judgment that the length of the criminal proceedings was taken into account among the mitigating circumstances.\n8.  The first-instance judgment in respect of the applicant was delivered on 15 April 2010. The applicant was found guilty, inter alia, of aggravated fraud and was sentenced to one year of imprisonment whose enforcement was suspended for two years and exempted in advance from the effects of criminal conviction. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment and therefore received only a short version of the judgment, based on section 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which did not contain a detailed reasoning.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6153", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1956, in the territory of Primor Oblast, now in the Russian Federation.\n7.  In 1962, the applicant’s father, a military officer in the Soviet Union army, was posted to the territory of Lithuania to perform his military service. The applicant also moved to Lithuania, where he got married in 1977 and where he lives with his wife and daughter, who was born in 1996 and is therefore still a minor. They are both Lithuanian citizens. The applicant and his wife also have two grown-up sons. The applicant’s parents are Lithuanian citizens, born in 1926 and 1931, and, like the applicant, they live in Vilnius.\n8.  On 11 March 1990, at the time of the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania, the applicant was an officer in the Soviet Union army. On 27 May 1991, by an order of the Minister of Defence of the Soviet Union, the applicant was discharged, finishing his military service with the rank of major.\n9.  In 1991 the applicant created an enterprise called Avia Baltika, which was engaged in the aviation business and related activities. The applicant is a major shareholder and director.\n10.  On 1 November 1991, the applicant made a pledge to the Republic of Lithuania and was subsequently granted Lithuanian citizenship. On 20 October 1992, the applicant was issued with a Lithuanian passport.\n11.  On 4 November 1999 the Commission on Questions of Citizenship (Pilietybės reikalų komisija) found that the applicant’s Lithuanian passport had been issued in breach of the applicable legislation because Soviet Army personnel could not be granted Lithuanian citizenship. However, the Commission recommended that the applicant remain a Lithuanian citizen.\n12.  On 11 November 1999 the Migration Department decided to follow the above recommendation and to make an exception by permitting the applicant to keep his Lithuanian passport.\n13.  At the end of 2000 the applicant applied to the President of the Russian Federation, requesting Russian citizenship. His request was determined by the fact that he conducted business in both the Republic of Lithuania and the Russian Federation.\n14.  On 18 June 2002 the President of the Russian Federation granted the applicant Russian citizenship. On 18 March 2003, on a request by the applicant, the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Lithuania issued him with a Russian passport.\n15.  In June 2002, the applicant participated in the 2002 Lithuanian Presidential election campaign by providing financial and other support to one of the candidates, Rolandas Paksas (“RP”). RP officially declared to the Central Electoral Commission that the applicant’s enterprise, Avia Baltika, had donated 1,205,000 Lithuanian litas ((LTL), approximately 349,000 euros (EUR)) to RP’s election campaign.\n16.  On 5 January 2003, RP was elected President of the Republic of Lithuania.\n17.  On 24 March 2003, the applicant informed the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania in writing that he had acquired citizenship of the Russian Federation. By a decision of 10 April 2003, the Director of the Migration Department found that the applicant had lost his Lithuanian citizenship, since he had acquired the citizenship of another State.\n18.  On 24 March 2003, the applicant asked RP to grant him Lithuanian citizenship by way of exception. In his application, the applicant maintained that since 1991 he had been conducting business in Lithuania, that he had created more than 200 jobs, that there were 600 other people", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6154", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  On 10 July 1999 the applicant’s husband died after being hit by a tree in a health resort at Kudowa Zdrój, where he had been staying in a sanatorium. The tree toppled over and fell on the applicant while he was walking on the pavement. Three other people were injured in the accident.\n7.  The police arrived at the scene, examined the tree and took some black-and-white photographs. The police report stated that the tree was partly rotten and the roots had torn. The police heard an eye witness and a post mortem examination of the applicant’s husband was conducted. The Kłodzko District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) opened an investigation into the incident.\n8.  On 15 July 1999 the Kłodzko District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) discontinued the investigation into the applicant’s husband’s death, finding that it had been an unfortunate accident and that no offence had been committed. He established that the tree had fallen in strong winds. The cause of death was a fractured skull. The prosecutor also established that the Kudowa Municipal Office (Urzad Miasta) was responsible for the condition of trees in the city, and heard evidence from Ms A.P., the Inspector for Environmental Protection (inspektor do spraw ochrony środowiska), who testified that she had carried out a visual inspection of the tree in April and June 1999, together with a Mr Z.K. who worked for a company specialising in the protection and care of trees and shrubs. She said that the tree had looked healthy and there had been no indication that its removal was required. The prosecutor considered that that assessment was consistent with the examination of the tree after the accident as there were no visible signs that it had been unhealthy or rotten.\n9.  The applicant appealed against that decision.\n10.  On 7 September 1999 she obtained an opinion from the Institute of Meteorology and Water Management (IMGW) on weather conditions in Kudowa on 10 July 1999. According to the opinion, the wind had been weak or moderate that day and there had been no violent atmospheric conditions.\n11.  On 9 December 1999 the Kłodzko District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) allowed the applicant’s appeal and returned the case to the prosecutor to continue the investigation. It considered that the prosecuting authorities had failed to establish what had caused the tree to fall or to examine whether the visual inspection allegedly carried out by A.P. prior to the accident could be considered appropriate. It also pointed to the discrepancy between the police report, which had stated that the tree was partly rotten, and the prosecutor’s finding that it was healthy. The court instructed the prosecutor to question the police officers who had attended the scene and the persons who had been injured in the accident.\n12.  On 31 March 2000 the Kłodzko District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation finding that no offence had been committed. From his questioning of the police officers, he established that the tree had looked healthy but that after the accident it had become apparent that it had been partly rotten and had a weak root system. The prosecutor also considered that although the Institute for Meteorology had not recorded any violent wind there could have been local gusts. He concluded that the fall of the tree and the death of the applicant’s husband had not been caused by any negligence on the part of those responsible for maintaining the tree", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6155", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1952, 1954, 1961, 1960, 1964, 1963 and 1945 respectively and live in Malta. They are certified public accountants acting personally and in their capacity as partners of the partnership Deloitte & Touche Certified Public Auditors & Accountants.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicants were sued, personally and in their capacity as partners of the partnership Deloitte & Touche Certified Public Auditors & Accountants, as auditors of PCO Ltd, in a civil action by a company, V. The latter claimed that the applicants’ audit firm had acted negligently and fraudulently in its drawing up of PCO Ltd’s audit report/financial statements, and was therefore liable for the losses sustained by V as a result of its reliance on those documents.\n8.  During the proceedings the applicants raised a preliminary plea to the effect that reliance by V. on the audit report when taking a particular credit decision, and knowledge on the part of the applicants of such reliance when taking that decision, were lacking. These requirements were fundamental to this type of action.\n9.  On 1 December 2003 the Civil Court dismissed this plea in a preliminary judgment.\n10.  On 3 December 2003 the applicants requested special leave to appeal the preliminary judgment under Article 231 (1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (“COCP”). On 12 December 2003, the Civil Court in its ordinary jurisdiction granted leave to appeal.\n11.  On 29 December 2003 the applicants lodged an appeal.\n12.  On 8 June 2004, having heard the parties’ arguments, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as out of time. It noted that while the legislator had clearly established that the time-limit for lodging an appeal against an interlocutory decree ran from the date of authorisation to appeal, in respect of an appeal against a “judgment” the legislator had made no distinction between a “judgment” and a “partial judgment” (sentenża parżjali). It followed that the twenty-day time-limit which ran from the date of delivery of a judgment according to Article 226 (1) of the COCP applied also to appeals necessitating prior leave to appeal.\n13.  On 17 September 2004 the applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings before the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, claiming that such an erroneous interpretation by the Court of Appeal deprived them of access to court.\n14.  On 15 November 2006 the Civil Court upheld the applicants’ claims, finding that a right to appeal could not arise before leave to appeal had been given. Moreover, an appellant did not have to tolerate the delays of a court in giving leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal’s interpretation had therefore deprived the applicants of access to court in violation of Article 6 of the Convention. It declared the Court of Appeal’s judgment null and void.\n15.  On 2 March 2007 the Constitutional Court, on appeal by the Attorney General, acknowledged that the interpretation given to the law had been erroneous, thereby depriving the applicants of their right to appeal at an early stage. Nevertheless, it did not uphold the first-instance judgment, since a wrong interpretation did not suffice to lead to a violation of the Convention. While reiterating that an appeal could be heard before the Court of Appeal only once, it considered that the applicants had the opportunity to appeal in the civil case after the final judgment. Thus, given that a defect in first-instance proceedings could be remedied ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6156", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  Between July and September 2000 the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the Nikulinskiy District Court”), composed of one professional judge, Mr Bobkov, and two lay judges, Ms Matuzova and Mr Rubtsov, examined the charges brought against the applicant in connection with a drug-related offence.\n8.  On 4 September 2000 the Nikulinskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of illegal acquisition and storage of narcotics on a particularly large scale for the purpose of sale and of illegal sale of drugs and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.\n9.  The applicant and his counsel appealed against the judgment of 4 September 2000 to the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”). They complained, in particular, that lay judge Rubtsov had not been appointed in accordance with the law and had not been independent because he worked as a clerk (секретарь суда) at the Nikulinskiy District Court.\n10.  On 5 October 2000 the City Court returned the case to the first-instance court and ordered it to look into the applicant’s complaints about the competency of lay judge Rubtsov.\n11.  The results of the inquiry carried out by the Supreme Court Justice Department in respect of the competency of lay judge Rubtsov to sit in the case were summarised in a report of 17 January 2001, which stated as follows:\n“...The inquiry established that the Nikulinskiy District Court had at its disposal a copy of the decision of 24 October 1991 of the Gagarinskiy District Council of People’s Deputies of Moscow confirming the results of the additional selection of lay judges of the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow as well as a copy of the list of lay judges elected by the staff of the Gagarinskiy District Court, which comprised two persons (Mrs Asharova and Mr Rubtsov) and which had not been properly certified.\nAccording to information obtained from the Administration of Moscow and from the Moscow Archives, the originals of the documents on the election of lay judges of the Gagarinskiy District Court had not been kept.\nNevertheless, lay judge Rubtsov had been in possession of the card [identifying him as a] lay judge of the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow, which had been valid until May 1995.\nThe presidential decrees of 22.03.95 No. 299 and 23.01.97 No. 41, 12.12.98 No. 64, 02.01.00 No.37, and 25.01.00 No.103 extended the terms of office of previously selected lay judges until the adoption of the Federal Law on the selection of lay judges and the compilation of general lists of lay judges.”\n12.  On 3 April 2001 the City Court examined the case on appeal. It held that the applicant’s guilt of acquisition of drugs for the purpose of sale and the sale of drugs had been proved by the evidence examined during the trial. Regarding the allegedly unlawful composition of the trial court, the appeal court held that the term of office of lay judge Rubtsov had been extended in accordance with the Presidential decrees. The court also noted that the fact that lay judge Rubtsov worked for the court as a clerk did not preclude him from being elected as a lay judge. The City Court reduced the applicant’s sentence to five years’ imprisonment and upheld the remainder of the judgment.\n13.  On 13 February 2002 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”) reviewed the case under the supervisory review procedure. The Supreme Court held that the applicant’s guilt of acquisition and storage of drugs on a ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6157", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Szigetszentmárton.\n5.  On 23 June 1998, following the pronouncement of the divorce of the applicant and his wife, the Budapest IV/XV District Court placed the applicant’s child – born in July 1993 – with the mother.\n6.  The applicant was thereafter not able to see his son due to the mother’s reluctance to hand over the child.\n7.  The parents managed to reach a settlement about the father’s access rights concerning visits until the summer of 1999, which was approved by the Budapest Regional Court on 8 January 1999. According to the arrangement, the applicant was allowed to see his son every second Saturday from 9 am until 6 pm, the day after Easter at the same hours and during the summer holidays from 7 until 14 July and from 1 until 14 August.\n8.  Until 26 May 2000 the applicant managed to see his son only rarely, since the mother refused to comply with the arrangement on most occasions. From this date onwards he was fully denied access to the child by his former wife.\n9.  The applicant repeatedly complained to the local guardianship authority as from that date and requested it to take effective measures in order for him to be able to exercise his access rights.\n10.  On 16 June and 18 July 2000 the competent Budapest XV District Guardianship Authority heard both parents, warned the mother to allow the applicant to see his son and imposed fines on her. However, these fines were later cancelled.\n11.  In January 2001 the case was transferred to the Budapest XIII District Guardianship Authority. Since a warning issued in July 2001 was to no avail, it fined the mother 10,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 37 euros (EUR)) on 13 August 2001 and a further HUF 30,000 (EUR 110) on 18 October 2001.\n12.  Furthermore, in December 2001 the Budapest XV District Guardianship Authority discontinued the proceedings, initiated ex officio by the Budapest XIII District Guardianship Authority, to place the child under protection (“védelembe vétel”), finding no reason for it. The child welfare service contacted the parents in an attempt to find a solution to the situation. It prepared an environment study at the mother’s home, establishing that it was ideal for the upbringing of the child, who was in a loving relationship with his mother. However, it emphasised the importance of and need for a balanced contact between the child and his father.\n13.   As the applicant had had no contact with his child since May 2000, he lodged complaints with various authorities, but to no avail.\n14.  The Guardianship Authority then contacted a child upbringing counsellor (“nevelési tanácsadó”) who recommended the assistance of a foundation specialised in facilitating visits. It therefore ordered that the regular visits scheduled for the period between 16 February and 11 May 2002 be held at the foundation’s premises. It appears that there was therefore some contact between the applicant and his son in this period. The applicant’s relationship with his son was examined and found to be harmonious. Subsequently, the Guardianship Authority invited both parents to a reconciliatory meeting on 10 June 2002. This, however, proved to be unsuccessful. The father’s environment was also examined, and it was established that the conditions were appropriate to hold the visits there. The authority recommended a gradual extension of the duration of the contact between the father and the child.\n15.  The Guardianship Authority drew up a new", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6158", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1942, 1973 and 1954 respectively and live in Malta. When the facts that gave rise to the complaint occurred, the first applicant was the editor of the newspaper “The Times of Malta”, the second applicant was a court reporter for the said newspaper and the third applicant was the registered newspaper’s printer.\n7.  On 20 June 1995 a bigamy case, in which the accused was represented by Dr A., was to be heard before the Court of Magistrates. Dr A. was called a number of times but he failed to appear. The accused explained that there had been trouble between them in view of requests for excessive fees which he was unable to pay. According to the second applicant, the presiding magistrate repeatedly expressed his intention in open court to find Dr A. in contempt of court. Indeed, in the chaotic atmosphere in the courtroom, the second applicant heard the magistrate find Dr A. to be in contempt of court. According to the second applicant, she subsequently attempted to verify this fact through the records of the proceedings, but both the magistrate and the court deputy registrar had already left their chambers. She therefore verified what she had heard with another reporter present in the courtroom. He confirmed her version.\n8.  A decision of the same date in the relevant bigamy proceedings referred to the fact that Dr A.’s client’s request to replace his lawyer at that stage of the proceedings verged on contempt of court. However, in view of the circumstances as explained to the court, the case was adjourned.\n9.  On 21 June 1995, the Times of Malta newspaper published a report entitled ‘Lawyer found in Contempt of Court’. It reported, inter alia, that Dr A. had been found guilty of contempt of court for failing to appear before a magistrate hearing the final stages of a bigamy case.\n10.  On the same day Dr A. called the second applicant and protested vigorously about the article. Subsequently, the second applicant proceeded to verify the information by checking the record of the proceedings. However, the relevant information was not registered therein. In consequence on 22 June 1995 the newspaper published a report entitled ‘Lawyer Not Found in Contempt of Court’ which reproduced the relevant record of the proceedings and stated that “any inconvenience caused to Dr A. is regretted”.\n11.  Nonetheless, on the same day, Dr A. brought civil proceedings for defamation under Part III of the Press Act (actions arising from press offences). The applicants pleaded, inter alia, that the publication was privileged under section 33 (d) of the Press Act (see Relevant domestic law below), that it was not libellous, that mitigation in accordance with section 28 (2) of the Press Act should be applied in view of the apology published on the following day and that the third applicant had not read the report prior to its publication (see Relevant domestic law).\n12.  By a decision of 13 June 1997, the court, while acknowledging that the record of the case did not cover the entire proceedings, allowed the applicants to present evidence. On 24 February 1998, in his testimony, the prosecutor in the bigamy case explained that Dr A. had not appeared at the hearing. The prosecutor related that he had tried to keep the magistrate calm and was nearly found guilty of contempt himself because he was playing defence lawyer. The prosecutor stated that, at that moment, the magistrate dictated a minute, which he thought was directed towards him,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6159", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Nyíregyháza.\n5.  In June 1989 the applicant initiated an action against the members of a building society before the Nyíregyháza District Court, requesting the court to quash the respondent society’s decision excluding him from the building society.\n6.  Following several remittals and suspensions, the proceedings finally continued and were joined with another case initiated by a water management association and the respondents in the earlier case.\n7.  On 27 October 2004 the Nyíregyháza District Court delivered its decision which was amended in part on appeal by the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court on 7 April 2005.\n8.  On 13 October 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review in a reasoned decision. Examining the merits of the case, it held that the second-instance judgment had not been unlawful to an extent that had a bearing on the merits of the case. This decision was served on 29 November 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6161", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  In the autumn of 1999, because of the armed clashes, the applicant and his family moved temporarily to the house of their relative, Mr S. Kh., at 9 Trudovaya Street, Martan-Chu, in Urus-Martan district. The village administration recorded the applicant as an internally displaced person.\n8.  According to the applicant, on 4 December 1999 between 11 a.m. and 12 noon advancing Russian federal forces subjected the area around Martan‑Chu to indiscriminate shelling. He submitted that the army had used “Grad” (“Град”) or “Uragan” (“Ураган”), multiple rocket launch systems, which were stationed about ten kilometres from the village. Several projectiles hit the village. One of them landed in the yard of Mr S. Kh. and hit a car which was parked there. The applicant was standing next to the car and received numerous splinter wounds, including to the head. According to the applicant’s submissions made to the Court, in June 2005 a part of the projectile which had wounded the applicant remained in Mr S. Kh.’s yard.\n9.  On 19 December 1999 the administration of Martan-Chu issued a paper which stated that the applicant and his cousin had been wounded as a result of the bombardment of the village on 4 December 1999 and that on the same date they had been taken to the hospital in Novyie Atagi, in Grozny district.\n10.  As a result of the wounding the applicant’s health deteriorated; he had become unable to work, which was recognised in 2001 by a forensic examination as second-degree disability. He receives a monthly disability pension.\n11.  According to the submitted documents, the applicant underwent several rounds of treatment in connection with his injuries. Between 4 and 21 December 1999 the applicant was in Novyie Atagi hospital. On 2 February 2000 a splinter was removed from his head. Between 2 and 29 August 2001 the applicant received post-operative treatment.\n12.  On 2 November 2004 the Urus-Martan district hospital summarised the state of the applicant’s health. According to the document, the applicant’s health had been monitored by the hospital since 2000; he required constant rehabilitation therapy.\n13.  Between 25 and 29 April 2008 the applicant was examined by the experts of the Chechnya Bureau of Forensic Expertise. According to their evaluation, the applicant had a penetrating wound to the right part of the frontal lobe with damage to the brain; such a wound could have been caused by a shell splinter and was qualified as serious damage to the applicant’s health.\n14.  On 11 March 2002 the applicant’s mother wrote to the Russian Ombudsman and asked for assistance in relation to the applicant’s situation. She indicated that her son had been injured on 4 December 1999 as a result of the shelling of Martan-Chu and that the family had been bearing the costs of complex medical interventions.\n15.  On 28 May 2003 the applicant’s mother informed the Urus‑Martan district prosecutor’s office (“the district prosecutor’s office”) about the applicant’s injury received during the bombardment on 4 December 1999. She alleged that the shelling of the village had been carried out by the servicemen of the “245th regiment”.\n16.  On 14 August 2003 the applicant’s mother complained about the applicant’s injuries to the Urus-Martan district police department (“the ROVD”) and requested the authorities to institute a criminal investigation into the events.\n17.  On 16 September 2003 the ROVD refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6162", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Gdańsk.\n5.  On 16 April 1998 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody.\n6.  On 1 April 1999 the applicant was released from pre-trial detention.\n7.  On 12 January 2000 the prosecution lodged a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The applicant was charged with several counts of receiving and counterfeit. The bill of indictment comprised charges against 19 accused.\n8.  In the proceedings the Gdańsk District Court scheduled some thirty eight hearings. At least sixteen of them were adjourned. On many occasions the court did not give any reasons for adjournment decisions.\n9.  The proceedings are still pending before the Gdańsk District Court.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n11.  On 16 July 2009 the Gdańsk Regional Court confirmed that the proceedings in question had indeed been lengthy. The court stated, inter alia, that on at least three occasions the Gdańsk District Court had adjourned hearings without giving reasons for its decision. It further stated that on eight occasions the hearings had lasted less than two hours, which taking into account the number of co-accused and difficulties in scheduling a date convenient to all the participants, was proof of bad organisation of the proceedings on the part of the Gdańsk District Court. Furthermore, the court held that on numerous occasions hearings had been adjourned as some of the co–accused had participated on these dates in another set of proceedings or because prison authorities had been given too short notice to organise transport of the accused from a remand centre to the courtroom. The court also pointed out that the Gdańsk District Court did not apply any disciplinary measures against the co-accused who systematically failed to appear for hearings. Finally, the Gdańsk Regional Court stated that the intervals between the hearings had been too significant; in particular on one occasion the Gdańsk District Court had adjourned a hearing for a period of one year without submitting exceptional reasons for its decision as required by the code of criminal procedure. According to the Gdańsk Regional Court, it resulted from the above that the Gdańsk District Court had significantly contributed to the excessive length of the proceedings. The Gdańsk Regional Court did not, however, examine the period prior to the entry into force of the 2004 Act.\n12.  The court awarded the applicant 1,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 250 euros (EUR)) in just satisfaction. Referring to the amount of just satisfaction, the court held that having regard to the circumstances of the case, the amount of money awarded to him was adequate and compatible with the “social sense of justice”.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6163", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  According to the applicant, he was in pre-trial detention in Prison no. 13 in Chişinău (previously known as Prison no. 3) when he was approached on 2 May 2006 by a prison officer and requested to move to cell 121. The applicant refused to do so until he was given an explanation for the reason for his transfer.\n7.  On 3 May 2006 three officers approached him and requested him to follow them. As they reached cell 121 he was ordered to go into that cell, which was empty. He refused, asking for an explanation from the prison administration, but was then allegedly assaulted by the officers, helped by two other staff members, who punched and kicked him and hit him with rubber truncheons, then banged his head against the wall, causing him severe pain. They swore at him and told him that they were fed up with his complaints about various alleged violations of his rights. When he could no longer resist, he was pushed into cell 121, where he ran to the window and broke it, took a piece of glass and slit his wrist in the hope that that would stop the ill-treatment and would ensure a visit from a doctor. However, the assailants continued to beat him up in the cell, and then took him to a psychiatrist.\n8.  According to the Government, the applicant refused all medical assistance on 3 May 2006. According to the applicant, he refused assistance from the doctors of Prison no. 13, who were his attackers’ colleagues and could not be trusted to be independent and impartial in their findings.\n9.  On 4 May 2006 the applicant complained to the governor of Prison no. 13 that he had been ill-treated by prison staff and asked to be seen by medical experts and by representatives of Amnesty International. He declared himself to be on hunger strike until those visits took place. On the same day, the prison administration informed the Ministry of Justice that the applicant was on hunger strike and of the reasons for that form of protest, namely a request to be visited by Amnesty International and a medical expert.\n10.  On 5 May 2006 the applicant’s complaint of ill-treatment was registered with the Prosecutor General’s Office.\n11.  On 12 May 2006 the applicant stopped his hunger strike, informing the prison administration that the reason was his poor state of health. He referred to the failure to allow him to be seen by a medical expert or Amnesty International. On the same day, the prison administration informed the Ministry of Justice that the applicant had stopped his hunger strike.\n12.  Also on 12 May 2006 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice that he had been ill-treated. In reply, the head of the Prison Department of the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that his complaint had been examined and found to be untrue. In fact, owing to his refusal to comply with the lawful order to move to cell 121, he had been taken there after being handcuffed.\n13.  On 15 May 2006 the applicant was transferred to Criuleni police station so that he could attend a hearing of his criminal case on 18 May 2006 in that town. Excerpts from his medical file from his stay in that prison included the following statements:\nOn 16 May 2006: multiple cuts on his left hand; the applicant complains of pain in the thoracic region and the back; need for an examination by a traumatology doctor and a neurologist and for an X-ray of the thoracic region.\nOn 21 May 2006: the patient declares that three weeks ago he w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6164", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant, Mr Anatoliy Ponomaryov, was born on 15 June 1986 in Kustanay, in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic (now the Republic of Kazakhstan). His brother, the second applicant, Mr Vitaliy Ponomaryov, was also born there on 6 June 1988. In 1990 the two moved to Moscow, the Russian Federation, with their mother, Mrs A.P., a Russian national. In 1992 their mother divorced their father, Mr V.P., also a Russian national. The whereabouts of the latter remain unclear; it appears that he might have settled in another country, probably Germany. It also seems that the applicants have not kept any contact with their father since the divorce.\n10.  On 6 August 1993 the applicants’ mother married a Bulgarian national. In 1994 the family settled in Pazardzhik, Bulgaria. The applicants’ mother was then granted a permanent residence permit on the basis of her marriage to a Bulgarian national and the applicants were entitled to reside in Bulgaria on the basis of their mother’s permit.\n11.  In 1994 the applicants enrolled in a Bulgarian primary school, and later in secondary schools. Both of them apparently speak fluent Bulgarian.\n12.  Their mother has been out of work since 1998. Her husband owned a small Internet café business, which was apparently shut down by the authorities in 2005.\n13.  On 15 June 2004 Mr Anatoliy Ponomaryov turned 18, and accordingly had to obtain an independent permit in order to continue residing in Bulgaria lawfully. In September 2004 he contacted the immigration authorities and was informed that, to obtain a permanent residence permit, he first had to leave Bulgaria, obtain a special visa from a Bulgarian embassy abroad, return to the country and apply for a temporary residence permit; only then could he apply for a permanent residence permit.\n14.  On 28 September 2004 the consular department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed Mr Anatoliy Ponomaryov that it would not insist on his leaving the country to obtain a special visa and that he could get one in Bulgaria. The applicant then applied for a permanent residence permit. However, as he was unable to raise the money needed to pay the requisite fees (amounting in total to slightly over 1,300 Bulgarian levs (BGN)), the immigration authorities returned his application on 22 February 2005 without considering it.\n15.  In October 2005 both applicants, asserting that they had no property or income, asked the Commission for the Remission of Uncollectible State Debts, established by the President of the Republic, to waive the fees in respect of both of them. On 31 May 2006 the Commission rejected their requests, stating that their debts did not appear to be uncollectible.\n16.  In the meantime, on 17 February and 8 March 2006, the immigration authorities informed the applicants that they had been granted permanent residence permits and invited them to collect them. On 11 May 2006 the applicants paid the requisite fees and obtained documents certifying that they had permanent residence permits. Mr Anatoliy Ponomaryov paid a total amount of BGN 1,375.26 and Mr Vitaliy Ponomaryov a total amount of BGN 1,415.26. They managed to raise the money by taking out a bank loan.\n17.  On 9 February 2005, when Mr Anatoliy Ponomaryov was in the final year of his secondary education, the head of the Regional Education Inspectorate of the Ministry of Education wrote to the head teacher of his school, inquiring whether the applicant had paid the school fees which he owed as an ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6165", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company, Bulfracht Ltd., is a limited liability company incorporated under Bulgarian law with its head office in Sofia (Bulgaria).\n6.  On 13 April 1990 company J.A. from Rijeka, a shipping agent, brokered a contract of carriage of goods by sea between the applicant company as the ship’s operator (carrier) and the Cypriot company TWS as the charterer. The applicant company undertook to transport a certain quantity of steel tubes from Odessa to Kaohsiung, while TWS assumed the obligation to pay the freight to the applicant company, amounting to 515,099.20 United States dollars (USD). It would appear that the freight was not paid and that on 15 May 1990 company J.A. sent a fax message to the applicant company, which the latter interpreted as the former undertaking to pay the freight as a guarantor.\n7.  Since the freight had not been paid, on 15 April 1991 the applicant company brought a civil action in Rijeka Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Rijeci) against company J.A., seeking payment of USD 515,099.20.\n8.  On 26 September 2000 the Rijeka Commercial Court dismissed the applicant company’s action, finding that the text of the fax message of 15 May 1990 could not be interpreted as giving rise to any obligation on the part of the defendant.\n9.  On 6 July 2004 the High Commercial Court (Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant company’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.\n10.  On 20 October 2004 the applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) against the second-instance judgment.\n11.  On 27 April 2006 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared inadmissible ratione valoris the applicant company’s appeal on points of law, as it found that the value of the subject matter of the dispute was below the statutory threshold of HRK 500,000. In doing so it reasoned as follows:\n“The exchange rate between the US dollar and the domestic currency on 15 April 1991, that is, on the day the action was brought, was 14.2694 [former Yugoslav] dinars [YUD] to USD 1, which for USD 515,099.20 amounted to [YUD] 7,350,156.53... After conversion of the amount sought by the plaintiff, pursuant to the [relevant] legislation, the value of the subject matter of the dispute in the present case is HRK 7,350.16.”\n12.  On 12 March 2008 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant company and served its decision on the company’s representative on 7 April 2008. The relevant part of that decision reads as follows:\n“In the constitutional complaint the complainant alleged violation of the constitutional right to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 29 paragraph 1 of the Constitution.\n...\nIn the present case the Constitutional Court finds that the contested decision of the Supreme Court was rendered in the proceedings conducted in accordance with the law, on the basis of valid application of the substantive law.\nThe Constitutional Court therefore holds that that the proceedings which preceded those before the Constitutional Court were conducted in a manner which enabled the complainant to have a fair hearing and did not result in a violation of the constitutional right guaranteed by Article 29 paragraph 1 of the Constitution.”", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6166", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and is serving a prison term in prison no. 3 in the Altay Region.\n6.  On 4 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. The investigating authority authorised a search in his house; it was carried out on the same date. After having rejected his request to retain Ms Y. as counsel, on the same evening the investigator appointed Mr Yu., a legal-aid lawyer, to represent the applicant and then proceeded to interview him.\n7.  On 5 March 2003 the applicant contacted Ms Y. and she was appointed as his (legal-aid) counsel. Allegedly, the applicant also obtained advice from Mr K., who subsequently became counsel to his co-accused, Mr R. Mr R. testified against the applicant.\n8.  On 6 March 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court of Barnaul confirmed the lawfulness of the applicant’s arrest and authorised his continued detention. On an unspecified date that detention order was upheld on appeal. The applicant’s detention was extended on 30 April, 19 June and 29 July 2003.\n9.  After the investigation had been completed, the applicant studied the case file, including the expert reports commissioned by the investigator. Allegedly, for unspecified reasons the applicant was not assisted by counsel at that time (see also paragraph 16 below).\n10.  The case was sent for trial before the Altay Regional Court. The applicant sought to be tried by a jury. On 11 August 2003 the Regional Court held a preliminary hearing on that matter and appointed Ms Ro., on whose advice the applicant withdrew his request for trial by a jury. After this hearing the applicant was assisted by Ms Y.\n11.  On 20 November 2003 the Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to nineteen years’ imprisonment. The court relied, inter alia, on written statements made by Mr R. and other witnesses, and on several expert reports.\n12.  The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of Russia and requested the appointment of legal-aid counsel. It appears that both the Regional Court and Supreme Court refused his requests.\n13.  Ms Y. submitted a statement of appeal on the applicant’s behalf.\n14.  On 30 March 2004 the applicant informed the Supreme Court that he had not been given copies of the statements of appeal lodged by his co-defendants and the public prosecutor.\n15.  On 14 May 2004 the applicant asked the Supreme Court to appoint legal-aid counsel for the appeal proceedings. An adjournment was ordered on one occasion to enable the applicant’s father to retain counsel (see also paragraph 20 below). In the same proceedings, Y., who had assisted the applicant at first instance, informed the Supreme Court that she had not been retained for the appeal proceedings and would no longer represent the applicant.\n16.  On 18 June 2004 the Supreme Court held an appeal hearing. It appears that the applicant participated in it by a video link from a remand centre in Chelyabinsk. The appeal court examined the appeals and reduced the applicant’s prison term to eighteen years and six months. The appeal court found as follows:\n“Advocate K. did not represent [the applicant] and did not participate in any investigative measures...The search in [the applicant’s] house was authorised by an investigator and a prosecutor. Since at that time [the applicant] was not formally taken into custody legal assistance was not required. He was interviewed as a suspect after his arrest; lawyer Yu. was present at the interview; [the applicant] did not object", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6168", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Zara Giriyeva, who was born in 1957,\n2) Mr Musost Aygumov, who was born in 1982, and\n3) Ms Zarema Aygumova, who was born in 1991.\nThe first applicant lives in Grozny, the second and third applicants live in Avtury, Chechnya. The first applicant is the mother of Isa Aygumov, who was born in 1977; the second applicant is his brother and the third applicant is his sister.\n6.  At the material time Avtury village was under the full control of Russian federal forces. Military checkpoints manned by Russian servicemen were situated on the roads leading to and from the settlement. The military commander’s office was located in the village. The applicants, Isa Aygumov and other relatives lived at 13 Naberezhnaya Street (in the submitted documents the address was also stated as 11 Naberezhnaya Street) in Avtury, in the Shali district of Chechnya. The household consisted of two dwellings in one yard.\n7.  In the afternoon of 9 January 2002 Isa Aygumov, the second applicant and a number of their neighbours, including Mr S.Sh., Mr A.S., Mr Kh.D., Mr A.Kh., Mr M.S., Mr S.Kh., Mr I.Kh. and Mr S.-M.M., were helping the applicants’ family to saw up firewood in the area next to the courtyard. The first applicant was not at home that day.\n8.  At about 4 p.m. Isa Aygumov went to the courtyard to fetch a shovel. At that moment two UAZ vehicles arrived at the applicants’ gate. One of them had the registration number 635 with the regional number 95. Another two UAZ cars stopped about 100 metres away down the street. A large number of armed military servicemen in camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles. Some of them were wearing masks; those not masked were of Slavic appearance.\n9.  The servicemen split into several groups. One of them ran into the courtyard. Isa Aygumov saw the servicemen and ran to the house of his neighbours, the M. family. He told Mr S.-M. M. and his wife Ms Z.M. that a group of military servicemen had broken into his household, that he was scared and wanted to hide in their house. Four servicemen ran after Isa Aygumov. They climbed over the neighbours’ fence and asked the neighbours in unaccented Russian where Isa was. Then the servicemen found him in one of the rooms, tied his hands behind his back and took him outside.\n10.  Meanwhile other servicemen quickly searched the applicants’ house. They did not explain their actions; they neither identified themselves nor produced any documents. They ordered the family members to stay quiet. As a result of the search they took Isa Aygumov’s passport. The officers also searched the dwelling of the applicants’ relative Mr A.A. Immediately after the search the servicemen shut the third applicant and her relatives in the house and propped a metal pipe against the door outside to keep it closed.\n11.  In the meantime another group of servicemen made all the men who had been sawing up firewood lie face down in the snow; a soldier stood over each of them. Mr I.Kh. asked the officers why they were there. In response, one of the officers pointed his gun at him and said that if he kept asking questions they would take him away. The officers did not ask the men for identity documents. One of the soldiers pulled the second applicant’s head up from the ground and asked his colleague whether they were supposed to take this man away. The other responded in the negative.\n12.  While they were shut in the house the applicants’ relatives saw from the window the four servicemen taking", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6169", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Punat, on the Krk island in Croatia.\n5.  The applicant was in active military service with the former Yugoslav People’s Army (hereinafter: “the YPA”) for almost twenty-three years, until 25 June 1991, when he voluntarily left the YPA and moved from Postojna, Slovenia, where he held a specially protected tenancy of a flat given to him by the YPA, to Rijeka, Croatia.\n6.  The applicant made himself available for service in the Croatian army. He was unemployed until December 1991, when he found civilian employment. He then served in the Croatian army between October 1993 and October 1994 and eventually retired on 31 December 2007.\n7.  In the meantime, on 17 July 1991 the Government adopted the Decree on the Prohibition of All Real Estate Transactions in Croatia (Uredba o zabrani raspolaganja nekretninama na teritoriju Republike Hrvatske – “the Decree”, published in Official Gazette no. 36/1991 of 24 July 1991), which banned all transactions in respect of immovable property situated in Croatia and belonging to the Former Yugoslavia’s federal institutions or legal entities having their seat in one of its former federal units. The Decree entered into force on 24 July 1991.\n8.  The applicant had a specially protected tenancy of a flat in Postojna, Slovenia. On 22 August 1991 the applicant returned that flat to the YPA, in order to obtain priority for the allocation of another flat.\n9.  On 5 September 1991 the applicant was given the right to purchase a flat in Rijeka by the YPA and moved into the flat with his family.\n10.  Pursuant to the Government’s Decree of 2 October 1991, all possessions of the former YPA came under the ownership of the Republic of Croatia.\n11.  On 8 October 1991 the Republic of Croatia declared its independence.\n12.  On 8 November 1991 the Croatian Government and the YPA Rijeka Corps entered an agreement by which the Croatian Government guaranteed the personal safety of those members of the Rijeka Corps of the YPA who did not wish to leave the Rijeka area and to respect their acquired rights.\n13.  On 22 November 1991 the Croatian Government and the YPA entered into a further agreement by which the Croatian Government guaranteed the personal safety of those members of the YPA who did not wish to leave Croatia upon the termination of their service in the YPA and accepted to respect the inviolability of their private property and their continuing right to occupy the flats given to them by the YPA.\n14.  From January 1992 until his eviction in October 2004 the applicant paid the rent and all the charges in respect of the flat in Rijeka to the Croatian Ministry of Defence. Until June 2000 the bills were issued in the name of G.R., the previous holder of a specially protected tenancy of the same flat. From June 2000 the bills were issued in the applicant’s name.\n15.  In 1997 the applicant received part of a house in Punat on the island of Krk, Croatia by way of a gift from his father.\n16.  In 1996 the State brought a civil action against the applicant in the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci), seeking his eviction. The State argued that, as the owner of the flat, it had the right to seek the eviction of the applicant because the decision issued by the YPA, granting the applicant the right to purchase the flat in question, had been contrary to the Decree. The State sought repossession of the flat.\n17.  In his defence dated 16 November 1996 the applicant maintained that h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6171", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1)  Ms Zura Makharbiyeva, born in 1951,\n2)  Mr Khamid Makharbiyev, born in 1943,\n3)  Ms Olga Grigoryeva, born in 1980,\n4)  Mr Movsar Makharbiyev, born in 1999, and\n5)  Ms Malika Makharbiyeva, born in 2001.\nThe first and second applicants live in Grozny; the other applicants live in Gekhi in Urus-Martan district, Chechnya. The first and the second applicants are the parents of Adam Makharbiyev, who was born in 1973; the third applicant is his wife, and the fourth and the fifth applicants are his children.\n6.  At the material time the Urus-Martan district and the town of Grozny were under the full control of the Russian federal forces. Military checkpoints manned by Russian servicemen were located on all roads leading to and from the area, which was under a strict curfew. A checkpoint manned by policemen from the Special Task Unit of the Yaroslavl region (“the OMON”) was located on the road between the town of Urus-Martan and the village of Gekhi. The applicants and Adam Makharbiyev lived in Gekhi, in Urus-Martan district. In March 2001 Adam Makharbiyev was trying to get a job at the Zavodskoy district department of the interior (the Zavodskoy ROVD) in Grozny.\n7.  In the afternoon of 24 March 2001, on his way from Grozny to Gekhi, Adam Makharbiyev stopped at his cousins’ house in Chernorechye village on the outskirts of Grozny. On the same evening he drove back to Gekhi with his cousins, Mr I.M. and Mr L.M., in the latter’s black VAZ-2106 car. At the time Mr L.M. was a police officer at the Oktyabrskiy ROVD in Grozny. On their way Adam Makharbiyev, Mr I.M. and Mr L.M. passed through a number of checkpoints; Mr L.M. showed his police identity card and the car was allowed to pass through. The road to Gekhi went through the checkpoint manned by the OMON from the Yaroslavl region; the servicemen had previously seen Mr L.M. crossing the roadblock on a regular basis and knew that he was a police officer.\n8.  At about 5 p.m. the car with the three men was stopped for yet another identity check at the checkpoint manned by the OMON from Yaroslavl. The servicemen looked at the police identity card provided by Mr L.M. and asked for the passports of Adam Makharbiyev and Mr I.M. After the two men had produced their documents the servicemen surrounded them, blocked the passage through the checkpoint, handcuffed all three men and dragged Adam Makharbiyev inside the checkpoint building, while Mr I.M. and Mr L.M. remained outside. The servicemen also took away Mr L.M.’s service gun. Immediately after this the servicemen called someone on a portable radio and requested that representatives of the military commander’s office come to the checkpoint.\n9.  The detention of Adam Makharbiyev and his cousins was witnessed by two residents of Gekhi who happened to cross the checkpoint at the same time as the detained men. One of them went to the applicants’ house straight away and informed them about the incident. The first and second applicants immediately got into their car and drove to the checkpoint.\n10.  About fifteen minutes after the servicemen had called for representatives of the military commander’s office to attend, an armoured URAL lorry, two black VAZ-2109 cars with military registration numbers of the ‘11’ region and a white VAZ-2121 (‘Нива’) car arrived at the checkpoint. Adam Makharbiyev was forced into one of the VAZ-2109 cars; Mr I.M. and Mr L.M. were placed in the URAL lorry; black sacks were put over their heads. Mr L.M.’", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6172", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Vilnius, Lithuania.\n6.  The applicant, a retired serviceman, considered himself eligible to receive child allowance payable by the Russian Federation to parents with minor children.\n7.  On 15 January 2003 he applied for the allowance to the social security division of the embassy of the Russian Federation in Vilnius, Lithuania.\n8.  On 20 January 2003 the social security division refused his request. They noted that the applicant, being a permanent resident of Lithuania, was not eligible to receive the allowance.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the decision of the social security division. He lodged a complaint before the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow.\n10.  On 29 April 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint without consideration on the merits. In particular, the court ruled as follows:\n“This statement of claim cannot be admitted for consideration by the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow given that it was submitted in contradiction of the rules of procedure on jurisdiction ... Pursuant to the applicable legislation ..., the claims are to be submitted to the court with jurisdiction over the region where the claimant resides or where the State authority ... whose action is challenged is located.\nPursuant to the [applicant’s] statement, the respondent authority in the case is the social security division of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Lithuanian Republic whose registered address is in [Vilnius, Lithuania], that is, a region outside the jurisdiction of the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow.\nThe applicant resides in [Vilnius, Lithuania], which is also not within the jurisdiction of the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow.\nHaving regard to the fact that [the applicant] has no ground to introduce his statement of claim before the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow and in compliance with Articles 24-27 and 254 § 2 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, the court hereby\nRULES\nthat the statement of the claims be returned to [the applicant] and he be advised to lodge it before the relevant court in Vilnius, Republic of Lithuania.”\n11.  On 30 July 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 29 April 2003 on appeal reiterating the reasoning of the District Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6174", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, who is of Serbian origin, was born in 1950 and lives in Innsbruck, Austria.\n5.  On 29 July 1987 the Sisak Regional Office of the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Područna služba u Sisku – “the Regional Office”), after finding that due to her illness the applicant’s ability to work had been reduced (smanjena sposobnost za rad), issued a decision awarding her the right to reduced working hours (pravo na rad s polovicom radnog vremena). On 15 October 1987 she was also awarded compensation for the loss of salary resulting from the reduced working hours (pravo na naknadu osobnog dohotka zbog rada sa skraćenim radnim vremenom).\n6.  The applicant had been receiving this compensation until September 1991 when she was forced to quit her job and leave Petrinja as the town was taken by the occupying forces. She settled in Zagreb as an internally displaced person.\n7.  The applicant submitted that she had instituted administrative proceedings before the Regional Office with a view that the payment of compensation for her reduced ability to work be resumed, by making a request to that end on 17 October 1991. The Government submitted that the applicant had done so only on 12 June 1995.\n8.  On 20 September 1995 the Regional Office decided to discontinue the administrative proceedings instituted by the applicant’s request.\n9.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 29 January 1996 the Central Office of the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Središnja služba – “the Central Office”) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Regional Office.\n10.  In the fresh first-instance proceedings, on 28 June 1999 the Regional Office issued a decision abolishing the applicant’s right to compensation for reduced ability to work as of 21 September 1991. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 29 October 1999 the Central Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision.\n12.  On 7 December 1999 the applicant brought an action in Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) contesting the second-instance decision.\n13.  On 14 November 2002 the Administrative Court quashed the Central Office’s decision of 29 October 1999 for incomplete facts.\n14.  In the fresh appellate proceedings, on 6 February 2003 the Central Office quashed the first-instance decision of 28 June 1999 and remitted the case to the Regional Office.\n15.  In the fresh first-instance proceedings, on 23 July 2003 the Regional Office restored the applicant’s right to compensation for reduced ability to work and decided that its payment should be resumed as of 1 July 1995. On 18 August 2003 the applicant appealed, arguing that she should also be paid the outstanding instalments of compensation for reduced ability to work in the period before 1 July 1995.\n16.  On 6 May 2004 the Central Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision of 23 July 2003.\n17.  On 29 June 2004 the applicant brought her second action in the Administrative Court challenging the second-instance decision of 6 May 2004.\n18.  On 25 January 2007 the Administrative Court again quashed the contested decision for incomplete facts.\n19.  In the fresh appellate proceedings, on 17 May 2007 the Central Office quashed the first-instance decision of 23 July 2003 and remitted the case to the Regional Office.\n20.  In the fresh first-instance proceedings, on 4 September 2007 the Regional Office", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6175", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are:\n1) Mr Lecha Isayev, born in 1967;\n2) Mr Khamzat Isayev, born in 1975;\n3) Ms Madina Alkhanova (subsequently changed her name to Isayeva), born in 1981; and\n4) Ms Lipa Dudusheva, born in 1981.\n8.  The applicants are Russian nationals and residents of the village of Goi-Chu, the Chechen Republic.\n9.  The first and second applicants are brothers of Mr Zelimkhan Isayev, who was born in 1979. The third and fourth applicants are his sisters-in-law.\n10.  At the time of the events described below the second to fourth applicants resided together with Zelimkhan Isayev at 24 Sverdlova Street in Goi-Chu. The first applicant resided at 17 Sverdlova Street in Goi-Chu.\n11.  The account of the events described below is based on the information contained in the application form, a written statement by the first applicant made on 28 October 2004, a written statement by the second applicant dated 30 October 2004, a written statement by the fourth applicant dated 23 October 2004 and a written statement by Mr Zelimkhan Isayev’s other brother, T.I., made on 25 October 2004.\n(a)  Zelimkhan Isayev’s arrest and the search of his home on 9 May 2004\n12.  In the evening of 9 May 2004 Zelimkhan Isayev and the fourth applicant and her child were at home at 24 Sverdlova Street.\n13.  At about 8.30 p.m. two UAZ vehicles arrived at 24 Sverdlova Street. A group of armed men wearing masks emerged from the vehicles and burst into the courtyard. Zelimkhan Isayev and the fourth applicant inferred that they belonged to the Russian security forces.\n14.  Zelimkhan Isayev stepped out of the house into the courtyard and the servicemen apprehended and handcuffed him. According to the fourth applicant, Zelimkhan Isayev showed no signs of resistance. Later on the servicemen took the handcuffed man back into the house.\n15.  According to the written statement of the fourth applicant, two armed men levelled their guns at her and asked her where the weapons were. They searched the room where the fourth applicant was. One of them tore down a carpet from the wall and checked everything in the room but found nothing.\n16.  The servicemen also searched the house and courtyard premises without producing any warrant but found no arms. Then they took Zelimkhan Isayev outside, forced him into one of the UAZ vehicles and drove away.\n17.  Immediately after Zelimkhan Isayev’s arrest the first and second applicants pursued the UAZ vehicles in a car, but in vain. They then visited the head of the local administration and told him that Zelimkhan Isayev had been apprehended. The first and second applicants also went to the department of the interior of the Urus-Martan District (“the ROVD”). The ROVD policemen told them that they had no information on Zelimkhan Isayev’s whereabouts.\n(b)  The search of the applicants’ home on 10 May 2004\n18.  In the afternoon of 10 May 2004 a group of servicemen from the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) under the command of D.Ch., an investigator of the FSB Department of the Chechen Republic, arrived at 24 Sverdlova Street and showed the second applicant a search warrant. They searched the house in the presence of two servicemen of the military commander’s office of the Urus-Martan District (“the military commander’s office”) acting as attesting witnesses. D.Ch. asked the second applicant and Zelimkhan Isayev’s other brother, T.I., whether there were any arms in the house; they replied in the negative.\n19.  Having searched the rest of the house", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6176", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and is currently serving a prison term in Lepoglava State Prison.\n5.  The documents in the case-file reveal the following facts.\n6.  On 1 June 2004 at 6 a.m. six police officers from the Zagreb Police Department came to the applicant’s house in Križ and asked the applicant and his wife to accompany them. The applicant and his wife complied and were taken by police car to the Zagreb Police Department (Policijska uprava zagrebačka).\n7.  Shortly after 6 a.m. they arrived at the Zagreb Police Department in Heinzlova Street and the applicant was placed in the interview room.\n8.  A polygraph test of the applicant was carried out on 1 June 2004 between 11 a.m. and 6.15 p.m. The file does not contain documents which could clarify the applicant’s whereabouts or treatment at the police station during the initial twenty-five hours. It is undisputed, however, that the applicant remained at the police station.\n9.  A report on the applicant’s arrest drawn up by police officers states that the applicant was formally arrested at 7 a.m. on 2 June 2004 on suspicion of murdering one V.M., and was taken into police custody for twenty-four hours under Article 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see “Relevant domestic law” below). The applicant was informed of his right to a defence lawyer and lawyer E.Z. was contacted on 2 June 2004 at 10 a.m., but did not come to the police station. The applicant signed the report without making any comments.\n10.  In the afternoon of 3 June 2004 the dead body of V.M. was found in a vineyard near the town of Kutina, which came under the jurisdiction of the Sisak County Court. An investigating judge of the Sisak County Court carried out the on-site inspection between 12.30 p.m. and 3.30. p.m.\n11.  According to the official record of the applicant’s police questioning in the Zagreb Police Department by police officer S.I., lawyer P.B. was called by the police at 11 p.m. on 3 June 2004 and arrived at the Zagreb Police Department at ten past midnight on 4 June 2004. The record of the questioning states that the questioning commenced at 25 minutes past midnight on 4 June 2004 and was completed at 2.30 a.m. the same day, with lawyer P.B. being present throughout. According to this record the applicant confessed that on 3 May 2004 during a fight with V.M. he had shot and killed the latter and then buried his dead body in a vineyard. The written record was signed by both the applicant and lawyer P.B. and also by S.I. and a typist.\n12.  On 4 June 2004 the Zagreb Police Department filed a criminal complaint against the applicant with the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office and the investigating department of the Zagreb County Court, on charges of murdering V.M. The same day at 6.30 p.m. the applicant was brought before an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court, in the presence of a defence lawyer chosen by the applicant who submitted a power of attorney to the investigating judge. The applicant decided to remain silent and merely stated that he had not called counsel P.B. to the Police Department.\n13.  After being heard by the investigating judge, the applicant was transferred to Zagreb County Prison. The medical record from the prison does not indicate any injuries on the applicant’s arrival.\n14.  On 7 June 2004 the applicant was again brought before the investigating judge, in the presence of his chosen counsel, and decided to remain silent. The investigating judge then ordered that th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6177", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Konjščina.\n5.  On 24 October 2008 an investigation was opened in the Zagreb County Court in respect of the applicant and seven other suspects in connection with a suspicion that during 2007 and 2008 they had committed the criminal offence of trafficking in illegal drugs such as marijuana, speed and LSD.\n6.  On the same date, an investigating judge of that court heard evidence from four defendants, including the applicant, and on 13 November 2008 from a further two.\n7.  Further hearings were held before the investigating judge on 14 November and 15 December 2008, 12, 15, 29 and 30 January, 2, 12, and 17 February, and 9 March 2009 at which he heard evidence from two defendants and nineteen witnesses.\n8.  On 21 April 2009 the applicant and seven other defendants were indicted in the Zagreb County Court on charges of trafficking in illegal drugs.\n9.  At a hearing held on 19 June 2009 in the Zagreb County Court the applicant confessed to the charges held against him.\n10.  On 24 October 2008 the investigating judge remanded the applicant and three other suspects in custody on the basis of Article 102 paragraph 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of suborning witnesses). Before adopting the decision the judge heard the suspects concerned. The relevant part of the decision reads:\n“The documents in the case file show that some of the defendants, as well as witnesses whose evidence will be necessary in the proceedings, know each other well. ...\nThe documents in the case file further show that witnesses Z.Š. and J.H.Š. know the first, second and third defendant ...\nSince, in addition to the evidence from the witnesses, the court will also have to hear evidence from defendants who have not yet given it and are at large, there is a risk of pressure being brought to bear on the witnesses and the co-accused by the first defendant I.F., the second defendant T.S., the third defendant Vedran Bernobić and the eighth defendant L.K., if at large, and a risk of collusion in order to avoid their criminal liability.”\n11.  On 20 November 2008 the investigating judge extended the detention of the four defendants, again on the basis of Article 102 paragraph 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of suborning witnesses). The relevant part of the decision reads:\n“... the defendants I.F., T.S., Vedran Bernobić and L.K. all know each other and are part of the same drug-dealing and drug-using scene as J.M., who buys illegal drugs and is also the boyfriend of L.K., and in view of the way the offences with which the defendants have been charged were committed, and in particular in respect of the first three defendants, it is necessary to hear evidence from the witness J.M., who has so far avoided giving evidence and whose evidence is relevant for establishing the facts in issue.\nIt is to be concluded that the first defendant I.F., the second defendant T.S., the third defendant Vedran Bernobić and the eighth defendant L.K., if at large, would suborn the witness in question ...\nA hearing in this case is scheduled for 3 December 2008, when it is expected that the witness concerned will give evidence in view of the measures taken.”\n12.  On 21 November 2008 the applicant requested that his detention be lifted, stating that he did not know the witness J.M. On 26 November 2008 he lodged an appeal against the decision of 20 November 2008. He explained that witnesses Z.Š. and J.H.Š., who in the previous decision on t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6178", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Pernik.\n7.  Agricultural lands owned by the applicant’s father and grandfather were collectivised after 1945.\n8.  Following the entry into force of the Agricultural Land Act (see paragraph 26 below), on 22 February 1992 the applicant’s father sought to recover fifteen plots formerly owned by him in the area of the village of Kasilag totalling 39,650 square metres. In two decisions adopted on 16 May 1996 the Radomir Agricultural Land Commission (“the land commission”) restored to him several plots totalling 21,755 square metres, some in their old boundaries and the remainder through a land redistribution plan which was to be adopted later.\n9.  On 28 February 1992, acting on behalf of the applicant’s grandfather’s heirs, the applicant’s father sought to recover another thirty‑seven plots formerly owned by the applicant’s grandfather, also in the area of Kasilag, totalling 175,000 square metres. The applicant’s father was entitled to one-seventh of the applicant’s grandfather’s property. In two decisions also dated 16 May 1996 the land commission restored to the heirs a number of plots totalling 107,500 square metres, some in their old boundaries and the remainder through the land redistribution plan.\n10.  The land redistribution plan for the area of Kasilag was published on 18 June 1996. Under that plan the applicant’s father and the heirs of the applicant’s grandfather received most of the plots detailed in the above‑mentioned decisions of 16 May 1996.\n11.  On 26 November 1997 the applicant’s father, acting on his own behalf and on behalf of the applicant’s grandfather’s heirs, challenged the plan, arguing that they could have been given additional plots, including some of the plots in respect of which the land commission had refused restitution, and that the land that had been allocated to them was not of good quality. In two decisions of 19 January 1998 the land commission refused to amend the plan. On 29 July 1998 the applicant’s father sought judicial review.\n12.  Despite the pending judicial review proceedings, on 27 March 2000 the land commission adopted two decisions whereby it decided that the applicant’s father was to receive municipally-owned land or bonds as compensation in lieu of restitution for 11,888 square metres of land. In addition, the heirs of the applicant’s grandfather were to receive compensation for 16,425 square metres of land.\n13.  On 5 July 2002 the Pernik Regional Court gave a judgment in the judicial review proceedings. It found that the decisions of 19 January 1998 were null and void because they had not been issued in accordance with the relevant procedure, and it remitted the case to the land commission for re‑examination.\n14.  Upon an appeal by the applicant, on 13 December 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed that judgment in so far as the case had been remitted to the land commission, and instructed the Regional Court to examine the merits of the applicant’s father’s objections to the land redistribution plan.\n15.  In a new judgment of 5 July 2004 the Pernik Regional Court found that the land redistribution plan for Kasilag could be amended so that the applicant’s father’s objections could be satisfied. Accordingly, the court amended the plan and allotted to the applicant’s father a plot of 14,888 square metres, and to the heirs of the applicant’s grandfather another plot of 37,779 square metres.\n16.  On 12 July 2004 that judgment was served on th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6179", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a Singaporean citizen, born in 1958 and residing in Romania. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Ploieşti Prison.\n6.  On 8 March 2001, a robbery took place in the flat of a Chinese couple, H.Z.Y. and Y.X. The two victims reported the incident to the police. They indicated that three men had entered their flat, one of them threatening H.Z.Y. with a knife. The same person had forced H.Z.Y., under the threat of knife, to write down a receipt by which he recognised that he owed a debt of 5,000 US Dollars to another person.\n7.  On 15 March 2001, the applicant and H.Z.Y. agreed to meet in a restaurant in order to collect payment of part of the debt. After the applicant had received from H.Z.Y. an envelope with money, police officers had intervened and had arrested him. At the same time, the police officers apprehended F.Y., who had been sitting outside the restaurant closely following the movements of H.Z.Y. and the applicant.\nOn the same date, the police seized from the flats of the two accused items related to the robbery, the knife used to threaten the victims, a wallet and residence permit belonging to H.Z.Y, as well as the stolen electronic equipment.\n8.  In one of the first statements given to the investigative authorities, both accused denied the robbery.\n9.  After the prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant on charges of robbery and blackmail and against F.Y on charges of robbery, the case was referred to the Bucharest District Court (“the District Court”).\n10.  On 5 October 2001, the District Court heard from the victims, two witnesses who had attended the search of the defendants’ flats, the applicant’s lawyer and both accused. F.Y. admitted that he had committed the robbery, but indicated that the applicant had not been involved. The applicant’s request to have three additional witnesses heard (persons with whom he was sharing his flat) was denied, as the court considered that their statements would be made pro causa.\n11.  By a judgment of 9 October 2001, the District Court found the applicant guilty of both charges and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. It considered that F.Y.’s new statement did not corroborate the other evidence. It noted that the applicant had not been consistent in his statements and that there were contradictions between the submissions of the two accused concerning how they knew each other and why they had gone to the restaurant together on 15 March 2001. It considered that F.Y.’s new statement could be explained by the high standing that the applicant had within the Chinese community, as person in charge of obtaining the extension of residence permits and recovery of monetary debts.\nThe District Court applied the maximum sentence in the applicant’s case, relying on the fact that during the trial he had displayed a violent attitude, threatening the victims in Chinese while they were testifying and taking into account his criminal record and the circumstances in which the acts had been committed.\n12.  The applicant and F.Y. lodged appeals, the former alleging that he was innocent and the latter asking for a milder sentence.\n13.  On 13 May 2002, upon the applicant’s request, H.X.P., a new witness, testified in front of the County Court, claiming that he had been involved in the robbery and that the applicant had been the victim of a trap.\n14.  The County Court dismissed both appeals by a decision of 20 May 2002. After reviewing all of the evidence in the c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6180", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod. He is the head of the Nizhniy Novgorod Human Rights Union.\n6.  It transpires from a certificate issued by an official of the Volgo-Vyatskiy Interior Department of Transport on 17 April 2008 that on 23 March 2007 the applicant’s name was registered in a so-called “Surveillance Database” (“Сторожевой контроль”). An extract from the list of persons registered in that database shows that the applicant’s name is mentioned in the section entitled “Human Rights Activists”.\n7.  The Surveillance Database contains information about skinheads, human rights activists and other persons allegedly involved in extremist activities. Whenever a person mentioned in the database purchases a train or aeroplane ticket the Interior Department of Transport receives an automatic notification.\n8.  An EU-Russia Summit was scheduled for 17 and 18 May 2007 in Samara.\n9.  On 10 May 2007 the Volgo-Vyatskiy Interior Department of Transport sent a telex to its local branches informing them that protest rallies by several opposition organisations were planned for 18 May 2007. To prevent unlawful and extremist acts it was necessary, in accordance with the Suppression of Extremism Act and Order no. 47, On certain measures intended to strengthen the fight against extremism, issued by the Interior Ministry on 14 April 2005, to detect and stop all members of those organisations travelling to Samara between 8 and 20 May 2007. In particular, it was necessary to separate the travellers and dissuade them from going to Samara.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant bought a train ticket to Samara for 13 May 2007 and a return ticket for 16 May 2007.\n11.  On 13 May 2007 the Volgo-Vyatskiy Interior Department of Transport sent a telex to its local branches informing them that the applicant intended to travel to Samara in connection with the EU-Russia Summit. It also communicated his train reservation details. Another telex sent on the same day by the Samara Interior Department of Transport indicated that the applicant was travelling to Samara to take part in the opposition rally “March of dissent” and might be carrying extremist literature.\n12.  On the same day, as soon as the applicant mounted the train at Nizhniy Novgorod station, three policemen entered his compartment, checked his identity documents and asked him questions about the purpose of his trip.\n13.  At Saransk station (the Mordoviya Republic) another identity check was conducted and the applicant was again questioned about the purpose of his trip. The policemen ordered the applicant to leave the train and follow them to the police station, but the applicant refused to comply. In the early morning of 14 May 2007, immediately after the train entered the Samara region, the applicant’s identity documents were checked for a third time.\n14.  When the applicant got off the train in Samara he was stopped by the police. The policemen checked his identity documents and took him to the police station, saying that it was necessary to look up his name in the police databases. They threatened to use force if the applicant refused to comply with their order.\n15.  The police drew up an attendance report, using a standard template entitled “Attendance report in respect of a person who has committed an administrative offence”. The phrase “who has committed an administrative offence” was struck through by the police officer who filled in the template. The report indicate", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6181", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1954. She lives in Gdańsk‑Zaspa.\n7.  By a judgment of 22 February 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against a second-instance administrative decision by which she had been refused a monthly social assistance benefit.\n8.  On 8 March 2006 the applicant was granted, by a decision of a registry official, the assistance of a legal-aid lawyer for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n9.  On 10 March 2006 the judgment of 22 February 2006, together with its written grounds, was served on the applicant. On 14 March 2006 the decision on the grant of legal aid was served on her.\n10.  On 12 April 2006 the registry of the court requested the Gdańsk Bar Association to assign a lawyer to her case.\n11.  On 20 April 2006 the Bar Association informed the court that Mr J.B. had been assigned to represent the applicant. On 25 April the Bar Association informed the applicant accordingly and requested her to grant him an authority to act.\n12.  By a letter of 5 May 2006 the lawyer informed the applicant that he had found no legal grounds on which he could draft a cassation appeal. On 8 May 2006 he informed the court thereof.\n13.  By a judgment of 11 February 2004 the Gdańsk Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against a second-instance administrative decision by which she had been refused a monthly social assistance benefit.\n14.  This judgment, together with its written grounds, was served on the applicant on 5 March 2004. She was informed that the thirty‑day time‑limit for lodging a cassation appeal started to run on the date on which the judgment together with its written grounds was served on the party. It was therefore to expire on 4 April 2004.\n15.  On 10 March 2004 the applicant was granted legal aid by a decision of a registry official. This decision was sent to the applicant shortly afterwards.\n16.  On 25 March 2004 the local Bar Association informed the court in writing that Ms B. K.–Z. had been assigned to represent the applicant. Shortly afterwards the applicant was served with a copy of this letter.\n17.  By a letter dated 30 March 2004 the lawyer informed the court that she saw no grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal. She did not inform the applicant about her refusal.\n18.  The applicant contacted the lawyer by phone on 6 July 2005. She was informed about the lawyer’s refusal to prepare a cassation appeal.\n19.  On 7 July 2005 the applicant complained to the Gdańsk Bar Association that the lawyer had failed to inform her about her refusal to prepare a cassation appeal against the judgment. She argued that the lawyer should have made reasonable efforts to inform her, as her legal‑aid client, of her decision. She submitted that she had learnt about the refusal a long time after the expiry of the time-limit for the lodging of a cassation appeal and only because she herself had contacted the lawyer.\n20.  By a letter of 16 August 2005 the Gdańsk Bar Association informed the applicant that it had investigated her complaint. It stated that the lawyer had been assigned to represent the applicant on 17 March 2004. She had examined the case file and found no grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal. She subsequently informed the court of her refusal. In these circumstances, there were no grounds for accepting that the lawyer’s conduct had been negligent.\n21.  By two judgments of 25 May 2005 the Gdańs", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6182", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Kyzyl in the Tyva Republic of the Russian Federation.\n7.  On 21 January 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of banditism, robbery, theft of firearms and illegal deprivation of liberty.\n8.  On 22 January 2000 the applicant was arrested; he was released three days later under a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence.\n9.  On 3 March 2000 the preventive measure was changed to detention in custody, and on 4 March 2000 the applicant’s name was put on a wanted list.\n10.  On 22 May 2000 the applicant was arrested, and on 25 May 2000 he was detained in remand prison IZ-17/1 of Kyzyl, Tyva Republic.\n11.  On 13 July 2000 the acting Prosecutor of the Tyva Republic extended the applicant’s and his co-defendants’ detention until 21 October 2000, relying on the particular gravity of the charges against them and the likelihood that they would obstruct the course of justice and abscond if released.\n12.  On 10 and 23 October 2000 the acting Prosecutor of the Tyva Republic and the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation respectively extended the applicant’s and his co-defendants’ detention until 22 November 2000 and 21 January 2001 respectively, endorsing the reasons given in the decision of 13 July 2000.\n13.  On 20 January 2001 the applicant was committed for trial before the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic. According to the Government, the applicant’s detention from 21 January to 20 March 2001 was not covered by any legal order as the domestic authorities were not required to issue one under the legislation governing criminal procedure at the material time.\n14.  On 15 February 2001 the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic suspended the examination of the criminal case because one of the applicant’s co-defendants had violated the conditions of his release on bail and had absconded. The case file was sent to the Prosecutor of the Tyva Republic in order for a search to be organised. The Supreme Court also noted that the prosecution authorities were to “determine the issue of the application of a measure of restraint [in respect of the applicant and his co-defendants]”.\n15.  The Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic resumed the proceedings on 5 March 2001 and fixed a hearing for 12 March 2001. That hearing was adjourned until 20 March 2001 because some of the victims and the lawyers failed to appear.\n16.  On 20 March 2001 the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic returned the case file to the prosecution authorities with an order to correct certain serious procedural defects, noting that defence rights had been violated. In the same decision the Supreme Court held that the measure of restraint applied to the co-defendants, including the applicant, should “remain unchanged” because of the gravity of the charges against them.\n17.  On 20 July 2001 the acting Prosecutor of the Tyva Republic, relying on the gravity of the charges and the defendants’ liability to abscond, obstruct the course of justice and re-offend, extended the applicant’s and his co-defendants’ detention until 20 August 2001. A further extension until 20 September 2001 was ordered by a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, with a reference to the same grounds.\n18.  On 14 September 2001 the prosecution authorities returned the case file to the Supreme Court of the Tyva Republic, which on 2 October 2001 remitted the case again for additional investigation, citing seriou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6183", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Jurdani.\n5.  On 25 February 2003 the applicant was divested of his legal capacity (poslovna sposobnost) by a decision of the Opatija Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Opatiji). The decision was based on a report by a psychiatrist, who established that the applicant suffered from organic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder as a result of his long-term drug abuse. The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be divested of his legal capacity for a period of at least five years in order to undergo psychiatric treatment.\n6.  On 2 April 2003 the Opatija Social Welfare Centre (Centrar za socijalnu skrb Opatija) appointed the applicant’s mother, Lj.I.G., as his guardian.\n7.  On 29 September 2006 the Opatija Social Welfare Centre appointed the applicant’s father, D.K., as his guardian since his mother had fallen ill. On an unspecified date the same centre appointed its employee J.L as the applicant’s guardian.\n8.  On 30 June 2007 K.S. gave birth to a daughter, K., and named the applicant as the child’s father. On 17 August 2007 the applicant, with the consent of the child’s mother, gave a statement at the Rijeka Birth Registry (Matični ured Rijeka) saying that he was the father of the child, and he was subsequently registered as such on the child’s birth certificate. On 14 September 2007 the applicant gave the same statement before the Rijeka Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Rijeka).\n9.  On 19 October 2007 the Rijeka Social Welfare Centre informed the Birth Registry that the applicant had been divested of his legal capacity.\n10.  The Rijeka Birth Registry instituted proceedings in the Primorsko-goranska County Office of State Administration (Ured državne uprave u Primorsko-goranskoj županiji) for the annulment of the registration of the applicant as K.’s father. On 29 October 2007 the County Office gave a decision ordering that an amendment be made to the child’s birth certificate annulling the previous note stating that the applicant was the father of the child, on the ground that as a person divested of his legal capacity he did not have the right to recognise K. as his child before the law.\n11.  This decision was not served on the applicant, since he had been divested of his legal capacity. It was served on his mother.\n12.  On 21 March 2010 the Opatija Welfare Centre brought a civil action in the Opatija Municipal Court against the applicant, K.S., and K., seeking that the Municipal Court establish that the applicant was K.’s father. The proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6186", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1956 respectively and live in Lviv.\n6.  On 4 February 2008 the applicants’ thirty-year-old son, Mr Igor Matushevskyy (“I.M.”), was placed in Lviv Pre-Trial Detention Centre no. 19 (“the SIZO”) following his arrest on suspicion of a drug-related offence.\n7.  On the same date I.M. was examined by a medical commission which found him to be in good health.\n8.  On 7 February 2008 a drug specialist found him to be in unstable remission from drug addiction.\n9.  On 24 April 2008 I.M. was placed in cell no. 153, which was shared by nine inmates. It was his sixth transfer to a different cell in the SIZO.\n10.  On 22 May 2008 at 6.10 p.m., the inmates of cell no. 153 knocked on the door and informed the prison guard that I.M. had fallen from the upper bed and had fainted. A few minutes later, a medical attendant and the on-duty doctor arrived. According to an entry made by them in I.M.’s medical record, they administered the following injections to him: cordiamin, cortisol, mezaton, caffeine and atropine. He was then transported to the medical unit, still alive. At 6.50 p.m. an ambulance, for which the prison administration had called, arrived; and at 7.02 p.m. I.M. was pronounced dead. According to the medical certificate written by the SIZO administration and the doctors recording I.M.’s death, a closed craniocerebral injury was indicated as the preliminary cause of death.\n11.  On the same date three of the inmates, as well as the personnel involved, gave written statements concerning the matter to the SIZO’s governor. The detainees explained that there had been no incidents in the cell, that I.M. had accidentally fallen from his bed and that they had unsuccessfully tried to bring him back to consciousness by putting a wet towel on his forehead. According to them, they had promptly called for a doctor, who, in turn, had arrived without delay. The inmates also submitted that a few hours before his death I.M had complained of headache. One of the detainees noted that I.M. had occasionally mentioned that he suffered chest pains.\n12.  In the evening on the same date, 22 May 2008, the SIZO administration examined the scene and informed the Lviv police and the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office (“the LRPO”) of I.M.’s death.\n13.  On 23 May 2008 at about 4.30 p.m., the SIZO administration sent a telegram to the applicants informing them that their son had died and that they could collect his body from the Lviv morgue.\n14.  According to the applicants, at about 10 a.m. on 23 May 2008, before the telegram had reached them (on 24 May 2008), they received an anonymous phone call from a person who had introduced himself as a detainee at the SIZO. He had allegedly stated that I.M. had been killed by SIZO officers.\n15.  The applicants immediately got in contact with the local morgue, which confirmed that I.M.’s body was there. However, according to the applicants, its staff refused to show them his body.\n16.  The first applicant also informed the LRPO of the allegations received in the anonymous phone call and sought the opening of a criminal investigation into the matter.\n17.  On the same date, 23 May 2008, the Lviv Regional Police found that there was no indication of a homicide and terminated the investigation.\n18.  On 24 May 2008, from 9 a.m. to noon, the first applicant waited outside the morgue while an autopsy of I.M.’s body was going on. He saw some people there (whom he later found out were from the SIZO) and all", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6188", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 8 November 2006 the first applicant arrived at Prague airport by plane from Dakar (Senegal), having transferred in Lisbon. Immediately after his arrival, he applied for asylum. For the whole period of his stay in the Czech Republic, he was held at the reception centre for asylum seekers at Prague airport.\n5.  In his application for asylum he submitted that in Guinea he had participated in a teacher’s strike and that subsequently police had come looking for him at home so he had had to flee. He feared that if returned to Guinea, he would be detained or even murdered. In a subsequent interview he specified that he had fled Guinea with the help of an employee of UNICEF, who also secured the assistance of a policeman.\n6.  On 15 November 2006 the Department for Asylum and Migration Policy of the Ministry of the Interior (odbor azylové a migrační politiky ministerstva vnitra) dismissed his asylum application as manifestly unjustified (zjevně nedůvodná) under section 16(1)(e) of the Asylum Act without examining its merits, stating that the first applicant had arrived from Portugal, which was considered a safe third country.\n7.  The first applicant applied for judicial review which, however, in cases rejected under section 16(1)(e) of the Asylum Act, did not have a suspensive effect. On 19 April 2007 he requested that those proceedings be terminated, which the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) did on 31 May 2007.\n8.  On 23 November 2006 the Prague-Ruzyně Aliens and Customs Police Service (referát cizinecké a pohraniční policie) ordered the first applicant to leave the country by 2 December 2006. As the applicant did not comply with the order, the Police Service instituted administrative expulsion proceedings against him.\n9.  In the context of those proceedings the Police Service interviewed the first applicant on 3 December 2006. He reiterated that he could not return to his home country because he could be killed or injured there and would most likely be imprisoned. He submitted that he had been one of the initiators of a student demonstration in which several participants were killed. The Police Service also requested, as required by law, an opinion of the Ministry of the Interior as to whether there were any obstacles to the applicant’s removal. On 4 December 2006 the Ministry replied in the negative, stating that the first applicant was facing expulsion to Portugal, which was a safe country.\n10.  On 4 December 2006 the Aliens and Customs Police Service issued an administrative expulsion order (správní vyhoštění) ordering the first applicant to leave the country within twenty days and prohibiting him from entering the Czech Republic for six months. It held that the first applicant had stayed in the Czech Republic without a valid visa after his asylum request had been rejected.\n11.  On 28 February 2007 the Prague Aliens and Customs Police Directorate (ředitelství služby cizinecké a pohraniční policie) rejected the first applicant’s appeal, upholding the reasoning of the Aliens and Customs Police Service. The first applicant received this decision on 13 March 2007.\n12.  On 15 May 2007 at about 4 a.m. and without prior notice, the first applicant was removed from the Czech Republic to Guinea by plane via Brussels. Later on, while the first applicant was in police custody in Guinea, his lawyer managed to contact him by telephone, but he refused to provide any information about his treatment in detention.\n13.  The first applicant is cu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6190", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 16 April 2007 the applicant and six other defendants were indicted at Osijek County Court for war crimes against the civilian population, an offence under Article 120 of the Croatian Criminal Code.\n6.  On 29 May 2007 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) transferred jurisdiction to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) and the proceedings continued before that court. At that time the applicant lived in Osijek, a town about 280 kilometres from Zagreb.\n7.  On 17 April 2009 the applicant’s defence counsel informed the trial court that the applicant would not be able to attend a hearing scheduled for 20 April 2009 because he was to be hospitalised that day in Osijek. However, the medical documentation he submitted indicated that the applicant’s admission to Osijek Hospital had been scheduled for 20 May 2009 at 8.30 a.m.\n8.  The trial panel at the hearing on 20 April 2009 was composed of judges Ž.H., as the presiding judge, and R.T.A., S.B.B and M.K., as its members. At the beginning of the hearing, at 8.15 a.m., the presiding judge telephoned Osijek Hospital and learned that the applicant had not been admitted to that hospital. The trial panel made a request to a three-judge non-trial panel to order the applicant’s detention and concluded the hearing at 10.05 a.m.\n9.  At 9.53 a.m. a fax sent by defence counsel arrived at the Zagreb County Court. Defence counsel submitted the same medical document as before, but with the date of the applicant’s scheduled hospitalisation altered from 20 May 2009 to 20 April 2009.\n10.  At 10 a.m. the three-judge non-trial panel opened its session. One of the applicant’s defence counsel was present and made no further submissions. The session ended at 11 a.m. The panel was composed of judges R.T.A., as the presiding judge, and S.P.L. and L.S., as members. It granted the request and ordered the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Zakon o kaznenom postupku). The relevant part of the decision reads:\n“The Deputy Zagreb County State Attorney said that ... the second defendant was obstructing the proceedings ... because ... he had already recalled a power of attorney given to his defence counsel owing to which the trial had to start over again ... he had also been given a time-limit to resolve his health problems but had not done so. She stressed in particular that the diagnostic examination [on account of which the applicant did not appear at the hearing] ... had not been necessary at that time. ...\nThe [other] Deputy Zagreb County State Attorney ... added that the applicant’s behaviour in a longer period had shown that he had been obstructing the closure of the trial ... and that it was evident that he had been avoiding appearing at the trial ...\nDefence counsel for the second defendant ... objected to ordering the defendant’s detention. He argued that there was no indication that the second defendant had been avoiding the trial ... he had at that moment received a telephone message from the defendant’s other defence counsel in Osijek ... who told him that he would fax fresh medical documentation in respect of the defendant which would shed new light on today’s events.\n...\nThe record of the hearing held on 20 April 2009 shows that the second defendant, although he had been properly summoned, did not appear, and his defence counsel ... in his submission of 17 April 2009 stated that t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6191", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Veľký Krtíš. At the time of the events complained of, the applicant was a Member of the National Council of the Slovak Republic (the Parliament).\n6.  Prior to the commencement of any criminal proceedings against a specific person in the present case, on 23 July 2003, a single judge of the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) issued a warrant authorising monitoring of the applicant’s telephone communications. The details are described at paragraph 37 below.\n7.  On 6 August 2003 a long-time friend of the applicant, A., filed a criminal complaint against the applicant.\nIn the complaint, A. submitted (i) that his company had been successful in public procurement for construction works for a municipality and (ii) that he had subsequently been approached by the applicant with a request that he pay a percentage of the price of the contracted works to a person within the municipal administration so as to ensure that the contract could be concluded with final effect.\n8.  Following the complaint of 6 August 2003, on the same day, a criminal investigation was commenced into suspected abuse of official powers and receipt of bribes (Articles 158 and 160(a) of the Criminal Code) by an unknown third person in connection with the events described above.\n9.  On 7 August 2003 the Prosecutor General ruled that the investigation should be supervised by the Nitra Regional Prosecutor.\n10.  On 25 November 2003 the applicant, A. and a third person met in the offices of a political party. After A. had left, the premises were raided and searched by the police. The applicant’s briefcase was retained and the equivalent of 12,000 euros (EUR) in cash was found inside.\n11.  The applicant was detained as a suspect (for details see below) and, on 27 November 2003, he was charged with accepting bribes.\n12.  On completion of the pre-trial stage of the proceedings, on 1 March 2004, the applicant consulted the case file. The consultation revealed that investigative measures had been ordered and applied in his case as mentioned at paragraph 6 above and described in detail at paragraphs 37 to 43 below.\n13.  On 5 April 2004 the Regional Prosecutor indicted the applicant to stand trial in the Banská Bystrica District Court (Okresný súd).\n14.  On 9 May 2005 the applicant was convicted at first instance but the judgment was quashed on appeal on 23 February 2006.\n15.  On 28 September 2009 the District Court acquitted the applicant and on 29 April 2010 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the public prosecution service. The acquittal thereby became final and binding (právoplatné).\n16.  The courts concluded that it was not proven that the actions of which the applicant stood accused had taken place.\n17.  After the police raid at 2.50 p.m. on 25 November 2003, the applicant was detained as a suspect.\n18.  On 27 November 2003 the Regional Prosecutor requested that the applicant be remanded in custody pending trial on the charge referred to in paragraph 11 above. On the same day Parliament gave its consent to the applicant’s prosecution and detention.\n19.  At 9.30 a.m. on 28 November 2003 the applicant was brought before a single judge of the Nitra District Court to be heard in connection with the prosecutor’s request.\n20.  At 11 a.m. on 28 November 2003 the District Court judge remanded the applicant in custody pending trial.\nObserving that the applicant and his co-accused were known regionally and nationally, an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6192", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Ms Mirtha Ledy de Leon Nunez, was born on 17 June 1975 in the Dominican Republic and lives in Oslo.\n6.  The applicant first arrived in Norway on 26 January 1996 as a tourist. On 16 March 1996 she was arrested on suspicion of shoplifting. The next day she accepted a summary fine (forelegg) for theft of goods to the estimated value of NOK 5,098 (EUR 600). On the same date it was decided to deport her and to prohibit her from re-entry for a period of two years. The deportation was effected on 18 March 1996.\n7.  Four months later, on 19 July 1996, the applicant returned to Norway with a different passport, according to which her name was Santa Rita Ozuna Tapia, she was born on 11 September 1974 and indicating a different identity number from that in her previous passport. On 11 October 1996 she married a Norwegian national and on 17 October 1996 she applied for a residence permit. In her application she stated that she had not previously visited Norway and that she had no previous criminal convictions. She was granted a work permit on 17 January 1997 for a period of 1 year, which was renewed a number of times. On 19 April 2000 she was granted a settlement permit.\n8.  On 17 December 1999 she applied for Norwegian citizenship, but the processing of her application was discontinued as her husband on 18 April 2001 applied for a separation.\n9.  In the course of spring 2001, the applicant started co-habiting with Mr O., who also originated from the Dominican Republic and who had held a settlement permit since 2000. Together, the couple had two daughters, born on 4 June 2002 and 15 December 2003, respectively.\n10.  In the meantime, in early summer 2001 the police received information from a source that the applicant had previously been in Norway under the name Mirtha Ledy de Leon Nunez. On 7 December 2001 the police apprehended her while she was working in a hairdressing salon. After first denying having previously been in Norway under a different name she later admitted it. She explained that the name in the passport the second time she came to Norway had not been an incorrect name but had been her father’s, whilst the name in the first passport had been her mother’s. The difference in birth dates could be explained by the fact that it was her father who had arranged for the second passport. She admitted having used the second passport deliberately to avoid the prohibition on re-entry (see paragraph 7 above).\n11.  In view of the above, after having put the applicant on notice on 10 January 2002 that it was considering revoking her work- and settlement permits, on 2 October 2002 the Directorate of Immigration revoked her permits. In July 2004 the Immigration Appeals Board rejected her appeal against this decision.\n12.  On 26 April 2005 the Directorate decided that the applicant should be expelled and prohibited from re-entry for a period of two years, applying section 29(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1988 (according to which an alien may be expelled if he or she has committed serious or repeated violations of one or more provisions of the Act) and finding that her expulsion would not be disproportionate for the purposes of section 29(2).\n13.  On 9 November 2005 the Directorate of Immigration refused a request by the applicant to stay the implementation of her expulsion. However, on 3 January 2006 it confirmed that she had a right to such stay.\n14.  The applicant’s appeal to the Immigration Appeals Board was rejected on 23 Februar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6193", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  The documents in the case file reveal the following facts.\n6.  On 21 September 2005 the applicant was arrested in connection with a suspicion that he had committed several acts of theft. He was released on 22 September 2005.\n7.  On 23 January 2006 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office preferred charges against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Court on two counts of aggravated theft in the period between 1 and 4 July 2005 and on 11 and 12 September 2005.\n8.  A hearing scheduled for 6 April 2006 was adjourned at the applicant’s request because he wanted to find legal representation.\n9.  A hearing scheduled for 8 June 2006 was adjourned owing to the applicant’s absence. In a submission of the same day the applicant informed the presiding judge that he was in pre-trial detention in connection with some other criminal proceedings against him.\n10.  At a hearing scheduled for 2 October 2006 the applicant was summoned through the Zagreb Prison authorities but he was not brought to the hearing because he had been released on 26 June 2006.\n11.  The presiding judge ordered the police to bring the applicant to a hearing scheduled for 21 November 2006, but this order was not complied with. On 28 November 2006 the police informed the presiding judge that the applicant did not live at his registered address.\n12.  On 1 December 2006 the presiding judge asked the Central Prison Administration whether the applicant was placed in any penal institution in Croatia. On 4 January 2007 the Central Prison Administration answered that that was not the case.\n13.  On 16 July 2007 the proceedings at issue were joined with the criminal proceedings nos. Ko-2965/06 and Ko-2403/07 (see below, §§ 56 and 68).\n14.  On 4 August 2007 the applicant submitted a letter of authority for his defence lawyer, J.N.\n15.  A hearing was held on 12 September 2007 in the presence of the applicant and his defence lawyer.\n16.  The applicant had already been placed in detention on 19 June 2007, pursuant to a detention order of 22 May 2007, issued in the proceedings conducted under the case file no. 2403/07 (see below, §§ 62 and 63). On 28 September 2007 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb Municipal Court extended the applicant’s detention on the grounds under Article 102 § 1(1) (fear of absconding) and 1(3) (fear of reoffending) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The reasoning was essentially the same as in the decision extending the applicant’s detention of 12 July 2007 (see below, § 67).\n17.  On 1 October 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal arguing firstly that the first-instance decision had not specified the period of detention covered by it and that his detention between 19 August and 28 September 2007 was not covered by any decision, and secondly challenging the grounds for his detention on the ground that he could live with the family D. and that he had not committed any criminal offence in the past year.\n18.  A hearing was held on 4 October 2007 in the presence of the applicant and a defence lawyer.\n19.  On 5 October 2007 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 1 October 2007 finding that he had no address to which the courts could send him a summons, since the police had established that I.D, the owner of the flat at the address indicated by the applicant stated that the applicant was a friend of his son but had never lived with them. The appeal court accepted the grounds for detention put fo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6194", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  In the evening of 19 August 2006 the applicant was involved in a minor car accident at a parking lot in the town of Siófok. He claimed that he had found his car damaged when he had returned to the parking lot from a nearby restaurant in order to fetch some cash, whereas the police asserted – based on the testimony of an eye witness, an off-duty policeman who had been passing by – that it had been the applicant who had crashed into a parked car with his own vehicle while driving out of the parking lot. In response to an alert from the off-duty police officer, at around 10.40 p.m. the Siófok Police Station sent two patrolling officers, I.K. and K.P.P., to the scene of the accident.\n7.  The two officers checked the applicant’s identity and breathalysed him. The test clearly showed that he was heavily under the influence of alcohol. He was accordingly taken to the Siófok Medical Centre for a blood and urine test. The test was performed by Dr I.E.V. at 11.40 p.m. She recorded on the blood alcohol test form that the applicant’s legs were injured. The applicant was then taken to another department of the Medical Centre, where Dr Gy.K. examined him at 12.15 a.m. on 20 August and recorded superficial abrasions on his left knee and ankle.\n8.  After the examination, the applicant was driven back to the parking lot because the officers had received instructions to take photographs of the scene. When the applicant was informed that, after the pictures had been taken, he would be taken to the police station to fill in certain papers, he attempted to escape. While running past the officers, he knocked over Officer K.P.P, who suffered superficial abrasions. Officer I.K. chased the applicant and finally managed to bring him to the ground and to handcuff him with the help of K.P.P. According to the police, during the chase the applicant crossed a number of roads, and while doing so he bumped into and fell over some moving cars.\n9.  Subsequently, the officers requested help by radio. Two other police cars arrived, and at 12.30 a.m. the applicant was driven to the Siófok Police Station by Officers G.V. and Z.S.\n10.  Before the applicant – by then suspected of the offence of violence against an official – was taken into custody, he was sent from the police station back to the Medical Centre for another medical examination. He was driven to the Medical Centre by Officers Sz.R. and Z.S.\n11.  At 12.43 a.m., Dr Gy.K. again examined the applicant and recorded that, in addition to the abrasions on his leg, already recorded, he had a small swelling on his cheek.\n12.  Following the medical examination, the applicant was taken back to the Siófok Police Station and placed in a cell in the station’s custodial unit. He was guarded by Officers Z.T. and P.L.\n13.  Due to his allegedly strange behaviour, around 3.00 a.m. the applicant was again driven in a police van to the Medical Centre for a drug test, escorted by Officers Gy.C., M.N., Sz.R. and Z.M. At 3.15 a.m. Dr I.E.V. carried out the drug test, after which the applicant was taken back to the police station.\n14.  The applicant submits that during one of the transfers described above, he was ill-treated in the police car or van by the police officers escorting him, who allegedly hit him in the face, sides and stomach. He also submits that, during his custody after the drug test, he was severely ill-treated by four police officers in the corridor of the cus", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6195", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  In 2000 Mr D., a businessman from Moscow informed the police that since 1996 he and his two business partners had been paying a monthly fee to a local gang for “protection”. Mr D. gave the police audio records of his telephone conversations with the gangsters, which he had secretly made when the “fee” had become too burdensome for him. The police set up an undercover operation. Police agents secretly observed the meetings between the three businessmen and the gangsters and recorded their conversations. At the last meeting, which took place on 25 September 2000, the businessmen handed to the emissaries of the gang the money they had earlier received from the police. After the receipt of the money the two emissaries of the gang were arrested and the money (which had been previously marked by the police) was seized from them. One of the alleged gangsters was Mr M., the applicant’s brother.\n7.  On 9 April 2001 the applicant was charged with large-scale extortion as part of an organised criminal group (Article 163 § 3 (a) and (b) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). However, because his whereabouts were unknown, on 18 April 2001 the case against the applicant was separated from the case of other members of the group. On 22 May 2001 the applicant was put on a wanted list.\n8.  On 1 June 2001 the Moscow City Prosecutor issued a detention warrant in respect of the applicant. It referred to the gravity of the charges and the risk of his absconding, as well as to the fact that the applicant was on the wanted list. The detention warrant did not specify the period of detention.\n9.  On 7 April 2002 the applicant was arrested at his house in the Moscow Region. On the same date he was detained.\n10.  On 6 June 2002 the Moscow City Prosecutor authorised the extension of the applicant’s detention until 9 August 2002. The detention warrant referred to the gravity of the charges and the risk of the applicant absconding, re-offending or interfering with the investigation. There is no information on whether the applicant appealed against that decision.\n11.  On 1 August 2002 the Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow considered the detention request lodged by the prosecution. The defence argued that there were no grounds for continued detention since the applicant had no criminal record, permanently resided in Moscow, and had not tried to flee from the investigation – at the time when he had been on the wanted list he had been living in his summer house in the Moscow Region with his minor children and had not been aware of the proceedings against him. The defence also contended that the charges against the applicant were unfounded and noted long periods of inactivity on the part of the investigation authorities during previous detention periods.\n12.  The court rejected those arguments and extended the applicant’s detention until 7 October 2002. The court held that the applicant had been accused of grave crimes and that he had to take part in several investigative activities. The court also found that the applicant would flee from justice given that he had previously been on the wanted list, and had been arrested in the Moscow Region. There is no information on whether the applicant appealed against that decision.\n13.  On 2 October 2002 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 9 December 2002 holding that there were no grounds to amend or revoke the preventive measure, gi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6196", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  Under a contract of indefinite duration dated 25 August 1980, the applicant was appointed by the State of Kuwait as accountant in the Kuwaiti embassy in Paris. He became head accountant on 17 April 1985, when a note by the Ambassador entitled “Organisation of Accounts Department at Kuwaiti Embassy in Paris” set out the applicant’s duties as follows:\n“(a) To oversee all the work of the accounts department.\n(b) To supervise the staff working in that department in respect of the tasks assigned to them, and to ensure compliance with the rules governing working hours and the volume and distribution of work.\n(c) The above-mentioned accountant must sign all payment orders, accounting invoices and everything connected with that activity.\n(d) In addition the accountant is entrusted with the management of administrative tasks.\n(e) The accountant shall be accountable to his superiors for any shortcomings in respect of everything connected with the work of his department.”\n8.  On 3 December 1999 some twenty employees of the Embassy signed a statement to the effect that the applicant had, since his appointment, unofficially assumed the role of staff representative, with the result that he had resolved all disputes between the staff and the diplomatic mission for the past nineteen years.\n9.  A certificate of employment dated 19 January 2000 indicates that the applicant “is employed by the Embassy as Head Accountant”.\n10.  On 27 March 2000 the applicant’s contract was terminated on the following economic grounds:\n“The restructuring of all the Embassy’s departments, in accordance with general instructions from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Kuwait.\nThe Embassy is obliged to abolish your post as a result of the new regulations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Kuwait.”\n11.  Disagreeing with the reasons given for the termination, the applicant brought proceedings in the Paris Employment Tribunal (conseil de prud’hommes) seeking various sums in compensation for dismissal without genuine or serious cause.\n12.  In a judgment of 29 November 2000, the Employment Tribunal began by refusing to allow the objection to admissibility raised by the State of Kuwait, finding as follows:\n“A plea of inadmissibility has been raised on grounds of jurisdictional immunity.\nWhilst Article 31 of the Vienna Convention provides that diplomatic agents enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State, and also from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, the latter immunity does not cover actions relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving State outside his official functions.\nMr Farouk Sabeh El Leil was recruited and employed in France, under a contract of indefinite duration signed in Paris and performing [sic] in French territory.\nHis pay statements bear a SIRET [registration] number.\nThe letter summoning him to a preliminary meeting fully satisfies the provisions of Article L.122-14-4 of the Labour Code, indicating that Mr Farouk Sabeh El Leil was entitled to be assisted by a third party from the list kept by the préfecture.\nIn the present case, the duties of head accountant entrusted to Mr Farouk Sabeh El Leil in an internal management context fell within the framework of an expressly private-law activity and the jurisdiction of the ordinary French courts, as the employer has acknowledged through the above-mentioned elements.”\n13.  On the merits, the Employ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6197", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants Mrs Gerlinde Kempe (“the first applicant” or “the applicant”) and Mr Richard Kempe (“the second applicant”) are a married couple and live in Berlin. They are born in 1947 and 1945 respectively. The first applicant owns a house in Berlin. The second applicant has a lifelong right of abode (Wohnungsrecht) in the top floor apartment of the said house.\n6.  Following a fire in October 2005 the applicants notified the competent building authority of their intention to rebuild the top floor of the house and applied for the necessary construction permit on 19 October 2005. They started the construction works while the proceedings on the building permit were still under way.\n7.  On 25 October 2005 the building authority prohibited the continuation of the construction works. The applicant objected and applied for interim measures. On 24 November 2005 the application was dismissed by the Berlin Administrative Court, confirmed on appeal by a decision of the Berlin Administrative Court of Appeal on 20 December 2005.\n8.  On 24 January 2006 the building authority refused to issue a building permit for the reconstruction of the top floor. On 24 February 2006 the applicant lodged an objection.\n9.  The applicants completed the reconstruction of the top floor and the second applicant started using the apartment together with his son and daughter-in-law.\n10.  On 21 February 2006 the building authority issued a prohibition of use order (Nutzungsuntersagung). The applicant objected and applied for interim measures. On 21 April 2006 this application was dismissed by the Administrative Court, confirmed on appeal by a decision of the Berlin Administrative Court of Appeal of 23 August 2006.\n11.  In October 2006 discussions between the applicant and the building authorities on the framework conditions for the possible grant of a building permit took place.\n12.  In December 2006 as well as January and February 2007 the building authority threatened to initiate compulsory measures regarding the prohibition of use order. The applicant subsequently applied for a suspension of the enforcement of the order pending the outcome of the proceedings concerning the building permit. The second applicant, his son and daughter-in–law subsequently vacated the apartment.\n13.  On 25 May 2007 the applicant brought an action for failure to act with the Berlin Administrative Court (file No. VG 19 A 159.07) since her objection against the refusal of the building permit lodged on 24 February 2006 had not been decided on and requested the grant of a building permit for the top floor apartment.\n14.  In August 2007 the Administrative Court dismissed the application for a suspension of the enforcement of the prohibition of use order, confirmed on appeal by a decision of the Berlin Court of Appeal of 30 November 2007.\n15.  On 14 April 2008 the applicant was informed that a date for an oral hearing in the proceedings regarding the building permit (file No. VG 19 A 159.07) could not yet be set because older proceedings had to be dealt with as a priority.\n16.  On 31 May 2010 an oral hearing in the said proceedings was scheduled for 21 July 2010.\n17.  Following the hearing, the Berlin Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's claim for the grant of a building permit by a judgment of 21 July 2010 (file No. VG 19 A 159.07). On 31 August 2010 she requested leave to appeal the decision with the Berlin Administrative Court of Appeal. The proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6198", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Jerzy Wizerkaniuk, is a Polish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Kościan. At the material time he was a chief editor and a co-owner of the local newspaper “Gazeta Kościańska”, published in Kościan.\n7.  On 24 February 2003 two journalists working for the applicant’s newspaper interviewed a local M.P., Mr T. M. The interview, arranged during a chance meeting between one of the journalists and the M.P. several days earlier, at a session of the Kościan Municipal Council, took place in the M.P.’s office in Kościan and lasted about two hours. All questions and answers were tape-recorded. It related to the M.P.’s public and business activities. After the meeting the M.P. requested that the text of the interview be submitted for his authorisation (autoryzacja) before its publication, as provided for by Section 14 of the 1984 Press Act (Prawo Prasowe) (see paragraph 29 below).\n8.  The verbatim transcript of the interview, subsequently prepared by the two journalists, ran to forty standard pages. The applicant requested P.S., the editing journalist of the newspaper, to prepare an edited version of the interview, fit for the publication purposes. That version ran to three standard pages. The latter version was subsequently presented to the interviewee, approximately a month after the conversation. He read it and informed an employee of his office, Mr K. P., that he would not give his consent to the publication of the text. He was of the view that the text did not correspond to the conversation he had had with the two journalists and that many important statements he had made were not included. He asked Mr K.P. to inform the applicant of his refusal. Shortly afterwards, the applicant called the M.P. who reiterated his refusal.\n9.  In an undated letter to the applicant, served on him on 5 May 2003, the M.P. stated:\n“It is true that in February I talked to two representatives of “Gazeta Kościańska”. During that conversation, which was in any event very informal, I replied to a number of questions. However, the text submitted for my authorisation only after a month, failed to include many of my important statements and to reflect the character and contents of my statements, [a state of affairs] which I cannot accept.”\n10.  On 29 April 2003 the newspaper published a short text asking the readers whether they would be interested in having an interview with Mr T.M., the local M.P., published.\n11.  On 7 May 2003 parts of the verbatim records of the interview, edited by P.S. and accompanied by photos made when the interview was conducted, were published by “Gazeta Kościańska”. The text carried a lead informing the reader that the M.P. had refused to grant his authorisation for the publication of the interview and that the newspaper was publishing parts of the interview as recorded on the tape, including in its original grammatical form.\n12.  On 19 May 2003 the M.P. informed the Kościan District Prosecutor that the applicant had committed a criminal offence by publishing parts of the interview without his authorisation and against his will.\n13.  On the same day criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on a charge of publishing an interview with the M.P. in spite of the latter’s refusal to authorise its publication. During the investigation the M.P. submitted that he had talked to the two journalists from the applicant’s newspaper. They had had a casual conversation rather than a formal interview. A month late", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6199", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Haskovo. In 1991 the applicant’s husband died, leaving his wife and his brother as his only heirs.\n6.  On 17 January 1994 the applicant brought an action against her husband’s brother with the Haskovo District Court, seeking partition of their common inheritance.\n7.  Between March 1994 and February 1995 the court held four hearings. By a judgment of 13 February 1995 it allowed the partition of the second floor of a house, of a garage and a car, determined the parties’ shares and ordered that the use of all the items be granted to the applicant for the course of the proceedings. In the same judgment the court dismissed the action for partition of the first floor of the same house, finding that the first floor belonged solely to the respondent.\n8.  The applicant filed an appeal with the Haskovo Regional Court, arguing, inter alia, that the District Court should have allowed the partition of the first floor.\n9.  By a judgment of 22 May 1995 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of the District Court as regards the partition of the house, announced a hearing on the merits and appointed three experts to prepare a report on certain aspects of the partition of the house.\n10.  Between May 1995 and June 1996 the court held four hearings where, in particular, it examined the expert report and heard the experts. By a judgment of 4 June 1996 the court allowed the partition only of the second floor of the house and determined the parties’ shares.\n11.  By a judgment of 19 December 1996 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s ensuing appeal.\n12.  On 21 April 1997 the applicant filed a request for reopening of the partition proceedings with the Supreme Court of Cassation which was rejected by a judgment of 16 June 1998.\n13.  In relation to this phase of the partition proceedings on 16 February 1999 the applicant brought a declaratory action, seeking to establish criminal conduct on the part of the experts, in that by acting with negligence they had presented false reports before the court (a crime under Article 291 § 2 of the Criminal Code). In case such conduct was established, the applicant could have sought reopening of the case. Following proceedings before three instances, by a final judgment of 4 April 2006 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the action.\n14.  Neither the applicant, nor the Government specify the date on which the second phase of the partition proceedings began before the Haskovo District Court. It appears from the parties’ submissions that it was not later than 16 October 1998. Until December 2001 the court listed nine hearings. One was adjourned for collection of additional evidence, three were adjourned for reasons related to the experts and two more for reasons related to the respondent. During some of the hearings the applicant unsuccessfully requested the court to stay the proceedings in order to await the outcome of the proceedings seeking to establish criminal conduct on the part of the experts.\n15.  By a judgment of 5 December 2001 the District Court allotted the second floor of the house to the applicant, allotted the garage to the respondent and ordered the applicant to make payment for levelling away the differences in the respondent’s share.\n16.  The District Court held an additional hearing on 12 April 2002 in respect of the car. By a judgment of 18 June 2002 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6200", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Jelgava.\n5.  On 4 October 1999 two bodies (male and female) were found in a lake in Garkalne parish, near Rīga.\n6.  On 8 October 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. Several other persons, namely, V.U., A.V. and A.C. (“the co-accused”), were arrested in connection with the same criminal proceedings. They were released on 11 October 1999 on an undertaking not to change their places of residence.\n7.  On 9 October 1999 the applicant was questioned by the police and he provided his version of the events.\n8.  On 11 October 1999 a judge of the Rīga District Court (Rīgas rajona tiesa) authorised the applicant’s detention for two months.\n9.  On 9 November 1999 the applicant was repeatedly questioned and maintained his version of the events. In addition, he confessed to having murdered the male victim but not the female.\n10.  On 6 December 1999 the same judge extended the applicant’s detention until 31 January 2000.\n11.  On 27 January and 22 March 2000 another judge of the Rīga Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 31 March and 31 May 2000 respectively.\n12.  On 27 April 2000 the preliminary investigation was completed and the applicant started to acquaint himself with the case materials. He finished on 17 May 2000.\n13.  On 18 May 2000 the final charge was brought against the applicant and the co-accused and the case was sent to the Rīga Regional Court, where it was received the next day. 3.  The applicant’s detention between 24 May 2000 and 15 September 2003 (the trial stage)\n(a)  The detention between 24 May 2000 and 1 November 2002\n14.  On 24 May 2000 the applicant and the co-accused persons were committed for trial and the first hearing was scheduled for November 2001. The preventive measures – the applicant’s detention and the co-accused’s undertaking not to change their places of residence – remained unchanged, as the judge considered them to have been duly applied in view of the severity of the crimes and the personalities of the accused. The applicant was not brought before the court.\n15.  During this period the order for applicant’s detention was not reviewed.\n(b)  Detention between 1 November 2002 and 15 September 2003\n(i)  On the basis of the court order of 1 November 2002\n16.  In view of the forthcoming amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that detention beyond one year and six months following committal for trial was not allowed save for in exceptional circumstances (see Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, § 63, ECHR 2006‑III (extracts)), the Rīga Regional Court forwarded the case to the Senate of the Supreme Court to decide on the issue of the applicant’s further detention.\n17.  On 1 November 2002 in a preparatory meeting the Senate extended the applicant’s detention until 30 April 2003 on the ground that he was accused of having committed an especially serious crime with violence and in order to ensure that the proceedings would not be hindered. The applicant was not brought before the court.\n18.  In the meantime, on 18 October 2002, the applicant applied to the Rīga Regional Court with a view to being released given the fact that he had already been detained for more than two years and four months (following his committal for trial) and the trial date had not yet been scheduled. He asked for the preventive measure imposed on him to be changed from detention either to an undertaking not to change ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6201", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 5 July 2000 the applicants were in detention in Burdur Prison when a large-scale security operation was conducted there by 415 members of the security forces consisting mainly of gendarmes and soldiers. As the remaining facts of the case are in dispute between the parties, they will be set out separately. The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 7-12). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 13‑21). The documentary evidence submitted by the applicants and the Government is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 22‑60).\n7.  On 4 April 2000 a number of remand prisoners in Burdur Prison were beaten by gendarmes on their way back from a court hearing. On 4 July 2000 eleven detainees, including nine of the applicants, informed the prison administration that, unless steps were taken to guarantee their safety, they would not be appearing at a hearing in the Burdur Assize Court scheduled for the following day. Neither the prison authorities nor the prosecutors responded to their calls.\n8.  At around 8.30 a.m. on 5 July 2000, members of the security forces arrived at the prison in large numbers. Using the furniture in their dormitories the inmates unsuccessfully tried to block the doors to stop the soldiers from coming in. The soldiers locked the windows to the prison cells, set fire to the cell doors and tried to confine the inmates in one part of the prison, measuring 25-30 square metres. The applicants Yunis Aydemir and Cemil Aksu suffered burns in the fire. When the inmates were confined in the same 25-30 square metres the soldiers used tear gas and various other chemical gases on them.\n9.  A hole was opened in the walls of this room with a digger. When the digger went through the hole and into the room the applicant Mr Saçılık waved his arm at the operator of the machinery, trying to tell him to withdraw the digger. The operator saw Mr Saçılık but proceeded, tearing off Mr Saçılık’s left arm from above his elbow. The severed arm was not collected by the authorities with a view to preserving and reattaching it, but was left there in the rubble. It was later taken from the mouth of a stray dog which had snatched it from the rubble.\n10.  Furthermore, a gas bomb detonated nearby seriously damaged the applicant Şahin Geçit’s right hand and eardrum.\n11.  The soldiers then started beating the inmates, dragging them on the floor, sexually assaulting female detainees and threatening them with rape. The detainees were then handcuffed, with their hands behind their backs, and were kept in that position for a period of 15 hours. The beatings continued even after the detainees were handcuffed. The soldiers attempted to insert a truncheon and a fluorescent light stick into the anuses and vaginas of the applicants Azime Arzu Torun and Mürüvet Küçük and started raiding the detainees’ personal belongings.\n12.  The injured detainees, some with life-threatening injuries, were subsequently taken to hospital. However, it was too late for Veli Şaçılık’s arm to be stitched back on, so he permanently lost his arm. The health of a number of other applicants also worsened because of the delays. Moreover, the soldiers prevented some of the detainees from receiving medical assistance at the hospital and took them back to the prison before their treatment had been completed.\n13.  On 4 July 2000 eleven detainees, including nine of the applicants, refused to obey the pr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6202", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Malá Ida. He is a judicial enforcement officer (súdny exekútor).\n6.  In his official capacity, the applicant acted on behalf of a number of judgment creditors with a view to enforcing their claims. The relevant details concerning the enforcement proceedings are set out in the Appendix to this judgment.\n7.  The commencement of the enforcement proceedings was authorised by judicial decisions.\n8.  The applicant or, as the case may be, the creditors themselves subsequently requested that the enforcement be discontinued as it had been established that the debtors were devoid of any assets that could serve to satisfy the enforced claims.\n9.  Together with those requests, the applicant submitted a breakdown of the costs he had incurred in the enforcement proceedings which he sought to have the creditors ordered to compensate.\n10.  Consequently, in joint decisions, the enforcement proceedings were discontinued and orders for payment of the applicant’s costs were issued.\n11.  The decisions were taken on the authority of the district courts, as the courts at the first level of jurisdiction, acting through their senior court officers (vyšší súdny úradník). Under section 2 of the Court Officers Act (Law no. 549/2003 Coll., as amended), senior court officers are civil servants (štátny zamestnanec) and, as such, are considered to be employees of the court.\n12.  The written versions of the decisions stated that they were final and not subject to appeal.\n13.  The applicant nevertheless appealed (odvolanie), seeking compensation for his costs in a higher amount.\nAs to the admissibility of his appeals, the applicant relied on Article 142 § 2 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended), which provides for the right of appeal to a judge against decisions taken by employees of the court.\n14.  The applicant’s appeals, subsequent appeals on points of law (dovolanie) as well as complaints (sťažnosť) under Article 127 of the Constitution were all declared inadmissible.\n15.  The applicant’s constitutional complaints in respect of the enforcement proceedings in file nos. 19Er 90/04 and Er 533/00 were declared inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had failed to exhaust ordinary remedies by asserting his rights by way of an appeal on points of law (dovolanie).\n16.  The remaining constitutional complaints were declared manifestly ill‑founded, although in respect of the enforcement proceedings in file nos. Er 641/2004 and Er 2541/2001 no appeal on points of law had been lodged.\n17.  The ordinary courts and the Constitutional Court (in decisions nos. III. ÚS 344/06, II. ÚS 27/07, II. ÚS 28/07 and III. ÚS 66/07) held that, pursuant to Article 202 § 2 of the Code of Civil Proceedings (Law no. 99/1963 Coll., as amended) (“the CCP”), decisions (uznesenie) in enforcement proceedings, which included decisions on the costs of enforcement, were not subject to appeal. This rule was in the position of lex specialis in relation to Article 142 § 2 of the Constitution and was held to take precedence over the latter. The fact that the impugned decisions had been taken by employees of the court and not by judges was therefore found to be of no consequence.\n18.  In a number of unrelated but similar situations, raised before the Constitutional Court by the applicant, the Constitutional Court took contradictory views (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).\n19.  Meanwhile, the relevant provisio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6203", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1979, 1976, 1979, 1979 and 1979 respectively and live in Chişinău. Three of the applicants are journalists, one is a teacher of French and another is a librarian. They are friends.\n6.  At the time of the events the first two applicants were employed by a newspaper specialising in investigative journalism. The newspaper was involved in numerous scandals and lawsuits. In October 2002 its editor in chief was arrested on charges of corruption. According to the applicants, after that event two of them developed close relationships with the four police officers involved in the arrest of the editor in chief and one of them was even involved in a romantic relationship with one of the four police officers. According to the applicants, the police officers in question provided them with material for their work at the newspaper. The Government disputed the factual circumstances concerning the close relationship between the applicants and the four police officers.\n7.  In January 2003 a person calling himself Petrus came to the headquarters of the newspaper employing the first two applicants and offered to sell a video containing explicit images of a priest engaged in promiscuous behaviour. It appeared later that Petrus was member of a criminal gang and that the video in question had been used to blackmail the priest. The information was passed on to the four police officers and on 25 January 2003 three of the applicants helped the police officers to apprehend Petrus. One applicant was remunerated for her assistance and, on 27 January 2003, wrote a receipt to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Government disputed the applicants’ submissions concerning the arrest of Petrus and the applicants’ involvement therein. They confirmed the fact that one of the applicants had received money from the Ministry of Internal Affairs, however, without specifying the consideration for the payment.\n8.  Also in January 2003 one of the first two applicants became acquainted with a person named S.D., who was involved in a dispute with the Municipal Council about which the applicant wrote an article. On 31 January 2003 all the applicants, the four police officers and S.D. spent the evening in a sauna near Chişinău. The Government disputed the allegation that the four police officers had spent time in a sauna with the applicants and with S.D.\n9.  On 7 May 2003 the first applicant was allegedly contacted by one of the four police officers and was asked not to publish an article about illegalities at the Ministry of Internal Affairs due to appear the next day. The police officer took the applicant to a store, apparently specialising in electronics, where he showed her a video of her and the other applicants filmed on 31 January 2003 in the sauna and threatened to have it broadcast on national television if his conditions were not met and added that copies of the video would be sent to the applicants’ parents. He also allegedly threatened her with imprisonment and violence and warned her that her collaboration with the police would be made public. The first applicant informed the police officer in question that it was too late to stop the article’s publication since the material had already been sent to the printing house. On 8 May 2003 the article in question was published.\n10.  On 10 May 2003 at 7.30 p.m. the national television service broadcast a programme dedicated to the phenomenon of corruption and the moral character of journalists f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6204", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1975 respectively and live in Volzhskiy, a town in the Volgograd Region.\n6.  On 15 September 1999 the applicants, a lawyer and a driver for a private company, both of Chechen origin, were driving back from a business trip when the first applicant felt extreme abdominal pain. He soon felt feverish and dizzy. The applicants decided to stop in the town of Saransk in the Republic of Mordoviya on their way and go to a hospital.\n7.  However, in Saransk the applicants were stopped by the police (acting in the course of a special operation named “Vikhr [Vortex] - Anti-terror”), allegedly beaten up, handcuffed and brought to a temporary detention centre at the Oktyabrskiy District police station (ИВС Октябрьского РОВД г. Саранска) for identification purposes.\n8.  On 16 September 1999 charges of hooliganism were brought against the applicants.\n9.  On 17 September 1999 the applicants’ detention was extended on account of their alleged vagrancy and begging.\n10.  On the night of 17 September 1999 the applicants were transferred to a Republic of Mordoviya Interior Ministry specialised detention centre (приемник распределитель МВД республики Мордовия).\n11.  According to the first applicant, throughout his detention from 15 September to 17 September 1999 he constantly asked for medical help. However, the police officers refused his requests. Several times during that period an ambulance was called for him, and the ambulance doctors (among them doctor P.) confirmed that his state of health required urgent hospitalisation and treatment.\n12.  Finally, on 18 September 1999 the first applicant, unconscious, was taken to the city hospital (3-я городская больница г. Саранска). He was diagnosed with gangrenous perforated appendicitis[1] which had led to peritonitis and he underwent emergency surgery. Throughout his stay in the hospital armed guards were posted at his bedside and at the door to his room.\n13.  According to the Government, following the applicants’ transfer to the specialised detention centre on 17 September 1999, an ambulance was called for the first applicant upon his request. On 18 September 1999 the first applicant was hospitalised in the city hospital with a diagnosis of “acute gangrenous perforated appendicitis”, on which an operation was performed immediately.\n14.  On an unspecified date the charges against the applicants were dropped.\n15.  On 30 September 1999 the second applicant was released.\n16.  On 1 October 1999, prior to the expiration of the post-operative period, the first applicant was allegedly forced to leave the hospital.\n17.  The first applicant was later diagnosed with ruptured sutures and other post-operative complications which resulted in him having to undergo several other operations and in his disability. The doctors concluded that the exacerbation of the applicant’s illness and the post-operative complications had been directly caused by his belated hospitalisation and surgery.\n18.  The first applicant provided the Court with the documents listed below.\n(i)  A medical assessment issued by surgeon D. from the Volzhskiy Town Clinic no. 5 dated 28 January 2003, which reads as follows:\n“[The applicant] ... is being monitored and [is] periodically undergoing inpatient and outpatient treatment for his condition resulting from acute gangrenous perforated appendicitis, caecitis, seropurulent diffuse peritonitis and [an] appendectomy complicated in the post-operative period by suture sin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6205", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Mr Bekhan Ulanovich Velkhiyev, Ms Rima Usamovna Velkhiyeva, Mr Ali Bashirovich Velkhiyev, Ms Kheda Bashirovna Velkhiyeva, Mr Dzhokhar Bashirovich Velkhiyev, Ms Marem Bashirovna Velkhiyeva and Ms Aminat Bashirovna Velkhiyeva, are Russian nationals who were born in 1965, 1961, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000 and 2002 respectively. The first applicant lives in Malgobek, Ingushetia; the second to seventh applicants live in the village of Barsuki, Ingushetia.\n6.  The first applicant is the brother of Mr Bashir Velkhiyev, born in 1963. The second applicant is the wife of Mr Bashir Velkhiyev and the third to seventh applicants are their children.\n7.  The following account of the events submitted by the applicants was not contested by the Government, except for the alleged theft (see paragraph 15 below).\n8.  On the evening of 19 July 2004 the first applicant came to the village of Barsuki to visit Mr Bashir Velkhiyev and his family, who lived at 6 Zapadnaya Street. The first applicant stayed at their house for the night.\n9.  On 20 July 2004 the first applicant and Mr Bashir Velkhiyev got up at 8 a.m. while the second applicant was making breakfast and the third to seventh applicants were playing in the yard.\n10.  At approximately 8.30 a.m. the first and second applicants and Mr Bashir Velkhiyev heard the children screaming and ran out into the yard. There they saw servicemen in camouflage uniform armed with automatic weapons who were jumping into the yard over the fence and coming through the gates.\n11.  About thirty servicemen gathered in the yard. Most of them spoke Ingush, although three or four servicemen spoke Russian without an accent. Later it transpired that they were officers of the Ministry of the Interior. They had AK automatic rifles, sniper rifles and machine guns. The servicemen forced the children into a corner between two houses in the yard and held them there at gunpoint.\n12.  Mr Bashir Velkhiyev asked the servicemen not to scare the children. He also told them that there were no criminals in his house. He said that they could enter and that there was no reason to be alarmed. The servicemen ordered the first applicant and Mr Bashir Velkhiyev at gunpoint to face the wall and to raise their hands. Then one of the servicemen asked: “Who is the master of the house?” Mr Bashir Velkhiyev replied that he was. At the same time he asked the servicemen to present their identity documents as well as documents authorising their entry to his house. The servicemen did not reply and took Mr Bashir Velkhiyev at gunpoint out of the yard.\n13.  The first applicant remained facing the wall. The servicemen who were still in the yard asked him for his passport. The first applicant gave his passport to a serviceman who must have been about thirty-five years old with short dark hair. He was dressed in camouflage uniform and spoke Russian with an accent. Having checked the first applicant’s passport the serviceman asked him where he lived and what his occupation was. Having heard the reply, the serviceman said: “You stay at home. We have no issues with you.” However, he did not return the passport to the first applicant.\n14.  At the same time several servicemen searched the house. They had neither produced a search warrant nor called for witnesses. The second applicant tried to enter the house to take some money that was kept in a wardrobe. The servicemen did not let her enter the house. Then she told the first applicant that she was not bei", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6206", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Warsaw.\n5.  On 19 April 2006 the applicant was charged with an unspecified offence.\n6.  On 9 August 2006 the Prosecutor changed the original charges and charged the applicant with aggravated extortion. The applicant was additionally charged with drug trafficking committed between 2002 and 2003 in Warsaw.\n7.  On 3 January 2007 the prosecution lodged a bill of indictment with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The applicant was indicted as charged. The bill of indictment comprised charges against 17 accused.\n8.  On 21 May 2007 the court held the first hearing.\n9.  Hearings scheduled for 9, 10 and 18 July 2007 were adjourned because of the applicant’s counsel illness.\n10.  Between May 2007 and February 2010 the trial court held some 30 hearings.\n11.  On three occasions the applicant unsuccessfully sought the withdrawal of the judge dealing with his case.\n12.  The proceedings are still pending before the Warsaw Regional Court.\n13.  On 22 December 2009 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n14.  On 23 February 2010 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint stating that that the proceedings had been conducted with the requisite speed and without undue delay.\n15.  On 30 March 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted the applicant of drug trafficking committed between 2002 and 2003 in Łowicz.\n16.  On 9 December 2010 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance court judgment.\n17.  On 8 January 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of vehicle break-in and theft.\n18.  On 14 January 2004 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) convicted the applicant of vehicle break-in and theft and sentenced him to three years’ and six months’ imprisonment.\n19.  On 20 May 2004 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this judgment.\n20.  On 17 April 2009 the applicant requested the Warsaw Regional Court to appoint a legal-aid lawyer with a view to lodging a cassation appeal.\n21.  On 6 February 2010 the legal-aid lawyer informed the applicant that he had not found any grounds for lodging a cassation appeal.\n22.  On an unspecified date, the applicant requested the court for leave to lodge a cassation appeal out of time and to appoint another legal-aid lawyer with a view to lodging a cassation appeal.\n23.  On 1 April 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request finding no basis for retrospective leave. It further refused to appoint another legal-aid lawyer.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6207", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Chişinău[1]. At the time of the events the applicant was the principal of a high school in Chişinău.\n6.  According to the findings of the domestic courts, on an unspecified date, the applicant was contacted by C., who requested that a pupil be transferred to the high school the applicant was a principal of. Since the applicant requested a bribe in exchange for the pupil’s transfer, C. contacted the police and, on 14 January 2004, an undercover operation was organised. For that purpose C. was instructed to meet the applicant and give him money marked with a special dust.\n7.  C. contacted the applicant and they agreed to meet in the Chişinău central park. The scene was secretly observed by numerous police officers and filmed. However, later the police submitted that for technical reasons the actual transmitting of the bribe money had not been filmed. What had actually happened during the applicant’s meeting with C. was a matter of dispute during the criminal proceedings.\n8.  According to the police, the applicant and C. did not shake hands upon meeting each other and sat on a bench for several minutes. C. gave the applicant the bribe money by placing it in a file belonging to the applicant. When apprehended, the applicant dropped the file and all of its contents, including the money, were scattered on the ground. It was later discovered that the applicant had traces of the dust from the money on his fingers.\n9.  According to the applicant, he had been contacted by C. when going to the Ministry of Education and had agreed to meet him shortly afterwards in a park in the immediate vicinity to the Ministry. He shook hands with C. upon meeting him and, after a brief discussion, suggested they sit on a bench in order to be able to write. He placed his file between himself and C. and wrote on a sheet of paper a list of documents necessary for the pupil’s transfer. The applicant, who is missing an eye, did not see C. put the money into his file. When apprehended, he dropped the file. The bribe money was collected from the ground by a police officer, who later gave him a pen to sign the arrest report. The traces of dust on his hands must have come either from shaking hands with C. or from the pen with which he signed the minutes. The applicant alleged that he had been set up by the police.\n10.  According to the applicant, during the arrest the police officers used unjustified violence as a result of which he suffered pain in his wrists. Between 2004 and 2005 the Ministry of Internal affairs issued several press releases in which it was stated, inter alia, that the applicant had taken a bribe from a parent. Several media outlets, including the national television station, reported on this. It does not appear that the applicant initiated proceedings against any of the media outlets or the Ministry of Internal Affairs.\n11.  During the course of the proceedings the Buiucani District Court heard the applicant, seven prosecution witnesses and one forensic expert. The court also viewed the video of the undercover operation and examined other evidence, such as C.’s complaint to the police, the record of the marking of the bribe money with special dust, an expert report finding that following his apprehension the applicant had traces of the special dust on his fingers and a report concerning the search of the applicant’s office and home.\n12.  The court considered C.’s testimony to the effect that the applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6208", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Comyshany, Ukraine.\n6.  On 24 May 2006 the applicant was arrested in Chişinău on charges of possession of false identity papers. After a search of his girlfriend’s apartment, where he lived, the police discovered, inter alia, false identity papers with the applicant’s and his girlfriend’s photos and blank identity papers. Later, as the criminal investigation progressed, the applicant was also charged with the offence of being a member and head of a criminal gang specialised in the forgery of documents and trafficking in persons and the police identified approximately thirty different cases of forged documents and trafficking.\n7.  The applicant was placed in detention and was periodically taken to a court where his detention was extended for periods of thirty days until 7 January 2007. The reasons for keeping the applicant in custody were that he was accused of a serious offence and there was a risk of him absconding because he was a foreigner who had no permanent residence and no family in Moldova. Moreover, there was a risk that he might tamper with the investigation of the case and re-offend. All his habeas corpus requests based on the lack of evidence and reasons in support of detention were dismissed.\n8.  On 7 January 2007, upon the expiry of the period of his detention provided for in the latest detention order, the applicant requested to be released but to no avail. On 9 January 2007 the applicant was taken to a court where a judge extended his detention for ninety days. The applicant challenged the court order and on 17 January 2007 the Court of Appeal quashed the lower court’s decision and ordered the applicant’s release. The court found that the reasons for the applicant’s continued detention were still valid; however, in view of his detention contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention between 7 and 9 January 2007, he was to be released.\n9.  On 9 February 2007 during a hearing in the criminal proceedings, the prosecutor requested again that the applicant be remanded in custody in view, inter alia, of the risk of his absconding. The court upheld the prosecutor’s request and ordered the applicant’s detention. According to the applicant, he challenged that decision on the same day. According to the stamp applied by the court on the appeal application, the decision was challenged three days later.\n10.  On 16 February 2007 the applicant’s appeal was scheduled to be examined by the Court of Appeal. However, the panel of judges in charge of the case decided to withdraw from the case on grounds of lack of objective impartiality in view of the fact that they had previously examined the applicant’s appeal and had ordered his release. A new panel of judges was appointed.\n11.  On 21 February 2007 the new panel of judges of the Court of Appeal ruled on the applicant’s appeal, quashed the decision of the lower court and ordered the applicant’s release. After his release the applicant fled Moldova, allegedly for Ukraine, and has not returned to date.\n12.  During his detention the applicant was held in three detention facilities: between 24 May and 2 August 2006 and between 23 August and 6 September 2006 in the detention facility of the General Directorate for Fighting Corruption and Organised Crime of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“GDFOC”), between 2 and 23 August 2006 and between 6 September 2006 and 17 January 2007 in Prison no. 13 and between 9 and 21 February 2007 in the detention facil", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6209", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.\n9.  The applicant was born in Iraq in 1957. He played for the Iraqi basketball team until, following his refusal to join the Ba’ath Party, he left Iraq in 1978 and lived in the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan. He moved to the United Kingdom in 1992, where he made a claim for asylum and was granted indefinite leave to remain. He was granted British nationality in June 2000.\n10.  In September 2004 the applicant and his four eldest children travelled from London to Iraq, via Dubai. He was arrested and questioned in Dubai by United Arab Emirates intelligence officers, who released him after twelve hours, permitting him and his children to continue their journey to Iraq, where they arrived on 28 September 2004. On 10 October 2004 United States soldiers, apparently acting on information provided by the British intelligence services, arrested the applicant at his sister’s house in Baghdad. He was taken to Basra in a British military aircraft and then to the Sha’aibah Divisional Temporary Detention Facility in Basra City, a detention centre run by British forces. He was held in internment there until 30 December 2007.\n11.  The applicant was held on the basis that his internment was necessary for imperative reasons of security in Iraq. He was believed by the British authorities to have been personally responsible for recruiting terrorists outside Iraq with a view to the commission of atrocities there; for facilitating the travel into Iraq of an identified terrorist explosives expert; for conspiring with that explosives expert to conduct attacks with improvised explosive devices against Coalition Forces in the areas around Fallujah and Baghdad; and for conspiring with the explosives expert and members of an Islamist terrorist cell in the Gulf to smuggle high-tech detonation equipment into Iraq for use in attacks against Coalition Forces. No criminal charges were brought against him.\n12.  The applicant’s internment was initially authorised by the senior officer in the detention facility. Reviews were conducted seven days and twenty-eight days later by the Divisional Internment Review Committee (DIRC). This comprised the senior officer in the detention facility and army legal and military personnel. Owing to the sensitivity of the intelligence material upon which the applicant’s arrest and detention had been based, only two members of the DIRC were permitted to examine it. Their recommendations were passed to the Commander of the Coalition’s Multinational Division (South-East) (“the Commander”), who himself examined the intelligence file on the applicant and took the decision to continue the internment. Between January and July 2005 a monthly review was carried out by the Commander, on the basis of the recommendations of the DIRC. Between July 2005 and December 2007 the decision to intern the applicant was taken by the DIRC itself, which, during this period, included as members the Commander together with members of the legal, intelligence and other army staffs. There was no procedure for disclosure of evidence or for an oral hearing, but representations could be made by the internee in writing which were considered by the legal branch and put before the DIRC for consideration. The two Commanders who authorised the applicant’s internment in 2005 and 2006 gave evidence to the domestic courts that there was a substantial weight of intelligence material indicating that there were reasonable gro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6210", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, husband and wife, were born in 1948 and 1960 respectively and live in Takhtaulove.\n6.  In June 2000 the first applicant had a fight with the Ls, his neighbours. As a result, Mrs L. sustained bodily injuries, for which the first applicant was eventually convicted on 20 January 2005 and sentenced to suspended restriction of liberty. The applicants were also involved with the Ls in several civil proceedings concerning land use and other issues.\n7.  On 10 June 2001 Mrs L. addressed a letter to V. T., the Chief Psychiatrist of the Poltava District Clinical Hospital (“the Poltava Hospital”), alleging that the first applicant suffered from a serious mental condition and needed psychiatric treatment. She noted that he had been harassing her family for some nine years. In particular, he had been calling them names, cursing, eavesdropping, photographing their activities, recording their conversations with him, threatening to throw them out of their house and put Mr L. in prison. In June 2000 the first applicant had also hit Mrs L. in the course of an argument, inflicting serious injuries on her, which were the subject of pending criminal proceedings. She further noted that he had been in conflict with a number of other villagers. In particular, he was suspicious of everybody’s conduct; he photographed various allegedly “unlawful” acts; he threatened, cursed and argued with the villagers; he wrote various complaints to the authorities; he punctured the tyres of the village mayor’s car, stole crops and hay and engaged in fights. Finally, she alleged that he was prone to sudden fits of anger, beat his wife and had killed a dog. Lastly, he owned two rifles and was generally dangerous.\n8.  On 15 June 2001 M. F., a hospital psychiatrist, arrived in the applicants’ yard in an ambulance car and started questioning the first applicant about his relations with the Ls, in particular about their complaints that he had taken photographs of them without their consent. According to the first applicant, this conversation lasted about five minutes, after which he attempted to photograph the psychiatrist, the driver, and the ambulance car. In response, M. F. ran from the yard, shouting “this is abnormal”.\n9.  On 18 June 2001 V. T. informed the Poltava District Court that the first applicant was suffering from chronic delusional disorder (хронічний маячний розлад) and needed to undergo a forensic expert assessment with a view to receiving in-patient treatment.\n10.  On 30 June 2001 V. V., the Chief of the Regional Health Department, dismissed a complaint lodged by the first applicant, in which he alleged that the examination had been unlawful and the diagnosis incorrect.\n11.  In August 2001 the first applicant instituted court proceedings against M. F., V. T and V. V., complaining that he had been subjected to an unlawful examination and diagnosis in violation of the applicable law and medical guidelines.\n12.  On 6 February 2002 the Oktyabrsky District Court of Poltava allowed the first applicant’s claim and ordered the medical authorities to remove the diagnosis from his record. It observed, in particular, that complaints by the Ls could not be deemed a sufficient basis for the examination of the first applicant without his consent. It also found that the examination had been carried out in violation of the applicable procedural standards. In particular, M. F. had not duly informed the applicant of the reason for his visit and made his conclusio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6211", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.\n9.  On 8 November 2002 the United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, adopted Resolution 1441. The Resolution decided, inter alia, that Iraq had been and remained in material breach of its obligations under previous United Nations Security Council resolutions to disarm and to cooperate with United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency weapons inspectors. Resolution 1441 decided to afford Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations and set up an enhanced inspection regime. It requested the Secretary-General of the United Nations immediately to notify Iraq of the Resolution and demanded that Iraq cooperate immediately, unconditionally, and actively with the inspectors. Resolution 1441 concluded by recalling that the Security Council had “repeatedly warned Iraq that it w[ould] face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations”. The Security Council decided to remain seised of the matter.\n10.  On 20 March 2003 a Coalition of armed forces under unified command, led by the United States of America with a large force from the United Kingdom and small contingents from Australia, Denmark and Poland, commenced the invasion of Iraq. By 5 April 2003 the British had captured Basra and by 9 April 2003 United States troops had gained control of Baghdad. Major combat operations in Iraq were declared complete on 1 May 2003. Thereafter, other States sent personnel to help with the reconstruction effort.\n11.  On 8 May 2003 the Permanent Representatives of the United Kingdom and the United States of America at the United Nations addressed a joint letter to the President of the United Nations Security Council, which read as follows:\n“The United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Coalition partners continue to act together to ensure the complete disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and means of delivery in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions. The States participating in the Coalition will strictly abide by their obligations under international law, including those relating to the essential humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq. We will act to ensure that Iraq’s oil is protected and used for the benefit of the Iraqi people.\nIn order to meet these objectives and obligations in the post-conflict period in Iraq, the United States, the United Kingdom and Coalition partners, acting under existing command and control arrangements through the Commander of Coalition Forces, have created the Coalition Provisional Authority, which includes the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, to exercise powers of government temporarily, and, as necessary, especially to provide security, to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid, and to eliminate weapons of mass destruction.\nThe United States, the United Kingdom and Coalition partners, working through the Coalition Provisional Authority, shall, inter alia, provide for security in and for the provisional administration of Iraq, including by: deterring hostilities; maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq and securing Iraq’s borders; securing, and removing, disabling, rendering harmless, eliminating or destroying (a) all of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles and all other chemical, biological and nuclear deli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6212", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Yerevan.\n10.  The applicant is a Jehovah’s Witness. From 1997 he attended various Jehovah’s Witnesses religious services and he was baptised on 18 September 1999 at the age of 16.\n11.  On 16 January 2000 the applicant was registered as a person liable for military service with the Erebuni District Military Commissariat (Էրեբունի համայնքի զինվորական կոմիսարիատ).\n12.  On 16 January 2001 the applicant, at the age of 17, was called to undergo a medical examination, following which he was declared fit for military service. The applicant became eligible for military service during the 2001 spring draft (April-June).\n13.  On 1 April 2001, at the outset of the draft, the applicant sent identical letters to the General Prosecutor of Armenia (ՀՀ գլխավոր դատախազ), the Military Commissioner of Armenia (ՀՀ պաշտպանության նախարարության հանրապետական զինկոմիսար) and the Human Rights Commission of the National Assembly (ՀՀ ազգային ժողովին առընթեր մարդու իրավունքների հանձնաժողով), with the following statement:\n“I, Vahan Bayatyan, born in 1983, inform you that I have studied the Bible since 1996 and have trained my conscience by the Bible in harmony with the words of Isaiah 2:4, and I consciously refuse to perform military service. At the same time I inform you that I am ready to perform alternative civilian service in place of military service.”\n14.  In early May a summons to appear for military service on 15 May 2001 was delivered to the applicant’s home. On 14 May 2001 an official of the Erebuni District Military Commissariat telephoned the applicant’s home and asked his mother whether the applicant was aware that he had been called to appear at the Commissariat to commence military service the following day. That same evening, the applicant temporarily moved away from his home for fear of being forcibly taken into the military.\n15.  On 15 and 16 May 2001 officials from the Commissariat telephoned the applicant’s mother, demanding to know his whereabouts. They threatened to take him into the military by force if he did not come voluntarily. On 17 May 2001, early in the morning, the officials came to the applicant’s home. His parents were asleep and did not open the door. On the same date, the applicant’s mother went to the Commissariat, where she stated that the applicant had left home and she did not know when he would come back. According to the applicant, the Commissariat made no further efforts to contact his family.\n16.  On 29 May 2001 the Commission for State and Legal Affairs of the National Assembly (ՀՀ ազգային ժողովի պետական-իրավական հարցերի հանձնաժողով) sent a reply to the applicant’s letter of 1 April 2001, stating:\n“In connection with your declaration, ... we inform you that in accordance with the legislation of the Republic of Armenia every citizen ... is obliged to serve in the Armenian army. Since no law has yet been adopted in Armenia on alternative service, you must submit to the current law and serve in the Armenian army.”\n17.  In early to mid-June 2001 the applicant returned home, where he lived until his arrest in September 2002.\n18.  On 12 June 2001 the National Assembly declared a general amnesty which applied only to those who had committed crimes before 11 June 2001 and was to remain in force until 13 September 2001.\n19.  On 26 June 2001 the Erebuni Military Commissar (Էրեբունի համայնքի զինկոմիսար) gave notice to the Erebuni District Prosecutor (Էրեբունի համայնքի դատախազ) that the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6213", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Kharkiv. He is a private entrepreneur who has registered as a payer of the single (unified) tax in accordance with the Presidential Decree “On a Simplified System of Taxation, Accounting and Reporting for Small Business” no. 727 of 3 July 1998, with further amendments (“the Presidential Decree”).\n6.  Between March and July 2004, when the applicant imported goods into Ukraine, he was requested by the customs authority to pay value-added tax (“VAT”) in accordance with the Law “On Value-Added Tax” of 3 April 1997 (“the VAT Act”).\n7.  The total amount of the VAT imposed by the customs authorities was 214,107.19 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH). The applicant paid the VAT required.\n8.  On 10 August 2004 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kharkiv Regional Commercial Court against the customs authority and a local department of the State Treasury, seeking recovery of the VAT, arguing that he was covered by the simplified tax regime, as provided by the Presidential Decree. He specified that according to section 11 of the Law “On State Support for Small Business” (“the Small Business Act”) the simplified system of taxation provided for the replacement of taxes and duties by the single (unified) tax. He further claimed that according to paragraph 6 of the Presidential Decree the single (unified) taxpayer was exempt from paying VAT. Therefore, no VAT obligations could arise in the course of his business activity.\n9.  On 2 September 2004 the court rejected the applicant’s claim as unfounded, stating that the principles established in section 11 of the Small Business Act were not applicable as regards VAT because the relevant amendments had not been made to the VAT Act as required by section 11.4 of the latter Act. At the same time, the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of the VAT Act indicated that the applicant’s operations were subject to VAT. The court therefore concluded that the VAT Act did not make any exemptions for private entrepreneurs covered by the simplified taxation regime. Moreover, having regard to paragraph 1 of the Presidential Decree, which laid down the criteria for registering under a simplified system of taxation, the court found that that system provided VAT exemption with respect to sales operations only and did not cover import operations.\n10.  The applicant appealed, claiming that paragraph 6 of the Presidential Decree did not make any distinctions between import and sales operations. He argued that neither type of operation was subject to VAT if a person was registered under the simplified taxation regime.\n11.  On 2 November 2004 the Kharkiv Commercial Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 2 September 2004 and found for the applicant, noting that the Ukrainian legislation provided for general and simplified systems of taxation. The latter provided for the substitution of VAT and other taxes and duties by a single (unified) tax. As the applicant had been registered under the simplified system of taxation, the first-instance court had wrongly referred to the VAT Act in support of the conclusion that the applicant’s import operations were subject to VAT. The court of appeal further noted that paragraph 1 of the Presidential Decree set out only the conditions for applying a simplified taxation regime and did not differentiate between business operations exempt from VAT. At the same time, paragraph 6 of the Presidential Decree provided VAT exemption without any reservation as to t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6214", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Lipetsk.\n6.  In November 2000 the authorities opened criminal proceedings against the applicant in respect of three incidents of robbery and theft committed in the Lipetsk and Tambov regions.\n7.  On 17 January 2001 separate criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of his involvement in the manslaughter of police officer A. and the robbery of M.\n8.  On 23 January 2001 the applicant was arrested and escorted to the Interior Department of the Lipetsk Region. According to him, he was not provided with an explanation of the reason for his arrest, nor was he allowed to inform his family or counsel about it.\n9.  In the evening of the same day the applicant was transferred to Dolgorukovskoe police station of the Lipetsk Region. He again unsuccessfully requested that he be allowed to inform his family and counsel. He was apprised that he was suspected of the manslaughter of A. and robbery of M.\n10.  The applicant denied involvement in the above crimes, whereupon he was severely beaten by Mr Abakumov (the head of the Investigations department), Mr Kondratov, Mr Trubitsyn, Mr Lukin (the head of the public safety department) and Mr Gerasimov (the chief of the police station) who punched and kicked him on various parts of the body. At the same time Mr Kavyrshin encouraged the officers to continue the attack, and Mr Trubitsyn was hitting the applicant on the soles of the feet with a rubber truncheon. Mr Trubitsyn and Mr Kondratov suspended the applicant several times in the air by his arms tied behind his back. Mr Abakumov, Mr Kondratov, Mr Trubitsyn, Mr Butsan (a deputy chief of the police station), Mr Lukin, Mr Gerasimov and Mr Kavyrshin also forced the applicant to wear a gas mask whose air vent was occasionally blocked off.\n11.  Until 5 February 2001 the applicant was subjected to similar treatment by the same police officers on a daily basis. In addition, they threatened to take the applicant’s life by placing a loaded pistol in his mouth, left him for lengthy periods of time wrapped in several mattresses with his legs tied together and his hands cuffed behind his back, forced him to wear a smoke-filled gas mask with a blocked air vent and administered electric shocks to various parts of his body through wires connected to a dynamo.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant confessed to the manslaughter of A. and robbery of M. On 23 and 27 January 2001 he also waived his right to counsel. According to the applicant, the waiver was the result of coercion by the police officers.\n13.  The investigator of the prosecutor’s office of the Lipetsk Region Mr Ibiyev was in charge of investigation of the manslaughter of A. and the robbery of M.\n14.  On 30 January 2001 the applicant’s relatives retained counsel Sh. who tried unsuccessfully to see the applicant on 30 and 31 January 2001.\n15.  The applicant was first allowed access to counsel on 2 February 2001.\n16.  On 7 February 2001 a forensic medical examination of the applicant recorded a bruise on his left shoulder, which might have been inflicted about two weeks prior to the examination.\n17.  On 13 and 19 February 2001 respectively the applicant complained to the prosecutor of the Lipetsk Region and his counsel that he had been ill‑treated from 23 January to 5 February and from 9 to 13 February 2001 at Dolgorukovskoe police station, with the knowledge of the investigator Mr Ibiyev. He wrote that under the duress he had confe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6216", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Frankfurt/Main.\n6.  The applicant was serving a prison sentence in Butzbach prison. In October 2000 the Butzbach prison authorities ordered him to move from his single cell to a cell which he would have to share with two other inmates and which did not have a screen or curtain separating the toilet from the rest of the cell.\n7.  By letter of 11 October 2000 the applicant, referring to a decision given by the Frankfurt Court of Appeal in 1985 in a case concerning a different prisoner, informed the head of Butzbach prison that accommodation in such a cell was generally unlawful and that he refused to move. On that same date, the applicant lodged a motion with the Gießen Regional Court, which was brought to the attention of that court only after the applicant’s transfer to the multi-occupancy cell.\n8.  On 12 October 2000 the prison staff ordered the applicant to vacate his single cell and announced that they would use force (unmittelbarer Zwang) if he refused to do so. Accordingly, the applicant vacated his cell and was taken to the multi-occupancy cell. At the door of that cell, however, he again refused to move into the cell. Subsequently, a scuffle ensued between the applicant and prison staff. According to the applicant’s submissions, he was kicked and beaten by the prison staff, while he had merely passively resisted being placed into the multi-occupancy cell. According to the Government, the applicant kicked the prison staff.\n9.  Subsequently, the applicant was forcibly taken to a security cell which had no items which could cause danger (besonders gesicherter Haftraum ohne gefährdende Gegenstände), where he was strip-searched and undressed. It is not clear from the material submitted by the parties whether the applicant remained naked for the whole period of time he spent in the security cell.\n10.  The security cell had a size of approximately 8.46 square metres and was equipped as follows: two doors with chain link, two cameras, one milky glass pane for daylight, one mattress with fire-proof sheet, one squat toilet, one call system, two windows above the doors, aluminium ceiling with ventilation slits, tiled floor. The temperature of the cell was controlled to ensure comfort, and the meals were served at the usual times.\n11.  Following his placement in the security cell, the applicant was examined by the prison physician who diagnosed minor bruising on the applicant’s front and his left shin and bruising and a small hematoma on his left thorax. On 12, 13, 16, 18 and 19 October 2000 the applicant was re-examined by the prison physician. According to the physician’s report submitted on 31 October 2000, the injuries would heal without complications; the bruising in the thorax area could, according to medical experience, cause discomfort for a longer period of time.\n12.  On 14 October 2000 the applicant was visited by a psychiatrist.\n13.  On 15 October 2000 the prison pastor visited the applicant. In his letter to the police dated 12 January 2001 the pastor made the following statement:\n“As the security chain was locked, which permitted to open the door only slightly, I could see that the prisoner was naked. I am not sure whether he sustained injuries which exceeded bruises and refer to the medical report. However, the prisoner was in a very agitated state of mind and talked about having been beaten by prison staff.”\n14.  On 16 October 2000 the head of the prison administration made the f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6217", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr F.K., is a Slovenian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Šentjur.\n6.  The applicant was married to I.V. On 19 August 2001 their daughter, A., was born.\n7.  On 28 November 2002 the Celje District Court granted the couple a divorce and awarded I.V. custody of A. The applicant obtained contact rights.\n8.  On 3 March 2003 the applicant and I.V. concluded an enforceable agreement on contact arrangements at the Laško Welfare Centre, in which they agreed that the applicant and A. would have the right to spend every second weekend together (but only half of the weekend for the first three months).\n9.  On 24 November 2004 the applicant and I.V. reached another agreement whereby they slightly modified the scope of contact.\n10.  Beginning on 2 January 2005, I.V. was allegedly preventing contact between the applicant and A. As a result, on 30 January 2005, the applicant lodged a request for enforcement of the contact arrangements agreement of 3 March 2003 and 24 November 2004 with the Laško Administrative Unit. On 17 March 2005, the applicant’s lawyer again requested enforcement of the contact arrangements agreement of 3 March 2003. The enforcement request was forwarded to the Laško Welfare Centre.\n11.  On 1 April 2005 the Laško Welfare Centre was informed that, on 11 January 2005 I.V. had lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant for sexual abuse of A. (see paragraph 57 below). For this reason, the Laško Welfare Centre on the same day stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings.\n12.  Further to the applicant’s appeal, on 9 November 2005 the Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs quashed the decision of the Laško Welfare Centre whereby the proceedings were stayed and decided to terminate the proceedings. It found that the contact agreement of 3 March 2003 was no longer enforceable, because the contact arrangements had been amended on 20 April 2005 by the Celje District Court in civil non-contentious proceedings (see paragraph 14 below).\n13.  On 13 April 2005 I.V. lodged a request with the Celje District Court for amendment of the contact arrangements determined by the Laško Welfare Centre on 3 March 2003. Referring to the alleged sexual abuse of A. by the applicant, she sought less frequent contact between the two and requested that contact take place under supervision by a social worker. She also requested that an interim measure be adopted in this respect.\n14.   The Celje District Court found that on 23 February 2005 the Laško Welfare Centre had scheduled a meeting at which the applicant and I.V. had agreed that in March 2005 contact would take place under supervision. Another such meeting had been scheduled for 23 March 2005, but the applicant had failed to attend and no further agreement had been reached. Given that the applicant was suspected of sexual abuse, the court found it reasonable to uphold I.V.’s request in part. As a result, on 20 April 2005, it ordered the interim measure sought, pending the outcome of the proceedings. According to the court’s decision, contact was to be authorised once a week for an hour and a half, under supervision.\n15.  On 26 April 2005 the applicant objected to the above decision, claiming that the court, by ordering the interim measure in question, had breached the principle of presumption of innocence and had not respected the adversarial nature of the proceedings. In his objection, he also requested that these proceedings be joined to the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6218", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Timişoara.\n6.  In the evening of 12 May 2001, after 9 p.m., seven masked police officers, who were members of the special intervention forces, stopped a car in which the applicant was a passenger. The police were searching for a group of suspected criminals.\n7.  According to the applicant, the police violently dragged the five people out of the car, held them on the ground and handcuffed them. He also claimed that one of the masked police officers hit him with his fist, from the back, on the left side of his thorax. At that point, he recognised his aggressor as being B.F., with whom he had had an altercation two years earlier.\n8.  The police realised the persons they had stopped were not the suspects they were looking for and they released them soon after they arrived at the police headquarters. The applicant claimed that B.F. had said: “We didn’t have you down for today, that’s just how it turned out. The tables have turned, loser” (“nu erai programat pentru astăzi, dar aşa s-a nimerit; vezi, măi fraiere, ca s-a întors roata?”).\nWhile in custody, the applicant complained of stomach pains.\n9.  At 1.05 a.m. the next day the applicant went to hospital complaining of stomach pains. The doctor on duty noted a post-traumatic diffused swelling in the abdominal area, but considered that no surgical intervention was required at that time.\n10.  As his condition deteriorated, on 15 May 2001 at 0.50 a.m. he returned to the hospital. He was immediately operated on for a ruptured spleen and the organ was removed. He remained in hospital until 22 May 2001.\nOn 23 May 2001 the forensic doctor examined the applicant and issued a report stating that he had suffered a ruptured spleen. He estimated that the applicant needed 25 days to recover. He considered that the injury had posed a danger to the applicant’s life, that it could have dated from 12 May and possibly resulted from the applicant having been hit with a hard object.\n11.   The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against B.F., whom he accused of having seriously endangered his physical integrity. He sought damages.\n12.  The Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Timişoara Military Court started an investigation. It took evidence from the applicant, B.F. and the other persons who had been present on 12 May 2001. Two passengers from the car and one police officer stated that they had heard B.F. saying to the applicant: “We didn’t have you down for today, that’s just how it turned out”. The same police officer said that he had also heard B.F. saying: “The tables have turned, loser”. One of the passengers said that he had seen B.F. hit the applicant and two other passengers said they had heard the applicant shouting with pain. The other police officers denied that they had seen B.F. hit the applicant.\n13.  On 17 May 2002 the Timişoara Forensic Institute, consulted by the prosecutor, confirmed that the ruptured spleen could have been caused by a blow to the abdomen.\n14.  On 24 September 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office committed B.F. for trial on charges of seriously endangering the applicant’s physical integrity and of abusive behaviour.\n15.  The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party.\n16.  On 30 October 2002 the Timişoara Military Court transferred the case to the Timiş County Court, in accordance with Law on the demilitarisation of the police.\nThe County Court heard statements from the applicant and five witnesses, of whom three were police offi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6219", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Tata.\n5.  At the request of his former employer, on 7 November 2002 the Tata District Court issued a payment order in the amount of approximately 42,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) against the applicant, a lawyer. Following his objection to the order, the case continued as civil litigation.\n6.  On 17 December 2002 it was transferred to the Komárom District Court, as the judges of the geographically competent Tata District Court felt biased on account of the applicant’s legal practice being attached to their court.\n7.  The Komárom District Court found for the plaintiff on 19 April 2005. The applicant appealed.\n8.  In the proceedings before the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court, a panel of three judges, including judges Dr D. and Dr K., withdrew themselves from the case on 4 July 2005. According to their reasoning:\n“In view of the fact that the respondent acts as a lawyer in the county, [and] we are in a work relationship, we find it justified for the sake of the impartial adjudication of the legal dispute that another county court proceeds in the case.”\nThe case was transferred to another panel of the same court.\n9.  On 11 October 2005 the applicant challenged this second panel for bias, and subsequently extended his request to the whole court. He observed that the panel president, Dr V., had already declared himself biased in two other cases against him due to their daily work relationship. In one of these proceedings, Dr D. had declared herself biased as well.\n10.  On 26 January 2006 the Győr Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s motion for bias. It pointed out that the judges of the panel had declared themselves impartial, along with two other judges of the court. Moreover, it argued that:\n“... Bias may, however, only be based on such facts [and] circumstances from which it follows objectively [and] logically that an impartial judgment is not ensured. The reason adduced by the respondent against the declarations of the five judges stating their impartiality is not suitable to establish bias.”\n11.  The applicant subsequently lodged another complaint for bias against the presiding judge, Dr V. Despite the antecedents, Dr V. again maintained that he was impartial. Therefore, the Regional Court found that there was no obstacle to deliver judgment, but nevertheless ordered the transfer of the complaint to the appeal court. However, it was ultimately dealt with by another panel of the Regional Court (see paragraph 13 below).\n12.  On 14 March 2006 a three-member panel of the Regional Court, with Dr V. acting as presiding judge, upheld the first-instance judgment. This decision was served on the applicant on 23 May 2006.\n13.  On 21 April 2006 another panel of the Regional Court, presided by Dr D. and including Dr K., dismissed the applicant’s second motion for bias filed against Dr V. It argued that\n“If the reason for disqualification according to section 13(1) e) of the Code of Civil Procedure is reported by a party and the judge does not consider himself partial in the case, then what needs to be ascertained is whether the actual existence of the reasons [and] facts reported to prove bias indeed justify the disqualification of the judge. ... [I]t is not of legal relevance that the judge previously, in a different type of case, agreed to his/her disqualification. As evidenced by the dispositions of the act, a judge is to be considered as biased if the objective adjudication of the given c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6220", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Istanbul.\n4.  On an unspecified date in the late 1980s the General Directorate of National Roads and Highways (Devlet Karayolları Genel Müdürlüğü) (“the General Directorate”) decided to partially expropriate the applicant’s land located in the Küçükçekmece district of Istanbul. The applicant only found out about this expropriation in May 2004.\n5.  On 21 May 2004 the applicant brought a civil action before the Küçükçekmece Civil Court for additional expropriation compensation.\n6.  On 21 June 2004 the title to the property was transferred to the General Directorate.\n7.  On 19 July 2005 the Küçükçekmece Civil Court awarded the applicant 783,749,741,900 Turkish liras (TRL) as additional compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate.\n8.  On 6 March 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.\n9.  The applicant subsequently initiated execution proceedings before the Şişli Execution Office to obtain her additional compensation.\n10.  On 31 July 2008 the applicant received a partial payment of 1,159,699.20 Turkish liras (TRY[1]).\n11.  On 5 August 2008 the applicant brought a case before the Şişli Execution Court in respect of the General Directorate’s outstanding debt and the interest rate that should be applied to that amount.\n12.  On 24 October 2008 the Şişli Execution Court held that the General Directorate had an outstanding debt of TRY 479,605.44, payable with an interest rate of 30%[2] running from 31 July 2008.\n13.  On 14 November 2008 the General Directorate appealed the judgment of the Şişli Execution Court. On 2 June 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.\n14.  On 12 April 2010 the General Directorate paid the applicant TRY 745,797.18 to discharge its outstanding debt, together with interest.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6221", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1973 and 2002 respectively and live in Rīga.\n7.  In 2002 Marko was born to the first applicant in Italy. His father was an Italian national, who was never married to the first applicant but who has never disputed his paternity of Marko. In 2003 Marko’s parents separated and the applicants moved to a separate residence in Cerveteri, Italy. The applicants allege that ever since Marko’s birth he has in practice been in the exclusive care of his mother, and his father’s participation in his upbringing has been minimal.\n8.  At the request of the first applicant, on 20 September 2004 the Rome Youth Court (Tribunale per i minorenni di Roma) granted custody of Marko to his mother because the ongoing conflict between the parents made joint custody unfeasible. However, the court held that the father had a right to have his son stay at his home on specified days of the week and also whenever the first applicant was travelling outside Rome for a length of time exceeding one week or outside Italy for any length of time. The decision came into force on the day it was adopted.\n9.  Marko’s father appealed against that decision, requesting that joint custody be granted or that he be granted sole custody and that the first applicant be forbidden to take the child abroad or to change her place of residence without the father’s prior approval. The Youth Section of the Rome Court of Appeal (Corte d’appello di Roma. Sezione per i minorenni) rejected his request in a decision of 1 March 2005, noting, inter alia, that the child was developing well and that it was impossible to ensure his development by granting sole custody to the father. Furthermore, it was noted that the father’s concern that the first applicant might move to Latvia and take their son with her was unfounded because a judge in a guardianship hearing (giudice tutelare, “the guardianship judge”) had previously refused to issue a passport to Marko and also because his mother had strictly adhered to the ruling of the first-instance court and had left the child in his father’s care when travelling to Latvia.\n10.  On 24 June 2005 the guardianship judge granted an authorisation to issue a passport to Marko. On 11 July 2005 Marko’s father appealed against that decision. On 14 November 2005 the Rome Youth Court rejected Marko’s father’s appeal, because there was no evidence that the first applicant was planning to leave Italy with the child.\n11.  On 3 February 2006 the Court (Tribunale) of Civitavecchia ruled that Marko’s father had to make child support payments. The decision noted, inter alia, that the father had previously avoided financially supporting his son. Marko’s father failed to make the ordered payments and on 8 April 2006 the first applicant lodged a complaint about this with the Italian police.\n12.  It appears that because of Marko’s father’s failure to financially support the applicants their only income was money which the first applicant’s mother was sending from Latvia. However, in December of 2005 the first applicant’s mother informed her that she was no longer able to provide financial support. According to the applicants it was for that reason that they had no other choice but to return to Latvia in April of 2006. The applicants indicate that they subsequently continued to return to Italy for brief periods of time. According to the Italian Government, they have never been back.\n13.  On 7 February 2006 Marko was granted Latvian citizenship, since it ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6222", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Shali, Chechnya. She is the mother of Mamed Bagalayev (also spelled as Magomed Bogalayev), who was born in 1992.\n5.  At the material time the applicant and her family lived at 1 Kutuzova Street, Shali.\n6.  At about 6 p.m. on 1 August 2003 the applicant’s three children, Mamed, his brother Malik and sister Rezida, were playing in the yard of their house. A group of military servicemen in camouflage uniforms and masks, armed with automatic weapons, arrived in an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”) and a GAZ-53 lorry at the house of Mr L.M. on Kurgannaya Street, situated next to the applicant’s house. The servicemen got out of the vehicles and opened fire at the buildings around. It appeared that they were conducting a special operation.\n7.  Having heard the shooting, the children ran to hide in the summer house (времянка) situated in their yard. Inside the summer house, Mamed noticed that he was bleeding and fell unconscious. His sister Rezida, who was thirteen years old at the time, started calling for help. Next, a masked serviceman looked inside the summer house. Rezida told him that her brother had been wounded and that he needed medical help. The solder told her: “It is nothing, he can wait”. After that, several masked soldiers came into the summer house. They searched it and turned everything upside down. The soldiers did not help Mamed Bagalayev; they ordered the children to stay inside and left.\n8.  For about an hour Mamed was unconscious; his sister and brother did not know whether he was alive. After the shooting stopped at about 7 p.m., a local policeman, Mr R.I., ran into the summer house and took Mamed to the Shali hospital, where it was established that the boy had died.\n9.  Upon completion of the special operation, the servicemen got back in the APC and the GAZ-53 lorry and drove away in the direction of the former food factory in Shali, the “District Food Plant (Райпищекомбинат – “the factory”)”. When the vehicles were driving away, the tailgate of the GAZ-53 fell off the lorry and was later found by the investigators at the crime scene.\n10.  At some later point, it was established that the GAZ-53 lorry used by the servicemen belonged to the former food factory. The vehicle’s driver, Mr Sh.Sh. (in the documents submitted also referred to as Mr A.Sh. and Mr R.Sh.), informed the applicant and her husband that the lorry had been taken from him by military servicemen prior to the events and that the tailgate which had been lost at the crime scene was returned to the vehicle about a month after the events. The driver had reported this incident to the factory’s director, Mr A.B. The latter informed the applicant that on 1 August 2003 he had provided the lorry to the Shali administration upon their request to this effect, and that after that the vehicle had disappeared and then reappeared about one-and-a-half months later.\n11.  In support of her statements, the applicant submitted the following documents: a statement by the applicant’s husband Mr S.B., undated; a statement by the applicant’s neighbour Ms M.A., dated 5 March 2004; a statement by the applicant, dated 5 March 2004; a statement by the applicant’s daughter Rezida, dated 5 March 2004; a statement by the director of the former food factory Mr A.B., dated 22 September 2005; a statement by the deputy director of the former food factory Mr N.M., dated 22 September 2005; and a statement by a food factory’s driver Mr A.Sh., date", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6223", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Plovdiv.\n6.  The applicant’s father owned one quarter of a plot of land with a total surface area of 2,184 square metres, situated in Plovdiv. In the period between 1954 and 1956 the plot was expropriated for public use. In 1956 the applicant’s father received, as compensation for the expropriation, a plot of land in the same area, which he sold in 1957 to a third person.\n7.  On 8 April 1992, after the entry into force of the Law on the Restitution of Property Expropriated under Building Planning Legislation (“the 1992 Law” – see paragraph 26 below), the applicant submitted a request to the mayor of Plovdiv (“the mayor”) for the revocation of the expropriation and the restitution of the expropriated property to her as an heir of the person from whom it had been expropriated.\n8.  The mayor dismissed her request, finding that the property could not be restored to the applicant as a bridge had been built over it.\n9.  The applicant appealed to the Plovdiv Regional Court. In the course of the proceedings, in 1995, a court-appointed expert concluded that the public works for the purposes of which the property had been expropriated had affected only part of it, leaving 1,500 square metres that could be restored to the original owners. The expert opinion was accompanied by several plans.\n10.  In a judgment of 23 October 1997, the Regional Court set aside the expropriation order in respect of one quarter of 1,500 square metres of the property, within the specific boundaries marked on a plan provided by the above expert (“the 1995 plan”). This plan was an inseparable part of the court’s judgment. Neither party submitted a petition for review (cassation).\n11.  The court did not examine the issue of the compensation that the applicant’s father had received for the expropriation, nor was this issue raised by the municipality during the course of the proceedings or at any time after. It appears that the applicant did not return this compensation. It also appears that after the judgment of 23 October 1997 came into effect, the municipality never challenged, on that basis or on any other grounds, the applicant’s ownership of the one quarter of the plot of 1,500 square metres that had to be returned to her.\n12.  Subsequently, in January 1998, 1999 and 2000 the applicant filed several requests with the Plovdiv municipality inviting the latter to execute the judgment of 1997 and, in particular, to register the returned property in the land register.\n13.  The municipality discovered that the 1995 plan did not correspond to the current urban plan and that it contained a number of technical errors. These defects made it technically impossible to register the returned property in the land register. Therefore, on 9 November 1999 the municipality requested that the Plovdiv Regional Court rectify these defects, which it apparently refused to do.\n14.  In September and November 2000 the municipality informed the applicant that a procedure for the modification of the land register under section 32(1)(2) of the Zone Plan Act had been started, but because of a number of technical errors in the 1995 plan, which the Regional Court had refused to rectify, it was impossible to issue an up-to-date plan. The applicant was advised to request the expert who prepared the 1995 plan to provide the information missing therein.\n15.  In a letter dated 26 July 2002 the municipality again informed the applicant that the property could ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6224", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1929 and 1937 respectively and live in Plovdiv.\n6.  The applicants are sisters. Their ancestor and another person, P.D., had owned 14,688 square metres of agricultural land which they had divided in 1957 in equal parts of 7,344 square metres each. Following the adoption of the Agricultural Land Act in 1991, the applicants and the heirs of P.D., separately, requested the restitution of their respective parts. The applicants’ request was submitted on 13 March 1991. In a decision of 5 July 1994 the Plovdiv Agricultural Land Commission (“the land commission”) restored 7,015 square metres to the applicants and dismissed their request for the remaining 329 square metres. The heirs of P.D. obtained a decision restoring to them their 7,344 square metres of land.\n7.  On 8 September 1994 the applicants appealed to the Plovdiv District Court, asking the court to declare that they were entitled to restitution of the entire plot.\n8.  On 24 October 1995 the District Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal. Relying on an expert’s report it held that the land had been restored to the heirs of P.D. The court thus concluded that the applicants should have brought an action against the latter. The applicants did not submit a petition for review (cassation) against the judgment of 24 October 1995.\n9.  On 18 August 1997 the applicants brought an action for rei vindicatio against the heirs of P.D. They sought to be recognised as the owners of 391.5 square metres of land and to obtain possession thereof.\n10.  Of the seventeen hearings held between 12 November 1997 and 16 March 2000 four were adjourned at the applicants’ request. Six of the remaining hearings were adjourned for reasons related to the preparation of expert reports commissioned by the court. At least four other hearings were adjourned so that new evidence could be collected or to allow the parties to get acquainted with such evidence.\n11.  On 5 April 2000 the Plovdiv District Court found against the applicants. It noted that the applicants had stated that their action had been based on section 14 § 4 of the Agricultural Land Act and had not been a rei vindicatio one. However, it was clear from the facts on which it was grounded and the formulation of the applicants’ claims that the action was for rei vindicatio. The District Court noted that the land commission had restored 7,015 square metres to the applicants and 7,344 square metres to the defendants. The missing land had not been restored to the defendants, although it was not clear to whom it had been given. Accordingly, the action was dismissed.\n12.  On 13 April 2000 the applicants filed an appeal against the judgment of 5 April 2000.\n13.  The first hearing was held on 12 December 2000 and the second one on 26 February 2001.\n14.  On 29 June 2001 the Plovdiv Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal. It noted that the applicants did not claim that the heirs of P.D. had obtained land in excess and on that ground found that there was no legal dispute, within the meaning of section 14 § 4 of the Agricultural Land Act. It further found that it could not assess the lawfulness of the land commission’s decision of 1991 which had become final in 1995.\n15.  Following an appeal filed by the applicants on 2 August 2001 and a hearing held on 10 October 2002, on 4 November 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 29 June 2001 and remitted the case to the Regional Court for fresh examination holding ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6225", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and by profession is a construction worker. On 3 April 2007 he was granted conditional early release from prison. The applicant lives in Telšiai.\n5.  On 26 April 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. He alleges that during his arrest he was beaten up by the police and that, despite his requests for a doctor to be called, no medical assistance was provided. The applicant states that he was then questioned by the police despite his poor state of health. No lawyer was present at the questioning. The applicant did not confess.\n6.  Between 27 April and 8 May 2001 the applicant was in custody at the Telšiai Remand Prison (Telšių rajono policijos komisariato areštinė). After being released on an undertaking to stay at his place of residence, the applicant fled to the Russian Federation. After being caught, the applicant was returned to Lithuania and detained there between 1 March 2002 and 26 April 2002. Afterwards the applicant was held under house arrest.\nIn a ruling of 1 March 2002, the Telšiai District Court noted that, given that the applicant had previously fled from investigators, it was reasonable to remand him in custody. The court confirmed that conclusion on 18 April 2002.\n7.  On 29 July 2002 the applicant was detained again on suspicion of murder (see paragraphs 20-28 below). The detention was upheld by court orders, the last one being that of 18 April 2003 by the Court of Appeal.\n8.  On 14 January 2003 the Telšiai District Court convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to three years and six months’ deprivation of liberty with confiscation of property in the sum of 1,000 Lithuanian litas (LTL).\n9.  On 6 March 2003 the Šiauliai Regional Court quashed the judgment, inter alia for want of substantiation, since the evidence against the applicant was contradictory and the trial court had nevertheless based the conviction on it. The appellate court also noted that the trial court had breached the applicant’s defence rights, given that it had failed to guarantee that a lawyer would be present throughout the trial. In particular, the applicant’s counsel was absent from the last hearing, when the applicant made his final statement. The case was returned for a fresh trial. The applicant was present at the hearing. He was represented by a lawyer, S.K.\n10.  On 11 June 2003 the Telšiai District Court again convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to three years of deprivation of liberty, without confiscation of property. The conviction was based on the material evidence and the submissions of the victim and five witnesses, three of whom were questioned in open court. The court noted that two other witnesses, V.P. and A.M., had been summoned, but their addresses were unknown. Their submissions were read out, having been recorded during the pre-trial investigation. The applicant was present at the hearing and was assisted by a defence counsel, M.M.\n11.  On 21 August 2003 the Šiauliai Regional Court upheld the above judgment. The applicant was present at the hearing and was represented by defence counsel S.K. The transcript of the hearing indicates that the applicant did not object to being represented by S.K. Both the applicant and his lawyer argued that the applicant had been questioned during the pre-trial detention without a lawyer being present. They also submitted that the victim was not telling the truth.\n12.  On 12 September 2003 the Chairman of the Telšiai Distr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6226", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n \n30089/04 Mr Ciaron Goggins, a British national who was born in 1961 and lives in Ballyjamesduff, Ireland.\n \n14449/06 Mr John Day, a British national who was born in 1964 and lives in Witham.\n \n24968/07 Mr Michael Jackson, a British national who was born in 1953 and lives in Leeds. He is represented before the Court by Tyndallwoods, a firm of solicitors based in Birmingham.\n \n13870/08 Mr Christopher Scott, a British national who was born in 1952 and lives in Horsham.\n \n36363/08 Mr Guled Michael, a British and Somali national who was born in 1977 and lives in London.\n \n23499/09 Ms Carol Castley-Turner, a British national who was born in 1950 and lives in Radcliffe.\n \n43852/09 Mr Darren Coates, a British national who was born in 1971 and lives in Mansfield.\n \n64027/09 Mr Jonathan Bennetts, a British national who was born in 1971 and lives in Penzance.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on 13 May 2004 after an allegation of rape was made against him. At the police station, his fingerprints and photographs were taken and he provided a DNA sample.\n7.  On 19 July 2004 he was advised that the charges against him had been dropped.\n8.  To date, his DNA, photographs and fingerprints have not been destroyed.\n9.  The applicant was arrested in 2005. At the time of his arrest, fingerprints and photographs were taken. He also provided a DNA sample. No further inquiries were made and the applicant was not convicted of any offence.\n10.  On 10 April 2006, Essex Police confirmed that the applicant’s case was not considered to be exceptional and that his fingerprints and DNA would be retained.\n11.  It appears that Mr Day’s DNA sample was subsequently found to have insufficient DNA material and there are accordingly no data relating to him in the DNA database.\n12.  On 15 November 2004 the applicant was charged with a harassment offence following a dispute with his neighbours. He was required to provide samples of his DNA and fingerprints. It appears that photographs were also taken.\n13.  On 28 July 2005 he was acquitted in the Magistrates’ Court. Following his acquittal, he requested the destruction of his DNA and fingerprint data.\n14.  By letter dated 28 March 2006 West Mercia Police refused his request on the basis that his case did not disclose any exceptional circumstances. This decision was confirmed on 27 July 2006 and 2 October 2006. The applicant subsequently sought to establish “exceptional circumstances”. His request for destruction of the data was definitively rejected on 6 February 2007.\n15.  To date, his DNA, fingerprints and photographs have not been destroyed.\n16.  On 7 August 2006 the applicant voluntarily attended Crawley police station where he was arrested. The allegations against him were that he was guilty of harassment in respect of his conduct towards Mrs K.O., who had made a complaint to the police. His fingerprints and photographs were taken and he provided a DNA sample. He was not charged with any offence.\n17.  Following a request that his data be destroyed, he was advised by Sussex Police on 29 November 2006 that his DNA and fingerprint records would be retained.\n18.  The applicant subsequently complained about his arrest. On 22 March 2007, he was advised that an investigation had been carried out and that there was insufficient evidence to justify misconduct proceedings against any officer. He was advised by letter of 16 May 2007 that his appeal against that decision had been refused by the Independent Police", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6228", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, a retired military officer, was born in 1930 and lives in Mytilini.\n5.  On 15 November 1996 the applicant lodged an application with the Army Solidarity Fund (Ταμείο Αλληλοβοηθείας Στρατού) (hereafter “the Fund”) asking for an additional retirement premium, following the amendment of the date of his retirement. On 29 November and 18 December 1996 the Administrative Council of the Fund rejected his application at first instance and on appeal respectively.\n6.  On 22 January 1997 the applicant lodged a recourse with the Athens First Instance Administrative Court challenging the decisions of the Fund.\n7. In a judgment dated 29 May 1998 the Athens First Instance Administrative Court partially upheld the applicant's claim and awarded him 7,739,869 drachmas (GRD) (i.e. 22,714 euros) (judgment no. 5835/1998).\n8.  On 5 November 1998 the Fund lodged an appeal.\n9.  On 27 September 2001 the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal accepted the Fund's appeal and quashed the first instance decision, after having concluded that the legal requirements for the award of an additional retirement premium had not been satisfied (judgement no. 4030/2001). The applicant was served with the decision on 25 February 2003.\n10.  On 11 March 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n11.  On 7 July 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the appellate decision and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal (judgment no. 2034/2006).\n12.  On 6 June 2008 the Athens Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the appeal lodged by the Fund against judgment no. 5835/1998 of the First Instance Administrative Court (judgment no. 1947/2008). The applicant was served with the decision on 26 May 2009.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6229", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1967, 1966 and 1994 respectively and live in Kloštar-Ivanić.\n5.  The applicants allege that on 16 June 2009 at about 9.30 p.m. the third applicant and his brother Z.Ð were attacked in front of the “Yogi” restaurant in Ivanić Grad by a group of six men. The police intervened and took the third applicant and his brother to the Ivanić Grad police station. The third applicant refused to sign the police incident report, which stated that he had 1 g/kg of alcohol in his blood. When, at about 10.30 p.m., the first and second applicants arrived at the police station they found that the third applicant had been beaten up and had blood all over him.\n6.  When the second and third applicants went to their car, two police officers, one of whom was S.M., approached them. The unidentified police officer opened the door and S.M. pulled the second applicant out of the car, twisting her right arm, punched her in the chest and kicked her in the abdomen. S.M. then kicked the third applicant in the abdomen and seized him by the throat. The second applicant called the Zagreb Police to tell them about the incident, but there was no reaction.\n7.  After the incident, the applicants and other members of their family went to Ivanić Grad Medical Emergency Centre (Služba hitne medicinske pomoći, ispostava Ivanić Grad), where the doctor refused to record the applicants’ injuries. The applicants and other family members then went to Bjelovar General Hospital (Opća Bolnica Bjelovar), where they were examined at about 2 a.m. It was established that the second applicant had suffered contusions of the chest, head and pelvis (contusio thoracis, capitis et pelveos), while the third applicant had suffered contusions on the head, with abrasions, and on the nose (contusio capitis cum excoriations et contusio nasi). The injuries were classified as minor bodily injuries.\n8.  On an unspecified date, the first applicant complained to the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (Ministarstvo zdravstva i socijalne skrbi) that his family had not been treated correctly at Ivanić Grad Medical Emergency Centre. On 17 August 2009 S.L., the principal of Zagrebačka County Health Centre (Dom Zdravlja Zagrebačke Županije), submitted his observations to the Ministry, stating that the applicants had pressured the doctor in charge to diagnose injuries, but the doctor had behaved professionally and refused to record injuries that did not exist.\n(b)  The Government’s version of the events\n9.  The Government alleged that on 16 June 2009 in the evening Z.Ð., a son of the first and second applicants and brother to the third applicant, was having dinner at the “Yogi” restaurant in Ivanić Grad when M.Š., obviously very drunk, approached him, insulted him because of his Roma origin and spat in his food. Z.Ð. left the restaurant, but soon afterwards, at about 9.30 p.m., came back with the third applicant to retrieve his car, which had been parked in front of the restaurant.\n10.  There was a verbal and then a physical dispute between Z.Ð. and the third applicant on the one side and M.Š. on the other. Z.Ð. and the third applicant were aided by their relatives S.Ð., V.Ð., T.Ð. and B.Ð. The police soon arrived and the conflict then ceased. The participants were taken to the Ivanić Grad police station.\n11.  At about 10.30 p.m. the same day a small group of Roma, including the first and the second applicants, arrived at the police station in search of M.Š. When the police office", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6230", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Chechen-Aul.\n7.  He is the sole founder, director and owner of a limited liability company called Voskhod (Общество с ограниченной ответственностью «Восход», “the company”).\n8.  According to the applicant, at the material time the company owned a mill complex and a petrol station.\n9.  In late 1999 the Russian Government launched a counter-terrorism operation in Chechnya.\n10.  On 18 July 2000, during a special operation in the vicinity of the village of Chechen-Aul, servicemen of military unit no. 3660 of the Russian Ministry of the Interior blew up the mill belonging to the company, with the result that it was completely destroyed and the petrol station situated nearby was damaged.\n11.  In 2000-2001 the applicant complained on behalf of the company to a number of public officials, including the commander of military unit no. 3660, the head of the administration of the Chechen Republic and prosecutors at various levels, about the damage inflicted.\n12.  On 25 May 2001 the prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 took a decision to dispense with criminal proceedings in connection with the incident of 18 July 2000. The decision stated that, on the date in question, the servicemen of military unit no. 3660 had been carrying out a special operation in the vicinity of Chechen-Aul, and that, in order to destroy a place which was supposed to be a terrorist arms and ammunition store, and which the terrorists had transformed into a base from which they had strafed a federal checkpoint, the servicemen, following their commanding officers’ order, had blown up the mill complex belonging to the company, with the result that it had been completely destroyed. The decision further stated that the actions of the commanding officers and servicemen of military unit no. 3660 had been based on section 21 of the Federal Law on Suppression of Terrorism (“the Suppression of Terrorism Act”), had been rendered absolutely necessary by unlawful actions of unidentified illegal fighters putting the federal servicemen’s lives in real danger, and had been aimed at eliminating that danger. The decision went on to note that the danger could not have been eliminated by any other means, and therefore the destruction of the company’s property had not constituted a criminal offence. It thus concluded that there had been no evidence of a crime in the servicemen’s actions. The decision also stated that, taking into account the aforementioned circumstances and the fact that the pecuniary damage had been inflicted on a third person who had not performed any actions that would have rendered the infliction of damage absolutely necessary, a question of compensation for that damage should be resolved by a civil procedure.\n13.  In 2002 the applicant, acting on the company’s behalf, issued proceedings against military unit no. 3660 before the Commercial Court of the Rostov Region. He sought compensation for losses sustained in the amount of 13,483,299 Russian roubles (RUB, approximately 335,000 euros, EUR).\n14.  On 2 July 2002 the court rendered its judgment. Throughout the judgment the court referred to the mill complex and petrol station as the company’s property. It established the circumstances of the incident of 18 July 2000 as they had been presented by the claimant company and confirmed that the damage inflicted corresponded to the amount indicated in the court claim. In this latter respect, the court based its finding on a w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6231", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1973, 1967, 1973, 1974 and 1971 respectively and lived until their arrest and subsequent conviction in the town of Bryansk, Russian Federation, except for the fourth applicant, who lived in the Bryansk Region, Russian Federation.\n6.  Between March and November 1999 (on 3 March, 4 March, 11 March, 6 March and 15 November 1999 respectively) the applicants were arrested. They were detained in custody and charged with robbery.\n7.  In February and March 2000 the applicants were charged with further crimes which included, inter alia, aggravated theft, aggravated robbery, extortion, theft and illegal possession of firearms.\n8.  In May 2000 the criminal investigation was completed, and on 19 May 2000 the case was submitted to the Bryansk Regional Court for trial.\n9.  On 8 July 2000 the Bryansk Regional Court remitted the case for further investigation, considering that it was necessary to rectify the indictment.\n10.  Following further investigation and the amendment of the charges against the applicants, the case was resubmitted to the Bryansk Regional Court on 18 July 2000.\n11.  On 27 July 2000 the Bryansk Regional Court set the date for the start of the trial, which was due to begin on 8 August 2000.\n12.  Between 8 August and 22 November 2000 twenty-one hearings were held by the Bryansk Regional Court.\n13.  On 22 November 2000, following a request by the alleged victims, the case was once again remitted for further investigation.\n14.  Between 17 January and 30 March 2001 the case was with the Bryansk Regional Prosecutor’s Office.\n15.  On 30 March 2001 the case was resubmitted to the Bryansk Regional Court for examination on the merits.\n16.  Between 30 March and 9 August 2001 the Bryansk Regional Court held thirty-one hearings.\n17.  On 9 August 2001 the Bryansk Regional Court convicted the applicants, along with six other co-defendants, of robbery, unlawful deprivation of liberty, banditry, possession of firearms and theft. It sentenced them to twenty-three years, twenty-two years, eighteen years, six and a half years and ten years’ imprisonment respectively. Although the trial was public, the applicants’ relatives were not allowed to attend it, except for the opening of the trial and the delivery of the court’s judgment.\n18.  The trial record was finalised in October 2001. The applicants submitted certain objections concerning the trial record, but they were dismissed.\n19.  All the applicants except for the fifth applicant appealed against their conviction.\n20.  On 8 January 2002 the criminal case was sent to the Supreme Court of Russia for examination on appeal.\n21.  On 11 July 2002 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicants’ convictions with minor amendments. The terms of the applicants’ sentences remained unchanged. The appeal decision did not refer to the fifth applicant.\n22.  On 11 March 1999, the day of his arrest, the third applicant was at work at fire station no. 23 in Zhiryatino in the Bryansk Region. At about 9 a.m. unidentified persons wearing plain clothes handcuffed the third applicant and took him to the Bezhitskiy District police station in Bryansk. On the way to the police station the applicant was allegedly beaten up and threatened, in order to make him confess to a number of grave offences.\n23.  At the police station the applicant was taken to room no. 37, where the beatings allegedly continued.\n24.  Late at night on 12 March 1999 the applicant was taken to Bryansk regional remand pris", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6232", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1947 respectively and live in Sofia. They are spouses.\n8.  On the basis of an order of 26 September 1990 issued by the secretary of the Sofia municipality, the applicants concluded a sale-purchase contract with the Sofia municipality by which they bought a State-owned apartment. The price they paid was 12,926 old Bulgarian levs (“BGL”).\n9.  On a later unspecified date the municipality apparently granted the tenancy of the same apartment to another family. In the beginning of 1992 the applicants brought a rei vindicatio action against them claiming the possession of the apartment.\n10.  In a judgment of 22 February 1993 the Sofia District Court dismissed the claim. On 7 February 1995 the Sofia City Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. The courts found that the sale-purchase contract of 1990 was null and void ab initio as the administrative decision authorising the transaction had not been signed by the mayor, as required by law, but by the secretary of the municipality, the latter having had no power to sign in the mayor’s stead. The applicants, thus, had not shown that they were the owners of the apartment and could not take the possession thereof. The applicants did not submit a cassation appeal (a “petition for review”) before the Supreme Court. As a result, the judgment of 7 February 1995 became final on an unspecified date in 1995.\n11.  On an unspecified date in the beginning of 1995 the applicants brought proceedings under the State Responsibility for Damage Act (“the SRDA”) seeking damages from the Sofia municipality for having sold them the apartment in breach of the statutory requirements. The Sofia City Court held numerous hearings and adjourned the case on various occasions. A few hearings were adjourned for correction of the applicants’ statement of claim and in relation to their requests for increase of the claimed amounts, which delayed the examination of the case by several months. On 29 March 2002 the court delivered its judgment with which it allowed the claim and ordered the municipality to pay 24,000 new Bulgarian levs (“BGN”) in damages as well as costs and expenses.\n12.  On appeal by the municipality filed on 30 May 2002, the Sofia Court of Appeal held one hearing on 28 May 2003. In a judgment of 6 June 2003 it reversed the lower court’s judgment and disallowed the claim. The court found that the authorities’ actions in concluding the sale-purchase contract did not give rise to a responsibility under the SRDA because the contract in issue entailed civil-law consequences and the case did not concern the exercise of State power.\n13.  The applicants filed an appeal on points of law on 14 October 2003. The Supreme Court of Cassation held one hearing on 19 January 2005 and, in a final judgment of 18 February 2005, upheld the court of appeal’s judgment. The court held that the nullification of a civil transaction, which was possible in relation to any transaction and was an issue regulated by the general civil law – the Contracts and Obligations Act, could not entail State liability under the SRDA.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6233", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, who is of Serbian origin, was born in 1949 and lives in Vukovar.\n6.  On 28 October 2004 the applicant submitted an application for the post of deputy county state attorney in the Vukovar County State Attorney’s Office. He relied on section 22(2) of the Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities and section 63(2) of the State Attorneys Act (see paragraphs 17 and 19 below).\n7.  On 11 January 2005 the State Attorneys Council (Državnoodvjetničko vijeće), after a secret ballot, unanimously adopted a decision appointing D.K.I. deputy county state attorney in the Vukovar County State Attorney’s Office. It found that both candidates satisfied the statutory requirements to be appointed deputy state attorney but gave priority to D.K.I., having regard to her extensive experience of working on civil and administrative law cases. The decision contained an information notice (pouka o pravnom lijeku) to the effect that administrative dispute proceedings could be instituted against it by bringing an action in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) within thirty days of its service. The information notice reads as follows:\n“Against this decision an administrative dispute may be instituted by bringing an action in the Administrative Court within thirty days of the service of the decision.”\n8.  On 4 February 2005 the applicant instituted administrative dispute proceedings in the Administrative Court by bringing an action under section 23 of the Administrative Disputes Act (see paragraph 26 below) against the State Attorneys Council’s decision of 11 January 2005. He again relied on section 22(2) of the Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities.\n9.  On 16 March 2005 the Administrative Court declared the applicant’s action inadmissible, finding that the contested decision did not constitute an “administrative act” within the meaning of section 6(2) of the Administrative Disputes Act (see paragraph 24 below). Therefore, instead of instituting administrative dispute proceedings by bringing an action (against an administrative act), the applicant should have lodged “a request for the protection of a constitutionally guaranteed right” (zahtjev za zaštitu ustavom zajamčenog prava), a remedy provided in section 66 of the Administrative Disputes Act (see paragraph 34 below). The Administrative Court also held that the applicant’s action could not have been, even in substance, regarded as such a request, because he had not relied on any provision of the Constitution, but only on the Constitutional Act on the Rights of National Minorities.\n10.  On 18 July 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the Administrative Court’s decision. In so doing the applicant, alleging a violation of his right of access to court, relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.\n11.  On 13 February 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint. The relevant part of that decision reads as follows:\n“The Constitutional Court finds that the complainant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms were not breached in the proceedings before the Administrative Court because the Administrative Court did not proceed contrary to the legal views established by the European Court of Human Rights in the application of that provision to individual cases.\n...\nThe Constitution", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6234", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Rotterdam.\n6.  On 14 November 2007 the applicant was caught in the act of trying to defraud a bank by withdrawing a sum of money from someone else’s bank account using a forged identity document. He was arrested and placed in police custody (inverzekeringstelling) for three days.\n7.  On 16 November 2007 an investigating judge (rechter-commissaris) placed the applicant in initial detention on remand (inbewaringstelling) for a term of fourteen days.\n8.  On 28 November 2007 the Regional Court (rechtbank) of The Hague, following a hearing in camera, dismissed the applicant’s request for suspension (schorsing) of his detention on remand (voorlopige hechtenis) and ordered the applicant’s further detention on remand (gevangenhouding) for a further ninety days. The applicant was at that time detained in the remand centre (huis van bewaring) of The Hague (north wing of Scheveningen prison).\n9.  On 5 December 2007 the applicant’s counsel lodged a single appeal against both the refusal to suspend the applicant’s detention on remand and the order for the applicant’s further detention on remand.\n10.  On 20 December 2007 the Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) of The Hague rejected the appeal under both heads as out of time.\n11.  On 14 January 2008 the unit manager of the north wing of Scheveningen Prison replied to a query from the applicant’s counsel in the following terms:\n“Dear Mr Van Zundert,\nWe have received your letter concerning the Regional Court’s decision in good order.\nIn response to your request, I wish to inform you that the Regional Court took the decision in question on 28-11-2007. On 29-11-07 the document was posted from the Regional Court, on 30-11-2007 we received the document in the late Friday afternoon post, and on 03-12-07 the document was delivered to the prison inmates administration in the afternoon, and on 04-12-07 the document was handed to Mr Van Velden. (see the copy of the official delivery record (akte van uitreiking)) ...”\n12.  It appears that the Regional Court’s decision refusing to order the suspension of the applicant’s detention on remand was served on the applicant in writing on Tuesday 4 December 2007 at 3.40 p.m. A copy of the official delivery record was submitted by the applicant, annexed to the application.\n13.  After the case was communicated, the respondent Government submitted a copy of an official delivery record showing that the Regional Court’s order for the applicant’s further detention on remand was served on the applicant on 29 November 2007 at 11.39 a.m. The document bears the applicant’s signature acknowledging receipt.\n14.  The Government have also submitted a copy of a written notice of appeal, which is in the following terms (emphasis in the original):\n“Regional Court of The Hague\nLegal remedy notice (Akte rechtsmiddel)\n...\nOn 5 December 2007 there appeared at the Registry of this Regional Court W.H. van Zundert\nAdvocate practising in Rotterdam\nwho declared that he had been specifically empowered by the person named hereafter to make the following statement, and stated, in the name of\nnamevan Velden\nfirst namesRobertus Gemma Maria\n...\nthat he appealed against the decision and against the rejection of his request for suspension taken by the Regional Court in camera on 28 November 2007.”\nThe document is signed by Mr van Zundert and by the registrar of the Regional Court.\n15.  It appears from the Government’s submissions that the applicant was sentenced t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6235", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Budaörs.\n6.  On 2 January 2008 the applicant, a journalist, published an article in a column entitled “Opinion” of a national daily paper. The subject of the article was the quality of a well-known Hungarian wine variety, a product of T. Zrt, a State-owned corporation, which was, in the applicant’s view, bad and its popularity with Hungarian consumers unjustified. The article contained the following passage:\n“On nine out of ten occasions, it is a product of T. Zrt, available below 1,000 [Hungarian forints] per bottle, that represents the world’s best wine region, the Hungarian National Pride and Treasure... [and that could make me cry]. Not only because of the taste – although that alone would easily be enough for an abundant cry: sour, blunt and over-oxidised stuff, bad-quality ingredients collected from all kinds of leftovers, grey mould plus a bit of sugar from Szerencs, musty barrel – but because we are still there ...: hundreds of thousands of Hungarians drink [this] shit with pride, even devotion... our long-suffering people are made to eat (drink) it and pay for it at least twice ([because we are talking about a] State-owned company); it is being explained diligently, using the most jerk-like demagogy from both left and right, that this is national treasure, this is how it is supposed to be made, out of the money of all of us, and this is very, very good, and we even need to be happy about it with a solemn face. This is how the inhabitants (subjects) of the country are being humiliated by the skunk regime through half a litre of alcoholised drink.\nAnd once again, I would remind everybody of how people were whining back then, saying that foreigners were coming to destroy [T.], buy up the market and make everything multinational and alien-hearted; and then it turned out that those foreigners made gorgeous wine, just like some lucky, resolute and very talented Hungarian family wineries, that they tried to make [T.] world-famous again, because this was their business interest (profit, ugh!); while we as a community are trying to destroy their achievements using State money, lest something finally could be a success. ...”\n7.  T. Zrt filed a criminal complaint against the applicant. On 2 June 2009 the Budapest II/III District Court convicted him of defamation (rágalmazás). The court held that the criticism expressed in the applicant’s article went beyond the boundaries of journalistic opinion and amounted to stating a fact susceptible of harming the reputation of the producer of the wine variety in question. The court refrained from imposing a sentence for a probationary period of one year.\n8.  On appeal, on 5 November 2009 the Budapest Regional Court reversed this judgment, holding that the incriminated statement was a value judgment and that therefore the applicant was to be convicted for libel (becsületsértés) under section 180(1)b of the Criminal Code. The court held that although the applicant was entitled to express his opinion about the wine in question, by characterising it as “shit” – an expression unduly insulting – he had infringed the producer’s right to a good reputation. The court reduced the sanction to a reprimand.\n9.  On 10 May 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s conviction and sentence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6236", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Hartwig Dreyer, is a German national who was born in 1926 and lives in Neumunster, Germany.\n7.  On 8 September 1983 the Paris International Court of Arbitration ordered the company М. (“the debtor”) to pay the company Ingenieurbüro, H.D., which was solely owned and managed by the applicant, 110,000 German marks (DM), plus interest.\n8.  By a final decision of 28 March 1991, the Federal Court in Belgrade recognised this decision.\n9.  On 13 September 1993 the applicant sought enforcement of that decision before the Skopje Municipal Court against the debtor’s legal successors, which had resulted from its division in 1982.\n10.  On 16 September 1993 the Skopje Municipal Court granted this request. On 2 March 1994 the applicant further specified the debtors, namely companies which succeeded the debtor’s legal successors after their transformation in 1990 (“the companies”). On 24 March 1994 the Skopje Municipal Court dismissed the companies’ objections that they had lacked the requisite capacity to stand in the proceedings.\n11.  On 6 January 1995 the applicant specified that in 1989 the debtor had seized to exist and its rights and obligations had transferred to a newly created company M.c.o.. The applicant therefore sought the Skopje Municipal Court to amend the decision of 24 March 1994. This request remained undecided.\n12.  On 12 February 1998 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the companies’ appeals and remitted the case for re-examination.\n13.  On 28 April 2000 the Skopje Court of First Instance requested the applicant to specify the respective debtor or debtors, having in mind his submission of 6 January 1995 (see paragraph 11 above). On 26 May 2000 the applicant reiterated his submission of 2 March 1994 (see paragraph 10 above).\n14.  On 1 March 2004 the Skopje Court of First Instance upheld the companies’ objections and set aside (“се става вон сила”) the enforcement order of 16 September 1993. The court found that the companies had not had capacity to stand in the proceedings since company M., referring presumably to M.c.o., had still existed and it was to be considered as the debtor’s legal successor liable to pay the debt.\n15.  On 27 September 2004 the applicant was served with the decision of 1 March 2004 through the Embassy of the respondent State in Germany. The parties did not dispute that the applicant’s appeal of 30 April 2005, which remained undecided, was lodged out of time.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6237", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Liepāja\n6.  On 7 March 1999 the applicant’s neighbour called the ambulance service and the municipal police and informed them that the applicant was going to jump out of the window of her fifth-floor apartment. She also reported that the applicant was shouting and swearing in her apartment, throwing papers outside and pouring water out of the window.\n7.  After the ambulance arrived, the applicant refused to comply with the paramedic’s request that she open the door, whereupon rescuers were called. They entered the applicant’s apartment through a window and let the paramedic in.\n8.  The applicant told the paramedic that she had received threats and that the mafia had kidnapped her and operated on her organs without leaving any marks. After having observed that the applicant’s overall condition was satisfactory and that her mood had shifted during the conversation, the paramedic suggested that the applicant might be suffering from an endogenous disease and took her to the Liepāja psychiatric hospital in the ambulance car. The applicant was accompanied to the hospital by her mother and a police officer.\n9.  Later the same day the applicant was examined by a duty doctor, S., who made the following notes:\n“The neighbours called the police saying that [the applicant] had been throwing papers out of the window and swearing and shouting. According to [the applicant], for more than a year [she] has been receiving threats from unknown persons ... According to [the applicant’s] mother, [the applicant] has been suffering from a mental disease for about two years, which began as depression and evolved into delusions of persecution. [The applicant had] said that her organs had been operated on ... [The applicant’s] speech is chaotic; [she] tries to deny everything, except the delusions. [The applicant] is nervous ... asks to be allowed to go home. [She] denies the hallucinations ... [Her] somatic condition [is] without pathology. Diagnosis: hallucinatory paranoid condition ...”\n10.  On the same day the applicant was admitted for in-patient medical treatment and prescribed medicines.\n11.  On 9 March 1999 a panel of three psychiatrists, consisting of the doctor S. and two other doctors practising at the same medical establishment, concluded that the applicant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and that it was necessary for her to continue in-patient medical treatment.\n“Regard being had to the anamnesis of the illness and symptoms, the patient suffers from paranoid schizophrenia: it is therefore necessary to continue with emergency in-patient medical treatment”.\n12.  From 11 to 30 March 1999 the applicant underwent in-patient medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital. From 1 to 6 April 1999 she was given hospital leave, which was extended until 13 April 1999, after which she was discharged from hospital.\n13.  On various occasions after her release from hospital the applicant asked the Liepāja prosecutor’s office to institute criminal proceedings concerning the allegedly unlawful actions of the municipal police officer and the medical staff at the time of her compulsory admission to the psychiatric hospital. She appealed to the Kurzeme district public prosecutor’s office against the refusals to institute criminal proceedings. Her appeals were dismissed in June 1999 and December 2001. The applicant appealed against those decisions to the Office of the Prosecutor General, which dismissed them in May and J", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6238", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Krasnodon.\n8.  The applicant is the owner of a house on K. Street in Krasnodon, where she resides with her parents and her minor son, D. G.\n9.  According to the Government, since 1983 K. Street had been a part of the Soviet trans-republican motorway running from Chisinau (Moldova) to Volgograd (the Russian Federation). In 1998 (after disintegration of the USSR) the Ukrainian authorities undertook a motorway stocktaking project and re-classified part of the motorway routed through the applicant’s street as the “M04 Kyiv-Lugansk-Izvarine motorway”.\n10.  According to the applicant, until the 1998 stocktaking project, the Chisinau-Volgograd motorway had never been routed through K. Street. Instead, it ran through P. Street in Krasnodon. K. Street, which is only six meters wide, is lined with private houses and gardens and is completely unsuitable for accommodating cross-town traffic. It has no drainage system, pavements or proper surfacing able to support heavy lorries and has been initially designed as an exclusively residential street. In 1998, in the course of the stocktaking project, the Department for Architecture and Urban Development of the Krasnodon City Council’s Executive Committee agreed, for the first time, that the M04 motorway should pass via K. Street. In support of this allegation, the applicant provided a copy of a letter sent by the abovementioned Department on 9 October 1998 addressed to the State Roads Design Institute (Дорпроект), in which it notified that agency of its consent to the M04 motorway being routed via a number of streets in Krasnodon, including K. Street.\n11.  According to the applicant, following this change in the routing of traffic, her house eventually became practically uninhabitable. It suffered heavily from vibration and noise caused by up to several hundred lorries passing by every hour. In addition, air pollution increased substantially over the years and numerous potholes emerged in the inadequate surface of the road. As a result of driving across these potholes, the vehicles emitted additional fumes and stirred up clouds of dust. In trying to deal with the potholes, the road service department started filling them with cheap materials, such as waste from nearby coal-mines, which had a high heavy‑metal content.\n12.  On 15 May 2002, responding to complaints from the street’s residents, the Lugansk Regional Sanitary Department (Державна санітарно-епідеміологічна служба в Луганській області) measured the level of pollution near several K. Street houses, including the applicant’s. During the test period of one hour, 129 vehicles were recorded as having passed by, 71 of which (55%) emitted pollutants (nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, saturated hydrocarbons, lead, copper, etc.) in excess of applicable safety standards. It was further established that the content of copper and lead in dust stirred up exceeded the safety standards by 23 and 7.5 times respectively. The monitoring team also noted that the road surface was damaged.\n13.  By way of evidence concerning the damage to the applicant’s house, she presented a certificate dated 31 May 2002 signed by a group of assessors consisting of a city council deputy, the head of the local residents’ association and a private individual. The group attested that it had examined the house and found that it had been damaged. In particular, the basement was cracked and the walls were covered with coal dust, which had", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6240", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Mariupol.\n6.  According to the applicant, on 25 December 1999 he lent 3,400 United States dollars (USD) to S. The latter had repaid part of his debt and had agreed to meet the applicant on 18 April 2000 to pay back the remainder, which according to the applicant was USD 2,030.\n7.  On 11 April 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant following a complaint by S. that the applicant had extorted money from him.\n8.  On 18 April 2000 at around 3 to 4 p.m. and during the applicant’s meeting with S., the applicant was arrested by police officers of the Mariupol Department for the Prevention of Organised Crime (співробітники Маріупольського ВБОЗ УБОЗ УМВС України) and taken to a police station. Two passers-by, B. and Bo., provided written statements on the same day to the Head of the Mariupol Department for the Prevention of Organised Crime to the effect that the applicant had been talking to S. and F. (S.’s sister) on the street when the policemen arrived and asked him to follow them. The applicant had tried to run away and to throw something from his pocket. The policemen had tried to stop the applicant but he had resisted, sworn at and threatened the policemen. He was handcuffed, put “with difficulties” into B.’s car and taken to the police station. The sum of USD 1,500 and some personal belongings had been confiscated from the applicant. In the report drawn up in relation to the applicant’s arrest, it was stated that the applicant was arrested at 9 p.m. on suspicion of committing a crime, because he could otherwise have absconded.\n9.  According to the applicant, from 3 to 9 p.m. on 18 April, and on 26 April 2000, he had been beaten in the police station and had been tortured with the use of an electric current.\n10.  On 21 April 2000 the prosecutor of Mariupol authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention because he “had committed a serious crime and was likely to abscond and pervert the course of justice”. The applicant, who was questioned on the same day, submitted that he had been ill-treated by the policemen. Following these submissions, the investigating officer ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant (see paragraph 19).\n11.  By August 2000 the pre-trial investigation regarding the charges against the applicant had been completed and the case was transferred to court. According to the applicant, during the examination of his case by the court, twenty-one court hearings were postponed because of the victim’s failure to appear.\n12.  On 15 April 2002 the Prymorskiy District Court at Mariupol sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment for physically threatening behaviour made with the aim of securing the repayment of debt, and released him on two years’ probation. In particular, it was found that the applicant had threatened S. and that on 2 February 2000 the applicant, together with unknown accomplices, had beaten S., as confirmed by a medical examination of S.\n13.  The applicant submitted extracts from the records of court hearings in his criminal case. On one undated separate page, it is mentioned that police officer R. testified in court that the applicant had suffered a kidney contusion and two broken ribs. Witnesses Sh. and Shi. testified that they had witnessed the applicant’s arrest and that he had been handcuffed and put into a van, but that nobody had beaten him.\n14.  On 23 May 2003 the Donetsk Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6242", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Berlin. She had been working as a geriatric nurse for Vivantes Netzwerk für Gesundheit GmbH (hereinafter referred to as “Vivantes”), a limited liability company specialising in health care, geriatrics and assistance to the elderly which is majority-owned by the Land of Berlin, from 16 September 2000 until 9 February 2005, when she was dismissed.\n7.  Since January 2002 the applicant had been working in a geriatric nursing home operated by Vivantes, where the patients were partly bedridden, disorientated, and generally dependent on special assistance. In 2002 the Medical Review Board of the Health Insurance Fund (Medizinischer Dienst der Krankenkassen, hereinafter referred to as “MDK”) established serious shortcomings in the daily care provided there, caused by a shortage of staff.\n8.  Between 24 January 2003 and 19 October 2004 the applicant and her colleagues regularly indicated to the management that they were overburdened on account of staff shortages and therefore had difficulties carrying out their duties. They specified the deficiencies in the care provided and also mentioned that services were not properly documented. In a notification dated 18 May 2003 the applicant further mentioned that she was no longer in a position to assume responsibility for the shortcomings in care resulting from staff shortages. From 19 May 2003 onwards the applicant repeatedly fell ill and was sometimes unable to work. One medical certificate stated that this was the result of overworking.\n9.  In November 2003, following a further inspection, the MDK, established serious shortcomings in the care provided, on grounds of, inter alia, staff shortages, inadequate standards and unsatisfactory care as well as inadequate documentation of care, and accordingly threatened to terminate the service agreement with the applicant’s employer. Subsequently, restructuring took place.\n10.  Following a number of further notifications to her superiors explaining the situation, in particular in October 2004, the applicant again fell ill and finally consulted a lawyer.\n11.  In a letter dated 9 November 2004 the applicant’s legal counsel wrote to the Vivantes management. He pointed out that, on account of the lack of staff, the patients’ basic hygienic care (ausreichende hygienische Grundversorgung) could no longer be guaranteed. He also requested the management to specify how they intended to avoid criminal responsibility – also for the staff – and how they intended to ensure that the patients could be properly cared for. He pointed out to the management that only then could they avoid a criminal complaint or a public discussion of the situation, with all its negative implications. He gave the management until 22 November 2004 to respond.\n12.  On 18 November 2004 the MDK again visited the premises without prior notice. It was subsequently in dispute between the parties whether the MDK had in fact established that the staffing situation, although difficult, was not critical.\n13.  On 22 November 2004 the management rejected the applicant’s accusations.\n14.  On 7 December 2004 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a criminal complaint against Vivantes for aggravated fraud and requested the public prosecutor to examine the circumstances of the case under all its relevant legal aspects. He specified that the complaint also served the purpose of avoiding criminal responsibility for the applicant herself following her numerous complaints to V", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6243", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and currently lives in Valcea, Romania.\n6.  The applicant was the owner of a night club in Dolní Dvořiště, Czech Republic. On an unspecified date the police started investigating the club, on the suspicion that women working there were being forced to prostitute themselves. On an unspecified date the applicant left the Czech Republic. His whereabouts were unknown to the Czech authorities.\n7.  During the initial stage of the investigation five women, all Romanian nationals who worked in the club, were questioned. The interviews were conducted in the presence of a judge under Article 158a of the Code of Criminal Procedure as an urgent measure (neodkladný úkon) because the women said that they wished to return to Romania and never come back to the Czech Republic. Under the same procedure, two customers of the club were also questioned. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer were present at these interviews and the applicant did not even know about them as they were carried out before he was charged.\n8.  Witnesses F.D., N.D and V.D. testified that the applicant had met them in Romania and had lured them to the Czech Republic with the promise of work as bartenders or cleaning ladies. However, after their arrival, he had forced them to prostitute themselves under the threat of killing their families. The applicant had also taken their passports so that they would not be able to leave. They had had to give the applicant one half of the money they earned from their customers.\n9.  Witnesses D.C.C. and A.T.V. testified that they had worked as prostitutes in the club voluntarily and that they had been required to give the applicant one half of what they earned from their customers.\n10.  On 25 February 2005 a judge of the Český Krumlov District Court (okresní soud) ordered a search of the club, which the police carried out on the same day.\n11.  On 3 May 2005 the applicant was charged with trafficking in human beings and procuring prostitution.\n12.  The applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing until 31 August 2005, when the latter stopped representing him because he had not paid his fees. On 7 September 2005 the České Budějovice District Court appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant in the proceedings. He defended the applicant until 19 April 2007, when the judgment in his case became final. Subsequently the applicant was represented by another lawyer in the proceedings before the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) and the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud).\n13.  On 27 September 2005 a sixth witness, a certain I.M., was interviewed by the police. She testified that in Romania she had been promised by the applicant’s wife that she would work in a kitchen in the Czech Republic. When she arrived at the applicant’s club, however, she was told that she would work as a prostitute, which she agreed to do as she was afraid of the applicant. She further testified that there were other prostitutes at the club, namely F.D., N.D. and a certain M. at that time. She did not elaborate any further, however, as to how these girls had arrived at the club or whether they were there voluntarily or not. Neither did she know whether other girls had been threatened by the applicant. She further described the situation in the club: the customers paid the applicant directly who then gave money to the girls working there; the girls could leave the premises but had to stay in town; and their passports had been taken away fro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6244", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Polskava.\n6.  On 5 September 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Slovenska Bistrica Local Court seeking annulment of a purchase contract.\n7.  On 6 July 1999 the first-instance court annulled the contract. An appeal was lodged.\n8.  On 24 October 2000 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.\n9.  Between 12 July 2006 and 15 February 2007 three hearings were held.\n10.  On 27 February 2007 the applicant withdrew the claim and a decision on termination of proceedings was issued on 21 March 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6245", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Lübz.\n6.  In 1992 the applicant married his wife Mrs S. They have three children, born in 1992, 1995 and 1997. In April 2003 the applicant moved out of the common household and moved in with his new partner.\n7.  On 10 August 2004 the applicant filed a petition for divorce with the Schwerin District Court. The petition was received by that court on 17 August 2004. On 1 September 2004 his wife Mrs S. likewise filed a petition for divorce. Both parties were represented by lawyers.\n8.  On 2 September 2004 the District Court granted the applicant legal aid.\n9.  On 17 October 2005 the District Court scheduled an oral hearing for 15 November 2005. The hearing was subsequently cancelled as Mrs S. had announced shortly before the hearing that she had changed counsel.\n10.  On 14 November 2005 Mrs S. announced further motions concerning post-marriage maintenance (nachehelicher Unterhalt).\n11.  On 11 April 2006 the District Court held an oral hearing. The parties agreed on the applicant being obliged to supply specific information on his additional income from company shares and granting loans, notably to assess his ability to provide maintenance.\n12.  On 19 September 2006, referring to an earlier request of 3 February 2006, the applicant asked the court to decide on his request to separate the divorce proceedings from the proceedings concerning ancillary matters (Folgesachen) and to grant the divorce ahead of those proceedings.\n13.  On 27 September 2006 the District Court requested Mrs S. to specify the requested maintenance in terms of amount within two weeks.\n14.  From 4 June 2007 to 27 August 2007 Mrs S. had treatment in a psychiatric hospital due to mental distress in conjunction with the proceedings and the legal and financial uncertainty. On 13 June 2007 Mrs S. therefore requested to cancel a hearing scheduled for 22 June 2007.\n15.  On 10 October 2007 the applicant anew requested the District Court to separate the divorce proceedings from the proceedings concerning ancillary matters.\n16.  On 10 June 2008 the District Court scheduled an oral hearing for 11 September 2008. On 12 August 2008 the summons was sent out to the parties and on 11 September 2008 the hearing took place as scheduled.\n17.  On 7 January 2009 the applicant again requested the District Court to separate the divorce proceedings from the proceedings concerning ancillary matters, in particular maintenance, and to grant the divorce ahead of those proceedings. On 23 January 2009 the District Court informed the parties about its legal view on the request.\n18.  In February 2009 the applicant for three days had treatment in a psychiatric hospital due to the mental distress caused by the divorce proceedings. Since 2007 the applicant has been in therapeutic treatment.\n19.  On 12 March 2009 the District Court rejected the applicant’s request. It found that the legal requirements laid down in Article 628 sentence 1 no. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see Relevant domestic law below) had not been met. It was true that there had been an exceptional delay in the divorce proceedings. However, the applicant was not suffering unacceptable hardship. Such an unacceptable hardship was only given where one party’s interest in an immediate divorce outweighed the other party’s interest in a decision on the divorce and the ancillary matters at the same time.\n20.  On 12 January 2010 the District Court delivered its judgment. Both parties appealed aga", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6246", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company was established in 1990 and has its seat in Bratislava. It is a multimedia publishing house.\n6.  The applicant company’s legal predecessor, A., was the publisher of a popular national daily newspaper.\n7.  A. employed, among others, reporters B. and C.\n8.  On 14 June 1999 B. received an anonymous phone call informing him of an incident taking place at that very moment involving individuals D. and E. The incident was said to be taking place in a public restaurant and is described below.\n9.  At that time, D. was a Member of Parliament, a municipal mayor and the president of a political party. E., for his part, was vice-president of the Police Corps of the Slovak Republic.\n10.  In the days that followed, A. and another publisher printed a series of articles about the incident. The details are described in paragraphs 21 to 25 below.\n11.  The behaviour of E. in the context of the incident was subsequently investigated by the Police Inspection Service, in particular as regards the allegations that he had wet his pants and threatened to organise civic disturbances (see below).\nOn the basis of a report issued on 6 July 1999, E., the personnel of the restaurant and a number of witnesses having been interviewed, no impropriety on the part of E. was established.\n12.  At a later point E. left the police force on his own initiative.\n13.  Both D. and E. subsequently successfully sued A. for libel. The proceedings concerned by the present application are those instituted by E. They are described in paragraphs 26 to 44 below.\n14.  Following the proceedings, in 2004, A. was merged with the applicant company.\n15.  In the anonymous phone call mentioned in paragraph 8 above, the caller informed B. that D. and E. were sitting in a public restaurant and that D. had previously urinated on the terrace of that restaurant.\n16.  In a matter of minutes, B. arrived at the restaurant, where he saw D. and E. as they were about to leave. He ordered a drink and observed them. Judging by the way they were walking and holding each other up, B. had the impression that they were under the influence. In total, B. had spent up to ten minutes in the restaurant before D. and E. left.\n17.  B. then interviewed the waitress and some of the diners, following which he left and wrote the first of the articles described below.\n18.  The following morning B. revisited the restaurant, re-interviewed the waitress and photographed the location of the incident.\n19.  In the subsequent days contact and a meeting were arranged between F., an eyewitness to the incident, and B., who was assisted by C. and another colleague.\n20.  Contact and a meeting between E. and B. were also arranged with a view to obtaining E.’s position. In that meeting, E. admitted having been at the restaurant with D. but denied any impropriety. He requested that his name not be disclosed, as that would ruin his career in the police force.\n21.  On 16 June 1999 the paper in question printed an article entitled “[D.] ‘introduced himself’ in [the restaurant] on Monday”. The article included the following text:\n“‘[D.] is sitting in [the restaurant] rollicking drunk’, one of our readers reported to the editorial office [of the newspaper] on Monday evening. As we checked with our own eyes, it really was true. The president [of the political party] was really sitting in the restaurant named and his appearance revealed that our reader had not done him an injustice. [D.] was accompanied by an individual w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6247", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Paris.\n7.  On 21 June 2005 the French first-instance court of Paris pronounced the divorce of the applicant and his wife, Ms K.O., a Hungarian national. It granted the parents joint custody of their daughter, born in October 2000, and placed her with the mother, regulating the applicant’s access rights. At that time, the mother and the child lived in Paris. This decision was upheld by the second-instance French court on 29 November 2006.\n8.  Meanwhile, on 19 September 2005, Ms K.O. filed a criminal complaint against the applicant with the French authorities, alleging that he had sexually abused their child. She further requested the suspension of the applicant’s custody and access rights. However, in the absence of any evidence supporting her allegations, the complaint was dismissed on 2 November 2005.\n9.  On 29 December 2007, the mother took the child to Hungary for the holidays. The applicant was aware of this. However, in a letter dated 5 January 2008 she informed the applicant that she had enrolled their daughter in a Hungarian school without his consent, with no intention to return her to France.\n10.  On 12 March 2008 the applicant brought an action against the mother before the Hungarian Pest Central District Court. He requested the court to establish the abduction of their child by the mother and to order her to return the child to him, relying on Council Regulation (EC) no. 2201 of 2003 concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and Matters of Parental Responsibility (“EC Regulation on Recognition of Judgments”) and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention”). The District Court established that the habitual residence of the child was in France, because she had the centre of her life there. Moreover, it observed that having had joint custody over their daughter, neither parent could have decided on the habitual residence of the child without the approval of the other parent. The District Court ordered a forensic expert examination of the parties and their daughter. The expert report concluded that abuse or indecency against the child had not been probable and therefore there were no reasons to disregard the obligation to order her return based on Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention. Thus, on 30 May 2008 this court established the abduction of the child and ordered the mother to take her back to France by 6 June 2008, or to hand her over to the applicant in Hungary on 10 June 2008.\n11.  On 2 September 2008 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision, but established that the time-limit to return the child back to France was 27 September 2008, or 1 October 2008 for handing her over in Hungary. (For the execution of this judgment, see heading 3 below.)\n12.  The mother lodged a petition for review of the final decision with the Supreme Court, which shared the Regional Court’s view that the legal conditions for the child’s continued stay in Hungary were absent. It assessed forensic psychology reports and concluded that the child was still emotionally attached to her father as well, thus her return to France would not cause her serious trauma. On 18 November 2008 the Supreme Court therefore upheld the Regional Court’s decision.\n13.  Following the final judgment delivered by the Regional Court (see paragraph 11 above), the Pest Central District Court ordered the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6248", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant, who was born in 1974 and is a citizen of Afghanistan, left Afghanistan on an unspecified date and entered Bulgaria in 1998.\n7.  On an unspecified date the first applicant unsuccessfully sought asylum in Bulgaria. The terms of his application, the reasons for the refusal and the relevant dates have not been substantiated by the first applicant.\n8.  Since 1999 the first applicant has attended the Bulgarian Church of God, a Baptist Church in Sofia. In 2001 he was baptised.\n9.  The first applicant has two children born in Bulgaria in 2003 and 2005 (the third and fourth applicants). Their mother (the second applicant), born in 1982, whom the first applicant married in 2004, is an Armenian national who has had a permanent residence permit in Bulgaria since an unspecified date. According to the first and second applicants, their first child, born in 2003, has no citizenship and their second child, born in 2005, is a national of Afghanistan.\n10.  In August 2003 the first applicant submitted a second application for asylum. By a decision of 17 March 2004 he was granted refugee status in Bulgaria on the ground that he risked persecution in Afghanistan on account of his conversion from Islam to Christianity. The short decision stated in its relevant part that according to information from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, conversion to Christianity was “punishable by death in all Afghanistan”. No further details were stated.\n11.  On 6 December 2005 the Director of the National Security Service, at that time a department of the Ministry of the Interior, issued an order withdrawing Mr M.’s residence permit, ordering his expulsion and imposing a ten-year ban on his re-entering Bulgaria on the ground that he was a “serious threat to national security”. Factual grounds were not indicated. The Director relied on an internal document of 24 November 2005 which stated that the first applicant was involved in trafficking of migrants, mainly citizens of Afghanistan, through Turkey and Bulgaria to Serbia, Montenegro, Greece and Hungary. The Director considered that this activity was as such a threat to national security. Also, it could be used for the transit of terrorists and thus discredit Bulgaria internationally.\n12.  The deportation order of 6 December 2005 did not specify the country to which the first applicant should be deported. It appears that there was no legal requirement to do so and that in practice deportation orders did not indicate the country of destination.\n13.  The order of 6 December 2005 also stated that the first applicant should be detained pending expulsion.\n14.  On 12 October 2006 another government agency, the Migration Directorate of the national police, issued an order for the first applicant’s detention pending expulsion. The relationship between that order and the order of 6 December 2005, which also required Mr M.’s detention, has not been clarified.\n15.  According to the order of 12 October 2006, Mr M.’s detention was necessary since he posed a serious threat to national security, and also in view of the fact that there was no (direct) transport connection between Bulgaria and the first applicant’s country of origin, which prevented the immediate execution of the measure against him.\n16.  The orders of 6 December 2005 and 12 October 2006 were both immediately enforceable.\n17.  On 18 October 2006 the first applicant was arrested and detained at the Centre for Interim Detention of Aliens", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6250", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Mr Tomasz Musiałek, is a Polish national who was born in 1966. He lives in Kamień, Poland. The second applicant, Mr Jarosław Baczyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1974. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Zaręba Górna Prison.\n6.  The applicant, who had been convicted of murder, was deprived of liberty on two separate occasions.\n7.  On the first occasion, he was in continuous detention (committed to different penitentiary facilities) from 2 July 1995 until 9 July 2004. On the latter date he was released on leave to seek medical treatment outside prison.\n8.  On the second occasion, he was in continuous detention (committed to different penitentiary facilities) from 26 January 2006 until 2 February 2009.\n9.  From 8 until 23 November 1999 and from 1 December 2000 until 12 September 2001 the applicant was detained in Wrocław Prison No. 1. From 12 September 2001 until 9 July 2004 he was detained in Wołów Prison.\n(a)  The conditions of the applicant’s detention\n10.  According to official data, throughout 1999 and the greater part of 2000, the number of detainees in Wrocław Prison was inferior to the prison’s designated capacity. In December 2000, however, the prison’s designated capacity was exceeded by 144 persons.\n11. In December 2000 the applicant was detained in a hospital wing of Wrocław Prison and it appears that he was not affected by the prison’s general overcrowding at that time.\n12.  The applicant submitted, however, that from 2001 until an unspecified later date he had been held in severely overcrowded cells in both Wrocław and Wołów Prisons. He had had one-hour outdoor exercise per day and one shower per week.\n13.  The Government did not submit any information as to the number of detainees held in Wrocław Prison in 2001 or in Wołów Prison from September 2001 until July 2004. They did not contest the applicant’s submission about the limited accessibility to the outdoor yard and shower.\n(b)  The applicant’s medical care in prison\n14.  Since 1998 the applicant had suffered from Dupuytren’s contracture, a condition that, if untreated, prevents the fingers and toes from straightening.\n15. On an unspecified date the applicant had operations on his right hand and right foot in Warsaw Remand Centre hospital.\n16.  Subsequently, on 7 December 2000, he again underwent surgery, this time in Wrocław Prison hospital.\nThe applicant submitted that both operations had been performed incorrectly and that he had not received sufficient medical attention after each procedure. As a result, his wounds had taken a long time to heal and he had developed inflammation, mycosis and scar contracture of two fingers of his right hand.\n17.  A number of expert reports and testimonies of witnesses which had been produced in the course of criminal investigations instituted by the applicant (see paragraphs 40-43 below) revealed that shortly after the second surgery the applicant soaked his hand in an unspecified disinfectant and put needles in his healing wound.\n18.  It appears that on an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant was examined by a plastic surgeon who recommended a third operation on the applicant’s hand in the specialised orthopaedic centre of Warsaw Remand Centre.\n19.  On 22 January 2002 the Governor of Wołów Prison informed the applicant that he qualified for reconstructive surgery of his right hand, but that such surgery could not be performed within the penitentiary system. The applicant was also informed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6252", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul.\n4.  On 11 August 2006 the Muğla Magistrates’ Court issued an arrest warrant against the applicant in order to obtain his statement in relation to a charge of slander.\n5.  According to incident reports drawn up at the Üsküdar Doğancılar police station, an officer was sent to the applicant’s house early on 27 October 2006 to execute the arrest warrant. Upon discovering that the applicant was not at home, he left a note inviting him to present himself at the Üsküdar Doğancılar police station to make a statement regarding the charge brought against him.\n6. Later the same day, at approximately 2.30 p.m., the applicant telephoned the police station and quarrelled with the officer Y.A. on the phone, arguing that the police had no authority to ask him to go to the police station as he had not received a summons from the court to make a statement. It is indicated in the incident report that the applicant was very aggressive on the phone and that he insulted and threatened officer Y.A. The applicant denied these allegations.\n7.  Immediately after this phone conversation, three police officers were sent to the applicant’s home to effect his arrest. Upon the applicant’s failure to cooperate and surrender, oral instructions were given from the office of the Üsküdar public prosecutor to make a forcible arrest. A scuffle then ensued between the parties, and the applicant attempted to throw himself off the balcony. He was, however, detained by the police, with the assistance of his neighbour E.A.\n8.  The applicant was subsequently taken to the Üsküdar Doğancılar police station at approximately 3.30 p.m. According to the police report, the applicant continued to behave aggressively and defiantly at the police station, shouting that the police had no authority to keep him there, and at one point he tried to jump out of the window to escape. The officers, however, managed to grab hold of him and restrained him with handcuffs. The applicant confirmed this, but claimed that he had only attempted to jump out of the window as a reaction to two police officers hitting him on the chest and foot.\n9.  On 27 October 2006 at 5.20 p.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Haydarpaşa Numune Hospital, who noted no signs of ill‑treatment on his body. Following the medical examination, the applicant was taken back to the Üsküdar Doğancılar police station.\n10.  In the meantime, after handing the applicant over to the police station, two of the police officers who had made the arrest, namely M.Al. and M.Ak., underwent a medical examination at the Haydarpaşa Numune Hospital. Slight abrasions were noted on both officers’ right hands.\n11.  On 27 October 2006 the three police officers who were in charge of the applicant’s arrest, namely M.Al., M.Ak. and M.K., and the police officer the applicant had allegedly insulted on the phone earlier that day, namely Y.A., lodged criminal complaints with the Üsküdar public prosecutor against the applicant, accusing him of resisting police officers on duty and insulting them. In their complaints, they each gave identical accounts of the events that took place prior to and during the applicant’s arrest, which were also consistent with the official incident reports (see paragraphs 6 and 7 above).\n12.  At approximately 6 p.m. on the same day the applicant’s neighbour E.A., who had witnessed the whole incident and had assisted the police in restraining and arresting the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6253", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  The applicant resided in a municipal two-roomed flat together with her son, his ex-wife K. and their daughter, a minor at the time. On an unspecified date the applicant brought a claim against K. seeking K.’s eviction. K. countersued the applicant asking the court to rehouse everyone. K. alleged that the applicant and her son had forced her to move out of the flat and their joint residence in the same flat had become impossible.\n7.  On 28 May 1998 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claims and granted K.’s claim. It ordered the applicant and her son to be rehoused in another two-room flat. At the same time K. and her daughter were granted a room in another building. The flat the applicant resided in was assigned to another family. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“Pursuant to Article 68 of the [Housing Code], if the members of a family fail to reach an agreement with regard to re-housing, any of them may ask for the re-housing arrangements to be determined by the court. The court must take into consideration the relevant circumstances and the interests of the persons to be re-housed.\nThe court asked repeatedly that [the applicant and her son] justify their objection to the re-housing arrangement [proposed by K.]. However, they did not present any written submissions... and refused to give any [oral] explanation or answer any questions during the court hearing...\nThe witnesses testified that the parties were in conflict and provided details as to the altercations between [them]...\nThe existence of a conflict between the parties is also confirmed by the numerous complaints they have lodged against each other with the law-enforcement agencies...\nHaving regard to the above, the court concludes that the parties cannot share the flat in question. K. and her daughter are unable to reside in the flat, which fact amounts to a violation of their housing rights...\nPursuant to Article 98 of the [Housing Code], K. cannot be evicted from the flat. It was established that [the applicant and her family] had consented to K. moving into the flat. K. had moved into the flat and, as set forth in Articles 53 and 54 of the [Housing Code], she had acquired a right to reside in there.\nThe court has established that it was impossible for the parties to share the flat due to their own behaviour ... The conflicts between the parties underlie the housing dispute between them.\nThe court further considers that K.’s eviction, if ordered, would have an adverse effect on the housing rights of her daughter, who lives with her.\nAccording to K., she asked for re-housing for the first time in 1992. However, [the applicant and her son] did not consent to it.\n8.  On 2 September 1998 the Moscow City Court concurred with the assessment of the matter made by District Court and upheld the judgment of 28 May 1998 on appeal.\n9.  On 1 October 1998 the bailiff initiated enforcement proceedings.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked for supervisory review of the judgments of 28 May and 2 September 1998.\n11.  On 27 January 1999 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation asked the District Court to forward the case-file for supervisory review. As regards the applicant’s eviction, the judge in charge of the matter noted that the execution of the judgment of 28 May 1998 “should be stayed”.\n12.  On 17 June 1999 a bailiff, P., called at the applicant’s flat and told her that she wou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6254", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1929. She was retired and living in Bucharest before her death on 29 December 2007.\n7.  On 24 October 2000 the applicant, aged 71 at the time, was attacked, bitten and knocked to the ground by a pack of around seven stray dogs in front of her home in the Pajura neighbourhood, a residential area in Bucharest. As a result of the fall, the applicant suffered a head injury and fractured her left thigh bone which required four days’ hospitalisation in the CFR Hospital in Bucharest. After being discharged from hospital she was prescribed medical treatment which proved to be too expensive for her.\n8.  Following the incident, the applicant started suffering from amnesia and shoulder and thigh pains and had difficulty walking. In addition, she lived in a constant state of anxiety and never left the house for fear of another attack. By the year 2003 she had become totally immobile.\n9.  At the time of the incident the applicant and her husband were retired and their entire monthly income amounted to the equivalent in Romanian lei (ROL) of 80 euros. They claim that this amount was wholly insufficient for her medical treatment, and that they had to live at subsistence level. As a result, the applicant had lost weight.\n10.  The applicant’s state of health continued deteriorating with the result that two and a half years after the incident, on 4 June 2003, she was declared disabled by a medical panel of the Bucharest Local Council and was offered financial aid and free access to medical assistance and medicines.\n11.  On 10 January 2001 the applicant, represented by her husband, filed a civil action with the Bucharest District Court (Judecătoria Sectorului 1) requesting damages of ROL 100,000,000 (EUR 4,000) under the provisions of the Civil Code on civil liability for torts, and claiming that, as a result of the attack, she had become disabled. The applicant filed the action against the Bucharest Mayor’s Office because, according to the words embossed on the stamp used on a letter from the Animal Control Agency (Administratia pentru Supravegherea Animalelor - ACA), the latter was a body under the authority of the Mayor’s Office.\n12.  At the first hearing the court noted that the applicant had not paid the statutory court fee and ordered the payment of ROL 6,145,000 (EUR 250). Being unable to pay this sum, which amounted to her entire family income for four months, the applicant paid only ROL 500,000 (EUR 20), which she borrowed from various acquaintances.\n13.  By a judgment of 6 March 2001 the court declared the applicant’s civil action invalid for non-payment of the full court fee.\n14.  On 19 June 2001 the Bucharest County Court (Tribunalul Bucuresti) allowed an appeal by the applicant against the judgment of 6 March 2001. The County Court held that the first-instance court should have decided the case within the limits of the court fee paid and that in any event, the applicant was exempted by law from paying a court fee for this type of action. The court further held that the amount already paid should have been treated as a deposit, to be returned at the end of the proceedings. With respect to the merits of the case, the court held that the ACA, a public body under the authority of the Bucharest Mayor’s Office, had indeed not taken all necessary measures to avoid endangering the lives of the population and to preserve their health and physical integrity, and had thus violated the provisions of Bucharest Municipal Counc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6255", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are a family comprising the husband and wife (the first and second applicants) and their two children (the third and fourth applicants). They were born in 1968, 1973, 1996 and 1999 respectively and live in the town of Sovetskaya Gavan in the Khabarovsk Region.\n6.  In 1994 the first applicant arrived in Russia with a valid visa and married the second applicant. In November 1996, after his visa had expired, the first applicant was deported to China.\n7.  In 2001 the first applicant obtained a work visa valid until 1 August 2002 and resumed his residence in Russia. The visa was later extended until 1 August 2003.\n8.  On 24 July 2003 the first applicant applied for a residence permit.\n9.  On 22 July 2004 the police department of the Khabarovsk Region rejected his application by reference to section 7 § 1 (1) of the Foreign Nationals Act (see paragraph 47 below). No further reasons were provided.\n10.  The first and the second applicants challenged the refusal before a court. They complained, in particular, that the police department of the Khabarovsk Region had not given any reasons for the refusal. The first applicant had never been charged with any criminal offence or engaged in any subversive activities. The applicants also claimed that the refusal had interfered with their right to respect for their family life and had caused them non-pecuniary damage.\n11.  On 4 November 2004 the Tsentralniy District Court of Khabarovsk found that the decision of 22 July 2004 had been lawful and rejected the applicants’ claim in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It found that the police department of the Khabarovsk Region had received information from the Federal Security Service that the first applicant posed a national security risk. That information was a State secret and could not be made public.\n12.  On 18 January 2005 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 4 November 2004 on appeal. It reiterated that, according to the information from the Federal Security Service, the first applicant posed a national security risk. That information was a State secret and was not subject to judicial scrutiny.\n13.  On 3 February 2005 the police department of the Khabarovsk Region prepared a decision that the first applicant’s presence on Russian territory was undesirable and submitted it to the head of the Federal Migration Service for approval. The draft decision indicated that the first applicant had been unlawfully resident on Russian territory and had been repeatedly fined under Article 18.8 of the Administrative Offences Code (see paragraph 50 below) for his failure to leave Russia after the expiry of the authorised residence period. On 22 March 2005 the head of the Federal Migration Service confirmed the decision and it became enforceable.\n14.  On 22 August 2005 the police department of the Khabarovsk Region asked the Federal Migration Service to order the first applicant’s deportation. On 12 November 2005 the head of the Federal Migration Service ordered the first applicant’s deportation by reference to section 25.10 of the Entry Procedure Act (see paragraph 51 below). No further reasons were provided. The applicants were not informed of the decision until 12 December 2005.\n15.  On 25 November 2005 the first and second applicants lodged an application with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention. They complained, in particular, that the refusal to grant a residence permit to the first applicant and the subsequent decision t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6256", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Plovdiv.\n5.  For the period between 2 November 1993 and 11 August 1995 the applicant worked for a consortium of four companies. As he did not receive the full amount of his salaries and compensation for his unused paid leave, on 27 October 1995 he initiated civil proceedings for these amounts against one of the companies in the consortium.\n6.  For the period between 5 March 1996 and 4 June 1997 at least four hearings appear to have been held and two expert opinions were commissioned.\n7.  On 4 June 1997, upon the applicant’s request, the other three companies were constituted as defendants.\n8.  For the period between 4 June 1997 and 18 November 1998 at least five hearings appear to have been held.\n9.  In a judgment of 5 January 1999 the Sofia City Court granted part of the applicant’s claim. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n10.  On an unspecified date after 5 January 1999 the applicant requested the issue of a writ of execution, which was done on 26 February 1999. The applicant submitted that he became aware of this fact on 22 July 1999. On the latter date he requested the opening of enforcement proceedings.\n11.  On 25 August 1999 the enforcement officer invited the debtors to voluntarily pay the amounts under the writ of execution. On 27 January 2000 the applicant requested from the enforcement officer the undertaking of certain actions for collecting the debt. On 28 January 2000 the enforcement officer requested an attachment on the bank accounts of the debtors.\n12.  On 2 December 2001 the applicant requested to be accepted as a creditor under two other enforcement proceedings against the same debtors, which was granted on 11 December. On 15 April 2002, a certain distribution of payments to different creditors was proposed, as a result of which the applicant agreed to receive payment in instalments.\n13.  On 16 April 2004 the applicant again requested the enforcement officer to undertake actions for collecting his debt. On 19 April 2004 the enforcement officer requested attachments on the bank accounts of the debtors.\n14.  It does not appear that for the periods between 17 January 2000 and 2 December 2001, between 2 December 2001 and 15 April 2002 and between 15 April 2002 and 16 April 2004 the applicant requested any other actions to be undertaken or the enforcement officer undertook any such actions.\n15.  On 8 November 2004 the applicant requested his proceedings to be joined with another set of enforcement proceedings against the same debtors. On 9 November 2004 the enforcement officer requested the case files in those proceedings. The parties have not informed the Court whether the said proceedings were joined.\n16.  On 12 August 2005 the applicant requested the calculation of the amounts of the awarded interest. On 16 September 2005 an expert appointed by the enforcement officer submitted the calculation. He concluded that the due sums, plus interest amounted to 40,834.17 dollars (USD) and 55 Bulgarian levs (BGN).\n17.  On 8 November 2005 the applicant concluded an out-of-court agreement with the consortium, under which the former agreed to receive the amount of 33,000 USD, the equivalent of BGN 54,484.96 and undertook the obligation to request the termination of the enforcement proceedings immediately after he had received this amount.\n18.  On an unspecified date shortly thereafter the applicant received the above amount and the enforcement proceedings were termi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6257", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Katowice.\n5.  On 18 October 2004 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Prokuratury Okręgowej) ordered the applicant’s detention in connection with a criminal investigation pending against her. The prosecutor also issued a search warrant for the applicant’s apartment with a view to locating any book-keeping records or other documents which could be used as evidence in the ongoing investigation.\n6.  On 19 October 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of abuse of her powers and office in her role as head of a certain division at the Katowice Office of Fiscal Control (Urząd Kontroli Skarbowej) and accepting a bribe (in the amount of 130,000 Polish zlotys (PLN)).\n7.  On 20 October 2004 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that she had committed the offences in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that if released, the applicant might induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court also stressed that a severe sentence was likely to be imposed.\n8.  The applicant’s appeal against the detention order was dismissed by the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 1 December 2004.\n9.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on several occasions by the Katowice District Court, namely on 12 January, 14 April, and 12 July 2005.\n10.  On 14 January 2005 the Regional Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision whereby the possible penalty to be imposed on the applicant was to be secured by means of a charge on the applicant’s assets, amounting to PLN 25,000, as well as through the forfeiture of benefits deriving from her crime in the amount of PLN 130,000. On 25 February 2005 this decision was upheld together with the relevant enforcement order by the Katowice District Court.\nThe applicant appealed. The Prosecutor’s decision was eventually upheld by the Katowice Regional Court on 29 September 2005.\n11.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by decisions of the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) delivered on 3 October and 28 December 2005, 29 March, 28 June, and 27 September 2006 and 4 January, 1 March and 4 April 2007.\n12.  In all their decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention. They also considered that keeping her in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that she might tamper with evidence or induce witnesses to give false testimony. Further, they attached great importance to the considerable number of witnesses and the extensive body of evidence to be considered.\nIn its decision of 4 January 2007 the court noted that the investigation has been lengthy and informed the prosecutor that any subsequent motion for having the applicant’s detention extended would be critically reviewed.\n13.  The applicant’s subsequent appeals against decisions extending her detention, as well as her other numerous applications for release were all unsuccessful. In her appeals she argued that the charges against her were based on unreliable and contradictory evidence. She subsequently invoked the principle of the presumption of innocence and also relied on her personal circumstances, in particular her age and health problems.\n14.  On 19 April 2007 a bill of indictment", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6258", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Zagreb.\n6.  On 26 February 2008 the Committee on the Constitution, Rules of Procedure and Political System of the Croatian Parliament, (Hrvatski Sabor – Odbor za Ustav, Poslovnik i politički sustav – “the Parliamentary Committee”) published in the Official Gazette (no. 26/2008 of 29 February 2008) a Call for Applications for the Election of Three Judges to the Constitutional Court, inviting prospective candidates to submit their applications.\n7.  On 28 April 2008 the applicant, a judge of the Administrative Court, submitted her application for the post of judge of the Constitutional Court. Another eighteen candidates also submitted applications.\n8.  The Parliamentary Committee eventually compiled a shortlist of four candidates, namely, Mr M.J., Mrs D.Š., Mrs S.B. and the applicant, and submitted it to Parliament for a vote.\n9.  After a secret ballot in which the applicant received four of the required 77 votes, on 9 May 2008 Parliament adopted a decision electing Mr M.J., Mrs D.Š. and Mrs S.B., who each received 78 votes, as judges of the Constitutional Court.\n10.  On 26 May 2008 the applicant, relying on section 66 of the Administrative Disputes Act (see paragraph 32 below), lodged a request for the protection of a constitutionally guaranteed right (zahtjev za zaštitu ustavom zajamčenog prava) with the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) contesting Parliament’s decision of 9 May 2008. She argued that S.B. had not proved that she had at least fifteen years of professional experience and thus did not demonstrate that she satisfied all the statutory criteria for election as a Constitutional Court judge set forth in section 5(1) of the Constitutional Court Act (see paragraph 25 below). Therefore, in the applicant’s view, by electing S.B. instead of her, Parliament had breached her right to equality before the law, the right to equality before the State and other public authorities, the right to equal access to public service and the right to equal access to employment guaranteed in Articles 14(2), 26, 44 and 54(2) of the Constitution (see paragraph 23 below), respectively.\n11.  On 26 June 2008 the Administrative Court invited M.J. and D.Š. to submit their observations as third (interested) parties (zainteresirane osobe). On 7 and 8 June 2008, respectively, they replied that they considered the applicant’s request unfounded and that the election of the Constitutional Court’s judges had been in accordance with the law. They also stated that they did not consider themselves third (interested) parties to the proceedings because the applicant had not challenged their election.\n12.  On 15 October 2008 the Administrative Court delivered a judgment whereby it allowed the applicant’s request and quashed Parliament’s decision of 9 May 2008 in its part concerning S.B. The court held that the applicant was entitled to lodge her request even though that court’s judgment did not alter her legal status as unelected candidate. It also held that from the evidence submitted by S.B. to the Parliamentary Committee it could not be discerned whether she had the required professional experience and that therefore the applicant’s right to equal access to public service and her right to equal access to employment, guaranteed by Articles 44 and 54(2) of the Constitution, had been breached by the contested decision.\n13.  On 4 February 2009 S.B. lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6259", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1957, 1966, 1962 and 1957 respectively and live in Baku.\n6.  The first applicant, Mr Panah Huseyn (also sometimes referred to as Panah Huseynov), was a prominent member of the Popular Front Party of Azerbaijan. The second applicant, Mr Rauf Abbasov (commonly known as Rauf Arifoglu), was a prominent member of the Müsavat Party and the editor-in-chief of the opposition-oriented newspaper Yeni Müsavat. The third applicant, Mr Arif Hajili, was a deputy chairman of the Müsavat Party. The fourth applicant, Mr Sardar Mammadov (commonly known as Sardar Jalaloglu), was a deputy chairman of the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan.\n7.  The respective political forces with which the applicants were affiliated were founders of the election coalition Bizim Azerbaijan, formed with the aim of supporting the main opposition candidate, Mr Isa Gambar, the chairman of the Müsavat Party, in the presidential elections of 15 October 2003.\n8.  Mr Gambar lost the elections of 15 October 2003.\n9.  On the evening of election day a group of opposition supporters gathered in front of the Müsavat Party’s headquarters in the centre of Baku, claiming victory for their candidate in the election. At that time there were some violent altercations between opposition supporters and the security forces.\n10.  At around 2 p.m. on 16 October a number of opposition supporters started gathering near the State Carpet Museum, in the centre of Baku, to protest against the election results. The crowd then started moving towards Azadliq Square, the main square in the city. It was reported that, on the way, some people in the crowd began damaging cars, buildings, benches and other urban constructions. It was also claimed that the organisers of this unauthorised demonstration and certain leaders of the opposition parties were inciting their followers to violence.\n11.  It has been claimed that some police officers who had been deployed at Azadliq Square were attacked by some of the demonstrators. Shortly thereafter large numbers of riot police and military personnel, fully equipped with helmets, shields and truncheons, arrived in the square with the aim of dispersing the demonstration. The situation quickly escalated into public disorder and violent clashes occurred between the crowd and the police. It was widely reported that the authorities used excessive force indiscriminately against anyone who happened to be in the area in question.\n12.  The applicants, among other persons, were considered by the State authorities to be the organisers of the demonstration. At around 2.30 p.m. all of the applicants, except Mr Mammadov, had appeared on a tribune in Azadliq Square. Mr Hajili gave a speech to the people gathered in the square, while the two other applicants did not. Mr Mammadov was in the headquarters of his political party at that time and, according to his own statements, was unable to go to Azadliq Square (although he wished to do so), because the exits from the headquarters were reportedly blocked by State security forces.\n13.  At around 6 p.m. the demonstration was completely dispersed. Several hundred people were arrested during the events of 16 October and in their aftermath.\n14.  On 16 October 2003 the Prosecutor General’s Office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 80308) concerning the events of 15 and 16 October 2003. More than a hundred persons arrested in connection with those events were eventually prosecuted in the context of those proceed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6260", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant companies are collectively described as “Superwood”.\n5.  In October 1987 a fire occurred for which Superwood claimed 2,000,000 Irish pounds (“IR£”) from their insurers. The latter denied liability arguing that Superwood’s claim was so grossly exaggerated as to be fraudulent. On 28 June 1989 Superwood took proceedings against the insurers seeking damages for wrongful repudiation.\n6.  On 1 July 1989 the High Court hearing began. The trial took place over 116 hearing days and was one of the longest trials in Irish civil litigation history (the transcript exceeded 8500 pages). During the trial (on 1 May 1990) the trial judge directed that liability would be determined first and quantum thereafter, if relevant.\n7.  Some weeks after the end of the trial, on 13, 14 and 15 August 1991 the High Court delivered its judgment finding Superwood’s claim to be fraudulent. Any insurance benefit was therefore forfeited and an assessment of damages was moot. On 12 November 1991 the High Court ordered the dismissal of the action.\n8.  On 12 December 1991 Superwood filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court with 56 grounds of appeal. Superwood lodged Books of Appeal on 15 July 1992 and a certificate of readiness in October 1992. In December 1992 Superwood applied for an early hearing date, which application was adjourned six times. Superwood’s detailed appeal submissions were lodged in July 1993. Following two further adjournments, the insurer’s appeal submissions were lodged in January 1994. In March 1994 the Supreme Court heard and allowed Superwood’s request to amend its notice of appeal. Following the Supreme Court’s orders to file submissions as to the transcripts to be relied upon for the appeal, then to file abridged written submissions and then to file skeleton submissions, on 9 December 1994 the Supreme Court set a hearing date.\n9.  Following a hearing of 16 days during February and March 1995, on 27 June 1995 the Supreme Court delivered its judgment unanimously upholding the appeal and finding, inter alia, that the trial judge had erred in holding that the evidence supported a finding that Superwood’s claim was fraudulent. The case was remitted to the High Court to determine the losses attributable to the fire and any other relevant issues.\n10.  In March 1996 Superwood’s motion for interim payment of damages (based on an alleged recognition by the Supreme Court of clear minimum liability of the insurers to Superwood) and of costs was struck out.\n11.  On 16 July 1996 the High Court, on Superwood’s request, gave directions for the re-trial and made a consent order that the re-trial would first quantify the loss attributable to the fire (the insurance money) and then any losses arising out of a failure by the insurers to pay that money.\n12.  On 25 July 1996 the High Court set the case down for re-trial on 19 November 1996.\n13.  On 25 October 1996 the first three insurers applied to extend time to make lodgements into court.\n14.  On 11 November 1996 the re-trial judge ruled that the re-trial would not follow the two-phased structure envisaged by the consent order of 16 July 1996 but that it would be a composite trial. On 12 November he allowed the first three insurers to make lodgements: Superwood could accept the lodgements within 3 days. On 18 November the Supreme Court rejected Superwood’s appeal: it could accept the lodgements within a further 3 days. On 19 November 1996 lodgements were made by the first three insurers (IR£ 3,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6262", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975. He resides in Kosovska Mitrovica in Kosovo[1], where he is employed as a police officer with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia (Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova Republike Srbije, hereinafter “the Ministry”).\n6.  The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 24 January 2000 and 17 July 2003 respectively, the Serbian Government adopted two decisions whereby, inter alia, all of its employees who resided and worked in Kosovo were to be paid double salaries.\n8.  On 31 January 2000 the Ministry issued a decision stating that the police officers in question were entitled to have their salaries increased by between 2.5% and 4.5%, depending on the circumstances.\n9.  In reality, the applicant only received the increase approved by the Ministry, amounting to significantly less than the doubling of his salary envisaged by the Government.\n10.  On 29 August 2006, therefore, the applicant filed a civil claim against the Ministry with the First Municipal Court (Prvi opštinski sud) in Belgrade, seeking payment of the difference between the salary increase received and that granted by the Government. The applicant further requested the payment of unspecified amounts on account of the related pension and disability insurance contributions.\n11.  On 23 July 2007 the First Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered his employer to pay:\ni. 145,821.60 Serbian dinars (“RSD”) (approximately 1,760 Euros (“EUR”) at the relevant time) in respect of the difference between the salary received from 1 July 2003 to August 2006 and that granted by the Government, plus statutory interest;\nii. the extra pension and disability insurance contributions for the above period in respect of this additional salary to the relevant State fund; and\niii. RSD 39,532 (approximately EUR 477)  for his legal costs.\n12.  On 19 December 2007 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade reversed that judgment and rejected the applicant’s claim. In its reasoning the District Court held, inter alia, that the applicable domestic regulation was contained in the decision of the Ministry adopted on 31 January 2000. This judgment was served on the applicant on 29 January 2008.\n13.  Many of the applicant’s colleagues (hereinafter “the plaintiffs”) had lodged separate claims with the District Court concerning the same issue, some of which were successful while others were unsuccessful: in seventy-three other judgments rendered between 25 January 2006 and 1 October 2008, the same District Court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, notwithstanding the fact that their claims were based on the same facts as those in the applicant’s case and concerned identical legal issues. In its reasoning in these other cases, the District Court held, inter alia, that the plaintiffs’ salaries had to be paid in accordance with the Serbian Government’s decisions of 24 January 2000 and/or 17 July 2003.\n14.  Of the seventy-three judgments mentioned above, in fifty cases the respondent lodged appeals on points of law (revizije) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Srbije, see paragraphs 21 and 24 below). In the remaining twenty-three cases, however, the respondent lodged no such appeal, apparently in the light of the statutory threshold (see paragraph 22 below).\n15.  The Government provided examples of relevant case-law adopted by the Supreme Court, in particular six separate judgments, of which one had been issued on 3", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6263", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company, which runs a primary school in Chişinău, was party to civil proceedings in 2001. By a judgment of the Rascani District Court of 25 July 2001 the applicant company was ordered to pay Mr M. 78,400 United States dollars.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 2006 Mr M. applied to the Department for the Execution of Judgments for the enforcement of the judgment of 25 July 2001. However, his application was dismissed on the ground that it had been time-barred. In a letter dated 4 May 2006 Mr M. was informed that no enforcement warrant in respect of the judgment of 25 July 2001 had been lodged between 2001 and 2006.\n7.  On 22 May 2006 Mr M. lodged a request with the Rascani District Court asking for an extension of the three-year time-limit for requesting enforcement of the judgment in his favour. He argued, inter alia, that he had submitted a request for enforcement sometime in 2001 together with the enforcement warrant, but that it had allegedly been lost by the Department for the Execution of Judgments.\n8.  On 18 July 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal finally dismissed Mr M’s request. It found, inter alia, that the enforcement of a judgment may be requested by an interested party to the proceedings within three years from the date when the judgment became final and enforceable. Since Mr M. had made such a formal request only some five years after the judgment of 25 July 2001 had become final, he had missed the deadline. The court found that Mr M. could not produce any plausible evidence justifying his missing the time-limit and could not prove his contention that he had submitted a request which had subsequently been lost by the Department for the Execution of Judgments.\n9.  On 20 July 2007 Mr M. lodged a request for review of the final judgment of 18 July 2007. He relied on Article 449 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 14 below) and argued that according to a letter dated 13 July 2007 sent to him by the Department for the Execution of Judgments in reply to a letter from him, an enforcement warrant had been registered with the Department on 31 July 2001 but had been returned to the Rascani District Court two days later.\n10.  On 22 August 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal refused Mr M.’s request for review because the ground relied on by him did not fall under Article 449 (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, namely the letter from the Department for the Execution of Judgments had become known to him before the pronouncement of the judgment of 18 July 2007. Moreover, the enforcement warrant referred to in the letter of 13 July 2007 did not concern the enforcement of the judgment of 25 July 2001 but the enforcement of a surety ordered by the first-instance court several months before the date on which the judgment of 25 July 2001 became enforceable. On 28 September 2007 Mr M. lodged an appeal on points of law against this decision.\n11.  On 24 October 2007 a Judge S.N. was appointed rapporteur in the case.\n12.  On 14 November 2007, a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court of Justice allowed Mr M.’s appeal, quashed the decision of 22 August 2007, granted Mr M.’s request for review and ordered a fresh examination of the case. The Supreme Court considered the letter of 13 July 2007 as a new document within the meaning of Article 449 (c) of the Civil Procedure Code and argued that Mr M. could have obtained it later than 13 July 2007. The court did not dispute the lower court’s findings to the effect that the e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6264", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Wersel, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Brzeg Prison.\n6.  The applicant has been in continuous detention from an unspecified date in September 2000 until the present day.\n7.  He was initially committed to Mysłowice Remand Centre.\n8.  In November 2000 he was transferred to Zabrze Remand Centre, where, as he submitted, he had been detained together with two or three other detainees in cells measuring 6 or 10 square metres.\n9.  In July 2001 the applicant was transferred back to Mysłowice Remand Centre, where he had been detained in overcrowded cells. In addition, the applicant, who was a non-smoker, had been exposed to cigarette smoke because smoking inside the cell was allowed.\n10.  From 31 December 2003 until an unspecified date in July 2005 the applicant was detained in Gliwice Remand Centre. He was assigned to a cell measuring 6 square metres which he had shared with two other detainees.\n11.  On an unspecified date in July 2005 the applicant was committed to Zabrze Remand Centre. He submitted that, initially, the conditions of his detention had been satisfactory. In his letter of 19 June 2006, however, he claimed that the establishment had become overcrowded just like all the other detention facilities.\n12.  The Government submitted that as of 26 November 2009 the applicant had been detained in Brzeg Prison, in a cell in which the statutory minimum space of 3 square metres per person had been respected.\n13.  On 7 October 2004 the applicant complained to the remand centre’s administration about overcrowding and bad living conditions. He did not complain to the penitentiary authorities in connection with the living conditions as regards the more recent period of his detention. Moreover, the applicant did not bring a civil action in tort to seek compensation for the infringement of his personal rights.\n14.  On 27 October 2003 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) convicted the applicant of three counts of armed robbery and sentenced him to a prison term of three and a half years. During the first-instance proceedings the applicant was represented by a legal aid lawyer.\n15.  On 23 April 2004 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Rejonowy) upheld the above-mentioned judgment on appeal. During the second‑instance proceedings the applicant was also represented by a legal aid lawyer. To that effect the appellate court held that the applicant be exempted from all costs of the appellate proceedings, including legal assistance.\n16.  On 25 May 2004 the reasoned judgment was served on the applicant. On that date the time-limit of thirty days for lodging a cassation appeal began to run.\n17.  On 26 May 2004 the lawyer instructed the applicant that her mandate had expired when the appellate proceedings had come to an end. If the applicant wished to have a cassation appeal lodged with the Supreme Court, he should make a new request for legal aid.\n18.  On 30 May 2004 the applicant prepared an application for legal aid and deposited it as out-going mail with the authorities of the Gliwice Remand Centre. His legal aid application was received by the Katowice Regional Court on 3 June 2004.\n19.  By an official letter of 22 June 2004 the registry of the Katowice Regional Court notified the applicant that his appeal for legal aid had been rejected. The court’s decision was not accompanied by any reasoned opinion.\n20.  On 24 June 2004 the applicant drafted his own cassation", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6265", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 21 December 1993 the Public Prosecutor at the Izmir Security Court filed an indictment against four accused persons (H.N., N.S., M.Ş.Ç., A.K.) charging them under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. During their interrogation by the police and the public prosecutor, all of the accused persons stated that they had acted upon the instructions of Mr Mehmet Şerif Öner[1]. Subsequently, during the trial before the Izmir State Security Court, they denied the charges against them and retracted their previous statements. On 24 February 1998 the Izmir State Security Court found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced them to life imprisonment. In the judgment the court, presided by Judge G.D.C., found it established that the accused had acted upon the instructions of Mr Mehmet Şerif Öner, whose code name was “Kahraman” and who was active in the Izmir region for the illegal organisation the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). This judgment became final on 29 July 1998.\n5.  On 13 May 2002 the applicant was taken into custody in Batman on suspicion of membership of the PKK. When arrested, he was in possession of a fake identity card.\n6.  On 16 May 2002 the applicant was transferred to the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Izmir Security Directorate. The same day, he was interrogated by the police in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant denied all the charges against him. He stated that he was using a fake identity card because he had escaped from prison in 1992.\n7.  During his police custody, the applicant took part in an identification parade. The complainants, Mr M.Ç., Mr N.Ş. and Mr F.B., identified him as the person who had been involved in the respective armed robberies that had taken place in 1993.\n8.  On 17 May 2002 the applicant was further interrogated before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively, still in the absence of a lawyer. During the questionings, the applicant denied his involvement in the PKK. He explained that in the past he had been involved in an armed robbery and had been sentenced to twenty years’ prison. He stated that after his escape from prison, he started using fake identity cards. When his questioning was over, the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody.\n9.  On 5 June 2002 the Public Prosecutor at the Izmir State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the applicant of engaging in illegal activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory, an offence under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code.\n10. During the hearing held on 3 September 2002 the applicant’s lawyer requested the President of the Court, Judge G.D.C., to withdraw from the case, stating that he had also sat as a member of the court which had delivered the judgment of 24 February 1998, in which the applicant was referred to as a member of the PKK. His request was rejected.\n11.  On 15 July 2003 the Izmir State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. In its judgment, the court found it established that the applicant had participated in the armed robberies as alleged and taken part in the activities carried out for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. In delivering its decision, the first instance court ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6268", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Fulda.\n6.  From 2001 onwards Mr and Mrs H., a married couple, lived in different places as Mr H. was working in the United Kingdom while Mrs H. remained in Germany. The spouses have a daughter born in 1997. In May 2002 Mrs H. and the applicant entered into a relationship. Mrs H. became pregnant in June 2003.\n7.  The applicant claimed that he was the father of the child to be born, and that the birth had been planned by Mrs H. and him. This was contested by the Government and the third party interveners.\n8.  In September 2003 Mrs H. left the applicant and subsequently went to live with her husband in the United Kingdom.\n9.  On 25 November 2003 the applicant acknowledged paternity of the child to be born before the Heidelberg Youth Office.\n10.  On 6 March 2004 Mrs H. gave birth to a boy, F., in the United Kingdom. Mr and Mrs H. have been living in the United Kingdom since then; they raise F. together with their daughter. They acknowledged that the applicant might be F.’s biological father. They claimed, however, that it could just as well be Mr H. as they had also had intimate relations at the relevant time. The latter allegation is contested by the applicant. The spouses preferred not to verify paternity in the interest of their family relationship.\n11.  On 20 October 2005 the Fulda District Court dismissed the applicant’s requests of 24 August 2004 for access to F. twice per month and for regular information on the boy’s development.\n12.  The District Court noted that the applicant claimed to be F.’s biological father. The applicant had submitted that he and Mrs H. – who at the time was considering a divorce – had planned to have the child. When Mrs H. had become pregnant, the applicant had accompanied her to her medical consultations as the child’s father. Mr and Mrs H., for their part, had not contested that there had been an intimate relationship between the applicant and Mrs H. at the relevant time. However, Mrs H. had not planned to have a child and Mr H. could equally be F.’s biological father.\n13.  The District Court found that the applicant, even assuming that he was F.’s biological father, did not fall within the group of persons who had a right of access and information under Article 1684 or Article 1685 of the Civil Code (see paragraphs 32-33 below). He did not have a right of access under Article 1684 of the Civil Code as he was not F.’s legal father. According to Article 1592 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 35 below) the boy’s legal father was Mr H., the husband of the child’s mother. The applicant’s acknowledgement of paternity before the Youth Office was not valid under Article 1594 § 2 of the Civil Code as Mr H.’s paternity prevailed (see paragraph 36 below). Nor was he entitled to challenge Mr H.’s paternity as the conditions of Article 1600 § 2 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 37 below) were not met. He had no right to contest Mr H.’s paternity because there was a social and family relationship between Mr H. and F., who was living with Mr and Mrs H.\n14.  The District Court further found that the applicant did not have a right of access under Article 1685 § 2 of the Civil Code either. He claimed to be F.’s biological father, but whether this was in fact the case was unclear. Moreover, he was not a person with whom the child had close ties and there was no social and family relationship between them. The fact that in the applicant’s submission, Mrs H. and he had planned to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6269", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Simferopol. In 1999 the applicant obtained a university degree in law and at the material time was serving as a police officer in Simferopol.\n8.  On 1 July 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having taken part in a robbery on 10 February 1999.\n9.  At 9:20 a.m. on 1 July 1999 the applicant signed a procedural rights notification form, having noted in it that he wished to appoint M. as his advocate.\n10.  At 9:25 a.m. on the same date the applicant was questioned, without a lawyer, about the robbery. During this questioning the applicant provided various personal details and stated that he had no knowledge of the robbery, as on the date at issue he was dividing his time between his professional duties as a police officer and his studies at law school. He also named witnesses on his behalf. The interview transcript started with the following paragraph, undersigned by the applicant in addition to his general signature under the document:\n“My rights have been explained to me under Article 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine, according to which I have a right to refuse to testify concerning myself. I wish to testify concerning the case at issue”.\n11.  On 3 July 1999 the applicant, being questioned in the presence of M. (the advocate, mentioned by the applicant in his rights notification form), stated that he confirmed his testimony of 1 July 1999 and had nothing to add.\n12.  In the course of further investigation, the authorities increased the charges, eventually imputing to the applicant organisation of a gang and participation in over thirty robberies. The investigation questioned some 120 witnesses, carried out some twenty reconstructions of crime scenes and ordered numerous expert assessments.\n13.  On 20 July 2000 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant, along with eighteen other individuals implicated in membership of his gang, was committed for trial to the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea (subsequently renamed the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea, and hereafter “the ARC Court”).\n14.  On 4 May 2001, following familiarisation of the defendants with the case file materials and completion of other procedural formalities, the ARC Court held a preliminary hearing in the case and scheduled the trial for 5 June 2001.\n15.  Having held some eighteen hearings between June and December 2001, the ARC Court adjourned the proceedings following a request by one of the defendants that the hearings be recorded, for which the technical means were not available at the time.\n16.  On 15 May 2002 the ARC Court resumed consideration of the case.\n17.  On 17 January 2003 the applicant complained in court that he had been tortured during the pre-trial investigations. Following an inquiry in respect of his complaint, on 5 February 2003 the Prosecutors’ Office of the ARC refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers implicated by the applicant in his ill-treatment, for want of evidence of any such ill-treatment. According to the materials in the case file the applicant did not appeal against this decision.\n18.  On 29 January 2003 A.K., the applicant’s co-defendant, complained that Judge Sh., presiding over the case, was not impartial. In particular, in the beginning of the trial she had given an interview to the Flag Rodiny newspaper, expressing an opinion about the defendants’ guilt. A.K. presented a copy of the newspa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6270", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, husband and wife, were born in 1937 and 1939 respectively and live in Zaporizhya.\n7.  At about 1:40 a. m. on 29 March 2000 N.K., the wife of S.K. (the applicants’ son) and M.S., a family acquaintance, informed the police that S.K. had committed suicide by hanging himself in the bathroom in his flat.\n8.  Having arrived at S.K.’s flat, the police examined the scene of the incident and drew up a report, noting that by the time of their arrival S.K.’s body was lying on the bathroom floor, fully dressed in outdoor clothes without any recent damage to them. He had no visible injuries, except strangulation marks on his neck and an abrasion on his hand. The strangulation marks were uneven (three on the right side and two on the left) and particularly visible on the front of the neck. A self-tightening loop of grey synthetic cord was found near the body and another fragment of analogous cord was tied to the middle of a horizontal water supply pipe three meters above the floor. The flat was in good order and no signs of any struggle could be found either on the body or anywhere in the flat. Following the examination, the police took away the cord.\n9.  On the same date the police also took written statements from M.S. (the family acquaintance) and S.M. (a neighbour whose telephone had been used to call the police). M.S. told the police that he knew S.K. and his family and lived in the neighbourhood. At about 1.30 a. m. N.K. (S.K.’s wife) had rung his door and requested his help in breaking into her locked bathroom. She explained that her husband had come home drunk at about 1 a.m., had locked himself in the bathroom and had been crying loudly. She had attempted to break the door open with an axe, but to no avail. M.S. had then followed N.K. to her flat, broken open the bathroom door with a chisel, and had seen S.K. suspended by his neck from the pipe. M.S. and N.K. had cut the cord and had placed S.K.’s body on the floor. They had called the police and an ambulance and had attempted to resuscitate S.K. However, S.K. had already died. S.M. (the neighbour) stated to the police that at about 1:30 a.m. N.K. had asked him to call an ambulance, as her husband had hung himself. He had entered the flat at N.K.’s invitation and had seen the body already placed on the floor.\n10.  Also on the same date, an autopsy of S.K.’s body took place. According to the resulting findings, he died of mechanical asphyxia caused by hanging.\n11.  On 6 April 2000 further results of the forensic examination of S.K.’s body were received, according to which S.K. had been moderately intoxicated by alcohol (2.0%) at the time of his death. The expert report stated that there had been no other injuries or abnormalities on his body.\n12.  On 8 April 2000 N.K. (S.K.’s wife) stated that shortly before his death her husband had shared with her that he had a lover, who had fallen pregnant, and that he was worried about the debt owed by his father to company S. On the day of the incident, he had come home at about 10 p.m. with D.Sh., an acquaintance. They had both been rather drunk. After a little while, N.K., S.K. and Y.K. (their eight-year-old daughter) had accompanied D.Sh. out and had returned home. The daughter had gone to bed, while S.K. and N.K. had been drinking coffee in the kitchen until about 1 a.m. At some point in time, they had been interrupted by a visit from G.P., another acquaintance, who had been looking for D.Sh., and, having learned that he had alre", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6271", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Trudolyubove, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the ARC”).\n7.  On 28 November 1998 a criminal case (no. 91241) was initiated into the circumstances under which money was extorted from the I. family.\n8.  On 2 August 1999 the applicant, a police officer at the material time, was arrested on suspicion of taking part in this crime.\n9.  On 5 August 1999 the applicant was charged with robbery of the I. family, although no formal case concerning robbery had been initiated and the case on extortion had not been formally terminated. On the same date the Prosecutor of the ARC remanded the applicant in custody for two months.\n10.  On 7 October 1999 the Prosecutor of the ARC extended the applicant’s detention for three more months, referring to the need to carry out further investigative actions.\n11.  On 2 January 2000 the Prosecutor of the ARC extended the applicant’s detention for one further month.\n12.  On 27 January 2000 the Prosecutor General of Ukraine extended the applicant’s detention for six further months. The order concerned extension of detention of thirteen persons, including the applicant, with reference to a different case (no. 8229), which concerned robberies and organisation of a gang by Mr S. P., another policeman. At the material time the applicant had no formal procedural status in this latter case.\n13.  On 20 March 2000 case no. 91241 and case no. 8229 were joined.\n14.  On 19 May 2000 the Prosecutors’ Office of the ARC rejected the applicant’s request for release, referring to the need to take further investigative action.\n15.  During the pre-trial investigation, the authorities questioned some 120 witnesses concerning some thirty-four criminal episodes, carried out some twenty reconstructions of the crime scenes and ordered numerous expert assessments.\n16.  On 20 July 2000 the investigation was completed and the applicant, along with eighteen other individuals implicated in gang membership, was committed for trial to the Supreme Court of the ARC (subsequently renamed the Court of Appeal of the ARC (hereafter “the ARC Court”).\n17.  On 4 May 2001, following familiarisation of the defendants with the materials in the case file and completion of other procedural formalities, the ARC Court held a preliminary hearing in the case and scheduled the trial for 5 June 2001.\n18.  Having held some eighteen hearings between June and December 2001, the ARC Court adjourned the proceedings following a request by one of the defendants that the hearings be recorded, for which the technical means were not available at the time.\n19.  On 15 May 2002 the ARC Court resumed consideration of the case and held some 150 hearings up to 22 May 2004.\n20.  According to the applicant, the episode with which he had been charged (the I. family robbery) was examined by the court only in February 2003 in the course of five hearings.\n21.  On several occasions during the trial stage the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to institute criminal proceedings against investigator D., alleging that she had infringed his right to defend himself by concealing the fact that she had ordered ten expert assessments in the case, the results of which he had discovered only upon the completion of the pre-trial investigation.\n22.  On an unspecified date the applicant also attempted to institute criminal proceedings against the investigating authorities for unlawfully detaining him. In particular, they allegedly had no regard to his", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6272", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1990 and 1984 respectively. At the time of introducing the application, they lived in Budapest and Nyírbátor respectively.\n6.  The applicants entered Hungary illegally and were intercepted and arrested by the police on 10 March 2009. On the next day their expulsion was ordered but suspended because of practical difficulties. Their detention under immigration law was ordered until 20 March, with a view to their eventual expulsion. However, on 18 March they applied for asylum, claiming that they were persecuted in their home country for being homosexual.\n7.  The asylum proceedings started on 25 March and, on 9 April, the applicants were interviewed by the refugee authority, an agency belonging under the jurisdiction of the Office of Immigration and Nationality. On the same day their case was admitted to the in-merit phase. Under section 55(3) of the Asylum Act (see below in Chapter II), once a case reaches this stage, the alien administration authority (another agency of the Office of Immigration and Nationality) shall, at the initiative of the refugee authority, terminate the detention of the asylum-seeker. Nevertheless, the applicants’ detention continued. After another interview on 28 May, on 19 June their asylum requests were dismissed. The applicants’ action to challenge this decision in court was unsuccessful.\n8.  Relying on section 55(3), the applicants’ lawyer then requested their release. However, since the refugee authority had not initiated their release, the request was denied by the alien administration authority. On 20 July 2009 the applicants’ lawyer requested judicial review of their detention. This motion was rejected by the Nyírbátor District Court on 19 August 2009 with the formal reasoning that since the refugee authority had not initiated the applicant’s release, the alien administration authority had been under no obligation to order their release and that therefore their detention was lawful.\n9.  The applicants were released only on 10 September 2009, after the maximum period of detention in such cases had expired.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6273", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya YUKOS, was a publicly-traded private open joint-stock company incorporated under the laws of Russia. It was registered in Nefteyugansk, the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region, and at the relevant time was managed by its subsidiary, OOO “YUKOS” Moskva, registered in Moscow.\n7.  The applicant was a holding company established by the Russian Government in 1993 to own and control a number of stand-alone entities specialised in oil production. The company remained fully State-owned until 1995-1996 when, through a series of tenders and auctions, it was privatised.\n8.  Between 13 November 2002 and 4 March 2003 the Tax Inspectorate of the town of Nefteyugansk (“the Tax Office”) conducted a tax inspection of the applicant company.\n9.  As a result of the inspection, on 28 April 2003 the Tax Office drew up a report indicating a number of relatively minor errors in the company’s tax returns and served it on the company.\n10.  Following the company’s objections, on 9 June 2003 the Tax Office adopted a decision in which it found the company liable for having filed incomplete returns in respect of certain taxes.\n11.  The decision of the Tax Office was accepted and complied with by the company on 7 July 2003.\n(b)  Additional tax inspection\n12.  On 8 December 2003 the Tax Ministry (“the Ministry”), acting as a reviewing body within the meaning of section 87 (3) of the Tax Code, carried out an additional tax inspection of the applicant company.\n13.  On 29 December 2003 the Ministry issued a report indicating that the applicant company had a large tax liability for the year 2000. The detailed report came to over 70 pages and had 284 supporting documents in annex. The report was served on the applicant company on the same date.\n14.  The Ministry established that in 2000 the applicant company had carried out its activities through a network of 22 trading companies registered in low-tax areas of Russia (“the Republic of Mordoviya, the town of Sarov in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region, the Republic of Kalmykiya, the town of Trekhgornyy in the Chelyabinsk Region, the town of Lesnoy in the Sverdlovsk Region and the Evenk Autonomous District”). For all legal purposes, most of these entities were set up as entirely independent from the applicant, i.e. as belonging and being controlled by third persons, although their sole activity consisted of commissioning the applicant company to buy crude oil on their behalf from the company’s own oil-producing subsidiaries and either putting it up for sale on the domestic market or abroad, or first handing it over to the company’s own oil-processing plants and then selling it. There were no real cash transactions between the applicant company, its oil-processing and oil-producing subsidiaries and the trading entities, and the company’s own promissory notes and mutual offsetting were used instead. All the money thus accumulated from sales was then transferred unilaterally to the “Fund for Financial Support of the Production Development of OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya YUKOS”, a commercial entity founded, owned and run by the applicant company. Since at all relevant times the applicant company took part in all of the transactions of the trading companies, but acted as the companies’ agent and never as an owner of the goods produced and processed by its own subsidiaries and since the compensation paid by the trading entities for its services was negligible, the applicant company’s real turnover was n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6274", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in St Petersburg.[2]\n7.  On 18 January 2005 criminal proceedings were opened in connection with an offence of fraud committed by unidentified persons with a view to acquiring a flat in Moscow by way of selling it on behalf of its deceased owner, an offence punishable under Article 159 § 3 of the Russian Criminal Code.\n8.  On 27 April 2005 the applicant was detained on suspicion of having committed that fraud and questioned as a suspect. He denied his involvement in the offence.\n9.  On the same date the investigating authorities filed a request with the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) to authorise the applicant’s detention on remand.\n10.  On 28 April 2005 the District Court, composed of judge B., granted the investigator’s request and, with reference to Articles 100 and 108 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, stating that he “had committed a serious criminal offence punishable under the criminal law with a term of imprisonment of more than two years” and that the investigating authority had grounds to believe that he might abscond and obstruct the investigation, if at liberty. No time-limit for the detention was indicated in the decision.\n11.  On 3 May 2005 the applicant’s two lawyers lodged an appeal on his behalf against the decision of 28 April 2005 requesting the applicant’s immediate release. They also complained of a violation of the presumption of innocence on account of the District Court’s statement that the applicant “[had] committed a serious criminal offence”.\n12.  According to the Government, the appeal of 3 May 2005 was received by the District Court on the same date and then sent to the Moscow City Court for further processing. The latter court scheduled a hearing for 17 May 2005. On 16 May 2005 the Moscow City Court received the applicant’s request in which he expressed his wish to participate in person in the examination of his appeal. In the Government’s submission, the Moscow City Court had then to postpone the hearing until 25 May 2005 to be able to comply with the applicant’s request.\n13.  On 25 May 2005 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of 28 April 2005. It noted that, when authorising the applicant’s detention on remand, the District Court had taken into account the fact that the applicant was suspected of having committed a serious criminal offence and had reasonably concluded that the applicant might continue his criminal activity, if at large. The Moscow City Court rejected the argument of the applicant’s legal counsel that the District Court had found the applicant guilty when stating in its decision of 28 April 2005 that he “[had] committed a serious offence”. In this respect the appellate court noted that it was clear that this had been a “technical error”.\n14.  On 4 May 2005 the applicant was formally charged with fraud punishable under Article 159 § 3 of the Russian Criminal Code.\n15.  On 23 June 2005 the District Court, at the investigator’s request, extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 18 July 2005. It referred to the fact that the applicant had been charged with a serious offence and stated that, if at liberty, the applicant might flee from justice and obstruct the establishment of the truth.\n16.  On 14 July 2005 the District Court, at the investigator’s request, further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 18", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6275", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Mirosław Zieliński, is a Polish national who was born in 1953 and is currently detained in Włocławek Prison.\n6.  From 18 November 2004 until 24 July 2008 the applicant was detained in Łowicz Prison. It is not clear whether on the latter date he was released or transferred to another detention facility. He is currently detained in Włocławek Prison.\n7.  The applicant submitted that in Łowicz Prison he had been held in overcrowded and dirty cells. During the period of his detention in Łowicz, the applicant had occupied a total of seventeen cells, including cell no. 202 in wing II, in which he had been detained from 26 October 2007 until 24 July 2008.\n8.  The Government acknowledged that during almost the entire period of the applicant’s detention in Łowicz Prison the space per person in his cells had been inferior to 3 square metres. They submitted that the cells had been clean and that the applicant had had one shower per week and one hour of outdoor exercise per day.\n9.  The applicant also complained about the practice of mixing healthy prisoners with those who were infected with transmissible diseases, such as HIV or hepatitis C (HCV). Prisoners were not informed by the authorities about such state of affairs. On one occasion the applicant was told by his fellow cellmate that the latter was HIV-positive. To that effect the applicant submitted a statement dated 13 February 2008, in which a certain P.P., a person claiming to be an HIV-positive prisoner, certified that on 12 February 2008 he had been placed in the applicant’s cell no. 202 wing II. P.P. further stated that neither the applicant nor other inmates had been aware of his illness and that he, in fact, had been instructed by the prison administration not to reveal his HIV status.\n10.  The applicant complained that he had been exposed to the risk of contamination because he had shared his cell with infected persons and he had not been informed about it. He also had not been advised of the dangers relating to HIV and HCV and of the means of protection against it. Moreover, he submitted that from the moment when he had found out that his fellow cellmates were either infected or could potentially be infected, he feared for his well-being.\n11.  In 2001 the applicant suffered a fracture of the skull and underwent surgery in which a small part of his skull was removed. In addition, prior to his detention he had been hospitalised on several occasions because of his epilepsy, chronic ischemic heart disease (choroba wieńcowa) and thinning of the cervical cortex (zanik kory mózgowej). Prior to his detention in Łowicz Prison the applicant was under regular medical supervision; he received pharmacological treatment and had numerous medical check-ups. On 1 July 2004 he was tested for HIV and HCV. On 12 July 2004 he underwent coronary catheterisation (koronografia).\n12.  On 20 May 2004 the applicant was certified as “temporarily disabled” with a mild degree of disability (umiarkowany stopień niepełnosprawności). It was indicated that the applicant occasionally required the help of a third person in his daily life. The certificate was valid until 20 May 2007.\n13.  The parties did not furnish any medical reports or certificates related either to the period when the applicant was detained in Łowicz Prison or after his release.\n14.  The applicant lodged several complaints about overcrowding in Łowicz Prison. In reply the authorities acknowledged the existence of the problem an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6276", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Yaroslavl.\n6.  The applicant is a retired serviceman. On an unspecified date in 2002 he applied to the commander of military unit no. 19689 and requested documents confirming his priority rights to housing at the place of his choice in connection with his retirement. The applicant also asked for relevant documents which would enable him to get a State housing certificate. This document would allow him to claim a pecuniary compensation from the State partly covering the cost of acquiring the housing of the applicant’s choice.\n7.  Having faced the refusal, the applicant then applied to the courts in this connection. By final judgment of the Moscow Regional Military Court of 20 January 2004 the applicant’s claim was granted. The court decided that:\n“... the commander of military unit [no. 19689] must prepare the relevant documents and make an application to the competent official for the applicant to be put on the priority list of persons in need of housing ... and ... prepare the relevant documents so that [the applicant] could subsequently receive the State housing certificate for acquisition of housing at the place of his choice ...”\n8.  On 10 March 2004 the Yaroslav Garrison Military Court issued the applicant with an enforcement writ and by decision of 6 April 2004 the competent bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings and demanded military unit no. 19689 to comply with it.\n9.  By decision of 4 June 2004 the bailiffs considered the court judgment in question had been enforced and discontinued the proceedings accordingly.\n10.  On 25 August 2004 the Souzdal District Court of the Vladimir Region quashed the bailiffs’ decision of 4 June 2004 as premature.\n11.  On 9 September 2004 the enforcement proceedings were again resumed.\n12.  On 25 August 2005 the applicant’s family was entered into the list of priority housing of military unit no. 19689.\n13.  On 5 June 2006 the applicant and his family of five was entered as the first candidate into the waiting list of the recipients of the State housing certificate of military unit no. 19689 for the year 2006 with the city of Moscow as the chosen place of future residence.\n14.  On 15 November 2006 the enforcement proceedings were terminated, since the judgment in question has been complied with in full.\n15.  On 27 November 2006 the applicant was issued with the State housing certificate. He refused to receive it, claiming that the certificate did not cover the entire cost of the flat and that the Ministry of Defence should now resolve his housing problem at its own expense in full.\n16.  By letters of 11 May, 5 June, 19 July 2007 the applicant submitted that on 17 April 2007 he had been invited to the Military Prosecutor’s Office for “explanations”.\n17.  The respondent Government submitted that this had been unrelated to the proceedings before this Court, since the competent military authorities had been under the impression that the applicant, an active serviceman, evaded his work-related duties.\n18.  In relation to those allegations, on 30 March 2007 an investigator of the Tver Military Prosecutor’s office issued a decision not to institute criminal proceedings.\n19.  This decision was quashed on 28 May 2007 and, following an additional investigation, the investigator again decided not to institute criminal proceedings in this connection for the lack of evidence of any crime.\n20.  The applicant was also unsuccessful in three sets of co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6277", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Istanbul.\n4.  On 11 March 2003 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the KADEK (the Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress).\n5.  On 13 March 2003 he was interrogated at the Anti-Terrorism Branch in the absence of a lawyer. According to a form explaining arrested persons’ rights which the applicant had signed, he had been reminded of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent. In his statement, he admitted his membership of DEHAP (the Democratic People’s Party) and his involvement with the youth branch of HADEP (the People’s Democracy Party). He further stated that in 2000 he had attempted to go to the camps of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party) in Iran, but was caught by the gendarmerie in Van before he could cross the border. The applicant admitted that he had participated in a number of demonstrations organised by DEHAP, where he had chanted slogans in support of Öcalan and the PKK. However, he refused to make a statement regarding his involvement in an illegal demonstration organised in Bahçelievler, Istanbul, on 12 March 2003, where the demonstrators had shouted slogans in support of the PKK and had vandalised banks and shops.\n6.  In the meantime, on 13 March 2003 the applicant saw his lawyer from 10.30 to 10.55 a.m. It is not possible to ascertain from the documents in the case file whether this meeting took place prior to or after the police questioning or what the meeting involved.\n7.  On 15 March 2003 the applicant was brought before the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court in the absence of a lawyer, where he only partially verified his police statement. He explained that, although he was a member of DEHAP, he had never undertaken any actions to aid and abet KADEK and that he disapproved of the violent acts carried out by this organisation. He denied having chanted illegal slogans in any of the demonstrations in which he had participated in the past. He also denied having taken part in the demonstration of 12 March 2003.\n8.  On the same day the applicant’s lawyer requested to see the applicant and to examine the investigation file. The Istanbul State Security Court dismissed the lawyer’s requests, relying on the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the material time (Law no. 1412), which denied these rights to persons accused of offences falling within the jurisdiction of State Security Courts at that stage of the proceedings.\n9.  Later on the same day the applicant was interrogated by a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, in the presence of his lawyer, where he repeated the statements he had made before the public prosecutor. Denying all the accusations against him, the applicant retracted his statement to the police, which had allegedly been extracted under duress. His lawyer added that the demonstrations about which the applicant had been questioned had all been lawful events. After the questioning was over, the judge ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.\n10.  On 20 March 2003 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the applicant and six other persons with membership of the PKK and KADEK, an offence under Article 168 (2) of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765) and Section", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6278", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in Nigeria in October 1986 and currently lives in London.\n6.  On 5 September 2000, at the age of 13 he arrived in the United Kingdom from Nigeria, where he was granted entry clearance together with his two sisters to join their mother, who had resided for four years in the United Kingdom and was working as a nurse. The applicant has not seen his father since 1991, when the latter abandoned the family. Prior to arriving in the United Kingdom, he resided with his elderly maternal grandfather in a town a day’s travel from Lagos.\n7.  On 27 September 2002, at the age of 15, the applicant was convicted of the rape, together with a group of other boys, of a 13 year-old girl. The sentencing judge remarked:\n“The fact is that your self-centred behaviour has had a profound and distressing effect on the everyday life of a thirteen year-old girl. In my view, you are an intelligent and articulate young man, someone who tailored your account to your advantage and you cast deliberate aspersions on your victim. Your intention was to obtain sexual gratification with what in reality was an impressionable schoolgirl by a combination of persistence, charm and finally force ...”\n8.  Taking into account the applicant’s age and previous good character and the fact that there were few aggravating features, the judge imposed a sentence of detention of four years at a Young Offenders’ Institution, together with registration on the sex offenders’ register under the Sex Offenders Act 1997.\n9.  On 7 July 2003, while the applicant was still in detention, the Home Office granted him Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom following the grant of Indefinite Leave to Remain to his mother.\n10.  On 8 September 2003, the applicant was served by the Home Office with a notice of liability to a deportation order on account of the rape conviction.\n11.  On 17 May 2004 a Parole Assessment Report was prepared, concluding that the applicant’s response to rehabilitation was positive overall and that he posed a low risk of re-offending and of causing harm to the public. It noted his exemplary conduct in prison and the consistently good reports received. While in detention, the applicant sat and passed national school education examinations, obtaining GSCE and AS-level qualifications.\n12.  On 27 July 2004, while still in detention, the applicant was served with a deportation order in the following terms:\n“It is concluded that in light of the seriousness of your criminal offence your removal from the United Kingdom is necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder and crime and for the protection of health and morals.\n...\nYou have stated that if you are returned to Nigeria Article 8 would be infringed. The Home Office has carefully considered your representations, but we note that you were convicted of rape at Central Criminal Court for which you were sentenced to four years imprisonment. We consider that the concerns that you have raised about your family life are outweighed by the public interest in preventing crime and consider that any interference with your family life is in your case outweighed by the public interest in preventing crime, and your removal is proportionate in pursuit of that aim under Article 8(2).”\n13.  The applicant appealed against the order.\n14.  On 16 August 2004 the applicant was released from prison on licence for good behaviour, having served approximately one year and ten months of his four-year sentenc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6279", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Istanbul.\n4.  On 10 September 2002 the applicant was taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party) and KADEK (the Kurdistan Freedom and Democracy Congress).\n5.  On 11 September 2002 the applicant was interrogated at the Anti‑Terrorism Branch in the absence of a lawyer. According to a form explaining arrested persons’ rights which the applicant had signed, he had been reminded of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent. It was expressly indicated in the form that, as the applicant had been taken into custody in connection with an offence falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts, he could only have access to a lawyer upon being remanded in custody or after the prolongation of his detention in police custody by a court order. In his statement, which was nine pages long, the applicant explained that he had gone to Greece in 1999 illegally for economic reasons, and to avoid military service. In Athens, he had first taken refuge in an organisation controlled by the PKK and had then joined a PKK camp, where he underwent political training. He had subsequently been sent back to Istanbul and from there to Iran, where he had joined another PKK camp and received further training. He had returned to Istanbul in March 2002. He stated that he was only interested in undertaking legal activities as opposed to acts of violence.\n6.  At 11.00 a.m. on 13 September 2002 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who stated that there were no traces of ill-treatment on his body.\n7.  He was brought before the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court on the same day, again in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant largely reiterated his police statements in respect of the activities he had undertaken in Greece. However, he denied the part about his activities in Iran, alleging that he had gone to Iran for commercial reasons only. He further stated that he had not been ill-treated in police custody, but only threatened.\n8.  On the same day the applicant was interrogated by a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court where he stated that he had not been not engaged in any activities for the PKK and denied the parts of the police statement which claimed otherwise. He further contended that he had only stayed at a PKK camp in Greece out of necessity. The judge ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention at the end of the questioning.\n9.  On 27 September 2002 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court against the applicant and eight other persons, accusing the applicant with membership of the PKK and KADEK, an offence under Article 168 (2) of the former Criminal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.\n10.  The case against the applicant was subsequently transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court following the abolition of State Security Courts by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004.\n11.  On 10 April 2006 the Twelfth Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court delivered its judgment. It acquitted four of the accused and convicted the applicant and five other accused as charged and sentenced the applicant to six years and three months of imprisonment.\n12.  In convicting the applicant, the Istanbul Assize Court had regard to the applicant’s statements to the police, the public pros", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6280", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1970, 1961, 1959, 1965 and 1966 respectively and live in Chişinău.\n8.  As with the applicants in the pilot judgment of Olaru and others, cited above, the applicants in the instant cases complained of a breach of their rights guaranteed under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as a result of the authorities’ failure to comply with final judicial decisions delivered by domestic courts in their favour.\n9.  By a final judgment of 27 December 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of Mr Vartic and ordered the Moldovan Ministry of Finance, together with the Ministry of Economy and Trade and the Chişinău local authorities, to provide him with accommodation. On 24 December 2007, the Chişinău local council adopted a decision to provide Mr Vartic with an apartment situated in Chişinău. Thus, the final judgment in favour of Mr Vartic was enforced.\n10.  By final judgments of 2 August 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of Mr Ţurcan and Mr Tudoreanu and ordered the Moldovan Ministry of Finance, together with the Ministry of Economy and Trade and the Chişinău local authorities, to provide them with accommodation. On 24 December 2007, the Chişinău local council adopted a decision to provide Mr Tudoreanu with an apartment situated in Chişinău. On 21 February 2008, the Chişinău local council adopted a decision to provide Mr Ţurcan with an apartment situated in Chişinău. Thus, the final judgments in favour of Mr Ţurcan and Mr Tudoreanu were enforced.\n11.  By final judgments of 11 October 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favour of Mrs Cerneţchi and Mrs Luniov and ordered the Moldovan Ministry of Finance, together with the Ministry of Economy and Trade and the Chişinău local authorities, to provide them with accommodation. On 21 February 2008, the Chişinău local council adopted a decision to provide Mrs Cerneţchi and Mrs Luniov each with an apartment situated in Chişinău. Thus, the final judgments in favour of Mrs Cerneţchi and Mrs Luniov were enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6281", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant companies, Shesti Mai Engineering OOD, Motorengineering OOD, Nov Bryag OOD and Vitex AD, are based in Sofia, Varna, Burgas and Gabrovo respectively. The other applicants, Mr Krasimir Kostov Evtimov, Mr Georgi Ferdinandov Mitev, Ms Kalina Nikolova Stoycheva, Mr Stefan Borisov Stefanov, Ms Lilyana Nikolova Galeva, Ms Neli Mitkova Alexandrova, Ms Nikolina Slaveva Amzina and Mr Ivan Boyanov Bozhilov, were born in 1946, 1955, 1953, 1956, 1945, 1960, 1947 and 1960 respectively and live in Sofia.\n9.  At the material time all applicants were shareholders in Mezhdunaroden Tzentar po Firmeno Upravlenie AD (“Международен център по фирмено управление АД” – “MTFU”), a limited liability company active in the field of professional training. When it was formed in 1989, the company had a share capital of 3,000,000 old Bulgarian levs (“BGL”)[1], divided into three thousand shares of BGL 1,000 each. Three thousand new shares with a nominal value of BGL 1,000 each were authorised and issued in 1990, the company’s capital thus reaching BGL 6,000,000. In 1998 the nominal value of the shares was increased to BGL 10,000 each, the company’s share capital thus reaching BGL 60,000,000 (which became BGN 60,000 after the July 1999 currency revalorisation – see the footnote below).\n10.  On 6 April 1990 MTFU entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Finance whereby it acquired the right to use for its professional training business, for a period of fifty years, a training centre consisting of buildings and adjoining land in the village of Bistritsa, close to Sofia. In consideration for the acquisition, MTFU, apart from agreeing to pay BGL 6,078,000 for the right of use (according to the applicants, at that time that sum was equal to the training centre’s fair market value), also undertook to carry out at its own expense reconstruction of and improvements to the premises. It was, however, stipulated that, should the right of use be terminated, the State would remain the owner of the whole property.\n11.  By a decision of the Council of Ministers of 21 May 1990, the MTFU was formally granted the right of use of the training centre, under the terms laid down in the above‑mentioned agreement. Several months later the MTFU made the appropriate payment for the right of use.\n12.  Between 1990 and 1999 MTFU carried out major renovation and reconstruction works, enlarging the existing buildings of the training centre, constructing new ones and developing the centre’s infrastructure.\n13.  In 1997 MTFU’s revenue from its professional training business was 390,000 United States dollars (USD), and in 1998 it increased to USD 452,300. Its revenue for the first seven months of 1999 was USD 291,470. In July 1999 the company had one hundred and ten employees. Until that time, the applicant Mr Evtimov had served as its executive director.\n14.  In July 1999 the applicants together held 49.83% of MTFU’s capital, or 2,990 shares in total. Their shareholdings broke down as follows:\n(i)  Shesti Mai Engineering OOD – 250 shares;\n(ii)  Motorengineering OOD – 50 shares;\n(iii)  Nov Bryag OOD – 240 shares;\n(iv)  Vitex AD – 50 shares;\n(v)  Mr Krasimir Kostov Evtimov – 610 shares;\n(vi)  Mr Georgi Ferdinandov Mitev – 600 shares;\n(vii)  Ms Kalina Nikolova Stoycheva – 390 shares;\n(viii)  Mr Stefan Borisov Stefanov – 200 shares;\n(ix)  Ms Lilyana Nikolova Galeva – 100 shares;\n(x)  Ms Neli Mitkova Alexandrova – 100 shares;\n(xi)  Ms Nikolina Slaveva Amzina – 100 shares; and\n(xii)  ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6282", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are spouses who were born in 1957 and 1955 respectively and live in Plovdiv.\n6.  Following partition proceedings, in 1980 the first applicant obtained title over a house together with the adjoining land in Plovdiv, previously owned by her ancestor.\n7.  By an order of 25 April 1984 the mayor of Plovdiv expropriated the properties with a view to constructing an apartment building. The order was based on sections 95 and 98 of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of 1973 (“the 1973 Act”) and stipulated that the first applicant was to receive as compensation a three-room flat in a building which was to be erected by a housing construction cooperative and partly financed by the State. The expropriated properties were valued at 7,431.81 old Bulgarian levs (BGL[1]).\n8.  By a supplementary order of 5 June 1986 based on section 100 of the 1973 Act (see paragraph 17 below), the mayor indicated the exact flat to be given to the first applicant by way of compensation, specifying the building in which it would be located and its exact size and price.\n9.  In November 1986 the applicants vacated the property and were accommodated in a State-owned dwelling. Subsequently the expropriated house was pulled down.\n10.  The flat allotted to the first applicant was valued at BGL 22,928. In 1987 the applicants paid to the cooperative part of that price. The remainder, which equalled the value of the first applicant’s expropriated property, was to be covered by the State.\n11.  On 3 June 1987 the State Savings Bank informed the Bulgarian National Bank that all members of the housing construction cooperative had paid the instalments due by them for the construction of the building.\n12.  Apparently, the construction works started in 1987.\n13.  Between 1992 and 1997 the housing construction cooperative informed the mayor of Plovdiv, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works of the increase in construction material prices, including by providing in October 1992 and in July 1997 a calculation of the respective increase in the financing due by the authorities. The cooperative also drew the authorities’ attention to delays in the construction works and requested that the State fulfilled its obligation to pay its share in the financing of the construction works.\n14.  It appears that between 1995 and 1997 the Ministry of Finance paid the State’s share for the construction works which had been performed between 1992 and 1997. The applicants and the other persons entitled to receive flats in the building also made further financial contributions on account of the increase in construction material prices.\n15.  Apparently, in 1999 and 2001 the Plovdiv Municipality and the housing construction cooperative concluded contracts assigning the construction works of the building to several companies. According to an annex to the contract of 2001, signed in 2005, which specified each party’s financial obligations the State was to cover the whole cost of the construction expenses for the flats of the cooperatives’ members whose properties had been expropriated. The annex further specified that the Plovdiv Municipality’s outstanding financial obligations towards the cooperative amounted to 13,800 new Bulgarian levs (BGN).\n16.  The part of the building where the first applicant’s flat was located was completed and its use authorised on 23 July 2007. That month the first applicant and her family moved in the property. On 5 June 2008 the first applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6283", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Mr Fernand Ullens de Schooten and Mr Ivan Rezabek live in Bonlez and Brussels respectively. They were directors of an accredited clinical biology laboratory called Biorim, whose services were eligible for reimbursement through the National Institute for Sickness and Invalidity Insurance (Institut national d’assurance maladie invalidité – the “INAMI”).\n5.  The Biorim laboratory was searched on 21 November 1989 following a complaint from the Special Tax Inspectorate. The applicants were arrested and remanded in custody. Proceedings were brought against them and eleven other individuals for offences related to the management of the laboratory, including forgery and failure to comply with Article 3 of Royal Decree no. 143 of 30 December 1982.\nThe Article in question laid down, in respect of clinical biology services, the conditions to be met by medical laboratories so that the cost of their services could be reimbursed to users through the sickness insurance scheme. In the version of the text that was in force until 24 May 2005, it stipulated in particular that only laboratories that were run by doctors, pharmacists or persons qualified in chemical sciences were entitled to carry out clinical tests that were eligible for reimbursement.\n6.  On 29 June 1993 the investigating judge concluded the preparation of the case. On 3 April 1995 the Crown Prosecutor finalised his written submissions and, on 29 May 1996, the Committals Division made an order committing the applicants (and eleven other defendants) to stand trial before the Brussels Court of First Instance, sitting as a criminal court.\nThe fraudulent intent referred to in the committal submissions for offences classified as acts of “forgery” consisted in the fact of deceiving the authorities “responsible for monitoring implementation of the legislation on the operation of medical laboratories, in particular the provisions of Royal Decree no. 143”.\n7.  The oral proceedings began on 20 June 1997 and were spread over forty hearings.\n8.  A number of mutual insurance companies applied to join the proceedings as civil parties. They sought compensation for damage stemming from two causes. They claimed that the applicants had, firstly, engaged in a practice of fee sharing and, secondly, had run a clinical biology laboratory in breach of the provisions of Article 3 of Royal Decree no. 143. Under the second head they claimed 19,908,531 euros, corresponding to the total amount paid to the Biorim laboratory between 1 January 1990 (date on which Royal Decree no. 143 entered into force) and 16 April 1992 (last day of the period in which the offences were committed).\n9.  On 30 October 1998 the criminal court convicted the applicants, imposing prison sentences and fines, for various offences that had been committed in connection with the management of Biorim. It found in particular that between 1 January 1990 and 10 June 1997 the laboratory had been run by the first applicant at a time when he did not fulfil the conditions of Article 3 of Royal Decree no. 143, and that he had devised various means of circumventing the legislation.\nThe court declared the civil parties’ claims admissible, but awarded them only a token amount of one euro on the ground that the damage had not been sufficiently substantiated.\n10.  Before the Brussels Court of Appeal, the applicants argued in particular that Article 3 of Royal Decree no. 143 was incompatible with Article 86 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6284", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Bonn.\n6.  On 17 April 1989 the applicant brought civil proceedings before the Wiesbaden Regional Court against the former tenant of his business premises, claiming, inter alia, payment of outstanding rent. Until October 1989 he extended or amended the action four times.\n7.  After an oral hearing on 11 October 1989 the Regional Court partly found for the applicant on 29 November 1989 by way of a default judgment (Versäumnis-Teilurteil).\n8.  On 21 February 1990 the applicant again extended his claim. By final judgment of 28 March 1990 (Schlussurteil) the Regional Court partly found for the applicant and dismissed his remaining claims. On 23 July 1990 the judgment was served on the applicant.\n9.  Both parties appealed against the judgment. On 24 September 1990 the applicant submitted his grounds of appeal and again extended his action. Upon his requests he was granted two further extensions of time-limits of one month respectively. On 29 April 1991 the applicant again extended his claims.\n10.  On 18 March 1992, after an oral hearing on 26 February 1992, the Frankfurt a.M. Court of Appeal commissioned two expert reports which were delivered on 10 February 1993 and on 9 June 1993. After an extension of the time-limit of one week the applicant on 6 October 1993 submitted objections to one of the reports.\n11.  On 13 April 1994 the Court of Appeal gave a partial judgment on provisional enforceability.\n12.  On 4 October 1994 the Court of Appeal commissioned a further expert report which was delivered on 24 February 1996, after the court had enquired about the report five times. After an extension of the time-limit of two weeks the applicant submitted objections to the report.\n13.  On 26 March 1997 the Court of Appeal held an oral hearing, heard one expert and the applicant lodged an auxiliary request. On 25 June 1997 the Court of Appeal partly quashed the Regional Court’s judgment.\n14.  On 7 August 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. Upon his request he was granted an extension of three months of the time-limit for submitting his grounds of appeal.\n15.  On 9 February 2000 the Federal Court of Justice partly quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and insofar remitted the case.\n16.  On 24 January 2001 the Court of Appeal held an oral hearing and on 21 March 2001 gave its judgment. In April 2001 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the judgment.\n17.  On 15 January 2003 the Hessen Constitutional Court quashed the Court of Appeal’s judgment and remitted the case, finding that the applicant’s right to be heard had been violated.\n18.  On 7 May 2003 the Court of Appeal held an oral hearing and heard an expert. On 28 May 2003 it commissioned a supplemental expert report and ordered the applicant to pay advance costs of EUR 2,000 for the expert. On 13 June 2003 the applicant objected to the amount. On 16 June 2003 and 7 July 2003 the Court of Appeal enquired about the payment of the costs.\n19.  After having been informed by the defendant in September 2003 that the parties were negotiating on a settlement of the dispute, the Court of Appeal until May 2004 enquired four times about the state of affairs but received no answers.\n20.  Between June 2004 and June 2005 the applicant submitted several appeals against cost orders.\n21.  Between February 2005 and October 2005 the applicant submitted three motions for bias, all of which were dismissed.\n22.  On 21 September 2005 t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6285", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Cologne.\n6.  On 15 November 1989 the applicant brought civil proceedings against his former partner of a civil-law partnership (Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts) to stop the compulsory enforcement of certain cost orders (Kostenfestsetzungsbeschlüsse) issued by the Cologne Regional Court in respect of previous proceedings between them.\n7.  On 29 November 1989 the Regional Court provisionally stayed the enforcement of the cost orders. On 22 January 1990 the Cologne Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal against this decision.\n8.  On 4 December 1989 the applicant further extended his action.\n9.  On 30 March 1990 the Regional Court held an early first hearing (früher erster Termin) and announced a decision for 1 June 1990.\n10.  On 8 May 1990 the applicant again further extended his action.\n11.  On 1 June 1990 the Regional Court reopened the oral hearing and scheduled a new oral hearing for 21 December 1990, which was postponed at the applicant’s request and rescheduled for 8 February 1990.\n12.  On 21 June 1990 and 21 August 1990 the applicant further extended or modified his action.\n13.  On 17 December 1990 the defendant lodged a counterclaim (Widerklage) requesting the court inter alia to order the applicant to pay him approximately DEM 702,600 (approximately EUR 360,000), concerning claims resulting from the termination of their partnership in 1979.\n14.  On 8 February 1991 the Regional Court held an oral hearing.\n15.  On 12 April 1991 it commissioned an expert report on the applicant’s damages caused by the enforcement measures.\n16.  On 2 December 1991 the defendant suggested to separate the counterclaim from the proceedings in order to speed up the proceedings. On 8 January 1992 the applicant opposed a separation, whereupon the Regional Court decided not to separate the proceedings.\n17.  On 5 February 1992 the court appointed an expert after two other experts had declared that they would not be in a position to prepare the report. On 12 October 1992 the applicant submitted additional information to the expert with a delay of three months. On 24 June 1993 the expert finalised his report of 75 pages.\n18.  On 28 March 1994 the defendant challenged the expert for bias.\n19.  On 8 July 1994 the Regional Court held another oral hearing and announced a decision for 28 October 1994, which was later on rescheduled for 16 December 1994.\n20.  On 5 August 1994 the court rejected the defendant’s challenge for bias. On 25 November 1994 the Cologne Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Court’s decision and found that the expert had been biased.\n21.  On 16 December 1994 the Regional Court reopened the oral hearing.\n22.  On 14 July 1995 the court held an oral hearing.\n23.  On 17 November 1995 the Regional Court commissioned a fresh expert report. On 23 December 1997 the expert delivered his report of 41 pages.\n24.  On 7 November 1996 the defendant again suggested to separate the counterclaim from the proceedings. On 26 November 1996 the applicant opposed a separation.\n25.  A further hearing scheduled for 24 April 1998 was postponed twice. First, because the applicant had further questions to the expert, and later because the sitting judge was seconded to another court.\n26.  On 6 November 1998 the court held an oral hearing.\n27.  By partial judgment of 5 February 1999 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action. The partial judgment comprised 32 pages. In respect of the defendant’s countercla", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6286", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Poltava.\n5.  On 2 June 2000 she lodged a claim with the Poltava Court against the V. company in a corporate dispute between them.\n6.  On 30 January 2001 the court requested the applicant to rectify her claim in accordance with the procedural formalities by 10 February 2001.\n7.  On 29 May 2006 the same court rejected the applicant’s claim as lodged out of the period of limitation.\n8.  On 5 October 2006 and 8 August 2007, respectively, the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal and the Higher Commercial Court upheld the above judgment.\n9.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings nine hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s requests or due to her or both parties’ failure to appear. The applicant disagreed that three hearings had been adjourned at her request or due to her failure to appear. The above delays on the applicant’s part protracted the proceedings to approximately eight and a half months. Some twenty one hearings were adjourned mainly due to the absence of the respondent, its requests for the adjournments, the need to collect additional documents, sickness of a judge, transfer of the case to another judge, moving of the court to another premise or for unspecified reasons.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6287", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  On 7 February 1994 he lodged a claim with the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) against two companies and a local institute, by which he sought to be provided with a flat.\n6.  On 31 March 1995 the above court partly allowed the claim and ordered the institute to provide the applicant with a flat. On 16 May 1995 the Kharkiv Regional Court upheld that judgment.\n7.  On 20 September 1995, 26 February 1996, 17 November 1999 and 10 December 2001 the District Court delivered additional judgments in the case. On 17 October 1995, 19 July 1996, 29 September 2000 and 13 March 2002, respectively, the Kharkiv Regional Court and the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed those judgments and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n8.  On 11 June 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the ruling of 13 March 2002. On 10 March 2003 the District Court requested the applicant to lodge it in accordance with the procedural requirements. Following that, on 3 March 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of 13 March 2002.\n9.  On 2 December 2004 the District Court delivered the additional judgment in the case. On 9 February 2005 and 18 January 2008, respectively, the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal (the latter court acting as a court of cassation) upheld it.\n10.  In the course of the proceedings fifteen hearings were adjourned due to the respondents’ failure to appear, due to the illness or absence of a judge or for unspecified reasons. One forensic examination was ordered (between 15 October 1997 and 9 August 1999).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6288", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Donetsk.\n5.  On 17 November 2001 she instituted court proceedings against her employer and the Social Insurance Fund for the recovery of health-related payments allegedly due to her.\n6.  On 10 September 2003 the Kuybyshevskyy District Court (“the District Court”) delivered a judgment. The applicant appealed against it. On 13 November 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) requested the applicant to lodge her appeal, by 25 December 2003, in accordance with the procedural requirements. Following that, on 15 January 2004 it quashed the above judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n7.  On 29 November 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment. On 25 March 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld it. On 3 October 2007 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, quashed the above decisions and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n8.  On 17 June 2010 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated.\n9.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant modified her claim on four occasions. Two hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s and other parties’ failure to appear. Thirty further hearings were adjourned, mainly due to other parties’ failure to appear, the absence or sickness of a judge, the need to collect additional documents or for unspecified reasons. Two expert examinations were ordered and lasted for about one year and one month.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6289", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Chernigiv.\n5.  On 29 May 1998 he lodged a claim with the Desnyanskyy District Court of Chernigiv (“the District Court”) against the Ministry of the Interior seeking damages for injuries caused to him by its employee Mr O.\n6.  From 18 December 1998 to 22 July 1999 and from 23 September 1999 to 1 November 1999 the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of criminal proceedings against Mr O.\n7.  Following two remittals of the case for fresh examination, on 19 May 2004 the District Court partly allowed the applicant’s claim and awarded him certain amounts in damages.\n8.  On 16 September 2004 and 30 April 2007 respectively the Chernigiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal (the latter court acting as a court of cassation) upheld the above judgment. The decision of 30 April 2007 was served on the applicant on 14 August 2007.\n9.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant three times amended his claim. The courts adjourned fifteen hearings following the applicant’s requests or due to his and other parties’ failure to attend them. The applicant disagreed stating that he had not been informed of the hearings which he had not attended. Some twenty two hearings were further adjourned following other parties’ requests, their failure to appear or for unspecified reasons.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6290", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5. The applicant company is specialised in the production of chemical products in the Expo-Business-Chişinău Free Economic Zone.\n6.  On 15 October 2001 the State Tax Inspectorate (“the Inspectorate”) ordered the applicant company to pay value-added tax in the amount of 2,021,312 Moldovan lei (MDL) (approximately 126,000 euros (EUR)) and a fine of MDL 1,617,049 (approximately EUR 101,000) for failure to pay the aforementioned value-added tax. The applicant company disputed the tax assessment and argued that it was exempt from paying value-added tax in accordance with the Act establishing the Expo-Business-Chişinău Free Economic Zone (“the FEZ Act”). As the Inspectorate did not accept the applicant company’s arguments and its interpretation of the law, the applicant company instituted proceedings.\n7.  On 19 June 2002 the Supreme Court of Justice issued a final ruling on the case and found in favour of the applicant company. The applicant was cleared of the obligation to pay the sums imposed by the Inspectorate.\n8.  On 20 October 2005 Parliament adopted a bill on the interpretation of the FEZ Act (“the Interpretation Act”), giving the FEZ Act a different interpretation from that given by the applicant company and the courts.\n9.  On 2 November 2005 the Inspectorate applied for review of the judgment of the Supreme Court of 19 June 2002, on the basis of the new interpretation given to the law by Parliament.\n10.  On 14 November 2005 the applicant company was informed by telephone by the Registry of the Supreme Court that a hearing in the case would take place on 16 November 2005. The company’s chief executive officer applied for an adjournment, arguing that he would not be able to participate in the hearing.\n11.  On 16 November 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice held a hearing in the case, in the absence of the applicant company’s representative, and upheld the application for review lodged by the Inspectorate. It quashed the previous judgment and ruled in favour of the Inspectorate.\n12.  On 30 November 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the Interpretation Act unconstitutional. In view of that, on 12 December 2006 the applicant company lodged an application for review of the judgment of 16 November 2005 with the Supreme Court of Justice. However, the application was dismissed on 24 January 2007.\n13.  The parties disagree on whether the judgment of 16 November 2005 was enforced. According to the applicant company, it was partially enforced and it paid 42,906 Moldovan Lei (MDL). The rest of the sum sought by the Inspectorate could not be paid because the applicant company became insolvent. The Government dispute this submission and argue that the judgment of 16 November 2005 was never enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6291", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in the Krasnodar region.\n5.  According to the applicant, in 1995 he signed a contract with a Russian football club as a football player, obtained a Russian visa and settled in Russia. Later on, he gave up football because of an injury and entered (some time between 1998 and 2002) a higher educational institution in Krasnodar.\n6.  It appears that since 2003 or 2004 the applicant has been living in the Krasnodar region with a Russian national, Ms A., as common-law husband and wife.  The applicant has been lawfully resident in Russia at least since 20 October 2004. In April 2005 Ms A. gave birth to a son. The applicant formally acknowledged paternity. The boy was given the applicant’s last name and patronymic.\n7.  On 20 June 2006 the applicant was expelled from the University because of his failure to attend classes. It appears that on 9 September 2006 the document authorising his stay in Russia (apparently a student visa) was revoked.\n8.  According to the applicant, he applied to a private firm for assistance in obtaining or renewing his visa. It is alleged that an employee of this firm handed over the applicant’s passport to the local Federal Security Office.\n9.  On 25 October 2006 Ms A. gave birth to a daughter. Although for unspecified reasons the applicant did not formally register paternity, he never contested it and the girl has his first name as a patronymic.\n10.  On 3 November 2006 the applicant was arrested by officers of the Russian Federal Migration Service (“FMS”). On the same day the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Krasnodar found the applicant guilty of the administrative offence of violating the residence regulations for foreign nationals (see paragraph 26 below) and imposed on him a fine of 1,500 Russian roubles (RUB). The applicant was then released. He did not appeal against this court decision and paid the fine.\n11.  As the applicant had no valid authorisation to remain in the country he was provided with a transit visa valid from 7 to 16 November 2006, to enable him to leave Russia. However, he did not leave the country, because, as he explained, his wife had recently given birth to their second child and he had to take care of their first child.\n12.  The applicant stated that between 1 and 10 January 2007 he could not make any arrangements to regularise his residence status due to the closure of public offices during the public holidays in Russia.\n13.  On 11 January 2007 the applicant was subjected to an identity check by FMS officers. As he had no valid document, the officers arrested him and took him to the FMS premises, where they drew up an administrative offence report concerning a violation of residence regulations for foreigners (see paragraphs 26 and 33 below). The report reads as follows:\n“[The applicant] was subjected to an identity check and could not provide evidence of his compliance with the requirement of temporary registration for a period longer than three days of residence...\nI have been informed of my procedural rights, including the right to have access to the record and other materials, the right to legal assistance...Court proceedings, which may result in an administrative arrest or administrative removal from Russia, should be carried out in the presence of the person concerned...[the applicant’s signature]\nThe person’s explanations: {in handwriting in the Russian language} I did not have enough time to renew my registration status.”\n14.  According to t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6292", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and resides in the village of Achkhoy‑Martan in the Chechen Republic. She is the mother of Mr Timur Beksultanov, born in 1980.\n6.  In the applicant’s submission her family members, including Timur Beksultanov, were victims of continuing persecution on the part of the domestic authorities. In July 2003 Timur Beksultanov even had to quit his job as a coach in the Achkhoy-Martan local sports centre. Furthermore, on several occasions (the applicant did not furnish the exact dates) servicemen of the federal forces allegedly burst into the applicant’s house, searched it and intimidated the applicant and members of her family.\n7.  On 7 July 2003 the prosecutor’s office of the Achkhoy-Martan District (“the district prosecutor’s office”) opened a criminal case against Timur Beksultanov under Articles 205 § 2 (terrorism), 208 § 2 (participation in an illegal armed group), 222 § 2 (aggravated possession of weapons) and 317 (assault on a law-enforcement officer) of the Criminal Code (“CC”). The case file was assigned the number 44050. It appears that Timur Beksultanov was put on a list of wanted persons in connection with those proceedings.\n8.  According to the applicant, Timur Beksultanov denied the charges against him and intended to appear at the district prosecutor’s office.\n(b)  Disappearance of Timur Beksultanov\n9.  On 2 October 2004 Mr I.M., an officer of the police special-purpose squad (“OMON”), came to the applicant’s house and asked Timur Beksultanov to follow him to an unidentified destination “to explain that [Timur Beksultanov] was not implicated in any terrorist activities”. The two men got into I.M.’s vehicle, a VAZ-2107, and drove off. The applicant memorised only a sequence of three figures from the car number plate, namely “940”.\n10.  The following account of the events is based on the information allegedly obtained by the applicant from two persons, one of them being identified by her as “a shepherd” and another as “a villager of Achkhoy‑Martan”. The applicant did not indicate the names of those witnesses or furnish copies of their statements. In her submission, the witnesses did not wish to give their names because they feared reprisals.\n11.  According to the applicant, one of the witnesses told her that at about 11 a.m. on 2 October 2004 he had seen a convoy of several armoured personnel carriers (“APCs”) and UAZ vehicles stationed at a crossroads between three villages, where one of the roads led to Shaami-Yurt. There had been numerous servicemen near the vehicles. A VAZ-2107 vehicle had approached the convoy. Timur Beksultanov and I.M. had got out of the vehicle and the servicemen had requested their identity papers. Having checked them, the servicemen had twisted Timur Beksultanov’s arms and had started beating him up. When he had fallen on the ground, the witness had heard several shots and had seen that Timur Beksultanov was wounded in his thigh. Immediately thereafter an officer had approached Timur Beksultanov and had shot him in the shoulder. After that the servicemen had put Timur Beksultanov in an APC and had driven off to an unknown destination. The servicemen had not done anything to I.M., who had got back inside his vehicle and had driven away. According to the applicant, the witness had not been able to hear everything which had occurred at the crossroads but had clearly seen what had been going on there.\n12.  On 2 October 2004, several hours after her son’s abduction, the vehic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6293", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are mother and son. They were born in 1965 and 1994 respectively and live in Saint-Priest, France.\n6.  In a letter bearing the Bucharest Post Office’s stamp of 5 November 2004 and received by the Court on 17 November 2004, Ms M. complained, inter alia, of violations of her and her son’s rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention in respect of criminal proceedings which ended by a final judgment of 18 March 2004.\n7.  By letter of 19 December 2005 the Court asked Ms M. to state clearly whether the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention was also raised on her behalf.\n8.  By letter of 1 March 2006 Ms M. confirmed the receipt of the Court’s letter of 19 December 2005 and, without referring to any particular articles of the Convention, stated that she complained only on her son’s behalf.\n9.  Ms M. and D.C. were married on 27 November 1991. A.C., the couple’s only child, was born on 7 August 1994.\n10.  On 16 December 1994, Ms M. filed for divorce from D.C., citing her husband’s volatile and violent nature as the chief ground for divorce. She also asked to be granted full custody of their son. By a judgment of 10 February 1995, the Bucharest District Court allowed the claims and granted Ms M. full custody of the second applicant. D.C. was obliged to pay monthly maintenance until the second applicant became an adult.\n11.  Following an application by D.C. for custody of the second applicant to be reconsidered and granted to him, on 21 January 1998 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the claim. The judgment was upheld on appeal, the Bucharest County Court holding on 18 September 1998 that the father had proved:\n“to have had and to still have a violent nature and an uncivilised attitude, provoking situations when visiting his child which are likely to negatively influence the child’s physical and psychological development.”\n12.  D.C. also applied to the courts for contact rights with the second applicant on the first and third weekends of each month from 10 a.m. on Saturday until 7 p.m. on Sunday, as well as for thirty days during his annual leave. The request was granted on 8 June 1998 by the Bucharest District Court, having in mind the best interests of the child and the fact that his mother “did not oppose the request”. Ms M. lodged an appeal, claiming that she had not been lawfully summoned and therefore that she had not had knowledge of the hearing. On an unspecified date, her appeal was dismissed for a procedural error; the judgment thus became final.\n13.  Ms M. contested the enforcement of this judgment, essentially relying on the existence of criminal complaints lodged by her against D.C., accusing him of having molested the child (see section B below). The Bucharest District Court dismissed her application on 29 September 2000. She appealed against this judgment, and on 7 May 2001 the proceedings were stayed until a final decision was given in the proceedings concerning the limitation of D.C.’s visiting rights (described below in section C).\n14.  On 25 March 2004, D.C. asked for the stay to be lifted. The appeal was dismissed on 26 April 2004, as the main objections to the enforcement formulated by Ms M. had been clarified within the concluded criminal and civil proceedings respectively (described below in sections B and C).\n15.  Ms M. appealed on points of law. The appeal was dismissed by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 1 June 2005. The court held that her argument that the enforcement of the disputed judg", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6294", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Wałbrzych.\n6.  On 27 July 2005 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed battery, uttered threats and intimidated a witness.\n7.  On 28 July 2005 the Wałbrzych District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to remand the applicant in custody. The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question and the high probability that a heavy sentence would be imposed on him. The court further considered that there was a risk that the applicant might interfere with the course of the proceedings and bring pressure to bear on witnesses, particularly in the light of the fact that he had previous convictions.\n8.  On 27 October 2005 the applicant’s detention was extended. The court relied on the grounds given previously. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on 3 November 2005.\n9.  On 23 December 2005 the District Court further extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and his two co-accused, considering it necessary in order to ensure the proper course of the proceedings. An appeal by the applicant was dismissed on 5 January 2006.\n10.  On 9 March 2006 the applicant and the two co-accused were indicted before the Wałbrzych District Court.\n11.  On 21 March 19 June, 12 September and 7 December 2006 the trial court further extended the applicant’s detention, finding that the original grounds for it remained valid. The court also considered that there was a risk that the accused would interfere with the proper course of the proceedings.\n12.  At a hearing held on 2 March 2007 the Wałbrzych District Court extended the applicant’s detention, reiterating the grounds invoked previously.\n13.  The applicant appealed against this decision.\n14.  On 21 March 2007 the Świdnica Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The court noted that the applicant had already “tried to influence the course of the proceedings”, had tried to abscond while being transported to the court and that he had already been convicted of offences similar to those with which he was charged in the present set of proceedings. The court also considered that the applicant might try to influence the testimony of his sister, who was accused in the same proceedings but who was not detained. The court concluded that detention on remand was the only preventive measure capable of ensuring the proper course of the proceedings.\n15.  Subsequently, on 30 May 2007, the applicant’s detention was extended on the grounds given previously.\n16.  Between 22 June 2006 and 3 July 2007 the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed on him in a different set of proceedings.\n17.  On 3 July 2007 the Wałbrzych District Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. Together with two accomplices, the applicant was found guilty of, inter alia, forgery, battery, robbery and uttering threats. However he was not charged or convicted of membership of an organised criminal group.\n18.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment.\n19.  On 21 December 2007 the Świdnica Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. On the same day the court extended the applicant’s detention, finding that the grounds previously given remained valid.\n20.  On 25 June 2008 the applicant’s detention was further extended. An appeal by the applicant against that decision was dismissed on 10 July 2008.\n21.  On 25 July ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6295", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Podoleni.\n6.  On 7 November 2005, at about 12 noon, the applicant went to Podoleni Town Hall to cash his monthly sickness benefit. Having noticed that the sum cashed was smaller than the amount he had received in previous months he expressed dissatisfaction to the mayor and the deputy mayor.\n7.  Unsatisfied with the explanations received, the applicant started to insult the civil servants working at the town hall. A few of the witnesses to the incident stated that the applicant was under the influence of alcohol. The applicant denied it.\n8.  As the applicant could not be calmed down, the mayor and the deputy mayor took him to the police station, which was situated close to the town hall.\n9.  The applicant alleged that the mayor had hit him at the police station. He did not submit any medical certificate in this connection.\n10.  On the ground that the applicant continued to behave aggressively and to address threats to those around him, the chief police officer, P.E., handcuffed him to a tree in the courtyard of the police station.\n11.  According to the applicant and several witnesses, he was kept handcuffed for about two hours and forty-five minutes. The Government averred that the handcuffing lasted one hour and forty-five minutes.\n12.  As the police station was located in the centre of the village, many inhabitants of the village passed by and saw the applicant handcuffed to the tree in the courtyard. One of them informed the press and the local television station. Reporters arrived at the scene and took pictures of the handcuffed applicant. The incident was covered by an article on 10 November 2005 in the local newspaper Realitatea called ‘The chief police officer of Podoleny molests a fellow citizen’.\n13.  Five months before the events in question, the applicant had had surgery on his left femur. According to the documents submitted by him, he was hospitalised in the orthopaedics section of Neamţ Hospital between 12 November and 2 December 2002 and between 30 May and 15 June 2005. At the time of the events he was suffering from coxarthrose (arthritis of the hip) and was receiving sickness benefit for that reason.\n14.  According to the applicant, being kept handcuffed outdoors for such a long time on a cold and wet November day worsened his medical condition. On the basis of a medical certificate issued on 16 January 2008 the applicant had been designated disabled (at medium level) by a medical board.\n15.  On the day the incident took place, police officer P.E. drafted a report stating that he had had to use force and the handcuffs in order to prevent the applicant from deliberately self-harming. He stated that he had kept the applicant handcuffed for twenty to thirty minutes and that he had stayed close to him all this time. However, his statement was contradicted by the statement of M.D., the former deputy mayor of the village, who testified that the applicant was alone and the police station was closed when he passed by the front of the building on 7 November 2005.\n16.  On 9 November 2005 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Piatra Neamţ District Court against police officer P.E. and the mayor, accusing them of causing bodily harm and insulting behaviour.\n17.  By a judgment rendered on 20 January 2006, that court remitted the file to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Neamţ County Court for investigation of the incident. It gave a new legal classification to the of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6296", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, Mr Juliusz Tarnowski, Mr Marek Tarnowski and Mr Aleksander Tarnowski are siblings. They are Polish nationals who were born in 1929, 1932 and 1934 respectively and live in Kraków and Sopot.\n5.  The applicants are heirs of the owner of plots of land and buildings, which constituted a property called “Końskie Wielkie – Pałac”. The property was expropriated by the State by virtue of the 1944 Decree on Agrarian Reform and confiscated in January 1945.\n6.  However, the relevant authorities failed to issue an appropriate administrative decision, declaring that the property had been subject to expropriation within the framework of the agrarian reform.\n7.  In 1965 the State Treasury's ownership over the property was entered in the land and mortgage register.\n8.  On 16 July 1996 the applicants requested the Kielce Governor to issue a decision stating that the property “Końskie Wielkie – Pałac” should not have been subject to expropriation under section 2 § 1 (e) of the 1944 Decree on Agrarian Reform.\n9.  On 30 May 1997 the Kielce Governor dismissed the applicants' request, finding that the property had met the criteria for expropriation set out in the 1944 Decree. The applicants appealed on 21 June 1997.\n10.  On 4 August 1999 the applicants complained about inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture.\n11.  On 14 September 1999 the applicants lodged another complaint about inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n12.  On 8 December 1999 the Minister of Agriculture dismissed the applicants' appeal against the decision of the Kielce Governor of 30 May 1997.\n13.  On 31 May 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the applicants' appeal against the Minister's decision, finding that the administrative authorities had erred in law in that they had failed to give persuasive grounds for their decisions. The court quashed the first- and the second‑instance decisions.\n14.  On 1 July 2002 the applicants requested a stay of the proceedings since the Kielce Regional Court had resumed parallel civil proceedings (see 2. below). On 14 August 2002 the Kielce Governor refused to grant their request. On 28 August 2002 the applicants lodged an interlocutory appeal with the Minister of Agriculture.\n15.  On 7 February 2003 the applicants lodged a complaint about inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. On 20 March 2003 the applicants lodged another complaint about inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n16.  On 6 November 2003 the Minister of Agriculture discontinued the appellate proceedings (concerning the applicants' request for the proceedings to be stayed) following the withdrawal of their interlocutory appeal.\n17.  On 31 March 2005 the Kielce Governor discontinued the administrative proceedings on the merits of the applicants' case finding that the civil courts were competent to deal with it. The applicants appealed on 20 April 2005 to the Minister of Agriculture.\n18.  On 5 June 2006 the Chamber of seven judges of the Supreme Administrative Court adopted a resolution on procedure to be followed in the examination of cases concerning claims for restitution of property expropriated on the basis of the 1944 Decree on Agrarian Reform. The court ruled that the administrative authorities were competent to deal with such cases.\n19.  On 30 June 2005 the applicants lodged a complaint about inactivity on the part of the Mi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6299", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Dubrovnik.\n6.  On 27 November 2003 the Government of Croatia appointed the applicant Head of the Dubrovnik-Neretva County State Administration Office with effect from 1 January 2004.\n7.  Meanwhile, on 30 June 2002 the applicant’s neighbour Mrs I.Š.-H. filed a criminal complaint against him with the police authorities in Dubrovnik. She alleged that on 29 June 2002 the applicant had demolished a separating wall erected between their backyards by her husband and broken one of the windows of her house. In her statement of 13 January 2003, Mrs I.Š.-H. added that during the incident of 29 June 2002 the applicant had also shouted that she and her family should come out so that he could kill them.\n8.  On 12 December 2003 the Metković Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Metkoviću) indicted the applicant before the Dubrovnik Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Dubrovniku) accusing him of the criminal offences of uttering threats and damaging another’s property, and invited the court to issue a penal order in accordance with section 446 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see paragraph 21 below).\n9.  On 18 December 2003 a single judge of the Dubrovnik Municipal Court issued a penal order (kazneni nalog) against the applicant under section 446 of the Criminal Procedure Act, finding him guilty as charged and imposing a prison sentence of two months, suspended for two years. The applicant was not informed of, and did not participate in, those proceedings. The order was served on the applicant on 3 January 2004.\n10.  On 9 January 2004 the applicant lodged an objection (prigovor) against the penal order arguing that he had not committed the criminal offences for which he had been convicted, and that he had not been given an opportunity to defend himself and present evidence.\n11.  On 8 May 2006 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court set aside its penal order of 18 December 2003 and dropped the charges against the applicant under section 353 of the Criminal Procedure Act without any further explanation.\n12.  Meanwhile, by a decision of 17 March 2004 the Government of Croatia removed the applicant from his position as Head of the Dubrovnik-Neretva County State Administration Office on the grounds that he had been found guilty of a criminal offence by the judgment of the Dubrovnik Municipal Court of 18 December 2003. The decision reads as follows:\nD E C I S I O N\n“Nikša Hrdalo is hereby relieved of his duties as Head of the Dubrovnik-Neretva County State Administration Office.\nR e a s o n s\nSection 52(3) of the State Administration System Act provides that the heads of the regional offices of the State administration are appointed and removed by the Government of Croatia upon a proposal of the State secretary of the Central Public Administration Office on the basis of a previously conducted public competition.\nBy a decision of the Government of Croatia ... of 27 November 2003 Nikša Hrdalo was appointed Head of the Dubrovnik-Neretva County State Administration Office.\nBy judgment no. K 386/03 of the Dubrovnik Municipal Court of 18 December 2003, Nikša Hrdalo was found guilty of a criminal offence against the rights and freedoms of man and the citizen defined in Article 129 § 2 of the Criminal Code and classified as uttering threats, in conjunction with a criminal offence against property defined in Article 222 § 1 of the Criminal Code and classified as damaging another’s property. [As a consequenc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6300", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Kharkiv.\n6.  On 22 November 2001 B.’s body affected with injuries was found in his apartment. On the same date the Dzerzhinsky District Police of Kharkiv instituted a criminal investigation into the incident.\n7.  On 23 November 2001 A. reported to the police that he had witnessed the applicant beating B. on the head with a frying pan at a party in B.’s apartment. He further confessed that after B. had fallen to the floor unconscious, he and the applicant had taken valuables and left.\n8.  On 26 November 2001 the police drafted a bill of indictment charging the applicant with B.’s murder. Unable to establish the applicant’s whereabouts and question him, they subsequently put him on the “wanted” list.\n9.  On 5 December 2001 the investigation obtained a decision to remand the applicant in custody from the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv (hereafter “the District Court”). In its decision, the court referred to the gravity of the charges against the applicant, his recent criminal record and his disappearance after the incident with B.\n10.  On 8 December 2001 the investigating authorities added to the case file a letter of confession addressed by the applicant to the President of the District Court and dated 26 November 2001. In this letter the applicant explained, in particular, that he had partied with A. and B. in B.’s apartment and a fight had started between A. and B., during which the applicant had escaped.\n11.  On 4 February 2002 the applicant was arrested. On the same date he signed the arrest record (протокол), stating that he had been detained pursuant to the decision of the District Court of 5 December 2001, on suspicion of murder. According to the applicant, he was not apprised of the content of the decision of 5 December 2001. He presented no documents in evidence that he had lodged any relevant requests or complaints before the commencement of the trial.\n12.  On 18 February 2002 the applicant was presented with a new bill of indictment drafted on that day, according to which he was charged with murdering B. and theft from his apartment.\n13.  On 28 February 2002 the case was transferred to the District Court for trial.\n14.  On 1 March 2002 the Dzerzhinsky District Prosecutors’ Office of Kharkiv modified the indictment, having substituted the murder charge with that of infliction of grievous bodily injuries resulting in death.\n15.  On 7 March 2002 the District Court held a preparatory hearing and scheduled the case for trial for 17 April 2002. According to the Government, at the preparatory hearing the District Court upheld the decision to keep the applicant in custody, having found no grounds for his release. The copy of the decision taken by the District Court on that date provided by the parties contains no reference to any ruling concerning the applicant’s release or continuing detention.\n16.  Between March 2002 and February 2003 the District Court scheduled some nine hearings; however, none of them took place. On five occasions the hearings were rescheduled on account of the judge’s inability to hear the case (sickness, vacations or being occupied in other proceedings). On other occasions the hearings were adjourned to accommodate procedural requests made by the parties or on other grounds.\n17.  On 17 and 18 February 2003 the District Court held the first hearings and adjourned the proceedings until 18 March 2003 in order for the expert who had examined B.’s corpse to be sum", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6301", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Martjanci.\n6.  At around 10 p.m. on 2 October 2006 the police, having been called, intervened at the home of the applicant’s half-sister P., who had been behaving in a violent and threatening manner towards their mother. The applicant arrived at the scene after the police officers. During the police intervention, P. managed to escape together with her 8-year-old daughter. The applicant and the officers searched for P. In the meantime, she returned alone and refused to disclose her daughter’s whereabouts. The applicant got upset and, according to the police statement, grabbed P.’s neck with one hand and slapped her with the other hand, in the presence of the police officers. He then calmed down and was informed by the officers of the minor offence he had committed. In accordance with the summary procedure under the Minor Offences Act (hereinafter the “MOA”) he was fined 150,000 Slovenian tolars (approximately 625 euros (EUR)) for the offence of violent and aggressive behaviour. In his application to the Court the applicant maintained that he had assisted the officers and had been unjustifiably implicated in the situation.\n7.  Four days later, the applicant received written notice of the payment order issued by the police, which stated that he had committed a minor offence under section 6(4) of the Protection of Public Order Act and included a statement of facts which read as follows (in its entirety):\n“The mentioned [person] was present at the incident involving his half-sister P. at home. Her conduct, insults and aggressive behaviour had upset him and for that reason he grabbed P.’s neck and slapped her across the face. After that act, he calmed down.”\n8.  On 13 October 2006 the applicant lodged a request for judicial review. He alleged that his sister had been under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and had threatened and offended their mother and other people present, including the police officers. He also explained that P. had taken her child away in the car and had returned without her, refusing for a while to say where she had left her. The applicant and the officers had tried to convince her to disclose the child’s whereabouts but P. had threatened the applicant and spat at him. After being provoked by her, the applicant, fearing for the child, had approached her and gently held her neck but had not slapped her. She had then revealed the whereabouts of the child and one of the officers had gone with her to pick him up. The applicant alleged that he had committed no offence and that he had not slapped P. In accordance with section 63 of the MOA the police forwarded the request for judicial review to the Murska Sobota Local Court.\n9.  On 26 May 2008 the Murska Sobota Local Court gave a judgment in which, relying on section 65(1) of the MOA, it rejected the applicant’s request for judicial review as unsubstantiated and upheld the payment order. The applicant was ordered to pay EUR 62 for the costs of the proceedings.\n10.  As explained in the judgment, the court based its decision on the payment order and the statement of facts concerning the event, which the police submitted to the court at the same time as the request for judicial review. The court found as follows:\n“the conduct of the defendant towards his sister which was observed by the police officers personally and directly .... was unjustified regardless of her mental and physical state, which therefore leads the court to concl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6302", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Alushta.\n5.  On 19 July 1999 she instituted proceedings in the Alushta Court against her former employer seeking recovery of various job-related payments, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and the court’s ruling obliging her former employer to amend her work records.\n6.  On 16 May 2003, following three remittals of the case for fresh examination, the above court allowed the applicant’s claim in part.\n7.  On 22 December 2003 and 20 April 2006, respectively, the Crimea Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the above judgment. The final decision was served on the applicant on 15 May 2006.\n8.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant twelve times specified her claim. One hearing was adjourned at the applicant’s request. Sixteen further hearings were adjourned at the other party’s request, due to its representative’s failure to appear and the absence of a judge or for unspecified reasons. One forensic examination was ordered by the court (between 19 April 2001 and 26 April 2002).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6303", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  In accordance with a contract concluded on 18 February 1987 between the Municipality of Itea and the applicant, the latter undertook the construction of a sewage treatment plant on behalf of the municipality whose cost amounted to 143,036.24 euros.\n5.  On 24 July 1990 the applicant asked the department in charge of the project (Technical Services of Municipalities and Communities in the Prefecture of Fokida (hereafter “T.S.M.C”) to compile a revised table of costs in order to take into account further work following an amendment of the project. However, no table was created within the determined three-month time-limit, following the applicant’s request.\n6.  On 29 October 1990 the applicant lodged an objection with the T.S.M.C – a remedy which had compulsorily to be exhausted according to the national legislation before having recourse to a court – challenging the omission of the aforementioned department to compile this table. The objection was rejected by the municipal council of Itea.\n7.  On 8 February 1991 the applicant lodged an administrative appeal (αίτηση θεραπείας) against the abovementioned decision which was also tacitly rejected by the Prefect of Fokida.\n8.  On 3 July 1991 the applicant lodged a recourse with the Piraeus Administrative Court of Appeal challenging the implicit rejection of the Prefect of Fokida.\n9.  In a judgment dated 30 June 1992 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the Prefect and the case was remitted to him for a fresh examination (judgment no. 1627/1992). In particular, the appellate court rejected the arguments of the Municipality of Itea according to which the applicant had not complied with the procedural requirement concerning the notification of the appeal to the other party.\n10.  On 24 November 1992 the Municipality of Itea lodged an appeal on points of law.\n11. In a judgment dated 1st April 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed judgment no. 1627/1992 of the Court of Appeal and remitted the case to a different division of the same court (judgment no. 1618/1996).\n12.  On 24 September 1997, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that the requirement of notification of the appeal had been met and dismissed the case on its merits, observing that the applicant’s claim was contrary to the terms of the contract.\n13.  On 4 March 1998 the applicant lodged another appeal on points of law with the Supreme Administrative Court. The hearing, which was originally set for 15 March 1999, was subsequently adjourned to 10 December 2001 and then to 3 June 2002. Meanwhile, on 11 February 2002, the case was struck from the first division and transferred to the sixth division of the court. A new hearing date was set for 13 January 2003. Subsequently, between 13 January 2003 and 17 June 2008 the case was adjourned on sixteen consecutive occasions.\n14.  The hearing took place on the latter date.\n15.  In a judgment dated 6 October 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the ruling of the appellate court. In particular, it observed that the finding of the Court of Appeal that the procedure had been respected by the mere filing of the administrative appeal to the municipality and the assignment of a registration number without any notification by a bailiff or other public body being necessary was contrary to the law. Subsequently, the Supreme Administrative Court examined the applicant’s recourse de novo and dismissed it as inadmissible because the applicant had not complied with the notif", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6304", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1962 and live in Częstochowa.\n5.  On 30 December 1994 the Mayor of Mykanów issued a decision granting building permission for a certain M.N., the proprietor of a plot of land adjacent to the applicants’ house, to construct a butchery and abattoir on his property. Since at least 1997 Mr M.N. had been running the butchery in question.\n6.  Following the re-opening of the case, on 17 September 1998 the Mayor’s decision of 1994 was quashed.\n7.  On 27 April 1998 M.N. requested planning permission in order to extend the butchery.\n8.  On 15 June 1998 the Mayor of Mykanów granted planning permission.\n9.  The applicants appealed against that decision.\n10.  On 21 July 1998 the Częstochowa Self-Government Board of Appeal upheld the challenged decision. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n11.  On 23 May 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the complaint, quashed the challenged decision and remitted the case.\n12.  After the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment, on an unspecified date, the proceedings were discontinued because the investment in question had been completed.\n13.  On 9 February 1999 the Mayor of Mykanów granted a building permit for the extension of the butchery. The decision was upheld by the Śląski Governor on 15 March 1999.\n14.  The applicants lodged a complaint against the latter decision which was allowed by the Supreme Administrative Court on 4 January 2001; the court quashed both preceding decisions.\n15.  On 18 May 2001 the Mayor of Mykanów discontinued the proceedings for permission to extend the butchery because the investment in question had been completed.\n16.  On 30 December 1998 the Head of the Częstochowa District Office allowed M.N. to use the existing buildings for the purposes of running a butchery.\n17.  The applicants’ appeal was dismissed on 4 March 1999 by the Śląski Governor. They lodged a complaint against the decision with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n18.  On 4 January 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the complaint and quashed both preceding decisions.\n19.  On 28 May 2001 the Head of the Częstochowa District Office stayed the proceedings because another set of proceedings was pending before the construction supervision authorities. The parties have not submitted any information regarding the progress of this set of proceedings.\n20.  On the basis of the decision of 9 February 1999 given by the Mayor of Mykanów M.N. carried out some building work and extended the butchery.\n21.  In the light of the fact that the extension to the butchery had been built on the basis of a final decision which was subsequently quashed, on 8 July 2002 the District Building Inspector ordered M.N. to carry out work in order to legalise the building.\n22.  On 25 September 2002 the Regional Building Inspector upheld the decision of 8 July 2002.\n23.  On 20 December 2001 the District Building Inspector ordered the demolition of a smoking chamber as it had been built by M.N. without the necessary permit.\n24.  M.N. appealed against the decision.\n25.  On 20 February 2002 his appeal was rejected as having been lodged out of time. Mr M.N. lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court.\n26.  On 1 July 2002 the District Building Inspector reminded Mr M.N. of the obligation to demolish the smoking chamber.\n27.  On 17 December 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the appeal and quashed the decision of 20 February 2002. Thus the decision o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6305", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1952 respectively and live in Muhr.\n5.  The applicants were members of an agricultural association (Agrargemeinschaft). The agricultural estate of which they are joint owners, accounts for 835 of a total of 3654 shares in that association. The association covers some 377 hectares of land. According to the Government access to some of the land, situated at high altitudes, is difficult and is restricted for the major part of the year due to weather conditions. The applicants contested this. According to them access is possible for six to eight months per year.\n6.  On 3 June 1983 the applicants filed a request to end their membership, asking for the partition of their property from the remainder of the agricultural association’s land. On 1 September 1983 another member of the agricultural association, L., also filed a request for partition.\n7.  The first stage of partition proceedings serves to establish whether the request can be admitted. A rough examination has to be carried out in order to assess whether the cultivation of other parts of the agricultural association and its overall economic needs would not be jeopardized by the partition. At the end of these proceedings the request is either dismissed or admitted. In the second case, the partition proceedings in the narrower sense will follow.\n8.  The Salzburg Regional Government acting as Agricultural Authority of First Instance (Landesregierung als Agrarbehörde I. Instanz, the “Agricultural Authority”) held hearings on both requests on 15 August 1984, 25 September and 17 December 1985, 5 February 1986 and 30 July 1986. Between hearings, expert opinions were commissioned.\n9.  The Agricultural Authority dismissed the applicants’ request for partition on 7 November 1986 while it had admitted the other owner’s request on 14 October 1986. Upon the applicants’ appeal and after having obtained further clarification from them, the Regional Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat, the “Regional Board”) quashed the impugned decision on 5 June 1987 and remitted the case back to the Agricultural Authority.\n10.  The Agricultural Authority obtained further expert opinions and held hearings on 16 March 1988 and 25 January 1989. It dismissed the applicants’ request for a second time on 2 January 1990.\n11.  The applicants appealed again. The Regional Board, having obtained further expert opinions in particular on the question how the partition would affect the association’s hunting activities, held hearings on 14 December 1990 and on 21 February 1992. On the latter date the Regional Board granted the appeal and decided that partition proceedings were to be instituted.\n12.  The agricultural association and some of its members lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). On 12 October 1992 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint, and transferred it to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) which dismissed it on 20 April 1993.\n13.  The second stage of the proceedings concerns the partition itself. If the members of the agricultural association cannot agree to the partition plan, as in the present case, investigative proceedings have to be conducted, including surveying of the outer boundaries of the association, braking down the entire land of the association into quality sections, valuating the different sections and elaborating partition alternatives, each of which has to be evaluated by experts on fores", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6307", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 19 July 1992 as a result of a car accident, the applicant’s car got severely damaged. However, the insurance company failed to pay the damages and the applicant brought proceedings before the Istanbul Commercial Court, claiming compensation.\n6.  Following two judgments which were quashed by the Court of Cassation, on 29 December 1998 the Istanbul Commercial Court partially accepted the case and held that the defendant company was to pay compensation to the applicant.\n7.  The applicant did not appeal against the judgment of the Commercial Court and was paid the total sum on 22 October 1999.\n8.  Subsequently, on 22 November 1999 the applicant initiated proceedings requesting reparation (munzam zarar) for his loss resulting from the delay in the payment of the compensation.\n9.  On 12 February 2002 the Istanbul Commercial Court dismissed the case. That judgment was quashed by the Court of Cassation on 13 January 2003.\n10.  Having examined the case again, on 14 September 2004 the Commercial Court partially accepted the case and awarded the applicant a certain sum of reparation.\n11.  On 30 January 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The applicant was notified of this final decision on 28 March 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6308", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Tallinn.\n7.  On 4 October 2006 a criminal investigation was started in respect of the applicant’s violent behaviour towards her partner. Allegedly, on 17 September 2006, she had repeatedly punched him and broken his nose.\n8.  On 5 November 2006 another criminal investigation was started in respect of the applicant’s allegedly violent behaviour towards her partner on 3 November 2006. The two proceedings were subsequently joined.\n9.  According to the applicant, her partner had physically attacked her and she had acted in self-defence.\n10.  On 6 November 2006 the applicant was admitted to the admissions ward of the Psychiatric Clinic of the North Estonia Medical Centre.\n11.  On 8 November 2006 the psychiatric clinic filed an application with the Harju County Court for the authorisation of the applicant’s involuntary psychiatric treatment. The application was accompanied by an opinion signed by two doctors, according to which the applicant had been suffering from a mental illness for some years. She had been treated in different hospitals and had been making outpatient visits to psychiatrists. When not in hospital, she had used medicines irregularly. According to the doctors’ opinion, the applicant was suffering from delusions of grandeur, she was paranoid and her condition had become acute. She had attacked her partner and had been travelling with her six-year old child all over Estonia, including doing so late in the evening, and had repeatedly taken the child to a shelter. She had been hospitalised on 30 October 2006 but as she had refused inpatient treatment, had behaved in a restrained manner and had undertaken to follow outpatient treatment, she had been allowed to leave the hospital on the following day. However, the applicant had failed to undergo adequate treatment. She had become aggressive and, after having attacked her partner again, she had been hospitalised by ambulance. The doctors affirmed that at the time of her involuntary admission to the clinic on 6 November 2006 the applicant had demonstrated uninhibited and threatening behaviour. Thereafter, she had remained psychotic, had demonstrated signs of delusions of grandeur and had been paranoid. The doctors affirmed in their opinion that the applicant had refused inpatient treatment.\n12.  On 8 November 2006 the County Court decided to apply interim measures (esialgne õiguskaitse) and authorised the applicant’s involuntary psychiatric treatment for as long as necessary, but for no longer than three months. The relevant part of the court’s decision read as follows:\n“The court, having examined the evidence presented to it, finds that there are circumstances [warranting] involuntary emergency psychiatric treatment pursuant to the procedure for the application of interim measures. According to the application of the health care institution and the accompanying letter from the attending physicians, [the applicant] was taken to the Psychiatric Clinic by ambulance on 6 November 2006 because she had attacked her partner. She had also been roaming around Estonia with her six-year old child, thereby exhausting [the child] and damaging the child’s health. On admission the patient was noisy, agitated and very angry with her partner: she did not deny having punched him, but argued that she had done so in self-defence. As [the applicant’s] behaviour was threatening and uncontrollable, involuntary emergency psychiatric treatment was applied in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6309", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Giurgiu. He was detained from 21 March 2002 until 20 March 2009, when he was released from Giurgiu Prison.\n6.  He was convicted of attempted rape and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment.\n7.  During the applicant’s seven years of detention he has been held in a number of different detention centres. Starting from 24 April 2002 he was detained in Giurgiu Prison, except the periods in which he was detained in Jilava Prison or hospitalised in Rahova Prison Hospital.\n8.  As the applicant was a party to different proceedings before the Bucharest courts, he was detained in Jilava Prison in the periods between 25 January and 29 March 2003, 23 August 2003 and 17 January 2004, 14 August and 9 October 2004, and 7 and 10 January 2008.\n9.  Moreover, as the applicant needed special medical treatment, he was hospitalised in Rahova Prison Hospital for the periods between 17 and 24 April 2004, 26 June and 3 July 2004, 24 July and 7 August 2004, and 4 and 11 March 2006.\n10.  In respect of the three establishments in which he had been detained, the applicant alleged that he had been kept in overcrowded cells, in poor conditions of hygiene. In addition, he described the situation in each of the establishments, as detailed further below.\n(a)  Giurgiu Prison\n11.  According to the applicant, in Giurgiu Prison he was underfed and detained in a damp cell.\n12.  He alleged that the temperature in the cell in winter had been very low.\n13.  In a letter addressed to the Court in July 2005, he maintained that often there had been no water – either for drinking or for the toilet. In a letter dated 4 June 2007 he also claimed that there had been a lack of water.\n14.  He further alleged that there had been no television, radio or any other source of information at the detention centre.\n15.  The applicant was transported on several occasions between prison and the domestic courts, where he had been summoned to appear at public hearings. He travelled in vans transporting large numbers of prisoners in cramped conditions and without any ventilation.\n(b)  Jilava Prison\n16.  The applicant was detained in Jilava Prison in 2003 and 2004 for the periods specified above in paragraph 8. He was again transferred to this prison on 7 October 2008, when he occupied cell no. 311 in Section III.\n17.  Here, in cells originally planned for twenty-four prisoners, fifty prisoners were being detained.\n18.  He complained that the cell was not heated in winter and that therefore it was very cold.\n19.  He also complained that there was a lack of running water. With respect to the drinking water, he claimed that it was of very poor quality.\n20.  He alleged that there were bugs and rats in the cell.\n21.  The opportunity to exercise outdoors was limited to one ten–minute walk per day, and there were days without any outdoor activity.\n22.  The quality of food was also very poor, meat being a rarity.\n(c)  Medical ward of Rahova Prison\n23.  The applicant complained that while he was hospitalised in Rahova Prison he had to share his bed with another prisoner, even after he had undergone a surgical intervention.\n24.  The Government provided official information, submitted by the National Prison Administration (“NPA”), concerning the size of and the facilities in the cells that the applicant had occupied during his detention, as well as the general conditions of detention in the three establishments.\n(a)  Giurgiu Prison\n25.  According to a letter date", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6310", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Rzeszów.\n7.  On 18 April 1994 the Rzeszów District Office Director (Kierownik Urzędu Rejonowego; hereafter: “the District Office Director”) awarded a certain Z.R. damages for the inconvenience and damage resulting from the temporary use of her property by the public energy provider company based in Rzeszów.\n8.  On 21 October 1994 the Rzeszów Governor (wojewoda) quashed the District Office Director’s decision and remitted the case.\n9.  On 31 January 1995 the District Office Director again confirmed the award of damages to Z.R. His decision was upheld by the Rzeszów Governor on 9 May 1995.\n10.  On 18 October 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court (Najwyższy Sąd Administracyjny) quashed the Governor’s decision.\n11.  On 28 February 1997 the Rzeszów Governor quashed the District Office Director’s 1995 decision and remitted the case.\n12.  On 1 March 1997 Z.R. died.\n13.  On 8 April 1997 the Rzeszów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) declared that Z.R.’s estate had been inherited by the applicant.\n14.  On 16 May 1997 the District Office Director stayed the proceedings due to Z.R.’s death. The proceedings were resumed on the applicant’s request on 16 June 1997.\n15.  On 30 October 1997 the District Office Director again confirmed the award of damages to the applicant. The applicant appealed against this decision, alleging certain shortcomings in the procedure and complaining that the amount of the award had been insufficient.\n16.  On 8 January 1998 the Rzeszów Governor referred the case to the President of the Office for Housing and Town Development (Prezes Urzędu Mieszkalnictwa i Rozwoju Miast; hereinafter: “the President of the OHTD”) as the competent authority. On 5 February 1998 the President of the OHTD referred the case back to the Rzeszów Governor.\n17.  On 23 February 1998 the Rzeszów Governor quashed the District Office Director’s 1997 decision. As a result of a change to the rules on competence, on 30 June 1998 the Rzeszów Governor awarded the applicant damages, acting as the organ of first-instance.\n18.  On 15 July 1999 the President of the OHTD quashed the Rzeszów Governor’s decision and remitted the case to the Mayor of Rzeszów (Prezydent Miasta Rzeszowa) as the competent authority. The applicant appealed.\n19.  From 3 December 1999 to 14 July 2000 the proceedings were stayed pending the examination of the applicant’s appeal by the Supreme Administrative Court.\n20.  On 5 May 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n21.  On 20 November 2000 the Mayor of Rzeszów awarded damages to the applicant. This decision was upheld by the Podkarpacki Governor on 27 March 2001. The applicant appealed, arguing that the awarded amount had been too low and that the Mayor had failed to give a sufficient justification for his decision. Pending the examination of the appeal by the Supreme Administrative Court, the proceedings were stayed.\n22.  On 2 December 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Podkarpacki Governor’s decision.\n23.  On 24 February 2003, the Podkarpacki Governor quashed the decision given by the Mayor of Rzeszów.\n24.  On 12 August 2003 the Mayor of Rzeszów once again awarded damages to the applicant but the Podkarpacki Governor quashed this decision on 27 November 2003.\n25.  On 20 September 2004 the Mayor of Rzeszów once more awarded damages to the applicant. This decision was quashed by the Podkarpacki Governor on 28 January 2005. The enforcement of the Gov", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6311", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1977 and 1979 respectively.\n5.  On 29 June 2004 a large group of demonstrators, including the applicants, gathered in Istiklal Street in front of the Galatasaray High School in Istanbul to attend the reading out of a statement to the press in protest against the NATO summit which was being held in Istanbul on 28-29 June 2004. The demonstration was organised by KESK (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – The Confederation of Public Employees’ Trade Unions). A large group of police officers, all wearing helmets and gas masks and equipped with the necessary material, was also deployed to the area. Nearly 500 demonstrators took part in the demonstration and slogans were chanted against NATO. After the statement was read out by the representative of KESK, the demonstrators started to disperse. A small group of demonstrators, carrying the flags of their non-governmental organisation Halkevleri Derneği (Peoples’ Houses), walked towards the police officers who had blocked Istiklal Street to prevent the group from approaching Taksim Square. The demonstrators attacked the police officers with sticks and stones and the police officers used tear gas and truncheons to disperse the group. Some of the nearby shops and vehicles were damaged during the incident. According to the incident report, six police officers were wounded during the incident.\n6.  The applicants, who had listened to the press statement, were arrested during this incident. According to the applicants, they were beaten and insulted during and after their arrest. The same day, they were taken to the Bayrampaşa Health Clinic for a medical examination. According to the applicants, the doctor examined them in the presence of the police officers. A copy of the medical report is not included in the case file.\n7.  On 30 June 2004 the applicants were taken to the Beyoğlu Forensic Medicine Institute for a further medical examination. The doctor who examined the applicants concluded that both of them were unfit to work for seven days. The following findings were noted in the medical report:\n–  Serdar Güler: Large bruises on the back of the upper left arm, bruises on the back, bruises on the shoulders and on the waist, bruises on the right shoulder, bruises on the left gluteal region, tenderness of the left leg.\n–  Savaş Kurtuluş Öngel: Several bruises on the back of the left shoulder, bruise on the upper side of the right shoulder blade, bruises on the left and right sides of the back, a bleeding wound on the left elbow, a bruise on the right knee, bruises on the left knee. The doctor also noted that the applicant had a nose bleed.\n8.  The same day, the applicants were released upon the order of the Beyoğlu Public Prosecutor.\n9.  On 18 July 2004 the applicants filed a petition with the Beyoğlu public prosecutor against the police officers who had carried out their arrest. In their petition, the applicants complained, inter alia, that their arrest had been unlawful and that the police officers had used excessive force during and after the arrest.\n10.  On 2 November 2004 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution in respect of the police officers who had been on duty at the relevant time. In his decision, the public prosecutor considered that the force used by the security forces had been in line with Article 16 of Law no. 2559 on the Duties and Powers of the Police and had not been excessive. In the public prosecutor’s opinion, the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6312", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Codlea.\n5.  During events on 22 December 1998 the applicant’s father was murdered. By a decision of 15 February 1999 the Bucharest County Court convicted of murder five individuals, namely, F.O.D.K, P.O., H.D., R.A. and K.I., all of whom had dual Hungarian/Romanian citizenship, and ordered the joint payment of damages of 50,000.000 Romanian Lei (ROL) to the applicant and other civil parties. The decision became final on 26 March 2001 by a decision of the Supreme Court.\n6.  On 26 July 2001 the applicant started enforcement proceedings through a local bailiff.\n7.  In 2002, during the enforcement proceedings, the authorities found that three of the debtors (P.O., F.O.D.K. and K.I.) had left Romania and established their residence in Hungary.\n8.  On 28 March 2002 the International Relations Office within the Romanian Ministry of Justice advised the applicant to lodge, pursuant to Article 46 (b) of the Agreement of 1958 between the Popular Republic of Romania and the Popular Republic of Hungary regarding judicial assistance in civil, family and criminal trials (hereinafter “the Treaty”), a request for international judicial assistance with the first‑instance court that had ruled on the matter, to be forwarded through the Ministry of Justice, which would also provide a translation of the request and the accompanying documents.\n9.  On 2 December 2002 the applicant made an exequatur request and, pursuant to Article 46 (b) of the Treaty, lodged it with the Bucharest County Court. He also requested an update of the amount of damages and its equivalent in Euros.\n10.  On 16 June 2003 the Bucharest County Court provided the update requested. Consequently, the applicant filed another exequatur request.\n11.  On 17 November 2003 the Bucharest County Court issued the exequatur requested in relation to the final decision of 2001 with respect to P.O., F.O.D.K. and K.I. and sent it to the Ministry of Justice. However, since authorised translations of all the accompanying documents were not enclosed with the request, in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty, the Ministry of Justice sent it back to the Bucharest County Court requesting it to provide the translations at the plaintiff’s expense.\n12.  On 12 February 2004 the Bucharest County Court sent the certified translations into the Hungarian language of the required documents to the Minister of Justice.\n13.  On 5 March 2004 the Minister of Justice sent to its Hungarian counterpart the exequatur request relating to the final court decision of 2001.\n14.  In reply to requests by the applicant for information with respect to the state of the proceedings, the Ministry of Justice informed him on April 2005 that there had been no official answer from the Hungarian Authorities but that they would pursue their contact with the Hungarian authorities and keep him informed accordingly.\n15.  In 2006 and 2007 the applicant renewed his request for information regarding the state of the proceedings.\n16.  On 14 February 2007 the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that they had requested information from their Hungarian counterpart.\n17.  On 12 April 2007 the Hungarian Ministry of Justice informed the Romanian Ministry of Justice that no exequatur request relating to a court decision from Romania had been registered in their data base.\n18.  Following a new request from the applicant regarding the state of the proceedings, the Ministry of Justice communicated that in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6313", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  On 1 December 1993 he lodged a claim with the domestic courts against four private individuals in a dispute over inheritance.\n6.  On 6 November 2001 the Svyatoshynskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the District Court”) rejected the claim as unsubstantiated.\n7.  On 14 January 2002, following the applicant’s failure to lodge his appeal against the above judgment in accordance with the procedural requirements, the District Court returned it unexamined.\n8.  On 21 August 2002, following the applicant’s failure to lodge his appeal against the ruling of 14 January 2002 in accordance with the procedural requirements, the District Court returned it unexamined.\n9.  On 13 September 2002, following the applicant’s failure to lodge his appeal against the ruling of 21 August 2002 in accordance with the procedural requirements, the District Court returned it unexamined. On 30 March 2005 and 14 July 2006 respectively, the Kyiv City Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of 13 September 2002.\n10.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant amended his claim on two occasions. The courts adjourned twelve hearings following the applicant’s requests or due to his and other parties’ failure to appear. The applicant stated that he had not been duly informed of one of the hearings. The above delays on the applicant’s part protracted the proceedings by approximately ten months. Some thirty five hearings were further adjourned following other parties’ requests, their failure to appear, due to the absence of a judge or for unspecified reasons.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6314", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972.\n5.  On 24 May 2005 the police instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of fraud. Subsequently, additional charges were brought against the applicant (unlawful acquisition of a vehicle, money laundering and forging documents). Since 6 September 2005, he has remained in detention on remand.\n6.  Following the completion of the pre-trial investigation, on 24 March 2006 the case was transferred to the Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv, which on 24 November 2008 delivered a judgment.\n7.  On 27 April 2010 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination to the Solomyanskyy Court, before which the proceedings are still pending.\n8.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings fifty four witnesses and four victims were interrogated, questioned or confronted, some of them repeatedly. This took the authorities about three months in total. Seven forensic examinations were ordered and lasted for about five months in total. Nine hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s and two other co-defendants’ representatives’, victims’ and witnesses’ failure to appear. The applicant disagreed stating that his representative had not been informed of the hearings which he had not attended. One hearing was adjourned on the applicant’s request. Thirty further hearings were adjourned, mainly because the defendants were not escorted to the court, due to the witnesses’ or prosecutor’s failure to appear or because the judge was absent. On several occasions the courts issued compulsory summonses for witnesses.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6315", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company is a private company registered in Ukraine. At the time of the events it carried out barter trade operations with Russian companies involving, in particular, exchange of some food raw materials from Ukraine for Russian crude oil and further sale of finished oil products.\n6.  On 18 December 1991 the applicant company signed a contract with the Lysychansk Oil Refinery (“the Refinery” – the biggest company in the oil refining industry in the country at the time, with 67.41% of its shares being owned by the State) for the refining of 225,000 tons of crude oil.\n7.  On 5 March 1993 the Higher Arbitration Court (“the HAC”), allowing a claim brought by the applicant company, directed the Refinery to deliver to the applicant company the oil products produced from its raw materials.\n8.  During June and July 1993 the Refinery only delivered a small part of the oil products to the applicant company.\n9.  On 19 August 1993 the applicant company supplied another 150,000 tons of crude oil to the Refinery for refining.\n10.  In autumn 1993 the State-owned companies in the Lugansk region involved in harvesting, coal mining and other activities essential for the local economy suffered a particularly acute shortage of fuel. As a part of the emergency measures instituted to overcome the crisis, the local authorities directed the Refinery to provide for local needs, free of charge, some oil products, regardless of whether they had been produced from oil owned by customers.\n11.  Following a further claim brought by the applicant company, on 18 November 1994 the HAC ordered the Refinery to comply with the contract of 19 August 1993.\n12.  At some point the Refinery was renamed LysychanskNaftoOrgSyntez (“LyNOS”).\n13.  By a ruling of 5 April 1995, the HAC amended its judgment of 5 March 1993 and ordered LyNOS to pay the applicant company for the undelivered oil products.\n14.  On 26 April 1995 the Cabinet of Ministers instructed the State Department for the Oil, Gas and Oil Refining Industries (“Derzhnaftogazprom”) to verify whether the applicant company’s claims against LyNOS were justified. As can be seen from a letter from Derzhnaftogazprom to Parliament of 6 May 1995, it found the claims to be well grounded. It was noted in the letter, in particular, that the main reason for the Refinery’s failure to comply with its contractual obligations vis-à-vis the applicant company had been the unpaid diversion of oil products by the regional authorities in 1993.\n15.  On 19 July 1996 the HAC awarded the applicant company compensation for the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments of 5 March 1993 and 18 November 1994 and ordered that the court fees be paid by LyNOS.\n16.  On 22 July 1996 the applicant company applied to the HAC for the initiation of insolvency proceedings against LyNOS, referring to the lengthy non-enforcement of the judgments of 5 March 1993 and 18 November 1994.\n17.  On 9 August 1996 the Poltava Regional Arbitration Court (“the Poltava Arbitration Court”), to which the HAC had referred the aforementioned motion of the applicant company, started insolvency proceedings.\n18.  On 3 March 1997 it made a preliminary finding that the outstanding debts of LyNOS vis-à-vis the applicant company had been confirmed by documentary evidence as 169,323,720 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) and 77,802 tons of oil products.\n19.  On 10 July 1997 the applicant company asked the HAC to secure the creditors’ claims by seizing the State’s shares in LyNOS.\n20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6316", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk.\n5.  On 9 March 1995 he instituted defamation proceedings in the Amur‑Nyzhnyodniprovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”) against Mrs M., a local official.\n6.  On 27 March 1996 the court returned the applicant’s claim unexamined. On 19 September 1996 it also returned unexamined the applicant’s appeal against the above ruling.\n7.  On 4 May 1998, following the objection lodged by the Deputy Head of the Supreme Court, the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed the ruling of 27 March 1996 and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n8.  On 19 October 1999 the District Court delivered a judgment. On 20 December 1999 the Regional Court extended the time-limits for the applicant to lodge an appeal in cassation against the above judgment, quashed it and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n9.  On 15 September 2006 the District Court partly allowed the applicant’s claim and ordered Mrs M. to pay him certain amounts in non‑pecuniary damage.\n10.  On 10 October 2006 the applicant appealed against the above judgment. On 19 October 2006 the Court of Appeal requested him to rectify the appeal in accordance with the procedural requirements. Following that, on 17 January 2006 it rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated.\n11.   On 17 March 2007 the applicant appealed in cassation. On 5 April 2007 the Supreme Court requested him to rectify the appeal in cassation in accordance with the procedural requirements. Following that, on 26 June2007 it rejected the appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated.\n12.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant several times specified his claim. Eight hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s, his representative’s or both parties’ failure to appear or following the applicant’s representative’s request, which protracted the proceedings by eight and a half months approximately.\n13.  Thirteen further hearings were adjourned due to the respondent’s or her representative’s failure to appear, absence of the judge or for unspecified reasons. Between 23 October 2003 and 14 July 2006 the proceedings were suspended due to the respondent’s sickness.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6317", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk.\n5.  On 12 July 1999 he lodged a claim with the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”) against the local authorities and his sister in a dispute over inheritance.\n6.  On 17 August 2004 the District Court returned the applicant’s claim unexamined for his failure to attend the hearing. On 1 December 2004 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh examination on the ground that the applicant had been absent from the hearing for a valid reason (sickness).\n7.  On 13 November 2006 the District Court partially allowed the applicant’s claim.\n8.  On 7 December 2006 the applicant appealed against the above judgment. On 21 December 2006 the Court of Appeal requested him to lodge the appeal, by 15 January 2007, in accordance with the procedural formalities. Following that, on 25 April 2007 the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated.\n9.  On 10 July 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of 13 November 2006 and 25 April 2007.\n10.  According to the Government, the District Court adjourned six hearings due to the applicant’s and other parties’ failure to appear or following the applicant’s requests. This protracted the proceedings to approximately nine months. The applicant disagreed stating that he could not attend only four hearings, due to his sickness. The above court further adjourned thirty three hearings, mainly due to the respondent’s failure to attend the hearings or following their requests, due to the absence of a judge, the need to collect additional documents or for unspecified reasons.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6319", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Ozorkow.\n6.  On 20 September 2005 the Łódź Regional Court convicted the applicant of several counts of robbery and membership of an organised criminal gang and sentenced him to five years and eight months’ imprisonment.\n7.  On 21 February 2006 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case. On 21 July 2006 the Łódź Regional Court again convicted the applicant and sentenced him to five years and eight months’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 9 January 2007 the Łódź Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment. On 24 January 2007 the appellate court sent its judgment, together with its written grounds, to the applicant. It was served on him on 10 February 2007.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 7 February 2007 the court assigned a legal‑aid lawyer to the case for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal before the Supreme Court.\n10.  On 14 February 2007 the applicant requested the court to assign a new legal-aid lawyer to prepare a cassation appeal.\n11.  In a letter to the court dated 16 February 2007 the lawyer assigned to the case informed the court that he had found no grounds on which to draft a cassation appeal in the applicant’s case. The court forwarded the letter to the applicant. It was served on him on 26 February 2007. The court did not inform the applicant of his further procedural rights.\n12.  On 13 March 2007 the Łódź Court of Appeal refused the applicant’s request to assign a new legal-aid lawyer to the case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6320", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Izmir.\n5. On 12 December 2003 the Izmir Magistrates’ Court issued an arrest warrant for the applicant on suspicion of assault and attempted murder.\n6. On 18 December 2003 the Izmir Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with the offences of assault and attempted murder.\n7. On 6 October 2004 the applicant was arrested.\n8. On 9 October 2004 the Antalya Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.\n9. On 1 December 2005 the Izmir Assize Court sentenced the applicant to six years and two months’ imprisonment.\n10. On 21 February 2007 the Izmir Assize Court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial, having considered the time spent under detention on remand.\n11. On 6 June 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 1 December 2005.\n12. Between 12 October 2004 and 1 December 2005, the Izmir Assize Court examined the applicant’s continued detention at the end of every hearing, either of its own motion or upon the applicant’s requests. On each occasion, the court ordered the applicant’s continued detention, having regard to the state of the evidence, nature of the offence, content of the file and the incomplete collection of evidence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6322", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1967, 1968 and 1998 respectively and live in Burgas.\n6.  Around 1 p.m. on 17 February 2004 someone rang the door bell of the applicants’ apartment. At that time inside the apartment were the first, second and third applicants and the second applicant’s mother, Mrs. D.Zh.\n7.  Mrs D.Zh. opened the door, following which a group of several masked police officers went in and arrested the first applicant.\n8.  Subsequently, it was established that the police officers were from the Central Service for Combating Organised Crime (“the CSCOC”) of the Ministry of the Interior and were conducting an operation to investigate individuals suspected of the forging of banknotes.\n9.  The applicants alleged that the police officers had kicked and beaten the first applicant and threatened the second and third applicants with a gun, shouting that they would kill everybody. The Government disputed these allegations.\n10.  After the first applicant was arrested and handcuffed, Mrs I.K., an officer from the CSCOC, arrived at the scene.\n11.  At about 1.30 p.m. the applicants’ lawyer, Mr D.K., and a colleague of his, Mr G. B., also went to the applicants’ apartment but were apparently refused access.\n12.  At about 2.30 p.m. Mr M.M., an investigator from the Burgas Regional Investigation Service (“the BRIS”) arrived at the scene in order to carry out a search of the applicants’ apartment. The first and second applicants and two certifying witnesses (поемни лица) were present during the search. At about 4 p.m. a prosecutor from the appellate public prosecutor’s office and the director of the BRIS also arrived.\n13.  The search ended around 5.30 p.m.\n14.  Immediately after that the police officers took the first applicant to the BRIS where he was charged with aiding and abetting the forging of banknotes and with an attempt to put forged banknotes into circulation. He was remanded in custody.\n15.  On 18 February 2004 the prison doctor examined the first applicant and noted in the medical register of detained persons (aмбулаторен дневник) that the applicant was healthy. He did not make a note of any bruises or injuries on the applicant’s body. The first applicant was again examined by the prison doctor on 17, 19 and 22 March and 16 April 2004 in connection with hypertonic crisis, for which he was prescribed medication. It appears that on 22 March 2004 an unspecified part of the first applicant’s body was bandaged. It is not clear why this was done.\n16.  On 23 April 2004 the first applicant was examined by specialists from a civilian hospital (see paragraph 18 below).\n17.  On 15 April 2004 the first applicant filed an application with the prison authorities stating that during his arrest on 17 February 2004 he had been beaten by police officers and had not been feeling well since then; in particular, he was suffering from headaches, dizziness and pain in the ears. He requested a medical examination by civilian doctors.\n18.  The request was granted, following which on 23 April 2004 the first applicant was examined in a civilian hospital. The doctors concluded that he was suffering from high blood pressure. The doctors did not note any bruises or injuries on his body.\n19.  Meanwhile, on 11 April 2004 the second applicant lodged a complaint about the incident with the Sliven regional military prosecutor’s office. She stated that at about 1 p.m. on 17 February 2004 someone had rung the doorbell of the applicants’ apartment. Mrs D.Zh., who had ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6323", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in İstanbul.\n5.  The applicant is the editor and owner of Devrimci Mücadele Birliği (Revolutionary Struggle Union), a monthly political magazine. At about 12.30 p.m. on 29 November 2001, with a search warrant issued by the Istanbul State Security Court, police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters conducted a search of the journal’s office. An identity check was carried out and the police arrested four persons, including the applicant, who were present in the office at the time. According to the search and arrest report signed by seven police officers, the applicant resisted the officers. He was subsequently handcuffed and put in a minibus to be taken to the Security Headquarters building. The applicant alleged that he had been beaten and insulted in the car by three police officers. In particular, he stated that one officer, A.Ç., had head-butted him and broken his nose.\n6.  At 7 p.m. the same day the applicant was taken to Haseki Hospital where he was examined by a doctor. In his report, the doctor noted bruises under the applicant’s eyes and swelling on the bridge of his nose. The applicant was transferred to the Ear, Nose and Throat Service for consultation. The doctor examined the applicant at 9 p.m. the same day, noted the injury to the applicant’s nose and requested an X-ray.\n7.  On 30 November 2001 the X-ray of the applicant’s nose revealed that it was broken.\n8.  On 3 December 2001 the applicant was examined once again at the State Security Court branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute. The doctor who examined him explained in his report that the applicant had complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody. It was reported that the applicant had stated that he was beaten up in the minibus while he was being taken to the Security Headquarters, and that he had been under psychological pressure while he was in police custody. Referring to the X‑ray of 30 November 2001, which showed that the applicant’s nose had been broken, the doctor concluded that he was unfit to work for ten days.\n9.  On the same day the applicant was released by order of the public prosecutor.\n10.  On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Beyoğlu Public Prosecutor, alleging that he had been ill-treated while in police custody.\n11.  On 5 December 2001 the applicant was examined once again at the Beyoğlu branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute. It was noted that he had bruising under his eyes and swelling on his nose. In a final report of 14 December 2001, the Beyoğlu branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute, with reference to the X-ray of 30 November 2001, concluded that the applicant’s nose had been broken, and stated that he was unfit to work for fifteen days.\n12.  On 21 December 2001 the Beyoğlu Public Prosecutor declared lack of jurisdiction and transferred the case file to the Fatih Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Fatih Public Prosecutor conducted two separate investigations into the applicant’s complaints. In file no. 2001/28563, an investigation was commenced in respect of two police officers who had been on duty at the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters on the day of the applicant’s arrest. In connection with this investigation, the public prosecutor gave a decision on 17 January 2002 that he would not prosecute these two officers, for lack of evidence.\n13.  In file no. 2002/1953, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6324", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 1 November 1998 an explosion destroyed the monument to Tsar Nicolas II in Podolsk of the Moscow Region.\n7.  On 13 August 1998 and on 4 April 1999 two night explosions in Moscow damaged the façade of the Federal Security Service (“FSB”).\n8.  Criminal investigations into acts of terrorism were opened following the above events. Responsibility for the above explosions was attributed to an anarchist movement “New Revolutionary Alternative” (NRA).\n9.  On 23 February 2000 the applicant was arrested. Her detention was subsequently extended on a number of occasions. In November 2000 the applicant was released.\n10.  The preliminary investigation was completed on 22 May 2001. Subsequently, the applicant studied the case file until 16 July 2001. In December 2001 the investigating authority ordered the defence (the co-accused) to complete its study of the case file before 5 February 2002.\n11.  On 21 February 2002 the criminal case was submitted to the Moscow City Court for trial. The case was assigned to judge Ko.. On 6 March 2002 judge Ko. refused to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Moscow Regional Court for holding a trial by jury. The judge determined that the nature of the charges and the need to ensure security of the trial participants required a non-public trial. On an unspecified date the case file was classified as “secret”. Apparently, despite the above decision, the trial was filmed with a video camera, while the defence was refused permission for an audio recording of the trial. On 25 April 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 6 March 2002 in the part concerning the trial in camera.\n12.  On 26 April 2002 two lay assessors were appointed to sit with the presiding judge. It appears that the applicant and one of her co-accused retained new counsel, who were given time to study the case file.\n13.  It appears that since April 2002 at least twenty adjournments were ordered, mostly due to one or several defence lawyers’ absence for medical reasons, due to annual leave or unspecified reasons. In January 2003 judge Ko. sent a letter to the Moscow Bar Association complaining that the defence lawyers had obstructed the trial by failing to appear on a number of occasions. The judge indicated, for instance, that the applicant’s co-accused lawyer Mr Ka. had not been present on 21 May and 25 June 2002 owing to his involvement in another trial; had been on sick leave from 23 November to 11 December 2002; had been absent on 18 July and 16 December 2002 and on 9 January 2003 without a valid excuse supported by proof; and between 19 and 27 December 2002 had apparently been admitted to hospital, allegedly until 23 January 2003. Ms Ka. (also the co-accused’s lawyer) had not been present on 26 April 2002 owing to alleged illness and had been absent on 18 July and 27 December 2002 and on 23 January 2003 without a valid excuse supported by proof.\n14.  On 14 February 2003 the City Court rejected a motion the defence had submitted seeking to have the trial conducted in public. The court held that the case was “secret” for the purposes of Article 241 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the anti-terrorist legislation. On 14 March 2003 the trial court examined a number of requests submitted by the defence. The court considered that the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure, which had been applicable before the trial, did not require that the defence should be provided with both the bil", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6325", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1989 in Ain al‑Hilweh, a Palestinian refugee camp located on the outskirts of Saida, Lebanon (see paragraphs 52‑55 below). He currently lives in Sofia, Bulgaria.\n8.  On 24 May 2009 the applicant arrived illegally in Bulgaria and on 7 July 2009 applied for asylum, citing his fear that if he returned to Lebanon he would be killed or ill-treated by members of the Islamic militant group Jund al‑Sham (see paragraphs 59, 60, 62, 78, 80 and 81 below). His identity was established on the basis of a certificate issued on 26 November 2008 by the Palestine Liberation Organisation.\n9.  The applicant’s story was that he, like his father who had gone missing in 1991, was a member of Fatah (see paragraphs 59 and 60 below). He had been appointed to a salaried position in the movement with the protection of its head of security in Ain al‑Hilweh, colonel Maqdah (see paragraphs 54, 55 and 84 below). His job had consisted in organising rallies in support of various Palestinian organisations, commemorations of the Palestinian revolution and protests against the founding of Israel. In early 2009, a neighbour of his who was a member of Jund al‑Sham had been killed, the killing having been facilitated by information supplied by a friend of the applicant, also a member of Fatah. In reprisal, members of Jund al‑Sham had killed the applicant’s friend. To protect himself, the applicant had moved to his sister’s house, located in a part of the camp which was under the control of Fatah. In July 2009 armed men had fired rounds at his sister’s house, shouting his name. Later on colonel Maqdah had told the applicant that those men had been members of Jund al‑Sham seeking revenge for their associate’s killing, that he was not able to protect him from them, and that he should leave Lebanon.\n10.  In August 2009 the applicant tried to leave Bulgaria with false documents. He was arrested by the police at the Bulgarian‑Greek border. On 21 August 2009 the Petrich District Court approved a plea bargain whereby the applicant pleaded guilty to offences of illegally crossing the border and trying to deceive a public officer by using an official document issued to another person. He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for three years, and fined 200 Bulgarian levs.\n11.  In a decision of 29 October 2009, the State Refugees Agency refused to grant the applicant refugee status, but granted him humanitarian protection under section 9(1)(3) of the Asylum and Refugees Act of 2002 (see paragraph 29 below). The reasons for the decision described the applicant’s story, as related by him, and continued:\n“Bearing in mind the situation in the Palestinian [refugee] camp [Ain al‑Hilweh],which is characterised by serious armed clashes between ‘Fatah’ and militants from ‘Jund al‑Sham’, there are grounds to grant the applicant humanitarian protection, due to the real risk of infringements consisting of personal threats against his life in a situation of internecine armed conflict. Refugee camps in Lebanon have their own system of governance. Camp administrations are not elected by popular vote, but reflect the predominance of one or more groups or formations that constantly vie for territorial control, which often leads to armed clashes. In an interview for the news agency IRIN of April 2008, the head of security of ‘Fatah’ in Lebanon colonel Maqdah said that ‘Fatah’ will take care of security in all Palestinian camps in order to put an end to the spre", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6326", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lived until his arrest in the village of Serebryaniki in the Tver Region.\n6.  On 2 August 2001 the Vyshne-Volotsk Town Court of the Tver Region found the applicant guilty of aggravated rape and sexual assault on a minor and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. He was released on 28 February 2007, having served the sentence.\n7.  On 7 April 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated robbery.\n8.  On 1 October 2007 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of having attempted to commit an aggravated robbery and sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment, which he was sent to serve in correctional colony no. 5 in the town of Morshansk in the Tambov Region. In December 2008 he was transferred to special medical correctional facility no. 7 (“the medical colony”) in the village of Polevoy in the Tambov Region.\n9.  Copies of medical records presented to the Court indicate that in 2000 the applicant was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis accompanied by bacterial excretion and tuberculous papillitis of the kidneys and right ureter. From 16 February to 19 May 2000 the applicant underwent treatment in the Vyshne-Volotskiy Tuberculosis Hospital.\n10.  Subsequently, the applicant was regularly monitored in the Tver Regional Clinical Tuberculosis Hospital (“the TB hospital”). In particular, on 30 January 2001, following a complex examination in the TB hospital, the applicant was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis in the disintegration stage. The examining doctors concluded that the tuberculoma was growing and that the applicant should undergo surgery to remove it. The applicant refused surgery and was admitted to the TB hospital for treatment with antimicrobial medicines. He was discharged from the hospital on 10 April 2001 following numerous unauthorised leaves and violations of hospital regulations. An extract of his medical record shows that by the date of his discharge the applicant’s state of health had not improved.\n11.  On his admission to a temporary detention facility in Tver after his arrest in 2001, the applicant was diagnosed with “focal pulmonary tuberculosis in the infiltration stage”. On a number of occasions in 2001, 2002 and 2003 the applicant was admitted to prison hospital no. 3 or the Tver Regional TB hospital for anti-tuberculosis treatment. On 24 August 2004 a medical commission, comprising a number of specialists from prison hospital no. 3, examined the applicant and issued the final diagnosis: “clinical recovery from the focal tuberculosis of the upper lobe of the left lung accompanied by small residual post-tuberculosis changes in the form of pulmonary fibrosis, and clinical recovery from renal tuberculosis”.\n12.  In September 2004 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no. 4 in the Tver Region to serve the remaining part of his sentence. He was placed under regular supervision by a tuberculosis specialist, underwent complex in-patient medical examinations and received seasonal antibacterial prophylactic treatment twice a year.\n13.  On admission to the detention facility in Moscow following his arrest on 7 April 2007, the applicant underwent a complex prophylactic examination, inter alia by a tuberculosis specialist. The following diagnosis was noted in the applicant’s medical record: “clinical recovery from pulmonary tuberculosis, dense nidi, pulmonary fibrosis”. He was placed on a special diet, received multiv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6327", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 1 November 1998 an explosion destroyed the monument to Tsar Nicolas II in Podolsk in the Moscow Region.\n7.  On 13 August 1998 and 4 April 1999 two explosions occurred in Moscow during the night, damaging the façade of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”).\n8.  Criminal investigations into acts of terrorism were opened following these events. Responsibility for the explosions was attributed to the anarchist movement “New Revolutionary Alternative” (NRA).\n9.  With regard to the explosion on 13 August 1998, the Moscow Regional Office of the Federal Security Service sought in September 1998 to establish whether the area adjacent to the FSB Office was monitored by any privately-owned or public video surveillance and recording systems. It was established that the video equipment of a private bank situated in the vicinity had been out of order from 11 to 13 August 1998; guards in others buildings which had video surveillance systems had not heard of any incident on 13 August 1998. It was reported that another bank and a shopping centre also had video surveillance and recording systems and that the authorities “had taken measures to ensure the safeguarding and seizure of the recordings”.\n10.  It was decided in December 1998 to suspend the investigation because no suspects had been identified in relation to the explosion on 13 August 1998.\n11.  On unspecified dates, following the resumption of the investigation, four suspects, including the applicant, were identified. The proceedings against one of them, Mr B., were later severed. The court discharged him from criminal liability and ordered mandatory psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia.\n12.  In the meantime, the applicant was made the subject of another criminal investigation in the Krasnodar Region on charges of handling explosives. It is unclear whether or not she was detained there for an unspecified period of time between January and June 1999.\n13.  On 2 February 1999 the applicant’s flat was searched and a number of items which could be used for manufacturing an explosive device were found, together with allegedly anarchist literature. Between May 1999 and January 2000 the applicant was questioned in Moscow as a witness in relation to the explosions in Moscow and Podolsk.\n14.  According to the applicant, her telephone conversations had also been recorded in January and February 1999, that is, after the events on 13 August and 1 November 1998 but before the explosion in front of the FSB Moscow office on 4 April 1999. Allegedly, she learnt about the secret surveillance measures in January 2002 when she was studying the case file before her trial (see paragraph 36 below).\n15.  As can be seen from a report dated 8 June 1999 issued in connection with the criminal investigations of the Moscow and Podolsk explosions, an officer of the FSB Regional Office stated that a number of measures under the Operational and Search Activities Act (see paragraph 79 below) revealed that the applicant was skilled in the manufacturing of explosives and was a member of “New Revolutionary Alternative”; the above-mentioned measures had also permitted the authorities to identify her co-members and had made it probable that explosives or their components would be found at the applicant’s place of residence. In view of the above, the reporting officer sought permission to carry out a search. It is unclear whether and when this search was carried out (", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6328", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The facts of the case, as presented by the parties, can be summarised as follows.\n9.  The applicant association was set up in Geneva in 1988, under Articles 60 et seq. of the Swiss Civil Code. The name “Rhino” was an acronym for two different French slogans, “Retour des habitants dans les Immeubles Non Occupés” (Return of residents to vacant buildings), and “Restons Habitants dans les Immeubles que Nous Occupons” (“Let’s carry on living in the buildings we occupy”).\n10.  According to its constitution, the association pursued the following aims:\n“The aim of the Association shall be to provide its members with affordable and community-based housing, in accordance with the association-based tenancy system devised by the RHINO project. In particular it shall foster management based on economic and ecological solutions.\nThe Association shall endeavour to remove any buildings that it occupies from the real-estate market and from speculation.\nThe Association shall also have the aim of promoting voluntary housing schemes; it shall establish the requisite contacts in order to inform and encourage other association-based projects.\nThe Association shall foster the opening and maintaining on its premises of open areas for social or cultural activities.”\n11.  In one of the buildings that it occupied, the association also housed an inexpensive restaurant and occasionally organised various cultural events.\n12.  Between 1978 and 1988 most of the flats in the three buildings subsequently occupied by the members of the association had remained empty, as their then owners were not intending to rent them out again.\n13.  On 9 November 1988 about fifty individuals occupied 14 flats in those three buildings.\n14.  Following the occupation of their flats, the owners requested the Principal Public Prosecutor of the Canton of Geneva to order the eviction of the squatters, and three orders to that effect were issued on 10 November 1988. However, the eviction was never carried out, notwithstanding a Federal Court judgment of 8 May 1991, which invited the Conseil d’Etat (cantonal government) to enforce the Principal Public Prosecutor’s orders. The cantonal authorities did not act upon that judgment, invoking a local policy of tolerating the presence of unlawful occupiers (squatters) provided the owners did not have a building or renovation permit. Confronted with a serious housing shortage in the Geneva area, that policy was directed against the practice of owners who left property vacant for speculative gain and police assistance was thus denied when it would result in leaving the property vacant.\n15.  From 1992 the owners, who had given up seeking the squatters’ eviction, entered into various negotiations with the association with a view to selling it their properties. Attempts in 1996, 1999, 2000 and 2001 to negotiate the sale of one or two buildings, or to agree on a long-term lease, were unsuccessful, as the amount offered by the association was insufficient for the owners.\n16.  In 2002 the owners applied for building permits with a view to renovating the buildings. The applicant association and some of the squatters challenged the applications, but their various cases were declared inadmissible for lack of locus standi. The building permits were thus granted and entered into force on 27 September 2005.\n17.  On 19 October 2005 the Principal Public Prosecutor ordered the occupied buildings to be vacated as work was scheduled to begin on 22 November 2005. An ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6329", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Baku.\n6.  He is currently serving a life sentence in Gobustan Prison.\n7.  In the period from March to December 2001 the applicant, as a member of a small group of “volunteers” from Azerbaijan, underwent military training organised by Chechen militants based in Georgia’s Pankissi Gorge. The aim of this training was subsequent participation in insurgent operations against the Russian Federal forces in Chechnya.\n8.  The applicant returned to Baku in December 2001. On 27 December 2001 he was arrested. On 17 May 2002 the Assize Court convicted him of forming an illegal armed group under Article 279.1 of the Criminal Code and gave him a suspended sentence of four years’ imprisonment.\n9.  On 12 August 2003 the applicant was arrested again. On 12 April 2004 he was indicted in the Assize Court on charges of premeditated aggravated murder, firearms smuggling, illegal possession of firearms, creation of an illegal armed group, and illegal border crossing under Articles 29, 120, 206, 228, 279 and 318 of the Criminal Code.\n10.  On 17 June 2004 the Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n11.  On 6 July 2004 the applicant appealed against this judgment. He complained, in particular, that the facts of the case had not been assessed correctly, that he had not intended to kill law-enforcement officers and that the Assize Court had erred in applying and interpreting the criminal law.\n12.  On 20 August 2004 the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. The appeal hearing was held in the applicant’s absence. His lawyer was present.\n13.  On 24 December 2005 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal. He reiterated his previous complaints claiming the misapplication of the relevant criminal law. He did not complain about his absence from the hearing before the Court of Appeal.\n14.  On 14 March 2006 the Supreme Court held a hearing in the presence of the public prosecutor. The applicant and his lawyer had not been summoned to that hearing. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments.\n15.  The applicant is held, together with one other inmate, in a cell measuring 5.25 x 2.80 metres. The cell has two beds, a small bedside cupboard, and one small table and two chairs fixed to the cell floor. The toilet area is separated from the rest of the cell. The floor and ceiling are made of stone and concrete respectively. The temperature inside the cell is very high in summer and very low in winter. Central heating is available, but insufficient.\n16.  The window with metal bars has no windowpane in it and, in winter, is closed with a transparent polyethylene film. The air inside is stale and the cell cannot be naturally ventilated. The food served in the prison is often of poor quality and lacks sufficient meat and vitamins, and the menu is unvaried and monotonous. The inmates are only allowed thirty to forty minutes of outdoor exercise per day.\n17.  The applicant’s cell is assigned to two inmates and measures 5.25 x 2.80 metres. The conditions of the applicant’s detention meet all national and international requirements and standards. The window of the cell can be opened from the inside. The window is large enough and does not prevent natural light and fresh air from coming in. The cell is also equipped with electric lamps, a ventilator and a radio set.\n18.  Since June 2008 the prisoners have had the right to watch TV for four hours p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6330", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 2001 and lives in Warszawa.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 23 October 2002 the applicant, represented by her mother, instituted civil proceedings against a hospital before the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), seeking compensation and a disability pension due to medical negligence and inadequate medical care during her birth.\n8.  In the first hearing on 28 April 2003 the Regional Court ordered the defendant hospital to pay to the applicant PLN 250 (approx. EUR 60) per month by way of a provisional disability pension.\n9.  On the applicant’s request, filed on 19 January 2005, the Warsaw Regional Court issued a writ of execution in respect of its 2003 decision. On 5 August 2005 the applicant began receiving the provisional disability pension.\n10.  On 17 February 2011 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a judgment which granted the applicant’s claims. It appears that this judgment has become final.\n11.  On 27 May 2009 the applicant filed a complaint with the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”). She sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed compensation in the amount of PLN 20,000.\n12.  On 9 July 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal acknowledged that the proceedings in the applicant’s case had been excessive and awarded her PLN 5,000 (approx. EUR 1,200) by way of just satisfaction. The court held that certain delays in the case had resulted from the erroneous transfer of the case file to the wrong medical court experts. It further observed that in 2006 and 2007 there had been a one-year-long period of unjustifiable inactivity on the part of the Regional Court. In the view of the Court of Appeal, some other delays could be explained by the need to obtain various medical expert opinions, often prompted by the applicant’s numerous requests to that effect.\n13.  The Court of Appeal explained that the award of PLN 5,000 was justified by the overall length and the level of complexity of the proceedings. It dismissed the applicant’s claim for a higher award, taking note of the fact that her main claims had been properly secured by the payment of the provisional disability pension.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6331", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1980 and currently lives in Stuttgart (Germany).\n8.  He entered Switzerland with his parents on 21 September 1986.\n9.  On 1 June 1990 he obtained a one-year residence permit, which was subsequently renewed on a regular basis.\n10.  On 12 November 1997, 10 November 1999 and 13 August 2002 he received, respectively, a suspended prison sentence of two and a half months, a six-month suspended prison sentence and a sentence of five months’ imprisonment, for a number of offences committed between 1994 and 2000 (wounding, grievous bodily harm, assault, theft, robbery, damage to property, receiving stolen goods, proffering insults and threats, disturbance, a weapons offence and a serious breach of road traffic regulations).\n11.  In a decision of 2 June 2003 the Aliens Department for the Canton of Neuchâtel ordered the applicant’s administrative removal for an indefinite duration. His appeals against that decision were dismissed, first on 12 December 2003 by the Administrative Court for the Canton of Neuchâtel (the “Administrative Court”), then on 3 May 2004 by the Federal Court.\n12.  On 20 October 2004 the applicant was deported to Turkey. After returning to Switzerland illegally in May or June 2005, he was arrested and taken into custody on 1 July 2005 pursuant to arrest warrants issued on the basis of his criminal convictions.\n13.  After various procedural developments and two further prison sentences, of three months and two months respectively, for the improper use of a communication facility and for the offence of returning to Switzerland while banished, he was apparently sent back to Turkey on 1 November 2005.\n14.  In the meantime, on 20 November 2004, he had lodged an application with the Court submitting that his removal from Switzerland for an indefinite duration, as upheld by the Federal Court, entailed a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.\n15.  In a judgment of 22 May 2008, which became final on 22 August, the First Section of the Court unanimously declared admissible the complaint under Article 8 and found that there had been a violation of that provision. On that basis, it held that Switzerland had to pay the applicant the sums of 3,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,650 for the costs and expenses he had incurred “in the domestic proceedings and before the Court”. The relevant passages of that judgment read as follows:\n“-  Nature and seriousness of the offences committed by the applicant 72.  The Court notes, at the outset, that the relevant date for an assessment of the above-mentioned criteria is, in the present case, 21 May 2004, the date on which the applicant was notified of the final judgment of the Federal Court confirming the withdrawal of his residence permit (see, mutatis mutandis, Yildiz v. Austria, no. 37295/97, § 34, 31 October 2002). 73.  As regards, first, the ‘seriousness’ of the offences committed by the applicant, the Court notes that in 1997 and 1999 he was given a suspended prison sentence of two and a half months, and then a six-month prison sentence, for proffering threats and insults, a serious breach of road traffic regulations, wounding, assault, theft, receiving stolen goods, robbery, damage to property and other property-related offences. In 2002 he was given a further prison sentence of five months, to be followed by deportation and a five-year ban on re-entering Switzerland, for disturbance and a weapons offence committed in 2000. Lastly, in 2005", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6332", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in the town of Rovno, Ukraine.\n6.  On 1 November 1998 an explosion destroyed the monument to Tsar Nicolas II in Podolsk, in the Moscow Region.\n7.  On 13 August 1998 and on 4 April 1999 two night explosions damaged the facade of the Federal Security Service (“FSB”) building in Moscow.\n8.  Criminal investigations into acts of terrorism were opened following those events. Responsibility for the explosions was attributed to an anarchist movement known as the “New Revolutionary Alternative” (hereafter “the NRA”).\n9.  On 23 February 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in the explosion of 4 April 1999. Her detention was subsequently extended on a number of occasions.\n10.  On 11 April 2000 the applicant was charged with terrorism, dealing in explosives and drug-related offences. The preliminary investigation was completed on 22 May 2001. Subsequently, the defence studied the case file. In December 2001 the investigating authority ordered the defence to complete its study of the case file before 5 February 2002.\n11.  On 21 February 2002 the criminal case was submitted to the Moscow City Court for trial. The case was assigned to judge Ko.. On 6 March 2002 judge Ko. refused to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Moscow Regional Court for holding a trial by jury. The judge determined that the nature of the charges and the need to ensure the security of the trial participants necessitated a non-public trial. On an unspecified date the case file was classified as “secret”. Apparently, despite that decision, the trial was filmed with a video camera, while the defence was refused permission to make an audio recording of the trial. On 25 April 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 6 March 2002 in the part concerning the closed trial.\n12.  On 26 April 2002 two lay assessors were appointed to sit with the presiding judge. It appears that the applicant and one of her co-accused retained new counsel, who were given time to study the case file.\n13.  It appears that since April 2002 at least twenty adjournments were ordered, mostly due to one or several defence lawyers’ absence for medical reasons, due to annual leave or unspecified reasons. In January 2003 judge Ko. sent a letter to the Moscow Bar Association complaining that the defence lawyers had obstructed the trial by failing to appear on a number of occasions. The judge indicated, for instance, that the applicant’s co-accused lawyer Mr Ka. had not been present on 21 May and 25 June 2002 owing to his involvement in another trial; had been on sick leave from 23 November to 11 December 2002; had been absent on 18 July and 16 December 2002 and on 9 January 2003 without a valid excuse supported by proof; and between 19 and 27 December 2002 had apparently been admitted to hospital, allegedly until 23 January 2003. Ms Ka. (also the co‑accused’s lawyer) had not been present on 26 April 2002 owing to alleged illness and had been absent on 18 July and 27 December 2002 and on 23 January 2003 without a valid excuse supported by proof.\n14.  On 14 February 2003 the City Court rejected a motion the defence had submitted seeking to have the trial conducted in public. The court held that the case was “secret” for the purposes of Article 241 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the anti-terrorist legislation. On 14 March 2003 the trial court examined a number of requests submitted by the defence. The court considered that the RSFSR Co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6333", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Ms Viskupová, Ms Hermansová, Mr Stankovič and Ms Pichňová, were born in 1948, 1947, 1945 and 1952 respectively. They are siblings. The applicants live in Bratislava (Slovakia), and Ms Hermansová also lives in Voorschoten (the Netherlands).\n6.  The applicant Mr Stankovič owns a share in a plot of land. The applicants each have a share in the estate of their late mother, who owned the remaining share in that plot. The proceedings for the division and distribution of the estate would appear to be still pending.\n7.  The plot has been de facto occupied by the State in the guise of a State-owned enterprise (“the defendant”); the applicants have been seeking compensation for this occupation (see below).\n8.  The status and functioning of the defendant were regulated by the State-owned Enterprises Act (Law no. 111/1990 Coll., as amended).\n9.  On 1 November 1991 the defendant went into liquidation. According to a publicly available official source, the liquidation process is ongoing.\n10.  On 15 November 1996 and 1 July 1998 amendments (Laws nos. 317/1996 Coll. and 166/1998 Coll. respectively) to the State-owned Enterprises Act entered into force.\nThey provide, inter alia, that the liquidator of a liquidated State-owned enterprise has an obligation to publish in the Commercial Journal (Obchodný vestník) an announcement on commencement of the liquidation process and to invite those concerned to register their claims within a given period, on pain of extinction of those claims.\nThey also provide that, by virtue of the commencement of the liquidation process, any enforcement proceedings against the State-owned enterprise in question are stayed.\nFor details, see paragraphs 29 to 34 in the “Relevant domestic law” below.\n11.  On 21 October 1998 the Čadca District Court (Okresný súd) ruled that the defendant was to pay a sum of money to Mr Stankovič and to the applicants’ mother’s estate by way of compensation for unjustified enrichment arising from the defendant’s use of the property without valid title.\n12.  The defendant’s appeal having been declared inadmissible, the judgment became final and binding (právoplatnosť) on 15 November 1999.\n13.  Between 2000 and 2005 the applicants contacted the liquidator of the defendant, the municipality where the defendant has its seat and the mayor of that municipality, the Supreme Auditing Office, the National Property Fund, the Ministry for Administration and Privatisation of National Property, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of the Interior, the police and other public institutions with numerous requests and complaints, seeking to recover the adjudicated amounts.\nThese efforts included, in particular, a letter of 10 May 2000 to the liquidator, formulated as a final warning prior to a petition for enforcement, demanding compliance with the judgment in the applicants’ favour (see paragraph 11 above). However, they met with no success.\n14.  The applicants also made several submissions to the courts seeking judicial enforcement of the judgment.\nThese resulted, first, in a decision (uznesenie) of the District Court of 24 June 2002 to reject the applicants’ claim, on the ground that it was unclear and, despite the court’s written request, the applicants had failed to provide further and more specific details.\n15.  The applicants’ subsequent motion of 20 February 2003 resulted in the opening of enforcement proceedings against the defendant.\n16.  The District Court took a number of steps to esta", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6334", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Costeşti.\n6.  On 25 February 2008 at approximately 9 p.m. the applicant was visited at his home by two police officers, who invited him to the police station. The applicant refused in the beginning, but after being threatened with criminal prosecution for refusing to comply with legitimate police orders, he conceded.\n7.  Instead of being taken to the police station, the applicant was taken by the two police officers to the psychiatric hospital in Bălţi, where he was hospitalised against his will for a period of forty-one days.\n8.  During the first few days the applicant was kept in a room with persons suffering from serious mental disorders, some of whom could not attend to their basic needs and who intimidated him on a regular basis. He requested on several occasions that he be allowed to contact a lawyer or his family, but to no avail. Later he was transferred to a ward with patients with less serious conditions.\n9.  Throughout his stay in the psychiatric hospital the applicant was administered injections which provoked in him a state similar to paralysis and as a result of which he lost consciousness. He was also forced to take a large amount of tablets on a daily basis. He attempted to refuse to take medication; however, he changed his mind after being threatened with a straitjacket and with being tied to his bed. According to the medical records from the hospital, the applicant received treatment against paranoid depression. The records do not contain any information concerning any risks for the applicant or for other persons posed by the applicant’s condition. The records contain a consent form filled in with the applicant’s name and allegedly signed by him. The applicant denied having signed such a form and submitted that it was a forgery which first appeared in his medical file after the criminal investigation had been initiated (see paragraph 13 below).\n10.  After being released from hospital, the applicant made official inquiries with the Rascani District Court to find out whether it had authorised his forced hospitalisation. In two letters dated 27 July and 26 December 2008, the Rascani District Court denied having ever received any official request for the applicant’s involuntary confinement in a psychiatric hospital.\n11.  On 13 June 2008 the applicant obtained from the Rascani hospital two medical reports confirming that he had not been addicted to alcohol or drugs, and that he had not suffered from any psychiatric disorders. The report concerning the applicant’s mental health was issued following his examination by a commission of eight doctors and was signed, inter alia, by a psychiatrist, A.G.\n12.  The applicant also requested and obtained from his local hospital a document stating that he had not been registered as a person suffering from mental disorders before 25 February 2008.\n13.  On 29 August 2008 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office, asking it to investigate his case and to prosecute the persons responsible for his illegal forced hospitalisation in a psychiatric hospital and for subjecting him to medical treatment against his will. He described in detail the conditions of his hospitalisation and the medical treatment which he had received, and argued that it amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. He submitted that his hospitalisation had been possible owing to an official document referring him for compulsory treatment issued b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6335", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1996 and lives in Hamilton.\n8.  The applicant was born in Scotland and his birth was registered there. He was born out of wedlock and is the son of a British mother and a Maltese father. The latter’s paternity has been determined both judicially and scientifically (see below). Mr G., the applicant’s father, of Maltese citizenship, has refused to acknowledge his son or to maintain a relationship with him.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s mother made a request for her son to be granted Maltese citizenship.\n10.  On 4 September 1996, the Malta High Commission informed the applicant’s mother that since she was not a Maltese citizen and the father of the applicant had not yet been declared to be a Maltese citizen on the applicant’s birth certificate, the applicant was not entitled to Maltese citizenship. She was informed that citizenship would be granted only if the Maltese father recognised his son on the applicant’s birth certificate.\n11.  Subsequently, the applicant’s mother instituted proceedings in Scotland for the Maltese man with whom she had had a relationship to be declared the applicant’s father on the applicant’s birth certificate. By a decree of an unspecified date the Scottish courts declared Mr G., a Maltese citizen, to be the applicant’s biological father. Consequently, the applicant’s birth certificate was amended to reflect the established paternity.\n12.  According to the Government, in the meantime the applicant’s mother was informed that even if Mr G. was judicially declared to be the applicant’s father the applicant would still not be eligible for citizenship in view of section 5(2)(b) and 17(1)(a) of the Maltese Citizenship Act, which stated that children born out of wedlock were only eligible for Maltese citizenship if their mother was Maltese.\n13.  Subsequently, the applicant’s mother again submitted an application under section 5(2)(b) of the Maltese Citizenship Act (see Relevant Domestic Law below) for her son to be granted Maltese citizenship.\n14.  On an unspecified date her application was rejected on the basis that Maltese citizenship could not be granted to an illegitimate child in cases where the illegitimate offspring was born to a non-Maltese mother and a Maltese father, in accordance with section 17(1)(a) of the Maltese Citizenship Act (see Relevant Domestic Law). Since the applicant was not born to a married couple, as a result of the application of Article 17(1)(a) any reference to the “father” in section 5(2)(b) had to be deemed to be a reference to the mother.\n15.  By a judgment of 27 February 2003 the Civil Court (First Hall) in Malta also declared Mr G. to be the applicant’s biological father and he was ordered to pay maintenance.\n16.  Pending the above judgment, in 2002, the applicant’s mother in her own name and on behalf of the applicant, as his curator ad litem, instituted constitutional redress proceedings, complaining that the said provision was discriminatory and contrary to both the Maltese Constitution and the Convention.\n17.  On 25 January 2006 the Civil Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, found that the said provisions were in violation of the Maltese Constitution, because they discriminated against the applicant by depriving him of Maltese citizenship. It further abstained from taking a decision on the compatibility of the provisions with the Convention.\n18.  On 18 July 2006, on appeal, the Constitutional Court reversed the first-instance judgmen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6337", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Soroca.\n6.  The applicant works as a technician for a State telephone company. On 9 June 2005 she called R. over the phone and they arranged for the applicant to visit R. at her house situated on Viilor str. no. 15/36 in Soroca in order to verify the functioning of the phone line installed there. Some twenty minutes later when she came to R.’s home, she was met by R. who, according to the applicant, started shouting at her and calling her names.\n7.  The applicant called the police from her mobile phone, but was told that she needed to go to the police station in person in order to make a written complaint. She decided to go back to her workplace and told her superior about the incident, but was advised to forget about it. She was told that R. had already called her superior to complain about an alleged assault on her by the applicant.\n8.  R. complained to the police that the applicant had assaulted her on 9 June 2005. According to R.’s complaint, the applicant had entered her apartment situated on Viilor str. 15 apartment 36 without authorisation and started ripping the phone lines off the wall and insulting her with offensive language. The applicant had then gone to the cellar and destroyed the phone socket and phone lines. She had been extremely irritated and one could smell alcohol on her breath. Finally, she had hit R. in the face and left. R.’s husband wrote a similar complaint, also noting Viilor str. 15 as being the address of the apartment where the incident had taken place.\n9.  On 11 July 2005 the local police filed a report confirming that the applicant had committed an administrative offence by insulting R. The report attested that on 9 June 2005 the applicant had entered R.’s apartment without authorisation, insulted her with offensive language and then hit her in the face, causing her physical harm.\n10.  On 26 July 2005 the Soroca District Court found the applicant guilty of the administrative offence of hooliganism.\n11.  On an unknown date the Bălţi Court of Appeal sent the case for a rehearing.\n12.  The applicant submitted statements from five companies she had visited on 9 June 2005, all confirming that she had been polite and not under the influence of alcohol that day, which contradicted R.’s statements concerning the applicant’s aggressiveness and alcohol consumption. She also submitted a certificate confirming that no repair of the phone lines at R.’s home or office had been asked for on 9 June 2005 or thereafter, and evidence that after her alleged visit phone calls had been made from both phone lines. That proved, in the applicant’s opinion, that the statements in R.’s complaint concerning the ripping out of the phone line and phone socket had been untrue. She submitted further evidence proving that her company had a contract to service the phone line installed at R.’s place, that she had been asked to verify a number of phone lines on 9 June 2005, including that at R.’s place, and evidence of the applicant’s call to the police on 9 June 2005.\n13.  On 19 December 2005 the Soroca District Court found the applicant guilty of the administrative offence of insult (injuria). The decision was an almost word-for-word copy of that adopted on 26 July 2005 and reads as follows in its entirety:\n“Decision concerning the administrative offence under Article 471-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences, 19 December 2005\nJudge [V. N.] of the Soroca District Court, having examined th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6338", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Victoria Vassallo, is a Maltese national who was born in 1954 and lives in Zebbug, Malta\n7.  The applicant is one of eleven owners of a piece of land in Birkirkara, Malta, having an area of 1,578 square metres (“sq.m.”).\n8.  The land was the subject of a declaration by the Governor General dated 29 November 1974, stating that it would be expropriated for a public purpose. The public purpose intended was a social housing project.\n9.  At the time, the initiation of compensation proceedings was an action which could only be undertaken by the authorities and to which no time-limit applied. However, in the 1990s domestic case-law confirmed that the ordinary courts had the competence, upon a request made by persons in the applicant’s position, to set a time-limit for the performance of the obligation by virtue of Article 1078 of the Civil Code, a long-standing provision.\n10.  Following twenty-five years of silence on the part of the authorities, on 9 February 1999 the Government issued a notice to treat and offered the owners of the land 5,600 Maltese liri (MTL), approximately 13,045 euros (EUR). This reflected the value (on the date of valuation) of the property as agricultural land, including some rural structures according to an independent architect’s evaluation commissioned by the Government on 21 November 1998. The owners refused this offer and proceedings were initiated before the Land Arbitration Board (“LAB”) to assess the amount of compensation due. These proceedings are still pending to date since they have been suspended pending the completion of the ordinary and constitutional proceedings instituted (see below).\n11.  From 1974 to 2000 the property remained unused. On 1 December 2000, pending the proceedings mentioned below, the authorities ordered the restitution to the owners of part of the land measuring 324 sq.m., which was eventually released in 2002. On 2 April 2002 the applicant and the other owners signed a sworn declaration to the effect that no further claims for compensation or damages would lie in respect of this piece of land.\n12.  The remaining land (1,254 sq.m.) was kept by the authorities with the aim of building a social housing project. In 2002 the Government started constructing apartments and maisonettes. While the price offered for the remaining land still has to be apportioned by the LAB, the Government estimated that a fair pro rata value would amount to MTL 4,450, approximately EUR 10,369.\n13.  On 14 May 1999 the applicant’s predecessor instituted ordinary civil proceedings. He contended that the order of expropriation had not been made for a public purpose, since the land had remained unused and the purpose put forward, namely the construction of housing units for third persons, could not be considered to be in the public interest. In consequence, they requested that the expropriation be declared null and void.\n14.  On 5 March 2004 the Civil Court dismissed the claim, holding that it had not been proved that the expropriation had been in contravention of the law, namely the Land Acquisition (Public Purposes) Ordinance.\n15.  No appeal was lodged against this judgment.\n16.  On 23 July 2004 the owners of the land (including the applicant) instituted constitutional redress proceedings. They claimed a violation of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in that the expropriation had not been carried out for a public purpose, since the land had remained unused for twen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6339", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951. His daughter and son were born in 1996 and 1999 respectively.\n6.  The applicant and the mother of the above-mentioned girl and boy (“the mother”), who were the only children she and the applicant had together, separated in September 2003. At that time the mother moved out of the house in which they had lived together. The children stayed with the applicant.\n7.  On 27 October 2003 the applicant lodged a claim for custody and, as alternative, a request for contact arrangements. He also requested that an interim decision be issued pending final determination of the case.\n8.  On 2 November 2003 the mother took the children to live with her.\n9.  Further to a request by the court, the Ljubljana Welfare Office submitted a report on 7 November 2003. On the same date the court held a hearing and issued an interim decision granting provisional custody to the applicant. It would appear that this decision was not enforced at that time and the children did therefore not move to the applicant.\n10.  On 21 November 2003, at the second hearing in the case, the mother objected to the interim decision and requested the resumption of the previous state of affairs. Since it was established that the mother had not received the court decision, the court revoked it.\n11.  On 19 January 2004 the parties entered into an agreement before the Ljubljana Welfare Office concerning the applicant’s contact with the children. According to the agreement, the children were to spend every Wednesday and Friday afternoon and every other weekend with the applicant.\n12.  On 26 January 2004, the mother lodged a counterclaim for custody and a request for an interim decision granting her provisional custody. On the same date, as well as on 23 February 2003, the applicant also requested the court to issue an interim decision.\n13.  Further to the court’s request, the Ljubljana Welfare Office submitted an additional report on 5 March 2004.\n14.  The mother prevented the applicant from having contact with the children during the weekend of 19 to 21 March 2004, by taking the children to her relatives. In this connection, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint of abduction of the children, which was dismissed as of minor importance on 9 December 2004.\n15.  A hearing was held on 23 March 2004. Subsequently, on 30 March 2004, the court requested a report from an expert psychologist.\n16.  On 13 April 2004 the applicant made written submissions, in which he mentioned that since the last hearing the mother had prevented him from having contact with the children on Wednesday, 24 March 2004, and the weekend of 9 to 11 April 2004, but nevertheless requested the court to suspend the proceedings, as he and the mother might reach a settlement. On 14 May 2004, however, he complained that the mother had not allowed him to see the children during the Easter and May holidays and the proceedings therefore continued.\n17.  On 31 August 2004 the expert submitted his report, which was forwarded to the parties for comments. On 27 September 2004 the applicant informed the court that he had spent the holiday with the children between 3 and 18 July 2004 and requested that that an interim decision be issued.\n18.  On 8 October 2004 the court held a brief hearing, which was adjourned for further evidence to be obtained by the court.\n19.  In the meantime, on 8 September 2004, the court ordered the applicant to pay the expert’s fees. He appealed against this decision and on 21 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6341", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Stary Krym.\n6.  In February 2005 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) instituted criminal proceedings against several police officers, including the applicant, on charges of abuse of authority. The applicant and his co-defendants were suspected, in particular, of ill-treating suspects and their relatives on various occasions (in particular, beating them up, shutting one of them in a car boot, hitting one of them with a car bumper, etc.) as well as of unlawful entry into premises and expropriation of belongings.\n7.  On 28 February 2005 the applicant was arrested in connection with these proceedings.\n8.  On 3 March 2005 the applicant was brought before the Central District Court of Simferopol (the “District Court”) which, having regard to the submissions of the prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer, decided to extend the applicant’s detention until 10 March 2005. The District Court further ordered that more information on the applicant be obtained to decide on his further detention.\n9.  On 10 March 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention for two months, stating that, regard being had to the nature and repetitive character of the criminal acts imputed to him, there was a high likelihood that he would engage in further criminal activity and would use his position to obstruct the investigation and pressure witnesses.\n10.  On 22 March 2005 the Court of Appeal of the ARC (“the Court of Appeal”), following an appeal by the applicant, upheld the decision of 10 March 2005, stating that the District Court had duly considered all the circumstances of the case.\n11.  On 26 April 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 28 June 2005, stating that there was a need for more investigation and that the applicant’s personal situation had not changed.\n12.  On 17 May 2005 the Court of Appeal, having considered an appeal by the applicant against the decision of 26 April 2005, dismissed it, finding that the charges against the applicant were particularly serious ones and that there was a high risk that he would obstruct the investigation or abscond. That court did however rectify the District Court decision by ordering the applicant’s detention until 26 June 2005.\n13.  On 24 June 2005 the prosecutors’ office referred the case to the Chairman of the Court of Appeal to determine which trial court would consider it.\n14.  On 4 July 2005 the Chairman of the Court of Appeal referred the case to the Feodosiya Town Court (hereafter “the Town Court”) for trial.\n15.  On 10 August 2005 the Town Court committed the applicant for trial. The court ordered that the applicant remain in detention, without specifying the period or providing any reasoning.\n16.  On 4 January 2006 the Town Court, having examined the case in the course of proceedings in which the applicant was represented by an advocate of his choice, found the applicant guilty of abuse of position as charged, and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. The court also prohibited the applicant from occupying a law-enforcement post for three years.\n17.  On 25 May 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 4 January 2006.\n18.  On 30 November 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant as unsubstantiated.\n19.  The applicant did not raise, either in his appeal or his subsequent cassation appeal, the complaint that he had not been provided with sufficient time and faci", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6342", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The six applicants are: Solaris, s.r.o., a company registered in the Czech Republic, Mr Roman Minarik, a German national who was born in 1965 and lives in Wilstätt, Mr Karel Rybáček, born in 1956, Mr Tomáš Hlavnička, born in 1969, Mr Miroslav Sobotka, born in 1955 and Ms Jana Hlavničková, born in 1948, who all are Czech nationals and live in Prague. They are represented before the Court by Mr P. Zima, a lawyer practising in Prague.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicants were minority shareholders of Moravské naftové doly, a.s., a joint stock company incorporated under Czech law.\n8.  On 28 May 2004 the general meeting of that company adopted, by vote of the main shareholder, a resolution on the winding up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder.\n9.  The applicants received cash compensation based on the value of their shares on 1 January 2004. The amount of compensation was based on an evaluation made by an expert appointed by a court on the proposal of the main shareholder.\n10.  On 31 May 2004 the applicants lodged with the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) an action to have the resolution set aside, asserting that it had been adopted contrary to the applicable law and that it violated a bilateral investment treaty and that the law on which the resolution was based was itself unconstitutional. At the same time, they informed the court administering the Companies Register about their action and asked it not to allow the entry of the winding up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder until the legality of the resolution had been decided by the Regional Court.\n11.  On 6 April 2007 the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) terminated the proceedings holding that the winding up of the company had been already entered into the Companies Register and thus the court was required terminate the proceedings by virtue of Article 220h of the Commercial Code.\n12.  On 27 June 2007 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) upheld the decision.\n13.  On 28 July 2009 the Supreme Court (nejvyšší soud) rejected the applicants’ appeal on points of law.\n14.  The applicants lodged a constitutional appeal, which is pending.\n15.  On 15 June 2004 the Regional Court approved the registration of the transfer and deletion of the company from the Companies Register. No hearing had been held before that decision, which was not served on the applicants as they did not have standing to participate in the proceedings.\n16.  On 3 February 2005 the High Court rejected the applicants’ appeal contesting that decision. It ruled that since the applicants did not have standing to take part in the impugned proceedings, they were not entitled to appeal their outcome. It further held that the appeal had been lodged after the decision had become final and thus too late.\n17.  On 25 July 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicants’ appeal on points of law as inadmissible. It held that an appeal on points of law, such as lodged by the applicants, was admissible only against decisions on the merits but the High Court had rejected their appeal on procedural grounds.\n18.  The applicants instituted proceedings before the Regional Court for a review of the amount of the compensation provided by the main shareholder. These proceedings are pending.\n19.  The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the Court’s judgment Kohlhofer and Minarik v. the Cz", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6343", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Mariupol.\n5.  On 2 June 1998 he lodged a claim with the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Mariupol (“Zhovtnevyy Court”) against his former employer, the A. company (subsequently succeeded by the M. company), seeking reimbursement of medication expenses and compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused to him as a result of the work-related injury.\n6.  Following three remittals of the case for fresh examination, on 26 September 2005 the court partly allowed the claim and awarded the applicant certain amounts. The judgment was enforced on 22 June 2006.\n7.  On 8 December 2005 and 22 October 2007, respectively, the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal and the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (the latter court acting as a court of cassation) upheld that judgment.\n8.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant specified his claim and lodged several procedural petitions. Eight hearings were adjourned following his requests or due to his or both parties’ failure to appear, which protracted the proceedings by ten months approximately. Twenty-six hearings were adjourned mainly due to the respondent’s failure to appear or following its requests, due to the absence of a judge, because the court needed to obtain additional documents or for unspecified reasons. Four forensic examinations were carried out.\n9.  On 9 June 1998, in the course of the first set of proceedings, the applicant lodged an additional clam with the Zhovtnevyy Court against the A. company, seeking the recovery of salary-related arrears. On 13 December 2001 the court disjoined this claim from the first set.\n10.  Following two remittals of the case for fresh examination, on 29 December 2004 the court partially allowed that claim and awarded the applicant certain amounts. The judgment was enforced on 8 July 2005.\n11.  On 29 November 2005 and 26 February 2008, respectively, the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal and the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (the latter court acting as a court of cassation) upheld that judgment.\n12.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant specified his claim, lodged several procedural petitions and twice lodged appeals in breach of the procedural formalities. Fifteen hearings were adjourned following his requests or due to his failure to appear, which protracted the proceedings by nine and a half months approximately. Nineteen hearings were adjourned mainly due to the respondent’s failure to appear or following its requests, because the court needed to obtain additional documents or for unspecified reasons. Six forensic examinations were carried out.\n13.  In September 1998 the applicant lodged a claim with the Zhovtnevyy Court against the A. company, seeking the recovery of certain health-related payments.\n14.  As it appears from the case file, on 13 December 2001 the court partially allowed the applicant’s claim and awarded him certain amounts. On 11 March 2003 and 8 September 2004, respectively, the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court partially amended that judgment and upheld its remainder.\n15.  On 10 May 2002 the applicant lodged a claim with the Zhovtnevyy Court against the Social Insurance Fund, seeking the recovery of certain health-related payments.\n16.  Following one remittal of the case for fresh examination, on 20 October 2006 the court allowed the claim in part and awarded the applicant certain amounts. On 13 December 2006 and 2 April 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6344", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was a minority shareholder of YTONG, a.s., a joint stock company incorporated under Czech law.\n5.  On 24 June 2003 the general meeting of that company adopted, by votes of the main shareholder, a resolution on the winding up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder. The transfer contract included an arbitration clause by which any disagreement of minority shareholders with the settlement amounts was to be decided in arbitration.\n6.  On 11 July 2003 the court in charge of the commercial register approved the registration of the transfer. No hearing was held before that decision, which was not served on the applicant as he did not have standing to participate in the proceedings. Based on this decision the company YTONG, a.s. was deleted from the commercial register on 1 September 2003.\n7.  On 11 December 2003 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) dismissed the applicant’s appeal contesting that decision. It ruled that since the applicant did not have standing to take part in the impugned proceedings, he was not entitled to appeal their outcome.\n8.  On 9 November 2006 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal, in which he claimed an impairment of his right to a fair trial and the right to property in the registration proceedings because he had not been allowed to be a party in the proceedings that by Article 220h §§ 3 and 4 of the Commercial Code created an irreversible situation. The Constitutional Court held that the Commercial Code had not impaired his right of access to a court because apart from the registration proceedings there were other proceedings where he could have asserted his rights.\n9.  On 2 September 2003 the applicant lodged with the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) an action to have the winding-up resolution set aside and, in eventum, he asserted that the compensation paid for the transfer had not been adequate and claimed the remainder thereof.\n10.  On 18 January 2007 the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s claim to set aside the resolution referring to Article 220h § 3 of the Commercial Code by which an action to set aside a general meeting resolution on merger could not be lodged if a registration of the merger into the commercial register had been already allowed by a court in charge thereof. The court further terminated the proceedings in respect of the compensation holding that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute because of the arbitration clause in the transfer contract.\n11.  On 12 December 2008 the Olomouc High Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n12.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which is pending.\n13.  On 7 October 2005 the applicant lodged with the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic (Rozhodčí soud při Hospodářské komoře České republiky a Agrární komoře České republiky) an action whereby he asserted that the compensation for the transfer had not been adequate and claimed the remainder thereof.\n14.  On 19 September 2006 the Arbitration Court terminated the proceedings holding that it could not deal with the matter until the above mentioned court proceedings regarding the same issue of compensation would be finished.\n15.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a new action with the Arbitration Court. On 17 February 2011 the court discontinued the proceedings. Referring to the judgment of the Court in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6346", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were minority shareholders of YTONG, a.s., a joint stock company incorporated under Czech law.\n5.  On 24 June 2003 the general meeting of that company adopted, by votes of the main shareholder, a resolution on the winding up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder.\n6.  On 25 June 2003 the applicants lodged with the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) an action to have the resolution set aside, asserting that it had been adopted contrary to the applicable law, bilateral investment treaties and their property rights. Asserting the unlawfulness of the asset transfer contract on account of its clause reserving for arbitration jurisdiction over disputes concerning the value of the compensation, they further emphasised a number of irregularities of the resolution. They informed the court administering the commercial register about the action.\n7.  On 11 July 2003 the court in charge of the commercial register approved the registration of the transfer. No hearing was held before that decision, which was not served on the applicants as they did not have standing to participate in the proceedings. Based on this decision the company YTONG, a.s. was deleted from the commercial register on 1 September 2003.\n8.  On 11 December 2003 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) dismissed the first and second applicants’ appeal contesting that decision. It ruled that since the applicants did not have standing to take part in the impugned proceedings, they were not entitled to appeal their outcome.\n9.  On 6 January 2005 the Regional Court rejected the applicants’ claim to set aside the resolution. The applicants appealed.\n10.  On 28 November 2005 the High Court, relying on Article 220h § 4 of the Commercial Code, discontinued the set-aside proceedings without examining the merits.\n11.  On 24 June 2008 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law holding that the decision to discontinue the proceedings had not been a decision on the merits and thus an appeal on points of law was not admissible.\n12.  On 11 December 2008 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal, in which they claimed an impairment of their right to a fair trial in the set-aside proceedings by reason of the limitation on access to a court brought about by Article 220h § 4 of the Commercial Code. The Constitutional Court found that the Supreme Court had not erred in its impugned decision of 24 June 2008 and this part of the appeal was thus manifestly ill-founded. Since the appeal on points of law was not admissible in the applicants’ case, the court held that it was not an effective remedy to be exhausted and consequently their constitutional appeal against the decisions of the Regional and High Courts had been lodged out of time.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6347", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Saki.\n5.  On 31 March 1994 the local prosecutors instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of military service evasion. On 20 January 1995 he was arrested. He remained in detention in the SIZO for three months. The applicant states that he was beaten and ill-treated by inmates and that, despite his cardiac diseases, he was not provided with proper medical examination while in detention.\n6.  According to the documents provided by the Government, on 17 November 2001, following two remittals of the case for additional investigations, the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued.\n7.  On 30 April 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Saki Court (“the court”) against the local prosecutors and the military enlistment office, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to him by the allegedly unlawful prosecution.\n8.  Between 10 January 1999 and 5 September 2001 the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.\n9.  On 15 November 2001 the court discontinued the proceedings in part of the applicant’s claim for compensation for pecuniary damage as, pursuant to the legislation then in force, he should have sought compensation directly from the prosecutors, and rejected as unsubstantiated his claim in part of compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n10.  On 19 August 2002 the Crimea Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the above judgment.\n11.  On 10 October and 25 November 2002, respectively, the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the above decisions and a request for the renewal of the procedural time-limits for lodging it.\n12.  Between 26 June 2003 and 8 April 2004 the case file remained in the Court of Appeal for unspecified reasons.\n13.  On 29 April and 4 May 2004, respectively, the court renewed the procedural time-limits and sent the applicant’s appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court, which on 7 November 2006 rejected it as unsubstantiated.\n14.  In the course of the proceedings one hearing was adjourned due to the applicant’s absence. Four times the courts requested the applicant to lodge his appeals in accordance with the procedural requirements. This delayed the proceedings by approximately four and a half months.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6348", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a specialist in lung diseases. She had worked since 1992 in a hospital in Ruda Śląska. On an unspecified later date W.R.K. became chief physician of the ward in which the applicant worked. A serious conflict arose between them, the applicant becoming increasingly critical of various decisions taken by W.R.K. in the diagnosis and treatment of the ward’s patients.\n6.  On 16 September 2004 the applicant wrote to Professor J.K. who was at that time a regional consultant for lung diseases. She submitted that W.R.K.’s conduct had demonstrated that she [that is, W.R.K.] lacked appropriate skills to run the ward as her clinical experience and judgment left much to be desired. The applicant referred to the cases of seven patients who had been treated in the ward and indicated shortcomings which she perceived as errors in their diagnosis and treatment. She stated that W.R.K. had often behaved in a manner contrary to professional ethics, by questioning the applicant’s clinical judgment and by denigrating her in the eyes of patients and the ward’s medical staff. She declared that she would not have bothered the professor with this problem if not for the fact that W.R.K. had threatened her with dismissal for refusing to comply with her orders.\n7.  On 5 November 2005 the hospital dismissed the applicant on the grounds of a serious failure to comply with her duties within the meaning of Article 52 of the Labour Code.\n8.  The applicant filed a compensation claim for unlawful dismissal with the Labour Division of the Ruda Śląska District Court.\n9.  During the proceedings the court heard as witnesses W.R.K., E.Ch., who was at that time the director of the hospital, J.W. - the former Head Physician of that hospital, two doctors working in the ward M.M. and Z.L., and H.W., the leader of the trade union branch at the hospital. It also had regard to the applicant’s employment file and to the medical records of various patients treated in the ward.\n10.  By a judgment of 22 December 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s claim and awarded her compensation in the amount of 9,413 Polish zlotys (PLN) with statutory interest payable from 6 November 2004.\n11.  The court found that the applicant was a very good specialist. It further established that a serious and long-standing conflict had arisen between her and W.R.K. On an unspecified date in 2004 the former chief physician of the hospital, J.W., had decided to intervene in the conflict, but had subsequently given notice on his contract in September of that year and had left before doing so. Dr E.Ch. had taken over his duties. In 2004 she had reviewed the ward patients’ medical records and found no irregularities. On an unspecified date, apparently also in 2004, the applicant had informed the director of her doubts as to the correctness of certain diagnostic and therapeutic decisions made by W.R.K. The applicant had also informed Dr E.Ch. that she had shown certain patients’ records to the regional consultant, asking for his opinion. She had handed over to Dr E.Ch. a copy of her letter to the consultant. Dr E.Ch. had expressed no objections.\n12.  The court further found that it had been normal practice in the ward that medical records were kept by the treating doctor. It had not been established, in the light of the evidence before the court, that the applicant had made any irregular changes, amendments to or comments in the records kept by other doctors or had otherwise tampered with their c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6349", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972. He is currently serving his sentence in Zabela Prison near Požarevac in Serbia.\n6.  On 9 February 2001 a couple were killed.\n7.  On 10 February 2001 at about 8 p.m. the applicant was arrested at his home in Grocka. He was taken to Smederevo police station and beaten up by police officers. He then confessed to having participated in the killing.\n8.  On 11 February 2001 the applicant was taken to Smederevo Prison.\n9.  On 13 February 2001 the applicant was taken to the investigating judge. He met his counsel there, who had meanwhile been appointed by the applicant’s wife, but he was not given the opportunity to talk with him in private. While the applicant confirmed his earlier confession, he complained to the judge that he had been beaten up by the police. The applicant was then examined at Smederevo Hospital. According to the medical report, he had a broken rib and bruises on his chest.\n10.  On 14 February 2001 the applicant was taken to the investigating judge again. His counsel was not present. The applicant met his counsel in private for the first time later that day.\n11.  On 17 February 2001 the applicant was returned to Smederevo police station and beaten up again. After having collapsed, he was taken to Smederevo Hospital. According to the medical report, he was concussed and had bruises on his head. The investigating judge was informed of the incident.\n12.  On 19 February 2001 the applicant appeared before the investigating judge again. His counsel was not present.\n13.  When the applicant was taken to the investigating judge for the fourth time on 16 March 2001, his counsel was present and he retracted his confession.\n14.  Following a criminal complaint lodged by the applicant’s counsel against unidentified criminal police officers, the public prosecutor obtained a report from Smederevo police station rejecting the applicant’s allegations. The public prosecutor also obtained the medical reports of 13 and 17 February 2001. On 24 September 2001 the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute and informed the applicant’s counsel of the possibility of starting a subsidiary prosecution within eight days. Counsel did not do so.\n15.  On 4 November 2002 the Smederevo District Court found the applicant and S.P. guilty of murder and sentenced each of them to forty years’ imprisonment. On 9 July 2003 the Supreme Court of Serbia quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a retrial. It instructed the first-instance court to establish whether the applicant had been ill-treated by the police and whether any of his statements were therefore inadmissible.\n16.  At a hearing held on 13 May 2004, the applicant described his ill‑treatment in detail and named the alleged perpetrators for the first time. Counsel for S.P. then applied for the minutes of that hearing to be sent to the public prosecutor with a view to prosecuting the police officers named by the applicant. The public prosecutor, who was present at the hearing, raised an objection. She emphasised that a criminal complaint in that connection had been dismissed on 24 September 2001 and that her office had no intention of dealing with the same case again. Counsel for S.P. then applied for that prosecutor to be excluded from the proceedings. On 17 May 2004 the Smederevo District Chief Public Prosecutor rejected that application, but confirmed that the 2001 decision might be reconsidered in view of the new facts, notably the nam", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6350", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1970.\n8.  On 25 September 2008 the Łódź Regional Court convicted the applicant of attempted murder and sentenced him to 9 years’ imprisonment. On 11 December 2008 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case. On 3 March 2009 the Łódź Regional Court found the applicant guilty of causing grievous bodily harm and sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s lawyer appealed. By a judgment of 4 June 2009 the Łódź Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment.\n9.  Throughout the judicial proceeding the applicant was represented by a legal­aid lawyer.\n10.  By a letter of 3 August 2009 the lawyer informed the court that he had not found any grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal.\n11.  By a letter of 7 August 2009 the court forwarded the lawyer’s statement to the applicant. The letter read as follows:\n “The Registry of the Łódź Court of Appeal forwards [...] a copy of a statement of your legal-aid lawyer, advocate Mr P.K., submitted in accordance with Article 84 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for your information.”\n12.  The letter as well as the opinion were served on the applicant on 12 August 2009.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6351", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Athens.\n5.  On 28 November 2000 the Ministry of Finance imposed a fine of 51,693,912 drachmas (GRD) (deficit: GRD 34,501,041 + default interest: GRD 17,192,871, i.e. 93,012.21 euros (EUR)) on the applicant for his alleged responsibility in the creation of a budget deficit in the Department of Urban Planning at the city of Chania, where he was posted (act no. 5654/28.11.2000).\n6.  On 22 March 2001, the applicant lodged an appeal with the State Audit Council (Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο) challenging act no. 5654/28.11.2000.\n7.  A hearing took place on 6 May 2003 and 20 April 2004.\n8.  By judgment dated 29 June 2004 the State Audit Council partially accepted the applicant’s appeal. The act was annulled only regarding the part ordering the applicant to pay default interest. As the court observed, the applicant had, among other functions, accounting responsibilities within the Planning Department and, under domestic law in case of public deficit, liability was incurred. Further, it was noted that, as it appeared from the evidence submitted, the applicant had been acting unlawfully in the performance of his duties. He was found to be liable for the payment of sums greater than those determined as wages and, also, certain amounts had been paid to persons not eligible to receive them. Moreover, it was admitted that the applicant had previously been questioned by the inspector in charge, put forward his views on the matter and had also been invited to restore the deficit in question (judgment no. 1502/2004). The judgment was served on the applicant on 2 October 2004.\n9.  On 23 September 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law and a hearing took place on 7 November 2007.\n10.  On 4 June 2008 the Plenary of the State Audit Council upheld judgment no. 1502/2004, after having concluded that the first instance court’s judgment was right and sufficiently reasoned (judgment no. 1456/2008). The applicant was served with the decision on 21 August 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6352", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Volgograd.\n6.  On 23 March 2001 the applicant, a former police officer, was arrested, with two others, on suspicion of drug dealing.\n7.  On 26 March 2001 the applicant was detained pending investigation, and on 30 March 2001 charges were brought against him.\n8.  On 9 September 2003 the Volgograd Kirovskiy District Court convicted the applicant of drug dealing and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.\n9.  On 8 June 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for retrial.\n10.  On 29 June 2006 the Volgograd Kirovskiy District Court convicted the applicant of drug dealing and sentenced him to five years and four months’ imprisonment. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n11.  On 22 July 2006 the applicant was released on completing his sentence.\n12.  On 19 July 2002 officer P. of the Volgograd Regional remand prison IZ-34/4 (ФБУ ИЗ № 34/4 ГУФСИН России по Волгоградской области), where the applicant was detained at the material time, allegedly hit the applicant several times with a rubber truncheon on the lower back and buttocks. The applicant could hardly walk afterwards. In the evening he felt feverish. The doctor on duty was to examine the applicant. However, according to the applicant, despite his request the doctor was instructed not to record the injuries.\n13.  On 23 July 2002 the applicant was brought to Volgograd Kirovskiy District Court for trial. However, he felt unwell, and an ambulance team was called. The ambulance paramedic discovered bruises on the soft tissue of the applicant’s buttocks. When he returned to the remand prison the applicant was examined by a medical assistant. The latter recorded multiple haematomas on the applicant’s buttocks, measuring 1.5 x 1.5 cm. On the same day the applicant made a complaint about the beatings to the Volgograd City Prosecutor’s Office.\n14.  On 16 August 2002 the chief assistant of the Volgograd City Prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against officer P. The decision read as follows:\n“[...] The inquiry conducted [into the applicant’s allegations] established that at 11.15 a.m. on 19 July 2002 [officers P. and Podm. of the Volgograd Regional remand prison IZ-34/4] took [the applicant] out of cell no. 47 for a talk on the subject of compliance with the detention regime [...]\n[Officer P.] invited officer K. by telephone to come to his office, no. 4, and bring [the applicant’s] personal file. Approximately ten minutes later those present went to P.’s office, where K. informed [the applicant] of the material in the file. The latter threatened to have criminal proceedings instituted against K., and to make all others present regret everything, without offering any further explanation.\nAt about 12.30 p.m. [the applicant] was taken to a temporary isolation cell, from where, three hours later, he was escorted back to his cell.\nNo physical force or special means were applied to the [applicant]. According to the records on the use of special means, officers P., Podm. and K. were not given special means on 19 July 2002.\nWhen he returned to his cell [the applicant] made no health-related complaints to his cellmates or to the medical unit of the [remand prison].\nDuring the exercise period on 20 July 2002 [the applicant] was rubbing his buttocks against the wall of the exercise yard (explanations by detainees Sh., D., and others), deliberately causing himself harm.\nAt 12.12 p.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6353", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and is serving a prison sentence in the Chelyabinsk Region.\n6.  On 12 March 2004 the applicant was charged with three counts of fraud, two counts of murder and unlawful dealings in firearms. According to the Government he made an undertaking not to leave his place of residence pending investigation. On several occasions he failed to appear for questioning and on 30 June 2005 his name was put on the wanted persons’ list.\n7.  On 18 July 2006 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. On 20 July 2006 the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk authorised the applicant’s detention. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“Having regard to the materials submitted, [the court] considers that [the applicant] is charged with a particularly serious criminal offence that entails a custodial sentence, that he absconded in the past, that his name was put on the wanted persons’ list, that he does not reside at his registered place of residence. It can be inferred from these facts taken together that the applicant might abscond, continue his criminal activities, interfere with the investigation...”\n8.  On 15 September 2006 the District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 14 December 2006. Referring to his health, unsatisfactory conditions of detention, lack of a criminal record and his minor child, the applicant argued that the court might use any other preventive measure, including bail, rather than detention. Dismissing the applicant’s arguments, the court noted as follows:\n“[The applicant] is charged with serious offences and his name has been on the federal wanted persons list for over a year. It follows that, if released, [the applicant] might abscond or re-offend ... The defence has not furnished any medical documentation to substantiate the allegations that [the applicant] is unfit for detention. The court has also taken into account the material concerning [the applicant’s] character when deciding on the matter.”\n9.  On 26 September 2006 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 15 September 2006 on appeal.\n10.  On 12 December 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 March 2007. The applicant asked the court to release him on bail. He noted that his detention had been unreasonably long; that the prosecutor’s office had been procrastinating with the investigation; and that he had a permanent residence, a job and family ties. The court reasoned as follows:\n“[The applicant] is charged with serious offences... [In the past the applicant] absconded ... and his name was put on the local and federal wanted persons lists. In such circumstances the court considers that, if released, [the applicant] might abscond.”\n11.  On 12 March 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 June 2007. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“[The applicant] is charged with a particularly serious offence, he absconded for over a year which, in the court’s opinion, indicates that, if released, [the applicant] might abscond, continue his criminal activities, or interfere with the establishment of the truth in the case.”\n12.  On 5 April 2007 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 12 March 2007 on appeal.\n13.  On 13 June 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 19 July 2007 noting as follows:\n“Regard being had to the gravity of the charges, information concerning the [applicant’s] character, including the fact that", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6355", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The background to the case is described in detail in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria (nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, ECHR 2001‑IX) and United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44079/98, 20 October 2005).\n8.  On 30 March 2004 the second applicant and two other members of Ilinden notified the Mayor of Sandanski that the organisation intended to stage a rally between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on 18 April 2004 at the grave of Yane Sandanski near the Rozhen Monastery, to commemorate the anniversary of his “dastardly murder”. The event would include laying flowers at the grave, making speeches about the life and the activity of Yane Sandanski, and a “cultural programme”.\n9.  On 13 April 2004 the Mayor of Sandanski, without giving reasons for his decision, advised the organisers that Ilinden could hold a rally between 10 a.m. and 12 noon on 18 April 2004, and that it could include laying flowers on the grave of Yane Sandanski and making speeches about him.\n10.  On the morning of 18 April 2004 the organisers of the rally built a stage near the grave and started decorating it. According to them, at about 10.30 a.m. a plain‑clothes police officer, accompanied by two uniformed police officers, approached and told them to stop decorating the stage, as the Mayor’s permission was valid only until 12 noon, and after that they were to leave the area. That statement led to tension, with some of the participants reacting forcefully. After that the rally was allowed to proceed. The Government disputed that assertion. According to them, the rally took place without incident and was attended by more than two hundred foreign guests, including representatives of the embassy of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and a number of Bulgarian and Macedonian journalists. According to the applicants, no other organisations held events at Yane Sandanski’s grave between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. on that day.\n11.  According to the applicants, in the days before the rally the local radio and cable television stations reported that the rally had been banned and was not to be attended. The Government disputed that assertion.\n12.  On 19 April 2004 Ilinden notified the Mayor of Blagoevgrad of its intention of staging a rally at 3 p.m. on 4 May 2004 in front of the monument to “the great Macedonian revolutionary” Gotse Delchev in Blagoevgrad, to commemorate the anniversary of his assassination by laying flowers. The rally would start in front of the American University in Blagoevgrad and make its way to Macedonia Square, where the monument was located.\n13.  In a letter dated 20 April and received by Ilinden on 24 April 2004 the Mayor of Blagoevgrad informed it that “[e]very citizen of the Republic of Bulgaria [had] the right to pay his respect to the memory of the national heroes and lay flowers at their monuments”. However, in the way it had been planned, the rally was in fact a procession. To proclaim Gotse Delchev a “Macedonian revolutionary” was “unconstitutional and provocative”. The rally was likely to stir unrest and breaches of public order, as had happened in the past. Moreover, the holding of rallies presupposed registration, proof of which Ilinden had not presented. Finally, the municipality had planned an event on Macedonia Square for the same date, to mark the “May holidays”, which made the holding of the rally impossible.\n14.  On 26 April 2004 Ilinden sought judicial re", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6356", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the village of Ramon in the Voronezh Region.\n6.  At around 6 p.m. on 23 August 2004 the applicant was on his way to a grocery store. According to him, he did not feel well and sat down on the steps of a local canteen.\n7.  Police officers from the Ramonskiy District Department of the Interior for the Voronezh Region (“the District Department of the Interior”) who were patrolling the streets, having apparently taken the applicant for a drunkard, approached him and invited him to follow them to the District Department of the Interior’s building.\n8.  The applicant having refused, they forced him into their car and then brought him to a cell in the District Department of the Interior’s building which was used as a sobering-up centre. Upon admission, the applicant was diagnosed by a nurse as suffering from alcohol intoxication. It appears that the applicant spent a few hours in the cell, loudly demanding his release and even trying to force the door open with a wooden bench. He also sought access to his lawyer and a doctor.\n9.  Some time later a paramedic crew arrived but refused to examine the applicant, having allegedly been offended by his rude words and behaviour.\n10.  The applicant’s stay in the sobering-up cell was documented in the District Department of the Interior’s records as having lasted from 8.20 to 11.40 p.m. on 23 August 2004.\n11.  At around 10 p.m. the applicant was taken outside from his cell.\n12.  According to the applicant, when he came out of the District Department of the Interior’s building into its internal yard, a police officer walking behind him struck three blows on his ribs. The applicant turned around and responded by hitting the officer’s face with his fists. In the ensuing fight, the officer in question was joined by his colleagues and eventually prevailed. Together they forced the applicant on to the ground and kicked him for some time. It appears that as a result the applicant passed out.\n13.  The applicant was then placed in a temporary detention ward at the local police station. The Government submitted a charge sheet confirming his administrative detention at around 11.50 p.m. The applicant’s subsequent calls for a doctor throughout the night remained unanswered. In the morning a paramedic crew arrived. Apparently, they examined the applicant but did not detect any traces of injuries and soon left. The applicant submitted that the paramedic crew had again refused to examine him and that the so-called examination had not been proper, as the nurse present had simply looked at him from a distance.\n14.  On the morning of 24 August 2004 at around 10.30 a.m. the applicant was brought before Judge P. of the Ramonskiy District Court, Voronezh Region (“the District Court”) in connection with his allegedly rude behaviour and the use of offensive language in the sobering-up cell at the District Department of the Interior’s building. The judge decided that the applicant had been liable for the administrative offence of minor breach of the peace and gave him an oral warning.\n15.  After the hearing at the District Court the applicant was released.\n16.  The applicant apparently failed to bring any appeal proceedings in respect of this decision and ten days later after its notification on 29 August 2004 it came into force.\n17.  This decision was subsequently quashed on 10 March 2005 by the president of the Voronezh Regional Court as inconsistent, unjustified and poorly motiv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6358", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Hirtenberg.\n5.  The applicant was arrested on 11 October 2001 on suspicion of fraud. He was in pre-trial detention until 18 October 2001.\n6.  In the course of the preliminary investigations, the investigating judge requested the Economic Crime Department (Wirtschaftspolizei) of the Vienna Federal Police Directorate (Bundespolizeidirektion) to carry out certain investigations.\n7.  On 14 October and 21 November 2001 the applicant was questioned by the investigating judge. Further questioning scheduled for 18 December 2001 and 14 January 2002 was cancelled as the applicant informed the investigating judge that he was sick. The applicant was questioned again on 5 March 2002.\n8.  During the summer of 2002 further interrogations of the applicant took place through the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office.\n9.  On 22 January 2003 the Public Prosecutor requested the investigating judge to close the investigations.\n10.  It appears that the investigating judge chose to continue the investigations. The applicant was questioned again on 15 December 2003 and in March 2004 several witnesses were questioned, following which the public prosecutor repeatedly urged the investigating judge to obtain the investigation results from the Economic Crimes Department of the Vienna Federal Police Directorate and to conclude the preliminary investigations.\n11.  On 29 June 2005 the investigating judge decided nevertheless to obtain an expert opinion on various transactions in respect of which the applicant was suspected of embezzlement. The expert’s opinion was submitted on 14 November 2005 and transmitted to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the applicant on 6 February 2006.\n12.  On 15 March 2006 the Vienna Public Prosecutor issued the bill of indictment charging the applicant with embezzlement.\n13.  The applicant lodged objections against the indictment on 12 April 2006. By decision of 11 May 2006 the Court of Appeal rejected the objections and upheld the indictment.\n14.  The trial was scheduled to commence on 10 August 2006. As the applicant was in hospital, the trial had to be postponed.\n15.  The Vienna Regional Criminal Court, sitting with two professional and two lay judges, then held the first hearing on 2 November 2006. During this hearing the expert was ordered to supplement his opinion, taking into consideration further documents. The applicant’s son transmitted further documents to the expert on 14 February 2007.\n16.  The court held another hearing on 26 April 2007. On that date it acquitted the applicant. The judgment was served on the applicant’s counsel on 28 June 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6359", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The six applicants were born on the dates listed in the Annex.\n5.  The applicants are co-owners of a plot of land in the Volos district. On 26 August 1986 a compulsory expropriation was declared on their property according to presidential decree no. 719/1986. Subsequently, on 1st August 2002, the applicants filed an application with the Ministry of Environment, Physical Planning and Public Works asking for the revocation of the blocking of their property as the expropriation procedure had not been completed and no compensation had been awarded to them.\n6.  On 18 November 2002 the applicants lodged a recourse against the Greek authorities with the Volos First Instance Administrative Court challenging the implicit refusal of the authorities to revoke the expropriation of their property.\n7. On 7 July 2005 a preliminary decision was published asking the authorities to submit additional evidence within twenty days (decision no. 241/2005). On 13 July 2006 the applicants filed an application before the Volos First Instance Administrative Court asking for a hearing date to be set as soon as possible.\n8.  The hearing took place on 5 March 2009.\n9.  By judgment dated 25 June 2009 the Volos First Instance Administrative Court accepted the applicants’ recourse (judgment no. 144/2009).\n10.  On 22 January 2010 the Government lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Administrative Court challenging the abovementioned decision (appeal no. 1099/10). It transpires from the case file that these proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6360", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants’ personal details are listed in Annex I to this judgment.\n5.  The applicants were serviceman employed by the Ministry of Defence (Ministarstvo obrane Republike Hrvatske). In 1996, 1997 and 1998 the applicants occasionally participated in demining operations in the newly liberated territories in Croatia.\n6.  On the basis of the Decision of the Minister of Defence of 18 September 1995 (see “Relevant domestic law”, below), they were entitled to a special daily allowance for such work.\n7.  Since the allowances had not been paid to them, on 21 May 2002 each applicant brought a separate civil action against the State in the Knin Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Kninu), seeking payment of the unpaid allowances.\n8.  The State responded that their actions were time-barred because the three-year limitation period for employment-related claims had expired.\n9.  In reply, the applicants argued that on several occasions they had asked their commanding officer why the allowances had not been paid. Their commanding officer had made enquiries of his superior, who had then contacted the General Staff of the Croatian Armed Forces (Glavni stožer Oružanih snaga Republike Hrvatske). Eventually, the applicants had been informed through their commanding officer that their claims were not being disputed and that they would be paid once the funds for that purpose had been allocated in the State budget. Relying on that information, the applicants argued that the State had acknowledged the debt and that the running of the statutory limitation period had thus been interrupted.\n10.  On 12 and 14 December 2005 the Knin Municipal Court ruled in favour of the State and dismissed the applicants’ actions. It held that in accordance with the internal regulations of the Ministry of Defence the only person authorised to acknowledge the debt on behalf of the Ministry before the applicants had brought their actions had been the head of its Central Finance Department and his superiors. Therefore, the repeated declarations of the applicants’ commanding officer to the applicants, after making enquiries of his superiors up to the level of the General Staff of the Croatian Armed Forces, that their claims were not in dispute and that the allowances would be paid once funds had been allocated in the budget for that purpose, had not constituted acknowledgement of the debt capable of interrupting the running of the statutory limitation period.\n11.  On 3 and 10 April 2006 the Šibenik County Court (Županijski sud u Šibeniku) dismissed the applicants’ appeals and upheld the first-instance judgments endorsing the reasons given therein.\n12.  The applicants’ subsequent constitutional complaints were dismissed by the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) in the period between 18 September 2006 and 10 April 2008. The Constitutional Court’s decisions were served on the applicants’ representative on the dates indicated in Annex I to this judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6362", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born respectively in 1953, 1964, 1951, 1960 and 1956, and live in Musomishta, Koprivlen, Sandanski and Blagoevgrad.\n8.  All five of them are members and followers of the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – Party for Economic Development and Integration of the Population (“UMO Ilinden – PIRIN”), a political party founded in 1998 and based in south‑western Bulgaria (in an area known as the Pirin region or the geographic region of Pirin Macedonia). The party was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court on 29 February 2000 and as a result dissolved. In a judgment of 20 October 2005 this Court found that the party’s dissolution had been in breach of its and its members’ right to freedom of association (see United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden – PIRIN and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 59489/00, 20 October 2005). The party apparently has links with the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden (“UMO Ilinden”), an association also based in south‑western Bulgaria and advocating similar ideas (ibid., §§ 9‑12, and Ivanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 46336/99, § 10, 24 November 2005).\n9.  On 6 March 2007 the applicants notified the Mayor of Sandanski that UMO Ilinden – PIRIN intended to organise a rally on Sunday 22 April 2007, first at the grave of Yane Sandanski near the Rozhen Monastery and then in front of his monument in the town of Melnik. The programme of the event, which was to take place between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m., included the laying of wreaths on the grave between 10 and 11 a.m. and the singing of folk songs in front of the monument between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m.\n10.  In a letter to the applicants of 18 April 2007 the Mayor of Sandanski allowed the rally, specifying that the laying of wreaths had to take place between 10 and 11 a.m. and the musical programme between 11 a.m. and 12 noon.\n11.  On the same date the Regional Governor of Blagoevgrad, acting of his own motion and relying on section 32(2) of the Administration Act and Article 93 § 4 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (see paragraph 24 below), annulled the Mayor’s letter. He reasoned that it amounted to an administrative decision, creating legal rights for UMO Ilinden – PIRIN, and that it was unlawful. Firstly, the organisation was not registered; on the contrary, in February 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation had upheld the Sofia City Court’s judgment turning down its request to be registered as a political party (see UMO Ilinden – PIRIN and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 41561/07, §§ 8‑19, 18 October 2011). Since it was accordingly unlawful under Bulgarian law, it had no standing to give notice of its intention to hold a rally. Secondly, the proposed rally would put public order at risk. Both the Rozhen Monastery and Melnik were places visited by many tourists, especially on Sundays. It was therefore inappropriate to allow the staging of rallies there. Moreover, rallies and meetings were being organised at those locations at the same time by the local authorities and non-governmental organisations. As clashes between supporters of UMO Ilinden – PIRIN and others had taken place in the past, it was necessary to ban its rally. Finally, the activities of the organisation were contrary to Bulgarian law, as they consisted in propaganda against the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and aroused national and ethnic hatred. The Governor specified that his decision was to be served on the Mayor of Sandanski for execution. It was not serv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6363", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The applicant has lived in her house since 1950. Her house is situated in a courtyard with two other private houses. According to a document issued by the Chişinău General Directorate for Architecture and Urbanism (a subdivision of the Chişinău Municipality) on 8 December 1998, there is only one common entrance into the courtyard and a single access serving houses nos. 10 and 14 (the latter being the applicant’s house).\n7.  In 1992 one of the applicant’s neighbours (D.) built a fence around her own house which, according to the applicant, included a part of the area left for common use by the owners of the three houses in the courtyard. The fence blocked the applicant’s access to the only entry into the courtyard, and she was only able to reach her house through a gate left in the fence.\n8.  In 1998 D. replaced the fence with a bigger one and did not leave any opening for the applicant to go through. On 19 October 1998 the applicant’s son-in-law (S.) came to visit her and discovered the new fence. At the request of his mother-in-law he demolished part of the fence in order to create an unobstructed passage to the applicant’s house.\n9.  At D.’s request, criminal proceedings were initiated against S. On 2 February 1999 the Centru District Court acquitted him. The court noted statements made by several neighbours and an expert from the Chişinău Land Registry, as well as the certificate issued on 8 December 1998 (see paragraph 6 above), according to which the courtyard had been reserved for common use by the owners of all three houses and that there was only one access to the applicant’s house, now blocked by the newly built fence. The court found that D. had built the fence unlawfully and blocked the applicant’s access to her own house, and that the actions of S. to free the passage to the house had been dictated by strict necessity. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final.\n10.  In reply to a complaint by the applicant, on 2 May 2000 the Chief Architect of Chişinău informed her that, following an on-site visit, he had established that the territory on which the applicant’s and D.’s houses were situated had been in common use and that, accordingly, the access to the applicant’s house was also in common use. This was confirmed by a map annexed to the letter. The Department added that no decisions had been adopted which could have provoked disputes between the applicant and D.\n11.  On 18 May 2000 the Chişinău municipal council decided to sell D. a plot of land around her house, which included the common access road. On 16 June 2000 the council and D. concluded a contract for the sale of land.\n12.  Following a complaint by the applicant, on 5 July 2001 the same authority amended its decision of 18 May 2000 by reducing the surface of the plot of land sold to D., in order to resolve the dispute between D. and the applicant and to secure access to the applicant’s house.\n13.  D. challenged the municipality’s decision of 5 July 2001 in court. On 15 April 2002 the Chişinău Regional Court annulled the decision of 5 July 2001 as unlawful. The court found that, according to a letter from the municipality’s finance department dated 11 September 2000, the access road to the applicant’s house had not been included in the plot of land sold to D.\n14.  In a separate court action, on 6 December 2001 the municipality initiated court proceedings, asking for modification of the contract of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6364", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in St Petersburg.\n5.  On 20 April 2000 police arrested the applicant on suspicion of having inflicted serious injury on a certain M. which had caused his death.\n6.  On 21 April 2000 the district prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention until 20 June 2000.\n7.  On 26 April 2000 the applicant was charged with inflicting serious bodily harm causing the death of the victim, an offence under Article 111 § 4 of the Criminal Code. This offence was punishable by up to fifteen years’ imprisonment and was classified as particularly serious.\n8.  On 24 May 2000 the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 21 April 2000. Neither the applicant nor his counsel appealed against that decision to a higher court.\n9.  On 13 June 2000 the district prosecutor extended the applicant’s detention until 20 July 2000, on the grounds that it was necessary to conduct further investigations, to finalise the charges against the applicant, and to allow time for the victims and the applicant to read the case file. According to the applicant, that decision was taken in his absence, he was not informed about it and he could not appeal against it.\n10.  On 7 July 2000 the Prosecutor of St Petersburg extended the applicant’s detention until 20 August 2000, on the same grounds as before. According to the applicant, the order was made in his absence, he was not informed about it and he could not appeal against it. The Government confirmed that the case file did not contain any information on whether the applicant had been informed of that decision.\n11.  On 10 August 2000 a new version of the charges was brought against the applicant. In addition to the charges of infliction of serious bodily harm causing the death of the victim, the applicant was charged with the use of force against the police officers who had arrested him on 20 April 2000.\n12.  On 18 August 2000 the investigation authorities referred the case to the District Court for trial.\n13.  On 20 August 2000 the applicant’s detention ordered by the decision of 7 July 2000 expired. No other decision had been made regarding his detention. However, the applicant remained in detention.\n14.  On 4 September 2000 the criminal case was assigned to Judge A.\n15.  On 14 September 2000 the District Court, presided over by Judge A., set the date for trial at 3 October 2000. By the same decision the District Court held that the preventive measure that had been imposed on the applicant was in accordance with law and was justified, and that it should remain unchanged. The court used a pre-printed decision form and did not specify any reasons for the applicant’s continued detention. The Government stated that the criminal case file did not have any information on whether the applicant had been informed of that decision. They further stated that the applicant had not appealed against the decision.\n16.  On 3 October 2000 the District Court, composed of Judge A. and two lay judges, started the examination of the case. However, on that date the case was adjourned because the applicant was not brought to the court.\n17.  On 17 January 2001 the District Court adjourned the case until 26 February 2001 owing to the applicant’s lawyer’s failure to appear. The court also held that the preventive measure should remain unchanged.\n18.  The hearing of 26 February 2001 did not take place because the presiding judg", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6365", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The individual applicants were born in 1938, 1954, 1940, 1932, 1949, 1931, 1948, 1951, 1933, 1952, 1964, 1929 and 1944 and live in Krupnik, Sandanski, Gotse Delchev, Ilindentsi, Katuntsi, Kamena, Petrich and Kolarovo. They are all members of Ilinden’s managing council.\n8.  The relevant background circumstances are described in detail in paragraphs 9‑21 of the Court’s judgment in the case of United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria (no. 59491/00, 19 January 2006).\n9.  On 20 October 2002 a group of one hundred and eleven supporters of Ilinden held a meeting at which they resolved to form a non-profit association. They adopted its articles and elected its bodies, including thirteen members of its managing council.\n10.  Clause 6(1) of the articles, which defined the association’s goals, said, inter alia, that Ilinden was “a successor and continuer of the national liberation struggle of the Macedonian nation”, including the “Macedonian fighters who fell victim to Bulgarian state terrorism and genocide”. Clause 6(2) specified that Ilinden “recognise[d] and respect[ed] the territorial integrity of the Republic of Bulgaria and its laws and constitution, but only if they [were] consonant with international law and international agreements on human rights, fundamental freedoms and minorities’ rights”. Clauses 6(4) and 6(5) stated that Ilinden’s goals included “expressing and defending the civil, national, social and economic rights of the Macedonians who live on Macedonian soil under Bulgarian occupation (jurisdiction), and of the Macedonians who live in Bulgaria” and “requesting cultural autonomy status for Pirin Macedonia in order for the assimilation process to be stopped”.\n11.  Clause 7(1) to (6) of the articles provided that to attain its goals Ilinden would propagate Macedonian culture and traditions, hold meetings to commemorate historical dates, “nominate Macedonians for Members of Parliament”, petition the government and various international institutions for the “national rights of the Macedonians”, and organise conferences and seminars.\n12.  Clause 32(1) said that the association would be run and represented by a managing council. According to clause 32(3), it would have three to seven members. However, clause 32(5) specified that the first managing council would have three members.\n13.  On 21 October 2002 Ilinden applied for registration to the Blagoevgrad Regional Court. In a judgment of 18 November 2002 the court refused to register the association. It gave the following reasons:\n“The evidence ... shows ... that the activities of the organisation seeking registration are directed against the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the country and the unity of the nation. This is apparent from the association’s main goals ... and the means for attaining them...\nTheir wording ... shows their political character. ...The organisation says that it is a successor of and continues the ‘national liberation struggle of the Macedonian nation’, including the ‘Macedonian fighters who fell victim to Bulgarian State terrorism and genocide’[. Its articles of association] specify that [the organisation] will respect the territorial integrity of the Republic of Bulgaria, but only if ‘[it is] consistent with international law and international agreements on human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rights of minorities’; [that the organisation] will ‘express and safeguard the civil, social and economic rights of the Mac", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6366", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1979 and lives in St Peter am Hart. The second applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Maria Schmolln.\n6.  On 14 February 2002 the Braunau District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) informed the applicant that he was suspected of having driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol contrary to sections 5(1) and 99(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act (Strassenverkehrsordnung) on 10 February 2002. The breathalyser test had shown an alcohol level of 0.63 mg/l in his breath.\n7.  In his submissions of 1 March 2002 the applicant argued that allowance should be made for 5% inaccuracy in the result of the breathalyser test. This would lead to an established alcohol level of less than 0.60 mg/l and his conduct would therefore constitute a less serious offence under Sections 5(1) and 99(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act.\n8.  On 8 April 2002 the Braunau District Administrative Authority found the applicant guilty of the offence of drunk driving under sections 5(1) and 99(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act, which provides for a fine of between 872 and 4,360 euros (EUR). It imposed a fine of EUR 1,162 on him with seventeen days’ imprisonment in the event of default. Having regard to the evidence before it, the District Authority noted that the breathalyser at issue had been duly checked by the Office of Weights and Measurements (Bundesamt für Eich-und Vermessungswesen) and the test had been carried out correctly. Referring to the Administrative Court’s case-law, it noted that in such circumstances there was no need to make any allowance for inaccuracy.\n9.  The applicant appealed, repeating his argument as regards the alleged imprecision of the breathalyser test.\n10.  After holding a hearing, the Upper Austria Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) allowed the applicant’s appeal in part. In its decision of 17 June 2002 it found that an alcohol level in the applicant’s breath of 0.59 mg/l could be considered to have been confirmed, since allowance had to be made for a possible inaccuracy in the result of the breathalyser test. Consequently, it convicted the applicant under sections 5(1) and 99(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, which provides for a fine of between EUR 581 and EUR 3,633, and reduced the fine to EUR 1,000 with fourteen days’ imprisonment in the event of default.\n11.  The Independent Administrative Panel considered that the question about possible inaccuracy of the breathalyser test was not a matter of law but a matter of fact. There was documentary evidence, and also evidence from an expert on weights and measurements, that for this particular type of breathalyser 5% inaccuracy could not be ruled out.\n12.  The decision was served on the applicant on 24 July 2002. He did not lodge a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) or the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) within the statutory six-week time-limit. There was no other party to the proceedings who could lodge a complaint.\n13.  On 7 August 2002 the Independent Administrative Panel’s decision of 17 June 2002 was served on the Federal Minister for Traffic, Innovation and Technology.\n14.  On 18 September 2002 the Federal Minister for Traffic, Innovation and Technology lodged an official complaint (Amtsbeschwerde) under Article 131 (1) subparagraph (2) of the Federal Constitution (Bundes‑Verfassungsgesetz) against that decision, on the ground that it contained an error of law. According ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6367", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in London.\n7.  In June 1986 he started an intimate relationship with S.D. who was at the time married to another man but separated from him. S.D. gave birth to two children on 26 August 1987 and 25 November 1995 respectively. The applicant voluntarily recognised the second child in France where it was born.\n8.  S.D. got divorced in 1998. The applicant’s relationship with her also ended in March of the same year. The applicant maintained regular communication with the two children until 2000, when the contact with them became irregular due to the opposition on the part of S.D.\n9.  On 11 October 2000 the applicant lodged an interim application asking for visiting rights as regards the two children before the Family Court of First Instance of Athens. His request was accepted on 15 February 2001 (judgment no. 1586/2001).\n10.  On 11 October 2001 S.D. lodged an interim application with the Family Court of First Instance of Athens asking to have the applicant’s visiting rights withdrawn. This request was rejected on 29 April 2002 (judgment no. 3369/2002).\n11.  On 11 June 2002 S.D. lodged another interim application with the Family Court of First Instance of Athens asking to have the applicant’s visiting rights withdrawn. On 12 August 2002 her application was accepted (judgment no. 6306/2002). The court decided that the applicant was not the lawful father of the children, as S.D. was still married to another man when the children were born, and therefore, according to Article 1465 of the Civil Code, it was presumed that her husband was the father of the children. Further, it was observed that the applicant had never challenged the paternity of the children before the domestic courts in the form of an action challenging paternity pursuant to Article 1469 § 5 of the Civil Code.\n12.  In the meantime, on 9 March 2001 the applicant had lodged an application for the regulation of visiting rights with the children before the Athens Family Court of First Instance. His application was rejected on 11 November 2002. The court noted that S.D. was still married to another man when the children were born and therefore, according to Article 1465 of the Civil Code, it was presumed that their father was their mother’s husband (judgment no. 1605/2002).\n13.  On 15 December 2002 the applicant filed an appeal with the Athens Family Court of Appeal challenging the First Instance Court’s decision. In the meantime the eldest child became an adult and the subject matter regarding this child ceased to exist. Thus, the proceedings continued only with regard to the second child. By judgment dated 12 April 2006, the court rejected the applicant’s appeal and upheld the findings of the First Instance Court (judgment no. 2601/2006).\n14.  On 21 September 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation. On 19 March 2009, after the case had been referred to the plenary session of the court, the appeal was finally rejected (judgment no. 9/2009). The date on which judgment no. 9/2009 was “finalised” (θεώρηση και καθαρoγραφή) does not transpire from the case file.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6368", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Băbeni, Vâlcea.\n6.  On 1 March 1999 the applicant was detained pending trial in Colibaşi Prison.\n7.  By a decision of 9 June 1999 the Vîlcea County Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to seventeen years’ imprisonment. The decision became final on 4 February 2000 by a judgment of the Court of Cassation. The applicant served out his sentence in Colibaşi Prison.\n8.  The applicant stated that the cells were squalid and overcrowded and the smell was unbearable because of the dirty sanitary facilities.\n9.  His clothes and bedding were full of lice, which caused him blisters and wounds because he had to scratch constantly.\n10.  Between January and March 2002 he shared cell 316 with six other detainees and no heating was provided in the cell.\n11.  During the summer the water was cut off between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. although the temperature in the cell was above 40 degrees Celsius. Also, the detainees were supplied with water from insanitary plastic containers.\n12.  The window grille was fitted with a net which prevented proper ventilation and made breathing in the cell extremely difficult as a result of the overcrowded conditions. Also, the electricity was cut off between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.\n13.  At unspecified times in 2005 the applicant shared a cell with T.I., a fellow inmate who was HIV-positive and who cut his fingers several times. However, in spite of the increased danger of infection the cell and the food receptacles were not disinfected.\n14.  Lastly, the food contained impurities and waste and he also complains that there were no activities.\n(b)  The Government\n15.  Between February 2001 and May 2003 the Colibaşi Prison authorities initiated a general reconstruction and maintenance programme for detention Sections II, III and IV of the prison. Because of these works the detainees were relocated from one section to another, which might have caused overcrowding in the cells.\n16.  The reconstruction and maintenance programme resulted in the building of two new prison Sections, no. 6 and no.7. They included cells 612 and 711. Each of the cells was equipped with eight beds, two sinks with mirrors and shelves, a bathtub and a separate toilet. Each cell measured 17.2 sq. m. The rooms were 3.05 metres high. The lavatory measured 5.77 sq. m, the toilet room 1.57 sq. m. and the storage room 1.65 sq. m. The window of each of the rooms was 1.20 x 1.20 metres with panes of glass, hermetically sealed. The storage and the toilet room were each equipped with a 0.6 x 0.6-metre window.\n17.  Cells 203 and 205 located in Section II of the prison are identical and are each equipped with thirty-six beds, six sinks fitted with mirrors and shelves, six shower baths and four separate toilets. Each cell was 57.85 sq. m in area and 4.2 m high, the lavatory was 8.55 sq. m., the toilet room was 1.02 sq. m and the storage room was 10.83 sq. m. The shower baths and toilets were located in a 7.83 sq. m. separate room. The cells each had three windows of 1 x 1.5 m, hermetically sealed. The shower, toilet and lavatory rooms each had 0.6 x 0.6 m windows.\n18.  Cell 423, in which the applicant was also detained, was renovated to European standards and was not overcrowded, according to prison records. Nor did the records indicate that any of the other prison cells were overcrowded.\n19.  No information could be provided in respect of the number of detainees sharing cells with the applicant or whether the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6369", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972.\n5.  On 16 January 2006 the police arrested him on suspicion of several drug-related crimes.\n6.  On 19 January 2006 the Kostyantynivka Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand pursuant to Article 165-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”) on the grounds of gravity of charges and that, if the applicant remained at liberty, he might abscond and obstruct justice. It rejected the applicant’s lawyer’s request for the applicant’s release under bail having stated that there were no grounds for choosing that preventive measure, without any further details.\n7.  On 17 March 2006, following the completion of the pre-trial investigation, the case was referred to the same court for trial.\n8.  On 5 April 2006 during the preliminary hearing the court ordered that the applicant should remain in detention, without any further details.\n9.  On 12 October 2006 it found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property.\n10.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed against the above judgment requesting, inter alia, the applicant’s release.\n11.  On 23 February 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal instructed the local prosecutor to carry out some further investigatory actions in the case. It also ruled that the applicant should remain in detention, without any further details.\n12.  Following the completion of the investigatory actions, the case was sent back to the Court of Appeal, which on 6 July 2007 quashed the judgment of 12 October 2006 and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It stated that the applicant should remain in detention, without any further details.\n13.  On 3 October 2007 the Kostyantynivka Court examined the applicant’s and two other co-defendants’ requests for the release and rejected them on the ground of the gravity of charges.\n14.  On 27 March 2008 the same court convicted the applicant of two counts (repeated production, purchase, storage and sale of narcotics and precursors by a group of persons) and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property.\n15.  The applicant’s lawyer appealed against the above judgment requesting, inter alia, the applicant’s release.\n16.  On 22 August 2008 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It stated that the applicant should remain in detention, without any further details.\n17.  On 21 August 2009 the Kostyantynivka Court convicted the applicant of the same counts as in its judgment of 27 March 2008 and sentenced him to five years’ and eight months’ imprisonment with confiscation of property. The applicant did not appeal.\n18.  In the course of the proceedings apart from the applicant two other co-defendants and thirty four witnesses were interrogated and heard. Five hearings were adjourned due to the defendants’ lawyers’ failure to appear. Twenty one hearings were adjourned due to the witnesses’ and victims’ failure to appear, in respect of which the courts applied compulsory summonses.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6371", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1959 and 1963 and live in Ljubljana and Trbovlje respectively.\n7.  The applicants were detained in Ljubljana prison pending their trial. Mr Mandić was detained in the period between 10 July 2009 and 2 February 2010 and Mr Jović in the period between 5 June 2009 and 13 January 2010.\n8.  Ljubljana prison is the third largest prison in Slovenia. It holds sentenced prisoners, remand prisoners and prisoners in administrative detention. It has an official capacity of 128 inmates, which includes 55 places designated for prisoners on remand, who by law must be held in a separate section of the prison. In principle there are two types of cells in which the prisoners are held. Small cells measuring about 7.5 square metres (8.8 square metres including the sanitary annex) and normally containing two sleeping places, and large cells measuring 16.28 square metres (18 square metres including the sanitary annex) and normally containing six sleeping places. The windows of the cells face either west or east. Remand prisoners are held on the ground floor, which contains sixteen small and five large cells, and on the first floor, which has fourteen cells, including three small and eleven large cells. On the second floor, which contains fifteen cells, thirteen of which are large cells, both remand prisoners and sentenced prisoners are held. In the loft, which contains fourteen large cells, only sentenced prisoners seem to be held.\n9.  According to the Government, plans for constructing the new prison to replace Ljubljana prison were in progress. However, completion depended on financial resources and no definite date could be given.\n10.  The applicants were both detained in cell no. 100, which was situated on the first floor.\n11.  The cell, with a ceiling 2.88 metres high, measured 16.28 square metres. It was equipped with three bunk beds with a total of six sleeping places, one large and one small table, six chairs and a set of cupboards for each of the detainees. The cell had four windows measuring 91x57 centimetres each, which the prisoners were free to open and close. According to the applicants, six prisoners were held in the cell in the period of their detention. The Government, however, submitted that the number varied between five and six.\n12.  The cell had no artificial ventilation. It was aired by opening the windows and, also, opening the doors in the summer when the detainees were out. During the summer, the detainees were also allowed to bring in ventilators, but they rarely did so. The cell was also equipped with a functioning radiator, which the detainees were free to regulate.\n13.  The applicants were allowed to bring in a small TV or, with the approval of the prison governor, radios or other electronic devices. In addition, they could borrow books from the prison library and read them in their cells.\n14.  According to the data provided by the Government, the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5-5.30 p.m.) in the second half of July and August 2009 was approximately 28 oC, exceeding 30 oC on seven days.\n15.  The applicants received their meals in their cell.\n16.  A sanitary annex, measuring 1.72 square metres, was attached to cell no. 100. It was a room with floor-to-ceiling walls and a door, equipped with one basin with warm and cold water, a toilet, a drain and a mirror. It had a functioning artificial ventilation system.\n17.  The applicants had access to the shower room situated on the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6372", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1985, 1974 and 1977 and live in Kamnik, Zagoraje ob Savi and Kranj respectively.\n6.  The applicants served their sentence in the closed section of Ljubljana prison, which is the third largest prison in Slovenia. It holds sentenced prisoners, remand prisoners and prisoners in administrative detention. It has an official capacity of 128 inmates, which includes 55 places designated for prisoners on remand, who by law must be held in a separate section of the prison. In principle there are two types of cells in which the prisoners are held. Small cells measuring about 7.5 square metres (8.8 square metres including the sanitary annex) and normally containing two sleeping places, and large cells measuring 16.28 square metres (18 square metres including the sanitary annex) and normally containing six sleeping places. The windows of the cells face either west or east. Remand prisoners are held on the ground floor, which contains sixteen small and five large cells, and on the first floor, which has fourteen cells, including three small and eleven large cells. On the second floor, which contains fifteen cells, thirteen of which are large cells, both remand prisoners and sentenced prisoners are held. In the loft, which contains fourteen large cells, only sentenced prisoners seem to be held.\n7.  According to the Government, plans for constructing a new prison to replace Ljubljana prison were in progress. However, completion depended on financial resources and no definite date could be given.\n8. The applicant served his sentence in Ljubljana prison in the period between 15 June 2009 and 15 June 2010. He was held in the following cells:\n- Between 15 June and 17 November 2009 and between 10 May and 15 June 2010 he was held in cell no. 119 measuring 16.28 square metres. The cell contained six sleeping places (three bunk beds). According to the applicant, six prisoners were held in the cell in the period of his detention. The Government, however, submitted that the number varied between five and six.\n- Between 17 November 2009 and 26 February 2010 the applicant was held in cell no. 5 measuring 16.28 square metres. The cell contained five sleeping places (two bunk beds and a single bed). The number of prisoners held in this cell varied between four and five.\n- Between 26 and 28 February 2010 the applicant was held in cell no. 132 measuring 16.28 square metres. The cell contained five sleeping places (two bunk beds and a single bed). Three prisoners were held in this cell.\n- Between 28 February and 23 March 2010 the applicant was held in cell no. 129 measuring 7.5 square metres. The cell contained one bunk bed and the applicant was alone in the cell as he had been placed under a high security regime (see paragraph 10 below), after attacking another inmate.\n- Between 23 March and 10 May 2010 the applicant was held in cell no. 123 measuring 16.28 square metres. The cell contained six sleeping places (three bunk beds). According to the applicant, six prisoners were held in the cell in the period of his detention. The Government, however, submitted that the number varied between five and six.\n9.  Cells no. 119 and 123 had four windows measuring 91x57 centimetres each. Cell no. 132 had two such windows. Cell no. 5 had one window measuring 107x110 centimetres and cell no. 129 had two windows measuring 89x54 centimetres each.\n10.  In the period between 28 February and 23 March 2010 the applicant was placed in a cell under a high s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6373", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Zubry village, Pustomytivsky District, Lvivska Region.\n6.  On 11 May 1992 the Pustomytivsky District Council (hereafter “the District Council”) withheld from “L.”, an agricultural company, a plot of land to transfer it to individual farmers for permanent use (hereafter “the 1992 decision”). A four-hectare part of this plot in the administrative ownership of Zubry village was allocated to the applicant.\n7.  On 27 April 1993 the applicant was issued with a Land Use Act (Державний акт на право користування землею) in his name as a physical person registering his permanent right to use this plot for farming.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Lviv Regional Arbitration Court that the Zubry Village Council (hereafter “the Village Council”) had refused to allocate to his farm in kind the plot of land to which he had been entitled under the Land Use Act.\n9.  On 10 March 1994 the above court ordered the Village Council to allocate the plot to the applicant’s farm by 10 April 1994.\n10.  This judgment (hereafter “the 1994 court judgment”), which was rectified in 1996, became final and enforcement proceedings were instituted in its respect. On numerous occasions the bailiffs approached the Village Council seeking allocation of the plot. However, the latter refused, insisting that the community had no land for distribution and that all available plots were lawfully occupied by other parties.\n11.  On 4 October 2000 the Village Council took an official decision refusing to allocate the land to the applicant’s farm, stating that there were no available plots.\n12.  On 1 March 2001 the Lviv Regional Arbitration Court revoked this decision as unlawful, finding that the previous judgment confirming the applicant’s farm’s right to a plot of land had never been challenged in accordance with applicable procedures and so had remained in force and subject to execution.\n13.  On an unspecified date the bailiffs destroyed the enforcement order and discontinued the enforcement proceedings.\n14.  On 6 March 2008 the applicant, acting on behalf of his farm, instituted proceedings against the bailiffs, complaining about their failure to ensure enforcement of the 1994 court judgment and seeking a renewal of the enforcement proceedings.\n15.  On 27 May 2008 the Lviv Regional Commercial (former Arbitration) Court allowed his claim in part. It noted that the 1994 court judgment had never been revoked and remained in force at the material time. It further found that the failure of the bailiffs to enforce the judgment at issue and destruction of the enforcement order issued by the court was not lawful.\n16.  On 9 March 2010 the Lviv Commercial Court of Appeal upheld this decision, having added to its operational part that the applicant’s demand for reopening of the enforcement proceedings should be rejected.\n17.  The parties did not inform the Court as to whether there had been any further appeals against this decision.\n18.  On 25 November 1998 the Pustomytivsky District Prosecutor lodged a protest against the 1992 decision allocating the land to the applicant.\n19.  On 4 December 1998 the District Council revoked the decision at issue following this intervention and requested the prosecutor to initiate proceedings for revocation of the applicant’s Land Use Act and registration as a farmer. The Council noted, in particular, that the land at issue should have been distributed among the employees of “L.”, whi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6375", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Lübbenau.\n5.  On 27 August 2003 the Wood Professional Association (HBG Holz‑Berufsgenossenschaft) refused to recognise the applicant’s respiratory diseases as an occupational disease (Berufskrankheit).\n6.  On 26 September 2003 the applicant, represented by lawyer, filed an objection against the aforementioned decision. The objection was rejected on 23 December 2003.\n7.  On 14 January 2004 the applicant brought an action in the Cottbus Social Court.\n8.  On 11 March 2004 the respondent party submitted the statement of defence and the applicant’s files.\n9.  On 14 June 2004 the Social Court requested inter alia reports of 19 doctors the applicant had consulted prior to the proceedings as well as medical documentation regarding the applicant’s five prior stays in hospital. Three months later these documents had been obtained in their entirety and the Social Court submitted the documents to the parties.\n10.  On 8 November 2004 and on 13 January 2005 the Social Court asked the applicant to concretise the claim. On 7 February 2005 the applicant submitted that the aim of the action was to determine that he was suffering from an occupational disease.\n11.  On 2 May 2005 the Social Court decided to obtain a first expert opinion concerning 12 specific questions and named an expert (Mr W.M.). The applicant cancelled the first examination fixed for 29 June 2005 due to illness. On 10 August 2005 the expert examined the applicant. On 13 October 2005 the expert submitted his report of 19 pages, in which he found inter alia that a further expert opinion was necessary.\n12.  On 23 March 2006 the Social Court decided to obtain another expert opinion on different aspects of the 12 questions and named an expert (Ms P.H.). The expert indicated her willingness to render the expert opinion.\n13.  In April 2006 the applicant changed lawyer.\n14.  On 24 May 2006 the expert Ms P.H. informed the Social Court that the applicant should first be examined by another expert (Ms U.R.). On 4 July 2006 the applicant challenged the latter expert on grounds of bias. By letter of 7 July 2006 the Social Court rejected this challenge and informed the applicant that it considered the examination necessary. On 19 October 2006 the applicant informed the Social Court that he was willing to cooperate.\n15.  On 7 February 2007 the expert Ms U.R. submitted her report of 11 pages. On 29 March 2007 the Social Court submitted the files to the expert Ms P.H. in order for her to render the requested expert opinion. On 17 April 2007 Ms P.H. informed the Social Court that she was unable to give the expert opinion.\n16.  On 17 August 2007 the Social Court amended its decision of 23 March 2006 and named another expert (Mr D.A.). On 31 August 2007 Mr D.A. informed the Social Court that he was unable to give the expert opinion in a timely manner.\n17.  On 26 September 2007 the Social Court again amended its decision of 23 March 2006 and named another expert (Mr Sch.). On 10 October 2007 the Social Court was informed that Mr Sch. had retired.\n18.  On 10 October 2007 the Social Court again amended its decision of 23 March 2006 and named another expert (Mr V.Z.). On 5 December 2007 Mr V.Z. informed the Social Court that he was unable to give the expert opinion in a timely manner.\n19.  On 11 December 2007 the Social Court again amended its decision of 23 March 2006 and named another expert (Mr E.M.). On 29 January 2008 the latter informed the Social Court tha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6376", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in the Kharkiv Region.\n5.  On 11 October 2001 the police arrested him on suspicion of violent robbery and unlawful possession of weapons.\n6.  On 12 October 2001 the Valky Court ordered the applicant’s detention pursuant to Article 165-2 § 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”) until 21 October 2009 on the ground that, if the applicant remained at liberty, he might abscond and obstruct justice. On 19 October 2001 it remanded the applicant in detention for the maximum period of two months on the grounds of the gravity of charges against him, possibility of absconding and negative character references. On 7 December 2001 the court extended the maximum period of the applicant’s detention for four months on the grounds of the gravity of charges and possibility of absconding.\n7.  On 8 February 2002, following the completion of the pre-trial investigations, the case was referred to the court for trial.\n8.  On 6 March 2002 the court ruled, inter alia, that the applicant should remain in detention, without giving any reasons.\n9.  On 21 May 2002 the case was transferred to the Kharkiv Court, which on 28 March 2003 found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property.\n10.  On 11 November 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It did not rule on the applicant’s detention.\n11.  On 23 November 2004 the Kharkiv Court remitted the case for additional investigation. It ordered the applicant to remain in detention, without giving any reasons.\n12.  On 10 March 2005 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 23 November 2004 and remitted the case for fresh court consideration. It did not rule on the applicant’s detention.\n13.  On 12 May 2006 the Kharkiv Court rejected the applicant’s request for release because of the gravity of charges against him.\n14.  On 13 June 2006 the same court convicted the applicant for violent robbery and unlawful possession of weapons and sentenced him to eight years’ and six months’ imprisonment with confiscation of property.\n15.  On 24 May 2007 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It did not rule on the applicant’s detention.\n16.  On 16 August 2007 the Kharkiv Court ruled, inter alia, that the applicant should remain in detention, without giving any reasons.\n17.  On 22 November 2007 the case was transferred to the Chervonozavodskyy District Court of Kharkiv, which on 11 December 2007 ruled, inter alia, that the applicant should remain in detention, without giving any reasons.\n18.  On 13 February and 10 April 2008 the above court rejected the applicant’s and three other co-defendants’ requests for release, holding that the detention as a preventive measure had been chosen with regard to the defendants’ personality, age and the gravity of charges against them as well as other circumstances provided by Articles 148 and 150 of the CCP, without any further specification. On 2 June 2008 the court examined the defendants’ yet another request for release and rejected other co-defendants’ request, without specifically addressing the applicant’s own request.\n19.  On 17 July 2008 the court convicted the applicant on the same charges as in the judgments of 28 March 2003 and 13 June 2006 and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property.\n20.  On 23 July 2009 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgmen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6377", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Ankara.\n6.  He is a professor of history who researches and publishes extensively on the subject of the historical events of 1915 concerning the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire.\n7.  On 6 October 2006 the applicant published an editorial opinion in AGOS, a bilingual Turkish-Armenian newspaper, entitled “Hrant Dink, 301 and a Criminal Complaint”. In this editorial opinion the applicant criticised the prosecution of Hrant Dink, the late editor of AGOS, for the crime of “denigrating Turkishness” under Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code. He also requested, in an expression of solidarity, to be prosecuted on the same ground for his opinions on the Armenian issue.\n8.  On 12 October 2006 a complaint was lodged against the applicant with the Eyüp public prosecutor. The complainant, R.A., alleged that the applicant’s defence of Hrant Dink in the editorial published in AGOS violated Articles 301, 214 (incitement to commit an offence), 215 (praising a crime and a criminal) and 216 (incitement to hatred and hostility among the people) of the Turkish Criminal Code. Following this complaint, the applicant was summoned to the Şişli public prosecutor’s office to make a statement. He was informed that he would be brought to the public prosecutor’s office by force, in accordance with Articles 145 and 146 of the Criminal Code, if he did not comply with the summons.\n9.  On 5 January 2007 the applicant went to the Şişli public prosecutor’s office to submit his defence statement in relation to the criminal complaint against him. The applicant stated, in the presence of his two lawyers, that he had indeed written the said article published in AGOS. He explained that the policy of the Ittihad ve Terakki[1] towards the Armenians in 1915 could well be defined as genocide within the meaning of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of the United Nations of 1948. He had written the said article in order to express his opinion on the Armenian issue in the context of freedom of the press. He pointed out that he was a professor of history who had been working on this subject for almost twenty years and that he had expressed his opinion several times in his books and articles. He had not written the impugned article in order to serve any association, organisation, race or ethnic group, or to denigrate a nation. The applicant’s two lawyers also argued that the applicant’s statements did not amount to a crime.\n10.  On 30 January 2007 the investigation against the applicant was terminated by the Şişli public prosecutor, who noted that at all the scientific seminars he had taken part in and in his publications the applicant had expressed the opinion that the events that took place between 1915 and 1919 could be described as genocide. Having examined the applicant’s article published in AGOS, the public prosecutor concluded that the applicant’s statements in his capacity as a professor of history came within the realm of protected expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that as such they did not constitute denigration of Turkishness. Nor did they amount to incitement to commit a crime, or to praising a crime or criminal, or incitement to hatred and enmity amongst the people.\n11.  On 6 July 2007 the complainant, R.A., filed an objection against the above-mentioned decision of non-prosecution.\n12.  On 30 October 2007 the Third Chamber of the Bey", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6378", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Wels. He worked as an official for the Austrian customs office.\n5.  Apparently in 1998, suspicions of smuggling, bribery and abuse of authority arose against the applicant and one other person, W. On 29 January 1998 the Review Chamber (Ratskammer) of the Linz Regional Court authorized the applicant’s telephones to be intercepted and the data on and content of the calls to be recorded.\n6.  On 15 May 1998 the investigating judge at the Linz Regional Court decided to open preliminary investigations on suspicion of abuse of authority (Amtsmißbrauch) and a number of offences under the Tax Offences Act against the applicant and, apparently, also against his co-accused. On 16 September 1998 the Review Chamber of the Linz Regional Court again authorized an interception of the applicant’s telephone lines.\n7.  On 25 November 1998, the Linz Public Prosecutor introduced a bill of indictment against the applicant’s co-accused W. On an unknown date, the proceedings against the applicant were separated from the ones against W. The applicant’s case was transferred to the Wels Regional Court.\n8.  On 18 December 1998 the investigating judge at the Wels Regional Court extended the preliminary investigations against the applicant to include suspicions of aggravated tax evasion and a number of further offences under the Tax Offences Act. On 21 December 1998 the investigating judge ordered the Regional Finance Directorate for Upper Austria (Finanzlandesdirekton Oberösterreich) to conduct investigations in respect of these offences. It appears that the Regional Police Command for Upper Austria (Landespolizeikommando Oberösterreich) was also involved in these investigations.\n9.  On 24 September 1999 the investigating judge at the Wels Regional Court issued decisions to inspect the applicant’s bank accounts in Austria. By letters rogatory, the judge also requested to inspect bank accounts in Germany.\n10.  On an unknown date, a search had been carried out at the applicant’s work place, and on 24 November 1999 the Wels Regional Court decided to seize the evidence discovered during that search.\n11.  On 24 December 1999 the applicant was suspended from his office.\n12.  From 20 December 2000 to 16 February 2001 the applicant was in pre-trial detention as he allegedly tried to influence witnesses. On 2 February 2001 and 20 February 2001, further decisions to inspect bank accounts were taken. On 13 March 2001 the investigating judge extended the preliminary investigations against the applicant to include the suspicion of inciting a witness to give false testimony.\n13.  On 23 May 2001 an expert was appointed to give an opinion about the money flows on the applicant’s accounts. The expert asked twice for an extension of the deadline for submission of the opinion, and the extensions were granted. The court urged the expert three times for delivery of the opinion (on 4 January 2002, 4 February 2002 and 18 March 2002). The opinion was eventually delivered on 24 April 2002.\n14.  A questioning of the applicant by the investigating judge scheduled for 17 May 2002 had to be postponed to 24 June 2002 as the applicant, despite having received the expert’s opinion at some time in April 2002, had requested an adjournment on 17 May 2002.\n15.  A report drawn up by the Regional Finance Directorate for Upper Austria reached the court on 27 August 2002.\n16.  On 20 November 2002 the investigating judge urged the Regional Police Command for", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6380", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1936. He is the father of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev, who was born in 1970. At the material time the applicant lived in Berkat-Yurt, Chechnya. He currently lives in Shali, Chechnya.\n6.  At the material time, during the first counterterrorist campaign in Chechnya, Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev worked as a driver of a URAL petrol tanker. On 9 February 1996 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 11 February 1996) he was driving his lorry on the outskirts of Berkat-Yurt, Chechnya. Next to the village, in the vicinity of a Russian military checkpoint, he was stopped by a group of military intelligence officers under the command of Major A.Z. The group belonged to military unit no. 74614 of the 205th brigade of the Internal Troops of the Russian Ministry of the Interior. After that, the applicant’s son disappeared.\n(b)  The search for the applicant’s son\n7.  On 10 February 1996 the applicant started a search for his son. On 12 February 1996 he found out that his son had been detained by the military servicemen. The applicant went to the base of an air force squadron stationed in the area, together with the head of the Berkat-Yurt village administration. There they spoke to the squadron commander and showed him a photograph of Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev. They told the commander that on 9 February 1996 Elbek had been detained by the military servicemen. The commander informed them that on 9 February 1996 a group of military intelligence officers, under the command of a Major, had arrived at their base with a detainee. They had introduced themselves as representatives of the 205th brigade of the Internal Troops and explained that they had arrived to provide medical assistance to two soldiers who had been blown up by a landmine. This intelligence group had arrived with a detainee, and the detainee had been Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev: the commander recognised him from the photograph. Upon providing medical assistance to the wounded soldiers, the intelligence officers had placed the applicant’s son either in an armoured personnel carrier or an infantry battle vehicle (“IBV”) and left for Khankala, Chechnya. Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev’s lorry had been driven away by a soldier.\n8.  After that, the applicant and the head of administration went to see the commander of the 205th brigade, General Na. Upon their request, the General ordered that the applicant, together with a group of military servicemen on three IBVs and under the command of a Captain, would drive to where the 56th brigade (56-я бригада) were stationed. At that location, the commander of the 56th brigade confirmed that Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev had been detained by the intelligence officers.\n9.  The applicant subsequently requested information about his missing son and his lorry from General Na. The commander refused to admit that the 205th brigade had detained Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev and that his lorry had been parked at their premises.\n10.  Sometime later the applicant together with representatives of the military prosecutor’s office visited the premises of the brigade, where they found Elbek Tashukhadzhiyev’s lorry. The vehicle’s registration numbers had been removed and it was being used by the brigade’s servicemen.\n11.  In support of his application, the applicant submitted his statement and copies of correspondence received from the authorities.\n12.  The Government did not challenge most of the facts as presented by the applicant. With reference to the contents of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6381", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 2004 the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant and other persons with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with attempted murder committed in the context of organised crime.\n7.  On 20 August 2004 the Criminal Division of the Gdańsk Regional Court requested the President of that court for the secondment of a judge from the district court, L.M., to the bench appointed to examine the applicant’s case. The following dates for hearings to be held were specified in that letter: 26 October, and 16 and 23 November 2004.\n8.  By a letter of the President of the Regional Court, dated 23 August 2004, the judge was seconded for the purpose of attending the three hearings requested. The letter referred to the agreement of the board of the assembly of the Regional Court’s judges to the secondment which had been given on an unspecified date.\n9.  Subsequently, hearings in the applicant’s case were held on these first three dates and then later on 14 December 2004, 25 January, 3 and 15 March, 14 and 19 April, 19 May, 17 June, 12 July and 3 October 2005.\n10.  By a letter of 10 October 2005 the President of the Criminal Division of the Regional Court requested the President of that court to clarify the terms of Judge L.M.’s secondment, referring to certain doubts as to the time frame within which it was valid. He requested clarification on whether she had been seconded only for the three dates specified in the secondment letter of 23 August 2004 or for the whole examination of the case, until the first‑instance judgment.\n11.  In his reply of 11 October 2005 the President of the Regional Court stated that Judge L.M. had been seconded with effect from 26 October 2004 until a first-instance judgment was given in the case.\n12.  On 12 October 2005 the President of the Criminal Division of the Gdańsk Regional Court asked the President of that court to second Judge L.M. to the case for a hearing to be held on 3 November 2005. His request was granted by the President’s letter of 13 October 2005, specifically referring to that date.\n13.  On 26 October 2006 the President of the Criminal Division of the Gdańsk Regional Court stated in a letter to the President of that court that Judge L.M.’s original secondment had covered the hearings held on: 26 October, 16 and 23 November 2003, 14 December 2004, 25 January, 3 and 15 March, 14 and 19 April, 19 May, 17 June, 12 July and 3 October 2005.\n14.  Subsequently, there was a change of practice concerning the secondment, in that Judge L.M. was seconded by separate letters of 4 and 14 November 2005 for hearings to be held on 10 and 16 November 2005 respectively.\n15.  On the latter date the court gave a judgment and found the applicant guilty of attempted murder.\n16.  The applicant appealed, complaining essentially about various aspects of the admissibility and assessment of the evidence by the first-instance court.\n17.  On 11 October 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal partly upheld and partly amended the contested judgment.\n18.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n19.  In additional pleadings of 6 August 2007 he raised another ground for appeal. He drew the Supreme Court’s attention to the doubts which had arisen during the proceedings as to the correctness of the procedure concerning the secondment of Judge L.M., its time frame and its compliance with the requirements of section 77 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6382", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is serving a prison sentence in the Samara Region.\n6.  From 11 July to 22 October 2008 the applicant was held in remand prison no. IZ-63/2 of Syzran in the Samara Region pending criminal proceedings against him.\n7.  The Government and the applicant provided differing descriptions of the conditions of the applicant’s detention.\n8.  The Government submitted extracts from the register of the remand prison population. They further submitted data concerning the size of the cells based on statements made by the remand prison officers. In particular, they provided the following information:\nCell no.\nPeriod of detention\nSurface area (in square metres)\nNumber of inmates\nNumber of beds\n2\nFrom 11 to 14 July 30.1\n6-7\n7\n \nFrom 6 to 14 August\n \n \nFrom 28 to 28 August\n \n \nFrom 1 to 9 September\n \n \nFrom 11 to 18 September\n7\n \nFrom 30 September to 3 October\n5-7\n113\nFrom 3 to 10 October\n9.  The applicant spent a considerable amount of time outside the prison cells. He participated in questioning and other investigative activities, and met with his lawyer, relatives and other persons. He was allowed at least an hour-long daily walk in a specially equipped prison yard and weekly showers. During inspections and cleaning of the cells the inmates, including the applicant, were taken outside the cells as well.\n10.  All the cells of the remand prison were equipped with natural and artificial ventilation which was in a good working order. The windows were covered with metal bars which did not prevent daylight coming through. The artificial day lighting in the cells was in compliance with the applicable specifications and was on from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. At night low-voltage bulbs were used to maintain lighting for surveillance and practical reasons (for example, to provide lighting in the toilet area).\n11.  Each cell was equipped with a toilet and a sink located in the corner. The distance between the table and the toilet was at least 1.5 m and the distance between the toilet and the nearest bed was at least 1.2 m. The toilet was separated from the living area of the cell by a partition measuring at least one metre in height.\n12.  The applicant contested the description of the conditions of his detention in the remand prison provided by the Government. In particular he provided the following information:\nCell no.\nPeriod of detention\nSurface area (in square metres)\nNumber of inmates\nNumber of beds\n122\nFrom 13 to 17 July\n13.  While it was true that on several occasions the applicant was transported to the courthouse to attend hearings, the rest of the time he was confined to his cell. He was allowed to see his lawyer only once. That meeting lasted no longer than one hour. The meetings with the officers of the remand prison which took place outside his cell did not exceed thirty minutes.\n14.  The applicant was provided with an individual bed only when detained in cell no. 114. For the rest of the time he had to share the bed with two to three other inmates.\n15.  The ventilation did not function properly and was insufficient due to the overcrowding of the cells. The air was stuffy and humid. It was filled with tobacco smoke. Dirty condensation accumulated on the walls and the ceiling and then trickled down. The light was constantly on. Low-voltage bulbs were not used. The windows were covered with metal bars both on the inside and outside.\n16.  The flushing system in the toilet did not provide a sufficient amount of water to keep ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6383", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Skopje.\n7.  On 26 March 1996 the applicant brought a civil action before the then Municipal Court of Gevgelija (“the first-instance court”) seeking the annulment of a gift contract (“the contract”) of 1994 on the basis of which Ms N.B. had transferred title to a plot of land and a house to Mr J.B., her son. The applicant had a right of way (нужна службеност на премин) in respect of the plot in question. He claimed that the plot in issue had been socially-owned and could not have been the subject of the disputed contract. The claim was submitted against Mr J.B.\n8.  On 24 May 1996 the first-instance court accepted the applicant’s claim and declared the contract null and void. It found that the contract was contrary to section 103 of the Obligations Act (see paragraph 22 below) since the house had been demolished in 1972, that is, before the contract had been concluded.\n9.  On 19 June 1997 the adjudicating bench of the Skopje Court of Appeal, presided over by judge V.K., quashed the lower court’s decision and remitted the case for reconsideration. The court stated, inter alia:\n“... the transfer of the plot and house from the defendant’s mother to the defendant is not contrary either to the constitutional values or other binding regulations since the defendant, as heir, is eligible to have the land, which cannot be subject to any legal transaction, transferred to him ... the first-instance court ignored the fact that the claim had not been submitted against the other party to the contract ...”\n10.  On 20 October 1998 the first-instance court stayed the proceedings on account of the applicant’s failure to appear despite the fact that he had been duly summoned. In the absence of a request that the proceedings continue, on 6 April 1999 the court declared the applicant’s claim to have been withdrawn (тужбата се смета за повлечена). On 8 July 1999 the court rejected the applicant’s appeal as belated, together with his request for reinstatement of the proceedings. On 15 December 1999 the Skopje Court of Appeal, presided over by judge V.K., accepted the applicant’s appeal and quashed the first-instance court’s decisions of 6 April and 8 July 1999 respectively.\n11.  On 30 October 2000 the first-instance court accepted the applicant’s claim and declared the contract null and void. It found that the contract had been contrary to the Building Land Act, as the lex specialis under which undeveloped building land, as was the case of the plot in question, was regarded as res extra commercium.\n12.  On 14 March 2001 the Skopje Court of Appeal’s bench, presided over by judge V.K., quashed that decision, arguing, inter alia:\n“... a question arises as to whether the transfer of the plot and house, under the contract, from the defendant’s mother to the defendant was contrary to the constitutional values and other binding regulations given the fact that the house had already been demolished when the contract was signed. In order to answer this question correctly, one should consider section 19 of the Building Land Act under which rights specified in sections 15 (1) and 17 (1) of that Act can be transferred from the former owner to ... heirs ... Under section 15 (1) of the Building Land Act, the former owner has a right to use undeveloped land. Section 17 (1) provides for the pre-emptive right of the former owner to construct a family house on building land. Section 19 of the Building Land Act, cited above, provides", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6385", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.\n6.  The parties disagreed as to the course of the events that occurred on 3 October 2003. Their versions may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 2 October 2003 the applicant saw a road police inspector being bribed for permission to enter a restricted-access zone and informed a law‑enforcement body about this incident. As no action followed on its part, the applicant decided to investigate independently the number of cars that were allowed to pass through the restricted-access zone. On the night of 3 October 2003 he was spotted by the guards of rifle division no. 16 of the Rostov extra-departmental security service of the North Caucasus Railway (Стрелковая команда № 16 Ростовского отряда вневедомственной охраны Северо-Кавказской железной дороги). He was searched and taken to the guardroom, where he was brutally beaten. Guard S. fired several shots at the applicant’s legs with a Kalashnikov rifle, severely wounding him.\n8.  At 2 a.m. on 3 October 2003 the applicant entered the restricted‑access zone guarded by rifle division no. 16 of the Rostov extra‑departmental security service, which was responsible for the security of the railway bridge of the Zarechnaya-Bataysk sector of the North‑Caucasus Railway.\n9.  The applicant set fire to a car owned by guard S. and was apprehended by the latter.\n10.  Guards L. and S. escorted the applicant to the guard premises. Upon entering the premises they proceeded in the direction of the guard commander’s room, and guard N. stepped back into the kitchen to allow them to pass. L. was bringing up the rear.\n11.  Suddenly the applicant turned around and tried to stab S. with a knife. As the latter did not have enough time to take his handgun out of its holster he commanded L. to give him a rifle and warned the applicant. After repeating the warning and in view of the advancing applicant, S. fired away from the applicant, hitting a fire extinguisher which began discharging foam. The guards had difficulty seeing and breathing and left the building. After the foam began to settle down, S. entered the premises again and saw the applicant hiding behind the door frame. The applicant hopped into the corridor and again tried to stab S. S. leapt back but could not retreat further as his way was blocked by L. S., who was still holding the rifle, warned the applicant and fired at the floor below him. The applicant leapt aside but was still threatening them. Fearing for his life S. fired two single shots, aiming at the applicant’s legs. The applicant retreated to the room of the guard commander screaming that he was going to blow the place up. S. followed him and saw the applicant, who was wearing a jacket and hat belonging to the guards, sitting on a sofa with blood streaming down his legs. S. noticed that the phone cords had been cut. He ordered N. to summon the police and ambulance and, together with L., began to administer first aid. They then discovered the knife on the back of the sofa.\n12.  The applicant, who was suffering from a manic mental disorder, had a suspicion that the guards of rifle division no. 16 were aiding terrorists. On 2 October 2003, during the day, he arrived at the guarded zone on his bicycle and demanded that the guards stop letting the cars through. Having failed to achieve the desired result, at 2 a.m. on 3 October 2003 the applicant entered the restricted-access territory, where he might have tried to set fire to the car of guard", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6387", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Sopot, Serbia.\n6.  The relevant facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 22 May 1995 an inheritance-related case (ostavinski postupak) was instituted before the Fifth Municipal Court in Belgrade. The applicant was only one of the parties formally involved.\n8.  On 14 June 1995 the Fifth Municipal Court suspended the proceedings since one of the heirs had contested the validity of a life-long support contract (ugovor o doživotnom izdržavanju) concerning the deceased’s flat. The inheritance proceedings were to be resumed once this issue had been resolved in a separate civil suit.\n9.  The deceased’s wife subsequently brought a number of cases against the applicant, the deceased’s son, who had concluded the said life-long support contract with his father (see paragraphs 15-33 below).\n10.  On 14 June 2000 and in view of the judgment adopted on 2 March 1999 (see paragraphs 15-17 below), the applicant requested that the inheritance proceedings be terminated given that there remained no estate to be divided between the heirs.\n11.  On 15 April 2010 and in view of the decisions adopted on 13 August 2001 and 20 April 2006 (see paragraphs 19, 20 and 25 below), the deceased’s wife requested that the inheritance proceedings be continued.\n12.  The applicant apparently opposed this motion, stating that the relevant parallel proceedings were still pending (see paragraphs 18-33 below).\n13.  On 7 September 2010 the inheritance proceedings resumed, but the hearing of the same date was adjourned due to the failure of the deceased’s wife to appear before the court.\n14.  The next hearing was scheduled for 21 February 2011. This hearing, however, was also adjourned, this time in order for the court to obtain additional information about the estate. The applicant, it seems, did not appear at this hearing.\n15.  On 20 September 1995 the deceased’s wife filed a claim against the applicant with the Fifth Municipal Court. She sought that the life-long support contract be declared fictitious (fiktivan).\n16.  On 2 March 1999 the Fifth Municipal Court ruled against the plaintiff, partly based on the “inadequately” specified cause of action.\n17.  Having been upheld on appeal, by 25 January 2000 this judgment became final.\n18.  On 15 August 2000 the deceased’s wife brought another claim against the applicant before the Fifth Municipal Court. She outlined the relevant facts and sought that the life-long support contract be partly annulled (poništen) and partly cancelled (raskinut).\n19.  On 25 December 2000 the Fifth Municipal Court adopted a partial judgement against the applicant (doneo delimičnu presudu). In so doing, it stated that one half of a disputed flat belonged to the plaintiff as the deceased’s spouse, and that the corresponding part of the life-long support contract was therefore to be deemed null and void. The presiding judge in the case was judge B.\n20.  On 13 August 2001 the District Court in Belgrade confirmed this judgment on appeal and it thereby became final. The appeal bench included judge D.\n21.  On 17 June 2003 the Fifth Municipal Court cancelled the remainder of the above contract, noting that the applicant had not been fulfilling his contractual obligations properly.\n22.  On 24 March 2004 the District Court in Belgrade quashed this judgment in view of the incoherence between its operative provisions and its reasoning. It did not, however, offer any guidance i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6388", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicants were born in 1952, 1960, 1962 and 1934 respectively and live in Bursa.\n4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicants without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicants brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of their property. They requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved their right to increase this claim in due course.\n5.  On 22 June 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of their land, as requested, plus interest. The applicants initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2009/2802).\n6.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n7.  The applicants subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for their land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by them.\n8.  On 24 May 2007 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 126,725, plus interest. The applicants initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2007/6192).\n9.  On 16 October 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.\n10.  On 23 March and 13 November 2009 the administration paid TRY 8,821 and 187,447 respectively to the files before the Bursa Execution Office.\n11.  According to the information provided by the applicants, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6389", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  On 27 May 1992 the applicant was interrogated on suspicion of fraud by the Budapest Police Department. On 30 June 1992 the Ministry of the Interior’s Passport Office withdrew his passport until the termination of the criminal proceedings, pursuant to sections 2 and 13 of Act no. XXVIII of 1989 on Travelling Abroad. On 17 December 1992 the Budapest Police Department prohibited the alienation of a car and a house, registered as property of the applicant. The aim of this measure was to secure the eventual recovery of the gain from the applicant’s alleged crime.\n7.  The Government submitted that the applicant had not filed a complaint against the prohibition or filed a motion with the trial court to have the measure discontinued. However, it can be verified from the case file that he did so on 9 January 1993 and again on 3 March 1993.\n8.  On 19 July 1994 the Budapest Chief Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him with fraud and forgery of private documents.\n9.  After several hearings, on 9 January 2002 the Pest Central District Court acquitted the applicant. On appeal, on 12 November 2002 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment and remitted the case.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings, on 7 September 2005 the Pest Central District Court again acquitted the applicant. The prosecution appealed.\n11.  On 1 July 2006 the travel ban imposed on the applicant was lifted due to a change in the law.\n12.  On 29 September 2006 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment acquitting the applicant, and ordered that the measure to freeze his assets be discontinued. This decision was served on the applicant on 22 November 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6391", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicants were born in 1977 and 1966 respectively and live in Bursa.\n4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicants without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicants brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of their property. They requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved their right to increase this claim in due course.\n5.  On 29 December 2005 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of their land, as requested, plus interest. The applicants initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2006/2200).\n6.  On 29 May 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n7.  The applicants subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for their land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by them.\n8.  On 2 November 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 100,723.25, plus interest. The applicants initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2009/2817).\n9.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.\n10.  On 16 January 2009 the administration paid TRY 9,414.62 to file no. 2006/2200 before the Bursa Execution Office in respect of the debt arising from the initial action.\n11.  Subsequently, on 24 March 2009 they paid TRY 152,951.97 to file no. 2009/2817 before the Bursa Execution Office in respect of the debt under the additional action. According to the information provided by the applicants, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6392", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Śmiłowo. He was a member of the Senate (the upper chamber of the Parliament) between 1989 and 2005 and a prosperous businessman.\n7.  On an unspecified date the prosecution authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant. It appears that he left Poland in December 2006. On 30 January 2007 the Warsaw-Praga Północ District Court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody. That decision was upheld on appeal.\n8.  On 23 July 2007 the Warsaw-Praga Regional Court issued a European Arrest Warrant for the applicant. On 12 November 2007 he was arrested in Germany on the basis of that warrant. On 19 December 2007 the applicant was extradited to Poland.\n9.  Subsequently the Warsaw-Praga Regional Prosecutor charged the applicant with, inter alia, numerous counts of bribery of high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Finance and bribery of a judge of the administrative court. The applicant was represented by three defence counsel.\n10.  On 21 December 2007, on an application from the Warsaw-Praga Regional Prosecutor, the assessor R.Z. (junior judge) of the Warsaw‑Praga Północ District Court remanded the applicant in custody until 19 March 2008.\n11.  Two of the applicant’s counsel (Mr J. Majewski and Mr M. Boruc) lodged appeals against the detention order on 28 December 2007. Counsel J. Majewski argued, invoking Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, that the detention order had been given by an assessor who could not be considered “a judge” or “other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” because he lacked independence from the executive. Relying on Article 439 § 1 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”) he submitted that the detention order had been given by a “non-authorised person” (osoba nieuprawniona). In this respect he referred to the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 24 October 2007.\n12.  On 11 January 2008 the applicant’s third counsel (Mr J. Naumann) filed an appeal against the detention order.\n13.  On 12 February 2008 the Warsaw-Praga Regional Court, sitting as a bench of three professional judges, dismissed the appeals against the detention order of 21 December 2007. It held that the assessor could not be considered as “a non-authorised person to give a decision” within the meaning of Article 439 § 1 (1) of the CCP. The Constitutional Court had struck down the provisions allowing the Minister of Justice to delegate judicial powers to assessors; however the relevant decisions given by assessors had not been automatically negated. The court observed that following Poland’s accession to the European Union domestic law was undergoing a continuous process of adjustment to the requirements of European law. However, the transformation of domestic law should not lead to chaos in the legal order and for that reason the Constitutional Court had allowed 18 months for the necessary legislative changes to be implemented. The court observed that at the relevant time the applicant could only challenge an alleged lack of impartiality on the part of the assessor under Article 41 § 1 of the CCP.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6393", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Kharkiv.\n6.  On 9 May 1998 the Frunzenskiy District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the murder of Mr T.\n7.  On the same day the applicant was arrested by the police for hooliganism and taken to the police station. According to the applicant, the police severely beat him in order to force him to confess to the murder of Mr T. who had lived with him in the same apartment block.\n8.  On 11 May 1998 the applicant was brought before the Frunzenskiy District Court. The court found him guilty of an administrative offence (hooliganism), committed on 9 May 1998 at 1 p.m., and ordered his administrative arrest for fifteen days. The applicant was then returned to the police station, where, according to him, the police ill-treated him again. On the same day he was questioned as a witness in connection with the murder of Mr T.\n9.  On 12 May 1998 the applicant confessed to the murder and theft. He was questioned from 6.45 p.m. to 8 p.m. on suspicion of the murder of Mr T. At 9 p.m. he was formally arrested as a suspect. The applicant also signed a waiver from a lawyer indicating that he did not need legal representation at that point and would decide on his representation later.\n10.  On 13 May 1998 the applicant underwent a medical examination. In his opinion of 14 May 1998, the forensic expert noted that the applicant had abrasions on his wrists that could have been caused by handcuffs. He further had three abrasions on his left elbow, one abrasion on the lower part of the abdomen and one abrasion on his leg. According to the expert opinion, the applicant had maintained that the police had not applied force to him and that the abrasion on his abdomen had been caused by falling in his garage two weeks prior to the examination. The expert concluded that the abrasions on the wrists could have been caused by handcuffs one to three days prior to the examination and the other injuries had no relevance to the events indicated in the referral for the medical examination.\n11.  On 15 May 1998 the applicant was charged with murder. During the questioning he refused the assistance of lawyer T., who had been engaged by his father, and was questioned as an accused without a lawyer.\n12.  On 1 June 1998 the criminal case against the applicant was transferred to the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office for further investigation. Shortly afterwards, the applicant received assistance from lawyer G.\n13.  On 22 June 1998 the applicant was examined by a forensic expert who established that the applicant had a broken rib, a scar on his head and three scars on his left arm, two scars on his right arm and a broken tooth. On some later date another X-ray examination was carried out which found that the applicant’s rib was not broken.\n14.  On 26 June 1998 the applicant was examined by a dentist who established that the applicant’s tooth had split into two as a result of tooth decay.\n15.  On 27 July 1998 the investigator reclassified the applicant’s offence as murder for profit, which was punishable by life imprisonment and required the obligatory legal representation of the applicant.\n16.  On 10 January 1999 the investigation was completed and the case against the applicant was referred to the Kharkiv Regional Court.\n17.  On 9 September 1999 the Kharkiv Regional Court referred the case for further investigation. In so deciding, the court noted, in particular, that the applicant’s allegations of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6394", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Dolný Kubín.\n6.  On 5 February 2004 the police arrested the applicant. He was accused of planning a robbery[1] and remanded in custody from that date.\n7.  Several decisions extending the applicant’s detention were made. In particular, on 18 November 2004 the Žilina District Court extended his detention in the context of the preliminary proceedings until 24 January 2005.\n8.  On 21 January 2005 the public prosecutor indicted the applicant and several other persons before the Žilina Regional Court.\n9.  The applicant requested to be released, arguing that the Regional Court had not extended his detention after the expiry of the period indicated in the District Court’s decision of 18 November 2004.\n10.  On 20 April 2005 the Regional Court ordered the applicant’s release. Upon a complaint lodged by the public prosecutor the Supreme Court decided on 24 May 2005 that the applicant should remain remanded in custody.\n11.  On 27 July 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that his detention in the period after 24 January 2005 was unlawful.\n12.  On 5 February 2006 the applicant was released.\n13.  On 15 February 2006 the Constitutional Court found that by the above decision of 24 May 2005 the Supreme Court had breached the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (judgment I.ÚS 204/05). There had been no judicial decision extending the applicant’s detention after 24 January 2005 and there existed no justification for that situation.\n14.  The Constitutional Court ordered the Supreme Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs in the constitutional proceedings. It dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction, holding that (i) the finding of a violation of Article 5 § 1 provided appropriate redress for the applicant and (ii) the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 May 2005 was based on that court’s practice which, however, was not in accordance with practice under the Convention.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6395", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Bursa.\n4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicant without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicant brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of his property. He requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved his right to increase this claim in due course.\n5.  On 15 June 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of his land, as requested, plus interest. The applicant initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2009/2806).\n6.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n7.  The applicant subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for his land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by him.\n8.  On 24 May 2007 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 59,568.50, plus interest. The applicant initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2007/6188).\n9.  On 23 October 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.\n10.  On 24 March and 13 November 2009 the administration paid TRY 8,923 and 92,113 respectively in respect of the debt arising from the actions before the Bursa Execution Office.\n11. According to the information provided by the applicant, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6396", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Bursa.\n4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicant without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicant brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of his property. He requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved his right to increase this claim in due course.\n5.  On 29 December 2005 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of his land, as requested, plus interest. The applicant initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2006/2198).\n6.  On 29 May 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n7.  The applicant subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for his land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by him.\n8.  On 2 November 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 93,491, plus interest. The applicant initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2009/2816).\n9.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.\n10.  On 20 and 24 March 2009 the administration paid TRY 789,091 and 142,079 respectively to the files before the Bursa Execution Office. According to the information provided by the applicant, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6397", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicants were born in 1927 and 1933 respectively and live in Bursa.\n4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicants without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicants brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of their property. They requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved their right to increase this claim in due course.\n5.  On 22 June 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of their land, as requested, plus interest. The applicants initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2009/2799).\n6.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n7.  The applicants subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for their land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by them.\n8.  On 24 May 2007 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 34,529, plus interest. The applicants initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2007/6186).\n9.  On 16 October 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.\n10.  On 25 March and 13 November 2009 the administration paid TRY 8,878 and 53,411 respectively. According to the information provided by the applicants, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6398", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicants were born in 1941, 1946 and 1948 respectively and live in Bursa.\n4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicants without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicants brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of their property. They requested 6,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved their right to increase this claim in due course.\n5.  On 16 November 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 6,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of their land, as requested, plus interest. The applicants initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2009/2793).\n6.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n7.  The applicants subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for their land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by them.\n8.  On 10 May 2007 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 158,626.30, plus interest. The applicants initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2007/6182).\n9.  On 16 October 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.\n10.  On 20 March 2009 the administration paid TRY 10,297.75. According to the information provided by the applicants, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6399", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in St Petersburg.\n6.  The applicant, her husband and their son reside in an apartment, which they share with two other families. She suffers from a number of diseases, affecting her skin, kidneys and thyroid gland. The applicant is classed as Category 2 disabled under Russian law.\n7.  In April 2001 the applicant’s son allegedly beat up Bo., who was a member of one of the families residing in the same apartment. Bo. complained to the police of having been beaten. On 1 October 2002 the applicant’s son was convicted of affray in this connection and given a six-month conditional sentence.\n8.  At around 5 p.m. on 8 December 2001 K., a neighbourhood police inspector, and police officer S., the Deputy Head of the 28th Section of the St Petersburg Central District Department of the Interior (“the District Department of the Interior”) arrived at the applicant’s apartment to invite the applicant’s son to attend an interview. At the time, he had not been either classed as a suspect or formally charged. Bo. let the officers into the apartment and they saw the applicant’s son entering his room and locking the door behind him.\n9.  The applicant blocked the way to her son’s door. S. explained the reasons for their visit to the applicant, but the applicant asked them to leave. According to S., the applicant verbally insulted him and punched him several times in the chest. The applicant disagreed and submitted that she had simply blocked access to the door, but did not insult or punch anyone.\n10.  The applicant’s neighbours, who were present during the incident, later confirmed that the applicant had used abusive language and had tried to hit S.\n11.   K. then left the building in order to prevent the applicant’s son from escaping through a window and S. stayed in the apartment and called the police, asking them to send reinforcements. Some time later, officers Sh., D.B. and M. arrived at the applicant’s apartment. S. told them to take the applicant to the police station for having insulted the policemen on duty.\n12.  According to the applicant, and as also noted in the statement of her neighbours given during the subsequent investigation, thereafter the policemen forced the door to the room of the applicant’s son open, entered the room and some time later led him outside of the apartment and put him in a car.\n13.  According to S., he offered to let the applicant put her winter clothes on, but the applicant refused. Sh. and M. then took the applicant by the hands, led her out of the apartment and put her in the car. The applicant resisted their efforts.\n14.  The applicant submitted that while she had been in the apartment, one of the policemen had knocked her to the floor, had grabbed her by the wrists and had dragged her out of the apartment. He had dragged her down two staircases of the building and out to the car. She denied having been given the chance to put her winter clothes on.\n15.  According to the applicant, it had been minus 10o C outside. The applicant’s son had been put in the same car. The police brought them to the District Department of the Interior’s premises and locked them in cells for administrative detainees.\n16.  Some time later the applicant’s husband brought her warm clothes. A record made after the incident concerning the administrative offence of minor affray under Article 158 of the RSFSR Administrative Offences Code states that the applicant “used abusive language in public”. The re", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6401", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant, RJ Import Roger Jaeger A.G., is a commercial company located in Herrliberg, Switzerland. The second applicant, RJ Import Bucureşti S.A., located in Bucharest, Romania, is a subsidiary company of the first applicant who ownes 51 % of its shares.\n7.  In 1997 the second applicant concluded with the State-owned company S.C. Craser S.A. (“Craser”) a purchasing contract for industrial equipment. The second applicant paid the price of the contract partly in money partly by buying a debt of the seller. By subsequent commercial transactions the creditor of the debt owed by the second applicant became the first applicant.\n8.  By a final judgment of 16 April 2002 the Bucharest Court of Appeal annulled the 1997 contract finding that it had been concluded in breach of the law. At an unspecified date the second applicant had returned the equipment to the seller but the latter refused to return the price received.\n9.  On 22 April 2004 the second applicant requested before the courts the reimbursement of the price paid according to the purchasing contract as well as the value of the investments subsequently incurred with respect to the equipment in question. On 17 November 2004 the Bucharest County Court obliged Craser to pay the second applicant 1,350,000 Swiss Francs as price of the contract, 35,994,375,000 Romanian Lei (ROL) as investments incurred and ROL 5,171,000 as court fees. The judgment became final on 2 December 2004 as it was not appealed against by the parties.\n10.  On 9 July 2004 the first and second applicants requested before the courts the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against Craser. By a judgment of the Dolj County Court of 3 November 2004 the bankruptcy proceedings were commenced. On 27 April 2005 the Craiova Court of Appeal decided by a final judgment to include both applicants on the list of creditors: the first applicant with the debt it had bought and the second applicant with the amounts awarded by the judgment of 17 November 2004. According to the information submitted by the parties these proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts.\n11.  Despite the applicants’ efforts, the judgment of 17 November 2004 remained non-enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6402", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Bursa.\n4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicant without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicant brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of his property. He requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved his right to increase this claim in due course.\n5.  On 15 June 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of his land, as requested, plus interest. The applicant initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2009/2810).\n6.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n7.  The applicant subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for his land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by him.\n8.  On 24 May 2007 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 36,896.75, plus interest. The applicant initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2007/6187).\n9.  On 16 October 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.\n10.  On 23 March and 13 November 2009 the administration paid TRY 8,920 and 53,081 respectively. According to the information provided by the applicant, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6403", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Szczytno.\n6.  On 15 December 1946 the applicant’s parents’ house and farm were destroyed and burned down by the Security Office (Urząd Bezpieczeństwa) in the framework of a campaign against anti-communist resistance to which the applicant, his father and his brother belonged. Subsequently, his father and brother were convicted and prison sentences were imposed on them.\n7.  In 1993 the applicant’s brother requested that the decisions given in his criminal case be declared null and void on the strength of the Law of 23 February 1991 on annulment of convictions of persons persecuted for activities aimed at achieving independence for Poland (Ustawa o uznaniu za nieważne orzeczeń wydanych wobec osób represjonowanych za działalność na rzecz niepodległego bytu Państwa Polskiego – “the 1991 Act”, see paragraphs 32 and 33 below). After six years of proceedings, a decision in the applicant’s brother’s favour was ultimately given in 1999.\n8.  On 31 January 2003 the applicant and his siblings filed a civil claim against the State Treasury with the Ostrołęka Regional Court. They claimed compensation for the destruction of their parents’ farm.\n9.  During the proceedings the State Treasury raised an objection of prescription against the compensation claim.\n10.  On 11 February 2004 the first-instance court held that the claim against the State Treasury was time-barred and dismissed the claim. The court observed that it was not in dispute that the farm had been burned to the ground by agents of the Security Office in the circumstances described by the plaintiffs. It further accepted that it had been a Stalinist crime. It was also an event which could give rise to the State’s liability in tort. The court confirmed that the applicant’s brother and father had subsequently been imprisoned.\n11.  The court went on to state that the State Liability Act (ustawa o odpowiedzialności Państwa za szkody wyrządzone przez funkcjonariuszów państwowych) adopted on 15 November 1956 (“the 1956 Act”) had had the specific purpose of creating a special legal framework making it possible for victims of Stalinist crimes to seek redress for damage they had suffered. It provided for a one-year time-limit for submitting relevant compensation claims (see paragraph 26 below). That time-limit had started to run on 28 November 1956, the date of publication of the 1956 Act.\n12.  The court further referred to a resolution given by the Supreme Court (III CZP 76/96, 11 October 1997; see paragraph 35 below). The Supreme Court had acknowledged that for general political reasons it might have been impossible for the victims to vindicate compensation claims in respect of Stalinist crimes having been committed before 4 June 1989, the date on which the first partially-free elections to parliament had been held and in respect of which it has been widely accepted that it had marked the collapse of the communist regime. Before that date victims of Stalinist persecution and also victims of later persecution against the State’s political opponents could legitimately fear that bringing such cases before the courts would provoke the State’s ire. Hence, it could be accepted that the one‑year time‑limit fixed by the provisions of the 1956 Act could be said to have started to run only on 4 June 1989. However, as the applicant had brought his case to the courts in 2003, his claim was time‑barred.\n13.  The court further held that the provisions of the Civil ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6404", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Kirove, Dzerzhynsk.\n6.  On 3 March 1998 Igor Antonov, the applicant’s adult son was hitchhiking on an intercity motorway and was hit by a car being driven by V.L. Soon after the accident Igor Antonov died in the hospital.\n7.  On 3 March 1998 (the date of the accident) a Krynychansky Road Police expert examined the accident site and drew up an accident report.\n8.  On 9 March 1998 an expert facility of the Krynychansky Road Police concluded, on the basis of the accident report, that the driver had not been able to avoid the collision in view of the sudden appearance of the victim on the road.\n9.  On 14 March 1998 the Krynychansky Road Police produced a one-page statement refusing to initiate criminal proceedings against the car driver, referring to the findings by the expert facility.\n10.  On 8 July 1998 the Pyatykhatsky District Prosecutors’ Office revoked this decision and initiated criminal proceedings in respect of the accident. The case was transferred to the Pyatykhatsky Police Department and subsequently to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Police Department.\n11.  On 7 August 1998 a post-mortem examination of Igor Antonov was conducted.\n12.  On 10 August 1998 the applicant was admitted to the proceedings as an injured party.\n13.  On 28 August 1998 an expert assessment was carried out on the vehicle which had hit Igor Antonov.\n14.  On 17 September 1998 the criminal proceedings were discontinued, for want of evidence that V.L. had been at fault in hitting the applicant’s son.\n15.  On 28 November 1998 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Prosecutors’ Office revoked this decision, having found it insufficiently substantiated, and remitted the case for further investigation.\n16.  Between November 1998 and September 2002 the investigating authorities ordered the criminal proceedings to be discontinued on five occasions for want of evidence of criminal conduct on the driver’s part. All of these decisions were subsequently quashed by the supervising police officials or the Prosecutors’ Office on account of procedural omissions in the investigation.\n17.  On 20 November 1998 and 19 July 2001, in response to complaints by the applicant, the Prosecutors’ Office acknowledged that the investigation had been carried out with a number of procedural flaws.\n18.  On 31 October 2002 the criminal proceedings were again discontinued for want of evidence of a crime.\n19.  On 15 November 2002 the Prosecutors’ Office approved this decision and archived the case file materials. The applicant appealed before the Babushkinsky District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (hereafter “the Babushkinsky Court”).\n20.  On 3 March 2003 the Babushkinsky Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant further appealed to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (hereafter “the Court of Appeal”).\n21.  On 21 January 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the ruling of 3 March 2003 and ordered an additional investigation of the facts of the accident. The court found that the investigation had been carried out in violation of a number of procedural norms; the instructions of the Prosecutors’ Office revoking the previous decisions to discontinue the proceedings had not been carried out; also, the conclusions concerning the material circumstances of the case had been poorly substantiated. In particular, the investigating authorities had failed to establish the precise site of the collision as well as to determine which part of the victim’s body had bee", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6405", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in the town of Chita, the Chita Region (the Zabaykalskiy Region).\n6.  On 1 and 2 October 2002 a series of night robberies took place on the Khabarovsk-Chita motorway in the vicinity of the town of Mogocha, the Chita Region. According to the reports of the victims, the perpetrators were five individuals travelling in two cars.\n7.  At around 5.30 p.m. on 3 October 2002 the police stopped two cars corresponding to the descriptions given by the victims on the outskirts of Chita. The police arrested the applicant and three individuals, N., Ta. and To., who had been travelling in the cars, on suspicion of their involvement in the recent robberies.\n8.  The applicant’s arrest record notes the suspicion of his involvement in one of the recent robberies and the fact that a victim had already identified him as one of the perpetrators of the robbery. The record bears the applicant’s handwritten comment:\n“I consent to arrest. I did commit that crime ...”\n9.  The arrest record of that date contains the following pre-typed standard wording followed by the applicant’s signature:\n“I have been informed that in accordance with Article 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I have the following rights:\n1)  to know what I am suspected of, and to receive a copy of [the relevant decision];\n2)  to make comments and statements in respect of that suspicion or to refuse to make any comments and statements;\n3)  to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer from the moment defined by subparts 2 and 3 of the second paragraph of Article 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to see him privately and confidentially before my first interview ...\nI have also been informed that in accordance with Article 51 of the Constitution I have the right not to give evidence against myself ...”\n10.  The applicant acknowledged having received a copy of the record with his signature.\n11.  After the arrest, the applicant was taken to the building of the Department for Combating Organized Crime of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Chita Region (“the Organised Crime Unit”). It appears that the policemen started to interview him on arrival, but that the applicant remained silent. According to the applicant, his request for counsel was turned down. There is no record in the case file which would confirm that the applicant indeed made such a request. The applicant submitted that he had been punched and kicked all over his body and that a plastic bag had been put over his head to suffocate him.\n12.  On 4 October 2002 the applicant was brought to the temporary detention wing of the Department of the Interior of Chita (“the temporary detention wing”, изолятор временного содержания УВД г. Читы). Upon arrival, he was examined by a nurse, who detected no injuries on his body.\n13.  On 5 October 2002 the applicant was placed in remand prison IZ‑75/1 in Chita.\n14.  On 8 October 2002 a doctor from the remand prison examined the applicant and reported a soft tissue contusion on his chest. The contusion was diagnosed as having appeared two or three days prior to the examination.\n15.  It appears that on 3 October 2002 an interview with the applicant did not take place, as the applicant chose to remain silent.\n16.  On the next day a police investigator conducted face-to-face confrontations between the applicant and his alleged victims M. and Ya., who both identified the applicant as one of the perpetrators of the robbery. During the confrontations the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6406", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1921, 1941, 1946, 1948 and 1946 respectively and lived in Bursa.\n5.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicants without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicants brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of their property. They requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved their right to increase this claim in due course.\n6.  On 15 June 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of their land, as requested, plus interest. The applicants initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2009/2819).\n7.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n8.  The applicants subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for their land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by them.\n9.  On 24 May 2007 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicants TRY 372,445.25, plus interest. The applicants initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2007/6190).\n10.  On 16 October 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court, however reduced the amount awarded to the applicants to TRY 340,949.81.\n11.  On 26 March and 13 November 2009 the administration paid TRY 8,925 and 485,173 respectively to the files before the Bursa Execution Office. According to the information provided by the applicants, there has been no debt outstanding in the execution files.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6407", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Bursa.\n4.  In 2004 the General Directorate of Highways seized a plot of land belonging to the applicant without any formal expropriation, for the construction of a highway. The applicant brought an action before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain compensation for the de facto expropriation of his property. He requested 5,500 Turkish liras (TRY) as compensation from the court and reserved his right to increase this claim in due course.\n5.  On 29 December 2005 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 5,500 as compensation for the de facto expropriation of his land, as requested, plus interest. The applicant initiated execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain that amount (file no. 2006/2199).\n6.  On 29 May 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n7.  The applicant subsequently brought an additional action (“ek dava”) before the Karacabey Civil Court to obtain further compensation for his land in the light of the expert report obtained during the previous proceedings, which had valued the land at a rate higher than that initially requested by him.\n8.  On 2 November 2006 the Karacabey Civil Court awarded the applicant TRY 561,050.75, plus interest. The applicant initiated another set of execution proceedings before the Bursa Execution Office to obtain the amount awarded (file no. 2009/2815).\n9.  On 13 March 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Karacabey Civil Court.\n10.  On 16 January 2009 the administration paid TRY 9,410.32 to file no. 2006/2199 before the Bursa Execution Office in respect of the debt arising from the initial action.\n11.  Subsequently, on 19 March 2009 they paid TRY 789,091.92 to file no. 2009/2815 before the Bursa Execution Office in respect of the debt under the additional action. According to the information provided by the applicant, there has been no outstanding debt in the execution files.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6408", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1923 and 1948 respectively and live in I.\n5.  The applicants are mother and daughter. Until 17 July 2006 they lived together in a house in B. owned by the first applicant.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 2006 the I. Social Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb I. – the “Centre”) instituted proceedings with a view to establishing the first applicant’s right to care outside her family (pravo na skrb izvan obitelji). On 6 July 2006 the Centre appointed its employee Z.J. as the first applicant’s special guardian (poseban skrbinik) in these proceedings on the ground that the first applicant, owing to old age and illness, was unable to undertake acts in these proceedings on her own. It was also stated that her daughter Y, the second applicant, could not adequately care for the first applicant, since she suffered from muscular dystrophy. This decision was served on the second applicant on 12 July 2006.\n7.  On 11 July 2006 the second applicant submitted a statement to the Centre, stating that she was unable to contribute towards the expenses arising from her mother’s care.\n8.  An official note drawn up by Z.J. on 16 July 2006 indicates that the second applicant urged that her mother be placed in a home and had entered into a private agreement with the I. Caritas Home for elderly and dependent persons (“the Caritas Home”) in order to place her mother there at her own expense until such time as the decision in the above-mentioned proceedings had been adopted. The first applicant was moved to the Caritas Home. She was placed in a room with three other persons.\n9.  The agreement, dated 17 July 2006, stipulated that the second applicant was to bear the costs of her mother’s accommodation in the Caritas Home, which in turn would provide the first applicant with accommodation and food, medical care and care for her social needs. In order to stay close to her mother and to be able to visit her frequently, the second applicant moved to her own flat in I.\n10.  A medical report drawn up on 19 July 2006 indicates that the first applicant was an elderly and disabled person, suffering from psycho-organic changes and dementia, and required the constant (full-day) help and care of another person.\n11.  On 31 August 2006 the Centre established the first applicant’s right to permanent placement in the Caritas Home from 1 September 2006. She was to cover the costs of her accommodation up to the amount of her pension, and the difference between that amount and the full price was to be paid by the Ministry of Health. The first applicant’s pension was to be paid directly into the Centre’s bank account.\n12.  On 23 November 2006 Z.J. ceased to be the first applicant’s special guardian.\n13.  On 18 February 2008 the second applicant asked the Caritas Home to allow her mother single-room occupancy on health grounds. She offered to pay the difference between the costs of such accommodation and her mother’s pension. The Caritas Home informed her that if her mother was placed in a single room she would have to pay the full cost.\n14.  Since the first applicant was a person in care of the State, Z.J., as the social worker from the Social Welfare Centre with responsibility for the first applicant, drew up a report on 28 February 2008, in which she stated that the first applicant was disoriented and dependent on help from others and that it was impossible to establish contact with her. She suggested that proceedings be instituted with a view to d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6409", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is currently residing in the town of Ryazan.\n6.  In 1999 the applicant, who was residing in Uzbekistan at the material time, started studying Islam and visiting a mosque in Tashkent. On an unspecified date in 1999 a neighbour informed on the applicant, alleging that he was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir (hereinafter also “HT”), a transnational Islamic organisation banned in Russia, Germany and some Central Asian States.\n7.  In the applicant’s submission, he was not a member of HT.\n8.  After the neighbour’s denunciation, the applicant was arrested by the local police. While in custody, he was deprived of food and water and severely beaten, his spine was injured and he had to seek medical treatment after his release. Although he was able to pay a sum of money to avoid criminal prosecution, on 20 November 1999 the Tashkent City Court found him guilty of the administrative offence of membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir and placed him under preventive police surveillance (“профилактический учет”).\n9.  In the applicant’s submission, between 1999 and 2008, within the framework of the police surveillance, the Uzbek law-enforcement authorities repeatedly detained him for various periods of time, beating and torturing him on those occasions to obtain information about other members of HT. The applicant was not provided with food and water and was not permitted to have outside walks while in police custody. On each occasion he was released only because he paid the authorities off.\n10.  Having realised that his persecution would continue, in autumn 2008 the applicant left Uzbekistan for Belarus. In May 2009, because of the economic crisis, he moved to Moscow and in August 2009 he settled in Ryazan where he started his own business trading in fruit and vegetables\n11.  Upon his arrival in Russia the applicant applied for a residence permit and a work permit via a private company which specialised in assisting foreign nationals in dealing with migration formalities and which obtained the above-mentioned documents for him.\n12.  On 7 September 2009 the Uzbek authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of having participated in the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir and having unlawfully left the territory of Uzbekistan. In the relevant decision HT was referred to as a “banned religious extremist, separatist and fundamentalist organisation”.\n13.  On 26 October 2009 the applicant was charged in absentia with having participated in Hizb ut-Tahrir (Article 244-2 of the Uzbek Criminal Code (UCC), under which the offence of establishing, leading or participating in religious extremist, separatist, fundamentalist or other prohibited organisations is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to fifteen years) and illegal departure from the country (Article 223 of the UCC).\n14.  On 27 October 2009 the Yunusabadskiy District Department of the Interior (“the Yunusabadskiy ROVD”) put the applicant’s name on a wanted list. On 28 October 2009 the Yunusabadskiy District Court of Tashkent ordered the applicant’s placement in custody. The decision noted, among other things, that on 20 November 2009 the applicant had been already found guilty of an administrative offence of participation in HT and that he had been placed under preventive police surveillance. However, in 2005 he had continued his unlawful activities and had unlawfully left Uzbekistan.\n15.  On 4 January 2010 the applicant was arrested in Ryazan in c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6410", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, who is of Roma ethnic origin, was born in 1980 and lives in Jarovnice. She finished compulsory education in the sixth grade and is unemployed. Her mother tongue is the Roma language, which she uses in daily communication, together with a local dialect.\n9.  On 23 August 2000 the applicant was sterilised while hospitalised at the Hospital and Health Care Centre in Prešov (now known as the University Teaching Hospital and J.A. Reiman Health Care Centre in Prešov –“Prešov Hospital”), which came under the management of the Ministry of Health.\n10.  The procedure was carried out during the delivery of the applicant’s second child via Caesarean section. The applicant’s first delivery had also been via Caesarean section. The sterilisation of the applicant entailed tubal ligation by the Pomeroy method, which consists of severing and sealing the Fallopian tubes in order to prevent fertilisation.\n11.  During her pregnancy the applicant did not have any regular check‑ups. She visited her general practitioner only once.\n12.  The applicant was admitted to the gynaecology and obstetrics department of Prešov Hospital on 23 August 2000 shortly before 8 a.m. She came to the hospital in pain resulting from the progress of labour. On arrival the applicant was informed that the delivery would be via Caesarean section.\n13.  The delivery was documented in a written record indicating details of the labour and birth at regular intervals. The first entry in the record was at 7.52 a.m. The applicant was subsequently monitored by CTG (cardiotocography); the last CTG entry was at 10.35 a.m.\n14.  According to the delivery record, after 10.30 a.m., when labour was well established, the applicant requested sterilisation. That request is entered directly in the delivery record with the typed words “Patient requests sterilisation”. Below this is the shaky signature of the applicant. The signature was in an unsteady hand and the applicant’s maiden name, which she used at the time, is split into two words.\n15.  The applicant submitted that, after she had been in labour for several hours and was in pain, the medical personnel of Prešov Hospital had asked her whether she wanted to have more children. The applicant responded in the affirmative but was told by the medical personnel that if she had one more child, either she or the baby would die. The applicant started to cry and as she was convinced that her next pregnancy would be fatal, she told the medical personnel “Do what you want to do”. She was then asked to sign the delivery record under the note indicating that she had requested sterilisation. The applicant did not understand the term sterilisation and she signed the form out of fear that there would otherwise be fatal consequences. As she was in the last stage of labour, her recognition and cognitive abilities were influenced by labour and pain.\n16.  At 11.30 a.m. the applicant was put under anaesthesia, after which the delivery was completed via Caesarean section. In view of the state of the applicant’s reproductive organs the two doctors involved asked the head physician for an opinion as to whether they should perform a hysterectomy or a sterilisation. They subsequently performed tubal ligation on the applicant. The procedure ended at 12.10 p.m. and the applicant came round from the anaesthetic ten minutes later.\n17.  The words “Patient is of Roma origin” appear in the record of the applicant’s pregnancy and delivery (section “Medical history”,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6411", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in a penal establishment in Irkutsk.\n6.  On 28 November 2002 at 7.30 a.m. the police arrived at the applicant’s flat, arrested him and took him to the Pervorechenskiy District police station of Vladivostok (Первореченский РУВД г. Владивостока) to question him about his suspected involvement in the murder of a certain P. on 26 November 2002.\n7.  According to the applicant, the questioning continued for twenty-four hours at a stretch and was accompanied by severe beatings. The police officers allegedly handcuffed the applicant to a chair, put a cloth bag with a stranglehold on his head and started suffocating him and beating him at the same time on his head with heavy folders, after which he fainted. When he regained consciousness the beatings continued. The police officers slapped him on his ears and shouted in his ears. After that they put a plastic bag on top of the cloth bag and continued suffocating him and beating him. Following another loss of consciousness the police officer tortured the applicant with an electric current, during which he again fainted several times. Each time the applicant fainted, the police officers poured water over him to make him come to his senses. The applicant also alleged that a certain T. and K. had participated in the beatings.\n8.  According to the applicant, at 7 a.m. on 29 November 2002 the investigator took him to an administrative arrest cell (камера административно задержанных). However, the officer on duty allegedly refused to admit the applicant in view of his injuries.\n9.  At about 12 noon on 29 November 2002 the applicant was taken for forensic medical examination.\n10.  Having examined the applicant, the forensic medical expert found numerous injuries on his body (forensic expert report no. 5663): bruises on the superior and inferior eyelids of both eyes measuring 7 by 6 cm and 6 by 5 cm respectively, on the right cheekbone measuring 6 by 4 cm; on the forehead measuring 4 by 3 cm, on the left auricle measuring 4 by 3 cm, in the right parotid area measuring 3 by 4 cm, on the neck measuring 5 by 4 cm, on the applicant’s right shoulder blade measuring 5 by 4 cm, in the infrascapular and lumbar regions measuring 4 by 3 cm and 3 by 2 cm respectively, on the left shoulder joint measuring 8 by 7 cm, in his right underarm area measuring 8 by 6 cm and 6 by 4 cm and on his stomach measuring 6 by 4 cm. The expert also recorded two abrasions on the left side of the applicant’s forehead measuring 2 by 0.2 cm and 1.7 by 0.2 cm, and multiple abrasions on the applicant’s left forearm and hand measuring from 0.9 by 0.7 cm to 0.5 by 0.3 cm. The expert concluded that the injuries were approximately one day old, and that the bruises could have been caused by a blow from a hard, blunt object and the abrasions by a hard object with a rough surface or with a sharp edge. The report went on to say that the injuries in question had not caused any harm to the applicant’s health.\n11.  The applicant was subsequently taken to the temporary detention ward, from where he was released on 3 December 2002 under a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence.\n12.  From 5 December to 23 December 2002 the applicant underwent in-patient hospital treatment for brain concussion, thoracic spine contusion and multiple soft-tissue bruises.\n13.  On 17 December 2002 the applicant complained about the alleged beatings to the Primorye Regional ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6412", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Z.\n5.  The applicant is suffering from schizophrenia.\n6.  On 31 August 2006 the Z. no. 4 Police Station lodged a criminal complaint with the Z. County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Z.) against the applicant. The relevant part of the complaint reads:\n“On 11 August 2006 after a physical conflict with an unknown person at about 12.20 p.m. in front of an apartment building in Z., ... the suspect D.V. went into the lift of that building with his mother M.D. and son I.D. to go to a flat on the third floor, owned by his mother, and said to his son: ‘Everybody downstairs is shouting ‘Call the police.’ The police will come now, and it is better that I kill you rather than the police, they will kill me and then we will lie dead next to each other!’. When they entered the flat the suspect D.V. began to carry out his threat and grabbed his son I. by the neck and started to squeeze it, in order to strangle him. The suspect’s mother pushed him away and he fell against the refrigerator ... while the boy ran to another part of the flat.\nAfter a telephone call, at 12.14 p.m. officers of the Z. no. 4 Police Station, S.P. and V.B., went to the scene ...where they waited for the ambulance ... and then entered the flat. Police officers S.P. and V.B. approached the suspect who made an attempt to assault S.P. with both hands and bit him on the left arm ... after which both officers put the suspect in an elbow lock, pushed him on to the floor and handcuffed him. However, the suspect continued to resist by trying to kick the officers, but they overcame him and he was taken by ambulance to the Hospital ‘Z.’ ... where he was placed in the closed section of the psychiatric ward.”\n7.  The investigation in respect of the applicant on the charge of attempted murder of his son was opened on 6 September 2006 in the Z. County Court (Županijski sud u Z.).\n8.  On 3 October 2006 an investigating judge of the Z. County Court heard evidence from police officer V.B. The relevant part of the written record reads:\n“... on the date in question in August 2006 I joined the policemen who had already arrived at a flat at 10 Š. Street. The first information I received as a police officer was that there had been a fight in front of the building, but I do not know who was involved in it, and that the fight had continued inside the flat.\nWhen I entered the flat there were two policemen there. I saw the accused sitting on a sofa, visibly upset. His parents were next to him. When the ambulance arrived he refused to go with them and when a doctor told him to stand up, he attempted to hit my colleague S.P. who blocked the blow, but the accused then bit him on the arm, drawing blood, and let go of him only when he was pushed on to the floor.\nThis was the first time I had intervened at that address. The whole incident lasted for quite a long time, because we first spent about twenty minutes talking to him.\nTo a question from the Deputy Z. County State Attorney I can say that, apart from those previously mentioned there was one younger person, probably the accused’s wife, and a child at the scene. His wife screamed for help and said that he had gone mad.\nTo a question from the defence lawyer I cannot answer whether I noticed traces of any injuries on the accused that day. He is a particularly strong person, he banged his head on the ground and the bed and I did not notice traces of any injuries on him after the interv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6413", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954. She is the mother of Said-Emin (also known as Said-Ali) Sambiyev, who was born in 1978. At the material time she lived in Tevzan; she currently lives in Grozny, Chechnya.\n5.  At the material time the applicant’s son Said-Emin Sambiyev worked for the Security Service of the Chechen President.\n6.  On 13 August 2003 Said-Emin Sambiyev and his colleague Mr V.M. were in a taxi going from the village of Ulus-Kert to the village of Makkhety. Their vehicle was stopped in the village of Tevzan (in the submitted documents the place was also referred to as Tevzani and Kirov‑Yurt), in the Vedeno district, at a checkpoint manned by servicemen of military unit no. 28337-A (in the submitted documents also referred to under the number 28337).\n7.  Said-Emin Sambiyev and Mr V.M. were detained at the checkpoint by the servicemen and taken to the location of the 45th Airborne Forces Regiment in the village of Khatuni (also spelled Khattuni), in the Vedeno district of Chechnya.\n8.  The abduction of the two men was witnessed by Mr I.G., whose car was also stopped at the checkpoint in Tevzan. He saw that two young men were being detained by servicemen at the checkpoint; he recognised one of them as Said-Emin Sambiyev, who worked for the Security Service. Mr I.G. asked the servicemen about the reasons for the arrest, but the officers refused to answer and told him that the two young men would be taken for an identity check to the 45th regiment’s base, in the military base in Khatuni.\n(b)  Subsequent events\n9.  On 25 August 2003 Mr V.M. was released from detention in Khatuni. That day a number of his relatives as well as two of his colleagues from the Security Service and the head of the Service, Mr S.Kh., waited for his release at the 45th regiment’s base. Mr I.G. picked him up in Khatuni and drove to Shali. In the car Mr V.M. told Mr I.G. that during his detention in Khatuni he had seen Said-Emin Sambiyev twice. Said-Emin Sambiyev had been beaten up and could barely speak. According to Mr I.G., the officers in Khatuni promised to release Said-Emin Sambiyev one day after the release of Mr V.M.\n10.  On the same date the applicant met Mr V.M. and asked him about her son. Mr V.M. told her that he and Said-Emin Sambiyev had been detained in separate pits in the ground which were situated not far from each other. During the detention Mr V. M. had had a sack over his head. At some point he had called the name of Said-Emin Sambiyev and the latter had responded, his voice was weak and muffled as if he also had a sack over his head. After that the two men had been questioned together; during the questioning both of them had sacks over their heads. Shortly before his release Mr V. M. had seen the applicant’s son. Said-Emin Sambiyev had been wearing different clothing, galoshes and tracksuit bottoms. When the applicant asked Mr V. M. how he had managed to get released, he told her: “I was just trying to save my life” and did not explain anything further. According to Mr V. M., he had been told by the abductors that Said-Emin Sambiyev would be released the day after him.\n11.  According to the applicant, in the autumn of 2003 Mr V. M. moved to Moscow and then to Austria.\n12.  In support of her statements the applicant submitted the following documents: her own statement dated 7 July 2006; a statement by Mr V.M., undated, a statement by Mr I.G. dated 8 July 2006 and copies of the documents received from the authorities.\n13.  The Governmen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6414", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Štúrovo.\n6.  On 5 February 2004 the police arrested the applicant. He was accused of planning a robbery[1] and remanded in custody from that date.\n7.  Several decisions extending the applicant’s detention were made. In particular, on 18 November 2004 the Žilina District Court extended his detention in the context of the pre-trial proceedings until 24 January 2005.\n8.  On 21 January 2005 the public prosecutor indicted the applicant and several other persons before the Žilina Regional Court.\n9.  The applicant requested to be released, arguing that the Regional Court had not extended his detention after the expiry of the period indicated in the District Court’s decision of 18 November 2004.\n10.  On 20 April 2005 the Regional Court ordered the applicant’s release. Upon a complaint lodged by the public prosecutor the Supreme Court decided on 24 May 2005 that the applicant should remain remanded in custody.\n11.  On 2 June 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release. On 15 June 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed a complaint by the applicant against that decision.\n12.  On 22 July 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that his detention in the period after 24 January 2005 and the Supreme Court’s above decision of 24 May 2005 were both unlawful. In a separate complaint lodged on 31 August 2005 the applicant complained about the refusal to release him in the proceedings leading to the Supreme Court’s decision of 15 June 2005.\n13.  On 5 February 2006 the applicant was released.\n14.  On 10 May 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 1 had been violated as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 May 2005. There had been no judicial decision extending his detention after 24 January 2005, and there existed no justification for that situation.\n15.  The Constitutional Court quashed the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 May 2005 in so far as it concerned the applicant and ordered the Supreme Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs in the constitutional proceedings. It dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction with reference to a conclusion which a different chamber of the Constitutional court had reached in the case of one of the applicant’s co-accused. According to that conclusion, (i) the finding of a violation of Article 5 § 1 provided appropriate redress to the plaintiff and (ii) the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 May 2005 was based on that court’s earlier practice, which, however, was not in accordance with practice under the Convention.\n16.  In a judgment of 30 November 2006 the Constitutional Court found that by its decision of 15 June 2005 the Supreme Court had breached the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, the Supreme Court should have remedied the situation resulting from the applicant’s unlawful detention from 25 January 2005 by ordering his release.\n17.  The judgment stated, in particular:\n“In the Constitutional Court’s view, the jurisdiction of the court involved at the pre-trial stage ended with the filing of the indictment on 21 January 2005. The indictment as such is not a ground for continued detention of a person, as it does not explicitly follow from the law, and it is inadmissible to extend the possibilities of restricting a person’s liberty by extensive interpretation of several provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\nHowever, a court’s decisio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6416", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk.\n5.  On 6 June 2005 he lodged a civil claim with the Amur‑Nyzhnyodniprovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”) against three companies, by which he sought the cancellation of the car purchase contract and claimed damages.\n6.  On 30 June 2010 the court partly allowed the claim.\n7.  On 8 November 2010 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment. On 16 March 2011 the Higher Specialized Civil and Criminal Court quashed the above decisions and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh examination, before which the proceedings are still pending.\n8.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant specified his claim on eight occasions. Nine hearings in the District Court were adjourned, mainly due to the respondents’ absence or upon their requests or due to the electricity blackouts in the court premises. Following the respondents’ requests, the District Court ordered five expert examinations, which lasted in total for about three years and four months. The applicant additionally informed that on 1 June 2011 the District Court ordered yet another expert examination.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6417", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born, respectively, in 1949 and 1946 and live in Zaporizhzhya.\n5.  On 18 September 2000 Mrs F. lodged a claim with the Leninskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya (“the Leninskyy Court”) against the applicants, requesting it to determine how the parties should use their adjacent plot of land.\n6.  On 11 January 2002 the court delivered a judgment. On 8 April 2002 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld it. On 16 October 2002 the Supreme Court quashed both decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n7.  On 11 July 2005 the Leninskyy Court delivered a judgment. On 8 December 2005 the Court of Appeal amended it. On 13 December 2006 the Supreme Court quashed both decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n8.  On 19 October 2007 the Leninskyy Court rejected the claim of Mrs F. as unsubstantiated. On 20 May and 26 November 2008, respectively, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld that judgment.\n9.   According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings eight hearings were adjourned due to the applicants’ or all parties’ absence or following the applicants’ requests. The applicants disagreed stating that they had attended all hearings. Nineteen hearings were adjourned mainly due to the absence of other parties, absence of a judge or an expert or because the courts needed to collect additional documents. Four forensic examinations were ordered and lasted for about one year.\n10.  On 10 October 2000 the applicants lodged a claim with the Leninskyy Court against Mrs F., seeking the elimination of obstacles in using the impugned plot of land. On an unspecified date Mr and Mrs E. joined the proceedings as co-respondents.\n11.  Between 5 October 2001 and 16 January 2006, 14 November 2006 and 31 January 2007 and between 22 February 2007 and 5 June 2008 the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of the first set of the proceedings. Between 1 June and 14 October 2006 the proceedings were suspended with a view to allowing the successors of Mr and Mrs E., who had died in January and April 2006, to take part in the case.\n12.  On 25 June 2009, following a friendly settlement reached by the parties, the Leninskyy Court discontinued the proceedings. The applicants did not appeal against that decision.\n13.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings three hearings were adjourned due the applicants’ or all parties’ absence or following the applicants’ request. Two hearings were adjourned due to the respondent’s absence. One forensic examination was ordered and lasted for about four months.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6418", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Kirovograd.\n5.  On 2 June 1998 he was arrested on suspicion of robbery. He remained in detention throughout the major part of the proceedings against him. The applicant states, without providing any supporting documents, that during the first days of his detention unspecified police officers beat him. He also states that the police rejected his representative’s request to send him for medical examination.\n6.  Following the completion of the pre-trial investigation, on 19 December 1998 the case was referred to the Leninskyy District Court of Kirovograd (“the District Court”), which on 17 July 2001 delivered the judgment. On 2 April 2002 the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld it. On 12 November 2002 the Supreme Court quashed it and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n7.  On 24 December 2004 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. It rejected, as unsubstantiated, his complaint about beating in police custody.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s representative lodged a complaint with the same court alleging that some of the court hearings had not been tape-recorded. On 24 May 2005 the court informed him that they had not been recorded because the tape recorder had been broken.\n9.  On 19 May 2005 and 2 February 2006, respectively, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 24 December 2004.\n10.  On 14 August 2007 the applicant was released on parole.\n11.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the investigators brought charges against five other persons and interrogated thirty seven witnesses and seven aggrieved parties; the courts heard five co‑defendants, twenty four witnesses and six aggrieved parties. This took the authorities about three months in total. Six hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the applicant’s representative, which delayed the proceedings to three months and ten days. Thirty two hearings were adjourned mainly due to the absence of the witnesses, the aggrieved parties, other co-defendants or their representatives or following their requests, as well as due to the absence of the judge or the prosecutor. Thirteen times the courts applied compulsory summonses on the witnesses and aggrieved parties which repeatedly failed to appear. Thirteen expert examinations were carried out, their overall duration amounting to approximately seven months.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6419", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Odessa.\n7.  The applicant has been living and working in Ukraine since 1995. He has a partner and five minor children. All his family are Ukrainian nationals.\n8.  In 2007, following media coverage of the applicant’s successful business, he was approached by representatives of the Iranian Embassy. They invited him to meet the President of Iran to receive an award for his business success. The applicant refused, as he disagreed with the domestic and foreign policies of the President.\n9.  In 2009 the applicant financially supported one of the opposition candidates in the Presidential elections. He submits that supporters of opposition candidates were prosecuted in Iran.\n10.  On an unknown date criminal proceedings for embezzlement were instituted against the applicant in Iran.\n11.  On 31 June 2009 the applicant was placed on the list of wanted persons by the Tehran Prosecutors’ Office. An international arrest warrant was issued.\n12.  On 11 February 2010 the applicant applied for refugee status in Ukraine.\n13.  On 2 March 2010 the UNHCR Regional Representation for Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova wrote a letter to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine (“the GPO”). They noted that the applicant was officially an asylum-seeker in Ukraine and therefore his status should be taken into account if the GPO examined any request for his extradition to Iran.\n14.  On 3 April 2010 the applicant was arrested by the Tairovskiy Police Department with a view to his extradition.\n15.  On 6 April 2010 Odessa Kyivskiy District Court remanded the applicant in custody pending the extradition procedure.\n16.  On 14 April 2010 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court.\n17.  On 19 April 2010 the GPO replied to the UNHCR letter of 2 March 2010, assuring them that the applicant would not be extradited until his application for refugee status had been examined on the merits.\n18.  On 17 June 2010 amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force. They supplemented the Code with a new chapter, which set forth the extradition procedure to be followed and established a special procedure for detention with a view to extradition. They provided, in particular, that a person could be temporarily detained for forty days or another term envisaged in international treaties while awaiting formal request for extradition. Once a formal extradition request has been received, the court may order the detention of the person for a maximum of eighteen months with the possibility of further detention (see paragraph 28 below).\n19.  On 22 June 2010 the Odessa Malinovskiy District Prosecutor requested the Odessa Malinovskiy District Court to extend the extradition detention of the applicant.\n20.  On 23 June 2010 the applicant requested the Odessa Malinovskiy District Prosecutor to order his release due to lack of grounds to keep him in detention any longer.\n21.  On 29 June 2010 Odessa Malinovskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until a decision had been taken on his extradition.\n22.  On 12 July 2010 the GPO received a note from the Iranian Embassy, informing that the applicant’s detention was no longer required, due to a friendly settlement which had been reached between the applicant and one of the aggrieved parties in the case.\n23.  The next day the GPO ordered the Odessa Regional Prosecutor’s Office to take the necessary measures to have the applicant released from de", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6421", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n6.  By 28 judgments of different courts of first instance (the application no. 47314/10 concerns the non-enforcement of two judgments) of 18 April 2000, 14 December 1999, 1 March 2000, 15 June 1999, 8 September 2000, 21 December 1999, 10 May 1999, 26 September 2000, 29 September 2000, 29 May 2003, 19 June 2001, 1 December 2000, 1 February 2001, 29 November 2000, 12 June 2001, 5 December 2000, 5 April 2001, 7 November 2000, 12 June 2001, 29 November 2000, 30 November 2000, 13 July 2000, 1 March 2000, 9 December 1999, 25 April 2001, 19 June 2003, 27 September 2000 and 16 October 2002, which became final on 3 October 2000, 24 December 2001, 1 December 2000, 1 June 2000, 7 October 2002, 14 December 2000, 21 February 2001, 7 May 2002, 2 October 2002, 1 August 2003, 3 August 2001, 16 June 2001, 22 March 2001, 17 February 2001, 11 July 2001, 16 June 2001, 9 May 2001, 5 January 2001, 4 July 2001, 7 March 2001, 22 May 2001, 1 November 2002, 13 October 2000, 12 October 2000, 15 July 2004, 13 June 2005, 11 January 2001 and 28 April 2003, respectively, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate:\n(i)  BAM 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 2,000 in respect of pecuniary damage to the Runićs and Ms Bjeljac;\n(ii)  BAM 7,746 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,876 in respect of legal costs to Mr Gačić;\n(iii)  BAM 49,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,106 in respect of legal costs to Mr Višekruna;\n(iv)  BAM 16,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 2,460 in respect of pecuniary damage to the Manojlovićs;\n(v)  BAM 13,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,196 in respect of legal costs to Mr Vučanović;\n(vi)  BAM 7,200 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Šavija;\n(vii)  BAM 21,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,856 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,366 in respect of legal costs to the Pilipovićs;\n(viii)  BAM 26,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,514 in respect of legal costs to the Grujićs;\n(ix)  BAM 22,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,600 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,300 in respect of legal costs to the Brkićs;\n(x)  BAM 16,490 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Babić;\n(xi)  BAM 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage to the Pantićs;\n(xi)  BAM 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage to the Slijepčevićs;\n(xiii)  BAM 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage to the Savićs;\n(xiv)  BAM 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage to Ms Alempić;\n(xv)  BAM 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage to Ms Jurošević;\n(xvi)  BAM 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage to the Jovićs;\n(xvii)  BAM 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage to the Ristanovićs;\n(xviii)  BAM 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage to the Simićs;\n(xix)  BAM 22,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to Mr Avramović;\n(xx)  BAM 15,000 in respect of non", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6422", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Cameroon.\n6.  The applicant left Douala in March 2008 and, travelling via Russia, entered the European Union through Latvia. He did not apply for asylum at that point.\n7.  On 22 March 2008 he attempted to cross the border with Lithuania, where he was arrested on suspicion of having used false documents. He was subsequently convicted. The applicant made an application for asylum on the grounds that he feared persecution by the Cameroonian authorities.\n8.  On 27 October 2008 the Lithuanian authorities submitted a request to Latvia to take charge of the asylum application under Article 10 § 1 of Council Regulation (EC) no. 343/2003 (see paragraphs 65 to 68 below). On 11 December 2008 the Latvian authorities acceded to the request.\n9.  On 23 December 2008 the applicant was transferred to Latvia.\n10.  During his stay in Latvia, from 23 December 2008 to 9 January 2010, he was detained in an accommodation centre for foreign detainees (Aizturēto ārzemnieku izmitināšanas centrs) in Olaine (“Olaine accommodation centre”). The centre was a closed facility located within the territory of a prison and held illegal immigrants and certain categories of asylum seekers. According to the Government, there were dining and recreation areas equipped with television, newspapers and reading matter, a gym and a specially designated worship room. The detainees were granted one hour of outdoor exercise per day. They were provided with food and basic hygiene supplies; access to the toilets and showers was not restricted. The Government contended that the centre was equipped with information stands which provided information in several languages on detainees’ rights and obligations, and that additional information was available concerning non-governmental organisations providing legal assistance. According to the applicant, the access to legal assistance in Olaine accommodation centre was very limited, especially for persons who did not speak the local language. Effective protection of his rights had therefore been impossible.\n11.  Olaine accommodation centre was closed on 1 June 2011 pending renovation work. The illegal immigrants and asylum seekers held in that centre were transferred to a new facility in Daugavpils.\n12.  On 23 December 2008, on his transfer to Latvia, the applicant handed the State Border Guard Service an application for asylum in French. On the same date an officer of the State Border Guard Service filled in the asylum application form; a note was made to the effect that the applicant knew and could communicate in French, English and Russian.\n13.  On 4 February 2009 a personal interview with the applicant was conducted by an officer of the State Border Guard Service. The applicant explained that he had a very good command of French, only colloquial English and some Russian. The interview was conducted in French with the assistance of an interpreter. It lasted for five hours, during which the applicant explained the reasons why he feared persecution in Cameroon, which related to his participation in demonstrations on 23 and 25 February 2008 in Douala organised by the main opposition party, the Social Democratic Front. He was not a member of that party.\n14.  On 23 March 2009 the Asylum Division of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs (Pilsonības un migrācijas lietu pārvalde) decided to refuse the applicant’s asylum application. It was expressly noted that the application had been examine", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6423", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, Andrei Ivanţoc, Tudor Popa, Eudochia Ivanţoc and Victor Petrov, are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1961, 1963, 1963 and 1988 respectively. Mr Ivanţoc is also a Romanian national. At the time of lodging their application, the first two applicants were detained in Tiraspol and Hlinaia respectively. Andrei Ivanţoc was released on 2 June 2007 and Tudor Popa was released on 4 June 2007. The third applicant is the wife of the first applicant. She is unemployed and lives in Chişinău. The fourth applicant is the second applicant’s son. He is a student and lives in Chişinău.\n5.  The facts concerning the background of application no. 48787/99, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the period up to late 2003, are set out in Ilaşcu, Ivanţoc, Leşco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-183, ECHR 2004‑VII.\n6.  The first and second applicants were detained until their release, respectively on 2 and 4 June 2007, in the “Moldovian Republic of Transdniestria” (MRT).\n7.  On 9 December 1993 the first and second applicants were tried and convicted by the “Supreme Court of the Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” for various crimes and offences such as murder, deliberate destruction of another’s property and the unauthorised use and theft of ammunition or explosive substances. They were sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment and confiscation of their property.\n8.  In 1999 the first and second applicants, as well as two other individuals who had been tried and convicted with them in 1993, namely Mr Ilie Ilaşcu and Mr Alexandru Leşco, filed an application with the Court concerning, inter alia, the alleged unlawfulness of their detention and their conditions of detention.\n9.  In a judgment of 8 July 2004 in application no. 48787/99 the Grand Chamber of the Court found that both Moldova and the Russian Federation’s responsibility was engaged with regard to the acts complained of and held that there had been violations of various Articles of the Convention (see below, paragraph 12).\n10.  In the first place, the Court found that the Moldovan Government was the only legitimate government of the Republic of Moldova under international law, but that it did not exercise authority over that part of its territory that was under the effective control of the “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” (MRT). Nevertheless, in the Court’s opinion, the Moldovan Government were under a positive obligation under Article 1 of the Convention to take the diplomatic, economic, judicial or other measures that were in their power to take and that were in accordance with international law to secure to the applicants the rights guaranteed by the Convention (Ilaşcu, Ivanţoc, Leşco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII, §§ 330-331).\nIt further stated that it was not its task to indicate which measures the authorities had to take in order to comply with their obligations most effectively, but that it had to verify that the measures actually taken were appropriate and sufficient in the present case. When faced with a partial or total failure to act, the Court’s task was to determine to what extent a minimum effort was nevertheless possible and whether it should have been made. Determining that question was especially necessary in cases concerning an alleged infringement of absolute rights such as those guaranteed by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (ibid. § 334).\nThe Court noted that u", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6424", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Balıkesir.\n5.  The applicant is a doctor.\n6.  On 23 November 1998, another doctor, V.B., brought a case against the applicant before the Ayvalık Civil Court, requesting compensation for defamation. V.B. alleged that the applicant had diffused false information among his patients to the effect that he had been selling a certain unauthorised medicine. V.B. relied on a note obtained from a certain patient A.S., in which the name of the medicine, as well as his name and work address were written. According to the plaintiff, this note was written by the applicant in order to damage his reputation.\n7.  In the course of the proceedings, the court heard statements from several witnesses such as doctors and nurses working at the health centre, who confirmed V.B.’s account of the facts. In particular, some of the witnesses submitted that they had seen A.S. with this note.\n8.  At the hearing on 8 June 2000 the applicant admitted having written the name of the medicine on the paper, but denied having written the other notes.\n9.  It appears from the case file that the applicant did not request the court to hear A.S. during the proceedings.\n10.  On 4 February 2003 the court, on the basis of the witness testimonies as well as the statements given at the hearing of 8 June 2000, found it established that the applicant had directed the patients towards V.B. and therefore ordered the applicant to pay compensation.\n11.  On 11 March 2003 the applicant appealed. In his appeal petition, the applicant submitted inter alia that the trial court had failed to hear evidence from A.S.\n12.  On 10 July 2003, finding the judgment of the first instance court in line with domestic law, the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal.\n13.  On 29 March 2004 the Court of Cassation dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6427", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Ms Janet Alder, is a British national living in Lancashire. The case concerns the death of her brother, Mr Alder, while he was in the custody of Humberside police on 1 April 1998. Mr Alder was of Nigerian origin, he was born in 1960 and he had two children.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, are summarised below. A more detailed description can be found in the Court’s decision on the admissibility of this case (Alder v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42078/02, 14 December 2010).\n8.  In the early hours of 1 April 1998 Mr Alder was assaulted at a nightclub and transported by police officers to hospital. He was disruptive at the hospital and aggressive to police officers and he was arrested for breach of the peace. He was transported in a police van to Humberside police station.\n9.  On arrival, he was unconscious. He was dragged into the police station and placed face down on the floor of the custody unit. His body was inert. Blood dripped from his mouth. His trousers and underwear were around his knees and he was doubly incontinent. From arrival until his death, he was unconscious and his breathing was audibly slow and laboured. The custody unit was a small prisoner/reception area through which various police officers circulated while Mr Alder was on the floor. Various cameras recorded constantly (image and sound) in the custody suite. His handcuffs were removed approximately 2 minutes after his arrival.\n10.  Some ten minutes after his arrival, the police officers realised that he had stopped breathing. Their efforts and those of the ambulance personnel, to resuscitate him were unsuccessful. He was later pronounced dead.\n11. On the same day the Humberside police began an extensive murder investigation into the assault on Mr Alder in the night club. While the pathologist indicated by 2 April that that assault had not caused Mr Alder’s death, he did not formally report until 29 April at which point Humberside police handed their investigation file to West Yorkshire police. The latter had also begun a death in custody investigation on 1 April 1998.\n12.  On 8 April 1998 the relevant police officers were notified that consideration was being given to bringing disciplinary proceedings against them and they were later suspended from duty. Expert reports received during this period disagreed on the issue of causation namely, whether medical treatment at the police station would have changed the outcome.\n13.  In June and August 1998 the West Yorkshire police sent investigation reports to the Police Complaints Authority (“PCA”) and to the Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”): the reports made numerous criticisms and recommendations and highlighted the above-noted causation problem.\n14.  In August 1999 the relevant police officers were charged with misconduct in public office and the CPS postponed the prosecution pending the outcome of the Inquest.\n15.  The Inquest began in July 2000 and took extensive witness and expert evidence. On 24 August 2000 the Inquest jury found that the relevant injury to Mr Alder had been sustained either in the police van or in the custody suite and that he had been “killed unlawfully”. The relevant officers challenged this verdict on judicial review and, on 9 April 2001, the High Court rejected their application.\n16.  The CPS then resumed its consideration of criminal charges reviewing, notably, their and other medical experts’ views on whether earlier intervention by the police offi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6428", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1926, 1969, 1925, 1923, 1926, 1937, 1938, 1949, 1953, 1946, 1973, 1975, 1949, 1950, 1953, 1951, 1955, 1957, 1946, 1941, 1944, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1950, 1960, 1955, 1931, 1923, 1926, 1940, 1941, 1943, 1944, 1946, 1925, 1955, 1954, 1930, 1958, 1959, 1954, 1979, 1982, 1987, 1953, 1929 and 1959 respectively. The first thirty-eight applicants live in Malta, the next eight applicants live in the United States of America, the penultimate applicant lives in Canada and the last applicant lives in the United Kingdom.\n7.  The applicants or their predecessors in title (hereinafter “the applicants”) owned four plots of land of varying sizes. The applicants were notified that their land had been made subject to two declarations by the Governor General dated 13 February 1969 and 20 February 1969, stating that the land would be expropriated for a public purpose. The intended public purpose was the building of the Malta Freeport. The said plots were numbered Plot 2 (16,544 sq.m), Plot 3 (405 sq.m), Plot 41 (6,841 sq.m) and Plot 53 (12,538 sq.m).\n8.  Following notices to treat of 21 February 1969 and 24 February 1969 respectively, the applicants were offered 3,225 Maltese liras ((MTL) - approximately 7,512 euros (EUR)) for Plot 2, MTL 973,40 (approximately EUR 2,267) for Plot 3, MTL 575 (approximately EUR 1, 340) for Plot 41, and MTL 1,127 (approximately EUR 2,625) for Plot 53. In March 1969 the applicants refused the above-mentioned offers in respect of Plots 2, 41 and 53 and submitted their counteroffers. According to the Government, the applicants accepted the offer in respect of Plot 3; however, the applicants contested this. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Lands (CoL) was required to institute proceedings before the Land Arbitration Board (LAB) (see “Relevant domestic law below”). Although no such proceedings ensued, the CoL gave possession of the four plots of land to the Malta Freeport Corporation.\n9.  The applicants unsuccessfully requested the CoL to initiate proceedings a number of times; however, the latter did not do so, insisting that he wanted further information in relation to the applicants’ ownership title. The law at the relevant time did not provide for a procedure which would allow the applicants to initiate proceedings for compensation. The initiation of compensation proceedings was an action which could be undertaken only by the authorities, and to which no time-limit applied. However, in the 1990s it had been confirmed that the ordinary courts had the competence, upon a request made by persons in a similar position to the applicants, to set a time-limit for the performance of that obligation, by virtue of Article 1078 of the Civil Code.\n10.  Thus, on 27 August 1996 the applicants lodged ordinary civil proceedings, requesting the court to order the CoL to initiate the necessary proceedings within an established time frame.\n11.  On 4 February 2000 the Civil Court upheld the applicants’ request, and ordered the CoL to initiate proceedings before the LAB within three months of that date. It noted that the relevant notices to treat had been issued to all the owners concerned who at the time were still alive. Moreover, it was incumbent on the CoL to establish the identity of the owners of the land and to ensure that they were notified and that the relevant proceedings were pursued properly. No appeal having been lodged, the judgment became final.\n12.  On 18 April 2000 the CoL instituted compensation procee", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6429", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Malta.\n7.  The applicant is a journalist. On 20 February 1994 The Sunday Times of Malta, a national English language newspaper (“The Times”) published the applicant’s letter to the editor entitled “A Yacht Marina for Xemxija?”\nThe letter, in so far as relevant, read as follows:\n“Dr Francis Zammit Dimech, Minister of Transport, has been quoted as saying that a yacht marina is being projected for Xemxija, the inner part of St. Paul’s bay.\nThe residents of the seaside village, permanent and occasional, and the fishermen, have not been consulted over what will be an impractical and highly unpopular attempt to bring about further havoc in the area.\nAfter the war, during the administration of Dr Boffa, permission was given for buildings to be erected on the northern part of the bay because Dr Boffa wanted to build there, and now this has erupted into a conglomeration of high and low-rise constructions of grotesque proportions.\nThen came the oil tanks and it was quite a relief later to see those go. There was some idea to develop Mistra and one hopes this has evaporated. Now comes this new idea of a marina at Xemxija.\nWhen the breakwater at Tal-Veccja was extended, the currents in the bay were diverted so that now silt has settled along the stretch by the West End Hotel. Similarly, any breakwater in the bay will further alter the currents. The residents will not welcome the intrusion of yachtsmen and are wondering whether the back up facilities will go.\nA proper study of the storms in the bay in winter will certainly show though how impractical it is to build a large marina at Xemxija. Besides, one can imagine yachtsman with pegs to their noses from the stench from the drainage outflow which is such a feature of St. Paul’s Bay where the authorities have continually botched the system.\nWhy don’t they try Salina, which is a more sheltered and more practical marina – if in fact there is need for another marina?”\n8.  On an unspecified date, Mr J. Boffa, the son and heir of the deceased Sir Paul Boffa referred to in the letter (who was Prime Minister of Malta and Head of Government in the post-war era of 1947-50 and who died in 1962), sued the applicant for civil damages, claiming that the letter was defamatory. He argued that the words “Dr Boffa wanted to build there” attributed false and despicable intentions to his father.\n9.  The applicant pleaded that the action should be dismissed on the ground that a deceased person cannot sue for libel. By a preliminary judgment of 28 June 1996 the Civil Court dismissed this preliminary plea. This preliminary decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 7 October 1997.\n10.  The applicant contended, on the merits, that his letter had not stated that Sir Paul Boffa had wanted to build for himself in the specified area. His statement had referred to Sir Paul Boffa’s decision, acting in his role as Prime Minister of the country, to build in the area. Moreover, the letter was not injurious and there had been no mischievous intent, “animus injuriandi”, on the part of the applicant, who was also a family friend of the Boffas.\n11.  By a judgment of 21 October 2002 the Civil Court found the letter to be defamatory vis-à-vis Sir Paul Boffa and ordered the applicant to pay Joseph Boffa 700 euros (EUR). It reiterated that a person may have a legal interest even if he or she was not the person to have been defamed, and it threw out the applicant’s explanation of the impug", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6430", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1974 respectively and live in Adana.\n5.  On 17 January 2002 the applicants were placed in detention on remand on suspicion of aiding an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). On 22 January 2002 the public prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicants before the Adana State Security Court.\n6.  On 22 March 2002 the applicants were released pending trial. Subsequently, on 22 May 2003 the Adana State Security Court acquitted them of all charges.\n7.  On 11 August 2003 the applicants applied to the Adana Assize Court, seeking compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage pursuant to Law no. 466, pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unlawfully arrested or detained.\n8.  On 11 December 2003 the judge rapporteur at the Adana Assize Court heard both applicants, who indicated that they had been deprived of their income as a result of the unlawful detention.\n9.  On 30 November and 1 December 2004, respectively, the Adana Assize Court awarded each applicant 783,050,956 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 443 euros at the time). The Court of Cassation upheld those judgments on 19 April and 2 May 2005, respectively. The final decisions were served on the applicants on 7 June and 20 July 2005 respectively.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6431", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives on the Isle of Man.\n7.  The applicant owned an area of land in Marsaxlokk, Malta, measuring approximately 13,557 sq. m.\n8.  On 18 March 1988, by means of a President’s declaration made by virtue of Article 3 of the Land Acquisition (Public Purposes) Ordinance, it was declared that the land was required for a public purpose and was thereby being expropriated. According to the Government the site was to be protected as a nature reserve.\n9.  Following the issue of the relevant permit dated 10 August 1998, in 1999 the boundary of the plot was fenced with a chain-link fence, but no other use has ever been made of the property to date. According to an architect’s report submitted by the applicant the site had been abandoned and allowed to deteriorate. It was completely neglected and not looked after in any way. In consequence the land had been vandalised and the watercourses on the land contaminated by leakages from a nearby pig farm. According to the applicant the land had become a dumping site. The Government contested the veracity of this allegation.\n10.  The said fencing incorporated an area of land which was effectively larger than that covered by the declaration. In consequence, in relation to this additional land (hereinafter Land B for ease of reference) measuring 362.5 sq. m the applicant claimed that there had been a de facto expropriation which was not in accordance with the law.\n11.  The entirety of the land was part of the Marsaxlokk Bay Local Plan 1995, which recognised the site as a salt marsh of ecological importance. Nevertheless, the Malta Environment and Planning Authority’s policies authorise development in the area subject to specific conditions.\n12.  The applicant contended that although the site was declared a Special Conservation Zone in 2005, in 1998 when it was taken there existed no public purpose. In the meantime she was prevented from developing the land in accordance with the relevant policies, since any permit requests she made were refused on the basis of the supposed expropriation.\n13.  To date, the Commissioner of Lands had not issued a “notice to treat” and the applicant had not received any compensation for the taking of her land.\n14.  The applicant’s judicial protest of 11 January 2005 requesting the Government to dispossess itself of certain adjoining lands (including Land B) which she claimed had been expropriated illegally, and to pay compensation, was unsuccessful.\n15.  In 2005 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional jurisdiction, complaining of a breach of her rights as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 6. She claimed that no use had been made of the expropriated land, that the taking could not be considered proportionate and that she had not obtained any compensation. Moreover, the delay in initiating compensation proceedings denied her the right of access to court. She further noted that certain adjoining lands were also her property and that notwithstanding her judicial protest of 11 January 2005, which she attached to her application (Rikors promotorju), the State had not taken the desired action.\n16.  On 4 February 2009 the Civil Court rejected the applicant’s claims. It held that there was no doubt that the land in question was saline marshland that had great ecological importance in Malta. Therefore, its taking for the preservation of a natural reserve had be", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6433", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lived in Vetluga, Nizhniy Novgorod Region.\n7.  By a judgment of 23 September 2002 the Vetluga District Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region (“the District Court”) granted in part the applicant’s claim for recovery of unpaid military allowance and awarded him 224,926 Russian roubles (RUB) to be recovered from military unit 3761.\n8.  The judgment became final on 4 October 2002 and shortly thereafter the applicant obtained a writ of execution. Between September 2004 and November 2005 the Departments of the Federal Treasury of the Chechen Republic and of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania returned the enforcement documents to the applicant on three occasions without enforcement due to his failure to submit his bank account details and then due to re-organisation of the debtor.\n9.  By a decision of 10 October 2006 the District Court allowed the applicant’s request and changed the method and order of enforcement of the judgment of 23 September 2002, replacing the defunct debtor with the Ministry of the Interior of Russia.\n10.  The applicant forwarded the writ of execution concerning the decision of 10 October 2006 to the head office of the bailiffs’ service in Moscow in November 2006. It appears from the correspondence and the applicant’s submissions that the writ was subsequently lost.\n11.  On 19 November 2007 the applicant died.\n12.  By a decision of 15 September 2008 the District Court ruled that the deceased applicant was to be succeeded by his mother, Natalya Vyacheslavovna Zintsova.\n13.  According to Ms Zintsova, in May 2010 she was contacted by a representative of the Ministry of the Interior who explained to her that she was to obtain a copy of the lost writ of execution at the trial court and forward it to the authorities to enable further enforcement proceedings.\n14.  On 30 August 2010 the Chief Command Office of the Internal Armed Forces of the Ministry of the Interior informed that the debtor was ready to pay the due amount provided that they received the pertinent documents, including the writ of execution.\n15.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s mother had refused to obtain a copy of the writ of execution from the trial court despite the authorities’ repeated invitations thereto, convinced that the award could be obtained only through the proceedings at the Court. Ms Zintsova did not dispute this allegation.\n16.  The judgment of 23 September 2002, as amended on 10 October 2006, remains unenforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6434", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Podgorica.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 24 September 1994 an article, entitled “16”, was published in a Montenegrin weekly magazine, the Liberal, in circulation at the time, which was opposed to the Government. The article, which appeared to have been written by a special correspondent from The Hague, reported that many journalists from the former Yugoslavia were going to be tried for incitement to war before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“the ICTY”), including sixteen journalists from Montenegro. The article named the two ICTY officials who had allegedly prepared the file and then went on to list the names of the sixteen journalists in question. The applicant in the present case was the editor-in-chief of the Liberal and its founder was a prominent opposition party at the time.\n8.  On 27 October 1995 one of the sixteen journalists whose name had appeared in the article (“the plaintiff”), and who had himself been an editor of a major State-owned media outlet, filed a compensation claim against the applicant and the magazine’s founder. The plaintiff claimed that the assertions contained in the article, which were later repeated through other media both within the country and abroad, were untrue and that they were harmful to his honour and reputation. He enclosed a copy of a Serbian daily newspaper, the Politika, published on 27 September 1994, in support of his claim that the assertions had been transmitted by other media.\n9.  On 29 May 2002 the ICTY informed the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica that it had no information whatsoever concerning the plaintiff.\n10.  In the course of the civil proceedings, the applicant maintained that he had relied on the information provided by the magazine’s special correspondent. Commenting on the ICTY’s statement, however, the applicant said:\n“I’m not interested in there being no proceedings against [the plaintiff], the contents of the ICTY ... letter, or whether [the plaintiff] is on that list. I have personally witnessed [his] work as the editor-in-chief of the [media outlet in question] during the reporting on the Dubrovnik operation ....”.\n11.  On 17 May 2004 the Court of First Instance ruled partly in favour of the plaintiff, ordering the applicant and the magazine’s founder, jointly, to pay him the sum of 5,000 euros (“EUR”) for the non-pecuniary damage suffered. On the basis of the ICTY’s statement, the court found that the published assertions had not been true and, in particular, that the applicant had not been interested in their veracity. The court refused to hear the author of the article, considering it unnecessary in the light of the information provided by the ICTY. It considered that the applicant’s proposal that the author be heard was also aimed at delaying the proceedings as the applicant did not know his exact address. In any event, the author had not mentioned in his text the number of the case file, dates or any other data which would in a convincing manner support the veracity of the information. The court held that the applicant should not have allowed the publishing of untrue information, as it represented a misuse of freedom of expression, and that he should have attempted to check its accuracy first instead of trusting his correspondent unreservedly. The court further held that personal beliefs and convictions could ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6436", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1922, 1920, 1962, 1958, 1955, 1953, 1935, 1933, 1958, 1959, 1968, 1964, 1961, 1962, 1966, 1957, 1962 and 1959 respectively. The ninth, tenth, twelfth and thirteenth applicants live in the United Kingdom, the eleventh applicant lives in the United States and all the other applicants live in Malta.\n7.  The applicants or their ancestors (hereinafter “the applicants”) were owners of half an undivided share of several properties in Senglea, namely, five apartments on the ground floor and an adjacent entrance giving access to another twenty apartments above. At the time when the property was acquired, for the price of 345 pounds sterling (approximately 400 euros (“EUR”)), it was leased and occupied by various third parties.\n8.  This property was damaged during the Second World War and war-damage compensation was due to the owners under the War Damage Ordinance.\n9.  By a declaration of 27 February 1951 the Government took possession of this property under title of “possession and use” in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Public Purposes) Ordinance (see relevant domestic law). Under this title the owners were paid a yearly acquisition rent of 88 Maltese liras (“MTL”) − approximately EUR 205 for the entire property. This rent was calculated on the rental value declared by the owners to the Land Valuation Office.\n10.  Subsequently, without requesting prior consent from the owners and without having the plans of the property as it stood, the Government demolished the property and built a new set of apartments on wholly different plans, using part of the property to widen a road. The Government noted that permission for demolition was not necessary since they had legal possession of the property. At the time since the city of Senglea had been totally bombarded and consisted of a pile of rubble, the Government were engaged in an intensive restructuring and construction exercise, taking possession of properties and rebuilding the area with residences for social accommodation. In doing this the applicants alleged that the Government had also appropriated to themselves the war-damage compensation due to them. The Government considered this allegation to be unsubstantiated.\n11.  On 24 September 1991 the owners wrote to the Commissioner of Lands (“COL”) requesting compensation for their property. They suggested the sum of MTL 105,000 – approximately EUR 244,584. Receipt of their request was acknowledged but the claim remained unanswered.\n12.  By a declaration of 22 June 1993 the Government acquired the said property under the title of “public tenure” according to the Land Acquisition (Public Purposes) Ordinance (see relevant domestic law). Under this title the owners continued to be paid EUR 205 per year for the entire property.\n13.  In the meantime, this property was allocated as housing to third parties and included a shop.\n14.  The applicants pointed out that in 1988 the Government had declared that it would no longer be resorting to takings under titles of “possession and use” or “public tenure”. During political debate, the Deputy Prime Minister had in fact referred to such takings as a nefarious method of acquisition. Indeed, in the past twenty years the Government had converted takings under title of “possession and use” or “public tenure” to takings under “outright purchase”. The latter provided for a more favourable form of compensation, namely the market value of the property at the time of taking. The applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6437", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 in Baku and is currently serving a life sentence in Gobustan Prison.\n6.  The applicant was sought by the law-enforcement authorities for complicity in a number of criminal offences, including two murders, committed in 1994.\n7.  On 22 October 1998 the applicant was arrested in Russia and on 11 March 1999 he was extradited to Azerbaijan.\n8.  On 24 January 2000 the Supreme Court, sitting as the court of first instance, convicted the applicant of complicity in two counts of murder, several counts of theft, illegal possession and sale of weapons, and hooliganism. The sentences for these offences were merged, and the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment and confiscation of property.\n9.  Following his conviction, in January 2000 the applicant was transferred to the 5th wing of Bayil Prison, formerly designated for convicts sentenced to death.\n10.  On 5 January 2001 he was transferred to Gobustan Prison, located outside Baku, where he is currently detained. The applicant is held, together with one other inmate, in a cell measuring 2.5 x 3.8 metres and 3.5 metres high. The cell has two beds, a small bedside cupboard, and one small table and two chairs fixed to the cell floor. The toilet area is separated from the rest of the cell. The floor and ceiling are made of stone and concrete respectively. The temperature inside the cell is very high in summer and very low in winter. Central heating is available, but insufficient.\n11.  The window has metal bars and no pane and, in winter, is closed with a transparent polyethylene film. The air inside is stale and the cell cannot be naturally ventilated. The food served in the prison is often of poor quality and lacks sufficient meat and vitamins, and the menu is unvaried and monotonous. The inmates are allowed only about half an hour’s outdoor exercise a day.\n12.  After his transfer to Gobustan Prison, the applicant was detained respectively in cell 150 in the 5th unit and in cell 184 in the 6th unit. Since 6 April 2005 he has been detained in cell 188 in the 6th unit. All these cells are intended for two prisoners and their size is 10 sq. m.\n13.  The conditions of the applicant’s detention meet all the national and international requirements and standards. The window of the cell can be opened from the inside. The window is large enough and does not prevent the entrance of natural light and fresh air. The cell is also provided with electric lamps, a ventilator and a radio set.\n14.  Since June 2008 the prisoners have had the right to watch TV for four hours a day and six hours at weekends and holidays. The prison has a library accessible to the prisoners. The sanitary conditions are normal and the food is of good quality. The applicant has the right to one hour’s outdoor exercise a day.\n15.  When he arrived at Bayil Prison, he was in good health and was not suffering from any illness. In Bayil Prison, the applicant was initially placed in a cell which had previously accommodated inmates who were suffering from contagious conditions, and which had not been disinfected.\n16.  In February 2000 the applicant was transferred to another cell, which he shared with A., an inmate suffering from tuberculosis. According to the applicant, he contracted tuberculosis from his cellmate. He began to feel the first symptoms of the disease shortly after his transfer to that cell. He had been in the same cell as A. from 15-16 February 2000 to 20 March 2000, from 19-20 May 2000 to the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6438", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 14 March 2006 the first applicant, born in 1967, was arrested on account of his purported connection with the criminal world and possession of drugs, offences prosecuted respectively by Articles 223(1) § 2 and 260 § 2 (a) of the Criminal Code. On 16 March the Tbilisi City Court ordered his detention pending trial. He was subsequently placed in Ksani no. 7 prison.\n6.  On 17 March 2006 the first applicant appealed against the detention order of 16 March 2006, complaining, inter alia, that the pre-trial detention was an unjustifiably severe and unnecessary measure, given the poor conditions in the prison and his critical state of health. In support, he submitted medical documents, dated 11 May 2005 and 16 March 2006, which diagnosed him with pulmonary fibro-cavernous tuberculosis and confirmed that he was a registered patient at a civil tuberculosis hospital, Abastumani Hospital, in Georgia.\n7.  On 24 March 2006 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal dismissed the first applicant’s appeal of 17 March 2006. In reply to the medical complaint, the appellate court stated that “the submitted medical documents show only the diagnosis; no other medical documents about [the first applicant’s] current state of health, or the type and stage of his disease have been made available...”. The appellate court did, however, inform the prison authorities that the first applicant should be provided with appropriate conditions of detention and medical care in prison.\n8.  The applicant’s state of health drastically deteriorated during the following eleven days of his detention in Ksani no. 7 prison. Notably, he started having acute respiratory difficulties and, with his joints painfully swollen, became unable to move around without assistance. Following the Public Defender’s intervention, the applicant was transferred on 25 March 2006 to the Medical Establishment of the Prison Department of the Ministry of Justice (“the old prison hospital”).\n9.  After only two days in the old prison hospital, the first applicant was transferred back to Ksani no. 7 prison on 27 March 2006, where his state of health deteriorated further. Consequently, on 30 March 2006 the authorities returned him to the old prison hospital, where he was initially placed in the intensive care unit.\n10.  On 24 July 2006 the Tbilisi City Court convicted the first applicant of the offences with which he had been charged. He was sentenced to 7 years in prison.\n11.  By letters of 22 and 24 August 2006, the Ministry of Justice acknowledged that, following a medical examination conducted by its National Forensic Office (“the NFO”) between 1 May and 20 June 2006, the first applicant had been diagnosed with an open form of multidrug-resistant fibro-cavernous (or disseminated) tuberculosis, in the phase of infiltration and decomposition; he was haemorrhaging from the lungs. In addition, the examination results showed that the first applicant had been infected with viral hepatitis C and suffered from a number of serious cardiac and neurosensory disorders. The above-mentioned letters further stated that, since 4 April 2006, the first applicant had been receiving conventional, first‑line anti-tuberculosis medication under the DOTS programme (Directly Observed Treatment, Short-course – the treatment strategy for the detection and cure of TB recommended by the World Health Organisation, see paragraph 48 below).\n12.  On 12 December 2006 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the first applicant’s conviction of 24 July", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6439", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lived in Narva until his arrest. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n8.  The Viru County Court convicted the applicant of repeated rape, between 2001 and 2005, of his minor daughter, and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. As summary proceedings had been applied, the sentence was reduced by one third. The operative part of the judgment was delivered at a hearing on 3 November 2006. After the applicant had informed the County Court of his intention to appeal, the court delivered the full text of the judgment, which was served on the applicant on 22 November 2006. The operative provisions of the full text had been amended – in addition to the originally delivered operative part, the expulsion of the applicant after his release from prison was ordered and a ten-year prohibition on entering the country was imposed.\n9.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Viru Court of Appeal, requesting his acquittal or the mitigation of the sentence, including the overturning of the expulsion order. He asked that the case be heard in his absence but in the presence of his legal-aid lawyer, B., who had also participated in the first-instance hearing. He requested, inter alia, that his former wife, the victim’s mother, be re-examined at the appellate court hearing, and asked his lawyer to put certain questions to her.\n10.  The Court of Appeal scheduled its hearing for 26 February 2007 and informed the parties and the applicant’s lawyer, B. As B. already had another court hearing scheduled for that date, he asked the court to reschedule the hearing or appoint another lawyer for the applicant. The Court of Appeal appointed K. as counsel for the applicant. According to the record of the Court of Appeal’s hearing, K. challenged the assessment of the evidence and the applicant’s conviction by the first-instance court. In the event that the appellate court nevertheless found that the applicant was guilty, K. asked for a more lenient sentence for him. Lastly, he argued that no reasons had been given in the judgment for the applicant’s expulsion and that therefore the expulsion was unlawful.\n11.  By a judgment delivered on 5 March 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the County Court’s judgment. Any intention to appeal to the Supreme Court had to be notified in writing to the Court of Appeal within seven days of the delivery of the judgment. An appeal to the Supreme Court, drawn up by a lawyer, had to be deposited with the Court of Appeal within thirty days of service of its judgment on the defendant.\n12.  On 7 March 2007 the applicant refused to accept the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Estonian. On 15 March 2007 he received a Russian translation. On the following day he submitted a notice indicating his intention to appeal.\n13.  On Friday, 13 April 2007 the applicant gave to a prison officer an appeal drawn up by himself addressed to the Supreme Court via the Court of Appeal. It was posted on the following working day, Monday, 16 April 2007.\n14.  Apparently the applicant had telephoned B. from the prison to ask him to draw up an appeal to the Supreme Court. B. had replied that an appeal to the Supreme Court had to be drawn up by K., the lawyer who had represented the applicant before the Court of Appeal. According to B., he telephoned K. immediately and informed him of the applicant’s wish to lodge an appeal with the Supreme Court. According to the applicant, he also telephoned K.\n15.  According to K., he did not ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6440", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in the town of Dimitrov, Ukraine.\n6.  Prior to November 2000 the legal representation of defendants in criminal proceedings could be conducted only by a licensed advocate. The advocate’s rights and obligations, and the required standards of professional competence and conduct were set forth in a separate Act of Parliament (see paragraphs 39 to 42 below). Other persons, including those holding a university law degree, were excluded from providing legal representation in criminal cases.\n7.  On 16 November 2000 the Constitutional Court found the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure unconstitutional and the parliament introduced relevant amendments to the Code in June 2001 (see paragraphs 37 and 38 below).\n8.  On 4 August 2004 the applicant was involved in a traffic accident, in which his car collided with another car. On the next day, criminal proceedings concerning the accident were instituted against the applicant.\n9.  On 9 November 2004 the applicant signed an agreement with Mr M. for legal representation in the above-mentioned criminal proceedings. The latter was a lawyer, who held a university degree in law and who had a private legal practice, but who was not a licensed advocate.\n10.  On 16 November 2004 the investigator allowed Mr M. to act as defence counsel.\n11.  On 5 August 2005 the Dimitrov Local Court (“the Dimitrov Court”) held a committal hearing in the case and decided to remit the case for additional investigation on the grounds that the applicant’s right to mount a defence had been breached during the pre-trial investigation. The court noted that, in accordance with Article 44 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the right to provide legal assistance is conferred upon advocates and other legal specialists (the term used to describe degree-educated practicing lawyers who have not been called to the Bar), but the right of the latter to act as defence counsel required to be defined by a specific piece of legislation. As there was no such law authorising a legal specialist with a private practice, such as Mr M., to provide legal assistance in criminal matters, the decision of the investigator to allow such a specialist to take part in the case had been unlawful and therefore the applicant’s right to mount a defence had been violated. The court ordered additional investigation with the participation of an advocate.\n12.  On 10 August 2005 the applicant appealed against the decision of 5 August 2005, claiming that limiting his right to a free choice of defence counsel was contrary to the Constitution and the decision of the Constitutional Court of 16 November 2000 (see paragraph 37 below).\n13.  On 13 January 2006 the court rejected his appeal.\n14.  On 24 March 2006 the investigator decided to allow Mr O., who was a licensed advocate, to take part in the criminal case as the applicant’s defence counsel.\n15.  On 26 April 2006 the applicant appealed in cassation against the decisions of 5 August 2005 and 13 January 2006.\n16.  By letter of 3 May 2006, in reply to a request by the applicant that criminal proceedings be instituted against the relevant judge of the Dimitrov Court for alleged deliberate failure to comply with the decision of the Constitutional Court concerning the right to a free choice of defence counsel, the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the court had rightly decided to remove Mr M. from the applicant’s case because he was no", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6441", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Yevpatoriya.\n6.  On 25 February 2004 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of drug dealing. On the same date a sachet of poppy straw was seized from his pocket.\n7.  On the same date the applicant complained to the Yevpatoriya Prosecutors’ Office that he had been ill-treated during his arrest, in particular that he had been handcuffed, beaten and blinded with a dark knitted hat and that he had suffered abrasions on his hands, face and back as a result of having been ill-treated.\n8.  On 16 March 2004 the Prosecutors’ Office refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant’s complaints, having found no appearance of criminal conduct on the part of the police officers.\n9.  On 13 April 2004 the Prosecutors’ Office of the ARC revoked this decision and ordered a further inquiry. Having examined available evidence and questioned witnesses, on 15 May 2004 the Yevpatoriya Prosecutors’ Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings for want of evidence of any ill-treatment. Based on the available materials, the applicant did not appeal against this decision.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant also complained to the Yevpatoriya Court that his detention had been unlawful. On 24 March 2004 the Yevpatoriya Court dismissed this complaint, attaching weight to the fact that on 27 February 2004 the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention was verified by a judge within the statutory seventy-two-hour time-limit. On 18 May 2004 the Court of Appeal of the Crimea upheld this decision.\n11.  On 25 February 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of drug dealing and following his arrest he was detained in a police station.\n12.  On 27 February 2004 the applicant was brought before the Yevpatoriya Court, which allowed the investigator’s request to continue his detention for ten days pending a determination of whether he should be charged. The court referred to the fact that the applicant was suspected of having committed a serious offence and that a sachet of poppy straw had been found on him.\n13.  On 3 March 2004 the applicant was indicted for drug dealing.\n14.  On 5 March 2004 the Yevpatoriya Court decided, in the applicant’s presence, that he should be remanded in custody for two months pending the outcome of the pre-trial investigation. By way of reasoning, the court cited Article 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and noted that the applicant might abscond, as he had been charged with a serious offence, and also that he might tamper with evidence. Moreover, the court noted that the applicant was alleged to have committed the offence while he had been subject to an undertaking not to abscond in connection with an investigation for another unspecified offence, which, at the material time, had been pending since 2001.\n15.  On the same date the applicant, represented by two lawyers, appealed. He maintained, in particular, that he was a former policeman with a clean record and that he had never previously been convicted. Furthermore, he stated that he lived permanently in Yevpatoriya, had a child, and suffered from chronic health conditions, in particular pyelonephritis. The applicant acknowledged that at the material time he had been subject to an undertaking not to abscond in connection with a different criminal investigation, but noted that he had never breached that undertaking since it had been put in place in 2001. On an unspecifi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6442", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Mykolayivka.\n5.  On 10 September 1993 the applicant’s husband was killed in a traffic accident.\n6.  On 5 June 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Slavyansk Court against the companies D. and Y. seeking compensation for damage caused by the death of her husband.\n7.  On 6 December 2000 the court rejected the applicant’s claims.\n8.  On 8 February 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first instance court for fresh consideration.\n9.  On 16 June 2004 the court found in part for the applicant.\n10.  On 21 October 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.\n11.  On 19 November 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation.\n12.  On 28 April 2007 the Supreme Court transferred the applicant’s appeal in cassation to the Kyiv Court of Appeal for consideration pursuant to legislative amendments of 22 February 2007 aimed at accelerating cassation proceedings.\n13.  On 14 August 2007 the Kyiv Court of Appeal scheduled a hearing in the case.\n14.  On 28 August 2007 the Kyiv Court of Appeal quashed the judgments in the case and rejected the applicant’s claims as lodged out of time.\n15.  According to the Government, out of thirty court hearings scheduled in the applicant’s case two were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to appear, seventeen were adjourned due to failure to appear of the respondents’ representatives, two were adjourned due to witnesses’ failure to appear, one hearing was adjourned due to illness of the court’s secretary, one hearing was adjourned due to the judge’s illness, two hearings were adjourned due to the judge’s vacations, one hearing was adjourned due to the expiration of the judge’s term of office. On five occasions the courts sent warnings to the companies D. and Y. concerning their representatives’ failure to appear at the court hearings.\n16.  The applicant disagreed in part with the Government’s submissions. In particular, she contended that the court hearings in her case had been adjourned only due to the respondents’ failure to appear.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6443", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 20 April 2000 the applicants’ brother died in a car accident.\n6.  On 2 April 2002 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Ljubljana District Court seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The applicants also requested exemption from paying the court fees.\n7.  On 30 April 2002 the court asked the applicants to complete their request for an exemption from obligation to pay the court fees. After the request was completed, on 12 September 2002, the court upheld it on 30 October 2002.\n8.  The first hearing was held on 17 March 2005.\n9.  On 25 April 2005 the court held another hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, rejecting the applicants’ claim was served on the applicants on 1 June 2005.\n10.  The applicants appealed on 13 June 2005. On 30 November 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the applicants’ appeal in part and remitted the case for re-examination.\n11.  On 3 April 2006 the applicants withdrew the claim. On 19 May 2006 a decision on termination of proceedings was issued.\n12.  On 19 February and 6 March 2009 respectively, the respondent Government were given notice of the applications. The Government were asked to provide information as to whether section 25 of the 2006 Act applied in respect of the present cases, which would enable the applicants to avail themselves of domestic settlement proceedings before the State Attorney’s Office.\n13.  Subsequently, on 6 May 2009, the Government submitted that section 25 of the 2006 Act was not applicable in the present cases since the applicants’ right to a trial within a reasonable time had not been infringed in the impugned domestic proceedings. Therefore, the Government refused to offer the applicants a settlement proposal under section 25 of the 2006 Act.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6444", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1933. He was detained in Aachen Prison until his release on 1 March 2008.\n6.  The applicant has been convicted twenty-two times since 1949, initially notably for smuggling and thefts. Since 1955 he has spent most of his life in prison.\n7.  On 23 April 1968 the Cologne Regional Court convicted the applicant on two charges of joint aggravated (armed) robbery of a bank, sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment and ordered his preventive detention.\n8.  On 20 January 1970 the Cologne Regional Court convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery-style theft committed against a money courier. Taking into account the term of imprisonment from the judgment of 23 April 1968, it imposed on the applicant a cumulative sentence of thirteen years’ imprisonment, but quashed the order for preventive detention. The remainder of his prison sentence was suspended on 31 March 1977 and the applicant was released and placed on probation; this suspension was subsequently revoked.\n9.  On 7 December 1978 the Cologne Regional Court convicted the applicant, in particular, of two counts of joint aggravated (armed) robbery, of aiding and abetting another joint aggravated robbery, of three counts of aggravated theft and one count of attempted aggravated theft. It sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment and ordered his preventive detention under Article 66 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 45-46 below).\n10.  The Cologne Regional Court found that the applicant, who had been released from prison on 31 March 1977 and had a job, had committed the said offences between June 1977 and his arrest in November 1977. Together with two accomplices, he had robbed a money courier and a bank, armed. He had further stolen or attempted to steal together with others several cars which had later been used when committing the two robberies and another bank robbery in which the applicant had not otherwise participated.\n11.  Having consulted an expert, the Cologne Regional Court found that since his youth the applicant had been strongly inclined to commit offences and to make his living thereby, even though he could have worked. Serving long sentences had not prevented him from reoffending and from committing more and more serious offences at ever shorter intervals. Since there were no indications that the applicant would not reoffend, he was dangerous to the public.\n12.  On 11 April 1980 the Federal Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the judgment of 7 December 1978, which thereby became final.\n13.  On 29 April 1983 the Bonn Regional Court reopened the proceedings in respect of one of the applicant’s accomplices, W., who had also been convicted of bank robbery on 7 December 1978, and acquitted him. The third accomplice to the robbery, Schw., had confessed that he had wrongfully incriminated both W. and the applicant in this offence. The applicant’s request for reopening of the proceedings against him was subsequently dismissed.\n14.  On 2 February 1993 the Bonn Regional Court suspended the order remanding the applicant in preventive detention from 26 April 1993 (when the applicant would have served his full prison sentence), granted probation and ordered the applicant to be placed under supervision of conduct (Führungsaufsicht) for four years.\n15.  The applicant served the sentence imposed by the judgment of 7 December 1978 in full, as well as the remainder of the sentence imposed by the judgment of 20 Janu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6445", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and is currently in Straubing Prison.\n6.  Between 1970 and 1987 the applicant was convicted in eight judgments of offences including theft, robbery, extortion, assault and dangerous assault and spent some fourteen years in prison.\n7.  On 9 April 1987 the Munich I Regional Court convicted the applicant of two counts of attempted murder. It sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment and ordered his preventive detention (Article 66 § 1 of the Criminal Code, see paragraphs 41-42 below).\n8.  The Regional Court found that in 1986 the applicant and an accomplice had shot at two policemen several times in order to escape arrest and criminal prosecution following the discovery of their plans to carry out an armed bank robbery using a stolen car. A psychological expert and a neurological expert consulted by the court, who had both examined the applicant in person, confirmed that the applicant was suffering from a personality disorder characterised, in particular, by antisocial conduct, which was, however, not serious enough to be classified as pathological. The court therefore considered that he had acted with full criminal responsibility. The applicant’s preventive detention was necessary as, owing to his criminal tendencies, there was a risk that he might commit similar serious offences in the future and he was thus a danger to the public.\n9.  On 21 August 1996 the Regensburg Regional Court ordered that the applicant’s preventive detention, imposed by the judgment of 9 April 1987 of the Munich I Regional Court, take place in a psychiatric hospital (Article 67c § 1 and Article 67a § 2 of the Criminal Code, see paragraphs 43 and 47 below) from 5 November 1996, when the applicant would have fully served his prison sentence. According to the report drawn up at the court’s request by an external psychiatric expert, L., the findings of whom the court endorsed, the applicant suffered from schizophrenia simplex characterised by autistic behaviour and from a serious personality disorder. The expert took the view that the applicant had not been diagnosed with that illness before 1990 because it was characterised mostly by disorders concerning the affectivity, thinking or personality and less by hallucinations or delusional ideas. He should therefore be transferred to a psychiatric hospital as soon as possible for socio-therapeutic treatment and medication. Without such treatment, the applicant, owing to his tendency to commit serious offences, was a danger to the public.\n10.  On 5 November 1996 the applicant, having fully served his prison sentence, was placed for the first time in preventive detention, in psychiatric hospitals in Haar and Straubing.\n11.  On 29 July 1999 the Regensburg Regional Court ordered that the applicant’s preventive detention should take place in prison instead of in a psychiatric hospital (Article 67a § 3 of the Criminal Code, see paragraph 47 below). It considered that the applicant’s preventive detention in a psychiatric hospital was not helping to rehabilitate him.\n12.  The Regional Court noted that the psychiatric expert, L., whom it had consulted in 1996, had taken the view that the applicant’s chronic schizophrenia could be better treated and his rehabilitation better furthered in a psychiatric hospital. A doctor at Haar Psychiatric Hospital had considered that the applicant suffered from an antisocial personality disorder and, possibly, from psychosis of a schizophrenic nature. The treatin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6446", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Vinnytsya.\n5.  On 8 May 1998 he lodged a claim with the Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya (“the Leninskyy Court”) against the S. enterprise in a consumer dispute between them.\n6.  On 1 February 2000 the above court delivered a judgment. On 28 March 2000 the Vinnytsya Regional Court quashed it and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n7.  By a judgment of 20 November 2002, the Leninskyy Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated.\n8.  On 21 April[1] and 5 May 2003, respectively, the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) and the Leninskyy Court requested the applicant to lodge his appeal against the above judgment in accordance with the procedural requirements. On 4 June 2003, following his failure to do so, the Leninskyy Court returned the appeal unexamined.\n9.  On 12 February 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of 4 June 2003.\n10.  On 31 January 2007 the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of 12 February 2004 and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for fresh examination, which on 6 April 2007 upheld the ruling of 4 June 2003.\n11.  On 21 June 2007 the Supreme Court requested the applicant to lodge his appeal in cassation against the ruling of 6 April 2007 in accordance with the procedural requirements, following which on 6 August 2007 it refused to grant leave to the appeal.\n12.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings fourteen hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s or both parties’ failure to appear or following the applicant’s requests. The applicant disagreed stating that he had been absent from eight hearings because he had not been informed of them. The above delays on the applicant’s part protracted the proceedings by approximately four months. Twelve further hearings were adjourned due to the other party’s, expert’s or witnesses’ failure to appear, absence of the judge or for unspecified reasons. Two expert examinations were ordered and lasted in total for about one year.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6447", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Chmielow.\n6.  The applicant has been serving a thirteen years’ sentence of imprisonment. At the relevant time he was detained in the Tarnowskie Góry Prison and he had already served nearly six years of his sentence.\n7.  On 21 April 2008 his 11 year-old daughter was hit by a bus and, because of her serious injuries, was admitted to the intensive-care unit. The applicant was informed that she had fallen into a coma and her condition was very serious.\n8.  On 28 April 2008 he made an application for compassionate leave to visit his dying daughter in the hospital. On 29 April 2009 his mother made an application for compassionate leave on behalf of the applicant. On 30 April 2008 the Penitentiary Judge of the Gliwice Regional Court requested an opinion from the Tarnowskie Góry Prison on the applicant’s prospects for rehabilitation.\n9.  On 5 May 2008 the Penitentiary Judge received a negative opinion about the applicant. It stated in particular that the applicant was active in the prison subculture, was rude towards the prison officers, had been convicted of a serious crime (incitement to murder) and had a long prison sentence to serve.\n10.  On 7 May 2008 the Penitentiary Judge of the Gliwice Regional Court refused the leave request because of the poor prospects of the applicant’s rehabilitation. The order was delivered to the applicant on 12 May 2008.\n11.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the Gliwice Regional Penitentiary Court on the same day.\n12.  On 16 May 2008 the applicant’s daughter died.\n13.  On 19 May 2008 the Penitentiary Judge of the Gliwice Regional Court allowed the applicant to attend his daughter’s funeral on 21 May 2008, under police escort.\n14.  On 20 May 2008 the Director of the Detention Centre informed the applicant orally about the permission. The applicant asked to be able to wear a suit and handcuffs. He also requested that the escorting officers should wear plain clothes. He submits that his request was denied and therefore he decided not to attend the funeral, since he believed his appearance with handcuffs and chains on hands and legs and under an escort of uniformed and armed officers would create a disturbance during the ceremony. He maintains that his sister had been likewise informed by the Director of the Detention Centre that the applicant would have to wear his prison clothes and would have to have joined shackles (hand-cuffs and fetters joined together with chains).\n15.  The Government submitted that the applicant must have misunderstood the Director as he clearly could have attended the funeral in plain clothes and handcuffed.\n16.  The written decision was served on the applicant on 26 May 2008, after the funeral had already taken place. The decision only specified that the applicant was allowed to attend his daughter’s funeral under escort. It did not mention whether he would have to wear joined shackles or whether he could wear plain clothes.\n17.  On 12 June 2008 the Gliwice Regional Penitentiary Court upheld the decision of 7 May 2008 repeating the reasoning given by the Penitentiary Judge.\n18.  The applicant further states that earlier in 2007 his request for compassionate leave to attend his father’s funeral had been refused.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6448", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Dolný Kubín.\n6.  On 24 June 2003 the police arrested the applicant. He was accused of planning a robbery[1] and remanded in custody from that date.\n7.  Several decisions extending the applicant’s detention were made. In particular, on 18 November 2004 the Žilina District Court extended his detention in the context of the preliminary proceedings until 24 January 2005.\n8.  On 21 January 2005 the public prosecutor indicted the applicant and several other persons before the Žilina Regional Court.\n9.  The applicant requested to be released, arguing that the Regional Court had not extended his detention after the expiry of the period indicated in the District Court’s decision of 18 November 2004.\n10.  On 20 April 2005 the Regional Court ordered the applicant’s release. Upon a complaint lodged by the public prosecutor the Supreme Court decided on 24 May 2005 that the applicant should remain remanded in custody.\n11.  On 25 July 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that his detention in the period after 24 January 2005 and the Supreme Court’s refusal to release him were both unlawful.\n12.  On 30 March 2006 the applicant was released.\n13.  On 14 June 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 1 had been violated in that there had been no judicial decision extending his detention after 24 January 2005 (judgment I. ÚS 217/05). There existed no justification for that situation. Reference was made to the Constitutional Court’s judgments I. ÚS 6/02 and I. ÚS 204/05 (see paragraphs 23-28 below).\n14.  The Constitutional Court ordered the Supreme Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs in the constitutional proceedings. It dismissed his claim for just satisfaction, holding that (i) its finding as such provided appropriate redress to the applicant and (ii) the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 May 2005 was based on that court’s practice, which, however, was not in accordance with practice under the Convention.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6449", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1986 and 1980 respectively and live in Ağrı.\n6.  On 21 March 2006 the applicants attended the Newroz celebrations in Patnos, a district of Ağrı. During the gathering, the crowd shouted slogans. Subsequently, the Patnos Security Directorate initiated an investigation on account of the fact that some of the participants had shouted slogans praising the imprisoned leader of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation). Following an examination of a recording of the gathering, it was reported that the first applicant had shouted “Biji Serok Apo” (“Long live President Öcalan”), while the second applicant was seen as shouting slogans such as “Biji Serok Apo” and “Gençlik Aponun Fedaisidir” (“Youth are the guardsmen of Öcalan”).\n7.  On 28 March 2006 the applicants were taken into police custody. In police statements taken from them on the same date, they both denied shouting slogans in support of the PKK. They maintained that they had shouted slogans in support of peace. Again on the same date, the applicants were subsequently taken before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge in turn. In their statements to the prosecutor and the judge, they maintained that they had only shouted “Kurds and Turks are brothers” and denied the accusations. The investigating judge released the applicants when the interrogation was over.\n8.  On 29 March 2006 the Patnos Public Prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants in the Patnos Criminal Court, charging them with disseminating the propaganda of an illegal organisation, based on the slogans shouted during the Newroz celebrations. The prosecution accordingly called for the applicants to be sentenced pursuant to Article 220 § 8 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 15 August 2006 the court received an expert report regarding the video footage of the event. According to this report, the second applicant was seen shouting slogans in Kurdish and Turkish such as “Dısa dısa serhildan serokeme Öcalan” (“Rise up again and again, our president is Öcalan”), “Biji Serok Apo” (“Long Live President Apo”) and “Gençlik Aponun Fedaisidir” (“Youth are the guardsmen of Öcalan”). The report stated that in the video footage there was no sign of the first applicant.\n10.  On an unspecified date, the Patnos Criminal Court declared that it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the case file to the Erzurum Assize Court, holding that offence with which the applicants were charged ought to be classified as praising a crime or a criminal and thus fell to be examined under Article 215 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  On 12 July 2007 the Erzurum Assize Court delivered its decision. While noting that the applicants had denied shouting the alleged slogans, based on the recording of the event, the court found the applicants guilty of praising both a crime and a criminal pursuant to Article 215 of the Criminal Code. It accordingly sentenced the applicants to twenty-five days’ imprisonment each. The court then commuted the prison sentence to a fine of 500 Turkish liras (TRY) (the equivalent to 270 euros). As domestic legislation did not provide for an appeal, this decision was final.\n12.  On 19 October 2007 the first applicant paid the fine.\n13.  Subsequently, on 26 February 2008 the Erzurum Public Prosecutor reopened the proceedings against the second applicant for reconsideration of his case in view of Section 562 of Law no. 5728, which was published in the Official Gazette on 7", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6450", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in the parish of Saldus in Latvia.\n6.  On 6 November 2001 the executive director of the municipality where the applicant resided, V.D., lodged with the Saldus District Court an application for a private prosecution against the applicant and her husband for offences which at the relevant time were proscribed by sections 156 and 157 of the Criminal Law (defamation and bringing into disrepute). The complaint appears to have been based on three letters that the applicant had sent to the council of the local municipality in which it had been alleged that V.D. had given false testimony in courts to the applicant’s detriment, that V.D. was a liar who did not deserve to be working in an official position, and that V.D. had hidden the will left by the applicant’s sister-in-law.\n7.  On 9 November 2001, having considered V.D’s complaint, a judge of the Saldus District Court decided to initiate criminal proceedings against the applicant for defamation of a representative of public authority (section 271 of the Criminal Law as in force at the relevant time). Offences under section 271 of the Criminal Law were subject to public prosecution.\n8.  On 8 January 2002 an out-patient psychiatric assessment was carried out on the applicant in a psychiatric hospital located in Jelgava. The assessment was carried out by a commission composed of several medical professionals. The commission was unable to arrive at a definite conclusion concerning the applicant’s psychiatric condition.\n9.  According to the Government, on 4 April 2002 the applicant was officially charged with defamation of V.D. No documents have been provided in that connection by either of the parties. On the same day an authorisation (orderis) was issued to sworn attorney M.D. According to the authorisation, M.D. was authorised to “participate in the pre-trial investigation” to assist the applicant. The applicant claims that she never appointed M.D. to represent her interests. Nothing in the copy of the authorisation submitted by the Government indicates that the applicant was made aware of its existence or of M.D.’s role in the proceedings.\n10.  On 22 April 2002 a prosecutor of the Saldus Distric Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the Saldus District Court to order a residential psychiatric-psychological assessment of the applicant to be carried out in a psychiatric hospital in Rīga. The prosecutor indicated that there were grounds to believe that the applicant had not been capable of understanding the consequences of writing the letters in issue. The prosecutor also stated that during the out-patient psychiatric assessment of 8 January 2002 it had been impossible to establish the applicant’s psychiatric condition with certainty.\n11.  On 2 May 2002 a single judge of the Saldus District Court issued a decision authorising the applicant’s placement in a psychiatric hospital. The decision noted that the judge had heard statements from the prosecutor and from M.D. The decision also stated that the applicant had refused to report for a residential examination voluntarily, but no details were given. The Government have not suggested that the applicant was ever requested to report voluntarily for a residential assessment. Lastly, the decision noted that it could be appealed against to the Kurzeme Regional Court but that the lodging of such an appeal did not suspend the execution of the decision. The decision also ordered the Saldus District police to tra", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6451", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is the publisher of a periodical, “wien.direkt”, with a print run of 8,000. It is an “internal” paper of Grüne Alternative Wien which is delivered to sympathisers and functionaries of that party.\n6.  On 13 July 2000 Mr. H. Kabas, the chairman of the Vienna regional branch of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), brought compensation proceedings against the applicant claiming compensation under Section 6 of the Media Act (Mediengesetz) for defamation. He submitted that the applicant published in the issue no. 4 June/July 2000 of the periodical a picture of a modified election poster of the FPÖ posted in the course of the Vienna Municipal elections. Mr. H. Kabas contended that the modified picture showed him, wearing a Nazi-uniform. The poster was annotated with the following text sequence in Gothic letters:\n“Our offer: honour & loyalty”\n7.  Mr. H. Kabas stressed that the picture implied that he stands for National Socialist ideas or at least sympathises with these ideas as the text sequence referred to the SS-maxim “Loyalty is my honour” (“Meine Ehre heißt Treue”) and that, therefore, the publication of the picture met the offence of defamation. He requested that the applicant be ordered to pay compensation. Furthermore, he requested supplementary measures under the Media Act, such as the publication of a notice that proceedings under that Act had been opened and the publication of the judgment.\n8.  On 12 September 2000 the applicant filed observations. It stressed that the picture did not imply that Mr H. Kabas stood for National Socialist ideas but was a caricature expressing that a front man of the FPÖ maintains a questionable approach to the National Socialist era. The caricature referred to a recent speech of Mr E. Windholz, the chairman of the Lower Austria regional branch of the FPÖ, given to party members in the course of a regional branch party congress. In his speech Mr E. Windholz used the expression “Loyality is our honour”. Mr H. Kabas defended Mr. E. Windholz and his statement in public. The applicant wanted to criticise these statements by the caricature at issue.\n9.  On 23 October 2000 the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht) ordered the applicant to publish a notice that the proceedings under the Media Act were pending. It found that the published picture showed Mr. H. Kabas wearing a uniform similar to a SA-uniform (Sturmabteilung). Instead of the swastika the tie of the uniform showed an “F” as short form of “FPÖ”. The court considered that this picture with the annotated text sequence (cited above) associated Mr. H. Kabas with National Socialism.\n10.  On 14 November 2000 the applicant submitted further observations. It pointed out that functionaries of the FPÖ had repeatedly used expressions which were typically used in National Socialist parlance and referred to report of September 2000 by Martti Ahtisaari, Jochen Frowein and Marcelino Oreja, who received a mandate from fourteen member states of the EU to deliver a report covering, inter alia, the evolution of the political nature of the FPÖ in which the experts concluded that the FPÖ is a “right wing party with extremist expressions”. The applicant stressed that it wanted to criticise the repeated use of typical National Socialist expressions in a satirical way through a caricature and to point at the questionable approach to the National Socialist era by Mr H. Kabas and other functionaries of the FPÖ. Moreover, it contended that the picture, which wa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6453", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were both born in 1985 and live in Bad Bevensen and Berlin respectively.\n6.  From 6 to 8 June 2007 a G8 summit of Heads of State and Government was held in Heiligendamm, in the vicinity of Rostock.\n7.  The police considered that there was a threat of terrorist attacks, in particular by Islamist terrorists, during the summit. Furthermore, having regard to the experience of previous G8 summits, they considered that there was a risk of property damage by left-wing extremists. The latter were found to have planned to protest against, block and sabotage the summit.\n8.  The police estimated that there would be around 25,000 participants at an international demonstration in Rostock on 2 June 2007, 2,500 of whom were ready to use violence, and that there would be around 15,000 demonstrators present during the summit, 1,500 of whom would be ready to use violence.\n9.  On 2 June 2007 serious riots broke out in Rostock city centre, involving well-organised violent demonstrators, forming what has been termed a “black block”, who attacked the police with stones and baseball bats. 400 policemen were injured.\n10.  According to a press release of the Mecklenburg-West Pomerania Ministry of the Interior dated 28 June 2007, some 17,000 police officers had been involved in ensuring that the G8 summit could be held without disruption and in protecting its participants from attacks by terrorists or anti‑globalisation demonstrators prepared to use violence. During the summit, 1,112 people had been detained in holding pens for prisoners (Gefangenensammelstellen). The courts had been asked to confirm the detainees’ detention in 628 cases; they had done so in respect of 113 individuals.\n11.  In June 2007 the applicants drove to Rostock in order to participate in demonstrations against the G8 summit in Heiligendamm.\n12.  On 3 June 2007 at around 10.15 p.m. the applicants’ identity was checked and established by the police in a car park in front of Waldeck prison, where they were standing next to a van in the company of seven other people. No other people were present in the car park. The police submitted that the first applicant had physically resisted the identity check. He had allegedly hit the arms of a policeman who had attempted to determine the second applicant’s identity. He had also kicked another policeman’s shin in order to prevent his own identity from being determined. The applicants submitted that the second applicant had himself been hit by the police, although he had already been holding his identity card in his hand ready for inspection. The police searched the van and found folded-up banners bearing the inscriptions “Freedom for all prisoners” and “Free all now”. The applicants were arrested. It appears that the banners found were seized.\n13.  In two separate decisions taken on 4 June 2007 at 4.20 a.m. and 4 a.m. respectively, the Rostock District Court, having examined both applicants in person, ordered their detention (amtlicher Gewahrsam) until 9 June 2007, 12 noon at the latest.\n14.  Relying on section 55(1), paragraph 2(a), and section 56(5) of the Mecklenburg-West Pomerania Public Security and Order Act (Gesetz über die öffentliche Sicherheit und Ordnung in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern – “the PSOA”, see paragraphs 37-38 below), the District Court found that the applicants’ detention had been lawful in order to prevent the imminent commission or continuation of a criminal offence. As the applicants had been found in front of Wald", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6455", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Pavlograd.\n6.  In June 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings for damages against Oranta State Insurance Company in the Babushkinskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the Babushkinskyy Court”).\n7.  On 18 April 2005 the court dismissed the claim as unsubstantiated.\n8.  On 1 September 2005 and 18 May 2006 the judgment was upheld by the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, respectively.\n9.  In June 2003 the applicant also instituted proceedings against her former employer, the local police department, seeking recovery of some retirement-related and other payments.\n10.  On 10 May 2005 the Babushkinskyy Court found against her.\n11.  On 17 November 2005 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. It stated in the operative part that the applicant had the right to challenge the decision before the Higher Administrative Court within one month.\n12.  The applicant appealed in cassation.\n13.  On 3 February 2006 the Higher Administrative Court declined jurisdiction to consider her appeal in cassation on the ground that the case was of a “civil” rather than an “administrative” nature and therefore the Supreme Court was the correct court of cassation.\n14.  The applicant resubmitted her appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court. On 5 June 2006 the latter, referring to Article 210 of the Code of Administrative Justice, declined jurisdiction asserting that, in fact, the Higher Administrative Court was the appropriate forum for the case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6456", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company, Bazalt Impeks limited liability company, is a Ukrainian legal entity registered in Svitlovodsk.\n5.  In June 2006 an IT company lodged a claim with the Kirovograd Regional Commercial Court against the applicant company seeking the cancellation of a contract and return of property.\n6.  By a decision of 26 July 2006, the court found against the applicant company. On 2 October 2006 the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Commercial Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company’s appeal and upheld the decision of the first-instance court.\n7.  By a decision of 12 December 2006, the Higher Commercial Court, upon the applicant company’s appeal, quashed the decisions of the lower courts and found in favour of the applicant company.\n8.  On 20 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine, upon the IT company’s cassation appeal, quashed the ruling of the Higher Commercial Court on the ground that its findings had been unfounded and erroneous, and upheld the decision of the Dnipropetrovs’k Regional Commercial Court of Appeal. In taking this decision, the Supreme Court noted:\n“The Supreme Court of Ukraine, with regard to the provisions of Articles 6 and 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine, does not consider it necessary to remit the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court. This would be contrary to the provisions of Article 125 of the Constitution of Ukraine and sections 2 and 39 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judicial System of Ukraine” [the Judiciary Act] regarding the status of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and its task to ensure the administration of justice in accordance with the law. It would further cause a constitutionally unacceptable need to quash the lawful decision of the court of appeal. In this regard, the list of possible outcomes of cassation appeals against decisions of the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine envisaged in Article 111-18 of the Code of Commercial Procedure of Ukraine is not considered a legal impediment to adopting the decision.”\n9.  On 5 March 2007 the decision of the Supreme Court was sent to the applicant company.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6457", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 28 September 2005 the applicant bought a 37.5 square metres flat in Moscow at 59 Novocheryomushkinskaya Street (“the flat”) and has been living there with her son born in 1998. The seller of the flat, Mr V., had bought it from Ms Ye., who had acquired it under the privatisation scheme. The facts relating to the ownership of the flat prior to the applicant’s acquisition of it and the subsequent invalidation of her title may be summarised as follows.\n7.  Before its privatisation the flat was owned by the City of Moscow. On 10 September 2004 the prefect of Yugo-Zapadnyy circuit allocated the flat to Mr M. as social housing. M. signed a social tenancy contract on 29 October 2004 and was registered as the flat’s principal, and only, tenant on 12 November 2004. No family members were indicated in the moving-in order.\n8.  On 19 November 2004 the Department of the Interior of the Cheryomushki District of Moscow registered M.’s spouse Ye. at his address. The registration was effected upon M.’s written application, certified by public notary R. on 17 November 2004, and accompanied by Ye.’s and M.’s marriage certificate issued in Kaluga on 15 October 2004. Ye.’s identity was confirmed upon presentation of her passport.\n9.  On 19 December 2004 M. was found dead. The inquest found that he had fallen out of the window of his flat and concluded that he had committed suicide, as no evidence of any other person’s involvement could be found. It was noted that M. was a former drug addict.\n10.  On 11 February 2005 Ye. issued a power of attorney to L., authorising him to represent her in all transactions related to the flat and in all privatisation and registration procedures before the property and residence registration authorities. The power of attorney was certified by public notary S., who had indicated in a standard clause that Ye. had signed the authority in her presence and that her identity and legal capacity had been confirmed.\n11.  On 30 March 2005 the Housing Policy and Housing Fund Department of the City of Moscow (Департамент жилищной политики и жилищного фонда г. Москвы, “the Moscow Housing Department”) concluded a social tenancy contract with Ye. and on the same day signed a privatisation agreement in respect of the flat. Ye. was represented by L. in these transactions.\n12.  On 6 May 2005 the Moscow Office of the Federal Authority for Registration of Property (Главное управление Федеральной регистрационной службы по г. Москве) registered Ye.’s ownership of the flat in the Consolidated State Register of Real Estate Titles and Transactions (Единый государственный реестр прав на недвижимое имущество и сделок с ним, “the Land Register”).\n13.  On 23 May 2005 Ye. sold the flat to V. On 6 June 2005 V.’s ownership was registered in the Land Register.\n14.  On 28 September 2005 V. sold the flat to the applicant. The terms of the purchase included the applicant’s obligation to pay the seller 990,000.00 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of the flat, an advance payment of 6,000 United States dollars (USD), plus a contribution of RUB 1,465,847 to renovation costs. It also included an undertaking by the seller to buy the applicant an equivalent flat in the event that the applicant lost the title for reasons relating to any defects of the title which pre-dated the purchase of the flat by the applicant.\n15.  The transfer of title was registered at the Moscow Office of the Federal Authority for the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6459", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Baku. He was the chief executive officer of various Azerbaijani subsidiaries of Azpetrol International Holdings B.V. (hereafter “Azpetrol”, including its various subsidiaries and subdivisions), one of the largest private companies operating in Azerbaijan.\n6.  At approximately 7 a.m. on 19 October 2005 the applicant arrived at Baku International Airport for a business trip to Chişinău, Moldova. When passing through customs and border controls, the applicant reported that he was carrying 900 US dollars (USD) in foreign currency, which was below the minimum threshold of USD 1,000 required at the material time for a customs declaration.\n7.  Having passed through customs, the applicant waited for his flight in the VIP area for 25-30 minutes. His luggage was with the VIP staff who were responsible for taking it to the aircraft. After the flight was announced, the passengers from the VIP area were taken to the aircraft in a minibus. However, when boarding the aircraft the applicant was stopped by officers of the State Customs Committee, taken back to the airport customs office and informed that he was suspected of carrying a large amount of foreign currency in his carry-on luggage.\n8.  During the inspection of the carry-on luggage, three packs of banknotes for a total amount of USD 30,000 were found in the outer compartment of the bag. The applicant protested, claiming that it was not his money and that it must have been “planted” in his bag when the bag was with the VIP staff.\n9.  From 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. the applicant was detained at the airport by the State Customs Committee. During this time, he was not allowed to contact his family or a lawyer of his choosing. At around 4 p.m. the applicant was taken to the Investigation Department of the State Border Service. At 9 p.m. he was allowed to contact one of his brothers, Alipanah Aliyev, to inform him of his whereabouts.\n10.  The investigator in charge of the applicant’s case informed him that a criminal case had been instituted against him under Article 206.1 of the Criminal Code (contraband; illegal transfer of large quantities of goods or other valuables through customs without a declaration).\n11.  At around 11.55 p.m. the investigator attempted to interrogate the applicant in the presence of a State-appointed lawyer, but the applicant refused to be represented by that lawyer. An entry was made in the investigator’s records concerning this refusal.\n(b)  The Government’s version of the events\n12.  At about 7 a.m. on 19 October 2005 the applicant arrived at the airport. When the applicant passed through the customs control area, the X-ray monitor revealed some paper packets in the applicant’s bag. A customs official asked the applicant whether he had anything undeclared with him. The applicant replied in the negative. After the applicant entered the VIP lounge, the customs official reported his suspicions to his superior. At about 7:30 a.m. a representative of the airport’s customs office, together with the representative of the State Border Service and two witnesses, searched the applicant’s baggage and found USD 30,000 that had not been declared.\n13.  The customs officials conducted an initial inquiry, made records of the applicant’s explanation and witness statements and took an inventory of each bank note. These procedures took several hours and lasted until around 5.50 p.m. The customs officials then sent the relevant material to the Prosecuto", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6460", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company was founded in 1992 and since 1995 has, inter alia, run a driving school, being in possession of the necessary licence issued by the State for that purpose. On 30 June 2005 the applicant company’s licence was renewed with a term of validity of five years. At that time the driving school employed approximately sixty people and had approximately 2,400 students.\n6.  On 7 August 2006 the State Registration Chamber conducted an unannounced check on the driving school and discovered that two of its instructors had been replaced and that the State Registration Chamber had not been informed of this within the ten-day time-limit provided for by the law.\n7.  On 10 August 2006 the State Registration Chamber issued decision no. 2985, by which the applicant company’s licence was withdrawn in view of the irregularity.\n8.  On 12 August 2006 the applicant company initiated court proceedings against the State Registration Chamber, seeking the revocation of its order of 10 August 2006. The applicant company submitted, inter alia, that the check carried out by the defendant on 7 August 2006 had been unlawful and that it had announced to the State Registration Chamber the changes to its personnel by letters of 19 August 2005 and 7 February 2006. In that respect the applicant company submitted a copy of its internal register of incoming and outgoing correspondence containing notes of two letters sent to the State Registration Chamber.\n9.  On 27 November 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant company’s action, finding that its system of registering correspondence was not sufficient proof. The applicant company appealed against the judgment.\n10.  On 21 February 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6461", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 5 April 2009 general elections took place in Moldova. The preliminary results of those elections were announced on 6 April 2009. According to them, the ruling Communist Party of Moldova had narrowly won the elections.\n8.  On 6 April 2009 growing discontent with the results of the elections and with alleged electoral fraud was felt, notably in various online forums. At 6 p.m. several hundred people, mostly young, gathered in front of the Stephen the Great (Ştefan cel Mare) monument in the centre of Chişinău. Half an hour later there were already 3-4,000 people assembled, who began to protest against the alleged electoral fraud, doing so in front of the Presidential Palace and Parliament buildings and then returning to the Great National Assembly Square. A bigger demonstration was then announced for 10 a.m. the next day.\n9.  On 7 April 2009 the protest restarted with the participation of some 5‑6,000 people. While the demonstration was peaceful at the beginning, several hundred of the participants gradually became violent. As established by the subsequently created parliamentary inquiry commission tasked with the elucidation of the causes and consequences of the events following the general elections held on 5 April 2009 in Moldova (“the Commission”), two incidents of poorly planned intervention by a fire truck and riot police brought the crowd to a point beyond which massive violent acts could no longer be prevented. Following violent attacks and stone throwing, which met very weak police resistance, approximately 250 violent protesters were eventually able to take over the lower floors of the Presidential Palace and Parliament buildings. They looted those floors and set the canteen in the Presidential Palace alight. During the night, several fires broke out in the Parliament building, some of them breaking out after full control over the building was recovered by the authorities at around 11 p.m.\n10.  At approximately 1 a.m. on 8 April 2009 various police and special forces units started a massive operation aimed at re-establishing public order. However, as established by the Commission, excessive force was used and all those still present in the main square were arrested, regardless of whether they had acted violently or not. The arrests continued for several days. The media reported cases and showed video footage of young people being arrested and/or beaten by both uniformed police and plain-clothed officers in the city centre during 8 April and thereafter, long after the protests ended on the evening of 7 April 2009.\n11.  According to the applicant, on 7 April 2009 he and his friend S. went to the centre of Chişinău to see the protests.\n12.  Having spent some time peacefully attending the protests, they stopped a taxi with the intention of returning home. However, they were forced into the taxi by three plain-clothed police officers who did not identify themselves. The officers ordered the driver to drive to Botanica police station. The applicant and S. were taken to that police station and locked in a cell which was cold, unfurnished and lacked access to daylight.\n13.  At around 1 a.m. on 8 April 2009 an officer in police uniform entered the cell. He was accompanied by the three arresting officers, who started beating the applicant and S. for no reason. The applicant lost consciousnes", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6462", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Rozhdestvenskoye, Kostroma Region.\n5.  The applicant is disabled following his participation in the emergency clean-up operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster and receives compensation for health damage.\n6.  On 30 April 1999 he brought proceedings against the Welfare Office of the town of Sharya of the Kostroma Region (Отдел социальной защиты населения г. Шарьи Костромской Области), in which he sought increase of his monthly compensation and recovery of the arrears.\n7.  The first hearing was scheduled for 30 August 1999. Between 30 August 1999 and 30 November 2000 four hearings were held by the court, while seven hearings had to be rescheduled due to the lack of attendance by the respondent or a third party, two hearings did not take place due to the applicant’s default in appearance, and one hearing was cancelled for the judge’s illness.\n8.  By a judgment of 30 November 2000 the Sharya Town Court of the Kostroma Region (“the Town Court”) rejected the applicant’s claims.\n9.  On 31 January 2001 the Kostroma Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed the judgment of 30 November 2000 on the applicant’s appeal for erroneous application of the material law and ordered to re‑consider the case.\n10.  By a decision of 15 February 2001 the Town Court stayed the proceedings waiting for the outcome of the proceedings pending before the Constitutional Court of Russia, which were relevant to the determination of the applicant’s case.\n11.  On 19 June 2002 the Constitutional Court delivered its decision on the issue pending before it, and the proceedings in the applicant’s case were resumed on 18 November 2002.\n12.  By a decision of 26 December 2002 the Town Court granted the applicant’s challenge of the judge and assigned the case to a different judge.\n13.  Between 14 July and 9 December 2003 the court repeatedly requested that the applicant submit information about his earnings during certain periods of time. Overall, in the second round of the proceedings, two hearings were held as scheduled, two of them did not happen as the applicant did not appear, and one was postponed due to the respondent’s default in appearance.\n14.  By a judgment of 9 December 2003 the Town Court allowed the applicant’s claims in part. However, that judgment was set aside by the Regional Court on both parties’ appeal on 2 February 2004.\n15.  After one hearing in the new round of the proceedings, on 16 April 2004 the Town Court again granted the applicant’s claims in part. The court ordered the Welfare Office to recalculate the compensation payments and awarded the applicant 6,936 Russian roubles (RUB) to be paid monthly and to be adjusted in accordance with the legislation. The court also recovered the debt in the amount of RUB 259,818 and reimbursement of the legal costs in the amount of RUB 12,051.\n16.  On 16 June 2004 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n17.  The amount of RUB 259,818 was paid to the applicant on 12 August 2005, and RUB 12,051 was paid on 30 December 2005. Following the delay in the payment of the lump-sum amounts awarded on 16 April 2004, the applicant obtained compensation for the depreciation of the awards in the amount of RUB 31,084 on 18 November 2005 and RUB 1,617 on 17 March 2006. The amount of RUB 31,084 was paid to the applicant on 28 September 2006.\n18.  By a decision of 10 March 2006 the Town Court adjusted the applicant’s monthly payment in line with the con", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6463", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  On 1 February 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against a private company for breach of his patent rights.\n6.  By a judgment of 10 November 2002 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) dismissed his claim.\n7.  On 28 November 2003 the Moscow City Court (“the appeal court”) upheld the above judgment on appeal.\n8.  On 4 November 2000 the applicant instituted another set of proceedings against two private companies for breach of his patent rights.\n9.  The first hearing was scheduled by the District Court for 4 April 2001. However, the first hearing and the next four hearings did not take place because the judge was involved in different proceedings or was on vacation, or due to the respondents’ failure to appear. In the meantime the court sent inquiries to various State agencies for information about the respondents’ place of registration.\n10.  At the hearing of 13 December 2001 the applicant requested to change the names of the respondents, and the court repeatedly sent inquiries for information about their place of incorporation.\n11.  The next two hearings were cancelled due to the respondent’s default in appearance and because of the judge’s involvement in different proceedings.\n12.  At the hearing of 8 April 2002, following lack of information about the respondents’ exact whereabouts, the court suggested that the applicant notify them himself based on the information available to him.\n13.  At the hearing of 23 May 2002 the applicant relinquished his claims against one of the respondents and asked the court to invite a third party to join the proceedings.\n14.  On 7 August 2002 the applicant motioned to replace the initial respondents with a new set of five companies and specified his claims. On 11 September 2002 he relinquished his claims against one of the respondents.\n15.  The next three hearings were cancelled as the judge was involved in different proceedings.\n16.  The hearing of 1 November 2002 was postponed to allow a respondent to study the case.\n17.  The hearing of 10 November 2002 did not take place as the court did not have information about due notification of the respondents.\n18.  The next three hearings took place as scheduled.\n19.  On 9 December 2002 the court accepted the applicant’s relinquishment of his claim against two respondents and severed his claims against two other respondents into a separate case to avoid delay in the proceedings. By a judgment of the same date the District Court dismissed his claims against the remaining respondent.\n20.  On 16 December 2002 the applicant filed preliminary grounds of appeal and specified that he would submit reasoned grounds of appeal upon receipt of the reasoned judgment. On the same day the District Court left the appeal without consideration for failure to substantiate it and suggested that the applicant remedy this defect until 30 December 2002.\n21.  The applicant submitted copies of his complaints concerning failure of the District Court to produce the final text of the judgment of 9 December 2002 to the Zamoskvoretskiy District prosecutor’s office of 14 August 2003, to the appeal court of 8 September 2003 and 30 September 2004 and to the Judicial Qualifications Board of 8 April 2004. According to the applicant, in May and June he came to see the judge in his case, inquiring about the date of filing of the final text of the judgment at the registry.\n22.  The applicant submitted a co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6464", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  All of the applicants have either tenancy rights to their flats on the basis of occupancy vouchers (yaşayış sahəsi orderi) issued by the relevant executive authorities or ownership rights to them on the basis of an ownership certificate issued by the competent domestic authority (see Appendix – Table I).\n6.  In all five cases, the applicants’ flats were unlawfully occupied by internally displaced persons (“IDPs”) from different regions of Azerbaijan under occupation by Armenian military forces following the Armenian‑Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.\n7.  The applicants lodged separate civil actions before the domestic courts seeking the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.\n8.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix (Table I), the applicants’ claims were granted by different domestic courts, which ordered the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.\n9.  The respective judgments became final and enforceable. However, the IDP families refused to comply with those judgments and despite the applicants’ complaints to various authorities, the judgments were not enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6465", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Veličná.\n6.  On 24 June 2003 the police arrested the applicant. He was accused of planning a robbery and remanded in custody on that date.\n7.  Several decisions extending the applicant’s detention were made. In particular, on 18 November 2004 the Žilina District Court extended his detention in the context of the preliminary proceedings until 24 January 2005.\n8.  On 21 January 2005 the public prosecutor indicted the applicant and several others before the Žilina Regional Court.\n9.  The applicant requested to be released, arguing that the Regional Court had not extended his detention after the expiry of the period indicated in the District Court’s decision of 18 November 2004.\n10.  On 20 April 2005 the Regional Court ordered the applicant’s release. Upon a complaint lodged by the public prosecutor the Supreme Court decided on 24 May 2005 that the applicant should remain remanded in custody. On 27 July 2005 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that his detention after 24 January 2005 was unlawful.\n11.  In the meantime, on 15 June 2005, the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 June 2006. On 23 August 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint alleging a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as a result of that decision.\n12.  On 31 March 2006 the applicant was released.\n13.  In judgment III. ÚS 271/06 of 8 March 2007 the Constitutional Court found that by the above decision of 24 May 2005 the Supreme Court had breached the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The Constitutional Court referred to its judgments I. ÚS 6/02 and I. ÚS 204/05 (see paragraphs 25-30 below) and held that there existed no justification for the absence of any judicial decision extending the applicant’s detention after 24 January 2005.\n14.  The Constitutional Court ordered the Supreme Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs in the constitutional proceedings. It dismissed his claim for just satisfaction, holding that (i) the finding of a violation of Article 5 § 1 provided appropriate redress for the applicant and (ii) the Supreme Court’s decision of 24 May 2005 was based on that court’s practice, which, however, was not in accordance with practice under the Convention.\n15.  In a different judgment delivered on 6 June 2007 (IV. ÚS 10/07) the Constitutional Court found that by the above decision of 15 June 2005 the Supreme Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, with reference to the reasons for its judgment of 8 March 2007 the Constitutional Court was of the view that the Supreme Court should have remedied the situation resulting from the applicant’s unlawful detention by ordering his release.\n16.  The Constitutional Court granted the equivalent of 1,470 euros (EUR) to the applicant as just satisfaction and ordered the Supreme Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6466", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1952, 1930, 1950 and 1957 respectively and live in Ankara.\n6.  On 24 October 1967 the authorities adopted a new local construction plan (imar şuyulandırması) and decided to merge plots nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 and to register them as plot no. 24 in the İncesu neighbourhood in the Çankaya district of Ankara. Previously the applicants’ predecessors had been the owners of plot no. 9. Following the implementation of the said plan, the applicants’ predecessors had kept a share measuring 480 square metres on plot no. 24 (which measures 5280 square metres in total), and owned a two-storey house on the plot in question. Given that the aforementioned decision designated plot no. 24 as a school area and indicated that the buildings on this plot would be expropriated, the applicants’ predecessor, Mr İsmail Yılmaz, moved out of his house in 1969.\n7.  In a letter dated 26 March 1984 the deputy director of the Directorate of Education attached to the Ankara Governor’s Office (hereinafter “the Directorate”) sent a letter to the applicants’ predecessors, informing them that their building would be expropriated since the Directorate was planning to build a primary school on the land on which it was situated. The Directorate also noted that a commission would proceed to the determination of the value of the applicants’ building and its annexes.\n8.  Subsequently, the Directorate built the school. However, the Directorate did not conclude the expropriation proceedings for the applicants’ building, which remained in the schoolyard.\n9.  On 19 April 1995 the applicants’ predecessor filed a petition with the Directorate requesting the return of his plot of land, which had been occupied since the decision of expropriation in 1967 and the construction of the school. He noted that despite the expropriation decision, the authorities had done nothing despite continuing to occupy his plot of land and that this situation had restricted his right to the enjoyment of his property. He therefore asked the authorities to overturn the decision ordering expropriation. It is unknown whether the Directorate replied to the petition.\n10.  In 2000, after inheriting the property in question, the applicants brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment (tespit davası) before the Ankara Magistrates’ Court to the effect that their building was situated in the schoolyard. The Magistrates’ Court appointed an expert, who found that the building in question was indeed situated in the zone belonging to the İncesu Primary School.\n11.  The applicants brought an action before the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance against the Ankara Governor’s Office for compensation. They submitted, inter alia, that the Directorate was in actual possession of their property, without having conducted expropriation proceedings, and had failed to compensate them for the damage resulting from the interference with their property.\n12.  In a letter dated 12 January 2001 the Directorate informed the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance that the Incesu primary school was situated in block no. 8255, plot no. 24, and that the applicants owned a share of that plot measuring 480 out of a total of 5280 square metres. It noted further that, in the local building and settlement plan, plot no. 24 had been designated as a primary school zone and that the building and share of the land of the applicants had not been expropriated.\n13.  The Ankara Civil Court of First Insta", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6467", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Minusinsk.\n6.  On 28 December 2001 the Tomsk Regional Court found the applicant guilty of membership of an organised criminal group, several counts of attempted aggravated murder, intentional destruction of property and arms possession and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment, which he was sent to serve in correctional colony no. 2, Tomsk Region.\nProceedings concerning conditions of detention\n7.  On 11 November 2004 the applicant brought an action with the Asino Town Court, complaining of various violations of his rights by the administration of correctional colony no. 2. In particular, he complained that on a number of occasions in 2003 and 2004 the director of the correctional colony had ordered him to be placed in a punishment cell, which had entailed a serious worsening of the general conditions of his detention and limitation or deprivation of his rights as a detainee. The applicant also argued that the colony authorities had unlawfully seized his writing utensils, and had forbidden him to use the colony library and to purchase newspapers, magazines and books. He further alleged that they had not allowed him to have meetings with counsel and to make paid phone calls to his relatives, counsel and the European Court of Human Rights. His biggest grievance, however, was that the administration had refused to post his complaints to various authorities in Russia and had monitored or even intercepted his correspondence with the Court. The applicant also requested that the Town Court ensure that he could be present at a court hearing during the examination of his complaint.\n8.  Following a number of refusals by the Town Court to grant the applicant’s request, and the subsequent revocation of those decisions by the Tomsk Regional Court, on 3 October 2006 the Asino Town Court granted leave to bring an action for an examination on the merits, and set a preliminary hearing for 6 October 2006. Subsequent hearings were held on 12 and 30 October 2006. The applicant was not informed of either of those hearings. In fact, on 17 October 2006 he was transferred to another correctional colony in the town of Verkhneuralsk, Chelyabinsk Region, more than 1,500 km from his previous place of detention.\n9.  On 26 January 2007 the applicant was transferred to detention facility no. 77/2 in Moscow.\n10.  On 12 February 2007 the Asino Town Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, having found that either the restrictions on the applicant’s rights had been lifted following an inquiry by prosecution authorities or they had been warranted by the applicant’s placement in the punishment cell, in view of numerous instances of unlawful behaviour on his part, such as refusal to keep his cell tidy, destruction of colony property, and so on. The applicant was not brought to the hearing. Representatives of the colony administration attended the hearings before the Town Court and made oral submissions.\n11.  By a separate decision issued on 12 February 2007 the Asino Town Court responded to the applicant’s request to be present at the hearings. In particular, the Town Court held as follows:\n“[The applicant], having been convicted by the judgment of 28 December 2001 of the Tomsk Regional Court, is currently serving his sentence. It appears from the case file materials that he was transferred outside the Tomsk Region. [The applicant] lodged a complaint about the actions of the head of [correctional colony no. 2], Tomsk", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6468", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Vinnytsya.\n6.  In November 1995 criminal investigations were launched in respect of the applicant on suspicion of fraud and extortion.\n7.  On 17 December 1996 a first-instance court (presumably the Leninskyy District Court of Vinnytsya – “the Leninskyy Court”) delivered a judgment on the case. In its reasoning it held that the applicant was to be acquitted of the extortion charge as not corroborated by any evidence. The court did not however mention anything about the acquittal in the operative part of the judgment.\n8.  On 29 January 1997 a court of cassation (the name is not specified) upheld, in substance, the applicant’s acquittal as regards the charge of extortion. It noted that, even though the first-instance court had failed to indicate the acquittal in the operative part of the judgment, it had correctly assessed the evidence regarding that part of the accusation and had reached the well grounded conclusion about the lack of any proof of the applicant’s guilt. The court of cassation made the aforementioned finding in the reasoning of its ruling. By its operative part, it however quashed the above judgment in its entirety for some procedural shortcomings and remitted the case for additional investigation.\n9.  The additional investigation resumed both the fraud and the extortion charges against the applicant and added some other episodes, such as theft coupled with burglary and causing damage to others’ property.\n10.  From 17 (or 18) December 1996 to 1 June 1999 the applicant was detained in Vinnytsya SIZO-1.\n11.  By a judgment of the Leninskyy Court of 8 April 1999, upheld by a ruling of the Vinnytsya Regional Court of 12 May 1999, the applicant was found guilty of: theft coupled with burglary (with a sentence of five years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property); fraud (ditto); extortion that led to particularly grave consequences (seven years’ imprisonment and confiscation of property); and causing damage to others’ property (two years’ imprisonment). As a final penalty defined by absorption of less severe punishment by more severe, the court sentenced the applicant to seven years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property. He was considered to have started serving his sentence from 18 December 1996. The applicant pleaded guilty to all the charges, except for extortion of which he considered himself to have already been acquitted.\n12.  On 28 December 1999 the applicant introduced an application with the Court registered under no. 57065/00, in which he complained, in particular, of the unfairness of the criminal proceedings completed with the aforementioned ruling of 12 May 1999.\n13.  On 13 June 2000 the Court, sitting as a Committee of three judges, declared application no. 57065/00 inadmissible for the applicant’s failure to comply with the six-month time-limit.\n14.  On 18 December 2003 the applicant was released, having served his sentence in full.\n15.  On 12 November 2004 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s request for review of the decisions of 8 April and 12 May 1999 under exceptional circumstances. It quashed them in the part concerning the applicant’s conviction for extortion and discontinued the proceedings in that part for lack of proof of his guilt. As a result, the total penalty was reduced from seven to five years, without confiscation of property.\n16.  The Supreme Court noted, in particular, that on 17 December 1996 the applicant had been acquitted of extor", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6470", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The facts of the case, as set out by the parties, can be summarised as follows.\n8.  The present dispute is between Germany, which succeeded to the rights of the heirs of the original Jewish owners of the disputed property (the initial injured party – “Erstgeschädigte”) under the German-US Agreement of 13 May 1992, and the applicants, who are the heirs of a shopkeeper who had acquired the disputed property in 1939 (the initial sale having taken place in 1938). The property was subsequently expropriated at the time of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). The applicants are thus the heirs of the subsequent injured party – “Zweitgeschädigte”.\n9.  The disputed plots of land, having respective surface areas of 1000 sq.m, 990 sq.m and 1030 sq.m, are located at Babelsberg-Potsdam, near Berlin, on the territory of the former GDR.\n10.  By a notarially-registered contract of 23 April 1938, Mr A. and Mrs B., who were Jewish and partners in the limited partnership “Mitteldeutsche Gamaschenfabrik E.B. und A.”, the owner of the disputed plots of land, sold them for 66,000 reichsmarks (RM) to the Berlin company A. Wülfing. Having been the victims of persecution under the National‑Socialist regime, Mr A. died in 1940 and Mrs B. in 1945. Mrs E.F., daughter of Mrs B., emigrated to the United States of America in 1939 and became a US citizen in 1951.\n11.  By a notarially-registered contract of 28 July 1939, the disputed plots of land were then sold for RM 61,000 to Mr G. Althoff, a shopkeeper, who was registered as the owner at the land registry, and the applicants are his heirs.\n12.  On 27 January 1953, in the former GDR, the land was expropriated and became “people’s property” (Volkseigentum) under the control of a State-owned film company.\n13.  Mrs E.F. subsequently brought proceedings in the USA for the loss of the disputed property, in accordance with the US law of 18 October 1976 on claims against the GDR, which entitled US citizens whose property in the former GDR had been expropriated before that date or which had been sold under duress in the National-Socialist period to file claims for compensation.\n14.  In a final decision of 27 August 1980, the US Foreign Claims Settlement Commission acknowledged that Mrs E.F. was entitled to 5,500 US dollars (USD) in compensation, plus interest at 6% from September 1951.\n15.  After German reunification the property was transferred to the company “dok Filmstudio GmbH”, whose sole shareholder was the Office for special reunification-related questions (Bundesanstalt für vereinigungsbedingte Sonderaufgaben).\n16.  In a decision of 17 October 1997, that Office observed that the disputed property had been sold for 1,300,000 deutschmarks (DM) for investment purposes to the company Weiland GbR, in accordance with the Investment Priority Act (Investitionsvorrangsgesetz) of 14 July 1992 (see relevant domestic law and practice, paragraph 32 below).\n17.  On 10 October 1990 the applicants filed a claim for the restitution of the property with the Office for the Resolution of Outstanding Property Issues for the Land of Brandebourg – (Landesamt für die Regelung offener Vermögensfragen – “Office of the Land”), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Law on the resolution of outstanding property issues – “the Property Act” (Gesetz zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen – Vermögensgesetz) of 23 September 1990 (see relevant domestic law and practice, paragraph 31 below).\n18.  On 13 May 1992 the Federal Republi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6471", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Ireland.\n6.  Further to a complaint in 1995, in September 1995 the applicant was requested to attend a local police station to be interviewed. In October 1995 he was arrested for further questioning, following which a summons issued in September 1996 charging him with sexual assault. Over a number of hearings before the District Court (October 1996-January 1997) the applicant argued that the case should be disposed of by summary trial.\n7.  In February 1997 he was granted leave by the High Court to apply for judicial review on two grounds: that the prosecution had brought unlawful pressure to bear on him as it would not consent to a summary trial unless he pleaded guilty and, further, that there was a pattern of abuse of process and fundamental unfairness amounting to oppression and a denial of justice.\n8.  Between July 1997 and October 2002 the High and Supreme Courts made several orders essentially in the applicant’s favour concerning discovery by the prosecution to him of documents, ending with the production, in November 2002, of a letter.\n9.  In December 2002 the applicant obtained leave to add a ground to his pending judicial review application: he argued that delay in his prosecution was contrary to the Constitution and to Article 6 of the Convention.\n10.  In February 2003 the High Court judicial review hearing was adjourned (the trial judge was unavailable to finish it) and it ended in March 2003. Judgment was delivered in March 2004 staying the prosecution as there had been a breach of his constitutional right to trial with reasonable expedition and because there was a real risk that he would not receive a fair trial. In May 2004 the prosecution appealed.\n11.  The Supreme Court delivered judgment in July 2006 reversing that of the High Court. As to his contention that he had been subjected to pressure to plead guilty, there could be no objection to the District Court ascertaining whether an accused wished to plead guilty. The applicant, who was legally represented, was clearly not oppressed or induced to plead guilty and, importantly, he was never asked how he proposed to plead, he never pleaded and he was never “put on his election”. As to his right to a speedy or expeditious trial, the Supreme Court found that the stay on prosecution was not justified by delay: the applicant’s judicial review process interrupted the criminal process; his judicial review application was without merit as it must have been obvious to his legal advisers that he was not put under any pressure to plead; and, while there had been undoubtedly unnecessary delay by the prosecution, the applicant had equally delayed. The principal reason for the failure to go to trial was that the applicant had brought unfounded judicial review proceedings in the course of which he conducted a “war of attrition” with the prosecution in respect of discovery from which he secured minimal benefit.\n12.  On 25 January 2007 the prosecution successfully applied to the District Court for the applicant to be forwarded for trial on indictment in the Circuit Criminal Court. The latter adjourned his trial three times (in February, May and June 2007) pending the prosecution furnishing documents. On the last date the trial was fixed for November 2007.\n13.  The applicant died in July 2007, bringing the criminal proceedings to an end.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6472", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1955, 1953 and 1946 and live in Gorlivka, Rovenky and Kryvyy Rih, respectively.\n5.  The applicants instituted separate sets of civil proceedings against their employers mainly claiming occupational disability allowances.\n6.  On 23 September 1999 the first applicant, a former miner, instituted civil proceedings in the Mykytivsky District Court of Gorlivka (“the Mykytivsky Court”) against his former employer, a State-owned mine, seeking recalculation of his occupational disability payment.\n7.  Between September 1999 and August 2003 the Mykytivsky Court reconsidered the case on three occasions. Its judgments of 2 June and 14 November 2000 and 15 October 2001 were quashed by the Donetsk Regional Court[1] on 24 July 2000, 26 February 2001 and 25 February 2002 for procedural irregularities and legal and factual errors. Accordingly, the case was remitted for fresh examination.\n8.  On 18 April 2003 the Mykytivsky Court replaced the respondent in the case upon the applicant’s request. In particular, the court ordered another company, the mine’s successor, to stand as a respondent. The court also ordered the local social security fund to take part in the proceedings as a co-respondent.\n9.  On the same day the Mykytivsky Court delivered a judgment, ordering the fund to make monthly payments in respect of the applicant’s occupational disability. By a separate procedural decision, the applicant’s claims against the other co-respondent were left without consideration as the applicant withdrew them in the course of the court hearing.\n10.  On 18 December 2003 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 18 April 2003 and ordered reconsideration of the case.\n11.  On 20 April 2006 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal, finding that the latter had not complied with the rules of procedure.\n12.  On 27 July 2006 the Court of Appeal reconsidered the case and adopted a new judgment reducing the payments awarded to the applicant by the first-instance court.\n13.  On 22 January 2008 the Kyiv Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, rejected the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the judgment of 27 July 2006.\n14.  The applicant unsuccessfully tried to challenge the courts’ decisions in an extraordinary appeal, which was rejected by the Supreme Court on 18 May 2009.\n15.  According to the Government, out of fifty-two scheduled hearings, twenty-four were adjourned for various reasons. In particular, the hearings were adjourned twice because of the failure of the applicant to appear, twenty times due to the failure of the respondents or their representatives to appear, and twice because of both parties’ failure to appear. Additionally, two hearings were adjourned as the judge was absent for health and business reasons. On several occasions the courts had to renew, at the applicant’s and the respondent’s request, the term for lodging an appeal which resulted in a delay of about three months. Lastly, due to the expert examination ordered at the applicant’s request, the consideration of the case was delayed for about six months.\n16.  According the applicant, the hearings were adjourned twenty-three times due to the failure of the respondents or their representative to appear. The applicant also indicated that the case had not been heard between 10 May 2002 and 7 February 2003 as the presiding judge’s mandate had expired.\nII. The proceedings instituted by the SECOND applicant\n17.  On 23 June 199", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6473", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Zaporizhzhya.\n5.  On 20 September 2000 the local prosecutors instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of bribery. Throughout the major part of the proceedings the applicant remained on a written undertaking not to abscond.\n6.  Following two remittals of the case for additional investigations, on 31 July 2006 the case was referred to the Ordzhonikidzevskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya (“the District Court”), which on 11 September 2006 repeatedly remitted the case for additional investigations. On 6 November 2006 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the above ruling and sent the case to the District Court for trial.\n7.  On 12 April 2007 the latter court found the applicant guilty of bribery, sentenced him to a pecuniary fine and a one-year prohibition to hold executive positions and released him from the sentence due to the expiry of the period of limitation.\n8.  On 18 June 2007 and 6 May 2008, respectively, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the above judgment.\n9.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings thirteen hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to appear and four hearings due to his lawyer’s failure to appear. The applicant disagreed stating that he had not attended only two hearings due to illness and that he had not been informed of other hearings which he had allegedly failed to attend. The above delays on the applicant’s part protracted the proceedings by five months approximately. Twenty-four further hearings were adjourned due to the witnesses’ or prosecutor’s failure to appear or the absence of the judges. One expert examination was ordered and lasted for about one week. According to the Government, the applicant lodged the appeal in cassation against the decision of 18 June 2007 only on 14 November 2007. According to the applicant, he was served with a copy of that decision with delay.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6474", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants - Mr Blagota Barać, Mr Milan Terzić, Mr Zoran Stanišić, Mr Stanko Burić, Ms Stanica Marković, Mr Radovan Kadović, Mr Ranko Tomašević, Mr Novo Stanišić, Mr Branko Radulović, Mr Novak Nikolić, Mr Mihailo Popović, Mr Milan Golubović, and Mr Ranko Kovačević - are all Montenegrin nationals who were born in 1968, 1953, 1961, 1950, 1956, 1951, 1952, 1963, 1951, 1966, 1955, 1953, and 1955 respectively and live in Danilovgrad.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 14 January 2005 the applicants filed a claim for compensation (isplata zimnice) against their employer.\n8.  On 13 February 2006 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Danilovgrad ruled in their favour, awarding them 150 euros (EUR) each, plus legal costs totalling EUR 1,875.\n9.  On 26 April 2006 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica overturned the previous judgment and rejected the applicants’ claim, relying solely on the Act on Changes and Amendments to the Labour Act 2004 (Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o radu, hereinafter “the Labour Amendments Act 2004”). At the same time, the applicants were ordered to pay jointly to their employer EUR 900 for legal costs. The applicants received this judgment on 23 May 2006 at earliest.\n10.  On 12 September 2006 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) in Podgorica rejected the applicants’ appeal on points of law on procedural grounds (revizija se odbacuje).\n11.  On 28 February 2006 the Constitutional Court of Montenegro (Ustavni sud) declared the Labour Amendments Act 2004 unconstitutional (see paragraph 14 below).\n12.  On 18 April 2006 that decision was published in Official Gazette no. 24/06 (Službeni list br. 24/06), and thereby the said Act ceased to be in force (see paragraph 13, in particular Article 62 therein, and paragraph 16 below).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6475", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Kuzmolovskiy, Leningrad Region.\n7.  The applicant served as a military officer.\n8.  On 25 July 2003 the Military Court of the Sertolovo Garrison issued a default judgment recovering 34,277.10 Russian roubles (RUB) in the applicant’s favour from military unit 93921 as an allowance for direct participation in combat action.\n9.  The judgment was not appealed and became final on 5 August 2003.\n10.  Following the applicant’s inquiry with the Ministry of Defence concerning the enforcement proceedings on 24 February 2004, she was apprised of the procedure.\n11.  On 8 February 2005 the bailiff service terminated the enforcement proceedings, returning the writ of execution to the applicant for submission to the Federal Treasury where the debtor’s account was opened.\n12.  However, the applicant has never submitted the documents to the Federal Treasury and the judgment remains unenforced to date.\n13.  According to the Government, on an unspecified date military unit 93921 was dissolved.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6476", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Lepoglava.\n5.  In October 1998 three persons, R.S., G.C. and I.Š., were killed in their house in Kutina, Croatia, and a sum of at least 960,000 Croatian kuna (HRK) was taken from the house.\n6.  In April 1999 one M.G. was indicted before the Sisak County Court (Županijski sud u Sisku) on three counts of the above-mentioned murder. He was initially acquitted, but on 1 June 2005 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) ordered a retrial.\n7.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a car theft in Croatia and placed in detention in Remetinec Prison in Zagreb (Zatvor u Remetincu).\n8.  On 29 December 2005 he fell ill and was transferred to Zagreb Prison Hospital. He shared room no. 206 with seven other inmates, including M.G. and S.Š. The latter was a former policeman. He had already been sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for attempted murder but his conviction had not yet become final. On an unspecified date S.Š. wrote to the Bjelovar Police Department, informing it that he had knowledge of the circumstances concerning a murder of three persons committed in Kutina.\n9.  On 3 March 2006 S.Š. gave his evidence before an investigating judge of the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru). He said that he had overheard conversations between the applicant and M.G. in which they had discussed the murder of three persons of which M.G. had been accused and which had revealed that the applicant had been an accomplice in these crimes. The relevant part of the written record of his statement reads:\n“Owing to health problems I was placed in Zagreb Prison Hospital between 23 November 2005 and 13 January 2006. ... The day after I had been admitted to the Hospital, M.G. arrived and was placed in the same room. His bed was next to mine. ...\nAbout five to six days after that Nedjeljko Ajdarić was placed in the same room. ... His bed was next to the one occupied by M.G. so that M.G. was between the two of us. When Nedjeljko Ajdarić came into the room he exchanged greetings with M.G. and their conversation gave me the impression that they had known each other for years. ... M.G. and Nedjeljko Ajdarić had secret conversations for days. They sat on their beds and talked and since my bed was next to theirs, although they were talking in lowered voices, I could hear what they were saying. I heard Nedjeljko Ajdarić saying that he had prospered from that money and that his business was going well, and I heard M.G. saying: ‘We did it all well, only I made a mistake by placing the money into a container’, but he did not explain what container. They also mentioned that about 960,000 Croatian kuna (HRK) had been found in the house, some in foreign currency, and some in HRK. I heard Nedjeljko Ajdarić saying that he had been afraid to go to the border crossing between Stara Gradiška and Bosanska Gradiška and that in the end he had crossed [the State border] in Davor, and he also mentioned that he had been accompanied by a woman, but I could not understand whether it had been his wife or the wife of M.G.\nI also heard Nedjeljko Ajdarić telling M.G. that he had had to walk around in Bosnia for a whole day, in Banja Luka, in order to send a signal from a mobile telephone to Bjelovar, [which would show] that M.G. had been in Bosnia.. Nedjeljko Ajdarić also mentioned that he had gone to a hill known as ‘Veseli Brijeg’ in order to send the signal, but he had ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6477", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1951 and 1947 and live in St Petersburg and Sosnoviy Bor (Leningrad Region) respectively.\n5.  As can be seen from a pro forma invoice dated 7 April 1999 and submitted by the first applicant (Mr Vasilyev), a private company named Nissan Trading Europe Limited offered to undertake to sell him a car and to ship it to him. The invoice indicated the means of shipping (CIF Helsinki) and the details concerning the car, including its price, namely 11,900 United States dollars (USD). The second applicant (Mr Kovtun) submitted a similar invoice dated 30 March 1999 for a car priced at USD 14,900.\n6.  In July 1999 the applicants submitted customs declarations and the above invoices to the Russian customs authorities for clearance. The applicants applied for a waiver of customs duties, considering that their status under the Chernobyl-related legislation entitled them to such an exemption. On 5 August 1999 the Sosnovoborsk Town Court of the Leningrad Region ordered the customs authorities to release the second applicant’s car for use without payment of any customs duties. The President of the Leningrad Regional Court applied for supervisory review of this decision. On 10 December 1999 the Presidium of the Leningrad Regional Court (“the Presidium”) granted his request, and set aside the judgment of 5 August 1999. The Presidium considered that on the date of the application for customs clearance, the second applicant had no entitlement to an exemption. It appears that proceedings to the same effect also took place in respect of the first applicant.\n7.  In the meantime, on 27 July 1999 the national authorities instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 990666) against unspecified persons in relation to numerous unlawful imports of cars from abroad. On 12 and 16 August 1999 an investigator issued charging orders in respect of a large number of cars, including the above-mentioned cars which had been submitted for customs clearance by the applicants. They were interviewed as witnesses. It was established that the applicants’ situation was not related to the circumstances of case no. 990666. The said charging orders were accordingly annulled.\n8.  It appears that in or around September 2000 the applicants were requested to provide additional documents in order to finalise the customs clearance. When they did not comply with this requirement in time, the customs authority impounded the cars and placed them in the hands of a State-owned enterprise.\n9.  In November 2000 the applicants offered to pay the required customs duty for customs clearance of the cars. They also unsuccessfully sought permission to take the cars out of Russian territory, citing financial hardship.\n10.  On 14 and 22 November 2000 customs officers compiled reports on the applicants’ alleged violation of applicable customs regulations and applied for confiscation orders on account of the applicants’ alleged non-declaration of imported goods, in breach of Article 279 § 1 of the Customs Code.\n11.  By judgments of 24 July 2002 the Volkhov Town Court, with Judge P. sitting in a single-judge formation, issued confiscation orders in respect of the cars. The judge held as follows:\n“[The second applicant] was mentioned as the owner of the car submitted for customs clearance...The customs inquiry and the criminal inquiry concerning forgery of authority forms established that [the second applicant] had been contacted by a certain Sergey, whom he did not know, and had be", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6478", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973. At present he is serving a life sentence in Leopoldov Prison.\n7.  The applicant was accused of several serious offences. In that context he was detained pending trial from 1 September 2001 to 9 February 2006. On the latter date he started serving a nine-year prison term to which he had been sentenced for robbery. Further details are set out in the decision of 20 October 2010 on the admissibility of the present application.\n8.  During his detention on remand the applicant lodged several complaints with the Directorate General of Prison Administration, in which he complained about the conditions of his detention. He raised many issues, among which were the restrictions on his visiting rights (visits were allowed only once a month for thirty minutes and it was only possible to speak to visitors through a partition), the right to buy food in prison, the lack of hot water in his cell, and a lack of contact with other prisoners. He also alleged that convicted prisoners serving a sentence had more rights than he had as a remand prisoner.\n9.  The Directorate General of Prison Administration sent replies to the applicant on more than ten occasions. It found all of the applicant’s complaints to be ill-founded. It also held that the conditions in the prisons in which the applicant had been detained during the investigation and judicial proceedings had been in conformity with the relevant law.\n10.  Furthermore, the applicant has been obliged, both during his detention and after his conviction, to use half of the money he received from his family to reimburse the debt which he owed to the State (this debt resulted from court decisions and from the statutory obligation to contribute to his maintenance in prison), failing which he was not allowed to buy supplementary food in the prison shop.\nThus, the applicant’s overall debt amounted to the equivalent of some 750 euros (EUR) in March 2008. In the period from December 2002 to January 2008 he had reimbursed approximately EUR 360 of the debt.\n11.  On 16 January 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General submitting that his human rights had been violated. He complained, inter alia, about the manner in which the State had forced him to reimburse the debt resulting from the statutory obligation to contribute to his maintenance in prison.\n12.  On 30 January 2003 the Prosecutor General dismissed that complaint as no breach of the law had been found in the applicant’s case.\n13.  During the whole period of his detention during the investigation and trial the applicant could not watch television, whereas convicted prisoners had the possibility of watching television programmes collectively in the assembly room of the relevant prison wing. Through the prison broadcast system the prison administration let the detainees listen to a public and a private radio station, each of which was transmitted every other day. For almost the whole period of his detention pending trial the applicant was kept alone in his cell.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6479", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5. The applicants - Ms Nevenka Lakićević (the first applicant), Mr Borislav Vukašinović (the second applicant), Mr Veselin Budeč (the third applicant), and Mr Vlado Rajković (the fourth applicant) - are all Montenegrin nationals who were born in 1947, 1937, 1924, and 1944 respectively. They live in Herceg-Novi (the first and third applicants) and Podgorica (the second and fourth applicants).\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  Between November 1989 and June 2002 the applicants closed their private law firms and submitted papers to begin their retirements.\n8.  Between August 1990 and September 2002 their old-age and disability pension entitlements, as well as the exact amount of their pensions (starosna i invalidska penzija), were established by decisions of the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund (Republički fond penzijskog i invalidskog osiguranja; hereinafter “the Pension Fund”). The decisions, as submitted by the second and fourth applicants, allowed the applicants to resume working on a part-time basis.\n9.  Between April 1996 and June 2002 the applicants reopened their own legal practices on a part-time basis.\n10.  On 1 April 2004, 20 July 2005, 3 June 2005 and 24 November 2005 the Pension Fund suspended (obustavlja) payment of the applicants’ pensions respectively, until such time as they ceased professional activity. These decisions were all “deemed to be applicable as of 1 January 2004”, which was when section 112 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act 2003 (hereinafter “the Pension Act 2003”) entered into force (see paragraphs 23 and 25 below).\n11.  The Pension Fund’s rulings were subsequently upheld by the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (Ministarstvo rada i socijalnog staranja), as well as, ultimately, by the Administrative Court (Upravni sud) on 6 December 2005, 4 April 2006, 18 April 2006 and 7 February 2007 in respect of the first, second, third and fourth applicants respectively. The Administrative Court explained, inter alia, that the applicants had not been deprived of their pension entitlements as such, but that the payment of their pensions had instead been suspended on the basis of the relevant domestic legislation.\n12.  Finally, on 13 June 2006, 27 June 2006 and 28 May 2007 respectively, the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) in Podgorica dismissed the second, third and fourth applicants’ requests for judicial review of their cases (zahtjev za vanredno preispitivanje sudske odluke). In so doing, the Supreme Court essentially endorsed the reasons given by the Administrative Court.\n13.  The first applicant did not attempt to make use of the judicial review avenue, in view of the fact that the other applicants’ identical requests had already been rejected by the Supreme Court.\n14.  Payment of the second applicant’s pension was resumed with effect from 1 December 2007, which is when he ceased his professional activity. The payment of the second, third and fourth applicants’ pensions was resumed with effect from 1 January 2009, which is when the Amendments to the Pension Act entered into force, repealing section 112 of the Pension Act 2003 (see paragraph 26 below).\n15.  On 30 June 2004 the Pension Fund lodged a compensation claim against the first applicant, seeking repayment of the pension payments she had received for January and February 2004 in the total amount of 425.74 euros (EUR). In response, the first applicant lodged a counterclaim seeking payment of th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6480", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  On 1 August 1997 the applicant was arrested and charged with assault. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial.\n8.  On 31 December 1997 the criminal investigation in respect of the applicant was completed and his case-file was forwarded to the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow.\n9.  In January-April 1998 the District Court adjourned the trial twice because of a conflict in the judge’s schedule and once because the applicant’s lawyer’s failed to appear.\n10.  On 27 May, 13 July and 20 October 1998 the District Court adjourned the hearing in the matter because of the failure of the witnesses to appear.\n11.  On 27 November and 6 April 1998 the trial was adjourned because the applicant was ill, and owing to the absence of the witnesses and the applicant’s lawyer respectively.\n12.  The District Court heard the case on 7 and 13 May 1999. On 17 May 1999 it found the applicant guilty of assault and extortion and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The verdict was quashed on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 5 April 2000. The appeal court noted that the applicant’s indictment had contravened the rules of criminal procedure, and remitted the matter for further investigation.\n13.  On 16 June 2000 the City Court forwarded the case-file to the District Court. On 28 July 2000 the District court fixed the hearing for 22 September 2000.\n14.  The hearing of the matter was adjourned on 22 September, 1 and 8 November and 8 December 2000, for the following reasons: (a) to give the trial court time to study the file, (b) owing to the absence of the defendants, who were not transported to the courthouse on two occasions, and (c) upon request by the prosecution and defence counsel.\n15.  On 21 December 2000 the District Court remitted the matter for additional investigation. The trial was re-opened on 16 March 2001, when the District Court fixed the hearing for 10 April 2001.\n16.  The hearing scheduled for 10 April 2001 was adjourned owing to the witnesses’ failure to appear. On 28 April 2001 the hearing was adjourned owing to the applicant’s illness.\n17.  On 30 May 2001 the witnesses and the applicant’s lawyer failed to appear and the hearing was adjourned. On 6 June 2001 the District Court adjourned the hearing because the defendants were ill.\n18.  During the period between 25 June and 25 September 2001 the District Court adjourned the trial eight times owing to the witnesses’ or lawyers’ failure to appear.\n19.  On 25 September 2001 the District Court heard the case. It found the applicant and two other defendants guilty of assault and extortion. The applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. The defendants appealed.\n20.  The District Court forwarded the case-file to the City Court on 14 January 2002. On 19 February 2002 the City Court found that the trial had been held in the absence of the applicant’s representative and it quashed the judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n21.  The District Court fixed the trial for 29 April 2002. During the period between 29 April and 25 June 2002 the District Court adjourned five hearings owing to the witnesses’ and lawyers’ failure to appear.\n22.  On 9 July 2002 the hearing was adjourned owing to a conflict in the judge’s schedule.\n23.  On 29 July 2002 the witnesses failed to appear and the hearing was adjourned. The next three hearings were adjourned owing to the lawyers’ failure to appear. On 15 October 2002 t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6481", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  The applicant is the director and sole owner of the limited liability company Energohit d.o.o., which provides consultancy, engineering and representation services.\n7.  On 25 October 1996 the applicant, representing his company Energohit, instituted enforcement proceedings against another company, L., for the payment of a bill for 887,250 Slovenian tolars (SIT)[*]. On 5 November 1996 the Ljubljana Local Court, relying on a valid purchase order submitted by the applicant’s company, upheld his request. The operative part of the court’s decision stated that company L. should pay the debt to the applicant’s company and that, if not paid, this claim should be enforced.\n8.  Company L. lodged an objection. It argued that the purchase order to which the applicant’s company referred had not been signed by it but by another company. Following the objection, the Ljubljana Local Court, on 9 December 1996, set aside its enforcement decision and the case was transferred to the Ljubljana District Court to decide on the dispute.\n9.  Further to the Ljubljana Local Court’s decision of 9 December 1996, the proceedings, which were governed by legislation concerning commercial disputes, were conducted before the Ljubljana District Court. The latter held three hearings, the first one on 16 February 2000. On 20 April 2000 the court upheld the applicant’s company’s claim for SIT 523,250 and rejected the remainder finding that it had already been paid. The judgment was served on the applicant’s company on 29 August 2000.\n10.  Following an appeal by company L., the judgment was quashed on 19 September 2002. Subsequently, the Ljubljana District Court re-examined the case, and, after holding two hearings, rejected the applicant’s company’s claim on 28 March 2003. The judgment was served on the applicant’s company on 8 July 2003.\n11.  Further to the applicant’s company’s appeal, the second judgment was also quashed (on 20 May 2004) and the case was re-examined at a new hearing held by the Ljubljana District Court on 22 October 2004. On that date the court upheld the claim for the sum of SIT 523,250 in a judgment, which was served on the applicant’s company on 28 January 2005. Company L.’s appeal was rejected by the Ljubljana Higher Court on 16 June 2005. On that date the judgment of 22 October 2004 became final and enforceable. The Ljubljana Higher Court’s judgment was served on the applicant’s company on 9 July 2005.\n12.  On 5 October 2005 the applicant’s company lodged a request for execution of the above judgment against company L.’s monetary assets, movable and immovable property. The applicant was twice asked to supplement the request with the necessary documents. On 20 December 2005 the Ljubljana Local Court gave a decision allowing the enforcement.\n13.  On 23 February 2006 the court appointed an enforcement officer.\n14.  On 12 May 2006 the applicant’s company asked the court to order company L. to supply a list of its assets. On 22 May 2006 the court issued an order in line with the applicant’s company’s request. On 21 June 2006 company L. supplied the list.\n15.  On 5 January 2007 the court decided that the seizure of company L.’s immovable property should be considered in separate proceedings, which were discontinued, presumably without success, on 11 June 2008. Subsequently, the applicant’s company was requested to specify which further assets could be subject to the enforcement.\n16.  Further t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6482", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Brighton. The facts which gave rise to his application are as follows.\n10.  While working as a consultant physician in the field of rehabilitative medicine, the first applicant was charged on two counts of indecent assault on two female patients while they were allegedly under hypnosis. The first count in the indictment alleged that he had indecently assaulted a woman called S.T. during a consultation on 3 June 2003. The second count in the indictment alleged that he had indecently assaulted a woman called V.U. also during a consultation, this time on 12 June 2003.\n11.  For reasons unrelated to the alleged assault, S.T. committed suicide before the trial. However, several months after the alleged assault, she had made a statement to the police. She had also told two friends, B.F. and S.H., that the applicant had indecently assaulted her.\n12.  On 22 March 2004 a preliminary hearing was held to determine whether S.T.’s statement should be read to the jury. At that hearing, the defence indicated that the defence to each count of the indictment was essentially the same, namely that S.T. and V.U.’s allegations were wholly untrue. The judge at the hearing decided that S.T.’s statement should be read to the jury at trial. He observed that the first applicant was very likely to feel that he had no realistic alternative other than to give evidence in order to defend himself on the second count relating to V.U. Therefore, the reading of S.T.’s statement would not have the effect of making it very difficult for the applicant not to give evidence. The judge also noted that collusion between S.T. and V.U. was not alleged, and so that issue did not need to be investigated by cross-examination of each woman.\n13.  Having regard to the contents of S.T.’s statement, the judge also observed that it was crucial to the prosecution on count one as there was no other direct evidence of what took place during the consultation on 3 June 2003. He said: “[P]utting it bluntly, no statement, no count one.” He went on to observe that the real issue was whether it was likely to be possible for the first applicant to controvert the statement in a way that achieved fairness to the defendant. The judge found that the first applicant could give evidence as to what had happened during the consultation. It was also the intention of the prosecution to call S.T.’s friends to give evidence as to what she had said to them. There were inconsistencies between their statements and S.T.’s, which provided a route by which S.T.’s statement could be challenged. An expert witness would also be called by the prosecution to give evidence on altered perception during hypnosis and cross-examination of that witness might also serve to undermine S.T.’s credibility.\n14.  At the trial, once S.T.’s statement had been read, the jury heard evidence from B.F. and S.H., S.T.’s friends. S.T.’s general practitioner also gave evidence as to a letter he had written on S.T.’s behalf to the hospital authorities, which outlined S.T.’s allegations against the first applicant. In respect of the second count, the indecent assault upon V.U., evidence was given by V.U. and by the police officers who had investigated the case. Evidence was then given by two women who alleged that the first applicant had made improper suggestions to them during hypnosis consultations. That evidence was relied on by the prosecution as “similar fact evidence” to support the ev", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6483", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Stary Krym.\n6.  In February 2005 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (ARC) instituted criminal proceedings against several police officers, including the applicant, on charges of abuse of position.\n7.  On 28 February 2005 the applicant was arrested in connection with these proceedings. In the course of the proceedings the applicant was detained in various detention facilities, including the Feodosiya Temporary Detention Centre (“the Feodosiya ITT”), where he was held from 25 August 2005 to 5 January 2006 and from 25 January to 5 February 2006.\n8.  On 3 March 2005 the applicant was brought before the Central District Court of Simferopol (the “District Court”) which ordered that more information on the applicant be obtained to decide on his further detention. The District Court also decided that, pending the collection of this information, the applicant’s detention should be extended until 10 March 2005.\n9.  On 10 March 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention for two months. It noted, in particular, that the applicant had been charged with numerous counts of abuse of position, connected to ill‑treatment of individuals and unlawful entry into residential premises. Regard being had to the nature of the charges and to the applicant’s official status, there was a high risk that he would engage in new criminal acts, put pressure on witnesses or obstruct the investigation in other ways.\n10.  On 22 March 2005 the Court of Appeal of the ARC (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld this decision.\n11.  On 26 April 2005, following a request by the prosecutors’ office, the District Court extended the applicant’s detention for another two months, noting that the investigation had still been unable to collect all the evidence, and that the applicant’s personal situation had not changed.\n12.  On 17 May 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld this decision.\n13.  By 24 June 2005 the investigation had been completed and the prosecutors’ office referred the case to the Chairman of the Court of Appeal to determine which trial court would consider the applicant’s case.\n14.  On 26 June 2005 the applicant requested the governor of the detention facility to release him in view of the fact that the court order for his detention had expired. His request was refused, with reference to the fact that the pre-trial investigation was finished and the bill of indictment had been transferred to the judicial authorities.\n15.  On 4 July 2005 the Chairman of the Court of Appeal referred the case to the Feodosiya Town Court (hereafter “the Town Court”) for trial.\n16.  On 10 August 2005 the Town Court committed the applicant for trial. According to the Government, on the same date the court upheld the applicant’s detention, having found no reasons to release him. According to the applicant, the court did not decide on the issue of extension of his detention on that date. The parties did not provide a copy of the relevant Town Court decision.\n17.  On 4 January 2006 the Town Court, having examined the case in the course of adversarial proceedings, in which the applicant was represented by an advocate of his choice, found the applicant guilty of several counts of abuse of authority and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The court also prohibited the applicant from occupying a law-enforcement post for three years.\n18.  On 25 May 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 4 Janua", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6484", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and is currently serving a prison sentence.\n6.  Between 4.25 and 5.30 p.m. on 27 July 2007 the police, in the presence of the applicant, searched his house and found drugs allegedly belonging to him. After the search the applicant was taken to the Leninskyy District Police Station of Sevastopol and questioned about the matter. He was not allowed to leave the police station. According to the Government, at an unspecified time on the same day the applicant was detained under Article 263 of the Minor Offences Code; no document concerning this has been made available to the Court.\n7.  At 7 p.m. on 28 July 2007 an investigator drew up a detention record, pursuant to Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), regarding the applicant, who was suspected of drug dealing committed on 27 July 2007. The applicant was then placed in the Sevastopol City Temporary Detention Centre (Севастопольський міський ізолятор тимчасового тримання, “the ITT”).\n8.  According to the applicant, at the police station he was subjected to psychological pressure as a result of which he confessed to the possession of drugs and drug dealing.\n9.  On 30 July 2007 he was charged with drug dealing. Subsequently, new charges were brought against him and joined to the case. In particular, he was charged with the illegal possession of drugs in May-July 2007 and during his detention in Simferopol Temporary Investigative Isolation Unit no. 15 (Сімферопольський слідчий ізолятор № 15, “the SIZO”).\n10.  By a decision of 31 July 2007 the Leninskyy District Court of Sevastopol (“the District Court”) held that it was necessary to make further enquiries about the applicant and decided to remand him in custody for ten days. On the same date a lawyer of the applicant’s own choosing was given permission to take part in the proceedings.\n11.  On 1 August 2007 the Tuberculosis Healthcare Centre in Sevastopol (“the TB Centre”) issued a certificate indicating that the applicant had been registered there since 2000 and was suffering from “chronic infiltrative tuberculosis (“TB”) of the left lung (degeneration phase: MBT+)”, that he had undergone in-patient medical treatment from 2 to 13 March 2007 and “from 16 April to 28 July 2007, when [he had been] discharged [from the TB Centre] for a violation of therapeutic regimen”, and that it was appropriate for him to be held in cells for persons suffering from an active form of TB.\n12.  On 6 August 2007 the District Court remanded the applicant to the ITT pending his transfer to the SIZO, without any indication of how long he would stay there. It noted that the applicant had been convicted of drug‑related offences on several occasions, that he was suspected of having committed a serious crime, and that he had continued to engage in similar criminal activities after having served a prison sentence in October 2006. The court also took into account information obtained from the TB Centre about the applicant’s health condition.\n13.  According to the applicant, on 9 August 2007 he appealed against the remand order, stating in particular that he was not fit enough to remain in detention owing to the TB. On 29 September 2007 he lodged a complaint with the Leninskyy District Prosecutors’ Office of Sevastopol alleging that from 27 to 28 July 2007 his detention had been unlawful. There is no information as to the outcome of the appeal and complaint or indication that the complaint was received by the authorities", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6485", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Kharkiv.\n6.  On 30 June 2002 the applicant’s son, D., who was then nineteen years old, had a picnic with his friends (Mr) L., (Ms) N. and (Ms) G. on the bank of a lake not far from the village of Staryy Saltiv in the Kharkiv region. They drank some alcohol and took a swim. According to D.’s friends, D. could not swim and stayed in the shallow part of the lake. As submitted by the applicant, he had aquaphobia.\n7.  That evening D. and L. had a fight with a group of about ten young people picnicking nearby, which left D. with a bleeding nose and an injured lip.\n8.  According to L., N. and G., after the fight was over and the other group left for their camp, D. washed his face in the lake. Shortly afterwards, at about 11 p.m., he took a towel and went towards some bushes in the opposite direction to the lake.\n9.  Some minutes later, worried by his absence, L. and the girls started looking for him. They continued the search for about three hours, but to no avail. At some point N. thought she had heard D.’s voice, saying that he was there and that he was unwell, after which it had been interrupted abruptly as if forcibly stifled. The others did not hear anything. The friends asked two fishermen fishing nearby whether they had seen D., but were told in reply that there had been many young men passing by. Having met three persons from the “rival” group, L. asked whether they had seen D., but they replied that they had not. Shortly after that four teenagers, including one of the three mentioned above, approached L., N. and G. and asked whether they had found D. On hearing that they had not, they wished them “good luck with the search” with what D.’s friends perceived as ironic smiles.\n10.  L., N. and G. decided to wait until dawn to continue the search. While L. and N. were asleep, G. heard some muffled noises not far from their camp, followed by a splash.\n11.  Having resumed the search at 5 a.m. on the following day, 1 July 2002, L. and the girls found D.’s towel on a tree some fifty metres from their campsite. D.’s dead body was floating in the lake about twenty metres from the bank. L. brought it back to the shore. He noticed a bruise on D.’s head, which he did not remember having been there after the fight.\n12.  L., N. and G. went to call the police.\n13.  The youths from the other group left their camp at dawn and took the first morning bus to Kharkiv.\n14.  On the morning of 1 July 2002 the police, having been informed of D.’s death by his friends, intercepted the aforementioned bus and apprehended some of the young people in question.\n15.  According to a report drafted on the same date by the officer on duty at Staryy Saltiv police station, at 7 a.m. L. had informed the police of D.’s drowning. The following officials had gone to inspect the scene of the incident: the prosecutor, an investigator from the prosecutor’s office, a forensic medical expert, the deputy chief of the investigation unit of the local police station, and the neighbourhood police inspector.\n16.  According to an on-site inspection report of the same date, the scene where the body had been discovered was inspected from 8 to 9 a.m. It was stated in the report that the inspection group had discovered D.’s body floating in the lake three metres from the bank and had taken it to the shore. The report was signed by the prosecutor, the investigator, two medical experts, and two attested witnesses.\n17.  The applicant arrived at the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6486", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Odessa.\n5.  On 13 April 2000 the police detained him on suspicion of illicit possession of drugs. On 19 April 2000 the applicant was released from detention. Throughout the ensuing criminal proceedings he has remained on a written undertaking not to abscond.\n6.  On 1 September 2000, following the completion of the pre-trial investigations, the case was referred to the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Odessa, which on 31 January 2003 absolved the applicant for lack of proof against him. On 22 April 2003 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the above judgment for procedural breaches and remitted the case for retrial.\n7.  Between 22 January and 15 December 2004 the proceedings were suspended as the applicant absconded and his whereabouts were unknown.\n8.  On 13 April 2006 the Prymorskyy District Court of Odessa (“the Prymorskyy Court”), to which the case was transferred, found the applicant guilty as charged, sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and exempted him from the sentence as the charges against him became time-barred. On 20 June 2006 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment for procedural breaches and remitted the case for retrial.\n9.  On 12 June 2007 the Prymorskyy Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant as the charges against him became time‑barred. On 18 September 2007 the Court of Appeal quashed the above decision for procedural breaches and remitted the case for retrial. The proceedings are still pending before the Prymorskyy Court.\n10.  In the course of the proceedings fifty-eight hearings have been adjourned due to the applicant’s, his lawyer’s and the witnesses’ failure to appear or upon the applicant’s or his lawyer’s requests. These delays attributable to the applicant have protracted the proceedings by three years and eight months approximately. Seven hearings have been adjourned due to the absence of the judges. Eighteen hearings have been adjourned due to the witnesses’ failure to appear, in respect of whom the courts have on a number of occasions applied compulsory summonses. Twenty-seven hearings have been adjourned due to the absence of the Polish interpreter, on whose presence the applicant has insisted, even though the domestic courts have established that the applicant has been fully conversant in the language of the proceedings. Three expert examinations have been ordered and have lasted for about two months.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6487", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Yerevan.\n5.  On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted in respect of the applicant on account of fraud and burglary under Article 177 § 2 (3) and (4) and Article 178 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n6.  On 15 February 2007 formal charges were brought against the applicant. It appears that the applicant was considered to be in hiding and a search was initiated.\n7.  On the same date the Ararat Regional Court examined and granted the investigator’s motion seeking to have the applicant placed in pre-trial detention. This decision was based on the nature and degree of dangerousness of the incriminated acts and on the fact that the applicant was in hiding and was capable of hindering the investigation by exerting unlawful pressure on the parties to the proceedings. Detention was imposed for a period of two months to be calculated from the moment of the applicant’s arrest.\n8.  On 13 April 2007 the applicant was arrested and taken to the Ararat Police Department where he was informed about the decision of 15 February 2007. The applicant was then taken to Nubarashen detention facility.\n9.  On 31 May 2007 the applicant filed a motion with the Ararat Regional Court seeking to be released on bail. The applicant submitted at the outset that the Regional Court, despite the requirement of Article 137 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) (see paragraph 29 below), had failed to address the question of his release on bail in its decision of 15 February 2007. He further argued that the fact that he was not eligible under the law for release on bail because of the gravity of the charges was in contradiction with the requirements of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. He requested the court to apply the requirements of the Convention and to release him, arguing that he had never been in hiding. The applicant alleged that prior to his arrest he had been out of town for business and that he had never been informed of the criminal proceedings against him. He finally argued that he had not been brought before a judge following his arrest, as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.\n10.  On 5 June 2007 the investigation was completed.\n11.  On 8 June 2007 the Ararat Regional Court examined the motion of 31 May 2007. The Regional Court noted at the outset, with reference to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, that the norms of international law prevailed over domestic law and therefore the question of the applicant’s release on bail was to be considered. The Regional Court, however, decided to refuse the applicant’s request for release, finding that there was a risk of the applicant absconding and thereby evading liability and punishment in view of the fact that he had earlier been in hiding. This decision was subject to appeal within fifteen days.\n12.  On the same date the bill of indictment was finalised.\n13.  On 12 June 2007 the criminal case was transmitted to the Ararat Regional Court for examination.\n14.  On 13 June 2007 the applicant’s detention period authorised by the decision of 15 February 2007 expired.\n15.  On 15 June 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 8 June 2007. He also applied to the chief of Nubarashen detention facility and requested that he be released, since the authorised detention period had expired on 13 June 2007.\n16.  On the same date Judge Y. of the Ararat Regional Court decided to take over the applicant’s criminal case.\n17.  By a letter of 18 June 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6488", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants in the above two cases, listed in the appendix, are relatives of the victims of the hostage-taking in the “Dubrovka” theatre in October 2002 in Moscow and/or were themselves among the hostages.\n7.  The facts of the above two cases are disputed between the parties. Their submissions may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On the evening of 23 October 2002 a group of terrorists belonging to the Chechen separatist movement (over 40 people), led by Mr B., armed with machine-guns and explosives, took hostages in the “Dubrovka” theatre in Moscow (also known as the “Nord-Ost” theatre, from the name of a musical comedy which was formerly performed there). For three days more than nine hundred people were held at gunpoint in the theatre’s auditorium. In addition, the theatre building was booby-trapped and eighteen suicide bombers were positioned in the hall among the hostages. Another group of terrorists occupied the theatre’s administrative premises.\n9.  Over the following days several journalists and public figures were allowed to enter the building and talk to the terrorists. The terrorists demanded the withdrawal of Russian troops from the Chechen Republic and direct negotiations involving the political leadership of the federal authorities and the separatist movement. Following those talks the terrorists released several hostages and accepted some food and drinking water for the remainder, while continuing to insist on their demands.\n10.  It appears that some of the hostages managed to maintain occasional contact with the outside world through their mobile telephones. Some even managed to talk to journalists.\n11.  The Government claimed that hostages who tried to escape or resist were shot by the terrorists. Thus, in the night of 23-24 October 2002 Ms R. asked the terrorists to release the hostages. She was taken out of the auditorium and executed by an unknown terrorist. Mr V.[1], one of the hostages, was wearing a military uniform. He was shot by one of the terrorists on 25 October 2002. On the same day Mr VI.[2] was first beaten by the terrorists in the theatre auditorium and then taken out and executed. Mr G. tried[3] to escape, but the terrorists fired at him[4], and he was then taken out, beaten and executed. While firing at Mr G.[5], the terrorists wounded another hostage, Mr Z., who later died in hospital.\n12.  The applicants indicated that Mr V.[6] and Ms R. had not been in the building during the show, but entered it some time later at their own initiative. They referred to the statements by several former hostages, in particular Ms Gubareva and Ms Akimova. They also relied on the conclusions of the investigator in the report of 16 October 2003, stating that Ms R. and Mr V. had tried to penetrate[7] the building from the outside. As to Mr G., he was among the hostages from the very beginning, but the investigator had failed to establish where, when and in what circumstances he had been shot.\n13.  On 25 October 2002 FSB officers apprehended Mr Talkhigov, an alleged accomplice of the terrorists, who had spoken to them by telephone and had given them information about the situation outside the theatre.\n14.  On the same day the director of the FSB made a public statement on television following a meeting with President Putin. He promised to keep the terrorists alive if they released the hostages.\n15.  At 9.33 p.m. on 23 October 2002 the local branch of the All-Russia Centre for Disaster Medicine received information about", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6489", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Newmarket.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 3 February 2000, at Wood Green Crown Court, the applicant pleaded guilty to conspiracy fraudulently to evade excise duty on alcoholic liquor in contravention of section 170 of the Customs and Excise Act 1979. On 28 February 2000 Newman J made a restraint order prohibiting disposal by the claimant of his assets and on 5 May 2000 he was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment.\n7.  Pursuant to section 72A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (“the CJA 1988”), save in exceptional circumstances confiscation proceedings should be concluded no later than six months after conviction.  At a directions hearing on 5 June 2000 the judge was told that the six-month statutory time limit for making a confiscation order would expire on 3 August 2000. He noted that “we may have to extend the period”. A date was agreed for service of the applicant’s responses to the Crown’s statements and it was ordered that a further directions hearing should be listed within the six‑month period. This further hearing took place on 3 August 2000. The judge noted the court’s power to extend the six-month time limit and no objection was raised by counsel for the applicant. The confiscation proceedings took place on 13 October 2000. The judge made an order against the applicant in the sum of GBP 80,000 to be paid by 30 April 2001, with 18 months’ imprisonment in default.\n8.  The applicant sought leave to appeal against the confiscation order. He submitted that the court had no jurisdiction to make the order because it was imposed more than six months after his conviction in breach of the statutory time limit under section 72A of the CJA 1988. At the time there was judicial uncertainty about whether failure to comply with the six-month time limit would deprive the court of jurisdiction to make a confiscation order. Permission to appeal was granted on 19 July 2001 and enforcement of the confiscation order was suspended pending the outcome of the appeal.\n9.  On 16 December 2002 the Court of Appeal considered a group of appeals lodged on the same ground as that of the applicant, namely that the Crown Court did not have jurisdiction to make a confiscation order outside the six-month time limit. The Court of Appeal held that a procedural irregularity did not necessarily deprive the court of jurisdiction to make a confiscation order. One of the appellants (Soneji) obtained leave to appeal to the House of Lords. His appeal was joined to that of another appellant (Knights).\n10.  On 15 April 2003 the applicant issued an out-of-time notice of appeal against conviction on the ground that his conviction had been tainted by non-disclosure.\n11.  On 2 March 2004 the Court of Appeal stayed the applicant’s appeal against the confiscation order pending the House of Lords’ decisions in R v. Knights and R v. Soneji.\n12.  On 24 June 2004 the Court of Appeal refused the applicant leave to appeal out of time against his conviction.\n13.  The decisions in R v. Knights [2005] UKHL 50 and R v. Soneji [2005] UKHL 49 were handed down by the House of Lords on 21 July 2005. In those decisions the House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that a procedural irregularity would not necessarily deprive the court of jurisdiction to make a confiscation order. Following publication of the decisions, counsel advised the applicant against continuing his a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6490", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is currently detained in Poznań Remand Centre.\n5.  On 3 September 1998 the applicant was charged with theft and extortion.\n6.  On 10 February 1999 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk-Północ District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The applicant was indicted as charged.\n7.  On 5 December 2003 the Gdańsk-Północ District Court held the first hearing. It subsequently held some twenty hearings.\n8.  On 3 October 2005 the Gdańsk-Północ District Court convicted the applicant of theft and extortion and sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n9.  On 20 June 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.\n10.  Hearings scheduled for 29 October and 7 December 2007 were adjourned as the applicant had failed to appear.\n11.  On 11 February 2008 the presiding judge scheduled the next hearing for 12 March 2008 and ordered that the applicant be brought to a hearing by the police.\n12.  Hearings scheduled for 12 March, 25 April and 3 June 2008 were adjourned as the applicant had failed to appear.\n13.  On 9 July 2008 the Gdańsk-Północ District Court issued an arrest warrant against the applicant.\n14.  On 25 May 2009 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody.\n15.  During the court proceedings the courts further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on several occasions. The applicant remains detained until the present date. Since his arrest the applicant has been serving a prison sentence of seven and a half years imposed on him in another set of criminal proceedings.\n16.  A hearing scheduled for 18 August 2009 was cancelled as the applicant could not be transported to the courthouse.\n17.  On 9 October 2009 the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer requested the court to adjourn a hearing as he had not been granted a visit with his client and therefore could not have discussed with him a defence strategy. The court adjourned a hearing until 17 November 2009.\n18.  On 17 November 2009 the court held the first hearing. It subsequently held some twenty five hearings.\n19.  The proceedings are still pending before the Gdańsk-Północ District Court.\n20.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n21.  On 25 May 2010 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court noted that delays in the proceedings were imputable to the applicant who had failed to appear for several hearings and had gone into hiding for over a year.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6491", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Békéscsaba.\n5.  On 16 March 1998 J.H. brought an action for payment of rent before the Szeged District Court against a private individual.\n6.  On 23 March 1999 the District Court suspended the proceedings pending the termination of separate legal proceedings between the same parties. The case was resumed on 12 December 2000.\n7.  On 29 May 2001 J.H. assigned his claim to the applicant who joined the proceedings on 28 June 2001.\n8.  The case was again suspended between 4 December 2001 and 26 May 2004 pending the termination of a closely related legal dispute.\n9.  Following several hearings, the District Court delivered its judgment on 7 June 2005 which was served on the applicant on 7 July 2005.\n10.  In a decision dated 1 September 2005 the District Court established that the first-instance judgment had become final and enforceable on 26 August 2005 in the absence of appeal by the parties.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6492", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Bucharest.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 16 December 1996 a third party brought criminal proceedings against the applicant for wrongful misappropriation. The third party claimed that the applicant had unlawfully used private funds belonging to his companies in order to increase the capital of a commercial bank (Bankcoop) and become a major shareholder in the said bank.\n9.  On 14 January 1997 the Judicial Police attached to the Romanian Ministry of the Interior asked the third party to provide additional information in respect of the unlawful acts allegedly committed by the applicant.\n10.  On 19 February 1997, the Adevărul daily newspaper published an article entitled “The investigation files of G.C.P. – strictly secret?” The article quoted statements by D.I.C., one of the prosecutors conducting the investigation against the applicant, of which the most relevant part reads as follows:\n“We have been accused of insisting on imposing [on G.C.P.] an order not to leave the city, a measure which is usually taken when there are suspicions that somebody has committed an unlawful act. However, as I already told you and as [can be seen] from checks carried out by the Financial Control Office [Garda Financiară], here there have been unlawful acts committed, not only suspicions. In spite of that, we have proven to be humane, when at his [G.C.P.’s] request we allowed him to leave Bucharest for forty-eight hours.”\n11.  On 10 April 1997 the applicant was charged with fraud, forging documents and use of forged documents, embezzlement, using the goods of a commercial company against its interests and undermining the national economy, on account of the fact that, by acting on behalf of the private company (G.C.P. S.A.), which the applicant controlled as the major shareholder, he had allegedly made false statements in an official document submitted to the Romanian National Bank on 31 August 1995 in order to obtain its permission to increase the capital of Bankcoop by the amount of 10,000,000 United States Dollars (USD). More specifically, the applicant was suspected of declaring the aforementioned amount as his personal funds, when in fact it had been obtained as a loan taken out by G.C.P. S.A. from a foreign bank, which was contrary to the National Bank’s regulations on acceptable sources of money used to increase a bank’s capital.\n12.  On 2 June 1997 the applicant brought a challenge against the two prosecutors, including D.I.C., charged with the investigation of his case at the time, arguing, inter alia, that press statements made by the said prosecutors on 28 May 1997 in the Evenimentul Zilei daily newspaper – claiming that the applicant’s financial investments were “acts of fraud” – amounted to a breach of his right to the presumption of innocence.\n13.  According to the applicant, his challenge of 2 June 1997 against the prosecutors G.M. and D.I.C. was allowed by a final Prosecutor’s Office Order of 23 June 1997 and a new prosecutor was appointed to investigate his case. The applicant failed to include in the file a copy of the order of 23 June 1997.\n14.  On 2 July 1997 the Naţional daily newspaper published an article entitled “G.D. states that G.C.P. should have been indicted long ago for two of the proven crimes”. The most relevant part of the article, which quoted statements by G.D., the Romanian Minister of the Interior at the time, read", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6493", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974. His present place of residence is unknown.\n6.  On 4 August and 5 November 2003 Ms Z. and Ms G. were robbed in their flats. The first robbery took place in the building where the applicant’s acquaintance Ms M. lived, while the second victim was her distant relative.\n7.  On 5 November 2003 the police questioned Ms M., who was suspected by one of the victims. She stated that both robberies had been committed by the applicant and his friends.\n8.  On 8 November 2003 Ms M. was hospitalised with a head injury and concussion. On 10 November 2003 she complained to the Ministry of the Interior that she had been coerced by the police into testifying against the applicant. After this Ms M. went into hiding from the authorities. Her complaint was later examined as part of the applicant’s trial (see paragraph 14 below).\n9.  Late in the evening of 5 November or during the early hours of 6 November 2003 the applicant was apprehended by the police on suspicion of the robberies of Ms Z. and Ms G. His arrest was documented on 6 November 2003.\n10.  On 2 June 2004 the Solomyanskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Solomyanskyy Court”) severed the charge concerning the robbery of Ms Z. and remitted the case in that part for additional investigation. Its outcome is unknown.\n11.  While it is not known when the applicant began to be legally represented, it transpires from the aforementioned ruling of 2 June 2004, as well as from the subsequent judicial decisions, that from that point onwards one or sometimes two lawyers represented him in the course of the trial.\n12.  Although the applicant consistently denied guilt, both during the pre-trial investigations and the trial, on 11 November 2004 the Solomyanskyy Court found him guilty of the violent robbery of Ms G. and sentenced him to seven years and six months’ imprisonment with confiscation of all his personal property. The court relied on the statements of the victim, who recognised the applicant as one of the perpetrators, as well as the statements of a witness who had seen him close to the crime scene around the time of the robbery. The court further relied on the statements given by Ms M. during the pre-trial investigation. It also heard statements from two defence witnesses, according to which the applicant had spent the whole day with them on 5 November 2003, but did not trust the statements, deeming them too general and contradictory.\n13.  On 24 May 2005 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment and remitted the case for additional investigation, having pointed out a number of procedural shortcomings.\n14.  On 22 May 2007 the Solomyanskyy Court delivered a new judgment, the operative part of which was identical to the previous one. The court additionally heard a number of defence witnesses who stated that they had either spent the whole day on 5 November 2003 in the applicant’s company or had seen him at various times on that date. The court decided, however, that those statements were either untruthful, because the witnesses were the applicant’s friends and wanted to help him avoid criminal liability, or unrelated to the precise time when the robbery had been committed. Ms M. was questioned during the trial and retracted her earlier statements incriminating the applicant as given under duress. However, the court chose to rely on those earlier statements as more plausible and concordant with the other facts. It noted, in particular, that she ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6494", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kamienna Gora.\n7.  On 11 October 2006 the Kamienna Góra District Court convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. On 30 January 2007 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment.\n8.  On 7 February 2007 the applicant requested the court to be given the written grounds of the second-instance judgment. On 12 February 2007 the court refused to prepare the grounds as his request had been lodged outside the prescribed time‑limit.\n9.  On 22 February 2007 the applicant appealed against that decision and requested the court to grant him retrospective leave to file a motion to have the written reasons of the second-instance judgment prepared and served on him.\n10.  On a later unknown date the court allowed his request and assigned a legal-aid lawyer to the case. In a letter dated 13 April 2007 that lawyer informed the court about his refusal to prepare a cassation appeal, finding no grounds on which to do so. That letter was served on the court on 16 April 2007. The court subsequently forwarded the letter to the applicant. It was served on him on 23 April 2007.\n11.  The court did not inform the applicant of his further procedural rights.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6495", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Temnivka Prison no. 100.\n7.  On 3 December 2001 the dead body of a Mr L. was found, with a blood-stained axe lying next to it. A criminal investigation was initiated in respect of a suspected premeditated murder.\n8.  From 14 January to 13 March 2002 the applicant underwent medical treatment for an unspecified psychiatric condition in the medical centre V.\n9.  On 19 July 2002 he was arrested in the framework of an unrelated murder investigation.\n10.  In March 2006 the applicant, who was at the time serving a fixed-term prison sentence for several counts of premeditated murder, made a confession, first to the prison administration and later to the investigation authorities, that on 3 December 2001 he had twice hit Mr L. on the head with the back of an axe without having the intention of killing him.\n11.  Free legal counsel was appointed for, and represented, the applicant during the pre-trial investigation and the proceedings before the first-instance court.\n12.  During the pre-trial investigation the applicant unsuccessfully requested the investigator to arrange for the translation into Russian of some materials in the case file which were in Ukrainian.\n13.  On 7 November 2006 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Kyiv Court”), sitting as a court of first instance, found the applicant guilty of premeditated murder committed repeatedly and sentenced him to life imprisonment. It noted that although the applicant had alleged that he had had no intention to kill, the fact that he had hit the victim with an axe on a vital part of his body twice and with considerable force, indicated the opposite. While taking into account the applicant’s voluntary confession, the Kyiv Court noted that it was the fourth murder he had committed and considered life imprisonment to be the appropriate penalty. At the applicant’s request, the proceedings before the Kyiv Court were held in Russian.\n14.  The applicant, who was no longer represented, lodged a cassation appeal in which he mentioned, inter alia, that he had no means to pay for legal assistance.\n15.  On 22 February 2007 the Supreme Court, following a hearing in which the applicant participated, upheld his conviction.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6496", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Lutsk.\n6.  In October 2003 the applicant’s only son, Oleg Masnev (hereinafter Mr Masnev), who served with the Volyn Regional Police Department (“the Police Department”), was temporarily assigned to the Kovel Town Police Station which was subordinate to the Police Department. At that time he was a senior police detective (старший оперуповноважений) with the rank of major. According to the applicant, his assignment was to investigate corruption among the police of Kovel. According to the Government, Mr Masnev’s duties included the installation of phone-tapping devices.\n7.  On 9 October 2003 he arrived in Kovel and resumed his duties in restricted-access room 505 on the premises of the police station. He initially occupied the room together with police officer B. There was an arrangement that one of the officers on duty in the room would phone the Police Organised Crime Unit of Kovel (“the Unit”) daily at about 9 a.m. On 15 October 2003 B. was given another assignment and left Kovel.\n8.  At the expected time on 17 October 2003 Mr Masnev did not phone the Unit, having been seen for the last time by one of the Unit’s officers at about 1.30 p.m. on 16 October 2003. Since the door was locked and there was no reply from within, the commander of the police station ordered the door of room no. 505 to be forced open. At about 2.45 p.m. the door was forced and Mr Masnev was found dead. On the same day the site was examined by an investigator of the Kovel Prosecutor’s Office, who described in his report the body and its position, and the objects present in the room, including a knife covered with a brownish substance, three cups, two empty bottles of alcohol and cigarette butts. The investigator also took pictures of the site, collected fingerprints, samples of the brownish substance, and several objects from the room, including the knife. According to the report, there were traces of brownish substance in different parts of the room, the door and the door lock were not damaged, and there was no damaged furniture or equipment in the room. The investigator also ordered a post-mortem examination of the body.\n9.  The next day a forensic expert performed an autopsy of Mr Masnev and found, inter alia, a cut on his left forearm and several bruises on his forehead. The expert concluded that Mr Masnev had died of a haemorrhage caused by the wound on his forearm; the wound might have been self-inflicted; after having been wounded, he had retained the ability to make further movements for a certain period of time; the bruises on his forehead were not serious injuries and had been caused while he was still alive; it was impossible to establish whether the bruises on his forehead had preceded the wound on his forearm.\n10.  On 23 October 2003 an expert from the police station examined the fingerprints taken from the room and concluded that some of them belonged to Mr Masnev, some could not be identified and two did not belong to Mr Masnev.\n11.  Two examinations of Mr Masnev’s blood samples conducted in November 2003 did not reveal the presence of alcohol or drugs.\n12.  An additional medical examination of his body ordered on 23 January 2004 and concluded on 11 February 2004 did not rule out the possibility that he might have inflicted the incision wound himself.\n13.  An examination of the knife ordered on 8 August 2008 and concluded on 10 October 2008 found that the blood on it might have been that of Mr Masnev.\n14", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6497", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  In or about November 1993 the applicant and his wife brought an action against several respondents before the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court, seeking ownership of a real estate and protection against trespass.\n6.  The District Court held numerous hearings between 27 June 1994 and 29 June 1995.\n7.  On 5 July 1995 the District Court delivered a partial judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim for protection against trespass. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Budapest Regional Court on 13 March 1996.\n8.  On 8 June 1998 the District Court appointed an expert who filed an opinion on 29 November 1998.\n9.  The final first-instance judgment was delivered on 14 September 1999. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court decided the case on 20 March 2002.\n10.  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. It quashed the previous judgments and remitted the case to the first-instance on 25 April 2005.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings the applicant notified the domestic courts that one of the respondents had died on 2 November 2002. On 22 February 2006 the Supreme Court thus established that the review proceedings had been discontinued on this account, and annulled its previous judgment of 25 April 2005 (see paragraph 10 above). The same day, the Supreme Court remitted the case to the first-instance.\n12.  Between 16 October 2007 and 12 March 2008 the proceedings were stalled because the applicant did not cooperate with a court-appointed expert.\n13.  On 16 May 2008 the case was transferred to the Buda Central District Court, due to bias of the judges at the Pest Central District Court.\n14.  On 12 December 2008 the latter court delivered a partial judgment. On 13 November 2009 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing on appeal. It appears from the documents available in the case file that the case is still pending before the Regional Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6499", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Szentendre. He is the managing director of the second applicant, a limited liability company with its seat in Szentendre, established in 1990.\n5.  On 9 October 2000 a limited liability company brought an action against the second applicant before the Pest County Regional Court, requesting the court to establish its ownership on a real estate.\n6.  On 12 June 2001 the plaintiff company submitted further claims and extended its action to the first applicant and six others.\n7.  On 16 December 2002 the court obtained an expert opinion.\n8.  On 10 October 2005 the court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the first applicant, as the plaintiff withdrew this part of his claim.\n9.  On 13 December 2005 the court held a hearing. It established that the discontinuation of the proceedings in respect of the first applicant had become final in the absence of appeal. The court also delivered its judgment on this day in respect of the second applicant. In the absence of appeal by the parties, the judgment became final on 3 February 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6500", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.   The first applicant was born in 1967 and at the time of the lodging of his application was detained in HM Prison Moorlands. He was expected to be released on 1 September 2010. The second applicant was born in 1978 and is currently detained in HM Prison Dovegate.\n7.  The first applicant is a taxi driver. On 31 August 2006, he drove from Sheffield to Luton. On his way back to Sheffield from Luton, he was arrested in the context of a police investigation into the supply of unlawful drugs. He had been followed on his journey in both directions by police officers. Six kilograms of heroin were found in the boot of his car. The case against him was that he had collected the consignment of drugs in Luton and was transporting it back to Sheffield when he was arrested.\n8.  The first applicant’s defence was that he did not know anything about the drugs found in his car. He said that he had taken a passenger named Paul with him on the journey from Sheffield to Luton at the request of Mr Younas, one of the alleged members of the conspiracy to supply unlawful drugs. Paul had used the first applicant’s mobile telephone while in the car and the calls to another of the individuals in the alleged conspiracy, Mr Rasul, had been made by Paul. Calls to Mr Younas and a third member of the alleged conspiracy, Mr N. Khan, were made by the first applicant: calls to Mr Younas were to check directions and calls to Mr N. Khan related to a dispute about an unpaid taxi fare. Paul had left the car shortly after arrival in Luton. The first applicant argued that he must have left the drugs in the car when he left the vehicle.\n9.  In August 2006, the second applicant was charged with conspiracy to supply heroin. The case against him was that he was involved in making arrangements for the payment of the drugs to be transported from Luton to Sheffield. The prosecution relied on telephone analysis to establish a link between the second applicant and the other alleged conspirators. Cash amounting to GBP 18,955 was found in the second applicant’s cellar. The money had been in contact with heroin.\n10.  The second applicant’s defence was that he was a cousin of Mr N. Khan and a friend of Mr Younas and was therefore in close contact with them. However, he had not taken part in the conspiracy. His telephone contacts with them on the relevant days had been innocent. The cash found at his home derived partly from the sale of a car and partly from former heroin dealings for which he had been convicted in 2003.\n11.  The applicants were subsequently tried together on charges of conspiracy to supply heroin. The trial commenced on 3 January 2007 and the jury was sworn. On the following day the court heard evidence from the police officers who had followed the first applicant from Sheffield to Luton and back, one of whom was M.B. The police officers testified that the first applicant did not have a passenger with him at any point during that journey and that no-one had alighted from the vehicle in Luton.\n12.  During the evidence of M.B., the first of the police officers to testify, one of the jurors, A.T., sent a note to the judge indicating that he, A.T., was a serving police officer and that he knew M.B., although he had not worked with him for two years. The judge read the note to counsel and agreed with them a series of questions to be put to A.T. The judge then questioned A.T. in the absence of the other jurors but in the presence of the applicants. A.T. confirmed that he was ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6502", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in St Petersburg.\nThe circumstances of the case\n7.  In 1989 the applicant became a mullah in the mosque of Mamurobod in Uzbekistan. In 1999 he graduated as a qualified Arabic teacher from the Foreign Languages Institute in Andijan, Uzbekistan. From 1999 to 2007 he was not officially employed and provided religious consultations about Islam, as well as teaching Arabic and Koran studies.\n8.  In May 2007 the applicant moved to Russia. On 6 June 2007 he was registered as a migrant in St Petersburg.\n(b)  Proceedings in Uzbekistan\n9.  On 8 December 2007 the Andijan Region Investigations Department of the Uzbek Ministry of the Interior charged the applicant in absentia with a number of crimes including membership of an extremist organisation, attempting to overthrow the State’s constitutional order and dissemination of the views of a radical extremist movement. The applicant’s name was put on the wanted list; an arrest warrant was issued against him.\n10.  On 25 September 2008 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Uzbekistan forwarded a request for the applicant’s extradition to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office.\n11.  On 23 January 2009 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Uzbekistan informed the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office that it “... guarantee[d] that the prosecution of U. Ergashev [would] be carried out in strict compliance with Uzbek legislation”.\n12.  On 2 March 2009 the Andijan Town Court ordered the applicant’s arrest. The decision did not set any time-limits for the applicant’s detention.\n(c)  Proceedings in Russia\n(i)  Extradition proceedings\n13.  On 1 September 2008 the applicant was arrested in St Petersburg on the basis of a letter from the Uzbek authorities and placed in a detention centre.\n14.  On 22 June 2009 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office issued an extradition order against the applicant. The text of the decision included the following:\n“... the Andijan Region Investigations Department of the Uzbek Ministry of the Interior is investigating a criminal case against U. Ergashev ...\nThe charges against U. Ergashev state that between 22 May 1999 and 2007, in the Andijan region of Uzbekistan, being an active member of the prohibited religious extremist movement ... with the aim of overthrowing the State’s constitutional order, ... he actively participated in the criminal activities of the supporters of the extremist religious movement ... and publicly called for the overthrow of the constitutional order of the Republic of Uzbekistan by engaging in ‘jihad’ (holy war) and for the creation of an Islamic State ...\n... The actions of U. Ergashev are punishable under Russian criminal law and correspond to paragraph 1 of Article 280 (public calls for extremist activities), paragraph 2 of Article 282 (incitement to hatred) and paragraph 2 of Article 282‑3 (membership of an extremist organisation) of the Russian Criminal Code; the penalties envisaged under those Articles entail deprivation of liberty for more than one year. The limitation period for the above crimes under Russian and Uzbek law has not expired ...”\n15.  The applicant appealed against the extradition order to the St Petersburg City Court (“the City Court”), stating, among other things, that he was being persecuted by the Uzbek authorities for his political and religious beliefs and that if extradited, he would be subjected to ill-treatment in Uzbekistan.\n16.  On 14 August 2009 the City Court overruled the extraditio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6503", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently detained in Gliwice Remand Centre.\n6.  On 13 November 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and identity theft.\n7.  On 14 November 2001 the Katowice District Court remanded him in custody, relying on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence or induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n8.  The applicant’s appeals against decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeals, he relied on various reasons inter alia his health condition.\n9.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on several occasions, namely, on 4 February 2002 (to 13 May 2002), 6 May 2002 (to 31 July 2002) and 22 July 2002 (to 31 October 2002). In their detention decisions the courts repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. They attached importance to the grave nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on the applicant. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation, especially when other suspects were still at large. They also underlined the need to hear numerous witnesses and to obtain fresh evidence from several experts. Finally, the court found no grounds warranting the applicant’s release from detention as provided for by Article 259 of the Code. In particular, the courts observed that it resulted from the medical report that the applicant could be treated within a penitentiary facility.\n10.  On an unspecified date in October 2002 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Gliwice Regional Court. The applicant was charged with murder and identity theft.\n11.  On 20 February 2003 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held thirty five hearings in the case.\n12.  During the court proceedings the authorities further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on several occasions, namely, on 21 October 2002 (to 30 April 2003), 25 April 2003 (to 30 October 2003), 20 September 2004 (to 30 March 2005), 23 March 2005 (to 30 September 2005) and 29 September 2005 (to 30 March 2006). The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s continued detention.\n13.  On 20 January 2006 the Gliwice Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to twenty five years’ imprisonment. The court acquitted the applicant of identity theft.\n14.  The applicant appealed. He was kept in custody pending the appellate proceedings.\n15.  On 18 January 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal quashed the first‑instance court judgment of 20 January 2006 and remitted the case.\n16.  The Gliwice Regional Court further extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention on several occasions, namely, on 12 March 2007 (to 30 June 2007), an unspecified subsequent date, 19 December 2007 (to 30 March 2008), 11 March 2008 (to 30 September 2008), an unspecified subsequent date, 8 December 2008 (to 30 March 2009), 25 March 2009 (to 30 June 2009), an unspecified subsequent date, 18 January 2010", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6504", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Kilis.\n5.  At the time of the events, the applicant was a registrar at the Gaziantep Tax Court.\n6.  By a decision of the Ministry of Justice dated 5 November 2000, the applicant was appointed to the Hatay Tax Court, relying on the negative report prepared by the Justice Inspector concerning certain allegations against him.\n7.  On 23 November 2000 the applicant brought proceedings before the Gaziantep Administrative Court for the annulment of his appointment to a new post in Hatay.\n8.  On 13 June 2001 the court dismissed the applicant’s case.\n9.  On 17 June 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of 13 June 2001.\n10.  On 10 April 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a request by the Ministry of Justice for rectification of the judgment.\n11.  On 11 July 2006 the first-instance court once again dismissed the applicant’s annulment case.\n12.  On 25 February 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 11 July 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6505", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in the Kyiv Region.\n5.  On 14 July 1999, in the presence of others, the applicant shot Mr P. who eventually died in a hospital.\n6.  On 15 July 1999 the police started criminal investigations into the event.\n7.  On 19 July 1999 the applicant was accused of inflicting bodily injuries; on the same day he gave an undertaking not to abscond.\n8.  On 15 October 1999 the police also instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of unlawful possession of arms.\n9.  On 20 October 1999 the police changed the legal qualification of the applicant’s actions and accused him of murder.\n10.  On 24 October 1999 the police accused the applicant of murder and unlawful possession of arms.\n11.  On 29 October 1999 the police submitted the criminal case to the Kyevo-Svyatoshynskyy District Court for trial.\n12.  On 29 February 2000 the court convicted the applicant of premeditated murder committed in the state of extreme emotional disturbance and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment.\n13.  On 12 April 2000 the Kyiv Regional Court upheld that judgment, which thus became final.\n14.  On 6 September 2000 the prosecutor lodged a protest against the decisions in the case. On 12 October 2000 the Presidium of the Kyiv Regional Court rejected the protest.\n15.  On 6 January 2001 the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged a new protest.\n16.  On 25 January 2001 the Supreme Court found that the lower court had not duly established the motive of the crime, quashed the decisions in the case and remitted it to the prosecutors for additional investigations.\n17.  On 12 July 2001 the investigations were completed and on 19 July 2001 the case was submitted to the Kyevo-Svyatoshynskyy Court for trial.\n18.  On 12 December 2001 the court convicted the applicant of premeditated murder and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment.\n19.  On 10 April 2002 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal changed that judgment. On 17 September 2002 the Supreme Court found that the court of appeal had not duly established the motive of the crime and remitted the case to that court for fresh consideration.\n20.  On 6 November 2002 the Court of Appeal, in the applicant’s absence, upheld the judgment of 12 December 2001 with some minor modifications.\n21.  On 10 June 2003 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 6 November 2002 as it had been taken in the applicant’s absence and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for fresh consideration.\n22.  On 13 August 2003 the Court of Appeal changed the judgment of 12 December 2001 and sentenced the applicant to four years’ imprisonment for murder committed in the state of extreme disturbance. By the same judgment the court amnestied the applicant.\n23.  On 1 April 2004 the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had not duly established the motive of the crime, quashed this decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration on appeal.\n24.  On 1 October 2004 the Court of Appeal sentenced the applicant to four years’ imprisonment and changed the judgment of 12 December 2001.\n25.  On 17 November 2005 the Supreme Court found that the severity of the applicant’s sentence did not correspond to the gravity of the crime, quashed the decision of 1 October 2004 and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the Court of Appeal.\n26.  On 6 February 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the judgement of 12 December 2001 with minor modifications.\n27.  On 6 April 2007 the Supreme Court rejected t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6506", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a former police officer who was born in 1970 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Niš Penitentiary (Kazneno-popravni zavod u Nišu).\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 26 May 2005 the District Court in Leskovac found the applicant guilty of murdering his former wife, and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 18 October 2005 the Supreme Court quashed this judgment and ordered a retrial.\n9.  On 16 December 2005 the District Court in Leskovac again convicted the applicant and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment. In so doing, it provided extensive reasoning.\n10.  On 20 March 2006 the Supreme Court upheld this judgment. The appeal bench included judge M.C. and the applicant received the judgment on 26 May 2006.\n11.  On 26 June 2006, through the prison authorities and as evidenced by their certificate, the applicant filed an appeal on points of law (zahtev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosnažne presude). The Supreme Court received this appeal on 5 July 2006, as certified by its stamp of even date.\n12.  On 31 May 2007 the Supreme Court noted that the appeal had been lodged on 5 July 2006 and consequently had to be rejected as out of time (neblagovremen; see paragraph 20 below). The Supreme Court’s bench again included judge M.C. and the applicant received this decision on 21 September 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6507", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 20 July 1993 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. On 2 August 1993 she was brought before the investigating judge, who ordered her detention on remand.\n6.  On 11 August 1993 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court accusing the applicant, with several others, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of praising the offenders.\n7.  On 26 March 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court sentenced the applicant to six years and three months’ imprisonment for involvement in activities that undermined the constitutional order of the State. With the same judgment, the court released the applicant, taking into account the period she had spent in detention.\n8.  On 25 December 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court in respect of the applicant, finding that the court erred in the qualification of the offence.\n9.  Following a constitutional amendment in 2004, State Security Courts were abolished and the applicant’s case was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.\n10.  On 14 March 2006 the Diyarbakır Assize Court sentenced the applicant to six years and three months’ imprisonment for membership of an illegal armed organisation. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment on 5 July 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6508", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Turkey.\n5.  On 16 October 2000 the applicant, a police officer, lodged an administrative case against the Ministry of Internal Affairs for having refused his compensation claim concerning his damage arising from a traffic accident.\n6.  On 28 December 2001 the Ankara Administrative Court granted the applicant’s request.\n7.  On 2 June 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of 28 December 2001.\n8.  On 5 July 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment.\n9.  According to the information submitted by the Government, on 19 December 2006 the administrative court dismissed the case and the applicant did not appeal against it.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6509", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and currently lives in Riga.\n5.  On 23 November 1993 the applicant was arrested by the police and taken into custody on suspicion of having organised and paid the murder of his former business partner; the murder actually took place several days before his arrest. According to the prosecution, the applicant had paid two accomplices to strangle the victim in his car. Then, together with two other accomplices, he had driven the car with the victim’s body to another district, faked a road accident and set the car ablaze. Interrogated as a suspect, the applicant pleaded not guilty.\n6.  Three days after the applicant’s arrest, on 26 November 1993, another set of criminal proceedings was initiated against the applicant on the fact of a large-scale contraband of sugar in the Riga Free Port. On the same date, the preventive measure taken with regard to the applicant in the first criminal proceedings (concerning murder) was altered; he was released upon a written undertaking not to change his place of residence. However, three days later, on 29 November 1993, the competent prosecutor ordered the applicant’s detention on remand in the contraband case.\n7.  On 6 December 1993 the preventive measure in the murder case was revoked by the prosecutor because of the lack of evidence against the applicant. On the same date the applicant was charged with committing an aggravated contraband. On 10 February 1994 the preventive measure in the criminal proceedings concerning the contraband was also altered into a written undertaking not to change his place of residence. In March 1994 the applicant was officially indicted on a charge of aggravated contraband and forgery.\n8.  In January 1994 one of two persons having allegedly strangled the applicant’s business partner was found dead. On 1 June 1994, the other, V.Ķ., was arrested and detained on remand. Later, in September of the same year, he was released upon a written undertaking not to change his place of residence.\n9.  On 17 July 1994, in spite of his undertaking not to leave his residence, the applicant left Latvia for the United States of America.\n10.  On 5 September 1994 the Supreme Court committed the applicant to trial in the contraband case. On 21 September 1994, the prosecutor charged him with aggravated murder and ordered his detention on remand.\n11.  On 3 October 1994 the Supreme Court, examining the contraband case as a court of first instance according to the law then in force, opened the hearing on the merits of this case. As the applicant failed to appear, the preventive measure against him was changed into a detention on remand, he was placed on the wanted list, and the proceedings against him were suspended. In January 1995 the prosecutor sanctioned a search operation in order to locate the applicant’s whereabouts.\n12.  In January and February 1995 some investigative measures were taken in the murder case; namely, V.Ķ. was interrogated. The prosecutor also terminated criminal proceedings against one of the applicant’s accomplices who had allegedly helped him to dispose of the victim’s body; he was subsequently charged with concealment of a crime and intentional destruction of property.\n13.  On 11 February 1995 the pre-trial investigation of the whole case was suspended. Two days later the Prosecutor’s Office ordered the applicant’s search via the Interpol information channels. On 28 February 1995 the competent prosecutor ordered the applicant to be detained", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6510", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Szentendre.\n5.  On 29 August 1996 A.P. filed an action for divorce and child custody against the applicant before the Pest Central District Court. She further indicated in the motion that she wished to settle the division of matrimonial property in separate legal proceedings.\n6.  On 6 July 1999 the plaintiff requested the District Court to establish her ownership of a common real estate and to divide the matrimonial property.\n7.  After having held several hearings, the District Court delivered a partial judgment on 14 April 2000, dissolving the parties’ marriage, deciding about the child’s placement and regulating the applicant’s access rights. On appeal the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first instance judgment on 6 February 2001.\n8.  As regards the division of matrimonial property, the District Court delivered its judgment on 24 November 2004, which was partly modified on appeal by the Budapest Regional Court on 24 May 2005.\n9.  Despite the final judgment regulating the applicant’s access rights (see paragraph 7 above), the mother failed to comply with the arrangements, therefore preventing the applicant from seeing his son.\n10.  On 16 April 2002 the applicant brought an action before the Budapest II/III District Court, requesting the modification of his child’s placement. Moreover, he requested joint exercise of his parental rights related to the management of his child’s property. He claimed that the mother had not acted in the child’s best interest when concluding an exchange agreement concerning a real estate in the child’s property, which had been approved by the competent guardianship authority on 9 July 2001.\n11.  On 28 May 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment on 29 January 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6511", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Tel-Aviv.\n5.  On 19 October 1998 Mr S. instituted proceedings in the Kirovskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk against the applicant and the company V. seeking division of inheritance.\n6.  On 20 October 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Babushkinskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk seeking endorsement of her right to the inheritance.\n7.  On 26 February 1999 the applicant lodged with the Kirovskyy District Court a counterclaim against Mr S.\n8.  On 21 August 1999 the Babushkinskiy Court transferred the applicant’s case to the Kirovskyy Court.\n9.  On 25 October 1999 the Kirovskyy Court joined the claims lodged on 19 and 20 October 1998.\n10.  On 28 September 2000 the court rejected the request of Mr S. to order the attachment of the disputed property. On 30 October 2000 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court quashed that decision and remitted the matter to the first instance court for fresh consideration.\n11.  On 12 December 2000 the court refused to order the attachment. That decision was not appealed against.\n12.  On 2 June 2004 the applicant requested the court to order the attachment of the disputed property.\n13.  On 25 January 2005 the court rejected that request.\n14.  On 18 April 2005 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the matter to the first instance court for fresh consideration, the outcome of which is unknown.\n15.  On 25 November 2009 the court endorsed the friendly settlement concluded by the parties.\n16.  Fifty-nine hearings were scheduled in the applicant’s case. According to the Government, the applicant was responsible for the adjournment of twenty-one hearings, while other parties in the case were responsible for further thirty-one adjournments.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6512", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Simferopol.\n5.  On 16 March 2005 the prosecutors started criminal investigations against her on suspicion of fraud.\n6.  On 5 October 2005 she was arrested and placed in a cell in the Simferopol Kyivskyy District Police Station. According to the applicant, the conditions of her detention were degrading. In particular, she was not provided with medical aid, food, or a place to sleep.\n7.  The applicant alleges that during her first questioning, on 6 October 2005, she was not assisted by a lawyer.\n8.  On 7 October 2005 the Kyivskyy District Court of Simferopol ordered the applicant’s release subject to an undertaking not to abscond.\n9.  On 23 July 2007 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Simferopol (“the Tsentralnyy Court”) convicted the applicant of several counts of fraud and sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment with confiscation of all her property. The court also ordered the applicant’s placement in custody pending the entry into force of its judgment.\n10.  On the same day the applicant was placed in the Simferopol Temporary Investigative Isolation Unit no. 15 (“the SIZO”).\n11.  The applicant maintains that the findings of the first-instance court concerning her responsibility for the crimes of which she had been convicted on 23 July 2007 were subsequently relied upon by the same court in a judgment of 30 November 2007 concerning a similar case against another person. She provided no further details of the latter case.\n12.  On 20 December 2007 the Crimea Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the judgment of 23 July 2007 and remitted the case to the Tsentralnyy Court for fresh consideration. At the same time, it ordered the applicant to remain detained, without providing reasons or a time-limit for her continued detention.\n13.  In the course of the new consideration of the case by the Tsentralnyy Court, the charges against the applicant were changed to one count of fraud.\n14.  On 6 February 2008 the court rejected the applicant’s request for release stating in particular that there were no grounds for the release, whereas a quashing of the judgment was not a reason for changing a detention order as such.\n15.  On 20 August 2008 the court changed the applicant’s preventive measure in view of the new charges against her and her state of health. It ordered the applicant’s release subject to an undertaking not to abscond.\n16.  In a judgment of 27 August 2008 it convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced her to thirteen months’ imprisonment. The court further held that the applicant was not required to serve her sentence, as she had been detained for the same period of time in the course of the proceedings. By the same judgment, the court ordered the destruction of certain items in evidence, which, according to the applicant, included some of her personal belongings seized in the course of the investigations.\n17.  The applicant did not appeal against that judgment.\n18.  She unsuccessfully lodged a number of complaints with the prosecutors, courts, and the Council of Judges, accusing the investigators and judges of falsification of the case materials and of various procedural violations. She also raised allegations that some of the witnesses against her had made false statements, but to no avail.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6513", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  On 2 September 1999 the police instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of unlawful making and storage of a firearm. Throughout the major part of the proceedings the applicant was on a written undertaking not to abscond.\n6.  On 4 October 1999 the case was transferred to the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Kharkiv (“District Court”), which on 21 February 2000 delivered a judgment. On 21 March 2000 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) quashed it and remitted the case for additional investigations.\n7.  Following the completion of additional investigations, on 4 September 2000 the case was referred to the District Court, which on 25 November 2005 found the applicant guilty as charged, sentenced him to three years of imprisonment and exempted him from the sentence as the charges against him became time-barred. On 25 February 2006 the Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment.\n8.  On 22 June 2006 and 22 February 2007 respectively, the Supreme Court rejected, as unsubstantiated, the applicant’s and the prosecutor’s appeals in cassation against the above decisions.\n9.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the applicant was three times found guilty of contempt of court and repeatedly challenged the judges and the court’s jurisdiction, which entailed adjournments of the hearings and an eight-month delay in the proceedings. Eight hearings were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to appear and seven hearings due to his and the witnesses’ failure to appear. The applicant disagreed stating that he had not been duly informed of those hearings. Fifteen hearings were adjourned due to the witnesses’ or expert’s failure to appear, absence of the judges or upon the prosecutor’s request. On several occasions the courts applied compulsory summonses on the witnesses failing to appear. Two expert examinations were ordered and lasted for about three months.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6514", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and actually lives in Bitola (“the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”).\n7.  On 28 February 2005 he was arrested by the Greek police and criminal proceedings were brought against him for drug related offences.\n8.  On 10 March 2006 the Thessaloniki First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 15 years of imprisonment and a fine of 30,000 euros (EUR) (judgment no. 345/2006).\n9.  On the same date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Thessaloniki Criminal Court of Appeal challenging the first instance court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence.\n10.  The hearing, which was originally set for 10 December 2008, was subsequently adjourned to 27 November 2009 due to lawyers’ and judicial officials’ strike.\n11.  By judgment dated 27 November 2009 the Court of Appeal reduced the applicant’s sentence to fourteen years of imprisonment and a fine of 20,000 EUR (judgment nos. 1887-88/2009). According to the case file, no appeal on points of law was lodged challenging this judgment.\n12.  On 2 March 2011 the applicant was deported to “the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6515", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Elbląg.\n6.  In a criminal case in which the applicant was accused of causing minor bodily harm to a certain D.Ł., in the context of a long‑running neighbourhood dispute between them, the applicant requested that judges of the Elbląg Regional Court be disqualified from dealing with her case. She indicated that D.Ł. was the brother of Judge M.K.P., a supervising judge at that court.\n7.  By a decision of 17 May 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal allowed her request and transferred the case to the Włocławek District Court. It was of the view that those judges of the Elbląg Regional Court who had declared that they knew the victim of the alleged offence personally could not sit in the case as it would cast doubt on their impartiality. Similarly, the judges of that court who had not made such a declaration should be disqualified, as the existence of a link between the victim of the alleged offence and the supervising judge justified the view that their impartiality could also be open to doubt. The court referred to Article 6 of the Convention, guaranteeing the right to a fair hearing by an impartial court, and to Article 45 of the Constitution.\n8.  In another criminal case against the applicant, concerning similar charges where D.Ł. was also a victim of the alleged offence, on 4 April 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal gave a similar decision, disqualifying the judges of both the Elbląg District Court and Regional Court on similar grounds. The case was, likewise, transferred to the Włocławek District Court.\n9.  On 28 September 2004, in another case in which D.Ł. was the accused and the applicant the victim of the alleged offence, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal held that twenty-seven of the judges of the Elbląg Regional Court (including Judges I.L. and N.B.; see paragraphs 19 and 19 below) should be disqualified as there were doubts as to their impartiality. The applicant had been arrested following a complaint submitted to the prosecuting authorities by D.Ł. Moreover, the twenty-seven disqualified judges had declared that circumstances obtained which could have given rise to doubts as to their impartiality. Four other judges were not disqualified as they had declared that no such doubts arose in respect of them.\n10.  On 23 November 2004, in a case in which the applicant sought compensation for unjustified arrest and detention in connection with a criminal case in which she had ultimately been acquitted, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal held that all of the judges of the Elbląg Regional Court should be disqualified. It was of the view that there were doubts as to their impartiality. This was so because the applicant had been arrested and subsequently detained in a case in which D.Ł. was the victim of the alleged offences. Certain of the judges had declared that they knew D.Ł. personally. This set of circumstances justified the transfer of the case to the Włocławek Regional Court.\n11.  Subsequently, D.Ł. requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against the applicant on charges of giving false testimony against him in another set of proceedings.\n12.  By a decision of 7 January 2005 the Elbląg District Court submitted a request to the Supreme Court that the case be transferred for examination by another court. It referred to the applicant’s doubts as to the impartiality of the judges of the district court arising in connection with D.Ł. having a family link to the superior of those judges. It further refer", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6516", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is currently serving a life sentence in Plovdiv Prison.\n6.  In the period from 29 December 2002 to 18 February 2009 the applicant was detained in Varna Prison in connection with several sets of criminal proceedings for theft and for murder committed in the course of aggravated robbery. In November 2004 he was sentenced to life imprisonment.\n7.  On 18 February 2009 the applicant was moved to Plovdiv Prison. According to the applicant, he was initially placed in a cell together with a smoker. On 29 May 2009 he was placed in an individual cell. 2.  Civil actions for damages brought by the applicant\n(a)  The first set of proceedings concerning the period from 25 February 2003 to 19 April 2004\n8.  On 19 April 2004 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of Justice. He claimed 50,000 levs (BGN) (25,565 euros (EUR)) in damages, alleging that he had suffered distress and humiliation as a result of the poor conditions in which he had been detained in Varna Prison in the period from 25 February 2003 to 19 April 2004. On 25 October 2004 the Varna District Court instructed the applicant to specify and quantify the damage sustained by him as a result of each alleged act or omission of the prison administration. This resulted in the applicant having to split his initial claim into five separate claims of BGN 10,000 (EUR 5,113) each, as follows: (1) for poor sanitary conditions in the prison; (2) for the lack of opportunity to maintain his personal hygiene on a daily basis; (3) for poor living conditions in the cell; (4) for food of poor quality and insufficient quantity; and (5) for inadequate medical services.\n9.  The District Court questioned several witnesses, gathered written evidence and on 19 January 2007 partly granted the first claim. It established that the applicant had been allowed to leave his cell three times a day for forty-five minutes each time and had had to use a bucket in the cell for his toilet needs outside these periods, in front of other prisoners, which had been upsetting for him. It found that the amount of BGN 100 (EUR 51) would remedy the discomfort experienced by him. As to the remaining four claims, the court noted witnesses’ statements to the effect that there had been no running water in the applicant’s cell, that the cell had been damp and draughty, without a floor covering and with plaster peeling off the walls; the toilets and the canteen had been infested with rats; and the applicant had only been allowed to bathe once every two weeks. However, it held that it had not been proven that these deficiencies had caused any damage to the applicant. The court further considered irrelevant the fact that there had been rats in the toilets and in the canteen, as the applicant had not mentioned rats in his statement of claim. As to the claim concerning the medical services in prison, the District Court established that the applicant suffered from asthma and epilepsy. On the basis of his medical records, it found that he had been examined by a physician at least once a month and had been prescribed treatment. It further noted that on several occasions he had been urged to refrain from smoking but apparently he had not followed this advice. It therefore dismissed this claim as ill-founded. It also dismissed the claim concerning the quality and quantity of food, reasoning that the applicant had failed to adduce any arguments or evidence in this respect.\n10.  Following an appeal,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6518", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Vilnius.\n6.  The applicant’s son, A. Česnulevičius (“A.Č.”), was serving a prison sentence in Pravieniškės High-Security Prison No. 1 (Pravieniškių 1-oji sustiprintojo režimo pataisos darbų kolonija, hereinafter “Pravieniškės Prison”). On 4 August 2000 at about 10 p.m. A.Č. was found in the living quarters of Block 5 of the prison, showing signs of having been beaten. As noted in the transcript of a recorded conversation between A.Č. and the guard on duty, A.Č. refused to make a written statement explaining the circumstances of the incident, even though asked to do so by the guards. He also refused to be checked by a doctor, although the guards pointed out that A.Č. had injuries on his face and that he should see one. To prevent A.Č. from possibly being beaten up again, the prison guards locked him in solitary confinement (Baudos izoliatorius) until the morning. In the morning, the prison governor asked A.Č. to explain the circumstances of the incident. A.Č. claimed that he had no enemies, had not had any disputes with anyone and that some unknown prisoners could have beaten him up by accident. The prison governor ordered A.Č. to return to his living quarters in Block 3.\n7.  On 4 August 2000, A.G., a guard at Pravieniškės Prison, submitted a written report to the prison governor. A.G. wrote that “on 4 August at 10:10 p.m. during a patrol of the zone, in the staircase of Block 5, on the second floor, two masks made out of knitted caps were found. Holes were cut in the middle of the caps. Next to the masks a metallic bar was found, about 40 centimetres long and 2.5 centimetres thick”.\n8.  On the same date another prison guard, A.K., informed the prison governor in writing: “on 4 August at 10:10 p.m. during a patrol of the zone, noise was heard in Block 5. When we were going towards Block 5 by the staircase, two masks made of caps and a metallic bar were found. After going up [the stairs ...] prisoner A.Č. was found beaten”.\n9.  The Government submitted a copy of a report by the prison governor to the director of the Prisons Department dated 8 August 2000. The prison governor wrote that when he had arrived at work on 5 August 2000, he had found A.Č. in an isolation cell. The warden who had been on duty had explained that on 4 August at 10 p.m. A.Č. had been detained in Block 5, where he had got into a dispute with other prisoners. The director had then questioned A.Č., asking who had attacked him or whom he suspected of doing so. A.Č. had stated that he had been beaten by two convicts whom he could not identify. He had not had any enemies and had got along with everyone; the attack had been accidental. A.Č. had asked the governor to be moved to Block 8, where he knew another inmate. The governor had explained to A.Č. that he would take a decision on that request on Monday 7 August 2000. The governor had offered A.Č. the possibility to stay in solitary confinement or in the facility’s medical unit. A.Č. had explained that he had no complaints and had categorically refused the governor’s offers. Then the governor had “explained to A.Č. what he should do should similar accidents happen again”.\n10.  When questioned by prosecutors on 5 October 2000, Ž.K., a nurse at Pravieniškės Prison, stated that at about 9 a.m. on 5 August 2000, when she was on duty, A.Č. had come to see her. He had had two surface wounds on the calf of his left leg. He had been wearing a tracksuit. She had bandaged the two wou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6521", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  Thirteen of the applicants live in the municipality of Somma Vesuviana, in Campania (Italy). The other five work there.\n7.  From 11 February 1994 to 31 December 2009 a state of emergency (stato di emergenza) was in place in the Campania region, by decision of the then Prime Minister, because of serious problems of solid urban waste disposal.\n8.  From 11 February 1994 to 23 May 2008 the management of the state of emergency was entrusted to “deputy commissioners” appointed by the Prime Minister and assisted by assistant commissioners. Nine high officials – including four presidents of the region of Campania and the head of the civil emergency planning department of the Prime Minister’s Office – were appointed deputy commissioners.\n9.  From 23 May 2008 to 31 December 2009 the management of the state of emergency was entrusted to an under-secretariat in the Prime Minister’s Office under the head of the civil emergency planning department.\n10.  Regional Law no. 10 of 10 February 1993 (“Law no. 10/93”) laid down guidelines for the adoption of a waste disposal plan in Campania which was to treat urban solid waste and recyclable materials and halve the number and capacity of landfill sites – with the help of compacting and sorting techniques – between 1993 and 1995.\n11.  On 9 June 1997 the President of the Region, having been appointed deputy commissioner, drew up a regional waste disposal plan. Among other things, it provided for the construction of five incinerators – four of which would be built on land in the municipalities of Marcianise, Battipaglia, Giugliano and Nola-Marigliano (the last two of these were to serve the municipalities where the applicants lived), and the fifth on a site to be determined at a later date – and also five main landfill sites and six secondary sites.\n12.  On 12 June 1998 the President of the Region, acting as deputy commissioner, issued a call for tenders for a ten-year concession to operate the waste collection and disposal service in the province of Naples. According to the specifications, the successful bidder would be required to ensure the proper reception of the collected waste, its sorting, conversion into refuse-derived fuel (combustibile derivato da rifiuti – “RDF”) and incineration. To that end, it was to construct and manage three waste sorting and RDF production facilities and set up an electric power plant fuelled by RDF, by 31 December 2000.\n13.  When the tendering process ended on 20 March 2000, the concession was awarded to a consortium of five companies: Fisia Impianti S.p.A. (main contractor), Impregilo S.p.A., Babcock Kommunal GmbH, Deutsche Babcock Anlagen GmbH and Evo Oberhausen AG (subcontractors).\n14.  Under the terms of a service concession agreement signed on 7 June 2000, the five successful companies undertook to build two RDF production centres in Caivano and Tufino in 300 days, starting on 10 and 14 April 2000 respectively, and another in Giugliano in 270 days, starting from 30 March 2000. The RDF-fuelled power plant to be built in Acerra was to be built in 24 months, starting from a date to be determined later.\n15.  In the meantime, on 22 April 1999 the deputy commissioner had issued a call for tenders for the waste disposal service concession in Campania. The concession was awarded to FIBE S.p.A. a consortium of companies formed specially for the purpose. On an unspecified date they formed a company called FIBE Campania S.p.A.\n16.  Under the concession agreement signed on 5 Sep", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6522", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961. He is married; he and his wife (born in 1968) have three children, born in 1992, 1993 and 1998 respectively. The family are resident in Zoetermeer.\n6.  On 8 December 1997 the applicant arrived in the Netherlands, five months after his wife and two children had arrived there. On 10 December 1997 the applicant applied for asylum. The Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) rejected this application on 19 February 1999 but he did grant the applicant a conditional residence permit (voorwaardelijke vergunning tot verblijf), valid as of 10 December 1997, on the basis of a temporary “policy of protection for certain categories” (categoriaal beschermingsbeleid). The applicant’s wife and children received residence permits for the purpose of asylum that same day. The applicant lodged an objection against the decision to refuse him asylum.\n7.  The situation in Afghanistan not having sufficiently improved, the applicant’s conditional residence permit was ex lege converted into an indefinite residence permit after he had held it for a period of three years. Subsequently, with the entry into force of the Aliens Act 2000 (Vreemdelingenwet 2000) on 1 April 2001, the permit held by the applicant came to be named an indefinite residence permit for the purpose of asylum. In view of this development, the applicant’s objection against the decision of 19 February 1999 was declared inadmissible on 16 July 2001.\n8.  On 28 May 2004 the Minister for Immigration and Integration (Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie, at that time the successor to the Deputy Minister of Justice) withdrew the applicant’s residence permit (but not those of his wife and children) as Article 1F of the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees was held against him. The applicant filed an appeal against this decision which was rejected by the Regional Court (rechtbank) of The Hague on 29 March 2005. On 4 August 2005 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State) confirmed the decision of the Regional Court at final instance.\n9.  The applicant’s wife and children were granted Netherlands nationality on 13 December 2004.\n10.  On 21 October 2005 the applicant filed a new application for asylum, which was rejected by the Minister on 27 October 2005. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Regional Court of The Hague on 17 November 2005, and on 22 December 2005 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State dismissed the applicant’s appeal at final instance.\n11.  Subsequently, on 9 January 2006, the applicant applied for a residence permit for the purpose of residing in the Netherlands with his wife. At the same time, he requested an exemption from the obligation to pay the statutory administrative charges (leges) of 830 euros (EUR). In this respect he invoked Decision 2005/46 amending the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines 2000 (Wijzigingsbesluit Vreemdelingencirculaire 2000), according to which an alien who has a justifiable claim under Article 8 of the Convention in proceedings to obtain a residence permit for the purposes of family reunion (gezinshereniging) or family formation (gezinsvorming) could be exempted from paying the required charges if he or she complied with certain conditions. The applicant argued that he had a legitimate claim under Article 8 and that he had provided sufficient proof that he did not have ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6523", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  All three applicants were remanded in custody pending trial and were held in various Russian remand prisons. Their individual circumstances are detailed below.\n8.  On 27 December 2006 the Presidium of the Smolensk Regional Court quashed the appellate judgment in Mr Ananyev’s criminal case and remitted the matter for a new hearing. On 20 January 2007 he was taken from the correctional colony to remand prison IZ-67/1 of Smolensk, where he stayed until 23 March 2007.\n9.  Mr Ananyev was held in cell 170 until 21 March 2007 and then in cell 153. Cell 170 measured 15 square metres and cell 153 – 10 square metres. They were equipped with 13 and 4 sleeping places, respectively.\n10.  Cell 170 accommodated 12 detainees for two weeks in January and February 2007; in the remaining period of Mr Ananyev’s detention the cell population varied from 15 to 21 persons. Cell 153 housed Mr Ananyev and one other inmate.\n11.  The Government submitted certificates issued on 25 June 2009 by the governor of the remand prison that listed floor surface areas and cell population, and twelve pages from the prison population register of prison IZ-67/1 relating to various dates between 20 January and 23 March 2007, as well as photographs of cells 153 and 170.\n12.  Mr Ananyev produced written statements from his former co-detainees, Mr S. and Mr B., both dated 27 June 2009, from which it appears that between January and April 2007 cell 170 had accommodated up to 24 persons.\n13.  On 19 March 2007 Mr Ananyev sent complaints about unbearable conditions of his detention to the Prosecutor General, the Smolensk town prosecutor and to the Director of the Smolensk penitentiary facilities. On 4 May 2007 the Smolensk town prosecutor informed Mr Ananyev that he had checked his complaints and that the acting governor of prison IZ-67/1 had been instructed to remedy the violations of the Suspects and Defendants Detention Act.\n14.  Mr and Ms Bashirov were taken into custody on 29 April 2005. Ms Bashirova was released on bail on 17 May 2005 and Mr Bashirov was transferred to remand prison IZ-30/1 of Astrakhan. On 11 March 2008 they were both found guilty of drug-related offences and sentenced to eight and a half years’ and six years’ imprisonment, respectively. Ms Bashirova was re-detained on the same day. On 15 May 2008 the Astrakhan Regional Court upheld the conviction at last instance.\n15.  In prison IZ-30/1, Mr Bashirov stayed in cell 83 (from 3 May to 1 July 2005 and from 27 December 2007 to 22 April 2008), cell 69 (from 1 July 2005 to 11 January 2006 and from 9 August to 30 October 2006), cell 35 (from 11 January to 9 August 2006), cell 79 (from 30 October to 18 December 2007), and cell 15 (from 22 April to 21 May 2008). From 18 to 27 December 2007 Mr Bashirov underwent treatment in a prison hospital.\n16.  In the same prison Ms Bashirova stayed in cell 52 (from 3 to 17 May 2005), cell 40 (from 11 to 15 March 2008) and cell 45 (from 15 March to 7 June 2008).\n17.  Mr Bashirov’s cells presented the following characteristics:\n18.  Ms Bashirova’s cells had the following measurements:\n19.  The parties disagreed on the number of detainees. The Government submitted that the number of detainees “had not exceeded the number of sleeping places”. They relied on a certificate issued by the prison governor on 29 June 2009. The applicants gave the following cell population figures: cell 15 – 15 persons, cell 69 – 22 persons, cells 35, 50 and 83 – 14 persons, cell 79 – 20 persons, cell 52 –", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6524", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Tunceli.\n6.  On 8 April 2003 the applicant made a request to the Governorship of Tunceli to be informed about the living conditions in his village, which he claimed to have had to leave in 1994 for security reasons. On 14 April 2003 the Governorship of Tunceli informed the applicant that he could move back to his village and that he would receive services and financial support from the Governorship for doing so. Subsequently, on 18 June 2003 the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı) conducted an on-site inspection and issued a report which indicated that the houses in the village were old and ruined.\n7.  On 4 December 2003 the applicant, together with several other residents of the village, applied to the Ministry of the Interior through the Governorship of Tunceli requesting compensation for the damage to his property that had occurred over the ten years he had had to live away from his village.\n8.  On 7 January 2004 the Governorship of Tunceli submitted a report to the Ministry of the Interior. The report stated that the residents had left the village of their own accord in 1994 and that the Administration had no liability regarding the damage to the property. It indicated that, in any event, there was no record or title deed to prove the applicant’s ownership of property in the village. The report was later approved by the Ministry of the Interior.\n9.  On 3 March 2004 the applicant instituted compensation proceedings in the Malatya Administrative Court against the Ministry of the Interior. He requested a total of 150,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 90,000 euros (EUR) at the time), claiming that he had not been allowed to go back to his village for nine years and that the administration was indirectly liable for the damage that had occurred over that time. The applicant also requested legal aid to cover the court fees.\n10.  On 16 March 2004 the Malatya Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request for legal aid, merely stating that he did not fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 465 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n11.  On 22 March 2004 the court notified the applicant that he was required to pay a court fee of TRL 2,035,100,000 (approximately EUR 1,200) and a postal fee of TRL 40,000,000 (approximately EUR 25) within thirty days. The applicant objected to the court’s decision regarding his request for legal aid. On 31 May 2004 the Administrative Court rejected his objection. The court stated that its decisions regarding legal aid were final.\n12.  On 2 June 2004 the court once more informed the applicant that he had to pay the required fees within thirty days in order to continue the proceedings and that the proceedings would be discontinued if he failed to do so.\n13.  On 15 July 2004 the Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had not paid the court fees.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6525", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company is a limited liability company based in Vienna.\n6.  The applicant company is the owner of the daily newspaper Der Standard. In its issue of 4 April 2006, in the economics section, the applicant company published an article dealing with the investigation into losses incurred by Hypo Alpe-Adria Bank. The article reads as follows:\n“Haider’s Hypo now also facing criminal investigation\nAfter the Financial Market Authority, the prosecution service is now also looking into allegations of embezzlement against Hypo Alpe-Adria Bank. Jörg Haider has accused the judicial authorities of being overzealous and politically motivated.\nKlagenfurt – Following the discovery of massive speculative losses from swap deals, the floodgates are threatening to open at Carinthia’s Hypo Alpe-Adria Bank. On Monday the Klagenfurt public prosecutor’s office initiated an investigation in respect of Hypo senior managers. Chief public prosecutor Gottfried Kranz said that the investigation, concerning suspected embezzlement, had been launched by the prosecution service of its own motion and that it would take the findings of the Financial Market Authority audit into account.\nRegional governor Jörg Haider criticised the “judicial authorities’ overzealousness” and spoke of a “politically motivated ploy to deflect attention away from the Bawag scandal”. His deputy Martin Strutz described the 328 million euros lost as a result of the speculation as a “molehill that should not be made into a mountain”.\nWolfgang Kulterer, of Hypo Alpe-Adria’s executive board, and Jörg Haider, who represents Hypo’s shareholders and also (through Landesholding) performs a supervisory function at the bank, had previously blamed the speculative losses of 328 million euros on an individual member of the bank’s treasury department, Christian Rauscher, the son of a former SPÖ regional government member with responsibility for finance. In 2004 Rauscher was not dismissed but merely demoted and transferred, being relieved of his duties only after the incident of the losses had become known.\nRauscher had been in charge of the treasury department, together with Andreas Zois, in 2004. The department was, however, under Kulterer’s personal authority as chairman of the executive board. To relieve Kulterer of his responsibilities as regards the treasury department, Josef Kircher was brought in to join Günther Striedinger and Thomas Morge on the Hypo board in 2004. At the same time, the 25% managing shareholder of Confida Holding, Karl-Heinz Moser, was promoted to become chairman of the Hypo supervisory board. Confida’s Klagenfurt subsidiary, Confida Treuhand GmbH, audited Hypo’s accounts. The 2004 financial statements, in which the massive speculative losses were intended to be adjusted, were signed by the Confida auditors Walter Grojer and Robert Zankl, the former of whom frequently crops up in circles close to Haider. As the swap losses were evidently too large-scale for Confida’s Klagenfurt subsidiary to handle, the audit firm Deloitte & Touche was consulted and promptly informed the Financial Market Authority.\nMeanwhile, Hypo’s flotation, which surprisingly had recently been brought forward to 2006, is very much up in the air. How matters are to proceed will now probably be on the agenda of Hypo’s shareholder meeting on Wednesday.\nAgainst this background, Hypo Alpe-Adria’s interest in Bank Burgenland also appears in a new light. In 2004 Hypo submitted the last and the best bid, bu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6527", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Izmir.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 2006 she initiated administrative proceedings against the Ege University Hospital, claiming compensation. She indicated, inter alia, that the doctors at the said hospital had not acted diligently during the numerous reconstructive operations she had undergone, which had resulted in severe complications affecting her ears and eyes. The applicant sought a total of 205,000 Turkish liras (TRY) (136,000 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, submitting medical records in support of her claims. The applicant also applied for legal aid for the required court fees, presenting a certificate from the office of the mayor of the neighbourhood (muhtar) in which she lived attesting to her poverty.\n7.  On 26 January 2006 the Izmir Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s legal aid application, after having stated that pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, an application for legal aid must be supported by proof that the case is well-founded and that the claimant does not have the means to pay the required court fees.\n8.  On 6 February 2006 the court informed the applicant that she was required to pay a total of TRY 2,767 (approximately EUR 1,800 at the time) in court fees within thirty days in order for the proceedings to be continued.\n9.  Subsequently, on 22 March 2006 the applicant applied for legal aid again and submitted additional documents proving her poor financial situation, including certificates from the Çiğli Directorate of Land Registration, the Revenue Department and the Directorate of Income, which indicated respectively that she did not own any immovable property, had no records in the tax roll and had no income. She also argued that her case was well-founded. On 29 March 2006 her application was rejected once more.\n10.  On 17 April 2006 the applicant was warned for the second time that she was required pay the required fees within thirty days in order for the proceedings to be continued.\n11.  On 14 June 2006 the Izmir Administrative Court decided to discontinue the compensation proceedings because the applicant had not paid the necessary court fees. That decision was served on the applicant on 29 June 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6528", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Vladimir region.\n5.  In 2004 and 2005 the applicant was convicted of a number of criminal offences and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. He has served his sentence in prisons in the Vladimir region.\n6.  From 20 July 2006 to 5 June 2009 the applicant was admitted to the tuberculosis unit in the hospital attached to Vladimir prison no. 3 (“the hospital”). On 5 June 2009 the applicant was transferred to medical facility LIU-8 in Kirzhach, in the Vladimir region.\n7.  The applicant raised the following specific grievances concerning his medical history and state of health.\n(a)  Myelopathy\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant was diagnosed with cervical spinal myelopathy accompanied by motor neuron impairment. In 2009 he described his condition as follows. He could bend his left knee but his right knee only bent with severe pain. As a result, the applicant hardly ever moved and his leg muscles were atrophied. His right-hand fingers were crooked; it was painful when he tried to straighten them. He suffered from severe pain in his right hand, left shoulder, small of the back, knees, neck, left foot and hip. His right-hand palm, back and right hip were covered with sores. He had sores on his right-hand fingers which suppurated.\n9.  During his admission and stay in the hospital from July 2006 to June 2009 the applicant was examined by neurologist K. The applicant’s medical records indicate that the applicant was bedridden and, for a period of time, communicated with hospital staff by handwritten notes. The neurologist recommended an MRI scan and early release from prison on health grounds. For unspecified reasons, no MRI scan was carried out. Early release was refused in August 2006.\n10.  In September 2006 the applicant was examined by neurologist N., who prescribed physical therapy, vitamin-based treatment, pain relief medication and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. It was also recommended that the applicant be examined by a rheumatologist and a trauma specialist (see also paragraph 17 below). X-rays of the right wrist joint and left knee joint were indicated.\n11.  It is unclear what acts of medical care were performed in relation to the applicant’s myelopathy from September 2006 to February 2007.\n12.  In reply to a letter from the applicant’s lawyer, in February 2007 L., a neurologist at the Vladimir Region Clinical Hospital, wrote to him advising that myelopathy was a chronic and slowly progressing disease, leading to gradual deterioration of the patient’s condition with increased symptoms related to the motor function, level of awareness, the function of the pelvic organs and bedsores. The neurologist concluded that “complex therapy was required in a specialised medical institution, including an electromyography (EMG) test every six months, irrespective of the treatment’s effectiveness”.\n13.  In September 2007 the applicant complained to the national authorities in relation to inadequate medical assistance rendered to him and poor conditions of his detention (see paragraphs 41-58 below).\n14.  In 2008 one of the above-mentioned neurologists examined the applicant and prescribed massage, medication and vitamins.\n15.  According to the applicant, he was not provided with any specific treatment (medication or physical therapy) in relation to his myelopathy. Any mention in his medical records of a refusal to receive myelopahy‑related treatment was f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6529", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Yerevan.\n6.  The applicant is a Jehovah’s Witness. From 1997 he attended various Jehovah’s Witnesses religious services.\n7.  On 31 January 1997 the applicant was registered as a person liable for military service with the Shahumyan Military Commissariat. Because the applicant was studying at the university, his military service was postponed.\n8.  On 23 September 2002 the applicant received notice to appear at the military commissariat to report for military service.\n9.  On the same date the applicant wrote a letter to the Malatia-Sebastia District Military Commissariat, stating that he would not report for military service and requesting that his case be sent to the Prosecutor’s Office. The applicant also informed the General Prosecutor of Armenia in writing that he refused to perform military service because of his religious beliefs but was willing to perform alternative civilian service.\n10.  On 2 October 2002 the Shahumyan Military Commissar wrote to the relevant police station about the applicant’s refusal to report for military service, asking that he be forcibly brought to the military commissariat.\n11.  On 17 October 2002 the applicant made a statement at the police station, explaining that he refused to perform military service because of his religious beliefs but was willing to perform alternative civilian service.\n12.  By a letter of 8 November 2002 the Shengavit District Prosecutor’s Office of Yerevan informed the applicant that he would face criminal charges if he failed to report for military service.\n13.  On 4 March 2003 criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 75 of the Criminal Code on account of the applicant’s draft evasion.\n14.  On 18 March 2003 the applicant was questioned at the Shengavit District Prosecutor’s Office of Yerevan. He once again submitted that he was refusing to serve in the army for religious reasons but was prepared to perform alternative civilian service.\n15.  On the same date the Shengavit District Court of Yerevan ordered that the applicant be detained on remand.\n16.  On 29 April 2003 the Shengavirt District Court of Yerevan found the applicant guilty of draft evasion and sentenced him to two years in prison.\n17.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal.\n18.  On 24 June 2003 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the District Court.\n19.  On 3 July 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal, arguing, inter alia, that his conviction violated his rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention.\n20.  On 25 July 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction.\n21.  On 28 August 2003 the applicant was released on parole after having served five months and ten days of his sentence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6530", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Van.\n6.  In 2008, during his military service, the applicant was disbanded from the army as he was diagnosed with a psychotic illness by the Van Military Hospital.\n7.  Subsequently, on 7 October 2008 he initiated compensation proceedings, claiming that he had become ill during his military service as a result of the degrading treatment he had been subjected to in the army. He claimed that he had been healthy before and that the Ministry of Defence had failed to provide medical treatment for his condition. The applicant requested a total of 150,000 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 80,000 euros (EUR) at the time) in both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, submitting the medical records from the Van Military Hospital in support of his claims. He also requested legal aid for the court fees, presenting a certificate from the office of the headman (muhtar) attesting to his poverty.\n8.  On 28 October 2008 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s legal aid request, after having stated that pursuant to the Code on Civil Procedure, a legal aid request must be supported by proof that the case is well-founded and that the plaintiff does not have the means to pay the required court fees. The court concluded that the requirements were not met in the applicant’s case.\n9.  On 31 October 2008 the court informed the applicant that he was to pay a total of TRY 2,384 (approximately EUR 1,300) in court fees within thirty days for the proceedings to be continued.\n10.  On 4 February 2009 the Supreme Military Administrative Court decided to discontinue the compensation proceedings because the applicant had not paid the necessary court fees.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6531", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Athens.\n5.  On 4 March 1999 criminal complaints in rem were brought with the Athens First Instance Prosecutor by the Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences for fraud, forgery and misappropriation of property related offences.\n6.  On 5 July 2004 charges were brought against the applicant for the abovementioned offences.\n7.  With indictment no. 2284/2005 of the Athens Prosecutor of Appeal the applicant and seventeen other defendants were referred to trial. The case was set for hearing on 21 November 2005.\n8.  For the period between 21 November 2005 and 6 June 2007, when the first instance proceedings were concluded, the Athens First Instance Criminal Court held two hundred and nine hearings. During this period ninety four witnesses were examined and more than one thousand and hundred documents were read.\n9.   By a judgment of 6 June 2007 the Athens First Instance Criminal Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to sixteen years of imprisonment (judgment no. 2444/2007).\n10.  On the same date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence.\n11.  On 4 November 2009 judgment no. 2444/2007 was finalised and a written copy of the decision and the minutes of the proceedings was available.\n12.  The appeal hearing, which was originally set for 19 November 2010, was subsequently adjourned to 21 February 2011, as two of the co-defendants of the applicant were admitted to a public hospital for treatment.\n13.  As it transpires from the case file, these proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6532", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Yambol.\n7.  Around 9 a.m. on 21 April 2004, while shopping in a small supermarket in the town of Yambol, the applicant was stopped by supermarket employees on suspicion of stealing a small bottle of vodka. The bottle cost 1.2 Bulgarian levs, the equivalent of approximately 61 euro cents. The supermarket employees took the applicant to an office at the back of the supermarket and left him with the manager, S.F. The owner of the store, P.D., was also informed and arrived at the supermarket before the police came.\n8.  Meanwhile, someone called the police and notified them that a theft had been committed in the supermarket.\n9.  According to the applicant, he was searched and his shopping basket was taken away from him. S.F. then accused him of theft, punched him in the face, knocked him down and began kicking his chest, while the applicant was yelling and pleading with him to stop. When S.F. stopped, the applicant managed to stand up and realised that a small amount of his money was missing. When he asked for the money back, as well as his glasses, which had fallen off during the beating, S.F. punched him again in the side of the head and knocked him down, after which P.D. also kicked him several times and told him that people like him caused damage to his business.\n10.  Shortly thereafter, two police officers arrived and found the applicant squatting by the wall in the presence of S.F. and P.D. The latter left immediately after the police had arrived, apparently using the back door.\n11.  According to the applicant’s statements, made during the ensuing investigation, he had told the police officers that he had been beaten up by two men and that he needed medical help. He also claimed that after the incident he could hardly walk and the police officers had helped him to the police car. During the investigation the police officers stated that upon their arrival they had been informed by the applicant about the beating. They contested the applicant’s assertions that he had requested medical help and maintained that he had not been injured and had been able to walk on his own.\n12.  The policemen drove the applicant to the police station in order to establish the circumstances surrounding the theft. While waiting in the reception hall to meet the officer in charge of the case, the applicant apparently felt severe pain, so he left and asked a stranger to drive him home.\n13.  Soon after that two police officers headed towards the applicant’s apartment. They found him sitting on a bench in front of the apartment building and accompanied him to the apartment. There the applicant signed a record in connection with the theft. During the ensuing investigation one of the police officers contended that while the officers had been at his apartment the applicant had lain in bed and had looked ill.\n14.  After the police officers had left, the applicant felt very sick and his wife called an ambulance.\n15.  On the same day the applicant was admitted to the emergency department of the Yambol Hospital, where it was established that he had five broken ribs, bilateral pneumothorax, subcutaneous emphysema of the upper part of the body and bruising to the head, chest and abdomen.\n16.  Two days later, on 23 April 2004, the applicant was transferred to Stara Zagora Hospital, where he underwent several examinations. According to the medical reports he had ten broken ribs, subcutaneous emphysema, haematomas on the front, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6533", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Yerevan.\n6.  The applicant is a Jehovah’s Witness. From 1993 he attended various Jehovah’s Witnesses religious services and was baptised on 26 June 1994 at the age of 13.\n7.  On 4 January 1997 the applicant was registered as a person liable for military service with the Shahumyan Military Commissariat.\n8.  In September 1998, when the applicant turned 18, he advised the military commissariat by letter that he refused to serve in the military because of his religious beliefs. At that time, he also left home being afraid that he would be taken to the military by force.\n9.  During the following months, according to the applicant, military personnel harassed his family in an attempt to force him to join the military.\n10.  On 15 December 1998 the applicant sent identical letters to the General Prosecutor of Armenia, the Ministry of Justice of Armenia, the Military Commissioner of Armenia, the Malatia-Sebastia District Prosecutor’s Office and the Shahumyan Military Commissariat, stating that it was contrary to his conscience and religious beliefs to serve in the military and that he was willing to perform alternative civilian service.\n11.  By a letter of 28 January 2000 the applicant was informed in writing by the Malatia-Sebastia District Prosecutor’s Office that no criminal proceedings would be brought against him, if he reported for military service. The letter also urged the applicant to fulfil his civic and filial duty to his motherland and to go through the school of maturity in the form of military service.\n12.  One year after receiving the above letter, the applicant was contacted by assistant prosecutor K. The applicant went to meet K. in April 2001. According to the applicant, he was told that a criminal case would not be initiated and that he would be forced to perform military service. The applicant was accused of being a traitor to his country, his religious beliefs were ridiculed, and he was mocked and cursed because he would not serve in the military.\n13.  On 5 July 2001 the applicant sent another letter to the authorities once again explaining the reasons for his refusal to serve in the army.\n14.  On 8 April 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 75 of the Criminal Code on account of the applicant’s draft evasion.\n15.  On 10 May 2002 a formal charge of draft evasion was brought against the applicant and a search was declared for him.\n16.  On 13 May 2002 the Malatia-Sebastia District Court of Yerevan ordered the applicant’s detention on remand and authorised the monitoring of his correspondence.\n17.  On 26 November 2002 the applicant, having learnt that a criminal case had been initiated against him, went to the Malatia-Sebastia District Prosecutor’s Office where he was immediately placed under arrest.\n18.  On 1 December 2002 the applicant was released after signing an undertaking not to leave his place of residence.\n19.  On 2 April 2003 the Malatia-Sebastia District Court of Yerevan found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years in prison.\n20.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed.\n21.  On 2 May 2003 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the District Court.\n22.  On 12 May 2003 the applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that his conviction violated his rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the Convention.\n23.  On 30 May 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction.\n24.  On 21 June 2003 the applicant was im", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6534", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lived until his arrest in Krasnodar.\n6.  In 2004 the applicant had two operations: a retinal laser coagulation of the left eye and amputation of toes of the right foot. In the same year, unsuccessful surgery led to the entire loss of sight in the applicant’s right eye. Two years later, he underwent a kidney transplantation. In August 2007 he was admitted to Krasnodar Regional Clinical Hospital no. 1 where he underwent a number of tests and received treatment for diabetes.\n7.  In 2008 the applicant’s hip joints were replaced with prostheses in the Heidelberg Town University Clinique in Germany. As follows from a letter issued on 22 July 2008 by the head of the Clinique Medical Service, the applicant was required to make multiple monthly visits to the Clinique for check ups and medical treatment. The first such appointment was scheduled for August 2008.\n8.  Extract no. 46707 of the applicant’s medical record drawn up on 22 December 2008 by a medical commission in Krasnodar Regional Clinical Hospital no. 1 reads as follows:\n“[The applicant]... is a disabled person [officially recognised as having a] 1st degree disability; [he] underwent inpatient treatment from 12 to 22 December 2008.\nClinical diagnosis: subcompensated type 1 insular diabetes, severe state. Diabetic micro- and macroangiopathy. Diabetic glomerulosclerosis. End stage chronic renal failure, terminal stage.\nDiabetic retinopathy of both eyes; retinal detachment of the right eye. Dysmetabolic encephalopathy. Gastroenteropathy. Myelotoxic anaemia. Polyneuropathy. Polyserositis. Diabetic foot. Condition after amputation of the 4th and 5th toes on the right foot. Allotransplantation of a donor kidney (November 2006). Permanent immunosuppression therapy. Osteochondritis deformans juvenilis of hips. Condition after total hip replacement. Acute respiratory disease.\nBecause of his main illness and associated complications, the state of the patient’s health is serious ...\n...\nThe patient was informed about the seriousness of his condition and was warned that if he failed to comply with the strict fluid balance, diet, mandatory lab control, [and in the absence of] strict and regular use of medicines (particularly the immunosuppressive drugs) kidney transplant rejection and diabetes could occur.”\n9.  On 1 February 2009 the Novorossiysk Town Investigative Department of the Krasnodar Regional Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of involuntary manslaughter.\n10.  Eleven days later, the applicant was arrested. According to the prosecution authorities, on 1 February 2009 in a local restaurant the applicant, a prominent criminal leader, organised an assault in which five individuals were severely injured. One of the victims died as a result.\n11.  On 14 February 2009 the applicant’s detention on remand was authorised and he was placed in temporary detention facility no. 5 in Krasnodar. The facility occupied the ground and last floors of a four-storey building constructed in 1938. The administrative offices and technical facilities were located on the ground floor of the building while the cells were located on the fourth floor. The building was not equipped with a lift.\n12.  On the applicant’s admission, the acting director of the facility issued a report allowing the applicant to have a number of objects usually prohibited for detainees. The list included a wheelchair, a glucometer, a tonometer, specific me", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6535", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Bratsk in the Irkutsk Region.\n5.  At around 3 a.m. on 29 January 2001 the applicant and his accomplice were arrested when attempting to rob a private shop. The applicant had tied up a shop attendant and the guard. His accomplice had threatened the staff with a gun. The police had to use physical force against the applicant, who was pacified and was then taken to a police station.\n6.  The applicant complained about the use of force against him. A medical report dated 5 February 2001 indicated that he displayed linear joining bruises on his left hip and two oval bruises on the right hip. The expert concluded that the injuries could have been inflicted with a man’s boots. The town prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the officers. The inquiry was closed and reopened on several occasions between 2001 and 2008.\n7.  On an unspecified date an investigating or prosecuting authority decided that the applicant should be kept in detention pending the investigation of the attempted armed robbery. On 26 April 2001 the applicant was informed of his right to legal assistance. As can be seen from the notification record, the applicant waived the right to legal assistance for reasons “unrelated to financial hardship” and refused to sign the record. His accomplice also waived his right to legal assistance; the record was signed by a lawyer.\n8.   On an unspecified date the criminal case against the applicant was committed for trial at the Bratsk Town Court in the Irkutsk Region. On 23 July 2001 the Town Court rejected an application by the defence for the applicant’s release, noting that he was charged with a particularly serious offence and was not a resident of Bratsk. At the same hearing the court decided that the case file should be returned to the prosecutor “in view of the violation of the applicant’s right to legal assistance at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings”. On 17 September 2001 the Town Court decided, without giving any reasons, that the applicant should remain in custody.\n9.  On 16 July 2002 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention as follows:\n“The Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force on 1 July 2002...and requires that the detention issue be determined by a court... [The applicant] is charged with a particularly serious offence, has pleaded not guilty, has no permanent place of residence in Bratsk and, therefore, might abscond and obstruct the proceedings... The court decides that [the applicant’s] detention should be extended to 1 October 2002.”\nThe applicant appealed. On 10 September 2002, for unspecified reasons, the Irkutsk Regional Court adjourned the examination of the applicant’s appeal against that decision (see also paragraph 11 below).\n10.  On 2 October 2002 the Town Court ordered another extension, to 1 January 2003, in the following terms:\n“While the court has taken note of the [applicant’s] state of health and disability, it cannot release him because he is charged with a violent and particularly serious offence, has pleaded not guilty and has no permanent place of residence in Bratsk. He might evade trial, continue his criminal activity and obstruct the proceedings; the victims fear to attend hearings.”\n11.  On 29 October 2002 the Regional Court again adjourned the examination of the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 16 July 2002 because the applicant had not been brought to the appeal hearing. On an unspec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6536", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are relatives of the late Mr Vitaliy Eduardovich Vulakh. The first two applicants are his father and mother, born in 1932 and 1939 respectively, and the third and fourth applicants are his children, born in 1985 and 1984 respectively. They lived in Kurganinsk in the Krasnodar Region.\n6.  On an unspecified date a criminal investigation was opened into several counts of murder, robbery and destruction of property committed by a criminal syndicate. It appears that Mr Vitaliy Vulakh was suspected of being the leader of the syndicate.\n7.  On 25 March 2002 Mr S., Mr N. and Mr K. were arrested on suspicion of membership of the gang. On learning of their arrest, Mr Vitaliy Vulakh shot dead his fiancée and committed suicide.\n8.  On 20 June 2002 the criminal prosecution of Mr Vitaliy Vulakh was discontinued as a result of his death.\n9.  On 3 October 2002 the Krasnodar Regional Court convicted Mr S., Mr N. and Mr K. of serious criminal offences and sentenced them to lengthy terms of imprisonment. The judgment mentioned that Mr Vitaliy Vulakh had been the leader of a criminal enterprise and had told the defendants to murder his business competitor Mr G. It read, in particular, as follows:\n“The person who had been the leader of the gang (V[italiy] Vulakh) in respect of whom the case was discontinued because of his death, had money at his disposal, he funded the gang and paid each gang member to commit crimes: he bought cars, paid for their maintenance, petrol and travel expenses...”\n10.  In these proceedings the victims Mr G., Mr F., Ms B. and Ms V. brought civil claims against the three defendants, seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Regional Court indicated that these claims should be examined in separate civil proceedings.\n11.  On 14 October 2002 the first applicant lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. He submitted that the decision on the discontinuation of criminal proceedings against his son had never been notified to him or to his son’s counsel, and that counsel had not been allowed to study the file or plead his son’s innocence.\n12.  On 6 November 2002 a judge of the Krasnodar Regional Court informed the first applicant that he had no right to lodge an appeal to the Supreme Court because he was not a party to the criminal case. The judge wrote to him that further appeals would also be rejected.\n13.  It appears that on 2 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined appeals by those convicted and upheld the judgment of 3 October 2002. A copy of this judgment was not made available to the Court.\n14.  On 5 March 2003 a notary public issued the four applicants with a certificate of succession on intestacy, according to which they inherited Mr Vitaliy Vulakh’s house.\n15.  On an unspecified date Mr G., Mr F., Ms B., Ms V. and a private company sued the four applicants and the Kurganinskiy dairy factory, of which Mr Vitaliy Vulakh had been a minority shareholder, for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.\n16.  On 4 September 2003 the Kurganinskiy District Court of the Krasnodar Region found against the applicants and the dairy factory, finding as follows:\n“According to Article 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the victim shall be compensated for the pecuniary damage caused by the crime, as well as for the costs incurred during the pre-trial investigation and trial...\nAccording to Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Fed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6537", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1953 and is serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony in the town of Solikamsk, Perm Region (Russia).\n8.  The applicant was arrested on 8 February 1996 in the town of Ukhta, Komi Republic. On 25 December 1997 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic convicted him of, inter alia, attempted rape and several counts of murder, and sentenced him to death. On 22 December 1998 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the trial judgment in substance.\n9.  In 1999 the President of Russia issued an act of clemency in respect of the applicant, replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment. Thereafter, the applicant unsuccessfully sought a supervisory review of the conviction.\n10.  Between February 1996 and January 2000 the applicant was detained for various periods of time in Sosnogorsk remand centre no. 11/2 in the Komi Republic and other detention facilities. After his arrest the applicant was admitted to hospital because he had frostbite on his feet. He underwent a surgical operation resulting in the amputation of the fifth toe on his right foot and the distal part of his left foot. In 1996 he was diagnosed with diabetes. In December 1999 the applicant was examined in a hospital. A group of experts concluded that he was able to work, except if it required physical exertion; no disability status was attributed.\n11.  In 2001 the applicant was transferred to Solikamsk colony no. 2 in the Perm Region (“the colony”). Between 2002 and 2004 he was treated for tuberculosis. It was indicated that he would shortly be examined to determine whether he needed dental and ophthalmological treatment and orthopaedic footwear.  In late 2004 the applicant was treated for his diabetes, diabetic angiopathy (the generic term for a disease of the blood vessels) and other diseases. The doctors recommended oral medication to lower blood glucose and a diet. The applicant received medication by Maninil, an oral blood-glucose-lowering drug. It does not transpire from the available medical record that any blood or urine tests were carried out between late 2004 and late 2005 (see paragraph 13 below).\n12.  The applicant lodged complaints in relation to the allegedly inadequate treatment of his diabetes, unavailability of books on diabetes, insufficient nutrition and some other matters relating to medical care. On 3 May 2005 the Solikamsk Penitentiary Office stated that it was not incumbent on this office or another public authority to supply books to individual detainees; that all relevant counselling on diabetes could be obtained from the detainee’s doctor, and that the applicant had been examined by a therapist on a number of occasions and received the necessary medication, including oral medication by Maninil. Another complaint was examined on 31 October 2005 by the Perm Region Penitentiary Department. It rejected the applicant’s complaints, indicating that no special or high-vitamin diet was required for prisoners suffering from diabetes; that they were to be fed according to the standard set by the Ministry of Justice (see paragraph 37 below); that the applicant was given appropriate medication; and that in December 2005 he would be able to have a medical consultation concerning his requests for dental treatment, orthopaedic footwear and an eyesight check-up.\n13.  In October 2005 blood and urine tests were carried out; the applicant also had an X-ray, which showed no anomalies. From 28 November to 8 December 2005 he was admitted to pri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6538", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1938 and lives in the town of Novomoskovsk, Ukraine. The second applicant was born in 1941 and died in 2006. The third, fourth and fifth applicants were born in 1960, 1984 and 1992 respectively and live in the town of Pyatykhatky, Ukraine.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 22 November 1999, shortly after midnight, D., the then deputy head of the criminal investigation department (заступник начальника відділення карного розшуку) at the Pyatykhatky District Police Office (П’ятихатський районний відділ УМВС України в Дніпропетровській області), was on his way back from a private trip in a car driven by an acquaintance of his, Mr V. Bugara. The third applicant was also in the car. Having quarrelled with Mr V. Bugara, D., who was drunk, deliberately fired on and instantly killed him, using the police gun which he carried on him at all times. D. then attempted to shoot the third applicant but missed. The third applicant managed to run away.\n8.  After that D. tried to stop passing cars. Mr A. Gorovenko, who happened to be driving by at that time, stopped and spoke to D., who pretended that his car had broken down and asked for help. However, Mr A. Gorovenko suspected that something was wrong and tried to get away. D. shot Mr A. Gorovenko and attempted to shoot  R., who was a passenger in Mr A. Gorovenko’s car, and seriously wounded her.\n9.  Soon D. was apprehended by passers-by and taken to the police station.\n10.  Shortly after the incident the police launched an internal investigation. The report, signed on 23 November 1999, brought to light a number of “causes and pre-conditions” stemming from poor regulation by the Pyatykhatky District and Dnipropetrovsk Regional Police Offices which had led to the incident in question. It mentioned, among other things, that the superior officers had failed to adequately examine D.’s character when recruiting and promoting him. In particular, several incidents which demonstrated D’s unsuitability for service in the police department were mentioned. When studying at police college D. had been dismissed from the position of section commander for alcohol abuse. In 1994 he had inflicted light bodily injuries on Sh. and had been sanctioned on three occasions for disciplinary offences. It was further mentioned that his superior officers had failed to enforce and maintain discipline over their subordinates. In particular, several incidents involving police officers from the Pyatykhatky District Police Office were referred to. The superior officers had failed to exercise due control when permitting their subordinates to keep and carry police guns at all times. The report stated that the superior officers had not checked the conditions in which D. kept his police gun at home and had not supervised D.’s behaviour when he was off duty. Furthermore, although D. was known to abuse alcohol, his superiors had not withdrawn his police gun in due time. In particular, on 13 November 1999, while the elections of the President of Ukraine were taking place and the police were operating under a special “reinforced” regime, D. had returned home intoxicated.\n11.  It was decided that two officers (including the head of the Pyatykhatky District Police Office) were to be dismissed and six others subjected to disciplinary sanctions.\n12.  On 22 November 1999 the local prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against D. In the c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6539", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk.\n6.  The applicant was the Vice-President, founder and majority shareholder of the Bank Slavyansky (hereinafter – the Bank). On 2 February 2000 the State Tax Police instituted criminal proceedings into tax evasion by the management of the Bank and on 10 March 2000 the State Tax Administration instituted another set of criminal proceedings for abuse of office by the management of the Bank (for more details see Feldman v. Ukraine, nos. 76556/01 and 38779/04, 8 April 2010).\n7.  On 13 March 2000 the applicant was arrested and from that date he was detained as a criminal suspect until his conviction by the Artemivskiy Court on 19 April 2002.\n8.  On 4 May 2000 the applicant asked the investigator to arrange a visit by the Rabbi of the Dnipropetrovsk Region. On the same date the rabbi also made a request to see the applicant for religious conversations.\n9.  On 6 May 2000 the investigator refused the requests on the ground that a meeting between the applicant and the rabbi might impair the establishment of truth in the case.\n10.  On 19 May 2000 the applicant asked the investigator to allow him visits by his wife and sister. The request was refused on same day on the ground that such a visit might impair the establishment of truth in the case.\n11.  On 7 and 11 August 2000 the applicant’s sister requested leave to visit the applicant. By letters of 15 August 2000 these requests were refused, on the ground that the investigation was pending and the visit might impair the establishment of truth in the case.\n12.  On 9 August 2000 the applicant’s lawyer asked the investigator to transfer the applicant to Dnipropetrovsk to attend his father’s funeral. On 11 August 2000 the investigator refused this request on the ground that domestic law did not provide for escorting suspects for such purposes.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6540", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is currently in custody.\n6.  On 7 September 2001 a group of persons, allegedly including the applicant, entered the house of a certain S. and burgled it.\n7.  On 10 September 2001 the police instituted an investigation into the burglary. In the course of the investigation, charges were brought against several persons and proceedings were pending against them in parallel.\n8.  On 12 September 2001 the applicant stole a car belonging to a certain K. and was involved in a collision. He was caught by the police on the same day and criminal proceedings were instituted against him.\n9.  The next day the applicant was charged with car theft.\n10.  On 14 September 2001 the applicant’s detention on remand on account of the car theft charge against him was authorised by the Leninskyy District Court of Odessa (“the District Court”, which was apparently joined to the Suvorovsky District Court of Odessa after an administrative reform).\n11.  By 7 November 2001 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant’s car theft case was transferred to the District Court for examination on the merits.\n12.  On 11 January 2002 the court, having found out that criminal proceedings on other charges were also pending against the applicant (i.e. burglary charges, of which the applicant claims to have been unaware), remitted the car theft case to the investigator to be joined to the burglary case and investigated further. The court also confirmed the applicant’s further detention on remand.\n13.  On 17 January 2002, after the District Court had decided to join the applicant’s car theft and burglary cases, the applicant attempted to commit suicide in protest. There were further attempts to commit suicide on 28 February 2003 and 11 November 2005, in response to the court’s allegedly unlawful acts. On several occasions the applicant went on hunger strike.\n14.  On an unspecified date the investigator, having taken over the remitted case, joined the two cases against the applicant.\n15.  On 2 February 2002 the applicant was formally charged with burglary.\n16.  By 14 March 2002 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant’s case in respect of the car theft and burglary charges was transferred to the District Court for examination on the merits.\n17.  On 11 November 2002 the victim and witnesses failed to appear before the court. The court rescheduled the hearing and ordered that their attendance at the next court hearing be secured by the authorities (prosecutor and police). The next four court hearings were also rescheduled for the same reason, extending the proceedings by three months. On 26 November and 13 December 2002 and 21 January 2003 the court complained to the authorities about their failure to enforce its instructions to secure attendance at its hearings. It noted, inter alia, that delays in the examination of a case lengthened the detention of the accused in the SIZO, which was overcrowded and had poor sanitary conditions.\n18.  On 3 March 2003 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. It also ordered that his detention be continued pending the appeal proceedings. According to the applicant, the judgment was given in his and his lawyer’s absence and he was informed of it only on 11 March 2003.\n19.  On 31 July 2003 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal partly allowed the applicant’s appeal, quashing the judgment relating to the burglary charge and r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6541", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and is currently serving a life sentence in Izyaslav.\n7.  On 21 February 2002 the applicant was convicted of robbery and other crimes, sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment and taken to the Kryvyy Rig correctional colony to serve his sentence.\n8.  While the applicant was serving his sentence, new criminal proceedings were instituted in which charges of criminal association membership, murder and other violent crimes were advanced against him. On an unspecified date N. N. was appointed as the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer. Subsequently A. K., another legal-aid lawyer, replaced him.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant, along with several other individuals, was committed for trial to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (hereafter “the Regional Court”), acting as a first-instance court. The charges against him included belonging to a criminal association, as a member of which he had taken part in three murders with a view to personal gain; several robberies; unlawful handling of arms; and unlawful taking of a vehicle.\n10.  During the trial the applicant confessed to having participated in the robberies and the other crimes attributed to him. However, he argued that his personal role in the murders had been negligible, and that he had not had any intention of profiting personally from one of the three murders.\n11.  The applicant also complained to the court that he had been tortured by the investigative authorities during the pre-trial investigation. The court ordered the Dnipropetrovsk Prosecutors’ Office to conduct an inquiry into the applicant’s complaint, which found that there was no case of ill‑treatment to answer.\n12.  On 6 January 2005 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to life imprisonment.\n13.  The applicant and A. K. (his legal-aid lawyer) drafted separate cassation appeals. The applicant’s lawyer challenged the assessment of the facts and application of the law in respect of several points and requested a milder sentence.\n14.  The applicant, for his own part, complained, primarily, about the severity of his sentence, of ill-treatment by the investigative authorities, and of the court’s failure to question Z., another alleged criminal association member, who had been on a wanted list. In his appeal, the applicant also stated that he wanted to further substantiate his arguments once he had had a chance to study the case file.\n15.  On 23 and 24 March and 4 and 5 April 2005 the applicant was brought into the Regional Court’s offices to study the case file in order to prepare his cassation appeal. He signed affidavits asserting that he had read the entire case file.\n16.  On 14 June 2005 the Supreme Court of Ukraine adjourned consideration of the case until 13 September 2005 in order to ensure the applicant’s and his co-defendants’ presence at the proceedings.\n17.  On 28 June 2005 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court that he had not been properly familiarised with the case-file materials. He mentioned, in particular, that he had only been brought to the court’s records office to study the file on four occasions. He further noted that he had remained in handcuffs at all times and that this had not only been physically painful, but also detrimental to his ability to take notes. Lastly, the applicant noted that he had been coerced into signing the affidavits that stated that he had properly studied the file. The applicant asked the Supreme Court to ensure that he be p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6542", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Lysychansk.\n7.  On 15 April 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted into an alleged abuse of authority by officers of the State Melnikova coal mine on account of acquisition of portable telephones for the mine despite the fact that it was badly in arrears with the payment of salaries to its employees.\n8.  On 17 June 2002 the applicant, the director of the above-mentioned mine at the material time, was officially charged with abuse of authority in connection with the above-mentioned proceedings.\n9.  On 18 June 2002 the applicant was placed under an undertaking not to abscond. Subsequently the applicant was also suspended from his duties as director of the Melnikova mine pending the pre-trial criminal investigation of the charges against him.\n10.  On 23 June 2002 R., the mine’s accountant, was also charged with the abuse of authority within the same proceedings.\n11.  On 30 June 2002 the pre-trial investigation was completed and on 10 July 2002 the case was transferred to the Lysychansk Town Court for trial.\n12.  On 24 July 2002 new criminal proceedings concerning charges of tax evasion by way of alienation of the mine’s promissory notes by the applicant and R. were joined to the previous proceedings.\n13.  On 14 August 2002 new criminal proceedings concerning charges of another episode of tax evasion (alienation of the mine’s machinery as scrap metal without the consent of the State tax authorities) were instituted against the applicant and R. On the same date these proceedings were joined to the first criminal proceedings against them.\n14.  On 3 September 2002 the bill of indictment in respect of the tax evasion charges was transferred to the Lysychansk Town Court for trial.\n15.  On 19 November 2002 the Lysychansk Town Court acquitted the applicant and R. of the charges of abuse of position in connection with the acquisition of the portable telephones, finding that this action had been taken in the mine’s interest. It convicted them of abuse of authority with respect to the other facts of the case. The court further sentenced the applicant to four years’ suspended imprisonment and a term of probation of one year.\n16.  On 7 February 2003 the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld that judgment.\n17.  On 1 April 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine examined the cassation appeals lodged against the above judgments and remitted the case for a fresh appellate review. It found, in particular, that the Court of Appeal had provided insufficient reasoning for rejecting the applicant’s arguments that his actions had been lawful.\n18.  On 6 August 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 19 November 2002 with respect to the episodes on the basis of which the applicant had been convicted, and remitted the case to the prosecutor’s office for further investigation.\n19.  On 1 December 2004 the prosecutors’ office dropped the charges in respect of the alienation of scrap metal.\n20.  On 14 December 2004 the case in respect of the alienation of promissory notes was referred to the Lysychansk Town Court for a re-trial.\n21.  On 14 January 2005 the Lysychansk Town Court remitted the case to the prosecutor’s office for further investigation. It found, in particular, that the charges were insufficiently substantiated, as it was not evident whether the applicant had pursued criminal motives in selling the promissory notes or what damage to public or private interests had been caused by", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6543", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is currently serving a life sentence in prison.\n6.  On 19 May 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a series of murders.\n7.  On 22 October 2002 the investigation was completed and the applicant started to study the case file. During the pre-trial investigation and the examination of the case file the applicant was assisted by a legal-aid lawyer.\n8.  On 7 November 2002 the applicant and the lawyer finished examining the case file in full.\n9.  On 8 September 2003 the Donetsk Court of Appeal, acting as a first-instance court (“the first-instance court”), found the applicant guilty of seventeen murders and other less serious crimes committed by him between 1999 and 2002 and sentenced him to life imprisonment with confiscation of property. During the trial the applicant was represented by the lawyer.\n10.  According to the applicant, following the judgment of 8 September 2003, he was not assisted by any lawyer despite his complaints to the first-instance court on this account.\n11.  On 2 October 2003 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court a cassation appeal against the judgment of 8 September 2003.\n12.  On 17 September 2003, in the course of preparation to the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the applicant requested the first-instance court to familiarise him with the minutes of the hearings.\n13.  On 23 January 2004 the applicant started to examine the minutes of the hearings held by the first-instance court.\n14.  On 26 January 2004 the applicant submitted that he would continue examination of the minutes only after he had studied the case file one more time. He therefore requested that the case file be provided to him for examination.\n15.  On 2 February 2004 the first-instance court, having regard to the applicant’s statements, set a five-day period for him to examine the minutes of the hearings. Despite the fact that the applicant was invited on several occasions to continue studying the minutes of the hearings, he refused to do so, insisting that he needed to examine the case file first.\n16.  On 28 April 2004 the first-instance court found that the applicant had refused to familiarise himself with the minutes of the hearings for no valid reason and allowed no further time to do so. The applicant was then provided with the case file.\n17.  On 16 July 2004 the first-instance court found that, despite having been provided with the case file on several occasions, the applicant had examined only two volumes of the file. As the file consisted of twenty-five volumes, the court concluded that the applicant’s actions suggested that he had deliberately sought to draw out the time allowed for examining the case file. It set therefore a thirty-five-day time-limit for him to complete his examination of the case file.\n18.  During fifty-three days between July and September 2004 the applicant was provided with the case file. He managed to examine twelve volumes of the file.\n19.  On 28 September 2004 the first-instance court decided to allow no further time for the applicant to study the case file, as the relevant time-limit had expired.\n20.  On 7 April 2005 the Supreme Court held a hearing in the applicant’s case. In his further submissions before the Supreme Court the applicant complained, inter alia, that there had been a lack of legal assistance and lack of time to study the case file.\n21.  The same day the Supreme Court, in the presence of the prosecutor and the applicant, who ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6544", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 11 July 2005 company P. instituted proceedings against Mr Karel Blažek claiming to be the true owner of shares held by him constituting a ninety percent share of the applicant company. Mr Karel Blažek is the chair of the board of directors of the applicant company and signed the powers of attorney accompanying the present applications. These proceedings (“share surrender proceedings”) are pending.\n6.  During these proceedings company P. asked the courts to order interim measures to prohibit the applicant company from holding scheduled general meetings. It argued that a general meeting would have irreversible negative effects on its rights, such as the payout of the company’s dividends amounting to approximately 40,000,000 Czech korunas (CZK) (approximately 1,667,000 euros (EUR)), and control being gained over the company through personnel changes in the board of directors. Such effects should be seen in the context of the existing situation where the ownership or holding of shares and the attached entitlement to exercise voting rights was controversial, or, rather, where a person other than the owner had the majority of shares at his unauthorised disposal.\n7.  The applicant company runs a bakery business in several cities in south-west Bohemia. Between 2006 and 2009 it generated annual profits of between CZK 19,000,000 and 34,000,000 (EUR 790,000 and 1,420,000).\n8.  On 1 November 2005 the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) granted an interim measure and, without any reasoning, prohibited the applicant company from convening its general meeting scheduled for 9 November 2005. On 20 December 2006 and 21 February 2007 respectively, it ordered the same interim measures regarding general meetings scheduled for 15 January 2007 and 5 March 2007, respectively. Only the last decision was reasoned: the court stated that the aim of the interim measure was to preclude the adoption of fundamental decisions concerning the applicant company without the claimant, who claimed to be a majority shareholder, being able to influence those decisions.\n9.  The applicant company appealed against the original interim measure arguing that it was not a party to the main proceedings but that the court had nevertheless imposed obligations on it which had a negative effect on its business, that it had learnt about the interim measure only after it had been ordered, and that the decision had lacked any reasoning.\n10.  On 10 May 2006 the Prague High Court (vrchní soud) upheld the interim measure. It held that according to the law, decisions on interim measures did not need to be reasoned if the defendant had not raised any arguments against it, as in the present case. It further held that all the legal conditions for ordering the measure had been satisfied. Lastly, it opined that the law allowed for an interim measure to impose obligations on third parties under exceptional circumstances. This condition, the court held, had been satisfied in the present case, because the defendant controlled the applicant company and the general meeting could have had serious negative and irreversible effects on the claimant’s rights.\n11.  On 19 September 2006 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the applicant company’s constitutional appeal holding that constitutional appeals against interim measures were not allowed.\n12.  On 16 June 2006 the Municipal Court, upon company P.’s request, granted another interim measure prohibiting the applicant company from conveni", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6546", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979.\n6.  On 26 January 1993 the applicant, in the presence of numerous witnesses, was hit by a car on a pedestrian crossing. He sustained grievous bodily injuries and was diagnosed, inter alia, with serious head injury, concussion, spinal cord haematoma, a broken lower jaw, and other serious injuries. From that time on, and until his death on 24 March 2010, he was severely disabled. In particular, between 1993 and 1996 he was in a coma and later he had been suffering from persistent after-effects of the head injury, was unable to take care of himself and in 2005 was declared legally incapable by the court.\n7.  On 5 February 1993 the Investigation Unit of the Kharkiv State Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (слідчий відділ ХДУ УМВС України в м. Харкові) (hereinafter “the Investigation Unit”) instituted criminal proceedings against the driver, K., for a violation of traffic rules.\n8.  On 27 October 1993 the applicant’s mother was declared a victim of the alleged crime, since the applicant was a minor and had serious health problems.\n9.  On 30 November 1994 the investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Frunzenskyy District Court, Kharkiv.\n10.  On 9 December 1994 the case was returned by the court for additional investigation.\n11.  On 25 January 1995 the Investigation Unit terminated the criminal proceedings in the case for absence of proof of K.’s guilt.\n12.  On 7 April 1995 the Kharkiv Prosecutor quashed this decision.\n13.  On 23 October 1995 the Investigation Unit terminated the criminal proceedings on the same grounds as before.\n14.  On 16 April 1997 this decision was quashed by the Kharkiv Prosecutor and the case was sent for further investigation.\n15.  On 28 January 1998 the investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Frunzenskiy District Court, Kharkiv. It was later transferred to the Kominternovskiy District Court, also Kharkiv.\n16.  On 22 March 2000 the court returned the case for further investigation.\n17.  On 25 April 2000 the Kharkiv Regional Court, upon an application for review lodged by the Kharkiv Prosecutor, quashed the decision of 22  March 2000 and transferred the case to the Kominternovskiy District Court for consideration on the merits.\n18.  On 10 August 2001 the latter court returned the case for further investigation.\n19.  On 26 September 2001 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (formerly the Kharkiv Regional Court) upheld this decision.\n20.  On 19 June 2002 the case was sent back to the court after additional investigation.\n21.  On 27 July 2002 the Kominternovskiy District Court returned the case for further investigation.\n22.  On 15 August 2002 the case was transferred for investigation to the Poltava Regional Police Department (слідче управління УМВС України в Полтавській області).\n23.  By a letter of 10 December 2002 the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant’s mother that, in order to clarify inconsistencies in previous expert conclusions, a new technical forensic examination of K.’s car had been ordered. It stated that it would be conducted in spring 2003.\n24.  On 7 November 2003 the investigation was terminated and the case transferred to the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor for further transfer to a court.\n25.  On 12 November 2003 the case was sent back to the Poltava Regional Police Department.\n26.  On 30 December 2003 the case was transferred to the Central Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6547", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Simferopol.\n7.  On 2 August 1999 the applicant, a police officer at the material time, was arrested on suspicion of membership of a criminal association run by S. P., another police officer, and participation in armed robberies. On the same date his house was allegedly searched without a warrant.\n8.  On 3 August 1999 the applicant signed a waiver of his right to legal representation. On the same date he confessed to having participated in group assaults on families I. and S. in August 1998 upon S. P.’s invitation. He also noted that he believed that the families were visited for collection of unpaid business debts in favour of third parties. According to the applicant, he notified the investigator that he was unable to see the record of his questioning as he had been suffering from eye cataracts.\n9.  On 5 August 1999 the applicant was indicted. He signed the statement of indictment, having noted that he fully acknowledged his guilt and requested to be released from detention, since he needed in-patient treatment on account of his skin disease and eye cataracts, as well as surgery for the latter.\n10.  On the same date the applicant obtained access to an advocate. It is unclear, however, whether the advocate was present during the applicant’s interrogation and indictment on that date.\n11.  Also on the same date the applicant was remanded in custody as a preventive measure. On various occasions the applicant appealed against this measure, in particular, referring to an urgent need to have eye surgery and in-patient treatment for other medical conditions. However his requests were rejected.\n12.  During the pre-trial investigation, the authorities questioned some 120 witnesses concerning over thirty episodes of various crimes, carried out some twenty reconstitutions of the crime scenes and ordered numerous expert assessments.\n13.  On 20 July 2000 the investigation was completed and the applicant, along with eighteen other individuals charged for being involved in a criminal association membership, was committed for trial to the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea (subsequently renamed the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea (hereafter “the Court of the ARC”).\n14.  On 4 May 2001, following familiarisation of the defendants with the case-file materials and completion of other procedural formalities, the Court of the ARC held a preliminary hearing in the case and scheduled the trial for 5 June 2001.\n15.  On 29 June 2001 the newspaper Flag Rodiny published an article entitled “Changelings with police epaulettes”, featuring in particular an interview with Sh., the judge presiding over the applicant’s case. The judge was quoted as saying that she was appalled by the audacious crimes committed by the defendants and their challenging conduct at court hearings.\n16.  Having held some eighteen hearings between June and December 2001, the Court of the ARC adjourned the proceedings in connection with one of the defendants’ request to ensure recording of the hearings with technical equipment which was unavailable.\n17.  On 15 May 2002 the Court of the ARC resumed consideration of the case and held some 150 hearings in the period ending 22 May 2004.\n18.  The applicant alleged that on various occasions he and his co-accused had requested the removal of Judge Sh. from the proceedings on various grounds, including lack of impartiality; however, their requests had been rejec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6548", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  The circumstances of the case and court proceedings relate to a labour dispute between the applicant and his former employer, the State Patent Agency (“the Agency”, Держпатент).\n6.  On 1 September 1998 the applicant was dismissed from the Agency.\n7.  On 23 September 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Kyiv (“Shevchenkivsky Court”) against the Agency seeking reinstatement and claiming salary arrears and related payments.\n8.  On 21 October 1998 the court allowed his claims. Consequently, the applicant was reinstated.\n9.  The Agency appealed. On 24 February 1999 the judgment of 21 October 1998 was quashed by the Kyiv City Court and the case was remitted for fresh consideration. The judgment resulted in cancellation of the first instance court’s finding that the applicant was dismissed illegally.\n10.  On 4 March 1999 the applicant was dismissed again. On 10 March 1999 the applicant challenged his second dismissal before the Shevchenkivsky Court. He also claimed payment of salary arrears and various allowances.\n11.  On 17 March 1999 the proceedings concerning the first and second dismissals were joined.\n12.  On 14 January 2000 the Shevchenkivsky Court found against the applicant.\n13.  On 29 March 2000 the Kyiv City Court quashed the judgment in the part concerning the applicant’s second dismissal and related pecuniary claims, having confirmed the first instance court’s findings concerning the applicant’s first dismissal.\n14.  Following two reconsiderations of the case, on 11 October 2004 the Shevchenkivsky Court rejected the applicant’s claims concerning his second dismissal.\n15.  On 14 February 2005 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the judgment in the part concerning the lawfulness of the second dismissal. The Court of Appeal invalidated the Agency’s dismissal order of 4 March 1999 though found that it was not a ground for reinstatement because of the legality of the first dismissal as confirmed by the Shevchenkivsky Court’s judgment of 14 January 2000. The remaining part of the first instance court’s judgment (concerning pecuniary claims) was upheld.\n16.  Having received the official text of the judgment, the applicant appealed in cassation on 9 March 2005.\n17.  On 7 December 2006 the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal in cassation.\n18.   In the course of the proceeding the applicant amended and clarified his claims on a number of occasions. He also made procedural requests with a view to obtaining information pertinent to the case. Out of forty-two scheduled hearings, six were adjourned at the applicant’s request or due to his failure to appear, five because of both parties’ failure to appear, three because of the non-appearance of defendants or representatives thereof. Five hearings were adjourned as the judge was busy with another case or absent for health, business trip or professional mandate reasons. On several occasions the courts had to renew, at the parties’ request, the term for lodging an appeal, finding no fault on their part, which resulted in delays of about one and half months.\n19. In 1998-1999 two sets of administrative proceedings linked to the applicant’s labour dispute were instituted against him. By the final decisions of 12 October 1998 and 22 February 1999, respectively, they were terminated.\n20.  In 1998-1999 the applicant instituted two sets of civil proceedings against the Agency. I", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6549", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Novotroitske, in the Donetsk Region.\n5.  On 17 February 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and three other persons on suspicion of having robbed a café.\n6.  On 23 March 1999 a bill of indictment was drafted in the applicant’s respect and he was placed under an obligation not to abscond. However, as the applicant’s whereabouts were unknown, he was placed on the wanted list and the proceedings were suspended.\n7.  On 17 July 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police while attempting to flee after having robbed a store. Following this incident a new criminal case was initiated against him and he was remanded in custody.\n8.  On 30 December 1999 the Voroshylovsky District Court of Donetsk sentenced the applicant to four years’ imprisonment for having robbed a store on 17 July 1999. The court ordered that the term of imprisonment be calculated from 18 July 1999, when the applicant had initially been remanded in custody. Following this conviction, the applicant was detained in the Donetsk Region Correctional Labour Colony no. 57 (ВТК № 57).\n9.  On 22 November 2000 the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant and three other persons in February 1999 were resumed and the applicant was presented with the bill of indictment of 23 March 1999.\n10.  On 28 December 2000 a decision was taken to transfer the applicant temporarily (for two months) from the Correctional Labour Colony where he was serving his sentence of 30 December 1999 to the Donetsk Temporary Detention Unit (SIZO) no. 5 (СІЗО № 5 м. Донецьк) for questioning in connection with the pending criminal case.\n11.  On 23 January 2001 the criminal case against the applicant was joined with twelve other criminal cases involving nine more defendants and concerning numerous robberies and other crimes committed by them as members of a gang.\n12.  On 31 January 2001 the applicant’s bill of indictment of 23 March 1999 was updated. Together with three other presumed gang members he was additionally charged with having robbed another commercial facility on 14 February 1999.\n13.  On 1 February 2001 the Dokuchayevsk Town Prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention on remand in SIZO no. 5 until 28 March 2001 in connection with the pending criminal proceedings against him. By way of reasoning it was noted that the applicant was a convicted prisoner whose transfer to the SIZO was necessary in view of the need to investigate the accusations pending against him.\n14.  On 22 March 2001 the applicant’s bill of indictment was updated, in particular to mention his membership of a gang.\n15.  In March 2001 the defendants commenced familiarisation with the case-file materials.\n16.  In June 2001 the criminal case was transferred to the Dokuchayevsk Town Court.\n17.  On 21 June 2001 the court held a preliminary hearing and found that the case had been properly investigated and was ready for trial. It further ordered, without any additional reasoning, that the applicant should remain in custody in SIZO no. 5 pending trial. It did not specify for how long. The court scheduled the first hearing for 17 July 2001. This hearing did not take place, however, as the court allowed the applicant’s and several other defendants’ requests to familiarise themselves with the case file.\n18.  A new hearing was scheduled for 14 November 2001. It was adjourned because the applicant asked for it to be recorded but the requisite recording equipment ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6550", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kırklareli.\n4.  In 1985 the applicant joined the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (“the PMOI”).\n5.  In 1986 he arrived in Iraq. He lived in the Al-Ashraf camp, where PMOI members were accommodated in Iraq, until he left the organisation in 2003. After leaving the PMOI he went to the Temporary Interview and Protection Facility (“TIPF”), a camp created by the United States forces in Iraq. This facility was subsequently named the Ashraf Refugee Camp (“ARC”).\n6.  On 5 May 2006, after being interviewed, the applicant was recognised as a refugee by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) Headquarters in Geneva during his stay in Iraq.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant arrived in Turkey on a false passport.\n8.  On 1 June 2008 the applicant was arrested by the Turkish security forces while attempting to leave for the island of Kos, Greece, from the port of Bodrum, on a false passport.\n9.  On an unspecified date the UNHCR branch office asked the national authorities to grant the applicant access to the asylum procedure in Turkey. This request was refused in view of the fact that the applicant’s presence in Turkey constituted a threat to national security given his membership of the PMOI.\n10.  On 1 August 2008 the applicant was transferred to the city of Van in eastern Turkey, apparently with a view to his deportation to Iran.\n11.  On 1 August 2008 the applicant’s representative lodged an application with the Court, requesting it to stop the applicant’s deportation to Iran and arguing under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that his removal to Iran would expose him to a real risk of ill-treatment (application no. 36370/08).\n12.  On the same day, the President of the Second Section decided to indicate to the Government of Turkey, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be deported to Iran until further notice.\n13.  With reference to the interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the deportation proceedings were suspended and on 3 August 2008 the applicant was transferred to the Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre.\n14.  On 13 April 2010 the Second Section of the Court found that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention if the applicant were to be removed to Iran or Iraq (see Keshmiri v. Turkey, no. 36370/08, § 28, 13 April 2010).\n15.  On 25 May 2010 the General Security Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”) decided that the applicant was to be released from the Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre and issued with a temporary residence permit in Kırklareli. On 26 May 2010 the applicant was released accordingly. He is currently living in Kırklareli.\n16.  In the meantime, on 28 August 2009 a lawyer registered with the Istanbul Bar Association, Mr A. Yılmaz, had petitioned the Ministry for the applicant’s release from the Kırklareli Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre.\n17.  Upon the administrative authorities’ failure to reply within sixty days, which is considered to be a tacit refusal of the request under section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (Law no. 2577 of 6 January 1982), on 25 November 2009 Mr A. Yılmaz brought an action before the Ankara Administrative Court. He requested that the court quash the decision of the Ministry not to release his client, which decision infringed his right to liberty as a recognised refugee, and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6552", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1956 in Ruse, where he lived until December 2002 and where his half-sister and his father’s second wife, his only close relatives, also live. On 20 December 1990 a panel of occupational physicians declared him unfit to work. The panel found that as a result of being diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1975, the applicant had a 90% degree of disablement but did not require assistance. He is in receipt of an invalidity pension on that account.\n10.  On an unspecified date in 2000, at the request of the applicant’s two relatives, the Ruse regional prosecutor applied to the Ruse Regional Court (Окръжен съд) for a declaration of total legal incapacity in respect of the applicant. In a judgment of 20 November 2000, the court declared the applicant to be partially incapacitated on the grounds that he had been suffering from simple schizophrenia since 1975, and that his ability to manage his own affairs and interests and to realise the consequences of his own acts had been impaired. The court found that the applicant’s condition was not so serious as to warrant a declaration of total incapacity. It observed, in particular, that during the period from 1975 to 2000 he had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital on several occasions. The court took into account an expert medical report produced in the course of the proceedings and interviewed the applicant. Furthermore, according to certain other people it interviewed, the applicant had sold all his possessions, begged for a living, spent all his money on alcohol and became aggressive whenever he drank.\n11.  That judgment was upheld in a judgment of 12 April 2001 by the Veliko Tarnovo Court of Appeal (Апелативен съд) on an appeal by the applicant, and was subsequently transmitted to the Ruse Municipal Council on 7 June 2001 for the appointment of a guardian.\n12.  Since the applicant’s family members had refused to take on any guardianship responsibilities, on 23 May 2002 the Municipal Council appointed Ms R.P., a council officer, as the applicant’s guardian until 31 December 2002.\n13.  On 29 May 2002 R.P. asked the Ruse social services to place the applicant in a social care home for people with mental disorders. She appended to the application form a series of documents including a psychiatric diagnosis. Social services drew up a welfare report on the applicant, noting on 23 July 2002 that he was suffering from schizophrenia, that he lived alone in a small, run-down annexe to his half-sister’s house and that his half-sister and his father’s second wife had stated that they did not wish to act as his guardian. The requirements for placement in a social care home were therefore deemed to be fulfilled.\n14.  On 10 December 2002 a welfare-placement agreement was signed between R.P. and the social care home for adults with mental disorders near the village of Pastra in the municipality of Rila (“the Pastra social care home”), an institution under the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy. The applicant was not informed of the agreement.\n15.  Later that day, the applicant was taken by ambulance to the Pastra social care home, some 400 km from Ruse. Before the Court, he stated that he had not been told why he was being placed in the home or for how long; the Government did not dispute this.\n16.  On 14 December 2002, at the request of the Director of the Pastra social care home, the applicant was registered as having his home address in the municipality of Ril", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6553", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Sokółka.\n6.  Since 2000 the applicant has been involved in an administrative dispute with the Sokółka Municipality relating to the planned construction of a public road.\n7.  The applicant submits that on many occasions he was denied the right to see the relevant planning and building permissions and that the municipality clerks prevented him from accessing the files.\n8.  On 3 November 2004 and 4 January 2005 the applicant was charged with several offences, in particular insulting the Białystok Regional Prosecutor and uttering threats. The Białystok District Court subsequently ordered the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination in order to determine whether he could be held criminally responsible in respect of the above-mentioned offences.\n9.  On 8 December 2004 the applicant was arrested and placed in a psychiatric hospital in order to undergo an observation.\n10.  On 21 December 2004 the applicant attacked a judge who was visiting another patient in the hospital. He was immobilised and given sedative medication. On 23 December 2004 the hospital asked the court for a post factum permission to treat the applicant without his consent.\n11.  On 5 January 2005 the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination.\n12.  On 6 January 2005 the Suwałki District Court gave a decision and declared the extension of the applicant’s detention in the hospital to be lawful. The applicant was released from the hospital on the same day.\n13.  On 5 May 2005 the Białystok District Court gave a decision and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant. The court found it established that the applicant had committed the offences in question. However, he should not have been held criminally responsible as he was suffering from paranoia with elements of psychosis. It further referred to an expert’s opinion and ordered that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital in Choroszcza.\n14.  On 29 July 2005 the Białystok Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant.\n15.  Subsequently, the applicant asked the court to discontinue the enforcement proceedings relating to his placement in a psychiatric hospital. He claimed that his state of health had significantly improved. On 5 October 2005 the Białystok District Court dismissed his request. On 2 February 2006 the Białystok Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n16.  Meanwhile, the applicant was charged with assaulting a Sokółka municipality employee. On 7 April 2005 expert psychiatrists considered that the applicant suffered from paranoia with elements of psychosis. On 14 September 2005 the Sokółka District Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant and ordered his placement in a psychiatric hospital.\n17.  On 23 February 2006 the applicant was arrested by the police on the basis of the decision of 5 May 2005. He was then transferred to the Choroszcza Psychiatric Hospital. He was seen by a doctor upon his arrival. However he refused to answer any questions.\n18.  On 23 February 2006 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against the decision to place him in a psychiatric hospital. He stressed that his condition had meanwhile improved and that he had not been summoned to go to the hospital voluntarily. He also complained that he could not prepare himself for the confinement. On 21 March 2006 the Białystok Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal.\n19.  On 24 March 2006 the Sokółka Distr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6554", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 in Sivas.\n5.  On 6 May 1998 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 9 May 1998 he was brought before the public prosecutor and investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered his pre-trial detention.\n7.  On 11 May 1998 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him with membership of an illegal organisation.\n8.  On 14 July 1998 due to the factual and legal connection between the cases, the court decided to joint the applicant’s case to other proceedings, involving seven accused (no. 1998/2).\n9.  On the same day the applicant was released pending trial.\n10.  On 29 July 2000 a change took place in the judges sitting as a bench at the Istanbul State Security Court and therefore, the next hearing was scheduled on 7 September 2000.\n11.  On 16 November 2000 the hearing was postponed to 20 February 2001 due the change in the assignment of judges at the trial court.\n12.  On 20 February 2001 the applicant was summoned to appear before the court in order to make his supplementary submissions for his defence, in view of a possible alteration of the offence he was charged with.\n13.  On 10 May 2001 the court observed that the registered writ having sent to the applicant, returned to the case file without a delivery.\n14.  On 30 November 2001 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an additional bill of indictment, charging the applicant with using explosives.\n15.  From the date of 10 May 2001 to 24 May 2007, despite the authorities’ efforts to have summoned the applicant, his whereabouts could not be established. During that period, the court ordered the Avcılar Police Department to make an enquiry to the applicant’s family about his non‑appearance. Subsequently, the court was informed that the applicant had gone abroad to study.\n16.  The trial court invited the prosecutor’s office to transmit the arrest warrant against the applicant to the customs with a view to securing his appearance before the court once he entered the country.\n17.  Following a constitutional amendment, State Security Courts were abolished and the applicant’s case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.\n18.  On 6 November 2007, in his defence submissions to the court, the applicant’s lawyer claimed that the applicant had already been tried by another chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court on the basis of the same facts and requested that the matter be examined further.\n19.  On 3 April 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court ordered the case file of the proceedings in question to verify the reason for the applicant’s previous conviction.\n20.  On 24 February 2009 the court ruled that the criminal proceedings be discontinued on the ground that the prosecution was time-barred. On the same day, the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal against the judgment.\n21.  According to the submissions in the case file, the proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6555", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Helsinki.\n6.  The applicant is a journalist and the editor-in-chief of a monthly magazine called Alibi, which specialises in crime reporting and has a circulation of approximately 32,000. The publisher of Alibi is Yhtyneet Kuvalehdet Oy.\n7.  On 29 July 2003 J., a police officer, stopped a person unknown to him on the road and used his police identity card to take possession of the person’s car for emergency reasons, as he put it. He then drove off at high speed. After the car appeared to break down, J. tried to acquire another vehicle in the same manner. The persons in the second car turned out to be two police officers in civilian clothing, who were monitoring the traffic. After having threatened the police officers with violence, J. continued towards his destination. His speed alternated between 160 and 185 km/h in a zone where the limit was set at 80 and 100 km/h. At his destination, J. was apprehended by the police and charged with stealing the vehicle and various other offences.\n8.  Soon after his arrest, J. gave an exclusive interview, for a fee, to a weekly magazine called 7-Päivää. His real name was not revealed in the interview but his picture (face in profile) was used and the article mentioned that he was, at the time, undergoing involuntary treatment in a mental hospital. J. had also offered an interview to Alibi (and the applicant) against payment but the offer was refused by the applicant.\n9.  On 3 February 2004, in the hearing before the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten), J. pleaded guilty to most of the charges. The court ordered J., in accordance with his own request, to undergo psychiatric examination to establish whether he was, at the time, criminally responsible for his actions.\n10.  In the March 2004 edition of Alibi an article was published about J. and his case. The article was written by the applicant. The information in the article was based on the public court documents acquired by the applicant from the District Court after the hearing on 3 February 2004. The article included J.’s name, year of birth, some background information about him and his current place of work, details of the incident of 29 July 2003 and information that J. had wished to undergo a psychiatric evaluation before the court’s decision was made and that he had been ordered to do so by the court.\n11.  On 26 May 2004 the Mustasaari District Court found J. guilty of all charges but, because he had been found not to have been criminally responsible for his actions, the court waived the sentence.\n12.  On 15 April 2004 J. lodged a complaint with the Finnish Council for Mass Media (Julkisen sanan neuvosto, Opinionsnämnden för massmedier) about the subject-matter of the case. On 18 August 2004 the Council found that the applicant had violated good journalistic practice by publishing J.’s name and information about his psychological examination. The Council gave the applicant a warning.\n13.  On 19 September 2004 J. requested the police to investigate whether the applicant had committed an offence of “dissemination of information violating private life” (yksityiselämää loukkaavan tiedon levittäminen, spridande av information som kränker privatlivet) on account of his article. J. also requested the applicant to pay, in addition to his legal fees, 15,000 euros (EUR) in damages for mental suffering caused by the article in question.\n14.  On 31 December 2004 the public prosecutor decided not to pr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6557", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  In 1991 the inspection board of a State-owned bank (Türkiye Vakıflar Bankası Teftiş Kurulu – “the Board”) issued a report claiming, inter alia, that the applicant, who was a lawyer, had withdrawn substantial amounts of expropriation compensation on behalf of several persons by submitting false powers of attorney. In 1993, on the basis of the Board’s report, the bank requested the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant.\n7.  On 26 September 1993 the Beyoğlu Public Prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant for knowingly using false powers of attorney.\n8.  On 21 March 1994 the Istanbul Assize Court acquitted the applicant, stating that the powers of attorney had been issued by a notary and conveyed to the applicant by third parties and that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the applicant knew these documents to be false. On 8 December 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court, stating that the court had failed to examine certain major witnesses.\n9.  After examining these witnesses, on 20 March 1996 the Istanbul Assize Court once again acquitted the applicant. The statements of one of the civil parties, N.K., were taken in the absence of the applicant. Nevertheless, her statements were read during the hearing of 26 June 1995 and the applicant had the opportunity to submit his arguments against them.\n10.  On 13 May 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court, this time stating that the court had failed to evaluate the authenticity of the signatures on the powers of attorney.\n11.  On 23 January 2001, taking into account expert reports on the authenticity of the signatures, the Istanbul Assize Court again acquitted the applicant. However, this judgment was quashed by the Court of Cassation on 8 October 2002. The higher court stated that the first-instance court had erred in its judgment and that the applicant should have been sentenced.\n12.  On 17 July 2003, following six hearings, two of which were conducted with the attendance of N.K., the Istanbul Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years and eight months’ imprisonment. The court mainly relied on the expert reports and indicated that the witness statements were not adequate to clarify whether the applicant had used the false powers of attorney knowingly.\n13.  During the appeal proceedings, the Principal Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation submitted his written observations to that court. However, those observations were not forwarded to either the applicant or his lawyer. On 22 December 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court.\n14.  Subsequently, the applicant requested the suspension of the execution of his sentence on account of his age and poor state of health, submitting several doctors’ reports which stated that he was suffering from cerebrovascular and vertebral insufficiency as well as hypertension. On 16 February 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court refused his request.\n15.  Following the entry into force of the new Criminal Code (Law no. 5237) in 2005, the Istanbul Assize Court re-examined the applicant’s sentence on 13 February 2006 and reduced it to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.\n16.   In July 2010, an additional arrest warrant was issued against the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6558", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1960 near Bethlehem, then administered as part of the Kingdom of Jordan. He arrived in the United Kingdom in September 1993, having previously fled Jordan and gone to Pakistan. He made a successful application for asylum, the basis of which was first, that he had been detained and tortured in March 1988 and 1990-1991 by the Jordanian authorities and second, that he had been detained and later placed under house arrest on two further occasions. The applicant was recognised as a refugee on 30 June 1994 and granted leave to remain until 30 June 1998. As is the normal practice, the Secretary of State did not give reasons for his decision for recognising the applicant as a refugee.\n8.  On 8 May 1998 the applicant applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. This application had not been determined before the applicant’s arrest on 23 October 2002. On that date he was taken into detention under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 90, 19 February 2009). When that Act was repealed in March 2005, the applicant was released on bail and then made subject to a control order under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (ibid., §§ 83 and 84). On 11 August 2005, while his appeal against that control order was still pending, the Secretary of State served the applicant with a notice of intention to deport (see section 3, paragraph 25 below).\n9.  In April 1999, the applicant was convicted in absentia in Jordan of conspiracy to cause explosions, in a trial known as the “reform and challenge” case. He was the twelfth of thirteen defendants.\n10.  The case involved an allegation of a conspiracy to carry out bombings in Jordan, which resulted in successful attacks on the American School and the Jerusalem Hotel in Amman in 1998. There were further convictions for offences of membership of a terrorist group, but these matters were the subject of a general amnesty. The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour at the conclusion of the trial.\n11.  During the trial, one witness, Mohamed Al-Jeramaine, confessed that he and not the defendants had been involved in the bombings. The State Security Court hearing the case took the view that his confession was false, and demonstrably so, because of discrepancies between what he said about the nature of the explosives, for example, and other technical evidence. Mr Al-Jeramaine was later executed for homicides for which he had been convicted in another trial.\n12.  The applicant maintains that the evidence against him was predominantly based upon an incriminating statement from a co-defendant, Abdul Nasser Al-Hamasher (also known as Al-Khamayseh). In his confession to the Public (or State) Prosecutor, Mr Al-Hamasher alleged that the applicant had provided prior encouragement for the attacks. He was also said to have congratulated the group after the attacks.\n13.  Mr Al Hamasher, along with several other defendants, had complained during the proceedings before the State Security Court that they had been tortured by the Jordanian General Intelligence Directorate (“the GID”), which shares responsibility for maintaining internal security and monitoring security threats in Jordan with the Public Security Directorate and the military. At the end of the period of interrogation during which they claimed to have been tortured, the Public Prosecutor took a statement from each defendant.\n14.  At the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6559", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and is serving a prison term in colony no. 6 in the Kirov Region.\n5.  The applicant and several others were suspected of kidnapping a Mr K. for ransom in the Dagestan Republic. The case was investigated by Mr A., an investigator in the Khasavyurt town prosecutor’s office, Dagestan Republic.\n6.  On 23 April 2006 the applicant was arrested, apparently by officers D. and Z., while he was driving a car in the town of Khasavyurt. As noted in the arrest record, the arrest was recorded on video. According to the applicant, a bag was placed on his head, he was put into a police car and allegedly received several blows to the head and stomach. He was then taken to the local Organised Crime Unit (OCU). He was severely beaten up by several individuals, including the above-mentioned officer Z. (the head of the OCU), and subsequently remained at the OCU (see also paragraphs 11 and 20 below). Despite beatings, he refused to admit to the kidnapping or any other offences.\n7.  On the same day, the applicant was interviewed in the OCU by investigator A. The arrest record, which was signed by two attesting witnesses, indicates that the applicant was suspected of kidnapping and that his son had been notified of his arrest. The applicant made the following statement in the record:\n“I am not acquainted with the kidnapping victim...I would like to see a lawyer and ask that all subsequent investigative measures be carried out in his presence.”\nThe applicant was provided with legal assistance at some point between 23 and 25 April 2006 (see also paragraph 9 below).\n8.  Also, on 23 April 2006 a search of his mother’s house, where the applicant was living at the time, was carried out. Another search was carried out some two weeks later.\n9.  On 25 April 2006 the Khasavyurt Town Court remanded the applicant in custody. The text of the court decision indicates that the applicant and his counsel were present at the hearing. According to the Government, during this hearing the defence made no allegations of ill-treatment and no health-related complaints. According to the applicant, he was not brought to this hearing from the OCU.\n10.  According to the Government, on the day of his arrest the applicant was admitted to the Khasavyurt temporary detention centre at the police station, where he was examined by a medical assistant, who did not record any health complaints and did not detect any visible injuries.\n11.  According to the applicant, he was kept until 9 May 2006 at the OCU premises, except for two or three days in solitary confinement in the temporary detention centre (apparently on 7 or 8 and 9 May 2006). The police station, the OCU and the temporary detention centre were, at the time, located in the immediate vicinity. According to the applicant, the beatings continued in the OCU until 9 May 2006. He remained handcuffed all the time; for extended periods of time he was attached to a radiator by the handcuffs. He sustained fractures of his right arm and one of his legs (see also paragraph 46 below). He was not given any food or drink and was not allowed to sleep. The applicant was forced to sit on a bottle on at least three occasions, which provoked acute bleeding from the anus. He was also forced to stand in a position of doing the splits, while his arms remained handcuffed behind his back. The applicant was sexually assaulted at night from 8 to 9 May 2006. OCU head officer Z. and investigator A. brought in three relatives of t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6560", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Biysk, the Altay Region.\n6.  On 13 October 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and brought to the Priobskiy police station of the Department of the Interior in Biysk (Территориальное отделение милиции «Приобский» Управления внутренних дел по г. Бийску). He was put in the station’s temporary detention facility (ИВС УВД г. Бийска).\n7.  On 15 October 2003 at midnight the applicant was examined by a medical auxiliary at the temporary detention facility. No injuries were found on him.\n8.  On the same day the Priobskiy District Court of Biysk ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody.\n9.  On 21 October 2003 the applicant was charged with theft, and on 24 October 2003 he was transferred to Biysk remand prison IZ-22/2 (учреждение ИЗ-22/2 г. Бийска УФСИН России по Алтайскому краю). It appears that no injuries were found on the applicant on his admission to the remand prison.\n10.  According to the applicant, from 13 October to 24 October 2003 the policemen of the Priobskiy police station interrogated him about his suspected involvement in an organised criminal group. The applicant alleged to have been ill-treated by the policemen during the interrogations. He contended that the policemen kicked him, used a gas mask to restrict his air supply, and gave him electric shocks.\n11.  As a result of the alleged intimidation the applicant made a confession statement. The exact contents of the statement were not made available to the Court. According to the Government the applicant’s defence counsel was present when the applicant made his confession statement. The applicant did not claim otherwise.\n12.  On 22 October 2003 the applicant filed a complaint about ill‑treatment to the Biysk City Prosecutor’s Office.\n13.  Shortly afterwards the assistant of the Biysk City Prosecutor ordered the applicant’s forensic medical examination.\n14.  On 5 November 2003 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert (report no. 4918). The following injuries were discovered on him: an abrasion in the left lumbar region (measurements illegible on the copy of the report), a deep abrasion on the right shin measuring 7 x 0.3 cm, a bruise on the internal surface of the right knee joint measuring 3 x 4 cm, and a scar on the upper lip mucous membrane measuring 2 cm. The expert concluded that the injuries could have been caused by a blunt, hard object in the period of time between 13 October and 16 October 2003, on account of the nature of the abrasions and scars and the colour of the bruise. The expert further indicated that the above injuries did not cause harm to the applicant’s health.\n15.  On 13 November 2003 investigator M. of the Biysk City Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen because there was no indication of a criminal offence. The investigator’s decision was based on statements by policemen Kh., Yar. and K., who submitted that the applicant had agreed to go to the police station to be questioned on suspicion of theft and that no force or intimidation had been used on him during the interview, and statements by the investigator dealing with the criminal case against the applicant who submitted that he had questioned the applicant as a suspect in the presence of the applicant’s defence counsel, that the applicant had been subsequently released, that he had had no visible injuries on his body and had not complained about any intimidation by polic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6562", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1971 and 1974 respectively and live in Cahul.\n6.  The applicants were arrested in Russia in October 2000 and were thereafter extradited to Moldova. They were then ill-treated in order to compel them to make self-incriminatory statements and were convicted by the Moldovan courts, relying, inter alia, on such confessions (for more details, see Levinţa v. Moldova, no. 17332/03, 16 December 2008).\n7.  On 16 December 2008 the Court adopted a judgment in the above-cited Levinţa case, finding a violation of Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention. On the basis of that judgment and the applicable domestic law (see paragraph 22 above), on 3 April 2009 the applicants lodged an extraordinary appeal (recurs în anulare), seeking the annulment of their convictions.\n8.  On 8 February 2010 the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice accepted the request and quashed all the previously adopted judgments, ordering a re-hearing of the case and verification of whether the applicants’ complaint of ill-treatment was well-founded. In the operative part of its ruling the court also ordered the following: “[the applicants] shall continue to be detained; the trial court shall decide on the preventive measure”.\n9.  On 10 February 2010 the applicants’ lawyer complained to the Minister of Justice and the Prosecutor General. He asked for his clients’ immediate release because of the absence of any valid decision by an investigating judge or a trial court ordering their detention pending trial, as required by law. In response, the Prosecutor General’s Office referred to the judgment of 8 February 2010, while the Ministry of Justice noted that it had not been informed of any judgment in respect of the applicants after 16 April 2002.\n10.  On 15 March 2010 the Supreme Court of Justice sent the case for examination by the Chişinău Court of Appeal.\n11.  On 13 April 2010 the applicants’ lawyer asked the Chişinău Court of Appeal to order his clients’ immediate release, in the absence of any court order for their detention pending trial. On the same date, the prosecutor’s office requested that the same court order the applicants’ detention pending trial for thirty days. According to the applicants, the prosecution did not submit any evidence in support of that request.\n12.  On 14 April 2010 the court held a preliminary hearing during which it examined the parties’ requests. However, the court did not adopt any decision and postponed the hearing until 16 April 2010. On the latter date it again postponed the hearing until 19 April 2010.\n13.  On 19 April 2010 the Chişinău Court of Appeal noted that the Plenary Supreme Court of Justice had not decided the issue of applying preventive measures in its judgment of 8 February 2010. It further stated that it would deal with the parties’ requests in that respect and found that:\n“[The applicants’] continued detention is necessary in order to ensure the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings, taking into account that there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed the crimes of which they are accused, crimes which are considered to be exceptionally serious; [there are reasons to believe that] they could abscond from the court and obstruct the criminal proceedings.”\nAccordingly, the court rejected the applicants’ lawyer’s request of 13 April 2010 and ordered their detention for thirty days, starting from 2 p.m. on 14 April 2010. The court also relinquished its jurisdiction in favour of the Supreme ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6563", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in the town of Karmėlava, Kaunas region.\n5.  On 4 February 1994 the applicant loaned 6,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 1,740 euros (EUR)) to a private enterprise. Given that in the following months the enterprise failed to fulfil its obligations under the agreement, the applicant sued it.\n6.  On 15 June 1994 the Kaunas City District Court granted the claim and awarded the applicant the amount of the loan plus interest, amounting to LTL 8,400 (approximately EUR 2,435). The court decision was sent to the bailiff for execution. However, on 17 December 1996 the bailiff returned the execution order to the applicant, stating that there was no property against which the execution of the decision could be carried out.\n7.  On 28 November 1994 a pre-trial investigation was opened.\n8.  On 13 March 1995 the applicant was recognized as a victim and civil claimant in that criminal case.\n9.  On 2 May 1996 and 3 June 1996 criminal charges were brought against two persons, a director of the enterprise and its shareholder, on suspicion of a fraud and violation of the laws regulating monetary operations.\n10.  On 20 January 1997 the Kaunas City District Court examined the case and returned it for further investigation. The court established that various procedural requirements had been violated.\n11. On 16 June 1999 the bill of indictment was issued again.\n12.  On 31 May 2001 the Kaunas City District Court convicted the accused and granted the applicant’s civil claim in the sum of LTL 8,400.\n13.  On 15 November 2001 the Kaunas Regional Court remitted the case, stating that the lower court had not examined the case thoroughly, had made a number of procedural errors and had not reasoned its decision sufficiently.\n14.  On 12 January 2004 the Kaunas City District Court re-examined the case and again convicted the accused and granted the applicant’s civil claim in the sum of LTL 8,400.\n15.  On 9 June 2004 the Kaunas Regional Court ordered a further expert report as the lower court had failed to put all the relevant questions to the experts.\n16.  On 13 April 2005 the Kaunas Regional Court annulled the decision of the first-instance court and terminated the case against the accused due to the expiration of the statutory time-limit. Subsequently the civil claim by the applicant was left unexamined.\n17.  On 11 October 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant, who was present at the hearing. The court stated, nonetheless, that the applicant had a right to bring a separate civil claim and concluded that, although the statutory time-limit for such a claim had expired, the delay was partially attributable to the State itself, thus the time-limit for the claim had to be restored.\n18.  The Court has no information that the applicant had ever lodged such separate civil claim against the successor of the enterprise or other persons.\n19.  The applicant lodged a separate civil claim for damages alleging the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings that was caused by the domestic courts. He invoked Article 6.272 § 1 of the Civil Code and claimed the sum of LTL 151,212 (approximately EUR 43,800), comprising the debt of the enterprise plus interest for the whole period, taking into account inflation, and an award for non-pecuniary damage as well as cost for legal expenses.\n20.  On 10 May 2005 the Kaunas Regional Court dismissed that claim, having established no illegal actions by the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6565", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Szatymaz. When introducing the application, he was detained at Szeged Prison.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on 8 January 2008. From 11 January 2008 on he was detained on remand at Szeged Prison on charges of trafficking in goods subject to excise tax. On 9 October 2009 the Csongrád County Regional Court found him guilty as charged. Pursuant to the final judgment of 9 June 2010 of the Szeged Court of Appeal, he served a prison sentence of three years and six months in a strict regime at Szeged Prison. His pre-trial detention was credited against his imprisonment.\n7.  Szeged Prison is comprised of two separate parts: Unit I, a strict- and medium-regime facility for sentenced prisoners, and Unit II, a facility for remand prisoners. The applicant’s pre-trial detention, which is the subject matter of his complaints, took place in various cells of Unit II, and the remainder of his detention, as from 10 June 2010, in Unit I.\n8.  The applicant submitted that he had shared cells with an average of 16 sq metres’ ground surface with five to seven persons, not counting furniture, and could stay outside the cell only about an hour daily. He also stated that he could receive visitors for only one hour every month (an exception being his brother, who was granted three extra visits, lasting two hours on each occasion); however, he had not been at all allowed to touch his family members during these visits. Moreover, despite his requests, the prison administration had not provided him with toiletries free of charge, nor had it authorised him to possess, with a view to preparing his defence, a personal computer in his cell, although it would have had no access to internet. Lastly, he submitted that the prison had not provided him with free stationery so that he could post submissions to the authorities in charge of his criminal case pending at that time.\n9.  He submitted that his requests and complaints concerning the above matters and also the catering at the prison, to various instances of the penitentiary administration were to no avail. He availed himself of a formal remedy with regard to the refusal by the prison administration to authorise him to possess a personal computer in his cell. Whilst the Government submitted that Szeged Prison had been inspected by the penitentiary prosecutor once every two weeks, the applicant stated that no such visit had taken place in Unit II during his detention.\n10.  According to the National Penitentiary Service’s statistics available on its website[1], the average occupancy rate of Hungarian prisons was 118% in 2008, 124% in 2009 and 133% in 2010.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6568", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  The applicant alleges that he was taken into police custody on 24 March 2001. However, the arrest report signed by the applicant and the police custody records show that the applicant was arrested on 13 April 2001 on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation, namely Hizbullah. When he was arrested, the applicant was in possession of a fake identity card.\n6.  Following his arrest, on 13 April 2001 the applicant was taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital for medical examination. The doctor who examined the applicant reported that there were no signs of physical violence on his body. However, he noted the presence of certain old wounds under his armpits and old lesions under his left kneecap.\n7.  On 22 April 2001 the applicant was interrogated by the police in the absence of a lawyer. He gave a lengthy statement about his involvement in the armed wing of Hizbullah and admitted to being involved in several murders.\n8.  On 23 April 2001 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Diyarbakır State Hospital, who noted that he had scabbed lesions between fifteen and twenty days old under his armpits and around his wrists.\n9.  Again on 23 April 2001, the applicant was further interrogated by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, still in the absence of a lawyer. He was then remanded in custody on the order of the investigating judge.\n10.  On the same date, at the request of the Governor of the State of Emergency Region and the public prosecutor, pursuant to Article 3 (c) of Decree no. 430, which allowed them to take further measures in the context of the ongoing state of emergency, a single judge at the State Security Court authorised the applicant’s relocation from prison to the anti-terrorism branch of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate for further interrogation for a period of ten days. This period was extended by the same court for an additional ten days on each of 3 May 2001, 9 May 2001, 19 May 2001 and 28 May 2001.\n11.  This procedure was repeated again on 2 July 2001, when, at the request of the Governor of the State of Emergency Region and the public prosecutor, pursuant to Article 3 (c) of Decree no. 430, a single judge at the State Security Court once again authorised the applicant’s relocation from prison to the anti-terrorism branch of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate for interrogation for another period of ten days. This period was extended by the same court for an additional ten days on each of 12 July 2001, 22 July 2001 and 1 August 2001.\n12.  On 10 May, 28 May, 2 July, 12 July, 22 July, 1 August and 10 August 2001, the applicant was again examined by doctors who noted that there were no new findings, except for the medical report of 1 August 2001 where the doctor noted two old wounds on the applicant’s right leg.\n13.  On 28 January 2002 the applicant filed a complaint with the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor and alleged that he had been ill-treated during his unacknowledged detention between 24 March and 13 April 2001.\n14.  On 6 February 2004 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor decided not to prosecute six police officers who had been involved in the applicant’s arrest and detention on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. In his decision, the public prosecutor referred to the medical reports, which noted no signs of physical violence on the applicant’s body. The public pr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6570", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Shchekino, Tula Region.\n7.  The applicant retired from military service in 1993 and became entitled to obtain a permanent housing funded by the State. Following the State’s failure to comply with this obligation voluntarily, on 19 October 1998 the Shchekinskiy District Court of the Tula Region (“the District Court”) granted the applicant’s action against the Tula Regional Administration and awarded him 143,100 Russian roubles (RUB) for purchasing a flat.\n8.  On 2 March 1999 the Tula Regional Court supplemented the judgment of 19 October 1998, noting that the judgment award should be paid from the federal funds.\n9.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted and the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the Tula Regional Department of the Federal Treasury.\n10.  On 7 March 2002 the applicant received a letter from the Tula Regional Department of the Ministry of Justice informing him that the judgment of 19 October 1998, as amended on 2 March 1999, could not be enforced because the Tula Regional Administration did not have the necessary funds to do it. He received a number of similar letters in 2003 and 2004.\n11.  Following communication of the applicant’s case and its subsequent remittal to the Government for resolution in accordance with the Burdov (no. 2) pilot judgment cited above, the Ministry of Finance of Russia applied to the trial court seeking modification of the method and order of enforcement of the judgment. Its request was granted on 6 September 2010 by the District Court which ordered that the Ministry of Finance credit RUB 143,100 to the account of the Tula Regional Administration, which should in turn pay this amount to the applicant.\n12.  By a decision of 18 November 2010 the Tula Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal.\n13.  The applicant lodged a new claim to the court seeking increase of the original award to cover the inflation losses and compensation of non‑pecuniary damage inflicted as a result of lengthy non-enforcement of the judgment.\n14.  On 27 October 2010 the Tsentralniy District Court of Tula relied on Article 1069 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Russia and awarded the applicant RUB 1,601,208 instead of the original amount to cover pecuniary damage. It also rejected the rest of his claim.\n15.  However, by a decision of 23 December 2010 the Tula Regional Court reversed the first-instance judgment. The appeal court found that Article 1069 was inapplicable to the applicant’s case and noted that the situation rather warranted application of Article 208 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides for index-linking of the original awards. At the same time, the Regional Court relied on the Compensation Act (Law No. 68-ФЗ of 30 April 2010) and awarded the applicant RUB 50,000 (approximately 1,200 euros (EUR)) for non‑pecuniary damage resulted from lengthy non-enforcement. It is not clear whether the applicant has been paid this amount.\n16.  By a letter of 28 February 2011 the Tula Regional Administration requested that the applicant communicate his bank account details to enable payment of the original award constituting RUB 143,100. To date the applicant has refused to comply with this request arguing that the original award had depreciated and was no longer sufficient to purchase a flat.\n17.  The judgment of 19 October 1998, as amended on 2 March 1999, remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6571", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  The applicant intended to organise demonstrations in order to call attention to the situation of those having sustained damage originating in a major bankruptcy case which had attracted considerable media attention in Hungary. On 5 February 2007 he applied to the Budapest Police Department for acquiescence in a demonstration on 10 March 2007 and in another one, of ongoing nature, from 10 March until 31 October 2007, both scheduled in Kossuth Square, in front of Parliament.\n7.  On 7 February 2007 the Budapest Police Department refused to deal with either of the applications. It observed that on 23 October 2006 the area in question had been declared by the Police Department itself a “security operational zone” (biztonsági műveleti terület) in view of the tumultuous events in Budapest in September 2006. Consequently, the measure – which was, after a prolongation, in place for an indefinite period of time – remained as such outside the Police Department’s competence as regards the prohibition of, or acquiescence in, a demonstration.\n8.  On 5 March 2007 the National Police Commander upheld this decision.\n9.  On 14 January 2008 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for judicial review, endorsing in essence the police authorities’ reasoning. This decision was served on 26 January 2008.\n10.  In another case concerning the same area, on 29 January 2007 a Mr K. challenged the police’s very decision to declare Kossuth Square a “security operational zone”. On 14 March 2007 the Budapest Police Commander rejected his complaint, but this decision was quashed by the National Commander on 16 April 2007. In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 22 June 2007 the Budapest Commander again rejected the complaint. On 19 July 2007 the National Commander upheld this decision. Mr K. challenged this ruling in court.\n11.  Mr K.’s action was dismissed by the Budapest Regional Court. However, on appeal the Supreme Court quashed this decision, together with the one of 19 July 2007.\n12.  In the resumed second-instance administrative proceedings, on 23 December 2009 the National Commander again upheld the Budapest Commander’s decision. Mr K. requested judicial review.\n13.  On 11 November 2010 the Regional Court quashed, in judgment no. 27.K.31.354/2010/9., both the first- and the second-instance administrative decisions and remitted the case to the Budapest Commander. The court pointed out that the impugned decisions did not contain any concrete elements establishing the necessity and proportionality of maintaining the “security operational zone” after the prolongation of 22 November 2006. Nor did they address the plaintiff’s suggestion that the mere fencing-off of Parliament’s immediate vicinity – rather than the global ban on Kossuth Square – would have been sufficient in the circumstances.\n14.  In the resumed first-instance administrative proceedings, on 4 April 2011 the Budapest Commander partly sustained Mr K.’s complaint, noting that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proportionality of the impugned measure had successfully been challenged.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6572", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1943 respectively and live in Vienna.\n6.  In 1997 the biological mother of F., then two years old and born out of wedlock, set her apartment on fire after having consumed drugs. The mother and her child were rescued and, on 19 December 1997, the Vienna Youth Welfare Office (Amt für Jugend und Familie) handed F. over to the applicants as foster parents.\n7.  The applicants subsequently tried to obtain custody of F. and wanted to adopt him. F.’s mother recovered and was at first allowed access to visit her son. She then tried to obtain custody of F., which led to arguments between her and the applicants. Since these disputes were to the detriment of F., he was given to a “crisis foster family” (Krisenpflegefamilie) on 25 October 2001 for approximately eight weeks. After that period F. was handed over to his biological mother, who obtained provisional custody of him following a decision of the Vienna Juvenile Court (Jugendgerichtshof) on 19 December 2001. This decision entered into force on 18 December 2002, when the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the applicants (Revisionsrekurs).\n8.  In the meantime on 20 December 2001 the applicants requested the right to visit F. Thereupon the Juvenile Court asked the Vienna Youth Welfare Office for their observations on the applicants’ request.\n9.  The Vienna Youth Welfare Office submitted observations on 31 December 2001, stating that because of the long-lasting relationship between F. and the applicants it would be inappropriate not to allow access to the foster parents.\n10.  On 31 January 2002 the Juvenile Court heard the biological mother, who opposed the granting of visiting rights to the applicants because F. was in the process of getting used to her again.\n11.  On 8 February 2002 the applicants requested the acceleration of the proceedings (Fristsetzungantrag) under Section 91 of the Austrian Court Act.\n12.  On 28 March 2002 the Vienna Juvenile Court Assistance Office (Wiener Jugendgerichtshilfe) submitted their observations to the Juvenile Court. In the following months both parties repeatedly filed written observations on that report. The applicants also requested that an expert for child psychology be appointed.\n13.  On 2 December 2002 the applicants complained about the length of the proceedings and requested the opinion of an expert on child psychology. The biological mother objected to this request.\n14.  On 4 December 2002 the Juvenile Court asked the applicants whether they were maintaining their request for the appointment of an expert, given that meanwhile a report by the doctor with whom F. had had therapy had been obtained. On 10 December 2002 the applicants informed the court that they insisted on the appointment of an expert and proposed further questions to be put to the expert appointed.\n15.  On 17 February 2003 the Juvenile Court designated Dr. Sp. as the expert. The biological mother filed objections against Dr. Sp.\n16.  In July 2003 the court file was transferred to the Vienna Regional Court for Civil Matters, which was dealing with an appeal lodged by the applicants in the custody proceedings concerning F. lodged on 23 May 2003. On an unspecified date the Vienna Regional Court transferred the file to the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court as it considered that that court was competent to decide on the appeal. The Wiener Neustadt Regional Court did so on 19 and 29 January 2004; the file was then forwarded to the Mödling District Court, w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6573", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lived in Budapest.\n8.  On 24 November 2006 the applicant announced, as required by the Assembly Act 1989, to the Budapest Police Department his intention to organise a demonstration on 9 December 2006 on Kossuth Square in Budapest, in front of Parliament.\n9.  On 26 November 2006 the Budapest Police Department refused to deal with the application. It observed that on 23 October 2006 the area in question had been declared, by the Police Department itself and for an indefinite period of time, a “security operational zone” (biztonsági műveleti terület), in view of the tumultuous events in Budapest in September 2006. It was as such outside the Police Department’s jurisdiction as regards the prohibition of, or acquiescence in, a demonstration. On 6 December 2006 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for judicial review, observing in essence that no decision on the merits of the case had ever been adopted by the administrative authorities – which excluded such a review.\n10.  On 11 December 2006 the Deputy Head of the National Police Department dismissed the applicant’s further complaint. On 19 December 2006 the applicant filed an action with the Budapest Regional Court, challenging the decisions of both 23 October and 11 December 2006.\n11.  On 11 January 2007 the Head of Budapest Police dismissed the applicant’s renewed complaint. On 12 February 2007 the Deputy Head of the National Police Department partly reversed this decision and instructed the Budapest Police Department to substitute the indefinite measure in question with one of definite duration. On 5 March 2007 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s ensuing action, essentially endorsing the police authorities’ earlier reasoning. It pointed out that the proceedings only concerned the police’s decision on non-competence and did not constitute review of the police’s original decision declaring Kossuth Square a “security operational zone”.\n12.  Upon a further complaint, on 18 March 2008 the Regional Court quashed the decisions of 11 January and 12 February 2007 and remitted the case to the National Police Department. In reaction to the applicant’s petition for review, on 29 April 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 18 March 2008 and remitted the case to the Regional Court. The latter’s procedure was then interrupted on 1 October 2009 on account of the applicant’s death. The applicant’s son and heir joined the proceedings as successor on 25 August 2011.\n13.  The Government submitted that the subject matter of the litigation pending before the Regional Court was the police’s original decision declaring Kossuth Square a “security operational zone”.\n14.  In another case concerning the same area, on 29 January 2007 a Mr K. challenged the police’s very decision to declare Kossuth Square a “security operational zone”. On 14 March 2007 the Budapest Police Commander rejected his complaint, but this decision was quashed by the National Commander on 16 April 2007. In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 22 June 2007 the Budapest Commander again rejected the complaint. On 19 July 2007 the National Commander upheld this decision. Mr K. challenged this ruling in court.\n15.  Mr K.’s action was dismissed by the Budapest Regional Court. However, on appeal the Supreme Court quashed this decision, together with the one of 19 July 2007.\n16.  In the resumed second-instance administrative proceedings, on 23 December 2009 the Na", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6574", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Kharkiv.\n6.  On an unspecified date the Dzerzhinsky District Police of Kharkiv instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, who was fourteen years old at the material time, on suspicion of theft of a mobile telephone and acting as an accomplice in an unsuccessful attempted robbery of earrings, a watch and a mobile telephone, in company with two other minors, in January 2005. The robbery attempt was interrupted when two witnesses to the incident intervened.\n7.  On 29 March 2005 a bill of indictment was drafted and the investigator ordered the district police to bring the applicant in for questioning. In addition, the investigator imposed an undertaking not to abscond on the applicant as a preventive measure.\n8.  On the same date the police reported that it was impossible to locate the applicant and placed her on the “wanted list”.\n9.  On 19 April 2005 the Dzerzhinsky District Police of Kharkiv arrested the applicant at her mother’s home address and drew up an arrest report, the relevant parts of which read as follows:\n“Investigator ... L., on 19 April 2005 at 15:00 in accordance with Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine detained, on suspicion of the commission of a crime: Korneykova Viktoriya Yuryevna ...\nThe crime which Korneykova V. Y. was detained on suspicion of having committed falls under Article 15 paragraph 2 [and] Article 186 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.\nGrounds and motives for detention: commission of a grave offence; may abscond from investigation and court, obstruct establishment of the facts of the case ...”\n10.  On 21 April 2005 Mr Tokarev, the applicant’s lawyer, lodged a complaint with the Dzerzhinsky District Court of Kharkiv (hereinafter – “the District Court”) alleging, in particular, that the applicant’s arrest and detention were in contravention of Article 29 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which authorised extra-judicial detention only where it was necessary to prevent or stop a crime. He argued that, since the crimes imputed to the applicant had taken place in January 2005, in accordance with Article 165-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine (hereafter – “the CCP”) the investigating authorities had been under an obligation to seek a judicial order in order to arrest the applicant. In addition, he noted that Article 434 of the CCP allowed the detention of minors only in exceptional circumstances, which were absent in the applicant’s case.\n11.  On the same day the investigating authorities requested the District Court to authorise the applicant’s remand in custody. Having held a hearing in the presence of the applicant and her advocate, the court authorised the measure requested. In its reasoning the court noted that the applicant had been charged with serious offences and had absconded from the investigating authorities, and that this justified her placement on the wanted list. Furthermore, her mother, who had been deprived of her parental rights, was unlikely to be able to ensure that the applicant would appear before the investigating authorities, as she herself had a criminal record and suffered from alcoholism. In addition, the court referred to a report from the staff responsible for the applicant’s welfare at the boarding school where she was officially residing, which stated that the applicant had behavioural problems, including a proneness to run away from the school. In the light of these findings the court c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6575", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Mr Vladimir Popov and Mrs Yekaterina Popov née Yakovenko, nationals of Kazakhstan, born in 1983 and 1982 respectively, and their two minor children, who were born in France on 7 April 2004 and 17 March 2007.\n6.  The applicants were born in Kazakhstan. They were married on 18 June 2002. In the applicants’ submission they were repeatedly persecuted in their country on account of their Russian origin and their affiliation to the Russian Orthodox Church. On 9 May 2002 the applicant’s father was beaten up in the street and required treatment in hospital. The family filed a complaint and on 5 June 2002 the applicants received, at their house, a visit from unknown individuals of Kazakh origin who asked them to withdraw their complaint and threatened them with reprisals. On 15 July 2002 an incendiary device was thrown into their home through the window, starting a fire, and they were rescued by a neighbour. Following that incident, the applicant’s father left Kazakhstan on 16 August 2002.\n7.  On 29 September 2002, when the second applicant was returning home, Kazakh police officers stopped her in the street and questioned her about her father. They took her away and she was beaten up. They tried to shut her in a vehicle and threatened to rape and kill her. She managed to escape. The next day, she went to the casualty department in the town of Taraz to have her injuries recorded and treated. On 2 October 2002 her mother came home having also been beaten up by Kazakh policemen who were looking for her husband. After that incident they moved to the country.\n8.  On 28 November 2002 the second applicant was again assaulted. She had gone shopping and did not return until the next day, covered in bruises and blood. Several days later she lost the child she was carrying. She then decided to leave the country and entered France on 15 December 2002 on a two-week visa. After her departure, the applicant, who had filed a complaint, was assaulted by policemen on 10 March 2003. He spent several months in hiding but the authorities found him, confiscated his papers, and threatened to kill him if he did not withdraw his complaint. He too decided to leave the country and joined his wife in France on 19 June 2003.\n9.  The applicants each filed an asylum application with the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) and obtained residence permits. Their asylum applications were rejected on 20 January 2004 on the ground that their statements were “riddled with inconsistencies”, followed “a stereotyped pattern” and were “unconvincing”. On 31 May 2005 the Refugee Appeals Board dismissed their appeals.\n10.  On 12 January 2006, having learnt of the murder of the second applicant’s father, after his return to Kazakhstan, the applicants requested a fresh examination of their case by the OFPRA. On 19 January 2006 the OFPRA refused to re-examine the case. On 13 September 2006 the Appeals Board rejected their appeal on the ground that the new fact could not be regarded as established.\n11.  They subsequently applied for recognition as stateless persons, but the OFPRA rejected their request on 5 April 2007, on the ground, first, that they had not provided evidence that the Kazakh authorities had withdrawn their nationality and they could not lose that nationality purely of their own volition, and, secondly, that they held passports issued by their national authorities that were valid until 2012. On 25 April 2007 the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6576", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Dublin.\n5.  In July 1995 the applicant priest became aware of allegations of sexual abuse against him about alleged events in the 1980s. These allegations were made in a letter from the complainant’s solicitor to the applicant’s religious order. In September 1995 a formal police complaint was made. In June 1996 the applicant was interviewed by the police.\n6.  In June 1997 the applicant was charged before the District Court on three counts of indecent assault. In October 1997 the case was transferred to a Circuit Criminal Court where he was charged with a further six counts of indecent assault. A hearing date was fixed (for March 1998).\n7.  In February 1998 the applicant sought disclosure of records from a psychiatrist who had treated the complainant. The trial was then adjourned: the applicant claimed that was due to a conflict of interest on the part of the trial judge and the Government claimed that it was partly because the psychiatrist’s records were not available at such short notice.\n8.  The applicant began judicial review proceedings in the High Court seeking the prohibition of the criminal proceedings on grounds of delay and seeking disclosure of the psychiatrist’s records. In March 1999 the High Court rejected the application concerning delay and no order for discovery of the psychiatric records was made because the prosecution undertook to procure them. Since the relevant psychiatrist was unwilling to disclose the medical records, in July 1999 the High Court directed the psychiatrist to make discovery, which was done in October 1999. The applicant then applied for discovery of medical records in the possession of North Eastern Health Board. In February 2000 the High Court directed the Circuit Criminal Court to order discovery against the Health Board. In March 2000 the Circuit Criminal Court so ordered and in September 2000 the Health Board made discovery.\n9.  In October 2000 the trial began but the jury was discharged and the trial was transferred to another Circuit Criminal Court (the “trial court”).\n10.  The applicant sought to trace the authors of entries in the medical records and maintained that there had not been full disclosure of all relevant medical records. The trial was listed for June 2001. However, since witness tracing was incomplete, the trial was adjourned and further discovery orders were made. In early November 2001 statements from the authors of the entries in the medical records were disclosed to the applicant. In March 2002 the prosecution stated to the trial court that another file had been submitted with those statements, that it needed time to furnish it to the applicant but that it would only proceed with the counts of indecent assault with which the applicant had been charged in June 1997. The trial was fixed for October 2002.\n11.  In June 2002 the applicant applied to the High Court for leave to apply for judicial review for an order prohibiting his trial because of the delay caused by the failure to make full disclosure. In February 2003 the High Court ruled in his favour. In April 2003 the prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court. In December 2004 the written judgment of the High Court was delivered and in April 2005 the prosecution amended its appeal. In February 2007 the Supreme Court heard the appeal. By judgment of March 2007 (a majority of three to two) it allowed the appeal. Fennelly J, giving judgment for the majority, found that the prosecut", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6577", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and was in Straubing Prison until his preventive detention was declared terminated and his provisional detention in a suitable institution under the Therapy Detention Act was ordered on 28 November 2011. He is currently detained in Straubing Psychiatric Hospital.\n6.  Since the age of sixteen, the applicant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment several times and spent only some four years outside prison.\n7.  On 20 November 1990 the Regensburg Regional Court convicted the applicant of rape. It sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment and ordered his placement in preventive detention pursuant to Article 66 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 32-33 below). The court found that in July 1989, some four months after his release from prison, the applicant had raped a woman whom he had come across in Regensburg at night.\n8.  The Regional Court had consulted a psychiatric expert, S., on the applicant’s criminal responsibility and his propensity to commit further sexual offences and endorsed his findings. The expert had found that the applicant did not suffer from a mental illness diminishing his criminal responsibility. His criminal responsibility had, however, been diminished at the time of the offence due to his prior consumption of alcohol. The court further noted that the applicant had previously been convicted, in addition to several offences against the property of others, in particular, of attempted rape committed in 1973, two counts of sexual assault committed in 1978 and rape and coercion committed in 1984. The court considered that owing to his propensity to commit serious sexual offences, the applicant was dangerous to the public.\n9.  Since 13 November 1997 the applicant, having served his full prison sentence, has been in preventive detention. Its continuation was ordered by the Amberg Regional Court on 3 November 1999 and on 26 February 2002.\n10.  On 4 March 2004 the Regensburg Regional Court again decided not to suspend the applicant’s preventive detention on probation and ordered the execution of that measure in a detoxification facility (Article 67a §§ 1 and 2, read in conjunction with Article 64 of the Criminal Code; see paragraph 37 below). The applicant was accordingly transferred from Straubing Prison to Regensburg District Clinic on 31 March 2004.\n11.  On 26 October 2005 the Regensburg Regional Court declined to suspend the applicant’s preventive detention on probation and ordered its execution in a psychiatric hospital (Article 67a §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code; see paragraph 37 below). It had consulted a psychiatric expert, N., who had considered that the applicant suffered from a dissocial personality disorder since his youth and that it was very likely that he would reoffend if released. His disorder could only possibly be treated in a psychiatric hospital. The applicant was accordingly transferred to Straubing Psychiatric Hospital on 15 December 2005. On 25 October 2007 the Regensburg Regional Court prolonged the execution of the applicant’s preventive detention in a psychiatric hospital.\n12.  As the execution of his preventive detention was interrupted in order to execute another sentence of imprisonment, the applicant had served ten years in preventive detention by 11 May 2008.\n13.  On 12 June 2008 the Regensburg Regional Court, having heard the applicant, his counsel H. and expert K. in person, decided neither to terminate the applicant’s preventive detention after expiry o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6578", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1989 and is currently serving a prison sentence.\n6.  In the afternoon of 12 May 2004 a minor, K., was found dead in his apartment, with several knife wounds. On the same day the local prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the murder.\n7.  The applicant (14 years old at that time) was a school acquaintance of K. Before the incident, K. had invited the applicant to his home on many occasions.\n8.  At 5 p.m. on the same day the police visited the applicant’s home. In the presence of his mother the applicant confessed and the police took him to the police station.\n9.  The police did not draw up arrest order and the applicant did not have his procedural rights explained to him on that day, as required by Article 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the applicant, he was questioned about the incident and subjected to ill-treatment by the police.\n10.  At 7.50 p.m. on the same day the applicant was examined by a medical expert, who reported abrasions on the applicant’s hand, back, waist and shoulder. The expert opined that the injuries were light and had been inflicted between twenty-four hours and six hours before the examination. The applicant remained in police custody.\n11.  At 9.30 a.m. on 13 May 2004 the applicant was given access to a lawyer he had chosen himself. His procedural rights were explained to him, including the right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, to be informed of the charges against him, to have a meeting with a lawyer before being questioned, to seek to examine evidence, to seek withdrawal of an investigator, to participate in investigative actions, and to lodge complaints.\n12.  Between 11.05 a.m. and 3.40 p.m. that day an investigator from the prosecutor’s office questioned the applicant in the presence of the lawyer and a teacher. During that questioning the applicant stated that he had entered the victim’s apartment, using a key he and a schoolmate had stolen from K. beforehand; the applicant’s plan was only to steal money, but when K. arrived unexpectedly and a fight broke out between them he grabbed a knife and stabbed him several times; he then took money and left the apartment.\n13.  At 5.10 p.m. on 13 May 2004 an investigator from the prosecutor’s office drew up an arrest order in respect of the applicant, relying on Articles 106 and 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n14.  On 15 May 2004 the applicant was questioned once again. In the presence of the lawyer the applicant confirmed his previous statements.\n15.  On 16 May 2004 the local court remanded the applicant in custody as a preventive measure and noted, inter alia, that the applicant had been arrested as a suspect at 5.10 p.m. on 13 May 2004. At the court hearing the applicant was represented by the lawyer. They both submitted, inter alia, that the applicant had acknowledged guilt.\n16.  On 6 July 2004 the applicant’s father requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against the police officers, claiming that after arrest the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment, and that the lawyer was allowed in only the next morning.\n17.  On 15 July 2004 a forensic medical expert confirmed the conclusions of the medical expert of 12 May 2004.\n18.  On the same day the applicant was questioned once again in the presence of the lawyer. He was clear that it was K. who had initiated the fight and that all he could remember was when he found himself holding a knife and K. lyin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6579", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1932. When lodging his application, he was detained in Aachen Prison. He currently lives in Erkelenz.\n6.  The applicant has been registered by the Aachen Pension Office as 80% disabled since 1 January 2005. This finding was based, in particular, on the applicant’s prostate disease, kidney disorder, heart disease and severe walking disability.\n7.  Between 1952 and 1972 the applicant was convicted of numerous offences, which, apart from one conviction for assault, were directed against the property of others. These included fraud, theft and aggravated theft, handling of stolen goods and extortion. The applicant was sentenced nine times to terms of imprisonment of between three months and four years and spent more than nine years in detention.\n8.  On 6 June 1972 the Cologne Regional Court convicted the applicant on seven counts of joint aggravated robbery. It sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment and ordered his preventive detention.\n9.  The Regional Court found that the applicant had robbed seven banks between 1968 and 1970 together with one or two accomplices. In each case, he and his accomplice(s) had threatened the bank employees with loaded guns and collected between 4,450 and more than half a million German marks (DEM). Having heard evidence from a medical expert, the Regional Court could not exclude the possibility that the applicant’s criminal responsibility had been diminished at the time of the offences because of an organic brain defect.\n10.  Relying on Article 42e of the Criminal Code and Article 20a of the Criminal Code, in their versions in force before 1 April 1970, and on Article 42e of the Criminal Code, in its version in force after 1 April 1970 (see paragraphs 43-45 below), the Regional Court also ordered the applicant’s preventive detention. It observed that the applicant had twice been sentenced to terms of imprisonment of at least one year (for several acts of fraud, embezzlement, theft and burglary). In addition, he had spent more than two years in prison on two occasions and was now being sentenced to more than two years’ imprisonment for the robberies at issue. Furthermore, he had a disposition to commit serious offences and was therefore dangerous to the public. Since the age of twenty, he had committed different types of increasingly serious offences against the property of others. Through the offences committed since 1960 and the offences at issue, he had caused substantial material damage and had acted with considerable criminal energy. He did not feel like working and financed his very costly lifestyle through crime.\n11.  On 17 December 1980 the Krefeld Regional Court suspended on probation, with effect from 17 January 1981, the remainder of the applicant’s prison sentence and his preventive detention as ordered in the Cologne Regional Court’s judgment of 6 June 1972.\n12.  On 26 October 1984 the Krefeld Regional Court revoked the above‑mentioned suspension on probation as the applicant had committed further offences (driving without a licence on two occasions) and had refused to cooperate with his probation officer.\n13.  On 8 February 1988 the applicant was arrested and placed in detention in France. After his extradition to Germany, he served the remainder of the sentence imposed on him in the judgment of 1972. Until 19 April 1994 he then served a further prison sentence imposed on him in 1992 for three offences of fraud (obtaining credit on three occasions on false prete", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6580", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1975, 1953, 1969 and 1981 respectively, live in Pepeni, Chişinău, Ungheni and Chişinău respectively and are all members of Hyde Park, a Chişinău-based non-governmental organisation.\n6.  On 27 March 2008 the first and the fourth applicants participated in a public gathering in the Stefan cel Mare park in Chişinău on the occasion of the anniversary of the 1918 reunification of Bessarabia with Romania. The demonstration had been authorised by the Chişinău Municipality. At approximately 11.30 a.m. the applicants were arrested and taken to the police station, where they were charged with resisting arrest and insulting police officers.\n7.  In a video filmed by the applicants, one of the police officers can be seen requesting identity papers from one of the participants in the demonstration. After the identity card is presented to the police officer, one of the police officers orders the applicants to follow him to the police station and the applicants comply without any resistance. The applicants were released several hours later.\n8.  On 26 May 2008 the Buiucani District Court finally acquitted the applicants of all charges in view of a lack of evidence against them. The court found that the accusations made against the applicants were groundless as they were not confirmed by any of the witnesses.\n9.  On an unspecified date one of the applicants lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers who had arrested them. However, on 30 May 2008 the complaint was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded.\n10.  On 22 April 2008 a new Assemblies Act entered into force under which no authorisation was needed for spontaneous gatherings and for gatherings with a limited number of participants. On the same date, at approximately 10.40 a.m., the first, second and fourth applicants organised a demonstration in front of the residence of the President of Moldova. According to them, they intended to express their joy at the entering into force of the new Assemblies Act and to encourage the people to assemble freely. After a short time the applicants were approached by several police officers who ordered them to leave. The applicants refused and argued that according to the new law they had a right to protest peacefully without any authorisation. Later the applicants were arrested and taken to the police station. They were held for several hours and charged with the offences of holding an unauthorised demonstration, resisting arrest and insulting police officers.\n11.  On 8 May 2008 the Buiucani District Court acquitted the applicants of all charges in view of a lack of incriminating evidence against them. The court found that the applicants had a legal right to protest in front of the residence of the President of Moldova without any authorisation and that the charges concerning resisting and insulting police officers were groundless.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers who had arrested them. However, it was dismissed as manifestly ill-founded.\n13.  On 30 April 2008 the National Television company organised a celebration on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary. A member of Hyde Park, O.B., who is not an applicant in this case, attempted to protest against censorship at National Television in front of the concert hall in which the celebration was taking place. He was draped in a banner bearing the inscription “50 years of lies” and was accompanied by the first, s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6582", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is serving a prison sentence in the Altai Region.\n6.  On 5 October 2001 the applicant was arrested and charged with several offences, including murder and robbery.\n7.  On 7 August 2002 the Altai Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twenty-two years’ imprisonment. On 26 February 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the judgment of 7 August 2002 on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.\n8.  On 3 November 2003 the Altai Regional Court, on the basis of a jury verdict, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twenty‑one years’ imprisonment.\n9.  The applicant appealed and on 12 May 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 3 November 2003 in substance. The applicant was not represented by a lawyer.\n10.  On 24 October 2007 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed, by way of supervisory review, the judgment of 12 May 2004 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the appellate court. The court noted that the absence of legal representation infringed the applicant’s defence rights.\n11.  On 25 January 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s conviction in substance, but reduced his sentence to twenty years’ imprisonment. The applicant was represented by a State-appointed lawyer.\n12.  The applicant was detained in remand prison no. IZ-22/1 in Barnaul pending investigation and trial from 27 October 2001 to 27 June 2004. On numerous occasions he was transferred to a temporary detention facility in Barnaul or remand prison no. IZ-74/1 in Chelyabinsk in connection with the criminal proceedings against him.\n13.  On 27 June 2004 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no. IK-10 in Rubtsovsk to serve the prison sentence there.\n14.  On 17 August 2004 the applicant was returned to remand prison no. IZ-22/1 in Barnaul in connection with the proceedings unrelated to the present case. He remained there until 7 August 2005.\n15.  On 7 August 2005 the applicant was transported to correctional colony no. IK-10 in Rubtsovsk where he continued to serve the prison sentence until 28 June 2006.\n16.  It appears that the applicant lodged several complaints in connection with the criminal proceedings against him and on 29 June 2006 he was transferred back to remand prison no. IZ-22/1 in Barnaul in order for him to participate in the court hearings.\n17.  On 20 December 2007 the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. IZ-77/1 in Chelyabinsk to ensure his participation in the appeal hearing at the Supreme Court of Russia by means of a video link. On 13 February 2008 the applicant was returned to remand prison no. IZ-22/1 in Barnaul.\n18.  On 13 May 2008 the applicant was transported to correctional colony no. IK-10 to serve the prison sentence.\n19.  In 2008-2009, for reasons unknown the applicant was detained in remand prison no. IZ-22/1 in Barnaul from 28 May to 29 June and from 3 August to 8 September 2008 and from 13  to 28 April 2009.\n20.  The Government provided the following information as regards the cell numbers, surface area and population related to the applicant’s stay in remand prison no. IZ-22/1:\nPeriod of detention\nCell no.\nCell surface area (sq. m)\nNumber of inmates per cell\nFrom 28 October 2001 to 16 January 2003\nNo information provided\nFrom 7 to 13 March 2003\n1 4.1\n1\nFrom 22 April to 21 August 2003\n101\nSee above\nFrom 22 August to 30 September 2003\n7 (hospital room)", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6583", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in St Petersburg.\n6.  The applicant and his parents live in an apartment which they share with two other families.\n7.  In April 2001 the applicant beat up Bo., who was a member of one of the families living in the same apartment. Bo. complained to the police about the beating. On 1 October 2002 the applicant was convicted of affray in this connection and given a six-month suspended sentence. In the context of these proceedings the applicant had been detained on remand between 10 June and 15 July 2002. It does not appear that he ever complained about this detention before the competent authorities at the domestic level.\n8.  At around 5 p.m. on 8 December 2001 K., a neighbourhood police inspector, and police officer S., the Deputy Head of the 28th Section of the St Petersburg Central District Department of the Interior (“the District Department of the Interior”), arrived at the applicant’s apartment to request him to attend an interview. At the time, he had not been either classed as a suspect or formally charged. Bo. let the officers into the apartment and they saw the applicant entering his room and locking the door behind him.\n9.  The applicant’s mother blocked the way to her son’s door. S. explained the reasons for their visit to the applicant’s mother, but she asked them to leave. According to S., the applicant’s mother verbally insulted him and punched him several times in the chest. The applicant disagreed and submitted that his mother had simply blocked access to the door, but had not insulted or punched anyone.\n10.  The applicant’s neighbours, who were present during the incident, later confirmed that the applicant’s mother had used abusive language and had tried to hit S.\n11.  K. then left the building in order to prevent the applicant from escaping through a window and S. stayed in the apartment and called for police reinforcements. Some time later, officers Sh., D.B. and M. arrived at the apartment. S. told them to take the applicant’s mother to the police station for insulting the policemen on duty.\n12.  According to the applicant, and as also noted in the statement of his neighbours given during the subsequent investigation, the policemen then forced the door to his room, entered the room and some time later led him outside the apartment and put him into a car. The applicant submitted that during the arrest the policemen had punched and kicked him all over the body.\n13.  The Government submitted that the applicant had himself come out of his room, acted aggressively and sworn at the police officers.\n14.  The applicant and his mother were both arrested and put into the same police car. The police took them to the District Department of the Interior and locked them in cells for administrative detainees.\n15.  According to an undated and unsigned handwritten report to a head of the District Department of the Interior submitted by the Government, the applicant was detained on 8 December 2001 on suspicion of “an administrative offence”. Without mentioning the legal characterisation of the offence, the report also described the circumstances of the arrest and stated that the applicant had pushed the officers away and had sworn at and threatened them, that he had waved his arms and behaved in a belligerent fashion. It was mentioned that physical force had been applied to arrest the applicant. It appears that the report was written by one of the policemen who had taken part in the applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6585", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the town of Nerchinsk, the Chita Region.\n6.  In June 2002 the applicant was convicted of theft and involving a minor in the commission of a crime.\n7.  On 1 and 2 October 2002 a series of night robberies took place on the Khabarovsk-Chita motorway in the vicinity of the town of Mogocha, the Chita Region. According to the reports of the victims, the perpetrators were five individuals travelling in two cars.\n8.  At around 5.30 p.m. on 3 October 2002 the police stopped two cars corresponding to the descriptions given by the victims on the outskirts of Chita. The police arrested the applicant and three individuals who had been travelling in the cars, V., Ta. and To., on suspicion of their involvement in the recent robberies.\n9.  The applicant’s arrest record notes the suspicion of his involvement in one of the recent robberies and the fact that a victim had already identified him as one of the perpetrators of the robbery. The record bears the applicant’s handwritten comment:\n“I disagree with [my] arrest. I did not commit the crime ...”\n10.  The arrest record of that date contains the following pre-typed standard wording followed by the applicant’s signature:\n“I have been informed that in accordance with Article 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I have the following rights:\n(1) to know what I am suspected of, and to receive a copy of [the relevant decision];\n(2) to make comments and statements in respect of that suspicion or to refuse to make any comments and statements;\n(3) to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer from the moment defined by subparts 2 and 3 of the second paragraph of Article 49 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to see him privately and confidentially before my first interview ...\nI have also been informed that in accordance with Article 51 of the Constitution I have the right not to give evidence against myself ...”\n11.  The applicant acknowledged having received a copy of the record with his signature.\n12.  After the arrest, the applicant was taken to the building of the Department for Combating Organized Crime of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Chita Region (“the UBOP”).\n13.  The applicant submitted that he had been punched and kicked all over his body and that a plastic bag had been put over his head to suffocate him.\n14.  It appears that the policemen started to interview him on arrival, but that the applicant remained silent. According to the interview record, he “was not mentally ready and also because of being tired” to take part in the interview. The applicant asked for a lawyer and refused to give evidence.\n15.  On 4 October 2002 the applicant was brought to the temporary detention wing of the Department of the Interior of Chita (“the temporary detention wing”, изолятор временного содержания УВД г. Читы). Upon arrival, he was examined by a nurse, who detected no injuries on his body.\n16.  On 5 October 2002 the applicant was placed in remand prison IZ‑75/1 in Chita.\n17.  On 7 October 2002 the remand prison’s doctor examined the applicant and reported one bruise on the right side of the applicant’s rib cage. The bruise could have originated from the impact of a hard blunt object two or three days prior to the examination.\n18.  It appears that on 3 October 2002 an interview with the applicant did not take place, as the applicant chose to remain silent.\n19.  On the next day a police investigator conducted face-to-face conf", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6586", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Migieşti.\n6.  The applicant is a tradesman specialised in installing roof drainage systems. In May – June 2008 he accepted money from four different people in exchange for installing drainage systems in their houses. However, he failed to carry out the required work and declared that he no longer had the money, promising to return it later.\n7.  In the early morning of 29 September 2008 he was arrested by the police and brought to Râşcani Police Station in Chişinău, on the grounds of having committed the administrative offence of insulting a police officer. He was allegedly forced to return the money which he had taken from B. I. for installing a roof drainage system on his house. According to the applicant, he had not managed to finish the work on that installation when B. I. asked for the money to be returned and also involved his relatives who worked at Râşcani Police Station in order to intimidate the applicant and obtain full repayment.\n8.  On 1 October 2008 B. I. made a complaint to the police, according to which the applicant had defrauded him by accepting money and refusing to return it, while having failed to carry out any work. On 4 October 2008 a criminal investigation against the applicant was initiated.\n9.  On an unspecified date one of the applicant’s relatives paid 500 euros (EUR) to B. I., who signed a statement to the effect that he no longer had any claims against the applicant.\n10.  On 6 October 2008 the prosecutor asked the Râşcani District Court to order the applicant’s detention for ten days. The applicant was accused of defrauding B. I. by accepting 8,000 Moldovan lei (approximately EUR 560 at the time) in May 2008 as payment for installing a roof drainage system, but failing to carry out any work. He was also accused of two similar offences, but no details other than the case numbers were given. Details were given at subsequent court hearings. A hearing was scheduled for the same day at the Râşcani District Court.\n11.  The applicant’s lawyer was not able to read the prosecutor’s request until immediately before the hearing and was not given a copy at that time. He did not see any other documents being submitted to the investigating judge to substantiate the prosecutor’s request and no documents were shown to the defence or discussed by the investigating judge at the hearing.\n12.  During the hearing of 6 October 2008 the lawyer informed the court of the payment of EUR 500 to B. I. The prosecutor present at the hearing declared that there was no evidence of any repayment of the monies to B. I. The lawyer then asked that B. I. be heard in order to confirm that payment. The court did not take any formal decision in respect of B. I. and the latter was not heard before the court adopted its decision. During the same hearing, the applicant submitted that he had been arrested on 29 September 2008. The prosecutor confirmed that, stating that the applicant had been arrested on an administrative charge and then arrested again as a suspect in the criminal proceedings. The applicant’s lawyer argued that since his client was suspected of having committed a crime, he should have been arrested in accordance with the criminal procedure. The court did not react in any way to this argument, confining its reasoning to the applicant’s detention after 4 October 2008.\n13.  In his decision of 6 October 2008 the investigating judge of the Râşcani District Court granted the prosecutor’s reque", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6587", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and is detained in an unspecified detention facility.\n6.  The applicant had been a Moscow district prosecutor. He retired in 2006.\n7.  The national authorities initiated criminal proceedings against several individuals on suspicion of large-scale embezzlement and abuse of power committed by an organised criminal group and involving public officials (see also paragraph 17 below). It appears that in September 2007 the applicant was interviewed as a witness.\n8.  According to the national authorities (see paragraph 25 below), from October 2007 onwards the applicant did not comply with the investigating authority’s summons for interview and was not living at his registered address.\n9.  On 14 March 2008 investigator G. issued a decision by which the applicant was given the status of an accused in the above-mentioned criminal proceedings. On the same day the investigator issued a decision prohibiting the applicant from leaving his town of residence and imposing “good behaviour” (подписка о невыезде и надлежащем поведении) (see also paragraph 59 below). The decision read as follows:\n“[The applicant] is registered as residing at the following address...The investigating authority’s attempts to determine his actual whereabouts were unsuccessful. There are sufficient reasons to consider that he has attempted to flee prosecution. Therefore, I order a preventive measure consisting of the prohibition to leave the town of residence and the requirement of good behaviour.”\nAccording to the applicant, neither he nor his lawyer was informed of those decisions at the time.\n10.  On the same day, the investigator ordered that the applicant’s name be put on the federal wanted list. This order was enforced on 1 April 2008.\n11.  According to the applicant, during this period of time he did not go into hiding; he was receiving treatment in a hospital and participated in public events. For instance, on 14 March 2008 he attended a public ceremony for the 75th anniversary of the prosecution service and was given an honorary certificate by the Moscow prosecutor.\n12.  On 17 March 2008 the applicant met investigator G. and was given a summons for an interview on 24 March 2008. On that date the applicant was admitted to town hospital no. 52. On the same day, investigator K. interviewed the applicant’s son. The latter stated that the applicant had been admitted to hospital but could not indicate the address of the hospital.\n13.  On 8 April 2008 the applicant was transferred to a military hospital.\n14.  In reply to an enquiry from investigator K., the town hospital informed him on 15 April 2008 that the applicant had been admitted to that hospital from 24 March to 7 April 2008. In reply to another enquiry, the military hospital informed the investigator, apparently on 23 April 2008, that the applicant had been a patient there since 8 April 2008, and that his treatment was expected to be completed by 30 April 2008.\n15.  In reply to investigator G.’s summons for an interview on 24 April 2008, the applicant’s lawyer stated that the applicant was receiving in-patient treatment in the military hospital, and requested that the decision to order the addition of the applicant’s name to the federal wanted list be revoked.\n16.  On the same day, 24 April 2008, arresting officers visited the applicant in the hospital and took him to the Investigations Department at about 4 p.m. The arrest record was drafted in the following terms:\n“The arrest has b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6588", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Stara Zagora.\n6.  According to the judgment of 30 November 2005 of the Stara Zagora District Court, in the afternoon of 29 March 1991 the applicant, then aged thirteen, was invited to a party at the home of Mr T.Z. There were several young people in the apartment. After some time Mr D.I., then aged seventeen, took the applicant to a separate room and threatened her, after which he raped her. Then he went out and Mr T.Z., who was twenty-one years old, entered the room. He beat the applicant and attempted to rape her but was interrupted by his mother ringing the doorbell. Mr T.Z. asked the applicant and the other guests to leave.\n7.  The applicant told her parents that she had been raped, and they took her to the doctor and informed the police.\n8.  In a medical expert report of the same date two experts of the Stara Zagora Military Medical Institute established that there was an injury to the applicant’s hymen and that she had several bruises on her head.\n9.  On 4 April 1991 the applicant’s mother lodged a written complaint with the police authorities against Mr T.Z. and Mr D.I.\n10.  The police carried out an inquiry, in the course of which it took statements from the applicant, Mr T.Z. and Mr D.I. The two suspects gave their addresses.\n(b)  Opening of criminal proceedings\n11.  On 27 January 1992 the Stara Zagora district prosecutor opened criminal proceedings against Mr T.Z. and Mr D.I.\n12.  On 9 April 1992 Mr T.Z. was charged with attempted aggravated rape and was ordered not to leave the town pending the criminal proceedings against him. On the same day the investigator questioned him, the applicant and a witness.\n13.  In a letter of 10 April 1992 the investigator requested the police to establish the full names and addresses of four witnesses.\n(c)  Stay of the proceedings\n14.  On 28 April 1992 the investigator established that Mr D.I. had not appeared before him, although he had been duly summoned, and that the whereabouts of certain witnesses were unknown. He proposed that the criminal proceedings be stayed. By a decree of 24 November 1992 the district prosecutor stayed the criminal proceedings against Mr T.Z. and Mr D.I., on the ground that the latter’s whereabouts were unknown.\n15.  There is no information as to whether the authorities took any steps to find the persons concerned.\n(d)  Resumption of the proceedings and further investigation\n16.  In a report of 8 September 2000 a police officer stated that Mr D.I. had been found. The address specified in the report was the same as the one Mr D.I. had given in his written statement of 1991. In a statement of 8 September 2000 Mr D.I. said that he had not changed his place of residence and that he had never been summoned by the investigator.\n17.  On 19 December 2000 the district prosecutor resumed the criminal proceedings against Mr T.Z. and Mr D.I.\n18.  In a letter of 26 February 2001 the investigator asked the district prosecutor to extend the period of investigation by six months, stating that the work on the case had not been completed on time because of his involvement in other cases. On 19 March 2001 the district prosecutor granted a two-month extension.\n19.  In a letter of 28 June 2001 the district prosecutor instructed the investigator to take urgent measures to complete the investigation, informing him that the case would be subject to special monitoring.\n20.  On 5 November 2002 Mr D.I. was charged with aggravated rape and was or", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6589", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Mizhgiriya.\n5.  On 28 April 2001 the prosecutors instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, a doctor, for negligence. On 28 December 2001 the investigations were completed and on 4 February 2002 the case was referred to the Mizhgirya Court for trial.\n6.  Following several reconsiderations of the case, on 13 July 2010 the court acquitted the applicant. It also rejected the victim’s civil claim against the applicant.\n7.  On 24 November 2010 the Zakarpattya Regional Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s acquittal, while it ordered reconsideration of the civil claim by the first-instance court.\n8.  The prosecutors lodged an appeal in cassation which is currently pending before the Higher Specialized Court.\n9.  Between 14 April and 15 May 2005 the applicant was detained pursuant to a court’s order. Apart from that period, the applicant’s liberty during the proceedings was restricted by an undertaking not to abscond.\n10.  So far, there were ninety-one hearings scheduled, out of which six were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to appear. Thirty-two hearings did not take place as other parties to the proceedings or witnesses were absent. The judge’s absence resulted in the adjournments of further ten hearings. One hearing was adjourned due to technical reasons. On thirteen occasions the courts had to order the police to ensure the witnesses’ attendance.\n11.  On 24 February 2006 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Mizhgiriya Court against his employer challenging his transferral to another post. On 23 March 2006 the court rejected his claims.\n12.  On 19 July 2006 the Zakarpatsky Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 18 September 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation. According to the applicant, that decision was sent to him on 13 October 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6590", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lived in Eskişehir.\n6.  On 13 October 2000 the Turkish State Railways brought compensation proceedings against the applicant before the Eskişehir Civil Court of First Instance for the unlawful occupation of its property. Within the same proceedings the administration also requested that unlawful occupation of the building on the property to be stopped as well as the demolition of it.\n7.  On 21 June 2005 the court partially granted the administration's request and ordered the applicant to pay the plaintiff the principal amount of TRL 1,374,000,000[1] and plus TRL 787,205,000[2] as interest. It also decided that the building on the property be demolished.\n8.  On 22 February 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 21 June 2005.\n9.  On 5 October 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6592", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and is currently serving prison sentences in Varna prison.\n6.  According to the indictment filed against the applicant in December 2003, in the evening of 23 September 2002 it was alleged that he had held a party with his girlfriend and four other individuals. He drank a lot and became jealous. Later, while he and his girlfriend were in another room, witnesses heard a shot. They went to the room and saw the victim lying in a pool of blood. It was alleged that the applicant was holding a pistol and told them he had shot her. Then he got into the car of an acquaintance of his, together with two of the witnesses, threatened the driver with the pistol and forced him to drive him out of town. After some time he asked the driver to stop and then ran away. According to the indictment, the witnesses informed the police.\n7.  The applicant had been sought by the police since 29 July 2002 in connection with previous criminal proceedings.\n8.  After the murder of 23 September 2002, the applicant was not found at his permanent address. Following inquiries by an investigator at the Haskovo regional investigation service, it became clear that he was not in prison and had not left the country. On 14 November 2002 the investigator ordered the police to find and bring the applicant before him. There is no information whether the police took any measures in pursuance of the order.\n9.  On 24 September 2002 a preliminary investigation was opened on suspicion that the applicant had intentionally shot dead his girlfriend, after which he had forced a witness to drive him away and had gone into hiding.\n10.  On 20 November 2003 the investigator established that the applicant’s whereabouts were unknown, appointed a lawyer to represent him and charged him in absentia with intentional murder and coercion. The results of the preliminary investigation were presented to the applicant’s officially appointed lawyer, who did not make any objections or requests for additional evidence to be obtained.\n11.  On an unspecified date in December 2003 the Haskovo regional prosecutor’s office filed an indictment against the applicant with the Haskovo Regional Court.\n12.  The Regional Court tried to summon the applicant at his permanent address. The summons was returned undelivered with information from the applicant’s father to the effect that the applicant had left the address two years ago. After an inquiry, it was again established that the applicant was not in prison and had not left the country. Therefore, the Regional Court assigned counsel to represent the applicant during the trial.\n13.  In a judgment of 7 July 2004 the Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged, sentenced him to sixteen years’ imprisonment and allowed a civil claim brought by the victim’s mother in the amount of 25,000 levs (BGN) (12,783 euros: EUR). The judgment was based on witness testimonies, expert reports and an inspection of the crime scene. The applicant’s court-appointed lawyer did not appeal against the judgment and it became final.\n14.  On 11 April 2006 the applicant was arrested and taken to Varna prison to start serving a previously imposed sentence. At that time he had already received prison sentences in at least four sets of criminal proceedings, with terms of imprisonment varying from one to ten years. According to a letter from the prison authorities, on 11 November 2008 the Sofia District Court, applying Articles 25 and 27 of the Criminal Code, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6593", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in the village of Petrivka in the Odessa region.\n5.  In the early 1990s the local authorities undertook to connect the village to a gas pipeline. Starting from July 1994 the applicant was entrusted with directing the works. According to him, at that point the public funding was interrupted and the construction was continued at the expense of certain villagers. After the works’ completion in 1997 the village council and some of the villagers publicly accused the applicant of embezzling public funds, which, as they claimed, had been allocated to him for the construction works in question.\n6.  On 17 August 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings against the village council, as well as against Mr S. and Ms K., seeking compensation for damages in respect of the aforementioned embezzlement accusations considered by him to be defamatory.\n7.  On 18 April 2000 the Ivanivka District Court (“the Ivanivka Court”) allowed the applicant’s claim in part.\n8.  On 4 July 2000 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (“the Odessa Regional Court”) quashed the aforementioned judgment and remitted the case back to the Ivanivka Court for fresh consideration.\n9.  On 22 August 2000 the case was transferred to the Kominternivskyy Town Court (“the Kominternivskyy Court”).\n10.  The examination of the case was adjourned several times for the followings reasons: the applicant’s absence or at his lawyer’s request (for about four months in total); the adversary party’s absence (for about ten months); and the judge’s leave (for two months).\n11.  On 20 January 2003 the Kominternivskyy Court rejected the applicant’s claim, as well as the counterclaim of Ms K. which she had lodged in the meantime, as unsubstantiated.\n12.  On 20 February 2003 the applicant appealed.\n13.  On 26 June 2003 the Odessa Regional Court dismissed that appeal following a hearing, in which the applicant had participated. It was noted in the ruling that it could be appealed in cassation within a month after its pronouncement.\n14.  On 27 August 2003 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal, together with a request for renewal of the time-limit. He contended, in particular, that the ruling in question had been served on him with a delay and that he had required additional time for preparing his appeal in cassation given his advanced age and poor health.\n15.  On 31 October 2003 the Kominternivskyy Court, following a hearing with the applicant’s participation, refused to renew the time-limit for his appeal in cassation, having found that the reasons advanced by him were not sufficiently serious for that.\n16.  On 13 November 2003 the applicant challenged that ruling on appeal.\n17.  On 11 December 2003 the president of the Odessa Regional Court admitted, in his reply to the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings, that there had indeed been some delays in dealing with his case by the first-instance court and that the judge in charge had been reprimanded in that regard.\n18.  On 24 February 2004 the Odessa Regional Court found against the applicant, having upheld the decision of the first-instance court.\n19.  On 20 March 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation. He submitted, inter alia, that the adversary party had obtained, without his knowledge, a medical certificate regarding his health which had wrongly been adduced to the case file.\n20.  On 22 March 2007 the Supreme Court transferred the applicant’s appeal in cassation to the Kharkiv Regional C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6594", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1920 and lived in Kyiv, Ukraine, and in Yerevan, Armenia.\n7.  From 1947 to 1966 the applicant was married to M. Mrs Sardaryan was born during the marriage. The applicant and M. divorced in 1966. On 11 August 1984 they remarried.\n8.  On 12 January 2007 the applicant died and Mrs Sardaryan inherited her rights and obligations.\n9.  On 2 April 2007 M. died and Mrs Sardaryan inherited his rights and obligations.\n10.  On 22 November 1996 M. instituted divorce proceedings in the Moskovskiy District Court of Kyiv against the applicant.\n11.  On 6 May 1997 M. amended his claims and requested a declaration that the marriage of 1984 was void. Subsequently he modified and withdrew his claims on several occasions.\n12.  On 24 March 1998 the court declared the marriage void. The applicant appealed.\n13.  On 29 April 1998 the Kyiv City Court (since 2001 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal) quashed this judgment on the ground that the lower court had failed to examine the initial claims of M. and to establish crucial facts, and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n14.  On 26 June 1998 the applicant submitted a counterclaim, seeking a divorce.\n15.  On 27 July 1998 the Moskovskiy District Court granted the divorce petition in respect of M. and the applicant. M. appealed.\n16.  On 9 September 1998 the Kyiv City Court quashed this judgment on the lower court’s failure to assess properly the evidence and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n17.  On several occasions the Kyiv City Court transferred the case from one trial court to another for further examination: in September 1998 to the Zaliznychniy District Court of Kyiv; in October 1999 to the Starokyivskiy District Court of Kyiv; and, eventually, on 20 January 2000 to the Kharkivskiy District Court of Kyiv (in 2001 this court was reorganised into the Dniprovskiy and Darnytskiy District Courts of Kyiv).\n18.  On 4 July 2001 the court found for M. and declared the marriage with the applicant void. The applicant appealed.\n19.  On 4 December 2001 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the Dniprovskiy District Court of Kyiv. It noted, inter alia, that although the trial court had examined the case in the applicant’s absence, it had failed to take into account her written pleadings, which were important for a fair examination. M. appealed in cassation against this decision but on 7 March 2002 the Supreme Court of Ukraine dismissed his appeal.\n20.  On 26 April 2002 the Dniprovskiy District Court resumed the proceedings.\n21.  On 23 May 2003 the court granted divorce to M. and the applicant. The hearing was held in M.’s absence. M. appealed.\n22.  On 18 November 2003 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed the judgment on the ground that the trial court had failed to examine whether the absence of M. was for good reasons or not and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n23.  On 12 December 2003 the Dniprovskiy District Court resumed the proceedings.\n24.  On 17 March 2005 the court rejected M.’s claim to have the marriage declared void and dismissed the applicant’s claim because she had failed to attend the hearing.\n25.  On 28 July 2005 and 21 May 2007 respectively, the Kyiv City Court of Appeal and the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, dismissed M.’s appeals.\n26.  A substantial number of the approximately seventy hearings in this set of proceedings were adjourned following the parties’ req", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6595", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Poltava.\n5.  In August 1991 the applicant with her minor son moved to Poltava from their town found to be contaminated as a result of the Chornobyl nuclear disaster. They were housed in a State hostel.\n6.  In June 1992 the applicant was placed on a waiting list for obtaining free housing as a victim of the Chornobyl disaster.\n7.  In July 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings at the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Poltava (“the Zhovtnevyy Court”) against the local authorities seeking allocation of a free flat.\n8.  On 28 February 2001 the Zhovtnevyy Court ruled that the applicant should be provided with free housing under the conditions prescribed by law and according to her place in the waiting list.\n9.  On 29 March 2001 the Poltava Regional Court (since June 2001 – the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal, hereinafter – “the Poltava Regional Court”) upheld this judgment.\n10.  On 23 May 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the above ruling for some procedural shortcomings and remitted the case for fresh examination to the appellate court.\n11.  On 27 June 2002 the Poltava Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal again.\n12.  Between July 2002 and April 2003 the courts at two levels considered the admissibility of the appeal in cassation lodged by the applicant. In April 2003 she submitted a rectified appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court.\n13.  On 11 December 2003 the Supreme Court started the proceedings.\n14.  On 12 May 2005 it rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated.\n15.  On 26 February 2002 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in the Zhovtnevyy Court against the Poltava City Council seeking free housing as a matter of priority.\n16.  From 8 July 2004 to 29 June 2005 these proceedings were stayed at the applicant’s request, pending the outcome of the first set of the proceedings.\n17.  On 8 February 2006 the Zhovtnevyy Court rejected the claim as being without basis. The applicant appealed.\n18.  On 15 May 2006 the Poltava Regional Court allowed her appeal in part. It quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court, having held however that it fell to be examined under the civil rather than the administrative procedure.\n19.  On 28 November 2007 the Higher Administrative Court quashed the aforementioned ruling and remitted the case to the appellate court with a conclusion that it was civil and not administrative.\n20.  On 5 August 2009 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Kharkiv Regional Court”), to which the case was referred on an unspecified date, found against the applicant.\n21.  On 2 February 2011 the Higher Administrative Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6596", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Perm.\n7.  On 18 October 1996 the applicant was involved in a traffic accident committed by a Mr P. The applicant, his wife and son were injured and the applicant’s car was damaged. Criminal proceedings against Mr P. were discontinued in accordance with an amnesty law.\n8.  Mr P. and his mother complained to the police that they had been subjected to constant harassment by the applicant, who had repeatedly threatened them in a number of phone calls and had allegedly demanded money in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the traffic accident.\n9.  On 29 March 1999 the Industrialniy District Court of Perm issued a decision, authorising the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated defamation and insulting behaviour.\n10.  In July 1999 Mr P. petitioned the Perm Regional Prosecutor to detain the applicant and to subject him to a psychiatric examination because the harassment had not stopped and had even escalated to death threats against both Mr P. and his mother. Twenty days later Mr P.’s lawyer repeated the request.\n11.  On 24 September 1999 another set of criminal proceedings was instituted against the applicant who, in these proceedings, was under suspicion of having made death threats.\n12.  On 5 November 1999 the two sets of criminal proceedings were joined and the applicant’s placement in custody was authorised. He was placed in temporary detention facility no. IZ-59/1 in Perm (hereinafter “facility no. 1”).\n13.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Industrialniy District Court, alleging that his arrest was unlawful.\n14.  On 25 November 1999 the District Court dismissed the complaint, confirming the lawfulness of the arrest. That decision was upheld on appeal by the Perm Regional Court on 22 December 1999.\n15.  On 6 December 1999 a prosecutor authorised an extension of the applicant’s detention until 5 February 2000. On 18 January 2000 the Industrialniy District Court rejected the applicant’s subsequent appeal against the extension, noting the gravity of the charges against him.\n16.  Whereas the investigation in the criminal case continued, the applicant was released on 4 February 2000 on a written undertaking not to leave the town.\n17.  On 31 August 2000 the Industrialniy District Court, having held hearings in the applicant’s presence, found him guilty of aggravated defamation and extortion, acquitted him of the remaining charges and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. On the same day the applicant was taken to facility no. 1.\n18.  Following the appeal hearing which the applicant attended, on 9 November 2000 the Perm Regional Court quashed the judgment, acquitted him of aggravated defamation and ordered a fresh examination into the charge of extortion. The applicant was released on the same day under a written undertaking not to leave the town.\n19.  In accordance with the order of the Regional Court, on 18 January 2001 the Industrialniy District Court authorised an additional investigation into the charge of extortion.\n20.  On 26 March 2002 the District Court further ordered a psychiatric assessment of the applicant. That decision was upheld on appeal on 30 April 2002 by the Perm Regional Court, which, in so far as relevant, held as follows:\n“As appears from the case file materials, [the applicant] is accused of having committed criminal offences which resulted from the fact that in 1996 his fam", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6597", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  It would appear from the case file that the salient fact in the domestic proceedings was the applicant’s association with the mujahedin in Bosnia and Herzegovina (“BH”)[1]. The term mujahedin has been widely used to refer to foreigners – mainly from the Arab world – who came to BH during the war in support of Bosnian Muslims[2]. However, the same term has been used to describe local Muslims who joined the foreign mujahedin, endorsed their ideology and adjusted to their way of dressing. The phenomenon has been explained by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) in Hadžihasanović and Kubura, IT-01-47-T, §§ 411‑18, 15 March 2006, and Delić, IT-04-83-T, §§ 166-199, 15 September 2008, as follows.\n9.  The first foreign mujahedin arrived in BH in the summer of 1992 via Croatia and with the assistance of the Croatian authorities. It would appear that their arrival was welcomed by the BH authorities. While the presence of at least some foreign mujahedin seems to have been motivated by a desire to provide humanitarian assistance to the Bosnian Muslim population, most of them actively supported the military struggle against the Bosnian Muslims’ adversaries, ready to conduct a jihad or “holy war”. As stated by Ali Hamad, an ICTY witness of Bahraini origin who came to BH in 1992, some of the mujahedin were members of al-Qaeda who had the aim of “creating a base that would allow them to increase their area of operations”. Some of them also came to perform missionary work.\n10.  Upon arrival, foreign mujahedin settled in various locations and did not form a homogeneous entity. Towards the end of 1992, Bosnian Muslims started to join the foreign mujahedin. The locals were provided with military training and participated in combat action. They were also given religious instruction. A number of groups comprising foreign and/or local mujahedin were active. Notwithstanding instances of participation in combat alongside each other, it appears that these groups were anxious to maintain their distinct identities. There were religious and ideological differences between them, which resulted in occasional violent clashes.\n11.  On 13 August 1993 the foreign mujahedin were organised into a unit within the local ARBH (Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina) forces[3]. The unit, named “El Mujahedin”, was based in Zenica. Following its establishment, the unit significantly grew in size. By 1995, it consisted of around 1,000 fighters. Although the original idea had been to replenish the unit with foreign mujahedin only, locals soon outnumbered its foreign members. The factors that motivated locals to join it included: its stricter regimental discipline; a better degree of organisation; superior equipment and combat morale; its religious dedication; and material benefits. The unit received funds and assistance from many organisations and individuals from the Islamic world, including the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation[4] and the Benevolence International Foundation[5]. The Islamic Cultural Institute in Milan provided logistical support.\n12.  El Mujahedin had a number of features setting it apart from regular ARBH units. It was led by foreign mujahedin who were not appointed by the ARBH. At the top of the hierarchy was an emir, who has been described as the highest-ranking person within the unit. Abu Haris, a Libyan, was its first emir. In December 1993, he was succeeded by an Algerian, Abu Maali, who remained in that position ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6598", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant is a public limited company whose registered office is in Hamburg. It publishes the Bild, a daily newspaper with a large circulation. The present case concerns the publication by the newspaper of two articles about X, a well-known television actor. Between May 1998 and November 2003 X had played the part of Police Superintendent Y, the hero of a television series broadcast on a private television channel in the evenings, until 2005. By October 2004, 103 episodes had been broadcast, the last 54 of which had starred X in the role of Police Superintendent Y. The average audience rating was 18% (between 3 and 4,700,000 viewers per episode).\n10.  On 14 June 2003 the applicant company revealed that X had been convicted of unlawful possession of drugs. After receiving a warning from X, it undertook, on pain of an agreed penalty, to refrain from publishing information according to which four grams of cocaine had been found at X’s home that he had had sent to him by post from Brazil and for which he had been given a prison sentence, suspended for five months, and fined 5,000 euros (EUR).\n11.  At approximately 11 p.m. on 23 September 2004 X was arrested at the Munich beer festival (Oktoberfest) for possession of cocaine. In a sworn statement (eidesstattliche Versicherung) a journalist from the applicant company declared that she had asked the police present at the scene whether X had been arrested and, if so, on what grounds. The police had confirmed that X had been arrested in the Käfer tent in possession of cocaine, without giving any further details.\n12.  According to that statement, the journalist had then contacted the public prosecutor, W., from the public prosecutor’s office of Munich Regional Court I, in charge of relations with the press, and had asked him for information. W. had confirmed that X had been arrested in the Käfer tent in possession of cocaine. According to W., plain-clothes police officers had arrested X because they had seen him making a suspicious movement with his hand when coming out of the toilets. The officers had searched him, and, having found him to be in possession of an envelope containing 0.23 grams of cocaine, had arrested him. According to W., the arrest had taken place at approximately 11 p.m. on 23 September and a criminal complaint was currently being investigated.\n13.  In its 29 September 2004 edition, the applicant company’s daily newspaper, the Bild, published the following headline in large type on its front page:\n“Cocaine! Superintendent Y caught at the Munich beer festival.”\nThe article, which was printed in small type, read as follows:\n“He came out of the gents tapping his nose suspiciously and was arrested! At the beer festival the police caught X (... years old, Superintendent Y on television), in possession of a small envelope of cocaine. See page 12 for the details.”\nThe following headline appeared on page twelve of the daily:\n“TV star X caught in possession of cocaine. A bretzel (Brezn), a beer mug [containing a litre of beer – Maß] and a line of coke (Koks).”\nThe article, printed in small type, read as follows:\n“Thursday night, 11 p.m. At the beer festival there was drinking, partying, swaying arm in arm. And sniffing.... In the celebrities’ tent the TV star X (... years old, whose real name is ...) came out of the gents tapping his nose and attracting the attention of police officers. They searched the star actor from the TV series Y (of which, by June, there had been more th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6599", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Botoşani.\n7.  On the evening of 5 November 1998 the applicant, an engineer, accompanied by P.H., was driving a car owned by the limited company C. on the national road connecting Iaşi to Botoşani and was involved in a car accident. A car travelling in the opposite direction blinded the applicant with its headlights and he was forced to slow down and to steer the car towards the right side of the road. Suddenly, a cart pulled by a horse (“the cart”) travelling on the side of the road appeared in front of the applicant and forced him to break abruptly. However, he was unable to avoid collision. The driver of the cart, N.Z., escaped unharmed, but his passenger, S.I., suffered some injuries that required medical treatment.\n8.  On 9 November 1998 the Botoşani Forensic Laboratory carried out a forensic examination of the injuries suffered by S.I. and found that they could have been caused by a car accident on 5 November 1998, and required fifty‑eight to fifty‑nine days of medical care.\n9.  A second forensic examination of the injuries suffered by S.I. was carried out by the Botoşani Forensic Laboratory on 3 February 1999. It concluded that S.I.’s injuries could have been caused by a car accident on 5 November 1998, and required 102 to 103 days of medical care.\n10.  On 24 February 1999 the Botoşani Prosecutor’s Office ordered the opening of a criminal investigation against the applicant for involuntary battery and other violent offences.\n11.   By a decision of the Botoşani Prosecutor’s Office of 15 June 1999 the criminal investigation against the applicant was discontinued on the ground that he had not committed any unlawful act. The decision concluded that the cart which the applicant had collided with had not been equipped with the legally required hazard warning lights, which prevented the applicant from seeing the cart at the material time owing to the poor weather conditions. Consequently, the applicant could not have anticipated the danger and taken action in order to avoid it. S.I. appealed against the decision.\n12.  By a final decision of 10 June 2000 the Suceava Prosecutor’s Office allowed S.I.’s appeal, quashed the decision of 15 June 1999 and ordered the reopening of the criminal investigation against the applicant.\n13.  On an unspecified date S.I. joined the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant as a civil party and claimed 50,000,000 Romanian lei (ROL) (approximately 2,100 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage.\n14.  By a final decision of 19 March 2001 the Botoşani Prosecutor’s Office acknowledged that S.I. had joined as a civil party the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant, indicted the applicant and referred the case to the Botoşani District Court.\n15.  On an unspecified date the applicant at his own request added to the file a technical expert report dated 4 June 2001 regarding the accident of 5 November 1998. The report concluded, inter alia, that the applicant had been driving lawfully, had been travelling at a speed of forty‑three kilometres per hour (km/h), that he had hit the cart at a speed of thirty‑three km/h and that the person responsible for the accident was N.Z.\n16.  On 29 October 2001 and 16 April 2002 the Botoşani District Court ordered a technical expert report and a supplement to the technical report, respectively, to be prepared regarding the accident of 5 November 1998.\n17.  On 29 January and 16 September ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6601", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are mother and son who were born in 1954 and 1985 respectively and live in Selyatino in the Moscow Region.\n6.  On 14 March 1997 the applicants’ husband and father Mr Shanov died. Before his death Mr Shanov was a recipient of the Chernobyl social benefits.\n7.  On 29 May 1999 the first applicant brought proceedings before the Naro-Fominsk Town Court of the Moscow Region (“the Town Court”) against the Pension Department of the Naro-Fominsk District (Управление пенсионного фонда РФ по Наро-Фоминскому району) seeking reassessment of the amount of benefits that she and the second applicant were entitled to after Mr Shanov’s death.\n8.  Her claims were rejected by a judgment of the Town Court of 21 March 2000, as upheld by the Moscow Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) on 18 April 2000.\n9.  On an unspecified date at the first applicant’s request the president of the Regional Court lodged an extraordinary appeal for supervisory review against the above court decisions.\n10.  On 17 January 2001 the Presidium of the Regional Court granted the appeal, quashed the judgment of 21 March 2000 and the decision of 18 April 2000 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter to the first instance for fresh consideration.\n11.  On 31 May 2001 the Town Court granted the first applicant’s claims for reassessment and recovery of the benefits. However, on 8 August 2001 the judgment was set aside on appeal by the Regional Court which required a new hearing.\n12.  On 21 October 2002 the Town Court granted the first applicant’s claims against the Pension Department and Department of Social Protection of the Naro-Fominsk District (Комитет социальной защиты населения администрации Наро-Фоминского района) for recovery of the benefits, awarding her lump-sum compensation amounting to 298,801 Russian roubles (RUB) and monthly payments in the amount of RUB 15,381.\n13.  On 2 December 2002 the above judgment was upheld by the Regional Court on the respondents’ appeal. The appeal court did not recite the reasoning of the grounds of appeal but mentioned that the arguments of the appellant had been considered by the trial court.\n14.  In respect of the lump-sum compensation award, the first applicant received the first instalment on 4 August 2004 and the second instalment on 13 November 2004. She has not received the remaining RUB 100,014 (approximately 2,380 euros (EUR)) to date.\n15.  On 21 April 2003 the respondent lodged an application for supervisory review on account of allegedly erroneous application of the material law in the judgment of 21 October 2002 and the appeal decision upholding it.\n16.  The applicants were notified that a hearing of the application for supervisory review by the Presidium of the Regional Court was scheduled for 8 September 2004.\n17.  On 8 September 2004 the applicants’ representative appeared in court but was informed that the hearing had been rescheduled to a later date of which he would be notified in due course.\n18.  On an unspecified date the applicants received the decision of the Presidium of the Regional Court of 8 December 2004 to quash by way of supervisory review the impugned judgments for incorrect application of the material law and a failure to subtract a previously received payment from the total amount due. The Presidium remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the first instance. The applicants had not been notified of the hearing of 8 December 2004 and did not appear in it.\n19.  On 6 February 2005 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6602", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born on the dates listed in the Annex and live in Hydra.\n5.  The applicants are owners of different plots of land in Hydra, in the same area.\n6.  On 6 December 1980, 26 January 1981 and 27 January 1982 respectively, after applications were lodged by the applicants, the Forest Inspection of Poros decided that their plots of land were not forestal.\n7.  On 16 August 1985 the Forest Inspection of Poros designated an area of 235 000 square meters (235 stremmas), including the applicants’ property, as a forest land (decision no. 1265/1985).\n8.  The applicants lodged objections with the First Instance Committee for the Settlement of Forest Disputes (hereafter “the First Instance Committee”) challenging decision no. 1265/1985.\n9.  By decision no. 1/1986 the First Instance Committee decided that the area under consideration should be reduced to 203,5 stremmas and that, from this area, only a part of 138 stremmas should be characterised as forest land. Further, the applicants’ objections were accepted regarding 66,5 stremmas of the abovementioned area.\n10.  On an unspecified date an appeal was lodged by the applicants before the Appeal Committee for the Settlement of Forest Disputes (hereafter “the Appeal Committee”) challenging the part of decision no. 1/1986 designating the 138 stremmas as a forest land.\n11.  By decision no. 1/1987 the applicants’ allegations were accepted and the case was remitted to the Forest Inspection of Poros for a new consideration.\n12.  On 26 May 1988 the Forest Inspection of Poros designated again all the area (235 stremmas) as a forest land (decision no. 65/1988).\n13.  On 3 August 1988 the first five applicants lodged objections with the First Instance Committee challenging decision no. 65/1988. On 5 September 1989 their objections were rejected (decision no. 1/1989).\n14.  Subsequently, on 7 May 1990 they lodged an appeal with the Appeal Committee challenging decision no. 1/1989. The Appeal Committee found that the First Instance Committee did not have a lawful composition. Decision no. 1/1989 was annulled and the case was remitted to the First Instance Committee for a new consideration.\n15.  On 7 July 1993 the First Instance Committee decided that, as far as the 66,5 stremmas were concerned, the authorities had not challenged decision no. 1/1986 and thus, it had become final regarding this part of the area (decision no. 11/1993). Further, regarding the remaining part of the 138 stremmas, the Committee decided that this area was forest land and rejected the objections of the applicants.\n16.  In December 1993 appeals were lodged against the abovementioned decision. The first four applicants challenged the part of the decision concerning the 138 stremmas and the authorities the part of the decision concerning the 66,5 stremmas.\n17.  On 20 December 1994 the Appeal Committee found that the First Instance Committee had to decide again on the nature of the 66,5 stremmas.\n18.  On 19 February 1996 the First Instance Committee decided to declare the area of the 66,5 stremmas as a forest (decision no. 1/1996).\n19.  Subsequently, on 19 April 1996 - the first two applicants - and on 2 July 1996 - the other five applicants - lodged appeals with the Appeal Committee challenging decisions nos. 11/1993 and 1/1996, with the exception of the fifth applicant who challenged only decision no. 1/1996.\n20.  On 19 October 1999 the Appeal Committee upheld the designation of the area including the applicants’ property a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6603", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  It would appear from the case file that the salient fact in the domestic proceedings was the applicant’s association with the mujahedin in Bosnia and Herzegovina (“BH”)[1]. The term mujahedin has been widely used to refer to foreigners – mainly from the Arab world – who came to BH during the war in support of Bosnian Muslims[2]. However, the same term has been used to describe local Muslims who joined the foreign mujahedin, endorsed their ideology and adjusted to their way of dressing. The phenomenon has been explained by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) in Hadžihasanović and Kubura, IT-01-47-T, §§ 411‑18, 15 March 2006, and Delić, IT-04-83-T, §§ 166-199, 15 September 2008, as follows.\n7.  The first foreign mujahedin arrived in BH in the summer of 1992 via Croatia and with the assistance of the Croatian authorities. It would appear that their arrival was welcomed by the BH authorities. While the presence of at least some foreign mujahedin seems to have been motivated by a desire to provide humanitarian assistance to the Bosnian Muslim population, most of them actively supported the military struggle against the Bosnian Muslims’ adversaries, ready to conduct a jihad or “holy war”. As stated by Ali Hamad, an ICTY witness of Bahraini origin who came to BH in 1992, some of the mujahedin were members of al-Qaeda who had the aim of “creating a base that would allow them to increase their area of operations”. Some of them also came to perform missionary work.\n8.  Upon arrival, foreign mujahedin settled in various locations and did not form a homogeneous entity. Towards the end of 1992, Bosnian Muslims started to join the foreign mujahedin. The locals were provided with military training and participated in combat action. They were also given religious instruction. A number of groups comprising foreign and/or local mujahedin were active. Notwithstanding instances of participation in combat alongside each other, it appears that these groups were anxious to maintain their distinct identities. There were religious and ideological differences between them, which resulted in occasional violent clashes.\n9.  On 13 August 1993 the foreign mujahedin were organised into a unit within the local ARBH (Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina) forces[3]. The unit, named “El Mujahedin”, was based in Zenica. Following its establishment, the unit significantly grew in size. By 1995, it consisted of around 1,000 fighters. Although the original idea had been to replenish the unit with foreign mujahedin only, locals soon outnumbered its foreign members. The factors that motivated locals to join it included: its stricter regimental discipline; a better degree of organisation; superior equipment and combat morale; its religious dedication; and material benefits. The unit received funds and assistance from many organisations and individuals from the Islamic world, including the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation[4] and the Benevolence International Foundation[5]. The Islamic Cultural Institute in Milan provided logistical support.\n10.  El Mujahedin had a number of features setting it apart from regular ARBH units. It was led by foreign mujahedin who were not appointed by the ARBH. At the top of the hierarchy was an emir, who has been described as the highest-ranking person within the unit. Abu Haris, a Libyan, was its first emir. In December 1993, he was succeeded by an Algerian, Abu Maali, who remained in that position un", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6605", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Kars.\n6.  On 13 December 2002, after having completed his military service, the applicant was placed under the guardianship of his father, S.A., by a decision of the Sarıkamış Magistrates’ Court as he was mentally ill and needed constant supervision.\n7.  The applicant submitted several requests to the gendarmerie command claiming compensation for his illness which, according to him, began during his military service as a result of the treatment there. His requests were rejected on the basis of a medical report from the Gülhane Military Medical Academy, which indicated that such a condition could not have been caused merely by military service and that many other factors could have been involved in its development.\n8.  Subsequently, under the guardianship of S.A., the applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, claiming that his illness had been caused by the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected in the army. He argued that his enrolment for military service after having passed several medical tests was proof that he had been healthy before. The applicant requested a total of 200,000 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 100,000 euros (EUR) at the time) in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, submitting the medical records from several hospitals in support of his claims. He also requested legal aid for the court fees, presenting a certificate from the office of the headman (muhtar) attesting to his father’s poverty. The certificate stated that neither S.A. nor anyone else from his household was employed. It also indicated that he was ill, had no social security and depended on support from his neighbours.\n9.  By two decisions of 19 July and 1 November 2006 respectively, the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s legal aid request, stating that pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, a legal aid request must be supported by proof that the case is well-founded and that the plaintiff does not have the means to pay the required court fees. It concluded that the requirements had not been met in the applicant’s case.\n10.  On 6 November 2006 the court informed the applicant that he was to pay a total of TRY 2,719 (approximately EUR 1,400 at the time) in court fees within thirty days for the proceedings to be continued.\n11.  On 10 January 2007 the Supreme Military Administrative Court decided to discontinue the compensation proceedings because the applicant had not paid the necessary court fees.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6606", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Ordu.\n6.  On 1 January 2004 the applicant was driving a van in Istanbul, accompanied by his friend Mr V.S., when police officers travelling in a police vehicle saw them and suspected that the van might have been stolen. The police officers then indicated to the applicant to pull over.\n7.  According to the applicant, he stopped the van and he and his friend got out and the police officers caught him after a chase. Despite having thus been apprehended and despite the lack of any further resistance on his part, the police officers slammed his face on the ground before proceeding to hit him and kick him. He and his friend were then taken to a police station where the police officers handcuffed him and blindfolded him before continuing to beat him up.\n8.  According to a report drawn up by three police officers who arrested the applicant and his friend, by contrast, the applicant ignored the police officers’ warnings to stop and continued to drive. When he and his friend eventually stopped the vehicle and got out, they started running. The police officers caught up with the applicant and his friend, and had to use force in order to handcuff the applicant. In the course of that use of force the applicant’s chin and various other parts of his body were injured.\n9.  The same day the applicant was taken to Şişli Etfal Hospital where he was examined by a doctor. Subsequently he was placed in a cell in the police station.\n10.  According to the report drawn up at the hospital, the doctor observed a bleeding wound, measuring 5x5 centimetres, on the applicant’s chin. A plastic surgeon stitched the wound, and a neurosurgeon carried out a further examination of the applicant’s head.\n11.  At the end of his police custody on 4 January 2004 the applicant was examined by another doctor at the Şişli Etfal Hospital. The one sentence in the doctor’s report reads that there were “no signs of ill-treatment” on the applicant’s body.\n12.  On the same date the applicant was brought before a prosecutor. A letter of referral drawn up by a police chief and addressed to the prosecutor states that force had to be used to arrest the applicant on 1 January 2004. The same day the applicant was brought before the judge at the Bakırköy Magistrates’ Court who ordered the applicant’s remand in prison.\n13.  On 12 January 2004 the applicant and his friend V.S. lodged an official complaint with the Istanbul prosecutor (“the prosecutor”), accusing the police officers of ill-treatment during their arrest as well as in police custody. In the complaint the applicant gave details of the alleged ill-treatment, and requested to be examined, inter alia, by the Third Specialist Commission of the Forensic Medicine Institute so that the physical signs of ill-treatment could be properly established.\n14.  On 11 February 2004 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Bakırköy Forensic Medicine Institute. The applicant informed the doctor about his complaints of ill-treatment which, he alleged, had caused deterioration in his eye-sight. The doctor recorded in a report the presence of the stitched wound on the applicant’s chin, and asked the prosecutor for previous medical reports to be forwarded to her with a view to preparing a “definitive medical report”.\n15.  On 10 March 2004 the prosecutor questioned the three police officers who had arrested the applicant. In the three identical statements the police officers were quoted as having denied ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6607", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Sombor, Serbia.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 24 February 2005 the applicant bought a store together with a plot of land from the P Company (plot A).\n9.  As the owner of the above real estate, as well as of plots B and C, the P Company was burdened with a landed servitude (lični realni teret) in favour of third persons, requiring their life-long maintenance (doživotno izdržavanje).\n10.  On the basis of the above contract, however, the servitude in question, being tied, inter alia, to plot A, was partly transferred to the applicant as its new owner.\n11.  On 30 March 2005 the applicant and the P Company concluded a court-certified amendment to the contract of 24 February 2005. The P Company thereby accepted to reimburse the applicant for any payments made in connection with the said servitude. This entitlement was itself constituted as a separate landed servitude (easement, stvarni realni teret) tied to plots B and C and established in favour of the applicant as the current owner of plot A, as well as any future owners thereof.\n12.  On 30 March 2005 the applicant filed a request with the Municipal Cadastre Office (Služba za katastar nepokretnosti) in Sombor, seeking registration of his easement.\n13.  On 11 April 2005 the Municipal Cadastre Office rejected the applicant’s request, stating that the registration sought could not be granted in view of the relevant domestic law.\n14.  On 18 July 2005 the applicant appealed against this decision.\n15.  On 30 January 2006 the applicant supplemented his appeal with an expert opinion provided by a well-known domestic legal expert, according to whom the applicant’s entitlement of 30 March 2005 was an easement and, as such, had had to be registered by the Municipal Cadastre Office. The expert, retained by the applicant, further noted that the rights of the third persons in question remained unaffected, thus implying that their consent was not needed.\n16.  On 29 May 2006 the legal branch of the Department of Geodesy (Republički geodetski zavod - sector za pravne poslove) confirmed the impugned decision of the Municipal Cadastre Office. It stated that the applicant had not offered any proof that the third persons in question had agreed to the arrangement reached on 24 February 2005 and 30 March 2005. It also noted that no judicial review by means of an administrative dispute was possible.\n17.  Both the Municipal Cadastre Office and the Department of Geodesy are administrative authorities and, as such, part of the respondent State’s executive branch of government.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6610", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and died on 2 April 2009. On 30 April 2009 the applicant’s son and heir, Mr Carlos Kinský, informed the Court that he wished to pursue the application originally introduced by his father.\n6. Through more than one hundred civil actions for determination of ownership lodged with Czech courts against the State, local municipalities and third persons, the applicant sought to recover property seized by Czechoslovakia after the Second World War. At that time, the applicant, an eight-year-old child, had allegedly been the owner of the property. During the confiscation his interests had allegedly not been protected by any representative despite the requirements of the law applicable at the time.\n7.  According to the Government, the total value of the property claimed by the applicant was estimated by the police at approximately 50-60 billion Czech korunas (approximately 2-2.4 billion euros).\n8.  On 9 October 2003 the Děčín District Court (okresní soud) dismissed the applicant’s action against the State, represented by the Ministry of the Interior, to determine ownership of certain real estate, finding that the property had been duly confiscated in 1945 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 12/1945. A large volume of archive documents was taken as evidence during the proceedings.\n9.  The applicant appealed, asserting, inter alia, that the District Court had omitted to take certain evidence.\n10.  On 27 January 2005 the Ústí nad Labem Regional Court (krajský soud) upheld the judgment of the court of first instance.\n11.  On 23 November 2005 Section no. 28 of the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud), which is responsible for restitution matters, rent cases and litigations concerning recognition of foreign decisions, dismissed as inadmissible the applicant’s appeal on points of law (dovolání). It found that it had not been conclusively established that the applicant’s property had been duly confiscated, but that in any case the property had been transferred to the State, which had used it since then. Applying its previous case-law, the court held that a property taken by a State before 1990 could not be claimed in civil proceedings but only under the restitution laws.\n12.  On 18 April 2006 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal whereby it was contended that he had not had a fair trial and had been discriminated against. The court relied on its stance, enshrined particularly in its opinion no. Pl. ÚS-st. 21/05, according to which a civil action for determination of ownership could not be used to circumvent the restitution legislation, and consequently found that the detailed arguments challenging the merits of the decisions were irrelevant.\n13. On 13 November 2007 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s nullity action (žaloba pro zmatečnost) asserting bias on the part of the District Court judge who had dealt with the civil proceedings. Referring to decision no. II. ÚS 71/06 of the Constitutional Court of 28 February 2006, it held that the activities of certain politicians in creating a negative atmosphere around the applicant’s actions had been unacceptable in a system based on the rule of law. Similarly, it held that the obligation imposed on courts by the Ministry of Justice to report to it on the applicant’s proceedings had been incompatible with the principle of separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches of government. Nevertheless, it did not fi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6611", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1939, 1933, 1933 and 1925 respectively and lived in Italy.\n7.  The applicants are all pensioners (retired prior to 31 December 1990) and former employees of the Banco Di Napoli (a banking group which was originally a public entity and was later privatised).\n8.  Before their privatisation, the Banco di Napoli and the Banco di Sicilia were subject to exclusive welfare systems according to Articles 11 and 39 of Law no. 486 of 1985. Their employees benefited from a more favourable equalisation mechanism (meccanismo perequativo) than that available to persons registered with the general compulsory insurance (assicurazione generale obligatoria). In particular, the annual pension increase of their pensioners was calculated on the basis of the salary increases of working employees in equal grades of service (perequazione aziendale).\n9.  In 1990 the Amato reform provided for the privatisation of public banks such as the Banco di Napoli. It suppressed their exclusive pension regimes, replacing them by integrated ones. It provided for the registration of the Banco di Napoli employees with a new welfare management system which was part of the general obligatory insurance managed by the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (“INPS”), an Italian welfare entity.\n10.  In 1992 a further partial pension reform took place.\n11.  In 1993 a number of former employees who had by then retired, entered into a dispute with the Banco di Napoli about the application of certain provisions. In particular, by means of a wide interpretation of section 9 of Law no. 503 of 1992 (hereinafter Law no. 503/92) and section 3 of Law no. 421 of 23 October 1992 (hereinafter Law no. 421/92) (see Relevant domestic law) the Banco di Napoli attempted to suppress the system of perequazione aziendale calculated on the basis of the salary increases of working employees in equal grades of service, also in respect of persons who were already retired, limiting the latter’s perequazione to an automatic one, namely a simple increase according to the cost of living (perequazione legale), which resulted in a less substantial pension.\n12.  The latter stand was taken notwithstanding that, according to the applicants, Law no. 218 of 30 July 1990 (Amato reform), particularly its section 3 paragraph 1 and 2, and section 3 of Law no. 421 of 23 October 1992 (see Relevant domestic law), limited this suppression solely to persons still employed and not persons already receiving a pension. Indeed persons still employed had been given the option of taking up other benefits as agreed by means of corporate collective bargaining.\n13.  On an unspecified date a number of pensioners in the applicants’ position instituted civil proceedings contesting the actions of the Banco di Napoli, since as a consequence they were receiving lesser amounts than those they claimed to be entitled to. They highlighted that Laws nos. 503/92 and 421/92 safeguarded any more favourable treatment applicable to persons who had retired prior to 31 December 1990. Thus, they requested the court to find that they had a right to retain the system of perequazione aziendale as applied before the enactment of such laws, and to order the Banco di Napoli to pay the sums it had failed to pay them.\n14.  By a judgment of 31 October 1994 in Acocella and others v. Banco di Napoli, the domestic court upheld the claimants’ arguments, holding that they had a right to remain under the system of perequazione azien", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6612", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and currently lives in the Kėdainiai Social Care Home (hereinafter “the Kėdainiai Home”) for individuals with general learning disabilities.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The applicant has had a history of mental disorder since 1979, when she experienced shock having discovered that she was an adopted child. She is classed as Category 2 disabled.\n9.  In 1980, the applicant was diagnosed with schizophrenia simplex. In 1984 she was diagnosed with circular schizophrenia. In 1999, the applicant was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia with a predictable course. She has been treated in psychiatric hospitals more than twenty times. During her most recent hospitalisation at Kaunas Psychiatric Hospital in 2004, she was diagnosed with continuous paranoid schizophrenia (paranoidinė šizofrenija, nepertraukiama eiga). The diagnosis of the applicant remains unchanged.\n10.  In 2000 the applicant’s adoptive father applied to the Kaunas City District Court to have the applicant declared legally incapacitated. The court ordered a forensic examination of the applicant’s mental status.\n11.  In their report (no. 185/2000 of 19 July 2000), the forensic experts concluded that the applicant was suffering from “episodic paranoid schizophrenia with a predictable course” (šizofrenija/paranoidinė forma, epizodinė liga su prognozuojančiu defektu) and that she was not able “to understand the nature of her actions or to control them”. The experts noted that the applicant knew of her adoptive father’s application to the court for her incapacitation and wrote that she “did not oppose it”. The experts also wrote that the applicant’s participation in the court hearing for incapacitation was “unnecessary”.\n12.  On 15 September 2000 the Kaunas City District Court granted the request by the applicant’s adoptive father and declared the applicant legally incapacitated. In a one-page ruling, the court relied on medical expert report no. 185/2000. Neither the applicant nor her adoptive father was present at the hearing. The Social Services Department of the Kaunas City Council was represented before the court.\n13.  On 17 May 2001 the applicant’s adoptive father requested her admission to the Kėdainiai Home for individuals with general learning disabilities. The applicant’s name was put on a waiting list.\n14.  On 13 August 2002 the Kaunas City District Court appointed D.G., the applicant’s psychiatrist at the Kaunas out-patient health centre (Kauno Centro Poliklinika), as her legal guardian. The applicant was present at the hearing. Her adoptive father submitted that “he himself did not agree with being appointed her guardian because he was in disagreement with his daughter (jis pats nepageidauja būti globėju, nes su dukra nesutaria)”. Nonetheless, he promised to take care of her in future and to help her financially.\n15.  By a decision of 24 March 2003, the director of the health care centre dismissed D.G. from her work for a serious violation of her working duties. The decision was based on numerous reports submitted by D.G.’s colleagues and superiors.\n16.  On 16 July 2003 D.G. wrote to the Kaunas City District Court asking that she be relieved of her duties as the applicant’s guardian. She mentioned that she had only agreed to become the applicant’s guardian because she had observed a strained relationship between the applicant and her adoptive father. However, D.G. claimed that t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6616", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Dinkata.\n7.  On 6 October 1994 the applicant confessed before the police to committing robbery together with two other individuals earlier that day. The stolen goods were confiscated by the police that same day.\n8.  On 4 October 1995 criminal proceedings against the applicant were formally instituted.\n9.  It appears that thereafter the case remained dormant until 5 October 2004 when witnesses were questioned.\n10.  In the period between 2001 and 2004 the applicant left the country on a number of occasions and returned each time.\n11.  On 6 October 2004 the applicant, who was abroad at the time, was appointed an ex officio lawyer and was charged in absentia with robbery.\n12.  The first hearing of the case was held on 14 January 2005 in the applicant’s presence.\n13.  In a judgment of 12 April 2006 the Pazardzhik District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment, suspended for three years.\n14.  Following an appeal lodged by the applicant’s co-defendant, in a final judgment of 12 October 2006 the Pazardzhik Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment including the applicant’s conviction and sentence.\n15.  On 9 March 2007 the Pazardzhik Regional Police Directorate ordered the imposition of a ban on the applicant leaving the country on account of his conviction and pending his rehabilitation. It relied on section 76(2) of the 1998 Bulgarian Identity Papers Act.\n16.  The applicant contested the order arguing that he was unable to provide for his family in Bulgaria and that he had employment opportunities in Serbia.\n17.  On 25 May 2007 the applicant was refused passage by a border police official while attempting to leave Bulgaria in spite of the imposed prohibition.\n18.  By a final judgment of 10 October 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the prohibition. The court reasoned that it was within the administrative authority’s discretion to impose such a ban and that its assessment was not subject to judicial control. At the same time, it held that the law had been complied with in that such restriction could be imposed in cases where a conviction was in place and prior to the rehabilitation of the convicted person and that other factors, such as the impossibility to find employment in Bulgaria, were irrelevant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6617", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Irkutsk.\n6.  On 8 December 1993 the applicant’s son, Vladimir Shumkov, was arrested on suspicion of murder and placed in a temporary remand centre. On 10 December 1993 he was transferred to a remand prison.\n7.  On 9 March 1995 Mr Shumkov was convicted of murder and perjury and sentenced to nine years and six months’ imprisonment. The sentence was due to expire on 7 June 2003.\n8.  On 15 July 1995 Mr Shumkov was transferred from the remand prison to correctional facility ITK-19 in Irkutsk to serve his sentence.\n9.  On 14 January 1999 he was transferred to correctional facility IK-6 in Irkutsk so as to prevent a conflict with other detainees.\n10.  On 6 February 1999 Mr Shumkov requested to be transferred to a different correctional facility since he was in conflict with other detainees and had allegedly been threatened by them.\n11.  On 13 July 1999 Mr Shumkov was transferred from correctional facility IK-6 to correctional facility IK-15 in Angarsk, again to prevent a conflict with other detainees.\n12.  On 10 April 2001 he was transferred to correctional facility IK-20 in Ust-Kuta, once again to prevent a conflict with other detainees.\n13.  In 1995 Mr Shumkov was diagnosed with epilepsy. Later the diagnosis was changed to psychopathic personality disorder. Between 1995 and 2001 he regularly underwent medical examinations and in-patient treatment in prison hospitals:\n- on 2 August 1995 Mr Shumkov was admitted to prison hospital no. 1 in Irkutsk and was diagnosed with psychopathic personality disorder and epilepsy;\n- on 26 August 1995 he was transferred to prison hospital no. 2 in Angarsk with a diagnosis of epilepsy; he was discharged on 13 September 1995 following an improvement in his condition;\n- on 23 July 1996 Mr Shumkov was admitted to prison hospital no. 1 in Irkutsk and was diagnosed with psychopathic personality disorder, with explosive-type accentuation; he was discharged on 23 August 1996 following an improvement in his condition;\n- on 20 March 1997 he was again placed in prison hospital no. 1 in Irkutsk with a diagnosis of psychopathy of explosive-hysteroid type, and demonstratively blackmailing behaviour with simulation of psychic equivalences and paraxial disorders; he was discharged on 14 May 1997 following an improvement in his condition;\n- on 24 February 1998 Mr Shumkov was admitted to prison hospital no. 1 in Irkutsk with a diagnosis of psychopathy of explosive-hysteroid type; he was discharged on 12 March 1998 following an improvement in his condition;\n- on 7 July 1998 he was admitted to prison hospital no. 2 in Angarsk with a diagnosis of psychopathy of explosive-hysteroid type with simulation of paraxial disorders; he was discharged on 18 August 1998 following an improvement in his condition;\n- on 1 April 1999 Mr Shumkov was admitted to prison hospital no. 1 in Irkutsk with a diagnosis of psychopathy of hystero-excitable type and neurocirculatory dystonia; he was discharged on 14 April 1999 following an improvement in his condition;\n- on 9 March 2000 Mr Shumkov was admitted to prison hospital no. 2 in Angarsk with a diagnosis of psychopathy of explosive-hysteroid type with simulation of paraxial disorders; he was discharged on 30 March 2000 following an improvement in his condition;\n- on 26 April 2000 he was admitted to prison hospital no. 1 in Irkutsk with a diagnosis of psychopathy of explosive type and a duodenal ulcer; he was discharged on 19 June 2000 following an impr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6618", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Warsaw. He is currently detained in Warsaw Remand Centre.\n6.  On 21 December 2004 the applicant was held in custody. It does not result from the case-file whether the applicant remains detained in this set of proceedings.\n7.  On 5 April 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder, attempted robbery and drug trafficking committed in an organised criminal group.\n8.  On the same date the Białystok District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. The court indicated that the evidence which had been gathered in the case, in particular the testimonies of witnesses and other suspects, showed that there was a sufficient probability that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. It attached importance to the risk that he would attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or, by other means, would obstruct the proceedings. The latter risk was considered of the utmost importance in the light of the fact that the case involved a large number of alleged accomplices.\n9.  An appeal by the applicant against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all of his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful.\n10.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended on several occasions, namely, on 27 June 2006 (to 5 October 2006), 29 September 2006 (to 5 December 2006), 28 November 2006 (to 5 March 2007), 2 March 2007 (to 5 May 2007), 27 April 2007 (to 5 August 2007), 30 July 2007 (to 5 November 2007) and 30 October 2007 (to 5 February 2008). In their decisions, the courts stressed the fact that the applicant had been acting in an organised criminal group. They underlined the unique nature of the proceedings involving organised crime, in which the authorities had to determine the degree of alleged responsibility of each of the suspects. The courts attached importance to the seriousness of the charges and the likelihood of a severe sentence being imposed on the applicant.\n11.  On 30 January 2008 the Białystok District Court refused to extend the applicant’s detention. It stated that the applicant had been held in pre‑trial detention since April 2006 and that this period should have been sufficient for the authorities to collect evidence in the applicant’s case. In addition, it considered that the decision about the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention beyond the period of three months should be taken by the Białystok Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).\n12.  The Prosecutor lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision.\n13.  On 13 February 2008 the Białystok Regional Court amended the contested decision and extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to 5 May 2008. The court argued that as the applicant was remanded in custody in the first set of criminal proceedings, his detention in the second set of proceedings was merely administrative. It further stated that the applicant was charged with serious offences committed in an organised criminal group and that there was a high risk that, if released, he would attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or, by other means, would obstruct the proceedings. Finally, the court observed that the Prosecutor could not have completed the investigation as evidence in p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6620", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, spouses, were born in 1957 and 1966 respectively and live in Moscow.\n5.  At the time of the events they owned a flat at 9/12–1 Znamenka Street in Moscow, in the neighbourhood of the Moscow State Art Gallery of the People’s Artist of the USSR Alexander Shilov. The flat had six rooms and measured 121.8 m². It was occupied by the applicants, their two minor children, and a mother-in-law.\n6.  In April 2001 the Moscow Government decided that for the purpose of the gallery’s reconstruction the applicants’ building was to be vacated and converted into non-residential premises (Decree 373-PP). The development and resettlement of the residents were to be financed by Tverskaya Finance B.V., a private Dutch company. Upon the project’s completion, 60% of the building was to go to Tverskaya Finance, and 40% to the Moscow Government. Insofar as relevant, Decree 373-PP read as follows:\n“For the purpose of an all-inclusive reconstruction of the territory adjacent to the [Gallery] and in accordance with the developed architectural planning concept, the Government of Moscow decrees: 1.  To accept the proposal of the Moscow Committee of Architecture to include ... the building located at 9/12–1 Znamenka into the single investment project of building and reconstruction works at Znamenka. 2.  To take into account the agreement of the investor – Tverskaya Finance B.V. – to finance the building and reconstruction of the buildings.\n... 4.  To adopt an agreement that after the reconstruction would divide the non-residential premises at 9/12–1 Znamenka as follows: 60% to Tverskaya Finance B.V., 40% to the Department of State and Municipal Property of Moscow. 5.  To take into account the investor’s agreement to finance the resettlement of tenants and owners from 9/12–1 Znamenka ... to own or acquired premises.\n...\n8.  That the Prefect of the Central Administrative District together with the Department of Municipal Housing and Housing Policy of the Moscow Government should formalise the conversion of 9/12–1 Znamenka into non-residential premises.” 8.  In August 2003 the authorities requested the State Enterprise Moszhilniiproekt, a public surveying agency, to deliver a report on the building’s technical condition. The request was phrased to be “in execution of the assignment by the First Deputy of the prefect of the Central Administrative Circuit of Moscow on the subject of finding [the building] a dangerous structure”. Moszhilniiproekt found that the building was under the threat of collapse.\n9.  In November 2003–February 2004 the Moscow Government offered the applicants to choose a replacement flat from a four-room flat of 149 m² at 77 Udaltsova Street, a four-room flat of 105 m² at 12 Tverskaya Street, a five-room flat of 125 m² at 9/6 Zamorenova Street, and a five-room flat of 112 m² at 39/6 Dolgorukovskaya Street. The applicants rejected these offers.\n10.  In April 2004 the Moscow Government classified the building as a dangerous structure and ordered its conversion into non-residential premises (Decree 669-RP). Insofar as relevant, Decree 669-RP read as follows:\n“[It is hereby ordered]: 1.  To classify the residential building located at 9/12–1 Znamenka as a dangerous structure and subsequently rebuild it into non-living premises. 2.2.  Tverskaya Finance B.V. is the beneficiary of a lease ... of the land plot for the reconstruction and building of the complex of the buildings including 9/12–1 Znamenka. 3.  To establish that the residents ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6621", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Maastricht.\n6.  On 3 November 1995 the applicant reported to the police that his driving licence had been stolen in September of that year. On 14 March 1997 the applicant was issued with a new driving licence. He had applied for it only shortly before, i.e. in 1997.\n7.  During the intervening period, between 3 November 1995 and 14 March 1997, the Government Road Transport Agency (Rijksdienst voor het Wegverkeer – “the Agency”) registered a total of 1,737 motor vehicles in the applicant’s name in the vehicle registration system (kentekenregister), but without his consent. It would appear that these registrations were effected upon presentation of the applicant’s stolen driving licence.\n8.  As a consequence of these vehicles being registered in his name, the applicant received large numbers of motor vehicle tax assessments (aanslagen motorrijtuigenbelasting/houderschapsbelasting), he was on many occasions prosecuted on the basis of the Motor Liability Insurance Act (Wet aansprakelijkheidsverzekering motorrijtuigen) and fined by the public prosecutor (officier van justitie) on the basis of the Traffic Regulations Administrative Enforcement Act (Wet administratiefrechtelijk handhaving verkeersvoorschriften) in respect of offences committed with the cars. Having been ordered by the competent court to pay these fines, he was detained for failure to comply with these orders (gijzeling) pursuant to Article 28 of the latter Act. The applicant ended up paying fines imposed on him on the basis of these motor vehicle registrations in respect of offences not committed by him. On several occasions the applicant was held liable by the Motor Traffic Guarantee Fund (Waarborgfonds Motorverkeer) for damage caused by uninsured vehicles registered in his name. The applicant’s welfare benefits were stopped, as his financial means were considered to be quite adequate in view of the sheer number of vehicles registered in his name.\n9.  The applicant alleges that on 1 July 1996 he requested the Agency to annul all the vehicle registrations, bar the one relating to his own car and was met with a refusal. Likewise, he alleges that he made several unsuccessful attempts in 1996 to rectify the situation by, inter alia, writing complaints to the Public Prosecutor who had imposed fines on him. The Government state that no official record exists to support these allegations.\n10.  The applicant furthermore appealed, on 12 February 2004, to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) against the refusal of the Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie) to prosecute those responsible for the malicious vehicle registrations in his name. In its decision of 22 June 2005, the Court of Appeal considered, as relevant to the case before the Court, that although the police could admittedly have proceeded more effectively with the investigation, too much time had passed (the events in issue, i.e. the malicious registration of motor vehicles, had taken place between November 1995 and March 1997) to expect any viable investigation to be conducted by the authorities concerned. The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal, but it nevertheless noted that it was in favour of the course of action as advised by the Advocate-General, namely a complete remission in a single administrative act (eenmalige sanering) of all (administrative) sanctions imposed on the applicant which were an effect of the malicious registrations. According", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6622", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 24 September 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of a criminal gang specialising in the theft of cars. On 23 November 2006 the applicant was convicted and on 25 April 2007 his conviction was upheld on appeal by the Chişinău Court of Appeal. He was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment. During the criminal proceedings against him the applicant was detained in the following detention facilities:\n- 26 November 2003 – 2 December 2003: Prison no. 13;\n- 2 December 2003 – 14 January 2004: detention facility of the Ministry of Internal Affairs;\n- 14 January 2004 – 16 February 2004: Prison no. 13;\n- 16 February 2004 – 25 February 2004: detention facility of the Ministry of Internal Affairs;\n- 25 February 2004 – 4 January 2007: Prison no. 13;\n- 4 January 2007 – 1 March 2007: Prison no. 16;\n- 1 March 2007 – 1 April 2008: Prison no. 13;\n- 1 April 2008 – 2 June 2010: Prison no. 8;\n- 2 June 2010 – 4 February 2011: Prison no. 12;\n- 4 February 2011 – present: Prison no. 8.\n6.  According to the applicant the conditions of detention in Prison no. 13 and Prison no. 8 were very poor and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. In respect of Prison no. 13, the applicant submitted that the cells were overcrowded and humid and there was no ventilation. He also complained about the quality and quantity of the food. As to Prison no. 8, he submitted that it was located on territory controlled by the Transdniestrian separatist authorities but was itself under the control of the Moldovan constitutional authorities. The separatist authorities had cut off the power and water supplies and disconnected the prison from the sewage network. As a result the inmates had electrical power for only three hours per day and the water was limited to fifteen litres per day, plus another fifty litres once a week for showers and washing clothes.\n7.  The relevant parts of the Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) concerning a visit to Moldova between 14 au 24 September 2007 read as follows (unofficial translation):\n“84. Penitentiary establishment No. 8 in Bender had been the subject of three visits by the CPT since 2003, following the decision of the municipal authorities of Bender to deprive the establishment of running water and electricity supply (and, as of 2005, to disconnect it from the city’s sewage disposal system). The seriousness of the situation confronting the establishment led the Committee to state in the report on its visit in March 2006 that, unless the above-mentioned problems were resolved, prisoners should be relocated elsewhere. In their response to that report, the Moldovan authorities indicated that they considered the situation at Penitentiary establishment No. 8 in Bender to be under control and saw no reasons for the relocation of prisoners to other establishments. 85. When re-visited by the CPT’s delegation on 21 September 2007, the establishment was holding 99 prisoners (compared with 101 on 18 March 2006). The delegation was informed that some 35 inmates had been released since March 2006, and approximately the same number of new prisoners had been admitted. The great majority of the prisoners currently held at the establishment originated from the Transdniestrian region or nearby locations. The delegation gained the impression that all prisoners who had been admitted in the last year had themselves asked for a transfer to Bender, in par", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6623", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1967 respectively and live in Pomorie.\n6.  The two applicants are a mother and her daughter. The first applicant was an employee of a state-owned company. In 1991 and 1993 the company granted the tenancy of a house to the first applicant. In 1992 its managing body decided to sell the house to the applicants at its market value. The sale did not take place for unspecified reasons. In 1993 tenancy was also granted to the second applicant.\n7.  On an unspecified date, most probably in 1994, the title to the house was transferred to the municipality. The applicants are still occupying the house as tenants.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicants requested the Pomorie Municipal Council to be allowed to buy the house. On 25 April 1994 the Municipal Council approved the sale and ordered the mayor to proceed with the relevant formalities and to conclude the sale until 30 June 1994. The sale did not take place for unspecified reasons.\n9.  On 17 November 1994 the applicants filed another request to the Municipal Council for purchasing the house. By letter of 26 June 1995 the municipality informed the applicants that in connection with their request they needed to submit certain documents. It is not clear whether the applicants submitted those documents. In any event, there is no information that the Municipal Council allowed the sale.\n10.  In the period of 1995-97 the applicants made major repairs to the house and in 2000 brought an action against the municipality, seeking reimbursement of the expenses they had incurred.\n11.  In a judgment of 26 August 2003 the Burgas Regional Court allowed partially the claim. Upon appeal, on 12 October 2004 the Burgas Court of Appeal rendered a judgment in the applicants’ favour. This judgment became final on an unspecified date shortly thereafter as the parties did not lodge a cassation appeal.\n12.  On 5 January 2005 the applicants obtained a writ of execution against the Pomorie municipality for 21,660 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of approximately 11,000 euros (EUR), which included the amount awarded by the courts and the expenses incurred by the applicants during the court proceedings, as well as the relevant interest.\n13.  On 25 March 2005 the applicants made a fresh request to Pomorie Municipal Council to sell them the house. In particular, they proposed to the municipality when determining the price of the house to take into account the compensation awarded with the judgment of 12 October 2004 and to reduce the price accordingly. The applicants enclosed a copy of the writ. On 8 April 2005 they made an identical request to the mayor and again enclosed a copy of the writ.\n14.  It appears that the authorities did not respond to the requests and that the situation remained unchanged until June 2008.\n15.  On 9 June 2008 the applicants made another request to the Pomorie Municipal Council to sell them the house. On 18 July 2008 the Municipal Council ordered an inventory and assessment of the house. It also decided, inter alia, to explore other opportunities and offer another property in order to settle the debt. It does not appear that the Municipal Council took a decision to allow the sale.\n16.  On 6 April 2009 the applicants presented an assessment of the house to the municipality. Apparently, no further action in this respect was taken by the authorities. On 24 September 2009 the applicants challenged the tacit refusal of the mayor to enforce the Municipal Co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6624", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Pereslavl-Zalesskiy, Yaroslavl Region. He is serving a prison sentence in Rybinsk.\n6.  On 24 July 2000 the applicant was arrested in Pereslavl-Zalesskiy on suspicion of organised murder and robbery. He was placed in a temporary detention facility at the police station (ИВС при УВД – IVS) in Pereslavl-Zalesskiy. On 27 July 2000 he was remanded in pre-trial custody.\n7.  According to the applicant, at about 6 p.m. on 31 July 2000 the applicant was checked out of the IVS in Pereslavl-Zalesskiy; he was handcuffed with his hands behind his back, blindfolded with a canvas bag pulled over his head, and put on the floor of a police minibus. Several police officers and two other detainees were in the same vehicle. As soon as the vehicle drove off the policemen began punching and kicking the applicant to force him to confess to the murder and to make him sign some documents. They hit him on the body and head, twisted his fingers, pulled on the handcuffs and tightened them behind his back. This lasted for at least ten minutes, until they arrived at a place described by the applicant as “somewhere in a forest”. The applicant was taken out of the vehicle and the beatings resumed. The applicant was spread on the ground, strangled with a rope or a belt, then his shoes were taken off and the police officers hit him on the heels with a wooden baton. The applicant claimed that he passed out several times, but when he regained consciousness the beating resumed; he was hit in the head and on the body, kicked on the groin, and strangled again. The applicant claimed that the ill-treatment in the forest lasted between thirty minutes and one hour. After that the policemen put the applicant back into the van and drove on. In the van they continued to beat and intimidate him. The applicant remained blindfolded the whole time. When they arrived at the Regional Department of the Interior in Yaroslavl the bag was removed from his head and he was checked into the Department’s IVS. He was placed in cell no. 23.\n8.  The applicant remained in the IVS in Yaroslavl until 3 August 2000. He allegedly requested to see a doctor, but this was refused. On the latter date the applicant was brought back to Pereslavl-Zalesskiy and released there.\n9.  On 4 August 2000 the applicant saw a doctor at Central District Hospital in Pereslavl-Zalesskiy; he reported the ill-treatment and complained of headaches, vertigo, pain in the chest and abdomen and injuries to his feet and wrists. He was diagnosed with a head injury, possible concussion, and bruises on the chest and on the left foot.\n10.  On an unidentified date between 6 and 9 August 2000 the applicant requested the prosecutor’s office of the Pereslavl-Zalesskiy District to investigate the ill-treatment in criminal proceedings. On 9 August 2000 the applicant was questioned by the police about the alleged ill-treatment. The case was then assigned to the assistant prosecutor who questioned the applicant on 14 August 2000. Both times the applicant spoke in detail about the episode of 31 July 2000.\n11.  On 14 August 2000 the assistant prosecutor ordered a medical examination by forensic experts to identify the applicant’s injuries, establish their origin and the time of their occurrence. On the same day he was examined by the forensic expert who then requested the applicant’s medical file from the Central District Hospital.\n12.  On 15 August 2000 the assistant prosecutor questioned the gua", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6625", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Kharkiv, Ukraine.\n7.  As submitted by the applicant and established by the domestic courts (see paragraphs 22 and 28 below), in the afternoon of 18 October 1999 the applicant attended at the Dzerzhynskyy District Police Station, at the investigator’s summons, as a witness in a fraud-related criminal investigation. At about 7 p.m., officer K. questioned him. Not being satisfied by the applicant’s explanations and seeking to obtain his confession to the fraud, K. tied the applicant’s hands behind his back with a belt, made him sit on a chair and punched him at least eight or ten times in the head. Thereafter K. took the applicant into the corridor, threw him face down against the floor and raised his tied arms behind his back seven or eight times. K. also kicked the applicant several times in the ribs.\n8.  According to K.’s report to the police unit on duty, later found to be knowingly false (see paragraph 22 below), he had apprehended the applicant in the street for swearing in public. As a result, an administrative offence report was drawn up and the applicant was arrested. According to the police records, he was released at 8.40 p.m. on 18 October 1999. As it was later established, the applicant was in fact held in the room for detainees until 9 a.m. on 19 October 1999.\n9.  In addition to the aforementioned account established by the court, the applicant alleged that two other police officers, under the leadership of K., had also beaten him.\n10.  According to the medical documentation, the applicant had been in good health before the aforementioned events of October 1999.\n11.  On 21 October 1999 he was examined by a doctor who documented the following injuries: multiple bruises on the face, scalp, left ear, neck and chest, as well as a closed head injury with concussion of the left frontal lobe and an intracerebral haematoma. The doctor concluded that these injuries had been caused by blunt objects and could have dated from 18 or 19 October 1999.\n12.  On the same date, 21 October 1999, the applicant was admitted to a neurological hospital, where he underwent treatment until 23 November 1999.\n13.  The head injury sustained by the applicant in October 1999 had negative consequences for his health. As a result, he was hospitalised many times during the years to follow. In particular, he underwent in-patient treatment on that account during the following periods: from 17 January to 7 February 2000, from 9 to 30 January 2001, from 18 April to 6 May 2002, from 12 to 22 November 2002, from 11 to 25 April 2003, and during subsequent unspecified periods.\n14.  In 2002 the applicant was recognised as falling into the third category of disability (the mildest) on account of the residual effects of the head injury and post-traumatic encephalopathy.\n15.  From 2004 onwards his condition was classified as a disability of the second category (more serious), as the post-traumatic encephalopathy had worsened.\n16.  From October 1999 eight forensic medical expert examinations were carried out with a view to verifying the applicant’s ill-treatment allegation (see paragraph 17 below). According to the examination reports the applicant had sustained a craniocerebral injury with subarachnoid haemorrhage, brain concussion, and numerous haematomas on various parts of the head, neck, back and chest. All the examinations found the applicant’s account as to the time and origin of his injuries to be plausible. While or", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6626", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Czech nationals who were born in 1978 and 1938 respectively, and live in Brno.\n6.  According to police records, on 18 June 2002 V.P., partner of the first\napplicant who gave birth to his child in February 2003 and son of the second, of Roma origin, was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed a burglary and transported to the Brno-Královo Pole District Police Department (the “District Police Department”). Having been questioned between 2 p.m. and 3.05 p.m., he was charged with illegal entry into a dwelling and theft at 6.20 p.m.\n7.  According to the statement made by the police officers, at approximately 4 p.m., V.P. had been situated in the separate waiting-room on the ground-floor. Between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., finger-prints were taken. After that, V.P. had been taken into the office situated on the second floor of the police station, in order to be informed about the charges.\n8.  According to the official report, at 6.30 p.m., after signing the notice of charges, V. P. asked to use the toilet claiming that it was urgent. It was decided that two police officers would accompany him to the ground floor of the police building due to the fact that there were no bars at the toilet located on the second floor. On the ground floor, V. P. was not allowed to close the door of the toilet for security reasons. On the way back, police officer P. walked in front of V. P. and officer K. was on the latter’s right holding his wrist. There are discrepancies between different statements of officers K. and P. as to whether officer K. held V.P.’s left or right wrist with his left hand. Handcuffs were not used and the grasp was not very firm due to V. P.’s calm behaviour. The group went without any problems through the mezzanine floor between the ground and the first floor where windows were provided with bars. When officer P. had already crossed the mezzanine floor between the first and the second floor and when V.P. and officer K. were just arriving to the mezzanine floor, V. P. suddenly turned, struck with his open palm the left shoulder of the officer who held him by the wrist, broke away and jumped, head first, through a closed window into the yard. After having reeled, officer K. unsuccessfully attempted to catch him by the legs as they disappeared through the broken window. The police officers started to shout in order to have an ambulance called, ran out to the yard and provided, together with other officers, first aid to V. P. He was taken to the hospital by ambulance and died the next morning at 7.15 a.m.\n9.  On the very same day, the Brno Complaints and Monitoring Unit (the “Complaints and Monitoring Unit”) started an investigation. They inspected the scene of incident, sketched and photographed it. All participants were invited to draw an official record (úřední záznam) where they would comment on the incident.\n10.  The District Police Department opened an investigation on suspicion of the commission of the crime of participation in a suicide and conducted a number of investigative acts. Between 7.30 and 8.20 p.m. the Technical Criminal Unit surveyed the scene of incident, sketched it and drew a report.\nAn officer from the Supervision Department of the Minister of the Interior (“the Supervision Department”) inspected the scene of incident, took explanations from the Head of the District Police Department, police officer P., and police officer W. However, she did not speak to police officer K. as he was being ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6627", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company, FPK GROSS, OOO (limited liability company), is a Ukrainian legal entity registered in Kharkiv.\n5.  On 14 April 2000 the applicant company lodged a claim with the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv against Mr Ch. (a private individual), challenging a title to several cars. In the course of the proceedings Mr Ch. and Mr K. (another private individual) lodged, respectively, a counter-claim and a claim against the applicant company and three third parties joined the proceedings.\n6.  On 30 October 2000 the case was transferred to the Moskovskyy District Court of Kharkiv, which on 20 November 2003 delivered a judgment. On 8 June 2004 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed it and remitted the case for fresh examination to the Frunzenskyy District Court of Kharkiv.\n7.  On 3 August 2007 the latter court delivered a judgment. On 12 December 2007 the Kharkiv Commercial Court of Appeal upheld it. On 15 April 2008 the Higher Commercial Court quashed the above decisions and remitted the case for fresh examination to the Kharkiv Commercial Court. On 10 July 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the latter ruling.\n8.  On 13 October 2008 the Kharkiv Commercial Court ruled against the applicant company.\n9.  According to the Government (no copies of the court decisions were provided by the parties), on 18 December 2009 the Kharkiv Commercial Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment. On 6 April and 26 July 2010, respectively, the Higher Commercial Court and the Supreme Court returned unexamined the applicant company’s appeals in cassation against the above decisions for unspecified reasons.\n10.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings eight hearings were adjourned due to the applicant company’s representatives’ or all parties’ failure to appear and two hearings due to the applicant company’s specification of the claim. On one occasion the applicant company requested the extension of the procedural time-limits for lodging its appeal and the courts allowed its request. The above delays on the applicant company’s part protracted the proceedings by eight months approximately. Thirty three hearings were adjourned due to other parties’ or expert’s failure to appear, upon the other parties’ requests, due to the absence of the judges, because the courts needed to collect additional evidence or for unspecified reasons. Three expert examinations were ordered and lasted for one year and five months.\n11.  On 30 December 2003 the applicant company lodged a claim against the S. company, seeking the recovery of pecuniary amounts.\n12.  Following two remittals of the case by the Higher Commercial Court and the Supreme Court for fresh examination, on 13 October 2010 the Donetsk Commercial Court rejected the claim as unsubstantiated.\n13.  On 17 November 2010 and 20 April 2011, respectively, the Donetsk Commercial Court of Appeal and the Higher Commercial Court upheld the above judgment.\n14.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings nine hearings were adjourned due to the applicant company’s representative’s failure to appear or upon both parties’ requests, which protracted the proceedings by six months approximately. Seven hearings were adjourned because the courts needed to collect additional evidence or for unspecified reasons. Two expert examinations were ordered and lasted for two years and seven months.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6628", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1981 and 1979 respectively and are currently serving life sentences in prison.\n6.  The second applicant was held in Sumy no. 25 Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the Sumy SIZO”) from 6 February 2001 to 28 August 2004, except for the period between 24 July 2002 and 12 August 2002 when he was moved to another detention facility.\n7.  The first applicant was held in the Sumy SIZO from 4 April 2002 to 28 August 2004 except for the period between 30 August 2003 and 17 September 2003 when he was moved to another detention facility.\n8.  On 28 August 2004 both applicants were moved to Romny no. 56 Prison (“Romny Prison”) to serve their life sentences.\n9.  On 29 January and 1 July 2003 and 27 January 2004 the second applicant attempted to send letters to the Court via the postal service of the Sumy SIZO.\n10.  On 26 November 2003 and 2 and 9 February 2004 the first applicant attempted to send letters to the Court via the postal service of the Sumy SIZO.\n11.  According to the applicants, these letters were read by the officials of the Sumy SIZO and not sent to the Court.\n12.  In the same way, the applicants tried to send letters to other international institutions, such as the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Commission on Human Rights, and the UN Committee Against Torture.\n13.  These letters were also allegedly screened by the officials of the Sumy SIZO and not sent to the addressees.\n14.  According to the applicants, the conditions of their detention in the Sumy SIZO were unsatisfactory. The applicants were held together in various cells, each of them measuring 4.5 sq. m with the sanitary unit covering 1.2 sq. m of that space. The cells thus allowed only 3.3 sq. m of living space for both applicants, which amounted to 1.65 sq. m per applicant.\n15.  The cells were dark, dirty, and cold in winter and hot in summer, which gave rise to various illnesses. For at least two years there was no hot water supply. No winter footwear was supplied, while the inmates were prohibited from wearing their own footwear. As a result, in winter the applicants could not benefit from their entitlement to daily open air physical exercise. Their bed linen consisted only of a sheet. The applicants were not provided with any medical assistance in respect of their heart conditions, while keeping and administering any medicine in the cell was forbidden.\n16.  The applicants complained to the domestic authorities on account of the physical conditions of their detention in the Sumy SIZO. In particular, on 16 January, 14 June and 25 July 2004 the relevant complaints were handed to the staff of the Sumy SIZO for onward dispatch to the domestic authorities.\n17.  According to the Government, the cells in which the applicants were detained measured 5 sq. m and were equipped with the requisite furniture. There was a window and a sanitary unit and washstand in each cell. The temperature was at least 18 degrees Celsius during winter. The water supply, lighting system and sanitation were appropriate. The showers were made available once per week. Detainees’ clothes and bed linen were regularly changed. In support of their account of the facts, the Government submitted reports prepared in 2010 by the officials responsible for the maintenance of the facility.\n18.  As regards medical assistance, the Government submitted that during their detention in the Su", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6629", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born on 8 November 1975.\n6.  On 28 April 1997 the police searched the applicant’s apartment.\n7.  On 14 May 1997 the applicant was interrogated and charged with aggravated extortion.\n8.  On 11 September 1997 the applicant was arrested and later placed in detention on remand.\n9.  On 24 May 2000 the Chervonozavodsky District Court of Kharkiv sentenced the applicant to nine years’ imprisonment following his conviction for aggravated extortion. During the trial, the court accepted the testimony of the witness L.D.M. during the pre-trial investigation. L.D.M.’s evidence concerned one of nine episodes of extortion imputed to the applicant and his accomplices. It did not contain any information about the applicant or his accomplices’ activity and was ancillary to the main evidence (the testimonies of the victim and other witnesses, and police materials).\n10.  On 19 December 2000 the Kharkiv Regional Court upheld the judgment of 24 May 2000. The court did not rely on L.D.M.’s evidence and approved the trial court’s findings and assessment of facts. This court further rejected the applicant’s complaint about the first instance court’s decision to admit as evidence testimony given by L.D.M., even though he was absent at the trial. It further noted that the evidence was of an ancillary character and fully corresponded to the other evidence examined.\n11.  On 5 May 2001 the Deputy President of the Kharkiv Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request to initiate a supervisory review, as unsubstantiated.\n12.  On 19 April 1997 the applicant was placed in detention at the Merefa Police Station by police officer R.A.A., who imposed an administrative arrest on the applicant for appearing drunk and swearing in a public place. Later on the same date a judge of the Kharkiv District Court of Kharkiv authorised the applicant’s administrative arrest for ten days for committing the aforementioned administrative offence.\n13.  On 27 May 2005 the President of the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the resolution of the Kharkivsky District Court of Kharkiv of 19 April 1997 (see paragraph 12 above), finding that the applicant’s ten‑day administrative arrest had been imposed without lawful grounds and that the court’s resolution was not substantiated.\n14.  On 18 April 1997 police officers from the Kharkiv Regional Department for Combating Organised Crime (“the Department for Combating Organised Crime”) arrested the applicant on suspicion of his involvement in extortion. At 10.45 a.m. on the same day the officers took him to the premises of the Department, where he was questioned by the officers about extortion from a Mr M.\n15.  According to the investigation reports the applicant left the premises of the Department for Combating Organised Crime at 2 p.m. on 18 April 1997. According to some other reports he remained in the hands of police officers until later. According to the police records and R.A.A. police officer’s witness statements, on 19 April 1997 at 2.30 a.m. the applicant was brought to the Merefa Police Station, where he was apprehended for minor hooliganism. He was brought to that station by N.A.V., one of the policemen who questioned him before. The applicant was placed in detention at the Merefa Police Station by police officer R.A.A., who completed a verbatim record on the applicant’s administrative arrest for appearing drunk and swearing in a public place (according to that record he had appeared drunk in a public place at ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6630", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 24 June 2003 the general meeting of a company Ytong, a.s. adopted, by votes of the main shareholder, a resolution on the winding up of the company and on the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder. The applicants received cash settlement for their shares based on an expert opinion.\n6.  The contract between Ytong, a.s. and the main shareholder for the transfer of all assets to the main shareholder included an arbitration clause by which any disagreement of the minority shareholders with the settlement amounts was to be decided in arbitration before the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber of the Czech Republic and Agricultural Chamber of the Czech Republic (“the Arbitration Court”). The asset transfer contract was approved at the general meeting by votes of the majority shareholder.\n7.  On 8 October 2003 the applicants lodged with a court an action whereby they asserted that the settlement for the transfer was not adequate and claimed the remainder thereof.\n8.  On 14 July 2005 the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) terminated the proceedings holding that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute because of the arbitration clause in the asset transfer contract.\n9.  On 28 November 2005 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) upheld the decision not finding a violation of the applicants’ right of access to court. It held that the arbitration clause was binding even for the applicants by virtue of Article 220k § 1 of the Commercial Code. It further held that the issue of the settlement amount was first of all a technical issue.\n10.  On 24 June 2008 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed the applicants’ appeal on points of law agreeing with the lower courts.\n11.  On 17 March 2009 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal alleging violations of their right to a fair trial and prohibition of discrimination as manifestly ill-founded stating only that the opinions of the ordinary courts had not diverted from the generally accepted views on the matter.\n12.  After the High Court’s decision became final on 13 January 2006 the applicants, with the exception of Mr Minarik, instituted proceedings before the Arbitration Court as envisaged in the arbitration clause. They nevertheless submitted that the Arbitration Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case because the arbitration clause was not applicable to them.\n13.  On 11 October 2006 the Arbitration Court terminated the proceedings regarding Mr Navrátil and Mr Rybáček for lack of jurisdiction holding that they had not consented to the arbitration.\n14.  On 26 May 2007 the Arbitration Court terminated the proceedings regarding Ms Minarik holding that it had no jurisdiction because Ms Minarik was a German resident and a Czech-German Bilateral Investment Treaty, which was applicable, envisaged right of access to court. On the other hand the motion for lack of jurisdiction concerning Day s.r.o. and Mr Suda was dismissed and the proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6631", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in the town of Kalush, Ukraine.\n6.  In 1996 a private person, B., lent the applicant approximately 12,266 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (which at the material time, according to the applicant, corresponded to 4,500 United States dollars), with the applicant’s four-room apartment as security. As the applicant was not able to return the sum, in October 1997 the State Bailiffs’ Service held an auction and the apartment in question was bought by B. On 19 November 1997 the applicant and her four adult sons were evicted from the apartment. According to the applicant, since then they have been living “in a half ruined building”.\n7.  On 19 July 2002 the Kalush Local Court considered the applicant’s complaint against the Bailiffs’ Service and found that the auction and the applicant’s eviction had been in breach of the law. The court found that since the applicant had nowhere to live the Bailiffs’ Service should return the apartment in question to her immediately.\n8.  On 24 July 2002 the applicant requested the Bailiffs’ Service to enforce the decision of 19 July 2002 and submitted a copy to them.\n9.  On 13 August 2002 the Bailiffs’ Service refused to institute enforcement proceedings as the applicant had failed to present a writ of enforcement.\n10.  In June 2000 the applicant and her four sons instituted proceedings in the Kalush Local Court against K. (who lived in the apartment in question, allegedly renting it from B.) and B., and requested the court to restore their apartment to them. On 28 May 2003 the court found for the plaintiffs. It ordered the apartment in question to be restored to the applicants and further ordered B. and K. not to hinder the plaintiffs in using their apartment. On 31 July 2003 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 17 November 2004 the Supreme Court of Ukraine returned B.’s cassation appeal as it had not been submitted in compliance with procedural requirements.\n11.  On 21 August 2003 enforcement proceedings were instituted.\n12.  According to the Government, on 18 November 2003 the applicant requested the staying the enforcement proceedings. The parties did not provide a copy of this request.\n13.  By a letter of 1 December 2003 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that on 28 November 2003 the enforcement proceedings had been stayed, following her request, since “the case concerning the eviction of the third parties who lived in the apartment in question was pending before the court”. The enforcement proceedings were resumed on 5 October 2005.\n14.  On 24 January 2006 the apartment was allegedly restored to the applicant. The applicant, however, stated that she had not been given the keys to the apartment and had not been able to stay there.\n15.  On 25 January 2006 the enforcement proceedings were terminated. The applicant did not appeal against the decision.\n16.  In November 2001 the applicant and two of her sons, R. and V., instituted proceedings against B. requesting him to return their personal belongings which had been left in the apartment. On 26 December 2002 the Kalush Local Court, in B.’s absence, found for the plaintiffs and awarded them UAH 37,939 for pecuniary damage and UAH 60,000 for non-pecuniary damage. The decision became final as no appeal had been lodged against it, and enforcement proceedings were instituted.\n17.  On 20 June 2003 B. requested the court to provide him with a copy of the decis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6632", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1936 and live in Kharkiv.\n5.  The applicants used to work at a State enterprise as employees handling a sports stadium. On 10 January 2001 they were dismissed due to downsizing.\n6.  On 8 February 2001 they instituted separate sets of proceedings before the Kyivskyy District Court of City of Kharkiv against their former employer, seeking reinstatement and compensation.\n7.  On 9 February 2001 the court joined the two sets of proceedings. The first applicant further represented the second applicant in the joined proceedings.\n8.  On 5 June 2001 the first applicant filed a complaint with the court, alleging that on 30 May 2001 the judge had refused to allow him to study the case file and that on 31 May 2001 he had been beaten by the presiding judge on the premises of the court.\n9.  On 18 February 2002 the first applicant challenged the presiding judge. The judge declined to withdraw from the case.\n10.  On an unspecified day the first applicant lodged a complaint with the Council of Judges against the presiding judge, alleging that the length of the proceedings was excessive. In a letter of 8 July 2003, addressed to the acting president of the court, the Council of Judges noted that the case had not been dealt with on the merits since 2001 and invited the latter to take action.\n11.  On 27 August 2003, upon the first applicant’s new request, the presiding judge withdrew from the case.\n12.  On 27 January 2004 the first applicant challenged the newly appointed presiding judge. The next day the motion was refused.\n13.  On 28 January 2004 the court delivered a judgment confirming the legality of the applicants’ dismissal. The court ordered amendments to be made in one of the applicants’ labour book and awarded him a sum in salary arrears. The first applicant appealed.\n14.  On 19 October 2004 the Kharkiv Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.\n15.  On 4 May 2007 the Appellate Court of Lugansk Region, acting as a court of cassation, rejected the first applicant’s appeal in cassation.\n16.  The latter unsuccessfully sought extraordinary review of the case.\n17.  In the course of the proceedings the applicants amended their claims and requested the national court to seek additional documents, including those from third persons, on several occasions. Out of thirty-one scheduled hearings, seven were adjourned because of the failure of the respondent’s representative to appear, four hearings were postponed as the judge was busy with another case or absent for other professional or private reasons, and four were adjourned due to the applicants’ non-appearance. The national court had to renew, at the first applicant’s request, the time-limit for lodging appeal which resulted in a delay of about three months.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6633", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Furstenfeld, Austria. He is the father of the second applicant, who was born in 2006 and lives at an unspecified address in Romania.\n7.  On 13 April 2004 the first applicant married a Romanian citizen, K.T. The marriage was concluded in Salzburg, Austria. On 15 February 2006 their daughter, the second applicant, was born. The parents had joint custody of the child under Austrian law. They lived in Salzburg.\n8.  On 1 February 2008 K.T. and the first applicant separated. On 25 February 2008 K.T. filed a divorce petition with the Salzburg authorities. The first applicant lodged a counter petition on 25 March 2008.\n9.  On 29 January 2008 K.T. filed for an interim injunction against the first applicant, seeking his removal from the family home on the ground of his violent behaviour. On 8 February 2008, the Salzburg District Civil Court granted the interim injunction for a period of three months. Criminal proceedings were also initiated against the first applicant for infliction of bodily harm.\n10.  On 1 February 2008 K.T. lodged an action for temporary sole custody of the second applicant throughout the divorce proceedings. At the end of September 2008, while the proceedings for the award of custody were pending before the Austrian courts, K.T. left for Romania together with the second applicant. The first applicant was not informed of the departure, even though at the time the spouses had joint custody of the second applicant.\n11.  In the meantime, on 25 July 2008 the Salzburg District Criminal Court acquitted the first applicant of inflicting bodily harm. The Salzburg Public Prosecutor reserved the right to initiate criminal proceedings against K.T. for perjury.\n12.  On 25 November 2008, the Salzburg District Civil Court granted the first applicant temporary sole custody of the second applicant until the finalisation of the divorce proceedings. The court relied, inter alia, on expert opinion which concluded that the first applicant was better suited to have custody. K.T. does not appear to have appealed against the judgment.\n13.  Currently, the divorce proceedings between the first applicant and K.T. are pending before the Romanian courts.\n14.  On 30 September 2008 the first applicant submitted a request for the return of the second applicant to Austria under Article 3 of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”). He argued that the second applicant had been removed from Austrian territory in breach of the joint custody held by the spouses at the time of the removal. On 7 October 2008 the Austrian authorities submitted the request to the Romanian Ministry of Justice (“the Romanian Ministry”), the Central Authority responsible for the obligations established under the Hague Convention.\n15.  On 28 October 2008, at the request of the Romanian Ministry, the General Police Department (Inspectoratul General al Poliţiei) confirmed that the second applicant was living with her mother, in Romania, at her grandparents’ home. Furthermore, on 3 November 2008 the Department for Social Services and Child Protection (Departamentul General de Asistenţă Socială şi Protecţia Copilului) drafted a report in relation to the second applicant. The report mainly mentioned K.T.’s statements concerning her situation in Austria, her reasons for departure as well as the maternal grandparents’ declarations concerning their commitment to pr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6634", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in İzmir. He is a journalist/columnist and author of a number of books.\n5.  On 24 December 2005 a daily newspaper Birgün published an article entitled “Stability” written by the applicant. The article read as follows:\n“Stability ... has lost its dictionary meaning and become a sickening word. From the Prime Minister to ministers, all statesmen and politicians keep on repeating it... it is used as a protective shield for ‘robbery and profiteering’. By mentioning stability at every opportunity some want to pave the way for a ‘religion based regime’. In sum, ‘the key word of the moderate regime’ that the Prime Minister and his men have set their minds on is primarily ‘stability’.\nIn longing for a society that doesn’t speak up or interfere, the stability in command sacrifices justice, rights and freedoms, independence, equality, modernity, participation, pluralism and legal order. The rest is not needed, they settle for stability in government.\nNo one should be concerned. Stability is continuing. The Prime Minister and his men are continuing to be stable in creating their absurdities. They cannot reconcile modern law with the Islamic law imprinted in their brains at puberty. Stability is continuing. The Prime Minister and his men are continuing to be stable in swearing. Don’t be anxious.\nStability has a special meaning for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, forgetting which chair he occupies, shows on every occasion what a master denouncer he is. He who just yesterday was denouncing Turkey to the outside world for the headscarf of his wife and daughter, today makes up a crime and denounces those who support Prof. Dr Yücel Aşkın of the Van 100 yıl University. Outside he incites America for whom he is a civil servant and inside his civil servants ‘the prosecutors’.\nWhether you like it or not stability is continuing. Every word that comes out of his mouth shocks, even if denied and corrected. The act of looking you in the eye and lying is considered as governing the country. The day he says there are no convictions under Article 301 of the Turkish Criminal Code two journalists are convicted under it. And when he reopened Aliağa State Hospital a year and a half after it had become operational or when he cut the ribbon once again many years later at Çankırı State Hospital neither he nor his men blushed.\nStability is continuing. The man is lying about matters from national income to inflation to the budget. Don’t believe it. Stability is continuing. From teachers to judges, from prosecutors to the police, from imams to doctors, the man uses these posts like the property of his own party. Don’t be angry.\nIn respect of the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who are both defendants in the proceedings concerning the embezzlement of 1 trillion liras from the Refah Party, the Minister of Justice, Cemil Çicek, states that they will be acquitted. This is not considered as interfering with the judiciary. Abdullah Gül says he thinks Orhan Pamuk will not be punished. This is not considered as interfering with the judiciary. But he is able to denounce at the meeting of TÜSİAD those requesting justice for rector Aşkın. He does not know what crime or punishment are. He doesn’t read, he doesn’t learn. He is content with what entered his head at Imam Hatip School when he was 12-13 years old.\nThey think that we have forgotten the fact that even on the first day of the AKP government ther", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6635", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Ms Snežana Boucke (“the first applicant”) and Ms Kristina Boucke (“the second applicant”), were born in 1951 and 1988 respectively and live in Kruševac, Serbia.\n6.  On 21 May 1988 the first applicant gave birth to the second applicant, born out of wedlock.\n7.  On 18 August 1992 the District Court in Düsseldorf ruled that M.J., from Montenegro, was the father of the second applicant and ordered him to pay child maintenance.\n8.  On 29 October 1999 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Kruševac (Serbia) confirmed (priznao) the decision of the Düsseldorf District Court. It would appear that enforcement of this judgment has never been sought.\n9.  On an unspecified date the second applicant instituted proceedings against M.J. seeking child maintenance. As she was a minor at the time she was represented by the first applicant as her legal guardian.\n10.  On 23 December 1997 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Kruševac issued a judgment ordering M.J. (hereinafter “the debtor”) to pay 62,500 Yugoslav dinars (YUD) for the maintenance accrued between 1 July 1988 and 30 June 1997, with statutory interest, plus YUD 960 for the costs of proceedings. This judgment became final on 10 February 1998.\n11.  On 13 April 1998 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Herceg Novi (Montenegro) issued an enforcement order (rješenje o izvršenju) providing that the amount due would be paid by the sale of the debtor’s movable assets. On 22 October 1998 the debtor’s objection (prigovor) in this regard was rejected.\n12.  On 29 October 1998 the court bailiff established that the debtor had no movable assets of his own, as he lived at his father-in-law’s house. The debtor, for his part, submitted in addition that he was paying 70% of his salary for the maintenance of two other children.\n13.  On 12 November 1998 the Court of First Instance informed the second applicant that the debtor was insolvent, as he had no movable assets which could be sold to allow the judgment in question to be enforced.\n14.  On an unspecified date in 1998 the debtor paid YUD 600 towards his debt.\n15.  On 14 January 1999 the second applicant sought enforcement of the remainder of the decision by attachment of the debtor’s salary, which request was repeated on 7 August 2000, 19 February 2001, and 7 May, 1 July and 3 September 2004.\n16.  It would appear that on 1 July 2004 the second applicant complained to the Montenegrin Ministry of Justice about the work of the relevant Court of First Instance. On 12 July 2004 the judge who was in charge of the enforcement as of May 2004, in reply to this complaint, informed the president of the Court of First Instance that he “considered the complaint justified (osnovana).”\n17.  On 12 July 2004 the said judge informed the second applicant that the enforcement proceedings in her case had been resumed.\n18.  On 24 September 2004 an expert witness submitted to the Herceg Novi court a recalculation of the amount owed in euros, the amount due being 6,352.42 euros (EUR).\n19.  On 8 November 2004 the Court of First Instance in Herceg Novi requested the second applicant’s lawyer to provide the necessary bank details so that a corresponding enforcement order could be issued.\n20.  Between 13 December 2004 and 28 December 2004 the said court attempted to contact the second applicant and also sought assistance from the relevant Internal Affairs Secretariat as well as a Social Care Centre in Serbia.\n21.  On 27 January 2005 the first applicant provided", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6637", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, Mr Aleksandar Nikolov, born in 1957, Mr Vasil Vasilev, born in 1960, and Mr Emil Rekarski, born in 1941, are Bulgarian nationals.\n5.  On 7 February 2001 Mr Nikolov initiated proceedings for unlawful dismissal before the Pernik District Court. The court held hearings on 27 February, 15 March and 3 April 2001. In a judgment of 2 May 2001 it found in favour of Mr Nikolov and reinstated him.\n6.  On 30 May 2001 the applicant’s former employer appealed before the Pernik Regional Court, which held hearings on 6 December 2001 and 7 February 2002.\n7.  By a judgment of 7 March 2002 the Regional Court upheld the lower court’s judgment.\n8.  On 14 May 2002 the defendant company submitted a cassation appeal. On an unspecified date the Supreme Court of Cassation (“the SCC”) held a hearing in the case.\n9.  In a judgment of 28 April 2004 it quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case.\n10.  In a decision of 10 May 2005, which was not appealed against, the Regional Court discontinued on unspecified grounds the appeal proceedings initiated by the employer. Thus, the judgment of 2 May 2001 became final on 18 May 2005.\n11.  Apparently, after his reinstatement, Mr Nikolov was dismissed again due to structural changes in the employer company.\n12.  On 21 January 2002 Mr Vasilev instituted proceedings for unlawful dismissal and damages before the Lom District Court. The court held hearings on 20 February and 19 March 2002.\n13.  In a judgment of 3 April 2002 it found in favour of Mr Vasilev, reinstated him and awarded him damages.\n14.  On appeal by the employer submitted on 30 April 2002, the case was examined by the Montana Regional Court, which held hearings on 9 December 2002 and 11 March 2003.\n15.  In a judgment of 27 March 2003 the Montana Regional Court quashed the lower court’s judgment in respect of the damages awarded and upheld the remainder.\n16.  On 20 May 2003 the applicant’s former employer filed a cassation appeal. In a decision of 18 November 2005 the SCC discontinued the cassation proceedings as the employer had not paid the relevant court fee. This decision was not appealed against and on 23 December 2005 the judgment of 3 April 2002 became final.\n17.  Mr Vasilev was reinstated on 8 February 2006. However, he could not take up his duties as while the proceedings were pending his contract had expired and had not been prolonged.\n18.  On 8 January 2003 Mr Rekarski instituted proceedings for unlawful dismissal before the Sofia District Court. In a judgment of 14 July 2003 the court found in favour of Mr Rekarski and reinstated him. On appeal by the employer, in a judgment of 23 April 2004 the Sofia City Court upheld the previous court’s judgment.\n19.  The employer instituted cassation proceedings. The SCC upheld the lower courts’ judgments in a final judgment of 27 April 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6639", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is currently detained in Sztum Remand Centre.\n5.  On 7 May 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of homicide and numerous counts of robbery.\n6.  On 9 May 1998 the Gdynia District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question.\n7.  The applicant’s appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent applications for release were unsuccessful.\n8.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was prolonged on several occasions by the courts.\n9.  In 31 July 2000 a bill of indictment against the applicant and seven other persons was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with, inter alia, homicide, attempted hommicide, kidnapping and illegal possession of firearms.\n10.  On 29 July 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life-imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 16 December 2004, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case.\n12  On 25 August 2005 the Gdańsk Regional severed some of the charges against the applicant and assigned them to a separate set of proceedings (“the second set of proceedings”). Both the initial set of proceedings and the second set of proceedings were conducted before the Gdańsk Regional Court.\n14.  In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and by experts’ opinions. They underlined the grave nature of those offences, emphasising the charges against the applicant, and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on him. The courts further considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. Lastly, the courts found no special grounds, as specified in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that would justify lifting the detention and imposing a less severe measure.\n15.  On 14 November 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal decided to lift the applicant’s pre-trial detention in the second set of proceedings. The applicant remained in custody, as the pre-trial detention ordered in the initial set of proceedings had further been extended.\n16.  Following the remittal of the case in the initial set of proceedings, the Gdańsk Regional Court gave its judgment on 24 August 2007. The applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to life-imprisonment.\n17.  In the second set of proceedings, on 15 April 2008, the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment.\n18.  It appears that the appeal proceedings in both sets of the proceedings are pending before the domestic courts.\n19.  On 7 and 15 May 2007, the applicant received four postcards from some alleged family members and friends bearing stamps “censored” (“cenzurowano”).\n20.  On 15 May 2007 a judge of Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s motion to allow a visit in the Gdańsk Remand Centre from a certain J. Ch., who was, as alleged by the applicant, his cousin. The decision read as follows:\n“a word ‘cousin’ is a broad notion, Mr. J. Ch. remains therefore, in the court’s view, a stranger, whereas visits are granted to close persons.”", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6641", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Wuppertal.\n6.  The applicant used to work as secretary on contractual basis at the Education Department of the Turkish Representation in Dusseldorf attached to the Ministry of Education.\n7.  On 31 December 1996 the Ministry annulled the contract.\n8.  On 2 June 1997 the applicant lodged a compensation case with the Ankara Labour Court against the Ministry of Education for her labour claims.\n9.  On 29 December 1998 the labour court issued a decision of non-jurisdiction which was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 10 February 1999.\n10.  Upon the decision of non-jurisdiction, on 15 March 1999 the applicant brought compensation proceedings before the Ankara Administrative Court for her labour claims, such as bonus, notice and severance pay.\n11.  On 21 January 2000 the court issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Supreme Administrative Court.\n12.  On 7 May 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of 21 January 2002 holding that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of it.\n13.  On 29 November 2002 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the case as introduced out of time. Without examining the merits of the case, it established that the sixty days time-limit to bring compensation action before the administrative court had expired on 5 December 1996 whereas the applicant lodged her case with the court on 2 June 1997.\n14.  In her appeal petition of 21 March 2003 the applicant challenged the judgment of the administrative court and requested a hearing in the appeal proceedings.\n15.  On 25 October 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 29 November 2002, finding it to have been in accordance with the law and the procedural rules. It decided that it was not necessary to hold a hearing.\n16.  On 28 June 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment.\n17.  On 22 August 2006 the decision was served on the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6642", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  On 20 November 2006 the applicant, suspected of theft, was allegedly subjected to a beating by police officers in police station no. 7 in Chişinău. Later he was taken to the Botanica District Police Station, where several police officers allegedly handcuffed him, put a gas mask over his face and beat him with batons and a metal chair for hours.\n7.  In the morning of 21 November 2006 he was locked in a cell, where he spent the entire day. During the day he lost consciousness several times and asked for medical assistance. At 4 p.m. the applicant was taken to a hospital where he was diagnosed with multiple bruises on his face, a fracture of the left shin and a head trauma with concussion.\n8.  On 23 November 2006 the applicant was taken to a forensic medical institution for examination. He was diagnosed with multiple bruises on his face, chest, legs and buttocks, a fracture of the left shin and a head trauma with concussion. The medical report stated that:\n“The [applicant’s] injuries were inflicted by blows with blunt objects with a limited surface area (au fost cauzate în rezultatul acţiunii traumatice de un corp contondent cu suprafaţa limitată de interacţiune)...\nIt cannot be excluded that the fracture [of the left shin] ... was caused as a result of [the applicant’s] fall from a height.”\n9.  On the same day the applicant complained to the Prosecutor’s Office about the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected and requested that the police officers who had ill-treated him be prosecuted.\n10.  On 6 December 2006 the Botanica Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the applicant’s complaint as manifestly ill-founded. The prosecutor had questioned the applicant, who had reiterated his complaints. He had also questioned two police officers accused of ill-treatment, who had declared that on 20 November 2006 the applicant had attempted to escape from the police station by jumping from the window of a toilet on the second floor. The prosecutor concluded that all of the injuries on the applicant’s body resulted from his fall.\n11.  The applicant challenged the prosecutor’s decision before the Botanica District Court and argued, inter alia, that he had never jumped from the window of the toilet of the police station and that there was no window in that toilet. Moreover, the forensic medical report concluded that only the fracture of his shin could have been caused by a fall.\n12.  On 31 October 2007 the Botanica District Court upheld his appeal. The court relied on the forensic medical report, which found that most of the applicant’s injuries could only have been caused by blows, and on the applicant’s submission that there was no window in the toilet of the police station.\n13.  On 21 November 2007 Prosecutor R.D. from the Botanica Prosecutor’s Office again dismissed the applicant’s complaint about ill-treatment. The prosecutor again questioned the police officers accused of ill-treatment, who repeated their account of the applicant’s jump from the window. This time the police officers added that after jumping from the window and breaking his shin, the applicant had attempted to escape and resisted arrest and that they had been forced to apply force and special techniques, thus causing the other injuries on his body. The prosecutor also questioned a third party, who worked in an office in the police station and who confirmed the accounts of the police officers. The third party also added that h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6643", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974. He is at present being held at the Edouard Toulouse Hospital in Marseilles.\n6.  The applicant suffers from behavioural disorders and was alternately kept in prison and hospital psychiatric wards between 1996 and 2004. He suffers from chronic schizophrenic psychosis, with hallucinations, delusions and aggressive and addictive behaviour.\n7.  On 21 May 2005 the applicant was sent to Toulon-La Farlède prison after causing damage in Chalucet psychiatric hospital, where he had asked to be admitted. As a result, on 30 June 2005 he was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, of which ten months were suspended. On his arrival at the prison he allegedly set fire to his mattress. He was placed under psychiatric observation, then made to share a cell with another detainee, who was known to have psychiatric problems.\n8.  On 16 August 2005 a fire broke out in the applicant's cell. Both detainees suffered serious injuries. With burns on 65% of his body, the applicant's cell mate died from his injuries on 6 December the same year.\n9.  At a hearing on 9 September 2005 the applicant stated that he “could not remember exactly how his mattress caught fire”, and that he “suffered from schizophrenia, heard voices and saw strange things”, but that “everything was better at the moment”; he added “I feel freer since the fire in my cell... everything has become clearer in my head. I can say that everything is calm now”.\n10.  On 17 October 2005 the applicant was placed under judicial investigation for arson resulting in total unfitness for work for more than eight days, and placed in detention pending trial. He denied the charge, claiming that he had no recollection of the events leading up to the fire because he had been on medication at the time. On 7 December 2005 the public prosecutor's office made an application for the additional charge of arson aggravated by constructive manslaughter to be preferred against the applicant.\n11.  On 30 January 2006, in execution of an order of the investigating judge of 28 December 2005, Dr F., an expert at the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal, carried out a psychological examination of the applicant in the psychiatric unit at Les Baumettes prison in Marseilles, where he had been held since December 2005. The relevant passages from the report submitted on 1 March 2006 read as follows:\n“The onset of the disorder at the age of about 22 ... heralded in a process of gradual marginalisation for this young adult during which he alternated periods of hospital treatment, voluntary or otherwise, incarceration, training courses and homelessness.\nHe has lived in this way for the last ten years, caught up in his illness, with no place in society ...\nFrom the legal standpoint, his convictions bear witness to bouts of violence and excessive drinking, which he says had stopped prior to his incarceration ...\nDuring the examination, Mr G. came across as a man with a schizoid personality, an introvert with no interest in the outside world, save for a few recurring scenes in which he sees himself as a victim.\nBe that as it may, and whatever part he may have played in the case, Mr G. needs regular, long-term psychiatric support. While he is in prison, therefore, it is preferable that he be held in a medical unit, as he was when we met him.”\n12.  Two subsequent psychiatric examinations carried out respectively on 21 February by Professor A. and on 6 June 2006 by Dr G. confirmed the existence of chronic hebephr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6644", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in the town of Konotop, Ukraine.\n6.  On 22 November 2003, at around 10 p.m., the applicant, who was drunk, together with P. and R., had a quarrel with seven other persons (M., S., Pv., Ps., Z., Kh. and D.). According to the applicant’s own account, D. hit him in the left eye and the applicant hit D. in the jaw. Afterwards they were separated by others. However, according to the court’s findings in the criminal case against the applicant (see paragraph 40), after an attempt to have a fight with Pv., the applicant stabbed D. with a knife. D. brought this to the attention of the traffic police officers Ku. and G., who happened to be passing.\n7.  At about 11 p.m. on the same day, the applicant, together with P. and R., was arrested by the traffic police officers, handcuffed and taken to the traffic police station. According to the entries in the traffic police station register, the applicant remained in the traffic police station from 11.30 p.m. until 12.15 a.m. the next day.\n8.  According to the applicant, in the traffic police station he was beaten by two officers. One of them hit the applicant about five times on the head. Another one hit him in the face, twice or three times hit him in the chest, and with a truncheon on the left ear, the kidneys and on the legs.\n9.  The applicant was subsequently taken to an ambulance station to check whether he was drunk. According to a medical report, the applicant was examined by a doctor at a municipal ambulance station at 11.45 p.m. on 22 November 2003. The applicant was drunk but had no visible injuries. After that the applicant was handed over to the ordinary police.\n10.  The applicant was taken to the police station at about 1 a.m. on 23 November 2003. There he was examined by a police officer, Ma., in the presence of two witnesses. It was noted that the applicant had no bodily injuries and had no complaints about the police officers. A report drafted by a police officer was signed by two witnesses and by the applicant. The applicant also signed a statement that he had no complaints about his arrest and that no physical force or special restraining equipment had been used on him.\n11.  Later, according to the applicant, he was tortured and ill-treated and was forced to make self-incriminating statements. In particular, according to the accounts given by the applicant on an unidentified date, in the police station he had his head banged against the wall and table, and was hit in the kidneys.\n12.  According to the police officers, the applicant was released at about 2-3 a.m. on 23 November 2003. The applicant, however, states that he was released at 8 a.m.\n13.  At 9 a.m. the applicant caught a bus. According to the bus driver, Kt., the applicant had bruises on his left ear and left eye and said that he had been beaten by the police.\n14.  According to the testimony of the applicant’s sister and mother, given by them later during the investigation into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment, on 23 November 2003 the applicant was at home. An ambulance was allegedly called for him which did not come. The applicant’s mother had arrived at home late at night on 23 November 2003 and, as the applicant was feeling bad and had fallen to the floor after getting up from the bed, she called him an ambulance. The ambulance arrived at 4.58 a.m. on 24 November 2003. The applicant was diagnosed with concussion and head injury, and taken to hospital.\n15.  On 24 Novem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6645", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is currently serving a life sentence in prison.\n6.  On 26 August 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.\n7.  On 28 August 2004 the Prymorskyy District Court of Odessa (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant to be placed in pre-trial detention for two months. The applicant was placed in the Odessa no. 21 Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the Odessa SIZO”).\n8.  On 20 October and 17 November 2004 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to three and four months respectively.\n9.  On 24 December 2004 and 26 January 2005 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to five and six months respectively.\n10.  The applicant was not present at those hearings and he was allegedly not given the investigator’s submissions so that he could prepare his objections.\n11.  According to the applicant, in the course of investigation he was ill‑treated, with the purpose of making him confess to the murder.\n12.  On 24 February 2005 the case was referred to the Court of Appeal for trial.\n13.  On 29 April 2005 the Court of Appeal, acting as a court of first instance, found, inter alia, that the applicant and two co-defendants had committed murder with particular cruelty and for financial gain. The court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment. The judgment was based on various pieces of evidence including an acknowledgment of guilt by the applicant and other defendants during the trial.\n14.  After the hearing the applicant was handcuffed and escorted to the high security wing of the Odessa SIZO.\n15.  On 4 October 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 29 April 2005, following which it was made final. For the period of consideration of the case by the Supreme Court the applicant was detained in Kyiv no. 13 Pre-Trial Detention Centre, where he was allegedly not provided with sufficient facilities, such as a table and chair, to prepare his defence.\n16.  Following the Supreme Court’s decision of 4 October 2005 the applicant repeatedly submitted applications to have his case reviewed on grounds of exceptional circumstances. He also asked the authorities to provide him with a lawyer to assist him with the preparation of these applications. All his applications were rejected as unsubstantiated; a lawyer was not provided because the criminal proceedings were already finished.\n17.  On several occasions the applicant requested copies of certain material from his criminal case file. The requests were granted, but with delays.\n18.  In 2008 the applicant instituted three separate sets of court proceedings against, respectively, the judge who had presided over his criminal case before the first-instance court, the Supreme Court chamber on criminal cases, and the General Prosecutor, claiming that he had been unfairly convicted and that his applications for review of his case on grounds of exceptional circumstances had been arbitrarily rejected. All these proceedings are pending.\n19.  According to the applicant, he was not allowed family visits during his pre-trial detention.\n20.  During his post-conviction detention until 16 February 2010 the applicant was allowed to see his relatives no more than once every six months. Subsequently, he was granted family visits once every three months.\n21.  The visits lasted no longer than four hours. No more than three adult visitors could be present at once. The applicant maintains relations w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6646", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants, eleven Somali nationals and thirteen Eritrean nationals, were part of a group of about two hundred individuals who left Libya aboard three vessels with the aim of reaching the Italian coast.\n10.  On 6 May 2009, when the vessels were 35 nautical miles south of Lampedusa (Agrigento), that is, within the Maltese Search and Rescue Region of responsibility, they were intercepted by three ships from the Italian Revenue Police (Guardia di finanza) and the Coastguard.\n11.  The occupants of the intercepted vessels were transferred onto Italian military ships and returned to Tripoli. The applicants alleged that during that voyage the Italian authorities did not inform them of their real destination and took no steps to identify them.\nAll their personal effects, including documents confirming their identity, were confiscated by the military personnel.\n12.  On arrival in the port of Tripoli, following a ten-hour voyage, the migrants were handed over to the Libyan authorities. According to the applicants’ version of events, they objected to being handed over to the Libyan authorities but were forced to leave the Italian ships.\n13.  At a press conference held on 7 May 2009, the Italian Minister of the Interior stated that the operation to intercept the vessels on the high seas and to push the migrants back to Libya was the consequence of the entry into force on 4 February 2009 of bilateral agreements concluded with Libya, and represented an important turning point in the fight against clandestine immigration. In a speech to the Senate on 25 May 2009, the Minister stated that between 6 and 10 May 2009 more than 471 irregular migrants had been intercepted on the high seas and transferred to Libya in accordance with those bilateral agreements. After explaining that the operations had been carried out in application of the principle of cooperation between States, the Minister stated that the push-back policy was very effective in combating illegal immigration. According to the Minister of the Interior, that policy discouraged criminal gangs involved in people smuggling and trafficking, helped save lives at sea and substantially reduced landings of irregular migrants along the Italian coast, which had decreased fivefold in May 2009 as compared with May 2008.\n14.  During the course of 2009, Italy conducted nine operations on the high seas to intercept irregular migrants, in conformity with the bilateral agreements concluded with Libya.\n15.  According to the information submitted to the Court by the applicants’ representatives, two of the applicants, Mr Mohamed Abukar Mohamed and Mr Hasan Shariff Abbirahman (nos. 10 and 11 respectively on the list appended to this judgment), died in unknown circumstances after the events in question.\n16.  After the application was lodged, the lawyers were able to maintain contact with the other applicants, who could be contacted by telephone and e-mail.\nFourteen of the applicants (appearing on the list) were granted refugee status by the office in Tripoli of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) between June and October 2009.\n17.  Following the revolution which broke out in Libya in February 2011, forcing a large number of people to flee the country, the quality of contact between the applicants and their representatives deteriorated. The lawyers are currently in contact with six of the applicants:\n(i)  Mr Ermias Berhane (no. 20 on the list) managed to land, unlawfully, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6647", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Bucharest.\n12.  In 1985 the applicant joined the Bucharest police force. In 1995 he became an officer in the criminal investigation department of Bucharest police section no. 5.\n13.  On his application form, the applicant stated that on 16 July 2003 he was informed by his hierarchical superior that he was required to go to the National Anti-Corruption Prosecution Service headquarters (“the NAP”) for questioning.\nIn his written observations to the Grand Chamber of 10 February 2011 the applicant stated that at about 5 p.m. on 15 July 2003, while he was on leave, a colleague from Bucharest police section no. 5 informed him by telephone that he was required to attend the NAP on the following day; he was not given any additional information.\n14.  At about 8.45 a.m. on 16 July 2003 the applicant met twenty-five colleagues in the courtyard of the NAP headquarters. They were then asked to enter the building at about 9 a.m. At the entrance, a police officer entered the particulars of the applicant and his colleagues in a logbook.\n15.  The applicant and his colleagues were taken to a meeting room on the ground floor of the building. Shortly afterwards V.D., a military prosecutor, entered and asked them to make written statements on the circumstances in which they had met three individuals: I.D., S.B. and M.I. The prosecutor then left the room and returned at approximately 9.30 to 9.40 a.m. to collect the statements. After reading them, the prosecutor allegedly began to threaten the applicant and his colleagues with pre-trial detention. The prosecutor left the room again. Four or five masked and armed gendarmes burst in. One of the gendarmes asked the applicant and his colleagues to take out their mobile phones and to put them on a table next to another gendarme. They were also informed that they were allowed to leave the room to go to the toilet or smoke a cigarette only individually and if accompanied by an armed gendarme.\n16.  At about 3 p.m. the applicant and his colleagues asked for permission to leave the room to purchase water and food. After obtaining the prosecutor’s permission, a gendarme collected money from the police officers and went to buy the requested groceries.\n17.  Throughout this time, the applicant was not assisted by either a lawyer of his own choosing or an officially appointed lawyer. He was unable to contact anyone outside the building.\n18.  On the application form, the applicant stated that he had managed to contact a lawyer at around 8 p.m.\nIn his written observations to the Grand Chamber, the applicant alleged that towards 11 p.m., he and one of his colleagues had been taken to the prosecutor’s office on the first floor. The prosecutor, another man and two women were present in the office. The prosecutor allegedly suggested to the applicant that he state that the commanding officers at Bucharest police section no. 5 were guilty of corruption. He added that in exchange, the applicant would not be placed in pre-trial detention and would be able to see his family again soon. The applicant asked for assistance from a lawyer of his choosing. The prosecutor replied that the two women present were officially appointed lawyers and asked him to select one of them to assist him. The applicant refused. He claimed that the prosecutor began to “insult him” and to threaten that if he did not cooperate, he would be placed in detention and would be forbidden family visits. He was taken o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6648", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968. From November 1997 to June 2004 he held a post of customs inspector in Feodosiya.\n5.  On 13 October 2004 the applicant was arrested and placed in the Temporary Investigative Isolation Unit (“SIZO”) of Simferopol. Later on, he was moved to the Zaporizhzhya SIZO.\n6.  On 15 October 2004 the Feodosiya Town Court (“the Town Court”) remanded the applicant in custody in view of the pending criminal investigations against him. The court noted in particular that the applicant was charged with a serious crime for which he was liable to a penalty of over three years’ imprisonment, and that he was unemployed. The court held, without giving any further details, that there were grounds to believe that, if left at liberty, the applicant would seek to evade investigation and trial, and obstruct the establishment of the truth in his criminal case.\n7.  By resolutions of the Town Court and the Kyiv Court of Appeal of 8 December 2004, 8 February, 30 March, 8 July and 7 December 2005, the maximum period of the applicant’s detention was extended, respectively, to four months, six months, nine months, thirteen months, and fourteen months and twelve days, in view of the pending criminal investigations against him. The courts put forward similar reasons for the applicant’s continued detention as in the order of 15 October 2004, and held that there were no grounds for altering the preventive measure applied in the applicant’s respect. In the resolutions of 8 July and 7 December 2005 the courts also noted that the applicant had been studying the case file. By the latter resolution, he was given a time-limit, until 20 December 2005, to complete his study of the file.\n8.  On 25 December 2005, the applicant requested the Simferopol SIZO administration to be released, stating that there was no formal decision authorising his detention after 25 December 2005. On 27 December 2005 the request was refused on the ground that his continuing detention was governed by Article 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that his criminal case had been referred to the court for trial on 23 December 2005.\n9.  On an unspecified date the Shevchenkivsky District Court of Zaporizhzhya (“the District Court”) received the case.\n10.  On 3 March 2006 the applicant lodged with that court a petition alleging, among other things, that his continuing detention was unlawful.\n11.  On 20 March 2006 the District Court rejected his petition and ordered him to remain in detention, stating that there were no grounds for changing the preventive measure. The court’s order, containing no further explanations or a time-limit for the applicant’s detention, was not subject to appeal.\n12.  On 25 October 2007 the District Court rejected another petition for his release by the applicant relying, in particular, on a letter written by prosecutors according to which there was intelligence gathered suggesting that the applicant prepared documents to leave the country. It also relied on information obtained during the hearings indicating that the applicant intended to change his citizenship. The court did not set a time-limit for the applicant’s detention. According to the applicant, the case file contained no documents or other evidence corroborating his intention to leave the country. As to the issue of citizenship, he stated that he had applied for renunciation of the Ukrainian citizenship.\n13.  In a judgment of 8 November 2007 the District Court convicted the applicant as ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6649", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1938, 1941, 1973, 1945, 1942 and 1946 respectively and live in Vladivostok.\n8.  The city of Vladivostok, an administrative centre of the Primorskiy Region, is in the south-east of Russia on the Pacific coast. Its location explains the city’s monsoon-influenced humid continental climate with warm but humid summers when the annual precipitation reaches its maximum. More specifically, the first half of the summer season (June-July) is rainy and foggy, August and September can be marked by typhoons and August is the rainiest month.\n9.  The area where the applicants live is located in the Sovetskiy District of Vladivostok close to the Pionerskoye (Sedankinskoye) water reservoir (Пионерское водохранилище) near the Pionerskaya (Sedanka) river. The reservoir, constructed in 1936, contains supplies of drinking water for the city of Vladivostok. In the Government’s submission, on the basis of long-term observations, the floodplain of the Pionerskaya river was an area subject to periodic flooding during heavy rains when water was released from the Pionerskoye reservoir to avoid structural damage to the reservoir.\n10.  The first applicant lives in a flat which she owns in a low-rise building at 12/3 Semiradskiy Street.\n11.  The second applicant is a social tenant of a flat in a low-rise building at 20 Semiradskiy Street.\n12.  The third and fourth applicants, who are relatives, live in a flat owned by the fourth applicant in a low-rise building at 18 Semiradskiy Street.\n13.  The fifth applicant lives in a house he owns at 14 Semiradskiy Street.\n14.  The sixth applicant is a social tenant of a flat in a low-rise building at 18/3 Semiradskiy Street.\n15.  In a letter of 7 June 1999 Mr L., the head of the authority in charge of the Pionerskoye reservoir – the State-owned enterprise “South Primorskiy Region Water-and-sewage Authority” (государственное унитарное предприятие «Водопроводно-канализационное хозяйство юга Приморья», “the Water Company”) – warned the acting head of the Vladivostok Administration that the channel of the Pionerskaya river was cluttered with debris and household waste and overgrown with small trees and bushes and that this could have grave consequences given the adverse weather forecast for summer/autumn 1999. In particular, in the event of heavy rain the Water Company would have to release water from the reservoir and, in view of the poor state of the river channel, this might cause flooding over an area with a population of over 5,000 people, as well as a railway, a highway and manufacturing plants. Mr L. requested that appropriate measures be taken to clear the channel.\n16.  On 6 September 1999 the Vladivostok Commission for Emergency Situations (Комиссия по чрезвычайным ситуациям г. Владивостока, “the Vladivostok Emergency Commission”) took a decision concerning, among other things, flood prevention work in the floodplain of the Pionerskaya river. The decision stated that although the question of cleaning up the course of the Pionerskaya river was repeatedly raised every year, no actual measures had yet been taken. It went on to say that outlet channels and the river channel itself were abundantly overgrown with small trees and bushes, cluttered with debris and household waste and blocked by unlawfully built dams and various structures which all created a threat of flooding over an area of 15 square kilometres, with a population of over 5,000 people, in the event of the urgent release of a large", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6651", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Rencēni parish in Latvia.\n6.  On 19 May 2005 the applicant was placed in cell no. 26 in a remand wing of Valmiera Prison.\n7.  On 14 October 2005 the Valmiera District Court (Valmieras rajona tiesa) convicted the applicant of resistance to a public official and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment but suspended the sentence. It appears that no appeal was lodged against this judgment.\n8.  On the same date, the court ordered the applicant’s release.\n9.  According to the applicant, the cell where he was placed together with other detainees had been very poorly lit and poorly ventilated. The toilets had not been separated from the living area and had emitted a foul smell that had lingered in the air. Detainees had thus been forced to eat their meals in close proximity to the toilets. The applicant also alleged that the cell had been overpopulated, each detainee having had less than the domestic standard of 2.5 sq. m of living space per male adult detainee.\n10.  The Government disagreed with the applicant’s version of facts. They noted that cell no. 26 had had artificial and natural light and a ventilation system and they submitted that the toilet area in the cell had been separated off with a screen. The Government submitted that cell no. 26 had measured 23.6 sq. m. and had accommodated no more than eight detainees at a time, including the applicant.\n11.  In addition, the applicant contended that he had not received any personal hygiene products, save for a quarter of a bar of laundry soap. He had not been provided with toilet soap, a toothbrush, toothpaste and toilet paper, in violation of domestic law (see paragraph 21 below).\n12.  The Government did not deny that the applicant had not been provided with these products.\n13.  On an unspecified date in October 2005 the applicant had received 200 g of laundry soap, one toothbrush, 50 g of toothpaste and one 30 m roll of toilet paper.\n14.  On 13 July 2005, upon the applicant’s complaint addressed to the prosecutor’s office, the Prisons Administration (Ieslodzījuma vietu pārvalde) informed him that the prison lacked the financial resources to provide him with the personal hygiene products as laid down in Cabinet Regulation no. 339 (2002).\n15.  On 8 August 2005 the Valmiera Prison administration confirmed that there were no financial resources to provide the relevant personal hygiene products, save for one 200 g bar of laundry soap per month.\n16.  On 22 July 2005 the National Human Rights Office replied to the applicant in general terms that they had found during their onsite visits that penal institutions did not comply with many legal requirements. They noted, among other things, that they had drawn the attention of the relevant domestic authorities in March 2005 to insufficient financial resources having been allocated to the purchase of personal hygiene products. Finally, the applicant was informed of his right to submit an individual petition to the Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6652", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954. She resides in the village of Goyty, the Chechen Republic. The applicant is the mother of Mr Abdula Edilov, born in 1976.\n6.  At the time of the events described below Abdula Edilov resided with the applicant at 2, Nekrasova Street in the village of Goyty. According to the applicant, her son had participated in illegal armed groups during the first round of hostilities in the Chechen Republic, but was then amnestied and did not take part in the second round of hostilities which started in 1999.\n7.  The following account of the events is based on a written statement by the applicant dated 16 January 2007; a written statement by R.Z. dated 10 July 2006; a written statement by Z.D. dated 5 September 2006 and a written statement by L.D. dated 7 September 2006.\n8.  On 26 August 2001 the applicant agreed with Abdula Edilov that she would go to the local market and that he would join her there later. The applicant left for the market while Abdula Edilov stayed at home.\n9.  Between 5 and 6 p.m. on the same day a light coloured UAZ vehicle (“таблетка”) arrived at the applicant’s house. About ten armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks emerged from the vehicle. The applicant’s neighbours R.Z., Z.D. and L.D., who witnessed the arrival of the vehicle, inferred that those men were servicemen. Two servicemen stayed by the UAZ vehicle and the others rushed inside the applicant’s house. Shortly thereafter the servicemen came outside, leading Abdula Edilov with them. He was wearing a T-shirt, black trousers and house slippers and was holding his hands behind his back. The servicemen threw the applicant’s son inside the UAZ vehicle and drove in the direction of the checkpoint manned by Russian federal forces located on the bridge over the Argun River, on the eastern outskirts of Goyty. At the checkpoint the vehicle stopped for a while and then took the motorway in the direction of Grozny. According to Z.D., the windows in the UAZ vehicle were not blacked out and when it drove away from the checkpoint there were only three to four servicemen in it. Z.D. inferred from that that several servicemen must have stayed at the checkpoint. Z.D., R.Z. and L.D. could clearly see the route taken by the UAZ vehicle because the motorway leading to Grozny was separated from Nekrasova Street only by the Argunskiy canal.\n10.  The applicant learnt about the abduction shortly after it had occurred. She immediately returned home and realised that her house had been searched because everything had been turned upside down.\n11.  The applicant then went to the checkpoint of the federal forces located at the bridge over the Argun River. According to her, the checkpoint was guarded by servicemen from the Special Forces unit of the Ministry of the Interior (“the OMON”). She told them that her son had been apprehended and that his abductors had passed through the checkpoint. The servicemen replied that their commander was absent and that her son would come back “three days later if he was innocent” or “three months later if he was guilty”.\n12.  On 26 August 2001 the applicant complained in person about the abduction of her son to the local police. A police officer named “Yusup” advised her to complain about the apprehension of Abdula Edilov to various authorities and promised her that he would search for her son and find out who had arrested him and for what reason.\n13.  On 27 August 2001 the applicant stayed at home in case the authorities cam", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6653", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are:\n1) Mr Salman Khamzatov, born in 1935;\n2) Mrs Ayna Khamzatova, born in 1948;\n3) Mr Salamu Khamzatov, born in 1966;\n4) Mr Saypudi Khamzatov, born in 1968;\n5) Mrs Yakha Sadulayeva, born in 1982, and\n6) Mr Abdul-Malik Khamzatov, born in 2002.\n8.  The first and second applicants reside in the village of Starye Atagi, the Chechen Republic. The third to sixth applicants are residents of Grozny, the Chechen Republic.\n9.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Movsar Khamzatov, born in 1972. The third and fourth applicants are Movsar Khamzatov’s brothers and the fifth and sixth applicants are his wife and son.\n10.  The following account of events is based on the information contained in the application form; a written statement made by the first applicant on 22 November 2006; a written statement made by the third applicant on 20 November 2006 and a written statement made by the first applicant’s neighbour, Mr M.K., on 25 October 2007.\n(a)  The background information\n11.  The first and second applicants reside in Starye Atagi in their own house, at no. 32 Shosseynaya Street. Shosseynaya Street lies parallel to the “Grozny-Shatoy” highway (hereafter “the highway”) and is separated from it by the Argunskiy canal. The distance between the first applicant’s house and the highway being about 50 metres, the residents of the house can see what is going on on the adjacent part of the highway.\n12.  According to the applicants, in October 2001 servicemen from an engineering unit of the federal forces were stationed on the grounds of a mill located on the northern outskirts of Starye Atagi. Throughout October 2001 they inspected the highway, on a daily basis, in order to locate and disarm landmines. The servicemen used three infantry battle vehicles (“IBVs”) with registration plates “NR 312”, “NR 351” and “NR 327” and a URAL truck with a white stripe on its body, equipped with an anti-aircraft gun. The first and second applicants and M.K. were able to memorise those details because every day in October 2001 the vehicles drove down the highway in the direction of the grounds of the 205th brigade of the federal troops stationed in the village of Malye Varandy, to the south-west of Starye Atagi.\n13.  On 21 October 2001 Movsar Khamzatov, who otherwise resided in Ingushetiya as a refugee, came to Starye Atagi to visit his relatives.\n(b)  The events of 23 October 2001\n14.  On 23 October 2001 the first, second and third applicants were at home.\n15.  At about 7.30 p.m. on 23 October 2001 the first and second applicants were in the courtyard in front of the house. From there they saw two IBVs, an armoured personnel carrier (“APC”) and the Ural truck with the white stripe. Those vehicles were parked on the highway on the opposite side of the first applicant’s house. In the applicants’ submission, a number of servicemen were repairing the vehicles, using sledgehammers. The first applicant and M.K., who could also see that part of the highway from the window of his house at no. 41 Shosseynaya Street, recognised the vehicles by their number plates as those used by the engineering unit on previous days.\n16.  At some point in the evening on 23 October 2001 the electricity in the entire village was cut off. Shortly thereafter the first and second applicants and M.K. saw a civilian vehicle moving from north to south on Shosseynaya Street with its headlights turned on. When the car passed by the house of M.K. and prepared to turn into P", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6654", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 in Baku and is currently serving a life sentence in Gobustan Prison.\n6.  The applicant was a member of an organised criminal group which committed a series of robberies and murders in the Azerbaijan SSR, Russian SFSR and Georgian SSR between 1987 and 1989.\n7.  On 12 November 1991 the Supreme Court of Azerbaijan, sitting as the court of first instance, convicted the applicant of involvement in organised crime and premeditated murder. By way of a merger of sentences, the applicant was sentenced to death and confiscation of property. Being a decision of the highest tribunal, this judgment was final and was not subject to appeal at the material time.\n8.  Following the conviction, the applicant was transferred to the 5th wing of Bayil Prison, designated for convicts sentenced to death. Despite the existence of the death penalty as a form of punishment under the criminal law applicable at that time, the Azerbaijani authorities had pursued a de facto policy of a moratorium on the execution of the death penalty from June 1993 until the abolition of the death penalty in 1998.\n9.  On 10 February 1998 Parliament passed the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and Correctional Labour Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan in connection with the Abolition of the Death Penalty in the Republic of Azerbaijan (“the Law of 10 February 1998”), which amended all the relevant domestic legal provisions, replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment. The penalties of all convicts sentenced to death, including the applicant, were to be automatically commuted to life imprisonment.\n10.  In 2000 a new Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) and new Criminal Code were enacted. Before the new CCrP’s entry into force on 1 September 2000, on 14 July 2000 Parliament passed a transitional law allowing the lodging of an appeal under the new CCrP against final judgments delivered in accordance with the old criminal procedure rules (“the Transitional Law”).\n11.  On 24 January 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal, together with a “petition to restore the missed appeal period” (without specifying which appeal period), with the Court of Appeal under the Transitional Law. He noted in particular that when he was convicted in 1991 there was no possibility of appeal against his conviction.\n12.  By a letter of 15 March 2005 a clerk of the Court of Appeal replied that “the applicant could apply to the Supreme Court with an appeal against his criminal conviction”.\n13.  The applicant complained about the letter of 15 March 2005 to the Supreme Court, asking it to examine the appeal against his conviction. By a letter of 19 May 2005, a deputy president of the Supreme Court replied that, since the applicant’s appeal concerned solely the issue of the alleged unlawfulness of commuting the death penalty to life imprisonment (instead of fifteen years’ imprisonment, as claimed by the applicant), the issue was outside the jurisdiction of the courts, as the applicant’s conviction had been final and the commutation of the sentence had been effected by a legislative act. The deputy president of the Supreme Court also stated that “the relevant law had been misinterpreted in the Court of Appeal’s letter of 15 March 2005 according to which the Supreme Court can deal with this issue”.\n14.  In August 2005 the applicant lodged a new appeal with the Court of Appeal, challenging his conviction in 1991. In August 2005 the applicant also lo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6655", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Dublin. He was a teacher at a school in Dublin in the 1980s.\n5.  In July 1998 the applicant was charged with sexual offences in 1982 as regards A, B, C, D and E (minors and students in the school).\n6.  On 5 October 1998 he was returned for trial. The trial was due to commence in February 1999 but it was adjourned (the applicant’s request) due to publicity surrounding the trial. The trial was re-listed for 15 November 1999: on that date the indictment was severed (the applicant’s request) so that separate consecutive trials would take place as regards each complainant.\n7.  On 15 November 1999 the trial proceeded on the charges raised by A. The applicant was acquitted nine days later.\n8.  On 24 January 2000 the trial on charges concerning B began. The jury was dismissed and the trial was reset for 22 May 2000.\n9.  On 22 March 2000 the applicant was tried and convicted of 2 counts of sexual assault of C and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment.\n10.  On 22 May 2000 the trial concerning B recommenced. He was acquitted of a charge of rape but convicted on five counts of sexual assault. He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment (one year of which was suspended), which sentence was to run concurrently with the sentence in respect of C. During the trial the applicant had unsuccessfully applied to stay the indictment on grounds of delay; on 22 May 2000 he was accorded leave to appeal the refusal of the stay; on 27 January 2003 the Court of Criminal Appeal (“CCA”) dismissed his appeal; in March 2003 the CCA granted the applicant leave to appeal on a point of law of exceptional public importance to the Supreme Court (section 24 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924); on 15 June 2006 the Supreme Court heard the appeal; and on 27 July 2006 judgment, dismissing the appeal, was delivered.\n11.  On 26 June 2001 the trial on the charges concerning D began. The indictment was quashed on grounds of delay (the applicant’s application).\n12.  E was 12 years of age at the time of the alleged offences in 1982. She complained to the police in June 1998. On 15 July 1998 the applicant was charged with indecent assault contrary to the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981. As noted above, on 5 October 1998 he was returned for trial on all charges (students A-E) and the trial was adjourned to 15 November 1999, on which date the indictments were severed.\n13.  The trial concerning E was listed for 10 June 2002. However, since no judge was available, it was re-listed for 12 January 2004.\n14.  On 6 May 2003 the applicant was released from prison (sentence following conviction on offences against C).\n15.  On 7 July 2003 the applicant applied on an ex parte basis to the High Court for, and was granted, leave to apply by way of judicial review to prohibit the proceedings on grounds of delay since the alleged offence as well as for a stay on those proceedings pending the prohibition action. On 10 February 2004 a statement of opposition was delivered.\n16.  On 11 March 2005 the High Court ruled (detailed judgment) that the delay in pursuing the charges was such that his applicant’s ability to defend the charges had probably been prejudiced so that there was a risk of an unfair trial and it prohibited the applicant’s prosecution.\n17.  In April 2005 the prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal was adjourned on a number of occasions, although the dates and reasons are not clear. On 20 December 2007 the Supreme Court heard the ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6656", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, who are a couple, were born in 1934 and 1932 respectively. The second applicant died in 2006. The first applicant lives in Skhodnya, the Moscow Region.\n6.  The applicants, both wheelchair-bound and having first‑degree disability status, repeatedly requested social-security services to provide them with a car adapted to their disability. Their numerous complaints in this respect to the General Prosecutor’s Office, Members of the State Duma, and Administration of the President of the Russian Federation proved unsuccessful. As it was mentioned in the authorities’ letters to the applicants, according to the medical expert report ordered by the social-security services, the first applicant was not entitled to a free car and driving was contra-indicated in respect of the second applicant.\n7.  On 18 November 2003 the applicants, apparently assisted by counsel, lodged a claim against the Ministry of Labour challenging the refusal to provide them with a car and claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n8.  On 15 March 2004 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow (“the district court”) fixed the hearing for 14 May 2004 and at some point, apparently on the same date, summoned the applicants to appear at the hearing.\n9.  According to the Government, on 30 March 2004 one of the applicants received the respective notification. They submitted a copy of an acknowledgment-of-receipt card containing information on the date and time of the hearing, the name of the court, the date of notification, and signatures of a recipient and a postman.\n10.  According to the applicants, they did not receive the summons.\n11.  On 14 May 2004 the district court, having heard the defendant’s representatives, rejected their claim because the applicants had lodged it against a wrong defendant. The court established that the social welfare services did not belong to the Ministry of Labour and that the latter did not have power to review their decisions. The applicants were absent from the hearing. The court found, with reference to the acknowledgment-of-receipt card, that they had been duly summoned and examined the case in their absence. The representative of the respondent authority was present.\n12.  On 30 June 2004 the applicants’ representative received a copy of the judgment of 14 May 2004.\n13.  On 5 July 2004 the applicants appealed against the judgment. They complained, inter alia, that their right to a fair trial had been violated as neither they nor their lawyer had had a chance to attend the hearing due to their having been summoned belatedly.\n14.  On 14 July 2004 the district court on the applicants’ request extended the time-limit for lodging the grounds of appeal.\n15.  On 6 October 2004 the Moscow City Court adjourned the examination of the applicants’ appeal until 20 October 2004, having found that the parties had not been notified of the date of the hearing in a timely manner.\n16.  According to the Government, at some point the district court dispatched summonses to the parties, including the applicants, informing them of the date and time of the appeal hearing. According to the applicants, neither they nor their representative received the summons.\n17.  On 20 October 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 14 May 2004 on appeal. The court examined the case in the applicants’ absence, having mentioned that they had been notified of the appeal hearing. As regards the applicants’ complaint about their absence from the hearing a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6657", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in the Leningradskiy Region.\n6.  On 27 December 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and robbery. He was allegedly ill-treated by the police upon arrest.\n7.  On 5 January 1999 a confrontation between the applicant and the witnesses Mr S. and Mr K took place. The two men stated that they were security guards in an office building and that on 27 December 1998 they had seen the applicant carrying office equipment out of the building. He had been armed with a knife. They had apprehended him and called the police. They had found their colleague stabbed to death in the toilets. The applicant was given the opportunity to put questions to the witnesses.\n8.  On 6 January 1999 the applicant was formally charged with aggravated murder and robbery.\n9.  On 18 June 2002 the St Petersburg City Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to nineteen years’ imprisonment. It relied on oral statements by Mr S. before the court, the written deposition of Mr K. made at the pre-trial stage, expert reports indicating that the victim’s blood had been found on the applicant’s clothes, and material evidence such as a knife found on his body.\n10.  On 10 April 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment on appeal.\n11.  From 29 December 1998 to 14 March 2003 and from 21 June to 6 August 2003 the applicant was held in remand centre no. IZ-47/1 in St Petersburg.\n12.  According to the applicant the cells were overcrowded. His cell measured 8 sq. m and housed ten to twelve inmates. The applicant was therefore afforded between 0.6 and 0.8 sq. m of floor space. There were shutters on the windows.\n13.  In reply to a complaint by the applicant that the conditions of his detention were appalling, a St Petersburg deputy prosecutor informed him on 1 October 2001 that overcrowding was a systemic problem in all remand centres, including remand centre no. IZ-47/1, and it was not possible to meet the statutory sanitary norm of 4 sq. m per inmate or to provide each inmate with a separate bunk.\n14.  According to a certificate dated 7 May 2007 issued by the remand centre administration and submitted by the Government, it was not possible to establish which cells the applicant had been held in, or the number of inmates in those cells, as the registers for that period had been destroyed on expiry of the statutory storage time-limit.\n15.  Relying on certificates of the same date from the remand centre administration, the Government further submitted that the applicant had at all times had a separate bunk and had been provided with bedding. All cells were equipped with toilet facilities which were separated from the living area by a partition. Inmates could take a shower once a week. They received wholesome food. The shutters had been removed in the second half of 2002. The applicant had never shared a cell with inmates suffering from tuberculosis.\n16.  On 31 December 1998, on his admission to remand centre no. IZ‑47/1, the applicant was examined by the prison doctor and given a chest fluorography examination which revealed no signs of tuberculosis. According to the Government, between January 1999 and October 2002 the applicant was given four more fluorography tests which revealed no pathology in the applicant’s lungs.\n17.  On 28 February 2003 a new fluorography test detected changes indicating tuberculosis in the applicant’s lungs.\n18.  According to the Government, on 2 March 2003 th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6658", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 29 March 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of Hizbullah, an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 5 April 1998, the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.\n7.  On 15 May 1998 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant, along with 94 others, of membership of an illegal organisation.\n8.  On 27 May 1998 the criminal proceedings were initiated before the Diyarbakır State Security Court.\n9.  On 23 July 1998 the applicant was released pending trial.\n10.  On an unspecified date, the applicant was dismissed from his post at a factory of the General Directorate of State Monopolies (TEKEL) due to his detention. His reinstatement request was rejected by the administration on 13 August 1998, stating that his request could be considered on the submission of decision of acquittal.\n11.  Subsequent to the abolition of State Security Courts, the applicant’s case was resumed before the Diyarbakır Assize Court as from 6 July 2004.\n12.  On 22 November 2005 the case brought against the applicant and forty five others were separated and registered under a new reference number (case file no.2005/223).\n13.  On 28 February 2006, the Diyarbakır Assize Court decided to discontinue the proceedings against the applicant, holding that the prosecution was time-barred.\n14.  On 29 March 2006 the judgment was served on the applicant and became final on 5 April 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6659", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Lushnja, Albania.\nJudicial proceedings against the applicant\n7.  Following a number of remittals of the case against the applicant and two other co-defendants, on 4 March 2004 Berat District Court (“the District Court”) convicted the applicant of several criminal charges committed in collusion with the co-defendants. The District Court found that the applicant had acted in aggravating circumstances in that he had been the perpetrator of one of the criminal offences, which had led to the death of a person, whereas the co-defendants had assisted in the commission of that offence. As regards the other criminal offences, the District Court found each co-defendant guilty as charged. The District Court sentenced the applicant to a cumulative sentence of life imprisonment. As the District Court had adopted the use of the summary procedure pursuant to the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), the applicant’s sentence was commuted to twenty-five years’ imprisonment.\n8.  During the District Court proceedings the applicant was mainly represented by court-appointed lawyers. In the final stage of those proceedings, the applicant appointed counsel of his own choosing on the strength of a power of attorney signed on 18 February 2004, which, in so far as relevant, read as follows:\n“...\nI hereby authorise S.S as my special counsel and representative to defend and represent me before Berat District Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in the trial of the criminal case as regards the charges provided in Articles ... of the Criminal Code. This case has been tried before and by a Court of Appeal decision has been remitted for fresh examination.\nIn accordance with Article 352 of the CCP I request that the case be tried in my absence.\nI accept the charges levied against me and I authorise counsel to request the use of summary procedure pursuant to Article 403 of the CCP.\nCounsel has the right to lodge appeals against court decisions that are against my interests.\n...”\n9.  On 12 March 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Vlora Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”). Although he admitted having committed the criminal offences, he challenged the penalty imposed. He argued that the trial court had failed to take account of some mitigating factors in his favour such as the remorse he had shown after committing the crime and his surrender to the authorities, his family’s difficult financial situation and the fact that he had a minor child, the lack of any previous criminal records and his low educational level.\n10.  On 4 May 2004 a hearing took place which was adjourned to 26 May 2004 in order to summon the applicant to appear before the court. On the same date, a letter was sent by the Court of Appeal to the Police Commissariat and the local prison authorities, requesting them to escort the applicant to the hearing scheduled for 26 May 2004.\n11. The applicant did not attend the hearing on 26 May 2004. The court ordered an adjournment until 4 June 2004. The applicant’s representative was present at the hearing. Relevant excerpts from the record of the proceedings read:\n“The defendant Besnik Cani was summoned and did not appear. The file indicates that he has been informed and will attend the hearing (nga aktet rezulton se ka dijeni dhe do të marrë pjesë në gjykim).”\n12.  On 27 May 2004 the Court of Appeal sent a letter to the Ministry of Justice, the Directorate ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6660", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Lemsi.\n7.  On 31 May 2005 criminal proceedings were initiated in respect of the applicant, mayor of the rural municipality (vallavanem) of Kihnu at the material time. He was suspected of demanding bribes (pistise võtmine) under Article 293 § 2 of the Penal Code (Karistusseadustik). Supposedly, he had invited L., a representative of OÜ G., a private limited company, to participate in a call for tenders for renovation work on port buildings and on the local museum. Allegedly, he had proposed to ensure the success of OÜ G.’s bids in return for ten per cent of the sum of the transactions being paid to him after the receipt by the company of the municipality’s pre-payment.\n8.  On 3 June 2005 a prosecutor gave an authorisation (jälitustoimingu luba) (authorisation LÄRP 16/273) for covert surveillance of the applicant. The authorisation was for one day’s surveillance and was valid from 6 to 10 June 2005.\n9.  According to a surveillance report dated 7 June 2005, covert surveillance of the applicant had been carried out on the same day. The applicant had met L., who had given him a plastic bag which he had put into his pocket. A video recording of the event was appended to the surveillance report.\n10.  On 9 June 2005 the prosecutor gave another authorisation for the application of surveillance measures in the criminal case, but apparently no measures were applied on the basis of that authorisation.\n11.  On 10 June 2005 the President of the Tallinn City Court authorised wiretapping, covert observation and audio recording of the applicant’s conversations with L. The authorisation was for ten days’ surveillance and remained valid until 10 July 2005.\n12.  According to a surveillance report dated 12 July 2005, undercover audio recordings of conversations between the applicant and L. had been made on 14 and 29 June and 5 July 2005. The audio recordings and extracts of the transcripts of the conversations were attached to the surveillance report.\n13.  On 5 July 2005 the applicant and L. were arrested by the police while they were meeting in the applicant’s car. Their arrest was video recorded. The recording showed that a plastic bag containing 85,000 kroons (EEK) (approximately 5,430 euros (EUR)) and a bank receipt made out to OÜ G. were found in the glove compartment of the applicant’s car.\n14.  The applicant denied the charges. He was kept in pre-trial custody until 21 July 2005. L., who was charged with paying bribes and O. (the manager of OÜ G.), who was charged as an accessory, pleaded guilty and were not taken into custody.\n15.  On 25 July 2005 the prosecutor refused to give the applicant access to the information collected as a result of the application of the surveillance measures because doing so could prejudice the criminal proceedings or give rise to a criminal offence.\n16.  On 2 January 2006, after the applicant had been acquainted with the criminal case file, he asked the public prosecutor to have the prosecutor’s and judge’s decisions authorising the application of surveillance measures attached to the criminal case file so that the lawfulness of the surveillance activities could be assessed. On 12 January 2006 the prosecutor replied that the authorisations for the surveillance activities were kept in the surveillance file (jälitustoimik) and were not to be included in the criminal case file: only the surveillance reports, together with appendices, were to be included in the latter file.\n17.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6661", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bad Dürheim, Germany. She was born and grew up in Schwarzenberg (Austria), but moved to Germany when she married. Her father held shares as a member of the Alpe Rotenbach Agricultural Association (Agrargemeinschaft - hereafter “AA”).\n6.  The AA is a public law body, which owns several plots of land in Schwarzenberg. Membership of the AA is expressed in shares which comprise 86 grazing rights (Weiderechte) and ten hut rights (Hüttenrechte).\n7.  After their father’s death in 1993, the applicant and her four sisters inherited his property. In the subsequent succession proceedings, the Bezau District Court transferred the title to a share of the deceased’s property to the applicant (Einantwortung) which included three and three-quarters grazing rights and one hut right of the AA Rotenbach. She also inherited three grazing rights relating to another AA, the Alpe Obere, from her father.\n8.  On 14 April 1994 the Bregenz District Agricultural Authority (Agrarbezirks­behörde - DAA) rejected, according to the statutes of the AA, the applicant’s requests to be granted the necessary permits to make use of her grazing rights. These decisions were based on the fact that the applicant did not have her ordinary residence (ordentlicher Wohnsitz) in one of the court districts of Bezau, Dornbirn or Bregenz. The Land Vorarlberg has altogether six court districts.\n9.  On 29 September 1994 and 3 October 1994, the Vorarlberg Regional Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat - “the Regional Board”) dismissed the applicant’s appeals.\n10.  The Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s joint complaint for lack of prospect of success. Subsequently, the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint on 23 May 1996 because she did not fulfil the criteria set out in the statutes of the AA.\n11.  At the beginning of 1997 the applicant sold the three grazing rights relating to the Alpe Obere to Mr Z., another member of this AA.\n12.  On 10 December 1997 the applicant requested the DAA to hold that the provision of the statutes of the AA concerning the inheritance of grazing and hut rights was void and that no authoritative permit was necessary for the enjoyment of these rights. In the alternative she requested the DAA to grant her the permit.\n13.  On 15 December 1997 the DAA rejected the applicant’s alternative request as res judicata, because it had already decided on the issue on 14 April 1994. The DAA did not decide on the two main requests.\n14.  On 30 June 1998 the Regional Board, after having held a hearing, dismissed her appeal against this decision.\n15.  On 7 October 1998 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint.\n16.  On 16 December 1999 the Administrative Court quashed the Regional Board’s decision, holding that European Community Law should be taken into account following Austria’s accession to the European Union. Furthermore, the DAA should have decided first on the applicant’s main requests, before being competent to decide on the alternative request.\n17.  Subsequently, the Regional Board gave a decision on 21 June 2000, but failed to serve this new decision on the applicant.\n18.  Thereupon, on 15 December 2000, the applicant filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag).\n19.  On 7 March 2001 the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat – Supreme Board) granted the applicant’s request for transfer of jurisdiction and quashed the DAA’s decision of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6662", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Kardzhali.\n5.  On 17 September 1999 the applicant, who worked as a foreman in a mine, was dismissed for a violation of the discipline. On 27 September 1999 he brought proceedings against his employer, claiming that his dismissal was unlawful and seeking reinstatement to work and compensation.\n6.  The hearing on 1 December 1999 of the Kardzhali District Court was postponed for gathering of evidence. On 1 March and 26 April 2000 the court instructed the applicant to correct certain flaws in his statement of claim. From 7 June to 5 July 2000 it conducted three other hearings and on the latter date postponed the hearing to 20 September 2000 for questioning of witnesses. The applicant made a complaint about delays. On 13 July 2000 the Kardzhali Regional Court established that the District Court had postponed the hearing of the case on a number of occasions for gathering of evidence. It noted that the District Court could have been more diligent in conducting the case in view of the nature of the claim. For example, it could have imposed fines on the parties for not submitting their requests in due course. It instructed the District Court to conduct the next hearing within one month as from the date on which the case file would be returned to it.\n7.  In compliance with the instructions, the District Court rescheduled the next hearing for 2 August 2000. On 7 August 2000 it held the last hearing and dismissed the claim. It held that the applicant had breached his duties as a foreman because during the night shift on 27 August 1999 he had exempted one of his subordinates from work without reporting his absence. The applicant appealed.\n8.  The Regional Court held two hearings and on 1 February 2001 quashed the judgment of 7 August 2000 and granted the applicant’s claim. It held that the procedural requirements for requesting explanations from the applicant had not been met by his employer. The latter appealed.\n9.  On 18 March 2002 the Supreme Court of Cassation conducted a hearing. In a judgment of 15 April 2002 it quashed the judgment of 1 February 2001. It held that the applicant’s employer had met the procedural requirements for taking explanations from the applicant.\n10.  On 17 May 2002 the Regional Court held a hearing. The applicant requested the assignment of an expert report. The hearings on 21 June and 13 September 2002 were postponed because the appointed experts had failed to submit their reports. Between 25 October and 6 December 2002 it conducted three other hearings and on 3 February 2003 dismissed the claim. It held that the applicant had exempted a worker from the night shift without reporting his absence, and thus had breached his duties of a foreman and had abused the confidence of his employer. The applicant appealed.\n11.  The Supreme Court of Cassation conducted a hearing on 2 June 2005 and in a final judgment of 19 September 2005 upheld the judgment of 3 February 2003. It fully endorsed the findings of the Regional Court.\n12.  On two occasions in 2000 and 2002 the applicant complained to the president of the Kardzhali Regional Court and the Ministry of Justice that the examination of his case was delayed. In letters of 23 March 2000 and 20 November 2002 the president of the Regional Court informed the applicant that he had not established any unreasonable delays in the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6664", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born on 2 November 1936.\n5.  On 14 August 1976 the applicant’s mother, N.B. lodged a case with the Bodrum Cadastral Court seeking annulment of the land survey conducted in respect of her land: plot no. 423.\n6.  On 12 June 1995 the applicant became involved in the proceedings as the heir.\n7.  On 7 August 1998 the court granted the request.\n8.  On 25 May 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 7 August 1998.\n9.  On 26 November 1999 a request for rectification of the judgment was dismissed.\n10.  On 27 March 2000 the first-instance court dismissed the case.\n11.  On 28 November 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 27 March 2000.\n12.  According to the document submitted by the Government, on 17 October 2005 the rectification request of the parties was rejected.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6665", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  On 20 April 2000 the applicant was involved in a traffic accident which caused the death of his wife and resulted in bodily injuries to him.\n6.  On 13 April 2001 the applicant, along with three others, lodged an action with the Banaz Civil Court of First Instance, requesting compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage which he had suffered as a result of the traffic accident.\n7.  In the meantime, on 21 November 2002 the criminal proceedings which had been brought against the applicant before the Banaz Criminal Court concerning the same incident became final and the decision was submitted to the case file in question.\n8.  At the hearing on 9 May 2003 the court ordered two separate expert opinions on the estimation of the applicant’s damage and compensation for loss of financial support.\n9.  On 20 August 2003 and 8 October 2003 two expert reports were prepared.\n10.  On 3 June 2004 the court commissioned another expert report.\n11.  On 26 January 2005 the committee of experts requested further documents from the court.\n12.  Upon the completion of shortcomings, on 8 September 2005 an expert report was submitted to the court.\n13.  On 11 May 2005 the court ordered a supplementary report from the same committee at the request of the defendant, which was received on 16 February 2006.\n14.  On 11 May 2006 the court partially granted the applicant’s request. It awarded the applicant 55,938 Turkish liras[1] (TRY) for pecuniary damage and TRY 1,500[2] for non-pecuniary damage, plus statutory interest running from the date of the event.\n15.  On 16 January 2007 the judgment was served on the parties.\n16.  The parties did not appeal against this judgment and it became final on 1 February 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6666", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Floing, where she owns a house. Her neighbours (Mr and Mrs R.) own two plots of land opposite her house.\n5.  It appears that on 2 February 1972 Mr and Mrs R. obtained a decision on designation of use of their land (Widmungsbewilligung) and on 10 March 1972 they obtained permission (Baubewilligung) to construct a guest-house. Mr and Mrs R. changed the construction plans and built a dance-hall and adjoining rooms in the basement of the house. On 29 April 1976 the Mayor (Bürgermeister) of Floing retroactively granted a building permit and authorised this use of the building (Benützungsbewilligung). The authorisation of use applied to the rooms in the basement of Mr and Mrs R.’s house, which were then used as a discotheque. According to the applicant, this led to noise emissions and heavier traffic on the road leading to the applicant’s and Mr and Mrs R.’s houses.\n6.  The applicant was not considered to be a party to the proceedings in respect of the building permit and thus was not able to lodge her objections with the relevant authorities.\n7.  In mid-1988 the Regional Government instructed the Mayor that the applicant (and some other neighbours) were parties to the proceedings and thus would have to be served the decision on the designation of use of land of 2 February 1972 and the building permit of 10 March 1972. The Mayor did not serve the decisions on the applicant; in mid-1989 he was instructed again to serve the decisions, which he refused. On 2 October 1989 the applicant applied to the Mayor to be served the decisions. On 13 November 1989 she received the decisions.\n8.  The applicant appealed against the building permit and decision of authorisation of use of 29 April 1976. The Municipal Council partly set aside the decisions on 28 March 1991, holding that the building was in breach of the area zoning plan in force since 27 May 1986 and that the building was in contravention of the building permit and the designation decision. Thus, parts of the authorisation of the use of the building (in the present case the alterations to the rooms for their use as a discotheque) were set aside.\n9.  Mr and Mrs R. raised objections (Vorstellung) to the setting aside of the decision, arguing, inter alia, that the Municipal Council should have obtained data on the noise emissions coming from the discotheque, and that the applicant should have been considered a party to the proceedings only if the noise emissions had exceeded a certain level. They also argued that they had entered into a settlement agreement with the applicant (see paragraph 13 below), according to which she would tolerate the discotheque against payment of a certain amount of money. Furthermore when the noise levels were measured the noise was found not to exceed the usual noise levels in the area.\n10.  The objections were dismissed by the Styrian Regional Government by decision of 16 October 1991; Mr and Mrs R. complained to the Administrative Court. By decision of 12 March 1992 the Administrative Court granted suspensive effect to Mr and Mrs R’s complaint.\n11.  On 24 September 1992 the Administrative Court confirmed the setting aside of the authorisation of use. It held that the authorisation of use was in fact an additional building permit and the neighbours (in this case the applicant) were parties to these proceedings. It also confirmed the Regional Government’s view that the area in which Mr and Mrs R. were running their discoth", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6667", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Patras.\n5.  On 20 October 2006 the applicant was arrested and criminal proceedings were brought against him for drug related offences.\n6.  After four adjournments - three on the court’s initiative and one on the request of the applicant - on 14 March 2008 the Athens First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of 55,000 euros (judgment no. 1579/08).\n7.  On the same date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence, which was scheduled for hearing on 1st October 2010.\n8.  After several adjournments the hearing of the appeal took place on 3 June 2011 and the applicant’s sentence was reduced to fourteen years of imprisonment.\n9.  There is no indication in the case file whether an appeal on points of law was lodged challenging the appellate judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6668", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Athens.\n5.  On 21 August 1997 he lodged an opposition (ανακοπή) with the Athens First Instance Civil Court challenging his arrest as compulsory enforcement measure regarding a decision of the Athens First Instance Civil Court issued against him for unpaid debt to an individual (decision no. 951/1995).\n6.  On 30 October 1998 the opposition was rejected (judgment no. 8769/1998).\n7.  On 30 November 1998 the applicant filed an appeal before the Athens Civil Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence.\n8.  By judgment dated 21 June 1999, the court accepted the applicant’s appeal and the case was remitted to the Athens First Instance Civil Court in order to be retried (judgment no. 5619/1999).\n9.  On 6 March 2001 a preliminary decision was issued partially rejecting the applicant’s opposition and asking him to submit supplementary evidence regarding the remainder of his allegations (judgment no. 1923/2001).\n10.  On 17 June 2002 the applicant filed an application asking for a hearing date to be set as soon as possible.\n11.  On 15 March 2004, after a subsequent re-hearing was held, the Athens First Instance Civil Court rejected the applicant’s opposition (judgment no. 1299/2004).\n12.  On 2 February 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal challenging the First Instance Court’s decisions nos. 1923/2001 and 1299/2004.\n13.  By judgment dated 6 March 2009, the Athens Civil Court of Appeal accepted the applicant’s appeal after quashing the ruling of the first instance court. Subsequently, after examining the applicant’s opposition de novo, the court held that it was well founded (judgment no. 1236/2009).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6669", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Hurstville, Australia.\n6.  On 24 February 2006 the applicant, who lived in Ukraine at the time, was detained by the Kyiv police on suspicion of murder. On 27 February 2006 he was released.\n7.  On 1 March 2006 the applicant complained to the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Pecherskyy Court”) that his detention had been unlawful.\n8.  On 20 March 2006 the Pecherskyy Court rejected his complaint. Its ruling was delivered following a hearing with the participation of the applicant and his lawyer on one side and the prosecutor on the other. The prosecutor advocated rejecting the complaint on the ground that the applicant’s detention had been in compliance with the criminal procedural legislation.\n9.  The applicant appealed.\n10.  On 17 April 2006 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal informed him that the hearing in his case would take place on 8 June 2006.\n11.  However, when the applicant appeared in court on that date, he found out that the hearing had already been conducted, on 18 May 2006, and that his appeal had been rejected. As noted in the appellate court’s ruling of 18 May 2006, the prosecutor had been present and had pleaded the case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6670", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in St Petersburg.\n6.  On 17 December 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with aggravated robbery with the use of firearms. It appears that during those proceedings the applicant’s involvement in the offence was established, but he absconded.\n7.  By a decision of 7 September 2000 the investigator in charge brought formal charges against the applicant and ordered his arrest. He was put on the federal wanted list on 11 September 2000.\n8.  On 12 September 2000 the authorities disjoined the criminal case against the applicant from the main set of criminal proceeding, and then on 12 November 2000 suspended the investigation pending the search for the applicant.\n9.  On 5 July 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated robbery and unlawful possession of firearms. The investigation in the criminal case against the applicant was resumed the following day. On 6 November 2001 the materials of the criminal case against the applicant were sent to the St Petersburg City Court for trial.\n10.  In a judgment of 8 February 2005 the St Petersburg City Court convicted the applicant of aggravated theft and robbery and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. On 22 December 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.\n11.  According to the applicant, although he did not offer any resistance during his arrest on 5 July 2001, police officers forced him to lie face down on the ground, handcuffed him and beat him. In particular, they hit him with a heavy object, presumably a pistol handle, on the back of his head so that he started bleeding, and beat him in the kidney area.\n12.  In the applicant’s submission, he spent a night in a corridor of a police station of the St Petersburg Department for the Fight against Organised Crime, handcuffed to a radiator in a squatting position and in the absence of any facilities enabling him to rest. At least three times during that night he was taken for interviews to various offices where police officers questioned and beat him, forcing him to confess to offences which had apparently been imputed to him.\n13.  On 6 July 2001 the applicant was taken to an investigator’s office, formally charged with aggravated robbery, and questioned.\n14.  According to the Government, on the same date the investigator in charge, in the presence of two attesting witnesses, drew up a report on the examination of the applicant. The relevant report attested to the presence of abrasions on the back of the applicant’s head and his back and stated that the applicant had explained that “[he] had sustained those injuries on 5 July 2001, as he had fallen during his arrest”. It can be ascertained from the report that one of the attesting witnesses was the police officer who had effected the applicant’s arrest.\n15.  The applicant then wrote an explanatory note in which he stated that he had sustained the aforementioned injuries because he had fallen during his arrest on 5 July 2001, and that he had no complaints against the police officers. According to the applicant, he was forced to write that explanation.\n16.  The applicant was then transferred to a temporary isolation ward where he was examined by a paramedic. As can be seen from a letter from the administration of the temporary isolation ward dated 5 June 2003, the paramedic established during that examination that the applicant had abrasions on his back and the back of his head and that h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6671", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lived until his arrest in Yekaterinburg. He is serving a sentence in a correctional colony in the town of Nevyansk, in the Sverdlovsk Region.\n6.  On 8 April 1998 the Revdinsk Town Court found Mr Sh. and Mr B. guilty of several counts of aggravated robbery. In particular, the Town Court found it established that on 5 October 1995 the defendants, acting together with the applicant, the criminal proceedings against whom had been adjourned in view of his absconding during the investigation, and Mr O., the criminal case against whom had been closed following his death, had robbed a warehouse in the village of Vavozh in the Udmurtiya Republic. The Town Court further held that on 19 November 1995 defendant B., assisted by Mr R., the criminal proceedings against whom had been stayed following his escape, the applicant and Mr O. had robbed several warehouses in the village of Kungurka in the Sverdlovsk Region. At the same time, the court acquitted Mr Sh. of an additional robbery charge, having found no evidence in support of the accusation that on 17 September 1996 he and Mr R., Mr O., Mr V. and the applicant had participated in another robbery in the village of Novoye Selo in the Sverdlovsk Region\n7.  As regards the robbery in the village of Vavozh, the conviction was based on testimonies by defendant Sh. and the director general of the company and owner of the warehouse, Mr P., and on written depositions made during the pre-trial investigation by a warehouse guard, Mr M., and Mr O. The statements were as follows:\n- defendant Sh. partly admitted his guilt. He argued that, having agreed to the applicant’s proposal and acting on the latter’s detailed instructions, he had gone to the warehouse. The applicant had forced him to watch over the warehouse guard, whom the applicant had beaten and tied up. Mr Sh. also admitted that he had helped the applicant and Mr R. to load stolen goods into a car and had received money from the applicant for his participation in the robbery;\n-  in his written statements Mr O. had given a similar account of the events;\n-  the company director stated that on the morning of 5 October 1995 he had been informed of the robbery. Having arrived at the warehouse, he had noticed that the guard had been severely beaten up;\n-  the warehouse guard testified that on 5 October 1995 two unknown individuals, whom he was unable to identify, had attacked him, beaten and tied him up. He had then heard someone robbing the warehouse.\n8.  As to the robberies in the village of Kungurka, the grounds for the conviction were testimonies made by defendant B. and the representative of the owner of the warehouse, Mr A., in open court and on written depositions by a warehouse guard, Mr Kh. and late Mr O., which they had made to the investigating authorities.\n9.  Defendant B. partly admitted his guilt and stated that in November 1995 the applicant, taking advantage of his trust, had asked him to help load a car. They had gone to the warehouse. Acting on the orders of the applicant, of whom he was afraid, Mr B. had helped to move the goods from the warehouse.\n10.  The representative of the owner of the warehouse confirmed that there had been a robbery at the warehouse.\n11.  In his statements to the investigators, Mr O. had admitted to having helped the applicant and Mr R. to rob the warehouse.\n12.  The guard Kh. stated that on 19 November 1995 two unknown persons had broken into the warehouse, tied him up and s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6674", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The present application was introduced by Mrs Patricia Reynolds, a British national born in 1935 who lived in Hebden Bridge. Following the introduction of the application, Mrs Reynolds died and Ms Catherine King (her daughter) continued the case on her behalf. The Court has referred below to Mrs Reynolds as the applicant.\n6.  The applicant’s son, David Reynolds, was born in 1969 and he died on 16 March 2005. The present application relates to his death.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  Mr Reynolds was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1998. He was treated by a mental health team which was operated by the National Health Service Trust (“the NHS Trust”) and which assigned Mr Stephens as Mr Reynold’s Care Co-ordinator. On 16 March 2005 Mr Reynolds contacted the applicant and Mr Stephens: he was hearing voices ordering him to kill himself. The applicant and Mr Stephens went to Mr Reynolds’s home.\n9.  Mr Stephens contacted the Crisis Resolution Home Treatment Team (“CRHTT”) informing it that Mr Reynolds might need to be hospitalised. The CRHTT is a community-based team of mental health professionals operated by the NHS Trust from the psychiatric unit of Calderdale Royal Hospital (“the Hospital”). Mr Stephens was told that no beds were available but that Mr Reynolds could have a crisis bed at the Intensive Support Moving On Scheme Unit (“the ISMOS Unit”). The local Council is responsible for the Unit and it is located in a building of which the Council is the occupier for the purposes of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (“the 1957 Act”). It is staffed by social workers experienced in the care of mental health patients and it provides an alternative to in-patient care where the risk assessment renders this appropriate. ISMOS Unit patients are not subjected to formal monitoring but staff regularly check on them and have custody of their medication. While patients are voluntary, cameras monitor the outside of the building so that the ISMOS Unit is alerted if a patient leaves.\n10.  On the way to the ISMOS Unit Mr Reynolds told Mr Stephens that he found the ‘voices’ so distressing that he felt like killing himself. Mr Stephens therefore took Mr Reynolds to the Hospital (run by the Trust) for a clinical assessment. This was carried out by a psychiatrist of the CRHTT assisted by a psychiatric nurse and Mr Stephens. Mr Reynolds was assessed to be a low suicide risk. He had once again reduced his medication in order to drink and socialise at the weekend. His psychotic symptoms had therefore returned but he had stabilised rapidly as he had already re-taken his medication that morning. The voices had diminished and were not troubling him any more although he was terrified of their returning. During the assessment, he confirmed that he did not want to kill himself. He had no history of self-harm/attempted suicide, he had not acted on his earlier hallucinations and, even when having hallucinations, he had sought help.\n11.  Since it was agreed that Mr Reynolds needed a safe and supported environment, he was admitted to the ISMOS Unit as a voluntary in-patient. He was allocated one of the crisis rooms across from the staff room on the sixth floor. During dinner he seemed withdrawn and unwell. Later that evening, he was found wandering outside the building but he returned with staff to his room. At 22.00 there was a change of shift, the new staff were briefed and Mr Reynolds appeared more relaxed a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6676", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Irkutsk.\n6.  On 24 May 2002 the applicant, the head of the Anti-Drug Trafficking Department of the North-Eastern Customs Office at the time, was arrested on suspicion of abuse of position and drug trafficking. An investigator drew up an arrest record and, in detail, informed the applicant of his rights as an accused, including the right to have legal assistance and the right to remain silent. The applicant signed the record, noting that he clearly understood his rights, but he refused legal assistance and decided to make a statement.\n7.  According to the applicant, police officers beat him up and threatened him and his family. They also promised to release him in exchange for a confession. The applicant wrote a statement confessing to drug trafficking.\n8.  On the same date the investigator interrogated the applicant in the absence of counsel, whose assistance the applicant had refused. The refusal was recorded in a report duly dated and signed by the applicant.\n9.  The police searched the house of the applicant’s co-accused and found a parcel of heroin. The applicant claimed that a neighbour, Mr M., had seen a police officer putting the parcel into the closet.\n10.  On 27 December 2002 the applicant was released on a written undertaking not to leave the town.\n11.  On 10 March 2004 the Irkutsk Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment. In view of the applicant’s position, the trial hearings were closed to the press and public. The conviction was based on self‑incriminating statements made during the pre-trial investigation, search records, expert examination reports and witness testimonies. According to the applicant, the trial court refused to hear Mr M. However, as noted in a statement of appeal lodged by the applicant’s co-accused, the trial court had heard Mr M. at least on two occasions: during the investigation phase of the trial, when he had testified and the parties had been allowed to ask questions, and when the trial court, having accepted the parties’ request, had again questioned Mr M. to clarify certain points.\n12.  The applicant alleged that the judgment of 10 March 2004 had not been pronounced publicly.\n13.  According to the Government, following the public pronouncement of the judgment, the Regional Court had notified the applicant of his right to appeal against conviction and had explained “procedural issues pertaining to lodging an appeal” to him. The Government provided the Court with typed notes signed by the applicant and his lawyer and certifying that they had been served with a copy of the judgment of 10 March 2004 and that the applicant had been informed of the ten-day time-limit for lodging an appeal. Another note submitted by the Government was handwritten by the applicant and showed that he had received a copy of the trial court’s records.\n14.  The applicant and his lawyer appealed against the conviction, having lodged lengthy appeal statements. They disputed the applicant’s involvement in the criminal offences he had been found guilty of and disagreed with the way the trial court had established the relevant facts, the distribution of roles between him and his co-defendant and the classification of his own acts. They submitted, in particular, that the trial court had disregarded the applicant’s testimony and statements by witnesses which supported it, in particular, regarding his submissions t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6677", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971. The applicant’s home address after his release from detention in 2003 was not provided.\n5.  As established in the criminal case against the applicant (see paragraph 26 below), on 6 November 2001, at around 5 a.m., the applicant and an accomplice attempted to steal a car. A person residing in the neighbourhood called the police. Seeing that his accomplice had been apprehended by two officers, the applicant ran off and did not stop despite warnings from officer S., who was pursuing him. Later on, this officer stated under oath that after he had fired a warning shot in the air he saw the applicant fall into an opening for water drainage. Having been asked to stand up and move into a lighted area, the applicant, as perceived by S., adopted a threatening stance and moved forward to inflict a blow on S. To prevent resistance, the officer inflicted a blow to the applicant’s chest and used martial arts. The applicant fell to the ground and was handcuffed. Officer S. subsequently confirmed his earlier description of the arrest during a confrontation with the applicant. Another officer, K., was interviewed and also confirmed S.’s description of the arrest.\n6.  According to the applicant, early in the morning of 6 November 2001, when he was about to answer the call of nature on the street, a car stopped nearby and he saw a gun being pointed at him from the car window. Fearing for his life, he started to run away. However, hearing a gun shot and “Stop, police!”, he lay down on the ground and did not resist.\n7.  After the arrest the applicant was taken to the Kryukovo district police station in Moscow (ОВД «Крюково» г. Москвы). In the police station, field service officer Ma. interviewed the applicant from 11.30 a.m. to 11.40 a.m. The interview record indicates that the applicant was informed of his right under Article 51 of the Constitution and that “in addition to his earlier statement” the applicant also mentioned his previous convictions.\n8.  Investigator M. ordered field service officer G. to interview the applicant. Officer G. interviewed the applicant from 12.25 p.m. to 1 p.m. The applicant admitted that he had opened the door of the car with a screwdriver and had tried to start up the engine.\n9.  As can be seen from another interview record signed by investigator M., after the above-mentioned interviews the applicant requested legal assistance and named as his representatives the advocate Mr Koblev and Ms Chuvilova, who was not an advocate but worked for a non-governmental organisation. According to the applicant, the investigator refused permission to call his representatives or otherwise notify them of his arrest (see, however, paragraph 12 below).\n10.  According to the applicant, at the police station he was ill-treated by the operational officer who took his confession to the car theft. The applicant was handcuffed to a chair and punched and kicked. The officer put a gas mask on his face and blocked the air vent on it (see also paragraph 14 below).\n11.  At 3.15 p.m. the applicant was examined for alcohol intoxication at a Moscow clinic. According to the record, the applicant was not intoxicated and had no cuts or bruises but his clothing was dirty.\n12.  At 10 p.m. Ms Chuvilova arrived to see the applicant. On seeing injuries on his face and body, she called for an ambulance. It arrived and took the applicant to an emergency medical centre. The record of his admission there reads as follows:\n“Pain on th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6678", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Oradea.\n8.  On 28 November 2005 the applicant was placed in the custody of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Bihor County Court, accused of receiving a bribe while working as a sub-officer at the Romanian border with Hungary.\n9.  On 29 November 2005 the prosecutor ordered the applicant to be remanded in custody for fifteen days. Subsequently, the applicant’s pre‑trial detention was periodically extended by the Bihor County Court until 1 August 2006, when the applicant was released from prison.\n10.  The applicant was detained on the premises of the Bihor Investigation Service detention facility (Arestul Preventiv al Inspectoratului de Poliţie Bihor) between 28 November 2005 and 31 January 2006.\n11.  On 31 January 2006, the applicant was transferred to Oradea Maximum Security Prison, where he was detained until 1 August 2006.\n12.  The applicant complained about the conditions of detention on the premises of the Bihor Investigation Service detention facility. He claimed that he shared a cell with five other detainees and that the toilet was in the middle of the cell, offering no privacy.\n13.  The cell also had no source of natural light, but was lit only by artificial light.\n14.  The applicant also alleged that the cell was not heated even when the outside temperature reached minus twenty degrees and that hot water was only available for ten minutes per week for all six detainees.\n15.  Furthermore, the applicant, a non-smoker, was detained with inmates who smoked cigarettes all day long inside the cell. He claimed that his health had worsened because of the conditions in which he had been kept. Thus, his ulcer had worsened and, although he had had no previous history of asthma, in a medical report of 6 January 2006, it was recorded that he was now suffering from asthma and bronchial hyperactivity.\n16.  He also claimed that there had been no television or any other source of information at the detention centre.\n17.  The opportunity to exercise outside was limited to one ten–minute walk per day, in a twelve‑square‑metre space, with the other five detainees. Furthermore, he contended that he was not permitted to exercise outside at all for the period between 23 December 2005 and 6 January 2006.\n18.  The applicant contended that he had had no visits from or telephone conversations with his family until 27 December 2005. On 21 December 2005 the applicant wrote a letter of complaint to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office in this respect and only then were visits permitted.\n19.  The Government provided official information, submitted by the prison authorities, concerning the facilities of the cell that the applicant had occupied during his detention.\n20.  He stayed in a cell that accommodated five other detainees, each having his own bed. However, the Government did not state what the area of the cell was.\n21.  The cell had a loudspeaker allowing the detainees to listen to the radio. The toilet and a basin were installed in a corner of the cell. The applicant was allowed at least thirty minutes of outdoor exercise per day, with the exception of Saturdays and Sundays. Bathing was once a week for thirty minutes. The temperature in the cell was adequate, as the cell was connected to the city heating network. Natural light and ventilation were provided by two windows.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6679", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company is a private insurance company registered in Moldova.\n6.  On 7 May 1999 the applicant company signed an insurance contract with a company, C. The insurance contract covered goods which were to be transported to the Russian Federation.\n7.  On 9 May 1999 the transported goods were stolen in Ukraine. On 27 July 1999 company C. assigned its insurance claim to a bank, M., which subsequently instituted court proceedings against the applicant company. The bank sought a court order obliging the applicant company to pay it 901,853 Moldovan lei (MDL) to cover the amount of the insured sum, pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.\n8.  By a final judgment of 14 July 2005, the Supreme Court of Justice ordered the applicant company to pay the bank MDL 882,588 in respect of pecuniary damage (MDL 730,000 for the insured sum and MDL 152,588 for loss of profit). It also ordered the applicant company to pay the bank the amount of MDL 40,584 in court fees. No other claims in respect of costs and expenses were submitted by M. at this or the previous stage of the proceedings.\n9.  On 4 August 2005 the bank lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice an application under Article 249 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an amendment to the final judgment of 14 July 2005. It argued that in its judgment of 14 July 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice had erroneously awarded M. only MDL 882,588, whereas the sum originally in dispute was MDL 901,853. On that occasion it did not submit any claims relating to legal fees. The applicant company disputed the bank’s action.\n10.  On 11 August 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the bank’s application under Article 249 of the Code of Civil Procedure and awarded the bank MDL 901,853.\n11.  The applicant company appealed against that judgment. It claimed that Article 249 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been misused by the Supreme Court of Justice and that the judicial formation which examined the bank’s application under Article 249 was not a tribunal established by law since the rules concerning the formations of judges examining such applications had not been observed. However, its appeal was dismissed on 20 October 2005 by the Supreme Court of Justice. This decision was final.\n12.  On 9 February 2006 the bank lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice another application under Article 250 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking a supplementary judgment which would cover the remainder of the costs and expenses that it had incurred. It referred to previously submitted payment orders confirming the payment of MDL 94,605 in respect of court fees. It asked the Supreme Court to award it MDL 54,021 in addition to the sum of MDL 40,584 awarded by the judgment of 14 July 2005. The applicant company opposed this claim and argued, inter alia, that there was no legal ground for delivering a supplementary judgment under Article 250 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n13.  On 21 March 2006 company C., which was not a party in the main proceedings, lodged with the Supreme Court of Justice a similar application under Article 250 of the Code of Civil Procedure asking for a supplementary judgment which would cover the costs and expenses allegedly borne by it, amounting to MDL 171,853. It invoked as a legal ground for the application an agreement between the bank and itself, signed on 17 March 2006, by which the bank had assigned to company C. its claim in respect of the legal fees incurred during the proceedings. Acc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6680", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is serving a prison sentence in Diyarbakır Prison.\n5.  On 20 October 2000 the Diyarbakır Security Directorate conducted an operation to arrest the applicant, who was being searched for on suspicion of membership of an armed illegal organisation, namely the Hizbullah. According to the arrest report, the applicant resisted and opened fire, killing a police officer. The other officers used force to neutralise and arrest the applicant.\n6.  The applicant was then taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital for a medical examination. The doctors ordered an x-ray of his arms and shoulders. According to the medical report, the applicant had no fractures, but had a 2 cm cut on the back of his head. It was further noted that the applicant had bruises on his forehead, neck, near his left ear and on his right arm, bruises and scratches on both of his hands and fingers, bruises on both elbows and scratches on his chest and knees.\n7.  Subsequently, the applicant was taken to the Diyarbakır Security Directorate for questioning. According to the applicant, during his detention in police custody he was subjected to ill-treatment. He was allegedly stripped naked and his testicles were squeezed. He was also hosed with water, beaten with the butt of a gun, subjected to electric shocks and hung by his arms. The applicant further stated that police officers had extinguished cigarettes on his hands.\n8  On 28 October 2000 the applicant was taken to a hospital and diagnosed as suffering from a soft tissue infection.\n9.  Subsequently, on 30 October 2000 the applicant was further examined at a health clinic. It was reported that the applicant had a hyperaemia measuring 2 x 2 cm on his back, scabs on his knees, wounds on both shoulders, and a 1 x 2 cm stitched wound on his head.\n10.  On the same day, the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively. Before the investigating judge he complained that he had been beaten during his time in police custody. He also denied the contents of his police statement. Upon the order of the investigating judge, the applicant was placed in detention pending trial.\n11.  On 9 November 2000 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicant. Invoking Article 146 of the former Criminal Code, he accused the applicant of membership of an armed illegal organisation and of involvement in activities which undermined the constitutional order of the State.\n12.  On 30 November 2000, at the first hearing before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, the applicant, represented by a lawyer, stated that he had been subjected to ill‑treatment during his time in police custody. He alleged, in particular, that the police officers had extinguished cigarettes on his right hand. The judges noted in the minutes that the applicant had five purple bruises on his right hand. At the end of the hearing, the court decided that the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor’s Office should be informed of the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. The court further stated that if the applicant’s lawyer wished to lodge a separate complaint with the public prosecutor, a certified copy of the minutes should be annexed to that application.\n13.  At the subsequent hearings, the court refused to release the applicant on account of the nature of the alleged offence and the state of the evidence. In his defence submissions, the applicant repeatedly stated th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6681", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Yekaterinburg.\n6.  On 1 September 2008 the Chkalovskiy District Court, Yekaterinburg, convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. The operative part of the judgment provided:\n“The judgment may be appealed against in the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court... If an appeal is lodged, the convicted person has the right to ask for leave to appear before the appeal court”.\n7.  According to the applicant, on 7 September 2008 he lodged a preliminary statement of appeal, in which he sought, among other things, leave to appear before the appeal court. It appears that the statement was lost and that the applicant became aware of that fact no later than 13 October 2008.\n8.  On 20 October 2008 the applicant introduced a full statement of appeal, followed by two addenda on 27 October and 14 November 2008. None of these documents referred to his request to appear in person.\n9.  On 21 November 2008 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court held an appeal hearing and upheld the conviction. Counsel for the applicant, though not the applicant himself, was present and made oral submissions.\n10.  On 1 September 2008 the applicant was placed in Yekaterinburg remand centre IZ-66/1. It appears that he was held there at least until 7 June 2010, the date of the latest correspondence with the Court.\n11.  The Government produced, among others, three documents dated 14 January 2010 from the director of remand prison IZ-66/1, which stated that the applicant was an inmate in cells 327, 413, 424 and 425.\n12.  According to the documents, the applicant was detained in cell 327 from 1 September to 9 December 2008 and from 22 December 2008 to 29 April 2009. The cell measured 31 sq. m and was equipped with twelve bunk beds. During the above periods it held from thirteen to twenty-nine and from eight to twenty detainees respectively.\n13.  Cell 413, occupied by the applicant from 9 to 22 December 2008, measured 9 sq. m and had two bunk beds. During the indicated period it held two inmates.\n14.  Cell 424, where the applicant was detained from 29 April to 2 September 2009 and from 3 September 2009 to at least 7 June 2010, measured 27 sq. m and was equipped with ten bunk beds. It held from three to twelve and from five to eleven detainees during these periods.\n15.  Cell 425 was occupied by the applicant from 2 to 3 September 2009. It measured 15 sq. m and was equipped with four bunk beds. A total of two inmates stayed in the cell during that period.\n16.  The applicant disputed the Government’s submissions concerning the number of inmates and the number of bunk beds. He claimed that cell 327 had contained up to forty-five and cell 424 up to sixteen detainees. He also alleged that cell 327 had had eighteen bunks, and that cell 424 had been equipped with eight sleeping places. The applicant pointed out that he had frequently had to share his bunk with other inmates.\n17.  According to the applicant, the cells were poorly lit and ventilated. The toilet pan was not separated from the living area by any partition. He was not provided with any toiletries or individual bedding, and a shower was allowed only every ten days. The diet was inadequate.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6683", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Melitopol.\n5.  On 29 July 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Melitopol Court against the Simferopol State University, her former employer, seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation for unused leave.\n6.  On 19 July 2001 the court rejected the applicant’s claims as unsubstantiated.\n7.  On 21 February 2002 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.\n8.  On 22 March 2005 the first-instance court left the applicant’s claims without consideration, holding that she had repeatedly failed to appear at court hearings.\n9.  On 21 June 2005 the court of appeal quashed that decision, finding that there was no proof that the applicant had been duly informed about the date and place of the first instance court’s hearing, and remitted the case to the first instance court for consideration on the merits.\n10.  On 12 December 2006 the court ordered modification of the record concerning the applicant’s dismissal and ordered the respondent to pay her certain sum, having rejected the remainder of her claims. On 22 March 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.\n11.  On 18 September 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation.\n12.  Out of sixty hearings scheduled in the applicant’s case ten were adjourned due to the applicant’s absence or upon her request, eleven hearings were adjourned due to the absence of the respondent or his representative or upon their requests, seven were adjourned due to both parties’ failure to appear. Nine hearings were adjourned due to the judge’s illness, two were adjourned due to the judge’s absence, and one was adjourned due to the liquidation of the court dealing with the applicant’s case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6684", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lived in Donetsk. He died on 13 September 2010.\n6.  On 23 November 1998 the applicant sought medical assistance from the Donetsk City Hospital No. 16 (Центральна міська клінічна лікарня № 16 м. Донецька – “the Hospital”), where he was diagnosed as having an acute respiratory disease. He was prescribed out-patient treatment.\n7.  On his next visit to the Hospital on 27 November 1998 the applicant was tested for his reaction to a vaccination against diphtheria. The test showed no susceptibility to diphtheria antigens.\n8.  On 28 November 1998 the applicant was vaccinated against diphtheria. According to the applicant, the vaccination was contraindicated for him.\n9.  On 30 November 1998 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who indicated that the applicant’s state of health had improved and that the treatment had given positive results. He was diagnosed with tracheobronchitis, which was confirmed during his further visits to the doctor on 3, 4 and 7 December 1998.\n10.  From 28 December 1998 the applicant spent more than half a year at different medical institutions receiving treatment for a number of chronic diseases (for instance, pancreatitis, cholecystitis, hepatitis, colitis).\n11.  On 4 February 1999 the Chief Doctor of the Hospital reprimanded doctor Ya. and nurse Sh. for vaccinating the applicant although he had consistently objected to the vaccination and while he was being treated for an acute respiratory infection. He considered that they had violated the rules concerning vaccinations and ordered them to pass a test on those rules.\n12.  On 26 April 1999 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Budyonnovskiy District Court in Donetsk against the local department of public health (Донецький міський відділ охорони здоров’я) and the Hospital, seeking compensation for damage to his health. He alleged that the vaccination on 28 November 1998 had been conducted whilst he was ill and had resulted in him suffering from a number of chronic diseases. He also complained that the vaccine had been of poor quality as it had been uncertified, had expired and had been stored in inappropriate conditions. He complained that the doctors had tried to falsify the relevant medical records and to conceal the negative effects of the vaccination.\n13.  Between 30 May and 30 June 2000, 17 July 2000 and 29 January 2001, 2 and 30 January 2002 and 4 March 2002 and 17 February 2003 medical expert examinations were conducted into the applicant’s allegations.\n14.  On 2 June 2003 the court found against the applicant. With reference to the conclusions of the medical expert examiners, the court established that the applicant’s diseases had no causal link to his vaccination. It noted that the applicant had not had an allergic reaction or showed other signs that would normally have appeared within several days following the vaccination. The only disease that could be associated with the vaccination was urticaria (commonly known as hives), which the applicant had suffered from more than eight months after the vaccination and which could not therefore have had any causal link to it. The court also established that the applicant had not had any acute symptoms of any disease upon vaccination and therefore that his vaccination had not violated any medical rules. Furthermore, the epidemic situation in the Donetsk region had called for his vaccination against diphtheria. The court noted that no physical force had been applied to the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6685", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1953, 1949, 1967 and 1973, respectively. The first and second applicants live in Dnipropetrovsk and Nikopol, respectively. The third and fourth applicants live in Kharkiv.\n5.  All the applicants initiated civil actions against their former employers seeking reinstatement and recovery of related payments, as well as compensation of damages, after their allegedly unfair dismissals.\n6.  On 18 June 2002 the first applicant instituted reinstatement proceedings (the first set) in the Babushkinskyy Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the Babushkinskyy Court”). Following the examination and partial rejection of her claim by the courts of two levels of jurisdiction including one remittal, the first applicant appealed in cassation. On 25 August 2010 the Supreme Court opened the cassation proceedings which, according to the case file information, remain pending.\n7.  Meanwhile, from 25 March 2002 to 22 November 2007, the courts of three levels of jurisdiction examined and allowed in part the first applicant’s separate claim against the same respondent company in respect of the salary arrears’ recovery (the second set of proceedings).\n8.  Lastly, on 9 March 2004 the first applicant had lodged an administrative complaint against the company’s management (the third set of proceedings) which was dismissed by the Babushkinskyy Court on 12 July 2005 with an explanation that she should bring a civil claim if she wished so. On 11 December 2007 the first applicant appealed against that ruling submitting that she had found out about it only in July 2007. On 3 April 2008 the Dnipropetrovsk Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal as being out of the time-limit (calculated from 25 July 2007).\nII.  proceedings instituted by the SECOND applicant\n9.  On 14 May 1999 the second applicant brought the reinstatement proceedings in the Nikopol Town Court (“the Nikopol Court”).\n10.  From 5 August 1999 to 15 January 2002 the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of two other claims brought by the second applicant in respect of the allegedly unfair disciplinary actions taken against him by his former employer.\n11.  On 17 May 2005 the Nikopol Court allowed the second applicant’s claim in part.\n12.  On 27 October 2005 and 3 September 2007 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court respectively upheld that judgment for the most part.\nIII.  proceedings instituted by the THIRD applicant\n13.  On 11 May 2000 the third applicant instituted proceedings against her former employer in the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Kyivskyy Court”) seeking, like the other applicants, her reinstatement and recovery of certain payments.\n14.  From 30 March 2004 to 10 January 2005 a forensic expert examination was undertaken at the defendant company’s request.\n15.  On 23 March 2005 the Kyivskyy Court found against the third applicant.\n16.  On 7 July 2005 and 16 November 2006 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court respectively upheld that judgment.\nIV.  proceedings instituted by the FOURTH applicant\n17.  On 17 August 1999 the fourth applicant brought several civil claims against his former employer at the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy (“the Zarichnyy Court”).\n18.  On 24 November 1999 the Zarichnyy Court ruled against the fourth applicant.\n19.  On 23 April 2001 the Court of Appeal of Sumy Region (“the Sumy Court of Appeal”) quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n20.  On 4 March 2002 the Zarich", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6687", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, who are sisters, were born, respectively, in 1956 and 1959 and live in Salekhard and Salemal, the Russian Federation.\n6.  In August 2001, I.Z., the applicants’ sister, instituted proceedings against them challenging a privatisation title issued by the local government to a part of their father’s apartment inherited under his will (the first applicant had bequeathed her part of the will to the second applicant, who as a result shared the apartment’s ownership with I.Z.).\n7.  According to the Government, the applicants did not attend two of the hearings in the Feodossiyskyy Town Court (“the Feodossiyskyy Court”), which dealt with the case, thus protracting the proceedings by two months.\n8.  On 18 April 2003 the Feodossiyskyy Court ruled in I.Z.’s favour. The applicants appealed.\n9.  On 10 July 2003 the Feodossiyskyy Court, ruling on the admissibility of the appeal, set 4 August 2003 as a deadline for fixing procedural formalities. On 8 August 2003 the court ruled to return the appeal to the applicants as they had not rectified the indicated shortcomings.\n10.  Between August 2003 and April 2004, the Feodossiyskyy Court reconsidered the admissibility of the applicants’ appeal several times and refused to admit it for examination on merits as belated.\n11.  On 6 April 2004 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the last inadmissibility ruling of the Feodossiyskyy Court, stating that it was its own competence to examine that issue.\n12.  On 27 April 2004 the Court of Appeal granted an extension for submission of the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 18 April 2003, and admitted it for examination.\n13.  On 24 November 2004 the Court of Appeal ruled in the applicants’ favour.\n14.  On 23 December 2004 I.Z. appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court.\n15.  On 21 April 2007 the Supreme Court transferred the case to the Zaporizhya Regional Court of Appeal, in compliance with the legislative measures of February 2007 on distribution of its backlog of cassation appeals among appellate courts.\n16.  On 9 November 2007 the Zaporizhya Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, upheld the ruling of 24 November 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6690", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Chişinău. He is a member of the Russian-speaking minority in Moldova.\n6.  On 9 December 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. Since the beginning of 2003 he has been detained in Prison no. 13 in Chişinău, Prison no. 3 in Leova and in Pruncul Hospital for Detainees.\n7.  The applicant submitted that he had been detained at the same time and in the same prison, and even in the same cell, as Mr T. Ciorap, in respect of whose prison conditions the Court had found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in Ciorap v. Moldova (no. 12066/02, 19 June 2007). He considered that the conditions of detention were no different from those in which Mr Ciorap had been detained.\n8.  He described as follows the conditions of detention in Prison no. 13. In one cell (no. 117), where he had been detained during his hunger strike, there had been no light bulb on the first day and no bed linen throughout his detention there. A malfunctioning tap and a blocked sink let water gather on the floor; it was always very humid in the cell. The cell was situated in the basement and was not heated; it was very cold owing to the absence of glass in the window. No attention to personal hygiene was possible in the cell.\n9.  The applicant submitted that, when escorted to court hearings, all detainees had been transported in a single vehicle, regardless of whether they were ill with infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, which they could transmit to others. They then had to stay for hours in cramped conditions in court-houses waiting for their turn to go into court.\n10.  The applicant pointed to the low quality of the food which he had received and the fact that when he had been escorted to a court hearing, he had been away from his prison from 7-7.30 a.m. until 7-7.30 p.m. He thus had left the prison and had returned there outside the hours when food had been provided. No food had been given throughout the day to those escorted to court hearings. No medication had been distributed during such days either, even if it had been prescribed by doctors. The applicant claimed that he had become ill with prostatitis and rheumatism while in prison.\n11.  He also submitted that he had been detained for several years in Prison no. 13, which was used as a pre-trial detention facility with worse conditions than the prisons in which convicted persons normally served their sentences. In particular, he had been detained in overcrowded cells with no possibility of leaving them for more than an hour per day. He mentioned, for instance, being detained with five other persons in a cell (no. 55) measuring 9.5 square metres suitable for two detainees. He also mentioned having felt ill from the smoke in the cell. In reply to his complaint about the lack of proper ventilation, he had allegedly been informed that the prison administration was considering a ban on smoking. The applicant added that he had been unable to see a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church while in detention.\n12.  The applicant’s representative complained to the Chişinău Prosecutor’s Office about the inhuman conditions of detention in Prisons no. 13 in Chişinău and no. 16 in Pruncul. In reply, on 24 March 2008 he was informed that during 2007 and 2008 the Prosecutor’s Office had on seven occasions drawn the attention of the above-mentioned institutions to the shortcomings found in their activity. These notifications concerned, in particular, the failure to se", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6691", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1961, 1972, 1985, 1956 and 1962 respectively and live in Malatya.\n6.  As the facts of the case are in dispute between the parties, they will be set out separately. The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in section B below (paragraphs 7-13). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in section C below (paragraphs 14-20). The documentary evidence submitted by the applicants and the Government is summarised in section D (paragraphs 21-41).\n7.  On 8 March 2005 the applicants took part in International Women’s Day celebrations in the city of Malatya, during which a group comprising hundreds of police officers formed a cordon around the crowd. The police chief warned the participants that no prior permission had been obtained for the gathering.\n8.  The first applicant, Ms Nihal Pekaslan, who was a spokesperson for the Women’s Democratic Platform, told the police chief that they were exercising their constitutional right and that the applicable legislation required no prior permission.\n9.  Police officers then dragged a number of persons, including four of the applicants, into waiting police vehicles. In the course of so doing, the police officers sprayed the crowds with tear gas and hit some of them, including the four applicants.\n10.  The second applicant, Ms Refika Meltem İspir, was not arrested. She was not beaten up, but was sprayed with tear gas. She was accompanied by her eleven-year-old daughter and her mother, both of whom were also sprayed with tear gas.\n11.  The ill-treatment continued in the police vehicles. Male police officers started squeezing the arms and legs of the detained women. When the women told the police officers that they had no right to behave like that and asked for female police officers to accompany them, they were sworn at. The episode in the police vehicles lasted for approximately twenty minutes.\n12.  The four applicants were then taken to a police station and subsequently to the Forensic Medicine Institute for a medical examination. According to the medical reports drawn up that day, the four applicants who had been hit by the police officers had a number of injuries on their bodies, rendering them unable to work for periods of between one and three days.\n13.  Later that same day the four applicants were released from police custody.\n14.  On 8 March 2005 the applicants took part in International Women’s Day Celebrations in Malatya where three different groups of demonstrators were carrying placards, flags and posters, and holding demonstrations which hindered the flow of traffic.\n15.  A group of police officers tried to convince the group to disperse, and requested them to hold their demonstrations without impeding the circulation of the traffic. A police chief warned the participants that no prior permission had been obtained for the gathering, but told them that they could carry on with their demonstration on the pavement and walk in an orderly manner without violating public order. Nevertheless, the group, including the applicants, refused to disperse and continued with their demonstration.\n16.  The police chief made several unsuccessful attempts to tell the participants that the manner in which they were conducting their demonstration was unlawful because they were impeding the flow of traffic. The police chief also told the participants that they could leave their placards – which were too large – and walk on the pavement; the placards w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6692", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, son and father, were born in 1990 and 1954 respectively and currently live in Iasi.\n7.  From January 1998 to April 1998, the first applicant, who was then a seven year-old boy, was allegedly subjected to repeated rape and violence by P.E.\n8.  In January 1998, the child was followed home from school by P.E. In front of the applicant’s family’s apartment, P.E. grabbed the key from his hand, opened the door and forcefully pushed the boy inside. He hit the child several times in the stomach. He pulled the applicant’s clothes off and tied his hands and legs and gagged him with strips of white cloth that he had taken out of his trouser pocket. Then P.E. dragged the boy into the kitchen, removed a piece of furniture from against the wall and placed it near the couch. He bent the child over the furniture and sexually abused him. He then removed the gag and forced the child into oral sex. P.E. hit the applicant again several times in the stomach, head and genitalia, untied him and told him to put his clothes on. He threatened the child with a knife and warned him that he would kill him if anyone found out what had happened.\n9.  The first applicant was too scared to scream during the assault.\n10.  The abuse continued during the following months, several times per week. At a certain point, P.E. made a copy of the applicant’s key so he could enter the apartment. Sometimes he would wait for the child inside, sometimes he came with a dog and once with other persons, including two minor children. Before leaving the apartment, P.E. sometimes stole food and small sums of money.\n11.  Eventually the applicant told his brother and father about what was happening to him.\n12.  After the events the first applicant changed school and in October 2005 the family finally moved from Bacău to Iaşi, following the advice of the school psychologist.\n13.  The Government did not contest the description of the facts by the first applicant.\n14.  On 27 April and 4 May 1998 on behalf of his son, the second applicant reported the sexual abuse and violence inflicted on the child to the Bacău Police. He accused P.E., S.P. and L.I.D. He reiterated his complaints on 18 and 28 May, 4, 8 and 9 June and on 19 July 1998.\n15.  The police started investigating the case.\n16.  On 18 May 1998, at the request of the investigators, the first applicant underwent a medical examination at the Bacău Clinic. The record noted:\n“... healing anal lesion and hypotonia of the anal sphincter. No signs of violence on the body ... The lesions necessitate 16-18 days of medical care and could have been caused by anal intercourse.”\nA medical certificate issued on 19 May 1998 at the request of the police, summarised the findings of the examination.\n17.  On 12, 15 and 29 June 1998 P.E. gave statements to the police. He claimed that he had not been in the area during that period, and that he did not know the applicants’ family. He had only been in the building once, on New Year’s Eve, for approximately ten minutes. He admitted that he used to take his sister’s dog out for a walk but he had not done so in a while; during the time in question he had been training a similar dog, in the afternoons, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. During a polygraph test, P.E. showed simulated behaviour when asked whether he had had sexual intercourse with the first applicant.\n18.  The first applicant was interviewed several times by the investigators. He gave details about the facts. His statements were recorded on 19 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6694", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961. When lodging his application, he was detained in Straubing Prison (Germany). He is currently detained in Grad Vraca (Bulgaria).\n7.  The applicant entered Germany in 1979. He has been convicted some fifteen times since 1980, notably of theft and burglary. In particular, on 1 March 1984 the Kempten District Court convicted him of three counts of joint theft as a member of a gang and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. On 7 October 1988 the Munich I Regional Court convicted the applicant of six counts of burglary and one count of attempted burglary and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. On 1 October 1993 the Munich District Court convicted the applicant of joint attempted burglary, committed approximately one month after his release from prison, and sentenced him to one year and six months’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 21 December 1994 the applicant was arrested and remanded in detention.\n9.  On 26 January 1996 the Munich I Regional Court convicted the applicant of eight counts of burglary and attempted burglary, committed only a few months after his release from prison, and sentenced him to eight years and six months’ imprisonment. It found that by breaking into different shops, the applicant had stolen goods worth some 140,000 Deutschmarks (approximately 71,581 euros). It further ordered the applicant’s preventive detention pursuant to Article 66 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 40-41 below). Having regard to an expert report, the court found that the applicant had a propensity to commit offences by which serious economic damage was caused and was therefore dangerous to the public.\n10.  By a decision of 16 April 1997, supplemented on 29 October 1997, the city of Munich ordered the applicant’s expulsion to Bulgaria and prohibited him to re-enter Germany for an indefinite duration in view of his criminal convictions. It authorised the applicant’s expulsion directly from prison as soon as he had served his sentence. The expulsion order became final on 30 December 1997, the regional government of Upper Bavaria having dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 25 November 1997.\n11.  In the plan governing the execution of the applicant’s sentence, drawn up by the Straubing Prison authorities and presented to the applicant on 9 October 1997, it is noted that the applicant’s transfer to a social therapeutic institution, relaxations in the conditions of his detention and preparations for his release were not envisaged as the city of Munich had issued a deportation order against him.\n12.  On 7 January 2002 the Erlangen Prison authorities informed the applicant, who was at that time detained in Straubing Prison, that it was not possible to transfer him to Erlangen in order to enable him to participate in a social therapy because he was liable to be expelled after having served his prison sentence.\n13.  The applicant served his full prison sentence until 19 June 2003. Since then, he was remanded in preventive detention.\n14.  On 21 August 2003 the Regensburg Regional Court, in review proceedings pursuant to Article 67c § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 42 below), decided that the execution of the applicant’s preventive detention was still necessary in view of its objective.\n15.  On 1 December 2003 the Nuremberg Court of Appeal, allowing the applicant’s appeal, quashed the decision of 21 August 2003 and remitted the case to the Regional Court. It found that the Regional Court had not been entitled to ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6695", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Velikiy Novgorod.\n10. On 27 March 2004 he signed a military service contract. The contract signed by the applicant was a standard two-page form stating, in particular, that he “undertook to serve under the conditions provided for by law”.\n11.  At the material time the applicant was serving as a radio intelligence operator (оперативный дежурный группы боевого управления в составе оперативной группы радиоэлектронной разведки) in military unit no. 41480. Equivalent posts in his unit were held by servicewomen and he was often replaced in his duties by female personnel.\n12.  On 30 September 2005 the applicant’s wife, Ms Z., gave birth to their third child. On the same day a court granted her petition for divorce.\n13.  On 6 October 2005 the applicant and Ms Z. entered into an agreement under which their three children would live with the applicant and Ms Z. would pay maintenance for them. The agreement was certified by a notary.\n14.  According to the applicant, several days later Ms Z. left for St Petersburg.\n15.  On 11 October 2005 the applicant asked the head of his military unit for three years’ parental leave. On 12 October 2005 the head of the military unit rejected his request because three years’ parental leave could be granted only to female military personnel. The applicant was allowed to take three months’ leave. However, on 23 November 2005 he was recalled to duty.\n16.   The applicant challenged the decision of 23 November 2005 before a court. On 9 March 2006 the Military Court of the Pushkin Garrison annulled the decision and upheld the applicant’s right to the remaining 39 working days of his three months’ leave. On 17 April 2006 the Military Court of the Leningradskiy Command quashed the judgment and rejected the applicant’s claims.\n17.  Meanwhile, on 30 November 2005, the applicant brought proceedings against his military unit claiming three years’ parental leave. He submitted that he was the sole carer for his three children. He referred, in particular, to section 10(9) of the Military Service Act (see paragraph 47 below).\n18.  During the hearing before the Military Court of the Pushkin Garrison the representatives of the military unit submitted that the applicant had not proved that he was the sole carer for his children. It was impossible for the applicant, who was serving in the army, studying at a University and participating in several sets of judicial proceedings, to take care of his children alone. There was evidence that Ms Z. and other people were helping him. The children were therefore not left without maternal care. The military unit’s representatives also drew the court’s attention to some inconsistencies in the applicant’s submissions and the documents produced by him. For example, the children’s address indicated in the notarial agreement was incorrect, Ms Z.’s employment contract was not registered as required by law, there was no divorce stamp in Ms Z.’s passport, and the applicant had not applied for child allowances or sued Ms Z. for her failure to pay child maintenance. In their opinion, the applicant’s divorce was a sham with the aim of evading military service and receiving additional benefits from his military unit.\n19.   The court examined Ms Z.’s petition for divorce in which she stated that she had been living separately from the applicant since September 2005 and that she considered any further marital relationship impossible. It also examined the judic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6699", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n(1)Ms Maryam Kadirova (also spelled as Kadyrova), bornin 1958;\n(2)Ms Zultmat Betilgiriyeva, born in 1959;\n(3)Mr Khasan Kadyrov, born in 1957;\n(4)Mr Zelimkhan Kadyrov, born in 1987; and\n(5)Ms Yakha Yakhyayeva, born in 1978.\n7.  The applicants are relatives of Ms Aset Yakhyayeva, born in 1956, and Ms Milana Betilgiriyeva, born in 1980. The first applicant is the stepmother of Milana Betilgiriyeva and sister-in-law of Aset Yakhyayeva. The second applicant is the mother of Milana Betilgiriyeva. The third applicant is the father of Milana Betilgiriyeva and brother of Aset Yakyhayeva; he is married to the first applicant. The fourth applicant is the brother of Milana Betilgiriyeva and nephew of Aset Yakhyayeva. The fifth applicant is Aset Yakhyayeva’s daughter.\n8.  The applicants are Russian nationals. The first and fourth applicants reside in Grozny, the second applicant resides in the village of Dachu‑Borzoy and the third and fifth applicants reside in the village of Duba-Yurt, all in the Chechen Republic.\n9.  The account below is based on the information contained in the application form and written statements by Ms P.S., Ms M.I. and Ms G.S. dated 10 December 2006.\n(a)  Disappearance of Aset Yakhyayeva and Milana Betilgiriyeva\n10.  In November 2001 Aset Yakhyayeva and Milana Betilgiriyeva went to the village of Serzhen-Yurt to visit their relatives.\n11.  In the evening of 6 November 2001 Aset Yakhyayeva and Milana Betilgiriyeva visited P.S. and stayed at her home overnight, together with other women, including M.I. and G.S. Aset Yakhyayeva and Milana Betilgiriyeva slept in the kitchen. P.S., M.I., G.S. and two other women shared the remaining rooms.\n12.  At about 5 a.m. on 7 November 2001 five armed uniformed men broke into the house. It was not entirely clear how they had entered because the doors had not been broken and the door lock had not been damaged. The intruders spoke unaccented Russian; one of them was masked. The women inferred that the intruders were servicemen.\n13.  One of the men pressed his machine gun against P.S.’s neck and told her to be quiet. He explained that they were “looking for the men”. P.S. replied that there were no men in the house. He then ordered her to show him the other rooms and took some money and jewellery, despite her protests. At some point the man grabbed P.S. roughly and she fainted. One of the men threatened the women with gunning them all down and the other lifted a blanket with which the women had covered themselves and asked them “to show their legs and their beauty”. The masked man immediately interrupted him and made him leave the room. He then ordered the women to lie on one couch and to be quiet and told them that the men would stay in the house until morning, when they would take the women to the military commander’s office and “decide what to do with them”. The men then left the room. All of the women obeyed the order and stayed there. P.S. heard the intruders shout in another room that they had found a gun. M.I. overheard a conversation, in which Aset Yakhyayeva and Milana Betilgiriyeva were asked for their passports.\n14.  In the morning of 7 November 2001 M.I. went to the kitchen but did not find Aset Yakhyayeva and Milana Betilgiriyeva there. She immediately told her father, Mr A.I., about their disappearance.\n15.  The applicants have had no news of Aset Yakhyayeva and Milana Betilgiriyeva since 7 November 2001.\n(b)  The applicants’ search for the missing women\n16", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6700", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Rutki Kossaki.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, can be summarised as follows.\n6.  By a judgment of 19 February 2007 the Gliwice District Court found the applicant guilty of fraud and sentenced him to one year and three months’ imprisonment.\n7.  The applicant appealed against the judgment, arguing, inter alia, that the first instance court had not examined his request for the questions put to the witnesses to be written down in the minutes. He further complained that he had not had a possibility to have his questions put to certain witnesses that he had called.\n8.  On 26 September 2007 the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed the appeal. While examining the applicant’s particular complaints, the court noted that there was no indication in the minutes of the hearings held by the first-instance court to the effect that the applicant had ever requested this court to note down the questions put to the witnesses. In this connection, the court noted that the applicant had not sought to challenge the content of the minutes of the relevant court hearings, although he had had such a possibility. Moreover, the court observed that the testimonies of the witnesses called by the applicant had been read out in the applicant’s presence and that neither the applicant nor his lawyer had raised any complaint concerning the manner in which the witnesses had been heard.\n9.  On 28 September 2007 the applicant requested to be granted legal aid with a view to having a cassation appeal lodged in his case.\n10.  On 11 October 2007 the Gliwice Regional Court allowed the applicant’s request.\n11.  By a letter of 15 November 2007 the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer informed the Gliwice Regional Court that he would not lodge a cassation appeal in the applicant’s case for lack of reasonable prospects of success. This letter was forwarded to the applicant by the Gliwice Regional Court on 19 November 2007. The correspondence, served on the applicant on 27 November 2007, did not contain any information concerning his procedural rights.\n12.  In a letter of 2 December 2007 sent to the Gliwice Regional Court the applicant challenged the legal-aid lawyer’s refusal to lodge a cassation appeal and requested the court to appoint another lawyer. At the same time, he enquired whether the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal in his case was still running.\n13.  By a letter of 13 December 2007 the Gliwice Regional Court informed the applicant, inter alia, that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal had already expired.\n14.  On 2 April 2008 the applicant lodged his application with the Court. The President of the Fourth Section decided to communicate the case.\n15.  By a letter of 21 July 2010 the Registrar requested the applicant to inform him whether he accepted the terms and conditions of a friendly settlement proposal.\n16.  In reply, the applicant submitted two letters, both dated 12 August 2010, of which one was prepared in Polish and the other in English, apparently supposed to serve as a translation. The content and the register of the two texts were more or less equivalent.\n17.  In the letters, the applicant informed the Registrar that he did not accept the friendly settlement proposal. He also made vague references to various sets of domestic proceedings, expressing his disapproval of the manner in which certain of his cases had been handled by unspecified “Polish judges”. The English version of the ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6701", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1968. She lives in Grozny. She is the sister of Shema (also spelt Sheima) Inderbiyeva, who was born in 1963, and Shamani Inderbiyeva, who was born in 1966.\n7.  At some point in 1999 due to heavy hostilities between Russian forces and Chechen fighters the applicant moved to a refugee camp in Ingushetia. Two of her sisters, Shema Inderbiyeva and Shamani Inderbiyeva, and her mother Yakhita Inderbiyeva remained in their flat – no. 10 in the block of flats at 154B, Pugacheva Street in the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny. Most of the other residents of the district left for safer areas, but the applicant’s relatives stayed to look after the family property. According to the applicant, Russian forces regained control over the Staropromyslovskiy District at the beginning of January 2000.\n8.  In December 1999 the applicant’s mother and her sisters Shema and Shamani Inderbiyeva moved from their flat to the basement under the pavilion situated in the courtyard of their block of flats. On 1 January 2000, owing to the intensity of a fire, Shema and Shamani Inderbiyeva decided to hide in the basement of the applicant’s block of flats at no. 285 (in the documents submitted the address is also stated as no. 287) in Derzhavina Street in the Staropromyslovskiy District of Grozny. Their mother, Yakhita, remained in the basement at 154B, Pugacheva Street as she was sick and could not walk.  The applicant’s sisters regularly visited their mother and brought her food.\n9.  On 8 February 2000 (in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as 12 February 2000) the applicant, together with an acquaintance, Ms F.A., went to visit her relatives in Grozny. She did not find anybody in her family’s flat in Pugacheva Street and went to find out about her sisters and mother from the neighbours who lived in her block of flats in Derzhavina Street. In the basement of the house the applicant found her mother, who was in bed, in a state of shock and incoherent, and who kept saying: “Russian soldiers, smoke, fire”.\n10.  Having spent the night with her mother in the basement, on the following day the applicant went to look for her sisters in Pugacheva Street. In the basement located in the courtyard of her family’s block of flats she found the two burnt corpses of Shema and Shamani Inderbiyeva. The applicant was able to identify her sisters by their personal belongings, pieces of hair, remaining facial features and teeth crowns.\n11.  The applicant collected the remains in pillow cases and returned with them to Derzhavina Street, where she met Ms M.Z., an elderly ethnic Russian. The woman told her that on 10 January 2000 she and her husband had been walking next to the basement at 154B, Pugacheva Street when they had seen three servicemen looking into the basement under the pavilion. One of the servicemen, a senior one, had said to someone in the basement: “Mother, come out and let’s go to the military commander’s office for an identity check”. Then he had leaned over and pulled the applicant’s mother out. He had walked her away from the pavilion by hand whereas two other servicemen had remained next to the basement. Next, one of the two soldiers had thrown something inside. A powerful explosion followed as a result of which the pavilion had been partially destroyed and smoke had been coming out from the basement. The applicant’s mother had turned back and fainted; looking at her the soldiers had started laughing. Ms M.Z. and her", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6702", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Sofia.\n6.  In 2004 a real estate agent brought a private prosecution against the applicant for insult and defamation punishable by a fine and public reprimand. According to the complaint, in a newspaper announcement the applicant, describing herself as “the deceived citizen”, warned the public that the real estate agent would buy their real estate at very low prices and then would resell it for much larger amounts, making a very large profit for herself.\n7.  The Asenovgrad District Court postponed hearings scheduled for 20 September and 11 November 2004 because the applicant had submitted medical certificates and had expressed the wish to participate in the proceedings in person.\n8.  At hearings conducted on 10 January and 10 March 2005 the applicant was not present but was represented by counsel.\n9.  At a hearing on 27 May 2005 neither the applicant nor her lawyer appeared. The applicant had submitted a medical certificate and had requested postponement. The District Court noted that the applicant’s presence was not mandatory, but postponed the hearing as her lawyer was also absent. It imposed a fine of 500 Bulgarian levs (BGN) on the applicant’s lawyer. The latter appealed to the Plovdiv Regional Court, arguing that she had also been ill, and submitted a medical certificate. On 3 June 2005 the District Court, applying the procedure of Article 347 of the 1974 Code of Criminal Procedure, revoked its own decision, stating that the applicant’s lawyer had given valid reasons for her absence.\n10.  At a hearing on 27 June 2005 the applicant appeared, but stated that she would make submissions at the final pleading stage.\n11.  The applicant requested postponement of the hearings scheduled for 15 December 2005, 27 February, 18 May and 19 June 2006, stating that she wanted to address the court but was ill, as was documented by medical certificates she had submitted. The District Court granted her requests.\n12.  On an unspecified date in September 2006 the applicant submitted to the District Court another medical certificate prescribing her home treatment for hypertension from 15 to 20 September 2006, and requested postponement.\n13.  At a hearing on 18 September 2006, held in the applicant’s absence but in the presence of her lawyer, the District Court noted the applicant’s statement that she wanted to make submissions at the final stage of the pleadings and found that her hypertension was not an obstacle in this respect. It further noted that the applicant had submitted medical certificates on a number of occasions, thus causing delays in the proceedings. Relying on the Convention, the District Court observed that it was necessary to complete the proceedings within a reasonable time and held that the applicant should therefore be brought before it for the next hearing with the assistance of the police. It did not specify any legal ground for this order. It scheduled the next hearing for 19 October 2006 at 3 p.m. Since the applicant’s lawyer was present at the hearing, the applicant was considered duly informed of the order.\n14.  Around 10 a.m. on 18 October 2006 the applicant was detained by the police and taken to Sofia Prison, where she remained until the next morning. The applicant contends that the conditions there were humiliating and that she had to use the same toilet as male detainees.\n15.  In the morning of 19 October 2006 the applicant was escorted by train and car from Sofia to Asenovgr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6703", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 1 August 2000 the Interior Department of Moscow opened criminal proceedings against the applicant and another person on suspicion of attempting to sell a flat that did not belong to them to several unrelated persons. On 2 August 2000 the applicant was charged with fraud.\n7.  On 28 December 2000 the investigation was completed and the case was sent for trial to the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow.\n8.  On 24 January 2001 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court declined jurisdiction and sent the case to the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. The Tverskoy District Court referred the case to the Moscow City Court.\n9.  On 29 March 2001 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court held that the case should be tried by the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow.\n10.  On 14 April 2001 Judge Y. of the Presnsnenskiy District Court, to whom the case had been allocated, fixed the opening hearing of the trial for 23 April 2001.\n11.  The hearing of 23 April 2003 was adjourned because Judge Y. was busy with another trial.\n12.  On 19 June 2001 Judge V. of the Presnenskiy District Court noted that the case had been assigned to him “because Judge Y. was absent”.\n13.  The first trial scheduled in July 2001 (the date is unreadable) was adjourned until 30 July 2001 because the judge did not know when the applicant’s co-defendant had received the indictment.\n14.  The hearing of 30 July 2001 was adjourned until 24 September 2001 because the victims and witnesses did not appear.\n15.  The hearing of 24 September 2001 was adjourned until 25 September 2001 because counsel for the applicant, the victims and witnesses did not appear.\n16.  The court held hearings on 25 September, 1, 3 and 4 October 2001.\n17.  On 4 October 2001 the Presnenskiy District Court remitted the case for additional investigation at the request of one of the victims. On 25 December 2001 the Moscow City Court upheld that decision on appeal.\n18.  On 30 January 2002 the case file was received by the investigator.\n19.  On 31 May 2002 the additional investigation was completed and the case was resubmitted for trial to the Presnenskiy District Court.\n20.  On 18 June 2002 the Presnenskiy District Court scheduled the opening trial hearing for 8 July 2002.\n21.  The hearing of 8 July 2002 was adjourned until 1 August 2002 because the applicant had dismissed his counsel and had asked the court to appoint him another lawyer.\n22.  The hearing of 1 August 2002 was adjourned until 9 September 2002 because the presiding judge was busy with another trial.\n23.  Hearings were held on 9, 11, 18, 19 and 25 September and 1, 3, 7 and 14 October 2002.\n24.  The hearing of 22 October 2002 was adjourned because counsel and witnesses did not appear. The following hearing was held on 25 October 2002. The hearing of 19 November 2002 was adjourned because counsel for the applicant did not appear. Further hearings were held on 21, 22 and 27 November 2002.\n25.  The hearing of 9 December 2002 was adjourned until 25 December 2002 because the presiding judge was busy with another trial.\n26.  Further hearings were held on 25 December 2002, 27, 30 and 31 January and 5, 20 and 28 February 2003.\n27.  During the trial the court questioned thirty witnesses and examined material evidence.\n28.  On 3 March 2003 the Presnenskiy District Court convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.\n29.  On 13 March and 24 April 2003 the applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6704", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Perm.\n6.  On 30 December 2002 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, a traffic police officer at the time, and his partner on suspicion of theft and abuse of office. In February 2003 the applicant was served with the bill of indictment. An undertaking not to leave his place of residence was imposed on him.\n7.  On 21 March 2003 the applicant was arrested and placed in detention facility no. 1 in Perm.\n8.  Four months later the Motovilikhinskiy District Court of Perm found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The court relied on numerous witness testimonies and forensic evidence. The applicant appealed. In his grounds of appeal he complained that the trial court had incorrectly assessed the facts and applied the law, and that it had not thoroughly examined the evidence, thus failing to take into account certain important issues. The judgment became final on 11 September 2003 when the Perm Regional Court upheld it on appeal.\n9.  From 21 March to 25 September 2003 the applicant was held in facility no. 1 in Perm. In particular, from 21 March to 19 May 2003 he was kept in cell no. 26 and from 19 to 20 May 2003 he stayed in cell no. 19. On 20 May 2003 he was transferred to cell no. 84 from which, on the following day, he was taken to cell no. 144, having remained there until 25 September 2003.\n10.  Relying on a certificate prepared by the director of the detention facility on 17 October 2008, the Government submitted that cell no. 26 measured 59.4 square metres and accommodated, in general, thirteen inmates. Cell no. 19 measured 25.9 square metres and on average housed twelve inmates. The average number of detainees staying in cell no. 84 of 22.2 square metres was ten, and seven inmates were usually kept in cell no. 144 which measured 23.1 square metres. The Government stressed that at all times the applicant had an individual sleeping place and bedding.\n11.  Citing the information provided by the director of the facility, the Government further argued that the sanitary conditions in the cells were satisfactory.  In particular, the Government submitted that the cells received natural light and ventilation through a window measuring approximately 1.2 square metres. The cells also had artificial ventilation. Each cell was equipped with a lavatory pan, a sink and a tap with running water. The lavatory pan was separated from the living area of the cell by a partition measuring between 1.33 and 1.42 metres in height. Inmates were allowed to take a shower once every seven days for no less than fifteen minutes. The cells were regularly disinfected. The cells were equipped with lamps which functioned day and night. The Government, relying on the information provided by the director of the facility, further stated that the applicant was given food “in accordance with the established norms”.\n12.  The applicant disputed the Government’s submission, arguing that the four cells had been smaller and had accommodated a far greater number of inmates than the Government had described. Relying on written statements by Mr U. who had also been detained in cell no. 144 in the summer of 2003, the applicant submitted that that cell had measured approximately sixteen metres, had eleven sleeping places and housed thirteen to fourteen inmates. Given the lack of beds, inmates had slept in shifts. They were not provided with bedding. He had had to stay in overcr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6705", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  Ms Maria Panayotova Fileva is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Asenovgrad.\n7.  On 17 June 1999 the applicant, at that time an employee of the Asenovgrad agricultural land commission (“the land commission”), was questioned on suspicion of abuse of office. She was suspected, inter alia, of attempting to impede the adoption of amendments to a land redistribution plan adversely affecting plots of agricultural land previously restored to her husband, a member of the Asenovgrad municipal council at the relevant time.\n8.  Criminal proceedings were instituted soon afterwards, on 6 July 1999. On 16 May 2001 the applicant was charged with three offences – one committed in 1992 and the other two in 1999.\n9.  In 2004 the case was placed on a special register in the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, apparently because it was considered to have a corruption element.\n10.  The investigation of the case against the applicant continued until 29 June 2005.\n11.  On 14 July 2005 the Plovdiv regional public prosecutor’s office terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant. It was concluded that the applicant’s actions relating to the events of 1999 did not constitute a crime and that it had not been proved that the applicant had been party to the offence in 1992.\n12.  On 23 March 2006, following an internal review of cases ordered by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, a prosecutor from the Plovdiv appellate public prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 14 July 2005 and ordered the resumption of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, on the ground that the investigation had been incomplete and that the conclusions reached did not correspond to the evidence collected. In particular, it was noted that a key witness – the chairman of the land commission who had established breaches of duty on the part of the applicant – had not been questioned and that the applicant should have been questioned again in relation to one of the charges.\n13.  On 16 January 2007 the applicant was presented with modified charges, consisting of two counts of abuse of office and one count of drawing up a false document in an official capacity. On the same date, the criminal proceedings in respect of the offence committed in 1992 were terminated, as it had not been proved that the applicant had been a party to the offence, and as the prosecution had now become time-barred.\n14.  On 10 October 2007 the Plovdiv Regional Court convicted the applicant and gave her a suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment.\n15.  In a judgment of 10 April 2008 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant on one of the counts of abuse of office and upheld the conviction on the remaining counts. It reduced the applicant’s sentence to a suspended term of one year’s imprisonment. That judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Cassation in a final judgment of 11 July 2008.\n16.  On 25 November 2005 the applicant, relying on the termination of the criminal proceedings against her of 14 July 2005, brought an action for damages under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (“the SMRDA”) against the prosecuting authorities for unlawful prosecution.\n17.  The applicant submitted that on 28 November 2005 her representative in the domestic proceedings was told by a prosecutor at the Plovdiv regional public prosecutor’s office that bringing an action under the SMRDA could have unfavourable consequences for the applicant. On an unspecified", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6706", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1982, 1982, 1968, 1967, 1966, and 1971 respectively.\n6.  On 21 July 2005 Mr Erişen, Mr Demir and Mr Akgül were arrested and taken into custody by gendarmes at the Erciş District Gendarmerie Command on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). The same day, along with ten other persons, they were taken to the Erciş State Hospital and examined there by a doctor. According to the submissions of Mr Erişen, Mr Demir and Mr Akgül, during their examination gendarme officers were present in the room. The medical report issued at the end of the examination indicated that there were no signs of ill-treatment on the applicants.\n7.  On 22 July 2005 Mr Erişen, Mr Demir and Mr Akgül were taken to the Erciş State Hospital for a medical check. The applicants were examined together with ten other persons, again in the presence of gendarme officers. The doctor noted no signs of ill-treatment on the bodies of Mr Erişen and Demir; however, he observed a swelling on Mr Akgül’s right eye. Mr Erişen, Mr Demir and Mr Akgül were subsequently brought before the Public Prosecutor and the investigating judge. In their statements, taken in the presence of a lawyer, they denied the charges against them. On the same day, on the basis of the evidence in the case file, the investigating judge ordered their detention pending trial.\n8.  The other applicants, Mr Sekmen, Mr Kaplan and Mr Altay, were also placed in detention on remand, on 29 July, 1 August and 3 August 2005 respectively, on suspicion of membership of the PKK.\n9.  On 26 July 2005 the representative of Mr Erişen, Mr Demir and Mr Akgül filed an objection against the decision dated 22 July 2005, which had ordered the applicants’ detention pending trial. On 29 July 2005 the court dismissed their request, without holding a hearing, having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file. On 8 August 2005 the applicants’ representative filed another objection against the latter decision, which was dismissed on 17 August 2005.\n10.  On 4 October 2005 Mr Erişen, Mr Demir and Mr Akgül requested the Van Assize Court to order their release. On 6 October 2005 the court decided to release Mr Demir pending trial, but it rejected the requests of Mr Erişen and Mr Akgül having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file.\n11.  On 21 November 2005 Mr Erişen and Mr Akgül applied to the Van Assize Court and requested to be released. On 22 November 2005 their request was rejected on the basis of the case file, and having regard to the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence.\n12.  On 30 November 2005 the Van Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Van Assize Court against the applicants and fifteen other suspects, accusing them of aiding and abetting an armed illegal organisation.\n13.  On 5 and 19 December 2005 respectively, Mr Erişen requested his release pending trial. On 7 and 19 December 2005 respectively, the Van Assize Court, relying on the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file, dismissed his request for release without holding a hearing.\n14.  On 30 December 2005, 2 January 2006, 27 January 2006 respectively, Mr Erişen and Mr Akgül requested their release once again. Their requests were again rejected on the basis on the content of the case file and the state of the evi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6708", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Târgu‑Mureş, Romania.\n8.  On 19 October 2001 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant and other third parties in respect of embezzlement, forgery of accountancy papers and tax evasion offences that had allegedly been committed by him in his capacity as director of the limited liability company R. On the same day he was placed in police custody for twenty‑four hours on the basis of Article 148 (c) and (h) of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) on the ground that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, that he was a danger to public order, that the offences with which he had been charged were punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, and that he was preparing to abscond.\n9.  On 20 October 2001 the Târgu‑Mureş Prosecutor’s Office issued an arrest warrant on the basis of Article 148 (h) of the CCP and the applicant was placed in pre‑trial detention for thirty days on the ground that the offences with which he had been charged were punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment and that he was preparing to abscond.\n10.  On 18 February 2002 the applicant and the third parties were indicted to stand trial on the above‑mentioned charges. They continued to remain in pre‑trial detention.\n11.  The applicant’s pre‑trial detention was extended repeatedly by final interlocutory judgments of the Târgu‑Mureş County Court. The court confirmed the legality of the detention on the ground that the reasons provided for by Article 148 (h) of the CCP which had justified the applicant’s initial detention remained valid, did not breach his right of presumption of innocence and that the length of proceedings depended on the complexity of the case. Therefore it dismissed the applicant’s repeated arguments that he was not a danger to public order, that his pre‑trial detention could be replaced by alternative measures and that the length of his detention and of the overall proceedings was excessive. The domestic courts did not provide any other explanation for the extension of the applicant’s pre‑trial detention. Moreover, the eight hearings held between March 2002 and April 2003 were repeatedly adjourned, inter alia, in order to allow all the suspects to employ the services of a lawyer, for witnesses to be heard, the summoning of various parties to the proceedings, the submission of technical and medical expert reports and the examination of the transfer of the file to another court as a result of the applicant’s request.\n12.  By the interlocutory judgment of 20 May 2003 the Târgu‑Mureş County Court, having regard to the length of the pre‑trial detention, the applicant’s complaint concerning his state of health and his medical condition, the facts of the case and the evidence submitted by the parties, ordered the release of the applicant. The court also ordered the applicant not to leave town without the court’s consent pending the outcome of the criminal investigation. Lastly, the court adjourned the hearing until 17 June 2003 for procedural reasons. The Târgu‑Mureş Prosecutor’s Office appealed against the decision.\n13.  By a final interlocutory judgment of 23 May 2003 the Târgu‑Mureş Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the Prosecutor’s Office on the ground that according to the medical expert reports the applicant’s health problems could be treated in prison hospitals and that the initial reasons justif", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6709", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the village of Novoye Pole, Chelyabinsk region.\n6.  On 13 November 2004 the applicant was detained as a suspect in a criminal case concerning theft. On the same day the Kambarskiy District Court of the Udmurtskaya Republic authorised his detention for two months.\n7.  On 13 January 2005 the criminal case file was submitted to the court. The applicant remained in detention, although the detention order of 13 November 2004 had expired and no extension had been ordered.\n8.  On 25 January 2005 the criminal case file arrived at the Kambarskiy District Court, and on 26 January 2005 the court scheduled a preliminary hearing in the case to take place on 8 February 2005. The court did not take any decision on whether the applicant should remain in detention.\n9.  On 3 February 2005 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court of the Udmurtskaya Republic against the decision of 26 January 2005, claiming in particular that he had been detained unlawfully.\n10.  On 8 February 2005, during a preliminary hearing before the Kambarskiy District Court, the applicant challenged his detention from 13 January onwards, which was still continuing, without any detention order. The court held that “the measure of restraint, pre-trial detention, [was] to remain unchanged”.\n11.  On 16 February 2005 the Kambarskiy District Court examined the applicant’s application for release and dismissed it on the grounds that the gravity of the charges and the applicant’s previous criminal record made it likely that he would flee justice or commit new crimes if released.\n12.  On 19 February 2005 the applicant challenged the decision of 8 February 2005 as regards the extension of his detention.\n13.  On 17 March 2005 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtskaya Republic examined and dismissed the applicant’s complaint by which he challenged the decision of 8 February 2005 on the grounds that it did not cover the period from 13 January to 8 February 2005. The court noted that the criminal case file had been sent by the prosecutor’s office to the court on the last day the detention order was valid, thus complying with the time-limits. It referred to Articles 231 and 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a basis for the applicant’s detention during the trial but did not examine whether, and when, the court authorised the detention under these provisions.\n14.  On 31 March 2005 the Supreme Court of the Udmurtskaya Republic examined the appeal, in which he challenged the extension of his detention by the decision of 8 February 2005, which he alleged to be unlawful. The court found that the decision was justified in view of the gravity of the charges and the applicant’s previous criminal record, and upheld the extension of the detention.\n15.  On 4 and 11 May 2005 the applicant made applications for release to the Supreme Court of the Udmurtskaya Republic, without success.\n16.  On 25 May 2005, during the hearing of his criminal case before the Kambarskiy District Court, the applicant made another application for release, which was refused on the grounds of the gravity of the charges, the applicant’s previous criminal record and the likelihood that he would abscond.\n17.  On 27 May 2005 the Kambarskiy District Court examined the applicant’s new application for release and dismissed it on the same grounds as two days earlier.\n18.  On 7 July 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Udmurtskaya Republic conducted a supervisory review of the appea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6710", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Piteşti.\n7.  While a student at a private law school, he unlawfully practised the profession of lawyer from 1998 to 2000. He presented himself to his clients as a lawyer, pretending that he was entitled to represent them before the courts and public authorities. Although he was not registered with the Bucharest Bar, he forged and used false powers of attorney and contracts of legal assistance. He was paid by his clients for the legal services provided.\n8.  On 20 February 2001 he was arrested for unlawfully practising the profession of lawyer from 1998 to 2000 and sent to Jilava Prison.\n9.  By a bill of indictment of 12 April 2001 of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Bucharest Fourth District Court (Judecătoria Sectorului 4‑Bucureşti), he was formally indicted for a part of the aforesaid charges. The case was severed and the part concerning the rest of the charges against him and his former wife was remitted to the police for further investigation.\n10.  On 30 May 2001, the Bucharest Fourth District Court sentenced the applicant to four years’ imprisonment for fraud under Article 215 of the Criminal Code, forgery of official documents under Article 288 § 1 of the Criminal Code, use of forged documents under Article 291 of the Criminal Code, and unlawful exercise of the profession of lawyer under Article 281 of the Criminal Code, taken in conjunction with Article 22 of Law no. 51/1995 on the status of lawyer.\n11.  The judgment was upheld by a final decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 13 December 2001.\n12.  While he was serving his prison sentence, on 17 November 2002 the applicant had a brain haemorrhage due to a double aneurysm and was hospitalised in the Emergency Hospital of Bucharest until 25 November 2002.\n13.  On 3 December 2002 he underwent a surgical operation. Following the operation, the applicant became infected with staphylococcus and another condition (buttock and calcaneous bedsore). Therefore, he needed two more operations, in January and March 2003. The applicant alleged that after the surgery he was kept handcuffed and was not turned in his bed while he was unconscious and that this had caused the infection.\n14.  On 18 December 2002, the Bucharest Fourth District Court allowed an application by the applicant for the suspension of his prison sentence on medical grounds for a period of three months. The period of suspension started on 24 December 2002, when the applicant was released from Jilava Prison Hospital, where he was an inmate at that time.\n15.  On the grounds of his continuing ill-health the applicant submitted another application for the suspension of his prison sentence for another three months. By a judgment of 24 March 2003 the suspension was granted.\n16.  The two court judgments suspending the applicant’s prison sentence were based on forensic reports issued by the Mina Minovici National Forensic Institute (hereinafter called “the Forensic Institute”). They revealed that the applicant was also suffering from a liver disease (hypertrophic hepatic cirrhosis). The experts found that the prison medical care system could no longer offer the applicant the necessary treatment. During this period the applicant was frequently hospitalised, not only for his infection but also for psychiatric treatment. He suffered from severe depression characterised by suicide attempts, considered by the doctors to be a direct consequence of the aneurysm.\n17.  On 19 June 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6711", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the town of Pokachi, Tyumen Region.\n6.  On 1 July 1999 the applicant was arrested and charged with sexual assault of a minor. Immediately upon his arrest, at 3.15 a.m., the applicant was subjected to a body search at the police station. The report stated, inter alia, that no injuries were found on the applicant.\n7.  On the same day at 5 a.m. the applicant underwent a physical examination in the presence of attesting witnesses A.T. and P. No injuries were noted in the examination report. The applicant alleges that during the examination the officer of the detention facility of the Interior of Pokachi (ИВС Покаческого ГОВД), T., beat him up with a police truncheon and that investigator B. abused him verbally.\n8.  On the same day at 9 a.m. the applicant was assigned legal counsel.\n9.  On the same day at 1 p.m. a forensic examination of the applicant was carried out in connection with the criminal charges against him. He was examined by a forensic expert who found two bruises on the right side of the applicant’s back. The report stated that the bruises were inflicted with a “blunt, hard, long object with a round or oval cross-section, such as a police truncheon or a baton”, and that they dated back to less than twenty-four hours before the forensic examination.\n10.  According to the applicant, on 2 June 1999 he complained about his ill-treatment to K., the investigator of the Pokachi prosecutor’s office, who was investigating his case. She allegedly promised to register his complaint and to bring the matter to the prosecutor’s attention. The applicant claimed that he had complained to the prosecutor’s office again a number of times, but received no reply.\n11.  On 24 September 1999 the applicant was given access to the results of the forensic examination.\n12.  On 27 December 1999 the applicant sent a written complaint to the prosecutor’s office of Pokachi complaining about the ill-treatment he allegedly received on the day of his arrest.\n13.  Having received no reply, on 20 January 2000 the applicant wrote to the Pokachi prosecutor’s office asking for news on his complaint of ill‑treatment.\n14.  On 28 February 2000 and on 31 May 2000 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Khanty-Mansiyskiy Autonomous Circuit about the lack of response to his complaint of ill-treatment. On 1 June 2000 they replied that his letter had been forwarded to the Pokachi prosecutor’s office for a decision.\n15.  On 3 July 2000 investigator K. decided not to investigate the applicant’s allegations in criminal proceedings. The parties have not provided any information about this part of the inquiry. The Government stated, in particular, that the relevant files had been destroyed after having reached the time-limit of their storage in archives.\n16.  The applicant complained about the decision of 3 July 2000 to the superior prosecutor’s office and also challenged it before a court.\n17.  On 6 September 2000 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Khanty‑Mansiyskiy Autonomous Circuit replied to the applicant that the inquiry into his allegations had been sufficient. It was considered, in particular, that no breach of domestic law arose from the fact that investigator K. had been in charge of the inquiry, because she had not been personally implicated in the alleged ill‑treatment.\n18.  On 12 January 2001 the Langepasskiy Town Court of the Khanty‑Mansiyskiy Autonomous Circuit convicted the applicant as charged. Having", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6713", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1953. She lives in Grozny, Chechnya. She is the mother of Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov.\n7.  At the material time Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov was a police officer in the PPMS battalion (the police patrolling unit) of the Chechnya Ministry of the Interior (the Chechnya MVD).\n8.  At about 11.30 p.m. on 19 November 2004 sergeant Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov and his colleague, private M.K., were driving in their car in the Leninskiy district of Grozny. Next to “Musa Motors” car service station they were stopped by a group of thirty armed men in camouflage uniforms, who drove around in ten to fifteen silver cars without registration numbers.\n9.  The men introduced themselves as police officers of the OMON (special task unit) of the Chechnya MVD and explained that they were conducting a special operation to arrest a criminal. It is unclear what subsequently happened during the encounter. The armed men opened gunfire, took away the service guns of the two PPMS officers and the service identity card of Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov. The applicant’s son received several gunshot wounds in the torso and perforating wounds on both feet and the upper part of his left leg. He was taken to Grozny town hospital no. 9.\n10.  On 21 November 2004 Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov died in the hospital.\n(b)  Subsequent events\n11.  On 22 November 2004 the chief of the headquarters of the PPMS battalion at the Chechnya MVD, officer S.R., the deputy head of the battalion, Mr L.‑A.B., and the head of the battalion’s human resources department, Mr S.D., attended Khozh-Akhmed Akhmadov’s funeral.\n12.  According to the applicant, they told her that the persons who had killed her son had been identified; and that the perpetrators of the killing had spoken to the heads of the battalion and returned the service guns and the service identity card which they had taken away during the incident. The perpetrators had explained that they were from the local ‘Oil battalion’ (нефте-полк), under the command of Mr A.M., and that they had killed Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov by mistake.\n13.  According to the applicant, officers S.R., L.‑A.B. and S.D. assured her that the perpetrators of her son’s killing would be duly prosecuted.\n14.  In support of her statements the applicant submitted copies of the documents she had received from the authorities.\n15.  The Government did not challenge the facts as presented by the applicant. However, they stated that the perpetrators of the applicant’s son’s killing had not belonged to any military or law‑enforcement agency, and that he had been a victim of unidentified criminals.\n16.  On 26 November 2004 the Leninskiy District Prosecutor’s Office of Grozny instituted an investigation into the killing of Khozh‑Akhmed Akhmadov under Article 105 § 1 of the Criminal Code (murder). The case file was given the number 30139. The decision stated, inter alia, the following:\n“...At about 10.30 p.m. on 19 November 2004 two officers of Regiment PPSM‑1, Mr M.K. and Mr Khozh-Akhmed Akhmadov were driving in their VAZ-21099 car in Zhukovskogo Street, in the Leninskiy district of Grozny. Next to the service station “Musa Motors” they were stopped by unidentified masked men in camouflage uniforms, who asked the officers about their identities...[the masked men] shot Kh.-A. Akhmadov with automatic firearms ...\n... [a group] of police officers who were patrolling the area at the time, stated during their questioning [by the investigators], that the unidentified men who had shot Kh.-", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6714", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Gothenburg.\n10.  He is a professor, specialising in child and adolescent psychiatry, at the University of Gothenburg.\n11.  In the period between 1977 and 1992 a research project was carried out at the University of Gothenburg in the field of neuropsychiatry, focusing on cases of Attention‑Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or Deficits in Attention, Motor Control and Perception (DAMP) in children. The aim was to elucidate the significance thereof and associated problems from a long-term perspective. Parents to a group of one hundred and forty‑one pre‑school children volunteered to participate in the study, which was followed up every third year. Certain assurances were made to the children’s parents and later to the young people themselves concerning confidentiality. The research file, called the Gothenburg study, was voluminous and consisted of a large number of records, test results, interview replies, questionnaires and video and audio tapes. It contained a very large amount of privacy-sensitive data about the children and their relatives. Several doctoral theses have been based on the Gothenburg study. The material was stored by the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, of which the applicant was director. The project was originally set up and started by other researchers but the applicant subsequently took over responsibility for completing the study.\n12.  The applicant alleged that the Ethics Committee of the University of Gothenburg had made it a precondition in their permits that sensitive information about the individuals participating in the study would be accessible only to the applicant and his staff and that he had therefore promised absolute confidentiality to the patients and their parents. That fact was disputed by the Government.\n13.  Two permits were issued by the Ethics Committee of the University of Gothenburg, on 9 March 1984 and 31 May 1988 respectively, consisting of one page each and indicating, among other things, the dates of application (respectively 26 January 1984 and 24 March 1988), the researchers involved in the project, the name of the project and the date of approval; they bore the signatures of the chairman and the secretary of the Ethics Committee. They contained no specific requirements and no reference to “secrecy” or “absolute secrecy”.\n14.  In a letter of 17 February 1984 to the parents of the children participating in the study, the applicant stated, inter alia:\n“All data will be dealt with in confidentiality and classified as secret. No data processing that enables the identification of your child will take place. No information has been provided previously or will be provided to teachers about your child except that when starting school she/he took part in a study undertaken by Östra Hospital, and its present results will, as was the case for the previous study three years ago, be followed up.”\n15.  A later undated letter from the applicant to the participants in the study included the following wording:\n“Participation is of course completely voluntary and as on previous occasions you will never be registered in public data records of any kind and the data will be processed in such a way that nobody apart from those of us who met you and have direct contact with you will be able to find out anything at all about you.”\n16.  In February 2002 a sociologist, K, requested access to the background material. She was a researcher at Lund Univer", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6716", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Olsztyn.\n6.  At the material time the applicant was editor-in-chief of the local weekly newspaper “Iławski Tydzień”.\n7.  On 17 October 2005 the newspaper published an article co‑authored by the applicant, entitled “Municipality in danger; authorities fail to see problem”. It described in detail the situation concerning the sewage system in the Iława municipality. The thrust of the article was that the sanitary situation in the municipality was a matter of concern and posed significant public health risks; extensive investments were necessary to improve it; there was a serious shortage of available funds; the municipal authorities were dealing with the problems in a slow and incompetent manner; it was more important for them to save money than to prevent serious health risks and to avert a danger to the population; the quality of water was unsatisfactory; and the mayor, despite the fact that he had been in office for two terms, had failed to deal with the problems properly.\n8.  In a letter to the newspaper of the same date the mayor of Iława complained about the article. The first paragraph of that letter was couched in ironic terms. The mayor expressed doubts about the applicant’s intentions and suggested that the applicant had been acting in his own personal interest. He maintained that the general tone of the article was inappropriate. He also voiced doubts as to whether the newspaper had any readers at all and whether it was therefore worth his while to react to the article.\n9.  He further requested, referring to section 31 § 1 read together with section 32 of the Press Act 1984, that the applicant publish a rectification (see paragraph 22 below). He stated that the development of the sewage network was a priority for the municipal authorities and listed a number of projects undertaken by the municipality during the preceding five years. Further, three projects planned for the years 2007-2013 were listed. The mayor stated that the quality of the water was monitored by the appropriate services and referred to several projects for modernising and overhauling the existing sewage and sanitary systems.\n10.  The applicant did not reply to this letter and did not publish it.\n11.  On an unspecified later date the municipality of Iława brought a private bill of indictment against the applicant before the Elbląg District Court for the offence of failure to publish a rectification or reply as prescribed by section 46 § 1 of the Press Act (see paragraph 24 below).\n12.  In his written pleadings of 4 December 2005 the applicant argued that the mayor’s letter could not reasonably be regarded as a request for rectification within the meaning of section 31 of the Press Act, because its content lacked the essential characteristics of a “rectification”. It was not related to the facts and it was not couched in objective terms, as stipulated by that provision. In fact, its first part, in particular, was very critical of the applicant and contained innuendos about his character, motives and about the newspaper and its journalists. This alone made it impossible to regard the letter as a request for rectification. Furthermore, the style of the letter lacked the objectivity which could be expected of a rectification. It could therefore not be reasonably seen as such. It resembled rather a “reply”, within the meaning of the same provision of the Press Act, expressing the value judgments and views of its author ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6717", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Barcelona.\n6.  From 1 November 1952 to 30 June 1991, when he reached retirement age, the applicant worked as a minister of the Evangelical Church. During his years as a minister, he received remuneration from the Evangelical Church. However, the Church did not pay any social security contributions on his behalf, as there was no provision in Spanish law for it to do so.\n7.  The applicant had previously worked as an employee between 1 January 1944 and 15 October 1946. After being ordained he again worked as a salaried employee from 13 March 1974 to 9 September 1978, while carrying out his duties as a minister.\n8.  The applicant applied to the National Social Security Agency (INSS) for a retirement pension. By a decision of 26 October 2004 the INSS rejected his application on the grounds that he had not completed the minimum period of pensionable service, that is, 15 years (5,475 days). Added together, the two periods during which the applicant contributed, between 1944 and 1946 and between 1974 and 1978, totalled 2,560 days.\n9.  The applicant asked the INSS to reconsider his case. In two decisions of 15 March and 23 May 2005 the INSS again rejected the applicant’s claims, confirming its initial decision.\n10.  The applicant brought proceedings against the INSS before the Employment Tribunal to secure a retirement pension. He alleged that he was being discriminated against in so far as the legislation provided for Catholic priests to receive a retirement pension as they were part of the general social security scheme.\n11.  In a judgment of 12 December 2005 Barcelona Employment Tribunal no. 33 allowed the applicant’s claims and ordered the INSS to pay him a retirement pension. Analysing the changes in the legislation on the subject, the court considered that the law clearly treated Catholic priests more favourably than Evangelical ministers, which was contrary to the secularity of the State enshrined in the Constitution of 1978.\n12.  The court noted that even prior to the promulgation of the Constitution the first paragraph of Article 1 of Royal Decree 2398/1977 of 27 August 1977 had already established that priests and ministers of all faiths and churches registered with the Ministry of the Interior should be treated as salaried employees and be covered by the social security scheme. However, the second paragraph of that same Article specified that this was for immediate application only in respect of Catholic priests, which was done by order of the Ministry of Health and Social Security on 19 December 1977. Two subsequent Royal Decrees (nos. 487/1998 of 27 March 1998 and 2665/1998 of 11 December 1998) provided for Catholic clergy and priests who left the priesthood or ceased their religious activities to be able to count all their years of service with the church towards the years of contributions necessary to qualify for a retirement pension, provided that they made the capital payments corresponding to those years. Evangelical Church ministers were brought into the scheme twenty-two years after their Catholic counterparts, by Royal Decree 369/1999 of 5 March 1999, although they were not given the same possibility as Catholic priests of making up the missing annuities to qualify for a retirement pension. The court observed that by the time this decree took effect the applicant had ceased his pastoral activities, and according to the provisions of the decree his years as a minister could not ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6719", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kristianstad.\n7.  In 1999 the applicant married L., a Ukrainian national holding permanent residence permits in the Czech Republic and in Sweden. In February 2004 she obtained Swedish nationality. In August 2003 their daughter, N., was born. She is also a Swedish national.\n8.  Between May and August 2005 L. visited her parents in Prague together with N. Upon their return, the applicant’s relationship with L. quickly deteriorated and, in September 2005, she returned to her parents’ home in Prague with N. They have remained there ever since.\n9.  In September 2005 the applicant submitted an application for divorce from L. to the District Court (tingsrätten) in Kristianstad. He further requested sole custody of N. or, if the court decided that the parties should have joint custody, that N. should live with him. In any event, if the court were to decide that N. should live with her mother, he wanted contact rights to be exercised on a regular basis according to a specific schedule.\n10.  L. agreed to the divorce but opposed the applicant’s requests in relation to their daughter. She wanted sole custody of N. but agreed, pending the final outcome of the proceedings, that the applicant could visit N. in Prague for a few hours every other weekend with her or her mother (N.’s maternal grandmother) present.\n11.  On 14 November 2005, after having held an oral hearing, the District Court decided that, pending the final outcome of the proceedings, the applicant and L. should have continued joint custody of N. but that she should live with her mother and see her father for four hours every other weekend in the presence of L. or a person of her choice. The court further ordered the Kristianstad Social Council to carry out an investigation into the custody of N., her place of residence and contact to her. In its interim decision, the court noted that neither the applicant nor L. appeared to be unsuitable as guardians for N. Therefore, despite their difficulties in co-operating and the distance between their places of residence, there were not enough reasons to dissolve the joint custody of N. Moreover, having regard to N.’s young age and the fact that the main responsibility for her daily care had rested with L., the court found it to be in the child’s best interest to live with L. even though L., by moving to Prague, had made it more difficult for N. to see her father. In this respect, the court emphasised that L. had a great responsibility to ensure that N. would be able to see the applicant. The parties were left to agree on where it would be best for N. and the applicant to meet.\n12.  The applicant appealed against the decision to the Court of Appeal (hovrätten) of Skåne and Blekinge, maintaining his requests for sole custody of N. and for her to live with him. In the alternative, he wanted his right of contact with N. to be exercised in southern Sweden.\n13.  L. opposed any changes to the District Court’s decision.\n14.  On 13 December 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision in full. It found that no circumstances had been presented which indicated that the District Court’s decision was not in the best interests of the child. This decision was final.\n15.  Subsequently, the applicant requested the District Court to change its interim decision, inter alia, in respect of N.’s place of residence and the contact rights. He claimed that the interim decision in force had made it impossible f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6721", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Donetsk. She was a co-owner of the Yuvileynyy Trade Centre.\n5.  On 9 June 1999 the Petrovskyy District Council annulled the State registration of the trade centre at its director’s request, accompanied by a decision of the assembly of owners to liquidate the trade centre.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the decision of the Petrovskyy District Council before the Petrovskyy District Court of Donetsk, alleging that the owners’ assembly was not competent to decide on the trade centre’s liquidation because it had not been quorate as, according to the applicant, only three of the sixty-six owners had taken part in the assembly. It is unknown if the applicant was among these three present.\n7.  On an unspecified date the Petrovskyy Court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the applicant’s case for the annulment of sale contracts (see below). The applicant did not provide any information about the progress or the outcome of these proceedings.\n8.  By decisions of 25 September and 30 October 1998 and 27 February 1999, the assembly of the owners of the Yuvileynyy Trade Centre, including the applicant, decided to dispose of the property belonging to the trade centre.\n9.  By a decision of 11 March 1999, the assembly of owners dismissed Mrs G. from her position as director of the trade centre.\n10.  On 19 March and 14 April 1999 respectively Mrs G., acting on behalf of the trade centre, sold its property to a private company, V., and a private person, Mr M.\n11.  On 5 May 1999 the Petrovskyy Court annulled the decision of 11 March 1999 and reinstated Mrs G. as director of the trade centre. No appeal was lodged against that judgment and it became final.\n12.  On 21 January 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Petrovskyy Court against the new owners of the property of the trade centre and Mrs G., seeking annulment of the contracts pursuant to which the property at issue had been sold. The applicant stated that Mrs G. had not been authorised to sell the property, since she had been dismissed from her position as director in March 1999. She further stated that the assembly of owners had not been competent to decide on that matter as it had not been quorate and that the decisions could not form the basis for the contracts of sale at issue because they did not contain essential terms for such contracts and did not concern all the property sold in 1999. Lastly, the applicant submitted that the price at which the property had been sold had been much lower than its market price.\n13  On 23 March 2000 the applicant lodged additional claims.\n15.  On 12 July 2001 the Donetsk Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n16.  On 30 May 2002 the Petrovskyy Court found against the applicant, holding that the decision of 11 March 1999 had been annulled and thus Mrs G. had had the right to sell the property of the trade centre. The court further held that the disputed contracts had been concluded in accordance with the law.\n17.  On 12 August 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant as unsubstantiated.\n18.  On 4 March 2004 the Supreme Court, following an appeal in cassation by the applicant, quashed the courts’ decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration. It held that the lower courts had failed to establish whether the decisions of the assemblies of owners of 30 October 1998 and 27 Februar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6722", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Kryvyy Rig.\n5.  On 29 September 2009 the local prosecutors instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of bribery.\n6.  On 30 September 2009 the applicant was arrested under Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n7.  On 2 October 2009 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig (“the District Court”) remanded the applicant in custody on the ground that he might abscond, obstruct justice and continue criminal activities.\n8.  On 18 November 2009 the same court extended the maximum period of the applicant’s detention to four months (until 29 January 2010) on similar grounds.\n9.  As it appears from the case file, on 29 January 2010, following the completion of the pre-trial investigation, the prosecutors sent the case to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) to determine which court had jurisdiction. On 8 February 2010 the latter court determined that the case should be examined by the District Court and forwarded the case to that court for trial.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s representative asked the District Court to release the applicant from detention as the time-limit for his detention had expired on 29 January 2010.\n11.  On 9 March 2010, at the committal hearing, the court rejected the request stating that on 29 January 2010 the case had been sent to the Court of Appeal and, subsequently, to the District Court for trial. It further held that there were no grounds for changing the applicant’s preventive measure. It did not fix any time-limit for the applicant’s subsequent detention.\n12.  On 7 June 2010 the applicant and his representative requested the court to change his preventive measure from detention on remand to undertaking not to abscond. On the same day the court rejected the request due to the gravity of charges against the applicant and because he did not plead guilty and might obstruct justice at liberty. It did not fix any time-limit for the applicant’s further detention.\n13.  According to the Government, on 23 May 2011 the District Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to an unspecified term of imprisonment on probation. On 10 October 2011 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6724", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1967, 1969 and 1956 respectively, and live in the town of Armavir, the village of Nairi and the village of Nalbandyan respectively, Armavir Region of Armenia.\n6.  The applicants were members of the main opposition parties at the material time in Armenia. The first applicant was the Chairman of the Armavir Town Office of the National Unity Party. The second applicant was a member of the Republic Party. The third applicant was a member of the Armavir Regional Branch of the National Unity Party.\n7.  In February and March 2003 a presidential election was held in Armenia which was won by the incumbent President. The international election observation mission concluded that the overall election process fell short of international standards. It appears that mass protests followed. The main opposition candidate challenged the election results in the Constitutional Court, which on 16 April 2003 recommended that a referendum of confidence in the re-elected President be held in Armenia within a year.\n8.  As the April 2004 one-year deadline approached, the united opposition stepped up its campaign to challenge the legitimacy of the re‑elected President. A series of protest rallies were organised in Yerevan in March and April 2004, calling for the referendum of confidence. According to the applicants, several demonstrations were scheduled for 5, 9 and 12 April 2004 which they intended to attend.\n9.  The first applicant alleged that on 30 March 2004 at around 8 a.m. he was visited at his home by a plain clothes police officer who informed him that the Chief of the Armavir Town Police Department wished to speak with him. He complied with the order and was taken to the police station. According to the first applicant, he did not question the police officer’s demands since three weeks earlier he had already been invited by the Chief of the Police Department who wanted to become familiar with the leaders of the opposition parties.\n10.  According to the first applicant’s arrest record and other police materials, the first applicant was taken to the police station by several police officers on 30 March 2004 at around 2 p.m. The arrest record stated that the first applicant had been brought to the police station for inspection purposes in order to confiscate illegal ammunition in his possession.\n11.  At the police station an administrative case was initiated against the first applicant under Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”) for disobeying the lawful orders of police officers.\n12.  One of the arresting police officers reported to the Chief of the Police Department that:\n“... on 30 March 2004 ... [the first applicant] who, according to information obtained, kept at his house illegal ammunition, was brought to [the police station]. While being brought to [the police station, the first applicant] disobeyed our lawful order, flatly refused to come to the station and used foul language addressed both at us and the regime. The row lasted about five minutes, after which [the first applicant] was brought to [the police station]. [The first applicant] was brought to [the police station] for preventive purposes and for surrendering the ammunition in his possession.”\n13.  The first applicant was subjected to a personal search but nothing of an illegal nature was found in his possession. He alleged that a written statement was then presented to him, in which it was stated that he had refused to obey the order", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6725", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Izhevsk, Republic of Udmurtiya.\n7.  On 17 June 2002 the applicant brought proceedings in court challenging the authorities’ refusal to issue him with a new passport.\n8.  On 20 September 2002 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya, considering the case at the supervisory instance, found for the applicant.\n9.  The applicant subsequently sued the authorities for damages resulting from their unlawful refusal to issue him with a passport.\n10.  On 11 August 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk granted the applicant’s claims in part and awarded him 4,000 Russian roubles (RUB) as non-pecuniary damage, to be paid by the Russian Ministry of Finance.\n11.  On 30 September 2004 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya upheld the judgment on appeal.\n12.  According to the Government, shortly after the judgment of 11 August 2004 became binding and enforceable, the trial court forwarded the writ of execution to the relevant department of the bailiff service. However, on 21 January 2005 the writ was returned to the applicant by the bailiff service with an explanation that the document should be submitted to the Ministry of Finance.\n13.  The applicant did not re-submit the document to any authorities, and the judgment remains unenforced to date.\n14.  Article 9 of the Federal Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 21 July 1997 (no. 119-ФЗ) as in force at the material time provided that a bailiff was to set a time-limit up to five days for the defendant’s voluntary compliance with a writ of execution. The bailiff was also to warn the defendant that coercive action would follow should the defendant fail to comply with the time-limit. Under Article 13 of the Law, the enforcement proceedings had to be completed within two months of the receipt of the writ of execution by the bailiff.\n15.  In 2001-2005 the judgments delivered against the public authorities were executed in accordance with a special procedure established, inter alia, by the Government’s Decree no. 143 of 22 February 2001 and, subsequently, by Decree no. 666 of 22 September 2002, entrusting execution to the Ministry of Finance. By a ruling of 14 July 2005 (no. 8-П), the Constitutional Court of Russia considered certain provisions governing the special execution procedure to be incompatible with the Constitution. Following that ruling, the Law of 27 December 2005 (no. 197-ФЗ) introduced a new chapter in the Budget Code modifying this special procedure. The Law notably empowered the Federal Treasury to execute judgments against legal entities funded by the federal budget and the Ministry of Finance to execute judgments against the State. Under Article 242.2.6 of the Budget Code, the judgments must be executed within three months after receipt of the necessary documents.\nITMarkFactsComplaintsEnd", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6726", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\nITMarkFactsComplaintsStart 6.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is currently detained in Ksani prison no. 7.\n7.  On 2 May 2005 the Court communicated the application, asking the parties about the compatibility of the applicant’s life sentence, which had resulted from his conviction for murder of a police officer, with Article 3 of the Convention.\n8.  On 30 August 2005 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, which the Court transmitted to the applicant, who was represented by Ms Butkhuzi (“the applicant’s first representative”) at that time. The representative was invited to submit observations on behalf of her client by 24 November 2005 but failed to do so. The Court then extended of its own motion the relevant time‑limit until 10 February 2006, but the representative still failed to submit any observations.\n9.  By a letter of 14 February 2006 the Court, noting her persistent failure to submit observations on behalf of the applicant, advised Ms Butkhuzi that it would proceed with the examination of the case as its file stood.\n10.  On 10 May 2006 the applicant’s first representative, claiming to have lost the case materials, requested the Court to provide her with a copy of the file. The Court granted that request on 16 May 2006.\n11.  On 3 July 2006 Ms Mukhashavria and Mr Vakhtangidze informed the Court of their designation as additional legal counsels for the applicant (“the new representatives”) and expressed their intention to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the case in the near future. The Court replied on 10 July 2006, reminding the new representatives of the applicant’s unjustified failure to submit observations within the previously allotted and extended time-limits, in breach of the relevant procedural rules. The Court stated that no further extension of the relevant time-limit could be allowed at that stage and advised the new representatives to contact their colleague, Ms Butkhuzi, in order to obtain the necessary documents and additional information about the proceedings.\n12.  On 12 July 2006 the new representatives again requested the Court to give them another time-limit for the submission of observations. The Court rejected that reiterated request on 31 July 2006.\n13.  On 15 February 2007 the new representatives requested the Court to provide them with another copy of the case materials, explaining that the applicant’s first representative had not shared the materials with them. In reply, the Court, noting that the relevant materials had already been sent to the first representative, still granted, as an exception, the new representatives’ request on 6 March 2007 by providing them with another copy of the file.\n14.  On 7 May 2007 the applicant’s new representatives reiterated for the third time their readiness to submit observations on behalf of the applicant.\n15.  On 21 January 2010 the applicant’s father enquired with the Court about the state of the proceedings. He complained that he had been in a complete information vacuum as regards the development of the case and also requested to be provided with a copy of the case materials.\nII. THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCOVERED AFTER THE COURT’S DECISION OF 29 JUNE 2010\n16.  On 5 October 2010 the Government submitted, as part of their observations on the merits, a copy of the final and enforceable decision of 12 March 2007 of the Supreme Court of Georgia.\n17.  As disclosed by that decision, the Supreme Court, gra", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6729", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1965 and 1974 respectively, and live in İstanbul. They are the parents of Atalay Kemaloğlu, who died in 2004, when he was seven years old.\n5.  On 22 January 2004 Istanbul was hit by a heavy snow storm. Consequently, upon the instructions of the Ministry of Education, schools in Istanbul broke up for the winter beak a day earlier than scheduled. On that day, Atalay had gone to his primary school on the municipality’s shuttle, which travelled between his home and the school. After the school bulletins had been distributed, classes were dismissed at the beginning of the afternoon, before the normal school day was over.\n6.  According to the information in the case file, Atalay had not enrolled for the paid school bus, but was using the shuttle that was operated for free by the municipality. As the early dismissal of the classes had not been notified to the municipality, the shuttle did not come when the school was closed. Atalay therefore tried to walk back home, which was 4 km away from his school. Late in the afternoon, when he did not return from school, the applicants called the police. However, it was not possible to find Atalay. His body was found the following day, frozen near a river bed.\n7.  Following the incident, the Primary School Inspectors’ Presidency of the Istanbul Education Directorate (İstanbul Valiliği İl Milli Eğitim Müdürlüğü İlköğretim Müfettişleri Başkanlığı) initiated an investigation, during which the inspectors took the statement of the driver of the municipality’s shuttle. He explained that on the day of the incident he had taken seven students from their homes and had left them in front of the school. Every day, he took them back around 5.30 p.m. On that day, no one informed him that the school would be closed at 2.00 p.m. Therefore, when he went to the school, everyone had already left. The inspectors prepared a report on 27 January 2004 and found that the deputy headmaster of the school had been at fault for not informing the municipality about the early closure of the schools. On 18 February 2004 the Presidency concluded that the deputy headmaster of the school had been at fault for neglecting to inform the municipality’s shuttle service of the early dismissal of the classes. It accordingly decided to issue a warning to the deputy headmaster as a disciplinary sanction.\n8.  On 6 August 2004 the applicants filed two separate actions with the Istanbul Administrative Court against the Ministry of Education, Yenidoğan Municipality and Istanbul Municipality. Alleging that their son had lost his life due to the negligence of the domestic authorities, the first applicant requested 375,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 207,000 euros (EUR) at the time) and the second applicant TRL 324,000,000 (approximately EUR 188,000 at the time) covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation. They also requested legal aid for the court fees.\n9.  On 30 September 2004 the Istanbul Administrative Court requested the applicants to complete the case file by submitting relevant documents in support of their legal aid claim within one month.\n10.  In support of their legal aid claim, both applicants submitted to the Istanbul Administrative Court certificates from the office of the headman (muhtarlık) attesting to their indigence, certificates from the District Governor confirming that they did not own any immovable property and certificates indicating that they were in debt to the Tax Offi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6730", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1971 and 1974 respectively.\n7.  The first applicant started serving a seven-year prison sentence in October 2007. On 8 January 2012 his sentence was suspended on probation. According to the latest information submitted by the second applicant he is serving a prison sentence and is detained in Ploieşti Prison.\n8.  In January 2000, the applicants were involved in an affair which had large‑scale media coverage called “The Car Boot Affair” (Afacerea Portbagajul). R.V., the applicants’ friend, was kidnapped and subjected to ill‑treatment for almost five weeks by people paid by a businessman, B.M., to get back money he had allegedly stolen from the boot of a car belonging to the businessman.\n9.  In the evening of 11 January 2000, a little before midnight, R.V. received a phone call from one of his friends, D.C., who informed him that he was invited at the headquarters of B.M.’s company to clarify the situation of the stolen money. R.V. accepted the invitation and went to the place indicated. Immediately after his arrival, R.V. admitted under threat that he had stolen the money, with another person. From that moment he was kept prisoner, permanently guarded by the people being paid by B.M., in different buildings in Bucharest.\n10.  On 7 February 2000 he was taken to a villa belonging to B.M. in Breaza. On 14 February 2000, taking advantage of a lapse of attention on the part of the people guarding him, R.V. climbed out of a window of the toilets and escaped.\n11.  Immediately after R.V.’s escape, B.M. left the country in order to avoid arrest.\n12.  The role played by the applicants in this affair was highly controversial.\n13.  The prosecutors presented them as individuals paid by B.M. to kidnap R.V. and keep him under guard.\n14.  According to the statements given by R.V., the victim, and other witnesses, the applicants were friends of the victim and they were present at the meeting between B.M. and R.V. as protection for the latter.\n15.  According to a statement given by a witness, P.C., before the Bucharest County Court on 28 May 2001, the applicants were sent to the headquarters of B.M.’s company to protect R.V. and to keep their mutual friends informed of what was happening.\n16.  In his statement given on 2 February 2001, D.C. recognised that he had contacted the applicants and asked them to be present at the meeting. He also added that they had informed him that their friend R.V. needed help, which they could not provide as they were outnumbered and surrounded by armed persons.\n17.  Furthermore, at the last hearing before the Bucharest County Court held on 8 February 2002, R.V.’s lawyer called for the two applicants to be acquitted, stressing that they were the victim’s friends, who had tried to make their friend’s situation easier under the circumstances.\n18.  According to the applicants, they were present at the meeting which took place on 11 January 2000 between their friend and B.M. They informed D.C. and M.C. (another friend of R.V.) that R.V. would not be released until he returned the stolen money. When they saw that the people paid by B.M. had left the headquarters of B.M.’s company with their friend, they tried to find out where he had been taken. On being informed that their friend was being kept in a deserted house outside Bucharest, they went there and tried to release him.\n19.  When threatened by B.M. and the people paid by him they were forced to give up and leave. They maintained that they did ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6732", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1918 and lives in St Petersburg.\n6.  The applicant holds a number of premium bonds issued in 1982 (“the 1982 USSR bonds”, облигации Государственного внутреннего выигрышного займа 1982 года). She deposited them in 1986 with Sberbank (“the Savings Bank” – Сбербанк России).\n7.  In December 1991 the USSR was dissolved. In February 1992 the Government of Russia acknowledged that the 1982 USSR bonds held by Russian nationals were a part of its internal debt. Later that year the Russian Government proposed a settlement to the holders of the 1982 USSR bonds (“the redemption scheme”). The redemption scheme provided for conversion of the 1982 USSR bonds into Russian bonds issued in 1992 or, alternatively, their buy-out by the Savings Bank at a price fixed by the Government. The applicant did not react to that offer, so, according to Governmental Decree no. 549 of 5 August 1992 describing the means of the redemption scheme, her bonds were automatically acquired by the Savings Bank. The bonds were extinguished and the redemption price of the 1982 USSR bonds was credited to the applicant’s bank account.\n8.  Between 1995 and 2000, a series of Russian laws was adopted which provided for the conversion of Soviet securities, including the 1982 USSR bonds, into special Russian promissory notes. In particular, on 6 July 1996 the Promissory Value Act introduced the “promissory rouble” as the currency of special promissory notes issued by the Russian Federation. On 4 February 1999 the Base Value Act set out the general approach to be taken as regards the conversion of “promissory roubles” into Russian roubles. The Government were mandated to devise a more detailed procedure for the conversion. Although a regulation on the conversion process was adopted by the Government in 2000 (“Resolution no. 82”), the actual conversion did not start and application of the regulation has remained suspended, by a series of resolutions, to the present day. The application of the Base Value Act was suspended from 1 January 2003 to 1 January 2012 by successive federal laws.\n9.  In the 1990s the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation and the Savings Bank seeking damages for the loss of value of her bonds. The first judgment on the merits was rendered in 1998. On 3 April 2003, following several rounds of court proceedings, the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow dismissed her claim. She appealed.\n10.  On 22 October 2003 the Moscow City Court, sitting as a court of appeal, satisfied her claim in part. In particular, the City Court found that the compulsory redemption of the bonds in 1992 had breached the applicant’s rights. The City Court ordered that the applicant should be restored to the same position as other bondholders, whose bonds had not been subjected to compulsory redemption and had later been converted into special promissory notes of the Russian Federation. The City Court acknowledged the applicant’s right to eighty-four special promissory notes having a total nominal value of 3,185 “promissory roubles”. The court also “acknowledged the applicant’s right to obtain redemption of the notes from the State, under the conditions established by the legislation in force for the holders of special promissory notes”.\n11.  The applicant brought supervisory review proceedings, but to no avail. In the ruling of 23 August 2004 a judge of the Moscow City Court explained that in the absence of a specific ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6733", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Yerevan.\n5.  In February and March 2003 a presidential election was held in Armenia, during which the applicant was involved as an authorised election assistant (վստահված անձ) for the candidate representing the People’s Party of Armenia (PPA), who was the main opposition candidate in the election. Following his defeat by the incumbent President, the PPA candidate challenged the election results in the Constitutional Court, which on 16 April 2003 recommended that a referendum of confidence in the re-elected President be held in Armenia within a year.\n6.  As the April 2004 one-year deadline approached, the opposition stepped up its campaign to challenge the legitimacy of the re-elected President. At the end of March 2004 two main opposition groups – the Justice Alliance, consisting of nine parties, including the PPA and the National Unity Party – announced their intention to start a series of demonstrations demanding the resignation of the re-elected President.\n7.  The applicant alleges that from February 2003 until his arrest in April 2004 he was repeatedly harassed because of his political activity. In particular, the police frequently called him to the police station without any reasons and demanded that he stop his political activities and support for the opposition.\n8.  On 30 March 2004 criminal proceedings no. 62201704 were instituted under Article 301 and 318 § 2 of the Criminal Code (CC) against representatives of the Justice Alliance on account of making calls for a violent overthrow of the government and change of the Armenian constitutional order and of publicly insulting government representatives.\n9.  On 8 April 2004 the applicant was handing out leaflets to people at a marketplace in Yerevan, inciting them to attend a demonstration to be held in the capital on 9 April 2004. The leaflets had the following content:\n“Fellow countrymen\nIt is not possible any more to continue this way.\nOn 9 April at 4 p.m. in Freedom Square we will start our struggle which aims to establish a lawful government in Armenia. The future of our homeland depends on the participation of each of us.\nNational Unity PartyJustice Alliance”\n10.  The applicant was stopped by two police officers, G.D. and G.A., who demanded that he accompany them to a police station. It appears that this happened at around 1 p.m.\n11.  According to the applicant, they arrived at the police station at around 1.30 p.m. At the police station he was placed in a waiting room with a glass wall next to the corridor, where he spent about ten hours. During this period he noticed several people behind the glass wall pointing at him as if to identify him. He had no access to a lawyer during this period.\n12.  It appears that at some point the applicant was transferred to a prosecutor’s office where from 8.55 to 9.05 p.m. and from 9.30 to 10.05 p.m. two confrontations were held between him and two witnesses, M.M. and N.S., respectively, who worked at the marketplace. The relevant records stated at the outset that there had been substantial contradictions between the statements of these witnesses and the applicant, who at this stage was also involved as a witness.\n13.  Witness M.M. stated during the confrontation that earlier that day, at around 2 p.m., he had noticed the applicant handing out leaflets and saying something to people at the marketplace. Then the applicant had approached him and given him a leaflet, saying that “the day after it ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6735", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul. He is a high school teacher, an executive member of the Education and Science Workers’ Union and a member of the Confederation of Public Workers’ Unions.\n6.  The 2004 NATO summit took place in Istanbul from 28 to 29 June. The Governor of Istanbul designated thirteen locations in Istanbul where people would be allowed to hold demonstrations.\n7.  As the remaining facts of the case are in dispute between the parties, they will be set out separately. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 8-10) and the Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 11-13). The documentary evidence and further factual elements submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 14-27).\n B.  The applicant’s submissions on the facts\n8.  On 28 June 2004 the applicant and a number of other teachers arrived at the square outside the Mecidiyeköy Underground Station in Istanbul, which is one of the thirteen locations referred to above, to issue a press release.\n9.  The applicant and all his colleagues were unarmed and behaved in a peaceful manner. Nevertheless, police officers who had been circling the crowds grabbed the applicant and his friends by the arms, sprayed them with tear gas and beat them up.\n10.  The police officers then took the applicant to a police station, where he was kept for a period of eleven hours. He was subsequently brought before a prosecutor, who ordered his release.\n11.  After the applicant and other demonstrating teachers finished reading their press release, police officers asked them to disperse. When the demonstrators refused to do so, the police officers warned them that they would be taken into custody. The group continued to refuse to disperse and, instead, went on to stage a sit-in protest. They told the police officers that they would continue with their protest until their friends, who had been arrested elsewhere, had been released.\n12.  When the police continued to try to persuade them, the demonstrators attacked the police with stones and sticks. They also damaged cars in the vicinity and injured a number of police officers. As a result, the police officers used tear gas in order to disperse them. The applicant was taken to the police station, where he was kept for a period of eleven hours before his release was ordered by a prosecutor.\n13.  On the same day the applicant was examined by two doctors. The first examination was carried out at 11.30 a.m. at the Haseki State Hospital. The doctor noted that the applicant’s eyes were red, and considered it necessary for the applicant to be examined by a specialist doctor. The specialist doctor who examined the applicant at Sağmalcılar Hospital at 6.45 p.m. on the same day noted that there was no sign on the applicant’s body that he had been subjected to ill-treatment.\n14.  According to a report prepared on 28 June 2004 by nine of the police officers who had taken part in the incident, the spokesperson for the demonstrators in Mecidiyeköy told the police officers that a number of fellow union members had been arrested at another location in Istanbul earlier in the day. The spokesperson added that the demonstrators in Mecidiyeköy would not be dispersing unless and until their friends had been released, and would instead march to Taksim Square. When the police informed the spokesperson that this would not be al", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6736", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1982 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Plovdiv Prison.\n5.  On 14 September 2001 the applicant was questioned before a judge as a suspect of a theft and an attempted theft, committed in complicity with another person. He confessed into both offences. On an unspecified date charges were brought against him.\n6.  On 29 April 2002 additional theft charges were brought against the applicant.\n7.  In November 2002 the Plovdiv district public prosecutor’s office submitted an indictment with the Plovdiv District Court against the applicant and two other individuals.\n8.  In the period between May 2003 and June 2004 the District Court conducted five hearings, two of which were adjourned because of the absence of the applicant’s lawyer and the others due to absent witnesses.\n9.  On 7 June 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment.\n10.  Upon appeal, on 27 December 2004 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the sentence for procedural violations and remitted the case to the District Court.\n11.  After the remittal, in the period between June 2005 and March 2007 the District Court held eleven hearings. Two hearings were adjourned because of the absence of the applicant’s lawyer, three because of the absence of a co-defendant and five – because of the absence of witnesses.\n12.  At a hearing held on 28 March 2007 the District Court approved a plea bargain agreement between the defendants and the prosecuting authorities and discontinued the proceedings. The applicant was punished by one year and six months’ imprisonment.\n13.  In February 2004 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention in connection with an investigation into robbery and fraud, both committed during the suspension periods of three other convictions. On 23 April 2004 his case was brought to court. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, the final judgment being delivered on 23 February 2007 by the Supreme Court of Cassation.\n14.  During these proceedings, the applicant made several unsuccessful requests for release.\n15.  On 5 October 2004 he requested to be released and asked the court to commission a psychiatric expert’s report in order to prove the deterioration of his mental state. The District Court dismissed his evidentiary request as unsubstantiated and on 19 October 2004 upheld his detention. Upon appeal, on 26 October 2004 the Regional Court, sitting in private, upheld the decision of the District Court.\n16.  At hearings held on 19 January and 30 March 2005 the applicant made further requests for release, arguing, inter alia, that he used to be a drug addict and had mental problems. The District Court dismissed the requests. On 7 April 2005 he appealed against the dismissal of his request of 30 March 2005. On 5 May 2005 the Plovdiv Regional Court, sitting in private, dismissed his appeal.\n17.  The courts relied on the gravity of the charges against the applicant and his previous convictions, which justified the suspicion that he might abscond or re-offend; the lack of new circumstances warranting his release and the diligent conduct of the proceedings. They also found that the applicant’s mental problems could be treated in prison.\n18.  The applicant was detained in Plovdiv Prison from April 2004 until an unspecified date in 2007, when he was moved to Sofia Prison. He submitted that the conditions in Plovdiv Prison had been inhuman and degrading.\n19.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6737", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Lahti, Finland.\n7.  On 18 June 1999 the Krasnoselskiy District Court of St Petersburg (“the District Court”) found that unlawful actions of police officers in 1993 had resulted in harm to the applicant’s health manifesting itself in partial loss of ability to work. This judgment and a supplementary judgment of 11 October 1999 recovered from the State treasury in the applicant’s favour lost earnings up to 1 February 2000 in the amount of 109,751 Russian roubles (RUB) and compensation of non-pecuniary damage in the amount of RUB 10,000. It appears from the applicant’s own submissions that the award was paid to him in 1999.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought a new action seeking recovery of lost earnings for the period from 1 February 2000 to 1 March 2005 and further monthly payments to be re-calculated in accordance with the minimum wage, reimbursement of expert fees and compensation for sanatorium treatment.\n9.  By a judgment of 3 March 2005 the District Court granted his claims in part, however the judgment was reversed on appeal on 18 April 2005, and the case was remitted to the first instance for fresh examination.\n10.  On 19 September 2005 the District Court again granted the claims in part awarding the applicant lost earnings in the amount of RUB 378,185 and related monthly payments in the amount of RUB 8,911 to be adjusted to the cost of living, RUB 39,585 for sanatorium treatment, and RUB 5,600 as reimbursement of the expert fees.\n11.  The above judgment was not challenged on appeal. The enforcement documents received by the Ministry of Finance on 25 October 2005 were returned to the applicant in April 2006 due to unidentified inconsistencies in the judgment.\n12.  On 18 June 2007 the District Court considered the applicant’s application for adjustment of the amounts awarded by the judgment of 19 September 2005. The court rejected the application but clarified the original judgment by specifying that the responsibility for its enforcement lay with the Ministry of Finance. A new writ of enforcement was issued.\n13.  On 29 January 2008 the judgment of 19 September 2005 was enforced in full. It transpires from the documents submitted by the Government and covering the period between February 2008 and February 2010 that the monthly payments in the amount determined by the District Court on 19 September 2005 were regularly credited to the applicant’s account.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6738", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  Mr Ştefan Panaitescu (“the applicant”) was a Romanian national, born in 1944, who lived in Alejd, Bihor County. On 3 December 2006, he died and the application was continued by his son Mr Alexandru Leonard Panaitescu.\n8.  On 8 May 2002, the applicant filed an action against the Bihor County Pensions Office seeking the annulment of a decision denying him the benefit of Law no. 189/2000, which provided for damages and certain facilities for persons persecuted by the Romanian authorities between 6 September 1940 and 6 March 1945 on ethnic grounds.\nBy a decision of 3 June 2002, the Oradea Appeal Court found for the applicant, ordering the defendant to award him the benefits provided for in the above-mentioned Law. The decision became final on 28 January 2003.\nAccordingly, on 2 April 2003 the commission responsible for the enforcement of Law no. 189/2000 issued a new decision confirming the applicant’s status as a refugee and consequently as a beneficiary of that Law from 1 April 2001; the decision confirmed that, inter alia, the applicant was entitled to obtain priority free medical assistance and medicines, both when hospitalised and as an outpatient.\n9.  On 20 April 2005, the applicant was diagnosed with cancer and on 4 May 2005, he underwent surgery at Oradea State Hospital for the removal of a tumour on the right kidney. Following medical tests, it was established that the tumour had reached stage III and that the lung was also affected. According to the applicant, although he was hospitalised in the oncology ward, the medical staff failed to administer him specific oncological treatment and he was administered only perfusions with vitamins and normal saline solution.\n10.  In these circumstances, the applicant approached the Cluj Napoca Oncological Institute.\nOn 16 September 2005, by a letter addressed to Oradea Hospital, Dr A.U., an oncologist from the Cluj Napoca Oncological Institute, confirmed a partial remission of the illness in the applicant’s case, and therefore recommended that he continue being treated with Avastin and Roferon, which he had started at his own expense in July 2005. This recommendation was later reiterated in a letter of 12 January 2006, in which Dr. A.U also acknowledged that the Avastin medicine, which had been administered to the patient twice a week from 1 July 2005, had been “procured and paid for in full by Mr. Panaitescu during the entire period of treatment”.\n11.  However, as he could not afford to continue indefinitely bearing the costs of the treatment, which was financially burdensome, the applicant notified the Bihor Health Insurance Service (Casa Judeţeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Bihor – “the CAS”) and the Bihor Public Health Office (Direcţia de Sănătate Publică Bihor) accordingly on 22 and 18 August 2005 respectively and sent numerous requests to the National Health Insurance Service (Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate - “the CNAS”), seeking to be granted the recommended drugs free of charge.\nOn 27 September 2005, through a local bailiff, he filed a notification with the CNAS requesting, on the basis of the relevant legislation and supporting documents, that funds be made available for the drugs recommended by his oncologist, namely Roferon and Avastin. The notification read as follows in its relevant part:\n“I ask you to take into consideration that in case of failure to grant my request, you will incur civil and criminal liability for causing my death .... The director of the Bihor Publi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6741", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 8 November 1993 A.D. brought an action against the applicant in the Kamnik Local Court. She sought that the applicant ceases to use her plot of land for other reasons than for his right of passage.\n6.  On 27 December 1993 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against A.D., seeking that she removes her car blocking the passage to his outbuildings. Both proceedings were joined.\n7.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention came into force in respect to Slovenia.\n8.  In 1995 the case was reassigned following the restructuring of the courts.\n9.  On 21 June 1996 a hearing was held.\n10.  On 5 November 1996 a hearing was held where both parties requested for it to be postponed, since there were talks of reaching a settlement.\n11.  On 10 January 1997 the first-instance court sent an inquiry to the parties about the developments regarding the settlement. They did not respond.\n12.  Between 16 March 1999 and 18 October 1999 three hearings were held.\n13.  On 8 October 1999 the first-instance court delivered a written judgment, partly upholding both claims, the applicant’s and A.D.’s. Both parties appealed.\n14.  On 31 January 2001 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal but upheld A.D.’s appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.\n15.  On 15 May 2001 a hearing was held.\n16.  Two hearings scheduled for 28 August 2001 and 27 September 2001 were rescheduled on the request of the applicant due to his illness.\n17.  At the end of January 2002 the case was reassigned to a new judge.\n18.  On 31 May 2004 a hearing was held.\n19.  On 27 July 2004 the first-instance court rejected the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.\n20.  On 23 March 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and again remitted the case for re-examination.\n21.  On 15 November 2005 the Kamnik Local Court rejected the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.\n22.  On 24 May 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. That decision was served on the applicant on 18 July 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6742", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Paris.\n6.  The applicant’s father, J.-L. Lagardère, was chairman and managing director of the Matra and Hachette companies.\n7.  On 29 December 1992 Lambda, a company representing certain shareholders in Matra and Hachette, lodged a complaint for misappropriation of corporate assets, together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party.\n8.  By an order of 21 June 1999, J.-L. Lagardère was sent before the Paris Criminal Court on suspicion of having, between 1988 and 1992, as chairman and managing director of Matra and Hachette in Paris, knowingly fraudulently misused assets of those companies against their interest, in particular by letting them bear the full cost of an annual licence fee equal to 0.2% of the two companies’ turnover, only part of which was justified, for his personal gain or to help another company in which he had a direct or indirect interest.\n9.  Two agreements were signed for the purpose: one on 1 October 1988, between Matra and the Arjil Group, and the other on 1 November 1988, between Hachette and the Arjil Group. They were adopted by the general assemblies of Hachette and Matra on 20 June 1989 and 26 June 1989 respectively.\n10.  In a judgment of 22 June 2000 the Paris Criminal Court declared the prosecution against J.-L. Lagardère time-barred, the starting point for the purposes of limitation being fixed at 20 and 26 June 1989, the dates of signature of the agreements by the shareholders. As a result, the court declared the civil party action brought by Lambda inadmissible.\n11.  On 22 and 28 June 2000 Lambda and the public prosecutor at the Paris tribunal de grande instance appealed.\n12.  In a judgment of 25 January 2002 the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment in all its provisions. Lambda appealed on points of law.\n13.  On 14 March 2003 J.-L. Lagardère died.\n14.  In a judgment of 8 October 2003, after declaring that the prosecution had lapsed, this time as a result of the accused’s death, the Criminal Division of the Court of Cassation quashed and annulled the judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal concerning the civil action, considering that the moment at which time had started to run for the purposes of limitation was the presentation of the auditors’ special report to the general assemblies, which post-dated the signature of the disputed agreements. The case was sent before the Versailles Court of Appeal.\n15.  Jean-Luc Lagardère’s heirs, his widow E.P.L. and the applicant, challenged that court’s competence to judge the civil action.\n16.  In a judgment of 30 June 2005 the Versailles Court of Appeal dismissed that objection, considering that the civil action continued when the offender’s death occurred after a decision on the criminal prosecution had been given.\n17.  It declared the instances of misappropriation of corporate assets committed in 1988 time-barred, but not those committed in the financial years 1989 to 1992.\n18.  The court accordingly considered that it had first to determine whether the constituent elements of the offence of misappropriation of corporate assets were established in respect of Arnaud Lagardère’s late father. To do this it examined “the personal interest” in the signature and execution of the contracts in issue, “whether they were against the corporate interests of Matra and Hachette”, and whether J.-L. Lagardère had acted in “bad faith”. It concluded its reasoning in the following terms:\n“the system set in plac", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6743", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Lublin.\n7.  The applicant and the Government gave partly different statements in respect of certain facts of the case concerning the “dangerous detainee” regime, the conditions of the applicant’s detention and his contact with his family during his detention (see paragraphs 54-71 and 87-98 below). The remaining facts were not in dispute.\n8.  On 21 June 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking committed together with other identified and yet unidentified persons.\n9.  On 22 June 2006 the Lublin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It attached importance to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings by bringing to bear pressure on – unspecified – witnesses and co-suspects, in order to create favourable conditions for his defence.\n10.  An appeal by the applicant against the detention order and further decisions extending his detention, and his numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were all unsuccessful.\n11.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on 15 September 2006 (to 20 December 2006) and 5 January 2007 (to 14 April 2007). In their decisions on the matter the authorities relied on the original grounds given for his detention. The courts also stressed that, owing to the complexity of the case, the investigation had still not been completed.\n12.  On 4 April 2007 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Lublin District Court. The applicant was charged with drug trafficking, attempted money laundering and obtaining a loan by deception. A.W., the applicant’s common-law wife (konkubina), was indicted on a charge of attempted money laundering in that she had attempted to invest the proceeds of crime received by the applicant from drug trafficking in the purchase of a car and entering into a bank loan agreement in order to conceal the criminal origins of the invested money.\n13.  On 10 April 2007 the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 14 July 2007 and then, on the latter date, until 14 October 2007. The courts repeated the original grounds for his detention.\n14.  On 17 July 2007 the Lublin District Court made a severance order referring part of the charges to the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). Both the prosecutor and the applicant lodged interlocutory appeals against that decision.\n15.  On 16 August 2007 the case in its entirety was referred to the Lublin Regional Court. However, on account of the subsequent amendment to the provisions governing the jurisdiction of criminal courts, the case was eventually referred back to the District Court on 30 October 2007.\n16.  In the meantime, on 9 October 2007, the Lublin Regional Court had further extended the applicant’s detention until 14 January 2008, holding that evidence so far gathered sufficiently supported the suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged. It stressed the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the fact that he was a recidivist offender.\n17.  During the court proceedings the applicant’s detention pending trial was extended on several occasions, namely on 28 December 2007 (to 14 April 2008), 11 April 2008 (to 30 June 2008), 27 June 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6746", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 8 August 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of forging official documents, possessing marijuana for personal use and selling counterfeit foreign currency. He pleaded guilty to the first charge, but denied having committed the other offences.\n8.  On 10 August 2006 he was released, but he was arrested again on 16 August 2006 and placed in prison no. 13 in Chişinău on 26 August 2006.\n9.  On 20 February 2007 he was convicted of the offence to which he had confessed and acquitted on the rest of the counts. He was sentenced to a prison term of six months and six days and released immediately, because he had already been detained for an equivalent period of time pending the trial.\n10.  On 18 September 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal partially quashed that judgment and increased the applicant’s sentence to two years. On 3 March 2008 he was arrested again and was detained in prison no. 13 in Chişinău between 6 March 2008 and 27 December 2009 (when he was transferred to prison no. 5 in Cahul). On 10 April 2010 he was transferred to Pruncul prison hospital no. 16 for tuberculosis treatment.\n11.  On 15 July 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice ordered a rehearing of the case by the Chişinău Court of Appeal.\n12.  On 16 December 2008 the Chişinău Court of Appeal convicted the applicant on all counts (see paragraph 7 above), sentencing him to seven years and six months of imprisonment.\n13.  On 30 June 2009 the Supreme Court of Justice partly upheld that conviction, sentencing the applicant to seven years and two months of imprisonment.\n14.  On 17 November 2009 the Supreme Court of Justice adopted a judgment by which it corrected an error made in its final judgment of 30 June 2009. As a result the entire period of the applicant’s detention pending trial was deducted from the applicant’s prison term. The applicant continues to serve his sentence.\n15.  The applicant was detained in prison no. 13 from 16 August 2006 until 20 February 2007, as well as from 6 March 2008 until 27 December 2009. He described the conditions of detention as follows.\n16.  The cell measured 20 square metres and accommodated thirteen to twenty detainees at a time. It was damp and dirty. In summer it was extremely hot, forcing everyone to go half naked; during the winter it was very cold.\n17.  The applicant was allegedly subjected to passive smoking despite his tuberculosis, of which the prison authorities were aware from the very beginning of his detention. The one small window was covered by a metal sheet with small holes, preventing daylight from reaching the cell.\n18.  Tap water was not always available, which made it impossible to eliminate the smell from the toilet, situated just 1.5 metres from the dining table. Access to a shower was ensured only once a week. The cell was infested with parasitic insects.\n19.  The applicant allegedly asked on a number of occasions to be given appropriate medical assistance, but this was refused as the necessary medication was not available (the applicant did not specify which medication and for what illness it had been required). He also asked for better food and extra time for his daily walks in order to improve his state of health, but these requests were also refused.\n20.  According to the applicant, the food served smelled bad and was virtually inedible.\n21.  In a letter of 8 Dece", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6749", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1959; at the material time she lived in Argun. She currently lives in Noybera, Chechnya. The applicant was the wife of Asradiy (also spelled as Asrudi, Asradiyn and Visrudi) Estamirov, who was born in 1957.\n7.  At about 5 p.m. on 5 January 2001 a convoy of the 70th motorised infantry battalion was moving on the Gudermes-Argun highway through the town of Argun in Chechnya.\n8.  At about 5.30 p.m., when the military was moving in the vicinity of the corner of Gudermesskaya Street and Stepnoy Lane in Argun, the convoy exchanged intense fire with unidentified persons, who had attempted to attack it. Asradiy Estamirov, who happened to be at the corner of Gudermesskaya Street and Stepnoy Lane was wounded in the head and subsequently died.\n9.  According to Mr R.V., who was at home on 5 January 2001, at about 5 p.m. on that date he heard intensive shooting. Shortly after the firing had come to an end, he was asked to take the wounded Asradiy Estamirov to hospital in his car. He took the applicant’s husband to the Argun town hospital.\n10.  On 6 February 2001 the Argun town registration office issued an official certificate confirming the death of Asradiy Estamirov. The document stated that he had died on 6 January 2001.\n11.  On 16 May 2001 the Argun town hospital issued a medical statement concerning the death of Asradiy Estamirov. According to the document, the cause of his death had been a “...blunt penetrating wound of the left frontal region of the head... received during the shooting by the federal military forces...”\n12.  On an unspecified date a doctor of the Argun town hospital issued an information statement concerning the cause of Asradiy Estamirov’s death. According to the document, “...the corpse arrived at the trauma ward of the Argun town hospital at 5.20 p.m. on 5 January 2001; [Asradiy Estamirov] was killed during the fire [opened by] the federal forces... diagnosis: blunt penetrating wound of the left frontal region of the head, fatal injury...”\n13.  In support of her statement the applicant enclosed the following documents: a statement by Mr R.V. dated 18 November 2004; a statement by Mr T.E. dated 18 November 2004; a copy of two medical statements, undated and dated 16 May 2001, respectively; and a copy of Asradiy Estamirov’s death certificate dated 6 February 2001.\n14.  The Government did not challenge the matter as presented by the applicant. They submitted that the applicant’s husband had been killed on 5 January 2001 during an exchange of fire between the military convoy and unidentified individuals.\n15.  On 5 January 2001 three residents of Argun, Ms Kh.E., Ms Ya.D. and Ms S.E., provided their statements to the applicant to the effect that on 5 January 2001 they had seen a convoy of Russian federal forces driving on the Gudermes-Argun motorway; the convoy had been firing at unknown targets. According to the document, none of the three residents had witnessed the shooting of the applicant’s husband or had been able to notice the registration numbers or any distinctive features of the military vehicles.\n16.  On 5 or 6 January 2001 an officer from the Argun Department of the Interior (the Argun VOVD) informed his superiors that at about 6 p.m. on 5 January 2001 Asradiy Estamirov had been taken to the hospital by Mr R.V. who had found him wounded in Stepnoy Lane earlier the same day.\n17.  On 6 January 2001 the Argun town hospital no. 1 informed the Argun VOVD that on 5 January 2001 they had receiv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6750", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Tokat.\n6.  On 27 March 1997 the applicant was arrested by police officers of the anti‑terrorist branch of the Istanbul Security Forces on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation and involvement in a bank robbery.\n7.  On 1 April 1997 the applicant was taken before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, who placed him in pre-trial detention.\n8.  On 30 April 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment, charging the applicant with attempting to overturn the constitutional system by force under Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code.\n9.  Basing its decision on the evidence before it, on 19 December 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n10. On 16 September 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on procedural grounds and returned the case to the first-instance court.\n11.  Following the abolition of the State Security Courts by Law no. 5190, the criminal proceedings were transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court (2003/291 E.).\n12.  During the proceedings, the Istanbul Assize Court held hearings at two- or three-month intervals at which the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued pre-trial detention was reviewed. At those hearings the applicant made his pleadings orally before the trial court and requested to be released pending trial. The Istanbul Assize Court rejected those requests several times in view of the reasonable grounds of suspicion established against the applicant, the nature of the criminal charges and the state of the evidence in the case file.\n13.  In between the hearings, the Istanbul Assize Court continued to scrutinise, by virtue of Article 108 of Law no. 5271, the necessity of applicant’s continued pre-trial detention every thirty days on the basis of the case file, without holding an oral hearing.\n14.  At a hearing on 6 March 2008, the applicant was again brought before the trial court, where he claimed that his continued detention was unlawful and consequently requested to be released pending trial. This request was rejected by the Istanbul Assize Court on the basis of the reasonable grounds of suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he was charged, and the state of the evidence in the case file.\n15. Following the applicant’s objection against the above-mentioned decision, the 14th Division of the Istanbul Assize Court reviewed the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention on the basis of the case file. On 4 April 2008 the court dismissed the objection lodged by the applicant based on the public prosecutor’s written opinion, which had not been communicated to the applicant.\n16.  On 3 November 2009, having regard to the period he had spent in detention, the Istanbul Assize Court released the applicant on the condition that he did not leave the country.\n17.  According to the information in the case file, the proceedings are currently pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6751", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Łódź.\n6.  The applicant was serving a prison sentence in Potulice Prison. The overall term of his imprisonment was due to come to an end on 26 May 2007.\n7.  Pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Code, applicable to persons found guilty of offences committed while acting as members of an organised criminal group, the applicant became eligible for early conditional release (warunkowe przedterminowe zwolnienie) after having served three‑quarters of the overall term of his imprisonment, namely on 12 July 2006. After that date, the applicant requested a court on several occasions to grant him conditional release. However, his requests were denied.\n8.  On 11 January 2007 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) gave a decision ordering the applicant’s early conditional release for a two-year probationary period. It placed the applicant under the supervision of a court officer and imposed certain other obligations on him.\n9.  On 19 February 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) upheld the decision of the Bydgoszcz Regional Court.\n10.  On 20 February 2007 the applicant was served with a copy of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal’s decision.\n11.  According to the official release certificate, the applicant was released on 26 February 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6752", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company, which has its seat of business in Ernstbrunn (Austria), carries out cattle and pig slaughter, and is therefore liable to agricultural marketing charges, calculated on the basis of the number of animals slaughtered, to be paid to Agrarmarkt Austria (AMA) under the Agricultural Market Act (Agrarmarktgesetz).\n6.  On 30 May 2006 the AMA issued a payment order against the applicant company, ordering it to pay outstanding contributions for the period of December 2005 and January 2006 in the amount of 11.730,05 euros (EUR) and, in addition, imposing a surcharge for failure to pay, amounting to 60% of the unpaid contributions. The applicant company appealed against the order. It argued in particular that the above system was contrary to the rules of the European Union on state aid. It also asked for oral hearings to be held on the appeal and also asked that the proceedings for enforcing the payment order be suspended.\n7.  The Federal Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water (Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasser­wirtschaft), acting as the appeal authority, dismissed the applicant company’s appeal on 17 July 2006 without holding a hearing.\n8.  As regards the applicant’s argument that the AMA contributions were levied for financing activities, the AMA quality programme, which was not in accordance with EU law, the Federal Minister found that after the decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2004 (C(2004)2037), the applicant company was in a position to know precisely which charges it had to pay. In that decision the European Commission had expressed that it had no objection to the AMA Quality programmes and quality mark registered as state aid NN 34A/2000 (“Qualitätsprogramme und das AMA-Biozeichen und das AMA-Gütezeichen”), because that state aid was in accordance with the Common Market provided for in the Treaty establishing the European Community. The Federal Minister referred further to the Administrative Court’s decision of 20 March 2006, no. 2005/17/230, according to which also the levying of AMA contributions was in accordance with the relevant provisions of EU law (se §§ 24-27 below). The Federal Minister further held that it had not been necessary to hold a hearing because a hearing was only held if a decision was taken by a panel on an appeal against the decision of a tax office or a regional directorate of finance, which was not the case here.\n9.  On 25 July 2006 AMA dismissed the request for suspension of the enforcement.\n10.  Thereupon the applicant company lodged complaints with the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court against the Federal Minister’s decision. Before the Constitutional Court the applicant company complained, inter alia, that the surcharge imposed violated its constitutional right to property. Before the Administrative Court the applicant company complained that the appeal authority was not a court within the meaning of the case-law of the European Court of Justice which prevented it from having the lawfulness of the decision by the European Commission of 30 June 2004 reviewed by the European Court of Justice in proceedings under Article 234 of the Treaty of the European Union. As regards the imposition of the surcharge the applicant company complained that the findings of fact were insufficient. In particular the authority had failed to establish whether the objective and subjective elements of the offence (objektiven und subjekt", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6754", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Warszawa. He is currently detained in the Warsaw Mokotów Remand Centre.\n6.  On 14 July 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug smuggling. On 15 July 2004 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody for 3 months, relying on the reasonable suspicion – supported by evidence taken from witnesses – that he had committed the offence in question and the need to secure the proper course of the proceedings. The court also attached importance to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or would otherwise obstruct the proceedings. That risk was justified by the fact that the case involved a large number of accomplices who had not yet been apprehended.\n7.  An appeal by the applicant against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against subsequent decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeals, he argued that his lengthy detention violated the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the imposition of this measure.\n8.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on several occasions, namely on 21 September 2004 (to 31 December 2004), 21 December 2004 (to 31 March 2005) and 22 March 2005 (to 30 June 2005). In all their decisions the authorities relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention. The courts also stressed the fact that, owing to the complexity of the case, the investigation had still not been completed.\n9.  On 16 June 2005 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The applicant, together with 3 other co‑accused, was indicted on charges of drug smuggling and conspiracy to import drugs committed in an organised criminal group aiming at importing into Poland considerable amounts of drugs.\n10.  During the court proceedings the courts further extended the applicant’s detention on several occasions, namely on 23 June 2005 (to 30 September 2005), on an unspecified subsequent date, on 28 June 2006 (to 30 October 2006), 3 October 2006 (to 31 December 2006), 28 December 2006 (to 30 April 2007), 25 April 2007 (31 August 2007), 22 August 2007 (to 31 December 2007), 11 December 2007 (to 31 March 2008), 18 March 2008 (until 30 June 2008), 25 June 2008 (until 30 September 2008) and 18 September 2008 (until 31 December 2008).\nThe courts repeated the grounds previously given for keeping the applicant in custody. They attached importance to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on him and the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings.\n11.  On 19 October 2005 the Regional Court held the first hearing. The trial continued until 30 December 2008.\nThroughout that time 98 hearings were scheduled. The hearings took place at last once a month but at certain periods the court held up to 5 hearings per month. On average, they were held at 2 week-intervals and there was no interruption of the trial longer than 5 weeks.\n12.  On 30 December 2008 the court convicted the applicant of drug smuggling and conspiracy to import drugs but acquitted him of acting in an organised criminal group. He was sentenced to a cumulative penalty of 12 years’ imprisonment. The Court deducted the period of his detention ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6755", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Lublin.\n8.  On 6 June 2007 the Lublin District Court convicted the applicant of several robberies and sentenced him to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. By a judgment of 28 December 2007 the Lublin Regional Court upheld the first‑instance judgment.\n9.  On 4 January 2008 the applicant requested the Lublin Regional Court to grant him a legal-aid lawyer for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n10.  On 7 February 2008 a legal-aid lawyer was assigned.\n11.  By a letter of 14 March 2008 the lawyer informed the court in a one sentence-long opinion that he had not found any grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal. This statement did not include any reasons for the refusal to lodge a cassation appeal.\n12.  By a letter of 17 March 2008 the court forwarded the lawyer’s statement to the applicant. The letter read as follows:\n“...The Lublin Regional Court informs you that your legal-aid lawyer, advocate Mr W.W., informed the court in writing that he had not found any grounds to prepare a cassation appeal. In consequence, the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal by a lawyer of your own choice expires on 7 April 2008.”\n13.  The letter as well as the opinion were served on the applicant on an unspecified date.\n14.  On 27 March 2008 the Lublin Regional Court refused to assign a new legal-aid lawyer to the applicant. The court stated that because the previous legal-aid lawyer had not found any grounds on which to draw up a cassation appeal, the mere fact that the applicant disagreed with this decision could not require the verification of this opinion by successive lawyers.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6756", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1948, respectively, and are married to each other.\n7.  In 1995 and 1999, respectively, the applicants were granted disability pensions by the Serbian Pensions and Disability Insurance Fund (Republički fond za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje zaposlenih; hereinafter “the SPDIF”) – Branch Office in Kosovo[1].\n8.  Having lived in Kosovska Mitrovica for many years, in 2005 they moved to Novi Pazar, Serbia proper (i.e. the territory of Serbia excluding Kosovo), as documented in their personal identity cards issued by the respondent State’s Ministry of Internal Affairs (Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova).\n9.  The first and second applicants regularly received their pensions until 9 June 1999 and 15 January 2000, respectively, when the monthly payments stopped without any explanation having been provided by the SPDIF.\n10.  On 22 May 2003 the applicants sought that the payment of their pensions be resumed.\n11.  On 1 March 2005 and 17 May 2004, the SPDIF adopted formal decisions to suspend payment of the applicants’ pensions as of 9 June 1999 and 15 January 2000, retroactively. In so doing, it noted that Kosovo was now under international administration which was why the pensions could no longer be paid.\n12.  By two separate judgments of 11 July 2006 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Novi Pazar annulled (poništio) the impugned decisions, noting, inter alia, that they did not refer to the relevant domestic law or provide a satisfactory explanation as to why the payment of the applicants’ pensions should be suspended. In respect of the latter, the District Court effectively re-stated parts of the Supreme Court’s Opinion of 15 November 2005, but did not formally cite it (see paragraph 31 below).\n13.  The SPDIF thereafter filed two separate appeals on points of law (dva zasebna zahteva za vanredno preispitivanje presude) in respect of the District Court’s rulings of 11 July 2006. In its appeal as regards the second applicant the SPDIF, inter alia, stated that, since the respondent State has been unable to collect any pension insurance contributions in Kosovo as of 1999, persons who had already been granted SPDIF pensions in this territory could not continue receiving them. In support of this position the SPDIF cited the Opinion of the Ministry for Social Affairs (Ministarstvo za socijalna pitanja) of 7 March 2003 (see paragraph 29 below) and noted that it considered this opinion binding.\n14.  On 13 September 2007 and 26 February 2008 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Srbije) rejected the said appeals on points of law. Whilst the appeal as regards the second applicant was rejected as incomplete, the same remedy concerning the first applicant was rejected on its merits. In the latter case, the Supreme Court confirmed the impugned decision of the District Court.\n15.  By means of two separate decisions of 3 April 2008 the SPDIF suspended the proceedings instituted on the basis of the applicants’ requests for the resumption of payment of their pensions until such time, as stated in the operative provisions, when the entire issue shall be resolved between the Serbian authorities and the international administration in Kosovo. The SPIDF decisions had an appearance of printed templates where merely the applicants’ names, their place of residence and case identification data were entered by hand.\n16.  The applicants maintain that they filed administrative appeals against these decisions. The Government contests this cl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6758", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1963 respectively and live in Eisenerz.\n5.  The applicants, as owners of certain plots of agricultural land in Eisenerz, were members of the agricultural association (Agrar­gemeinschaft) “Waldgenossen­schaft Eisenerz”, holding a share in that association (“the share”). That share corresponded to the right to use the land of the agricultural association for farming and forestry.\n6.  On 28 November 1988 the applicants filed a request with the Leoben District Agricultural Authority (Agrarbezirksbehörde) to resign from the association and have their share transformed into parcels of land which should then be separated from the association’s land.\n7.  On 16 December 1988 the Leoben District Agricultural Authority decided to institute the partition proceedings (Teilungsverfahren).\n8.  Since the District Agricultural Authority failed to decide on the merits the applicants lodged a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutions­antrag) on 3 October 1989.\n9.  On 24 January 1990 the Regional Land Reform Board (Landes­agrarsenat) declared that it had now jurisdiction in the present case.\n10.  By decision of 23 January 1991 the Regional Land Reform Board decided to which percentage of the association’s land the applicants’ shares corresponded.\n11.  On 24 September 2003, after having obtained two expert opinions in the field of agriculture and forestry on the feasibility of an actual separation of parcels of land which would correspond to the applicants’ share, the Regional Land Reform Board dismissed the applicants’ request. The Regional Land reform Board decision contained a note as to available remedies (Rechtsmittelbelehrung) which stated that against this decision an appeal could be lodged within two weeks with the Supreme Land Reform Board (Oberster Agrarsenat).\n12.  On 15 December 2003 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Supreme Land Reform Board as set out in the instructions as to available remedies.\n13.  On 1 December 2004 the Supreme Land Reform Board rejected the applicants’ appeal since it found that it had no jurisdiction in the case.\n14.  On 23 December 2004 the applicants lodged a request for reinstatement of the proceedings (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand) along with a complaint with the Constitutional Court.\n15.  On 28 February 2005 the Constitutional Court granted the applicants’ request for reinstatement since the instructions as to available remedies given by the Regional Land Reform Board were incorrect.\n16.  On 26 September 2005 the Constitutional Court quashed the decision of the Regional Land Reform Board. It found that the applicants’ right to an independent and impartial tribunal under Article 6 of the Convention had been violated since the two experts in the case also belonged to the body deciding on their request and remitted the case back.\n17.  Subsequently, on 18 January 2006, the Regional Land Reform Board adjourned the proceedings for further investigations.\n18.  On 9 June 2006 the applicants submitted a document containing three possible options for a financial settlement in case of their withdrawal from the association.\n19.  By decision of 28 February 2007 the Regional Land Reform Board defined which part of the land belonged to whom and adjourned the proceedings once again.\n20.  By letter of 19 September 2007 the Regional Land Reform Board requested the District Agricultural Authority to determine by expert opinions potential parcels of land parts which co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6760", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 21 November 2005 the applicant’s wife’s car was stolen. G. contacted the applicant and asked for money for return of the car. The applicant reported this to the police and on 25 November 2005, under instructions from police officers, he gave the money to G. and recorded the conversation on audio tape. On the same day G. was arrested. On 5 June 2006 G. was charged with theft and extortion, mainly on the basis of the aforementioned evidence. On 14 July 2006 the criminal case was referred to the court.\n8.  Meanwhile, on 7 November 2005 the Aizkraukle District Prosecutor’s Office brought charges against the applicant concerning repeated misappropriation.\n9.  On 16 November 2005 the applicant entered a plea of guilty and confirmed that the examination of evidence was not necessary. He explicitly refused the assistance of defence counsel. On the same day the criminal case was referred to the court.\n10  On 4 January 2006, during the hearing, the applicant confirmed that defence counsel and examination of witnesses were not necessary. The Aizkraukle District Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to three years’ and nine months’ imprisonment. The applicant was taken to Central Prison from the courtroom.\n11.  On 26 January 2006 the Zemgale Regional Court examined the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the lower court. According to the records of the hearing the applicant said in his statement to the court that he had been beaten up on his way to the prison and that it had happened because of his previous cooperation with the police.\n12.  In his appeal on points of law of 16 February 2006 the applicant complained about the severity of the sentence. He also mentioned his cooperation with police, and that as a result he had suffered bodily injuries in prison.\n13.  On 23 February 2006 the applicant asked the Prosecutor General to reduce his final sentence. He mentioned, inter alia, that because of his cooperation with the police he had encountered problems in prison, specifically that his nose had been broken and he had also sustained other body injuries. In March 2006 he sent a similar request to the Aizkraukle District Court.\n15.  On 1 September 2006, at the request of the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Aizkraukle District Court reduced the applicant’s sentence by one year, owing to the fact that he had helped to disclose a serious criminal offence.\n17.  The applicant arrived at Central Prison on 5 January 2006 and was placed in a filtering cell with eleven other inmates.\n18.  According to the applicant, during the night of 5-6 January 2006 he was physically and sexually assaulted by his fellow inmates: his nose was broken and he was raped. He complained about this to the Central Prison doctor, who rendered medical assistance but refused to draw up a medical report in this connection; similarly, a prison guard refused to initiate an investigation into the assault.\n20.  According to a report drawn up by the head of the medical unit of the Prison Administration, on 6 January 2006 the applicant was examined by the Central Prison doctor, who recorded the applicant’s complaints about inflammation of the duodenum. On 16 January 2006 the applicant had a prophylactic examination by the same doctor, who assessed him as in good health and fit for work in the prison canteen.\n21.  On 14 March 2006 the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6761", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 in Gabala, Azerbaijan and lives in Germany.\n6.  At the time of the events in question, the applicant was a journalist working at the Turan Information Agency based in Baku.\n7.  On 9 November 2005 a group of political parties representing the opposition held an authorised demonstration at Gabala Square in Baku. The applicant, who was covering the demonstration, was wearing a special blue vest identifying him as a journalist.\n8.  At the edge of the square where the demonstration was held, there was a tall metal construction resembling a staircase. The applicant, who was taking pictures of the demonstration, climbed up this construction to get a better view. During a number of previous demonstrations in the same square, the construction had been used by journalists for the same purpose.\n9.  While the applicant was taking pictures, the Deputy Head of the Yasamal District Police Office, Colonel C. M., hit him with a truncheon several times. This event was witnessed by a number of journalists and other people standing nearby.\n10.  Shortly after this incident, C. M. approached a group of journalists and remarked: “I hit him softly, if I hit him hard he would die.” One of the journalists managed to record the remark on tape.\n11.  On 10 November 2005 the applicant went to hospital to seek medical treatment. He was given certain medical advice for outpatient treatment verbally but was not given a written prescription. The doctor who examined him issued a medical certificate which read as follows, in the relevant parts:\n“Full diagnosis: contusion (əzilmə) of the left leg, contusion (əzilmə) of the left upper arm.\nAccording to the patient, at around 3 p.m. on 9 November 2005 he was injured during a demonstration... The patient received treatment and [medical] advice. This certificate was issued on 10 November 2005.”\n12.  On 11 November 2005 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. He complained that C. M. had used excessive and unjustified force against him, that several people had witnessed this and that he had a tape recording of C. M.’s admission that he had hit the applicant with a truncheon. Other journalists’ organisations, including the Azerbaijani Press Council, also wrote to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs asking them to punish the person responsible for the applicant’s ill‑treatment.\n13.  According to the Government, the applicant’s complaint of 11 November 2005 was received by the Prosecutor General’s Office on 14 November 2005 and was subsequently transferred to the Yasamal District Prosecutor’s Office, which received it on 28 November 2005.\n14.  On 1 December 2005, at a prosecutor’s request, the applicant was examined by a forensic expert who discovered no injuries which might have been inflicted on 9 November 2005 on the applicant’s person. In particular, the forensic report, issued on the same day, read as follows:\n“[Examination:] There is a clear-contoured dark blue-violet bruise (qançır) of an indefinite shape, measuring 3.5x2.5 cm, on the upper one-third portion of the outward side of the left thigh. No other injuries or traces of injuries were discovered on other parts of the body, including the left upper arm. ...\n[Conclusion:] 1. The forensic examination of [the applicant] revealed one bruise on the upper one-third portion of the outward side of his left thigh; the bruise was caused", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6763", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Skopje.\n6.  The applicant worked as a waiter in a bar in Skopje. At 3.50 a.m. on 6 January 2002, R.D., a police reservist, fired a shot in the bar hitting the applicant in the chest. According to a medical certificate of 12 September 2002 issued by Skopje Clinical Centre , the applicant was urgently admitted in a “serious condition” (тешка општа состојба). The injuries sustained were described as follows: broken right clavicle and four broken ribs, injury to the subclavian artery, internal haemorrhaging and seizure of the brachial plexus nerves. His right arm was paralysed. The conclusion was that the applicant had sustained serious bodily injury with life-threatening damage and lasting consequences (витална загрозеност и трајни последици). He was operated on twice, the second time in April 2002 in the Clinical Centre of Belgrade, Serbia.\n7.  On 27 March 2003 the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) convicted R.D. in absentia of “serious crimes against public security” (тешки дела против општата сигурност). He was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. After the court had heard oral evidence from R.D., the applicant and six witnesses and examined other material evidence, it found that R.D., while intoxicated, had unintentionally pulled the trigger of his service gun and shot the applicant, who had been at a distance of one metre. The applicant was advised to pursue his compensation claim by means of a separate civil action. The decision became final on 8 May 2003.\n8.  R.D. started serving his sentence on 6 June 2008. On 23 June 2008 the trial court reopened the proceedings, at R.D.’s request. On 12 March 2009 the trial court found R.D. guilty again and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for four years. No information was provided as to whether that decision was the subject of an appeal or became final.\n9.  On 11 November 2002 the applicant, represented by Mr P. Šilegov, brought a civil action against the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”) seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss related to the injury sustained as a result of R.D.’s action. He claimed that the State should be held responsible, given that R.D., instead of being on duty in a police station, had shot him in the bar. He had used his service gun and had been in uniform. He claimed 28,000,000 Macedonian denars (MKD) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and MKD 208,480 for pecuniary damage (expenses related to his medical treatment).[1]\n10.  After five adjournments, the Skopje Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s claim on 12 December 2003, finding that the Ministry lacked the requisite capacity to be sued for the damage caused by R.D., who, being a police reservist, was regarded a State official. The court established that between 7.30 p.m. on 5 January 2002 and 7.30 a.m. on 6 January 2002 R.D. had been on duty in a police station in Skopje. He had been assigned to stand guard (службена задача – стража) between midnight and 1 a.m. and between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. on 6 January 2002. After 1 a.m. on 6 January 2002, instead of returning to the police station, R.D. had gone to the bar on his own initiative, without informing his superior or the latter’s replacement. He had been in uniform and had been carrying his service gun. In the bar, in the presence of other customers and under the influence of alcohol, he had pulled the gun out and shot the applicant, who had been in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6764", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kryvyy Rig.\n6.  On 1 October 2002 the applicant’s son was hit by the vehicle of Mr B., who fled from the scene of the accident.\n7.  On 2 October 2002 the police examined the scene of the accident, traced and located Mr B., examined his vehicle and conducted a medical examination of Mr B.\n8.  On 9 October 2002 the applicant’s son died in hospital as a result of his injuries sustained in the accident.\n9.  On 11 October 2002 the Zhovtnevy District Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against Mr B. for causing a traffic accident resulting in the death of the applicant’s son and for leaving him in danger after the accident. Mr B. was questioned the same day.\n10.  On 15 October 2002 the applicant was recognised as a civil claimant within the criminal proceedings.\n11.  Between October 2002 and January 2003 the investigation team conducted technical, medical forensic expert examinations, questioned the suspect, the applicant and several witnesses and conducted a number of other investigative actions.\n12.  On 20 January 2003 the criminal proceedings were terminated for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of Mr B.\n13.  On 17 February 2003 the Zhovtnevy District Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 20 January 2003 and remitted the case for further investigation. The investigator in the case was replaced.\n14.  On 5 April 2003 the investigator ordered a repeated technical expert examination. The examination was completed on 6 June 2003.\n15.  On 23 October 2003 the Main Investigative Department of the Ministry of the Interior noted the ineffectiveness of the investigation in the case and ordered the investigator to take appropriate investigative actions.\n16.  Between November 2003 and April 2004 the investigator questioned a number of witnesses.\n17.  On 27 April 2004 the investigator conducted a repeated on-site reconstruction of the events. Another on-site reconstruction was scheduled for 9 June 2004 and postponed on several occasions. It was finally conducted on 28 July 2004.\n18.  On 30 July 2004 the investigator, upon the applicant’s request, ordered additional medical, technical and trace evidence examinations. They were completed on 22 February 2005.\n19.  On 6 May 2005 the case was given to another investigator, who ordered additional medical, technical and trace evidence examinations on the same day.\n20.  On 20 June 2006 the technical examination was completed.\n21.  On 6 July 2006 the investigator in the case was replaced.\n22.  On 18 July 2006 the investigator ordered an additional medical examination. It was completed on 19 August 2006.\n23.  Between October 2006 and April 2007 the investigation team questioned several witnesses and conducted a number of confrontations.\n24.  On 12 December 2007 the case was transferred to the Kryvyy Rig City Police Department for further investigation.\n25.  On 1 February 2008 a new investigator in the case was appointed.\n26.  On 20 February 2008 the investigator in the case was replaced.\n27.  On 3 June 2008 the investigator ordered additional medical, technical and trace evidence examinations. They were completed on 31 June 2008.\n28.  On 10 September 2008 Mr B. was charged with a breach of traffic rules causing the death of the applicant’s son. At the same time, the charge of leaving a person in danger after the accident was dropped.\n29.  On 9 October 2008 the criminal investigation was completed and the case was transferred to the Zhovtnevy ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6765", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Girnyy.\n5.  In 1999 a medical commission established that the applicant had lost 40% of his working ability due to an occupational disease received during his work in coal mines.\n6.  In January 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court of Kirovograd (“the Leninskyy Court”) against his former employers, two coal mining companies, seeking recovery of the occupational disability allowance.\n7.  On 6 March 2009, following two remittals of the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination, the proceedings were completed by a final ruling of the Supreme Court rejecting the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. As a result, the applicant’s claim was allowed in part.\n8.  In early April 2009 the above ruling was served on the applicant.\n9.  According to the Government, the proceedings were delayed for a year and three months due to financial expert examinations conducted three times at the applicant’s request and for six months due to some procedural flaws in his appeals which had to be rectified.\n10.  Being an owner of a land plot, the applicant was a member of a gardening society, a non-profit organisation taking care of the area in question.\n11.  In October 2006 he instituted civil proceedings in the Leninskyy Court against the aforementioned society considering that it had not complied with its duties.\n12.  By their decisions of 19 April, 18 May and 17 December 2007, the Leninskyy Court, the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, found against the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6766", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Sveti Nikole.\n6.  By a court decision of 11 May 1999, the applicant was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for causing serious injury (a broken forearm) to a third person. On 2 December 1999 he started serving his sentence in Štip Prison (“the prison”) where he was responsible for livestock.\n7.  On 24 April 2000 he was attacked by a bull, which was not castrated, as a result of which he sustained numerous bodily injuries. After the incident he was transferred by prison vehicle to Štip hospital, where he underwent surgery. The State covered the medical expenses. On 25 April 2000 the bull was put down. On 9 May 2000 the applicant was released from the hospital. The same day, Mr M.K., the prison governor, ordered him to be released early from prison on account of good behaviour.\n8.  On 28 November 2000 the applicant brought a civil action against the State and the prison (“the defendants”) claiming non-pecuniary damages for the injuries sustained by the bull. His claim was based, inter alia, on sections 173 and 174 of the then valid Obligations Act (see paragraphs 26 and 27 below). He claimed that the bull had attacked him despite the fact that the prison authorities had been alerted about the aggressiveness of the bull, by himself and a certain G. (the first name of Mr G.S., as established in the course of the compensation proceedings, later referred to as Mr G.S.).\n9.  At a hearing of 23 April 2001, Mr G.S. stated that he, with the applicant and Mr M.S., had been looking after eighteen animals, including the bull. He confirmed that the bull had attacked him and other prisoners, including Mr M.S. and Mr Z.S., and that Mr A.B., a prison guard on duty, had been warned on several occasions before the incident about the aggressiveness of the bull. In a certified written statement of 24 December 2001, Mr M.S., a prisoner at that time, confirmed that the bull had been aggressive and that Mr A.B. had been informed of the fact.\n10.  Mr A.B. stated that the applicant, in view of his previous experience in handling cattle, had asked to work on the prison farm. Due to his good behaviour, the prison authorities had granted his request despite initial concerns related to his criminal record. After a week’s work-related induction course, the applicant started working on the prison farm. He remained on the farm for a month before he was allowed pasture duties. That corresponded to the practice already established in the prison. After the incident the bull was lame, which according to him, had been due to the injuries on his buttocks. He had called Mr K.M., a vet, to examine the bull. The next day, in the presence of Mr K.M., the bull had been put down. He denied that the applicant or any other prisoner had ever alerted him that the bull was aggressive.\n11.  Mr I.K., a prisoner at that time who worked on the prison farm, stated that before the incident prisoners had often provoked the bull. He had not heard that any prisoner had ever mentioned, to the prison authorities or to him, that the bull was aggressive.\n12.  At a hearing of 23 April 2002, Mr K.M. stated that the bull had been regularly examined and treated when needed. He denied that it had been aggressive. He confirmed that immediately after the incident he had visually examined the bull and noticed injuries to the rear of its body, the buttocks and testicles, which according to him, had been inflicted by a blunt object. Those injuries were confi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6767", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Odessa.\n6.  In the period between 10 September and 13 October 1999 the applicant had in-patient treatment in the Odessa Region Psychiatric Hospital (“the hospital”) which is a State-run institution. In 2000 she was registered with the Odessa Region Psychoneurological Dispensary (“the psychoneurological dispensary”) as a person with potential mental problems.\n7.  On 24 September 2003 the applicant was assessed by a doctor at the psychoneurological dispensary and referred to the hospital for in-patient treatment for a serious mental disorder. However, the applicant ignored the referral and stayed at home with her mother. A report of the applicant’s assessment was provided to the hospital.\n8.  In the next few days the applicant’s condition worsened and her behaviour became aggressive towards her mother and neighbours. The mother and the housing maintenance authority therefore complained to the hospital about the applicant’s conduct.\n9.  In the morning of 28 September 2003 the applicant was taken to the hospital by ambulance and was assessed by a psychiatrist of the hospital, who concluded that she needed to be hospitalised for a serious mental disorder. The applicant was therefore kept in the hospital.\n10.  On 29 September 2003 a panel of three different psychiatrists of the hospital assessed the applicant once again and issued a report stating that she was a danger to society due to her serious mental disorder, which required in-patient psychiatric treatment. The psychiatrists specified in the report that the applicant’s manner of communication with her mother and neighbours was aggressive; she threatened them, threw glass jars, bottles and vases off the balcony, which was on the fifth floor, played loud music at night and damaged property in the apartment.\n11.  The hospital therefore lodged an application with a local court, seeking authorisation for compulsory admission to hospital in accordance with sections 14 and 16 of the Psychiatric Assistance Act.\n12.  On 30 September 2003 a judge at the local court conducted an on‑site hearing of the applicant’s case in the administration wing of the hospital. The hearing was held in the presence of a prosecutor and one of the doctors who had assessed the applicant earlier. Following the hearing the court allowed the application and held as follows:\n“... having examined the case file and heard a representative of [the hospital] and a prosecutor, the court considers that the application in question should be allowed.\nIt appears from the case file that the patient was taken from home to [the hospital] by the ambulance after showing signs of mental illness which suggested that she was a danger to society.\nA panel of psychiatrists [of the hospital] has concluded that the patient should have in-patient treatment.\nRelying on the Psychiatric Assistance Act and Article 202 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court\nhas decided that\n[M.] should be compulsorily hospitalised to undergo medical treatment.\nThe decision shall not be subject to appeal. ...”\n13.  On 19 December 2003 the compulsory treatment was completed and the applicant was discharged from the hospital.\n14.  According to the applicant, the sanitary and hygienic conditions in which she was kept in the hospital were unsatisfactory.\n15.  On 15 July 2004 the applicant was assessed by a doctor at the psychoneurological dispensary and referred to the hospital for in-patient treatment for a serious menta", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6768", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Sevastopol.\n5.  The circumstances of the case concern a dispute between the applicant and a State company over the execution of a contract pursuant to which the latter undertook, in June 1990, to install a tombstone at the applicant’s son’s grave.\n6.  On 21 August 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Leninsky District Court of Sevastopol against the company for the alleged failure to comply with the contract.\n7.  On 28 December 2000 the court adopted a judgment, partly allowing the applicant’s claim. It ordered the company to install the tombstone or to reimburse the money the applicant had paid for it. The court noted that although the applicant had missed the statutory time-limit for lodging her claim, it was justified, in the applicant’s particular situation, to renew the time-limit.\n8.  On 6 February 2001 the Sevastopol City Court quashed that judgment, finding that the first instance court had erred in the assessment of facts and the application of law, and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n9.  On 19 June 2001 the Leninsky Court rejected the applicant’s claim as time-barred. It dismissed the applicant’s request for renewal of the statutory time-limit as unsubstantiated. The applicant appealed.\n10.  On 29 January 2002 the Sevastopol City Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 19 June 2001. Under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in force at that time, the applicant had three months to lodge an appeal in cassation.\n11.  On 4 April 2002 an amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure became effective providing for one-month, instead of three-month, time-limit for lodging appeals in cassation.\n12.  The applicant appealed in cassation on 25 April 2002. The Leninsky Court refused to refer the cassation appeal to the Supreme Court, finding that it had been lodged more than one month after the delivery of the decision of 29 January 2002.\n13.  The applicant challenged the refusal, arguing that in her case the previous three-month time-limit had been applicable.\n14.  Subsequently, for about a year the courts at two levels of jurisdiction (first and appeal) reconsidered the admissibility of the applicant’s cassation appeal. In particular, on 3 September 2002 and 23 January 2003 the applicant appealed against the first instance court’s decisions of 7 August 2002 and 14 January 2003 respectively which concerned the admissibility of her cassation appeal.\n15.  Eventually, on 10 April 2003 the cassation appeal was referred to the Supreme Court.\n16.  On 25 January 2006 the Supreme Court, having examined the appeal in camera, rejected it as unsubstantiated. It found no ground to annul the decisions on the merits of the applicant’s case.\n17.  A copy of the Supreme Court’s decision was sent to the applicant on 18 April 2006. The applicant received it on 26 April 2006.\n18.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceeding, the applicant amended her claim for non-pecuniary damages and submitted additional petitions. Also, out of thirty-two scheduled hearings, five were adjourned due to the applicant’s or her representative’s failure to appear, one hearing was not held because of the respondent’s failure to appear, one hearing was adjourned due to the judge’s absence for health reasons. On several occasions the courts had to renew, at the applicant’s request, the term for lodging an appeal which resulted in delays of about three months.\n19.  According to the ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6769", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and is currently detained in Straubing Prison.\n6.  On 14 February 2000 the Coburg Regional Court convicted the applicant of sexual assault and rape of a hitchhiker with the aid of weapons, committed in August 1999, and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.\n7.  The Regional Court had regard to the fact that the applicant had previously been convicted of sexual offences committed against acquaintances of his on several occasions, partly under the influence of alcohol, namely of two counts of attempted rape in 1978, of rape in 1983 and of sexual assault and another rape in 1989.\n8.  Having consulted a psychiatric and a psychological expert, the Regional Court considered that the applicant had not suffered from a pathological personality disorder and that his criminal responsibility had not been diminished at the time of the offence. As the applicant had confirmed in the hearing that he was ready to undergo therapy, both experts considered that the applicant was not dangerous for the public as a therapy was likely to prove successful. The court, in its judgment, did not examine the question whether the applicant should be placed in preventive detention.\n9.  On 28 June 2000 the Federal Court of Justice, while qualifying the applicant’s acts as rape with the aid of weapons alone, upheld the Regional Court’s judgment.\n10.  Following his conviction in 2000, the applicant confirmed his willingness to undergo therapy in prison. He was admitted to the social‑therapeutic department of Straubing Prison in November 2005 and initially participated with motivation in the therapy offered. In July 2006, having learnt that the Federal Court of Justice had considered that a co‑detainee’s preventive detention could not be ordered retrospectively only owing to the latter’s refusal to continue therapy, the applicant discontinued the therapy, considering that he did no longer make any progress. According to the treating therapists, the applicant was unwilling to look into his offences. Thereupon, he was retransferred to an ordinary department of Straubing Prison.\n11.  The applicant served his full sentence in Straubing Prison until 10 July 2008. Thereafter, he was provisionally placed in preventive detention in that same prison on the basis of a detention order issued on 2 July 2008 pending the competent courts’ decision whether or not his retrospective preventive detention was to be ordered.\n12.  On 8 October 2008 the Coburg Regional Court, relying on Article 66b § 2 of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 33-35 below), ordered the applicant’s preventive detention retrospectively (nachträgliche Sicherungsverwahrung).\n13.  The Coburg Regional Court found that, in accordance with Article 66b § 2 of the Criminal Code, a chamber of that same court had convicted the applicant on 14 February 2000 of an offence against sexual self-determination, namely rape, and had imposed a sentence exceeding five years’ imprisonment.\n14.  Moreover, following the applicant’s conviction, new facts within the meaning of Article 66b §§ 2 and 1 of the Criminal Code had emerged which disclosed the applicant’s considerable dangerousness to the public. The applicant had given up the therapy addressing his sexual offences which he had been ready to undergo at the time of his conviction and which, according to the experts heard at that time, would have had good prospects of success.\n15.  Having heard two psychiatric experts, K. and S., whose findings th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6770", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  In July 2000 the applicant and her husband bought a flat which was part of an undivided shared property with one lot register number. Two thirds of the flat were registered in the applicant’s name and the rest in her husband’s name. Upon their subsequent divorce, an agreement was concluded by the applicant and her former husband on the division of the matrimonial property. According to this agreement, the applicant was to acquire the entirety of the property by buying his part of the flat.\n7.  In April 2005 the applicant entered into an unregistered partnership with Mr. Gy.B. He paid the former husband’s share of the apartment, and later officially acquired ownership of this part of the flat by virtue of a sales agreement concluded with the former husband on 17 January 2006.\n8.  Gy.B. made certain renovations to the property, creating two separate apartments. While the work was being carried out, the applicant moved into Gy.B.’s house with her children. She left him several times, after which she always returned to him.\n9.  In March 2006 the applicant moved back into her apartment. Gy.B. had his own keys to the flat and slept there regularly. Later, on an unspecified date, he moved into the apartment to live with the applicant. Upon his request, the Central Document Bureau registered his place of residence at the applicant’s address on 24 November 2006.\n10.  Barring some short periods of separation, their relationship lasted until about January 2007. Following this date, however, Gy.B. continued to stay in the jointly owned apartment against the applicant’s wishes.\n11.  On 5 April 2007 Gy.B. sold his part of the flat to a third party. However, he later initiated proceedings against the buyer, challenging the validity of the sales agreement. These proceedings are still pending (see paragraph 28 below).\n12.  Meanwhile, the relationship between the applicant and Gy.B. deteriorated, resulting in regular disputes involving mutual verbal and physical assaults.\n13.  A medical report dated 27 October 2005, the first in the case, notes contusions of the applicant’s left ring-finger, left lower arm and left ankle. On 1 February 2008 the Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court established that these injuries had been the result of assaults initiated by the applicant, to which Gy.B.’s reaction was considered lawful self-defence. It found the applicant guilty of disorderly conduct and released her on parole. This judgment became final in the absence of an appeal.\n14.  Between this event and August 2010, twelve more medical reports were delivered, all of which recorded contusions, mostly on the applicant’s head, face, chest and neck, with an expected healing time of eight to ten days.\n15.  On 8 December 2006 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against Gy.B. for rape. On 16 April 2008 he was acquitted by the District Court. It found that the applicant’s allegations were not credible and therefore Gy.B.’s guilt could not be established with the required certainty. This judgment became final in the absence of an appeal.\n16.  A medical report of 25 June 2007 states that the applicant’s left little finger had been violently broken, with a healing time of six to eight weeks. In connection with this event, criminal proceedings were initiated against both the applicant and Gy.B. On 19 May 2009 the District Court found Gy.B. guilty of assault, and the applicant guilty of grievous bodily harm. Gy.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6771", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Dobrich.\n5.  On 21 January 1996 the applicant brought an action against a construction company, claiming that it had damaged her property by building a construction next to it. In February 2002 she modified her compensation claim.\n6.  In the period between 21 January 1996 and 13 January 2003 the Dobrich Regional Court conducted at least nineteen hearings. Between September 1999 and February 2001 the proceedings were stayed, awaiting the outcome of administrative proceedings in respect of the status of the construction. Two hearings were adjourned at the applicant’s request, one for correction of certain flaws in her modified claim, one due to improper summoning, and five due to the absence of the experts or a failure to submit their reports. Two hearings were rescheduled upon the expert’s request. Several hearings were postponed because the parties posed additional questions to the experts or requested gathering of further evidence.\n7.  The applicant’s claim was partly granted by the Regional Court on 13 January 2003, and upon appeal, by the Varna Court of Appeal on 22 May 2003. The courts ordered the defendant company to repair the damage caused to her property or to pay her BGN 11,960 (approximately EUR 5,980) plus interest and court fees.\n8.  In a final judgment of 18 November 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment.\n9.  While the proceedings were pending before the Regional Court, the applicant requested that property of the defendant company be attached as a security of her claim. On 18 January 2000 the Regional Court imposed an injunction forbidding the defendant company to perform transactions with two of its real estates and one lorry. On 19 May 2000 the Varna Administrative Court annulled the injunction in respect of one of the real estates, reasoning that the other injunctions guaranteed the applicant’s claim to a sufficient extent.\n10.  After the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 22 May 2003 the applicant initiated enforcement proceedings. At the defendant company’s request, on 8 October 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation stayed the enforcement proceedings pending the outcome of the review on points of law, because the defendant company had deposited the amount of BGN 11,960, equal to the damages awarded to the applicant.\n11.  After the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation, on 29 February and again on 28 March 2005 the applicant requested from the enforcement judge the resuming of the enforcement proceedings, the transfer of the deposited amount to her bank account and the scheduling of other actions for gathering the awarded interest. However, she was informed that the deposited guarantee had been returned to the defendant company on 16 December 2004.\n12.  On 28 July 2005 the applicant and the defendant company signed an out-of-court agreement, under which she received the amount of BGN 22,000 (about EUR 11,000) which, according to her submissions, was less than the entire amount of the debt. On 17 September 2005 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued at the applicant’s request.\n13.  In 2007 the defendant company requested the lifting of the injunction in respect of the second real estate, stating that it had settled its debt. The applicant did not comment. On 28 November 2007 the Regional Court granted the request, reasoning that the injunction was no longer necessary. As the parties did not appeal against the decision, it", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6772", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are residents of Batalova Vodenitsa, a neighbourhood of Sofia. They describe themselves as being of Roma origin.\n7.  Unlike some other European countries, where the Roma often have an itinerant way of life, in Bulgaria, at least since the 1960s, the great majority of the Roma live a settled life. Typically, Bulgarian towns feature one or more predominantly Roma neighbourhoods in non-central areas.\n8.  Some of the applicants or their parents and in some cases their grand‑parents moved to Batalova Vodenitsa at the end of the 1960s and in the 1970s. Others are more recent arrivals who settled there in the 1990s.\n9.  In the 1960s land in the neighbourhood in question was expropriated by the State and cleared in the context of the authorities’ housing construction policy. A number of blocks of flats were constructed there, but the plots currently inhabited by the applicants remained vacant, having been earmarked for a green area, which was never landscaped.\n10.  The applicants’ families built their homes on State land without any authorisation. The area thus gradually developed into a small Roma settlement. It appears that between 200 and 300 persons live there.\n11.  Most of the buildings are single-storey houses. There is no sewage or plumbing. The inhabitants use water from two public fountains.\n12.  Most applicants’ registered addresses are at their homes in Batalova Vodenitsa. Many of them are registered at one and the same address although they live in separate buildings which do not figure on any official area plan. Most of the applicants live in their houses with their families, including young children or grandchildren.\n13.  The applicants never sought to regularise the buildings they had constructed. This was in principle possible through applications for building permits and planning approval. According to the applicants, making such applications was difficult for them as they are poor and live their lives in the Roma community, isolated from the rest of society.\n14.  It is undisputed by the parties that the applicants’ homes do not meet the basic requirements of the relevant construction and safety regulations and cannot be legalised without substantial reconstruction.\n15.  In 1987 the local building plan was amended and the construction of dwellings was envisaged on the plots in question. The plan was never implemented.\n16.  Following a legislative reform, in 1996 the land occupied by the applicants became the property of the Sofia municipality.\n17.  Until 2005, the State and municipal authorities never took steps to remove the applicants and their families.\n18.  Under the relevant law the applicants cannot obtain ownership of the land they occupy. Until 1996 the provisions on acquisitive prescription did not apply in respect of State and municipal land. Since 1996, these provisions, under which a ten-year period of possession may suffice for the acquisition of real property, apply to most categories of municipal land. However, in 2006, shortly before the expiry of ten years after the 1996 amendment, Parliament suspended the running of prescription periods in respect of State and municipal land. The suspension has been extended several times and is currently in force until 31 December 2014 (sections 79 and 86 of the Property Act and the transitional provisions thereto).\n19.  According to a statement by a Mr B. T., a Roma resident of Batalova Vodenitsa, his parents are the lawful owners of their house there and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6774", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Bitlis.\n5.  On 29 April 2000 the applicant was arrested and imprisoned after a criminal conviction.\n6.  During the imprisonment it was found that the applicant was mistakenly incarcerated due to his personal identity card being used by his brother in commission of a crime.\n7.  On 25 July 2000 the Istanbul State Security Court found in favour of the applicant and ordered his release.\n8.  The applicant could only be released on 7 August 2000 because of extended paperwork.\n9.  On 4 February 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the acquittal of the applicant.\n10.  On 27 October 2000 the applicant lodged criminal complaint with the Bakırköy Assize Court requesting compensation for his unlawful detention for a period of three months and eight days, pursuant to Law no. 466.\n11.  During the course of the proceedings, the court held twenty one hearings. The applicant was present only at one of them, which was held on 19 July 2001. The applicant’s lawyer did not attend to any of the hearings despite having been notified.\n12.  On 7 March 2007 the court partially granted the applicant’s request.\n13.  On 15 April 2009 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on the ground that the proceedings before the Istanbul State Security Court had not been finalised at the time when the applicant brought the compensation action before the assize court. It held that the applicant had failed to comply with a prerequisite in order to bring such an action.\n14.  On 25 September 2009 the court dismissed the case in line with the decision of the Court of Cassation.\n15.  According to the information in the case file the proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6775", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1974 and is serving a sentence in a correctional colony in Kineshemskiy District, Ivanovo Region.\n11.  Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in Uzbekistan. The prosecution suspected that in February 1998 he and a Mr A. had robbed and murdered an elderly woman in Tashkent. After the murder they had allegedly packed the victim’s body in a box and given the box to bus drivers at a local market to transport it to a supermarket in another town. The applicant and his accomplice had also allegedly sold the victim’s property, including furniture, carpets, clothes, and household utensils, to a number of individuals in the days following the murder.\n12.  According to the Government, after committing the criminal offences the applicant fled Uzbekistan and returned to Russia. On an unspecified date Russian prosecution officials opened a criminal case against the applicant for crimes allegedly committed in Uzbekistan. On 17 November 2003 the applicant was arrested and placed in a detention facility in Ivanovo.\n13.  In 2004 the applicant was committed for jury trial.\n14.  On 24 April 2004 the Ivanovo Regional Court initiated the jury selection process. Twenty-five people reported for jury duty on that day.\n15.  Three potential jurors were excused for personal reasons. The prosecution successfully challenged one potential juror for cause and made two successful peremptory challenges. The defence made two jury challenges for cause and two peremptory challenges, which were accepted.\n16.  A jury of twelve was selected and two alternates appointed. It appears from the record of the jurors’ responses to the questions asked by the presiding judge that close relatives of five jurors worked for the police and at the Service for Execution of Sentences. In particular, the husband of juror no. 2 and the son of juror no. 4 worked as traffic police officers. The son-in-law of juror no. 3 was employed by the Service for the Execution of Sentences. The husbands of jurors nos. 11 and 13 worked for the police as telecommunications and radio operators respectively. In addition, two jurors on the panel had been victims of criminal offences. In 2000 juror no. 1 had been attacked by a drunk person, but the matter was subsequently settled out of court. In 1994 the son of juror no. 6 died as a result of a house collapse.\n17.  After the jury had been empanelled and sworn in, defence counsel challenged the entire jury venire upon account of partiality. The defence alleged that the fact that certain jurors had been victims of criminal offences could influence their judgment. The challenge for the array was dismissed.\n18.  On 24 November 2003 the President of the Ivanovo Regional Court sent a letter to Uzbek law-enforcement officials asking for assistance. The letter, in so far as relevant, read as follows:\n“In compliance with the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (Minsk, 22 January 1993), which came into force for Uzbekistan on 19 March 1994 and for Russia on 10 December 1994, the Ivanovo Regional Court asks competent officials of the Republic of Uzbekistan to provide legal assistance in a criminal case...\nAccording to the case-file materials all the witnesses the court wants to call to testify in the present case live in the Republic of Uzbekistan.\nIn this respect, [I] ask you to provide legal assistance in ensuring the appearance of the witnesses in the criminal case be", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6776", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, who are brothers, were born in 1977 and 1957 respectively and at present reside in the town of Yekaterinburg in the Sverdlovsk Region.\n7.  In May 1993 the bodies of three persons were found in a street in Yekaterinburg.\n8.  On 29 March 1994 the second applicant was charged with two counts of manslaughter and unlawful possession of weapons. Ten days later, a deputy prosecutor of the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District of Yekaterinburg discontinued the criminal proceedings against the second applicant because he was found to have acted in self-defence and the use of force had been justified.\n9.  On 14 November 1997 the second applicant was charged with having severely injured a Mr M.\n10.  In February 1998 the Sverdlovsk Regional Prosecutor reopened the criminal proceedings against the second applicant on the charges of manslaughter and arms possession and remitted the case for further investigation. On 17 November 1998 the investigator at the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District prosecutor’s office dropped the arms‑possession charge.\n11.  In December 1998 the two sets of criminal proceedings were joined and the second applicant was issued with the bill of indictment. He was charged with one count of manslaughter, causing severe bodily injuries, and unlawful restriction of liberty.\n12.  On 15 December 1998 the first applicant was also charged with unlawful restriction of liberty.\n13.  On 1 February 1999 the prosecution concluded the investigation and transmitted the case for an examination on the merits to the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg. On 26 March 1999 the case was assigned to a judge of that court. The applicants were committed for trial and on 1 December 1999 the court listed the first hearing for 17 October 2000.\n14.  At the hearing of 17 October 2000 the applicants were initially represented by lawyer R. The chamber consisted of two lay assessors and presiding judge B. The applicants challenged the presiding judge, alleging bias. The lay assessors examined and rejected the challenge as unfounded.\n15.  Thereafter the applicants informed the court that they had dismissed lawyer R. and appointed lawyer Ch. as a replacement. Lawyer Ch. was not present at the hearing.\n16.  After lawyer R. had been dismissed, the prosecutor made a request for the applicants to be detained pending trial, which the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court examined and accepted with the following reasoning:\n“[the applicants are] charged with murder, the intentional infliction of severe injuries ... and unlawful confinement ...\nBefore the hearing they unsuccessfully sought the removal of the presiding judge and influenced participants in the proceedings, including the victim, Mr M., who asked the court not to examine the case because the defendants had not committed any criminal offence against him. They also appealed against the decision by which the court hearing had been fixed.\n[The applicants are] charged with serious and especially serious criminal offences ... When they were under a written undertaking not to leave the town, they attempted to obstruct the thorough and full examination of the case. The prosecutor has lodged a request in that connection; having regard to the above-mentioned considerations, the court finds it to be substantiated and authorises ... [the applicants’] placement in custody.”\n17.  The applicants were taken into custody on 17 October 2000. They appealed against the decision ordering their detention, arguing th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6777", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Pyatigorsk, the Stavropol Region.\n6.  On 29 September 2002 a certain Ms Sh. was murdered. On the next day the police initiated criminal proceedings in that connection.\n7.  On the same day a certain Mr M., who had been arrested for the administrative offence of public drunkenness, complained to the police that the day before the applicant had allegedly sworn at him and attempted to start a fight.\n8.  On 2 October 2002 an administrative offence record was drawn up in respect of the applicant by police officers K. and B. The applicant denied Mr M.’s allegations.\n9.  On 3 October 2002 he was found guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced to five days’ administrative detention by the Justice of the Peace of the 1st Circuit of the Kirovskiy District of the Stavropol Region.\n10.  On 3 October 2002, pursuant to the aforementioned judgment of the same date, the applicant was placed in the temporary holding facility of the Kirovskiy District Police Department of the Stavropol Region (“the district police department”).\n11.  According to the applicant, between 3 and 6 October 2002 police officers forced him to confess to the murder of Ms Sh. by beating him up and threatening him with rape with a rubber truncheon.\n12.  On 6 October 2002 the applicant signed a confession to the murder of Ms Sh. He stated, in particular, that he had strangled her with a TV power cable.\n13.  On 7 October 2002 the investigator in charge recorded the applicant’s arrest on suspicion of murder.\n14.  The investigator also ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant, which was carried out on 7 October 2002 by a medical expert with ten years’ experience, who certified that he had no injures (certificate no. 181).\n15.  On 8 October 2002 the Kirovskiy District Court of the Stavropol Region (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s placement in custody as a preventive measure, stating that he was suspected of having committed a particularly serious criminal offence, might abscond from justice and had been given negative character references at the place of his residence. The applicant was then transferred to the remand centre “SIZO-26/2” of Pyatigorsk.\n16.  On 9 October 2002 the applicant was formally charged with murder.\n17.  On 6 December 2002 the District Court extended the term of the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 7 January 2003. The applicant’s counsel argued that there were no grounds to believe that the applicant might abscond, that he had a permanent place of residence and permanent work and had confessed to the crime. The fact that he was accused of a serious criminal offence could not, as such, be the basis for his continued pre-trial detention. The court decision read as follows:\n“Bearing in mind that it is impossible to complete the pre-trial investigation within two months ... there are no grounds to change or quash the preventive measure [with regard to the applicant], considering that [the applicant] is charged with a particularly serious crime associated with a high risk to society, which does not exclude the possibility of him absconding from the investigating bodies and the court, the judge finds it necessary to grant the investigator’s request for the extension of the term of detention ...”\nThe applicant did not appeal against that decision.\n18.  On 27 December 2002 the applicant requested the investigator to exclude his self-incriminating statements of 6 October 2002 from the body of e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6778", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Rogaška Slatina.\n6.  On 28 April 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Celje District Court seeking compensation for damage sustained at the workplace.\n7.  20 August 2002 the first-instance issued a decision on costs. The defendant appealed.\n8.  On 5 February 2003 the Celje Higher Court upheld the appeal.\n9.  On 4 May 2004 the Celje District Court delivered an interim judgment deliberating on the responsibility and reserving the determination on the amount of compensation and costs for the final judgment. The defendant appealed.\n10.  On 11 May 2006 the Celje Higher Court upheld the first-instance judgment.\n11.  On 22 March 2007 the first-instance court delivered a judgment, which was served on the applicant on 6 July 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6779", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Žetale.\n7.  At 8.10 p.m. on 18 February 2001 the Podlehnik police patrol, consisting of two officers, J.Š. and G.K., was called to a bar, B. According to the Government the officers were told by customers and a waitress there that the applicant had been shouting at customers and threatening them with a gun. The officers were also told that a person they believed to be the applicant had headed to another bar, Š,. in the town of Čermožiše. 6.  At 8.30 p.m., the two police officers entered bar Š. They asked the owner of a white VW Golf to come forward. The applicant, who was the owner of the car in question and was in the bar that evening, approached the officers and followed them out to the car. The events which followed are in dispute between the parties. 7.  According to the applicant, on the way out the officers asked him where his gun was. The applicant replied that he had no gun. One officer requested the applicant to open the boot of the car. The applicant took the keys from the car to unlock the boot. At that point one of the officers hit him on the head. Both officers continued to beat the applicant until they knocked him down. They then kicked him all over his body. When the applicant started to get up, he received several punches to the stomach. The police officers then handcuffed him and took him to Podlehnik Police Station in a police car. In his criminal complaint (see paragraph 11 below), the applicant also alleged that he was hit twice in the face in the police car. At the police station one of the officers punched the applicant, who was still handcuffed, several times in the face.\n8.  According to the Government, the police officers informed the applicant that he was charged with breach of the peace and possession of a weapon. The applicant then starting hitting his car. When he learned of the officers’ intention to search the car the applicant opened the boot and took out a metal bicycle wrench. Officer J.Š. asked the applicant to put the wrench down. The applicant refused, and lifted the wrench above his head. The officer then hit the applicant on the head, at which point the wrench fell to the ground. The applicant then attempted to run away. Officer J.Š. caught the applicant by the shirt. The applicant then fell to the ground, but got up again immediately. At that point he also told officer G.K. that he would kill his family. Not having been able to restrain the applicant, G.K., using professional skills, threw the applicant over his hip by gripping his neck. The officers then handcuffed the applicant, who was lying on the ground but still trying to resist, and searched him, as well as the car, but found no weapons. On suspicion that the applicant, who was believed to be under the influence of alcohol, would continue to commit offences, the officers ordered his detention at around 9.15 p.m. The officers took the applicant to Podlehnik Police Station, where the handcuffs were taken off him. The applicant was bleeding from the mouth.\n9.  The applicant, who was complaining of pain, was taken to hospital by officers B.H. and M.B., who had taken over for the night shift. He remained hospitalised until 22 February 2001. According to the hospital reports, the applicant had suffered concussion, injury to the upper arm (fracture of the left humerus), excoriation, haematoma and contusion on the head, neck and thorax, and a rupture of the eardrum (perforation of tympanums). The appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6780", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Izyum.\n5.  In May 1994 the applicant initiated a land dispute with her neighbours.\n6.  On 29 August 2005 the proceedings, which had taken place before the courts of three levels of jurisdiction, were completed by a final ruling of the Supreme Court allowing the applicant’s claim in part.\n7.  In the course of the proceedings, there was one remittal of the case from the appellate court to the first-instance court for fresh consideration. The courts also ordered seven forensic technical expert examinations.\n8.  There were several adjournments in the proceedings due to the parties’ failure to appear for hearings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6781", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1964 in Belarus. In 1991 he left Belarus for Germany. He obtained refugee status in that country on the ground that he was of Jewish origin and, because of this, risked persecution in Belarus. In 2004 the applicant acquired German nationality. The applicant pursued business activities in both countries.\n7.  In January 2007 the Belarus authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and several others, accusing them of organised crime, abuse of power, smuggling and bribery. According to the Belarus investigators, the applicant and his co-accused committed these crimes in 1999 and 2001 when they were engaged in business activities in that State. In particular, they allegedly bribed high-ranking officers of the Belarus Customs Service and Committee for State Security (“the KGB”) to allow them to import goods into Belarus without paying high customs duty. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were brought against a number of former and acting State officials, with the result that some of them were dismissed from office and some were convicted. The investigations were carried out jointly by the General Prosecutor’s Office and the Ministry of the Interior and were led by investigator B. attached to the General Prosecutor’s Office.\n8.  On 11 October 2007 an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant. It was later revoked, as the applicant was cooperating with the investigators and was living permanently in Germany. In particular, on a number of occasions in 2008 and 2009 the applicant was questioned by investigators at the Belarus consulate in Berlin, and provided witness statements which, according to the applicant, were used in proceedings against others, including several former high-ranking KGB officers and the former Minister of the Interior. The applicant submits that during one of the meetings with the investigators he was questioned in his lawyer’s absence.\n9.  On 22 February 2010 the General Prosecutor of Belarus issued an arrest warrant against the applicant on the grounds that he had committed serious crimes and was living permanently outside Belarus. In the arrest warrant it was stated that the applicant was to be placed in the KGB Detention Centre.\n10.  According to the applicant, one of his lawyers contacted investigator B., asking about the reasons for the decision to arrest the applicant. In a telephone conversation between the lawyer and the investigator, the latter stated that a decision to bring the applicant to Belarus had been taken at a high political level in order to coerce him to change or retract the statements he had made during his questioning, with a view to torpedoing the proceedings against the senior officials accused of involvement in smuggling and bribery.\n11.  On 3 March 2010 the KGB arrested the investigator on charges of abuse of power. According to the applicant, the investigator was dealing mainly with high-profile corruption cases involving the KGB and the police staff. Her arrest was one of the consequences of a “power struggle” between the KGB, the Ministry of the Interior and the Prosecution Service, the former having the strongest position in the political system of Belarus. Several other investigators dealing with the applicant’s case were also arrested by the KGB.\n12.  The investigator is being tried in Belarus. The court hearings are being held in camera as the case concerns State secrets.\n13.  In 2010 some extracts from the video recording of the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6782", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Bijeljina.\n6.  From 1979 until 1992 she worked as an accountant in a socially-owned catering company (“the company”) in Bijeljina, in what is today the Republika Srpska. During the 1992-95 war the company dismissed all its employees of Bosniac and Croat origin, including the applicant. The relevant decision reads as follows:\n“Given the special nature of the services performed by the company, all employees of Bosniac and Croat origin should no longer come to work from 22 July 1992”.\n7.  Following unsuccessful civil proceedings pursued by the applicant against the company, on 4 May 2000 she appealed to the Human Rights Chamber (a domestic human-rights body set up under Annex 6 to the 1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace).\n8.  In 2002 the company was privatised.\n9.  On 27 June 2007 the Constitutional Court (which inherited the cases of the Human Rights Chamber) ordered the Republika Srpska (one of the two Entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina) the following: first, to secure the applicant’s reinstatement within three months of the date of delivery of that decision; second, to pay her outstanding salary for the period from 13 December 1996 (when the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the company) until 27 June 2007, together with default interest at the statutory rate and all work-related benefits, as well as to continue to pay the applicant her salary and all work-related benefits until her reinstatement; and third, to pay the applicant 20 convertible marks (BAM) per working day starting from the date of delivery of that decision until her reinstatement. The Republika Srpska was to pay default interest on the above amounts at the annual rate of ten percent from the expiry of the three-month period until settlement.\n10.  On 23 August 2007 the Republika Srpska Government transmitted the decision of 27 June 2007 to the company for enforcement. On 25 September 2007 the company informed the Republika Srpska Government that the decision could not be enforced because the applicant’s post no longer existed. It claimed, furthermore, that it was not its responsibility to enforce the decision since it had not been a party to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court. On 23 October 2007 the Republika Srpska informed the company that, in accordance with Rule 56 of the Rules of the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 15 below), it was indeed the company’s duty to enforce the decision of 27 June 2007.\n11.  On 15 June 2010 the Republika Srpska paid the applicant BAM 16,807.47 in respect of the third order from the Constitutional Court’s decision for the period until 10 June 2010 (the principal debt in the amount of BAM 13,380 and default interest on that sum in the amount of BAM 3,427.47). It would appear that it has continued to pay the amount of BAM 20 per working day since then.\n12.  On 8 December 2010 the Constitutional Court held that the third order from its decision of 27 June 2007 had been enforced. It further held that the first order had not been enforced, but that its non-enforcement was justified. In this connection, it relied on the reasoning which the company had provided to the Republika Srpska Government (see paragraph 10 above). Lastly, the Constitutional Court did not say anything as regards the second order.\n13. At its session of 9 March 2011 the Republika Srpska Government concluded that it was the company’s responsibility to enforce the Constitutional Court’s decision", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6783", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1978. She is the wife of Mr Sirazhudin (also spelt as Sirazhutdin) Shafiyev, who was born in 1971. At the material time the applicant, her husband and their three children lived at no. 15 Mira Street, Derbent, the Republic of Dagestan.\n5.  Sirazhudin Shafiyev was a follower of Islam. The law-enforcement authorities suspected him of participating in illegal activities as in 2006, during his Hajj to Saudi Arabia, he had had his photograph taken with the spiritual leader of illegal armed groups, a Mr Said Buraytskiy, who was subsequently killed in March 2010.\n6.  According to the applicant, in August or September 2009 a number of followers of Islam were abducted in broad daylight by men in camouflage uniforms. The abductions took place in Derbent and the nearby area.\n(b)  Abduction of the applicant’s husband\n7.  At about 8 a.m. on 8 September 2009 Sirazhudin Shafiyev took his children to their kindergarten and was driving back home in his VAZ-Priora car with registration number E417- ОУ when his vehicle was blocked by a red-coloured VAZ-2107 and a silver-coloured VAZ-21014, both of which did not have official registration numbers. A group of masked men in camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles, dragged Sirazhudin Shafiyev from his car, hit him on the head with a bludgeon, threw him in the back of his own car and took him away in it.\n8.  The abductors drove away in the direction of Makhachkala, Dagestan, passing by the Road Police station (пост ГИБДД), which was located about six hundred metres from the place of the abduction. According to the applicant, the police officers who worked at the station personally knew her husband and his car, but, nonetheless, they did not stop the abductors when they drove by in Sirazhudin Shafiyev’s car and the latter was not the one driving. In addition, the police did not stop the abductors’ vehicles, in spite of the absence of official registration numbers on them.\n9.  The abduction was witnessed by a number of local residents, one of whom took a photograph of the incident with his mobile phone.\n(c)  Subsequent events\n10.  At about 4 p.m. on the same day, 8 September 2009, a group of about one hundred and fifty local residents attempted to block the road in one of Derbent’s districts, protesting against Sirazhudin Shafiyev’s abduction. The rally was violently dispersed by the OMON (the special police task force unit).\n11.  According to Mr R.Sh. (from the documents submitted it follows that he was also referred to as Imam Rasul), on 9 September 2009 he was ordered to come to the police station in the town of Izberbash in Dagestan. At the police station an officer who introduced himself as Magomed asked him about the passports which Mr R.Sh. had received from Sirazhudin Shafiyev. According to Mr R.Sh., he explained to the officer that on 7 September 2009 he had received four passports and 240,000 Russian roubles (RUB) from Sirazhudin Shafiyev for the processing of documents for a visa application to go abroad for Hajj.\n12.  In or about the middle of September 2009 the President of Dagestan stated on public television that Sirazhudin Shafiyev’s abduction had been staged and that he had actually ‘gone to the forest’. The applicant did not include a copy of this statement with her application to the Court.\n13.  In support of her statements, the applicant submitted two statements by Sirazhudin Shafiyev’s brother, Mr Ta.Sh., one dated 9 September 2009 and another 26 March 2010;", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6784", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Goryunok, Kirov Region.\n6.  On 26 August 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder and delivered to the Organised Crime Control Division of the Kirov Regional Department of the Interior (“the Division”) where, in his submission, he voluntarily confessed to the imputed offence. According to the applicant, despite his confession he was beaten up and tortured by police officers for several hours. He found out from one of the officers that the victim was their colleague, an officer of the same Division.\n7.  On the same date at around 5.30 p.m. the applicant was transferred to a temporary holding facility of the Kirov Regional Department of the Interior (“the IVS”). According to a letter from the acting head of the Kirov Regional Department of the Interior dated 25 May 2010, no injuries had been observed on the applicant upon his arrival at the IVS, as followed from an extract of the IVS register of medical examinations of detainees (a copy of the extract was enclosed). The letter also stated that during his detention in the IVS the applicant had made no complaints concerning his health.\n8.  In the applicant’s submission, upon his transfer to the IVS the same police officers tortured him again.\n9.  On 28 August 2003 at around 9.15 a.m. the applicant was transferred to the Kirov IZ-43/1 remand centre, where he underwent a medical examination which attested to the presence of a large haematoma on the inside of his left thigh and two bruises on the left side of his forehead. The applicant was furnished with a certificate reflecting the results of the examination. He explained that he had sustained his injuries as a result of the beatings by the police; this information was then forwarded to the prosecutor’s office of the Pervomayskiy District, Kirov (“the district prosecutor’s office”) for examination.\n10.  It appears that upon receipt of the aforementioned information, an inquiry was opened into the applicant’s allegations, and in a decision of 29 August 2003 the investigator in charge ordered a medical forensic examination of the applicant.\n11.  On 2 September 2003 the applicant underwent a medical forensic examination. During that examination he submitted that he had been beaten by police officers on 26 August 2003 with the result that for a short period he had lost consciousness. He complained of headache and chest pain. The examination identified three abrasions on his face, which had been inflicted approximately ten to fifteen days before, and bruises on the applicant’s left forearm and thighs, measuring from 3 x 2 cm to 10 x 18 cm, as well as an abrasion on the right wrist joint, which had been inflicted approximately six to eight days before. The relevant expert report also stated that those injuries had been inflicted by hard blunt object(s), and that they had not caused any harm to the applicant’s health.\n12.  On 11 September 2003 the district prosecutor’s office took a decision to dispense with criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, owing to the absence of evidence of a crime. The decision confirmed that on 28 August 2003 the applicant had been delivered to the IZ-43/1 remand centre with bodily injuries. He had explained that he had been beaten by police officers in the Division for Organised Crime Control of the Kirov Region Department of the Interior on 26 August 2003. The decision further referred to statements by ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6785", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970. At the time of filing his application, he was resident in a psychiatric clinic. According to an expert report drawn up during the domestic proceedings in this case, the applicant has a diagnosis of mental impairment and, prior to the facts giving rise to this case, had been admitted to psychiatric hospitals twice. He also had a number of convictions against him, including for indecent assault, burglary and theft.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  In the early hours of 6 December 2004, police in Birmingham were called out to deal with the applicant, who was sitting in a car sounding its horn repeatedly and behaving in a highly agitated manner. He was arrested at 4.20 a.m. and transferred to a police station, where it was noted that he was clearly suffering from some form of mental illness and that a doctor would be required. His detention was authorised under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (see paragraph 28 below). The police also went to the applicant’s address, where they found his aunt with serious and extensive injuries to her face and upper body, inflicted by the applicant. She was taken to hospital where a medical examination revealed cracked ribs and a collapsed lung.\n9.  The applicant was examined in his cell at approximately 5 a.m. by the Forensic Medical Examiner, Dr T. In view of the applicant’s behaviour, speech and appearance, he assessed him as not fit to be interviewed or charged with any criminal offence. A formal assessment under the Mental Health Act 1983 was requested. This was done at approximately 7 a.m. by the psychiatric specialist registrar on call, Dr O. He concluded that the applicant was suffering from a mental illness of a nature or degree warranting detention in hospital in the interests of his health and safety and for the protection of other persons.\n10.  A second assessment was carried out shortly after 11 a.m. by another psychiatric specialist, Dr. O’D. He too advised that the applicant be formally admitted to hospital for assessment. He also advised that the applicant be observed via closed circuit television, since the presence of a police officer outside his cell was causing him to become agitated. For the remainder of his time at the police station, the applicant remained under continuous observation by this means.\n11.  At around midday, the applicant was visited by an approved social worker, Mr G. He was also seen by a community psychiatric nurse, Mr J. Both noted that the applicant was displaying clear signs of mental illness. The social worker filled out the relevant form for admission to a mental hospital, omitting just one point, the name of the establishment, which had yet to be determined.\n12.  At around 3 p.m. two members of staff from a local psychiatric intensive care unit stated that their establishment would not be able to admit the applicant and advised that he be referred to Reaside Clinic, which had a medium secure unit. The police thereupon contacted Reaside to inform them of the situation. Shortly after 6 p.m., Dr M., a consultant forensic psychiatrist at Reaside, called back and was informed of the situation concerning the applicant. According to the custody record, he stated that someone would be sent over from the clinic. According to Dr M.’s own notes on the situation, which the Government have provided, he then consulted with a number of colleagues. Believing that the applicant ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6786", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Mariinsk, Kemerovo Region.\n6.  On 8 September 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated assault and causing death by negligence in order to extract a confession from a suspect.\n7.  On 10 September 2003 the Mariinsk Town Court of the Kemerovo Region (“the Town Court”) ordered that the applicant be placed in detention. The court noted, in particular, that the applicant was suspected of a particularly serious criminal offence and that, being a police officer, he could use his professional experience in order to influence witnesses and obstruct the investigation. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Kemerovo Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) on 22 September 2003.\n8.  On 31 October 2003 the Town Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 29 November 2003, stating that he was charged with serious and particularly serious offences and that, if at liberty, he could obstruct the establishment of the truth and influence witnesses. On 4 December 2003 the Regional Court upheld that decision on appeal.\n9.  According to the applicant, on 29 November 2003 – the last day of the period of his pre-trial detention authorised by the Town Court in its decision of 31 October 2003 – the authorities of a detention centre where he was being held at that moment refused to release him with reference to a letter of the Mariinsk Town prosecutor stating that on 28 November 2003 the file of his criminal case had been sent to a court. In the applicant’s submission, the case file was not in fact sent to the court until 1 December 2003.\n10.  On 7 December 2003 the Town Court scheduled a hearing in the applicant’s case and ordered that the applicant remain in detention. It did not specify the time-limit for the applicant’s detention, nor did it give any reasons for that decision.\n11.  On 16 December 2003 the Town Court ordered that the case file be returned to the investigating authorities so that the applicant would have an opportunity to study it. It also stated that the preventive measure applied in respect of the applicant “should remain the same”. It did not specify the time-limit for the applicant’s detention, nor did it give any reasons for that decision.\n12.  On 22 December 2003 the Town Court scheduled a hearing in the applicant’s case and ordered that he remain in detention. It did not specify the time-limit for the applicant’s detention, nor did it give any reasons for that decision.\n13.  By a decision of 26 May 2004 the Town Court extended the term of the applicant’s detention pending trial until 1 September 2004. It referred to the applicant’s personality, the fact that he was charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences and the fact that he had pleaded not guilty, which, in the court’s opinion, suggested that he might obstruct the establishment of the truth, if released.\n14.  On 19 July 2004 the Town Court further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 1 December 2004, relying on the same reasons as those indicated in the decision of 26 May 2004. That decision was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 7 September 2004.\n15.  By a judgment of 22 November 2004 the Town Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment. That judgment was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court on 22 March 2005.\n16.  At some point the applicant attempted to have criminal proceedings instituted against the Mar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6787", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, born in 1981, is the widower of the late Ms Fatsima Aleksandrovich, a Belarus national of Roma ethnicity, who was born in 1979 and died in 2002. The second applicant is her son, born in 2000. The applicants are Russian nationals living in the Pskov Region.\n6.  The applicants provided the following account of the circumstances surrounding Ms Aleksandrovich’s arrest and death which was not disputed by the Government.\n7.  At 8.30 a.m. on 20 May 2002 Ms Aleksandrovich was travelling on a bus in Pskov with the first applicant’s sister, Ms Vera Kleyn. Ms P., a police officer who worked for the passport service of the Pskov police department, was travelling on the same bus when she realised that her purse was missing. She told her colleague, police officer Mr M., that her purse was gone. Mr M. searched the bus and found the purse under a seat. Ms Aleksandrovich being of Roma ethnicity, Mr M. assumed that she had stolen the purse and arrested her. She asked why, but Mr M. hit her on the head and said, “Only a Gypsy could steal the purse, who else?” Ms Vera Kleyn was not arrested.\n8.  Ms Aleksandrovich was taken to the Pskov regional police station. The acting head of the station asked the senior operational officer of the property offences investigations division Mr I. to interview her. When asked about her identity, Ms Aleksandrovich claimed to be one Ilona Kozlovskaya, born in 1990. According to Mr I., she was nervous, complained of stomach pain and often asked for permission to use the toilet. Several times he had to take her to the toilet located on the second floor (in Russian called “third floor”) of the police station, where female police officers Ms M. or Ms F. stayed with her. The last visit was just before 11.30 a.m. Since there were no female officers to accompany Ms Aleksandrovich, Mr I. let her go inside alone and waited by the door of the toilet.\n9.  The door of the toilet was not locked. A witness, Ms Sh., who was in the toilet, saw Ms Aleksandrovich and stated that she was moaning with pain and holding her stomach. Ms Sh. left the toilet shortly after this.\n10.  At 11.30 a.m. on 20 May 2002 an officer on duty found Ms Aleksandrovich unconscious on the ground in the yard of the Pskov regional police station. It appeared that she had jumped out of the toilet window. An ambulance took her to the Pskov regional hospital, where she died on 24 May 2002 without regaining consciousness.\n11.  Between 11.31 and 11.45 a.m. on 20 May 2002 the investigator from the Pskov regional police station compiled a report on an examination of the crime scene, which was carried out in the presence of two attesting witnesses (понятые). Photographs were taken of Ms Aleksandrovich’s body, the building, the yard, and the toilet door and window.\n12.  On 24 May 2002 the senior investigator with the Pskov prosecutor’s office ordered an inquest into the circumstances of Ms Aleksandrovich’s death and an autopsy on her body.\n13.  The medical report was completed on 10 June 2002. It concluded that she had died as a result of a cerebral trauma and numerous bodily injuries. The expert found: haemorrhages of the soft tissue of the head with cerebral trauma; fracture of the left side of 12th neck vertebra; fracture of the side growths of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th vertebrae; internal tear of the right kidney; extensive haemorrhages of the soft tissue of the left side of the vertebrae; swelling of the left eyelid; swelling of the right forearm; bruises", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6789", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Flats represented nearly 20% of the pre-war housing stock of Bosnia and Herzegovina[1] (around 250,000 housing units out of 1,315,000). By local standards, they were a particularly attractive type of home, equipped with modern conveniences and located in urban centres. Practically all flats were under the regime of “social ownership” – a concept which, while it does exist in other countries, was particularly highly developed in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”). They were generally built by socially owned enterprises or other public bodies for allocation to their employees, who became “occupancy right holders”[2]. All citizens of the SFRY were required to pay a means-tested contribution to subsidise housing construction. However, the amount an individual had contributed was not amongst the legal criteria taken into account in the waiting lists for allocation of such flats.\n6.  The rights of both the allocation right holders (public bodies which nominally controlled the flats) and the occupancy right holders were regulated by law (the Housing Act 1984, which is still in force in Bosnia and Herzegovina[3]). In accordance with this Act, an occupancy right, once allocated, entitled the occupancy right holder to permanent, lifelong use of the flat against the payment of a nominal fee. When occupancy right holders died, their rights transferred, as a matter of law, to their surviving spouses (indeed, spouses held occupancy rights in common) or registered members of their family households who were also using the flat (sections 19 and 21 of this Act). Furthermore, in the event of a divorce, the spouses were free to choose which one of them would continue to use the flat; in the absence of an agreement, either of them could apply to a court for a transfer of the occupancy right (section 20 of this Act). In practice, these provisions on transfer meant that occupancy rights originally allocated by public bodies to their employees could pass, as of right, to multiple generations for whom the initial employment-based link to the allocation right holder no longer existed. Occupancy rights could be cancelled only in court proceedings (section 50 of this Act) on limited grounds (sections 44, 47 and 49 of this Act), the most important of which was failure by occupancy right holders to physically use their flats for their own housing needs for a continuous period of at least six months without justified grounds. Although inspections were foreseen to ensure compliance with this requirement (section 42 of this Act), occupancy rights were rarely, if ever, cancelled on these grounds prior to the 1992-95 war. Moreover, on 24 December 1992 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina annulled the inspection provisions[4].\n7.  Following its declaration of independence on 6 March 1992, a brutal war started in Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 15 May 1992 the United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, adopted its Resolution 757 urging that all units of the JNA, the armed forces of the SFRY, and all elements of the Croatian Army either be withdrawn from Bosnia and Herzegovina, or be subject to the authority of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or be disbanded and disarmed with their weapons placed under effective international monitoring. While the JNA formally withdrew from Bosnia and Herzegovina on 19 May 1992, the United Nations Secretary General (report of 3 December 1992,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6790", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Besian.\n5.  On 14 June 2002 he was arrested by the Greek authorities at the Greek-Albanian borders under the charge of drug trafficking, as 25 kg of heroin were found in the car he was driving.\n6.  The same day, the Ioannina First Instance Prosecutor, prosecuted the applicant for illegal drug trafficking and ordered his detention on remand (order no. 25/2002).\n7.  The applicant alleges that his arrest was a set-up by a German national with whom he had disagreements in Germany - where the applicant had allegedly lived for an unspecified period of time - and that the drugs were put in the car without his knowledge.\n8.  On 20 May 2003 the Ioannina First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to twenty years of imprisonment (judgment no. 81/2003).\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the first instance court’s decision.\n10.  On 5 June 2007 the Ioannina Court of Appeal upheld the first judgment (judgment no. 58/2007).\n11.  On 8 September 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation challenging the abovementioned decision. In the grounds of appeal no complaint was raised by the applicant regarding the interpretation service at the moment he was arrested and afterwards during the proceedings.\n12.  The hearing, which was originally set for 12 March 2008, was subsequently adjourned to 19 November 2008. As it transpires from the case file, the latter proceedings are still pending before the Court of Cassation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6791", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lived in Novosibirsk before his arrest.\n5.  The following facts are based on the documents produced by the parties and on the applicant’s submissions in so far as they have not been disputed by the Government.\n6.  At 8 p.m. on 22 June 2004 the applicant was arrested in the Chelyabinsk Region on suspicion of rape and placed in the interview room of the Uysk police station. At 10 p.m. Mr Zh., an investigator with the Uysk district prosecutor’s office, drafted an arrest record.\n7.  At about midnight on that day the applicant was taken out of the room into the corridor and told to hand over his underwear for examination by an expert. He replied that he was prepared to do that on condition that another pair of underwear was provided to him by the police or by his relatives.\n8.  Thirty minutes later Mr M., the head of the criminal investigation department, the police officer Mr F. and other police officers entered the interview room in which the applicant was locked, and started beating him with rubber truncheons. They handcuffed him and dragged him out of the room into the corridor.\n9.  The applicant was brought to the office of Mr M. where the following persons were also present: the investigator Mr Zh., Mr F. and two or three other officers, a forensic police expert, and two attesting witnesses, Mr L. and Mr R., both residents of Uyskoye village.\n10.  The applicant was thrown on to the table face down and beaten on the back. His head struck the central unit of a computer. The officers forcibly removed his trainers, tracksuit bottoms and underwear, took the underwear away and told him to get dressed. The applicant refused to get dressed, because he was handcuffed and his tracksuit bottoms were torn.\n11.  The officers M. and F. returned him to the interview room and threw him on the table on his stomach. M. hit him on the back with a rubber truncheon, removed the handcuffs and then went out and locked the door.\n12.  F. returned half an hour later, put handcuffs on the applicant and took him again to M.’s office where other officers were also present. The applicant was only wearing a T-shirt and socks.\n13.  The forensic expert attempted to take a hair sample from the applicant’s groin using a comb. He was unsuccessful, and M. cut some hair with scissors.\n14.  The applicant was then laid on the table facing the desk and M. started clipping his fingernails. In the process the applicant’s fingers began bleeding.\n15.  Once these procedures had been completed, the applicant was taken back to the interview room, which contained a table and two chairs. The handcuffs were removed. He was still wearing only a T-shirt and socks.\n16.  The applicant remained there overnight, until noon on 23 June 2004. At noon he was transferred to a detention cell and given some clothing which his relatives had brought for him.\n17.  On 24 June 2004 the applicant was taken to a doctor for an examination. While there he asked the doctor to record his injuries. The doctor refused, saying he had had no instructions in that respect.\n18.  On the same day the applicant was brought before a judge with a view to deciding on the question of detention on remand. During those proceedings the applicant described his injuries to the judge, who remanded him in custody but did not otherwise take note of the applicant’s complaints.\n19.  On 25 June 2004 the applicant complained to the Uysk district prosecutor about the forceful removal of his underw", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6792", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  All of the applicants have either tenancy rights to their flats on the basis of occupancy vouchers (yaşayış sahəsi orderi) issued by the relevant executive authorities or ownership rights to them on the basis of an ownership certificate issued by the competent domestic authority (see Appendix - Table I).\n5.  In all cases, the applicants’ flats were unlawfully occupied by internally displaced persons (“IDPs”) from different regions of Azerbaijan under occupation by Armenian military forces following the Armenian‑Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.\n6.  The applicants lodged separate civil actions before the domestic courts seeking the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.\n7.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix (Table I), the applicants’ claims were granted by various domestic courts, which ordered the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.\n8.  The respective judgments became final and enforceable. However, the IDP families refused to comply with those judgments and despite the applicants’ complaints to various authorities, the judgments were not enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6793", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Martin.\n5.  A person whom the applicant operated on vertebrae after a traffic accident alleged that her health was permanently damaged due to malpractice in the course of the surgery.\n6.  The police opened criminal proceedings in that respect on 27 October 2004. In the course of 2005 the police investigator heard several witnesses and obtained the opinion of an expert.\n7.  On 30 December 2005 the investigator accused the applicant of having damaged the patient’s health. On 23 February 2006 a public prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint against that decision.\n8.  Between 11 May 2006 and 6 June 2006 three institutions informed the investigator that they were not in a position to review the expert’s opinion for various reasons. On 13 June 2006 the investigator heard three witnesses.\n9.  On 28 August 2006 the investigator appointed a different institution with a view to obtaining a second expert opinion.\n10.  On 16 February 2007 the injured party submitted the opinion of an expert elaborated in the context of civil proceedings concerning her claim for damages.\n11.  On 21 May 2007 the institution appointed to submit an opinion on 28 August 2006 informed the investigator that all its experts considered themselves biased as they knew the applicant as a physician.\n12.  On 1 June 2007 a different expert was appointed who submitted his opinion on 9 July 2007.\n13.  After having taken further evidence the investigator proposed that the proceedings be discontinued on 28 August 2007. On 28 November 2007 a public prosecutor from the District Prosecutor’s Office in Martin discontinued the proceedings.\n14.  The injured party filed a complaint on 31 December 2007. On 21 March 2008 a prosecutor of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Žilina quashed the decision to discontinue the proceedings. The case was returned to the police investigator on 4 April 2008.\n15.  In May 2008 the investigator heard the experts and a witness. On 27 May 2008 it appointed an institution in the Czech Republic with a view to obtaining a counter-opinion. Upon the investigator’s request a public prosecutor transmitted the relevant documents, on 27 October 2008, to his Czech counter-part with a view to having them delivered to the institution concerned. The latter submitted the counter-opinion on 22 October 2009.\n16.  On 25 November 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings. It held that their duration was due to difficulties of an objective nature in obtaining relevant expert evidence.\n17.  On 12 February 2010 the District Prosecutor’s Office in Martin discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the facts imputed to the applicant had not occurred.\n18.  On 2 June 2010 a public prosecutor of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Žilina quashed the decision and then discontinued the proceedings on a different ground, namely that the facts in issue do not constitute a criminal offence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6794", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Athens.\n5.  On 15 October 2002 criminal proceedings were brought against him for fraud and forgery related offences.\n6.  The hearing, which was originally set for 18 November 2004, was subsequently adjourned to 9 June 2005 due to absence of witnesses.\n7.  A hearing took place on the aforementioned date and by judgment no. 41563/2005 the Athens First Instance Criminal Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to twenty seven months of imprisonment.\n8.  On the same date the applicant lodged an appeal with the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal challenging the court’s findings and its evaluation of the evidence.\n9.  The hearing, which was originally set for 16 January 2006, was subsequently adjourned to 23 February 2007, on the applicant’s request.\n10.  By judgment dated 28 February 2007 the Court of Appeal reduced the applicant’s sentence to six months of imprisonment (judgment no. 1943/2007).\n11.  On 5 October 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation.\n12.  The hearing, which was originally set for 8 April 2008, was adjourned twice - to 21 October 2008 and subsequently to 28 April 2009 -due to lawyers’ strike.\n13.  By judgment dated 27 May 2009 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s allegations as unfounded, after having observed that the Court of Appeal’s decision was sufficiently reasoned (judgment no. 1281/2009). This judgment was finalised on 28 July 2009.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6795", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  All of the applicants have either tenancy rights to their flats on the basis of occupancy vouchers (yaşayış sahəsi orderi) issued by the relevant executive authorities or ownership rights to them on the basis of an ownership certificate issued by the competent domestic authority (see Appendix - Table I).\n6.  In all five cases, the applicants’ flats were unlawfully occupied by internally displaced persons (“IDPs”) from different regions of Azerbaijan under occupation by Armenian military forces following the Armenian‑Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.\n7.  The applicants lodged separate civil actions before the domestic courts seeking the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.\n8.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix (Table I), the applicants’ claims were granted by different domestic courts, which ordered the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.\n9.  The respective judgments became final and enforceable. However, the IDP families refused to comply with those judgments and despite the applicants’ complaints to various authorities, the judgments were not enforced.\n10.  After the communication of application no. 7867/09 to the respondent Government, on 16 October 2010 the judgment in favour of Ms Lala Gasimova was enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6799", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Georgiyevsk.\n6.  On 17 September 2001 the applicant brought civil proceedings against the joint stock company “Nov” (акционерное общество “Новь”), subsequently known as the collective farm “Nov” (сельскохозяйственная артель “Новь”), seeking recovery of 100 tons of sunflower seeds under a supply agreement.\n7.  On 17 October 2001 the Georgiyevskiy Town Court granted the applicant’s claim. The defendant was absent from the hearing.\n8.  On 24 December 2001 the writ of execution was returned to the Georgiyevskiy Town Court as it had not been possible to enforce it.\n9.  On 13 March 2002, following a request by the defendant, the Georgiyevskiy Town Court quashed the judgment of 17 October 2001 and resumed the proceedings.\n10.  On 22 October 2002 the applicant modified her claims and asked the court to order the defendant to pay her 800,000 Russian roubles.\n11.  On 17 December 2002 the Georgiyevskiy Town Court granted the applicant’s claim. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n12.  The judgment could not be enforced because the defendant had insufficient funds.\n13.  On an unspecified date in June 2003 the applicant lodged a claim against the Ministry of Finance seeking compensation for damages incurred through the inappropriate administration of justice, notably the excessive length of proceedings in respect of her claims against the company. She argued that the courts had failed to observe the time-limits prescribed by the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, which had undermined the possibility of enforcement of the final judgment in her favour.\n14.  On 21 July 2003 the Basmannyj District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claim without consideration on the merits. Referring to Ruling no. 1-P, adopted by the Constitutional Court on 25 January 2001 (see paragraph 18 below), the District Court noted that current laws did not determine the grounds or procedure for adjudicating a claim for damages on account of failure by the courts to comply with statutory time-limits. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“According to Article 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the rules of civil procedure in federal courts of general jurisdiction are determined by the Russian Constitution, the Judicial System Act, the Code of Civil Procedure and other federal laws.\nThe law has not determined the territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction over civil claims for compensation for damage incurred in civil proceedings in cases where a dispute has not been heard on the merits as a consequence of unlawful acts (or failure to act) of a court (a judge), including breach of a reasonable-time guarantee.\nPursuant to Article 134 § 1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the judge shall dismiss a statement of claim if the claim is subject to examination not in civil proceedings but in another judicial procedure.”\n15.  On 10 March 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 21 July 2003 on appeal, finding as follows:\n“In dismissing the claim with reference to Ruling no. 1-P of 25 January 2001 of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the court came to the correct conclusion that its examination by a district court of general jurisdiction would only be possible if a federal law determined that the district court of general jurisdiction had territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction over such claims.\nAt the present time, however, neith", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6800", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Piatra-Neamţ (Romania); the second was born in 1972 and lives in Jakobstad (Finland). They are both journalists.\n7.  In 1995 the first applicant set up the limited corporation Tele M, whose registered purpose was the production and broadcasting of radio and television programmes. The first applicant was the majority shareholder and manager. The company obtained broadcasting licence no. 246/1997 and was granted television operation rights for the Neamţ region.\n8.  In 1999 the first applicant set up the private limited liability company Radio M Plus, whose main registered purpose was the production of audiovisual programmes. The first applicant was its sole shareholder and manager. A change in share capital in 2000 reduced his interest to 20%.\n9.  The first applicant’s intention was to separate the television activities from those of radio broadcasting, with Radio M Plus dealing solely with the latter. Pending the change in audiovisual legislation which would enable the assignment of the radio-broadcasting licence (amendment finally adopted on 8 August 2002), the relevant activities were divided between Radio M Plus, which produced the radio programmes, and Tele M, which was responsible for broadcasting. The equipment necessary for the radio activity (including broadcasting) belonged to the company Radio M Plus.\n10.  In January 2002 the television station Tele M broadcast two documentaries; one concerned a protégé of I.T. who was wanted by the police, and the other was about one of I.T.’s business ventures, namely a hotel where traces of mercury had been found in food. In the first applicant’s submission, after those two documentaries I.T. threatened to make his companies insolvent as a result of inspections by the financial authorities. According to the information provided by the first applicant, I.T. was at the time a member of parliament affiliated to the party in power, and was referred to in the press as a “local baron”.\n11.  On 25 January 2002 the local financial authorities of Piatra-Neamţ attempted to carry out an unannounced inspection at the head offices of Tele M. In view of the first applicant’s opposition, he was fined by the financial authorities. The fine was, however, subsequently annulled, because it had been imposed, according to the applicant, in breach of the statutory provisions which required giving 15 days’ notice to the company concerned before an inspection could be carried out. An inspection was subsequently carried out, however, and the authorities found that the company owed significant amounts to the State budget. An agreement for the staggered repayment of the sums due was entered into with the first applicant. In his submission, the inspection had followed a request made by I.T. to V.M., who was head of the local public finance directorate and who, at the time, was an associate of I.T. in a number of commercial companies.\n12.  The first applicant explained that, having regard to the high amount of the aggregate debt and the fact that it was repayable immediately, and in order to avoid insolvency, he had been persuaded to sell his majority interest in the company Tele M. to I.T. and to the company I., which belonged to the wife and son of V.M. He thus ceased to be a shareholder on 1 August 2002. On the same day the applicant was dismissed from his duties as manager of the company.\n13.  On the same day, the company Radio M Plus, of which the first applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6801", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was born in 1950. The second applicant is the first applicant’s daughter, born in 1976. They live in Voronezh.\n7.   In July and August 1998 the applicants made various monetary deposits with the Voronezh branch of the SBS-Agro Bank (“СБС-Агро”). In September 1998, during a financial crisis in Russia and rapid currency devaluation, they requested the bank to refund the capital with interest, but the bank refused. On 4 August 1999 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Voronezh (“the District Court”) allowed the applicants’ claim against the bank. The first and second applicant were awarded 24,490 and 32,931 United States dollars (USD) respectively.\n8.  The bailiffs started enforcement proceedings on 22 August 2000. Meanwhile, the bank became insolvent. On 10 July 2001 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued. The judgment of 4 August 1999 remained unenforced.\n9.  On 16 August and 15 September 1999 the Central Bank of Russia (“the Central Bank”) declared a moratorium until 17 November 1999 on the execution of all creditors’ demands against the SBS-Agro Bank (“the bank”). The moratorium was later prolonged. On 16 November 1999 the management of the bank was taken over temporarily by the “Agency on Restructuring of Lending Agencies” (“ARKO”), set up by the State in accordance with the Law on Restructuring of Lending Agencies.\n10.  On 9 November 2001 the applicants sued the Central Bank and the ARKO for damages on the ground that the bank remained under the ARKO’s effective control since 16 November 1999. The District Court held a hearing in the applicants’ case on 5 December 2001. The ARKO filed written observations but was not represented at the hearing. The Central Bank did not file observations, nor was it represented at the hearing. In its judgment delivered on the same date the District Court noted that the bank was being managed by the ARKO at the material time and found the latter responsible for the bank’s obligations, including its debt owed to the applicants. It held that the ARKO was to pay the first and second applicants USD 24,490 and USD 32,931 respectively.\n11.  The Voronezh Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) allowed the ARKO’s appeal on 12 March 2002 and set aside the District Court’s judgment of 5 December 2001.\n12.  Following another remittal, on 20 December 2004 the District Court again found for the applicants, in terms similar to those of its judgment of 5 December 2001. The applicants were awarded the same amounts, payable by the ARKO. The judgment also held that the ARKO had to pay an amount of USD 20,841.68 to another plaintiff, Mr Kravchenko. The judgment specified that it was subject to appeal before the Voronezh Regional Court within ten days.\n13.  The ARKO lodged an appeal against the judgment of 20 December 2004. The Central Bank joined the appellate proceedings. On 25 February 2005 the ARKO was closed.\n14.  On 19 July 2005 the Regional Court heard the ARKO’s appeal against the District Court’s judgment of 20 December 2004. The representative of the Central Bank took part in the hearing as a co‑defendant. The Regional Court observed that the ARKO had been closed and discontinued the appellate proceedings. The District Court’s judgment of 20 December 2004 in the applicants’ favour accordingly became binding and enforceable.\n15.  On 2 August 2005 the District Court issued a writ of execution in respect of its judgment of 20 December 2004, which had acquired legal force on 19 July 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6802", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  From 14 March to 6 October 2005 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-77/1 in Moscow. He was accommodated in Cell 243 which measured approximately 11 square metres. The cell had one window and the toilet was located inside the cell, separated with a brick partition approximately 1.2 metre in height. It disposed of four sleeping places. Detainees were allowed one hour of outdoor exercise per day.\n8.  The parties disagreed on the number of inmates in Cell 243.\n9.  According to the applicant, Cell 243 was constantly overcrowded. It was designed for two inmates but actually housed four persons. He referred to the Court’s findings in respect of the same cell in the case of Starokadomskiy v. Russia (no. 42239/02, §§ 23-24 and 42, 31 July 2008).\n10.  The Government maintained that the number of detainees in Cell 243 had not exceeded two persons. In support of their position, they enclosed with their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, a certificate issued by the prison governor on 5 April 2011 and selected pages from the prison population register covering the period between 16 March and 6 October 2005.\n11.  On 16 January 2012, further to the Court’s request for more detailed factual information on the number of detainees in Cell 243, the Government submitted the following material:\n– a certificate issued by the prison governor on 27 December 2011, according to which Cell 243 accommodated two persons during the entire period of the applicant’s detention;\n– an undated certificate from the deputy head of the relevant department, according to which there were two detainees in Cell 243;\n– every second page from the prison population register covering the period between 14 March and 30 September 2005.\n12.  On 7 March 2012, in response to the Court’s request for clarifications about the origin of visible corrections of the number of detainees in Cell 243 in the prison population register, the Government submitted that, upon making the enquiries, it had been established that the procedure for filling out the prison population register had been breached which had resulted in “careless filling [out]”, corrections and erasures. The head of the department who was responsible for overseeing the compliance with the procedure could not be disciplined because he had retired in 2006. The Government pointed out that the corrections had not been made “with a purpose to misrepresent reliable information but because of carelessness and inattention of the officers of the pre-trial detention centre”.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6803", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1965 and 1955 respectively. The second applicant is still living in Sofia.\n5.  The applicants, together with the parents of a Mr B.I., were the co‑owners of a building in Sofia and the plot of land on which it stood. In 1992 B.I.’s parents sold him one quarter of the property.\n6.  In 1993 B.I. began constructing a building adjoining the original one. On five subsequent occasions, in March and July 1996, March and June 1999, and June 2005, the authorities ordered the halting of the construction or demolition of the building. B.I. challenged all of these orders by way of judicial review. Two of the cases, which the applicants joined as interested parties, are still pending (see below).\n7.  On 21 March 1996 the mayor, noting that the building erected by B.I. could not be legalised, ordered its demolition. In April 1996 B.I. sought judicial review of this order by the Sofia City Court.\n8.  On 23 March 1999 it gave leave to the applicants, as well as to B.I.’s wife and brother, to join the proceedings.\n9.  A total of at least fifteen hearings were held between 8 June 1999 and 26 October 2007 in intervals ranging between four and eight months. Five hearings, listed for 8 June and 26 October 1999 and 25 February, 6 June and 21 November 2000, failed to take place because various parties had not been duly summoned. At least six hearings between January 2005 and October 2007 were adjourned on account of the need to summon a newly added party at her address in Toronto, Canada, by means of a letter rogatory.\n10.  The Sofia City Court rendered a judgment on an unspecified date in 2010. According to the latest correspondence received from the applicants in October 2010 the proceedings at that time were pending before the second level of court.\n11.  On 16 June 1999 the building control authorities, alerted by the applicants, ordered B.I. to pull down the building which he had erected.\n12.  On 13 July 1999 B.I. and his wife sought judicial review of this order by the Sofia City Court. At the first hearing, held on 26 November 1999, the applicants intervened in the proceedings as interested parties.\n13.  Some twenty hearings were held until February 2006 scheduled at intervals ranging from two to nine months. At least four hearings were adjourned on account of improper summoning of the parties, including of B.I’s brother who lived in Canada. Following the latter’s death in 2002 at least six hearings were adjourned on account of a failure to summon his widow, who also lived in Canada, by a letter rogatory.\n14.  According to the latest correspondence received from the applicants in October 2010 the proceedings were still pending before the Sofia City Court.\n15.  On three occasions – on 23 November 2000, on 18 December 2002 and on an unspecified date in 2007 the applicants lodged complaints with the Sofia City Court and the Supreme Judicial Council relating, inter alia, to the slow progress of the proceedings to which they were parties. In reply to their 2007 complaint the Ministry of Justice informed the applicants that there were no delays attributable to the authorities.\n16.  In 2002 the Ministry of Justice informed the local authorities which were a party to the proceedings involving the applicants that following an inspection carried out by a representative of the Inspectorate with the Supreme Judicial Council it had been established that a delay had indeed occurred and that it had been due to the abuse of process by B.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6805", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first, second and third applicants were born in 1965, 1973 and 2006 respectively.\n6.  In the period between 1990 and 2001 the first applicant visited Bulgaria on a number of occasions. It appears that in 1992 he obtained a temporary residence permit on the strength of his business activity. In 2001 he was granted a permanent residence permit.\n7.  In 2004 he met the second applicant and from the beginning of 2005 they lived together. Following a complicated pregnancy, on 10 April 2006 their son, the third applicant, was born. The child’s health has been fragile ever since, with frequent episodes of pulmonary disease.\n8.  On 27 December 2005 the head of the National Security Service at the Ministry of Internal Affairs made an order for the first applicant’s expulsion on the ground that he presented a threat to national security. He also deprived the applicant of the right to reside in Bulgaria and excluded him from entering Bulgarian territory for a period of ten years. No factual grounds were given. The order relied on a classified internal document of 15 December 2005, which was not served on the applicant. It appears that the applicant was able to consult it during the ensuing court proceedings (see paragraphs 12-16 below).\n9.  The internal document stated that the first applicant was involved in drug trafficking for the purposes of financing the militant Kurdish separatist group Kongra-Gel (the former PKK). The order stated that the first applicant should be detained pending expulsion and that it was subject to appeal to the Minister of Internal Affairs, but not to judicial review, and that it was immediately enforceable.\n10.  The first applicant was served with the order on 21 February 2006. On the same day the head of another government agency, the Migration Directorate of the national police, made another order for the first applicant’s detention pending expulsion. The applicant was arrested and placed in a detention facility in Sofia. Pursuant to an order of 18 July 2006 he was transferred to another special detention facility outside the city.\n11.  The first applicant was released on 28 October 2006. It appears from his submissions that on an unspecified date after his release he was interviewed at the Iranian embassy about his alleged connections with a Kurdish separatist organisation.\n12.  On 9 March 2006 the first applicant sought judicial review of the expulsion order by the Sofia City Court, claiming that the order was unlawful and referring to his difficult family situation due to the complicated pregnancy of his partner, the second applicant.\n13.  On 13 March 2006 the first applicant also appealed against the order for his expulsion to the Minister of Internal Affairs. On 30 March 2006 the appeal was returned to the applicant on the ground that it had been submitted out of time and that judicial proceedings for the order’s review were pending.\n14.  In the course of the court proceedings the first applicant provided the court with a document, issued by the National Investigation Service, certifying that at that time no criminal proceedings were pending against him. He also submitted written observations in which he claimed that he had never been involved in the activities mentioned in the classified internal document. He also referred to his family situation, the Convention and the case of Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria (no. 50963/99, 20 June 2002).\n15.  The defendant, the National Security Service, submitted a copy of the i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6806", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Simferopol.\n6.  On 16 July 2001 the applicant lodged with the Kyivsky District Court of Simferopol (“the Kyivsky Court”) three separate claims against the K. company, seeking compensation for the company’s alleged failure to comply with its contractual obligations and claiming the title to two garage-boxes erected by the latter pursuant to several contracts with the applicant.\n7.  Subsequently, the applicant amended his claims on several occasions.\n8.  The applicant’s claims concerning the title to two garage-boxes were joined, while the compensation claim was examined separately.\n9.  On 11 July 2002 the Kyivsky Court allowed the applicant’s compensation claim in full. The respondent appealed.\n10.  On 6 November 2002 the Crimea Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n11.  On 9 November 2006 the Kyivsky Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated and time-barred. The applicant appealed on 5 December 2006.\n12.  On 21 February 2007 the Crimea Appeal Court upheld the judgment. The applicant appealed in cassation on 10 April 2007.\n13.  On 6 December 2007 the Supreme Court decided to reject the applicant’s appeal in cassation.  On 27 December 2007 a copy of the decision was sent to the applicant.\n14.  In the course of the proceedings concerning the title to two garage-boxes the respondent company introduced a counter-claim, alleging that the applicant’s claims had been already met, as his wife, acting on the applicant’s behalf under a power of attorney, had obtained compensation for the property in question pursuant to two separate contracts dated 18 February 2002.\n15.  On 15 July 2003 the Kyivsky Court ruled against the applicant, allowing the respondent’s counter-claim, finding that the respondent had performed its obligations under the contracts by paying the requisite compensation to the applicant’s wife.\n16.  On 29 July 2003 the applicant appealed.\n17.  On 24 November 2003 the appeal was returned to the applicant for procedural shortcomings, which he was instructed to rectify by 26 December 2003.\n18.  On 13 April 2004 the Crimea Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 17 July 2003. The applicant appealed in cassation.\n19.  On 22 June 2007 the Zaporizhzhya Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated.\n20.  On 12 June 2008 the applicant requested the Kyivsky Court to inform him of the outcome of his appeal in cassation.\n21.  On 17 July 2008 the applicant received a copy of the decision of 22 June 2007.\n22.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings the courts had to adjourn the hearings sixteen times in the first set and nineteen times in the second set of proceedings due to the parties’ failure to appear and requests for adjournments. In particular, some of the hearings were adjourned or not held due to the absence of the applicant’s representative.\n23.  On 11 May 2004 the applicant lodged with the courts two separate claims against his wife and the company, challenging the validity of the contracts of 18 February 2002 (see paragraph 14 above).\n24.  By decisions of 30 June and 8 November 2004, the Zaliznodorozhnyi District Court and the Crimea Court of Appeal respectively invalidated the contracts of 18 February 2002 and ordered the applicant’s wife to pay back to the company the amounts she had received under the contracts.\n25.  According to the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6807", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the town of Beloyarskiy in the Tyumen Region.\n6.  On 8 June 2001 the applicant’s son, Mr Valeriy Putintsev, was called up for two years of mandatory military service. He was assigned to serve in military unit no. 39982 in the town of Uzhur.\n7.  On the evening of 9 February 2002 Mr Putintsev left the military unit without permission. Three days later he was arrested in a local village and his detention for ten days on a charge of absence without leave was authorised. He was placed in a disciplinary cell at the Uzhur Town Garrison.\n8.  On 14 February 2002 junior sergeant L. took up convoy duty in the detention unit of the Uzhur Town Garrison. On the following day, on an order from the commandant of the garrison, junior sergeant L. attempted to search the applicant’s son. Mr Putintsev headbutted the junior sergeant, hurting Mr L.’s lip. Mr L. did not fight back. In view of the incident, the commandant ordered a medical examination of the applicant’s son and junior sergeant L. While escorting the applicant’s son from a military hospital back to the garrison’s detention unit, Mr L., in an attempt to prevent the applicant’s son from escaping, fired at him and wounded him in the right buttock. On the morning of 27 February 2002 the applicant’s son died from the gunshot wound, which had caused injuries to internal organs and extensive bleeding.\n9.  The commandant of the Uzhur Town Garrison immediately reported the shooting to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 56681. A criminal investigation was opened into the reported incident. On 15 February 2002, at 3.10 p.m., an acting assistant to the military prosecutor examined the scene of the incident. Junior sergeant L. participated as a witness. The record showed that the grounds adjacent to the military hospital were surrounded by a concrete fence. A road between the hospital building and the fence led to metal gates guarding the entrance to the hospital grounds. A used cartridge from an automatic gun was found on the road approximately twenty-five metres from the entrance gates. The plan of the scene drawn up by the investigator showed that the applicant’s son had started running along the road towards the gates from thirty metres back. He had passed the gates without any attempt being made to stop him. The plan also indicated that junior sergeant L. had also passed the gates in pursuit of the applicant’s son and, having run another seven metres beyond them, had stopped and shot Mr Putintsev. A blood stain measuring sixty by forty centimetres was discovered seventy-three metres from the place where Mr L. had started shooting, on the road between two fences separating the main grounds of the military unit and the grounds of the disciplinary division where the applicant had been detained. The plan also included a drawing of the applicant’s son’s path from the place where he had started running to the blood stain. According to the drawing, having passed the gates of the hospital grounds, he had been running towards the checkpoint of the main grounds of the military unit situated right across from the hospital gates and then, having turned, had sprinted along the road between the two fences.\n10.  The investigator seized the applicant’s son’s uniform and underwear, having made photos of the clothes and a detailed description of the stains and damage to them. The photos showed a blood-soaked undershirt and winter underpants. The investig", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6809", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969. At present he is detained in El Harrach prison in Algeria.\n6.  The applicant left Algeria for Italy in 1991. He subsequently spent time in Spain, Switzerland, Canada, Pakistan and Afghanistan. In 1999 the applicant arrived in the United Kingdom where he applied for asylum. His request was dismissed.\n7.  On 13 January 2001 the applicant was placed in custody in the United Kingdom as a result of several accusations made against him in different countries. The only one that was pursued was that of “association de malfaiteurs”. It was imputed to the applicant that, when living in Montreal, he had been involved in the supply of false documents which had been used by individuals in France when they had fled arrest for offences committed there.\n8.  The United Kingdom extradited the applicant to France. On 7 April 2006 he was found guilty by a French court of involvement, as a member of an organised group, in the preparation, between 1996 and 1998, of a terrorist act in France and several other countries and of forging identity documents. He received a five-year sentence and was excluded from the territory of France. The applicant did not appeal and was released immediately upon conviction on the ground that he had served the sentence in the context of his prior detention while awaiting extradition. On 11 April 2006 the applicant arrived in Slovakia.\n9.  In the meantime, on 1 June 2005, an Algerian court had convicted the applicant, in absentia, of membership of a terrorist organisation acting both in Algeria and abroad, and of forgery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.\n10.  In January 2001 the applicant married a Slovakian national in London. A child was born to the couple on 2 August 2001.\n11.  With effect from 25 October 2007 the applicant’s wife was deprived of legal capacity to act. The child was entrusted to the care and custody of the applicant’s wife’s mother. On 29 May 2008 the latter, acting as guardian of her daughter, petitioned for divorce. The divorce proceedings are pending before the Bratislava IV District Court; it is not clear from the parties’ submissions whether a final decision has been given.\n12.  On 18 July 2006 the Migration Office dismissed the applicant’s first asylum request. The Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action challenging that decision.\n13.  On 24 September 2007 the Migration Office dismissed his second request for asylum. It held that there were no obstacles to the administrative expulsion of the applicant to Algeria. On 30 October 2007 the applicant’s lawyer waived the right to challenge that administrative decision. It thus became final on that date.\n14.  On 6 October 2008 the Migration Office dismissed the applicant’s third request for asylum. It further decided not to afford the applicant the status of “subsidiary protection” (doplnková ochrana) under the Asylum Act 2002.\n15.  On 4 February 2009 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed that decision. It ordered the administrative authority to establish all the relevant facts and to give comprehensive reasons for its conclusion.\n16.  On 5 June 2009 the Migration Office again decided not to grant asylum to the applicant and not to provide him with subsidiary protection under the Asylum Act 2002.\n17.  It was found that the applicant’s fears were subjective in nature and unsubstantiated by objective facts, that he had failed to show that he was subjected to persecution and that such persecution was pol", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6811", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Chişinău. During the 1990s she became well known in business circles in Moldova and was designated “Business person of the year” in 1999.\n6.  During 1999-2001 the applicant borrowed money from four individuals, to a total amount of 894,955 Moldovan lei (MDL), (approximately 79,000 euros (EUR) at the time). She told her creditors that she would use the money to import cosmetic products from a French company to sell in her cosmetics shop in Chişinău. However, she did not repay the money and interest within the time-limits agreed with her creditors. The applicant submitted that she had repaid part of her debt before the proceedings against her were initiated and that the delay in repaying the debt was due to delays in importing the cosmetic products to Moldova. It is not disputed by the parties that the applicant never denied the existence of her debts and that she confirmed them in writing and before the authorities during the criminal proceedings.\n7.  Following criminal complaints by the creditors, on 11 November 2002 a criminal investigation was initiated against the applicant. She was accused of obtaining the money fraudulently, without any intention of repaying it. According to the applicant, a person with influence over one of her creditors wanted to obtain a contract with the French company and threatened her with imprisonment if she refused to transfer her business with that company to him. The criminal proceedings against her were used as a means of destroying her business.\n8.  On 3 February 2003 the applicant was declared a wanted person and on 4 February 2003 a court remanded her in custody pending trial. Neither the applicant nor her representative was present.\n9.  According to the applicant, on 13 March 2003 she was arrested and taken to Chişinău police headquarters, where she was detained throughout that day, without any record of the detention being made. The Government submitted that her detention had been duly recorded. Because she had serious health problems, an ambulance was called and she was taken to hospital at the doctors’ request. The applicant spent seven days in hospital under police supervision. On 20 March 2003 the applicant was released from hospital, was rearrested and placed again in the Chişinău police headquarters. She felt ill on the same day and an ambulance was called to treat her. On 11 April 2003 the applicant’s daughter complained to the Chişinău Prosecutor Office about the alleged refusal to allow the applicant’s transfer to a hospital on 20 March 2003. The applicant did not inform the Court of any reply received or of any complaint to the higher prosecutor or the court in relation to that complaint. She was transferred to prison no. 13 on 28 May 2003.\n10.  On 2 April 2003 the investigator sent a rogatory commission to the French authorities, asking them to verify whether the applicant had had contacts with the cosmetics company and whether she had been its representative in Moldova, as well as whether she had purchased cosmetic products from that company in order to import them to Moldova. On 26 July 2004 the applicant requested that “two volumes of materials from France” be added to the file. The prosecutor supported her request, on condition that the materials be translated. The court agreed, but a translation was apparently never added to the file.\n11.  The applicant requested that witnesses on her behalf be heard. In particular, on 1 November 2003 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6812", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born on 10 December 1989 and lives in Bilicenii Vechi. At the time of the events complained of, she was fourteen years and eight months old.\n6.  On the evening of 21 August 2004 V.R. invited the applicant and one of her friends to accompany him out for the evening. V.R. was twenty-three years old at the time and lived in the same neighbourhood as the applicant’s grandmother, whom the applicant visited often. The applicant and V.R. had known each other for many years and had met before on different occasions.\n7.  Towards the end of the evening the applicant and V.R. went by car to a bar/nightclub in a neighbouring village. At the bar, the applicant and V.R. were joined by V.V., V.D. and another girl, A.S. The applicant sat together with V.R. and his friends. V.R. bought a bottle of vodka and encouraged the applicant to drink with them. Initially, the applicant refused to drink but then she yielded to peer pressure and consumed approximately 100 ml of vodka. According to the applicant, V.R. had threatened her with violence and with not driving her back home if she did not drink. When later questioned, V.R. disputed that he had made such threats. After they had finished the drinks, they all left the bar and V.R. drove everyone home. When they approached V.D.’s house, V.D. and A.S. asked V.R. to wait for them, promising to be back in half an hour.\n8.  V.R. and the applicant were left alone in the car. V.R. parked the car near V.D.’s house and asked the applicant to move to the backseat with him. The applicant later explained in a statement she gave to a prosecutor that when she had stood up she had felt dizzy and had had to support herself by leaning against the car. V.R. disputed that and submitted that the applicant had not appeared to be intoxicated. The applicant further submitted that while sitting on the backseat, V.R. had attempted to kiss her on the lips, but she had moved away, telling him that she was not willing to have sex and that she was afraid of what her parents would think. V.R. had assured the applicant that no one would find out, while getting closer and pressing his body against her, thereby pinning her down. He had used one of his hands to hold the applicant’s arms while removing her clothes with the other hand. In her statement to the prosecutor the applicant indicated:\n“... I did not want to have sexual intercourse with V.R. but because I had drunk vodka I felt weak, I could not move or physically resist him. V.R. took off my jeans, pants, t-shirt and bra, [and] penetrated me... I felt pain... I had not had sexual intercourse before and until that moment with V.R. I was a virgin... because it was dark in the car I did not see that I was covered in blood...”\n9.  V.R. disputed the above description of the events when questioned by the prosecutor and submitted that the applicant had immediately accepted his proposal that she have sex with him and had removed her clothes by herself. He also submitted that she had confessed to him to having previously had sex with his brother and that he had not been aware of her age.\n10.  The applicant stated that after the rape took place, V.R. had threatened to kill her should she tell anyone that he had had sex with her. The applicant recalled that the act had lasted for approximately 10 minutes. The applicant had then put on her clothes and shortly afterwards V.D. and A.S. had returned to the car. V.R. had driven the applicant home and had repeated his threat. V.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6813", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Yenakiyeve Penitentiary no. 52.\n6.  In the morning of 1 March 2002 the “Berkut” special police unit apprehended the applicant, at the home of an acquaintance, in connection with an investigation into a series of armed robberies and murders.\n7.  The police searched the applicant and discovered a suspicious sachet in his pocket appearing to contain drugs. According to him, the police had planted it on him when he was already handcuffed. The applicant’s arrest was documented as being based on a suspicion of illegal drug possession.\n8.  On the same day, 1 March 2002, the applicant was placed in administrative detention for three days while the contents of the sachet were analysed.\n9.  Between 1 and 3 March 2002 he confessed to about fifteen counts of robbery, theft and smuggling, as well as an attempted murder. The applicant also showed to the police a garage and a forest cache where firearms and other weapons and explosives were stored.\n10.  According to the Government’s submissions, the applicant decided to confess and to cooperate with the police of his own free will. According to the applicant, however, he was coerced into self-incrimination. His account of the events following his arrest is as follows. At about 11 a.m. on 1 March 2002 the applicant was taken to an office in the Kyivskyy District Police Department in Odessa where two law-enforcement officials from Kyiv, D. and Y., who introduced themselves as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Investigation Unit (заступник начальника Департаменту карного розшуку МВС України) and the Chief of the Main Criminal Investigation Department (начальник Головного управління карного розшуку МВС України) respectively, questioned him in respect of a number of robberies and murders. As the applicant denied any involvement in them or knowledge thereof, Y. summoned several officers and ordered them to force him to confess to about forty instances of such offences. The applicant, being handcuffed, was suspended from a metal bar between two tables, and Y., together with D., delivered numerous blows with a rubber truncheon to various parts of his body. Subsequently a mask was put on the applicant’s face, and other police officers continued to beat him until about 7 p.m. The applicant signed numerous confessions. In the evening D. and Y. checked on him. As they considered that he had not been sufficiently cooperative, the applicant’s ill-treatment continued until 4 March 2002. During that period he was detained in the police station, where he had no contact with his relatives or a lawyer.\n11.  On 4 March 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of several counts of armed robbery, illegal arms handling and attempted murder. He signed a waiver of legal assistance (its copy in the case file is illegible) and confessed to six counts of robbery.\n12.  The applicant was then transferred to the Odessa Temporary Detention Facility (“the ITT”).\n13.  Before that transfer, on 4 March 2002, he was examined by a doctor at the local hospital, who found that he had a chest contusion and post-traumatic neuritis. The doctor also concluded that the applicant’s right hand had been subjected to prolonged constriction.\n14.  On 5 March 2002 an expert from the Odessa Regional Bureau for Expert Forensic Medical Examinations examined the applicant on the instructions of the investigator. Although the examination report (delivered on 1 April 2002) no", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6814", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Sergiu Sochichiu, was born in 1973 and lives in Chişinău. At the time of the events he was a real estate agent.\n6.  On 17 January 2007 the applicant was arrested by four plainclothes police officers in front of his daughter’s kindergarten. According to the applicant, he was sitting in his car when four armed people approached him. When he got out of the car he received a blow to his head and fell down, injuring his face. His hands were then tied with his belt and he was taken to a police station in a police car.\n7.  According to the Government, the applicant attempted to lock the doors of his car and to flee when approached by the police officers. When taken out of the car, he engaged in a fight with one of them. The Government submitted that the arresting officers had had no other option but to apply force in order to immobilise him.\n8.  The Government submitted a video showing a part of the applicant’s arrest. The video starts with images from a moving car approaching two other cars. Near those cars, the applicant can be seen lying with his face on the ground surrounded by several men in plain clothes. One of the men is pressing his foot on the applicant’s head. The applicant does not move and his hands are placed on the ground. He is asked his name and he answers. One of the men asks another man whether he has handcuffs and receives a negative answer. Then he starts taking the applicant’s belt off. The applicant cooperates and raises his midsection from the ground in order to allow the police officer to take off his belt. Then, the man with his foot on the applicant’s head brushes off his lower trouser leg with his hand, without removing his foot from the applicant’s head. Then that man takes his foot off the applicant’s head and another man orders the applicant to put his hands behind his back. The applicant complies and one of the men starts tying his hands with his belt. At that point, one of the men bends down to speak to the applicant and asks what happened and the applicant answers that his teeth have been knocked out. That man then tells the others that two of the applicant’s teeth are missing. One of the men says with a sarcastic tone: “they will grow back, won’t they?” The applicant says that they will not. Then the applicant is lifted from the ground and taken to a white car. On his way, one of the arresting men shouts a swear word at the applicant. The applicant gets into the car, after which the video stops. The video lasts almost two minutes.\n9.  One of the arresting officers drove the applicant’s car to the police station. The applicant’s wife and daughter witnessed his arrest. According to the applicant, his arrest was also witnessed by many other parents who were taking their children home from kindergarten. This submission was disputed by the arresting officers during the criminal proceedings against them.\n10.  At the police station the applicant was informed that he was suspected of fraud connected with the sale of an apartment belonging to a third party. After two hours, the applicant’s lawyer was called and then an ambulance. The doctors found injuries on the applicant’s face, in particular on his lips and jaw and concluded that he needed inpatient examination and treatment. It appears that on the same day the applicant’s lip was stitched. The applicant’s car was returned to his family the next day.\n11.  On the same day as the applicant’s arrest the arresting officers drafted a record of his ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6815", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1977, 1979 and 2009 respectively and are currently in Sweden.\n7.  On 10 September 2007 the first and second applicants, a married couple, arrived in Sweden and applied to the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) for asylum, residence and work permits. Applications for refugee status and travel documents were lodged with written submissions dated 28 February 2008.\n8.  The applicants submitted that they had lived together in Tehran. The first applicant is a Kurdish Sunni Muslim and the second applicant a Persian Shia Muslim. They both had a university degree and had been working, the first applicant as a machine supervisor at a car factory and the second applicant as a teacher, before they left Iran. The first applicant had also been a musician, and he used to perform and sing political music for the Kurdish cause in Iran. He had played at several concerts, which had been criticised by the authorities. He had also been an active athlete as an Iranian kick-boxing champion.\n9.  The first applicant claimed that he had been politically active in Iran. He had always been interested in the Kurdish issue and had once, in 2003, been arrested and questioned by Etalat, the Iranian security forces, for being involved in a discussion on this topic. Subsequently, he had been sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment by the Mojtama Ghazani e Ghods court. He had served one month in Qasr prison, before being released on bail. Despite the sentence, he had been able to keep his job and stay in Tehran.\n10. Approximately one year before they left Iran, the first applicant had been approached by a colleague and close friend, who was a member of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KDPI), and asked if he was interested in supporting and working for the KDPI. He had accepted the proposition and started to disseminate leaflets, compact discs and other information about the party and also to recruit new members. He had sympathised with the party but had not been a full member. His only contact with the party had been through the colleague.\n11.  On 26 August 2007 the first applicant had witnessed the arrest of a work colleague by Etalat outside their workplace. He had then, out of fear, decided to leave Iran as he assumed that his friend would reveal his contacts under torture. He had left work, gone to the bank to withdraw his savings and then home to tell his wife and to pack their most important belongings. The applicants had travelled first to Karaj, where the second applicant’s parents lived and where they also left some personal belongings and documents, and then to Sardesht, where they stayed with the first applicant’s grandparents for two nights.\n12.  On 27 August 2007 the first applicant had called the doorman in their apartment building and been told that four men from Etalat had come looking for the applicants. Etalat had broken into their apartment, where allegedly they found evidence and KDPI-related documents which the applicants had left behind.\n13.  On the night between 28 and 29 August 2007, the applicants had crossed the border into Turkey and then continued through Europe by truck. Since coming to Sweden they had been in touch with the first applicant’s father, who had claimed that he had been threatened by Etalat and that they had been searching for the first applicant. On several occasions, Etalat had approached the father in his home and taken him to their head office for interrogation.\n14.  The second applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6816", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Ljubljana.\n5. On 25 November 1998 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court found that the applicant’s employment had been unlawfully terminated by company K. and ordered the latter to reinstate the applicant in his previous position and pay his salary for the period of his wrongful dismissal. On 28 June 2000 this judgment became final.\n6.  On 22 September 2000 the applicant lodged a request for enforcement of the judgment.\n7.  On 3 October 2000 the Vrhnika Local Court allowed the enforcement claim. Company K., however, objected, claiming that it had already fulfilled the obligations arising from the above-mentioned judgment. On 8 November 2000 the Vrhnika Local Court stayed the enforcement and advised company K. to institute contentious proceedings.\n8.  After the termination of the contentious proceedings (see paragraphs 11-18 below), and further to a request by the applicant on 13 March 2007, the enforcement proceedings continued. On 13 June 2007 the court ordered enforcement of the part of the judgment awarding the sum of EUR 46,950 which represented the unpaid salary with default interest (see paragraph 16 below). The applicant lodged an appeal, which was rejected on 10 October 2007.\n9. On 29 November 2007 the Vrhnika Local Court discontinued the enforcement on the basis of information received from company K. to the effect that the payment had been made. However, this decision was quashed on appeal and subsequently, further to the notification that the applicant had received the full amount of the outstanding claim, the Vrhnika Local Court discontinued the enforcement on 24 September 2008. The applicant’s appeal against that decision was rejected by the Ljubljana Higher Court on 25 February 2009. The latter’s decision was served on the applicant on an unspecified date in March 2009.\n10.  In the course of those proceedings, the applicant lodged supervisory appeals under the Protection of the Right to Trial without Undue Delay Act (hereinafter referred to as “the 2006 Act”) on 18 July 2007 and 17 March 2008 respectively. On 4 April 2008 he lodged a motion for a deadline, which was rejected as unfounded by the vice-president of the Ljubljana Higher Court on 25 April 2008.\n11.  On 24 November 2000 company K. lodged a claim with the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court, contesting the validity of the above-mentioned enforcement order of 3 October 2000 (see paragraph 7 above).\n12.  A hearing was held on 28 August 2001. On that date the court delivered a judgment, which was served on the applicant on 7 January 2002. On 14 January 2002 the applicant appealed.\n13.  On 29 August 2003 the Higher Labour and Social Court allowed the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.\n14.  On 1 December 2003 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction in the case and referred it to the Vrhnika Local Court for adjudication. Following an objection by the applicant, the Vrhnika Local Court also declared that it lacked jurisdiction to decide on the matter and referred the case to the Ljubljana District Court on 16 July 2004. On 21 January 2005 the latter instituted a dispute on jurisdiction. Following a decision of the Ljubljana Higher Court of 2 February 2005 the case was again transferred to the Vrhnika Local Court on 7 March 2005.\n15.  On 10 March 2005 the Vrhnika Local Court ordered company K. to specify the monetary value of the claim and, on 7 April 2005, declared lack o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6817", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 22 October 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Celje District Court seeking the compensation of damages sustained in a car accident.\n6.  On 3 September 1998 the first hearing was held.\n7.  On 16 September 1998 the first-instance court appointed a medical expert.\n8.  On 26 February 1999 the expert opinion was submitted to the first-instance court.\n9.  On 3 June 1999 a hearing was held.\n10.  On 29 June 1999 the first-instance court appointed a new medical expert.\n11.  On 1 September 1999 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.\n12.  On 4 November 1999 a hearing was held and the court decided to appoint the third expert.\n13.  On 7 February 2000 the expert submitted his opinion.\n14.  On 23 March 2000 the court postponed the hearing scheduled for 28 March 2000 on the request of the applicant due to his medical condition.\n15.  On 4 May 2000 the first-instance court held the last hearing and delivered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. Both parties appealed.\n16. On 17 October 2001 the Celje Higher Court remitted part of the case for re-examination and rejected the remainder of the claim.\n17. On 19 December 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the rejected part of his appeal before the second-instance court.\n18.  On 10 April 2003 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law and the proceedings at first-instance resumed.\n19.  On 9 December 2003 a hearing was held where a decision to amend the expert opinion was taken.\n20.  On 1 June 2004, during the last hearing, the first-instance court delivered a judgment. The applicant appealed.\n21.  On 14 April 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court rendered a judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6818", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company, Firma Veritas, TOV, is a Ukrainian limited liability company registered in Dnipropetrovsk.\n5.  In June 2005 the applicant company lodged a claim with the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Commercial Court (“the Commercial Court”) against company E., seeking the recovery of debts owed for legal services.\n6.  On 22 August 2005 the above court allowed the claim. On 17 October 2005 the Dnipropetrovsk Commercial Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) partly amended the above judgment. On 14 February 2006 the Higher Commercial Court upheld the latter decision. On 30 May 2006 the Supreme Court quashed the above decisions and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n7.  The hearing of 30 May 2006 took place in the presence of company E.’s representatives and in the absence of the applicant company’s representative, who allegedly had not been informed thereof. The applicant company states that prior to the hearing of 30 May 2006 company E. sent a letter to the Supreme Court asking it to consider the case “with special attention”.\n8.  On 30 May 2007 the Commercial Court partly allowed the applicant company’s claim and ordered company E. to pay the applicant company a sum comprised of debts owed, losses adjusted for inflation, a penalty and court fees.\n9.  On 19 September 2007 the Court of Appeal amended that judgment, having allowed the applicant company’s claim in full.\n10.  On 13 February 2008 the Higher Commercial Court upheld the above decision.\n11.  On an unspecified date company E. lodged an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court against the decision of 13 February 2008 along with a request for an extension of procedural time-limits for lodging that appeal, stating that it had received a copy of the above decision only on 13 March 2008 and could not, therefore, appeal against it on time.\n12.  On 10 April 2008 the Supreme Court opened the cassation proceedings. On 13 May 2008 it quashed the decisions of 19 September 2007 and 13 February 2008 on the grounds that the courts’ findings had been unfounded and erroneous, and upheld the judgment of 30 May 2007. It stated, in particular, as follows:\n“Pursuant to the provisions of Articles 6 and 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine, ... the Supreme Court does not consider it necessary to remit the case for fresh consideration to the first-instance court, because that would contradict Articles 125 and 129 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Sections 2 and 39 of the Judiciary Act governing the status of the Supreme Court and its tasks of ensuring the legitimacy in the administration of justice, and would entail quashing of the legitimate judgment of 30 May 2007, which would be contrary to the Constitution. Thus, the list of the consequences of the examination of an appeal in cassation against a decision of the Higher Commercial Court, as envisaged by Article 111-18 of the Code of Commercial Procedure, is not a procedural impediment to the upholding by ... the Supreme Court of the judgment ... of 30 May 2007”.\n13.  The applicant company states that prior to the hearing of 13 May 2008 it requested the Supreme Court to conduct audio-recording of that hearing and sought the withdrawal of some of its judges, but its requests were not examined.\n14.  In June 2005 the applicant company lodged another claim with the Commercial Court against company E. for the recovery of debts owed for legal services.\n15.  On 22 August 2005 the above court allowed the claim. On 17 October 2005 the Court of Appea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6819", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Vinnytsya.\n5.  On 12 January 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of several counts of aggravated murder and robbery. In the course of his arrest force was used against the applicant.\n6.  Subsequently, the applicant was taken to a police station, where he was allegedly tortured by unspecified police officers with the aim of extracting a confession of his having committed the crimes of which he was suspected. According to the applicant, during such ill-treatment, which continued for several days thereafter, he received an eye injury which eventually resulted in him suffering a complete loss of eyesight.\n7.  Later on the same day he was taken to a temporary detention centre (ізолятор тимчасового тримання – “the ITT”) in Kharkiv.\n8.  The next day the applicant was taken to the Kharkiv Emergency Hospital, where he was examined by a trauma specialist, a surgeon and a neurosurgeon. The applicant’s skull was x-rayed and samples of his blood and urine were taken. He was diagnosed with bruising to the chest, lumbar area, kidneys, and soft tissues on the face and the back of his head. The doctors prescribed a further examination of the applicant by an urologist and outpatient supervision by a neurologist.\n9.  On 15 January 2001 a prosecutor from the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office questioned the applicant, in the presence of a lawyer appointed to assist him by the authorities, with a view to taking a decision concerning the applicant’s continued detention. The prosecutor noted a haematoma on the applicant’s face next to his right eye. According to the prosecutor’s report to his superior of the same date, the applicant explained that he had received the injury during his arrest, that he had not been ill‑treated by the police after his arrest and that he had voluntarily given his confession.\n10.  On 16 January 2001 the prosecutor was instructed by his superior to carry out an inquiry in order to take a decision in accordance with Article 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 45 below).\n11.  On the same date several police officers gave written explanations concerning the applicant’s arrest, in which they stated that the applicant had resisted arrest by “applying unarmed combat techniques and trying to escape”. According to them, “measures of physical restraint and special means [of restraint], namely handcuffs” had been used against the applicant and he had been taken to the police station.\n12.  On 19 January 2001 the applicant was taken by the police to see a medical expert. The expert examined the applicant and noted that he displayed bleeding into the eyeball, haematomas and abrasions on the left side of his chest, arms and legs, some of which were three to four days old and others were nine to eleven days old. The expert noted that many of the injuries, including the bleeding into the applicant’s eyeball, had been caused by blunt solid objects. According to the expert’s notes, during the examination the applicant stated that some of his injuries had been caused by him falling down the stairs, that his vision had been deteriorating since he was young, and that he had no complaints about the authorities’ actions. The expert concluded that the injuries were of a minor character and that they had not lead to a deterioration of the applicant’s health.\n13.  The applicant remained in police custody until 23 January 2001. On that date he was plac", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6820", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and is currently serving her sentence in Gebze Prison.\n6.  On 9 April 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership to MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), an illegal organisation.\n7.  On 13 April 2003 she was taken before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge who subsequently ordered her pre-trial detention.\n8.  On 23 July 2003 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and eight other persons charging them with attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the State, membership of, or aiding and abetting to an illegal organisation.\n9.  Following the abolition of the State Security Courts by Law no. 5190, the criminal proceedings were resumed by the Istanbul Assize Court.\n10.  During the proceedings, the Istanbul Assize Court decided to prolong the applicants’ pre-trial detention and rejected her request to be released pending trial a number of times on the basis of the reasonable grounds of suspicion that she had committed the offence, the severity of the criminal charge against her and the state of the evidence in the case file.\n11.  At the hearing of 1 April 2009, the Istanbul Assize Court, once more, rejected the applicant’s claim that her detention had been unreasonably lengthy and that she should be released pending trial.\n12.  The applicant challenged the above-mentioned decision by lodging an objection with the higher division of the Assize Court.\n13.  In the course of the proceedings for the review of her detention, the applicant alleges that neither she nor her lawyer was given an opportunity to make any oral submissions against the lawfulness of her continued detention in a hearing and that they were not notified of the observations submitted by the public prosecutor.\n14. On 17 April 2009 the 13th Chamber of the Istanbul Assize Court rejected the applicant’s objection against the prolongation of her detention, taking into account the nature of the criminal charge and the establishment of reasonable suspicion that she had committed the alleged crime.\n15.  On the basis of the evidence before it, on 4 May 2011 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant of attempting to undermine the constitutional order, pursuant to Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code, and sentenced her to life imprisonment.\n16.  According to the latest information provided in the case file, the applicant has lodged an appeal against the judgment with the Court of Cassation, before which the proceedings are currently pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6821", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Belgrade.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 30 July 1991, in the course of a fight between two groups of youths, the applicant’s son (hereinafter “A”), aged 21, was fatally shot by an off-duty police officer (hereinafter “B”), who had apparently attempted to assist his own brother as one of the participants in the said incident.\n8.  On an unspecified date thereafter the District Public Prosecutor’s Office (Okružno javno tužilaštvo) in Belgrade charged B with murder, as well as a number of other persons for several related crimes.\n9.  The decision to institute a formal judicial investigation (rešenje o sprovođenju istrage) was adopted on 5 August 1991.\n10.  On 30 December 1991, however, the charges against B were dropped, and on 13 January 1992 the investigating judge (istražni sudija) of the District Court (Okružni sud) in Belgrade decided to terminate the proceedings against him (obustavi istragu).\n11.  During the said investigation the defendants had all been heard in person, as had several witnesses, including A’s own brother. The investigating judge had further obtained relevant medical and ballistics reports, as well as other expert testimony. The autopsy report had also been produced.\n12.  On 4 February 1992 the applicant filed an indictment (optužnica) against B with the District Court, and thus took over the prosecution of the case in the capacity of a “subsidiary prosecutor” (see paragraph 32 below).\n13.  On 29 January 1996 the District Court acquitted B, stating that he had acted in self-defence.\n14.  Between 4 February 1992 and 29 January 1996 more than a dozen hearings had been held before the District Court. The applicant and numerous witnesses, as well as medical and ballistics experts, had all been heard, and a re-construction of the events in question had been carried out.\n15.  On 24 March 1999 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Srbije) quashed the judgment of 29 January 1996 and ordered that the case be re-examined at first instance. In so doing, it described the District Court’s reasoning as incoherent and noted that its establishment of the facts and its assessment of evidence had been fundamentally flawed.\n16.  On 4 November 2002 the District Court again acquitted B, re-affirming that he had acted in self-defence.\n17.  On 20 April 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the District Court’s judgment. It noted that the said court’s reasoning had almost exclusively taken into account the evidence in favour of B, having ignored or misrepresented the rest. The District Court was thus ordered to thoroughly review the case and re-assess the evidence. The District Court received the Supreme Court’s decision on 21 September 2004.\n18.  The next hearing before the District Court was scheduled for September 2006, but was subsequently cancelled by the court itself because it had, apparently, been unable to secure the proper composition of its bench.\n19.  On 18 December 2006 the District Court adjourned the hearing because of the inability of B’s lawyer to appear in court due to a prior professional commitment.\n20.  Following an additional adjournment on 27 June 2007, a new hearing was set for 19 September 2007.\n21.  On 19 September 2007 the District Court again adjourned the hearing, this time because it had been informed that B, still an active police officer, had been sent, as a member of the Serbian contingent, to take part in the Un", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6822", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1967 and is currently serving a prison sentence in correctional facility no. IK-19 in Tavda, in the Sverdlovsk region.\n9.  On 11 June 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of abduction involving an organised criminal group and he was placed in detention. Three days later, the relevant prosecutor ordered his detention pending trial. On 18 June 1999 the applicant was officially charged.\n10.  On 6 January 2000 he was further charged with abduction, extortion, and illegal acquisition and possession of firearms and drugs.\n11.  On 10 March 2000 the case file was forwarded to the Meshchanskiy District Court of Moscow. The District Court returned the case file to the prosecutor’s office, noting that the bill of indictment was not translated fully into the Chechen language.\n12.  On 7 April 2000 the prosecutor’s office forwarded the amended bill of indictment and the case file to the District Court, which received it on 10 April 2000. A week later, it was transferred to the Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow.\n13.  The first trial hearing was scheduled for 22 May 2000, but was adjourned owing to the failure of the other defendants’ counsel to appear in court, as was the following hearing, scheduled for 16 June 2000. Of three subsequent hearings, two were adjourned at the applicant’s request and one owing to the failure of the victim and witnesses to appear in court.\n14.  By a decision of 12 September 2000 the Kuntsevskiy District Court remitted the case to the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office for an additional investigation.\n15.  On 9 July 2001 the case file was sent to the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow for trial. The hearing scheduled for 24 August 2001 was adjourned owing to the failure of the witnesses and the applicant’s counsel to appear in court. Of eight subsequent hearings scheduled between 24 August 2001 and 20 May 2002, two were adjourned because the applicant, who in the meantime had been released on bail (on 6 July 2001), failed to appear in court, three owing to the same failure on the part of the defendants, their counsel and certain witnesses and three because the presiding judge was involved in the examination of another case.\n16.  By a decision of 21 May 2002 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court remitted the case to the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office for further investigation. On 24 July 2002, upon an appeal by the prosecutor, the Moscow City Court quashed that decision and remitted the case to the Khamovnicheskiy District Court.\n17.  The first hearing after the case file was returned to the Khamovnicheskiy District Court was scheduled for 13 September 2002. It did not take place because the presiding judge was involved in the examination of another case. Of twenty-three subsequent hearings scheduled between 13 September 2002 and 3 November 2003 (the last court hearing), two did not take place because the judge was, once again, involved in the examination of another case and four because either the prosecutor or some of the defendants were ill. Requests by the parties – five by the defence, including the applicant’s counsel, and one by the prosecutor – caused another six adjournments. Nine hearings were postponed owing to the failure of several participants to appear in court. The applicant, who was back in custody at the time, did not appear on two occasions. Another adjournment occurred because the applicant’s lawyer left the courtroom without permission. One hearing was postponed for reason", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6824", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is currently detained in İzmit F‑type prison.\n6.  On 6 May 2000 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of a criminal profit-making organisation and carrying out illegal activities on its behalf.\n7.  On 8 May 2000 the investigating judge at the İstanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.\n8.  On 19 June 2000 a bill of indictment was filed against the applicant and four other persons with the İstanbul State Security Court, accusing them of forming a criminal profit-making organisation and of being involved in incidents of murder, extortion and fraud.\n9.  On 30 January 2003 the first-instance court acquitted the applicant and the other accused of the former charge on the ground that the mental elements of the crime had not been established on their parts. It followed that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the other charges brought against them and transferred the proceedings to the Kartal Assize Court.\n10.  On 20 December 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court, noting that the latter had erroneously acquitted the applicant and his co-accused of the charge concerned. In its decision, the court held that all components of forming a criminal profit-making organisation had been sufficiently established against the accused.\n11.  Subsequently, the case was remitted to the first-instance court.\n12.  Following the abolition of the State Security Courts by Law no. 5190, the İstanbul Assize Court resumed the criminal proceedings.\n13.  During the proceedings, the İstanbul Assize Court reviewed the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention regularly at the end of each hearing or, at the latest, every thirty days, of its own motion, without holding any oral hearing.\n14.  At the hearing on 3 March 2010 the İstanbul Assize Court decided, once more, to extend the applicant’s continued detention on account of the reasonable grounds of suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he was charged, and the state of the evidence in the case file.\n15.  On 5 January 2011 having regard to the period he had spent in detention, the İstanbul Assize Court released the applicant.\n16.  On the basis of the range of evidence in the case file, on 6 December 2011 the İstanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant of a number of crimes; including forming a criminal profit-making organisation, murder, abduction and extortion. Subsequently, the court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment.\n17.  According to the information in the case file, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation, before which the proceedings are currently pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6825", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 16 July 1999 the Strumica Court of First Instance ordered a certain Mr I.A. to pay a debt established in the first applicant’s favour. On 22 March 2010 the first-instance court stayed the enforcement proceedings since the debtor had died. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.\n6.  In the meantime, on 30 April 2009, the first applicant lodged a length complaint with the Supreme Court. On 3 July 2009 the court established that the enforcement proceedings, at that moment, had been pending for ten years before the first-instance court and had not yet ended. The court found that there was a violation of the first applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It set a six-month time-limit for the first-instance court to bring the enforcement proceedings to a conclusion and awarded the first applicant the equivalent of 325 euros (EUR) by way of just satisfaction. In the absence of an appeal, this decision became final on 22 October 2009.\n7.  On 30 September 1998 the second applicant sought that the Pension and Disability Insurance Fund (“the Fund”) recognise her right to a disability pension. After several remittals ordered by the Government Appeal Commission and the Supreme and Administrative Courts, on 25 November 2009 the Fund accepted the second applicant’s request and acknowledged her right to a disability pension.\n8.  In the meantime, on 27 January 2009, the second applicant complained to the Supreme Court that the administrative proceedings had lasted too long and requested compensation. On 23 March 2010 the Supreme Court established that the impugned proceedings, at that time, had lasted for over ten years and awarded her the equivalent of EUR 410 by way of just satisfaction. On 31 May 2010 the second-instance panel of the Supreme Court allowed the second applicant’s appeal and awarded her a higher compensation, the equivalent of which was EUR 980. This sum was paid on 15 September 2010.\n9.  On 12 April 2001 the third applicant requested annulment of her dismissal. On 18 September 2007 the Skopje Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision and dismissed her claim. On 22 January 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed on the merits the third applicant’s appeal on points of law (ревизија).\n10.  In the meantime, on 8 July 2009, the third applicant complained to the Supreme Court about the length of the labour proceedings. On 29 September 2009 the Supreme Court rejected (отфрла) her claim as having been submitted outside the statutory six-month time-limit, which, in her case, started to run on 18 September 2007. The second-instance panel of the Supreme Court confirmed this decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6827", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and prior to his conviction lived in Ryazan.\n6.  On 28 December 2004 the investigator of the Ryazan Regional Prosecutor’s Office, with approval by a prosecutor, requested the Sovetskiy District Court, Ryazan, to remand the applicant in custody on suspicion of banditry and involvement in an organised criminal group.\n7.  On the same day the applicant was arrested.\n8.  In the meantime, on 29 December 2004 the Ryazan Sovetskiy District Court remanded the applicant in custody. The court held as follows:\n“The crimes of which [the applicant] is suspected fall into a category of especially grave crimes punishable by over two years’ imprisonment.\nOpting for a more lenient preventive measure for [the applicant] is impossible, taking into account the particular gravity of the crimes of which [the applicant] is suspected, as well as the fact that disclosure of the identity of members of a criminal gang, including [the applicant], can create a real threat to the safety of witnesses, victims and their relatives, which follows from [statements] by [witness D.] ...”\n9.  On 21 January 2005 charges of banditry, involvement in a criminal group, extortion and fraud under Articles 209 § 2, 210 § 2, 163 § 3 and 159 § 3 of the Criminal Code were brought against the applicant. He was questioned as the defendant.\n10.  On 25 January 2005 the Ryazan Regional Court upheld the decision of 29 December 2004 on appeal.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest. Stating that he was an advocate, the applicant claimed that his arrest required the prior consent of a court. On 20 March 2007 the Ryazan Regional Court, acting as the most senior level of jurisdiction, found the applicant’s arrest not to have breached the requirements of the domestic law.\n12.  On 24 February 2005 the Ryazan Sovetskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 June 2005. The court held as follows:\n“The crimes [charged against the applicant] belong, pursuant to Article 15 of the Criminal Code, to the category of particularly grave crimes, which according to Article 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives ground for the application of a [custodial measure]. ...\nAt the present time it is necessary to carry out several operational and investigative actions, to establish the whereabouts of the known members of the criminal gang, to bring charges against them, to carry out interrogations and confrontations, as well as to familiarise the defendants, the victims and their counsel with the case-file material. ...\nThe argument by defence counsel about the change of circumstances which laid the basis for application of a custodial measure cannot be taken into consideration.\nThe reference of defence counsel to the fact that the charges against [the applicant] do not involve an episode involving [witness D.], whose statement that he had received death threats from [the applicant] had been the ground for application of a custodial measure, is unsubstantiated.\nA statement by [witness D.], his handwritten explanation, as well as the record of the viewing of a video recording of 6 May 2002, from which it follows that D. is a witness to a crime, [that he] fears for his life and [that] the threat comes, inter alia, from [the applicant], have been examined by the judge [...] as matters characterising [the applicant’s] personality and giving grounds to believe that his being at large could constitute a real danger to safe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6828", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lived in Tallinn until his arrest. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n7.  In 2007 the applicant was serving a prison sentence in Murru Prison.\nOn 29 March 2007 he was placed in a punishment cell for thirty days as a disciplinary penalty. Initially, he was placed in punishment cell no. 140. On 9 April 2007 he was transferred to punishment cell no. 122. He made several applications and complaints to the prison director concerning the condition of the cells.\n8.  On 1 June 2007 the applicant’s marriage to I. was dissolved.\n9.  On 4 July 2007 the applicant made a request to the prison administration to be allowed an overnight visit from his family. He was given authorisation for a visit for 7 and 8 August 2007.\n10.  On 11 July 2007 the applicant was assaulted by co-prisoners in Murru Prison. He sustained thirteen stab wounds. He was taken to a hospital in Tallinn and later to the Prison Hospital in Maardu. On 16 July 2007 he was taken back to Murru Prison, where he was placed, for security reasons, in cell no. 147. That cell was in the closed disciplinary section of the prison. He was kept in cell no. 147 for ten days.\n11.  On 27 July 2007 the director of Murru Prison requested the Ministry of Justice to transfer the applicant to Tartu Prison for security reasons. On 1 August 2007 the Ministry acceded to that request. Although the applicant sought postponement of his transfer so that he could receive the family visit planned for 7 and 8 August, he was transferred to Tartu on 7 August 2007 and no visit took place.\n12.  Upon arrival at Tartu Prison the applicant was placed in the reception section. On 17 August 2007 his request for an overnight visit was dismissed since such visits were not allowed in the reception section. A person may be kept in the reception section for up to three months.\n13.  On 19 September 2007 the applicant sewed his mouth together with five stitches and announced that he was commencing a hunger strike, apparently mainly because of the prison administration’s failure to place him in a different cell despite his requests referring to the dangerousness of V., with whom he was sharing the cell. Initially he refused medical assistance, but it appears that the stitches were removed on the next day by medical staff and the applicant terminated his hunger strike.\n14.  On 21 September 2007, finding that the applicant was suicidal and might continue to harm himself, the prison director decided to apply certain additional security measures to him. In particular, he ordered the applicant’s placement in a locked isolation cell and prohibited him from wearing personal clothing or using personal effects. The necessity of the continued application of these measures was to be reviewed once a month.\n15.  The complaints against the administration of Murru Prison (see paragraphs 16 and 21 below) were originally lodged with the Tallinn Administrative Court. As the applicant was subsequently transferred to Tartu Prison, on 14 August 2007 the Tallinn Administrative Court transferred the cases to the Tartu Administrative Court, which had jurisdiction over them after the applicant’s transfer.\n(b)  Administrative case no. 3-07-1000\n16.  On 17 May 2007 the Tallinn Administrative Court received a complaint from the applicant about Murru Prison. He claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the degrading conditions in punishment cells nos. 140 and 122. He argued that the windows of the c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6830", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Zadar. Her income consists of her pension, amounting to HRK 1,787.10 per month, and a social benefit amounting to HRK 350 per month.\n6.  On 14 January 1975 the applicant’s husband was awarded a specially protected tenancy (stanarsko pravo) of a flat in Zadar. Pursuant to the relevant legislation, the applicant as his wife automatically became a co-holder of the specially protected tenancy of the flat. After the death of her husband in 1994 she became the sole holder of the tenancy.\n7.  On 14 August 1991 the applicant and her husband went to the village of Mokro Polje, between Obrovac and Knin. In September 1991 the applicant’s husband fell ill. They also found out that third persons had broken into and occupied their flat in Zadar. In these circumstances she decided to stay with her husband in Mokro Polje.\n8.  After the death of her husband on 6 September 1994, the applicant went to live with her daughter in Switzerland. The applicant returned to Zadar in October 1998 and lived in a friend’s flat until 15 July 2001, when the third persons moved out of her flat and she moved back in.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 29 December 1995 the applicant made a request to purchase the flat at issue to the Town of Zadar as the provider of the flat. She relied on section 4 of the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act, which entitled holders of specially protected tenancies of flats in social ownership to purchase their flats from the provider of the flat under favourable conditions (see paragraph 39 below).\n10.  As she received no reply to her request to purchase of the flat, on 5 April 2000 the applicant, relying on section 9 of the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act, brought a civil action in the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) against the Town of Zadar seeking judgment in lieu of a contract of sale.\n11.  The defendant submitted a counterclaim seeking the applicant’s eviction.\n12.  On 11 January 2001 the Municipal Court ruled for the applicant. Following an appeal by the defendant, on 11 July 2001 the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n13.  In the resumed proceedings, on 20 May 2002 the Zadar Municipal Court again ruled for the applicant. On 24 June 2005 the Zadar County Court again quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n14.  In the resumed proceedings, on 28 April 2006 the Zadar Municipal Court delivered a judgment whereby it dismissed the applicant’s action. At the same time it accepted the defendant’s counterclaim and ordered the applicant to vacate the flat. It also ordered her to reimburse the defendant 4,800 Croatian kunas (HRK) for the costs of the proceedings. The court found that the applicant had been absent from the flat between 14 August 1991 and 15 July 2001, that is, for a period exceeding six months, and that her absence had not been justified. In so deciding the court followed the case-law of the Supreme Court (see paragraphs 34-37 below), according to which, in cases where a third person moves into the flat, the bringing of legal proceedings in order to evict the occupant would demonstrate an intention to live in the flat and prevent the tenant’s absence from being considered unjustified and resulting in a termination of the tenancy. However, the applicant had never instituted any proceedings to regain possession of her flat. Therefore, the condition for terminatio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6832", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the village of Rigakhoy, in the Shatoy District of the Chechen Republic.\n6.  The applicant was married to Ms Maydat Tsintsayeva, born in 1975. The couple were the parents of six children: Mr Umar Damayev, born in 1994; Ms Zharadat Damayeva, born in 2000; Ms Dzhaneta Damayeva, born in 2000; Mr Umar-Khadzhi Damayev, born in 2002; Ms Zura Damayeva, born in 2003; and Ms Zara Damayeva, born in 2003.\n7.  On 8 April 2004 the applicant went to a cemetery located outside the village of Rigakhoy. Umar Damayev was at school. The applicant’s wife and five younger children were at home.\n8.  At about 1.30 p.m. on 8 April 2004 two military aircraft approached the village of Rigakhoy and started bombing it. The attack lasted for some twenty or thirty minutes. At about 2 or 2.30 p.m. two other military aircraft bombed the outskirts of the village.\n9.  The applicant heard the sound of explosions while he was at the cemetery. He rushed back to the village. On arrival he saw that his house had been completely destroyed. The applicant then found the dead bodies of his wife and five children. Umar Damayev, who had not been at home at the time of the aerial attack, survived.\n10.  Later the same day the applicant’s six dead family members were buried.\n11.  In 1983 Mr M. built a house in the village of Rigakhoy without obtaining any construction permit. He did not register his title to ownership of the house.\n12.  In 2000 Mr M. left his house and the Damayev family unlawfully moved into it.\n13.  In the beginning of April 2004 a State agency in charge of the counter‑terrorism campaign in the Chechen Republic obtained information that a group of thirty insurgents planning to perform terrorist attacks had been hiding in the vicinity of the villages of Rigakhoy and Tersenaul. Both villages were unpopulated at that time.\n14.  In order to protect the civilian population and in view of the impossibility of carrying out military ground operations in the area, the headquarters in charge of the counter-terrorism campaign decided to carry out targeted aerial bombing of the insurgents’ base.\n15.  At 2.30 p.m. on 8 April 2004 four SU-25 airplanes fired missiles at the location of the insurgents’ base. The insurgents were killed.\n16.  Inhabited villages and dwellings, including the house occupied by the Damayevs, were not hit by the missiles.\n17.  On 8 April 2004 an artillery shell kept in the applicant’s house detonated. The applicant’s wife and five children were killed by the explosion.\n18.  On 8 April 2004 residents of Rigakhoy reported the bombings and the applicant’s relatives’ deaths to the office of the military commander for the Shatoy District.\n19.  On 12 April 2004 the applicant complained about his relatives’ deaths to the Shatoy District Department of the Interior.\n20.  At about 11 a.m. on 13 April 2004 a group of servicemen visited the village. They did not identify themselves; however, one serviceman said that he belonged to a military prosecutor’s office. The servicemen told the applicant that, according to their sources, there had been an attack on rebel fighters in the Rigakhoy area. They also said that there were no grounds for instituting a criminal investigation, as the house had exploded because of a gas cylinder or a landmine. The servicemen examined the ruins of the applicant’s house. The applicant requested that his relatives’ bodies be exhumed. The servicemen replied that they had no forensic expert wi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6833", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is currently serving a custodial sentence in the Ulyanovsk Region.\n6.  On 19 April 2006 a criminal case was opened against the applicant.\n7.  On 10 June 2006 the applicant was arrested and on the following day charged with several counts of large-scale fraud.\n8.  On 12 June 2006 the Leninskiy District Court of Ulyanovsk remanded the applicant in custody, finding as follows:\n“[The applicant] is accused of several serious crimes punishable by over two years’ imprisonment, which is by itself enough to remand [one] in custody. Moreover ... the court pays particular attention to the prosecution’s arguments that the applicant may reoffend (as demonstrated by the episode of defrauding a Ms L. after the opening of the criminal case) and abscond. The court views sceptically the [applicant’s] assertion that he is currently registering his residence [with the Ulyanovsk police], as the last registration has expired in 2005 and since then no decisions have been taken in that regard...”\n9.  The applicant appealed. On 22 June 2006 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court found that the detention order had been lawful and reasoned, and dismissed the appeal.\n10.  On 7 August 2006 the Leninskiy District Court, stating that the grounds for the applicant’s detention still pertained, extended it until 19 October 2006.\n11.  On 17 October 2006 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 19 November 2006, holding, in particular:\n“... the preliminary investigation in the present criminal case is not over, it is necessary to carry out many investigative actions ...\nMr Kovalenko is accused of several serious crimes punishable by over two years’ imprisonment, which is by itself enough to remand [one] in custody. Thus, there exists a particular risk that he may flee from justice and interfere with the establishment of the truth.\nTaking into account the concrete circumstances of the imputed crimes, the information about the [applicant’s] personality, in particular, his age, his state of health ... the court concludes that there are no grounds to apply to him a more lenient preventive measure.”\n12.  On 16 November 2006 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 19 December 2006. It specifically noted:\n“... it is necessary to carry out investigative actions... aimed at locating the significant funds acquired [by the applicant through criminal activities] from the investors and the [applicant’s] property.”\n13.  On 8 December, 29 December 2006 and 6 February, 6 March and 5 April 2007 the Leninskiy District Court, with reference to the same grounds, further extended the applicant’s detention.\n14.  On 4 June 2007 Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 August 2007, finding as follows:\n“... if at liberty, the applicant may reoffend and flee from justice. According to police reports, Mr Kovalenko has never appeared at his registered residence in Zhdanovo in the Moscow Region, and the house situated at that address is dilapidated. As to his temporary residence in Ulyanovsk, he appears there only seldom.”\n15.  On 2 August and 6 December 2007 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court granted further requests on the part of the prosecution and extended the applicant’s detention. It listed the same grounds justifying the custodial measure.\n16.  On 21 February 2008 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 19 June 2008, noting:\n“... The assertions of the def", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6834", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973. He is serving a prison term in Ilava.\n5.  On 23 May 2003 the applicant lodged a civil action for damages against the Nitra Regional Police Authority in respect of events surrounding his deprivation of liberty.\n6.  On 12 December 2003 the Nitra District Court rejected the applicant’s claim. The Nitra Regional Court quashed the decision as being erroneous on 31 May 2004.\n7.  On 26 October 2004 the case was assigned to a different judge of the Nitra District Court. On 5 April 2005 that court dismissed the applicant’s request for waiver of court fees. On 31 May 2005 the Regional Court quashed that decision as being incorrect.\n8.  On 6 December 2005 the case was assigned to a different District Court judge as the judge dealing with the case had requested her exclusion. In the first half of 2006 the District Court obtained information about the applicant’s financial situation. In September 2006 it received factual information from the Ministry of the Interior.\n9.  On 2 May 2007 the District Court refused to appoint a lawyer to represent the applicant. On 28 August 2007 the Regional Court quashed that decision holding that the applicant had been denied his right of access to a court. The file was returned to the District Court on 6 December 2007. It appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant on 7 December 2007.\n10.  Between May and July 2008 the District Court asked the applicant’s lawyer to complete the action. The modified action was submitted on 8 August 2008.\n11.  On 20 November 2008 the file was transmitted to the Piešťany District Court with a request to hear the applicant in prison. The file was returned to the Nitra District Court on 5 August 2009 with the explanation that the applicant insisted on being heard by the court dealing with his claim.\n12.  In the meantime, on 6 March 2009, the Nitra District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the appointment of a different lawyer to represent him. The Regional Court upheld that decision on 30 April 2009.\n13.  As the applicant had filed a criminal complaint against the lawyer, the District Court asked the Bar Association for further information on 25 November 2009. On 5 February 2010 it revoked the lawyer’s appointment and appointed the Legal Aid Centre in Bratislava to represent the applicant. On 16 April 2010 the Legal Aid Centre informed the District Court that the applicant had refused communicating with its lawyers. The applicant explained that he disagreed to a prison officer being present during the conversation. In view of further information submitted on 7 July 2010, the District Court decided not to revoke the appointment of the above institution on 4 November 2010.\n14.  On 3 February 2011 and 12 April 2011 the Legal Aid Centre informed the District Court that the applicant had refused communicating with its lawyers in writing and that he did not wish to be represented by them.\n15.  On 11 May 2011 the applicant specified his claim. On 18 July 2011 and 9 October 2011 respectively he informed the court that he did not wish to be represented by the Legal Aid Centre and that he asked for a different representative to be appointed.\n16.  The civil proceedings are pending.\n17.  On 12 June 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the length of the proceedings before the District Court as being manifestly ill-founded.\n18.  On 13 November 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s second complaint abo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6835", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Zbigniew Grzywaczewski, is a Polish national who was born in 1957. He suffers from insulin-dependent diabetes, prostate cancer and mild cardiac disorders. He has been classified by the social security authorities as a person with a “mild-degree disability” (umiarkowany stopień inwalidztwa) making him fit to do only light physical work.\n6.  On 25 January 2006 the applicant turned himself in to serve an outstanding sentence of imprisonment. From that day until 11 December 2008 he was in detention, except for the period from 24 to 27 December 2007 when he was at liberty on a short leave from prison (przepustka). During the relevant period the applicant was detained in a number of different facilities, namely Lublin Remand Centre, Zamość Prison and Hrubieszów and Rzeszów Prisons.\n7.  The parties’ statements relating to the conditions of the applicant’s detention are, to a large extent, contradictory. However, the Government’s submissions on the case are limited to the applicant’s detention prior to his transfer from Zamość Prison on 6 February 2007. The Government did not make any comments in relation to the period after that date.\n8.  From 25 January until 3 March 2006 the applicant was detained in Lublin Remand Centre. He was initially held in cell no. 22 in wing IV. Two weeks later he was transferred to cell no. 22 in wing III.\n9.  The official statistics published by the Prison Service (Służba Więzienna) reveal that at the relevant time the overcrowding (the degree by which the number of prisoners exceeds the maximum allowed capacity of a particular detention facility, which, in turn, is calculated on the basis of the standard of 3 square metres (m²) of cell floor space per prisoner provided for in Polish law) in Lublin Remand Centre peaked at 22.5 %.\n(b)  Facts in dispute\n(i)  The Government\n10.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s cell in wing IV measured 32 m² and could hold from 18 to 29 persons (from 1.7 to 1.1 m² of cell space per person). His cell in wing III measured over 21 m² and could hold from 7 to 10 people (from 3 to 2.1 m² of cell space per person). The Government did not specify, however, the actual occupancy rate because, as they submitted, Lublin Remand Centre had not kept any register of detainees’ allocation.\n11.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s cells in Lublin Remand Centre had been equipped in compliance with the internal regulations and had been adequately lit and ventilated. They also noted that the applicant had had an unlimited access to cold water and that he had been allowed to have one hot shower per week. The toilet annex inside each cell offered sufficient intimacy. Finally, the applicant was allowed to spend several hours outside his cell, either participating in social and cultural activities or staying in a chapel.\n(ii)  The applicant\n12.  The applicant submitted that cell no. 22 in wing IV had originally been designed for 14 persons but, in fact, it had been shared by 28 prisoners (1.1 m² of cell space per person). His cell in wing III measured 15 m² and was shared by 10 persons (1.5 m² of cell space per person).\n13.  The applicant claimed that Lublin Remand Centre had been so severely overcrowded that he had had no room to sleep or to have his meals. For example, in cell 22 in wing IV there were 18 beds and an unspecified number of mattresses spread on the floor. There was no private space. Consequently, the applicant had no choice but to administer his in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6836", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 10 April 2006 the applicant company sued a different company for a sum of money before the Bardejov District Court. In May 2006 the applicant company paid the court fee. In July 2006 it modified its claim.\n5.  The District Court held the first hearing on 31 October 2006. On 6 December 2006 the defendant company submitted its observations. On 19 November 2007, 17 January 2008 and 15 April 2008 the case was adjourned at the request of the defendant’s representative.\n6.  The second hearing was held on 7 May 2008. In June and September 2008 the applicant company asked for the proceedings to be accelerated.\n7.  On 2 October 2008 the case was assigned to a different judge. A hearing which was scheduled for 22 January 2009 was adjourned at the request of the defendant’s representative. Another hearing was scheduled for 12 March 2009.\n8.  On 9 April 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant company’s request about the duration of the proceedings. It held that, despite a shorter period of inactivity, there had been no significant delays in the proceedings in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalent. The decision stated that the applicant company had modified its action, that it had submitted documentary evidence in the course of the proceedings, and that it had also limited the court in scheduling of hearings.\n9.  Further hearings before the District Court were held on 8 June 2009 and 9 September 2009. On the latter date it delivered a judgment against which the defendant appealed on 29 October 2009.\n10.  The file was submitted to the Prešov Regional Court on 27 November 2009. On 9 February 2010 the court of appeal quashed the first-instance judgment. The decision was served on parties on 24 March 2010.\n11.  On 15 July 2010 the applicant asked for the case to be proceeded with. Hearings before the District Court were scheduled for 21 September 2010 and 13 December 2010. They were adjourned at the request of the defendant’s representative.\n12.  The District Court heard the parties on 5 April 2011. Subsequently the parties submitted documentary evidence. Another hearing was held on 23 June 2011. In July 2011 and September 2011 the parties submitted further observations and evidence. The District Court scheduled a hearing for 13 December 2011.\n13.  On 13 January 2012 the Government informed the Court that the proceedings were pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6837", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Kaunas.\n6.  The applicant owned a flat together with another person, I.B. On 15 May 2001 the applicant and I.B. disconnected the flat from the central heating system provided by the company “Litesko Ltd.” (hereinafter – Litesko), and signed a contract with an alternative heating provider. On 15 June 2001 the new provider’s heating system was installed in the flat. On 6 August and repeatedly on 17 October 2001 the applicant informed Litesko about the termination of their old agreement. According to the applicant, in the following months they received no bills from the old heating provider. In February 2002, however, Litesko sent a bill for heating to the applicant and I.B.\n7.  Following the refusal by the applicant to pay the bill, Litesko filed a civil claim for payment for the period from 1 January 2002 to 1 September 2003.\n8.  On 7 June 2004 the Palanga City District Court (hereinafter - the Palanga Court) dismissed the claim by Litesko. The court observed that the owners of the flat were free to choose their heating provider and they had informed the plaintiff about the termination of the agreement and properly disconnected from the heating system. The court concluded that the plaintiff itself had acknowledged that it no longer supplied heating to the flat. It was also established that the applicant together with I.B. and Litesko were no longer in a contractual relationship for heat consumption. The Palanga Court noted that the claim filed by the plaintiff was an unsubstantiated attempt to enrich itself at the expense of the other party.\n9.  Litesko missed the time-limit for lodging an appeal and its request to renew it was dismissed. Neither of the parties requested re-opening of the proceedings.\n10.  In 2006 Litesko brought a new claim against the applicant and I.B., requesting payment for heating for the period 1 April 2004 to 1 September 2005.\n11.  On 20 March 2006 the Kaunas City District Court upheld the claim and awarded Litesko 490 Lithuanian litai (LTL; approximately 142 euros (EUR)) against each of the owners. Having re-interpreted the domestic law, the court ruled that the applicant and I.B. were still in a contractual relationship with Litesko because they had arbitrarily disconnected the heating system and thus they had to pay for the heating. The court found that the 7 June 2004 court decision did not have res judicata effect as the new claim concerned a different period of time, and that this situation was therefore not identical to the one ruled upon earlier by another District Court.\n12.  On 20 June 2006 the Kaunas Regional Court upheld the decision, having found that the lower court had correctly assessed all the circumstances of the case and made a reasonable conclusion as to the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties and the supply of heating to the flat.\n13.  The applicant did not have the right to lodge a cassation appeal as the amount of the claim was smaller than the minimum required by domestic law for the lodging of such an appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6838", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Košice.\n5.  On 13 September 1999 the applicant lodged an action with the Košice I District Court in which he claimed distribution of marital property.\n6.  On 3 November 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had breached the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It granted 60,000 Slovak korunas (that sum was equivalent to 1,650 euros (EUR) at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction, ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s costs.\n7.  On 20 January 2010 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had again breached the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the period subsequent to the first judgment of the Constitutional Court. It granted the applicant EUR 1,500 as just satisfaction and ordered the District Court to reimburse the applicant’s costs. The Constitutional Court confirmed the validity of its order of 3 November 2006 that further delays in the proceedings should be avoided.\n8.  On 10 March 2010 the District Court heard an expert. On 15 April 2010 it asked a different expert for additional opinion. It was submitted on 11 October 2010. Between 20 April 2011 and 19 August 2011 the District Court held three hearings and obtained additional evidence. On the last mentioned day the court orally delivered a judgment. On 11 November 2011 the judge instructed the District Court’s registry to have the judgment with reasons served on the parties. On 15 November 2011 the District Court delivered a decision rectifying the judgment of 19 August 2011.\n9.  According to the information submitted by the applicant on 24 February 2012 both parties lodged an appeal and the proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6839", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  On 29 December 2002 at midnight, the applicant, who was drunk, had a fight with his friend in a taxi. The driver of the taxi stopped in front of a police station and the applicant’s friend entered the station to make a complaint. The applicant followed.\n6.  According to the applicant, when they entered the police station, his friend complained to the police officers that the applicant had stolen his cell phone. Stepping on the applicant’s foot, a police officer told the applicant to return his friend’s cell phone. The applicant pushed him back. Subsequently, several police officers attacked the applicant. He was blindfolded, handcuffed and beaten with wooden sticks and truncheons for half an hour.\n7.  At 1.40 a.m. the applicant was taken to the Buca Health Clinic. The doctor who examined the applicant noted the presence of a widespread bruise on his back, bruises on both legs, bruises on his left arm, swelling on the right side of his forehead, and swelling on his right arm and fingers. Suspecting that the applicant’s right hand could be fractured, he ordered the applicant’s transfer to a hospital.\n8.  According to the report of the Izmir Training Hospital issued at 2.15 a.m., there was swelling on the applicant’s right wrist and sensitivity on his left knee. An x-ray revealed that the applicant’s right arm was broken.\n9.  The report of the İzmir Forensic Medicine Institute, drafted on 30 December 2002 at 3.47 a.m., which took into account the two medical reports drafted on the same night, stated that the applicant had numerous widespread bruises on his back, a swelling and a bruise on the right side of his forehead, bruises on the back of his legs, a bruised region on his upper left arm and a swelling and a bruise on one of his fingers on the right hand. It was also noted that the applicant’s right arm had been fractured. The report concluded that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for fifteen days.\n10.  The toxicology report of 30 December 2002 noted that the applicant had 0.98 per mille of alcohol in his blood.\n11.  On 2 January 2003 the applicant’s lawyer visited him in prison and noted the signs of ill-treatment on his body. On that day, the applicant submitted to his lawyer a detailed account of the alleged ill-treatment.\n12.  On 24 January 2003 the applicant lodged an official complaint with the İzmir public prosecutor’s office, requesting the prosecution of the police officers who had ill-treated him.\n13.  On 5 February 2003 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the İzmir Forensic Medicine Institute. The report which was produced took into account the applicant’s previous medical reports and X-rays and noted that his right arm was still bandaged and that his injuries were still visible. It was concluded that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for fifteen days.\n14.  On 12 March 2003 the İzmir public prosecutor filed an indictment against ten police officers, accusing them of ill-treating the applicant. The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party.\n15.  On 29 June 2004 the İzmir Criminal Court, on the basis of witness statements and medical reports, found four police officers guilty of ill‑treating the applicant under Article 245 of the Criminal Code. Six other police officers on duty that day were acquitted. The court found it established that when the applicant arrived at the police station he was drunk. He started swearing an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6840", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Serbia.\n6.  In 1992 the applicant was found guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced to seventeen years’ imprisonment by an Italian court in abstentia.\n7.  On 11 August 1994 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody at the Kapıkule border in Edirne, on the basis of a Red Notice issued by Italy via Interpol.\n8.  On 12 August 1994 the judge at the Edirne Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicant’s provisional arrest on the basis of Article 9 of the former Criminal Code and Article 16 of the European Convention on Extradition.\n9.  On 20 September 1994 the Ministry of Justice sent a letter to the Edirne Public Prosecutor informing him that, on 10 June 1992, the applicant had been sentenced to seventeen years’ imprisonment for drug trafficking in Italy. On the same day, the public prosecutor stated that the applicant should remain under provisional arrest until the decision of the Council of Ministers regarding his extradition.\n10.  On 4 October 1994 the Edirne Criminal Court delivered a decision, pursuant to Article 9 of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765), indicating the applicant’s nationality and the nature of the offences allegedly committed.\n11.  On 3 November 1994 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Ministry of Justice to allow his client to be tried in Turkey for the crimes he had allegedly committed there. Subsequently, a preliminary investigation was initiated into the applicant’s activities and, on 9 November 1994, the applicant was remanded in custody in connection with the offences he had allegedly committed in Turkey.\n12.  On 2 December 1994 the Edirne Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with drug trafficking under Article 403 of the former Criminal Code.\n13.  On 6 January 1995 the Council of Ministers decided to extradite the applicant to Italy when his trial in Turkey was over.\n14.  On 19 April 1995 the applicant’s trial commenced before the Istanbul State Security Court. On 10 October 1997 the court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial. On the same day, he was placed in provisional detention again with a view to his extradition to Italy on the basis of the order of the Edirne Magistrates’ Court dated 12 August 1994.\n15.  On 11 April 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court informed the Ministry of Justice that the applicant could be extradited to Italy.\n16.  In the meantime, the applicant had filed several petitions with the Edirne Criminal Court, requesting his release. In all his petitions, he argued that his prolonged provisional detention with a view to his extradition was illegal. On 24 January 2003 the applicant’s lawyer once again requested the Edirne Criminal Court to lift the decision for the applicant’s provisional arrest and to order his release. In his petition, he relied on Article 16 of the European Convention on Extradition, which limited the length of the provisional detention to forty days after arrest. The applicant further maintained that by virtue of Article 90 of the Constitution international agreements adopted by Turkey formed an integral part of the domestic law, and thus his prolonged detention with a view to extradition for more than five years constituted a breach of Article 16 of the European Convention on Extradition. On 25 January 2003 the court dismissed this request without providing any answer to the applicant’s claim regarding the European Convention on Extradition. On 29 January 2003 the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6841", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976. He is currently serving a twenty-five year prison sentence for armed robbery of Ms L., murder of Ms L. and for attempted murder of a policeman during his arrest. He was convicted in 2003 (the conviction was amended in 2004) and began serving his sentence in penal colony FBU IK-5, and then in colonies FBU IK-13 and FBU IK-8, all situated in the Russian Far East.\n6.  In the Far Eastern colonies the applicant was diagnosed with several chronic diseases. However, there is no evidence that his finger or toenails were affected by a fungal infection at that time. It appears that in 2002 he was also seen by colony doctors in connection with dermatitis and eczema. Otherwise, the materials of the case file indicate that the applicant’s state of health was satisfactory, he exercised regularly – mostly doing weightlifting – and, as can be seen from the applicant’s photos taken in 2010, he was very muscular and must have been a physically strong man (he weighed 115 kilos and was 180 cm tall).\n7.  The administration of the colonies where the applicant was detained during that period characterised the applicant rather positively as belonging to a group of convicts loyal to the administration. Some time after his transfer to colony FBU IK-13 he informed the administration of a conflict between him and several other convicts, who allegedly belonged to a gang. An internal inquiry carried out in 2008 concluded that the applicant was simulating conflicts with his co-detainees in order to get a transfer to another colony, closer to Moscow. However, the administration later changed its opinion and recommended that the applicant be transferred for security reasons. As a result, in January 2009 the applicant was transferred to FBU IK-1, a penal colony situated in the town of Plavsk, Tula Region.\n8.  As can be seen from the applicant’s disciplinary file, during the first year of his detention in FBU IK-1 his behaviour and attitude were considered by the administration of the colony as “positive”. He was attributed to the category of “loyal” convicts and obtained various disciplinary bonuses (such as additional family visits). He was on good terms with most of his co-detainees. At the same time, he had a conflict with some of the hardened criminals. In July 2009 he was temporarily placed, for his own safety and based on a reasoned decision of the colony administration, in the SHIZO (the punishment and isolation unit), which was also occasionally used as a “safe place” in such situations.\n9.  The applicant alleged that soon after his transfer to the Plavsk colony he had learnt of the existence of an informal group of loyal convicts which helped the colony administration. That group (which the applicant called “the death squad”) was composed solely of ethnic Russians. Their role was to threaten, beat or kill those convicts who opposed the colony administration, or those who had influential enemies outside the colony or refused to pay money to the administration. One of the cells in the colony (no. 112) was turned into a torture room and was used by the members of the group to “break down” those convicts who resisted the administration.\n10.  According to the applicant, the group was responsible for at least two deaths which had occurred in the colony – the death of Mr Gr. in December 2009, and that of Mr Kl. in 2005. Both convicts were found asphyxiated on the premises of the SHIZO; officially both deaths were characterised as su", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6843", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Yasnogorsk, the Tula Region (Russia).\n6.  In March 2002 the applicant, an officer in the Uzbek Armed Forces, left his military unit in Uzbekistan and went to Russia for employment-related reasons. He settled in the town of Yasnogorsk, in the Tula Region, some thirty kilometres to the north of Tula. Two years later his spouse and their two children, born in 1994 and 2000, moved over from Uzbekistan and subsequently obtained Russian citizenship. In 2007 the applicant’s spouse bought a house in Yasnogorsk.\n7.  Until 2007, for unspecified reasons, the applicant lived separately from his spouse and children.\n8.  On 30 July 2009 the Uzbek Ministry of Health recommended, at the applicant’s spouse’s request, that their elder daughter be admitted to a neurological hospital in Moscow in order to treat her neurological condition. The certificate stated that the child should be accompanied by her mother.\n9.  The applicant did not apply for Russian citizenship, as he explained, because he had lost his Uzbek national passport in 2002. Neither did he make any attempts to regularise his stay in Russia or to register his residence in the country between 2002 and 2010.\n10.  In the meantime, on 24 June 2002 the Uzbek authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 287-3 of the Uzbek Criminal Code (“the UCC”) for desertion. The offence was punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.\n11.  On 29 July 2002 the military prosecutor’s office of the Tashkent Command (“the military prosecutor’s office”) issued a bill of indictment and an arrest warrant against the applicant. On the same day the military prosecutor’s office suspended the investigation on account of the failure to establish the applicant’s whereabouts and put his name on a wanted list.\n12.  On 6 September 2002 the military prosecutor’s office issued a search warrant for the applicant.\n13.  On 9 November 2009 the military prosecutor’s office re-classified the charges against the applicant as aggravated desertion, punishable by five to ten years’ imprisonment, and charged him in absentia under Article 228-2 of the UCC.\n14.  On 27 October 2009 the Yasnogorsk District Department of the Interior (“the ROVD”) brought criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of having threatened his spouse with death (Article 119-1 of the Russian Criminal Code, “the RCC”). On the same day the applicant was arrested and placed in remand centre no. 71/1.\n15.  On 29 October 2009 the Yasnogorsk District Court of the Tula Region (“the district court”) authorised the applicant’s detention at the request of the ROVD. The Yasnogorsk District Prosecutor’s Office (“the district prosecutor’s office”) backed up the request, referring, in particular, to the fact that the applicant was wanted for a crime committed in Uzbekistan. The district court ordered the applicant’s detention on the basis of Articles 99, 100 and 108 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”), stating as follows:\n“It can be seen from materials submitted to the Court that Mr Shakurov is suspected of a minor criminal offence carrying a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment. He is unemployed, that he has no permanent income, and has not registered his residence in Russia. Therefore, the court agrees with the investigator that there are grounds to believe that, if at large, he, understanding the nature of the penalty he could face, may flee investigation and p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6845", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently serving his sentence in a penitentiary institution. 1.  Institution of two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant in Armenia and Ukraine\n(a)  Institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant in Armenia\n5.  On 24 June 2002 criminal proceedings no. 12207102 were instituted on account of premeditated murder of several individuals committed on that day in Yerevan. The applicant, whose whereabouts were unknown, was suspected of committing the murders.\n6.  On 5 July 2002 a charge of illegal possession of firearms was brought against the applicant under Article 232 of the former Criminal Code of Armenia and a motion was filed by the investigator seeking to have him detained.\n7.  On the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted this motion in the applicant’s absence and ordered his detention for a period of two months, stating:\n“Having examined the motion filed by [the investigator] and the materials of the criminal case, taking into account the nature and the gravity of the imputed offence and the fact that the only penalty envisaged for the offence committed by the accused is imprisonment, the court came to the conclusion that the materials obtained in the criminal case provide sufficient grounds to believe that the motion must be granted, since the accused is hiding from the authority dealing with the case and his whereabouts are unknown.”\n8.  Since the applicant’s whereabouts were unknown, a search was initiated for him.\n9.  On 11 September 2002 the charge against the applicant was modified by the General Prosecutor’s Office of Armenia and he was accused of murder, attempted murder and illegal possession of firearms under Articles 99, 15-99 and 232 of the former Criminal Code of Armenia.\n10.  On 25 October 2002 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were stayed since his whereabouts could not be established.\n(b)  The applicant’s detention in Ukraine in connection with another criminal charge\n11.  On an unspecified date criminal proceedings no. 01710009 were instituted in Ukraine on account of the murder of an individual committed on 31 March 2001 in Poltava, Ukraine.\n12.  According to the applicant, on 24 January 2003 he was arrested in Voronezh, Russia, by Ukrainian law enforcement officers and forcibly transported to Poltava, where on 27 January 2003 he was placed in custody.\n13.  On 30 January 2003 the Kyivsky District Court of Poltava Region ordered the applicant’s detention.\n14.  On 13 March 2003 the applicant was formally accused of murder and threat to kill under Articles 115 and 129 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.\n15.  It appears that the applicant’s detention was thereafter extended on several occasions by the Ukrainian courts.\n16.  On 30 January 2004 the General Prosecutor’s Office of Armenia requested the applicant’s extradition to Armenia in connection with criminal case no. 12207102.\n17.  On 12 April 2004 the Ukrainian authorities decided to extradite the applicant to Armenia and to transmit criminal case no. 01710009 to the Armenian authorities for further investigation.\n18.  On 18 May 2004 the applicant was extradited to Armenia, where he was immediately detained.\n19.  On 24 May 2004 criminal proceedings no. 12207102 were resumed.\n20.  On 21 June 2004 the criminal charge against the applicant was modified and brought into conformity with the new Criminal Code adopted in August 2003. The applicant was accused under A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6846", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 21 September 2004 the Belarus authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of extortion. On 11 November 2004 the applicant was found guilty of extortion and sentenced to four years’ detention in an open detention facility.\n7.  In 2005 the applicant escaped from the detention facility and arrived in Moscow.\n8.  On 1 April 2005 the Belarusian authorities issued an arrest warrant against the applicant in connection with his escape, which is a criminal offence in Belarus.\n9.  On 11 February 2009 the Prosecutor’s Office for the Gomel Region (in Belarus) opened criminal proceedings against the applicant for escape from the detention facility and for being an accomplice to an attempted murder by a group of people in 1998. This second accusation concerned Article 139 § 1 of the Belarusian Criminal Code in conjunction with its Article 14 (see paragraphs 62-63 below). On the same date, the Prosecutor’s Office ordered his detention and issued an arrest warrant.\n10.  On 23 November 2009 the applicant was arrested in Moscow and remanded in police custody. On the same day, the Belarusian authorities confirmed that the applicant was being prosecuted in Belarus and asked the Russian authorities to arrest him pending the submission of a formal extradition request.\n11.  A Russian prosecutor applied to the Savelovskiy District Court of Moscow seeking authorisation of the applicant’s detention with a view to extradition. On 25 November 2009 the District Court granted this request and ordered the applicant’s detention, referring to Articles 108 and 466 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”) and to Article 61 of the Minsk Convention (see paragraphs 31, 37 and 53 below). No limit on the duration of the applicant’s detention was specified in the detention order. The applicant did not appeal.\n12.  On 24 December 2009 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office received an extradition request in respect of the applicant from the Belarusian authorities. It contained the following information:\n“The investigation has established that [the applicant], acting with pre-meditation and in concert with Sh. and I., assisted I. in attempting to murder P. ... The victim remained alive ...\nIf extradited, [the applicant] would not be prosecuted or punished for any criminal offence other than those indicated in the extradition request... He will not be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment... The extradition request is not aimed at persecuting him for political reasons or on racial, religious or national grounds. The acts for which extradition is sought are not punishable by the death penalty ...”\n13.  On 18 January 2010 the District Court examined a request from a prosecutor and extended the term of the applicant’s detention until 23 May 2010, with reference to the statutory six-month period contained in Article 109 of the CCrP, as well as to Article 466 of the CCrP and Article 61 of the Minsk Convention. The District Court relied on the following considerations:\n(i) the applicant was being prosecuted in Belarus for a particularly serious offence for which the statutory limitation period had not expired;\n(ii)a detention order had been issued by Belarusian authorities; and\n(iii) the applicant’s detention was necessary in relation to an “extradition check procedure” pending in relation to the extradition request from the Belarusian authorities.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6848", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Craiova.\na)  The applicant’s account of events\n7.  On 7 April 2004 around 4 p.m., following a traffic incident, the applicant and two others accompanying him, T.C.S and G.M.S., were stopped and arrested by a group of police officers, including police officer G.B., and escorted to Balş police station.\n8.  During the questioning, G.B. was very agitated and allegedly hit the applicant several times on the head until he lost consciousness. Afterwards, he gave orders for the applicant to be dragged out into the police station courtyard until he regained consciousness.\n9.  After he regained consciousness the applicant realised that he could not move his right foot and could not control his right hand. Consequently, he was carried back into the police station because he was unable to move on his own.\nb)  The Government’s account of events\n10.  On 7 April 2004, the applicant and two others accompanying him, T.C.S. and G.M.S., were asked to go to the Balş police station by police officer G.B. The police officer had seen the applicant trying to hold up a vehicle in traffic armed with a baseball bat.\n11.  At the police station and in the presence of other police officers, the applicant, together with T.C.S. and G.M.S., were asked to provide written statements about the traffic incident.\n12.  While they were writing their statements the applicant felt ill and started shaking. Consequently, the police officers took him outside for fresh air for a few minutes. Afterwards, because his condition did not improve, he was laid down on a bed inside the police station and the police officers called an ambulance.\n13.  According to the ambulance records of 7 April 2004, the ambulance call from Balş police station was placed at 4.12 p.m. The ambulance left Balş Emergency Hospital at 4.15 p.m. and arrived at the police station at 4.20 p.m. The applicant received treatment for spasmophilia. The ambulance left the police station at 4.45 p.m. and arrived back at the depot at 5.03 p.m.\n14.  At Balş Emergency Hospital the applicant was diagnosed with spasmophilia, dystonia and a pre-existent right-sided cavernoma which had been operated on in 2002.\n15.  The doctors who examined the applicant at Balş Hospital also made other entries in the medical file. Doctor N., a neurologist, wrote the results of her investigation under entry no. 622 as follows:\n“Recent craniocerebral trauma. Operated frontal right-sided cavernoma. Neuro-surgical examination is recommended.”\n16.  Doctor D.C.G., a general surgeon, wrote the results of her investigation under entry no. 634 as follows:\n“Affirmatively recent craniocerebral trauma. Right-sided surgical scar on the head sensitive to touch.”\n17.  Doctor D.C.G. also entered in the hospital’s consultation register under entry no. 634 the following:\n“Affirmatively recent craniocerebral trauma. Shows signs of violence. Right-sided  surgical scar on the head, sensitive to touch....”\n18.  Doctor G.L.J., a specialist in internal medicine at the Emergency Unit, wrote the results of her investigation under entry no. 851 as follows:\n“Affirmatively recent craniocerebral trauma. Referral for neurological examination”\n19.  Doctor G.L.J. also filled in the hospital’s consultation register and stated that the applicant did not show signs of violence.\n20.  On 8 April 2004 the applicant was still feeling unwell and was hospitalised at the neurosurgery unit of Vlad Voiculescu Hospital in Bucharest, the same ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6852", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The first applicant, Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. (“the applicant company”), is a limited liability company operating in the television-broadcasting sector, with its registered office in Rome. The second applicant, Mr Francescantonio Di Stefano, is an Italian national who was born in 1953 and lives in Rome. He is the statutory representative of the applicant company.\n9.  By a ministerial decree of 28 July 1999, the appropriate authorities granted Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. a licence for nationwide terrestrial television broadcasting in accordance with Law no. 249/1997 (see paragraphs 56-61 below), authorising it to install and operate an analogue television network. The licence specified that the applicant company was entitled to three frequencies covering 80% of national territory. As regards the allocation of the frequencies, the licence referred to the national frequency-allocation plan, adopted on 30 October 1998. It indicated that the installations should be brought into line with the requirements of the “assignment plan” (piano di assegnazione) within twenty-four months and that the measures taken to that end should conform to the adjustment programme (programma di adeguamento) drawn up by the Communications Regulatory Authority (Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni – AGCOM) in conjunction with the Ministry of Communications (“the Ministry”). It appears from the Consiglio di Stato’s judgment no. 2624 of 31 May 2008 (see paragraph 14 below) that, under the terms of the licence, the allocation of frequencies was deferred until such time as the authorities had adopted the adjustment programme, on the basis of which the applicant company should have upgraded its own installations. The adjustment programme should, in turn, have taken into account the requirements of the national frequency-allocation plan. However, the plan was not implemented. A succession of transitional schemes that benefited existing channels were applied at national level, with the result that, even though it had a licence, the applicant company was unable to broadcast until June 2009 as it had not been allocated any frequencies.\n10.  The applicant company, through its statutory representative, made a number of applications to the administrative courts.\n11.  In November 1999 the applicant company served formal notice on the Ministry to allocate frequencies to it. In a note of 22 December 1999, the Ministry refused its request.\n12.  In 2000 the applicant company lodged an application with the Lazio Regional Administrative Court against the Ministry and RTI (a network of Italian television channels controlled by the Mediaset group), complaining that the authorities had not allocated it any broadcasting frequencies. The application was also directed against RTI because the Retequattro channel had been authorised to broadcast on frequencies that should have been transferred to the applicant company.\n13.  On 16 September 2004 the Regional Administrative Court found in favour of the applicant company, holding that the authorities were required either to allocate the frequencies or to revoke the licence. Accordingly, it declared the note of 22 December 1999 void.\n14.  RTI appealed to the Consiglio di Stato. In judgment no. 2624 of 31 May 2008, the Consiglio di Stato dismissed the appeal and upheld the Regional Administrative Court’s judgment. It noted that no deadline had been set in the licence for the authorities to adopt the adjustment programme drawn up by AGCOM in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6853", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Kaliningrad.\n6.  In 2000 the applicant was convicted of extortion and aggravated murder and sentenced to seventeen years’ imprisonment. On 12 October 2000 he was transferred to a correctional colony in the Kaliningrad Region to serve his sentence.\n7.  On 1 July 2002 the applicant sued the investigator for compensation, claiming that he had been ill-treated to make him confess. In his statement of claim he alleged that on 17 March 1999 the investigator had beaten him and injured his lips, forehead and ears. The investigator had also threatened to kill him. After he had confessed to the murder, he had been placed in a detention facility. He had applied for medical assistance, which had been refused. On 23 March 1999 he had been questioned and the questioning had been videotaped. In his statement of claim he asked the court to watch the videotape, in which it could be seen that his lips were cut. He also asked the court to hear his counsel, Ms V., who had seen marks of beatings on his face. He finally indicated that he wanted to give oral submissions and requested to be brought to the hearing.\n8.  On 25 September 2002 the Leningradskiy District Court of Kaliningrad rejected the applicant’s requests to be brought to the hearing and to summon Ms V. It stated that domestic law did not give a detainee the right to be brought to a hearing in a civil case. Referring to legal professional privilege, it held that Ms V. could not be questioned about the information that had become known to her in the performance of her duties as counsel. It further requested the prosecutor’s office of the Kaliningrad Region to make available the video record of the applicant’s questioning.\n9.  On 29 October 2002 the prosecutor’s office of the Kaliningrad Region informed the court that the record of the questioning had been erased as unnecessary.\n10.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor’s office of the Kaliningrad Region and the local department of the Ministry of Finance made written submissions in support of the respondent.\n11.  On 14 November 2002 the applicant repeated his request to attend the hearing. On 20 November 2002 the Leningradskiy District Court rejected his request, giving the same reasons as before. It added that the applicant was entitled to appoint a representative.\n12.  On 10 December 2002 the Leningradskiy District Court heard the investigator, who denied beating the applicant. The applicant was not brought to the hearing.\n13.  On the same day the Leningradskiy District Court gave its judgment. It rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation as unsubstantiated.\n14.  On 16 December 2002 the applicant received the decision of 20 November 2002 and a notification stating that the hearing before the Leningradskiy District Court was scheduled for 10 December 2002. On the same day the applicant complained to the District Court about the belated notification. He also submitted that he did not have a representative and that his personal attendance was important because his claim was based on his personal experience. He asked that a new hearing be scheduled and that he be brought to that hearing.\n15.  On 26 December 2002 the applicant received a copy of the judgment of 10 December 2002. In his appeal submissions he complained, in particular, that he had not been brought to the hearing, and about the court’s refusal to summon Ms V. He further complained that, despite his many requests, he had had no oppor", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6854", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bardejov. He has thus far brought more than 120 cases under the Convention (see, for example, Komanický v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 9845/06, 13 December 2011, with further references).\n5.  On 9 January 2001 the applicant lodged an action with the Bardejov District Court (Okresný súd) against the City of Bardejov. He argued that modifications had been carried out without his knowledge and consent on the defendant’s real property and that this encumbered access to his own property. He claimed a judicial order that the defendant “put [its] property in such a state as to enable problem-free access by car or other means to [the applicant’s property]”.\nThe action was registered with the District Court under file no. 3C 15/01.\n6.  On 7 June 2004, following the applicant’s appeal (odvolanie), the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed a first-instance judgment of 11 February 2003 to dismiss the action and remitted to case to the District Court for re‑examination. The Court of Appeal found that the first-instance court had erred in hearing the action on 11 February 2003 in the absence of the applicant despite his having excused himself one day before on health-related grounds.\n7.  On 30 December 2005, following the applicant’s appeal, the Regional Court again quashed a first instance judgment (of 3 February 2005) to dismiss the action and remitted the case to the District Court for re‑examination. The Court of Appeal found that the first-instance court had erred in that it had failed to instruct the applicant on how to formulate his claim properly.\n8.  On 10 August 2006 and 25 January 2007, respectively, the District Court and, following the applicant’s appeal, the Regional Court declared the action inadmissible on the ground that, despite a previous request and a warning, the applicant had failed to formulate his claims in accordance with the applicable procedural requirements and the instructions in the Regional Court’s judgment of 30 December 2005 (see the preceding paragraph). The decision became final and binding on 15 March 2007.\n9.  On 1 July 2009, following the applicant’s appeal on points of law (dovolanie), the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) quashed the decisions of 10 August 2006 and 25 January 2007 (see the preceding paragraph). It found that the lower courts had failed adequately to inform the applicant on the shortcomings of his submissions and ways of correcting them. The District Court’s decision moreover lacked proper reasoning. In addition, Supreme Court considered it striking and prompting doubts as to the conclusion of the lower courts that the applicant’s submissions were rejected more than five years after the introduction of his action and after it had been decided upon twice on the merits.\n10.  Since the Supreme Court’s judgment of 1 July 2009 (see the preceding paragraph), the case has been pending, presently on appeal.\n11.  In the course of the proceedings numerous procedural matters have been examined and resolved at one or two levels of jurisdiction such as, for example, the procedural standing of the applicant’s wife, exemption of the applicant from the obligation to pay the court fees (including questions related to the couple’s financial standing), the applicant’s proposal for an in‑court settlement, and modifications to the particulars of the applicant’s claim.\n12.  On 24 March 2003 the applicant filed a brief submission to the President of the District Court entitled", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6855", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Kikinda.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In September 2000 the applicant bought a car (Mercedes 190D) from a person who lived in Germany. His intention was to use it as a taxi. Since the car was already more than six years old, the applicant was unable to have it directly registered in Serbia. Therefore, he first had the car registered in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in his relative’s name, and only registered the car in Serbia in December 2000, which was when the latter State adopted legislation making this arrangement possible.\n8.  On 21 January 2003 the Municipality of Kikinda issued a decision stating that the applicant, being a taxi driver since 20 September 2002, would from now on be using the car at issue as a taxi.\n9.  On 6 May 2004 the police seized the applicant’s car because of a customs violation (carinski prekršaj).\n10.  On 5 July 2004 the Customs Office (Komisija za carinske prekršaje Carinarnice Zrenjanin) discontinued the misdemeanour proceedings (prekšajni postupak) brought against the applicant, but decided nevertheless to confiscate his vehicle. The Customs Office explained that it was convinced that the applicant had committed the offence in question, i.e. that he had accepted to import a vehicle which could not have legally been imported and had not informed the competent customs authorities thereof, but noted that the misdemeanour proceedings could not be continued in view of the applicable “relative prescription” period (relativna zastarelost). The confiscation, however, was warranted since no “absolute prescription” (apsolutna zastarelost) had occurred (see paragraphs 23-25 below).\n11.  On 21 July 2004 the applicant filed an appeal against this decision, noting that the Customs Office had failed to properly establish the relevant facts, and had also come to “an erroneous legal conclusion” leading to the ultimate confiscation of his car.\n12.  On 18 February 2005 the Ministry of Finance (Ministarstvo finansija) rejected this appeal. In so doing, it stated, inter alia, that absolute prescription had not occurred and that the impugned confiscation was thus lawful.\n13.  On an unspecified date thereafter the Customs Office apparently sold the applicant’s car to a third person. The money thus obtained was deposited with the Ministry of Finance.\n14.  On 16 March 2005 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law (zahtev za vanredno preispitivanje pravosnažnog rešenja), re-stating his earlier arguments.\n15.  On 2 February 2007 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Srbije) rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law and upheld the impugned decision of the Ministry of Finance, as well as its reasoning.\n16.  The Government disagreed with some of the facts provided by the applicant and furnished additional details, which may be summarised as follows.\n17.  The applicant bought a second-hand car (Mercedes 190D) in August 2000 from a person who lived in Germany. The car’s former owner returned the licence plates to the competent German authorities.\n18.  At that time and given the vehicle age limitation requirement, the car in question could not have been legally imported to Serbia. In any event, even if this were possible, the applicant would have had to pay a significant sum for customs duties and taxes, i.e. a total of 44% of the catalogue value of the car.\n19.  At some point in 2000 the Government announced that it was consid", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6856", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 31 August 1999 the Budapest and Pest County Regional Pension Insurance Directorate established the applicant’s service years and the amount of his old age pension. The applicant appealed, challenging the amount of service years recognised. The second-instance administrative authority accepted the claim in part on 6 January 2000. This decision was later modified slightly ex officio to the applicant’s advantage on 23 February 2000.\n6.  On 13 April 2000 the applicant sought judicial review against the Pension Insurance Directorate’s decision before the Budapest Labour Court. The court dismissed his action on 25 March 2004.\n7.  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which quashed the Labour Court’s judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court on 1 February 2005.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings the Labour Court again dismissed the applicant’s action on 16 November 2007. The Supreme Court upheld the first-instance judgment on 24 November 2008, which was served on the applicant on 7 January 2009.\n9.  The domestic courts relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of two forensic accountant experts and testimonies of the parties.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6857", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Novosibirsk.\n7.  The applicant is an ethnic Uzbek, who lived in Osh, Kyrgyzstan, prior to his arrival in Russia.\n8.  Since 2001 the applicant has regularly travelled to Russia and South Korea for work-related purposes. In 2003 the applicant’s brother‑in‑law and his Uzbek friends began living in the applicant’s flat. It appears that criminal proceedings were initiated in Kyrgyzstan against the applicant’s brother-in-law, who was suspected of being a member of an armed gang. In the meanwhile, the applicant left Kyrgyzstan for South Korea, passing through Uzbekistan. He returned to Kyrgyzstan in 2005 and was questioned as a witness in the criminal proceedings brought against his brother-in-law. In 2006 the latter was killed and the armed gang dismantled.\n9.  In November 2009 the applicant arrived in Novosibirsk, Russia, and applied to the department of the Federal Migration Service (“FMS”) in the Novosibirsk Region (“the regional FMS”) for Russian citizenship. Shortly thereafter he returned to Kyrgyzstan for family matters. In March 2010 the applicant was allegedly informed by the FMS that he had received Russian citizenship; however later this information had not been confirmed (see below). On 27 June 2010 the applicant returned to Novosibirsk.\n10.  On 8 December 2006 the investigation department of the National Security Service of Uzbekistan (“the investigation department”) brought criminal proceedings against the applicant under Articles 159-1 (attempting to overthrow the constitutional order), 242-1 (setting up a criminal gang) and 244-2(1) (being a member of a religious extremist, separatist or other banned organisation) of the Uzbek Criminal Code (“the UCC”). The applicant was, in particular, suspected of setting up an extremist organisation, Kyrgyz Community (kirgiz zhamoati), in Novosibirsk, providing its members with accommodation and money, catering for them and facilitating their encounters with members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan with a view to overthrowing the constitutional order in Uzbekistan.\n11.  On 19 January 2007 the investigation department issued two indictments in respect of the applicant. The documents differed in several aspects, such as accomplices’ names, the name of the criminal gang in which the applicant had been involved and the degree of his personal involvement. One of the documents indicted the applicant under Article 159-3 of the UCC while the other one indicted him under Article 159-3 (a) and (b) of the UCC. Furthermore, one of the documents was neither signed by the head of the investigation department nor sealed by the Prosecutor’s Office for the Novosibirsk Region.\n12.  On 19 January 2007 the investigation department indicted the applicant on the above-mentioned charges in absentia, ordered his detention and put his name on a wanted list.\n13.  On 28 June 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police in Novosibirsk as a person wanted by the Uzbek authorities (see below).\n14.  On 23 July 2010 the Uzbekistan Prosecutor General’s Office requested that its Russian counterpart extradite the applicant on criminal charges under Articles 159-3 (a) and (b), 242-1 and 244-2 (1) of the UCC. Relying on Article 66 of the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (“the Minsk Convention”), the Uzbek authorities assured their Russian counterparts that: the applicant would not be extradited to a third country without", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6859", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Mr Zhamal (also spelled Zhamalat) Umarov and Ms Aysarat Umarova, who were born in 1936 and 1972 respectively. They live in Makhachkala, Dagestan. The applicants are the father and sister of Mr Ramazan (also known as Lobaz, Labaz, Labazan and Lobazan) Umarov, who was born in 1974.\n6.  In 1999 Ramazan Umarov was convicted of an offence and served a sentence in Tyuba, Dagestan. He was released in 2004 and went to live in Makhachkala.\n7.  On 25 August 2005 the officers of the Kirov district department of the interior in Makhachkala (the Kirov ROVD) arrested Ramazan Umarov and charged him with illegal possession of firearms. He spent three months in pre-trial detention. In 2006 he was acquitted by the court.\n8.  According to the applicants, officers of the Kirov ROVD continued to harass their relative, threatening to put him behind bars. As a result, Ramazan had to hide from the police.\n9.  On 21 April 2007 Ramazan Umarov told his former fellow prison inmate Mr S.S. about his problems with the police and asked him for help in finding a place to live. Mr S.S. allowed Ramazan to stay in his flat in a block at 41 Salavatova Street, Makhachkala, Dagestan.\n(b)  The events of 28 April 2007\n10.  In the morning of 28 April 2007 Mr S.S., his driver Mr M.R. and Ramazan Umarov were sleeping in the flat. At about 8 a.m. Ramazan Umarov woke Mr S.S. and Mr M.R. up and told them that the police were knocking at the door. He was holding a gun and grenades, which he then hid in the flat. The three men then opened the door.\n11.  The police searched the flat and found the hidden gun and the grenades. They arrested the three men, handcuffed them and took them to the Department for the Fight Against Organised Crime (the UBOP) of the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior (the Dagestan MVD).\n12.  On the same date the authorities initiated criminal proceedings against Mr S.S. and Mr. M.R. under Article 222 of the Criminal Code (illegal possession of firearms). The case file was given the number 702687. The two men were subsequently questioned about the circumstances of the case; both of them stated on several occasions that they had been arrested with Ramazan Umarov.\n13.  Ramazan Umarov was taken by the police to the UBOP building, with Mr S.S. and Mr M.R. but in a separate vehicle. The applicants were not informed about his arrest.\n(c)  The applicants’ search for Ramazan Umarov\n14.  On 29 April 2007 a friend of Ramazan Umarov informed the first applicant that his son had been arrested. On the same date the applicants made an oral complaint about the arrest to a number of local law‑enforcement agencies.\n15.  In the evening of 9 May 2007 the applicants received a phone call from a woman who informed them that Ramazan Umarov was with her. The first applicant managed to speak with his son. Ramazan, whose voice sounded weak and tired, told him that he had no idea where he was or what had happened to him. Then the woman told the second applicant that Ramazan was in the medical unit of a penal institution in Gudermes, Chechnya, and that he had been brought there after being found unconscious in a forest near Shali, Chechnya.\n16.  Later on the same date, around 11 p.m., a man called the applicants and told the first applicant to come to Gudermes if he wanted to obtain information about his son’s whereabouts.\n17.  On 10 May 2007 the applicants had several phone conversations with the man and the woman, but they were unable to obtain from them any detaile", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6860", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod.\n6.  On 3 March 2004 the applicant was detained as a suspect in a criminal case concerning embezzlement, and on 4 March 2004 his pre-trial detention was authorised by a court. On 27 December 2004 the Sormovskiy District Court, Nizhniy Novgorod, extended the term of pre-trial detention until 3 March 2005 (inclusive of the latter date).\n7.  On the latter date the period of detention authorised by the court expired, but the applicant remained in detention although no extension of his detention was ordered.\n8.  On 9 March 2005 the criminal case file was submitted to the Kanavinskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod.\n9.  On 17 March 2005 the Kanavinskiy District Court declined jurisdiction over the criminal case in favour of the Sormovskiy District Court, and decided at the same time to extend the applicant’s detention, placing him “in the charge of the Sormovskiy District Court”. On 24 March 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal against the extension of the detention order. On an unidentified date several days later he lodged a complaint with the Presidium of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court; he expressly complained that he had been detained without any detention order after the expiry of the detention term on 3 March 2005, and claimed that in any event his further detention had ceased to be justified.\n10.  On 11 April 2005 the Sormovskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 11 May 2005. This decision was upheld by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 11 May 2005.\n11.  On 22 April 2005 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court examined the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 17 March 2005, by which the applicant’s detention had been extended. It held that the extension had been lawful and justified. The period of detention between 4 and 17 March 2005 was not examined by the appeal court.\n12.  On 6 May 2005 the Sormovskiy District Court scheduled a hearing of the applicant’s criminal case and held that “the measure of restraint, namely pre-trial detention, [was] to remain unchanged”. This decision was upheld by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 1 June 2005.\n13.  On 19 May 2005 the Sormovskiy District Court examined and dismissed the applicant’s application for release. This decision was upheld by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 1 June 2005.\n14.  On 27 July 2005 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court judge examined and dismissed the applicant’s request for supervisory review of the appeal decision of 22 April 2005. The decision upheld the reasons for the applicant’s further detention, without any mention of the period between 4 and 17 March 2005.\n15.  On 9 September 2005 the Sormovskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 9 December 2005.\n16.  On 6 December 2005 the Sormovskiy District Court convicted the applicant of embezzlement. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court on 4 April 2006. On 3 July 2006 the applicant was released on parole.\n17.  On 27 December 2006 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court examined a criminal case in which the applicant was a victim of unauthorised telephone tapping. The court convicted the implicated police officer of abuse of powers and awarded the applicant non-pecuniary damages.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6862", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Ploieşti, Romania.\n7.  On 27 February 1997 the Prahova Prosecutor’s Office brought criminal proceedings against the applicant for first degree murder following the death of a third party whom the applicant had stabbed.\n8.  On 4 March 1997 the applicant was detained pending trial at the Prahova Police Department.\n9.  On 6 June 1997 the Prahova Prosecutor’s Office committed the applicant for trial before the Prahova County Court on charges of first degree murder.\n10.  By a judgment of 7 October 1997 the Prahova County Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to twenty-two years’ imprisonment on the basis of documentary, testimonial, expert and forensic evidence. The applicant appealed against the decision.\n11.  By a judgment of 13 January 1998 the Ploieşti Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the merits and upheld the judgment of 7 October 1997. The applicant allegedly appealed on points of law (recurs) against the judgment to the Court of Cassation.\n12.  On 11 February 1998 the Registry of the Court of Cassation informed the applicant, following his enquiry, that there was no file concerning him pending before the said court. The judgment of 13 January 1998 was final.\n13.  On 19 March 1997 the applicant was detained in Ploieşti Prison. The applicant served his prison sentence in that prison until 2 December 2008 when he was transferred to other prison facilities in Romania; he did not return to Ploieşti Prison.\n14.  Between 19 March 1997 and 2 December 2008 the applicant was transferred repeatedly from Ploieşti Prison to other prison facilities for medical examinations and treatment or in order to appear before domestic courts. For example, he spent time in Colibaşi Prison Hospital (from 19 May to 4 June 2004), Jilava Prison Hospital (from 10 to 20 November 2000; 26 January to 13 February 2001; 18 October to 21 November 2005; 6 to 17 July, 21 to 31 August, 7 September to 13 November, and 14 to 20 December 2007; and from 4 to 17 March 2008) and Rahova Prison Hospital (from 29 March to 6 April, 14 to 20 June, and 11 to 17 October 2005; 22 to 28 August 2006; and from 19 to 22 February 2008).\n15.  According to his medical file, between 4 March 1997 and 1 October 2010 the applicant was examined and was provided treatment and a special diet for various medical conditions including venous thromboses in civilian hospitals and in Ploieşti, Jilava, Rahova, Dej, Colibaşi and Mărgineni Prison Hospitals.\n16.  According to a record made on 10 November 2000 in the applicant’s medical file by the examining doctor, he had been suffering from venous thromboses for four years and had received treatment for the condition.\n17.  Forensic medical reports produced by the Mina Minovici Forensic Institute and by the Prahova County Forensic Medical Service on 14 May 2001 and 17 July 2003 respectively stated that the applicant was suffering from venous thromboses in his legs, an acute ulcer for which no surgery was recommended, and antisocial personality disorder. They concluded that these conditions could be treated in prison hospitals.\n18.  The forensic medical reports produced by the Târgovişte County Forensic Medical Service and by the Mina Minovici Forensic Institute on 3 November 2004 and 30 November 2005 respectively noted that the applicant was suffering inter alia from peripheral vascular disease and chronic venous thromboses. They concluded that he could be treated in prison hospitals, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6863", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Iaşi.\n7.  The applicant was sentenced in 1992 to ten years’ imprisonment for damage to community property (avut obştesc). By a final decision of 7 September 1993 the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the provisions of the Criminal Code referring to crimes against community property.\n8.  On 27 August 1996 the Prosecutor General lodged a request to have the proceedings against the applicant reopened, on the basis that his conviction was based on provisions declared unconstitutional. By a final decision of 23 September 1997 the Supreme Court of Justice granted the request to reopen the proceedings, quashed the previous conviction, changed the legal qualification of the offences committed by the applicant and sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment for fraud, ordering his immediate release from prison. At that time he had already served fifty‑four months of the original sentence.\n9.  On 10 May 2002 the applicant lodged an action in damages against the Ministry of Finance, asking for compensation because he had been imprisoned for fifty-four months, while the final decision of 1997 reduced his sentence to only four months’ imprisonment.\n10.  By a final decision of 20 December 2004, the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed his action on the basis of the provisions of Articles 504 and 505 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), which limited the right to be paid compensation solely to acquittal or a decision of the prosecutor not to pursue criminal proceedings. Taking into account that the applicant had not been acquitted, the domestic courts concluded that he did not qualify for payment of compensation on the basis of the provisions of the CCP as in force at that time, and dismissed his claim in this respect.\n11.  The applicant was arrested on 28 March 2001 on suspicion of fraud. He was committed for trial on 20 June 2001. By a final decision of 16 January 2003 he was found guilty and was sentenced to three years and eight months’ imprisonment. The domestic courts, after reviewing evidence, including witness statements, a financial report and the applicant’s statements, concluded that the applicant had caused harm to different private companies by issuing cheques without the funds to cover them. The applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing throughout the proceedings. In his appeal on points of law he complained that no evidence had been adduced in his favour. The appellate court reviewed the decisions of the lower courts and concluded that they had assessed the factual situation correctly and identified that the applicant had committed the offence, and that his requests to adduce evidence in his favour had been allowed.\n12.  The applicant had been detained in connection with the second set of proceedings from 28 March 2001 until 19 March 2004, when he was released conditionally.\n13.  According to him, he was detained in the Iaşi police station cells until 25 June 2001, when he was transferred to Iaşi High‑Security Prison.\n14.  The applicant complains mainly of overcrowding and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions. He alleges that during his entire detention he had to share a bed with other prisoners, mostly dangerous criminals.\n(a)Iaşi police station\n15.  According to the applicant, in Iaşi police station he occupied cell 20. It had eight beds and was occupied by ten detainees. The surface area of the cell was 14.2 square metres.\n16.  He complained that t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6864", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born on the dates listed in the Annex.\n5.  The applicants are employed in the General Hospital of Chalkida.\n6.  On 4 July 2000 they lodged an action against the hospital with the First Instance Administrative Court of Chalkida seeking the payment of a premium to their salary, ranging between 840,000 drachmas (approximately 2,465.15 euros) and 3,360,000 drachmas (approximately 9,860.59 euros), plus interest.\n7.  On 31 May 2002 a preliminary decision was published asking the applicants to pay the fees required (δικαστικό ένσημο) in order to comply with the procedural rules (decision no. 215/2002).\n8.  Following the payment of the fees required, the hearing took place on 12 March 2003.\n9.  On 8 October 2003 another preliminary decision was published asking the applicants to submit supplementary evidence regarding their allegations (judgment no. 570/2002).\n10.  Subsequently, a hearing took place on 7 June 2006 and by judgment dated 25 June 2007 the First Instance Administrative Court of Chalkida partially accepted their action (judgment no. 305/2007).\n11.  On 3 November 2007 the hospital lodged an appeal.\n12.  On 3 July 2009 the Piraeus Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and upheld the First Instance court’s decision (judgment no. 1321/2009).\n13.  The applicants were served with the decision on 19 October 2009.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6865", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1967 and 1969 respectively and live in Budapest.\n6.  On 27 February 2007 the applicants exposed, in the course of an event which they considered a “political performance” – necessitated by what they perceived as a general political crisis in the country following the tumultuous events of late 2006 –, several items of dirty clothing on a rope attached to the fence around Parliament in Budapest. They stated that the symbolic meaning of this expression was “to hang out the nation’s dirty laundry”. The applicants spent exactly 13 minutes on the scene, during which time they answered some questions from journalists who appeared on the scene. Afterwards, the applicants left on their own motion.\n7.  On the same day, the website of the daily paper Magyar Nemzet published a short article covering the incident, in which the applicants explained that the “performance” was meant to be provocative and for that reason had not been notified to the police. It was specified that the event had been prepared clandestinely, that only a few journalist had been invited and that no other protester had participated.\n8.  Subsequently the Budapest V District Police Department fined each applicant 80,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 250 euros) for the regulatory offence of abusing the right to peaceful assembly. It was considered that their act had constituted an “assembly” which should have been declared to the authorities three days in advance.\n9.  The applicants complained about the decision of the Budapest 5th District Police Department without offering any particular arguments.\n10.  On 11 July 2007 the Pest Central District Court upheld the police decision, finding that the applicants, in breach of the relevant legal provisions, had failed to notify the police of their ‘demonstration’ and that the sanction imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and adequate to motivate the applicants to abide by the law in the future. The court relied on the report of the police officer involved, the pictures recorded by the street cameras and the contents of the websites covering the incident.\n11.  On 26 July 2007 the applicants requested that a hearing be held in the case. At the hearing of 7 December 2007 the court heard the second applicant and the police officer. The first applicant did not wish to make a statement. The second applicant first made contradictory statements as to who had been notified of the event in advance, but finally confirmed, in reply to a question put by the judge, that an announcement of the event had been published on the website of the applicants’ organisation. In their closing statements, counsel for the applicants claimed that the applicants had not invited anybody to the event and that they had wrongly assumed that their actions had been lawful.\n12.  Based on the evidence before it, the District Court was satisfied that the event had been publicly announced and thus it had been an “organised event” falling within the scope of section 6 of the Assembly Act (as opposed to a cultural event as argued by the applicants), that the applicants had been aware that they should have notified the police of their performance and that the fine was necessary to prevent the applicants from further breaches of the law. It therefore upheld the decision of 11 July 2007.\nThe decision of 7 December 2007 was served on 24 January 2008.\n13.  Act No. III of 1989 on the Right to Freedom of Assembly (“the Assem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6866", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Genderdoc-M, is a non-governmental organisation based in Moldova whose object is to provide information and to assist the LGBT community.\n7.  On 7 April 2005 the applicant association applied to Chişinău Municipal Council for authorisation to hold a peaceful demonstration in front of the Parliament on 27 May 2005, to encourage the adoption of laws to protect sexual minorities from discrimination.\n8.  On 27 April 2005 the Chişinău Municipal Council rejected the application on the ground that the applicant association’s demonstration was baseless, since a law on the protection of national minorities had already been adopted.\n9.  On 6 May 2005 the Mayor’s Office also refused permission for the proposed demonstration, on the grounds that there was a law on the protection of national minorities already in place and that there were legal provisions which dictated which individuals had the power of legislative initiative required to promote laws.\n10.  The applicant association contested the decision of the Chişinău Mayor’s Office of 6 May 2005. It argued that the ban on their demonstration was illegal and discriminatory.\n11.  On 2 June 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal allowed the applicant association’s action and declared the Chişinău Mayor’s Office decision of 6 May 2005 void. Chişinău Court of Appeal found the following:\n“...The court considers legally ungrounded the arguments relied on by the defendant to justify its refusal to authorise the assembly, as the law does not provide such grounds for the non-authorisation of an assembly. The decision as to whether to authorise or not to authorise an assembly should not be made conditional either on the nature of the problems the participants intend to bring to society’s attention, or on the status of those problems.\nUnder these circumstances the court concludes that the decision of the Mayor’s Office dated 6 May 2005 was issued contrary to the provisions of Article 26 (1) of the Law regarding administrative complaints, and was thus illegal and void. As to the plaintiff’s other complaints, including the Mayor’s Office’s non‑compliance with the time-limit of forty-eight hours for notification of the refusal of authorisation for the assembly required under section 14 of the Law regarding the organisation and conduct of assemblies, the court declares them ill‑founded.”\n12.  The Chişinău Mayor’s Office appealed against the decision of the Chişinău Court of Appeal of 2 June 2005. The Mayor’s Office argued that they had received many requests from individuals and associations which were vehemently against the authorisation of the demonstration, and who opposed the adoption of any law legalising homosexual partnerships. The requests had laid emphasis on various legal provisions that concerned the protection of marriage and the family.\n13.  On 7 September 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice allowed the appeal lodged by the Mayor’s Office, quashed the Chişinău Court of Appeal decision of 2 June 2005 and decided to send the case to the Court of Appeal for re-examination.\n14.  In their submissions to the Court of Appeal, the Mayor’s Office argued that the holding of an assembly for the promotion of the rights of sexual minorities would endanger public order and social morality and, moreover, that the organisers had not assumed any responsibility as regards the demonstration’s good management.\n15.  The applicant association argued that the ban was illegal and discriminatory.\n16.  On 14 Jun", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6867", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Berit Mogan Lindheim, born in 1953, who lives in Gvarv;\n2) Mr Knut Heian, born in 1953, who lives in Åsgårdstrand;\n3-4) The spouses Mrs Ellinor Nilsen and Mr Georg Nilsen, born in 1943 and 1940, who live in Larvik;\n5) Ms Nina Titten Brandt-Kjelsen, born in 1956, who lives in Nesoddtangen; and\n6) Mr Dagfin Bonde Henriksen, born in 1956, who lives in Åsgårdstrand.\n7.  The applicants are landowners and lessors who concluded ground lease contracts regarding their plots of lands for permanent homes or holiday homes prior to 1 January 1976. On that date, upon the entry into force of the Ground Lease Act 1975 (Tomtefesteloven), for the first time under Norwegian law, the rental or leasing of plots of land for permanent homes and holiday homes became the subject of special statutory regulation.\n8.  Prior to 1 January 1976 such agreements were governed by the general rules (statutory and other) on contracts. Ordinarily such contracts were concluded for a period of 99 years and often contained clauses giving the lessee a right to extension of the contract upon expiry. According to legal doctrine, where such clauses had not expressly been set out in the contract, there was a custom or implicit assumption that the lessee had a right to extension of the contract unless the lessor had an objective ground for refusing renewal. Some lease contracts contained clauses which gave the lessor a right to increase the rent at intervals, in order to compensate for inflation. However, pursuant to two Supreme Court judgments of 1988, such a right was granted even in the absence of any explicit contract clause to that effect.\n9.  In 1996 a new Ground Lease Act was enacted with effect from 1 January 2002.\n10.  Under both the 1975 Act and the 1996 Act the lessee was entitled to have the ground lease contract extended but the lessor had the right to introduce new conditions into the contract.\n11.  With effect from 1 November 2004 the Ground Lease Act was amended anew; inter alia, from that date its section 33 granted all lessees of plots for permanent homes and holiday homes the right to claim extension of their lease on the same conditions as previously and without limitation in time, when the agreed term of lease between the parties expired. The reason was a strongly felt concern across Parliament (Stortinget), with only one exception – the Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet), that lessees who were not able to afford the price of redemption would need the legislator’s protection in order to be able to extend the lease. The introduction of the disputed provision of section 33 of the Ground Lease Act was essentially motivated by social policy considerations (see paragraphs 47-51 below).\n12.  In order better to understand the rationale behind this amendment, it is important to bear in mind the underlying socio-economic factors in Norway. In the post-war area, limited resources for the purchase of real estate was one factor that made ground lease arrangements attractive for people who wanted to own a permanent home or a holiday home. For property owners, it was an expedient way of obtaining a steady income from their land without making any investments and an attractive alternative to selling the land, in a country with a small population on a vast territory and with moderate price levels. This might explain why such arrangements became so popular. There exist between 300,000 and 350,000 ground lease contracts (sixty percent for permanent", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6868", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Mrs Elene Dadiani and Mr David Machabeli, were born in 1923 and 1964 respectively and live in Tbilisi. The second applicant is the first applicant’s nephew. The first applicant’s mother was deprived of her land and other assets by the Soviet authorities in the 1920s.\n6.  In 2004 the applicants brought an action against the relevant local authority, seeking restitution of their ancestral lands. In support of their claim, the applicants submitted archives confirming their ancestor’s title to the claimed land and, as a legal basis, referred to general rules on the protection of property and inheritance contained in the Civil Code, the Constitution and the international human-rights treaties ratified by Georgia.\n7.  In a judgment of 31 January 2005, the Gurjaani District Court established the applicants’ joint ownership of land situated in the village of Bakurtsikhe. The land was officially identified as “plot no. 604”. The defendant local authorities did not lodge an appeal and the judgment became binding.\n8.  On 15 February 2005 the applicants’ lawyer obtained from the Gurjaani District Court the necessary enforcement writ, the relevant part of which read as follows:\n“Elene Dadiani and David Machabeli are hereby recognised as ... the co-owners of plot no. 604 in the village of Bakurtsikhe.” ...\n9.  On 26 October 2005 the applicants, acting through their lawyer, submitted a copy of the enforcement writ together with the final judgment of 31 January 2005 to the Gurjaani Public Registry for enforcement. In a letter of 2 November 2005, the registrar replied that it was not possible to register the land in the applicants’ name, as their documentation was incomplete. The lawyer was found to be at fault for the fact that the final judgment neither indicated the size of plot no. 604 nor specified its category: agricultural or non-agricultural. The lawyer was further invited to submit a copy of his identity document, the authority form proving his right to represent the applicants, the original enforcement writ and the cadastral plan of the land in question.\n10.  The applicants maintained, relying on the billing information from the lawyers for the relevant period of time, that after receipt of the letter of 2 November 2005 the lawyers, acting on their behalf, had visited the Gurjaani Public Registry on several occasions and voiced their concerns regarding the failure to enforce the judgment. They claimed, inter alia, that they were not in a position to produce an amended final court decision. In reply, the Gurjaani Public Registry refused to register plot no. 604 for various reasons.\n11.  The judgment of 31 January 2005 still remains unenforced.\n12.  On 25 May 2005 the applicants lodged another action claiming, on the same legal basis, ownership of plot no. 646, adjacent to plot no. 604. The action was registered by the Gurjaani District Court on the same day.\n13.  According to the applicants, the examination of their second action has not started yet.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6869", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is of Roma ethnic origin. She was born in 1983 and lives in Nálepkovo.\n6.  On 25 April 2001, during the delivery of her second child, the applicant was sterilised by means of tubal ligation at the gynaecology and obstetrics department of the hospital in Gelnica (“the Gelnica Hospital”). The Gelnica Hospital was a public hospital administered by the Ministry of Health at that time and until the end of 2002.\n7.  During her pregnancy the applicant visited her doctor regularly. She was informed that the delivery would be via caesarean section.\n8.  According to the applicant’s medical records, the applicant was brought to the hospital in labour by an ambulance at 7.50 a.m. on 25 April 2001. At 9 a.m. on the same day, when her contractions were occurring at five minute intervals, the applicant was administered premedication in view of the envisaged caesarean section. It included a benzodiazepine derivative which is used for its sedative, anxiety-relieving and muscle-relaxing effects.\n9.  Following a handwritten entry on the administration of the premedication, the medical record contains a typed entry on the next page, according to which the applicant had requested that a sterilisation procedure be carried out on her reproductive organs during the delivery, and that she had been informed about the irreversible nature of such an operation and of her being unable to conceive a child in the future. The entry is signed by a doctor and it also bears the signature of the applicant.\n10.  The applicant later declared that, after the administration of the premedication, she had been approached by a member of the medical staff who was carrying three A4 size pieces of paper. The staff member had taken her hand to help her sign the papers. The applicant had been in labour and had felt as if she were intoxicated under the influence of the medication. She had neither had the strength nor the will to ask what the documents contained. She remembers a doctor who was present saying that she would die unless she signed the papers. She had therefore not objected to signing the papers with the assistance of the staff member.\n11.  The applicant’s child was born at 9.35 a.m.\n12.  Another section of the medical records, dated 11 May 2001, indicates that the child was delivered by caesarean section.\n13.  According to a surgical report in the applicant’s medical file, in the course of the operation the doctors discovered a large fissure running the length of the scar from a previous caesarean section on the applicant. After the child’s delivery, the doctors discovered a rupture of the applicant’s uterus. It had probably been the result of the secondary healing of a suture which had become loose during the course of the applicant’s second pregnancy. As a result, the applicant’s life had been at risk. The doctors had therefore considered a hysterectomy as a radical solution to the problem. However, in view of the patient’s age, they had preferred to carry out reconstructive surgery despite the risk of complications. Since the applicant’s uterus was severely damaged, it had been considered certain that a similar situation would occur in any future pregnancy and would pose a grave risk to the life of the applicant and her foetus. After the reconstructive surgery, the doctors had therefore decided to sterilise the applicant in accordance with the request she had made prior to the operation. The report indicates that no complications occurred in the course", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6870", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, a married couple, were born in 1960 and 1957 respectively and live in the village of Prigorodnoye in the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The applicants are the parents of Mr Vidzha Umayev, born in 1982. The first applicant is the sister of Mr Timur Mezhidov, born in 1972. The latter is the brother-in-law of the second applicant.\n8.  The description of the events below is based on the information contained in the application form and written statements by the first and second applicants, dated 17 and 23 July 2007 respectively.\n(a)  The detention of Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov\n9.  On 14 July 2006 the first applicant, Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov were travelling in the applicants’ VAZ-2107 vehicle from the village of Nikhaloy to the village of Prigorodnoye.\n10.  At the Russian federal forces roadblock located at the entrance point of Shatoy village (hereinafter “the Shatoy roadblock”) Russian servicemen stopped the applicants’ vehicle to carry out a check. At the roadblock the first applicant saw a group of seven to eight servicemen of Chechen ethnic origin, who were standing near a silver-grey four-door Niva vehicle and speaking to each other in Chechen. The first applicant observed them for a while and was able to memorise their faces. She also specifically noticed that, whilst the servicemen from the roadblock who checked the identity papers were Russian, those standing by the Niva vehicle were Chechen. After checking Vidzha Umayev’s and Timur Mezhidov’s identity papers, Russian servicemen entered the relevant information in the roadblock logbooks and allowed them to continue their journey.\n11.  The first applicant, Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov then drove through Shatoyskiy District and crossed the border into Groznenskiy District. At the bridge in the vicinity of the entrance point of Yarash-Mardy village they saw three Chechen servicemen from the group they had already seen at the Shatoy roadblock. The servicemen walked towards the vehicle and ordered it to stop. One of the servicemen ordered the driver and the passengers, in Chechen, to get out of the vehicle. Vidzha Umayev, Timur Mezhidov and the first applicant complied with the order and got out of the car. One of the servicemen then ordered Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov to get back into the applicants’ vehicle. They obeyed and got into the back seats. At the same moment two servicemen joined them in the back seat, the third serviceman got into the driver’s seat and the vehicle moved off quickly. Vidzha Umayev shouted in Chechen: “That’s my mother! Don’t leave her alone!” and the first applicant rushed towards the car. However, the car did not stop and the first applicant ran into a bridge barrier and fell to the ground.\n12.  The applicants have not seen Vidzha Umayev and Timur Mezhidov since.\n(b)  The applicants’ search for their missing relatives\n13.  On 14 July 2006, shortly after the car with the abductors had left, the first applicant managed to stop a private vehicle, which took her home. Once there she told the second applicant about the abduction, and the applicants immediately left for Shatoy, intending to alert the Shatoyskiy District Department of the Interior (“the ROVD”) to the incident.\n14.  On their way, about 2.5 km from the bridge, where the first applicant, her son and brother had been stopped by the Chechen servicemen, the applicants saw their VAZ-2107 vehicle. It was parked about fifty metres from the road, at a dugout in which were tw", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6871", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The following incidents occurred on 28 February 2002. The detailed accounts of events by the parties and those involved are at variance at times. In this section, therefore, the incidents are described only briefly. Differing details, if any, are pointed out in the subsequent sections.\n8.  In the evening of 28 February 2002, at around 7.30 p.m., an argument started in a bar in the village of Gánovce-Filice, when a non-Romani waitress, I.S., refused to serve a drink to a person of Roma ethnic origin, M.K.\n9.  The argument developed with the tipping of a drink over M.K., in response to which he slapped or attempted to slap Ms I.S. in the face, accidentally knocking glasses over, which fell and broke.\n10.  Subsequently I.S. telephoned one of her three sons, P.S., who came to the bar soon afterwards. After he had left, another of her sons, M.S., who was the owner of the bar, came to the bar and remained there, assisting I.S. in serving customers, until closing time. Around that time, the girlfriend of P.S., E.N., also came to the bar and then accompanied I.S. home.\n11.  Later that evening, at around 9.45 p.m., a group of at least twelve people went into the Roma settlement in the village where the applicants lived. Some of them were wearing balaclavas and they were armed with baseball bats and iron bars.\n12.  Allegedly shouting racist language, they forcibly entered houses nos. 61, 67 and 69, damaging the interior and breaking the windows.\n13.  On entering house no. 67, the attackers physically assaulted applicant Mr Ján Koky. Some of the other applicants and another person, who were also present at the house during the attack, witnessed the attack but managed to avoid it by hiding (see paragraph 16 below).\n14.  Once the attackers understood that the police had been called, they made their escape. When they had gone approximately 200 metres from the settlement, they met applicants Mr Martin Kočko and Mr Rastislav Koky and physically assaulted them, causing them the injuries described below. Racist language is alleged to have been used during this part of the attack too.\n(b) Circumstances and consequences of the attack\n15.  House 61 was inhabited by applicant Ms Renáta Čonková and her partner, Z.K. They were both at home during the attack.\n16.  House 67 was inhabited by applicants Mr Ján Koky, Ms Žaneta Kokyová, Mr Rastislav Koky, Ms Renáta Kokyová, Ms Ružena Kokyová and Mr Ján Koky Jr and by a certain J.K.\nApart from applicant Rastislav Koky, they were all present at the house during the incident, and so were applicants Mr Milan Baláž and a certain H.B.\n17.  When the attack took place in his house, applicant Mr Ján Koky sustained no physical injuries.\n18.  House 69 was owned and inhabited by applicant Ms Justína Lacková.\n19.  The overall damage to the applicants’ property was estimated at the equivalent of at least 310 euros (EUR).\n20.  The parties are not united over the extent of the physical injuries sustained by Mr Martin Kočko and Mr Rastislav Koky (see paragraph 14 above).\n21.  The applicants claim that Mr Rastislav Koky suffered a skull fracture, a cut to the left side of the back of the head, a crushed left arm, a pressure injury to the left side of the back and bruises to the left knee, which required him to stay in hospital for ten to fourteen days.\n22.  As regards Mr Martin Kočko, the applicants claim that he had sustained a scraped elbow and a crushed arm, which required a recovery time of seven to ten days. In that respect ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6872", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1931 and 1933 respectively. They were a married couple and lived in Košice.\n5.  On 26 September 2002 the applicants lodged an action with the Košice I District Court (Okresný súd) against their daughter’s husband seeking restitution of his share in the ownership of a flat, which the applicants had donated to the defendant and their daughter, his wife. They argued that the defendant had been severely abusing their daughter, both psychologically and physically, thus behaving wrongly towards her and, thereby, also themselves.\n6.  On 16 January 2003 the applicants requested that a hearing be scheduled. The District Court did so for 30 October 2003, 13 February, 26 August and 31 October 2004. It appears that the first of these hearings did not take place since it had proven impossible to have the summons served on the defendant. The later hearing was cancelled at the applicants’ request because there was an application pending before the Land Registry for correction of the records concerning title to the property to be restored.\n7.  Meanwhile, the applicants had been ordered to submit evidence (14 May 2004), which they did (28 May 2004). They also submitted further evidence (9 July and 21 December 2004).\n8.  On 24 March 2005 a hearing was held, following which – on 8 April 2005 – the District Court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings, which had been instituted against the defendant in the meantime.\n9.  On 31 May 2005 the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) quashed the decision of 8 April 2005 following an appeal by the applicants.\n10.  On 2 October 2006 the applicants filed a complaint to the president of the District Court submitting that since 31 May 2005 the District Court had been completely inactive which, in their view, constituted delays.\n11.  The president of the District Court replied by a letter dated 23 October 2006 referring to the applicants’ complaint as a “repeated” complaint and finding it justified. He acknowledged that since 25 July 2005 the judge in charge of the case had not taken any step with a view to resolving it, and advised the applicants that the judge had been reminded in writing to proceed with the case without delay.\n12.  The letter of the president of the District Court of 23 October 2006 was served on the applicants’ representative on 27 October 2006. On the latter date, the applicants challenged the length of the proceedings by way of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended – Ústava Slovenskej republiky) to the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd). The details are set out in paragraphs 16 to 22 below.\n13.  On 1 December 2006 the District Court held a hearing, following which the applicants were ordered to produce further evidence. They did so on 18 December 2006.\n14.  Further hearings were held on 21 December 2006 and 12 February 2007 and the District Court allowed the action on the latter date.\n15.  The defendant’s appeal of 11 May 2007 was dismissed by the Regional Court on 26 February 2009, following a hearing held on the latter date. It became final and binding on 22 May 2009.\n16.  The applicants’ complaint to the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 12 above) was received by the Constitutional Court on 6 November 2006.\n17.  In their complaint, the applicants submitted that not a single judgment had been given on their action despite its having been pending for more than four years a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6873", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1939, 1937, 1940 and 1949, respectively. The first applicant lives in the village of Konstantynopil, the second and the third applicants in Melitopol and the fourth applicant in Ivano-Frankivsk\n5.  On 14 February 2000 the first applicant initiated a land-related dispute with an agricultural enterprise.\n6.  Following two remittals of the case by the appellate court to the first‑instance court for fresh examination, on 15 April 2004 the Velyka Novosilka Town Court found against the first applicant.\n7.  On 1 July 2004 and 5 September 2007 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal and the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (sitting as a court of cassation), respectively, upheld the aforementioned judgment.\n8.  There were eight adjournments in the proceedings due to the defendant company’s failure to appear for hearings. The first applicant’s absence caused one such adjournment.\nII.  proceedings instituted by the SECOND AND THE THIRD applicantS\n9.  On 1 December 1995 the second and the third applicants initiated a land dispute against their neighbour.\n10.  On 20 November 2007 the proceedings, which had taken place before the courts of three levels of jurisdiction, were completed by a final ruling of the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (sitting as a cassation court) finding against the applicants.\n11.  In the course of the proceedings, there was one remittal of the case from the appellate court to the first-instance court for fresh consideration. The courts also ordered five forensic technical expert examinations. Furthermore, there were nine adjournments in the proceedings due to the parties’ failure to appear for hearings.\nIII.  proceedings instituted by the FOURTH applicant\n12.  On 13 November 2000 the fourth applicant instituted a civil dispute against his neighbour seeking acknowledgement of his entitlement to a land plot and a permit to pursue certain construction works. Subsequently, the local authorities were involved in the proceedings as defendants. The fourth applicant’s neighbour, in turn, brought a counterclaim.\n13.  Following the examination of the case by the courts of two levels of jurisdiction which had allowed the fourth applicant’s claim in part, on 21 January 2008 the Supreme Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions for the most part and remitted the case back to the first-instance court for fresh examination.\n14.  According to the parties, the proceedings remain pending before the first-instance court.\n15.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicant amended his claims several times. The courts also ordered four forensic technical expert examinations at the defendants’ requests.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6874", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bolshoy Kamen, a town in the Primorye Region.\n6.  On 17 February 2005 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on suspicion of fraud. On the same day the applicant was arrested.\n7.  On 19 February 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok ordered that the applicant should be detained on remand. The court held as follows:\n“In the court’s view, the non-use of a custodial measure in respect of an applicant who has committed a serious crime can entail the applicant’s fleeing from the pre-trial investigation and the trial, and hampering the identification and subsequent arrest of those involved in the crime.”\n8.  The applicant was placed in detention facility IZ-25/1 of Vladivostok.\n9.  The applicant appealed, claiming, in particular, that the Frunzenskiy District Court had not taken into consideration his advanced age and state of health (the applicant was suffering from ischemic heart disease necessitating regular medical supervision). The applicant further alleged that the District Court had no territorial jurisdiction over his case, and, therefore, could not decide on the issue of his detention. He further insisted that the custodial measure should be changed to bail.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 5 March 2005 another set of criminal proceedings was brought against the applicant on suspicion of fraud. On the same date the two sets of proceedings were joined under no. 512.\n11.  On 15 March 2005 the Primorye Regional Court upheld the decision of 19 February 2005 on appeal, having taken into consideration the gravity of the charges against the applicant. The court found no violation of the rules of territorial jurisdiction. It held that pursuant to Article 108 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a request for application of a custodial measure could be examined by a court having territorial jurisdiction over the prosecutor’s office investigating the case.\n12.  On 13 April, 17 June and 12 August 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok extended the applicant’s detention until 17 June, 17 August and 17 September 2005 respectively. On each occasion the court held as follows:\n“As established, the applicant is charged with a serious crime, and the court considers that, if released, he may reoffend, threaten witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings, destroy evidence, or otherwise obstruct the administration of justice.”\n13.  On 11 May, 21 July and 29 August 2005 respectively the Primorye Regional Court upheld the above-mentioned extension orders on appeal.\n14.  On 20 July 2005 the pre-trial investigation was completed; on 2 September 2005 the indictment was approved by the Deputy Prosecutor of the Primorye Region, and on 5 September 2005 the case was submitted to the Shkotovskiy District Court of the Primorye Region for trial.\n15.  On 15 September 2005 the Shkotovskiy District Court held a preliminary hearing and extended the applicant’s detention until 17 November 2005. The court held as follows:\n“The court does not see any reason for granting the request filed by the [applicant’s] defence for the custodial measure to be changed to an undertaking not to leave the [applicant’s] place of residence.\nIn deciding on this issue the court takes into account the fact that [the applicant] is charged with having committed serious crimes, which, pursuant to Article 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, serves as one of the grounds for application of a custodial me", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6876", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Prijedor.\n6.  Before the 1992-95 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the applicant lived in Bosanska Krupa in a socially owned flat over which he had an occupancy right (the concept of “socially owned flats” is described below).\n7.  On 14 October 2002 the competent administrative authority confirmed the applicant’s occupancy right over the flat in Bosanska Krupa, but stated, however, that the building in which the flat was located had been destroyed during the war.\n8.  On 25 November 2002 the applicant asked the local authority to allocate him a replacement flat. However, he did not receive any reply.\n9.  On 13 December 2004 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the local authority before the Bosanska Krupa Municipal Court (“the Municipal Court”), seeking to be allocated a replacement flat. On 16 February 2005 the Municipal Court invited the local authority to submit a response to the applicant’s claim. As they failed to do so, the Municipal Court adopted a judgment on 25 March 2005 without a hearing, in accordance with section 182 of the Civil Procedure Act 2003 (see paragraph 18 below). It held that the applicant was entitled to a replacement flat because his occupancy right over a destroyed flat had been confirmed by the competent administrative authority. Therefore, it ordered the local authority to allocate him a suitable replacement flat in Bosanska Krupa, in lieu of the one in respect of which he had had an occupancy right and which had been destroyed during the war. Pursuant to the aforementioned provision of the Civil Procedure Act 2003, that judgment became final on the same date (see paragraph 18 below).\n10.  On 1 June 2005 the Municipal Court rejected the local authority’s request for restitutio in integrum. It would appear that they did not appeal to a higher court.\n11.  On 23 March 2006 the applicant initiated enforcement proceedings. On 4 May 2006 the Municipal Court refused to issue a writ of execution, stating that the judgment of 25 March 2005 was not enforceable because it did not contain any indication of the location and the surface area of the replacement flat. That decision was upheld by the Bihać Cantonal Court (\"the Cantonal Court\") on 20 December 2006.\n12.  On 16 March 2007 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”) of the non-enforcement of the judgment of 25 March 2005. On 12 June 2008 the Constitutional Court upheld the rulings of the lower courts and instructed the applicant to start new civil proceedings against the local authority in order to establish the latter’s precise obligation regarding the flat to be allocated to him. That decision was delivered to the applicant on 11 August 2008.\n13.  It would appear that the judgment of 25 March 2005 remains unenforced. It would also appear that the applicant did not start new civil proceedings against the local authority.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6880", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1963 and 1959 respectively and live in Velika Kladuša.\n6.  They were both employed by Agrokomerc (“the company”), an agricultural company based in Velika Kladuša. In August 1991 the workers’ council of the company adopted a decision on the issuance of internal shares to the company’s employees as part of its reorganisation from a socially owned company into a joint-stock company under the applicable regulations. It was decided that one third of the employees’ salaries would be allocated towards instalment payments for the internal shares to be issued to them.[1] On 30 March 1993 the company’s management board issued a series of resolutions authorising retention of earnings that resulted in an increase in the company’s internal share capital. As a result of these board resolutions, the internal share capital amounted to 80.9% of the company’s total share capital (the remainder being held by the State). The reorganisation process continued until August 1994, when the management of the company was taken over by the State following armed conflict in the north-western part of Bosnia and Herzegovina (where Velika Kladuša is located) during the 1992-95 war. Following the State taking control of the company, the applicants were effectively unable to exercise any of their rights as shareholders, although the company continued to state the privately-held internal share capital allotted to its employees on its annual balance sheets, as well as the State-owned capital, until 30 June 1999.\n7.  On 7 August 1995 the applicants’ employment was suspended, as well as that of many other employees of the company, and they were placed on a waiting list for potential future employment by the new management of the company. However, they were never subsequently offered the opportunity to resume their employment.\n8.  On 20 June 2000 the applicants complained to the Human Rights Chamber (a domestic human-rights body set up under Annex 6 to the 1995 General Framework Agreement for Peace) in two separate appeals.\n9.  On 7 March 2001, Revsar, an auditing and consulting company based in Sarajevo, conducted an audit of the transfer of ownership of the company. It held that the measures taken from 1991 until 1994 to establish internal share capital had not been in accordance with the law and that, therefore, such internal share capital had never been formed. Consequently, it concluded that the company was 100% State-owned.\n10.  On 31 July 2001 the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina issued a decree[2] placing the company on the list of the companies under its control on the basis of the State-owned capital.\n11.  On 8 February 2002 the Human Rights Chamber joined the applicants’ cases (see paragraph 8 above) and those of Mr M. Š. and the Association for the Protection of Unemployed Shareholders of Agrokomerc and adopted a single decision. It was delivered on 8 March 2002. The Human Rights Chamber held that the applicants had acquired possessions, in the form of their paid-up internal shares in the company, which were protected by law and found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.\nThe reasons were set out in the decision, the relevant paragraphs of which read as follows:\n “290. In summary, the Chamber has concluded that the applicants acquired protected “possessions” in their paid internal shares in Agrokomerc for which payment was made on the basis of: (a) permanent deposits; (b) ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6881", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Subotica, Serbia.\n6.  On 8 August 2005 the applicant was arrested by the Subotica police and brought to their station concerning an alleged burglary. In their report the police stated that the applicant, together with a number of others, had been caught after the act and that several objects used for the commission of the alleged crime had been seized. The applicant gave a statement to the officers. According to the minutes of his interrogation, the applicant confessed to one count of attempted burglary, and then signed the document using his nickname, notwithstanding a prior reference in the same minutes noting that he was “illiterate”. The minutes further stated that, pursuant to Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 60 below), the applicant had read them, at his own request, and had had no objections.\n7.  On 17 August 2005, at around 4.00 a.m. according to his own estimate, the Subotica police again brought the applicant, together with several others, to their premises in order to question him about a criminal offence. There was no prior attempt to serve him with the summons. The Government maintained that the reason for this had been the danger that the applicant might otherwise have absconded or tampered with the evidence.\n8.  The applicant maintained that his lawyer, V.J.Đ., had been informed of this arrest by his relatives and had hence managed to arrive in time to briefly talk to him before the interrogation. The applicant apparently told V.J.Đ. that he had already been physically abused by the police, who had attempted to obtain his confession. V.J.Đ. himself stated that the applicant had seemed “mentally broken” and had been walking with a limp.\n9.  The subsequent police interrogation began at 1.35 p.m. and ended by 1.40 p.m., at which point the applicant was released. The Municipal Public Prosecutor (Opštinski javni tužilac) had been informed of the hearing at 8.30 a.m., but did not attend it. In the course of the interrogation the applicant was asked to give a statement concerning “a burglary of a store in Veliki Radanovac”. The applicant, however, declined to do so and noted that he had retained V.J.Đ. as his legal counsel. The minutes of the interrogation further stated that the applicant was “illiterate”, and bore his fingerprint instead of a signature. With reference to Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the minutes, lastly, noted that the applicant had read them, at his own request, and had had no objections. The minutes were also signed by V.J.Đ.\n10.  The applicant maintained that he had been provided with no food whilst in police custody.\n11.  On 18 August 2005, at around 4.00 a.m. according to the applicant’s own estimate, he was brought, yet again, by the Subotica police to their premises, without having been previously summoned. The Government maintained that, just like before, the reason for this had been the danger that the applicant might otherwise have absconded or tampered with the evidence.\n12.  The applicant claimed that he had once again been beaten by the officers who had attempted to obtain his confession. The applicant apparently asked that V.J.Đ. be informed of his arrest, but the police ignored this demand. Instead, the applicant was provided with a legal aid lawyer, N.D., who, it is claimed, appeared only briefly to sign the minutes of the interrogation and left shortly thereafter.\n13.  The minutes in question contained", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6882", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Kharkiv.\n6.  On 6 December 2004 the applicant met with Ms Ch., who tried to bribe him. When the applicant refused to take the bribe, Ms Ch. threw a package of money into his car and retreated. Following this, strangers in plain clothes (who later turned out to be police officers) got into the applicant’s car and without any introduction started wrenching his arms behind his back. One of the officers sat behind the applicant and started strangling him. Two others punched the applicant in the lower back. Then the applicant was handcuffed. One of the officers stretched the applicant out, hooked his finger in the applicant’s mouth and started pulling on his cheek. In acute pain, the applicant bit the officer’s finger. The officer concerned punched the applicant four times in the head, while another officer punched the applicant in the jaw. Then they pulled the applicant out of his car, threw him to the ground and started kicking him in the kidney area. This scene was witnessed by the applicant’s wife.\n7.  The police officers placed the applicant in the car with his cuffed hands between his legs and his head on the seat of the car. The officer who had been bitten by the applicant covered the applicant’s head with the hood of his jacket and sat on it. The applicant started suffocating and lost consciousness.\n8.  The applicant was then taken to Kharkiv Regional Police Department, where the investigator explained to him that he had been arrested for taking a bribe. The investigator suggested to the applicant that they might “come to an agreement” and ignored his complaints of violence on the part of the police officers. The applicant also complained of an acute headache and dizziness during the questioning, which lasted for five hours. Then the applicant was taken to the prosecutor’s office, where the prosecutors questioned him about the events of that day. Following this, the applicant was released under a written undertaking not to abscond.\n9.  On 6 December 2004 the applicant was apprehended by the police in the street and taken to the Kharkiv Regional Police Station for questioning on suspicion of swindling and instigation to bribery. The same day the applicant gave a written obligation not to abscond.\n10.  At about 11.30 p.m. on the same day the applicant complained to Dzerzhinsky District Police Department of having been ill-treated by police officers during his arrest. He received a hospital referral for a medical examination. The police also questioned two eyewitnesses and one testifying witness, who had been present at the time of the applicant’s arrest.\n11.  On 7 December 2004 the applicant underwent a medical examination. According to the certificate of Kharkiv Emergency Hospital No. 4 of 9 December 2004, the applicant’s injuries included the following: closed head trauma, bruises, brain injury, and soft tissue injuries to the chest and lower back. These injuries were classified as being of “medium severity”.\n12.  On 8 December 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for swindling and instigation to bribery. These proceedings were terminated on 22 June 2006 for lack of proof.\n13.  On 9 December 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office against the police officers who had ill-treated him.\n14.  Between 9 and 31 December 2004 the applicant underwent in-patient treatment and between 1 and 10 January he also received out-patie", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6883", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Sundbyberg.\n8.  By letter dated 9 August 2005, the Enforcement Authority (Kronofogdemyndigheten) informed the applicant that its representative would come to his home on 17 August 2005 to attach property to secure his tax debts amounting to SEK 979,503 (approximately EUR 110,000). It noted that he had previously been informed about his debts but that, since he had not paid, an attachment would be carried out. It is not known when the letter was sent or when the applicant received it.\n9.  On 19 August 2005 the Enforcement Authority attached SEK 9,128 (approximately EUR 950) from a bank account belonging to the applicant. A document called Proof of Attachment (bevis om utmätning) was sent to the applicant confirming this and advising him how to go about appealing against the decision and that this had to be done within three weeks from the date that the decision was served on him. The applicant, who was on holiday at the time, did not receive the Proof of Attachment until he returned home on 8 September 2005 and was formally served the decision.\n10.  In a decision of 24 August 2005 the Enforcement Authority distributed and paid the attached money to the creditor, in this case, the State itself. The decision was open to appeal within three weeks from the date of the decision.\n11.  On 20 September 2005 the applicant requested the Enforcement Authority to rectify (besluta om rättelse) the decision concerning attachment as he considered it to be incorrect. The Enforcement Authority, in a decision of the same day, rejected the applicant’s request for rectification on the ground that it had been submitted too late. It further stated that it was not possible to appeal against the decision in that part and that, as regarded its other decisions, appeals were possible within the time-frames of which the applicant had previously been notified.\n12.  On 22 September 2005 the applicant appealed against the attachment decision to the District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm. He mainly objected that the Enforcement Authority had not sufficiently taken into account, and made deductions for, the need to cover his basic living expenses.\n13.  In a comment (yttrande) by the Enforcement Authority in connection with the appeal, it stated that the appeal had been made within the stated time-limit but that, since the decision as regards the distribution and payment of the funds had gained legal force, the applicant’s appeal could not be tried by the court.\n14.  On 19 October 2005 the District Court dismissed the appeal after first having noted that the decision as regarded the payment of the attached funds had gained legal force on 15 September 2005 and that the applicant had appealed against the attachment decision on 22 September 2005. Thereafter the court, with reference to case-law from the Supreme Court, stated that an appeal against an attachment decision that was lodged after a decision regarding the payment of the attached funds had gained legal force could not be considered by the court.\n15.  The applicant appealed against the decision to the Svea Court of Appeal (hovrätten) requesting that it quash the lower court’s decision. The applicant submitted that he had not been aware of the attachment decision until 8 September 2005, when he was formally served the Proof of Attachment, and that he had never been notified of the fact that the Enforcement Authority, five days after the attachment decision, had dist", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6884", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.   The applicant company is a private-law radio and television broadcasting corporation based in Zurich.\n6.  On 12 August 2004 it applied for authorisation to enter Hindelbank Prison (Canton of Bern) in order to film a sort of portrait (“eine Art Portrait”) of A., a female prisoner serving a sentence for murder. The idea was to broadcast the film of the interview in the “Rundschau” programme, in a feature about the trial of another person accused in the same murder case. It argued that the interview with A., who had consented to it, was a subject of public interest given that, even after her conviction, her case continued to attract a great deal of media attention. “Rundschau” is a weekly Swiss television programme covering political and economic questions. Created in 1968, it is one of the longest-running programmes on Swiss television, and is currently aired on Wednesday evenings.\n7.  By a decision of 31 August 2004, the prison refused to authorise the filming, for reasons of peace, order and security in the prison, and equal treatment of prisoners.\n8.  On 27 September 2004 the applicant company lodged an appeal against that decision, explaining that the intention was “to film general shots of A. inside the prison and an interview with her” (“allgemeine Aufnahmen der Insassin im Gefängnis sowie ein Interview mit ihr”).\n9.  The appeal was rejected by the Bern Canton Department of Police and Military Affairs on 16 February 2005.\n10.  On 21 March 2005 the applicant company challenged that decision. It argued that there was no danger of disturbing peace and order or threatening security in the prison as it had no intention of filming the technical installations on the site or inside the different buildings. Nor was the presence of a single cameraman and a female journalist likely to disturb the smooth functioning of the establishment or represent a security risk, especially as the filming should not last more than two or three hours and could take place at a time when the other prisoners were working. In any event the precise practical arrangements for the filming had yet to be finalised.\n11.  By a decision of 1 July 2005 the Administrative Court of the Canton of Bern rejected the appeal. Like the lower court, without denying the considerable media interest generated by A.’s case in Switzerland, it rejected the appeal on the basis of section 5 of the order relating to the Criminal Code and section 48 of the law of the Canton of Bern on the execution of penalties and measures (see paragraph 18 below). It indicated that Article 16 § 3 of the Federal Constitution (paragraph 16 below) authorised access only to generally accessible sources. It considered that while representatives of the media were ordinarily allowed to visit prisons, the organisational and supervisory effort required for a television film crew was well beyond what might reasonably be expected of the prison authorities. It also considered that there was nothing to stop the applicant company from broadcasting a programme about A.’s case using just an audio recording or a simple interview. It reasoned that for the purposes of a news programme on this particular theme (“Sachinformation”), pictures of the prisoner were not necessary.\n12.  The applicant company lodged a public-law appeal and an administrative-law appeal with the Federal Court, for violation of its freedom of expression and information. It submitted that there was considerable public interest in the murder trial i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6885", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and is serving a prison sentence in the Sverdlovsk Region.\n6.  On 29 April 2003 the applicant was apprehended and taken into custody in the Chechen Republic. It appears that his detention was extended pending trial.\n7.  On 12 November 2003 the Supreme Court of the Chechen Republic found the applicant guilty of numerous offences including, but not limited to, the assassination of a law-enforcement officer, trafficking and possession of illegal firearms, terrorism, theft and rape, and sentenced him to twenty-one years’ imprisonment and confiscation of his property. The court dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s allegations that the investigating authorities had subjected him to physical and mental pressure to make him confess. The court further stated, in the operative part of the judgment, that the applicant had a right to appeal against the conviction within ten days following the receipt of the text of the verdict and that he had a right to ask the appeal court to ensure his participation in the appeal proceedings should he decide to appeal.\n8.  The applicant received a copy of the judgment of 12 November 2003 on 22 November 2003.\n9.  On 24 November 2003 Ms Kh., a lawyer retained by the applicant, lodged a statement of appeal. Ms Kh. referred to the excessive severity of the sentence and sought, inter alia, to have the applicant’s conviction for trafficking and possession of illegal firearms quashed, citing a lack of evidence. She reiterated the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment and claimed that the applicant’s confrontation with one of the witnesses had been carried out in contravention of the applicable rules of criminal procedure. She did not indicate that the applicant wished to participate in the appeal hearing.\n10.  The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation scheduled the appeal hearing for 29 January 2004. According to the applicant, he retained another lawyer, Ms A., immediately before the appeal hearing. At the hearing Ms A. asked the court for an adjournment, arguing that she had not had sufficient time to study the case file. The court granted her request and scheduled the hearing for 19 February 2004.\n11.  On an unspecified date Ms A. filed an additional statement of appeal in which she asked the appeal court to acknowledge a violation of the applicant’s rights as set out in Article 5 of the Convention. In particular, she argued that, following his arrest, he had been detained in the absence of a court order and that his pre-trial detention had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons.\n12.  On 4 February 2004 Ms A. informed the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of the applicant’s wish to attend the appeal hearing.\n13.  On 11 February 2004 the applicant filed a similar request with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.\n14.  On 19 February 2004 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation decided to proceed with the appeal hearing in the applicant’s absence. As the court reasoned, the applicant had filed his request for participation too late and, in any event, only his lawyer had submitted the statement of appeal. After hearing the judge rapporteur, Ms A. (the applicant’s lawyer), and the prosecutor, the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s conviction in substance. The court removed the confiscation of property from the applicant’s sentence and reclassified the charge of theft.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6886", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Yerevan.\n6.  The applicant alleged that at 9.20 a.m. on 18 October 2006 he had been taken to the local police station in the town of Alaverdi in connection with an armed assault that had taken place earlier that day. He further alleged that his arrest had not been recorded and that he had been released several hours later.\n7.  On 19 October 2006 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Article 175 § 2 (2) and (4) of the Criminal Code (CC). The proceedings were instituted upon the complaint of the victim, G.H., who lived in the same building as the applicant. According to G.H., at 8.45 p.m. on 18 October 2006 the applicant, who had been wearing a mask, had attacked him on the ground floor of their building, hit him on the head with a metal rod and grabbed his briefcase, which had been full of expensive jewellery.\n8.  At 8 p.m. on the same day the applicant was formally arrested on suspicion of having committed the above-mentioned offence. The arrest report was signed by the applicant.\n9.  On 22 October 2006 the applicant was formally charged with robbery under the above-mentioned Article. The charge sheet specified that following the incident the victim had pursued the applicant, who had been forced to drop the briefcase and flee. It was signed by the applicant.\n10.  On the same date the investigator applied to the Lori Regional Court to have the applicant detained for a period of two months on the grounds that he had previous convictions, the offence belonged to the category of serious crimes and that, if at large, he would abscond.\n11.  On the same date the Regional Court examined and granted the investigator’s application, finding that the case materials provided sufficient grounds for believing that the applicant might abscond and obstruct the investigation, having regard to the nature and degree of dangerousness of the offence in question.\n12.  On 8 December 2006 the investigator sought to have the applicant’s detention extended by a further two months. The application stated that a number of examinations had been carried out during the investigation, including chemical and biological examinations and an examination of the traces left by the crime. However, an additional biological examination had to be carried out and the charge amended. The investigator argued that the applicant, if released, would abscond since he had committed a serious crime and might commit further offences as he had previous convictions. He had not admitted his guilt and would therefore obstruct the investigation. The investigator submitted, in support of his application, a number of case materials, such as the decision to institute criminal proceedings, the arrest report and the decision to bring charges.\n13.  On 12 December 2006 the Regional Court examined the investigator’s application. The applicant was present at that hearing and was seated next to his lawyer.\n14.  The applicant objected to the investigator’s application and asked the court to release him on bail. He submitted at the outset that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence. The fact that he had committed offences in the past did not justify detaining him in this particular case. The Regional Court stated in that regard that it was not examining the case on the merits, including the question of the applicant’s guilt, but was examining the validity of the application for an extension of the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6887", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, an Italian national, was born in 1949 and lives in San Marino.\n7.  On 10 August 2009, the Prosecutor of the Rome Tribunal informed the Italian Ministry of Justice and the San Marino Tribunal, that criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicant (an Italian citizen resident in San Marino) for, inter alia, money laundering. He further informed them that by a decision of 3 July 2009 the Rome Tribunal had ordered his preventive detention. The prosecutor therefore requested the San Marino judicial authorities to extradite the applicant and place him in preventive detention on the basis of the bilateral Convention on Friendship and Good Neighbourhood between Italy and San Marino of 1939 (the 1939 Convention). At the same time he requested the Italian Ministry to authorise the extradition request.\n8.  By a decision of 12 August 2009 the Commissario della Legge (CL) accepted the request and ordered the applicant’s arrest and preventive detention pending his extradition, on the basis of the 1939 Convention, noting, moreover, that San Marino had also ratified the European Convention on Extradition of 1957 (the 1957 Convention).\n9.  On the same day the applicant was notified of the order and arrested.\n10.  On 14 August 2009, pending the official request by the Italian Ministry of Justice according to Article 22 of the 1939 Convention, the CL requested the Capitani Reggenti (CR) to authorise the extradition, noting that the relevant requirements were fulfilled. No reply was received.\n11.  On 20 August 2009 the applicant and his lawyer were heard in relation to his extradition. On the same day, the CL rejected a request by the applicant for house arrest on the basis of the 1939 Convention.\n12.  On 26 August 2009 the Secretary of State informed the CL about a note verbal from the Italian embassy of 20 August 2009 which noted that San Marino had become a party to the 1957 Convention on 16 June 2009 and that therefore the Italian request would be submitted within the 40 days stipulated in the 1957 Convention. Moreover, the note verbal requested the extension available under the said Convention, in the event that it became necessary.\n13.  On 24 August 2009 the applicant complained against the decision of 12 August 2009 (paragraph 8 above) in so far as there had been no urgent reasons under the 1939 Convention, which in his view was applicable to the present extradition, justifying preventive detention.\n14.  On 7 September 2009 the appeal judge dismissed this complaint. The court considered that the preventive measure was to facilitate extradition. It considered the element of urgency to be linked to the risk of absconding and that one had to take account of the geographical situation of San Marino. The court held that the basis of the detention was the arrest warrant of 12 August 2009 which it was thereby confirming, however, modifying the applicable rules in that such orders were to be governed by the 1957 Convention which had to apply to the present extradition. While it was true that the first steps of the extradition process had been in accordance with the 1939 Convention and the subsequent ones with the 1957 Convention; it was also true that San Marino had made a reservation, when ratifying the 1957 Convention, to the effect that its bilateral agreement would prevail. However, Italy had not made such a reservation or acknowledged the San Marino one.\n15.  On the same day, 7 September 2009, the applicant requested, u", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6888", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant was born in 1919 and lived in Sliven. The second and third applicants were born in 1937 and 1943 respectively and live in Sofia. On 30 September 2007 the first applicant died. On 3 February 2011 the second and third applicants who are the first applicant’s nieces and her only heirs expressed their wish to continue the proceedings before the Court on the first applicant’s behalf.\n8.  The applicants’ ancestors owned a plot of land with three buildings constructed on it - a house, a summer kitchen and a storage building - in the village of Zheravna. The houses in the village are examples of traditional Bulgarian architecture and the village itself was declared an architectural reserve in 1964.\n9.  In 1968 the plot and the buildings were expropriated for the needs of the State Tourist Agency. The applicants received pecuniary compensation.\n10.  On 20 April 1992, following the entry into force of the 1992 Law (see relevant domestic law and practice below), the applicants made a request to the Mayor of Kotel for the restitution of the entire property, including the buildings. No response was received and on an unspecified date in 1993 the applicants appealed against the mayor’s tacit refusal to the Sliven Regional Court.\n11.  In a judgment of 25 May 1993 the Regional Court rejected the appeal, finding that the property had been used for the purposes of the expropriation and therefore it was not subject to restitution. The applicants lodged a petition for review (cassation).\n12.  In a final judgment of 28 March 1995 the Supreme Court held that the expropriation had been carried out under the building and planning legislation for the needs of the State Tourist Agency. It concluded that the conditions for restitution had been met since, as provided for by section 1 (1) of the 1992 Law (see paragraph 28 below), the construction project in view of which the properties were expropriated had not been carried out. Furthermore, even assuming that section 3 (1) of the 1992 Law was applicable, the court held that the condition for revoking the expropriation foreseen by that provision was also met in so far as the buildings were not used for the purposes for which they were expropriated. On these grounds it revoked the expropriation and restored the ownership of the property including the buildings on it to the applicants.\n13.  On an unspecified date after October 1996 the Chairman of the Supreme Administrative Court lodged an application for the re-opening of the proceedings (at the end of 1996 the Supreme Court was divided into a Supreme Court of Cassation and a Supreme Administrative Court). He relied on a plan of the applicants’ plot issued by the Kotel municipality in October 1996, arguing that it constituted newly discovered evidence. On 10 May 1997 a five-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court refused to re-open the case. The court found that the evidence relied upon was not newly discovered but had been issued by the Kotel municipality, which had been a party to the proceedings from their outset.\n14.  Meanwhile, on 5 July 1996 the Mayor of Kotel, noting that the applicants had returned the compensation received by them, ordered that their properties be struck out of the State Property Register.\n15.  After certain obstructions by the municipal administration and judicial proceedings in that respect, the applicants managed to obtain all the documentation necessary for acquiring a notary deed and obtained such on 7 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6889", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n15.  The first applicant, Mr Mustafa Kurić, was born in 1935 and lives in Koper (Slovenia). He is a stateless person. The second applicant, Mr Velimir Dabetić, was born in 1969 and lives in Italy. He is a stateless person. The third applicant, Ms Ana Mezga, is a Croatian citizen. She was born in 1965 and lives in Portorož (Slovenia). The fourth applicant, Mrs Ljubenka Ristanović, is a Serbian citizen. She was born in 1968 and lives in Serbia. The fifth applicant, Mr Tripun Ristanović, the son of the fourth applicant, was born in 1988 and is currently living in Slovenia. He is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The sixth applicant, Mr Ali Berisha, was born in 1969 in Kosovo. According to the most recently available data, he is a Serbian citizen. He currently lives in Germany. The seventh applicant, Mr Ilfan Sadik Ademi, was born in 1952. He lives in Germany and is now a Macedonian citizen. The eighth applicant, Mr Zoran Minić, was born in 1972. According to the Government, he is a Serbian citizen.\n16.  The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”) was a federal State composed of six republics: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Montenegro and Macedonia. SFRY nationals had “dual citizenship” for internal purposes, that is, they were citizens both of the SFRY and of one of the six republics. Until 1974, federal citizenship prevailed over republic citizenship: republic citizenship could only be held by a Yugoslav citizen.\n17.  The regulation of citizenship was similar in all republics of the SFRY, with the basic principle of acquiring citizenship by blood (jus sanguinis). In principle, a child acquired his or her parents’ citizenship; if the parents were citizens of different republics, they jointly agreed on their child’s citizenship. On the date of acquisition of the citizenship of another republic, a person’s prior republic citizenship came to an end.\n18.  From 1947 a separate Register of Citizenship was kept at the level of the republics and not at the level of the federal State. From 1974 the citizenship data for newly born children were entered in the Register of Births and from 1984 the entry of data in the Register of Citizenship ended, all citizenship data being entered in the Register of Births.\n19.  SFRY citizens had freedom of movement within the federal State and could register permanent residence wherever they settled on its territory. Full enjoyment of various civil, economic, social and even political rights for SFRY citizens was linked to permanent residence.\n20.  SFRY citizens living in the then Socialist Republic of Slovenia who were citizens of one of the other SFRY republics, such as the applicants, registered their permanent residence there in the same way as Slovenian citizens. Foreign citizens could also acquire permanent residence in the SFRY under a separate procedure.\n21. In the process of the dissolution of the SFRY, Slovenia took steps towards independence. On 6 December 1990, the then Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia adopted the “Statement of Good Intentions” (Izjava o dobrih namenih), guaranteeing that all persons with permanent residence on Slovenian territory would be enabled to acquire Slovenian citizenship if they so wished (see paragraph 200 below).\n22.  On 25 June 1991 Slovenia declared its independence. A series of laws termed “the independence legislation” were passed. This included the Citizenship of the Republic of Slovenia Act (Zakon o državljanstvu Republike Sloven", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6890", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Stutensee.\n11.  Under the German Federal Hunting Act (Bundesjagdgesetz), owners of hunting grounds with a surface area of less than 75 hectares are de jure members of a hunting association (Jagdgenossenschaft), while owners of larger plots of land manage their own hunting district. The applicant owns two landholdings in Rhineland-Palatinate of less than 75 hectares each, which he inherited in 1993 from his late mother. He is thus a de jure member of a hunting association, in this case the hunting association of the municipality of Langsur.\n12.  On 14 February 2003 the applicant, who is opposed to hunting on ethical grounds, filed a request with the hunting authority seeking to terminate his membership of the hunting association. The authority rejected his request on the grounds that his membership was prescribed by law and that there was no provision for the termination of membership.\n13.  The applicant brought proceedings before the Trier Administrative Court. Relying in particular on the Court’s judgment in the case of Chassagnou and Others v. France ([GC], nos. 25088/94, 28331/95 and 28443/95, ECHR 1999‑III), he requested the Administrative Court to find it established that he was not a member of the hunting association of the municipality of Langsur.\n14.  On 14 January 2004 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request. It considered that the Federal Hunting Act did not violate the applicant’s rights. With regard to the Chassagnou judgment, the Administrative Court took the view that the situation in Germany differed from that in France. It observed, in particular, that German owners of hunting grounds were able, by virtue of their membership of the hunting association, to influence the decision-making process as to how the relevant hunting rights should be exercised. Furthermore, they had the right to receive a share of the profits derived from the exercise of those hunting rights. All owners of plots which were too small to allow proper management of hunting rights joined a hunting association. The court further considered that the hunting associations not only served the leisure interests of those who exercised the hunting rights, but also imposed certain specific obligations on them which served the general interest, in particular a duty to manage game stocks with the aim of maintaining varied and healthy game populations and a duty to prevent damage caused by wild game. They were further obliged to comply with specific quotas set by the authorities for the hunting of game. These duties applied in the same way to the owners of hunting grounds of more than 75 hectares, notwithstanding the fact that these bigger plots were not grouped together in common hunting districts.\n15.  On 13 July 2004 and 14 April 2005 the Rhineland-Palatinate Administrative Court of Appeal and the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeals lodged by the applicant, on the same grounds as the Administrative Court.\n16.  On 13 December 2006 the Federal Constitutional Court (1 BvR 2084/05) refused to admit a constitutional complaint by the applicant for adjudication. It noted at the outset that the provisions of the Federal Hunting Act did not violate the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property, but defined and limited the exercise of that right in a proportionate manner. The relevant provisions pursued legitimate aims, were necessary and did not impose an excessive burden", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6891", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Yerevan.\n6.  On 2 December 2006 the applicant gave a speech at an assembly organised by an NGO, the Unity of Armenian Volunteers. The assembly took place in the hall of the Yerevan State Choreography College and about 150 people attended. In his speech, the applicant called the authorities “bandits and internal enemies of the people who had to be got rid of by any means, including arms, armed struggle and rebellion”. He called for blood and fire to be thrown on the enemy and stated that there was no more need for analysing, debating, making comments or listening to experts – “the country had to be liberated from the internal enemy”.\n7.  On 8 December 2006 the Investigative Department of the National Security Service (NSS) decided to institute criminal proceedings under Article 301 of the Criminal Code (CC) on the ground that public calls for a violent overthrow of the government had been made during the speeches given at the above assembly.\n8.  On 9 December 2006 from 9.35 p.m. to 11.55 p.m. the applicant’s flat was searched in his presence. The applicant alleges that immediately after the search he was taken to the NSS.\n9.  On 10 December 2006 from 10.05 a.m. to 1.15 p.m. the applicant was questioned as a suspect in office no. 487 of the NSS. It appears that the applicant admitted making the above statements at the assembly.\n10.  On the same date at 2.30 p.m. an arrest record was drawn up, which stated that the applicant was arrested at that hour by the investigator in office no. 487 of the NSS on suspicion of being involved in the above offence. It appears that his passport was seized.\n11.  On 12 December 2006 the applicant was formally charged under Article 301 of the CC with making public calls for a violent overthrow of the government. Another person, Z.S., who had also given a speech at the above assembly, was accused together with the applicant under Article 301 of the CC and also under Article 235 § 1 of the CC with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. Their speeches had been recorded.\n12.  On the same date the applicant was questioned as an accused. The applicant submitted that he had made the statements in question in a state of intoxication and confusion. They were made on the spur of the moment and he had not intended to incite anyone to a rebellion or a violent overthrow of the government.\n13.  On the same date the investigator filed a motion with the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, arguing that the applicant, if at large, could abscond and exert unlawful pressure on persons involved in the proceedings and seeking to have the applicant detained for a period of two months. The applicant alleges that the investigator submitted to the court only a transcript of his speech but not its audio recording, even if such a recording was at the investigator’s disposal.\n14.  On the same date the District Court examined the investigator’s motion. The applicant, who was present at this hearing, objected to the motion, claiming that he had not been fully aware of the meaning of his words because of being intoxicated and irritated as a result of a family argument earlier on that day. The District Court, having examined the circumstances underlying the charge against the applicant, decided to grant the investigator’s motion on the ground that the applicant, if at large, could obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on persons involved in the procee", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6892", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Kırşehir.\n6.  On 29 August 1999 the applicant was arrested and taken to the Ankara Security Headquarters on suspicion of carrying a gun without the required licence. It was also established that he was being sought for on suspicion of establishing a profit-making criminal organisation.\n7.  The following day, 30 August 1999 the applicant was brought before the Ankara public prosecutor. The public prosecutor ordered his release after having taken his statements.\n8.  However, on the same day, certain police officers brought the applicant back to the Security Headquarters. Immediately after that event, his lawyer filed a complaint with the Ankara public prosecutor, claiming that the applicant had been forcibly taken by the police officers despite the public prosecutor’s decision and had been beaten. She indicated that she had been denied entry into the Headquarters.\n9.  The applicant claimed to have been released the next day.\n10.  Following his release, the applicant went to a private clinic where he was examined by a doctor who noted that there existed several oedemas and bruises on various parts of the applicant’s body, caused by blows from a hard object. The doctor specified the places of the said oedemas and bruises as the right frontal area of the face, right cheekbone, left shoulder, left forearm, left leg and left gluteal area. He also maintained that there were cuts in the oral cavity caused by dental pressure. The doctor noted the date of the report as 30 August 1999 but did not write his name.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed a complaint against two police officers, alleging that they had inflicted ill-treatment on him.\n12.  On 13 January 2000 the Ankara Directorate of Security submitted an information note to the public prosecutor, stating that the applicant had gone to the Security Headquarters on 30 August 1999 of his own will and had stayed there for a brief period of thirty minutes. The note indicated that he had not been officially in custody during that period and had been allowed to see his lawyer. Subsequently, on 17 February 2000, the Directorate of Security further informed the public prosecutor that no record of the applicant’s meeting with his lawyer had been made.\n13.  On 25 February 2000 the applicant maintained before the Ankara public prosecutor that he had been forced to stay at the Security Headquarters for one day following his release by the public prosecutor and had been denied access to his lawyer during that period. He reiterated his allegations of ill-treatment, arguing that two police officers had put him in a barrel full of cold water and had beaten him the whole day. He also submitted a medical report from a private clinic, which he had obtained following his release.\n14.  On 28 March 2000, upon a request from the Ankara public prosecutor to that effect, the Ankara Forensics Medicine Institute issued a final report, indicating the findings of the initial medical report and concluding that those findings would keep the applicant from routine activities for a period of seven days.\n15.  The two police officers accused by the applicant of ill-treatment gave their statements before the Ankara public prosecutor on 3 April and 9 May 2000 respectively. They maintained, inter alia, that they had not ill-treated the applicant in any way and that the applicant had only stayed at the Department for fifteen minutes on the day the alleged events took pla", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6893", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Tiszalúc.\n6.  On 4 September 2010 a family feast took place at a private house in Tiszalúc. It involved the applicant – who is of Roma origin – and another fifty people. After a first visit at 8.30 p.m. without any incident, at about 9.30 p.m. several police officers returned to the house, demanding that the music be turned down. Those present complied. Subsequently, a heated argument started between a Mr H. and a police officer. The applicant intervened, a tumultuous scene developed, and the officer called the applicant names. The officer, threatening her with arrest, grabbed her arm and pepper-sprayed her eyes. The Government submitted that this had been necessitated by the applicant’s resistance. The applicant fell over, and then six or seven male officers dragged her on the ground to, and banged her against, the police car. While being dragged, her breasts became exposed, since her pullover was torn. She suffered bruises on her neck and her eyes were burning badly. Eventually, however, the officers refrained from arresting her.\n7.  The applicant then went to consult her general practitioner. The latter did not issue a medical certificate, but arranged for the applicant to be transferred to the County Hospital, where she was diagnosed with an eye injury which would heal in less than eight days.\n8.  On 6 September 2010 the applicant and others involved in the incident filed a criminal report against unknown police officers with the Szerencs Police Department. On 27 September 2010 the Miskolc Investigation Office discontinued the investigation, finding that the applicant and the others had been feasting loudly and had countered the police intervention in an aggressive manner and that the police measures had been proportionate.\n9.  On 15 November 2010 the applicant filed an individual criminal report against unknown police officers. On 14 January 2011 Public Prosecutor Dr F. of the Investigation Office discontinued the investigation, observing that the force applied by the police had not been excessive.\n10.  On the applicant’s complaint, on 28 January 2011 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Public Prosecutor’s Office reopened the investigation. It pointed out that further witness testimonies were necessary to clarify the circumstances and the proportionality of the police intervention. Subsequently additional evidence was obtained; in particular, a video recording of the testimonies given by the applicant and the others present was admitted to the file.\n11.  In the resumed proceedings, on 23 February 2011 Dr F. again discontinued the case, coming in essence to the same conclusion as before. The applicant and the others present at the party were not heard in these, the preceding or the ensuing proceedings; neither were the suspected police officers interrogated or confronted with them. It appears that the decision was based on the minutes of the testimonies, which had been given by some witnesses in the criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant and her associates (see paragraphs 13 to 16 below), and which had not concerned the proportionality of the use of force by the police.\n12.  On 16 March 2011 the County Public Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the applicant’s complaint for want of evidence, pointing out that there had been no impartial witness to the incident.\n13.  Simultaneously, criminal proceedings were conducted against the applicant and other participants in the feast on char", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6894", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Baku.\n5.  On 22 January 1998 the applicant was issued with an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) for a flat in a recently constructed residential building in Baku on the basis of the Baku City Executive Authority’s order of 19 January 1998.\n6.  At the same time, the applicant became aware that the flat was occupied by J. and his family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Aghdam, a region under occupation of Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.\n7.  On an unspecified date in 1998, the applicant lodged a lawsuit with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of J. and his family from the flat.\n8.  On 7 July 1998 the Yasamal District Court granted the applicant’s request. The court held that the applicant was the sole lawful tenant of the flat on the basis of the occupancy voucher of 22 January 1998 and, therefore, the flat was unlawfully occupied by J. and his family. No appeals were filed against this judgment and, pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, it became enforceable within ten days after its delivery.\n9.  According to the applicant, J. and his family refused to comply with the judgment and the competent authorities did not take any measures to enforce it for many years.\n10.  According to the Government’s letter of 17 May 2012, the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced in April 2012.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6895", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  On 6 December 1999 the applicant, a former customs officer, was accused of accepting bribes. On 7 December 1999 his home was searched. According to the applicant, several of his possessions that were seized during the search subsequently disappeared.\n7.  On 22 December 2000 the Ciocana District Court acquitted the applicant.\n8.  Following an appeal by the public prosecutor, the Chişinău Regional Court (Tribunalul Chişinău) upheld the first-instance judgment on 19 September 2001.\n9.  On 25 September 2001 the public prosecutor appealed on points of law.\n10.  On 13 December 2001 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the appeal on points of law and quashed the judgments of 22 December 2000 and 19 September 2001, remitting the case to the lower courts.\n11.  On 27 June 2003 the Ciocana District Court again acquitted the applicant.\n12.  On 14 July 2003 the Ciocana public prosecutor’s office informed the District Court that the prosecutor dealing with the case was on leave from 14 July to 26 August 2003 and wished the examination of the case to be adjourned until his return.\n13.  On 17 July 2003 the registry of the Ciocana District Court informed the Ciocana public prosecutor’s office that the reasoned judgment had been filed with the registry.\n14.  On 26 August 2003 the public prosecutor appealed against the judgment of 27 June 2003.\n15.  On 4 November 2003 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as being out of time. It held:\n“[The appeal] was lodged only on 26 August 2003, whereas the prosecutor ... had been informed of the finalisation of the judgment on 17 July 2003. Accordingly, the time-limit laid down in Article 402 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for appealing has not been observed.\nThe Court of Appeal finds that the reason given by the public prosecutor, namely being on ordinary leave, is unjustified. ...”\n16.  On 31 December 2003 the public prosecutor appealed on points of law against the Court of Appeal’s decision.\n17.  On 4 February 2004 the Supreme Court of Justice examined the admissibility of the appeal as a bench of three judges. On 17 February 2004 it sent the case back to the Chişinău Court of Appeal, holding in particular:\n“... it appears from the case file that the Ciocana public prosecutor’s office was informed that the file had been received at the registry ... on 17 July 2003.\nIn an official letter dated 14 July 2003, the deputy prosecutor ... had informed the Ciocana District Court that the prosecutor [dealing with the case] would be on leave from 14 July to 25 August 2003.\nThe public prosecutor’s appeal was registered at the Ciocana District Court on 26 August 2003, the day after he returned from leave.\nIn accordance with Article 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, [only] the public prosecutor who has participated in the trial is entitled to appeal ...\nIn the specific circumstances, [the Supreme Court of Justice] considers that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the prosecutor’s absence on ordinary leave was not a valid reason for reopening the time allowed for an appeal. ...”\n18.  On 20 May 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal accepted that the appeal by the public prosecutor had been lodged within the statutory time-limit, found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a fine of 70,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (4,915.04 euros (EUR) at the time), in addition to disqualifying him from holding posts in the customs department for five years. Addres", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6897", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed section of Ljubljana prison in the period between 3 April 2009 and 3 March 2010. From 3 to 11 April 2009 he was held in cell 123 (second floor) measuring 16.28 square metres. The cell, apart from the furniture, contained six sleeping places (three bunk beds). According to the applicant, six prisoners were being held in the cell during his detention. The Government, however, submitted that the number varied between five and six. He was subsequently moved to cell. 1 on the third floor, where he stayed until the end of his sentence on 3 March 2010. The cell measured 16.68 square metres. The cell contained, apart from the furniture, five sleeping places (two bunk beds and a single bed). According to the Government the number of prisoners varied between four and five.\n7.  During his detention the applicant received six visits from a friend. Between 28 April and 1 June 2009 the applicant’s visits took place through a glass partition, as he had been suspected of receiving drugs from his visitor. The same decision was made with regard to the period between 27 August 2009 and 3 March 2010. The applicant received ninety-four letters and sent out eighty-nine. Envelopes were opened on fourteen occasions to check on enclosed items. The applicant did not appeal against this measure.\n8.  According to the prison records, the applicant was receiving methadone maintenance treatment during his imprisonment. In addition, he had ten consultations with a general practitioner and five dental appointments.\n9.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells, material conditions inside the cells, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011. As to the out-of-cell time, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that the sentenced prisoners held in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (ibdi., § 86). As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5-5.30 p.m.) in the second half of July and August 2009 had been approximately 28oC, exceeding 30oC on seven days.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6898", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is currently detained in Straubing Prison.\n6.  On 23 February 1996 the Munich I Regional Court acquitted the applicant of, inter alia, six counts of assault, nine counts of dangerous assault, of sexual assault and of procuring for lack of criminal responsibility and ordered his placement in a psychiatric hospital under Article 63 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 46 below).\n7.  The Regional Court found that between 1991 and 1995 the applicant, who had previously been convicted, in particular, of several counts of assault in Romania and Germany, had committed the offences he had been charged with. The applicant was found, in particular, to have violently threatened with a gun and knife, hit and attempted to strangulate his wife, partly using dangerous instruments or teargas, on a number of occasions. He inflicted on his wife multiple injuries including fractures of her jaw, cheekbones, nose and skull, snags to her nose and genitals as well as lacerations, bruises and swellings all over her body. He had further forced his wife to prostitution for his own material benefit, had forced her to dance naked for an acquaintance and had chased her naked in a forest. Moreover, he had assaulted and sexually assaulted his female friend and a relative of his wife with whom he had an intimate relationship (fettering the latter naked to a tree, urinating on her and introducing fir cones into her rectum and vagina).\n8.  The Regional Court, having consulted three medical experts, found that the applicant suffered from a brain disorder, a borderline personality disorder manifesting itself in emotional instability and a paranoiac jealousy and had partly been drunk during his acts. Owing to his pathological mental disorder, it could not be excluded that he had acted without criminal responsibility. The Regional Court further considered that the applicant was to be placed in a psychiatric hospital as he was liable to commit further serious offences and was therefore dangerous to the public.\n9.  Following the Regional Court’s judgment, the applicant was placed in different psychiatric hospitals. From 23 February 1996 onwards, he was in Haar psychiatric hospital, from 7 February 1997 onwards in Straubing psychiatric hospital, from 26 October 1999 onwards in Düren psychiatric hospital and from 5 April 2000 onwards in Bedburg-Hau psychiatric hospital. Following his escape from that clinic in October 2002, he was again detained in Düren psychiatric hospital from 18 December 2002 onwards and subsequently in Lippstadt psychiatric hospital. His detention in a psychiatric hospital was confirmed yearly by the competent Regional Court.\n10.  On 22 November 2005 the city of Düren ordered the applicant’s expulsion to Romania after he had renounced German nationality in February 2004. The decision became final.\n11.  On 9 February 2007 the Paderborn Regional Court terminated the applicant’s detention in a psychiatric hospital ordered by the Munich I Regional Court on 23 February 1996 (Article 67d § 6 of the Criminal Code, see paragraph 42 below). It further delivered its decision, taken the day before, to order the applicant’s provisional detention pending the competent court’s decision whether or not he was to be placed in preventive detention retrospectively.\n12.  Having heard evidence from a psychiatric expert, K., who had examined the applicant in person, the Paderborn Regional Court found that the applicant suffered from a perso", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6899", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Sp. Duplek.\n6.  The applicant is the father of two children, Y, born in 2000, and Z, born in 2002. He was married to their mother, M., who suffers from mild intellectual disability and epilepsy.\n7.  In 2001 the Maribor Welfare Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the Maribor Authority”) began monitoring the applicant’s family after receiving a call from the applicant informing them that M. had left with Y, and expressing concern about their whereabouts.\n8.  It would appear from the case file that M. frequently left and returned to the apartment in which she was living with the applicant. This was often connected with conflicts between the applicant and M., as well as with conflicts between M. and the applicant’s mother, who lived in the same building.\n9.  From 2001 onwards the welfare authorities conducted a number of visits to the applicant’s home. The applicant and M. themselves also frequently contacted the authorities asking for help when conflict arose between them. After the birth of Z, the applicant and M. agreed to be advised by a special consultant with respect to their parenting. In April 2003 they refused any further cooperation in this connection. The police were also repeatedly called to intervene in their situation, and frequently informed the Maribor Authority of their concern that the children were being neglected. On 17 April and again on 11 June 2003 criminal complaints, alleging neglect of the children, were filed against M. (see paragraph 10 below).\n10.  Following a violent altercation between the applicant and M. on 3 June 2003, the police detained M. The children were taken to Maribor Hospital on suspicion that they had been subjected to violence and neglect. The Maribor Authority reached an agreement with the applicant that he would keep their home tidy and provide for the children’s needs. After the Maribor Authority had established that the applicant had complied with the agreement, he was allowed to take the children home on 9 June 2003. M. apparently went back to the apartment she shared with the applicant.\n11.  On 3 September 2003 the police again intervened, after the neighbours informed them that the applicant had beaten M. up. Both the applicant and M. were detained; the applicant until 3 December 2003. The children were taken to Maribor Hospital, where it was observed that they were neglected and had haematoma on their bodies. The applicant and M. were informed that the children would be removed from them and a criminal investigation was opened against the applicant. It concerned charges of neglect of children and ill-treatment. In the context of the investigation a report was prepared by a forensic expert in paediatric medicine. On the basis of the examination of the children, their medical records, and the police file, the expert concluded that the children were undoubtedly occasionally subjected to physical violence and neglect from their parents. She also found that it was likely that the children were living constantly in a psychologically and hygienically inadequate environment. She was of the opinion that the children’s placement in foster care would be the only means of securing their normal psychophysical development.\n12.  On 4 September 2003 a written interim care order was issued by the Maribor Authority, and the children were placed in the care of a foster family.\n13.  On 12 December 2003 a psychologist employed at the Maribor Authority prepare", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6901", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant, Mr Sabri Güneş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in İzmir.\n9.  He suffered a personal injury while doing his military service. He was hospitalised on 30 October 2001 and subsequently underwent several operations on his right knee. He is now permanently disabled.\n10.  On 7 April 2003 the applicant submitted a claim to the Ministry of Defence for compensation in respect of his permanent disability.\n11.  Following tacit dismissal of the claim by the administrative authorities, the applicant brought an action for damages in the Supreme Military Administrative Court on 12 August 2003 in respect of the disability suffered during his military service. He claimed 15,000 Turkish liras (TRY – approximately 9,400 euros (EUR)[1]) in respect of pecuniary damage and the same sum in respect of non-pecuniary damage.\n12.  Two expert reports ordered by the Supreme Military Administrative Court were added to the case file. The first, dated 12 March 2004, established a 5% disability. The second, dated 30 April 2004 and communicated to the applicant on 11 May 2004, assessed the applicant’s pecuniary damage at more than TRY 27,438 (approximately EUR 17,150).\n13.  Having held a public hearing on 7 July 2004, the Supreme Military Administrative Court delivered its judgment on the same day. It ruled in favour of the applicant and awarded him the full amount of his claim in respect of pecuniary damage, namely, TRY 15,000. It awarded him a further TRY 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The court considered in particular that the conclusions of the expert report of 30 April 2004 were relevant and satisfied the criteria established by its case-law.\n14.  On 21 November 2004 the applicant applied to the Ministry of Defence for additional compensation in respect of his permanent disability. He claimed that he had only become aware of the extent of his pecuniary damage for the first time on 11 May 2004, when he received the report of 30 April 2004 assessing his pecuniary damage at TRY 27,438.\n15.  On 29 March 2005, following tacit dismissal of the claim by the administrative authorities, the applicant lodged a fresh claim with the Supreme Military Administrative Court for additional compensation, namely, TRY 12,438 (approximately EUR 5,600), on the basis of the expert report of 30 April 2004. He argued that he had received the expert report of 30 April 2004 on 11 May 2004, whereupon he had become aware of the true extent of the damage he had suffered.\n16.  By a judgment of 22 June 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court considered the applicant’s fresh claim to be an application to have the initial amount amended (ıslah) and dismissed it for being out of time. The court stated in particular:\n“The claimant has clearly sought an amendment of the initial amount. The purpose of an amendment is to rectify a procedural act. Having regard to the judgment of the Constitutional Court published in the Official Journal of 14 November 2000, we must conclude that, in civil law, injured persons are entitled to seek additional compensation once an expert report has been issued. However, in the proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, the time-limits of one year and sixty days from the date of referral to the administrative authorities apply. Under section 46(4) of the Supreme Military Administrative Court Act, the amount claimed cannot be rectified once those deadlines have passed. Consequently, this claim must", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6902", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966. Before 2005 he lived in Uzbekistan. He currently lives in Moscow.\n7.  Until 2005 the applicant lived in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. He is married and has six minor children.\n8.  According to the applicant, between 1999 and 2005 he was on several occasions questioned by Samarkand police in connection with his alleged membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir (“HT”), a transnational Islamic organisation, banned in Russia, Germany and some Central Asian republics. The applicant’s submission stated that he was not a member of HT.\n9.  He submitted that he had been ill-treated and threatened by the police several times, and had to sign unspecified documents, and that at some point his house had been searched without a warrant.\n10.  At some point in August 2005 the applicant fled to Russia. He had not applied for registration with the Federal Migration Service.\n11.  On an unspecified date in April 2007 the applicant returned to Uzbekistan to renew his passport, which was due to expire. He successfully renewed the document and returned to Russia.\n12.  Since the end of April 2007 the applicant has lived in Moscow with his wife and three minor children. The three other children are living in Uzbekistan with the applicant’s sister-in-law.\n13.  On 8 June 2009 the National Security Department of the Samarkand Region of Uzbekistan brought criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of attempting to overthrow the Uzbek State’s constitutional order.\n14.  On 24 June 2009 the Samarkand Town Court (Uzbekistan) ordered that the applicant should be placed in custody on suspicion of attempting to overthrow the Uzbek State’s constitutional order (Article 159 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan), as well as participation in and direction of religious, extremist, separatist and other prohibited organisations, and forming an armed organisation or gang to commit offences (Article 244-2 § 1 of the Code). The court specified, with reference to the materials of the domestic investigation, that the applicant was suspected of membership of HT and that he had had books and leaflets which made public calls for the overthrow of the Uzbek Government and for the creation of an Islamic state, which had been seized from him.\n15.  On the same date the applicant’s name was placed on a wanted list by the National Security Department of the Samarkand Region of Uzbekistan.\n16. On 26 June 2009 the Uzbek authorities formally charged the applicant in absentia with attempting to overthrow the Uzbek State’s constitutional order, participation in and direction of religious, extremist, separatist and other prohibited organisations, and forming an armed organisation or gang to commit offences, as well as holding a position of authority or a special position within such an organisation or gang (Articles 159 § 3 (b), 242 § 1 and Article 244 - 2 § 1 of the of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan).\n17.  On 4 February 2010 the applicant was arrested by Russian police in Moscow on the ground that his name had been put on a cross-border wanted list by the Uzbek authorities. On the same date the Samarkand Department of the Interior sent the Veshnyaki District Department of the Interior (Moscow) a request for the applicant to be kept in custody. The request contained, in particular, the following paragraph:\n“[A] criminal Rustamov Sobir Aminovich is wanted by the ... Samarkand Department of the Interior ...”\n18.  On 16 February 2010 t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6903", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Bursa.\n5.  On 8 March 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of establishing a criminal organisation and committing fraud, threats and bribery. Approximately an hour after the arrest, he underwent a medical examination. The doctor who examined the applicant noted no sign of injury on his body.\n6.  On the same day, the applicant was taken to the Department of Organised Crime of the Bursa Directorate of Security, where he was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment. More specifically, he was stripped naked, beaten, subjected to electric shocks, hung by the arms, forced to sit naked on cold ground bare and hosed with water.\n7.  On 10 March 2000 the applicant’s wife lodged a complaint with the Bursa Public Prosecutor, claiming that her husband was being tortured.\n8.  Subsequently, on the same day the Bursa Public Prosecutor initiated an investigation into the matter.\n9.  On 12 March 2000, upon the request of the Bursa Directorate of Security, the Bursa Magistrates’ Court decided to prolong the applicant’s detention in police custody for three days.\n10.  On 14 March 2000 the applicant was heard by the Bursa Public Prosecutor. He was then transferred to the Bursa Branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute to be examined. The forensic medical report noted the applicant’s complaint as to his ill-treatment and indicated that he had two bruises measuring 8 x 3 cm and 8 x 1 cm on his left arm, a 6 x 5 cm light bruise in his right armpit, a blue-coloured bruise surrounding his left eye, several parallel scabbed lesions around his penis and a scratch measuring 2 x 1 cm below his right knee.\n11.  On the same day, following a request from the Department of Organised Crime, the applicant was examined once more by another doctor, who stated that the applicant had complained of headaches, dizziness and sensitivity at the tip of the big toe of his right foot. The report drawn up by that doctor indicated that the applicant’s general health condition was good and that he was conscious. It noted that he had bruises and hyperemia on his left and right sides, further hyperemia on both his arms, scabbed lesions of 2 x 3 cm on his penis (which would probably heal in three days) and a bruise around his eye (to heal in five days). The report concluded that the injuries would not keep the applicant from daily work.\n12.  On 20 March 2000 the Bursa Public Prosecutor requested the Forensic Medicine Institute to indicate, on the basis of its medical report dated 14 March 2000, whether the applicant was fit for work. On the same day, the Institute issued another report, reiterating the findings of the initial one and stating that the applicant would be unfit for routine activities for a period of three days.\n13.  Following the applicant’s detention on remand, the prison doctor transferred him to the Bursa State Hospital. On 22 March 2000 the applicant was diagnosed with acute lumbar strain and discopathy by a doctor at that hospital. The doctor also indicated that the applicant suffered from spondylosis and sciatica on his right side. The applicant was discharged from the hospital on 27 March 2000.\n14.  On 28 March 2000 the Bursa Public Prosecutor heard the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment during his time in police custody. The applicant repeated before the Public Prosecutor that he had been stripped naked and subjected to electric shocks, hung by the arms, forced to sit on cold ground and hosed with cold water e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6904", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Kyiv. He is a former Minister of the Interior and the leader of the opposition party Narodna Samooborona.\n8.  On 2 November 2010 the General Prosecutor’s Office (“the GPO”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and another individual, Mr P., under Article 191 § 3 of the Criminal Code. The GPO asserted that while he was Minister of the Interior from December 2007 to January 2010 the applicant had unlawfully arranged for different work-related benefits for his driver – the aforementioned Mr P. On the same date, the applicant gave a written undertaking not to abscond to the investigator.\n9.  On 5 November 2010 the applicant was formally charged.\n10.  During the pre-trial investigation, the applicant appeared for all investigating activities and the investigator had no complaints about his cooperation.\n11.  On 11 December 2010 the GPO instituted another criminal case against the applicant for exceeding his official powers under Article 365 § 3 of the Criminal Code on the grounds that the applicant had arranged for the allocation of a one-room apartment to his driver Mr P.\n12.  The two criminal cases were joined together (hereinafter – “the first criminal case”).\n13.  On 13 December 2010 the GPO completed the investigation in the case and formally indicted the applicant on both counts, having, however, reclassified his actions specified in the first charge under Article 191 § 5 of the Criminal Code. The applicant was summoned to appear before the investigator in order to study the criminal case file against him.\n14.  On 15 December 2010 the applicant was given only the minority of the criminal case file for familiarisation, being informed that the rest of the materials were not available. The investigator summoned the applicant to study the case file on 16 and 17 December 2010.\n15.  On 17 December 2010 the applicant and his lawyer appeared before the investigator to study the case file. However, the investigator did not provide them with the complete file, referring to the fact that some materials were still with the Pechersky Court. The investigator served on the applicant a summons to appear on 20 through 24 December 2010 in order that his familiarisation with the case file be continued.\n16.  On 20 and 21 December 2010 the case file materials were stated to be not ready, despite the applicant’s desire to acquaint himself with them.\n17.  On 22 December 2010 the investigator informed the applicant that he had decided that all accused and their lawyers would be given only one volume of the file at a time, and the next volume would be given only after all of them had completed their familiarisation with the previous one. He added that the copy of the list of materials of each volume would be given after such familiarisation. On the same date, the applicant’s representative asked to be allowed to make digital photos of the materials in the case file. His request was rejected.\n18.  On 22 and 23 December 2010 the applicant and his lawyer were acquainted with the materials in the case file.\n19.  On 24 December 2010 the applicant’s representative was busy representing a client in another set of proceedings, of which he had informed the investigator in advance.\n20.  On 8 December 2010 the applicant was served with a summons to appear before the investigator on 14 December 2010.\n21.  On 14, 16, 17, 20 and 24 December 2010 he failed to appear to study the case file.\n22.  On 15, 21, 22 and", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6907", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Vienna.\n6.  The applicant is a practising lawyer by profession. He runs his law office with a partner.\n7.  In 2005 criminal proceedings on suspicion of aggravated theft, aggravated fraud and embezzlement were opened against the applicant and a number of other persons by the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen).\n8.  On 21 February 2006 the investigating judge issued a search warrant for the applicant’s premises. The warrant authorised the search and seizure of the following items:\n“Documents, personal computers and discs, savings books, bank documents, deeds of gift and wills in favour of Dr Heinz Robathin, and any files concerning R. [name of one person] and G. [name of another person].”\n9.  In its reasoning, the search warrant stated that the applicant was suspected firstly of having taken furniture, pictures and silver worth more than 50,000 euros (EUR) from Mr R. in December 2003 for personal enrichment; secondly, of having induced Mr G. to sign an agreement for a secured loan of EUR 150,000 in December 2004, which Mr G. then failed to receive; and thirdly, of having abused the power of attorney granted to him by Mr R. in order to make bank transfers, causing the latter financial damage of more than EUR 50,000 in September 2003.\n10.  The search of the applicant’s business premises was carried out by police officers of the Federal Ministry of the Interior on 21 February 2006. The applicant, his defence counsel and a representative of the Vienna Bar Association were present. The police officers proceeded to search the applicant’s computer system, copying all files to disc. The representative of the Vienna Bar Association opposed this as being disproportionate since it was technically possible, by using appropriate search criteria, to search for and copy only those files which corresponded to the criteria set out in the search warrant. Having contacted the investigating judge, the police officers insisted on copying all files. On the proposal of the representative of the Vienna Bar Association, the police officers copied all data returned by a search for the names “R.” and “G.” to one disc and all other data to separate discs. All the discs were sealed.\n11.  The report drawn up by the police officers lists the following seized items: (1) laptop, (2) CDs/DVDs of R./G. data, (3) CDs/DVDs of all Robathin law office data, and (4) copies of agendas.\n12.  All these items were handed over to the investigating judge. Because the applicant opposed the search of the data, the Review Chamber (Ratskammer), a panel of three judges, of the Vienna Regional Criminal Court was called upon to decide whether they were to be examined or returned pursuant to Article 145 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozeßordnung).\n13.  On 3 March 2006 the Review Chamber authorised the examination of all the files. It repeated that there were grounds for suspecting the applicant of the offences described in the search warrant and noted that the data in issue had been seized in the context of the preliminary investigations in respect of the applicant and other persons. A lawyer could not rely on his duty of professional secrecy and the attendant guarantees of Article 152 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when he himself was the suspect. In sum, the examination of the seized files was necessary in order to investigate the offences.\n14.  On 23 March 2006 the Vienna Bar Association conta", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6908", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is a paediatrician, born in 1943, who continued in private practice after her retirement.\n7.  On 30 November 1995 a mother brought her daughter, V., born in 1993, to the applicant’s practice to be examined, suspecting that the girl had been sexually abused by her father. The applicant examined her and took photographs.\n8.  On 13 June 2000 the girl was taken into public care because of her mother’s mental health problems and was placed in a family support centre.\n9.  The events now in issue began on 16 December 2000, when the mother failed to return V. to the family support centre after spending time with her. It appears that the centre was going to close during the Christmas holidays and it was alleged during the domestic proceedings that the girl had indicated to her mother that she was unwilling to go to her father’s home for the holidays.\n10.  V. fell ill and was taken to the applicant’s practice by her mother on 26 December 2000. When she left the practice V. remained with her mother until she was found by the authorities on 22 April 2001.\nUse of coercive measures\n11.  On 18 April 2001 the applicant was arrested as a suspect in the deprivation of V.’s liberty, which had allegedly begun on 16 December 2000 in [town A]. The applicant’s home and practice were searched the same day. On 20 April 2001 the District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten), having heard the applicant in person, remanded her in custody, considering it likely that she would otherwise complicate the resolution of the case and continue to engage in criminal activity.\n12.  By five separate decisions between May and September 2001, given at the request of the police, the District Court granted permission to obtain information about calls to and from telephones used by V.’s mother and a third suspect during different periods between 15 December 2000 and 22 April 2001. The information gathered showed that calls had also been made from and to a telephone in the applicant’s possession.\n13.  V. was found on 22 April 2001. On 25 April 2001 the applicant was released. Following her release, the applicant complained on several occasions, inter alia, about the District Court’s decision of 20 April 2001 remanding her in custody, and requested an investigation of, inter alia, the actions of a number of police officers during her arrest and related events.\nRestraining order\n14.  On 11 May 2001 the police issued an interim restraining order in respect of the applicant, the terms of which were that she was not allowed to visit certain places frequented by V. Those places were specified in the decision.\n15.  On 1 June 2001 the District Court found that it was unlikely that the applicant would or could continue to harass the girl or commit an offence against her. It therefore quashed the restraining order.\nCriminal proceedings\n16.  On 18 April 2002 the public prosecutor preferred charges against V.’s mother, the applicant and a third person. The applicant was charged with seriously depriving V. of her liberty during the period from 16 December 2000 to 22 April 2001 or, in the alternative, aiding and abetting the commission of that offence. The applicant had allegedly, through her opinions, advice and actions, contributed to the mother’s decision to abduct her child on 16 December 2000 in [town A] and, after the mother had abducted her child and taken her at Christmas 2000 at the latest to [town B], the applicant had, with the mother’s consent, unlawfully isolated V. A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6909", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently serving a term of imprisonment in correctional colony IK-4, Tula Region.\n6.  On 6 April 2001 the Moscow City Court convicted the applicant of robbery and murder and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment.\n7.  On 3 August 2001 the applicant was sent to correctional colony IK-4, Tula Region (ФБУ “Исправительная колония № 4” УФСИН по Тульской области), to serve his sentence.\n8.  Between 2001 and 2010 the applicant was repeatedly disciplined for breaching colony rules, including by placement in punishment cells or SHIZO (ШИЗО) and solitary confinement cells or PKT (ПКТ). In August 2006 the applicant was declared a “persistent rule-breaker” and placed in the colony’s strict regime unit (СУС).\n9.  Between December 2007 and December 2010 the applicant was held in solitary confinement cells almost uninterruptedly, the disciplinary measure being applied every time on account of the applicant’s refusal to return to the strict regime unit. The applicant was never provided with copies of the decisions placing him in the PKT, as it was not required under domestic law.\n10.  On 12 March 2010 the Plavskiy District Court, Tula Region, reviewed the qualification of the applicant’s conviction in connection with the entry into force of amendments to the Criminal Code.\n11.  On 30 June 2010 the Tula Regional Court, having examined the above judgment on appeal, reduced the applicant’s sentence to twelve years and ten months’ imprisonment.\n12.  On 27 January 2011 the applicant was transferred from the strict regime unit to a regular unit.\n13.  On numerous occasions between December 2007 and December 2010 the applicant was held in solitary confinement in PKT punishment cells in correctional colony IK-4, Tula Region. The dates of the applicant’s stay in various PKT cells as from December 2007 until December 2010 are given in the table below:\n \nCell no.:\nDates of stay:\n14\n12 December 2007 – 12 March 2008\n14\n14 March - 14 August 2008\n5\n29 August – 29 November 2008\n14\n8 March – 8 April 2009\n2\n25 April – 25 May 2009\n14\n26 June – 26 September 2009\n10\n27 January – 27 March 2010\n17\n6 May – 7 December 2010\n14.  Cell 10 measured 6.7 square metres and cells 14 and 17 measured 12.1 square metres. No information was provided regarding the measurements of cells 2 and 5.\n15.  Each cell was lit by two 40-watt filament lamps from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. and by a 40-watt security light from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m. Natural lighting was available through windows measuring 90 by 50 cm and covered with grids on both the inside and the outside of the cell.\n16.  The cells were not equipped with ventilation as such. However, natural ventilation was available through window vents.\n17.  The cells were equipped with central heating. The average winter temperature was maintained at 18 degrees Celsius and the average summer temperature at 20-25 degrees Celsius.\n18.  In each cell the lavatory was situated in the corner and was separated from the living area by a brick partition 1.4 to 1.5 metres high. It was separated from the bunk beds and the dining table by sufficient distance.\n19.  The applicant was provided with hot meals three times a day in accordance with the established legal norms. Once a week he could take a shower. After each shower the applicant was provided with clean linen.\n20.  The cells were rodent-free. Regular monthly disinfections, delousing and disinfestations were carried out in the facility.\n21.  The applicant enjoyed daily ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6910", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Elblag.\n6.  In 2009 the applicant was serving a prison sentence. On 8 March 2009 he applied for a stay of the execution of his sentence.\n7.  On 8 June 2009 a penitentiary judge, E.O., refused the application.\n8.  On 18 June 2009 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision. In his appeal, the applicant referred to a paragraph in the decision in which the judge had referred to his wife’s situation instead of his mother’s. The relevant part of the applicant’s appeal read as follows:\n“As to page 3 of the reasoning of the decision, I claim that E.O. must have drafted it under the influence of intoxicating substances, for instance alcohol or other narcotic substances. (...) [H]is mental functions being impaired, I therefore request the Court of Appeal to examine the capacity of that judge to decide cases.”\n9.  On 24 June 2009 his appeal was rejected for failure to comply with the relevant time-limit.\n10.  On 26 June 2009 Judge E.O. gave a decision imposing on the applicant, as a punishment for his accusation contained in the letter of appeal, twenty-eight days’ solitary confinement, referring to section 49 of the Act on Common Courts (ustawa o sądach powszechnych, hereinafter referred to as the Courts Act).\n11.  On 28 June 2009 the applicant appealed against that decision, complaining that the judge had lacked impartiality. He submitted that he had been penalised for exercising his right to freedom of expression and requested the court to stay the execution of the punishment until his appeal had been examined.\n12.  On the same date the applicant lodged a further appeal against the court’s decision of 24 June 2009 to reject his appeal. He submitted that the decision of 8 June 2009 with its reasoned grounds had been served on him late and therefore the seven-day time-limit for lodging an appeal should have been counted from the date of delivery of that decision.\n13.  On 9 July 2009 Judge E.O. refused to grant a stay of the execution of the decision concerning the applicant’s detention in solitary confinement.\n14.  On 22 July 2009 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 26 June 2009, holding that it had been unlawful. The court observed that section 49 of the Courts Act conferred on a judge the power to immediately apply measures necessary to ensure the peaceful conduct of a hearing in a courtroom, including the power to order immediate imprisonment as a penalty for contempt of court or for disturbing order in the courtroom. However, the case-law of the Supreme Court, established in a resolution adopted by a seven-judge bench of that court, had made it clear that these powers could not be used in situations where insults or disparaging statements about a judge or a court had been made in writing, in a context different from that of maintaining order in a courtroom. The Court of Appeal further observed that the applicant had already served the period of detention in solitary confinement imposed by the impugned decision.\n15.  The Court of Appeal noted in passing that there was disagreement in the doctrine as to the scope of judges’ powers to apply section 49 of the Courts Act . Certain writers were of the view that it could also be applied in other circumstances than those of a hearing or a court session held in a courtroom.\n16.  On the same date the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order of 24 June 2009, finding that it was not ope", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6911", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Zabrze.\n6.  From 2000 until 2004 the applicant ran a business, a shoe shop, with his wife.\n7.  In October 2004 he started serving a prison sentence.\n8.  On 4 September 2006 he lodged a civil action against his wife with the Łuków District Court, claiming that she should transfer the lease of the shop to him, together with the merchandise which had been left there at the time of his arrest. He also claimed compensation for damage which he had allegedly sustained as a result of her having unlawfully taken over the business after his arrest, in the amount of 2,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) per month since October 2004.\n9.  He further requested exemption from court fees. In the statement of claim he informed the court that his opportunity to represent himself properly had been curtailed by the fact that he was serving a prison sentence.\n10.  The proceedings were conducted under the procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure pertaining to commercial disputes, providing, in particular, for certain restrictions as regards time-limits for proposing evidence to be examined by the first-instance court (prekluzja dowodowa).\n11.  On 20 December 2006 the Lublin Regional Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees in the amount of PLN 5,850 but maintained his obligation to pay other court fees as they arose in the future. The court noted that the applicant was poor and did not have any savings which would secure his procedural interests in the proceedings.\n12.  On 22 February 2007 the applicant requested that witness C.O., the owner of the shop, be heard by the court to testify on the lease.\n13.  On 7 May 2007 the court issued a decision dismissing the applicant’s request for the witness C.O. to be heard. The court reiterated that according to Article 47912 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure the applicant’s request had to be refused, as he had failed to submit it with his statement of claim. The court further noted that the requested evidence was of no importance for the case. The decision was sent to the applicant. It was served on him on 30 May 2007.\n14.  A date for the hearing was scheduled for 11 June 2007.\n15.  By a letter of 31 May 2007 the applicant requested the court to arrange for him to be brought to the hearing from Biała Podlaska Prison, where he was detained at that time. He also reiterated that witness C.O. should be questioned and requested that K.M. and A.M. also be heard by the court as witnesses.  The applicant failed to submit copies of his request to the court as required by Article 128 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 28 below).\n16.  On 11 June 2007 the court requested the applicant to complete his request by submitting copies of it with a view to having them served on the defendant. The applicant failed to comply with the court’s request.\n17.  A hearing in the case was held on the same day. It lasted five minutes. The defendant stated only that she did not accept the applicant’s claim. The applicant was neither present nor represented.\n18.  The court gave a judgment on 25 June 2007. It dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding no grounds on which to accept that he had suffered any damage or that the defendant had been acting unlawfully.\n19.  In the written reasons for that judgment the court referred to Article 47912 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 27 below) and held that the applicant’s request for C.O. to be heard as a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6912", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Varna.\n6.  On 22 June 1994 the applicant was charged with robbery, arrested and remanded in custody. He was released on bail on 4 March 1997.\n7.  On 1 June 1998 the Sofia City Court acquitted the applicant. This acquittal was upheld in a judgement of 4 April 2001 of the Sofia Court of Appeal, which was not appealed against and became final on 28 May 2001.\n8.  On 28 June 2001 the applicant brought an action against the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Sofia Investigation Service under section 2(2) of the State Responsibility for Damage Act (“the SMRDA”, the Act’s title having been amended later). He sought initially 15,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and later increased his claim to BGN 25,000 (the equivalent of approximately EUR 12,780). The applicant also claimed pecuniary damage, interest and reimbursement of his legal costs.\n9.  The applicant’s main claim was that the criminal proceedings against him and his detention had become unlawful because he had been acquitted. He also made submission concerning the consequences for his reputation, alleged pecuniary losses and the manner in which interest on the compensation award was to be calculated.\n10.  On 29 July 2002 the Sofia City Court awarded the applicant BGN 15,000 in non-pecuniary damages and BGN 49 for pecuniary loss. In determining the former amount, the court had regard to “... the nature of the criminal charges, the period of his pre-trial detention, his age ... and the level of suffering he [had] endured during the criminal proceedings against him.” In a separate decision of 12 September 2002 the City Court dismissed the claim for costs.\n11.  On appeal, on 27 June 2003 the Sofia Court of Appeal granted the applicant’s claim for non-pecuniary damages in full, awarding him BGN 25,000. He was also awarded BGN 840 in legal costs. In a separate decision of 1 September 2003 the Court of Appeal made an additional award of BGN 640 in respect of costs. The applicant and the prosecutor filed cassation appeals.\n12.  In a final judgment of 14 July 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation reduced the non-pecuniary damages to BGN 3,000 (the equivalent of approximately EUR 1,535) and the costs award to BGN 200 (approximately EUR 96). It stated that, having regard to the period spent by the applicant in detention and all other factors, BGN 5,000 would normally be seen as adequate compensation. However, this amount had to be reduced further as the applicant had been partly responsible for the damage he had suffered since he had confessed to having committed the offence at the early stage of the investigation. The court fees due by the applicant were fixed at BGN 455 (the equivalent of approximately EUR 232.50).\n13.  On 28 July 2003 the Sofia Court of Appeal issued the applicant with a writ of execution for the amount of BGN 25,000, plus interest, although the Court of Appeal’s judgment had not become final.\n14.  On 5 August 2005, shortly after the entry into force of the final judgment of 14 July 2005, the applicant requested from the relevant court to be issued with a new writ of execution, in compliance with the final judgment in his case. His request referred specifically to the amounts awarded to him in respect of damage and costs. The applicant enclosed the writ of execution of 28 July 2003, which did not reflect the final award.\n15.  As he did not receive a reply, the applicant reiterated his request several t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6913", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kulikove, Poltava Region.\n6.  At the material time the applicant was employed by a collective agricultural enterprise in which the State held no shares. The enterprise had its own housing which was allocated to its workers or members. Since there was no vacant housing for the applicant he was placed first in the waiting list. When a flat became available, by a decision of the enterprise of 18 August 1995 two private individuals who were behind the applicant in the waiting list were offered the tenancy of the flat. On the same date and based on this decision, the Kulykove Town Council (“the Town Council”) issued a tenancy authorisation (ордер на житлове приміщення) in the name of the private persons in respect of the flat.\n7.  In November 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Leninskyy District Court, Poltava (“the Leninsky Court”) against the Town Council, the private individuals and the enterprise. He sought revocation of the tenancy allocation.\n8.  On 10 March 1999 the Leninsky Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part, finding that he had the right to the tenancy of the flat since, according to the internal regulations of the enterprise and national law, he had priority over private individuals for occupation of the flat. The court ordered the private individuals to be evicted from the flat and the enterprise to allocate the flat to the applicant and to find other housing for the two private individuals to be evicted. On 8 April 1999 the Poltava Regional Court (since June 2001 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal, “the Court of Appeal”) upheld the judgment of 10 March 1999 and it became final.\n9.  On 26 January 2000 the applicant requested the Prosecutor General to intervene by lodging an appeal for supervisory review (protest) against the court decisions. On 4 February 2000 the Presidium of the Court of Appeal, acting on the protest, changed part of the lower courts’ decisions in respect of the size of the housing to be provided to the private individuals.\n10.  On 12 December 2000 the Leninsky Court rejected the applicant’s request for interpretation of the judgment of 10 March 1999. The applicant did not appeal.\n11.  Having twice refused to open enforcement proceedings due to shortcomings in the writs of execution of the judgment of 10 March 1999, the Poltava Oktiabrsky District Bailiffs’ Service (“the bailiffs”) eventually opened the proceedings on 8 February 2001. Subsequently, the bailiffs several times requested the Leninsky Court to clarify the judgment at issue as, from their point of view, it was not sufficiently clear for enforcement purposes.\n12.  On 4 September 2002 the Town Council decided to take over the property, including the housing of the enterprise, which had gone into liquidation in the meantime.\n13.  On 24 December 2002 the bailiffs, on the basis of this decision, replaced the debtor company with the Town Council and ordered the head of the Town Council to comply with the judgment. Subsequently, due to non-compliance with the judgment, the bailiffs twice fined the Head of the Town Council. The latter challenged these decisions before the Poltava Oktiabrsky District Court, which, on 1 October 2004, found the bailiffs’ decision lawful and reasoned, but quashed the imposed fines on the ground that the debtor had not complied with the judgment for lack of appropriate housing. The parties did not appeal.\n14.  In the meantime, on 29 September 2004, the T", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6914", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are spouses. They were born in 1968 and 1965 respectively and live in Donetsk. The first applicant is a lawyer practising in Ukraine. He is the President of the law firm Pravis, subsequently renamed Golovan and Partners.\n7.  The applicants are the co-owners of a flat which, at the material time, was used by the first applicant as his office. The deed of ownership was issued in the name of the second applicant.\n8.  In February and April 2005 the first applicant entered into legal services agreements with a company, K. Under those agreements K. transferred to the first applicant certain documents concerning its commercial activity.\n9.  On 4 April 2005 the investigator of the Slovyansk Tax Office instituted criminal proceedings against the officials of company K. for alleged tax evasion and forgery of documents.\n10.  On 19 April 2005 the investigator issued a search warrant for K.’s documents in the office of the first applicant. The warrant was approved by the Prosecutor of Kramatorsk. In the reasoning part of the search warrant the investigator noted that it had been established in the course of pre-trial investigation that a number of bookkeeping, tax accounting and other documents had been stored at the first applicant’s law office.\n11.  The warrant authorised the search and seizure of the following material:\n“contractual documents, bookkeeping documents, primary and summary accounting documents, tax accounting and other documents which concern the relationships between [K.] and [company D.] as regards the delivery of electricity by the latter to the former company in the period from 1 January 2001 to date; decisions and other procedural documents issued in the same period by the commercial courts when dealing with disputes between the two companies.”\n12.  On 5 May 2005 the investigator, the tax police officers, and two attesting witnesses arrived at the first applicant’s office to carry out the search. The first applicant objected to the search. He stated that the flat was private property and, accordingly, any search of it could be carried out only on the basis of a court decision, as required by Article 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further stated that the documents requested by the investigator had been entrusted to him by K. in his capacity as the company’s lawyer and, by virtue of section 10 of the Bar Act, could not be seized without his consent.\n13.  The investigator ignored the first applicant’s objections and commenced the search. In the course of the search a number of K.’s documents, including some dated before 2001, were seized.\n14.  The two attesting witnesses countersigned the search report compiled by the investigator. The witnesses were born in 1984 and at the relevant time were studying at the Donbas Machinery Building Academy. Subsequently, in the course of “pre-investigation” enquiries, the two witnesses confirmed that the first applicant repeatedly informed the investigator that the searched premises were the individuals’ private property.\n15.  On 6 May 2005 the seized documents were attached to the criminal case file as material evidence.\n16.  On 2 August 2005 the decision of 4 April 2005 instituting criminal proceedings against the officials of company K. was quashed as unfounded.\n17.  On 6 and 11 May 2005 the applicants complained to several prosecutors’ offices at various levels about the search of their premises. They requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against thos", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6915", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Płock.\n6.  On 30 May 2004 the applicant was arrested. Two days later, on 1 June 2004 the Gostynin District Court decided to remand him in custody.\n7.  By a judgment of 27 June 2005 the Płock Regional Court found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and other offences and sentenced him to 25 years’ imprisonment. On 3 November 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment.\n8.  On an unspecified later date the court granted the applicant’s request to assign a legal-aid lawyer to the case for the purposes of filing a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.\n9.  In a letter of 6 February 2006 the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer informed the Warsaw Court of Appeal that she had found no grounds on which to lodge a cassation appeal.\n10.  By a letter of 7 February 2006 the Registry of the Warsaw Court of Appeal forwarded the legal-aid lawyer’s statement to the applicant. The letter read as follows:\n“The Registry of the Warsaw Court of Appeal ... forwards, enclosed, a copy of a letter of your legal-aid lawyer, for your information. Please be informed that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal expires on 13 February 2006.”\n11.  This Warsaw Court’s of Appeal letter, together with the legal-aid lawyer’s letter of 6 February 2006, were served on the applicant on an unspecified date after 7 February 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6916", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Yerevan.\n6.  The applicant is a lawyer by profession.\n7.  On 10 June 2005 the investigator decided to institute criminal proceedings. The relevant decision stated:\n“...having studied the materials received from the [National Security Service of Armenia] concerning the preparation and use by ... [the applicant] of obviously false documents in June and July 2003 and misappropriation [by him] of a third person’s property entrusted to him ..., and considering that the materials contain features of offences envisaged by Article 179 § 3 (1) and Article 325 § 1 of the Criminal Code [CC] ... I have decided to institute criminal proceedings...”\n8.  On 4, 15 and 28 July 2005 the applicant was summoned to the General Prosecutor’s Office and questioned as a witness in the context of the above criminal proceedings.\n9.  On 7 October 2005 the applicant was again summoned to the General Prosecutor’s Office where, from 7.50 to 9.50 p.m., he participated in a confrontation with another witness, A.H.\n10.  On the same date at 9.50 p.m. the investigator drew up an arrest record, in which it was stated that the applicant was arrested at that hour on suspicion of having misappropriated a large sum of money in collusion with A.H. by using forged documents. It appears that another person, T.A., was also suspected of involvement in those offences.\n11.  On 10 October 2005 the applicant was formally charged under Article 178 § 3 (1) and Article 325 § 2 of the CC.\n12.  On the same date the investigator filed a motion with the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, seeking to have the applicant detained for a period of two months. The investigator substantiated his motion with the fact that the applicant had committed a grave crime, that if he stayed at large he might obstruct the examination of the case during the pre-trial and court proceedings by falsifying documents, making public the data collected in the investigation and other means, that he had refused to testify and to answer questions when interviewed as a witness and that he had misappropriated a particularly large amount of money. It appears that two volumes of materials relating to the criminal case were submitted to the court in support of this motion.\n13.  On the same date at 8.20 p.m. the District Court, presided by one judge, started the examination of the investigator’s motion in the presence of the applicant and his ten lawyers. It appears that the hearing was held in the judge’s office.\n14.  At the beginning of the court hearing the applicant’s lawyers requested that a copy of the investigator’s motion be provided to them. The investigator argued that there was no such requirement under the law and it was sufficient to read out the motion. The court nevertheless ordered that a copy of the motion be provided to the applicant’s lawyers and announced a ten-minute recess in order for them to acquaint themselves with it.\n15.  Following the recess, one of the applicant’s lawyers asked the court whether he had a right to submit written objections against the motion and, if so, whether he was entitled to be provided with sufficient time to do so. The presiding judge replied that only oral objections could be submitted and that time could be requested after the presentation of the motion by the investigator. The lawyer further asked the court whether he had a right to acquaint himself with the materials on which the investigator’s motion was base", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6917", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Ms Erla Hlynsdóttir, is an Icelandic national who was born in 1978 and lives in Reykjavík. She is a journalist working for the newspaper DV. In February 2009, a Mr A contacted the applicant about a story which he asked to be published by DV. According to Mr A’s account Mr B, a person known for being violent and whose acts of violence had recently been commented on in the press, had attacked him at his strip club, called Strawberries. He had allegedly done so on the order of the owner of a rival strip club. The applicant responded that she would look into the story and would contact Mr B in order to hear his account and also the owner of the rival strip club. Being dissatisfied with the applicant’s reply, Mr A insisted that his version of events be published. The applicant refused to do so and decided to carry out research in relation to Mr A’s account. She interviewed him and recorded the interview on tape.\n6.  On 26 February 2009 DV published a news report by the applicant entitled “Strip Kings Battle”, on the subject of Mr A’s accusations against Mr B with regard to the alleged assault at the Strawberries strip club. The article referred to interviews with Mr A, Mr B and Mr Y.\n7.  Mr A was reported to have stated that on the night before 7 February 2009, Mr B had been among the patrons of Strawberries accompanied by two other men. He left the club in the course of the night, but returned just before closing time, when he allegedly attacked the employees of the restaurant. Following this Mr A had tried to show him out. Suddenly Mr B attacked Mr A and struck him with his fist, as a result of which he sustained a cracked skull and severe injuries to his eye. Mr A reported the incident to the police.\n8.  Mr B., whose interview with the applicant was published in the same news coverage, was reported to have denied all the accusations made by Mr A. According to Mr B, he and his two friends had been out partying and had decided to visit the Strawberries club. They had only been there for a short while when Mr A insisted that they leave. As they refused, the doormen forcibly removed Mr B. In the commotion both he and Mr A had been injured.\n9.  Mr A instituted defamation proceedings against the applicant before the Reykjavík District Court, arguing that the following statement made by Mr B amounted to unlawful defamation in breach of Articles 234, 235 and/or 236 of the Penal Code and requested that it be declared null and void (dauð og ómerk) under Article 241(1):\nItem 1\n“He [the plaintiff] has been spreading all around town the rumour that no one with an attitude would come to Strawberries, because he has the Lithuanian mafia in there, and that I was just taken and beaten up in there. I don’t really get this. He really needs to make up his mind whether he thinks I was beaten up or he was.”\n10.  He also submitted that the following sub-heading amounted to unlawful defamation and should be declared null and void:\nItem 2\n“Rumour about the mafia”\n11.  Mr A in addition sought 2,000,000 Icelandic krónur (ISK) (corresponding approximately to 13,850 euros (EUR) at the time) plus interest in compensation for damages, an order under Article 241(2) to pay him ISK 500,000 to cover the costs of publication in the press of the court’s reasons and conclusion in the defamation case, plus legal costs.\n12.  In her pleadings before the District Court, the applicant prayed in aid the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 73 of the Ice", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6918", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mrs Björk Eiðsdóttir, is an Icelandic national who was born in 1974 and lives in Reykjavík. At the material time she worked as a journalist for Vikan, a weekly magazine.\n6.  In 2007 there was a public debate in the print and televised media in Iceland on whether the regulations pertaining to strip clubs should be made stricter or whether such clubs should be banned. In June 2007 a magazine named Ísafold published an article discussing the links between such clubs and prostitution. It maintained that the conditions of strip club dancers originating from eastern Europe could be compared to human trafficking as defined in the relevant United Nations instruments.\n7.  Subsequently, Vikan published in its issue no. 31 interviews with three east European women who worked at a strip club called Goldfinger owned by Mr Y. They had stated that they were happy working for Mr Y and that the critical remarks made about strip clubs could only be explained by the envy of certain other women. In the same issue, Vikan published the interviews of two anonymous strip dancers who described negative aspects of their jobs, namely that it was accompanied by prostitution and drug addiction.\n8.  Thereafter Vikan was contacted by a young Icelandic woman, Mrs Z, who offered to tell her story. She was a former strip dancer who had worked at several strip clubs and had worked for Mr Y. She said that she had felt offended at seeing strip dancing being portrayed as a glamorous career. Mrs Z met the applicant for an interview, which the applicant tape recorded and then typed up on the basis of the recording. The applicant sent the typed version to Mrs Z by e-mail for confirmation and consent to publish the story. Mrs Z responded in the affirmative.\n9.  On 23 August 2007 Vikan published in its issue no. 34 an article based on the interview conducted by the applicant with Mrs Z. An introduction referred to the above-mentioned coverage in issue no. 31. In the interview, Mrs Z described her work as a striptease dancer in various establishments, notably at Goldfinger owned Mr Y. The article, which had a number of sub-headings, comprised, inter alia, Mrs Z’s description of prostitution which she was reported to have said went on unhindered in these establishments, for example at Goldfinger; her drug addiction after she had started working as a striptease dancer; and threats she had been subjected to in connection with her work. The front cover of the magazine displayed a photograph of Mrs Z, which was also found on the first inside page of the magazine next to an editorial by Mrs G.E.A., the magazine’s editor, dealing with the above-mentioned article. Photographs of Mrs Z also featured on the title page of the article, next to its main text and a photograph of Mr Y.\n10.  Alongside the latter photograph it was stated that the magazine had contacted him and had asked his opinion about Mrs Z’s account that he “encourage[d] girls who work[ed] for him to engage in prostitution and act[ed] as an intermediary in this respect”. It was further stated:\n“[Mr Y] totally rejected this. ‘I can categorically state that not one of my girl employees is encouraged to engage in prostitution. But, on the other hand, I cannot prohibit acts by them in their free time.’ When it was put to him that prostitution reportedly took place within the walls of his club, his answer was that this was not, to his knowledge, true to fact. ‘This is simply a tremendous lie and it seems that th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6919", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Urus-Martan. She is the mother of Ruslanbek (also spelled as Rustambek) Vakhayev, who was born in 1974.\n5.  At the material time the Urus-Martan district was under the full control of the Russian federal forces. A strict curfew was enforced in the area. Military checkpoints manned by Russian servicemen were located on the roads leading to and from the town of Urus-Martan and other settlements in the district. One of the checkpoints, called “Roshnya” (“Рошня”) (from the documents submitted it follows that it was also known as KPP-206 (контрольно-пропускной пункт 206)), was located on the south-west outskirts of Urus-Martan, on the road leading from Urus‑Martan to the village of Roshni-Chu.\n6.  On 5 October 2001 Ruslanbek Vakhayev and his friend Mr M.D. drove in the latter’s white VAZ-2106 car with registration number K674XT95 from Urus-Martan to Roshni-Chu. The young men were going to visit Mr M.D.’s fiancé to discuss wedding plans. On the way to Roshni‑Chu they picked up a woman with an ill child to give them a lift. The woman was returning to the village after seeing a doctor at the Urus‑Martan central district hospital.\n7.  At about 4 p.m. the car was stopped by military servicemen at the “Roshnya” checkpoint for an identity check. After the check the officers told the passengers that they were detaining the driver, Mr M.D., and ordered everyone to get out of the car.\n8.  After that the servicemen started to beat Mr M.D. Ruslanbek Vakhayev tried to talk to the officers, but one of them pulled the cap off his head and threw it on the ground. Then Ruslanbek hit the officer in the face. Next the servicemen started to beat him with rifle-butts and kicks and closed the passage through the checkpoint. As a result, a large crowd of local residents gathered at the roadblock awaiting the opening of the passage and witnessing the beating of Ruslanbek Vakhayev and Mr M.D. The servicemen did not allow anybody to approach and opened gunfire to keep the crowd away.\n9.  One of the officers called someone via his portable radio set. Shortly afterwards an APC (armoured personnel carrier) arrived at the checkpoint. The servicemen forced Ruslanbek Vakhayev into the APC and Mr M.D. into the boot of his white VAZ-2106 car. The latter managed to shout his name and address into the crowd and asked the witnesses to inform his relatives about the arrest.\n10.  After that the APC and the white VAZ-2106 car drove away in the direction of the town centre of Urus-Martan.\n(b)  Subsequent events\n11.  On 6 October 2001 the applicant’s daughter, Ms M.V., went to Mr M.D.’s relatives to find out the whereabouts of her brother Ruslanbek, who had not returned home the night before.\n12.  The mother of Mr M.D. told her that she had heard about the arrest of two young Chechen men in a white VAZ-2106 car on 5 October 2001 at the checkpoint located on the road leading from Urus-Martan to Roshni‑Chu.\n13.  The applicant’s daughter returned home and informed the family about the events at the checkpoint. Then the applicant and her relatives went to the building of the Urus-Martan temporary district department of the interior (the VOVD) in the town centre to find out whether the State authorities had any information about their relative. The applicant joined the crowd of local residents which had gathered outside the building. The applicant asked around whether anyone had heard about the arrest of two men at the checkpoint. Several w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6920", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1958 and, as far as the Court is aware, lives in London.\n7.  On 5 September 2003 the Utrecht Regional Court (rechtbank) found the applicant guilty of being a co-perpetrator of the offence of transporting a shipment of tablets containing a psychotropic substance the trade of which is illegal in all countries concerned, namely 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (“MDMA” for short, known in its street pill form as “ecstasy” or “XTC” – the latter designation will be used in this judgment hereafter) from the Netherlands to Germany with the intention of ultimately shipping it to Australia. According to the judgment, the XTC was to be hidden in the cylinders and crankcases of motor car engines that would then be shipped to a business, H. Autosport, in Sydney, New South Wales, which company had been set up by the applicant with a view to importing engine parts from Europe. The applicant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.\n8.  The proceedings against the applicant were held separately from the proceedings against his co-accused, amongst whom were A., M. and the applicant’s father, Mr K. Vidgen. The suspects A. and M. were in fact put on trial in Germany. On 13 November 2002 they were convicted and given prison sentences by the Regional Court (Landgericht) of Aachen in Germany for their part in the crimes. They had both made full confessions and given detailed statements to the German prosecutors, a fact that was taken into account in sentencing.\n9.  At no point throughout the criminal proceedings against him did the applicant deny that he had been involved in shipping motor car engines to his business in Sydney. However, he denied all knowledge of the use of those engines to smuggle XTC and hence any criminal intent directed towards that end. His defence was focused on this point.\n10.  Virtually all the evidence presented before the Utrecht Regional Court to prove the applicant’s intent and participation in committing the offence was taken from the statements given by M. to the German prosecutors and later on to Netherlands police investigators during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings against the applicant. Particular weight was given to statements M. had made with regard to a handwritten note, found in his dwelling, which contained the address of H. Autosport in Australia.\n11.  The applicant had repeatedly requested to be allowed to question M. since neither he nor his counsel had been present when M. had given these statements. At a hearing on 14 May 2003 the Regional Court noted that both parties had, in the meantime, been to Germany to question the witnesses A. and M. The applicant however specified that the German investigating judge had done all the questioning and that he himself had not been able to put any questions to the witnesses. It also appeared that M. had refused to answer questions or repeat the statements he had made previously. Furthermore, the prosecutor stated that there had appeared to be a problem with the interpreter assisting the witness M. The applicant requested further questioning of the witnesses so that he would actually be able to put his own questions to them.\n12.  At the same hearing the Regional Court decided that the statements given to the German prosecutor by A. and M. would be added to the case file together with the records of their German trial.\n13.  In its judgment of 5 September 2003, the Regional Court, finding that the applicant had been able to put question", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6921", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Pécel.\n6.  The applicant was a civil servant working in the service of an administrative inspectorate. Applying Act no. LVIII of 2010 on the Legal Status of Government Officials (see below), her employer dismissed her from service on 27 September 2010 without giving any reasons for that dismissal.\n7.  The applicant did not challenge this measure in court, considering that in the absence of reasons for her dismissal, she could not sue her former employer with any prospect of success. The statutory time-limit in this respect expired on 26 October 2010.\n8.  On 18 February 2011 the Constitutional Court annulled as unconstitutional the impugned section 8(1) of Act no. LVIII of 2010, as of 31 May 2011 (see paragraph 16 below).\n9.  On 6 May 2011 the Constitutional Court gave a decision (see paragraph 17 below) concerning the non-applicability of laws, declared unconstitutional, in cases still pending before an ordinary court.\n10.  Act no. XX of 1949 (the Constitution in force at the material time) provided as follows:\nArticle 57\n“(1) In the Republic of Hungary, everyone shall be equal before the law and entitled to have any charges brought against him as well as his civil rights and obligations determined in a fair and public trial by an independent and impartial court established by law.”\nArticle 70\n“(6) All Hungarian citizens shall have the right to hold a public office in accordance with their suitability, qualifications and professional knowledge.”\n11.  Section 8(1) of Act no. LVIII of 2010 on the Legal Status of Government Officials, as in force between 6 July 2010 and 31 May 2011, provided that a civil servant could be dismissed from service, with a notice period of two months, without the employer giving any specific reasons for the dismissal.\n12.  Act no. CXXV of 2003 on Equal Treatment and the Promotion of Equal Opportunities provides as follows:\nSection 8\n“Provisions resulting in a situation where one person or group is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on account of their real or presumed\na) sex, b) racial origin, c) colour, d) nationality, e) belonging to a national or ethnic minority, f) mother tongue, g) disability, h) state of health, i) religious or ideological conviction, j) political or other opinion, k) family status, l) motherhood (pregnancy) or fatherhood, m) sexual orientation, n) sexual identity, o) age, p) social origin, q) financial status, r) the part-time nature of an employment or other work relationship, s) membership in an interest representation organisation, t) other status, attribute or characteristic (hereinafter collectively: characteristics)\nshall amount to direct negative discrimination.”\nSection 19\n“(1) In proceedings instituted on account of a violation of the equal treatment requirement, the injured party or the party entitled to assert public interest claims shall substantiate that:\na) the injured person or group has suffered a disadvantage, or – in case of asserting public interest claims – an imminent danger thereof exists, and\nb) the injured party or group did at the time when the violation of law was committed – actually or according to the presumption of the violator – possess a characteristic specified in Article 8.\n(2) If the case described in subsection (1) has been substantiated, the other party shall bear the burden of proving that:\na) the circumstances substantiated by the injured par", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6922", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Bitola. He is a taxi driver.\n6.  On 2 November 2005 an investigating judge of the Bitola Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) heard, in the presence of the public prosecutor alone, oral evidence from E.J and R.M., suspected migrants from Albania (“the migrants”), who had attempted to enter Greece illegally from the territory of the respondent State. Both of them waived the right to an interpreter and gave evidence in Macedonian. According to the court record, they gave details as regards their travel from Albania to Bitola, a city located near the border with Greece. Both confirmed that at Bitola bus station, they had asked a taxi driver to take them to Greece, but the latter had refused because they had no travel documents.\n7.  E.J. further stated:\n“... My friend R. (referring to R.M.) stopped another taxi driver. He was the one who drove us to a water canal. We told him that we wanted to go to Greece and that we didn’t have any travel documents, but he said: ‘I will take you, but each of you will have to pay 160 euros (EUR)’. We immediately paid. While driving, he advised us, in case the police appeared, to leave the car and run. In case we were apprehended, we were supposed to deny that we knew him or that he knew what our final destination was. We arrived at some place and he told us which way to follow. He told us that we would reach a water canal. After we crossed it, we ... would be in Greece. Before we got into the cab, the driver told us: ‘I served three years’ imprisonment in Greece and I know how to get people into Greece’ ... After he had told us which way to go, he went back. We continued walking and we reached the canal. We couldn’t cross it because it was full of water. We went back. ... The police stopped us... The cab was white ... The taxi driver did not give any money back to me. My friend R. was sitting in the front seat, he talked with him ... We haggled about the price, namely that EUR 160 was too much, that we didn’t have money, but he told us: ‘it’s impossible, if the police arrest me, I’ll go to jail.’”\n8.  R.M. stated:\n“... We stopped a taxi driver who asked where we would like to go. E. and I told him that we wanted to go to Greece. He asked if we had any travel documents, [like] a passport [or] licence, [and] we said that we were not in possession of any. He told us: ‘if you have no documents, I can take you through another road where there are no police, but you have to pay EUR 160 each or EUR 320 in total’. We told him that we didn’t have a lot of money, so he reduced the price to EUR 100 each. Actually, we paid EUR 160 each, we entered the cab and while driving, we asked him to reduce the price. He agreed to drive us for EUR 100 each and when we stopped, he returned the remainder. We arrived at some place, he hid the car and told us: ‘you’ll take this road, you’ll reach a water canal, which you’ll cross ... and you’ll be in Greece’. He left us there and he went back to Bitola. We walked, as he advised us, towards the canal, but we couldn’t cross it because it was full of water. We joined the road again, I know that we saw a restaurant, then we passed by a police station. We continued walking and after a kilometre, two police officers stopped us ... The taxi driver that drove us ... had a white cab ... While driving, he (the taxi driver) told us ‘if the police stop you, you’ll say that you have paid EUR 10 each and you won’t say that you don’t have visa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6925", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Jilava Prison.\n7.  On 30 January 1996 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.\n8.  On 3 November 1998 the Bucharest Regional Court sentenced the applicant to twenty years’ imprisonment for murder.\n9.  On 14 April 1999 Bucharest Appeal Court allowed an appeal by the prosecution and increased the applicant’s sentence to twenty-five years’ imprisonment.\n10.  On 28 October 1999, before the Supreme Court (now the Court of Cassation), the applicant orally withdrew his appeal, as can be seen from the court decision. According to that decision, the applicant was assisted by an officially assigned lawyer but not by an interpreter. The decision of 14 April 1999 became final.\n11.  The applicant was detained in the following prisons:\n- from 9 May 1996 until 19 April 1998 he was detained in Jilava Prison;\n- from 19 April to 30 April 1998 he was detained in the hospital of Jilava Prison;\n- from 30 April to 12 May 1998 he was detained in Rahova Prison;\n- from 12 May 1998 until 9 February 1999 he was detained in Jilava Prison;\n- from 9 February 1999 until 21 February 2009 he was detained in Rahova Prison;\n- from 21 February 2009 until 2011 he was detained in Giurgiu Prison;\n- since 2011 he has been detained in Jilava Prison.\n12.  The parties disagreed as to the conditions of detention in Jilava and Rahova prisons.\n13.  The applicant alleges that while he was in Jilava Prison there were sixty people in one cell, and two or three people had to share each bed. He was moved on numerous occasions to different cells, which were all overcrowded.\nThe water was contaminated and had worms in it, and the food was of very poor quality. This caused the applicant’s hospitalisation for ten days in April 1998 for enterocolitis.\nThe heating was very low in winter and there was no ventilation in summer. Half the showers were not working and this, coupled with the overcrowding, made it very difficult to take a shower.\n14.  The applicant alleges that the cells in Rahova Prison were overcrowded. There were always twelve or thirteen detainees for every ten beds and occasionally people had to sleep on the floor. He alleges that to have a bed in the cell detainees had to pay, or else use force.\n15.  In a written statement signed by Mr T.X.L., a cellmate of the applicant ‘in 1996-97 in Jilava Prison, Mr T.X.L. wrote that the inmates were hungry and that he and the applicant had eaten snakes, cats and dogs.\n16.  A statement signed by B.S.A. alleged that the drinking water and the food at Jilava Prison contained worms and that there were cockroaches in the cells.\n17.  The Government argued that, in relation to the conditions of detention in Jilava Prison, it could not give any information concerning the dimensions of the cells, the number of beds and the available space.\n18.  The Government presented a written statement from the National Prison Authority (hereafter NPA) arguing that the food provided in Jilava Prison was fresh and respected the rules of hygiene and standards on calorie intake.\n19.  The Government acknowledged that the detained persons were regularly searched in order to remove prohibited items such as snakes, cats and dogs. The Government contended however that on no occasion did the applicant introduce such things into his cell.\n20.  The Government argued that drinking water was provided at all times, except on days when the system was being repaired, or during the summer when it was not ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6926", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Čepin.\n5.  On 29 August 2006 the Osijek Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Osijeku) indicted the applicant in the Osijek Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Osijeku) on charges of fraud and business fraud, claiming that, acting as a director of companies D.L.L. and M.C., he had defrauded companies A. and R. by using fraudulent payment instruments in exchange for goods which his companies received from A. and R. in the period between 10 August 2005 and 13 December 2005 and on 24 April 2006.\n6.  On 27 October 2006 the trial court commissioned a report from an accounting expert, D.D.\n7.  On 7 November 2006 D.D. submitted his report to the Osijek Municipal Court. He found that M.C.’s bank account had been frozen at the time when it had engaged in business transactions with company A. He also found that D.L.L.’s bank account had not been frozen at the time of its business transactions with company A., but that its account had been frozen at the time of its business transactions with company R.\n8.  At a hearing held on 17 November 2006 D.D. gave oral evidence. He confirmed all his findings in the report. The parties made no objections to the report, nor did they put any questions to D.D. The applicant’s lawyer asked that the prosecution submit all documents they had seized from the applicant so that they could be examined by D.D. The trial court requested further documents from the police and two commercial banks.\n9.  At a hearing held on 12 December 2006 D.D. asked for an additional period to examine the documents submitted by the two banks.\n10.  At a hearing on 16 January 2007 the applicant’s lawyer reiterated his request that the police be ordered to submit all business documentation they had seized from the applicant concerning companies D.L.L. and M.C. The trial court accepted the request.\n11.  On 12 February 2007 D.D. submitted an additional report. He reiterated his previous findings and also explained the manner and nature of the business transactions in issue.\n12.  At a hearing held on 9 March 2007 D.D. gave further oral evidence. The applicant’s lawyer and the applicant put no questions to D.D. and made no objection to his report.\n13.  On 28 June 2007 the applicant’s lawyer submitted written observations before the Osijek Municipal Court. He commented on the reports drawn up by D.D. in setting out the defence’s arguments. His observations were forwarded to D.D.\n14.  On 13 July 2007 D.D. submitted written observations in which he expressly reiterated all his previous findings and highlighted certain sentences from his reports. He also disagreed with the conclusions drawn from his reports by the defence.\n15.  At a hearing held on 18 July 2007 the judge conducting the proceedings presented D.D.’s written observations of 13 July 2007 to the parties and read them out. Two large envelopes containing documents submitted by the police were also presented to the parties and read out in court.\nThe applicant’s lawyer asked the trial court to request information from the Serbian authorities about the applicant’s detention in that country or to examine witnesses Mat.G. and Mar.G., who he stated could confirm that the applicant had been in detention in Serbia between January and mid-February 2006 and that he had therefore been unable to conduct business affairs in the relevant period. He also suggested that these witnesses could confirm that all goods that the applicant’s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6927", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Yegultys, Kemerovo Region.\n6.  On 18 December 1998 the Kiselevsk Town Department of the Interior opened a criminal investigation in respect of a robbery and theft of a car. According to undisclosed sources, the stolen car was being kept in a garage belonging to the applicant’s husband.\n7.  On 26 December 1998 six policemen, V., R., Sn., St., Bl. and Bk. went to the applicant’s house, in three cars, to follow up on the information received from the source. V. knocked on the door and opened it himself. In the house, he saw the applicant and her eleven-year old daughter. He showed his ID to the applicant and the policemen entered the house. They saw a gun holster on a hook in the hallway and asked the applicant about it and the whereabouts of her husband. The applicant shouted at them and ordered them to leave. She went outside with them and told her daughter to lock the entrance door. She threatened to set her dogs on the policemen. In order to neutralise the applicant and to prevent her from interfering with the inspection of the courtyard, V. held her by the arms and put her into one of the police cars. The applicant got out of the car and kicked R., who tried to stop her, in the groin. At this point she slipped and fell down. She bit R.’s fingers. R. got his hand free and together with St. handcuffed the applicant and put her back in the car.\n8.  Meanwhile, Sn. went to the sauna which was in the courtyard. The applicant’s husband was there. When Sn. explained the purpose of their visit, he let them into the house. R. brought the applicant in and took off the handcuffs. The applicant’s husband showed them his guns and the relevant documents. They also looked into the garage. The stolen car was not there and the policemen left.\n9.  On 26 December 1998 the applicant and her eleven-year old daughter were in their house. Her husband and their ten-year old son were in the sauna in the courtyard. At 6 p.m. seven men burst into the house. The first one hit her immediately in the face “to bring her to her senses”, as he put it. She asked for a search warrant and for civilian witnesses to be present: the same man hit her again. She asked the men to leave. They said that they would not leave until they had turned the place upside down. The applicant ran out of the house to call the neighbours. The men ran after her. She told the daughter to lock the door, which she did. The men tried to break down the door. Then one of them suggested breaking a window instead. They asked where her husband was. She told them that he was in the sauna. The men seemed surprised. They thought he should have been in prison. The applicant shouted for help. She ran, and got as far as the gate, but the men knocked her down, pushed her face into the snow and kicked her. One of them tried to gag her with a glove. Someone pulled her by the hair and dragged her to the car. They handcuffed her. They hit her head against the car. One of them grabbed her neck and tightened their grip. They kicked her and tore her mouth. Then they put her in the car. One man stayed by the car to guard her and the rest of them went back into the house.\n10.  On 26 December 1998 the applicant was admitted to hospital. According to the applicant’s medical file maintained by the hospital, the applicant was diagnosed with a contusion of the left kidney, a closed abdominal contusion (закрытая травма живота), a contusion of the front abdominal wall (ушиб пе", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6928", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n(1) Ms Yakhita Ilayeva, born in 1959;\n(2) Ms Larisa Ilayeva, born in 1987;\n(3) Ms Luiza Ilayeva, born in 1985;\n(4) Mr Dzhokhar (also spelled as Dzhakhar) Ilayev, born in 1995;\n(5) Ms Mariyam (also spelled as Maryam) Ibragimova, born in 1957;\n(6) Mr Adam Ilayev, born in 1994;\n(7) Ms Pyatimat Ibragimova, born in 1925;\n(8) Ms Elizaveta (also spelt as Liza) Batayeva, born in 1962; and\n(9) Ms Taus Islamova, born in 1936.\n6.  The first, second, third and fourth applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya; the fifth and sixth applicants live in Assinovskaya (also spelled as Assinovskoye), in the Sunzhenskiy district of Chechnya; the seventh applicant lives in Shalazhi, Chechnya; the eighth applicant lives in Ordzhenikidzevskaya, Ingushetia; and the ninth applicant lives in Nesterevskaya, Ingushetia.\n7.  The applicants represent four related families. The first applicant is the mother of Inver Ilayev, who was born in 1982. The second and third applicants are his sisters and the fourth applicant is his brother. The fifth applicant is the mother of Adlan Ilayev, who was born in 1987. The sixth applicant is his brother and the seventh applicant is his grandmother. The eighth applicant is the mother of Kazbek Batayev (also spelt Bataev), who was born in 1983. The ninth applicant is the mother of Rustam Ilayev, who was born in 1974.\n8.  At the material time, the village of Assinovskaya was under the total control of the Russian federal forces. Military checkpoints manned by Russian servicemen were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement. One of the checkpoints, called Kavkaz (Кавказ), was located on the way out of the village, at the intersection of the Assinovskoye‑Sernovodskoye road and the Rostov-Baku motorway.\n9.  On 3 July 2004 the applicants and their relatives, including Inver Ilayev, Rustam Ilayev, Adlan Ilayev and Kazbek Batayev, painted and carried out repairs to the fifth applicant’s house in Assinovskaya.\n10.  Inver Ilayev, Rustam Ilayev, Adlan Ilayev and Kazbek Batayev worked until late at night. After midnight, the young men went to the first applicant’s house to spend the night. A number of other relatives, including the second and third applicants, also slept that night at the house, which was located at 95 Fiftieth Anniversary of the October Revolution Street (улица 50-летия Октября) in Assinovskaya.\n11.  At about 4 a.m. on 4 July 2004 the first applicant woke up from the sound of someone walking in the house. A group of about ten armed masked men in camouflage uniforms broke into the room where Inver Ilayev, Rustam Ilayev, Adlan Ilayev and Kazbek Batayev were sleeping. Two of the intruders went into the first applicant’s bedroom; several intruders remained in the yard. The first applicant and her relatives thought that these men were Russian military servicemen.\n12.  The officers, who spoke unaccented Russian, gathered all of the family members – except for Inver Ilayev, Rustam Ilayev, Adlan Ilayev and Kazbek Batayev – together in the corner of one room. They did not ask for any identity documents and did not provide any explanations for their actions.\n13.  The first applicant and her relatives could see from the adjacent room that the servicemen started swearing at Inver Ilayev, Rustam Ilayev, Adlan Ilayev and Kazbek Batayev and beating them. Then they ordered the applicants’ relatives to get up and took them outside one by one. The officers did not let the other family members leave the room they w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6931", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and is curently detained in Gherla Prison.\n7.  On 2 April 2003 the applicant was convicted of vandalism, assault and disturbance of public order and sentenced to 472 days’ imprisonment by a judgment rendered by the Zalău District Court. The judgment became final on 2 July 2003 when the Sălaj County Court dismissed the appeal lodged against it by the prosecutor’s office.\n8.  During the criminal proceedings the applicant was detained in Satu Mare Prison in connection with another offence he had committed, but he attended the hearings before the court of first instance. He was released from that prison on 18 May 2003.\n9.  According to the information provided by the applicant, he did not attend the final hearings before the Sălaj County Court. He admitted that he had received a copy of the final decision, which had been delivered to his home on 2 July 2003, informing him that he had been convicted and sentenced to 472 days’ imprisonment.\n10.  On 28 July 2003 an arrest warrant for the execution of the sentence was issued in respect of the applicant but could not be executed as he had absconded.\n11.  Acting on information that the applicant was at his home in the village of Creaca, on the morning of 18 August 2003, at about 6 a.m., eight police officers, together with the head of the local police and his deputy, went to the applicant’s home in order to arrest him. The decision to operate in such a large number was taken on the ground that the applicant had antecedents of aggressive behaviour, his previous conviction being for assaulting a police officer.\n12.  When they arrived outside the applicant’s home, the police officers ordered the applicant to surrender to custody, but he did not reply. Knowing that he was inside, an operational group composed of four police officers forced the door and entered. As it was dark in the house, police officer L.L. did not see the applicant, who hit him on the head with a stone. While the other police officers were trying to immobilise him the applicant tried to seize an axe and, before being immobilised, he bit one of police officer H.N.’s fingers. He was handcuffed and transported by car to the Sălaj Police Station.\n13.  The injured police officer was immediately hospitalised. According to a forensic report drafted after the events, he had suffered a cranial trauma and a fractured skull, which put his life in danger, and he needed between forty and forty-five days of medical treatment to recover.\n14.  According to the applicant, he was beaten by the police both on his arrest on 18 August 2003 and in the course of police questioning at the police station.\n15.  Following the incident, the prosecutor’s office attached to the Sălaj District Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for attempted murder and assault.\n16.  He was heard first on 19 August 2003 at the police station. He stated that he was aware that he had been sentenced to imprisonment in July 2003 for previous offences he had committed.\n17.  On 13 November 2003 the applicant gave a statement to the prosecutor’s office. He stated again that he knew about his conviction and expressly refused to appoint a lawyer of his choice. On the same day a new arrest warrant relating to the new charges against him was issued.\n18.  On 19 November 2003 the applicant was informed that the investigation was complete. He was invited to study the case file. He again refused to appoint a lawyer, and was assisted by", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6932", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Vienna.\n6.  The applicant had been an employee of the embassy of the United States of America in Vienna since March 1978. From January 1981 onwards she had a contract of indefinite duration and worked as a photographer at the embassy. Following an accident in 1983 the competent authority issued a decision stating that she qualified for protection under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act (Invaliden­einstellungs­gesetz). Following a further accident, classified as work-related, the embassy dismissed her in September 1987.\n7.  Her dismissal was declared void by the Vienna Labour and Social Court (Arbeits- und Sozialgericht) on the ground that it required the prior agreement of the competent authority under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act. The court dismissed the argument submitted by the United States that it lacked jurisdiction on account of the United States’ immunity. It found that, while foreign States enjoyed immunity with regard to acta iure imperii, they came within the jurisdiction of the domestic courts with regard to acta iure gestionis. The conclusion and performance of an employment contract fell within the latter category. The Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichthof) upheld that judgment on 21 November 1990, noting that the United States had not maintained the objection of State immunity in the further course of the proceedings.\n8.  As a result of the above proceedings, the applicant continued to have a valid employment contract with the United States embassy in Vienna. However, the latter refused to make use of her services. Instead, on 31 January 1991, they applied to the Vienna Committee for Disabled Persons requesting retroactive approval of the applicant’s dismissal or, alternatively, agreement to a future dismissal. The Committee refused to grant retroactive approval for the applicant’s dismissal of September 1987 but gave its approval for a future dismissal. The competent Federal Ministry upheld that decision. On 13 September 1994 the Administrative Court, ruling on a complaint by the applicant, set aside the decision to grant approval for the applicant’s future dismissal, finding that the authorities had failed to establish relevant facts and had not duly weighed the parties’ interests. The case was referred back to the Committee. On 16 January 1996 the United States withdrew its application, stating that it had always maintained that the application of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act to employees of the embassy interfered with the country’s sovereignty.\n9.  Meanwhile, the applicant brought proceedings against the United States requesting payment of her salary. In a first set of proceedings, concerning salary payments up to June 1995, the United States unsuccessfully raised an objection of jurisdictional immunity. Subsequently, the United States paid the applicant salary arrears of 3.7 million Austrian schillings (approximately 269,000 euros (EUR)). On the occasion of the payment, the lawyer who had represented the United States in the proceedings informed the applicant by a letter dated 16 October 1996 that the payment did not imply any acceptance of the Austrian courts’ judgments and that the United States considered her employment contract to be terminated and would, if she raised any further claims, “make use of its diplomatic rights and immunities”.\n10.  Further proceedings relating to the payment of salary from July 1995 to August 1996 led to a final defau", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6934", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant, M.D., is the mother of two minor children, the second and third applicants, R.D. and A.D.\n7.  Following reports to the Aġenzija Appoġġ (which forms part of the Foundation for Social Welfare Services and has as its aim the enhancement of the lives of people in need, through the provision and availability of professional care and support), an investigation by specialised social workers was undertaken in respect of the family. Meetings took place between the parents, social workers, professionals (doctors, police and lawyers) and the directors of the relevant agency. Finally, on the recommendation of the Director of Social Welfare, on 14 July 2005 the Social Policy Minister issued a care order under Article 4 (1) of the Children and Young Persons (Care Orders) Act (“the Act”) placing the two minors, R.D. and A.D., in an institution run by nuns. By a decision of 17 August 2005, after having heard the first applicant’s objections, the Juvenile Court confirmed the care order. It further solicited the social services to complete the fostering assessment of the maternal grandparents to enable the children to reside with them if it was found to be in their best interest.\n8.  At the same time, criminal proceedings were brought against the first applicant and her partner, X., who is the alleged father of the minor children.\n9.  By a judgment of 16 March 2006 the Court of Magistrates as a court of criminal judicature found X. guilty of cruelty towards the two children and failure to protect them, causing them slight injuries, and of excessive correction of the two minors (under twelve years of age). X. was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. His appeal having been withdrawn, the judgment became final.\n10.  By the same judgment, M.D. was found guilty of cruelty towards the two children and failure to protect them, and excessive correction of the two minors (under twelve years of age). She was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, suspended for two years. M.D. appealed.\n11.  By a judgment of 4 August 2006 the Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment. Having assessed the evidence the court found that M.D. had been present when X. repeatedly beat the children, aged three and five, and, possibly because of his threats, had not had the courage to report him or ask the relevant authorities for assistance, with the result that the children were severely bruised. They also suffered from bald patches and lice-infested hair, symptoms of serious neglect on the part of the mother. She had also repeatedly behaved roughly towards her children. She was therefore guilty of the first charge by acts of commission and omission (in so far as she had not taken the requisite steps to protect her children). The court also confirmed her guilt regarding the charge of excessive correction of the two minors. Considering it appropriate, in the event that the children were ever returned to her, the court confirmed the sentence handed down by the first-instance court.\n12.  Under Maltese law the provisions of Article 197 (4) of the Criminal Code were applicable to a conviction for an offence under Article 247 A (see “Relevant domestic law” below).\n13.  At the start of the criminal proceedings the relationship between M.D. and X. ended. While the care order was in place, M.D. was given supervised contact with her children for one hour a week and eventually three hours a week. Later, in 2009, the children spent weekends and public holid", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6935", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Žilina.\n6.  On 26 November 2004 the Považská Bystrica District Court remanded the applicant in custody in connection with criminal proceedings in which he was accused of several offences.\n7.  On 20 May 2005 a public prosecutor indicted the applicant before the Považská Bystrica District Court.\n8.  On 10 August 2005 the applicant requested that he be released from detention. He argued that his detention under the decision of 26 November 2004 had expired on 25 May 2005 and that no decision had been taken to extend it.\n9.  The District Court dismissed the applicant’s request on 23 August 2005. On 12 September 2005 the Trenčín Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against that decision.\n10.  On 14 November 2005 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint alleging a breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.\n11.  On 15 November 2005 the District Court convicted the applicant of two offences and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. The judgment became final on the same day.\n12.  On 6 December 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the Regional Court, by its decision of 12 September 2005, had breached the applicant’s rights under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, his detention had been unlawful between 26 May 2005 and 15 November 2005, as the District Court had not delivered a decision extending the applicant’s detention.\n13.  The Constitutional Court quashed the Regional Court’s decision, awarded the equivalent of 1,970 euros (at that time) in compensation to the applicant and ordered the Regional Court to reimburse the costs of the applicant’s legal representation in the constitutional proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6936", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1964, 1949, 1965, 1959, 1952, 1937, 1951 and 1930 respectively and live in Floreşti.\n7.  In 2004 the applicants asked the Floreşti Regional Council (“the Regional Council”) to issue them with confirmation of the existence, in Floreşti, of a religious denomination of the Christian Orthodox Church (“the Church”), subordinate to the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia.\n8.  On an unknown date the Regional Council rejected the request, finding that another religious denomination of the Church, subordinate to the Metropolitan Church of Moldova, had already been registered in Floreşti since 1999. Moreover, there was an ongoing conflict between the two denominations and civil proceedings were in progress to determine which of them had the right to own certain church property.\n9.  The applicants initiated court proceedings, seeking a court order for the Regional Council to issue them with the relevant document, which was necessary for the official registration of the applicants’ church as a legal person.\n10.  On 24 December 2004 the Bălţi District Court rejected the application as unfounded.\n11.  On 30 March 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed that judgment and delivered a new one, finding in the applicants’ favour. It ordered the Regional Council to issue the relevant confirmation to the applicants. The court relied expressly on Articles 9 and 11 of the Convention in reaching its decision.\n12.  On 20 May 2005 the applicants asked the Enforcement Department of the Ministry of Justice to take action in order to enforce the final judgment in their favour.\n13.  On 25 November 2005 they formally submitted an enforcement warrant to the Floreşti Enforcement Office. That office accepted it on the same day.\n14.  On 1 December 2005 the enforcement authorities invited the Regional Council to abide by the judgment. On 23 December 2005 the Regional Council replied that it was “not opportune” to enforce the judgment at the time, given the ongoing conflict and legal proceedings. Enforcement had thus been postponed pending the outcome of the civil proceedings concerning the church property.\n15.  On 17 February 2006 an enforcement officer asked the court to clarify the manner of enforcing the judgment. By April 2006 the court had not yet examined that request.\n16.  On 17 March 2006 the Floreşti Enforcement Office repeatedly asked the Regional Council to enforce the judgment. Since the Regional Council again refused to comply, the enforcement officer asked the court to penalise its members. It is unknown whether penalties were applied.\n17.  Various complaints to the prosecuting authorities also remained unanswered.\n18.  On an unknown date in 2006 one of the applicants (Mr Petru Botezat) initiated civil court proceedings against the State Service for Religious Denominations, asking for the registration of the religious denomination which he represented. On 20 April 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal rejected the claim as unfounded. The court found that Mr Botezat had asked for the registration of a denomination with the same name and address as one already registered with the authorities, which was contrary to legal requirements. Moreover, the court noted the absence from the documents submitted by Mr Botezat of the confirmation by the Floreşti Regional Council of the existence of the religious denomination in question.\n19.  On 11 May 2007 the Moldovan Parliament adopted the Religious Denominations Act which eliminated, inter al", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6938", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1914 and lived in Ljubljana. He died in 2008.\n5.  On 1 September 1970 a decision by which the applicant’s house was expropriated in favour of the Municipality of Ljubljana became final.\n6.  In 1971, the municipality instituted non-contentious court proceedings to determine the amount of compensation due for the expropriated property. The applicant was a party to those proceedings.\n7.  By 1988, the first-instance court had ruled on the matter four times due to three remittals of the case by the second-instance court. The last judgment of the first-instance court, issued on 15 July 1988, was quashed by the Ljubljana Higher Court on 2 March 1989. The latter found that the facts had been insufficiently established. It ordered a re-examination of the case by the first-instance court.\n8.  In 1989 the proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of another set of proceedings in which the applicant challenged the validity of the expropriation. After a series of hearings cancelled at the request of the applicant, who maintained that other related sets of proceedings were still pending, the court again suspended the present set of proceedings. At a hearing on 5 April 2004 the applicant’s daughter, who was representing the applicant in the proceedings, informed the court that the denationalisation proceedings no. UE 351-307/93 concerning the real estate, apparently comprising the house in question and the land on which it was situated, were still ongoing. In September 2004 a hearing was cancelled as the case was being transferred to another judge. The latter took over the case in December 2005.\n9.  Hearings were held on 30 March and 20 April 2006. At a hearing of 8 June 2006 the applicant submitted, inter alia, that his claim for compensation with respect to the denationalisation of the same property was still pending before the Administrative Court.\n10.  On 7 June 2006 the applicant lodged an application with the Court, complaining of a violation of his right to trial within a reasonable time. On 11 December 2007 the Court declared the application inadmissible, finding that the applicant had failed to exhaust the remedies available under the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (Jama v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 29978/06).\n11.  In the meantime, at the hearing of 14 November 2007, the Ljubljana Local Court established that the proceedings concerning compensation with respect to the denationalisation of the property were pending before the Supreme Court. On 25 February 2008 the latter proceedings were terminated with a decision by which the applicant received compensation comprising state certificates for the nationalised land. His request for denationalisation of the house situated on that land was rejected.\n12.  On 21 February 2008 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Ljubljana Local Court. On 13 March 2008 the court informed the applicant that a hearing had been scheduled in his case.\n13.  At the hearing of 10 April 2008 the court established that the termination of the denationalisation proceedings had made it possible to continue the present set of proceedings concerning compensation for the expropriated house. The court appointed an expert in construction to prepare a report on the matter.\n14.  On 19 September 2008 the court issued a decision setting out the questions which the expert was requested to examine.\n15.  In the meantime, on 29 July 2008, the applicant lodged a su", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6940", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Kharkiv, Ukraine.\n6.  At 6 p.m. on 14 April 1998 the applicant and K. were apprehended by police officers Kh., Ko. and L. at a trolleybus stop and taken to the police station. Kh. later testified that the applicant and K. had been apprehended because they had been fighting with other young men, who had run off.\n7.  In the police station Kh. told the applicant to sit down. He then attached the applicant by handcuffs to a metal ring in the wall and sprayed him in the face with tear gas. Kh. then kicked the applicant in the chest and hit him several times on the head, neck and back. Kh. later produced written accounts, allegedly given by private individuals B. and Kl., stating that the applicant had behaved violently and that that was the reason for his apprehension. On the following morning the applicant was released.\n8.  The applicant was in hospital between 16 April and 19 May 1998. He was diagnosed with concussion, body and chest injuries and a fractured bone in his neck.\n9.  On 9 January 2002 the applicant was recorded as falling into the third category of disability (the mildest) on account of the injuries he had received.\n10.  In April 1998 the applicant requested the institution of criminal proceedings against Kh.\n11.  Between April and December 1998 various persons were questioned by the prosecutor’s office. In the meantime, on 5 June 1998 the police officially informed the applicant that he had been arrested for being drunk and molesting passers-by. On an unidentified date he was also informed that the police officers’ actions had been lawful. In August 1998 the police issued a certificate stating that no force had been used on the applicant («меры физического воздействия не применялись»).\n12.  On 29 October 1998 a forensic medical examination concluded that the applicant had sustained traumatic oedema on his neck, chest and hands, bruises on one hand and his chest, a closed craniocerebral injury, concussion and some broken bones in the neck. The injuries were classified as grievous bodily harm endangering life at the moment of infliction. They could have been inflicted in the circumstances described by the applicant.\n13.  On 8 December 1998 the Dzerzhynskyy District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the infliction of grievous bodily harm on the applicant (по факту заподіяння тяжких тілесних ушкоджень).\n14.  On 14 December 1998 the applicant was given the status of victim.\n15.  A forensic medical examination carried out in January 1999 reached similar conclusions to the one of 29 October 1998.\n16.  On 30 March 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against Kh. and joined to the criminal case instituted on 8 December 1998. Kh. was charged with infliction of grievous bodily harm, abuse of power with grave consequences, and forgery. According to the Government, on the same date the applicant lodged within criminal proceedings a civil claim against Kh.\n17.  On the same date it was decided not to institute criminal proceedings against Ko. and L. It was also decided that there was no evidence that the applicant and K. had resisted the police in any way.\n18.  In April 1999 the criminal case against Kh. was transferred to the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv.\n19.  Between May 1999 and September 2000 seven court hearings were scheduled but all of them were postponed for various reasons (hearing scheduled on a public holiday, judge being busy on anothe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6941", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Bayreuth. At the time of the events in issue in September 2003 he was living in Bingen, Rhineland-Palatinate, where he was studying mechanical engineering.\n7.  On 26 November 2003 the applicant’s mother, his brother and his sister (“the witnesses”) informed the police about an incident that had occurred during the night of 2-3 September 2003 at the applicant’s parents’ house in Wilhemsthal, Bavaria. The witnesses testified that the applicant, who cannot remember the incident, had strangled his sister and had attacked his brother with an axe before being overpowered by his parents. The applicant’s father did not press criminal charges and did not testify against the applicant.\n8.  The Coburg Public Prosecutor opened a criminal investigation against the applicant for attempted murder. On 8 December 2003 the witnesses repeated their statements before the investigating judge (Ermittlungsrichter) of the Kronach District Court in the presence of a police officer. The applicant was not informed of the hearing before the investigating judge. No counsel was appointed for him.\n9.  On 16 December 2003 the Kronach District Court issued a warrant for the applicant’s arrest. The applicant was arrested on 19 December 2003 and remanded in custody. By a decision of the Coburg Regional Court of 6 October 2004 the applicant was transferred to a psychiatric hospital pending trial.\n10.  On 28 February 2005 the Coburg Regional Court ordered that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital pursuant to section 63 of the Criminal Code (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).\nThe Regional Court found it established that on the evening of 2 September 2003 the applicant travelled from Bingen to his parents’ house in Wilhelmsthal. He entered the house with his own key without notifying his parents or his brother and sister of his arrival. During the night he went to his sister’s bedroom, strangled her and then attacked his brother with an axe causing him injuries on his head, hands, arms and legs. Once the applicant had been overpowered by his parents, the entire family gathered in the kitchen. The sister then drove the applicant’s heavily bleeding brother to hospital where two of his wounds were sutured. The applicant stayed with his family in his parent’s house until end of September 2003. During his stay he was provided with medical care by a local doctor who diagnosed him with having suffered an epileptic seizure. The applicant then returned to Bingen but made another unannounced visit to his parent’s house on 21 November 2003. Following this visit the applicant’s mother, brother and sister who feared a further attack by the applicant decided to inform the police about the incident in the night of 2-3 September 2003 and pressed criminal charges against the applicant on 26 November 2003 (see above § 7).\n11.  The Regional Court qualified the acts as two counts of assault occasioning grievous bodily harm (gefährliche Körperverletzung). It further held on the basis of expert opinions that the applicant had acted either in a state of diminished awareness of his actions due to epilepsy (epileptischer Dämmerzustand) or during a bout of paranoid schizophrenia and could therefore not be held responsible for the acts, pursuant to section 20 of the Criminal Code (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).\n12.  As regards the finding of facts, the Regional Court noted that the applicant did not have any r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6942", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Braunschweig.\n8.  The applicant and his late wife B.K., born in 1950, had lived together since 1978 and married in 1980. From 2002 onwards, B.K. had been suffering from total sensorimotor quadriplegia after falling in front of her doorstep. She was almost completely paralysed and needed artificial ventilation and constant care and assistance from nursing staff. She further suffered from spasms. According to the medical assessment, she had a life expectancy of at least fifteen more years. She wished to end what was, in her view, an undignified life by committing suicide with the applicant’s help. The couple contacted the Swiss assisted-suicide organisation, Dignitas, for assistance.\n9.  In November 2004 B.K. requested the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte – “the Federal Institute”) to grant her authorisation to obtain 15 grams of pentobarbital of sodium, a lethal dose of medication that would enable her to commit suicide at her home in Braunschweig.\n10.  On 16 December 2004 the Federal Institute refused to grant her that authorisation, relying on section 5(1) (6) of the German Narcotics Act (Betäubungsmittelgesetz – see “Relevant domestic law” below). It found that her wish to commit suicide was diametrically opposed to the purpose of the Narcotics Act, which was aimed at securing the necessary medical care for the individuals concerned. Authorisation could therefore only be granted for life-supporting or life-sustaining purposes and not for the purpose of helping a person to end his or her life.\n11.  On 14 January 2005 the applicant and his wife lodged an administrative appeal with the Federal Institute.\n12.  In February 2005 the applicant and his wife, who had to be transported lying on her back on a stretcher, travelled for approximately ten hours over a distance of more than 700 kilometres from Braunschweig to Zurich in Switzerland. On 12 February 2005 B.K. committed suicide there, assisted by Dignitas.\n13.  On 3 March 2005 the Federal Institute confirmed its earlier decision. In addition, it expressed doubts as to whether a State-approved right of an individual to commit suicide could be derived from Article 8. In any event, Article 8 could not be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the State to facilitate the act of suicide with narcotic drugs by granting authorisation to acquire a lethal dose of medication. A right to commit suicide would be inconsistent with the higher-ranking principle enshrined in Article 2 § 2 of the German Basic Law (see “Relevant domestic law” below), which laid down the “comprehensive” obligation of the State to protect life, inter alia by refusing to grant authorisation to obtain a lethal dose of a drug for the purpose of committing suicide.\n14.  Finally, the Federal Institute “informed” the applicant that he had no standing to lodge an administrative appeal as he lacked the need for legal protection (Rechtsschutzbedürfnis). In particular, the applicant could not improve his own position through an appeal, as his legal position had not been the subject of the administrative proceedings.\n15.  On 4 April 2005 the applicant lodged an action for a declaration that the decision of the Federal Institute had been unlawful (Fortsetzungsfeststellungsklage) and that it thus had a duty to grant his wife the requested authorisation.\n16.  On 21 February 2006 the Cologne Administrative Court (Verwaltun", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6943", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  The applicant is a veteran of the Polish Resistance during the Second World War and a former professional officer of the Polish Army. His veteran status on the grounds of his involvement in the underground Scouts movement during that war was recognised by an administrative decision given on an unspecified date by the Director of the Veterans’ Office.\n7.  For the last fifty years the applicant collected antique arms and weapons from the period of the Second World War and earlier.\n8.  On 7 and 8 July 2008 the police searched the applicant’s home and summer cottage. They confiscated the applicant’s collection which at that time numbered 199 pieces.\n9.  On 16 July 2008 the Director of the Warsaw Uprising Museum (“the Museum”) in Warsaw issued a statement for the purposes of an investigation against the applicant which had been instituted immediately after the search and seizure. He stated that the applicant had been co‑operating with the Museum as a specialist in old weaponry and that on a number of occasions he had lent certain pieces of his collection for the purposes of their being exhibited at the Museum. He stated that the applicant’s expertise was highly valued by the Museum.\n10.  On 8 July and 29 August 2008 the prosecuting authorities ordered that an expert opinion be prepared as to whether the confiscated pieces were to be regarded as arms within the meaning of the legislation governing the licensing of possession of arms.\n11.  On 18 October 2010 the Director of the Veterans’ Office sent a letter to the Warszawa Wola District Court. He stated that the applicant’s integrity and the fact that he was a law-abiding citizen were well‑known. He had been decorated on a number of occasions for his involvement in the Polish Resistance during the Second World War. By accumulating a unique collection of historical weapons, uniforms and military equipment he had rendered outstanding services in the dissemination of knowledge about the history of Poland. He had financed this collection himself, at considerable personal sacrifice. The fact that criminal proceedings had been instituted against him had met with general disbelief. It had been universally considered among persons interested in military history that his collection could not possibly be regarded as posing any threat to public order. On the contrary, it had played a significant role in teaching younger generations about the history of Poland and about the fight for the country’s independence. The applicant’s services not only merited recognition but should also be taken into consideration by the court in the assessment of his guilt and any sentence to be imposed on him.\n12.  On 16 July 2010 the prosecution ordered that 24 pieces of the collection should be returned to the applicant, relying on an expert opinion prepared for the purposes of the investigation. The expert concluded that these items were only parts of weapons and therefore a licence to possess them was not necessary. On 20 July 2010 a bill of indictment against the applicant on charges of illegal possession of arms was filed with the Warszawa Wola District Court.\n13.  On 18 November 2010 the Warszawa Wola District Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant concerning charges of illegal possession of arms, contrary to Article 263 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n14.  The court first listed 171 pieces of the applicant’s collection, the oldest of them", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6944", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  On 9 May 2007 the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP) held a demonstration in Budapest to protest against racism and hatred (hereinafter: MSZP demonstration). Simultaneously, members of Jobbik, a legally registered right-wing political party assembled in an adjacent area to express their disagreement.\nThe applicant, silently holding a so-called Árpád-striped flag in the company of some other people, was observed by police as he stood nearby, at the steps leading to the Danube embankment (the location where in 1944/45, during the Arrow Cross regime, Jews were exterminated in large numbers). His position was close to the MSZP event and a few metres away from the lawn of the square where the Jobbik demonstration was being held.\nAccording to the testimonies which the police officers subsequently gave in court, they had been instructed not to tolerate the Árpád-striped flag if it was displayed closer than 100 metres to the MSZP demonstration. The applicant and other witnesses later stated in court that the holders of the Árpád-striped flag were called “fascists” and “arrow-crossers” by the bystanders. The police supervising the scene called on the applicant either to remove the banner or leave. The applicant refused to do so, pointing out that this flag was a historical symbol and that no law forbade its display. Subsequently he was committed to the Budapest Gyorskocsi Police Holding Facility, where he was held in custody and under interrogation for six hours. After he had been released, the Budapest 5th District Police Department fined him 50,000 Hungarian forints (approximately 200 euros) for the regulatory offence of disobeying police instructions. The applicant’s complaint to the Pest Central District Court was to no avail.\n7.  On appeal, the court held hearings on 7 December 2007 and 21 February 2008 and upheld the applicant’s conviction. The court was satisfied that his conduct had been of a provocative nature, likely to result in unruliness in the context of the ongoing Socialist demonstration, and that his right to free expression could not be considered as reaching so far as to cause prejudice to public order. Despite the opinion of a heraldic expert, submitted by the applicant and stating that the flag in question was a historical one, the court considered its display offensive in the circumstances, because it had been placed higher than the national flag representing the Republic of Hungary. Therefore, the applicant’s behaviour was considered to have been provocative.\n8.  Act no. XX of 1949 on the Constitution (as in force at the material time) provides:\nArticle 61\n“(1) In the Republic of Hungary everyone has the right to freedom of expression and speech, and to access and distribute information of public interest.”\nArticle 62\n“(1) The Republic of Hungary recognises the right to peaceful assembly and ensures the free exercise thereof.”\n9.  Act no. III of 1989 on the Right to Freedom of Assembly (“the Assembly Act”) provides:\nSection 1\n“The right of assembly is a fundamental freedom guaranteed for everyone. The Republic of Hungary recognises this right and ensures its undisturbed exercise.”\nSection 2\n“(1) In the framework of the exercise of the right of assembly, peaceful gatherings, marches and demonstrations (henceforth jointly: assemblies) may be held where the participants may freely express their opinion. ...”\nSection 11\n“(1) The order of the assembly shall be secured ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6945", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Pleven Prison.\n6.  The applicant was detained in Belene Prison from an unspecified date in August 2002 until 29 March 2007, when he was moved to Pleven Prison. He stated that the conditions of detention in Belene Prison had been inhuman and degrading.\n7.  It appears that the applicant submitted frequent complaints to various institutions against the administration of Belene Prison.\n8.  On an unspecified date in 2005 he complained to the prosecuting authorities that some of the letters he had sent had been withheld by the administration and had never reached their addressees. Following an inquiry, his complaint was dismissed both by the regional prosecutor on 14 July 2005 and on appeal on 17 August 2005 by the prosecutor in appeal proceedings who established that between January 2004 and June 2005 the applicant had sent thirty-one letters, which had been duly entered in the prison register and forwarded to their addressees.\n9.  On 26 and 31 October 2006 the director of Belene Prison ordered the confinement of the applicant in an isolation cell for two five-day periods following two violent incidents between the applicant and another prisoner which had occurred at short intervals. The applicant appealed.\n10.  The Levski District Court opened two sets of proceedings and on 10 November 2006 examined the applicants’ appeals in two separate hearings held consecutively. The applicant appeared in person while the prison administration did not send a representative.\n11.  At the start of the first hearing the court stated that it had summoned Mr K., a prison guard, as a witness. It noted that Mr K. had not appeared, the prison administration having submitted a medical certificate to the effect that he had been admitted to hospital. The applicant requested that another prison guard, Mr S., be questioned but nevertheless agreed that the court should proceed with the examination of the case.\n12.  On the merits, the applicant stated that he had been insulted and attacked by an inmate. He denied having insulted the inmate concerned and claimed that he was not responsible for the incident and that the punishment was unjustified.\n13.  In a final decision of the same date the District Court upheld the order of 31 October 2006, stating that the director of the prison had taken into consideration all relevant circumstances and had delivered a reasoned and lawful order. The director had considered the applicant’s and witnesses’ statements and the report of a prison employee. The court further noted that the written statements of the witnesses corroborated the director’s conclusions and did not support the applicant’s account of the events. As to the punishment, it had been determined with due regard to the gravity of the offence and the applicant’s conduct as a whole.\n14.  Then the court proceeded with the second hearing. It noted that the prison guard Mr S., who had been summoned as a witness, was also in hospital. The applicant insisted on the appearance of Mr S. and stated that he wanted to call a second witness, Mr F. He also asked to be assigned a court-appointed lawyer and sought an adjournment.\n15.  The court dismissed those requests, stating that it was obliged to complete the examination of the applicant’s appeal within three days of its being lodged and that the absence of a lawyer was not a reason for adjourning the hearing.\n16.  On the merits, the applicant explaine", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6946", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, who is of Nigerian origin, was born in 1977 and has been lawfully resident in Spain since 2003.\n7.  On 15 July 2005 the applicant was on the public highway in the El Arenal district near Palma de Mallorca, where she worked as a prostitute, when two officers of the national police force asked to see her identity and then ordered her to leave the premises, which she did immediately.\n8.  The applicant alleged that later the same day, after returning to the same place, she had noticed the same police officers coming towards her and had attempted to flee. The police officers had caught up with her, struck her on the left thigh and on her wrists with a truncheon and again demanded to see her identity papers. She alleged that during the altercation, which had been witnessed by a number of people including two taxi drivers and the security guards of a nearby discotheque, one of the police officers had insulted her, saying things like “get out of here you black whore”. She was released after presenting her papers to the police officers.\n9.  Again according to the applicant, on 21 July 2005 the same police officers stopped her again and one of them hit her on the left hand with his truncheon.\n10.  That day the applicant lodged a formal verbal complaint with Palma de Mallorca investigating judge no. 8 and went to hospital to have her injuries treated. The doctors observed inflammation and mild bruising of the left hand.\n11.  The file was allocated to Palma de Mallorca investigating judge no. 9, who decided to open a judicial investigation and requested an incident report from the police headquarters. In his report of 11 October 2005 the chief of police of the Balearic Islands explained that police patrols were common in the district concerned on account of the numerous complaints of theft or physical attacks regularly received from the local residents and the resulting damage done to the district’s image. He added that foreign female citizens present in the area often attempted to escape from the police because the latter’s presence hindered them in their work. In the present case the applicant had attempted to avoid inspection by the police but had been stopped by the officers, who had asked her to show her papers without at any time making any humiliating remarks or using physical force. With regard to the identity of the officers, the head of police indicated that the ones who had stopped and questioned the applicant the first time were from the patrol formed by the police officers Rayo 98  and  Rayo 93 (code names given to the officers). Contrary to the applicant’s assertions, those who had stopped her on 21 July 2005 belonged to a different patrol, called Luna 10.\n12.  In a decision of 17 October 2005 Palma de Mallorca investigating judge no. 9 issued a provisional discharge order and decided to discontinue the proceedings on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that an offence had been committed.\n13.  That decision was served on the applicant or her representative on 23 April 2007, at the latter’s request.\n14.  The applicant applied to Palma de Mallorca investigating judge no. 9 to have the decision reversed, and subsequently appealed. She complained of the discriminatory attitude of the police officers and requested that various evidence-gathering measures be taken, such as identification of the officers in question and taking witness statements from the persons who had been present during the incidents. In a d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6947", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant, born in 1967, is a lawyer and lives in Istanbul.\n4.  At approximately 12 noon on 16 September 2000, while attempting to participate in a demonstration in the form of “a press conference” held in Taksim, Istanbul, by members of the Contemporary Lawyers’ Association, the applicant was arrested, with some fifty others. The applicant alleged that the large number of police officers on duty at the site of the demonstration, who were wearing special uniforms, had used disproportionate force to disperse the crowd and arrest the potential demonstrators. He claimed in particular that the police had kicked and punched him, beaten him with a stick, and sprayed tear gas in his face inside the police bus following his arrest. The Government, on the other hand, argued that the demonstrators had resisted the police and had refused to disperse despite numerous warnings.\n5.  The applicant was subsequently taken to the police station, along with the others who had been arrested, apparently for an identity check.\n6.  At 3.30 p.m. on the same day the applicant was taken to the Beyoğlu branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute for a medical examination. The doctor who examined the applicant reported bruising on his inner left knee, left ankle and inner left arm. He also noted that the injuries would render the applicant unfit for work for three days.\n7.  The applicant was released from police custody after the medical examination at the Forensic Medicine Institute.\n8.  On 18 September 2000 the applicant sought a medical examination at the Istanbul branch of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, in order to have the bruises which had developed on his body after his arrest recorded by an independent medical expert. The two doctors who examined the applicant noted the following on his body: a 4 x 6 cm yellow‑green bruise on the left part of the chest, a 2 x 1 cm yellow-green bruise on the left buttock, a spotted haemorrhage measuring 1.5 x 10 cm behind the left knee, a bleeding yellow-green bruise accompanied by a spotted haemorrhage measuring 3 x 3 cm on the left calf, a 4 x 0.5 cm graze on the left ankle, a 0.3 x 0.6 cm graze behind the left ankle, a scabbed wound 0.5 cm in diameter, with an area of hyperaemia 0.5 cm in width around the wound, on the right ankle. The applicant stated to the doctors that he had been kicked and punched and beaten with sticks by the police and had had tear gas sprayed in his face. He further stated that he had been coughing and had a burning sensation in his throat on account of the tear gas. The doctors reported that the injuries on the applicant’s body and his complaints regarding his throat matched his account of events, but they did not note any physical findings indicating if and how the applicant had been affected by the tear gas.\n9.  On 18 September 2000 twenty-seven members of the Contemporary Lawyers’ Association, including the applicant, lodged a criminal complaint with the Beyoğlu public prosecutor against the Istanbul governor, the deputy chief of police of Istanbul and the police officers on duty at the time of their demonstration. They alleged that they had all been ill‑treated by the police during their arrest, on the orders of the governor and the deputy chief of police.\n10.  It appears that on the same date the Beyoğlu public prosecutor took statements from only four of the complainants. The applicant was not summoned for a statement.\n11.  On 26 September 2000 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6949", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Krasnoyarsk.\n6.  On 4 July 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion. On 6 July 2003 the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Krasnoyarsk dismissed the prosecutor’s request to place the applicant in detention and ordered his release on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence.\n7.  On 3 September 2003 the applicant was charged with extortion on several counts. In December 2003 the case was referred to the Central District Court of Krasnoyarsk for trial.\n8.  On 5 January 2004 the District Court received the case file. On 9 January 2004 the court scheduled the trial for 19 January 2004.\n9.  On 12 October 2004 the District Court decided to place the applicant and his co-defendants Zh. and T. in detention pending trial. On 16 November 2004 the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court upheld the detention order. The applicant remained in custody pending trial.\n10.  During the period between 19 January 2004 and 3 February 2005 the District Court scheduled thirty-nine hearings. The Government provided the following information concerning the adjournments:\n \nDate of hearing\nReasons for adjournment\n19 January 2004\nCertain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard.\n11 March 2004\nNewly appointed counsel asked for additional time to study the case file.\n26 March, 19 and 28 April, 6 and 14 May 2004\nCertain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard.\n28 May 2004\nThe prison guards failed to ensure two co-defendants’ presence.\n5 June 2004\nOne of the co-defendants’ counsel failed to appear.\n7, 9 and 16 June 2004\nCertain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard.\n17 June 2004\nOne of the co-defendants’ counsel failed to appear.\n21 June 2004\nThe applicant failed to appear.\n22, 24 and 25 June, 1 July 2004\nCertain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard.\n7 September 2004\nCertain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard. Counsel B., representing one of the victims, failed to appear.\n14 September 2004\nCounsel B., representing one of the victims, failed to appear.\n23 September and 5 October 2004\nCertain witnesses failed to appear and /or the parties asked for additional witnesses to be heard.\n14 October 2004\nThe prison guards failed to ensure two co‑defendants’ presence.\n28 October, 10 and 17 November 2004 \nThe parties asked for additional time to prepare certain documentary evidence.\n1 December 2004\nCounsel B., representing one of the victims, failed to appear.\n9 and 15 December 2004\nThe parties asked for additional time to prepare certain documentary evidence.\n24 December 2004\nOne of the co-defendants’ counsel failed to appear\n11.  On 14 February 2005 the District Court convicted the applicant and his co-defendants on several counts of extortion and acquitted them on one count. The applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. On the same date the applicant appealed against his conviction.\n12.  On 24 May 2005 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 14 February 2005 and referred the case back to the trial court for examination by a different panel. It held, in particular, that the trial court had failed to duly establish the circumstances of the case and to apply the criminal law correctly.\n13.  On 15 June 2005 the District Court returned the case to the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6950", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Kluczbork.\n6.  The applicant has a long criminal record. He has been detained on several occasions since 1997.\n7.  The present application concerns his detention in Łódź Remand Centre during the following periods of time: (1) from 1 September 2004 until 10 March 2005, (2) from 20 May until 30 November 2005, (3) from 14 December 2005 until 19 January 2007, (4) from 5 February until 22 July 2007 and (5) from 8 January 2009 until an unspecified date in June 2010.\n8.  It appears that the applicant has been in continuous detention since 1 September 2004, first in Łódź Remand Centre and then in other detention facilities. Immediately before 1 September 2004 he was detained in Chełm Remand Centre and on an unspecified date in June 2010 he was transferred to Kluczbork Prison.\n9.  The applicant suffers from epilepsy and has regular seizures. He has also been diagnosed with a personality disorder.\n10.  Three reports on the applicant’s health were obtained from experts in neurology, psychiatry and psychology in the course of the first‑instance civil proceedings in tort (see paragraph 28 below). The domestic court wished to obtain the experts’ opinion as to whether or not the applicant was fit for detention and, in the affirmative, whether special conditions needed to be created for him in the remand centre.\n11.  The first report was prepared on 2 October 2006 by Dr G.B., an expert in neurology. The report stated that the applicant’s epilepsy did not, in itself, require that special conditions be created for him in the remand centre. Detention in a multi‑person cell according to the standards in place would not have a negative effect on the course of the applicant’s illness. The expert recommended, however, that the applicant be assigned a bottom bunk in a cell which was not overcrowded.\n12.  The second report was drafted on 9 August 2008 by Dr M.B., an expert in psychiatry. The expert found that the applicant suffered from a mild personality disorder and experienced occasional mood swings. Detention in ordinary prison conditions would not exacerbate the applicant’s disorder.\n13.  The third report was prepared on 21 April 2009 by Dr L.S., an expert in psychology. The expert found that the applicant suffered from a personality disorder with an increased tendency to emotional outbursts which manifested themselves in self‑injury. The expert concluded, however, that the applicant’s personality disorder had developed in his early life and was independent of the overcrowding and difficult conditions of detention.\n14.  As established by the domestic courts, during the first four terms of his detention in Łódź Remand Centre the applicant had numerous epileptic fits. The fits often resulted in minor facial and bodily injuries such as cut lips, bruises, skin abrasions and bumps to the head. On one occasion the applicant bit his tongue. On another occasion, he cut his head against the edge of the bed.\n15.  It was also found that during his epileptic fits the applicant had received first aid from his fellow inmates. Where the seizures occurred during the day, an in‑house doctor had been called in to examine the applicant. At night or on public holidays the authorities had called for an ambulance.\n16.  The applicant submitted copies of five ambulance reports issued after each post‑seizure intervention in the remand centre (on 24 April, 2, 12 and 19 May and 16 June 2005).\n17.  During the first four terms of his det", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6951", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1977 and 1956 respectively and live in Zagreb.\n6.  The first applicant is a person divested of legal capacity owing to his mental and physical retardation. He goes to a workshop for adults at the V.B. primary school in Zagreb for twelve hours a week. He is taken care of by his mother, the second applicant. The medical documentation of 16 June 2008 submitted in respect of the first applicant describes his health as follows:\n“... in his very early childhood he suffered from purulent meningitis, which resulted in permanent consequences and epilepsy. He is retarded in his mental and physical development and is under the constant supervision of a neurologist and psychiatrist. Owing to hydrocephalus he has had a Pudenz valve [a type of cerebrospinal fluid shunt] implanted. ... his eyesight is very poor ... and he is dependent on his mother as regards feeding, dressing, personal hygiene and moving about. His spine is mobile but painful in the lower region. ... he suffers from severe foot deformation, ... has difficulty walking; walking on his toes and heels is not possible. Mentally he is emotionally distant, fearful and he has a poor vocabulary. ...”\n7.  The applicants live in a ground-floor flat in a block of flats in Špansko, a part of Zagreb. The A.K. primary school is nearby in their neighbourhood.\n8.  It appears that the applicants were subjected to harassment between July 2008 and February 2011. They alleged that pupils from the A.K. primary school, all minors, frequently harassed them, and in particular the first applicant, at all times of the day, especially when the pupils returned home from school in groups and in the late afternoon and evening when they gathered without parental supervision on and around a wooden bench in front of the balcony of the applicants’ flat. The harassment, in their submission, was motivated by the first applicant’s health and both applicants’ Serbian origin. A larger group of children, also minors, came daily to a park in front of the applicants’ flat, shouted obscenities at the first applicant, called him names and wrote insulting messages on the pavement. The children often rang the applicants’ bell, asking when the first applicant was going out. They often spat at him.\n9.  A police report of 31 July 2008 shows that the second applicant called the police at 9.12 p.m. and complained that unknown young persons were harassing her son and had smashed some objects on her balcony. The police arrived at the applicants’ home at 9.30 p.m. and the second applicant told them that at about 6 p.m. she and the first applicant had left the flat and that when they had returned at about 9 p.m. she had found the balcony ruined and all the flower beds torn up. She also told the police that the first applicant had been harassed for a longer period of time by children in the neighbourhood on account of his mental retardation. She named two of the children.\n10.  On 2 March 2009 the Susedgrad Social Welfare Centre ordered the supervision of the parental care of D.K., a pupil at A.K. primary school, on account of his poor school results, problematic behaviour and tendency to commit criminal offences. There was no mention of his involvement in the harassment of the applicants.\n11.  A medical report drawn up on 6 April 2009 shows that the first applicant had been psychologically and physically harassed in the street and that he had cigarette burns on both hands. The doctor asked the social authori", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6952", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Osijek.\n6.  On 11 December 2002 the applicant sought enforcement of a monetary obligation stipulated in a notary deed (javnobilježnička isprava) against Mr S.T. before the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).\n7.  On 10 April 2003 the Municipal Court issued a writ of execution by seizure and sale of S.T.’s immovable property in satisfaction of the applicant’s claim of 186,278.40 Croatian kunas (HRK). The proceedings are still pending.\n8.  On 20 October 2008 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).\n9.  On 25 May 2009 the Zagreb County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within reasonable time, awarded her HRK 6,000 in compensation and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Court to complete the enforcement within seven months of service of its decision.\n10.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 2 September 2009 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) awarded her additional HRK 2,000 in compensation. The Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 21 September 2009.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6953", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Opole.\n6.  “Zgoda” Housing Cooperative in Brzeg brought a civil case against the applicant before the Opole Regional Court. It sought a judgment obliging her to sell to the co-operative a number of plots of land which had been de facto occupied by the co-operative for a long period of time.\n7.  By a judgment of 16 June 2003 the Opole Regional Court dismissed the claim. It held that the applicable provisions of the Housing Co‑operatives Act provided for an obligatory sale of land occupied de facto by housing co-operatives only where a co-operative had erected buildings thereon. In the present case, the plaintiff co-operative had built roads and parking areas on the land concerned.\n8.  The plaintiff co‑operative appealed.\n9.  By a judgment of 26 November 2003 the Wrocław Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. It was of the view that the first-instance court had erred in the application of section 35 of the Co-operatives Act. It had wrongly held that an obligatory sale could be ordered to the benefit of a housing co-operative only with respect to land owned by third parties on which a co-operative had had houses built. The court was of the opinion that such a sale could also be ordered when a co-operative had built infrastructures other than houses.\n10.  Judge D.Z. sat on the bench of the Supreme Court as judge rapporteur.\n11.  The applicant’s case was subsequently examined again. The Opole Regional Court allowed the plaintiff’s claim and ordered the applicant to sell 2,000 sq. metres of land to the co-operative. It found that the plaintiff co-operative had built a housing estate in the vicinity of the applicant’s land and also partly on her land. Parking areas and roads had been built on the land belonging to the applicant. Section 35 of the Housing Co-operatives Act provided for the compulsory sale of privately owned land occupied de facto by co-operatives.\n12.  The applicant appealed. She argued that the court had erred in applying the substantive law in her case. Section 35 of the Housing Co‑operatives Act provided for a claim for compulsory sale only where co‑operatives had built houses on privately owned land. The legal interpretation of this provision by the court breached the principle that exceptions had to be interpreted narrowly. She further argued that the judgment ordering her to sell her land was in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.\n13.  On 14 March 2007 the Wrocław Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, endorsing the legal view expressed in the judgment of 26 November 2003.\n14.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Court. She reiterated the same argument which she had already raised in her appeal and emphasised that the courts had erroneously interpreted substantive law in her case. She submitted that section 35 of the Housing Co-operatives Act allowed for a compulsory sale of privately owned land only where a co-operative had built houses on it. The court had erred in that it held that this provision should, by analogy, also be applied to roads, parking areas and similar infrastructure. This interpretation resulted from the functional interpretation of this provision according to which its purpose was to make it possible for housing co-operatives to acquire ownership of land owned by third parties. Thus, the courts had held that it would be inconsistent with ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6954", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Croatia.\n6.  The applicant took a job working on the boat E. On the night of 22 August 2007, whilst the boat was berthed in M. harbour, the applicant called the police, telling them that she had been raped by D.Š. in the boat’s lounge area.\n7.  A police officer soon arrived and found the applicant, D.Š., A.R. (the owner of the boat), and some other people on the boat. The applicant told him that she had been raped, while the others said that she had been disturbing public order. The police interviewed witnesses M.B., I.R. and A.R., and the suspect D.Š.\n8.  The relevant part of a police report drawn up by officer I.Z. indicates as follows:\n“Since D. was in a state of shock I could not conduct a detailed interview with her ...\nThe waiter D.Š. said that it was true that he had put his fingers in D.’s private parts, but that he had not taken off her underwear ...”\n9.  The police drove the applicant and D.Š. in the same vehicle to the B. Police Station. At 6 a.m. on 23 August 2007 the applicant was taken to the S. Medical Centre, where she remained until 12.30 p.m. on the same day. She was seen by a gynaecologist, who established that she did not have injuries on her genitals but had a few lacerations on her body, without noting any further details.\n10.  On the same day the B. Police Station lodged a criminal complaint with the S. County State Attorney against D.Š. on the basis of the applicant’s allegations of rape. The State Attorney’s Office lodged a request with the S. County Court for an investigation in respect of D.Š. on the basis of the allegations of rape. D.Š. was arrested and brought before S.G, an investigating judge at the S. County Court.\n11.  Also on the same day, Judge S.G. heard evidence from D.Š., who denied raping the applicant. He explained that the applicant had become very drunk and he had taken her to her cabin on the boat. The judge then issued a decision expressing his disagreement with the request for an investigation. The relevant part of his decision reads:\n“...\nAfter the investigating judge had heard evidence from the suspect and consulted the case file, he established with certainty, on the basis of the documents enclosed with the criminal complaint, that before the event at issue the injured party had been in the company of several persons, including the suspect, in bar “F.” in M., where she had consumed a large quantity of alcohol, which was recorded by the breathalyser, and then they had all gone to the ship E. berthed in the close vicinity, on which the suspect, the injured party and other persons were employed and where the guests were asleep in their cabins.\nAfter arriving on the ship, and while still in the bar, the injured party had disturbed public peace and order, saying that she was drunk, that somebody had drugged her, and [asking] that the police be called. She said all this to a minor [child], I.R., ... but did not say that anyone had raped her or had committed any acts equal to sexual intercourse. Moreover, in her statement to the police I.R. stated that she had refused to call the police when she had seen that the injured party was drunk, and that the injured party had then slapped her in the face.\nAfter arriving on the ship, and this was confirmed by the statement of the ship owner, A.R., the injured party had shouted, entered the guests’ cabins and woken them up, to which A.R. had responded by asking her to stop shouting and disturbing the guests ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6956", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in the settlement of Sinegorye, Yagodninskiy District of the Magadan Region.\n6.  In 1997 the applicant had his right leg amputated at thigh level after a gunshot wound.\n7.  On 23 September 2002 the applicant was driving a car in the proximity of the settlement of Burkhala in the Yagodnindskiy District of the Magadan Region when it collided with another car. As it was later established in a final judgment of the Magadan Regional Court of 19 March 2009, as upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 23 July 2009, the applicant had attacked the driver and a passenger of the other car, who were husband and wife ‑ Mr A.S. and Mrs T.S. ‑ in the presence of passers-by. The applicant, armed with a pistol, had struck several blows with his fist and the pistol on different parts of the woman’s body while making verbal threats to kill her or to inflict bodily injuries. The woman had received several injuries to her head and her teeth and a brain concussion. The applicant had then struck multiple blows with his fist and the pistol on different parts of the man’s body and kicked him, making similar verbal threats. He had inflicted seven contused wounds on the man’s scalp and face, bruises on the face and the lumbar region, an eye contusion and a brain concussion. The applicant had then fired his pistol twice in the air and once on the ground near the man. Then the applicant had pushed his victims into the rear compartment of a car belonging to Mr P., had locked them up and kept them there for a half an hour. He had then demanded money in the amount of 3,000 US dollars as compensation for the damage to his car, threatening them with reprisals. Mrs T.S. had left in a car, which Mr P. had been driving, in order to find the money, while the applicant had kept Mr A.S. until he received the money from the latter’s wife.\n8.  On 24 September 2002 the Far Eastern Federal Circuit Investigation Department of the Investigation Committee at the Ministry of the Interior (“the Investigation Committee”) brought criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of having committed aggravated robbery punishable under Article 162 § 2 of the Criminal Code (“the CC”) , and hooliganism punishable under Article 213 § 3 of the CC, described as a flagrant violation of public order demonstrating blatant disrespect for society, accompanied by the use of violence against citizens and threats of such violence, committed by a group of individuals according to a premeditated plan, with the use of arms (case no. 23334).\n9.  On the same day the applicant was informed of his rights as a suspect and questioned in his lawyer’s presence. He gave a written undertaking to appear on summons before the investigating authority and court, and to immediately inform them of any change of his place of residence. On the same day he left Sinegorye, his place of residence, without informing the investigating authority, for Magadan situated more than 500 kilometres away. On the next day he was admitted to a hospital in Magadan.\n10.  The Investigation Committee lodged an application for the applicant’s remand in custody before the Magadan Region Yagodninskiy District Court, arguing that the applicant could abscond from the investigating authority and court, threaten the victims and destroy the evidence since he had breached his undertaking to appear and had been evading the investigating authority for ten days; that he had thr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6957", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Mr J. Maxian, is both a Slovakian and Austrian national who was born in 1949. The second applicant, Mr I. Maxianová, is a Slovak national who was born in 1965. The applicants live in Vienna, Austria.\n6.  On 27 May 1996 the applicants claimed payment of a sum of money from an individual who used their real property before the Dunajská Streda District Court.\n7.  On 3 June 2003 the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of a different set of proceedings (file no. 4 C 204/96). Proceedings file no.4 C 204/96 concerned a different claim of the applicants filed to the Dunajská Streda District Court on 19 November 1996. The final decision in those proceedings was given on 10 November 2008.\n8.  On 9 December 2008 the District Court decided to resume the proceedings file no. 8 C 105/96. It asked the applicants to specify their claim submitted on 27 May 1996.\n9.  In February 2009 the applicants extended their claim and asked for the case to be joined to a different set of proceedings. They made further submissions in March 2009.\n10.  On 25 May 2009 the District Court joined the proceedings to those concerning a different claim of the applicants (proceedings file no. 4 C 108/2001).\n11.  Between February and September 2009 and between October 2009 and August 2010 courts at two levels determined the applicants’ obligation to pay court fees, also in view of the modification of their claim.\n12.  On 13 December 2010 the District Court decided to examine the applicants’ claims jointly with those submitted in another set of proceedings brought on 29 March 1996 (file no. 9 C 171/96).\n13.  The proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim of 27 May 1996 are pending before the Dunajská Streda District Court.\n14.  On 4 September 2007 the Constitutional Court found no breach of the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the Dunajská Streda District Court proceedings file no. 8 C 105/96.\n15.   The judgment stated that the District Court had proceeded with the case until 12 March 1998 and that subsequently the District Court judge had waited for developments in proceedings file no. 4 C 204/96. As from 3 June 2003 proceedings file no. 8 C 105/96 had been stayed.\n16.  The Constitutional Court noted that the applicants had contributed to the duration of proceedings file no. 8 C 105/96. In particular, they had challenged at a higher instance the District Court judge and a decision on procedural fine.\n17.  The duration of the proceedings was partly due to the District Court’s failure to proceed in an appropriate manner in the period until March 1998. While it was true that the District Court had not proceeded with the case between 12 March 1998 and 3 June 2003, the Constitutional Court accepted that it had been justified by the need to follow the developments and wait for the outcome in proceedings file no. 4 C 204/96.\n18.  On 16 April 2003 the Constitutional Court found that the Dunajská Streda District Court had breached the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time in proceedings file no. 4 C 204/96 which had been brought on 19 November 1996.\n19.  The Constitutional Court awarded the applicants the equivalent of EUR 2,656 as just satisfaction. It further ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicants’ costs in the constitutional proceedings.\n20.  Subsequently the applicants introduced an application in respect of the above proceedings (application ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6958", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Bucharest.\n7.  On 17 September 2002 the Prahova County Court sentenced the applicant to 12 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The decision became final on 18 February 2004 with the decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.\n8.  The applicant was arrested on 24 January 2002. He remained in prison until his release on probation on 18 May 2011. He served his sentence as follows:\n- from 24 January to 1 February 2002 in Ploieşti Prison;\n- from 1 to 26 February 2002 in Jilava Prison Hospital;\n- from 26 February 2002 to 7 January 2003 in Ploieşti Prison;\n- from 7 January 2003 to 20 March 2003 in Mărgineni Prison;\n- from 20 March 2003 to 29 February 2004 in Jilava Prison;\n- from 29 February 2004 to 11 February 2005 in Ploieşti Prison;\n- from 11 February to 21 February 2005 in Jilava Prison;\n- from 21 February to 3 March 2005 in Ploieşti Prison;\n- from 3 March to 25 April 2005 in Jilava Prison Hospital;\n- from 25 April to 8 July 2005 in Jilava Prison;\n- from 8 July to 18 July 2005 in Rahova Prison;\n- from 18 July to 21 July 2005 in Ploieşti Prison;\n- from 21 July to 29 August 2005 in Rahova Prison;\n- from 29 August to 27 September 2005 in Ploieşti Prison;\n- from 27 September to 3 October 2005 in Rahova Prison;\n- from 3 October to 22 November 2005 in Ploieşti Prison;\n- from 22 November to 28 November 2005 in Rahova Prison;\n- from 28 November 2005 to 7 February 2006 in Ploieşti Prison;\n- from 7 February to 13 March 2006 in Jilava Prison Hospital;\n- from 13 March to 9 May 2006 in Ploieşti Prison;\n- from 9 May to 15 May 2006 in Rahova Prison;\n- from 15 May 2006 to 11 January 2007 in Ploieşti Prison;\n- from 11 January 2007 to 12 January 2007 in Rahova Prison Hospital;\n- from 12 January to 2 March 2007 in Jilava Prison;\n- from 2 March to 19 June 2007 in Rahova Prison;\n- from 19 June 2007 to 19 July 2007 in Jilava Prison Hospital;\n- from 19 July to 27 September 2007 in Rahova Prison;\n- from 27 September to 12 October 2007 in Ploieşti Prison;\n- from 12 October 2007 to 11 November 2008 in Rahova Prison;\n- from 11 November 2008 to 14 November 2008 in Ploieşti Prison;\n- from 14 November to 4 December 2008 in Rahova Prison;\n- from 4 December 2008 to 11 May 2010 in Jilava Prison;\n- from 11 May to 28 May 2010 in Bacău Prison;\n- from 28 May to 21 June 2010 in Craiova Prison;\n- from 21 June to 5 July 2010 in Colibaşi Prison;\n- from 5 July 2010 to 13 July 2010 in Craiova Prison;\n- from 13 July 2010 to 18 May 2011 in Jilava and Ploieşti Prison.\n9.  The exact circumstances of the applicant’s detention are in dispute between the parties.\n10.  In respect of all the establishments in which he had been detained, the applicant alleged that he had been kept in overcrowded cells, in poor conditions of hygiene, that the food had been poor, and that he did not enjoy enough out-of-cell time and appropriate activities.\n11.  He also referred to the information provided in the CPT and APADOR-CH reports and to the conditions of detention already established by the Court in its previous judgments with respect to each of the detention facilities where he was detained, alleging that he had experienced the same conditions.\n(a)  Ploieşti Prison\n12.  The material conditions in Ploieşti Prison throughout the periods when he was detained there between 24 January 2002 and 14 November 2008, were described by the applicant as follows.\n13.  The cells were overcrowded and he often had to share an 80 cm wide bed with another inmate. He", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6959", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Hayrettin Demir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and is currently detained in Diyarbakır prison.\n6.  On 8 March 1995 the applicant and a number of suspects were arrested in the context of an operation led by security forces in Mardin on suspicion of membership of Hizbullah, an illegal organisation. Prior to being taken into police custody, the applicant was examined by a doctor who observed no sign of ill‑treatment on his person.\n7.  The applicant alleges that during his questioning by the police he was tortured and compelled to sign incriminating statements in the absence of a lawyer.\n8.  On 4 April 1995 the applicant was examined by a doctor who found no injuries on his person.\n9.  On 5 April 1995 the applicant was taken to the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, before whom he alleged that he had been ill-treated while in police custody. He claimed that he had been hung by his arms, given electric shocks and beaten by police officers. Later on the same day, the investigating judge placed the applicant in pre-trial detention.\n10.  On 11 April 1995 the applicant and twelve co-suspects, arrested in the same security operation conducted against Hizbullah, lodged a complaint with the Mardin public prosecutor, alleging that they had been ill-treated in police custody.\n11.  On the applicant’s request to the prison authorities to obtain another medical examination, on 12 April 1995 he was examined by a doctor in a public health clinic, who observed bruises on the inner part of the applicant’s lower arms, between his wrists and elbows.\n12.  The public prosecutor took statements in respect of the allegation of torture from a number of suspected police officers, who denied the accusations. They maintained that the bruises on the applicant’s arms, which were detected in a medical report obtained later, must have been caused after his release from police custody.\n13.  On 30 May 1995 the Mardin public prosecutor refused to commit the police officers for trial, taking into account the medical reports drafted at the beginning and end of the applicant’s detention in police custody, which had recorded no injuries on his body. In this regard, the prosecutor found that the applicant’s allegation of having been ill-treated in police custody was unsubstantiated. This decision was notified to the applicant on 13 July 1995.\n14.  In the meantime, on 23 May 1995, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and twenty-four other persons, charging them with the membership of an illegal organisation and involvement in a number of illegal activities on behalf of the organisation, such as murder, assault and arson.\n15.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge.\n16.  Following the entry into force of Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, the criminal proceedings were transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.\n17.  During the proceedings the Diyarbakır Assize Court reviewed the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention on a regular basis in accordance with Article 108 of Law no. 5271 and found that his pre-trial detention should be continued on account of the severity of the offences, the reasonable grounds of suspicion that he had committed those with which he was charged, and the state of the evidence in the case file.\n18.  On the basis of the ran", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6960", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Izyaslav, the Khmelnytsk Region.\n6.  On 12 April 1998 a police officer was killed and another police officer was severely wounded by a group of people using fire arms. On the same day the police stopped a car, whose driver stated that he had dropped off three people, who had allegedly committed the above crime, in a field several hundred metres away. Thereupon four police officers went to search for the suspects. They saw three people, including the applicant, crossing the field. The police officers fired several shots into the air and ordered the people to lie down on the ground.\n7.  According to the applicant, they all obeyed the orders of the police. The officers then approached them and started beating the applicant and the two others. The applicant was hit and kicked in the head, chest, kidney and groin area, as a result of which he lost consciousness. The applicant stated that the officers had pierced his cheek with a needle and had used a cigarette lighter to burn his right hand and suggested that they had done so in order to make him regain consciousness.\n8.  According to the written statements of the police officers submitted by the Government, while the applicant and the other suspects threw aside their guns they refused to obey the orders of the police and “offered physical resistance to the arrest”. Because of this, the police officers employed “unarmed combat techniques”, forced the suspects to the ground and handcuffed them.\n9.  Several hours later the applicant was taken to the medical wing of the investigative detention unit (слідчий ізолятор – “the SIZO”) in Cherkasy where he regained consciousness.\n10.  He was examined by a doctor who noted a number of lesions and bruises on the applicant’s head and body, including a wound and a haematoma on his forehead, and haematomas on his left shoulder, chest and right thigh. The medical report, written by that doctor, also stated that the applicant had several blisters on his fingers which, according to the applicant, were the result of burns. The doctor stitched the wound on the applicant’s forehead, prescribed a pain killer and suggested that the applicant see a neurologist. According to the report, an X-ray examination of the applicant’s chest did not reveal fractures of his ribs.\n11.  According to the applicant, the doctor did not note down all of his injuries. For instance, fractures of the applicant’s ribs and two fingers on his right hand were not revealed as no X-ray examination was carried out.\n12.  The next day a medical expert examined the applicant and noted that his injuries were minor.\n13.  In the course of the criminal investigations against him, the applicant complained of ill-treatment by the police to various public authorities, including the prosecutors.\n14.  By decisions of 21 August 1998 and 25 January 1999, the prosecutors refused to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers, finding that they had acted lawfully during the arrest. The finding was based on the statements of the police officers and the applicant’s medical documents (see paragraphs 8, 10 and 11 above). The applicant did not challenge the prosecutors’ decisions before the courts.\n15.  He again raised complaints of ill-treatment in the course of his trial before the Cherkasy Regional Court of Appeal (“the Cherkasy Court”) and the Supreme Court, which rejected them as unsubstantiated (see paragraphs 30 an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6961", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Komsomolske.\n5.  On 16 February 2001 the applicant and six other persons, all members of the collective enterprise Z., lodged a claim with the Zmiyiv Town Court (“the Zmiyiv Court”) against this enterprise and its director seeking the annulment of decisions on the Z.’s re-organisation. The applicant had worked in this enterprise for about thirty years.\n6.  On 2 November 2001 the Zmiyiv Court decided to leave the claim without examination.\n7.  On 11 January 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed that ruling and remitted the case to the first-instance court for an examination on merits.\n8.  Meanwhile the enterprise Z. was liquidated, and the liquidator became a party to the proceedings.\n9.  As a result, on 22 October 2004 the Zmiyiv Court restarted its examination of the case.\n10.  On 7 February 2007 it found against the claimants.\n11.  In the course of the proceedings the Zmiyiv Court adjourned hearings on twelve occasions in allowing requests of the claimants, who needed additional time for amending their claims, or given their failure to appear. There were also thirteen adjournments requested by the defendant enterprise or caused by the absence of its representative. On one or two occasions hearings were adjourned because the judge was busy or following procedural measures ordered by the court.\n12.  On 14 March 2007 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal found that the case fell under the jurisdiction of commercial courts and sent it for examination to the Kharkiv Commercial Court of Appeal, which on 5 July 2007 upheld the judgment of the Zmiyiv Court.\n13.  On 26 December 2007 the Higher Commercial Court found that the dispute was to be examined by the courts of general jurisdiction, quashed the ruling of 5 July 2007 and remitted the case back to the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal.\n14.  On 1 April 2008 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal discontinued the proceedings in part concerning the claims against the enterprise Z., as it had been liquidated by that time, and rejected the remainder of the claims as unsubstantiated.\n15.  On 17 October 2008 the Supreme Court upheld that ruling.\n16.  On 18 December 2002 the applicant, as well as the other claimants (see paragraph 5 above), lodged an additional claim against the enterprise Z. for recovery of a share.\n17.  The claimants supplemented and specified their initial claims on a number of occasions.\n18.  On 13 December 2005 the Zmiyiv Court stayed the examination of the case pending the outcome in the first set of proceedings.\n19.  On 8 February 2006 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the above ruling, and the first-instance court resumed the proceedings.\n20.  On 9 June 2006 the Zmiyiv Court allowed the applicant’s request for an expert assessment of the value of a share in the enterprise Z., which it entrusted to the Kharkiv Research Institute for Forensic Expert Examinations.\n21.  In January 2007 the aforementioned expert institution informed the court that it did not have the required expertise capacities. The proceedings were then resumed, without the evaluation in question having been undertaken.\n22.  On 19 February 2007 the Zmiyiv Court found against the claimants.\n23.  On 30 July 2007 by the Kharkiv Commercial Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.\n24.  On 26 December 2007 the Higher Commercial Court found that the case was to be examined by courts of general jurisdiction, quashed the ruling of 30 July 2007 and sent ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6962", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  On 15 April 2003 the applicant’s acquaintance Ms P. died of a knife wound following a dispute involving four persons, including the applicant.\n6.  On 27 June 2003 an investigator of the Darnytskyy District Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal case against the applicant on suspicion of Ms P.’s negligent homicide. Namely, the applicant was suspected of having accidentally pushed Ms P. on the knife held by another person. The applicant undertook not to leave his place of residence.\n7.  On 2 July 2003 the applicant was indicted and the case was transferred to the Darnytskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Darnytskyy Court”) for trial.\n8.  On 22 August 2003 the Darnytskyy Court started the trial.\n9.  In the course of the proceedings the applicant filed several petitions and complaints, in particular three times challenging the presiding judge and once the prosecutor, and seeking remittal of the case for additional investigation. Hearings were adjourned six times: on three occasions the adjournments followed the applicant’s petitions challenging the judge, once it was due to the witnesses’ absence and twice – because the judge was ill or busy in another trial.\n10.  On 10 August 2005 the Darnytskyy Court referred the case for additional investigation as requested by the applicant.\n11.  On 8 February 2006 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed that ruling following the prosecutor’s appeal and remitted the case back to the first-instance court for examination.\n12.  On 25 December 2006 the Darnytskyy Court however again decided that additional investigation was required in the case.\n13.  On 15 May 2007 the additional investigation, which included questioning the witnesses, two forensic examinations and a repeated crime scene inspection, was completed. Meanwhile, on 5 May 2007 the investigator additionally charged the applicant with hooliganism associated with arms’ handling and confiscated his gun. This charge was severed from the criminal case at hand.\n14.  On 30 July 2008 the Darnytskyy Court remitted the case for additional investigation once again. It noted that the pre-trial investigation undertaken had been incomplete and superficial.\n15.  On 24 September 2008 the Court of Appeal upheld that ruling.\n16.  On 12 November 2009 the investigator discontinued the investigation for the absence of sufficient proof of the applicant’s guilt.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6963", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Potochyshche, Ivano-Frankivsk Region.\n6.  In the evening of 21 August 1998, after a working day, the applicant and his friend decided to visit a bar in the town of Horodenka before going home. The bar was located in the corner of a small park in the town. The park was in the form of a triangle with a base 70 metres long and two sides each 60 metres long.\n7.  According to the explanations given to the investigating authorities by the applicant, his friend and the owner of the bar (who served the applicant and the friend), each of them ordered not more than 150 millilitres of horilka (the beverage containing 40% alcohol) and a bottle of beer, together with some snacks.\n8.  They finished their food and drink at about 10 p.m. and left the bar. They went along the park to the nearby bus station. The applicant had come by bicycle so it was for his friend to take a bus.\n9.  While the applicant was seeing his friend off on the bus, his bicycle was stolen. The applicant decided to look around, as he thought it might have been a joke. After some time, as he did not succeed in finding the bicycle, he decided to call the police to inform them of the theft, and also to call his wife to tell her he was going to be late. For this purpose he crossed the park and approached the nearby petrol station, located in front of the park on the opposite side, and asked the sales assistant to let him make the calls. The sales assistant refused. Having the impression that the applicant was drunk and did not want to leave the petrol station, the sales assistant decided to call the police himself to get rid of the applicant.\n10.  A police patrol of three officers from the Horodenka District Police Department arrived by car and grabbed the applicant in the street near the petrol station. They pulled him into the police car and started beating him. They pulled up on the other side of the park with the lights turned off, took the applicant out of the car and continued beating him so that he fell to the ground. Then they continued to beat him while he was lying on the ground. At a certain moment the applicant received a hard blow to his back and lost consciousness. He could not remember for how much longer he was beaten after that. When he regained consciousness he could not move his legs and felt acute pain in the back. He was alone at this point and started crying from the pain.\n11.  A little later he noticed the police officers and a security guard from the bar approaching him. He heard one of the police officers explaining to the security guard that he should testify that the applicant was so drunk he could not even stand up.\n12.  The applicant was thrown into the police car and driven to the Horodenka District Hospital. While he was being examined, the police officers repeatedly demanded that the applicant stand still, but he could not, and kept falling over. In the police officers’ opinion this expressly demonstrated to the doctors the level of the applicant’s intoxication. When asked what had happened to him the applicant explained to B., a doctor, that he had been beaten up by the police officers.\n13.  Statements by the police officers, a police internal inquiry report of 29 September 1998, decisions of 24 November 1998 and 30 April 1999 refusing to open a criminal investigation, and a decision of 20 November 2003 terminating a criminal investigation, indicate the authorities’ version of events, as follows.\n14.  At", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6964", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n(1) Ms Aset Umarova, who was born in 1959;\n(2) Ms Laura Alkhastova, who was born in 1981;\n(3) Ms Luiza Umarova, who was born in 1983;\n(4) Mr Ibragim Umarov, who was born in 1987;\n(5) Mr Said-Ibragim (also spelled as Sayd-Ibragim) Umarov, who was born in 1991; and\n(6) Ms Larisa Umarova, who was born in 1985.\nThe applicants live in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. The first applicant is the wife of Khamzat Umarov, who was born in 1956; the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants are his children.\n6.  At the material time Achkhoy-Martan was under the full control of federal military forces. Checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement. The area was under curfew. Military units of the 58th Russian army were stationed in the fields next to Achkhoy-Martan. At the time, Khamzat Umarov was working as the head of the State Roads Administration in Achkhoy-Martan.\n7.  On the night of 29 July 2001 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 30 July and 31 July 2001) the applicants and Khamzat Umarov were at home, at 29 Sadovaya Street in Achkhoy-Martan. That night the applicants’ friend, Mr S.I., who worked for the Danish Refugee Council, also stayed at the house.\n8.  At about 4 a.m. on 30 July 2001 the first applicant was woken up by a noise coming from outside. She heard what sounded like someone trying to quietly open the gates to their yard. When the applicant asked in Chechen: ‘Who’s there?’ she heard no response. Then her husband, Khamzat Umarov, looked out from the window and told her that there were Russians with flashlights.\n9.  The men outside demanded that the applicants open the gates. The first applicant told them that they would wake up the children and asked them to return in the morning. In response, the men forced the gates open and a group of about twenty to twenty-five men in camouflage uniforms rushed into the yard. Approximately fifteen men ran into the house. The rest remained outside. Some of them went into the yard of the applicants’ neighbours, the family of Ms R.Z., and ordered the neighbours to stay inside. Some men remained in the street and kept ordering other neighbours to get back inside.\n10.  All of the intruders were equipped with flashlights and armed with automatic weapons (винторез). They forced the applicants into different rooms; two of them guarded the first applicant. Some of the men were wearing masks; those without masks were of Slavic appearance. The men spoke unaccented Russian. The applicants thought that they were Russian military servicemen.\n11.  After breaking into the house the intruders talked amongst themselves about their search for ‘two men’. The first applicant thought that the officers were talking about her husband and Mr S.I. After the servicemen found the room which the two men were in, they rushed into it and searched it for five or six minutes. After that the servicemen took Khamzat Umarov and Mr S.I. outside. The first applicant followed them. Two UAZ vehicles were parked in the street. One of the vehicles had an antenna and a portable radio transmitter on the roof. The officers put Khamzat Umarov in one of the cars, but left Mr S.I. behind. Immediately afterward both cars drove away in the direction of Lenina Street, where the Achkhoy-Martan District Department of the Interior (“the ROVD”), the Achkhoy-Martan Temporary District Department of the Interior (“the VOVD”) and the Achkhoy-Martan Department of the Federal S", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6965", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1944 and 1942. The first applicant, Ms Olga Prynda, died on 1 February 2010. The second applicant lives in the town of Stryy, Ukraine.\n6.  On 6 October 2003, at around 9 p.m., the applicants’ son was hit and killed by a car being driven by a German national, Mr F. The car belonged to a Polish national, Ms G.\n7.   The law-enforcement authorities examined the scene of the accident immediately after and prepared a vehicular accident scheme with the relevant measurements. The participants in the road traffic accident (Mr F. and Mr G., who was also in the car during the accident) gave their account of it.\n8.  On 7 October 2003 the Stryy Police Department instituted a criminal investigation into the road traffic accident and ordered a forensic medical examination of the victim.\n9.  On 8 October 2003 an on-site vehicular accident reconstruction was carried out with the participation of Mr F. and Mr G. and in the presence of attesting witnesses (Mr R. and Mr L.). On the same date two other persons were questioned as witnesses.\n10.  On 9 October 2003 the investigator ordered a technical vehicular examination, which was conducted on 13 October 2003 and established that the applicants’ son had died of serious head trauma as a result of the road traffic accident.\n11.  The applicants learned on 13 October 2003 that their son was dead and his body was in the town morgue.\n12.  On 23 October 2003 the applicants applied to the Transport Insurance Company for compensation. On 3 November 2003 the applicants and their granddaughters were awarded compensation of UAH 8,500 as heirs of the victim. In the accompanying letter, the Insurance Company informed the applicants that the above amount was the maximum amount it could pay under the law without consent of the foreign insurance company and it was open to them to seek any further compensation by lodging a civil claim against a person or persons liable for the accident. The applicants and their grandchildren received the above amount in equal shares on 13 June 2005.\n13.  On 28 October 2003 the forensic medical examination ordered on 7 October 2003 was conducted. It concluded that the applicants’ son had died as a result of the road traffic accident from open head trauma, and that he had been moderately drunk when the accident had occurred.\n14.  On 1 November 2003 the investigator ordered a forensic technical vehicular examination, which was conducted on 2 December 2003.\n15.  On 26 February 2004 the investigator ordered a vehicular trace examination, which was conducted on 26 April 2004.\n16.  Between December 2003 and December 2004 the applicants made numerous complaints to the different State authorities about delays in the investigation into the death of their son.\n17.  On 26 June 2004 the investigator stayed the proceedings on the ground that the only witnesses to the accident were the driver and the passenger of the car which had hit the applicants’ son, but they could not be questioned as they resided abroad and the police had no funds to arrange for them to travel to Ukraine.\n18.  On 14 July 2004 the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office (“the LRPO”) quashed the decision of 26 June 2004 and instructed the police to continue the investigation.\n19.  On 30 December 2004 the investigator of the Lviv Regional Police Department decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the driver’s actions. It was established that, given the darkness, the wet roa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6966", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Chisinau.\n6.  In May 1971 the applicant, who was living in Yerevan at that time, suffered an injury at work, namely a spinal fracture, while working at the Yerevan Meat Factory, a State-owned enterprise. He was recognised as a disabled person of the first degree, in need of constant nursing, and was granted a monthly disability allowance.\n7.  On 25 February 1972 the administration of the Meat Factory acknowledged its liability for the accident and awarded the applicant monthly payments for life, equivalent to the difference between the disability allowance and the average wage.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant, who by that time had apparently moved to the Moldovan SSR, instituted proceedings in the local courts against the Meat Factory, seeking damages.\n9.  On 20 November 1973 the Leninskiy District Court of Chisinau ordered the Meat Factory to pay the costs of nursing: a lump sum of 1,375 roubles and monthly payments of 62.50 roubles for the period between 29 October 1973 and 20 August 1975, the latter being the date when the applicant was supposed to undergo his regular disability examination. On 16 January 1974 the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Moldovan SSR modified this judgment by decreasing the awarded sums to 882 roubles and 40 roubles respectively.\n10.  It appears that on an unspecified date the applicant was granted disability status for life, with 100% loss of capacity for work. It further appears that the Factory continued to make the monthly payments on a voluntary basis after August 1975.\n11.  On an unspecified date in the late 1980s the applicant instituted proceedings against the Meat Factory seeking further damages for the cost of supplementary medical care and extra nutrition.\n12.  On 15 January 1988 the Ordzhonikidzenskiy District Court of Yerevan granted the applicant’s claims and ordered the Meat Factory to pay a lump sum of 5,430 roubles for the cost of supplementary medical care between 1971 and 1986, a lump sum of 400 roubles for the period between November 1986 and June 1987 and a lump sum of 4,655 roubles for the cost of extra nutrition for the period between October 1971 and June 1987 (hereafter “the 1988 judgment”). The District Court further ordered the Meat Factory to pay the applicant, with effect from the date of the judgment, 119.63 roubles monthly for supplementary medical care and extra dietary needs.\n13.  No appeal was lodged, so this judgment became final.\n14.  It appears that the factory stopped making monthly payments to the applicant starting from 1 January 1992.\n15.  On 14 June 1995 the Yerevan Meat Factory, which by that time had already been renamed the “Urartu Production Unit”, was restructured into the Urartu Production Unit Meat Factory of Yerevan Open Joint-Stock Company (hereafter the Urartu OJSC) and was subsequently privatised. According to the statute of the company, the Urartu OJSC was considered as a legal successor of the Urartu Production Unit.\n16.  By a letter of 26 July 1995, the general director of the Urartu OJSC, R.D., informed the Society of Disabled Persons of Moldova that the factory had been experiencing financial problems and was not able to make the payments. The general director pledged to restart the payments notwithstanding these problems.\n17.  On 14 January 1997 the Erebuni District People’s Court of Yerevan, pursuant to the provisions of the Enterprises and Private Entrepreneurs Bankruptcy Act, declar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6967", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Artemovskiy, Sverdlovsk Region.\n6.  In July 2009 the applicant moved from Uzbekistan to Russia.\n7.  On 22 February 2010 the Investigating Division of the Department of the Interior of the Kashkadarya Region of the Uzbekistan Republic charged the applicant in absentia with participation in an extremist religious organisation and ordered his arrest. The applicant’s name was put on the wanted persons list.\n8.  On 29 October 2010 the Russian authorities arrested the applicant and informed the Uzbekistani ambassador in Russia thereof. The Uzbekistani authorities confirmed their request for the applicant’s extradition.\n9.  On 30 October 2010 the Town Prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention pending extradition. In particular, the prosecutor stated as follows:\n“The offence [the applicant is charged with] as provided for in Article 244-2 § 1 of the Criminal Code of the Uzbekistan Republic, is a serious one, ... it entails a custodial sentence. In the Russian Federation a similar offence would be classified as per Article 282.1 § 2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation as participation in an extremist group and might entail, inter alia, a custodial sentence of up to two years.\n[The applicant] is a national of a foreign state, he has not applied for [Russian nationality]. There are no criminal proceedings pending against him in Russia. His name is on the international wanted persons’ list. He is sought by a member state of the Convention On Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 22 January 1993 in connection with an offence entailing a custodial sentence exceeding one year.\nPursuant to Article 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, [the applicant] can be extradited to the law enforcement bodies of the Uzbekistan Republic for the purpose of criminal prosecution.\nIn order to ensure the [applicant’s] extradition to the authorities of the Uzbekistan Republic, it is necessary to remand him in custody pursuant to the decision of the Karshi Court of the Kashkadarya Region of the Uzbekistan Republic.”\n10.  On 8 December 2010 the Town Prosecutor issued another order remanding the applicant in custody with a view to extradition reiterating verbatim the reasoning of his previous order of 30 October 2010.\n11.  On 10 December 2010 the Town Prosecutor asked the court to extend the applicant’s detention pending extradition until 30 April 2011 and on 17 December 2010 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg authorised the applicant’s detention until 29 April 2011. In particular, the court reasoned as follows:\n“Having regard to the nature of the offence [the applicant] is charged with and the danger it presents to the public order, the court considers ... the prosecutor’s arguments to be well-founded given that [the applicant] is charged with a serious offence entailing a custodial sentence from five to fifteen years as per the Criminal Code of the Uzbekistan Republic, that his name was put on the wanted persons’ list, [and] that he is a national of a foreign state. In view of the said circumstances the court considers that, if released, [the applicant] might continue his criminal activities or abscond ...\nThe circumstances underlying [the authorities’ decision] to remand the applicant in custody have not ceased to exist. The court does not discern any circumstances, including the applicant’s condition, that would render him unfi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6968", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Hendrik Jan van der Velden, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1965. As far as the Court is aware, he is currently detained in a custodial clinic in Groningen.\n6.  On various dates in 2002, the applicant committed five bank robberies and stole four cars.\n7.  In the course of the criminal investigation, the applicant underwent psychological and psychiatric examinations. The report by the psychologist contains the following:\n“At the time of the facts charged, the [applicant] was suffering from inadequate development or pathological disorder. Most likely there is a schizoid personality disorder, but atypical autism cannot be ruled out.\nOwing to a lack of social reciprocity the [applicant] cannot adequately adapt his actions to the consequences for the other person. In weighing his motives to act, those consequences remain out of the picture to a large extent. For that reason, the [applicant’s] control of his impulses is impaired.”\nThe psychiatrist’s report contained the following:\n“At the time of the facts charged, the [applicant] was suffering from inadequate development of his mental faculties that can be described as: a personality structure showing signs of serious neurotic distortion. It is then certain that there is no present pathological disorder of the mental faculties. The [applicant’s] various personality characteristics, including in particular his limited frustration tolerance and insufficient impulse control, make him more liable than someone without these personality traits to impulsive behaviour transgressing limits. He gets annoyed and irritated more readily than a person without the personality traits described, has poor ‘stress resistance’, and is relatively easily inclined to ill-considered, reckless and, as it turns out, criminal acts. The [applicant] himself uses the expression ‘short-sightedness’ in this connection.”\nBoth recommended a finding of diminished criminal responsibility.\n8.  The applicant was tried by the Roermond Regional Court (rechtbank), which on 22 April 2003 convicted him of extortion and theft by means of breaking and entering. It sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. It ordered him placed at the disposal of the Government (terbeschikkingstelling, hereafter “TBS order”) with confinement in a custodial clinic (bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege). Its reasoning, as relevant to the case before the Court, included the following:\n“The accused, through his actions, has committed a serious interference with the mental integrity (geestelijke integriteit) of the staff of the banks he robbed. In so doing, he has caused them personal suffering and psychological harm.\nIn addition, it is a fact of general knowledge that victims of crimes such as [the bank robberies found proven] may for a long time continue to suffer feelings of fear and insecurity, which can seriously hamper their participation in social life.”\n9.  The prosecution did not appeal against this judgment. The applicant did, but withdrew his appeal before it was heard.\n10.  The TBS order started to run on 29 August 2005, the day on which the applicant would otherwise have become eligible for provisional release from his prison sentence. On 12 September 2007, after an initial two-year term, the Roermond Regional Court extended it for a further two years.\n11.  On 7 July 2009 the public prosecutor applied to the Roermond Regional Court for a further two-year extension of the TBS order. The application stated that th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6969", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Chelyabinsk.\n6.  On 23 June 2005 the applicant, a nurse at a private dentist’s office at the time, attended a small party with her colleagues to celebrate the approval of an application for a dental practice licence. Then four of them, including the applicant, went to a lake, where they continued to celebrate. They left the lake late in the evening. According to the applicant, on her way home she was stopped by a group of men, who threatened her with a knife and beat her. She was raped and forced to engage in other sexual activities. Thereafter she was taken to a flat, where she was let in by a teenage girl, fourteen or fifteen years old. A man of forty or fifty years of age made her stay in the flat and allowed her to leave only in the morning. When she got home, she discovered that certain clothing was missing. Her jewellery, including a gold chain and a pendant, had also disappeared. Her jeans and T-shirt were covered with dirt, grass and blood. She had bruises and contusions on her body.\n7.  On 24 June 2005 the applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office that she had been raped and robbed. She could not recall the events of the previous night in detail. First she alleged that she had been raped by Sh., the man who had taken her to the flat. Then she submitted that it was the group of men she had met near her place of residence who had raped her.\n8.  The applicant remembered the nicknames the men had used to address each other. She also reported the first name of the girl who had let her into the flat. She could not remember the flat number or its floor. Nor could she provide a detailed description of the flat’s interior.\n9.  On the same day she was examined by a forensic expert, who noted the presence of bruises and contusions on her body, but no injuries in the area of the genitals or the anus. She also had a smear test, which did not detect the presence of spermatozoids.\n10.  Investigator B. questioned the applicant and her colleagues who had participated in the party. K., another nurse, submitted that the applicant had been drunk and had fallen down several times on the way back from the lake. She doubted that the applicant had been raped, and suggested that the latter had concocted the story for her husband.\n11.  The investigator also questioned Sh. who denied all the allegations.\n12.  On 3 July 2005 investigator B. dismissed the applicant’s complaint. He found her allegations unsubstantiated, noting that on the night in question she had been drunk and had fallen down several times. He further concluded that her story was vague and contradictory and was an attempt to exonerate herself to her husband.\n13.  On 20 July 2005 the Chelyabinsk Leninskiy District prosecutor quashed the decision of 3 July 2005. The prosecutor noted that the inquiry in response to the applicant’s complaint had been incomplete. He indicated that the investigator should question further (1) the applicant, to remove the contradictions in her account of the events, (2) her colleagues, and (3) the teenage girl from the flat. The investigator was also to establish the identity of the men whom the applicant accused of having raped her.\n14.  On 27 July 2005 investigator B. dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unsubstantiated. From the text of his decision, it is not clear whether he had conducted new examinations of the applicant and her colleagues, whom he had questioned earlier. He had also interviewed the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6970", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in the village of Aleksandrovka, Ukraine.\n6.  On 14 June 2000 the applicant, who was 11 years old, was playing football with his friends. Two 15 year-old boys took their ball. The applicant tried to get the ball back and he and his friends started to throw chestnuts at the other boys. One of the boys, K., threw a stone in retaliation, which hit the applicant in the left eye. As a result the applicant was diagnosed with concussion. Subsequently, he became blind in his left eye.\n7.  On 20 June 2000 Sverdlovsk District Hospital, which the applicant attended after the incident, informed the Sverdlovskiy police office (Свердловський МВ УМВС України в Луганській області) that the applicant had been injured by a third person.\n8.  The Government submitted that on the same date the applicant’s father had complained to the police office about the injuries received by his son. However, according to the Government, on the same date the applicant’s father requested all investigations to be discontinued because he “had no complaints and refused to give any written explanations or to have a forensic medical examination”. The Government submitted a copy of a written statement allegedly signed by the applicant’s father. The applicant stated that his father had never made such a statement.\n9.  On 24 June 2000 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings on account of lack of evidence of a crime.\n10.  On 10 July 2000 the applicant’s father requested the police office to institute criminal proceedings against K.\n11.  On 13 July 2000 the police rejected his request on account of lack of evidence of a crime.\n12.  On 21 August 2000 the Sverdlovsk prosecutor (прокурор м. Свердловськ) quashed the decision of 24 June 2000 and remitted the case to the police for additional checks.\n13.  On 29 August 2000 the Sverdlovsk Department of Forensic Medical Examinations (Свердловське відділення судмедекспертизи) concluded that the applicant had sustained bodily injuries of medium severity, but that it would only be possible to finally establish the seriousness of the injuries in six months’ time.\n14.  On 30 October 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against K. for intentional infliction of bodily injuries of medium severity.\n15.  On 31 October 2000 the applicant’s father was recognised as a victim and a civil claimant in the case since the applicant was a minor at the time.\n16.  Between 9 November 2000 and 5 June 2001 the criminal proceedings were suspended “since it was impossible to identify the aggressor”.\n17.  On 18 January 2001 the Lugansk Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinations (Луганське обласне бюро судово-медичних експертиз) reached the conclusion that the applicant had sustained bodily injuries of medium severity.\n18.  On 5 June 2001 the criminal proceedings were resumed.\n19.  On 20 June 2001 K.’s actions were reclassified as “unintentional infliction of grievous bodily harm”. This crime was not punishable under criminal law if the aggressor had not reached the age of majority (16 years).\n20.  On 25 June 2001 the criminal proceedings against K. were terminated and the case was transferred to the court for compulsory measures of an educational nature (примусові заходи виховного характеру) to be applied to K.\n21.  On 14 August 2001 the Sverdlovskiy Town Court ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant.\n22.  On 13 December 2001 the Lugansk Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examinati", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6971", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1985, 1959, 1958 and 1977 respectively and live in the village of Novo Selo in the Vidin region (Bulgaria). The applicants are of Roma ethnic origin. At the time of the events (May-June 2003), the first applicant was still a minor. The second and third applicants are her father and mother, and the fourth applicant is the first applicant’s sister‑in‑law.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The first, second and third applicants arrived in Milan on 12 May 2003 following a promise of work by X., a Roma man of Serbian nationality, residing in Italy, who accommodated them in a villa in the village of Ghislarengo, in the province of Vercelli, where he lived with his family. The third and the first applicants provided different versions on this point to the Italian authorities. In her declarations to the Italian police, on 24 May 2003, the third applicant maintained that she, her husband and her daughter, who lived in Bulgaria in a condition of extreme precariousness, moved to Italy in search of work; when they arrived in Milan they approached an individual who spoke their language, X., who proposed to them to work as domestic employees to take care of his big house. The first applicant, in her declarations to the public prosecutor on 11 June 2003, maintained that she had met X. in “Yugoslavia”, where she was with her mother in search of a job, and from there X. had driven them to Italy in his car after proposing a job. They remained in the villa for several days, during which time they undertook household chores. After a while, X. declared to the second applicant that Y., his nephew, wanted to marry his daughter (the first applicant). As the second and third applicants refused, X. threatened them with a loaded gun. Then the second and third applicants were beaten, threatened with death and forced to leave the first applicant in Italy and go back to Bulgaria. Although the applicants denied this, it seems from their initial submissions that the second and third applicants had been offered money to leave their daughter behind. On 18 May 2003, the second and third applicants went back to Bulgaria. On their return the second applicant was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, which he alleged was a consequence of the stress endured.\n9.  The applicants submitted that during the month (following 18 May 2003) spent at the villa in Ghislarengo, the first applicant was kept under constant surveillance and was forced to steal against her will, was beaten, threatened with death and repeatedly raped by Y. while tied to a bed. During one of the robberies in which the first applicant was forced to participate, she had an accident and had to be treated in hospital. However, the Serbian family refused to leave her there to undergo treatment. The applicants submitted that they were not aware of the name and location of this hospital.\n10.  On 24 May 2003 the third applicant returned to Italy, accompanied by the first applicant’s sister‑in‑law (the fourth applicant), and lodged a complaint with the Italian police in Turin, reporting that she and her husband had been beaten and threatened and that the first applicant had been kidnapped. She further feared that her daughter might be led into prostitution. They were settled in a monastery near Turin. Subsequently, the police accompanied them with an interpreter to identify the house in Ghislarengo.\n11.  Apparently frustrated with the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6972", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Vilnius.\n6.  At the relevant time, the applicant was a founding member of the Liberal Democrats political party, led by Mr Rolandas Paksas. The applicant was also a member of the Vilnius City Municipal Council.\n7.  On 16 March 2003 the State Security Department (“the SSD”) intercepted a telephone conversation between the applicant and Jurij Borisov (“J.B.”) (see Borisov v. Lithuania, no. 9958/04, § 15, 14 June 2011), a major contributor to the electoral campaign of the State President, Rolandas Paksas. The tapping of J.B.’s telephone had been authorised by a court. The conversation was as follows:\n“Jurij Borisov (J.B.): So. He [the State President R. Paksas] said on television that Borisov isn’t on the list of his advisers and won’t be included.\nAlgirdas Drakšas (A.D.): Won’t be on the list of his advisers? But I don’t understand. After all, you always said that [he would]. J.B.: A week ago he and I agreed that from Monday I would be on the list [of advisers to the President]. J.B.: I am telling you – that was his promise. So he has been stressed for two days, because he has already betrayed me. You understand? He has already sold me. And he is stressed, he is afraid to meet. So I have told him, if by Monday he doesn’t fulfil any of his promises - not a single one for what I have done for him - I will begin to recover my money. I will have to go public, do you understand?... A.D.: Damn, I don’t know that. I don’t know that. I know that you declared that you would act differently, that you wouldn’t go to the President’s Office because the salary is low there, that you wouldn’t manage to earn a living there. I know only that. J.B.: That was in the press. At his [the State President’s] request: “Jura, tell that in the meantime you won’t go [to work at the President’s Office]. And on Monday you will be [working] there”....That’s why he has already been suffering for two days, because he has lied on television. And I don’t know how he is going to walk away from this... Death to him as to the President. Tomorrow this lie will surface... That’s why he is restless... J.B.: Algis, I am not asking you for an answer, I am just emotional, because I don’t know ... how I should go and talk to him. Because I have to go public and say everything now. Rolandas is such-and-such... We have agreed with him... And now: he went to Dalia [D.K.G. - adviser to the President], and [the President] has said that Borisov won’t harass you. I don’t know what she has told him. So the President, you understand, is a corpse already. J.B.: Algis, I haven’t done anything yet, so far I’ve done nothing. But he has sold me publicly already. A.D.: Calm down. He hasn’t sold you publicly; he is not that kind of person ... I don’t know that you are not going to be an adviser. That wasn’t discussed openly, there was no such idea, I haven’t heard about that. He hasn’t sold you publicly; I can’t imagine he would do that. He is not like that.\n8.  On 17 September 2003 the SSD applied to the Attorney General’s Office with a request for the applicant’s telephone to be tapped. The request was based on operational information that the applicant maintained contact with J.B. and A.Z., both of whom had contributed to the electoral campaign of Mr Rolandas Paksas. A.Z. worked for a Russian public relations company. Subsequently, J.B. was convicted of having threatened the State President so that the latter would appoint him as an adviser, grant ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6973", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1978, respectively, and live in Tomsk, Russia. Mrs Olga Yuryeva (“the first applicant”) is the mother of Mr Denis Yuryev (“the second applicant”).\n6.  In 1988 the applicants and Y. (the first applicant’s former husband and the second applicant’s father) moved from Tomsk, Russia, to Sevastopol, Ukraine.\n7.  According to an agreement signed in February 1995 by Y. and his employer, a construction company M., Y. was to be provided with a two‑room apartment upon payment of 5,000 United States dollars (USD). On an unidentified date the applicants and Y. moved to this apartment and were all registered there as of 29 March 1996.\n8.  On an unidentified date between April 1996 and September 1997 the applicants returned to Tomsk allegedly because the second applicant decided to study there. It is unclear whether the applicants visited Sevastopol between April 1996 and July 2000. In June 1999 the first applicant and Y. divorced.\n9.  In July 2000 the first applicant came back to Sevastopol but Y. did not let her enter the apartment.\n10.  According to a certificate issued on an unclear date of December 2000 by M., as at that date the first applicant was registered and permanently resided together with the second applicant and Y. in the apartment in question.\n11.  The first applicant states that between July 2000 and December 2004 she occasionally lived on the street. For the majority of time she worked as a housemaid or as a watchwoman in offices where she also slept at night. Between July 2001 and May 2003 the first applicant lived in a dormitory.\n12.  From the materials submitted by the applicants, it appears that the second applicant returned to Sevastopol in July 2001 and left in 2003. During this time he resided in a dormitory together with the first applicant.\n13.  Between December 2004 and March 2005 the applicants lived in Tomsk with the first applicant’s father. Between March 2005, when the first applicant again returned to Sevastopol, and March 2006 the first applicant lived in a dormitory and in an utility room of a sport school where she worked. On an unidentified date the first applicant returned to Tomsk.\n14.  In August 2000 the applicants instituted proceedings in the Gagarinsky District Court of Sevastopol (“the District Court”) seeking a ruling to oblige Y. not to hinder the applicants in their use of the apartment and claiming compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 28 August 2000 Y. lodged a counterclaim requesting the court to rule that the applicants had lost their right to reside in the apartment. He stated that the applicants had not been residing in the apartment since April 1996 and he had divorced the first applicant in 1999. He also requested the court to inquire before the Russian authorities whether the applicants were registered in the town of Tomsk.\n15.  On 6 September 2000 the court decided to consider the above claims jointly. The court sent several requests to various institutions in Tomsk inquiring whether the second applicant was studying in Tomsk and whether applicants were registered there. It also requested the Tomsk Town Court to question three witnesses. In December 2000 the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation returned the District Court’s request to question witnesses and indicated that, in accordance with the Convention on Legal Assistance in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases signed between several ex‑USSR states, including Russia and Ukraine on 22 January ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6974", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1980, 1974, 1978, 1984, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1954 and 1953 respectively and live in Hakkari. The first seven applicants are the children of Mr Ahmet Er, who disappeared in July 1995, and the remaining two applicants are his siblings. At the time of his disappearance Ahmet Er was 44 years old.\n6.  The facts of the case are disputed by the parties. The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below. The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below. The documentary evidence submitted by the applicants and the Government is summarised in Section D.\n7.  On 14 July 1995 an armed clash took place between members of the PKK[1] and members of the security forces in Kurudere village, which comes within the administrative jurisdiction of the town of Çukurca in south-east Turkey. After the operation the soldiers took the applicants’ relative Ahmet Er and an elderly relative by the name of Hacı Mehrap Er from Kurudere to the nearby Işıklı gendarmerie station.\n8.  The same day the applicants informed the public prosecutor in Çukurca of the incident.\n9.  Hacı Mehrap Er was released on 15 July 1995 but nothing further was heard from Ahmet Er.\n10.  The Government submitted that Ahmet Er had not been taken into custody. He had assisted soldiers in searching for landmines planted in the area by terrorists and had been released following the soldiers’ return to their barracks.\n11.  An effective investigation carried out by the judicial authorities had shown that following his release Ahmet Er had joined the terrorists in northern Iraq.\n12.  The following information emerges from the documents submitted by the parties.\n13.  On 14 July 1995 Mr Ali Er, who is the brother of Ahmet Er and one of the applicants, informed the public prosecutor in Çukurca in writing about the disappearance of his brother. He also stated that the family feared for Ahmet Er’s life, and asked for the public prosecutor’s help.\n14.  On 16 July 1995 the Çukurca public prosecutor recorded in a report that he had had a telephone conversation with Major C.Y. of the Çukurca commando headquarters. Major C.Y. was also the commanding officer in charge of the soldiers who had carried out the operation on 14 July. The major told the public prosecutor that Ahmet Er had been taken from the village by his soldiers on 14 July to help them with their operations. However, he had been released on 16 July 1995 in an area near Narlı village.\n15.  On 18 July 1995 Ali Er made submissions to the offices of the governor and the public prosecutor in Çukurca. He stated in his submissions that his brother Ahmet Er had not been released, contrary to the information given to him by the Çukurca public prosecutor on 16 July. He added that he had tried unsuccessfully to find his brother in the surrounding villages and towns.\n16.  On the same day the Çukurca public prosecutor initiated an investigation into Ahmet Er’s disappearance and issued writs to the Çukurca gendarmerie headquarters and Çukurca commando headquarters requesting information about Ahmet Er’s whereabouts. The public prosecutor reminded the military authorities that if Ahmet Er was in their custody they needed to obtain official permission from the public prosecutor’s office in order to keep him in detention.\n17.  On 1 August 1995 the commander of the Çukurca gendarmerie headquarters, Captain S.A.U., replied to the Çukurca public prosecutor’s letter and informed him ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6975", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Kherson, Ukraine.\n6.  The applicant is a journalist and human rights activist. Since April 2003 he has been a member of the Kherson Regional Branch of the Ukrainian NGO “The Committee of Voters of Ukraine” (hereinafter “CVU”) (Херсонська обласна організація всеукраїнської громадської організації «Комітет виборців України») and a reporter for the regional newspaper “Vilnyy vybir” («Вільний вибір»), which was founded by the Kherson Regional Branch of the CVU. Between 26 October 2004 and 10 January 2005 he was also a reporter for the CVU’s newspaper “Tochka zoru” («Точка зору»). The CVU’s main activities include, inter alia, election monitoring and raising voters’ legal awareness during election campaigns.\n7.  The Ukrainian presidential elections in 2004 were held on two rounds, on 31 October and 21 November 2004.\n8.  After the end of the second-round voting of 21 November 2004 mass protests were carried out. The elections were claimed to be marked by massive corruption, voter intimidation and electoral fraud. The protests succeeded in that the results of the original run-off were annulled, and a revote was organised on 26 December 2004.\n9.  The protests and other political events that took place in Ukraine from late November 2004 to January 2005 were called the Orange Revolution.\n10.  During the Ukrainian presidential elections in 2004 the applicant covered meetings and decisions of Territorial Election Commission no. 186 (hereinafter “the TEC”) (територіальна виборча комісія).\n11.  According to the applicant, at 2 p.m. on 31 October 2004, the day of first-round voting in the presidential elections, he requested R., the TEC’s secretary, and B., the TEC’s Head, to provide him with a copy of the TEC’s decision no. P-12-4, adopted earlier on the same day, concerning the possibility for district electoral commissions to make changes to the lists of voters without the approval of the TEC. According to the applicant, such a decision was unlawful. Later, the applicant asked for the voting results for each polling station and for copies of the minutes of the TEC’s meetings of 31 October 2004.\n12.  As the applicant was not provided with the information requested, on the same day at 5 p.m. he submitted a written request to the Head of the TEC. In reply, he was informed that decision no. P-12-4 had been posted on the information stand and that by 4 p.m. 39.1% of voters had voted. According to the applicant, his request for the TEC meeting minutes was ignored. However, according to explanations given by R. to a prosecutor (see paragraph 20), the minutes of the TEC meetings of 31 October and 1 November 2004 had also been displayed on the information stand.\n13.  That same evening, at around 8 p.m., the applicant was prevented from entering the TEC building to attend its meeting. According to the applicant, he entered the TEC premises half an hour later. It is unclear whether a TEC meeting was actually held at that time and, if so, whether the applicant was finally able to attend.\n14.  On 5 November 2004 the applicant complained to the Head of the TEC, inter alia, about not letting him into the TEC’s premises, and requested copies of the TEC meeting minutes of 31 October and 1 November 2004.\n15.  On 10 November 2004 the TEC adopted a decision to disregard the applicant’s complaint.\n16.  On 21 November 2004, the day of second-round voting, the applicant requested to be provided with the TEC’s decision no. 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6976", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in İzmir.\n6.  On 5 December 1994 the applicant was exposed to an electric shock from the power grid which was placed on the balcony of her house.\n7.  On 17 November 1995 she introduced a judicial proceeding before the Uşak Civil Court for damages. In the course of the proceedings the Civil Court requested six expert reports on the partition of liability which were concluded by different experts between 23 October 1998 and 25 December 1999.\n8.  On 2 March 2000, the Uşak Civil Court decided on the case in favour of the applicant.\n9.  On 4 December 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision.\n10.  After the decision was quashed by the Court of Cassation, the Forensics Medicine Institute concluded a new report with a higher rate of working capacity loss. Upon the new rate two more expert reports were concluded between 28 January 2001 and 15 January 2003.\n11.  On 1 July 2003 the Uşak Civil Court decided in favour of the applicant.\n12.  On 21 April 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision.\n13.  On 18 January 2005 the Uşak Civil Court decided on the case and partially awarded the request of the applicant.\n14.  On 26 September the Court of Cassation upheld that decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6977", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1925, 1925, 1929, 1958 and 1964. They all live in Albania.\n5.  On 27 July 1995 the Vlora Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property title to a plot of land measuring 5,000 sq. m. It further decided that the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law.\n6.  The applicants sent various letters to the Commission in 1995, 1996 and 2002 about the issue of compensation but did not receive an official response.\n7.  On 30 March 2007 the Agency informed the applicants that it was in the process of determining the property valuation maps and allocating the appropriate funds. The outcome would pave the way for the establishment of the criteria for compensation claims.\n8.  On 6 October 2008 the Agency’s director decided proprio motu to verify the lawfulness of the 1995 Vlora Commission decision. To date, no other decision has been taken and the 1995 Commission decision continues to remain unenforced.\n9.  The applicants were born in 1937, 1941, 1944, 1950, 1936, 1960, 1962 and 1968. They all live in Albania.\n10.  On 31 October 1994 the Lezhë Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 3,434 sq. m, out of which 713 sq. m were restored. The applicants would be compensated for the remaining 2,721 sq. m in one of the ways provided for by law.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicants challenged the Commission decision before the court, claiming that a larger area should be restored to them.\n12.  On 10 December 1996 the Lezhë District Court decided that an additional plot of 1,187 sq. m should be restored to the applicants. Consequently, a total area of 1,900 sq. m was restored to the applicants.\n13.  However, to date they have not been provided with compensation in respect of the remainder of the property (1,534 sq. m).\n14.  The applicants were born in 1928, 1932, 1948, 1949, 1953 and 1957. They all live in Albania.\n15.  On 19 January 1996 the Korçë Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 4,000 sq. m. It decided that, since the plot of land was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law. To date, the applicants have not been provided with any compensation.\n16.  On 15 January 1999 the Korçë Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title over an agricultural plot of land measuring 59,546 sq. m. It decided that the applicants would be compensated in State bonds in the amount of 1,018,236 Albanian leks (“ALL”). To date, the applicants have not been awarded any State bonds or any other form of compensation.\n17.  The Government submitted that in 2009 the applicants applied for and received compensation in the amount of ALL 2,000,000 in respect of 200 sq. m from the Financial Compensation Fund (“FCF”). No supporting document was submitted.\n18.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Albania.\n19.  On 7 June 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited title to two plots of land measuring 63 sq. m and 597 sq. m, respectively. It further decided that, since the plots of land were occupied, the applicant would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law. The Commission recognised the applicant’s right to first refusal of two buildings located on the land.\n20.  On 16 August 1995 the Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited title to another plot of land measuring 800 sq. m, of which 178 sq. m were restored. It decided that, sin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6978", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Mr Ibragim Makhashev, who was born in 1972,\n2) Mr Adam Makhashev, who was born in 1974, and\n3) Mr Islam Makhashev, who was born in 1979.\nThe applicants are brothers. The first and the second applicants live in Nalchik. Prior to his death in July 2008 the third applicant also lived there. The cause of the third applicant’s death is not relevant to the present case.\n6. The applicants are ethnic Chechens. They were born in Grozny and lived there until the armed hostilities between Russian military forces and Chechen fighters destroyed their house in October 1996. The applicants moved to Nalchik, the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria, a Russian region neighbouring Chechnya.\n7.  In the early evening of 14 November 2004 the first and the second applicants went to a night club (the documents submitted also referred to the establishment as a concert hall). They had an argument there with Mr M. Sh., who was also an ethnic Chechen, and friends of his. As a result, Mr M. Sh. stabbed the first applicant in the buttocks. A security guard, Mr A. Ku., who was an ethnic Kabardinian, was also lightly stabbed either by Mr M. Sh. or one of his friends. The conflict was resolved without police intervention. Mr M.Sh. and his friends then left the club. Someone called the police and reported the stabbing, saying that a Chechen had stabbed a Kabardinian security guard at the club.\n8.  After 7 p.m. the first and second applicants left the club. Just a few blocks away they were stopped by several policemen who had apparently been waiting for them. The first applicant tried to explain to them that he had been wounded and needed medical assistance, but the officers disregarded his explanations; they did not ask for the applicants’ identity documents either. According to the applicants, the policemen detained them based on the information that a Chechen had stabbed a Kabardinian at the night club. The second applicant managed to call the third applicant and inform him about their arrest. The first and second applicants were immediately put in the police patrol car and taken to the 2nd Town Department of the Interior (the GOM-2) in Nogmov Street, Nalchik, where they arrived at about 8 p.m. The officers took them to two different rooms on the third floor of the police station. No documents were drawn up by the policemen before or after the applicants were taken to the police station.\n(b)  Ill-treatment of the first applicant and subsequent events\n9.  The first applicant was taken to a room in which there were a number of police officers, including two officers from the criminal search division, Mr M. Al. and Mr Z. Ar., and the head of the criminal search division, Mr A. Bo. All the officers were either ethnic Kabardinians or Balkars. The policemen pulled the applicant’s jacket over his head, knocked him off his feet and started to kick him. One of them struck the applicant with a rifle butt in the face, causing him to lose consciousness. When the applicant regained consciousness, the officers continued to beat him, shouting racist remarks and insulting him on account of his Chechen ethnicity: “You Chechens are all faggots. Why did you come over here? Go back to Chechnya ...”\n10.  After that the policemen took the first applicant to an adjacent office where he saw the second applicant, who was bleeding on the floor, and officers M. Al. and A. Bo. kicking him. The first applicant was taken back to the office and was subjected to further beating", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6980", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicants were all reservists who had been drafted by the Yugoslav Army in connection with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s intervention in Serbia. They remained in military service between March and June 1999, and were thus entitled to a certain per diem, as recognised in a number of decisions and orders of April 1999 signed by the then Chief of Staff of the Yugoslav Army. These decisions and orders were themselves based on the relevant bylaws adopted in accordance with the armed services legislation, specifically the Rules on Travel and Other Expenses in the Yugoslav Army (Pravilnik o naknadi putnih i drugih troškova u Vojsci Jugoslavije) as amended in March 1999.\n7.  However, following the demobilisation the Government refused to honour their obligation to the reservists, including the applicants.\n8.  The reservists subsequently organised a series of public protests, some of which ended in open confrontation with the police. Ultimately, following protracted negotiations, on 11 January 2008 the Government reached an agreement with some of the reservists, in particular those residing in the municipalities of Kuršumlija, Lebane, Bojnik, Žitorađa, Doljevac, Prokuplje and Blace, whereby the latter were guaranteed payment in six monthly instalments. This payment was to be effected through their respective municipalities, aggregate sums having been specified per each municipality. The said municipalities were chosen because of their “underdeveloped” status, implying the reservists’ indigence. For their part, the reservists in question accepted to renounce all of their outstanding claims based on their military service in 1999 which were still pending before the civil courts, as well as any other claims in this connection. It was, lastly, stipulated that the criteria for the distribution of the “financial aid” in question shall be set out by a Commission consisting of local government representatives and the representatives of the reservists themselves.\n9.  The applicants, just like all other reservists without a registered residence in the listed municipalities, could not benefit from the agreement of 11 January 2008.\n10.  On 26 March 2009 the applicants therefore filed a civil claim against the respondent State, seeking payment of their per diems and alleging discrimination.\n11.  On 8 July 2010 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Niš ruled against the applicants. In so doing, it acknowledged the valid legal basis of their claim but noted that, as pointed out by the respondent, the applicable prescription period had been three years as of their demobilisation, in accordance with Article 376 § 1 of the Obligations Act. The applicants’ claim had thus been filed out of time.\n12.  On 16 November 2010 the Appeals Court (Apelacioni sud) in Niš upheld this judgment on appeal, and it thereby became final. In its reasoning the Appeals Court noted that both the three-year and the five-year prescription periods provided in Article 376 §§ 1 and 2 of the Obligations Act had already elapsed before the applicants filed their civil claim (see paragraph 40 below).\n13.  Having been served with the Appeals Court’s decision, on 21 January 2011 the applicants lodged a further appeal with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud). Therein they maintained, inter alia, that the impugned judgment of the Appeals Court in Niš was inconsistent with numerous jud", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6981", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Trabzon. He used to work as a security guard in a security van for Akbank, a private bank in Turkey.\n6.  On 16 July 1998, on their return from one of the branches of the bank, the applicant and his two colleagues working in the same van realised that a sum of money (approximately 10,000 euros) was missing.\n7.  On 23 July 1998 the applicant was questioned by the police and on 3 September 1998 the Trabzon prosecutor filed an indictment formally charging the applicant and his two colleagues with the offence of breach of trust.\n8.  On 22 December 2000, while the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his colleagues were in progress, Law No. 4616 entered into force. Law No. 4616 provides for the suspension of criminal cases in respect of certain offences committed before 23 April 1999.\n9.  On 22 December 2003 the Istanbul Assize Court considered the following:\n“...[the applicant] has committed the offence of breach of trust. Nevertheless, the offence was committed before 23 April 1999 and it thus falls within the ambit of Law No. 4616. It is accordingly decided not to convict [the applicant] but to suspend the proceedings in accordance with Law No. 4616”\n10.  On 13 February 2004 the applicant appealed against the Assize Court’s decision, arguing that if the proceedings had not been postponed his innocence would have been proved.\n11.  On 8 June 2006 the Court of Cassation decided that the Istanbul Assize Court’s decision was not appealable because it was not a decision containing a definitive conclusion. It considered, however, that the applicant’s appeal could be examined as an “objection” and forwarded it to the Court of Cassation’s prosecutor for the necessary action to be taken.\n12.  On 25 August 2006 the Istanbul Assize Court examined the objection and rejected it.\n13.  On 30 August 1998 lawyers representing Akbank lodged a claim with the Trabzon Labour Court for the return of the missing money from the applicant and the two colleagues who had been working with him on the day it went missing.\n14.  On 17 June 2004 the Trabzon Labour Court ordered the applicant and his two colleagues to repay the missing money to the bank together with the “highest rates of interest applicable”. It considered, on the basis of the Istanbul Assize Court’s decision of 22 December 2003, that the applicant and his colleagues had “committed the offence” in question and embezzled the money. The applicant appealed against the decision and drew the Court of Cassation’s attention to the fact that he had not been convicted of any offence by the Istanbul Assize Court, which, in fact, had decided to suspend the proceedings.\n15.  The Court of Cassation quashed the decision in so far as it concerned the rate of interest applicable. On 19 July 2005 the Trabzon Labour Court decided, in line with the Court of Cassation’s decision, that a lower rate of interest should apply. An appeal lodged against that decision by the applicant was rejected by the Court of Cassation on 26 September 2005.\n16.  On 30 October 1998 the applicant’s contract of employment was terminated by his employer. The applicant and his two colleagues brought a case against the bank before the Trabzon Labour Court claiming compensation for their dismissal.\n17.  On 21 September 2004 the Trabzon Labour Court rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation for his dismissal. It stated as follows:\n“The case concerns the compensation claim for the dismissal", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6982", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Van.\n6.  On 18 April 2005 the Çaldıran Magistrates’ Court issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant in absentia, on suspicion of his involvement in the trafficking of illegal immigrants between Iran and Turkey.\n7.  According to the applicant’s submissions, on the same day at 5 p.m. he was arrested by gendarmerie officers and was taken to the Çaldıran district gendarmerie command, where he was allegedly beaten by the gendarmerie station commander, Y.A.\n8.  The Government maintained, however, that the applicant had been taken to the gendarmerie command at around 7.35 p.m.\n9.  As soon as he was brought to the gendarmerie command, the applicant was examined by a doctor upon a letter from the district gendarmerie commander, which stated that the applicant was due to be taken into custody. The doctor indicated in his medical report that there was a graze of 2 cm and a scab caused by bleeding on the applicant’s right tibia, a bruise and sensitivity on the left side of his nose, lesions on both sides of his back and sensitivity under his right nipple.\n10.  Following the medical examination, the applicant was taken into custody. The official custody record noted the time of his placement in custody as 8 p.m. and indicated that there was no sign of physical violence on his body.\n11.  On 19 April 2005 at 9 a.m. the applicant had a meeting with his representative. Subsequently, the latter filed a petition with the Çaldıran public prosecutor’s office, stating that the applicant had alleged he had been ill-treated at the gendarmerie command. The lawyer indicated that he had observed bruises on the applicant’s face and requested that the applicant be medically examined in order to establish whether he had sustained the injuries as a result of physical violence in custody.\n12.  At 10.25 a.m. the applicant was examined by another doctor following the request of the district gendarmerie commander, who noted that the applicant was due to be released from custody. The second medical report indicated exactly the same findings as those mentioned in the initial report.\n13.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the Çaldıran Magistrates’ Court, which ordered his pre-trial detention.\n14.  At 7.10 p.m., prior to his detention in Muradiye Prison, the applicant was once again examined by a doctor at the Muradiye State Hospital. The medical report drawn up by that doctor indicated a slightly swollen lesion measuring 0.5 x 0.1 cm on the applicant’s left cheekbone, a 3 x 4 cm lesion on the right side of his nose, a lesion of 2 x 3 cm under his left nipple and a sensitive area of 2 x 0.2 cm on his right tibia. The doctor concluded that the injuries would render the applicant unfit for work for one day.\n15.  On 22 April 2005 the applicant sent a petition to the Çaldıran public prosecutor’s office. He claimed that he had been beaten at the district gendarmerie command and requested that an investigation be initiated into the matter.\n16.  On 17 November 2005 the public prosecutor heard the applicant’s statements. The applicant submitted that he had been beaten and cursed by Y.A., who had also threatened him by pointing a gun at his head.\n17.  On 7 December 2005 Y.A. told the public prosecutor that the applicant had been examined by a doctor before his detention in custody and found to have been injured. He stated that he could not be held liable of those findings in that they had apparently been sustai", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6983", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1977 and 1975 respectively and live in Rome.\n8.  Following the birth of their daughter in 2006, the applicants learned that they were healthy carriers of cystic fibrosis[1]. The child had been born with the disease.\n9.  In February 2010, when the first applicant was pregnant again, the applicants, who wanted to have a healthy child unaffected by the genetic disease, had a prenatal test carried out. The results showed that the foetus was affected by cystic fibrosis. The applicants then decided to have the pregnancy terminated on medical grounds.\n10.  The applicants now want to take advantage of assisted reproduction technology (hereafter “ART”) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis[2] (hereafter “PGD”) before the first applicant becomes pregnant again. However, under Law no. 40 of 19 February 2004, ART is available only to sterile or infertile couples. There is a blanket ban on the use of PGD.\n11.  By a decree of 11 April 2008, the Ministry of Health extended access to ART to couples in which the man suffers from a sexually transmissible viral disease (such as the HIV virus, or hepatitis B and C) to allow them to conceive children without the risk of contamination of the woman and/or the fœtus inherent in conception by natural means.\n12.  According to the information provided by the Government and the first third-party intervener, this operation is done by “sperm washing” prior to in vitro fertilisation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6984", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicant was born in 1931 and has been living since 1970 in Campione d’Italia, which is an Italian enclave of about 1.6 sq. km in the Province of Como (Lombardy), surrounded by the Swiss Canton of Ticino and separated from the rest of Italy by Lake Lugano.\n12.  He describes himself as a practising Muslim and a prominent businessman in the financial and political world, in which he purports to be highly regarded. An engineer by training, he has worked in very diverse sectors, in particular banking, foreign trade, industry and real estate. In the course of his business activities, he founded numerous companies of which he was the sole or principal shareholder.\n13.  In his submission, he is opposed to all uses of terrorism and has never had any involvement with al-Qaeda. On the contrary, he has consistently denounced not only the means used by that organisation, but also its ideology.\n14.  The applicant has further indicated that he has only one kidney that is still functioning properly (the other having deteriorated in recent years). He also suffers from bleeding in his left eye, as shown by a medical certificate of 20 December 2001, and arthritis in the neck. In addition, according to a medical certificate issued by a doctor in Zürich on 5 May 2006, he sustained a fracture in his right hand which was due to be operated on in 2004. The applicant has alleged that, because of the restrictions imposed on him which gave rise to the present application, he was unable to undergo this operation and has continued to suffer from the consequences of the fracture.\n15.  On 15 October 1999, in response to the 7 August 1998 bombings by Osama bin Laden and members of his network against the US embassies in Nairobi (Kenya) and Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) the Security Council of the United Nations (adopted, under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, Resolution 1267 (1999), providing for sanctions against the Taliban (see paragraph 70 below) and created a committee consisting of all the members of the Security Council to monitor the enforcement of that Resolution (“the Sanctions Committee”).\n16.  On 2 October 2000, to implement that Resolution, the Swiss Federal Council (the federal executive) adopted an Ordinance “instituting measures against the Taliban” (“the Taliban Ordinance” – see paragraph 66 below), which subsequently underwent a number of amendments, including to its title.\n17.  By Resolution 1333 (2000) of 19 December 2000 (see paragraph 71 below), the Security Council extended the sanctions regime. It was now also directed against Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda organisation, as well as the Taliban’s senior officials and advisers. In both Resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000), the Security Council requested the Sanctions Committee to maintain a list, based on information provided by States and regional organisations, of individuals and entities associated with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.\n18.  On 11 April 2001 the Swiss government amended the Taliban Ordinance in order to implement Resolution 1333 (2000). It added a new Article 4a, paragraph 1 of which prohibited entry into and transit through Switzerland for the individuals and entities concerned by the Resolution (but without naming them).\n19.  On 24 October 2001 the Federal Prosecutor opened an investigation in respect of the applicant.\n20.  On 7 November 2001 the President of the United States of America blocked the assets of Al Taqwa Bank, of which the applicant was the Cha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6986", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Katowice.\n6.  The applicant, a businessman and lobbyist, lived in Warsaw and London and was a resident of Monaco. On 26 September 2004 the applicant was arrested at Krakow airport.\n7.  On 28 September 2004 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody in view of a reasonable suspicion that he had offered a bribe to a Member of Parliament, A.P., in connection with a privatisation process. The court established that only detention would secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given that the applicant did not have a permanent address in Poland. It also referred to the likelihood that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant and to a risk that he would influence witnesses.\n8.  The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 20 October 2004.\n9.  On 21 December 2004 and 22 March and 21 June 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention. It relied on the grounds given previously.\n10.  The applicant’s appeals against those decisions were dismissed.\n11.  On 5 March and 23 April 2005 the applicant testified before the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Komisja Śledcza) on the “PKN Orlen” case. The Commission subsequently notified the Prosecutor General that the applicant had cooperated with it.\n12.  On 21 September and 21 December 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention pending the outcome of the investigation. The court referred to the extraordinary complexity of the case, which concerned charges of corruption involving the highest public officials, and reiterated that other preventive measures would not secure the applicant’s attendance at the trial.\n13.  The applicant’s detention was then extended by the Court of Appeal on 8 February, 10 May, 21 June, 20 September and 6 December 2006. The court found that there were circumstances justifying the fact that the investigation in the applicant’s case had not yet been terminated by the prosecutor. On the last of these dates the court also decided that the applicant could be released on bail in the amount of 1,000,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 260,000 euros (EUR)).\n14.  On 5 January 2007 the pre‑trial detention of the former MP A.P., and the applicant’s assistant, K.P., was lifted. The applicant’s appeals against all the decisions extending his detention were dismissed. His numerous applications for release were also to no avail.\n15.  On 20 January 2007 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant, A.P., and K.P. The applicant was accused of several offences of corruption. The bill of indictment was over 200 pages long. The prosecutor requested that eighty‑four witnesses be heard and statements from a further forty‑two witnesses be read out. He relied on 458 pieces of evidence.\n16.  On 9 February 2007 the applicant’s detention was further extended. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision.\n17.  On 11 April 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and decided to release the applicant on bail, fixing the amount at PLN 600,000. The court established that the evidence in the case had been obtained, the bill of indictment had been lodged with the trial court and the applicant had a permanent place of residence in Poland.\n18.  On 15 June 2007 the Warsaw District Court changed the order and fixed bail at PLN 500,000. The prosecutor lodged a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6987", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Kraków.\n6.  The applicant is an assistant professor at the Law Faculty of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków. She is also teaching at a private university. In 2009 the applicant successfully defended her habilitation thesis.\n7.  From 1990 to 1994 she was the mayor of the Świątniki Górne commune. Between 1998 and 2002 the applicant served as a local councillor for the Kraków District. In July 2003 she became a local councillor in Świątniki Górne.\n8.  J.B. has been the mayor of the commune (later of the municipality) since 1994. The applicant lost the elections for mayor in 1998 and 2002.\n9.  In 2000 Kraków-Podgórze District Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation into an alleged fraud by the officials of the municipality. In November 2000 the district prosecutor M.J. charged the mayor with fraud in respect of a request for a subsidy. At its extraordinary session held on 8 January 2001 the municipal council adopted a statement, apparently drafted by the mayor, which was to be transmitted to the superiors of the Kraków Regional Police Headquarters and the Kraków-Podgórze District Prosecutor’s Office as well as to the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration, the Minister of Justice and the media. The statement read, inter alia, as follows:\n“1. The Świątniki Górne Municipal Council strongly objects to using the Kraków‑Podgórze District Prosecutor’s Office for the personal and political goals of the prosecutor M.J. 2. The Świątniki Górne Municipal Council strongly objects to the political agitation against the democratically elected authorities of the local government ... carried out by K.P., the officer of the Kraków Regional Police Headquarters.\nBoth the above-mentioned state officials in the course of their work, in the pending proceedings, violated the principle of impartiality and political neutrality binding on state services, transgressing their professional competences.\nThus they infringed the very principle of the rule of law in a manifest breach of Article 2 of the Constitution ...\nIn those circumstances the municipal council strongly objects to the extralegal activities (pozaprawnej działalności) of the above-mentioned state officials and demands from their superiors that these destructive activities be immediately put to a halt and that disciplinary measures be taken against them.”\nThe statement of the municipal council was reported in the local media.\n10.  The mayor complained to the Kraków Appellate Prosecutor’s Office about the alleged irregularities in the investigation and requested that the prosecutor M.J. be removed from it. The investigation was put under the supervision of the Appellate Prosecutor’s Office. Subsequently, the prosecutor M.J. was promoted to the position of Deputy Head of the Kraków-Śródmieście District Prosecutor. J.P., a new prosecutor assigned to the case, discontinued the investigation in October 2001.\n11.  According to the applicant, from 2003 she was anonymously informed about financial and other irregularities in the mayor’s work. She and another local councillor requested the prosecution service to investigate those irregularities, but all investigations were eventually discontinued. In the applicant’s view the investigations were not thorough and the decisions to discontinue them had been based on favourable expert opinions or evidence given by the commune’s civil servants.\n12.  On 25 June 2004 the mayor J.B. placed in the Rzeczpospolit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6988", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Cardiff.\n6.  The applicant is a gypsy. In 1999 she moved to the Cae Garw caravan site in Port Talbot, Wales, with her two children. The site was owned by Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council.\n7.  On 12 June 2000 Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council entered into a licence agreement with the Gypsy Council which provided that the latter would manage the site.\n8.  On 29 March 2004 the applicant entered into a licence agreement with the Gypsy Council to occupy pitch 16 on the site. It was a condition of the licence that:\n“The Licensee or his/her resident family ... must not create a nuisance on the sites or to neighbouring properties. The Licensee shall be held responsible if any ... person living with ... her contravenes any of these Site Rules or Conditions.”\n9.  On 30 December 2004 the Gypsy Council issued a notice of termination of licence to the applicant which expired on 6 February 2005. The notice referred to a clause of her licence agreement which provided:\n“The Gypsy Council or the Licensee may terminate this licence by giving the other not less than 28 days written notice to expire on a Sunday in any week.”\n10.  No further reasons justifying the termination were given.\n11.  Notices to quit were also given to her parents, who occupied a different pitch on the site.\n12.  On 18 January 2005 amendments to section 4 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (“the 1968 Act”) entered into force which introduced the possibility for possession orders to be suspended by a court on the application of the occupier for up to twelve months at a time (see paragraph 36 below).\n13.  On 2 August 2005 the Gypsy Council issued a claim for possession against the applicant and five members of her extended family, including her parents, in Neath Port Talbot County Court. In its particulars of claim, the Gypsy Council alleged that all six defendants were guilty of causing very substantial nuisance to the site to the detriment of other occupiers.\n14.  The applicant’s parents did not apply for suspension or postponement of the orders. On 1 June 2006, possession orders were made against them by consent.\n15.  An oral hearing took place between 24 and 26 July 2006 in Swansea County Court and 28 July 2006 in Neath County Court in respect of the claim for possession against the applicant. In a witness statement lodged prior to the hearing, the applicant indicated that she intended to leave the site when her parents left.\n16.  On 25 July 2006 Judge Bidder QC gave a judgment on the preliminary issue of whether the applicant could challenge the making of a possession order in her case. He considered himself bound by the decision of the House of Lords in Kay and Price (see paragraph 42 below), which had examined the effect of this Court’s judgment in Connors v. the United Kingdom, no. 66746/01, 27 May 2004. Thus, he concluded, the only options open to the applicant were to challenge the domestic law itself or to commence judicial review proceedings based on conventional grounds. He concluded:\n“58. ... I do not consider it to be arguable that the decision of the claimants to seek possession against her was unreasonable or that their decision to invoke their domestic law rights could be castigated as unreasonable ... 59. Moreover, the fact that parliament has amended the applicable domestic legislation to afford the gypsy occupier the opportunity to contend that any possession order should be suspended for 12 months at a tim", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6989", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 12 November 1999 he was arrested on suspicion of setting up a criminal organisation, namely the Bilim Araştırma Vakfı (Foundation for Science and Research). On the same day he went through a medical examination at the Haseki Research Hospital. The medical report drafted following that examination noted that there was no sign of ill-treatment on his body.\n7.  During his time at police custody, on 15 November 1999, the applicant was examined once more, this time at the Şişli Etfal Research Hospital. The second report drawn up there also indicated that there existed no sign of ill-treatment on his body.\n8.  The applicant was released on 17 November 1999. Immediately after his release, he went through two more medical examinations at two different institutions, namely the Vakıf Gureba Hospital and the Forensic Medicine Institute. The reports drawn up after each examination indicated once again the lack of any sign of ill-treatment on his body.\n9.  The first three medical reports were issued in respect of the applicant together with some other persons, who were also arrested on suspicion of having committed the same offence.\n10.  On 11 January 2000 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the applicant, together with several others, of setting up and running a criminal organisation. Subsequently, on 14 February 2000 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention. The next day, on 15 February 2000 he was heard by the Bakırköy Criminal Magistrates’ Court and released pending trial.\n11.  In 2004, following a constitutional amendment, state security courts were abolished and the case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.\n12.  On 9 May 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court discontinued the proceedings as the statutory time-limit for prosecuting the offence of setting up a criminal organisation had expired.\n13.  On 28 December 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court.\n14.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicant filed a complaint, together with the others, against several police officers, claiming that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his time in police custody. According to his submissions, his testicles had been squeezed and he had been beaten, handcuffed to a chair and insulted.\n15.  On 26 October 2001 the Beyoğlu public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute.\n16.  On 21 November 2002 the Beyoğlu Assize Court rejected the applicant’s objection to the public prosecutor’s decision.\n17.  Nevertheless, on 5 March 2004, following an objection filed by one of the other complainants, the same court decided to extend the scope of the investigation and requested medical reports from the Forensic Medical Institute.\n18.  Subsequently, on 13 April 2005, although the medical reports had not yet been submitted, the court annulled the decision of the Beyoğlu public prosecutor and held that criminal proceedings would be brought against the police officers involved.\n19.  Accordingly, on 22 June 2005 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court, accusing the police officers of torture pursuant to Article 243 § 1 of the former Penal Code (Law no. 765) as he considered that provision to be more favourable for the accused.\n20.  During the course of the proceedings against the police officers, the Head of the Istanbul University Forensic Med", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6990", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and resides in Moscow.\n6.  In September 2009 the applicant arrived in Russia from Uzbekistan and settled in the Moscow Region. Until December 2009 he was officially registered with the Russian migration authorities in Moscow. According to the Government, he subsequently resided without formal registration in the Moscow region. According to the applicant, he always complied with the legal requirement for registration at one’s place of residence.\n7.  In the meantime, on 20 November 2009 the Uzbek authorities charged the applicant in absentia under Articles 159 § 3(b) and 244-2 § 1 of the Uzbek Criminal Code, which punish calls to overthrow the constitutional order of Uzbekistan and involvement in religious, extremist, separatist and other banned organisations (see paragraphs 78-79 below). The applicant was accused of being member of a group called Warriors of Islam which, apparently, had been prohibited in Uzbekistan and had been classified as an extremist religious organisation by the Uzbek authorities. It is stated in the information note sent by the Uzbek authorities to their Russian counterparts that this group was a faction of the Islamic Party of Turkestan (formerly called the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan), which had been banned in Uzbekistan.\n8.  The Uzbek decision listing the charges against the applicant reads as follows:\n“... [The applicant] was actively engaged in spreading propaganda in the Navoi region. These activities were aimed at securing the confidentiality of information relating to the group’s actions, securing strict compliance with the orders issued by the group’s supporters, ensuring the return [of society] to the roots of Islam and making everyday life based solely on the rules of the Koran. His activities were also aimed at political and armed struggle against those who oppose the [group’s] ideas and [those] who are treated as enemies of Islam. His propaganda activities had the goal of uniting all Muslims and creating the united State of the “Islamic Caliphate” governed by rules of Shariah; [all the] while considering the democratic changes in Uzbekistan [brought about] by means of laws wrong and [illegitimate].\nIn particular, [the applicant] participated in the activities of “communes” run by his group in the Navoi region. Having joined others in an organised criminal group, he studied printed material produced by the group’s supporters. He was active in spreading propaganda among people having no stable opinion, encouraging them to join the group and promoting the group’s ideas. All these had as their subsequent aim the overthrow of the constitutional order ...\nAlso, in 2008 together with his accomplices within the group [the applicant] participated in the group’s meetings, [which were] aimed at the armed overthrow of the constitutional order ...”\n9.  On 20 November 2009 the applicant’s name was put on a wanted list.\n10.  By a decision of 23 November 2009 the Navoi Town Court of Uzbekistan ordered the applicant’s detention and that he be held in remand centre no. 7 in the town of Kattakurgan.\n11.  According to the applicant, in November 2009 he called his relatives in Uzbekistan and learnt that he was wanted by the Uzbek authorities on criminal charges.\n12.  In April 2010 the applicant requested that the regional migration authority grant him refugee status. The applicant was given a certificate confirming that his application for refugee status was being processed.\n13.  The ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6991", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Mr James was born in 1985 and lives in Wakefield. Mr Wells was born in 1983 and is currently in detention. Mr Lee was born in 1965 and lives in Fleetwood.\n6.  On 4 April 2005, by virtue of section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”), indeterminate sentences for the public protection (“IPP sentences”) were introduced. These sentences are indeterminate sentences (i.e. sentences of no fixed length), and, like sentences of life imprisonment, require the direction of the Parole Board in order for the prisoner to be released. A minimum term which has to be served before a prisoner can be released, known as the “tariff”, is fixed by the sentencing judge. In cases involving IPP prisoners, it would appear that in practice the tariff fixed is generally short: in the year following the entry into force of the provisions on IPP sentences, when the applicants in the present case were sentenced, the median tariff for IPP prisoners was thirty months, and seventy per cent of IPP sentences imposed involved tariffs of three years or less.\n7.  When IPP sentences were first introduced, they were mandatory in all cases where an individual was convicted of a “serious offence” and was deemed by the sentencing judge to be at risk of committing a further “specified offence”. Risk was to be assumed in cases where the individual in question had previously been convicted of a “relevant offence”, unless the sentencing judge considered it unreasonable to conclude that there was a risk of further specified offences being committed. The terms “serious offence”, “specified offence” and “relevant offence” were defined in the 2003 Act.\n8.  Pursuant to section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (“the 1997 Act”), the Parole Board was given the power to direct the release of indeterminate sentence prisoners to whom the section applied if it was satisfied that detention was no longer necessary for the protection of the public.\n9.  The consequence of the entry into force of the legislative provisions introducing IPP sentences was that a large number of individuals were sentenced to an IPP sentence. Although it had been intended that the new provisions would be resource-neutral, it soon became clear that existing resources were insufficient and the large number of IPP prisoners swamped the system in place for dealing with those serving indeterminate sentences.\n10.  The IPP scheme was subsequently amended by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”) to deal with the problems encountered. In particular, the IPP sentence is no longer mandatory. Further, it now only applies to cases where, if imposed, the tariff would be fixed at more than two years, subject to certain limited exceptions.\n11.  The domestic law, including the changes introduced by the 2008 Act, is set out in greater detail below (see paragraphs 124-142).\n12.  On 28 September 2005 Mr James pleaded guilty in the Crown Court to unlawful wounding with intent. He had previous convictions for, among other things, battery, common assault, affray, disorderly behaviour, racially abusive behaviour and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. A pre-sentencing report dated 27 September 2005 prepared by the Probation Service referred to the offence forming part of a pattern of violence and threatening behaviour largely linked to Mr James’ excessive drinking. It recommended counselling to address alcohol and substance abuse. The sentencing judge accepted that Mr James was dangerous, pa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6992", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Novi Sad.\n7.  The applicant is the owner of a loft in an apartment building in Novi Sad. For some time she experienced problems with a leaking roof, which made her living conditions difficult. In addition, some neighbours had occupied the common premises of the building, including the basement, the waste disposal room and the roof terrace.\n8.  On 7 May 1999 the Secretariat for Inspection Affairs of the City of Novi Sad (Sekretarijat za inspekcijske poslove Grada Novog Sada – “the Secretariat”) issued a decision ordering JKP Stan, a State-run public corporation (“the company”), to undertake all the necessary work to the roof above the applicant’s flat.\n9.  When the decision of 7 May 1999 became final, the applicant sought its enforcement. The Secretariat failed to respond to her enforcement request, as did the second-instance administrative authority – the Executive Board of the City Assembly of Novi Sad (Izvršni odbor Skupštine grada Novog Sada – “the Executive Board”). Therefore the applicant filed an administrative complaint requesting the Municipal Court in Novi Sad (“the Municipal Court”) to order the administrative authorities to enforce the decision of 7 May 1999.\n10.  The applicant also lodged a civil claim with the Municipal Court, requesting the company to perform the necessary repairs.\n11.  On 20 June 2002 the Municipal Court, in the civil proceedings, granted the applicant’s request, ordering the company to carry out the necessary repairs. The court also ordered the company to pay to the applicant the amount of 11,447 Serbian dinars (RSD), with statutory interest, for the cost of painting the walls of her flat, and the amount of RSD 15,120 for the costs of the civil proceedings. That decision became final on a later, unspecified, date.\n12.   On 9 July 2003 the Municipal Court, in the proceedings following the administrative complaint, ordered the competent municipal authority to decide on the enforcement of the decision of 7 May 1999.\n13.  On 27 October 2003 the Secretariat issued an order (zaključak) for the enforcement of the decision of 7 May 1999, at the same time stating that the repairs should be paid for by the tenants’ assembly (skupština stanara) of the applicant’s building. It would appear, however, that no further steps have been taken to enforce the Secretariat’s decision.\n14.  On 20 January 2004 the applicant filed a request with the Municipal Court requesting enforcement of the judgment of 20 June 2002.\n15.  On 8 February 2005 the Municipal Court partly granted the applicant’s enforcement request. In the enforcement order, the court defined the repairs to be done, at the same time providing that should the company fail to carry out the repairs in a timely manner, the applicant was authorised to engage a third person to perform the repairs, at the company’s expense. The court also awarded the applicant the amount of RSD 1,458 for the costs of the enforcement proceedings.\n16.  However, it transpired that with her request for enforcement the applicant had supplied an incorrect bank account number, and therefore the transfer of the sums awarded could not be made. Hence, on 4 March 2005 the Municipal Court issued a request to the applicant for her correct bank details. On at least three occasions the court attempted to serve this request on the applicant, but to no avail.\n17.  Ultimate", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6993", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Hard.\n6.  The applicant worked for the Bregenz Tax Authority (Finanzamt) as a civil servant. He was the head of a tax assessment division (Leiter der Veranlagungsabteilung).\n7.  As the Austrian Tax Authorities were to be reformed, the applicant was removed from his post as head of the tax assessment division by a decision of the Bregenz Tax Authority of 29 March 2005. On 28 April 2005 the Tax Authority appointed the applicant to the post of specialist (Fachexperte im Fachbereich), a post that had a lower grade. Upon the applicant’s appeal the Appeals Commission at the Federal Chancellery (Berufungskommission beim Bundeskanzleramt - “the Appeals Commission”) set aside those two decisions on 28 July 2005.\n8.  By letter dated 24 November 2005 the Tax Authority sent the applicant the job profiles for both the post of head of division and the post of specialist.\n9.  The job profile for his former post as head of the tax assessment division stated that the applicant was responsible for, among other tasks, organising, coordinating and supervising the procedural requirements within the tax-assessment division, and dealing with case files in special circumstances. The applicant was also the supervisor of forty-three other civil servants and employees.\n10.  The job profile for the new post of specialist stated that, among other tasks, the applicant would assist the leading specialist (Fachvorstand), especially in the areas of coordination, quality check and supervisory measures. He would further participate in several working groups and deal autonomously and on his own initiative with legal remedies. He was not entitled to directly assign that task to someone else. He would also have to take decisions on questions of procedural and material law, give advice in difficult cases in his area of expertise (Fachgebiet), and represent the authority before the Independent Finance Panel (Unabhängiger Finanzsenat). The job profile did not state that any employees or civil servants were to be under his direct supervision.\n11.  On 27 April 2006 the Bregenz Tax Authority issued a decision by which the applicant was transferred to the post of specialist without any team-leading responsibilities. The applicant’s new post was graded lower than his former post in the internal categorisation of public-service positions. However, with regard to a three-year moratorium provided by the law in the context of transfers involving downgrading due to re-organisation, the applicant would only be subject to a salary reduction after three years.\n12.  The applicant appealed against the decision to the Appeals Commission on 18 May 2006. He argued, inter alia, that his actual work had not changed sufficiently to justify the lower grade. Consequently the legal requirements for justifying a transfer to another post with a reduction in salary had not been met. The applicant requested the Appeals Commission to hold an oral hearing.\n13.  On 21 July 2006, and without holding an oral hearing, the Appeals Commission dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It held that the applicant’s job profile had changed to a sufficient extent to qualify as a transfer to another post. Furthermore, the transfer had been strictly necessary in the interests of the service, specifically, the implementation of the overall reform of the Tax Authorities.\n14.  The applicant complained to the Constitutional Court, arguing, inter alia, that the transfer had been arbit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6994", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1951 and 1954 and live in the towns of Novi Sanzghary and Zolotnosha, Ukraine.\n5.  According to the first applicant, between 8 and 8:30 a.m. on 28 October 2001, as he was leaving his house, he came face to face with Police Major I. and two strangers. They threatened him and then hit him and pushed him inside the house. The attackers then set the house on fire and left, barring the door.\n6.  The house exploded and the first applicant was projected outside, while other members of his family, who were asleep, remained inside.\n7.  Later the same day the first applicant and four other members of the applicants’ family, 21-year-old Z.F. (the second applicant’s daughter), 6-year-old S.F. (the applicants’ granddaughter), 3-year-old M.F. (the applicants’ grandson) and 15-year-old T.L., were admitted to hospital with burns and gas intoxication. Z.F., S.F. and M. F. died in hospital.\n8.  Two other members of the applicants’ family were found dead in the house: 25-year-old V.F. (the first applicant’s son) and 6-year-old Y.F. (the applicants’ grandson).\n9.  The first applicant informed the police that the fire had been caused by an arson attack carried out by Major I. from the Kryukov police department. He believed that it was a punishment attack for failure to pay a monthly bribe of 200 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) claimed by the police. Major I. had allegedly visited the first applicant’s house before and allegedly extorted money from the applicants’ relative, Z.F., in payment for not instituting criminal proceedings against her for drug trafficking. In that connection Major I. had allegedly already been bribed with UAH 800. The first applicant also maintained that Major I. had previously threatened to set his house on fire.\n10.  According to an article in the local newspaper, “police officers burned alive a Gypsy family since they had refused to pay a usual share from selling drugs”. A local prosecutor said that in one of the burned houses they used to sell drugs. He also said that the version of “police drug lords’ complicity” in the crime was being checked. A neighbour testified that the applicants’ family was a poor one and that Z.F. had been selling heroin (ширку) for a couple of months but then she had been beaten by police officers “for she was inexperienced”. The first applicant said that Major I. had threatened to burn them alive since they had failed to pay UAH 200 in monthly bribes.\nThe newspaper article also contained the following passages:\n \n“Several dozens Gypsies, who came to the victims’ funeral, told the journalists: “Yes, there exists fascism in respect of Gypsies in Ukraine, their ethnic minority rights are being breached”\n[...]\n“Very often it is mentioned in the police reports that drugs are sold by “persons of Gypsy ethnicity”, while Ukrainians also sell drugs”\n11.  On 28 October 2001 the Kremenchug District Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings for the murder of V.F. and Y.F. On 6 November 2001 the Poltava Regional Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings for the arson attack on the first applicant’s house. These two cases were later joined.\n12.  The Poltava Regional Police Department (Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ України в Полтавській області) conducted an internal inquiry into the allegations of Major I.’s involvement in the arson attack on the first applicant’s house. During the inquiry, the first applicant again stated that Major I. had extorted 200 UAH from the fir", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6995", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Debaltseve.\n6.  On 12 April 1996 the applicant (a former police officer) and a Mr B. were placed on the wanted list as suspects in the robbery of a certain Mrs A.\n7.  On 24 June 1996 five police officers arrived at a summer house outside the town of Svetlodarsk, in the Donetsk region, as it was believed that the applicant and Mr B. were hiding there. When the officers approached the house and identified themselves, they were shot at from a Kalashnikov assault rifle and hand grenades were thrown at them. As a result one police officer was killed and two sustained severe injuries. The perpetrators escaped.\n8.  On the same day the Artemiskiy District Prosecutor’s Office (hereafter “the Prosecutor’s Office”) instituted criminal proceedings for murder and attempted murder of police officers on duty.\n9.  On 3 July 1996 the Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant in his absence with the above offences and ordered his arrest. On the following day he was placed on the list of wanted persons.\n10.  On 10 July 1996 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were suspended because of failure to establish the whereabouts of the applicant and his co-accused.\n11.  On 9 March 2000 the applicant was arrested in Greece under an international arrest warrant.\n12.  On 9 August 2000 he was extradited from Greece to Ukraine and the criminal proceedings against him were resumed. On the same day the Donetsk Regional Bar appointed lawyer R. to represent the applicant in the above proceedings from 11 August 2000. The applicant’s relatives signed a contract with lawyer R. for the applicant’s representation.\n13.  The applicant alleged that following his arrival in Ukraine he had been placed in police custody and beaten for three days until he incriminated himself. According to the domestic court’s findings in the judgment against the applicant (see paragraph 29 below), on 10 August 2000 police officers I.S. and D.S. visited the applicant in the police detention unit for a confidential talk (доверительная беседа) about unrelated matters, namely arms trafficking in the region. The officers did not ask him about the police officer’s murder, but the applicant himself told them that on the day of the murder he had been on the first floor of the summer house in question and that, when escaping, he had thrown a hand grenade, which had not exploded. Two other police officers, N. and A., also visited the applicant in connection with yet another unrelated crime. They stated that he had proclaimed his innocence but refused to make any official statement in the absence of his lawyer. All four officers denied any coercion towards the applicant.\n14.  On 11 August 2000 the applicant was presented with charges, amended to take account of evidence collected since June 1996. After being formally charged the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer R. He confirmed his earlier confession statements. He did not complain of any ill-treatment. According to the applicant, after this interview he was not allowed to see his lawyer for fifteen days. According to the Government, on 29 August 2000 the applicant was questioned in the absence of his lawyer as he had expressed a wish to be questioned without a lawyer; on other days during this period the lawyer R. did not ask to see the applicant.\n15.  On 1 and 5 September 2000 an ambulance was called for the applicant in connection with renal colic.\n16.  On 4 September 2000 the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6996", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicant is an architecture company, a legal entity, based in Istanbul.\n4.  On 10 October 1983 the applicant concluded an agreement (“the agreement”) with the Federal Republic of Germany (“the German State”) for the restoration of the building of the German Consulate in Istanbul. In Article 9.5.7 of the agreement, the Berlin courts were determined as having authority to settle any disputes arising out of the agreement. In Article 9.5.8 of the agreement, German law was defined as the principal applicable law. Besides, the law of the place where the restoration work was to be carried out was specified as the auxiliary applicable law. Moreover, the parties agreed that some intermediate payments would be made to the applicant on the basis of estimations in accordance with the progress of the work, and the ultimate monetary claims would be determined after the transmission of a final statement of costs (kesin maliyet hesabı).\n5.  The applicant was paid some intermediate fees and expenses incurred while performing its contractual undertakings.\n6.  On 21 February 1986 the German State terminated the agreement unilaterally.\n7.  In 1987 the applicant brought an action against the German State challenging its unilateral termination of the agreement and requesting the recovery of its monetary entitlements.\n8.  The Berlin Court of Appeal (Kammergericht Berlin) initially resolved the issue of the law applicable to the dispute between the parties and decided that German law was applicable to the case. In its decision of 20 November 1990 it established that unilateral termination of the agreement was based on a valid cause. On the other hand, the court maintained that the applicant’s claim for the outstanding sum would become due only after the issue of the final statement of costs, as provided in the agreement. For this reason, the Berlin Court of Appeal refused the major part of the applicant’s claim on the ground that the precondition for requesting the outstanding amount had not yet been fulfilled. It awarded the applicant some partial cost and expenses. Neither of the parties contested this judgment and thus it became final.\n9.  Following the judgment of the Berlin Court of Appeal, the applicant requested the German State to send the final statement of costs.\n10.  In a letter of 16 August 1996, the German authorities stated that the applicant could only be entitled to sums for the services provided until the termination of the agreement in 1986.\n11.  On 7 November 1996 the German authorities drew up the final statement of costs in the reconstruction project, which consisted of the items of expenses and their final costs listed from the planning stage until the termination of the contract. This statement was then sent to the applicant.\n12.  On 10 January 1997 on the basis of the data provided in the final statement of costs, the applicant calculated the difference between the payments made and its entitlement of the final fee of work. Subsequently, the applicant issued an invoice to the German State, indicating 1,700,000 German mark (DEM) as the outstanding amount.\n13.  Following the German State’s refusal to pay the amount claimed, on 12 July 1997 the applicant lodged an action in the Istanbul Beyoğlu Commercial Court, seeking payment of the sum in question. In the light of the provisions of the agreement and the judgment of the Berlin Court of Appeal, the applicant claimed that the final costs had become due.\n14.  On 20 October 1998 the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6997", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1976. She is the mother of the second applicant, who was born in 1997. The applicants live in Bratislava.\n6.  On 22 May 1996 the first applicant married A., a United States national, in the United States.\n7.  On 8 November 1996 the first applicant left the United States for Slovakia and has remained there since. This gave cause to several judicial proceedings, all of which took place before the courts in Slovakia.\n8.  While the first applicant’s marriage was dissolved and the second applicant was entrusted to her care and custody, the subject matter of the present application concerns the second applicant’s maintenance.\nThis matter was determined in three different sets of proceedings.\n9.  First, by way of a judgment (rozsudok) that became final and binding on 16 February 2004 (“the first judgment”), ruling on appeal by the first applicant against a judgment of the Bratislava IV District Court (Okresný súd), the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) dismissed a maintenance claim against A., observing that the first applicant had failed to indicate an address for the defendant in the United States and that it had been impossible to make him available for the purposes of the proceedings.\nA maintenance order made in such circumstances would not be enforceable in the United States and there was thus no point in making it.\nWhile the District Court’s ruling was phrased as “[the court] refrains from making a ruling” on the claim, the Regional Court changed it into “[the court] dismisses the claim” observing specifically that should the first applicant be able to obtain the defendant’s address in the future there would be no obstacle to her lodging a fresh application in the same matter.\n10.  Second, by way of a ruling, which became final and binding on 1 October 2004 (“the second judgment”), which was attached to the judgment in the divorce proceedings, and which concerned the period subsequent to the divorce, the District Court ordered A. to contribute to the second applicant’s maintenance by way of monthly payments.\n11.  The third set of proceedings concerning the second applicant’s maintenance is the actual subject matter of the present application. It is described below.\n12.  Following the dismissal of her first claim concerning the maintenance of the second applicant in the period prior to the divorce (see paragraph 9 above), in February 2004 the first applicant made a fresh claim and indicated a new address for the defendant.\n13.  On 21 July 2005 the District Court inquired at the Centre for the International Legal Protection of Children and Youth (Centrum pre medzinárodnoprávnu ochranu detí a mládeže – “the Centre”) about the address of the employer of A. and any other information concerning him. In the absence of a reply, the District Court sent a reminder on 2 September 2005, to which the Centre replied on 29 September 2005, submitting that no such information was available and that, under the 1956 Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance (Decree of the Minister of Foreign Affairs no. 33/1959 Coll.), the Centre had no power to investigate such matters.\n14.  On 21 November 2005 the District Court sent a request to the United States authorities to question the defendant under the 1970 Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters (Decree of the Minister of Foreign Affairs no. 129/1976 Coll.). In the absence of a reply, the District Court sent reminders on 9 Febru", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6998", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, who was born on 28 March 1943 in Trieste, was abandoned by her mother at birth.\n6.  Her birth certificate records the following information:\n“Today, 28 March 1943, at 7.30 a.m., a woman, who did not consent to being named, gave birth to a baby girl.”\n7.  The applicant was placed first in an orphanage and subsequently with the Godelli family. When she was six years old she was adopted by Mr and Mrs Godelli under the simple adoption (affiliazione) procedure, by a decision of the Trieste Guardianship Judge of 10 October 1949.\n8.  At the age of ten, after learning that she had been adopted, the applicant asked her adoptive parents to tell her who her birth parents were, but did not receive an answer. On an unspecified date she discovered that a young girl living in her village, who had been born on the same day as her, had been abandoned and subsequently adopted by another family under the simple adoption procedure. The applicant suspected that she was her twin sister. The adoptive parents of the two girls prohibited any contact between them.\n9.  The applicant stated that she had had a very difficult childhood because she had been unable to find out her origins.\n10.  In 2006 the applicant requested information about her origins from the Trieste Register Office, in accordance with section 28 of Law no. 184 of 4 May 1983 (Adoption Act: “Law no. 184/1993”), the regulations governing simple adoption having been repealed by that Law. The Register Office gave the applicant her birth certificate, on which her birth mother’s name did not appear because she had not agreed to have her identity disclosed.\n11.  On 19 March 2007 the applicant lodged an application with the Trieste City Court, under Article 96 of Presidential Decree no. 396/2000, seeking rectification of her birth certificate. On 4 May 2007 the court declined jurisdiction and dismissed the application on the ground that section 28(5) of Law no. 184/1983 provided that where persons aged over twenty-five were seeking access to information about their birth parents the court with the appropriate jurisdiction was the Family Court.\n12.  On 5 June 2007 the applicant lodged an application with the Trieste Family Court. On 11 June 2008 the court dismissed her application on the ground that, under section 28(7) of Law no. 184/983, she was prohibited from gaining access to information about her origins because her mother, at the time of the applicant’s birth, had not agreed to have her identity disclosed.\n13.  The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which dismissed her appeal by a decision of 23 December 2008.\n14.  The court observed, in particular, that the Family Court had stressed the fact that the applicant’s birth mother had requested to keep her identity secret and that it had therefore correctly applied section 28(7) of Law no. 184 of 1983, even though the applicant had been adopted under a simple adoption order, as simple adoption did nevertheless create a family status. The Court of Appeal found that section 28(7) was designed to guarantee respect for the mother’s wishes. The prohibition on allowing the applicant access to information about her origins also served a public interest.\n15.  The applicant did not lodge an appeal on points of law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-6999", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Volgograd.\n6.  On 10 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involuntary manslaughter. On an unspecified date he retained private counsel, A.B.\n7.  On 11 March 2003 the Krasnoarmeyskiy District Court of Volgograd (hereinafter “the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand with reference to Articles 97-101 and 108 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP”).\n8.  On 19 March 2004 the criminal case against the applicant was sent for trial to the District Court, following which that court extended his detention on several occasions.\n9.  By a decision of 21 December 2004 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 20 March 2005.\n10.  On an unspecified date in March 2005 the prosecution applied to the District Court seeking a further extension of the applicant’s detention on remand; the related hearing was fixed for 17 March 2005.\n11.  By a decision of 17 March 2005 the District Court adjourned the hearing on the extension of the applicant’s detention because his lawyer, although duly notified about the hearing, had failed to attend, without providing any reasons. The new hearing was scheduled for 22 March 2005. The applicant was present at the hearing of 17 March 2005.\n12.  At noon on 21 March 2005 the applicant’s lawyer was notified of the new hearing date, time and venue, against his signature.\n13.  By a decision of 22 March 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 20 June 2005. The decision stated, among other things, that the term of the applicant’s detention authorised by the decision of 21 December 2004 had expired on 20 March 2005. According to the hearing record, the applicant’s lawyer did not attend and had not informed the court of the reasons for his absence. The applicant, when asked by the court whether he objected to the examination of the issue in the absence of his counsel, stated that he had no objections.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Volgograd Regional Court (hereinafter “the Regional Court”) that his detention between 20 and 22 March 2005 had been unlawful because it had not been covered by a court decision. He also complained that on 22 March 2005 the District Court had examined the issue of his detention in the absence of his lawyer. There is no indication that the applicant also complained about the District Court’s alleged failure to appoint legal-aid counsel for him or to adjourn the hearing.\n15.  On 26 April 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the complaint. It held that the applicant’s arguments concerning the gap between the detention orders and the examination of the detention issue in the absence of his lawyer were “insignificant” (“не являются существенными”), and that the District Court had not breached the relevant provisions of the criminal procedure in extending his detention. As regards the lawyer’s absence, the court noted that A.B. had been duly notified of the hearing of 22 March 2005 against his signature and had not requested that it be postponed, and that, accordingly, the District Court had correctly decided to proceed with the examination of the case.\n16.  On 16 March 2006 the District Court acquitted the applicant of all charges and ordered his release. The judgment stated, among other things, that the applicant had a right to seek compensation for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by his criminal prosecution.\n17.  On", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7001", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant community was at the time of the events complained of a registered religious community established in Austria under the Religious Communities Act 1998. Since 7 May 2009 it has had the status of a religious society, a status conferred by statute.\n6.  In 2002 the applicant community wished to employ a couple, G.V. and V.T., who were both ministers belonging to the Religious Order of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Orden der Sondervollzeitdiener der Zeugen Jehovas) and who were Tagalog speaking citizens of the Philippines, for the benefit of its Tagalog speaking members in Austria.\n7.  In order to obtain a residence permit (Aufenthaltsgenehmigung) or a settlement permit (Niederlassungsbewilligung), the couple had to have a work permit or be able to show that they were not subject to the provisions of the Employment of Aliens Act (“the EA Act”). On 16 April 2002 the applicant community therefore applied to the Währinger Gürtel Labour Market Service (Arbeitsmarktservice) in Vienna for a declaratory decision that the pastoral work the couple would exercise was exempt from the provisions of the EA Act. It submitted that, since the entry into force of the Religious Communities Act 1998, section 1(2) of the EA Act had to be understood as referring to all persons doing pastoral work for religious communities and not only as referring to ministers of recognised churches and religious societies. In any event, it submitted that the tasks which would be assigned to G.V. and V.T. would not constitute employment within the terms of the EA Act.\n8.  On 1 July 2002 the Labour Market Service dismissed the application and, on 21 October 2002, an appeal panel of the Labour Market Service confirmed the decision. Both authorities found that only ministers performing pastoral duties belonging to a recognised religious society were exempt from the provisions of the EA Act, but not members of a registered religious community, which was the status of the applicant community. In addition, the boards held that pastoral work had the typical features of employment within the meaning of the EA Act, as it was exercised within a hierarchical structure, subject to the instructions of a superior and involved economic dependence.\n9.  On 3 December 2002 the applicant community filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court, in which it argued that the decisions of the administrative authorities had violated its rights under Article 9 read alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.\n10.  On 10 October 2003 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint. It found that any employment contracts the applicant community concluded with aliens concerning pastoral work as ministers would be subject to the provisions of the EA Act, because the exemption in section 1(2) of the EA Act only applied to churches or religious societies recognised by law.\n11.  The Constitutional Court held that even though the pastoral work of ministers clearly fell within the scope of protection of Article 9, which also comprised the conclusion of employment contracts by a religious group with persons engaging in such activities, and even though labour-market regulations, in particular the employment of aliens, might constitute an interference with the rights protected by Article 9, such interference was justified under paragraph 2 of Article 9. The difference between the employment of foreigners as ministers performing pastoral work by a religious society and employment by a regis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7002", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Ms Tsvetana Stoycheva Petkova, was born in 1932 and lives in Plovdiv. She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Ekimdzhiev and Ms K. Boncheva, lawyers practising in Plovdiv.\n5.  The applicant and her two sisters inherited their mother’s estate after her death in 1972. In 1991, following the adoption of the Agricultural Land Act (see paragraph 28 below), the applicant sought, on behalf of all heirs, restitution of a plot of land measuring 6,500 square metres.\n6.  In a decision of 2 December 1994 the Plovdiv agricultural land commission found that the land, which had in the meantime been included in the urban territory of Plovdiv, had been built upon and could not be subject to restitution. As no appeal was lodged against that decision, it became final shortly afterwards.\n7.  Nevertheless, in 1995 the land commission advised the applicant to seek from the municipality and submit additional documents, whereupon it would re-examine the possibility for partial restitution “in actual boundaries” and, if appropriate, modify its decision of 2 December 1994. After some delays, which in their submissions to the Court the parties imputed to each other, the applicant submitted the additional documents in 2000. However, in a letter dated 8 November 2000 she was informed that the decision of 2 December 1994 could no longer be modified as the two‑year statutory time-limit during which it had been possible to do so had expired.\n8.  The applicant brought an action seeking nullification of the decision of 2 December 1994. On 6 July 2001 the Plovdiv District Court dismissed the action. The applicant did not appeal against that judgment.\n9.  The parties have not informed the Court of the relevant developments afterwards. At the time of her latest communication to the Court in June 2011 the applicant had not yet received the compensation in lieu of restitution she was entitled to under domestic law.\n10.  The first applicant, Ms Radka Yovcheva Ivanova, a Bulgarian national who was born in 1910, passed away on 2 December 2006. She was inherited by the second and third applicants, Ms Maria Zhekova Mincheva and Mr Atanas Zhekov Tanev, Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1932 and 1929 respectively and who stated that they wished to continue the application in her stead. On 17 January 2011 Mr Tanev passed away too. On 30 October 2011 his heirs, Ms Margarita Ganeva Slavova and Ms Rumyana Atanasova Taneva, informed the Court that they wished to continue the application in his stead. The second applicant, Ms Mincheva, as well as Mr Tanev’s heirs, live in Stara Zagora.\n11.  In 1991 and 1992 the applicants requested the restoration of their title to agricultural land formerly owned by an ancestor of theirs. In two decisions dated 23 March 1994 and 3 May 1995 the Radnevo agricultural land commission found that the applicants should receive compensation in lieu of restitution for 34,000 square metres of land in the area around Radnevo and the village of Golyama Detelina.\n12.  In two further decisions dated 19 April 2000 and 18 April 2001 the land commission determined the value of the compensation that the applicants were to receive.\n13.  However, following appeals lodged by the applicants, by judgments dated 16 April 2001 and 17 December 2002 the Radnevo District Court found the last two decisions to be null and void on the ground that the land commission had committed material breaches of the relevant procedural rules.\n14.  On 10 May 2002 the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7003", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Ardahan.\n5.  At the time of the events the applicant was a shopkeeper and the chairman of the Ardahan Branch of the Democratic People’s Party (DEHAP). He was also involved in a local campaign to highlight the social and environmental impact of an oil pipeline to be built by a State company.\n6.  On 5 May 2004, while the applicant was passing by the Ardahan police station, a policeman asked him whether he was Ferhat Kaya. He was then taken into the station, where he was told that a warrant had been issued for his appearance at a court hearing the following day and was asked for his ID documents. The applicant then called a friend, Mr B.A., and informed him that he was at the police station. Subsequently, he was taken for a medical examination. At 6.30 p.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor at Ardahan State Hospital, who noted no signs of ill-treatment on his body.\n7.  After his return, the applicant was allegedly subjected to insults, and was told that he supported the PKK and that he was a traitor. According to the applicant, he lost consciousness when was taken to a meeting room and he could not recall how a glass door had shattered. He was allegedly pushed by a police officer and fell on the broken glass and was beaten and kicked by five or six police officers as he was lying on the floor. According to him, one of the police officers pointed a rifle at him and said that he was going to shoot him. During the incident, the applicant’s friend, Mr B.A., was also present at the police station. According to his statement taken by the police on the same day at 7.30 p.m., Mr B.A. had brought a packet of cigarettes to the applicant. He then heard a policewoman ordering the applicant to hand over his personal belongings and to sign a document. He heard the applicant refuse. The applicant was then dragged into another room by several police officers and during the scuffle the applicant fell down. Mr B.A. heard the glass door shatter but did not see how it happened.\n8.  At 7.30 p.m. the same day, the applicant was taken for another medical examination and was re-examined by the same doctor at the Ardahan State Hospital, who found the following injuries: a cut measuring 0.5 cm on the inside of the right wrist, a superficial cut on the outside of the wrist, a small graze on the third and fourth fingers of the right hand, redness around the left wrist, 10 cm x 2 cm of redness on the right side of the back (scapula region), redness on the right shoulder and a number of small patches of redness around the right side of the back. It was also reported that the applicant was unfit to work for three days. During the medical examination, the police officers remained in the room.\n9.  According to a report drafted at 8 p.m. and signed by thirteen police officers, the applicant was invited to the police station, while he was passing by, in order to establish his work and home address in accordance with the instructions of the Erzurum Enforcement Court dated 4 March 2004. He refused and started shouting that they could not do anything to him and that he was the chairman of the DEHAP. The police officers called the public prosecutor, who ordered the applicant’s arrest. As a result the applicant was taken for a medical examination. Upon his return, the applicant, when asked to put his personal belongings on the table, became aggressive and started to shout and threaten the officers and to throw his clothes abou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7004", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Košice.\n6.  In 2000 a cooperative sued the applicant’s mother for termination of a tenancy agreement in respect of a flat in which she lived with the applicant and the latter’s daughter. It was argued that the tenant had failed to pay the rent and service charges. In her reply the defendant explained that she was an immobile invalid, and that her daughter had taken care of her for twenty years and was unemployed. They were in financial need and unable to pay the rent.\n7.  The defendant authorised the applicant to represent her at hearings before the Košice I District Court on 15 January 2002 and 17 May 2002. Subsequently, the District Court examined the case in the presence of the applicant who attended hearings but had no authority to represent her mother.\n8.  On 9 September 2004 the District Court allowed the action with reference to Article 711 § 1 (d) of the Civil Code. It ordered the applicant’s mother and the other persons living with her to move out of the flat within fifteen days after they have been provided with substitute accommodation. The court held it established that the tenant had failed to pay the rent for a period exceeding three months.\n9.  The applicant’s mother appealed on 8 November 2004. She described her and her daughter’s difficult situation. At the hearing the applicant submitted that a substantial part of the debt had been paid in the meantime.\n10.  On 26 April 2005 the Košice Regional Court upheld the first‑instance judgment. With reference to the reasons for that judgment the Regional Court held that the District Court had established the relevant facts and had applied the relevant law correctly.\n11.  On 24 June 2005 the applicant’s mother filed an appeal on points of law. She subsequently appointed a lawyer to represent her in the proceedings.\n12.  In the appeal on points of law it was argued that the applicant’s mother had been prevented from protecting her rights at first-instance as the court had proceeded with the case at several hearings without having duly summoned her. The Regional Court had not redressed the shortcomings in the first-instance proceedings. The applicant’s mother relied on Article 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure and maintained that the District Court had not complied with its obligation to inform her of the possibility of having a lawyer appointed to represent her in the proceedings. She also argued that the courts had made their decision in disregard of Article 712b of the Civil Code.\n13.  On 24 February 2006 the applicant’s mother died. The applicant joined the proceedings as a defendant on 13 August 2007.\n14.  On 25 October 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law. It noted that the applicant had been authorised to represent her mother at two hearings, that she had attended further hearings and could have thus informed her mother, who had been the defendant, of the date when they took place. Furthermore, the first-instance court had sent summonses to the applicant’s mother, for example, for the hearing scheduled for 9 March 2004. Similarly, she had been summoned to a hearing before the court of appeal held on 26 April 2005 but had neither appeared nor excused her absence. The Supreme Court concluded that the lower courts had not prevented the applicant’s mother from exercising her rights.\n15.  On 19 February 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint in which she alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7005", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Montresor.\n5.  The applicant’s predecessor owned property comprising also a park and a manor situated in Przecław. By virtue of the Decree of 6 September 1944 on Agrarian Reform (“the 1944 Decree”) ownership of private agricultural properties exceeding 50 hectares was transferred ex lege to the State. In 1974 the State transferred ownership of the property to a State-owned company Delta-Mielec. In the same year an entry confirming that company’s right of perpetual use in respect of the property was made in the land register. After the collapse of the communist regime the applicant and other legal successors of the former owners instituted proceedings seeking to have the ownership restored to them.\n6.  On 23 November 2000 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings. She requested the Podkarpackie Governor (Wojewoda Podkarpacki) to give a decision declaring the expropriation null and void. She argued that the expropriation decision was unlawful in that the property concerned had not fallen within the scope of the criteria for nationalisation stipulated by the 1944 Decree.\n7.  On 3 April 2003 the Podkarpacki Governor held that the property was covered by the Decree and therefore the expropriation decision had been lawful. The applicant appealed.\n8.  On 19 December 2003 the Minister of Agriculture quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.\n9.  By a decision of 3 August 2004 the Governor held that the park and manor were covered by the 1944 Decree. The applicant appealed.\n10.  On 8 June 2005 the applicant submitted a complaint under Article 37 of the Code of Administrative Procedure about the Minister’s failure to give a decision in the case within a reasonable time. She reiterated her complaint on 10 January 2007. There was no reply to these complaints.\n11.  On 5 November 2007 the Minister upheld the first-instance decision. The applicant appealed. On 18 September 2008 the Warsaw Regional Administrative Court quashed both the first- and second-instance decisions, finding that the first-instance authority had failed to inform the parties, including the applicant, about an administrative hearing it had held.\n12.  On 28 May 2010 the Podkarpacki Governor discontinued the proceedings. It had regard to a decision given by the Constitutional Court on 1 March 2010 (see paragraph 26 below). It held that in the light of that decision the administrative authorities had no jurisdiction to examine issues concerning the lawfulness of expropriation decisions given on the basis of the 1944 Decree.\n13.  The applicant appealed, referring to the resolution given by the Supreme Administrative Court on 5 June 2006 (I OPS 2/06; see paragraph 25 below). She argued that the authority had failed to provide the legal basis for the proceedings to be discontinued.\n14.  On 28 December 2010 the Minister upheld the contested decision. The applicant appealed. On 28 January 2011 the Minister noted that he was competent to quash his own decision if he found it to be unlawful. He accordingly quashed the decision of 28 December 2011, having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 10 January 2011 (see paragraph 27 below). He held that the first-instance administrative authority had jurisdiction to deal with the applicant’s case.\n15.  On 11 April 2011 the applicant again complained about the Governor’s failure to give a decision. On 20 September 2011 the Minister found that the applica", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7007", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Rijeka.\n5.  On 29 April 2008 the applicant was sentenced by a first-instance judgment of the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci) to one year and ten months’ imprisonment on charges of extortion. He was not sent to serve the sentence.\n6.  It appears that another set of criminal proceedings was also pending against the applicant in the Rijeka Municipal Court on charges of making usurious contract and the obstruction of justice.\n1  Criminal proceedings against the applicant\n7.  On 15 May 2008 an investigating judge of the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) opened an investigation in respect of the applicant in connection with a suspicion that in April 2000 he had organised the shipment of 6.1 kilograms of heroin from the Czech Republic to Italy and that during May and June 2002 he had organised the distribution of heroin in Croatia.\n8.  On 26 May 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision to open the investigation and on 30 May 2008 a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court dismissed the appeal as ill-founded.\n9.  The investigating judge heard evidence from witnesses L.I. and D.Z. on 10 and 24 June 2008.\n10.  On 24 June 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the decision to open the investigation.\n11.  The investigating judge heard evidence from witness Ž.D. on 15 July 2008 and from the applicant on 18 July 2008. On 23 July 2008 the investigating judge heard V.X., another suspect in the same case.\n12.  On 23 July 2008 the investigation was extended to V.X.\n13.  On 25 September 2008 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the decision of 15 May 2008 opening the investigation inadmissible on the ground that it did not concern a final decision by which a criminal charge had been determined.\n14.  On 22 December 2008 witness K.Š. was heard by the Czech police and a written record of her oral statement was transmitted to the Rijeka County Court. On 9 March 2009 the investigating judge commissioned an expert report on the applicant’s intercepted telephone conversations. The expert report was submitted to the court on 17 March 2009.\n15.  The Rijeka Division of the State Attorney’s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (Državno odvjetništvo, Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta, Odsjek u Rijeci; hereinafter the “Rijeka State Attorney’s Office”) indicted the applicant and V.X. in the Rijeka County Court on 2 April 2009, on charges of conspiracy to supply heroin from the Czech Republic to Italy in April 2000. On 15 April 2009 the applicant lodged an objection against the indictment arguing that it had numerous substantive and procedural flaws. The objection was dismissed on 20 May 2009 by a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court as ill-founded.\n16.  A hearing scheduled for 20 June 2009 was adjourned because the applicant’s lawyer was unable to attend.\n17.  At a hearing on 23 September 2009 the applicant and witnesses Ž.D., D.Z. and L.I. gave oral evidence.\n18.  Another hearing was held on 24 September 2009 where the anonymous witness Ž. gave evidence. The parties made a proposal that all documents concerning the proceedings in Italy in respect of the same case be obtained by the court. The presiding judge accepted the request.\n19.  At a hearing on 29 October 2009 the parties made further", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7009", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Eğitim-Sen, the Education and Science Workers’ Union (“the union”) was formed in Ankara on 13 January 1995. According to the information it has provided, the union has 167,000 members with 90 branches and is present in 430 towns and cities. It is affiliated to the KESK (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – the Confederation of Public Sector Workers’ Union), which is a member of Education International.\n6.  On 15 September 2001 the union amended Article 2 (b) of its constitution to read as follows:\n“[Eğitim-Sen] defends the right of all individuals in society to receive, with equality and freedom, a democratic, secular, scientific and cost-free education in their mother tongue.”\n7.  On 15 February 2002 the Governor of Ankara requested the applicant union to delete the words “their mother tongue” from its constitution on the ground that they were in breach of Articles 3 and 42 of the Constitution and of sections 1 and 20 of Law no. 4688 on public servants’ unions.\n8.  The applicant union informed the Governor that it was too busy but that it undertook to amend its constitution by 30 June 2002.\n9.  On 29 March 2002, under section 37 of Law no. 4688, the Governor of Ankara requested the public prosecutor of Ankara to bring an action for dissolution against the applicant union on the ground that it had not carried out the requisite amendment of Article 2 (b) of its constitution.\n10.  On 3 July 2002 the applicant union amended Article 2 (b) of its constitution to read as follows:\n“[Eğitim-Sen] defends the right of all individuals in society to receive education in their mother tongue and to benefit from the development of their culture.”\n11.  On 16 July 2002 the public prosecutor gave a decision discontinuing the dissolution proceedings initiated by the Governor, on grounds of insufficient evidence and incriminating factors. In his decision the public prosecutor indicated, firstly, that the applicant union had amended Article 2 (b) of its constitution, which now provided that individuals should “receive education in their mother tongue”; he further stated that the matter was being discussed in some depth both publicly and in political parties and that it would be tabled for debate in Parliament. He concluded that, in those circumstances, it was not appropriate to bring dissolution proceedings against the applicant union or criminal proceedings against the members of its board.\n12.  On 15 October 2002 the Ministry of Labour and Social Security (“the Ministry”) informed the applicant union that, following the examination of its constitution, as amended on 3 July 2002 to comply with the relevant provisions of Law no. 4688, it had been concluded that the impugned Article was no longer in breach of the law.\n13.  On 27 June 2003 the Office of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces requested the Ministry to take the necessary measures against the applicant union on the ground that Article 2 (b) of its constitution, as amended on 3 July 2002, was in breach of Articles 3 and 42 of the Constitution.\n14.  On 15 July 2003 the Ministry requested the Governor of Ankara to examine the provisions of Article 2 (b) of the applicant union’s constitution in the light of section 6 of Law no. 4688.\n15.  On 28 October 2003 the Governor of Ankara requested the applicant union to delete the words “receive education in their mother tongue” from Article 2 (b) of its constitution.\n16.  On 12 April 2004 the Governor of Ankara, referring to the provisions of A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7010", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is detained in Andenne prison.\n5.  After studying the Koran and Sharia law, the applicant left his country of birth, Morocco, for Syria. He stayed there from 1993 to 2002 and studied Islamic theology and Arabic. During that period he travelled on several occasions to Morocco, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. He also visited Afghanistan twice, in 1994 and 1995, for a few months each time. He carried out military training there and – according to his application – took part in “a training programme for the military leader Hekmatyar”.\n6.  The applicant returned to Morocco in 2002. Under the surveillance of the Moroccan authorities, he left the country for Saudi Arabia, arriving there in October 2002. He only remained there until 2003 because – he alleged – he was “wanted by both Moroccan and Saudi intelligence services”.\n7.  The applicant reached Belgium via Turkey in early 2004, with false identity papers. He settled there with his Belgian wife and their son. He lodged an asylum application on 16 June 2004.\n8.  The applicant was arrested in Belgium on 1 July 2004. He was charged with participating, between 7 January and 2 July 2004, as a leader, in the activity of a terrorist group (the Moroccan Islamic Fighting Group, referred to hereinafter as “GICM” after its French name Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain), and with forgery, conspiring in a leading capacity to commit an offence, handling of stolen goods, use of a false name and illegal entry and residence.\n9.  It can be seen from the report on the facts submitted on 26 April 2006 by the Federal Prosecutor before the Brussels Court of Appeal (see paragraph 27 below) and that court’s judgment of 19 January 2007 (see paragraphs 29-41 below) that, on 25 November 2002, the administrator-general of the State security service transmitted to the Federal Prosecutor’s office a report noting the presence in Belgium of a group of North African nationals with links to the GICM, made up of individuals who had undergone military training in Afghanistan in camps connected to Al-Qaeda and led by a certain “Shihab”, alias “Abdellah”. A second report dated 24 December 2002 indicated that B. was part of that group.\n10.  A judicial investigation was opened on 9 January 2003 against persons unknown on a charge of criminal conspiracy.\n11.  In a third report, dated 28 March 2003, the State security service informed the public prosecutor’s office that a certain O. was the individual known as “Shihab”, and that he had spent time in Afghanistan in 2001, where he had followed paramilitary training.\n12.  In connection with the investigation into the Casablanca bombings of 16 May 2003, which left about fifty people dead, the Moroccan authorities arrested a number of Islamist militants. During an interview on 8 August 2003, one of them, N., alias Abu Muad, who acknowledged that he was one of the leaders of the GICM and that he had contributed to organising the movement in 2001 in Afghanistan, stated that a certain H. and the applicant had been given responsibilities within the group. He added that after the Western intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 the movement had been split up into small units based in Morocco, France, Belgium, Italy, the United Kingdom and Canada, and that the Belgian unit included H., B. and O. in particular.\nIn view of those statements, and others made by another suspect on 9 August 2003, Morocco issued, on 3 October 2003, an international arrest and extraditi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7011", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1976 respectively and live in Budapest.\n6.  At about 3.45 a.m. on 1 October 2006 the applicants were riding a motorbike in Budapest. Police Officers N. and S. halted them in order to carry out an identity check. The applicants produced American passports.\n7.  According to the applicants, the procedure to check their identities degenerated as follows. After Mr Réti’s stepping aside and attempting to make a cell phone call, Officer N. started to behave aggressively and repeatedly kicked him. Officer S. first tried to restrain his partner, but following a remark made by Ms Fizli, he also became aggressive; the officers hit Mr Réti repeatedly and finally handcuffed him, forcing him to the ground. Subsequently, reinforcement was called in. Several officers arrived and joined their colleagues in hitting Mr Réti. When Ms Fizli intervened, an officer pushed her in the chest and then down on the ground, knelt on her face, ordered her to shut up, and finally banged her head against the soil. Simultaneously, another officer knelt on Mr Réti’s back, while an officer forced his truncheon against his neck, thus compressing his throat. Mr Réti lost consciousness. Eventually, the applicants were driven to the police station in two separate police vehicles.\n8.  The Government gave the following account of the incident. Despite their understanding of the purpose of the police measure, Mr Réti and Ms Fizli initially insisted on speaking English and were not willing to cooperate, therefore the police officers, Officer N. and Officer S., applied force. As Mr Réti resisted, the police patrol called in reinforcements and handcuffed him with the help of the officers just arriving. Ms Fizli questioned in anger the police officers applying force against her partner and, in the heat of the argument, suddenly turned against Officer P., one of the reinforcement officers. It was perceived that she was trying to hit the officer with the cell phone she held in her hand. Officer P. raised his hands in defence and pushed her away. Ms Fizli bounced back from the officer’s hands, lost her balance and fell against the officer standing behind her, who immobilised her.\nMr Réti was then driven to the police station on suspicion of drunken driving and violence against an official. In the police car, he furiously banged his head against the window and kept kicking the window; therefore, force had to be used to restrain him. On account of her behaviour and lack of cooperation, Ms Fizli was also handcuffed, placed in another police car and taken to the police station.\n9.  Committed to the Budapest II District Police Headquarters, the applicants were tested for blood alcohol levels. Mr Réti was under very mild influence (0.45 g/l) while Ms Fizli was under none.\nSubsequently, the applicants were released.\n10.  According to the medical report submitted, Mr Réti suffered the following injuries: a contusion and a haematoma on the right cheek, another over the right eye, a further one behind the right knee, several abrasions and contusions on the chest and the belly, and a brain commotion. Ms Fizli had haematomas on her right wrist, several contusions on her right palm, a contusion on her left foot, and a haematoma with a contusion on the right side of her waist.\n11.  On 9 October 2006 the applicants filed a criminal report for ill‑treatment in official proceedings. In the subsequent proceedings they maintained in essence the above version of th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7012", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Petrozavodsk. He is a practising martial arts instructor specialising in kickboxing and Thai boxing.\n6.  On 30 October 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm to an employee of a tyre shop. According to the prosecution, the crime had been committed on 17 June 2002 by the applicant, Va., Ku. and Pa., with intent to coerce the shop owner into accepting their “security services”.\n7.  On the following day the Petrozavodsk Town Court authorised the applicant’s remand in custody, citing the gravity of the charges against him and the risk that he would abscond or obstruct the course of justice. The applicant was placed in a temporary detention centre in Petrozavodsk. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial.\n8.  On 12 March 2004 the applicant was transferred to a Petrozavodsk Town Police Department temporary detention centre to study the case file materials. He was placed in cell no. 11 together with eight other inmates. On the same day he had an altercation with officer N. The parties presented differing descriptions of the incident.\n9.  According to the applicant, at approximately 11 a.m. officer N. opened the cell door and dragged him out of the cell into the hallway. The applicant did not resist in any way. Several police officers on duty and the head of the duty unit L., as well as the inmates of cell no. 11, witnessed the scene. N. threw the applicant on to the floor, leaned on him and squeezed his neck, applying force to the carotid artery and the Adam’s apple. The policeman accompanied his actions with obscene language and threats. Only the intervention of the head of the duty unit stopped him and allowed the applicant to stand up. The applicant asked for a meeting with a prosecutor and for a medical examination. N. again approached the applicant, threatening him. Afraid for his life and desperately trying to get back into his cell, the applicant raised his leg, apparently in a non-threatening manner. He did not hit anyone. However, the police officers, including N., immediately pinned him to the floor. N. again squeezed the applicant’s neck with both hands. Officer M. stepped over the applicant’s face. The applicant was dragged back to his cell. He again unsuccessfully repeated his requests for a medical examination and a meeting with a prosecutor or a higher‑ranking police officer. The inmates refused to leave the cell and asked the police officers to call a doctor. However, their requests were to no avail.\n10.  Half an hour later the applicant and Ga., one of the inmates, were taken to see a deputy head of the Petrozavodsk Town Police Department. The applicant described the incident and showed the injuries on his neck and chest. Ga. corroborated his version of events. They were promised a thorough inquiry into the events in question.\n11.  The applicant repeated his allegations of ill-treatment during the subsequent interview with investigator I. After the interview the applicant was taken back to cell no. 11, where an emergency doctor was assisting another inmate. According to the applicant, his request for a medical examination was abruptly dismissed by N., who was present in the cell. In the evening of the same day the applicant was transported back to the remand prison in Petrozavodsk.\n12.  The official version of the events of 12 March 2004 was summarised in the judgment of 20 December 2004 (see paragraph 23 b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7013", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was a minority shareholder of six forestry companies. On 8 February 2002 these companies, together with seven others, signed an asset-sharing agreement (smlouva o fứzi) in order to wind up these companies and transfer all their assets to company C. The agreement laid out rules for the apportionment of the newly issued shares in company C. and the amounts that the existing shareholders would receive in compensation for the liquidated shares. The basis upon which the new shares would be allocated and the amounts to be given in settlement were based on an opinion drawn up by experts appointed by the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) on 27 June 2001 at the request of the companies concerned.\n7.  The agreement also included an arbitration clause by which any disagreement with the share allocation ratio or the amounts in settlement was to be decided in arbitration under the rules of Společnost pro dražby a rozhodčí řízení, s.r.o. (“Company for Auctions and Arbitrations”), a private limited liability company incorporated under Czech law which maintains a register of arbitrators and lays out rules for arbitration.\n8.  The first applicant, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation he received, brought an action under Article 220p § 4 of the Commercial Code against company C. whereby he asserted that this amount was inadequate and claimed a further 1,499,535 Czech korunas (CZK) (60,858 euros (EUR)).\n9.  On 5 May 2004 the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) terminated the proceedings, holding that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute because there was a clause providing for arbitration in the agreement.\n10.  The first applicant appealed, arguing that as a minority shareholder he had not voted for the asset-sharing agreement and had therefore never consented to the arbitration clause. He argued that the denial of the Brno Regional Court to hear the case had amounted to a violation of his right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal.\n11.  On 29 March 2005 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) upheld the decision, holding that the fact the applicant had personally never consented to the arbitration was immaterial because the agreement, including the arbitration clause, was nevertheless valid.\n12.  On 23 August 2006 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the first applicant’s constitutional appeal as manifestly ill-founded. The court held that the arbitration clause was binding on all shareholders of the companies which were a party to the agreement. The court did not find a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court, holding that the opportunity afforded to the applicant to take his dispute to arbitration safeguarded his property rights as a shareholder.\n13.  On an unspecified date a general meeting of company C. adopted, by virtue of the votes held by the majority shareholder, a resolution on the winding-up of the company and on the transfer of all its assets to the majority shareholder. On 9 December 2003 the court administering the Companies Register (obchodní rejstřík) approved the transfer. The amount of compensation the first applicant received was based on an opinion given by an expert on 8 September 2003 who was appointed by the Brno Regional Court but chosen and paid for by company C.\n14.  The contract between company C. and the majority shareholder for the transfer of all its assets included a clause providing for the settlement of any disputes regarding the compensation ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7014", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Slovenska Bistrica.\n7.  The case originated in a labour dispute following the applicant’s transfer to a different post within a company providing electro-installation (hereinafter referred to as “the company”). Subsequently, the applicant lodged several claims with the Maribor Labour Court requesting, inter alia, the annulment of the transfer decision, and payment of the difference in salary.\n8.  On 16 April 1993 the first-instance court gave a decision upholding the applicant’s claims. The company appealed. On 16 December 1993 the second-instance court upheld the company’s appeal and remitted the case for fresh examination.\n9.  On 16 February 1994 the Maribor Labour Court issued a decision whereby it upheld the applicant’s claims and annulled the transfer decision. It found that the transfer was related to the applicant’s involvement in trade union activities and his efforts to improve human relations in the company. The company, in the court’s view, had failed to demonstrate that there were work-related needs which called for a transfer. The court adjudicated that the applicant should be paid the difference in salary. The company appealed.\n10.  On 18 October 1994 the Ljubljana Higher Labour Court upheld the appeal. The three-judge panel, presided over by judge L.F., found that the first-instance court had failed to provide adequate reasoning in its decision; in particular, it had failed to explore whether lawful grounds for the transfer existed, such as an increased need for resources with respect to the applicant’s new post. In the Higher Court’s view, the lower court should examine the director and the chief of commerce as witnesses. The case was remitted for fresh examination.\n11.  On 25 April 1995 the Maribor Labour Court stayed the proceedings since bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted against the company.\n12.  Subsequently, the court repeatedly requested the applicant to inform it of the progress of the proceedings relating to the company’s bankruptcy and to specify whether he still had an interest in pursing the proceedings in his case. The applicant supplied the required information concerning the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings on 18 January 1999, and requested that the proceedings in his case be continued.\n13.  On 5 March 1999 the court resumed the proceedings in so far as they concerned the allegedly unlawful transfer to another post and loss of salary, and dismissed the remaining claims. The applicant lodged an appeal and an appeal on points of law. Both were rejected.\n14.  On 18 February 2002 the Maribor Labour Court, after holding four hearings and examining witnesses, issued a judgment dismissing the applicant’s claims. It found that the applicant’s transfer to a different post within the company had been lawfully based on the company’s need to adapt to changes in the market, and that he was therefore not entitled to any compensation. The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 29 August 2002 the Ljubljana Higher Labour Court rejected the appeal and upheld the Maribor Labour Court’s judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law in which he complained about, inter alia, not being present at one of the hearings, and his claims being previously upheld but eventually rejected owing to improper conduct of the court’s proceedings.\n16.  On 4 November 2003 the Supreme Court, sitting as a panel of five judges, one of whom was judge L.F., rejected the appeal on points of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7015", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Celje. She is an advocate practising in Celje.\n7.  In 2001, the applicant was representing M.Š. in civil proceedings for compensation for injuries which M.Š. had allegedly sustained in a physical attack by the defendant. The proceedings were conducted before the Domžale Local Court sitting in a formation of a single judge. The judge in the case was Judge M., a Ljubljana Higher Court judge who had been temporarily appointed to the local court.\n8.  It appears from the transcript of the hearing of 28 November 2001 that the applicant was not permitted to ask the defendant certain questions as they were considered suggestive by Judge M. Her proposal that a witness be heard was also rejected, as this evidence was not considered necessary by the judge.\n9.  On 28 November 2001 the Domžale Local Court delivered a judgment rejecting M.Š.’s claim for compensation.\n10.  On 27 December 2001 the applicant’s client appealed. In the appeal statement drafted by the applicant, Judge M. was criticised for not putting on record some of his procedural decisions and for not including the applicant’s client’s statements in full. It stated, inter alia:\n“It would be reasonable to expect that the judge of a higher court would explain before the trial hearing why it is he who is presiding over this case which ... is being considered at first instance; this is what the judicial code of behaviour would expect him to do. However, the judge was trampling on that code of behaviour by behaving arrogantly and chewing gum during the hearing, and by covering his mouth while talking.\nOn 28 November 2001 proceedings were held before the Domžale Local Court following the principle of the inquisitorial system. The transcript of the hearing shows that [the proceedings] were not carried out in accordance with the Civil Procedure Act.... The judge, despite requests, did not include in the transcript the statements and messages which were given by the plaintiff or her representative...\nThe judge asked the plaintiff whether she understood the Slovenian language, and she confirmed that she did. However, he then chewed gum during the interview, so that the plaintiff could not understand him.\nFollowing this superficial evidence-taking, the judge, without deciding on the other requests for evidence, concluded the hearing. For that reason, the facts of the case were wrongly and insufficiently established...”\n11.  On 26 May 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeal in the part concerning compensation for bodily injuries. However, it rejected the complaints concerning the alleged procedural defects and inaccuracy of the transcript of the hearing. In particular, the court found that the transcript had been signed by the parties without objection and that none of the parties had challenged the impartiality of the judge by instituting proceedings to that effect.\n12.  On 8 January 2002 Judge M., having received the appeal against his judgment of 28 November 2001, issued a decision fining the applicant 150,000 Slovenian tolars (SIT) for contempt of court for her statements in the appeal. It stated that the fine should be paid within fifteen days. The decision reads as follows:\n“In the above civil case, the plaintiff’s representative Alenka Pečnik, attorney, lodged an appeal against judgment no. P 107/97 of this court. In the appeal she gravely insults the presiding judge by stating that he was trampling on the judicial code of behaviour ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7016", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant, who was born in 1970, is a journalist by profession. At the relevant time she was employed at Trud, a leading national daily newspaper, as a journalist and deputy editor in the newspaper’s criminal department. In 2007 or 2008 she started working for 24 Hours, another leading national daily newspaper.\n7.  The second applicant was born in 1942. At the relevant time he was Trud’s editor‑in‑chief.\n8.  On 30 May 1996 the press service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs announced the arrest of N.T., a former employee of the Ministry and of the National Investigation Service. The press release specified that he had been detained and charged under Article 387 of the Criminal Code 1968 with abusing his office with a view to obtaining pecuniary gain, which had led to serious negative consequences. In particular, it stated that he had misappropriated, concealed and used secret official documents. The investigation against him was ongoing. The same day this information was relayed to many newspapers by the Bulgarian Telegraph Agency.\n9.  Shortly after receiving the news, the first applicant went to the premises of the Sofia Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office, where, along with journalists from other newspapers, she tried to obtain more information about the case. Around noon, in line with the established practice at that time, a military prosecutor showed up before the journalists to make a statement about the case and answer questions. In addition to the information in the press release, the prosecutor said that a bag with secret documents had been found during a search of N.T.’s home, that N.T.’s wife had also been implicated in the affair, and that by using those documents, which contained information about the State‑owned metallurgical plant “Kremikovtsi”, N.T.’s wife had engaged in lucrative business ventures involving metals.\n10.  The next day several national newspapers ran stories about the case. The applicant also covered it in an article which appeared in the 31 May 1996 issue of Trud. It bore the caption “Private company’s shady iron business discovered”, the headline “Former police officer arrested over bag with secret documents”, and the applicant’s byline, and read:\n“A former officer was arrested after the metropolitan police found in his home a bag with secret documents, it became clear yesterday.\n[N.T.], former officer of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and investigator in the National Investigation Service, was put behind bars for misappropriating, concealing and using secret documents, the [Ministry] announced yesterday. He has been charged under Article 387 § 3 of the Criminal Code with abusing his office with a view to enriching himself, which has led to serious negative consequences. The law provides for up to ten years’ imprisonment if the accused is found guilty.\nThe documents that [N.T.] took relate to the operations and the business of the ‘Kremikovtsi’ metallurgical plant, the law enforcement people said. He gave the secret information to his wife, who had a private iron‑trading company. Her business thus thrived and she amassed a substantial capital, the initial investigation found.\nThe arrest took place about ten days ago, the Palace of Justice specified. The handcuffs clicked on [N.T.]’s wrists three days before he was set to become a practising lawyer. Originals of secret documents, obtained by him probably while an operative of the former 8th district police department, were found during ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7017", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.\n5.  On 20 July 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion. While in detention awaiting the trial in the extortion case, on 26 November 1999 the applicant was charged with having committed robbery on 18 July 1999.\n6.  On 29 March 2000 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Rīga Regional Court, maintaining his innocence with regard to the charges of robbery and pointing out that his alibi could be proved by his neighbours, who had seen him working in the yard of his residence on the day in question. Similar complaints were addressed to the Prosecutor General’s Office on 11 July 2000 and on 11 August 2000.\n7.  On 7 July 2000 a confrontation was carried out between the applicant and a witness M.B. The applicant’s counsel was present. According to the record of the confrontation, M.B. confirmed the applicant’s involvement in the robbery and the applicant denied it. When given an opportunity to put questions to M.B., the applicant did not have any.\n8.  On 25 August 2000 the pre-trial investigation in the applicant’s criminal case was completed and he was given an opportunity to read the materials in the case file. After reading the case file the applicant submitted several written requests, including a request to hold an identity parade to determine whether the victim of the robbery could identify him in a line-up.\n9.  On 26 September 2000 a prosecutor rejected the applicant’s requests. With regard to the identity parade, the prosecutor considered that it would serve no useful purpose as the victim had stated that he would not able to recognise his attackers.\n10.  On 9 April 2001 the Rīga City Zemgale District Court convicted the applicant of extortion and sentenced him to a prison term of two and a half years. That judgment eventually became final after the applicant revoked his appeal.\n11.  From 26 June to 2 July 2002 hearings in the robbery case took place in the Rīga Regional Court. At the hearing, apart from the applicant and his two co-accused, the following witnesses were present and testified: U.I., who explained that he had driven all the accused persons to the victim’s residence; A.Š., the victim’s neighbour, who had not seen the act of robbery but had heard some conversations through the doors of his apartment and had later seen that the victim had been beaten; two minor girls, who had noticed a car in which goods taken from the victim’s apartment were being loaded and had written down its licence number; L.G., the applicant’s former partner, who testified that she had seen the applicant at home on the day of the robbery; B.B., a friend of L.G., who had also seen the applicant at home on the day of the robbery; T.B., the applicant’s neighbour, who had seen the applicant working in the yard of his house on the day of the robbery; S.B., the applicant’s neighbour, who on the day of the robbery had worked in the yard together with the applicant, and three other witnesses.\n12.  The court then turned to the question of whether the pre-trial statements of the victim and the witness M.B. could be read out in their absence. The applicant insisted that they had to be questioned in court. On 10 June 2002 the victim had written to the court and indicated that he was unable to attend the hearing “owing to a disability”. The court decided to read out the victim’s pre-trial statements.\n13. On 27 Jun", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7018", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Mielec.\n6.  The applicant is married with two children. Prior to her early retirement she had been employed for twenty eight years and had paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 28 December 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor on 17 December 2001. The certificate stated that her daughter N. (born in 1996) had suffered in particular from chronic rhinitis (przewlekła zapalenie nosa) and chronic bronchitis (zapalenie oskrzeli).\n9.  On 29 January 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension in the net amount of 678.80 Polish zlotys.\n10.  On 25 September 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of her parent. On an unknown date the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n11.  On 2 October 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions for the applicant. By virtue of the first decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings and revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to award the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance.\n12.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension.\n13.  On 22 September 2003 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the SSB’s decisions and granted the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance. The court considered that the SSB should not have reopened the proceedings ex officio. The parties appealed.\n14.  On 26 February 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case.\n15.  On 29 July 2004 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant’s child did not require her mother’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n16.  On 24 November 2004 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.\n17.  On 8 March 2005 the Supreme Court refused to entertain a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant’s lawyer.\n18.  Following the revocation of her right to the early-retirement pension the applicant was not ordered to return her early-retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board.\n19.  The applicant did not provide details about her fi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7019", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1963 and 1985 respectively and live in the town of Anapa, Krasnodar Region. The applicants are mother and son.\n6.  In 1989 the first applicant started working in a State-owned seaside health resort in Anapa. A year later the resort’s management allowed the applicants to occupy two rooms in a former administrative building. By a decision of the resort’s trade union committee of 24 October 1991, the first applicant was officially assigned housing rights to those premises. A year later a State body supervising the resort decided to assign the status of a dormitory to the administrative building in which the first applicant and her son lived. However, the proceedings by which the status of the administrative building was to be changed were not completed. At the same time, pursuant to a decision of the Head of the Anapa City Council the applicants and other inhabitants of the dormitory registered, on a permanent basis, their housing rights to the premises they occupied in the dormitory building.\n7.  In 2001 a new director of the resort, which by that time had been transformed into a private joint-stock company, “Golden Beach Resort” (hereinafter – “the Company”), lodged an action against the applicants seeking their eviction.\n8.  On 21 November 2001 the Anapa Town Court dismissed the action, having found that the applicants had been lawfully provided with the premises, which they had established as their place of permanent residence. The first applicant had duly paid the rent and, with the consent of the resort’s management, had improved the state of the premises by installing a sewage system and carrying out renovation works. The Town Court noted that “it was impossible to evict the applicants without providing them with other housing premises” and held that the Company was, at its next general meeting of shareholders, to determine the issue of purchasing a flat for the applicants in accordance with the requirements of the Russian Housing Code in order to resettle them from the premises they had occupied in the resort.\n9.  That decision was upheld on appeal by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 5 February 2002.\n10.  On 2 April 2002 the Anapa Town Court issued a writ of execution which the first applicant submitted to a bailiff on the following day.\n11.  In 2004 the first applicant, disappointed by the bailiff’s failure to enforce the judgment of 21 November 2001, asked the Anapa Town Court to amend the method of enforcement of the judgment by ordering the Company to pay her a sum equal to the cost of a two-room flat.\n12.  On 5 November 2004 the Town Court accepted the action, having noted the Company’s “persistent unwillingness” to enforce the judgment of 21 November 2001 despite the applicants’ countless complaints to various law-enforcement bodies and courts. It ordered that the Company purchase for the applicants, before 1 January 2005, a two-room flat in the town of Anapa. In the event of its failure to comply with the judgment, the Company was to pay the applicants 1,168,800 Russian roubles, equivalent to the cost of a two-room flat. That decision became final on 14 December 2004, having been upheld on appeal by the Krasnodar Regional Court.\n13.  Enforcement proceedings, initiated in January 2005 and pending without any apparent success, were stayed on 13 May 2005 after the acting President of the Krasnodar Regional Court had initiated supervisory review of the decisions of 5 November and 14 December 2004.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7020", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Sokołόw Małopolski.\n6.  The applicant is a single mother and has three children. Prior to her application for an early‑retirement pension she had been employed by the same company for twenty years and paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 19 January 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early‑retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so‑called “EWK” pension”.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1988) suffered from chronic asthma (przewlekła astma oskrzelowa) and that she had been in need of her parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 29 January 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 January 2001 in the net amount of 593 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension until 1 March 2001 due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. The applicant resigned from her job.\n11.  On an unspecified date Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 16 May 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n12.  On 27 May 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance.\n13.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early‑retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n14.  On 1 August 2002 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) allowed the appeal and granted the applicant the EWK pension. The SSB appealed against the judgment.\n15.  On 19 March 2003 the Rzeszow Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the case for reconsideration.\n16.  On 20 November 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court upheld the SSB’s decision of 27 May 2002 and dismissed the applicant’s appeal against it. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant’s child did not require her mother’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she did not", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7021", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant’s late husband was employed by Elektron AD, a company based in Belgrade (“the company”). From 1995 to 1998 he was deployed on certain projects in Russia, for which work, apart from his salary, he had the right to claim an allowance calculated in United States dollars (USD).\n5.  On 18 June 1998 the Commercial Court in Belgrade instituted insolvency proceedings in respect of the company.\n6.  On an unspecified date thereafter Mr Adamović lodged a pecuniary claim within the insolvency proceedings for salary arrears, deployment allowance, and various social security contributions. On 4 May 2000 the Commercial Court rejected his claim and instructed him to initiate a regular civil suit and request determination of his claim (radi utvrđivanja osporenih potraživanja).\n7.  On 22 June 2000 Mr Adamović, as instructed, lodged a separate civil claim.\n8.  On 18 November 2002 the Commercial Court rejected the part of Mr Adamović’s request regarding the salaries, as it was considered to have been withdrawn, while the request for deployment allowance was partly granted. By virtue of this judgment the company was ordered to pay him USD 4,258.60 towards the unpaid allowances, together with the social security contributions due and statutory interest, plus 44,750 Yugoslav dinars (YUM) for legal costs.\n9.  On 16 April 2003 and 23 October 2003 respectively the District Court and the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 18 November 2002. The judgment of the Supreme Court was served on the applicant after 13 February 2004.\n10.  On an unspecified date thereafter, the said judgment having become final, it was acknowledged within the insolvency proceedings.\n11.  On 10 September 2003 the costs awarded in the civil proceedings were paid, while on 5 November 2003 the interest calculated on the costs was also paid.\n12.  On about a dozen occasions between 15 July 2003 and 10 September 2007 the company paid the applicant various smaller amounts in “hardship assistance” (solidarna pomoć), to help cover certain medical bills. The total of all these sums amounted to an equivalent of less than USD 3,000. These amounts, however, were not specified as being intended to constitute partial payment of the debt, but as assistance to the applicant’s family because of the applicant’s late husband’s illness.\n13.  On 28 May 2008 the Commercial Court issued a decision ordering payment of 50% of the guaranteed salary to all the former employees of the company for the period from 1 March 1997 to 18 June 1998. On 5 June 2008 the applicant received a payment under this head of 91,532 Serbian dinars (RSD, about USD 1,800 at the relevant time).\n14.  Before the insolvency proceedings the debtor company was entirely socially owned. It has remained registered as fully socially owned in the relevant public registries throughout the insolvency proceedings.\n15.  On 29 September 2008 the company was put up for auction, in accordance with the provisions of the applicable law (see paragraph 19 below). Following several unsuccessful auction attempts, on 5 February 2010 the Commercial Court authorised the sale of the company to a third private party. The purchase price has been added to the company’s assets.\n16.  On 23 February 2010 the Commercial Court in Belgrade terminated the insolvency proceedings against the company, however continuing with insolvency action against the bankruptcy estate. On 7 October 2011 the Commercial Court authorised payment of certain sums to some of the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7022", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  The applicant was a teacher in a public secondary school in Moscow. She claims that during a lesson on 30 January 2002 one of her senior students, Ms I., then sixteen years old, misbehaved whereupon the applicant told her to leave the classroom. The girl left the school building without a coat, wandered around for hours, and later fell ill. On the next day, the girl’s mother lodged a complaint with the school principal.\n6.  On 21 February 2002 the school principal dismissed the applicant from her post. The notice of dismissal reads as follows:\n“On 30 January 2002 during [a senior class] lesson conducted [by the applicant], a student, [Ms I.], as a result of blaming, demands and the use of unacceptable methods of discipline, was driven by [the applicant] to tears, suffering nervous and emotional distress. [The applicant] in the presence of her other classmates rudely turned [Ms I.] out of the classroom, telling her ‘to cool down’ despite the latter’s visible distress... [Ms I.] then left the school, in a state of anxiety and agitation, without documents, money or means of communication. By the end of the lesson [the applicant] had not enquired about the student’s whereabouts or the reasons for her absence and did not take the necessary measures to find her. Furthermore, [the applicant] later left the school for private reasons before the child was found and did not express any interest in the child’s fate...The witnesses to the incident were other teachers and students at the school.\n[The applicant’s] actions, as described above, show evidence of her ‘use of methods of discipline involving physical and psychological abuse of students’ in breach of professional ethics...”\n7.  On 11 April 2002 the applicant brought civil proceedings against the school in the Khamovnicheskiy District Court (“the District Court”) of Moscow seeking reinstatement in her post and compensation. She claimed that the accusations against her were unsubstantiated and that she had not used unacceptable methods of discipline and had not turned the student out of the classroom. She had merely suggested that the student calm down by leaving the classroom and going to have some tea in the school cafeteria.\n8.  On 15 May 2002 the respondent asked for hearings to be held in camera. Referring to Article 9 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure, the District Court granted the request in the following terms:\n “...The respondent asked for a trial in camera because the case involves the interests of juveniles and in order to prevent any adverse effect on the students’ education. The claimant objected to the request...Under Article 123 of the Constitution trials in all courts are held in public. A trial in camera is allowed in cases established by federal law. The court has taken into consideration the fact that the present case involves the interests of juveniles, namely, the students [of the school]. The court therefore finds it necessary to hold its sessions in camera in order to prevent any adverse effect on their education...”\n9.  The District Court examined the case during a number of sessions from 29 May 2002 to 7 February 2003, all of which were closed to the public. The applicant denied that she had used “methods of discipline involving physical and psychological abuse”. She had only asked Ms I. to leave the classroom in response to the student’s repeated refusals to complete a task. The applicant alleged that th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7023", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and until his conviction lived in Vologda.\n6.  On 26 November 2001 the Vologda City Court convicted the applicant of assault occasioning grave bodily harm and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.\n7.  On 10 January 2002 the Vologda Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n8.  From 20 January 2002 to 24 June 2004 the applicant was serving his sentence in Sokol correctional colony OE-256/4, Vologda Region (учреждение ОЕ-256/4).\n9.  Following his admission to the correctional colony the applicant claimed not to have been given a full set of prison clothing. Nor was he given personal hygiene items (toothbrush, toothpaste, toilet paper, disposable razors).\n10.  On 19 March 2002 the applicant was transferred to unit no. 10. Cell no. 17, where the applicant was held, accommodated over fifty inmates, which was more than twice the cell’s design capacity.\n11.  On 15 March 2003 the applicant was transferred to unit no. 11. Reveille in the unit was 4 a.m. and lights-out 8 p.m.\n12.  On 27 May 2003 the applicant was transferred back to unit no. 10. Cell no. 18, where the applicant was held, accommodated sixty inmates. Among them were six HIV-positive inmates and several inmates suffering from tuberculosis. Due to the lack of regular supply of water the inmates had to use water from a fifty-litre drinking water tank. Both healthy and sick inmates took water from the tank with their own mugs. Both healthy and sick inmates went to the bathhouse at the same time. The applicant lived in constant fear of contamination. The administration of the colony provided the inmates with a brochure, ‘Protect yourself’ counselling the detainees on safe practices to avoid contamination.\n13.  The applicant worked in the sewing workshop during the daytime.\n14.  On 4 April 2004 the applicant complained about a blister on his foot. He stated that he was given an adhesive plaster with an expired date.\n15.  On 21 April 2004 a telegram arrived for the applicant, informing him of his mother’s decease. The telegram was handed to the applicant on 23 April 2004.\n16.  On 24 May 2004 the applicant submitted a sealed envelope to be sent to the Sokolskiy District Court (Vologda Region). The envelope was not sent to the court immediately but was opened, and three enclosed documents went missing.\n17.  The applicant complained about the day schedule in unit no. 11 of the OE-256/4 facility. Following the Prosecutor’s inquiry into the matter the day schedule was changed to reveille at 5 a.m. and lights-out at 9 p.m.\n18.  He complained to the Vologda Regional Prosecutor’s Office that the OE-256/4 facility did not have adequate medical services, and that medication supplied was date-expired. In its replies of 19 September 2003 and 28 September 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that inquiries had been made about his allegations and that they had not been confirmed. It was established that on 29 January and 22 and 24 March 2004 the applicant had complained of pain in his right foot, that dried blisters were discovered on examination, and that the applicant was advised on the required treatment.\n19.  The applicant also submitted a complaint that his correspondence had been interfered with, and that notification of his mother’s death had been delayed. In its reply dated 29 September 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office confirmed that the actions of the facility’s authorities had breached domestic law, and informed the applicant that discipl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7024", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Dunakeszi.\n7.  At the time of introducing the application, the applicant, a university dropout and unemployed, lived on financial support from his mother and grandmother.\n8.  On 12 September 2006 the applicant’s mother consulted her psychiatrist, Dr M., complaining of suffering from distress due to the “strange behaviour” of her son. According to the mother’s medical file, she stated that the applicant “kept wandering in town”, “did not have any friends” and “did not look after himself”. In response, Dr M. informed her of the possibilities either to commit the applicant to a psychiatric hospital for emergency treatment or to initiate a procedure for obtaining his mandatory institutional treatment, if necessary.\n9.  On 6 November 2006 the mother informed Dr M. that the reason for her having previously moved out of their common flat was the applicant’s “strange behaviour” and that she was afraid of returning. On 4 December 2006 Dr M. noted in the mother’s medical file that she was discussing with her the problems concerning the applicant, whom his mother perceived as psychotic.\n10.  During their subsequent consultations, the mother repeatedly mentioned to Dr M. that the reason for her anguish was that the applicant had not taken up a proper job and still lived on financial support from his family. In her medical file Dr M. reiterated the view that the mother’s problem originated in her son’s conduct perceived as psychotic by the mother.\n11.  On 17 September 2007 the applicant was called on to meet Dr M. They discussed the applicant’s dropping out of university and his inability to meet his mother’s expectations. Dr M.’s diagnosis was “paranoid schizophrenia under observation”.\n12.  Subsequently Dr M. gave the applicant an appointment for a psychological examination, which took place on 22 September 2007. On that day, Dr L. examined the applicant and found that he was characterised “by schizoid isolation, sensitive attitude and paranoid behaviour”.\n13.  Further sessions involving the applicant, Dr M. and Dr L. took place on 24 and 28 September and 3 and 5 October 2007. At these sessions he expressed his interest in politics and voiced hopes of being elected Mayor of Budapest. Dr M. was trying to find out the reasons for his social isolation and convince him about the need to reconcile his projects with reality. The applicant missed two sessions scheduled for 12 and 19 October 2007.\n14.  Having noted that the applicant’s ideas had remained megalomaniac, on 24 October 2007 Dr M. confronted the applicant with her view that his social isolation was due to a psychiatric disorder.\n15.  On 31 October 2007 the applicant renounced further counselling by Dr M. About the same time, he also stopped seeing Dr L.\n16.  On 5 and 6 November 2007 the mother complained to Dr M. that she, in despair because of the applicant’s condition, was unable to pay her utility bills, exorbitant due to the applicant’s habit of using too much water for “ritual bathing”. Dr M. explained to her that the applicant was expected to seek treatment voluntarily.\n17.  Since the applicant did not do so, on 26 November 2007 Dr M. requested the Dunakeszi District Court to order his mandatory institutional treatment. This application consisted of a pre-printed form stating that there was a possibility that the applicant’s conduct would become dangerous because of a mental disorder. Dr M. completed the form by adding that the applicant’s ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7025", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973. He is serving a prison term in Ilava prison.\n5.  On 14 October 2003 the applicant lodged an action with the Nitra District Court. He claimed that the defendant should be ordered to apologise for statements accusing the applicant of an offence and to pay compensation.\n6.  On 28 May 2004 the case-file was transmitted to the Pieštany District Court due to local jurisdiction. That court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees on 6 September 2004. It obtained a statement from the defendant on 15 October 2004.\n7.  On 23 June 2005 the case-file was transmitted to the Trnava District Court due to reorganisation of the judicial system. In the course of 2006 and the first half of 2007 it examined the applicant’s situation in view of his request for exemption from court fees. It also established the address of the defendant to whom it sent the action for observations on 22 June 2007. The applicant replied to the defendant’s observations on 24 September 2007.\n8.  On 1 April 2008 the case-file was returned to the Piešťany District Court due to restructuring of the judiciary. On 11 December 2008 that court inquired about the applicant’s financial situation. On the basis of a reply of 12 January 2009 the Piešťany District Court, on 10 June 2009, decided (i) that the applicant was obliged to pay the court fees, and (ii) not to appoint a legal aid lawyer to the applicant.\n9.  On 13 November 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint about the duration of the proceedings. It admitted certain periods of inactivity which, however, were not such as to amount to a breach of the applicant’s constitutional right to a hearing without unjustified delay.\n10.  On 30 November 2009 the Trnava Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s decision of 10 June 2009. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law.\n11.  On 5 February 2010 the Piešťany District Court discontinued the proceedings on the applicant’s action as the latter had not paid the court fee. On 26 February 2010 the applicant appealed. On 21 January 2011 the Trnava Regional Court upheld the decision to discontinue the proceedings. The applicant filed an appeal on points of law.\n12.  On 28 May 2012 the Piešťany District Court referred the applicant to the Centre for Legal Assistance with his request for legal assistance in the proceedings on his appeal on points of law. On 1 August 2012 the applicant informed the Court that his request for a lawyer to be appointed to represent him had not yet been determined by the Centre for Legal Assistance. The proceedings on the appeal on points of law are pending.\n13.  On 7 February 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s second complaint as having been lodged out of time. It considered the complaint to be directed, in substance, against the Piešťany District Court and held that the proceedings complained of had ended with final effect. The constitutional review of their duration was therefore excluded.\n14.  On 25 November 2002 the applicant lodged an action with the Nitra District Court. He claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage from an individual.\n15.  On 23 September 2003 the Nitra District Court rejected the action holding that the applicant had failed to remedy its formal shortcomings. On 27 November 2003 the Nitra Regional Court quashed that decision and returned the case at first instance. In the meantime, on 23 October 2003, t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7026", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Zemun (Serbia).\n6.  On 21 February 1977 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Podgorica found X, Y and Z guilty of participating in a fight (učestvovanje u tuči) on 14 July 1973.\n7.  On 18 December 1978 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against X, Y and Z seeking compensation for an eye injury he had suffered in the fight and the subsequent loss of the sight in his right eye, and for loss of income caused by his reduced working capacity.\n8.  On 18 March 1980 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Podgorica ruled partly in favour of the applicant on the basis of his school certificates, his employment record, documents concerning his injury and medical treatment as well as two expert witnesses’ statements. This judgment was partly upheld by the District Court (Okružni sud) in Podgorica on 30 December 1980. On 10 May 1983 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) in Podgorica quashed the previous judgments and ordered a re-trial. There is no information in the case file as to how many hearings had been held and/or adjourned before the Supreme Court issued its ruling.\n9.  Between 10 May 1983 and 21 June 1990 five hearings were adjourned and one hearing was held. Between 23 September 1985 and 6 January 1986 the impugned proceedings had been stayed due to the applicant’s absence from a prior hearing.\n10.  On 21 June 1990 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica ruled partly in favour of the applicant.  The judgment was based on the evidence previously adduced as well as on further documents relating to the applicant’s health and employment, and another three expert witnesses’ opinions. On 14 May 1991 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica quashed the first-instance judgment and ordered another re-trial.\n11.  Between 14 May 1991 and 16 October 2008 seven more hearings were adjourned and one hearing was held.\n12.  On 16 October 2008 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica ruled partly in favour of the applicant. The judgment relied on: the opinions of four experts given by November 1986, documents obtained by May 1993, the statements of four witnesses provided between March 1997 and April 2002, and the statements of the applicant, X and another expert witness made between 6 November 2005 and 19 November 2007.\n13.  On 18 September 2009, the High Court in Podgorica quashed this judgment and ordered another re-trial.\n14.  On 13 September 2010 the Court of First Instance decided that the case should be examined afresh given that it had been assigned to a new judge. The court requested another opinion of a financial expert. As for the remaining evidence, the parties agreed that the minutes from previous hearings could be read.\n15.  The next hearing was scheduled for 2 November 2010. There is no information in the case file as to whether this hearing took place or if there were any further developments in the case.\n16.  By 3 March 2004, which is when the Convention entered into force in respect of the respondent State, the applicant had amended the amount of compensation he had sought on seven occasions, and nine hearings had been adjourned due to his absence or upon his request.\n17.  After the Convention had entered into force in respect of Montenegro the applicant amended the amount he sought on two further occasions.\n18.  On 19 January 2006 the applicant requested an additional financial expertise.\n19.  There is no information in the case file as to how many hearings in tot", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7027", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Glinik Charzewski.\n6.  The applicant is married and has children. Prior to her application for an early-retirement pension she had been employed and paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 16 February 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 6 February 2001. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1995) suffered from bronchial asthma and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 16 March 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 February 2001 in the net amount of 630 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. On 25 April 2001 the applicant resigned from her full-time job in a private company where she had been working since 1975. Afterwards, payment of the pension was resumed.\n11.  On 17 May 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 22 May 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n12.  On 22 May 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance.\n13.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n14.  On 23 January 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant’s child did not require her mother’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n15.  The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n16.  On 21 May 2003 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.\n17.  On 15 January 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to ente", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7028", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Baku.\n6.  The applicant was a journalist and the editor-in-chief of a newspaper named Boz Qurd.\n7.  On 9 October 2005 a number of opposition parties held an unauthorised demonstration in Baku. The applicant, together with five other journalists, was present at the demonstration to report on the events. The applicant was not wearing a special blue vest identifying him as a journalist, but he was wearing a journalist badge on his chest.\n8.  During the dispersal of the demonstration by the police, the applicant and his colleagues were beaten up and received various injuries. According to the applicant, he told the police officers that he was a journalist and asked them to stop. The applicant was hit on the head and lost consciousness following his beating.\n9.  The applicant was taken to hospital the same day. On 26 October 2005 he received a medical certificate with a diagnosis of closed cranio-cerebral trauma, concussion and soft-tissue damage to the crown of the head.\n10.  On 10 July 2006 the applicant obtained a medical certificate from Baku City Polyclinic no. 19. That certificate indicated that the applicant had been registered as a patient diagnosed with closed cranio-cerebral trauma and concussion, and that his condition required long-term treatment.\n11.  The six journalists who had been beaten up on 9 October 2005 lodged a joint criminal complaint. On 9 November 2005 the Sabail District Police Department instituted criminal proceedings under Article 132 (beating) of the Criminal Code. On 22 December 2005 the case was re-qualified under Article 163 (obstruction of the lawful professional activity of journalists) of the Criminal Code and transferred to the Sabail District Prosecutor’s Office.\n12.  On 12 January 2006 the applicant was questioned by the investigator in charge of the case. The applicant stated that he had been beaten with truncheons by a group of police officers while he was observing the demonstration as a journalist. The applicant also stated that he did not know the police officers who had hit him, although he did know the police officers who were in charge of the police unit. The applicant submitted a photo of an officer (A.V.) who was the head of the Riot Police Regiment of the Baku Police Office. The applicant’s version of the events was also confirmed by statements from two other journalists, E.M. and N.A., who were present at the relevant time at the place of the incident.\n13.  According to the Government, on 28 January 2006 the investigator ordered a forensic examination of the applicant, but the applicant did not appear for this examination. No copy of any decision in this respect was submitted by the Government to the Court. The applicant alleged that he had not been informed of this decision by the investigator.\n14.  By a letter of 2 February 2006, the investigator in charge of the case requested the Sabail District Police Department to identify the police officers who had hit the applicant. In reply to the investigator’s letter, on 25 February 2006 the Head of the Sabail District Police Department wrote that they had not been able to identify the relevant police officers, however they would continue to take measures in this respect and inform the investigator of any result.\n15.  On 1 March 2006 the investigator heard A.V., who denied involvement in the applicant’s beating. A.V. stated that neither he nor the police officers under his supervision had done anyth", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7029", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Shahumyan Village, Ararat Region of Armenia.\n6.  The applicant was a member of one of the main opposition parties at the material time in Armenia, the People’s Party of Armenia (PPA).\n7.  In February and March 2003 a presidential election was held in Armenia. The applicant acted as an authorised election assistant (վստահված անձ) for the PPA candidate who was the main opposition candidate in the election. Following the election, which was won by the incumbent President, the international election observation mission concluded that the overall election process fell short of international standards. It appears that mass protests followed. The PPA candidate challenged the election results in the Constitutional Court, which on 16 April 2003 recommended that a referendum of confidence in the re-elected President be held in Armenia within a year.\n8.  As the April 2004 one-year deadline approached, the opposition stepped up its campaign to challenge the legitimacy of the re-elected President and began to hold rallies around the country to express its demands. Numerous rallies were held in March and April 2004 and the applicant appears to have participated in them. He alleged that the authorities had retaliated by arresting and harassing opposition supporters, including himself. According to him, during this period the local police officers visited on a daily basis his home in Shahumyan village where his mother lived, with the intention of taking him to the police station. He was forced to stay away from home and to hide in Yerevan.\n9.  On 12 April 2004 a rally was organised by the opposition parties which took place on Freedom Square in Yerevan and was followed by a march towards the presidential residence. Between 10,000 and 15,000 people attended the rally, including the applicant. It appears that the police eventually dispersed the crowd at around 2 a.m. on 13 April 2004.\n10.  According to the police materials, on 23 April 2004 at 5.05 p.m. an anonymous telephone call was received at the Artashat Police Department alleging that the applicant, while attending the demonstration of 12 April 2004, had been carrying a firearm which he still had on him. Two police officers, R.S. and A.S., were ordered to bring the applicant to the police station.\n11.  According to the record of taking the applicant to the Artashat Police Department, the applicant was taken there on 23 April 2004 at 5.40 p.m. on suspicion of carrying a firearm and for using foul language towards police officers and not obeying their lawful orders. It was noted that the applicant refused to sign the record.\n12.  At 5.50 p.m. the applicant was subjected to a search by the arresting police officer R.S. and another police officer, A.M., in the presence of two witnesses, during which a mobile phone and a lighter were found. The record of the applicant’s search similarly noted that the applicant refused to sign it.\n13.  Both arresting police officers, R.S. and A.S., reported to the chief of police that the applicant had used foul language during his arrest. In particular, the applicant had said “I have had enough of you! What do you want from me? Why have you come here? Who are you to take me to the police station?” They further reported that he had made a fuss and disobeyed their lawful orders but they had somehow managed to place him in the police car. On the way to the police station he had continued using foul language, saying that he w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7030", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Mielec.\n6.  The applicant is a single mother of two children. Prior to her application for an early-retirement pension she had been employed from 1977 until 29 June 2001 and paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 28 December 2000 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early‑retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 21 December 2000. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1988) suffered from epilepsy and other medical conditions and was in need of her parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 19 June 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 June 2001 in the net amount of 742, 86 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  On 23 August 2002 Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 19 September 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n11.  On 25 September 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance.\n12.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n13.  On 18 December 2003 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant’s child did not require her mother’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n14.  The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n15.  On 16 April 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.\n16.  On 17 September 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant.\n17.  Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her early‑retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board, despite the revocation of her right to an early‑retirement pension.\n18.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7031", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Zagórczyce.\n6.  The applicant is married and has children. Prior to his application for an early-retirement pension he had been employed and paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 17 April 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so‑called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with his application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning his daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 28 March 2001. The certificate stated that his daughter A (born in 1989) suffered from epilepsy and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 18 May 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 April 2001 in the net amount of 676 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. On 30 June 2001 the applicant resigned from his full-time job in a filter manufacturing plant in Sedziszów where he had been working since 1982. On 1 July 2001 payment of the pension was resumed.\n11.  On 16 July 2002 the Rzeszów SSB asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 3 September 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n12.  On 6 September 2002 the Rzeszow SSB reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting him a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance. On 18 September 2002 the Rzeszów SSB issued a decision by virtue of which the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued as of 1 October 2002.\n13.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting him of the right to an early-retirement pension. He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n14.  On 1 April 2003 the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant’s child did not require her father’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of his right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as he did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n15.  The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n16.  On 22 April 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.\n17.  On 9 July 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant (decision served on the applicant on", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7032", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were each targeted in undercover operations conducted by the police in the form of a test purchase of drugs under sections 7 and 8 of the Operational-Search Activities Act of 12 August 1995 (no. 144-FZ). These operations led to their criminal conviction for drug dealing.\n6.  The facts of each individual criminal case, as submitted by the parties, are summarised below. The applicants disagreed with the Government on the underlying causes and the circumstances leading to the test purchases, and where this is so both versions are given. As regards the factual details of the covert operations, they are not in dispute. In particular, it is common ground that the applicants knowingly procured drugs in the course of the test purchases.\n7.  The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Moscow. At the time of his arrest he was a third-year student at a management college. He is currently serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony.\n8.  According to the Government, on 19 May 2009 a Mr X voluntarily went to the police and reported that two persons, “Viktor” (the applicant) and “Ruslan”, were selling hashish at 600 Russian roubles (RUB) per gram.\n9.  According to the applicant, X was a drug addict, with a previous criminal conviction for illegal possession of drugs, and he was a police informant who had previously taken part in test purchases of drugs. To support these allegations the applicant provided a copy of the judgment against X and copies of four judgments in unrelated criminal proceedings against four different persons where X featured as the buyer in test purchases of cannabis, heroin and hashish from the accused.\n10.  It is common ground, supported by the official records, that the police ordered a test purchase and proceeded with it immediately after having received the information from X. The order indicated the applicant’s name and stated that he was suspected of selling hashish at RUB 600 per gram. X phoned “Ruslan” and told him that he wished to buy hashish. The police officers were present when X was speaking to “Ruslan”, but the conversations were not recorded. X was given RUB 3,000 that had been photocopied. He met “Ruslan” later on the same night and together they met the applicant who took RUB 1,200 from them and went away to purchase the drugs. The applicant was later arrested and was found in possession of banknotes that matched the photocopied ones. Throughout the test purchase X had his mobile phone turned on with the police officer’s number dialled, which enabled the police to overhear their conversations. These communications were not recorded. Neither “Ruslan” nor the applicant’s dealer were arrested or prosecuted, allegedly on the grounds that their identities could not be established.\n11.  X testified at trial that he had met the applicant and “Ruslan” at a local supermarket about two weeks before the test purchase. In the course of their conversation the applicant had told him that he could get some hashish for him. “Ruslan” had given him his phone number. X had then volunteered that information to the police and agreed to take part in the test purchase. He testified that he had not previously bought drugs from the applicant. When the defence counsel cross-examined X the court disallowed questions about his criminal record and whether he was a drug user. It also dismissed the motion to have the judgments proving that X had previously acted as a buyer in test purchases of drugs accepted as evide", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7033", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Antoni Lewandowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Mielec.\n6.  The applicant is married with two adult children. Prior to his early retirement he had been employed for 31 years and had paid his social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 23 or 28 December 2000 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with his application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning his daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor on 22 December 2000. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1989) suffered from chronic allergy sinusitis (alergiczne zapalenie przewlekłe błony śluzowej nosa) and recurring pulmonary and throat infections and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 10 January 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension.\n10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision.\n11.  On 28 February 2001 the applicant resigned from his full-time job as a driver at the Municipal Vehicle Communication (Miejska Komunikacja Samochodowa) in Mielec.\n12.  Consequently, on 2 March 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued a new decision authorising the payment of the previously awarded retirement pension in the net amount of 1,130 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately EUR 260) starting from 1 March 2001.\n13.  The applicant was issued with a pensioner’s identity card marked “valid indefinitely” and he continued to receive his pension without interruption until the date of the revocation of the right.\n14.  On 4 June 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 7 June 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n15.  On 11 June 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant.\n16.  By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Social Security Board revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance.\n17.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting him of the right to an early-retirement pension. He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n18.  On 9 September 2002 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) ordered that the case be remitted to the Social Security Board and that the applicant’s child be examined by the Social Security Board’s doctor.\n19.  On 28 February 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7034", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Kruševac.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 14 January 2003 the applicant’s brother (“the plaintiff”) filed a claim against the applicant with the Municipal Court in Kruševac (P. no. 63/2003). The claim concerned the validity of a “life-long maintenance contract” (ugovor o doživotnom izdržavanju) concluded between the applicant and their late mother in so far as it involved a house in which she had lived and the applicant’s acquisition of the title thereto following her death. The value of the dispute (vrednost spora) indicated by the plaintiff was 1,000 dinars (RSD/equivalent to approximately 15 euros (EUR)).\n8. On 19 February 2003 the applicant informed the court in one sentence that he contested the plaintiff’s allegations and claim. He further stated that, in view of the main hearing scheduled for 27 February, he intended to lodge a comprehensive written pleading soon.\n9. On 27 February 2003 the court formally stayed the proceedings (doneo rešenje o mirovanju) until 27 June 2003 as no one attended the hearing.\n10.  On 23 June 2003 the plaintiff requested the continuation of the proceedings.\n11.  The three following hearings, scheduled between September and November 2003, were adjourned due to problems with having the parties properly summoned or their own requests for adjournment.\n12.  On 8 January 2004 the court held a brief hearing. The plaintiff reaffirmed his claim, stating that he would provide further evidence after the applicant had submitted his response to the claim (odgovor na tužbu). The applicant requested the court to discontinue the proceedings pending the outcome of another case. The court ordered the applicant to submit his response to the claim and adjourned the hearing indefinitely.\n13.  In his written response of 14 January 2004, the applicant from the outset requested the court to determine a realistic value of the dispute.\n14.  On 12 February 2004 the court formally discontinued the proceedings (doneo rešenje o prekidu postupka) and requested the plaintiff to pay the court stamp duty (sudska taksa) calculated on the basis of the value of the dispute as initially specified by the plaintiff.\n15.  On 4 July 2006, at the outset of the first hearing held in the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court formally established that the actual value of the dispute was RSD 600,000 (equivalent to approximately EUR 6,700). It further ordered the plaintiff to pay additional stamp duty, corresponding to the difference between the initially specified value of the dispute and that decided on by the court.\n16.  On 5 December 2006 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, declaring the impugned contract partially void. In so doing, it reaffirmed that the value of the dispute was RSD 600,000.\n17.  On 27 March 2007 the District Court in Kruševac upheld this judgment on appeal, noting that the value of the dispute was RSD 600,000.\n18.  On 22 May 2007 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law (izjavio reviziju).\n19.  On 5 September 2007 the Supreme Court rejected this appeal. It found that the applicant was not entitled to lodge an appeal on points of law given that the value of the dispute in question, as specified in the claim of 14 January 2003, was RSD 1,000 and, as such, well below the applicable statutory threshold of RSD 300,000. The Supreme Court also noted, without any further explanation, that the determ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7035", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Yerevan.\n6.  The applicant is an active member of civil society who holds leading positions in several NGOs, including the Unity of Armenian Volunteers, the Defence of Liberated Lands and Araks‑Kur charity fund. He is of an Armenian origin and since 1992 has apparently been permanently resident in Armenia where he has a family and owns an apartment.\n7.  The applicant appears to be a critic of the Armenian authorities. He alleges that in this connection he has been invited to visit the National Security Service (NSS) on several occasions, where he was ordered to stop his cooperation with the opposition and his criticism of the government.\n8.  On an unspecified date the Head of the Principal Department for Safeguarding the Constitutional Order and Fight Against Terrorism of the NSS filed a motion, seeking to carry out secret surveillance and recording of the applicant’s telephone and other conversations.\n9.  On 15 August 2006 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan examined the motion, finding:\n“It is evident from the materials submitted to the court and the motion that the Principal Department for Safeguarding the Constitutional Order and Fight Against Terrorism of the NSS has sufficient grounds to believe that [the applicant], born in 1967 in Lebanon, a Lebanese national, residing at 17 Lepsius Str, apt 42, Yerevan, leader of the Armenian Volunteers Unity organisation, is carrying out activities aimed to destabilise the internal political situation in Armenia and to create a situation of civil disobedience, thereby creating a basis for the change of government in Armenia through unconstitutional means by making public calls.”\n10.  The District Court decided to grant the motion, authorising the interception and recording of the applicant’s telephone and other conversations made to and from the applicant’s three mobile and three landline numbers for a period of six months, taking into account that they might contain information substantiating the above-mentioned circumstances, the use of which would facilitate the disclosure of a crime and obtaining evidence, since there were elements of an offence prescribed by Article 301 of the Criminal Code (CC) in the applicant’s actions. In doing so, the District Court referred to, inter alia, Articles 281 and 284 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP).\n11.  On 2 December 2006 the applicant gave a speech at an assembly organised by the Unity of Armenian Volunteers. The assembly took place in the hall of the Yerevan State Choreography College and was attended by about 150 people. The applicant called on the participants of the assembly to get organised, otherwise nothing would move forward. It was not enough to keep telling the President and the Prime Minister to resign; they would never do that. Peaceful assemblies would not make them resign. Nor would external pressure. He called on the participants to create a significant force, in order to make the authorities resign, stating that the main and only objective was to get rid of them. He further stressed that they should not allow those in power to multiply, otherwise the future plans of the participants of the assembly would encounter serious obstacles. The applicant called the authorities “monsters” who would become even more dangerous if they were allowed to multiply. The applicant agreed with other speech makers that any means were acceptable for achieving their goals.\n12.  On 8 Dece", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7036", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Sarnów.\n6.  The applicant is married and has two children. Prior to his application for an early‑retirement pension he had been employed for 25 years and had paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  In July 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early‑retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so‑called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with his application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning his son’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 15 May 2001. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1994) suffered from mild asthma and bronchitis (astma oskrzelowa lagodna i spastyczne zapalenie oskrzeli) and that he was in need of his parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 9 August 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 July 2001 in the net amount of 685 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  On 20 August 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s son required the permanent care of a parent. On 13 September 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n11.  On 19 September 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance.\n12.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting him of the right to an early‑retirement pension. He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n13.  On 29 May 2003 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant’s child did not require his father’s permanent care since his health condition did not significantly impair his bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of his right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as he did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n14.  The applicant further appealed against the first‑instance judgment.\n15.  On 20 November 2003 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.\n16.  On 29 April 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant.\n17.  Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return his early‑retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board, despite the revocation of his right to an early‑retirement pe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7037", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Danilovgrad.\n6.  On 25 March 1988 the applicant’s employer published a competition for an allocation of certain number of flats to its employees. The applicant was among those who applied. However, he was not provided with housing.\n7.  On 20 February 1991, upon the applicant’s claim, the Labour Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud udruženog rada) in Podgorica ordered that the employer, which was a respondent party in the domestic proceedings (“the debtor”), and which, at that time, would appear to have been a socially-owned company (društveno preduzeće), re-allocate a certain number of flats. On 28 April 1992 the High Court upheld this judgment, which thereby became final.\n8.  On 27 October 1992, at the applicant’s request, the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) issued an enforcement order (rješenje o izvršenju). By 16 April 1993 the debtor’s objection (prigovor) and an appeal (žalba) in this regard were rejected.\n9.  On 1 February 2000 the debtor’s Flat-Allocation Commission (“the Commission”) issued another decision. On 15 March 2000, pursuant to Article 31 of the debtor’s Statute, the debtor’s Steering Committee (Upravni odbor) annulled this decision and ordered the Commission to conduct a new flat-allocation procedure.\n10.  On 6 February 2001 the Court of First Instance ordered the debtor to pay a fine and to comply with the enforcement order within 30 days. On 12 May 2001 the debtor’s objection was rejected.\n11.  On 1 March 2001 the Commission issued another decision on flat allocation. However, the applicant was not among the persons to be provided with housing. The decision specified that an objection could be lodged against it with the debtor’s Steering Committee.\n12.  On 2 October 2001 the Court of First Instance ordered the debtor to pay another fine and to comply with the enforcement order within 15 days.\n13.  On 23 October 2001 the Court of First Instance quashed the previous decision and all the enforcement activities which had been carried out on the grounds that the debtor had rendered a decision on flat-allocation and thus had enforced the 1992 judgment. On 3 November 2001 the applicant’s objection in this regard was rejected.\n14.  On 25 January 2002 the applicant and one of his colleagues filed an objection against the Commission’s decision on the flat-allocation (see paragraph 11 above).\n15.  On 9 April 2002, having received no response in respect of their objection, the applicant and his colleague filed a separate claim with the Court of First Instance seeking annulment of the debtor’s decision of 1 March 2001.\n16.  On 3 June 2004 the Court of First Instance stayed the proceedings (postupak se prekida) until the debtor had decided on the said objection.\n17.  On 15 October 2004 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica quashed the previous decision and ordered a re-trial.\n18.  On 15 April 2005 the Court of First Instance rejected the claim (odbacuje se tužba) on the grounds that it could be filed only against a final decision, and “there was no doubt that a final decision had not been rendered on the flat-allocation at issue” (u postupku predmetne raspodjele stanova nesumnjivo nije donijeta konačna odluka). The applicant and his colleague were also ordered to pay 1,450 euros (EUR) to the debtor and the interveners for legal costs.\n19.  On 9 June 2006 the High Court upheld this decision.\n20.  On 13 November 2006 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) dismissed the applicant’s app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7038", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Yerevan. She is a second‑degree disabled person.\n6.  On an unspecified date during the Soviet period, the State allocated to the applicant a flat in Yerevan on the right of tenancy.\n7.  In 1981 the applicant’s niece, who had moved to Yerevan to study, obtained registration at the applicant’s flat with the latter’s consent. In 1986 she moved back to the town of Hrazdan without cancelling her registration. In 1989 the applicant’s niece was married, and she gave birth to two children in 1989 and 1991 respectively. Upon the applicant’s consent, the children were also registered at the applicant’s flat so that they could receive medical care from her address.\n8.  On 11 February 1993 the applicant acquired ownership of the flat, which was notarised on 19 February 1993.\n9.  In 1996 the applicant’s niece passed away. Her registration at the applicant’s flat was subsequently cancelled.\n10.  On 26 December 2003 the applicant applied to the Kanaker-Zeytun District Police Department of Yerevan (hereafter the District Police Department) seeking to cancel the children’s registration.\n11.  By a letter of 20 January 2004 the District Police Department informed the applicant of its refusal to cancel the children’s registration on the ground that, according to the relevant rules, the registration of minors could be cancelled only together with the cancellation of the registration of one of their parents; upon an application by the parents or the children’s lawful representatives; in connection with studies; or upon a relevant court order.\n12.  On an unspecified date, the applicant contested this refusal before the courts, seeking to oblige the District Police Department to deregister the children and claiming that the latter had never lived in her flat.\n13.  On 15 March 2004 the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun District Court of Yerevan dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that the refusal was lawful as the District Police Department had acted in accordance with Government Decree no. 821 of 25 December 1998. According to the text of the judgment, the parties had been duly notified of the hearing but had failed to appear. According to the applicant, she was not notified of that hearing.\n14.  On 25 March 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal.\n15.  On 8 June 2004 the Civil Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the same ground. According to the text of this judgment, the applicant and her representative made oral submissions at the court hearing. According to the applicant, neither she nor her representative was given the opportunity to make any oral submissions. It further appears that the children’s father was present at the appeal hearing and petitioned to dismiss the applicant’s claim.\n16.  On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n17.  On 23 July 2004 the Court of Cassation dismissed her appeal finding that:\n“According to Article 225 of the Civil Code, if no agreement is reached regarding the termination of the right of use of accommodation, this right can be terminated upon the owner’s request through court proceedings by paying compensation equivalent to the market value.\nIn such circumstances, the arguments raised in the appeal on points of law are unsubstantiated, since the right of use of accommodation enjoyed by [the children] can be terminated only in accordance with Article 225 of the Civil Code...”", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7039", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Tyczyn.\n6.  The applicant is married and has children. Until 27 January 2000 she had been employed and paid social security contributions to the State. On 1 March 2000 the applicant was granted the right to a disability pension for a period of one year, effective from 28 January 2000.\n7.  On 29 January 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her son’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 20 October 2000. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1991) suffered from bronchial asthma, allergic rhinitis and faulty posture, and that he was in need of his parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 14 February 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 January 2001 in the net amount of 433 Polish zlotys (PLN), together with a child benefit in the amount of PLN 240. The pension was twice reassessed and in June 2002 it amounted to PLN 487 net.\n10.  On 8 May 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s son required the permanent care of a parent. On 20 June 2002 the doctor stated, on the basis of the medical documents, that the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n11.  On 17 July 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued as of 1 August 2002. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to award the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance.\n12.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n13.  On 4 March 2004 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court acknowledged that according to the medical expert appointed by the court the applicant’s son required constant care due to his chronic bronchial asthma. However, the applicant had discontinued her employment in January 2000 not in order to take care of her sick child but because she had been granted a disability pension. Consequently, the domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she had not satisfied the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n14.  The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n15.  On 2 July 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.\n16.  On 14 Decembe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7040", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Šarišské Bohdanovce.\n5.  On 3 October 1994 the applicant and twenty-three other persons instituted civil proceedings before the Košice I District Court which concerned the use of a plot of land which they owned.\n6.  By judgment of 7 August 2008 and a decision of 24 November 2008 the Košice I District Court granted an easement to the defendant who owns the sport facility on the plaintiffs’ land (proceedings file no. 15 C 792/94). It decided to determine the compensation which the defendant was to pay to the plaintiffs in a separate set of proceedings. On 20 April 2009 the Košice Regional Court upheld the above first-instance judgment and decision. They became final on 19 May 2009.\n7.  On 25 June 2009 the applicant complained to the President of the Košice I District Court about delays in the proceedings. The complaint indicated that, after the judgment of 7 August 2008, the issue of compensation still remained to be determined in a different set of proceedings.\n8.  In a reply dated 25 August 2009 and delivered on 31 August 2009 the President of the Košice I District Court informed the applicant that the issue of compensation for easement could be effectively dealt with only after the final effect of the judgment of 7 August 2008. Measures were being taken with a view to determining the issue in the separate set of proceedings.\n9.  In the meantime, on 7 August 2009, the applicant filed a complaint to the Constitutional Court. He alleged that in proceedings file no. 15 C 792/94 the Košice I District Court had breached his right to a hearing within a reasonable time. In his complaint the applicant indicated that, after the appeal court’s judgment of 20 April 2009, compensation for the easement remained to be determined. He further submitted that the case was still being dealt with under file no. 15 C 792/94 and that he had received no reply to his complaint of 25 June 2009 addressed to the President of the District Court.\n10.  On 2 September 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. It held that the proceedings complained of, namely those concerning the Košice I District Court file no. 15 C 792/94, had ended with final effect on 19 May 2009. The complaint in that respect had been filed belatedly.\n11.  The Constitutional Court noted the applicant’s argument that the compensation issue remained to be determined in a separate set of proceedings. However, the applicant had failed to comply with the formal requirements in that respect as he had not indicated the file number of those proceedings. It was not for the Constitutional Court to remedy such shortcomings as the applicant was represented by a lawyer.\n12.  The proceedings concerning the outstanding issue were entered in the Košice I District Court’s electronic registration system under file no. 23 C 221/2009 and assigned to a judge on 14 October 2009. They are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7041", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Ostrów.\n6.  The applicant is married with three children. Prior to her application for an early-retirement pension she had been employed and paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 13 August 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 20 July 2001. The certificate stated that the child J. (born in 1988) suffered from a renal condition and scoliosis and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 29 August 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 August 2001 in the net amount of 653 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. On 21 September 2001 the applicant resigned from her full‑time job in a private company where she had been working since 1985. Afterwards, payment of the pension was resumed.\n11.  On 4 June 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 10 July 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n12.  On 26 July 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance.\n13.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n14.  On 7 March 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant’s child did not require her mother’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n15.  The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n16.  On 17 October 2003 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.\n17.  On 17 March 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refuse", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7042", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Wadowice Górne.\n6.  The applicant is married with two children. Prior to his early retirement he had been employed for twenty-eight years and had paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 28 May 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with his application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning his daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor on 24 May 2001. The certificate stated that his daughter M (born in 1990) had suffered from chronic asthma (przewlekła astma oskrzelowa) and chronic allergy sinusitis (całoroczny alergiczny niezyt nosa) and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 16 July 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 May 2001 in the net amount of 880.99 Polish zlotys.\n10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. On 31 July 2001 the applicant resigned from his full-time job as a driver at the road and bridge construction company (Przedsiębiorstwo Drogowo-Mostowe) in Dębica.\n11.  Consequently, on 21 August 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued a new decision authorising the payment of the previously awarded retirement pension starting from 1 August 2001.\n12.  On 27 August 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On an unknown date the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n13.  On 4 September 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant.\n14.  By virtue of the first decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings and revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to award the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance.\n15.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting him of the right to an early-retirement pension.\n16.  On 28 November 2002 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) ordered that the case be remitted to the Social Security Board and that the applicant’s child be examined by the Social Security Board’s doctor.\n17.  On 31 March 2003 the Social Security Board’s doctor, who had examined the applicant’s child, stated that M suffered from asthma (astma oskrzelowa) and allergy sinusitis (alergiczny nieżyt nosa) but did not require the permanent care of a parent.\n18.  On 25 February 2004 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant’s child did not require her father’s permanent care, since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7044", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants were born in 1969, 1980, 1985, 1967 and 1984 respectively and live in Tbilisi. They are members of the Equality Institute, a Georgian non-governmental organisation established in February 2004 (“the NGO”). As part of its activities aimed at monitoring of the penal and law-enforcement authorities and promotion of the independence of the judiciary, the NGO held public press conferences and street demonstrations denouncing various serious human-rights abuses allegedly committed by the Ministry of the Interior and in Georgian prisons.\n6.  At around 2.20 p.m. on 29 June 2006 the applicants began a demonstration outside the Tbilisi Court of Appeal to express their support for Mr Shalva Ramishvili and Mr Davit Kokhreidze, owners of the 202 private television channel, who were on trial that day. The case of Ramishvili and Kokhreidze received considerable public attention at that time (for more details see Ramishvili and Kokhreidze v. Georgia, no. 1704/06, §§ 9‑66, 27 January 2009).\n7.  As disclosed by the applicants’ written statements drafted on 4 and 5 July 2006 as a reminder of the exact circumstances surrounding the incident of 29 June 2006 (“the applicants’ written statements”), they entered the yard of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal through the main gates; the security guards noticed that one of the applicants was carrying a megaphone but did not object. The applicants stopped ten to twenty metres from the court‑house, and the first applicant, using the megaphone, began uttering the following slogans:\n“We should not have political prisoners in Georgia! ... We urge you to obey justice and not the private interests of a number of high officials! ... Give me justice or give me death! ...”.\n8.  Furthermore, taking the view that the existing situation concerning human rights in Georgia was similar to the terror unleashed by the Soviet State in the late 1930s, the first applicant disdainfully referred to the Minister of the Interior, Mr V.M., as “Lavrentiy Beria’s bastard”. According to the written statements of the fourth and fifth applicants, they also called for the immediate release of Mr Ramishvili and Mr Kokhreidze, as unlawfully detained, and urged the Tbilisi Court of Appeal “not to become an accomplice of the criminal activities of the [Minister of the Interior]”.\n9.  According to the applicants, nothing was displayed or addressed to the court which could be construed as contempt: this could be confirmed by independent eyewitnesses to the incident, as well as by the images filmed by a cameraman from the 202 television channel (see a description of the video recording submitted by the applicants in paragraphs 23-27 below).\n10.  The first applicant’s speech had lasted some three minutes when several uniformed court bailiffs approached the applicants and, allegedly without prior warning or explanation, restrained them by force. The applicants were then taken into the court-house and locked in the bailiffs’ duty room.\n11.  According to the applicants’ written statements, no record of their arrest was drawn up on the spot. In any event, they were not shown or asked to sign any such document. On the contrary, the bailiffs reassured the applicants that they were not formally under arrest, that it was a simple misunderstanding and that they would soon be released.\n12.  The case file, however, contained five separate records, on the arrest of each applicant. Those records indicated the name", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7045", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1979. He is currently in hiding in Tajikistan.\n7.  The applicant lived in the village of Sultanabod in Andijan Region, which is located in the Fergana Valley of Uzbekistan. He worked as a carpenter.\n8.  The events preceding the applicant’s departure from Uzbekistan, as described by him, may be summarized as follows.\n9.  On 25 May 2009 a police station in Khanabad, a neighbouring town, was burnt down. A number of witnesses stated that they had seen a car belonging to a resident of Sultanabod. The owner of the car was arrested. The police found out that he was a practising Muslim and that he regularly went to the mosque.\n10.  The imam of the local mosque was arrested, tortured and forced to disclose the names of all those visiting the mosque. In particular, he named Mr K., who taught the Koran. Mr K. was also arrested and tortured. He gave the police the names of his pupils, including the applicant’s name.\n11.  The applicant was summoned to the local police station, where he was beaten with the aim of extracting a confession to his involvement in extremist activities. He was, however, released after his relatives had bribed the police. He was then fined for participating in unlawful religious gatherings and for praying outside the mosque.\n12.  According to the applicant, all those arrested after the events of 25 May 2009 were convicted of anti-government activities and sentenced to imprisonment.\n13.  On 24 August 2009 the applicant left for Kazakhstan. His family, including his parents, one of his brothers, wife and three minor children, remained in Uzbekistan.\n14.  On 8 September 2009 the applicant’s house in Sultanabod was searched and a religious book was found. He then received a telephone call from a local police officer, who insisted that he should return to Uzbekistan.\n15.  On 4 November 2009 the applicant left Kazakhstan for Russia. He firstly went to the city of Kazan where another of his brothers lived and then, on 8 December 2009, took a train to Moscow. He intended to travel onward to Ukraine, where he wanted to apply for refugee status.\n16.  On 20 September 2009 the Andijan Region Interior Department charged the applicant with participating in an extremist organisation of a religious, separatist or fundamentalist nature (Article 244-2 § 1 of the Uzbek Criminal Code).\n17.  On 9 October 2009 the Andijan Town Court ordered the applicant’s arrest. On 13 October 2009 his name was put on the list of wanted persons.\n18.  On 24 October 2009 the Andijan Region Interior Department amended the charges against the applicant. He was charged with participating in an extremist organisation of a religious, separatist or fundamentalist nature; smuggling of extremist materials; storing and distributing materials containing religious extremist, separatist and fundamentalist ideas; using religion with the aim of disturbing the public peace and order; disseminating slanderous and damaging insinuations and committing other acts against the established rules of conduct and national security; and calling for the overthrow of the constitutional order of Uzbekistan, the usurpation of power and breach of the territorial integrity of Uzbekistan (the offences contained in Articles 244-2 § 1, 246 § 1, 244-1 § 3, 159 § 3 of the Uzbek Criminal Code). In particular, he was accused of membership of a banned organisation, “jamaat”, which was allegedly disseminating “the separatist, fundamentalist and extremist ideas of Wahhabism”.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7046", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  On 28 January 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv (hereafter – “the Shevchenkivskyy Court”) against its former employer, the Kyiv Motorcycle Factory (“the factory”), seeking his reinstatement and compensation for the related pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, salary and other payments’ recovery, as well as disability allowance (in respect of a traffic accident which had happened with the applicant shortly before his dismissal and which the factory denied to be work-related).\n6.  On 20 November 2000 the court severed the applicant’s claims for certain payments’ recovery and for disability allowance into separate sets of proceedings.\n7.  On 27 December 2000 the Shevchenkivskyy Court rejected the applicant’s reinstatement claim. On 7 May and 8 October 2001 the Kyiv City Court and the Supreme Court respectively upheld that judgment.\n8.  In 2005 the applicant unsuccessfully sought re-opening of the proceedings on the basis of some newly-discovered circumstances.\n9.  On 8 June 2001 the Shevchenkivskyy Court allowed in part the applicant’s claim for recovery of certain payments, such as salary arrears, compensation for unused leave, dismissal allowance, and sick leave payment. On 28 August 2002 the judgment was enforced.\n10.  In January 2002 the Shevchenkivskyy Court transferred the applicant’s claim for disability allowance to the Podilskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Podilskyy Court”), in line with the instruction of the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”).\n11.  The applicant reiterated all his initial claims before the Podilskyy Court.\n12.  On 25 December 2003 the court rejected the claim for disability allowance. As regards the other claims, it decided to leave them without examination, for they had already been adjudicated on 27 December 2000 and 8 June 2001 (see paragraphs 7 and 9 above).\n13.  On 6 June 2005 the Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment, because it had been delivered in the applicant’s absence and without his knowledge, and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination.\n14.  On 23 June 2005 the Podilskyy Court sent the file to the Shevchenkivskyy Court on the latter’s request. It was required for the examination of the applicant’s request for re-opening of the reinstatement proceedings (see paragraph 8 above).\n15.  On 24 June 2005 the Podilskyy Court stayed the proceedings until the file would be returned.\n16.  On 4 October 2005 the judge rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal against the aforementioned decision. That ruling was, by mistake, not sent to the applicant, until November 2008.\n17.  On 28 March 2008 the Podilskyy Court resumed the proceedings.\n18.  On 10 June 2008 it adjourned the hearing till 25 June 2008 because of the unspecified misbehaviour of the applicant’s representative. The court also decided that the applicant’s presence was obligatory.\n19.  On 25 June 2008 the applicant did not appear at the hearing, and the Podilskyy Court again adjourned it till 8 July 2008.\n20.  On 24 November 2008 it dismissed the claim without examination on merits for the applicant’s repeated failure to attend hearings.\n21.  On 25 August 2004 the applicant brought another claim to the Shevchenkivskyy Court against the factory in respect of salary recovery, this time confined to two specific days.\n22.  On 16 August 2005 the court terminated the proceedings giv", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7049", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1957 and 1961 respectively and live in Istanbul.\n6.  On 29 December 2003 the applicants’ then sixteen-year-old son, Bilal Çoşelav, was serving a prison sentence in the juvenile wing of Kars Prison when he made an attempt to take his own life by hanging himself in the courtyard. Prison warders arriving at the scene resuscitated him and he was subsequently returned to his prison wing. In a statement taken by the prison governor, Bilal Çoşelav was reported as having explained that he was finding it difficult to adapt to prison life and that he was suffering from psychological problems.\n7.  Disciplinary proceedings were brought against Bilal Çoşelav for his attempted suicide but the disciplinary board decided not to impose a punishment. The board told him that “he was setting a bad example to other inmates”, and warned him that if he were to do “such things” again he would be treated more severely.\n8.  Bilal Çoşelav made another attempt to kill himself on 19 January 2004 by taking an overdose. He was taken to hospital for treatment and then on 28 January 2004 he was transferred to Erzurum Prison.\n9.  On 9 February 2004 a prisoner told the governor of Erzurum Prison that Bilal Çoşelav had been “behaving oddly”, had talked about hanging himself, and his behaviour had been causing concern in the juvenile wing.\n10.  On the same day, Bilal Çoşelav was transferred from the juvenile wing of the prison to another wing which housed adult prisoners from his home town. According to a report drawn up by prison officers, this had been at the request of Bilal Çoşelav, who had claimed that “although his identity card showed that he was seventeen years old, he was actually older” and could therefore be detained in an adult wing.\n11.  On 16 February 2004 Bilal Çoşelav told the prison governor that he wanted to be transferred to another wing because he did not get on with the people in his wing.\n12.  Between 27 February and 10 December 2004 Bilal Çoşelav sent twenty-two letters to the prison governor and the prosecutor of Erzurum Prison stating that he urgently needed to see the governor to discuss his personal problems. On the few occasions on which his requests were granted he told the governor that he wanted to be transferred to another wing in the prison. He also informed the governor that he had not been visited regularly by his family, that he did not have any money and that he wanted to work in the prison to earn some.\n13.  According to two reports drawn up by prison officers, on 15 December 2004 Bilal Çoşelav met with the deputy governor and asked to be transferred to another cell. When his request was refused he tried to attack a prison warder with a razor blade, kicked and broke the sink in his cell and set fire to his mattress.\n14.  According to another report drawn up by prison officers, on 17 December 2004, at approximately 10.00 a.m., Bilal Çoşelav injured his head by repeatedly hitting it against his cell walls and was then taken to the infirmary to have the injury treated. Later on the same day, he was brought back to the wing and placed in a cell on his own.\n15.  At around 1.30 p.m. that same day, Bilal Çoşelav hanged himself from the iron bars of his cell with his bed sheets. A doctor arrived and for five minutes tried unsuccessfully to resuscitate him, finally pronouncing him dead.\n16.  Later on the same day, the Erzurum prosecutor and a doctor arrived at the prison and photographed Bilal Çoşelav’s body. The", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7051", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in Tbilisi in 1984. According to the relevant police reports, the applicant was slightly inebriated when he was arrested on 29 October 2005 and had physically resisted police officers. As a result, he had sustained slightly swollen lips and a small bruise on his forehead.\n6.  Following his arrest the applicant underwent an external visual examination upon his being taken to the temporary detention centre. A report drawn up thereafter by a doctor on duty recorded a large bruise on the left part of the applicant’s forehead, a large bruise on the right temple, a large bruise near the left eye and cheekbone, a bruise and evidence of an injury that had bled on his lips, and large bruises on his neck and all over his back (the report of 29 October 2005).\n7. On 30 October 2005, the applicant was charged with the offence of resisting police officers with the intention of obstructing them in the course of their duties, committed as part of a group in a premeditated manner (Article 353 § 2 of the Criminal Code of Georgia). According to the decision to bring charges, two police officers, N.J. and G.A., had seen a young man running down the street at around 2:15 a.m. with a mobile phone in his hand, being “chased” by two women (who turned out to be his wife and a friend). Before the young man could get into a car parked at the end of the road, the two police officers had stopped and questioned him to find out why he was running and to whom the mobile phone belonged. At that point the applicant had got out of the car and, together with another young man, B., his friend, had begun to verbally and physically attack the police officers. The police had been unable to calm them down and the applicant and his friend had torn the police officers’ shirts and jumpers during the struggle. The police had called for backup and, after several colleagues had arrived as reinforcements, had managed to arrest the offenders. Once placed in custody in a temporary detention centre, the offenders had continued to verbally and physically attack the police. In particular, the applicant had delivered a punch to the left eye of a police officer, A.Ts., who had accompanied him to the investigation room to take care of some procedural matters.\n8.  According to three medical reports concerning the examination of the three police officers who had allegedly been attacked by the applicant and his friend B., A.Ts. had a closed head injury and a bruise on his left eye, G.A. had a closed head injury and a graze on his right knee, and N.J had a superficial lesion on his lips and cheek. All three police officers were discharged from the hospital on the same day.\n9.  On 30 October 2005 the investigator, with the consent of the supervising prosecutor, sought an order from the Tbilisi City Court that the applicant be remanded in custody pending trial. The reasons given for the request were the risks that the applicant might abscond and that he might impede the investigation.\n10.  On 31 October 2005 the Tbilisi City Court, refusing the applicant’s application for a non-custodial measure, ordered his pre-trial detention for three months. Having reviewed the criminal case materials and heard the parties’ oral pleadings, the court confirmed the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the offence had been committed. The imposition of pre‑trial detention was found to be further justified by the assumption that if the applicant was freed he might influence the eyewit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7052", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Thessaloniki.\n6.  On 16 January 2009 he was arrested by the Greek police for drug trafficking and criminal charges were brought against him.\n7.  On 21 January 2009, with the concurring opinion of the Prosecutor of the Criminal Court of Thessaloniki, the investigating judge remanded him in custody with effect from 16 January 2009, the date of his arrest (order no. 4/2009).\n8.  Subsequently, the applicant was transferred to the premises of the Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters.\n9.  On 26 January 2009 he lodged an application with the Indictment Division of the Thessaloniki Criminal Court, according to Article 285 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging his provisional detention. He also included in his application a request to appear personally before the Indictment Division to support his request for release.\n10. On 14 May 2009 the Indictment Division of the Thessaloniki Criminal Court – after hearing the prosecutor – dismissed the application (order no. 506/2009). No reference was made to the applicant’s request to appear in person before the Indictment Division. It was noted that the evidence gathered during the investigation of the case confirmed that the applicant was selling drugs on a commercial basis. Further it was considered that, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the provisional detention of the applicant was lawful, since it was likely that the applicant would commit more crimes if released.\n11.  Subsequently, on 25 June 2009, by order no. 700/2009, the Indictment Division of the Thessaloniki Criminal Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention until 16 January 2010. No information was provided as to whether the applicant is still in detention.\n12.  Between 16 January and 22 April 2009 the applicant was detained at the Thessaloniki General Police Headquarters.\n13.  He claims that the conditions of detention there were deplorable. In particular, he notes the lack of sanitary products and sleeping facilities. He submitted that the detention area was overcrowded, with poor ventilation and insufficient natural light. In particular, the applicant noted that there were ten inmates per cell, which was over two times its design capacity. Some detainees were forced to sleep on the floor. There was no space to walk around. The cells and sanitary facilities were dirty. The poor quality of the food offered forced inmates to order food from outside. The prisoners had no opportunity to see doctors, even though some were affected by infectious diseases and others were drug users suffering from withdrawal.\n14.  In particular, as far as the lack of medical care is concerned, the applicant stressed that he has been drug-addicted for many years and he submitted a medical certificate to support his allegation. In this connection, he claimed that he was deprived of sufficient pharmaceutical treatment and regular supervision by a physician.\n15.  On 22 April 2009 the applicant was transferred to Diavata Prison.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7053", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Częstochowa.\n5.  On 26 September 2004 the applicant was arrested by the police.\n6.  On 28 September 2004 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand in view of a reasonable suspicion that he had offered a bribe to a Member of Parliament, Mr A.P. The applicant was charged together with Mr M.D., a well‑known businessman and lobbyist and his business partner. Mr M.D.’s case received wide media coverage and aroused a great deal of political interest. The court established that his detention was essential to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. It also referred to the likelihood that a severe sentence might be imposed on the applicant and to the risk that he would influence witnesses.\n7.  The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on an unspecified date.\n8.  On 21 December 2004 and 22 March and 21 June 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention. It relied on the grounds previously relied on.\n9.  The applicant’s appeals against those decisions were dismissed.\n10.  On 21 September and 21 December 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention pending the outcome of the investigation. The court referred to the extraordinary complexity of the case, which concerned charges of corruption involving high‑ranking public officials, and reiterated that other preventive measures would not secure the applicant’s attendance at his trial.\n11.  The applicant’s detention was then extended by the Court of Appeal on 8 February, 10 May, 21 June, 20 September and 6 December 2006. The court found that there were circumstances justifying the fact that the investigation in the applicant’s case had not yet been terminated by the prosecutor. On the last above‑mentioned date the court also decided that the applicant could be released on bail in the amount of 300,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 76,000 euros (EUR)).\n12.  The applicant’s appeals against all the decisions to extend his detention were dismissed. His numerous applications for release were also to no avail.\n13.  On 5 January 2007 the applicant paid the bail and his pre‑trial detention was lifted.\n14.  On 20 January 2007 the Katowice Appeals Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant, Mr M.D. and Mr A.P.\n15.  The trial court scheduled the first hearing for 27 September 2007, but it was cancelled.\n16.  On 25 June 2012 the Pabianice District Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to two years and ten months’ imprisonment and a fine (II K 293/07). The judgment is not final and the applicant applied to receive a reasoned copy of the judgment with a view to lodging an appeal against it.\n17.  It appears that on 20 July 2004 the prosecutor initiated a new investigation against the applicant and other co‑accused including Mr. M.D.\n18.  On 8 March 2005 the charges against the applicant were supplemented with the addition of a charge of money laundering contrary to Article 229 of the Criminal Code. The investigation was conducted within the above‑described proceedings until 14 November 2005. Subsequently, the charge under Article 229 of the Code was severed, to be dealt with in another set of proceedings.\n19.  The charges were supplemented in April and September 2007. In January 2008 the charges against the applicant were further supplemented with the addition of a charge of forgery contrary to Article 271 of the Crimina", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7054", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  The applicant worked for a real-estate agency in Moscow. In early 2007 the Moscow police were tipped off that M., the representative of a private company, was looking for a way to obtain State registration of the company’s property rights to certain premises. As registration had been previously refused, M. needed someone who would be able to prepare a registration package in a professional manner and who would preferably have connections in the Federal Registration Service. M. approached the applicant, who introduced him to a middleman prepared to “solve the problem” on the condition that M. give them 250,000 US dollars to bribe officials of the registration service, plus 15,000 US dollars as their fee.\n8.  The police opened an inquiry into corruption in the Federal Registration Service. The phone lines of the middleman and three other people, but not the applicant’s line, were tapped.\n9.  However, as it turned out, the applicant and the four other individuals had never intended to use any money to bribe State officials but rather had planned to divide the entire sum between themselves. One of them was an official with the Moscow registration service, who was to observe the progress of the application for registration as it was being processed by his colleagues and report back to his accomplices.\n10.  On 25 April 2007 the applicant and the other individuals were arrested by the police when M. brought them the last instalment of money in exchange for the registration certificate. All the accomplices were charged with attempted fraud, of which M. was stated to be the victim.\n11.  On 17 July 2008 the Moscow Simonovskiy District Court convicted the applicant and his co-defendants as charged and sentenced them to five years’ imprisonment. During the trial the applicant maintained that he had had no intention of defrauding M. and that he had merely facilitated M.’s contacts with the middlemen.\n12.  On 20 October 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal.\n13.  Between 28 April 2007 and 5 November 2008 the applicant was held in remand prison no. IZ-77/1 in Moscow.\n(a)  Description provided by the Government\n(i)  Cell population\n14.  As regards cell population, the Government produced certificates prepared by the remand prison administration and extracts from the remand prison’s population register. The information contained therein can be summarised follows:\nCell no.\nPeriod of detention\nSurface area (in square metres)\nNumber of inmates\nNumber of beds\n109\nFrom 28 April to 4 May 2007\n15.  In view of certain amendments made on the face of the documents provided in respect of cell population, the Court asked the Government to submit a complete copy of the remand prison’s population register.\n16.  On 7 December 2011 the Government informed the Court that the prison’s population register covering the period between 28 April 2007 and 15 April 2008 had been lost.\n(ii)  Other aspects\n17.  According to the Government, all cells in the remand prison were equipped with mandatory ventilation in good working order. In addition, the windows were equipped with vents to ensure natural ventilation of the premises. All cells had a sink and a toilet which was separated from the living area by a 1.2 m high partition. The dining table was located at least 1 m away from the toilet. The metal bars installed on the windows did not prevent access to daylight through the glass window panes. Duri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7055", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Sredniy Urgal, a village in the Khabarovsk region.\n5.  In 2004 the applicant lodged a court action against a private company seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of actions of company’s employees.\n6.  On 7 July 2004 Verkhnebureinskiy District Court (Khabarovsk Region) dismissed the applicant’s action as unfounded.\n7.  The applicant appealed against the judgment of 7 July 2004. His statement of appeal was received by the District Court on 21 July 2004.\n8.  On 4 August 2004 the District Court sent the case file, with the applicant’s appeal statement enclosed, to the Khabarovsk Regional Court (“the Regional Court”). On the same day the District Court sent a letter to the applicant confirming that his case had been transferred to the Regional Court and informing him that an appeal hearing had been scheduled for 10.00 a.m. on 12 August 2004. It follows from the stamp marks on the envelope that the letter was dispatched on 5 August 2004 and arrived at the applicant’s local post office on 9 August 2004.\n9.  On 12 August 2004 the Regional Court held a hearing, which the applicant did not attend. The Regional Court upheld the judgment of 7 July 2004, endorsing the District Court’s reasoning. The company’s representative attended the appeal hearing and made submissions.\n10.  On 19 August 2004 the head of the post office replied to the applicant’s complaint about the delays in delivery of mail that the District Court’s letter of 4 August 2004 had been delivered to the applicant only on 16 August 2004 by the fault of one of the employees of the post office.\n11.  On 27 September 2004 the Regional Court sent to the applicant a copy of the judgment of 12 August 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7056", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1949, 1951, 1976, 1977, 1984, 1993, 2003 and 1981 respectively and live in Yerevan.\n5.  Mr Sisak Danielyan, Ms Kima Danielyan, Mr Andranik Danielyan, Ms Naira Danielyan, Ms Seda Danielyan and Ms Sona Danielyan jointly owned a house measuring 130 sq. m. situated at 11 Byuzand Street, Yerevan. The applicants alleged that Ms Meri Danielyan and Ms Kristine Mnatsakanyan, as members of their family, enjoyed a right of use in respect of this house, while the Government contested this allegation and claimed that they did not enjoy the right of use in respect of the house and simply had the right to live in it.\n6.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the immovable property (plots of land, buildings and constructions) situated within the administrative boundaries of the Central District of Yerevan to be taken for the needs of the State for the purpose of carrying out construction projects, covering a total area of 345,000 sq. m. Byuzand Street was listed as one of the streets falling within such expropriation zones.\n7.  On 17 June 2004 the Government adopted Decree no. 909-N, contracting out the construction of one of the sections of Byuzand Street – which was to be renamed as Main Avenue – to a private company, Glendale Hills CJSC.\n8.  On 28 July 2004 Glendale Hills CJSC and the Yerevan Mayor’s Office signed an agreement which, inter alia, authorised the former to negotiate directly with the owners of the property subject to expropriation and, should such negotiations fail, to institute court proceedings on behalf of the State, seeking forced expropriation of such property.\n9.  It appears that Glendale Hills CJSC attempted to organise a measuring and valuation of the applicants’ house in order to offer them compensation for the purposes of expropriation, unsuccessfully, since the applicants created obstacles.\n10.  On 10 March 2005 Glendale Hills CJSC instituted proceedings on behalf of the State against all the applicants except one (Ms Kristine Mnatsakanyan), seeking to oblige them to allow a valuation of their house and sign an agreement on taking of their property for State needs based on the results of such valuation, and to evict them.\n11.  On 15 March 2005 all the applicants except one (Ms Meri Danielyan) lodged a counter-claim in which they contested the constitutionality of Government Decree no. 1151-N. They submitted, inter alia, that this Decree contradicted Article 28 of the Constitution, according to which property could be expropriated only through the adoption of a law concerning the property in question. They further submitted that the Government was not authorised under the same Article to decide on the expropriation of property.\n12.  On the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the claim of Glendale Hills CJSC, ordering that the defendants be evicted through payment of compensation. The amount of compensation was to be estimated according to the market value following the relevant valuation. The District Court also ordered that they pay court fees in the amount of 4,000 Armenian drams (AMD). It appears that the District Court refused to admit the applicants’ counter-claim on the ground that it was not competent to decide upon the constitutionality of Government Decree no. 1151-N.\n13.  On 29 March 2005 the defendant applicants lodged an appeal.\n14.  It appears that on 18 April 2005 Orran Ltd real estate co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7057", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Yugorsk, a town in the Tyumen region.\n5.  On 29 May 2002 the applicant brought a court action against his former employer seeking compensation for damage to health related to professional hardship.\n6.  On 29 November 2004 Yugorskiy District Court (Khanty-Mansiyskiy Region) dismissed his claim as manifestly ill-founded.\n7.  On 14 December 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of 29 November 2004.\n8.  According to the Government, on 30 December 2004 the District Court sent a letter to the applicant informing him that the appeal hearing had been scheduled for 8 February 2005.\n9.  On 8 February 2005 the Khanty-Mansiyskiy Regional Court held a hearing which the applicant did not attend. The adverse party’s representative attended the hearing and made submissions. The Regional Court upheld the judgment of 29 November 2004.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant applied for a supervisory review of the appeal decision of 8 February 2005.\n11.  By a decision of 14 March 2005 a judge of the Regional Court refused to examine his application on the grounds that the enclosed copy of the appeal decision of 8 February 2005 had not been certified by the relevant court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7058", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  The applicant is a member of the National Bolsheviks Party.\n7.  On 14 December 2004 a group of about forty members of the National Bolsheviks Party occupied the waiting area of the President’s administration building in Moscow and locked themselves in an office on the ground floor.\n8.  The members of the group asked for a meeting with the President, the deputy head of the President’s administration and the President’s economic adviser. They handed out leaflets through the windows, featuring a printed letter to the President which listed ten ways in which he had failed to comply with the Constitution and which called for his resignation.\n9.  The intruders stayed in the office for an hour and a half until the police broke down the locked door and arrested them. They did not offer any resistance to the authorities.\n10.  On 16 December 2004 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s detention on the following grounds:\n“[The applicant] is suspected of having committed several offences, one of which is particularly grievous. If at liberty, he may continue his criminal activities, interfere with the investigation or put pressure on witnesses. He might abscond or prevent the investigation of the truth.”\n11.  On 21 December 2004 the applicant was charged with the attempted violent overthrow of State power (Article 278 of the Criminal Code) and the intentional destruction and degradation of others’ property in public places (Articles 167 § 2 and 214).\n12.  On 7 February 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges against the applicant, the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant’s detention until 14 April 2005.\n13.  On 16 February 2005 the applicant’s charge was amended to that of participation in mass disorder, an offence under Article 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n14.  On 14 April 2005 the District Court granted the prosecution’s request for an extension of the applicant’s detention until 14 July 2005, for the following reasons:\n“... the defendants and their counsel have started to study the case file. Given the file size (12 volumes) and the number of persons studying it (39 defendants and their counsel), the court considers that there are sufficient reasons to extend [the applicant’s] detention for three months, because he has not yet finished studying the case file while his counsel has not yet started.\nNotwithstanding the fact that [the applicant] has a registered place of residence in Moscow, the court, taking into account the gravity of charges and the fact that the grounds justifying his placement into custody still persist today, sees no reason to apply a more lenient preventive measure.”\n15.  On 19 May 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 14 April 2005 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, sufficiently reasoned and justified.\n16.  On 7 June 2005 the investigation was completed and thirty-nine persons, including the applicant, were committed for trial. On 20 June 2005 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow scheduled the preliminary hearing for 30 June 2005 and decided that all the defendants should meanwhile remain in custody.\n17.  On 30 June 2005 the District Court held a preliminary hearing. It rejected the defendants’ requests for release taking into account their characters, age, state of health, family situation and stability of lifestyle. However, it found, referring to the gravity of the charges, that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7060", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In February 1994 the Hungarian National Bank authorised a private limited company (“the Company”) to issue payment cards to its customers. After 1995, however, purchase with such cards was no longer possible. Despite this fact, in 1996 the applicants concluded agreements with the Company for so-called “savings cards” in which they invested various amounts of money.\n6.  In November 1996 bankruptcy proceedings were initiated against the Company and its insolvency was established in June 1997. The applicants recovered part of their investments through partial reimbursement by the Company. They sold their remaining claims against the Company to third parties.\n7.  On 26 October 1998 three hundred and thirty private individuals, including the applicants, who were all represented by one law firm, brought an official liability action against the Hungarian National Bank before the Budapest Regional Court. They claimed that the respondent had not exercised its supervisory duties over the Company, therefore making it possible for the applicants to conclude the above-mentioned agreements which had resulted in substantial losses.\n8.  On 11 January 2001 the Regional Court dismissed their action, finding that the respondent had no duty of supervision according to the relevant domestic legislation.\n9.  On 28 January 2003 the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, quashed the Regional Court’s decision and remitted the case to the first instance court due to the incomplete findings of fact.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings the Budapest Regional Court found for the applicants on 6 December 2005. It established that the Company had unlawfully overstepped the boundaries of its activities, which had been known to the respondent; nevertheless, the latter could not prove that it had fulfilled its supervisory duties in this respect.\n11.  On 26 October 2006 the Budapest Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal. It acknowledged that there were omissions on the respondent’s side. However, since the applicants had already sold their claims to third parties, the court held that they could have no substantive claims whatsoever in the circumstances.\n12.  The applicants lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. It upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision on 5 June 2007, finding that the latter decision had been in compliance with the law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7061", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1945, 1940, 1974 and 1976 respectively and live in Yerevan.\n5.  Ms Emma Tunyan (hereafter, the first applicant) owned a flat which measured 89.25 sq. m. and was situated at 9 Byuzand Street, Yerevan. The flat was in a house situated on a plot of land measuring 240 sq. m. leased by the first applicant. The applicants alleged that Mr Sashik Safyan, Mr Gevorg Safyan and Mr Mihran Safyan (hereafter, the second, third and fourth applicants), the first applicant’s husband and two sons, enjoyed a right of use in respect of this house, while the Government contested this allegation and claimed that they did not enjoy the right of use in respect of the house and simply had the right to live in it.\n6.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the immovable property (plots of land, buildings and constructions) situated within the administrative boundaries of the Central District of Yerevan to be taken for the needs of the State for the purpose of carrying out construction projects, covering a total area of 345,000 sq. m. Byuzand Street was listed as one of the streets falling within such expropriation zones.\n7.  On 17 June 2004 the Government adopted Decree no. 909-N, contracting out the construction of one of the sections of Byuzand Street – which was to be renamed as the Main Avenue – to a private company, Glendale Hills CJSC.\n8.  On 28 July 2004 Glendale Hills CJSC and the Yerevan Mayor’s Office signed an agreement which, inter alia, authorised the former to negotiate directly with the owners of the property subject to expropriation and, should such negotiations fail, to institute court proceedings on behalf of the State, seeking forced expropriation of such property.\n9.  On 25 August 2004 Glendale Hills CJSC informed the applicants that the flat and the leased plot of land had been valued by a licensed valuation organisation at USD 34,200 and offered the first applicant as the owner an equivalent sum in the national currency as compensation. An additional sum of USD 28,600 was offered to her as a financial incentive, if she agreed to sign an agreement and to hand over the property within the following five days. The other applicants were offered each USD 2,000 as compensation and USD 1,500 as a financial incentive.\n10.  It appears that the applicants did not accept the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation offered.\n11.  On 23 September 2004 Glendale Hills CJSC instituted proceedings against the applicants on behalf of the State, seeking to oblige them to sign an agreement on the taking of their property for State needs and to evict them.\n12.  On 18 October 2004 the first applicant lodged a counter-claim in which she contested the constitutionality of Government Decree no. 1151-N. She submitted, inter alia, that this Decree contradicted Article 28 of the Constitution, according to which property could be expropriated only through the adoption of a law concerning the property in question. She further submitted that the Government was not authorised under the same Article to decide on the expropriation of property.\n13.  On 26 October 2004 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the claim of Glendale Hills CJSC and dismissed the counter-claim of the first applicant, ordering the applicants to sign the agreements offered and that they be evicted. The District Court stated, inter alia, that it was not competent to decide ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7062", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in İzmir. He is a homosexual. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Eskişehir Prison.\nIn 2009 a number of sets of criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for, inter alia, forgery of documents, deception, credit-card fraud and misrepresentation on official documents. On 2 June 2009 the Karşıyaka Assize Court sentenced him to one year and eight months’ imprisonment at his first trial. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. The case is apparently still pending before that court. On 28 December 2009 the İzmir Assize Court, for its part, sentenced the applicant to ten years, three months and twenty-two days’ imprisonment for committing the offences referred to above more than once. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation against that judgment as well. The appeal is still pending.\n6.  On 24 October 2008 the applicant went to the Çiğli police station in İzmir and confessed to committing a series of offences, such as forgery of documents, deception, credit-card fraud and misrepresentation on official documents. He was subsequently remanded in custody by a justice of the peace and taken to Buca Prison in İzmir.\n7.  At Buca the applicant was first placed in a shared cell with heterosexual inmates.\n8.  On 5 February 2009 the applicant’s representative asked the prison authorities to transfer the applicant, for safety reasons, to another shared cell with homosexual prisoners. In support of the request, he specified that his client had been intimidated and bullied by his fellow inmates. According to the record of his statement drawn up the same day and signed by two prison warders and the applicant, the latter made the following statement:\n“I am currently living in block no. 6. I have a homosexual condition (“eşcinsellik hastalığ”). When my fellow inmates found out about this, I started having problems. I have informed the prison governor about the situation through my lawyer. I wish to be transferred to a block adapted to my situation.”\n9.  On 5 February 2009 the prison authorities decided to place the applicant on his own in an individual cell. The record of that decision contains the following passage:-\n“... the prisoner, who has said he has a homosexual condition, has been placed in an individual cell instead of his current block.”\n10.  The applicant stated that the cell in which he had been placed measured 7 m², with living space of no more than half that. It had a bed and toilets, but no washbasin, was very poorly lit and very dirty and rat-infested. The applicant said that there were ten other cells of the same type that were intended for solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure or for inmates accused of paedophilia or rape. After he had been put in an individual cell on 5 February 2009, the applicant was deprived of any contact with other inmates and any social activity. He had not been permitted any outdoor exercise and had been allowed out of his cell only to see his lawyer or attend hearings held approximately once per month.\n11.  The Government did not dispute those facts. They specified that the cell had been equipped with the furniture and facilities necessary for day-to-day living, such as lighting, toilets, a bed, wardrobe and chair. They explained that the applicant had been alone in the cell until another homosexual prisoner had arrived at the prison.\n12.  On 21 April 2009 the applicant lodged a request with the İzmir public prosecutor’", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7065", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company was set up in 1991 and is based in Sofia.\n6.  In 1989 State-owned enterprise B. (later a State-owned company), took out a bank loan, which it failed to pay back. In 1994 the Ministry of Finance and the creditor bank signed an agreement whereby the State took over the debt, providing the bank with State-issued bonds.\n7.  Subsequently company B. was succeeded by the applicant company, which apparently undertook to pay back the loan to the State.\n8.  On 5 July 2000 the director of the State Receivables Collection Agency issued an assessment which found that on 1 May 2000 the applicant company owed the State more than 4,000,000 United States dollars (USD), equalling the principal of the 1989 loan plus interest.\n9.  On 21 July 2000 the applicant company brought an action for a declaratory judgment to the effect that it did not owe this sum, as the debt had become statute-barred. In a judgment of 5 June 2003 the Sofia City Court allowed the action. On 18 November 2003 the Sofia Court of Appeal affirmed this decision. Both courts awarded the applicant company the costs it had incurred in the proceedings.\n10.  In November 2003 the applicant company took a decision to move its registered office, which had until then been in Asenovgrad, to Sofia. A new managing director was also appointed. Those changes were entered in the company register on 18 December 2003.\n11.  In the civil proceedings, on an appeal by the State Receivables Collection Agency, in a final judgment of 22 June 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation (“the SCC”) upheld the lower courts’ judgments. In the minutes of the hearing held before it on 14 June 2004 it was indicated that the applicant party was Askon AD Sofia.\n12.  However, the SCC refused to award the applicant company the costs claimed for the cassation proceedings, as it considered that those costs, amounting to USD 256,717, had been incurred by the company Askon AD based in Sofia, which had signed the contract for legal representation and the relevant invoices, and not the claimant, Askon AD based in Asenovgrad. The SCC noted also that, according to the documents in the file, Askon AD based in Sofia and Askon AD based in Asenovgrad were represented by different managing directors.\n13.  On 28 June 2004 the applicant company made a request under Article 192 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in force at the time (see paragraph 17 below), that the judgment of 22 June 2004 be amended and it be awarded the costs it had incurred in the cassation proceedings. It pointed out that the costs in question had been incurred by itself and not by another company, and presented evidence establishing that its registered office had been transferred to Sofia and that a new managing director had been elected. It noted that the authority form submitted by its counsel to the SCC, which had been accepted, had been signed by Askon AD based in Sofia and represented by its new managing director. The applicant company considered also that it was clear from other data, such as its taxation and registration numbers indicated on numerous documents in the case file, that Askon AD based in Sofia and Askon AD based in Asenovgrad were one and the same company.\n14.  By a decision of 16 September 2004 the SCC dismissed the request to amend its judgment, holding that it could not take into account the newly presented evidence about the change in the applicant company’s particulars, because a party which had failed to establish certa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7066", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Gabrovo.\n7.  In a judgment of 20 September 1996, which became final on 5 October 1996, the Gabrovo District Court (Габровски районен съд) found the applicant guilty of an offence and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment. In 1996 the applicant spent ten months in prison in execution of that sentence.\n8.  In a judgment of 20 May 1999, which became final on 20 June 1999, the Gabrovo District Court found the applicant guilty of another offence and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment, suspended.\n9.  In a judgment of 14 November 2001, which became final on 22 October 2002, the Gabrovo District Court found the applicant guilty of yet another offence and sentenced him to eighteen months’ imprisonment (see Tsonyo Tsonev v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 2376/03, §§ 10, 14 and 17, 14 January 2010).\n10.  In late 2002 or early 2003 the applicant asked the Gabrovo District Court to combine the above sentences. On 14 February 2003 the court decided to combine the sentences imposed in 1996 and 1999 but not the one imposed in 2001. The resulting sentence, determined in line with the applicable sentencing rules, was ten months’ imprisonment. Applying a rule allowing the increase of the combined sentence by up to one half, and taking into account periods that the applicant had already spent in prison, the court ordered that the total amount of time which the applicant was to serve under the combined sentence should be thirteen months. He was to serve the eighteen months meted out in 2001 separately.\n11.  On an appeal by the applicant, on 3 April 2003 the Gabrovo Regional Court (Габровски окръжен съд) upheld that decision. On 3 February 2004 the Supreme Court of Cassation (Върховен касационен съд) refused to hear the applicant’s ensuing appeal on points of law, finding that no appeal lay against the Gabrovo Regional Court’s decision.\n12.  In the morning of 26 September 2000 it was discovered that a bag with medicines had been stolen from a pharmacy in Gabrovo the previous night. The police inspected the crime scene and took fingerprints, but the ensuing tests could not establish to whom they belonged.\n13.  The next day, 27 September 2000, police officer N.D., who was in charge of the area where the applicant resided, visited the applicant at his parents’ home, where he lived. The officer invited the applicant to the police station, where the applicant apparently confessed to stealing the bag. The applicant then took the officer back to his home and produced the bag. After that both of them went again to the police station, where a record was drawn up stating that the applicant had voluntarily surrendered the bag, explaining that he had found it near a kindergarten. When later testifying at the trial against him, the applicant said that he had voluntarily followed the officer to the station and had been aware that he could refuse to go there. After surrendering the bag, the applicant was charged and interviewed by an investigator. He said that he understood the charge, was aware of his right to counsel but chose not to have one, and would make a statement. He then went on to confess to stealing the bag. He also said that he had not been sure what to do with the medicines and had decided to surrender them to the police. He expressed regret for his actions.\n14.  In the following days the police investigator in charge of the case interviewed witnesses and gathered written and expert evidence. On 10 October 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7067", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Sośnica.\n6.  The applicant has been undergoing psychiatric treatment since the age of sixteen. He was hospitalised on several occasions in psychiatric hospitals in Lubliniec and Żurawica.\n7.  The applicant lived in Nowy Lubliniec with his mother and handicapped sister. At the end of 2000 the applicant’s brother, who did not live with them, applied to the court submitting that the applicant had been aggressive, had been refusing to take his medication and had been abusing alcohol.\n8.  On 22 December 2000 the applicant was partly deprived of his legal capacity by a court because of his mental disorder, as he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia.\n9.  On 28 August 2001 the Lubaczów District Court appointed his brother, Mr Zbigniew Kędzior, as his guardian (kurator). Subsequently, the guardian applied to the court to have the order varied and to have the applicant declared totally incapacitated.\n10.  In the course of the proceedings, on 22 December 2001, an expert psychiatric opinion was prepared which confirmed that the applicant was suffering from schizophrenia and that he had a tendency to abuse alcohol.\n11.  On 27 December 2001 the Krosno Regional Court changed its previous decision and decided to declare the applicant totally incapacitated as his mental condition had deteriorated. The applicant’s brother remained his guardian (opiekun prawny).\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s guardian requested the Ruda Różaniecka Social Care Home (Dom Pomocy Społecznej) to admit the applicant.\n13.  On 8 February 2002 the Lubaczów District Family Centre (Powiatowe Centrum Pomocy Rodzinie) decided to place the applicant in the social care home, as requested by his guardian. In terms of domestic law the admission was voluntary and did not require approval by a court.\n14.  Between 31 October 2001 and 11 February 2002 the applicant was in a psychiatric hospital in Jaroslaw.\n15.  On 11 February 2002 the applicant was admitted to the Ruda Różaniecka Social Care Home, where he remained for ten years.\n16.  The applicant complained to the Lubaczów District Court that he had been placed in the care home against his will and without any medical necessity. On 12 April 2002 the president of the court informed him that the placement had been in accordance with the law.\n17.  On 27 December 2004 the District Family Centre informed the applicant that his guardian was authorised to place him in the care home.\n18.  On 9 February 2006 the Przemysl Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request for proceedings to be initiated to have his legal capacity fully restored. The court considered that the applicant, being legally incapacitated, did not have the authority to lodge such a request, and that his guardian did not support the request.\n19.  On 23 February 2006 the president of the Lubaczów District Court explained to the applicant again that due to his total incapacitaty he had not been a party to the proceedings relating to his placement in the care home.\n20.  On 17 March 2006 the president of the Przemysl Regional Court informed the applicant in a letter that there were no grounds to institute proceedings to restore the applicant’s legal capacity of the court’s own motion.\n21.  On 5 June 2006 and 15 February 2007 the District Family Centre again replied to the applicant’s letters informing him that only his guardian could approve his release from the care home.\n22.  On 21 September 2006 the Przemysl Regional C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7068", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, who was born in 1980, is currently serving her prison sentence in the Gebze Prison.\n5.  On 8 June 2004 the applicant was arrested together with B.K. by policemen from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Kırıkkale Security Directorate. It transpires from the documents in the case file that B.K. was carrying a hidden Kalashnikov rifle which he proceeded to use against the police officers who had approached them to check their identity papers and that, in the ensuing struggle, the applicant and one police officer were injured by gunshot wounds.\n6.  On the same day at 9.15 p.m., the applicant was examined at the Kırıkkale State Hospital by a doctor who noted two gunshot wounds on the applicant’s left leg. Superficial grazes on her left shoulder blade and back were also indicated in the report. It was concluded that her injuries were not life-threatening. The applicant was subsequently placed in custody at the Kırıkkale Security Directorate, where she was allegedly ill-treated.\n7.  On 9 June 2004 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Yüksek İhtisas Hospital. The report indicated that there was a bullet entry hole and an exit hole in her left leg. It was also indicated that there were two or three grazes on the applicant’s back, measuring 3-4 cm.\n8.  On 10 June 2004 the applicant was once again examined at the Yüksek İhtisas Hospital. According to the report issued at the end of the medical examination, there was a bullet entry hole and an exit hole in the applicant’s left leg, superficial grazes on her back and an old hyperemia, measuring 2 to 3 cm, on her left arm.\n9.  On the same day, the applicant was transferred to Tokat Gendarmerie Command for further investigation.\n10.  On 11 June 2004 at 00.35 a.m. the applicant was examined at the Tokat Cevdet Aykan State Hospital by a doctor, who noted a bruise of 0,5 x 1 cm on the applicant’s nose dating back a couple of days, a number of scabbed scratches or bruises on her left shoulder blade, upper left arm and left wrist (dating back a couple of days), a couple of scratches on her lumbar vertebrae (dating back a couple of days), redness corresponding to an old burn wound on her left foot and fingers and two gunshot wounds in her lower left leg. The report indicated that the injuries were not life-threatening.\n11.  On 12 June 2004 the applicant was once again examined at the Tokat Cevdet Aykan State Hospital. No new physical marks other than those indicated above were observed on her body.\n12.  On the same day, the applicant was interrogated at the Tokat Gendarme Command, in the presence of her lawyer, and she used her right to remain silent. She was subsequently brought before the Tokat public prosecutor and the Tokat Magistrates’ Court in Criminal Matters respectively. In the presence of her lawyer, she denied the accusations against her. Before the public prosecutor, the applicant further complained that she had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment while she was held in custody at the Kırıkkale Security Directorate. In this connection, she maintained that she had been forced to walk bare-footed, deprived of sleep, sexually harassed, dragged by her hair, kicked, and that her head had been hit against the wall. The applicant requested the prosecution of those responsible. The court ordered her detention in remand.\n13.  On 9 June 2004 the Ankara public prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicant and accused her of being a member of the TKP/ML-TİKKO (Tu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7069", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Fintice.\n5.  On 29 December 1994 the applicant lodged an action with the Prešov District Court (Okresný súd) seeking an order for payment of outstanding wages.\n6.  On 28 February 2002 the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) found that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended) to a hearing without unjustified delay in the proceedings.\n7.  On 27 May 2003 the Court came to a similar conclusion in a judgment, in which it found a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time (see Piskura v. Slovakia, no. 65567/01, 27 May 2003).\n8.  Meanwhile, the action had been allowed by the District Court. Following the defendant’s appeal, it was also allowed by the Prešov Regional Court (Krajský súd), on 21 June 2005.\n9.  The judgment became final and binding on 2 August 2005 and enforceable on 18 August 2005. It contained an order that the defendant pay the applicant the equivalent of some 35,500 euros (EUR).\n10.  In the course of the proceedings described above, on 16 December 2003, the Košice Regional Court declared the defendant insolvent.\n11.  On 27 January 2003 the applicant registered in the insolvency proceedings a claim, which appears to be identical to the claim asserted by way of his action of 29 December 1994 (see paragraph 5 above).\n12.  At a hearing held on 21 May 2003 the insolvency receiver contested the applicant’s claim, in response to which he lodged a new action with a view to having the claim acknowledged by a court.\n13.  On 27 September 2005, upon the applicant’s action, the Regional Court ruled that his claim in the insolvency proceedings was valid and fell to be satisfied of the proceeds of the realisation of the insolvency estate. The judgment became final and binding on 10 December 2005 and enforceable on 14 December 2005.\n14.  On 28 April 2008 the applicant registered a further claim in the insolvency proceedings and the receiver acknowledged it on 3 July 2008.\n15.  On 20 January 2011 the Regional Court issued a decision approving a final report by the receiver on the realisation of the estate and on his fees and expenses (konečná správa o speňažovaní majetku úpadcu a o vyúčtovaní odmeny a výdavkov správcu). Following the applicant’s appeal, on 30 March 2011 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) quashed the decision and remitted the matter to the Regional Court for re examination. It found, inter alia, that the Regional Court had omitted to deal with the applicant’s objections to the report.\n16.  On 17 October 2011 the Regional Court issued a fresh decision approving the report and it was upheld by the Supreme Court on 13 January 2012, following the applicant’s appeal.\n17.  The insolvency proceedings are still pending in their phase aimed at distribution of the proceeds of the realisation of the estate, the applicant having thus far not recovered any part of his claim.\n18.  On 19 August 2009, following the applicant’s complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court found that, in the insolvency proceedings, there had been a violation of his constitutional right to a hearing without unjustified delay. At the same time, it ordered that the enforcement proceedings be proceeded with without unjustified delay and awarded the applicant EUR 1,600 by way of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7071", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  According to the applicant, on 19 July 2010 he arrived in Moscow from Uzbekistan with a view to finding a seasonal job and marrying. He soon learnt that his brothers had been arrested and charged with participation in an extremist religious organisation. He also learnt that he was suspected by the Uzbekistani authorities of having founded an extremist religious organisation himself.\n7.  On 18 October 2010 the applicant lodged a request with the Moscow Division of the Federal Migration Service (the FMS) seeking refugee status in Russia. On 21 January 2011 the FMS refused to grant refugee status to the applicant. The applicant appealed.\n8.  On 14 April 2011 the FMS quashed the decision of 21 January 2011 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to its division in Moscow.\n9.  On 6 July 2011 the FMS refused by a de novo decision to grant the applicant refugee status. The applicant appealed. It appears that the appeal proceedings are still pending.\n10.  On 16 September 2010 the Bukhara Town Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan ordered the applicant’s arrest pending the criminal investigation against him.\n11.  On 3 February 2011 the applicant was arrested at the FMS’s office where he had gone to receive the copy of the decision in his case. The Moscow police informed the Uzbekistani authorities of the applicant’s arrest. On the same day they received a copy of the arrest order of 16 September 2010 and documents confirming that the applicant had been put on the wanted persons’ list.\n12.  On 4 February 2011 the Izmailovskiy District Court of Moscow authorised the applicant’s detention pending extradition. The applicant was also advised of his right to appeal against the extension of his detention within three days of the adoption of the relevant decision. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“Having heard the parties to the proceedings, and having studied the extradition materials submitted in respect of [the applicant], the court finds that the [prosecutor’s] request should be granted. The court has established that [the applicant’s] detention is lawful and justified under international treaties and the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. [The applicant’s] name is on the wanted persons’ list in connection with a crime he committed in the Republic of Uzbekistan. He has not been recognised as a refugee. Nor have any other circumstances preventing [the applicant’s] extradition been identified.\nThe court has received a decision by the Bukhara Town Court dated 16 September 2010 authorising the [applicant’s] remand in custody which mentions that [the applicant] has absconded.\nRegard being had to the fact that the documents submitted to the court are in compliance with the requirements set forth in the rules of criminal procedure, the court finds that the [prosecutor’s] request should be granted. In view of the evidence submitted (the documents from the Republic of Uzbekistan) confirming that [the applicant] was charged with serious offences ... that his name was on the wanted persons’ list and that he had been remanded in custody, the court believes that if released, [the applicant] might continue his criminal activities or abscond, or otherwise interfere with administration of justice.”\n13.  On 5 February 2011 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 4 February 2011. He addressed it to the Moscow City Court, which received it on 21 February 2011. On 22 February 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7072", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in St Petersburg, Russia.\n7.  The applicant is an ethnic Uzbek. He was born and lived in the town of Osh in the south of Kyrgyzstan. From 1999 until June 2006 the applicant worked at the South Warehouse of the State Reserves Fund in Jalal-Abad. The majority of the Kyrgyzstani nationals of Uzbek origin – around 14% of Kyrgyzstan’s overall population – live in the south of the country, in particular, in Osh and Jalal-Abad.\n8.  On 11 July 2006 the applicant arrived in St Petersburg, Russia, in order to accompany his wife’s father who was having medical treatment in a clinic in St Petersburg. According to the applicant, he has not returned to Kyrgyzstan since then. He stayed in Russia and worked as a taxi driver. According to records of the traffic police for St Petersburg and Leningrad region, he committed minor traffic violations on 16 August, 17 and 22 September and 9 November 2006, as well as in 2007-2010. From 17 October 2006 to 12 January 2007 he was officially registered as residing at a certain address in St Petersburg. His wife and two children joined him in 2008. His wife obtained Russian citizenship in March 2011. His other two children and his parents stayed in Osh.\n9.  On 16 March 2007 the Jalal-Abad regional prosecutor’s office brought criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of embezzlement of State funds. The decision stated that the applicant had been appointed a warehouse supervisor at the South Warehouse of the State Reserves Fund on 30 December 2006 and that while in that post he had misappropriated, during the period from November 2006 to January 2007, goods stored at the warehouse in Jalal-Abad for which he was responsible at the time, had sold them and used the money so received for his personal needs.\n10.  On 22 May 2007 an investigator at the Jalal-Abad regional prosecutor’s office charged the applicant in absentia, issued an order for him to be remanded in custody, declared him a wanted person and stayed the investigation until he had been arrested. On 1 October 2010 the investigator rectified the charges against the applicant, following the amendment of the Criminal Code, to embezzlement under Article 171 § 4 of the Code, which is punishable in particular by imprisonment of five to eight years.\n11.  On 25 March 2011 the applicant sent an application to the Jalal‑Abad prosecutor’s office, seeking to have the criminal proceedings against him terminated. To demonstrate lack of grounds for suspicion he argued that a government audit carried out in June 2006 had not revealed any violations at his place of work and that he had been living in Russia at the time of the alleged offence, as confirmed, inter alia, by his passport and his residence registration. Decisions to dismiss his application and to stay the criminal proceedings against him until he had been extradited were communicated to his representatives orally.\n12.  On 30 August 2010 the applicant, who had been placed on an international wanted list, was arrested in the Leningrad region and placed in a temporary detention facility at the Gatchina district police department.\n13.  On 31 August 2010 the Gatchina Town Court allowed the Gatchina district prosecutor’s request for the applicant to be remanded in custody pending a decision on his extradition. The Town Court decision was upheld on appeal by the St Petersburg City Court on 20 October 2010. All subsequent applications by the prosecutor’s office for ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7073", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and since 2009 he has been living in Russia. He currently resides in Irkutsk, Russia.\n7.  The applicant is a practising Muslim. Until December 2009 he lived in Uzbekistan.\n8.  At some point in 2000 the Uzbek police questioned the applicant in connection with the terrorist bombings of 1999 in Tashkent. The applicant testified that he was not in possession of any information about the bombings.\n9.  In December 2009 the applicant arrived in Russia. He registered with the local migration service as a foreign national residing in Russia. He had a valid temporary residence registration until 9 December 2010.\n10.  On 31 March 2010 the Investigative Unit of the Fergana Regional Department of the Interior of Uzbekistan brought criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of membership of a “banned unlawful religious extremist organisation, ‘Wahhabism’, and participation in the terrorist bombings in Tashkent in 1999. The applicant was charged with attempting to overthrow the Uzbek State’s constitutional order (Article 159 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (“the UCC”), establishing or resuming the activities of proscribed non-governmental and religious organisations, and active participation in their activities (Article 216 of the UCC), setting up a criminal group (Article 242 § 1 of the UCC), producing and disseminating documents containing ideas of religious extremism, separatism and fundamentalism, threats to national security and public order (Article 244(1) § 3 (a) of the UCC), setting up, managing and participating in extremist, separatist, fundamentalist and other banned organisations (Article 244(2) § 1 of the UCC), and smuggling material disseminating extremist, separatist and radical fundamentalist ideas (Article 246 of the UCC).\n11.  On 27 April 2010 the investigator of the Fergana Regional Department of the Interior of Uzbekistan issued two separate decisions ordering the applicant’s name to be placed on a cross-border wanted list.\n12.  In accordance with the first decision, he was accused of the setting up of and active participation from 2000 to 2009 in a local branch of the religious extremist organisation “Warriors of Islam” in the Kuvinskiy District of the Fergana Region in Uzbekistan.\n13.  From the second decision issued on the same date it can be seen that the prosecution suspected him of membership of a “banned unlawful religious extremist organisation, ‘Wahhabism’, and participation in the terrorist bombings in Tashkent in 1999.\n14.  Both decisions specified that the applicant was to be put on the cross-border wanted list as a person charged with offences punishable under Articles 159 § 3 (b), 216, 242-1, 244(1)-3 (a), 244(2) and 246 of the UCC (see paragraph 10 above).\n15.  On 27 April 2010 a judge in charge of criminal cases at the Fergana Court of Uzbekistan ordered that the applicant should be placed in custody. The decision referred to the charges listed in paragraph 14 above and specified that the applicant was accused of membership of ‘Wahhabism’, and participation in the Tashkent terrorist bombings in 1999.\n16.  On 29 October 2010 the applicant was arrested at a train station in Irkutsk, Russia.\n17.  On the same date the Deputy Head of the Fergana Department of the Interior of Uzbekistan submitted to the Irkutsk Transport Prosecutor confirmation of the applicant’s placement on the cross-border wanted list and of the intention to request his extradit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7074", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Sežana.\n6.  The applicant, a retired captain, worked for International Shipping and Chartering Ltd. (Splošna plovba p.o.), a State-owned company, from 1971 until 1974 and from 1981 until 12 September 1992. On 13 September 1992 the applicant concluded a temporary contract of work, renewed several times until 11 February 1999, with the Genshipping Corporation, Monrovia, Liberia, one of the parent companies of International Shipping and Chartering Ltd. In 2000 the applicant retired due to his disability and back pain.\n7.  On 13 August 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Koper Labour Court against International Shipping and Chartering Ltd. and the Genshipping Corporation, seeking recognition of his permanent work status since 12 September 1992, his reinstatement and a pecuniary award, inter alia, for the loss of wages.\n8.  After two hearings, on 9 December 2002 the Koper Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. Both parties appealed.\n9.  On 27 November 2003 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld both appeals in part and remitted the case for re-examination. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the rejected part of the appeal.\n10.  On 1 February 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. He lodged a constitutional complaint.\n11.  In the framework of the remitted proceedings, on 9 September 2005 the Koper Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. He lodged an appeal.\n12.  On 31 August 2006 the second-instance court upheld the applicant’s appeal in part and amended the first-instance decision. He lodged an appeal on points of law.\n13.  On 9 January 2007 the Supreme Court rendered a decision rejecting the applicant’s appeal. He lodged a constitutional complaint.\n14.  On 27 March 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint (see paragraph 10 above).\n15.  On 4 December 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the second constitutional complaint (see paragraph 13 above).\n16.  On 14 April 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Genshipping Corporation and against International Shipping and Chartering Ltd., seeking a declaration of employment since 2003, social cover and payment of salaries due since 2002. He also requested an interlocutory injunction.\n17.  On 22 April 2003 the Koper Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s request for an interlocutory injunction concerning the termination of his contract and social cover. He lodged an appeal against this decision which was rejected on 15 May 2003.\n18.  After three hearings, on 26 October 2005 the Koper Labour Court dismissed his claim. He lodged an appeal.\n19.  On 11 January 2007 the second-instance court rejected his appeal. He lodged an appeal on points of law.\n20.  On 8 November 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. He lodged a constitutional complaint on 9 February 2009 and the proceedings appear to be still pending.\n21.  On 8 May 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court against a decision of the Pension and Invalidity Insurance Fund.\n22.  Between 14 July 2003 and 13 July 2006 six hearings were held and two experts appointed.\n23.  At the last hearing the first-instance court delivered a judgment upholding the applicant’s claim in part. The defendant appealed.\n24.  On 6 March 2007 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the applicant’s appeal in part and amended the first", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7075", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Žalec.\n5.  On 21 May 1997 the applicant, employed as a teacher in a music school, instituted proceedings before the Celje Labour Court seeking the annulment of a decision on the classification in a pay grade.\n6.  On 1 February 2000 the first hearing was held.\n7.  After two more hearings, on 24 March 2000 the first-instance court delivered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s request. He appealed.\n8.  On 7 December 2001 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld his appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.\n9.  On 11 June 2002 the first-instance court delivered a judgment rejecting his request. He appealed.\n10.  On 26 February 2004 the second instance court rejected his appeal. He lodged an appeal on points of law.\n11.  On 11 January 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. He lodged a constitutional complaint.\n12.  On 17 March 2006 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint as unsubstantiated. The decision was served on the applicant on 21 March 2006.\n13.  On 7 September 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Celje Labour Court seeking the annulment of a decision on the classification in a pay grade and requesting for the two proceedings to be joined.\n14.  On 10 December 2002 the first hearing was held. The first-instance court rejected the request for joining the proceedings and delivered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s claim. He appealed.\n15.  On 15 April 2004 the Higher Labour and Social Court rejected his appeal. The judgment was served on the applicant on 28 May 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7076", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Mozirje.\n6.  On 2 December 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court challenging a decision rejecting his claim for disability insurance.\n7.  On 9 June 2005 the first hearing was held and the court delivered a judgment, rejecting the applicant’s request in whole. He appealed.\n8.  On 23 March 2006 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.\n9.  Between 15 June 2006 and 19 October 2006 three hearings were held and the court appointed one expert.\n10.  On 19 October 2006 the first-instance court delivered a judgment. The defendant appealed.\n11.  On 1 March 2007 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the appeal in part and modified the first-instance judgment. This decision was served on the applicant on 3 April 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7077", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Škofja Loka.\n6.  On 4 April 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court seeking compensation for damages sustained in an accident at the workplace.\n7.  On 27 September 2002 the parties were directed to solve the dispute through mediation. The mediation was unsuccessful and an order to return the file to the first-instance court was issued on 17 January 2003.\n8.  On 9 November 2004 the court held the first hearing.\n9.  Between 14 December 2004 and 4 October 2005 three hearings were held and an expert appointed. At the last hearing the court delivered an interim judgment, reserving the decision on the amount of compensation to the final judgment. Both parties appealed.\n10.  On 25 October 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld both appeals and remitted the case for re-examination.\n11.  On 7 December 2006 the first-instance court held a hearing.\n12.  On 9 March 2007 the first-instance court issued a decision on termination of proceedings, following an out-of court settlement reached between the parties.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7078", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1946 and 1940 respectively. They are husband and wife and live in Velenje.\n6.  On 26 January 2001 the applicants instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court seeking compensation for damages sustained in a car accident.\n7.  Between 6 May 2003 and 5 May 2005 three hearings were held and one expert appointed. At the last hearing the first-instance court rendered a judgment rejecting the applicants’ request. They appealed.\n8.  On 15 February 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the appeal. The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law.\n9.  On 6 November 2008 the Supreme Court rendered a decision and remitted the case for re-examination before the first-instance. The decision was served on the applicants’ representative on 5 December 2008.\n10.  On 19 December 2008 a notice of the forthcoming hearing was sent to the applicants.\n11.  The hearing was held on 2 February 2009 and the first-instance court rendered a judgment on the same day. The judgment was served on the applicants on 13 March 2009.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7079", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Ljubečna.\n6.  On 14 February 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against her brother before the Ljubljana District Court seeking the reimbursement of costs for taking care of their mother, which in accordance with a signed agreement was a shared responsibility of both.\n7.  On 8 July 2000 the first-instance court held an opening hearing.\n8.  On 3 October 2002 a hearing was held and a judgment delivered. The applicant’s request was rejected. She appealed.\n9.  On 22 January 2003 the Ljubljana Higher Court delivered a judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.\n10.  On 29 May 2003 a hearing was cancelled on the request of the applicant.\n11.  Between 16 June 2003 and 6 October 2003 two hearings were held. At the last hearing the first-instance court delivered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. An appeal was lodged.\n12.  On 2 March 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court delivered a judgment upholding the first-instance judgment in part and remitting the question on the amount of interests for re-examination.\n13.  On 5 July 2005 a hearing was cancelled on the request of the applicant, since the defendant had paid the amount due.\n14.  On 12 July 2005 the first-instance court issued a decision on partial withdrawal of the claim and on the amount of costs of proceedings. An appeal was lodged.\n15.  On 6 October 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 10 November 2005.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7080", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Brno. He is a violoncello player and has been diagnosed as having a psycho-social disability. At the material time he weighed 64 kg and was 176 cm tall. In the past, he has been treated in Italian psychiatric hospitals as a voluntary patient. At the time of the events at issue, he was using Akineton, a calming psychiatric medication prescribed to him by his psychiatrist.\n7.  On 9 February 2007 the applicant inadvertently overdosed on Akineton. In the evening, he left his flat and went to buy some food. Being under the influence of the medication, he did not notice that he was wearing only a sweater, but no trousers or underwear. On the way he was stopped by a police patrol that assumed that he was a drug addict and called an ambulance, which took him to Brno-Černovice Psychiatric Hospital. The record drawn up by the ambulance staff states that the applicant was receiving psychiatric treatment and that he was calm during transport.\n8.  At the hospital he was examined by Dr V., who did not find any injuries on the applicant’s body and sent him to the sobering-up centre in the same hospital at about 8 p.m. The applicant was calm during the medical examination. In the sobering-up centre he was again examined by Dr H., who confirmed that there were no injuries on the applicant’s body when he was admitted to the centre.\n9.  On 10 February 2007 at 7:24 a.m. the applicant was transferred to the Intensive Psychiatric Care Unit where, according to the admission record, he had visible abrasions on the front of his neck, both wrists and both ankles, caused probably by friction against textile, and abrasions of an unspecified different type on his knees. He complained about his treatment in the sobering-up centre to the hospital authorities, but they did not take any action.\n10.  On 15 February 2007 the applicant was examined by a neurologist, who stated that as a result of the use of straps the applicant suffered severe paresis of the left arm and medium to severe paresis of the right arm. He began a course of intensive treatment at the Rehabilitation Unit.\n11.  The applicant remained in the hospital involuntarily until released on 13 April 2007.\n12.  However, because of his two-month hospitalisation, he was confused and was not able to fully take care of himself. He voluntarily returned to the hospital on 14 April 2007 and remained there until 1 July 2007.\n13.  The following facts are disputed by the parties.\n14.  According to the applicant, at 8.10 p.m. on 9 February 2007 he was strapped to a bed with leather straps around his wrists, knees and ankles by two male nurses, Mr M. and Mr H. While strapping him, they kneeled on his chest and verbally abused him. He remained strapped for the whole night, until 6.30 a.m. The staff did not check up on him during that time. As the straps were too tight, he struggled to breathe and as a result of insufficient blood circulation the nerves in his arms were damaged.\n15.  According to the Government the applicant was strapped to a bed for three intervals, namely, from 8.10 p.m. to 10 p.m., 4.30 a.m. to 5 a.m. and 6.30 a.m. to 7.15 a.m.\n16.  They submitted a record from the sobering-up centre containing the following information. When brought to the centre the applicant was intoxicated and was put to bed. He was unstrapped at 10 p.m. At 4.30 a.m. he attacked a nurse and was strapped again. Checks were carried out. The applicant was restless. At 6.30 a.m. he was ch", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7081", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Žabnica.\n6.  On 14 November 1997 the Ministry of the Interior, Kranj Criminal Police Unit (Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve - Urad kriminalistične službe Kranj) issued a decision on detention of the applicant. He was arrested on the same day.\n7.  On 16 November 1997 the applicant was brought before the investigating judge for questioning. On the same day the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody.\n8.  On 17 November 1997 the Public Prosecutor’s Office sent a request to open a criminal investigation against the applicant and six others.\n9.  On 27 November 1997 the investigating judge issued a decision on the opening of a criminal investigation.\n10.  On 11 May 1998, after the investigation had been terminated, an indictment was lodged against the applicant. He was charged with six criminal offences connected with unlawful manufacture of and trade in narcotic drugs (heroin). The indictment was lodged against six other accomplices for some twenty criminal offences of the same kind. The case concerned an organised network of drug traffickers.\n11.  On 6 October 1998 the Kranj District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Kranju) held the first hearing.\n12.  Between 6 October 1998 and 15 March 2000 the Kranj District Court held sixty-nine hearings and heard forty-eight witnesses. It inspected numerous video cassettes, read reports on secret surveillance, listened to wiretaps and examined documents sent from Spain, the United Kingdom, Hungary, Austria, Bulgaria and Romania.\n13.  In the meantime, on 30 December 1999, the applicant was placed under house arrest.\n14.  At the last hearing, on 15 March 2000, the first-instance judgment was issued. The applicant was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The judgment was served on the applicant on 11 April 2000.\n15.  On 21 April 2000 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Ljubljana Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Ljubljani). So did the other parties in the criminal proceedings and the State Attorney’s Office.\n16.  On 30 November 2000 the Ljubljana Higher Court mainly upheld the first-instance judgment and remitted the remainder for re-examination. In addition, the applicant’s sentence was mitigated to fourteen years’ imprisonment.\n17.  On 3 December 2000 the Kranj District Court issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant. It appeared that he had fled the country while he was being kept under house arrest.\n18.  On 3 January 2001 the second-instance judgment was served on the applicant’s attorney.\n19.  On 31 March 2001 the applicant’s attorney lodged a request for protection of legality (zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).\n20.  On 25 May 2001 the Supreme Court received the case file.\n21.  On 5 June 2002 the Kranj District Court issued a decision on termination of the proceedings in respect of the applicant concerning the remitted part of the case, following the withdrawal of the indictment.\n22.  As it transpires from the case file, on an unknown date the applicant lodged a request for the reopening of the proceedings. On 5 August 2004 the Kranj District Court rejected his request on procedural grounds.\n23.  On 10 December 2002 the police brought the applicant to the Dob pri Mirni prison, where he was supposed to serve his sentence. The applicant had returned to Slovenia (on an unspecified date) and turned himself in to the authorities.\n24.  On 21 December 2004 the Supreme Court issued a judgment rejecting", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7083", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Debrecen.\n7.  On 10 July 2010 the applicant arrived at Záhony border crossing point – situated on the Ukrainian-Hungarian border – and attempted to cross the border to Hungary in possession of a travel document issued by the Lebanese government for Palestinian refugees which he presented to the officials of the Border Policing Field Unit. In the course of border control, the Hungarian authorities found that a Greek residence permit in the travel document was blank and the exit stamp forged. He was placed under short term arrest and interviewed with the assistance of a translator. In the interview, apart from presenting his personal particulars, the applicant told the authority that he had come from a refugee camp in Tripoli, Lebanon, explained his travel route, and stated that he was not aware of the fact that his passport had been forged.\n8.  On the same date he submitted an asylum application. He referred to the security problems he had to face in Lebanon, requested the examination of his situation and relied on the fact that he was a stateless person, a Palestinian from a refugee camp.\n9.  The case was subsequently taken over by the Alien Policing Department of the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Police Headquarters. On 13 July 2010 this department forwarded the applicant’s asylum request to the Asylum Authority of the Office of Immigration and Nationality (“OIN”).\n10.  Meanwhile, still on 10 July 2010 the Border Policing Field Unit sent an enquiry to the OIN to find out whether the principle of “non‑refoulement” was applicable in the applicant’s case and his expulsion to Ukraine should be halted. OIN replied in the negative. Subsequently the applicant’s expulsion to Ukraine was ordered together with the imposition of a two-year entry ban, as sanction for illegal border crossing. The expulsion order was in essence based on the Readmission Agreement between Hungary and Ukraine and the non-applicability of the “non‑refoulement” principle. Simultaneously, the execution of the expulsion was however suspended until the necessary means and conditions were secured, but for not longer than six months. The applicant’s alien policing detention was then ordered for 72 hours on the ground that the police had initiated his deportation and that it was necessary to keep him under the authorities’ supervision, as a measure to secure the intended expulsion, pending the Ukrainian authorities’ reply to the Hungarian return initiative. Section 54(1) (b) of the Third Country Nationals Act (see below) was referred to in the decision as the legal ground for the detention, but without substantiating any relevant factual element. The applicant was committed to the Nyírbátor alien policing facility.\n11.  On 12 July 2010 the police filed a motion based on section 54(3) of the Third Country Nationals Act (see below) with the Nyírbátor District Court for an extension of the duration of the alien policing detention beyond the 72-hour time-limit. According to the motion, the reason for prolongation was the fact that the applicant had applied for asylum, which rendered unenforceable his readmission to Ukraine and thus his expulsion. His detention was argued to be necessary until the requirements for his expulsion could be secured.\n12.  On the same day the court granted the extension until the execution of expulsion was possible or until 8 August 2010. It found that it was necessary to extend the alien policing detention", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7084", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Novosibirsk. The second applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Kazan. The third applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Roshal, Moscow Region.\n6.  The applicants are members of the National Bolsheviks Party.\n7.  On 14 December 2004 a group of about forty members of the National Bolsheviks Party occupied the waiting area of the President’s administration building in Moscow and locked themselves in an office on the ground floor.\n8.  They asked for a meeting with the President, the deputy head of the President’s administration and the President’s economic adviser. They handed out leaflets through the windows featuring a printed letter to the President which listed ten ways in which he had allegedly failed to comply with the Constitution and which called for his resignation.\n9.  The intruders stayed in the office for an hour and a half until the police broke down the locked door and arrested them. They did not offer any resistance to the authorities.\n10.  On 16 December 2004 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicants’ detention on the ground that they were suspected of an especially serious criminal offence.\n11.  The applicants were charged, on 21 December 2004, with the attempted violent overthrow of State power (Article 278 of the Criminal Code) and the intentional destruction and degradation of others’ property in public places (Articles 167 § 2 and 214).\n12.  By separate decisions of 8, 9 and 11 February 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicants’ detention until 14 April 2005 on the basis of the gravity of the charges. The court also found that the second applicant had no registered place of residence in Moscow or the Moscow region, and therefore there was a possibility that she might abscond or interfere with the investigation. In respect of the third applicant the court held that his permanent place of residence in the Moscow region, ongoing studies at a university in Moscow, previously clean criminal record and good character references were insufficient to warrant his release, given the gravity of the charges laid against him.\n13.  On 16 February 2005 the applicants’ charge was amended to that of participation in mass disorder, an offence under Article 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n14.  By separate but identically worded decisions of 7 April 2005 the District Court granted the prosecution’s request for an extension of the applicants’ detention until 14 July 2005, for the following reasons:\n“The court takes into account that the case involves forty defendants who have just started, together with their counsel, to study the case file which comprises twelve volumes ... Moreover, the prosecution needs additional time in order to prepare the bill of indictment ...\nHaving regard to the fact that [the first and the second applicants] are not registered with a permanent place of residence in Moscow or the Moscow region and taking into account the gravity of the charges and the prosecutor’s arguments that [the applicants], once released, might flee from justice, the court considers that [the applicants] should remain in custody. ”\n15.  On appeal, counsel for the applicants asked for their release as they had no previous criminal record, had good character references and a permanent place of residence and were in employment or studying at the university. He further submitted that the applicants did not require much time to study the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7085", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962. He is serving a prison sentence in the Orenburg region.\n6.  The applicant was head of the security service of the Yukos oil company.\n7.  On 19 June 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of four counts of murder and attempted murder. The report on the arrest indicated that the suspicion was based on “witness testimony and other materials”.\n8.  On 21 June 2003 the prosecutor asked the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow to remand the applicant in custody.\n9.  The hearing was held on the same day. Counsel for the applicant asked the prosecutor to submit to the court the materials showing the existence of a reasonable suspicion against the applicant. The prosecutor refused, referring to the confidentiality of the investigation. It appears from the hearing record that the following documents were examined at the hearing: the decisions to open criminal proceedings into the murders and concomitant procedural documents, the report on the applicant’s arrest, the record of his questioning and copies of his birth and marriage certificates and medical documents.\n10.  On 21 June 2003 the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow remanded the applicant in custody. The court found that the applicant was suspected of particularly serious offences, and that he might abscond, interfere with the investigation or re-offend.\n11.  In his grounds of appeal of 23 June 2003 counsel for the applicant submitted that there was no reasonable suspicion of the applicant’s involvement in the commission of the murders. The prosecution had not submitted any materials justifying a reasonable suspicion against the applicant and the court had not taken into account the applicant’s character, state of health or family situation.\n12.  On 15 July 2003 the Moscow City Court held an appeal hearing in camera. Three lawyers for the applicant and a prosecutor attended the hearing and made submissions. On the same day the City Court confirmed the remand order of 21 June 2003 on appeal. It found that the remand order had been lawful and the District Court had taken into account the applicant’s character, state of health and family situation. It further held as follows:\n“At this stage the court has no doubt that there are sufficient grounds to suspect Mr Pichugin of the offence under Articles 33 and 105 § 2 (a) of the Russian Criminal Code. The Prosecutor General’s office submitted to the Moscow City Court materials confirming that there are sufficient grounds to suspect Mr Pichugin of the above‑mentioned offence.”\n13.  On 13 August 2003 the Basmanniy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 19 November 2003. It accepted the prosecutor’s arguments that the applicant was charged with particularly serious offences and that he might abscond, destroy evidence or put pressure on witnesses. It also referred to the need for further investigation.\n14.  On 15 August 2003 the applicant appealed. He complained that the prosecution had not demonstrated the existence of concrete facts in support of their argument that the applicant might destroy evidence or put pressure on witnesses. Nor had they justified the need for further investigation. The applicant asked the appeal court to take his frail health into account and to release him on bail or under the personal guarantee of a member of Parliament.\n15.  On 27 August 2003 the Moscow City Court adjourned the appeal hearing at counsel’s request and allowed counsel to study the prosecutor’s request f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7086", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, brothers, were born in 1992 and 1989 respectively. When introducing the application, they were staying at the Debrecen Reception Centre for Refugees, located in Hungary.\n7.  On 1 September 2010 the applicants were transferred from the Netherlands to Hungary under the Dublin II procedure. They were handed over to the Budapest Regional Directorate of the Office of Immigration and Nationality (“OIN”), the competent alien policing authority, and interviewed with the assistance of a Kurdish-Hungarian interpreter on the same day.\n8.  The applicants related that they had left Iraq illegally in early August 2009, travelled through Syria and Turkey and intended to reach the Netherlands. They had arrived in Hungary, also illegally, later in August 2009 and had immediately been intercepted by the police. They had applied for asylum on 1 September 2009. On 7 September 2009 the asylum procedure had however been terminated because they had absconded. They had travelled illegally, apparently assisted by traffickers, to the Netherlands, where they had joined their father and applied for asylum. The Netherlands had started the Dublin II procedure and Hungary had agreed to their readmission. On 1 September 2010 they had been transferred to Hungary under this scheme.\n9.  They alleged that they had been persecuted in Iraq because of their father’s former service in Saddam Hussein’s army and their Kurdish ethnicity. They also claimed that they had no family members living in Iraq.\n10.  After the interview, the alien policing authority ordered the applicants’ expulsion to Iraq, also imposing a five-year entry ban. According to the decision, the expulsion was necessary because they did not fulfil the requirements of legal residence in Hungary. The authority then requested OIN’s asylum directorate to assess whether the principle of “non-refoulement” was applicable. It replied in the negative.\n11.  In the expulsion decision it was mentioned that the applicants’ illegal entry and lack of residence permits constituted a threat to public order. Considering their age and family status, their expulsion would have no negative effect, since they had no connection to Hungary, did not speak Hungarian and had no skills and therefore their livelihood was not secured and the chances of finding employment were low. It was also established that they did not have Hungarian or EU national family members living in Hungary, and although their relatives lived in the Netherlands, they also had some in Iraq, so their social reintegration on return was possible. The applicants were entered into OIN’s asylum registry, but the ongoing asylum procedure was not referred to when the reasons for expulsion were addressed. OIN concluded that the enforcement of immigration rules had priority over the personal and family interests of the applicants, and that expulsion was a necessary and proportionate measure.\n12.  Simultaneously, the execution of the expulsion was suspended by the OIN’s alien policing authority because the means and conditions necessary for its enforcement were not secured, namely the applicants did not have any travel documents or tickets.\n13.  The alien policing authority ordered at the same time the applicants’ alien policing detention for 72 hours, purportedly in order to secure their expulsion. The detention was based on section 54(1)(b) of the Third Country Nationals Act (see below), according to which the immigration authority shall have the power ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7087", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Bucharest.\n7.  At 1 a.m. on 3 May 2006 the applicant and Ms C.B. were sitting in his car, which was parked in a spot where the street lights were not working. A police patrol of two officers from the Public Order Unit of Bucharest Police Section No. 3 approached the car and asked for their identity papers.\n8.  The applicant presented his passport and driving licence for inspection. Police officer D.U. asked him, “Do you think you are at border control?” (“bă, ce te crezi, la vamă?”) and asked him to present his Romanian identity card (cartea de identitate). The police agents checked his identity but then refused to return his papers, claiming that he was drunk. The applicant denied being drunk and offered to go to the Forensic Medicine Institute to have his blood alcohol level tested. The police refused, saying that they were not traffic police.\n9.  Police officer A.H. took the identity papers and went to the police van. Meanwhile, officer D.U. invited the applicant to step out of his car and prove that he was not drunk. When the applicant got out, the police officer pushed him between his car and the wall of a building. The applicant said: “Poor old chap, you’re behaving like a militiaman” (“tataie, te porţi ca un miliţian”). D.U. immediately handcuffed the applicant with his hands in front. He then pulled the handcuffs down, causing the applicant to fall to the ground.\n10.  The two officers then kicked him several times, first in the stomach then in the kidneys. His glasses came off and his mobile phone fell to the ground. The applicant started shouting. The two officers pulled him to his feet and hustled him into their van.\n11.  During this time Ms. C.B. was still inside the applicant’s car and because it was dark she could not see outside. A.H. returned to the applicant’s car and invited Ms. C.B. to accompany them to the police station, which she did. A.H. drove the van and D.U. sat on the back seat with the applicant and continued to punch him in the head, eyes and temples all the way to the police station. The applicant protected his mouth and nose with his handcuffed hands.\n12.  At the police station the applicant was taken to a room in the basement. His glasses and mobile phone were returned to him. He immediately called M.N., a lawyer friend, and told him that he had been beaten up by police officers. The lawyer asked him to pass the phone to one of the police officers. After a phone conversation between the lawyer and agent A.H., the police took the handcuffs off the applicant and allowed him to leave the station, after asking him not to press charges.\n13.  The police agents drafted a report on the incident which they dated 3 May 2006. It was registered with Police Section No. 3 on 29 May 2006.\n14.  They stated that they had approached the applicant’s car as they had noticed that the occupants were having sexual intercourse; they had to insist that the applicant present his passport for identification; after obtaining the identity papers, they had asked Ms. C.B. to get into their van while they drafted the offence report (procesul verbal de contravenţie). At that moment, the applicant became aggressive, threw his glasses, mobile phone and then himself to the ground, shouting that he was being abused by police. Their description of the incident continued as follows:\n“To defuse the situation we decided to handcuff [the applicant] and take him and [Ms C.B.] to the [police station]..", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7088", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Shumen.\n7.  On 21 June 2001 the applicant requested the president of the Shumen Regional Court to inform him in writing whether that court had issued warrants authorising interception of his communications. Later on he specified that his request did not relate to current interception; he merely wished to know whether any such warrants had been issued for past periods. He explained that he needed that information to be able to decide whether or not to bring a tort claim against the authorities.\n8.  On 23 October 2001 the president of the Shumen Regional Court instructed the applicant to specify the exact period in respect of which he sought information, and referred him to the Minister of Internal Affairs.\n9.  On 25 October 2001 the applicant wrote to the Minister, but did not receive a reply.\n10.  He then applied again to the president of the Shumen Regional Court, reiterating his request for information and specifying that it related to the period between 1 January 1996 and 1 November 2001. The president of the court wrote on the request “There has been an answer.”\n11.  The applicant sought judicial review of what he saw as a tacit refusal to provide him the requested information. On 21 July 2003 the Varna Regional Court, to which the case had been transferred, dismissed the applicant’s legal challenge, finding that the information sought by him was classified.\n12.  On an appeal by the applicant, in a final judgment of 12 February 2004 (реш. № 1195 от 12 февруари 2004 г. по адм. д. № 9881/2003 г., ВАС, V о.) the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment. It started by observing that it had to review the tacit refusal’s lawfulness by reference to the factual and legal grounds for the applicant’s request and the presumed reasons for its rejection. It went on to say that although the Constitution enshrined the right to obtain information from a State authority, that right was subject to limitations when, for instance, the information was classified. It was apparent from the relevant provisions of the Special Surveillance Means Act 1997 (see paragraphs 23‑24 below) that information relating to secret surveillance was classified. The refusal to provide such information was therefore compatible with the Constitution and Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant’s argument that the refusal had been in breach of the legislation on protection of personal data was unavailing, because material gathered through secret surveillance fell outside that legislation’s ambit, as did information on whether such surveillance had been authorised. The applicant’s further arguments that the information that he sought was not a State or official secret within the meaning of the Protection of Classified Information Act 2002 and could be divulged because of the expiry of the two‑year time‑limit for its remaining classified were likewise unavailing, because that Act did not apply retrospectively.\n13.  In the meantime, on 30 May 2003 the applicant once more requested the president of the Shumen Regional Court to inform him whether any intercept warrants against him had been issued between 1 November 2001 and 29 May 2003. The court’s president declined to consider the request pending the outcome of the judicial review proceedings outlined in paragraphs 11‑12 above.\n14.  The applicant sought judicial review of what he saw as a tacit refusal to provide him the requested information. On 28 October 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7089", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Varaždin.\n5.  On 12 April 1999 R.M. and A.P. brought a civil action against the applicant in the Pula Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Puli), seeking a possession order in relation to a house and a plot of land in Pula. The claim was allowed on 17 October 2001 but the Pula County Court (Županijski sud u Puli), acting as the court of appeal, on 14 December 2004 quashed the first-instance judgment and ordered a retrial.\n6.  The Pula Municipal Court on 16 September 2005 again allowed R.M. and A.P.’s claim. This judgment was upheld by the second-instance judgment of the Pula County Court of 19 November 2007. On the same day, the Pula County Court issued a separate decision by which the applicant’s appeal concerning the courts’ fees was dismissed. The Pula County Court’s judgment and the decision were forwarded to the Pula Municipal Court on 23 November 2007.\n7.  On 10 December 2007 the Pula Municipal Court served the above decision of the Pula County Court, by which the applicant’s appeal concerning the courts’ fees was dismissed, on the applicant’s representative, B.Č. a lawyer from Varaždin. The applicant’s representative was also served with a warning-letter concerning the payment of the courts’ fees. The service note reads:\n“Case file no.: X-P-214/05\nAct to be served: II-instance decision of 23 November 2007\nNumber of attachments: warning-letter\nOn address: B.Č., ..., Varaždin\nServed on: tenth-December 2007\nServed to: [stamp of lawyer B.Č. and a handwritten signature]”\n8.  The Pula Municipal Court dismissed further the applicant’s objection concerning an order for payment of the courts’ fees on 19 February 2008. Against this decision the applicant lodged an appeal with the Pula County Court and on 7 April 2008 the Pula County Court issued a decision by which it dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n9.  On 12 September 2008 the Pula Municipal Court served the second-instance judgment of the Pula County Court of 19 November 2007 on the applicant’s representative. It appears from the service note of 12 September 2008 that together with the second-instance judgment, the Pula Municipal Court served a second-instance decision of the Pula County Court.\n“Case file no.: X-P-214/05\nAct to be served: II-instance judgment\n II-instance decision\nOn address: B.Č., ..., Varaždin\nServed on: twelfth-September 2008\nServed to: [stamp of lawyer B.Č. and a handwritten signature]”\n10.  Against the second-instance judgment of the Pula County Court, by which the judgment of the Pula Municipal Court of 16 September 2005 was upheld, the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 11 October 2008.\n11.  In his constitutional complaint the applicant complained about the interpretation of the relevant domestic law by the lower courts which he considered arbitrary and which had therefore deprived him of the right to a fair trial. He argued in particular that the Pula Municipal Court had not had jurisdiction in the matter; that the operative part of the judgment of that court could not be enforced since it was vague; that the part of the plot of land at dispute had been used for public purposes and as such could not be an object of private ownership; and that he had used the plot of land as its owner for specific purposes which had excluded any possibility of his dispossession. The applicant asked the Constitutional Court to quash the judgments of the lower cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7090", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Sutomore.\n6.  On 25 June 1991 the applicant was made redundant.\n7.  On 29 June 1991 and on 2 December 1993 the applicant filed two claims seeking reinstatement and compensation, one against his former employer, and one against the institution which, in the meantime, had taken over the functions from his former employer (Republički zavod za geodetske i imovinskopravne poslove; hereinafter “the Institution”).\n8.  On 28 February 1994 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Bar ruled against the applicant upon his claim against the Institution.\n9.  On 27 May 1994 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica overturned this judgment and ruled in favour of the applicant.\n10.  On 9 November 1994 the two sets of proceedings were joined into a single lawsuit. On the same day the Court of First Instance in Bar ruled in respect of the claim against the former employer, awarding the applicant damages. This judgment became final (pravosnažna) in January 1995. The proceedings against the Institution continued.\n11.  On 30 May 1995 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) in Podgorica quashed the two judgments rendered in respect of the Institution (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above) and ordered a re-trial.\n12.  It would appear that on 8 December 1999 the Court of First Instance in Bar rendered a decision that the applicant’s claim had been withdrawn (tužba povučena), which decision was apparently quashed by the High Court in Podgorica on 16 May 2000.\n13.  On 27 February 2006 the Court of First Instance in Bar ruled against the applicant.\n14.  On 4 November 2008 the High Court in Podgorica upheld this judgment.\n15.  On 16 June 2009 the Supreme Court in Podgorica dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law (revizija).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7091", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are brothers. They were born in 1954 and 1956 and live in Neratovice (the Czech Republic) and Prešov (Slovakia) respectively.\n6.  The applicants’ father owned a piece of real estate located in the centre of the city of Prešov, which comprised a plot of land and buildings standing on it.\n7.  On their father’s death in 1964, the applicants each inherited half of that estate.\n8.  The estate was subsequently seized by a State-owned enterprise and some of the buildings were torn down and new ones built. The new buildings included a garage.\n9.  In the early 1990s the State-owned enterprise was privatised and transformed into a joint stock company.\n10.  In 1992 the applicants brought an action for removal of the garage and vacant possession of their land. This action and its outcome is the main subject matter of the present application. The details are given below.\n11.  In 2004 title to a portion of the real estate, which included the garage, was transferred from the joint-stock company to three individuals. Consequently, the action of 1992 was redirected against them.\n12.  In 2005 the applicants brought another action seeking a judicial ruling declaring them to be the owners of the plot on which the garage was situated and of an adjacent plot. The action was directed against the three beneficiaries of the transfer of 2004 (see previous paragraph).\n13.  On 27 September 2006, following a hearing held on the same day, at which the defendants acknowledged the applicants’ title, the Prešov District Court (Okresný súd) allowed the action of 2005.\n14.  On 15 November 2006, on the basis of the ruling of 27 September 2006, the applicants and the defendants settled their differences by exchanging title to the garage for title to the adjacent plot, under the judgment mentioned above, and by setting off their mutual financial claims, including those under the judgments mentioned below.\n15.  On 27 February 1992 the applicants lodged an action with the District Court seeking a judicial order for removal of the garage and vacant possession of their land.\n16.  The District Court ruled on the action on 13 December 1995 and 18 November 1997. These judgments were quashed on appeal (odvolanie) and the action was remitted by the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) on 16 April 1997 and the Prešov Regional Court on 22 November 1998 respectively.\n17.  On 30 September 2005 the District Court ruled on the action anew. It relied on the above-mentioned decision of the Prešov Regional Court of 22 November 1998 in acknowledging that the applicants were the owners of the land on which the garage stood and that the garage had been constructed on that land without the consent of its owners. The garage was therefore considered an “unlawful construction”. It was not practicable (účelné) to remove the garage or to have the applicants take over title to it. The situation had to be resolved under Article 135c § 3 of the Civil Code by establishing an easement for the benefit of the owners of the garage and by ordering that they pay the applicants compensation in an amount equivalent to some 3,050 euros (EUR). The amount of compensation was determined on the basis of an expert assessment with reference to existing prices as opposed to future prices.\n18.  On 11 April 2006 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 30 September 2005 following appeals by both the applicants and the defendants. The Regional Court fully endorsed the reasoning provided by the Dis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7092", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Bratislava.\n6.  On 28 January 1996 the applicant, in his capacity as an architect, concluded a contract with the Customs Directorate of the Slovak Republic (Colné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky) in which he agreed to produce project documentation for a border crossing between Slovakia and Hungary in return for a fee.\n7.  On 20 April 2000 the Customs Directorate brought a civil action against the applicant for late completion of the documentation, seeking an order for the payment of a contractual penalty as well as late-payment interest on that penalty.\n8.  On 24 September 2003 the Bratislava V District Court (Okresný súd) dismissed the action, but its judgment was quashed by the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) following an appeal (odvolanie) by the applicant. At the same time, the case was remitted to the District Court for re-examination.\n9.  On 6 June 2005 the District Court allowed the action. It found that the applicant and the defendant had agreed on a contractual penalty amounting to 0.1% of the agreed fee per day of delay on the part of the applicant. It also found that the deadline for the applicant to fulfil his obligations under the contract had been 31 July 1997 and that the applicant had not done so until 8 March 1998. The applicant appealed.\n10.  On 19 October 2005 the Regional Court declared the appeal inadmissible as having been lodged outside the statutory appeal period. It applied a legal fiction under Article 47 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 99/1963 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time), pursuant to which the commencement of the appeal period in the given circumstances is determined with reference to the third day after a written copy of the contested decision has been deposited for the appellant at the local post office, irrespective of when the decision is actually received by the appellant (see paragraph 37 below). The applicant challenged the decision of the Regional Court by way of an appeal on points of law (dovolanie) to the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd).\n11.  The applicant’s appeal on points of law per se had no suspensive effect and, consequently, the judgment of 6 June 2005 was considered final and binding (see section D on “Enforcement” below).\n12.  However, on 19 April 2006, the Supreme Court made a separate ruling suspending the effects of the judgment of 6 June 2005 pending the outcome of the appeal on points of law.\n13.  On 7 December 2006 the Supreme Court, having found that the statutory requirements for applying the above-mentioned legal fiction had not been met, quashed the decision of 19 October 2005 and remitted the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s judgment of 6 June 2005 to the Regional Court.\n14.  It was then incumbent on the Regional Court to re-examine the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of the District Court of 6 June 2005.\n15.  On 20 June 2007 the Regional Court upheld the judgment of 6 June 2005 in so far as the applicant had been ordered to pay the contractual penalty. However, it reversed the ruling that the applicant should pay interest on the contractual fine. It held that a contractual fine and late‑payment interest had both the nature of a sanction and that cumulating these two sanction mechanisms was excluded by the nature of things.\n16.  A written version of the Regional Court’s judgment of 20 June 2007 was received by the District Court on 12 July 2007. It was then incumbent on the Di", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7093", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Yekaterinburg.\n6.  On 6 March 2003 the applicant, an investigator with the prosecutor’s office, was charged with abuse of power. In particular, he was accused of having forged a court decision ordering the release of a rape suspect, and subsequent concealment and theft of the relevant criminal case-file. On an unspecified date the applicant signed an undertaking not to leave town.\n7.  From 27 January to 5 February 2004 the applicant, who had earlier been diagnosed with bladder cancer, was placed in hospital.\n8.  On 9 February 2004 the Verkh-Yesetskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg remanded the applicant in custody pending investigation. The court considered that the applicant’s failure to notify the investigator of his admission to hospital was in contravention of his undertaking not to leave town. The applicant was arrested on the same day.\n9.  On 5 March 2004 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 9 February 2004 on appeal. The appeal court considered that the court’s findings and its decision to remand the applicant in custody had been “premature”. The applicant was released on 10 March 2004.\n10.  On 11 March 2004 the applicant was admitted to hospital, where he underwent surgery. He was discharged from hospital on 24 March 2004.\n11.  On 14 March 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year’s detention in a correctional settlement. The applicant was remanded in custody on the same day.\n12.  On 29 June 2005 the Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. The applicant and his lawyer participated in the hearing by means of a video teleconference.\n13.  From 9 February to 10 March 2004 and from 15 March to 3 August 2005 the applicant was detained in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 in Yekaterinburg.\n(a)  Period from 9 February to 10 March 2004\n14.  According to the applicant, from 9 February to 10 March 2004 he was detained in cell no. 602, which was severely overcrowded. The cell was infested with bed bugs and other insects. The food was of very poor quality. He did not have access to any medical assistance.\n(b)  Period from 15 March to 3 August 2005\n(i)  The description provided by the Government\n15.  According to the Government, on 15 March 2005 the applicant was placed in cell no. 311, which measured 30 sq. m and was equipped with twelve sleeping places. According to the remand prison population register submitted by the Government, the number of inmates held in the cell during the period in question varied from 13 to 27, with three exceptions when the cell held twelve inmates on 1 April, 11 June and 2 August 2005.\n16.  The cell was equipped with natural and artificial ventilation which was in good working order. The cell had two windows covered with metal bars which did not prevent access of daylight. The artificial lighting was in compliance with the applicable specifications and was on from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. At night low-voltage bulbs were used to maintain lighting in the cell. The toilet was located in the corner of the cell near the entrance door and was separated from the living area of the cell by a brick wall which was one metre high and ensured the privacy of the person using it. The distance between the toilet and the dining table was 3 m. The closest sleeping place was located 2.5 m away from the toilet. The applicant was at all times provided with an individual sleeping place, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7095", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  In 1996-1999 the applicant and his associates, acting on behalf of an organisation named “The National Land Use Association” (региональная общественная Ассоциация “Народное землепользование”) they had set up earlier, bought plots of land around Moscow destined exclusively for agricultural use and then, having reconfigured these plots into smaller pieces, transferred them to the organisation’s members, giving them reason to believe that the land could be used for building purposes.\n7.  On 10 January 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of fraud (Article 159 of the Criminal Code) and forgery (Article 327 of the Criminal Code).\n8.  On 7 December 2000 the applicant was charged with forgery and he signed an undertaking not to leave his place of residence.\n9.  In 2001 and 2002 the applicant was on two occasions held in pre-trial detention. He spent six months in custody altogether.\n10.  On 25 June 2002 the pre-trial investigation was completed and on 12 July 2002 the case was allocated to the Babushkinskiy District Court (Moscow) for judicial examination. The case concerned the applicant and seven co-defendants.\n11.  The first hearing was scheduled for 11 August 2003.\n12.  According to the applicant, in the period from August 2003 to July 2005 the case was assigned to six different judges of the Babushkinskiy District Court, which meant the trial had to start anew on each replacement.\n13.  Hearings were adjourned on 2, 7 and 31 October, 6, 12 and 28 November, and 9 and 17 December 2003, and 21 January and 5 and 24 May 2004 because three of the co-defendants, all elderly persons, were unwell.\n14.  On 5 May 2004 the trial court suspended the criminal proceedings in respect of the three co-defendants as they were seriously ill. The court acknowledged the protracted character of the proceedings.\n15.  On 21 February 2006 the court ordered a forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant and suspended the examination of the case. On an unspecified date in December 2006 (date impossible to read in the relevant document) the case file was returned from the forensic psychiatric examination without having been examined. The accompanying letter stated that the examination had not been performed because the applicant had twice failed to appear (on 14 November and 5 December 2006). The proceedings were resumed on 28 December 2006. It appears that the examination in question has never been conducted.\n16.  On 15, 19 and 27 June, 2, 10, 11, 13, 20 and 25 July, 6, 7, 13, 14, 17, 21 and 27 August, 10, 20, 24 and 28 September, and 4, 11 and 15 October 2007, hearings were adjourned because the applicant and two co-defendants failed to appear.\n17.  On 24, 26, 29 and 31 October, and 2 and 6 November 2007, the court ordered the applicant to attend the pleadings and the pronouncement of the judgment, but to no avail.\n18.  In the meantime, on 16 October 2007 the proceedings against the applicant were severed from those concerning the remaining co-defendants.\n19.  According to the Government, during the proceedings the trial court heard over 600 victims and 44 witnesses. To speed up the proceedings the court read out statements by those victims and witnesses who had failed to appear and dismissed the prosecutor’s requests to obtain the attendance of a number of witnesses and victims.\n20.  According to the applicant, however, only forty victims and no witnesses were q", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7096", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Tarnów. The second applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Lisia Góra. The first applicant is a journalist working for TEMI, a local weekly newspaper published in Tarnów. The second applicant is the editor-in-chief of that weekly.\n6.  TEMI published a series of six articles entitled “Marek C. in episodes” which were written by the first applicant. Marek C. [M.C.] was a local councillor and vice-chairman of the Tarnów Municipal Council. In the issue of 28 January 2004 the weekly published the first article about M.C. It began as follows:\n“M.C. is certainly a colourful character. This Tarnów councillor, serving his third mandate on the municipal council, tried to become the President of Poland and a member of the Senate. Currently, he is involved in many court cases and is again becoming the subject of scandals.\nEveryone remembers well that at the beginning of winter Councillor C. was involved in the eviction of two pregnant women from a flat located at ... Street in Tarnów. Everyone also remembers the explanation of C. who described one of the evicted women as running a shebeen and suggested that she together with her daughter were women of easy virtue. ...\nPeople don’t want to speak about C. And if they do, they speak about him as if he were dead – either well or nothing. Otherwise they risk to be taken to court and charged with defamation or breach of his personal rights. The list of persons who have met him in a courtroom is long and new names appear on it all the time. ...”\nIn the subsequent part of the article the first applicant described M.C.’s career as a local politician. Basing herself on information received under conditions of anonymity from M.C.’s former collaborators and fellow councillors, she portrayed him as an overbearing, self-centred and ruthless person. She further stated that M.C. had been involved in many, mostly unsuccessful, political ventures and after every lost election he created a new political grouping.\n7.  In the issue of 4 February 2004, the weekly published the second article in the series. It read as follows:\n“For years the activity of M.C. has been based on balancing on the edge of the law, and even on breaking it. C. is most frequently accused of denigrating people and undermining their authority and of disseminating untruthful information about them. This includes information which suggests corruption links between people whom C. dislikes for reasons exclusively known to him. And that is how the articles and paragraphs of the Criminal Code which are being breached by councillor C. – without much notice on his part – proliferate.\nColleagues on the [municipal] council\nPeople still don’t want to speak about C. Are they afraid? Of what? Z.J., formerly for many years chairman of the Tarnów Municipal Council, refused to speak. Similarly, J.R., former mayor, did not want to say anything. (...)\nHowever, A.K., the current chairman of the Municipal Board spoke:\n“M.C. is a very touchy person, often he does not weigh his words. Even if a mild opinion is expressed about him, he still considers himself to be offended. At the same time he uses words which in the language of people with at least a minimum of good manners are considered inappropriate. I said already once to Mr C. that his character was not oriented on construction, but on destruction. (...)”\nMayor M.B. does not want to comment on councillor C.’s behaviour. He says that not because he is afraid, bu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7097", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  By contracts signed in 1994, in respect of donations inter vivos, the applicants became the owners of five plots of land on the island of Kundziņsala. This island, situated close to the mouth of the Daugava River, is part of the city of Riga, to which it is connected by a road bridge and a railway line. It mainly consists of port facilities, with a small residential area in its southern part.\n11.  The first applicant acquired a plot of land of 17,998 sq. m under a contract of donation with Mrs P. dated 21 April 1994. The transfer of title was entered in the land register by the Land Registry Division of the city of Riga (Rīgas pilsētas Zemesgrāmatu nodaļa) on 26 July 1994. The second applicant became the owner of:\n(a)  a plot of land measuring 11,000 sq. m, under a contract of donation with Mrs J. dated 21 April 1994 (entered in the land register on the same day);\n(b)  a plot of land measuring 7,150 sq. m, under a contract of donation with Mr O. dated 21 April 1994 (entered in the land register on the same day);\n(c)  a plot of land measuring 10,970 sq. m, under a contract of donation with the same Mr O. dated 12 September 1994 (entered in the land register on the next day, 13 September 1994); and\n(d)  a plot of land measuring 18,620 sq. m, under a contract of donation with Mrs D. dated 28 June 1994 (entered in the land register on the same day).\n12.  The clauses of the contracts in question were practically identical. The contract entered into by the first applicant stipulated that the second applicant was acting as the donor’s representative. Similarly, it was stated in the first three contracts entered into by the second applicant (see points (a), (b) and (c) of the previous paragraph) that the first applicant was acting on behalf of the donors.\n13.  The donors were all the heirs of the legitimate owners of the land in question, which had been expropriated by the Soviet Union after 1940. They had recovered ownership in the context of the “denationalisation” process in the early 1990s. According to the applicants’ explanations, which were not contested by the Government, the donations had been made in return for certain personal services that the applicants had rendered to the donors. Mrs D. had thus given her land to the second applicant by way of remuneration for having helped her to complete the formalities to obtain restitution of her nineteen properties located throughout Latvia. Mrs J. had apparently been a longstanding friend of the second applicant, whilst the donor of the other two plots, Mr O., had given them to him as a token of gratitude because he had covered the cost of expensive heart surgery. As to the first applicant, he had become the owner of his land in return for undisclosed services rendered.\n14.  Each of the above-mentioned contracts stipulated that the value of the plots of land in question was fixed at 500 Latvian lati (LVL; about 705 euros (EUR)), except for the plot of 10,970 sq. m, which was valued at LVL 1,000 (about EUR 1,410). The parties agreed that the said value was not the cadastral value of the land in question (that is to say, the reference value for the calculation of land tax), but an indicative sum solely for the purposes of calculating the registration tax, which at the time represented 10% of the property’s value. Indeed, according to the applicants’ explanations, which have not been challenged by the Government, cadastral values did not exist at the relevant time and the sole basis of cal", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7098", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Artur Buishvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1975 and is currently an asylum seeker in the Czech Republic.\n6.  On 7 March 2011 the applicant was transferred to the Czech Republic from the Netherlands under EU Regulation no. 343/2003/EC (the Dublin Regulation) and applied for asylum. He was held at the reception centre for asylum seekers at Prague airport. On his arrival he handed the staff of the reception centre medical records issued in Georgia and the Netherlands, showing that he was suffering from hepatitis C and had been treated at a hospital neurology department.\n7.  On 9 March 2011 the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”) refused the applicant entry to the territory of the Czech Republic: that is, it refused to allow him to leave the reception centre. The applicant had not been interviewed before the decision was taken. He applied for judicial review, seeking to have the refusal quashed, arguing in particular that his medical condition was incompatible with his being in the reception centre.\n8.  On 6 April 2011 the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) quashed the refusal, on the grounds that the Ministry had first to consider whether the applicant was a vulnerable person under section 73(7) of the Asylum Act, in view of his medical condition, and thus whether he was to be allowed to enter the country. It added that the applicant must be heard in person.\n9.  On 11 April 2011 the Ministry again refused the applicant entry to the country. It held that he was suffering from an ordinary illness, which did not require any specialist treatment, and that he was receiving appropriate treatment at the reception centre.\n10.  On 13 May 2011 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s request for judicial review of the second refusal, stating that his state of health did not require him to be hospitalised. Moreover, as his medical treatment had not yet started, his transfer to a medical facility was not necessary. If the situation changed a fresh assessment might be required.\n11.  On 28 April and 23 May 2011 the applicant once again requested leave to enter the country. The Ministry did not decide on his requests, relying on section 73(6) of the Asylum Act, which stipulated that a foreigner was not entitled to lodge a new request for leave to enter the country until one month had passed since the rejection of a previous one. It added, though, that it was proprio motu continuing to review the existence of the reasons for the applicant’s detention.\n12.  On 6 June 2011 the Ministry granted the applicant entry to enable him to have medical treatment. It took into account his latest medical reports; the impossibility for him to have treatment at the reception centre and the impossibility for him to have treatment at Motol Hospital because of lack of facilities.\n13.  On 27 October 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court (Nejvyšší správní soud) quashed the 13 May 2011 judgment and remitted the case to the Municipal Court, holding that it was insufficiently reasoned.\n14.  On 10 November 2011 the Municipal Court again rejected the applicant’s request for judicial review. The applicant did not lodge an appeal on points of law, as by then he was no longer detained.\n15.   The asylum proceedings seem to be still pending.\n16.  On 19 April 2011 the applicant was examined by a specialist at Motol Hospital, who concluded that he was suffering from hepatitis C and that the requisite medical treatment should begin as soon a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7100", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Orsk, Orenburg Region.\n6.  At 1 p.m. on 23 July 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter. According to the applicant, a certain investigator, K., and officers from the police department of the Oktyabrskiy District of Orsk beat him severely in order to obtain a confession. K. hit the applicant in the jaw whereupon he fell down onto the floor. A police officer then hit him on the head with an object which appeared to be a mobile phone. Other officers kicked him many times. A plastic bag was placed over his head and the applicant then lost consciousness. After an ambulance had been summoned by the police officers and medical help had arrived, the beatings ceased.\n7.  On 24 July 2003 the applicant’s lawyer submitted a request for the applicant to be examined by a forensic medical expert. The examination took place on the same day. According to the Government, it was conducted some time after 11.30 a.m. The expert established that the applicant had a bruise on his left jaw, caused by the impact of a hard blunt object approximately twenty-four hours beforehand. The expert also noted that the applicant complained of pain in the parietal region of his head as well as sickness and dizziness. In the expert’s opinion, the applicant did not sustain any serious physical damage .\n8.  On 25 July 2003 the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. IZ 56/2 in Orsk. Upon arrival, he was examined by a doctor, who recorded in the registration log that the applicant had no visible injuries.\n9.  On 12 August 2003 the applicant filed a complaint about ill-treatment with the district prosecutor’s office.\n10.  On 15 August 2003 the deputy district prosecutor Ch. dismissed the applicant’s complaint. In his decision, he stated as follows:\n“In response to the complaint, [the prosecutor’s office] ... studied the materials from the criminal case file [against the applicant].\nIt has been established that ... the investigation in respect of [the applicant] has been in compliance with the rules of criminal procedure and that the [applicant’s] allegations of ill-treatment have not been confirmed. This finding is based, inter alia, on the results of the forensic medical examination undergone by [the applicant].”\n11.  On 1 October 2003 the applicant filed another complaint with the district prosecutor’s office about the beatings he had allegedly received in police custody. On 3 October 2003 the investigator K.- who was also in charge of the criminal investigation against the applicant - dismissed his allegations as unsubstantiated based on the statements made by three policemen. On 10 October 2003 the deputy district prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint once again.\n12.  On 20 December 2003 the deputy district prosecutor upheld the decision of 3 October 2003 on appeal.\n13.  On 29 August 2005 the acting district prosecutor set aside the decision of 3 October 2003 noting that the inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had been incomplete. In particular, the investigator had failed to question the applicant and the alleged perpetrators of the ill-treatment and to identify and question other possible witnesses.\n14.  At the beginning of September 2005 the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor questioned the applicant, who gave a description of the police officer who had allegedly hit him with “an object looking like a mobile phone”. The prosecutor then questioned", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7101", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Luduş, Mureş County.\n7.  According to the applicant, on 30 April 2001 his employer, I.N., reported informally to two police officers, N.D. and C.B., that some money had been stolen from his house and that he suspected the applicant of the theft. The two officers rushed to arrest the applicant in the street, handcuffed him in front of other people and then took him to the police station by car. There, the applicant was kept handcuffed and the police agents hit him continuously, forcing him to confess that he had stolen the money.\nThe applicant signed a confession.\n8.  Afterwards he was taken, still handcuffed, to his parents’ house, where the police agents performed a search. They found 1,000,000 Romanian lei (RON), which they seized and handed over directly to I.N.\n9.  According to the applicant, during the search of the house the two police agents continued to hit him in front of his parents and tried to get him to reveal where the rest of the money was hidden. As he refused to do so, he was taken back to the police station, where he was hit again until I.N. took pity on him and asked the two agents to release him. He then took the applicant back to his house, where he declared in front of those present: “I took Ilie out of the police station and brought him home. He had been so severely beaten by the police that I felt pity for him.”\n10.  On 2 May 2001 following an official complaint about the theft lodged by I.N., the applicant was again taken to the police station, where, it was alleged, the abuse continued.\n11.  On 8 October 2001 the applicant gave a statement before Luduş Police concerning the accusations of theft against him. He retracted his previous confessions and accused the two police officers, N.D. and C.B., of beating and threatening him on 30 April and 2 May to make him confess. He lodged a complaint against them for abuse of position and wrongful arrest without a legal basis.\n12.  On 13 December 2001 the prosecutor attached to the Luduş District Court sent the applicant’s complaint to the Military Prosecutor’s Office at the Târgu-Mureş Military County Court. The complaint was subsequently lodged with the Military Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Bucharest Military County Court, to be examined under Article 266 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The said provision prohibits the use of promises, threats or violence to obtain statements from a person under criminal investigation.\n13.  Before the military prosecutor, two witnesses declared that they did not know anything about the case and had not witnessed the events. One witness declared that he had seen the applicant being hit by the police officers and arrested. Another witness, a neighbour who saw the applicant being taken to the police station, declared that one of the police officers had hit the applicant and pushed him into the car like a “bag of potatoes”. The accused police officers and I.N. denied having hit or threatened the applicant.\n14.  On 12 June 2002 the military prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint against the two police officers.\nThe prosecutor noted that the applicant did not put forward any medical evidence and considered it “hard to believe that the victim wouldn’t have gone to the forensic doctor, if he had injuries”. He also noted that the applicant had failed to make a complaint against the police officers. The prosecutor lastly noted that the witnesses’ statements were contradictory.\nHe concluded tha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7102", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Troitsko-Antropovo, the Moscow Region.\n6.  The applicant is a military doctor, with the rank of colonel, in the medical military service. Prior to his criminal prosecution, he was head of the department of dermatology of the hospital of military unit no. 93240 based in the town of Krasnoznamensk, the Moscow Region.\n7.  On 22 February 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with the death of one E., whose body had been found on the outskirts of the town of Krasnoznamensk.\n8.  At 4 p.m on 1 March 2002 the applicant was arrested in his office by colonel B., head of the Department of the Interior of the town of Krasnoznamensk, on suspicion of involvement in the above-mentioned incident.\n9.  Thereafter the applicant was escorted to the Temporary Detention Unit of the Krasnoznamensk Town Department of the Interior and remained there for the next eight hours.\n10.  The applicant submitted that colonel B. and officer A. interrogated him for four hours. They allegedly delivered blows to his feet with a rubber truncheon and to his head with a bullet-proof jacket and demanded he confess.\n11.  At around 11.30 p.m. a doctor arrived and gave him an injection of what the applicant believed was a “psychoactive drug”. The interrogation then resumed.\n12.  The next morning the applicant’s condition had deteriorated and the doctor gave him another injection of the same “psychoactive drug”. It appears that both injections were related to the applicant’s diabetes.\n13.  The applicant alleged that he had been transported to a hospital where he was given some medicines in connection with his diabetes and then at once transported back to the Town Department of the Interior.\n14.  On 4 March 2002 the applicant’s detention on remand was ordered by investigator D. This order was approved by the prosecutor on the same date.\n15.  On the same day a medical report was issued by a doctor, in which the applicant was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The applicant alleged that the ambulance had come six times on that day in connection with his diabetes condition.\n16.  On 5 March 2002 the military prosecutor of the Krasnoznamenskiy Garrison K. identified the applicant and two other individuals as suspects in the case. On the same date he questioned the applicant as a suspect in the presence of his counsel.\n17.  On 6 March 2002 charges of intentional infliction of serious bodily harm leading to death were brought against the applicant. As of that date he became the accused in that criminal case.\n18.  As the applicant’s medical condition deteriorated, on 10 April 2002 the investigator, acting with the consent of the prosecutor, changed the preventive measure applied to the applicant from detention on remand to an undertaking not to leave the hospital in which he would receive his medical treatment for diabetes or his home town of Krasnoznamensk. It was noted specifically that the change was due to the applicant’s poor state of health.\n19.  It appears that between 2 and 6 March 2002, except for a stay for a few hours in an unspecified hospital on 2 March 2002 (see paragraph 13), the applicant was held in the Temporary Detention Ward of the Department of the Interior of the Town of Odintsovo of the Moscow Region. He submitted that there had been no proper beds or bedding, that the temperature in the cell had been very low all the time, that there had been no windows to allow fresh air to enter, there had b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7103", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Lublin. He was the owner of a pawnshop.\n6.  On 11 June 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of large-scale fraud committed while acting as a leader of an organised criminal group. He was further suspected of extortion and threatening witnesses. The investigation was conducted by the Department of Organised Crime of the Lublin Regional Prosecutor’s Office.\n7.  On 12 June 2001 the Lublin District Court remanded the applicant in detention, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It invoked the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings by attempting to bring pressure to bear on other members of the criminal group. The applicant appealed. On 5 July 2001 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the appeal. It noted that the applicant’s arguments that the allegations made against him had been false would be examined by the court determining the charges. It also found that the risk of obstruction of proceedings was supported by the charge of threatening witnesses.\n8.  On 27 November 2001 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor charged the applicant with additional offences, namely aggravated fraud, attempted fraud, unlawful possession of a weapon (a gas gun), unlawful possession of amphetamine and preparing the forgery of certain documents.\n9.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended by the Lublin District Court several times. In its decisions, the court relied on the likelihood that a severe prison sentence would be imposed on him. It also underlined the risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings. That risk was exemplified by the nature of several of the charges against him (extortion and threatening of witnesses) indicating that the applicant could attempt to exert pressure on other persons. Further, the court referred to the need to continue the process of obtaining evidence. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against the decisions.\n10.  On 8 July 2002 the applicant was additionally charged with corrupting a police officer.\n11.  On 5 December 2002 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Lublin District Court. The applicant was charged with the following offences: 1) leading an organised criminal group engaged in fraud, 2) fraud to the value of 65,016 PLN to the detriment of numerous companies, 3) aggravated fraud to the value of PLN 1,146,658.6 to the detriment of coal mines, 4) attempted fraud to the value of 194,287.44 to the detriment of an IT company, 5) forgery of documents, 6) fraud, 7) extortion, 8) threatening a witness, 9) unlawful possession of a gas gun, 10) possession of amphetamines, 11) corrupting a police officer and 12) putting into circulation forged bank notes. There were eleven other co-defendants in the case.\n12.  The detention of the applicant was subsequently extended by the Lublin District Court and the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 9 December 2002 (until 14 May 2003), 21 May 2003 (until 11 October 2003), 1 August 2003 (until 11 February 2004), 4 February 2004 (until 11 November 2004), 8 September 2004 (until 11 December 2004), 9 December 2004 (until 11 April 2005), 6 April 2005 (until 11 September 2005), 7 September 2005 (until 11 January 2006) and 5 January 2006 (until 11 September 2006). The courts repeated the grounds given in the previous decisions and addit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7105", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1977, 1969, 1961 and 1959 respectively and live in Budesti and Chişinău.\n7.  The present case concerns the circumstances surrounding the death of Leonid Ghimp, who was the first applicant’s husband, the second and the third applicants’ sibling and the fourth applicant’s brother-in-law.\n8.  Leonid Ghimp, who was thirty-five years old at the time of the events in question and the father of two children aged six and ten years old, worked as a truck driver. On Saturday 10 December 2005 at approximately eight o’clock in the morning he went to work in order to load his truck and prepare it for the following Monday. According to witnesses, he finished work at approximately 2 p.m. After that and before going home, he spent time enjoying drinks with his co-workers, first at their workplace and later in two bars. At approximately 10.00 p.m. he left the bar and took a taxi. He subsequently had a dispute with the taxi driver because the driver had allegedly not taken him to the agreed destination. Because he refused to pay the fare, the taxi driver drove him to Ciocana police station. According to witnesses from the police station, the taxi driver left after a short time and after being paid by Leonid Ghimp. The report of the latter’s arrest, however, stated that he had been found drunk and sleeping at a bus station. There was no mention of the incident with the taxi driver in the report.\n9.  According to the applicants, at the police station, Leonid Ghimp was beaten up by three police officers: A.P., S.C. and I.B, and was left lying in the corridor on a dirty concrete floor. He was released the next morning at approximately 11 a.m.\n10.  According to the accused police officers, Leonid Ghimp was not beaten up at the police station and was told that he was free to go shortly after being brought in. However, being severely intoxicated he refused to leave and preferred to sleep on the floor until the next morning.\n11.  After being released at approximately 11 a.m. the next day, Leonid Ghimp went home. According to his wife and a person who had seen him walking home, he was pale and walking very slowly. He told his wife that he had stomach ache and spent all day in bed. Only later during the evening, after the pain had intensified, did he tell his wife about the beating at the police station. He told her that the pain had started after a blow to his stomach which had caused him to feel a sharp pain and lose his breath. Later during the night Leonid Ghimp started vomiting and his wife called an ambulance, which took him to a hospital. On 12 December 2005 at 6.35 a.m. Leonid Ghimp died in hospital.\n12.  On an unspecified date the first applicant informed the Prosecutor’s Office of Leonid Ghimp’s account of his beating at Ciocana police station. On 5 January 2006 criminal proceedings were initiated by the Ciocana Prosecutor’s Office.\n13.  An autopsy report dated 23 January 2006 stated that his death had resulted from diffuse purulent peritonitis after a perforated ulcer of the small intestine. The perforated ulcer had developed after a blow with a blunt object with a small impact area, possibly on the night of 10 December 2005.\n14.  In another forensic report dated 31 May 2006, a panel of forensic doctors composed of doctors G.M., N.S. and I.C., after examining the victim’s medical documents and his exhumed corpse, came to a similar conclusion, namely that he had died as a result of a rupture of the small intestine resultin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7106", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1993 and 1974 respectively and live in Lublin.\n6.  On 9 April 2008 the first applicant went with a friend to the Public University Health Care Unit in Lublin. She said that she had been raped on 8 April 2008 by a boy of her own age. The medical staff told her that they could neither examine her nor provide medical assistance because she was a minor and the consent of her legal guardian was necessary. Dr E.D. reported the case to the police and notified the first applicant’s parents.\n7.  Later that day, after reporting that an offence of rape had been committed, the applicants attended at Public University Hospital no. 4 in Lublin, accompanied by a female police officer. The second applicant gave her consent for an examination of her daughter to be carried out. The first applicant was in a state of emotional shock. At the hospital, psychological help was offered to her. Bruises on her body were confirmed by a family doctor several days after the alleged event took place, between 9 and 14 April 2008.\n8.  The rape resulted in pregnancy. The applicants decided together that an abortion would be the best option, considering that the first applicant was a very young minor, that the pregnancy was the result of forced intercourse, and that she wanted to pursue her education.\n9.  On 19 May 2008 the first applicant was questioned by the police. Her mother and the alleged perpetrator’s defence lawyer were present during the questioning. The first applicant stated that the perpetrator had used force to hold her down and to overcome her resistance.\n10.  On 20 May 2008 the District Prosecutor, referring to section 4 (a) item 5 in fine of the Law on Family Planning (Protection of the Human Foetus and Conditions Permitting Pregnancy Termination) (“the 1993 Act”) (see paragraph 54 below) issued a certificate stating that the first applicant’s pregnancy had resulted from unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 15 years of age.\n11.  The second applicant went to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration Hospital in Lublin to ask for a referral for an abortion. She was advised there to contact Dr O., the regional consultant for gynecology and obstetrics. Other doctors whom the second applicant contacted privately were also of the view that a referral from the regional consultant was necessary.\n12.  The second applicant also went to another public hospital in Lublin (the Jan Boży hospital) and contacted a chief physician there, Dr W.S., who suggested that the applicants meet with a Catholic priest. The second applicant refused.\n13.  The second applicant then contacted Dr O. He told her that he was not obliged to issue a referral and advised the second applicant to “get her daughter married”. She left his office, but returned shortly afterwards as she was afraid that without the doctor’s referral it would not be possible to obtain an abortion. He told her to report to the Jan Boży hospital.\n14.  On 26 May 2008 the applicants reported to that hospital. They were received by the acting chief physician. They clearly stated their intention to have the pregnancy terminated. They were told that they would have to wait until the head of the gynecological ward, Dr W.S., returned from holiday. They were told that it would be best for the first applicant to be hospitalised, with a view to blood and urine tests and an ultrasound scan being carried out. On the same day the first applicant was admitted to that hospital.\n15.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7107", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1975, 1930 and 1927 respectively. Mr Iliya Atanasov Tonov and Ms Vatka Markova Udvareva live in Sofia and Ms Pena Marinova Karalakova lives in Tryavna.\n5.  In 1968 the second applicant, Ms Udvareva, and her husband bought from the Sofia municipality a flat of 97 square metres, which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1947.\n6.  On 18 March 1998, following a renewal of the time-limit to bring an action under section 7 of the Restitution Law, the pre-nationalisation owner of the flat brought such an action against Ms Udvareva and her husband, seeking to establish that their title was null and void.\n7.  While the proceedings were pending, Ms Udvareva’s husband deceased. His grandson, Mr Iliya Atanasov Tonov – the first applicant, inherited his share of the flat. Thus, after that Ms Tonov and Ms Udvareva owned one half of the flat each. Accordingly, Mr Tonov also joined the civil proceedings.\n8.  The proceedings ended by a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 23 April 2007. The domestic courts found that Ms Udvareva and Mr Tonov’s title was null and void ab initio: the flat’s sale in 1968 had been flawed because a document related to it had not been signed by the municipality official with whom the relevant power had been vested.\n9.  On an unspecified date Ms Udvareva, who was at the time living alone in the flat, vacated it.\n10.  On 20 September 2007 Ms Udvareva and Mr Tonov requested to receive compensation bonds. However, their request was dismissed as it had not been made within two months following the Supreme Court of Cassation’s final judgment of 23 April 2007, as provided for under domestic law.\n11.  The relevant background facts, domestic law and practice have been summarised in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007) and Tsonkovi v. Bulgaria (no. 27213/04, §§ 14-15, 2 July 2009).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7108", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  On an unknown date in 1991 the applicant was charged with aggravated robbery. In 1993 the Siedlce Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewódzki) stayed the investigation as the applicant’s whereabouts were not known. In July 1993 the applicant was arrested and began serving a prison sentence which had been imposed in 1982.\n7.  On 14 March 1994 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sad Wojewódzki). The applicant was charged with robbery.\n8.  The proceedings were stayed on 6 March 1996 in view of the applicant’s health. In December 1996 he underwent spinal surgery. The trial was resumed on 28 September 1997.\n9.  The applicant failed to appear at some hearings in 2003, however the trial court found that this was because he had been serving a prison sentence imposed in another set of criminal proceedings.\n10.  On 5 April 2004 the charges against the applicant and several co‑accused were severed and dealt with in a separate set of proceedings.\n11.  The applicant failed to appear at a hearing held on 30 June 2005. On the same date the Warsaw Regional Court (Sad Okręgowy) issued a wanted notice in respect of the applicant and ordered that he be arrested and remanded in custody.\n12.  On 18 July 2005 the court severed the charges against the applicant, to be dealt with in a separate set of the proceedings, and on the same date stayed the proceedings as the applicant was in hiding.\n13.  The applicant was arrested on 18 May 2007. He was placed in the Warsaw Białołęka Detention Centre on 21 May 2007.\n14.  On 11 June 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court resumed the proceedings against the applicant.\n15.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicant’s detention was extended on 13 August and 17 December 2007 and 26 March, 21 April, 21 July and 26 September 2008. In their decisions on the matter the authorities relied on the original grounds given for holding him in custody. The applicant did not appeal against most of the decisions extending his detention.\n16.  On 22 September 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted the applicant of armed robbery, burglary and causing serious bodily harm and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.\n17.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended, in particular on: 26 September and 22 December 2008 and 6 March 2010. The applicant lodged an appeal against the last of those decisions.\n18.  On 10 April 2010, at the applicant’s request, the detention was lifted and he was released from custody.\n19.  On 2 March 2011 the applicant began serving the prison sentence imposed on 22 September 2009.\n20.  On an unknown date in 2007 the Płock Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okregowy) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and several co-accused on charges of illegal possession of weapons and robbery.\n21.  On 23 May 2007 the Ostrołeka District Court remanded the applicant in custody, relying on the suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he was charged. It attached importance to the likelihood of a lengthy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant, the serious nature of the offences of which he was suspected, and the risk that he would go into hiding. This was made more likely by the facts that he did not have a permanent place of residence and was unemployed. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.\n22.  In the course of the investigation the applicant’s detention was extended on 31 July and 15 N", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7109", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  At the material time the applicant held the post of Vice President of LLC Volga Aviaexpress Airlines (ООО “Авиакомпания Волга‑Авиаэкспресс”).\n7.  On 28 July 2003 the applicant left for annual leave in South Africa, where he stayed until 17 September 2003, following which he was in the United Kingdom until 23 September 2003 before returning to Russia.\n8.  Meanwhile, on 30 July 2003 the Volgograd Regional Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings under Article 159 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code for fraud involving a Yak-42 aircraft.\n9.  On 24 September 2003 the applicant was placed on an international wanted list.\n10.  On 26 September 2003 Tsentralniy District Court (Volgograd – “Tsentralniy District Court”) ordered the applicant’s remand in custody on suspicion of fraud. The District Court held as follows:\n“... Following the institution of the criminal proceedings [the applicant] absconded from Volgograd and the Russian Federation.\nIn connection with the establishment of [the applicant’s] whereabouts in South Africa, on 24 September 2003 he was placed on a wanted list.\n... Taking into account the fact that [the applicant] is charged with a serious offence, [that he] fled from investigation, has actively obstructed the establishment of the truth in the case, and may continue the criminal activity, the court considers it necessary to choose a measure of restraint in the form of placement in custody.”\n11.  According to the applicant, until 29 September 2003 he did not know anything about the criminal proceedings against him. As soon as he knew about them, he went to the investigation department of the Volgograd Regional Prosecutor’s Office, where he was arrested pursuant to the court order of 26 September 2003.\n12.  The applicant was placed in a temporary detention facility, where he was kept until 17 October 2003. Throughout this period the applicant’s family was unaware of his whereabouts. The applicant was subsequently transferred to IZ-34/1 remand prison (Volgograd).\n13.  In the meantime, on 14 October 2003 Volgograd Regional Court upheld the decision of 26 September 2003 on appeal.\n14.  On 28 November 2003 and 15 March 2004 Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 30 March and 30 May 2004 respectively. On both occasions the court relied on the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the fact that he had been placed on an international wanted list prior to his arrest, which gave the court sufficient grounds to believe that if at large the applicant might obstruct the proceedings. Under these circumstances the court held that the application of a non-custodial preventive measure was not possible.\n15.  On 9 December 2003 Volgograd Regional Court upheld the extension order of 28 November 2003 on appeal. The case file contains no information as to whether the applicant appealed against the extension order of 15 March 2004.\n16.  On 31 May 2004 the applicant’s case file was remitted to Dzerzhinskiy District Court (Volgograd – “Dzerzhinskiy District Court”) for examination on the merits.\n17.  On 30 May 2004 the applicant’s detention ordered by the decision of 15 March 2004 expired. No other decision was made regarding his detention until 14 June 2004. However, the applicant remained in detention.\n18.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant sought compensation for unlawful detention between 30 May and 14 June 2004.\n19.  On 27 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7110", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in the town of Solikamsk, Perm Region.\n6.  In 1999 there were incidents in St Petersburg in which many elderly and sick people were attacked in their homes by a criminal posing as a doctor.\n7.  On 17 January 2000 the applicant, a doctor working for an emergency service, was caught on the spot while trying to enter an elderly person’s apartment. He was arrested on charges of multiple robbery and murder and has remained in detention since that date. The applicant submits that he was ill-treated during his arrest.\n8.  On 21 November 2003 the St Petersburg City Court examined the applicant’s criminal case and convicted him on multiple charges of murder, attempted murder and robbery. The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment.\n9.  The court established that the applicant had posed as a doctor and, having entered his victims’ flats, injected them with soporifics, sometimes in lethal quantities, and then robbed them, killing some of them. In total, there were eleven victims in the case who either died or could have died as a result of the applicant’s criminal activity.\n10.  The conviction was based on several pieces of evidence, including the applicant’s bag with needles and prepared soporific materials, expert examinations of these materials, oral evidence given by numerous witnesses, including a pawnshop owner who had bought various items from the applicant on numerous occasions, the surviving victims, the applicant’s own statements and the autopsy reports on the victims.\n11.  During the proceedings the applicant complained that his lawyer had failed to take some investigative actions. The court examined this grievance, questioned both the applicant and his lawyer, and concluded that the lawyer’s lack of action had been due to the applicant’s own deliberate decision.\n12.  The applicant also tried to retract his self-incriminating statements given at the pre-trial stage of proceedings, with reference to torture and coercion. The court examined this argument in detail, having, among other things, ordered an additional investigation in the matter, and explicitly rejected it as unsubstantiated. The decisions to discontinue the investigation with reference to the lack of indication that any crime had been committed were taken by the relevant prosecutor’s office on 27 March and 14 May 2003.\n13.  They established that the applicant had actively resisted arrest and the police officers had therefore had to apply physical force. The decisions also concluded that the officers had only applied physical force in so far as it was rendered unavoidable by the applicant’s own conduct.\n14.  The applicant did not appeal against the prosecutor’s decisions to discontinue the investigation in court.\n15.  The applicant’s sentence was upheld by the Supreme Court on appeal on 24 June 2004.\n16.  It appears that the applicant was, among other things, dissatisfied with the fact that the first-instance court had consisted of a single judge. Having examined this argument, the appeal court noted that the applicant had been given a choice between the single judge composition and the composition consisting of a professional judge and two lay assessors. The applicant had explicitly chosen the former option.\n17.  It does not appear that the applicant brought any court proceedings in respect of the detention orders in his case.\n18.  Following his arrest on 17 January 2000 the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7111", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in HM Prison Peterhead.\n7.  In the early hours of the morning of Sunday 5 December 1999, Mr Barry Wallace, then aged eighteen years, disappeared following a Christmas function organised by his employers. There was evidence that Mr Wallace had consumed a great deal of alcohol and, after leaving the function, had had an altercation with a friend, G.B., before the two youths made up and Mr Wallace left to go to a nightclub. The last sighting of him was at the entrance to the nightclub at around 1.30 a.m.\n8.  On 6 December 1999 members of the Central Scotland Police Underwater Search Unit discovered severed parts of a human body while on a training exercise in Loch Lomond. Further body parts were discovered on 7, 8 and 10 December 1999. On 15 December 1999 a human head was discovered at Barassie Beach in Troon. Some weeks later, on 8 January 2000, a human torso was recovered from Loch Lomond. DNA analysis revealed the body parts to be those of Mr Wallace.\n9.  On 17 December 1999 the police conducted a search of the applicant’s home while he was absent and discovered quantities of Mr Wallace’s blood, as well as other significant items. On the evening of 17 December 1999, upon hearing of the search of his home via the media, the applicant left Scotland.\n10.  On 9 January 2001 the applicant was extradited from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom to stand trial. Further details of the extradition process are set out in the Court’s decision in Beggs v. the United Kingdom (No. 2) (dec.), no. 14599/10, 16 October 2012.\n11.  Details of the various preliminary matters dealt with in the domestic courts are set out in the Court’s decision in Beggs (No. 2), cited above. The following is a brief summary of the relevant matters.\n12.  On 10 January 2001 the Sheriff granted an order to prevent reporting of the case.  On 12 January 2001 the British Broadcasting Corporation (“BBC”) lodged a petition to the nobile officium of the High Court of Justiciary (“the High Court”), an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in exceptional circumstances (see paragraph 178 below). In its petition, the BBC sought an order quashing the Sheriff’s decision to impose an order preventing the reporting of the case.\n13.  On 15 January 2001 the High Court received the report from the Sheriff on his order to prevent the reporting of the case. The applicant’s agents lodged a petition to the nobile officium for an order restricting reporting of the case.\n14.  On 17 January 2001, the applicant appeared before the Sheriff Court and made no plea or declaration. He was fully committed for trial and remanded in custody for 110 days. The applicant’s agents advised the prosecution that they intended to abandon the nobile officium application.\n15.  On 14 March 2001 the Lord Advocate indicted the applicant for trial on a charge of murder in the High Court sitting in Edinburgh, to commence on 17 April 2001.\n16.  On 3 April 2001 the applicant lodged a minute of postponement of the trial in order to seek preliminary hearings to determine issues concerning pre-trial publicity and the competency of the indictment. The trial was postponed until 14 May 2001.\n17.  On 10 May 2001 at a preliminary hearing, the applicant sought a further adjournment of the trial. This was granted and a trial date of 25 June 2001 was fixed. A preliminary hearing in respect of the various minutes lodged was fixed for 4 June 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7112", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Pula.\n5.  On 9 October 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a breach of public peace and order.\n6.  On the same day, the Istarska Police Department (Policijska uprava Istarska) indicted the applicant in the Pula Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u Puli) on charges that he had disturbed public peace and order in that he and two others had attacked two off-duty police officers.\n7.  Still on the same day, the applicant was brought before a judge of the Pula Minor Offences Court who, after she had heard the applicant, remanded him in custody for eight days under Section 135 § 1 of the Minor Offences Act in connection with the above charges. The reasoning reads as follows:\n“On 9 October 2009 the Istarska Police Department submitted to this court an indictment in urgent proceedings against the accused, Kabir Osmanović, in connection with a minor offence under section 6 of the Minor Offences against Public Order and Peace Act, with a request that he be remanded in custody because he had repeatedly committed similar offences. Since this case concerns a grave breach of public peace and order, in which N.R. sustained grievous bodily injury, and specific circumstances justify a fear that the accused would commit the same minor offence, the judge agreed to the request [by the police] and remands the accused in custody for a period of eight days.”\n8.  On 12 October 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal, arguing that the decision remanding him in custody had not been sufficiently reasoned.\n9.  On 14 October 2009 the High Minor Offences Court (Visoki prekršajni sud Republike Hrvatske) upheld the first-instance decision. The relevant part of the reasoning reads as follows:\n“... After considering this case and the allegations in the appeal, this panel of the High Minor Offences Court of the Republic of Croatia, on the basis of section 211(3) of the Minor Offences Act, has found that the first-instance decision on the accused’s detention was correct and lawful.\nThis court agrees with the first-instance judge who detained the accused for the said period because there was a risk that he might repeat the same minor offence, which arises from the circumstances in which the offence described in the indictment was committed, and from the medical documentation in the case file.\nRemanding the accused in custody prevents him from repeating the same minor offence.”\n10.  On 17 October 2009, when the eight-day time period had expired, the applicant was released from custody.\n11.  On 20 November 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) arguing that there had been no reason to remand him in custody, that the lower courts had not put forward any such reasons, and that the assertion that there was a risk that he might reoffend had not been substantiated in any way. In particular, he stressed that he had not previously been convicted of the same or similar offences. He also complained that the judge had not heard him prior to ordering his detention.\n12.  On 25 March 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the ground that the applicant had been released in the meantime. This decision was served on the applicant on 30 April 2010.\n13.  On 20 April 2010 the Pula Minor Offences Court found the applicant guilty of a breach of the public peace and order and sentenced him to nine days’ impri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7113", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Kazanluk.\n6.  The applicant was representing his father in a tort action against the local forestry office. At a hearing held in December 2001 he objected to the decision of the judge hearing the case, who was the President of the Kazanluk District Court, to order a graphological examination of a photocopied document. The judge overruled his objection and the applicant appealed.\n7.  On 7 December 2001, allegedly in order to illustrate the absurdness of the judge’s ruling, the applicant filed with the court photocopies of two declarations, asking that they be attached to his appeal. The first, purportedly emanating from the judge, said that she had forced the applicant to draw it up and that, to compensate him for the frustration and damage caused, she undertook to pay him 5,000 United States dollars (USD). The second, purportedly emanating from the director and an official of the forestry office, said that they owed the applicant USD 5,000. On 18 December 2001 the applicant filed with the court a further document purportedly emanating from the forestry office’s counsel which stated that she had forced the judge to carry out certain acts in relation to the case and that she owed the applicant USD 10,000.\n8.  All three documents, presented in photocopy, bore the purported signatures of the individuals concerned.\n9.  The judge referred the matter to the prosecution authorities, which opened an investigation against the applicant on charges of forgery. The judge, the forestry office’s officials and counsel also brought civil-party claims against him.\n10.  All judges of the Kazanluk District Court withdrew from the case and it was transferred to the Stara Zagora District Court. On 23 September 2002 that court referred the case back to the prosecution authorities for the rectification of procedural errors. On 7 May 2003 the prosecuting authorities indicted the applicant, the charge being reduced to using forged documents contrary to Article 316 of the Criminal Code (see Relevant domestic law below).\n11.  Following a query by the President of the Kazanluk District Court, on 5 June 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation ordered that the case be transferred to the Nova Zagora District Court, which was in another judicial region, because that would obviate the need for judges to withdraw from the case even at the appellate level.\n12.  On 1 July 2003 the applicant objected to the indictment. He argued, inter alia, that he had filed the copies of the documents in order to illustrate the impossibility of subjecting photocopies to graphological testing.\n13.  The trial took place on two dates over the summer of 2003.\n14.  In a judgment of 30 September 2003 the Nova Zagora District Court found the applicant guilty. Instead of imposing a penal sentence, it replaced his criminal liability with an administrative fine of 500 Bulgarian levs (BGN). It further ordered him to pay the civil parties non-pecuniary damages in the following amounts: BGN 10,000 to the judge (the full amount claimed), BGN 5,000 to the counsel, BGN 1,200 to the director of the forestry office, and BGN 700 to the official of that office.\n15.  In reaching its decision, the District Court found that the applicant had knowingly used false documents with a view to improving his procedural position in the case against the forestry office. Since there was no proof that he had made the documents, he could not be held liable for that. In using them,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7114", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Split.\n5.  An investigation was opened against the applicant and twenty other individuals on 24 November 2006 by an investigating judge of the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) in connection with a suspicion that between 2003 and November 2006 they had organised distribution of heroin in Dubrovnik and on the island of Korčula.\n6.  During the investigation, the investigating judge heard evidence from a number of witnesses, ordered searches, seizures and freezing of assets, and commissioned psychiatric, telecommunications and financial expert reports.\n7.  Following an order by the investigating judge, on 24 November 2006 the police carried out a search of the applicant’s flat and on 5 February 2007 the psychiatrist submitted his report in respect of the applicant. He found that the applicant had used drugs for a relatively short period of time and had not developed an addiction.\n8.  On 15 May, 15 June, 8 August and 5 October 2007 the investigating judge established that all the necessary evidence had not been obtained and asked the president of the Split County Court to extend the investigation. The president of the Split County Court granted the requests and the investigation was extended on each of those occasions.\n9.  The State Attorney’s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (Državno odvjetništvo, Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta; hereinafter: “the State Attorney’s Office”) indicted the applicant and sixteen others on 15 November 2007 in the Split County Court on charges of conspiracy to supply heroin in Dubrovnik and on the island of Korčula between 2003 and November 2006.\n10.  The applicant lodged an objection against the indictment on 7 December 2007, arguing that it had numerous substantive and procedural flaws. On 7 February 2008 the Split County Court sent the indictment back to the State Attorney’s Office on the ground that it needed further clarification.\n11.  The State Attorney’s Office submitted an amended indictment against the applicant and sixteen others before the Split County Court on 22 February 2008, reiterating the same charges of conspiracy to supply heroin. On 5 March 2008 the applicant lodged an objection against the above amended indictment, arguing that it had numerous substantive and procedural flaws. A three-judge panel of the Split County Court dismissed the applicant’s objection on 14 March 2008 as ill-founded.\n12.  At a hearing on 13 November 2008 the applicant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.\n13.  At hearings held on 17 and 18 December 2008 the trial court heard evidence from two witnesses. Further hearings scheduled for 11 and 12 February 2009 were adjourned indefinitely as one of the defendants had broken his leg and could not attend.\n14.  A hearing scheduled for 29 June 2009 was also adjourned because the first accused had asked for members to be removed from the trial panel.\n15.  Further hearings were held on 28 August, 8, 15, 16 and 28 September, 20, 21 and 22 October, 2, 3, 4, 17 and 18 November and 21 December 2009, 27 and 29 January, 15, 17, 18 and 19 February, and 15, 29 and 30 March 2010.\n16.  At a hearing on 13 May 2010 the applicant gave oral evidence denying all the charges. At hearings held on 14, 17, 21 and 24 May 2010 the other accused gave oral evidence and the parties made their closing statements.\n17.  On 24 May 2010 the Split County Court found the applicant guilty a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7115", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Bradford.\n6.  The applicant was employed by Serco Limited (“Serco”) from 5 December 2003 to his dismissal on 30 June 2004. Serco provided transport to local authorities, including Bradford City Council.\n7.  The applicant, who is white British, was employed formerly as a driver’s escort and latterly as a driver. As such, he was responsible for transporting children and adults with physical and/or mental disabilities within the Bradford area. The majority of his passengers were Asian in origin. There had been no complaints about his work or his conduct at work and his supervisor, who was of Asian origin, had nominated him for the award of “first-class employee”.\n8.  On 26 May 2004 a local newspaper article published in Bradford and the surrounding areas identified the applicant as a candidate for the British National Party (“the BNP”) in the forthcoming local elections. On the same day, the applicant was temporarily assigned to deliver mail to local council offices.\n9.  At the relevant time the BNP only extended membership to white nationals. According to its constitution it was:\n“wholly opposed to any form of integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.”\n10.  On 27 May 2004 UNISON, the public sector workers’ trade union, sent a letter to Serco stating that many of its members found the applicant’s continued employment a “significant cause for concern, bearing in mind the BNP’s overt and racist/fascist agenda.” The letter advised Serco that 70-80 percent of its customer base and 35 percent of its workforce were of Asian origin. UNISON asked that Serco take immediate action to ensure its members were not subjected to racial hatred. Another trade union, GMB, and a number of employees also made representations to Serco about the applicant’s continued employment.\n11.  On 15 June 2004 the applicant was elected as a local councillor for the BNP. After taking legal advice Serco summarily dismissed him on 30 June 2004. Serco cited, inter alia, potential health and safety risks as the applicant’s continued employment would give rise to considerable anxiety among passengers and their carers. It also expressed concern that the applicant’s continued employment could jeopardise its reputation and possibly lead to the loss of its contract with Bradford City Council.\n12.  Ordinarily, one year’s service is required before an employee can bring an action for unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”), although this qualifying period does not apply where the dismissal was on grounds of pregnancy, race, sex or religion. The applicant therefore lacked sufficient continuous service to bring an action for unfair dismissal. However, on 12 August 2004 he lodged a statutory claim of race discrimination in the Employment Tribunal pursuant to the Race Relations Act 1976 (“the 1976 Act”).\n13.  The applicant claimed that he had been unlawfully discriminated against as his dismissal constituted less favourable treatment on racial grounds. The racial grounds relied on were those of the passengers and employees of Serco who were of Asian origin. He further argued that since the BNP was a “whites-only” party, his dismissal also constituted indirect", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7116", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born on 13 February 1980 and currently lives in Leeds. The second applicant was born on 15 January 1990 and currently lives in Djibouti.\n5.  The first applicant arrived in the United Kingdom on 18 February 2004. He claimed asylum and that claim was accepted in March 2006. Prior to 30 August 2005, successful asylum seekers were granted Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom along with refugee status. However, after 30 August 2005 the Immigration Rules were amended and refugees were granted an initial period of 5 years’ Leave to Remain, following which they could apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain. Consequently, the first applicant was granted five years’ leave to remain in the United Kingdom, to expire on 16 March 2011. At the same time, he was provided with a Refugee Convention Travel Document (“CTD”), also to expire on 16 March 2011.\n6.  In June 2006 the first applicant was introduced to the second applicant through a friend. In February 2007 he travelled to Djibouti to meet her and they married on 5 April 2007. They lived together in Djibouti until the first applicant returned to the United Kingdom on 15 May 2007.\n7.  The second applicant applied for a visa to join the first applicant in the United Kingdom. Although the first applicant was a refugee, the applicants did not qualify for “family reunion” under the Immigration Rules HC 395 (as amended) (“the Immigration Rules”) because paragraph 352A of the Immigration Rules only applied to spouses who formed part of the refugee’s family unit before he or she left the country of permanent residence. The second applicant therefore applied for leave to enter the United Kingdom under paragraph 281 of the Immigration Rules, as the spouse of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom.\n8.  On 18 November 2007 the Entry Clearance Officer refused the application on the ground that the first applicant, having only been granted five years’ Leave to Remain, was not a person present and settled in the United Kingdom for the purposes of paragraph 281.\n9.  On 17 February 2008 the second applicant gave birth to a son. The first applicant was named as the father on the birth certificate.\n10.  The second applicant appealed against the decision to refuse her application for leave to enter. The Immigration Judge accepted that the applicants were married and that the first applicant had sufficient funds to accommodate and maintain his wife and child. He also accepted that the refusal of entry clearance engaged the rights of both applicants under Article 8 of the Convention. He dismissed the appeal, however, holding that the refusal of entry clearance would not interfere disproportionately with the second applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, he noted that she had never enjoyed her family life in the United Kingdom and there were no obstacles to prevent the first applicant from living in Djibouti other than that he could not speak French and would be unlikely to secure employment there.\n11.  The second applicant applied for reconsideration of the decision. In a decision dated 28 August 2008, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal refused to order reconsideration. On 24 October 2008 the Administrative Court also dismissed the application for reconsideration.\n12.  The first applicant’s leave to remain in the United Kingdom expired on 16 March 2011. He was subsequently granted Indefinite Leave to Remain.\n13.  In April 2011 the Immigratio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7117", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1981, 1979 and 1959 respectively and live in Harmanli.\n7.  The first two applicants are the sons, and the third applicant is the widow, of Mr Todor Dimov Todorov (alias Chakara), who died on 10 or 11 December 2003 in the course of a police operation for his arrest.\n8.  Between 1973 and 2001 Mr Todorov, born in 1955, was convicted six times of various offences. In 1973 he was convicted of inflicting bodily harm of medium severity. In 1974 he was convicted of forming a group intending to engage in sabotage, of trying to cross the border illegally, of stealing public and private property and a motor vehicle, and of unlawfully possessing firearms and ammunition. In 1983 he was convicted of inflicting minor bodily injury on an official in connection with the performance of the latter’s duties. In the same year he was convicted of stealing fifty‑three lambs. In 1990 he was convicted of trying unlawfully to export valuables. In 1998 he was convicted of stealing two lambs and unlawfully possessing firearms.\n9.  On 5 July 2001 Mr Todorov was convicted of systematically letting out his house for lewd acts, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The conviction and sentence became final on 21 October 2003.\n10.  On an unspecified date in November 2003 the Harmanli police were notified of that latest conviction and sentence, and dispatched two officers to arrest Mr Todorov with a view to sending him to prison to serve the sentence. The officers went to his house in Harmanli, informed him that he was due to be imprisoned, and asked him to come with them. Mr Todorov, visibly calm, asked the officers to wait for a few minutes, so that he could prepare his luggage. The officers waited for about ten minutes outside the house. When they went in to arrest Mr Todorov, they saw that he had fled. After that they went back to the police station and reported the incident to the head of the Harmanli police and to the Harmanli District Prosecutor’s Office.\n11.  The account of the circumstances surrounding Mr Todorov’s death is based on the findings of the investigation carried out by the military prosecuting and investigating authorities (see paragraphs 30‑43 below).\n12.  In early December 2003 the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office ordered the police to carry out a series of operations for the arrest of individuals with final convictions and sentences. As a result, in the morning of 10 December 2003 the head of the Harmanli Regional Police Department assembled three groups of officers to arrest Mr Todorov. The first group had to check his house in Harmanli, the second had to check the sheep pen of an associate of his, and the third had to check Mr Todorov’s country house, situated near Harmanli. All three groups were armed with their service pistols. They were told that Mr Todorov might try to escape or put up armed resistance, and instructed to use their weapons only as provided for by law.\n13.  At about 7.15 a.m. the three groups set out to carry out their respective tasks. The first and the second group were unable to find Mr Todorov. The third group, which consisted of three officers, two of whom were in uniform (one wearing a bullet‑proof vest) and one in plain clothes, arrived near Mr Todorov’s country house at about 7.25 a.m. The house was surrounded by service buildings. All of those were erected on uneven terrain sloping steeply from the north-west to the south-east. The officers stopped their car in front of the ga", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7118", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Zadar.\n5.  On 17 December 2008 the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) found the applicant guilty on charges of drug abuse and sentenced him to four years and three months’ imprisonment.\n6.  On 1 October 2009 the applicant was placed in Zagreb Prison (Zatvor u Zagrebu).\n7.  According to the applicant, during his stay in Zagreb Prison he was held in a cell measuring sixteen to twenty square metres, with six to seven other inmates. The sanitary facilities were in the same room and only a wall approximately 1,80 metres high separated the living area and sanitary facilities, including a toilet. The sanitary facilities were about one metre away from the dining table and there was a constant smell in the cell. He was able to take a shower only once a week which was insufficient since he had been diagnosed as suffering from asthma and allergies. The cell had never been disinfected so cockroaches were frequently found in the inmates’ food or drinks. The window was covered with aluminium netting which prevented the daylight coming into the cell. He was constantly confined to the cell and was allowed out into the fresh air only for two hours a day.\n8.  His contact with the outside world was very limited. He was able to talk with his wife only for eight minutes a week and was not able to see his three-year old daughter at all.\n9.  According to the Government, during his stay in Zagreb Prison the applicant was detained in two cells. Each cell measured 21,20 square metres and the applicant was placed with five to six other inmates, depending on the period. The applicant had access to hot and cold water and the sanitary facilities were physically separated from the living area by a wall 1,80 meters high. Each cell had four windows measuring in total 3,20 square metres. Two windows could be opened fully and two only partially.\n10.  It was possible to shower once a day and if necessary even more frequently. The cells were treated for insects at least four times a year and also for rodents twice a year. The meals were served in the cells since Zagreb Prison did not have a dining room. However, the food was regularly inspected. In the applicant’s cell there was a television set and he was able to engage in sporting activities, to practice a religion and to buy various items in the prison shop. The applicant was allowed to spend two hours outdoors every day. His medical condition was also monitored and he was provided with adequate medical assistance.\n11.  As to his contacts with the outside world, the applicant was able to make phone calls once a week for eight minutes. He was also able to receive visits twice a month and on holidays for at least one hour. On different occasions the prison authorities granted him an additional thirty minutes for visits which he could have used within three months. He was also given the right to have unsupervised visits from his wife once a month for two hours over a period of three months. The applicant had access to newspapers and books.\n12.  On 4 February 2010 the applicant complained to a sentence-execution judge of the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) and the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu) about the conditions of his detention and his treatment in Zagreb Prison. The relevant part of his complaint reads:\n“I have been imprisoned in Zagreb Prison since 1 October 2009 in Department no. 7 where I am ser", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7119", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1932, 1938 and 1935 respectively. The first and second applicants live in Sofia, Bulgaria, and the third applicant lives in New York, the United States of America. They are brothers.\n7.  The applicants’ father owned a factory, together with the adjacent plot, in the town of Gabrovo. In 1947 the property was nationalised under the Nationalisation of Private Industrial and Mining Undertakings Act 1947. In the following years the authorities added a storey to the main factory building, transformed the factory into a school, and transformed the adjacent plot, together with other plots, into a schoolyard. The transformation was reflected in the relevant zoning plan. In 1964 the property was entered in the State properties register.\n8.  In 1983 the applicants’ father died, leaving them as his only heirs.\n9.  After the Restitution of Ownership of Nationalised Real Property Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act” – see paragraphs 25‑30 below) came into force on 25 February 1992, the applicants asked the mayor of Gabrovo to strike the property out of the State properties register. On 30 November 1992 the mayor granted their request, reasoning that the conditions for restitution were in place and that the applicants had become owners of the property by the operation of the Act. The restituted property consisted of a plot of land of 3,730 square metres, the first storey of the two-storey main building of 620 square metres (the second storey, which, as noted above, had been added by the authorities after the nationalisation, remained the property of the municipality), a one-storey accessory building of 200 square metres, and a second one-storey accessory building of 60 square metres. On 28 March 1996 the applicants obtained a notary deed certifying their title to the property.\n10.  In the following years the municipality continued to use the building as a school, with the applicants’ consent. However, the municipality sought to settle the issue of its use of the school. In a letter of 13 March 1995 the mayor invited the second applicant to a meeting to discuss the future amount of rent to be paid by the municipality. The outcome of the meeting was not specified by the parties. In a letter of 3 September 1996 the mayor advised the applicants that the municipality intended to start a procedure for the expropriation of the property or its purchase. When the applicants objected, this initiative was abandoned.\n11.  In a contract of 3 August 1998 the applicants allowed the municipality to use the property in return for a monthly rent of 3,646,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL). The municipality also agreed to pay the applicants BGL 34,637,000 as compensation for use of the property between 15 October 1997 and 3 August 1998.\n12.  On 21 January 1999 the municipal council adopted a resolution to start a procedure for the purchase of the property. It appears that the resolution was subsequently abandoned.\n13.  On 17 May 2001 the municipal council adopted a resolution for the purchase of the property. The price was set at the equivalent of 180,000 United States dollars.\n14.  On 22 June 2001 the regional governor of Gabrovo ordered the suspension of the execution of the municipal council’s resolution of 17 May 2001. She noted, in particular, that since 1960 the main building and the yard had accommodated a school. She went on to say that the property served the needs of the local community and was municipal public property, that it had never been re", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7120", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is serving a prison sentence in Norilsk, Krasnoyarsk Region.\n6.  On 13 September 1999 the Angarsk Town Prosecutor opened a criminal investigation into K.’s death. According to the prosecution, K. had died after having been severely beaten by the applicant, M. and S. On the same day the alleged perpetrators were arrested and taken to the police station for questioning.\n7.  According to the applicant, he was taken to the police station at approximately 8 a.m. The police officers punched and kicked him and hit him with the butt of a gun in the face in order to make him confess to beating K. The applicant refused to answer questions, invoking his constitutional right to remain silent.\n8.  On 14 September 1999 a forensic medical expert examined the applicant, finding that he had a lip injury which could have been caused by a firm blunt object, such as a fist. No other injuries were detected.\n9.  Three days after the arrest the applicant was allowed to have a meeting with counsel.\n10.  On 23 September 1999 the town prosecutor authorised the applicant’s detention pending trial relying on the seriousness of the charges against him. The applicant remained in custody until 21 November 2003 when he was released on his own recognisance.\n11.  On 29 June 2000 the Town Court received the case file. On 13 July 2000 it was assigned to the trial judge, who fixed the first trial hearing for 21 November 2000. According to the Government, the judge’s schedule had been full before that date.\n12.  As regards the course of the trial proceedings, the Government provided the following information:\nDate of hearing/event\nReasons for adjournment\n21-23 November 2000 M.’s counsel asked for forensic psychiatric evaluation of his client. The trial was adjourned pending such evaluation, which was completed on 29 August 2001.\nFrom August 2001 to 29 September 2001\nThe trial judge was on leave.\nFrom September to 10 December 2001\nThe trial judge was waiting for the extension of her appointment.\n29 January 2002\nThe applicant’s counsel failed to appear. He was unable to take part in the trial until 9 July 2002.\n9-12 July 2002\nThe case file was returned to the prosecutor’s office in order to obtain a translation of the bill of indictment into S.’s mother tongue.\n26 September 2002\nThe Regional Court quashed the trial court’s decision of 12 July 2002 and remitted the matter to the trial court.\n3 December 2002 M.’s counsel could not attend the hearing due to his participation in another set of criminal proceedings.\n24 December 2002 and 28 January 2003\nThe applicant’s counsel did not appear due to participation in another set of criminal proceedings.\n29 January 2003\nThe applicant’s counsel failed to appear.\n6-7 February 2003\nThe applicant asked for an adjournment for health reasons.\n12 and 13 February 2003\nThe applicant’s counsel failed to appear.\n1 April 2003\nThe applicant’s counsel asked for the questioning of two forensic experts.\n3 April 2003\nForensic expert S. failed to appear for health reasons.\n7-8, 13 and 15 May 2003\nRegular court hearings.\n20, 27 May and 3 June 2003\nThe applicant’s counsel failed to appear.\n4 June 2003\nThe applicant’s counsel asked for additional forensic biological research.\n26 May – 4 August 2003\nThe judge was on leave.\n6 October 2003\nThe applicant retained a new lawyer.\n9 December 2003\nThe trial court received the forensic biological research results and fixed the hearing for 6 January 2004.\n6 January 2004\nOne of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7121", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Maribor.\n5.  On 20 August 1999 the applicant through guardian instituted proceedings against her father before the Maribor District Court seeking an increase in alimony.\n6.  On 11 October 2000 the first-instance court held the first hearing. A hearing scheduled for 8 December 2000 was postponed at the applicant’s request and was held subsequently on 16 February 2001.\n7.  On 22 May 2001 the first-instance court rendered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part by increasing the amount of alimony. The defendant appealed.\n8.  On 27 November 2001 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.\n9.  On 8 May 2002 the first-instance court held a hearing.\n10.  On 30 May 2002 the first-instance court issued a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. The defendant appealed.\n11.  On 19 November 2002 the appeal court rendered a judgment and remitted the case once more for re-examination. The court found that the operative part of the first-instance judgment was not clear and the judgment insufficiently reasoned in some parts.\n12.  Further to the remittal the Maribor District Court held two hearings on 27 October 2004 and 13 July 2005.\n13.  After the last hearing the court rendered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request. The defendant appealed.\n14.  On 11 April 2006 the Maribor Higher Court rejected the appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7122", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 14 May 2001 the applicant submitted a request to the Ministry of Youth and Sport concerning Olympic annuity as being the coach of an Olympic medal winner. He was informed that according to the legal regulation in force, he could not request the annuity as it was the medal winner who should make a proposition for the beneficiary of such annuity. In the meanwhile the Ministry established the annuity for another coach.\n6.  On 16 August 2001 the Public Prosecutor’s Office submitted an objection to the Ministry’s decision on the applicant’s behalf, which was dismissed by the Minister on 6 October 2001.\n7.  The Prosecutor’s Office sought judicial review of the Minister’s decision before the Budapest Regional Court. The applicant intervened in the proceedings. The Regional Court dismissed the action on 8 January 2003. In the review proceedings the Supreme Court quashed the Minister’s decision and remitted the case to the administrative authority on 1 June 2004.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings the administrative authorities dismissed the applicant’s request on both levels. The applicant sought judicial review of the Ministry’s decision before the Budapest Regional Court. It dismissed his action on 14 May 2007.\n9.  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. Finding that the applicant should have initiated the action against the Minister, it quashed the first-instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings on 25 June 2008.\n10.  The applicant therefore again initiated the judicial review of the administrative decisions mentioned in paragraph 8 above before the Budapest Regional Court, this time bringing the action against the Minister. His action was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17 November 2010.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7123", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Nyírtelek.\n5.  In May 2000 the applicant brought an action in compensation against a hospital before the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court. She claimed that her son’s death in October 1999 was due to his inefficient treatment by the hospital’s doctors. In March 2001 the Regional Court gave judgment, finding that no causal link have been proven between the respondent’s alleged omissions and the death. This conclusion was upheld by the appellate bench of the Supreme Court on 29 January 2003.\n6.  On 19 February 2003 the applicant requested the re-opening of the case, which was dismissed by the Regional Court, without an examination on the merits, on 7 May 2003. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court on 3 September 2003.\n7.  On 7 May 2004 the Regional Court suspended the proceedings pending the determination of criminal proceedings initiated against the doctors and the general practitioner for reckless endangerment resulting in death. The Budapest Court of Appeal, however, established that it had not been necessary to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings, as the subject matter of the two proceedings is different. It therefore ordered the continuation of the civil proceedings on 15 October 2004.\n8.  On 23 February 2007 the Regional Court gave judgment. On appeal, the Debrecen Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court on 17 January 2008.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 8 July 2010. The applicant submitted a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 30 March 2011.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7125", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1979 and is currently detained in Remscheid Prison.\n7.  On 3 February 2003 the Cologne District Court, having held a hearing at which the applicant and his lawyer had been present and witnesses had been heard, convicted the applicant of bodily injury and sentenced him to a fine amounting to 100 daily payments of fifteen euros (EUR). The applicant had pleaded for his acquittal.\n8.  The applicant, represented by counsel, lodged an appeal against that judgment.\n9.  On 11 June 2003 the Cologne Regional Court held a hearing at which the applicant’s counsel was present whereas the applicant failed to attend in person. Several witnesses had equally been summoned. The applicant’s counsel explained that an arrest warrant had been issued against the applicant in respect of different charges. The applicant had therefore chosen not to attend the hearing in person but wished to be represented by his counsel. He claimed that, having regard to Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, a defendant was entitled to be represented by a lawyer in appeal proceedings.\n10.  By a judgment of the same day, the Regional Court, granting the request made by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It found that the applicant had lodged his appeal within the prescribed time-limit. However, he had failed to attend the hearing before the Regional Court, to which he had been summoned, without sufficient excuse. He also had not been entitled to be represented by counsel. Therefore, his appeal had to be dismissed pursuant to Article 329 § 1, first sentence, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 25 below).\n11.  On 26 September 2003 the Cologne Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, in which he had referred to his defence rights under Article 6 of the Convention, as ill-founded, as the judgment of the Regional Court did not disclose an error of law.\n12.  On 22 October 2003 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. He argued that the decision of the Regional Court, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal, not to deal with his appeal on the merits due to his failure to appear at the hearing had violated his right of access to court, his right to be heard in court and his right to defend himself through a lawyer as guaranteed by the Basic Law.\n13.  On 27 December 2006 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant’s constitutional complaint as it was ill-founded (file no. 2 BvR 1872/03). The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 23 January 2007.\n14.  The Federal Constitutional Court found that the applicant’s right to an effective defence, which was inherent in his right to a fair trial under the Basic Law, had not been breached. In coming to this conclusion, it also had regard to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention. It stressed that the Court, in its case-law, had never found that an application of Article 329 § 1 of the German Criminal Code failed to comply with Article 6 of the Convention.\n15.  The Federal Constitutional Court stressed that the applicant’s right to an effective defence had to be interpreted in the context of the system of appeals of the Code of Criminal Procedure and of further fundamental rights, such as the right to be heard and the principle of immediacy (Unmittelbarkeitsgrundsatz). Following an appeal (Berufung), the appellate cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7126", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in the village of A. in eastern Hungary.\n7.  The applicant is innately deaf and dumb and has medium-grade intellectual disability. He is illiterate.\n8.  According to the bill of indictment preferred in the case, on 10 April 2011 the applicant – a multiple recidivist offender with the most recent conviction dating from 2 November 2009 – mugged a passer-by in Gyüre. He was then halted for an identity check by officers of the Vásárosnamény Police Department. He attempted to escape but was apprehended while still in possession of the stolen item. He was committed to the police station.\n9.  Since the applicant was perceived to use a sort of sign language, a sign-language interpreter was appointed for him at once. Later in the day he was interrogated as a suspect of robbery. No lawyer was present.\n10.  The Government submitted that the applicant had understood the charges brought against him but made no complaint about it and admitted the commission of the offence by signing the minutes of the interrogation. The applicant denied this, arguing that the sign language used by him and the one used by the interpreter were different and thus no comprehension had been possible between them.\nThe applicant’s signature on the minutes in question consists of his scribbled nickname, hardly legible.\n11.  Between 10 April and 4 July 2011 the applicant was detained on remand on the charge of mugging at Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Prison.\n12.  The applicant maintained that the conditions of detention were inapt to his condition and that he had been molested, sexually and otherwise, by the other inmates. The Government argued that special measures had been put in place to address the applicant’s situation (in particular, the prison governor issued an instruction to that effect on 23 May 2011) – an assertion of which the efficacy has been disputed by the applicant (for details, see paragraphs 25 and 26 below).\n13.  On 4 July 2011 the applicant was released from detention and placed under house arrest. The Vásárosnamény District Court, having noted that he did not know any sign language and was able to communicate only with his mother, was of the view that the time spent by the applicant in detention had be to be reduced to a minimum.\n14.  Meanwhile, on 20 June 2011 the applicant was indicted for robbery. His mental condition was noted by the prosecution. A public defence counsel and a sign-language interpreter were appointed for him.\n15.  While detained, the applicant was examined by a forensic psychiatrist. On 30 June 2011 the expert gave the opinion that the applicant’s faculties were to a large extent reduced and that he should be placed under partial guardianship. This was done by the Vásárosnamény District Court on 27 September 2011. The court noted that the applicant’s IQ was 39, he was deaf and dumb, he had medium-grade intellectual disability, he could not count and did not know sign language; the only person with whom he could communicate was his mother.\n16.  The criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant are still pending.\n17.  The applicant submitted the testimonies of a Mr F. and a Mr R. who were present when Mr Karsai met with the applicant on 6 May 2012 to discuss his representation before the Court. According to these testimonies, the applicant communicated using a peculiar sign-language-like method, essentially only intelligible to his mother, which appeared to be completely different fro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7127", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Gyál.\n5.  On 5 May 1999 the applicant’s former husband brought an action against the applicant and others before the Dabas District Court, seeking the termination of co-ownership. The court appointed an expert who filed an opinion on 1 March 2001.\n6.  On 9 October 2001 the District Court gave judgment, which was quashed on appeal by the Pest County Regional Court on 26 March 2002.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings the first-instance court delivered its judgment on 24 June 2004. On appeal, the Pest County Regional Court gave judgment on 14 April 2005.\n8.  On 8 November 2005 the Supreme Court, acting in a single judge formation, dismissed the applicant’s petition for review in a reasoned decision. Examining the merits of the case, it held that the second-instance decision had not been unlawful to such an extent that had bearing on the merits of the case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7128", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lived before his arrest in the city of Orsk, Orenburg Region. At the time of application he was serving a sentence in correctional colony no. 5 in the village of Maksay in the Orenburg Region.\n6.  On 20 April 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Orsk found the applicant guilty of murder committed in a drunken rage and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Orenburg Regional Court and became final. The applicant’s sentence was to come to an end on 25 November 2013.\n7.  The Government provided the Court with a copy of the applicant’s medical records, written by hand and recording his condition from the first days of his detention. They also submitted a typed version of the same records to facilitate the Court’s task of deciphering the doctors’ handwriting. At the same time, given very serious discrepancies between the two versions, with vast pieces of the handwritten version missing from its typed copy and a selective approach in copying the specific wording from the handwritten version to the typed one, the Court will only base its findings on the handwritten version of the applicant’s medical records.\n8.  As is evident from the records, the applicant had suffered from tuberculosis since 1981. The treatment that he had received in a civil hospital was successful, leading to his clinical recovery from the illness. According to the Government, in 1997 the applicant became an injecting heroin user.\n9.  Upon his detention in temporary detention facility no. IZ-56/2 in the Orenburg Region following his arrest on 26 November 2003, the applicant was placed on a register of inmates in need of close supervision in relation to his chronic illnesses and, given his history with drugs, his blood was taken for testing for the presence of infections, including HIV. On the basis of the test results, which were received in January 2004, the applicant was diagnosed with HIV. When informing the applicant that he had contracted HIV, the prison doctor served him with a memo explaining the results of the test and describing various aspects of the infection, its assessment, treatment, ways of transmission and precautions to be taken in everyday life to avoid the spread of the infection. The applicant’s medical records show that the doctors concluded that the applicant was suffering from clinical stage 2 HIV infection.\n10.  In December 2003 the applicant complained to a prison tuberculosis specialist of fatigue, pain in the epigastrium, a high temperature and loss of weight. The specialist observed the applicant, having noted his “satisfactory state” and bubbling crackles and wheezing in his right lung. The diagnosis was clinical recovery from pulmonary tuberculosis. No treatment or medical procedures were prescribed.\n11.  During a subsequent examination by the tuberculosis specialist on 9 February 2004 the applicant again complained of fatigue and excessive sweating. The specialist concluded that the applicant had significant residual changes after pulmonary tuberculosis and prescribed him an antibacterial drug to treat an active form of tuberculosis and a special food regimen. On the following day the applicant was seen by an infectious diseases specialist, who confirmed the diagnosis of stage 2 HIV infection. The specialist noted the need to closely supervise the applicant in his medical records.\n12.  Following the examinations on 9 and 10 February 2004, the applicant was no", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7129", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Garevac.\n6.  On 23 August 1994 the applicant’s sister, F.Č. was admitted to the Rebro Hospital in Zagreb (Klinički bolnički centar Zagreb – Rebro) as an emergency case. She required surgery for an abdominal tumour. Dr V.B. assumed charge of her treatment.\n7.  Dr. V.B. was a surgery professor at the University of Zagreb Medical Faculty (Medicinski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu). At the time of the events he worked as a surgeon in the Rebro Hospital where he had been for more than thirty years, and around the period at issue he ran for a managerial position in that hospital.\n8.  On 26 August 1994 the applicant paid Dr V.B. 5,000 German marks (DEM) in order to perform the surgery and on 30 August 1994 Dr V.B. operated on the applicant’s sister.\n9.  A day after surgery the applicant’s sister was transferred from the intensive-care unit to a regular ward. In the early morning of 1 September 1994 she died. Dr V.B. established massive pulmonary embolism as the cause of death.\n10.  On 17 May 1995 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Health (Ministarstvo zdravstva Republike Hrvatske) about the circumstances of the medical treatment of his sister in the Rebro Hospital.\n11.  The Ministry of Health forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the director of the Rebro Hospital on 8 June 1995 and ordered an inquiry.\n12.  On 28 June 1995 disciplinary proceedings were opened against the doctor before the Disciplinary Commission of the Rebro Hospital (Disciplinska komisija Kliničkog bolničkog centra Zagreb) on charges of having committed a disciplinary offence of receiving payment for performing surgery.\n13.  On 19 July 1995 Dr V.B. was found to have committed the disciplinary offence as charged and dismissed from the Rebro Hospital. As to the allegations of medical negligence the Disciplinary Commission noted:\n“The medical records concerning F.Č. are incomplete; there is no information concerning her treatment (her previous and present condition, her personal medical history is missing, as well as information on her general status, local status, pre-surgery treatment, indication, the surgery itself, post-surgery treatment, histological record and the cause of death), there is no record concerning her release from hospital or information concerning her reanimation in the intensive care unit. The Commission finds that, by failing to [ensure the] proper administration of the medical records, Prof Dr V.B. has failed to perform his duties diligently, but it does not wish to make any conclusions concerning his professional conduct in treating F.Č.”\n14.  Dr V.B. lodged an appeal against that decision before the Administrative Panel of the Rebro Hospital (Upravno vijeće Kliničkog bolničkog centra Zagreb) and on 22 August 1995 the Administrative Panel overturned the first-instance decision and ordered his suspension from work for one year. The enforcement of this measure was suspended.\n15.  On 20 October 1994 the applicant and two other relatives of the deceased lodged a criminal complaint against Dr V.B. with the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu), accusing him of the criminal offences of accepting bribes and medical malpractice. The Zagreb Municipal State Attorney’s Office asked the investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) to hear Dr V.B. and potential witnesses and to commission a medical report. Responsibility for producing the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7130", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Taraclia.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 13 October 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. On 7 August 2008 he was found guilty as charged by the Străşeni District Court and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment.\n9.  That judgment was upheld by the Chişinău Court of Appeal on 22 October 2008 and by the Supreme Court of Justice on 25 February 2009.\n10.  On 17 October 2007 the applicant was placed in detention in Prison no. 13 in Chişinău. He was transferred to Codru Psychiatric Hospital on 27 November 2007 and returned to Prison no. 13 on 18 December 2007. He was transferred to Prison no. 5 in Cahul on 18 January 2009. Since 21 January 2009 the applicant has been detained in Prison no. 1 in Taraclia.\n11.  The applicant described the conditions of his detention in Prison no. 13 as follows: he had been held in a 12 square metre cell together with up to five other detainees and could only stretch his muscles during a short walk outside his cell; there was no functioning ventilation; the cell was damp and full of parasitic insects; in winter it was cold. The food was insufficient and virtually inedible.\n12.  According to the Government, the applicant has been detained in Prison no. 13 in the following cells:\n- cell no. 28, measuring 18.5 square metres and designed to accommodate six persons;\n- cell no. 39, measuring 13.78 square metres and designed to accommodate six persons;\n- cell no. 40, measuring 13.78 square metres and designed to accommodate six persons;\n- cell no. 47, measuring 9.1 square metres and designed to accommodate six persons;\n- cell no. 48, measuring 12.22 square metres and designed to accommodate eight persons;\n- cell no. 19, measuring 34.8 square metres and designed to accommodate fourteen persons.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7131", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are of Roma ethnic origin. The first applicant, Ms I.G., was born in 1983. The second applicant, Ms M.K., was born in 1981. The third applicant, Ms R.H., was born in 1972. She died on 9 October 2010. Her three children, Ms B.P., Mr D.M. and Mr R.M., expressed the wish to pursue the application in the third applicant’s stead.\n7.  The applicants were sterilised in the gynaecology and obstetrics department of Hospital and Health Care Centre in Krompachy (Nemocnica s poliklinikou Krompachy – “Krompachy Hospital”), a medical institution which was then under the authority of the Ministry of Health.\n8.  The first applicant was sterilised on 23 January 2000.\n9.  According to the first applicant, after her admittance and preliminary checks, the gynaecologist in the hospital ordered her to be transferred to theatre for a Caesarean section. She was asked to write down names for her future child on a piece of paper. The first applicant was subsequently transferred to theatre and a Caesarean section was performed on her. During the operation, the first applicant was sterilised by tubal ligation. This was the applicant’s second delivery, and also her second delivery by Caesarean section.\n10.  When she woke up from the anaesthetic, the first applicant was told that she had given birth to a girl.\n11.  The first applicant submitted that she had not been given any further details about the delivery, nor was she told that she had undergone tubal ligation and that she had been sterilised.\n12.  The next morning she was approached by the doctor treating her, who came into her room and asked her to sign a document. The first applicant was told that she had to sign the document because she had undergone a Caesarean section and all women who had Caesarean sections had to sign it.\n13.  On 28 January 2000 the first applicant was transferred to a hospital in Košice due to an inflammation as a post-surgery complication. On 9 February 2000 she underwent further surgery due to a serious infection and sepsis. This operation was considered life-saving. During the operation the doctors performed a hysterectomy on the first applicant.\n14.  The first applicant first learned that she had been sterilised during her second delivery, while reviewing her medical files with her lawyer on 16 January 2003. The medical file contained a form entitled “Request for authorisation of sterilisation”. The form had been filled in using a typewriter. It was dated 23 January 2000 and had been signed by the first applicant.\n15.  The second half of the pre-printed form contained the decision of the district sterilisation committee at Krompachy Hospital dated 23 January 2000. This decision approved the first applicant’s sterilisation. It indicated that the sterilisation was required for medical reasons, that the applicant had two children, that she had earlier given birth by Caesarean section, and that she had a small pelvis. The conditions laid down in the 1972 Sterilisation Regulation had been met in relation to the applicant’s sterilisation. The decision was signed by the president of the committee, the district medical specialist on the issue and the secretary to the sterilisation committee.\n16.  The first applicant submitted that her sterilisation had been contrary to Slovakian law, as at the relevant time she was 16 years old and her legal guardians had not consented to the operation.\n17.  The first applicant has been living in constant fear that her partner will leave", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7135", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants Mr Józef Bańczyk and Mr Jan Sztuka were born in 1941 and in 1974 respectively and live in Bienkowice.\n5.  On 24 November 2003 the prosecution lodged a bill of indictment with the Kędzierzyn-Koźle District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). R.H., M.O., J.R. and M.B were charged with fraud and embezzlement.\n6.  On an unspecified date between 17 December 2003 and 10 March 2004 the applicants joined the proceedings as a civil party and lodged a claim for compensation against the defendants (powództwo adhezyjne).\n7.  The bill of indictment was only read out on 14 September 2005. In the following years 8 hearings were adjourned or cancelled due to various reasons (the health problems of one of the accused, illness of a defence lawyers, maternity leave of one of the trial judges, etc.).\n8.  On 14 September 2011 the Kędzierzyn-Koźle District Court acquitted M.O., J.R. and M.B of all charges. On the same date the court discontinued the proceedings in respect of R.H., who had died in April 2011. As regards the applicants’ civil claims, they were left without examination.\n9.  On 19 January 2012 the applicants appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n10.  On 12 June 2012 the Opole Regional Court upheld the challenged judgment.\n11.  On 14 April 2009 the applicants lodged with the Opole Regional Court a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n12.  On 15 June 2009 the Opole Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint stating that there were no significant periods of unjustified inactivity for which the Kędzierzyn-Koźle District Court had been responsible. The court held that the case no. II K 815/03 was a complex one. There were four co-accused, who faced numerous charges. 136 witnesses needed to be heard. Furthermore, the duration of proceedings was extended due to R.H.’s health problems, which necessitated many hearings to be postponed, and due to a maternity leave of one of the trial judges.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7137", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1970, 1990 and 1994 respectively and live in Staden, Belgium.\n7.  The facts of the case, as described in the judgment of Moldovan and Others v. Romania (no. 2), nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, ECHR 2005-VII (extracts) and as submitted by the parties in respect of their individual situations, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  The first applicant, Ms Voichiţa (Rostaş) Lăcătuş, was the common law partner of Mr Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş, one of the three Roma killed during the violent events of 20 September 1993 in Hădăreni. The second and third applicants, Ms Speranţa-Lămâiţa Rostaş and Ms Rada-Codruţa Rostaş, are the daughters of the first applicant and of Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş. Prior to 20 September 1993 they all lived in Mrs Cătălina Lăcătuş’s house. Mrs Cătălina Lăcătuş was Mr Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş’ mother. Their home was destroyed during the events and has not been rebuilt to date.\n9.  On the evening of 20 September 1993 a row broke out in a bar in the centre of the village of Hădăreni (Mureş district). Aurel Pardalian Lăcătuş, his brother, along with another Roma man, began to argue with a non-Roma man. The verbal confrontation developed into a physical one which ended with the death of the non-Roma’s son. The three Roma then fled the scene and sought refuge in a neighbour’s house.\n10.  Soon afterwards an angry mob arrived at the house where the three Roma were hiding and demanded that they come out. Among the crowd were members of the local police force who had heard of the incident. When the brothers refused to come out, the crowd set fire to the house. As the fire engulfed the house, the brothers tried to flee but were caught by the mob, who beat and kicked them with vineyard stakes and clubs. The two brothers died later that evening. The third Roma remained in the house, where he died in the fire. It appears that the police officers present did nothing to stop these attacks – on the contrary, they called for and allowed the destruction of all Roma property in Hădăreni.\n11.  Later that evening, the villagers decided to vent their anger on all the Roma living in the village and proceeded to burn Roma homes and property in Hădăreni, including stables, cars and goods. The riots continued until the following day. In all, thirteen Roma houses were destroyed.\n12.  By letters of 30 July 2003 and 19 April 2004 the first applicant informed the Court that in the aftermath of the events she had married Mr Petru (Dîgală) Lăcătuş and that she and her family had been left homeless and had received no aid from the authorities. She also stated that she had been forced to share an apartment located at no. 5 Bradului Street, Luduş with sixteen other individuals until 2002. In addition, she claimed that her younger daughter, the third applicant, had developed a speech impediment as a result of the fear experienced by the first applicant, who had been pregnant with her at the time of the events.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicants submitted documents that attest that on 23 February 1994 M.F.Z. asked the Cheţani Mayor’s Office to provide her and twelve other people, including the first two applicants, with accommodation and protection. The documents further attest that on 6 June 1995 the first applicant and M.F.Z., another victim of the events of September 1993, opened a private business registered at no. 5 Bradului Street, Luduş. They also submitted four birth certificates attesting that the four children the firs", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7138", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Toronto (Canada).\n7.  The applicant retired from her position as director of a private refinery in March 2002. In April 2002 she left Romania for the United States. On 18 and 22 July 2002, while she was away from Romania, summons were sent to her home address, instructing her to present herself at the Police Inspectorate for questioning.\n8.  As she did not comply with the summons, on 25 July 2002 the prosecutor attached to the Prahova Court of Appeal issued a pre‑trial arrest warrant, valid for thirty days, for abuse of office and incitement to forgery. The reasoning in the arrest warrant stated: “the accused is absconding, the sentence provided by law for the alleged crime is a prison sentence of longer than two years and her release would disturb public order.” On 2 August 2002 an international arrest warrant was issued against her.\n9.  The applicant remained outside Romania but contested the legality of the arrest warrant through her legal representative.\n10.  On 26 August 2002 her first complaint was lodged. By an interlocutory judgment of 28 August 2002 the Prahova County Court dismissed the complaint, stating in part:\n“As may be noted, the pre-trial detention of the accused was ordered because of the commission of crimes giving rise to significant public danger, given that the accused had concluded a contract for the sale of oil products at a price that was disadvantageous to the company managed by her and which caused that company a loss of over sixty-three billion lei, actions which created within the public community a sense of indignation and disapproval, as these crimes received extensive media coverage.”\n11.  On 27 September 2002 the Ploieşti Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment, holding that it was clear from the criminal investigation file that there were strong indications that the accused had committed the crimes which had led to inception of the criminal proceedings and the issue of the arrest warrant.\n12.  Several other similar complaints were dismissed in 2003.\n13.  On 11 November 2003 the Braşov County Court concluded that the arrest warrant had been issued unlawfully. The following reasons were put forward: the accused had left Romania in April 2002, prior to the inception of the criminal proceedings against her in July 2002; at that time, therefore, she had been free to leave the country and the fact that she had exercised her right to freedom of movement could not be interpreted as an intention to abscond. On an appeal by the prosecutor, the Braşov Court of Appeal, by a final decision of 18 November 2003, quashed that judgment and confirmed the legality of the warrant, holding that the applicant had tried to abscond from the proceedings.\n14.  Further complaints by the applicant were dismissed by an interlocutory judgment of 3 February 2004, as confirmed by a final decision of the Braşov Court of Appeal delivered on 13 February 2004, and by a final decision of 17 January 2005. In the interlocutory judgment of 3 February 2004, the Braşov County Court indicated that there were reasonable suspicions that the applicant had committed the alleged offences and the arrest warrant was valid, since, although she was aware of the proceedings against her, the applicant had chosen not to return to Romania. The final decision of 13 February 2004 states: “releasing the applicant would give rise to a real danger to public order, given the method and circumstances in which the ac", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7139", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  According to the applicant, in 1974 she received a job offer from the Japanese company Kanematsu-Gosho Ltd which she apparently refused. In 1974-1975 she worked for the Nigerian Embassy in Warsaw and in 1976 for the Indian Embassy.\n7.  On a few occasions the security services attempted to recruit her as a collaborator but the applicant never consented despite threats. In December 1974 the applicant was summoned to the Warsaw Civic Militia Headquarters. She had a conversation with an officer of the counter‑intelligence service in connection with the job offer from the Japanese company. The officer tried to persuade her to collaborate with the service but the applicant refused and stated that she would rather decline the job offer.\n8.  Subsequent meetings with officers of the Security Service (Służba Bezpieczeństwa) took place in 1975. The applicant consistently refused to collaborate. One such meeting took place in connection with the applicant’s request to obtain a passport for a holiday trip to Greece. The applicant was instructed to prepare a report from her trip which she submitted upon her return.\n9.  For a number of years the applicant lived in England. She was involved in the activities supporting the Solidarity (“Solidarność”) Trade Union in Poland.\n10.  The Law of 18 December 1998 on the Institute of National Remembrance (“the Institute Act”; Ustawa o Instytucie Pamięci Narodowej – Komisji Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu) entered into force on 19 January 1999. The Institute’s tasks included, inter alia, storing and researching documents of the communist security services. The right of access to those documents was guaranteed primarily to “injured parties” as defined in the Institute Act.\n11.  On 15 February 2001 the applicant applied to the Institute of National Remembrance (“the Institute”) for leave to consult all documents collected on her by the security services.\n12.  On 2 March 2004 the applicant received a certificate informing her that she could not be considered an “injured party” (pokrzywdzona) within the meaning of section 6 of the Institute Act. In a letter of the same date she was informed that the Institute would continue to search the archives for documents regarding her. The certificate which the applicant received simply indicated that after two rounds of search the Institute had not found any documents created by the former security services about her.\n13.  On 26 October 2005 the Constitutional Court reviewed the constitutionality of the provisions of the Institute Act regarding access to documents held by the Institute (case no. K 31/04). It found, inter alia, that sections 30 § 1 and 31 §§ 1 and 2 of the Institute Act, in so far as they deprived interested persons – other than injured parties – of the right to be provided with information about documents concerning them, were unconstitutional (see Relevant domestic law below).\n14.  On 29 July 2006 the applicant again applied for access to all documents collected on her by the security services. She relied on the above Constitutional Court’s judgment of 26 October 2005. According to the applicant, that judgment stipulated that every interested person had the right to have access to documents held by the Institute concerning him or her on the basis of Article 51 § 3 of the Constitution, regardless of whether he or she had been granted the status of the “injured party”.\n15.  On 15 November", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7140", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lived before his arrest in Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan. He is currently detained in Ufa IZ-3/1 remand prison.\n6.  On 24 November 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking.\n7.  On 25 November 2006 he was charged with large-scale drug trafficking committed in conspiracy with other drug dealers. On the same date Leninskiy District Court (Ufa) examined the investigator’s request to remand the applicant in custody. The court held as follows:\n“Mr Pyatkov Yu.A. is charged with a serious offence, which is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.\nMoreover, Mr Pyatkov Yu. A. was previously convicted of criminal offences on several occasions; his most recent conviction was in 2006.\nFurthermore, Mr Pyatkov Yu.A. is a drug addict, and if released, he might engage in further criminal activities related to drugs in order to provide himself with drugs and improve his financial situation.”\n8.  Taking into account the above elements, the danger to society presented by the offences imputed to the applicant, and the need to secure the execution of his sentence, Leninskiy District Court remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.\n9.  On 23 January 2007 Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 May 2007, referring to the gravity of the charges against him. The court further held that the applicant was a drug addict, had a criminal record and if released he might abscond, continue his criminal activities or interfere with the proceedings, and noted that his detention was necessary in order to secure the execution of his sentence. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.\n10.  On 11 May 2007 Kirovskiy District Court (Ufa) extended the applicant’s detention until 17 August 2007. The court held, in particular, that the period fixed by the court for the applicant’s detention was not sufficient to allow a judge, who would receive the case for examination on the merits, to take a decision concerning the applicant’s detention during the trial. The court also held that the applicant was charged with a serious offence presenting a danger to society, and that if released he might continue criminal activities, abscond, or interfere with the proceedings. The court also noted that the applicant’s detention was necessary in order to secure the execution of the sentence.\n11.  On 14 August 2007 Kirovskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 November 2007, on the same grounds as given in its decision of 11 May 2007.\n12.  On 29 September 2007 the applicant was presented with the final version of the charges. He was accused of several episodes of large-scale drug trafficking committed as a member of an organised criminal group.\n13.  On 22 October 2007 the applicant and his counsel started familiarising themselves with the materials of the criminal case as did the other twenty-nine defendants. According to the Government, the file consisted of 160 volumes.\n14.  On 15 November 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan (“the Supreme Court”) extended the applicant’s detention until 17 February 2008, bringing its total duration to fourteen months and twenty-four days. In taking that decision the Supreme Court stated that the applicant was charged with a serious offence, and that if released he might flee from justice, engage in criminal activities or obstruct the establishment of the t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7141", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977. He lives in Bucharest.\n6.  On 21 November 2001 the Bucharest Appeal Court found the applicant guilty of robbery and two traffic offences and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment.\n7.  He started serving his sentence in Jilava Prison, where he was detained from 28 February 2001 to 4 March 2002; from 27 April 2002 to 23 January 2003; from 28 January to 3rd July 2003; and from 20 February 2006 to 4 December 2008. He also served a part of his sentence in Giurgiu prison from 3rd July 2003 to 26 February 2005; from 5 March 2005 to 11 February 2006; and from 25 February to 23 April 2009.\n8.  The further circumstances on the applicant’s conditions of detention are in dispute between the parties.\n9.  The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention, summarised below, in both Jilava and Giurgiu prisons.\nHe regularly complained thereof and about the disciplinary measures taken against him to the delegate judge, who dismissed most of his complaints.\nFor instance, in a decision of 23 March 2007, the delegate judge to Jilava Prison rejected the applicant’s complaints that he did not fully benefit from the rights granted to him by the Regulations implementing Law no. 275/2006, adopted by Decree no. 1897/2006, on the ground, inter alia, that the legal force of the regulations was inferior to that of the law, and that therefore the prison administration was under no obligation to grant detainees rights which were not provided for by Law no. 275/2006 itself.\n(a)  Jilava Prison\n10.  The cell lacked basic hygiene, it was infested with lice, bugs and rats, the blankets were in a poor condition and the mattresses were dirty. Although the cell was very small and it was only big enough for two to three people, there were nine beds and twelve inmates in the cell (sometimes even fourteen to fifteen).\n11.  The cell window was very small and the cell lacked natural light. Due to the size of the window, the cell was not properly ventilated. The air was even more difficult to breathe as his cellmates were smokers, and the applicant was thus exposed to smoke almost all day long.\n12.  As the sanitary facilities were separated from the rest of the cell only by a makeshift partition, the smell was unbearable.\n13.  The water was undrinkable.\n14.  In addition, the applicant alleges that his daily walk schedule was not observed and that his access to cultural and educational activities was limited.\n(b)  Giurgiu Prison\n15.  The conditions were similar to those in Jilava Prison: the cell was overcrowded and lacked basic hygiene; also, there were no educational and cultural activities and the walk schedule was not observed.\n16.  He was detained alone in a cell for more than eight months, from July 2003 to February/March 2004. During that period he had no contact with the outside world, his rights to receive visits or parcels and to make phone calls were heavily restricted, the window could not be opened and he could only go out for walks on the roof of the prison building, handcuffed, and in a group of no more than five or six prisoners.\n17.  On 19 March 2004 the applicant was categorised as “dangerous” and treated as such, including during his transfer from Jilava Prison to Giurgiu Prison. This measure was regularly renewed. However, the applicant considered that the decisions to categorise him as dangerous had lacked any factual basis and pointed out that since 29 March 2003 he had not committed any act of indiscipline", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7142", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lived before her arrest in Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan. She is currently detained in Ufa IZ-3/1 remand prison.\n6.  On 24 November 2006 the applicant was arrested and charged with large-scale drug trafficking.\n7.  On 25 November 2006 Leninskiy District Court (Ufa) examined the investigator’s request to remand the applicant in custody. The court held as follows:\n“Ms Koroleva Yu.V. is charged with serious offences, which are punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.\nMoreover, Ms Koroleva Yu.V. committed the above crimes while she was standing trial before the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court (Ufa). Ms Koroleva Yu. V. has no fixed abode and is not registered.\nFurthermore, Ms Koroleva Yu. V. is a drug addict and, if released, she might engage in further criminal activities related to drugs in order to provide herself with drugs and improve her financial situation.”\n8.  Taking into account the above elements, the danger to society presented by the offences imputed to the applicant and the need to secure the execution of her sentence, Leninskiy District Court remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.\n9.  On 23 January 2007 Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 May 2007, referring to the gravity of the charges against her. The court further held that the applicant was a drug addict and if released she might abscond, continue her criminal activities or interfere with the proceedings, and noted that her detention was necessary in order to secure the execution of her sentence. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.\n10.  On 11 May 2007 Kirovskiy District Court (Ufa) extended the applicant’s detention until 17 August 2007. The court held, in particular, that the period fixed by the court for the applicant’s detention was not sufficient to allow a judge, who would receive the case for examination on the merits, to take a decision concerning the applicant’s detention during trial. The court also held that the applicant was charged with a serious offence presenting a danger to society, and that if released she might continue criminal activities, abscond or interfere with the proceedings. The court also noted that the applicant’s detention was necessary in order to secure the execution of the sentence.\n11.  On 15 August 2007 Kirovskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 November 2007, on the same grounds as given in its decision of 11 May 2007.\n12.  On 26 September 2007 the applicant was presented with the final version of the charges. She was accused of several episodes of large-scale drug trafficking committed as a member of an organised criminal group.\n13.  On 26 October 2007 the applicant and her counsel started familiarising themselves with the materials of the criminal case as did other twenty-nine defendants. According to the Government, the file consisted of 160 volumes.\n14.  On 15 November 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan (“the Supreme Court”) extended the applicant’s detention until 17 February 2008, referring to the gravity of the charges against her. The Supreme Court also stated that if released she might flee from justice, engage in criminal activities or obstruct the establishment of the truth.\n15.  On 7 February 2008 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention until 17 May 2008, bringing its total duration to seventeen months and twent", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7143", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in County Tyrone, Northern Ireland.\n6.  In April 2000 the girlfriend of the applicant’s son wished to leave Northern Ireland with the applicant’s ten-month old grandson and return to live in Australia following her separation from the applicant’s son. In order to try and force her son and his girlfriend to reconcile their differences, and in the hope that her grandson would not return to Australia, the applicant disappeared with her grandson at 6 p.m. on 19 April 2000 without the parents’ permission. The police were called and the child was returned unharmed on the morning of 21 April 2000.\n7.  The applicant was subsequently arrested for child abduction. At a police interview on 24 April 2000, in the presence of her solicitor, the applicant confirmed that she had been aware at the time that she took her grandson that her conduct amounted to child abduction.\n8.  By letter dated 10 October 2000 the Director of Public Prosecutions recorded his decision that the public interest did not require the initiation of criminal proceedings against the applicant and that no such proceedings should therefore be brought. Instead, he indicated that a caution should be administered.\n9.  The applicant received a caution for child abduction which was formally administered on 17 November 2000.\n10.  On 6 March 2003, in reply to a query from the applicant, the police advised her that her caution would remain on record for five years, and so would be held on record until 17 November 2005.\n11.  On 14 September 2006 the applicant was offered employment as a Health Care Family Support Worker within Foyle Health and Social Services Trust (“the Trust”) through Westcare Business Services (“Westcare”), subject to vetting. She was asked to disclose details of prior convictions and cautions. She accordingly disclosed details of the incident of April 2000 and her subsequent caution on the form provided, and consented to a criminal record check. Westcare contacted the Criminal Records Office of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (“Criminal Records Office”) to verify the details disclosed. The existence of the caution was duly verified.\n12.  On 31 October 2006 Westcare withdrew the offer of employment, indicating that it had taken into account the verification by the Criminal Records Office of the caution for child abduction.\n13.  The applicant subsequently sought to challenge her acceptance of the caution in November 2000 by letter to the Criminal Records Office. In an undated letter, the Criminal Records Office replied to her in the following terms:\n“... in a case where someone agrees to be cautioned by the police for a particular offence, by doing so they are accepting that they were guilty of the offence in the first place. This information is printed on the caution form, which you signed on 17th November 2000.\nRegrettably there is no way to change that. The case cannot be brought back to a court because the whole idea of the caution was to keep it out of court in the first instance.\nI should also point out that the information given to Sgt Dunne and which he relayed to you in 2003, about the weeding date for an adult caution, was correct at that time but there has since been a policy change. Normally an adult caution will be weeded after a period of five years, provided the defendant has not been convicted of any further offences. However following the murder of the schoolgirls in Soham England and the subsequent Bich", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7144", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in the town of Khimki, the Moscow Region.\n7.  In July 2004 the applicant married Mr O.A.\n8.  In the applicant’s submission, after the registration of the marriage her husband told her that his father, Mr M.A., was an influential person in the criminal world. She also submits that her husband has informal connections with police officers.\n9.  On 19 August 2004 the applicant gave birth to a son, M.\n10.  In 2007 marital tensions began to develop between the couple.\n11.  On 28 April 2008 Mr O.A. threw the applicant out of their family home without M. He said that he would take M. to Armenia and would not allow the applicant to contact the boy.\n12.  The applicant kept calling her son on the phone, but her husband’s family did not allow her to speak to M. Her attempts to visit her son were futile.\n13.  On 15 May 2008 the applicant instituted divorce proceedings before the Moscow Kuzminskiy District Court (“the district court”). She also requested the court to make an order concerning the child’s place of residence and to restrict Mr O.A.’s parental rights (“to remove a child from a parent” within the meaning of Article 73 of the Family Code of Russia).\n14.  On 25 August 2008 Mr O.A. and M. officially registered their place of residence as being at the Nikitskoe residence. In the applicant’s submission, Mr O.A. did not ask for her consent when changing M.’s place of residence.\n15.  In September 2008 the applicant saw her son for the first time since her separation from her husband for twenty minutes in the presence of Mr O.A., his mother and sister, as well as officials of child welfare authorities.\n16.  Two different district child welfare authorities examined the applicant’s and Mr O.A.’s respective places of residence. The Khimki Town Child Welfare Authority (“the Khimki child welfare authority”) delivered a report stating that it was in the best interests of the child to stay with the applicant, while the Moscow Kuzminki District Child Welfare Authority (“the Kuzminki child welfare authority”) decided that it was best for M. to live with his father, who had good living conditions and was prosperous.\n17.  On 13 November 2008 the district court dissolved the applicant’s marriage. It further found that the best interests of M. required that he reside with his mother. The judgment read, in so far as relevant, as follows:\n“Having assessed all [the available] evidence as a whole, the court sees no reason to order that the child’s place of residence be with his father after the dissolution of the marriage, since it has not been proven that his mother has acted in breach of the child’s best interests. For a lengthy period of time the child has been living with the defendant without his mother’s consent. The defendant has not taken any real steps to reunite the family after the institution of court proceedings and has not provided the claimant with an opportunity to see the child.\n... The court disagrees with the conclusions of the Kuzminki child welfare authority, as they are based exclusively on the fact that the defendant has certain assets ... The defendant did not deny that he had kept the child at his place [of residence against the claimant’s will], which was not taken into account by the [Kuzminki] child welfare authority when drafting the conclusions.\nThe child was born in 2004 ... Taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, the age of the child, the willingness of his mother t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7146", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Tryavna.\n6.  In 1999 the relations between the applicant and her partner N.B., a local police officer, deteriorated and they separated.\n7.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicant filed a request to the district prosecutor to open criminal proceedings against N.B. for physical and psychological abuse. That was refused by a decision of 4 March 2002.\n8.  On 27 July 2000 G.I. and D.M., who according to the applicant were friends of N.B., filed complaints against the applicant to the district prosecutor, stating that she was harassing them as she was mentally ill. The prosecutor sent the complaints to the police to gather information concerning the applicant’s mental state. He instructed them, in particular, to interview friends and family of the applicant.\n9.  On 8 August 2000 the police reported to the prosecutor that the applicant should be subjected to compulsory psychiatric treatment. On 28 September 2000 the district prosecutor ordered the applicant’s psychiatric examination with a view to establishing whether it was necessary to initiate judicial proceedings for her compulsory psychiatric treatment. The applicant maintains that she never received a summons to voluntarily appear before the authorities in order to undergo any such examination.\n10.  In the morning of 4 October 2000 a police officer visited the applicant in her house and requested her appearance at the police station in relation to her complaint against N.B. The applicant contends that when she arrived at the police station, she was forced into an ambulance. There she was served with a prosecutor’s order for her detention in a psychiatric hospital in order to undergo a psychiatric examination.\n11.  On the same day the applicant was taken to the Sevlievo State Psychiatric Hospital where she was kept for a month for a psychiatric examination. The doctors noted in their opinion that the applicant was suffering from certain, apparently not very serious, disorders. They did not express an opinion on the need for the applicant’s confinement. The applicant was discharged from the hospital on 3 November 2000.\n12.  On 13 November 2000 the prosecutor decided not to request the applicant’s committal for compulsory psychiatric treatment, noting that the applicant did not suffer from a mental disease.\n13.  On an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant filed a complaint to the Supreme Cassation Prosecutor’s Office, claiming that her detention in a psychiatric hospital constituted an abuse of office on the part of the district prosecutor. The complaint was referred to the regional prosecutor who dismissed it on 22 April 2002. He stated, in particular, that the actions of the district prosecutor in respect of the applicant’s detention had been lawful.\n14.  On 29 August 2001 G.I. filed a fresh complaint to the district prosecutor, claiming again harassment on the part of the applicant. Following another police inquiry, on 20 September 2001 the district prosecutor ordered the applicant’s psychiatric examination.\n15.  In a letter of 26 September 2001 the director of the Sevlievo State Psychiatric Hospital required the applicant’s appearance in order to undergo a psychiatric examination. The applicant did not respond to the letter.\n16.  On 23 January 2002 the applicant appeared before the local police station in order to obtain her new identification document when she was detained and sent to the Sevlievo State Psychiatric Hospital. The ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7147", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is currently serving a life sentence in prison.\n6.  The applicant completed five years of secondary school. In 1992 he was convicted of murder and theft. In 2000 he was released.\n7.  On 5 February 2004 the Hlobyne District Prosecutor’s Office, the Poltava Region (“the Hlobyne Prosecutor’s Office”), opened an investigation in connection with the murder of R., an elderly single woman who was found suffocated in her house in the village of Gradyzk with her hands and legs tied up. A forensic medical expert noted the injuries on R.’s corpse, including broken ribs.\n8.  On the same date, the Svitlovodsk Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office, the Kirovograd Region (“the Svitlovodsk Prosecutor’s Office”), opened an investigation in connection with the murder of Ya., another elderly single woman. Ya. was found dead in her house in the village of Pavlivka with her hands and legs tied up. The forensic medical expert concluded that Ya. had died due to a pneumothorax which had been caused by serious injuries, including numerous broken ribs and a fracture of the chest.\n9.  On 20 May 2004 the investigation in connection with the murder of R. was suspended, as no suspects could be identified.\n10.  On 29 May 2004 an investigator from the Svitlovodsk Prosecutor’s Office arrested B., a woman who was living with the applicant, on suspicion of having murdered Ya. After B. had her rights explained to her, she asked to be provided with a lawyer. A legal-aid lawyer was admitted to the proceedings the same day and assisted B. during the first questioning session. When questioned, B. confessed that she and the applicant had visited an elderly woman and that the applicant had beaten up and tied up that woman, after which he had searched the house for money. B insisted that the applicant had forced her to go with him on that day and that she had been afraid of refusing to follow his orders.\n11.  On 31 May 2004 the investigator from the Svitlovodsk Prosecutor’s Office arrested the applicant on suspicion of having murdered Ya. He was provided with a legal-aid lawyer, H., that same day.\n12.  According to the applicant, following his arrest, he was beaten up by the police with the purpose of making him confess to the crime.\n13.  On 1 June 2004 the applicant was questioned for the first time on account of Ya.’s murder. Assisted by his lawyer, the applicant stated that B. had pushed the elderly woman to the floor and had tied her up while he had been looking for money.\n14.  On the same date, B. and her lawyer participated in a reconstruction of the crime committed in respect of Ya. in the village of Pavlivka. B. showed those present where in the house the applicant had beaten and tied up Ya.\n15.  On 3 and 8 June 2004 the Svitlovodsk District Court, the Poltava Region, ordered, respectively, that the applicant and B. be held in custody.\n16.  On 9 June 2004 the applicant was charged with the murder of Ya. He was further questioned in the presence of his lawyer. The applicant admitted that he and B. had visited Ya. but denied that he had inflicted any injuries on the victim.\n17.  On 14 June 2004 the applicant and his lawyer participated in a reconstruction of the crime committed in respect of Ya. in the village of Pavlivka. Upon arriving at the village, the applicant failed to identify the house where the elderly woman had lived, claiming that he could not remember which house it was.\n18.  On 24 August 2004 the applicant was allegedly bea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7148", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Upon a private company’s request, in May 1996 L. K., a forest engineer employed by the company, made an estimation of the amount of damages caused to the company’s territory by wild animals under the responsibility of a hunting society. Subsequently, on 1 August 1996 the company brought an action in compensation against the hunting society, the members of which were the applicants.\n5.  In March 1997 the hunting society was dissolved. The proceedings were discontinued on 10 June 1997, pending the identification of successors to the proceedings.\n6.  On 6 March 1999 the proceedings continued, as the plaintiff designated the applicants as successors to the proceedings.\n7.  The Kiskőrös District Court appointed an expert, J. K., to establish the value of the hunters’ house. The expert filed an opinion on 30 November 2000.\n8.  On 9 July 2003 the Kiskőrös District Court found for the plaintiff. This judgment was quashed by the Csongrád County Regional Court on 23 February 2005.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, due to the bias declared by the judges in Bács-Kiskun County, the case was heard by the Szeged District Court. The court requested L. K. to submit a further expert report to establish the amount of damages caused. He filed an opinion on 24 January 2006.\n10.  On 3 March 2006 the first-instance court gave judgment, finding for the plaintiff. The applicants appealed, arguing - among others - that they had not received the copy of minutes of the hearing of 28 October 2005 on time, and questioning the impartiality of L. K.\n11.  On appeal, the Csongrád County Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment. Concerning the minutes of the hearing, the second-instance court pointed out that the District Court had no legal obligation to send them the minutes automatically. They had the options of requesting copies either by post or in person at the court. The applicants had requested the copies for the first time on 11 January 2006, following which the court had sent the minutes on 13 January 2006 despite the fact that the applicants had not paid the copy fees. The delivery of the mail sent according to the rules had not been successful. Following the repeated request of the applicants on 16 February 2006, the copies had been sent once again on 21 February 2006. Moreover, the court pointed out that the respondents had been present at the hearing, where they had the opportunity to take notes, and could have submitted observations within eight days to L. K.’s expert report, delivered to them on 13 February 2006. As to the impartiality of L. K., the court emphasised that he had been the only expert to see the damages on-site in 1996. Ten years after the occurrence of the damages, appointing a further forensic expert to proceed on the basis of documentary evidence would have been futile in the court’s opinion. In addition, L. K. had followed the court’s instructions when preparing the expert report.\n12.  The applicants lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which upheld the final judgment on 10 May 2007. This decision was served on the applicants on 14 June 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7149", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is currently serving a prison sentence.\n6.  On the evening of 3 March 2004 the applicant and two of his acquaintances, H. and L., had a party in L.’s flat. They drank large quantities of alcohol. At some point a fight broke out among them, which resulted in H. being stabbed and suffocated.\n7.  At about 10 p.m. that evening the police found the body of H. in the flat. They also found the applicant drunk and asleep in the flat. The police decided to arrest the applicant on suspicion of having killed H.\n8.  At the police station the applicant was given an explanation of the provisions of Article 63 of the Constitution and then questioned on account of the incident. The applicant stated that during the party he was repeatedly humiliated by H. At certain point the applicant lost his patience and started to beat H. to the extent that H. lost his consciousness. However, L. considered that it had not been enough for H. and killed him. After that L. left the flat and the applicant fell asleep. The questioning session was carried out by police officers without a lawyer being present.\n9.  At 2.30 a.m. on 4 March 2004 an investigator from the prosecutor’s office prepared an arrest report in respect of the applicant. The applicant’s defence rights were explained to him by the investigator, including the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer. The applicant signed the relevant explanatory note stating that he did not need the assistance of a lawyer. The investigator accepted the waiver of legal assistance by issuing a separate ruling. The ruling provided that the applicant had refused legal assistance as he did not need it and entirely trusted the investigative authorities.\n10.  According to the applicant, that waiver was given by him as a result of psychological pressure exercised by the police officers.\n11.  Between 9.30 a.m. and 10.55 a.m. on 4 March 2004 the applicant was questioned by the investigator. The applicant stated that it had been L. who had killed H.\n12.  At 12.50 p.m. on 4 March 2004 the investigator arrested L. on suspicion of having killed H. During questioning, L. explained that he had gone out of the flat to buy some more alcohol and, while he was away, the applicant had killed H.\n13.  According to the applicant, on 6 March 2004 he was beaten up by police officers for the first time with the purpose of making him confess to the murder of H. The applicant felt ill and therefore demanded a medical examination.\n14.  On the same date a forensic medical expert examined the applicant. According to the report issued by that expert, the applicant had sustained an abrasion to his chest, which was considered to be a light injury that could have been inflicted seven to ten days before the examination; and during the examination the applicant had stated that he had had a fight with H. and that after his arrest he had not been beaten by anyone.\n15.  Again on the same date the Bakhchysaray District Court (the “District Court”) ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for two months.\n16.  On 7 March 2004 the applicant confessed to the murder. According to the applicant, he wrote the confession after he had been beaten up by a police officer again.\n17.  On the same date the investigator carried out a confrontation between the applicant and L., in the course of which the applicant admitted his guilt. Following this investigatory action L. was released.\n18.  The investigator further questione", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7150", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1944, 1955, 1977 and 1980 respectively and live in the city of Chernigiv, Ukraine. The third and fourth applicants are children of the first and second applicants.\n6.  In the morning of 14 August 2001 two private individuals, R. and O., acquaintances of the third applicant, went to the applicants’ apartment and said that the third applicant should return an electric drill to them. The third applicant was absent but R. and O. insisted and tried to enter the apartment. The first applicant picked up a gas gun and requested them to leave.\n7.  R. went to the police station and complained that the first applicant had threatened him with a weapon. It could be also understood from the available materials that R. and O. had bribed the police officers to go and seize the drill (see paragraph 31).\n8.  At around 7 p.m. on the same day the same two people, accompanied by police officers G., D. and F., went to the applicants’ apartment. R. and O. again asked for the drill and when the first applicant tried to close the door a fight broke out.\n9.  According to the first applicant, when he opened the door, he was knocked down but managed to break free and shouted for help. He was knocked down again and his attackers tried to push him into the apartment. One of them sat on the applicant, put his knee on the first applicant’s neck and hit him on the head with a gun handle. The third applicant tried to free his father but was handcuffed.\n10.  According to the second applicant, when she was returning from work, she saw “that something was going on near their apartment and that several people were beating her son in the corridor of their apartment”. She tried to separate the third applicant and the attackers. One of the attackers (who, it emerged later, was the private individual, O.) allegedly kicked her in the stomach and hit her on the head. The applicants’ neighbours heard the noise and came out on to the stairs. The police officers asked them to call the police station. More police officers arrived and the first and third applicants were taken to the police station. According to the Government, they were taken “to give explanations”. The second applicant accompanied them but was not allowed to stay.\n11.  Upon arrival, the first and third applicants were allegedly beaten up in the police station by eight or ten people. They were hit on the head, in the chest, on the ribs and in the stomach and also hit on the head with a plastic bottle filled with water. The third applicant was hit on the ears. According to him, he was handcuffed the whole time. According to the applicants, they were threatened with being injected with drugs and with being put in a cell where they would be raped by other detainees. The first applicant was allegedly forced to sign a document stating that he had voluntarily handed over a gas gun and an electric drill to the police officers.\n12.  At around 11 p.m. the first applicant was taken home by police officers S. and T., where he gave them the drill and the gas gun. The drill was later handed over to R. The third applicant was released the same evening.\n13.  On 15 and 16 August 2001 the first and second applicants requested the prosecutor to arrange a forensic medical examination for them. In particular, the second applicant submitted that she “had been beaten by the bandits who had beaten her husband and son”. She further noted that she had been beaten by O.\n14.  On 15 August 2001 the first applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7151", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Kharkiv.\n6.  On 17 November 2004 I. and D.K. were arrested on suspicion of attempting to arrange the murder of V., a businessman working in Kharkiv. Both suspects were questioned. D.K. admitted his involvement in the crime and said that the applicant had initiated the plot and agreed to pay for the crime.\n7.  On 19 November 2004 the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, I. and D.K. on suspicion of attempting to arrange the murder of V.\n8.  The investigative authorities submitted the following account of events. The applicant’s father and V. were business partners. The applicant was well acquainted with V. and persuaded him to enter into a deal with R. R. then swindled V., causing him serious financial damage. V. suspected the applicant of collusion with R., and their relationship seriously deteriorated. The applicant then decided to arrange the murder of V. For this purpose, the applicant met D.K., who lived in Kyiv and offered to assist him in arranging the murder of V. The applicant wired money to D.K. to buy a gun. D.K. started to look for a gun and an assassin to hire. He met I., who suggested that he speak to Yu.K. as a possible assassin. When they met, Yu.K. asked D.K. for information about V. and gave him a list of questions. The applicant provided some of the answers to D.K. He also gave D.K. some money to be transferred to Yu.K. After Yu.K. had received the information and the money, he refused to commit the murder and approached the law-enforcement authorities.\n9.  At about 11 p.m. on 20 November 2004 the police arrested the applicant at his apartment in Kharkiv, took him to the police station in Kharkiv and then escorted him to Kyiv (about 450 kilometres away).\n10.  During that night and the morning of 21 November 2004 the applicant was allegedly beaten by police officers to make him confess to the crime. According to the applicant, the police officers placed a gas mask over his head and blocked the access to air; they also hung him up by handcuffs fixed to his wrists. He had no access to a doctor in that period.\n11.  In the morning of 21 November 2004 the applicant’s father hired a lawyer from Kharkiv, N.B., to represent the applicant.\n12.  Between 8.10 a.m. and 11.05 a.m. on that date a police officer questioned the applicant as a witness in the case. The questioning was carried out without a lawyer. Before being questioned the applicant had been warned that refusing to give evidence and giving false evidence were criminal offences. At the same time he was apprised of Article 63 of the Constitution, which provides that a person is not liable for refusal to give evidence regarding himself or herself and his or her relatives.\n13.  During questioning the applicant admitted that he had asked D.K. to find someone who could murder V. in exchange for money. D.K. had answered in the affirmative and they had agreed a price and the terms. They later met in Kharkiv to inspect the locality. D.K. had taken part of the payment from the applicant. Subsequently, D.K. had been arrested and the plan to murder V. had fallen through.\n14.  After questioning, the applicant wrote a confession and submitted it to the police officer who had questioned him. According to the applicant, he wrote a confession, as dictated by a police officer, to avoid any further ill‑treatment.\n15.  At 1.05 p.m. on 21 November 2004 an investigator of the Shevchenkivskyy District P", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7152", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and is currently detained in Sumy no. 116 Correctional Colony.\n6.  At the material time the applicant was a deputy head of the Sumy District State Administration. He has been suffering from chronic lymphocytic leukaemia since 2002 and underwent several courses of chemotherapy in 2007-09.\n7.  On 3 June 2009 criminal proceedings for corruption were instituted against the applicant. On the same day he was arrested and detained for eight days. According to the applicant, on the first day of his detention he was not given any water or food, and was not provided with any medical assistance.\n8.  On 22 June 2009 Sumy Regional Hospital informed the applicant’s lawyer B. that the applicant had been in the hospital on five different occasions between 15 March 2007 and 22 June 2009. He was suffering from chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, which fell into the category of terminal illness, so only maintenance treatment in a specialised haematology department was possible for him in addition to permanent medication while not in hospital.\n9.  Between 28 July and 13 August 2009 the applicant was in Sumy Regional Hospital. He was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, atherosclerotic cardiosclerosis, hypertension, chronic cholecystitis, chronic pancreatitis and cysts on both kidneys.\n10.  On 8 September 2009 the applicant was recorded as falling into the third category of disability (the mildest) on account of his condition. In accordance with an Instruction on Assessment of Disability Levels, adopted by the Ministry of Health Protection of Ukraine on 7 April 2004, in force at the material time, the third category of disability included people with constant functional body disorders of moderate gravity, which caused moderate limitations of daily activity.\n11.  On 23 December 2009 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of corruption (receiving 100,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (at the material time around 8,700 euros (EUR)) in return for allocation of 2.8 hectares of plots of land) and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment, banned him from holding administrative positions, and ordered his property to be confiscated. The court noted that the applicant’s state of health had been taken into consideration when he was sentenced. In these proceedings the applicant was represented by lawyers B. and D.\n12.  On the same day the applicant was placed in the Sumy Pre-Trial Detention Centre.\n13.  The applicant appealed against this sentence. In his appeal the applicant’s lawyer, M., mentioned that the applicant needed kidney surgery and was suffering from chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. He believed that these were among the conditions which could serve as a basis for release. Therefore, he stated that the applicant’s sentence amounts to “the death penalty”.\n14.  On 25 March 2010 the Supreme Court of Ukraine examined the case on the facts and points of law and upheld the applicant’s sentence without expressly addressing the issue of his medical condition. However, it was indicated that the lower court had correctly assessed the mitigating circumstances when sentencing the applicant. From the documents submitted by the applicant it is unclear what specific medical evidence was presented before the national courts.\n15.  On 7 April 2010 the applicant was transferred to Sumy no. 116 Correctional Colony.\n16.  On 17 April 2010 the applicant was placed in the medical wing of the colony. He was diagnosed with atherosc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7153", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Chernihiv. The applicant is a single woman and for many years she maintained friendly relationships with Z. and her parents.\n6.  In 1999 the flat where Z. and her parents lived was robbed and Z.’s mother was killed. After it had been found that the crime had been committed by certain male perpetrators, the investigation was stayed as the culprits could not be identified.\n7.  On 10 August 2001 Z. was found dead in the flat with several knife wounds.\n8.  On 11 August 2001 the Chernihiv Prosecutor’s Office (“the prosecutor’s office”) instituted criminal proceedings concerning Z.’s murder.\n9.  On 17 August 2001 the applicant was questioned as a witness in respect of the murder. The applicant noted that she had been friend with Z. and stated that she did not know who might have killed her.\n10.  On 3 November 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of the murder of Z. She was questioned by the investigator of the prosecutor’s office between 11.10 a.m. and 3.15 p.m., following which a written record of the interview was prepared, which was two pages long. According to the record, the applicant’s right to remain silent under Article 63 of the Constitution had been explained to her, following which she denied any involvement in the crime.\n11.  At 3.30 p.m. an arrest report was prepared. At the same time the investigator explained to the applicant her rights to a lawyer and to remain silent. The applicant signed the record and wrote as follows: “at the present moment I refuse the services of defence counsel”. The investigator accepted this waiver by issuing a separate ruling.\n12.  After the questioning session, the applicant was placed in the local temporary detention centre, where she allegedly suffered as a result of a lack of appropriate sanitary and hygienic conditions; the cell was dark, damp and dirty; the water supply was irregular.\n13.  Between 3 and 5 November 2001, the applicant was regularly visited by the investigator and police officers, who allegedly compelled her to confess to the murder. According to the applicant, they explained to her that if she confessed to the crime and cooperated with the investigation they would arrange her release under an obligation not to abscond, she would not be dismissed from her job, and they would mitigate her responsibility to the extent of getting her released from imprisonment. On the contrary, if she continued claiming innocence, she would in any event be charged with the murder as, in the absence of any alibi, no one would believe her. They would also arrange for her to have the worst cell in the pre-trial detention centre and subsequently in prison. The transportation to the prison would be the most horrible experience.\n14.  In the course of these discussions, the applicant was allowed to telephone her friend M. The applicant asked M. to find a lawyer. Following the conversation, M., together with P. (the applicant’s relative), hired a lawyer for the applicant.\n15.  On 5 November 2001 the lawyer requested the prosecutor’s office to give him access to the applicant. As he could not find the investigator in charge of the applicant’s criminal case, he gave the relevant authorisation document to another investigator and asked the latter to pass it on to the investigator dealing with the applicant’s case.\n16.  On 5 November 2001 the applicant, assuming that her friend had not found a lawyer, wrote a confession to the murder of Z. According to the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7155", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Debrecen.\n5.  On 10 April 1992 the applicant brought a civil action against the predecessor of the Hungarian National Fiduciary Private Limited Company (“ÁPV Rt”) before the Budapest Regional Court.\n6.  The case was transferred to the Pest Central District Court. It appointed an expert, who filed an opinion in January 1995. On 4 November 1996 the court gave judgment, which was quashed by the Budapest Regional Court on 12 December 1997.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings the District Court delivered its judgment on 27 April 1998. This decision was quashed on appeal on 19 January 2000.\n8.  The District Court’s judgment of 14 July 2004 was again quashed by the Regional Court on 28 October 2005.\n9.  Finally the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, gave judgment on 25 April 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7156", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and is currently serving a life sentence in prison.\n6.  In 1995 the applicant was identified as suffering from schizophrenia and between 2001 and 2004 he underwent various types of compulsory medical treatment on account of his illness.\n7.  In January 2005 the applicant and his friend were charged with robbery. The applicant remained at liberty during the pre-trial investigation of the case.\n8.  On 7 April 2005 the police instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the murder of two women which had been committed the day before.\n9.  On the evening of 9 April 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed the murders. According to his submission, after the applicant was brought to the police station the officers started pressuring him to confess to the murders. His requests to be provided with a lawyer were ignored. The officers showed him a gun and hinted that they could easily shoot him and then fabricate a story that he had attempted to escape. In view of his poor mental health they claimed, nobody would doubt their version of events. They then punched him and started hitting him with a bat. He started to parry the blows with his arms, but then soon gave up and agreed to write a confession dictated to him by the police officers.\n10.  On 10 April 2005 the police officers formally questioned the applicant as a suspect and carried out a reconstruction of the events at the scene of the crime in the presence of a legal-aid lawyer, G. The applicant then confessed to the murders.\n11.  On 11 April 2005 the applicant was examined by a medical expert. Following the medical examination the expert issued a report which determined that the applicant was suffering from bruising to both arms and an abrasion to his right arm which had been inflicted by blunt objects and could have been sustained on 9 April 2005. The expert also stated that the applicant had an injury on his right hand which could have been inflicted on 6 April 2005.\n12.  On 13 April 2005 the applicant again confessed to the murders and denied that any physical or psychological pressure had been put on him when he had written his initial confession. The questioning was held in the presence of his lawyer.\n13.  Later, the applicant changed his lawyer during the pre-trial investigation, but he subsequently reappointed G as his lawyer. When he was questioned on 14 June 2005, in the presence of the new lawyer, he denied any involvement in the murders while acknowledging his guilt in the robbery.\n14.  On 14 June 2005 the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s injuries as documented by the medical expert on 11 April 2005, for lack of evidence that any crime had been committed. The investigator concluded that the injuries had been self- inflicted. That decision was taken by the investigator on his own initiative, without the applicant’s formal complaint of ill-treatment.\n15.  On 24 June 2005 the investigation was completed. After the parties examined the case file, it was referred to the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal where the applicant was to be tried.\n16.  During the trial the applicant raised the issue of his alleged ill-treatment. He admitted that he had committed a robbery, but denied any involvement in the murders. He insisted that the police officers had illegally compelled him to confess to the murders.\n17.  On 23 September 2005 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal found the applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7157", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently serving a prison sentence. Before his arrest, the applicant had been living as a vagrant in Yevpatoriya for several years.\n7.  During the evening of 19 April 2005 L., a vagrant woman, was murdered by suffocation. Her corpse was found on the morning of 20 April 2005 beneath a balcony of a multi-storey building in Yevpatoriya. A criminal investigation was opened.\n8.  The police started by interviewing the victim’s relatives and acquaintances and the residents of the building where the corpse was found. A number of interviewees stated that throughout the day and the evening of 19 April 2005, they had seen L. with the applicant; some of them had seen the applicant quarrelling with L. and drinking alcohol on that day; certain interviewees described L. as a very aggressive woman.\n9.  In the afternoon of 20 April 2005 the police found the applicant and his acquaintance, V., and took them to a police station for questioning about the incident. When questioned, V. stated that he, L., and the applicant had been living as vagrants. In the evening of 19 April 2005 they had been drinking alcohol with another man under the balcony of the building where L. used to sleep. He and the applicant had decided to buy some more alcohol and left the company for that purpose. When they returned, L. was alone. They had offered her some more drink and then decided to leave her. V. had walked away, but had had to wait for the applicant at a distance. When the applicant rejoined V. about fifteen minutes later, the applicant said that L. had insulted him. The next morning the applicant had called an ambulance for L.\n10.  The police then questioned the applicant. They allegedly ill-treated him and forced him to confess to the crime. The applicant stated in particular that in the evening of 19 April 2005 L. had insulted him and hit him in the face; in reply, he had squeezed her throat. The next morning he had called an ambulance.\n11.  Following those statements, V. was released and the applicant was taken to the prosecutor’s office for further questioning by an investigator.\n12.  At 7.30 p.m. on 20 April 2005 the investigator formally arrested the applicant. The applicant admitted in the arrest report that L. could have died as a result of his action.\n13.  At 7.40 on the same date the investigator started to question the applicant in the presence of a legal-aid lawyer. The applicant repeated his statements. According to the applicant, the lawyer arrived only at the end of the questioning.\n14.  The applicant was then presented for examination to a forensic medical expert, whose report stated that the applicant had a bruised left eye and a granulating wound on his upper lip. The applicant explained that those injuries had been caused by L. and a man. The expert opined that the injuries had been light and that the bruise on the eye had been sustained two to four days before the examination while the wound on the lip could have been sustained on 19 April 2005.\n15.  At 8.30 on 20 April 2005 the applicant and his lawyer participated in a reconstruction of the crime, in which the applicant showed how he had committed the crime.\n16.  On 21 April 2005 the applicant was charged with the murder of L. When questioned on that day in the presence of his lawyer, the applicant admitted that his actions might have caused L.’s death but insisted that he had had no intention of killing her.\n17.  On 23 April 2005 the Yevpatoriya Town Co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7158", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Vilnius.\n6.  In October 2006 the applicant was detained at the Anykščiai Police Detention Facility (hereinafter – “the Anykščiai Facility”) in cell No. 3. From 9 to 11 October he shared the cell with another person, and from 12 to 16 October he was held alone. The detention facility contained seven cells in total.\n7.  The applicant complained to the administration of the Anykščiai Facility that the conditions of his detention had been appalling. In their letter of reply dated 6 November 2006, they informed the applicant that because the cell in which he had been held was situated at semi-basement level, it was technically impossible for it to have a window through which natural light could enter. They also explained that in order to install sinks and toilets in the cells, full-scale renovation would be required, but said that this was precluded owing to a lack of financial resources.\n8.  The applicant then lodged a complaint, the content of which is unknown to the Court, with the Anykščiai District Prosecutor’s Office. In its reply dated 16 November 2006, the Prosecutor’s Office conceded that some of the applicant’s allegations were true: the Anykščiai Facility had indeed not met proper “norms of hygiene and functioning”. They said that the Government had been informed about the fact and that the building of a new facility was planned.\n9.  The applicant lodged a further complaint with the Ombudsman, arguing that he had been held in a cell without a sink or toilet. The cell also lacked a window, so there had been no natural light or fresh air.\n10.  The head of the Anykščiai Facility informed the Ombudsman that the building had been constructed in 1926 and thus it had been impossible to install toilets and sinks in the cells. He explained that detainees were taken to a communal toilet at the end of the corridor and that “each cell had a bucket for the night”. Detainees could also take drinking water to their cell.\n11.  On 23 January 2007 the Ombudsman found the applicant’s complaint valid. He noted that in March 2006 health care specialists had pointed out “over and over again” (eilinį kartą) that the cells lacked sanitary units as well as natural light, although the artificial lighting met domestic legal norms. The old air vents were inadequate and the air conditioning system was ineffective. However, the facility administration was not to blame for the insufficient funding that had precluded the possibility of improving conditions in the facility.\n12.  The applicant then initiated proceedings before the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage, arguing that he had been held in degrading conditions at the Anykščiai Facility. In particular, his cell had had no built-in toilet, so he had had to use a bucket. Nor did the cell have a sink, so he had suffered from a lack of drinking water. Furthermore, as a result of the inadequate lighting and the lack of fresh air, he had suffered constant headaches and his eyes had become sore. The applicant claimed 210,000 Lithuanian litai (approximately 61,000 euros) in non-pecuniary damages. He also claimed that his rights under Article 3 of the Convention had been violated.\n13.  In reply to the lawsuit, the Anykščiai Facility acknowledged that the establishment did not meet the domestic legal hygiene requirements, but argued that its administration was not to blame for the lack of funding that had caused the pr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7161", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Oradea.\n7.  According to the applicant, at about 4 p.m. on 27 November 2006, police officers belonging to the special intervention forces of Bihor Police Inspectorate took the applicant into custody in order to transport him from his home in Borş to Cluj, about 200 km away. They had not presented any warrant or other legal document justifying his arrest, nor informed him of the reason for his arrest or where they intended to transport him.\n8.  The applicant contended that while in custody he had been beaten by police officers so severely that he had lost consciousness. As a result, he needed urgent medical assistance and was admitted to the emergency ward of Huedin Hospital. While he was on a drip at the hospital, he was hit again and handcuffed by police officers. This occurred in the presence of his lawyer.\n9.   The Cluj Police immediately transferred him from Huedin Hospital to the emergency ward of Cluj Hospital, where he remained for about three hours from 9.15 p.m. until midnight.\n10.  At about 0.45 a.m., although unable to speak because he had been given sedatives in hospital, he was transported from the hospital directly to the Cluj Police Headquarters in order to be interviewed. There, he was informed for the first time of the reason for his arrest, namely that he was suspected of making repeated phone calls threatening to kill someone. He was interviewed until 1.52 a.m.\n11.  A preliminary criminal investigation was initiated in connection with allegations that the applicant had made threatening telephone calls against a resident of Cluj-Napoca. On 27 November 2006, the prosecutor attached to the Cluj-Napoca District Court therefore issued an order for the applicant to be brought before him for questioning.\n12.  At 4 p.m. on the same day, having been informed by police officers about the order, the applicant agreed to accompany the police officers to the Prosecutor’s Office in Cluj. On their way to Cluj, near Huedin, the applicant informed them that he was feeling sick and became physically agitated, presenting the symptoms of an epileptic seizure.\n13.  The police officers took the applicant to the nearest hospital in Huedin, where he was examined and received immediate medical treatment. While in the consulting room, the applicant had a panic attack and started hitting his legs and hands against the bed. Two police officers had to intervene and immobilise the applicant’s hands so that he could be disconnected from the medical devices.\n14.  The applicant was transported in an ambulance from Huedin Hospital to the emergency ward of Cluj-Napoca Hospital for further medical examinations, which took place from 9 p.m. until midnight. The diagnosis was abdominal trauma and abrasions.\n15.  As no traumatic injuries or clinical indications requiring an immediate operation were diagnosed, the applicant was discharged from the hospital and presented himself at the police station for questioning.\n16.  After questioning, the applicant gave a written statement, which according to the prosecutor was barely legible. He was assisted by his lawyer during the questioning.\n17.  On 28 November 2006 the Bihor Forensic Institute examined the applicant and issued a report that stated that his injuries could have been caused the previous day by being hit with a hard object. It noted the existence of bruising and abrasions on the upper abdomen and on both hips, and estimated that the applicant would need f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7162", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Bratislava.\n7.  The applicant is a Supreme Court judge. He was the president of the Supreme Court between 1998 and 2003. Between July 2006 and June 2009 he was the Minister of Justice. Since 23 June 2009 he has again been the President of the Supreme Court.\n8.  The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic has been entered in the official register of the Statistical Office as a budgetary organisation, its activity being justice and the judiciary. For the purpose of national account‑keeping it has been classified in the Statistical Register of Organisations as falling within the sector of central public administration. Its budget forms a separate chapter of the State budget in accordance with section 9(1)(f) of Law no. 523/2004 on Budgetary Rules in Public Administration (“the Public Administration (Budgetary Rules) Act 2004”).\n9.  Following the entry into force of the Audit Act 2001 (for further details see below), the Ministry of Finance carried out financial controls of the Supreme Court in 2004 and 2007.\n10.  Between 23 January 2009 and 27 April 2009 the Ministry of Finance carried out a governmental audit at the Supreme Court, focused on the use of public funds and efficiency of financial management during 2007, and on the manner in which the shortcomings identified during the previous financial control had been eliminated. On 16 April 2009 the preliminary report was submitted to the Supreme Court, then headed by its Vice‑President. Subsequently, in September and October 2009 and March 2010 the Director of the Supreme Court submitted to the Ministry of Finance documents indicating what measures had been taken aimed at elimination of the shortcomings found, and how those measures had been implemented. The documents were signed by the applicant as President of the Supreme Court.\n11.  On 21 July 2010 the Minister of Finance instructed a group of auditors to carry out an audit at the Supreme Court pursuant to section 35a(1) of the Audit Act 2001. Its aim was to examine the use of public funds, efficiency of financial management, use of State property and to check on compliance with measures which had been indicated in the course of the preceding audit of 2009.\n12.  The applicant in his capacity as President of the Supreme Court did not allow the Ministry’s auditors to carry out the audit on 29 July 2010, or on 2, 3 and 4 August 2010.\n13.  On 2 August 2010 the applicant asked the President of the Supreme Audit Office (Najvyšší kontrolný úrad) to carry out a check on how public funds were administered and used by the Supreme Court. He referred to the above instruction of the Minister of Finance and to Constitutional Court judgment PL. 97/07. The reply he received, dated 27 August 2010, stated that the Constitution guaranteed the independence of the Supreme Audit Office, and that it had no spare capacity for additional supervisory activities in 2010.\n14.  By letters dated 3 and 6 August 2010 the applicant informed the Minister of Finance that Ministry of Finance auditors lacked the power to carry out the audit. The applicant argued that it was the Supreme Audit Office which had the authority to supervise the administration of public funds by the Supreme Court.\n15.  On 11 August 2010 the Ministry of Finance issued a decision fining the applicant 995.81 euros (EUR), on the ground that by refusing the audit he had failed to comply with his obligations under the Audit Act 2001. The applicant lodged an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7163", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant is a limited liability company incorporated under Netherlands law. Its business includes publishing the mass-circulation daily newspaper De Telegraaf. Originally called Uitgeversmaatschappij De Telegraaf B.V., it changed its name to Telegraaf Media Nederland Landelijke Media B.V. on 5 January 2011.\n8.  The second applicant, Mr Joost de Haas, is a Netherlands national born in 1967 and resident in Bovenkarspel. He is a journalist.\n9.  The third applicant, Mr Bart Mos, is a Netherlands national born in 1963 and resident in Ridderkerk. He too is a journalist.\n10.  On Saturday 21 January 2006, the newspaper De Telegraaf published on its front page an article couched in the following terms:\n“AIVD secrets in possession of drugs mafia\nTop criminals made use of information\nBy Joost De Haas and Bart Mos\nAmsterdam, Saturday\nState secrets (staatsgeheime informatie), obtained from investigations of the Netherlands secret service AIVD [Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst, General Intelligence and Security Service] circulate in the criminal circuit of Amsterdam.\nComplete investigations into the drugs and weapons dealer Mink K., who is labelled ‘a danger to the State’ (staatsgevaarlijk), are thus known to individuals concerned in the criminal world (onderwereld). This appears from documents and statements with which this newspaper has been acquainted.\nIt appears from the documents that the secret service has over a period of years carried out investigations and directed infiltrations relating to Amsterdam drugs criminals. The intervention of the service was prompted by, among other things, strong presumptions of the existence of corruption within the Amsterdam police force and the Public Prosecution Service (openbaar ministerie). For that reason the secret service decided, in the late nineties, to recruit an informant in close proximity to Mink K. According to this informant, corruption was so rampant that liquidations were actually carried out using weapons seized by the police.\nThreat\nIt appears from the documents that the AIVD considered top criminal Mink K. to be a threat to the legal order, as he reserved millions each year to bribe police and prosecution service officials. In addition, K. was thought to have enormous stocks of weapons at his disposal, including large quantities of semtex and ‘hundreds of anti-tank missiles’. The links which K. was thought to maintain with terror groups such as Hezbollah and ETA were disquieting. The documents have been returned to the AIVD by De Telegraaf.\nIncidentally, [the Ministry of] Defence yesterday reported the loss of a memory stick containing confidential information of the Military Intelligence and Security Service (Militaire Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst, MIVD).”\n11.  On an inside page, the same issue carried an article by the same two authors giving details including the informant’s code name and that of a second informant operating in the periphery of the criminal organisation.\n12.  The following day, Sunday 22 January 2006, De Telegraaf published an article, again naming Mr De Haas and Mr Mos as authors, in which it was suggested that highly secret information concerning the AIVD’s investigations had been made available to criminals including Mink K.\n13.  In the evening of Sunday 22 January 2006 the public service television broadcaster NOS broadcast an interview with the then Minister of Justice (Minister van Justitie), Mr J.P.H. Donner, on the eight o’clock new", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7165", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Willstätt, Germany. He was a minority shareholder of IVAX CR, a.s., a joint stock company incorporated under Czech law.\n5.  On 25 June 2002 general meeting of that company adopted, by votes of the main shareholder, a resolution on the winding up of the company and division of its assets between two new companies: IVAX Pharmaceuticals, s.r.o and První Opavská, a.s. The former company included all the business of IVAX CR, a.s. and was owned exclusively by the main shareholder of the wound-up company. The latter company included only financial assets and was owned by minority shareholders of the wound-up company, including the applicant.\n6.  On 5 September 2002 the Ostrava Regional Court (krajský soud) approved the registration of the winding up of the company and its deletion from the Companies Register with effect from 31 December 2002. The applicant did not have standing to participate in the proceedings. He nevertheless lodged an appeal.\n7.  On 26 November 2002 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It ruled that since the applicant did not have standing to take part in the impugned proceedings, he was not entitled to appeal their outcome.\n8.  On 1 March 2006 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.\n9.  On 31 August 2006 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal holding that participation of shareholders in Companies Register proceedings would cause considerable delays, which would compromise the requirement to record events and facts in the Register as soon as possible in order to protect rights of third persons relying on the correctness of information in it. It added that the right of access to court of the shareholders was sufficiently safeguarded in other proceedings. It also noted that if a court in charge of the Companies Register were to record a fact which was based on a resolution of a general meeting, and if the resolution was subsequently found unlawful in proceedings under Article 131 of the Commercial Code, that court would make necessary amendments to the Register even proprio motu.\n10.  On 25 June 2002 the applicant lodged with the Regional Court an action to have the resolution on the winding up of the company set aside, asserting that it had been adopted contrary to the applicable law.\n11.  On 24 November 2006 the Regional Court terminated the proceedings noting that company IVAX CR, a.s. had been deleted from the Companies Register on 31 December 2002. It referred to Article 220v in conjunction with 220h § 4 of the Commercial Code that prevented it from continuing the proceedings after the company had been deleted from the Companies Register.\n12.  On 24 April 2007 the High Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal agreeing with the conclusions of the Regional Court.\n13.  On 24 June 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law agreeing with the lower courts.\n14.  On 3 March 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal. It interpreted the relevant provisions of the domestic law in a way that, in its view, was compatible with the Convention, taking into account especially the Court’s judgment in Kohlhofer and Minarik v. the Czech Republic, nos. 32921/03, 28464/04 and 5344/05, 15 October 2009. It held that the applicant could have instituted proceedings under Article 131 § 4 of the Commercial Code", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7166", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Brno. He is a person with a psycho-social disability. He has been treated in psychiatric hospitals in the past, most recently in 1995. He has not taken any medication for many years, because he considers that it has an adverse impact on his eyesight, and has used other methods to cope with his illness.\n7.  In a judgment of 15 November 2000 the Brno Municipal Court (městský soud) deprived the applicant of his legal capacity at the request of the City of Brno, which maintained that the applicant had not collected his pension since 1996 because he did not have an identity card. The court based its decision on an expert report by Dr. H., who had concluded in 1998 that the applicant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. The applicant, although aware of the proceedings, was not summoned to appear before the court and the decision was not served on him, the court referring to an opinion of Dr. H., who was heard by the court and did not recommend that this be done. The applicant was represented by Ms. M., an employee of the court, who had never met him, did not participate at the hearing and took no substantive part in the proceedings. The judgment became final on 21 December 2000.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant became aware of the court’s judgment and appealed. On 27 August 2001 the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Municipal Court which, in a judgment of 24 November 2004, again deprived the applicant of his legal capacity and appointed the City of Brno as his guardian.\n9.  It based its decision on a new expert report drawn up by Dr. H. on 20 May 2004 who, however, had not been able to examine the applicant because of his refusal to have any medical examinations. She concluded that there had been no improvement in the applicant’s mental health since the first report. She reiterated her findings in the 1998 report that the applicant was unable to care for himself or to manage any property, and that he was dependent on others even for daily needs. The report further stated that the applicant’s presence at the hearing would not be appropriate, because he did not understand the purpose of the proceedings and was denying his mental illness, but a court judgment could be sent to him. At a hearing, the expert stated that the notification of the court judgment to the applicant would not worsen his health, but he would not understand. She thus recommended that the judgment not be sent to the applicant.\n10.  The court did not hear the applicant, who continued to be formally represented by a court employee. The judgment was not served on him and became final on 1 January 2005.\n11.  The applicant became aware of the judgment on 20 June 2006 and appealed on 4 July 2006. He stated that the court had not notified him about the institution and outcome of the incapacitation proceedings and that Dr. H had drawn up her expert opinion without examining him. The applicant was represented by a lawyer from the Mental Disability Advocacy Center (“the MDAC”).\n12.  On 25 October 2006 the Regional Court again quashed the Municipal Court’s judgment and sent the case back to it, disputing the relevance of the expert opinion which had been drawn up without the applicant being examined. It suggested that the Municipal Court should appoint a new expert.\n13.  On 19 September 2007 the Municipal Court decided not to deprive the applicant of his legal ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7167", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and is serving a prison sentence in the Sverdlovsk Region.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with several counts of sexual abuse of two boys of minor age. On 31 March 2005 he was arrested and remanded in custody. He was held in a temporary detention centre in Nizhniy Tagil. The cell where he was detained was allegedly overcrowded. On 20 May 2005 the applicant was released, pending trial, on his own recognisance.\n7.  On 27 May 2006 the applicant was again placed in custody. He was held in remand prison no. IZ-66/1 in the Sverdlovsk Region, where he remained until 8 August 2006. The applicant was detained in cell no. 235 measuring 31.5 square metres.\n8.  The Government provided the following description of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the remand prison. The number of the inmates held in the cell varied from 24 to 32 persons. The applicant was provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding. The cell was equipped with a water supply as well as heating and sewage systems. The ventilation in the cell was in good working order. The temperature maintained in the cell was 240C during the summer. The toilet was separated from the living area of the cell by a 1.1metre-high partition which ensured sufficient privacy for the person using it. It was located at a significant distance from the nearest bed and the dining table. The applicant was allowed to take a shower once a week.\n9.  In support of their observations, the Government submitted a copy of the remand prison population register and certificates prepared by the administration of the remand prison and correctional facility in September and October 2009.\n10.  According to the applicant, the cell where he was detained was constantly overcrowded. Its population varied from 27 to 37 - and on one occasion reached 40 - inmates. There were 14 beds in the cell, one of which was used as a table. The applicant was not provided with any bedding. The ventilation system did not work. The cell was very hot and stuffy. The electric lighting was weak and it was impossible to read. The cell was infested with bed bugs and cockroaches. The toilet was located some 1.5 metres from the nearest bed and some 2 metres from the dining table. It was separated from the living area of the cell by a 1 metre-high partition which provided no privacy to the person using the toilet. The applicant was permitted to take a shower once every two weeks.\n11.  In support of his own submissions, the applicant provided the Court with the written statement of inmate S. who had been detained in the same remand prison in 2010.\n12.  Following the applicant’s conviction, from 15 August 2006 to 19 August 2009 he served a prison sentence in correctional facility no. IK-5 in the Sverdlovsk Region. The correctional facility measured 10,650 square metres in total. The applicant was detained in units 9 and 11. The number of detainees housed in the facility during the period in question varied from 1,718 to 2,095.\n13.  According to the Government, unit 9 measured 342.2 square metres (the living area measuring 191.5 square metres) and housed from 135 to 158 detainees. The sanitary area of the unit was equipped with nine wash basins and three toilets.\n14.  Unit 11 measured 345.6 square metres (with the living area measuring 180.1 square metres) and housed from 133 to 165 detainees. The sanitary area of the unit was equipped with eight wash basins and two toilets.\n15.  ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7168", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Skopje.\n7.  The applicant worked as a teacher in a high school in Skopje. In December 2000 he was declared redundant and assigned to work partly in the school library, under threat of being dismissed if he did not comply with this decision. On 15 December 2000 the applicant signed an agreement, which specified his duties in the school library. Since the applicant failed to comply with the agreement, on 20 February 2001 the director of the school adopted another decision under which the applicant was assigned, again, to work in the school library. The applicant expressly refused to comply with that decision.\n8.  On 23 February 2001 the applicant was laid off for non-fulfilment of duties and failure to comply with working hours. On 7 March 2001 another decision was rendered, acknowledging that the applicant had abused the right to sick leave. On 29 March 2001 the school’s board dismissed the applicant’s objection to the decision of 23 February 2001 (“the dismissal decisions”).\n9.  On 18 April 2001 the applicant brought a civil action before the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) seeking revocation of the dismissal decisions. He further sought that the defendant be ordered to launch redundancy proceedings (постапка за прогласување на технолошки вишок) and to pay him certain work-related allowances.\n10.  After three adjournments, on 28 September 2001 the first-instance court rendered a partial decision (делумна пресуда) dismissing the applicant’s claim for revocation of the dismissal decisions and initiation of redundancy proceedings. Having regard to the facts of the case described above, the court found that the applicant’s dismissal had been lawful and that the request for redundancy proceedings was outside the jurisdiction of the courts. The question of payment of certain work-related allowances was to be decided later. On 8 April 2002 the first-instance court rendered another decision, by which it rectified typographical error in its decision of 28 September 2001, namely the date of adoption of the dismissal decision.\n11.  On 13 December 2001 and 22 April 2002 respectively the applicant lodged two separate appeals against the first-instance court’s decisions. The appeals were forwarded to the defendant on 25 January and 5 June 2002 respectively. On 12 February and 11 June 2002 respectively the defendant submitted two separate observations, the first regarding the first-instance court’s decision of 28 September 2001, and the second regarding the rectifying decision of 8 April 2002, in which it summarised the relevant facts and requested that the Court of Appeal uphold the first-instance court’s decision. It further consented to the court’s decision to correct the technical errors made in its decision of 28 September 2001. Both submissions were forwarded to the Skopje Court of Appeal for consideration, but not to the applicant.\n12.  On 13 November 2002 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeals and upheld the first-instance court’s decisions. Paraphrasing the version of events established as fact by the first-instance court, the Court of Appeal found no errors of fact or law. The court did not make any reference to the defendant’s written observations submitted in reply to the applicant’s appeals, apart from stating that:\n“In the observations submitted in reply the defendant requested that the [applicant’s] appeal be dismissed as ill-founded”.\n13. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7169", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lived until his arrest in the town of Nurlat, in the Tatarstan Republic.\n6.  On 7 October 2008 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of attempted murder. The prosecution’s case was that the applicant had shot Mr M. five times in the course of a property dispute. Two days later an investigator of the Chistopol District Investigative Department issued a wanted notice in respect of the applicant as he had allegedly left his place of permanent residence and gone on the run.\n7.  On 28 December 2008 the applicant was arrested and was served with a bill of indictment. The charge of attempted murder was joined with another criminal charge against the applicant, of aggravated theft. On the same day a police investigator asked the Chistopol Town Court (Tatarstan Republic) to remand him in custody. The investigator argued that the applicant had been charged with a particularly serious criminal offence, that he could reoffend or influence witnesses, and that he was likely to abscond, given that he had already gone on the run once and a wanted notice had been issued.\n8.  On 29 December 2008 the Town Court granted the request, having adopted the investigator’s reasoning. In two lines the Town Court stated that the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that the applicant would abscond or reoffend, as well as interfere with witnesses, warranted his placement in custody. The applicant’s arguments that he had not absconded from the investigation, that he had not received any summons or notifications from investigating authorities although he had not left his place of permanent residence, and that he was seriously ill, were dismissed as unsubstantiated.\n9.  The detention order was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic on 30 January 2009. The appeal court did not see any reasons to doubt the Town Court’s conclusions.\n10.  On an unspecified date the prosecution authorities amended the charges, having additionally accused the applicant of several counts of aggravated theft and attempted theft and unlawful possession of firearms.\n11.  The applicant’s detention was extended on a number of occasions. In particular, on 25 February 2009 the Town Court, holding that the applicant was charged with grave criminal offences and was likely to abscond, extended his detention until 28 March 2009. On 25 March 2009, with identical reasoning, it extended the detention until 28 May 2009. Another extension followed on 26 May 2009, when the Town Court mentioned the gravity of the charges and the risk that the applicant would abscond and interfere with witnesses who had testified against him. The final detention order, identical to the three previous ones, was issued on 9 June 2009.\n12.  On 26 June 2009 the applicant was committed to stand trial before the Nurlat District Court. However, two weeks later the District Court returned the case file to the investigating authorities for certain defects in the bill of indictment to be eliminated. The District Court’s decision was quashed on appeal and the case was sent back to the District Court for examination on the merits.\n13.  On 19 November 2009 the Nurlat Town Court found the applicant guilty of unlawful possession of firearms and several counts of attempted theft, and dismissed the remaining charges. The applicant was sentenced to three years and two months’ imprisonment. That judgment was quashed on appeal by the Supreme Cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7171", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant lives in Budapest.\n6.  On 13 October 2008 the applicant applied to the Budapest Police Department for authorisation for a political demonstration in front of Parliament, in Kossuth Square, a vast open area traditionally used for political demonstrations. The declared objectives of the demonstration were, among others, commemoration of the revolution of 1956 and of the tumultuous events in Budapest in 2006 as well as to call attention to the perceived absence of legal certainty in the country. The event was scheduled for Friday, 17 October 2008.\n7.  According to Parliament’s official and public activity log available on the Internet, the only event taking place on that date in Parliament’s building was a conference and open day organised by the Hungarian Alliance for Enhancing Female Careers under the title “Employment – Equality of Chances – Competitiveness”. No parliamentary session was scheduled.\n8.  On 14 October 2008 the Police Department proposed to the applicant that the planned demonstration be held in a secluded part of Kossuth Square, rather than its entirety. The applicant refused this suggestion.\n9.  On 15 October 2008 the Police Department forbade the demonstration. It was of the view that the planned demonstration would ‘gravely endanger’ the functioning of Parliament, which was a legitimate ground for prohibiting it under section 8(1) of the Assembly Act. In particular, the speeches and music – belonging in the programme and amplified – might disturb the MPs’ work. Moreover, the participants – whose number was estimated at 150 to 200 persons – might physically impede the MPs’ driving in and out of Parliament’s car park, which, in the authority’s view, amounted to restricting their freedom of movement and to inhibiting the functioning of the organ of the people’s representation.\n10.  The applicant applied for judicial review. He submitted in particular that another demonstration with an agenda identical to his but scheduled for Wednesday, 15 October 2008, had not been forbidden on exactly the same location; this fact showed, in his view, discrimination against him and his planned event. According to Parliament’s official and public activity log available on the Internet, on 15 October 2008 five parliamentary commissions were in session.\n11.  On 22 October 2008 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed his complaint, endorsing in essence the Police Department’s reasoning.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7172", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Istanbul. She is a journalist/columnist and author of a number of books.\n5.  In 2003 the applicant wrote a series of articles in a daily newspaper, Vatan, criticising certain provisions of the draft criminal code prepared by the commission established for the drafting of a new Criminal Code (“the Commission”) proposing reduced sentences for certain offences committed against women and children, inter alia, honour killings and rape.\n6.  On 19 October 2003 an article entitled ‘Obsessed Professor’ written by the applicant was published in Vatan. The article read as follows:\n“I can already guess what will happen after this article. The professor in question will reach for the phone and ask why I am writing such things. Not to me but to a male writer or manager at the newspaper. That is how he did it last time. It appears that he does not like to speak with female journalists.\nAnyway he believes that all crimes intentionally committed against women and children and even those committed with bare hands should receive reduced sentences. Rape, violence and murder must have a number of mitigating circumstances and if those circumstances exist then sentences should be reduced to ten to fifteen years. For example those who rape children should get away with a lenient sentence if that little girl also “wanted it”. The rapist should be freed so that such incidents continue to plague us.\nIn my article entitled “are the women in parliament alive?” published two days ago, which I had ended with a note “to be continued”, I objected to the unjust, unfair and out-of-date articles contained in the new draft Turkish Criminal Code and pointed out that similar reductions in the penalties which currently exist in the Criminal Code had led to the killing of young girls and women one after another.\nThe remainder of the article could not fit into my diminishing column space, due to advertisements, and as a result was delayed (it seems that I will have to devise a new coding system so that you can understand me in a few words). However, we can say that all things happen for a reason and it was good that it was delayed. As I was asking myself why no parliamentarian - at least no female parliamentarian - apart from AKP parliamentarian N.Ç., contested this proposal, CHP Adana parliamentarian G.E. called me to explain that they were working intensively on this issue.\nShe said that all women parliamentarians, irrespective of their party background, will act together. Here is solidarity to be proud of!\nIt is difficult to understand why Prof. Dr. S.D. (full name is cited in the original article) is so obsessed and has a discriminatory attitude as regards criminal provisions concerning women and children. We witnessed the same attitude during the reform of the Civil Code. I think instead of having elderly legal scholars we should now have young lawyers working at the Justice Commissions. Those who are in touch with world developments and who are aware that discriminatory attitudes have become out of date. Prof. S.D., with his way of thinking which reflects his 80 years, stands alone.\nIn fact, he left the Justice Commission meeting after an argument broke out with the members of parliament when he insisted on his views.\nIn fact he should have thanked them. If this draft had been accepted in its original form, who would know how many generations of children, women and families would remember him?\nHow they will remember him, he", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7173", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Tbilisi.\n6.  On 13 May 2004 at around 10 p.m. the applicant, who was apparently being sought by the Ministry of State Security, was leaving Georgia through the Vale border checkpoint when he was stopped by officers of the border police and subjected to a strip search. His luggage was also searched. No illegal objects or substances were found. The applicant’s papers were also legal and in order. Nonetheless, the applicant was detained and the State Security Ministry was informed accordingly.\n7.  While waiting for the Ministry officials to arrive at the border, the applicant was kept in the house of the head of the border police in Akhaltsikhe, the capital of the region, about thirty kilometres from the border. He was not under formal arrest at that point. The representatives of the Ministry of State Security arrived on 14 May 2004 at around 5.10 a.m., and an official document on the applicant’s handover was subsequently drawn up by the representatives of both authorities.\n8.  At an unspecified location, on 14 May 2004 at 7.20 a.m., the officials of the Ministry of State Security proceeded to search the applicant again. According to the report drawn up at the time, the second search took place at the Vale border checkpoint and an illegal substance was discovered in the applicant’s luggage. An arrest report was drawn up.\n9.  Later on 14 May 2004, with his lawyer present, the applicant was charged with buying, handling and illegally transporting 0.06 grams of heroin. The decision to bring charges against the applicant indicates that he claimed that no drugs had been found during the search.\n10.  On 16 May 2004 the applicant’s lawyer gathered written statements from various guards and other agents of the border police who had been present during the applicant’s arrest at the Vale checkpoint. They all confirmed that no illegal objects or substances had been found during the first search carried out on the applicant at the checkpoint (see paragraph 6 above).\n11.  On 16 May 2004 the Adigeni Court of First Instance decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention for three months. This decision was upheld by the Tbilisi Regional Court on 2 June 2004. The Regional Court gave as the main reason for its decision, after replying to each of the arguments mentioned in the applicant’s appeal against the previous court decision, the risk of absconding which followed from the applicant’s attempt to cross the border with Turkey without permission; thus, the court cited as a fact that the applicant had been placed by a court order under compulsory psychiatric treatment since 20 January 2005 in relation to unrelated criminal proceedings for murder, and thus had no right to leave the country without the consent of the relevant medical institution.\n12.  It is not clear from the case file which custodial institution the applicant was placed in at that time.\n13.  On 2 June 2004 the applicant’s lawyers lodged an application with the investigator in charge of the case to have evidence heard from Mr N.N., who had been cited as a witness in the police report of the search during which the heroin had supposedly been found by the officials of the Ministry of State Security. According to both Mr N.N. and his wife, he had spent the entire night in question at home and had not witnessed any kind of search by Ministry officials.\n14.  On 13 August 2004 the Tbilisi Regional Court extended the period of the applicant’s pr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7175", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  The applicant worked as a professor of philosophy at the Faculty of Philosophy of the University of Zagreb (Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu - hereinafter the “Faculty”).\n6.  On 2 March 1994 the Dean of the Faculty (hereinafter: the “Dean”), relying on section 21(1) and (2) of the Employment Relations Act, suspended the applicant from work (stavljen na čekanje) for a period of six months on the minimum salary on the grounds that his job had become redundant. The applicant appealed against that decision to the Dean but his appeal was dismissed on 2 May 1994.\n7.  On 7 March 1995 the Dean, relying on section 23(1) of the Employment Relations Act, issued a decision to terminate the applicant’s employment.\n8.  On 26 May 1994 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) contesting the Dean’s decisions of 2 March 1994 and 2 May 1994 and seeking payment of his full salary. The case file was assigned number Pr-1158/94. This subsequently changed a number of times and the case bore numbers Pr-3166/97, Pr-1143/99 and Pr-4675/00.\n9.  On 12 June 1995 the Zagreb Municipal Court declared the Faculty’s decisions of 2 March 1994 and 2 May 1994 null and void and ordered that the applicant’s salary for the period claimed be paid to him on the ground that the Faculty’s decisions had been based on its lack of money for salaries which was not a lawful reason for suspending the applicant’s employment.\n10.  The Faculty appealed against the above-mentioned judgment to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu), and on 11 November 2007 that court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Zagreb Municipal Court for re-examination, on the grounds that all the relevant facts had not been established.\n11.  On 17 September 1998 the Zagreb Municipal Court declared the Faculty’s decisions of 2 March 1994 and 2 May 1994 null and void on the same grounds as before ordering it to pay the salary claimed by the applicant.\n12.  Following an appeal by the Faculty, on 23 March 1999 the Zagreb County Court again quashed the first-instance judgment of the Zagreb Municipal Court and ordered a re-examination on the ground that the first-instance court had misinterpreted the relevant law.\n13.  The applicant complained to the Zagreb Municipal Court on 7 October 1999 that the Zagreb County Court had treated him differently from other parties in similar cases.\n14.  On 9 December 1999 the Zagreb Municipal Court again declared the Faculty’s decisions of 2 March 1994 and 2 May 1994 null and void and ordered that salary claimed by the applicant be paid to him, stating that there had been no legal ground on which to suspend the applicant.\n15.  Following a further appeal by the Faculty, on 27 June 2000 the Zagreb County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and ordered a re-examination, reiterating its previous reasoning that the Zagreb Municipal Court had failed to establish all the relevant facts.\n16.  On 21 November 2002 the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s action, on the ground that the Faculty’s decision to suspend the applicant’s employment had been lawful.\n17.  The applicant appealed against the above judgment, and on 18 January 2005 a panel of judges at the Zagreb County Court, including Judge D.M., dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the Zagreb Municipal Court’s judgment of 21 November 2002. In its decision the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7176", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently serving a life sentence in Jelgava Prison.\n6.  On 24 September 2002 the applicant was arrested.\n7.  On 25 September 2003 the Zemgale Regional Court (Zemgales apgabaltiesa) convicted the applicant on eleven charges, including aggravated murder, robbery, rape and sexual assault, and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n8.  On 24 February 2004 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (Augstākās Tiesas Krimināllietu tiesu palāta) upheld the verdict on appeal.\n9.  On 18 May 2004 the Criminal Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāta Krimināllietu departaments) dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.\n10.  On 16 December 2004 the applicant was transferred from Jelgava Prison to Daugavpils Prison, where a new unit for life-sentenced prisoners, located in the former disciplinary block, had recently been constructed. The applicant, like all life-sentenced prisoners, was initially detained at the maximum security level (see paragraph 63 below), with additional security measures and certain restrictions being imposed under domestic law (see paragraphs 64, 65 and 67 below) and under internal prison regulations (see paragraphs 68 to 71 below).\n11.  The applicant worked in the prison from 9 March to 5 August 2005. The parties are in disagreement as to the reasons for which he stopped working.\n12.  According to the applicant, throughout his detention in Daugavpils Prison he had been kept alone in a cell, save for between 28 February and 4 April 2005, when he had been kept together with another inmate.\n13.  The Government disagreed. They noted that during his detention he had been accommodated either in a double or a triple occupancy cell, either alone or together with other inmates. He had never been kept alone for more than six months. It was their submission that the other inmates had refused to be accommodated together with the applicant.\n14.  On 25 August 2005, following numerous complaints by the applicant, the Ministry of Justice replied that under the applicable law maximum security prisoners could be kept in a single occupancy cell for a period of up to six months (see paragraph 64 below). He had not been kept in such a cell for longer than that.\n15.  On 25 April 2006 the administration of Daugavpils Prison again explained the situation to the applicant.\n16.  On 5 September 2006 the Prisons Administration (Ieslodzījuma vietu pārvalde) replied to the applicant that the applicable domestic law had not been contravened in this regard.\n17.  On 24 April 2007 the Prisons Administration again replied to the applicant stating that in 2005 he had been kept in a cell together with other prisoners twice, and in 2006 three times, and accordingly there had been no contravention of domestic law.\n18.  Throughout his detention in Daugavpils Prison the applicant was subject to full body searches, that is, he was ordered to strip naked and to submit to a visual inspection of his genitals in his cell on a regular basis. The applicant mentioned, by way of example, the following dates:\n from 9 March to 5 August 2005 two to four times daily when going to work and upon his return;\n 6 and 20 May 2005;\n 3 June 2005;\n 19 and 26 July 2005;\n 6, 24 and 30 August 2005;\n 1 June 2006;\n from 8 to 23 June 2006 twice daily while being kept in an isolation cell;\n 28 December 2006;\n 26 January 2007; and\n 23 February 2007.\n19.  The applicant submitted that he had often refused to s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7177", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1982, 1981, 1986, 1984, 1986, 1986, 1986, 1986, 1985, 1983, 1986, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1985, 1986, 1986, 1985 and 1986 respectively and live in Yerevan, Vanadzor, the villages of Baghramyan and Zolakar, Artik, Martuni and Hrazdan, Armenia.\n5.  The applicants are Jehovah’s Witnesses who were eligible for call-up.\n6.  Following the entry into force of the Alternative Service Act on 1 July 2004, the applicants applied to the authorities asking to perform alternative labour service instead of military service. It appears that their requests were granted and the applicants were assigned to various institutions to perform the service, such as hospitals, nursing homes and dispensaries. The applicants allege that, while performing the service, they realised that the alternative labour service was not a truly civilian service.\n7.  In May and June 2005 the applicants wrote letters to the directors of the institutions where they were individually serving stating that, since the alternative labour service was in reality under the control of the military, they could not continue to serve in good conscience. They requested that the Alternative Service Act be modified so that they could serve in a genuine civilian alternative service. After filing these letters, all applicants left the service. 1.  Proceedings against the first, second, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth and nineteenth applicants and their detention\n(a)  Institution of criminal proceedings\n8.  On 23 June 2005 criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 361 § 5 of the Criminal Code (CC) in respect of the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth applicants on account of their joint abandonment of the civilian institution where they were performing alternative labour service.\n9.  On the same date criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 361 § 4 of the CC in respect of the seventeenth applicant on account of his abandonment of the civilian institution where he was performing alternative labour service.\n10.  On 27 June 2005 criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 361 § 4 of the CC in respect of the first, second, fifth, twelfth, thirteenth, sixteenth and nineteenth applicants on account of their abandoning the civilian institutions where they were performing alternative labour service. These proceedings were divided into individual sets of proceedings in respect of each of these applicants on 18 August 2005.\n(b)  The first, fifth, thirteenth and sixteenth applicants\n11.  On 22 August 2005 the first, fifth, thirteenth and sixteenth applicants were formally charged under Article 361 § 4 of the CC.\n12.  On the same date the Gegharkunik Regional Court examined the investigator’s motion seeking to have them detained on the grounds that they had committed an offence under Article 361 § 4 of the CC and could abscond. The Regional Court decided to grant this motion, stating that the imputed acts fell into the category of crimes of medium gravity and taking into account their nature and degree of dangerousness. The applicants were present at the respective hearings. These decisions were subject to appeal to the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal within fifteen days.\n13.  On 31 August 2005 the investigator decided to modify the charges against the applicants by bringing a new charge under Article 362 § 1 of the CC on the ground that, pursuant to Section 21 § 2 of the Alternative ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7178", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1946, 1950, 1971, 1973 and 1980 respectively and live in Smolyan. The first and second applicants are spouses and the other applicants are their children. During the relevant period they all shared the same household.\n7.  In the period between 25 July 1997 and 22 August 2001 the first applicant was the head of the Smolyan district police department.\n8.  On 7 January 1998 an inspection commission from the Inspectorate of the Ministry of the Interior (“the Commission”), acting in accordance with an order of the Minister of the Interior (“the Minister”), inspected the police department and informed the first applicant that his office and home had been subjected to covert surveillance by his inferiors. The next day the covert surveillance was terminated and the surveillance equipment removed. Three officers of the same department, Mr S.B., chief of the Criminal Police Division, Mr I.I., chief of the Group for Operative and Technical Information, and Mr G., chief of the Anti-Terrorist Division, were dismissed in connection with the incident.\n9.  In a report of 6 February 1998 the Commission established that on 4 December 1997 Mr S.B. had informed the Minister that he suspected the first applicant of links with criminal groups. On the following day Mr S.B. and Mr I.I. had requested a warrant for covert surveillance of the first applicant’s home and office. The chairman of the Plovdiv Military Court had issued the warrant on the same day and authorised two operations: surveillance of the applicants’ home in the period between 5 December 1997 and 4 February 1998, and of the first applicant’s office in the period between 6 December 1997 and 5 January 1998. The surveillance had started on 8 December 1997 without the requisite written authorisation of the Minister. The Commission did not draw any conclusion as to the lawfulness of the surveillance as such but limited the scope of its inspection to the conduct of the involved police officers. According to its report, Mr S.B. and Mr I.I. had committed serious breaches of the disciplinary rules in order to discredit the first applicant. It was further noted that some of the information gathered during the surveillance constituted a state secret which Mr S.B. had not been authorised to know. In the Commission’s opinion, the case revealed insufficient control by the Ministry of the Interior.\n10.  On 2 April 1998 the head of the Inspectorate reported the case to the military prosecuting authorities, in whom the power to investigate criminal offences committed by police officers was vested at the relevant time. There is no information as to whether the latter took any action.\n11.  On an unspecified date the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the dismissal of Mr S.B. and Mr I.I. in proceedings classified as confidential.\n12.  On 11 September 2001 the first applicant requested the Chief Public Prosecutor to open an investigation into the incident. On 27 November 2001 criminal proceedings were opened. The military investigator questioned the suspects and a number of witnesses.\n13.  In his explanations, Mr S.B. claimed that the Minister had given his consent for covert surveillance of the first applicant during a meeting between them on 4 December 1997.\n14.  The Minister stated that Mr S.B. and Mr I.I. had not informed him that they had requested surveillance measures against the first applicant. They had sent him several envelopes containing information but he had forwarded", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7179", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 29 April 2008 the applicants jointly notified the Beyoğlu district governor that they would be gathering before the Taksim Atatürk memorial on 1 May 2008 at 1 p.m. to celebrate Labour Day and commemorate their friends who had lost their lives during the demonstrations of 1 May 1977.\n5.  On 30 April 2008 the Beyoğlu district governor authorised a gathering at the requested location for representatives of trade unions only. The district governor specifically indicated that a demonstration on a larger scale at the said location was not authorised.\n6.  Subsequently, certain government authorities, including the Minister of the Interior and the Government’s spokesman, as well as the Istanbul Governor’s office, issued press statements, declaring that they were in possession of intelligence reports which precluded them from authorising any demonstration in Taksim Square, for security reasons. The authorities held that any demonstration held in Taksim on 1 May 2008 would be unlawful and unconstitutional on account of possible provocations and disruption of traffic and public order. They further stated that they were going to take extensive security measures on 1 May 2008, including shutting down certain schools in the nearby districts, stopping the operation of ferries and subways, blocking the roads leading to Taksim Square and deploying extra police for that day. As alternative locations, the Istanbul Governor’s office indicated four other squares for the demonstration, namely two on the European side and two on the Anatolian side of Istanbul.\n7.  On 30 April 2008 the first applicant lodged a complaint against the Governor of Istanbul with the Istanbul public prosecutor, accusing him of denying the trade unions their right to assembly in a discriminatory manner. The first applicant complained that there was no justification for denying them access to Taksim Square on Labour Day, when the same location was available for other large-scale demonstrations and celebrations (investigation no. 2008/20905).\n8.  At approximately 6 a.m. on 1 May 2008, members of the DİSK and KESK began gathering in front of the DİSK headquarters located in the district of Şişli for Labour Day celebrations. At around 6.30 a.m. the police asked the group to disperse, warning them that they were acting in violation of the Assemblies and Marches Act (Law no. 2911). The members of the group refused, arguing that they were merely waiting in front of the DİSK headquarters, which was a pedestrian area, and that they were not violating the said law in any way. The police, however, proceeded to disperse the group, by spraying them with pressurised water, paint and tear gas, both inside and outside the DİSK building.\n9.  Similar police interventions occurred over the next couple of hours with increasing intensity. Some of the demonstrators were injured as a result of the use of force by the police. While the injured demonstrators were trying to reach the nearby Şişli Etfal Hospital for medical care, they were chased by the police and were subjected to gas attacks even within the hospital premises. Some members of the DİSK were arrested.\n10.  At approximately 10.30 a.m. the group of demonstrators broke up of its own accord to forestall any further violence.\n11.  On 2 May 2008 the Chief of Şişli Etfal Hospital gave a statement to the police, stating that on 1 May 2008 around 20-30 demonstrators had entered the hospital and opened a banner. Subsequently, police officers had a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7180", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Bratislava.\n7.  On 28 April and 8 and 16 September 2005 the applicant was charged with attempted murder, robbery and fraud respectively.\n8.  On 15 December 2005 the applicant was indicted to stand trial in the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) on those charges.\n9.  On 26 January 2006 the Regional Court remitted the case to the Public Prosecution Service (“the PPS”) for the taking of further evidence, in particular in respect of the mental health of the key witness. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) on 27 April 2006, following an interlocutory appeal by the PPS.\n10.  On 27 September 2006 the applicant was again indicted to stand trial on the charges mentioned above.\n11.  On 30 October 2006 the Bratislava District Court (Okresný súd) held a meeting with a view to making an initial assessment of the indictment (predbežné prejednanie obžaloby). At the conclusion of the meeting, the District Court ordered a hearing of the indictment (hlavné pojednávanie) for 6 December 2006.\n12.  In the course of the trial the applicant’s initial charges were re‑qualified and, on 18 May 2007, the District Court found him guilty of a number of offences, including oppression, unlawful restriction of liberty and robbery, and sentenced him to nine years in prison. The judgment was, however, quashed on appeal and the case was remitted to the District Court for re‑examination. The Court has not been informed of any further developments in the case, or of its outcome.\n13.  On 29 April 2005 the applicant was arrested and on 2 May 2005 he was remanded in detention pending trial on the murder charge. He was detained under Article 67 §§ 1 (c) and 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”) (Law no. 141/1961 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time) as he was facing a charge carrying a penalty of imprisonment for eight years or more and there was a risk that he would continue offending. The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť) against the remand decision, which was declared inadmissible as belated on 16 June 2005.\n14.  The applicant’s first request for release was dismissed by the District Court on 22 September 2005 and, following his interlocutory appeal, by the Regional Court on 18 October 2005. The decisions were taken in private (neverejné zasadnutie).\n15.  Meanwhile, on 12 October 2005 the PPS had requested judicial authorisation for an extension of the applicant’s detention until 29 April 2006. The request was acceded to by the District Court on 17 October and, following an interlocutory appeal by the applicant, by the Regional Court on 8 November 2005. The decisions were taken in private.\n16.  On 26 January 2006, when the applicant’s case was remitted to the PPS for the taking of further evidence (see paragraph 9 above), the Regional Court also ruled that the applicant should remain in detention. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court on 27 April 2006 following an interlocutory appeal by the applicant. The decisions were taken in private.\n17.  On or around 2 or 4 October 2006, the applicant again requested release. The request was dismissed by the District Court on 16 October 2006 and, following an interlocutory appeal by the applicant, by the Regional Court on 23 November 2006. The decisions were taken in private.\n18.  On 2 November 2006 the applicant lodged an application arguing that, at the preparatory meeting on 30 October 2006 (see paragraph 11 above), th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7181", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 30 November 2002 the applicant married M., and on 22 September 2003 a child, K., was born of the marriage.\n6.  On 14 April 2004 the applicant filed a petition for divorce with the Z. Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Z.).\n7.  At a hearing on 14 December 2004 the applicant submitted his proposal concerning contact and child maintenance for K. At the same hearing the parties agreed that the marriage be dissolved.\n8.  On 30 December 2004 M. informed the Z. Municipal Court that she did not agree with the applicant’s proposal as regards child maintenance and asked the court to set an appropriate amount.\n9.  The applicant lodged a request for expedition of the proceedings with the Z. Municipal Court on 2 February 2005.\n10.  On 2 August 2005 the applicant brought a separate action in the Z. Municipal Court, contesting his paternity of K.\n11.  The applicant further lodged a request with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 25 August 2005 asking that the proceedings be transferred to another court.\n12.  The Z. Municipal Court on 15 September 2005 ordered the parties to submit information concerning their incomes. On 22 September 2005 the applicant, and on 18 October 2005 M., complied with this order and submitted the requested information.\n13.  At a hearing on 31 October 2005 M. failed to appear. At the same hearing the applicant requested the trial court to issue a partial judgment by which the marriage would be dissolved. The trial judge dismissed the applicant’s request and ordered him to submit further documents concerning his financial status.\n14.  The applicant complied with the above order and submitted the requested documents on 2 November 2005.\n15.  On 14 December 2005 the applicant again lodged a request for expedition of the proceedings with the Z. Municipal Court.\n16.  The Z. Municipal Court on 13 March 2006 ordered M. to submit information concerning the child maintenance payments she had received from the applicant. On 19 April 2006 she complied with this order and submitted the requested information.\n17.  Another hearing was scheduled for 3 May 2006 but it was adjourned since the applicant informed the trial court that he was ill and could not attend the hearing.\n18.  At a hearing on 10 July 2006 the applicant asked the Z. Municipal Court to join the divorce proceedings with the proceedings in which he was contesting paternity of K. This request was granted, but further proceedings were stayed pending a Supreme Court decision on the applicant’s request for transfer of the proceedings to another court.\n19.  On 10 November 2006 the applicant asked the Z. Municipal Court to adopt a partial judgment, in respect of the petition for divorce alone.\n20.  The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request for transfer of the proceedings to another court on 22 November 2006.\n21.  M. informed the Z. Municipal Court on 8 December 2006 and 9 March 2007 that she and K. had been living in Switzerland and that the applicant had refused to give consent for K. to obtain a passport and to come to Croatia to take part in the paternity proceedings.\n22.  On 30 March 2007 the applicant informed the Z. Municipal Court that he had given his consent for K. to obtain a passport.\n23.  A hearing scheduled for 23 April 2007 was adjourned because the applicant had not been properly summoned.\n24.  Another hearing scheduled for 12 June 2007 was adjourned because the applicant failed to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7182", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Mielec.\n6.  The applicant is married with a child. Prior to her application for an early-retirement pension she had been employed until 1996 and paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 23 April 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so‑called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her son’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist centre for nephrology on 16 March 2001. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1989) was in need of his parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 17 May 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 April 2001 in the net amount of 527.64 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  On 19 September 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).\n11.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n12.  On 10 October 2003 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the SSB’s decision and restored the applicant’s right to a EWK pension. The court relied on experts’ opinions who stressed that the applicant’s son suffered from acute glomerulonephritis and nocturnal enuresis.\n13.  The SSB appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n14.  On 4 March 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and upheld the SSB’s decision of 19 September 2002.\n15.  On 7 October 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.\n16.  Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her early-retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board, despite the revocation of her right to an early-retirement pension.\n17.  The Government submitted that prior to the grant of a EWK pension the applicant had not worked. Her last employment contract had been terminated in 1996. After the revocation of the EWK pension the applicant had not worked. The applicant’s husband worked, as did her son (from 2005).\n18.  In addition, the Government submitted information as regards the vari", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7183", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Łańcut.\n6.  The applicant is married with two children. Prior to her application for an early-retirement pension she had been employed since 1974 and paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 30 March 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 27 March 2001. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1990) suffered from atopic skin and asthma and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 12 June 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension in the net amount of 512 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  On 16 May 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 11 June 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n11.  On 17 June 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).\n12.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n13.  On 18 October 2002 the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence, including expert medical opinions, that while indeed the applicant’s child suffered from atopic skin and asthma she did not require her mother’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n14.  The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n15.  On 28 March 2003 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.\n16.  On 8 April 2004 the Supreme Cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7184", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Zagorzyce.\n6.  The applicant is married and has children. Prior to her application for pension she was employed for twenty-six years and paid her social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 18 September 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called EWK pension.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 4 September 2001. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1987) suffered from asthma and other disorders and was in need of the parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 25 September 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 September 2001 in the net amount of 632 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. On 30 September 2001 the applicant resigned from her full-time job in a private company where she has been working since 1985. Afterwards, payment of the pension was resumed.\n11.  On 29 May 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board requested the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 8 July 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child in question could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n12.  On 31 July 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to award the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).\n13.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n14. On 3 June 2003 the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence, including expert medical evidence, that while indeed the applicant’s child suffered from asthma and other disorders she did not require her mother’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her body functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7186", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1938 and 1967 respectively and live in Ulyanovsk.\n6.  The applicants used to go to the village of Verkhnyaya Syzran (now Bestuzhevka), Privolzhskiy District, Samara Region, to visit Z. (the applicants’ mother and grandmother respectively). They had a long-standing conflict with Z.’s neighbour S. in connection with the use of their neighbouring plots of land. On several occasions the applicants sought institution of criminal proceedings against S., without success.\n7.  On one of the applicants’ visits to the village, on 16 May 1998 at approximately 10 p.m., four armed men wearing beekeepers’ masks burst into Z.’s house, two of them wearing jackets similar to those used by the police. They threatened and beat up Z. and the applicants, then searched the house and seized a camera which the applicants allegedly used to carry for “making a record of the danger posed by S.”\n8.  On 17 May 1998 the applicants went to the Privolzhskiy District Central Hospital (Приволжская центральная районная больница) where the first applicant was diagnosed with an injury to the thoracic cage and lumbar contusion, and the second applicant with contusion of the scalp. The nurse on duty at the Central Hospital contacted the Privolzhskiy District Department of the Interior (ОВД Приволжского района).\n9.  On the same day the investigation team went to examine the scene of the incident. The applicants and Z. were questioned on the circumstances of the incident.\n10.  Upon their return to Ulyanovsk, on 20 May 1998 the applicants on their own initiative underwent an examination by a forensic medical expert and were diagnosed with multiple abrasions and bruises on their faces and bodies caused by a blunt hard object possibly on 16 May 1998 and not resulting in any damage to health (medical certificates nos. 2084/114 and 2083/113).\n11.  On 27 May 1998 chief district police officer A. Ch. of the Privolzhskiy District Department of the Interior decided not to institute criminal proceedings, for lack of evidence of a crime.\n12.  On 14 June 1998 the first applicant complained to the Samara Regional Prosecutor that she and her son had been assaulted on 16 May 1998. She further claimed that they had been threatened that they would be killed if they continued to make complaints against S., and that they would have to pay 50,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for each of their visits to the village.\n13.  On 19 June 1998 the Privolzhskiy District Prosecutor, Samara Region, quashed the decision of 27 May 1998 not to institute criminal proceedings. The prosecutor noted that the inquiry had been held only in respect of Z., that it was necessary to question the doctors who had examined the applicants on 17 May 1998 and to question Z.’s neighbours. The material of the inquiry was returned to the Privolzhskiy District Department of the Interior for an additional examination. It appears that subsequently criminal proceedings were instituted against police officer A. Ch. on suspicion of having forged the applicants’ signatures during the investigation leading to the decision of 27 May 1998. The outcome of these proceedings remains unknown.\n14.  On 21 July 1998 the first applicant again addressed the Samara Regional Prosecutor complaining about lack of action in the case and expressing her distrust against the Privolzhskiy District Prosecutor’s Office and the Privolzhskiy District Department of the Interior.\n15.  On 14 August 1998 the Privolzhskiy District Prosecutor", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7187", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kębłów.\n6.  The applicant is married and has two children. Prior to her application for an early-retirement pension she had been employed and paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 19 December 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her son’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 13 December 2001. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1988) suffered from bronchial asthma and that he was in need of his parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 7 January 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 December 2001 in the net amount of 689.16 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. On 11 April 2002 the applicant resigned from her full-time job in a private company where she has been working since 1985. Afterwards, payment of the pension was resumed.\n11.  On 6 September 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s son required the permanent care of a parent. The doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n12.  On 19 September 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).\n13.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n14.  On 30 June 2004 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence, including expert medical evidence, that while indeed the applicant’s child suffered from bronchial asthma he did not require his mother’s permanent care since his health condition did not significantly impair his bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7188", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first and second applicants, who are sister and brother, were born in Pakistan in 1985 and 1986 respectively and live in Oslo.\n6.  In 1989 the applicants arrived in Norway with their mother and were in view of the children’s particular situation granted a residence permit on 28 February 1992 on the ground of strong humanitarian considerations (section 8(2) of the former 1988 Immigration Act, see paragraph 45 below).\n7.  During the summer of 1992 the mother returned with the children to Pakistan, where the children first lived with their grandparents and then with their father and his wife. There they stayed until the turn of the year 1995‑1996, when the mother resettled in Norway with the children. In the meantime, on 2 August 1995 the Directorate of Immigration had granted them a settlement permit, while being ignorant about their stay in Pakistan from 1992.\n8.  In 1996 the applicants’ father applied for family reunification. His application, which was refused, prompted an investigation by the immigration authorities which revealed that for most of the period from 1992 to early 1996 the applicants and their mother had lived in Pakistan. The authorities further observed that the applicants had strong attachment to Pakistan since they had lived and gone to school in that country from 1992 to early 1996 and because their father still lived there. On 23 January 1999 the Directorate of Immigration decided to withdraw the applicants’ and their mothers’ settlement permit, on the ground that the permit had been granted on the basis of false information provided by the mother about her and the children’s residence in Norway. It was also decided to refuse them further residence in Norway.\n9.  On 23 August 1999 the Ministry of Justice upheld the Directorate’s decision. Several successive requests for reconsideration were rejected. In May 2001 the children were apprehended with a view to being deported to Pakistan. However, the police decided not to do so, based on their information that they had no contact with the mother or with the family in Pakistan. The police considered that it would be inappropriate to expel them without their mother who had disappeared around the turn of the year 2000‑2001. The applicants had no contacts with their mother until she was hospitalised in Norway in 2004. During this period they lived with an uncle and aunt in Oslo.\n10.  On 24 November 2003 the second applicant was convicted for unprovoked aggravated physical assault, having hit another person with his fist causing a fracture to the victim’s nose and a two centimetres scar on his eyelid that had to be stitched. For this and certain other offences (withdrawal of 4,600 Norwegian Krone (NOK) from cash points by using another person’s credit card; driving a stolen moped and the possession of 0.2 gram of hashish) he was sentenced to seventy-five days’ imprisonment.\n11.  In the light of these offences, the Immigration Appeals Board decided on 31 May 2005 to expel him indefinitely, with reference to section 29(1)(c) of the 1988 Immigration Act, as he had been convicted for an offence that was punishable by more than three months’ imprisonment.\n12.  In June 2005 the applicants sought to challenge the validity of the decision of 23 August 1999 and, as regards the second applicant, that of 31 May 2005. By a judgment of 13 October 2005 the Oslo City Court upheld their action.\n13.  In September 2005 the mother was expelled to Pakistan, in compliance with the immigr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7189", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Sedziszów Małopolski.\n6.  The applicant is married with children. Prior to her application for an early-retirement pension she had been employed and paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 9 November 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1992) suffered from bronchial asthma and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 15 November 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 November 2001 in the net amount of 712 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. On 28 November 2001 the applicant resigned from her full-time job in a filter plant in Sedziszów. On 3 December 2001 the payment of the pension was resumed.\n11.  On an unknown date the Rzeszów SSB asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. The doctor replied that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n12.  On 17 June 2002 the Rzeszów SSB issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).\n13.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n14.  On 29 August 2002 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the SSB’s decisions and granted the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance. The court considered that the SSB should not have reopened the proceedings ex officio. The SSB appealed.\n15.  On 10 April 2003 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n16.  On 14 October 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7190", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Niwiska.\n6.  The applicant is married and has six children. Prior to his application for an early‑retirement pension he had been employed for twenty‑five years and had paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 5 October 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early‑retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so‑called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with his application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning his daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 31 August 2001. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1988) suffered from neurofibromatosis and scoliosis and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 8 November 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 October 2001 in the net amount of 1,100 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. The payments were resumed as of 1 November 2001 after the applicant resigned from his full‑time job.\n11.  On an unspecified date the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s son required the permanent care of a parent. On 6 August 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n12.  On 26 September 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).\n13.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting him of the right to an early‑retirement pension. He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n14. On 1 April 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence, including a medical expert opinion, that while indeed the applicant’s child suffered from neurofibromatosis he did not require his father’s permanent care since his health condition did not significantly impair his bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of his right to a pension ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7192", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Mr R.R., is a Serbian national who was born in 19... and lives in Hungary. The second applicant, Ms H.H., a Hungarian national, is his common-law wife who was born in 19.... The other three applicants are their minor children.\n6.  On 12 June 2007 the first applicant, once active in a drug-trafficking mafia run by Serbians in a European country and subsequently in hiding in Hungary under a false identity, was apprehended by the Hungarian police. It is disputed whether he turned himself in or was arrested. He admitted to various offences he had committed and gave information, secretly, about the activities of the mafia in question, enabling prosecution against it. He was offered a plea bargain which he accepted. Subsequently the Hungarian prosecution, despite his complaints, joined his own case to the one conducted against the criminals he had been informing about. This required him to appear in open court, disclose his identity and act publicly as a collaborator of justice.\n7.  Since this event apparently resulted in the applicants being exposed to vengeance from the Serbian mafia, the family was enrolled in the Witness Protection Scheme on 28 August 2007. The agreement on their enrolment contained a clause to the effect that if it was cancelled on account of a breach of the rules of the Scheme by the first applicant, the whole family would be excluded from the Scheme.\n8.  Within the framework of the Scheme, the following measures of special protection were introduced, in compliance with section 16(1a–c) of Act no. LXXXV of 2001 on the Protection Programme for Participants in Criminal Proceedings and Collaborators of Justice (“the Protection Act 2001”). The applicants were issued with new personal documents as part of providing them with new identities.\nMs H.H. and the children were accommodated in a three-room, then in a four-room ‘safe flat’ and finally in a five-room family house. The two elder children attended school, while the youngest child – who suffers from medium-grade autism – attended a crèche providing special care, then a kindergarten. The applicants submitted that, in any case, no adequate care was provided in respect of this child’s condition – an assertion disputed by the Government. They further alleged that during this time the Scheme’s operatives insisted that the first and second applicant should break up their relationship.\n9.  On or some time after their admission to the Scheme, the family – having otherwise no regular income in excess of the various welfare allowances due under the law – started to receive a monthly subsistence allowance. Their rent, public utility bills, health care and schooling costs (including those related to the situation of the youngest child, in particular the fee of a teacher specialised in developing pedagogy) were wholly or partly paid by the Scheme. Resources were allotted to the children’s clothing, the maintenance of the family’s car and their travel costs incurred when visiting the first applicant, who was in detention. The latter also received a sort of allowance with regard to his participation in the Scheme. The amounts of these disbursements were raised several times.\n10.  During this time, the first applicant was imprisoned in an unspecified jail. As to his contact history during the programme, the Government submitted that the family had kept regular contact with him through emailing, phone calls and in the form of monthly visits (an hour per month as ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7193", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Sofia.\n8.  At about 6.00 p.m. on 1 June 1999 the National Service for Combating Organised Crime (“Национална служба ‘Борба с организираната престъпност’”) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was given orders to arrest the applicant in connection with information gathered by colonel B.B., a senior police officer in charge of investigating the assassination on 2 October 1996 of the former Prime Minister of the Republic of Bulgaria, Mr Andrey Lukanov (see Lukanov v. Bulgaria, 20 March 1997, §§ 1 in fine and 7 in fine, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑II). The service devised a plan and assigned a number of officers to the operation.\n9.  According to the findings of the military courts which later examined a set of criminal charges against three officers who took part in that operation (see paragraphs 56 and 63 below), two officers were dispatched to the applicant’s address in advance to inspect the surroundings and check whether the applicant was at home. A group of five officers was given the task of carrying out the actual arrest. At about 8.30 p.m. that group arrived at the applicant’s home in a block of flats in Sofia, where they joined the two officers previously sent there. The officers had three cars. One of them was a Volkswagen Transporter minivan that they parked at fifteen to twenty metres from the front entrance of the applicant’s building. Shortly before 9 p.m. four officers went up to the applicant’s flat, two remained in the minivan, and one was left at the building’s entrance. The four officers who went up rang the applicant’s doorbell. His fourteen‑year old daughter answered the door. The applicant showed up at the door moments after that. The officers told him that he was to accompany them to the police station. The applicant went back in, took his passport and a jacket, and followed the officers down. Two officers escorted the applicant in the lift. The two others went inside his flat and remained there until about 11.00 p.m. to prevent the persons present in the flat – the applicant’s family and two neighbours – to make telephone calls. Downstairs, the two officers escorting the applicant were joined by the officer who had remained near the building’s entrance. When the group was five or six metres from the minivan, one of the officers who was inside the vehicle opened its side sliding door. At that point, the applicant abruptly tried to move to the back of the minivan instead of its door. The two officers who were escorting him grabbed him by the arms and placed them behind his back. The applicant resisted the officers’ attempt to push him into the minivan. One officer tripped him and the applicant fell, face down, on the minivan’s floor, his legs remaining outside. The officer inside the minivan tried to pull him in. The minivan set off and, at the same moment, an officer who remained on the street pushed its side sliding door to close it. As the applicant’s feet were still hanging outside, he was hit by the door. The officers inside the minivan kept on trying to close the minivan’s door and handcuff the applicant, who resisted, keeping his arms under his body and trying to get up. The door could not be closed as the applicant’s feet protruded outside. The officers eventually managed to pull the applicant’s legs in and handcuff him. A hood was then placed on his head to blind him, so that he could not see where he was being taken.\n10.  The applicant denied that he", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7194", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Mielec.\n7.  The applicant is married with children.\n8.  On 12 January 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n9.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 11 January 2001. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1985) suffered from protein intolerance (skaza białkowa) and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care.\n10.  On 18 May 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 January 2001 in the net amount of 422 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n11.  On 22 August 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 20 September 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n12.  On 26 September 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).\n13.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n14.  On 30 April 2004 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence, including expert medical evidence, that while indeed the applicant’s child suffered from protein intolerance she did not require her mother’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n15.  The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n16.  On 29 September 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.\n17.  On 18 February 2005 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant.\n18.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7195", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Mielec.\n6.  The applicant is married and has two children. Prior to her application for an early‑retirement pension she had been employed until April 1999 and paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 6 September 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early‑retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so‑called “EWK” pension”.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her son’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1992) suffered from allergy and asthma and that he had been in need of his parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 19 November 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 November 2001 in the net amount of 788 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  On 22 August 2002 Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s son required the permanent care of a parent. On 30 August 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n11.  On 4 September 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).\n12.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early‑retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n13.  On 30 October 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence, including a medical expert opinion, that while indeed the applicant’s child suffered from allergy and asthma he did not require his mother’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n14.  The applicant further appealed against the first‑instance judgment.\n15.  On 31 March 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.\n16.  The applicant did not", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7197", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Strażów.\n6.  The applicant is married and has a daughter. Prior to his application for pension he had been employed from 1980 until 31 March 2001 and paid his social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 5 April 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called EWK pension.\n8.  Along with his application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning his daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 25 January 2001 The certificate stated that the child, born in 1995, had suffered from bronchial asthma and recurring infections and that she was in need of the parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 19 April 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 April 2001 in the net amount of 1,068 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  On 8 May 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 29 May 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child in question could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n11.  On 31 May 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions for the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to award the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).\n12.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting him of the right to an early-retirement pension. He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n13. On 19 March 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence that while indeed the applicant’s child suffered from bronchial asthma and recurring infections she did not require her father’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her body functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of his right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as he did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n14.  The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n15.  On 23 October 2003 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.\n16.  On 28 Ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7198", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and is currently being held in Šķirotava Prison in Rīga.\n6.  On 13 November 2000 the applicant was arrested and detained. His detention was subsequently extended by different judges.\n7.  On 9 June 2003 the Kurzeme Regional Court (Kurzemes apgabaltiesa) convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 3 November 2003 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (Augstākās Tiesas Krimināllietu tiesu palāta) upheld the judgment of the first-instance court upon the applicant’s appeal.\n9.  On 13 January 2004 the Criminal Department of the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās Tiesas Senāta Krimināllietu departaments) dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.\n10.  The applicant was held at the short-term detention facility in Saldus, which was located in a police station, for the following eight periods:\n 5 June to 5 July 2002;\n 5 September to 22 November 2002;\n 13 to 22 December 2002;\n 5 to 13 January 2003;\n 22 to 29 January 2003;\n 5 to 13 March 2003;\n 22 March to 13 April 2003; and\n 13 to 23 May 2003.\nAccording to the applicant, the conditions therein had not been appropriate for prolonged periods of detention – they had been unsanitary and had not met basic hygiene standards. He had lacked a mattress and had been required to sleep on a hard surface. He had not received a sufficient amount of food. Moreover, no toothpaste had been provided to him.\n11.  Before and after his detention in the short-term detention facility in Saldus, the applicant was held in Liepāja Prison, save for a period between 13 and 22 February 2003, when he underwent treatment in the Prison Hospital located in the grounds of Central Prison in Rīga.\n12.  On 23 May 2003, upon the applicant’s complaint to the Ministry of the Interior, the State Police replied that “indeed we have to agree that the conditions in the short-term detention facility need to be improved”. It was noted that the facility had been opened in 1964 and that “it is currently necessary to reconstruct certain parts of it and to improve it”. They asserted that work had already been started and that sanitary conditions would soon improve.\n13.  The applicant’s cellmates in Liepāja Prison have written to the Court, stating that following the applicant’s return from the short-term detention facility in Saldus his back and one side had had blue marks on them, which he explained had been caused by his sleeping on a hard surface; fleas and lice had been found on him; and he had told them that the overall sanitary conditions had been terrible.\n14.  The Government provided no comments in this regard.\n15.  Following its second visit to Latvia from 25 September to 4 October 2002, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“the CPT”) published a report on 10 May 2005, in which it was stated that:\n“21. In paragraph 23 of the report on the 1999 visit, the CPT made a number of specific recommendations with a view to improving the extremely poor material conditions of detention in Latvian police establishments. However, the Committee noted with great concern that the facts found during the 2002 visit clearly show that the situation has not improved.\nConditions of detention were particularly bad at Daugavpils, Liepāja and Ventspils Police Headquarters, where persons were being held 24 hours per day in overcrowded cells, which were very humid, dirty and poorly", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7199", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Chişinău.\n7.  The applicant has been detained, with short interruptions, since October 2000. In a previous case (see Ciorap v. Moldova, no. 12066/02, 19 June 2007) the Court found a violation of, inter alia, Article 3 in respect of the applicant’s conditions of detention and Article 8 in respect of the refusal of his requests for longer visits by his wife.\n8.  In the present application, the applicant complained about his conditions of detention, which according to him had not changed since the Court’s judgment of 2007 referred to above.\n9.  Allegedly as a result of the very poor prison conditions, he had become ill with severe thrombophlebitis, septic pneumonia and anaemia. He had often paid for various types of medication himself. He had officially been recognised as Category 2 disabled, with special dietary needs.\n10.  The applicant also complained of the failure to provide him with food of a sufficient quantity and quality, as prescribed by the domestic regulations. In a letter to the governor of Prison no. 15 on 21 October 2008, the applicant asked to be informed whether he had been given any kind of meat, fish, butter or cheese since his arrival to that prison on 17 June 2008 and if so, in what quantities and on how many occasions. In its reply of 31 October 2008 the Prisons Department confirmed that he had not been given meat or butter since 17 June 2008, because the prison in which he was detained (Prison no. 15) had not received such products during the relevant period. In a letter from the Ministry of Justice dated 16 October 2008 the applicant was informed that he would receive additional products as prescribed by the doctors, such as milk, meat and fish. Other dairy products and eggs would be distributed “in accordance with availability”.\n11.  The applicant also complained about the conditions of his detention during his frequent transfers from one prison to another and while being escorted to court hearings. In particular, he mentioned that when he had been escorted to a hearing, he had been away from his prison from 7-7.30 a.m. until 7-7.30 p.m., that is, he had left the prison and returned there before and after mealtimes. No food had been given throughout the day to those escorted to court hearings. Since he has had several hundred court hearings in recent years, he has been deprived of food on a regular basis. In order to allow detainees to receive some food on court days, the Prisons Department adopted Order no. 142d allowing relatives to provide food to those detainees who were taken to court on the relevant day. The applicant was informed by a letter dated 24 October 2008 that this order had subsequently been annulled. The applicant also complained that on court hearing days he had waited for hours for his trial in a very small cell with no access to natural light, no water and no access to a toilet.\n12.  According to the applicant, the cells were infested with parasitic insects and rats and public funds were not fully used to ensure better conditions of detention. The applicant also complained of insufficient medical assistance, as confirmed by the many complaints he had made to various authorities.\n13.  The applicant also instituted court proceedings claiming damages for inhuman conditions of detention. On 11 May 2007 the Buiucani District Court partly allowed the applicant’s claims and found a violation of his right not to be held in inhuman conditions of detention. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7200", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Rzeszów.\n6.  The applicant is married and has children. Prior to her application for pension she was unemployed.\n7.  On 28 September 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called EWK pension.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her son’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 28 September 2001 The certificate stated that the child (born in 1989) had suffered from bronchial asthma and allergy and that he was in need of the parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 16 October 2001the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 September 2001 in the net amount of 470 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  On 3 June 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board requested the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s son required the permanent care of a parent. On an unknown date the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n11.  On 28 June 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions for the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to award the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).\n12.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n13. On 27 November 2002 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence, including expert medical evidence, that while indeed the applicant’s child suffered from bronchial asthma and allergy he did not require his mother’s permanent care since his health condition did not significantly impair his body functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n14.  The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n15.  On 21 May 2003 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.\n16.  On 19 February 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed the cassation appeal lodge", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7201", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Bălţi.\n7.  On 16 August 2006 the applicant was arrested together with another person on suspicion of having committed aggravated hooliganism, which included injuring a third person with a knife. On 18 January 2007 the prosecutor prepared the indictment and sent the case to the trial court.\n8.  In a complaint dated 14 February 2007 the applicant, who was being detained at the time at the Ungheni police station, informed the Ungheni District Court that he had been ill-treated on the same day at around 5 p.m. by officer R.B., who had kicked and punched him, causing head trauma and a bleeding wound, as well as pain in the thoracic region and in his left leg. Two of the applicant’s cellmates (S. and P.) also signed the complaint, confirming that they had seen injuries on the applicant’s body.\n9.  According to the Government, this complaint was in fact lodged with the prosecutor on 16 February 2007, the applicant stating that he had not complained earlier for fear of further ill-treatment. Only after seeing his lawyer on 16 February 2007 had he complained officially of his alleged ill‑treatment two days earlier.\n10.  On 16 February 2007 an ambulance was called for the applicant. The doctor found cerebral trauma and head injury, contusion of soft tissue in the thoracic region and on the left thigh, and excoriations.\n11.  On 27 February 2007 the Ungheni prosecutor’s office found that S., the applicant’s cellmate on 14 February 2007, had confirmed having been told by the applicant of the beating on that date and having seen the injury on the applicant’s head. He also stated that the applicant had asked staff at the police station to call for an ambulance, which they had refused to do. It was also established that the applicant had been taken out of his cell at around 5 p.m. on 14 February 2007 and taken to the office of B., the deputy head of the Ungheni police station. R.B. had declared that he had been in Chişinău at the relevant time and had not ill-treated anybody. According to a medical report of 19 February 2007 an excoriation had been found on the right side of the applicant’s head, which had been caused by the applicant being hit – or hitting against – a blunt object, possibly on 14 February 2007. On 23 February 2007 the applicant had been seen by a neurologist, who had found no signs of head trauma. Finally, the prosecutor found that the applicant had “constantly simulated feeling unwell, and had been escorted to the Ungheni polyclinic on numerous occasions, the doctors finding no illness”. The prosecutor decided not to initiate a criminal investigation against officer R.B. since he had not committed any offence. The applicant challenged that decision before the Ungheni District Court.\n12.  On 12 April 2007 the applicant’s mother complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office about the refusal of the Ungheni prosecutor’s office to initiate a criminal investigation. On 10 May 2007 the Prosecutor General’s Office replied that that question had been examined and rejected in a well-founded decision.\n13.  On 13 February 2008 the prosecutor again refused to initiate a criminal investigation into the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment.\n14.  On 29 February 2008 the Ungheni District Court rejected the applicant’s complaint against the prosecutor’s decision of 27 February 2007 as not complying with the statutory requirements concerning preliminary complaints to a hierarchically superior prosecutor.\n15", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7202", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Ropczyce.\n6.  The applicant is married with children. Prior to her application for an early-retirement pension she had been employed and paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 18 February 2000 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her son’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on 6 March 2000. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1993) suffered from bronchial asthma and that he was in need of his parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 22 March 2000 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 February 2000 in the net amount of 504.91 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  On 28 April 2003 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).\n11.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n12.  On 15 January 2004 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence, including expert medical evidence, that while indeed the applicant’s child suffered from bronchial asthma he did not require his mother’s permanent care since his health condition did not significantly impair his bodily functions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n13.  The applicant further appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n14.  On 28 May 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.\n15.  On 9 February 2005 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant. The decision was served on the applicant on 25 May 2005.\n16.  Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her early-retirement benefits paid by the Social Security Board, despite the revocation of her right to an early-retirement pension.\n17. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7203", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1967 and 1994 respectively and live in Sofia. They are the widow and the son of Mr Nikolay Albertov Filipov, who was shot by a police officer and died on 13 May 1999. The background to the shooting is described as follows, the details being based on the findings made by the domestic courts in the ensuing criminal proceedings against the officer.\n7.  In early May 1999 the Sofia police, who had been tipped off that Mr Filipov might have been involved in three armed robberies which had taken place between March and May 1999 in Sofia and in which the robbers had stolen Mercedes minivans, decided to mount an operation in order to investigate the matter. They had received information that Mr Filipov had a country house in the village of Kalugerovo, near the town of Pravets. At about 4 p.m. on 13 May 1999 four police officers from Sofia, including chief sergeant Y., arrived at the Pravets police station. There, they were informed that Mr Filipov was probably in his house, having arrived there in his car. They were also informed that a Mercedes minivan had been spotted in the house’s yard. Five officers, using two cars, drove towards the house. There, one of the officers saw that a minivan parked in the yard matched one of those involved in one of the robberies. After discussing their further course of action, the officers split up. Two of them headed back to the Pravets police station to report on their findings, and three, including chief sergeant Y., positioned themselves on the road leading to Mr Filipov’s house, with the intention of checking the identities of the drivers of passing cars. They put on bullet‑proof vests which bore the inscription “police”.\n8.  According to the officers’ explanations, at about 8 p.m. Mr Filipov drove past them, heading towards Kalugerovo. They got into their car and drove after him. After the first turn, they saw that his car had stopped on the left side of the road, with the engine still turned on. They approached, stopped their car in front of Mr Filipov’s, got out, presented themselves to Mr Filipov and asked him to show his identification documents. He quickly drove off. The officers got into their car and gave chase. Chief sergeant Y. was driving, the second officer was sitting beside him, and the third was in the back seat. Chief sergeant Y. turned on the police light and the siren, and the officer in the back seat repeatedly shouted into a megaphone “Police, pull over and stop!” Mr Filipov did not heed that order. According to the findings of the Military Court of Appeal (see paragraphs 37 and 46 below), but not those of the Sofia Military Court (see paragraphs 35 and 43 below), while driving he was brandishing a small double‑barrelled handgun and was pointing it at the officers. The third officer tried to contact the station but could not, because the police car was in a radio shadow area as the road passed through mountainous terrain. At one point chief sergeant Y. took out his firearm, loaded it, and fired a warning shot in the air. Mr Filipov kept on driving without slowing down. Then the officer who was in the back seat also took out his firearm and fired several shots at Mr Filipov’s car, aiming towards the right side of the car to avoid hitting Mr Filipov. The shots caused the car to break down and start emitting black smoke. It slowed down, turned to the right, and stopped beside the road, slanting towards it. Mr Filipov jumped out of it and onto the road, with ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7204", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, Ms Lilyana Veselinova Dimitrova, born in 1952, and her son, Mr Yulian Dimitrov Dimitrov, born in 1983, live in Sofia.\n5.  On 4 February 1998 their husband and father, Mr D.D., an aircraft maintenance technician, died in an air crash in Portugal.\n6.  On an unknown date, not later than mid-1999, the applicants received an indemnity of 10,000,000 old Bulgarian levs (BGL) (the equivalent of 10,000 former German marks) under the liability insurance of Mr D.D.’s employer.\n7.  On 10 December 1998 the applicants brought an action against Mr D.D.’s employer in connection with the occupational accident. They claimed a total of 200,000 new Bulgarian levs (BGN) (approximately 102,250 euros (EUR)) in non-pecuniary damages.\n8.  The Sofia City Court conducted the first hearing on 21 June 1999. It ordered an expert report and postponed the hearing for the gathering of evidence. In the period from 24 January 2000 to 11 June 2001 it conducted five hearings, during which it questioned witnesses, admitted the expert report and a report from the Portuguese authorities which had investigated the air crash, and gathered other evidence.\n9.  In a judgment of 30 August 2001 the Sofia City Court partly granted the applicant’s claim, awarding BGN 6,000 to the first applicant and BGN 7,500 to the second applicant, together with the statutory interest since the date of the air crash. It found, on the basis of the expert report and the report from the Portuguese authorities, that the accident had been due to a technical failure. However, certain acts and omissions of the crew, including Mr D.D., had partly contributed to the crash. The court qualified the behaviour of the crew as gross negligence and held that this called for a reduction of the compensation to be awarded to the applicants. The parties appealed.\n10.  The Sofia Appeal Court conducted hearings on 12 April and 20 September 2002. In a judgment of 25 October 2002, which was rectified for errors by an additional judgment of 2 January 2003, it increased the award to BGN 13,000 for each applicant (EUR 13,300 in total). It ordered that the statutory interest should be paid as from the date of the incident until settlement. It held that Mr D.D.’s acts and omissions on the day of the accident could not be qualified as gross negligence and therefore no reduction of the compensation was justified. In assessing the amount of the non-pecuniary damages, the court took into account the insurance indemnity received by the applicants, the poor state of health of the first applicant and the fact that the second applicant had been underage at the time of the accident. The parties appealed on points of law.\n11.  On 7 April 2003 the Supreme Court of Cassation suspended the enforcement of the judgment of the Sofia Appeal Court pending the outcome of the proceedings on points of law.\n12.  On 31 May 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation conducted a hearing. In a final judgment of 14 December 2005 it upheld the judgment of the Sofia Appeal Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7205", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Boguchwala.\n6.  The applicant is a single mother of three children. Prior to her application for an early‑retirement pension she had been employed by the same company for twenty‑five years and paid social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 6 November 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early‑retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so‑called “EWK” pension”.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her son’s health condition, a medical certificate issued on 31 October 2001 by a specialist medical centre. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1987) suffered from asthma and allergy to pollen and that he had been in need of his parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 13 November 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension as of 1 November 2001 in the net amount of 713 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension until 1 December 2001 due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. The applicant resigned from her job where she had been working since 1986. Afterwards, the payments of the pension were resumed.\n11.  On 27 May 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 3 June 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n12.  On 11 June 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).\n13.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early‑retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n14.  On 4 April 2003 the Rzeszow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The Regional Court concluded on the basis of the evidence, including expert medical opinions, that while indeed the applicant’s child suffered from asthma and allergy he did not require his mother’s permanent care since his health condition did not significantly impair his bodily functions. The domestic court held that th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7210", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in the Netherlands.\n6.  The applicant was a political dissident in Iran. On 17 December 2004 he went to Turkey. Subsequently he requested asylum from the Turkish authorities and applied to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) for recognition of his refugee status.\n7.  On 11 March 2005 the applicant was notified that he had been granted a temporary residence permit to live in the city of Konya pending the asylum proceedings. The applicant did not follow the instructions and settled in Istanbul.\n8.  On 30 July 2007 the applicant was arrested in connection with a drug‑related crime. He was subsequently convicted of that crime and sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment.\n9.  On 25 August 2007 the UNHCR recognised the applicant’s refugee status and on 6 February 2008 it informed the national authorities of its decision. The UNHCR also requested that the applicant be issued with a temporary residence permit pending the completion of the procedure for his resettlement once the criminal proceedings against him had ended.\n10.  On 29 December 2008 the applicant was released from prison and placed in the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Removal Centre attached to the Istanbul police headquarters.\n11.  On an unspecified date the national authorities decided that the applicant could not be granted asylum seeker status in Turkey. The applicant was notified of this decision on 2 January 2009 and submitted an objection on the same date.\n12.  On 22 July 2009 the applicant’s objection was dismissed. He was then denied a temporary residence permit on 24 July 2009.\n13.  In a letter dated 7 September 2009 the Ministry of the Interior asked the Governor of Istanbul to deport the applicant. The letter did not specify to which country the applicant should be deported.\n14.  On 14 September 2009 the UNHCR asked the Turkish authorities to grant the applicant a temporary residence permit – on humanitarian grounds, if not as an asylum seeker.\n15.  On 5 October 2009 the Ministry of the Interior instructed the Istanbul Governor not to proceed with the applicant’s deportation, on humanitarian grounds, and to continue holding the applicant at the Kumkapı Centre until the UNHCR had completed the procedure for his resettlement. The Ministry of the Interior added that, given the applicant’s conviction for drug-related crimes, the decision had been based on the threat he posed to public order and health.\n16.  On 10 March 2010 the UNHCR informed the national authorities that the Netherlands had granted the applicant refugee status and asked them to allow the applicant’s departure to that country.\n17.  On 14 April 2010 the applicant left Turkey.\n18.  In the meantime, on an unspecified date in 2010, the applicant had brought a case before the Ankara Administrative Court challenging his detention at the Kumkapı Centre.\n19.  On 1 June 2010 the Ankara Administrative Court dismissed the case, holding that the administrative authorities’ decision to detain the applicant had been in accordance with the law: he had been detained with a view to protecting public order and public security pending his possible deportation and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.\n \n20.  A description of the relevant domestic law and practice may be found in the case of Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey (no. 30471/08, §§ 29‑44, ECHR 2009‑... (extracts)).\n21.  Paragraphs 32 and 33 of the UNHCR Detention Guidelines of 2012 (Guidel", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7211", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Silistra.\n6.  The applicant’s father owned a vineyard in Silistra. In 1963 part of the land was expropriated.\n7.  In 1991 the applicant’s father requested restitution of the land in its “actual boundaries”. In a decision of 24 November 1992 the Silistra land commission decided that the land should be restored through a land redistribution plan.\n8.  The applicant’s father died in 1994 and was inherited by the applicant and two other heirs. It appears that only the applicant, but not the other heirs, participated in the subsequent proceedings concerning the vineyard.\n9.  In a decision of 7 February 1994 the land commission decided that the restitution procedure envisaged in paragraph 4k of the transitional and concluding provisions of the Agricultural Land Act of 1991 (“the restitution procedure under paragraph 4k of the ALA”) was applicable to the area in which the applicant’s vineyard was situated because that area comprised both land restored in “actual boundaries” and land allocated to usufructuaries. That procedure envisaged the preparation of a plan of newly formed plots (“план на новообразуваните имоти”) based on the cadastral plan for the area.\n10.  A cadastral plan for the area in which the vineyard was situated was drawn up in 1990 but was never approved. On an unspecified date the governor of Silistra Region ordered the elaboration of such a plan and appointed a contractor.\n11.  On 19 October 1995 the land commission decided to compensate the applicant and the other heirs of the applicant’s father with another property. The applicant appealed.\n12.  In a judgment of 26 June 1998 the Silistra District Court quashed the decision of 19 October 1995 and held that the heirs of the applicant’s father were entitled to the restitution of 3,590 square meters of the vineyard in their “actual boundaries”. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 20 July 1998.\n13.  In a decision of 30 June 1998 the land commission ordered the restitution of the land to the heirs in its “actual boundaries”. However, it expressly noted that a plan showing the precise boundaries of the real estate was to be drawn up after the approval of the cadastral plan so as to enable the heirs to conclude any transactions with the property.\n14.  Since the vineyard was possessed by third parties, in 1998 the applicant brought a rei vindicatio claim against them. During the proceedings the municipality informed the court that it could not issue a plan of the vineyard because the cadastral plan for the area had not been finalised.\n15.  In a final decision of 16 March 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the claim as premature. It held that since the plan was not ready, the restitution procedure could not be deemed completed because the property was not sufficiently individualised.\n16.  On an unknown date in 2004 the applicant retained a licensed expert to prepare a plan of the vineyard and requested the land commission to validate it. The latter refused. Following an appeal, in a final judgment of 21 March 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the refusal. It held that the plan of newly formed plots for the area had not yet been approved and therefore no plans for particular properties could be issued.\n17.  On 25 May 2005 the applicant requested the local Agriculture and Forestry Department (“AFD”) to issue a plan for the vineyard. On 2 June 2005 it refused. Following an appeal, in a final judgme", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7212", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and is currently serving a prison sentence in a medical establishment of the Ministry of Penitentiary, Probation and Legal Assistance (“the prison hospital”).\n6.  The applicant and an acquaintance (co-accused in subsequent criminal proceedings) were arrested in the latter’s flat on 31 March 2007 for unlawful purchase and possession of a particularly large quantity of drugs with the intention to sell, an offence under Article 260 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. According to the relevant search record, the police discovered some 80 grams of heroin in the flat, and, in addition, according to the record of the body search of the applicant, 1.6150 grams of heroin were found in a pocket of his jacket.\n7.  Prior to the arrest of the applicant and his acquaintance, two other people had been arrested while leaving the same flat. They were both released the same evening, after making incriminating statements against the applicant and the co-accused. At a later stage of the proceedings, notably during the trial, they retracted their initial incriminating statements, claiming that they had been coerced by the police into making them (see paragraph 11 below).\n8.  The case file did not contain a copy of the record of the applicant’s body search. However, the applicant claimed that he had refused to sign it, since, according to him, heroin had been planted on his person by police officers during his transfer from the impugned flat to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The applicant maintained in this connection that he had never waived his right to be searched in the presence of independent witnesses, contrary to what was noted in the search record.\n9.  On 28 December 2007 the Tbilisi City Court convicted the applicant of unlawful purchase and possession of a particularly large quantity of heroin, which had been found in the flat and on his person, with the intention to sell and sentenced him to seventeen years in prison. The first‑instance court dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s allegation that heroin had been planted on him by the police.\n10.  Following the applicant’s appeal, the prosecution dropped the charges concerning the heroin found in the flat. Subsequently, on 12 September 2008 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of unlawful purchase and possession of 1.6150 grams of heroin found on his person only and reduced his sentence to twelve years’ imprisonment.\n11.  The applicant’s conviction was primarily based on the record of his body search, the results of the chemical examination of the seized substance and the statements of the three police officers who had conducted the body search. In reaching their conclusion, the domestic courts also relied on the pre-trial incriminating statements of the two witnesses arrested during the police operation and released shortly afterwards. The court gave precedence to the statements they had made during the pre-trial investigation as it considered that the withdrawal of their initial statements had been unjustified, as they had not proved that they had been coerced into making them. The court specifically noted the fact that neither of the two witnesses had lodged any subsequent complaints regarding the alleged coercion exerted on them.\n12.  By a decision of 7 May 2009 the Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed that applicant’s appeal on points of law.\n13. Copies of medical records submitted to the Court indicate that prior to his arrest, in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7213", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Rīga.\n6.  On 25 April 1998 the police arrested the applicant and another individual, V.J., both of whom were suspects of an aggravated assault against a victim, P.M. (“the victim”). They were then taken to Rīga Main police station (Rīgas Galvenā Policijas Pārvalde).\n7.  On the same day the applicant was interviewed at the station and denied committing the offence. According to the applicant’s statement he was in the stairwell of a dwelling house when the victim attacked him, punching and hitting him in the left ear. After the fight the applicant ran downstairs and noticed a policeman chasing him. In order to escape he smashed through a window in the entrance door and as a result cut his wrists. The applicant was then surrounded by several police officers who brought him to the ground and one of the officers proceeded to kick him twice in the head near his left ear.\n8.  When questioned on 27 April 1998, the victim alleged that, in the stairwell next to his apartment, two men had attacked him from behind and hit him in the head. In his statement, police officer P.K. said he had been running after the applicant and at one point they had both fallen down fighting. He said that the applicant had freed himself from the officer’s grip and, after smashing a window, cut the officer’s face with a piece of glass. He was subsequently arrested by the other police officers present.\n9.  On 27 April 1998 the applicant was interviewed as a suspect and underwent repeated questioning by two officers, V.Ju., and L.K. During the interview the applicant confessed to the crime.\n10.  On 28 April 1998 the applicant and V.J. (who were represented by a lawyer) were brought before a judge of the Rīga Vidzeme District Court and remanded in custody. According to the applicant, during the hearing he denied his earlier confession, informing the court that it had been obtained under duress.\n11.  On 20 October 1999 a public prosecutor finalised the bill of indictment against the applicant and V.J., in which the applicant was charged with robbery and the attempted murder of the police officer P.K.\n12.  On 27 September 2000 the first-instance court established that both defendants had caused bodily harm to the victim and that, at the time of his arrest, the applicant had also caused bodily harm to the police officer P.K., the charge for this offence being obstructing a police officer on duty. The applicant and co-defendant were found guilty of the charges and sentenced to twelve and nine years’ imprisonment respectively.\n13.  By a final decision of 15 January 2002 the Senate of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of points of law lodged by the defendants.\n14.  On 9 July 1998 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office that he had been ill-treated by several officers of the Rīga Main police station (Second Division). He alleged, in particular, that the police officers had punched him, hanged him by a scarf, and tried to suffocate him with a plastic bag and a gas mask. The police officers had reproached him for the attacks on their friend and colleague and had forced him to sign a statement of confession. A similar complaint was made by the co-defendant V.J.\n15.  On 28 September 1998 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to Rīga Court Region (Rīgas tiesas apgabala prokuratūra) initiated a criminal investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment. The applicant was officially recognised as a victim for the purp", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7214", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Dubrovnik.\n6.  On 17 April 2003 at around 5.50 p.m., the applicant telephoned the Dubrovnik Police Station (Policijska postaja Dubrovnik) alleging that he had been attacked and beaten by an unknown man. Two police officers were immediately sent to the scene.\n7.  The police officers interviewed the applicant, who was a boy of thirteen at the time, in the presence of his mother, L.R. The applicant stated that he had been playing in the playground of the Marin Držić Primary School (Osnovna škola Marina Držića) with his friends D.D., D.B. and H.K. with a ball he had found there. At some point another boy had come and asked for the ball, saying that it had been his, but the applicant had not believed him and had refused to return it. Soon after, the boy’s father had come, grabbed the applicant’s t-shirt, and kicked and hit him on the back and head. The man had then taken the ball and left.\n8.  The police established the identity of the man as I.Š.\n9.  At around 7.00 p.m. on the same date the police interviewed I.Š., who denied that he had physically attacked the applicant. I.Š. stated that he had only grabbed the applicant’s t-shirt in order to take the ball. He had also shouted but had not used any physical force.\n10.  At 8.15 p.m. the same day the applicant was seen by a doctor in the Dubrovnik Health Centre (Dom zdravlja Dubrovnik), who drew up a report on the injuries sustained by the applicant. The relevant part of the report reads:\n “According to the person escorting the injured person (his father), [the injured person] was attacked by a man because that man thought that he had taken a ball from his son; [the man] slapped him and kicked him four to five times on the body; which all happened around 6 p.m. in the playground of the Marin Držić Primary School.\nDiagnosis: bruising on the left cheek, bruising on the left lumbar region and around the spleen.”\nThe injuries were qualified as lesser bodily injuries.\n11.  On 6 May 2003 the Dubrovnik Police Station asked the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u Dubrovniku) to institute minor offence proceedings against I.Š. on charges of disturbing the public peace and order.\n12.  On 9 June 2003 the applicant’s father informed the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court that he had orally requested information about the case but had been denied any information. On the same date the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court informed the applicant’s father that he could consult the case file and copy documents thereby.\n13.  Hearings were held on 14 and 16 June 2004.\n14.  On 7 April 2005 the Dubrovnik Minor Offences Court discontinued the proceedings against I.Š. on the ground that the prosecution had become time-barred.\n15.  On 9 June 2003 the applicant’s father lodged a complaint with the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Dubrovniku) against I.Š., claiming that he had physically attacked the applicant and had threatened him. On 30 June and 28 August 2003 the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office asked the Dubrovnik Police to investigate these allegations.\n16.  The police interviewed the applicant’s father, the alleged assailant I.Š., and witnesses V.D., D.D., D.L.B., H.K. and D.Č. and obtained relevant medical documentation concerning the applicant. On 7 July, 11 July and 12 September 2003 respectively, the records of interviews and other documents were forwarded to the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Offi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7215", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1984 and 1958 respectively and live in Drabeši parish, Amata municipality.\n6.  According to the applicants, they have been involved in various disputes with the local police in their area, that is, with officers of the Cēsis District Police Department (Cēsu rajona policijas pārvalde). As established by an internal investigation, on 14 March 2004 there was an incident involving police officer J.M. of the Cēsis District Police Department and both applicants. The police officer and the second applicant had a discussion in a car. The first applicant approached the car and the police officer fired a shot. It hit the roof of the car. Following an internal investigation into the incident, police officer J.M. was discharged from the Cēsis District Police Department for having committed a serious breach of the rules of discipline by carrying firearms while under the influence of alcohol. The police officer stood trial; there is no information concerning the outcome of those proceedings.\n7.  The Government disagreed with the applicants’ account but provided no further information as regards the criminal proceedings against police officer J.M.\n8.  On 30 June 2004, at 1 p.m., police inspector J.S. and police cadet V.D. of the Cēsis District Police Department were patrolling in the Amata parish of the Cēsis District when J.S. saw the first applicant driving a car. The officers knew that the first applicant’s driving licence had been suspended after several violations of the traffic rules. J.S. approached the first applicant and informed him that he was committing a violation of the traffic rules by driving without a valid driving licence. The first applicant did not reply. Instead, he got out of the car and went into the mechanic’s workshop Ģikši, which belonged to his father, the second applicant. Although J.S. continued to shout towards the first applicant, requesting him to stop and come back, the latter did not pay any attention. Accordingly, J.S. and V.D. decided to apprehend him in order to draw up an administrative offence report. They followed him, took hold of his hands and attempted to walk him towards the police car. However, the first applicant resisted by pulling his hands away, pushing the police officers away and falling on the ground in order to drag J.S. down with his weight. In addition, the workshop employees actively obstructed the officers’ arrest of the first applicant by dragging him away, as well as by grabbing the police officers’ uniforms. At some point, the first applicant managed to break free and ran off.\n9.  J.S. started to pursue him, while V.D. drove the police car in order to intercept the first applicant and call for support. The officers caught the first applicant in the courtyard of the Jaunģikši country house and, after a short struggle, the first applicant was apprehended by J.S., V.D. and a second police patrol, which had arrived as reinforcement. In addition, the officers apprehended the second applicant, who had arrived at Jaunģikši and attempted to obstruct the first applicant’s arrest.\n10.  Both applicants were taken to the Cēsis District Police Department, where they were placed in the short-term detention facility.\n11.  On the same date the first applicant was given an administrative fine for a violation of the traffic rules.\n12.  In addition, criminal proceedings were instituted against both applicants for assault on a representative of public authority.\n13.  The applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7216", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, all of Romani origin, living, at the time of the facts, in Psari, near Aspropyrgos. Ninety-eight applicants were school-aged children between the ages of five and a half and twelve in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. Forty-two applicants were adults, parents or guardians of other applicants. The applicants belong to thirty-eight families. Some of them were applicants in the case which gave rise to the judgment Sampanis and others v. Greece (no. 32526/05, 5 June 2008).\n6.  The applicants refer to the factual circumstances of that judgment for the period up to October 2007 and in particular to the following:\n“29.  On 20 June 2006, the third constituency of the West Attica Primary Education Council sent a letter to the director of Attica periphery. She informed him that for the 2005-2006 school year, fifty-four students of Romani origin had been enrolled in the 10th primary school of Aspropyrgos. She stated that “preparatory classes [were] provided for the Romani students, in order to assure their adaptation to the schooling environment, given the deficiencies from which they suffered and various other reasons making it impossible for them to integrate into ordinary classes.” She added that “despite the progress made by Romani students in the preparatory classes, all of these students are not yet fit to integrate into ordinary classes.” 30.  On 5 April 2007, prefabricated rooms of the 10th primary school were set on fire by unknown people. It appears from the file that in September 2007, the two rooms were replaced but because of infrastructure problems, they were not operational. In September 2007, a 12th primary school was created in Aspropyrgos, to which Romani children were transferred. The record shows that in October 2007, this school was not yet operational, because of the infrastructure problems. The Government alleges that the establishment of the 12th primary school in Aspropyrgos was intended only to relieve congestion at the 10th primary school.”\n7.  By Decision No. 10781/D4/2008 of 25 January 2008, published in the Official Gazette of 30 January 2008, the Ministers of Education and Finances created the 12th primary school of Aspropyrgos, which was supposed to welcome Romani and non-Romani students without distinction.\n8.  During the 2007-2008 school year, the Romani students were still educated in an annex of the main building of the 10th school. During Christmas vacation, the rooms of the annex building were damaged. On 8 January 2008, following a complaint lodged by the school principal, the police assured that she would approach the prosecutor.\n9.  According to the information provided by the 12th primary school, at the end of the 2008 school year, sixty students were enrolled at the beginning of the school, eighteen had taken occasional courses, nine had finished the school year with many absences and, after a test, three of them had been considered as having the age and level necessary to be integrated into ordinary classes.\n10.  On 3 March 2008, the mayor of Aspropyrgos convened the directors of the primary schools and invited them to redraw the school map and the school district zones. They attributed the same recruiting area to the 9th, 10th and 12th schools.\n11.  On 11 March 2008, a meeting took place at the 10th school, organised by the Ombudsman, between the direction of this school, the prefecture, the association of parents of (non-Romani) students and the Ombudsman. The point was to convince the paren", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7218", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were participants in or were alleged to be organisers of the unauthorised demonstration of 16 October 2003, which escalated into violent clashes between the law-enforcement authorities and the demonstrators, as described below.\n6.  The events of the present case occurred in the aftermath of the presidential elections of 15 October 2003. The main opposition candidate, Mr Isa Gambar, the chairman of the Müsavat Party, lost the elections of 15 October 2003.\n7.  On the evening of election day a group of opposition supporters gathered in front of the Müsavat Party’s headquarters in the centre of Baku, claiming victory for their candidate in the election. Violent altercations between opposition supporters and the security forces took place at this time.\n8.  At around 2 p.m. on 16 October a number of opposition supporters started gathering near the State Carpet Museum, in the centre of Baku, to protest against the election results. The crowd then started moving towards Azadliq Square, the main square in the city. It was reported that on the way some people in the crowd began damaging cars, buildings, benches and other urban constructions. It was also claimed that the organisers of this unauthorised demonstration and certain leaders of the opposition parties were inciting their followers to violence.\n9.  It has been claimed that some police officers who had been deployed in Azadliq Square were attacked by some of the demonstrators. Shortly thereafter large numbers of riot police and military personnel, fully equipped with helmets, shields and truncheons, arrived in the square with the aim of dispersing the demonstration. The situation quickly escalated into public disorder, and violent clashes occurred between the crowd and the police. It was widely reported that the authorities used excessive force indiscriminately against anyone who happened to be in the area in question.\n10.  At around 6 p.m. the demonstration was completely dispersed. Several hundred people were arrested during the events of 16 October and in their aftermath.\n11.   On 16 October 2003 the Prosecutor General’s Office instituted criminal proceedings (case no. 80308) concerning the events of 15 and 16 October 2003. More than 100 people, of the several hundred arrested in connection with those events, were eventually prosecuted in connection with those proceedings. The proceedings concerned only the actions of the organisers of the demonstration and those participating in it, and it appears that no criminal or other form of investigation was carried out in connection with the allegations of excessive use of force by the police and military units during the dispersal of the demonstration (see Muradova v. Azerbaijan, no. 22684/05, §§ 23 and 114, 2 April 2009).\n12.  Almost the whole pre-trial investigation, in respect of all the defendants, was conducted in the context of this single set of criminal proceedings. However, as the investigation drew close to completion, criminal case no. 80308 was gradually split into several cases, eventually dividing the accused into fifteen separate groups. It appears that the only reason formally given by the prosecution for splitting up the case was the concern that the sheer number of defendants involved (more than 100) would prolong the proceedings and that it would be impractical to hold a single trial involving so many defendants (see Huseyn and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 35485/05, 45553/05, 35680/05 and 36085/05, § 28, 26 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7220", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5. The applicant, Mr Ivan Milić, was born in 1966 and lives in Belgrade, Serbia.\n6.  On 20 June 2002 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica ordered that the applicant be reinstated by the Clinical Centre of Montenegro (Kliničko bolnički Centar Crne Gore), a State-run medical institution.\n7.  On 4 February 2003 this judgment became final, and on 16 December 2003 it was confirmed by the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) in Podgorica at third instance.\n8.  On 23 April 2003 the Clinical Centre of Montenegro informed the applicant that it could not comply with the judgment in question, but would rather seek an alternative solution.\n9.  On 22 May 2003 the Court of First Instance issued an enforcement order, which decision was confirmed on 26 June 2003.\n10.  On 19 August 2003 the Clinical Centre of Montenegro concluded an agreement with the Special Hospital in Risan, also a State-run medical institution, whereby the latter accepted the applicant as its employee.\n11.  On 30 September 2003 the applicant informed the State Prosecutor that he did not approve of this arrangement.\n12.  On 17 October 2003 the Special Hospital in Risan issued a decision to the effect that the applicant would become its employee as of 30 October 2003.\n13.  On 20 October 2003 the applicant received this decision.\n14.  On 21 October 2009, as submitted by the Montenegrin Government, the applicant concluded an Agreement on Termination of Employment with the Clinical Centre of Montenegro whereby his employment had been terminated as from 3 February 2003 and both parties waived any further claims in this regard.\n15.  On 26 October 2009 the applicant withdrew his enforcement request.\n16.  On 5 November 2009 the Court of First Instance terminated the enforcement proceedings and all the enforcement activities which had been carried out in that regard. On 17 November 2009 this decision became final.\n17.  On 6 May 2004, upon the applicant’s separate claim, the Court of First Instance in Podgorica ordered the Clinical Centre of Montenegro to pay the applicant 4,456 euros (“EUR”) for salary arrears for the period between September 2001 and 3 February 2003. This judgment was upheld by the High Court on 5 October 2004. It would appear from the case file that this judgment was enforced on an unspecified date thereafter.\n18.  On 3 February 2003 the applicant started to work in the Clinical Centre of Serbia for a period of nine months. It would appear from the case file that on an unspecified date thereafter his temporary employment was transformed into a permanent one.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7221", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is serving a prison sentence in the Vladimir Region.\n6.  On 11 April 2003 the police arrested the applicant in his house in the presence of his family. According to the applicant, in the course of the arrest, the police officers severely beat him up and burnt his body with cigarette butts and matches.\n7.  The applicant was taken to the Staropromyslovskiy police station by car. When questioned by the deputy prosecutor, the applicant admitted having been present during the murder of two law-enforcement officers, having been involved in a car-jacking and having been in possession of firearms. It appears that on the same day the Staropromyslovskiy District Court of Grozny authorised the applicant’s placement in custody.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with several counts of murder, membership of an armed criminal gang, unlawful possession of firearms, theft and car-jacking.\n9.  When questioned in the presence of lawyer Ts. on 12 April 2003, the applicant reiterated his statement of 11 April 2003. According to the record of the questioning, he confirmed that he had made his statement voluntarily.\n10.  On 14 April 2003 the applicant was blindfolded and taken to a temporary detention centre of the ORB-2 (Operative investigation bureau). During the night he was taken to an office on the fourth floor. According to the applicant, police officers made him kneel and attached telephone cable to his fingers, subjecting him to electrocution. They also hit him with a rubber truncheon.\n11.  On the same date the applicant was questioned and confessed to killing A. and to his involvement in the killing of the Kham. brothers. Lawyer Ts. was present during the questioning. The applicant reiterated his confessions when questioned again, in the presence of the same lawyer, on 21 April 2003.\n12.  The applicant remained at the ORB-2 temporary detention centre for two months. He was repeatedly ill-treated by the same police officers. On an unspecified date the applicant signed a written confession.\n13.  The applicant’s mother, who visited him at the beginning of June 2003, submitted a written statement that she had seen a purulent wound on the back of the applicant’s head.\n14.  On 20 June 2003 the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. IZ-20/1 in Grozny. He was examined by a doctor who noted that the applicant had marks on the back of his head caused by beatings and three cigarette burns on his body. It also transpired from a report signed on 20 June 2003 by two officials of the remand prison and an employee of ORB-2 that the applicant had been handed over to the remand prison “with the following injuries from ill-treatment: (1) cigarette burns (many); (2) [injuries] on the back of the head.”\n15.  The applicant’s mother visited him again on 21 or 22 June 2003. In her written statement to the Court she testified that his entire body had been dark blue, and he had had numerous burn marks and a wound on the head.\n16.  On 11 October 2003 the applicant was transferred back to the Staropromyslovskiy temporary detention centre. On the same day he was brought before a judge. He retracted his confession, complained about ill‑treatment and asked for another counsel.\n17.  According to the applicant, at 10 p.m. on 12 October 2003 he had been taken from his cell to the questioning room at the temporary detention centre. The police officers had handcuffed him, put a plastic bag on his head and started to beat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7222", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Vilnius.\n6.  On 23 May 2005 the State Border Guard Service (hereinafter “the SBGS” or “the Service”) informed a prosecutor that on 16 December 2004 an officer at the SBGS, G.B., acting together with the applicant, who had been driving the car, and Š.S., had committed a crime of fraud by simulating a car accident and later claiming payment from an insurance company.\n7.  The same day the prosecutor asked the SBGS to open a pre-trial investigation on suspicion of fraud, in accordance with Article 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP”) (see Relevant Domestic Law below).\nLater that day the SBGS opened the pre-trial investigation on the basis of Article 171 of the CCP.\n8.  On 25 May 2005, at about 10.30 a.m., two men, who introduced themselves as officers of the Service, went to the applicant’s workplace, the “Fortas” restaurant, in Vilnius city centre. From then on, the applicant’s and the Government’s versions of events differ.\n9.  The applicant stated that the two officers had asked her to accompany them and threatened to use restraining measures should she not comply. She had not been allowed to contact anyone by telephone, except for her supervisor. She had then been taken to the officers’ car and driven to the Vilnius headquarters of the Service. On arrival her handbag had been searched, her mobile telephone had been taken away and the officers had read her text messages. The officers had not returned the telephone to the applicant until 8 July 2005. Immediately after the search, the officers had started interrogating the applicant about the circumstances of the car accident of 16 December 2004. She had been threatened with loss of reputation, placement in a detention facility, conviction and loss of career opportunities, unless she gave them information necessary for the insurance fraud investigation. The officers had refused the applicant’s request for a lawyer. They had also dismissed her request that a record be made of her questioning, saying that it was for them to decide “what to write down and what not to”. Likewise, the officers refused to explain to the applicant what her procedural status was at that moment.\n10.  The Government did not dispute that the SBGS officers had gone to the applicant’s workplace at about 10.30 a.m. on 25 May 2005. However, the Government submitted that no force or threats had been used against the applicant; she had merely been invited to accompany the officers for questioning.\n11.  According to the report of the applicant’s provisional arrest, she was arrested at 3 p.m. the same day. Even though the arrest took place while the applicant was at the Vilnius headquarters of the Service, the arrest report specifies that she had been arrested “at Vilnius international airport” on suspicion of fraud. The report stated that it had been necessary to arrest the applicant because she might flee from the investigators or prosecutor, or commit further offences.\nThe officers also made a record of the personal search of the applicant, which stated that the search had been conducted between 3.10 and 3.40 p.m. on 25 May 2005.\nLater that day the applicant was taken to a police detention facility; her sister had been informed of her arrest.\n12.  The same day at 3 p.m. the SBGS arrested Š.S. and questioned him, as a suspect, about the circumstances surrounding the car accident and the suspected insurance fraud.\n13.  On 26 May 2005 from 3.20 to 3.40 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7224", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born on 14 June 1988 and lives in Remire Montjoly in French Guiana, a French overseas “département and region” in South America.\n11.  He arrived in French Guiana from Brazil in 1992, at the age of four, and attended school there for a year before returning to Brazil in 1994.\n12.  In 1995, in possession of a tourist visa, the applicant returned to Cayenne in French Guiana, where he joined his parents, both of whom had permanent residence cards, and his two sisters and two brothers, one of whom had French nationality while the other three, having been born on French soil, were entitled to apply for it. His maternal grandparents remained in Brazil.\n13.  The applicant attended primary then secondary school in French Guiana from 1996 to 2004. As he had no proper residence papers and could not apply for them until he came of age (see paragraph 26 below), he had to leave school in 2004, at the age of 16.\n14.  On 25 May 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a drug offence. By an order of 17 May 2006, the Cayenne Youth Court placed him under court supervision and barred him from leaving French Guiana.\n15.  In a judgment of 25 October 2006, the Cayenne Youth Court sentenced the applicant to two months’ imprisonment, suspended, and two years’ probation, together with the obligation to report to the authorities and to undergo training, for unauthorised possession of cocaine while under 18 years of age. In execution of that judgment, the applicant began a vocational training course that was scheduled to last from 13 October 2006 to 30 March 2007, as part of the socio-professional guidance and integration scheme in French Guiana.\n16.  On 25 January 2007 the applicant and his mother were stopped at a road check. As the applicant was unable to show proof that his presence on French soil was legal, he was arrested.\n17.  The same day, at 10 a.m., an administrative removal order (arrêté préfectoral de reconduite à la frontière) and an administrative detention order were issued against him. The removal order stated:\n“–  Having regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 and in particular Articles 3 and 8,\n...\n–  Whereas, according to report no. 56 of 25/01/2007, drawn up by the DDPAF [Département Border Police] of French Guiana, the above-mentioned person:\n–  is unable to prove that he entered French territory legally;\n–  has remained in French territory illegally;\n–  Whereas, in the circumstances of the present case, an administrative removal order must be issued against the alien concerned,\n–  Whereas that person has been informed of his right to submit observations in writing,\n–  Whereas, in the circumstances of the present case, there is no disproportionate interference with the person’s right to family life,\n–  Whereas the alien does not allege that he would be exposed to punishment or treatment contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights in the event of his return to his country of origin (or the country of habitual residence to which he is effectively entitled to return),\n...\n[The applicant’s] removal is hereby ordered.”\n18.  On 26 January 2007, at 3.11 p.m., the applicant sent two faxes to the Cayenne Administrative Court.\nOne contained an application for judicial review of the removal order, calling for its cancellation and the issue of a residence permit. In support of his application the applicant alleged in particular that the order was", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7226", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n15.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Senden, Germany.\n16.  In the application, the applicant referred to his declaration made on 6 April 2006 for the purpose of the proceedings before the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (see paragraphs 62 and 63 below).\n17.  On 31 December 2003 the applicant boarded a bus in Ulm, Germany, with a view to visiting Skopje in order, as he stated, “to take a short vacation and some time off from a stressful home environment”. At around 3 p.m., he arrived at the Serbian/Macedonian border crossing at Tabanovce. A suspicion arose as to the validity of his recently issued German passport. A border official checked his passport and asked him about the purpose of his trip and the length and location of his intended stay. A Macedonian entry stamp dated 31 December 2003 was affixed to his passport. On that occasion, his personal belongings were searched and he was questioned about possible ties with several Islamic organisations and groups. The interrogation ended at 10 p.m. Accompanied by men in civilian clothes who were armed, he was driven to a hotel, which later research indicated was the Skopski Merak Hotel in Skopje (“the hotel”). Upon his return to Germany, the applicant recognised, through photographs available on the hotel’s website, the hotel building, the room where allegedly he had been held and one of the waiters who had served him food during his detention in the hotel.\n18.  The applicant was taken to a room on the top floor of the hotel. During his detention at the hotel, he was watched by a team of nine men, who changed shift every six hours. Three of them were with him at all times, even when he was sleeping. He was interrogated repeatedly throughout the course of his detention. He was questioned in English despite his limited proficiency in that language. His requests to contact the German embassy were refused. On one occasion, when he stated that he intended to leave, a gun was pointed at his head and he was threatened with being shot. After seven days of confinement, another official arrived and offered him a deal, namely that he would be sent back to Germany in return for a confession that he was a member of al-Qaeda.\n19.  On the thirteenth day of his confinement, the applicant commenced a hunger strike to protest against his continued unlawful detention. He did not eat for the remaining ten days of his detention in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. A week after he had commenced his hunger strike, he was told that he would soon be transferred by air back to Germany.\n20.  On 23 January 2004 at around 8 p.m., the applicant was filmed by a video camera and instructed to say that he had been treated well, that he had not been harmed in any way and that he would shortly be flown back to Germany. Handcuffed and blindfolded, he was put in a car and taken to Skopje Airport.\n21.  Upon arrival, still handcuffed and blindfolded, he was initially placed in a chair, where he sat for one and a half hours. He was told that he would be taken into a room for a medical examination before being transferred to Germany. Then, two people violently pulled his arms back. On that occasion he was beaten severely from all sides. His clothes were sliced from his body with scissors or a knife. His underwear was forcibly removed. He was thrown to the floor, his hands were pulled back and a boot was placed on his back. He then felt a firm object being forced into his anus. As stated", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7227", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 21 November 2005 Ms M.S. brought a civil action against the applicant in the Rab Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rabu) seeking that the loan agreement concluded between her and the applicant be declared null and void. The plaintiff’s statement of claim was served on the applicant on 12 January 2006.\n6.  On 16 May 2007 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) ordered that the case be transferred to the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u R ijeci).\n7.  On 30 September 2011 the Rijeka Municipal Court delivered a judgment ruling for the plaintiff in part.\n8.  Following appeals by both parties, on 5 September 2012 the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n9.  The proceedings are currently again pending before the Rijeka Municipal Court.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 19 March 2009 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Rijeka County Court, complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings.\n11.  On 14 May 2009 the Rijeka County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded him 4,000[1] Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and ordered the Rijeka Municipal Court to give a decision in the applicant’s case within ten months of service of its decision. According to the Government, the County Court’s decision was served on the Rijeka Municipal Court on the same day.\n12.  On 31 August 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first-instance decision. The Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 14 October 2009.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7228", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company, Purpian sp. z o.o., is a Polish limited liability company having its registered office in Odolanów.\n5.  On 12 November 1997 the applicant company instituted civil proceedings against a certain Z. K. for payment.\n6.  In 1999 and 2000 six hearings were adjourned due to the applicant company’s absence. Furthermore the hearings scheduled for 10 May and 20 September 2005, 10 October 2006, 20 March 2007, 26 March and 22 April 2008 were adjourned or cancelled on the applicant company’s request.\n7.  On 24 July 2008 the Ostrów Wielkopolski District Court gave a judgment. Both the applicant company and the other party to the proceedings appealed against the judgment.\n8.  By a judgment of 11 February 2010 the Kalisz Regional Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the first-instance judgment.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant company lodged a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”). It sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation.\n10.  By a decision of 6 January 2005 the Kalisz Regional Court held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicant company PLN 2,000 in compensation.\n11.  On 15 April 2009 the applicant company lodged another complaint under the 2004 Act.\n12.  By a decision of 26 May 2009 the Kalisz Regional Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the proceedings had been conducted in a correct and timely manner. The court further expressed a view that the length of the proceedings had been largely due to the conduct of the parties, including that of the applicant company.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7229", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Adana.\n6.  On 14 October 1999 he had cataract surgery in a hospital belonging to the Social Security Agency. Upon discomfort which emerged straight after the operation, he applied to the hospital where he was operated on and found out that the reason for his complaints was that the operation had not been conducted under the necessary hygienic conditions.\n7.  On 17 November 2000 he brought a civil case against the Social Security Agency before the Adana 5th Civil Court of General Jurisdiction and claimed damages.\n8.  On 23 August 2001 the civil court decided that the case was not within its jurisdiction and sent it to the Adana 2nd Labour Court.\n9.  On 1 June 2001 the applicant brought a new case directly before the labour court in claim of damages. The labour court decided that both cases were out of its jurisdiction since they were not of a labour case nature. Pursuant to the Code of civil procedure, the first case was sent to the Court of Cassation for the conflict of jurisdiction between a general civil court and a labour court. Meanwhile the proceedings of the second case before the labour court were suspended until the decision of the Court of Cassation was delivered.\n10.  From 21 January 2002 to 3 October 2002 the case was sent from one chamber to another due to the conflict of authority among the chambers of the Court of Cassation.\n11.  On 24 April 2003 upon the decision of the Court of Cassation authorizing general civil courts over the case, the two cases were joined before the Adana 5th Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.\n12.  On 1 February 2006 the Civil Court of General Jurisdiction rendered its first decision.\n13.  On 2 May 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed that decision.\n14.  In the course of the proceedings after the Court of Cassation quashed the decision, the Social Security Agency was attached to the Ministry of Health.\n15.  On 30 July 2008 the civil court decided that the case was out of its jurisdiction since the other party had become an administrative body. That decision was not appealed by the parties.\n16.   On 23 October 2008 upon the decision of the civil court the applicant brought an administrative case against the Ministry of Health requesting damages.\n17.  The administrative case was still pending before the Adana 1st Administrative Court at the time of the decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7230", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Lankaran.\n6.  The applicant owned a house of 315 m² built on a land plot of 615 m². She was delivered a land registration certificate on 18 January 1991.\n7.  J.E. had owned a land plot of 346 m² adjacent to the applicant’s land plot. J.E. died in 1957. However on 23 September 1992 the Lankaran Land Commission (“the Commission”) registered an additional land plot in the name of late J.E. and the Lankaran Inventory Office (the local office of the State Service for Registration of Real Property) documented the total area of J.E.’s land plot as 938 m², which included a part of the land plot actually belonging to the applicant. The reasons for such registration in the name of the deceased person are not clear from the case file.\n8.  The applicant lodged a court action asking the court to declare the Commission’s decision of 23 September 1992 unlawful and to annul all further registration operations in the part concerning her land plot. On 11 March 1993 the Lankaran District Court upheld the applicant’s request and annulled the Commission’s decision of 23 September 1992 and the subsequent registrations by the Lankaran Inventory Office. Pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, the judgment became enforceable ten days after its delivery.\n9.  Nevertheless, on 17 May 1993 the size of late J.E.’s land plot as inherited by his son I.E. was re-registered in I.E.’s name with the total area of 938 m². I.E. was delivered a land certificate for 938 m² of land. In 1993, in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure in force at the material time, the Lankaran Prosecutor’s Office intervened in the applicant’s favour and lodged a court action against Lankaran Inventory Office and I.E., asking the court to annul the erroneous records of the Lankaran Inventory Office and the land certificate delivered to I.E. The applicant participated in the proceedings as a co-plaintiff. On 21 January 1999 the Masalli District Court upheld the request. The court ordered that the Commission’s decision of 23 September 1992 and the subsequent registrations by the Lankaran Inventory Office be annulled. Pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, the judgment became enforceable ten days after its delivery. However, despite the applicant’s complaints to various authorities, the judgment in question was not executed for a lengthy period of time by the Lankaran Inventory Office, which had to make the relevant modifications in its records concerning the size of applicant’s and I.E.’s land plots. According to the applicant, owing to the domestic authorities failure to ensure the enforcement of the judgment in question, a part of her land plot had been used by her neighbour during that time. She could not prevent her neighbour from doing so, as the official document determining the size of her land plot was erroneous and in spite of the courts’ judgment, the domestic authorities failed to correct the mentioned errors in official records.\n10.  After the communication of the application to the respondent Government, on 20 August 2010 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced and relevant modifications were made in the Lankaran Inventory Office’s records.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7231", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Baku.\n5.  On 17 February 1998 the applicant’s husband was issued an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) to an apartment in Baku on the basis of an order of the Yasamal District Executive Authority. On 13 March 1998 the applicant’s husband died.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant became aware that the apartment had been occupied by H. and her family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”). According to the applicant, despite her numerous demands, the family refused to vacate the apartment.\n7.  In 2007 the applicant lodged a court action with the Sabunchu District Court asking the court to order the relevant authorities to change the documents of the apartment into her name and the eviction of H. and her family from the apartment. On 5 October 2007 the Sabunchu District Court partly granted the applicant’s request. The court held that the defendants had no right to use the apartment and that they unlawfully occupied it and ordered their eviction from the apartment. Concerning the changes in the apartment’s documents, the court held that it was not possible to provide the applicant with the relevant documents as the construction of the building had not yet been terminated. No appeals were filed against this judgment and, pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, it became enforceable within one month after its delivery. However, the IDP family refused to comply with the judgment.\n8.  In 2008 the applicant lodged an action with the Yasamal District Court asking compensation for non-enforcement of the judgment of 5 October 2007. On 16 September 2008 the Yasamal District Court and on 24 November 2008 the Baku Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s request. On 20 May 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ judgments.\n9.  At the time of the latest communication with the applicant, the judgment of 5 October 2007 in her favour remained unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7232", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Split.\n5.  On 23 February 1999 the applicant brought a civil action for defamation against the Croatian Radio Television in the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu), seeking non-pecuniary damages.\n6.  In the period between 20 May 1999 and 19 May 2000 the first‑instance court held seven hearings.\n7.  By a judgment of 19 May 2000 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s action.\n8.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 21 May 2004 the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, the Municipal Court held three hearings, and on 21 September 2009 delivered a judgement whereby it ordered the defendant to pay the applicant 30,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n10.  Following an appeal by the defendant, on 26 November 2010 the Split County Court reduced the amount of damages payable to the applicant to HRK 20,000. The judgment was served on the applicant’s representative on 4 January 2011.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 5 November 2007 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Split County Court.\n12.  On 18 August 2008 the Split County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within reasonable time, awarded her HRK 12,500[1] in compensation and ordered the Split Municipal Court to give a decision in her case within six months of the service of its decision. The County Court’s decision was served on the Split Municipal Court on 31 October 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7233", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants are a family of four, all Uzbek nationals who were born in 1960, 1970, 1998 and 2006 and are currently in Sweden.\n8.  On 20 December 2005 the first three applicants arrived in Sweden and, on the following day, they applied for asylum and residence permits. The fourth applicant was born in January 2006 and joined the family’s request for asylum. In interviews with the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) as well as in written submissions, the applicants claimed essentially the following. In 1995 the first applicant had been arrested when the authorities had raided a mosque while he was there. After three days in solitary confinement, he had been released with a travel ban. Before trial in 1998, he had been arrested and detained for six months, and was then convicted for being a Muslim separatist. He had been granted clemency because his lawyer had presented him as being handicapped. He had been put on the authorities’ blacklist. On 13 May 2005 he had participated in a demonstration in Andijan as a member of Akrami, a non-political local organisation, when the police had opened fire against the demonstrators. He had been able to flee and to travel back to Tashkent by bus. Two days later the police had arrived at the applicants’ home and had arrested him in a brutal manner. He had been taken to the police station where he had been threatened and tortured with the purpose of extorting a confession, but he had refused. After four days, his parents had been able to obtain his release through bribery. He had, however, been prohibited from travelling anywhere. Immediately after release he had been admitted to hospital due to the injuries he had sustained, but had left shortly afterwards as he had been warned against staying. He had been too afraid to return home and had, with the help of an acquaintance, gone into hiding for a period of six months. Subsequently, the same acquaintance had arranged the family’s trip to Sweden.\n9.  Moreover, the second applicant had also been persecuted and summoned to appear at the prosecutor’s office, where she had been questioned about the first applicant. During the interrogations she had been subjected to degrading treatment. Furthermore, her brother had been kept in prison for a long time and she had been informed that he would be released when he told the police where her family was hiding. After the arrest of the first applicant, the third applicant, who had been fragile from birth, had developed a fever and had stopped talking for several days. He had suffered from headaches and difficulties in concentrating during his initial stay in Sweden.\n10.  The first applicant produced a copy of his driving licence, two employment books in original, belonging to him and the second applicant, issued by their employer in the Andijan region, and one summons in which he was called to appear as a witness. They also produced an undated copy of a medical certificate from the Clinic of Psychiatric Diseases in Tashkent which stated that the first applicant had been admitted to the hospital on 20 May 2005 complaining of headaches and dizziness, that he had been diagnosed with the after-effects of a head injury and that he had been released on 7 June 2005. The applicants further produced two posters of wanted persons issued by the Internal Affairs Administration in Tashkent. The posters showed photographs of persons wanted by the police after the events in Andijan on 13 May 2005. On the posters, the first app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7234", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Baku.\n5.  In 1994 the applicant’s brother sold his flat to S. and in 1995 S.’s ownership right to the flat was officially registered.\n6.  In 1996 the applicant’s brother lodged a court action asking for annulment of the sale contract of 1994 and all subsequent transactions concerning the disputed flat. On 22 May 1997 the Nizami Distric Court terminated the proceedings as the applicant’s brother subsequently withdrew his claims. Upon a request of the applicant’s brother, on 24 June 1997 the Baku City Court quashed the judgment of 22 May 1997 and sent the case for new examination.\n7.  On 14 April 1998 the applicant’s brother died and the applicant was recognised by the court as his heir. The applicant asked for the proceedings to be renewed.\n8.  In 1999 S. sold the flat to O. and the latter registered his ownership right to the flat.\n9.  On 16 August 2001 the Nizami District Court upheld the applicant’s request and declared the sale contracts of 1994 (concluded between the applicant’s late brother and S.) and of 1999 (concluded between S. and O.) and the ownership certificate in O.’s name null and void and ordered the eviction of O. and his family from the flat.\n10.  On 14 November 2001 the Court of Appeal changed the judgment of 16 August 2001 in the part concerning O. and his family’s eviction from the flat. The court stated that O. and his family were internally displaced persons (IDPs) from the occupied Fizuli region who had no other accommodation and ordered postponement of the execution of the judgment in the part concerning their eviction until liberation of the Fizuli region from occupation.\n11.  On 29 March 2002 the Supreme Court changed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and quashed the part on postponement of the execution.\n12.  On 13 June 2002 the applicant was delivered an ownership certificate to the flat.\n13.  After the communication of the application to the respondent Government, on 17 December 2009 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced and on 18 December 2009 the enforcement proceedings were terminated.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7235", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1956, 1965, 1986 and 1988 respectively and live in Nuštar.\n5.  On 17 October 1993, Ivan Kudra, the then eight-year old son of the first and second applicants and the brother of the third and fourth applicants, sustained a serious head injury while playing near a construction site in Vinkovci, Croatia. After the incident he was taken to the Vinkovci Medical Centre (Medicinski centar Vinkovci) where cranial surgery was performed without the consent of the parents.\n6.  On the same day a doctor on duty at the Vinkovci Medical Centre informed the Vukovarsko-Srijemska Police (Policijska uprava Vukovarsko-srijemska; hereinafter: the “police”) about the incident. The police interviewed the doctor and the second applicant concerning the circumstances of the incident and drafted an official note of their findings.\n7.  The police also interviewed P.M., a friend of Ivan Kudra, who was an eyewitness to the event. He described how they had been playing near a construction site in their neighbourhood when Ivan Kudra had fallen on some metal netting and a piece of metal had pierced his head.\n8.  Ivan Kudra’s health deteriorated on 18 October 1993 when he fell into a coma. He was then transferred to the Osijek Clinical Hospital Centre (Klinički bolnički centar Osijek) for further treatment.\n9.  On 19 October 1993 the police took photographs of the construction site and interviewed L.S., an employee of the construction company, Akord s.p.o. (“company A”), in charge of the construction site at issue.\n10.  Ivan Kudra died in the Osijek Clinical Hospital Centre on 21 October 1993.\n11.  On 24 May 1994 the applicants brought a civil action before the Vinkovci Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vinkovcima) against company A., the Housing and Communal Activities Fund (Fond za financiranje stambeno-komunalnih djelatnosti) and the Vinkovci Medical Centre, claiming damages for the death of their relative.\n12.  They claimed that A., as the construction company, and the Housing and Communal Activities Fund, as the investor, were liable for not having secured the construction site despite being aware that people with children lived nearby. They also held the Vinkovci Medical Centre responsible for medical negligence in the treatment of Ivan’s injuries.\n13.  A hearing scheduled for 3 August 1994 was adjourned because the parties informed the trial court that they could not attend the hearing.\n14.  At the hearing held on 11 October 1994 the defendants denied any responsibility for the death of Ivan Kudra. At the same hearing the applicants asked the trial court to commission a medical report concerning the circumstances of Ivan’s treatment. On 9 January 1995 they further substantiated their request and asked that the medical report be commissioned from the Medical Faculty of the University of Zagreb (Medicinski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu).\n15.  On 11 January 1995 the Vinkovci Municipal Court ordered the hospital and the police to submit all the relevant documents and reports concerning the death of Ivan Kudra. Documents were submitted on 20 January 1995 and 7 February 1995 respectively.\n16.  On 20 February 1995 the Vinkovci Municipal Court found that the police had failed to submit all the relevant documents and requested them again to submit all their documents and reports. The police complied with the Vinkovci Municipal Court’s order on 6 March 1995 and submitted the requested documents.\n17.  On 10 January 1996 the Vinkovci Municipal ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7236", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Jelgava Prison. He has been in detention since being arrested on 22 December 2002.\n5.  On or before 3 March 2005 the applicant was diagnosed with bilateral destructive pulmonary tuberculosis. On 4 March 2005 he was admitted to the Prison Hospital (Ieslodzījuma vietu pārvaldes Republikāniskā slimnīca), which was located on the premises of the Central Prison in Rīga. The applicant stayed in the Prison Hospital between 4 March and 7 September and between 28 September and 18 October 2005. While in the Prison Hospital he was held in cell no. 334.\n6.  According to the applicant’s description of cell no. 334, it measured approximately twenty-four square metres and could hold up to eight people, sleeping on four bunk beds. The applicant pointed out that the cell was in need of repair; among other things the walls were crumbling, the floor was uneven and the ventilation system was not functioning. Apart from natural sources of light, lighting was provided by two fluorescent bulbs during the day and a small, dim light bulb at night. Only cold water was available in the cell, and even that was turned off from time to time. The toilet facilities – a hole in a cement pedestal measuring 0.85 by 0.65 metres – were separated from the rest of the cell by two plywood sheets which were 1.5 metres high. The toilet facilities were disinfected several times a week throughout the applicant’s stay in the cell. On the other hand, during the whole of the applicant’s stay there the cell was sanitised with ultraviolet light on only one occasion.\n7.  The cell had a large window, parts of which could be opened but because of its state of disrepair it could not be completely closed. There were gaps around the edges of the window – one of them three centimetres wide. Accordingly, the air temperature inside the cell was dependent on the temperature outside. Thus, up to the middle of May the temperature inside the cell was approximately 10 to 15 degrees Celsius, which, in combination with the constant draught, meant that the inmates had to wear their coats and hats while sleeping.\n8.  The applicant noted that he was entitled to take a walk outside the cell for one hour each day. The walks took place in small courtyards measuring ten by five metres, which were essentially prison cells without a roof. The yards were in a state of disrepair with crumbling walls and very dirty floors.\n9.  The inmates who were in the Prison Hospital were allowed to have a shower once a week. For a while all six inmates in the applicant’s cell had to take their shower at the same time, despite the fact that there were only four showerheads. The bathroom was very dirty and in a state of disrepair. Subsequently the bathroom was repaired, but the applicant considered that the improvement had not been satisfactory.\n10.  No toothpaste, toothbrush, shaving razor, soap or toilet paper were provided to the inmates who were in the Prison Hospital. The applicant had to acquire them from the prison shop at his own expense. Owing to the schedule for changing bed linen, the applicant at times had to sleep one night a week without any sheets. The applicant was dissatisfied with the quality of the food at the Prison Hospital, indicating that in the five months he spent there he had lost 3.5 kilograms in weight.\n11.  The applicant considered that the medical care in the Prison Hospital was inadequate. As a result he had develope", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7237", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Đakovo.\n5.  On 14 July 2004 the applicant brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court (Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu) against insurance company J.O. seeking damages.\n6.  On 3 February 2010 that court adopted a judgement for the applicant.\n7.  On 22 September 2010 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) dismissed an appeal by the defendant and upheld the first-instance judgement. The judgement was served on the applicant’s representative on 6 December 2010.\n8.  Meanwhile, on 30 September 2008 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Zagreb County Court.\n9.  On 30 April 2009 the Zagreb County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded him 2,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and ordered the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court to give a decision in the applicant’s case within six months of service of its decision. This decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 18 May 2009.\n10.  On 25 May 2009 the applicant appealed against the County Court’s decision in its part concerning the award of compensation. He argued that the compensation that court had awarded him was too low and sought HRK 20,000 instead.\n11.  On 30 September 2009 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and awarded him additional HRK 4,000, that is, HRK 6,000[1] in total.\n12.  On 21 October 2009 the Zagreb County Court’s decision of 30 April 2009 was served on the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court with a view to deciding the applicant’s case within the time-limit set forth in that decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7239", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1968 and 1966 respectively and live in Ștefan Vodă. They are husband and wife.\n7.  On 4 May 2000 the first applicant was giving birth to a child. The head of the obstetrics and gynaecology department of the Ştefan-Vodă regional hospital, Mr B., performed a Caesarean section on her. During the procedure he removed her ovaries and Fallopian tubes, without obtaining her permission. As a result of the operation, the first applicant, who was thirty-two at the time, suffered an early menopause.\n8.  Since 2001 the first applicant has been having medical treatment designed to counteract the effects of the early menopause, including hormone replacement therapy. According to her doctors, she has to continue such treatment until she is between fifty-two and fifty-five years old, after which further treatment will be required.\n9.  According to a neurology report dated 5 November 2001, the first applicant was suffering from astheno-depressive syndrome and osteoporosis. On 18 February 2002 the doctors found that the first applicant experienced hot flushes, neurosis and frequent heart palpitations. On 8 May 2002 she was diagnosed with asthenic neurosis.\n10.  According to the results of an examination carried out by a medical panel on 18 March 2003, the removal of the first applicant’s ovaries and Fallopian tubes had been unnecessary and the surgery had resulted in her being sterilised.\n11.  On 26 July 2006 a psychiatrist and a psychologist established that the first applicant was suffering from long-term psychological problems and that she continued to show signs of post-traumatic stress disorder.\n12.  On 15 March 2005 the Căuşeni District Court convicted B. of medical negligence which had caused severe damage to the health and bodily integrity of the victim. He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year. The court referred to medical reports and found, inter alia, that B. had failed to inform the applicants of the sterilisation until ten days after the event. The first applicant’s ovaries could have been preserved, but B. had failed to do so.\n13.  On 11 May 2005 the Bender Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.\n14.  On 2 August 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the lower courts’ judgments and adopted its own judgment, finding B. guilty but absolving him of criminal responsibility because the limitation period for sentencing him had expired.\n15.  On an unknown date in March 2007 the applicants started civil proceedings against the Ştefan-Vodă regional hospital and B., claiming compensation for the damage caused, comprising 9,909 Moldovan lei (MDL – approximately 587 euros (EUR) at the time) for pecuniary damage, MDL 1 million (EUR 59,740) for the first applicant and MDL 100,000 (EUR 5,974) for the second applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and MDL 2,700 (EUR 160) for legal costs. They also sought a court order for the hospital to provide the first applicant with free treatment for as long as her condition required, as prescribed by her doctors. The applicants’ lawyer provided detailed explanations and evidence in support of each of these claims, including various medical reports, the cost of medical consultations, laboratory analyses and treatment undertaken by the first applicant, and the findings of the criminal courts in the case against B.\n16.  On 18 September 2007 the Căuşeni District Court accepted the applicants’ claims in part, referring to the findings of the criminal cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7240", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Mr Adam Baisuev (“the first applicant”) and Mr Rustam Anzorov (“the second applicant”), two Russian citizens of Chechen origin who were born in 1980 and 1979 respectively. At the material time they were residing in Tbilisi, Georgia, where they had refugee status.\n6.  According to the applicants, early in the morning of 7 December 2002 police officers arrived at their homes to question them. The police proceeded to search their premises without producing a warrant. Their identity papers were taken from them and the applicants were asked to follow the officers to police station no. 3 in the Vake-Saburtalo district of Tbilisi (“the police station”). There the applicants were photographed and questioned about the armed conflict in the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation and asked if they and their family members had been involved. They also had their fingerprints taken. Three hours later they were released and their identity papers were handed back to them.\n7.  The Government disagreed with the version of events presented by the applicants. They maintained that on 7 December 2002 the police officers had gone to the applicants’ home to conduct a regular identity check of people living in Tbilisi without registration. The applicants were asked to follow the police officers to Vake-Saburtalo police station, where their ID and refugee cards were checked. The Government rejected the applicants’ contention that their homes had been searched and other investigative measures taken.\n8.  According to the Government, the applicants were kept at the police station for thirty minutes. They were released immediately upon completion of the identity check.\n9.  According to the applicants, on 20 January 2003 they lodged complaints with the Office of the Prosecutor General of Georgia (“the PGO”), criticising the way the police had acted. They sought explanations regarding the legal basis for the search of their homes, for them being taken to the police station and for the criminal procedural measures to which they had been subjected. The Government maintained that they were unable to find those complaints lodged with the PGO.\n10.  On 7 February 2003 the second applicant reiterated his request to the PGO for information concerning his detention. In its reply of 31 March 2003 the investigator from the Vake-Saburtalo District prosecutor’s office explained that the second applicant had not been detained, but had been taken to the police station along with other temporary residents of different nationalities to have his identity and legal status in Georgia checked. The investigator claimed that not a single investigative act had been carried out and that the applicant had been released immediately after the identity check.\n11.  On 2 April 2003 the applicants applied to the Tbilisi Public Prosecutor’s office to have criminal proceedings initiated against the police officers who had carried out their detention. According to the applicants, their application was forwarded to the Vake-Saburtalo District prosecutor’s office, which did not reply. The Government again maintained that they were unable to find the applicants’ letter of 2 April 2003, either with the Tbilisi Public or Vake-Saburtalo District prosecutor’s office.\n12.  On 17 November 2003 the applicants requested a written reply to their application dated 2 April 2003.\n13.  On 19 November 2003 the Vake-Saburtalo District prosecutor’s office replied that on 7 December 2002 the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7241", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applications have been lodged by five families who complain about the disappearance of their eight male relatives in Grozny or the Grozny District between March 2002 and July 2004. The abductions occurred in quite similar circumstances: the applicants’ relatives were arrested by groups of armed and masked men at their homes or in the streets in a manner resembling a security operation. In each case a criminal investigation file was opened by the local prosecutor’s office. At the end of 2011, when the latest round of observations was submitted, the investigations remained pending without having produced any tangible results as to the whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives or the identity of the perpetrators.\n7.  In their observations the Government did not dispute the principal facts of each case as presented by the applicants, but noted that as the domestic investigations were pending, any conclusions about the exact circumstances of the crimes would be premature. They argued that it had not been established with sufficient certitude that the applicants’ relatives had been detained by State agents or that they were dead.\n8.  Below are summaries of the facts relevant to each individual complaint. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives and some other key facts are summarised in the attached table (Annex I).\n9.  The applicant was living in Urus-Martan, Chechnya, with her husband Apti Avtayev. They had two daughters, born in 1997 and 1999. According to the applicant, at 10 a.m. on 10 March 2002 a large group of servicemen (about fifty) wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with automatic weapons had conducted a sweeping operation in Dzerzhinskogo Street in Grozny, where the applicant’s husband had been working at the time. They had used several APCs and military Ural trucks without number plates. They had entered the houses, searched them and led Apti Avtayev away.\n10.  The applicant had not been a witness to her husband’s abduction as at the relevant time she had been staying in Urus-Martan. The description of the events of 10 March 2002 was based on the accounts provided to the applicant’s representatives by her on 1 August and by the witnesses to Apti Avtayev’s abduction: by Mr M. D. on 14 July 2005; by Mr R. P. on 14 July 2005; and by Mrs A. B. on 15 July 2005.\n11.  The applicant arrived in Grozny on 11 March 2002 and started to search for her husband. She personally visited the local police station, the military commander’s office and the prosecutor’s office. In the subsequent months she wrote to numerous official and public bodies, as testified by her and attested by some responses to her queries received in June 2002.\n12.  On 19 August 2002 the Leninskiy District Department of the Interior (“the Leninskiy ROVD”) of Grozny opened criminal investigation file no. 48139 under Article 126 § 2 of the Criminal Code (aggravated kidnapping). On the same day the applicant was questioned and granted the status of victim.\n13.  The investigation was suspended on several occasions. It was also transferred from one prosecutor’s office to another. The Government refused to disclose any documents from the file. Instead, they referred to some documents which, in their opinion, called into question the applicant’s presentation of the facts. The applicant therefore submitted a copy of a report of an unspecified date, in which the head of the Leninskiy ROVD had informed the Grozny Prosecutor’s Office that Apti Avtay", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7242", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in the village of Gvishtibi, Georgia. On 27 December 2005, at around 9.50 p.m., the applicant was arrested by three police officers on suspicion of breaching public order in the city of Tskaltubo and physically assaulting a taxi driver. He was taken to the Tskaltubo police department, where, with the status of a suspect, he protested his innocence and invoked his right to remain silent. An identification procedure which took place immediately afterwards resulted in the taxi driver identifying the applicant as one of the assaulters. According to the applicant, he was then severely beaten by three police officers identified as B.Gh., M.K. and M.M., who demanded that he confess to verbally and physically assaulting the taxi driver.\n6.  On the following day the applicant was charged with an aggravated breach of public order, an offence under Article 239 § 2 (a) of the Criminal Code of Georgia. He was questioned as an accused in the absence of a lawyer and confessed to the offence. Later, an ambulance was called for the applicant. An emergency doctor and a nurse, who visually examined him in the presence of a prosecutor, drew up a report noting that the applicant had a bruise on his right eye and a scratch on his nose. When asked about the source of the injuries, the applicant stated that he had fallen to the ground when running away from the police officers during the arrest.\n7.  On 29 December 2005 the Tskaltubo District Court ordered the applicant’s release on bail. According to the applicant, at the hearing he repeated his confession, since it was on that condition that the police officers had promised to release him.\n8.  On 30 December 2005 the applicant, who by that time had developed a severe headache, general weakness and nausea, was taken to Kutaisi hospital. On admission to the hospital he alleged that he had been beaten by police officers. After the required medical examination, the applicant was diagnosed with an internal head injury, concussion and chronic gastroduodenitis. A haematoma measuring 2 cm by 2.5 cm was observed on his right eye; also, minor excoriations were found on his right thigh, left shoulder and right hand, and minor swelling in the right temple area and jaw. He was treated at the hospital until 6 January 2006.\n9.  On 7 January 2006 the applicant was again hospitalised with recurring headaches and dizziness. He was treated for two weeks and discharged from the hospital on 20 January 2006.\n10.  According to the case file, in February 2006 the applicant additionally consulted a doctor on a number of occasions following complaints of severe headaches and pain in the abdominal area.\n11.  On 21 March 2006 the investigator in charge of the applicant’s criminal case ordered a forensic examination in order to establish the gravity and potential cause of the applicant’s injuries. On the same day the Imereti regional office of the National Forensic Bureau issued a conclusion on the basis of an analysis of the applicant’s medical records. Confirming the applicant’s diagnosis, the expert established that the injuries had been caused by a hard blunt object and belonged to the category of bodily injuries of minor severity causing long-lasting damage to the applicant’s health.\n12.  On 12 October 2006 the applicant’s lawyer arranged for an alternative, independent examination of the applicant’s medical records, inquiring in particular as to whether the injuries sustained by the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7243", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Istanbul.\n7.  The applicant owns and runs a website (http://sites.google.com/a/ahmetyildirim.com.tr/academic/) on which he publishes his academic work and his views on various topics. The website was created using the Google Sites website creation and hosting service (http://sites.google.com/).\n8.  On 23 June 2009, under section 8(1)(b) of Law no. 5651 on regulating Internet publications and combating Internet offences, the Denizli Criminal Court of First Instance ordered the blocking of the website http://sites.google.com/site/kemalizminkarinagrisi/benimhikayem/atatuerk-koessi/at (hereinafter “the offending website”). The order was issued as a preventive measure in the context of criminal proceedings against the site’s owner, who was accused of insulting the memory of Atatürk.\n9.  On the same day, under section 8(3) of Law no. 5651, a copy of the blocking order was sent to the Telecommunications and Information Technology Directorate (“the TİB”) for execution.\n10.  On 24 June 2009, at the request of the TİB, the Denizli Criminal Court of First Instance varied its decision of 23 June and ordered the blocking of all access to Google Sites under section 8 of Law no. 5651. The TİB had indicated that this was the only means of blocking the offending website, as its owner did not have a server certificate and lived abroad.\n11.  The TİB, implementing the order of 24 June 2009, blocked all access to Google Sites and the applicant was thus unable to access his own website. All his subsequent attempts to remedy the situation were unsuccessful because of the blocking order issued by the court.\n12.  On 1 July 2009 the applicant applied to have the blocking order of 24 June 2009 set aside in respect of his website. He pointed out that he used the website regularly in order to publish his academic work and his opinions on various topics, and that the measure had barred all access to his site, which had no connection with the offending website. He argued, in particular, that in order to prevent other websites being affected by the measure, a method should have been chosen which would make only the offending website inaccessible. He cited as an example blocking the site’s URL.\nIn support of his request, the applicant furnished the court with a copy of the webpage which appeared when he tried to access his own website. The following warning was displayed:\n“The Telecommunications and Information Technology Directorate has applied the order issued by the Denizli Criminal Court of First Instance on 24 June 2009 in respect of this website (sites.google.com) as a preventive measure.”\n13.  On 13 July 2009 the Denizli Criminal Court dismissed the applicant’s application. Referring to a recommendation issued by the TİB, it considered that the only means of blocking access to the offending website, in accordance with the blocking order, had been to block access to the Google Sites service, which had hosted the content complained of.\n14.  The applicant wrote to the Court on 25 April 2012 informing it that he was still unable to access his website even though, as far as he understood it, the criminal proceedings against the owner of the offending website had been discontinued on 25 March 2011 because of the impossibility of determining the identity and address of the accused, who lived abroad.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7244", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants, a woman and her two children, were born in 1975, 1995 and 2004 respectively.\n8.  On 21 May 2007 they arrived in Sweden and applied for asylum. The first applicant’s husband and their sons were at the time already in Sweden, where they had applied for asylum in 2005 but had not yet received a final decision in their case. Before the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) the first applicant alleged that the main reason why she and her children had left Afghanistan was that her family had been persecuted by the Taliban, with whom her husband had been in conflict for several years. When her husband had left the country, the threats that had formerly been directed against him had instead been aimed against her and her eldest daughter. She further claimed that the situation in Afghanistan, particularly for women, was very difficult. On 23 September 2007, after their asylum application had been rejected by the Swedish authorities, her husband and their two sons had been deported to Kabul. Before the Board the first applicant maintained that she was not aware of their whereabouts after the deportation.\n9.  On 22 January 2008 the Migration Board rejected the applicants’ asylum claim and ordered that they be deported to Afghanistan. Concluding that the information given by the first applicant was contradictory and lacking in detail, the Board did not find her story credible. The Board further held that her husband’s asylum claim had been rejected and that there was no reason to make another assessment regarding the individual circumstances in the applicants’ case. While the general security situation prevented the applicants from returning to the province where they had lived before leaving Afghanistan, the Board held that they were able to settle in two other provinces, where the first applicant had previously lived, or in Kabul, where they would reunite with the other family members.\n10.  On 30 June 2008 the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen) upheld the Board’s decision. On 8 September 2008 the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) refused leave to appeal. The deportation order against the applicants thereby acquired legal force.\n11.  Subsequently, the applicants applied to the Migration Board for a review of the enforcement of the deportation order, claiming that there were impediments to their enforcement. On 19 November 2008 the Board refused to review the case, finding that no new circumstances warranting a review had been forthcoming. This decision was upheld by the Migration Court on 23 December 2008. Two further requests for review of enforcement were subsequently refused, leave to appeal in the later proceedings being refused by the Migration Court of Appeal on 11 June 2010.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7245", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Baku.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 12 January 1998 the applicant was issued an occupancy voucher (yaşayış orderi) to a flat in a recently constructed residential building in Baku on the basis of the Baku City Executive Authority’s order of 7 January 1998.\n8.  At the same time, the applicant became aware that the flat was occupied by O. and her family, who were internally displaced persons (“IDP”) from Gubadly, a region under occupation of Armenian military forces following the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.\n9.  According to the applicant, despite her numerous demands, O. refused to vacate the flat noting that she was an IDP and she had no other place to reside in.\n10.  On 1 July 2004 the applicant was delivered an ownership certificate to the flat.\n11.  On an unspecified date in 2005, the applicant lodged a lawsuit with the Yasamal District Court asking the court to order the eviction of O. and her family from the flat.\n12.  On 5 July 2007 the Yasamal District Court granted the applicant’s request. The court held that the applicant was the lawful owner of the flat on the basis of the ownership certificate of 1 July 2004 and, therefore, the flat was unlawfully occupied by O. and her family. The court ordered the eviction be conducted once the IDP family was provided with other accommodation by the Sumgayit City Executive Authority. The applicant appealed before the Court of Appeal asking the immediate eviction of the IDP family. On 20 April 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s request and ordered that the IDP family be evicted. On 13 September 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 20 April 2007.\n13.  According to the applicant, O. and her family refused to comply with the judgment and the competent authorities did not take any measures to enforce it.\n14.  After the lodging of the present application before the Court, on 28 October 2008 the applicant sold the flat in question to O. On 26 November 2008 she lodged a request before the Yasamal District Enforcement Department asking that the enforcement proceedings be terminated owing to the resolution of the matter by the parties. On 10 December 2008 the Yasamal District Court terminated the enforcement proceedings in question.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7246", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Plovdiv.\n6.  On 12 July 2006 he was convicted of theft and sentenced to three years and two months’ imprisonment. In the period between 16 April and 17 December 2007 he was detained in a low-security prison facility („затворническо общежитие”) in Smolyan, part of Plovdiv Prison.\n7.  The applicant submitted that the entirety of his incoming and outgoing correspondence with his lawyers had been monitored by the prison administration. He submitted two envelopes addressed by him to his lawyers, one from the prison facility in Smolyan and one from Plovdiv Prison. Each envelope was marked or stamped as having been monitored by the prison administration. As noted in a letter from the General Directorate of Enforcement of Sentences at the Ministry of Justice submitted by the Government, the prison administration, acting in compliance with section 33 § 1(c) of the Enforcement of Sentences Act of 1969, routinely opened all letters, including those sent to lawyers, save those addressed to certain state bodies or international organisations.\n8.  The applicant further submitted that he had not been allowed to contact his lawyer by phone and that his meetings with relatives and lawyers had been held in special premises with a prison officer attending the meeting.\n9.  The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in the prison facility in Smolyan had been poor. In particular, the stated that (a) his cell had been small and overcrowded, not equipped with a toilet or a sink; (b) the number of toilets and showers had been insufficient; (c) the food had been of poor quality and insufficient; (d) the heating and ventilation had been insufficient; (e) the level of hygiene in the common areas had been poor; (f) dental services had not been covered by the State; (g) prison officers had often addressed inmates in an offensive way, physical harassment had not been uncommon, and disciplinary punishments had been imposed without proper observance of inmates’ rights.\n10.  The applicant never brought an action for damages under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damages Act (“the SMRDA”).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7248", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Rustavi no. 6 Prison.\n6.  On 21 July 2004 the applicant was detained on suspicion of aggravated murder and causing actual bodily harm, offences under Articles 109 and 120 of the Criminal Code of Georgia respectively.\n7.  On 24 July 2004 the Oni District Court, acting at the prosecutor’s request, remanded the applicant in custody for three months. His pre‑trial detention was subsequently extended several times.\n8.  On 30 June 2006 the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment. His conviction was based on several witness statements, forensic reports, and certain other pieces of evidence. The applicant appealed against his conviction, claiming that the first-instance court had erred in the application of domestic law and the assessment of the facts. He complained, in particular, that the Oni District Court had failed to take the statements of the defence witnesses into account.\n9.  On 15 November 2006 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal, after re-hearing the applicant, the victim and the key witnesses and reviewing the other evidence, upheld the applicant’s conviction in full.\n10.  The applicant’s appeal on points of law of 12 December 2006, in which he reiterated the arguments he had made before the first two instances, was rejected by the Supreme Court of Georgia on 7 June 2007.\n11.  In view of the deterioration of the applicant’s state of health, on 4 June 2007, the applicant’s advocate requested the Ministry of Justice, the authority in charge of the prison system at the material time, to conduct a comprehensive examination of his client’s medical condition. His request was, however, refused. Between 8 June and 18 July 2007 experts from the National Forensic Bureau (“the NFB”), an agency of the Ministry of Justice, conducted the medical examination at the applicant’s own expense (“the medical report of 18 July 2007”). The conclusions of that examination showed that the applicant was suffering from a chronic form of viral Hepatitis C (“HCV”) with moderate pathological activity; the experts classified the applicant’s condition as “not serious” and recommended that he receive antiviral treatment on an out-patient basis.\n12.  On 1 August 2007 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Prison Department of the Ministry of Justice (“the Prison Department”) to transfer his client from Rustavi no. 6 Prison, where he was detained at the time, to the Prison Department’s medical establishment (“the prison hospital”) for the purposes of antiviral treatment. In support of the above request, the applicant’s lawyer submitted the medical report of 18 July 2007.\n13.  On 6 August 2007 the Governor of Rustavi no. 6 Prison replied that the applicant was receiving hepatoprotective drugs in prison, and that his state of health was stable.\n14.  In the meantime, the applicant was transferred, for unknown reasons, from Rustavi no. 6 to Rustavi no. 2 Prison, which fact his lawyer complained of to the Prison Department on 29 August 2007. He also reiterated his request for the applicant’s transfer to the prison hospital.\n15.  In letters of 12 and 20 September 2007, the Governor of Rustavi no. 2 Prison and a representative of the Prison Department respectively, citing the medical report of 18 July 2007, stated that “in view of the applicant’s current state of health, his transfer to [the prison hospital] for medical assessment and treatment [was] unnecessary”.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7249", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Taraclia (the Republic of Moldova).\n8.  At around 11 p.m. on 6 February 2007 the applicant was arrested by police officers C. and G. and taken to the Glodeni District police station. The applicant was accused of fraud and trespassing on private property.\n9.  The applicant was placed in the Glodeni police temporary detention unit (Izolatorul de detenţie provizorie al CPR Glodeni).\n10.  At 3 p.m. on 7 February 2007 the on-duty medical officer, M., examined the applicant. In medical examination report no. 52, drawn up on 7 February 2007, M. stated that during the examination she had not noticed any visible traces of injury on the applicant’s body. M. assessed the general state of the applicant’s health as “satisfactory” and noted that the applicant’s only complaint was of chest pain.\n11.  According to the applicant, on an unspecified date while detained in the Glodeni temporary detention unit, he was taken to the office of a police officer and ill-treated in order to extract a confession. In particular, he was struck on the head with a black, blunt object, after which he lost consciousness. He was then forced to confess to the offences attributed to him.\n12.  On 21 February 2007 the applicant was examined again by a forensic medical expert, S. According to the medical report drawn up by S. on that date, he observed “a curved, whitish scar measuring 3 x 0.3 cm” in the middle of the applicant’s forehead. The expert came to the conclusion that the scar had formed as a result of the healing of a wound. He could not determine when the wound had been sustained. He noted that the applicant had said that he had been beaten up by an individual, O., on 6 February 2007 at 10.30 p.m. In particular, the applicant had been hit in the face with some rope. He also noted that the applicant had not made any complaint.\n13.  In subsequent submissions to the domestic courts the applicant stated that he had made the above-mentioned statement concerning the attack by O. only because he had been taken to the medical examination by C., one of the police officers who had ill-treated him. C. had threatened him with further beatings upon his return to the detention facility if he complained.\n14.  The applicant remained in the Glodeni temporary detention unit until an unspecified date in April 2007, when he was transferred to the Bălţi temporary detention centre. He made his first complaint of ill-treatment after that transfer.\n15.  According to the applicant, on 10 July 2008 he was declared Category 3 disabled as a result of cranial trauma.\n16.  On 17 April 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office, alleging that while in custody he had been beaten up by police officers C. and G. He made a similar complaint to the President of the Republic of Moldova, whose office received the applicant’s letter on 20 April 2007. He apparently received no reply.\n17.  On 16 May 2007 he lodged another complaint with the Glodeni District Prosecutor’s Office about the same events. He submitted that he had been warned against complaining about ill-treatment and threatened with further ill-treatment if he complained. He pointed out that the alleged victim’s family were relatives of a high-ranking police officer in Glodeni. The applicant was first interviewed by a prosecutor on 20 May 2007.\n18.  On 9 July 2007 the Glodeni Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision not to start criminal proceedings. On 6 September 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7250", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  On 11 April 2000 the Kyiv District Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant, along with two other persons, on suspicion of tax evasion and forgery in their capacity of a private company’s officials.\n6.  On 24 April 2000 the applicant was indicted.\n7.  Between 30 May 2000 and 30 June 2004 the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the Kyivskyy Court”) considered the case.\n8.  According to the information provided by the Government, in the course of proceedings the hearings were adjourned twelve times because the presiding judge was busy with another case and seven times at the request of the other co-defendants’ lawyers. In addition, there were five adjournments as the applicant or her lawyer was absent. Finally, hearings did not take place four times because the prosecutor was absent and three times owing to the absence of the witnesses. According to the applicant, however, the judge failed to duly notify the parties of the scheduled hearings on many occasions. Some of the adjournments, according to her, were caused by the judge’s inability to ensure the audio-recording of hearings requested by the applicant.\n9.  Meanwhile, the applicant lodged numerous complaints with the higher-level courts about the length of the proceedings. As indicated in the reply of the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal to one of her complaints, audio-recording equipment was available only in the appellate court and the first-instance court had therefore to adjust the schedule of hearings accordingly.\n10.  On 30 June 2004 the Kyivskyy Court, at the prosecutor’s petition and in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer, terminated the proceedings against the applicant as time-barred.\n11.  On 8 July 2004 this ruling became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7251", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Ptuj.\n5.  In the beginning of the 1990s the applicant company entered a business relationship with the company JEKLOTEHNA D.D, which was a company owned by the State. In 1996 bankruptcy proceedings were instituted against the latter.\n6.  On 16 September 1997 the applicant company instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court against the Republic of Slovenia seeking the payment of the debt owed by JEKLOTEHNA D.D.\n7.  On 14 July 1999 the court held a hearing.\n8.  On 6 October 1999 the Ljubljana District Court issued a judgment rejecting the applicant company’s request. The applicant company appealed.\n9.  On 17 December 2002 the Ljubljana District Court issued a decision stating that the appeal was considered to be withdrawn, since the applicant company failed to pay the court fees for the appeal. The applicant company appealed.\n10.  On 9 June 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeal and annulled the decision. Subsequently, the appeal against the first-instance judgment was allowed.\n11.  On 15 June 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the applicant company’s appeal. The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law.\n12.  On 2 December 2005 the Ljubljana District Court rejected the appeal on points of law on procedural grounds. The applicant company appealed.\n13.  On 11 January 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeal. Subsequently the appeal on points of law was accepted and sent to the Supreme Court.\n14.  On 9 October 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7252", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  On 12 April 2001 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings against her former husband before the Šmarje pri Jelšah District Court as the legal guardian and representative of her two sons who were both minors seeking the payment of alimony awarded by a judgment of 26 January 1996. These proceedings were conducted under the reference number In 19/2001.\n7.  On 12 May 2001 the court requested the applicant to complete the request with additional information. The up-dated request was sent to the court on 28 May 2001.\n8.  On 21 June 2001 the court issued the writ of execution, granting enforcement on immovable property. The applicant appealed against the calculation of court fees.\n9.  On 28 August 2001 the applicant withdrew the appeal.\n10.  On 26 September 2001 a decision rejecting the appeal was issued based on the above-mentioned withdrawal.\n11.  On 23 January 2002 the court issued a decision requesting the applicant to submit a down payment for a property valuation.\n12.  On 15 February 2002 the applicant sought the exemption from paying the fee for the valuer.\n13.  On 28 February 2002 the court issued a decision on exemption from fees.\n14.  On 15 April 2002 the court appointed a valuer specializing in agricultural land.\n15.  On 5 September 2002 the valuer submitted his report to the court which was sent to the applicant for comments. The applicant submitted comments on 1 October 2002.\n16.  On 4 February 2003 the applicant lodged a submission with the court objecting to the expert report and requesting the appointment of a valuer specialized in valuating building land.\n17.  On 10 February 2003 the applicant lodged a new enforcement request on the debtor’s movable property. The proceedings were conducted under the reference number In 122/2003. The writ of execution was issued on 7 April 2003. The request was subsequently amended and the applicant requested enforcement on immovable property.\n18.  On 3 March 2003 the court received the planning information from the Šmarje pri Jelšah Municipality where it was stated that the property in question was not agricultural land but building land.\n19.  On 27 May 2003 the court issued a decision on the value of the immovable property. Both parties appealed.\n20.  On 8 October 2003 the Higher Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.\n21.  On 4 February 2004 the court requested further information from the Municipality regarding the planning information. The Municipality informed the court on 9 March 2004 that the immovable property in question was indeed building land and not agricultural land.\n22.  On 29 April 2004 the court issued a decision appointing a valuer specialized in building land to value the property. The report was delivered on 17 June 2004.\n23.  On 16 August 2004 the court issued a decision joining the two enforcement proceedings (In 19/2001 and In 122/2003) since they concerned the same immovable property.\n24.  On 14 October 2004 a decision was issue on the determination of the value of half of the property. The applicant appealed and the court considered the appeal as a request to determine the value of the whole property.\n25.  On 28 October 2004 the decision on the value of the whole property was issued.\n26.  On 4 March 2005 the court issued an order for a public auction.\n27.  On 25 April 2005 an order on the recognition of a winning bid was issued.\n28.  Between 15 June 2005 and 7 March 2006 th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7254", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lived until his arrest in the city of Stavropol, Stavropol Region.\n6.  On 3 March 2006 the Stavropol Promyshlennyy District Court found the applicant guilty of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to six years and six months’ imprisonment, which he was to serve in a medical correctional facility given that he suffered from tuberculosis.\n7.  On 1 November 2006 the applicant was transferred to medical correctional colony no. 8 in the town of Neftekumsk, Stavropol Region. As stated in official reports submitted by the Government, colony no. 8 primarily accommodates inmates suffering from tuberculosis, irrespective of the detention regime that they have been sentenced to. It also has a hospital for inpatient treatment of inmates.\n8.  The Government, relying on certificates issued by the acting director of the colony in July 2011, submitted that the colony is composed of seven dormitory buildings measuring, in total, 5,296.6 square metres and having 1,100 sleeping places. At the material time, the inmate population was 995 persons. The Government stressed that during the entire period of the applicant’s detention in the colony, the inmate population had not exceeded the maximum design capacity of the colony.\n9.  The Government further submitted that the applicant had been detained in dormitory rooms nos. 6 and 3 which, respectively, measured 117.4 and 74.1 square metres, had 40 and 24 sleeping places and accommodated 38 and 23 detainees. In contrast, as stated in the certificates issued by the acting director of the colony, dormitory room no. 6 was equipped with 39 sleeping places and dormitory room no. 3 had 27 sleeping places. Furthermore, the acting director noted that it was impossible to provide statistical information on the number of detainees kept together with the applicant in the dormitories, as daily logs of the prison population had not been drawn up. At the same time, given that the number of inmates had never exceeded the design capacity of the colony dormitories and the inmates had always been distributed evenly among the dormitories, there was no doubt, in the acting director’s view, that the applicant had always had a sleeping place. In particular, as confirmed by the certificates presented by the Government, each year between 2006 and 2011 the Stavropol Regional Service for the Execution of Sentences capped the number of detainees who could be detained in correctional colony no. 8. In particular, for 2006, 2007 and 2008 the cap was 833 persons, with the actual number of detainees being 807, 679 and 696 in 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively. In 2009, when the cap was set at 1,035 inmates, the colony had accommodated 822 detainees. In 2010 and 2011 the maximum number of inmates detained in the colony had varied slightly between 1,040 and 1,057, with the maximum capacity of the facility having been set at 1,056 and 1,100 persons, respectively.\n10.  The Government further provided information on the housing and sanitary conditions in the dormitories. Each dormitory room had seven windows, with three of them measuring 90 centimetres in width and 110 centimetres in height and the other four windows being 110 centimetres high and 140 centimetres wide. Windows facing the colony grounds and widows facing another dormitory were covered by a steel mesh, with the distance between bars being no more than 100 to 200 millimetres. A small window casing 96 centimetres long to 36 centimetres wide could b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7255", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Rīga.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In July 2003 the applicant was convicted of unauthorised acquisition and storage of narcotic substances. According to the criminal case file he had acquired and stored for personal use nine packages of a narcotic substance which contained 0.5108 grams of methamphetamine. The applicant pleaded guilty. He was given a suspended prison sentence. Before 2003 he had been convicted four times of theft.\n8.  At the Government Agent’s request the State police furnished the following information on 5 October 2011:\n“...since 2002 the Anti-Drugs Office [Narkotiku apkarošanas birojs – ONAP] had information to the effect that [the applicant] had been involved in the trafficking of narcotic substances. [The applicant] has six previous convictions; before [the arrest] he was convicted on 18 July 2003 of unauthorised acquisition, storage and transfer of narcotic substances with intent to sell...\nIn February 2004 the Anti-Drugs Office received new unofficial information in connection with the applicant’s drug-trafficking activities. [The Office] therefore commenced undercover investigation by carrying out a preliminary inquiry (izziņa), as a result of which on 24 February 2004 the [investigators] opened Case No. 7004204 in order to verify the operational information (operatīvās pārbaudes lieta). Information concerning the applicant was entered in the operational records (operatīvā uzskaite). Within the framework of the above proceedings [the investigators] collected information from various sources and carried out several operational investigative measures, including operational inquiry (izzināšana) phone tapping, which was authorised by the Supreme Court.\nThe information acquired during the verification process confirmed that the applicant was involved in drug trafficking. Accordingly, operational case (operatīvās izstrādes lieta) No. 7019304 was opened on 27 October 2004. Various operational measures were carried out within the [above case], including operational surveillance (operatīvā novērošana), operational interception of telephone conversations (operatīva sarunu noklausīšanās) and others.\nThree undercover operations conducted in the context of the operational case were used as evidence of [the applicant’s] guilt, in the criminal proceedings ...which were instituted on 1 December 2004. [Their] aim was to create a situation in which the applicant would have an opportunity to either procure narcotics or refuse to do so, in order to determine how he would behave.\nAs a result it was proved that [the applicant] procures narcotic substances in large quantities.\n...”\n9.  According to the information provided by the Government, on 2, 11 and 30 November 2004, at the request of the Anti-Drugs Office, a specially authorised prosecutor from the Office of the Prosecutor General (Ģenerālprokuratūras īpaši pilnvarots prokurors) authorised the carrying-out of investigative tests (operatīvais eksperiments) in which an undercover police agent, I., was supposed to make a “test” purchase of amphetamine from the applicant. The authorisation was granted in accordance with section 15(3) of the Law on Operational Activities (Operatīvās darbības likums, hereafter “the LOA”) (see the relevant domestic law part below).\n10.  According to the statements of the undercover police agent I. and the reports of the official of the Anti-Drugs", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7256", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently serving a prison sentence.\n8.  On 30 March 2005 the applicant was convicted for the first time of drug trafficking, and was sentenced to two years in prison but released on probation. As disclosed by his medical file, prior to those criminal proceedings he had suffered serious cranial traumas, as a result of which his mental health had deteriorated.\n9.  On 28 September 2005 the applicant was arrested again for possession of 3.84 g of heroin and 0.121 g of methadone (for a more detailed description of the circumstances surrounding his arrest and the subsequent criminal proceedings, see Jashi v. Georgia (dec.), no. 10799/06, 16 January 2007). He was detained in Tbilisi no. 5 Prison.\n10.  On 28 December 2005 a psychiatric report, after having described the exact nature of the applicant’s mental disturbances, stated that it was impossible to reach a definite diagnosis without subjecting the applicant to a comprehensive psychiatric examination, which ought to be conducted in an appropriate medical setting. No such examination followed.\n11.  On 20 January 2006, during a preparatory hearing of the applicant’s trial, the Zugdidi District Court, granting a request made by his lawyer which was based on the psychiatric report of 28 December 2005 and aimed at the determination of the applicant’s mental capacity to stand trial, ordered that the applicant be admitted to the Poti Psychiatric Hospital for one month in order to allow a forensic psychiatric examination to take place. The court specified that the applicant’s trial could only be resumed after the results of the forensic examination had been obtained.\n12.  The Zugdidi District Court’s ruling of 20 January 2006 was final, but the authorities refused to enforce it despite numerous complaints being made by the applicant and his lawyers in that regard.\n13.  On 9 March 2006 the applicant was transferred to Zugdidi Prison, under a strict regime.\n14.  On 7 April 2006 the applicant’s representatives requested the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to indicate to the Government that the ruling of 20 January 2006 of the Zugdidi District Court, by which their client ought to have been admitted to the Poti Psychiatric Hospital, be enforced immediately.\n15.  On 26 April 2006 the President of the Chamber decided not to indicate the interim measure sought. Instead, under Rules 40 and 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, urgent notice of the application was given to the Government, who were also asked to explain the reasons for the non‑enforcement of the ruling of 20 January 2006 and to submit documents accounting for the medical treatment provided to the applicant in prison.\n16.  On 23 May 2006 the Zugdidi District Court ordered that the applicant be admitted for one month to the psychiatric ward of the National Forensic Bureau (“the NFB”) so that his psychiatric examination could be conducted.\n17.  In enforcement of that order, the prison authority transferred the applicant on 31 May 2006 to the NFB. On 8 June 2006 the applicant requested that two psychiatric experts of his choice be allowed to take part in the examination, but that was not authorised. On 14 June 2006 a panel consisting of State psychiatric experts issued a report about the applicant’s mental health, and on the following day the applicant was sent back to Zugdidi Prison.\n18.  According to the report of 14 June 2006, the applicant did not have any chronic or temporary psychiatric dis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7257", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1987. The second applicant, L., the biological son of the first applicant was born on 10 December 2008.\n5.   By a decision of the K. Welfare Centre (“the Centre”) of 19 December 2008 L. was placed in a foster family in another town, on the ground that the first applicant was unemployed and had no income, was supported by her mother, attended a special needs programme in school and lived with her mother and a mentally ill brother in an old and dilapidated house without heating.\n6.  The first applicant consented to having L. placed in a foster family.\n7.  On an unspecified date the Centre lodged a request with the K. Municipal Court, seeking that the first applicant be divested of her parental rights in respect of L.\n8.  The first applicant was unrepresented in those proceedings.\n9.  On 10 May 2010 the K. Municipal Court divested the first applicant of her parental rights in respect of her son L., on the ground that the first applicant had a mild mental disability and was not able to provide proper care to L.\nThe relevant part of the decision reads:\n“On 28 April and 4 June 2009 a social worker visited the family of A.K. and established that the home was untidy and the respondent looked unkept, was wearing dirty clothes, had greasy hair and smelled unpleasant as a result of a lack of personal hygiene. When asked by the social worker when she had last taken a bath, she shrugged and looked at her mother. The respondent was advised to maintain good personal hygiene in the interest of transferring good habits to her child. Since the living premises ... were equally untidy during the second visit she was told that proceedings for divesting her of parental rights would be instituted.\nAt a meeting held on 10 February 2010 the Centre ... concluded that the respondent suffered from a mild mental disability which was not being treated by a psychiatrist; that she lived in poor conditions in untidy premises and did not maintain her personal hygiene. Upon the birth of her son, L., she had said that she was not capable of caring for him, and L. was placed in a foster family. She had visited him twice in the first year and showed no interest in the child. Against this background the team of experts concluded that the respondent had abandoned the child because in the year during which the child had been placed in foster care she had not created an appropriate home environment for the child ...\nThe mother of the child opposed the request and asked that the child be given back to her so that she could try to care for him. In order to establish the relevant facts this court ordered a psychiatric examination of the mother.\nThe psychiatrist ... stressed that the respondent is a person with a mild mental disability ... Since childhood she has been behind in her mental development and lived in a sheltered environment. At school she was enrolled in a special needs programme and with some effort completed training to be a florist, but has never worked. ... ongoing psychiatric treatment is needed. During the examination the psychiatrist conducted a short interview with the respondent, who correctly stated her date of birth, confirmed that she had gone to school, that she had never been employed, and that she did some chores at home without specifying what. When asked whether she could cook, she answered that she could only prepare milk. When asked about the care of the child she said that she knew that a child had to be changed a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7259", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Silistra.\n5.  On 3 September 1997 the applicant was charged with fraud.\n6.  Between 3 September and 12 December 1997 he was in custody.\n7.  On 27 March 2000 the Silistra Regional Court found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 12 October 2000 the Varna Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and remitted the case for further investigation.\n9.  On 31 October 2002 the prosecuting authorities terminated the proceedings as it had not been established that the applicant had committed a criminal offence.\n10.  On 4 December 2002 the applicant brought an action for damages under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act (“the SMRDA”). He initially sought 60,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN), later reduced to BGN 40,000 (equivalent to 20,450 euros (EUR)), in non‑pecuniary damages stemming from his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him.\n11.  On 27 October 2003 the Dobrich Regional Court found that compensation was due under section 2(2) SMRDA as it had not been established that the applicant had committed a criminal offence. It awarded the applicant BGN 6,000 (EUR 3,067) in non-pecuniary damages.\n12.  On 6 April 2004 the Varna Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.\n13.  In a final judgment of 28 October 2005 the Supreme Court of Cassation increased the amount of damages awarded to BGN 9,000 (EUR 4,601).\n14.  The courts further applied section 10 § 2 of the SMRDA and ordered the applicant to pay in total BGN 2,480 (EUR 1,268) in court fees, which represented 4% of the dismissed part of his claim.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7260", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Chişinău (Moldova).\n5.  On 22 November 2002, at Frankfurt Airport, the German customs authorities discovered a box containing 10,000 LSD pills, addressed to M.U., a Romanian national.\n6.  The German and Romanian police authorities decided to track the box in order to identify who was involved in the transportation of the LSD pills.\n7.  On 26 November 2002 M.U. and I.M. collected the box from a post office. Later the same day, M.U. and I.M. were arrested.\n8.  I.M. decided to take advantage of the statutory leniency provisions. At the police station he declared that the box should have been collected by his girlfriend, O.L., and passed on to the applicant.\n9.  Later the same day a group of armed police broke into the applicant’s flat with the intention of searching it. The applicant argued that the policemen did not show a search warrant and no witnesses were present.\nThe search lasted for four hours. During this time, the applicant was kept immobilised, was not offered water and could not go to the toilet. The applicant alleges that the policemen who broke into her flat kicked her on the head, heels and legs with booted feet and hit her around the face with her passport.\n10.  A report was issued at the end of the search that included pictures of the drugs found. Two technical reports were drafted as well concerning the identification of the drugs as LSD.\n11.  On the same day, the applicant was taken to the public prosecutor’s office, who remanded her in custody. She was informed that she was accused of illegal drug use and drug trafficking, illegal border crossing and falsification of documents.\n12.  The applicant was informed that she had the right to a lawyer during the criminal trial.\n13.  Later the same day the applicant made two statements.\n14.  In the first declaration, signed by her, the applicant stated that during the search operation performed that day the police had found in her flat several bags containing cannabis, a gas pistol and several documents with her picture. She acknowledged that the passport was false and that she had bought it in the Czech Republic for 200 United States dollars (USD).\nThe applicant went on to state that her boyfriend had asked her to send some LSD to Romania, for which she was supposed to receive USD 1,000. As she was not in Romania at the time, O.L. agreed to receive the LSD drugs for her. The applicant stated that O.L. had already received 500 LSD pills and that she was supposed to sell them and transfer USD 2,000 to the Netherlands.\nThe applicant further stated that one month after O.L. had received the drugs she had transferred USD 1,000 to the Netherlands.\nThe applicant also claimed that she occasionally consumed cannabis herself.\n15.  The applicant confirmed the above account of events in her second declaration, signed both by the applicant and by her lawyer appointed by the Bar, D.D.\n16.  According to the applicant, during interrogation by the public prosecutor she was beaten, threatened with a long prison sentence (up to twenty-five years) and forced to sign self-incriminating declarations, which were written in illegible handwriting by a police officer. Owing to the illegible handwriting and the fact that the applicant’s mother tongue is Russian, she could barely understand the declarations she was forced to sign. During this time she was allegedly not provided with drinking water and could not go to the toilet.\n17.  On 10 December 2002 the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7261", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kyiv.\n8.  In 1983 the applicant was appointed to the post of judge of a district court. At the material time, domestic law did not require judges to take an oath upon taking office.\n9.  On 5 June 2003 the applicant was elected to the post of judge of the Supreme Court.\n10.  On 2 December 2005 he was also elected Deputy President of the Council of Judges of Ukraine (a body of judicial self-governance).\n11.  On 30 March 2007 the applicant was elected President of the Military Chamber of the Supreme Court.\n12.  On 26 June 2007 the Assembly of Judges of Ukraine found that another judge, V.P., could no longer act as a member of the HCJ and that her office should be terminated. V.P. challenged that decision before the courts. She further complained to the Parliamentary Committee on the judiciary (Комітет Верховної Ради України з питань правосуддя)[1] (“the Parliamentary Committee”) in relation to the matter.\n13.  On 7 December 2007 the Assembly of Judges of Ukraine elected the applicant to the post of member of the HCJ and asked Parliament to arrange for the applicant to take the oath as a member of the HCJ in order to allow him to take up office, as required by section 17 of the HCJ Act 1998. A similar proposal was also submitted by the President of the Council of Judges of Ukraine.\n14.  In reply, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee, S.K., who was also a member of the HCJ, informed the Council of Judges of Ukraine that that issue had to be carefully examined together with V.P.’s submissions alleging that the decision of the Assembly of Judges of Ukraine to terminate her office as a member of the HCJ had been unlawful.\n15.  The applicant did not assume office as a member of the HCJ.\n16.  Meanwhile, S.K. and two members of the Parliamentary Committee lodged requests with the HCJ, asking that it carry out preliminary inquiries into possible professional misconduct by the applicant, referring, among other things, to V.P.’s complaints.\n17.  On 16 December 2008 R.K., a member of the HCJ, having conducted preliminary inquiries, lodged a request with the HCJ asking it to determine whether the applicant could be dismissed from the post of judge for “breach of oath”, claiming that on several occasions the applicant, as a judge of the Supreme Court, had reviewed decisions delivered by Judge B., who was his relative, namely his wife’s brother. In addition, when participating as a third party in proceedings instituted by V.P. (concerning the above-mentioned decision of the Assembly of Judges of Ukraine to terminate her office), the applicant had failed to request the withdrawal of the same judge, B., who was sitting in the chamber of the court of appeal hearing that case. On 24 December 2008 R.K. supplemented his request by giving additional examples of cases which had been determined by Judge B. and then reviewed by the applicant. Some of the applicant’s actions which served as a basis for the request dated back to November 2003.\n18.  On 20 March 2009 V.K., a member of the HCJ, having conducted preliminary inquiries, lodged another request with the HCJ seeking the applicant’s dismissal from the post of judge for “breach of oath”, claiming that the applicant had committed a number of gross procedural violations when dealing with cases concerning corporate disputes involving a limited liability company. Some of the applicant’s actions which served as a basis for the request dated back to July 2006.\n1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7262", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Bakhchysaray.\n5.  On 7 March 2001 the Kyivskyy District Prosecutor of Simferopol opened a criminal case in respect of the applicant on suspicion of embezzlement while at the post of a shop manager. Criminal proceedings on similar charges were also instituted against the shop director, Mr Z.\n6.  Between 30 May and 9 August 2001 the investigation was stayed owing to the authorities’ failure to establish the applicant’s whereabouts. He was placed on a wanted list.\n7.  On 13 August 2001 the applicant was apprehended.\n8.  On 23 August 2001 the Kyivskyy District Court of Sevastopol (“the Kyivskyy Court”) remanded him in custody pending trial.\n9.  On 29 August 2001 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the aforementioned ruling and released the applicant under an obligation not to leave the town.\n10.  On 13 November 2001 the applicant, as well as Mr. Z., was indicted as charged and the case was referred to the Kyivskyy Court for trial.\n11.  On 3 December 2001 the Kyivskyy Court started the trial. Overall, it held nine hearings. There were five adjournments for a total of about five months at the applicant’s request or because of his absence. Another adjournment for about five months was caused by the judge’s absence. The examination of the case was delayed for about a year following the court’s order of a repeated forensic accounting evaluation at the prosecutor’s request.\n12.  On 14 February 2005 the Kyivskyy Court, at a prosecutor’s request, remitted the case for additional investigation.\n13.  On 5 April 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld that ruling.\n14.  After April 2005 the investigation was stayed on three occasions (for eight months, for one year and three months, and for about a year, respectively) as the whereabouts of the applicant and Mr. Z. were not known. All the respective rulings of the investigator were however quashed by the Prosecutor’s Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea as unfounded and new investigators were assigned to deal with the case.\n15.  Meanwhile, according to the applicant, he enquired about the investigation progress several times, also requesting disciplinary action to be taken against the prosecutors and investigators concerned.\n16.  By a letter of 18 February 2011 the Crimea Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant, in reply to his enquiry of 18 January 2011, that the criminal proceedings against him and Mr. Z. had been terminated on 27 December 2010 for the lack of corpus delicti in their actions.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7263", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and is currently in prison.\n6.  In late October 1977 Agnès Le Roux (“A.R.”), a twenty-nine-year-old woman, went missing in unexplained circumstances and for unknown reasons; she has never been seen again. A.R. was a director and partner, together with others including her mother, R.R., in the company that ran the Palais de la Méditerranée, a casino in Nice.\n7.  On 13 February 1978 R.R. lodged a criminal complaint alleging false imprisonment. On 1 March 1978 a judicial investigation was opened in respect of that allegation. From 4 February 1980 this became a murder investigation and R.R. lodged a further criminal complaint.\n8.  On 13 August 1983 the applicant, who was A.R.’s lawyer and also her lover, was charged with her murder by the investigating judge at the Nice tribunal de grande instance. He was remanded in custody, before being released on 7 October 1983.\n9.  On 29 September 1985 the public prosecutor filed submissions recommending that the charges be dropped.\n10.  On 30 September 1985 the investigating judge made an order finding that there was no case to answer.\n11.  On 23 April 1986 the Indictment Division of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal upheld the order.\n12.  In a judgment of 1 February 1988 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by R.R.\n13.  On 24 October 1994 and 4 November 1997 R.R. lodged criminal complaints against the applicant and his estranged wife F.L. respectively, accusing the former of concealment of a body and the latter of aiding and abetting concealment of a body; in both cases she applied to join the proceedings as a civil party.\n14.  On 11 June 1999 F.L. admitted that she had given false evidence at the applicant’s instigation in her statement to the police in 1979, having stated that she had gone to Switzerland with the applicant on 27 and 28 October 1977.\n15.  In a judgment of 7 December 2000 the Investigation Division of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal ordered the reopening of the investigation into A.R.’s disappearance and murder. It held that the declaration by F.L. constituted fresh incriminating evidence within the meaning of the Code of Criminal Procedure, strengthening the existing evidence which had previously been judged insufficient.\n16.  On 20 December 2000 the investigating judge placed the applicant under formal investigation for murder and made a court supervision order.\n17.  On 14 June 2001 the investigating judge arranged a confrontation between F.L. and the applicant.\n18.  On 21 February 2002, 25 June 2003 and 18 March 2004 the Investigation Division of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal dismissed applications by the applicant for the charges to be dropped.\n19.  In a judgment of 26 October 2005 the Investigation Division of the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal committed the applicant for trial in the Alpes-Maritimes Assize Court. In its judgment, which ran to ninety-three pages, it dismissed an objection that the investigations into the alleged offence of concealment of a body had been unlawful as they had resulted from an abuse of process by the civil party in the form of a spurious accusation. It further held that the fact that the victim’s body had never been discovered did not prove that no crime had been committed; on the contrary, the disappearance of the body might have been an aspect of the crime designed to thwart any useful inquiries. Furthermore, after noting that the applicant was the only person charged with mur", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7265", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and is currently being held in the psychiatric wing of Louvain Prison (Belgium).\n6.  He was first committed on 4 April 1978 for the repeated rape of his under-age sisters between 1973 and 1977, after the Louvain Criminal Court had found in a judgment of 2 February 1978 that he was not criminally responsible for his actions. He was released on 24 April 1978 subject to the condition that he be taken to hospital and treated by a psychiatrist, Dr V., who had found on 27 April 1977 that the applicant had severe mental disabilities.\n7.  On 20 August 1982 the applicant was again detained and placed under observation in Merksplas Prison by order of the public prosecutor, for sexually assaulting a child.\n8.  On 7 March 1983 the Louvain Mental Health Board (commissie tot bescherming van de maatschappij; commission de défense sociale) decided that it was necessary to transfer the applicant to the Bierbeek private psychiatric clinic. However, owing to his aggressive behaviour and a further sexual assault, he was returned to the psychiatric wing of Merksplas Prison in October 1984.\n9.  The Mental Health Board regularly reviewed the situation in order to find a suitable psychiatric establishment and, on 2 December 1985, decided to release the applicant on a trial basis into the care of the Dr Guislain private psychiatric institute in Ghent.\n10.  On 4 May 1987 the Mental Health Board authorised the applicant to live alone provided that he went to hospital every day for treatment.\n11.  On 12 June 1987 the applicant was again arrested for indecent assault on a young girl and was placed in the psychiatric wing of Turnhout Prison, where he remained until September 1989, when he was released on condition that he had himself admitted to a psychiatric hospital.\n12.  In 1994, following several incidents involving young girls and female staff in the psychiatric hospital, and several psychologists’ reports describing him as a manipulative and potentially dangerous individual who was not capable of living in society, the Mental Health Board, referring to the Criminal Court’s judgment of 2 February 1978, ordered the applicant’s return to the psychiatric wing of Merksplas Prison.\n13.  In 1998 a number of non-prison psychiatric institutions were approached with a view to the applicant’s admission, but to no avail.\n14.  Intelligence tests carried out on the applicant in 1998 revealed that he had an IQ of 72 and he was classified as “mentally disabled”.\n15.  Between 1999 and 2001 the applicant had six consultations with five different prison psychiatrists.\n16.  Several opinions issued by the prison’s mental welfare office between 2002 and 2004 documented the ongoing unsuccessful search for a suitable residential institution for the applicant. A report drawn up by the psychologist R. in July 2004 reached the following conclusion:\n“The subject was placed in detention for sexual offences. He is considered to be a dull-witted man with an immature personality. We are continuing to look for a residential institution prepared to take him. The idea is that a stay in a structured establishment greatly reduces the risk of reoffending. Unfortunately, finding such an establishment is no easy matter. ... For the time being we have found him a place on the waiting list for Borgenstein [private care home for people with disabilities]. This state of affairs cannot go on much longer, however.”\n17.  From 2002 to 2004 the applicant saw a prison psychi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7266", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1949, 1951, 1961, 1933 and 1977, respectively and live in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n5.  By five judgments of different courts of first instance of 25 April 2002, 23 September 2005, 7 October 2002, 8 September 2003 and 24 December 2002, which became final respectively on 9 March 2005, 23 September 2005, 12 July 2005, 6 April 2005 and 24 January 2006, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in convertible marks (BAM)[1]:\n(i) BAM 26,994.86 in respect of capitalised annuity to Mr Milan Momić;\n  (ii) BAM 87,479.19 in respect of pecuniary damage for lost income to Mr Živan Anđić;\n  (iii) BAM 2,235 in respect of pecuniary damage together with default interest at the statutory rate calculated from the start of the proceedings until the final payment and BAM 4,586 in respect of legal costs to Ms Ismihana Kalem;\n  (iv) BAM 7,525 in respect of pecuniary damage together with default interest at the statutory rate calculated from the start of the proceedings until the final payment and BAM 1,400 in respect of legal costs to Mr Hašim Delić; and\n  (v) BAM 11,500 in resepct of non-pecuniary damage together with default interest at the statutory rate calculated from the start of the proceedings until the final payment and BAM 1,425.90 in respect of legal costs to  Mr Marinko Tomčić.\n6.  The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 4 July 2005, 12 December 2005, 17 October 2005, 3 October 2005 and 27 April 2006.\n7.  The applicants complained of non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”). On 12 April 2006, 14 March 2006, 9 May 2006 and 13 December 2007 the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the cases of Mr Milan Momić, Mr Živan Anđić, Ms Ismihana Kalem and Mr Hašim Delić. The applicants did not claim compensation, but even if they had done so, their claim would have most likely been refused (see, for example, the Constitutional Court’s decisions AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, § 438; AP 557/05 of 12 April 2006, § 195; AP 1211/06 of 13 December 2007, § 79; and AP 244/08 of 8 December 2010, § 37). On 24 June 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the case of Mr Marinko Tomčić due to the change of circumstances following amendments to the Domestic Debt Act 2004.\n8.  On 22 December 2008 Mr MarinkoTomčić was issued government bonds in lieu of cash in respect of the principal debt and associated default interest accrued until 23 July 2004 in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Domestic Debt Act 2004 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).\n9.  On 22 December 2011 the final judgment in respect of Mr Hašim Delić was fully enforced in cash and in March 2012 the final judgments in favour of Mr Milan Momić and Mr Živan Anđić were also fully enforced in cash.\n10.  The final judgment in favour of Ms Ismihana Kalem remains unenforced to this day.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7267", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1950, 1947 and 1943 respectively. Mr Stojko Arsovski and Mrs Verka Arsovska live in Kratovo and Probištip respectively.\n7.  Since 1952 the applicants’ predecessor had title to a plot of land no. 1339, a pasture (“the plot”). On the basis of a gift contract of 1968 the plot in question was transferred into the possession of Mr Stojko Arsovski and subsequently into the possession of all applicants. In 1973 the State was recorded in the land registry, in error, as the owner of the plot. On 1 November 1977 the City Council of Kratovo authorised company S. (“the company”) to use the plot for an intensive agricultural development, but the company had never engaged in any such activity. On 17 April 1996 the applicants and Mr Milan Arsovski brought a civil action against the State seeking recognition of the title to several plots of land, including plot no. 1339. In May 1996 the then competent Ministry gave permission to the company to carry out geological research on the plot in question. On 19 March 2002 the Kratovo Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) upheld the applicants’ claim recognising their title to the plot in question. On 26 June 2002 the Skopje Court of Appeal confirmed the first-instance court’s decision of 19 March 2002 establishing that until then the claimants had always had actual possession of the plot.\n8.  On 26 July 2002 the company requested that the State expropriate the plot in order for it to extract mineral water. In support of its request, it submitted, inter alia, a copy of a concession contract (договор за концесија) signed by the State on 8 May 2000 under which the company had been authorised to exploit geothermal mineral water in the plot for a renewable period of thirty years. The company undertook, in return, to pay certain compensation to the State (the compensation was twofold: a fixed annual amount and a percentage of the profits from the sale of the mineral water).\n9.  On 9 December 2002 the Kratovo Office of the Ministry of Finance ordered expropriation of the plot so that the company could construct a pit to extract the mineral water. The expropriation order was based, inter alia, on sections 2 § 1 (6) and 3 § 1 (3) of the Expropriation Act (“the Act”).\n10.  The applicants and Mr Milan Arsovski appealed against the expropriation order, arguing that the extraction of mineral water had not been specifically mentioned in any act or plan concerning the plot and that the applicable legislation had provided for partial, instead of for full, expropriation in the event of research into and exploitation of mineral resources, as in their case. In this connection they referred to sections 4 and 6 of the Act.\n11.  On 2 June 2003 the Government Appeal Commission (“the Commission”) dismissed the appeal, finding that the company had submitted the required documents and that the exploitation of mineral water had been provided for in a decision of the City Council dated 1996. Relying on section 2 § 1 (6) of the Act, the Commission stated that the expropriation in the applicants’ case had been in the public interest. It further stated that the company, as the beneficiary of the expropriation, should pay compensation to the applicants.\n12.  The applicants and Mr Milan Arsovski lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court on points of law, arguing that they had been deprived of the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions contrary to the Constitution and the Act. They complained that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7268", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and is serving a prison sentence in the Murmansk Region.\n6.  On 13 January 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud and abuse of power. On 14 January 2005 the Severomorskiy Garrison Military Court authorised the applicant’s detention pending investigation. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“... [The prosecutor] submitted that there were sufficient grounds to believe that [the applicant] might attempt to conceal ... the evidence and to put pressure on witnesses who worked under his supervision or were financially or otherwise dependent on him. The investigators had sufficient material in their possession showing that [the applicant] might interfere with the investigation and the establishment of the truth, or that he might abscond.\n...\nThe fact that the [applicant’s] efforts aimed at interfering with the investigation had a systematic nature was confirmed by ... a recording of a discussion which took place on 27 January 2004 between [the applicant] and [defendant] Shch., during which [the applicant] asked [the defendant] to reconcile the statements they were to give during the questioning to be held by the investigator.\nFurthermore, according to the testimony of witness G., [the applicant] asked him to change his earlier statement, threatening him with unpleasant consequences if he refused to comply.\nAccording to the statement of witness S., [the applicant] told him that he was the holder of a Belarusian passport ... and [had] bank accounts abroad.\n...\nHaving regard to the arguments put forward by [the prosecutor and defence counsel] and to the materials in the case file, [the court] concludes that [the applicant] should be remanded in custody. ...\n... [T]he court takes into account the materials presented by investigators showing that [the applicant] might influence the witnesses or interfere with the proceedings or the establishment of the truth.\nRegard being had to the [applicant’s] character, age and family situation, the court also takes into consideration [the fact] that he is suspected ... of having committed criminal offences entailing a custodial sentence which exceeds two years.”\n7.  On 12 July 2005 the Severomorskiy Town Court of the Murmansk Region received the case file. The court ordered that the applicant remain in custody pending trial.\n8.  On 22 December 2005 the Town Court further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 11 April 2006.\n9.  On 5 April 2006 the Town Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 11 July 2006. The applicant asked to be released, arguing that he had a permanent residence and employment, had to support a minor child and had no previous criminal record. He further complained that he suffered from chronic gastritis and chronic duodenal ulcer. However, at the temporary detention centre he had not been receiving the medication and special diet he had been prescribed by his doctor. Lastly, he claimed that he had been unable to prepare his defence owing to the poor conditions of his detention. The court dismissed the applicant’s arguments, noting as follows:\n“The grounds for the [applicant’s] detention have not ceased to exist, given that [he] is charged with serious criminal offences for which a custodial sentence exceeding two years can be applied in the event of conviction. In such circumstances, the court considers that [the applicant] might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice.\n...\nThe [applicant’s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7269", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Tirana.\n5.  Further to the applicant’s dismissal in 2003, on 19 January 2004 the Tirana District Court ordered his employer, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Energy (“the Ministry”), to pay his salary throughout the period he remained unemployed. That decision became final on 2 February 2007, following the Supreme Court’s rejection of the employer’s appeal.\n6.  On 10 February 2005 an enforcement writ was issued.\n7.  From 1 January 2006 to 31 January 2007 the applicant was regularly paid monthly salaries as a result of the inclusion of his name on the employer’s waiting lists, no salaries having been paid for the period between 2003 and 2006.\n8.  On 2 February 2009 the bailiff decided to discontinue the enforcement on the grounds that the outstanding amount had been paid. The applicant challenged the bailiff’s decision.\n9.  On 30 April 2010 the Tirana District Court found in the applicant’s favour and ordered the bailiff to continue the enforcement proceedings. It ruled that the employer had paid the applicant the sum of 2,065,101 Albanian leks (“ALL”) out of a total of ALL 2,887,500 due to him for the period between 2003 and 2006.\n10.  On 30 June 2011, following the bailiff’s appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.\n11.  On 18 January 2012 the Ministry ordered the payment of the outstanding amount.\n12.  On 8 March 2012 the applicant’s debt judgment was fully enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7270", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n6.  By four judgments of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 22 July 1999, 29 January 2002 (application no. 12453/10), 29 January 2002 (application no. 17809/10) and 31 October 2002, which became final on 5 January 2001, 12 January 2005, 22 November 2004 and 26 January 2005, respectively, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate:\n(i)  BAM 26,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the Ignjatićs;\n(ii)  BAM 42,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,998 in respect of legal costs to the Škorićs;\n(iii)  BAM 47,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the Marićs;\n(iv)  BAM 29,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the Ostojićs.\n7.  The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 20 April 2001, 8 September 2003, 19 April 2005, 14 April 2005 and 5 April 2006, respectively.\n8.  The applicants complained of non-enforcement to the Human Rights Chamber or to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 8 March 2006 the Human Rights Commission (the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber) found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of the Ignjatićs. On 20 December 2005 the Constitutional Court ruled likewise in the case of the Škorićs and the Marićs. The applicants did not claim compensation, but even if they had done so, their claim would have most likely been refused (see, for example, the Constitutional Court’s decisions AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, § 438; AP 557/05 of 12 April 2006, § 195; AP 1211/06 of 13 December 2007, § 79; and AP 244/08 of 8 December 2010, § 37).On 15 April 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the case of the Ostojićs due to the change of circumstances following amendments to the Domestic Debt Act 2004.\n9.  On 16 June 2010, 26 November 2009 and 14 October 2009, respectively, the Banja Luka Court of First Instance accepted the debtor’s appeals in the cases of the Škorićs, the Marićs and the Ostojićs and altered its previous writs of executions: it ordered that only the legal costs were to be paid in cash, while the principal debt and default interest were to be paid in government bonds.\n10.  It would appear that legal costs were paid to the Škorićs and the Marićs.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7271", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Covasna.\n7.  The applicant, a nurse by profession, fell pregnant in January 2002. The development of her pregnancy was monitored by Dr P.C., a gynaecologist working in the Covasna Town Hospital, the same hospital as the applicant.\n8.  While she was in the sixteenth week of pregnancy, the foetus was diagnosed with hydrocephalus.\n9.  Following a consultation with her doctor, it was decided that the pregnancy should be interrupted.\n10.  On 13 May 2002 she was admitted to the Covasna Town Hospital. On the first day of admission she was put on a drip and medication was infused in order to induce abortion, but to no avail. The next day, concentrated glucose was injected into her stomach with the same purpose of inducing abortion. After the injection, the foetus stopped moving. On 15 May 2002, around midnight, she began to have a fever (39 degrees) and shivers, which lasted until the morning. She was not seen by a doctor during this time. She was only given painkillers.\nIn the morning, while she was still in bed in the ward and without being taken to the surgery room, she expelled the foetus. She then started bleeding profusely. Despite the fact that two curettages were performed on her, the bleeding would not stop and she was diagnosed with disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). The doctor then decided to transfer her urgently to the County Hospital, located in Sfântu Gheorghe, some thirty kilometres away. Although she was in a critical condition, during the transfer she was assisted only by a nurse.\n11.  When she arrived at the County Hospital, the doctors there had to proceed with a total hysterectomy and bilateral adnexectomy in order to save her life.\n12.  After consulting several specialists, the applicant formed the opinion that Dr P.C. had committed serious medical errors in treating her.\n13.  She therefore lodged a complaint with the Covasna County College of Doctors. The County Counsel of the College of Doctors delegated the assessment of the matter to a doctor from Sfântu Gheorghe County Hospital.\n14.  On 18 September 2002 the College of Doctors reached the following conclusions:\n(i)  the termination of pregnancy had been correctly indicated;\n(ii)  as regards the injection of hyperbaric glucose solution, it was found that it could be done in two ways: vaginal or abdominal. The latter procedure ensured better hygiene conditions, but it required a very precise localisation of the placenta by ultrasound scans; these scans had not been found in the applicant’s medical records. It was also recommended that the injection of the substance be monitored by ultrasound. This method required the written consent of the patient, after prior notification of the possible risks and complications. The medical records did not include a consent signature or information as to the clinical investigation of any abnormalities by the ultrasound laboratory;\n(iii)  DIC was not a direct consequence of an abdominal injection, but it represented a rare, very serious complication arising from this method; and\n(iv)  taking into account that the diagnosis of DIC had been correctly detected in time to allow the applicant to be transferred to the county hospital, with the result that her life had been saved, no medical negligence could be identified.\nIt was noted that there were some procedural failures in the handling of the case: the patient’s signature was missing on the consent form; an ultrasound description", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7272", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Mr Shakhruddi Sharaniyevich Miltayev, was born in 1958 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. The second applicant, Mrs Zarema Vakhayevna Meltayeva, is his niece. She was born in 1976 and lives in Argun, Chechnya.\n6.  The facts of the case are partly disputed by the parties. Their submissions and the relevant documents may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicants ran a private photo laboratory in a rented room in the house at 63 Shosseynaya Street in the town of Argun in Chechnya. On 30 December 2000 the second applicant entered into a lease agreement with Mr U., the owner of the house at 63 Shosseynaya Street, for the renting of one room in the house for commercial purposes – to install a Kodak photo laboratory.\n8.  On 27 July 2001, during the passage of a tank convoy through the town, it appears that a skirmish took place between the military and unidentified members of illegal armed groups. A shot from a tank set the house at 63 Shosseynaya Street on fire and the applicants’ photo laboratory, along with all their equipment and other belongings, was destroyed.\n9.  On 28 July 2001 the local fire service drew up a report finding that the fire had damaged the house, that shelling had been its cause and that no fire crews had been involved. They made a preliminary estimation of the damage at 1,955,951 Russian roubles (RUB).\n10.  On 28 July 2001 a commission set up by the Argun town administration recorded the destruction of the house at 63 Shosseynaya Street, which had “burned as a result of shelling”.\n11.  On 28 and 29 July 2001 a commission consisting of the head of the council of elders and two employees of the local convenience store drew up a report listing the losses to the applicants’ possessions. The report stated that, as a result of shooting by the federal forces on 27 July 2001, the applicants’ property in the house at 63 Shosseynaya Street had been completely destroyed by fire. The list of possessions included a Gretag Kodak micro laboratory, a Honda electric motor; and various office equipment.\n12.  On 30 July 2001 the second applicant and the owner of the house, Mr U., made written statements describing the events of 27 July. Both indicated that the fire had started after 10 p.m. and that firefighters could not be called in view of curfew. The second applicant attached, in addition, a list of the goods and equipment lost and their value.\n13.  On unspecified dates three other local residents, eye-witnesses to the events, made written statements pointing to a shot from the tank as the cause of the fire which had destroyed the laboratory.\n14.  On 28 July 2001 the second applicant lodged a complaint with the Argun Town Department of the Interior (“GOVD”). The document referred to a shot from a tank as the cause of the fire.\n15.  On 3 August 2001 the local office of the Department of the Interior opened an investigation into the alleged offence of causing damage to the applicants’ property by negligent use of a “source of increased danger” (источник повышенной опасности). The decision reads as follows:\n“At or around 10 p.m. on 27 July 2001 a federal military convoy was passing through the town of Argun when it fired a shot at a photo laboratory at 63 Shosseynaya Street. Its actions set the building on fire and caused substantial pecuniary loss, estimated at RUB 1,955,351.”\n16.  On 17 August 2001 the second applicant was questioned by the police as a witness. She explained that the photo laboratory had been ow", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7273", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Pula.\n5.  The applicant worked as a janitor for the Ministry of the Interior (Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova Republike Hrvatske; hereinafter - “the Ministry”) until 3 August 2001, when the Ministry dismissed him as his job had become redundant.\n6.  On 21 August 2001 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Minister of the Interior.\n7.  The applicant also brought a civil action against the Ministry in the Pula Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Puli) on 20 September 2001, challenging his dismissal and asking to be reinstated.\n8.  Simultaneously (since the Minister had not decided on his appeal of 21 August 2001 within the statutory time-limit of thirty days), on 25 September 2001 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) as though his appeal had already been dismissed. In particular, he contested the decision of 3 August 2001 to dismiss him.\n9.  On 5 December 2001 the Pula Municipal Court, concerning the applicant’s civil action of 20 September 2001, declined its jurisdiction in the matter on the basis that the Administrative Court was the appropriate court to hear the applicant’s case.\n10.  On 13 December 2001 the Minister of the Interior dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 21 August 2001 lodged against the Ministry’s decision to make him redundant. However, he reversed the first-instance decision of 3 August 2001 by extending the applicant’s notice period and changing the date of the termination of employment.\n11.  Consequently, on 29 December 2001 the applicant withdrew the administrative action he had brought before the Administrative Court on 25 September 2001 (see paragraph 8 above).\n12.  On 30 December 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Pula County Court (Županijski sud u Puli) against the decision of the Pula Municipal Court of 5 December 2001 declining the jurisdiction in his case.\n13.  On 31 December 2001 the applicant then brought a fresh administrative action against the Ministry in the Administrative Court – this time contesting the Minister’s decision of 13 December 2001.\n14.  On the basis of the applicant’s withdrawal of his administrative action of 25 September 2001, the Administrative Court on 28 February 2002 discontinued the proceedings instituted by that action (see paragraphs 8 and 11 above).\n15.  On 4 November 2002 the Pula County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal of 30 December 2001 and upheld the first-instance decision of the Pula Municipal Court declining jurisdiction to deal with the applicant’s civil action of 20 September 2001, on the ground that the matter was within the competence of the Administrative Court (see paragraphs 9 and 12 above). The case was transferred to the Administrative Court on 22 November 2002.\n16.  On 2 December 2002 the applicant withdrew his civil action of 20 September 2001.\n17.  On 13 January 2003 the Pula Municipal Court informed the Administrative Court that the applicant had withdrawn his civil action.\n18.  On that basis, on 16 January 2003 the Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings instituted by that action. The decision of the Administrative Court reads:\n“The plaintiff, through a representative, lodged his action against the decision of the Ministry of the Interior ... of 13 December 2001, by which the decision of the same Ministry of 3 August 2001 was reversed in that the plaintiff’s employment in the Istarska Police Departme", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7274", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  At the time of the events the applicant was the head of a private high school (V.) and acting head of the Industrial and Construction College (C., a State-funded institution). In 2004 a criminal investigation was opened into fraudulent acts and abuse of power allegedly committed by the applicant. He was accused of having accepted money from two students for their studies at V. and failing to disclose those payments in the school’s accounts.\n7.  On 24 September 2004 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on the basis of a warrant issued by the Centru District Court that day. On 30 September 2004 the Chişinău Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision, finding there was no reason to believe that the applicant would abscond or interfere with the investigation, noting that he had a fixed address, a family and an under-age child, and that he had undertaken to appear before the investigation authorities whenever summoned. He was released on the same day.\n8.  On 20 November 2006 the Grigoriopol District Court sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment for fraud. He was acquitted of all the other charges mainly owing to a lack of evidence that he had illegally accepted money from the students. On the same day he was arrested and placed in prison no. 13 in Chișinău.\n9.  On 8 February 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal partly quashed the first-instance court’s judgment. The court found that the applicant had been negligent in admitting two new students to V. and accepting tuition fees from them, even though by order of 25 December 2003, the Ministry of Education had suspended V’s licence and the applicant had been ordered to transfer all pupils to other educational institutions. The applicant was thus convicted under Article 329 (1) of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 19 below) and his custodial sentence was reduced by the appellate court to eight months.\n10.  In an appeal on points of law, the applicant argued that he could not be convicted of a violation of Article 329 (1) of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 19 below) because two elements of the crime set out therein had not been met, namely that it had to have been committed by a “public official” and that the damage caused as a result had to be “large-scale”. Firstly, the conviction had been based on his alleged wrongdoing as head of V. As the head of a private institution, he could not be considered a public official (persoană cu funcţii de răspundere), a notion expressly defined in Article 123 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 19 below). He could not therefore be accused of negligence in carrying out any official duties by accepting pupils to study in his private school.\nSecondly, the value of the alleged damage caused (3,020 Moldovan lei (MDL)) was less than the minimum MDL 10,000 required under Article 329 for large-scale damage, as defined in Articles 64 and 126 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 19 below).\nFinally, the applicant argued that he had admitted new pupils to his school because he had challenged the Ministry of Justice’s order of 25 December 2003 in court, which in his opinion meant that the order had been suspended and thus had no legal effect pending the outcome of the litigation.\n11.  On 28 June 2007 the Supreme Court of Justice partly quashed the lower court’s judgment. The court dealt with the applicant’s arguments raised in his appeal on points of law as follows:\n“As concern", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7275", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Tampere.\n6.  The applicant was born out of wedlock. In 1961 the District Court, after having heard witnesses on the relationship between the applicant’s mother and K.R., ordered K.R. to pay child support to the applicant. K.R. had also told the applicant and his mother that he was in fact the father of the applicant.\n7.  On 1 October 1976 the Paternity Act (isyyslaki, lagen om faderskap) came into force. The transitional provisions in the Implementing Act of the Paternity Act (laki isyyslain toimeenpanosta, lagen angående införande av lagen om faderskap) state that paternity proceedings with regard to a child born before the entry into force of the law had to be initiated within five years, that is, before 1 October 1981. Moreover, no claim could be examined after the death of the father. No such restrictions exist for children born after the entry into force of the Paternity Act.\n8.  K.R. died in August 1999. Subsequently, the applicant found out that K.R. had not been legally registered as his father.\n9.  On 15 May 2003 the applicant initiated paternity proceedings against the heirs of K.R. in the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). He requested the court to confirm that K.R. was his father. He referred, inter alia, to the Convention.\n10.  On 22 August 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that as the applicant was born before the entry into force of the Paternity Act, he should have brought the claim within the statutory five-year time-limit and at the latest on 1 October 1981. Making a reference to the Convention did not change the fact that the applicant had lost his right to initiate the proceedings on 1 October 1981. His claim was therefore time-barred.\n11.  On 27 August 2003 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten) claiming, inter alia, that the District Court could not just ignore the Convention as it was to be given priority vis-à-vis the national legislation. Moreover, nowadays it was possible to obtain conclusive evidence, through DNA tests, to establish paternity. Section 7, subsection 2, of the Implementing Act of the Paternity Act had in fact become obsolete, a provision that had lost its acceptability and applicability.\n12.  On 19 May 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision. It found, in addition to the District Court’s reasoning, that no legal impediment had prevented the applicant from initiating the proceedings within the five-year time-limit and that this time-limit was unconditional.\n13.  On 27 May 2004 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), reiterating the grounds for appeal already presented before the Court of Appeal.\n14.  On 4 February 2005 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7276", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Albania.\n5.  Further to the applicant’s dismissal, on 19 January 2007 the Civil Service Commission (“CSC”) ordered his employer, the Prime Minister’s Office, to reinstate him. No award of salary arrears was made.\n6.  On 14 December 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the employer’s appeal and the CSC decision became final.\n7.  On 27 February 2008 an enforcement writ was issued.\n8.  On 28 March 2008 an appointment order was issued by the Department of Public Administration. However, the applicant was prevented by his employer from taking up his functions.\n9.  On 12 April, 28 May and 15 July 2008 the applicant unsuccessfully requested his employer to comply with the appointment order.\n10.  On 15 May and 25 June 2006 the People’s Advocate Office (“Ombudsperson”) unsuccessfully requested information from the applicant’s employer about compliance with the appointment order.\n11.  On 12 February 2010 the Ombudsperson recommended the applicant’s employer to comply with the appointment order.\n12.  On 20 April 2010 the applicant tendered his resignation.\n13.  On an unspecified date in 2009, having regard to the fact that the applicant had not been able to resume his work, he sought the payment of salary arrears before the domestic court.\n14.  By final decision of 2 July 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision declaring the case outside its jurisdiction, on the grounds that the action should have been lodged with the CSC.\n15.  On 10 March 2010, following the applicant’s request, the CSC accepted his claim. It ordered his employer to pay the applicant’s salary arrears starting from 28 March 2008.\n16.  It would appear that in March 2010 the applicant was paid the salary arrears in respect of the period between 28 March 2008 and 20 April 2010, the date on which he resigned.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7277", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n6.  By five judgments of different courts of first instance (the application no. 48249/07 concerns the non-enforcement of two judgments) of 22 January 2003, 5 October 1999, 25 June 2002, 19 December 2000 and 11 January 2000 which became final on 17 September 2003, 1 June 2001, 6 December 2004, 22 February 2001, 7 April 2004, respectively, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate:\n(i)  BAM 5,555.25 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 881 in respect of legal costs to Mr Jovan Janjić;\n(ii)  BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the Kandićs;\n(iii)  BAM 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 400 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 2,986.80 in respect of legal costs to the Brborovićs (this is the total amount awarded by the domestic judgments of 5 October 1999 and 25 June 2002); and\n(iv)  BAM 28,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 2,015 in respect of legal costs to Mr Draženko Zavišić.\n7.  The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 27 August 2001, 22 December 2006, 12 October 2001 and 9 July 2004, respectively. In the case of Mr Jovan Janjić no writ of execution was issued.\n8.  The applicants, except for Mr Jovan Janjić, complained of non‑enforcement to the Human Rights Chamber or to the Constitutional Court. On 8 March 2006 the Human Rights Commission (the legal successor of the Human Rights Chamber) found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the case of the Brborovićs. On 20 December 2005 and 26 June 2007 the Constitutional Court ruled likewise in the case of the Kandićs and Mr Draženko Zavišić. The applicants did not claim compensation, but even if they had done so, their claim would have most likely been refused (see, for example, the Constitutional Court’s decisions AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, § 438; AP 557/05 of 12 April 2006, § 195; AP 1211/06 of 13 December 2007, § 79; AP 244/08 of 8 December 2010, § 37).\n9.  After the extensive information campaign explaining the available options for the settlement of the Republika Srpska’s public debt (including its debt arising from domestic judgments), between 31 March 2008 and 26 May 2009 the applicants informed the authorities that they agreed to be paid only the legal costs in cash and the principal debt and default interest in bonds. Government bonds were then issued on the following dates:\n(i)  on 7 October 2010 to Mr Jovan Janjić;\n(ii)  on 30 October 2009 to Mr Nedeljko Brborović and MsBranislavka Brborović (in respect of the judgment of 25 June 2002);\n(iii)  on 15 December 2008 to Ms Vojka Kandić, Mr Miloš Kandić and Ms Mirjana Kandić; and\n(iv)  on 30 October 2009 to Mr Draženko Zavišić.\n10.  Ms Vojka Kandić, Mr Miloš Kandić and Ms Mirjana Kandić have already sold all of their bonds on the Stock Exchange.\n11.  Mr Nedeljko Brborović and Mr Milenko Brborović were not issued bonds in respect of the judgment of 5 October 1999.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7278", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kyiv.\n6.  On 15 April 2003 the applicant’s twin brother (“Se.”) made a will in the applicant’s favour, according to which, in the event of the applicant’s brother’s death, the applicant would inherit an apartment (“apartment A”) and other property.\n7.  Between 16 and 17 April 2003 Se. disappeared. The applicant claimed he had talked to his brother on the phone at around 8 p.m. on 16 April and they had agreed to meet the next day. However, when the applicant called his brother the next morning, nobody answered. According to statements from the applicant’s former sister-in-law (“G.”), (with whom the applicant’s brother had continued to share an apartment after their sham divorce in the 1990s,) on the evening of 16 April 2003 her former husband had been using the phone when she went to bed. As they slept in different rooms and as the door to her former husband’s room was closed, she did not know whether or not he was at home when she left the apartment on the morning of 17 April 2003.\n8.  According to the applicant, on the evening of 17 April 2003 his friends, (“the Be.”), visited his brother’s apartment. They claimed to have noticed “the absence of the carpet and that [the applicant’s] brother’s son (“S.”) had a wound to his hand”. They also stated that G. and S. were very nervous.\n9.  On 18 April 2003, the applicant and G. reported Se.’s disappearance to the Solomyanskiy district police station in Kyiv (Солом’янський районний відділ ГУ МВС України в м. Києві). According to G., the applicant’s brother had left their apartment at an unknown time and had not come back. She did not see him leaving. The applicant alleged that G. and S. knew of his brother’s whereabouts and requested that the police look for an acquaintance of G. called I.\n10.  On 18, 22 and 23 April 2003 the apartment was examined by the police. The following items were seized: pieces of wallpaper stained brown, traces of a brown coloured substance from a radiator and door, a plastic pipe from the bathroom, a stool, a T-shirt, and running shoes and trousers belonging to S. Police also seized the deeds for three apartments, 2,000 United States dollars (USD) and 1,000 Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) (in cash) and Se.’s passport.\n11.  On 26 April 2003 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings owing to lack of evidence, since Se. had not been found among bodies awaiting identification and he himself had not sought the help of the police or been brought to a medical institution in need of assistance.\n12.  On 20 May 2003 the prosecutor quashed the police decision of 26 April 2003 and instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of kidnapping since “there were grounds to believe that [the applicant’s brother] had been confined by unknown persons”.\n13.  On 30 May 2003 the applicant was questioned by the police. He said that his brother had told him he had received threats from his former wife and son.\n14.  On 9 June 2003 Se.’s neighbours, (“B.”), testified that between 2 and 3 a.m. on 17 April 2003 they had heard the sounds of the water heater being turned on, the sounds of running water and what appeared to be the sounds of someone cleaning the apartment.\n15.  On 24 June 2003 the applicant was informed that the police officers K. and O. were being disciplined for breaching criminal procedure law and for their unsubstantiated refusal to institute criminal proceedings.\n16.  On 20 and 24 June and 1 and 4 July 2003, six forensic examina", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7279", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Yevpatoriya.\n6.  He formerly worked as an assistant in a local court. Before the events in question, he did not have a criminal record.\n7.  On 3 October 2003 a Mr K. complained to the police that the applicant had beaten him up.\n8.  Although it initially found no reason to prosecute, on 24 February 2004 the Yevpatoriya City Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal case against the applicant on suspicion of the deliberate infliction of bodily harm of a medium degree of severity on Mr K. (an offence punishable by a maximum of three years’ imprisonment – see paragraph 82 below).\n9.  On 18 March 2004 the applicant was ordered not to leave town.\n10.  On 25 March 2004 he appointed his wife, Ms D., as his representative.\n11.  From 8 to 29 April 2004, the applicant was on sick leave owing to a leg injury. As a result, he failed to appear before the investigator in answer to a summons.\n12.  On 19 April 2004 the investigator applied to the Saky City Court (“the Saky Court”) with a request for the applicant’s pre-trial detention as a more appropriate preventive measure, given his failure to comply with the summons and also the fact that his actual place of residence was unknown.\n13.  On 22 April 2004 the Saky Court ordered the police to ensure the applicant’s appearance.\n14.  On the morning of 27 April 2004 the applicant was arrested.\n15.  On the same date the Saky Court allowed the investigator’s applications at a hearing which was attended by the applicant and the prosecutor. The applicant’s request for his wife to be present was, however, rejected.\n16.  The Saky Court noted that while pre-trial detention was normally ordered in cases where the likely penalty was more than three years’ imprisonment, it was possible to make an exception. The court noted that the applicant had failed to appear in response to a number of the investigator’s summonses, that he did not actually live at the address he had given to the investigating authorities as his place of residence, and that he had left Yevpatoriya on many occasions without informing the investigator, and in breach of the obligation not to leave town. Furthermore, the victim, Mr K., complained that the applicant had threatened him. The court observed that all those factors sufficed to consider the applicant’s case exceptional within the meaning of Article 155 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to order pre-trial detention as a preventive measure pending his trial (see paragraph 84 below).\n17.  Also, on 27 April 2004, Ms D. lodged an appeal against that decision on the applicant’s behalf. She submitted that putting the applicant in pre‑trial detention was contrary to the criminal procedural legislation given the minor nature of the crime in question. She further argued that the Saky Court had failed to take into account the fact that, as confirmed by medical records, the applicant had been undergoing medical treatment since 8 April 2004 and therefore had a valid reason for his failure to attend the investigation. She also pointed out that the court had disregarded the fact that the applicant had two children of minor age and that she herself (as his wife) was disabled. Lastly, Ms D. complained that the hearing of the Saky Court on 27 April 2004 had taken place in her absence.\n18.  On 28 April 2004 the police questioned Ms D. as a witness in the criminal proceedings against the applicant and accordingly informed her that she was no longer permitted ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7280", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  At the time of the events the applicants were serving sentences at Izyaslav Prison no. 31 (further referred to as “Izyaslav Prison” or “the prison”), a minimum security prison, in the Khmelnytskyy region.\n8.  On 14 January 2007 practically all the inmates of Izyaslav Prison, namely, one thousand one hundred and twenty-one prisoners, including the applicants, went on hunger strike in protest at the conditions of their detention, the poor quality of food and drinking water, inadequate medical assistance, arbitrary punishments by and impunity of officials of the administration, and the absence of any remuneration for their work. They sought the dismissal of some prison officials.\n9.  On the same date the Deputy Head of the State Department for the Enforcement of Sentences (“the Prisons Department”) visited the prison. A special commission was established upon his order to conduct an investigation into the prisoners’ allegations. The hunger strike was ended.\n10.  On 16 January 2007, however, the prisoners resumed it on the grounds that the administration had made false statements to the media denying that there had been any protests in the prison. They demanded that journalists be given access to the prison and that the General Prosecutor’s Office (“the GPO”) and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights (“the Ombudsman”) be notified.\n11.  Following further negotiations with the Prisons Department’s commission and a visit by the Ombudsman’s representatives to the prison on 17 January 2007, the hunger strike was called off.\n12.  On 20 January 2007 the Deputy Head of the Prisons Department directed the heads of the Zhytomyr and Khmelnytskyy Regional Offices of the Prisons Department to second special forces and rapid reaction units to Izyaslav Prison with a view to providing practical assistance to its administration for “stabilising the operational situation and carrying out searches”.\n13.  On the same date the requested human resources were deployed to Zamkova Prison (neighbouring Izyaslav Prison), where they remained on standby.\n14.  On 21 January 2007 the Head of the Khmelnytskyy Regional Office of the Prisons Department approved a plan of the operation, which was scheduled for the following day. It was aimed, in particular, at “detecting and seizing prohibited items ..., and detecting any preparations for escape or other illegal actions”.\n15.  More specifically, the tasks of the search were set out as follows:\n“1.  To examine the residential wings and workshop ... [and] prisoners with a view to detecting and seizing prohibited items or goods, as well as identifying any preparations for escape. 2.  To undertake preventive security measures for enhancing order, and the study – on the part of the prison administration and the rapid reaction units’ staff – of the technical features of risk-prone areas, premises and objects potentially usable for committing large-scale offences. 3.  To carry out practical drills with the [prison] administration [staff] in cooperation with the rapid reaction and special forces units by conducting a search of the prison premises, prisoners, and the residential wings. 4.  To check:\n-  knowledge of the general search procedures by the [prison] staff;\n-  the equipment of the search groups;\n-  the organisation of the [prison’s] management and communication; and\n-  the procedures applied by the administration for organising and conducting a general search.”\n16.  The search was scheduled to take place from ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7281", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Sevastopol.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  At the time of the events the applicant’s only son, Mr Denys Mosendz (“D.M.”), was performing mandatory military service with the Ukrainian Internal Troops, military unit no. 3007. He had been in the army for several months.\n9.  On the night of 24 April 1999 D.M. was on guard duty. At 4.30 a.m. on 25 April he reported by radio that everything was calm. At 5 a.m. the soldier who was supposed to take over guard duty discovered that D.M. was missing from his post.\n10.  On 25 April 1999 the Military Prosecutor for Ternopil Garrison (“the MPTG”) opened criminal proceedings against D.M. on suspicion of desertion from the army, violation of the statutory rules of guard duty and illegal handling of weapons.\n11.  On the same date, at around 6.30 p.m., D.M. was found dead, with gunshot wounds to his head, about six hundred metres from his post, near the concrete fence surrounding an abandoned factory (as documented in the on-site inspection report). The weapons entrusted to him for guard duty – an AK-74 assault rifle, its two magazines (with ten and seven cartridges respectively) and a bayonet – were found near the body. Three empty cartridges were found nearby on the ground. A criminal investigation was opened into the death.\n12.  The officer leading the search group, R., stated throughout the investigation and the trial (see also paragraph 42 below) that he had personally discovered D.M.’s body leaning against the factory fence. However, one of the soldiers in that group, B., submitted at a later stage that the body had been found about forty metres from the fence and that the soldiers had been trying to provide first aid to D.M. According to B., they had carried the body and had placed it down near the fence, having realised that D.M. was dead. This discrepancy in the statements remained unaddressed by the investigation.\n13.  On 27 April 1999 D.M. was buried in the village of Balamutivka in Khmelnytskyy Region, where the applicant’s brother lived. The body was delivered there in a closed coffin. The funeral took place in the applicant’s absence and without her knowledge. According to the applicant, the military unit had informed her that D.M. had deserted from the army and had taken down the addresses of her various relatives. While she was on her way to the garrison to find out what had happened, D.M. was buried.\n14.  On 7 May 1999 a post-mortem examination of D.M.’s body was completed. It discovered one gunshot entry wound in the middle of his forehead and two exit wounds in the right and the left parts of the skull, between the parietal and occipital areas. The entry wound was surrounded by a collar of bruising, indicating that the gun had been pressed against D.M.’s forehead. Noting that there was only one entry wound and two exit wounds, the expert concluded that at least two shots had been fired in a single round. Haematomas around the eyes and near the nose, explained by internal bleeding following the gunshots, were also noted. The wounds had been inflicted when the victim was still alive. No alcohol or drugs were detected in the body. Given that no other injuries or traces of a struggle were discovered, the conclusion was reached that D.M. had committed suicide.\n15.  On 12 May 1999 a post-mortem psychiatric evaluation concluded that", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7282", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Częstochowa, Poland.\n6.  On 30 January 1997 the applicant married M., a Polish national. On 20 June 1997 their daughter C. was born.\n7.  In September 2008 M. instituted divorce proceedings in the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy w Częstochowie). In the course of those proceedings, on 2 March 2009, the court issued an interim order prohibiting C. from leaving Poland. However, on the same date, M. and C. left Poland for Ukraine. They settled in Ivano-Frankivsk.\n8.  On 21 March 2009 the applicant applied for proceedings to be opened against his wife in Ukraine in order to secure the return of their daughter to Poland in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 25 October 1980 (“the 1980 Hague Convention”).\n9.  On 1 December 2009 the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court found against the applicant.\n10.  On 4 February 2010 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the first-instance court and ordered the return of C. to Poland. On the same date a writ of execution was issued.\n11.  On 5 February 2010 a bailiff from the Ivano-Frankivsk State Bailiffs’ Service ordered the writ to be enforced at 8 a.m. on 8 February 2010.\n12.  On 8 February 2010 the bailiff arrived at the address of C.’s great-grandmother and found that C. and M. were not there. Their relatives informed the bailiff that C. and M. had left Ukraine and they had not been told when they would be coming back.\n13.  On 8 February 2010 the applicant asked for a search order for C.\n14.  On 9 February 2010 the bailiff applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court to issue a search order for C. and, if and when she was found, to keep her in a children’s temporary care facility until the applicant arrived from Poland. On 12 February 2010 the Ivano-Frankivsk City Court set aside the bailiff’s application and granted him time to rectify some shortcomings in the application.\n15.  On 24 February 2010 the bailiff made another visit to C.’s great‑grandmother and once again found that M. and C. were not present. Their relatives claimed ignorance of their whereabouts but they showed the bailiff a certificate indicating that C. was registered as an outpatient with the City Children’s Hospital.\n16.  On 4 March 2010 the bailiff ordered the compulsory enforcement of the writ of execution for 8 a.m. on 5 March 2010.\n17.  On 05 March 2010 the bailiff visited secondary school no. 3 and found that C. was registered there as a pupil, but was absent that day, possibly because of sickness, as, according to her teacher, the girl was often ill.\n18.  On the same day the bailiff paid a visit to C.’s great-grandmother and found M. and C. absent and their whereabouts unknown.\n19.  On 10 March 2010 M. applied to the Ivano-Frankivsk State Bailiffs’ Service for suspension of the execution of the judgment of 4 February 2010 on account of C.’s illness.\n20.  On 23 March 2010 the bailiff requested the Chief Registrar of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Children’s Hospital (“the Regional Hospital”) to provide information concerning the treatment C. was receiving as an outpatient at the hospital and whether the interruption of that treatment would cause her health to deteriorate.\n21.  On 25 March 2010 the Regional Hospital reported that C. had been admitted on 10 March 2010 and was receiving treatment in the hospital’s centre for the early medical and social rehabilitation of children with organic diseases o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7283", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1957, 1965, 1973, 1952 and 1966 and live in Diyarbakır, Şanlıurfa, Kars, Ankara and Diyarbakır respectively.\n5.  At the time of the events the applicant, Ms Şükran Aydın, was the mayor of Bismil and was standing for election in the parliamentary elections of 3 November 2002 as a candidate for the People’s Democratic Party (DEHAP) in the province of Diyarbakır.\n6.  On 2 January 2003 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant before the Lice Criminal Court of First Instance for conduct contrary to Law no. 298 on the fundamental provisions governing elections and voter registration (Seçimlerin Temel Hükümleri ve Seçmen Kütükleri Hakkında Kanun), on the ground that on 26 October 2002 she had campaigned for election in Kurdish.\n7.  In the course of the trial the applicant submitted that she had addressed the crowd partly in Kurdish because the population was Kurdish and she had taken into consideration the fact that there were many elderly people and women in the crowd who would not understand Turkish.\n8.  On 26 January 2005 the Lice Criminal Court of First Instance, having examined the evidence in the case file including the verbatim transcript of a video recording, found that the applicant had campaigned for election in Kurdish on 26 October 2002, in breach of section 58 of Law no. 298. In accordance with section 151(2) of Law no. 298, the court sentenced the applicant to six months’ imprisonment and to a heavy fine. Taking into account the applicant’s good behaviour during the trial, the circumstances of the case and her personality, the court first reduced the sentence, then commuted the prison sentence to a fine and finally ordered that payment of the fine be suspended as the applicant had no criminal record and the judge was satisfied that she would not reoffend.\n9.  On 11 May 2006 the Court of Cassation altered the amount of the fine and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The decision was returned to the registry of the first-instance court on 13 June 2006.\n10.  At the time of the events the applicant, Ms Ayşe Gökkan, was standing for election in the parliamentary elections of 3 November 2002 as a candidate for the People’s Democratic Party (DEHAP) in the province of Şanlıurfa.\n11.  On 6 November 2002 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant before the Viranşehir Criminal Court of First Instance for conduct contrary to Law no. 298 on the fundamental provisions governing elections and voter registration, on the ground that on 27 October 2002 she had campaigned for election in Kurdish.\n12.  In the course of the trial the applicant maintained that she had spoken in Kurdish because she was addressing a crowd of Kurdish women who did not understand Turkish.\n13.  On 15 December 2005 the Viranşehir Criminal Court of First Instance, having examined the evidence in the case file including the verbatim transcript of a video recording, found that the applicant had campaigned for election in Kurdish on 27 October 2002, in breach of section 58 of Law no. 298. In accordance with section 151 of Law no. 298, the court sentenced the applicant to six months’ imprisonment and to a heavy fine. Taking into account the circumstances of the case and the applicant’s personality, the court commuted the prison sentence to a fine and subsequently ordered that payment of the fine be suspended as the applicant had no criminal record and the judge was satisfied that she would not reoffen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7284", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, who was born in 1940, lives in Grozny. He is the father of Mr Tamerlan (also known as Timur) Suleymanov, who was born in 1982.\n7.  According to the applicant, on at least seven occasions between 2005 and 2011 his son Tamerlan Suleymanov was unlawfully detained by State agents on suspicion of membership of illegal armed groups.\n8.  On 7 May 2011 Tamerlan Suleymanov was detained for a few hours by officers from the Staropromyslovskiy District Department of the Interior (“the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD”), who subjected him to ill-treatment and pressured him to confess to the preparation of a terrorist act in May 2011. Upon his release the applicant’s son neither lodged complaints about this detention nor applied for medical help.\n(b)  Abduction of Tamerlan Suleymanov\n9.  At the material time Tamerlan Suleymanov worked as a car mechanic at the Mustang car repair garage in Kirova Street, Grozny. A police station (in the documents submitted it is also referred to as a police checkpoint) was located next to the garage.\n10.  At about 11.30 a.m. on 9 May 2011 a group of eight armed men in black uniforms arrived at the garage in two civilian VAZ-217030 cars (both of them the Lada Priora model), with the registration numbers 991 AA/05 and E423EE95. The men did not identify themselves. They asked the employees who Tamerlan was. As soon as the applicant’s son identified himself, they punched him and beat him with rifle butts until he was unconscious. After that the men, who spoke Chechen, put him into one of the vehicles and drove away.\n11.  The incident took place in the presence of witnesses, twenty metres from the police station. According to the applicant, police officers witnessed the incident but did not intervene.\n(c)  Subsequent events\n12.  The applicant was immediately informed about the incident. He went straight away to the Oktyabrskiy District Department of the Interior (“the Oktyabrskiy ROVD”) in Grozny and made a complaint about it. An officer named Anzor or Aslan spoke with him and promised to look into the matter.\n13.  In the morning of 10 May 2011 the applicant went to the Oktyabrskiy District Prosecutor’s Office and complained that his son had been taken away. The duty investigator asked him what had happened, then called the Oktyabrskiy ROVD and asked Police Officer Anzor to come over. The latter arrived soon afterwards and told the applicant that he should not have complained to the prosecutor’s office and should have known that his son was connected with members of illegal armed groups.\n14.  Some time in May 2011 the applicant learnt from unspecified sources that his son Tamerlan Suleymanov had been detained at the premises of the Kurchaloy District Department of the Interior (“the Kurchaloy ROVD”) in Yalkhoy-Mokhk, a village a few kilometres from Kurchaloy, Chechnya.\n15.  On an unspecified date in July 2011 the applicant’s wife, Ms L. Dzh., and the wife of Tamerlan Suleymanov, Ms E.A., went to Yalkhoy-Mokhk and spoke with local residents. They were told that there was a building belonging to the Kurchaloy ROVD on the southern outskirts of the village. When the applicant’s relatives went there, they saw that the building did not have any signs indicating that it belonged to the ROVD; it was surrounded by a brick fence with a barrier gate. A man in police uniform came out and identified himself as the duty officer of the village police department. The women asked him about Tamerlan. The officer told them that he h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7285", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company publishes a weekly newspaper Ivanovo-Press. The two individual applicants are journalists writing for the newspaper.\n6.  On 12 August 2003 the Ivanovo-press newspaper published in issue no. 32 an article by Ms L. headlined “You can see it – and you can have it” («И око видит, и зуб ймет») about a conflict between Mr K., director of the local State gas-supply company “Rodnikiraygas”, and his neighbours, the S. family. The article had the following subtitles: “The Director of Rodnikiraygas has declared war on a poverty-stricken family, not a single member of which is healthy”, “Boss in Law”, “Gas Racket”. It also stated that Mr K. had “ordered that the S. family not be supplied with gas”, and that “even when all the notified defects had been eradicated ... [Mr K.] did not lift the unofficial ban”. Finally, in the article Mr K. was described as “a parochial boss”.\n7.  Mr K. instituted defamation proceedings before the Leninskiy District Court of Ivanovo against the applicant company and Ms L. He requested the court to order a rectification of the above statements, all the subtitles and the headline of the article.\n8.  On 18 December 2003 the District Court found in part against the applicant company. In particular, it established that the S. family had not been supplied with gas on account of defects in their compressed gas equipment, and that the gas supply had been restored as soon as these defects were rectified. Thus, the statements that Mr K. had “ordered that the S. family not be supplied with gas”, and that “even when all the notified defects had been eradicated ... [Mr K.] did not lift the unofficial ban” were untrue.\n9.  With regard to the subtitle “The Director of Rodnikiraygas has declared war on a poverty-stricken family ...” the District Court found that “the fact that Mr K. [had] lodged a civil claim against Ms S. does not constitute evidence of a declaration of war”, and the plaintiff’s claim in this part was allowed.\n10.  The District Court further rejected the defendant’s argument that the subtitles “Boss in Law” and “Gas Racket” were value-judgments, not susceptible of proof. It stated that the expression “boss in law” («начальник в законе») was analogous to the Russian slang expression “thief in law” and could not have any other meaning. The word “racket” («рэкет») meant an outrageous extortion, and, used together with the word “gas” in a subtitle to the article about Mr K., who was the director of a gas supply company, implied, in the court’s view, that the plaintiff was extorting a property by threats and blackmail.\n11.  The court rejected the remainder of the claim, finding that the headline of the article was merely a rephrased Russian proverb which did not contain any information about Mr K. It found that the expression “a parochial boss” could not be regarded as defamatory.\n12.  The court held the applicant company liable to pay 3,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation to Mr K. and RUB 515 in legal aid.\n13.  On 17 March 2004 the Ivanovo Regional Court upheld that judgment in a summary fashion.\n14.  In 2003, a series of articles critical of Mr V., who was the head of the Ivanovo Regional Highways Department and of the Executive Committee of the Ivanovo Regional Branch of the United Russia party, appeared in the Ivanovo-Press newspaper.\n15.  On 15 July 2003 the newspaper published an interview with Mr Ku., the former general director of a public company. Mr Ku. stated that in 1996 Mr V. h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7286", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and currently lives in a State social care institution in Lielbērze, Auru parish.\n6.  Since 1994 the applicant has been recognised as Category 2 disabled. He suffers from epilepsy.\n7.  On 13 March 2000 the applicant was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Rīga.\n8.  Following an inpatient forensic psychiatric examination (stacionārā tiesu psihiatriskā ekspertīze) of the applicant ordered in connection with the incapacitation proceedings the experts concluded on 19 April 2000 that he was not suffering from a mental illness. However, he was suffering from epilepsy, which was described as organic in nature with psychotic syndromes and symptoms (organiskas dabas psihosindroma un simptomātiska epilepsija). This conclusion was reached on the basis of the fact that he had had encephalitis, often had small (absence/petit mal) and big (generalised tonic-clonic/grand mal) seizures, obsessive thinking, mood changes with dysphoria, sullenness, vindictiveness, reduced reasoning and some other psychological findings. It was recommended that he be declared legally incapable (rīcībnespējīgs); the experts also noted that owing to his mental state the applicant was not fit to participate in the hearings or to provide adequate explanations.\n9.  The applicant was discharged from that hospital on 30 January 2002.\n10.  On unspecified dates in 2002 and 2006 the applicant was admitted to another psychiatric hospital, Ģintermuiža, in Jelgava (Jelgavas psihoneiroloģiskā slimnīca “Ģintermuiža”).\n11.  From 24 May to 3 June 2011 the applicant was a patient in Ģintermuiža Hospital in Jelgava.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s wife initiated proceedings to have the applicant divested of his legal capacity. For the purposes of those proceedings the Rīga City Ziemeļu District Court (Rīgas pilsētas Ziemeļu rajona tiesa) ordered a forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant.\n13.  On 17 May 2000 the city court, in the applicant’s absence, ruled that he was not legally capable. That ruling took effect on 7 June 2000.\n14.  On 18 July 2000 the custodial court (Bāriņtiesa) appointed his wife as his guardian (aizgādnis) and explained that a report should be made every year on the fulfilment of guardianship duties.\n15.  These reports stated that his wife had visited the applicant in the social care institution once a month in 2004, 2007 and 2008. In other reports she mentioned that she had regularly visited the applicant, without specifying the exact frequency. In two of these reports, dated 1 February 2006 and 29 December 2010, the applicant’s wife noted that his state of health had deteriorated, but she did not give further details.\n16.  On 20 November 2000 the applicant’s wife requested that the applicant be placed in a specialised state social care institution. The request contained no information about his state of health; nor were any reasons given. It was a form that was filled in and signed by the applicant’s wife as his guardian.\n17.  On 28 November 2000 the Social Assistance Authority (Sociālās palīdzības fonds) attached to the Ministry of Welfare reviewed that request on the basis of the following evaluation that had been made by a social worker: “Category 2 disability. Constant supervision and care. The family has approached 3 PD. On the basis of the psychiatrist’s conclusion [the applicant] should be placed in an institution for people with mental disorders”. The decision was worded as follows: “to put [the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7287", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Sztum.\n5.  On 7 May 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of homicide and robbery.\n6.  On 9 May 1998 the Gdynia District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody.\n7.  On 31 July 2000 the bill of indictment was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The applicant and seven other persons were indicted with homicide, several counts of robbery and various other offences committed in an organised criminal group.\n8.  The trial began on 14 December 2000. Between 14 December 2000 and 22 July 2003 the trial court held 64 hearings.\n9.  On 29 July 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n10.  On 16 December 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed this judgment and remitted the case.\n11.  On 25 August 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court severed the charges against the applicant into two separate sets of the proceedings.\n12.  In the first set of the proceedings, the Gdańsk Regional Court again convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment on 24 August 2007. The applicant appealed. This judgment was upheld on 19 November 2008 by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal.\n13.  In the second set of proceedings, on 15 April 2008 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave judgment and sentenced the applicant to 10 years’ imprisonment. The proceedings were terminated by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 5 January 2009.\n14.  On 21 November 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gdańsk Court of Appeal under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Gdańsk Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n15.  On 28 December 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s motion. The court stressed in particular that the proceedings were very complicated and there was a need to obtain evidence from numerous witnesses.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7288", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are all Hungarian nationals who live in Budapest (for details, see Annex).\n6.  In December 1985 the brother of three applicants (Ms Klára Zsolnay, Mr István Zsolnay and Mr György Zsolnay) brought an action against his siblings before the Pest Central District Court, requesting the court to establish his ownership on a real estate. In 1986, the respondents submitted a counter-claim against the plaintiff.\n7.  On 26 September 1990 the District Court gave interlocutory judgment, establishing that the plaintiff had acquired ownership of part of the property. On 10 March 1992 the Budapest Regional Court suspended the proceedings, pending the adjudication of the counter-claims submitted by the respondents.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings the District Court delivered an interlocutory judgment concerning the ownership proportions on 21 November 1996. On appeal, the Regional Court suspended the proceedings, pending the adjudication of the counter-claims, on 8 May 1997.\n9.  The applicants’ counter-claims were dismissed by the District Court on 11 December 1997. This judgment was partly reversed on appeal on 29 September 1998. The Supreme Court upheld the first-instance decision while remitting some claims on 3 November 1999.\n10.  On 29 June 2000 the fourth applicant, Mrs István Zsolnay joined the proceedings on the respondents’ side.\n11.  On 23 January 2001 the applicants’ motion for the disqualification of a judge was dismissed.\n12.  On 14 May 2003 the District Court gave a partial judgment. This was reversed in part on appeal on 19 January 2005 and upheld by the Supreme Court on 17 February 2006.\n13.  Regarding the remainder of the claims, the District Court found partly for the applicants on 7 July 2006. The Budapest Regional dismissed the respondents’ counter-claim on 27 April 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7289", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n6.  By seven judgments of different courts of first instance of 18 May 2000, 29 February 2000, 17 December 1999, 24 March 2000, 5 April 2001, 25 April 2000 and 14 November 2001, which became final on 15 June 2000, 13 October 2000, 16 July 2002, 26 July 2001, 25 May 2001, 13 July 2001 and 9 September 2004, respectively, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate:\n(i)  BAM 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 1,776 in respect of pecuniary damage to the Ćosićs and Ms Sanja Alaša;\n(ii)  BAM 16,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 2,000 in respect of pecuniary damage to Ms Borka Vođević and Mr Slavoljub Đorđević;\n(iii)  BAM 35,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,860 in respect of legal costs to the Paripovićs;\n(iv)  BAM 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 403 in respect of legal costs to the Voćkićs;\n(v)  BAM 25,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 3,360 in respect of legal costs to the Simićs and Ms Slađana Migerl;\n(vi)  BAM 14,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 1,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,400 in respect of legal costs to the Lazićs and Ms Branka Lazić-Marković; and\n(vii)  BAM 26,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 2,009 in respect of legal costs to the Đilas.\n7.  The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 20 December 2001, 8 November 2000, 23 April 2003, 16 November 2001, 24 August 2001, 2 November 2001 and 21 December 2006, respectively.\n8.  The applicants complained of non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”). On 20 December 2005 the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the cases of the Ćosić, Ms Sanja Alaša, Ms Borka Vođević, Mr Slavoljub Đorđević, the Paripovićs, the Voćkićs, the Simićs, Ms Slađana Migerl, the Lazićs and Ms Branka Lazić-Marković. The applicants did not claim compensation, but even if they had done so, their claim would have most likely been refused (see, for example, the Constitutional Court’s decisions AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, § 438; AP 557/05 of 12 April 2006, § 195; AP 1211/06 of 13 December 2007, § 79; and AP 244/08 of 8 December 2010, § 37). On 15 April 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the case of the Đilas due to the change of circumstances following amendments to the Domestic Debt Act 2004.\n9.  After the extensive information campaign explaining the available options for the settlement of the Republika Srpska’s public debt (including its debt arising from domestic judgments), between 26 April 2007 and 13 May 2011 some of the applicants informed the authorities that they agreed to be paid only the legal costs in cash and the principal debt and default interest in bonds. Government bonds were then issued on the following dates to the following applicants:\n(i)  on 15 December 2008 to Mr Blagoja Ćosić (the application was lodged on19 July 2006); Mr Goran Paripović, Ms Gordana Paripović, Ms Mara Paripović, Mr Zoran Paripović (the application was ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7290", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1966, 1986, 1988, and 1997 respectively and they live in Edirne.\n6.  The applicants are the wife and children of Nejat Kara who died in a traffic accident which occurred on 17 November 1998. He was working as an officer within the National Estates Division of the Governorship of Yalova.\n7.  On 12 April 1999 the applicants applied to the Bursa Administrative Court and claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages based on the allegation that to employ someone who was normally hired for office work, as a driver was against the relevant legislation.\n8.  On 9 February 2000 the Bursa Administrative Court decided that the case was not within the ambit of administrative judiciary. Upon that decision the applicant brought a civil case before the Yalova Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.\n9.  On 10 March 2001 the Yalova Civil Court decided on the case and dismissed it. The applicants appealed that decision.\n10.  On 9 May 2002 the 4th Chamber of the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Yalova Civil Court on the ground that the conflict among the courts who dealt with the case was not a mere jurisdictional conflict within the same judiciary, it was between the two main judiciaries as civil and administrative, therefore the decision had to be appealed before the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes instead of the Court of Cassation.\n11.  Despite that decision the Yalova Civil Court mistakenly sent the case again to the Court of Cassation.\n12.  On 16 March 2004 the Court of Cassation noticed the mistake and sent the case to the Court of Jurisdictional Disputes.\n13.  The Court of Jurisdictional Disputes found that the case should be heard by the administrative judiciary.\n14.  On 9 December 2004 the Bursa 1st Administrative Court, in a fully reasoned decision, dismissed the case.\n15.  On 11 February 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal of the applicants.\n16.  On 24 October 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request for rectification.\n17.   The Supreme Administrative Court employed in its last two decisions standard texts of dismissal and did not explain the grounds of its decisions in detail.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7291", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Balassagyarmat.\n5.  On 26 April 1997 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and eighteen other defendants for fraud. A ban on travel was also imposed on him until 2003.\n6.  On 27 January 2003 the Budapest Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant before the Pest Central District Court. From February 2007 onwards the District Court held one hundred and nine hearings and heard one hundred and one witnesses and eleven experts.\n7.  On 14 November 2007 the District Court gave judgment, acquitting the applicant. The applicant and his counsel took note of the decision, therefore it became final the same day.\n8.  On 17 January 2008 a written copy of the judgment was served on the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7292", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 23 January 2003 the applicant requested the County Building Inspector to assess whether her neighbours had extended their property lawfully. The construction works took place between 1969 and 1974. After the proceedings which aimed to identify the parties to the dispute had finished, the County Building Inspector commenced the proper proceedings on 21 January 2005.\n5.  On 8 November 2005 the County Building Inspector discontinued the proceedings finding that all the construction works had been conducted legally. The inspector relied on witnesses’ testimonies since all the documents had gone missing. The Regional Building Inspector upheld the decision on 7 April 2006.\n6.  In the meantime the applicant lodged a complaint with the Wielkoposki Governor about inactivity of the County Building Inspector. On 8 June 2006 the Wielkopolski Governor found that the 8 November 2005 decision had not been examined timeously.\n7.  The applicant applied for judicial review of the Regional Building Inspector’s decision. On 6 June 2007 the Poznań Regional Administrative Court quashed both decisions stating that the evidence gathered was not sufficient for reaching any conclusions.\n8.  On 15 June 2008 the applicant sent a letter to the Regional Building Inspector pointing to the fact that the decision had not been taken although over a year had elapsed since the court’s judgment and complaining about the length of the proceedings before the County Building Inspector. On 2 July 2008 the Regional Inspector advised the County Inspector on the need to deal with the case.\n9.  On 13 November 2008 the County Building Inspector discontinued the proceedings. On 23 January the Regional Building Inspector quashed the decision and remitted the case.\n10.  Finally on 30 November 2009 the County Building Inspector discontinued the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7293", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Omsk.\n7.  The applicant suffers from schizophrenia, which was first diagnosed in 1987. In the 1980s and early 1990s he was employed as a bus driver, but in 1995 he stopped working. The applicant kept writing nonsensical letters to state officials and lodged numerous administrative complaints and lawsuits. At some point he started giving money and clothes to strangers and invited them to his house, explaining it by religious considerations. Such behaviour led to recurrent conflicts with his wife. The applicant became irritable, aggressive and once in 1996 tried to strangulate her. As a result, they divorced. In 1998 the applicant was officially given the “2nd degree disability” status due to his mental disorder.\n8.  Between 1989 and 17 July 2000 the applicant was hospitalised nine times in the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital. As follows from the opinion of the Serbskiy Institute of 19 August 1999 (a leading State psychiatric research centre based in Moscow) during that period the applicant considered himself as a “defender of justice”, believed that he knew important State secrets, and claimed that there was a conspiracy against him. Amongst other things, he challenged his diagnosis, complained of his confinement to the hospital, threatened the doctors who had been treating him in the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital, and tried to institute criminal proceedings against them. The report did not mention any incidence of violence or self-destructive behaviour after 1996, and it was not alleged that during that period the applicant was unable to take care of himself in everyday life. However, it is clear that his mental condition had a persistent character, and that he kept harassing doctors from the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital with complaints and litigations.\n9.  On 5 April 2000 the applicant underwent an examination in the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital by a panel of doctors, who confirmed the previous diagnosis and the opinion by the Serbskiy Institute and concluded that the applicant was “incapable of understanding the meaning of his actions and was unable to control them”.\n10.  On 16 June 2000, following an application by the public prosecutor, the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Omsk declared the applicant legally incapacitated because of his illness. The hearing took place in the absence of the applicant. On 30 August 2000 the Omsk Regional Court upheld the decision of the District Court.\n11.  On an unspecified date the Omsk Municipal Public Health Department appointed the applicant’s father as his guardian.\n12.  On 2 October 2000 the applicant’s daughter brought court proceedings seeking to restore his legal capacity. Her request was supported by the applicant’s father as guardian. The plaintiffs claimed that the applicant’s mental state had significantly improved and requested that the court conduct a new psychiatric examination of his health. As the plaintiffs did not trust doctors from the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital, they insisted that the process of the psychiatric examination of the applicant be recorded on a videotape.\n13.  On 27 October 2000 the court commissioned a psychiatric examination of the applicant, but refused to order a video recording of it. The expert examination was entrusted to the Omsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital. However, the applicant failed to submit himself for an examination at the hospital, so the examination was not conducted.\n14.  ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7295", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Kastamonu. Her husband died in a traffic accident.\n6.  On 7 June 2000 she instituted compensation proceedings before the Tosya Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. In the course of the proceeding eight expert reports were concluded.\n7.  On 9 November 2006 the proceedings before the civil court finalized the case in favour of the applicant.\n8.  On 11 February 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision.\n9.  The applicant requested rectification.\n10.  On 13 October 2008 the Court of Cassation admitted the request for rectification and upheld the decision in favour of the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7296", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1924, 1963, 1965 and 1963 respectively and live in İzmir.\n5.  On 21 September 1989 the applicants brought a case before the Seferihisar Cadastral Court in claim of possession on a plot of land\n6.  On 18 September 2006 the case was finalised.\n7.  In the course of the proceedings there was only one judge authorised to hear cadastral cases and in the entire proceedings only eight hearings were presided by the same judge.\n8.  The Cadastral Court decided to conduct on-site examination after four years and five months from the beginning of the proceedings. The decision to conduct on-site examination was implemented nine years and four months after the decision.\n9.  In cadastral cases courts were authorised by the law to issue the certificate of inheritance, replacing magistrate civil courts. However, in the case at hand the cadastral court avoided to exercise such authority and preferred to give deadlines to the parties to apply to the magistrate civil courts that caused about six years of delay.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7297", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Szentendre.\n5.  On 21 July 1999 a foundation brought an action against the applicant before the Szentendre District Court, requesting the court to establish the invalidity of an agreement. The action was dismissed in June 2000. This decision was quashed on appeal by the Pest County Regional Court on 12 March 2002.\n6.  In the resumed proceedings the case was transferred between several courts due to a dispute over competence.\n7.  Finally the Dunakeszi District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action on 11 June 2007. This judgment was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 13 July 2007. According to the rules of Code of Civil Proceedings, the parties had fifteen days from this date to submit an appeal against the judgment.\n8.  In the absence of appeals, the judgment became final on 18 September 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7298", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1970 and 1990 respectively and live in Krasnodar, the Russian Federation.\n8.  In 1997 the applicants began residing in Bulgaria. The first applicant was a shareholder in several companies including Druzhba OOD and Sil-Prim OOD. She was one of the managers of Druzba OOD.\n9.  On 24 May 2000 the first applicant was taken to the police station in Blagoevgrad in connection with an attempted theft of a conveyer belt line, belonging to Druzhba OOD. At about 10 p.m. on the same day criminal proceedings for theft, an offence under Article 195 of the Criminal Code (CC) were opened against the first applicant and she was questioned in that connection. She was released some time after midnight.\n10.  Allegedly, the first applicant requested to make a telephone call to the second applicant, who was 10 years old at the time, but her request was not granted.\n11.  On 12 December 2001 the first applicant’s case was brought before the Blagoevgrad District Court.\n12.  On an unspecified date after 2002 the judge rapporteur in the case died and a new judge was appointed.\n13.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the new judge resigned from her post and had to be replaced.\n14.  For the period between March 2002 and May 2005 at least sixteen hearings were held, six of which were adjourned – two upon the first applicant’s request, one due to the absence of the expert, one due to improper summoning and two because of absences of members of the court panel.\n15.  At the hearing of 27 September 2002 the District Court rejected the civil claim filed by one of the shareholders in Druzhba OOD, finding that he had not personally suffered damages as a result of the first applicant’s actions. It further appointed a special representative of Druzhba OOD to protect its interests in the joined civil claim against the first applicant.\n16.  At the hearing of 26 October 2004 the charges against the first applicant were amended. According to the new charges the first applicant had deliberately entered into a contract for the sale of the conveyer belt line which had been disadvantageous to Druzhba OOD, an offence under Article 220 of the CC.\n17.  By a judgment of 12 May 2005 the Blagoevgrad District Court found the first applicant guilty of an offence under Article 220 of the CC, sentenced her to one year’s imprisonment suspended for a period of three years and ordered her to pay Druzhba OOD damages.\n18.  On appeal, by a judgment of 6 December 2005 the Blagoevgrad Regional Court quashed the lower court’s judgment and remitted it for fresh examination because of procedural breaches in connection with the charges under Article 220 of the CC.\n19.  On 1 July 2006 the first applicant was presented with an indictment for an offence under Article 195 of the CC - theft of a conveyer belt line.\n20.  At the hearing of 18 December 2006 the Blagoevgrad District Court rejected the first applicant’s objection against the appointment of a special representative of Druzhba OOD and quashed the amendment of the charges against the first applicant of 26 October 2004. The proceedings continued in respect of the charges under Article 195 of the CC.\n21.  On an unspecified date in May 2007 the applicants moved to Russia.\n22.  The number of hearings held after that date is not clear.\n23.  In January 2009 the first applicant was summoned in her address in Russia for a hearing before the Blagoevgrad District Court but she requested the proceedings to continue in her absence.\n24.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7299", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Piekary.\n5.  On 2 March 2008 the applicant was arrested by the police under the suspicion of having participated in an organised criminal gang trading in women and deriving profits from prostitution.\n6.  On 13 March 2008 the Poznan District Court decided to detain the applicant on remand (file no. III K 278/08).\n7.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was subsequently extended by the Poznan Regional Court on 2 September, 25 August and 1 December 2008.\n8.  In 2009 his pre-trial detention was further extended on 17 February and 27 May.\n9.  On 12 August 2009 the applicant and ten other co-accused were indicted before the Poznan Regional Court (file no. Ap V Ds. 37/09).\n10.  On 25 May 2010 the Poznan Court of Appeal decided to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention. In addition to the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, the court relied on the risk of his going into hiding, especially since he had been avoiding arrest for one-and-a-half years. Moreover, the court relied on the severity of the penalty that might be imposed and a risk that the applicant would interfere with the proper course of the proceedings. The court finally considered that the criminal proceedings had been very complex as the case involved eleven co-accused charged with a dozen offences each.\n11.  The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on 29 June 2010.\n12.  Afterwards the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended on 19 August, 26 October, and 21 December 2010. All decisions were unsuccessfully appealed against by the applicant. The court in particular relied on the severity of the possible penalty and on the fact that the applicant acted in an organised criminal gang. In the last of the above listed decisions the Court of Appeal considered that the risk of a severe sentence should no longer be a valid ground for the applicant’s very lengthy pre-trial detention. However, the other grounds, namely risk of his interfering with the proper course of the proceedings and going into hiding, were still valid grounds for his continued detention.\n13.  On 24 March and 26 May 2011 the Poznan Court of Appeal further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention.\n14.  On 8 September 2011 the Poznan Court of Appeal decided that the applicant could be released on bail in the amount of 70,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).\n15.  On 12 October 2011 the applicant paid the bail and was released from detention.\n16.  On 6 June 2012 the Poznan Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment (file no. XVI K 45/10). The judgment is not final as the applicant lodged an appeal against it.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7300", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in the Leningard region.\n5.  In 2005 the applicant brought a court action against a bank for its refusal to refund the capital placed on a savings account together with interest and appointed B. to represent him in those proceedings.\n6.  The Podporozhskiy Town Court of the Leningrad Region (“the Town Court”) set the case down for trial on 13 December 2005. The applicant alleges that in the beginning of the hearing his representative received the observations and documents filed by the defendant. He complains that the Town Court allowed his representative to read those observations during several minutes which were not enough to prepare his comments on them.\n7.  On 13 December 2005 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claims.\n8.  On 20 December 2005 the applicant and his representative lodged an appeal against the judgment of 13 December 2005.\n9.  On 2 February 2006 the Regional Court examined and dismissed the applicant’s and his representative’s appeal against the judgment of 13 December 2005. Neither the applicant nor his representative were present at the hearing whereas the defendant’s representative was present and made submissions. It does not appear from the decision of 2 February 2006 that the appeal court verified whether the applicant and his representative had been duly apprised of the hearing and, if they had not, whether the examination of the appeal should have been adjourned. The applicant alleges that he and his representative B. were not apprised of the appeal hearing.\n10.  By a letter of 6 March 2006 the Town Court informed the applicant that on 2 February 2006 the Regional Court had examined and dismissed his appeal against the judgment of 13 December 2005.\n11.  On 10 March 2006 the applicant’s representative complained to the Town Court that he had not been apprised of the appeal hearing of 2 February 2006. In particular, he claimed that in the materials of the case he had found a notification letter of 11 January 2006 addressed to him. However, there had been no documents confirming that that letter had been dispatched to him.\n12.  On 15 March 2006 the Town Court replied that on 12 January 2006 it had sent to the applicant and his representative notifications about the appeal hearing of 2 February 2006. The Town Court further explained that such letters were normally sent by ordinary mail without acknowledgment of receipt and that the post office was responsible for their delivery. The Town Court advised the applicant’s representative to complain about the failure to deliver the letters of 12 January 2006 to the post office.\n13.  The applicant submitted that he had applied for a supervisory review of the decision of 2 February 2006, but the supervisory review court refused to examine his complaint on procedural grounds.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7301", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1962, 1989 and 1990 respectively and live in Izmir.\n6.  The applicants are the wife and sons of Ahmet Celil Erkızan who died in a ship wreck on 2 May 1994.\n7.  On 11 January 1995 the applicants brought a civil case before the Milas Civil Court of General Jurisdiction in request of pecuniary and non pecuniary damages.\n8.  On 3 November 2003 the Civil Court partially awarded their requests for damages.\n9.  On 1 July 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment based on the fact that the case was within the jurisdiction of labour courts.\n10.  Upon that decision the Milas Labour Court began to hear the case.\n11.  On 21 February 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Labour Court which admitted the case of the applicants again.\n12.  On 16 July 2007 the Labour Court following the quashing decision of the Court of Cassation admitted the case partially.\n13.  On 8 July 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision.\n14.  On 10 September 2008 the final decision was served to the applicants.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7303", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954. At the time of the lodging of his application he was detained at HM Prison Whatton, Nottingham.\n6.  In 2005 the applicant was convicted of rape. He was originally sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff (i.e. minimum term to be served before eligibility for release arose) of five years. Upon appeal, this was reduced to a sentence of imprisonment for public protection (“IPP” – see paragraphs 22-23 below), which is also an indeterminate sentence, with a tariff of three and a half years, less 98 days spent on remand.\n7.  A few months prior to tariff expiry, the Secretary of State referred the applicant’s case to the Parole Board, pursuant to section 239(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (see paragraph 27 below), to consider whether the applicant’s security category should be downgraded to allow him to go into open prison conditions. On 15 September 2008 the Parole Board notified the applicant of its decision in the following terms:\n“9. The panel, which included a psychologist and a psychiatrist among their number, noted the recommendations for open conditions made by report writers, but they also noted the identification of remaining areas of treatment need ... They feared that there had been an underestimate of risk ... and an insufficient attention to the sadistic elements of the offences in other assessments. They would therefore counsel against the formulaic approach in this case, which appears at least partly to be responsible for the conclusion that once RSOTP [a sexual offenders treatment programme] has been completed no further work is required and would recommend that further individual assessment should be undertaken, which takes account of their specified comments.\n10. In reaching their conclusion the panel also noted from your answers (while making due allowance for oral hearing conditions and obvious intellectual limitations) that you appear to have no more than a superficial understanding of the reasons why you committed the index offences or of the risk management strategies, which will be necessary on release to manage the sexual attitudes and responses which you still but partially acknowledge.\n11. ... [The panel] therefore make no recommendation to the Secretary of State on the occasion of this review; that is because, balancing your interests in sentence progression against the interests of public safety, they were not satisfied that sufficient evidence exists that your risk of sexual and/or violent offending has yet reduced to a level such that that risk can be safely managed out of closed conditions.” 8.  On 13 October 2008 the Secretary of State referred the applicant’s case to the Parole Board in anticipation of the expiry of his tariff under section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (see paragraph 26 below). 10.  On 20 February 2009 the Parole Board agreed to hold an oral hearing in the applicant’s case. As a result of the number of cases awaiting oral hearing, the earliest available hearing date was in May. However, in the event the Parole Board was unable to provide a panel for the hearing and it did not take place in May as planned. The hearing was eventually rescheduled for September 2009. The applicant challenged, by way of judicial review proceedings against the Parole Board, the delay in fixing a Parole Board hearing 11.  In the context of the judicial review proceedings before the High Court, the Parole Board accepted that because of the inability to have the hea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7304", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1953, 1954 and 1945 respectively and live in Banloc.\n7.  S.C. and his father lent money to the applicants, who secured the loans with their apartments located in Timişoara.\n8.  The applicants concluded sale contracts of their apartments with S.C. on 10 October 1995, 9 February 1996 and 15 July 1996 respectively.\n9.  The three applicants lodged criminal complaints of abuse of trust (abuz de încredere) and false statements (fals in declaraţii) against S.C. and his father on 14 October 1996, 12 November 1996 and 30 September 1997 respectively. They stated that their intention had been to secure the loan agreements, and not to sell their apartments.\n10.  On 23 October 1997 all the criminal complaints were joined in a single file and sent to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Timişoara Court of Appeal.\n11.  On 4, 5 and 7 November 1997 the applicants joined civil complaints to the criminal proceedings.\n12.  On 30 May 1999 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Timişoara Court of Appeal decided to discontinue the criminal investigation against S.C. and his father.\n13.  The applicants lodged a further complaint with the prosecutor’s office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice. It was allowed by a decision of 15 May 2002 and the file was remitted to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Timişoara Court of Appeal in order to continue the investigation. The decision stated that new evidence should be adduced in order to clarify the applicants’ allegations.\n14.  On 28 May 2003 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Timişoara Court of Appeal again decided to discontinue the criminal investigation against S.C. and his father. On 11 August 2003 this decision was upheld by the chief prosecutor of the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest Court of Appeal.\n15.  The applicants lodged a complaint with the Timişoara District Court against the said decision on the basis of Article 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP).\n16.  By a judgment of 19 March 2004, the court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Timişoara Court of Appeal.\n17.  On 31 March 2004 the Timişoara Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint on the grounds that S.C. and his father had not committed an offence.\n18.  An appeal on points of law lodged by the applicants with the High Court of Cassation and Justice on 10 February 2005 was allowed. The court held that the evidence in the file was not sufficient to establish whether the complaint was well-founded and remitted the file to the prosecutor’s office for further investigation.\n19.  On 30 September 2005 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Timişoara Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the statutory time-limit for criminal liability had expired in respect of all the alleged crimes. It held that the special limitation period was seven years and six months and that it had started running on the date when the sale contracts had been signed (namely on 10 October 1995, 9 February 1996 and 15 July 1996). It gave no decision in respect of the civil complaints.\n20.  It appears from the material submitted by the parties that the applicants did not lodge a complaint against the decision of 30 September 2005.\n21.  On 18 November 1996 the first applicant lodged a civil action against S.C. seeking the rescission of the sale contract of her apartment. She claimed that she had been misled by the fraudulent behaviour of S.C. that made her believe that they had concluded ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7306", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1994 and 1992 respectively and live in Nyíregyháza.\n6.  The applicants are two young Roma men, who were diagnosed as having mental disabilities. As a result of these diagnoses, the applicants were educated at the Göllesz Viktor Remedial Primary and Vocational School, a remedial school (“special educational programme” or “special” school) in the city of Nyíregyháza, created for children with mental disabilities.\n7.  The proportion of Roma students at the Göllesz Viktor Remedial Primary and Vocational School was 40 to 50% in the last ten years. Statistical data indicate that in 2007 Roma represented 8.7% of the total number of pupils attending primary school in Nyíregyháza. In 1993, the last year when ethnic data were officially collected in public education in Hungary, at least 42% of the children in special educational programme were of Roma origin according to official estimates, though they represented only 8.22% of the total student body.\n8.  According to statistical data in the Statistical Yearbook of Education, in 2007/2008 only 0.4–0.6% of students with special needs had the opportunity to participate in integrated mainstream secondary education providing the Baccalaureate. Although one of the second applicant’s classmates was admitted to a secondary vocational school offering the Baccalaureate, neither of the applicants was enrolled in a Baccalaureate programme, which limited their access to higher education and employment. The first applicant was unable to follow a course to become a dance teacher, the career of his father; instead, he received special vocational training to become a baker. The second applicant continued his studies in a mainstream secondary vocational school which did not offer the Baccalaureate, and was unable to pursue his ambition to become a car mechanic.\n9.  Scholarly literature suggests that the systemic misdiagnosis of Roma children as mentally disabled has been a tool to segregate Roma children from non-Roma children in the Hungarian public school system since at least the 1970s.\n10.  The national Gypsy research in 1971 made it clear that a major obstacle to the education of Gypsy children was the existence of remedial (special) schools. In 1974/1975, 11.7% of Gypsy children attended special schools and classes. Due to the steady increase in Gypsy enrolment, by 1985/1986 their proportion had reached 17.5%, whereas only 2% of majority Hungarian students studied in special schools and classes. Eight grades finished in special education amounted to six grades in a normal school. Between 1972 and 1975, almost 50% of the lower grade special school students in Budapest were re-tested. The most significant result of the Budapest review was that if the borderline between sound and disabled mental abilities were set at IQ 70, the figure recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO), then only 49.3% of students participating in special education qualified as mentally disabled, whereas 50.7% qualified as normal, of whom 12% had average intellect and 38.7% were borderline cases, that is, on the brink of mental retardation. However, only 7% were qualified as having average mental abilities through a complex evaluation. The complex evaluation qualified children whose test results suggested otherwise as intellectually disabled. In order to come to this conclusion, the category of familial intellectual disability was introduced, a notion distinct from pathological mental disability.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7307", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1924 and died on 27 February 2011, while his application was pending before the Court. His son, Mr Panayotis Zolotas, stated that he wished to continue the proceedings.\n6.  On 11 July 1974 the applicant, who at that time was a practising lawyer, opened a bank account with the General Bank of Greece, into which he paid the sum of 660,000 drachmas (1,936.90 euros (EUR)). From the second half of 1981 until 2003, he did not perform any transactions on the account (cash withdrawals or deposits or entering of interest in the booklet provided for that purpose). As both he and his wife had severe and disabling health problems, the applicant was obliged to live abroad for many years. On 6 February 2003 he requested the bank to inform him of the status of his account. The bank replied that, because there had been no transactions on the account since the second half of 1981, all his claims in respect of the account had become time-barred. However, it informed the applicant that it still kept an up-to-date file concerning him in its records, in which it entered the interest accruing on the account.\n7.  On 3 June 2003 the applicant brought an action against the bank in the civil courts, claiming the sum he had deposited with the bank, plus interest, giving a total amount of EUR 30,550.74. In judgment no. 1481/2005 of 21 April 2005 the Athens Court of First Instance dismissed his action, finding that the applicant’s claims were barred by the twenty-year limitation period laid down in respect of claims arising out of an agreement on the deposit of fungible goods (Ανώμαλη παρακαταθήκη) within the meaning of Article 830 of the Civil Code (see paragraphs 18 and 19 below). In particular, the court stated as follows:\n“... [The applicant] relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 ... and on the Paris Protocol of 20 March 1952 concerning protection of property; these are not applicable in the present case since the institution of statutory limitation under domestic law prevails over them. This statutory limitation [provided for by Article 247 of the Civil Code] is independent of the fact that, in accordance with Article 3 of Legislative Decree no. 1195/1942, cash deposits with national banks and the corresponding interest are transferred permanently to the State where they have not been claimed by the account holder for a period of twenty years for the deposits and a period of five years for the interest ...”\n8.  The applicant appealed against that judgment, basing his arguments on the relevant provisions of domestic law and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He submitted that the limitation period had been suspended by force majeure or had stopped running in accordance with Article 260 of the Civil Code, since the bank had updated his file every six months, entering the interest that had accrued.\n9.  By judgment no. 2452/2006 of 6 April 2006 the Athens Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, taking the view that the twenty-year limitation period applicable to agreements on the deposit of fungible goods had been justified by an aim in the public interest, namely that of terminating, in the interests of the community (Κοινωνική οικονομία), legal relationships that had been created so long before that their existence had become uncertain. The fact that the bank had continued to enter the interest accruing on the applicant’s account did not, in the Court of Appeal’s view, amount to a recognition of the applicant’s claims capable of stopping", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7308", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Vantaa.\n6.  The applicant was born out of wedlock and bore her mother’s maiden name. Her mother and her biological father concluded a child support agreement the same year. The agreement was verified by the social services.\n7.  In 1956 the mother married another man and in 1961 the applicant’s name was changed to that of her mother’s husband. The spouses agreed that the applicant’s biological father was never to be mentioned. The applicant had two siblings from that marriage.\n8.  On 1 October 1976 the Paternity Act (isyyslaki, lagen om faderskap) came into force. The transitional provisions in the Implementing Act of the Paternity Act (laki isyyslain toimeenpanosta, lagen angående införande av lagen om faderskap) state that paternity proceedings with regard to a child born before the entry into force of the law had to be initiated within five years, that is, before 1 October 1981. Moreover, no claim could be examined after the death of the father. No such restrictions exist for children born after the entry into force of the Paternity Act.\n9.  At some point the applicant started wondering about her biological background. In 2001 she discovered that in the church registry, which until 1993 was the only official population registry, her mother’s husband was listed as her stepfather. The State population registry, with which the church records were merged in 1993, stated that the mother’s husband was her father. She also located a copy of the child support agreement in the archives of the social services which made it possible for her to locate her biological father.\n10.  On 25 September 2002 the information in the State population register was corrected.\n11.  On 6 February 2003 the applicant initiated paternity proceedings against her biological father in the Vantaa District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten). She claimed that she had only learned in December 2001 that the mother’s husband, who had been registered as her father, was not her biological father.\n12.  On 18 June 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. It found that during the five-year time-limit, the applicant had been an adult and could have initiated paternity proceedings. She could also have questioned her mother or could have verified the information on the church register, which had been correct all the time. The application of the five-year time-limit was not in contradiction to the Constitution or the Convention. Her claim was thus time-barred.\n13.  On 17 July 2003 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), claiming that she had not known that her mother’s husband was not her biological father. Her mother had testified in the District Court that she had never told her daughter about her origins and that this issue was never discussed in the family. During the five-year period the applicant would not have had any interest in initiating proceedings as she was not yet aware of her legal status.\n14.  On 15 March 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s decision on the same grounds as the latter.\n15.  On 13 May 2004 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before the Court of Appeal.\n16.  On 12 October 2004 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.\n17.  In January 2005 the applicant filed a petition with the Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan oikeusasiamies", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7309", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is currently serving a term of imprisonment in Uzbekistan.\n8.  In 1999-2000 the applicant started studying Islam and attending a mosque in the town of Urgut, Uzbekistan.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 2000 a local police officer summoned the applicant to the police station and questioned him extensively on his reasons for attending the mosque. The police officer entered the applicant’s name in a special book. After the conversation, the applicant stopped going to the mosque as he was afraid.\n10.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant arrived in Russia to look for work. He settled in St Petersburg, where his wife and minor daughter joined him in 2006. According to the applicant, in St Petersburg he lived in a community of Uzbek migrants, taking up temporary jobs such as street cleaner, and so his command of Russian remained poor.\n11.  On 7 May 2010 an investigator of the Urgut branch of the National Security Service (“the Urgut NSS”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with his presumed participation in Hizb ut‑Tahrir (“HT”), a religious organisation recognised as extremist and banned in Uzbekistan (Article 159 § 1 of the Uzbek Criminal Code (“the UCC”)). The applicant was suspected of having participated, in the period between 2001 and 2005, in the above-mentioned organisation by creating secret cells for it at the place of his residence and organising the meetings of its members with a view to creating an “Islamic Caliphate”.\n12.  On 21 May 2010 the Samarkand department of the National Security Service (“the Samarkand NSS”) charged the applicant, in connection with his presumed membership of HT, with public appeals to overthrow the constitutional order of Uzbekistan committed as part of an organised group (Article 159 § 3 (a) of the UCC), preparation and dissemination of extremist materials constituting a threat to national security and public order (Article 244 § 3 of the UCC) and participation in an extremist organisation (Article 244 § 1 of the UCC). The decision stated, among other things, that, after joining HT, the applicant had recruited new members for the organisation, had organised meetings for them, at which he had called for the seizure of State power, and had stored and disseminated the organisation’s extremist materials.\n13.  On 21 May 2010 the Samarkand City Court ordered the applicant’s placement in custody. On the same day the applicant’s name was put on a wanted list.\n14.  On 14 July 2010 the applicant was arrested in St Petersburg. His arrest record of the same date stated that he had been arrested in accordance with the Minsk Convention as a person who was on an international wanted list. The arrest record contained the following pre-typed statement, signed by the applicant:\n“I have been informed of the receipt of the competent foreign authority’s notification that they are sending an extradition request, a detention [order] or a final judgment convicting [me] (to be filled in if the documents mentioned have been received at the time of the compilation of the record)”.\n15.  The arrest record also contained the following statement, signed by the applicant: ”Concerning [his] arrest [the applicant] stated: as to the reasons why [I am] being sought in the territory of the Republic of Uzbekistan [I] don’t know anything”.\n16.  On 15 July 2010 the applicant was interviewed by the acting prosecutor of the Frunzenskiy District of St Petersburg (“the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7310", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970. He is serving a life term in the Leopoldov prison.\n5.  On 22 March 2004 the applicant claimed compensation before the Bratislava I District Court for damages allegedly caused by legal malpractice of his former lawyer.\n6.  On 31 August 2004 the District Court exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay the court fees.\n7.  Subsequently, between 22 October 2004 and 4 August 2008, the District Court appointed one-by-one four legal-aid lawyers for the applicant who appealed against the appointment or refused to take up the legal representation submitting that they were in a friendly relationship with the defendant or that their illness or business prevented them from providing legal aid to the applicant.\n8.  The Bratislava Regional Court, on the appeal of the appointed lawyers, twice quashed the District Court’s decisions to appoint a legal-aid lawyer and remitted the matter for a new determination and in one instance it dismissed the attorney’s appeal.\n9.  On 24 September 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about alleged delays before the District Court. It held that the District Court had been proceeding in a continuous manner and that short periods of inactivity of the court had not violated the applicant’s right invoked. It further held that the lawyers’ refusals to take up the legal representation were supported by reasonable grounds and therefore the delays caused by this fact could not be attributable to the District Court.\n10.  By a decision of 12 January 2009 the District Court appointed a fifth legal-aid lawyer and in March 2009 it requested the applicant to eliminate shortcomings in his action within ten days.\n11.  The applicant’s legal-aid lawyer asked for extension of the given time-limit or alternatively the appointment of another legal-aid lawyer on account of her temporary illness presumably to last until the end of April 2009.\n12.  On 10 November 2009 the District Court repeatedly requested the lawyer to complete the petition.\n13.  On 15 March 2010 the lawyer requested that her appointment be quashed. The District Court dismissed her request and on 2 September 2010 again requested her to amend the petition.\n14.  The proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7311", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1936, 1964 and 1969 respectively and live in Sofia.\n5.  In 1969 the first applicant’s father bought from the Sofia municipality a four-room flat of 132 square metres, which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1946.\n6.  In 1983 the first applicant’s parents conveyed to her the title to that property.\n7.  On an unspecified date in the beginning of 1993 Ms V., heir of the former pre-nationalisation owner of the property, brought proceedings against the first applicant under section 7 of the Restitution Law, seeking to establish that the contract whereby the first applicant’s father had acquired the flat was null and void. Ms V. also brought a rei vindicatio action against the first applicant and her son, the second applicant. At the time, he was also living in the flat, together with his wife – the third applicant – and her two children.\n8.  On 3 October 1995 the Sofia District Court discontinued the proceedings. On 7 February 1996 the Sofia City Court declared inadmissible an appeal against that decision lodged by Ms V. On 9 April 1997 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Sofia City Court’s decision, finding that the lower court had breached the procedural rules. Subsequently, the Sofia City Court remitted the case to the Sofia District Court for examination on the merits.\n9.  On 27 October 1999 the Sofia District Court gave a judgment. It found that the contract whereby the first applicant’s father had acquired the disputed property was null and void because the administrative authorities’ decision to sell the flat had not been approved by the Minister of Architecture and Public Works, as required by law at the time, but by another official. Accordingly, the domestic court concluded that the first applicant had not herself acquired ownership and was occupying the flat on an invalid legal ground; on this basis it allowed Ms V.’s rei vindicatio claim and ordered the first and second applicants to vacate the property.\n10.  On an unspecified date in the beginning of 2000 the applicants lodged an appeal. On 22 April 2005 the Sofia City Court upheld the above judgment.\n11.  Although the City Court’s judgment was not final, it was enforceable and Ms V. instituted enforcement proceedings. In November 2005 the applicants vacated the flat.\n12.  In the proceedings under section 7 of the Restitution Law and for rei vindicatio, on 1 June 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation gave a final judgment, upholding the lower courts’ findings.\n13.  In April 2007 the second applicant and his family were granted the tenancy of a municipally-owned apartment at a regulated price. The first applicant also applied for municipal housing, which was refused. Therefore, she moved in with her son’s family.\n14.  Soon after the Supreme Court of Cassation’ judgment of 1 June 2007 the first applicant applied to receive compensation bonds. In February 2009 she received bonds for 81,200 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of approximately 42,000 euros (EUR), in accordance with a valuation of the property of August 2008 by a certified expert. In July 2009 the first applicant received in cash from the Ministry of Finance the full value of the bonds.\n15.  The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice concerning the effect of restitution on third parties and the application of section 7 of the Restitution Law have been summarised in the Court’s judgment", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7312", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lived in the village of Rassylnaya, Kursk Region. He was serving a sentence in a correctional colony in the Kursk Region until his release in April 2012.\n6.  On 29 September 2006 the Kursk Leninskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of having beaten his female partner to death in a drunken rage. The applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. The judgment became final on 14 December 2006 when the Kursk Regional Court upheld it on appeal.\n7.  According to the applicant, following his arrest in January 2006 he was detained in inhuman conditions in facility no. IZ-46/1 in Kursk. On 26 December 2006 he was transferred to a correctional colony to serve his sentence.\n8.  As is stated in the applicant’s medical records, on 28 November 2001 he suffered a large transmural myocardial infarction and underwent lengthy treatment in a cardiology clinic. Having been examined in October 2002 by a cardiologist, the applicant was diagnosed with coronary artery disease, postinfarction cardiosclerosis and cardiac aneurysm, a severe form of chronic arterial hypertension and a latent form of urolithiasis. He was classed as permanently (category 2) disabled as a result of his illness.\n9.  In March 2005 the applicant had another myocardial infarction.\n10.  On 2 January 2006, the day following his arrest, an ambulance was called for the applicant, who had complained of a severe heartache. Having learned that the applicant suffered from stage 3 arterial hypertension and coronary artery disease, the emergency doctors provided him with urgent assistance and authorised his further detention in facility no. IZ-46/1.\n11.  Having been admitted to the detention facility, the applicant did not cease to complain about his state of health. He claimed to be experiencing a severe pressing chest pain and shortness of breath. Following an examination by the head of the medical unit of the detention facility ten days after the applicant’s admission, his diagnosis of severe essential hypertension (stage 2-3) with a very high risk of development of further cardiovascular complications was confirmed. The applicant was prescribed treatment with four medicines (nitroglycerine, to be taken in case of a sharp chest pain, aspirin, Nitrosorbide (isosorbide dinitrate) and Diroton (lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide)).\n12.  On 19 January 2006 the applicant complained to a prison physician on duty that he was experiencing a sharp pain in the left side of his chest reverberating into the left arm and shoulder blade. Having copied the diagnosis and the treatment to be followed from the medical certificate issued by the head of the medical unit on the previous occasion, the physician sent the applicant back to the cell. Subsequent medical examinations by prison physicians ended with a similar result. The applicant was told to continue with the treatment prescribed by the head of the medical unit.\n13.  In March 2006 the applicant complained to warders of angina which he could only relieve with nitroglycerine, occasional loss of consciousness, acute elevation of the pulse, reflex pain in the left arm, pain in the eyes, and extremely high blood pressure. On 28 March 2006 he was transferred to the therapy ward of the Kursk Regional prison hospital, where he remained for two months with his state being considered moderately severe. The prison doctors’ diagnosis was: “coronary artery disease, recurrent myocardial infarction, extensive transmural", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7314", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant, an Uzbekistani national of Uzbek ethnic origin, was born in 1953 and currently lives in Moscow.\n11.  Between 1953 and 2002 the applicant lived in Uzbekistan. From 2002 to 2008 he lived in Kyrgyzstan. He moved back to Uzbekistan in 2008 and lived there until 2010.\n12.  According to the applicant, he is not a member of any political or religious organisations.\n13.  On 30 May 2010 the applicant left Tashkent, Uzbekistan, and arrived in Moscow on a business trip.\n14.  Meanwhile, on 6 March 2009 the Osh City Prosecutor’s Office of Kyrgyzstan opened criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 166 § 3 (2) of the Criminal Code of Kyrgyzstan (large-scale fraud).\n15.  On 20 March 2009 the statement of charges against the applicant was issued.\n16.  On 27 March 2009 the Osh City Court of Kyrgyzstan decided that the applicant should be remanded in custody.\n17.  On 28 March 2009 the applicant’s name was put on a cross-border wanted list.\n18.  On 13 July 2010 the chief investigator of the investigation department of the Gidzhuvanskiy District Department of the Interior, in the Bukhara Region, Uzbekistan, opened criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 168 § 3 (a) of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan for fraud.\n19.  On 13 September 2010, charges were brought against the applicant. On the same date the applicant’s name was put on a cross-border wanted list.\n20.  On 14 September 2010 the Gidzhuvanskiy District Court remanded the applicant in custody.\n21.  On 3 June 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police in Moscow as a person wanted by the Kyrgyzstani authorities, and placed in remand prison IZ-77/4.\n22.  On 4 June 2010 the Kuzminskiy Inter-District Prosecutor of Moscow ordered the applicant’s placement in custody with a view to extradition.\n23.  On 29 June and 20 July 2010 the Kuzminskiy Inter-District Prosecutor of Moscow interviewed the applicant. The applicant submitted that he was a national of Uzbekistan and that he frequently went to Russia on business. According to him, he had not applied for Russian citizenship, political asylum or refugee status. The applicant also stated that he was unaware that the Kyrgyzstani authorities were searching for him and confirmed that he would appear before the investigator as he had nothing to fear. The applicant added that, if extradited to Kyrgyzstan, he would not consider his criminal prosecution to be politically or religiously motivated.\n24.  On 12 July 2010 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Kyrgyzstan sent the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office a request for the applicant’s extradition to Kyrgyzstan. The request contained assurances that the applicant would not be expelled or extradited to a third State without the consent of the Russian authorities, that the applicant was being prosecuted for an ordinary criminal offence devoid of any political character or discrimination on any ground, that he would be prosecuted only for the offence for which he was being extradited and that he would be able to freely leave Kyrgyzstan after he had stood trial and served a sentence.\n25.  On 2 August 2010 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Kyrgyzstan submitted to its Russian counterpart certified copies of the decisions to initiate criminal proceedings against the applicant, to bring criminal charges against him, and to put him on the cross-border wanted list, as well as the court order to place him in custody, and an extract from the Criminal Code of Kyrgyzstan.\n26.  ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7315", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  On 23 July 1996 the applicant filed an administrative claim with the Bacău Local commission for the application of Law no. 112/1995 (“the local commission”) seeking to obtain restitution in kind of real estate (a building and its appurtenant land) located in Bacău at no. 6 Cuza-Vodă Street, in the limit of a one-third share of property.\n6.  By a decision of 20 February 1997 the local commission rejected the applicant’s claim on the ground that the property in question had been unlawfully nationalised by the State. Consequently, the procedure laid down in Law no. 112/1995 did not find its applicability, since it concerned only real estate that had undergone lawful nationalisation.\n7.  On 20 May 1998 the applicant brought court proceedings against the Bacău Inspectorate for Culture seeking to recover possession of the claimed share of real property.\n8.  By a final judgment of 24 January 2001 the Court of Appeal of Bacău rejected the action on the ground that the property had been nationalised based on the provision of the Decree-Law no. 119/1948, fact which had rendered it lawful.\n9.  On 21 May 2001 the applicant filed a new administrative claim (“notificare”) pursuant to a new restitution law, that is, Law no. 10/2001, with the Bacău Inspectorate for Culture, seeking the same property rights as in 1996.\n10.  On 22 June 2001 the Bacău Department for Culture, Cults and Cultural Heritage (the new title of the Bacău Inspectorate for Culture, “the Department for Culture” thereon) issued a negative answer, drawn up in general terms. Consequently, the applicant brought a court action on 18 June 2002 seeking to obtain a court order to force the Department of Culture to issue a proper official answer to her claim.\n11.  On 14 January 2004 the County Court of Bacău allowed the action and ruled that the concerned authority was under the obligation to issue a “decision” which should, according to Article 23 of Law no. 10/2001, indicate the possibility of restitution in kind, and propose measures of compensation by equivalent where such restitution was not possible. The court stated that the answer issued in June 2001 failed to satisfy legal requirements. The judgment became final on 11 November 2005 before the High Court of Cassation and Justice.\n12.  On 29 April 2004 the Department for Culture complied with the court order and issued a decision whereby it rejected the restitution claim. It held that restitution in kind was not possible and that the applicant was entitled to compensation according to restitution laws.\n13.  On 19 May 2004, the decision was contested in court.\n14.  Separately, two of the applicant’s uncles (the three of them claimed ownership rights in common for the same real estate) brought civil proceedings seeking restitution in kind of the same property, in the limit of a two-third share of property. The restitution claim was allowed by the Court of Appeal of Suceava by its decision of 1 March 2004, which ordered that two thirds of the real property be returned to the claimants as lawful owners. The decision became final on 15 September 2006 before the High Court of Cassation and Justice.\n15.  On 8 June 2005 the County Court of Bacău decided to stay the proceedings until the ones brought by the applicant’s uncles had been finalised.\n16.  On 11 April 2007 the legal process was resumed on the applicant’s request (filed on 20 February 2007).\n17.  On 1 November 2007 the Co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7316", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Kurgan Region.\n5.  He was arrested on 26 February 2009 in the town of Izhevsk on suspicion of drug trafficking.\n6.  The applicant suffers from heroin addiction, chronic infectious endocariditis, tricuspid insufficiency and hepatitis C. From 27 February 2009 to 10 July 2010 he was detained in detention centre no. 18/1 in the Udmurtiya Region, and in hospitals for detainees.\n7.  On 16 April 2009 the applicant sought release, referring to a deterioration in his health and the unavailability of medical assistance in the detention facility, which, in his submission, would lead to his death. He also claimed that he required urgent surgery. The investigator in charge of the criminal case dismissed the application for release, considering that before his arrest the applicant had had “enough time to obtain adequate medical care in the town of Perm as regards heart surgery”.\n8.  On 23 April 2009 the Industrialniy District Court of Izhevsk examined the investigator’s request for the extension of the applicant’s detention. The court examined the defence’s arguments concerning his state of health, and concluded that they were insufficient grounds for dismissing the request since it had not been established that the applicant’s medical condition was incompatible with detention.\n9.  Another extension request was examined on 16 July 2009. The court granted it, having concluded that there were no impediments to the applicant’s detention in a remand centre; the applicant’s medical condition, in itself, did not require release because the applicant had been, and continued to be, provided with medical care in detention. The nature of the treatment and compliance with it were not specified.\n10.  While still in detention, the applicant was admitted to a hospital for treatment from 28 July to 20 August 2009 in connection with his chronic infectious endocarditis and tricuspid insufficiency.\n11.  The criminal case against the applicant was submitted for trial in the District Court. On 25 August 2009 the applicant asked the judge to order a forensic expert examination to determine whether he needed in-patient treatment or surgery, and whether he was fit to participate in the court hearings.\n12.  On the same day, the senior medical officer at the remand centre issued a certificate, indicating that the applicant’s medical condition was being monitored by the medical staff of the remand centre and no in-patient treatment in a hospital was required; a consultation by a cardiologist was to be provided “as scheduled”, or in the case of deterioration in the applicant’s medical condition.\n13.  Having regard to the above certificate, the judge dismissed the applicant’s request. The judge considered that, as confirmed by the applicant, his state of health was satisfactory; the attending doctor had also stated that the applicant was fit to take part in the proceedings; and that he was being provided with medical care. The nature of the treatment and compliance with it were not specified.\n14.  Apparently thereafter, the judge wrote to the administration of the remand centre where the applicant was then detained, requesting an opinion concerning the need for a forensic expert examination of the applicant by cardiologists and rheumatologists in order, eventually, to determine whether any surgery or hospitalisation was required; whether the applicant’s current state of health was compatible wit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7317", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1944, 1970 and 1946 respectively, and live in Sofia.\n6.  On 10 January 1997 a political rally took place in front of the Parliament building in Sofia, continuing until well after midnight. At one point, the rally turned violent and some protesters broke into the building. The police used force in order to disperse them.\n7.  At about 3 a.m. on 11 January 1997 the applicants, who were all in the first and second applicants’ flat, not far from the Parliament building, went outside to see what was happening, as they had heard on the radio that there had been some violence. They saw a group of police officers on the street armed with guns, batons, shields and helmets, who were running towards them.\n8.  The applicants hurried back into the first and second applicants’ apartment building, locking the front door after them. The police officers broke in and two of them chased the applicants to the top floor where they started beating them with batons. After several minutes they left.\n9.  As the applicants were too scared to go outside again, they waited until morning before going to see a doctor. The three of them had wounds to their heads and bruises on their backs and arms. The first and second applicants had their head wounds stitched and the third applicant, who had a broken finger, had his hand fixed with a splint and bandaged.\n10.  On 22 January 1997 the applicants were examined by forensic doctors. It was established that the first applicant had three head wounds, one of which had been treated by a surgeon, and numerous bruises on the back, left shoulder and left arm. The second applicant had a head wound and the third applicant had a broken finger and bruises on the neck and the right arm. The doctors found that the applicants’ injuries were the result of having been beaten with hard objects, and could have been inflicted at the time and in the way the applicants alleged.\n11.  On 22 and 23 January 1997 the first and second applicants lodged a complaint about the incident with the National Investigation Service, supported by copies of their medical records.\n12.  On 20 January 1997, upon a request by the mayor of Sofia and instructions from the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Sofia Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation in respect of the actions of the police during the rally.\n13.  During the course of the proceedings the prosecutors interviewed all the police officers who had been on duty during the rally and more than four-hundred participants. Several members of parliament and other politicians who had been inside the Parliament building during the rally were also interviewed. The prosecution collected documentary evidence, photos and video recordings.\n14.  On 9 November 1999, a prosecutor from the Sofia Regional Military Prosecutor’s Office decided that the criminal proceedings should be discontinued. He observed that around 1 a.m. on 11 January 1997, when the tensions in front of Parliament had escalated, the police had injured participants in the rally using their batons. However, the individual perpetrators could not be identified. In addition, it appeared that the police had acted in self-defence and with the aim of defending the life, physical integrity and possessions of others. No evidence had been collected to suggest that the officers had the authority of their superiors to use force.\n15.  A list of eighty-five participants reported to have sustained injuries", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7318", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lived until his arrest in the city of Velikiy Novgorod, Novgorod Region.\n6.  On 30 October 2008 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant. The prosecution authorities suspected that, having organised a criminal group and made threats of violence, the applicant had committed two counts of aggravated extortion.\n7.  In July 2009 an investigator issued a bill of indictment and a warrant for the applicant’s arrest. The applicant was placed on an international list of wanted persons because the authorities believed that he had left Russia. That assumption was based on the impossibility, on a number of occasions, to summon the applicant to a prosecutor’s office. He could not be found at the place of his permanent registration or any other known place of residence.\n8.  On 4 August 2009 the Novgorod Town Court, in his absence, authorised the applicant’s placement in custody on the grounds that the charges against him were very serious and that there was strong reason to believe that he had left his place of residence and fled Russia in 2007 in an attempt to abscond from the investigation and trial. There was evidence that the applicant intended to remain on the run and carefully hid any information which could disclose his whereabouts. The court also noted that several victims and witnesses had complained to the investigating authorities that acquaintances of the applicant had tried to convince them, either by threats or incentives, to make statements in his favour. The applicant’s lawyer objected to the decision, arguing that the applicant was undergoing in-patient treatment in Armenia and was not fit to travel to Russia. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Novgorod Regional Court, which found the Town Court’s reasoning well-founded.\n9.  On 27 August 2010, having learnt that the applicant was in Armenia, the deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation dealing with the case sent a letter to the relevant deputy Prosecutor General of Armenia, seeking the applicant’s arrest and extradition. Two weeks later, the Armenian authorities granted that request and on 24 September 2010 the applicant was apprehended and placed in the Nubarashen detention facility, where he remained until his extradition to Russia on 22 October 2010.\n10.  On 30 October 2010, as the applicant was suffering from a serious heart disease and there had been a deterioration in his state of health, he was admitted to the Gaaza Federal prison hospital in the Leningrad Region. Having suffered a stroke in the night of 24 November 2010, the applicant was transferred to the resuscitation unit of the hospital.  On the following day, after release from the resuscitation unit, he was served with the bill of indictment in the presence of one of his lawyers.\n11.  The applicant’s lawyers lodged a complaint with the St. Petersburg Oktyabrskiy District Court about the investigator’s decision to serve the applicant with the bill of indictment in a hospital in disregard of his poor state of health and his being under the influence of strong sedatives.\n12.  On 10 December 2010 the District Court dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence that the applicant’s defence rights had been violated. The court noted that the applicant’s attending doctor had consented to the service of the bill of indictment, considering the applicant’s health to be satisfactory, and that a lawyer had been present to assist the applicant when it was serve", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7319", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company was established in 1998 and has its seat in Michalovce.\n5.  On 14 August 2001 the Malacky Police Office of the Regional Transport Inspectorate instituted criminal proceedings following an accident involving a lorry belonging to the applicant company. The applicant company joined a claim for compensation in respect of damage caused by the accident.\n6.  On 5 September 2001 a prosecutor of the Bratislava IV District Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of 14 August 2001. The prosecutor ordered to proceed and establish the damage to the lorry and the goods transported.\n7.  By a decision of 17 October 2002 the Bratislava Regional Directorate of the Police charged the lorry driver with the offence of endangering others under the influence of alcohol.\n8.  On 6 December 2002 the applicant company complained to the District Prosecutor’s Office about delays in the criminal proceedings.\n9.  On 3 January 2003 the prosecutor of the District Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant company of the course of the proceedings.\n10.  In August 2004 and May and June 2008 the applicant company complained to the Minister of the Interior and the Police General Directorate that the criminal proceedings had been delayed. The Police General Directorate acknowledged by two letters of July 2008 that the delays in the criminal investigation had been partly attributable to the police.\n11.  Between October 2002 and January 2006 the police investigator, according to the prosecutor’s instruction, gathered evidence necessary to establish damage and to identify the aggrieved party.\n12.  On 13 January 2006 the applicant company complained to the Office of the Prosecutor General that the investigation had been delayed and the District Prosecutor’s Office, who was in charge of supervising the investigator, had been inactive.\n13.  On 26 January 2006 a prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General informed the applicant company that the complaint would be dealt with by the Bratislava Regional Prosecutor’s Office.\n14.  By a letter of 10 February 2006 a prosecutor of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant company of the course of the investigation and confirmed that the proceedings had been delayed. He stated that the delays had been caused mainly by the police conducting investigation and that the prosecutor supervising the investigation had used all means possible to eliminate shortcomings in the proceedings.\n15.  On 20 February 2006 the applicant company complained to the Office of the Prosecutor General about the reaction of the Regional Prosecutor’s Office to its complaint.\n16.  On 24 April 2006 the Office of the Prosecutor General advised the applicant company that both subordinate levels of the Public Prosecution Service had acted lawfully and no reasons for taking measures against their conduct had been found. It accordingly set the complaint aside and informed the applicant company that the course of the proceedings would be monitored by the Office of the Prosecutor General in order to complete the investigation in due time.\n17.  According to the summary of the course of the proceedings by the Police General Directorate of July 2008, between 4 December 2007 and 16 May 2008 the investigator repeatedly summoned the representative of the applicant company to hear him. The summons could not be served since he had not collected them or he had not appeared before the investigator despite having been informed of them during", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7322", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and is detained in prison no. 9 in Pruncul, Republic of Moldova.\n6.  On 22 September 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and taken to the Centru police station in Chişinău. He was healthy and did not have any injuries.\n7.  According to the applicant, he was beaten up at the police station to make him confess to a crime which he had not committed. He was then placed in a cell and denied medical assistance.\n8.  At midnight on the same date the applicant was again beaten by a police officer and the investigator in charge of his case. He was thrown to the ground and the officers kicked and punched him all over the body, while demanding a confession. The applicant was left in the cell unconscious and bleeding from the nose, mouth and ears.\n9.  The cell in which he was initially held had no furniture and there was no toilet. The applicant did not receive any food or water during his detention at the police station.\n10.  According to the applicant, on 23 September 2006 the applicant was to be transferred to the General Police Headquarters (“the GPH”). However, when the GPH officers discovered the extent of the applicant’s injuries they refused to accept the transfer. Police officers from the Centru police station then escorted him to a hospital where they spoke to doctors and obtained a certificate from them. The applicant did not see the certificate and was not seen by the doctors before it was issued.\n11.  According to the Government, the applicant was seen by a doctor at the emergency hospital on 23 September 2006. The doctor found bruises on the applicant’s body, as follows: contusion of tissue on his left elbow, contusion of soft tissue on the head and the cervical region and contusion of soft tissue of the thorax. The applicant underwent an X-ray examination. A traumatology doctor, a surgeon and a neurosurgeon examined the applicant, who was prescribed outpatient treatment.\n12.  After being seen by the emergency doctor on 23 September 2006, the applicant was transported back to the GPH and admitted. He claims that he did not even receive a slice of bread until 24 September 2006. Also on 24 September 2006 the applicant was brought before prosecutor C. and complained to him that he had been ill-treated. According to the applicant, the investigator asked C. to request a court order for the applicant’s detention for thirty days. However, C. considered that were the applicant to be brought before an investigating judge, the latter would inquire about the applicant’s injuries and insist on the prosecution of those responsible. That is why he decided to release the applicant, in the hope that he would not complain of ill-treatment.\n13.  After his release the applicant went directly to the Centru district prosecutor’s office and waited for C. to return. The applicant asked to be examined by a forensic doctor to confirm the existence and seriousness of the injuries on his body. C. refused to issue such an order until 26 September 2006. On that day the applicant visited a forensic doctor, who found injuries on the applicant’s body, as follows: two haematomas on the nose covered with a red crust measuring 0.3 x 0.1 cm and 0.5 x 0.3 cm respectively and a cyan-red haematoma measuring 1.3 x 0.4 cm; haemorrhage in the tissue of both lips with raw skin covered with a white substance; pronounced oedema of the left elbow, limited movement due to pain; cyan-violet-yellow haematomas on various parts of th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7324", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant was born in 1970 in Lebanon. The second applicant, his wife, was born in 1971 in Kuwait. The third and the fourth applicants, who are children of the first and second applicants, were born in 1991 and 1993 respectively in Lebanon. The fifth applicant, who is also a child of the first and second applicants, was born in 2002 in Bulgaria. All of the applicants currently live in Sofia, Bulgaria.\n8.  All of the applicants, except for the fifth one, who acquired Bulgarian nationality by virtue of being born on Bulgarian soil, are stateless.\n9.  On an unspecified date the first, second, third and fourth applicants came to Bulgaria. On 11 September 2001 the first applicant requested asylum. On 20 September 2001 the second, third and fourth applicants also requested asylum. In two decisions of 6 November 2001 the State Refugees Agency granted refugee status to all of them. The applicants did not provide any information about the reasons underlying the Agency’s decisions.\n10.  In 2002 the first and second applicants set up a limited liability company.\n11.  On 10 February 2006 the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ National Security Service made an order for the first applicant’s expulsion on the ground that he represented a serious threat to national security. He also barred him from residing in Bulgaria and entering its territory for a period of ten years. The order relied on section 42 of the Aliens Act 1998 (see paragraph 36 below). No factual grounds were given. The order went on to say that the first applicant was to be detained until it could be enforced, in line with section 44(6) of the same Act (see paragraph 46 below). Lastly, it stated that it was subject to appeal before the Minister of Internal Affairs, but not subject to judicial review, as provided by section 46(2)(3) of the Act, and that it was immediately enforceable, in accordance with section 44(4)(3) of the Act (see paragraphs 37 and 39 below).\n12.  The order was based on a classified proposal of 27 January 2006. The proposal, an excerpt of which was provided by the Government in the proceedings before the Court, stated that the first applicant had been subjected to surveillance in connection with information that three persons of Arab origin who had no identification documents and had contacts with representatives of Palestinian and Lebanese extremist organisations from southern Lebanon were residing in Burgas. The proposal also stated that in 2002 the first applicant had organised a drug trafficking channel from Brazil through western Europe to Bulgaria. It referred to the interception at Sofia Airport on 12 September 2002 of a shipment which originated from Sao Paulo, was addressed to the applicant, and contained 8.64 kilograms of almost one hundred per cent pure cocaine. A criminal investigation had been opened into this matter. The proposal went on to say that, having failed to complete that transaction, the first applicant had “not given up his attempts to find a quick way of making money”. There existed operative information that in 2005 he had tried to organise the shipment of 300 kilograms of cocaine from Brazil to the Netherlands. It had also been established that he was a member of an international gang engaging in the forgery of securities, frauds, and criminal banking operations. There was information that he had contacts with Bulgarian and foreign nationals residing in Bulgaria, as well as with persons from England, Germany, the Net", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7325", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  On 11 September 2000, at about 7 p.m., the applicant became involved in an animated dispute, of unclear background, with four plain-clothed police officers. After certain disputed incidents, three of them handcuffed him, banged his head against the bonnet of his car and then started to kick him. Subsequently he was committed to the Budapest VIII District Police Department, where he alleges his beating continued; Sergeant P. also insulted him verbally. Thereupon he was locked up in a ward for several hours; later on he was taken to Honvéd Hospital for a medical check-up. The Department of Traumatology established that he had the following injuries: bruises on the back of the head and on both sides of the chest; multiple suffusions on the back; contusions of the renal region on both sides; contusion around the spleen.\n7.  The next day the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the police officers involved. On 30 June 2003 the Budapest Investigation Office discontinued the investigation. Relying on the opinion of forensic expert Dr M., the Office was satisfied that the lesions sustained by the applicant did not prove that he had been ill-treated.\n8.  Simultaneously, criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on charges of drunken driving and violence against an official. However, on 28 April 2005 he was acquitted.\n9.  In the ill-treatment case, the applicant filed a motion for private prosecution. On 12 October 2006 the Székesfehérvár District Court acquitted the police officers. The court dismissed the opinions of three private medical experts supporting the applicant’s version of the events, and accepted the version of the accused police officers, according to which the car driven by the applicant on the night of the events had created a traffic obstacle, he had been drunk, refused to abide by the instructions of the police officers and insulted them, and the injuries he had sustained had been caused by lawful coercion.\n10.  On 24 April 2008 the Győr Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, arguing that the police measure was necessary and proportionate. It held inter alia as follows:\n“... [T]he private substitute prosecutor’s statement of serious and lasting ill-treatment could not be verified by any of the experts. They all, however, stated that the injuries [sustained] could result from the applicant’s resistance to the coercive measure and the fact that he had need to be forced down on the ground.”\n11.  In the context of the incident, the applicant also brought an official liability action against the Budapest Police Department, the Attorney General’s Office and other respondents.\nOn 28 January 2008 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the claim. On appeal, on 18 November 2008 the Budapest Court of Appeal reversed this judgment and ordered each of the two main respondents to pay the applicant 500,000 Hungarian forints[1] as compensation for having unlawfully prosecuted him for drunken driving and for violence against an official. Without addressing the issue of the alleged police brutality, the Court of Appeal established that there had been irregularities concerning the measuring of the applicant’s level of blood alcohol, noted that it had not been sufficiently clarified if he had been in the act of driving at all, and found that his conduct had not been proven to have physically countered the police measure in question.\nOn 29 March 2010 the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7326", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Sinaia.\n7.  In February and March 2005 the applicant, a journalist and editorial director of the weekly magazine Ziar de Sinaia, wrote four articles about the director of the town’s public hospital, Dr C.P., complaining about his managerial technique, the alleged intimidation into silence of the hospital’s doctors, the closure of the intensive care department – allegedly because he had harassed the doctor previously in charge of that department – and about his attempts to obtain social housing despite not meeting the requirements. Dr C.P.’s connections to the Social Democratic Party (PSD) were also a point of criticism, as the applicant wrote that politically favoured managers were “moulded from the same dough as Doctor Mengele” (plămada din care era construit şi doctorul Mengele).\n8.  Some of the terms employed by the applicant regarding Dr C.P., as noted by the domestic court, read as follows: “an arrogant person, sure of himself, who talks in a low voice with a superior smile”; “prone to intimate behaviour commonly considered strange”; someone who “pretended that he did not know how big his wife’s fortune was”; “who pulled many strings to become director”; who “aspires to the title of the most dreadful social climber in Sinaia” (“aspiră la titlul de cel mai incrâncenat parvenit din Sinaia”); and who “started a campaign of terror against the former director, whom he verbally attacked for two years until he made her resign”. The applicant also accused Dr C.P. of having instituted “a law of silence” by nominating himself as the hospital’s spokesperson.\n9.  Dr. C.P. field a criminal complaint against the applicant, accusing him of defamation.\n10.  On 31 August 2005 the Sinaia District Court acquitted the applicant and dismissed the civil claims. It found that some of the applicant’s statements were value judgments concerning the plaintiff’s moral and professional standing. As for the statements of fact, the court considered that the applicant had proved their veracity. The court also considered that the applicant’s statements had corresponded to a pressing social need and had been proportionate to the aim pursued. As for the civil action, the court noted that the applicant had not committed an unlawful act capable of triggering his civil liability. It held as follows:\n“The court considers that ... the applicant’s deed was not unlawful, as he was merely exercising his freedom of expression, a subjective right guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution and one of the fundamental freedoms protected by the European Convention on Human Rights in its Article 10.”\nLastly, the court considered that the applicant had acted with a view to informing the public on matters of public concern and had not had the intention to defame the victim.\n11.  On 11 November 2005 the Prahova County Court quashed the District Court’s decision in part. It upheld the applicant’s acquittal but nevertheless ordered him, together with the newspaper, to pay 6,000 Romanian Lei (RON) in damages under Articles 998-999 of the Civil Code. He was also ordered to pay court fees of RON 60 to the State and RON 5,500 to the victim.\n12.  The court considered that the terms used by the applicant in his articles had infringed the victim’s honour and reputation, noting that the victim was a public figure and had therefore suffered damage as a result of the articles. It based its decision on the evidence in the file and the oral submiss", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7327", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Vladikavkaz. She is an entrepreneur who trades in reusable glass bottles. She used a trailer parked in a yard near her house to store those bottles.\n6.  On 16 October 2002 a Mr B. delivered glass bottles to the applicant. The delivery documents indicate that there were 34,000 bottles in total. He left the bottles packed in plastic bags in the yard near her house. The bags were loaded into the trailer by two people, Mr V.M. and Mr G.M.\n7.  On 17 October 2002 representatives of the municipality’s administration and the police impounded the applicant’s trailer on account of her failure to obtain a parking permit for it. The trailer was moved to an unsecured storage area for impounded property. No inventory of the trailer’s contents was made. The applicant was not present during the removal. She was later informed that her property would be released to her once she had paid the towing and storage charges.\n8.  Subsequently, the applicant found her trailer almost empty except for some broken glass. Those in charge of the storage area indicated that the bottles could have been stolen.\n9.  On 21 March 2003 the applicant brought an action for damages against the Prefecture of the Severo-Zapadniy Circuit of Vladikavkaz (“the prefecture”) on account of the loss of the bottles. The applicant argued that the loss of her property had resulted from the authorities’ negligence.\n10.  On 26 February 2004 the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 27 (Severo-Zapadniy Circuit) considered the applicant’s claim on the merits. The Justice of the Peace decided to hold the hearing in the absence of counsel for the prefecture, who had been duly notified of the date and time of the hearing and who chose not to attend. The Justice of the Peace allowed the claim and awarded the applicant 49,000 Russian roubles (RUB). The judgment came into force on 11 March 2004 and on 23 March 2004 the justice of the peace issued a writ of execution.\n11.  On 12 May 2004 the Justice of the Peace granted the prefecture leave to appeal. On 28 May 2004 the Sovetskiy District Court of Vladikavkasz upheld the decision of 12 May on appeal.\n12.  On 18 June 2004 the District Court quashed the judgment of 26 February 2004 and dismissed the applicant’s claim, noting that (1) the applicant had failed to furnish sufficient evidence to substantiate her allegations as to the exact number of bottles stored in the trailer and (2) the prefecture’s decision to seize the applicant’s trailer with the bottles in it had been lawful.\n13.  The court noted that none of the witnesses questioned, including Mr V.M. and Mr G.M., who had loaded the bottles into the trailer, Mr G., an employee of the storage area, and Mr D., a policeman who had been present during the removal of the trailer, could specify the exact number of bottles stored in the trailer. They merely stated that the trailer had been completely packed with bottles. Besides, the court established, after measuring the volume of the trailer and that of a plastic bag containing fifty bottles, that the trailer’s capacity could not exceed 555 bags, whereas the applicant claimed that there had been 680 bags in the trailer.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7328", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Szeged.\n6.  On 8 June 2000 the applicant, an adherent of the religious denomination Hit Gyülekezete (Congregation of the Faith), divorced from his wife, and their son, born in 1994, was placed with the mother. The applicant was granted access rights.\n7.  The applicant lodged a motion with the Szeged District Court to reclaim custody or have his access rights re-regulated. The two psychiatric opinions prepared in the course of the ensuing proceedings established that the father’s visits did not impose a burden on the child and suggested loose but regular contact between the applicant and his son. Nonetheless, the court rejected his request on 13 October 2003. Another similar motion of the applicant was also dismissed on 20 June 2004 by the same court, which stated that the child’s removal from his social environment would not be in his interest and that the applicant’s circumstances were not satisfactory for the upbringing of a child. Nonetheless, the court found that the applicant’s behaviour was not malicious towards his son and his access rights should not be withdrawn, as requested by the mother, on the ground of his religious devotion.\n8.  On 11 January 2006 the Szeged Guardianship Authority filed an action to have the child placed with his older brother, the mother having been considered unfit. In respect of a potential placement with the applicant, the Authority had regard to its observations that his heavy-handed proselytism vis-à-vis the son and his inadequate housing conditions represented a danger for the boy.\n9.  The Szeged District Court appointed an expert psychologist. In his opinion of 5 September 2006 the expert found, having examined the applicant, the mother, their son and his older brother, that the boy had strong emotional ties to his siblings and his mother but none to his father. According to the expert, the applicant held unrealistic educational ideas hallmarked by religious fanaticism which rendered him unfit to provide the son with a normal upbringing; indeed, he forced his beliefs on his son to an extent that it resulted in the latter’s alienation from him.\n10.  On 12 September 2006 the District Court placed the child with his brother, but maintained the applicant’s access rights. This decision was upheld by the Csongrád County Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, on 2 October 2006.\n11.  Subsequently the brother filed an action against the applicant seeking deprivation of his access rights.\n12.  The District Court appointed an expert psychologist. In his opinion of 14 September 2007 the expert submitted, after examining the brother and the son – but not the applicant –, that the applicant’s participation in the boy’s life was harmful, notably because of his insistence on proselytism. He was of the view that the applicant was unfit to contribute to the son’s normal development and that the applicant should be subjected to examination by an expert psychiatrist. He suggested that the applicant’s access rights should be removed altogether, because his visits – which went beyond the authorised occasions – were of a vexatious nature and harmful for the child.\n13.  The District Court then gave judgment and removed the applicant’s access rights altogether. Relying essentially on the expert’s opinion, it held that his vexatious and harmful appearances in his son’s life amounted to an abuse of his access rights and seriously endangered the child’s development ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7329", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Siedlce.\n6.  In 2000 he was diagnosed with paraplegia. He is in a wheelchair and suffers from serious malfunctions of the urethral and anal sphincters and other ailments.\n7.  The applicant was tried in a number of criminal proceedings and sentenced to a total of eight years’ imprisonment.\n8.   The applicant was arrested on 7 January 2001 and was initially committed to Siedlce Prison.\n9.  On 11 January 2001 he was transferred to the surgical and orthopaedic ward of the Warszawa-Mokotów Remand Centre hospital, where he underwent medical examinations and treatment.\n10.  From 15 January to 28 February 2001 he was detained in the general wing of Warszawa-Mokotów Remand Centre.\n11.  On 28 February 2001 the applicant was granted a six month period of leave in the enforcement of his sentence (przerwa). He was taken home by ambulance.\n12.  The licence for this temporary release was extended for a further six months in August 2001. It was subsequently extended on 3 August 2001 until 28 February 2002, after which date the applicant failed to return to prison. On 20 May 2002, however, he was granted a further extension until 28 August 2002.\n13.  In August 2002 the Siedlce Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) refused to extend the applicant’s licence again, finding that he was fit for detention. An appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed by the Warsaw Court of Appeal. Following the expiry of the licence, the applicant again chose not to return to prison.\n14.  On 15 April 2003 the applicant was granted another extension until 15 June 2003. Again, he failed to return to prison after that date.\n15.  On 1 September 2003 the applicant was arrested, taken to Siedlce Prison by prison bus and placed in a single-occupancy cell (a so‑called “infirmary cell”). During the transfer to the prison, the applicant was seated in his immobilised wheelchair, leaning against the back of the bus.\n16.   The applicant was not offered any fresh incontinence pads on his arrival in Siedlce Prison, and had to use the ones which he had managed to take with him at the time of his arrest. The prison did not provide him with fresh catheters.\n17.  On 3 September 2003 the applicant was transferred by prison bus to Warszawa-Mokotów Remand Centre. During the transfer he was seated in an immobilised wheelchair, but according to his submissions he had to hold on to the handrails for stability throughout the transfer. During the journey, the catheter which he had been using since his arrest broke and began to leak.\n18.  Upon his arrival at the remand centre hospital, the applicant was placed alone in a cell measuring about 7.5 square metres with two double bunk beds. In the applicant’s submission, which was not contested by the Government, the cell walls and ceiling were dirty and the toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell.\n19.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant was placed in another, cleaner cell where the toilet had been separated from the rest of the cell by a narrow partition. The applicant had to rely on the help of his fellow inmates, who heaved him onto the toilet so that he could change his incontinence pad and helped him to access the washbasin for daily hygiene. When taking a shower in the remand centre’s bathhouse, the applicant sat on a stool placed under the showerhead. He submitted that, on one occasion, he had fallen off the stool and had had to continue taking the shower while lying on the floor, unassisted by anyo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7330", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Ialoveni.\n6.  At the time of the events the applicant was serving a prison sentence in an open detention facility in Goian. During the day he worked outside the prison, returning to it at night. On 18 November 2005 he applied for home leave but his application was refused. However, in spite of the refusal he did not return to the prison that evening but spent the night at his parents’ home in the neighbouring town of Ialoveni.\n7.  On 19 November 2005, at approximately 9 a.m., the applicant went to a pharmacy to buy medication for back pain. On his way home, at approximately 10 a.m., a red car stopped in front of him. According to the applicant’s statement, a police officer got out of the car, punched him in the face and then pushed him into the car, whereupon he lost consciousness. The Government did not confirm this allegation but admitted that it could be one possibility among many.\n8.  Meanwhile, at approximately 9.30 a.m., two police officers arrived at the home of the applicant’s parents. They searched the house and asked the applicant’s mother about his whereabouts. While there, one of the officers received a telephone call and informed his caller that he was at the applicant’s house. Later he received another telephone call which lasted only some five seconds, from which the applicant’s mother understood that her son had allegedly been found by the police. The two police officers left immediately. The applicant’s mother followed them for a while and implored them not to beat up her son. They then came across a neighbour who knew the police officers, and who asked why they were there. The police officers replied that they were looking for criminals, and when the neighbour asked if they had found them, the police officers replied in the affirmative.\n9.  On 20 November 2005, at approximately 11 a.m., two men found the applicant lying on the ground near a pond located approximately 1.5 kilometres from Ialoveni. The applicant could not speak or walk, he had facial injuries consistent with the results of a violent assault and his clothes were wet and dirty. He was carried to a security guards’ lodge located nearby where he was warmed up and his clothes dried. Some time later he began to respond to some questions put to him and to display signs of strange behaviour. In particular, he stated his own name and also from time to time shouted out a name which later transpired to be that of his brother. The applicant also began eating mud, which made the people who had found him think that he was under the influence of drugs. The applicant was given a coat and a pair of boots and then he set off, on foot, towards Ialoveni. The applicant’s mother disputed the statement that the applicant had made the journey by himself and submitted that the people who found him had thought that he was a drug addict and had sent him out of doors instead of calling an ambulance.\n10.  On 21 November 2005 the same people found the applicant again, lying some thirty metres from their lodge. They called an ambulance and the applicant was taken to hospital.\n11.  On 21 November 2005 at approximately 4.30 p.m. the applicant’s family received a telephone call from a hospital in Chişinău and was informed that the applicant had been admitted in a critical condition.\n12.  The next day the applicant’s parents visited him at the hospital and learned from him that he had been beaten up by police officers and left lying on the b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7331", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lived in Plovdiv.\n9.  At the relevant time the applicant was the head of the criminal police force in one of the districts of Plovdiv. On 15 September 1999 his superior ordered an internal inquiry against him and a search of his office in connection with his alleged failure to note down a complaint concerning a serious offence.\n10.  On 24 September 1999 three police officers searched the applicant’s office, including his safe. They made a record of almost all the items found in the safe and seized them, despite the applicant’s protests that some of those items – jewellery and money – were his and his family’s personal belongings which he kept in the safe because he was afraid to leave them at home. The officers refused to give the applicant a copy of the record. It is unclear whether it was presented to him for signature.\n11.  On 14 February 2000 a criminal investigation was instituted in respect of the applicant on suspicion of helping offenders to evade justice and abusing his office on numerous occasions between 1997 and 1999. The Government submit, without giving further particulars as to dates, that in the course of the proceedings the authorities interviewed a total of one hundred and forty‑five witnesses; some of them had to be interviewed by delegation and some even abroad, by way of letters rogatory.\n12.  On 12 June 2000 the proceedings were stayed because it was found that one witness had gone into hiding and because four other witnesses who were Greek and Turkish nationals had to be interviewed by way of letters rogatory. It appears that by that time, most other witnesses had already given evidence.\n13.  In the following months the applicant made two requests for the return of the items seized from the safe. The prosecuting authorities refused, saying that those items had to be retained as real evidence in the case. In November 2000 the applicant enquired why the investigation had been stayed.\n14.  The proceedings were resumed on 15 November 2002. They were again stayed between 11 April and 8 May 2003 in order to establish the whereabouts of two witnesses.\n15.  On 14 May 2003 the applicant was charged with ordering, on ninety‑four occasions, his subordinates not to note down reports of criminal activity, thus preventing the prosecution of offenders. This had amounted to a breach of his duties and abuse of office. He was interviewed on 28 May and 9 and 16 June 2003.\n16.  On 7 July 2003 the investigator in charge of the case decided to split the investigation against the applicant in two: one investigation for abuse of office and another for helping offenders to evade justice.\n17.  In the following months, acting within the context of the latter investigation, the investigator interviewed the applicant, his son and wife, an acquaintance of the applicant, the officers who had carried out the search in the applicant’s office, other police officers, and three persons who had previously been victims of offences. His questions concerned, inter alia, the origin of the items found in the safe. The investigator also ordered the Plovdiv police to interview twenty‑four alleged offenders whose offences the applicant was being suspected of having covered up. The investigator in addition organised two confrontations between the applicant and one of the police officers who had carried out the search in his office. On 12 November 2003 the investigator asked two of the persons who had previously been vict", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7332", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is serving a prison sentence in the Chelyabinsk Region.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on 13 March 2001 on suspicion of having murdered his aunt. He refused to testify until legal-aid counsel had been appointed.  On 16 March 2001 he was also accused of having unlawfully deprived Mr P. of his liberty. He subsequently retained Mr M. as counsel in the proceedings. Thereafter, the applicant refused Mr M.’s services for unspecified reasons.  On an unknown date legal-aid counsel D. was appointed to defend the applicant. The applicant and his co-accused were charged with fraud, abduction and several counts of murder. The applicant studied the case file between October and December 2001.\n7.  In December 2001 the case was sent to the Chelyabinsk Regional Court for trial. The applicant’s request for trial by jury was rejected. A professional judge and two lay judges (Ms G. and Ms Y.) were assigned to try the case.\n8.  Throughout the proceedings the applicant was kept in detention. The trial court extended his detention on several occasions. The applicant appealed, alleging that the lay judges had been sitting in his case unlawfully because, contrary to the statutory requirement of the Lay Judges Act, they had served as lay judges more than once a year between 1998 and 2002. The Supreme Court of Russia dismissed appeals lodged by the applicant against the detention orders. In particular, on 22 November 2002 the Supreme Court upheld an order of 1 October 2002 by the presiding judge and the lay judges extending the detention. The appeal court stated as follows:\n“It appears from a note submitted by the Regional Court that new lists of lay judges in the region had not yet been compiled when the [applicant’s] trial date was set ...”\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant retained Mr Zh. as his counsel in the criminal proceedings.\n10.  The examination of the case started in February 2003. At the court hearing on 13 February 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully objected to the participation of the lay judges in his case and asked for trial by jury. Later on, for unspecified reasons, Ms Y. was replaced by Ms Ch. on the bench of the trial court.\n11.  On 18 February 2003 the presiding judge ordered counsel Zh. to be replaced on account of illness. From 20 February 2003 the applicant was assisted by legal-aid counsel Z. It appears that at certain stages in the proceedings the applicant was assisted by legal-aid counsel P. The trial court refused to admit a Ms K. as a lay representative.\n12.  By a judgment of 24 April 2003 the trial court (the presiding judge and lay judges Ms G. and Ms Ch.) convicted the applicant of several offences (fraud, abduction, extortion, theft and several counts of murder) and sentenced him to twenty-two years’ imprisonment.\n13.  The last day of the trial was apparently broadcast and commented upon by local television in April, August and September 2003.\n14.  The applicant appealed against the trial court’s judgment to the Supreme Court of Russia. He argued, inter alia, that Z. had failed to lodge a statement of appeal “despite an earlier promise to do so” and that the composition of the trial court had been unlawful. The prosecutor also appealed against the trial court’s judgment.\n15.  On 19 September 2003 the applicant made submissions before the appeal court by video link. According to the applicant, the appeal hearing lasted seven minutes, while the deliberations took only two minutes. The a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7333", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Lereşti.\n8.  On 5 November 1992 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having murdered his father.\n9.  By a judgment delivered by the Argeş County Court on 24 September 1993, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to twenty‑seven years’ imprisonment.\n10.  He served his sentence mainly in Colibaşi Prison.\n11.  On 14 December 2005 he was released from prison.\n12.  On 3 December 1998 prison guards S.N. and L.D. carried out a search in the applicant’s cell following his self-intoxication with medicines.\n13.  As stated in the prosecutor’s decision of 29 June 1999, on 9 December 1998 the applicant claimed that certain personal objects had been stolen. Prison guards S.N. and L.D went into his cell. The applicant accused them of stealing four boxes of coffee during the search. As he became aggressive, prison guard S.N. immobilised and repeatedly hit him with a truncheon in order to calm him down. However, instead of calming down he became more aggressive, so he was handcuffed and taken to cell no. 57. This version of events was not contested by the applicant.\n14.  On the same day, prison guard S.N. drafted a report stating that he had been forced to use a truncheon against the applicant because of his aggressive behaviour.\n15.  On 17 December 1998 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Argeş Forensic Laboratory. The forensic report drafted after the examination stated that the applicant had been hit with a hard object, probably on 9 December 1998, causing him injuries that needed eight or nine days of medical treatment. It noted the existence of an ecchymosed yellow‑purplish zone on his hip and his left thigh, as well as a one‑centimetre‑long scratch on his left fist. As a result of the aggression, his tympanum was broken.\n16.  On 23 December 1998 the applicant filed a criminal complaint concerning the incident with the Bucharest Military Prosecutor’s Office (Parchetul Militar Bucureşti).\n17.  The chief doctor of Colibaşi prison gave a statement on 13 January 1999. He stated that the applicant had been involved in the incident of 9 December 1998 because of his mental illness. The applicant and S.N. were questioned on 19 January 1999.\n18.  On 14 June 1999 a criminal investigation was initiated against prison guard S.N. for abusive behaviour.\n19.  Two of the applicant’s co-detainees were heard by the investigating prosecutor. They stated that the applicant had been repeatedly hit by prison guard S. N. Two other prison guards stated that the use of force by their colleague S.N. had been brought on by the applicant’s violent behaviour.\n20.  In his written statement, S.N. admitted that he had used the truncheon with excessive force to calm the applicant down, without previously trying to use other means.\n21.  On 29 June 1999 the military prosecutor decided to discontinue the investigation against prison guard S.N. and ordered him to pay an administrative fine amounting to one million Romanian lei (“RON”), equivalent to 30 United States Dollars (“USD”). The decision referred to the applicant’s medical condition and noted that agent S.N. had used the truncheon with excessive force and broken the applicant’s tympanum. However, taking into account the specificity of S.N.’s activity as a prison guard and the need to solve difficult situations in prison, it found that the acts committed by S.N. could not be classified as an offence.\n22.  According to the applicant, the military pro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7334", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Vienna.\n6.  The applicant started practising as a lawyer in 1984. In 1995 he and an Austrian bank (hereinafter “the bank”) entered into a trusteeship agreement in connection with real estate transactions.\n7.  One of the applicant’s tasks was to transfer 20,000,000 Austrian schillings (ATS, approximately 1,450,000 euros (EUR)), which he held as a trustee, to company X in exchange for a loan guarantee.\n8.  In a report dated 10 May 1996 the bank complained to the Vienna Bar Association (Rechtsanwaltskammer) that the applicant had transferred ATS 20,000,000 to company X, but had not handed over the guarantee, as was stipulated in the trusteeship agreement that he should do.\n9.  On 26 August 1996 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court opened preliminary investigations against the applicant on suspicion of embezzlement (Veruntreuung) as regards a breach of the trusteeship agreement with the bank.\n10.  On 21 October 1998 the applicant was formally charged with embezzlement for abusing his power under another trusteeship agreement. He was accused of paying out ATS 6,000,000 (approximately EUR 436,000) to a creditor of his clients without being instructed to do so, and of diverting ATS 8,500,000 (approximately EUR 618,000). These proceedings ended with the applicant’s acquittal on 12 January 2000.\n11.  During the trial and before the acquittal was pronounced, the public prosecutor had stated that he intended to reserve the applicant’s prosecution for breach of the trusteeship agreement with the bank regarding the transfer of ATS 20,000,000 in exchange for a loan guarantee.\n12.  On 7 July 2000 the applicant was charged with fraudulent conversion (Untreue) under Article 153 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetz­buch) in respect of the transfer of ATS 20,000,000. On 12 April 2002 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court convicted the applicant of fraudulent conversion and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court quashed the conviction for nullity on 16 October 2002.\n13.  On 5 February 2003 the Vienna Regional Criminal Court convicted the applicant again of fraudulent conversion under Article 153 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. It found that the applicant and the bank had concluded a trusteeship agreement on 31 August 1995 under which the bank was to provide a loan of ATS 20,000,000 to the applicant’s client, X, while the applicant was to provide the bank with a loan guarantee in the same amount. The General Conditions for Real Estate Transactions by Trustees applied to that agreement. The bank had transferred the money to the applicant’s account on 5 September 1995. Only two days later the applicant had transferred the entire amount to a savings account. In breach of the trusteeship agreement including the above-mentioned General Conditions, the applicant had transferred part of the sum to his client without obtaining a loan guarantee, and had invested the remainder abroad in the hope of achieving considerable profits. He had told the bank, which had set 31 December 1995 as the deadline for submitting the guarantee, that he would be able to obtain it by 15 February 1996. Although the bank had repeatedly requested the fulfilment of the trusteeship agreement or the reimbursement of the loan, and the applicant knew by then that his investments had been unsuccessful and that he no longer disposed of the entire amount, he continued to use the remaining money, for i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7335", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lived until his arrest in Vladimir.\n6.  On 23 October 2004 an investigator of the Vladimir prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated rape.\n7.  The applicant was arrested on 25 October 2004. The arrest record was issued at 8.20 p.m. on the same day. It did not indicate the grounds for the applicant’s arrest, save for a reference to Article 91 § 2 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant signed the arrest record, noting that he had been informed of his constitutional rights as an accused, including the right to remain silent and to be assisted by counsel. It appears that the investigator made a handwritten note in the arrest record, stating that the applicant had not been searched.\n8.  After the investigator had drawn up the arrest record, he began questioning the applicant in the presence of his lawyer, Mr Bagryanskiy. The record shows that the questioning started at 9.35 p.m. The record bears the applicant’s signature after the paragraph stating that he was informed of the nature of the accusations against him, namely, that he was suspected of having participated in a gang rape on 23 October 2004. He was informed that his car, in which the rape had allegedly taken place, had been seized. The applicant made a handwritten entry in the record, noting that he had decided to make use of his constitutional rights and would remain silent. The applicant’s counsel, Mr Bagryanskiy, wrote in the record that the applicant had not been provided with details surrounding the alleged criminal offence and that therefore the reasons for his arrest had not been explained to him.\n(a)  Authorisation of the pre-trial detention: detention order of 27 October 2004\n9.  On 27 October 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention, holding as follows:\n“[The applicant] is employed [and] has a permanent place of residence.\nHowever, he has a previous conviction; [the parties] did not provide the court with information showing that the criminal record had expired. [The applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious criminal offence against an individual; [the offence] is punishable by imprisonment. The victim identified [the applicant] as a perpetrator of the criminal offence against her. It follows that, if released, [the applicant] might influence the victim during the pre-trial and judicial investigation; therefore, the victim took part in the identification parade in conditions whereby [the applicant] was prevented from seeing [her].\nConsequently, the court accepts the motion of the senior investigator of the Vladimir prosecutor’s office to place [the applicant] in custody.”\n10.  The applicant’s lawyer appealed, arguing that the applicant had not been properly and promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest and that his detention was unlawful. Several days later the lawyer lodged an additional appeal, requesting the applicant’s release on bail or the application of an alternative, more lenient, measure of restraint. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the lawyer urged the Regional Court to take into account the appalling conditions of detention to which the applicant would be subjected. He also argued that the applicant had no criminal record and that the District Court had not had any information disputing that fact.\n11.  On 5 November 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the detention o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7336", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Tula.\n5.  The applicant was a victim of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. He was subsequently granted category 2 disabled status and became entitled to various social benefits.\n6.  On 23 January 2001 he lodged an action with the Tsentralniy District Court of Tula (“the District Court”) against the Department of the Interior of the Tula Region (his employer) for the adjustment of his monthly compensation payments for the damage to his health, and for the recovery of unpaid sums due to him.\n7.  The first hearing of the case was scheduled for 24 July 2001 but was cancelled because the judge was on leave.\n8.  On 23 October 2001 the applicant supplemented his claims. On the same date the District Court stayed the proceedings following a request by the Supreme Court filed with the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation for a review of the constitutionality of certain legal provisions determining the amount of compensation to be paid to Chernobyl victims.\n9.  The Constitutional Court ruled on the relevant issues on 19 June 2002.\n10.  On 28 August 2003 the proceedings were resumed.\n11.  On 6 October 2003 the hearing was adjourned at the respondent’s request as its representative was ill.\n12.  On 28 October 2003 the hearing was adjourned following a request by the respondent for third parties to be permitted to join the proceedings.\n13.  On 17 December 2003 the hearing was adjourned because both parties failed to appear.\n14.  On 10 February 2004 the applicant supplemented his claims.\n15.  12 February 2004 the hearing was adjourned because both parties failed to appear.\n16.  On 29 March 2004 the hearing was cancelled because the judge was ill.\n17.  The next hearings, scheduled for 19 May 2004 and 16 August 2004, were cancelled because the judge was involved in another unrelated set of proceedings.\n18.  On 18 October 2004 and 29 November 2004 the hearing was adjourned because the respondent failed to appear.\n19.  On 26 January 2005 and 18 March 2005 the hearing was postponed at the request of the respondent; the reasons have not been specified.\n20.  On 14 April 2005 the hearing was cancelled because the judge was on leave, and further postponed because the applicant was ill.\n21.  On 11 May 2005 and 24 May 2005 the applicant supplemented his claims.\n22.  The hearings of 8 June 2005 and 16 June 2005 were cancelled, respectively, in order for the judge to participate in a seminar and because he was ill.\n23.  The hearings of 21 September 2005 and 27 September 2005 were held as planned. The next hearing was scheduled for 30 September 2005.\n24.  By a decision of 30 September 2005 the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of another set of proceedings before the Constitutional Court of Russia in a case which was relevant to the determination of the applicant’s case.\n25.  On 4 October 2005 the Constitutional Court of Russia resolved that matter. Meanwhile, on 23 May 2006 and 6 June 2006 the applicant supplemented his claims.\n26.  On 23 June 2006 the proceedings were resumed and the hearing was scheduled for 11 September 2006, but was further postponed because of the judge’s involvement in other proceedings.\n27.  On 20 December 2006 the hearing was held as planned. The next hearing was scheduled for 17 January 2007.\n28.  On 17 January 2007 the hearing was held as planned.\n29.  On 18 January 2007 the District Court granted the applicant’s claims in part.\n30.  On 23 August 2007 the Tul", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7337", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant lives in the town of Polevskoy in the Sverdlovsk Region.\n5.  On 6 September 1999 the applicant lodged an action before the Polevskoy Town Court (“the Town Court”) against his employer, a municipal housing company, seeking wage arrears and compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage due to delays in the payment of his wages. The case was assigned to Judge U.\n6.  It appears that no hearings were held until 5 June 2000. Meanwhile, the applicant amended his claims and submitted additional evidence on two occasions. He also complained to the Sverdlovsk Regional Judicial Qualifications Board about inactivity on the part of Judge U.\n7.  On 5 June 2000, the Town Court adjourned the proceedings in order to allow the applicant to correct certain procedural defects in his claim.\n8.  On 5 September 2000 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court (“the Regional Court”), following a complaint by the applicant, quashed the decision of 5 June 2000 as unlawful and remitted the case to the Town Court for examination on the merits. The first hearing was scheduled for 22 January 2001. Meanwhile, the applicant amended his claims.\n9.   The hearing of 22 January 2001 was adjourned because of the judge’s involvement in other proceedings and the next hearing was listed for 28 March 2001.\n10.  The hearing of 28 March 2001 was postponed following an application by the applicant to have his claims amended.\n11.  The next hearing, scheduled for 15 May 2001, was adjourned at the respondent’s request.\n12.  The following hearing, listed for 8 November 2001, was adjourned because the respondent failed to appear.\n13.  Three hearings fixed for between 13 November 2001 and 17 December 2001 were adjourned at the respondent’s request.\n14.  The hearing of 17 December 2001 was cancelled owing to the judge’s involvement in other proceedings.\n15.  The next hearing, scheduled for 19 December 2001, was adjourned until 11 March 2002 at the applicant’s request, as he was going away.\n16.  Of four hearings scheduled for March and April 2002, one was adjourned at the respondent’s request.\n17.  The following hearing, scheduled for 14 June 2002, was adjourned until 4 November 2002 owing to the judge’s involvement in other proceedings.\n18.   Hearings scheduled for 4 and 5 November 2002 were cancelled because the applicant failed to appear, and on 5 November 2002 the Town Court decided to leave the applicant’s action unexamined because he had failed to appear at two hearings without providing any explanation for his absence. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, complaining that in fact he had not been summoned to the two hearings in question.\n19.  On 25 March 2003 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 5 November 2002, finding that there was no evidence that the applicant had been duly summoned to the hearings of 4 and 5 November 2002. The case was returned to Judge U. for an examination on the merits. The hearing was scheduled for 24 April 2003 and was held as planned.\n20.  The hearing scheduled for 19 May 2003 was adjourned until 20 May 2003 following a request by the applicant to study the case file.\n21.  The next three hearings, scheduled for between 20 May 2003 and 18 June 2003, were adjourned because the respondent failed to appear.\n22.  Hearings fixed for between 30 June 2003 and 2 October 2003 were cancelled owing to the judge’s involvement in other proceedings. For the same reason, no hearings were held during the periods 21 October 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7339", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lived until his arrest in Vladimir.\n6.  On 23 October 2004 an investigator of the Vladimir prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated rape.\n7.  The applicant was arrested at approximately 10 p.m. on 25 October 2004. The record did not indicate the grounds for the arrest, save for a reference to Article 91 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant signed the arrest record, noting that he had been informed of his constitutional rights as an accused, including the right to remain silent and to be assisted by counsel. He also made a handwritten statement refusing legal assistance “at the time of the arrest”. It appears that the investigator made a handwritten note in the arrest record, stating that the applicant had not been searched.\n8.  On the following day the investigator began questioning the applicant in the presence of his counsel, Mr Ovchinnikov. A record shows that the questioning started at 12 noon. The record bears the applicant’s signature after the paragraph stating that he was informed of the nature of the accusations against him, in particular, that he was suspected of having participated in a gang rape on 23 October 2004. The applicant made a handwritten entry in the record, noting that he had decided to make use of his constitutional rights and would remain silent.\n(a)  Authorisation of the pre-trial detention: detention order of 27 October 2004\n9.  On 27 October 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladimir authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention, holding as follows:\n“[The applicant] is employed [and] has a permanent place of residence.\nHowever, he has a previous conviction for a criminal offence against an individual, and his criminal record has not expired by virtue of a court order. It follows that, if released, [the applicant] might continue his criminal activities; [he] might also hinder the investigation, in particular as regards the uncovering of evidence in the case – a mobile phone which had been stolen from the victim. [The applicant] is suspected of having committed a serious offence against an individual; [the offence] is punishable by imprisonment. The victim identified [the applicant] as a perpetrator of the criminal offence against her. It follows that, if released, Mr ... [the name of the applicant’s co-defendant was crossed out and the applicant’s last name written by hand] might influence the victim during the pre-trial and judicial investigation; therefore, the victim, at her request, took part in the identification parade in conditions whereby [the applicant] was prevented from seeing [her].\nConsequently, the court considers that a measure of restraint in the form of pre-trial detention is lawful and well-founded and [it] accepts the motion of the senior investigator of the Vladimir prosecutor’s office ... to place [the applicant] in custody.”\n10.  Several days later the applicant’s lawyer appealed, arguing that the applicant had not been properly and promptly informed of the reasons for his arrest and that his detention was unlawful. He requested the applicant’s release on bail or the application of an alternative, more lenient, measure of restraint. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the lawyer urged the Regional Court to take into account the appalling conditions of detention to which the applicant would be subjected.\n11.  On 9 November 2004 the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the de", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7340", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Haskovo.\n6.  In a will dated 21 March 1991 the applicant’s father bequeathed his whole estate to his brother, Mr L.I. Subsequently, in a deed of donation dated 29 December 1997, the applicant’s father transferred to L.I. a share in a house and yard which belonged to him.\n7.  The applicant’s father died on 22 December 2002.\n8.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant brought an action against Mr L.I., claiming that the will of 1991 and the donation of 1997 infringed his right to a “reserved share” in his late father’s estate. He also brought a partition claim against Mr L.I. in respect of two real properties. It appears that the applicant was represented by counsel.\n9.  On 15 May 2003 the Haskovo District Court rejected the applicant’s claim as inadmissible. It reasoned that the applicant had not drawn up an inventory of the property in his father’s estate, which was a procedural pre‑requisite for claiming a reserved share from individuals who were not heirs-at-law of the deceased. The applicant appealed against the decision.\n10.  On 18 June 2003 the Haskovo Regional Court quashed the decision of 15 May 2003 and remitted the case for further examination. Relying on established case-law, it held that the applicant’s uncle was an heir-at-law of the applicant’s father within the meaning of section 30(2) of the Inheritance Act and that, therefore, the applicant was not required to have claimed his reserved share of the inheritance by means of an inventory.\n11.  In a judgment of 29 July 2004 the Haskovo District Court restored the applicant’s reserved share in the two real properties and declared admissible his partition action. It held that the two dispositions made by the applicant’s father had practically disinherited the applicant and had therefore violated his right to a reserved share, which amounted to half of his father’s estate.\n12.  Following an appeal by Mr L.I., on 3 January 2005 the Haskovo Regional Court upheld the judgment of 29 July 2004. Relying on an interpretative decision of the Supreme Court of 1964, it rejected the defendant’s objection that the applicant was not entitled to claim his reserved share because he had not claimed the inheritance through the drawing up of an inventory.\n13.  On 25 February 2005 Mr L.I. lodged an appeal on points of law. In a request filed on 7 June 2005 Mr L.I. asked the court to discontinue the proceedings relying on Interpretative Decision No. 1 of 2005, adopted by the Supreme Court of Cassation (“the SCC”) on 4 February 2005, in which that court declared the relevant part of the interpretative decision of 1964 no longer applicable and considered that the term “heirs-at-law” in section 30(2) of the Inheritance Act 1949 should be interpreted as meaning only heirs-at-law who effectively succeeded to the deceased’s estate (see paragraph 17 below). It is not clear whether the applicant was notified about this request before the hearing of the SCC held on 14 June 2005. In a judgment of 14 July 2005 the SCC quashed the judgment of 3 January 2005 and dismissed the applicant’s claims. Relying on Interpretative Decision No. 1 of 4 February 2005, it held that the applicant had not complied with the statutory requirements for claiming his reserved share, since he had not claimed the inheritance by means of an inventory.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7341", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Perales Del Río (Madrid).\n6.  At the material time she worked full-time in a hypermarket, mornings or afternoons, from Monday to Saturday\n7.  On 26 February 2003, relying on Article 37 § 5 of the Labour Regulations, the applicant asked her employer to reduce her working hours (with a corresponding reduction of her salary) because she had custody of her son, who was under six years old. She applied to work half-time, from 4 p.m. to 9.15 p.m. from Monday to Wednesday.\n8.  In a letter of 21 March 2003 her employer notified her that she would not be allowed to work the hours requested. Instead, he proposed that she work half days, from Monday to Saturday, in the morning or afternoon.\n9.  An attempt by the applicant to reach an agreement with her employer with the help of the Madrid Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitration Board failed.\n10.  On 20 May 2003 the applicant brought special proceedings before the Employment Tribunal to adjust her working hours to enable her to look after a child under six years of age. In a judgment of 25 September 2003 Madrid Employment Tribunal no. 1 dismissed the applicant’s case, considering that reductions in working hours should be made in the ordinary working day, whereas the applicant wanted to take several working days off (from Thursday to Saturday) and not to work mornings at all, which was not a reduction but a modification of the working day.\n11.  On 6 November 2003 the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court, based on the right to a fair hearing and the principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sex. In a judgment of 15 January 2007 the Constitutional Court allowed the appeal, considering that the principle that there should be no discrimination based on gender had been violated in the applicant’s case. The court referred to the established case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities to the effect that “Community law precluded the application of a domestic measure which, although formulated in a neutral manner, affected a much higher percentage of women than men”, unless this was the result of objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex. It noted that “in the event of indirect discrimination it is not necessary to prove the existence of more favourable treatment reserved exclusively for men; it is sufficient that there exists a legal provision the interpretation or application of which adversely affects a group composed mainly of female employees”. The Constitutional Court found that there had been a breach of the principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of sex, stating: “the court’s refusal to acknowledge [the applicant’s right to] a reduction of her working hours, without examining to what degree the reduction concerned was necessary in order to respect the constitutional purposes for which [the possibility of working reduced hours] had been introduced or what organisational difficulties the employer might have if [the applicant’s] right to work the hours concerned were to be acknowledged, constitutes an unjustified obstacle to [the applicant] in her work and in reconciling that work with her family life, and therefore discrimination on grounds of sex”. The Constitutional Court accordingly allowed the amparo appeal, set aside the Madrid Employment Tribunal’s judgment of 25 September 2003 and ordered that court to deliver a new judgment in keeping with the fundamental right", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7342", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Košice.\n6.  On 5 February 2004 the applicant living with her two sons who were students initiated proceedings before the Košice II District Court on contribution to her maintenance by her husband. She claimed that she was unemployed and her state of health did not allow her to work.\n7.  The Košice II District Court scheduled a hearing for 14 September 2005.\n8.  On 28 June 2005 the applicant’s husband raised an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Košice II District Court claiming that he lived and worked in Veľký Krtíš.\n9.  On 5 August 2005 the matter was transmitted to the Veľký Krtíš District Court.\n10.  Between 9 February 2006 and 6 May 2008 the Veľký Krtíš District Court scheduled six hearings. The applicant had excused herself for not being able to appear before the court since her financial situation did not allow her to pay for the journey from her place of residence to the District Court’s seat. On that account, the Veľký Krtíš District Court requested the Košice II District Court to hear the applicant. The applicant was heard by the latter court three times.\n11.  On 9 May 2006 the applicant requested that the case be dealt with by the Košice II District Court. She argued that other proceedings linked to her family situation – divorce, maintenance of the applicant’s and her husband’s children and distribution of marital property – were pending before that court. She further submitted that she had no income and lived in Košice. Being in material need she stressed that she would not be able to travel to Veľký Krtíš which was situated some 200 kilometer4s from Košice.\n12.  On 24 July 2006 the Veľký Krtíš District Court requested the applicant to pay court fees for her request to transfer the case.\n13.  On 4 August 2006 the applicant in her response sought an exemption from the obligation to pay them.\n14.  On 10 August 2006 the Veľký Krtíš District Court informed the applicant that according to the existing legal regulation it was not possible to exempt her request to transmit the case from the obligation to pay the court fees.\n15.  Following the applicant’s repeated request, on 4 September 2006 the Veľký Krtíš District Court warned the applicant that in case of a failure to pay the court fees the request would not be dealt with.\n16.  On 14 September 2006 the applicant again asked to be exempted from the obligation to pay the court fees.\n17.  On 2 October 2006 the Veľký Krtíš District Court refused to grant the exemption. On 31 October 2006 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court, following the applicant’s appeal, quashed the decision and ordered the Veľký Krtíš District Court to examine the applicant’s financial situation.\n18.  On 6 March 2007 the Veľký Krtíš District Court granted the exemption from the obligation to pay the court fees.\n19.  On 19 April 2007 the Veľký Krtíš District Court transmitted the case file to the Supreme Court to decide on the applicant’s request.\n20.  On 26 April 2007 the Supreme Court returned the case file to the Veľký Krtíš District Court since the court had failed to bring forward the defendant’s observation to the applicant’s request.\n21.  On 7 May 2007 the defendant submitted his disagreement with transfer of the case.\n22.  On 14 May 2007 the case file was again transmitted to the Supreme Court which on 16 May 2007 dismissed the applicant’s request.\n23.  On 21 May 2007 the case file was returned to the Veľký Krtíš District Court.\n24.  On 25 June", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7343", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in İzmir. At the time of the events he was a student in the Literature Faculty of Ege University.\n5.  According to the “scene of incident” report, upon receipt of intelligence that a leftist group was to hold a march on 27 December 2005 at 11 a.m., in commemoration of a student who had committed suicide in 1997, police officers from the Rapid Response Force (Çevik Kuvvet) arrived at the entrance to the Faculty of Literature of Ege University. At noon, a group of fifty persons arrived, carrying banners and flags and shouting anti-police slogans. The police officers, who had formed a barricade in the grounds of the Faculty with their shields, told the group to disperse. The demonstrators continued walking towards the police barricade and some of them attacked the officers with their flag sticks. The police then used force to disperse the group: they sprayed pressurised water from a panzer tank and started hitting the demonstrators with their truncheons. In retaliation, some of the demonstrators threw stones at the police. According to the Government, eight demonstrators were arrested that day, including the applicant, and eight police officers were wounded by the stones thrown by the demonstrators.\n6.  According to the submissions of the applicant, he had gone to the Faculty to attend a class, and did not participate in the demonstration. Nevertheless, he was also punched and kicked by the police officers. As a result, his glasses were broken and he was arrested. In the police vehicle he was beaten again.\n7.  Subsequently, the applicant was taken to the Bornova First Aid and Traumatology Hospital, where he was medically examined at 1.15 p.m. on the same day. The doctor who examined the applicant noted erythematous lesions on the right side of his forehead, above the right eyebrow. The doctor further noted that the applicant complained of pain in his feet and legs. The applicant was then taken to the Bornova Central Police Station, where he was questioned. The applicant used his right to remain silent.\n8.  At 8 p.m. the applicant was examined again at the same hospital by another doctor, who noted grazes above his left eyebrow, an erythematous lesion measuring 2 x 2 cm on the left temple area, and a bruise measuring 1 x 1 cm and grazes on his right knee. The doctor also noted that the applicant complained of pain at the back of his knees.\n9.  On 28 December 2005, at 9.25 a.m., the applicant was again examined at the Bornova First Aid and Traumatology Hospital. The doctor who conducted the examination noted that there was no fresh sign of physical violence on the applicant’s person. He also noted that the applicant had not complained of ill‑treatment during his detention in police custody.\n10.  On the same day, the applicant made statements before two public prosecutors in the presence of his lawyer. He contended that he had not participated in the demonstration and that he had been beaten by police officers during his arrest. He further asked the prosecutor to initiate an investigation. The applicant was subsequently brought before the investigating judge and then released.\n11.  On an unspecified date the Izmir public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the allegations of ill-treatment during the events of 27 December 2005. In the context of this investigation, the applicant again made statements to the public prosecutor and reiterated his account of the events. He was further asked to id", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7344", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  In 1993 the applicant’s husband died in a road traffic accident caused by a person who was in 1995 convicted of an offence of bodily harm.\n6.  On 16 October 1995 the applicant filed an action with the Bratislava V District Court. She claimed compensation for her maintenance from the person responsible for the accident.\n7.  On 3 December 2001 an insurance company informed the District Court that it wished to join the proceedings as a third party.\n8.  On 9 December 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment in which it partially granted the applicant’s claim.\n9.  The applicant and the insurance company appealed.\n10.  On 24 February 2005 the case file was submitted to the Bratislava Regional Court for a decision on the appeals.\n11.  On 22 September 2005 the Regional Court held a hearing.\n12.  On 29 September 2005 it granted the applicant’s appeal and rejected the appeal of the insurance company.\n13.  On 24 November 2005 the Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court for the service of its judgment.\n14.  On 30 December 2005 the insurance company appealed on points of law.\n15.  On 31 January 2007 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s judgment as far as it concerned the appeal of the insurance company and its costs of the proceedings and remitted the case to the Regional Court for a new determination.\n16.  On 18 April 2007 the Regional Court received the case file and on 25 April 2007 it scheduled a hearing for 31 January 2008.\n17.  Subsequently the Regional Court had requested in vain competent authorities to establish the defendant’s whereabouts.\n18.  In February 2008 the defendant’s legal representative informed the Regional Court that he had no knowledge of the defendant’s place of residence.\n19.  On 9 May 2008 the Regional Court scheduled a hearing for 30 April 2009 and on 24 April 2009 appointed a guardian to represent the defendant in the proceedings.\n20.  On 24 September 2009 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment as far as it concerned the appeal of the insurance company and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs and expenses.\n21.  On 9 November 2009 the Regional Court sent the case file to the District Court to serve the judgment on the parties. The judgment became final on 25 November 2009.\n22.  On 21 January 2003 the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings to the Constitutional Court.\n23.  In its finding of 29 October 2003 the Constitutional Court held that the Bratislava V District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay. It ordered the District Court to proceed with the case and to compensate for the costs of the applicant’s representation in the constitutional proceedings. It decided not to grant any just satisfaction to the applicant on account that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings.\n24.  In 2009 the applicant repeatedly turned to the Constitutional Court claiming that the proceedings in issue pending before the Regional Court were delayed.\n25.  On 28 October 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible and on 20 January 2010 decided that the applicant’s right had not been violated. Referring to the applicant’s complaint directed exclusively against the Regional Court, the Constitutional Court examined only the period after the case file had been transmitted to the Regional Court for the decision on the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7345", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Yerevan.\n6.  From 1986 to 2005 the applicant worked at Paren Scientific Production and Planning State Closed Joint-Stock Company (hereafter “the Company”).\n7.  On 27 July 2001 a law was adopted defining the programme of privatisation of State property for the period from 2001 to 2003, which listed the Company as one of many State companies subject to privatisation.\n8.  On 5 February 2004 the employees of the Company applied to the Government with a request that the Company’s property be privatised through a direct sale to them. This request was admitted and was being examined by the Government at the time of preparation of the draft Government decree concerning the privatisation of the Company’s shares.\n9.  On 10 June 2004 the Government adopted a decree (hereafter, the Decree), paragraph 1.2 of which set out that the Company’s shares were to be privatised through a tender procedure. The Decree was submitted to the President of Armenia for approval.\n10.  By a letter of 7 July 2004 the Department for Management of State Property (hereafter the “DMSP”) informed the Company’s employees that the relevant tender procedure was open to them.\n11.  On an unspecified date, before the approval of the Decree by the President, a number of amendments were introduced, including amendments to paragraph 1.2.\n12.  On 8 October 2004 the President of Armenia approved the Decree, whose amended paragraph 1.2 stipulated that the Company’s shares were to be privatised through a direct sale to a third person, A.K.\n13.  On 1 December 2004 the Company’s employees, including the applicant, lodged jointly several claims with the Kentron and Nork‑Marash District Court of Yerevan against the Government and the DMSP seeking, inter alia, prohibition of the application of certain provisions of the Decree and recognition of their pre-emptive right to acquire the Company’s shares. On the same date the claims were admitted for examination.\n14.  In the proceedings before the District Court, the plaintiffs lodged an additional claim, contesting the legality of the Decree and seeking partially to annul it. In particular, they claimed that the Decree had been adopted in violation of Sections 27 § 2, 38 § 2 and 68 §§ 4 and 7 of the Law on Legal Acts, Section 10 § 1 of the State Property Privatisation Act (hereafter “the Act”), and Articles 1, 5 and 8 of the Constitution. They also filed a motion requesting the court not to apply Article 160 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) to their claim for annulment, arguing that this provision violated their right of access to court, was unconstitutional and was incompatible with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention. They also filed another motion requesting the court, in the alternative, to initiate constitutional review proceedings to examine the constitutionality of that provision. According to the applicant, the District Court never addressed those motions.\n15.  On 25 January 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan decided to dismiss all the claims as unsubstantiated except for the claim for annulment, in respect of which the District Court decided under Article 109 of the CCP to terminate the proceedings on the ground that it was not subject to examination by the courts of general jurisdiction. In doing so, the District Court referred to Article 15 § 2 of the Civil Code and paragraph 2 of Article 160 § 1 of the CCP.\n16.  On 8 February 2005 the applicant lo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7346", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Ms M.B., is a Romanian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Bacău. She was not represented by a lawyer before the Court or before the domestic authorities at any time.\n7.  She has been eligible for welfare benefits since 1996 as a disabled person who is unfit to work.\n8.  On 14 September 2000 she was diagnosed as suffering from “paranoid schizophrenia”. Since then, she has been registered in the files of several psychiatric institutions.\n9.  The applicant is the mother of three children, two of whom, C.-L. and C.-I., born in 1992 and 1994 respectively, were minors at the material time. Her eldest daughter was above the age of majority.\n10.  A letter dated 18 January 2011 from the Bacău City Council Guardianship Authority to the Agent of the Romanian Government before the Court states that “according to checks carried out in the database of the Guardianship Authority Section (Compartimentul Autoritate Tutelară) at Bacău City Council, no measures to protect the interests of Ms [M.B.] – who has been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia – have been put in place (nu s-a instituit), either by means of partial or full guardianship”. The letter adds that “likewise, no temporary guardianship arrangements have been made to assist her two children or to protect their interests during their mother’s detention”.\n11.  On several occasions since 2000 the applicant has been taken, usually by the police, to the psychiatric department of Bacău Hospital or the Socola psychiatric clinic and admitted for treatment. This happened between 14 September and 13 October 2000, 1 and 15 May 2002, 21 January and 17 February 2003, 12 May and 2 June 2004, 26 October and 4 November 2005, 18 and 31 March 2006, 21 July and 8 August 2006, 25 August and 13 September 2006, and 8 and 22 October 2007.\n12.  For example, in a letter dated 11 January 2003 the Izvoru Bereheciului police asked Bacău Hospital to admit the applicant on the grounds that she had been “found undernourished (subnutrită), living in a room without heating and with no material support”. The letter concluded as follows: “We would be grateful if you could take medical action as her behaviour is antisocial”.\n13.  The form for the applicant’s admission to the hospital’s psychiatric department, dated 12 May 2004, included a note in the “type of admission” section indicating that the police had taken her to the hospital as a matter of emergency. A letter from the police dated the same day stated that the reason for taking her to the hospital was that she “represented a danger to her neighbours in the village by habitually starting fires in the courtyard of her house, entering local authority premises and frightening children in the street through her aggressive conduct”.\n14.  Similarly, a hospital discharge form dated 8 August 2006 stated that the applicant had been “readmitted to hospital after being brought there by the police (se reinternează adusă de poliţie)” on 21 July 2006. An undated letter signed by the applicant requesting admission to the hospital was filed together with her admission form dated 21 July 2006. The letter stated that, should the need arise, her children could be contacted at their care home, the address of which was indicated.\n15.  A similar note indicating “type of admission: police” appears on the admission form dated 25 August 2006. A letter from the police dated the same day gave the same reasons as those set out in the letter of 12 May 2004, a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7347", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lived in Almaty, Kazakhstan. She currently resides in Moscow, Russia.\n8.  In 2005-08 the applicant occupied the post of head of the corporate business department of the TuranAlem Bank (“the BTA Bank”), a private bank established in Kazakhstan and chaired at the material time by Mr M. Ablyazov.\n9.  In 2001 Mr Ablyazov was involved in politics; he founded an opposition movement, Demokraticheskiy Vybor Kazakhstana (Democratic Choice for Kazakhstan) and in 2002 he was convicted of corruption, many international observers considering his trial to be politically motivated. In the applicant’s submission, at the material time she had remained Mr Ablyazov’s political supporter by replacing him as the head of a private company, Astana Holding, established by him. The applicant did not provide any further details of her alleged support for Mr Ablyazov. After his release following a presidential pardon in 2003, Mr Ablyazov had announced that he would devote his time to business and refrain from active participation in politics. In 2005 he had become the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the BTA Bank.\n10.  In February 2009 the BTA Bank was nationalised due to its difficult financial situation. In the applicant’s submission, the nationalisation of the bank was a raider attack and a covert attempt to suppress the opposition movement. According to the applicant, bank employees, including herself, had denounced the nationalisation of the bank as unlawful.\n11.  On 23 February 2009, while the applicant was on inpatient treatment in a private hospital, the Deputy Prosecutor-General of Kazakhstan, Mr A.D., and the deputy head of the Committee on National Security (“the CNS”) burst into the intensive care ward she was in, despite the objections of the medical staff, told her that criminal proceedings would be opened against Mr Ablyazov in connection with his opposition activities, and threatened her that they would prevent her from obtaining medical assistance and would institute reprisals if she refused to follow their instructions in the forthcoming criminal proceedings. They also told her that the question of whether she would be found guilty in those proceedings would not depend on the courts but on the leaders of Kazakhstan.\n12.  On 1 March 2009 the applicant arrived in Russia with her minor daughter, who was, at the material time, two years old. On 15 May 2009 the applicant left for Azerbaijan and on 4 June 2009 she returned to Russia to receive medical treatment.\n13.  On 3 July 2009 the applicant was arrested with a view to her extradition.\n14.  In July 2011 Mr Ablyazov was granted asylum in the United Kingdom.\n15.  On 2 March 2009 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Kazakhstan (hereinafter also “the Kazakhstan GPO”) instituted criminal proceedings against Mr Ablyazov and over twenty other individuals, including the applicant, on suspicion of large-scale misappropriation of the property of the BTA Bank. The case file was given the number 095751701710001.\n16.  On 6 March 2009 the Kazakhstan GPO charged the applicant with large-scale misappropriation of BTA Bank financial assets, committed in an organised group under the direction of Mr Ablyazov and with the use of her position (Article 176 § 3 (a) and (b) of the Kazakhstani Criminal Code (“KCC”). The decision stated that between 2005 and 2008 the applicant, who had been head of the corporate business department of the BTA Bank and had “a relationship of trust” ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7348", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The first and third applicants were born in 1967 and the second applicant was born in 1995.\n10.  The first applicant and the third applicant are two women living in a stable relationship. The second applicant is the third applicant’s son and was born outside marriage. His father has recognised paternity and his mother has sole custody of him. The applicants have been living in the same household since the second applicant was about five years old and the first and third applicants care for him jointly.\n11.  On 17 February 2005 the first applicant and the second applicant, represented by his mother, concluded an agreement whereby the second applicant would be adopted by the first applicant. The applicants’ intention was to create a legal relationship between the first and second applicants corresponding to the bond between them, without severing the relationship with the child’s mother, the third applicant.\n12.  The applicants, aware that the wording of Article 182 § 2 of the Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) could be understood to exclude the adoption of the child of one partner in a same-sex couple by the other partner without the relationship with the biological parent being severed, requested the Constitutional Court to declare that provision unconstitutional as discriminating against them on account of their sexual orientation. In the case of heterosexual couples, Article 182 § 2 of the Civil Code allowed for second-parent adoption, that is to say, the adoption by one partner of the child of the other partner, without the latter’s legal relationship with the child being affected.\n13.  On 14 June 2005 the Constitutional Court rejected the request as inadmissible under Article 140 of the Federal Constitution. It noted that the competent District Court, in deciding whether to approve the adoption agreement, would have to examine the question whether or not Article 182 § 2 of the Civil Code allowed second-parent adoption in the case of a same-sex couple. Should the District Court refuse to approve the adoption agreement, the applicants remained free to submit their arguments regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of that provision to the appellate courts, which in turn could bring the issue before the Constitutional Court if they shared the applicants’ view.\n14.  Subsequently, on 26 September 2005, the applicants requested the District Court to approve the adoption agreement, to the effect that both the first and the third applicants would be the second applicant’s parents. In their submissions they explained that the first and second applicants had developed close emotional ties and that the second applicant benefited from living in a household with two caring adults. Their aim was to obtain legal recognition of their de facto family unit. The first applicant would thus replace the second applicant’s father. They noted that the second applicant’s father had not consented to the adoption, without giving any reasons for his position. Furthermore, they alleged that he had displayed the utmost antagonism towards the family and that the court should therefore override his refusal to consent under Article 181 § 3 of the Civil Code, as the adoption was in the best interests of the second applicant. In support of their submissions, the applicants attached a report from the Youth Welfare Office which confirmed that the first and third applicants shared the day-to-day tasks involved in caring for the second applicant and th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7349", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Gliwice.\n6.  On 20 April 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of producing drugs and other related offences. On his arrest the applicant informed the authorities about his health condition. On the same day the applicant underwent a medical examination. On the following day he was placed under hospital observation.\n7.  On 22 April 2006 the Gliwice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) remanded him in custody. The court decided that in view of the applicant’s health he should be committed to the medical wing of the detention centre. The court stressed that the evidence gathered so far demonstrated a high likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. The court further referred to the fact that the applicant had not pleaded guilty to the offences in question and therefore if released he could obstruct the proceedings. The preventive measure in question was also justified by the gravity of the offences with which he had been charged and the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed if convicted. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on 24 May 2006.\n8.  Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended by decisions of the Gliwice Regional Court of 10 July and 9 October 2006 and 15 January and 16 April 2007.The court found that the original grounds for the applicant’s pre-trial detention were still valid and, in addition, relied on the risk that the applicant could obstruct the proceedings if released. In particular, the court stressed that he could influence the testimonies of witnesses. The court was further of the view that the applicant’s state of health was not an obstacle to his continued detention on remand.\n9.  The applicant’s appeals against the decisions were dismissed by the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 9 August and 20 December 2006 and 21 February 2007. The court referred to the reasons given by the Regional Court. It further stressed that the applicant’s health was not an obstacle to his detention on remand.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 6 April 2007 the bill of indictment against the applicant and his alleged accomplice was lodged with the Gliwice Regional Court. The applicant was charged with manufacturing amphetamine and trafficking in drugs. The case file consisted of twelve volumes; in addition, seven witnesses were to be heard.\n11.  On 16 April 2007 the Regional Court extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention. The court referred to the original grounds for keeping the applicant in detention. On 4 May 2007 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant’s lawyer against this decision. The court considered that the reasoning of the first-instance court was accurate. Moreover, it found that the applicant’s health was not an obstacle to his further detention.\n12.  The first hearing was held on 10 July 2007. During that hearing the applicant pleaded guilty to the offences in question. Throughout the trial the court held hearings on average once a month. In total, the court held seven hearings.\n13.  On 10 July 2007 the Regional Court again extended the applicant’s detention. The court relied on the original grounds for keeping the applicant in detention. Before taking the decision, the Regional Court obtained information about the applicant’s health from the Director of the Hospital Ward of the Bytom Detention Centre. The director confirmed that the applicant had undergone a ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7350", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On an unspecified date the first applicant bought 1982 State premium bonds (облигации Государственного внутреннего выигрышного займа 1982 года), which were issued by the USSR Government in 1982 in order to finance certain State programmes. It was stipulated at the time of issue that the bonds would be redeemed by 2004 at the latest.\n6.  In 1992, the Government of the Russian Federation acknowledged their succession in respect of the USSR’s obligations under the 1982 loan and suspended payments under the 1982 State premium bonds.\n7.  Subsequently, the first applicant converted all but forty-four 1982 State premium bonds into 235 1992 Russian bonds.\n8.  Between 1995 and 2000, a series of legislative and regulatory acts was enacted providing for the conversion of Soviet securities, including 1982 State premium bonds, into special Russian promissory notes. The Government were mandated to devise a procedure for the conversion and to fix the value of the promissory notes. Although regulations on the conversion were adopted in 2000, the actual conversion did not start and application of the regulations remained suspended.\n9.  The first applicant brought proceedings before the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Magnitogorsk, seeking redemption of his 1992 Russian bonds and affirmation that the forty-four 1982 State premium bonds had retained their purchase power.\n10.  On 28 March 2005 the court granted the claim in part, declaring that the 1982 bonds had retained their value and purchase power proportionate to the USSR currency exchange rate in 1990. The judgment entered into force.\n11.  The first applicant immediately brought proceedings before the Pravoberezhniy District Court of Magnitogorsk to recover the value of nine of his 1982 State bonds.\n12.  By a judgment of 17 May 2005 the court dismissed the claim, finding that the Government had not yet developed a conversion mechanism for the bonds. On 21 July 2005 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Chelyabinsk Regional Court.\n13.  At the present time the first applicant holds nine 1982 State premium bonds with a nominal value of 450 roubles.\n14.  On 20 June 1997 the Pravoberezhniy District Court of Magnitogorsk ordered the debtor, M., to repay the applicants 1,100,000 Russian roubles (RUB).\n15.  On 20 June 2003 the same court awarded the applicants interest on the unpaid debt in the amount of RUB 1,100,000.\n16.  Following the bailiff’s failure to recover the debt, in 2003 the applicants brought a civil claim against M., seeking determination of his share in a flat that he owned jointly with his spouse and child, and its seizure to enforce the court decisions.\n17.  On 21 October 2003 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Magnitogorsk disallowed the claim on the ground that the flat was M.’s only housing and hence could not be seized for recovery of the debt.\n18.  By a decision of 19 February 2004 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7351", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The following information emerges from the submissions of the parties and from the documents submitted by the parties.\n6. The applicants’ relatives, Ahmet Bozkır, Selahattin Aşkan, Süleyman Tekin, Lokman Kaya and Halit Ertuş, worked as shepherds in the valleys and mountains surrounding their village of Otluca, which is located within the administrative jurisdiction of the province of Hakkari, in south-east Turkey.\n7.  On 24 August 1996 an armed clash took place between members of the PKK[1] and soldiers from the Hakkari Mountain and Commando Brigade (Hakkari Dağ ve Komando Tugay Komutanlığı) in the proximity of Otluca. Two non-commissioned officers and four soldiers were killed.\n8.  On 26 August 1996 a military operation was initiated by the Brigade commander’s office in the area surrounding Otluca. After the operation the five shepherds, who had been in a nearby meadow grazing their sheep, went missing and nothing has been heard from them since that day.\n9.  On 6 September 1996 relatives of Ahmet Bozkır, Selahattin Aşkan, Lokman Kaya and Halit Ertuş petitioned the Hakkari prosecutor’s office. They maintained that during the military operation there had been large-scale arrests in their village. They further submitted that on 5 September 1996 the villagers, with the permission of the Hakkari Brigade commander, had conducted an unsuccessful search in the meadow to find the shepherds. The petitioners asked the prosecutor’s office to initiate an investigation into the disappearance of their relatives.\n10.  The same day the Brigade commander’s office informed the Governor of Hakkari in writing that they had not arrested or detained the applicants’ missing relatives. In the opinion of the commander, the applicants’ relatives might have joined the PKK.\n11.  On 10 September 1996 the Hakkari prosecutor asked the Hakkari police headquarters and the Gendarmerie Command whether the shepherds had been detained.\n12.  On 16 and 30 September 1996 the police headquarters and the Gendarmerie Command informed the prosecutor that the applicants’ relatives had not been arrested or detained by them.\n13.  On an unspecified date the Hakkari prosecutor requested the Hakkari Mountain and Commando Brigade commander’s office to provide information as to the whereabouts of the applicants’ relatives.\n14.  On 11 October 1996 a colonel from the Hakkari Mountain and Commando Brigade commander’s office sent a letter to the Hakkari prosecutor in which he informed the prosecutor that the military forces did not have any information regarding the shepherds’ whereabouts. The colonel further noted that the shepherds might have joined the PKK. According to the letter, four other shepherds, F.A., A.Y., A.A. and F.AŞ., had been arrested on suspicion of aiding members of the PKK during the same operation.\n15.  On 15 October 1996 the applicant, Güli Tekin, also submitted a petition to the Hakkari prosecutor’s office and asked the prosecutor to search for her husband, Süleyman Tekin.\n16.  The Hakkari prosecutor instructed the Hakkari police headquarters on 24 December 1996 to instigate a country-wide search for the missing men.\n17.  On 14 and 28 May 1997 Yaşar Ertuş and Hasan Kaya lodged further petitions with the Hakkari prosecutor’s office on behalf of the families of the missing shepherds, and requested information about the investigation.\n18.  On 28 May 1997 the Hakkari prosecutor took statements from Hasan Kaya, who maintained that three other shepherds, A.S., H.S. and A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7352", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Thessaloniki, Greece.\n7.  On 10 November 2005 the public prosecutor ordered, under sections 42 § 2(2) and 142-b of the Criminal Proceedings Act (“the Act”, see paragraphs 65 and 68 below), secret surveillance, audio-visual recording and the use of undercover agents, as special investigative measures. The order was valid between 10 November and 10 December 2005 and concerned the whole territory of the respondent State. It was issued on the basis of a request from the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”), which suspected that nationals of Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, whose identity was unknown, were involved in drug trafficking. According to the information available at that time, the suspects were supposed to meet on 10 November 2005 in Skopje. It was believed that samples of drugs (cocaine) would be given to the undercover agents so that they could verify its quality. The order allowed the use of undercover agents (their number was not specified) from the Athens office of the US Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) in the operation. Those agents were also allowed to take part in the same operation in Greece.\n8.  On 19 November 2005 the Ministry produced three reports concerning the use of the special investigative measures. They were accompanied by sixty-six photographs taken on 10 and 18 November 2005.\n9.  According to report no. 16.4-9122/1, on 10 November 2005 two DEA undercover agents arrived in the respondent State in order to meet Mr B.V., a Greek national who had also entered the respondent State that day. Mr B.V. had met two people in Skopje earlier that day, one of whom was the applicant. The critical meeting had taken place in a cafe bar in Skopje. Mr D.V. and Mr N.B. had joined them later. At the meeting, they had discussed a drug deal, namely that 10 kg of cocaine be sold to the undercover agents. Mr D.V. had suggested that they meet soon in Thessaloniki, where he would provide a sample of the drugs. On 14 November 2005 the Ministry was informed by its counterparts in Greece that the undercover agents had met the applicant, Mr B.V. and Mr D.V. that day in Thessaloniki. On that occasion, a sample of the cocaine had been handed over to the agents. It had been agreed that the drugs would be delivered on 18 November 2005 in Skopje. On 17 November 2005 the undercover agents arrived in the respondent State. The next day the applicant entered the respondent State in a Suzuki Vitara car with Greek registration plates. According to the report, he did not contact the undercover agents during that time. After Mr B.V. had received the money for the drugs in Thessaloniki, the police arrested Mr D.V., Mr N.B. and Mr A.T. at the border crossing with Bulgaria with 10 kg of cocaine in their car and arrested the applicant in Skopje. At the same time, Mr B.V. was arrested in Thessaloniki.\n10.  On 19 November 2005 an investigating judge of the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) opened an investigation concerning the applicant, Mr D.V., Mr A.T., Mr N.B. and Mr B.V. on the basis of a reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking. He took oral evidence from the applicant and an undercover agent, whose identity was not disclosed. The applicant remained silent. Interpretation between Macedonian and Greek was provided.\n11.  The undercover agent presented his evidence in Greek. He gave evidence in the presence of the public prosecutor. A translation into Macedo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7353", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Ankaran. He owns a bar located in Koper, Slovenia.\n6.  On 14 November 2008 the Market Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia (hereinafter referred to as “the Inspectorate”) issued a notice informing the applicant that he had been accused of operating his bar at 2.15 a.m. on 1 June 2008, which was allegedly outside regular opening hours. The Inspectorate also noted that this information had been received from Koper Police Station. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Minor Offences Act governing summary proceedings, the applicant was requested to submit a written statement within five days.\n7.  On 19 November 2008 the applicant submitted a written statement in which he disputed the allegation that his bar had been open at 2.15 a.m. He further pointed out that there had been no customers in the bar at that time and that the police had not approached him when the alleged offence had been observed. He proposed that he and two employees who had worked in the bar that evening be heard by the court.\n8.  On 25 November 2008 the Inspectorate, without examining the applicant or the proposed witnesses, issued a decision finding the applicant guilty of committing a regulatory offence under point 3 of section 21(1) of the Hospitality Industry Act. As regards the opening hours, it referred to the “Rules on criteria for determining opening hours of restaurant facilities and farms providing hospitality services” (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) and section 12 of the Hospitality Industry Act, and noted that the applicant’s bar had operated beyond the statutory opening hours without having requested an extension of opening hours (see paragraph 24 below). It imposed a fine of 1,200 euros (EUR) and ordered the reimbursement of costs in the amount of EUR 100. It also drew the applicant’s attention to the possibility of imprisonment if the fine was not paid.\n9.  On 28 November 2008 the applicant lodged a request for judicial review in which he alleged that the facts had been wrongly established and that his rights enshrined in Article 29 of the Slovenian Constitution had been violated. He disputed the allegation that his bar had been open and that he had had customers at the time in question. He emphasised, among other things, that the police had not approached him on the date the offence had allegedly been committed and that he and the witnesses had not subsequently had an opportunity to be heard by the Inspectorate. Moreover, the decision had not provided any explanation as to why his proposal to give evidence had been rejected; nor had it stated the permitted opening hours for the applicant’s bar or specified the time during which he had allegedly been in breach of the relevant regulation. The applicant again proposed that he and the aforementioned witnesses be heard by the court.\n10.  As the Koper Local Court, which was competent to decide on the applicant’s request, was experiencing a substantial backlog, the applicant’s case was transferred to the Ilirska Bistrica Local Court, which on 12 January 2010, referring to section 65 of the Minor Offences Act, delivered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s request. It took into account the notice of 14 November 2008, the impugned decision and “the facts, which had been directly observed by police officers on the spot.” The court found that the circumstances of the alleged offence had been properly established by the Inspectorate and that th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7354", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  On 28 September 2004 at 4.30 a.m., the applicant was pulled over in her car by Police Officer S., who ordered her to undergo a breathalyser test. According to the applicant, despite five attempts, the test was unsuccessful as no result appeared on the screen.\n7.  On 14 October 2004 the police charged the applicant with an offence under paragraph 7 of section 120 of the Road Traffic Safety Act, which she had allegedly committed by blowing into the breathalyser insufficiently and thereby disregarding the instructions on the use of the breathalyser. The ensuing proceedings were conducted under the Minor Offences Act 1983, according to which the courts have jurisdiction to decide on charges concerning minor offences.\n8.  On 2 February 2005 the applicant was summoned to appear before the Ljubljana Local Court but the summons was returned to the court undelivered. On 12 April 2005 the court sent a new summons, which was served on the applicant on 22 April 2005. However, further to a medical certificate stating that the applicant was on sick leave during the relevant period, the hearing was cancelled. A new summons was served on the applicant on 5 September 2005. Four days later the applicant informed the court that she would be represented by a lawyer, M., in the proceedings. M. requested a postponement of the hearing scheduled for 12 September 2005 in order to consult the file and prepare the defence. His request was granted.\n9.  The next hearing of the applicant was scheduled for 3 October 2005 at 8.35 a.m. The court also scheduled an examination of Police Officer S. for the same day at 8 a.m. The summons concerning the applicant’s hearing was served on her representative, but not on the applicant, who failed to collect the letter. Neither the hearing of the applicant nor the examination of S. took place on 3 October 2005.\n10.  On 13 September 2005 the court ordered that the applicant be brought before it by force. This order was subsequently cancelled.\n11.  On 20 January 2006 the Ljubljana Local Court summoned the applicant to appear before it. The summons was not served on her but left at the post office. As she failed to collect it, the summons was served on her representative on 30 January 2006. The applicant failed to appear before the judge on the scheduled date.\n12.  On 9 February 2006 the Ljubljana Local Court judge examined Police Officer S., who testified that on the day in question she had seen the applicant swerving from side to side in her car. After pulling her over, she had smelled alcohol on her breath and noticed that she lacked coordination. The police officer also stated that she believed that the applicant had been so drunk that she had been unable to blow properly into the breathalyser. Moreover, she maintained that she had ordered a medical examination, which the applicant had refused to undergo.\n13.  On 17 May 2006 the court ordered that a summons for the applicant to appear before the court be served by a special company, which served the summons on the applicant on 19 May 2006.\n14.  On 26 May 2006 the applicant received copies of the records concerning the examination of S. and of the report on the use of the breathalyser.\n15.  On 1 June 2006 the applicant was heard by the judge. She stated that she had been returning from holiday on the day in question. After being stopped she had followed the police officer’s instructions concerning the use of the brea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7355", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1955, 1962 and 1958 respectively and live in Lebane (the first and the second applicant) and Ćenovac (the third applicant).\n6.  On 11 March 2002 the Lebane Municipal Court (“the Municipal Court”), ordered “DP Metalna i elektro-industrija 1. Maj Ždeglovo” (“the debtor”), a company from Lebane, to pay the first and the second applicant each 46,399 Yugoslav dinars (YUM) and YUM 9,410 to the third applicant, in respect of the unpaid allowances, together with statutory interest until settlement. The debtor was also ordered to pay YUM 3,200 in solidum to all the plaintiffs (20 including the applicants) in respect of legal costs. The judgment became final on the same day.\n7.   On 27 April 2002 the applicants filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment. On 30 April 2002 the Municipal Court issued a writ of execution (rešenje o izvršenju).\n8.  On 11 July 2003 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued in view of the debtor’s request for the opening of bankruptcy proceedings (paragraph 15 below).\n9.  On 4 August 2006, following the applicants’ repeated requests, the enforcement proceedings were resumed.\n10.  On 11 December 2006 the Municipal Court decided to discontinue the enforcement in respect of the second applicant as the debtor submitted evidence (signed written statement certified by the court) that she had withdrawn her claim because she had received compensation within the Redundant Employees Programme (Program rešavanja viška zaposlenih). The second applicant appealed against that decision and on 13 February 2007 the Leskovac District Court (“the District Court”) remitted the case to the Municipal Court instructing it to hold a hearing in order to clarify this matter.\n11.  The Government claimed that the Municipal Court scheduled four hearings, on 4 June, 28 June and 9 July 2007 and on 8 October 2008, for which the applicants failed to appear. However, they did not submit the minutes from those hearings. At the subsequent hearing, held on 27 October 2008, the Municipal Court ordered a financial examination of the outstanding judgment debt in respect of the first and the third applicant. On 30 January 2009 the financial expert submitted his opinion. At the subsequent hearing, held on 23 March 2009, the Municipal Court rejected the first and the third applicant’s objections on the financial expert’s findings.\n12.  On 24 March 2009 the Municipal Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the second applicant and ordered the enforcement in respect of the first and the third applicant based on the expert’s findings.\n13.  On 31 March 2009 the first and the third applicant appealed against that decision, in particular regarding the expert’s findings. The second applicant did not appeal. On 17 July 2009 the District Court upheld the decision of 24 March 2009.\n14.  On 24 March 2010 the outstanding judgment debt was paid to the first and the third applicant.\n15. On 26 March 2002 the debtor submitted a request for the opening of bankruptcy proceedings. On 24 October 2003 the Leskovac Commercial Court rejected that request. On 15 January 2004 the High Commercial Court upheld that decision.\n16.  On 17 July 2007 the debtor was privatised.\n17.  The sales contract was annulled on 30 October 2008. As of that date, the debtor still consisted of predominantly socially/State-owned capital.\n18.  On 30 April 2010 the Leskovac Commercial Court initiated bankruptcy proceedings. It appears that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7356", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 14 March 2001 the applicant being a shareholder of a limited liability company sought determination of his right to consult the company’s accounting documents before the Bratislava Regional Court.\n6.  On 5 November 2002 the Regional Court granted the action in that it ordered the defendant to afford the applicant the opportunity to consult the company’s documents for the years 2000 and 2001.\n7.  On 8 June 2004 the Supreme Court, on the defendant’s appeal, dismissed the judgment concerning the applicant’s claim to consult the company’s documents for 2001. It further quashed the remaining part of the judgment and returned the case to the Regional Court for a new determination. The applicant appealed on points of law.\n8.  On 27 April 2006 a cassation chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law.\n9.  On 7 November 2008 the Regional Court by a decision of a chamber in a changed composition stayed the proceedings pending the outcome ofa different set of proceedings related to the applicant’s expulsion from the company. The applicant appealed against the decision.\n10.  On 28 April 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.\n11.  On 30 June 2009 the applicant turned to the Constitutional Court complaining about the length of the proceedings before both the Regional Court and the Supreme Court concerning his action. It further alleged that the proceedings leading to the Regional Court’s decision to stay them had been unfair and that he had been deprived of his right to a hearing before a tribunal established by law. Finally, he complained of a violation of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.\n12.  On 10 September 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. The Constitutional Court, examining separately the length of proceedings before the Regional Court and the Supreme Court, held that the Regional Court’s inactivity following its decision to stay the proceedings could not be considered as unjustified delays. As to the period before the decision to stay of the proceeding, it did not find any indication of a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. As far as the proceedings before the Supreme Court were concerned, the Constitutional Court observed that at the time of lodging of the constitutional complaint the proceedings had been stayed by the final decision and their duration was in any event less than six months. It therefore rejected the complaint of the length of the proceedings as being manifestly ill-founded. It also rejected the remaining complaints on the same ground.\n13.  On 20 April 2011 the Regional Court issued a judgment in the other set of proceedings which became final on 16 December 2011.\n14.  On 4 April 2012 the Regional Court again stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings on the appeal on points of law concerning the above judgment of 16 December 2011.\n15.  The applicant appealed against the decision. The proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7357", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 17 July 2001 the first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants together with the legal predecessor of the sixth, seventh and eighth applicants challenged the validity of a real estate purchase contract of 1976 and sought to recover the property in issue.\n5.  Subsequently the District Court requested the case files concerning inheritance proceedings related to the estate of several applicants’ legal predecessors, appointed a guardian to represent one minor claimant and held two hearings.\n6.  On 30 May 2003 it dismissed the claim. On 14 October 2003 the case file was transmitted to the Žilina Regional Court for a decision on appeal.\nOn 3 June 2004 the Žilina Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a new determination. The case file returned to the District Court on 18 July 2004.\n7.  The District Court scheduled a hearing for 30 November 2006 which was adjourned for 3 October 2007. After the hearing the District Court requested an expert to give opinion on the authenticity of signatures on the purchase contract. The case file was served on the expert on 9 April 2008.\n8.  After one of the claimants’ death on 26 November 2008, the sixth, seventh and eighth applicant joined the civil proceeding as his legal successors.\n9.  On 17 December 2008 the District Court granted the claim as far as it concerned the validity of the contract and dismissed the remaining part. The parties appealed against the judgment.\n10.  On 11 June 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ constitutional length of proceedings complaint for being manifestlyill-founded. It held that the periods of inactivity of the District Court had not resulted in delays incompatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.\n11.  On 15 July 2010 the Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment and returned the case to the latter for a new determination.\n12.  On 22 November 2010 the District Court dismissed the claim and on 20 December 2010 it amended its judgement. The applicants appealed.\n13.  The proceedings are pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7358", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1942, 1953 and 1949 respectively and live in Kraljevo.\n6.  On 10 November 2004 the Kraljevo District Court (“the District Court”) ordered “MAGNOHROM d.o.o.” (“the debtor”), a company from Kraljevo, to pay the applicants in solidum 1,504,924 Serbian dinars (“RSD”) together with statutory interest and legal costs. This judgment became final on 6 July 2006.\n7.  On 2 February 2007 the applicants filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment proposing that it be carried out through the auctioning of the debtor’s specified immovable assets.\n8.  On 6 February 2007 the Kraljevo Municipal Court (“the Municipal Court”) issued a writ of execution (rešenje o izvršenju). The debtor appealed against that decision arguing that it was going through the process of restructuring as well as that the value of the impugned immovable assets exceeded the value of the applicants’ claims. On 9 March 2007 the District Court dismissed the appeal.\n9.  On an unspecified date 60 other enforcement claims submitted against the same debtor were joined to the applicants’ case.\n10.  After several hearings and few unsuccessful public auctions, on 30 April 2010 the impugned assets were sold to a company from Bačka Palanka for RSD 151,663.077.\n11.  The final decision on division of the proceeds and the order of settlement of creditors was issued by the Municipal Court on 5 July 2011. The court ordered the partial settlement of all creditors in proportion to their claims and the amount obtained through the sale.\n12.  Shortly thereafter the applicants’ claims were partially settled.\n13.  The debtor was privatised on 21 July 2006.\n14.  The sales contract was annulled on 28 December 2007 due to a buyer’s failure to fulfil the contractual obligations.\n15.  As of January 2008, the debtor still consisted of predominantly socially/State-owned capital.\n16.  On 28 May 2010 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the debtor, which is still ongoing. Nevertheless, the enforcement proceedings under consideration in the present case have never been suspended or terminated on these grounds.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7359", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently detained in Iaşi Prison.\n7.  By a decision of 22 December 1997 the Suceava County Court convicted the applicant of murder, sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment and ordered, as a safety measure, compulsory psychiatric treatment until he had fully recovered. Since 1985 the applicant had been periodically hospitalised at the “Socola” psychiatric hospital in Iaşi for different psychiatric conditions (a medical certificate was submitted in this connection). The decision of the County Court was upheld by the Suceava Court of Appeal on 1 July 1998 and became final on 18 December 1998 with a decision of the Supreme Court.\n8.  The applicant began serving his sentence in Iaşi Prison and was subsequently transferred to Botoşani, Craiova, Jilava, Rahova, Tulcea, Poarta Albă, Giurgiu and Arad Prisons, as well as to the Jilava, Rahova, Târgu Ocna and Poarta Albă Prison Hospitals.\n9.  The parties disagree as to the detention conditions in Rahova Prison and whether the applicant was submitted or not to ill-treatment by prison staff.\n10.  The applicant was admitted to Rahova Prison on 9 December 2005 following a stay in Jilava Prison Hospital, where he had been kept under medical observation after a suicide attempt. This was not his first suicide attempt.\n11.  Upon arrival at Rahova Prison he was locked up in solitary confinement cell no. 200, which was used to punish detainees for breaching the internal regulations of the prison.\n12.  Cell no. 200 was described by the applicant as follows. The mattress and blanket were filthy, covered with human excrement and urine, stained with blood and full of lice, bedbugs and dust. The smell was unbearable. There was only one window, in which the glass was broken. The cold was extreme, yet he only had one layer of clothes until 28 December 2005, when he received a second set of clothes. Although he reported that the window was broken, the prison administration took no action. The cell had no hot water supply, the applicant could only take cold showers and there was no soap. He was not given toilet paper. As a result of the conditions of detention in cell no. 200, the applicant contracted scabies, developed pneumonia and suffered bites from lice and bedbugs which became infected. As evidence, the applicant sent to the Court a piece of the mattress, which is extremely dirty and blood‑stained. From 9 December to 28 December 2005, the applicant claims he did not eat or drink anything because he had not been given any crockery.\n13.  On 30 December 2005 the applicant was transported to the court in a metal cage with poor ventilation and in extremely cold conditions, despite the fact that he was very weak and unable to stand up. Upon return to Rahova Prison he was placed in a regular cell.\n14.  On 27 January 2006, as the result of a quarrel with another inmate, the applicant was brutally beaten by masked officers. He was then handcuffed and taken to the medical ward, where the nurse claimed the applicant showed no signs of having been subjected to violence. He was then taken back to solitary confinement, this time in cell no. 500.\n15.  The toilet in cell no. 500 was locked and the prison guards refused to allow the applicant to use it. In protest, on 30 January 2006 he swallowed 200 barbiturate pills which he had kept hidden. On the same day, he was transported to Floreasca Hospital. He returned to Rahova Prison after a few days and upon his return he was again p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7360", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Following the financial crisis in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as well as the subsequent collapse of the banking system in the 1990s, in 1998, 2002, and 2003 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, as well as the respondent State itself adopted specific legislation accepting the conversion of foreign currency deposits in certain banks, including the Podgorička banka, into a public debt. The legislation set the time-frame (2017) and the amounts, including interest, to be paid back to the banks’ former clients (see paragraphs 27-41 below).\n6.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1950, respectively, and both live in Montenegro.\n7.  On 20 September 1993 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica rendered the first judgment in favour of the applicants’ mother ordering the Podgorička banka to pay to her: (i) 179,650.84 US dollars (USD), 59,539.97 German marks (DEM), 254,906.52 Italian liras (LIT) and 4,364.70 Swiss francs (CHF) on account of her foreign-currency savings; (ii) the applicable domicile sight deposit interest for the period between 1 January 1993 and 3 July 1993, plus 6% annual interest as of 3 July 1993; and (iii) 193,768,312 Yugoslav dinars (YUD) for legal costs.\n8.  On 23 May 1994 the Court of First Instance in Podgorica rendered a second judgment in favour of the applicants’ mother ordering the Podgorička banka to pay to her: (i) USD 9,770 and DEM 25,700 on account of her foreign-currency savings; (ii) the accrued sight deposit interest, and (iii) YUD 1,584 for legal costs.\n9.  On 27 June 1996 the same court rendered a third judgment in favour of the applicants’ mother, ordering the Podgorička banka to pay to her: (i) USD 147,620.64, DEM 126,661.39 and LIT 1,602.16 on account of an erroneous calculation of the applicable interest; (ii) the stipulated interest of 12.5%; and (iii) YUD 900 for legal costs.\n10.  On various dates thereafter these judgments became final and enforceable.\n11.  By 5 November 1998 enforcement orders in respect of the first and third judgments were issued. By 19 November 1999 the Court of First Instance terminated the enforcement of these two judgments relying on the Act on the Settlement of Obligations Arising from the Citizens’ Foreign Currency Savings (see paragraph 29 below). The applicants’ mother did not seek an enforcement order in respect of the second judgment at the time.\n12.  Between December 2003 and February 2004 the applicants’ mother requested the enforcement of all three judgments against the Podgorička banka. On 30 March 2005 the Court of First Instance rejected these requests, on the basis that the Podgorička banka was no longer the debtor (nije pasivno legitimisana). The decision further explained that by virtue of the Act on the Citizens’ Foreign-Currency Savings 2003 the respondent State had taken over the debt from this bank, and that the Central Bank of Montenegro (Centralna banka Crne Gore) was responsible for the accuracy of the data taken from the records of the authorised banks (see paragraph 34 below).\n13.  On 18 April 2005 and 19 April 2005 the Court of First Instance upheld the impugned decisions, endorsing the reasons contained therein.\n14.  On 26 May 2004 the applicants requested the Real Estate Office (Direkcija za nekretnine) in Podgorica to register the enforcement orders against the Podgorička banka property (tražili zabilježbu u evidenciji rješenja o izvršenju na nepokretnostima). On 1 June 2004 the Real Estate Office rejected the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7363", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Zsujta.\n5.  On 4 December 1996 a private individual brought an action against the applicant before the Encs District Court, requesting the court to establish the invalidity of an agreement.\n6.  Due to hospitalisation, the applicant did not appear at the hearings held between 21 July and 7 October 1997.\n7.  On 7 June 2001 the applicant submitted a counter-claim against the plaintiff based on unjust enrichment.\n8.  On 13 June 2006 the District Court gave judgment.\nOn appeal, the Borsod-Abaúj-County Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision in part, that is, in respect of the original action brought against the applicant, and remitted the remainder of the claims concerning unjust enrichment to the District Court on 21 November 2006.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings the District Court gave judgment on 10 December 2007.\nOn appeal, the second-instance court accepted some claims and remitted the remainder to the first-instance court on 3 June 2008.\n10.  In the meanwhile, on 8 January 2010 the applicant brought a separate action in compensation under section 349 of the Civil Code against the courts acting in his case, claiming that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time. The proceedings are currently pending before the Nyíregyháza High Court.\n11.  As regards the proceedings concerning the applicant’s counter-claim, several hearings were held. Following another remittal by the Regional Court, the District Court finally accepted the applicant’s counter-claim on 28 April 2010.\nOn appeal, the Regional Court reversed the judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim on 18 November 2010.\nThis judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on 19 May 2011.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7364", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Taliándörögd.\n5.  In October 1999 the Hungarian Railway Company received authorisation to lead wires through the applicant’s property. On 7 April 2000 the applicant received 1,858,536 Hungarian forints (HUF) in compensation from the Railway Company.\n6.  Nevertheless, in October 2000 the applicant brought an action in damages against the Hungarian Railway Company before the Veszprém County Regional Court, claiming that the compensation given did not cover the loss in the value of his property. The court appointed three real estate experts. On 24 February 2003 the court gave judgment, finding in part for the applicant.\n7.  This judgment was quashed on appeal by the Budapest Court of Appeal on 17 September 2003.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings two new expert opinions were obtained. On 6 March 2007 the District Court gave judgment. It ordered the respondent to pay the applicant HUF 4,541,464, and dismissed the remainder of his claims. This judgment was upheld on appeal by the Győr Court of Appeal on 19 March 2008.\n9.  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. It upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment on 2 October 2008. This decision was served on the applicant on 29 October 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7365", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Khabarovsk.\n6.  On 19 May 1997 the applicant lent the Khabarovsk Office of the Trade Counsellor of the Embassy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (“the DPRK Trade Counsellor”) 1,500 United States dollars (USD). The money was to be repaid by 29 May 1997. A receipt of 19 May 1997 on the letterhead of the DPRK Trade Counsellor signed by Mr Chkhe Gym Cher reads as follows:\n“[This] receipt is given to the President of the private company Lord BV Oleynikov to the effect that the Khabarovsk Office of the Trade Counsellor of the DPRK Embassy has borrowed 1,500 (one thousand five hundred) US dollars converted into roubles.\nWe undertake to repay the debt not later than 29 May [and] we pledge the Toyota Camry car, registration plate no. KhBB 1799 (ХББ 1799), engine no. 0073653, chassis no. 0062459, [together] with a complete set of documents for the car. In case of a failure to repay [the debt] within the indicated term, we shall pay 1% for each day of the delay.”\n7.  After the DPRK Trade Counsellor failed to repay the debt, in 1999‑2000 the applicant sent several letters of claim which went unanswered. The applicant’s counsel also sent a letter of claim to the DPRK Trade Counsellor on 13 April 2001 and to the DPRK Embassy on 27 April 2001, which also went unanswered.\n8.  On 11 September 2001 the applicant’s counsel wrote to the Russian Ministry of External Affairs asking for assistance in settling the matter.\n9.  On 29 January 2002 the Ministry of External Affairs replied to the applicant that the DPRK Trade Counsellor was a constituent unit of the DPRK Embassy and, therefore, an organ of the DPRK which acted on its behalf. The DPRK Trade Counsellor thus enjoyed immunity from suit and immunity from attachment or execution in accordance with Article 435 of the 1964 Code of Civil Procedure. The Ministry of External Affairs advised the applicant that, should he decide to lodge a claim with a court, he would have to obtain consent to the examination of the case from a competent North Korean authority.\n10.  On 8 July 2002 the applicant wrote to the DPRK Embassy and asked for its consent to the examination of his claim against the DPRK Trade Counsellor by the domestic courts. The letter was received by the Embassy on 19 July 2002. It appears that the applicant received no reply.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a claim with the Supreme Court of Russia. On 21 February 2003 the Supreme Court returned the claim without examination on the grounds that it should have been lodged before a district court.\n12.  On 9 February 2004 the applicant lodged a claim against the DPRK with the Khabarovsk Industrialniy District Court. He sought repayment of the debt with interest. He claimed, furthermore, that Russia was responsible for the actions of foreign diplomats within its territory.\n13.  On 12 February 2004 the District Court returned the claim without consideration on the grounds that under Article 401 of the 2002 Code of Civil Procedure a claim against a foreign State could only be brought upon the consent of its competent authorities. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 16 March 2004 the Khabarovsk Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal. The court held:\n“[The DPRK Trade Counsellor] is a subdivision of the trade representation of the DPRK in Russia the legal status of which is governed by the Annex to the Treaty on Trade and Navigation between the USSR and the DPRK of 22 June 1960. Acco", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7366", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1930 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  In 1995 he opened a fixed-term interest-bearing deposit account at the Rostov-on-Don Branch of the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation (“the bank”). On an unspecified date in 1996-1997 the bank unilaterally reduced the interest rate on his deposit account. The applicant sued the bank for reinstatement of the initial interest rate and compensation of unpaid interest and damages.\n7.  On 1 April 1999 the applicant challenged the reduction of the interest rate in the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don. On 21 June 1999 the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov rendered a default judgment in favour of the applicant, ordering the bank to cancel its decision to reduce the rate. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. It remained unenforced.\n8.  On 22 March 2001 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court, upon the bank’s application for supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 21 June 1999 and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n9.  Due to non-execution of the above judgment of 21 June 1999 by the Bank, in September 1999, the applicant brought another claim to the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov against the Bank, seeking compensation of unpaid interest and damages.\n10.  On 13 July 2000 the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov rejected the claim.\n11.  On 11 October 2000 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the above judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first instance court.\n12.  On an unspecified date, apparently after the quashing of 22 March 2001, the Proletarskiy District Court decided to join the claims concerning the reduction of the rate and the unpaid interest.\n13.  On 9 October 2001 the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don found for the applicant in part. It held that the reduction of the interest rate was unlawful and awarded the applicant 184,132.77 Russian roubles (RUB) which he would have received if the interest rate had not been reduced during the validity of the contract, up to 9 October 2001. It rejected the remainder of the applicant’s claims as unfounded.\n14.  On 26 December 2001 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n15.  On 2 April 2002 the applicant was paid RUB 184,132.77, and the enforcement proceedings were closed.\n16.  On 5 April 2002 the applicant introduced a request for clarification of the judgment of 9 October 2001, claiming that the latter obliged the bank to renew the regular payments on the basis of unreduced interest rate. On 18 September 2002 the Rostov Regional Court in the final instance rejected his claim, having found that the renewal issue had not been a subject-matter of the judicial decision of 9 October 2001.\n17.  On 6 May 2003 the applicant brought separate proceedings against the bank for payments under the initial interest rate according to the deposit agreement to be calculated from 10 October 2001, as well as for non‑pecuniary damage. He relied on the judgment of the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov of 9 October 2001, which had recalculated the rate until the latter date.\n18.  On 25 March 2004 the Kirovskiy District Court of Rostov‑on‑Don found for the applicant and ordered the bank to recalculate the interest rate as from 10 October 2001, on the basis of the findings made in the judgment of the Proletarskiy District Court of 9 October 2001. The court further rejected the claims for non-pecuniary damage as having no basis in domest", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7368", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, who were originally of Turkish origins, were born in 1966 and 1976 respectively and live in Duisburg.\n6.  On 23 May 2008 the Municipal Authority of Krefeld lodged a request with the Krefeld Family Court to withdraw the applicants’ parental rights over their two children, a daughter (born in 1996) and a son (born in 2000). According to information provided by the girl’s headmistress, their father systematically beat both children if they did not achieve good school grades. The school had already received information during the previous semester that the girl had been beaten. As the girl’s parents appeared to be well adjusted and overly polite, the school did not react immediately, but decided to observe the child more closely. It was thus observed that the children’s family closely supervised the girl via her mobile phone. Furthermore, the father had taken the girl out of biology class because the curriculum provided for sexual education. The girl was not allowed to leave on a school trip and was reported sick instead.\n7.  When a teacher caught the girl in the act of manipulating the marks of a school exam, she opened up to her teacher. The girl further reported that her brother was under even more pressure to achieve good grades and was punished “draconically” if he did not comply. The headmistress contacted the Society for the Protection of Children in Krefeld, which had informed the Youth Office.\n8.  By interim order of 23 May 2008 the Krefeld District Court, in its capacity as a family court, and referring to the reasons submitted in the Municipal Authority’s request, temporarily withdrew the applicants’ parental rights over their two children and transferred them to the Youth Office.\n9.  On 28 May 2008, the Youth Office fetched the two children from their respective schools and brought them to a children’s home. On that same day, the Youth Office informed the second applicant by telephone and in person about the reasons for the placement. The children’s whereabouts were not disclosed to the applicants. The second applicant insisted that they had never beaten the children.\n10.  On 2 June 2008 the applicants, in the main proceedings, represented by counsel, submitted to the District Court that it was true that they considered it important that their children performed well at school. However, they had never been violent towards the children. They further submitted two medical attestations by their family physician Dr D. dated 29 May 2008, certifying that she had seen both children regularly in her medical practice. Both children had made a balanced, stable and cheerful impression. There was no indication that they had suffered from any violent acts. The physician further noted that she had further examined the boy by sonograph. There were no indications of any use of force against the boy, there had been neither hematoma, nor injuries nor bruises. The applicants further submitted medical attestations to demonstrate that the girl had indeed been ill at the dates she had not attended the school trip. They further submitted a number of school reports in order to demonstrate that the children had good grades, showed adequate social behaviour and had rarely been absent from school. They finally submitted that the children regularly attended sports classes. The applicants suggested that there was the possibility that the girl had made the whole story up when she was caught in the act of manipulating school grades.\n11.  O", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7369", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was born in 1981 and died on 2 August 2008. The second applicant was born in 1955 and lives in the town of Zuya in Crimea.\n7.  On 30 September 2005 the first applicant tested HIV positive.\n8.  On 2 February 2006 the Centre for the Prevention and Combating of Aids in Crimea (“the Aids Centre”) informed him of the test results and invited him to register for medical monitoring. The first applicant did not, however, follow the advice (see also paragraphs 21 and 59 below).\n9.  On 20 November 2007 the first applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having robbed an acquaintance of a mobile phone. According to the second applicant, on the same day her son informed the investigator about his HIV status and expressed the fear that his health might deteriorate in detention. This information was allegedly ignored. According to the Government, the first applicant did not disclose his HIV status.\n10.  The first applicant was placed in the Temporary Detention Facility of the Bakhchysaray Police Station (“the ITT”). The officer on duty examined him and reported that he had no visible injuries and had raised no complaints.\n11.  On 23 November 2007 the Bakhchysaray District Court (“the Bakhchysaray Court”) remanded the first applicant in custody pending trial.\n12.  On 30 November 2007 the first applicant was X-rayed in the local polyclinic; no lung pathology was revealed.\n13.  On 2 December 2007 he was taken from the ITT to Simferopol Pre-Trial Detention Centre no. 15 (“the SIZO”), where he was examined by a therapist (general practitioner), a dermatologist, a dentist and a psychiatrist. All found him to be in good health. According to the medical records, the first applicant did not have any health-related complaints and did not report any illnesses. His height and weight were recorded as 180 cm and 78 kg respectively.\n14.  The first applicant was detained in the SIZO from 2 to 28 December 2007, then subsequently from 10 January to 10 February 2008, and from 18 February to 2 June 2008. During the intervening periods, from 28 December 2007 to 10 January 2008, from 10 to 18 February, and from 2 to 20 June 2008, he was held in the ITT.\n15.  According to the records of his medical examinations of 10 January and 10 and 18 February 2008, he appeared to be in good health and did not raise any health-related complaints.\n16.  According to the SIZO medical register, on 28, 29 and 30 May 2008 the first applicant complained of nasal stuffiness, rhinitis, and a sore throat. The SIZO therapist diagnosed him with an “acute respiratory viral infection” and prescribed medication.\n17.  As to the intervening period between the aforementioned records of 18 February and 28 May 2008, no documents are available in the case file. The applicants submitted, however, that in early March 2008 the first applicant’s health had sharply deteriorated. He allegedly had a constant fever of 39-40ºC and suffered from serious digestive disorders. According to the applicants, the administration of the detention facilities called for an ambulance in that regard on many occasions. The nature of the ambulance interventions remained unclear.\n18.  On 31 May 2008 the first applicant was additionally examined by an infectious disease specialist at the SIZO, who issued a note stating the following. The first applicant had been complaining of experiencing fevers and losing weight for the preceding two months. The doctor recommended an HIV test, to which the first ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7370", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and is currently held in a detention facility in the Ivanovo region.\n6.  On 6 January 2002 he was arrested on charges of several counts of aggravated murder, robbery, theft, use of forged documents and failure to report a crime. Another individual, Mr I., was also charged with the same offences.\n7.  On 5 September 2002 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant began to study the case file with his counsel, Ms K. The case file comprised four volumes of material totalling 1,214 pages. It follows from the schedule submitted to the Court that the applicant studied the case file as follows:\n(a)  from 11.30 a.m. to 2 p.m. on 10, 11, 12 and 24 September 2002;\n(b)  from 11.30 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. on 25 and 27 September;\n(c)  from 11.30 a.m. to 2 p.m. on 2 October;\n(d)  from 11.30 a.m. to 3 p.m. on 3 October; and\n(e)  from 11.30 a.m. to 2 p.m. on 8 October.\n8.  According to the applicant, the investigator had pressured him into studying the case file more quickly, promising him additional visits from his mother as a reward. He had also promised to give him copies of the case materials but never fulfilled his promise.\n9.  On 8 October 2002 the applicant and Ms K. signed a statement declaring that they had studied the entire case file and had no particular requests to make.\n10.  The trial started on 15 November 2002 in the Ivanovo Regional Court. The court ordered that the applicant and his co-defendant Mr I. be tried by jury.\n11.  During the trial the applicant was represented by counsel Mr S., who had been retained by his mother. According to the applicant, Mr S. never asked for permission to study the case file.\n12.  On 25 December 2002 the jury pronounced the applicant and his co-defendant guilty of aggravated murder, robbery, theft and failure to report a crime.\n13.  On 9 January 2003 the Ivanovo Regional Court sentenced the applicant to twenty-three years’ imprisonment.\n14.  On 14 January 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal (“кассационная жалоба”). On 20 January 2003 counsel Mr S. filed appeal submissions on his behalf. On 7 April 2003 the applicant lodged additional appeal submissions together with a request to attend the hearing.\n15.  On 18 February 2003 a local newspaper published an article describing the offences committed by the applicant.\n16.  The appeal hearing was scheduled for 25 June 2003. On 17 June 2003 Mr S. was informed of the hearing date by telegram. In anticipation of the hearing, the applicant was transported to Moscow and placed in remand centre IZ-77/3.\n17.  On 25 June 2003 the appeal hearing took place in the Supreme Court of Russia. The applicant participated in the hearing by video link. Mr S. did not attend.\n18.  According to the applicant, he had asked the court to adjourn the appeal hearing and to appoint counsel on his behalf. The judges had allegedly replied that there had been no legal basis for his request. Furthermore, he had filed additional appeal submissions which, according to him, had been faxed to the Supreme Court by a warder of the remand centre. In those appeal submissions he had complained, in particular, that he had not been afforded sufficient time to study the case file. He read the submissions out to the court. The quality of the video link was poor and the connection was interrupted several times.\n19.  The Government disputed the applicant’s account of the appeal hearing. They stated that there was no evidence in the case file of a request to app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7371", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946. He was the Minister of Health Care from 1993 to 2005.\n6.  On 20 October 2005 the applicant was summoned to the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”). He arrived at the MNS at around 3 p.m. and was questioned until 7 p.m.\n7.  After being questioned he was detained on suspicion of abuse of official authority, embezzlement of public funds and complicity in an attempted coup d’état, allegedly planned to take place after the parliamentary elections of 6 November 2005 and masterminded by former Parliament Speaker R. Guliyev (who was living abroad at that time) and several other high-ranking government officials. He was held in the detention facility of the MNS.\n8.  It appears that he was dismissed from his ministerial office on the same day.\n9.  On 22 October 2005 the Prosecutor General’s Office formally charged the applicant with criminal offences under Articles 28/220.1 (preparation to organise public disorder), 278 (actions aimed at usurping State power), 179.3.2 (high-level embezzlement), 308.2 (abuse of official authority entailing grave consequences), 311.3.2 (repeated bribe-taking) and 311.3.3 (high-level bribe-taking) of the Criminal Code. The applicant was formally charged in criminal case no. 76586.\n10.  On 22 October 2005 the Nasimi District Court remanded the applicant in custody for a period of three months (until 20 January 2006). On 13 January 2006 the same court extended this period by another four months (until 20 May 2006). On 19 May 2006 this period was extended again, by another five months (until 20 October 2006). Lastly, on 16 October 2006 the period was extended again, by another six months (until 20 April 2007). The applicant lodged appeals against each of these decisions. All his appeals were dismissed by the Court of Appeal. An appeal by the applicant against the extension decision of 16 October 2006 was dismissed by a decision of the Court of Appeal on 2 November 2006.\n11.  In the course of the pre-trial investigation, the investigating authorities carried out a search of the applicant’s home and found, inter alia, large amounts of cash in various currencies, large quantities of gold items and jewellery, and deeds of a number of residential properties.\n12.  On 19 January 2007 the Prosecutor General’s Office issued a new indictment charging the applicant with criminal offences under Articles 28/220.1, 278, 179.3.2, 306.2 (failure by a public official to execute a final court judgment), 308.1 (abuse of official authority), 308.2, 311.3.1 (bribe‑taking), 311.3.2 and 311.3.3 of the Criminal Code.\n13.  On 24 January 2007 a new criminal case (no. 76932) was severed from criminal case no. 76586. Under criminal case no. 76932 the applicant was formally charged with the offences under Articles 179.3.2, 306.2, 308.1, 308.2, 311.3.1, 311.3.2, 311.3.3 and 313 (forgery in public office) of the Criminal Code.\n14.  Specifically, the applicant was accused of having committed the following criminal acts, inter alia:\n(i)  Between 1997 and 2004 he had created conditions for unlawful disposal (by way of privatisation) of numerous State-owned real-property assets (land and non-residential premises) which were on the books of the Ministry of Health Care and had a total estimated value of 27,221,574 New Azerbaijani manats (AZN) (approximately 23,500,000 euros (EUR) at that time). Among other things, the applicant was accused of falsifying, with the assistance of accomplices, certain documents relate", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7373", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n6.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Vakhit Avkhadov, born in 1979. The second to fifth applicants are Vakhit Avkhadov’s sisters. The applicants reside in the town of Urus-Martan, the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The account of the events below is based on the information contained in the application form; the first applicant’s written statement made on 4 June 2007; a written statement of 5 June 2005 by R.A., the first applicant’s daughter, who is not an applicant in the present case; a written statement by the applicants’ neighbour, S.M., made on 8 June 2007; and a written statement by M.A., a resident of Urus-Martan, made on 4 December 2009.\n8.  On 24 April 2001 the first applicant, Vakhit Avkhadov and R.A. were at home, at 104 (subsequently re-numbered as 112) Sovetskaya Street in Urus-Martan.\n9.  At about 6 a.m. on 24 April 2001 the first applicant was woken up by a noise coming from outside. Through a window she saw several armed men climb over the fence and into the courtyard. She ran to the room where Vakhit Avkhadov was sleeping and alerted him about the intrusion. She then rushed downstairs to the front door, through which several armed men were already entering the house. Two of them guarded the front door while two others immediately started searching the house. All of the intruders were wearing new camouflage uniforms and were armed with submachine guns. While the first applicant was by the front door, she noticed behind the fence two armoured personnel carriers (hereinafter also “APC”) surrounded by numerous armed men wearing green camouflage uniforms. Unlike the uniforms of the men who had burst into the house, the uniforms of those beside the APCs were very dirty.\n10.  The armed intruders neither identified themselves nor explained the reasons for their intrusion. One of them asked the first applicant who was at home. She tried to ask him who they were looking for but by that time two intruders had already spotted Vakhit Avkhadov. One of them, a tall man, pointed his gun at Vakhit Avkhadov and ordered him in Russian to put his arms behind his neck and get out of his room. Vakhit Avkhadov was taken to the hallway and ordered to kneel. When the tall intruder raised his leg to kick Vakhit Avkhadov, the first applicant shouted at him, asking him why he was doing that to her son, but was ordered to be silent. At the same moment R.A. ran from her room and tried to approach Vakhit Avkhadov, but one of the men threatened her with his gun and made her return to her room.\n11.  The intruders then took Vakhit Avkhadov into the courtyard and placed him face-down on the ground. He was wearing only his underwear so the first applicant brought some of his clothes outside, in particular, a red T-shirt, a warm sports jacket with a white stripe on a sleeve and a black raincoat. She asked the intruders to allow her son to get dressed. One of them agreed, urging Vakhit Avkhadov to do so quickly, and even passed him a pair of shoes which had been by the front door.\n12.  Shortly thereafter the armed men who were searching the house went outside and asked the first applicant for Vakhit Avkhadov’s identity papers. She started crying and begged them not to take him away. She asked them at least to explain why they were arresting him. Vakhit Avkhadov asked her to calm down and to comply with the order. He explained to her where he kept his temporary identity card and she brought it outside and handed it over to one of the ar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7374", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Khasavyurt, Dagestan. She is the wife of Yeraly Israilov, born in 1953. Her family, including her two sons A.I. and M.I., lives in the settlement of Novye Plany, the village of Khasavyurt, which is situated on the administrative border with Chechnya.\n7.  The description of the events of 19-23 October 2004 set out below is based on the written statements given by the applicant, her sons A.I. and M.I., her nephew R.I., and by ten of their relatives and neighbours. Some of the statements were collected by the applicant’s lawyer in May 2005, while others were undated.\n8.  On 19 October 2004 at about 2 p.m. a special operation was carried out in Novye Plany, during which the neighbourhood was searched. The applicant believed that the operation had targeted a wounded member of an illegal armed group who had been in hiding there. The operation was apparently unsuccessful.\n9.  Later on the same day, at around 7 p.m., a group of servicemen of the Khasavyurt district department of the interior (“the Khasavyurt ROVD”) and servicemen of the Gudermes (Chechnya) ROVD arrived at the applicant’s house in three vehicles – two Zhiguli cars and one UAZ all‑terrain vehicle. At that time the applicant, her husband Yeraly Israilov, their two sons A.I. and M.I., M.I.’s wife Kheda and Yeraly Israilov’s nephew R.I. were at home.\n10.  A group of men in military camouflage uniforms formed a circle around the house, while others entered the house and spread out through the rooms. They ordered everyone inside to lie on the floor. Among the intruders Yeraly Israilov recognised a tall grey-haired man aged about forty-five to fifty, who originated from Gudermes, Chechnya. The man also recognised the applicant’s husband, who had lived in Gudermes between 1979 and 1994. Then Yeraly Israilov was allowed to get up from the floor and dress himself.\n11.  The applicant’s two sons and nephew were ordered to stand against the wall and were searched. The servicemen searched the house, including the cellar and the roof space. They collected the passports of the four men and a mobile phone.\n12.  Yeraly Israilov, his two sons and nephew were then ordered to get into a UAZ vehicle parked outside of the house. The vehicles went to the premises of the Khasavyurt ROVD, where three or four men in uniforms got out. About five or ten minutes later the UAZ with the four detainees, together with other cars, went on further towards Chechnya.\n13.  In the meantime, the applicant and her relatives and neighbours went to the Khasavyurt ROVD’s premises. They submitted that up to 200 people had gathered there and demanded that the detainees be released. They were assured by the ROVD servicemen that the four men had been taken to the Gudermes ROVD’s premises in Chechnya for questioning and that they would be released without delay. After that the crowd dispersed.\n14.  According to the statements given by A.I., M.I. and R.I., after about forty minutes’ drive the cars arrived at the Gudermes ROVD’s premises, where the four men were ordered to get out. Without any registration in the custody log having been made, each was taken to a separate room and questioned. A.I. submitted that he had been questioned by an investigator named “Aleksey”, who had asked him about the whereabouts of some men he did not know. He spent the rest of the night sitting on a chair in a room on the third floor.\n15.  M.I. was also taken to a room on the second floor and questione", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7375", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Laval.\n6.  On 28 August 2008, during a visit to Laval by the President of France, the applicant waved a small placard reading “Casse toi pov’con” (“Get lost, you sad prick”) as the President’s party was about to pass by.\n7.  The applicant was making an allusion to a much publicised phrase which the President himself had uttered on 23 February 2008 at the International Agricultural Show in response to a farmer who had refused to shake his hand. The phrase had given rise to extensive comment and media coverage and had been widely circulated on the Internet and used as a slogan at demonstrations.\n8.  The applicant was immediately stopped by the police and taken to the police station. He was prosecuted by the public prosecutor for insulting the President, an offence under section 26 of the Act of 29 July 1881 (see paragraph 16 below). A summons to appear before the criminal court was handed to him later that day.\n9.  In a judgment of 6 November 2008 the Laval tribunal de grande instance found the applicant guilty of insulting the President and fined him 30 euros (EUR), a penalty which was suspended. The court held as follows:\n“... On the day of the President’s visit ... the defendant ... saw fit to wave a small placard containing an exact copy, served cold, of a famous retort prompted by a direct affront.\nIf the defendant had not intended to cause offence, but solely to give an incongruous lesson in manners, he would surely have preceded the phrase ‘casse toi pov’con’ with words to the effect ‘you shouldn’t say’.\nHaving adopted the phrase strictly as his own, he cannot reasonably maintain that he had no intention of causing offence. The apparently underlying issue of double standards does not even arise, since the purpose of the law is to protect the office of President, and Mr Eon, as an ordinary citizen, cannot claim the right to be treated on an equal footing.\nThe offence of insulting the President of the French Republic has therefore been fully made out ...”\nAs to the sentence, the court noted that in view of the applicant’s circumstances and modest income (EUR 450 per month), it was appropriate to give him a simple warning in the form of a fine described by the judges as “a matter of principle”.\n10.  The applicant and the public prosecutor both appealed.\n11.  In a judgment of 24 March 2009 the Angers Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment in its entirety. On the issue of the applicant’s guilt, it set out its reasoning as follows:\n“As to the question of guilt:\nActus reus of the offence\nThe definition in the 1959, 2002 and 2006 editions of Le Petit Larousse is almost unchanged: ‘insult [offense] is a concept defined as a remark or action which undermines a person’s dignity or honour; in law, it specifically denotes an affront to a head of State (1959) or a public affront to the President of France ... constituting a criminal offence’ (2006).\nIt is accepted in the case-law that the actus reus of the offence is any insulting or disparaging expression or any defamatory insinuation that is liable to undermine the President’s honour, dignity or reputation, either in the performance of his official duties or in his private life. There is no need for lengthy discussion of the fact that describing the President as a ‘sad prick’ [‘pauvre con’] amounts to insulting him.\nThe small placard containing the phrase in question is indisputably a form of publicly conveying a message, which can tak", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7376", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Timişoara.\n7.  On 11 October 2011 the Timiş County Court sentenced him to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for robbery.\n8.  The applicant has been detained in Timişoara Prison since 3 September 2009 until the present (except for the period between 11 and 18 February 2010, when he was hospitalised in the medical unit of Rahova Prison).\nConditions of detention\n9.  The conditions of the applicant’s detention are in dispute between the parties.\n10.  The applicant complained mainly of overcrowding and unsatisfactory sanitary conditions. He complained of the following.\n11.  The cell occupied by him was 4-5 metres in length, 3.2 in width and 3 metres high and he shared it with eight other detainees, one of whom was suffering from syphilis.\n12.  The temperature in the cell was not adequate because the window was broken; in winter the detainees covered it with a blanket.\n13.  Sanitary conditions were very poor and the cell was full of parasites.\n14.  The installations in the bathroom were defective.\n15.  The prison had no place specially designed for eating, and the detainees were forced to eat in their cells, where there was no other furniture than the beds.\n16.  The applicant alleged that before they were transported to the courts they were forced to leave the cell and strip naked. In addition, before being transported to the court they were all kept in a small room (3.5 metres in length and 4 metres high) for at least one hour.\n17.  He also contended that the detainees were not allowed to take a walk every day, there were no educational, cultural or sports activities available, and they were simply left in their cells all the time with no occupation.\n18.  The Government submitted in their observations that, in general, the conditions in Timişoara Prison were adequate.\n19.  They further submitted that the applicant had spent most of the relevant time in cell no. 85, where non-smoking inmates were held. The cell had a length of 6.2 m, a width of 3.4 m and a height of 3 m. It was fitted with 9 beds and throughout the period when the applicant was held there the number of inmates never exceeded the number of beds. According to the information provided by the national authorities, currently there are 7 inmates held in cell no. 85.\n20.  The cell was fitted with a window which was 150 cm long and 177 cm high, providing good ventilation, thermal isolation and natural lighting.\n21.  Moreover, the cell was equipped with a television set, adequate furniture, electricity and sanitary facilities.\n22.  The penitentiary had its own electricity and heating.\n23.  Each cell had a sanitary annex fitted with toilet, sink and shower. Cold water was supplied constantly and warm water was supplied every day in accordance with a schedule set up by the prison’s manager.\n24.  As regards the hygiene conditions, according to the same information, the Timişoara Penitentiary has contract with a specialised company and consequently there were periodical insect and rodent control visits. The last one had been carried out in 2010.\n25.  The inmates’ clothes were cleaned at the prison’s laundry. In 2010 each inmate had been provided with two bed sheets and one cotton blanket.\n26.  The applicant’s allegation that he had to share the cell with persons suffering from syphilis or other contagious disease was denied by the prison administration.\n27.  As regards the daily walk and the educational, cultural and sports activities avail", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7377", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  On 15 November 2007 the applicant was arrested on charges of a series of car thefts. In the prosecution’s ensuing motion to have him detained on remand, the dangers of absconding, collusion and repetition of crime were referred to.\n7.  The defence argued that there was no reasonable suspicion that the applicant had indeed committed an offence. Moreover, since he had a settled life in Hungary, the applicant – who was the father of a minor child and had regular income out of which he was supporting his parents and was paying a mortgage – was unlikely to abscond. In another criminal case conducted against him, he had attended all the hearings and had never attempted to frustrate the procedure. In the instant case, all evidence having already been seized, it was not plausible that he would interfere with the witnesses or repeat any crime. Against this background, his pre-trial detention was not justified and should be substituted, if necessary at all, by a less coercive measure.\n8.  On 17 November 2007 the Pest Central District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand, reiterating in essence the reasons in the prosecution’s motion.\n9.  On 29 November 2007 the Budapest Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. This court was satisfied that there was reasonable suspicion against the applicant. It pointed out that no actual assessment of that evidence could be done in the remand proceedings because that would amount to usurping the powers of the trial court. The Regional Court moreover held that the fact that the applicant had made preparations to buy property abroad was sufficient to substantiate the danger of absconding. Moreover, since there was another prosecution under way, the court held that the applicant might have a criminal lifestyle, a predisposition to repetition of crime. The court went on to state that “in the present phase of the proceedings, the controversies referred to by the defence are not capable of fully eliminating the reasonable suspicion” of the applicant’s having committed a crime.\n10.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was repeatedly prolonged at the statutory intervals. In these proceedings, the arguments of the defence remained largely the same, and so did the findings of the courts. The applicant’s requests for release, if necessary on bail, were to no avail.\nOn 18 December 2007, 8 and 28 February and 28 March 2008 the applicant complained to the authorities that he had not been granted access to the evidence underlying his detention. These complaints were all rejected, although the courts did not specify that such an access had actually been granted.\nMeanwhile, on 8 February 2008 the applicant submitted to the authorities a psychiatric opinion, according to which he suffered from a personality disorder, including fear of crowds and of being locked up, which was susceptible to deterioration due to detention.\nA further expert opinion issued on 16 March 2008 specified that the applicant had suffered a sexual assault from fellow inmates while in detention, which had aggravated his psychological imbalance.\n11.  Meanwhile, a further prolongation order, valid until 17 February 2008, was issued on 14 February 2008. However, the applicant was not released on 17 February 2008, because the holding facility had received a mistyped notification ordering his detention until 17 May – rather than 17 February – 2008. On 18 February 2008 the first-insta", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7378", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In 1951 the State authorities took more than three hectares of land from a relative of the applicants. No compensation was paid to the owner.\n6.  The applicants unsuccessfully claimed restitution of the land under Law no. 503/2003. In particular, in a judgment of 13 December 2006 the Supreme Court held, in a review of the decisions made at lower levels of jurisdiction, that the land had been formally transferred to the State pursuant to Ordinance 15/1959. Section 3 of Law no. 503/2003 did not include such a situation as grounds for restitution of property. The applicants could have claimed restitution of the land earlier, under Law no. 403/1990, but they had not done so.\n7.  On 23 April 2007 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court. They alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and also of their constitutional right to own property.\n8.  In particular, the applicants argued that the land had been expropriated without compensation. It was therefore liable to restitution under section 3(1)(m) and (n) of Law no. 503/2003, irrespective of the fact that that law contained no reference to Ordinance 15/1959. They referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment 3SžoKS 130/2005 of 9 June 2006, which found that a situation similar to that of the applicants fell under Law no. 503/2003.\n9.  On 25 October 2007 the Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint (decision III. ÚS 287/07). It held that the Supreme Court had given sufficient reasons for its judgment, which was neither arbitrary nor otherwise contrary to the constitutional principles. It was not for the Constitutional Court to review the way in which ordinary courts interpreted and applied the law unless it resulted in a breach of the Constitution.\n10.  The decision was served on 18 December 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7379", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Batočina.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 28 October 1983 the applicant gave birth to a healthy baby boy in the Ćuprija Medical Centre (“the ĆMC”), a State-run hospital.\n8.  Between 28 and 30 October 1983, while still in the ĆMC, the applicant had regular contact with her son.\n9.  On 30 October 1983 the applicant was informed by the doctors that both she and her son would be discharged the next day.\n10.  The applicant was with her son until approximately 11 p.m. on 30 October, when he was taken to a separate room for newborn babies. This was standard procedure and the applicant’s son had experienced no medical problems up to that point.\n11.  On 31 October 1983, at around 6.30 a.m., the duty doctor informed the applicant that “her baby ha[d] died”. Upon hearing this, the applicant immediately ran down the corridor towards the room where her son had spent the night. She was physically restrained by two orderlies, however. A nurse even tried to inject her with a sedative, but the applicant successfully resisted the attempt. Ultimately, having no other option and being in a state of shock, the applicant checked out of the ĆMC. Her relatives were subsequently told that the autopsy of the infant would be performed in Belgrade, which was why his body could not yet be released to the parents. The applicant and her family remained confused as to why the autopsy would have to be carried out in Belgrade, as this was clearly a departure from the ĆMC’s normal practice.\n12.  From 2001, and particularly from 2002, the Serbian media started reporting extensively on numerous cases similar to the applicant’s (see, for example, http://www.kradjabeba.org, accessed on 29 January 2013).\n13.  On 24 October 2002 the applicant sent a request to the ĆMC, seeking all relevant documentation relating to her son’s death.\n14.  On 12 November 2002 the applicant was informed by the ĆMC that her son had died on 31 October 1983, at 7.15 a.m., and that his death had occurred from an unknown cause. The ĆMC maintained that no other information was available because its archives had been flooded in the meantime and many documents had been destroyed.\n15.  On 22 November 2002, in response to the applicant’s request, the Municipality of Ćuprija informed her that her son’s birth had been registered in the municipal records but that his death had not.\n16.  On 10 January 2003 the applicant’s husband (the child’s father) lodged a criminal complaint with the Ćuprija municipal public prosecutor’s office against the medical staff of the ĆMC, whom the applicant deemed responsible for “her son’s abduction”.\n17.  On 15 October 2003 the Ćuprija municipal public prosecutor’s office rejected the complaint as unsubstantiated, since “there was evidence that [the applicant’s] son had died on 31 October 1983”. No further reasoning was offered and there was no indication as to whether any preliminary investigation had been carried out.\n18.  In March 2004 the Municipality of Ćuprija reaffirmed the content of its letter of 22 November 2002.\n19.  On 29 April 2004 the ĆMC provided the applicant with its internal records in support of its letter dated 12 November 2002.\n20.  On 19 September 2007 the Municipality of Ćuprija confirmed that the death of the applicant’s son had never been formally registered.\n21.  On 28 December 2007 the Municipality of Ćuprija provided the applicant with copies of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7380", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Striama.\n6.  The applicant was convicted of a number of crimes committed between 1991 and 1998. The cases were given the case numbers 70/1995, 343/1998, 805/2001, 751/2002, 660/2002, 868/2003 and 1732/2002.\n7.  On 13 October 2003 a plea bargain agreement in case no. 868/2003 was approved by the Plovdiv District Court, under the terms of which the applicant pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment.\n8.  The applicant started serving that sentence on 28 October 2003.\n9.  By a decision of 19 December 2003 in case no. 868/2003, the Plovdiv District Court imposed an overall sentence of two years’ imprisonment, which included imprisonment for four of the applicant’s other convictions (cases nos. 343/1998, 805/2001, 751/2002 and 660/2002).\n10.  Following an appeal lodged by the applicant, by a decision of 10 May 2004 the Plovdiv Regional Court set aside the lower court’s decision. It imposed an overall sentence of one year’s imprisonment solely for the applicant’s convictions in cases nos. 343/1998 and 868/2003. From that prison term, the court deducted the six months which had been served by the applicant following his conviction in case no. 343/1998. It also held that the period served by the applicant following his conviction in case no. 868/2003 was also to be deducted from the overall sentence. The court did not specify when the one-year prison term was to expire. In respect of the convictions in cases nos. 70/1995, 805/2001, 751/2002 and 660/2002 (the applicant had already served the sentence imposed in case no. 70/1995 and the sentences in the remaining three cases were suspended), it concluded that imposing a separate overall sentence would be to the applicant’s benefit but that another regional court was competent in this respect.\n11.  Following the decision of 10 May 2004 the applicant, relying on Article 425 of the Code Criminal Procedure of 1974, applied for the suspension of his sentence. On 14 May 2004 the regional prosecutor rejected the application, reasoning that an overall sentence for four other convictions was yet to be imposed.\n12.  The applicant was released on 1 June 2004, when it would appear that the decision of 10 May 2004, not having been appealed by either the applicant or the prosecution authorities, became final.\n13.  On an unspecified date in 2005 a new set of proceedings in which an overall sentence would be imposed started on account of the applicant’s conviction in case no. 1732/2002, which had not been taken into consideration during the previous set of proceedings.\n14.  By a decision of 13 December 2005 the Plovdiv District Court imposed an overall sentence of one year and three months’ imprisonment for the applicant’s convictions in cases nos. 343/1998, 1732/2002 and 868/2003. On 21 April 2006 the Plovdiv Regional Court upheld that decision.\n15.  It is not clear from the documents in the case file whether an overall sentence in cases nos. 70/1995, 805/2001, 751/2002 and 660/2002 was imposed.\n16.  On 1 October 2004, the applicant brought an action for damages under the State and Municipalities’ Responsibility for Damage Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”) against the Plovdiv District Court and public prosecutor’s office. He claimed that under the decision of 10 May 2004 he had been sentenced to one year’s imprisonment but that he had actually served one year, two months and ten days.\n17.  By a judgment of 13 May 2005 the Pazardzhik Regional C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7381", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is currently serving his prison sentence in Muğla Prison.\n5.  On 16 January 2004 at 6.30 p.m. the applicant was taken into police custody in connection with a murder investigation. At 6.35 p.m. he met a lawyer from the Muğla Bar Association at the Fethiye Security Directorate. The applicant was then taken to the doctor, who did not find any signs of physical ill-treatment on his body.\n6.  On 17 January 2004 the applicant was questioned by the police in the absence of a lawyer. According to a form signed by the applicant, he was reminded of his right to the assistance of a lawyer but he did not make such a request. In his statement to the police, the applicant confessed that he had been involved in the murder of a certain İ.G. He explained that on 11 October 2003, together with İ.G. and Y.A., he had gone to Katrancı Bay to have dinner in a picnic area. Subsequently, a fight broke out between İ.G. and Y.A., and, as a result, İ.G. fell and hit his head on some rocks. When they saw that he was dead, they panicked and tried to get rid of his body. They tied heavy iron bars to his legs and placed his body on a tyre inner tube that they had taken from the boot of Y.A.’s car. Then they swam far from the shore with the body, and dropped it into the sea. The applicant subsequently took part in a reconstruction of events with the police at the scene of the incident.\n7.  On the same day at about 5.30 p.m. the applicant was once again examined by a doctor, who did not find any signs of ill-treatment on his body.\n8.  The applicant was subsequently taken before the public prosecutor and the judge. Still waiving his right to legal assistance, the applicant repeated the statement he had given to the police. The judge ordered his pre-trial detention and the applicant was placed in Fethiye Prison.\n9.  On 19 January 2004, at 4.15 p.m., at his request, the applicant was examined by a doctor in Fethiye State Hospital. According to the medical report, the doctor found two bruises 5-6 cm wide and 30 cm long, and one bruise 5-6 cm wide and 10-15 cm long on the applicant’s back. The doctor noted that the bruises had been caused by a blunt object 24 to 48 hours prior to the examination. She considered that the injuries rendered the applicant unfit for work for three days. She finally noted that the applicant complained of pain in his left ear and that he should therefore be examined by an ear, nose and throat specialist.\n10.  On 20 January 2004 the other co-accused, Y.A., who had allegedly killed İ.G. according to the applicant’s statement, was arrested. In his statement to the police, made in the presence of his lawyer, Y.A. stated that on the day of the incident, before meeting İ.G. to go to Katrancı Bay, he and the applicant had bought a tyre inner tube and two large iron bars. The applicant had previously told him that he knew of a person who was harassing high-school girls and that the applicant was looking for someone to murder this person. Y.A. stated that he had no intention of killing İ.G. when he met him. According to his recollection, when they arrived at Katrancı Bay and the applicant and İ.G. got out of the car, he stayed inside as he wanted to listen to a football match. Some time later, Y.A. saw İ.G. lying on the ground, his head covered in blood. He alleged that the applicant had told him that “his job was over”. As the applicant threatened him, he was forced to help him dispose of the body. The applicant tie", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7383", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Sofia.\n6.  By a judgment that became final on 30 November 2004, the Gabrovo Regional Court sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment in case no. 210/00.\n7.  By a judgment that became final on 13 May 2005, the Kardzhali Regional Court sentenced the applicant to one year’s imprisonment in case no. 46/04. The court deducted the period of one year during which the applicant had been held in pre-trial detention (from 10 June 2003 to 10 June 2004).\n8.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant submitted a request for an overall prison term for his two convictions.\n9.  By decision no. 394 of 1 July 2005, the Kardzhali District Court imposed an overall prison term of three years and six months. The court found that the applicant had started serving his sentence for case no. 210/00 on 10 May 2003 and deducted the two years, two months and twenty-nine days that he had already served as of 1 July 2005. Further, as an order for the applicant’s pre-trial detention in case no. 46/04 had been in effect from 10 June 2003 to 10 June 2004, the court deducted that period as well.\n10.  The applicant appealed against the decision. In a hearing held on 29 September 2005 he withdrew his appeal. As the public prosecutor’s office had not appealed against the decision, the proceedings were discontinued on the same date and decision no. 394 became final.\n11.  Consequently, on the same day the Kardzhali district prosecutor instructed the prison authorities in Sofia, where the applicant was detained, to release him as he had served his overall sentence in its entirety.\n12.  The prison authorities did not follow the instruction as they considered that the applicant’s overall prison term had been miscalculated. In their view, the period in which an order for the applicant’s pre-trial detention in case no. 46/04 had been in effect had been wrongly deducted. In a letter dated 7 October 2005, they informed the Sofia and Kardzhali public prosecutor’s office of their finding.\n13.  On 18 November 2005 the Supreme Cassation public prosecutor’s office (SCPPO) instructed the Kardzhali public prosecutor’s office to request that the District Court interpret its decision so as to clarify whether the period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in case no. 46/04 should have been deducted.\n14.  On 2 December 2005 the request was rejected by the Kardzhali District Court, which held that its decision was clear.\n15.  On the same date, the SCPPO instructed the Kardzhali district prosecutor to order the applicant’s release. It also stated that, given that the total term of the two sentences had been miscalculated, the possibility should be examined of submitting a request to re-open the proceedings in order to determine an overall sentence. A copy of the letter was sent to the applicant’s lawyer.\n16.  The applicant was released from prison on 8 December 2005.\n17.  In a letter of 12 December 2005 the Sofia Prison authorities informed the SCPPO that, as a result of a miscalculation of the prison term by the Kardzhali District Court, the applicant had served two months and eleven days more than the prison term determined by that court.\n18.  On 10 April 2006 the Supreme public prosecutor’s office submitted a request, under Article 362 of the 1974 Code of Criminal Procedure, for the proceedings to be re-opened in order to determine an overall sentence for the applicant’s two convictions.\n19.  By a final judgment of 10 October 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7384", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Panevėžys.\n7.  The applicant stated that between 3 January and 4 February 2001, she had been beaten up on five occasions by her live-in partner, J.H.L., a Belgian citizen. She submitted that she had been strangled, pulled by the hair, hit in the face and kicked in the back and in other parts of her body.\n8.  The applicant’s injuries were documented by forensic expert examinations, the results of which were as follows:\n(i)  report of 5 January 2001 concerning injuries sustained on 3 and 4 January: hypodermic bruising on the left hip and thigh;\n(ii)  report of 8 January concerning injuries sustained on 7 January: a scrape on the right cheek and brachium;\n(iii)  report of 30 January concerning injuries sustained on 29 January: bruising on the right eye and cheek, the left temple, the shin, and a scrape on the left shin;\n(iv)  report of 7 February concerning injuries sustained on 4 February: hypodermic bruising on the face.\nEach time the experts concluded that the bodily injuries sustained were minor and had not caused any short-term health problems (lengvi kūno sužalojimai, nesukėlę trumpalaikio sveikatos sutrikimo).\n9.  On 14 February 2001 the applicant lodged an application with the Panevėžys City District Court to bring a private prosecution. She stated that J.H.L. had beaten her up on five occasions and gave the following detailed statement:\n“I have lived with J.H.L. since 1996. Recently he started to harass and beat me.\nOn 3 January 2001 at around 8 p.m., I came home and found J.H.L. drunk; he was pulling up floor tiles. I complained about how he was behaving and he started to pull at my clothes. I crouched down and he then kicked me in the ribs and in the buttocks and tried to strangle me and pull my hair. When he had calmed down, I went into another room.\nThe next morning, on 4 January 2001 at around 9 a.m., J.H.L. stated that if I did not want to live with him any more and did not behave as he wished, he would move everything out of the apartment and would then make me pay for what I had done. He got angry when I suggested that we talk things through and he started kicking and hitting me again. He hit me a few times in various parts of my body. After that, he left home and I went to my friend G.V.’s apartment. She saw that I had been beaten up and I told her everything that had happened.\nOn 7 January 2001 at around 5.30 p.m., I came home and found J.H.L. drunk again. He started to reproach me for seeking medical expert attention for my injuries and told me that he wanted me to leave. He then called the police. Later, after the police officers had left the apartment without having taken any action (they asked me to come in to the police station the following day), J.H.L. got mad and pushed me out of the apartment into the stairwell and hit me in the face. Hearing a noise, B. and J., neighbours from apartments nos. 51 and 52, came out of their apartments to the landing and saw what was happening.\nOn 29 January 2001 at around 6.30 p.m., I came back from school and J.H.L. got mad about our relationship falling apart (I wasn’t staying at the apartment as I was trying to avoid any confrontation) and he started to beat me again: he kicked me in the face, waist, and other parts of my body and hit me in the head. When he finally stopped beating me, I went to my friend J.V.’s apartment. She lives in the same building, at apartment no. 34.\nOn 4 February 2001 at around 8 p.m., while I was at home", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7385", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, a Russian national of Chechen origin, was born in 1976 and lives in Vienna.\n8.  The applicant left Chechnya for Kyrgyzstan and Poland in April 2004, with his mother. They arrived in Austria in November 2004 and lodged an asylum request there.\n9.  He claimed in his asylum proceedings that in 2001 his father had been shot before his eyes. The applicant’s father had worked in the security services of former President Maskhadov, a separatist leader, which was why he and his family had been persecuted. Furthermore, the applicant had been arrested four times and only released after the payment of a ransom. The applicant stated that he had been ill-treated during those arrests and also that in 2004 Russian soldiers had brutally beaten him in the course of an identity check.\n10.  On 5 March 2007 the Federal Asylum Office (Bundesasylamt) dismissed the applicant’s asylum request as unfounded. It found the applicant’s story contradictory and unconvincing and also found that he had failed to substantiate the existence of any real risk to himself.\n11.  It seems that the applicant’s mother’s asylum request was also dismissed, for the same reasons.\n12.  The applicant and his mother appealed. However, after an oral appeal hearing, the applicant withdrew his appeal on 28 April 2009 due to allegedly wrong legal advice he received at the time.\n13.  On 12 May 2009 the Asylum Court (Asylgerichtshof) allowed the applicant’s mother’s appeal and granted her the status of a recognised refugee. As regards her flight story it found as follows:\n“The following has been established concerning the appellant and her reasons for fleeing:\nThe appellant claims to be a Russian Federation national of Chechen ethnic origin and, prior to fleeing, lived in the village of Kurchaloy in Chechnya.\nIt is credible that in the event of her return to her country of origin, the appellant would be under threat from State authorities or third parties on account of her membership of a particular social group. The appellant alleged that she was under threat from Russian and Chechen security forces because of her husband’s previous activities.\nIt has been found plausible that the appellant’s husband was an officer for a Chechen security agency and was murdered by the security forces on 5 November 2001 in the village of Kurchaloy.\nThe findings as to the appellant and her reasons for fleeing result from the descriptions given by the persons examined at the hearing, which – in this respect – are consistent and credible. The appellant was able to give a description of her husband’s murder that was clear and consistent with her previous statements, thereby conveying the impression of having actually experienced what she was talking about. The witness C.S. gave a convincing statement confirming that the appellant’s husband worked for a Chechen security agency.”\n14.  After referring to a number of general country reports on Russia and the north Caucasus region, the Asylum Court continued its legal assessment of the facts of the applicant’s mother’s case, as follows:\n“Regard being had to the findings concerning the situation of Chechens in the Russian Federation, the appellant faces an objective risk of persecution in view of the facts established as to her reasons for seeking asylum. The appellant’s husband was murdered in his homeland because of his work for a Chechen security agency. Accordingly, the appellant is already known to the Russian and pro-Russian authorities and ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7386", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants live in Tallinn, except for the fourth applicant who lives in Kiviõli.\n7.  The Bronze Soldier, originally named “Monument to the Liberators of Tallinn”, was unveiled on 22 September 1947, on the third anniversary of the entry of the Soviet Red Army into Tallinn. It was erected in Tõnismägi, central Tallinn, above a small burial site of Soviet soldiers’ remains reburied in April 1945. The monument consisted of a statue of a soldier in a Second World War-era Red Army military uniform set against a stone background.\n8.  From 2004 onwards demands for the removal or relocation of the Bronze Soldier intensified. Also, on 22 September (the anniversary of the entry of the Red Army into Tallinn in 1944) and 9 May (Soviet Victory Day in the Second World War), crowds of mainly Russian speakers, including veterans and younger people, gathered at the monument. From 2006 onwards in particular, there began to be instances of confrontation in the vicinity of the monument, which the police were able to keep under control. On some occasions the monument was smeared with paint.\n9.  In early 2007 the Protection of War Graves Act (Sõjahaudade kaitse seadus) was enacted by the Riigikogu (the Estonian Parliament) and provided for the reburial of remains and relocation of monuments in cases where war graves were located at unsuitable sites. The Bronze Soldier was a prominent issue in the electoral campaign ahead of the parliamentary elections on 4 March 2007.\n10.  During the night of 25-26 April 2007 the monument’s defenders were removed by police from the square where the Bronze Soldier was located, and the area was cordoned off. A large tent structure was erected over the monument and the graves in preparation for the exhumation of the remains of the Soviet soldiers. By the evening of 26 April 2007 a large group of people, mostly Russian speakers, had gathered at Tõnismägi and expressed their discontent with the Government’s actions. Shouting “Shame!” and “Fascists!” they refused to comply with police orders and some attempted to break through the police cordon. The group turned more violent and started throwing stones and empty bottles at the police. The police forced the protesters out of Tõnismägi. The crowd then started committing acts of vandalism and looting shops and buildings in neighbouring streets. There were clashes with the police, who in response used truncheons, rubber bullets and plastic handcuffs. A large number of people were arrested. According to some sources approximately a third of those detained were ethnic Estonians; ethnic Estonians were also among those charged with looting and theft.\n11.  Early in the morning of 27 April 2007 the Government decided to move the monument from Tõnismägi, and a few days later it was re-erected in a military cemetery. On the evening of 27 April 2007 protesters returned to Tõnismägi. The police again cordoned off the area and carried out arrests, this time within a wider radius of the monument’s former location. Disorder and vandalism continued for a second night. Although the protests were unauthorised, there was no formal ban on visiting the city centre. Nevertheless, on 27 April 2007 the Government, through the mass media and messages sent to people’s e-mail addresses and mobile phones, asked people to stay at home and not to respond to provocation.\n12.  According to the information provided by the Government, on 26 April 2007 there were 7,000 to 8,000 people in the streets of Tallin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7388", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  His wife and daughter died in a traffic accident.\n7.  On 8 March 2005 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Istanbul Civil Court against the driver involved in the accident and the company holding the possession of the vehicle the driver had driven and requested compensation for damages he suffered.\n8.  On an unspecified date the Istanbul Civil Court declined jurisdiction in respect of the claims brought against the company and referred that part of the case to the Civil Court in Kartal, where the company’s headquarters was located.\n9.  On 4 April 2006 the Kartal Civil Court decided to wait for the finalisation of the criminal proceedings regarding the accident.\n10.  On 6 May 2008, after the criminal proceedings were finalised, the defendant company requested the Kartal Civil Court to await the finalisation of the other case against the driver which was before the Istanbul Civil Court.\n11.   The Kartal Civil Court granted this request. From that day onwards no action was taken on the civil case before the Kartal Civil Court.\n12.  On 27 February 2012 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Istanbul Civil Court against the driver.\n13.  The civil proceedings against the defendant company are still pending before the Kartal Civil Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7389", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Batman.\n5.  In October 2000 the applicant lodged a case with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court against the Ministry of Interior for the annulment of an administrative decision refusing his request for compensation of disability.\n6.  On 20 October 2000 the court issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Ankara Administrative Court, which dismissed the applicant’s claim on 10 March 2003.\n7.  On 22 March 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 10 March 2003.\n8.  On 12 July 2006 the applicant’s request for rectification introduced on 25 March 2005 was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court.\n9.  On 24 August 2006 the judgment was notified to the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7390", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  On 31 July 2002 she lodged a criminal complaint against her husband accusing him of stealing from their common household. A civil claim was joined to the complaint.\n6.  On 17 June 2003 the prosecution brought the case to court on charges of theft between spouses.\n7.  On 16 February 2004 the Galaţi District Court convicted the defendant to two years and two months’ imprisonment and awarded the applicant 20,000 Romanian lei (RON) – around 4,500 euros (EUR) – as pecuniary damage.\n8.  The judgment became final at first instance as no appeal had been filed against it.\n9.  Subsequently, the defendant appealed on points of law outside the statutory time-limit alleging that the first-instance court had not observed the guarantees of a fair trial in his respect. He claimed that he had been convicted in absentia and that he had not benefited from legal representation.\n10.  On 4 May 2005 the County Court of Galaţi allowed the appeal. It thus quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the lower court for re-trial.\n11.  On 26 October 2007 the defendant was convicted to one year’s imprisonment for breach of trust between spouses. The applicant was awarded RON 400 (around EUR 91) as pecuniary damage. Both the defendant and the applicant appealed on points of law.\n12.  On 5 June 2008 the applicant withdrew her complaint as well as her appeal on points of law.\n13.  On 12 September 2008 the Galaţi District Court granted the motion of withdrawal of charges and thus terminated the criminal proceedings. The judgment became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7391", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Novi Sad.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 13 April 1990 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Novi Sad Municipal Court, seeking damages and the restitution of certain personal effects from his former employer (“the respondent”).\n8.  Following a remittal in 1995, in December 2000 the Municipal Court declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Novi Sad District Court as the competent court of first instance in the matter.\n9.  Following another remittal in 2002, the District Court, by judgment of 30 June 2006, ruled partly in the applicant’s favour.\n10.  On 18 January 2007 the Supreme Court of Serbia, acting as a second-instance court, partly upheld and partly reversed the said judgment on appeal.\n11.  On 27 April 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija).\n12.  On 25 June 2007 the Supreme Court, sitting as a panel of five judges, rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law, referring to Articles 361 § 2.9, 399 and 405 of the Civil Procedure Act 2004 (see paragraph 18 below).\n13.  The decision of 25 June 2007 was served on the applicant on 10 September 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7393", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 24 August 2000 the applicant instituted compensation proceedings before the Eskişehir Administrative Court claiming that she had contracted (HEPATIT-C) from the surgical instruments used during her operation.\n8.  On 6 November 2001 the Eskişehir Administrative Court found the applicant’s objection groundless and refused her request for compensation.\n9.   On 21 December 2001 the applicant appealed against the judgment of 6 November 2001.\n10.  On 30 January 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the first instance court’s judgment.\n11.  On 1 August 2004 the applicant requested rectification of the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision.\n12.  On 17 August 2004 the Eskişehir Administrative Court issued an interim decision and noted that the fee for rectification had not been paid. The court asked the applicant to correct this procedural shortcoming within fifteen days.\n13.  On 7 October 2004, upon her non-compliance with the interim decision of the court, the court decided not to put the applicant’s rectification request into action.\n14.  On 1 November 2004 the applicant appealed.\n15.  On 11 May 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the administrative court’s decision not to take the applicant’s request for rectification into account finding that the request had been properly submitted. Yet, the Supreme Court dismissed the request upon an examination of merits holding that there was no plausible ground requiring rectification.\n16.  On 28 August 2006 the applicant was notified of the decision of 11 May 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7394", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Bucharest.\n5.  On 1 September 1999 the Romanian Copyright Office (“ORDA”) suspended the applicant from work for gross misconduct, that is, suspicion of fraud, malfeasance in public office and document destruction. A criminal complaint was further filed by ORDA with the prosecution authorities on 14 September 1999.\n6.  On an unspecified date in November 2000 the applicant complained about the protraction of the investigation. His complaint was admitted on 10 November 2000 by the Public Prosecutor’s Office as no procedural act had been carried out until that date. The prosecuting authorities were instructed to deal with the complaint within reasonable delays.\n7.  On 21 February 2001 the Public Prosecutor’s Office with the Bucharest District Court no. 1 (“the Prosecutor”) decided to initiate the criminal prosecution against the applicant.\n8.  By a subsequent decision of 31 January 2002 the Prosecutor rejected the initiation of prosecution in respect of the applicant as his conduct did not meet the statutory essential elements of the prosecuted offences. ORDA contested this decision before the Higher Ranking Prosecutor.\n9.  On 6 March 2002 the contestation was allowed and the criminal prosecution was resumed.\n10.  Subsequent to the examination of evidence (hearing of four witness testimonies and examination of few documents, without the commission of any expert study), the Prosecutor decided on 8 May 2002 to discontinue the investigation in respect of the applicant. The decision was challenged by ORDA before the Public Prosecutor’s Office with the High Court of Cassation and Justice.\n11.  On 6 March 2003 the contestation was allowed and the impugned decision was quashed. The case was reopened for further investigation before the prosecuting authorities.\n12.  On 23 July 2003 the Prosecutor decided to discontinue the investigation against the applicant in respect of the charges of fraud and malfeasance in public office. At the same time, an administrative fine was imposed for charges of document destruction.\n13.  The decision was upheld before the Higher Ranking Prosecutor and became final on 17 October 2003.\n14.  Subsequent to the decisions to discontinue the criminal prosecution against him, the applicant requested to resume his work at ORDA. Following the latter’s refusal, the applicant brought two sets of labour litigations against his employer on 22 February 2002 and on an unspecified date in 2003 respectively.\n15.  On 15 April 2003 the Bucharest County Court dismissed the first action. It ruled that the applicant could not resume work since the decision to discontinue the criminal investigation had not been final at that time. Later on the applicant was reinstated to a different position at ORDA. Shortly afterwards, the employment contract was voluntarily terminated.\n16.  The second action was allowed by way of a final decision. On 6 July 2006 the Court of Appeal of Bucharest awarded the applicant the retroactive payment of wages he had been entitled to.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7395", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Gostynin.\n6.  On 22 April 2003 the applicant complained to the Court of procedural shortcomings and the unfavourable outcome of criminal proceedings.\n7.  On 28 July 1999 he had been acquitted of robbery by the Gostynin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).\n8.  On 21 December 1999 the Płock Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) partly quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the lower court.\n9.  On 20 May 2002 the Gostynin District Court convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment.\n10.  On 2 December 2002 the Płock Regional Court upheld that judgment but reduced the applicant’s sentence to five years’ imprisonment. The judgment, together with the court’s reasoned opinion, was served on the applicant on 16 March 2003.\n11.  On 24 March 2003 the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer informed the Płock Regional Court that he had not found any grounds to lodge a cassation appeal in the applicant’s case. On 7 April 2003 the court conveyed that information to the applicant and its refusal to appoint another lawyer.\n12.  On 9 April 2004 the Ombudsman refused to lodge an extraordinary cassation appeal in the applicant’s case, because he had not found any grounds to do so.\n13.  On 15 March 2005 the applicant made an application to the Supreme Court for the proceedings to be reopened.\n14.  On 20 June 2005 the Gostynin District Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer to represent the applicant in the proceedings for the reopening of his case. On 8 August 2005 the lawyer prepared and lodged a proper application to reopen the proceedings. He argued that new facts and evidence had come to light since the applicant had been convicted, namely that two of the witnesses for the prosecution had admitted that they had given false statements.\n15.  On 16 September 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) decided to exempt the applicant from court fees.\n16.  On 30 September 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal refused to reopen the proceedings on the grounds that the witnesses in question had not been convicted of perjury in connection with the main proceedings against the applicant, and that the arguments raised by the applicant’s lawyer were therefore invalid.\n17.  No appeal was available under the applicable domestic law.\n18.  On 31 May 2007 the applicant complained to the Court of overcrowding and inadequate medical care and detention conditions in Płock Prison.\n19.  The applicant was detained in Płock Prison on three separate occasions: (1) from 30 December 1998 to 14 July 1999; (2) from 8 August 2003 until 4 June 2007; and (3) from 9 January until 6 February 2008. Between his first and second periods of detention the applicant was released into the community, and between his second and third periods of detention there, he was detained in the Gdańsk Remand Centre hospital. He was released into the community on 6 February 2008.\n20.  The applicant submitted that throughout his detention in Płock Prison he had been detained in overcrowded cells. He did not indicate the size of the cells in which he had been placed or the number of inmates he had had to share them with.\n21. He did submit to the Court, however, copies of official memoranda revealing that every three to four months or so, the governor of Płock Prison would report to the relevant penitentiary judge along the following lines: “...owing to the overcrowding of [the prison’s] quarters, I have been forced to place prisoners in cells with l", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7396", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Ankara.\n6.  He had a fight with his schoolmate and as a consequence lost an eye.\n7.  The applicant’s parents lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor’s Office since he was a minor at the time of the incident.\n8.  On 15 February 2000 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the student with whom the applicant fought with the Tenth Chamber of the Ankara Criminal Court.\n9.  On 23 June 2000 the applicant and his parents further lodged a civil case requesting reparation for damages with the Ankara Civil Court.\n10.  On 5 November 2003 the applicant’s father joined the criminal proceedings as the intervening civil party (in his capacity as the applicant’s legal guardian).\n11.  Between 5 November 2003 and 21 February 2008 two courts declined jurisdiction in the case on account of certain procedural rules. On 21 February 2008 the Ankara Juvenile Court decided to discontinue the proceedings by virtue of statute of limitations.\n12.  On 28 January 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 21 February 2008.\n13.  Meanwhile, in the civil proceedings, the Ankara Civil Court decided to wait for the outcome of the criminal case and no procedural step was taken up until the finalisation of the case before the criminal court.\n14.  On 20 January 2010 the Ankara Civil Court rendered its judgment.\n15.  On 8 July 2010 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Civil Court.\n16.  The civil proceedings are currently pending before the Ankara Civil Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7397", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lived, prior to his arrest, in Shakhty, Rostov Region.\n6.  The applicant was suspected of the organisation of a criminal gang and of S.’s robbery and murder.\n7.  On 16 May 2003 a group of six police officers were keeping the applicant under surveillance. When the applicant at some point drove to a bus stop, stopped his car and O. got into it, the policemen blocked the applicant’s car and ordered him and O. to get out. O. did so.\n8.  According to the applicant, the police officers dragged him out of the car, punching and hitting him with their guns, and threw him to the ground. They continued punching and kicking him although he offered no resistance to the arrest.\n9.  Both O. and the applicant were taken to police station no. 2 in the town of Shakhty. The police verified O.’s ID and let him go.\n10.  The police officers proceeded with questioning the applicant as regards S.’s murder. According to the applicant, seven to eight police officers took part in the questioning and they beat him to make him confess to the murder. At some point the beatings stopped. The applicant was taken to the cell where Sh. was detained. The police officers repeatedly took the applicant out of the cell for questioning. The beatings continued.\n11.  On 17 May 2003, at 1 a.m., the applicant’s girlfriend, Saak,. was brought to the police station. According to the log, she was suspected of having committed a criminal offence. The officers continued beating the applicant in her presence. In order to put an end to the police brutality, the applicant confessed. At 3 a.m. Saak. was released.\n12.  It appears that at some point Saak.’s brother was also taken to the police station, where he witnessed the police officers beating the applicant. He was eventually released.\n13.  On 19 May 2003 the Shakhty Town Court authorised the applicant’s remand in custody pending the investigation. The applicant complained about the beatings by the police officers and showed his bruises and injuries to the judge. The Town Court asked the prosecutor’s office to conduct an inquiry into the applicant’s allegations.\n14.  On 20 May 2003 a forensic medical expert examined the applicant and issued a report recording the following injuries: abrasions and bruises on the back of the head, on the right side of the temporal region of the head, the right cheekbone, the nasal arch, the mucous membrane of the upper lip, the left arm, the left shoulder blade, the left shoulder, the right wrist joint, the left leg, and the inguinal region. The expert concluded that those injuries had resulted from the impact of blunt objects no later than four days before the examination.\n15.  On 23 May 2003 the assistant town prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in police custody as unsubstantiated. In particular, the assistant prosecutor stated as follows:\n“The materials of the preliminary inquiry indicate that [on 16 May 200] [the applicant], on seeing the police officers, ignored their orders to get out of the car. He actively resisted their attempts to pull him out of the car and tried to flee. As a result, [the police officers] had to use physical force and special means against him, causing him injuries. [The police officers] acted in accordance [with law]. [They] suspected that [the applicant] had committed a criminal offence and that a risk existed that the perpetrator could, in order to evade criminal responsibility, use a gun. The use of forc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7398", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant companies carry out the slaughter of cattle and pigs, which makes them liable under the Agricultural Market Act (Agrarmarkt­gesetz) to pay agricultural marketing charges, calculated on the basis of the number of animals slaughtered, to Agrarmarkt Austria (“AMA”), the national agricultural marketing board.\n6.  In 2006 AMA issued payment orders against the applicant companies. On 5 July 2006 it ordered the first applicant company to pay outstanding contributions for the years 2003 and 2004 in the amount of 56,573.62 euros (EUR) and, in addition, imposed a surcharge for failure to pay, amounting to 10% of the unpaid contributions. On 30 May 2006 it ordered the second applicant company to pay outstanding contributions for the years 2004 and 2005 in the amount of EUR 12,556.43 and imposed a surcharge of 10%. On the same date it ordered the third applicant company to pay outstanding contributions for the years 2005 and 2006 in the amount of EUR 5,936.01, imposing a surcharge of 10%, and ordered the fourth applicant company to pay outstanding contributions for the years 2005 and 2006 in the amount of EUR 96,050.48, imposing a surcharge of 60%.\n7.  The applicant companies appealed against these orders. They argued that the above system was contrary to European Union rules on state aid. They also asked for oral hearings to be held in their appeals.\n8.  The Federal Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, the Environment and Water (Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasser­wirtschaft), acting as the appeal authority, dismissed the applicant companies’ appeals on 17 July 2006 without holding a hearing.\n9.  The applicant companies argued that AMA contributions were levied for financing activities, such as AMA’s quality programme, which were not in compliance with EU law. However, the Federal Minister found that, after a decision of the European Commission of 30 June 2004 (C(2004)2037), the applicant companies had been in a position to know precisely which charges they had to pay. In that decision, the European Commission had stated that it had no objection to AMA’s quality assurance scheme and quality mark, registered as state aid under notification number NN 34A/2000 (“Qualitäts­programme und das AMA-Biozeichen und das AMA-Gütesiegel”), because that state aid was in accordance with the Common Market provided for in the Treaty establishing the European Community (“the EC Treaty”). The Federal Minister referred further to the Administrative Court’s decision no. 2005/17/230 of 20 March 2006, in which the court had also found that the levying of AMA contributions was in compliance with the relevant provisions of EU law. The Federal Minister further held that it had not been necessary to hold a hearing, because a hearing was only held if a decision had been taken by a panel on an appeal against the decision of a tax office or a regional directorate of finance, which was not the case here.\n10.  Thereupon, the applicant companies lodged complaints with the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court against the Federal Minister’s decision. Before the Constitutional Court they complained that the surcharges imposed had violated their constitutional right to property. Before the Administrative Court, they complained that the appeal authority had not been a court within the meaning of the case-law of the European Court of Justice, with the result that they had been prevented from having the lawfulness of the European ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7399", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Moscow. He is a lawyer and President of the Moscow City Bar.\n6.  On 25 October 2003 Mr Khodorkovskiy, a co-owner of the Yukos company, was charged with criminal offences and placed in custody. On 27 October 2003 he was transferred to special-purpose remand centre IZ‑99/1 in Moscow operating under the authority of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation (hereinafter “the remand centre”).\n7.  On 30 October 2003 a lawyer, Ms A., accepted to represent Mr Khodorkovskiy in the criminal proceedings.\n8.  On 11 November 2003 Ms A. visited her client in the remand centre. On leaving the centre, she was stopped by a prison inspector, Mr B., who accused her of carrying unauthorised material that Mr Khodorkovskiy had given her.\n9.  It appears from a personal inspection report (протокол личного досмотра) of the same date that Mr B. “examined the belongings and clothing of the lawyer, Ms A.” and seized two documents: a printed document concerning the case against Mr Khodorkovskiy’s co-defendant, and a torn handwritten note. The report was signed by Mr B., Ms A. and two prison officers who were present during the search. The parties agreed that one of them had been a man (Mr F.); the identity and sex of the second officer was in dispute: the Government claimed that it had been a woman, “L-va”; the applicant insisted that it had been a man, “L-vich”.\n10.  The investigators claimed that the note had contained instructions about exercising influence on witnesses and interfering with the investigation. On 22 December 2003 the Ministry of Justice asked the Moscow City Bar to disbar Ms A. for acting in breach of the law and the lawyers’ code of ethics. The applicant, as President of the Moscow City Bar, publicly criticised the request by the Ministry of Justice.\n11.  On 25 December 2003 the NTV channel invited the applicant and Mr Buksman, the Director of the Moscow Department of the Ministry of Justice, to the talk show, “The Country and the World” («Страна и мир»), for a discussion of the incident involving Ms A. The debate was broadcast live at about 10 p.m.\n12.  In the first few minutes of the discussion the applicant asked Mr Buksman about his view on the events and the grounds for making the request for disbarment. Mr Buksman did not give specific answers, stating that the issue was not within his competence.\n13.  The presenter then asked the applicant about the relationship between the Moscow City Bar and the Ministry of Justice, implying that it was rather strained. The applicant denied that any tension existed and added:\n“I have to say that we have now examined the matter of lawyer A. There was no attempt to pass any note from Mr Khodorkovskiy outside the remand centre. There were no grounds for carrying out a search (обыск) which, by the way, was performed by men who rummaged (шарили) about the body of the woman lawyer. Evidence obtained by criminal or unlawful means has no legal value. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Ms A.’s records that could warrant her disbarment.”\n14.  The presenter then gave the floor to Mr Buksman, who said that there existed a normal professional relationship between the Moscow City Bar and the Ministry of Justice. The show ended.\n15.  On 8 January 2004, remand prison IZ-99/1 and warders Mr B. and Mr F. lodged defamation claims against the applicant and the NTV television company with the Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow. They claimed that the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7400", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Aleksandr Sergeevich Ivakhnenko, is a Russian national who was born in 1960.\n5.  On 8 August 2002 the applicant was arrested. On 30 June 2003 a jury found him guilty of murder and rape; the Voronezh Regional Court sentenced him to twenty-one years’ imprisonment. On 22 December 2003 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction with minor changes.\n6.  From 16 August 2002 until 23 January 2004 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-36/1 in Voronezh.\n7.  The parties submitted the following information on the characteristics of the cells in which the applicant had been detained:\n \nCell number\n Cell measurements (sq. m)\nNumber of beds\nNumber of inmates\n \nGovernment\nApplicant \nGovernment\nApplicant \nGovernment\nApplicant \n28\n30\n38\n7\n18\n7\n22\n33\n30\n38\n7\n18\n7\n10\n80\n7\n13\n1\n4\n1\n4\n81\n7\n13\n1\n2\n1\n2\n86\n29\n38\n7\n14\n7\n29\n95\n28\n38\n7\n14\n7\n20\n122\n28\n39\n6\n12\n6\n25\n132\n27\n39\n6\n12\n6\n18\n8.  The Government submitted that the number of detainees “had not exceeded the number of sleeping places”. In support of their submissions, they enclosed certificates signed by the prison governor and wardens on 12 December 2008. The Government also submitted two reports of 26 February 2006 and 5 April 2007, according to which the relevant prison documentation (including the prison population registers covering the period up to 2 August 2003) had been destroyed due to the expiry of the storage time-limits.\n9.  The applicant produced a copy of a letter from the Voronezh Regional prosecutor’s office dated 24 October 2005 in response to his complaint about the conditions of detention, in which the prosecutor acknowledged, in particular, the existing overcrowding in the cells in IZ‑36/1 and indicated that he had requested the prison governor to remedy the breach of the domestic legal requirements on the conditions of detention.\n10.  In October 2002 the applicant had trouble urinating and was diagnosed with prostatitis. He was told that he needed surgery; however it was not possible to perform it in pre-trial detention. The applicant was given injections and medicines that his relatives provided. The applicant produced a medical certificate of 30 November 2005 from the prison doctor confirming the diagnosis.\n11.  In August 2002 the applicant hurt his wrist. The wrist was bandaged and the applicant was given an ointment. The swelling went down. During transport to the correctional colony on 23 January 2004 the applicant hurt his wrist once again. He asked to be examined by a doctor. On 29 March 2004 an X-ray revealed a triple contracture of this wrist, and the applicant received treatment in the prison hospital, but the wrist mobility could not be restored.\n12.  The applicant complained to the Prosecutor’s Office that he had not had the necessary medical care. In his reply of 24 October 2005, the prosecutor informed the applicant that surgery on his wrist and adenoma were considered unnecessary.\n13.  The Government submitted the applicant’s medical records from IZ‑36/1 and his current place of imprisonment.\n14.  On admission to the Voronezh remand prison following his arrest on 19 August 2002, the applicant underwent a comprehensive examination. He did not make any complaints concerning his health. The following diagnosis was noted in the medical record: “varicosity of the lower limbs, encephalopathy, and flexion contracture of the right wrist”. The applicant underwent a urine test.\n15.  During his detention in IZ-36/1 remand prison the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7402", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Bor.\n6.  On 26 October 2004 the applicant filed a civil claim against his employer, company Z, seeking the payment of outstanding holiday pay (regres za korišćenje godišnjeg odmora) due for 2002 and 2003, the difference between the salary he had received and the minimum salary payable under collective agreements in force at the company for the period from October 2001 to May 2004, statutory interest and legal costs.\n7.  Following a remittal in 2005, on 15 March 2006 the Bor Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) ruled in favour of the applicant. As regards the outstanding holiday pay, the court observed that company Z had not paid the holiday pay due for 2002 and 2003 to any of its employees, as its alleged parent company had been encountering financial difficulties. The court, however, found these facts to be irrelevant to the outcome of the applicant’s claim, as according to the Labour Act and enterprise bargaining agreements in force at the company he had been entitled to holiday pay regardless of the level of his employer’s profits.\n8.  On 3 September 2007 the Zaječar District Court (Okružni sud) reversed the part of the Municipal Court’s judgment which concerned holiday pay and legal costs, while upholding the remainder. The District Court based its refusal on the finding, disregarding applicable employment law, that company Z had not paid outstanding holiday pay to any of its employees and therefore that “to accept the applicant’s claim would mean that the applicant would be treated more favourably than his colleagues, who had not received payment of outstanding holiday pay from their employer either”. No further recourse against this judgment was available to the applicant.\n9.  It would appear that between 2004 and 2009 a number of the applicant’s colleagues lodged the same or similar claims to those of the applicant with the Municipal Court.\n10.  On 28 April and 2 June 2009 the Municipal Court rejected the claims of the applicant’s colleagues for the same reasons as the District Court had in the applicant’s case. However, the Belgrade Court of Appeal, which, following reforms to the judicial system had become the competent appeal court, overturned both judgments on 29 April and 30 June 2010, respectively. In so doing, the appeal court found that the claimants had been entitled to their outstanding holiday pay by applicable domestic law (see paragraphs 10-13 below), finding that the reasons for judgment given by the Municipal Court in their cases were irrelevant and that it had erred in law in rendering the judgments.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7404", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 28 June 2003 two police officers went to the Beşiktaş district of Istanbul following a complaint by a woman, and imposed an administrative fine on a taxi driver. Subsequently, the policemen and the taxi driver commenced a verbal dispute in the presence of the applicant, who is also a taxi driver. The applicant told the police officers that he would pay the fine on his friend’s behalf. The police officers then pushed the applicant to the ground, handcuffed him and began kicking and punching him. He was subsequently put in the police car. One of the police officers closed the car door on the applicant’s leg.\n6.  The applicant was arrested and taken to the Beşiktaş police station by the officers, as he was accused of having insulted them.\n7.  The applicant was then taken to the Taksim Hospital. According to a medical report issued following X-rays and an orthopaedic examination of the applicant, his right leg was broken as a result of the incident.\n8.  On 29 June 2003 the applicant was examined by a forensic expert at the Istanbul branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute. The doctor observed a bruise of 4 cm on the left scapula, two bruises of 3 cm and 1 cm on the front of the right shoulder, two grazes of 1.5 x 1 cm on both elbows, several grazes on the upper part of the right arm within an area measuring 5 x 4 cm, and five bruises of 1 to 1.5 cm in diameter on the right arm. The doctor also observed that the applicant’s right leg was in plaster up to his knee.\n9.  The final report of the Forensic Medicine Institute dated 1 July 2003 confirmed that the applicant’s leg was broken and stated that the injuries rendered him unfit for fifteen days.\n10.  On an unspecified date a criminal case was brought before the 12th Chamber of the Istanbul Criminal Court against the applicant for insulting the police officers. Subsequently, on 20 October 2003 the applicant lodged a petition with the trial court and requested that the police officers be punished for ill-treating him.\n11.  On 31 January 2005 the 12th Chamber of the Istanbul Criminal Court acquitted the applicant of the charges against him in respect of one of the officers. As regards the second officer, who had closed the car door on the applicant’s leg, the court found that the applicant had insulted him. However, since the officer had overstepped his authority by his actions, the court decided not to convict the applicant.\n12.  Meanwhile, on 4 May 2004 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the 1st Chamber of the Istanbul Criminal Court against the police officers, charging them with ill-treatment of the applicant. The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party.\n13.  On 23 December 2008 the 1st Chamber of the Istanbul Criminal Court convicted the police officers as charged. The court found, in the light of the medical reports that it had obtained, plus the witness statements and the submissions of the accused and the applicant, that the police officers had beaten the applicant and had closed the car door on his leg and had thus caused the injuries found on the applicant’s body on 28 and 29 June 2003. The court sentenced the accused police officers to two months and fifteen days’ imprisonment. Having regard to the fact that the police officers did not have criminal records and to the manner in which they had committed the offence in question, the first-instance court considered that the police officers ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7405", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently detained in HMP Brixton.\n7.  The applicant arrived in the United Kingdom on 7 May 1995 and claimed asylum. The asylum claim was refused but he was granted exceptional leave to remain until February 2000.\n8.  On 23 July 1998 the applicant was convicted of offences of rape and indecency with a child and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment.\n9.  On 20 May 2002 the Secretary of State for the Home Department issued the applicant with a decision to make a deportation order and on 27 May 2002 he issued an authority for detention until the making of a deportation order.\n10.  On 2 July 2002 the applicant appealed against the decision to make a deportation order and made a fresh claim for asylum. The appeal was unsuccessful and his appeal rights were exhausted on 4 December 2003.\n11.  In early 2003 the applicant was interviewed by probation officers who found that he was not suitable for parole. During his time in prison he had received fourteen charges relating to offences against prison discipline. Six of these offences involved fighting. Moreover, he was assessed as presenting a high risk of sexual offending and a medium risk of general offending on release.\n12.  On 3 September 2003 the applicant’s release became automatic. However, he remained in detention pursuant to the authority issued on 27 May 2002.\n13.  On 5 April 2004 the Secretary of State for the Home Department issued a deportation order which included a paragraph authorising the applicant’s detention until his deportation. The order was served on the applicant on 19 April 2004.\n14.  The applicant had claimed to be a member of the Isaaq tribe, which comes from Somaliland, an autonomous region in north-west Somalia. He further claimed that his parents were born in Hargeisa, the capital of Somaliland, although it was accepted that he was born in Mogadishu, in south-central Somalia. Consequently, the authorities initially sought to return the applicant to Somaliland. However, in order to secure the agreement of the Somaliland authorities to the return of a Somalilander to their territory, detailed information about clan-history was required. This was normally done through the provision of bio-data, but this was often difficult to obtain as it required the co-operation of the Somalilander. Consequently, few Somalilanders were returned to Somaliland at this time. As the applicant did not co-operate with the provision of bio-data, the Government decided that it would be preferable to remove him to Somalia.\n15.  In August 2004 the last carrier willing to take “enforced returns” to Somalia withdrew, with the consequence that it was no longer possible for the Government to remove people without their consent. The carriers were, however, willing to carry those who had signed a disclaimer confirming that they were returning voluntarily. In November 2004 the applicant refused a formal request to sign such a disclaimer.\n16.  On 20 December 2004 an application for bail was refused by the Chief Immigration Officer.\n17.  In March 2005 the applicant made further representations for asylum. In September 2005 the Secretary of State for the Home Department refused to treat those representations as a fresh claim.\n18.  On 11 October 2005 the applicant was again refused bail. In the course of the hearing, however, the immigration judge was wrongly informed that enforc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7406", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1994 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  On 5 April 2009 general elections took place in Moldova. The preliminary results of the election were announced on 6 April 2009. According to those results, the ruling Communist Party of Moldova had narrowly won the elections.\n7.  On 6 April 2009 there was growing discontent, notably in various online forums, with the results of the elections and with alleged electoral fraud. At 6 p.m. several hundred people, mostly young, gathered in front of the monument to Stephen the Great (Ştefan cel Mare) in the centre of Chişinău. Half an hour later there were already 3-4,000 people assembled, and they began to protest against the alleged electoral fraud, doing so in front of the Presidential Palace and Parliament buildings and then returning to the Great National Assembly Square. A bigger demonstration was then announced for 10 a.m. the next day.\n8.  On 7 April 2009 the protest resumed, with the participation of some 5‑6,000 people. Although the demonstration was peaceful at the beginning, several hundred of the participants gradually became violent. It was established by the subsequently created parliamentary inquiry commission tasked with the elucidation of the causes and consequences of the events following the general elections held on 5 April 2009 in Moldova (“the Commission”), that two incidents of poorly planned intervention by a fire truck and riot police had brought the crowd to a point beyond which mass acts of violence could no longer be prevented. Following violent attacks and stone throwing, which met with very weak police resistance, approximately 250 violent protesters were eventually able to take over the lower floors of the Presidential Palace and Parliament buildings. They looted those floors and set the canteen in the Presidential Palace alight. During the night, several fires broke out in the Parliament building, some of them after full control over the building was recovered by the authorities at around 11 p.m.\n9.  At approximately 1 a.m. on 8 April 2009, various police and special forces units began a massive operation aimed at re-establishing public order. However, according to the Commission, excessive force was used and all those still present in the main square were arrested, regardless of whether or not they had acted violently. The arrests continued for several days. The media reported cases, and showed video footage of young people being arrested and/or beaten by both uniformed police and plain-clothes officers in the city centre on 8 April and thereafter, long after the protests had ended on the evening of 7 April 2009.\n10.  According to the applicant, who was fifteen years old at the time, during the evening of 7 April 2009 he was returning home from a birthday party and was walking along the main boulevard in Chişinău. At approximately 10.20 p.m. he was stopped by a group of persons wearing military uniforms and was ordered to lie on the ground and put his hands on his head. The applicant complied and received numerous kicks and baton blows to his body and head. He screamed with pain and shouted that he was only fifteen years old. He was then released and ordered to go home. He began to run but after several hundred metres was stopped again by a group of persons wearing black clothes and balaclavas and was again ordered to lie down. He was again kicked and beaten with batons and received, inter alia, a kick to the area of his right eye. He was then forc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7408", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1966 and 1993 respectively, and live in Bayraklı/İzmir.\n6.  On Saturday 11 March 2000, at about 10.30 a.m., Mrs Menekşe Şentürk, wife of Mehmet Şentürk (“the first applicant”) and mother of Bekir Şentürk, who was then thirty-four weeks pregnant, went to the Karşıyaka Public Hospital with her husband because she was experiencing pain. She was examined by a midwife, G.E., who decided that Mrs Şentürk was not yet at the end of her term and that there was no point calling a duty doctor to examine her.\n7.  The first applicant then drove his wife to the İzmir Public Hospital Nevval Salih Alsancak İşgören (“Alsancak Public Hospital”), where they arrived between 11 and 11.30 a.m. Mrs Şentürk was examined by a midwife, A.Y., who, noting that the applicant’s wife was not yet at the end of her term and that there were no complications, did not call the duty gynaecologist for an examination.\n8.  In view of his wife’s continued pain, the first applicant drove her to the Atatürk Research and Teaching Hospital, where they arrived at about 2 p.m. Mrs Şentürk was examined by Dr F.B., an assistant doctor in the emergency department, then transferred to the urology department, where she was examined by Dr Ö.Ç., a urologist. He diagnosed renal colic, prescribed medication, decided to administer an analgesic and advised her to come back for a consultation after she had given birth.\n9.  As his wife’s pain did not lessen on returning home, the first applicant drove her that evening to the Ege University Medical Faculty Hospital. There, she was initially examined by Dr S.A.A., an emergency doctor, then transferred to the gynaecology and obstetrics department, where she was placed in the care of a team of doctors. After conducting an ultrasound scan, they established that the child she was carrying had died and that immediate surgery was necessary to remove the child. She was then informed that hospitalisation and surgery had to be paid for, and that a deposit of 600 or 700 million Turkish lira was to be paid into the hospital’s operating fund. As the first applicant stated that he did not have the requested sum, his wife could not be hospitalised.\nThe emergency doctor, Dr S.A.A., arranged for the first applicant’s wife to be transferred to the İzmir (Konak) Gynaecology and Obstetrics Hospital in a private ambulance in which no medical staff were present.\n10.  Mrs Şentürk died at about 11 p.m. while being transferred by ambulance.\n11.  Between 26 October and 23 November 2000, the investigation committee at the Ministry of Health conducted an investigation into the circumstances of Mrs Şentürk’s death, in the course of which the following persons were questioned: the first applicant, the individuals who had accompanied Mrs Şentürk to the hospitals, the members of the medical teams (midwives and doctors) in the various hospitals to which the deceased woman had been taken, and the ambulance driver who had driven her to the İzmir (Konak) Gynaecology and Obstetrics Hospital.\n12.  On 30 October 2000 statements were taken, inter alia, from two midwives working at the Karşıyaka district medical centre where Mrs Şentürk was monitored throughout her pregnancy. Their witness statements indicated that Mrs Şentürk had gone to the centre on 3 March 2000 for a check-up; the child’s heartbeat had not been heard, as a result of which the midwives advised her to go to a hospital as soon as possible for an ultrasound scan.\n13.  On 31 October 2000 a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7409", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Gdańsk.\n6.  The applicant was a member of the management board of the Mostostal Gdańsk joint-stock company (“the company”), manufacturing ships and other industrial steel constructions.\n7.  On 28 November 2002 the Gdańsk District Prosecutor (Prokuratur Rejonowy) opened a criminal investigation into allegations that the company’s management board had intentionally acted to the detriment of the enterprise (celowe działanie na szkodę spółki).\n8.  On 4 December 2004 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody on reasonable suspicion that he had committed a series of offences related to the running of the company. The court also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was justified by the severity of the penalty which could be imposed if he were convicted and the risk that he might attempt to obstruct the proceedings, especially since the applicant’s and his co-accused’s testimonies had been contradictory. That decision was upheld by the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 10 January 2005.\n9.  The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by decisions of the Gdańsk District Court of 2 March, 1 June and 26 August 2005, which were upheld by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 30 March, 27 June and 19 September 2005 respectively. In their decisions, the domestic courts repeatedly relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, the serious nature of the offences, the complexity of the case which involved many individuals and the risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings, for example, by inducing witnesses to give false testimony. The domestic courts considered the latter argument particularly relevant in light of the fact that the penalty which the applicant faced was severe. In addition, the domestic courts invoked the difficulties in obtaining evidence, including from abroad, and the need to examine several hundred witnesses and many accounting, tax and auditing experts. On 1 June 2005 the case file already consisted of one hundred volumes.\n10.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was further extended by decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court of 22 December 2005, 23 May and 28 September 2006, which were upheld by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 24 January and 13 June 2006 and a further decision of an unspecified date.\n11.  On 31 August 2005 and 2 February 2006 two motions for the applicant’s release were rejected.\n12.  In the meantime, on 18 August 2005 the prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Gdansk District Court against the applicant and eleven other co-accused. The applicant was charged with eleven offences including appropriation of the company’s assets, causing damage to the company and acting to the detriment of the company’s creditors. The prosecutor requested to hear evidence from 30 witnesses and to have read out the testimonies of 552 other witnesses.\n13.  On 31 August 2005 the District Court requested the Gdansk Court of Appeal to transfer the case to the Gdansk Regional Court due to its complicated nature. On 6 September 2005 the case was remitted to the Gdańsk Regional Court.\n14.  The first hearing took place on 27 June 2006.\n15.  The applicant’s detention pending trial was further extended by the first-instance court on 28 September 2006.\n16.  On 26 October 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court decided to lift the preventive measure and to re", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7410", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  The applicant inherited a house in the Moscow Region from Ms B.M. in her will. On an unspecified date he moved into it.\n6.  In 1990 B.S., the stepson of B.M., brought an action against the applicant for recovery of the property in issue, claiming that his inheritance rights had been breached and that the will was illegal.\n7.  The matter was considered repeatedly by the courts and on 23 May 1997 the Khimky Town Court (“the Town Court”) granted B.S.’s claims. The applicant lodged a supervisory-review complaint.\n8.  On 23 June 1998 the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment of 23 May 1997 for breach of procedural law and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. It appears the property was subject to an interim injunction which was still maintained by the court.\n9.  Three hearings fixed for between 7 October 1998 and 18 May 1999, were adjourned owing to both the applicant’s and plaintiff’s failure to appear.\n10.  Hearings scheduled for 9 July 1999 and 16 October 1999 were postponed owing to the applicant’s failure to appear.\n11.  Seven hearings fixed for between 16 November 1999 and 11 July 2000 were adjourned owing to the third parties’ and the plaintiff’s failure to appear, and the need to collect additional evidence.\n12.  On 12 May 2000 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s applications for the civil proceedings to be discontinued and the interim injunction lifted. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision which was upheld on 30 May 2000.\n13.  On 11 July 2000 the Town Court dismissed B.S.’s claims.\n14.  On 10 May 2001 the Moscow Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed the judgment of 11 July 2000 on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.\n15.  Three hearings fixed for between July and December 2002 did not take place owing to the applicant’s failure to appear, and one was held as planned.\n16.  A hearing scheduled for 15 March 2002 was adjourned until 24 April 2002 owing to the applicant’s failure to appear.\n17.  A hearing scheduled for 24 April 2002 was postponed until 4 June 2002 owing to the judge’s involvement in other proceedings.\n18.  A hearing was held as planned on 4 June 2002. The court rejected the applicant’s application for the discontinuation of the proceedings.\n19.  Of eleven hearings fixed for between September 2002 and August 2004, three were adjourned owing to the applicant’s failure to appear.\n20.  On 4 August 2004 the trial court held a hearing in the applicant’s absence and granted B.S.’s claims. According to the applicant, he had not been duly summoned to that hearing.\n21.  On 18 October 2004 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment of 4 August 2004 on appeal. The applicant brought a supervisory‑review complaint.\n22.  On 16 March 2005 the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgments of 4 August and 18 October 2004 by way of supervisory review for breach of material and procedural law, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The hearing was listed for 30 May 2005.\n23.  The hearing of 30 May 2005 was adjourned owing to the third parties’ failure to appear.\n24.  A hearing scheduled for 28 June 2005 was postponed until 1 August 2005 as the plaintiff was ill.\n25.  On 1 August 2005 the Town Court held a hearing and left B.S.’s action without examination owing to his failure to appear without valid reasons.\n26.  On the same date the applicant requested the trial court to lift ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7411", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Lytkarino.\n5.  The applicant has been involved in a series of disputes in connection with division of the property she used to own jointly with Mr S., her brother.\n6.  In 1995 the applicant filed a claim concerning the division of a house and a plot of land.\n7.  On 14 September 1995 the Vidnoye Town Court of the Moscow Region (the Town Court) granted her claim in part.\n8.  On 15 December 1999 the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.\n9.  On 23 October 2003 the Town Court granted the applicant’s claim in part.\n10.  On 25 February 1997 the Town Court granted S.’s claim against the applicant concerning her objections to the reconstruction of the house.\n11.  On 3 October 1997 the applicant brought another claim against S. seeking the demolition of the structures he allegedly built without a relevant permit.\n12.  It appears that the consideration of the claims was adjourned on numerous occasions, mostly because of the conduct of various expert examinations. In particular, on 8 December 2000 the Town Court ordered to conduct two expert examinations and stayed the proceedings pending their outcome. The proceedings were resumed on 1 August 2002 when the expert opinions were sent to the court and a hearing was scheduled for 2 October 2002.\n13.  On 17 May 2007 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claim.\n14.  On 13 September 2007 the Moscow Regional Court (the Regional Court) upheld the judgment on appeal.\n15.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought a claim against S. for damages.\n16.  On 12 December 2005 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claims.\n17.  On 6 March 2006 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n18.  On an unspecified date S. brought an action against the applicant, who had dismantled the fence he had constructed.\n19.  On 19 December 2007 the Town Court found for S.\n20.  On 13 March 2008 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n21.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought a claim against S. seeking recognition of her property rights to the newly constructed buildings on the plot of land.\n22.  On 12 May 2008 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claims.\n23.  On 2 September 2008 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7412", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lived, before his arrest, in the town of Zavolzhye in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region. He is serving a prison sentence of thirteen years having been convicted of several counts of aggravated robbery and theft committed within an organised criminal group.\n7.  It appears from the parties’ submissions that at approximately 9 p.m. on 16 January 2002, police officers from the interregional crime detection division of the Nizhniy Novgorod Main Department of Interior Affairs arrested the applicant, together with several other individuals, including Mr T., on suspicion of car hijacking and took them to police station no. 1 in Zavolzhye. Several hours later an officer on duty, Mr M., drew up an administrative offence record which, in its relevant part, read as follows:\n“At 1 a.m. on 17 January 2002 [the applicant], was inebriated in a street... in Zavolzhye; [his appearance] was an insult to human dignity and social morals.\nHe committed an administrative offence under Article 162 § 1 of the RSFSR Code of Administrative Offences ...\n[The applicant], in the presence of witnesses, refused to give any explanations and to sign the administrative offence record ...\nIt has been decided to levy a fine of 10 Russian roubles [on the applicant].”\n8.  After the police officers from the crime detection division had left the police station, the officer on duty called police officer Mr S. who was to interrogate the applicant about the car hijacking.\n(a)  The applicant’s version of events\n9.  According to the applicant, during the interrogation the police officer, Mr S., and the officer on duty, Mr M., urged him to confess to the hijacking. When the applicant refused to sign a confession statement, the police officers handcuffed him, tied his legs with a rope in a crisscross manner, threw the rope over his head and tied it to his arms. The applicant was forced to remain in a very painful position for more than an hour. According to him, the police called that form of torture “an envelope”. A number of times the police officers untied and re-tied the applicant, causing him severe pain. When his resistance had worn down, the applicant asked the officers to untie him, promising to write a confession statement. The officers waited for an additional fifteen minutes before untying the applicant. Unable to move, he had to sit on the floor for another hour, trying to regain his strength. He was too weak to write, so the police officer wrote the confession statement and told the applicant to sign it. Once he had complied, he was placed in a cell for administrative detainees.\n10.  In the morning of 17 January 2002 the applicant was taken to the office of the police investigator, Ms Sa., for questioning. The applicant complained to her that he had been forced to confess to a hijacking which he had not committed. In response, Ms Sa. ordered an officer on duty to take the applicant back to the cell.\n11.  The applicant was taken to another room where both officers, Mr S. and Mr M., were present. They tied up the applicant in the same manner as on the previous night and began beating him. They hit him several times in the head with a chair leg and kicked him a number of times in various parts of his body. During the beatings a police investigator, Mr Ma., entered the room. He placed a metal beer bottle top in the applicant’s mouth and ordered him to swallow it. When the applicant refused, Mr Ma. punched him in the face. Officers S. and M. as", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7413", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Yekaterinburg.\n6.  The applicant was a member of the National Bolsheviks Party.\n7.  On 14 December 2004 a group of about forty members of the National Bolsheviks Party occupied the waiting area of the Presidential Administration building in Moscow and locked themselves in an office on the ground floor.\n8.  They asked for a meeting with the President, the deputy head of the Presidential Administration and the President’s economic advisor. Through the windows they distributed leaflets with a printed letter to the President that listed his ten alleged failures to comply with the Constitution and contained a call for his resignation.\n9.  The intruders stayed in the office for one-and-a-half hours until the police broke down the blocked door and arrested them. They did not offer any resistance to the authorities.\n10.  On 16 December 2004 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s detention, relying on the gravity of the charges, the circumstances in which the offences imputed to him had been committed, the methods employed by the offenders, the applicant’s lack of residence registration in Moscow or the Moscow region, and the risks of him absconding, reoffending, putting pressure on witnesses or interfering with the investigation in some other way.\n11.  On 21 December 2004 the applicant was charged with the attempted violent overthrow of the State (Article 278 of the Criminal Code) and intentional destruction of and damage to property in a public place (Articles 167 § 2 and 214).\n12.  On 11 February 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant’s detention until 14 April 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges, the circumstances in which the offences imputed to him had been committed and the fact that applicant’s residence registration was in Yekaterinburg rather than in Moscow or the Moscow region. The court concluded that the applicant might abscond, reoffend or interfere with the proceedings.\n13.  The applicant appealed, asking the court to apply a more lenient preventive measure. He submitted that the District Court’s findings had not been supported by concrete facts. On 31 March 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the extension order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified.\n14.  On 15 February 2005 the charges against the applicant were amended to participation in mass disorder, an offence under Article 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n15.  On 14 April 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 July 2005 for the following reasons:\n“There are no reasons to vary the preventive measure. Taking into account the gravity of the charges and [the applicant’s] individual situation, the court considers that there are sufficient indications that [he], once released, might abscond.\nAt the same time, bearing in mind that the parties to the criminal proceedings have already started studying the case file, the extension asked for by the prosecution appears to be excessive and must be limited to three months. This period will be sufficient for all parties to the proceedings to effectively study the entire case file.”\n16.  In his statement of appeal the applicant asked to be released. He submitted that he could no longer interfere with the investigation as it had been completed. He also referred to his clean criminal record. On 15 June 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the extensio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7414", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  The applicant was a member of the National Bolsheviks Party.\n7.  On 14 December 2004 a group of about forty members of the National Bolsheviks Party occupied the waiting area of the Presidential Administration building in Moscow and locked themselves in an office on the ground floor.\n8.  They asked for a meeting with the President, the deputy head of the Presidential Administration and the President’s economic advisor. Through the windows they distributed leaflets with a printed letter to the President that listed his ten alleged failures to comply with the Constitution and contained a call for his resignation.\n9.  The intruders stayed in the office for one-and-a-half hours until the police broke down the blocked door and arrested them. They did not offer any resistance to the authorities.\n10.  On 17 December 2004 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s detention, relying on the gravity of the charges, the circumstances in which the offences imputed to him had been committed, the methods employed by the offenders and the risks of him absconding, reoffending, putting pressure on witnesses or interfering with the investigation in some other way.\n11.  The applicant appealed, asking the court to apply a more lenient preventive measure. He submitted that the District Court’s findings had not been supported by concrete facts. On 19 January 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified.\n12.  On 21 December 2004 the applicant was charged with the attempted violent overthrow of the State (Article 278 of the Criminal Code) and intentional destruction of and damage to property in a public place (Articles 167 § 2 and 214).\n13.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor asked the court to extend the applicant’s detention until 14 April 2005, referring to the need for further investigation. The applicant asked to be released. He referred to his clean criminal record, permanent residence in Moscow and the fact that he was a student. He also stated that he could not influence the witnesses because he was not acquainted with them.\n14.  On 4 February 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant’s detention until 14 April 2005, referring to the gravity of the charges, the circumstances in which the offences imputed to him had been committed and the risks of him absconding or interfering with the proceedings. The circumstances referred to by the applicant had been taken into account at the time of his remand in custody. As those circumstances had not changed, there was no reason to vary the preventive measure.\n15.  On 16 February 2005 the charges against the applicant were amended to participation in mass disorder, an offence under Article 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n16.  On 14 April 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 July 2005 for the following reasons:\n“There are no reasons to vary the preventive measure. Taking into account the gravity of the charges and [the applicant’s] individual situation, the court considers that there are sufficient indications that [he], once released, might abscond.\nAt the same time, bearing in mind that the parties to the criminal proceedings have already started studying the case file, the extension asked for by the prosecution appears to be excessive and must be limited to three months.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7415", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lived before his arrest in the town of Smolensk. He had served in the Smolensk regional police headquarters as deputy head of the division for the investigation of organised crime in the sphere of illegal firearms, serious traffic accidents and arson, but resigned from his office on 25 June 2004.\n6.  On 4 August 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking. A record of his arrest was drawn up on the same day. An investigator noted in the record that eyewitnesses had identified the applicant. The applicant signed the arrest record, noting that he had been framed by officers of the Federal Service for Drug Control in relation to his work as a police investigator. He also wrote that his arrest had been unlawful as he had a permanent place of residence and was the breadwinner for a minor child.\n7.  On the following day an investigator from the Leninskiy District prosecutor’s office filed a request with the Leninskiy District Court of Smolensk seeking authorisation for remanding the applicant in custody. The investigator argued that on 23 June 2004 the applicant had asked Mr Pa. to sell 26.59 grams of poppy straw extract to Ms P. On the same day Mr Pa., in the applicant’s presence, had sold the requested quantity of drugs to Ms P. The police seized the drugs from Ms P. on her way home. The investigator insisted that the applicant’s part in the alleged criminal offence had been confirmed by witness statements and records of phone calls.\n8.  On 6 August 2004 the District Court authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention, holding as follows:\n“It appears from the criminal case file materials presented to the court that [the applicant] is charged with a particularly serious criminal offence based on the facts mentioned in the case file. In this connection, and by virtue of Article 108 § 1 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, a measure of restraint in the form of detention should be chosen for the defendant. Taking into account information related to the personality of [the applicant] who, for a long time, was a high-ranking official in various divisions of the Smolensk regional police headquarters, and having regard to [the applicant’s] disagreement with the charges, his close and friendly relations with other parties in the proceedings in connection with the charges invoked in the present criminal case – Ms P., Mr Pa. (as it appears not only from the case file materials, but from the defendants’ own statements made in this court hearing) – and also considering the nature of the charges, their particular gravity, the circumstances examined by the court and the materials of the criminal case file, the court considers well-founded the arguments put forward in the investigator’s request [for authorisation of the applicant’s detention] that [the applicant] might obstruct, in some way, the course of justice, that is, prevent the establishment of the truth in the present case.”\nIt appears from a letter sent by a judge of the Leninskiy District Court to the Leninskiy District prosecutor on 20 August 2004 that the court also took into account the fact that the applicant had been unemployed at the time when the issue of his detention was being decided.\n9.  On 1 October 2004 the Leninskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 23 October 2004 on the grounds that the charges against him were serious and additional investigative measures were required. The District Court als", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7416", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Lviv.\n6.  On 17 August 2010 the applicant notified the Lviv City Mayor on behalf of a local human-rights NGO, “Vartovi zakonu”, of its intention to hold a demonstration every Tuesday from 10.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. near the building of the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office during the period between 17 August 2010 and 1 January 2011. The aim of the demonstration was to draw attention to the issue of corruption in the prosecution service. The number of possible participants was declared as up to fifty persons. There is no information as to whether any such demonstration was held prior to 12 October 2010 (see below).\n7.  On 5 October 2010 the Executive Committee of the Lviv City Council lodged a claim with the Lviv Administrative Court seeking to restrict the demonstration announced by the applicant. On 6 October 2010 the court left the above claim without consideration as being submitted too late. The Executive Committee resubmitted its claim on 11 October with a request for renewal of the time-limit for lodging the claim. The same day the court allowed the request and accepted the claim for examination.\n8.  On Tuesday 12 October 2010, further to his previous announcement of 17 August 2010, the applicant informed the City Council about the demonstration to be held on that particular day. He thus organised a peaceful demonstration near the Lviv Regional Prosecutor’s Office later that day between 11.30 a.m. and 12.40 a.m. About twenty-five persons took part. They were standing on the pavement in front of the building of the Prosecutor’s Office when the police told them that they should remain at a distance of five metres from the building. That would have forced the demonstrators to stand in the road and obstruct the traffic. After some discussion with the police, they crossed the road and stood on a lawn on the opposite side. The police, however, told the demonstrators that they could not stand on the lawn and should move away, which meant standing in the road again and obstructing the traffic, causing temporary traffic-jams.\n9.  Immediately afterwards, the applicant was called aside by two police officers. They grabbed his arms and took him in the direction of the nearby police station. Some of the demonstrators requested the officers to show them their identification and started filming the incident; the officers then let the applicant go.\n10.  On 13 October 2010 the Lviv Regional Administrative Court granted a request by the Executive Committee of the Lviv City Council to prohibit the holding of the pre-announced demonstrations by the applicant’s NGO as from 19 October 2010. The decision was appealed against.\n11.  According to the applicant, on the same day he was invited to the police station on the pretext that he had failed to appear at a court hearing to which he had been summoned. Upon his arrival at the Galytskyy District Police Station at about 5 p.m., the police accused the applicant of having committed the administrative offences of malicious disobedience to a lawful order by the police and of breaching the procedure for organising and holding a demonstration on 12 October. Between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. the police drew up reports on those administrative offences. The applicant telephoned his lawyer, but the latter was not allowed onto the premises of the police station. At 11 p.m. the applicant was placed in a cell, where he remained without food until 3 p.m. on the next day, 14 October 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7417", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicant was born in 1974 and is currently detained in Broadmoor High Security Psychiatric Hospital.\n13.  The applicant has been indicted in the United States of America as a co-conspirator in respect of a conspiracy to establish a jihad training camp in Bly, Oregon.\n14.  On 7 August 2005 the applicant was arrested in the United Kingdom on the basis of an arrest warrant issued under section 73 of the Extradition Act 2003 following a request for his provisional arrest by the United States.\n15.  The Senior District Judge gave his decision in the applicant’s case on 5 January 2006. He concluded that none of the bars to extradition applied and sent the case to the Secretary of State for his decision as to whether the applicant should be extradited.\n16.  On 1 March 2006 the Secretary of State ordered his extradition. The applicant appealed to the High Court on the ground that his extradition would not be compatible with Article 3 of the Convention because he could be detained in a maximum security facility such as ADX Florence and subject to special administrative measures, including solitary confinement.\n17.  The applicant’s appeal was heard together with that of Mr Babar Ahmad. In its judgment of 30 November 2006 the High Court rejected the appeals. The High Court found that, according to the case-law of this Court, solitary confinement did not in itself constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. Applying that approach, the evidence before it – which included an affidavit from a United States’ Department of Justice official outlining the operation of special administrative measures – did not “begin to establish a concrete case under Article 3”.\n18.  The applicant and Mr Babar Ahmad applied for permission to appeal to the House of Lords. This was refused by the House of Lords on 6 June 2007.\n19.  On 27 March 2008 the applicant was transferred to Broadmoor Hospital from HMP Long Lartin because he met the criteria for detention under the United Kingdom’s mental health legislation.\n20.  On 11 November 2011 the First-Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Mental Health considered the applicant’s case and concluded, having considered the evidence from the applicant’s clinical care team, that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which made it appropriate for him to continue to be liable to detention in a medical hospital for his own health and safety.\n21.  In his statement to the Tribunal, Dr A. Payne, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, indicated that:\n“[The applicant’s] insight into his illness is limited and if returned to prison he would be exposed to significant stress given the conditions of his detention, the uncertainty of his case and his potential extradition and lengthy incarceration in conditions of solitary confinement. His compliance with medication would be uncertain, particularly in the medium to long term. These factors would be likely to lead to a relapse with deterioration in his mental health and the risk of a consequent deterioration in his physical health due to poor fluid and food intake. I am therefore of the opinion that his mental disorder is of a nature that requires his detention in hospital for medical treatment and that such treatment is necessary for his own health and safety. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence available to justify his detention on the grounds of his risk to others.”\n22.  Dr Claire Dillon, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, indicated in a report ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7418", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Sofia.\n6.  In 1995 the applicant was appointed as an inspector at the National Security Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In 2002 he was transferred to the Ministry’s National Security Directorate (the Ministry’s internal structure had been altered in 1997). At that time he had the rank of major. His duties included counter‑intelligence, the recruitment and managing of secret agents, the gathering and dissemination of information from secret sources, secret surveillance, etc.\n7.  In November 2002 a proposal was made for the applicant’s disciplinary dismissal. The proposal was prompted by an internal investigation which found indications that the applicant had engaged, aside from his duties at the Ministry, in fish farming, and that he had sought to resolve disputes with the persons employed by him by threatening them with his position. It was felt that these activities were incompatible with the duties of an officer of the National Security Directorate and tarnished the reputation of the service.\n8.  The proposal was not upheld due to the lack of sufficient evidence.\n9.  On 6 March 2003 the Director of the National Security Directorate sent a letter to the head of the Ministry’s Psychology Institute (see paragraph 33 below). He referred in detail to the above facts and suggested that the applicant be subjected to psychological assessment on the basis of Instruction no. I‑37 (see paragraph 32 below).\n10.  On 19 March 2003 the Director of the National Security Directorate ordered the applicant to present himself for assessment at the Ministry’s Psychology Institute.\n11.  The applicant underwent a psychological assessment on 16 April 2003. It consisted of a psychological test, an interview and a polygraph test.\n12.  The results of the assessment were available on 9 May 2003. The psychologist who had carried it out described the results of his observations and of the polygraph test, and expressed the opinion that the applicant was mentally unfit to work at the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The document was classified and the applicant was not allowed to see it.\n13.  On 5 June 2003 the Director of the National Security Directorate proposed to the Minister of Internal Affairs to dismiss the applicant from his post under section 253(1)(5) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act 1997 and regulation 251(1)(6) of the Act’s implementing regulations (see paragraphs 30 and 31 below). In his proposal he described in detail the attempt to dismiss the applicant on disciplinary grounds and the results of the psychological assessment. The applicant was allowed to have sight of the proposal the same day.\n14.  In an order of 27 June 2003 the Minister of Internal Affairs dismissed the applicant by reference to the legal provisions mentioned in the proposal.\n15.  The applicant was acquainted with the order on 13 August 2003 and noted his disagreement with the grounds for issuing it.\n16.  On 26 August 2003 the applicant sought judicial review of the Minister’s order. He argued, inter alia, that it had not been duly reasoned and that the psychological assessment on the basis of which it had been issued had not been objective.\n17.  In the course of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court the Ministry presented a copy of the applicant’s psychological assessment. The proceedings as a whole were then classified, apparently because the case file contained a classified document.\n18.  The appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7419", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Oituz, Bacău.\n6.  At the relevant time the applicant was a businessman and the owner of company P. Among other activities, he held a number of contracts with the State for the rehabilitation of public roads.\n7.  On 10 December 2009 the Anti-Corruption Department (“DNA”) of the prosecutor’s office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“the prosecutor”) started criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of trading in influence (cumpărare de influenţă). In particular, the prosecutor alleged that: (i) the applicant had asked a senator, C.V., to talk to judges of the High Court in order to influence the outcome of a case pending before that court which concerned a dispute between company P. and the State agency responsible for public roads; (ii) that C.V. had asked F.C., the then President of the Civil Section of the High Court, to convince the judges handling the case to decide it in favour of company P.; and (iii) that he had paid C.V. and F.C. money for their intervention.\n8.  On 21 December 2009 the applicant, with his lawyer, went to the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor informed the applicant that on 10 December he had started criminal proceedings (urmărirea penală) against him and ordered him not to leave town for thirty days.\n9.  On 8 April 2010 the applicant was summoned to appear at the prosecutor’s office. At 12.45 p.m. the prosecutor informed him that he would be taken into custody for twenty-four hours and that the criminal trial against him had been set in motion (punerea în mişcare a acţiunii penale) by a decision of the prosecutor taken on the same day.\n10.  Following the arrest of the applicant and his co-accused, the prosecutor sought, on the same date, the High Court’s approval for their pre‑trial detention for twenty-nine days. The prosecutor presented the facts of the case as they appeared from the evidence gathered, including transcripts of telephone conversations between the defendants that had been intercepted during a surveillance operation. Upon the defendants’ request, the High Court, sitting in private as a single-judge bench, postponed the hearing to the next day in order to allow defence counsel to prepare their case.\n11.  On 9 April 2010 the High Court held a further hearing. The applicant and his co-accused gave statements to the court. During the hearing, at 12.45 p.m., the Court noted that the applicant’s detention had expired and released him. He nevertheless remained in the courtroom of his own free will.\n12.  The High Court approved the prosecutor’s request and ordered that the applicant be placed in pre-trial detention for twenty-nine days starting on 10 April 2010.\n13.  The applicant appealed and on 12 April 2010 the High Court, sitting as a nine-judge bench, quashed the decision given on 10 April and annulled the detention order.\nAt the request of defence counsel, the High Court prohibited journalists from taking photographs, filming or using any electronic devices during the court hearing.\n14.  On 10 May 2010 at the prosecutor’s office, the applicant acquainted himself with the prosecution file (prezentarea materialului de urmărire penală).\n15.  On 21 May 2010 the prosecutor committed the applicant and the other defendants to trial before the High Court of Cassation and Justice.\n16.  The case is currently under examination by the High Court of Cassation and Justice.\n17.  On 8 April 2010 the applicant was arrested at the DNA’", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7420", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Sofia.\n6.  On 21 March 2005 the applicant and another person, Mr E.Y., were detained by the police and brought to a police station, on suspicion of having committed a robbery.\n7.  The applicant remained in detention until 24 March 2005. He alleged that he had been beaten by police officers during two interrogations on 21 and 22 March 2005, with the aim to make him confess to having committed the robbery.\n8.  The facts concerning the applicant’s detention and allegations of ill‑treatment, as well as the findings of the medical examinations he underwent, are summarised in the Sofia Administrative Court’s judgment of 6 June 2011, quoted in paragraphs 29-31 below.\n9.  The criminal proceedings for robbery against the applicant and Mr E.Y. were discontinued on 6 March 2006.\n10.  On 28 August 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Sofia Military Prosecutor’s Office, stating that on 21 and 22 March 2005, during his detention, he had been beaten by police officers, in order to force him to confess to an offence. He further stated that he did not know the names of the officers but would be able to identify them.\n11.  On 26 January 2007 the prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against Mr G.H., one of the police officers who had interviewed the applicant. The prosecutor stated that on 21 March 2005, in the performance of his duties, Mr G.H. had punched the applicant in the face, chest and back. The prosecutor qualified the criminal conduct as minor bodily injury without detriment to the applicant’s health, an offence under Article 131 § 1 (2) taken together with Article 130 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n12.  The applicant was interviewed on 10 January, 31 January and 26 March 2007. On each of these occasions he gave descriptions of the officers who had assaulted him and of others who had witnessed the attacks.\n13.  On 20 March 2007 the prosecutor conducted a procedure in which the applicant was confronted with the suspect Mr G.H.; the applicant stated that Mr G.H. was not one of the officers who had assaulted him.\n14.  On 11 May 2007 the prosecutor terminated the criminal proceedings on the ground that no offence had been committed. He found that the applicant’s complaints were unsubstantiated because his statements were vague and could not be fully verified; he had stated clearly that Mr G.H. had not beaten him; his description of the offenders was very general; Mr E.Y., who had witnessed the alleged physical assault, could not be traced; and no other witnesses to the applicant’s condition before or after the arrest had been identified. In addition, it was unclear why the applicant had lodged his complaint with the prosecutor more than a year after the alleged beating.\n15.  The applicant appealed, and by a decision of 6 July 2007 the Sofia Military Court quashed the prosecutor’s order. It stated that, with the exception of Mr G.H., the prosecutor had failed to interview the police officers who had been on duty on the night of the events. The prosecutor had also failed to interview witnesses on behalf of the applicant who could have testified about his condition before and after his arrest, and to conduct an identification parade.\n16.  Subsequently, the applicant was once again interviewed on 6 August 2007. His mother was interviewed on the same day. She stated that after his release the applicant had had bruises all over his body, had been in pain and had said that he had been beaten by pol", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7421", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 18 August 2001, the first applicant, under a false identity and claiming that he was born in 1983, was sentenced by an Austrian court (the Jugendgerichtshof in Vienna) to a suspended term of four months’ imprisonment for a drugs offence relating to the possession of a small quantity of cocaine.\n7.  He entered Switzerland in November 2001. On 18 January 2002 the competent Swiss authorities declared inadmissible his asylum application, which had been lodged under a false identity. He left Switzerland at an unknown date but returned there on 2 September 2003.\n8.  On 1 November 2003 the first applicant married a Swiss national who had shortly before given birth to their twin daughters (the third and fourth applicants). By virtue of his marriage he was granted leave to remain in Switzerland (the couple have since got divorced, see paragraph 19 below).\n9.  On 6 August 2006 the first applicant was arrested in Germany for drug trafficking and sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment (judgment of the District Court of Cleves (Germany) of 24 November 2006). The competent authorities considered it established that he had attempted to import 55 doses of pure cocaine, with a total weight of 257 grammes, by swallowing the drug (bodypacking).\n10.  In a decision of 23 August 2007, the Office of Migration for the Canton of Basle-Rural found that the first applicant’s leave to remain had become null and void as, having been held in a German prison where he was serving his sentence, he had been outside Switzerland for over six months. In addition, the Office of Migration took the view that he should not be re-issued with a permit, as the fact that he had been convicted and his family were living on benefits constituted grounds for his removal.\n11.  Both the first applicant and his wife, in their own names and on behalf of their children, challenged that decision first before the cantonal government, which rejected their appeals, and then before the Basle-Rural Cantonal Court, which also dismissed their appeals in a decision of 14 May 2008.\n12.  On 5 May 2008 the first applicant was granted early release from the German prison where he had been serving his sentence.\n13.  In a judgment of 8 January 2009 the Federal Court dismissed an appeal by the applicants at last instance. It pointed out that the first applicant had twice been convicted of drugs offences. It found that the offence of which he had been convicted in Germany carried sufficient weight for it not to be relevant that a sentence imposed in Switzerland might have been slightly less harsh. It further observed that the trafficking in question, concerning more than 18 grammes of pure cocaine, constituted a serious case within the meaning of section 19(2) of the Federal Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act, punishable by at least one year’s imprisonment. It further found that the fact that the first applicant had offended on only two occasions was of little relevance for the examination of the case.\nThe court nevertheless admitted that the applicants had been at pains to overcome their reliance on benefits, but also observed that in the meantime they had, on that basis, received a sum which totalled 165,000 Swiss francs (CHF) (about 137,500 euros (EUR)). In addition, it noted that the first applicant had been living with his family in Switzerland only since October 2003 and that he had no real professional activity, even though this was probably connected to the fact that he had tuberculosis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7422", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  On 17 January 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, then employed as a security guard, and his alleged accomplices. They were charged with aggravated extortion, endorsement of and profiteering from prostitution and other offences. The applicant, when he learned that the police had been looking for him, presented himself at the police station on his own initiative.\n7.  On 18 January 2007 the prosecution filed a motion for his pre-trial detention. The risks of absconding, repetition of crime and collusion were referred to.\n8.  On 19 January 2007 the Pest Central District Court ordered the detention. Only the last-mentioned reason was retained, since the court held that – in the face of the applicant’s settled family life, legal income and the fact that he had no previous convictions – the impending severe sanction was insufficient reason for assuming that he might abscond and, moreover, that the continuous nature of the offence he was charged with did not necessarily entail the risk of repetition of crime.\n9.  On 1 February 2007 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the measure, retaining all the reasons proposed by the prosecution. The Regional Court observed that the applicant had no legal income, his personal situation was unknown and one of his accomplices had absconded.\n10.  The applicant’s detention was then repeatedly prolonged at the statutory intervals on the basis of the risk of collusion and intimidation of witnesses. In particular, it was pointed out by the courts that there were elements in the investigation file according to which the applicant and his associate had attempted to influence some witnesses and that a summons sent to a witness – who had subsequently withdrawn his testimony – had been seized by the police from one of the defendants in the case.\n11.  On 4 May 2007 the defence proposed, to no avail, that the detention be substituted with a less stringent measure, since at this late stage of the proceedings the risk of collusion was no longer relevant. On 7 May 2007 the applicant’s lawyer complained that no evidence was accessible to him from the prosecution’s side underlying the risk of the applicant’s intimidating the witnesses. On 31 May 2007 the applicant filed another motion, again unsuccessfully, pointing out that the risk of collusion was not substantiated by any evidence known to him. A similar complaint was made in vain on 13 September 2007.\n12.  Another prolongation order issued meanwhile, on 12 September 2007, was based afresh on the risk of repetition of crime, in addition to that of absconding. On appeal, the former reason was discarded but the latter retained, with the reasoning that although the investigation had been terminated, the organised nature of the crime with which the accused were charged and their attitude towards the witnesses necessitated the continued detention.\n13.  On 17 October 2007 a bill of indictment was preferred.\n14.  On 19 October 2007 the detention was prolonged because of the risk of absconding and collusion. The applicant appealed, arguing that nothing indicated that he would abscond in the face of his settled background, and that no elements communicated to him by the authorities would allude to any real risk of collusion.\nOn 28 November 2007 the appeal was rejected but the risk of collusion was not maintained.\n15.  At the first court hearing, on 18 December 2007 one of the accomplices was ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7423", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Turkish nationals and live in the Şemdinli district of Hakkari.\n6.  The applicants are the close relatives of the thirteen persons who went missing (Casım Çelik, Aşur Seçkin, Cemal Sevli, Yusuf Çelik, Mirhaç Çelik, Naci Şengül, Seddık Şengül, Reşit Sevli, Kemal İzci, Hayrullah Öztürk, Salih Şengül, Hurşit Taşkın and Abdullah İnan) and one person who was allegedly killed (Kerem İnan) in July 1994, during an operation conducted by security forces in the Ormancık hamlet of the Ortaklar village, in the Şemdinli district of Hakkari. The inhabitants of Ormancık had been village guards prior to the events giving rise to the present application. The relationship between the applicants and their missing relatives is as follows:\n \nMeryem Çelik - wife of Casım Çelik;\nMisrihan Sevli - wife of Cemal Sevli;\nEmine Çelik - wife of Yusuf Çelik;\nMarya Çelik - wife of Mirhaç Çelik;\nHamit Şengül - brother of Naci Şengül;\nFatma Şengül - wife of Seddık Şengül;\nBesna Sevli - wife of Reşit Sevli;\nHanife İzci - wife of Kemal İzci;\nŞakir Öztürk- brother of Hayrullah Öztürk;\nKimet Şengül -wife of Salih Şengül;\nHazima Çelik - partner of Hurşit Taşkın;\nŞekirnaz İnan - partner of Abdullah İnan;\nZübeyda Uysal -partner of Aşur Seçkin;\nHamayil İnan - wife of Kerem İnan.\n7.  According to the applicants’ submissions, on 24 July 1994 military and gendarmerie forces arrived in Ormancık. The inhabitants of the hamlet were told by members of the security forces to gather at the helicopter landing pad, which was in the main square. The men of the village were stripped naked and beaten. Two of the applicants, Emine Çelik and Zübeyda Uysal, who were pregnant at the time of the events, were also beaten when they protested against the security forces’ conduct and both eventually suffered miscarriages. Furthermore, Kerem İnan was killed by a non-commissioned gendarmerie officer, a certain F.A., when he did not obey the order to gather in the main square.\n8.  The security forces set fire to the houses in the hamlet. Subsequently, Cemal Sevli, Reşit Sevli, Aşur Seçkin, Salih Şengül, Yusuf Çelik, Naci Şengül and Kemal İzci were put in military vehicles by the soldiers to be taken to the military base. On the way to the base, the soldiers stopped two cars in which ten villagers were travelling. The soldiers let the four children in the cars go, but arrested Hayrullah Öztürk, Abdullah İnan, Mirhaç Çelik, Seddik Şengül, Casım Çelik and Hurşit Taşkın. The soldiers then set fire to the villagers’ cars.\n9.  The applicants and other villagers were forced to leave Ormancık and Turkey by the security forces. They then crossed the border into Iraq. In that respect, according to a document dated 24 July 1994, drafted and signed by members of the administrative council (including the mayor) of Ortaklar village, there was an armed clash in Ormancık on that day and all property in the hamlet was burned. The document further states that the inhabitants of Ormancık were forced to leave the hamlet soon afterwards and flee to Iraq.\n10.  Between 1994 and 1997, the applicants lived in the Atrush refugee camp, which had been established by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in northern Iraq. In March 1997, following the closure of the camp by the United Nations, the applicants moved to Suleymaniyeh, a city in northern Iraq. During the autumn of 1997 they finally returned to Turkey and began living in Şemdinli.\n11.  On an unspecified date, criminal proceedings were b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7424", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Ovchepoltsi.\n6.  On the evening of 1 May 1991 the applicant was involved in a fight between several people in the village of Ovchepoltsi. During the fight he was stabbed with a knife in the stomach. Some members of the public came to his aid and took him to hospital.\n7.  On the same day the applicant was admitted as an in-patient, and underwent an urgent operation. He was discharged on 13 May 1991 and was given thirty days’ sick leave.\n8.  On 1 May 1991 the investigating authorities inspected the site where the fight had taken place. They took photos and seized a wooden stick stained with blood.\n9.  On 1 and 2 May 1991 several witnesses were questioned.\n10.  On 2 May 1991 criminal proceedings were opened against two of the participants in the fight: T.S. and P.S. They were charged with attempted murder and questioned.\n11.  On 12 May 1992 the case investigator commissioned a medical expert report to establish the extent of the victim’s injuries. The report relied on the medical records from the applicant’s stay in hospital and established that he had suffered a 3 cm knife wound in the abdominal cavity which resulted in an injury to the great omentum and to the large intestine. The applicant had also suffered a combination of other injuries: large bruises on the face and on the right leg, and a broken rib.\n12.  Between 18 May and 8 June 1992 several witnesses were questioned.\n13.  It appears that between 1991 and 1994 the applicant’s mother wrote several times to the prosecuting authorities, complaining of inactivity on the part of the investigator in charge of the case. In response, the supervising prosecutor wrote to the investigator on several occasions requesting that the investigation be completed; for example in a letter of 19 August 1994 the prosecutor requested that the investigation be completed “without delay”.\n14.  On 17 June 1996 the attempted murder charge against T.S. was changed to a charge of having caused intermediate bodily harm and he was questioned in this connection.\n15.  On 11 September 1996 the attempted murder charge against P.S. was also changed to a charge of having caused intermediate bodily harm and he too was questioned.\n16.  Between 25 August 2000 and 1 July 2002 some of the witnesses were recalled for further questioning.\n17.  On 18 July 2003, following a complaint by the applicant’s lawyer in relation to the length of the investigation and inactivity on the part of the investigator in charge of the case, the supervising prosecutor removed the investigator and gave instructions to the investigating authorities to commission a new medical expert report and to conclude the investigation within thirty days. The Court has not been informed by either party of what substantive investigative steps, if any, were undertaken after that date.\n18.  On 5 June 2006 the public prosecutor terminated the proceedings on the ground that the relevant statutory limitation period for bringing a prosecution had lapsed.\n19.  On 13 July 2006 the applicant appealed against the order terminating the proceedings. In a decision of 17 July 2006 the Pazardzhik Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) ruled that the assailants remained charged with attempted murder and therefore the statutory limitation period for prosecution had not lapsed. The court remitted the case to the prosecutor’s office, instructing it to continue with the investigation.\n20.  T.S. and P.S. appealed against the decision ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7425", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Paris.\n6.  On 10 February 2004 an investigation was launched in respect of the applicant for book theft. The investigating authorities took his fingerprints.\n7. By a judgment handed down on 15 February 2005 following an appeal against a sentence delivered on 28 April 2004 by the Paris Criminal Court, the Paris Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant.\n8.  On 28 September 2005 the applicant was taken into police custody under the flagrante delicto procedure, also for book theft. He was again fingerprinted.\n9.  On 2 February 2006 the proceedings were discontinued by the Paris public prosecutor.\n10.  The fingerprints taken during these proceedings were entered into the national fingerprint database (fichier automatisé des empreintes digitales - “the FAED”).\n11.  In a letter of 21 April 2006 to the Paris public prosecutor, the applicant requested the removal of his fingerprints from the FAED.\n12.  On 31 May 2006 the public prosecutor ordered the deletion only of the fingerprints taken during the first set of proceedings. He argued that retaining one specimen of the applicant’s fingerprints was justified in the latter’s interests, as it could rule out his involvement in acts committed by a third person stealing his identity.\n13.  On 26 June 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal with the judge of the Paris Tribunal de grande instance with responsibility for civil liberties and detention matters.\n14.  By order of 25 August 2006, the judge with responsibility for civil liberties and detention matters dismissed his appeal. He held that retaining the fingerprints was in the interests of the investigating authorities, as it provided them with a database comprising as full a set of references as possible. Furthermore, this measure was not prejudicial to the applicant thanks to the confidentiality of the database, which prevented any impact on the applicant’s private or social life.\n15.  On 21 December 2006 the President of the Investigation Division of the Paris Court of Appeal upheld this order.\n16.  In a judgment of 1 October 2008 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant on the grounds that since the procedure was written he had been in a position to put forward his arguments and take cognisance of the reasons for the public prosecutor’s objection to the complete deletion of the fingerprints. It added that thanks to the evidence produced during the proceedings, it could verify that the request had been addressed in accordance with the legislation and international treaties cited by the applicant, which included Article 8 of the Convention.\n \nII. RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7426", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Kamnik.\n5.  On 28 November 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings concerning essentially a division of joint property before the Ljubljana District Court. On 14 December 1998 the applicant’s claim was referred to the Kamnik Local Court. The proceedings were initially conducted before the Kamnik Local Court (First set of proceedings) but were later separated into two sets of proceedings, and in part referred to the Ljubljana District Court (second set of proceedings).\n6.  Between 1999 and 2001 the Kamnik Local Court held three hearings.\n7.  On 19 June 2002 the applicant lodged a request to refer her case to another court having subject matter jurisdiction. Due to the applicant’s request a hearing scheduled for 26 June 2002 was adjourned.\n8.  On 5 September 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request.\n9.  After the applicant had amended her claim on 9 January 2003, the local court postponed the hearing scheduled for 14 January 2003 in order to allow the defendant to reply to the amended claim.\n10.  On 12 September 2003 the applicant lodged a motion for an interim order asking the court to order the defendant to vacate the disputed premises and to order an entry in the land register prohibiting the alienation and encumbrance of the property. On 20 October 2003 the Kamnik Local Court partially rejected the applicant’s motion. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 18 February 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n12.  On 6 June 2005 the Kamnik Local Court issued a decision to suspend the proceedings. On 14 September 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court annulled the decision suspending the proceedings.\n13.  Between 2003 and 2005 the applicant lodged two supervisory appeals with the Ministry of Justice and on several occasions requested the Kamnik Local Court to schedule a hearing and decide the case.\n14.  At a hearing on 1 January 2006 the Kamnik Local Court decided to postpone the main hearing until 10 March 2006 in order to allow the defendant to consider the settlement proposal of the applicant.\n15.  After the parties to the procedure failed to reach a settlement, the Kamnik Local Court, after holding a hearing on 10 March 2006, on that day dismissed the claim of the applicant. The applicant appealed.\n16.  On 21 March 2007 the applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Ljubljana Higher Court. Subsequently the applicant lodged an appeal on the points of law with the Supreme Court.\n17.  On 24 May 2007 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings due to the settlement reached in the second set of proceedings and the applicant’s withdrawal of the appeal.\n18.  The second set of proceedings relates to the part of the applicant’s initial claim that exceeded the competence of the local court and was referred to the Ljubljana District Court on 7 January 2004.\n19.  Five hearings were held between 6 July 2004 and 22 May 2007. On the latter date the parties reached a settlement agreement and the proceedings were discontinued on 28 May 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7427", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant company has its registered office in Luxembourg.\n7.  On 17 December 2008 the Portuguese-language newspaper Contacto Semanário (hereafter “Contacto”), published by the applicant company in Luxembourg, printed an article describing the situation of families who had lost custody of their children. The Central Social Welfare Department (SCAS) had allegedly instigated the withdrawal of custody in the cases concerned. The journalist reported on the case of two teenagers and the social worker dealing with their case, providing names. The teenage girl had reportedly suffered attempted rape and the teenage boy had allegedly burnt a friend with a cigarette. The article had been signed “Domingos Martins”.\n8.  The list of officially recognised journalists in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by the Press Council includes no journalist of that name. The list contains the names of several hundred journalists in alphabetical order of their surnames. Under the letter “D” is a journalist named De Araujo Martins Domingos Alberto.\n9.  The social worker complained about the article to the Director of the SCAS, who in turn complained to the Attorney General, contending that it amounted to defamation both of this specific social worker and of the Luxembourg judicial and social system in general. On 5 January 2009 the social worker also lodged a complaint.\n10.  On 30 January 2009 the public prosecutor of the Luxembourg District Court opened a judicial investigation in respect of a person or persons unknown, for a breach of section 38 of the Youth Welfare Act (amended) of 10 August 1992, as well as defamation or calumny.\n11.  On 30 March 2009 an investigating judge issued a search and seizure warrant in respect of the registered office of the applicant company, in the latter’s capacity as the publisher of Contacto “in order to search and seize any documents and items, in whatever form and on whatever medium, connected with the offences charged, including any element conducive to identifying the perpetrator of the offence or the Contacto newspaper employee who wrote the article in issue which was published in Contacto on 17 December 2008”.\n12.  On 7 May 2009 police officers visited the newspaper’s premises (at the applicant company’s registered office) with the warrant. The Government explained that when the investigators had visited the newspaper’s premises, the aim of this investigatory measure had been solely, in their own minds, to identify the author of the article in question. The Government cited in evidence the following passage from the 11 May 2009 police report on the search (original German):\n“In order to ascertain the identity of the author of the article ... the authority [the investigating judge] issued a search warrant. Prior to the execution of this warrant, the procedure was clarified with the authority [the investigating judge]. It was decided that the search was exclusively geared to clearly identifying of the author of the article.”\n13.  The journalist who had written the article gave the police officers a copy of the newspaper, a notebook, various documents (including judicial decisions on one of the subjects of the article) on which the article had been based, and a computer file and CD containing the article. The case file shows that the journalist, assisted by the lawyer of the publishing house and the editor-in-chief of Contacto at the time of the search, signed the search report without availing himself of the option of a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7428", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Ljubljana.\n5.  On 6 August 1998 the applicant instituted a labour dispute before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court seeking the annulment of the decisions of 9 June 1998 and 23 July 1998 whereby her contract had been terminated due to her unauthorised absence from work.\n6.  On 16 February 2000 the first-instance court delivered a judgment rejecting her request. She appealed.\n7.  On 20 June 2003 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination. The appeal court found that the facts had not been properly established and that as a consequence the application of the law was also questionable.\n8.  On 29 January 2004 the first-instance court rejected the applicant’s claim. She appealed.\n9.  On 26 May 2006 the appeal was rejected. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n10.  On 11 March 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\n11.  On 11 November 2008 the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal.\n12.  On 5 April 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court seeking payment of benefits.\n13.  On 9 June 2003 the first-instance court delivered a judgment upholding her request in part. An appeal was lodged.\n14.  On 2 September 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Labour and Social Court remitted the case for re-examination.\n15.  On 12 April 2006 the first-instance court rendered a judgment. An appeal was lodged.\n16.  On 14 February 2007 the appeal was rejected and on 15 December 2008 the appeal on points of law was rejected. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal\n17.  On 17 November 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as being lodged out of time.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7429", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Portorož.\n5.  On 4 March 1996 the applicant was taken into custody.\n6.  On 3 July 1996 after the investigation had been terminated, an indictment was lodged against the applicant before the Nova Gorica District Court. He was charged with fraud, larceny, forgery and abuse of trust.\n7.  On 8 October 1996 the first hearing was held. Between 8 October 1996 and 20 January 1997 the court held twenty-eight hearings. In 1997 the court held fifty hearings, in 1998 forty-one hearings and in 1999 twenty hearings.\n8.  On 30 September 1999 the Public Prosecutor modified the indictment.\n9.  Between December 1999 and March 2001 the court held eleven hearings.\n10.  On 13 March 2001 the Public Prosecutor modified the indictment for the second time.\n11.  On 22 October 2001 the case was assigned to a new judge P.G. Under the new judge, the court held twenty hearings. Following several motions for recusal of the judge and an action for damages lodged against him by the applicant, the first judge resigned from the case.\n12.  On 8 January 2003 the first-instance court decided to try one count of fraud in a separate set of proceedings (K 3/2003).\n13.  On 3 March 2004 the case was assigned to a new judge, G.K. Following a civil action for damages lodged against the judge P.G., he requested to be removed from the case (see paragraph 11 above). In the course of the proceedings the applicant lodged several criminal complaints and actions for damages against the judges, the president of the court and the president of the Koper Higher Court as well as requests for change of venue.\n14.  On 27 October 2004 the first hearing under the newly appointed judge was held.\n15.  On 8 November 2004 the court held a hearing and the applicant lodged a request for recusal of the judge. He also lodged a criminal complaint against him, an action for damages and a constitutional appeal.\n16.  During the hearing, held on 11 November 2004, the applicant again lodged a request for recusal of the judge and the president of the court.\n17.  Until the end of 2004 the court held nine more hearings. The applicant, by way of protest, refused to participate at six hearings out of nine.\n18.  On 10 January 2005 the Nova Gorica District Court after holding over 200 hearings, examining multiple witnesses and appointing one expert, delivered a judgment. The applicant was found guilty of criminal offences concerning fraud and abuse of trust. He was sentenced to six years of imprisonment. Both parties appealed.\n19.  On 25 October 2006 the Koper Higher Court delivered a judgment. In its decision the appeal court modified in part the first-instance judgment and found the applicant guilty of an additional criminal offence. The sentence was increased to six years and six months of imprisonment.\n20.  On 22 January 2007 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court an appeal against the second-instance judgment and a request for protection of legality.\n21.  On 5 April 2007 the applicant lodged a request for recusal of the Supreme Court judges.\n22.  On 26 April 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the request for protection of legality. The requests for recusal were also rejected.\n23.  On 26 June 2007 the Supreme Court decided on the appeal against the second-instance judgment. The appeal was upheld and the second-instance judgment amended. The applicant was sentenced to five years and six months of imprisonment.\n24.  On 11 October 2007 the applicant’s representative ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7430", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977 and lives in the city of Kharkiv, Ukraine.\n5.  On 1 January 1996 the applicant was wounded by a police officer when the police officers were pursuing the applicant’s car. The applicant states that he was brought to hospital where he stayed until 4 January 1996. According to the applicant, in the hospital he was handcuffed to the bed and guarded. On 4 January 1996 the applicant was brought to the police station and later released. On 29 February 1996 the applicant was again arrested. On 27 May 1996 the Leninskiy District Court of Kharkiv sentenced the applicant to five and a half years’ imprisonment for robbery and hooliganism. The applicant’s imprisonment was to be calculated from 29 February 1996. On 13 August 1996 the Kharkiv Regional Court upheld the applicant’s sentence.\n6.  In 2006 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Pecherskiy District Court against the State of Ukraine claiming compensation for damage inflicted to him by the above events. His claims were rejected on 1 February 2006 for the failure to comply with procedural requirements. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was rejected on 16 October 2006 by the Kyiv City Court of Appeal. On 14 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld this decision.\n7.  According to the applicant, at 7:00 a.m. on 24 May 2002 he was apprehended in his apartment and brought to the police station. There he was allegedly beaten by the police and forced to confess to having committed a crime.\n8.  It is mentioned in the applicant’s custody record (протокол затримання) that the applicant was apprehended at 1:40 p.m. on 24 May 2002 after having committed a robbery of A. on the previous day. The applicant’s arrest was aimed to prevent his escape. It appears from the case-file materials that the applicant worked in the company allegedly owned or directed by A. and A.’s wife had heard that three persons who attacked and robbed her had called the applicant and said that they “had already arrived to the spot”.\n9.  On 24 and 27 May 2002 the applicant refused to testify and requested a lawyer.\n10.  On 27 May 2002 the applicant was charged with robbery. On the same day the Oktyabrsky District Prosecutor requested the court to place the applicant in pre-trial detention since the applicant had been previously convicted, had again committed a serious crime and could escape. The Oktyabrsky District Court, reiterating the grounds mentioned by the prosecutor, ordered the applicant’s detention until 2 June 2002.\n11.  The applicant states that during one week after his arrest he was beaten and tortured. In particular, some police officers came to the SIZO on 29 May 2002 and again ill-treated the applicant.\n12.  On 30 May 2002 lawyer B. was allowed to participate in the proceedings as the applicant’s representative.\n13.  On 31 May 2002 the Oktyabrsky District Court extended the applicant’s detention to 7 June 2002 in order to collect information about the applicant and to decide on his further detention.\n14.  On 5 June 2002 the same court authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The court held that the applicant had been previously convicted in 1996 and he could obstruct justice and continue his criminal activity if released. On 12 June 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. On 8 July 2002 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal re‑considered the applicant’s appeal and again upheld the decision of 5 June 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7431", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in Tajikistan in 1979. In recent years he has lived most of the time in Russia, in the Moscow Region. He is currently detained in the Lukhovitsy Detention Centre for Aliens in the Moscow Region.\n7.  The applicant lived in Tajikistan. His family owned a fruit farm near the town of Isfara in Tajikistan and about 10 hectares of orchards. They dried fruits and exported them to Russia. In 2002 the applicant moved to Russia, where he sold dried fruit at a market near Moscow. Every year he returned for two or three months to Tajikistan and helped his relatives with the harvest. He also sent money to his home town. He states that he has two wives: his first wife lives in Tajikistan with his children; his second wife moved to Russia, but after the applicant’s arrest (see paragraph 21 below) returned to Tajikistan.\n8.  According to the applicant, members of his family were victims of politically motivated persecution in Tajikistan. Thus, the applicant’s elder brother, Barot, took part in the 1992-95 civil war in Tajikistan on the opposition side. In the applicant’s words, Barot was one of the leaders of the United Tajik Opposition. He was arrested in 1995. Following his arrest, thousands of people, including members of the applicant’s family, demonstrated on the streets of Isfara demanding his release. The police used firearms while dispersing the demonstration. In the years which followed, the applicant’s brother was tried and sentenced for anti-constitutional conspiracy, first in 1997 and then again in 2003. According to the applicant, Barot told him that he had been tortured while in detention.\n9.  The applicant alleged that the Tajikistani authorities continued to persecute his family. On several occasions their family house was searched in the night; the applicant and his wife had to sleep fully dressed in fear of being apprehended. The authorities repeatedly and arbitrarily disconnected water and electricity supplies from his house. The local law-enforcement officers extorted money from him and forced the applicant to pay them part of his earnings in Russia. In addition, in 2007 the applicant had a quarrel with a local police officer.\n10.  According to the applicant’s submissions, during his stays in Tajikistan he attended some opposition political gatherings.\n11.  In November 2009 (the exact date of his arrival was disputed in the domestic proceedings in Russia) he arrived in Moscow from Tajikistan for the last time and started working at the Dorgomilovskiy food market in Moscow. In 2009 the applicant joined an opposition movement, Vatandor (“The Patriots”), which united Tajikistani nationals living abroad and wishing to see certain reforms in the country. The applicant took part in meetings of Vatandor members in Russia. The applicant’s name was put on the membership list of that organisation; however, he was not given any documents confirming his membership of Vatandor.\n12.  On 26 March 2009 the Tajikistani authorities opened a criminal case against the applicant. He was accused of anti-government armed conspiracy. Specifically, the applicant was accused of being a member of several opposition movements responsible for armed riots – first, the “Bay’at” group and then the “Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan” (“the IMU”). His brother Barot was sentenced to imprisonment twice for membership of those groups and involvement in the riots. According to the Tajikistani authorities, in October 2007 the applicant took part i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7432", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Minsk, Belarus.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant, a former investigator with the military prosecutor’s office, challenged in court the lawfulness of his discharge from the army.\n7.  On 23 November 2001 the Chelyabinsk Garrison Military Court dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. The applicant appealed.\n8.  On 17 January 2002 the Uralskiy Circuit Military Court upheld on appeal the substance of the judgment of 23 November 2001.\n9.  On 5 August 2004 the Supreme Court of Russia granted a request submitted by the applicant for supervisory review of the judgments of 23 November 2001 and 17 January 2002.\n10.  On 27 October 2004 the Presidium of the Uralskiy Circuit Military Court quashed the above-mentioned judgments by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.\n11.  On 16 December 2004 the Chelyabinsk Garrison Military Court again dismissed the applicant’s claims in full, noting that the applicant had failed to lodge them within the statutory three-year period. The applicant’s counsel attended the hearing, but the applicant himself was not present. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment.\n12.  On 21 January 2005 the Chelyabinsk Garrison Military Court sent a letter to the applicant’s address notifying him of the appeal hearing fixed for 15 February 2005. It appears that the applicant did not receive the letter.\n13.  On 15 February 2005 the Uralskiy Circuit Military Court upheld the judgment of 16 December 2004 on appeal. The applicant did not attend the hearing. The court heard two army officers representing the respondent.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked the Uralskiy Circuit Military Court for supervisory review of the judgments in his case. He argued that the courts had erroneously applied the statutory time-limit to his claims.\n15.  On 21 June 2005 the Uralskiy Circuit Military Court dismissed the applicant’s request for supervisory review. An identical request subsequently submitted by the applicant to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation was dismissed on 30 January 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7433", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Velenje.\n6.  On 10 August 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings against the insurance company Zavarovalnica Triglav before the Celje District Court seeking compensation for damage sustained at the workplace.\n7.  Between 18 March 2002 and 3 June 2002 the first-instance court held two hearings and appointed one expert.\n8.  At the last hearing the court rendered a judgment upholding the applicant’s claim in part. Both parties appealed.\n9.  On 8 November 2002 the first-instance court referred the case to the Celje Higher Court.\n10.  On 4 December 2003 the Celje Higher Court returned the case-file since the appeal of the defendant had not been served on the applicant. The case was again referred to the appeal court on 3 March 2004.\n11.  On 4 May 2005 the Celje Higher Court delivered a judgment remitting the case in part for re-examination. The appeal court found that the amount of compensation had been erroneously calculated.\n12.  On 7 September 2005 the Celje District Court held an opening hearing. Since the applicant lodged a preliminary submission only two days before the scheduled hearing the court adjourned the main hearing to 17 October 2005.\n13.  On 17 October 2005 the court held the second hearing and delivered its judgment. The defendant appealed.\n14.  On 1 February 2006 the applicant lodged a request for the corrigendum of the judgment. The judgment was corrected on 10 February 2006.\n15.  On 25 January 2007 the Celje Higher Court rejected the appeal. The judgment was served on the parties on 5 March 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7434", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Ms Tamara Askhabova, was born in 1951 and lives in Shali, Chechnya. She is the mother of Abdul-Yazit Askhabov, who was born in 1983.\n6.  At the material time the applicant’s family was living at 64, Ivanovskaya Street, Shali, Chechnya. The household occupied several dwellings. The applicant and her husband had five sons and two daughters. One of their children, Mr D.A., had been killed by the police in 2000 in the town of Aktyubinsk in the Astrakhan Region, Russia, as a result of a counter-terrorist operation. Another son, Mr Yu.A., was wanted by the authorities as the alleged leader of an illegal armed group. On 28 May 2009 he was killed in the centre of Shali by officers of the Shali district department of the interior (“the ROVD”). About three or four days after the shooting, the head of the ROVD went to the applicant’s house and summoned her other three sons to the police station as they were suspected of participating in illegal activities.\n7.  On 30 June 2009 the applicant and her husband took their three sons, including Abdul-Yazit Askhabov, to the ROVD where the young men were ordered to report to the police station on the 30th of each month.\n8.  On 30 July 2009 the applicant’s sons were again taken to the ROVD and fingerprinted.\n9.  Late in the morning on 4 August 2009, Shali ROVD officer I.K. went to the applicant’s house to check whether her sons were at home. He asked the applicant a number of questions relating to Abdul-Yazit Askhabov’s activities and lifestyle, and left.\n(b)  The events of the night of 4-5 August 2009\n10.  At about 3 a.m. on 5 August 2009, three armed Chechen men in masks and military camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicant’s home in three VAZ-Priora cars and broke in. The applicant and her relatives thought that the men were police officers from the ROVD.\n11.  The men dragged Abdul-Yazit Askhabov out of his bed and took him away without giving any explanations. One of them just said: “the FSB” (the Federal Security Service). The abduction happened quickly: it took between three and five minutes. The abductors drove away in the direction of the village of Noviye Atagi; a military checkpoint was located on that road at the material time.\n12.  Immediately after the abductors had gone, the applicant and her relatives called the ROVD and the head of the Shali district administration and complained about the incident.\n(c)  Subsequent events\n13.  On the mornings of 5, 6 and 7 August 2009, the applicant and her relatives waited at the entrance to the ROVD. On 7 August 2009 they were dispersed by the police. On the same day the applicant and her relative, Mr M.A., went to Grozny where she visited the Chechnya prosecutor and the Envoy for Human Rights and Freedoms in Chechnya (“the Envoy”).\n14.  The applicant and Mr M.A. spoke with the Envoy, Mr O. Kh., in his office. The latter called someone in their presence and requested that the detainee, Abdul-Yazit Askhabov, be released. He said: “Even if he is the brother of the leader of an illegal armed group, you have no right to detain him for a period longer than the one prescribed by the law”. From this conversation the applicant understood that her son had been detained in the ROVD.\n15.  At about 11 p.m. on 16 August 2009 a group of armed men in military camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicant’s house in a Mercedes car, the registration number of which contained the digits A511. Three or four of the men entered the house while the rest re", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7435", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1963 respectively and live in the village of Korobovo in the Leninskiy District of the Moscow Region.\n6.  The applicants have been married since 1990.\n7.  In 2000 their seventeen-year-old son R., who suffered from widespread vasculitis, died. Some time later the couple decided to adopt two children.\n8.  On 19 March 2008 the Nagatinskiy District Court of the City of Moscow approved the applicants’ full adoption of two unrelated children, a boy, A. (first name), born on 7 April 2005, and a girl, D. (first name), born on 11 June 2006.\n9.  Following the adoption, the children became brother and sister and their first names were changed from A. to G. and from D. to P. respectively. Their surnames and patronymics were also changed to reflect the surname of their adoptive parents and the first name of their adoptive father.\n10.  Both children had been removed from their respective birth parents’ care in their infancy. The boy was aged one year and six months at the time of the removal, whilst the girl was aged seven months. Prior to adoption, both children had lived in various foster homes and displayed slight developmental delays. G. was recorded as being developmentally delayed in speech and motor skills and to have suffered neglect. It appears that G. had problems walking and often fell. As a result, he had three front teeth missing. At the time of her removal, P. was recorded as having minor heart anomalies and delays in her mental and verbal skills.\n11.  After the adoption the children lived with the applicants as a family in a detached two-storey house in the village of Korobovo in the Leninskiy District of the Moscow Region.\n12.  The children’s placement was assessed prior to the adoption and the Leninskiy District Custody and Guardianship Agency (“the Leninskiy District Agency”) made two post-adoption visits to their home, in May and September 2008.\n(a)  Report on examination of living conditions dated 21 May 2008\n13.  On 21 May 2008 official E. of the Leninskiy District Agency visited the applicants’ house and issued a report describing the family’s living conditions. The report stated, in particular, that the house was “kept in order, the rooms had furniture, had been recently renovated, all rooms being decorated with wood, the floor having been covered with laminated wood and soft carpets”. The report mentioned that the family was well-off financially and that the children had a room measuring 20 square metres containing two beds, a wardrobe and many toys. The report did not mention any problems, and concluded that the living conditions were in compliance with the relevant requirements and that relations within the family were “normal”.\n14.  The report was approved by the head of the Leninskiy District Agency, Ms F.\n(b)  Report on examination of living conditions dated 12 September 2008\n15.  On 12 September 2008 official E. of the Leninskiy District Agency again visited the house and issued a report on the living conditions. The report concluded: “it was excellent that the children’s living conditions and their relations with the family were normal and that normal conditions had been created for bringing up the children”.\n16.  Following this visit, official E. also issued a separate report stating as follows:\n“... it is a good family, in which two children are being brought up. They have grown and developed a sun-tan over the summer period. They have spent time with their parents in the south", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7436", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lived until his arrest in the village of Kosmedemyanskiy, Kaliningrad Region. On 20 December 1999 the Kaliningrad Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) convicted the applicant of aggravated disruption of order in a detention facility and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment. According to the last available information from the applicant he continued to serve his prison sentence in a correctional colony in the village of Slavyanovka, Kaliningrad Region.\n6.  From 23 December 1999 to 26 June 2000 the applicant was detained in Kaliningrad remand prison IZ-39/1 awaiting transportation to Moscow, where he was to attend the hearing of his criminal case in the court of appeal. According to the applicant, the conditions of detention there were appalling, as the cells were overcrowded and dirty and without a minimum of comfort. After 26 June 2000 the applicant was transported to an investigation facility in Smolensk, and thereafter to investigation facility IZ‑48/3 in Moscow. He alleges that the conditions of detention in both facilities were similar to those in remand prison IZ-39/1.\n7.  On 13 January 2003 the applicant lodged a tort action against the administration of remand prison IZ-39/1. The applicant claimed 80,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the conditions of his detention in the facility from 23 December 1999 to 26 June 2000. At some point the applicant also asked the court to summon as witnesses the inmates who had been detained with him in the cell. He also sought leave to appear before the court in person.\n8.  According to the Government, on 10 March 2003 the Kaliningrad Tsentralniy District Court informed the applicant about his right to appoint a representative for the proceedings. The court explained that given the applicant’s status as a convict the court had no power to order his dispatch to the hearing. The applicant in reply notified the court that he could not afford to be represented.\n9.  On 27 March 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court held a hearing in the applicant’s absence. The case was adjourned; the applicant was informed again that it would not be possible for him to attend in person and that he could appoint a representative.\n10.  On 22 April 2003, the Tsentralniy District Court held a hearing in the applicant’s absence and dismissed his claim. The representatives of the defendants were present and heard. The witnesses were not summoned. The court found that the applicant had failed to provide evidence to prove that his rights had been violated in IZ-39/1 or that the authorities had been responsible for any “mental anguish or other damage” allegedly caused to him. The court held, inter alia, that it was not the fault of the authorities that the cells in the facility had been overcrowded.\n11.  On 22 May 2003 the applicant requested the Tsentralniy District Court to give him access to the case file. He did not receive a reply to his request.\n12.  On 30 July 2003 the Regional Court, acting on an appeal, upheld the judgment of 22 April 2003. The applicant was not present.\n13.  On 12 October 2000 the applicant was transferred to the penal establishment OM-216/13 (“the colony”) in the village of Slavyanovka, Bagrationovskiy District, Kaliningrad Region. Upon his arrival, the colony administration seized for inspection the applicant’s personal documents, letters and photographs. The applicant alleged that the administration had then ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7437", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Komen.\n5.  On 15 December 1993 an indictment was lodged against the applicant and three others before the Nova Gorica District Court. He was charged with the criminal offence of abuse of position as the director of the company HIT D.O.O. under section 133 of the Criminal Code.\n6.  The indictment was served on the applicant on 20 December 1993. All of the accused lodged objections to the indictment.\n7.  On 25 January 1994 the court rejected the objections.\n8.  On 19 April 1994 the first hearing was held. The representatives requested the recusal of the judge. The request was rejected.\n9.  Between 21 April 1994 and 12 July 1994 the court held some seven hearings. Three hearings were interrupted due to health problems of one of the co-accused (Ms A.T.K.). Five hearings scheduled for the second half of May were postponed to the beginning of June.\n10.  On 12 July 1994 held a hearing and decided that the case against Ms A.T.K. should be tried separately.\n11.  Between 14 July 1994 and 15 February 1995 the court held some twenty-six hearings, heard several witnesses, dealt with two requests for recusal of judges and adduced evidence.\n12.  On 15 February 1995 following amendments of the criminal legislation the court held a hearing in a different formation (a panel of five judges instead of three) and commenced the hearing by re-reading the indictment.\n13.  Between 16 February 1995 and 19 December 1995 the court held some twenty-eight hearings, heard several witnesses and adduced evidence. About ten hearings were postponed due to health problems of the applicant and one of the accused (Mr. D.K.).\n14.  During the hearing held on 9 January 1996 the applicant informed the court that he had serious heart problems and needed an operation. The court decided to try the applicant’s case in a separate set of proceedings.\n15.  On 16 April 1997 the Nova Gorica District Court issued a decision joining the proceedings against the applicant and Ms A.T.K.\n16.  On 6 May 1999 the court decided to join to the proceedings the case involving the co-accused Mr. D.K., whose case had been remitted to the first-instance court after an initial conviction and a subsequent successful appeal.\n17.  Between 27 May 1999 and 1 September 1999 the court had to appoint ex officio representatives for the accused and had to deal with a motion for recusal of a judge and a motion for transfer of jurisdiction.\n18.  Between 6 September 1999 and 9 June 2000 the court held about thirty-six hearings. The court heard several witnesses and adduced evidence. The court also had to deal with requests for recusal of judges and in addition the ex-officio representatives resigned and the court had to appoint new ones.\n19.  On 12 June 2000 the first-instance court issued a judgment finding the applicant guilty as charged. He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The written copy of the judgment was issued on 2 November 2000. The applicant appealed.\n20.  On 12 June 2002 the Koper Higher Court rejected the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant lodged a request for protection of legality.\n21.  On 10 February 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the request for protection of legality in part and amended the operative part of the judgment by changing the legal classification and convicting him for the crime of the abuse of authority under section 244 of the Criminal Code. The Supreme Court found that the crimes under section 133 of th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7438", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Portorož.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant was a public servant working for the Centre for Educational and Extracurricular Activities (“the Center”). He was laid off following disciplinary proceedings. On 11 October 1996 he instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court against the Ministry of Education and Sport (“The Ministry”) and the Centre seeking the annulment of the decision on termination of his employment contract together with all the rights and benefits stemming from the termination of the contract.\n8.  On 23 February 1998 the first hearing was held.\n9.  On 22 September 1998 the court issued a decision after the applicant withdrew his claim against the Ministry.\n10.  Between 8 October 1998 and 8 November 1999 the first-instance court held three hearings. In addition, in May and April 1999 two hearings were postponed on the request of the defendant party. A hearing was held on 8 November 1999.\n11.  On 22 December 1999 the first-instance court rendered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s request. He appealed.\n12.  On 5 April 2002 the Ljubljana Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the appeal in part and remitted the case for re-examination. The court remitted part of the case because a preliminary submission of the defendant had not been sent to the applicant and he could therefore not submit his comments on the matter.\n13.  On 18 June 2002 the first-instance court held a hearing and rendered a judgment. The court found the first-instance disciplinary decision (see paragraph 7 above) to be lawful and the second-instance decision to be unlawful. Accordingly the court concluded that the applicant’s employment contract had been terminated lawfully, however the decision on termination became final only when the judgment became final. The court therefore found that the applicant was entitled to the employment rights and benefits for the relevant period. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 25 September 2002 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court issued a corrigendum of the judgment.\n15.  On 27 August 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Labour and Social Court delivered a judgment. As the applicant kept lodging new requests concerning his rights and benefits throughout the proceedings the appeal court considered one such request in the appeal as a request for a supplementary judgment. The court rejected the remainder of the appeal and in this part the judgment became final. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n16.  On 4 November 2004 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court rejected the appeal on points of law on procedural grounds. The applicant appealed.\n17.  On 14 January 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the appeal. The appeal on points of law was sent to the Supreme Court.\n18.  On 25 October 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\n19.  On 7 June 2006 the first-instance court issued a judgment (see paragraph 15 above). The applicant appealed.\n20.  On 5 October 2006 the appeal was rejected. The appeal court found inter alia that the applicant had been requesting rights and benefits after the appeal judgment became final without any grounds.\n21.  On 12 February 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional appeal.\n22.  On 20 December 1996 the applicant’s former employer instituted proceedings against", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7439", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Šmarje pri Jelšah.\n6.  On 13 June 1995 the Žiri Municipality instituted enforcement proceedings against the company KODA SPAAR d.o.o. before the Kranj Basic Court.\n7.  On 28 June 1995 the writ of execution was issued. The company lodged an objection.\n8.  On 5 September 1995 the first-instance court issued a decision annulling the writ of execution.\n9.  On 6 November 1995 the case was referred to the Kranj District Court and was to be decided in the framework of contentious proceedings.\n10.  On 21 November 1999 the court issued a decision that it had no jurisdiction and the case was referred to Škofja Loka Local Court.\n11.  On 25 November 1999 the Škofja Loka Local Court initiated a jurisdictional dispute.\n12.  On 30 August 2000 the Ljubljana Higher Court assigned the case to the Kranj District Court.\n13.  On 17 October 2000 the first-instance court received an extract from the Register of Companies stating that the company KODA SPAAR d.o.o. had been struck out from the Register pursuant to Article 580 § 5 and 6 of the Companies Act.\n14.  On 8 January 2001 the creditor requested the continuation of the proceedings against the applicant, since he had been the founder and owner of the company.\n15.  On 27 August 2001 the first-instance court issued a decision on continuation of proceedings against the applicant.\n16.  On 10 September 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal and a request for an exemption from court fees.\n17.  On 24 October 2001 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the appeal.\n18.  On 20 December 2001 the applicant lodged a request for protection of legality, which was rejected.\n19.  On 27 August 2002 the Kranj District Court issued a decision staying the proceeding pending the decision of the Constitutional Court concerning the suspension of implementation of a chapter of the Financial Operations of Companies Act.\n20.  On 17 January 2003 the proceedings resumed.\n21.  On 17 December 2003 a hearing concerning the possibility of a settlement was held. The applicant lodged a request for legal aid, an exemption from court fees and a counterclaim seeking compensation for damages.\n22.  On 11 February 2004 a hearing was held and the first-instance court rendered a judgment annulling the writ of execution of 28 June 1995. An appeal was lodged.\n23.  On 16 February 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court remitted the case for re-examination.\n24.  On 31 August 2005 a hearing was held and the first-instance court issued a judgment upholding the writ of execution. The applicant appealed.\n25.  On 21 June 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeal and annulled the writ of execution.\n26.  On 4 September 2006 the applicant lodged a request claiming reimbursement of legal costs. His request was rejected on 10 October 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7440", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Lesce.\n6.  In 1993 the company DOMPLAN Kranj instituted enforcement proceedings against the applicant before the Kranj Basic Court. The enforcement order was issued on 20 April 1993.\n7.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia.\n8.  On 28 July 1994 the case was reassigned to the Radovljica District Court.\n9.  On 23 December 1994 the enforcement order was served on the applicant. She lodged an objection.\n10.  On 13 September 1995 the enforcement order was annulled and the case was to be adjudicated in the framework of contentious proceedings.\n11.  On 3 October 1995 the creditor lodged another request for enforcement against the applicant. The enforcement order was issued on 23 October 1995.\n12.  On 26 January 1999 the Radovljica District Court issued a decision joining the two cases.\n13.  On 23 April 2001 the first-instance court held a hearing.\n14.  On 9 July 2001 the first-instance court rendered a judgment, upholding the creditor’s requests. The applicant appealed.\n15.  On 24 April 2002 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the appeal.\n16.  On 7 October 2002 the creditor lodged a request for enforcement based on the judgment of 9 July 2001.\n17.  On 14 October 2002 the Radovljica District Court issued an enforcement order.\n18.  On 30 October 2002 the applicant lodged an objection to the order and at the same time a request for postponement of the enforcement expressing willingness to reach a settlement. The applicant’s objection was sent to the creditor on 12 September 2003. The creditor responded on 5 March 2004.\n19.  On 25 May 2006 the first-instance court held a hearing and issued a decision regarding the objection against the enforcement order. The creditor appealed.\n20.  On 8 March 2007 the creditor requested the proceedings to be terminated following an out-of-court settlement reached between the parties. The decision on termination of proceedings was issued on 16 March 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7441", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Mirna.\n6.  On 3 January 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings against his employer before the Novo Mesto District Court seeking compensation for damage sustained at the workplace.\n7.  On 6 February 2002 the first-instance court held the first hearing. The court appointed two experts. The experts submitted their reports on 16 April 2002 and 17 January 2003.\n8.  On 10 March 2003 the court held the second hearing and rendered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. Both parties appealed.\n9.  On 18 January 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court remitted the case for re-examination in the part concerning the amount of compensation.\n10.  Between 19 April 2004 and 26 November 2004 the first-instance court held three hearings.\n11.  On 21 January 2005 the court rendered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 22 February 2006 the appeal court rendered judgment amending the first-instance judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n13.  On 26 February 2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the first-instance court in accordance with the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”).\n14.  On 13 April 2008 the president of the Supreme Court rejected the supervisory appeal on procedural grounds.\n15.  On 17 December 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law. The decision was served on the applicant on 16 January 2009.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7443", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, who were born in 1982, 1975 and 1979 respectively, reside in Istanbul.\n5.  On 13 July 1998 the first two applicants were arrested and taken into custody at Gaziosmanpaşa police station on suspicion of their involvement in a robbery. Subsequently, on 15 July 1998 the third applicant was taken into custody in connection with the same offence.\n6.  The applicants alleged that during their police custody, they had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment. In particular, they stated that they had been blindfolded, stripped naked, hung by their arms, given electric shocks, harassed, threatened, punched, kicked, beaten with truncheons and other blunt objects, and subjected to falaka (whipping on the soles of the feet).\n7.  On 18 July 1998 the applicants were examined at a hospital. The doctor who examined them reported that there were no signs of physical violence on their bodies. According to the applicants, the doctor was a friend of the police officer who had accompanied them to the hospital, and he had drafted the report without carrying out a medical examination.\n8.  On 19 July 1998 the applicants were interrogated by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge. The second and third applicants alleged before the investigating judge that they had been ill-treated during their time in police custody. The applicants were then remanded in custody upon the order of the investigating judge.\n9.  On the same date, the applicants filed a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor and complained of ill-treatment. The public prosecutor initiated an investigation and ordered that the applicants be taken to the Gaziosmanpaşa Health Clinic for a medical examination. The doctor who examined the applicants noted the following injuries:\n(a)  Mr Yazıcı had three parallel bruises on his back measuring 1x10 cm and a bruise inside his left cheek measuring 1 cm;\n(b)  Mr Polat had two bruises measuring 1x10 cm on his back and a wound measuring 1x2 cm on the back of his right foot; and\n(c)  Mr Sağın had four bruises measuring 1x10 cm on his back and a wound measuring 1x1cm on the outer side of his right foot.\n10.  On 10 May 1999 the Gaziosmanpaşa Forensic Medicine Institute issued a report regarding the applicants’ injuries. Based on the findings indicated in the medical report of 19 July 1998, it was concluded that the first and second applicants were unfit to work for five days and the third applicant for seven days.\n11.  On 1 October 1999 the prosecutor at the Eyüp Assize Court filed an indictment against three police officers, accusing them of torture pursuant to Article 243 of the former Criminal Code.\n12.  On 13 October 1999 the criminal proceedings before the Eyüp Assize Court commenced. The applicants joined the proceedings as civil parties.\n13.  On 21 December 2000 Law no. 4616 on conditional release was enacted. This law provided for the suspension of proceedings or of the execution of sentences in respect of crimes committed before 23 April 1999 and for which the maximum penalty did not exceed ten years’ imprisonment. Section 5(a) of Law no. 4616 stipulated that the execution of sentences in respect of offences proscribed by, amongst others, Article 243 of the former Criminal Code could not be suspended.\n14.  On 25 October 2005 the Eyüp Assize Court decided that the acts allegedly committed by the accused police officers fell within the scope of Article 245 of the former Criminal Code, regarding ill-treatment. It th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7444", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Gödöllő.\n6.  The applicant, married and father of a minor, was arrested on 18 January 2006, because the police found several suspicious spare car parts, car documents and various tools in his vehicle. On the same day he was interrogated on suspicion of attempted aggravated larceny, allegedly committed in respect of a van.\n7.  On 20 January 2006 the prosecution proposed the applicant’s pre-trial detention. Relying essentially on the above material evidence, it was of the view that there was reasonable suspicion that the applicant and his accomplice, together with other unknown helpers, were active in the car theft business.\n8.  On the same day, the Dunakeszi District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, referring to, but not substantiating, the risks of absconding, collusion and repetition of crime. An accomplice was detained as well.\n9.  The applicant appealed, challenging the suspicion against him and pointing out that his settled background – he had never been convicted before, had legal income, and supported several family members – rendered unlikely the risks of absconding and repetition of crime. The Pest County Regional Court dismissed the appeal on 27 January 2006, without addressing in detail the applicant’s arguments.\n10.  On 13 February 2006 the applicant’s detention was prolonged. The decision referred to eight counts of larceny. In his appeal, the applicant pointed out that the material evidence relating to one of the thefts was in no way capable of connecting him to the vehicle in question, whereas in respect of the remaining seven counts, he had not formally been implicated as a suspect.\n11.  On 28 February 2006 the Regional Court dismissed the appeal. Without addressing in detail the defence’s arguments, the court pointed out that it could not assess the evidence at that stage of the proceedings.\n12.  On 24 April 2006 the applicant requested his release. He argued that the living conditions of those supported by him had deteriorated. His request was to no avail.\n13.  Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was repeatedly prolonged at the statutory intervals. The reasoning in the decisions was largely identical to that in the previous ones, and the discrepancy in the counts of theft with which the applicant was charged persisted. His requests for release were to no avail.\n14.  On 10 July 2006 the prosecution again proposed the prolongation of the applicant’s detention. This time, reasonable suspicion was invoked in respect of four counts of car theft. The reasons for the applicant’s proposed detention remained the same.\n15.  On 14 July 2006 the District Court held a hearing and sustained the prosecution’s motion, while including in the decision the suspicion of another car theft. The applicant’s appeal and subsequent requests for release were to no avail.\n16.  On 29 August 2006 an expert was appointed to examine whether or not the material evidence found in the applicant’s car was capable of connecting him to any car theft.\n17.  Further prolongations took place on 19 October and 16 November 2006, with essentially unchanged reasoning. The applicant’s ensuing requests for release or a less stringent measure were unsuccessful.\n18.  On 21 December 2006 the applicant was charged with further counts of car theft.\n19.  On 15 January 2007 the Pest County Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention. The underlying reasons were the same as before. In his appeal, th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7445", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Rustavi no. 1 Prison.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on 4 October 2007 on suspicion of unlawful purchase and possession of firearms.\n7.  On 19 November 2007 the firearms case was merged with another criminal case which concerned the applicant’s alleged involvement in several incidents of armed robbery.\n8.  On 8 December 2007 the applicant was placed in Gldani no. 8 Prison. The applicant alleges that on an unspecified date he was beaten there by prison officers. He did not complain before the law-enforcement authorities about the alleged beating.\n9.  On 24 June 2008 the Bolnisi District Court found the applicant guilty of unlawful possession of firearms and two distinct incidents of aggravated armed robbery, and imposed on him a sentence of twenty years and seven months’ imprisonment and a fine. On 6 January 2009 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal slightly modified the classification of the offences committed, maintaining the applicant’s conviction but reducing his sentence, fixing it at seventeen years and seven months’ imprisonment, plus a fine. On 1 June 2009 the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the applicant on points of law. The applicant failed to submit to the Court copies of the domestic court decisions.\n10.  As disclosed by his medical file, the applicant suffers from epilepsy, which condition he had developed prior to his arrest.\n11.  On 18 July 2008 the applicant was placed in Rustavi no. 6 Prison. A medical certificate dated 27 November 2008 issued by the head doctor of that prison further diagnosed the applicant with chronic bronchitis and neurocirculatory dystonia.\n12.  According to the applicant, at that time he was denied any medical care in prison; his family provided him with the required medication. In support of that assertion he provided two receipts from pharmacies indicating procurement of several drugs. Further, the applicant alleged that the conditions of his detention in Rustavi no. 6 Prison were poor: he was kept in conditions of inadequate sanitation and hygiene, without proper toilet facilities, and denied regular outdoor exercise.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s mother complained to the governor of Rustavi no. 6 Prison about a deterioration in her son’s medical condition and requested his transfer to the medical establishment of the prison authority (“the prison hospital”). The governor replied on 13 August 2009, claiming that the applicant’s medical condition was stable, that he had benefited from medical supervision and drugs in prison, and that no transfer to the prison hospital was envisaged.\n14.  On 30 January 2010 the applicant’s lawyer wrote to the Governor and the head doctor of Rustavi no. 6 Prison, drawing their attention to the deterioration in the medical condition of the applicant. The lawyer whilst referring to the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment in Gldani no. 8 Prison claimed that he had sustained a head injury and suffered from epileptic seizures and diminished hearing as a result. She also noted that according to the applicantm, he had not been administered with any medical care in prison and he had severely suffered from, inter alia, mobility and speech problems. The applicant’s lawyer requested the prison governor to arrange for a comprehensive medical examination of her client. She also sought access to his complete medical file.\n15.  On 10 and 12 February 2010 bacteriological sputum tests were perf", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7446", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1957 and 1958 respectively and live in İzmir.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 2 July 2001 at about 10 p.m. the applicants’ 19-year-old son Ali Külah was sitting in a park in İzmir with two friends when a police van stopped nearby and police officers asked them to show their identity cards. The three men gave their identity cards to police officer Ö.A., who passed them on to a civilian sitting in the police van. When the applicants’ son Ali protested and said that the civilian had no business checking his identity card, a uniformed police officer told him to shut up, before proceeding to slap him in the face.\n8.  When Ali fell to the ground from the force of the slap, other police officers jumped on him and started beating him up. When Ali managed to free himself from the melee and started running away, police officer Ö.A. gave chase and caught up with him a few blocks away. Officer Ö.A. then kicked Ali and he fell to the ground once again. A gunshot was then heard and officer Ö.A. was seen holding a pistol in his hand and standing next to Ali. Ali was taken to hospital where his condition was deemed to be life-threatening.\n9.  The following day police officers and a prosecutor took two statements from Ali while he was in the intensive care unit of the hospital. Ali confirmed the version of the events set out above, and asked for the officer to be prosecuted.\n10.  On 6 July 2001 Ali died in the hospital. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death was a bullet which had entered his neck and exited through his back. A number of injuries observed on his body were also recorded in the report.\n11.  In the meantime, according to two police reports drawn up on 3 July 2001, officer Ö.A. was not arrested after the incident. He was released without “having been placed in police custody” and “without having been brought before a doctor”. According to the reports, the officer was transferred to the prosecutor’s office for questioning.\n12.  A medical report drawn up on 2 July 2001 notes, however, various cuts and bruised areas on the officer’s body.\n13.  On 13 July 2001 the first applicant, Mr Külah, made an official complaint against the police officer responsible for killing his son.\n14.  On 16 November 2001 the İzmir prosecutor filed an indictment with the İzmir Assize Court (hereinafter “the trial court”) and charged officer Ö.A. with the offence of manslaughter.\n15.  In the course of the trial, officer Ö.A. told the trial court that during the scuffle Ali had attempted to take his pistol. When the pistol had fired, both of them had been holding it, but the officer did not remember which end of the pistol he had been holding.\n16.  When the applicants’ legal representative asked the trial court to obtain copies of the ballistic examination reports of the officer’s pistol, it became apparent that the pistol had not been examined for finger prints; it had simply been returned to him by his colleagues after the incident.\n17.  In the course of the trial the applicants submitted a number of petitions to the trial court and complained about various defects in the investigation. They argued, in particular, that the report in respect of officer Ö.A.’s medical examination was dubious because it was dated 2 July 2001. In this connection they pointed to the above-mentioned police reports of 3 July 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7447", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  On 14 May 2010 the applicant, former Vice-Mayor of Budapest and former Member of Parliament, was arrested on charges of aggravated fraudulent breach of trust committed by misusing funds at the Budapest Transport Company. The police apprehended him shortly after he had lost his right to parliamentary immunity, when the new MPs elected in the 2010 general elections had been sworn in. Previously, in January and March 2010, criminal proceedings had been initiated against some of the Transport Company’s senior officials and a close colleague of the applicant, in the same context.\n7.  In the prosecution’s ensuing motion to have the applicant detained on remand, the dangers of absconding and collusion were referred to.\n8.  The defence argued that the applicant, although he had known for months about his highly probable indictment after losing his right to immunity, had not left the country. It outlined that the alleged corruption cases at the Budapest Transport Company had attracted intense publicity and that the applicant’s indictment was more than foreshadowed given the admissions made by the other suspects in the ongoing investigation. The applicant had denied several times the press rumours about his leaving the country, and on 11 May 2010 he had also indicated to the authorities his willingness to cooperate.\n9.  The defence moreover submitted that, against this background, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was not justified and should be substituted with a less coercive measure if any was needed at all.\n10.  On 17 May 2010 the Buda Central District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand, despite the defence’s request that house arrest be considered in its stead. Reiterating in essence the reasons in the prosecution’s motion, the court held that there was a danger that the applicant would abscond in the face of the serious charges, which was even more plausible given that he had sold a number of properties in his name. The court noted that an ‘element’ had occurred in the investigation pointing to the risk that the applicant might abscond by leaving the country; however, this circumstance was not specified. The court also held that because the applicant’s immunity had been removed only a short time before, several further steps of investigation were still outstanding and that therefore the risk of collusion or interference was real.\nOn 18 May 2010 the applicant’s lawyer appealed, again proposing the application of less stringent measures.\n11.  On 26 May 2010 the Budapest Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal.\n12.  The defence’s repeated requests to consult the case file with regard to the above-mentioned evidence were disregarded by the courts. The applicant’s further request lodged with the Central Investigation Prosecutor’s Office to consult the evidence was also rejected, and his complaint to the Chief Public Prosecutor against this remained unanswered. The applicant was not allowed to get acquainted with the relevant material of the investigation, and the evidence of his alleged intention to abscond has never been disclosed.\n13.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was repeatedly prolonged at the statutory intervals. In these proceedings, the arguments of the defence remained largely the same, supplemented by the fact that the applicant’s health condition had deteriorated. However, it does not appear that the courts assessed, in an individualised manner", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7448", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Kičevo.\n6.  On 1 April 1998 the applicant’s ex-wife (“the plaintiff”) brought a civil action against him seeking a declaration that she owned a half share of a property acquired during their marriage or, as an alternative, monetary compensation equal to half of its value, which was not specified in the claim. The plaintiff set the claim value of the dispute (вредност на спорот) at 10,000 Macedonian denars (MKD) (approximately 160 euros (EUR), as a basis for calculation of the court fees. The case was heard in the Kičevo Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”).\n7.  Both parties were legally represented in the proceedings. According to an expert report of 19 May 1998, the value of the property at issue was set at MKD 6,012,944 (approximately EUR 98,000).\n8.  On 9 October 1998 the first-instance court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim, which it summarised as follows:\n“to recognise that the plaintiff holds title to a half share of the [property], it being joint matrimonial property ... and if the [applicant] wants to be released from this obligation, to pay the plaintiff the sum of MKD 3,006,472 (approximately EUR 49,000)”.\n9.  It established that the applicant, who had been living and working in Austria, had paid for the house that had been constructed on a land owned by his late father. The plaintiff had not contributed to the construction of the house. As specified in the introduction to the judgment, the court set the value of the dispute at MKD 3,006,472. On 14 April 1999 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.\n10.  The plaintiff challenged the lower courts’ judgments by lodging an appeal on points of law (ревизија) with the Supreme Court. She complained that the first-instance court had been assisted by an unqualified interpreter and that it had wrongly established the facts regarding her contribution to the construction of the house, which was a matrimonial property. The public prosecutor also requested a protection-of-legality review (барање за заштита на законитоста) arguing that the lower courts had wrongly established that the parties had lived together for ten years, instead of twenty-one years (their marriage had terminated de facto in 1997 when the plaintiff had left the house). The prosecutor further argued that the house in question, the value of which was German Marks 190,887, had been constructed between 1989 and 1996. The lower courts had failed to consider the plaintiff’s contribution to the construction of the house, as a property obtained in wedlock.\n11.  On 30 September 1999 the Supreme Court upheld both the legality review request and the plaintiff’s appeal on points of law and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. It held that the lower courts had incorrectly established that the house in question had been constructed while the parties had no longer been married. In the court’s view, it had been in 1997 when the applicant had explicitly declared his intention to separate from the plaintiff. It was irrelevant that the parties had not lived together for many years before (while the applicant had been in Austria). Similarly, it was of no importance whether the plaintiff had contributed to the construction of the house. Had it been constructed during marriage, it had been a joint property. The introductory part of that judgment specified that the value of the dispute was MKD 3,006,472.\n12.  By judgments of 26 May 2000 and 1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7449", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 19 October 2000 a Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) investigating judge questioned a witness, M.S., about alleged heroin trafficking in Zagreb. M.S. testified, inter alia, that in April 2000 he had transported one kilogram of heroin from B.S. to another person, known to him as “Mario”.\n6.  As part of a further police investigation of the organised supply of heroin in Zagreb, on 27 April 2001 the Drug Suppression Unit of the Zagreb Police Department (Policijska uprava Zagrebačka, Sektor kriminalističke policije, Odjel kriminaliteta droga; hereinafter “the police”) questioned a suspect, I.G.H., who stated that he had bought heroin from the applicant. During the questioning he was assisted by lawyer H.B. The questioning of I.G.H. commenced at 11.15 p.m., after a defence lawyer appeared at the police station at 11.10 p.m., and ended on 28 April 2001 at 1 a.m.\n7.  On 31 May 2001 the police questioned another suspect, V.Š., who stated that he was a heroin addict and that he had bought heroin from the applicant. During the questioning he was assisted by lawyer N.D. His questioning commenced at 4.26 p.m., after a defence lawyer appeared at the police station at 3.55 p.m., and finished at 5.43 p.m. on the same day.\n8.  On 6 June 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of supplying heroin. The applicant was questioned by the police but chose to remain silent.\n9.  The next day the applicant was brought before an investigating judge at the Zagreb County Court. He denied all the charges against him but decided to remain silent and not to give any evidence. The applicant was again questioned by the investigating judge on 11 June 2001, but gave no evidence.\n10.  On 11 June 2001 an investigation was opened in respect of the applicant and eight other individuals, including I.G.H. and V.Š., in the Zagreb County Court in connection with a suspicion of conspiracy to supply heroin in Zagreb in the period between 1998 and 2001.\n11.  On 17 and 19 June 2001 the investigating judge sought to hear I.G.H., who chose to remain silent and not to give any evidence. When questioned by the investigating judge I.G.H. was not assisted by a lawyer.\n12.  On 21 June 2001 the investigation was extended to another defendant, I.S., who also chose to remain silent but denied all the charges against him.\n13.  On 25 June 2001 the police questioned another suspect, N.S. He stated that he had been a heroin addict for years and that he had been buying heroin from the applicant. During the questioning he was assisted by lawyer Ž.S. His questioning commenced at 5.50 p.m., after a defence lawyer appeared at the police station at 5.30 p.m., and finished at 6.55 p.m. on the same day.\n14.  On 16 July 2001 the investigating judge heard evidence from V.Š., who chose to remain silent. During the questioning V.Š. was not assisted by a lawyer, but he stated that his lawyer was I.K.\n15.  On 23 July 2001 the investigating judge heard evidence from witness M.S., who retracted his statement of 19 October 2000, stating that it had been given under coercion by the investigating judge and the police. He stated that it was not true that he had transported one kilogram of heroin to “Mario”. He also stated that he did not know the applicant.\n16.  On 26 July 2001 the investigating judge questioned the applicant in connection with the allegations made by N.S. The applicant denied the charges and refused to make any further s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7450", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant lives in a flat in a building situated in L., Croatia. The ground floor of the building is leased by the L. Municipality to M.M., who runs a restaurant there, “N.”.\n5.  Between March 2002 and January 2007 the applicant called the police on 137 occasions in connection with the restaurant “N.”.\n6.  On 5 September 2003 the R. State Inspectorate lodged a request for the institution of minor-offence proceedings against M.M. in connection with unspecified irregularities in his restaurant business.\n7.  On 16 December 2004 the O. Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u O.) found M.M. and M.Č., an employee of the restaurant, guilty of disturbing public peace and order at night by making excessive noise while carrying out some building work on the restaurant.\n8.  On 20 May 2005 M.M. lodged a complaint with the police against the applicant and her sister, alleging that at about 3 a.m., when about thirty guests were leaving his restaurant, the applicant and her sister had thrown water on them from the applicant’s balcony.\n9.  On 1 September 2005 the O. Minor Offences court found M.M. and M.Č. guilty of disturbing public peace and order by making excessive noise while carrying out building work on the restaurant.\n10.  On the same day another family complained about the noise coming from the restaurant at 2 a.m. and 4 a.m.\n11.  On 7 January 2006 the other occupants of the building, including the applicant, lodged a request with the L. Municipality for the lease of the ground floor to M.M. to be terminated owing to noise and foul smells. The request referred to ten previous complaints lodged with various authorities against M.M. in respect of noise, the poisoning of cats and disturbance of public peace and order, all of which remained unanswered.\n12.  On an unspecified date, forty-three persons signed a petition complaining about the foul smell of the rubbish bins at the restaurant “N.”, and twenty-two persons signed another petition concerning excessive nightly noise from the restaurant.\n13.  On 22 May 2003 the applicant and her sister, I., brought a private prosecution in the O. Municipal Court (Općinski sud u O.) against M.Č. for verbal assault and inflicting bodily injury. The applicant alleged, inter alia, that at about 1 a.m. on 10 May 2003 M.Č. had kicked and hit her several times all over her body.\n14.  A medical report drawn up at 2.37 a.m. on 10 May 2003 in respect of the applicant established that she had arrived at 2 a.m. escorted by the police and alleged that Mr M.Č. had hit and kicked her. Her right ankle and right hand were swollen; a contusion and haematoma were found on her right hand and a further contusion on her right shin. A further medical report drawn up on 12 May 2010 confirmed the same injuries and also noted a contusion and haematoma on her right hip and a painful neck.\n15.  A hearing was held on 26 November 2003, at which criminal proceedings on charges of verbal assault against the applicant and her sister following a private prosecution by M.Č. were joined to the criminal proceedings instituted by the applicant and her sister. M.Č. alleged that the applicant had called him “an idiot” and sworn at him.\n16.  On 20 January 2004 the applicant’s counsel submitted an application for the expedition of the proceedings in order to avoid the expiry of the statutory limitation period for prosecution.\n17.  At a hearing held on 25 August 2004 the applicant’s sister gave her oral evidence.\n18.  Another hearing was held", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7451", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Logatec.\n5.  On 21 May 1997 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against J.P. for fraud, alleging that on 21 August 1996 he had lent J. P. 1.000 DEM that J. P. never returned.\n6.  On 27 January 1999 the Ljubljana District Attorney’s Office lodged charges against J. P. with the Ljubljana District Court for several offences of fraud, including the one relating to the applicant.\n7.  On an undefined date in 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against J. P.\n8.  At a hearing held on 30 October 2000 before the Ljubljana District Court the applicant submitted his pecuniary claim for damages in the criminal proceedings.\n9.  On 11 June 2001 the applicant withdrew his civil claim and stated that he would submit a pecuniary claim for damages in the criminal proceedings.\n10.  On 20 December 2004, after hearings had been held on 22 September 2004, 27 October 2004, 23 November 2004, 10 December 2004, the Ljubljana District Court found the defendant J. P. guilty of several offences of fraud. As regards the offence relating to the applicant, the District Court rejected the charges due to the expiry of the absolute period of limitation and accordingly dismissed his pecuniary claims.\n11.  On 22 February 2007 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n12.  On 15 October 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal on the basis that the applicant had no standing with regard to the proceedings he was complaining of.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7452", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In 1996 the applicant company GRUPA ZASTAVA VOZILA A.D. concluded a contract with the company PS ZA AVTO p.o. before a notary determining the contractual modalities concerning joint investments.\n6.  On 1 December 1997 proceedings for the annulment of the above contract and notarial protocol were instituted against the applicant company before the Ljubljana District Court by the company PS ZA AVTO.\n7.  On 14 July 1998 the court ordered the claim to be served on the applicant company in the Republic of Serbia with the assistance of the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”) through diplomatic channels.\n8.  On 29 October 1998 the court made an inquiry with the Ministry concerning the service.\n9.  On 12 November 1998 the Ministry informed the court that they were still waiting for a reply from the Serbian authorities.\n10.  On 30 May 2000 the court received a request for third party intervention from the company ZASTAVA AVTO d.o.o.\n11.  On 6 June 2000 the court made another inquiry with the Ministry concerning the service.\n12.  On 29 June 2000 the applicant company’s representative sent the authority form and a request for joinder with another case.\n13.  On 17 May 2001 the applicant company sent a request for a hearing to be set.\n14.  The first hearing scheduled for 11 October 2001 was postponed.\n15.  On 12 October 2001 the State Attorney’s Office submitted a request for third party intervention.\n16.  On 10 June 2002 the court issued a decision allowing both third parties to participate in the proceedings.\n17.  On 12 September 2002 the applicant company lodged a counterclaim. Due to the counterclaim the court postponed the hearing set for 19 September 2002.\n18.  On 3 February 2003 the court held a settlement hearing. The parties failed to reach a settlement.\n19.  On 14 April 2003 the court held the first hearing.\n20.  On 23 April 2003 the applicant company requested an extension of deadline for the submission of documents. The deadline was extended by one month.\n21.  On 10 November 2003 the court appointed a financial expert.\n22.  On 23 February 2004 the court granted the expert’s request for the extension of the deadline for the submission of the report.\n23.  On 3 May 2004 the expert submitted the report.\n24.  On 6 October 2004 the court held a hearing.\n25.  On 13 December 2004 the court rendered a judgment ruling in favour of the applicant company. The notarial protocol and the contract remained in force. The plaintiff appealed.\n26.  On 7 November 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court delivered a judgment amending the first-instance judgment and ruling against the applicant company. The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law.\n27.  On 12 May 2008 the Supreme Court delivered a judgment upholding the appeal court’s decision. The applicant company lodged a constitutional appeal.\n28.  On 13 May 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as unfounded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7453", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Begunje pri Cerknici.\n6.  On 10 April 1997 the applicant instituted a labour dispute against two companies before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court seeking severance pay. He also lodged a request for an interim order to safeguard his claim since the companies were having financial difficulties.\n7.  On 24 April 1997 the first-instance court rejected the request for an interim order. He appealed.\n8.  On 22 May 1997 the appeal court remitted the decision on the interim order for reconsideration.\n9.  On 18 June 1997 the first-instance court postponed a hearing on the request of the applicant.\n10.  On 2 July 1997 the first-instance court held a hearing concerning the interim order.\n11.  On 11 July 1997 the first-instance court rejected the request for an interim order.\n12.  On 8 December 1998 the applicant lodged a preliminary submission and a second request for an interim order.\n13.  On 16 December 1998 the first-instance court rejected his request for an interim order.\n14.  On 6 July 1999 the applicant lodged a request to accelerate the proceedings.\n15.  On 24 November 1999 he lodged a third request for an interim order.\n16.  On 6 December 1999 the first-instance court rejected his request. He appealed.\n17.  On 23 December 1999 his appeal was rejected.\n18.  On 18 April 2000 the applicant withdrew his claim against the second defendant and lodged a fourth request for an interim order. His request was rejected on 4 May 2000. He appealed. His appeal was rejected on 23 May 2000.\n19.  On 19 July 2000 the first-instance court issued a decision on termination of proceedings concerning the second defendant.\n20.  On 15 November 2000 the first hearing was held.\n21.  On 24 January 2001 a hearing was postponed on request of both parties due to the absence of witnesses.\n22.  On 7 March 2001 the first-instance court held a hearing and rendered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. The applicant appealed.\n23.  On 21 November 2002 the Higher Labour and Social Court remitted the case for re-examination. The appeal court found that the first-instance court failed to establish the facts correctly and issued the judgment prematurely.\n24.  Between 2 July 2003 and 3 September 2003 the first-instance court held two hearings.\n25.  On 15 October 2003 the first-instance court issued a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. The applicant appealed.\n26.  On 3 March 2005 the appeal was rejected. He lodged an appeal on points of law.\n27.  On 15 December 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case to first-instance. The Supreme Court found that the lower court erred in the application of the law.\n28.  On 10 March 2006 the first-instance court issued a judgment upholding the applicant’s request. The defendant appealed.\n29.  On 11 July 2006 the appeal court upheld the appeal in part and amended the operative part of the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7454", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 22 October 2003 an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) opened an investigation in respect of the applicant in connection with suspicions that on 5 July 2003 he had put at risk the life and limb of others by firing shots in his partner’s flat and that on 6 July 2003 he had attempted to murder three persons by shooting at them in a nightclub. The investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention but the applicant remained at large.\n6.  The applicant appeared before the investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court on 28 April 2004. He was questioned and remanded in custody on the same day.\n7.  On 24 June 2004 the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu) indicted the applicant in the Zagreb County Court, alleging that on 5 July 2003 he had put at risk the life and limb of others and that on 6 July 2003 he had attempted to murder three persons.\n8.  Judge Z.K. assumed responsibility for the applicant’s case as the president of a trial panel of the Zagreb County Court.\n9.  On 2 September 2004 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb County Court, composed of Judges D.T., E.D. and M.G., extended the applicant’s detention on the grounds provided for under Article 102 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending). The relevant part of the decision reads:\n“... the accused is indicted under count two, namely that on 5 July 2003 in the flat of his partner S.O. he fired two shots from a gun at a wall, irrespective of the fact that R.Z. and Z.Kor. were present in the same room and that he was aware that the bullets could ricochet from the wall and hurt any of the persons present. Under count one, he is indicted on the ground that on 6 July 2003 in a nightclub, after a verbal dispute with K.G., he fired several times from a gun and then fired all the remaining bullets from the gun at A.P. and M.V. ... with the aim of murdering them, and K.G.’s life was saved by medical intervention.\nThe above shows the accused’s brutality, determination, high degree of criminal resolve and obvious propensity towards such criminal behaviour, all of which, in the opinion of this court, continues to justify the extension of his detention because of the fear that [if at large] he would commit a further criminal offence.”\n10.  On 28 April 2006 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb County Court found that the maximum statutory period of the applicant’s detention had expired and ordered that he be released from detention. Judge M.G. was a member of that panel.\n11.  On 16 September 2008 the Vice-President of the Criminal Division of the Zagreb County Court reassigned the applicant’s case to Judge M.G. because in the meantime Judge Z.K. had become a judge of the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).\n12.  On 27 November 2009 a trial panel of the Zagreb County Court, presided over by Judge M.G., found the applicant guilty of the attempted murder of three persons and dismissed the charge of putting at risk the life and limb of others on the ground that the prosecution had withdrawn that charge. The applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.\n13.  On 2 February 2010 the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court against the Zagreb County Court’s judgment, seeking a more severe sentence.\n14.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the Zagreb County Court’s judgment with the Supre", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7455", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Cheboksary.\n6.  On 20 September 2002 the applicant was charged with manslaughter, an offence under Article 111 § 4 of the Criminal Code. The charge was based, in particular, on the investigator’s interviews with Mr M., Mr O. and Mr I., eyewitnesses to the incident.\n7.  Mr M. and Mr O. stated that on 28 August 2002 they and their friend Mr S. had had a fight with three strangers. Mr S., drunk, had kicked a red VAZ car which was passing by. The driver and two passengers had emerged from the car and the driver had hit Mr S. twice in the face. Seven or eight people had then joined in with the strangers and started to hit them. Mr M., Mr O. and Mr. S. had all lost consciousness. On the next day, 29 August 2001, Mr S. had been found lying in the street by a passer-by and had been taken to hospital, where he had died from the wounds received during the fight.\n8.  During subsequent interviews with the investigator, Mr M. and Mr O. changed their testimony slightly, stating that Mr S. had fallen immediately after the driver had hit him in the face. They had not seen whether Mr S. had been hit by any of the other persons involved in the fight.\n9. Mr I. stated to the investigator that on 28 August 2002 he had been sitting in a bar. He had seen a red VAZ car stop near the bar and three people get out of it. Two of them had entered the bar, while the driver had approached a group of three people outside. They had started to argue and then to fight. He had left immediately.\n10.  The trial started on 21 January 2003 before the Kalininskiy District Court of Cheboksary. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He admitted that on 30 August 2002 he had had a quarrel with three strangers. He had hit one of them twice in the chest and retreated to a nearby bar. He had seen the men leave the scene. He insisted that the incident had happened on 30 August 2002 rather than on 28 August 2002. He was sure of the date because he had taken his mother to the tax office on that day. He requested the court to hear the tax inspector, Ms Sh., who could confirm that his mother had paid her taxes on 30 August 2002. His request was rejected on the ground that a statement by Ms Sh. would not be relevant.\n11.  Several witnesses attended the trial. One of them stated to the court that he had seen the applicant in the bar during the evening of 28 August 2002. He had not, however, seen the fight. Another witness testified that during the evening of 28 August 2008 he had seen Mr M. with bruises on his face, and that on the next day Mr O. had told him that he, Mr M. and Mr S. had been beaten up by three strangers. Mr S.’s wife and brother testified that they had seen Mr S. for the last time on the morning of 28 August 2002. Another witness told the court that he had found Mr S. badly injured and unconscious in the street not far from the bar one morning at the end of August 2002. Another witness stated that during the evening of 28 August 2002 he had driven three men to a bar in his red VAZ car. Another red VAZ car had been parked near the bar and three persons had been standing nearby talking among themselves. He had overheard them saying that they had hit someone who had kicked the wheel of their car. Some time before that, he had seen a man carrying another man.\n12.  The trial court also examined an expert medical report submitted by the prosecutor. The finding of the medical experts was that Mr S. had died of a craniocerebral injury. T", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7456", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant, born in 1960, is serving a prison sentence in Kachanivska Penal Colony no. 54 in Kharkiv. She is currently hospitalised in the Central Clinical Hospital of the State Railway in Kharkiv.\n8.  The applicant is the leader of the Batkivshchyna political party and of Yulia Tymoshenko’s Bloc.\n9.  During the periods from 24 January to 8 September 2005 and from 18 December 2007 to 3 March 2010, she exercised the function of Prime Minister of Ukraine. Before becoming Prime Minister, the applicant was one of the leaders of the Orange Revolution, during which she had openly criticised the then rival presidential candidate Victor Yanukovych.\n10.  In the parliamentary elections held in 2006 Yulia Tymoshenko’s Bloc was victorious in fourteen regions in the country (out of twenty-seven[1]) and polled 22.27% nation-wide.\n11.  In the 2007 parliamentary elections Yulia Tymoshenko’s Bloc polled 30.71% throughout Ukraine and received 156 seats (out of 450) in Parliament.\n12.  The applicant was the main opponent of President Victor Yanukovych in the presidential election held in 2010. In the second round of the election she won the support of 45.47% voters, while Mr Yanukovych won 48.95%.\n13.  At the time of the introduction of the application, the applicant was the most visible opposition politician and the head of one of the strongest opposition parties in Ukraine.\n14.  On 11 April 2011 the General Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “the GPO”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of abuse of power under Article 365 § 3 of the Criminal Code. The applicant was suspected of exceeding her authority and abusing her office in ordering the head of the State-owned enterprise Naftogaz of Ukraine to sign an agreement with the Russian enterprise Gazprom providing for the importation of natural gas at a price of 450 United States dollars (USD) per 1,000 cubic metres, which had caused the State to suffer considerable financial losses.\n15.  On 25 May 2011 the pre-trial investigation was officially completed and the applicant was given fifteen working days to read the case file. At the same time, she was called almost daily to attend the GPO’s premises for questioning concerning the other criminal cases which had been initiated against her in the meantime. The case file at that time comprised some 4,000 pages in fifteen volumes.\n16.  On 17 June 2011 the case was referred to the Kyiv Pecherskyy District Court (hereinafter “the Pecherskyy Court”) for trial.\n17.  In a judgment of 11 October 2011 the court found the applicant guilty as charged. It sentenced her to seven years’ imprisonment and imposed a three-year prohibition on exercising public functions on her.\n18.  On 23 December 2011 the Kyiv Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment.\n19.  On 29 August 2012 the Higher Specialised Court delivered a final judgment in the case confirming the applicant’s guilt and sentence.\n20.  Earlier, in 2010, two other criminal cases – one concerning the misuse of funds allocated for the purchase of ambulances and the other concerning funds received by Ukraine within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol – had been opened against the applicant under Articles 364 and 365 of the Criminal Code.\n21.  In July 2011 the Ukrainian Security Service re-opened another criminal case against the applicant, on suspicion of financial fraud during her tenure as head of the company United Energy Systems of Ukraine in the 1990s, which had been closed ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7457", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Moscow. Since 1987 she has been registered as an outpatient of Psychiatric Hospital No. 5 in Moscow. Prior to the events in question, she had never been hospitalised in a psychiatric facility.\n6.  In 2005 the applicant’s daughter, who also suffers from a mental disorder, was undergoing inpatient psychiatric treatment in Psychiatric Hospital No. 1 of Moscow (“the PHM”). In April-May 2005 the applicant lodged several complaints with that hospital’s administration alleging improper treatment of her daughter and that the attending psychiatrists had attempted to poison her.\n7.  On 13 May 2005 the applicant came to the PHM to visit her daughter and to demand her immediate release from the facility. Ms K., a psychiatrist on duty at the reception noted that the applicant was anxious and delusional and directed her to the head psychiatrist of the hospital, Ms Sh. The applicant was considered to be demonstrating the symptoms of a mental disorder and her hospitalisation was recommended. The applicant did not consent to be hospitalised, but nevertheless was admitted to the PHM at 2:45 p.m.\n8.  On 14 May 2005 a medical counselling panel composed of the resident psychiatrists of the PHM diagnosed the applicant with paranoid schizophrenia with a paroxysmal-progredient (shift-like) course, manifested as personality changes and paranoia. The panel also found that the applicant was a danger to herself and others and recommended compulsory inpatient psychiatric treatment. The full text of the panel’s reasoning for its decision to apply for hospitalisation of the applicant reads as follows:\n“Admitted to PB 1 [Psychiatric Hospital No. 1] from the outpatient ward due to irregular behaviour (screaming, threatening doctors with reprisals, accusing them of “influencing” and persecution).\nThe need for hospitalisation is determined by tense/angry affect, [and] delusional ideas of persecution and manipulation, which are controlling the behaviour of the patient. The unpredictability of [her] actions presents an immediate danger to herself and others. Compulsory treatment in a psychiatric hospital is recommended. The participation of relatives in court hearings does not appear possible due to their absence at [the meeting of the] MMC [the medical counselling panel].”\n9.  On the same date the PHM applied for judicial authorisation of the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation under section 29 (a) of the Law of the Russian Federation on Psychiatric Assistance and Guarantees of Citizens’ Rights Related to Its Administration of 1992 (“the Psychiatric Assistance Act 1992”).\n10.  On 16 May 2005 the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) received the application for the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation and scheduled a hearing for 4 p.m. on the same day. The hearing was attended by a prosecutor, the applicant’s attending psychiatrist, and a representative of the PHM. The attending psychiatrist and the PHM’s representative requested the District Court to hold the hearing in the absence of the applicant because she could not participate in it for medical reasons. The hearing was held without the applicant or her representative being present.\n11.  The District Court delivered a succinct judgment authorising the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation. The full facts and reasoning set out in the judgment read as follows:\n“[Ms] Zagidulina was hospitalised in the [PHM] on 13 May 2005.\nA medical counselli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7458", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 13 December 2005 she complained to the police about her neighbours. She stated that a “gang” of neighbours had damaged her property and had used “psychotronic generators” in their apartments and cars to cause damage to her health and mind. The applicant also mentioned in the complaint that she had in the past made submissions to the Federal Security Service, the President of the Russian Federation and the State Duma, which had been unsuccessful.\n7.  On 20 January 2006 a police officer took statements from the applicant’s neighbours, who stated that she had behaved unreasonably, walked naked on the streets, shouted at people and accused them of various illegal activities.\n8.  The Psychoneurological Outpatient Clinic no. 20 of Moscow (“the POC”) was requested by the police on 20 January 2006 to carry out a psychiatric examination of the applicant.\n9.  On 14 July 2006 a resident psychiatrist at the POC (Ms K.) issued a report confirming the need for a psychiatric examination of the applicant relying on the evidence obtained seven months before. The report stated that the nature of the applicant’s complaints to various authorities gave reason to believe that they were brought about by a pathology associated with a psychiatric disorder. The psychiatrist concluded that an examination of the applicant was necessary, because progressive development of the disorder might cause a deterioration in her health and aggressive behaviour towards others. The report was certified by the head physician of the POC. It is not clear whether the psychiatrist examined the applicant in person before issuing the report.\n10.  On the same day Ms K. filed an application with the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) seeking authorisation for an involuntary psychiatric examination under section 23, subsection 4 (c) of the Law of the Russian Federation on Psychiatric Assistance and Guarantees of the Citizens’ Rights Related to Its Administration 1992 (“the Psychiatric Assistance Act”). The application stated that there was evidence of “a psychiatric disorder resulting in significant damage to health due to the deterioration of a psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance”. It also indicated that on 20 January 2006, during a police interview, the applicant had refused to consent to undergo a voluntary psychiatric examination. The application was also certified by the head physician of the POC.\n11.  Evidence attached to the application included the above-mentioned psychiatrist’s report of 14 July 2006, the applicant’s complaint to the police of 13 December 2005, the police officer’s request of 20 January 2006, and the applicant’s neighbours’ statements of 20 January 2006.\n12.  The application was received by the District Court on 27 July 2006 and a hearing was scheduled for 18 August 2006. On 14 August 2006 the court sent a summons to the applicant by registered letter, but that was later returned to the sender after several unsuccessful delivery attempts.\n13.  On 18 August 2006 the District Court considered the psychiatrist’s application for involuntary psychiatric examination of the applicant. Neither the applicant nor the representative of the POC were present at the hearing. It was noted in the court transcript and decision that both parties had been duly notified of the hearing but that neither had chosen to appear in court. The District Court authorised a psych", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7459", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Sochi.\n5.  On an unspecified date in 1994 the applicant lodged an action against her neighbour seeking demolition of an unlawfully constructed accessory building to their joint house.\n6.  The neighbour lodged a separate action, seeking division of the joint land plot.\n7.  On 26 October 1994 the Adler Town Court (“the Town Court”) granted the neighbour’s action. That judgment was upheld on appeal and became final on 7 February 1995.\n8.  On 10 February 1995 the Town Court gave a judgment in the case concerning the applicant’s action, granting it in full. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n9.  In April 1995 the applicant, relying on the judgment of 10 February 1995, lodged an application for review of the judgment of 26 October 1994 on account of the discovery of new circumstances.\n10.  On 1 June 1995 the Krasnodar Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) granted the application, quashed the judgments of 26 October 1994 and 7 and 10 February 1995 and authorised a re-examination of the applicant’s and the neighbour’s actions in joint proceedings.\n11.  On 13 December 1995 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n12.  On 16 January 1997 the Presidium of the Krasnodar Regional Court, acting as a supervisory-review instance, quashed the judgment of 13 December 1995 in the part concerning the registration of the accessory building and sent that issue for fresh examination.\n13.  On 9 June 1997 judge S., to whom the case had been assigned, ordered to conduct two expert examinations, one of the house and another of the land plot.\n14.  On 28 October 1998 the applicant complained to the Town Court about the experts’ failure to submit reports. It appears that the expert report on the land was prepared on 1 October 1998 and sent to the trial court before 15 December 1998. According to the Government the delay in the conduct of the expert examination had been caused by the parties’ failure to pay the expert’s fees.\n15.  The hearing of 19 November 1998 was adjourned at the applicant’s request owing to her illness.\n16.  On 15 December 1998 the Town Court adjourned the hearing on account of the experts’ failure to submit another report on the house.\n17.  The hearing of 19 January 1999 was adjourned at the expert’s request who noted that the examination had been pending due to the parties’ failure to pay the fees. The following two hearings were adjourned because the expert examination was still pending as the expert was ill. The expert report was submitted on 24 March 1999.\n18.  The next hearing, scheduled for 25 March 1999, was postponed until 13 April 1999 owing to the respondent’s failure to appear.\n19.  The hearing of 13 April 1999 was postponed until 6 October 1999 in order for additional evidence to be collected.\n20.  On 3 November 1999 the court granted the applicant’s request for the suspension of the proceedings pending the outcome of her supervisory-review complaint against the decision of 13 December 1995. It appears that the proceedings were resumed on 12 April 2001.\n21.  The hearing of 12 April 2001 was adjourned until 5 May 2001.\n22.  On 5 May 2001 the Town Court left the applicant’s case without examination owing to his failure to appear in court.\n23.  On 11 February 2002 the court resumed the proceedings at the applicant’s request.\n24.  The hearing scheduled for 12 February 2002 was adjourned at the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7461", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Lepoglava Penitentiary.\n5.  On 14 June 2004 the applicant was indicted before the Rijeka County Court along with other twenty two accused, on charges of drug trafficking, offering illegal substances to a number of persons and extortion.\n6.   On 5 January 2006 the Rijeka County Court pronounced a judgement whereby it found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years and six months’ imprisonment.\n7.  On 5 June 2006 the applicant was transferred from the Rijeka Prison (Zatvor u Rijeci) to the Zagreb Prison (Zatvor u Zagrebu).\n8.  On 4 September 2006 a written copy of the judgement was served on the applicant’s representative.\n9.  Both the applicant and the Rijeka County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Rijeci) appealed against the first-instance judgement.\n10.  On 31 May 2007 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) allowed an appeal by the State Attorney’s Office and increased the applicant’s prison sentence to nine years and six months.\n11.  On 30 July 2007 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). He claimed that the Supreme Court’s judgment was in breach of his constitutional rights to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to free communication with his defence counsel, and that illegally obtained evidence had been used in the criminal proceedings against him.\n12.  On 23 December 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint. This decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 14 January 2011.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7462", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970. He is serving a prison sentence in detention facility no. IK-10, located in the town of Mendeleyevsk, the Republic of Tatarstan.\n6.  On 1 May 2005 the applicant was arrested by the police of the town of Naberezhnye Chelny on suspicion of having taken part in several robberies and murders.\n7.  The applicant was detained pending criminal proceedings and on 13 April 2006 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan found the applicant guilty of two murders. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of Russia on 3 October 2006.\n8.  The applicant alleged that on three separate occasions during the course of criminal proceedings against him police officers ill-treated him.\n9.  According to the applicant, in the morning of 4 May 2005 police officers B. and N. had taken him to the fourth floor of a police station and put pressure on him to confess. They had put a plastic bag on his head and punched him in the stomach and neck, preventing him from breathing. At around 10 p.m. he had been taken back to his cell.\n10.  The applicant also submitted that at around 7 a.m. the next morning he had passed out in an interview room as a result of those beatings and stress. On regaining consciousness, he had found a wound on his head. Later he had been provided with first aid, administered by ambulance doctors.\n11.  On 5 May 2005, having examined the applicant, one of the ambulance doctors made the following entry in the medical record:\n“... reason for the call [of the ambulance]: epilepsy... Diagnosis [of the applicant]: following a syncope, bruising of the forehead ... measuring around 2 to 0.2 cm. The wound is not bleeding...Complaints [of the applicant]: weakness and vertigo. According to the [applicant’s] statements, he lost consciousness and during the fall, injured himself against a doorpost. He connects this to a stuffy room and three nights of insomnia ...”\n12.  On 10 May 2005 the applicant asked the Naberezhnye Chelny Town Prosecutor (“the prosecutor’s office”) to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the alleged ill-treatment by the police officers.\n13.  In response, the prosecutor’s office questioned police officers B. and N., who denied the applicant’s allegations. They referred to the interrogation records in which the applicant had made no complaints of ill‑treatment.\n14.  On 20 May 2005 the prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s request, having found as follows:\n“... The applicant’s allegations are not confirmed by the results of the investigation carried out by the prosecutor’s office ... On 5 May 2005 [the applicant] went to the police voluntarily and submitted statements of confession... During his interrogation he confessed to the crime in the presence of his defence counsel. He confirmed these statements during a reconstruction performed at the crime scene ... On 19 May 2005 during a cross-examination with witness Z., [the applicant] again confirmed his statements of confession in the presence of his defence counsel. No complaints were made by him [at that time].\nPolice officers ... B. and N. were also questioned in the context of the investigation carried out by the prosecutor’s office. They submitted that during the interview with [the applicant] they had not put pressure on him and had not applied force against him. [The applicant] had confessed to the crime voluntarily. Moreover, in accordance with the interrogation records, [the applicant] had no complaints against th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7463", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  In November 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Kyivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) against her neighbour, Ms. G., disputing her right to use a plot of land.\n6.  On 9 February 1999 Ms G. lodged a counterclaim, alleging that she was so entitled..\n7.  On 29 June 2006, following one remittal of the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination, the proceedings were completed by a final ruling of the Supreme Court finding against the applicant.\n8.  In the course of proceedings six forensic technical examinations were conducted at the parties’ requests.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7464", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Novocherkassk, the Rostov Region.\n8.  She is a widow of a military officer. She sued the military commissariats of Novocherkassk and the Rostov Region for recalculation of her pension on account of the increase of the monetary compensation paid in respect of a food allowance.\n9.  On 18 August 2004 the Justice of the Peace of the 6th Court Circuit of Novocherkassk granted her claim and ordered the military commissariat of the Rostov Region to pay the applicant 17,216.06 Russian roubles (RUB) in pension arrears, as well as to readjust future payments in line with the increase of the food allowance. The claim against the commissariat of Novocherkassk was dismissed.\n10.  The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force. It has not been executed.\n11.  According to the Government, at some point the military prosecutor’s office started an inquiry into lawfulness of several sets of court proceedings concerning military pension arrears throughout the Rostov region.\n12.  On 14 October 2004 the defendant lodged a request for supervisory review of the case.\n13.  On 13 January 2005 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment on the ground of a violation of substantive law and remitted the case to the President of the Novocherkassk Town Court for the transfer to a different court for a fresh examination. The Presidium found, in particular, that the Justice of the Peace incorrectly calculated the amount of the food allowance, having thus misinterpreted the material law.\n14.  On 28 April 2005 the Justice of the Peace of the 5th Court Circuit of Novocherkassk discontinued the proceedings on the ground of the applicant’s repeated failure to appear. The applicant did not appeal against the decision, and it entered into force.\n15.  According to the Government, at some point several unspecified military officials of the Rostov Region had been charged with and convicted of negligent attitude to duties which had caused damage to the State (Article 293 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The Government did not provide any documents or further details in this respect.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7465", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Zagreb.\n5.  On 9 October 1992 the applicant brought a civil action in the Gospić Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Gospiću) against the company T.G. challenging her dismissal from work. She also sought damages and salary arrears.\n6.  At the hearing held on 23 August 2006 the first-instance court suspended the proceedings (mirovanje postupka) as neither party attended the hearing.\n7.  On 18 December 2006 the applicant asked the court to resume the proceedings. The court did so and scheduled the next hearing for 10 January 2007.\n8.  On 23 December 2006 the applicant asked for transfer of jurisdiction from the Gospić Municipal Court to the Zagreb Municipal Court but her request was eventually dismissed. That decision was served on her on 22 February 2007.\n9.  As neither party attended the hearing held on 7 March 2007, the Gospić Municipal Court issued a decision declaring that the applicant’s action was considered withdrawn, pursuant to the Civil Procedure Act.\n10.  On 2 April 2007 the applicant lodged a request to restore the proceedings to their previous position (restitutio in integrum ob terminem elapsum, povrat u prijašnje stanje) but the first-instance court dismissed her request on 3 March 2008.\n11.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 27 May 2008 the Gospić County Court (Županijski sud u Gospiću) reversed the first-instance decision and allowed the applicant’s request to restore the proceedings to their previous position.\n12.  In the resumed proceedings, the Gospić Municipal Court held five hearings. At the hearing held on 15 December 2010 the court pronounced the operative part of the judgement. It declared the applicant’s dismissal from work wrongful, allowed her claim for salary arrears in part and dismissed her claim for damages.\n13. Following a request of the judge appointed to hear the case, on 10 February 2011 the President of the Gospić Municipal Court granted an additional thirty-day time-limit for the judgement to be prepared in writing and dispatched to the parties.\n14.  According to the Government, the judgement had been prepared on 28 March 2011 and then, on 30 March 2011, dispatched to the parties. It was served on the applicant’s representative on 1 April 2011.\n15.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 13 October 2011 the Karlovac County Court (Županijski sud u Karlovcu) reversed the first-instance judgment by allowing her claim for damages.\n16.  Meanwhile, on 9 December 2009 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Gospić County Court.\n17.  On 12 February 2010 the Gospić County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within reasonable time, awarded her HRK 14,000[1] in compensation and ordered the Gospić Municipal Court to give a decision in her case within eleven months of the service of its decision. The County Court’s decision was served on the Gospić Municipal Court on the same day, that is, on 12 February 2010.\n18.  The applicant appealed arguing that the compensation she had been awarded was too low. On 31 August 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed her appeal and upheld the Gospić County Court’s decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7466", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1971, 1948, and 1946 respectively and live in Syktyvkar.\n5.  On 14 February 2003 the Syktyvkar Town Court granted the applicants’ claim against the local administration for provision of municipal housing and ordered to provide each of them with one room. The court found, inter alia, that one of the walls of the building where the applicants resided was destroyed and the building was at risk of collapse. The parties did not appeal and the judgment became final.\n6.  On 19 March 2003 the local administration informed the applicants that the judgment in their favour could not be enforced because neither housing nor appropriate budget funds were available.\n7.  On 5 May 2003 the enforcement proceedings were opened.\n8.  On 16 May 2003 the local administration informed the applicants that the judgment could not be enforced because of the lack of housing.\n9.  On 17 December 2004 the first applicant was offered a two-room flat. The applicant accepted the offer.\n10.  On 25 February 2005 the second and third applicants were offered a two-room flat. The applicants accepted.\n11.  On 23 and 24 June 2005 the bailiffs decided to close the enforcement proceedings as the judgement of 14 February 2003 being duly enforced. It appears that the applicants did not appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7467", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 30 November 1990 the first applicant submitted a patent application for a particular method of propulsion of aircrafts and sea vessels to the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (Patentstyrets første avdeling – hereinafter referred to as “NIPO”). Ranging under the Ministry of Trade and Industry, NIPO is a government authority, responsible for processing and deciding on applications for patent protection in Norway. The application was allotted no. 19905214.\n5.  In a letter of 21 March 1991, NIPO presented a preliminary opinion stating that the application in its present form was not patentable because it did not reveal a concrete solution to achieve the desired effect. It also questioned whether the invention had any effect at all. Therefore, under former section 28 (currently section 32) of the Regulation (forskrift) to the Patents Act 1967 (patentloven), NIPO required the first applicant to perform a test (“praktiske forsøk”) at an independent research institute and to submit the necessary test documentation. The first applicant replied on 30 September 1991 that he disputed the need for a test and referred to the high costs for such tests. However, he informed NIPO that prototypes were under construction and could be tested in the presence of representatives from NIPO.\n6.  In the period from 6 May 1992 to 10 May 1994, there was correspondence between the first applicant and NIPO as to the existence of any need to protect the confidentiality of the application. In February 1993 NIPO asked the Military Supreme Command whether the application should be kept secret on national security grounds, which the latter answered in the negative in March 1993. The first applicant was informed in June 1993.\n7.  On 9 May 1994 the first applicant provided NIPO with further information on the subject-matter of the application. On 24 February 1995, NIPO reiterated its request of 21 March 1991 that the first applicant provide evidence from tests showing the technical effect and concrete features of the invention. In his reply of 23 May 1995 the first applicant submitted theoretical views on the subject-matter of the application with reference to a research report of 1965 which, according to him, described tests and results that proved the technical effect of his invention. The required tests were therefore superfluous, in his view.\n8.  The first applicant on 27 November 1996 complained about the delays in the processing of his application. The NIPO’s Director General on 9 December 1996 apologised for the delay and said the matter would be given priority.\n9.  On 16 December 1996 NIPO maintained its earlier requirement of independent tests, to which a series of exchanges ensued between the applicant and NIPO on the need for tests, including a protest by the applicant questioning NIPO’s technical competence and the submission by him of statements by two academics, dated 14 March and 18 December 1997, respectively.\n10.  Whilst apologising for the delay, NIPO maintained its position on the need for testing in a communication to the first applicant of 5 May 1999 and gave him until 5 November 1999 to comply.\n11.  By a registered letter of 26 October 1999, received on 11 November 1999, the first applicant again characterised NIPO’s processing as late and technically incompetent without making any new arguments concerning the requirements for granting a patent.\n12.  On the ground of the first applicant’s failure to comply with the time-limit of 5 November ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7468", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 24 April 2001 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court charged the applicant along with other two suspects, with aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP-C.\n6.  On 19 September 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court joined the case with another case (1999/372) which was already pending before it.\n7.  On 29 December 2001 the applicant was detained on account of being a member of the DHKP-C.\n8.  On 31 December 2001 the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court brought a further case against the applicant before the Istanbul State Security Court.\n9.  On 8 March 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court joined all cases against the applicant under the file number 1999/372.\n10.  On 3 December 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant of membership of the DHKP-C and sentenced him to twelve years and six months imprisonment.\n11.  On 25 August 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision.\n12.  In 2004, following a constitutional amendment, state security courts were abolished and the case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. On 10 September 2004 the Istanbul Assize Court held the first hearing in the case.\n13.  On 8 April 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court released the applicant from detention\n14.  According to the information in the case file, the proceedings are still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7469", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the town of Yevpatoriya, Ukraine.\n6.  Since 1994 the applicant has had diabetes mellitus and other chronic illnesses. She has been hospitalised on several occasions.\n7.  At the material time the applicant was working in tax inspection and raising her nine-year-old daughter alone.\n8.  On 3 February 2006 the Saky Prosecutor’s Office (Сакська міжрайонна прокуратура) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for abuse of a position of power, allegedly committed between June 2004 and July 2005.\n9.  On 6 February 2006 the investigating officer of the Saky Prosecutor’s Office, referring to Articles 106 and 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, decided that the applicant should be arrested and placed in the Saky Temporary Detention Centre (ізолятор тимчасового тримання) (hereinafter “the ITT”) because “witnesses in the criminal case had identified the applicant as a person who had committed a crime for which the penalty of imprisonment could be imposed”.\n10.  On the same day the applicant was arrested – allegedly at her workplace – and taken to a hospital in order to check whether her state of health was compatible with detention (see paragraph 19 below). The applicant was then placed in the ITT.\n11.  On 7 February 2006 the investigating officer of the Saky Prosecutor’s Office rejected a request by the applicant that S. and D. represent her in the criminal case, since they had failed to present any documents certifying their law degrees.\n12.  On 9 February 2006 the applicant was brought before a court. The investigating officer asked the court to authorise the applicant’s pre-trial detention since she had committed a serious crime and could abscond and hinder the investigation. The applicant and her lawyer, M., requested the applicant’s release in view of her state of health and the fact that she would not abscond because she was taking care of her daughter, who was a minor. The Saky Local Court extended the applicant’s detention to ten days in order to collect additional information necessary for taking a decision on her pre-trial detention. This included information from her place of residence about her character, a certificate about the composition of her family and information about any previous criminal record. The court noted that this decision was not subject to appeal.\n13.   Following complaints lodged by D., the Ukrainian Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights wrote to the Saky Prosecutor’s Office on 14 February 2006 saying that the applicant’s further detention could be considered as torture in view of her state of health. This letter was received by the prosecutor’s office on 16 February 2006 and redirected to the investigating officer in charge of the applicant’s case.\n14.  On 16 February 2006 the Saky Prosecutor’s Office ordered the applicant’s release. It was noted that the applicant had a disability of the third degree (the mildest) and was suffering from diabetes and other illnesses. She required insulin injections, a special diet and permanent medical supervision, which were impossible to provide in the Saky ITT. Moreover, the applicant had a child who was a minor. She also had a permanent place of residence and no possibility to hinder the investigation since, inter alia, she had already been dismissed from the office she had allegedly abused. The applicant wrote on the decision:\n“[I] have no complaints against the ITT personnel. [I] was not subjected", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7470", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Nikolay Vasilyevich Samoylovich, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1969 and lives in Simferopol.\n7.  On 29 January 1997 the Kyiv district prosecutor’s office at Simferopol opened criminal proceedings against the applicant, who was serving as a police officer at that time, on suspicion that he had abused his authority.\n8.  On 24 November 1999 the Simferopol District Court convicted the applicant of abusing his authority and sentenced him to two and a half years’ imprisonment.\n9.  On 6 February 2000 that decision was quashed and the case was sent back for a retrial and further investigation.\n10.  On 29 December 2003 the prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings on exonerative grounds as it could find no reason to believe that a crime had been committed.\n11.  According to the Government, on 30 December 2003 that decision was served on the applicant in Simferopol no. 15 pre-trial detention facility (SIZO), where he was being detained at that time in connection with another set of criminal proceedings.\n12.  On 2 August 1999 the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of robbery of the I. family.\n13.  On 5 August 1999 the prosecutor’s office of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea (“ARC”) authorised the applicant’s detention on remand for two months pending an investigation, on account of the gravity of the charges laid against him and the need to carry out certain procedural steps. Subsequently (on 10 October 1999, 2 January 2000 and 27 January 2000) the prosecutor’s office extended the applicant’s detention for further terms of three, one and six months, respectively, on the same grounds as those referred to in the order of 5 August 1999.\n14.  In September 1999 the applicant challenged his detention before the Central District Court of Simferopol, maintaining that it was in breach of a number of applicable provisions of the procedural law in force at the material time.\n15.  On 25 February 2000 the court refused to examine the applicant’s complaint on the merits, finding that he had been lawfully detained following his conviction on 24 November 1999 for abusing his authority and that there was no prosecutor’s order of 5 August 1999 for his detention on remand in the file on his case.\n16.  In March 2000 the criminal case against the applicant was joined with another case, which concerned the activity of a gang led by P., another police officer from Simferopol, who was also charged with participating in the robbery of the I. family.\n17.  During the pre-trial investigation, the authorities questioned 120 witnesses concerning thirty-four criminal acts attributed to the gang members, carried out twenty reconstructions of the crime scenes and ordered numerous expert assessments.\n18.  On 20 July 2000 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the applicant, along with eighteen other individuals suspected of having committed various crimes as members of the aforementioned gang, was committed for trial before the Supreme Court of the ARC (subsequently renamed the Court of Appeal of the ARC, and hereinafter “the Court of the ARC”).\n19.  On 4 May 2001, following the familiarisation of the defendants with the material in the case file and the completion of other procedural formalities, the Court of the ARC held a preliminary hearing in the case and scheduled the trial for 5 June 2001. The court also decided that there were no grounds for releasing the applicant pending trial.\n20.  Having held eighteen hear", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7471", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Malyn. The second applicant was born in 1963 and died in 2009.\n6.  By decision no. 492 of 16 November 1995, the Zhytomyr Regional Department of the State Property Fund (регіональне відділення Фонду державного майна України в Житомирській області) transformed a State enterprise, M., into a joint-stock company, which resulted in its privatisation. An audit of M.’s assets carried out on 1 October 1995 revealed that the company’s immovable property included several hostels.\n7.  On 31 January 2000 M. was reorganised into four companies including S., to which ownership of the hostels was transferred.\n8.  On 19 June 2003 the Zhytomyrskyy Regional Commercial Court declared S. insolvent.\n9.  By letter of 9 July 2003, the liquidator in the S. insolvency proceedings informed the mayor of Malyn and the Head of the Malyn District Administration that S. had been declared insolvent. As the sale of the hostels owned by S. would, according to the liquidator, create social tensions in the town, it was proposed that the town would take over their ownership.\n10.  By letter of 30 January 2004 the mayor informed the liquidator that the hostels were not owned by the State and it was for the board of creditors to decide what to do with them.\n11.  On 20 July 2004 the board of creditors agreed to sell one of the hostels to the applicants.\n12.  On 21 August 2004 a contract of sale was signed. The applicants paid 41,160 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (at the material time around 6,127 euros (EUR)) for the hostel and became owners of a half share each.\n13.  On 11 January 2005 the applicants informed a local electricity supply company that they were the new owners of the hostel. They requested the company to cut off the electricity supply until a new contract had been signed with them. The applicants discovered that the power cables and electricity meters serving the property needed to be replaced, and that the hostel occupants had not been paying rent.\n14.  On 19 January 2005 the electricity supply company informed the hostel occupants that the electricity would be cut off on 25 January 2005.\n15.  On 21 January 2005 a prosecutor ordered the electricity in the hostel not to be cut off since he had been preparing to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the hostel occupants.\n16.  By letter of 21 January 2005, the applicants informed the Malyn District Prosecutor’s Office, the mayor, the company S., at that time allegedly in liquidation, and the hostel occupants, that they had bought the hostel in order to live there themselves. The applicants stated that when the hostel was being sold, the occupants had refused to participate in the sale process. Despite the hostel’s change of ownership and need for refurbishment, its occupants had not been paying rent or communal charges for six months. The applicants requested S. to provide new housing to those occupants, who were requested to vacate the hostel by 30 March 2005.\n17.  On 26 January 2005, G., a nineteen-year-old hostel occupant, sought the assistance of the Malyn District Prosecutor’s Office as she had a young child and had been requested to leave the hostel.\n18.  On 18 February 2005 a prosecutor instituted proceedings at the Malynsky District Court on behalf of G., requesting that the decision of 16 November 1995 and all subsequent transfers of ownership be declared invalid. The prosecutor noted that in January 2005 the hostel occupants had lodged previous complaint", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7472", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in the village of Berezhinka, Ukraine.\n6.  At 3 p.m. on 6 February 2003 the applicant was arrested in an apartment rented by his acquaintance and alleged accomplice D., and taken to a police station. At the police station he was allegedly handcuffed, beaten and according to the applicant, had his nose broken.\n7.  On the same day between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. the applicant was questioned. He admitted to having robbed an apartment.\n8.  Criminal proceedings for robbery were instituted against the applicant; it is unclear whether this was done before or after his arrest. It was noted that on 6 February 2003 at around 12.20 a.m. the applicant, together with some other individuals, had threatened K. with a knife and taken 12,800 United States dollars (USD) from her.\n9.  The Government submitted that the applicant was in fact arrested on 7 February 2003.\n10.  On 10 February 2003 the Dniprovskiy District Court of Kyiv (“the Dniprovskiy Court”) ordered that the applicant be placed in pre-trial detention on the grounds that he was accused of committing a serious crime and could abscond or hinder the investigation if at liberty.\n11.  On 1 April 2003 the same court extended the term of the applicant’s detention until 7 June 2003 since “there were no grounds for the applicant’s release and his detention was necessary for carrying out further investigations (expert examinations etc.)”.\n12.  Between May 2003 and September 2007 the criminal case against the applicant was presented to the court for consideration but referred back for further investigation on five subsequent occasions (18 June 2004, 11 February and 10 June 2005, and 6 February and 5 September 2007). On the first occasion (18 June 2004) the court decided that the applicant’s case could not be considered separately from the cases of Kr. (another alleged accomplice of the applicant) and D., and that further investigative measures such as a reconstruction of events and confrontations between the accused and the witnesses should be carried out. On each occasion the court also decided that the applicant should remain in pre-trial detention.\n13.  On 11 December 2006 and 15 January 2007 the Dniprovskiy Court denied the applicant’s requests for release. The court held, without elaborating further, that the applicant was accused of committing a serious crime and, if released, could “continue his criminal activity”, abscond or hinder the investigation.\n14.  On 30 May 2008 the same court again referred the case back for further investigation. On 4 September 2008 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court. The court also decided that the applicant should remain in pre-trial detention.\n15.  On 18 February 2009 the Dniprovskiy Court rejected the applicant’s request to have P. as his legal representative on the basis that he did not hold an advocate’s licence. The decision was not subject to appeal.\n16.  On 3 September 2009 the Dniprovskiy Court, upon a request by the prosecutor, ordered a forensic psychological and psychiatric examination of the applicant. In her request the prosecutor stated that the applicant had behaved aggressively and improperly. The court noted that on numerous occasions the applicant had actively interrupted a court hearing, giving instructions as to who should be cross-examined and what evidence should be considered. When his requests were rejected, he began to shout and swear. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7473", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in the town of Bila Tserkva, Ukraine.\n7.  According to the applicant, for many years she had been living as part of a family with her stepfather, mother and half-brother and wanted to associate herself more closely with them by taking the surname of her stepfather and also a patronymic derived from his forename.\n8.  On 24 March 2004 the applicant lodged a request with the Civil Status Registration Office in Bila Tserkva (hereinafter “the Registration Office”) seeking to change her patronymic from Volodymyrivna (Володимирівна) to Yuriyivna (Юріївна).\n9.  By a letter of 27 March 2004 the Registration Office refused the applicant’s request, referring to the Rules on Civil Status Registration in Ukraine, approved by the Ministry of Justice, which provided that the patronymic of a physical person could only be changed in the event of a change of forename by his or her father.\n10.  On 23 April 2004 the applicant challenged this refusal in the Bila Tserkva Local Court. She complained that her patronymic, along with her forename and family name, was part of her full name and she had the right to change it. She maintained that the refusal violated her constitutional rights, was unconstitutional and was not based on law. She further contended that she had good reasons for changing her patronymic - to disassociate herself from her biological father and associate herself more closely with her stepfather and half-brother.\n11.  On 5 May 2004 the applicant changed her original surname from Glazkova to the surname of her stepfather, Garnaga, which was also the surname of her mother and half-brother.\n12.  On 10 June 2004 the Bila Tserkva Local Court found that the Registration Office had acted in accordance with the law, in compliance with Article 149 of the Family Code of 2002, and so dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It found that a change of patronymic was only legally possible when the father of the person concerned had previously changed his forename. Therefore, given that the applicant’s father had not changed his forename, the applicant’s request for change of her patronymic had not been in compliance with the law. The court also noted that the Rules on Civil Status Registration provided more detailed regulation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Civil Code and the Family Code and did not conflict with them.\n13.  On 3 December 2004 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court, holding that its conclusions were based on law.\n14.  On 31 October 2006 the Higher Administrative Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant on points of law. It held, in particular, that the argument put forward by the applicant that the new Family Code limited the right to change a patronymic was based on an incorrect interpretation of the provisions of Article 191 of the Family Code of 1969.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7474", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the village of Khodorkivtsi, Ukraine.\n6.  On 17 December 2004, at a hearing in criminal proceedings against the applicant, the Zhydachivskyy District Court (“the Zhydachivskyy Court”) found the applicant guilty of non-payment of wages to employees of his business between November 2001 and January 2004. In court the applicant testified that he was the owner, director and main accountant of the business E. He paid his employees’ wages out of his own pocket; however, none of the payments went through the books. The applicant’s employees gave evidence that he had been paying their wages, but this was disregarded by the court since they were still employed by him. The court fined the applicant 1,700 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (at the material time worth approximately 236 euros (EUR)).\n7.  According to the applicant, he was not provided with a copy of the judgment. The Court has been provided with a copy of the judgment. It comprises two pages and bears the annotation: “This judgment was drafted in the deliberation room in one copy only”.\n8.  As part of their submissions the Government lodged a copy of the applicant’s request of that day seeking permission to read the court transcript, upon which a court clerk had written that “the applicant received a copy of the judgment on 17 December 2004 (2 pages)”.\n9.  On 27 and 29 December 2004 the applicant and his lawyer respectively lodged appeals against the decision of 17 December 2004. In these appeals they mainly complained that the court had disregarded the evidence given by the employees.\n10.  On 10 February 2005 the Zhydachivskyy Court informed the applicant and his lawyer that the applicant’s case would be considered at an appeal hearing on 15 March 2005. However, on the day the hearing was due to take place the Court of Appeal returned the case file to the first-instance court with a request for the documents to be properly organised.\n11.  On 29 March 2005 the Zhydachivskyy Court informed the applicant and his lawyer that the applicant’s case would be considered at an appeal hearing on 26 April 2005.\n12.  On 26 April 2005 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision of 17 December 2004. The court reiterated the first-instance court’s arguments and noted that the applicant had not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his statement that he had paid his employees’ wages. According to the applicant, only the operative part of the judgment of 26 April 2005 was read aloud to him.\n13.  On 11 May 2005 the applicant sought permission from the Zhydachivskyy Court to obtain access to the case file. His request was refused, on the basis that the case file had not yet arrived from the Court of Appeal.\n14.  On 13 May 2005 the applicant requested a copy of the judgment of 26 April 2005 from the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal but it appears that no response was given.\n15.  On 19 May 2005 the applicant was again informed by the Zhydachivskyy Court that his case file had not arrived from the Court of Appeal.\n16.  On 23 May 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law in which he stated that he still had not received a copy of the appellate court’s judgment of 26 April 2005.\n17.  On 23 June 2005 he received a copy of the judgment of 17 December 2004.\n18.  On 19 August 2005 the applicant lodged an additional appeal on points of law in which he informed the court that he had received a copy of the judgment of 17 December 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7476", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine.\n6.  The applicant is a lawyer. On 1 April 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against her for allegedly attempting to bribe a judge and for fraud. On the same day the applicant was arrested.\n7.  On 3 April 2004 the Dnipropetrovsk Prosecutor’s Office asked the court to order the applicant’s pre-trial detention arguing that the applicant might escape since she had the financial means to do so and a special passport issued for travelling abroad (закордонний паспорт) which she had already used on several occasions. There was also a possibility that she could hinder the investigation, put pressure on witnesses and destroy documentary evidence. The applicant already had a criminal record (it appears from the material in the case file that in 2000 she was charged on several counts of fraud but was pardoned in an amnesty). The applicant did not appear to have a permanent place of residence as she had provided three different home addresses and also did not have a permanent office. She did not have children of minor age and her state of health was considered to be compatible with detention.\n8.  Later on the same day, in a court hearing, the applicant stated that she had been put under psychological pressure by the officers who had arrested her. She further stated that there was a possibility that she was pregnant and added that she had a student son who depended on her. The Babushkinskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the Babushkinskiy Court”) ordered the applicant to remain in custody until 9 April 2004 as there was not enough evidence to make a formal decision on her pre-trial detention. The investigating authorities had to examine the case put forward by the applicant, look for further evidence of her having committed the crimes and conduct an assessment of her personality.\n9.  On 9 April 2004 the Babushkinskiy Court ordered the continuation of the applicant’s detention. The court held that since the applicant had been accused of a serious crime, had given several different addresses and was also registered as a resident in Kyiv, there was a possibility that, if not detained, she could continue her criminal activities, hinder the investigation and abscond.\n10.  On 21 May 2004 the Babushkinskiy Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 1 August 2004 on the same grounds as before. On 27 May 2004 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed that decision, extending the applicant’s detention until 1 July 2004.\n11.  On 25 June 2004 the Babushkinskiy Court extended the applicant’s detention until 1 August 2004.\n12.  On an unspecified date the investigation ended and the case was sent to the first-instance court for consideration. On 9 August 2004 the applicant’s criminal case was accepted by the Samarskiy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the Samarskiy Court”).\n13.  On 18 July 2006 the Samarskiy Court found the applicant guilty on thirteen counts of fraud and attempted bribery and sentenced her to seven years’ imprisonment. Four accomplices of the applicant were also found guilty and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment but were then released on probation.\n14.  On 28 December 2006 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 18 July 2006 upon appeal by both the applicant and the prosecutor and sent the case back for a fresh investigation. The court also ordered the applicant’s detention to be extended, taking various ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7477", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966. After his release from detention in 2008 the applicant resided in the town of Perm.\n7.  The applicant arrived in Russia from Uzbekistan in 2002 or 2003. He was arrested on 11 August 2003 in the town of Perm in relation to criminal proceedings against him (see paragraph 25 below).\n8.  During his admission to Perm detention centre no. 1 in August 2003 the applicant had a check-up and was questioned about his past illnesses. According to the documents submitted by the Government, since the 1990s the applicant had been suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis and had received treatment in Uzbekistan. According to the applicant, in 1995 and 1998 he had pneumonia and had no pulmonary tuberculosis before his arrest in August 2003.\n9.  The applicant had a chest fluorography examination in the detention centre and was examined by a chest physician who prescribed treatment (such as ethambutol and B6 vitamin) in relation to his tuberculosis. On 18 August 2003 a blood sample from the applicant was submitted for HIV testing (an “enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay”). An additional similar test and a confirmatory test (“western blot”) were carried out on 3 and 4 September 2003 respectively.\n10.  The case file contains a document dated 9 September 2003 which appears to be the record of the HIV-related initial physical examination (involving, inter alia, vital signs, lymph nodes, skin, thorax and lungs). The applicant’s weight was 73 kg. The reference to the HIV stage is not legible. The next check up was scheduled for February 2004. The Government also submitted the applicant’s “epicrisis” record for 2003, which indicates HIV stage 2Б under the domestic classification (see paragraph 29 below). It is indicated in the record that during 2003 the applicant did not request any treatment or medication. Another document entitled “Plan for treatment in 2003” indicated that the applicant was to be examined in February 2004. This document did not specify any treatment, including HIV-related medication.\n11.  It can be seen from the typed copy of the applicant’s medical file that on several occasions in late 2003 and early 2004 he was examined by a chest physician who maintained his medication in relation to tuberculosis.\n12.  After the closure of the criminal proceedings against him (see paragraph 25 below), in June 2004 the applicant was transferred to prison no. 12 in the Perm region. Subsequently, he also spent periods of time in prison no. 9, as well as in the psychiatric and other units of the hospital for detainees (August - October 2004, February - March 2005, July 2005 and several months in 2006 and 2007). The applicant was treated, inter alia, for tuberculosis, gonorrhoea, haemorrhoids, hepatitis C, a psychiatric condition, and in relation to acts of self-mutilation.\n13.  In particular, in September 2004 the applicant was admitted to tuberculosis hospital no. 7 in relation to the progression of his infection with the hepatitis C virus. He had a number of blood tests, such as a full blood count (including leukocytes, erythrocytes, and lymphocytes), a urine test, a chest fluorography, an X-ray and an abdominal ultrasound scan, and was examined by a chest physician and a neurologist. It appears that, although scheduled, a consultation by an infectious disease specialist was not provided. It is indicated in one of the documents submitted by the Government that the applicant’s weight dropped to 60.5 kg in September 2004. Howev", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7478", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lived until his arrest in Moscow.\n7.  In 1998 the applicant helped a former Interior Minister of Belarus, Mr Z., to set up an NGO which was meant to unite former military and police officers in the fight against “human rights violations” and “lawlessness”. According to the applicant, Mr Z. had entrusted him with the tasks of finding, among members of the organisation, those physically and psychologically fit enough to become bodyguards, and of training them. On 7 May 1999 a group of unidentified individuals kidnapped Mr Z. His whereabouts remain unknown.\n8.  The applicant further alleged that he had been involved in the establishment of “the security service” for the former Vice President of the Belarus Parliament, Mr G. However, on 16 September 1999 Mr G. disappeared. His car was discovered abandoned in a remote area with its windows broken and blood stains inside. According to the applicant, the media attributed both disappearances/kidnappings to the Belarus authorities.\n9.  At the beginning of 2000, the applicant moved his family to Russia. He, however, continued visiting Belarus to take part in its political life. In particular, as a member of a Belarusian opposition party, Gromada, the applicant participated in demonstrations, meetings and other political activities organised by the party. On a number of occasions, the applicant was arrested and subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in Belarus. Each time he was deprived of his liberty, he was forced to remain on his knees on a concrete floor with his hands cuffed behind his back.\n10.  The applicant provided the Court with a copy of “Free citizen certificate no. 0327”, allegedly issued by the Belarus Social Democratic Party on 17 October 2005 and attesting to the applicant’s having become a member of that party on that date. The certificate was in Russian, had the applicant’s photo attached and was signed only by the applicant.\n11.  The applicant stated that he had decided to move to Russia permanently in 2008 because he had feared for his life. A private security agency in Moscow had hired him as a bodyguard.\n12.  At the same time, the applicant continued his political activities in Belarus. In February 2010 a number of prominent leaders of the Belarusian opposition parties initiated a campaign entitled “Tell the Truth”, in which the applicant also took part, including by providing financial support. The applicant stressed that the aim of the campaign had been to “awaken Belarusian society, which is living amid lies”. Repressions followed: the most active participants in the campaign were arrested and criminal proceedings were instituted against them; the main office was raided; and documents were seized.\n13.  In March 2010 the applicant visited Belarus and, acting on orders from his employer, ordered bullet-proof vests and camouflage uniforms. The applicant assumed that Belarusian law-enforcement officials, suspecting him of attempting to provide opposition members with the vests and uniforms, had decided to fabricate criminal charges against him.\n14.  The applicant also submitted that when his Belarusian passport had expired in 2010, he had applied for a new one and the Belarusian authorities had issued it without delay. The authorities had not connected him to any criminal case, questioned him in respect of any criminal charge or attempted to arrest him.\n15.  On 7 April 2011 an investigator from the main department of the Belarusian ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7479", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966. He is serving a life sentence without commutation in Lovech Prison.\n6.  On 4 October 1993 the applicant was placed in pre‑trial detention in Burgas Prison.\n7.  On 25 July 1995 the Burgas Regional Court found the applicant guilty of murder and robbery and sentenced him to death. On 30 May 1997 a three‑member panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation upheld his conviction and sentence. On 22 July 1998 a five‑member panel of the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s petition for review. Throughout that time the applicant remained in Burgas Prison.\n8.  Following the abolition of the death penalty in December 1998, on 25 January 1999 the Vice‑President of the Republic commuted the applicant’s sentence to one of life imprisonment without commutation. On 8 July 1999 the Burgas Regional Court ordered that the applicant’s sentence was to be served under the so‑called “special regime” (see paragraph 41 below).\n9.  On 15 July 1999, when the Burgas Regional Court’s order of 8 July 1999 became final, the applicant was transferred to Lovech Prison, where he remains. Since that date he has been placed in different cells for different periods of time, each time with two or three other inmates.\n10.  The applicant alleged that because of his detention regime he had been subjected to isolation. He also alleged that his cell, which he shared with three other inmates, measured ten square metres. The inmates were allowed to go to the toilet and wash three times a day, for ten to fifteen minutes each time. During the rest of the time they had to relieve themselves in a plastic bucket as the cell was not equipped with toilet facilities or a sink.\n11.  The applicant also alleged that the food served in the prison was of poor quality and that he had found insects and other objects in it.\n12.  The witnesses heard in various proceedings for damages brought by the applicant, including inmates detained in the same prison (see paragraphs 20, 26 and 35 below) and kitchen staff, stated that during certain unidentified periods the applicant had had no access to newspapers or books, and had not been allowed to visit the prison chapel, go to concerts or attend rehabilitative courses. He had had no access to the prison canteen and his food had been served in his cell. One inmate stated that during a period of time there had been no fresh air or natural light in the applicant’s cell. The witnesses also corroborated the applicant’s allegations that he only had access to toilets and running water three times a day and had to use a plastic bucket the rest of the time. The kitchen staff stated that the food served in Lovech Prison met the applicable quality standards.\n13.  On 21 April 2004 the applicant complained to the prison governor about the conditions of his detention. The governor replied that in view of the applicant’s regime of detention, constant access to the toilet facilities could not be provided but inmates were allowed access to the communal toilets several times a day. As for the dimensions of the cells and their being overcrowded, the governor admitted that this was a problem in all Bulgarian prisons and stated that the administration of Lovech Prison was trying to provide the recommended minimum living space to every detainee. He disputed the allegation that prison food was of poor quality.\n14.  According to a report drawn up by the prison governor on 15 November 2009, the applicant was detained under the so‑call", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7480", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Mr Aleksandrs Sorokins, and the second applicant, Mrs Marija Sorokina, are both Latvian nationals who were born in 1971 and 1939 respectively and live in Rīga.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 20 June 1997 at 1.20 a.m. the State police in Rīga received a call from a private individual who informed them that thieves had broken into his neighbours’ flat. According to reports drawn up the same day by three police officers, a patrol team arrived at the address given ten minutes later. They saw a man (the first applicant) running away. They apprehended him and found various items on him, which, it was discovered later, belonged to the owner of the flat. According to a report drawn up the same day by police officer A.E., who had attended the arrest of the first applicant, when apprehended the latter bore no visible injuries.\n8.  Questioned on the same day, a neighbour, M.S., stated that she had seen the first applicant attempting to escape when the police arrived.\n9.  Following his arrest the first applicant was taken to Rīga Main police station (Rīgas Galvenā Policijas pārvalde). At 6.30 a.m. the applicant’s arrest record was drawn up. On the same day, from 11 a.m. to 11.35 a.m., the first applicant was interviewed and denied any wrongdoing.\n10.  He was repeatedly questioned the same day, from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m., and confessed to the crime, which he said he had committed with two acquaintances. He stated that he had been in the back yard of the building when one of his acquaintances had given him a bag containing the stolen items which the police later discovered on him.\n11.  On the same day (at an unknown time) the first applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, was brought before a judge of the Rīga City Centre District Court and remanded in custody.\n12.  On 25 June 1997 the first applicant was taken to the Central Prison.\n13.  On 27 June 1997 investigators questioned the two individuals identified by the applicant, as well as another suspect, J.V. The latter confessed to having committed the theft together with the first applicant.\n14.  On 30 June 1997 the prosecutor informed the first applicant at the Central Prison that he was being charged with large-scale theft. The applicant confirmed in writing that he had no objections or comments to make. Interviewed by the prosecutor on the same day, the first applicant denied his guilt and asked for the questioning to be postponed because he felt ill.\n15.  The first applicant was repeatedly questioned by the prosecutor on 7 July 1997, and confessed to committing the crime, which he said he had committed with J.V. According to the record of the interview, the applicant stated that his earlier statements were false as far as the two acquaintances were concerned (see paragraph 10 above) because “he had been subjected to duress at the police station”. On the same day J.V. refused to provide a statement.\n16.  On the same day the co-accused, J.V., alleged that his earlier statement had been given as a result of physical force used by the police. On 8 July 1997 he lodged a complaint in this respect, which was forwarded to the State police for examination. On 26 September 1997 the State police refused to institute criminal proceedings in relation to the alleged ill-treatment of J.V.\n17.  On 20 August 1997 final charges were brought against the first applicant and the co-accused, J.V. The first applicant refused the assi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7481", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1973, 1995 and 1997 respectively and live in Vălcineț.\n7.  The first applicant was married to A., a police officer based at the Călăraşi police station. The second and third applicants are their daughters. According to the first applicant, following the birth of the second daughter A. would often come home drunk and assault her, sometimes in the presence of their daughters. On 2 July 2010 the first applicant petitioned for divorce, having been assaulted by A. the day before and having witnessed him verbally abuse their teenage daughters. A. subsequently became more violent, regularly assaulting the first applicant and insulting both her and their daughters.\n8.  On 30 August 2010 the first applicant contacted the local police to report that she had been punched in the head by A. that day. On 18 September 2010 A. was fined by an administrative court the sum of 200 Moldovan lei (MDL, then worth approximately 12.40 euros (EUR)). On 30 September 2010 he was given a formal warning by the authority in charge of the police, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, to stop his violent behaviour.\n9.  On 5 November 2010 A. came home drunk and assaulted the first applicant. On 6 November 2010 she reported the incident to the local prosecutor’s office.\n10.  According to the applicants, on 11 November 2010 A. again assaulted the first applicant in the presence of their daughters. He did the same on 12 November 2010, this time almost suffocating the first applicant, following which she lost her voice for a day and a half. On an unknown date the deputy head of the Călăraşi police station invited the applicant to undergo an examination by a forensic physician in order to establish the extent and nature of injuries to her body. The examination took place on 23 November 2010 but no such injuries were found.\n11.  On 29 November 2010 the applicants applied to the Călăraşi District Court for a protection order. A protection order was made on 9 December 2010, the judge finding that A. had been abusive towards the first applicant by beating her, insulting her, imposing his will upon her, causing her stress and psychological suffering, threatening her and mistreating their pet. Moreover, this violence had often taken place in the presence of their teenage daughters, whose psychological well-being was being adversely affected as a result. A. was ordered to stay away from the house for ninety days and an exclusion zone of 500 m was attached to the order, prohibiting A. from contacting the applicants or committing any acts of violence against them. The applicants notified the local police, prosecutor’s office and social services of the order, which on 12 December 2010 was served on A.\n12.  On 9 December 2010 the first applicant requested that Judge B.N. from the Călăraşi District Court revoke the six-month waiting period he had insisted the parties observe when the first applicant petitioned for divorce. She based her application on the protection order made that day and submitted that A.’s history of violence prevented any possibility of reconciliation. The first applicant alleged that she was informed by Judge B.N.’s secretary that the judge had refused to treat her divorce as an urgent case. On 12 January 2011 the first applicant complained to the President of the Călăraşi District Court about the judge’s refusal.\n13.  On 10 December 2010 Călăraşi police opened a case against A. to oversee enforcement of the protection order of 9 Decemb", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7482", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  All applicants were former employees of “LETEKS” u stečaju (the debtor), which was, at the relevant time, a company predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital.\n7.  Since the debtor failed to fulfil its contractual obligations towards employees, on unspecified date, the applicants instituted civil proceedings against it.\n8.  On 18 April 2008 the Municipal Court in Leskovac ordered the debtor to pay them:\ni. the salary arrears due between 1 July 2001 and 13 July 2003, plus interest; and\nii. 376,520 Serbian Dinars (RSD) for their costs and expenses.\n9.  On 3 October 2010 this judgment became final.\n10.  In the period between 17 November 2008 and 16 December 2008 each applicant filed separate requests for the enforcement of the above judgment.\n11.  The Municipal Court in Leskovac ultimately accepted the applicants’ requests and issued the enforcement orders respectively. The essential information as to the enforcement proceedings in respect of each application are indicated in the Annex.\n12.  On 25 January 2011 the Commercial Court in Leskovac opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor (St. 47/2010).\n13.  The applicants duly submitted their respective claims.\n14.  On an unspecified date the applicants’ claims based on the judgment of 18 April 2008 were recognised.\n15.  The insolvency proceedings against the debtor are still ongoing.\n16.  On 5 December 2006 the debtor was privatised.\n17.  On 8 April 2008 the contract for the sale of the debtor was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations.\n18.  As of June 2008 the debtor has been comprised of predominantly State-owned capital.\n19.  On 31 October 2010, the applicants filed a constitutional appeal.\n20.  The case is still pending before the Constitutional Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7483", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in İzmir.\n6.  Following her marriage to Atila Abdulkadiroğlu on 6 July 1996, the applicant, whose surname was “Leventoğlu” prior to her marriage, had to take her husband’s surname pursuant to Article 153 of the Turkish Civil Code. As she was known by her maiden name in her academic and professional life, she continued to use it; however, she could not use it in any official documents.\n7.  An amendment to Article 153 of the Civil Code on 14 May 1997 meant that married women acquired the right to put their maiden name in front of their husband’s surname. The applicant preferred not to make use of that option because, in her view, the amendment in question did not satisfy her request, which was to use her maiden name on its own.\n8.  Following the enactment of the new Civil Code on 22 November 2001, Article 187 was worded identically to the former Article 153 (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below).\n9.  On 26 September 2005 the applicant brought proceedings before the İzmir Court of First Instance seeking permission to use only her maiden name, Leventoğlu.\n10.  On 6 December 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that, pursuant to Article 187 of the Civil Code, married women had to bear their husband’s name throughout their marriage and were not permitted to use their maiden name alone.\n11.  The applicant appealed against that judgment and on 21 March 2006 it was upheld by the Court of Cassation. A request by the applicant for the proceedings in her case to be reopened was further rejected by the same court on 14 July 2006. That decision was served on the applicant on 11 August 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7484", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1922, 1936, 1938, 1918, 1943, 1918, 1948 and 1946 respectively. Two of the applicants, Ms Ginka Dimitrova Georgieva and Ms Todorka Dimitrova Dimitrova, live in Burgas, and the remaining applicants live in Sozopol.\n6.  An ancestor of the applicants owned agricultural land in the Sozopol district, situated close to the seashore. In the 1980s it was included in the territory on which a new sea resort called Duni was constructed.\n7.  The resort was initially managed by a State-owned enterprise, which was, in 1990, transformed into a State-owned company called Duni. The transformation entailed, under the relevant domestic provisions, the company becoming an owner of the assets it had until then used and managed. In 1991 it was registered as a joint-stock company.\n8.  Until 1997 the State held all shares in Duni. 25% of the company’s shares were transferred to private parties in 1997, in the framework of a programme for “mass privatisation”. After that the company was named Duni AD. In the following years the State transferred more of its shares and by 2000 it was holding 25% of the company’s shares, a part of which were designated for compensation of former owners of land included in the company’s assets. In 2001 the State transferred a further 14% of its share in the company.\n9.  The applicants have submitted a privatisation report dated 8 March 1999. According to the document, at that time about one third of the territory of the resort was comprised of land which had been restituted in kind to its former owners under the Agricultural Land Act (“the ALA”). The report found this state of affairs problematic and considered it most appropriate that the company should buy back that land.\n10.  In the meantime, the ALA entered into force in 1991 (see paragraph 37 below). On that basis, on 15 December 1991 the applicants requested the restitution of 19,700 square metres of land taken from their ancestor.\n11.  In a decision of 23 May 1992 the competent body, the Sozopol agricultural land commission, adopted a decision to restore the applicants’ property rights to land in the area of Duni totalling 11,517 square metres (“Plot A”). This land adjoined the buildings of the resort. The land commission did not provide reasoning as to why it considered that the criteria for restitution in kind set in the law in force at the time were met.\n12.  In the same decision the commission refused to restore the applicants’ property rights in respect of the remaining 8,183 square metres of land (“Plot B”), as there were buildings and infrastructure of the resort constructed on it.\n13.  On 6 May 1993 the applicants wrote to the Council of Ministers, with a copy to the Committee on Tourism, requesting (a) to be given possession of Plot A, and (b) to receive in compensation for Plot B shares in the State-owned company Duni, as they were entitled to under section 18 (2) of the Transformation and Privatisation of State and Municipally-Owned Enterprises Act (see paragraph 40 below). At the time the applicants did not receive a response.\n14.  The applicants’ respective shares in the properties above were as follows: Ms Kera Genova Nedelcheva and Mr Raycho Genov Kostov were entitled to one quarter each, Mr Geno Moskov Dzhingov and Ms Minka Moskova Halvadzhieva – to one eighth each and the remaining applicants, Ms Frosina Dimitrova Gineva, Ms Magda Dimitrova Despotova, Ms Ginka Dimitrova Georgieva and Ms Todorka Dimitrova Dimitrova – to one si", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7485", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in Tokod.\n5.  On 8 August 1994, the applicant, as the successful bidder in privatisation proceedings, acquired shares and non-current assets of a previously state-owned public company limited by shares.\n6.  On 20 February 1995 a competing bidder business entity challenged before the Budapest Regional Court the validity of the privatisation contract and the sale and purchase agreement concluded by the applicant company.\n7.  On 3 April 1998 the Budapest Regional Court delivered a partial judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action.\n8.  On 4 June 1999 the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, held a hearing, quashed the partial judgment and remitted the case to the first instance.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings the Budapest Regional Court delivered a partial judgment on 1 July 2002. This judgment was quashed again by the Supreme Court on 9 May 2003.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings the Budapest Regional Court dismissed all the plaintiff’s claims.\n11.  In its judgment of 15 April 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal, acting as a second-instance court, partially upheld the first-instance judgment and as to the remainder of the claims, quashed the Budapest Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case to the first instance.\n12.  The plaintiff lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which upheld the partial judgment of the Budapest Court of Appeal 15 November 2010.\n13.  As to the remainder of the case, the Budapest Regional Court gave a partial judgment on 29 August 2012. The applicant appealed. The proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7486", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Siyazan. He is a farmer.\n6.  Following a dispute over ownership rights to a plot of land between the applicant and the Sadan Municipality in the district formerly known as Davachi (“the Municipality”), criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant.\n7.  On 29 December 2004 the Davachi District Court convicted the applicant under Article 188 of the Criminal Code (violation of a lawful owner’s right to a plot of land, by means of unauthorised occupation, alteration or cultivation thereof) and sentenced him to a fine in the amount of one hundred conventional financial units (550,000 old Azerbaijani manats, equivalent to 110 new Azerbaijani manats (AZN), which according to the official exchange rates published by the Central Bank of the Republic of Azerbaijan amounted to approximately 84 euros (EUR) at the relevant time). The court found that the applicant had unlawfully occupied and cultivated a plot of land of 0.8 hectares owned by the Municipality. The Court based its findings on witness statements and information provided by the State Committee of Land and Cartography (“the SCLC”).\n8.  On an unspecified date, the applicant appealed against the judgment of 29 December 2004, arguing that the plot of land in question was part of a larger parcel of land measuring 50 hectares belonging to his family farming business. On 18 March 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.\n9.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, alleging that the lower courts had erred in their assessment of the facts. On 9 August 2005 the Supreme Court, composed of a panel of three judges including judge N.H., quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 18 March 2005 and remitted the case for a new examination to the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court noted, in particular, that the conviction was based on insufficient evidence.\n10.  Taking into consideration the findings of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal sent a new request to the SCLC and the Municipality requesting detailed information about the exact location, measurements and ownership of the plot of land. The Municipality submitted that, according to the official records, the plot in question belonged to the Municipality and not the applicant. The SCLC conducted an on-site inspection of the plot of land and submitted to the court that the plot in question was part of the Municipality’s estate. On 12 July 2006 the Court of Appeal delivered a new judgment upholding the Davachi District Court’s judgment of 29 November 2004 convicting the applicant. The court held that the disputed plot of land which the applicant cultivated belonged to the Municipality and that the relevant law had been applied correctly.\n11.  The applicant appealed. On 10 October 2006 the Supreme Court, composed of a panel of three judges including judge N.H., examined the applicant’s appeal. It found that the Court of Appeal had examined all the relevant and available evidence and had committed no breaches of substantive or procedural law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 12 July 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7487", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lived in Pärnu-Jaagupi until his arrest. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n6.  On 21 May 2006 a sixteen-year-old, J., was killed in a forest close to a main road near the small town of Pärnu-Jaagupi. His body was found on 25 May 2006 and a criminal investigation was initiated on the same day.\n7.  On 29 May 2006 the applicant, along with J.’s other school mates, was interviewed as a witness.\n8.  On 1 July 2006 the applicant reached the age of eighteen.\n9.  On the same date Mr Järve, a lawyer, informed the authorities that he had signed agreements to defend A. and K., who were suspects in the criminal case.\n10.  On 19 July 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. He requested legal aid. On the same date he was interrogated in the presence of R., counsel appointed under the legal-aid scheme. The applicant denied the charges. On the following day R. met with the applicant in the detention facility.\n11. On 21 July 2006 the applicant requested in writing that R. be appointed as his defence counsel. On the same date in the presence of R., the Pärnu County Court authorised the applicant’s detention.\n12. On 24 and 25 July 2006 R. again met with the applicant in the detention facility.\n13.  On 25 July Mr Järve and the applicant’s parents signed a legal services agreement, under which Mr Järve was to act as the applicant’s counsel. On the same day Mr Järve informed the police investigator of that fact and met with the applicant, who agreed to his acting as counsel. The applicant denied committing the murder he was suspected of. Between 25 July and 4 August 2006, Mr Järve met the applicant on six occasions. On Friday, 4 August 2006, the applicant expressed the hope that Mr Järve would visit him on the following Monday. He complained that he did not feel well, had pains in his heart and was extremely nervous. He and Mr Järve agreed that Mr Järve would request that the applicant be examined by a doctor. Mr Järve made such a request.\n14.  On Monday, 7 August 2006, Mr Järve was told that the applicant had been taken to a doctor.\n15.   The case file contains copies of two different hand-written requests by the applicant, both dated 7 August 2006, whereby he stated his wish to waive the services of Mr Järve. One of them reads:\n“I wish to terminate the services of Paul Järve as my counsel appointed by my parents and wish to be defended by lawyer [R.].\nSince I am an adult, this is my own decision.”\nThe other one reads as follows:\n“I wish to terminate the services of Paul Järve as my lawyer appointed by my parents and wish to be defended by lawyer [R.].\nSince I am an adult, this is my own decision.\nAt the same time I do not want my former counsel and parents to be informed of the act I have committed since I very much regret [it] and I simply feel very much ashamed.\nI want to inform my mother myself.”\n16.  On the same date, 7 August 2006, the police investigator ordered that the applicant be granted legal aid and appointed R. as his counsel.\n17.  Later the same day (from 8.05 p.m. to 9.35 p.m.), the applicant was interrogated in the presence of R. He pleaded guilty and gave detailed statements about the circumstances of the offence. Subsequently, on 7 August 2006 (from 9.52 p.m. to 11.30 p.m.) and 8 August 2006 (from 12.42 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.) the applicant was taken to the crime scene in order to carry out an on-site reconstruction of the events and draw up a report including the applicant’s on-s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7488", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960. It appears that the applicant is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Stavropol Region, Russia.\n6.  On an unspecified date and in unspecified circumstances, the applicant acquired 13.4 g of heroin and divided it into two parcels.\n7.  On 20 August 2003 a Mr S. came to Obruchevskiy police station in Moscow and made a written statement indicating that he had met a Mr T., who had told him that a person of “Georgian origin” named Levan, around 40 years old, was a heroin supplier. S. expressed his readiness to assist the police in collecting evidence of Levan’s alleged criminal activities (see also paragraph 17 below).\n8.  On the same date, referring to S.’s statement, Police Officer K. issued an order authorising a “test purchase” of drugs:\n“... [S.] stated that he had become acquainted with a person of Georgian origin; this man had offered him heroin for 600 roubles per gram. Their meeting is expected to take place today, when this man will hand over heroin to [S.] ... I order a “test purchase” of drugs in order to document the criminal activities of an unidentified person called “Levan” and arrest him in flagrante delicto.”\nThis order bears the approval note and signature of the chief officer of the police station.\n9.  As is stated in the police records, S. was subjected to a body search in the presence of two attesting witnesses. The search disclosed that he had no drugs or other prohibited items on him. The police then provided S. with 100 US dollars (USD) and 3,000 Russian roubles (RUB). Before that, the banknotes had been photocopied and a record was drawn up to document this.\n10.  The applicant was arrested after he had handed over one of the two parcels of heroin (weighing 6.9 g) to S. This parcel was seized from S. in the police station. The money (the above-mentioned banknotes) and the other parcel (weighing 6.5 g) were seized from the applicant in the police station.\n11.  In July and August 2003 the applicant was undergoing outpatient treatment at a psychiatric hospital for cyclothymic disorder.\n12.  According to the applicant, on 20 August 2003 T. called him and asked for two anti-anxiety pills for his insomnia. The applicant’s friend drove him to T.’s place, where the applicant handed over the pills to T. T. gave the applicant USD 100 and RUB 3,000 as repayment of a debt. T. also introduced him to S., who asked for help with his drug addiction. The applicant refused to get involved and recommended inpatient treatment in a specialised hospital. The applicant left the house and was soon stopped by two men, who introduced themselves as police officers. The applicant complied with the officers’ request and presented his passport. Immediately thereafter, they attempted to handcuff him. While he did not resist his handcuffing with one hand, he resisted when the officer(s) started to twist his other arm behind his back. His resistance consisted of pressing his arm against his body and was a natural reaction to the pain caused by the arm twisting. Immediately thereafter, the officer(s) twice used a “suffocating” technique on him and beat him up. One of the officers hit him several times with a gun handle/barrel. The applicant sustained a concussion, a closed fracture of the jaw and numerous bruises.\n13.  The applicant submitted to the Court that he had been taken to a police station, through the back door and without any formal recording of his arrival. The officers had threatened him a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7490", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Simferopol.\n6.  The applicant was born with congenital facial injury and was diagnosed with a “midline cranial cleft”. Between 1990 and 1997 she repeatedly underwent surgery in a clinic in the United States of America, following which her cranial disorders were mostly cured. However, owing to the extensive surgery, the applicant developed a mental illness. Since then she has needed regular supervision in the United States clinic.\n7.  In 2007 the applicant’s father applied to the Simferopol District Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (“the District Court”), seeking to have her deprived of legal capacity on the ground that she suffered from serious mental illness.\n8.  Following a request by the District Court, on 5 June 2007 a forensic psychiatric expert issued an opinion stating that the applicant suffered from a chronic mental illness, namely paranoid schizophrenia, which prevented her from comprehending and controlling her actions.\n9.  On 10 July 2007 the District Court deprived the applicant of her legal capacity. The decision was not appealed against and became final.\n10.  On 21 November 2007 the applicant’s sister was assigned as the applicant’s guardian (опікун).\n11.  Gradually, the applicant’s mental health improved, so that on 3 April 2008 she took up a position at a local factory.\n12.  In 2009 the applicant’s guardian applied to the District Court for restoration of the applicant’s legal capacity. However, on 30 October 2009 the application was dismissed without being considered on the merits owing to the guardian’s repeated failure to appear in court.\n13.  On 1 November 2010 the applicant applied on her own to the District Court, seeking restoration of her legal capacity. She specified that Article 241 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which did not provide for the right for an incapacitated person to submit such an application, was not compatible with international legal standards and was discriminatory.\n14.  On 4 November 2010 the District Court returned the application to the applicant without considering it on the merits, noting that, by virtue of Article 121 § 3 and Article 241 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant was not entitled to submit such an application.\n15.   On 12 January 2011 the court of appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 4 November 2010 noting that Article 241 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not provide the applicant with the right to lodge an application for restoration of her legal capacity. The District Court had therefore lawfully returned the application without considering it on the merits, as required by Article 121 § 3 of that Code. On 12 March 2011 the court of cassation dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s appeal on points of law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7491", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Irkutsk.\n6.  In 2003 the applicant was charged with fraud relating to the alleged misappropriation of money in the private company she had worked for. Her case was brought before the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of Irkutsk. In the course of the trial, the applicant dismissed several legal-aid lawyers and, eventually, the trial court appointed lawyer V. as defence counsel. During the court proceedings before the District Court an issue arose as to the applicant’s mental state and ability to stand trial. Thus, on 14 October 2003 after hearing the parties (including the applicant and lawyer V.), the District Court decided that the applicant should undergo an out-patient psychiatric examination in the regional psychiatric hospital. However, the applicant refused to comply with this court order.\n7.  A trial hearing was accordingly scheduled for 27 November 2003, inter alia, to settle the issue of the examination. The applicant did not appear for which reason, the same day, the District Court ordered the applicant’s detention. The court held as follows:\n“Having heard the prosecutor, the defendant and lawyer V., in the criminal case on fraud charges against the defendant ...\nThe prosecutor has requested the court to order [the applicant’s] detention because she has been obstructing the court proceedings by refusing to undergo a psychiatric examination and has failed to attend the hearing without a valid excuse.\nArticle 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorises a court to order that a defaulting defendant be brought before the court or to order or vary a preventive measure. Article 97 of the Code authorises a court to order a preventive measure if there is a risk that the defendant would obstruct the proceedings ...\nThe court observes that despite a court order of 14 October 2003 the defendant refused to undergo a psychiatric examination ... In addition, having been informed of the date and time of this hearing, she failed to attend it and did not provide any valid excuse. Having come to the court’s registry on the same day, she submitted a request there and left the court building. These facts disclose that the applicant is obstructing the proceedings, which justifies her placement in custody. The court also takes into account that she is charged with a serious criminal offence ... The court orders her arrest and detention in Irkutsk remand centre.”\n8.  By a separate decision issued on the same date, the District Court ordered that the applicant should be placed in the regional psychiatric hospital for the purpose of the in-patient psychiatric examination.\n9.  On the evening of the same day, the applicant was arrested at her home and was taken to a police station. The arrest record, which was compiled at the police station, reads as follows:\n“Grounds and reasons for arrest: a court order\n...\n[pre-printed text] I have been informed of my rights under Article 46 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: (1) to be informed of the nature of the accusation against me, to receive a copy of a decision to institute criminal proceedings against me, or a copy of the arrest record, or a copy of a detention order against me; ...\nMy comment regarding the arrest: [the applicant’s signature] My arrest is unlawful; I have not had access to the document in which the grounds for my arrest are stated ...”\n10.  Later the same evening she was placed in Irkutsk remand centre.\n11.  On 28 November 2003 the applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7492", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants’ birth years are indicated in the annex below. They all live in Sinop.\n6.  On various dates in 2005 and 2006 the applicants brought separate sets of proceedings against their employer, claiming compensation for their unpaid salaries.\n7.  In 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively, the Sinop Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, sitting as a Labour Court, delivered its judgments, ruling in favour of the applicants[1]. The court stated that in addition to the compensation, the employer company had to pay proportional court fees[2] ranging from 66 to 785 Turkish liras (TRY)[3].\n8.  On 20 October 2008 the applicants requested copies of the writs of execution in order to enforce the judgments in their favour, as the employer company had not paid the required court fees. They argued that the company had gone bankrupt and that they would not be able to obtain the compensation awarded to them by the court at a later date.\n9.  On 6 November 2008 the Sinop Civil Court of General Jurisdiction rejected the applicants’ request. The court stated that pursuant to section 28(1)(a) of the Law on Fees (Law no. 492), the writs could not be served on the applicants unless all the fees were paid, either by the employer company or by the applicants themselves in the event that the former failed to do so.\n10.  The judgments in favour of the applicants have not been executed to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7494", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Skopje, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.\n10.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant, represented by a lawyer, filed a compensation claim against another private person (“the debtor”).\n12.  On 17 October 1996 the Real Estate Office in Bar (Služba za katastar i imovinsko-pravne poslove Bar) issued a decision to register a mortgage (založno pravo) on the debtor’s flat in favour of the applicant.\n13.  On 7 November 1996 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Bar ruled in favour of the applicant, ordering the debtor to pay 36,000 German Marks, statutory interest and specified legal costs. This judgment became final on 7 January 1997.\n14.  On 18 March 1997 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica rejected the debtor’s appeal as having been lodged out of time.\n15.  On 16 April 1997 the Court of First Instance issued an enforcement order (rješenje o izvršenju) ordering the sale of the debtor’s flat by means of a public auction.\n16.  On 5 May 2000 the same court established the value of the flat at issue.\n17.  The public auction, scheduled for 1 September 2000, was cancelled on account of the judge’s absence. No further auctions have been scheduled thereafter.\n18.  On 31 October 2006 the Court of First Instance stayed the enforcement proceedings (prekida se postupak izvršenja) due to the debtor’s death. On 8 November 2006 this decision was posted on the applicant’s door, after a prior written notice (poslije pismenog obaviještenja rješenje pribijeno na vrata).\n19.  On 9 September 2009 the applicant wrote to the President of the Court of First Instance, urging that the decision at issue be enforced and asking that any relevant information in that regard be sent to him at his address in Skopje, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”.\n20.  On 15 September 2009 the applicant was informed that the enforcement proceedings had been stayed on 31 October 2006.\n21.  On 25 September 2009 the applicant wrote again to the President of the Court of First Instance seeking that the enforcement proceedings be expedited.\n22.  On 28 September 2009 the applicant proposed that the enforcement proceedings be continued in respect of the debtor’s heirs.\n23.  On 13 October 2009 the Court of First Instance in Bar invited the applicant to provide the names and the addresses of the debtor’s heirs within three days, in default of which his request would be considered withdrawn. It was further specified that no appeal was allowed against this decision.\n24.  On 9 December 2009 the applicant appealed. He submitted that he did not know the names and the addresses of the debtor’s heirs, and that it was impossible for him to find this out, especially within three days. He further maintained that the court should have acted pursuant to section 32 of the Enforcement Act and should have found the debtor’s heirs, or, alternatively, should have appointed a temporary representative for them without delay (see paragraph 45 below).\n25.  On 18 December 2009 the Court of First Instance requested the Real Estate Office in Bar (Uprava za nekretnine, područna jedinica Bar) to provide a property certificate (list nepokretnosti) for the flat at issue.\n26.  On 28 December 2009 the Real Estate Office provided the requested certificate, which indicated that the new owners of the flat were B.N. and A.N., the registered address of the former being", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7495", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Bourgas.\n6.  On 5 June 2003 the applicant, who was serving as a police officer in Bourgas, filed a request for early retirement. According to him, he did so against his will under threat of dismissal for disciplinary reasons. He learned of this threat from colleagues, who had heard it from their superior. The pretext for the dismissal was said to be a disciplinary penalty which had been imposed on the applicant on 30 May 2003 for having allegedly failed to act with the requisite diligence when handling an incident involving a helicopter.\n7.  Following the applicant’s request for early retirement, and pursuant to section 253(1)(2) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act (“the 1997 Act”: see paragraph 15 below), the Minister of Internal Affairs decided to terminate the applicant’s employment. The order for termination was dated 13 June 2003.\n8.  The order was served on the applicant on 22 July 2003. On receipt of the order the applicant explicitly stated that he had filed his request for early retirement against his will and under threat of a disciplinary dismissal.\n9.  Under section 258 of the 1997 Act in conjunction with section 36(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act 1979 (in force until 1 March 2007), the applicant had the right to seek judicial review of the order for termination of his employment by the Supreme Administrative Court. He exercised that right on 4 August 2003, alleging that there had been procedural defects in the decision to terminate his employment and that there had been no valid request for early retirement (a key condition for termination of employment), as he had filed his request under duress. He sought to rely on the testimony of four witnesses who, he maintained, would give evidence that he had not intended to retire and had only filed his request for early retirement because of the threat of dismissal.\n10.  On 16 December 2003, during the first hearing in the case before a three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court, the applicant’s lawyer reiterated the request to call the four witnesses. The Minister of Internal Affairs’ counsel objected, arguing that the applicant could simply have withdrawn his request for early retirement. The prosecutor, who, as of right, participated in the appeal, considered that the witnesses should be heard in order to allow the applicant to prove his claim. Nevertheless, the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant’s request to call the witnesses without giving reasons. The minutes of the hearing merely stated that the court had decided not to grant the request.\n11.  In a judgment of 23 January 2004 the three-member panel quashed the termination order, finding that, in issuing the order while the applicant was on sick leave, the Minister had breached section 256(1) of the 1997 Act (see paragraph 15 below).\n12.  The Minister of Internal Affairs filed a cassation appeal against the decision of the three-member panel. In his written pleadings in reply the applicant’s lawyer again reiterated his request to have the witnesses examined.\n13.  In a final judgment of 25 October 2004 a five-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the earlier judgment of the three‑member panel and upheld the order for termination of the applicant’s employment, finding that, although the order had been signed on 13 June 2003 (when he was on sick leave), it had been served on him on 22 July 2003 (when he was back at work). T", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7497", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Belgium.\n5.  On 26 June 2002 the applicant was arrested at the Istanbul Atatürk Airport on suspicion of membership of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 27 June 2002 the applicant was interrogated at the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate, in the absence of a lawyer. According to a form explaining arrested persons’ rights which the applicant signed, he was informed of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent. In his statement, the applicant admitted his involvement in the PKK. He explained that he had moved to Italy for financial reasons and that while he was in Milan he had met with a certain A.T., who had helped him in finding a job and obtaining a residence permit. The applicant stated that while he was living in Milan, he had distributed leaflets on behalf of the PKK and organised information meetings about the illegal organisation.\n7.  On 28 June 2002 the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court in the absence of a lawyer and he repeated the statement he had made to the police. Later on the same day, the applicant was further questioned by the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, still in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant admitted to his activities in the illegal organisation and largely repeated his statement to the police. At the end of the questioning, the judge ordered his pre-trial detention. The applicant was then allowed to have access to a lawyer.\n8.  On 3 July 2002 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the applicant of membership of the PKK, an offence under Article 168 § 2 of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765) and Section 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).\n9.  In his defence submissions, the applicant denied the charges against him and argued that his police statement had been taken under duress. He also stated that he had still been under the influence of the pressure exerted on him by the police during his questioning by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively. The applicant further called a witness to attest to his innocence.\n10.  On 13 November 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s release from pre-trial detention.\n11.  On 5 November 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. In convicting the applicant, the court took into consideration the self-incriminating statements he had made before the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively. The court further relied on a classified information note submitted by the Ministry of the Interior regarding the applicant’s activities within the PKK. It also took into account the police statement of another accused, namely A.T., who had been convicted of being a member of the PKK in 2001 by the Diyarbakır State Security Court. In this statement, A.T. had given a detailed account of the applicant’s activities in the PKK.\n12.  The applicant appealed. In his appeal petition, he denied being involved in the activities of the PKK and claimed that he was innocent.\n13.  On 8 July 2004 the Court of Cassation, after holding a hearing, upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The decision, which was pronounced on 14 July 2004, was ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7498", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Constanţa.\n7.  On 22 March 2000 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, a bailiff by profession. He was charged with bribery, abuse of power and forgery, on the basis of criminal complaints lodged by M.M. and G.A (hereinafter “the complainants”), two individuals he had assisted as a bailiff in enforcement proceedings. M.M. alleged that the applicant had requested money from her in exchange for him asking a judge to assist with the enforcement of a title deed, while G.A. stated that the applicant had requested a certain amount of money from him to assist with the enforcement of a judgment.\n8.  On 22 March 2000 an operation was set up in respect of the applicant. The police gave M.M. a tape recorder and money which was marked with a fluorescent substance. She and her cousin met the applicant in a bar. According to the report of the operation, M.M. had wanted to hand the money to the applicant, but he had made a signal to her to put it into his briefcase. Her cousin had not been there when this had happened. After the envelope containing the money had been placed in the applicant’s briefcase, the police had appeared. The report of the operation stated that there had been no fluorescent substance found on the applicant’s hands, but that money had been found in the briefcase.\n9.  The applicant was held in pre-trial detention from 30 November 2001 until 27 December 2001, when he was released following a court order dismissing a request by a prosecutor to keep him in custody.\n10.  On 3 December 2001 the prosecutor attached to the Constanţa Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) issued an indictment against the applicant for bribery and abuse of power. The charges against him were based on statements of the complainants and other witnesses, and the report of the operation.\n11.  On 24 September 2002 the Constanţa County Court acquitted the applicant of all charges after hearing evidence from the witnesses, the complainants and the applicant.\n12.  In reaching its decision, the court noted that the only prosecution evidence available was the statements of the complainants and other witnesses, some of whom were the complainants’ relatives, who could only state what they had been told by them. Moreover, none of the witnesses actually saw the money being given to the applicant. Secondly, the court noted that no mention was made in any of the evidence submitted to it of the tape recorder that had been used during the police operation. It held, therefore, that none of the evidence was conclusive proof as to the applicant’s guilt.\n13.  The prosecutor appealed. In a hearing held on 10 January 2003 before the Court of Appeal, the prosecutor sought conviction of the applicant, while the applicant’s lawyer asked for the appeal to be dismissed. The applicant did not give evidence before the court, but he was given the opportunity to address the court at the end of the hearing and declared that he was innocent. No witnesses were heard and no additional evidence was adduced at that stage of the proceedings. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer submitted written observations.\n14.  In a decision of 23 January 2003, the Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal and found the applicant guilty of both charges, sentencing him to three years’ imprisonment suspended. It concluded that the witness statements were proof that the applicant had committed the offences alleged.\n15.  The applicant lodged an ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7499", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  Early in the morning of 13 October 2005 law-enforcement agencies in the town of Nalchik, in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya, were attacked by a number of heavily armed persons, who appear to have been local insurgents. The agencies included the Republican Department of the Ministry of the Interior, Centre T. of the Main Department of the Ministry of the Interior, various district departments of the Ministry of the Interior, the Special Purpose Police Unit of the Republican Ministry of the Interior, various checkpoints of the Traffic Police, the Republican Department of the Federal Security Service, the Republican Department of the Federal Service for the Execution of Penalties, the office of the Border Guard Service of the Federal Security Service and a few privately owned weapons shops. According to the Government, there were over two hundred and fifty participants in the attack.\n7.  The ensuing fight between the governmental forces and the insurgents lasted until at least 14 October 2005.\n8.  The applicants submitted that they were relatives of participants in the attack who died on 13 and 14 October 2005 or shortly afterwards (see the annex listing the applicants’ family connections to the deceased persons).\n9.  The Government did not dispute this claim, with the exception of the nineteenth applicant, Mrs Zhanna Fyodorovna Ifraimova, who, in their view, was not in any way related to the deceased Mr Ruslan Borisovich Tamazov.\n10.  According to the nineteenth applicant’s initial statement, the deceased Mr Ruslan Borisovich Tamazov was her husband. She later changed this submission, stating that they were not officially married but had lived together since February 2005. At the time of the events in October 2005 she was eight months pregnant. The nineteenth applicant has submitted a copy of a birth certificate issued on 9 July 2008 in the name of S.T., born on 8 December 2005. The certificate names Mr Ruslan Borisovich Tamazov as the girl’s father and the nineteenth applicant as her mother.\n11.  According to the information initially provided by the Government, on 13 and 14 October 2005 their forces successfully repelled the attack and killed eighty-seven local insurgents. The Government did not specify the names of those killed.\n12.  The Government also stated that on 14 October 2005 they arrested Mr Aslan Yuriyevich Bagov (one of the two nephews of the fiftieth applicant), who had gunshot wounds to the head and chest. He died in prison on 23 October 2005.\n13.  On 18 October 2005 Mr Kazbulat Betalovich Kerefov (one of the seventeenth applicant’s sons and a participant in the attack of 13‑14 October 2005) fired shots at police officers manning a local checkpoint and was killed when the officers returned fire.\n14.  In their observations on the admissibility of the case, the Government stated that the authorities had killed a total of ninety-five insurgents in the anti-terrorist operations mounted in response to the attack of 13 October 2005.\n15.  In essence, they acknowledged that all of the deceased referred to by the applicants were among those killed by the authorities.\n16.  It appears that on 13 October 2005 the authorities instituted criminal proceedings no. 25-78-05 in connection with the attack in Nalchik.\n17.  In the course of the investigation it was established that between 1999 and February 2005 a group of individuals, including A. Maskhadov, Sh. Basayev, I. Gorchkhanov, A. Astemirov, Abu-Valid Khattab and Abu‑Dzeit, h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7500", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and at present lives in Vienna.\n7.  On 9 October 2010 he arrived in Austria via Greece and Hungary and lodged an asylum application.\n8.  On 5 January 2011 the Federal Asylum Office (Bundesasylamt) declared that Hungary had jurisdiction regarding the asylum proceedings pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 (the “Dublin II Regulation”, hereinafter the “Dublin Regulation”) and therefore rejected the applicant’s asylum application under section 5 of the Asylum Act 2005. It also ordered the applicant’s transfer to Hungary. The applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision.\n9.  Subsequently, the applicant went into hiding and thwarted an attempt to detain and forcibly transfer him planned for 5 May 2011.\n10.  However, on 21 December 2011 the applicant was detained in Vienna. On 22 December 2011 the Vienna Federal Police Authority (Bundespolizeidirektion Wien) ordered the applicant’s detention with a view to his forced transfer to Hungary.\n11.  On 30 December 2011 the applicant lodged a second asylum application that had no suspensive effect in relation to the valid transfer order. He referred to the Asylum Court’s own practice at that time as regards the transfer of asylum-seekers to Hungary and to the pertinent reports on reception conditions and access to asylum proceedings there (see below).\n12.  On 2 January 2012 he also lodged a complaint against the detention order, referring to his second asylum application. He referred to a decision of the Austrian Asylum Court (Asylgerichtshof) of 1 December 2011 in which the Asylum Court had granted suspensive effect to an appeal lodged by an Algerian asylum-seeker, stating that a real risk of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights could not be excluded in case of the transfer of asylum-seekers to Hungary under the Dublin Regulation. The Asylum Court had based its reasoning on a letter from the Austrian office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) dated 17 October 2011 concerning detention conditions for asylum-seekers in Hungary and the risk of refoulement to Serbia (see paragraphs 32-36 below).\n13.  On 5 January 2012 the Vienna Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien) dismissed the complaint against the detention order as unfounded. It stated that the order for the applicant’s detention with a view to his transfer had been issued in accordance with the law.\n14.  On 10 January 2012 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) dismissed the applicant’s motion for his complaint to be granted suspensive effect. It stated that it would only decide upon a complaint against an order for detention with a view to forced transfer and not on the lawfulness of any transfer to Hungary. However, it concluded that the immigration police (Fremdenpolizei) would in any event have to refrain from transferring the applicant to Hungary – even if the order was itself valid – if the current situation in Hungary for individuals transferred there under the Dublin Regulation would breach Article 3 of the Convention.\n15.  On 9 January 2012 the applicant also lodged an application with the Vienna Federal Police Directorate (Bundespolizeidirektion Wien) as the competent immigration police authority, asking it to establish that his transfer to Hungary would constitute a risk for him within the meaning of section 50(1) or (2) of the Immigration Police Act (Fremdenpolizeigesetz, see paragraph 26 below", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7501", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1950, 1983 and 1975, respectively, and live in Azerbaijan, Norway and Sweden.\n7.  The first applicant is the widow of Aslan (also spelled Oslan) Aliyevich Maskhadov. The second and third applicants are their children.\n8.  Aslan Maskhadov, born in 1951, was one of the military and political leaders of the Chechen separatist movement during and after the armed conflict of 1994-96.\n9.  For some time after the elections held in Chechnya on 27 January 1997 he was President of the so-called Chechen Republic of Ichkeriya.\n10.  In 1999 Chechen armed groups began a military incursion into Dagestan.\n11.  On 18 February 2000 a criminal investigation was initiated by the Russian authorities on suspicion of military revolt and sedition in this connection.\n12.  On 2 March 2000 Aslan Maskhadov acquired the status of accused in this case.\n13.  On the same date the investigator decided to detain him. Since the whereabouts of Aslan Maskhadov could not be established, the investigator placed his name on the national and international lists of wanted persons.\n14.  On an unspecified date the authorities also opened a criminal investigation into terrorist activity in the Nadterechnyy District of the Chechen Republic in 2000.\n15.  On 1 September 2004, the day of the terrorist attack on a school in the town of Beslan, the authorities instituted criminal investigations in connection with this event on suspicion of hostage-taking, murder, illegal arms trafficking and terrorist acts.\n16.  On 8 September 2004, having collected various items of evidence indicating the involvement of Aslan Maskhadov in masterminding the attack, which left some 334 people, including 86 children dead, the investigator formally identified him as an accused.\n17.  On the same date Aslan Maskhadov’s name was again put on the national and international wanted lists.\n18.  The applicants alleged that repeated attempts on Aslan Maskhadov’s life had taken place in 1996, 1998 and 2000 and that these attacks had been “conducted by or with the connivance of State agents”.\n19.  According to the applicants, on 9 September 2004 the Russian Federal Security Service (Федеральная Служба Безопасности РФ – “the FSB”) offered 300 million Russian roubles for information leading to his arrest.\n20.  It appears that prior to 8 March 2005 Aslan Maskhadov lived in hiding as a fugitive in various unspecified locations in Chechnya.\n21.  On 8 March 2005 between 9 and 10 a.m. the FSB conducted a special operation aimed at tracking down and arresting members of unlawful military formations at 1 Suvorov Street in Tolstoy-Yurt, a village in the Groznenskiy Selskiy District of the Chechen Republic.\n22.  According to the authorities, the operation resulted in the discovery of a concealed underground shelter and the arrest of four individuals, including V.U. Khadzhimuradov and V.L. Murdashev, who were Aslan Maskhadov’s bodyguard and press officer, respectively.\n23.  The authorities also discovered the corpse of an “unidentified person” bearing traces of injuries. On the same date the four detained individuals identified the person as Aslan Maskhadov.\n24.  In the afternoon of 8 March 2005 investigator Sh. from the Investigative Unit of the Directorate of the FSB in the Chechen Republic (следователь следственного отдела Управления ФСБ России по Чеченской Республике) arrived on the scene and, in the presence of two witnesses and with the assistance of a military mining specialist, conducted a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7502", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant organisation is a religious organisation, the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, located in St Petersburg. The second applicant, Ms Yekaterina Sergeyevna Avilkina, was born in 2006 and lives in Nalchik. The third applicant, Ms Nina Nikolayevna Dubinina, was born in 1959 and lives in Murmansk. The fourth applicant is Ms Valentina Alekseyevna Zhukova, was born in 1956 and lives in the Leningrad region.\n6.  On 23 September 2004 the Committee for Salvation of Youth from Destructive Cults (“the Committee”) wrote to the Russian President targeting primarily the beliefs and practices of the applicant organisation and accusing it of extremism. The letter also contained a request for an inquiry into the applicant organisation’s activities.\n7.  On 16 November 2004 the Committee’s letter was forwarded by the President’s Administration to the St Petersburg City Prosecutor’s Office. The ensuing inquiry disclosed no unlawfulness in the applicant organisation’s activities.\n8.  On 28 March 2005 the Committee lodged another complaint against the applicant organisation. It was rejected on 4 April 2005. Subsequently the Committee introduced six more complaints. All of them were rejected following an inquiry.\n9.  During the period between 7 March 2005 and 3 May 2007 the applicant organisation addressed five letters to the authorities asking about the results of their inquiries. The prosecutor’s office responded that the applicant organisation’s activities had revealed no violations. The applicant organisation’s request to review the relevant file was refused.\n10.  According to the applicant organisation, within the framework of the inquiries the City Prosecutor’s Office interacted with other State agencies, submitted religious literature for expert examination, studied medical files of members of the applicant organisation, intervened in a school matter without parental consent and examined repeated complaints from organisations and individuals.\n11.  On 1 June 2007 a St Petersburg Deputy City Prosecutor asked the St Petersburg Public Health Committee to instruct all the city’s medical institutions to report every refusal of transfusion of blood or its components by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The prosecutor’s letter read as follows:\n“In response to the order of the Russian Federation Prosecutor General’s Office, the city prosecutor’s office is investigating the lawfulness of the activity of the religious organisation known as the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia.\nThe ideology of the said organisation forbids its adherents to accept transfusions of blood or blood components. An investigation has established that in a series of cases refusals of blood transfusions hindered the administration of qualified medical care and aggravated the illness.\nIn view of the above, I request that you instruct all medical institutions in St Petersburg to inform the committee, without delay, of any incidents of refusal of transfusion of blood or its components by individuals who are members of the said religious organisation.”\n12.  On 4 June 2007 the City Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the applicant organisation’s request for access to the materials compiled by it in the course of the inquiries.\n13.  From 2 February to 5 April 2006 the fourth applicant underwent surgical treatment in a state hospital without the use of foreign blood or blood components. On 25 January 2007 the Kurortnyy District Prosecutor’s Office asked the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7503", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a privately held company limited by shares with its seat in Budapest.\n5.  In the context of a real estate dispute, on 10 September 1993 the applicant brought an action before the Pest Central District Court. The litigation concerned in essence the allegedly unlawful use of business premises by another company and the resultant damages.\n6.  A first-instance partial judgment was quashed on appeal in October 1998. In the resumed proceedings the District Court gave interim judgment in April 1999, upheld on appeal in June 2000.\n7.  Other aspects of the case were adjudicated by the District Court in February 2001. This decision was upheld on appeal in October 2001 and by the Supreme Court on 15 January 2004.\n8.  As regards the remainder of the claims, the District Court found for the respondents on 15 December 2005. On 27 February 2007 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this judgment. Relying essentially on documentary evidence, the Regional Court held in essence, that the applicant had no locus standi to seek the nullification of the rental agreement in question.\n9.  On 28 January 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s petition for review.\nThe applicant submitted that subsequently criminal proceedings had been initiated on a charge of corruption against the judge involved in the principal proceedings. This case is apparently still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7504", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Glen Allen, Virginia, USA.\n6.  The applicant married a Hungarian citizen, Ms J.B., and the couple had one son, T.M.P., born on 3 February 2000. The family lived in Virginia.\n7.  In 2003, following a visit to relatives in Hungary, J.B. did not return to the USA and instituted divorce proceedings. The applicant initiated proceedings before the Hungarian courts in order to have the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”) applied and the child taken back to the USA.\nBy a decision of 14 September 2004, the Hungarian Supreme Court found that the retention of the child in Hungary by her mother without the father’s consent was illegal but refused to grant a return order under the Hague Convention. The applicant’s visiting rights were regulated through a number of interim measures pending the divorce proceedings.\n8.  On 19 March 2005, following the pronouncement of the divorce of the applicant and his wife, the Budapest Central District Court placed the couple’s son with the mother. After appeals, on 27 March 2007 the Supreme Court regulated by a final judgment the applicant’s access rights in a way that he had access to his son four consecutive days every month and was entitled to spend one month of the summer vacation with him, including the possibility to take him to the USA. The mother was obliged to hand over the necessary travel documents for this purpose.\nThe court explained that it was in the child’s best interest to maintain emotional links with his father, which would become difficult should he be disconnected from the linguistic environment. In addition, the court, referring to the Hague Convention, found no evidence to support J.B.’s supposition that the applicant would fail to return the child to Hungary.\n9.  In August 2007 the applicant complained to the Budapest XII District Guardianship Authority that his access granted in respect of the months of August 2007 could not be exercised on account of the mother’s reluctance to co-operate. In reply, J.B. maintained that the son was sick and needed medical treatment.\nDespite assurances from the applicant that he would accompany T.M.P. to all medical appointments that were necessary, the mother left Budapest with the child for a place unknown to the applicant.\nThe Guardianship Authority established that the mother and son had not been available on 1 August 2007 as regulated in the Supreme Court’s judgment. On 11 September 2007 the Authority warned the mother that she might be fined for her conduct. The applicant for his part initiated enforcement proceedings with no success.\n10.  On 1 July 2008 the mother again failed to comply with the applicant’s access right. On 23 July 2008 the then competent Budapest XIII District Guardianship Authority imposed a fine of 100,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 360 euros (EUR)) on her, ordering the handover of the child to the applicant on 1 August 2008. The mother stated that she would not comply with the court judgment as regards the child’s visit to the USA, since there was an international warrant in place to locate the child, which might impede his return to Hungary.\nIn the resumed first-instance administrative proceedings the Guardianship Authority ordered J.B. to pay a fine and to reimburse the applicant’s travel costs in the amount of HUF 396,375 (approximately EUR 1,300). This decision was upheld by the Budapest Regional Court on 26", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7505", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  In 2001 the applicant lodged an action in damages against the owner of a flat in which he lived with his family. He also sought the protection of possession with respect to the flat. The respondent lodged a counter-claim seeking the payment of usage fees for the flat.\n6.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts, on 14 November 2007 the Budapest Regional Court delivered its judgment, finding that the respondent was liable for the damages sought. It partly upheld the counter-claim of the respondent and ordered the applicant to pay usage fees for the flat.\n7.  On 15 January 2008 the Budapest Court of Appeal, sitting as a second-instance court, increased the amount to be paid to the applicant.\n8.  On 26 June 2008, the Supreme Court, acting as a review instance, decreased the amount to be paid to the applicant and increased the amount of usage fees to be paid to the respondent.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7506", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 25 August 1997 the applicant’s neighbour brought an action against the applicant before the Pest Central District Court, requesting the court to establish that she had acquired ownership through adverse possession of the applicant’s plot of land. On 29 April 1998 the court held the first hearing.\n6.  At the hearing of 5 October 1998 the applicant submitted a counter-claim for usage charges against the plaintiff. The court suspended the proceedings pending the land registry proceedings seeking the rectification of the land registry title plan.\n7.  The next hearing took place on 28 October 2002. At the following hearing of 17 February 2003 the court again suspended the proceedings pending the termination of the same land registry proceedings before the district notary, which finally took place on 3 June 2003.\n8.  The next court hearing was held on 26 September 2005. On 19 March 2008 the District Court gave a judgment. This was quashed on appeal on 29 May 2009 and the case was remitted to the first-instance court.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings the District Court delivered its judgment on 12 December 2011, establishing that the plaintiff had not acquired ownership of part of the property and ordering her to pay usage charge to the applicant. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision on 13 June 2012.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7507", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and, having been sentenced by the Latvian courts and subsequently transferred to Russia, is currently serving a prison sentence in the Russian Federation.\n5.  On 27 May 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.\n6.  On 29 May 2002 a judge authorised the applicant’s remand in custody, citing the following reasons: the applicant might abscond and impede the investigation; and in view of the severity of the offence, his prior convictions and his absence of a registered place of residence.\n7.  On 19 July 2002 another judge authorised the applicant’s detention for two months and eight days, citing the following reasons: the gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding it and the applicant’s character. The judge saw no reason to change the preventive measure imposed on the applicant.\n8.  On 13 September 2002 the same judge authorised the applicant’s detention for a further two months (until 27 November 2002), citing the following reasons: the applicant’s character, the circumstances of the case and the need to carry out a forensic psychiatric examination. The judge saw no reason to change the preventive measure imposed on the applicant. The applicant complained about this decision to a prosecutor and pointed out that he had a wife and minor children who were dependent on him.\n9.  On 3 October 2002 the prosecutor examined his complaint and rejected it on the grounds that the applicant was charged with a serious crime. His character (the applicant’s two prior convictions were noted) and his family responsibilities had not dissuaded him from committing a serious crime. The applicant lodged another complaint challenging his preventive measure; the same prosecutor rejected it on 24 October 2002.\n10.  On 25 November 2002 another judge authorised the applicant’s detention for a further month, citing the following reasons: the applicant’s character and the circumstances of the case.\n11.  On 17 December 2002 the final indictment was issued against the applicant.\n12.  On 24 December 2002 the case file was sent for trial to the Rīga Regional Court.\n13.  On 6 January 2003 the applicant was committed for trial and the first hearing was scheduled for 10 May 2004. The preventive measure imposed on the applicant (remand in custody) remained unchanged; no reasons were given.\n14.  No more detention orders were issued in respect of the applicant.\n15.  Between 10 and 14 May 2004 the trial hearings before the Rīga Regional Court took place, and the trial was concluded on the latter date.\n16.  On 14 May 2004 the Rīga Regional Court pronounced the judgment. It convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and hooliganism; he was sentenced to sixteen years’ imprisonment. As an additional penalty the court ordered his expulsion from Latvia.\n17.  On 2 March 2005 the appellate court upheld the ruling of the first­instance court.\n18.  On 18 May 2005 the applicant’s appeal on points of law was dismissed.\n19.  On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to a prison in Daugavpils to serve his sentence, where he was detained until 16 June 2011.\n20.  On several occasions the prison authorities refused long-term visits in prison by the applicant’s partner, M.B., and her daughter, R.B., born in 2000, who he considered to be his only family in Latvia. The applicant lodged complaints against these refusals.\n21.  On 16 June 2006 the administration of Daugavpils Prison referred to section 45 of the Sentence Enforceme", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7508", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Łódź.\n8.  On 16 October 2007 the applicant was convicted by Sieradz District Court of extortion and sentenced to one year and six months imprisonment. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n9.  On 23 January 2008 the Sieradz Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment was sent to the applicant on 12 February 2008. On an unspecified date it was served on the applicant.\n10.  The applicant requested the District Court to appoint a legal-aid lawyer with a view to filing a cassation appeal. On 12 March 2008 his legal‑aid application was received by the Sieradz Regional Court.\n11.  On 18 March 2008 the Sieradz Regional Court refused to examine the applicant’s request for the appointment of a legal-aid lawyer. The court stated that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal had expired on 14 March 2008. The court also informed the applicant that the refusal was final and could not be appealed against.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7509", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in the town of Novomyrhorod, Ukraine.\n6.  On 28 February 2005 L. burgled a house belonging to Zh., stealing fifty metres of cable, five aluminium cooking pots, a sewing machine, two religious icons and some scrap metal. On the same day L. sold several of the items (allegedly the cooking pots, the sewing machine and some metal corner brackets) to the applicant, who paid him 40 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH ‒ at the material time around 5.50 euros (EUR)).\n7.  On 4 March 2005 the Novomyrhorod District Police Department (Новомиргородський районний відділ Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ України в Кіровоградській області) instituted criminal proceedings into the theft of Zh.’s property.\n8.  On 22 March 2005 the Novomyrhorodskyy District Court issued a warrant to search the applicant’s house, following a request to that end by an investigating officer of the Novomyrhorod District Police Department. The court noted that it was reasonable to suspect from the investigating officer’s request that some of the property stolen from Zh.’s house had been hidden in the applicant’s house, since the applicant had refused to help the police with their inquiries in that regard.\n9.  According to the applicant, on 24 March 2005 ten men in civilian clothing entered the yard of her house and told her that they were police officers and were carrying a warrant for the search of her house. They did not produce any proof of identity. The applicant was shown the warrant of 22 March 2005 but was not told which particular items she had to surrender to the police. The police officers verbally abused her and one of them took away her walking stick and pushed her. She fell to the ground and injured her knee. Since 2002 the applicant has been registered as category one (перша група інвалідності) disabled and, according to her, cannot walk without a stick. In support of her application, she submitted a medical certificate from 2007, which states that she is unable to walk unaided. She alleged that after being pushed to the ground she had no choice but to crawl after the police officers. Once inside the house, one of the police officers told the applicant that they were looking for a sewing machine and 100 metres of cable. By contrast, in a complaint made on 12 May 2005, the applicant stated that the police officer had told her they were looking for cooking pots and metal brackets (see paragraph 19 below). According to the applicant, the police officers seized six cooking pots, two axes and six metres of metal corner brackets. While conducting the search, they had torn a small door off a mirrored cabinet, broke furniture, ripped wall-hanging rugs, threw the applicant’s books and medication on the floor, and rummaged through her personal correspondence.\n10.  As part of her application, the applicant submitted a photo allegedly taken inside her house after the search. It shows the room in a complete mess; a small door has been torn off a mirrored cabinet, some furniture appears to be broken and medication is strewn across the floor.\n11.  According to the search record (протокол обшуку) which was drawn up by a police officer, B., and signed by two witnesses, K. and R., and S. (described on the record as “a person present during the search”) but not the applicant, the police officers had been looking for “a sewing machine, cooking pots, metal corner brackets and [illegible]”. Five aluminium cooking pots and several metal corner br", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7511", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Simferopol.\n5.  On 11 February 2002 the applicant challenged the actions of his former commander and claimed the payment of various allowances and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 27 March 2002 the Simferopol Garrison Court allowed the applicant’s claims. By a decision of 18 June 2002 the Navy Court of Appeal quashed that judgment. The proceedings were severed into three separate sets.\n6.  By a judgment of 6 March 2003, the Simferopol Garrison Court declared unlawful, inter alia, the commander’s refusal to pay allowances due to the applicant on the date of his retirement, and ordered the commander to grant the applicant’s claim in that part. By the same judgment the court also awarded the applicant UAH 3,800 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 12 June 2003 the Navy Court of Appeal reduced that amount and upheld the remainder of the judgment with minor amendments. On 26 November 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 12 June 2003.\n7.  On 11 December 2003 and 25 December 2003 the Simferopol Garrison Court considered the remainder of the applicant’s claim, as severed from the initial claim, and awarded him, respectively, 2,263.40 Ukrainian hryvnias (approximately 331 euros (EUR)) and UAH 204 (approximately EUR 30) in respect of various payments due to him on the date of his retirement. On 4 March 2004 the Navy Court of Appeal upheld those judgments. On 26 May and 9 June 2004 those judgments were also upheld by the Supreme Court.\n8.  According to the Government, between 22 February 2005 and 25 December 2008 bailiffs partly enforced the judgment of 11 December 2003, paying UAH 1,670.63 to the applicant. The Government stated that as of 28 September 2010 the outstanding debt was UAH 592,77. According to the applicant, it was UAH 1,399.97.\n9.  On 22 February 2005 bailiffs fully enforced the judgment of 25 December 2003.\n10.  On 6 September 2002 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Simferopol (“the District Court) against the military unit, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Finance, the State Treasury and the State Insurance Fund for Work-Related Accidents and Diseases (“the Fund”). The applicant claimed the payment of compensation for damage caused to him a result of his disability. He also claimed that the defendants failed to provide him with free housing. On 9 March 2004 the District Court decided to sever the proceedings (see below).\n11.  On 3 February 2005 the District Court partly allowed the applicant’s claim. He was awarded compensation, to be paid by the Fund. On 25 May 2005 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea quashed the part of the judgment concerning the Fund’s obligation to pay compensation and awarded the applicant UAH 27,923.65 in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, to be paid by the Ministry of Defence. By the same judgment the applicant was entitled to receive an allowance of UAH 673.57 in the period from 1 May to 1 November 2005. On 19 December 2007 the Zhaporizhzhya Regional Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, upheld that judgment.\n12.  The case has been considered by the District Court and the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea; however, no decision on the merits has been adopted. As of 28 September 2010 the proceedings were still pending before the District Court.\n13.  According to the information provided by the Government, there wer", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7512", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are Russian nationals, who were born in 1969 and 1968, and live in Starodub, the Bryansk Region, and Saratov respectively.\n7.  By a judgment of 1 November 2005 the Zavodskoy District Court, Grozny (“the District Court”) ordered the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic to pay an allowance due to the applicants for participation in the counter-terrorist operation in the North Caucasus. The court awarded the first applicant 607,999 Russian roubles (RUB) for a period of service from June 2002 to December 2004 and the second applicant RUB 367,333 for a period of service from June 2003 to December 2004.\n8.  The judgment became binding and enforceable on 11 November 2005. The applicants repeatedly attempted to secure the enforcement of that judgment by contacting the debtor authority and other State authorities responsible for payment of the judgment debt. They provided the authorities with the necessary documents, including the writ of enforcement issued by the domestic court. However, their attempts were not successful and the judgment remained unenforced.\n9.  Following the authorities’ prolonged failure to enforce the judgment, the applicants sued the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation on the basis of its vicarious liability (субсидиарная ответственность). On 29 September 2009 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court, Moscow (“the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court”) granted the applicants’ claims and awarded RUB 847,999 in favour of Mr Sivograk and RUB 607,333 in favour of Mr Zenov. Those amounts corresponded to the total sum owed to the applicants under the judgments of 1 November 2005 and 10 May 2006 (see paragraph 13 below).\n10.  On 3 August 2010 the judgment of 29 September 2009 was quashed, following an application by the Ministry of the Interior for review on account of newly discovered circumstances.\n11.  By a new judgment of 9 November 2010, upheld on appeal on 20 July 2011, the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court dismissed the applicants’ claims. The court noted that the debtor was not in possession of the writs of enforcement and thus could not enforce the judgment of 1 November 2005 in the applicant’s favour. Furthermore, the court referred to the applicants’ failure to prove that the principal debtor had refused or failed to pay the judgment debt.\n12.  The judgment of 1 November 2005 in the applicants’ favour remains unenforced to the present date.\n13.  The applicants submitted a copy of a judgment of 10 May 2006 allegedly delivered by the District Court in favour of five claimants, including the applicants. It transpires from the text of the judgment that the court heard the oral submissions of the parties to the case at a hearing and arrived at the following conclusions:\n“...\nThe failure of the command of the United Group Alignment to issue orders to make the payments in due time does not in itself prove that the applicants did not take part in the counter-terrorist operation and are not entitled to receive combat allowance.\nThe records of individual participation in the counter-terrorist operation on the territory of the North-Caucasus region reflect the dates of [the claimants’] participation which match the timeframe indicated by the claimants.\nThe records submitted by the finance department of the Ministry of the Interior’s regional office demonstrate that the claimants have indeed not received the remuneration due to them for participation in combat and other actions in defence of the publ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7513", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in the Krasnodar Region.\n6.  During the evening of 24 March 2001 the applicant, a minor at the time, was having a drink with his friends, K., V., and B.D. They then met up with a group of youths, including Z., B.C., B.B. and G., who were also under the influence of alcohol. The two groups started a quarrel which ended with a short fight. According to the applicant, when he and his friends left the scene of the fight nobody was seriously hurt. He just had some bruises on his face. However, it appears that during the fight or immediately afterwards G. was stabbed with a knife. He was taken to hospital, where he died.\n7.  On the next day the applicant was questioned, charged with the murder of G. and detained in custody pending the investigation. The police searched the scene of the incident, the applicant’s house, and seized his clothes. The clothes were then sent to a forensic expert, who concluded that red stains on the applicant’s jacket were from G.’s blood. Blood stains were also found on the shoes and clothes of K. and B.B., who were also arrested in connection with the incident but were later released and the charges against them dropped. The prosecution concluded that it was the applicant who had stabbed G.\n8.  According to the applicant, on 29 November 2001, shortly before the commencement of the trial in his case, he was beaten in the detention centre by one of the guards.\n9.  At the first hearing before the trial court, on 30 November 2001, the defence requested the court to release the applicant pending trial. The court refused, concluding as follows:\n“[The application for release should be dismissed] on the ground that the applicant has committed a serious crime, he has not produced any document that would prove [that there exists] a danger to his life or health”.\n10.  At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty. He did not deny that he had had a fight with G., but denied stabbing him with a knife. The defence requested the court to summon over a dozen witnesses. The court heard some of them but several witnesses were not summoned or failed to appear. The court questioned several witnesses to the incident. None of them had seen G. being stabbed. K. testified that before the incident of 24 March 2001 the applicant had shown him a home-made knife. He said that on leaving the scene of the incident, the applicant told him that he had stabbed G. with the knife. The court also heard the investigators in charge of the case and examined the record of the search of the scene of the incident, the results of the post-mortem examination of G.’s body, and the results of the forensic examination of the stains on the applicant’s jacket.\n11.  On 10 December 2001 the Dinskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of the murder of G. and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. The applicant submitted that it took the court no more than one hour and forty minutes to hear the applicant’s two legal representatives and his own final submissions, then to discuss, draft and deliver the judgment, which was three pages long.\n12.  The applicant appealed. The arguments by the defence were centred on the taking and interpretation of evidence in the proceedings. However, chapter 1 of the appeal brief stated: “The investigation and trial were incomplete, one-sided and tendentious, with an accusatory bias”. Point 1.3 of that chapter read as follows:\n“1.3.  Yet, the most striking example of the partiality o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7514", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Vilnius.\n6.  On 6 June 2005 the applicant’s son, E.B., born on 20 August 1991 and then thirteen years of age, was playing with other children outside the applicant’s apartment, situated in Naujamiestis district (Naujamiesčio seniūnija) in the city of Vilnius. Whilst the children were standing on the balcony of an ancillary building containing cellars, the balcony broke off the building and collapsed. Part of the balcony fell on E.B., who died at the scene from the injuries he received. Two other children, V.J. and A.B., suffered minor bodily injuries.\n7.  On the same day the police opened a pre-trial investigation. On that day and the next investigators surveyed the scene of the accident.\n8.  On 7 June 2005 a forensic expert established that E.B. had died because the balcony block had fallen on to him, broken his spine and crushed his internal organs.\n9.  By Vilnius city police investigator’s decision of 4 July 2005 the applicant was recognised as having victim status.\n10.  According to the Government, after the accident the future of the ancillary building containing the cellars was discussed at a meeting of the Vilnius municipal council on 14 June 2005. An expert inspection of 18 July 2005 recommended that the building be fenced off until it could be demolished. [The Vilnius city municipality] Commission on Residential and Non-Residential Houses and Premises on 11 October 2005 approved the demolition of the building. In accordance with a contract signed on 4 October 2005 between the Vilnius city council and Naujamiesčio būstas, the Vilnius municipal enterprise, in December 2005 that enterprise demolished the building.\n11.  On 7 September 2006 the applicant lodged, in the criminal proceedings, a civil claim for non-pecuniary damage, in the sum of 3,000,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL), and for litigation costs with the Vilnius City Prosecutor’s Office. She submitted that the Vilnius city municipality and its institutions had failed to supervise the buildings and, as a result, her son had died. The loss caused her immense moral suffering and depression. Even though it was not possible to bring her son back, the persons responsible should compensate the non-pecuniary damage. The applicant also referred to Article 6.250 § 2 of the Civil Code (see Relevant domestic law below), arguing that the amount of damage could be assessed according to all the circumstances established in the criminal case and the [criminal] court had such competence.\n12.  By a decision of 21 November 2006, the prosecutor recognised the applicant as a civil claimant in the criminal case, on the basis of Articles 109 and 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n13.  On 11 January 2007 A.J., an employee of Naujamiesčio būstas, was charged with the offence of failure to fulfil official duties, under Article 229 of the Criminal Code. The authorities considered that A.J. had failed to inspect the buildings at issue and to inform the municipality of their condition, even though he had been assigned that function by order of the Naujamiesčio būstas director on 28 January 2004. On the same day the authorities imposed a restrictive measure on A.J., namely an obligation not to leave his place of residence.\n14.  By a decision of 11 October 2007 the Vilnius City Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the pre-trial investigation. The prosecutor referred to Article 7 § 13 of the Law on Local Self-Governance which determined that in the most general", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7515", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Vienna.\n7.  On 30 June 1993 a private company owned and represented by the applicant bought a campsite by public auction from Federal Coop Tulcea, a State-owned company. The campsite was located in the village of Jurilovca on the Black Sea coast.\n8.  On 10 October 1997 that company brought proceedings against the Jurilovca Local Council, the Delta Dunării Biosphere Reservation, and the State-owned company it had purchased the campsite from, seeking a court order acknowledging its property rights over the 42,000 sq. m of land the campsite was located on.\n9.  By a judgment of 22 October 1997 the Babadag District Court allowed the applicant’s company’s action on the merits and acknowledged its property rights over the said 42,000 sq. m of land. The Delta Dunării Biosphere Reservation appealed against the judgment.\n10.  Between 13 May 1998 and 11 November 1999 the applicant’s company, claiming that the judgment of 22 October 1997 had become final and that it was the owner of the 42,000 sq. m of land, mortgaged the land as security for several bank loans amounting to 975,000,000 Romanian lei (approximately 114,895 US dollars).\n11.  By a judgment of 30 June 1998 the Tulcea County Court allowed the Delta Dunării Biosphere Reservation’s appeal against the judgment of 22 October 1997 on the merits and dismissed the applicant’s company’s action seeking the acknowledgment of its property rights over the 42,000 sq. m of land. On 30 June 1998 the applicant’s company lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) against that judgment.\n12.  By a final judgment of 30 November 1999 the Iaşi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s company’s appeal as ill-founded.\n13.  By a final judgment of 16 February 2004 the Braşov County Court allowed an action brought by the creditors of the applicant’s company and held that the applicant was personally liable for his company’s debt.\n14.  By a final judgment of 20 June 2005 the Braşov County Court declared the applicant’s company bankrupt and acknowledged the creditors’ request for the enforcement of the judgment of 16 February 2004.\n15.  On an unspecified date in 1996 the applicant brought criminal proceedings, together with civil claims, against third parties for the theft and destruction of private property following the alleged destruction and disappearance of huts at his company’s campsite.\n16.  On 19 July 1999 and 10 August 2004 the applicant was notified by the Tulcea Prosecutor’s Office that the criminal proceedings and civil claims had been dismissed on the ground that the campsite huts had been destroyed as a result of the applicant’s negligence and the powerful storms that had swept the area between 1995 and 1996. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against that decision before the domestic courts.\n17.  On an unspecified date the Tulcea Prosecutor’s Office brought criminal proceedings against E.M., the President of the Babadag District Court and the judge who had delivered the judgment of 22 October 1997 (see paragraph 9 above).\n18.  On 2 June 1998 E.M., brought criminal proceedings against the applicant for fraud, acting as an accessory to forgery, and using forged documents, on the ground that the applicant had fraudulently taken out bank loans on the basis of a court order that had not been final, and had mortgaged land which was public property and failed to repay the corresponding loans. The criminal proceedings opened against th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7516", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in La Porrosa (Chiclana de Segura, Jaén).\n6.  The applicant, the daughter of a Guinean father and a Spanish mother, was living at the time of her daughter G.'s birth, on 3 October 2001, within a mutually supporting extended family. The family unit comprised her grandmother, her great-uncle (her grandmother's brother, a lawyer by profession), and the applicant's other two children. Also living temporarily in the family home (two adjoining houses) were a Guinean priest and the godfather of two of the applicant's children. The property is situated on an olive-producing farm belonging to and run by the applicant's grandmother. The applicant is also regularly hired by the Government of the Autonomous Region of Andalusia as an agricultural worker, an activity which she combines with other farm work, particularly grape-picking in France.\n7.  In order to avoid having to take her two eldest sons to France with her, the applicant appointed her great-uncle to look after them until her return. The two children are officially under the guardianship of the Jaén provincial office and placed in the foster care of their mother's great‑uncle, within the extended family. The applicant has not objected to this situation, as the children live in practice with her and the remainder of the extended family on the farm.\n8.  On 23 August 2005 the applicant and her partner, accompanied by their minor daughter G., visited the social services department of the municipality of Motril (Granada) looking for “work, food and housing”. The same day – at the request of A.L.N., a social worker with the child protection services of the Granada provincial office for equality and social welfare (hereafter “the provincial office”), who had called the police because of the applicant's agitated state – child G., then aged three years and ten months, was taken away from her mother and placed in the Nuestra Señora del Pilar children's home in Granada. Her mother was taken to hospital on account of her nervous state following the separation from her daughter.\n9.  On 25 August 2005 the provincial office began the administrative procedure to have G. declared legally abandoned, and issued a provisional declaration to that effect. The decision cited, among other factors, the applicant's lack of funds (her state of extreme financial hardship), the child's situation and lack of hygiene, the fact that she was inappropriately dressed for the summer weather, her dry skin, marked with scars and scratches, and her anxiety about food. The provincial office assumed guardianship of the child, ordered her placement in the aforementioned children's home and informed the applicant that she could apply for legal aid if she wished to appeal against that decision to the first-instance judge.\n10.  On 26 August 2005 the applicant requested the Motril social services department to return her daughter to her. She also visited the department the following day and again on 30 August. The child protection services informed her that contact with her daughter would not be recommended until such time as the applicant began psychiatric treatment. The applicant claimed that the social workers had offered her money (see paragraph 16 below).\n11.  A report dated 29 August 2005 prepared by the Nuestra Señora del Pilar children's home stated that the child's “overall condition [was] acceptable”, noting simply that her skin was dry, with minor scars and cuts caused by scratc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7517", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Zalaegerszeg.\n6.  The applicant’s house is situated across the street from Zalaegerszeg Railway Station, in front of the starting position of trains. When about 1988 the Hungarian Railway Company (“MÁV”) replaced its steam engines with diesel ones, the noise level increased significantly.\n7.  On 22 October 1991 the applicant and his neighbours filed an action in trespass against MÁV, seeking that it be obliged to keep its noise emission under control by constructing a noise barrier wall, modernising the railway station, preheating the engines in another place and avoiding the use of certain engines. This action was later extended to include a compensation claim.\n8.  Between 7 February 1992 and January 1993 the proceedings were stayed upon the parties’ request. From 22 July 1994 to 27 November 1998 the proceedings were suspended upon the applicant’s request, pending his similar complaint before the National Public Health and Medical Officer Service.\n9.  In 1995 the applicant also complained to the Regional Environment Protection Authority about the noise disturbance. In remitted proceedings, on 27 August 1997 the Environment Protection Authority established the noise limits applicable to preheating trains. On 18 May 1998 it imposed a fine on MÁV for non-compliance with those limits. The noise did not decrease, therefore the applicant and his neighbours turned to the Public Prosecutor. On 4 May 2008 the Public Prosecutor initiated civil proceedings against MÁV. These proceedings were consolidated with the ones initiated by the applicant and his neighbours.\n10.  Relying on acoustic and engineering expert opinions, on 24 September 2004 the Zalaegerszeg District Court established the existence of sound pollution and ordered MÁV to finance the installation of soundproof doors and windows on the plaintiffs’ houses, but dismissed the remaining claims.\n11.  On appeal, the case was remitted to the first instance.\n12.  In the remitted proceedings, on 9 November 2005 the District Court delivered a partial judgment, maintaining that the noise level exceeded the limit value, prohibiting MÁV from making the excessive noise emission, and obliging it to construct a noise barrier wall.\n13.  On appeal, on 30 March 2006 the Zala County Regional Court dispensed with the obligation to build the protection wall, considering it unnecessary in addition to the prohibition on noise pollution. The Regional Court relied on section 101 (3) of the Act no. LIII of 1996 on the Protection of Nature (“Nature Protection Act”).\n14.   The partial judgment having become final, the first-instance proceedings continued with regard to the compensation claims. On 7 March 2008 the District Court ordered MÁV to pay the applicant 4,150,000 Hungarian forints[1] (HUF) in compensation for the loss of value of his house and HUF 445,000[2] for the costs of replacing the doors and windows.\n15.  On appeal, on 5 June 2008 the Regional Court partly reversed the judgment, dispensing with the award for the loss of value. It relied on a real estate expert opinion, according to which if MÁV complied with the partial judgment, the remaining noise would not reduce the market value of the house.\n16.  MÁV complied with its payment obligation without delay. In addition to that, between 2010 and 2012 several noise mitigating measures, investments and developments were implemented at Zalaegerszeg Railway Station, including reduction in the number of trai", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7518", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1975. He is currently detained in Rahova Prison.\n7.  By a final judgment of 28 September 2004 the Court of Cassation sentenced the applicant to twelve years’ imprisonment for human trafficking.\n8.  On 20 February 2008 the applicant was detained by the Bucharest Police Department after being returned from Turkey, where he had fled in 2002, and started serving his prison sentence.\n9.  In his initial letter addressed to the Court on 28 April 2009 the applicant expressly stated that his rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention had been breached in so far as, inter alia, he had been quartered (cazat) in Jilava Prison, a penitentiary notorious as a place of torture and physical and mental terror because of inhuman and degrading detention conditions. He further contended that his assertions had already been proved before the Court in the case of Bragadireanu v. Romania, no. 22088/04, 6 December 2007, and that they were supported by successive reports of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT).\n10.  The applicant was detained in Jilava Prison between 10 March and 25 September 2008, as well as between 2 October and 2 December 2008.\n11.  Between the second part of March and the first part of June 2008 the applicant was detained in cell no. 614 measuring 42.75 sq. m, which he shared with between 19 and 20 other inmates.\n12.  Between the second part of June and the first part of September 2008 the applicant was detained in cell no. 502 measuring 13.50 sq. m, which he shared with between 3 and 6 other inmates.\n13.  For the last two days of September 2008, as well as between the second part of November and the first day of December 2008, the applicant was detained in cell no. 611 measuring 42.39 sq. m. The occupancy rate of the cell was 5 inmates for the last two days of September 2008 and between 7 and 10 for the remainder of the period spent by the applicant in Jilava Prison.\n14.  In respect of the hygiene conditions, the Government submitted that every year the prison administration signed contracts for rodent and pest control with specialised companies. Disinfection of the detention rooms was carried out at least once every three months. Moreover, the quality of the drinking water was examined regularly by the prison administration with the aid of a specialised laboratory. Furthermore, the applicant had been provided with a special food diet approved by the prison doctor, which was prepared and served in accordance with the required hygiene conditions. The food was fresh and of good quality.\n15.  Since 2006 significant rehabilitation work had been carried out by the prison authorities. The heating network, the sewerage and the water supply systems had been repaired. Some sections of the prison and detention rooms had also been modernised.\n16.  On 23 September 2000 and 9 September 2002 the applicant was hospitalised in the psychiatric unit of the Săpunari Hospital and was diagnosed with organic personality syndrome. He was prescribed treatment for his condition.\n17.  On an unspecified date in 2006 the applicant was diagnosed with spinal disc hernia. The examining doctor recommended that the applicant undergo surgery.\n18.  Between 13 March and 2 December 2008 the applicant was subjected to several other medical examinations – both in prison and in civilian hospitals – that confirmed the above-mentioned diagnoses, and he was prescribed treatment with various medicines. The prison authorities p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7521", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Baku.\n6.  The applicant is a practising Muslim and attended a mosque, where he met A. Subsequently, A. was arrested by officers of the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) on suspicion of having had contact with Al-Qaeda in the past and being the leader of a group planning to carry out terrorist acts in Azerbaijan. The authorities considered the group to be religious fundamentalists (referred to as “adherents of Wahhabism”).\n7.  On 7 September 2004 the applicant was also arrested by the MNS officers, on suspicion of being associated with that group.\n8.  A search of his place of residence, carried out on the same day, did not reveal any incriminating evidence. However, a hand grenade was found in the flat of the applicant’s wife, which the MNS officers had also searched.\n9.  The applicant was charged with illegal possession of a weapon under Article 228.1 of the Criminal Code. In addition to the applicant, the criminal proceedings involved five other accused (including A.), all of whom were charged with more serious offences than the applicant. Four of them were charged with complicity in the preparation of terrorist acts.\n10.  On 10 September 2004 the applicant was brought before a judge, who ordered his detention pending trial.\n11.  The applicant was tried by the Assize Court, together with the other five accused. The trial was closed to the public. According to the applicant, before the Assize Court he argued that the hand grenade did not belong to him and that it had been “planted” in his wife’s flat by the MNS officers who, having tricked his wife, had gained access to the flat about 30 minutes before she, the applicant himself, and two passers-by who had been asked to witness the search, entered the flat.\n12.  On 7 February 2005 the Assize Court convicted the applicant of illegal possession of a weapon and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. The other accused were convicted of more serious criminal offences (terrorist activities) and received longer prison sentences, ranging from five to fourteen years’ imprisonment.\n13.  On 18 February 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment, requesting the Court of Appeal to quash the judgment in the part concerning him and to terminate the criminal case against him. He reiterated his allegations that the hand grenade had not belonged to him, that the case file did not contain any other evidence against him, and that he had not committed the criminal offence for which he had been convicted. He argued that, in circumstances where the discovery of the hand grenade in his wife’s flat was essentially the only incriminating evidence against him, the trial court had failed to take into account the unlawful manner in which the search had been conducted and to properly assess the admissibility and reliability of the evidence obtained as a result of the search. He also noted that the first-instance court had applied the most severe sentence provided for in Article 228.1 of the Criminal Code and had not taken into account his personal circumstances when imposing the sentence, such as, inter alia, the fact that he had to provide and care for his aged and ailing mother.\n14.  Some of the other defendants also lodged appeals.\n15.  At a preliminary hearing on 22 March 2005, held in the presence of the public prosecutor but in the absence of the defendants and their lawyers, the Court of Appeal fixed the date of the hearing on the meri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7522", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1962, 1962, 1967, 1969 and 1962 respectively and live in Budennovsk of the Stavropol Region.\nThe facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.\n5.  Three applicants, Mr Sosnovskiy, Mrs Yeliseyeva and Mr Anpilov, are acting military servicemen. Two applicants, Mrs Zelenkevich and Mr Zelenkevich, retired from the armed forces in 1998 and 1999 respectively.\nThe applicants, all acting military servicemen at the material time, were entitled to a special monthly allowance due to combatants.\n6.  On 25 April 2001 the applicants brought a civil action against their military unit requesting arrears of a special allowance.\n7.  On 19 September 2001 the Pyatigorsk Garrison Military Court of the North-Caucasian Command granted the applicants’ claims in part and awarded different sums to be calculated by the defendant at the moment of actual payment on the basis of applicants’ wages multiplied by their personal coefficient, including but not limited to 19,301.19 and 69,822.48 Russian roubles (RUB) to Mr Zelenkevich; RUB 24,092.98 to Mrs Zelenkevich; RUB 170,765 to Mr Sosnovskiy; RUB 103,246.40 to Mrs Yeliseyeva; RUB 50,947 to Mr Anpilov and taking into account the inflation index in the region on the day of actual payment.\n8.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 2 October 2001.\n9.  On 22 October 2001 the court issued writs of execution. The applicants forwarded them to the local branch of the State treasury. On 14 December 2001 the writs were returned to the applicants unexecuted. The Ministry of Finance explained that the debtor had no available funds which could have been used for paying off the judgment debts. The applicants were advised to address the writs of execution to the Ministry of Defence, which they did later.\n10.  On 11 April 2002 the President of the North-Caucasian Command Military Court brought a request for supervisory review of the judgment of 19 September 2001 and ordered to stay the enforcement proceedings.\n11.  On 11 June 2002 the Presidium of the North-Caucasian Command Military Court quashed by way of a supervisory review the judgment of 19 September 2001 because of misapplication of material law by the first‑instance court and remitted a case for a fresh examination to the first‑instance court.\n12.  On 21 November 2002 the Pyatigorsk Garrison Military Court dismissed the applicants’ claims in full.\n13.  On 8 January 2003, upon the applicants’ appeal, the North‑Caucasian Command Military Court upheld the judgment of 21 November 2002.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7523", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Goyty, Urus-Martan District, Chechnya.\n7.  The applicant is a widow, whose husband died in 1994. She lived with her son, Sayd-Salekh Ibragimov, born in 1990, who at the relevant time was in his second year of studies at the Grozny Oil Institute. The applicant also has a daughter. The family lived in the village of Goyty, Urus-Martan District, Chechnya. Their household at 117 Gonchayeva (previously Sovetskaya) Street consisted of three houses sharing a common courtyard. One house belonged to the applicant and her children, and the other two to her husband’s brothers. According to the applicant, one of them had left Chechnya with his family and in 2009 that house was uninhabited.\n8.  On 21 October 2009 the applicant was in Grozny. At about midday on that day she received a phone call from a relative, who told her that a special operation was taking place at their household and that soldiers were going to burn the house down. The applicant called her son, who was in Grozny, and told him not to come home but to stay at his uncle’s place.\n9.  In the meantime, the applicant and her brother-in-law Adnan I. went to Goyty by car. As soon as they arrived the car was surrounded by armed men in military uniforms, who they understood to be servicemen of the Ministry of the Interior. The servicemen showed them a body and told them that this man had been hiding in their household since the previous day, in the attic of Adnan I.’s house. The body was that of a young man, aged 17‑19, with long hair. His shirt was pulled up to the neck and his hands were raised behind the head; there was one wound in the heart area. Adnan I. then went to see his paralysed mother, who had been taken to the neighbours.\n10.  Police officers then took the applicant and her brother-in-law to the Urus-Martan district department of the interior (“the ROVD”) and questioned them. Both denied all knowledge of fighters’ presence in the attic of a house situated in their household.\n11.  The applicant and her brother-in-law were released at about 9 p.m. that day. They returned to Goyty and found that their houses had been burned down. Firefighters told them that the houses had been set on fire deliberately. Then the applicant’s brother-in-law returned to Grozny.\n12.  Adnan I.’s daughter M. later told her father that Sayd-Salekh Ibragimov had come to their home in Grozny at about 3 p.m. that day. Soon afterwards he had called a taxi and left, heading towards the city centre. M. told her father that a group of armed men had arrived at their house almost as soon as the applicant’s son had left and demanded that she tell them where he had gone or take them there. As M. did not know where he had gone, they left.\n13.  At about 10 p.m. on the same day Adnan I. received a call from the head of the Urus-Martan ROVD, who requested that he return to that office. When he arrived there three soldiers took him to Grozny in their car. He was taken to the office of Mr Sherip Delimkhanov, head of the external guards regiment of the Ministry of the Interior of Chechnya (полк милиции Управления Вневедомственной охраны МВД Чечни), also known as the “oil regiment”, as one of their main tasks was to secure oil pipes and installations.\n14.  Adnan I. was taken into a room where there were about a dozen members of the police force who had participated in the operation in Goyty earlier that day. They told Adnan I. that two police officers had been wounded and on", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7524", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1972 and 1976 respectively and live in Moscow.\n6.  The applicants are married and have three minor children. They are practising Muslims.\n7.  According to the applicants, in 2003 the first applicant started expressing an interest in the ideology of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a transnational Islamic organisation which is banned in Russia, Germany and some Central Asian republics. In 2004 the first applicant became a member of that organisation. According to the second applicant, she was influenced by Hizb ut-Tahrir’s ideas until 2006 and then “voluntarily rejected” them.\n8.  In 2003 the Tajikistani authorities arrested the first applicant after finding leaflets published by Hizb ut-Tahrir in an outhouse belonging to him. According to the first applicant, the leaflets were planted there. During his detention, the authorities allegedly beat him in an attempt to extract a confession from him concerning his involvement in Hizb ut-Tahrir’s activities. According to the first applicant, his left heel bone was broken as a result of those beatings.\n9.  Upon his release from detention, the first applicant went into hiding in Tajikistan and then, in 2005, he arrived and settled in Russia. The second applicant arrived in Russia with the children in 2006 and joined the first applicant.\n10.  On 4 January 2005 the Ministry of Security of the Republic of Tajikistan charged the first applicant with involvement in a criminal organisation (Article 187 § 2 of the Tajikistani Criminal Code), inciting racial, ethnic or religious hatred or hostility (Article 189 § 3 of the Tajikistani Criminal Code) and publicly calling for the overthrow of the political order or breach of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Tajikistan (Article 307 § 2 of the Tajikistani Criminal Code). The relevant decision stated, in particular, that the first applicant, being an active member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, had on numerous occasions disseminated extremist leaflets and literature for that organisation.\n11.  On the same date the Ministry of Security of the Republic of Tajikistan ordered the first applicant’s arrest and put his name on a wanted list.\n12.  On 21 February 2006 the prosecutor’s office for the Sogdiyskiy Region of Tajikistan (“the Sogdiyskiy prosecutor’s office”) instituted criminal proceedings against the second applicant on suspicion of her membership and active involvement in the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir.\n13.  On the same date she was charged under Article 307-3 § 8 of the Tajikistani Criminal Code with involvement in a banned extremist organisation, and her name was put on a wanted list.\n14.  On 23 February 2006 the Sogdiyskiy prosecutor’s office ordered the second applicant’s arrest.\n15.  On 18 April 2006 the second applicant was again placed on a wanted list.\n16.  On 21 April 2009 the first applicant applied to the Federal Migration Service for Russian nationality, having presented himself as Timur Muratovich Abdullayev, a national of Kyrgyzstan, and having submitted a passport and a birth certificate in the name of the latter. On 20 July 2009 his application was granted.\n17.  As later it became known to the migration authorities that the first applicant had used forged documents, they applied to the courts seeking to have this fact legally established.\n18.  On 5 April 2011 the Samarskiy District Court of Samara granted the application. The court noted, in particular, that when questioned as a witness in a criminal case, the first applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7525", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Vuzenica.\n5.  In 1994 the applicant began investing in commercial papers of the company Kompas Consulting d.d. via the company Kompas Maribor D.O.O. At the end of 1994 such trading was prohibited by the Securities Market Act however the applicant continued with the activity until 1996.\n6.  In 1996 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings against the company Kompas Maribor D.O.O. before the Maribor District Court seeking the payment of lost investments from Kompas Maribor for not informing her of the legislative amendments and continuing with the trading of commercial papers. She further complained before the domestic courts that as the company Kompas Consulting d.d. was bankrupt, she could only receive back a small proportion of her investments in bankruptcy proceedings.\n7.  On 14 October 1996 the Maribor District Court issued a writ of execution.\n8.  On 12 November 1996 following an objection the case was referred to contentious proceedings.\n9.  On 4 February 1998 the Maribor District Court rendered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s request. She appealed.\n10.  On 24 November 1998 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination. The second-instance court found that as the applicant had clarified that she was seeking compensation for damages only in the appeal phase, this constituted a new fact that the first-instance court would have to deliberate upon.\n11.  On 24 October 2001 the Maribor District Court rendered a judgment. The court found that given the contractual arrangements the company Kompas Maribor D.O.O. could not be held responsible for the damages sustained. The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 15 September 2004 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the first‑instance judgment and rejected the appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n13.  On 25 January 2007 the Supreme Court rejected her appeal. She lodged a constitutional appeal.\n14.  On 10 December 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected her appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7526", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and currently lives in Qatar. He was married to M. and they had a son, A., born in March 2003 in Bucharest, Romania.\n7.  Following A.’s birth, M. occasionally worked in Italy for short periods of time, in order to ensure an income for the family. In 2005, after M. had obtained a regular job, the applicant agreed for A. to travel to Italy with his mother. A formal notarial deed of 26 April 2005, submitted to the Court, states that Mr Anghel Aurelian, residing in Bucharest, gave his consent that his under-age son, Anghel A., born in March 2003, residing at the above-mentioned address, travel to the Republic of Moldova and Italy, in the course of the year 2005, accompanied by his mother, Anghel M. The applicant submitted that such agreement had only been given for a limited period of time in order to allow ongoing contact with M. The case file shows that M. challenged this statement, alleging that she had taken the child with her because of the adverse effect that living with his father was having on A.’s development.\n8.  In January 2006 the applicant travelled to Italy in order to bring A. back to Romania. He claimed that he had found the child living in very poor conditions. M. had resisted the applicant’s requests to take the child back to Romania or alternatively for all of them to move to Qatar, where he had found a job.\n9.  Once the applicant had returned to Romania, he filed a criminal complaint under Article 301 of the Romanian Criminal Code, alleging that his wife was detaining A. in Italy without his consent.\n10.  On an unspecified date, the applicant moved to Qatar. On 6 December 2006 he travelled to Italy to visit his son. He alleged that A.’s health and social conditions had worsened. On 13 December 2006 father and son travelled together to Romania. On 8 January 2007 M. joined them. On 15 January 2007 they all travelled to Moldova to pay a visit to M.’s family. On 20 January 2007, M. and A. “disappeared”. The applicant eventually found out that they had returned to Italy.\n11.  On 9 February 2007, the Romanian Prosecutor General’s Office decided not to institute criminal proceedings against M., as there was insufficient evidence to establish a punishable offence. The applicant contested the afore-mentioned decision on 28 December 2007. It appears that a district court dismissed the challenge as unfounded on 31 March 2008. The applicant filed an appeal with a higher court. No further information has been provided in relation to these proceedings.\n12.  On 2 April 2007 the applicant applied to the Minister of Justice, designated by Romania as the Central Authority responsible for discharging the duties imposed on Romania by the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”). He asked the Minister to assist him in securing the return of his son, whom the child’s mother had, he alleged, wrongfully removed to Italy on 20 January 2007.\n13.  Following the steps undertaken by the Romanian and Italian authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Hague Convention, the Bologna Prosecutor’s Office initiated return proceedings before the Bologna Youth Court (Tribunale per i minorenni).\n14.  On 18 June 2007 a hearing took place in the applicant’s presence.\nThe following appears from the hand-written procès-verbal submitted by the Government.\nFollowing statements by the applicant and M., the president of the court noted the existence ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7527", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Jelgava.\n6.  It appears that in an unrelated incident on 23 June 2000 the applicant broke his spine. He underwent surgery to have a metal implant inserted into his back for support. It appears that following the operation he could move unaided. He was certified as being Category 2 disabled.\n7.  On 17 December 2002 a note was made for the first time in the applicant’s medical records that he could not move without a wheelchair.\n8.  On 23 January 2003 the applicant was certified as being Category 1 disabled (the most severe level of disability). His disability was reassessed on two further occasions, 13 February 2004 and 22 February 2006.\n9.  On 10 September 2001 at approximately 3 p.m., two traffic police officers, E.Š. and O.Ž., attempted to stop the applicant, who had exceeded the speed limit in Rīga and appeared to be driving under the influence of alcohol. He failed to stop on their instructions and continued driving. The police officers set out to follow him out of the city onto the Rīga-Jelgava motorway. They eventually overtook the applicant’s car and pulled it over to the side of the road until it came to a halt. Both vehicles were by then next to an apartment building on a residential street in Jaunolaine.\n10.  According to the Government, both police officers then saw a firearm in the applicant’s inner left jacket pocket, and proceeded to push him to the ground using unspecified restraint techniques (speciālie cīņas paņēmieni) and handcuffed him. They then called the local police to the scene to collect evidence. The applicant was breathalysed on the spot and then taken to a police station in Olaine.\n11.  The applicant did not agree with the Government’s version of events concerning his possession of a firearm. He submitted that the police officers had kicked him in the back several times, hurting him badly, before finding out that he was disabled. He alleged that when he had invited them to verify his documents, which were in his wallet in his car, the officers had planted a firearm on him in an attempt to evade criminal liability for having assaulted a disabled person. The applicant denied having had the firearm. He maintained that if he had been keeping a firearm, he would have disposed of it during the car chase.\n12.  On 11 September 2001 the applicant was taken to a public hospital in Rīga (Rīgas 1. slimnīca), where an X-ray of his spine was carried out. His state of health was described as being “post-spinal fixation”. The fixing screws that held the metal implant supporting his spine in place had been broken. He also suffered from a spinal contusion and lower back pain. Lastly, it was noted that a consultation with a specialist was necessary.\n13.  On 11 September 2001 at 5.40 p.m., the applicant was transferred to a specialist traumatology and orthopaedics hospital in Rīga (Traumatoloğijas un ortopēdijas slimnīca). He told a specialist that the day before he had been fleeing from the police. Some officers had stopped him, had pulled him out of the car and had pushed him to the ground, which had led to his back making a hyperextensive movement, in other words, it had bent too far backwards. The applicant complained of lower back pain on his right side and said that he was unable to move his right leg because of the pain. Following an examination by a specialist, the applicant was diagnosed with the following: i) a hyperextension injury and contusion to the lower back; ii) a ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7528", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Bucharest. At the relevant time, she was a lawyer specialised in criminal matters, in the Bucharest Bar Association.\n6.  On 4 April 2000 the Anti-Corruption Department of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice (“the prosecutor’s office” or “the prosecutor”) authorised telephone tapping in respect of the applicant and her husband for a period of six months, running until 4 October 2000. The authorisation was granted at the request of the Romanian Intelligence Service (“the RIS”) under the National Security Act (Law no. 51/1991).\n7.  On 25 August 2000 the prosecutor’s office issued a new similar authorisation, under the National Security Act, granting interception of another of the applicant’s telephone lines, also until 4 October 2000.\n8.  On 11 September 2000 the RIS informed the prosecutor that the applicant had given bribes to several judges and prosecutors in order to obtain decisions favourable to her clients. It based the accusation on information obtained through the telephone tapping. Several conversations between the applicant and judge V.A. concerning cases of the applicant’s clients had been recorded between 7 and 14 June 2000.\nThe RIS handed over the audio tapes and their transcripts to the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor then continued the surveillance of the applicant’s activities, including through telephone tapping.\n9.  In its report, the RIS referred to G.D. as the applicant’s “intimate friend”, whereas other participants in the various conversations recorded are referred to simply as “friend”. Those syntagms were reproduced several times in the decision adopted by the first-instance court.\n10.  On 30 April 2001 the prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant (începerea urmăririi penale).\n11.  In the evening of 3 May 2001, as the applicant was returning home by car accompanied by T.C., a fellow lawyer, she was apprehended by the police and taken to the prosecutor’s office for questioning on charges of corruption.\n12.  The applicant was shown the RIS report of 11 September 2000 (see paragraph 8 above) and then questioned throughout the night. According to her, T.C. was not allowed to attend the actual questioning; he was allowed to see the applicant only afterwards, when she was writing a statement, which he then read and countersigned. In her statement the applicant confessed to the crimes and gave a detailed description of the facts. While the applicant was in the prosecutor’s office, T.C. completed a power of attorney document so that he could represent her in the event that she was taken into custody that night. The applicant did not sign that document.\n13.  The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the prosecutor in charge of the proceedings on the night of 3 May 2001, but on 2 September 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice decided not to prosecute. The applicant did not object to that decision before the courts.\n14.  On 4 May 2001 the applicant was hospitalised for panic attacks, impulsive personality disorders and stress induced by her workload. She left the hospital the next day, on her own initiative.\n15.  On 7 May 2001 the prosecutor ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial. However, she could not be arrested, as she had left the country. On 14 July 2001 the applicant was apprehended in Bulgaria. She was extradited at the prosecutor’s request.\n16.  On 6 June 2001 the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7529", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Munich.\n6.  On 17 March 1995 during an investigation undertaken by the tax authorities of Teleorman County, a contravention report was issued against the applicant, suspected of smuggling, and in particular, of having illegally imported into Romania agricultural equipment, which he subsequently used for illicit activities. The report indicated that the matter was to be brought before the prosecution.\n7.  Upon the same investigation, the authorities summoned the applicant to the local tax office on 22 March 1995 to provide clarifications in respect of a fake invoice allegation. On 21 March 1995 the applicant presented himself at the tax office and tried to persuade two tax commissioners not to issue a new report against him by offering them money. On the same day, the tax authority issued a new report on the offences of smuggling and active bribery, both of which were brought before the Public Prosecutor’s Office with the County Court of Teleorman.\n8.  On 21 March 1995 the applicant was remanded in detention.\n9.  On 12 April 1995 he was released under supervision.\n10.  On 11 August 1995 the applicant was brought to trial on charges of active bribery, smuggling and fraud-related offences in connection with the importation of agricultural equipment, the seizure of which was equally ordered.\n11.  From 1996 to 2000 the court listed at least nine hearings at intervals ranging from five to nine months for failure to properly summon the applicant at his residences in Germany and in Romania. Throughout the trial at first instance, the applicant’s legal representative or, in his absence, a court-appointed lawyer, were present at most of the hearings.\n12.  On 14 November 2000 based on contravention and in flagrante reports, customs papers, applicant’s statements and ten witness testimonies, the County Court of Teleorman found the applicant guilty of active bribery and smuggling and convicted him to a two-year deferred prison sentence. He was acquitted of charges of fraud-related offences. With regard to the offence of smuggling, the court applied a newly entered into force law (Law no. 141/1997 which amended the Law no. 30/1978, in force at the commission of the offence) and stated that the act of smuggling was incriminated in both laws, but the new one was more favourable in respect of penalty provisions. The seizure of the agricultural equipment was maintained in court.\n13.  On appeal, the Bucharest Court of Appeal listed a total of seven hearings of which four were adjourned in the attendance of documents and information from the Customs Office of Teleorman. Both the applicant and his legal representative were present at all court hearings.\n14.  On 20 December 2001 the court rejected the appeal and upheld the lower court’s judgment. The applicant appealed on points of law.\n15.  On 11 June 2003 the High Court of Cassation and Justice (the former Supreme Court of Justice) convicted the applicant to a two-year deferred prison sentence for smuggling charges. With regard to the active bribery charges, he was acquitted as the criminal liability had become time-barred. The judgment became final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7530", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a non-governmental organisation set up in 2003 and based in Belgrade. It monitors the implementation of transitional laws with a view to ensuring respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.\n6.  On 31 October 2005 the applicant requested the intelligence agency of Serbia (Bezbednosno-informativna agencija) to inform it how many people had been subjected to electronic surveillance by that agency in 2005.\n7.  On 4 November 2005 the agency refused the request, relying thereby on section 9(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2004.\n8.  On 17 November 2005 the applicant complained to the Information Commissioner (Poverenik za informacije od javnog značaja i zaštitu podataka о ličnosti – “the Commissioner”), a domestic body set up under the Freedom of Information Act 2004 to ensure the observance of that Act.\n9.  On 22 December 2005 the Commissioner found that the intelligence agency had breached the law and ordered that the information requested be made available to the applicant within three days. The agency appealed, but on 19 April 2006 the Supreme Court of Serbia held that it lacked standing and dismissed its appeal.\n10.  On 23 September 2008 the intelligence agency notified the applicant that it did not hold the information requested.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7531", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Rožňava.\n5.  On 19 February 2003 an individual (“the claimant”) filed a petition with a judicial enforcement officer (“JEO”) for the enforcement of the equivalent of some 1,315 euros (EUR) worth of an adjudicated claim against the applicant.\n6.  On 26 February 2003 the JEO requested authorisation to carry out the enforcement under file no. Ex 97/2003. The authorisation was granted by the Spišská Nová Ves District Court (“the Enforcement Court”) on 12 March 2003 under the file no. 1Er 279/03.\n7.  On 17 March 2003 the JEO issued a notice of enforcement (upovedomenie o začatí exekúcie), by which he notified the applicant that enforcement proceedings had commenced against him. The notice specified that amounts to be enforced comprised the above-mentioned principal amount, the equivalents of some EUR 20 in court fees, EUR 250 in the JEO’s remuneration and EUR 50 in the JEO’s expenses.\n8.  On 25 April 2003 the applicant challenged the notice of enforcement by way of a protest (námietky) to the Enforcement Court arguing that the principal amount had already been paid and disputing the claim for compensation in respect of the JEO’s remuneration and expenses.\n9.  On 30 April 2003 the claimant filed his observations in reply to the applicant’s protest and, on 5 May 2003, the JEO transmitted these observations to the Enforcement Court for determination of the protest.\n10.  On 14 June 2006 the Enforcement Court allowed the protest in part which concerned the principal amount and dismissed its remainder. That decision became final and binding on 8 July 2006, following which – on 21 July 2006 – the Enforcement Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings in so far as the principal amount was concerned. The latter decision became final and binding on 26 July 2006.\n11.  On 7 September 2006 the applicant lodged a petition that the remainder of the enforcement be discontinued too, which the Enforcement Court dismissed on 13 October 2006 by a decision that became final and binding on 28 November 2006.\n12.  On 27 December 2011, upon ultimate termination of the outstanding part of the enforcement proceedings, the JEO returned the authorisation deed to the Enforcement Court.\n13.  On 4 July 2006 the applicant filed a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution to the Constitutional Court. Relying on Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution, he contended that the length of the enforcement proceedings against him had been excessive.\n14.  On 15 March 2007 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on the ground that, prior to his constitutional complaint, the applicant had failed to exhaust ordinary remedies, in particular the complaint to the President of the Enforcement Court.\nThe Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 23 April 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7532", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 1975 respectively. The first applicant lives in Tirana, and the second applicant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Peqin High Security Prison (Albania).\n7.  On 11 January 2000 three people were shot dead and one was seriously wounded. The crime scene report indicated that various items, including two balaclavas and two pairs of gloves, were found at the crime scene. Hairs were found on one of the pairs of gloves. On the strength of a decision of the judicial police officer, those items were sent for biological examination to identify whether human hairs could be found on them.\n8.  On 22 January 2000 the expert’s biological report confirmed that 12 human hairs, which contained the bulb and were in good state, had been found on the balaclavas and on one of the pairs of gloves.\n9.  The prosecutor’s office decided to open a criminal investigation.\n10.  The first applicant was employed by the second applicant’s family-run business.\n11.  On 18 April 2000, following a search in his flat the previous day, the first applicant was arrested and charged with illegal possession of ammunition found in his flat.\n12.  On 19 April 2000 he was questioned by the prosecutor. The record, signed by the applicant, stated that the first applicant chose to represent himself. During questioning, the applicant affirmed that the ammunition had been in his flat since the civil unrest of 1997. As regards the crime of 11 January 2000, he made self-incriminating statements which also incriminated the second applicant. He was consequently charged with failing to report the crime of 11 January 2000.\n13.  According to the first applicant, he made those self-incriminating statements as a result of serious violence to which he was subjected by police officers on 19 April. He contended that he was not allowed to see a lawyer of his own choosing over the course of the following two weeks.\n14.  On 20 April 2000 the first applicant submitted that he had to be carried by police officers to the hearing room owing to the fragile state of his health and that he bore visible signs of ill-treatment on his face. On the same date the lawfulness of his arrest was confirmed by the Tirana District Court (“the District Court”). No time-limits were imposed on the length of his detention. The first applicant was defended by a court-appointed lawyer, although he alleged that he had appointed a lawyer of his own choosing. The record indicated that the court-appointed lawyer had drawn the court’s attention to signs of the applicant having been beaten. The record, in so far as relevant, read:\n“[the lawyer said]: My client does not accept the charge of failure to report the crime. He was beaten up in police custody and he still bears signs [of beating] (klienti im nuk e pranon akuzën e moskallzimit, është rrahur në polici ka edhe shenja).”\n15.  The first applicant appealed, seeking a change of the detention order imposed on him.\n16.  On 31 May and 14 July 2000 respectively the Tirana Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) and the Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s decision of 20 April 2000, finding that the first applicant’s detention was based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question.\n17.  On 11 April 2000 the prosecutor issued an arrest warrant under Article 76 of the Criminal Code (“CC”) in respect of the second applicant on suspicion of having committed the crime of 11 January 2000.\n18.  On 18 April ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7533", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Trnava.\n5.  The present case concerns claims asserted by the applicant on the basis of his employment under a contract of 1980, amended as of 1982, and terminated by notice of his employer in 1997. This employment gave rise to three sets of proceedings, two of which are relevant for the present case.\n6.  The proceedings directly concerned by the present application are those in the applicant’s action of 2005 (see paragraphs 7 et seq. below). The proceedings concerned indirectly are those in his action of 1998 (see paragraph 9 below).\n7.  On 1 February 2005 the applicant lodged an action with the Trnava District Court (file no. 26C 9/2005) arguing that in the period from the amendment of his employment contract of 1982 until the notice of 1997 he had been paid under a wrong salary grade. Accordingly, he sought an order for payment of the equivalent of some 75.850 euros (EUR) by way of compensation.\n8.  On 7 February 2005 the applicant extended his action in that he also sought a ruling declaring the 1982 amendment to his employment contract valid and still in force.\n9.  The applicant subsequently requested that the proceedings in his action of 2005 be joined with the proceedings in his action of 1998, in which he was contesting the notice of 1997.\n10.  On 15 November 2006 the Trnava District Court discontinued the proceedings in the action of 2005 but the decision was quashed by the Trnava Regional Court on 28 September 2007, following the applicant’s appeal.\n11.  As a consequence of the reorganisation of the judiciary as from 1 January 2008, the action of 2005 was transferred to Piešťany District Court (file no. 5C 28/2008).\n12.  On 23 March 2010 the applicant made a submission aimed at further specifying the subject-matter of his 2005 action.\n13.  On 8 June 2010 the Piešťany District Court dismissed the 2005 action because the applicant’s financial claims were statute‑barred and he had failed to demonstrate a pressing legal interest in having the declaratory ruling made. However, this judgment was quashed by the Regional Court on 31 January 2012, following the applicant’s appeal, on the ground that the first‑instance court had failed to take any decision in respect of the applicant’s submission of 23 March 2010.\n14.  On 3 December 2012 the Piešťany District Court allowed the extension of the applicant’s 2005 action as sought in his submission of 23 March 2010 and, on 26 February 2013, it dismissed the amended 2005 action. It found that the applicant’s financial claims were partly statute‑barred and partly unfounded and that, in any event, his employment had been effectively terminated by operation of the notice of 1997.\n15.  The applicant appealed and his appeal is still pending.\n16.  The applicant made several complaints to the administration of courts about the length of the proceedings in his action of 2005, all to no avail.\n17.  On 15 November 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court contesting the length of the proceedings in his 2005 action before the Trnava District Court.\n18.  On 30 November 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill‑founded. It concluded that, despite certain delays in the proceedings, their length had not reached a level incompatible with the reasonable-time requirement.\n19.  On 23 September 2009 the applicant resorted to the Constitutional Court again", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7534", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Bucharest. At the relevant time, he was a judge inspector at the Bucharest Court of Appeal.\n7.  On 11 September 2000 the Romanian Intelligence Service (“the RIS”) informed the Anti-Corruption Department of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice (“the prosecutor”) that the lawyer L.P. (the applicant in case no. 25333/03) had given bribes to several judges, including the applicant, in order to obtain decisions favourable to her clients. It based the accusation on information obtained through intercepting L.P.’s telephone, measure taken because one of her clients was suspected of crimes against national security. The surveillance activity was carried out under the National Security Act (Law no. 51/1991). The RIS handed the audio tapes and their transcripts over to the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor then continued the surveillance of the applicant’s activities, including through telephone tapping. Several conversations between L.P. and the applicant, concerning cases of L.P.’s clients, were recorded between 7 and 14 June 2000.\n8.  On 22 March 2001 the prosecutor obtained the Ministry of Justice’s approval to start criminal investigations in respect of the judges involved that is the applicant and R.F. On 4 May 2001 he started criminal proceedings against the applicant (începerea urmăririi penale).\n9.  On 7 May 2001 the prosecutor invited the applicant to his office, informed him of the accusations against him and arrested him.\n10.  Under Law no. 92/1992 on the organisation of justice, the applicant was suspended from his post from 7 May 2001.\n11.  On 21 May 2001 the applicant was released pending trial.\n12.  Throughout the proceedings, the applicant denied having committed the crimes.\n13.  On 12 December 2001 the prosecutor indicted the applicant for trading in influence (trafic de influenţă), for aiding and abetting to give bribes (complicitate la darea de mită) and for favouring the commission of crimes, and committed him and several other persons to trial. In particular, the prosecutor accused him of accepting money from L.P. on several occasions in order to convince the judges who were deciding on the cases concerning L.P.’s clients to release them pending trial and of acting upon his promises by trying to persuade some of those judges to release L.P.’s clients.\n14.  The case was heard by the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice.\n15.  On 31 January the Supreme Court heard testimony from each defendant separately and the relevant parts of the audio tapes were played in their presence. None of them denied having had the recorded conversations.\n16.  The applicant again denied having committed any crime. He explained that his discussions with L.P., which had been recorded through secret surveillance, as well as those he had had with his fellow judges about the cases referred to by L.P., had concerned only questions of law. He maintained that he had not accepted any money or promise of money from L.P. He reiterated that in his capacity as judge inspector, he was entitled to discuss questions of law with his colleagues.\n17.  L.P. and R.F. also denied committing any crime.\n18.  At the same hearing on 31 January 2002, the co-defendants alleged that there were procedural defects. They argued that as the prosecutor had failed to request the necessary authorisation for intercepting magistrates’ conversations, the audio recordings were illegal.\nThe court gav", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7536", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lived, before his arrest, in the town of Taganrog in the Rostov Region.\n6.  In June 1998 the Taganrog town police (“the Town Police”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of fraud, fraudulent obtaining of loans, misuse of official position and forgery.\n7.  By a judgment of 22 March 2000 the Taganrog Town Court (“the Town Court”), composed of Judge U. and lay judges Kh. and R., established that in 1997 the applicant, as the manager of a municipal enterprise, had violated various licensing regulations and submitted false information when applying for a loan. The court convicted the applicant of fraud and acquiring a loan on the basis of false information and sentenced him to five years and six months’ conditional imprisonment, with three years’ probation. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. The applicant remained at liberty.\n8.  On 4 December 2001 the Town Police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of a further episode of aggravated fraud against D., committed by the applicant in concert with B. The applicant and B. both remained at large under an undertaking not to leave their town of residence.\n9.  On an unspecified date the case was sent for trial by the Town Court.\n(a)  The detention order of 15 April 2002\n10.  On 15 April 2002 the Town Court, composed of judge Dz. and lay judges V. and Sh., remanded the applicant and his co-accused in custody. The remand order, in so far as relevant, read as follows:\n“... The accused B. and [the applicant] have been charged with deceitfully acquiring from D. 20,000 United States dollars ... They denied the charges in court.\nMoreover, [the applicant] insulted the victim, calling him a “stinker”; [the applicant’s] conduct was threatening. The prosecutor has applied for his remand in custody. The [c]ourt considers the application well-founded.\nDetention should be chosen as a preventive measure in respect of [the applicant], as well as B., because, if at large, they could influence the course of the proceedings and the witnesses, including [illegible] the victim.”\n11.  The applicant did not appeal against the order.\n(b)  Conviction\n12.  By a judgment of 16 April 2002 the Town Court, with Judge Dz. presiding, assisted by lay judges V. and Sh., found the applicant guilty of fraud committed in concert with B. against D. in August-September 2001. Taking into account the applicant’s previous conviction and the fact that he had committed the crime while on probation, the court imposed on him an aggregate sentence of six years’ imprisonment.\n13.  On 4 June 2002 the Rostov Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the conviction on appeal.\n14.  On 4 September 2003 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court (“the Presidium Court”) set aside the judgment of 22 March 2000 by way of supervisory review on the ground that lay judges Kh. and R. had unlawfully participated in the examination of the applicant’s case. The case was remitted to the first-instance court for a fresh examination.\n15.  On 17 September 2003 the applicant lodged with the Presidium Court an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 16 April 2002, as upheld on appeal, as well as of the detention order of 15 April 2002.\n16.  On 20 November 2003 the Presidium Court set aside the judgment of 16 April 2002, as upheld on appeal, and remitted the case to the first‑instance court for a fresh examination. The issue was exam", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7537", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In January 2008, investigators from the French Central Office for the Prevention of Drug-Trafficking (OCRTIS), a body attached to the Central Police Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior, noticed that a number of Greek nationals suspected of drug-trafficking were passing through Roissy Airport on their way to West Africa, including Z., who had been convicted of similar offences in the past and was being monitored. OCRTIS was subsequently informed that Z. had chartered a vessel, the Junior, which was generally used for coastal shipping along the ports in the region, and that this ship had been using a sea lane identified as being that habitually followed by drug traffickers. Furthermore, the United States Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) had been monitoring the Junior for several months. OCRTIS requested the assistance of the French Navy after having consulted the Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre – Narcotics.\n6.  At 1.30 p.m. on 7 February 2008 a French Navy vessel, the helicopter carrier Tonnerre, intercepted the Junior. A press release from the Maritime Prefect for the Atlantic seaboard, entitled “Interception of a boat transporting drugs off Africa”, gave the following account of the operation:\n“On 7 February, on orders from the Maritime Prefect for the Atlantic seaboard, the projection and command vessel Tonnerre, which is responsible for ensuring a permanent French Navy presence along the West African coast, intercepted a ship suspected of engaging in drug-trafficking.\nThe Tonnerre had been reinforced for this operation with a Navy patrol team. The operation was carried out on the basis of intelligence from and at the request of OCRTIS (the French Central Office for the Prevention of Drug-Trafficking), by agreement with the Maritime Analysis Operation Centre – Narcotics (MAOC-N).\nThe intercepted vessel is a 47-metre-long, 480-tonne RORO cargo ship flying the Panamanian flag.\nFollowing a transfer by French Navy “marine patrol aircraft”, the interception was carried out approximately 300 km to the south-west of Conakry (Guinea). During the operation the crew, made up of nine sailors of various nationalities, threw a suspect package overboard, which the Tonnerre boats managed to retrieve. The package contained bundles of narcotic substances to a total weight of 3.2 tonnes, subsequently identified as cocaine.\nThe intercepted vessel is currently under the supervision of the crew of the Tonnerre. The operation was conducted in agreement with the Panamanian authorities. The French diplomatic services are maintaining contact with these authorities with a view to preparing judicial proceedings in this case.”\n7.  After the intervention of the Navy team, the ship’s nine crew members were mustered on deck by the French marines, who verified their identities and inspected the vessel.\n8.  At 1.07 a.m. on 8 February 2008 the commander of the Tonnerre received a telegram from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs informing him that the Panamanian authorities had acknowledged that the Junior was indeed sailing under their flag and recording their agreement to its boarding and inspection. The French Navy then carried out searches and seizures.\n9.  On 9 February 2008 the Panamanian Ministry of External Relations sent the French Embassy a fax confirming authorisation to board and inspect the vessel, and also agreeing to transfer jurisdiction for the case to France.\n10.  At 11.10 a.m. on 10 February 2008 the ship was diverted to Brest. In", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7538", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In October 2004 Judge Z. instituted proceedings in the Leninskyy District Court (Kirovograd) against the applicant company. He complained that his electricity had been cut off for unpaid bills, although he was entitled to a 50% reduction in electricity payments in accordance with section 44 of the Status of Judges Act and owed nothing.\n6.  On 26 October 2004 the court found that Judge Z. was entitled to the reduction in question, ordered the applicant company to reconnect his apartment to the electricity network, to cancel his debt (668.93 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (at the material time around 95.67 euros (EUR)) and to pay Judge Z. UAH 1,000 (at the material time around EUR 143) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It was not indicated what period the debt covered.\n7.  On 9 March 2005 the Cherkassy Regional Court of Appeal upheld this judgment. It held, inter alia, that by cutting off the electricity in Judge Z.’s apartment the applicant company had breached “the judge’s immunity and inviolability of his residence” and that judges’ privileges should not depend on availability of “budget financing”.\n8.  On 28 December 2006 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected the applicant company’s appeal on points of law. This decision was taken in the applicant company’s representative’s absence and, according to the applicant company, was sent to it on 25 January 2007. On 8 February 2007 the applicant company appealed against the decision of 28 December 2006 under the extraordinary review procedure, but its appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 16 April 2007.\n9.  On 18 November 2005 the applicant company instituted proceedings in the Kyiv City Commercial Court against the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal and the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine, claiming the amount allegedly unpaid by Judge Z. and reimbursement of the compensation awarded to Judge Z. and paid by the applicant company on 26 October 2004. The applicant company referred to section 17 of the Electric Power Industry Act, and stated that it followed from the law in force that it was for the State to cover the electricity payments, from which the judges were exempted.\n10.  The applicant company further referred to decision No. 426 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 31 March 2003 “On adoption of the Regulation on provision of privileges, compensation and guarantees to employees of the budget entities and to military personnel”, in which, according to the claimant, a mechanism for provision of the said privileges was created. In particular, the regulation provided that the reimbursement of expenses relating to an employee’s exemption from various payments should be covered by the budget-funded institution which employed him/her.. Therefore, the applicant company stated that the Kirovograd Regional Court of Appeal had failed to comply with its obligation to cover the remaining part of Judge Z.’s electricity expenses.\n11.  On 21 April 2006 the court found against the applicant company. It stated, inter alia, that:\n“The claimant’s reference to the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers no. 426 is irrelevant for the following reasons.\nPart 3 of the Regulation provides that expenses for reimbursement of costs for reduced payments are to be covered at the expense of and within the limits of budget allocations to budget entities.\nPart 5 of the Regulation provides that the person entitled to reduction should provide the copies of his receipted bills for commu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7544", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and manslaughter and remanded in custody pending investigation and trial.\n7.  On 29 November 2001 the Orekhovo-Zueyvo Town Court, located in the Moscow Region, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. According to the Government, on 3 March 2004 the applicant’s sentence was reduced to eleven years and seven months’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 6 December 2000 the applicant was placed in remand prison no. IZ-49/7 in Yegorievsk, Moscow Region, where he was held until June 2001. According to the applicant, he was detained in overcrowded cells where the inmates had to take turns to sleep. They were not provided with bed sheets or crockery. The cells were infested with insects and mice. The food was of a low quality.\n9.  In June 2001 the applicant was held for sixteen days at remand prison no. IZ-50/7 in Moscow. He was placed in cell no. 7. It housed 100 detainees and was equipped with twenty-eight sleeping places. He was then transferred to transit prison no. IK-18 in the Republic of Mordoviya, where he was diagnosed with tuberculosis. The hospital where the applicant was admitted was, according to him, overcrowded and the quality of the food there was inadequate.\n10.  In July 2001 the applicant was transferred to medical colony ZhKh 385/3 in the Republic of Mordoviya. He submitted that the treatment he received there was irregular.\n11.  On 10 January 2002 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no. IK-17 in the Republic of Mordoviya. The applicant submitted that the heating had been insufficient, that there had been no lavatory in the building and that the personal space available to the applicant in the dormitory had been below two sq. m. He had been allowed to take a shower once a week. There had been a tap with cold water and a tap with hot water. The applicant had to use a bucket to mix the water to wash himself.\n12.  In January-March 2004 the applicant was held at remand prison no. IZ-50/7 in Moscow. According to the applicant, he was detained in satisfactory conditions and received adequate medical assistance.\n13.  Following the supervisory review of the applicant’s conviction, he was sent to serve a prison sentence in correctional colony no. IK-1 in Tambov, where he was held from 12 April 2004 to 29 December 2009.\n(a)  General conditions of the applicant’s detention at the colony\n(i)  The description provided by the applicant\n14.  The applicant was placed in a building with two dormitories. The dormitory he was assigned to measured 104 sq. m. He shared it with sixty‑one other inmates. Most of the space in the dormitory was taken up by two-tier bunk beds placed close to the windows, which prevented natural light and fresh air from coming into the dormitory. The dormitory was always humid and stuffy. There was one lavatory in the building. The individual toilets were separated by twenty-centimetre high partitions and offered no privacy. The applicant, who suffered from haemorrhoids, had to apply medication, such as suppositories, in plain view of other inmates. The lavatory and the washroom were dirty and humid at all times. The bed sheets provided by the colony were made of a gauze-like fabric normally used for wood finishing and caused skin irritations and itching. The inmates were allowed to take a shower once a week. The water in the showers was luk", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7546", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is serving a prison sentence in Kemerovo Region.\n6.  On 5 December 2004 Ch. complained that a group of men had tried to extort 7,000,000 Russian roubles from him. On the same date the prosecutor’s office opened an investigation in respect of S. and four other unidentified persons.\n7.  Following the applicant’s failure to appear for questioning, on 14 January 2005 the prosecutor put his name on the wanted persons’ list.\n8.  On 29 January 2005 the applicant was arrested on a train going to Moscow. He was, inter alia, suspected of having participated in the attempt of extortion.\n9.  On 31 January 2005 the Naberezhniye Chelny Town Court remanded the applicant in custody pending investigation. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“[The applicant] is suspected of having committed a crime which entails a custodial sentence exceeding two years, and the court considers that there are sufficient grounds to believe that, if released, he may abscond, given that he is not domiciled in Naberezhniye Chelny, that he was apprehended after his name had been put on the wanted persons’ list, that he may threaten the witnesses and other parties to the criminal proceedings, and that he may destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. [He] might continue his criminal activities, since the crime he is suspected of was committed before the period of the suspended sentence imposed on him earlier had expired. This fact is confirmation that [the applicant] persistently engages in unlawful behaviour.”\n10.  On 11 February 2005 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan upheld the decision of 31 January 2005 on appeal.\n11.  On 25 March 2005 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 29 April 2005. The court noted as follows:\n“According to the court order of 31 January 3005, [the applicant], if released, may abscond (he was apprehended after his name had been put on the wanted persons’ list), threaten witnesses, destroy evidence or continue criminal activities.\nTo date the above circumstances have not changed. [The applicant] is charged with a particularly serious criminal offence.\nUnder such circumstances ... [the applicant’s] detention should be extended ...”\n12.  On 15 April 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 25 March 2005 on appeal.\n13.  On 26 April 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 29 July 2005. The court noted, in particular, as follows:\n“... [the applicant] is charged with a particularly serious criminal offence which entails a custodial sentence exceeding two years. This case is of extreme complexity. The circumstances underlying the court’s decision to remand the applicant in custody still remain ... [The applicant] may abscond or commit new crimes.”\n14.  On 10 June 2005 the Supreme Court upheld the decision of 26 April 2005 on appeal.\n15.  On 22 June 2005 the applicant was formally charged with participation in the attempt of extortion, membership of a criminal gang and illegal possession of firearms.\n16.  On 13 July and 19 October 2005 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 October 2005 and 29 January 2006 respectively. In both decisions the court noted as follows:\n“... [the applicant] is charged with particularly serious criminal offences which are a danger to public order and entail a custodial sentence exceeding two years. The present criminal case is of high complexity. The circumstances underlying th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7548", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Nizhnevartovsk.\n6.  The applicant stood accused of the charge of false denunciation. He gave an undertaking to appear.\n7.  On 3 April 2006 he was due to appear at a preliminary hearing before the Aleksandrovskiy District Court of the Tomsk Region. At 9.30 a.m. he called the District Court’s registry and informed it that he would only be available later in the day because both he and his counsel were involved in concurrent civil proceedings that morning.\n8.  At 2 p.m. the District Court, sitting in a single-judge formation composed of Judge K., proceeded with the hearing in the applicant’s absence. The prosecutor asked the court that the applicant be remanded in custody because he had not shown up at the hearing.\n9.  The District Court granted the prosecutor’s request, finding as follows:\n“The hearing was fixed for 12 a.m. on 3 April 2006, of which the defendant Abashev and counsel Fedoseyeva had been notified in advance, on 6 March 2006, on the court’s premises.\nHowever, the defendant Abashev did not appear at the hearing fixed for 12 a.m. on 3 April 2006. By a telephone message received at 9.25 a.m. on that day, he informed the court that his counsel Fedoseyeva was engaged in other proceedings; however, Abashev did not explain the reasons for his failure to appear or produce evidence showing that he had valid reasons for being absent. Nor did he ask that the court examine the charges in his absence.\nUnder these circumstances, there is every reason to believe that the defendant Abashev has fled from justice. Accordingly, it is necessary to vary the preventive measure from the undertaking to appear to a custodial measure.\nIn accordance with Article 99 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court takes into account the following elements: the defendant Abashev is charged with a minor offence; he has no criminal record; he is married and has a small child who lives in the town of Strezhevoy; according to him, he is unemployed; his health condition is unsatisfactory but does not prevent him from taking part in the trial.\nNevertheless, under these circumstances there is no reason to maintain the initial preventive measure and only a custodial measure would be appropriate for the defendant Abashev.”\n10.  At 4 p.m. on the same day the applicant was taken into custody and placed in the temporary detention centre on the premises of the Aleksandrovskiy district police station. He started a hunger strike in protest. Counsel for the applicant filed an appeal against the detention order; she alleged that Judge K. had been biased against the applicant and that the detention order had not been justified.\n11.  On 18 May 2006 the Tomsk Regional Court examined and rejected the appeal. Noting that the District Court judge had “attempted to establish Mr Abashev’s whereabouts and the reasons for his failure to appear”, it held that the judge had “reasonably arrived at the conclusion that the defendant had absconded”.\n12.  In the meantime, on 14 April 2006 the Aleksandrovskiy District Court held that the applicant would be released if he paid bail of 50,000 Russian roubles (approximately 1,500 euros at the material time). Being unable immediately to pay the bail, the applicant remained in custody until 21 April 2006 when his counsel paid the required amount and the applicant was released.\n13.  On 29 May 2006 the Tomsk Regional Court quashed the bail decision of 14 April 2006, finding as follows:\n“It follows fro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7549", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969.\n6.  At 7.18 a.m. on 9 June 2006 the State police in Rīga received a telephone call from R.H. who reported that two men had broken into his apartment in Rīga and attacked him with an axe. The alleged victim had escaped but his girlfriend, O.A., was still in the apartment and was allegedly under threat. According to reports drawn up by police officers K.H. and V.O. on the same date, four police officers (V.O., D.V., M.S., J.S.) from the “Alfa” special operations unit (Speciālo uzdevumu vienība “Alfa”) and two police officers (K.H. and I.G.) from the Rīga Main police station (First Division), went immediately to the address given. Next to the building they met R.H., who was bleeding. He guided the police officers to the apartment, where they saw a naked woman and two men. One of the men (the applicant) attempted to escape, so the police had to use a special combat technique to put him on the ground. The applicant did not calm down and was therefore handcuffed. Both men, as well as the alleged victims, R.H. and O.A., were taken to the Rīga Main police station (First Division). The applicant was searched and the police officers found narcotic substances on him.\n7.  According to the applicant, on 9 June 2006 he was in an apartment in Rīga visiting acquaintances and consuming alcohol, when suddenly five or six police officers arrived. They handcuffed and searched the applicant, and punched him a number of times in the head and body. The applicant was then dragged to a police car and taken to a police station. After an altercation with the police officers, the applicant was wrestled to the ground. The police officers kicked him; one of them jumped on him while he was on the ground, and another pulled open the applicant’s eye and hit him in the eyeball. The ill-treatment lasted for about half an hour, during which the applicant lost consciousness several times. Afterwards he was put in a pre‑trial detention cell where he asked for medical assistance. Only after repeated requests was he admitted to hospital.\n8.  The record of the applicant’s arrest under article 46 of the Administrative Offences Code, drawn up at 8 a.m. on 9 June 2006 by police officer O.K., stated that the applicant had bruises on his arms and wounds to the left eyebrow and right cheek. It noted that during the search of the applicant the police had seized, among other things, a firearm-like object and a plastic bag containing a transparent substance. According to the report, the applicant was released at 4.30 p.m. on the same day and subsequently arrested under section 264 of the Law of Criminal Procedure. The arrest report indicated that the applicant had had a swollen eye and had been under the influence of drugs.\n9.  According to medical records, at around 1 p.m. on 9 June 2006 the applicant was examined at the State Drug and Alcohol Abuse Agency where it was confirmed that there were traces of narcotic substances in his body. At about 10 p.m. the same day the applicant was admitted to Rīga Hospital No. 1. He complained of a headache and pain in the left part of the chest. An X-ray was taken and he was diagnosed with bruising on the head and chest.\n10.  On 11 June 2006 the Rīga City Latgale District Court remanded the applicant in custody.\n11.  On 12 June 2006 the applicant was admitted to the Latvian Prison hospital (Latvijas Cietuma slimnīca), where the results of an X-ray examination carried out on 13 and 19 June 2006 established that h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7550", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Szolnok. When introducing the application, he was detained at Állampuszta Prison.\n6.  On 19 September 2006 the applicant was detained on charges of robbery and other offences. On 28 October 2009 he was finally convicted and sentenced to six years and eight months’ imprisonment.\n7.  Between 19 September 2006 and 23 October 2008 he was held in pre-trial detention at Szolnok Prison (Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Büntetés-végrehajtási Intézet) in cells with ground surfaces ranging from 6.33 to 7.25 m2 for four inmates (that is, approximately 1.7 m2 per person on average).\nThe applicant stated that he could leave the cell for only one hour daily and submitted corroborating statements to that effect from two fellow inmates.\nThe Government submitted that, during almost one year and nine months out of this period, the applicant was allowed to spend three hours daily outside his cell and another hour outdoors.\nUnder section 239(2) of Decree no. 6/1996. (VII.12.) IM of the Minister of Justice, it is at the prison governor’s discretion whether or not to keep open during the day the doors of cells accommodating those in pre-trial detention.\n8.  After a short stay at Tököl Prison Hospital, the applicant was moved to Állampuszta Prison. Between 3 November 2008 and 23 July 2009 he was detained in cells whose ground surfaces were 24 m2 for ten inmates (according to the applicant; that is, 2.4 m2 per person) or 30.24 m2 for fourteen inmates (according to the Government; that is, 2.16 m2 per person). The inmates were free to leave their cells during the day.\n9.  Between 24 July and 21 December 2009 the applicant was held at Tiszalök Prison in good conditions.\n10.  Between 21 December 2009 and 10 September 2010 he was held at Budapest Prison (Budapesti Fegyház és Börtön) in a 25 m2 cell for ten inmates (that is, 2.5 m2 per person). He could freely move within the block during the day.\n11.  After a short stay at Fővárosi Büntetés-végrehajtási Intézet, the applicant was returned to Állampuszta Prison on 20 September 2010, where he has stayed ever since.\nFrom 1 October 2010 on, he has been accommodated in a 30.24 m2 cell with ten other inmates (that is, 2.75 m2 per person). He can move around freely in the block during the day.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7551", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1963, 1965, 1947, 1952 and 1946 respectively. The first and second applicants live in İzmir, the third and fourth applicants live in Mardin and the fifth applicant lives in Diyarbakır.\n6.  The facts of the case as submitted by the parties, and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  Gülbahar Özer is the mother of Sibel Sartık, Yusuf Özer is the father of Nergiz Özer, Halil Esen is the father of Zerga Esen, Hüseyin Esen is the father of Zühal Esen, and Abdurrahman Çınar is the father of Hamdullah Çınar.\n8.  Sibel Sartık, who was 24, and her cousin Nergiz Özer, who was 15, were living in İzmir and working as a singer and a textile worker respectively. On 17 December 2004 they left their homes in İzmir. Sibel Sartık told her family that she was going to visit her three children who were living with her ex-husband in the city of Siirt.\n9.  Zühal Esen and Zerga Esen were 16 and 13 years old respectively and were working on farms in Manisa. On 20 December 2004 they left their homes and told their families that they were going shopping.\n10.  Hamdullah Çınar was 22 years old and was working on a building site in Ankara. The last time his family heard from him was towards the end of December 2004.\n11.  On 19 January 2005 Sibel, Nergiz, Zuhal, Zerga and Hamdullah were killed by soldiers in a place one and a half kilometres to the north of a small village in south-east Turkey.\n12.  According to a report prepared on 20 January 2005 by twenty-six soldiers who had taken part in the incident, at about 6.00 p.m. on 19 January 2005 special police teams who had observed with their night vision cameras nine or ten persons in an area near Cudi mountain, informed the military about the presence of the group.\n13.  A number of units of soldiers were then dispatched to the area at 6.30 p.m. where they came under fire from members of the group. The soldiers retreated to a safer area and issued verbal warnings, in Turkish and Kurdish, and asked members of the group to surrender. When their calls for surrender were rejected and they came under more fire, the soldiers blocked all exit routes and opened mortar fire on those who tried to run away. Both sides also threw hand grenades at each other during the clash.\n14.  The following morning the soldiers found the bodies of the applicants’ five children and a number of weapons and food stocks near to them. There were no other casualties and none of the soldiers suffered any injuries. On arrival of a different unit of soldiers responsible for crime scene investigations, the soldiers who had taken part in the operation left the area.\n15.  Soldiers responsible for crime scene investigations photographed the bodies and the weapons next to the bodies, and drew up sketches showing the position of the bodies. It was stated in a report drawn up by the investigating soldiers that, “as it was raining the weapons [found next to the bodies] were wet and muddy and [the investigators] have thus been unable to carry out fingerprint analysis on the weapons”. Five automatic rifles found next to the bodies, together with a number of spent bullet cartridges found in the area, were taken away as evidence.\n16.  With the help of a number of villagers brought to the area by soldiers from the nearby village, the bodies of the applicants’ children were brought to the Şırnak State Hospital where they were examined by a doctor and a prosecutor at midday on 20 Januar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7552", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 in Baku, Azerbaijan, and is currently serving a life sentence in Gobustan Prison.\n6.  On 18 July 1997 the Baku City Court convicted the applicant of complicity in two counts of murder and complicity in arson and sentenced him to death and confiscation of property. On 19 August 1997 the Supreme Court upheld this judgment.\n7.  Following the conviction, the applicant was transferred to the 5th wing of Bayil Prison, designated for convicts sentenced to death. Despite the existence of the death penalty as a form of punishment under the criminal law applicable at that time, the Azerbaijani authorities had pursued a de facto policy of a moratorium on the execution of the death penalty from June 1993 until the abolition of the death penalty in 1998.\n8.  On 10 February 1998 Parliament passed the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and Correctional Labour Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan in connection with the Abolition of the Death Penalty in the Republic of Azerbaijan, which amended all the relevant domestic legal provisions, replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment. The penalties of all convicts sentenced to death, including the applicant, were to be automatically commuted to life imprisonment.\n9.  On 28 March 1998 the applicant was transferred to Gobustan Prison.\n10.  As from his arrival at Gobustan Prison on 28 March 1998 until his placement in solitary confinement on 14 February 2008, the applicant was held, with one other inmate, in cells measuring approximately 9-10 sq. m. During his detention, he changed cells several times and shared them with different inmates. The standard cell had two beds, a small bedside cupboard, and one small table and two chairs fixed to the cell floor. The toilet area was separated from the rest of the cell by a one-metre-high stone wall. The floor and ceiling were made of stone and concrete respectively. The temperature inside the cell was very high in summer and very low in winter. Central heating was available, but inadequate.\n11.  The window, which had metal bars, had no window pane in it and, in winter, was covered with a transparent polyethylene film. The air inside was stale and the cell could not be naturally ventilated. Until 2001, the inmates were not allowed to possess or use ventilators. Likewise, until 2001, the inmates were not allowed to possess a radio. Subsequently, small radios and ventilators were allowed. The food served in the prison was often of poor quality and lacked sufficient meat and vitamins, and the menu was unvaried and monotonous.\n12.  The inmates were allowed only fifteen to thirty minutes of outdoor exercise per day. There were no other recreational or educational activities.\n13.  Since 14 February 2008 he has been in solitary confinement, without any formal decision, in a former “punishment” cell measuring 7.78 sq. m. The applicant was not provided with a copy of the decision placing him in that cell.\n14.  Following the information request of the applicant’s mother (M.R.), by a letter of 27 February 2008 the prison governor informed her that it was impossible to send her copies of the decisions on punishment measures applied to the applicant, as these documents were confidential and could be requested by the courts or a relevant higher authority.\n15.  By a letter of 10 April 2008 from the prison authority, M.R. was informed that the placement of the prisoners in cells was carried out according to the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7553", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n(1)  Ms Tumisha Baysultanova, born in 1935;\n(2)  Ms Zara (in some of the documents submitted her name is also referred to as Taus) Dzhamaldinova, born in 1960 and\n(3)  Ms Zulay Bisultanova, born in 1953.\n6.  The first applicant is the mother of Mr Beslan Baysultanov, born in 1964. The second and third applicants are Beslan Baysultanov’s sisters. They reside in the city of Grozny, in the Chechen Republic.\n7.  The account of the events below is based on the information contained in the application form; the second applicant’s written statements of 25 December 2007 and 14 July 2010; written statements by S.D. and A.D. made on 22 November 2006; a written statement by Sh.D. dated 29 November 2006; and a detailed plan of the relevant area of Ken‑Yurt indicating the location of the second applicant’s house, the adjacent checkpoints, the local military commander’s office and the Temporary Department of the Interior (hereinafter “the VOVD”).\n8.  According to the applicants, during the “first Chechen war” between 1994 and 1996 Beslan Baysultanov had been involved with members of illegal armed groups. He had not participated in those groups’ activities during the “second Chechen war” which started in 1999.\n9.  In May 2000 Beslan Baysultanov was residing at the second applicant’s home at 40 Beregovaya Street in the village of Ken-Yurt, the Chechen Republic.\n10.  At the material time federal military forces maintained a number of manned checkpoints in Ken-Yurt, including on the roads leading in and out of it. The military commander’s office and the VOVD station were located in the village. Ken-Yurt was under curfew, which was strictly enforced and lasted from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m.\n11.  On 7 May 2000 Beslan Baysultanov, the second applicant, her husband Sh.D. and their children S.D., I.D. and L.D. stayed at home in Ken‑Yurt.\n12.  At about 3.30 a.m. on 7 May 2000 the family was woken up by knocking on the front door and an order to open it. When the second applicant did so, around four people wearing masks and camouflage uniforms of the Russian federal forces and carrying assault rifles burst into the house. They shouted in Russian “Police! Don’t move!” and ordered those present to lie down. The applicants inferred that the intruders were servicemen. Upon entering the house, one of the servicemen, who was about 170 cm tall, removed his mask. He had Slavic features and wore a green uniform. Others wore green and spotted green uniforms. Apart from the group of servicemen who had burst in, there was a further group of four to six servicemen securing the perimeter of the house. In the applicants’ submission, some of the servicemen had also spoken Chechen.\n13.  The servicemen ordered the men to get dressed and to produce their identity papers. The serviceman without a mask took Beslan Baysultanov’s passport and after it was checked by other servicemen ordered him to follow them outside. The servicemen did not check Sh.D.’s passport. They said to the applicants that they would take Beslan Baysultanov to the local VOVD station (in some of the applicants’ submissions – to the military commander’s office) “for a check”, without providing any further details. They then ordered them to stay indoors for thirty minutes and left, apparently on foot.\n14.  The applicants have not seen Beslan Baysultanov since.\n15.  The Government submitted that the domestic investigation had obtained no evidence that Beslan Baysultanov had been abducted by State ag", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7556", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, Mr Artur Zirajewski, was a Polish national who was born in 1971 and who died in 2010. His ex-wife, Ms Elżbieta Zirajewska, decided to pursue the application in his stead.\n7.  On 29 April 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of homicide and robbery.\n8.  On 30 April 1998 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. In its decision, the court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, the gravity of the charges and the severity of the anticipated sentence. It also pointed to the existence of a high risk that the applicant, if released, would attempt to tamper with the evidence or to intimidate witnesses, or to abscond. At the same time, the court found no special grounds, related to the applicant’s health or to his family life, militating against his detention.\n9.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicant’s detention was prolonged on numerous occasions. In their decisions, the courts repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention, invoked in the initial detention order.\n10.  On 31 July 2000 the bill of indictment was filed with the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The applicant and eight other persons were indicted with homicide, several counts of robbery and various other offences committed in an organised criminal group.\n11.  The trial began on 14 December 2000.\n12.  On 29 July 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n13.  On 16 December 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case.\n14.  Between 16 and 26 August 2005 the applicant served a prison sentence which had been imposed on him in other criminal proceedings.\n15.  On 24 August 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court once more convicted the applicant as charged and again sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n16.  On 7 January 2008 the applicant filed a request for release from detention.\n17.  On 8 January 2008 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed his request. It considered that the applicant’s involvement in the offences with which he had been charged had been supported by the non-final judgment of 24 August 2007, in which he had been convicted and received a severe sentence. The court also held that further detention on remand was the only preventive measure capable of securing the proper course of the proceedings until the delivery of a final judgment. In particular, the court pointed to the high risk of the applicant’s absconding, resulting from the severity of the imposed penalty. Lastly, the court considered that the applicant’s intention to apply for an early release from prison, which he had expressed in his request, had been irrelevant to the issue of extending his detention.\n18.  The applicant appealed against the above decision. On 15 January 2008 the Gdańsk Regional Court, in a different composition, dismissed the applicant’s appeal, essentially restating the reasons invoked in its decision of 8 January 2008.\n19.  On 19 February 2008 the Gdańsk Regional Court again extended the applicant’s detention until 24 August 2008.\n20.  As a result of the applicant’s appeal, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal varied the Regional Court’s decision and extended the applicant’s detention only until 31 May 2008. The court first of all made clear th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7557", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  Since the abolition of the death penalty in England and Wales, the sentence for murder has been a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. Currently, when such a sentence is imposed, the trial judge is required to set a minimum term of imprisonment, which must be served for the purposes of punishment and retribution, taking into account the seriousness of the offence. The principles which guide the trial judge’s assessment of the appropriate minimum term are set out in schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (see paragraphs 38–39 below). Once the minimum term has been served, the prisoner may apply to the Parole Board for release on licence.\nExceptionally, however, “a whole life order” may be imposed by the trial judge instead of a minimum term if, applying the principles set out in schedule 21, he or she considers that the seriousness of the offence is exceptionally high.\nThe effect of a whole life order is that the prisoner cannot be released other than at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The power of the Secretary of State to release a prisoner is provided for in section 30(1) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. The Secretary of State will only exercise his discretion on compassionate grounds when the prisoner is terminally ill or seriously incapacitated (see Prison Service Order 4700 set out at paragraph 43 below).\n13.  Prior to the entry into force of the 2003 Act, it was the practice for the mandatory life sentence to be passed by the trial judge and for the Secretary of State, after receiving recommendations from the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice, to decide the minimum term of imprisonment which the prisoner would have to serve before he would be eligible for early release on licence. At the time, the minimum term was also referred to as the “tariff” part of the sentence.\nIt was also open to the Secretary of State to impose a “whole life tariff” on a prisoner. In such a case, it was the practice of the Secretary of State to review a whole life tariff after twenty-five years’ imprisonment to determine whether it was still justified, particularly with reference to cases where the prisoner had made exceptional progress in prison (see the case of Hindley at paragraph 46 below).\nWith the entry into force of the 2003 Act (and, in particular, section 276 and schedule 22 to the Act, which enact a series of transitional measures concerning existing life prisoners: see paragraphs 40 and 41 below), all prisoners whose tariffs were set by the Secretary of State have been able to apply to the High Court for review of that tariff. Upon such an application the High Court may set a minimum term of imprisonment or make a whole life order.\n14.  This case concerns three applicants who, having been convicted of murder in separate criminal proceedings in England and Wales, are currently serving mandatory sentences of life imprisonment. All three applicants have been given whole life orders: in the first applicant’s case this order was made by the trial judge under the current sentencing provisions; in the case of the second and third applicants, who were convicted and sentenced prior to the entry into force of the 2003 Act, the orders were made by the High Court. All three applicants maintain that these whole life orders, as they apply to their cases, are incompatible inter alia with Articles 3 and 5 § 4 of the Convention. The facts of the applications, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n15.  On 20 M", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7558", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1923, 1937, 1940, 1979, 1981, 1967, 1944, 1954, 1950, 1949, 1952, 1944, 1961 1979, 1974, 1968, 1964, 1965 respectively.\n7.  The applicants and/or their predecessors were owners of properties nos. 223, 224, 225, 226 and 227 Marina Street, Msida, Malta, on land measuring a total of approximately 1,600 sq. m. Before the 1990s the properties had been requisitioned and were being used as a post office and premises for a Government department.\n8.  On 31 August 1990 the President of Malta declared that the properties were to be expropriated (acquired by a title of absolute purchase).\n9.  Subsequently, the premises were demolished and a complex was built, consisting of a basement with garages (two of which were allocated to EneMalta as an electricity substation), shops at ground level and social residential apartments on the upper floors.\n10.  On 22 May 1991 the owners were served with a copy of the President’s declaration. They were also served with a Notice to Treat dated 20 May 1991 informing them that the sum being offered in compensation for the property was 129,000 Maltese liras (MTL) (approximately 300,490 euros (EUR)).\n11.  By means of a judicial letter dated 29 May 1991, the owners (except for the last two applicants) declared that they would not accept the compensation offered and that they considered MTL 380,000 (approximately EUR 885,150) to be just compensation. The last two applicants also contested the compensation offered by means of a judicial letter dated 14 June 1991, in which they stated that they considered MTL 250,000 (approximately EUR 582,350) to be just compensation.\n12.  On 21 October 1993 the Commissioner of Land (“the CoL”) deposited the sum of MTL 129,000 (approximately EUR 300,490) in court by means of a schedule of deposit (in accordance with Article 22 (4) of Chapter 88 of the Laws of Malta).\n13.  On 25 January 1994 the CoL instituted proceedings before the Land Arbitration Board (“the LAB”) to determine the amount of compensation due for the above-mentioned property. Two court-appointed architects, F.V. and J.M., estimated the total value of the property together with other tenements (nos. 2, 3 and 4 Qrejten Street, Msida) at MTL 205,500 (approximately EUR 478,700).\n14.  By a decision of 10 October 1996 the LAB found that the compensation payable for all the properties was MTL 205,500.\n15.  Tenements nos. 2, 3 and 4 Qrejten Street, Msida, were the subject of another court case in respect of which there is no indication as to whether it has been decided.\n16.  On 10 January 1997 the CoL lodged an application for a retrial on the grounds that the decision of 10 October 1996 (case no. 2/94) had covered other property which was not the subject of the case and had not taken account of the sum already deposited in court. He subsequently submitted that if the application for a new trial was granted, the same two architects who had originally been appointed should be retained.\n17.  In April 1997, the applicants filed an objection to the retrial.\n18.  In a hearing of 4 June 2002, however, the applicants did not object to the case being retried. The LAB appointed two new architects, R.L. and J.J., to value the property afresh and adjourned the case pending decision.\n19.  By means of an application dated 4 October 2002, the CoL asked the LAB to revoke its decision to appoint architects R.L. and J.J., since it had not given a separate decision authorising a retrial and there had been no reason", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7559", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Vilnius.\n6.  On 10 March 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of belonging to a criminal association (nusikalstamas susivienijimas), led by a certain D.S., who had died during the pre-trial investigation. He was also suspected of having stolen three high value cars.\nOn the same day the Vilnius City First District Court ordered the applicant’s detention for three months. On 1 April 2004 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the decision. The courts observed that the applicant was suspected of a very serious crime: belonging to a criminal association since 2001. The charges against him were based on concrete evidence, and there was a risk that if he were not detained he might continue his criminal activities. He also had a prior conviction for disorderly conduct (chuliganizmas), for which he had already served a sentence. Therefore, his participation in the pre-trial investigation could be guaranteed only if he were remanded in custody. The applicant remained in custody in the Lukiškės Remand Prison.\n7.  On 31 May 2004 the Vilnius City First District Court extended the applicant’s detention by three months, upholding the above reasons and adding that the crimes with which the applicant was charged had been committed over a long period of time. The court also considered that if the applicant were released pending trial, he could obstruct the investigation, influence the victims and witnesses, and contact other suspects, who were being searched for at that time. On 1 July 2004 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant.\n8.  On 6 September 2004 the Vilnius Regional Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. This time, the court observed that from 2002 to 2004 the applicant had been a member of a highly sophisticated criminal organisation and had taken part in the theft of seventeen high value cars in Lithuania. The cars had belonged to citizens of Lithuania, Germany, Latvia, Estonia, the Netherlands and Spain. The crimes had been committed in a “business” manner (versliškai), with a high level of conspiracy; each member of the criminal organisation had had a designated role. The criminal association had thereby caused serious loss to Lithuanian and foreign citizens. The court also noted that, in the meantime, many investigative measures – expert examinations, questioning of witnesses – had been carried out. Accordingly, there was no reason to consider that the pre-trial investigation had been delayed.\nOn 9 December 2004 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the decision for all the same reasons, but dismissed Vilnius City First District Court’s argument about the risk of the applicant obstructing the investigation by influencing witnesses as abstract and not based on specific facts. On the other hand, the Regional Court noted that the criminal case was especially complex, and that since the last decision to prolong the detention, further investigative actions had been carried out.\n9.  Once the pre-trial investigation in the first criminal case was concluded in February 2005, the final notice of suspicion encompassed participation in a criminal association, committing or attempting to commit thefts of high value property (some twenty counts), destruction of property, acquiring high value property by criminal means and the theft of documents.\n10.  On 9 March 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court extended the detention on remand for a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7561", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Antalya.\n6.  In 1995 he enrolled at a vocational high school specialised in communication. He said that he had intended to obtain a high-school diploma and then go on to study communication science at university with an eye to becoming a journalist. At the time, students holding vocational school diplomas were able, after competing on an equal footing with diploma-holders from ordinary high schools, to apply for four-year degree programmes in university faculties of communication sciences. The graduates of such faculties generally went on to hold executive posts in the media.\n7.  On 30 July 1998, when the applicant was beginning his last year at his vocational high school, the Higher Education Council (Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu – “the Council”) issued a circular based on Law no. 2547 introducing a new system amending the rules on admission to university, particularly the national entrance examination to higher education (Öğrenci Seçme Sınavı – ÖSS). For the entrance examination to the faculties of communication sciences, the final mark was made up of 79% of the marks obtained in the different examination papers and 21% of the average marks obtained at upper secondary level. The new system applied to the average obtained at upper secondary level a 0.5 weighting for candidates from ordinary high schools who had acquired knowledge in fields which, according to the circular, corresponded to the subjects taught in the faculties of communication sciences, and a 0.2 weighting for candidates from vocational high schools specialised in communication who had acquired knowledge in subjects “which did not correspond” to those taught in the said faculties.\n8.  The applicant considered that applying a weighting to the average marks used for calculating the results of the entrance examination gave an advantage to students from ordinary high schools over those from vocational schools specialised in communication. In his view the new selection system tended to direct holders of diplomas from such vocational schools into two-year technical training programmes in higher technical colleges (Meslek Yüksek Okulu), graduates from which could not, in principle, aspire to executive posts in the media.\n9.  The applicant then requested authorisation to leave the vocational high school in which he was enrolled in order to take remote ordinary high-school (açık öğretim lisesi) classes with a view to obtaining a general high school diploma.\n10.  His request was rejected by the Ministry of Education on the ground that the legislation did not allow students to move from a vocational or technical college to an ordinary high school.\n11.  On 6 June 1999 the applicant, having obtained his high school diploma, sat the national entrance examination for higher education. On 6 September 1999 he received his results, which were insufficient for access to a faculty of communication sciences. He calculated that had it not been for the 0.2 weighting on his average high school marks, that is to say without the changes introduced under the new system, the marks which he had obtained in the examination would have been sufficient for him to enrol in the faculty of communication sciences of his choice.\n12.  On 20 September 1999 he applied to the Supreme Administrative Court for judicial review of the decision in question. Relying on the principle of equality among holders of the different types of high school diplomas, he complained of the u", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7563", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1978 and 1981 and live in Manisa and Izmir respectively.\n5.  On 1 May 2006 a demonstration was held in Izmir to celebrate Labour Day. The applicants, who were participants in this demonstration, claimed that they were attacked by police officers from the Rapid Response Force (Çevik Kuvvet) during the demonstration. According to the applicants, the police officers initially targeted the first applicant. When she fell to the ground, the second applicant tried to shield her, at which point he was also attacked, sprayed with pepper gas, kicked and beaten with truncheons. They submitted a photograph in which the second applicant is covering a person on the ground a couple of metres behind a group of police officers holding truncheons, and an officer is bending down towards them. The photograph was published on 2 May 2006 in a local newspaper. The applicants were not arrested.\n6.  On the same day, after the demonstration, the applicants applied to the Human Rights Centre at the Izmir Bar Association with a view to requesting legal aid in order to lodge their complaints against the police. At the Izmir Bar Association, photographs showing their injuries were taken.\n7.  On 2 May 2006 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Izmir public prosecutor against the police officers involved in the incidents. They complained that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police and requested to be referred to the Forensic Medicine Institute and to a university hospital. In their complaint they noted that their representative had been appointed by the Izmir Bar Association to act on their behalf. In support of their complaint the applicants submitted to the public prosecutor’s office the aforementioned photograph published on 2 May 2006.\n8.  On the same day the Izmir public prosecutor took statements from the applicants regarding their complaints. The first applicant stated that she had attended the demonstration with the trade unions and had been attacked by police officers who wanted to disperse certain demonstrators. She further stated that the second applicant had also been beaten while he was attempting to shield her from the police attacks. The second applicant made a statement along the same lines.\n9.  On 3 May 2006 the applicants were examined by the Izmir branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute. According to the report prepared at the end of the first applicant’s examination, there was swelling on the right parietal- occipital region of the head and sensitivity on palpation, sensitivity on the right side of the jaw when chewing, and sensitivity on palpation in the area between the right eye and the right temporal, an 8 x 1 cm red ecchymosis (bruising) above the left scapula, a 6 x 3 cm blue-purple ecchymosis on the upper outer right arm, and a 7 x 3 cm blue-purple ecchymosis with a red outer lining on the upper outer right thigh, together with sensitivity on palpation in the ecchymotic areas. The doctor stated that the injuries observed on the first applicant’s body were the result of blunt soft tissue trauma which could be treated by simple medical intervention and that she had also suffered from nausea on the date of the incident because of the gas which the police had used that day. A psychiatric examination of the first applicant revealed that she was generally in good health, but was suffering from diminished concentration and had trouble finding the correct words when speaking, on account of the b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7564", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1970 and 1979 respectively and live in Istanbul. They are the sister and wife of Ş.Y., allegedly a member of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 28 November 1997, at 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. respectively, the applicants’ separate flats were raided by police officers from the anti‑terrorist branch of the Istanbul Police Headquarters. They were looking for Şabettin Yeşilmen. Subsequently, they took him and the applicants and their children into custody.\n7.  The applicants and their children were subjected to ill-treatment both when at their flats and when they were taken to the police headquarters. In particular, Gülçin Bozdemir, who was pregnant at the time, was stripped naked, beaten, insulted and threatened with the killing of her children. She lost her baby as a result of the ill‑treatment deliberately inflicted on her by the police officers. She concealed this for cultural reasons and never mentioned it until after the application was communicated to the Government. She was also forced to watch her brother being tortured.\n8.  Maşallah Yeşilmen was insulted and threatened with the killing and torture of her children. She was beaten with a truncheon. She received blows to her hands and abdomen. She was stripped naked and threatened with rape in the presence of her husband.\n9. On the same day, when Şabettin Yeşilmen confessed to the charges against him, allegedly as a result of the ill-treatment that he and his family members had suffered, the applicants and their children were taken home by the police. The detention of the applicants and their children at the Istanbul Police Headquarters was not recorded.\n10.  On 2 December 1997 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Fatih public prosecutor’s office, claiming that they had been taken into custody on 28 November 1997 and subjected to ill-treatment at the Istanbul Police Headquarters.\n11.  On the same day, Gülçin Bozdemir was examined by a doctor from the Istanbul branch of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey, who observed a purple bruise measuring 8 x 5 cm on her upper left arm, a purple bruise of 6 x 2 cm on her left biceps, a purple bruise of 4 x 4 cm on her right biceps, a purple bruise of 7 x 5 cm and a yellow-green bruise of 3 x 2 cm on her left thigh, and a purple bruise of 3 x 4 cm on her left foot. The doctor diagnosed Gülçin Bozdemir as suffering from, inter alia, soft tissue trauma, an upper respiratory tract infection and an acute stress disorder. On 28 July 1998 a committee of three doctors from the same organisation drafted a medical report on Gülçin Bozdemir’s medical examination and concluded that the diagnosis of soft tissue trauma and acute stress disorder was consistent with the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, and that it was possible that the applicant’s upper respiratory tract infection was the result of the alleged ill-treatment.\n12.  On 3 December 1997, at the request of the Fatih public prosecutor, the applicants were examined by a doctor at the Istanbul branch of the Institute of Forensic Medicine. The doctor reported the following in respect of Maşallah Yeşilmen:\n“There are purple and yellow bruises on the left palm. She complains of pain in her neck.”\nAs regards Gülçin Bozdemir, the doctor reported the following:\n“Purple-green bruises of 3 cm and 2 cm in diameter are observed on the left and right biceps respectively. There are also purple‑green bruises of 1.5 cm and 2 cm in diameter o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7565", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Senec.\n5.  On 7 May 1998 the applicant and his wife brought an action against two individuals, a married couple, arguing that the defendants had failed to pay the claimants a part of the price agreed upon for the sale of the claimants’ house to the defendants. Accordingly, the claimants sought an order for the payment of the equivalent of some 25,700 euros (EUR).\nFor the ease of reference, hereinafter in this judgment the applicant will be referred to in singular although his actions may have concerned him jointly with his wife.\n6.  The claim was first registered at the Bratislava II District Court under file no. 15C 130/98.\n7.  On 7 June 1998 the Bratislava II District Court discontinued the proceedings on account of the applicant’s failure to pay the court fees. The applicant subsequently filed an appeal and – in response to a court’s request – provided further and better particulars of his appeal specifying that, on 6 October 1998, the court fees had been paid.\n8.  On 30 November 1998 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the decision of 7 June 1998 and remitted the case to the Bratislava II District Court for examination on the merits.\n9.  A hearing called for 24 February 1999 had to be adjourned because it had proven impossible to serve the summons on the defendants. Following the establishment of their new address, on 23 April 1999 the case was transferred to the Bratislava III District Court for reasons of territorial jurisdiction. It was registered there under file no. 33 C 47/99.\n10.  On 2 December 1999, following a hearing held on the same day, the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of related civil proceedings (file no. 19 Cb 64/97) which were concluded with final and binding effect on 22 December 2002 (see paragraph 28 below).\n11.  Meanwhile, on 4 February and 3 March 2000, respectively, the applicant had requested that the Bratislava III District Court had issued an interim measure preventing the defendants from making dispositions in respect of the house concerned.\n12.  Between 8 February 2001 and 28 March 2007 the Bratislava III District Court listed six hearings. Two of them were not attended by the applicant’s lawyer and two of them were not attended by the applicant. One of the hearings was adjourned in view of the parties’ desire to settle and they were ordered to inform the court of the results of their negotiations within 30 days. As they had not done so, the court had to send two reminders. Meanwhile the case had been reassigned to a new judge.\n13.  On 13 June 2007, following a hearing held on the same day, the Bratislava III District Court again decided to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of a set of enforcement proceedings, which were pending before that court at that time under file no. 34 E 1015/03. In those proceedings, the applicant was the defendant and one of the present defendants was the claimant (see paragraphs 28 et seq. below).\n14.  On 24 September and 28 December 2007, respectively, the applicant appealed against the decision of 13 June 2007 to stay the proceedings and requested that the Bratislava III District Court schedule a hearing.\n15.  On 1 January 2008 the case-file was transmitted to the Pezinok District Court in the context of reorganisation of the judiciary and it was registered there under file no. 4 C 723/08.\n16.  On 28 November 2008 the applicant requested the Pezinok District Court to schedule a hearing.\n17.  On 12 December", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7567", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981. On 9 January 2013 he was due to be released from Sukhodilska Prison no. 36 in the Lugansk Region, having served his sentence. His current place of residence is unknown.\n6.  On 22 October 2005 two people attempted to break into a car belonging to K., who impeded the thieves and caught one of them (“B.”).\n7.  On 6 January 2006, at about 6 p.m., the applicant broke into a car belonging to N. and tried to dismantle some equipment therein. N. caught the applicant and handed him over to the police.\n8.  On the same date, one of the arresting officers wrote a report to his superior in the Sevastopol Police Department about the aforementioned incident, referring to the car theft, the complaint by N. in that regard, and the applicant’s apprehension and arrest. It was mentioned in the report that the applicant had been drunk and had to be restrained with handcuffs.\n9.  On 7 January 2006 the Leninskyy District Court of Sevastopol (“the Leninskyy Court”) ordered that the applicant be placed in administrative detention for three days for being drunk in a public place at 6 p.m. on 6 January 2006.\n10.  On 9 January 2006 an investigator of the Leninskyy District Police Department, referring to the events of 6 January 2006, arrested the applicant on suspicion of robbery.\n11.  On 12 January 2006 the Leninskyy Court remanded the applicant in custody for two months, allowing an application by the investigator to that effect. The court noted that the applicant had been caught in flagrante delicto. Furthermore, he had committed the offence in question while drunk, and within a year of being released from prison. The court also noted that the applicant was unemployed. It was mentioned in the ruling that the decision could be appealed against within three days.\n12.  From 13 January 2006 the applicant was represented by a lawyer.\n13.  With regard to the events of 22 October 2005 (see paragraph 6 above), on 7 February 2006 the Leninskyy Court, sitting in a single-judge formation (“Judge R.”), found B. guilty of robbery while drunk and following conspiracy by a group. It relied on the factual account given by B., who had said that he had become acquainted with the applicant (referred to in the verdict as “the other person” and known to B. as “Sergey”) shortly before the incident, and that it had been the applicant’s initiative to steal stereo equipment from cars. According to B., the applicant had undertaken to teach him car theft techniques.\n14.  The court also established that the applicant had tried to break into K.’s car using scissors, while B. had been standing by. As the car had had tinted windows, the thieves had not noticed that K. had been inside. He had opened the door and asked them what they had been doing. The applicant had threatened K. with the scissors and had rudely told him to leave the scene, while B. had taken a knife out of his pocket and had pointed it at him. As the owner of the car resisted, the applicant had hit him with a bottle, which had been in his other hand. B. and the applicant had then tried to escape. K. had however managed to catch B.\n15.  Judge R. sentenced B. to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The punishment, being more lenient than the minimum sentence prescribed by the criminal legislation, was deemed appropriate given that B. had confessed in full to having committed the crime and had shown genuine remorse. He had compensated the victim for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7568", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963. It appears that he is serving a prison sentence in Russia.\n6.  In early 2002 the national authorities received information to suggest that the applicant and another person were involved in drug trafficking, in particular the supply of large quantities of heroin. The authorities decided to carry out various investigative measures in respect of them under the Operational-Search Activities Act, including a test purchase of drugs and a video recording of the operation. On 12 April 2002 the applicant was arrested after having handed over parcels containing drugs to undercover officers K. and G. The preparation and carrying out of the operation were witnessed by Ko. and D., who had been asked by the authorities to take part in the operation as “members of the public”.\n7.  The applicant was interviewed and placed in a temporary detention centre. On 15 April 2002 criminal charges were brought against him. The applicant and his accomplice were accused of fraud (as one of the parcels did not contain heroin), the illegal acquisition, possession of drugs for the purpose of sale, transport and the illegal sale of drugs.\n8.  Between April and June 2002 officers K. and G., as well as the attesting witnesses Ko. and D., were interviewed by the investigating authority.\n9.  On 27 June 2002 the criminal case was sent for trial before the Zarechenskiy District Court of Tula (“the District Court”). A hearing scheduled for September 2002 was adjourned owing to the absence of seven witnesses. Hearings were held on 3, 4, 5 and 23 December 2002. By a judgment of 12 February 2003 the District Court acquitted the applicant of fraud but convicted him of the illegal acquisition, possession and transport of drugs on a large scale for the purpose of sale, and the illegal sale of drugs. The applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. The trial court ordered that the convicted defendants be kept in detention until the judgment became enforceable.\n10.  Both the applicant and the prosecution appealed against the judgment to the Tula Regional Court. Having heard the parties’ submissions, the appellate court decided on 19 November 2003 to set aside the judgment of 12 February 2003 and ordered the District Court to re-examine the case.\n11.  A hearing was held by the District Court on 26 January 2004. Having noted the absence of the co-defendant’s lawyer and witnesses, the presiding judge adjourned the proceedings until 11 March 2004.\n12.  At a hearing on that date the applicant sought the withdrawal of the judge and dismissed his lawyer. The applicant’s lay representative was afforded time to study the case file. As a result, the proceedings were adjourned until 13 May 2004. On an unspecified date a new lawyer was appointed to assist the applicant during the trial.\n13.  On 13 May 2004, having noted the absence of undercover officers K. and G. and some other witnesses, the presiding judge adjourned the hearing. A further hearing was held on 17 May 2004, during which witnesses were cross-examined. The defence asked for more witnesses to be called.\n14.  On an unspecified date, the applicant’s lawyer informed the trial court that she would be on annual leave from 10 June to 5 July 2004. Nevertheless, a hearing was held on 28 June 2004. It was adjourned until 18 August 2004 and the judge ordered that the presence of the witnesses should in the meantime be secured.\n15.  Witnesses, including officer G., were examined at the hearing on ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7570", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1951, 1959 and 1924 respectively. The first applicant lives in Sofia and the second applicant lives in Yakoruda.\n6.  The third applicant, Mr Ivan Yankov Hadzhigeorgiev, who also lived in Yakoruda, passed away on 14 July 2008.\n7.  The applicants are three of the heirs of Yakim and Nazari Hadzhigeorgievi. They submit that they are entitled to 75% of the inheritance. The first and second applicants are the sons of the third applicant’s late brother.\n8.  In 1997 the Forests Restitution Act was adopted by the Bulgarian Parliament (see paragraph 28 below).\n9.  On 30 June 1999 one of the heirs of Yakim and Nazari Hadzhigeorgievi applied for the restitution of 814,000 square metres of forestry land in the area of Yakoruda. By a decision of 9 June 2000 the competent body, the Yakoruda land commission, refused restitution, as it was not satisfied that the applicants’ ancestors had owned the land at issue.\n10.  One of the heirs applied for judicial review of the above decision.\n11.  By a judgment of 14 July 2000, the Razlog District Court set aside the land commission’s decision and restored to the heirs of Yakim and Nazari Hadzhigeorgievi the property rights over the plot of forestry land. It found, on the basis of documents such as an 1898 tuğra (a title deed) issued by the authorities of the Ottoman Empire to which the territory belonged at the time, and a 1910 document of the Bulgarian authorities certifying that the land had been recognised as being the ancestors’ property, that Yakim and Nazari Hadzhigeorgievi had owned the land at issue. The judgment specified the exact borders of the plot to be restituted.\n12.  The judgment above was not appealed against and became final on 4 August 2000.\n13.  In implementation of that judgment, by a decision of 15 August 2000 the land commission recognised and restored in actual boundaries the property rights of the heirs of Yakim and Nazari Hadzhigeorgievi. A plan of the plot was issued on 16 September 2002.\n14.  Further to the provisions of the Forests Restitution Act (see paragraph 31 below), the transfer of possession of the restored property was to be effected by the land commission, replaced in 2002 by an Agriculture and Forestry Department, in the presence of a representative of the local forest authority.\n15.  In September 2000 the second applicant wrote to the land commission on behalf of all heirs requesting that they enter into possession of their plot of forestry land.\n16.  In 2001 the Minister of Agriculture and Forests lodged a request for reopening of the judicial proceedings described in paragraphs 10-12 above on account of new evidence and because the local forest authority had not taken part in the proceedings before the Razlog District Court.\n17.  By a decision of 19 May 2002, a three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the request as inadmissible. The court held that the Minister was not entitled to request reopening, that the request had been submitted out of time and that the evidence presented was the same as that presented during the restitution proceedings. Upon appeal, in a final decision of 30 July 2002, a five-member panel of the SAC upheld the three‑member panel’s findings.\n18.  It appears that the Agriculture and Forestry Department refused to transfer possession during the pendency of the reopening proceedings.\n19.  Once these proceedings were over, on 20 December 2002 the second applicant requested once again that the j", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7571", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1959, 1987 and 1990 respectively and live in Chişinău. The first applicant is the mother of the other two applicants.\n6.  In 1998 the applicants’ family obtained from the first applicant’s employer a three-room apartment in Chişinău for their use.\n7.  According to the first applicant, she was systematically beaten and insulted by her husband (V.B.). As a result, on 16 January 2007 the first applicant divorced V.B., but they continued living in the same apartment.\n8.  The beatings continued, as confirmed by seven medical reports between September 2007 and January 2008 attesting to light injuries to the first applicant’s body caused by “blunt objects with a limited surface”. All the reports were prepared at the request of the Centru district police in Chişinău following complaints by the first applicant. The first applicant’s description of the origin of her injuries in all those medical reports was that V.B. had beaten her.\n9.  On 1 April, 7 August, 7 September and 28 November 2007, as well as on 10 and 29 April 2008 the courts adopted six administrative decisions concerning the above beatings. The first of them terminated the proceedings in view of the parties’ friendly settlement of the proceedings. Another terminated the proceedings because of the expiry of the three-month limitation period for imposing an administrative sanction on V.B. In the four other cases the courts fined V.B. for beating and insulting her, although in one of them the court noted that the first applicant had provoked him. The fines imposed ranged from 140 to 300 Moldovan lei (MDL, the equivalent of, respectively, 8.65 to 18 euros (EUR) at the relevant time). V.B. paid all those fines. It appears from the parties’ statements that on an unknown date the prosecution initiated criminal proceedings against V.B. for attempted rape, but on 14 May 2008 the applicant withdrew her complaint and the proceedings were discontinued.\n10.  According to a certificate issued by the Centru district police office, V.B. has been registered for supervision by that office as a “family trouble-maker” since 2007.\n11.  On an unknown date in 2008 the first applicant lodged a civil action against V.B. seeking his eviction from the apartment. She relied on the evidence of V.B.’s violent behaviour. V.B. lodged a counterclaim, asking for the rooms in the apartment to be divided between himself and the rest of his former family.\n12.  On 23 June 2008 the Centru District Court allowed the first applicant’s action and rejected that of V.B. The court found that V.B. had been violent towards the first applicant and had insulted her in front of their children, as evidenced by the medical reports and court decisions.\n13.  On 30 October 2008 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. In addition to the evidence relied on by the first-instance court, the Court of Appeal heard the two young men, who confirmed their mother’s testimony and asked for their father’s eviction.\n14.  On 20 May 2009 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the lower courts’ judgments and adopted a new one, rejecting the first applicant’s claims and accepting that of V.B. The court found that the lower courts had erroneously concluded that V.B. had systematically abused the first applicant. It noted that one of the court proceedings in which V.B. had been accused of beating the first applicant had been discontinued after the parties’ settlement of the case, while another had been discontinued ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7572", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Abdullah Yaşa (“A.Y.”), a Turkish national, was born in 1993 and lives in Diyarbakır. He was thirteen years old at the time of the events to which the present case relates.\n A.  The 29 March 2006 incident\n6.  Following the deaths of fourteen members of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party) during an armed clash on 24 March 2006, numerous unlawful demonstrations took place in Diyarbakır between 28 and 31 March 2006, during which eleven demonstrators died. In particular, two persons, namely T. Atakkaya and M. Mızrak, were killed by tear-gas grenades in the course of these events.\n7.  On 29 March 2006 A.Y., who was at the scene of a demonstration, was injured in the nose by a tear-gas grenade fired by the police while he was allegedly on his way to his aunt’s house. He was taken to the Diyarbakır public hospital the same day.\n8.  On 5 April 2006 A.Y. left hospital, where he had undergone an operation for a maxillo-facial trauma on the day of his arrival, according to the discharge report.\n9.  On 14 April 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office (the “public prosecutor’s office”) against the police officers of the Diyarbakır security police headquarters, alleging assault and abuse of power. He explained that he had been hit directly on the nose by a tear-gas grenade.\n10.  On 2 August 2006 the public prosecutor’s office interviewed the applicant and his father and mother. A.Y.’s father said that he had been at work at the time of the incident and demanded the conviction of the police officers responsible for the assault on his son.\n11.  In her depositions the same day, A.Y.’s mother stated that she had been at home at the time of the incident, and she also demanded the conviction of the police officers responsible for her son’s injuries.\n12.  In substance, A.Y. himself testified as follows: while on his way to his aunt’s house he had been hit on the nose by an object as he was watching the police officers. At the time of the incident he had seen the helmeted police officers shooting a projectile in his direction by means of a shoulder-borne device. He had been unable to identify his exact position at the time of the incident, nor had he previously seen anyone throwing objects at the police officers. He did not think that the police officers could have shot at him without noticing his presence, since they had seen him when he had been in the street. He did not know the police officer who had shot at him. He requested the identification and punishment of this officer. He had been taken to hospital by a stranger.\n13.  His lawyer, having confirmed his statements, requested the formulation of a forensic report and the submission of medical reports from Diyarbakır public hospital. He also requested the identification of the police officers involved on the day of the incident.\n14.  On 6 November 2007 the public prosecutor’s office issued the following decision not to prosecute:\n“... It emerged from the inquiries launched after the complaint ... that A.Y. had not been injured on his way to his aunt’s house. According to video recordings ... and photographs ... the complainant was injured during a demonstration in which he had been actively participating by chanting slogans in support of the PKK terrorist organisation and its leader Abdullah Öcalan, and throwing stones, sticks and Molotov cocktails at the police officers.\nConsequently, the police officers were not criminally liable be", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7573", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Riga.\n6.  The applicant, at the time of the material events, was working for the national television broadcaster Latvijas televīzija (“LTV”). She was a producer, reporter and host of the weekly investigative news programme De facto, aired in prime time every Sunday night.\n7.  On 10 February 2010 the applicant received an e-mail from a person who called himself “Neo”, revealing that there were serious security flaws in a database maintained by the State Revenue Service (Valsts ieņēmumu dienests – “the VID”). Allegedly, these flaws made it possible to access the data stored in the Electronic Declaration System (Elektroniskā deklarēšanas sistēma – “the EDS”) without breaching any security protocols. In support of his allegations, “Neo” attached some examples of the data which he had downloaded in this manner (for example, salaries of LTV employees), the veracity of which the applicant could confirm. The applicant concluded that the data were genuine and that, most probably, there was a serious security flaw in the system. She then proceeded to inform the VID of a possible security breach.\n8.  “Neo” did not reveal his identity to the applicant during their e-mail correspondence. He told her that there were more data which showed that the austerity measures in the public sector did not affect the highest-paid State officials. It transpired during their correspondence that “Neo” did not wish to reveal his identity.\n9.  On 14 February 2010 the applicant, acting in her capacity as a journalist, announced during the broadcast of De facto that there had been a massive data leak from the EDS. She reported that the information concerned the income, tax payments and personal identity details of public officials, as well as private individuals and companies.\n10.  One week after the broadcast, “Neo” started to publish data through his Twitter account concerning the salaries paid at various public institutions, at State and municipal levels; in some cases the names of the officials were included, and in others only the salaries were published. The information received wide media coverage. On 18 April 2010 he stopped publishing it.\n11.  On 10 February 2010, upon an application by the VID, criminal proceedings were instituted concerning the data leak.\n12.  On 19 February 2010 the police went to LTV to take evidence from the applicant as a witness in the criminal proceedings. They asked for a transcript of the 14 February 2010 broadcast, as well as access to the e-mail correspondence with “Neo”. The applicant declined to disclose the identity of her source or any information which could lead to its disclosure, referring to the right of non-disclosure as set forth in section 22 of the Law on Press and Other Mass Media.\n13.  On the same date another journalist was also asked to disclose the identity of his journalistic source, as he had had a public communication with “Neo”, which had been aired during another television broadcast. He refused to testify since he did not consider that his source had done anything wrong.\n14.  According to the Government, on 11 May 2010 the investigating authorities established that two of the IP address which had been used to connect to the EDS, had been used by a certain I.P. It was also established that I.P. had made several phone calls to the applicant’s phone number.\n15.  On 11 May 2010, at about 6.55 p.m., I.P. was arrested in connection with the criminal proceedings; he wa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7576", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant, Mrs Brigid McCaughey, is the mother of Mr Martin McCaughey. She was born in 1934. The second and third applicants are the father and daughter of Mr Desmond Grew. They were born in 1923 and 1990, respectively. All the applicants live in County Tyrone. The case concerns the shooting of Martin McCaughey and Desmond Grew by security forces in 1990 in Northern Ireland.\n8.  On 9 October 1990 Martin McCaughey and Desmond Grew were shot and killed outside a shed on a farm near Loughgall by soldiers from a specialist unit of the British Army. The autopsy of Martin McCaughey described the cause of death as “laceration of the brain due to bullet wounds to the head”, noting that he had been struck by approximately ten high-velocity bullets in all. The autopsy of Desmond Grew described the cause of death as “multiple injuries due to multiple high-velocity bullet wounds of trunk and limbs”, noting that there were approximately forty-eight wounds made by bullets entering and exiting his body. No shots were fired by the deceased. These shootings were two of several which took place around that time and which gave rise to allegations of a shoot-to-kill policy by the security forces, including by that specialist unit, in Northern Ireland.\n9.  The shed had been under surveillance as a suspected arms dump of the Irish Republican Army (IRA). The applicants maintained that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) had intelligence to the effect that the deceased would collect arms at the shed. The RUC Tasking and Coordination group (“the TCG”) assigned the specialist military unit to the mission given that unit’s specific training and firepower.\n10.  On 11 October 1990 the IRA stated publicly that the deceased were IRA volunteers on active service at the time of their deaths.\n11.  The first applicant claimed that her family learned about Mr McCaughey’s death from the media and that a RUC officer rang the deceased’s family home, identified himself and taunted the deceased’s brother. The RUC formally advised the Grew family of Desmond Grew’s death.\n12.  The RUC conducted an investigation into the deaths, beginning with interviews with the soldiers involved in the operation.\n13.  The statements of Soldiers A-H, later disclosed to the applicants by the Police Service Northern Ireland (the PSNI replaced the RUC in 2001), stated as follows. Soldier H, the Captain with responsibility for the military unit, received information and briefed Soldiers A, B, C, D, E and F to observe the shed for any terrorist activity and to arrest any persons found to be so engaged. Soldier A was the team leader of the unit with command of the soldiers on the ground. Soldier H was in radio contact with the soldiers on the ground and, on receiving a report of the shooting, he dispatched Soldiers G and I to the scene. The scene was handed over at approximately 12.30 to the RUC and Soldiers A-I returned to base. Later that day (10 October 1990), members of the RUC questioned the soldiers, who were accompanied by Soldier L, from Army Legal Services. Soldier A was the first to fire a shot and he fired twenty rounds. Soldier B fired seventeen rounds, Soldier C fired nineteen rounds and Soldier D fired sixteen rounds, the last two of which were directed at Mr Grew while he was on the ground as the soldier believed Mr Grew had attempted to grab his gun. Soldiers E and F had been close by and did not discharge their weapons. Soldiers A-F believed that they had been under fire", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7577", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Lipcani.\n7.  After divorcing her husband more than twenty-two years prior to the relevant events, the applicant was living in her own house next to that belonging to her former husband, A.M. On 31 December 2009 A.M. broke into her house and beat her up. He did the same on 19 February 2010, since which date he has remained in the applicant’s house permanently, while the applicant has occasionally sought refuge with her neighbours.\n8.  The applicant obtained a medical report confirming that she had been beaten up on 19 February 2010. The applicant and her lawyer have made numerous complaints to the local police, the prosecutor’s office and other authorities, asking for protection for the applicant and for A.M. to be punished. The first such complaint was made on 18 March 2010 and was addressed to the local police. She also complained to other authorities that the local police had been aware of the situation but had done nothing to protect her.\n9.  On 27 March 2010 the applicant was again beaten up by A.M. On 30 March 2010 the local police informed her that the events complained of had been confirmed, but that A.M. could not be punished as he was mentally ill.\n10.  On 9 June 2010 the Ocniţa police instituted criminal proceedings against A.M. for breaking into the applicant’s house. According to the Government, on 24 June 2010 he was subjected to the preventive measure of an undertaking not to leave town.\n11.  On 22 June 2010 a court adopted a protection order, deciding A.M.’s eviction and ordering him to stay away from the applicant and her house. However, that order was not enforced. On 17 July 2010 the applicant was again injured by A.M. in the yard of her house, as confirmed by the police and a medical report. She lodged a new complaint and on 23 July 2010 another court order was issued, similar to that of 22 June 2010. This order was not enforced either.\n12.  On 16 August 2010 criminal proceedings were instituted against A.M. for failure to abide by the protection order of 22 June 2010. This set of proceedings was subsequently joined to the one instituted on 9 June 2010.\n13.  On 26 August 2010, during the criminal proceedings, A.M. underwent a psychiatric examination. The medical commission established that he was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and recommended in-patient psychiatric treatment.\n14.  On 7 October 2010 a prosecutor submitted the case against A.M. to the court in order to determine whether A.M. should undergo mandatory psychiatric treatment. In his decision the prosecutor noted, inter alia, that A.M.’s medical history revealed that in 1965 he had suffered a blow to his head; from 1981 he had started to believe that his wife wanted to poison him and he had begun beating her; from June to September 1987 he had been treated as an in-patient in a psychiatric hospital and had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia; he had been under psychiatric supervision since 1988 and had undergone psychiatric treatment five more times with the same diagnosis, the last treatment period having ending on 25 December 2004; and he had been monitored by the authorities as mentally ill and dangerous to society. The parties did not inform the Court of the outcome of the prosecutor’s request.\n15.  In a letter dated 6 December 2010 the Ministry of Labour, Social Protection and Family stated that on 23 November 2010, Police Officers V.V. and R.P. from the local police station and a soc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7578", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Bucharest. At the time of the events in question, he was a traffic police officer.\n6.  On 17 January 2003 the applicant and his colleague stopped M.D. in traffic and checked his papers. They observed that M.D. did not have an appropriate driving licence for the type of vehicle he was driving, which constituted a criminal offence. They confiscated the car registration papers and M.D.’s driving licence.\n7.  On 20 January 2003 M.D. and R.J. (a passenger in the car when the applicant stopped M.D.) informed the prosecutor that the applicant had asked them to pay 10,000,000 Romanian lei (ROL) in order that he not pursue a criminal investigation against M.D. On the same date, the prosecutor obtained the authorisation of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office under Articles 911 and 914 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to intercept the applicant’s conversations. He also marked the bills that M.D. and R.J. brought to pay the bribe.\n8.  R.J. called the applicant to set up a meeting. Later that day R.J. and M.D. met the applicant in his office (shared with five other colleagues and with S.D., his superior). Only the applicant and S.D. were present at that time. Both the telephone call and the conversation in the applicant’s office were recorded.\nAfter R.J. and M.D. left, the prosecutor arrived and searched the applicant’s office. He found the money for the bribe which had been previously marked. The applicant denied having taken money from R.J. and M.D. or having committed any crime.\n9.  At the end of the search, the prosecutor arrested the applicant on a charge of having taken a bribe in order to favourably influence a criminal investigation. The prosecutor started criminal proceedings against the applicant that day.\n10.  On 21 January 2003 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention for thirty days by order of the prosecutor. The decision was confirmed by the Bucharest County Court by an interlocutory judgment of 11 February 2003. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was subsequently extended by the county court at regular intervals (on 20 March 2003, 10 April 2003, 8 May 2003, 9 September 2003 and 7 October 2003) until 21 November 2003, when he was released pursuant to the decision on the merits rendered by the court of first-instance (see paragraph 18 below).\nThe applicant contested each court order concerning his pre‑trial detention and opposed any request by the prosecutor to have this detention extended, but his appeals were dismissed by the court of appeal. The courts heard the arguments presented by the parties and took account of the evidence gathered by the prosecution. On these grounds, they considered that there were strong indications that the applicant had committed the crime he had been accused of and that given the nature of that crime, its gravity and its impact on public order, as well as the fact that the applicant had been a police officer and had been accused of having committed a crime in connection with his status, his continued detention was justified. As the examination of the merits of the case unfolded, the courts considered that the fact that newly adduced evidence might have cast doubt on the manner in which the alleged crime had been committed did not alter the gravity of the crime itself, or its impact on society (final decision of 3 April 2003 by the Bucharest Court of Appeal, deciding on an appeal against the interlocutory judgment of 20 March 2003).\n11.  On 29 J", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7579", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1961 and 1933, respectively and live in Belfast. They are the wife and father, respectively, of Mr John Hemsworth.\n7.  The applicants maintained that, at 1 a.m. on 7 July 1997, John Hemsworth was walking home when he was passed by persons who were being chased by police officers from the Blues Operational Support Unit (“Blues OSU”) of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (“RUC”). They also contend that one of those officers hit John Hemsworth on the face with a truncheon and that he fell to the ground where he was kicked on the left side and hit on the back with a truncheon by the officers. He went home and informed his wife. He then went to hospital and it is alleged that RUC officers taunted him about the incident on the way there. He was treated for undisplaced fractures to both sides of his right jaw bone.\n8.  Following an article in a local newspaper about the incident, two witnesses (one an allegedly direct witness) came forward.\n9.  Having experienced headaches and tingling in one arm in late October/early November 1997, on 27 December 1997 John Hemsworth began vomiting and complained of severe headaches. He collapsed and was transferred to hospital where he died on 1 January 1998.\n10.  On 3 January 1998 a pathologist found that John Hemsworth died from a cerebral infarction and it was not possible to correlate the recent thrombosis causing the fatal cerebral infraction with a facial injury in 1997.\n11.  On 8 January 1998 the RUC began an investigation supervised by the Independent Commission for Police Complaints (“ICPC”).\n12.  On 30 April 1998 the Coroner registered the death as he considered, given the pathologist’s report, that an inquest was not necessary.\n13.  In his report of 4 August 1999, an expert in forensic medicine instructed by the first applicant found that it was “highly likely” that the assault was the sole underlying cause of death. Further to her request, on 2 February 2000 the Attorney General ordered the Coroner to hold an inquest.\n14.  Subsequently, a forensic expert briefed by the Coroner also concluded that, despite the delay between the fatal cerebral infarct and the injury of July 1997, it was likely that they were “linked in terms of causation”. The applicants claimed that the original pathologist later expressed his agreement with these later two expert opinions.\n15.  The RUC then asked the applicants to provide them with all relevant information and evidence and for their statements. The applicants forwarded the deceased’s medical records and gave statements to the RUC. The two witnesses who had volunteered were interviewed as well as other persons living in the area. Numerous police and military personnel on duty in the area, as well as those deployed to the street where John Hemsworth was allegedly assaulted, were interviewed. The RUC Report on the Investigation dated 3 May 2001 accepted that John Hemsworth had been injured on 7 July 1997 but not that RUC officers had assaulted him or that those injuries had led to his death. Certain parts of this report are redacted.\n16.  On 7 June 2001 the Coroner opened a pre-inquest hearing, in 16 cases including into John Hemsworth’s death, to hear submissions on the implications of the judgments of this Court of 4 May 2001 in certain cases concerning deaths in Northern Ireland (Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, (extracts); McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, both in ECHR 2001-III; Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7580", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1976. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n7.  On 11 December 2007 A.K., a school psychologist, informed the police of her suspicion that nine-year-old E. had been sexually abused by her stepfather, the applicant. She had learned about the alleged abuse through E.’s schoolmate.\n8.  On 12 December 2007 E. was interviewed by a police investigator in the presence of the psychologist. According to E. her stepfather had repeatedly sexually abused her between September 2006 and 9 December 2007.\n9.  Also on 12 December 2007 criminal proceedings were initiated in respect of the alleged rape and physical abuse by the applicant of his stepdaughter E.\n10.  On 13 December 2007 E. was again interviewed by a police investigator in the presence of a social worker. On the same day E. was also examined by medical experts. According to their opinion E.’s hymen was intact and without injuries; there was minimal hyperaemia, which could have been caused by urine or mechanical influence. “A strange, unclean smell” that was unusual for a child was noted around her sexual organs. No traces of sperm or lubricant were discovered by a biology expert. E. had two haematomas on the backs of the knees and a scratch on her leg.\n11.  Also on 13 December 2007 the applicant was taken into custody.\n12.  On 14 January 2008 E. was examined by a psychiatrist and psychologist, who gave an expert opinion, according to which attending a court hearing would cause her psychological trauma and damage her health, and in a stressful situation her statements might not be consistent. In the opinion reference was made to E.’s medical history, which stated that she had been diagnosed with epilepsy.\n13.  On 31 January 2008 the applicant asked the investigator to inform him about the course of the criminal proceedings. He also requested that a confrontation be held between him and E. On 4 February 2008 the investigator replied that information about the preliminary investigation could only be released on the authority of a prosecutor, and that no such authority had been given.\n14.  On 14 February 2008 E. was interviewed for the third time, by two police investigators in the presence of a social worker. The interview was video recorded. At the beginning of the interview an investigator explained to E. that the interview was to be recorded so that they would not have to talk again about what had happened.\n15.  In a letter to the investigator dated 20 February 2008, the applicant, inter alia, noted that only confrontation with E. could help to clarify the matter. In her reply, dated 26 February 2008, the investigator did not address the question of confrontation.\n16.  During an interview with the applicant on 14 April 2008 the investigator read out parts of the record of E.’s interview of 14 February 2008. The record of the interview with the applicant does not indicate that he was offered an opportunity to put questions to E. or that he made such a request himself.\n17.  On 14 April 2008 a psychiatrist gave an additional expert opinion, according to which remote examination of E. would also cause her psychological trauma, and in a stressful situation there was no guarantee that she would give any statements. Reference was made to her age, personality type, emotional state, illness (epilepsy) and what she had gone through.\n18.  At the outset of the court proceedings both the prosecution and the defence requested that a number of witnesses be called, but nei", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7581", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Krasnodar.\n6.  On 25 August 2003 B. was found dead by the Kuban river. On 26 August 2003 the district prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation into B.’s murder.\n7.  On 29 August 2003 the applicant attended at the police station for questioning. He explained that he had discovered B.’s body on 25 August 2003 in the yard of his summer cottage. There had been a knife next to the body. According to the applicant, he had panicked, thrown away the knife, put B.’s body into the sidecar of his motorcycle, taken it to the river and left it there. Later he had realised that he had made a mistake and gone back to the river. The body was not there. The applicant had spoken to lawyer M., who had advised him to contact the police. According to the applicant, he was handcuffed and taken to an office where five police officers beat him for several hours, ordering him to confess to B.’s murder. The applicant alleged that the officers hit him with rubber truncheons on his feet, legs, stomach, chest and the back of his head. They allegedly tortured him with electricity and threatened to rape and kill him and his family members. When his resistance was worn down, the applicant wrote a confession statement, prompted by the police officers. He reiterated his confession, in the lawyer’s presence, on 31 August 2003.\n8.  From 29 to 31 August 2003 the applicant was held in an overcrowded cell at the police station, allegedly without food or water. The police officers allegedly continued threatening the applicant, offering to secure his release in exchange for 10,000 US dollars.\n9.  On 1 September 2003, at 6.10 p.m., the police officers took the applicant to a hospital, where he was examined by the doctor on duty, who documented an infected wound on his chest. The doctor treated the wound and concluded that the applicant was fit for detention. The applicant was then transferred to a temporary detention centre.\n10.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant’s lawyer complained to the prosecutor’s office about the applicant’s ill-treatment in police custody.\n11.  On 8 September 2003 investigator G. of the prosecutor’s office ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant, which was conducted immediately. On the same day, the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers, relying on their statements, in which they denied having put any pressure on the applicant when questioning him.\n12.  On 11 September 2003 the applicant’s daughter lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office about the applicant’s ill-treatment in police custody. The applicant lodged a similar complaint on 25 September 2003.\n13.  On 23 September 2003 the forensic expert completed the report concerning the applicant’s injuries. In particular, the expert stated as follows:\n“[The applicant] has a striated abrasion on the chest which measures 6 centimetres in length and 2.5 centimetres in width and is covered with a sanious yellow [crust] ... [There is] an injury having an irregular oval form and measuring 1.5 centimetres in length and 0.5 centimetres in width on the external surface of the upper third of the left leg, [the injury] is covered with a dry dark brown crust ... [There is] a round abrasion measuring 0.6 centimetres in diameter on the front surface of the upper third of the left leg; [the injury] is covered with a dark brown crust ... [There is] an abrasion on the back surface of the left foot", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7582", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are mother and son. They were born in 1959 and 1994, respectively, and live in Primskovo.\n5.  On 27 October 1998 the mother (hereinafter referred to as “the applicant”) instituted a labour dispute against her former employer before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court seeking the payment of wages.\n6.  Between 19 June 2002 and 12 July 2002 the court held two hearings. A hearing scheduled for 18 October 2002 was postponed on the request of the applicant. She requested a postponement for a period of six months.\n7.  On 30 July 2004 the applicant received a notice for a hearing scheduled on 14 September 2004.\n8.  On 14 September 2004 the court held a hearing and issued a decision on suspension of proceedings, because both parties failed to attend. The court found that in the absence of a request for a hearing or any other procedural step within four months the proceedings would be terminated.\n9.  On 25 October 2005 the court held a hearing. It appears that there was either a request for a hearing or a submission lodged so the proceedings could continue.\n10.  On 28 March 2006 the court held a hearing and delivered a judgment, rejecting the applicant’s request. She appealed.\n11.  On 21 September 2006 the Higher Labour and Social Court rejected the appeal. She lodged an appeal on points of law.\n12.  On 9 January 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7583", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Donji Miholjac.\n6.  On 25 January 1997 the applicant was arrested and brought to a police station where, during a questioning session that lasted four hours, he was beaten by a police officer, M.B.\n7.  On 28 January 1997 the physician who examined the applicant after the incident filed a criminal report with the relevant police authorities.\n8.  On 24 July 1997 the Donji Miholjac State Attorney’s Office indicted M.B. before the Donji Miholjac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Donjem Miholjcu) for the criminal offence of ill-treatment in the exercise of an official duty.\n9.  By a judgment of 28 October 1997 the Municipal Court found M.B. guilty as charged and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment but suspended the sentence for a period of one year. The court found, in particular, that the applicant had sustained light bodily injuries, mostly in the form of soft tissue contusions and bruising on the head, elbow and thighs.\n10.  On 30 December 1997 the Osijek County Court (Županijski sud u Osijeku) dismissed an appeal by the accused and upheld the first-instance judgment, which thereby became final.\n11.  On 30 October 1998 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu), seeking compensation for the ill-treatment sustained. He sought a total of 295,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. In response, the State, represented by the State Attorney’s Office, replied that the applicant’s claim was excessive.\n12.  On 10 November 1999 the court obtained an opinion from a medical expert. The expert established that the applicant had sustained the following injuries: several contusions on the head (affecting the vertex and the occipital and temporal lobes), bruising on ears, thighs, the left elbow and the left part of the abdomen. Those injuries had healed completely, with no permanent consequences, and had not resulted in the loss of amenities of life. The expert further found that the applicant had suffered constant severe pain for one or two days, occasional moderate pain for three or four days and occasional mild pain for three or four weeks. During the incident the applicant had also experienced intense, primal fear and, for the next one or two days, residual fear – the intensity of which had gradually subsided and completely disappeared over the three subsequent weeks.\n13.  In written submissions of 15 June 2001 the applicant’s representative raised his initial claim for compensation to HRK 335,000, of which HRK 300,000 was sought for mental anguish caused by the ill-treatment, HRK 15,000 for physical pain and HRK 20,000 for fear. At a hearing held on 21 June 2001 the applicant’s representative reiterated that claim and, at the same time, withdrew his earlier objections to the expert’s opinion.\n14.  On 17 September 2002 the Municipal Court gave judgment, whereby it awarded the applicant a total of HRK 14,500 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained by arbitrary deprivation of liberty and ill-treatment, together with statutory default interest running from 17 September 2002 and HRK 3,553.31 in costs. In particular, the court awarded the applicant HRK 5,000 for breach of his reputation and honour, liberty and rights of personality, HRK 4,500 for physical pain and HRK 5,000 for fear. At the same time, it dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s compensation claim (HRK 320,500) and ordered him to ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7584", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Ms Lidiya Musayevna Taziyeva (“the first applicant”), Mr Askhab Musayevich Taziyev (“the second applicant”), Ms Pyatimat Musayevna Malsagova (“the third applicant”), Ms Zareta Musayevna Taziyeva (“the fourth applicant”), Mr Aslan Musayevich Taziyev (“the fifth applicant”), Ms Makka Umarovna Taziyeva (“the sixth applicant”), Ms Milana Aslanovna Taziyeva (“the seventh applicant”), Ms Ayshat Aslanovna Taziyeva (“the eighth applicant”) and Ms Rabiya Aslanovna Taziyeva (“the ninth applicant”), are Russian nationals who were born in 1940, 1966, 1971, 1976, 1979, 1982, 2000, 2001 and 2004 respectively and live in the village of Nasyr-Kort, Ingushetia, Russia.\n6.  The applicants (a mother, her two daughters, two sons, a daughter-in-law and three grandchildren) lived together in a house in Nasyr-Kort.\n7.  On 27 December 2005 officers of the Federal Security Service of Russia (“the FSB”) and of the Ministry of the Interior of Ingushetia went to the applicants’ home in a search for Mr Ali Taziyev, another son of the first applicant, whom they suspected of terrorist offences. The force consisted of about 100 armed men in black masks and military uniforms, an armoured personnel carrier, six or seven minibuses and two cars without state identification numbers. Mr Ali Taziyev had been declared dead by a court judgment of 6 July 2001. According to the applicants at the time of their submissions, they have not seen him since 1998.\n8.  At 6.40 a.m. the armoured personnel carrier broke down the gates of the applicants’ house and entered the courtyard, damaging the fence roof, walls, the vineyard and a parked car. The soldiers ordered the applicants, who mostly did not have daytime clothes on (except for the second applicant, who was at work) to come out of the house. They tied up the fifth applicant and made him move around inside the house and its courtyard, threatening him with a gun and demanding to know the whereabouts of his brother, Mr Ali Taziyev.\n9.  The women and children of the applicants’ family were made to stay outside in sub-zero temperatures, and were then allowed to go to a neighbour’s house, but only several hours later. Some more hours later the fifth applicant heard the armed men saying on their radio that the information that a fighter was present in the applicants’ house was false. At around 12.30 p.m. the servicemen left, without finding any trace of Mr Ali Taziyev.\n10.  After the soldiers had left, the applicants (joined by the second applicant) found that furniture, carpets and other items inside the house had been damaged, and that money, jewellery and documents belonging to the third and fourth applicants had disappeared.\n11.  The applicants took photographs and a video of their house and yard, showing the damage caused.\n12.  The Government disputed the applicants’ version of the events. In their view, when the security forces had approached the applicants’ house they had explained the purpose of their visit, but the applicants had refused to open the gate. They were therefore obliged to ram it with the armoured vehicle. The applicants had refused to cooperate and had insulted the officers. None of the applicants had been forced to stay outside for a long period without appropriate clothes. The time the women and children had spent outside was no longer than two hours. During the search none of the applicants’ belongings were damaged or stolen.\n13.  Immediately after the incident the first applicant contacted ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7585", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Kriva Palanka.\n6.  The applicant worked as a salesperson in a food store run by company T. (“the employer”). In 1994 goods went missing from the store. As the person responsible for the loss could not be identified, on 31 January 1995 the employer requested that the employees compensate the losses sustained. The amount which each employee was asked to pay was calculated in proportion to their working hours with the employer. Several employees, including the applicant, were required to pay 115,682 Macedonian denars (the equivalent of 1,880 euros (EUR)).\n7.  On 7 March 1995 the applicant and nine colleagues brought a civil action against the employer seeking annulment of the payment requests. On 26 April 1995 the Kriva Palanka Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) accepted the claim. On 17 April 1997 the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed that judgment due to the lower court’s errors in fact and law. On 26 March 1999 the Skopje Court of Appeal again ordered the re-examination of the case, because the payment requests had not been enforceable and binding on the claimants. Accordingly, it found that the claimants had lacked a legal interest in pursuing the claim. On 31 May 1999 the first-instance court dismissed the claim for lack of legal interest. That judgment was quashed on appeal, as it had failed to state whether there had been any procedural flaws regarding the payment requests. On 15 May 2003 the first-instance court accepted the claim and annulled the employer’s payment requests. On 2 March 2005 the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and rejected the claim as inadmissible (недозволена). It found that the claimants had not been entitled, under section 138 of the Employment Act 1993 as in force at the time (see paragraph 22 below), to seek the annulment of the payment requests, but rather that the employer instead had the right to seek, under section 101 of the same Act (see paragraph 21 below), a court order that the claimants reimburse the losses sustained. In those proceedings, the court would assess whether there was any damage attributable to any employee.\n8.  As the first-instance court stated in a letter of 3 September 2010, there was no evidence that the judgment was served on the applicant or her legal representative. The applicant asserted that she had learnt about it in February 2007. The Government did not present any evidence to disprove that allegation.\n9.  On 21 November 1995 the employer brought a civil action seeking a judgment ordering the applicant to pay the amount specified in the payment request. Initially, the first-instance court rejected the claim. Subsequently, it dismissed the employer’s claim on three occasions due to lack of evidence that any responsibility could be attributed to the applicant. All of those judgments were quashed on appeal by the Skopje Court of Appeal.\n10.  On 3 April 2006 the first-instance court rendered its most recent judgment in the matter, in which it again dismissed the employer’s claim. The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows:\n“... the loss was either the result of goods going missing from the store ... or money not being put in the cash register each day. Since [the employer] did not identify the person responsible for the losses, it requested that the employees [reimburse its losses] in an amount corresponding to their working hours in 1994 ... no (internal) proceedings were carried out in order (th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7586", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Slovenj Gradec.\n5.  On 3 December 1993 enforcement proceedings were instituted against the applicant by a company Adapta d.o.o. The writ of execution was issued on 7 December 1993. Following an objection to the writ of execution a decision upholding the objection was issued. The proceedings continued as contentious proceedings.\n6.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia.\n7.  In December 1994, following the reorganisation of the judiciary, the case was referred to the Slovenj Gradec District Court.\n8.  On 5 October 1998 the court held the first hearing.\n9.  On 11 November 1998 the court appointed a building expert in construction. The expert opinion was submitted on 14 June 1999.\n10.  The hearing scheduled for 10 July 2000 was postponed due to problems with serving of the notice of the hearing on the plaintiff. The plaintiff informed the court of the change of address on 14 August 2000.\n11.  On 1 September 2000 the court requested an authority from the new representative of the plaintiff. The form was submitted to the court on 5 February 2001.\n12.  The hearing scheduled for 23 March 2001 was postponed on the request of the plaintiff.\n13.  Between 20 April 2001 and 12 April 2002 the court held two hearings.\n14.  On 12 April 2002, after the last hearing, the court delivered a judgment. Appeals were lodged by both parties.\n15.  On 24 May 2002 the case-file was transferred to the Maribor Higher Court.\n16.  On 18 September 2003 the case was returned to the first-instance court due to the fact that the company Adapta d.o.o. had been deleted ex-officio from the Register of Companies on 11 June 2003.\n17.  On 2 October 2003 the first-instance court issued a decision on the stay of proceedings.\n18.  On 17 March 2004 the court received a statement from the legal successor of the plaintiff, informing the court of its intention to continue the proceedings.\n19.  On 23 March 2004 the court issued a decision on the continuation of proceedings. In addition, on 29 March 2004 the applicant lodged a counter-claim.\n20.  On 15 April 2004 the first-instance court again sent the case-file to the Maribor Higher Court for consideration.\n21.  On 6 December 2005 the court upheld the first-instance judgment. The judgment was served on the applicant’s representative on 12 January 2006.\n22.  On 16 March 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law together with a motion to reinstate the case, since the deadline for the appeal on points of law had elapsed.\n23.  On 26 May 2006 the Slovenj Gradec District Court held a hearing and rejected the applicant’s motion to reinstate the case as unfounded and the appeal on points of law for being lodged out of time. The applicant appealed.\n24.  On 29 January 2007 the appeal was rejected. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n25.  On 28 August 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal (see paragraph 34 below).\n26.  On 24 February 2006 the first-instance court issued a writ of execution based on the first- and second-instance judgments (see paragraphs 14 and 21 above). The applicant lodged an objection.\n27.  On 6 April 2006 the court rejected the objection. The applicant appealed.\n28.  On 16 May 2006 the Maribor Higher Court rejected the appeal.\n29.  On 13 June 2006 the creditor lodged a request for a new means of enforcement, namely the sale of movable property.\n30.  On 15", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7588", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Mlini.\n6.  The applicant was an employee of the publicly-owned enterprise Mlini Hotels. In 1970 the applicant moved into a flat in Mlini, Dubrovnik, situated in a publicly-owned building.\n7.  On 9 July 1997 the Republic of Croatia sold the building where the flat the applicant occupied was situated to Mlini Hotels, which had in the meantime become a private enterprise.\n8.  On 9 May 2005 Mlini Hotels brought a civil action in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court, seeking the applicant’s eviction on the ground that she had no legal basis to occupy the flat.\n9.  On 19 October 2005 the applicant lodged a counterclaim, requesting the Dubrovnik Municipal Court to recognise her protected tenancy on the flat she occupied and to issue a judgment which would replace the contract on the sale of the flat.\n10.  On 25 October 2005 the applicant entered a sale contract, purchasing another flat in Dubrovnik.\n11.  On 28 December 2005 the Dubrovnik Municipal Court reached a decision on the basis of documentary evidence. It accepted the plaintiff’s claim and dismissed the applicant’s counterclaim and ordered the applicant to vacate the flat. The relevant part of the judgment reads:\n“This court has established in the first place that the premises in dispute are not a flat within the meaning of section 6 § 1(1) of the Housing Act ... which prescribes that a flat is a unit of premises, designed for permanent dwelling, with the necessary pertinent premises, which in principle constitutes a single construction unit and has a separate main entrance. The plaintiff’s submissions, uncontested by the defendant, indicate that the defendant is occupying premises measuring 43 square metres and consisting of four rooms and a communal bathroom with a toilet and hall. It is thus clear that this is not a single construction unit, in other words, that the said premises are not a flat within the meaning of the Housing Act.\nBesides, it is undisputed between the parties that the premises in question are situated in the plaintiff’s personnel’s building, as is shown in the documents submitted by the defendant with her counterclaim. Since this building was intended to provide temporary accommodation for the plaintiff’s employees, the defendant could not acquire a protected tenancy of these premises, pursuant to section 8 § 1(1) of the Housing Act ... which provides that a protected tenancy may not be acquired in respect of flats intended for temporary occupation. Besides, since the premises in question are not a flat within the meaning of the Housing Act, the defendant could not acquire a protected tenancy on the basis of section 91 of the Housing Act ... as she stated in her counterclaim, asserting that she had a protected tenancy of the ‘flat’ in question, allegedly given to her by the plaintiff for her occupation until another flat became available, since no other flat had subsequently been given to her. The defendant has not provided documentary proof of her assertion ... nor could this assertion be proved by evidence from witnesses – former tenants in the ‘personal [sic] building’ who had been given other flats - or by testimony from the defendant, as she suggested in her counterclaim, and therefore this court rejects the proposed evidence as superfluous and aimed at delaying the proceedings.\n... the defendant could not acquire a protected tenancy of the premises in question because they had been allocated to her, on the same basis a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7590", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, who is of Kurdish origin, was born in 1969 in north‑west Syria and lives in Nicosia.\n10.  The applicant left Syria on 21 May 2005 and, after travelling to Turkey and then to the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”), he entered Cyprus unlawfully.\n11.  He applied for asylum on 12 September 2005 and an interview was held on 21 June 2006 with the Asylum Service.\n12.  His application was dismissed by the Asylum Service on 21 July 2006 on the ground that the applicant did not fulfil the requirements of the Refugee Law of 2000-2005[1], namely, he had not shown a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group or political opinion or a well-founded fear of serious and unjustified harm for other reasons. The Asylum Service noted that there had been discrepancies in his account of the facts which undermined his credibility. In particular, there had been significant contradictions regarding his origins. It was also observed that the applicant had not been able to reply satisfactorily and with precision to certain questions or to give the information required in a persuasive manner. In conclusion, the Asylum Service found that the asylum application had not been substantiated.\n13.  On 1 August 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Reviewing Authority for Refugees (hereafter “the Reviewing Authority”) against the Asylum Service’s decision. The appeal was dismissed on 1 February 2008.\n14.  The Reviewing Authority upheld the decision of the Asylum Service. In its decision it observed that the applicant’s claims had not been credible and had been vague and unsubstantiated. The Reviewing Authority noted, inter alia, that although the applicant had stated in his interview with the Asylum Service that he had been arrested and detained for three days by the Syrian military security forces, that had been in 1992, thirteen years before he decided to leave the country. With the exception of this incident, he had confirmed that he had never been harassed by the Syrian authorities and had never been persecuted. Moreover, although the applicant claimed that he had stated in his interview with the Asylum Service that he had been subjected to electric shock treatment and the “wheel treatment” whilst in detention in Syria, it transpired from the minutes of that interview that he had in fact stated that the electric cables had not functioned and had not mentioned that the wheel had been used to torture him. The Asylum Service had therefore not considered it necessary to refer him for a medical examination. The Reviewing Authority also observed that the applicant had merely claimed that he had left Syria on account of the increased pressure on the Kurdish population in that country following the events in Qamishli in 2004 and his fear of being arrested in the future, and because of his political activities as a member of the Yekiti Party. His allegations, however, had been general and vague. Further, his written asylum application had been based on other grounds. In particular, in his application the applicant had stated that he had come to Cyprus in search of work and better living conditions.\n15.  Lastly, the Reviewing Authority pointed out that the applicant had been able to obtain a passport lawfully and to leave Syria. As regards the applicant’s claims concerning his involvement with the Yekiti Party in Syria, it pointed out that the applicant’s replies to questions", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7591", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Costeşti.\n6.  On 15 July 2008 the applicant was visited by three police officers who inquired about the whereabouts of his son and who wanted to conduct a search of the applicant’s house. According to the applicant, when he asked whether they had a warrant they beat him up, handcuffed him and took him to the police station. At the police station the ill-treatment continued. The applicant received a blow to his head as a result of which he fell over and lost consciousness. He woke up lying in a pool of blood and was made to clean it up. The applicant was detained and released five days later. The Government did not contest the above facts.\n7.  On 16 July 2008 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with a prosecutor’s office, complaining about his ill-treatment the evening before.\n8.  On 17 and 23 July 2008 the applicant was examined by forensic doctors who reported that he had scratches and bruises on his face, chest and right foot. The doctors concluded that the injuries could have been caused by blows with a blunt object with a limited surface area, possibly in the way described by the applicant.\n9.  On 25 July 2008 a prosecutor from the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded. The prosecutor’s office reached this conclusion on the basis of statements made by the accused police officers, who submitted that they had searched the applicant’s house in order to find his son. They alleged that the search had been conducted with the applicant’s permission, but that the applicant had kept insulting them during the search. Because of the way the applicant had been behaving, the accused police officers had decided to take him to the police station. His injuries had been caused as a result of him putting up resistance.\n10.  On 29 October 2008 a hierarchically superior prosecutor quashed the above decision and ordered a re-investigation of the circumstances of the case.\n11.  On 21 November 2008 a prosecutor from the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office again dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded, on similar grounds as the first time. The applicant appealed, but his appeal was rejected by a hierarchically superior prosecutor on 31 March 2009. The applicant appealed to an investigating judge.\n12.  In the meantime, the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office initiated administrative proceedings against the applicant on charges of having insulted the accused police officers and having resisted arrest. On 3 March 2009 the Chișinău Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant with final effect, after finding the charges against him ill-founded.\n13.  On 24 April 2009 an investigating judge from the Ialoveni District Court upheld the applicant’s appeal, quashed the decision of 31 March 2009 and ordered a fresh re-examination of the applicant’s complaint.\n14.  On 24 July 2009 a prosecutor from the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office again dismissed the applicant’s complaint.\n15.  On 20 August 2009 a hierarchically superior prosecutor rejected a further appeal by the applicant. The applicant appealed to an investigating judge.\n16.  On 24 December 2009 the Ialoveni District Court upheld the applicant’s appeal, quashed the decisions of 24 July 2009 and 20 August 2009 and ordered a re-examination of the case.\n17.  On 17 February 2010 a prosecutor from the Ialoveni prosecutor’s office again dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The applicant appealed to a hierarchically superior prosecutor", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7592", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1981 and was detained in the Corradino Correctional Facility, Paola, Malta, at the time his application was lodged. He now lives in Qawra, Malta.\n8.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  Following, the applicant’s arrival in Malta on holiday, on 8 September 2009, he was arrested and questioned without the presence of a lawyer or an interpreter. On 10 September 2009, two days after his arrest, the applicant and some other Maltese and foreign suspects were charged with the possession of cannabis, not for their own exclusive use, and with conspiracy for the purposes of drug trafficking. They were brought before a magistrate and remanded in custody.\n10.  The applicant alleged that the conditions of detention in prison amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. There was no access to hot water and there were no heaters. The prison had very dim lighting, which made it impossible to read. No drinking water was provided and had to be purchased by detainees themselves, and there were no facilities for washing clothes.\n11.  The applicant, who suffers from health problems in relation to a dilated cerebral blood vessel which he claimed can be potentially fatal, complained that while in detention he had not received the relevant treatment he had previously been prescribed. According to a Lithuanian medical certificate of 2008 that he submitted, his condition caused headaches and required annual screening. In the event of increased dilation, surgical treatment might be needed. The certificate recommended that a computerised tomography (CT) scan be carried out between November and December 2009 and that the applicant avoid emotional strain and physical activity.\n12.  According to the first medical report submitted by the Government, namely a prison doctor’s summary dated 9 August 2011, the applicant’s condition was as follows.\nOn admission, the applicant was not on any regular treatment save for analgesics (paracetamol and later a different type), which he took regularly. He had a history of recurring headaches and mental illness, for which he had received regular psychotherapy in the United Kingdom. Subsequent (blood and chest X-ray) tests did not reveal anything unusual. He was seen once by a forensic psychologist who expressed concern about the level of anxiety he was exhibiting on account of his incarceration, but the applicant refused to attend any further sessions. On 13 January 2010 the applicant asked to see a doctor because of headaches connected to his medical condition. He was referred to hospital with the relevant Lithuanian medical certificate from 2008. On 14 July 2010 the applicant visited the prison clinic, complaining that he had not yet been sent to hospital. The hospital was contacted the following day and an appointment was obtained for 8 March 2011. The applicant refused to attend.\n13.  In his reply, the applicant contested the veracity of the medical summary. He claimed that he had only had a blood test on admission, and had never been taken to hospital for an X-ray. He had persistently requested to be seen by a prison psychologist after his first visit, but had repeatedly been told that he had to wait his turn as the prison was overcrowded. He had even attempted to go to see the psychologist in person, but the latter had given him the same reply. He claimed that he had been left suffering from headaches for days and that the prison authorities had r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7593", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1987 and at the time of the introduction of the application was detained in Lyster Barracks Detention Centre, Hal Far, Malta.\n6.  In 2001 the applicant’s parents fled to Eritrea, where she joined them in 2003. In 2004 the applicant married Abdi Mohammed Omar in Eritrea; a son, Ahmed, was born of this union on 24 June 2005. In 2008 the applicant left Eritrea, leaving her son in the care of her parents as it was too dangerous for her to travel with him. She has not seen him since.\n7.  After leaving Eritrea, the applicant travelled through Sudan and Libya. She entered Malta irregularly, by boat, on 5 February 2009.\n8.  Upon her arrival in Malta she was registered by the immigration authorities, given the identification number 09C-020 and served with a Removal Order under Article 14(1) of the Immigration Act, Chapter 217 of the Laws of Malta (see Relevant Domestic Law, below), as she was deemed to be a “prohibited immigrant” under Article 5 of that Act. She was then immediately placed in detention at Ta’ Kandja Detention Centre pursuant to Article 14(2) of that Act, which stipulates that a person on whom a removal order is served “shall be detained in custody until he is removed from Malta” (see Relevant Domestic Law, below). According to the applicant, the said Removal Order did not contain specific reasons for her detention. The Government contested that statement. According to the applicant, in Ta’ Kandja she was placed in a dormitory with forty other people, including single women and children, with only occasional access to the adjoining yard for air.\n9.  On 18 February 2009 the applicant filled in a Preliminary Questionnaire, thereby registering her wish to apply for asylum under Article 8 of the Refugees Act, Chapter 420 of the Laws of Malta (see Relevant Domestic Law, below). However, the applicant was not sure about the content and purpose of the form since it was in English. At the time forms were simply distributed to asylum seekers by the Detention Service staff without any accompanying information. The Government explained that migrants used to interpret to each other in cases where some of them did not understand how to fill in the questionnaire and that several NGOs also assisted in filling it in. As the applicant could not read or speak any English, she relied heavily on fellow detainees to complete the form, both for practical assistance and for information as to what she should say. On the advice of fellow detainees, who were her only source of information about the asylum procedures in the circumstances, the applicant did not divulge the fact that she and the rest of her family were refugees in Eritrea, for fear that her application would be rejected and she would be sent back there.\n10.  According to the Government, the applicant was taken to receive primary health care on 15 March 2009 and medical appointments were fixed for her on 19 May and 20 June 2009.\n11.  On 27 March 2009 the applicant was called by the Office of the Refugee Commissioner to complete a formal application for recognition of refugee status in Malta and to attend an interview to present the grounds on which she was requesting protection. In her application and subsequent interview, the applicant repeated what she had said earlier, namely that her family was poor, there was no government in Somalia and that she had left because she could not find a job there. She did not attempt to remedy the situation by correcting the in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7594", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant, allegedly a Sierra Leone national, was born in 1983 and was detained at Safi Barracks at the time of the introduction of the application.\n7.  The applicant entered Malta in an irregular manner by boat on 8 April 2011. Upon arrival, he was arrested by the police and presented with a document containing both a Return Decision and a Removal Order in view of his presence in Malta as a prohibited immigrant in terms of Article 5 of the Immigration Act (Chapter 217 of the Laws of Malta). He was defined as such owing to his entry into Malta in an irregular manner and in consideration of the fact that he did not have sufficient means to support himself. The Return Decision informed the applicant of the possibility to apply for a period of voluntary departure. The lower half of the same document contained a Removal Order based on the rejection of the applicant’s request for a period of voluntary departure. It noted that the request had not been acceded to for the following reasons: the risk that the applicant might abscond; the fact that his application for legal stay was considered to be manifestly unfounded or fraudulent; and the fact that he was considered to be a threat to public policy, public security or national security (see paragraph 27 below).\n8.  In fact, the applicant never actually made a request for a voluntary departure period, since the rejection was, as explained above, automatically presented to him with the information regarding the possibility of making such a request. The applicant was never informed of the considerations leading to this decision or given any opportunity to present information, documentation and/or other evidence in support of a possible request for a voluntary departure period.\n9.  The applicant was further informed, through the joint Return Decision and Removal Order, of his right to appeal against the Decision and Order before the Immigration Appeals Board (“the IAB”) within three working days. No further information was provided on the appeals procedure, including the availability of legal assistance; the latter assertion was denied by the Government.\n10.  On the basis of the Return Decision and Removal Order, and in accordance with the Immigration Act, the applicant was detained in Safi Barracks.\n11.  On 14 April 2011, whilst in Safi Barracks, the applicant submitted the Preliminary Questionnaire, the first stage of his application for asylum in Malta.\n12.  On 31 December 2011 the applicant’s asylum application was rejected by the Office of the Refugee Commissioner, who considered that the claim as presented failed to meet the criteria for recognition of refugee status.\n13.  On 24 January 2012 the applicant appealed to the Refugee Appeals Board. The parties presented submissions on 29 March 2012.\n14.  On 2 April 2012 the Refugee Appeals Board rejected the applicant’s appeal, thereby definitively closing the asylum procedure almost twelve months after his arrival in Malta.\n15.  In the meantime, pending the above asylum proceedings, the applicant lodged an application with the IAB on 28 June 2011 in order to challenge the legality of his detention in terms of the Immigration Act. The application was based on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and Regulation 11(10) of the Common Standards and Procedures for Returning Illegally Staying Third-Country Nationals Regulations (Legal Notice 81 of 2011, hereinafter “LN 81”) (see “Relevant domestic law” below). In his application the applicant argued", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7596", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul. As the facts of the case are in dispute between the parties, they will be set out separately. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 6-8). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 9-13). The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 14-26).\n6.  On 6 March 2005 the applicant took part in a demonstration to mark the Women’s Day celebrations in Beyazıt Square in Istanbul, during which a large number of police officers formed a ring around the crowd. Police officers did not prevent people from entering the square and did not interfere with the demonstrations.\n7.  When the celebrations ended with a press release issued by a number of women’s organisations and the crowds began to disperse, police officers started hitting people, including the applicant, with their truncheons and the ends of their weapons and sprayed them with tear gas. As a result of the blows to her head, face and other parts of the body, the applicant fell to the ground. Whilst she was on the ground police officers continued to kick and hit her with their sticks. The police officers also swore at her and insulted her.\n8.  The applicant was seriously injured and was left semi-conscious. She had to be helped by a member of the public to leave the area. The incident was widely publicised in the national and international media.\n9.  On 18 February 2005 the office of the Governor of Istanbul was informed that a demonstration would be held in Beyazıt Square on 6 March 2005 to celebrate Women’s Day. The request to hold the celebrations in Beyazıt Square was rejected and the organising committee was informed in a letter on 23 February 2005 that the celebrations could be held in Çağlayan Square in the Şişli district and in Beykoz Field in the Beykoz district of Istanbul.\n10.  On 6 March 2005 people began gathering at different locations in order to march towards Beyazıt Square. Members of the security forces told them that they would not be allowed to do so because it would obstruct the flow of traffic.\n11.  Members of the security forces waited for 20-25 minutes for the demonstrators to disperse. During that time some of the demonstrators left the area. Those who remained blocked the traffic and insisted on marching to Beyazıt Square. Members of the security forces intervened and reopened the road.\n12.  At around 11.30 a.m. the dispersed groups gathered in Beyazıt Square and read out a press statement. At 1 p.m., after the press statement had been read out, a group of approximately sixty persons refused to leave the area. When the police warned them the demonstrators responded by throwing stones at the police officers. As a result the police officers arrested a number of the demonstrators and took them into custody by using force. The applicant was not arrested.\n13.  During the incident seven police officers were injured and many police cars were damaged by the demonstrators.\n14.  The Government submitted to the Court video footage of the events. The footage is a compilation of news aired by national television channels, as well as the official video recording of the events by a police cameraman. The footage shows police officers wearing gas masks hitting with their truncheons a large number of demonstrators who try to run away from the area. Demonstrators fallen t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7597", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1950 and died in June 2011. His wife and sole heir, Mrs Julia Rousk, decided to pursue the application. She lives in Hässelby.\n7.  The applicant was the owner of a close company and was under a statutory obligation to submit a special income tax return every year. For the tax assessment year 2002 (income earned during 2001), he was obliged to submit the tax return no later than 31 March 2002. However, having failed that, in July 2002, the Tax Authority (Skattemyndigheten) in Stockholm ordered him to submit his tax return within two weeks from receiving the order. As he did not comply with the order, the Tax Authority informed him that it would make a discretionary assessment of his income and, in October 2002, sent him a proposal for a discretionary assessment. The applicant was given two weeks to comment on it, but did not do so. In November 2002, the Tax Authority decided to maintain the proposal and, as it found no grounds for exemption, imposed tax surcharges on him. The applicant was informed that the taxes, tax surcharges and a delay charge amounted to, in total, SEK 232,572 (approximately EUR 27,000). This amount was to be paid by 26 February 2003. The Tax Authority’s decision included information about how to request reconsideration or appeal against it. However, at that time the applicant did neither, nor did he request respite from paying the taxes.\n8.  Since tax debts to the State are immediately enforceable, the Tax Authority, after having reminded the applicant of his obligation to pay the tax debt, passed the claim for collection to the Enforcement Authority (Kronofogdemyndigheten) in Stockholm where it was registered in April 2003.\n9.  On 28 May 2003 the Enforcement Authority issued a writ of execution (beslut om utmätning) attaching the applicant’s site-leasehold right (tomträtt) and the house on the site where the applicant and his wife lived (hereafter referred to as his property). It noted that the applicant’s total enforceable debts amounted to SEK 255,329 and that his property’s taxation value for 2002 was SEK 1,372,000, with his mortgage amounting to SEK 960,200. On 29 April 2003, an Enforcement Officer had been to the applicant’s home for a pre-planned visit to investigate whether he had any assets that could be attached. However, the applicant had not been at home. The Enforcement Officer had left a note for the applicant, requesting him to contact the Enforcement Authority. It would appear that he did not do so. According to an investigation report of the applicant’s assets dated 4 July 2003, and carried out by the Enforcement Authority, no other assets to cover the applicant’s debts than his property was accounted for. The writ of execution of 28 May 2003 was sent to the applicant but it would appear that he only became aware of it some time in July 2003 and on 4 August 2003, upon request by the applicant, the Enforcement Authority sent him a copy of the writ.\n10.  On 10 August 2003 the applicant appealed against the writ of execution to the District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm and requested that it be repealed as his tax debt had not been finally decided. He noted that he had not been served the decision to attach his property and thus had been prevented from appealing against it sooner. He then stated that he would submit his tax return for the tax assessment year 2002 to the Tax Authority immediately and that he had also requested respite from payment of his taxes although ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7598", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971.\n6.  On 13 May 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and five other persons in connection with a murder. On the same day charges were drawn up against the applicant. As his whereabouts were unknown, the authorities decided to place him on the list of wanted persons and issued an order for preventive remand in custody.\n7.  On 21 May 1999 the applicant was arrested. Subsequently, he was charged with membership of an armed gang, murders, extortion, and keeping firearms and ammunition without a permit. A number of his alleged accomplices were also arrested and charged.\n8.  According to the Government, during the pre-trial investigation the authorities took more than 490 investigative actions in order to establish all the facts relevant for the criminal case.\n9.  Following completion of the investigation, on 17 April 2001 a local court received the case file from the investigation authorities.\n10.  On 5 June 2001 the case was allocated to the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (subsequently renamed the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) for consideration on the merits.\n11.  On 25 June 2001 the Court of Appeal committed the applicant and fourteen other defendants for trial, and scheduled the next hearing for 30 July 2001.\n12.  On 30 July 2001 the hearing was adjourned because one of the defendants, some victims and lawyers failed to appear.\n13.  On 6 August and 3 and 5 September 2001 hearings were adjourned owing to the failure of some lawyers to appear.\n14.  On 11 September 2001 the Court of Appeal established the identity of the defendants and read out the bill of indictment. The next hearing was scheduled for 13 September 2001.\n15.  On 13 September 2001 the Court of Appeal adjourned the proceedings, following a request by one of the defendants for the hearings to be recorded, for which the technical means were not available at the time.\n16.  The next hearing was scheduled for 9 July 2002, but on that day the Court of Appeal adjourned it, as one of the defendants and two lawyers had failed to appear.\n17.  On 11 July 2002 the Court of Appeal resumed consideration of the case.\n18.  Between 29 July and 22 October 2002 several hearings were postponed, as the lawyers of certain defendants could not be present.\n19.  On 12 November 2002 the Court of Appeal postponed the hearing till 24 February 2003, because one of the lay judges had to deal with another case until that date.\n20.  Between 18 March and 10 September 2003 no hearings were held, as one of the lay judges was ill.\n21.  On 15 December 2003 the Court of Appeal remitted the case for additional investigation, upholding the custodial preventive measure in respect of the applicant after noting that there had been no grounds for changing the measure. The court found, inter alia, that the charges against the applicant and the other defendants had been vague and lacked appropriate substantiation. The decision was appealed against by the prosecution.\n22.  On 8 May 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 15 December 2003 and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal for trial.\n23.  The next hearing in the case took place on 28 February 2005; previous hearings had been adjourned because some defendants and lawyers had failed to appear.\n24.  A number of later hearings also had to be adjourned for various reasons, including failure to appear by defendants, witness", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7599", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Aš.\n6.  At about 3 a.m. on 1 May 2010 the applicant was on his way home from a bar where he had been drinking alcohol when a municipal police patrol stopped him and asked to see his identity card. He had no identity documents with him, but told the patrol that he lived just fifty metres away and that they could accompany him home where he could prove his identity. The patrol, however, insisted on taking him by car to Aš police station, where he provided his name and address. He was then told that he had committed the administrative offence (přestupek) of urinating in a public place. A breathalyser test gave a result of 2 per mille of alcohol in the applicant’s blood.\n7.  The following events at the police station are disputed between the parties.\n8.  After establishing the applicant’s identity and the level of alcohol in his blood, the police invited the applicant to enter another room. He refused to do so and asked why he had been brought to the police station. A police officer twisted his arm, handcuffed him and led him to a police cell where the applicant was handcuffed to an iron ring on the wall. He attempted to free himself but was punched in the chest, the back of his head and his cheek bone. He was left handcuffed to the wall by one hand.\n9.  After some time, the applicant started kicking in order to attract the attention of some other police officers who might free him. However, the same police officer entered the cell and knocked him to the ground. He then knelt on the applicant’s chest and thumped him several times with both hands. The police officer then stretched the applicant’s free arm and handcuffed it to an iron ring on the other side of the cell. He kicked the applicant’s legs so that he was hanging from his stretched arms. Lastly, he shackled the applicant’s legs and hit him several times on his back. Another police officer was watching these events in the cell. After being left in this agonising position for about thirty minutes, the applicant was told to go home.\n10.  According to the Government, the applicant was verbally aggressive when he was taken to the police station and was therefore placed in a cell. In the cell he started kicking the door and made a hole 6 cm in diameter. The value of the door was 500 Czech korunas (CZK) (24 euros (EUR)). The police officers reacted by attaching one of the applicant’s hands to an iron ring on the wall in order to prevent him from destroying the equipment in the cell. As the applicant did not stop kicking and shouting, his other hand was handcuffed to another iron ring on the opposite wall. Since even that did not prevent the applicant from kicking and trying to reach the door, his hands were handcuffed behind his back and attached to an iron ring, and his legs were tied with a leather strap. After fifty minutes in the cell, the applicant calmed down and was released.\n11.  While still at the police station, the applicant called an ambulance and asked for a medical certificate confirming his injuries. However, the doctor who arrived examined him quickly and concluded that his injuries were old and that he did not need any medical treatment.\n12.  Later in the morning of 1 May 2010 the applicant went to a hospital. The doctor issued a certificate stating that he had some old injuries on his back but also fresh injuries on his back, neck and head, bruises on his wrists and a painful chest. He was given sixteen days’ sick leave.\n13.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7600", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  Mr Khodorkovskiy (the first applicant) was born in 1963. He is currently serving a prison sentence in a penal colony in the Karelia Region. Mr Lebedev (the second applicant) was born in 1956 and is now serving a prison sentence in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region.\n8.  The first applicant is the former head and one of the major shareholders of Yukos Plc, which at the relevant time was one of the largest oil companies in Russia. Before working in Yukos Plc, he was a senior manager and co-owner of the Menatep bank and the Rosprom holding (an industrial holding affiliated with Menatep) and controlled a number of other financial and industrial companies. In particular, he was the Head of the Executive Board of Yukos-Moskva Ltd and later its President. Further below the group of companies affiliated with Yukos will be referred to as “Yukos”.\n9.  The second applicant was the first applicant’s business partner and a close friend. In 1990s the second applicant was the chief executive of the Menatep bank and a top-manager of the Rosprom holding. From 1998 the second applicant worked as a one of the directors of Yukos-Moskva Ltd. He was also one of the major shareholders of Yukos.\n10.  Yukos was created as a result of the mass privatisation of the State oil and mining industry which took place in the mid-1990s. Following privatisation, new management techniques were introduced and the companies acquired by Yukos were reorganised. In particular, sales of the producing companies were re-directed to new trading companies. As a result, Yukos became one of the most successful businesses in Russia, and the first applicant was mentioned in the press as one of the richest persons in Russia.\n11.  Amongst other acquisitions by Yukos in the course of the privatisation were 20 per cent of the shares of a large mining company, Apatit Plc (hereinafter referred to as “Apatit”), a major supplier of the apatite concentrate in the country. The acquisition of Apatit shares gave rise to litigation in which the State Property Fund opposed Yukos. The former claimed that Yukos had failed to meet its obligations under the privatisation agreement. That litigation ended in 2002 with a friendly settlement: the State Property Fund accepted a termination fee while acknowledging the rights of Yukos to 20 per cent of Apatit shares.\n12.   Most of the Yukos produce was sold abroad. However, Yukos did not trade directly with foreign firms but sold its output to several Russian companies (“trading companies”) registered in the zones with special tax regime, in particular in the town of Lesnoy, situated in the Sverdlovsk region in the Urals (also referred to as the “ZATO”, an abbreviation translated as “closed administrative territorial formation”). Special taxation in Lesnoy was established by the Federal Law “On Closed Administrative-Territorial Entities” of 14 July 1992 (the “ZATO Act”). The ZATO Act was supposed to attract investors to economicly depressed areas and foster economic growth there.\n13.  Such mode of operation persisted for several years; Yukos trading companies were operating on the basis of “preferential taxation agreements” with the administration of the Lesnoy town. Those agreements were renewed every year since 1998. Thus, for example, on 28 January 2000 the town administration concluded a preferential tax agreement with Business Oil Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “Business Oil”), the main trading company of Yukos in Lesnoy, providing it, amongst other tax cuts", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7602", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  On 23 May 2003, the Bucharest Social Services Department issued a certificate attesting that the applicant, who has suffered from flaccid paralysis of both of his lower limbs since he was a child, had been classified as a person with a permanent severe physical disability. The medical panel which examined the applicant at that time did not grant him the right to benefit from a personal care assistant.\n7.  During the years 2003 to 2009, several sets of criminal proceedings resulting in conviction were brought against the applicant on different charges of embezzlement and fraud. On 10 March 2010 the Bucharest District Court granted the applicant’s request to have the different prison sentences joined, and thereby sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment.\n8.  From 11 May 2009 to 23 August 2011, the applicant served out that prison sentence in Jilava Prison.\n9.  According to the applicant, his cell in Jilava Prison was overcrowded: he shared a 20 sq. m cell with seventeen other detainees. Sanitary conditions were poor and he lacked regular access to hot and cold water. There was no table in the cell and detainees had to eat their meals in bed. The cell was equipped with a squat toilet, which was not specifically adapted for people with disabilities.\n10.  No special arrangements were made for him in the light of his disability. He was dependent on the other inmates to be moved around the prison, because he did not have his own wheelchair. He was not assigned a personal care assistant and was permanently subjected to humiliating and degrading remarks from his cellmates, the same people to whom he had to appeal for assistance.\n11.  The applicant served his sentence in a semi-open wing of the prison. He was allowed to move about freely during the day, within the areas designated by the prison administration. The cell’s door was open during the day.\n12.  Relying on the information submitted by the prison authorities concerning the size and facilities of the cell that the applicant had occupied during his detention in Jilava Prison, the Government stated that applicant had been held in cells nos. 419 and 416. Cell no. 419 was 34.81 sq. m in size; it had twenty-four beds and accommodated between nineteen and twenty-three detainees at the relevant time. Cell no. 416 was 34.36 sq. m in size; it had twenty-two beds and accommodated between twenty-one and twenty-two detainees at the relevant time. Each cell had four windows, one table, one or two benches for seating and a toilet.\n13.  Access to communal showers was allowed twice a week for fifteen minutes each time, in accordance with a pre-established schedule.\n14.  The inmates were responsible for the cleaning of their cells, using products left at their disposal by the prison. Pest control measures and insecticide treatments were carried out every three months.\n15.  The applicant had a wheelchair at his disposal and the toilet seat was adapted for his special needs. Within the prison three access ramps had been installed in order to facilitate the freedom of movement of disabled people: the first one at the entrance to the building, the second one at the entrance to the first detention wing, which allowed access to the second and the third detention wings, and the last one at the entrance of the fourth detention wing.\n16.  According to the prison medical records, the applicant was diagnosed at the beginning of his impri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7603", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  By a final judgment of 22 October 2008 the Bucharest Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of attempted aggravated theft and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment on the basis of documentary and testimonial evidence.\n7.  On 16 March 2009 the applicant was detained in Rahova Prison.\n8.  On 10 December 2009 the applicant stated to the Court that following his return to prison on 16 August 2009 he had to share a cell with fourteen other detainees. Some of the detainees were smokers, even though his medical condition dictated that he should avoid smoking and passive smoking. The temperature in the cells was very low and the detainees were forced to fill in cracks in the windows with their own clothes. The bedding was infested with bedbugs and the applicant developed a severe rash from insect bites. Furthermore, he was forced to sleep with the light on at night and to live in poor hygiene conditions. In addition, the food was of poor quality and he was not provided with a diet suitable for his medical condition.\n9.  The applicant was detained in cells nos. 101 and 105 from 16 March to 8 April 2009, from 16 August to 7 September 2009 and from 2 May to 27 May 2010.\n10.  Each of the cells measured 19.3 sq. m and during the applicant’s detention had been occupied by between five and thirteen inmates. The cells were fitted with an unspecified number of bunk beds measuring 1.80 x 0.80 metres, tables, benches, a coat hanger and a television stand. During his detention the applicant had his own bed. Smokers were segregated from non-smokers. On 3 June 2010 the applicant signed a written statement declaring that he was a smoker.\n11.  Each of the cells also had a bathroom fitted with two sinks, a shower and a toilet with natural ventilation. Cold water was supplied at all times, and warm water was available twice a week. Rubbish collections were carried out and the halls, stairs and prison buildings were cleaned twice a day or as often as required. The prison issued inmates with specific cleaning materials and they could purchase any personal hygiene products they needed from the prison shop. The cells were disinfected of bugs and vermin by specialist companies every three months or as often as required.\n12.  The prison was fitted with its own gas central heating system and the cells had radiators, which were on for a total of eight hours a day depending on the weather.\n13.  The applicant was provided with a special diet for his heart condition. The food was prepared daily and was of good quality.\n14.  At night only a dim light in the hallway was turned on. Lights within the cells were normally switched off at night, and detainees could turn them off themselves as there were light switches in the cells.\n(b)  Jilava Prison\n15.  The applicant was detained in cells nos. 418 and 419 in the Jilava Prison Hospital from 17 September to 25 November 2009, from 14 December 2009 to 16 February 2010, from 3 to 15 June 2010 and from 26 July to 6 December 2010.\n16.  Each of the cells measured 45.29 sq. m and during the applicant’s detention until 25 November 2009 had been occupied by between nine and thirteen inmates, and by between seven and eleven inmates for the remaining periods. The cells were fitted with between seven and fourteen beds.\n17.  Cold water was supplied at all times, except for when occasional maintenance work was carried out. Warm water was available twice a week and each cell was", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7604", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Two applicants in case no. 56745/08 reside in Austria; the remaining applicants live in different districts of the Chechen Republic.\n6.  The applicants are close relatives of eight individuals who disappeared in the Chechen Republic after being apprehended by groups of armed men whom the applicants believed to have belonged to the Russian military or security forces. In all cases the applicants’ relatives were abducted in Grozny or the Grozny District of the Chechen Republic between 2000 and 2002. In one case (Gakayev and Others, no.  56745/08), two bodies of the victims have been found with signs of violent deaths. In each case a criminal investigation file was opened by the local prosecutor’s office. Afterwards, the proceedings were suspended and resumed on several occasions. Judging from the documents submitted by the parties, the investigations consisted mainly of collecting the applicants’ testimonies, forwarding inquiries and making formal requests to the authorities in Chechnya and the North Caucasus to carry out operative search measures.\n7.  At the end of 2011 the investigation in each case remained pending without having produced any tangible results as to the whereabouts of the applicants’ missing relatives or the identity of the perpetrators of the crimes.\n8.  In their observations the Government did not challenge the essential facts as presented by the applicants, but noted that as the investigations were pending, it would be premature to draw any conclusions about the exact circumstances of the cases. They argued further that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the abduction and/or subsequent killing of the applicants’ relatives, or that the missing persons were dead.\n9.  Summaries of the facts relevant to each complaint are set out below. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives and some other key facts are summarised in the attached table (Annex I).\n10.  Gelani (also referred to as “Gilani”) Kaykharov, the second applicant (his wife) and their minor daughter lived at 4 Vagonnaya Street in the Oktyabrskiy District of Grozny, in a single-storey apartment block. The building was located near the Oktyabrskiy District department of the interior (“the Oktyabrskiy ROVD”), the district military commander’s office and the local administration office. In 2002 military checkpoints manned by Russian servicemen were located on the roads leading to and from Grozny.\n11.  According to the two applicants of this application, on the night of 20 December 2002 the second applicant, Gelani Kaykharov and their minor daughter were at home. At about 5 a.m. approximately eight to ten men wearing camouflage uniforms, gloves, masks and black hats and armed with automatic weapons, jumped over the fence of the apartment block, broke through the doors and burst into the apartment. The men neither identified themselves nor produced any documents. They spoke Russian without an accent. They locked the second applicant in her bedroom with the child. She heard one of the men ordering her husband to put clothes on and to dress warmly. The second applicant called out from the room to ask where her husband was being taken. One of the men answered that they would run a check on his identity and would then release him by 9 a.m.\n12.  As soon as the intruders left the house, the second applicant went outside the building. She saw her husband being led on foot along Dalnyaya ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7606", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Novy Tsentoroy, Chechnya.\n6.  On 18 January 2002 Ramzan Saidov voluntarily surrendered to the Russian authorities and handed over his weapons. Pursuant to the State Duma decree of 13 December 1999 granting an amnesty for crimes committed by members of armed groups during the counter-terrorist operations in the Northern Caucasus, he was absolved of any crimes and issued with a certificate to that end by the Federal Security service (FSB) office of the Gudermes District.\n7.  In 2002 the applicant, her mother and Ramzan Saidov were living at 1/20 Kolkhoznaya Street, in Novy Tsentoroy, Grozny District.\n8.  According to the applicant, between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 10 August 2002 a group of fifteen to twenty men arrived at her house in a UAZ-459 vehicle with the registration number 31-42 CHI. The men were armed with automatic weapons and wore masks and camouflage uniforms. Some of them spoke Russian and others Chechen. They checked the family members’ identity papers and examined the amnesty certificate. Then they locked the applicant and her mother in the house, forced Ramzan Saidov into the car and drove away. The applicant has had no news of her son since that date.\n9.  The applicant referred to the following documents in support of her submissions: her eye-witness statement; her complaint to the authorities dated 1 November 2007 containing a description of the events; and the decision to adjourn the investigation dated 21 August 2008, containing a summary of her account of the circumstances of the abduction.\n10.  The applicant submitted before the Court that her son had been abducted on 10 August 2002, but she had told the investigative authorities that he had been abducted on 8 October 2002 together with I.S. and A.G. (see below). In her further observations before the Court the applicant insisted that the actual date of her son’s abduction was 10 August 2002 and not 8 October 2002, as the national authorities had erroneously stated.\n11.  The Government submitted a copy of the entire criminal file no. 56159 on the abduction of Ramzan Saidov, I.S. and A.G. (1,038 pages). The relevant information may be summarised as follows.\n12.  It is not clear when the applicant first reported her son’s abduction. However, on 1 November 2002 the Chechnya prosecutor’s office forwarded the applicant’s complaint to the Grozny district prosecutor’s office for the opening of a criminal investigation. It does not appear that following that the applicant had pursued this investigation.\n13.  The applicant in her observations argued that the criminal investigation into her son’s abduction had been initiated in August 2002, but that file no. 56723 had apparently been lost in the archives. She submitted the following documents in support of her submissions.\n14.  A letter from the Special Envoy of the Russian President in the Chechen Republic for rights and freedoms (“the Special Envoy”) to the prosecutor’s office of the Chechen Republic, dated 28 October 2002, reads as follows:\n“[The Special Envoy] has received the [applicant’s] complaint about the abduction of her son, [Ramzan Saidov], born in 1976, by unknown armed men in camouflage uniforms at 5 p.m. on 10 August 2002.\nThere has been no news ever since; the search for him has not produced any results.\nYou are asked to inform us and [the applicant] about the measures taken in order to identify the abductors and establish [Ramzan Saidov’s] whereabouts.”\n15.  A certif", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7607", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 24 March 2006, in the course of a military operation, several terrorists were killed by the security forces in Bingöl. On 28 March 2006 a large group of people assembled at their funeral and protested against the security forces. The demonstrations continued and in the course of the events about 1,500 to 2,000 people resisted the police, attacking them with stones, blocking the traffic by burning tyres and damaging nearby shops and public buildings by throwing stones. Many demonstrators were arrested by the police. According to the documents in the case file, the applicant was among those who were arrested on the night of 30 March 2006.\n6.  At 3.30 a.m. on 31 March 2006 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Diyarbakır State Hospital. In his report, the doctor noted that there were ecchymoses on the applicant’s back, lumbar area and the side of his left knee.\n7.  At 10.12 p.m. on 1 April 2006 the applicant was examined by another doctor at the Diyarbakır State Hospital. The medical report indicated large ecchymoses on the applicant’s back and on the outer part of his left femur.\n8.  At 2.46 a.m. on 2 April 2006 the applicant was examined for a third time, by another doctor from the same hospital. According to the report, no new signs of physical violence were found on the applicant.\n9.  Following those medical examinations, the applicant was brought before the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor, where he denied the charges against him.\n10.  On the same day the applicant, along with ten other persons, was questioned by the Diyarbakır investigating judge. The medical report was read to the applicant. He stated that the injuries had not occurred during the incidents but had been inflicted by police officers while he had been in police custody. The judge remanded the applicant in custody.\n11.  On 2 May 2006 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor issued an indictment charging the applicant with involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation.\n12.  On 25 May 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant under Article 314 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to six years and three months’ imprisonment. In convicting the applicant, the assize court relied on video recordings and witness statements, and found it established that the applicant had participated in the funeral and the subsequent demonstrations. The court also had particular regard to the statement of a police officer, who had identified the applicant as the person who had wounded him by throwing stones. It was therefore concluded that the applicant had acted in support of an illegal organisation.\n13.  On 30 May 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.\n14.  In the meantime, on 18 September 2006, on the basis of the medical reports, the applicant filed a complaint with the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor alleging ill-treatment by police officers. He also alleged that the doctor who had not found any new traces of ill-treatment was guilty of professional misconduct.\n15.  On 27 October 2008 the public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute on the ground that the complainant’s statement had not been taken by the police. As he had never been questioned by the police, the public prosecutor considered that the ill-treatment allegations remained abstract. He also concluded that there were no grounds for instituting proceedings against the doctor concerned, as in the me", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7609", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 30 March 2005 the applicant, who is a lawyer, got married and took her husband’s surname pursuant to Article 187 of the Turkish Civil Code. She, however, kept her maiden name in front of her husband’s surname as provided for by the same provision.\n7.  On 9 May 2007 the applicant brought proceedings before the Şişli Court of First Instance for permission to use only her maiden name, “Tuncer”.\n8.  On 18 July 2007 the Şişli Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s request on the ground that, under Article 187 of the Turkish Civil Code, married women had to bear their husband’s name throughout their marriage and were not entitled to use their maiden name alone.\n9.  The applicant appealed. On 22 November 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7610", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1955, 1957, 1977, 1982 and 1989 respectively and live in Van. The first two applicants are the parents and the remaining applicants are the brothers of Mr Şaban Cadıroğlu (Ş.C.), who died in 1999 when he was sixteen years old.\n5.  Ş.C. had been working as a street pedlar in Van. On 16 August 1999 two police officers, M.S. and S.D., were patrolling the streets to prevent pedlars. The facts surrounding the incident are in dispute between the parties. According to the applicants, when Ş.C. saw the police officers he started to run away, but he had to return to pick up a pair of spectacles, which he had dropped. One of the police officers kicked Ş.C., causing him to fall down. He hit his head on the edge of the pavement and died instantly. According to the submissions of the Government, Ş.C. started to run away from the police officers but came over faint, collapsed, and died instantly.\n6.  On the same day, a doctor examined Ş.C.’s body at the Van State Hospital in the presence of the Van public prosecutor. The examination report noted that there were no signs of ill-treatment on the body and concluded that a classical autopsy was necessary to establish the actual cause of death. Accordingly, the body was transferred to Diyarbakır for an autopsy.\n7.  On 17 August 1999 an autopsy was performed at the Diyarbakır State Hospital in the presence of the Diyarbakır public prosecutor. The report stated that there were no signs of traumatic injuries to Ş.C.’s body. Samples of his organs were sent for analysis. The report concluded that the cause of death could not be established and suggested that the case be referred to the Forensic Medicine Institute.\n8.  On 4 April 2000 the Forensic Medicine Institute issued its opinion. The report reiterated the findings of the previous reports and concluded that the actual cause of death could not be established. Reference was also made to histopathology and toxicology reports, which had not revealed anything unusual.\n9.  On 1 September 1999 the Van public prosecutor, pursuant to the Prosecution of Civil Servants Act, transmitted the investigation file to the Van governor’s office to obtain authorisation to prosecute the accused police officers. Subsequently, on 5 October 1999 a police officer was appointed as the reporting officer in the case. During the investigation, he took statements from ten witnesses. Six of the witnesses stated that Ş.C. had fallen on his own as he was running away from the police officers. Four witnesses testified that they had seen a police officer kick Ş.C. from behind, causing him to fall down and hit his head on the edge of the pavement. On 19 June 2000 the reporting officer submitted his report to the Van Provincial Administrative Council and concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the accused police officers were responsible for Ş.C.’s death. Accordingly, he proposed that no proceedings should be brought against the police officers.\n10.  On 29 June 2000 the Van Provincial Administrative Council reached a different conclusion to that of the reporting officer, deciding that criminal proceedings should be initiated against the two accused police officers for inadvertent and negligent homicide. On 8 May 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld that decision.\n11.  Accordingly, criminal proceedings were initiated against the two accused police officers before the Van Criminal Court and the first two applicants intervened in the proceedin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7611", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, who was born in 1964, is currently serving his prison sentence in the Tekirdağ Prison.\n5.  On 26 March 1998, following a house search and the seizure of certain items, the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of the TKP/ML-TIKKO (Communist Party of Turkey//Marxist‑Leninist Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army), an illegal organisation.\n6.  According to the applicant’s statements, he was questioned by police officers on an unspecified date but exercised his right to remain silent. During the questioning, he was not provided with a lawyer.\n7.  In the meantime, on 29 March 1998, a certain co-accused L.L. was confronted with the applicant, in the absence of a lawyer, and identified him as the secretary of the Marmara District and the person responsible for the Istanbul branch of the organisation.\n8.  On 1 April 1998, the applicant and twenty-two other accused persons were examined by a doctor who noted that none of them showed signs of physical violence apart from three of them, including L.L. According to the medical report, L.L. had a three-centimetre ecchymosis on her back and face.\n9.  On the same day, the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court where he denied the allegations, in the absence of his lawyer. In his statements, the applicant also mentioned that he had not been provided with a lawyer during his police custody despite his request to that effect. He also denied the confrontation and identification records in his statements made to the public prosecutor. After the questioning was over, the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody.\n10.  On 21 April 1998 the Istanbul Public Prosecutor issued an indictment, charging the applicant under section 168 of the former Turkish Criminal Code with being a leader of an armed organisation.\n11.  On 6 July 1998 the applicant was released pending trial.\n12.  On 26 October 2001 the first-instance court convicted the applicant as charged.\n13.  On 19 November 2001 the applicant was detained to serve his prison sentence.\n14.  On 14 February 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the conviction for lack of reasoning.\n15.  On 26 December 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court once again convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to eighteen years and nine months’ imprisonment. It noted that, according to the confrontation and identification records, certain of his co-accused, namely M.Ş., L.L., T.Ö. and M.Ş., had identified the applicant as the district leader of the organisation. It further found it established that he had taken part in a number of the organisation’s activities such as hanging illegal banners, throwing Molotov cocktails and participating in illegal demonstrations. The court concluded that the applicant had acted as district leader of the organisation in Istanbul.\n16.  On 25 May 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the conviction.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7612", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1965, 1978 and 1999 respectively. They live in Vilhelmina.\n8.  The applicants requested asylum in Sweden on 28 December 2007. They stated that they had lost all their identity papers in the 1994 war. They had left Russia by lorry on 14 December 2007 because they were under threat from “Kadyrov’s group” [Ramzan Kardyrov], which had arrested and tortured the first applicant. They arrived in Sweden on 23 December 2007.\n9.  On 7 March 2008 legal counsel was appointed to the applicants, who made the following two written submissions before the Migration Board (Migrationsverket).\n10.  In the first submission of 9 April 2008 the applicants stated the following: The first applicant was of Chechen origin and a Muslim. The second applicant was partly of Ukrainian and partly of Chechen origin, and a Russian Orthodox. Between 1983 and 1985, the first applicant performed military service, following which he had worked as a carpenter and then as an apprentice at a periodical until 1992. In the beginning of 1995 he had worked at a hospital, helping wounded people. On 25 February 1995 he had been injured as a result of an explosion outside the hospital. In 1995 he had met a man called H, who accompanied the first and the second applicant to a mountain village. They had stayed there for twelve years until 6 October 2007. H had given the first applicant a camera in order to document the executions of villagers committed by the Russian federal troops. The first applicant had taken photographs and written reports concerning several such executions. The “Kardyrov group” had been behind all those executions. The material had been sent to different television broadcasting companies, including the BBC. In return he had been provided with food. On 6 October 2007 the first applicant had received news that his wife and child had been kidnapped by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (\"the FSB\"). The second applicant had been tortured and raped for several days. On 11 October 2007 she had heard a male voice asking her and the child to be quiet and follow him. They had gone through a gate where another man was waiting for them and then hidden in a house in a village. On 31 October 2007 they had gone to another village where they stayed until 13 December 2007 when she was taken to the first applicant, with whom she and their child were reunited the following day. In the meantime, on 9 October 2007, while searching for his family, the first applicant contacted a military guard, who arrested him. The first applicant was wanted as a key figure and an agent had informed the FSB about him. There was a price on his head of 10.000 dollars. The first applicant had been detained in a cellar and forced under torture to provide information about the rebels, their hiding places and various radio signals. The torture included having a cross burned into his chest with cigarettes. After some time, he had been taken to a forest to be shot. He had been told to run, whereupon the FSB had fired at and hit him three times. He had lost consciousness. By chance he had survived and woke up on 11 October 2007 at a camp where he had been taken by rebels and where he had been operated on by a doctor. The latter told him that two rebels had been near to the place of his planned execution, had fired at the FSB officers and thereby prevented his execution. H came to see him on 14 October 2007 and informed him that he would be killed either by th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7614", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in İstanbul.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant is a nurse working at Eyüp State Hospital. She is also an executive member of the Public Workers’ Union (KESK; Kamu Emekçileri Sendikası).\n8.  On 26 April 2005 the applicant was distributing leaflets to members of the Union working at the hospital. The leaflets had been published by the Union to invite its members to forthcoming May the First International Labour Day celebrations.\n9.  According to the applicant, a police officer working at the hospital got hold of the leaflets and tore them up. The officer also grabbed the applicant by the arm and forcibly put her in a room used for police purposes at the hospital. The applicant and two of her colleagues documented the police officer’s behaviour in a handwritten report.\n10.  Two lawyers, who had been informed of the incident by the applicant’s colleagues, arrived at the police room approximately an hour later and spoke to the police officer. The officer told the lawyers that the applicant was not under arrest. The applicant was released following the arrival of the lawyers.\n11.  After her release the applicant was examined by a consultant doctor at the hospital who stated in a report that there were [marks of] trauma on the applicant’s left arm.\n12.  The same day the police officer stated in a report that he had “invited the [applicant] to the police room” so that he could check whether the distribution of the leaflets was “lawful”. However, the applicant had “shouted” at him and told him that she would be making an official complaint against him. After he had been told by his superiors that there was nothing wrong with the applicant distributing the leaflets, the applicant had left.\n13.  The following day the applicant contacted the Eyüp prosecutor and was referred by that prosecutor to the Eyüp branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute for a medical examination. The doctor who examined the applicant on the same day observed two areas of bleeding under the skin (hyperaemia) on her left arm, each measuring two centimetres, and noted his findings in a report. The doctor considered that the applicant’s injuries would prevent her from working for one day.\n14.  On the same day the applicant submitted an official petition to the Eyüp prosecutor’s office, complaining about the use of force and the false imprisonment by the police officer. She submitted that she had been unlawfully detained by the police officer for approximately one hour. She also drew the prosecutor’s attention to her right, guaranteed by section 18 of the Law on Public Workers’ Unions (Law No. 4688), to participate in union activities after working hours or, with the permission of her employer, during working hours. In her petition the applicant named two of her colleagues who had witnessed the incident. With her petition she also enclosed the doctors’ reports.\n15.  The same day the Chairman of the Public Workers’ Union also submitted a similarly-worded complaint petition to the same prosecutor and complained about the treatment to which the applicant had been subjected by the police officer.\n16.  On 28 April 2005 the prosecutor questioned the police officer in connection with the applicant’s allegations. The police officer denied that he had used force to put the applicant into the police room. He told the pr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7615", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Warsaw.\n6.  The case concerns criminal proceedings against former police officers (Milicja Obywatelska) who faced charges in connection with the assassination, in May 1983, of Grzegorz Przemyk. The victim’s mother, Barbara Sadowska, was at that time a well-known opposition activist. The applicant is the victim’s father.\n7.  Criminal proceedings were instituted in 1983 against the police officers, charging them with beating the victim to death. In 1984 I.K. and other individuals were acquitted.\n8.  On 29 June 1990 the Warsaw Regional Court re-opened the trial and quashed the acquittal, finding that the original proceedings had been seriously defective, essentially because of the authorities’ tampering with the evidence, and that the assessment of the evidence by the court had been fundamentally flawed. The court ordered the prosecution to carry out the investigation again.\n9.  On 29 June 1991 an indictment against I.K. and two other individuals on charges of battery, punishable under Article 153 § 1 of the 1969 Criminal Code, was brought before the Warsaw Regional Court. On 4 November 1991 that court remitted the case back to the prosecuting authorities, finding that there had been serious deficiencies in the investigation.\n10.  On 25 March 1993 the prosecution lodged an indictment against I.K. and two others, former police officers A.D. and K.O., with the Warsaw Regional Court, charging them with the offence punishable under Article 153 § 1 of the 1969 Criminal Code. The applicant had the status of auxiliary prosecutor in the proceedings (oskarzyciel posiłkowy).\nThe case remained dormant until 22 May 1995, when the first hearing in the case was held.\n11.  By a judgment of 4 April 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court acquitted I.K. It convicted A.D. as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. It further reduced the sentence to two years as a result of the Amnesty Act 1990. K.O. was found guilty of destroying evidence in 1990.\nAll the parties, including the applicant, appealed against that judgment.\n12.  On 22 May 1998 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the judgment insofar as it concerned I.K. and remitted the case. At the same time, it acquitted K.O. and upheld, in essence, the conviction of A.D.\nThe applicant lodged a cassation appeal against this judgment with the Supreme Court in so far as it concerned K.O. Lawyers representing A.D. also appealed against the judgment.\n13.  On 22 September 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals.\n14.  The trial against I.K. started anew. The first hearing was scheduled for 18 April 2000. On 19 June 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court acquitted I.K.\nThe applicant appealed.\n15.  The acquittal was upheld by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 17 January 2001. The court held that the offence with which I.K. had been charged had become prescribed on 1 January 2000, when the ten‑year prescription period provided for by Article 9 of the Transitional Provisions of the 1967 Criminal Code (see paragraph 32 below) had elapsed. It was of the view that that period could not be prolonged by the further five years provided for by Article 102 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 30 below) because the prescription period had started to run in 1983 when the proceedings had been instituted for the first time. The provision of Article 9 of the Transitional Provisions to the Criminal Code (see paragraph 32 below) had no effect on the running of that period.\nThe applicant a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7617", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Cantemir.\n6.  On 3 March 2008 the Cantemir District Court found the applicant guilty of unlawfully appropriating money (1,400 Moldovan lei (MDL)) collected by her community to fund certain celebrations. She was ordered to pay a fine of 600 conventional units (each such unit being equal to MDL 20; overall MDL 12,000 (approximately 775 euros (EUR) at the time) and was barred from holding public office for two years and a half.\n7.  On 7 July 2008 the Cahul Court of Appeal partly upheld that judgment, relying on a different paragraph of the Criminal Code, but preserving the sentence. That judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice in a final judgment of 26 November 2008.\n8.  The applicant asked for an extension of the payment period as she did not have the money, being a single mother with an underage child and, at that time, experiencing difficulties with a pregnancy, for which she received hospital treatment during the period between 1 September 2008 and 3 February 2009. The court accepted her request and allowed her a two-month extension. However, the applicant failed to pay the fine by this new deadline.\n9.  On 20 February 2009 a bailiff from the Cantemir enforcement office asked the Cantemir District Court to replace the fine with detention owing to the applicant’s failure to pay. The applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer, asked the court to replace the fine with unpaid community service stating that she would try to pay the fine before the end of the year. On the same day the court accepted the bailiff’s request and ordered the applicant’s detention for twelve months (one month for every 50 conventional units - see paragraph 14 below), noting that the law prohibited imposing a community service order on pregnant women such as the applicant.\n10.  The applicant was arrested on the same day and imprisoned. According to her submission, her underage child was left at home without supervision. On 21 February 2009 her lawyer appealed against the sentence.\n11.  On 12 March 2009 the Cahul Court of Appeal accepted the lawyer’s appeal and quashed the lower court’s decision, sending the case for retrial by the Cantemir District Court. It found that the applicant had not been given legal representation during the hearing of 20 February 2009, even though that right was guaranteed by law and she had expressly requested it. Therefore, the lower court had “committed a serious violation of the rules of criminal procedure, which is the basis for annulling the decision ...”. The court noted in the operative part of its decision, inter alia, that the applicant was to continue being kept in detention.\n12.  On 25 March 2009 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a request with the Cantemir District Court for an urgent examination of the case, stating that the fine had been paid in full on 12 March 2009 and enclosing a payment order as proof. He claimed that his client was therefore being detained illegally.\n13.  On 31 March 2009 the Cantemir District Court accepted the applicant’s lawyer’s request and discontinued the proceedings initiated by the bailiff. The applicant was released on that day.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7619", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in İstanbul.\n5.  On 25 September 1990, when the applicant was a conscript in the army, a clash broke out between the security forces and a group of terrorists. During the incident the applicant was severely wounded by gunshots. Subsequently, he was treated in different military hospitals. According to a medical report, dated 14 November 1991, the applicant’s work capability had been reduced by 33%. Consequently, on 2 April 1992 he was declared to be suffering from a permanent disability and discharged from the army. He was also awarded a sixth-degree disability pension.\n6.  In the following years the applicant started suffering from persistent headaches and dizziness, and had sleeping problems. In 2004 a CT scan revealed an unidentified metallic object in the left orbital area. Subsequently, in 2007, the applicant was admitted to the neurosurgery department of the GATA Military Hospital and another CT scan revealed that he had a bullet in his head, measuring 15 x 10 mm. The doctors stated that removing the bullet was potentially life-threatening.\n7.  On 19 September 2007 the applicant applied to the Ministry of Defence for compensation in respect of his injury. He alleged that, on account of medical negligence, the bullet in his head had remained unnoticed and that he had sustained further pecuniary damage as this fact had not been taken into account in calculating his disability pension.\n8.  Following tacit dismissal of the claim by the administrative authorities, on 16 January 2008 the applicant instituted two separate actions in the Supreme Military Administrative Court, one for the pecuniary damage and the other for the non-pecuniary damage he had sustained on account of the bullet which had been found in his head in 2007.\n9.  On 21 January and 18 February 2009 respectively the Supreme Military Administrative Court, by a majority, rejected both actions as being out of time. In both decisions the court held that notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had not been aware of the bullet in his head until 2007, pursuant to section 43(1) of the Supreme Military Administrative Court Act, his compensation claims should have been lodged within five years of the incident.\n10.  On 22 April 2009 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected a rectification request lodged by the applicant. Its decision was served on the applicant on 6 May 2009.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7620", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Edirne.\n5.  In June 1999, E.G. and A.S.S. were taken into custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the TDP (Revolutionary Party of Turkey, Türkiye Devrim Partisi). In their respective police statements, both of them stated that the applicant had been providing logistical support to members in rural areas and E.G. further maintained that the applicant had been one of the leaders of the organisation. Again in 1999, İ.H., who had also been arrested for membership of the illegal organisation, identified the applicant from his photos and stated that the applicant had been providing cell phones for members of the organisation in rural areas.\n6.  On 26 March 2001 the applicant was taken into police custody in Istanbul, on suspicion of membership the TDP. He was subsequently transferred to Giresun for interrogation.\n7.  On 28 March 2001 the applicant participated in an identification parade and was identified by two persons, namely B.B. and İ.H., as one of the leaders of the said illegal organisation. On 1 April 2001 the applicant was questioned by the police in the absence of a lawyer and denied all the accusations against him.\n8.  On 2 April 2001 the applicant was questioned by the Giresun public prosecutor in the absence of a lawyer. Later on the same day, he was further questioned by the investigating judge, still in the absence of a lawyer. Both before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, the applicant denied the charges against him. At the end of the questioning, the judge ordered his pre-trial detention.\n9.  On 27 April 2001 the public prosecutor at the Erzurum State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the applicant and nine others of membership of an illegal organisation.\n10.  During the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer, and in his defence submissions he categorically denied all the accusations against him. Although two of the co-accused, namely B.B. and İ.H., identified him as one of the leaders of the TDP, the applicant denied the allegations and stated that he had never seen them before. The applicant maintained that B.B. and İ.H. had been giving false information about him, in order to be able to benefit from the Reintegration of Offenders into Society Act (Law no. 4959).\n11.  At the hearing of 5 June 2001, the police statements of A.S.S., E.G. and İ.H dated June 1999 were read out to the applicant. The applicant contested the allegations, and claimed that he was innocent.\n12.  On 14 November 2002 the Erzurum State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code. In delivering its decision, amongst other items of evidence, the trial court relied on the statements of the co-accused, and also took into consideration the statements of İ.H., E.G. and A.S.S.\n13.  On 7 May 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.\n14.  The case resumed before the Erzurum State Security Court and on 6 April 2004 the court once again found the applicant guilty of membership of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. In convicting the applicant, the court relied on the statements of E.G., A.S.S., İ.H. and B.B. and found it established that the applicant was a member of the illegal organisation.\n15", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7621", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n6.  On 25 February 2008 a group of people, including Members of Parliament, gathered in Diyarbakır to make a press statement against military operations that were being conducted by the Turkish security forces. According to the police records, the security forces had been informed of the demonstration and had taken the necessary measures beforehand. The records noted that following the statement and the speeches made by the Members of Parliament, the crowd started marching and shouting slogans praising the imprisoned leader of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation). After some members of the group attacked police officers with stones, the security forces intervened, as a result of which the crowd dispersed, damaging a number of shop fronts on their way. The records stated that a few hours later the demonstrators regrouped once again, this time setting trash containers on fire and blocking traffic.\n7.  During the latter part of the events, the applicant was arrested together with four other people, three of whom were throwing stones at police officers, according to the arrest and seizure report drawn up by those officers later on. The report did not indicate anything as regards the acts conducted by the applicant except for stating that she had been taken to the Çarşı police station with the others.\n8.  The applicant alleged that during her time at the said police station, she was insulted, severely kicked and beaten until she was transferred to the Diyarbakır Training and Research Hospital, where she underwent a medical examination. The medical report drawn up afterwards indicated that the applicant had skin abrasions on her lower and upper lips, several red patches (erythema) on her legs (six or seven measuring 2x7 cm above her right knee, two with a 6 cm diameter above both her knees, two or three measuring 2x6 cm below her right knee, and another two or three of 2x5 cm on her left leg), swelling and erythema of 2x3 cm on her nose and her right cheek bone.\n9.  On the same day, the applicant was examined for a second time, this time by a doctor at the Diyarbakır Branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute. The medical report issued afterwards maintained that the applicant had claimed to have been beaten, taken to hospital several times and given serum there. It further stated that she had several bruises on different parts of her body (one measuring 20x30 cm on her right thigh, one of 8x4 cm above her right knee, one of 8x10 cm on her left thigh, one measuring 15x4 cm on her left leg, and one of 2x0.5 cm below her right eye) and that various parts of her head, chest and waist were painful to the touch. There were no bone fractures on the body or the skull, no trauma inside the skull and no major lesions, either vascular or on the internal organs. The report finally established that the injuries caused to the applicant were not life-threatening, but could not be treated with simple medical attention.\n10.  Following the medical examinations, upon an order of the Diyarbakır public prosecutor, the applicant was taken to the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate.\n11.  The next day, on 26 February 2008, the applicant was transferred to the Diyarbakır Training and Research Hospital once again, where she was examined by a doctor and underwent two blood tests and an ultrasound.\n12.  On 27 February 2008 two medical reports were drawn up in r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7622", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was a Montenegrin national, born in 1930, who lived in Podgorica.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed a compensation claim against “Radoje Dakić”, a joint-stock company mostly consisting of State-owned capital (hereinafter “the debtor”; see paragraphs 27-28 below).\n9.  On 24 September 2003, following a remittal, the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Podgorica ruled in favour of the applicant, ordering the debtor to pay 159,879.33 euros (”EUR”) plus statutory interest, as well as EUR 6,216.26 for legal costs.\n10.  On 6 July 2004 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica upheld this judgment, and on 27 December 2005 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) dismissed the debtor’s appeal on points of law (revizija).\n11.  On 24 September 2004, upon the applicant’s request to that effect, the Court of First Instance issued an enforcement order (rješenje o izvršenju) by means of a bank account transfer.\n12.  On 31 October 2005 the Central Bank (Centralna banka Crne Gore) informed the Court of First Instance that the judgment had not been enforced due to a lack of funds in the debtor’s bank account.\n13.  On an unspecified date in February 2006, and in response to a prior request, the applicant was informed by the Minister of Justice that the judgment could not be enforced due to the lack of funds in the debtor’s account. At the same time, the applicant was invited to provide the courts with any other accounts used by the debtor.\n14.  On 9 March 2006 the applicant provided details of several such accounts.\n15.  On 16 March 2006 the Court of First Instance issued a decision (zaključak) ordering the Central Bank to block all the debtor’s bank accounts and provide data on the funds available therein (dostave podatke o stanju sredstava na tim računima). The Central Bank was to order the payment to the applicant, primarily from the designated bank account. If there were no sufficient funds in the said account, the Central Bank was to order the payment from another bank account in which there were funds. At the same time the court forwarded to the Central Bank the information obtained from the applicant on the debtor’s other bank accounts.\n16.  On 24 March 2006 the Central Bank informed the court that the debt at issue had been attached to one of the debtor’s bank accounts pursuant to section 194 of the Enforcement Act 2004 (see paragraph 35 below).\n17.  On 3 April 2006 and 13 April 2006 the applicant complained about the delay to the Court of First Instance. In particular, he submitted that the Central Bank had attached the debt to the account in which there were no funds available thus making the enforcement impossible.\n18.  On 26 April 2006 the Court of First Instance reaffirmed its decision of 16 March 2006, insisting on full compliance with the relevant legal provisions which defined the role of the Central Bank in enforcement proceedings (see paragraph 35 below).\n19.  On 28 April 2006 the Central Bank informed the court that the enforcement at issue had been attached to the debtor’s account specified in the letter of 24 March 2006, as well as that the debtor’s other accounts had been blocked.\n20.  It would appear that on 31 August 2006 the Court of First Instance requested once again the enforcement of the judgment at issue.\n21.  On 13 September 2006 the Central Bank informed the court that the enforcement was awaiting the inflow of fund", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7623", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Kočani.\n6.  On 30 June 2000 the Ministry of the Interior instituted misdemeanour proceedings against the applicant, a driver employed by company B.E. (“the company”), for driving an unroadworthy bus. The proceedings also concerned the company and a responsible officer of the company. On 22 September 2000 Štip Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) convicted the applicant of a minor offence and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of 2,000 Macedonian denars (MKD) (equivalent to 33 euros (EUR)). The applicant was ordered to pay the fine within fifteen days of the judgment becoming final. The judgment further specified the bank account to which payment of the fine was to be made. The court also referred to section 15(1) of the Misdemeanour Act 1997 (see paragraph 22 below), stating that if the applicant did not pay the fine within the specified time-limit, the court would enforce it by converting the fine into a prison sentence, on the basis of one day’s imprisonment for every MKD 1,000 owed. A reprimand was issued regarding the company and its responsible officer. This judgment became final on 27 September 2001 (Pkr.br.2149/2000).\n7.  On 14 November 2001 the trial court ordered the applicant to pay the fine and appear in court on 26 November 2001 in order to submit proof of payment. As established in the course of the compensation proceedings instituted by the applicant (see paragraph 17 below), the letter informing him of the court order was served on his son.\n8.  On 7 February 2002 a trial court judge responsible for the enforcement of sanctions converted the fine into a two-day prison sentence (“the detention order”). The detention order stated that:\n“The [applicant] did not pay the fine, either within the time-limit set or after the court had ordered and warned him to do so ... In view of the foregoing ... the court has decided to enforce the fine ... by means of converting it into a two-day prison sentence.”\n9.  On 12 February 2002 the detention order was served on the applicant in person. He was further informed that he would start serving the sentence on 15 March 2002 in Štip Prison. The prison was also informed of the start date of the prison sentence.\n10.  On 13 February 2002 the applicant paid the fine. According to a payment slip of that date, the applicant indicated the number of the domestic case file in respect of which the payment was made (Pkr.br.2149/2000). He did not submit a copy of the payment slip to the trial court.\n11.  As stated by the Government in their observations:\n“On 28 October 2002 the applicant was arrested in his house. He was not informed of the reasons for his arrest. [The applicant] alleges that he was informed of the reasons for his arrest in the afternoon on 29 October 2002”.\n12.  On 29 October 2002 and after he had submitted a copy of the payment slip, the applicant was released from prison. The release order issued by Štip Prison indicated that:\n“[The applicant] is released on 29 October 2002 on the basis of a notification received from the trial court that the fine has been paid.”\n13.  On 22 November 2002 the applicant contacted the Ministry of Justice with a view to securing an out-of-court settlement and the payment of MKD 310,000 (equivalent to EUR 5,060) in respect of non-pecuniary damage for what he claimed had been the unlawful deprivation of his liberty. By letter of 10 December 2002 the Ministry, referring to section 526 of the Crimina", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7624", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Bene Ayish, Israel.\n6.  In 1990 the applicant emigrated from the USSR to Israel and thereby lost the USSR nationality. Prior to emigrating, he had been receiving an old‑age pension from the Soviet authorities. Once the applicant left the USSR, the payments were discontinued in accordance with USSR pensions law as applied at the material time.\n7.  In 2006 the applicant brought civil proceedings against the Pension Fund of the Russian Federation (“the Pension Fund”) seeking the restoration of the payment of his old-age pension.\n8.  On 26 May 2006 the Velikiye Luki Town Court found in the applicant’s favour and ordered the Pension Fund to restore pension payments to him as from 15 June 1998. The court found, inter alia, that although the pension had initially been awarded in accordance with USSR legislation, that legislation remained applicable in the Russian Federation. The court interpreted the relevant legal provisions in the light of the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 15 June 1998. On 1 August 2006, the Pskov Regional Court upheld this judgment on appeal and it became final.\n9.  However, on 16 March 2007, following a request lodged by the Pension Fund, the Presidium of the Pskov Regional Court quashed the final judgment by way of supervisory review and rejected the applicant’s claim. The Presidium relied on the following facts: the applicant was not a Russian citizen, he did not reside in Russia, and no pension had been awarded to him in the Russian Federation in accordance with its legislation. The Presidium concluded that there was no basis under domestic law for pension payments to be awarded to the applicant.\n10.  The applicant’s spouse, Mrs Lyubov Gorfunkel, faced a legal problem identical to that raised by the applicant in the present case: a judgment of the Velikiye Luki Town Court of 26 May 2006, which ordered the Pension Fund to restore her pension payments, was upheld by a final decision of the Pskov Regional Court on 1 August 2006. Both decisions were quashed on supervisory review by a decision of the Presidium of the Pskov Regional Court of 13 April 2007. Mrs Gorfunkel filed a complaint with the Court, which joined her application with nineteen similar applications in the case of Tarnopolskaya and Others v. Russia (nos. 11093/07 et al., 7 July 2009, final on 28 June 2010). The Court found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in respect of all twenty applicants on account of the quashing of the judgments in their favour by way of supervisory review. Mrs Gorfunkel did not claim any award in respect of pecuniary damage. The Court awarded each applicant 3,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.\n11.  The Court’s judgment in the case of Tarnopolskaya and Others v. Russia served as a legal basis for the quashing of the decision of the Presidium of the Pskov Regional Court of 13 April 2007 and the reinstatement of the judgment of the Velikiye Luki Town Court of 26 May 2006.\n12.  On an unspecified date the Federal Bailiff Service asked the Velikiye Luki Town Court to explain whether Mrs Gorfunkel’s pension had to be recalculated in accordance with amendments to pensions legislation.\n13.  By a ruling of 26 January 2011 the Velikiye Luki Town Court explained that Mrs Gorfunkel’s pension was to be calculated according to a method that would take into account all recalculations and adjustments that had taken place a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7625", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Zagreb.\n6.  On 4 April 1997 the weekly magazine Imperijal published two articles entitled “By exposing H.’s machinations I did not set up HDZ (Iznošenjem [H-ovih] makinacija nisam podvalio HDZ-u)” and “Dr I.V. fiercely attacked Dr. Josip Stojanović (Dr [I.V.] žestoko napao dr. Josipa Stojanovića)”. The front page of the magazine featured the title: “By exposing H.’s machinations I did not set up President T. (Razotkrivši [H-ove] makinacije nisam podvalio predsjedniku [T.-u])”.\n7.  On 2 May 1997 Imperijal published a third article entitled “H. gets involved again (Još jedan [H-ov] angažman)”.\n8.  The first article contained an interview with the applicant in which he criticised the policy of his colleague from the same ruling political party, HDZ, Mr A.H., who was at the time the Minister of Health.\n9.  The second article reproduced a telephone conversation between the applicant and his party’s general secretary, Dr I.V. The author of the article claimed to have overheard the conversation. According to the article, Dr I.V. had called the applicant from the party’s headquarters to enforce party discipline by asking him to retract some statements made in a previous interview given to the same magazine and to refrain from further public criticism of A.H. The article suggested that the applicant tell Dr I.V., inter alia, the following:\n“... You behave like a communist: ‘Who is not with us is against us’... Why is it kept secret from the public that, apart from receiving a Minister’s salary, A.H. sits on another ten supervisory boards and receives a lot of money for that? ... Besides, you very well remember his statement when he said that as long as he was the Minister Stojanović would not become a professor ...”\n10.  The third article claimed that A.H. was a member of the executive board of a private polyclinic which was the first health care institution in Croatia equipped with an MRI scanner. It further suggested that the Ministry of Health had refused to grant an operating licence to another similar institution that would have been equipped with the same device, and that A.H., as the Minister of Health, had thereby used his political position to prevent competition.\n11.  On 16 September 1997 Mr A.H. brought a civil action for defamation against the company that publishes the magazine Imperijal, Imperijal Media d.d. (hereafter: “the publishing company”) and the applicant, in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu). He sought a court order that the defendants should pay him jointly and severally 250,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He argued that the defendants, by referring to his actions as “machinations”, as well as by publishing untrue statements that he sat on ten supervisory boards, that he would not allow the applicant to become a professor as long as he was the Minister, and that he had used his political position to refuse a licence to a private polyclinic with a view to preventing competition, had harmed his reputation.\n12.  At a hearing held on 18 December 1998 the court heard the applicant, who admitted that he had received a telephone call from Dr I.V. under the circumstances described in the second article but that, contrary to what was reported in that article, he had actually told him the following:\n“... I pay my own bills, while many sit on a number of supervisory boards, receive remuneration for doing so and have other privileges.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7626", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and is currently detained in Berlin‑Tegel Prison.\n6.  In 1995 the Braunschweig District Court convicted the applicant of attempted coercion and attempted extortion of a fourteen-year-old girl and three counts of sexual abuse of children by exhibitionist acts. It sentenced him to one year and three months’ imprisonment and granted probation.\n7.  On 26 November 1997 the Berlin Regional Court convicted the applicant, inter alia, of rape of a woman and of sexual coercion and sexual abuse of a nine-year-old girl and of two ten-year-old girls in their respective apartments, combined with aggravated extortion in one case and aggravated robbery in the remaining three cases. It sentenced him to nine years and six months’ imprisonment and ordered his preventive detention under Article 66 § 2 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 40 below).\n8.  The Regional Court, having consulted a neurologic and psychiatric expert, K., found that the applicant, who had confessed to the offences, had acted with full criminal responsibility, but suffered from a dissocial and narcissistic personality disorder and a sexual deviation which necessitated psycho-therapeutic treatment. He had a propensity to commit serious offences, in particular sexual offences, and was therefore dangerous to the public.\n9.  On 1 November 2007 the Berlin Regional Court ordered the execution of the preventive detention order in respect of the applicant. As regards the applicant’s continuing dangerousness, it referred to the report dated 29 May 1997 drawn up by psychiatric expert K. in the 1997 criminal proceedings. It considered the conclusions in that report to be still valid as there had not been any significant changes in the applicant’s personality and attitude, the applicant having refused to make any therapy in prison addressing his offences and the deficiencies in his character. As, in these circumstances, the preventive detention order could clearly not be suspended, it was unnecessary to obtain a new expert report (Article 463 § 3, third sentence, read in conjunction with Article 454 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; see paragraph 44 below). The Berlin Court of Appeal, endorsing the reasons given by the Regional Court, confirmed that decision on 21 December 2007.\n10.  Since 24 December 2007 the applicant, having served the full sentence imposed on 26 November 1997 by the Berlin Regional Court and the sentence imposed in 1995 by the Braunschweig District Court (the suspension on probation having been revoked), has been in preventive detention in Berlin‑Tegel Prison.\n11.  On 18 May 2009 the Berlin Regional Court dismissed a request made by the applicant under Article 458 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 43 below) to be released from preventive detention. The applicant had argued that his preventive detention was based on unconstitutional legal provisions.\n12.  On 9 July 2009 the Berlin Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision.\n13.  By two letters dated 29 September 2009 the applicant asked the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Berlin Regional Court to inform him on the progress of the proceedings under Article 67e of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 42 below) for review of whether the further execution of the preventive detention order against him was necessary. He requested to appoint him a lawyer and to consult an expert on his dangerousness. He repeated his inquiry with the Regional ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7627", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Benevento.\n6.  In December 1993 the municipality of Benevento declared itself insolvent (stato di dissesto) in accordance with legislative decree no. 66 of 1989 (subsequently amended by Law no. 68 of 19 March 1993, then by legislative decrees no. 77 of 25 February 1995 and no. 267 of 18 August 2000). On 19 January 1994, the city’s financial management was entrusted to an extraordinary liquidation committee (organo straordinario di liquidazione) (the “OSL”), which had the task of drawing up a list of claims that could be declared admissible for the purposes of the debt repayment procedure.\n7.  Article 248 § 2 of legislative decree no. 267 of 18 August 2000 (the law on insolvent local authorities – enti locali dissestati) provided that from the time of the declaration of insolvency (dissesto) until the approval of the statement of accounts (rendiconto), no enforcement procedure could be initiated or pursued concerning the claims registered on the list drawn up by the OSL. Under paragraph 4 of that provision, during the period in question the insolvent local authority could not be liable for statutory interest on those debts or any compensation to offset inflation.\n8.  According to the domestic case-law (see decision no. 5778 of the Consiglio di Stato dated 30 October 2001), legislative decree no. 267 of 2000 did not apply to claims against a local authority that had been considered certain and payable by a judicial decision following the declaration of insolvency, regardless of the date on which the claim arose. It was thus possible to initiate enforcement proceedings in respect of such claims.\n9.  On 13 June 2004 Law no. 140 of 28 May 2004 entered into force. Section 5(2) of that Law provided that the rules governing insolvent local authorities also applied to claims that had arisen before 31 December of the year preceding that in which the accounts were rebalanced (bilancio riequilibrato), even where such claims had been established by a judicial decision after that date. The Consiglio di Stato applied that provision in its decisions no. 3715 of 30 July 2004 and no. 6438 of 21 November 2005.\n10.  On 28 October 1992 the applicant had filed a claim for damages against the municipal authority of Benevento, seeking the payment of unpaid rent and compensation for damage caused to his property.\n11.  In a judgment of 18 November 2003, of which the text was deposited in the court’s registry on 10 February 2004, the Benevento District Court had allowed the applicant’s claim and had ordered the municipal authority to pay him 17,604.46 euros (EUR) in damages, plus statutory interest and a sum to offset inflation. That judgment, which was served on the municipality on 9 April 2004, became final on 9 May 2004.\n12.  In its resolution no. 4088 of 21 June 2005, the OSL, following a simplified procedure adopted from 1998 onwards, acknowledged the existence of a debt owed by the municipal authority to the applicant for the sum of EUR 42,028.58.\n13.  On 7 February 2006 the OSL made a proposal to the applicant for a friendly settlement of the matter, offering him 80% of the sum that he claimed. The applicant declined the offer.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7628", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Oradea.\n6.  On 11 April 2003 the Bihor Police Border Guard Department informed the Bihor Prosecutor’s Office that the applicant, inter alia, was investigated in relation to commission of two offences: organising a criminal group and unlawfully trafficking migrants.\n7.  On the same date the Bihor Prosecutor’s Office issued an order to appear on the applicant’s name in order for him to be questioned as a suspect in relation to commission of the offences.\n8.  By a decision of 12 April 2003, the Bihor Prosecutor’s Office authorised the Bihor Police Border Guard Department to initiate a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant.\n9.  On 7 May 2003, in the presence of his chosen legal representative, the applicant was informed of his procedural rights and signed a written statement acknowledging that he had been informed by the authorities that he had been charged with both offences of which he was suspected. On the same date, the applicant was questioned by the Bihor Prosecutor’s Office in respect of the charges brought against him. He was detained for thirty days pending trial under Article 148 (c), (e), (f) and (h) of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds that he had absconded, that there was sufficient evidence to suspect that he might commit other offences or that he would obstruct the investigation, that he was a repeat offender, that the prison sentence prescribed by law for the offences with which he had been charged was in excess of two years, and that his release would pose a danger to public order.\n10.  On 30 May 2003 the Bihor Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant for organising a criminal group and for unlawfully trafficking migrants and sent his case for trial.\n11.  On 4 June 2003 at the first hearing before the Bihor County Court, the applicant contested the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention and asked the court to release him. By an interlocutory judgment delivered the same day, the Bihor County Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the grounds that it was lawful and the reasons justifying his initial detention remained valid. The court held that the applicant’s release would constitute a danger to public order, that the offences attracted a severe punishment and that it had been proven that the applicant had absconded, because immediately after he had found out about the investigation initiated into his actions he had left his home and was later found at a different address. In addition, he was a repeat offender and there was evidence in the file suggesting that he had committed the offences. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) against the interlocutory judgment.\n12.  By an unappealable interlocutory judgment of 12 June 2003, the Oradea Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the interlocutory judgment of 4 June 2003 as inadmissible. It held that, in accordance with the applicable rules of criminal procedure, the interlocutory judgment in question was not amenable to an appeal on points of law.\n13.  By interlocutory judgments of 23 June, 21 July, 18 and 25 August, 15 September, 13 October, 30 October, 10 November and 15 December 2003; 26 January, 23 March, 18 May, 24 June, 12 August, 9 September, 7 and 29 October, 11 November and 9 December 2004; and 6 January, 9 February and 11 March 2005, the Bihor County Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the grounds that", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7629", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 18 December 1999 the applicant brought a labour action against her former employer for unlawful dismissal.\n6.  After holding several hearings and obtaining expert evidence, the Budapest Labour Court dismissed the action on 28 February 2005. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 26 August 2005 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, reversed the first-instance decision and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant 180,582 Hungarian forints (HUF)[1] in unpaid employment benefits plus interests and HUF 200,000[2] in non-pecuniary damages. The applicant filed a petition for review.\n8.  On 25 October 2006 the Supreme Court decided that the petition had not disclosed a breach of the relevant law. Although this decision was given in a single-judge procedure as to the admissibility of the petition under section 273 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in fact it dealt with the merits of the applicant’s case and contained detailed reasoning.\n9.  Meanwhile, on 11 November 2005 the applicant applied for the enforcement of the second-instance judgment. Apparently she miscalculated the claimed interests; therefore the debtor’s bank could not comply with the prompt collection order, which was issued by the Budapest Labour Court on an un-specified date. Thus, after clarifying the proper amount, the court issued a new enforcement order on 2 April 2007. The judgment having been complied with by the defendant, the court withdrew the enforcement order on 26 April 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7630", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946. Currently, he is serving a sentence at Tököl Prison.\n6.  In late 1999 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, a multiple recidivist, on charges of fraud and other offences. On 19 January 2000 a bill of indictment was preferred. The applicant was detained on remand until 16 May 2003.\n7.  On 27 February 2004 a hearing was held and the applicant was convicted on nineteen counts of fraud and forgery of documents. This judgment was adopted in absentia, since the applicant had absconded.\n8.  Meanwhile, in another case, the applicant was additionally indicted for aggravated fraud and other offences in late 2003. On 15 September 2004 he was convicted in absentia, since he had absconded.\n9.  On 28 November 2006 the Szolnok District Court imposed on the applicant a cumulative sentence of five years and six months of strict regime imprisonment. This decision was upheld by the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, on 8 February 2008.\n10.  In autumn 2006 the applicant filed a request for retrial against the conviction of 15 September 2004. Given the conviction in absentia, this request was granted on 29 November 2006 by the Regional Court. After several hearings, on 29 November 2007 the applicant was partly acquitted of the charges and his sentence was mitigated in respect of the remainder by the District Court. The amended sentence was included in another cumulative sentence.\n11.  The applicant did not appeal against this conviction but filed a petition for review. On 27 February 2008 the Supreme Court rejected his petition for review, since it only concerned the findings of fact and the assessment of evidence.\n12.  Meanwhile, some time later in 2006, the applicant filed a request for retrial against the conviction of 27 February 2004. Given the conviction in absentia, this request was granted on 30 November 2006 by the Regional Court. On 8 January 2008 he was partly acquitted of the charges, and his sentence was mitigated in respect of the remainder by the District Court. On appeal, his sentence was further mitigated on 4 November 2008 by the Regional Court.\n13.  The applicant’s further complaints raised before the District Court about the manner in which the cumulative sentence had been calculated appear to have been to no avail.\n14.  The applicant is presently serving a previous sentence of twelve years, whose probation has been cancelled on account of his intervening new convictions.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7631", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Dunaharaszti.\n5.  On 20 December 1993 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on charges of fraud.\n6.  The investigation was suspended between 14 May 1997 and 4 June 2003, because international legal assistance needed to be sought from several foreign States.\n7.  A bill of indictment was preferred on 27 June 2003 on charges of fraudulent bankruptcy, embezzlement and forgery of public documents.\n8. After ten hearings between 20 June 2006 and 28 September 2009, on 2 November 2009 the Pest Central District Court convicted the applicant of fraudulent bankruptcy and forgery of public documents and sentenced him to a fine. The applicant waived the right to appeal; and the judgment became final on the same day. It contained only a short reasoning which was confined to the facts of the case and the applicable law. The reasoning did not appreciate the length of the proceedings as a mitigating factor.\n9.  In the course of these criminal proceedings, on 27 February 1995 the applicant’s passport was withdrawn under section 2(1a) of Act no. XXVIII of 1989 on Travelling Abroad and Passports, because criminal proceedings involving serious charges were pending against him.\n10.  From 1 September 1998 onwards, the travel ban was maintained under a new provision, namely, section 16(1a) of Act no. XII of 1998 on Travelling Abroad. As of 1 July 2003, the travel ban was annulled under this latter legislation. The Government submitted that, in principle, the applicant had therefore become able to travel with his identity card to Switzerland and Croatia and after 1 May 2004, to the Member States of the European Economic Area. The applicant submitted that, in reality, he could not do so, because the court in charge had not duly notified the passport authority of the abolition of the travel ban, which thus remained a formal legal obstacle to travelling abroad as such, in accordance with sections 146(3) and 146(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as in force in the relevant period.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7632", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Sarkad.\n5.  On 30 March 1992 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for fencing and other crimes.  On 6 December 1994 a bill of indictment was preferred against him and ten others.\n6.  The Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court held several hearings, at several of which the applicant did not appear. For his absconding, an arrest warrant was issued against him.\n7.  On 5 October 2007 the District Court convicted the applicant of fencing and forgery of private documents, but refrained from imposing a sentence on him for a two-year probation period. The applicant waived his right to appeal, so the judgment’s reasoning was shortened, and it became final on the same day.\n8.  On the basis of the same investigation an additional bill of indictment was preferred against the applicant for further accounts of fencing and forgery of private documents on 17 March 1995.\n9.  After holding several hearings, the Nyíregyháza District Court delivered a judgment on 5 November 1997 which was quashed by the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court on 18 March 1998.\n10.  The applicant did not appear at several hearings, so an arrest warrant was issued against him.\n11.  On 6 October 2006 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to eight months of imprisonment. Due to the applicant’s withdrawal of his appeal, the judgment became final on 25 January 2007.\nThe extraordinary protraction of the proceedings was mentioned in the judgment as an aggravating circumstance. The Government, however, claimed that the length had actually been taken into account as a weighty mitigating factor.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7633", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a construction company, a legal entity, based in Istanbul.\n5.  On 7 May 1999 a traffic insurance company lodged a case with the Fatih Civil Court of First Instance against the applicant company, claiming compensation on account of a traffic accident.\n6.  On 16 July 2002 the court granted the plaintiff’s claim and subsequently the applicant company appealed that decision.\n7.  On 4 December 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the court on the grounds that the applicant company’s right to examine witnesses against it was breached.\n8.  On 29 June 2004 the Fatih Civil Court of First Instance, to which the case had been remitted, after having examined the witnesses once again accepted the plaintiff’s request.\n9.  On 13 March 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision.\n10.  On 21 September 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed a request by the applicant company for rectification of the judgment.\n11.  On 2 November 2006 the decision of the Court of Cassation was notified to the applicant company.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7634", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  On 19 December 2008 the Bucharest Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant, who was a final-year high-school student at the time, on the basis of medical, forensic, documentary and witness evidence, for attempted aggravated murder, and referred his case to the Bucharest County Court.\n7.  By a judgment of 12 March 2009 the Bucharest County Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to five and a half years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n8.  By a judgment of 9 November 2009 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded. The applicant appealed on points of law (recurs) against the judgment.\n9.  By a final judgment of 5 March 2010 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as ill-founded.\n10.  At the time of his incarceration the applicant had completed eleven years of education and was enrolled in the twelfth at a high school which trained students to become skilled workers in various industries, including the food industry.\n11.  On 29 April 2010 the applicant’s father asked the warden of Rahova Prison on behalf of the applicant to allow his son to complete his last year of high school, which he had had to abandon after his imprisonment, or alternatively to allow him to attend classes which would teach him a trade or profession.\n12.  On 11 May 2010 the Rahova Prison warden informed the applicant’s father that his son’s circumstances would be examined by the prison’s work commission on the basis of the prison’s requirements.\n13.  On 5 July 2010, with the applicant’s consent, the applicant’s father asked the Rahova Prison authorities to allow his son to be transferred to Craiova Prison. He argued, inter alia, that his son wished to be transferred in order to be able to complete his high-school education, because following a private discussion with the warden of Rahova Prison he had been notified that Rahova Prison did not have the resources to set up such a course.\n14.  According to the Government, following a request received from the applicant on 21 September 2009, the Rahova Prison authorities informed him that it was not possible to arrange high-school courses at that time. In addition, the applicant’s request of 28 July 2011 addressed to the Jilava Prison authorities to be enrolled in courses for twelfth-grade high-school students was granted, but immediately afterwards the applicant requested a transfer to Bistriţa Prison. The documents submitted by the Government to the Court in support of their arguments do not provide any further information.\n15.  From 2010 to 2012 the applicant enrolled in and took part in several sporting, artistic, religious and literary competitions, as well as several training and educational programmes set up by the domestic prison authorities.\n16.  On 9 June 2011 and 6 October 2011 the applicant stated to the Court that he had repeatedly asked the wardens of Craiova, Rahova and Jilava Prisons either to be allowed to complete his last year of high school or to be allowed to work. According to him, all his requests were refused because the prison authorities were temporarily unable to arrange classes for final‑year high-school students, vocational courses were full, and there were no vacancies for work.\n17.  From 25 June to 25 September 2012 the applicant was enrolled in and attended a course set up by the Bistriţa Prison authorities, training detainees", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7636", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Kryvyy Rig following his conviction in criminal proceedings subsequent and unrelated to those examined in the present case.\n6.  On 28 June 2004, at about 8 a.m., the applicant was questioned by police at Novomoskovsk Police Station in connection with a suspected attempted theft (see paragraph 20 below). The officers allegedly subjected him to ill-treatment to induce him to confess. Specifically, according to the applicant, they punched and kicked him, strangled him with a towel, put a gas mask on his face and made it difficult for him to breathe, as well as giving him electric shocks to the fingers and testicles. The applicant also allegedly had an injury to his chin, which caused extensive bleeding. He did not confess, however.\n7.  On 29 June 2004 the applicant complained to his mother that he had been ill-treated: she in turn raised a complaint with the prosecution authorities and requested a medical examination for him.\n8.  On 2 July 2004 a forensic medical expert examined the applicant and documented multiple bruises on both eyelids, the left temple, both earlobes, the chest, the knees, the left shoulder, and the left buttock, as well as sores on the chin, the wrists and the knees. The expert described the injuries as light, and concluded that they could have been inflicted on the applicant in the circumstances described by him. The injuries in question had originated from at least nine blows with blunt hard objects. No injuries were discovered on the applicant’s fingers or testicles.\n9.  By rulings of 14 July 2004 and 23 September and 1 December 2005, the Novomoskovsk Town Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers in connection with the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment. All those rulings were quashed, either by a higher prosecution authority or by a court. The case file does not contain copies of any of those decisions.\n10.  On 17 February 2006 the Novomoskovsk Prosecutor’s Office issued another ruling refusing to open a criminal case regarding the matter. As noted therein, the Novomoskovsk Police Department had conducted an internal investigation. According to its conclusions issued on 7 July 2004, the applicant’s allegation was ill-founded. The prosecutor also referred to the verdict of 12 April 2005, by which the applicant had been found guilty of burglary and attempted theft (see paragraph 24 below). Furthermore, the investigator questioned the inmates with whom the applicant had been sharing a cell in the Novomoskovsk Temporary Detention Facility (ITT) from 28 June to 6 July 2004, according to whom he had behaved in an arrogant and aggressive manner.\n11.  On 25 September 2006 the Novomoskovsk Town Court (“the Novomoskovsk Court”) quashed the above ruling and directed the Novomoskovsk Prosecutor’s Office to carry out an additional investigation of the matter. It noted that the origin of the applicant’s injuries, the existence of which was not disputed, had never been established. The court criticised the prosecution authority in this connection for its failure to carry out a reconstruction of the events with the participation of the applicant and a forensic medical expert. Furthermore, the court noted that, although the prosecutor had referred to a conflict-like environment in the ITT, it was not clear what kind of conflicts, if any, had taken place involving the applicant, and whether they cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7637", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  In the evening of 1 May 2005 following a family quarrel the applicant’s wife apparently called the police. At 5 p.m. the applicant was taken to the Ordzhonikidzevskyy District Police Department (Орджонікідзевський районний відділ Харківського міського управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ України в Харківській області). After having searched the applicant, the police officers found some brown grass (according to different documents its amount varied from 2 to 7 grams) which the applicant said was tobacco in his pocket. The applicant was detained under Article 263 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which permits detention for up to three days in order for a seized substance to be examined.\n6.  On 3 May 2005 the investigating officer questioned the applicant about a robbery which had taken place in the middle of April 2005, and the applicant allegedly confessed to committing it.\n7.  On 4 May 2005 an expert concluded that the brown grass found on the applicant was not a narcotic and it was decided not to institute criminal proceedings in that connection. According to the Government, the applicant was released. The decision of 1 May 2005 to detain the applicant bears a note that the applicant was released on 4 May 2005 at 8:00 p.m.\n8.  On the same date criminal proceedings for robbery were instituted against the applicant and a number of other individuals. The applicant was arrested by an investigator on suspicion of committing robbery. The time of the applicant’s arrest was noted as 8:00 p.m.\n9.  At 6 p.m. on 6 May 2005 the applicant was brought before a court, which authorised his pre-trial detention. No copy of this decision was submitted by the parties. On the same date the applicant was charged with robbery.\n10.  Following a complaint by the applicant’s lawyer, on 13 May 2005 the court found that the applicant’s arrest on 4 May 2005 had been unlawful. During the court hearing a prosecutor submitted that on 4 May 2005 the applicant had been released at around 8 p.m. and immediately arrested again on suspicion of having committed a crime. An investigation officer testified that at around 8:10 p.m. on 4 May 2005 the applicant had had his rights explained to him, including his right to have a lawyer, and he had later been questioned as a suspect. The court established that the applicant had not been released on 4 May 2005 and that his arrest on that date had been unlawful, as there had been no indication that the applicant had wanted to escape.\n11.  On 12 July 2005 the criminal case was sent to the court for consideration on the merits.\n12.  On 2 August 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the decision of 13 May 2005. It found that the decisions of 6 and 13 May 2005 had been taken by the same judge but had contained contradictory findings. It noted that by the decision of 6 May 2005 the court had ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention because “it appeared from the criminal case file materials that if at large the applicant could hinder the investigation, attempt to influence the victim, commit other crimes and escape”. However, in the decision of 13 May 2005 the same judge had referred to the absence of such evidence. The court found such an approach to be flawed. It further held that the applicant should have appealed against the decision of 6 May 2005 and that the lawfulness of the applicant’s continued detention would be examined by the court that was", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7638", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Cluj-Napoca.\n6.  The applicant and several other persons were charged in criminal proceedings concerning five international drug-trafficking networks. The proceedings were widely reported in the media, as they concerned one of the biggest drug-trafficking cases investigated by the Romanian authorities at the time.\n7.  On the night of 9 to 10 April 2003, a lorry entering Romania from Turkey had its papers checked by customs officers at the Negru Vodă checkpoint. As the customs officers had identified certain irregularities in connection with the transportation documents, they decided to carry out a search of the lorry in the presence of a prosecutor.\n8.  The prosecutor unsealed the lorry and inspected its contents in the presence of the customs authorities. A large quantity of heroin (174 kilograms) was found hidden in its load. A report was immediately drawn up. Photographs of the packets of heroin were taken and attached to the report.\n9.  The lorry driver, S.I.V, was questioned by the prosecutor. He signed the search report without raising any objections to its findings. He stated that the lorry belonged to the applicant’s company and that the applicant had been in Turkey when the loading of the lorry took place. This led to the commencement of the criminal investigation against the applicant.\n10.  The packets of heroin, the load, and the lorry itself were retained in the interest of the investigation. A new search of the lorry was carried out on the same day in Constanța. Two assistant witnesses signed the report drafted on that occasion.\n11.  On 10 April 2003, on the basis of the outcome of the inspection of the lorry, the prosecutor ordered a search at the applicant’s company. In the presence of two assistant witnesses, the investigators found relevant documents, which were confiscated for the purpose of investigation. On the same date a search was carried out at a former office of the applicant’s company, where documents were found and confiscated. Search reports were drawn up in both occasions.\n12.  The applicant was arrested on 10 April 2003 in Bucharest, immediately after he arrived from Turkey. On the night of 10 to 11 April he was taken to Constanța, to the Local Centre for the Fight against Organised Crime and Drug Trafficking.\n13.  On 15 July, 4 and 28 September 2003 the Bucharest County Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention by interlocutory judgments concerning all the accused persons who had been arrested in the criminal investigation. The reasons adduced to justify this measure were: the existence of reasonable suspicion that the accused had committed the offences alleged; the gravity and the nature of the offences alleged; and the necessity for further procedural acts (including extension of the investigations to involve other individuals, checking of the criminal record of the accused, obtaining lists of telephone calls between those accused, and site investigations.)\n14.  On 23 October 2003, at the first hearing on the merits, the Bucharest County Court reviewed the lawfulness of the accused’s pre-trial detention. It held that their detention was justified, as there was a reasonable suspicion that they had committed the offences alleged, and that their release could obstruct the course of justice. It also held that the nature of the offences, the large number of accused, and the fact that they were organised in networks were all evidence of a danger to publi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7639", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  The applicant and several other persons were arrested and investigated in criminal proceedings concerning five international drug-trafficking networks. The proceedings were widely reported in the media as they concerned one of the biggest drug-trafficking cases being investigated by the Romanian authorities at the time.\n7.  One of the drug-trafficking networks was headed by V.B., who organised the transportation of heroin from Romania to Western Europe.\n8.  The applicant was arrested on 30 May 2003 on the premises of his factory, during a search being conducted there on the basis of information provided by I.P., a person already under investigation for drug trafficking.\n9.  A search report was drawn up on the same day. The report stated that I.P. had accompanied the investigation authorities to the applicant’s factory. In the yard they found a trailer which I.P. maintained had been used for the transportation of heroin from Romania to the Netherlands on several occasions. I.P. showed the investigators two special hiding places in the floor of the trailer which were especially designed for hiding drugs. The investigators also noted that the trailer’s registration plate had been modified.\n10.  Documents proving a connection between the applicant and the co-accused, members of V.B.’s network, were identified and seized: an employment contract between the applicant’s company and V.B., copies of the identity cards of two other co-accused, and documents recording the receipt by the applicant of large sums of money from V.B.\n11.  According to the applicant, during the search he was beaten by police officers in the presence of the investigating prosecutor. He was then taken to the headquarters of the Bucharest Police Inspectorate to be questioned.\n12.  The applicant alleges that the prosecutor took his first statements, on 30 May and 3 June 2003, without allowing him to be assisted by his own chosen counsel, and that the counsel assigned to him also represented one of the co-accused, V.A.P., who had made incriminatory statements against him.\n13.  On 30 May 2003 the investigating prosecutor drafted a report stating that the applicant had agreed to be assisted by G.S.C., a lawyer appointed by the prosecutor. The applicant and G.S.C. signed that report. He gave a first statement in which he denied any involvement in drug-trafficking or any illegal activities.\n14.  On 3 June 2003 the applicant gave another statement, assisted by G.S.C. He stated that he agreed to be assisted by this lawyer but expressed his intent to appoint his own lawyer in the future. He did made no comment on the charges against him, stating that he maintained his previous statement of 30 May 2003.\n15.  In a statement given before the prosecutor’s office on 17 September 2003, I.P. named the applicant as an important member of V.B.’s drug-trafficking network. He stated that the applicant was the owner of a fish factory where drugs transported from Turkey were deposited, packed in aluminium foil and transported to western European countries, and that the trucks used for the heroin transportation were parked in the applicant’s yard. I.P. also referred to a person named “Kolea”, who was considered V.B.’s “right-hand man”, who transported the heroin from Constanta to Bucharest.\n16.  On 30 May 2003 the prosecutor issued an arrest warrant for a period of five days in the applicant’s name. On 3 June 2003 a new arrest warran", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7640", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.   The applicant was a former employee of LETEKS (u stečaju), a company based in Leskovac (hereinafter “the debtor”). Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its contractual obligations toward him, the applicant instituted three sets of civil proceedings against it.\n6.  On 20 April 2001 the Leskovac Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicant:\n(i) holiday pay for 1998 in the amount of 700 Serbian dinars (RSD), plus interest; and\n(ii) RSD 1,490 for his legal costs, plus interest.\n7.  On 14 May 2001 the judgment became final.\n8.  On 23 August 2002 the applicant filed a request for enforcement of the above judgment.\n9.  On 29 August 2002 the Leskovac Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.\n10.  On 25 February 2004 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring.\n11.  On 20 October 2006 the applicant requested the Leskovac Municipal Court to continue with the enforcement.\n12.  On 11 March 2011 the enforcement proceedings were stayed again because insolvency proceedings had been opened in respect of the debtor.\n13.  On 19 June 2003 the Leskovac Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:\n(i) salary arrears for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, plus interest; and\n(ii) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the following periods: 1 January 1991 to 31 December 1992, 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1996, and 1 July 2002 to 31 December 2002.\n14.  On 20 July 2003 the judgment became final.\n15.  On 20 October 2006 the applicant sought enforcement of the above judgment, proposing that it be carried out by means of an auction of the debtor’s movable assets.\n16.  On 25 October 2006 the Leskovac Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.\n17.  On 17 March 2008 the applicant filed a further request for enforcement of the judgment, this time proposing that it be carried out by means of an auction of the debtor’s specific immovable assets.\n18.  The Leskovac Municipal Court never ruled on the applicant’s request of 17 March 2008, but instead on 23 June of that year suspended the enforcement proceedings because the applicant had failed to pay a deposit of RSD 640 on account of the enforcement costs.\n19.  On 14 March 2007 the Leskovac Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him;\n(i) salary arrears for 1 January 2003 to 11 October 2005, plus interest; and\n(ii) the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period 1 January 2005 to 11 October 2005.\n20.  On 19 April 2007 the judgment became final.\n21.  On 14 March 2008 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment.\n22.  On 12 October 2009 the Leskovac Municipal Court eventually accepted the applicant’s request and ordered the enforcement of his pecuniary claims. The enforcement proceedings relating to payment of the social security contributions were suspended. In its decision, the court awarded the applicant a fixed sum in respect of enforcement costs.\n23.  The applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal with the Leskovac High Court.\n24.  On 7 April 2011 the Leskovac High Court returned the file to the first-instance court, ordering it to stay the enforcement proceedings because insolvency proceedings had been opened in respect of the debtor.\n25.  On 16 April 2010 preliminary insolvency proceedings ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7641", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Gura-Humorului.\n6.  By a final judgment of 6 July 2011 the Suceava Court of Appeal sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment.\n7.  The applicant was detained in Botoşani Prison between 11 July and 9 September 2011 and between 11 November 2011 and 6 January 2012.\n8.  On 6 January 2012 the applicant was released from prison.\nConditions of detention\n9.  The conditions of the applicant’s detention are in dispute between the parties.\n10.  The applicant complained mainly of overcrowding, unsatisfactory sanitary conditions and poor quality of food.\n11.  He was detained in an overcrowded cell. However, the applicant did not state how many inmates the cell had, nor did he mention its area. He simply stated that there were three tiers of bunk beds in the cell.\n12.  The cell was infested with insects. The applicant sent an envelope containing insects to the Court in support of his allegations. There was running water for only a few hours a day, so the detainees had to collect water for drinking and to flush the toilets. The quality of the food was poor. The prison had no dedicated place for eating, and the detainees were forced to eat in their cells.\n13.  The Government submitted in their observations that, the applicant had been detained in Botoşani Prison under an open regime for a period of four months.\n14.  They further submitted that the applicant had occupied cell 5. The cell had an area of 17.1 square metres and a volume of 56.43 cubic metres. The applicant shared the cell with eight inmates. Accordingly, each detainee had 6.27 cubic metres of space.\n15.  The cell was fitted with two windows measuring 130 cm by 160 cm, providing good ventilation and natural lighting. It was also equipped with a television set and had adequate electricity and sanitary facilities. The cell had a sanitary annex containing a shower. The prisoners were entitled to two showers per week.\n16.  The prison had its own heating. As regards the hygiene conditions, there was periodical insect treatment and rodent extermination.\n17.  On 7 September 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint with the delegated judge on the basis of Law no. 275/2006, concerning the conditions of his detention, and in particular poor hygiene, lack of personal space, infringement of his right to eat in a dedicated space and to have one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily, as well as complaining that the food was inadequate and insufficient. He also claimed that despite being in an open detention regime he had had no permanent access to the spaces made available by the detention authorities to detainees in an open regime.\n18.  On 27 September 2011 the delegated judge allowed the applicant’s complaint in part, only as regards his lack of access to spaces made available to detainees in an open regime. It dismissed the applicant’s complaint concerning overcrowding, holding that six cubic metres were sufficient.\n19.  The applicant appealed the judgment. During the appeal proceedings the applicant abandoned his request to have a witness heard on his behalf. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed as unfounded by the Botoşani District Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7642", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1944. He appears to live mainly in Växjö, Sweden, but also regularly spends time in Bulgaria, where he is politically and socially active.\n7.  Local elections were organised in Bulgaria on 28 October and 4 November 2007. The applicant, who was supporting one of the candidates for mayor of Vratsa, regularly campaigned in his support in the city’s centre.\n8.  On 23 October 2007 he entered into a conflict with police officers, for reasons which are unclear. The officers issued a report for an administrative offence and a warning order enjoining the applicant to refrain from “performing indecent and inappropriate actions breaching the prevailing norms of morals and behaviour on the streets, squares and other public areas, addressing indecent words to representatives of the public authorities, and breaching public order and quietness”.\n9.  On 1 November 2007 the applicant was once again campaigning in the central square of Vratsa. He had chained himself to a metal column and was using a loudspeaker, saying that the officials currently in power in Vratsa were corrupt and that he had informed the prosecution authorities of their alleged crimes. In particular, he used the following expressions: “All of them are criminals” (“Всички са престъпници”), “The prosecutor is a Mafioso” (“Прокурорът е мафиот”), “The mayor is a Mafioso” (“Кметът е мафиот”), “Political prostitutes” (“Политически проститутки”) and “A mass of political prostitutes” (“Политическа проститутска маса”).\n10.  The applicant was once again approached by police officers who invited him to remove the chain and accompany them. After he refused to do so, they cut the chain and drew up a report of an act of minor hooliganism. They noted in the document that the applicant had been “disturbing public order in the area, by uttering indecent words through a loudspeaker” and had “provoked the indignation of citizens who live in the area or were passing by”. The applicant signed the act, objecting in writing that he had not done anything wrong.\n11.  The officers arrested the applicant and brought him to the Vratsa District Court, where he was charged with an offence of minor hooliganism under the 1963 Decree on Combating Minor Hooliganism (“the Decree”, see paragraphs 18-20 below).\n12.  The Vratsa District Court held a hearing on the same day. The applicant had a lawyer.\n13.  The court heard several witnesses called by the police, including the officers who had arrested the applicant, who stated that they had felt indignation upon hearing the applicant’s words and had heard other people on the square say that these words had been inappropriate. The court heard also two witnesses called by the applicant, who considered that he had expressed a political message and that the people on the square had not been reacting in a negative manner.\n14.  The applicant’s lawyer stated that the applicant had been expressing his civic position, that he was a “rebel”, that he had not breached the Decree and that he had a constitutional right to express his opinion.\n15.  The Vratsa District Court delivered its judgment after the hearing. On the basis of the witness statements it established that the applicant had uttered the expressions described above and “other expressions addressed at the head of the Vratsa police directorate, the prosecution authorities and the police, as a whole”. These amounted to “indecent statements, made in a public place in front of many people” and to “", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7643", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Sumgayit.\n6.  She is a person with a Category 2 disability and receives a disability pension.\n7.  On 6 November 2005 parliamentary elections were held in Azerbaijan.\n8.  Following the announcement of the results of the elections, the opposition electoral coalition Azadliq decided to hold demonstrations to protest against alleged irregularities during the parliamentary elections of 6 November 2005.\n9.  On 26 November 2005 Azadliq held a demonstration, scheduled from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. at Galaba Square in Baku, to protest against alleged election irregularities. Shortly after 5 p.m. police began an operation to forcibly disperse the demonstrators, because the demonstration had continued beyond the authorised time-limit. The dispersal operation was conducted by riot police units fully equipped with helmets, shields and truncheons.\n10.  The applicant and her family participated in the demonstration. According to the applicant, at around 4.45 p.m. she was walking slowly to the edge of the square to wait for her husband to join her so that they could go home. Suddenly, she saw demonstrators beginning to run away from the square in a chaotic manner. At the same moment she was hit on the head and back several times from behind. When she turned round she was kicked in the chest and abdomen area. She managed to see that the persons who had kicked her were police officers in uniform and equipped with shield and truncheon. She lost consciousness and fell to the ground.\n11.  Several news agencies managed to take photographs of the applicant lying unconscious on the ground surrounded by police officers. Some of these photographs were published in various newspapers and other news outlets.\n12.  The applicant lay in the same spot for an unspecified period of time. She lost and regained consciousness several times. According to the applicant, when she was conscious she saw several civilians trying to help her, but these attempts were actively prevented by the riot police and their police dogs. For a long time the riot police did not allow the ambulance units stationed at the square to provide her with any assistance, and she was finally taken to hospital only after a number of civilians had urged the riot police to allow this.\n13.  The applicant was admitted to the hospital at 6.30 p.m. The medical record concerning the applicant reads as follows:\n“Tahirova Surayya Musa gizi, born in 1953 and lives in Sumgayit, does not work, admitted at 6.30-35 p.m. on 26 November 2005 and left on 27 November 2005.\nFull diagnosis of the main disease, other diseases: blunt trauma of the abdomen and diabetes.\nThe patient was admitted to the hospital with pain under the left ribs and general weakness. According to her, she was beaten up by police officers at Galaba Square on 26 November 2005 at around 5 p.m. She was taken to the hospital from the scene of the incident by an ambulance. She was examined in the hospital. In the objective examination, in palpation the abdomen is not hard, and is involved in respiration. There is a little sharp pain under the left ribs. Ultrasound examination does not reveal free liquid or traumatic changes in the abdomen. No fracture is apparent in the left part of the rib cage during X-ray examination. The patient was transferred for further examination and dynamic observation to Reanimation and Intensive Therapy Department. On 27 November 2005, at the request of the patient and her relatives, sh", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7645", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are natives or residents of the village of Aslanbek-Sheripovo, Shatoy district, situated in the Chechen Republic (Chechnya). The village is situated in a mountainous area about 60 kilometres to the south of Grozny.\n6.  The second military operation in Chechnya started in autumn of 1999. The applicants submitted that in the first months of the hostilities they had not been affected by the fighting. A large number of refugees from Grozny and other places had come to stay in the village, as it was considered “safe”. According to the applicants, in the beginning of 2000 the elders of the village had gone to meet with the commanders of the Russian army in the village of Day and had received assurances that there would be no strikes on the village if no armed fighters were present there. According to the applicants, no fighters had come to Aslanbek-Sheripovo.\n7.  The applicants thus submitted that the strikes that occurred at about 2 p.m. on 17 February 2000 had come as a surprise to the residents. As a result, on that day thirty people were killed and twenty-five wounded. After that, the villagers remained in their cellars during the day. Nevertheless, two people were killed on 19 and 20 February 2000, as the strikes continued. Those wounded on the first day of the attack could not receive medical assistance until some days later, and a number of them died.\n8.  Eighteen of the applicants’ relatives died as a result of the attack; other relatives and three of the applicants themselves were wounded. According to the medical certificates presented to the Court, some injuries sustained as a result of the attack necessitated complex and prolonged treatment. The list of the injured and dead is contained in the annexed table (see Annex).\n9.  The applicants submitted that once the strikes had ended they made a video recording and numerous photos of parts of rockets and missiles which had fallen on the village, some of which they identified as cluster bombs.\n10.  Most of the death certificates for their relatives were issued in summer 2000 by the Shatoy district civil registration office. The reasons for the deaths were recorded as “fatal injuries”, and some certificates indicated that the injuries were received during a “bombing/missile attack” at Aslanbek-Sheripovo.\n11.  The applicants submitted three statements by eyewitnesses to the attack, taken in March 2009, and a number of photographs.\n12.  The applicants submitted that they had applied to the domestic law-enforcement authorities sometime in 2001. However, for a long period there had been no reply to their complaints. The applicants had not kept any copies of this correspondence. The applicants submitted that no one from the law-enforcement authorities had ever come to the village to question them or to examine the site of the attack.\n13.  On 13 May 2002 an investigator from the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20119 (“the military prosecutor’s office”) decided not to open a criminal investigation into the attack on Aslanbek-Sheripovo. The decision stated that on 17, 19 and 20 February 2000 troops of the Northern Caucasus United Group Alignment (UGA) had carried out bombing/missile strikes in the area of Aslanbek-Sheripovo. The decision listed sixteen people who had died as a result of the strike and eleven persons who had been injured, including some of the applicants and their relatives. The decision also recorded damage caused to houses and other propert", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7647", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants’ dates of birth and places of residence are listed below:\n(1)  Mr Kasparov was born in 1963 and lives in Moscow;\n(2)  Mr Tarasov was born in 1968 and lives in Moscow;\n(3)  Mr Kharlamov was born in 1973 and lives in Moscow;\n(4)  Mr Kalashnikov was born in 1971 and lives in Moscow;\n(5)  Mr Toropov was born in 1973 and lives in Orudyevo, in the Moscow Region;\n(6)  Mr Stelmakh was born in 1978 and lives in Moscow;\n(7)  Mr Orel was born in 1968 and lives in Moscow;\n(8)  Mr Melikhov was born in 1972 and lives in Korolev, in the Moscow Region;\n(9)  Ms Chelysheva was born in 1967 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In 2007 the first applicant, together with other individuals representing a coalition of opposition groups, intended to take part in an anti-government rally to campaign before the forthcoming parliamentary elections. The demonstration became known as the March of Dissenters; it was organised by three individuals, none of whom are applicants in the present case. On 30 March 2007 they submitted notice of a public demonstration to the mayor of Moscow. They indicated, in particular, that a meeting would be held at 12 noon on 14 April 2007 in Novopushkinskiy Park, which would last until 1.30 p.m. and would be followed by a march via Tverskaya Street and Okhotnyy Ryad Street to Teatralnaya Square. The march was to end at 2 p.m. They estimated that about 2,000 people would take part in the event. The notice stated that the proposed demonstration was intended “to express the demands of Russian citizens for the urgent reinstatement of the full scope of citizens’ electoral rights, through the abolition of the legislative amendments of recent years”.\n8.  On 5 April 2007 the Department for Liaison with Security Authorities of the Moscow Government informed the organisers that the event was liable to disrupt the functioning of urban services and the movement of passers-by. Therefore, authorisation could only be granted for a meeting at the foot of the Griboyedov monument on Chistoprudnyy Boulevard (a different location in central Moscow) between 12 noon and 1.30 p.m.; the number of participants could not exceed 1,000, the maximum capacity of the venue. No march was authorised.\n9.  On 6 April 2007 the organisers resubmitted the notice, proposing four alternative routes for the march, all in central Moscow, and agreeing to limit the number of participants to 1,000.\n10.  On 10 April 2007 the Department for Liaison with Security Authorities of the Moscow Government informed the organisers that none of the alternatives could be accepted, for the same reasons as the refusal of the original proposal. It suggested that the organisers hold the event at an aeronautical club in one of the Moscow suburbs.\n11.  The documents submitted by the Government reveal that on 14 April 2007 the Moscow police were reinforced by special units of the riot police (“OMON”) brought in specially from twenty-nine regions of Russia “to protect public order and security” on that day.\n12.  According to the Government, on 14 April 2007 at about 11.40 a.m. groups of people started gathering near Pushkinskaya Square. A group of about twenty persons, including the first eight applicants, started marching down Tverskaya Street while shouting anti-government slogans. The total number of people who took part in this unauthorised march was about fifty. According to the Government, the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7648", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Landshut, Germany.\n5.  In 1968 the applicant left the then communist Czechoslovakia. In 1970 she was found guilty of the offence of fleeing the Republic, and all her property was confiscated, including two plots of land (nos. 1141 and 1142) in the cadastral area of Kožichovice (“the land”).\n6.  On 31 May 1976 the State transferred the right to the use of the land to the Třebíč municipality.\n7.  In 1990 the majority of the land was transferred to the Třebíč cadastral area and the plots were renumbered. The land now comprises the following plots: no. 7283 and parts of nos. 7281, 7378, 2174/1, 2174/2 and 2174/3 in the cadastral area of Třebíč and nos. 1136/1, 1136/19 and a part of no. 1138/1 in the cadastral area of Kožichovice.\n8.  On 27 March 1991 the Nový Jičín District Court quashed the applicant’s conviction and all ancillary decisions including the decisions on the confiscation of property with retrospective effect, pursuant to the Judicial Rehabilitation Act.\n9.  According to the applicant, she had been registered as the sole owner of the land without interruption from 1960, and in support of that claim she provided extracts from the land register dated 17 September 1992 and 15 August 1995. According to the Government, both the applicant and the State were mistakenly registered as owners after 1971, when the applicant’s property was confiscated, whereas the State should have been registered as the sole owner.\n10.  The municipality has been using the part of the land in the cadastral area of Třebíč, which has been partly built upon, for companies providing communal services.\n11.  At the end of 1992 the applicant sent a letter to the municipality enclosing a document from the Land Registry confirming that she was the owner and the municipality as the user of the land in issue. On 10 February 1993 the municipality replied that it did not know why it was registered as the user of the land because it had not been using it. There seems to have been, however, some confusion as to which plots of land were concerned as the municipality’s letter explicitly referred to a plot with a different number, which did not in fact exist.\n12.  On 7 November 1995 the municipality of Třebíč sent a letter to the applicant at an address in Slovakia, stating that she was registered as the owner of the land in the land register but that according to the 1976 transfer the land had been transferred to the municipality. The municipality therefore asked the applicant whether she could submit any documentation proving that ownership of the land had been transferred from her to the State. The letter was returned undelivered with a note that no such address existed.\n13.  On 7 November 1995 the municipality of Třebíč sent a similar letter to the Třebíč District Office asking for information concerning the ownership of the land. On 4 December 1995 the District Office replied that it had no document proving a transfer of the land to the State.\n14.  On 22 January 1996 a meeting took place between a representative of the municipality of Třebíč and the applicant’s husband. The record of the meeting stated that a meeting with the owner of the land, that is, the applicant, represented by her husband, had taken place and the representatives of the municipality had asked whether the applicant would be willing to sell the part of the land that was within the cadastral area of Třebíč. The applicant refused to sell it but said that", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7649", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Athens.\n7.  The applicant had been working for a jewellery manufacturing company since 2001. On 4 March 2003 he resigned from his post in order to carry out his military service. Afterwards he contacted S.K., the owner of the company, who hired him again on a full-time basis from 1 July 2004 on a monthly salary of 722.92 euros (EUR).\n8.  In January 2005 the applicant told three of his colleagues – I.M., S.M. and O.G. – that he feared he had contracted the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). On 11 February 2005, while he was on annual leave, that fear was confirmed by a test establishing that he was indeed HIV-positive. On 15 February his employer, S.K., received a letter from the three above-mentioned employees in which they told her that the applicant “had Aids” and that the company should dismiss him before the end of his annual leave. All three colleagues had tested negative for Aids.\n9.  In the meantime information about the applicant’s health condition had spread throughout the entire company of seventy employees. The staff started complaining to their employer about having to work with a colleague who was HIV-positive and demanded his dismissal. S.K. then invited an occupational-health doctor to come to the company premises and talk to the staff about HIV and how it could be transmitted. The doctor attempted to reassure the staff by explaining the precautions to be taken but they continued to demand the applicant’s dismissal. S.K. then considered transferring the applicant to another department at a different location, but the head of that department threatened to resign if the applicant joined his team. S.K. then offered to help the applicant set up his own business if he would tender his resignation. She also offered to pay for him to attend a training course in hairdressing. The applicant refused her offers however.\n10.  On 21 February 2005 thirty-three employees of the company (approximately half the total number of staff) sent a letter to S.K. asking her to dismiss the applicant in order to “preserve their health and their right to work”, failing which the harmonious atmosphere in the company would, in their view, be liable to deteriorate. On 23 February 2005, two days before the applicant returned from leave, S.K. dismissed him and paid him the statutory compensation due under Greek law, namely, one month’s salary and EUR 843.41 in respect of holiday leave.\n11.  Shortly after his dismissal the applicant found another job in a private company.\n12.  On 13 May 2005 the applicant brought proceedings in the Athens Court of First Instance. He complained that “unacceptable social prejudices and outdated taboo considerations” had prevailed over recognition of his contribution to the company where he had worked. He also claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and that his dismissal was invalid because he had not been paid sufficient compensation. He alleged that he had been dismissed on the basis of “despicable considerations” which took no account of the “human factor or his person”, that his employer “had remained manifestly indifferent to the fact that she had thus seriously harmed a hard-working and conscientious employee at the very time when basic humane considerations required that he be supported and had at the same time callously insulted him”, and that his employer had “treated him with an unjustified and inhumane aversion for his serious health problem”.\n13.  The applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7650", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1967. The Court has no official information about his current whereabouts.\n9.  The applicant was an elected member of the Sughd Regional Assembly in Tajikistan from an unidentified date until his departure from the country. He was also a prominent businessman, owning several production plants, petrol stations, buildings and other property.\n10.  According to the applicant, in 2006 he accompanied the President of Tajikistan on an official visit to Iran and Turkey. During the trip a relative of the President of Tajikistan demanded that the applicant transfer title to one of his plants to him. The applicant agreed out of fear. In August 2006 the same person again demanded on behalf of the President that the applicant transfer title to another plant owned by him. The applicant submits that following his refusal to do so, the authorities began to interfere with his business and threatened him with reprisals. On 27 September 2006 the applicant survived an assassination attempt allegedly planned by the authorities. The next day the residents of the town of Isfara in the Sughd Region held a rally in support of the applicant, demanding that the authorities find those involved in the assassination attempt and criticising the authorities’ conduct.\n11.  In June 2007, fearing for his life and liberty, the applicant fled to the United Arab Emirates.\n12.  On 30 July 2010 the applicant left the United Arab Emirates. After travelling through Turkey, Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus, he arrived in Russia, where his partner resided, on 13 August 2010.\n13.  On 23 June 2007 the State Financial Control and Anti‑Corruption Agency of Tajikistan (“the Agency”) opened criminal proceedings against the applicant and eight other individuals on charges of misappropriation and embezzlement of property, money laundering, tax evasion, forgery of documents and making threats of violence against a public official.\n14.  On 28 June 2007 the members of the Sughd Regional Assembly granted leave for the criminal prosecution and arrest of the applicant. On the same date an Agency investigator issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant and placed him on the international wanted list. He was also officially charged with the above-mentioned crimes on that day.\n15.  On 26 July 2007 the Sughd Regional Prosecutor opened another criminal case against the applicant and an unspecified number of other individuals, accusing them of forming an organised criminal group, and joined it to the criminal case opened previously.\n16.  On 29 October 2007 the Agency opened a new criminal case against the applicant and three other individuals accusing them of the assassination of the Deputy Prosecutor General of Tajikistan, Mr Boboyev, in 1999.\n17.  On 14 March 2008 the applicant was indicted in absentia on all of the above charges.\n18.  On 9 June 2009 the Supreme Court of Tajikistan, sitting as a trial court in Khujand, convicted the applicant’s thirty-one co-accused of various offences and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment ranging from ten to twenty-five years. At the trial, several of the defendants alleged that they had been forced through torture to falsely incriminate the applicant. The applicant submitted the following excerpts from the transcript of the court hearing on 16 July 2008:\n“[Statement of the accused O.]:\nIn Khujand I was brought to the 6th division of the Sughd Region [of the Department for the Fight against Organised Crime] where I", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7651", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n(1) Ms Rimma Arapkhanova, born in 1967;\n(2) Mr Zelimkhan Arapkhanov, born in 1982;\n(3) Ms Ayshat Arapkhanova, born in 1933;\n(4) Ms Malika Arapkhanova, born in 1993;\n(5) Ms Romana Arapkhanova, born in 2000;\n(6) Mr Amirkhan Arapkhanov, born in 1992;\n(7) Mr Aslan Arapkhanov, born in 1997;\n(8) Mr Mukharbek Arapkhanov, born in 1999;\n(9) Ms Diana Arapkhanova, born in 1994; and\n(10) Mr Adam Arapkhanov, born in 1996.\nThey live in the village of Galashki, Sunzhenskiy District, in the Republic of Ingushetia.\n7.  The first applicant was married to Mr Beslan Arapkhanov, born in 1966. They are the parents of the fourth to tenth applicants. The third applicant is the mother of Beslan Arapkhanov; the second applicant is his cousin.\n8.  At the material time Beslan Arapkhanov lived with his wife and children, the first and fourth to tenth applicants, at 1 Partizanskaya Street in the village of Galashki. The second applicant lived in a neighbouring house at 2 Partizanskaya Street. The third applicant lived at 18 Shosseynaya Street in Galashki.\n9.  On the night of 19 July 2004 Beslan Arapkhanov, his wife and their children were at their family home.\n10.  At about 4 a.m. on 20 July 2004 around ten men wearing camouflage uniforms and armed with machine guns burst into Beslan Arapkhanov’s house. Although the men did not identify themselves, the applicants believed that they were Russian servicemen.\n11.  The servicemen grabbed Beslan Arapkhanov, handcuffed him, forced him onto the floor and hit him with a machine gun butt. Beslan Arapkhanov started bleeding. In the meantime a serviceman examined his identity papers.\n12.  The servicemen searched the house without producing a warrant. Eventually they found an assault rifle hidden in a couch. According to the applicants, Beslan Arapkhanov kept the weapon to take revenge on Chechen rebel fighters for the death of his brother.\n13.  The servicemen locked the first applicant and her children in one of the rooms and dragged Beslan Arapkhanov to the courtyard. Some three minutes later the first applicant heard a burst of machine gun fire.\n14.  Fifteen or twenty minutes later a man wearing civilian clothes entered the house and unlocked the room in which the first applicant and her children were locked. He introduced himself as Mr K., an investigator from the Department of the Federal Security Service of the Republic of Ingushetia (“the Ingushetia FSB”). Mr K. was accompanied by two unmasked soldiers; he said that they were attesting witnesses and that he was going to search the house. The first applicant told him that the servicemen had already seized the assault rifle and that there was nothing else to search for.\n15.  Mr K. showed the first applicant a warrant authorising a search of the house owned by a certain Mr Kh. at 7 Partizanskaya Street in Galashki. The first applicant told him that their address was 1 Partizanskaya Street and that her husband’s last name was Arapkhanov, not Kh. The servicemen shouted abuse at her. Mr K. made some notes, which the first applicant assumed were for a search report.\n16.  The servicemen took the first applicant to the courtyard where she saw her husband lying still and bloodied on the ground. The servicemen did not allow her to approach Beslan Arapkhanov and ordered her to dig up any hidden weapons. She said that there were no weapons but obeyed and began digging. After a while the servicemen started digging as well. Having found nothing, they took the fi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7652", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Skopje.\n6.  On 14 May 2007 an investigating judge at the Kočani Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) opened an investigation against the applicant on suspicion of drug trafficking. His pre-trial detention was also ordered. The decision stated inter alia:\n“[O]n 10 May 2007 [the applicant] had bought, from an unidentified seller in Istanbul, 9.5 kg of heroin, which [the applicant] had packed in nineteen plastic bags ... He had hidden the packed drugs in textile goods acquired in Turkey and had loaded them in the cargo area of [a truck] owned by the company ... where he is employed in a position of responsibility. On 13 May 2007 [the applicant] tried to bring the drugs illegally [into the respondent State] ...”\n7.  The decision also referred to a statement given by the applicant on 14 May 2007, which was not submitted to the Court. In their observations the respondent Government referred to that statement, in which the applicant had stated, inter alia, as follows:\n“... S.B. and T. were present in the car park. They loaded goods that belonged to several manufacturers into the truck and the trailer. During that time I was present in the car park, but I was walking around the truck searching for parts to repair it. I did not observe the loading. As I said, it was S. and T. (referring to S.B. and T.S.) who observed and carried out the loading (of the truck).”\n8.  The Government also referred to a statement given on the same day by G.Z., a witness who was identified in the criminal proceedings as the applicant’s partner. G.Z. stated:\n“... [A]t about 10 a.m. we arrived at the car park, where goods were starting to be loaded (into the truck). I was present when ten bags containing textile goods were loaded. At about 3 p.m. I left for Skopje with another truck. While I was in the car park, goods were loaded by S.B. and T.S, both from Pristine. After S.B. left, T.S. continued the loading ...”\n9. The applicant did not dispute the above statements.\n10. On 16 May 2007 the Kosovo[1] Organised Crime Bureau in Pristine interviewed S.B., a carrier from Pristine who transported goods from Turkey to Kosovo, and T.S., who worked with S.B. The record of the questioning was in English and contained the full names and addresses of both S.B. and T.S., citizens of Kosovo. According to the record, S.B. stated, inter alia:\n“... [A]ll goods of [non-regular clients] are checked in advance by me or [my] employees, whereas we don’t check at all goods of [clients we have dealt with] for a long time ... T.S. and I were present [while the goods were loaded]. I was present while half of the trailer was loaded and then, at about 12 am. (on 10 May 2007), I left for Pristine ... [They] (the clients who delivered the [last shipment of] goods) were regular clients whom I know ... [A]t about 2-3 pm. (on 13 May 2007) G.Z. called to tell me that his truck had been stopped and that some forbidden goods had been found in two containers, to one of which the name tag of a certain B.S. had been affixed. Inside, there had been another label with the letter “S”, which referred to the company [S.T.] that had loaded the goods in the truck. (Despite the fact that S.B. did not know any B.S., he had not checked the containers) [since] [T]hey had been sent by the company S.T.; we know these people and we have a verbal agreement to transport goods ... My employee T.S. wrote in his notebook just the name ‘B.S.’ in order to know to whom the g", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7653", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a limited liability company with it seat in Budapest.\n5.  On 21 December 1995 the applicant’s predecessor obtained a retroactive building permit from the second-instance building control authority. On 10 February 1996 the neighbours brought an action seeking the judicial review of the administrative decision before the Pest Central District Court.\n6.  After six hearings the case was transferred to the Budapest Regional Court.\n7.  On 10 October 2000 the proceedings were interrupted due to the death of the fourth plaintiff.\n8.  On 21 March 2001 the applicant company requested permission to enter the proceedings as an intervener (beavatkozó) on the respondent’s side.\n9.  After the parties had resolved the question of succession of the deceased party, on 9 December 2003 the proceedings were resumed, and the applicant joined the case as intervener. On the same day the Budapest Regional Court gave judgment.\n10.  On 2 March 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal, acting as a second-instance court, quashed the judgment, and remitted the case to the first instance.\n11.  On 1 December 2005 and 22 November 2006 the Budapest Regional Court held two hearings.\n12.  On 16 April 2008 a final judgment was adopted in the case.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7654", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Rabčice.\n5.  On 15 November 2004 the applicant lodged an action for damages with the Bratislava I District Court. She relied on the State Liability Act and argued that the Ministry of Finance and three other public authorities as defendants were liable for the financial loss she had suffered as a result of a failed investment with two private non-banking investment institutions.\nSuch institutions used to operate in Slovakia in the 1990s soliciting and accepting money from the public on a large scale for the promise of unusually high returns on the basis of various private-law contracts outside the framework of the banking and investment sectors. They eventually collapsed (see, for example, Fruni v. Slovakia, no. 8014/07, 21 June 2011 and Loveček and Others v. Slovakia, no. 11301/03, 21 December 2010).\nThe applicant argued that the defendants had failed to exercise their supervisory functions, that they had thereby enabled the investment institutions in question to carry out their illicit activities and that they were accordingly liable for the loss she had suffered.\n6.  Throughout the proceedings, the applicant several times submitted new evidence, was requested to provide further and better particulars of her claim, did so, and requested that further defendants be admitted to the proceedings. Such requests were determined and the number of the defendants finally stabilised at 8. Their observations in reply were obtained and, in 2011, they had to be asked for fresh observations on one point of procedure as there had been an error in the District Court’s previous summonses. On the procedural level, courts at two levels were involved.\n7.  The first hearing on the merits was held on 15 March 2012 and two more followed, after the last of which, on 9 November 2012, the District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of three of the defendants and dismissed the action against the others.\n8.  The applicant appealed and her appeal is still pending.\n9.  On 16 March 2009 the applicant complained of delays in the proceedings to the President of the District Court.\n10.  In a letter of response of 16 April 2009, the President of the District Court acknowledged that there had been undue delays in the proceedings resulting mainly form objective factors. She apologised to the applicant and informed her that she had instructed the judge to ensure that no more undue delays occur and that she would monitoring the progress of the proceedings.\n11.  On 25 May 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court. She directed the complaint against the District Court and alleged that it had violated her right to a hearing within a reasonable time.\n12.  On 11 June 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.\nThe Constitutional Court held that the complaint lodged by the applicant with the President of the District Court had proven to be effective. The President of the District Court had reacted adequately and had adopted necessary measures with a view to ensuring expeditious examination of the applicant’s action.\nConsequently, at the time of the introduction of the constitutional complaint, the District Court was proceeding with the case properly.\nShould any further delays occur in the proceedings, the applicant was free to raise her complaint in the Constitutional Court anew without first having to do", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7655", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 18 June 2000 the applicant’s ex-husband lodged an action for divorce and partition of matrimonial property against the applicant.\n6.  On 6 November 2007 the Buda Central District Court delivered a judgment.\n7.  Both the applicant and the plaintiff appealed. On 4 September 2008 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, delivered a judgment partly modifying the first-instance judgment.\n8.  The applicant’s ex-husband lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 6 October 2009, after an examination on the merits.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7656", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 25 November 2002 the applicant lodged an action for annulment of a property sale and purchase agreement with the Budapest XVIII and XIX District Court.\n6.  On 10 April 2003 the court held the first hearing and transmitted the case to the Budapest Regional Court for reasons of competence.\n7.  On 12 April 2005, after one hearing, the proceedings were interrupted. On 20 April 2005, and subsequently on another three occasions, the applicant requested the continuation of the proceedings, which were eventually resumed in 2008.\n8.  On 7 December 2009 the court delivered a decision dismissing the applicant’s action.\n9.  On 28 October 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal, acting as a second-instance court, dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n10.  On 29 November 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review, after an examination on the merits. This decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 2 April 2012.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7657", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant, born in 1925, was the chief editorial writer of the daily national newspaper Cumhuriyet (“the Republic”) at the material time and lived in Istanbul. The second applicant, born in 1949, was the editor‑in‑chief of the newspaper and lives in Istanbul. The third applicant, a joint‑stock company established under Turkish law with its registered office in Istanbul, is the publisher of Cumhuriyet. The fourth applicant, an association founded in Istanbul, is the owner of the newspaper.\n5.  On 27 November 1995 The Guardian newspaper published an article written by Jonathan Rugman entitled “Turkish Islamists aim for power”, based on an interview held with Mr Abdullah Gül, a Member of Parliament (“MP”) for Refah Partisi (“the Welfare Party”) at the material time. The relevant part of the article read as follows:\n“Abdullah Gül is dressed in a well-cut suit and tie. The MP may be the deputy leader of Turkey’s Islamic revivalist Welfare Party, Refah, but he speaks good English and seems to have been schooled within the political traditions of the West.\nSuch is his charm that Mr Gül is often given the task of explaining Welfare’s policies to suspicious foreigners. Yet his message is unmistakably radical, a direct challenge to Turkey’s unique status as the only secular democracy among 52 Muslim countries.\n‘This is the end of the republican period’ Mr Gül says flatly, ‘if 60 per cent of Ankara’s population is living in shacks, then the secular system has failed and we definitely want to change it’.”\n6.  On 28 November 1995 a Turkish daily newspaper, Posta, reported on the article published in The Guardian with the following headline: “Here is the Welfare Party’s real aim: the chilling confession”. The news piece, which included a copy of the Guardian article and a summary thereof, indicated that Mr Gül had “openly defied the secular system and the republic”.\n7.  On 15 December 1995 The Guardian published another article by Jonathan Rugman, headed “Turkey hails customs deal as step nearer EU”, the relevant part of which read as follows:\n“The Turkish press was rejoicing yesterday at the European Parliament’s decision to ratify a customs union with Ankara, 22 years after it was initiated.\n...\nAbdullah Gül, deputy leader of the pro-Islamic Welfare Party, said state prosecutors planned to take him to court because of a Guardian article which quoted him as saying that his party wanted to change Turkey’s secular system.\nMr Gül said that he did not mean to abolish the Turkish republic, simply to end an era of public unhappiness.”\n8.  Following the dissolution of the Welfare Party by the Turkish Constitutional Court, Mr Gül played a leading role in the founding of Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (“Justice and Development Party” or “AKP”) in 2001. In November 2002, he formed the 58th Government of the Turkish Republic as Prime Minister, and subsequently served as Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister in the 59th Government from 2003 to 2007.\n9.  On 24 April 2007 Mr Gül was named as the AKP candidate for the upcoming Presidential elections.\n10.  On 29 April 2007 the daily Cumhuriyet ran an advertisement that headlined the first page, which consisted of the following quote by Mr Gül, printed in white letters against a red background covering approximately one quarter of the page:\n“It is the end of the republic in Turkey ... We definitely want to change the secular system −Abdullah Gül.”\nThe quote was followed by a slogan, “Take care of your", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7658", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Trstená.\n5.  On 7 January 2005 the applicant lodged an action against two individuals with the Dolný Kubín District Court seeking an order for payment of an amount of money by way of compensation in respect of what he considered to have been unjustified use of his real property.\n6.  On 1 October 2007 the District Court heard the case for the first time, but the hearing was adjourned and, on 1 January 2008, the case was transferred to the Námestovo District Court in the context of reorganisation of the judiciary.\n7.  On 13 May 2009 the case was heard for the second time and the defendant lodged a counter-claim seeking a ruling declaring him to be the owner of the property in question.\n8.  Subsequently, the applicant’s action was stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings on the counter-claim, which was eventually dismissed with final and binding effect as of 12 December 2011.\n9.  Between 12 December 2011 and 16 May 2012 the District Court held four hearings, the applicant provided further and better particulars of his claim, and submitted new evidence.\n10.  On 30 January 2013 the District Court appointed an expert to draw up a report on the market value of the compensation to be paid for the use of the property in question. On 12 April 2013 a new expert was appointed because it had turned out that the previous expert was related to the lawyer of the defendants.\n11.  The proceedings are still pending.\n12.  On 25 May 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the President of the Námestovo District Court about the length of the proceedings.\n13.  In a letter of reply dated 26 June 2009 the President of the District Court observed that no procedural steps had been taken in the action in 2008 and acknowledged that this amounted to unjustified delay. However, as at that time the proceedings were lawfully stayed, ensuring their acceleration was not practicable.\n14.  On 13 July 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court contesting the length of the proceedings in his action both before the Dolný Kubín District Court and the Námestovo District Court.\n15.  On 29 September 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on a number of grounds. It noted first that the action had been dealt with at first instance by two different District Courts. While the applicant had not raised a complaint about any possible delays before the Dolný Kubín District Court with the President of that court at all, he had lodged his constitutional complaint too early after the response of the President of the Námestovo District Court. By doing so, the applicant had failed to allow the President of the Námestovo District Court sufficient time to ensure acceleration of the proceedings. Moreover, as the proceeding before the Dolný Kubín District Court had ended prior to the introduction of the applicant’s constitutional complaint, its part concerning the Dolný Kubín District Court was belated. Lastly, as the case had been pending before the Námestovo District Court only since 1 January 2008, the length of the proceedings before that court was not sufficient to pose any issues under the “reasonable time” requirement.\nIn closing, the Constitutional Court observed that nothing precluded the applicant from raising a fresh constitutional complaint later.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7660", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bratislava.\n5.  On 9 April 1997 the applicant sued his employer for unpaid salary before the Bratislava II District Court (file no. 10 C 90/1997).\n6.  Having held two hearings in 1997, the District Court concluded that an expert opinion was necessary.\n7.  On 6 August 2001 the District Court ordered an expert opinion.\n8.  Following nine hearings between 2003 and 2005, the District Court adopted a judgment on 14 April 2005.\n9.  The Bratislava Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal of 11 July 2005, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a new determination. The case file was returned to the District Court on 3 April 2008.\n10.  On 8 April 2010 the District Court delivered a judgment on the merits. It also ruled that the costs and expenses would be decided upon once the judgment on the merits became final. The judgment on the merits became final on 28 May 2010.\n11.  On 22 July 2010 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings before both the Bratislava II District Court and the Bratislava Regional Court.\n12.  On 25 August 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint (case no. III. ÚS 316/2010). The Constitutional Court examined separately the length of the proceeding on the merits and the length of the proceedings concerning the costs and expenses. It held that the proceedings on the merits had ended by a final judgment before the applicant had lodged his constitutional complaint, i.e. after the state of his legal uncertainty had been eliminated. He thus failed to respect its established practice requiring the introduction of such complaints when the proceedings were pending. As to the proceedings concerning the costs and expenses, the Constitutional Court observed no delays and also pointed out that the applicant had not expressly complained of this part of the proceedings.\n13.  On 23 September 2010 the District Court gave a decision on the costs and expenses which was upheld by the Regional Court on 28 June 2011. The decision of the Regional Court was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 24 August 2011.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7661", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Novi Sad, Serbia.\n6.  The former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“the SFRY”) provided for twofold pension insurance – military and civil. The pension rights of military personnel were regulated and secured through the federal authorities (Article 281 § 6 of the 1974 Constitution of the SFRY). The members of the JNA, the armed forces of the former SFRY, paid their contributions to and received their pensions from the JNA Fund based in Belgrade. This was the only pension fund existing at the federal level. On the other hand, each republic had its own pension fund [set up] for the payment of civil pensions (for more information see Janković v. Croatia (dec.), no. 43440/98, ECHR 2000‑X).\n7.  Following the dissolution of the SFRY, the JNA Fund generally stopped paying pensions to pensioners from the newly established states, and in the majority of cases the newly established states took over paying pensions to their citizens (see Janković, cited above, and Kudumija v. Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, and Remenović and Mašović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, (dec.), nos. 28233/08 et al., 4 June 2013). In 1994, pursuant to the Yugoslav Army Act, the JNA Fund was transformed into the Fund for Social Insurance of Military Personnel of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (succeeded in 2006 by Serbia; “the Military Fund”).\n8.  The issue of the former military pensioners remained unresolved between the newly formed states and was thus one of the subjects dealt with in the Agreement on Succession Issues. On 29 June 2001 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia[1], the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Slovenia signed the Agreement on Succession Issues (“the Succession Agreement“), which entered into force on 2 June 2004. Annex E dealt with pensions. It was based on the principle of acquired rights, in that rights acquired under one system must be acknowledged and respected in another. Under Annex E each successor State assumed responsibility for the regular payment of pensions to its citizens who had been civil or military employees of the former SFRY, irrespective of their current residence, if those pensions were financed from federal funds. In the case of military pensions, if a person was a national of more than one republic of the former SFRY, the pension should be paid by the State where that person resided.\n9.  The applicant served as a military officer in the JNA until 1973, when he retired. On 11 June 1973 he was granted a pension by the JNA Fund. At that time the applicant was living in Split, Croatia. The pension continued to be paid to him from the JNA Fund following Croatia’s declaration of independence in 1991.\n10.  On 23 November 1993 the applicant requested the discontinuation of payment of the pension from the JNA Fund, since he had been granted a pension in Croatia in accordance with the relevant Croatian legislation at the time, starting from 1 December 1993. On 8 December 1993 the JNA Fund stopped paying the applicant’s pension.\n11.  By 18 January 2002 the applicant had taken up residence in Novi Sad, Serbia.\n12.  On 31 March 2004 the Split branch of the Croatian Pension Fund stopped paying his pension, because he no longer had residence in Croatia. It held that the payment of pensions abroad was possible under the relevant domestic law only if there was an international treaty or a reciprocal agreement, which did not exist in respect of Ser", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7663", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are close relatives of individuals who disappeared in the Ingush Republic (Ingushetia) after being apprehended, in 2002 and 2004, by armed men whom the applicants identified as Russian security forces. In each case a criminal investigation file was opened by the local prosecutor’s office. The proceedings were suspended and resumed on several occasions thereafter.\n6.   When the latest rounds of observations were submitted to the Court, the investigation in each case remained pending without having produced any tangible results as to the whereabouts of the applicants’ missing relatives or the identity of the perpetrators of the crimes.\n7.  In their observations, the Government did not challenge the essential facts as presented by the applicants, but noted that as the investigations were pending it would be premature to draw any conclusions about the exact circumstances of the cases. In addition, they argued that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the abductions, or that the missing persons were dead.\n8.  Summaries of the relevant facts for each complaint are set out below. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in the attached table (Annex I).\n9.  The four applicants in this case are the parents, wife and daughter of Timur Yandiyev, born in 1979. The applicants and Timur Yandiyev lived in Karabulak. In 2001-03 Timur was working as a programmer at OAO Ingushenergo, situated in Nazran. In 2003 he left and started work as an IT administrator at another private company. Timur Yandiyev maintained good relations with his former colleagues at Ingushenergo and often visited them.\n10.  On 16 March 2004 Timur Yandiyev took the third and fourth applicants to Malgobek to visit his parents-in-law. On the way back he stopped in Nazran at Ingushenergo. He stayed there from 3.40 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. When he came out, two white vehicles entered the courtyard, a Gazel minibus and a Niva all-terrain vehicle, without registration plates and with tinted windows. Six individuals in camouflage uniforms and masks got out of the vehicles and threw Timur Yandiyev to the ground. One of the men hit him on the head several times. Then the men threw Timur Yandiyev into the Gazel, returned to the vehicles and left along Mutaliyeva Street towards Magas, the administrative capital of Ingushetia.\n11.  The applicants were not eye-witnesses to the events, but they submitted written statements from employees of Ingushenergo.\n12.  They have had no news of Timur Yandiyev since 16 March 2004.\n13.  Fatima B., an employee of Ingushenergo, saw Timur Yandiyev being taken away. She immediately called the Nazran town department of the interior (GOVD) and informed them about the incident. She indicated that the abductors had gone towards the traffic police roadblock situated several hundred metres from their office on the road towards Magas.\n14.  At about 4.50 p.m. the first applicant and his son Zaurbek, alerted by another witness, went to Nazran to look for Timur Yandiyev. They found Timur Yandiyev’s car in front of Ingushenergo.\n15.  Statements by the traffic police officers who had been manning the “Volga-20” police roadblock on the administrative border between Chechnya and Ingushetia at the relevant time indicate that at 5.10 p.m. on 16 March 2004 white Gazel and Niva vehicles with tinted windows, without registration plates, had appro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7664", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Prilep.\n6.  On 14 January 1998 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State claiming compensation for alleged failure of the domestic courts to decide his appeal in other proceedings in which he had sought reopening of a criminal case against him. During the proceedings, the applicant specified his claim on several occasions.\n7.  On 3 June 1999 the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 26 January 2000 the Skopje Court of Appeal confirmed that decision. On 14 November 2002 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant’s appeal on points of law and remitted the case for re-examination.\n8.  Between 27 February 2003 and 5 July 2005 the first-instance court ordered ten adjournments, of which two were requested by the applicant.\n9.  On 5 July 2005 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 28 December 2005 the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n10.  On 14 April 2006 the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 24 November 2006 and 28 May 2008, respectively, the Skopje Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court confirmed that decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7665", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lived in Volgograd prior to his arrest.\n5.  On 31 January 2003 the applicant was arrested and charged with theft and the use of forged identity documents. Two days later he was remanded in custody.\n6.  On 6 April 2004 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Volgograd found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment. On 27 July 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n7.  In the meantime, criminal proceedings against the applicant and five other individuals were instituted on the charges of participation in a criminal syndicate, several counts of aggravated robbery, inflicting serious injuries and two counts of murder. On 12 April 2004 the case went to trial.\n8.  On 26 June 2009 the Volgograd Regional Court found the defendants guilty, on the basis of a jury verdict. The applicant was sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment in a high-security institution. On 18 March 2010 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction on appeal.\n9.  Between 2 February 2003 and 25 April 2010 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-34/1 in the Volgograd Region. From 30 November to 26 December 2006 and from 16 March to 23 April 2009 the applicant was transferred to a penitentiary medical facility in the Volgograd Region where he received treatment for tuberculosis.\n10.  The prison was severely overcrowded. Thus, cell 41 measuring 20 sq. m was equipped with 16 sleeping places and accommodated up to 30 inmates; cell 64 measuring 10 sq. m was designed for 6 and housed up to 16 individuals; furthermore, cell 70 measuring 16 sq. m presented 6 places and up to 15 detainees who occupied them.\n11.  In addition, the applicant complained about the following aspects of the detention: detainees had to use a hole in the floor as a toilet; cells were equipped with lavatory pans for the first time in 2008. Until 2010, there had been no partitions between toilets and the living space. Hot water was not available.\n12.  The applicant brought an action before the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation for compensation for a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time. He relied on the new Compensation Act (see below).\n13.  By decision of 29 September 2010, the Supreme Court instructed the applicant to supply additional information and documents by 22 October 2010. On 27 October 2010 the Supreme Court disallowed the applicant’s action because the information had not been received.\n14.  The applicant challenged the decision of 27 October 2010 on appeal. He submitted that the requested information and documents had been sent to the Supreme Court on 19 October 2010.\n15.  On 28 December 2010 the Appeals Panel of the Supreme Court rejected the appeal, finding that the applicant’s submission had been belated because they had only reached the court on 29 October 2010.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7666", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Alicante, Spain.\n6.  On 7 July 2004 the applicant, a police officer at the time, lent 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB) to M. The latter failed to repay the loan. On an unspecified date, in order to make her pay the debt, the applicant tricked M. into giving him her travel passport.\n7.  On 14 January 2007 M. let K., a friend of the applicant’s, into her flat. K. asked her to repay the loan, which she could not do. Then the applicant broke into M.’s flat and beat her up. M. sustained a closed head injury and fractured ribs, and received treatment in hospital.\n8.  On 15 January 2007 M. complained about the beating to the local department of the interior where the applicant was serving as a police officer. On 19 January 2007 she lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office, alleging that on 14 January 2007 the applicant had entered her flat against her will.\n9.  On 1 February 2007 the prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation into M.’s complaint.\n10.  On 5 February 2007 the applicant made an undertaking not to leave town.\n11.  On 9 February 2007 the Volsk Town Court ordered that the applicant be temporarily removed from office. The applicant did not appeal.\n12.  On 10 February 2007 the applicant was indicted on charges of unlawful entry and assault with bodily injuries.\n13.  On 19 April 2007 the applicant was indicted on a charge of abuse of power.\n14.  On 26 April 2007 the Volsk Town Court received the case-file.\n15.  On 31 May 2007 the applicant gave an interview to the local newspaper alleging that one of the prosecutor’s witnesses had a grudge against him and had testified against him out of revenge.\n16.  On 15 June 2007 the Volsk Town Court established that the applicant had made threats to M. and other witnesses with intent to intimidate them and ordered that the applicant be detained pending trial. On 2 July 2007 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the decision of 15 June 2007 on appeal.\n17.  On 17 August 2007 the Town Court found the applicant guilty of unlawful entry, assault with bodily injuries and misappropriation of M.’s passport, and sentenced him to two years’ suspended imprisonment and a fine. He was released in the courtroom.\n18.  On 1 November 2007 the Saratov Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.\n19.  From 15 June to 17 August 2007 the applicant was detained alternately at the temporary detention centre in Volsk and in remand prison no. IZ-64/1 in Saratov.\n20.  The applicant was detained in cell no. 6 at the temporary detention centre in Volsk from 15 to 16 June, 27 June to 3 July, 11 to 19 July and 27 July to 17 August 2007.\n(a)  Description provided by the Government\n21.  According to the Government, the cell where the applicant was detained measured 5.85 sq. m and contained two beds. During the first two periods of detention the applicant was held in the cell alone. During the second two periods another inmate was held there with the applicant. The cell had no windows and was lit with a 200-watt electric bulb. Nor was the cell equipped with a toilet; the inmates had to use a bucket, which was placed some 1.5 metres from the beds and 3.5 metres from the dining table. There was no screen separating the “toilet zone” from the rest of the cell. The temporary detention centre had no exercise yard and inmates detained there had to stay in their cells all the time.\n(b)  Description provided by the applicant\n22.  According to the applicant, he was det", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7667", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1950 and 1946 respectively and live in Sumgayit.\n5.  The first applicant has tenancy rights to her flat on the basis of an occupancy voucher (yaşayış sahəsi orderi) and the second applicant is an owner of his flat on the basis of an ownership certificate issued by the competent domestic authority (see Appendix - Table I).\n6.  In both cases, the applicants’ flats were unlawfully occupied by internally displaced persons (“IDPs”) from different regions of Azerbaijan under occupation by Armenian military forces following the Armenian Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.\n7.  The applicants lodged separate civil actions before the domestic courts seeking the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.\n8.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix, the applicants’ claims were granted by the domestic courts, which ordered the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.\n9.  In application no. 16806/11 (lodged by the first applicant) the execution of the judgment was postponed, by virtue of the judgment’s operative provision, until IDPs’ return to their land or their settlement in other temporary accommodation.\n10.  No appeals were filed against these judgments and, pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time, they became enforceable within one month after their delivery. However, the IDP families refused to comply with those judgments and despite the applicants’ complaints to various authorities, the judgments were not enforced.\n11.  The applicants instituted court actions against the enforcement authorities complaining of their inactivity and seeking prompt execution of the judgments. On 19 March 2010 the Sumgayit City Court dismissed Ms Israfilova’s claims. On 11 May 2010 the Sumgayit Court of Appeal considered her appeal inadmissible. On 21 May 2011 the Sumgayit City Court granted Mr Agalarov’s claims, ordering immediate execution of the judgement.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7668", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in various districts of the Chechen Republic. They are close relatives of persons who disappeared, allegedly, after having been arrested by servicemen, in various public places in the region. In each of the applications the events took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives since the alleged arrests.\n6.  The applicants complained about the circumstances to law-enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without attaining any tangible results. The investigations consisted mainly of making requests for information and formal requests to their counterparts in various parts of Chechnya and other regions of the North Caucasus to carry out operative search measures. The requests received negative responses or no replies at all.\n7. From the documents submitted it appears that the relevant State authorities were unable to identify the State servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions.\n8.  In their observations the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants. At the same time, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the abductions.\n9.  Below are the summaries of the facts relevant to each individual complaint. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in the attached table (Appendix I).\n10.  The applicant, Ms Rauzara[1] Gakayeva, was born in 1952 and lives in Avtury, Chechnya. She is represented before the Court by lawyers from the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative.\n11.  The applicant is the mother of Mr Timerlan Soltakhanov, who was born in 1977.\n12.  According to the applicant, on 7 June 2003 Timerlan Soltakhanov went to Shali with his aunt, Ms R.G., to visit his sister, Ms T. Akh. Timerlan and his two female relatives met an acquaintance, Mr Dzh. Abdurzakov, near the central market. The four of them were talking when a grey UAZ minivan (tabletka) pulled over and a group of six or seven armed men of Slavic appearance got out of the vehicle. The men, who were in camouflage uniforms and armed with automatic weapons, opened gunfire. Timerlan Soltakhanov was wounded in the leg and fell. The men put him in their vehicle. Meanwhile, two UAZ vehicles from the Shali district department of the interior (“the Shali ROVD”) arrived at the scene. The police officers tried to stop the men from driving away. As a result, two of the men, who had not managed to get into the vehicle, started fighting with the police; they were eventually detained by the police and taken to the Shali ROVD.\n13.  Shortly after the events the applicant and two other individuals went to the Shali ROVD where the head of the Shali district department of the Federal Security Service (“the Shali FSB”), in the presence of the head of the Shali town administration and the head of the Avtury village administration, explained to them that the man who had been wounded during the arrest was not Timerlan Soltakhanov, but Mr Dzh. Abdurzakov, sought by the authorities as an active member of illegal armed groups. The head of the FSB denied that his servicemen had participated in the arrest but could not explain how he knew about the events.\n14.  According to th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7669", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Prestranek.\n5.  On 13 November 1996, following a decision on his retirement, the applicant instituted proceedings against his former employer, the Republic of Slovenia, Ministry of Defence, before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court. The case was initially conducted as a social dispute before the Social Court.\n6.  On 5 March 1998 the defendant responded to the claim.\n7.  On 7 December 1999 the court held the first main hearing.\n8.  On 11 February 2000 the second main hearing was held.\n9.  On 16 February 2000 the applicant gave a declaration before the court specifying his claim.\n10.  Following the applicant’s declaration of 16 February 2000, as of 6 July 2000 the case was conducted as a labour dispute and was examined by the Labour Court.\n11.  On 24 January 2001 the third main hearing was held. At the hearing the applicant amended his claim.\n12.  On 7 May 2001 the applicant was invited by the court to assist him in amending his claim.\n13.  On 6 June 2001 the applicant requested the court for an extension of the time-limit for amending his claim.\n14.  On 8 June 2001 and 11 June 2001 the applicant amended his claim. On 15 June 2001 he submitted further documents to the court.\n15.  On 11 October 2001 the defendant responded to the claim.\n16.  Further two main hearings were held on 13 May 2002 and 18 September 2002. On the latter date the applicant orally amended his claim.\n17.  In January 2003 the applicant amended his claim in writing.\n18.  On 12 February 2003 a further main hearing was held. On the same date the Labour and Social Court granted a small part of the applicant’s claim and dismissed the remainder of the claim. Both parties appealed.\n19.  On 16 December 2004 the Higher Labour and Social Court granted the appeals and remitted the case back to the first instance.\n20.  On 17 January 2005 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court rejected the applicant’s claim. In a separate order the court ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings. The applicant appealed against both decisions.\n21.  On 31 March 2006 the Higher Labour and Social Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal regarding the rejection of the claim, modified the decision on the costs of proceedings and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s appeal relating to aforementioned decision.\n22.  On 29 May 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\n23.  On 4 July 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7670", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Rijeka.\n6.  On 29 December 2005 the Rijeka Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Rijeci, hereinafter “the State Attorney’s Office”) indicted the applicant and one other person, F.M., in the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci) on charges of drug possession.\n7.  The charges were based on a police report alleging that on 1 November 2005 at about 11.30 p.m. the applicant had been in possession of 1.2 grams of marijuana wrapped in a sheet of newspaper, which he had thrown into a rubbish bin when he saw three policemen approaching him.\n8.  On 23 February 2006 the Rijeka Municipal Court issued a penal order (kazneni nalog) finding the applicant guilty of the offence of drug possession and ordering him to pay a fine of 1,458 Croatian kunas (HRK).\n9.  The applicant objected to the penal order on 13 March 2006, asking the Rijeka Municipal Court to hold a hearing. He also requested the court to commission a DNA or fingerprint forensic analysis of the newspaper sheet in order to obtain evidence as to whether he had been in contact with that object.\n10.  The Rijeka Municipal Court held a hearing on 29 May 2006. At the hearing the applicant denied the charges and argued that what he had thrown into the rubbish bin was a beer can and not the package of marijuana which was later found there. He had, therefore, refused to sign the seizure record of the package and had requested a DNA or fingerprint forensic analysis of the package.\n11.  After the questioning of the applicant, the Deputy State Attorney requested the trial court to call three police officers, J.M., A.B. and S.J.-V., who had been present at the scene, to give evidence. F.M.’s defence lawyer asked the trial court to call three other persons, I.Š., U.V. and T.M., who had also been present at the scene, to give evidence. The applicant and his defence lawyer agreed with the submissions of the Deputy State Attorney and F.M.’s defence lawyer, and made no submissions of their own.\n12.  At the same hearing, the Rijeka Municipal Court granted the parties’ requests and decided to hear the three police officers and two other witnesses, I.Š. and U.V.\n13.  Another hearing was held on 4 December 2006, at which the applicant again denied all the charges against him. The three police officers appeared at the hearing, but the other two witnesses did not, because U.V. was studying abroad and I.Š. was serving in the army.\n14.  At the hearing, police officer A.B. testified that during a regular patrol in the area they had seen a group of young people hanging about. When they had approached them he had seen the applicant making a move as if he was about to tie his shoelace and at that moment throwing a package into a rubbish bin. They had found the package in the bin and saw that it contained a green herbal substance.\n15.  Police officer J.M. also testified that he had seen the applicant throwing a package into the rubbish bin while he was making a move as if he was about to tie his shoelace. However, J.M. had then examined the bin and found the package in it. There were also some beer cans in the bin, but the package was on top of the content of the bin. He excluded any possibility that the applicant had thrown a beer can into the bin, because he had seen the applicant throwing the package.\n16.  Police officer S.J.-V. testified to the same effect as the other police officers. He confirmed that he had seen the applicant thr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7671", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1977 and live in Ljubljana.\n5.  On 2 October 2007 the applicants instituted civil proceedings against O. J. before the Ljubljana District Court with regard to the defects of the apartment they had bought from her.\n6.  On 2 April 2008 the applicants requested a hearing.\n7.  On 4 April 2008 the Ljubljana District Court responded that the applicants’ case could not be granted priority and that it would not be possible to schedule a hearing until the end of 2008.\n8.  On 6 February 2009 the applicants lodged a supervisory appeal. They stressed inter alia that according to the Court Rules the first instance decision should be issued within eighteen months whereas their case had already been pending for fourteen months.\n9.  On 26 February 2009 the President of the Ljubljana District Court dismissed the applicant’s supervisory appeal, informing the applicants that the case could not be granted priority and that it was foreseen that, according to the order of precedence for non-priority cases a hearing would be scheduled in the second half of 2009.\n10.  On 5 March 2009 the applicants lodged a motion for a deadline with the Ljubljana Higher Court.\n11.  On 27 March 2009 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicants’ motion for a deadline. It referred to the order of precedence and to the fact that their case was not considered to be a priority case.\n12.  On 25 May 2009 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal against the dismissal of the supervisory appeal and motion for a deadline, alleging that their right to a trial within reasonable time had been violated.\n13.  On 3 November 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal.\n14.  On 22 January 2010 the Ljubljana District Court held a main hearing and appointed a construction expert to assess the submissions in the claim.\n15.  On 2 March 2010 the Ljubljana District Court dismissed the expert appointed in January 2010 and appointed another expert.\n16.  Two hearings were postponed between April and June 2010.\n17.  On 27 September 2010 the court held a hearing, heard the expert witness, issued an order addressed to the construction company K. Z. to provide the court with documentation concerning the construction of the apartment and adjourned the hearing until 8 December 2010.\n18.  On 15 October 2010 the company K. Z. lodged an appeal against the order of the court to provide it with the documentation on the grounds that the order was insufficiently precise.\n19.  A hearing scheduled for 8 December 2010 was postponed due to the appeal of the company K. Z. pending before the higher court.\n20.  On 17 February 2011 the Ljubljana Higher Court granted the appeal of K. Z. and remitted the case back to first instance.\n21.  At the hearing on 9 March 2011 the Ljubljana District Court indicated that a new order with regard to the company K. Z. would be issued and adjourned the hearing.\n22.  On 24 March 2011 the Ljubljana District Court issued a new order addressed to the company K. Z.\n23.  After the company K.Z. informed the court by letter dated 14 April 2011 that they would make the requested documentation available at the company’s office, the court on 19 April 2011 requested the expert to inspect the documentation and supplement the expert opinion.\n24.  On 7 October 2011 the expert submitted the supplementary opinion.\n25.  At the hearing on 11 January 2012 the court granted the applicant’s motion to appoint an expert on noise exposure", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7672", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. The applicant, Mrs Marina Ilyinichna Kaykhanidi, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and now lives in Berlin.\n5.  Since 1996 the applicant studied at the Moscow State Linguistic University (the MSLU). In 2000 she obtained a traineeship with the Humboldt University in Berlin. She went to Germany for several months and, consequently, abandoned her courses at the MSLU. She claims that she returned to Moscow in September 2000 and resumed her studies in the MSLU. However, in May 2001 she was sent down from this university for repetitive non-attendance and failure to pass the exams.\n6.  On 17 July 2001 the applicant challenged her dismissal before the court. On 20 December 2001 the Cheremushkinskiy District of Moscow granted her claim. The court established that the applicant had been dismissed without having been heard about the reasons of her absences. On this ground the court found the dismissal unlawful and ordered the MSLU to reinstate her as a student.\n7.  The MSLU appealed, but on 20 February 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision in favour of the applicant.\n8. On 28 February 2002 the MSLU brought a supervisory review application. On 13 June 2002 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the lower courts’ decisions. As to the fact that the applicant had not been heard before having been dismissed, the Presidium found that the MSLU dean tried to contact the applicant, but to no avail, since she was outside Russia. The court obtained information from the border police about the applicant’s absences from the Russian territory. According to that information, the applicant was outside Russia for at least seven weeks during the study time. Further, the court obtained information from the Humboldt University which confirmed that starting from April 2001 the applicant had been enrolled at that University as a full-time student. The Presidium also held that the lower courts applied the law incorrectly and decided to remit the case to the first instance court for a fresh examination.\n9.  After the transmittal of the case to the first instance court the applicant amended her initial complaint, claiming from the MSLU 600,000 Russian roubles (RUB) as non-pecuniary damages.\n10.  On 19 March 2003 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow discontinued the proceedings. The court found that the complaint was introduced under the provisions of the law of 1993, which provided for the judicial review of administrative actions. However, after the enactment of the new Code of Civil Proceeding on 1 February 2003, such claims should have been examined under the rules of “contentious proceedings” (исковое производство). The court advised her to re-introduce her complaint within the contentious proceedings. On 16 May 2003 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the decision of 19 March 2003.\n11.  The applicant re-introduced her claim; however, she did not follow the instructions of the courts. The courts at two instances again refused to examine her action.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7674", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Poltava.\n6.  On 9 June 2004 the applicant was arrested in connection with criminal proceedings against him and two women, D. and O. In October 2004 the applicant was released under written obligation not to abscond. The criminal proceedings were discontinued in 2008 for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the applicant and the other accused persons.\n7.  As established by the domestic courts, between 10 and 18 June 2004 the applicant was held in the ITT. In the morning of 11 June 2004 the applicant was escorted to the local court for a hearing concerning the preliminary measure to be applied in his respect. He returned to the ITT in the afternoon on the same day.\n8.  In January 2007 the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Oktyabrskyy District Court of Poltava (“the District Court”) against the ITT and other authorities seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained owing to the inappropriate conditions of his detention in the ITT.\n9.  The applicant claimed that throughout the period of his detention in different cells of the ITT the conditions of his detention had been contrary to domestic legislation and Article 3 of the Convention. He stated that: he had not been given a chance to wash himself or clean his teeth as he had not been provided with hygiene products; he had had to sleep on wooden or metal bunks without a mattress or bed linen; every night he had been bitten by insects, putting him at risk of being infected with HIV or other illnesses from the other inmates; instead of a spoon he had been given a small utensil which had made it impossible to eat; he had never been allowed outside exercise and had had no access to fresh air; the toilets in the cells had offered no privacy as they were not properly partitioned; and every morning and evening he and the other detainees had been strip-searched in each other’s presence. In particular, the applicant and the other detainees were ordered to undress, go out of the cell to the corridor and enter a metal cage. During the body search the applicant was pushed with a truncheon and required to face a wall and spread his buttocks.\n10.  Further to the applicant’s requests, the District Court questioned the two women, D. and O., who had been held in the ITT during the same period. Owing to the rotation of the detainees, D. was held in the same cells (nos. 3 and 5) as the applicant but on different days.\n11.  When questioned in the court, D. submitted that she and other detainees had not been provided with bed linen; the cells had been infested with biting insects, making it impossible to sleep; she had been regularly strip-searched (apart from the applicant); she had not been provided with hygiene products; she had had no outdoor exercise; the utensil for eating had been too small, with the result that the persons using it could not avoid touching the food with their fingers; and the toilets were not properly partitioned.\n12.  When questioned in court, O. explained that she had not been provided with bed linen, an appropriate utensil for eating or hygiene products; she had had no outdoor exercise; she had been bitten by insects; and no disinfection measures had been carried out.\n13.  Further to the applicant’s requests, the District Court also questioned the applicant’s wife and other persons who saw him and talked with him during the impugned period of his detention or afterwards. All the witnesses were examined in the presence", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7675", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants’ details are annexed.\n6.  The applicants or their ascendants or spouses (in the cases where the applicants are heirs of a deceased individual) are or were all pensioners (retired prior to 31 December 1990) and former employees of the Banco Di Napoli (a banking group which was originally a public entity and was later privatised).\n7.  Before their privatisation, the Banco di Napoli and the Banco di Sicilia were subject to exclusive welfare systems according to Articles 11 and 39 of Law no. 486 of 1985. Their employees benefited from a more favourable equalisation mechanism (meccanismo perequativo) than that available to persons registered with the general compulsory insurance (assicurazione generale obligatoria). In particular, the annual pension increase of their pensioners was calculated on the basis of the salary increases of working employees in equal grades of service (perequazione aziendale).\n8.  In 1990 the Amato reform provided for the privatisation of public banks such as the Banco di Napoli. It suppressed their exclusive pension regimes, replacing them by integrated ones. It provided for the registration of the Banco di Napoli employees with a new welfare management system which was part of the general obligatory insurance managed by the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (“INPS”), an Italian welfare entity.\n9.  In 1992 a further partial pension reform took place.\n10.  In 1993 a number of former employees, who had by then retired, entered into a dispute with the Banco di Napoli about the application of certain provisions. In particular, by means of a wide interpretation of section 9 of Law no. 503 of 1992 (hereinafter Law no. 503/92) and section 3 of Law no. 421 of 23 October 1992 (hereinafter Law no. 421/92) (see Relevant domestic law) the Banco di Napoli attempted to suppress the system of perequazione aziendale calculated on the basis of the salary increases of working employees in equal grades of service, also in respect of persons who were already retired, limiting the latter’s perequazione to an automatic one, namely a simple increase according to the cost of living (perequazione legale), which resulted in a less substantial pension.\n11.  The latter stand was taken notwithstanding that, according to the applicants, Law no. 218 of 30 July 1990 (Amato reform), particularly its section 3 paragraph 1 and 2, and section 3 of Law no. 421 of 23 October 1992 (see Relevant domestic law), limited this suppression solely to persons still employed and not persons already receiving a pension. Indeed, persons still employed had been given the option of taking up other benefits as agreed by means of corporate collective bargaining.\n12.  On an unspecified date a number of pensioners (or their heirs) in the applicants’ (or their predecessors’) position instituted civil proceedings contesting the actions of the Banco di Napoli, since as a consequence they were receiving lesser amounts than those they claimed to be entitled to. They highlighted that Laws nos. 503/92 and 421/92 safeguarded any more favourable treatment applicable to persons who had retired prior to 31 December 1990. Thus, they requested the court to find that they had a right to retain the system of perequazione aziendale as applied before the enactment of such laws, and to order the Banco di Napoli to pay the sums it had failed to pay them.\n13.  By a judgment of 31 October 1994 in Acocella and others v. Banco di Napoli, the domestic court upheld t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7676", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1990 and 1989 respectively and live in Chişinău.\n6.  The present case concerns the circumstances surrounding the killing of the applicants’ 29-year-old brother Alexei Vlasi during a police operation on 14 March 2009.\n7.  On that date at approximately 10.20 p.m. three plain-clothed police officers (N., B. and C.) entered a five-storey apartment block to arrest a person suspected of armed robbery. According to their information, the suspect in question was supposed to be visiting his ex-girlfriend M. that evening, who lived on the fourth floor of the building.\n8.  At the same time, M. was coming down the stairs from the fourth floor with a group of four friends. None of them was the suspect wanted by the police. Two young women (S. and Z.) and a young man (G.) were at the front of the group and they passed the police officers between the third and second floor.\n9.  Upon passing the first part of the group one of the police officers immediately apprehended G. Alexei Vlasi and M. were several storeys up and saw the police officers as they approached the rest of the group. Two police officers rushed after Alexei Vlasi, who started to run back up the stairs. They apprehended him on the fifth floor. Shortly afterwards, one of the police officers shot him in the back of the head at very close range. He died instantly.\n10.  An investigation followed, during which all the witnesses and police officers were questioned. There were two versions of events: that of the group of friends coming down the stairs with the victim (the witnesses), and that of the police officers.\n11.  The witnesses’ version was that two police officers, N. and C., were armed with pistols which they were holding upwards. Upon passing the first part of the group, the officers saw that there was someone else upstairs and ran in that direction, leaving the first part of the group with police officer N. They then told police officer N. to come upstairs with the rest of the group. After apprehending Alexei Vlasi somewhere on the fifth floor, police officers B. and C. started to beat him up. All the members of the group recounted an almost identical description of what they had heard and the conversation that had taken place between the two police officers and Alexei Vlasi. According to them, one of the police officers (B.) called Alexei Vlasi by his first name and told him to follow them. In response, he addressed B. by his first name and told him to stop beating him up. Sounds of someone being beaten up were heard and Alexei Vlasi threatened to report his injuries to a forensic doctor. The manner in which he said this last sentence was very specific, as he used a mixture of both Romanian and Russian words and the witnesses recounted it in the same manner. It later transpired that police officer B. and Alexei Vlasi already knew each other, as in 1999 the latter had been arrested by the former for bicycle theft.\n12.  The encounter between police officers B. and C. and Alexei Vlasi took place on the fifth and top floor. Two of the witnesses M. and G. were the closest to the scene at the time, being held by police officer N. on the fourth floor. The fourth floor was separated from the fifth floor by two flights of stairs going in opposite directions joined by an intermediate landing. M. (who also already knew police officer B.) started to shout at him, telling him to leave Alexei Vlasi alone. She called him by his first name and tried to get past polic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7677", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Cricova.\n6.  The applicant worked as a consultant for the Romanian Embassy in Moldova. On 12 April 2005 he was arrested by Moldovan police in Călăraşi, Moldova, on suspicion of having made false accusations against a third person. While the parties did not submit any copies of judgments concerning the applicant’s criminal proceedings, it follows from his correspondence that on an unknown date he was convicted to eight years’ imprisonment. He was placed in detention in prison no. 3 in Chişinău (previously known as prison no. 13) on 12 April 2005. On 5 October 2006 he was transferred to prison no. 15 in Cricova. On 6 August 2009 he was transferred to the Pruncul prison hospital (prison no. 16), where he received inpatient treatment until 18 August 2009 for hypertension and cardiac insufficiency.\n7.  The applicant described the conditions of his detention in prison no. 3 in Chişinău as follows. He was detained with thirty-nine other people in a 40 sq. m cell without ventilation or heating. Prisoners sometimes had to take turns to sleep and had to wait for a daily time-slot of two to three hours to obtain running tap water, which made hygiene issues in the prison a lot worse. The toilet was located in the cell itself and gave off a foul odour because there were no products to clean it with. The food was inedible.\n8.  He described the conditions of his detention in prison no. 15 as follows. On 5 October 2006 he was placed in a cell measuring 60 sq. m with twenty-six other people, which left very little space for each detainee. In the absence of any work or other activities, he had nothing to do and spent most of his time in the cell.\n9.  No bedding was given to the applicant and he had to ask his relatives to bring him some. The same was true of items of personal hygiene. He had to wear the same clothes he had been wearing when he was admitted to the prison, since no clothes were provided by the prison administration.\n10.  Water from a single tap was available during the day but not at night, and owing to the number of detainees in the cell it was not always possible to have access to it. Food was scarce and of very poor quality. The library contents were old and there were no reading materials about the Convention. The applicant also claimed that he had been given insufficient medical treatment in both detention facilities.\n11.  According to the Government, the space available to the applicant in various cells of prisons no. 3 and 15 always exceeded 4 sq.m. In particular, in prison no. 15 he was held in a detention block for working prisoners. The first cell he was detained in measured 61.6 sq.m and accommodated fifteen people. Shortly thereafter he was transferred to a cell measuring 30 sq.m, which accommodated three detainees. He was later moved to another cell measuring 24 sq.m, which also accommodated three detainees. All the cells had the correct number beds for detainees and were equipped with a water tap and a toilet.\n12.  The Government submitted a list confirming that the applicant was given medical assistance on a number of occasions in both prisons no. 3 and no. 15, including inpatient treatment for an ulcer in 2005.\n13.  The relevant parts of the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the CPT) concerning its visit to Moldova from 20 to 30 September 2004 read as follows (unofficial translation):\n“54.  The dele", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7678", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants’ details are annexed.\n6.  The applicants are all pensioners (retired prior to 31 December 1990) and former employees of the Banco Di Napoli (a banking group which was originally a public entity and was later privatised).\n7.  Before their privatisation, the Banco di Napoli and the Banco di Sicilia were subject to exclusive welfare systems according to Articles 11 and 39 of Law no. 486 of 1985. Their employees benefited from a more favourable equalisation mechanism (meccanismo perequativo) than that available to persons registered with the general compulsory insurance (assicurazione generale obligatoria). In particular, the annual pension increase of their pensioners was calculated on the basis of the salary increases of working employees in equal grades of service (perequazione aziendale).\n8.  In 1990 the Amato reform provided for the privatisation of public banks such as the Banco di Napoli. It suppressed their exclusive pension regimes, replacing them by integrated ones. It provided for the registration of the Banco di Napoli employees with a new welfare management system which was part of the general obligatory insurance managed by the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (“INPS”), an Italian welfare entity.\n9.  In 1992 a further partial pension reform took place.\n10.  In 1993 a number of former employees, who had by then retired, entered into a dispute with the Banco di Napoli about the application of certain provisions. In particular, by means of a wide interpretation of section 9 of Law no. 503 of 1992 (hereinafter Law no. 503/92) and section 3 of Law no. 421 of 23 October 1992 (hereinafter Law no. 421/92) (see Relevant domestic law) the Banco di Napoli attempted to suppress the system of perequazione aziendale calculated on the basis of the salary increases of working employees in equal grades of service, also in respect of persons who were already retired, limiting the latter’s perequazione to an automatic one, namely a simple increase according to the cost of living (perequazione legale), which resulted in a less substantial pension.\n11.  The latter stand was taken notwithstanding that, according to the applicants, Law no. 218 of 30 July 1990 (Amato reform), particularly its section 3 paragraph 1 and 2, and section 3 of Law no. 421 of 23 October 1992 (see Relevant domestic law), limited this suppression solely to persons still employed and not persons already receiving a pension. Indeed, persons still employed had been given the option of taking up other benefits as agreed by means of corporate collective bargaining.\n12.  On an unspecified date a number of pensioners in the applicants’ position instituted civil proceedings contesting the actions of the Banco di Napoli, since as a consequence they were receiving lesser amounts than those they claimed to be entitled to. They highlighted that Laws nos. 503/92 and 421/92 safeguarded any more favourable treatment applicable to persons who had retired prior to 31 December 1990. Thus, they requested the court to find that they had a right to retain the system of perequazione aziendale as applied before the enactment of such laws, and to order the Banco di Napoli to pay the sums it had failed to pay them.\n13.  By a judgment of 31 October 1994 in Acocella and others v. Banco di Napoli, the domestic court upheld the claimants’ arguments, holding that they had a right to remain under the system of perequazione aziendale even following the entry into force of Law n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7679", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1967, 1972, 2002 and 2004 respectively and live in Varna. The first two applicants are a married couple and the third and fourth applicants are their minor daughters.\n6.  The first applicant, Mr Borislav Gutsanov, is a member of parliament for the Socialist Party, a member of the Central Executive Bureau of the Socialist Party and vice-president of its regional branch. At the relevant time he was the Chairman of Varna municipal council, elected from his party’s list.\n7.  Between December 2009 and April 2010, the Bulgarian Ministry of the Interior conducted several police operations throughout the country aimed at dismantling various criminal groups. During the course of these operations the police arrested a number of individuals, including some political figures, a fact which attracted widespread media coverage and public interest. Several politicians including the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, as well as a number of prosecutors and police commissioners, were regularly approached by the media to comment on the arrests and the ensuing criminal proceedings.\n8.  A series of applications was made to the Court following these events (Maslarova v. Bulgaria, no. 26966/10; Aleksey Petrov (II) v. Bulgaria, no. 30336/10; Kostadinov v. Bulgaria, no. 37124/10; Tsonev v. Bulgaria, no. 44885/10; Petrov and Ivanova v. Bulgaria, no. 45773/10; and Stoyanov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 55388/10).\n9.  On 30 October 2009 the Sofia city public prosecutor’s office commenced criminal proceedings against a person or persons unknown for abuse of office by a public servant and misappropriation of public funds resulting in significant damage to the Varna municipal public transport company. The facts in issue had taken place between 2003 and 2007. On 8 February 2010 the Prosecutor General ordered the criminal investigation file to be sent to the Varna regional public prosecutor’s office. The investigation was to be carried out by the Varna police under the supervision of the regional prosecutor’s office.\n10.  On 31 March 2010, in the course of that criminal investigation, a team of police officers entered the applicants’ home at around 6.30 a.m. and proceeded to arrest Mr Gutsanov and search the premises. The events surrounding the police operation are disputed by the parties.\n11.  In the early morning of 31 March 2010, Mr and Mrs Gutsanovi were asleep in their bedroom on the second floor of their house in Varna. Their two daughters were asleep in their rooms on the floor below. The family home was equipped with a closed-circuit television (CCTV) monitoring system, and a night watchman, D.P., was on duty at the entrance to the property.\n12.  At around 6.30 a.m., D.P. observed on the CCTV screen two or three police vehicles driving past the garden gate in silence with their lights off and stopping a little further on.\n13.  Shortly afterwards a group of police officers appeared at the entrance to the property and some of them began knocking loudly on the gate and demanding that it be opened immediately. D.P. left his night watchman’s post and opened the gate. He then saw two plain-clothes police officers, four or five uniformed officers and a group of four or five masked officers of the Interior Ministry special commando unit. D.P. was immobilised and handcuffed by the police officers and was asked whether the owners of the house were at home. He said that they were, and told the police officers that there were two ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7680", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr İbrahim Güler, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and is currently serving a prison service in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 5 November 1996 the applicant was taken into police custody during an operation carried out against Hizbullah, an illegal organisation.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant was questioned in the absence of a lawyer by police officers, who asked him about his affiliation to Hizbullah and events in which he was alleged to have taken part.\n7.  On 12 November 1996 the applicant was brought before the Mardin Public Prosecutor. He confirmed the content of his police statements before the prosecutor in the absence of a lawyer.\n8.  On the same day, an investigating judge at the Mardin Magistrate’s Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, again in the absence of a lawyer. He accepted the allegations against him and confirmed the statements he had made before the police and the public prosecutor.\n9.  According to two reports in the case file, dated 10 and 12 November 1996 respectively, the applicant was medically examined by a doctor who noted that there were no signs of physical violence on the applicant’s body.\n10.  By way of an application dated 30 December 1996, the applicant retracted his statements made before the police and the public prosecutor and requested his release from the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor’s office. He maintained that he had been tortured in police custody and that he had been threatened whilst being taken to the public prosecutor.\n11.  On 26 November 1996 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor lodged an indictment before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, charging the applicant under Section 146 of the former Turkish Criminal Code with attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the State.\n12.  On 28 January 1997 at the first court hearing in the applicant’s case, the applicant retracted his statements made to the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, alleging that they had been made under duress.\n13.  State Security Courts were abolished on 16 June 2004 by Law no. 5190. The case was accordingly transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.\n14.  Throughout the proceedings, the applicant denied all the accusations against him.\n15.  On 31 March 2005 the first-instance court convicted the applicant as charged.\n16.  On 11 December 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the conviction.\n17.  On 9 November 2007 the Diyarbakır Assize Court once again convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n18.  On 21 January 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the conviction.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7681", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The first and second applicants were born in 1952 and 1965 respectively, and live in Novi Pazar.\n7.  The first applicant was employed by Raška Holding AD – Pamučna predionica DOO (“the first debtor”), and the second applicant was employed by Raška Holding AD – Dorada tkanina DOO (“the second debtor”). The debtors are limited liability companies owned by the “Raška Holding Kompanija” (“the mother company”).\n8.  On 14 May 1996 and 15 May 1996 respectively, the applicants were placed on compulsory paid leave until such time as normal production could be resumed and the said debtors’ business performance had improved sufficiently.\n9.  Whilst on this leave, in accordance with the relevant domestic legislation, the applicants were entitled to a significantly reduced monthly income, as well as the payment of their pension, disability and other social security contributions.\n10.  Since the debtors failed to fulfil these obligations, the applicants brought numerous separate civil claims before the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the Municipal Court”).\n11.  On 26 February 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:\ni.  the monthly paid leave benefits (garantovana zarada) due from 15 May 1996 to 1 June 2001 (RSD 13,370 in total[1]; EUR 190 at the relevant time[2]), plus statutory interest;\nii.  the monthly paid leave benefits (minimalna zarada) due from 1 June 2001 to 31 December 2003 (RSD 120,822 in total; EUR 1,725), plus statutory interest;\niii.  the pension and disability insurance contributions (doprinosi za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje) due for the same periods; and\niii.  RSD 6,800 (EUR 95) for legal costs.\n12.  On 15 March 2004 this judgment became final.\n13.  On 18 March 2004, upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order in respect of the paid leave benefits and costs, at the same time awarding the first applicant an additional amount of RSD 1,800 (EUR 25) for the enforcement costs. It was further specified that the judgment would be enforced by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the first debtor’s specific movable and/or immovable assets.\n14.  On 17 June 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:\ni.  the monthly paid leave benefits (minimalna zarada) due from 1 January 2004 to 30 April 2004 (RSD 21,576 in total; EUR 300), plus statutory interest; and\nii.  RSD 7,800 (EUR 110) for legal costs.\n15.  On 12 July 2004 this judgment became final.\n16.  On 14 July 2004, upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order, at the same time awarding the first applicant the additional amount of RSD 1,200 (EUR 15) for the enforcement costs. It was further specified that the judgment would be enforced by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the first debtor’s specific movable and/or immovable assets.\n17.  On 1 November 2004 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered her employer to pay her:\ni. the monthly paid leave benefits (minimalna zarada) due for the months of May to October 2004 (RSD 35,024 in total; EUR 460), plus statutory interest;\nii.  the pension and disability insurance contributions (doprinosi za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje) due for the period from 1 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7682", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Râmnicu Vâlcea.\n6.  On 8 April 2005 the applicant, then aged 19, was placed in pre-trial detention for twenty-four hours, following a criminal complaint made the previous day by D.A., a girl aged 17. She had complained that two girls, also minors, had brought her to an apartment where they had hit her and forced her to have oral sex or sexual intercourse with the applicant and three other boys, who were minors too.\n7.  By an interlocutory judgment of the same day the Râmnicu Vâlcea District Court (“the District Court”) placed the applicant and the three other boys in pre-trial detention for twenty-nine days. The District Court considered that this measure was necessary, given the aggravated circumstances of the alleged offence and the serious risk it posed to society, the dangerous character of all the defendants, and their attitude during the investigation. By a decision of 11 April 2005 the Vâlcea County Court (“the County Court”) dismissed an appeal by the applicant against that judgment.\n8.  Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was regularly extended, by District Court interlocutory judgments on 25 April, 25 May, 29 June, 20 July, 24 August, 14 September, 19 October, 23 November and 21 December 2005, and 25 January 2006. The County Court dismissed appeals by the applicant against these judgments on 27 April, 27 May, 4 and 21 July, 9 and 25 August, 16 September, 21 October, 25 November and 23 December 2005, and 27 January 2006. The reasons given for continuing his detention remained the same throughout the proceedings, namely the seriousness of the offence, the sentence provided by the law, and the lack of any new circumstances justifying release pending trial.\n9.  Several incidents occurred during the proceedings related to the pre‑trial detention.\n10.  On the one hand, the appeal against the judgment of 20 July 2005 was reviewed twice by mistake, on 21 July and 9 August 2005. By an interlocutory judgment of 28 November 2005 the County Court rectified this mistake.\n11.  On the other hand, on 21 July and 9 and 25 August 2005, when the appeals on points of law were reviewed by the County Court, the applicant was not brought before the judges. On each occasion the registrar of the County Court had telephoned Colibaşi Prison, where the applicant was held at the time. According to the registrar’s transcript, prison staff replied that it was not possible for them to bring the applicant to court because no such service for detainees was available on the dates in question (“nu există planificare pentru data de ...”). At the hearings on 21 July and 9 August 2005 the applicant was represented by a lawyer appointed by the County Court. The applicant had himself appointed a lawyer for the whole duration of the proceedings, but he maintained that the authorities had failed to notify his lawyer of the hearings held on 21 July and 9 August 2005. His lawyer was only present at the hearing on 25 August 2005.\n12.  According to documents adduced to the file by the Government, on 16 September, 21 October and 23 December 2005 as well as on 27 January and 24 February 2006 the applicant was absent from the hearings at which the County Court reviewed his appeals on points of law against the interlocutory judgments extending his pre-trial detention. According to the registrar’s transcript drafted on each occasion the reason for his absence was also given as the lack of such a service for detainees", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7683", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962.\n6.  On 21 February 2002, the Bucharest County Court convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to thirteen years’ imprisonment. The judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice, which dismissed an appeal by the applicant on 15 May 2003.\n7.  The applicant started serving his sentence in Rahova Prison. On 2  December 2008 he was transferred to Jilava Prison. He remained in prison until his release on probation on 6 July 2010.\n8.  The circumstances of the applicant’s transfer from Rahova Prison to Jilava Prison are in dispute between the parties.\n(a)  The applicant’s account\n9.  On 2 December 2008, the applicant, with seventy other detainees, was transferred from Rahova Prison to Jilava Prison. The applicant was informed about his transfer only that morning and he was allowed only ten minutes to take some personal belongings.\n10.  The detainees were kept in the reception area of Rahova Prison from 8.30 a.m. until 3.30 p.m. without water or food. The transfer to Jilava Prison took until 9.30 p.m. There they were again kept in the reception area of the prison without water or food until 3.30 p.m. the next day, when they were sent to their new cells. The applicant stated that they were kept without water or food for a day and a half.\n11.  Because he was transferred under these conditions, the applicant could not take with him his clothes, personal papers, books and other objects for personal use, among which were his Koran and prayer mat. The money from his account was transferred from Rahova Prison to Jilava Prison only six weeks later, leaving the applicant without the means to buy water, toiletries or telephone cards.\n(b)  The Government’s account\n12.  The applicant was transferred from Rahova Prison to Jilava Prison with sixty‑one other inmates on 2 December 2008. They were kept in the reception area of Rahova Prison between 10.35 a.m. and 4.45 p.m.\n13.  The Government alleged that the reception area of Rahova Prison had toilets where the applicant could also get drinking water. They also submitted that the detainees had received food while waiting to be transferred.\n14.  The luggage of all the transferred detainees was subjected to inventory and sealed.\n15.  The applicant’s money was sent on 5 December 2008 and received at Jilava Prison on 10 December 2008.\n16.  The applicant and the Government disagreed as to most aspects of the conditions of detention.\n(a)  The applicant’s account\n17.  The applicant alleged that the cells occupied by him were overcrowded. There were four tiers of bunk beds, the bottom level being used for the detainees’ personal possessions. However, the applicant did not indicate the number of detainees in the cell.\n18.  The applicant also complained of unsatisfactory sanitary conditions and poor quality of food. He claimed that the temperature in the cells in winter was too low. He also alleged that there were rats and parasites in the cells. The toilet fittings were defective. The prison had no designated eating area, and the detainees were forced to eat in their cells, where there was no furniture other than the beds. The water seemed to be infested with worms and had a strange colour and taste. Also, the detainees did not have water between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. The smell in the cells was appalling, and difficult to bear in summer due to the lack of hygiene.\n(b)  The Government\n19.  The applicant was detained in Jilava Prison between 2 December 2008 and 6 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7684", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in the city of Kharkiv.\n6.  On 18 May 2002 Mr Igor Zubkov, the applicant’s son (born in 1961), was riding a bicycle and collided with a minibus at a crossroads in Kharkiv.\n7.  On the same day the police examined the scene of the accident and prepared a vehicular accident inspection report, taking relevant measurements. They also questioned the driver of the minibus and his passenger.\n8.  On 20 May 2002 the applicant’s son died as a result of his injuries.\n9.  On 21 May 2002 the local police instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the violation of traffic safety rules which had resulted in the victim’s death. In the subsequent period a number of investigative measures were taken, including questioning witnesses, staging a reconstruction of events, and conducting expert examinations.\n10.  On 25 September 2002 a police investigator terminated the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the minibus driver. The investigator also noted that the accident was caused by the cyclist himself.\n11.  On 25 October 2002 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office quashed that decision, finding that it had been taken prematurely. It noted, in particular, that in the course of the investigation the attesting witnesses, who had been present during the examination of the scene of the accident and the preparation of the vehicular accident inspection report, had to be questioned; that a statement by the victim’s relatives contesting the veracity of that report had to be annexed to the file and examined; and that an additional auto-technical expert examination (автотехнічна експертиза) had to be conducted.\n12.  Following the additional investigative measures, on 18 April 2003 the police investigator terminated the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the minibus driver. The investigator concluded that the accident had taken place as a result of the negligent and careless behaviour of the cyclist.\n13.  On 14 May 2003 the supervising prosecutor quashed that decision, noting, inter alia, that the instructions given by the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office had not been followed in full. The investigation was resumed.\n14.  On 15 September 2003 the police investigator terminated the criminal proceedings, finding that the additional investigation did not disclose any elements of a criminal offence on the part of the minibus driver who could not avoid colliding with the cyclist.\n15.  On 5 November 2003 a supervising prosecutor quashed that decision, finding that not all the investigative measures had been taken in order to carry out a full, comprehensive and objective examination of the circumstances of the case. He specified that it would be necessary to question witnesses and carry out an auto-technical expert examination of the bicycle.\n16.  On 26 February 2004 the police investigator, having taken the additional investigative measures, concluded that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of the minibus driver. The investigation was therefore closed.\n17.  On 1 July 2004 the supervising prosecutor quashed that decision and ordered a further investigation. He noted, in particular, that it would be necessary to carry out new reconstructions of events and a more thorough auto-technical expert examination.\n18.  Following the additional investigative measures, on 24 January 2005 the criminal proceedings were terminated for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7686", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Garešnica, Croatia.\n6.  On 8 February 1996, at around 6.55 p.m., a bank robbery was committed in Garešnica. The bank robber was disguised, wearing an improvised mask made of a winter cap and a winter scarf, a skirt over his trousers, an overcoat, and rubber gloves on his hands. Using a handgun the bank robber forced the bank employees to put money in a crate, after which he fled the scene.\n7.  Police Station no. 4 of the Bjelovarsko-bilogorska Police Department in Garešnica (Policijska uprava Bjelovarsko-bilogorska, IV Policijska postaja Garešnica – “the police”) was immediately informed of the incident. Police officers were sent to secure the scene and at 8.10 p.m. an in situ inspection was carried out. No evidence was found inside the bank, but there were a number of footprints in the snow outside the bank.\n8.  On the same day a number of persons, including the applicant, were brought in for questioning by the police. The applicant was released from the police station after denying any involvement in the crime.\n9.  In the meantime, in the basement of a residential building in Garešnica the police found clothes which they suspected had been worn and then discarded by the bank robber.\n10.  On 9 February 1996, at 12.50 p.m., the police carried out an on-site inspection of the basement, where they found and seized a stack of money, an improvised mask made from a blue winter cap, a green winter scarf, a crate with 500 Croatian kunas inside it, a pair of green rubber gloves, a blue overcoat and a purple skirt. A police dog was used in the inspection of the scene.\n11.  On the same day the applicant was again taken to the police station for questioning. In the course of the applicant’s stay at the police station the police dog was shown the applicant and, according to the police report, the dog’s behaviour associated the applicant with the objects found in the basement.\n12.  At 4.00 p.m. the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed the bank robbery.\n13.  The applicant was asked to take off his trousers and t-shirt. He complied with the request and signed a seizure record. The seizure record only indicates that the trousers and t-shirt were taken from the applicant. The police also took samples from the applicant’s hair, body hair and nails. There is no specific record in this regard.\n14.  According to the applicant, he was then removed from the room while the police officers packed up the clothes and the samples taken from him. According to the Government, the clothes and the samples were packed by a forensic technician in the presence of a police officer and the applicant, and the police officer simultaneously drafted the seizure record in respect of the applicant’s clothes, which the applicant then signed.\n15.  In course of the further investigation the police interviewed a number of persons and searched the applicant’s flat. No objects connected with the bank robbery were found.\n16.  On 10 February 1996 employees of the bank identified items found and seized in the basement of the residential building (see paragraphs 9 and 10) as the clothes worn by the bank robber.\n17.  On the same day the police sent the items from the basement, together with the applicant’s clothes and samples of his hair and nails, to the Ministry of the Interior’s Centre for Forensic Analysis in Zagreb (Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova, Centar za kriminalistička vještačenja – “the Forensic Centre”) and comm", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7687", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The individual applicants are mostly travellers (gens du voyage). The movement ATD Quart Monde (the applicant association [known internationally as ATD Fourth World]) is an association established under the laws of France, having its registered office in Paris. Under Article 2 of its constitution, “[t]he Movement ATD Quart Monde brings together individuals, families and population groups who refuse the fatality of the poverty in which they are condemned to live, and, together with them, men and women, of all origins, who share the same refusal ...”.\n8.  The département of Val d’Oise has been home to travellers for very many years. A survey carried out in 2001 by the Association Départementale Voyageurs-Gadjé (ADVOG) identified the presence of 2,500 mobile homes, representing a population of about 10,000 individuals, of which 17% belonged to nomadic families, 42% to sedentary families and 41% to semi-sedentary families, also described as “forced itinerant” or “forced sedentary”.\nThe “forced itinerant” families wish to settle down but are obliged to keep moving as and when they are evicted. The “forced sedentary” families remain nomadic to some extent but are obliged to settle on a particular site when there is no great risk of eviction. These families often remain, when they are evicted, within a specific area covering several municipalities, not straying too far from focal points such as the school attended by their children, the hospital where the elderly are treated or centres of economic activity.\nAs regards the sedentarised families, they are owners, tenants or occupiers of land (private or municipal) on which they live permanently, and families remaining encamped on a site that is normally reserved for short stays (Source: Plans départementaux d’Aide au Logement des Personnes défavorisées du Val d’Oise (PDALPD) 2004-2007 and 2008-2010).\n9. The Val d’Oise has two regulatory arrangements aimed at travellers:\n(a)  The “département-level travellers’ reception and accommodation programme” (schéma départemental d’accueil et d’habitat des gens du voyage; under the so-called “Besson Acts” of 31 May 1990 and 5 July 2000 ...), which governs, depending on the needs and existing encampment capacity, the nature, location and capacity of the encampment facilities to be created in municipalities of over 5,000 inhabitants.\n(b)  The “département-level accommodation action plan for persons in need” (plan départemental d’action pour le logement des personnes défavorisées, PDALPD) (provided for by the above-mentioned Law of 31 May 1990 and the Law against exclusion of 29 July 1998), which takes into account the problems raised by sedentary and semi-sedentary families.\n10.  Pursuant to the above-mentioned Law of 5 July 2000, and after the annulment of the first travellers’ reception and accommodation programme by the administrative courts, a new programme was adopted in November 2004 for the Val d’Oise in respect of 2004-2010. It provided for the creation, by the 53 municipalities of over 5,000 inhabitants in that département, of 1,035 caravan spaces in encampment areas, including 219 already existing spaces, with 70% State financing.\n11.  The PDALPD 2004-2007 plan for the Val d’Oise, adopted in June 2004 and following the previous 2000-2003 plan, stipulated that the actions aimed at travellers should take two forms: first, the creation of encampment areas for traveller families and, second, the provision of family rental accommodation, to be used ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7688", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Sevastopol.\n6.  On the evening of 29 June 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.\n7.  On 1 July 2005 the Nakhimivskyy District Court of Sevastopol (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for two months. The District Court noted that, if released, the applicant might abscond, impair the establishment of truth and obstruct the course of justice. It referred to the fact that the applicant had been charged with a serious crime and had no registered address in Sevastopol.\n8.  On 11 July 2005 the Sevastopol Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant’s lawyer and upheld the lower court’s decision noting that the applicant had been charged with a serious crime.\n9.  On 25 August 2005 the investigator in the case applied to the court seeking an extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention to three months.\n10.  On 26 August 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to three months noting that, if released, the applicant might abscond, impair the establishment of truth and obstruct the course of justice. It referred to the gravity of the charges levelled against the applicant and a considerable number of procedural measures that had to be taken in the case. The hearing was attended by the prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer. The applicant himself was absent.\n11.  On 7 September 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant’s lawyer and upheld the decision of 26 August 2005, finding that the District Court had properly extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. It dismissed the applicant’s contention that the investigator’s request for an extension of the preventive measure had been submitted outside the statutory time-limit as that issue did not affect the lawfulness of the impugned decision. The applicant’s allegation that he had to be released for health reasons had not been supported by evidence. The hearing was attended by the prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer. The applicant himself was absent.\n12.  On 27 September 2005 the investigator applied to the District Court seeking an extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention to four months.\n13.  On 29 September 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to four months, noting that, if he were freed, the applicant might abscond and impair the establishment of truth and obstruct the course of justice. The court again referred to the gravity of the charges levelled against the applicant and the considerable number of procedural measures that had to be taken in the case. The hearing was attended by the prosecutor; the applicant and his lawyer were absent.\n14.  On 13 October 2005 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant’s lawyer and upheld the District Court’s decision of 29 September 2005. The Court of Appeal noted, in particular, that a considerable number of procedural measures had still to be taken in the case; the applicant was charged with a serious crime and, if released, might abscond, obstruct the investigation and continue his criminal activities. As to the applicant’s absence from the hearing before the District Court, the Court of Appeal considered that the applicant’s appearance had not been obligatory. The hearing before the Court of Appeal was held in the presence of the prosecutor and the applicant’s lawyer. The applicant was absent.\n15.  On 26", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7689", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1979. In October 2006, using an assumed name, he left Belarus and entered the Czech Republic, where he currently resides. He was a party to numerous proceedings in the Czech Republic, of which the relevant ones are described below.\n7.  The applicant’s true name was revealed in December 2009 when the Czech police sent his fingerprints to the Belarus police for identification.\n8.  On 28 October 2006 the applicant, using an assumed name, requested asylum in the Czech Republic. He explained that he had left Belarus in October 2006 because of pressure from the State authorities in connection with the fact that he had imported advertisements in support of the opposition candidate in the presidential elections, Aliaxandr Milinkevich. The applicant asserted that he had been detained for forty-five days and fined, and that his car and passport had been confiscated. Moreover, several searches had been carried out at his house. Following his departure from the country, police had repeatedly visited his home and warned his mother and sister that criminal proceedings would be initiated against him. Thus, he feared imprisonment in Belarus for cooperation with an illegal political party.\n9.  On 6 September 2007 the applicant’s asylum request was rejected by the Czech Ministry of the Interior. The Ministry had carried out a detailed analysis of the applicant’s situation and come to the conclusion that his allegations were contradictory and not credible. It noted, inter alia, that although the applicant might have originally been prosecuted and convicted for importing advertisements in support of the opposition candidate in the presidential election, this had only been a one-off activity carried out for a financial reward and the applicant had not been politically active in Belarus. Moreover, he had not made any attempt to lodge a criminal complaint against the persons who had allegedly pressurised him, or to move to another part of the country. Further, the applicant had already been punished on that account and did not have any political engagement in his country. There was nothing to indicate that he would face any new risk if he returned to Belarus.\n10.  On 22 May 2008, the Hradec Králové Regional Court upheld that decision. It found, inter alia, that the events referred to by the applicant were not serious enough to amount to “persecution for upholding political rights and freedoms” since the applicant had also had problems with the police in connection with the importing of other goods.\n11.  On 10 June 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant on the ground that he had failed to specify the reasons for his appeal. This was because the applicant could not be reached by his lawyer, who stated that he could not complete the grounds of appeal without discussing them with the applicant. The Supreme Administrative Court considered that the applicant had been obliged to duly cooperate with his lawyer or to bear the consequences of his passivity.\n12.  On 21 January 2010 the applicant lodged another asylum request on the ground that if returned to Belarus he would be prosecuted by the police and punished for having sought asylum in the Czech Republic. During his interview on 21 January 2010 he declared that he was not aware of any on-going criminal proceedings against him in Belarus. The proceedings were terminated by the Ministry of the Interior on 3 February 2010 on the ground that i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7690", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 16 April 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a burglary together with K., his underage son, and S., also a minor. His flat was searched. He was brought to a temporary detention centre, where he was held until 18 or 19 April 2006 (the parties disputed the relevant date). He received very little food and water and did not have access to medical assistance. During that period he was questioned on several occasions in the absence of a lawyer and beaten up by police officers, who wanted him to confess. According to the applicant, his lawyer’s signature was later added to the transcript of his questioning.\n7.  On 18 April 2006 the Moscow Tushinskiy District Court authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“Pursuant to the materials submitted, [the applicant] is charged with criminal offences entailing a custodial sentence exceeding five years, he is not officially employed and, if released, might abscond. Furthermore, the court discerns no grounds rendering possible the imposition of a less strict restrictive measure.”\n8.  The applicant remained in custody pending investigation and trial. The District Court extended his detention on 14 June and 29 November 2006 and 27 February 2007. The applicant did not appeal against those decisions.\n9.  On 14 June 2006 the District Court opened the trial. The applicant was represented by State-appointed counsel.\n10.  On 12 March 2007 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to five-and-a-half years’ imprisonment. On 14 May 2007 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.\n11.  From 18 or 19 April 2006 to 13 June 2007, the applicant was detained at remand prison no. IZ-77/3 in Moscow.\n(a)  The description provided by the Government\n12.  The Government’s submissions as regards the conditions of the applicant’s detention in remand prison no. IZ-77/3 can be summarised as follows:\nPeriod of detention\nCell no.\nCell surface area (square metres)\nNumber of beds\nNumber of inmates\nFrom 19 April 2006 to 17 February 2007\n411\n13.  All the cells were equipped with a ventilation system ensuring adequate fresh air circulation. Each cell had two windows measuring 0.89 x 0.94 metres covered with metal grilles that had 50 x 50 millimetres openings. The grilles installed did not prevent access to natural light. The windows had small vents which could also be kept open to ensure access to fresh air. The electric lighting was constantly on. From 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. four 40-watt electric bulbs were used. For the rest of the time two 40-watt electric bulbs were used.\n14.  The toilet in each cell was separated from the living area by a 1.7‑metre high brick wall and a door. The distance between the toilet and the dining table was 2 metres. There was a sink with hot and cold running tap water.\n15.  The inmates were allowed at least an hour’s daily outdoor exercise in designated exercise areas measuring 33 square metres on average. The exercise areas were covered with steel mesh, with openings measuring 20 x 20 centimetres. The mesh did not prevent access to natural light or fresh air.\n(b)  The applicant’s submissions\n16.  The applicant accepted the Government’s submissions in part concerning cell measurements and the number of sleeping places. He challenged the data submitted by the Government as regards cell population. According to the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7691", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in the city of Moscow. Her son, Mr Vasiliy Yuriyeivich Keller (V.K.), was born on 30 August 1977 and as of 1998 resided in the city of Ivanovo, in the Ivanovo Region.\n6.  On 13 September 2000 the applicant’s son was arrested and escorted to the Oktyabrskiy District Department of the Interior in Ivanovo (Октябрьский районный отдел внутренних дел города Иванова – “the ROVD”).\n7.  An arrest record was drawn up at 5.30 p.m. by investigator A., following which the applicant’s son was questioned as a suspect in the theft of two bicycles.\n8.  The interrogation record drawn up on that day at 6.30 p.m. noted that the applicant’s son was a drug addict infected with HIV, that he had been caught red-handed riding a stolen bicycle and that during the police interview he had confessed to that theft.\n9.  After the interview the applicant’s son was detained in the Regional Department of the Interior’s custody room (ИВС Управления внутренних дел Ивановской области).\n10.  On 16 September 2000 V.K. was brought from the custody room to office no. 315, situated on the third floor of the ROVD station.\n11.  Acting in the presence of duty lawyer D., investigator Ya. charged V.K. with theft. The applicant’s son denied the charges. The interview ended around 1.45 p.m., at which time D. apparently left the office. Investigator Ya. asked her office mate, trainee investigator K., to keep an eye on V.K. while she was away meeting with a prosecutor.\n12.  At around 3 p.m. that day V.K. was found dead in the internal courtyard of the ROVD station.\n13.  Immediately following the incident an emergency medical team arrived and its doctors confirmed V.K.’s death.\n14.  The authorities drew up a scene record and sent the corpse for a forensic medical examination to establish the cause of death.\n15.  On the same date investigator K. wrote a report about the incident. He stated as follows:\n“... At 2.30 p.m. Ya. left the office, having warned me that she was going to see the prosecutor about the arrest of V.K. At that time V.K. was sitting on a chair two metres away from me and two metres away from the door. At 2.35 p.m. I was minding my own business, when V.K. quickly stood up and ran out of the office. I ran after him and saw that he was running to the other wing of the building. I ran after him and saw him running into the toilet. There was no one in the corridor. I ran into [the toilet] and saw that the window was half open and V.K. was not there. I looked out of the window and saw that V.K. was lying on the ground and not moving...”\n16.  On 17 September 2000 the applicant asked the prosecutor for the Ivanovo Region to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the death of her son, blaming the police officers in charge of the investigation and escorting V.K. for it.\n17.  On 19 September 2000 the head of the Ivanovo City civil registry office issued death certificate I-FO no. 524264 in respect of V.K. The certificate stated that his death had taken place on 16 September 2000 in the city of Ivanovo and that the cause of death was “traumatic shock and multiple trauma to the head, chest and torso”.\n18.  On 20 September 2000 the Ivanovo City Department of the Interior issued order no. 125, admitting the absence of the escorting officers on the spot at the relevant time and the fact that the interview had taken place in the investigator’s office rather than appropriate designated premises. The order stated that this was in brea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7692", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is serving a prison sentence in Yemva, Komi Republic.\n6.  On 1 July 2005 the police found N.’s body in the basement of an abandoned church. In the course of their investigation, it was established that on that date N. had been seen in the company of the applicant and two women, K. and S. All of them were questioned and denied having been involved with N.’s murder.\n7.  On 3 October 2005 the police again questioned K., who indicated that the applicant had murdered N.\n8.  On 11 October 2005 the police arrested the applicant. He claimed to have been beaten up during his arrest. He was brought to the police station where, according to the applicant, the policemen involved in his arrest continued torturing him to make him confess to N.’s murder. On the same date the applicant was brought to the prosecutor’s office, where investigator B. questioned him at 7:40 p.m. According to the transcript of the questioning session, lawyer Sh. was present and assisted the applicant. The applicant first refused to give a statement, then he confessed that he had got into a fight with N. in the church and left him there. The applicant was taken to the Kostroma temporary detention centre. He was examined by a doctor who did not see any injuries on him. Nor did the applicant complain of ill‑treatment during his arrest or while in police custody.\n9.  On 13 October 2005 the Kostroma Sverdlovskiy District Court authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“The court has established that [the applicant] is charged with a particularly serious offence which entails a mandatory custodial sentence in the event of a guilty verdict. The court therefore considers that, if released, [the applicant] may abscond ... [H]aving regard to the [applicant’s] previous administrative [offence] and criminal record, the court considers it possible that, if released, he may continue his criminal activity and put pressure on witnesses or interfere with the establishment of the truth.”\n10.  On 20 October 2005 the applicant was indicted on the charge of manslaughter. According to the records of the indictment, lawyer Sh. was present and assisted the applicant. According to the applicant’s submissions, Sh. appeared only for the questioning session that followed the indictment being brought forth.\n11.  On 8 and 30 December 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 3 January and 3 March 2006 respectively. The court reiterated almost verbatim its reasoning of 13 October 2005.\n12.  On 7 February 2006 investigator Kir. reclassified the charges against the applicant and indicted him with one count of murder, along with robbery and making death threats to K. and S.\n13.  On 27 February 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 3 April 2006. The court noted that the applicant was charged with two particularly serious offences and again referred to the same reasons for his detention as previously given: (1) the risk of the applicant’s absconding; (2) the possible continuation of his criminal activity; and (3) the potential for him to interfere with the administration of justice, including, but not limited to putting pressure on witnesses and the victims of some of the offences charged.\n14.  On 20 April 2006 investigator Kir. again reclassified the charges against the applicant by substituting robbery with theft.\n15.  On 21 April 2006 the District Court extended the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7693", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in Nosivka, Chernihiv Region. The first applicant is Mr Volodymr Pozhyvotko’s widow and the second applicant is his mother.\n6.  In the evening of 12 October 2004 Mr Volodymyr Pozhvotko was shot dead in a local bar.\n7.  On the same date the Nosivskyy District Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation in connection with the death.\n8.  During the night of 12-13 October 2004 an investigator from the prosecutor’s office, together with other law-enforcement officers, experts and witnesses, carried out an on-site examination, including photographing and videotaping of the crime scene. Certain material evidence was seized, including two pistols, cartridges, bullets and other items. The victim’s body was sent for a forensic medical examination.\n9.  In the subsequent period the investigative authorities ordered forensic examinations of the seized evidence, questioned a number of witnesses and conducted searches in order to find additional evidence.\n10.  On 18 October 2004 the first applicant was admitted to the proceedings as an aggrieved party.\n11.  On 9 November 2004 the investigator charged T. with murder and put him on the list of wanted persons.\n12.  On 7 February 2005 L. voluntarily confessed to shooting the victim dead. On the same day L. was arrested. The decisions concerning T. were revoked.\n13.  On 16 February 2005 L. was released on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to charge him with the crime.\n14.  On the same day the second applicant was granted the status of aggrieved party in the criminal proceedings.\n15.  By letter of 1 August 2005 the second applicant was informed that the case had been referred to the Chernihiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office for “a more qualified investigation”.\n16.  In its letter of 23 October 2005 the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the second applicant that the investigation had been delayed. They further noted that the Chernihiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office had been instructed to take comprehensive measures in the case. As regards her request for referral of the case to a different prosecutor’s office, she was informed that it would not be appropriate to do so.\n17.  On 1 November 2005 the investigator in charge of the case stated in writing that the video recording and photographs of the crime scene made on 12 October 2004 could not be found.\n18.  On 28 December 2005 the investigation was closed on the grounds that L. had acted in the state of necessary defence and the involvement of other individuals in the crime could not be established.\n19.  On 29 December 2005 the deputy prosecutor of the Chernihiv Region quashed that decision, noting that the dactylographic examination had not been completed and a number of witnesses had not been questioned.\n20.  On 20 March 2006, following the additional investigation, the case was closed once again on the grounds that L. had acted in the state of necessary defence, while the involvement of other individuals in the crime could not be established.\n21.  On 5 June 2006 the Novozavodskyy District Court of Chernihiv quashed that decision, finding that the investigation had not been comprehensive. It noted that there had been a significant number of investigative measures at the initial stage of the proceedings, including an on-site examination and forensic expert examinations, which had been carried out unprofessionally and in breach of procedural rules, and that the video recording and photographs of the crime scene could not be", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7694", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant was born in 1958. She is serving a prison sentence in the region of Galicia.\n11.  In eight separate sets of criminal proceedings before the Audiencia Nacional[1], the applicant was sentenced as follows.\n(a)  In judgment no. 77/1988 of 18 December 1988: for being a member of a terrorist organisation, to eight years’ imprisonment; for illegal possession of weapons, to seven years’ imprisonment; for possession of explosives, to eight years’ imprisonment; for forgery, to four years’ imprisonment; and for using forged identity documents, to six months’ imprisonment.\n(b)  In judgment no. 8/1989 of 27 January 1989: for damage to property, in conjunction with six counts of grievous bodily harm, one of causing bodily harm and nine of causing minor injuries, to sixteen years’ imprisonment.\n(c)  In judgment no. 43/1989 of 22 April 1989: for a fatal attack and for murder, to twenty-nine years’ imprisonment on each count.\n(d)  In judgment no. 54/1989 of 7 November 1989, for a fatal attack, to thirty years’ imprisonment; for eleven murders, to twenty-nine years for each murder; for seventy-eight attempted murders, to twenty-four years on each count; and for damage to property, to eleven years’ imprisonment. The Audiencia Nacional ordered that in accordance with Article 70.2 of the Criminal Code of 1973, the maximum term to be served (condena) should be thirty years.\n(e)  In judgment no. 58/1989 of 25 November 1989: for a fatal attack and two murders, to twenty-nine years’ imprisonment in respect of each charge. The Audiencia Nacional ordered that in accordance with Article 70.2 of the Criminal Code of 1973, the maximum term to be served (condena) should be thirty years.\n(f)  In judgment no. 75/1990 of 10 December 1990: for a fatal attack, to thirty years’ imprisonment; for four murders, to thirty years’ imprisonment on each count; for eleven attempted murders, to twenty years’ imprisonment on each count; and on the charge of terrorism, to eight years’ imprisonment. The judgment indicated that for the purposes of the custodial sentences the maximum sentence provided for in Article 70.2 of the Criminal Code of 1973 should be taken into account.\n(g)  In judgment no. 29/1995 of 18 April 1995: for a fatal attack, to twenty-eight years’ imprisonment, and for attempted murder, to twenty years and one day. The court again referred to the limits provided for in Article 70 of the Criminal Code.\n(h)  In judgment no. 24/2000 of 8 May 2000: for an attack with intent to murder, to thirty years’ imprisonment; for murder, to twenty-nine years’ imprisonment; for seventeen attempted murders, to twenty-four years’ imprisonment on each count; and for damage to property, to eleven years’ imprisonment. The judgment stated that the sentence to be served should not exceed the limit provided for in Article 70.2 of the Criminal Code of 1973. In determining which criminal law was applicable (the Criminal Code of 1973, which was applicable at the material time, or the later Criminal Code of 1995), the Audiencia Nacional considered that the more lenient law was the 1973 Criminal Code, because of the maximum term to be served as provided for in Article 70.2 of that Code, combined with the remissions of sentence for work done in detention as provided for in Article 100.\n12.  In all, the terms of imprisonment to which the applicant was sentenced for these offences, committed between 1982 and 1987, amounted to over 3,000 years.\n13.  The applicant was held in pre-t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7696", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a limited liability company in winding-up, with its seat in Budapest.\n5.  On 3 July 2000 the applicant company brought an action in damages against its previous managing director.\n6.  On 23 April 2008 the Budapest Regional Court partly found for the applicant company and ordered the respondent to pay it 5,481,027 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 18,700 euros (EUR)) and accrued interests.\n7.  This decision was upheld by the Budapest Court of Appeal on 25 February 2009.\n8.  The applicant company’s petition for review, lodged with the Supreme Court, was dismissed after an examination of the merits on 15 December 2009.\nALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION\n9.  The applicant company complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.\n10.  The Government contested that argument.\n11.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 3 July 2000 and ended on 15 December 2009. It thus lasted nine years and five months for three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.\n12.  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000–VII).\n13.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or convincing argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present circumstances. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.\nThere has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.\n14.  The applicant company also complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 about the outcome and the alleged unfairness of the proceedings. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.\nIn so far as this complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999–I).\nIn the present case, the Court is satisfied that the applicant company’s submissions do not disclose any appearance that the courts lacked impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary. There is no indication of a violation of the applicant company’s rights under Articles 13 or 14, either.\nIt follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.\n15.  Lastly, the applicant company complained – and this for the first ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7697", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Košice.\n6.  On 22 May 1997 an individual, A., disappeared. He was the head of a municipal office and an entrepreneur. It has been submitted by the applicant, and not disputed by the Government, that he was the principal owner of an important industrial enterprise, B., which was going through the process of denationalisation and was at the relevant time still partly co‑owned by the State in the person of the National Property Fund, a public institution responsible for the administration and denationalisation of State‑owned property in Slovakia.\n7.  An official search for A. ensued. It was directed by C. At that time he was the head of the criminal investigation department of a regional police headquarters of the region concerned. According to the Government, whose submission has not been disputed by the applicant, C. left the police for the private sector in 1999.\n8.  Nevertheless, the search efforts were unsuccessful and, at an unspecified time, A. was pronounced legally dead.\n9.  In 2000 a criminal investigation of the disappearance of A. was opened by the Serious Offences Investigation Department in another regional town. The investigation was however stayed in 2005, as no evidence had been established allowing charges to be brought against any specific individual.\n10.  The circumstances of the disappearance of A., the search for him and his presumed whereabouts were the subject of an article published on 31 May 2000 in a weekly magazine with nationwide coverage.\nAfter the publication of the article written by the applicant, which is at the heart of the present case, and which is mentioned in detail below, these matters were again written on in another article published at an unspecified time in another weekly magazine with nationwide coverage.\nWithout including a reference to it, the latter article contained some parts of the applicant’s article.\n11.  In May 2001 the applicant, who is an editor, obtained information from C. concerning the disappearance of A.\n12.  On 29 May 2001 C. signed a written declaration before a notary public confirming, in the following terms, that he had previously provided the applicant with such information for the purpose of having it published:\n“I have heard a recording of an intercepted telephone conversation which took place on the evening when the head of the municipal office in ... [A.] disappeared. At that time I was the head of the criminal investigation department of the regional police headquarters in ...and I personally took part in the search for the missing [A.].\nThe recording contained the voice of [D.], who was calling from [a restaurant] to a hotel ... and announced that [A.] was already on the way. We have not been able to establish who took the call, because the recording, like other evidence, has been removed from the file.\nAt the very beginning of the investigation we were visited by ... who was at that time deputy director of the Slovak Intelligence Service, and who declared that [A.] was dead and that the investigation was over.”\n13.  At that time the applicant worked for a daily newspaper named Národná obroda, which was published by a limited liability company, E.\nThe daily had nationwide coverage, and in the course of the ensuing proceedings was accepted by the courts as being opinion-forming (mienkotvorný).\n14.  On 16 June 2003 an article written by the applicant was published in Národná obroda under the title:\n‘An industrialist [A.] o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7698", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  From 1 April 1999 until 30 June 2004 the applicant was employed as a civil servant. On 17 June 2005 he brought an action against his former employer before the Pest County Labour Court, challenging his previous civil service grade and claiming payment for outstanding salary, allowance in lieu of untaken leave and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.\n6.  On 8 July 2008 the court ordered the respondent to pay 1,863,322 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 6,400 euros (EUR)) and accrued interests for outstanding salaries, reward and allowance in lieu of untaken holidays.\n7.  By its decision of 30 October 2009 the Pest County Regional Court decreased the amount to HUF 1,618,883 (approximately EUR 5,500) and accrued interests. The applicant submitted a petition for review against this decision.\n8. On 2 February 2011 the Supreme Court increased the amount payable to the applicant to HUF 1,982,813 (approximately EUR 6,800) and accrued interests. This decision was served on the applicant on 3 March 2011.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7699", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Užice.\n6.  The applicant was employed by Raketa-Putnički Saobraćaj AD, a company based in Užice (hereinafter “the debtor”).\n7.  On 15 June 2008 the applicant was dismissed from his employment.\n8.  On unspecified dates the applicant instituted three separate sets of civil proceedings against the debtor, seeking payment of his salary arrears and various social security contributions.\n9.  On 2 March 2007 the Užice Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:\n(a)  salary arrears in the amount of 8,232 Serbian dinars (RSD) for June 2006, RSD 9,408 for July 2006, and RSD 8,232 for August 2006, plus statutory interest;\n(b)  RSD 900 for his legal costs; and\n(c)  the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period June to December 2006.\n10.  On 22 September 2007 the judgment became final.\n11.  On 2 October 2007 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Požega Municipal Court.\n12.  On 16 April 2008 the court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.\n13.  On 26 July 2007 the Užice Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:\n(a)  salary arrears in the amount of RSD 8,800 for February 2007, RSD 9,680 for March 2007, RSD 9,240 for April 2007, and RSD 10,120 for May 2007, plus statutory interest;\n(b)  employee meal benefits (naknada za ishranu na radu) in the amount of RSD 4,385 for December 2006, RSD 4,385 for February 2007, RSD 4,385 for March 2007, and RSD 4,385 for April 2007, plus statutory interest;\n(c)  holiday pay (regres za godišnji odmor) in the amount of RSD 25,000 for 2006, plus statutory interest from 1 January 2007;\n(d)  RSD 1,950 for his legal costs; and\n(e)  the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for the period February to May 2007.\n14.  On 11 September 2007 the judgment became final.\n15.  On 2 October 2007 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Požega Municipal Court.\n16.  On 7 February 2008 the court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.\n17.  On 24 August 2007 the Užice Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:\n(a)  salary arrears in the amount of RSD 10,648 for February 2007, RSD 10,648 for March 2007, RSD 10,648 for April 2007, and RSD 10,648 for May 2007, plus statutory interest;\n(b)  employee meal benefits (naknada za ishranu na radu) in the amount of RSD 4,620 for September 2006, RSD 4,620 for December 2006, RSD 4,620 for January 2007, RSD 4,620 for February 2007, RSD 4,620 for March 2007, RSD 4,620 for April 2007, and RSD 4,620 for May 2007, plus statutory interest;\n(c)  holiday pay (regres za godišnji odmor) in the amount of RSD 35,135 for 2007, plus statutory interest from 24 June 2007;\n(d)  RSD 6,748.50 for his legal costs; and\n(e)  the pension, disability, health and unemployment insurance contributions due for period October 2006 to June 2007.\n18.  On 20 September 2007 that judgment became final.\n19.  In January 2009 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Municipal Court in Požega.\n20.  On 12 May 2009 the court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.\n21.  On 12 July 2010 the Užice Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor, which led to the ongoing ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7700", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Shropshire.\n5.  The applicant is severely disabled as a result of Down’s Syndrome. Prior to the events in question, she had lived at home with her mother, her nearest relative. However, her mother was struggling to cope with her often difficult behaviour and towards the end of 2002 social workers had become extremely concerned about the impact on the physical and mental health of both parties.\n6.  On 31 January 2003 a social worker employed by Telford and Wrekin Borough Council (“the Council”) executed a warrant from the Magistrates’ Court to enter the applicant’s mother’s premises and to take the applicant to a place of safety.\n7.  The applicant was taken to a hospital where she was admitted and detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (“the 1983 Act”). Section 2 authorised her detention for twenty-eight days for assessment.\n8.  The applicant’s mother, as her “nearest relative”, had a special status under the 1983 Act (see paragraph 39 below). She exercised her right to make an order to discharge the applicant under section 23 of the 1983 Act. The applicant’s responsible medical officer (“RMO”) issued a report under section 25(1) of the 1983 Act (a so-called “barring order”) which certified that the applicant, if discharged, would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to other persons or to herself. As a consequence, the applicant’s mother’s order that her daughter be discharged had no effect and she was prevented from making any further order for a period of six months from the date of the report.\n9.  On 18 February 2003 the hospital managers convened to review the decision to issue the barring order and decided not to discharge the applicant.\n10.  The twenty-eight day period of detention provided for in section 2 of the 1983 Act was due to expire on 28 February 2003. On 21 February 2003 a social worker employed by the Council visited the applicant’s mother to seek her consent to the making of a guardianship order in respect of the applicant. The applicant’s mother refused to consent and on 27 February 2003 the same social worker lodged an application with Telford County Court to displace the applicant’s mother as the applicant’s nearest relative. This application had the effect of automatically extending the applicant’s detention under section 29(4) of the 1983 Act.\n11.  Pursuant to section 66(1)(a) of the 1983 Act, while the applicant was being detained under section 2 of that Act, she could have applied for discharge to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) within fourteen days. She did not do so because she lacked legal capacity to instruct solicitors. After the fourteen-day period had expired, she had no further right to apply to the Tribunal.\n12.  Moreover, once the section 29 application had been instituted, there were no means by which the applicant could apply to the Tribunal. Therefore, on 6 March 2003 solicitors acting on her behalf requested the Secretary of State to use his powers under section 67 of the 1983 Act to make a reference to the Tribunal. A reference was duly made and the Tribunal convened on 26 March 2003. It refused to discharge the applicant.\n13.  On 27 March 2003 the County Court gave directions for the hearing to consider the Council’s application to displace the applicant’s mother as the nearest relative.\n14.  On 20 May 2003 the applicant’s mother (acting on the applicant’s behalf as her “litigation friend”) issued judicial review", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7701", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Szombathely.\n5.  At the material time, he was serving his prison sentence for fraud and forgery of public documents.\n6.  On 20 December 2006 the applicant was interrogated as a suspect by the Budapest X District Police Department on charges of fraud. Subsequently, a bill of indictment was preferred.\n7.  On 2 June and 12 October 2010, 14 January, 22 April, 16 September 2011 and 24 February 2012 the Pest Central District Court held hearings. On 24 February 2012 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment.\n8.  The applicant lodged a petition for review against the judgment. On 11 October 2012 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s petition inadmissible, without examining the merits, since it was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7702", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 22 November 2002 Ms G.D. and two others brought an action against the applicant and ten further respondents before the Budapest IV/XV District Court, seeking title to, and termination of, co-ownership. Several respondents lived abroad, causing certain difficulties in summoning them.\n6.  The District Court held six hearings between 3 June 2003 and 28 January 2005.\n7.  On 27 July 2005 the proceedings were stayed on account of the death of respondent A.G. The applicant, on whom this was legally incumbent, invited the successors to join the proceedings on 22 January 2007.\n8.  Between 18 October 2007 and 22 May 2009 five further hearings were held. A partial judgment was delivered on 4 June 2009.\n9.  On 23 November 2010 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and, by its order of 30 November 2010, quashed the partial judgment and remitted the case to the first instance.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings, four hearings were held and a partial judgment was delivered on 25 November 2011.\n11.  The proceedings continued on appeal before the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court. This court adopted a final partial decision on 7 May 2013.\n12.  As to the remainder, it appears from the documents in the case file that the proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7703", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Miskolc.\n5.  In 1986 the applicant, together with some other co-accused, was charged with aggravated fraud and other related criminal offences and placed in pre-trial detention. By its decision of 4 July 1990 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court party discontinued the criminal proceedings by reason of a general amnesty. As to the remainder of the charges, the applicant was acquitted by the judgment of the Regional Court on 25 October 1990. The Office of the General Attorney appealed but withdrew its appeal on 25 April 1991. The Supreme Court established by its decision of 16 May 1991 that the Regional Court’s judgment had entered into force on 2 May 1991. This decision was served on the applicant and the other defendants on 31 March 1992.\n6.  On 21 May 1993 the applicant lodged an action in damages against the Hungarian State for the late service of the final judicial decision. Subsequently he extended his action to include further respondents, the Office of the General Attorney, the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Chief Police Department and the Supreme Court.\n7.  By its decision of 26 March 1997, the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action. On appeal, the Supreme Court, acting as a second instance court, partly upheld the first-instance decision, and as to the complaint against the Supreme Court, remitted the case to the first-instance court. The applicant lodged a petition for review. On 14 May 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the second-instance decision concerning the complaint against the Hungarian State, and remitted the case to the Regional Court as regards the remainder of the respondents.\n8.  On 27 September 2003 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court partly found for the applicant in the proceedings against the Supreme Court and ordered this latter to pay him 1,900,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 6,400 euros (EUR)) plus accrued interests in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.\n9.  The Budapest Court of Appeal, acting as a second-instance court, increased the amount for the non-pecuniary damage and remitted the case to the first-instance as regards the amount of the pecuniary damage.\n10.  In the second set of first-instance proceedings the Regional Court issued its decision on 11 July 2006 ordering the respondent to pay the applicant HUF 3,138,336 (approximately EUR 10,500).\n11.  On appeal, the Debrecen Court of Appeal decreased the amount payable to the applicant to HUF 112,349 (approximately EUR 380).\n12.  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. By its decision of 29 November 2007 the Supreme Court increased the amount to HUF 200,000 (approximately EUR 670).\n13.  As regards the remainder of the action against the Office of the General Attorney and the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Chief Police Department, the Regional Court issued its decision in the resumed first-instance proceedings on 14 March 2007, dismissing the applicant’s action. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Debrecen Court of Appeal on 26 June 2007.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7704", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Šabac.\n5.  In 1992 the applicant concluded a purchase contract with a socially-owned company called GDP Izgradnja-Šabac. The company was obliged to erect certain offices and hand their keys over to the applicant by November 1993.\n6.  On 10 February 2001 the applicant filed a civil claim with the Municipal Court in Šabac, seeking damages for the company’s failure to fulfil its contractual obligation.\n7.  On 1 October 2002 the Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant. In particular, the court ordered the company to pay the applicant:\n(a) the compensation for existing damages in the amount of 757,500 Serbian dinars (RSD)[1];\n(b) the compensation for any future damages in the amount of RSD 7,500 (approximately EUR 113) monthly in respect of any additional delay in the construction of the offices in question;\n(c) RSD 81,775 (approximately EUR 1,200) for the legal costs.\n8.  On 26 May 2003 the District Court in Šabac reduced the amount of damages awarded by the Municipal Court for RSD 378,000 and ordered the company pay the applicant the compensation for existing damages in the amount of RSD 379,500[2]. The court upheld the remainder of the judgment. The appeal judgment became final on the same date.\n9.  On 27 July 2003 the applicant lodged an extraordinary remedy – an appeal on points of law – with the Supreme Court.\n10.  On 4 July 2003 the Commercial Court in Valjevo opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the company in question.\n11.  In August 2003 the applicant duly submitted his claim. He requested the Commercial Court to: (i) recognise him as the owner of the business premises in question, which were yet to be finished; (ii) exclude these premises, as well as the RSD 553,298.10 needed for their completion, from the total mass of the company’s insolvency assets; and (iii) confirm his compensation claims as recognised in the Municipal Court’s judgment of 1 October 2002.\n12.  On 28 January 2004 the Commercial Court accepted the applicant’s requests under (i) and (ii) above. The Court accepted the applicant’s compensation claim in the amount of RSD 379,500 as recognised in the District Court’s judgment of 26 March 2006. The part of the applicant’s claim in the amount of RSD 378,000 was contested and the applicant was informed that he could bring a separate civil lawsuit concerning the contested part.\n13.  The applicant did not institute separate civil proceedings.\n14.  On an unspecified date the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law due to the opening of insolvency proceedings against the debtor.\n15.  On 14 April 2006 the applicant came into possession of the business premises.\n16.  Following several unsuccessful auctions the debtor was finally sold on 12 January 2007 to Jovanović company from Šabac.\n17.  On 18 June 2007 the Commercial Court in Valjevo adopted the decision on final distribution of the company’s insolvency assets, classifying the applicant into the fourth sequence of payment. Pursuant to this decision the applicant received only RSD 150,683.63.\n18.  On 31 December 2007 the Commercial Court concluded the insolvency proceedings against the debtor.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7705", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1995, 1969 and 1962, respectively.\n5.  On 6 July 1995 the second applicant gave birth to a boy, the first applicant. In 1996 the latter was diagnosed with cerebral atrophy.\n6.  On 1 October 1997 the applicants lodged a medical liability action against the hospital where the first applicant was born.\n7.  On 30 October 2009 the Pest Central District Court partly found for the applicants and ordered the respondent to pay them respectively 47,647,959 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 163,000 euros (EUR)), HUF 8,000,000 (approximately EUR 27,000) and HUF 3,000,000 (approximately EUR 10,000) and accrued interests. The respondent appealed.\n8.  On 26 March 2010 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, gave judgment, upholding the first-instance decision.\n9.  On 21 May 2010 a written copy of the decision was served on the applicants’ lawyer.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7706", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On an unspecified date, the applicant company signed a loan agreement with Yurtbank and registered a mortgage in respect of a plot of land measuring 20,827 sq.m in Istanbul. In 1999, following the applicant company’s delay in its monthly payments, the bank initiated enforcement proceedings. By a decision dated 21 December 1999, the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (Bankacılık Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurulu) decided to transfer the management and control of Yurtbank to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (Tasarruf Mevduat Sigorta Fonu – hereinafter referred to as “the Fund”).\n5.  At the end of the enforcement proceedings, the Enforcement Court decided that the land in question would be sold at public auction. Before the auction, the Kartal Enforcement Office ordered an expert’s report, and the market value of the land was established at 6,555,945,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL).\n6.  On 19 February 2001 the Fund decided that Yurtbank be merged into Sümerbank, a State-owned bank.\n7.  The Enforcement Office announced two dates of public auction, namely 27 February and 9 March 2001, for the sale of the land. Since a bid amounting to at least 60% of the market value of the land, as determined by the experts, could not be obtained during the first auction, the land was sold at the second auction to the sole bidder, namely Sümerbank, which offered TRL 2,623,070,000,000, corresponding to slightly more than 40% of the market value.\n8.  On 15 March 2001 the applicant company applied to the Kartal Enforcement Court to obtain the annulment of the public auction, alleging that there had been several procedural shortcomings in its organisation. In this respect, the applicant company maintained in the first place that there had been an error in the notice of the public auction. While the correct plot number was 111/4, in the notice the number had been written as 11/4. Furthermore, according to the applicant company, the holding of the second auction on a legal holiday had had a negative impact on attendance.\n9.  On 22 October 2002 the court found for the applicant company and annulled the public auction held on 9 March 2001.\n10.  On 3 February 2003 the Court of Cassation held that the first instance court’s reasoning in annulling the auction had not been in line with domestic law. In this connection, it maintained that the typing error regarding the plot number of the land was minor and that in the notice the location of the land had been described in detail, thus avoiding any confusion. As a result, the typing error in the notice did not require the annulment of the auction. The court further made a distinction between public and legal holidays. It stated that contrary to public holidays, government agencies continued to work on legal holidays. In the instant case, 9 March 2001 had been declared a legal holiday by the Council of Ministers, but this fact did not necessitate the postponement of the auction.\n11.  The Court of Cassation nevertheless ruled that the auction should in any event be annulled, because in order to be able to sell the land to the bidder, the bid in the second auction should have covered 40% of the market value of the land, together with the costs and expenses incurred for the sale of the land. The Court of Cassation calculated that the expenses amounted to TRL 875,875,000. As a result, it stated that a valid bid should have amounted to at least TRL, 2,623,253,875,000. It accordingly amended the reasoning for the annulment,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7708", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Belgrade.\n7.  The general pension system of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (hereinafter “the SFRY”) was set up on the principle of territoriality. This meant that each federal entity, namely the six republics (Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro) and two autonomous provinces (Vojvodina and Kosovo), had their own pension funds, which were independent of federal government and were responsible for the collection of contributions and the payment of pensions to all individuals who had been working on the territory of the respective republic or province. The pension system was based on the “pay-as-you-go” model and the principle of inter-generational solidarity, which was essentially based on the payment of mandatory contributions during the years of employment and then receiving the pension by instalments once retired.\n8.  The military pension system differed, in that it was centralised at the federal level. On 1 January 1973 under, at the relevant time, the Military Personnel Pension and Invalidity Insurance Act (Zakon o mirovinskom i invalidskom osiguranju vojnih obveznika) a federal pension fund was established for employees of the Yugoslav People’s Army (hereinafter “the YPA”) with its registered headquarters in Belgrade. Contributions to this fund were paid from the federal budget, and the fund then paid pensions to military pensioners, irrespective of the location of their military service or where they lived once retired.\n9.  On 25 June 1991 the Croatian Parliament (Sabor Republike Hrvatske) declared Croatia independent of Yugoslavia, and on 8 October 1991 all relations between Croatia and the SFRY federal Government were dissolved. The SFRY Military Personnel Pension and Invalidity Insurance Act was incorporated into the Croatian legal system by the Military Personnel Federal Pension, Invalidity Insurance and Child Support Legislation (Acceptance in the Republic of Croatia as Republic Law) Act (Zakon o preuzimanju saveznih zakona iz oblasti mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja i doplatka za djecu vojnih osiguranika koji se u Republici Hrvatskoj primjenjuju kao republički zakoni), enacted by the Parliament on 26 June 1991.\n10.  On 23 July 1992 the Government of Croatia enacted a decree on “Pension and Invalidity Rights of Persons Whose Active Military Service in the YPA Terminated Prior to 31 December 1991” (Uredba o ostvarivanju prava iz mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja osoba kojima je prestalo svojstvo aktivne vojne osobe u bivšoj JNA do 31. prosinca 1991.; hereinafter: “the Military Pensions Decree”). The Military Pensions Decree laid down conditions for recognition of the right to advance payments of pensions (akontacija) to former YPA military personnel, provided that they had terminated their military service prior to 31 December 1991, but had not obtained pension rights prior to that date, and that they met all the necessary conditions to be granted a pension under the Military Personnel Pension and Invalidity Insurance Act (see paragraph 8 above). The Military Pensions Decree set out three additional complementary conditions: (1) residence in Croatia, (2) Croatian nationality, and (3) that the person concerned had made himself available for service in the Croatian army prior to 31 December 1991 and was not suspected of an offence against Croatia. The Croatian Republic Workers’ Pension and Invalidity Insurance Fund ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7709", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and is serving a prison sentence in Kaliningrad.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with robbery and remanded in custody. During the period between 26 July 2006 and 7 August 2007 he was detained on numerous occasions in a temporary detention centre in Bagrationovsk, Kaliningrad Region.\n7.  According to the applicant, the criminal proceedings against him ended in his conviction for robbery. The final decision on the matter was taken on 18 December 2007.\n8.  According to the Government, the applicant was detained in the temporary detention centre in Bagrationovsk from 26 to 29 July, 11 to 13 September, 1 to 4 November, 13 to 23 December 2006, 17 to 24 January, 31 January to 7 February, 1 to 10 March, 11 to 14 and 18 to 21 April, 2 to 4 May, 30 May to 9 June, 14 to 18 and, 21 to 25 July and 1 to 7 August 2007. During the relevant periods he was brought to the centre in order to participate in investigation activities and court hearings.\n9.  The Government were unable to indicate the exact cell numbers where the applicant had been detained. Nor was it possible for the Government to submit the information on the population of the temporary detention centre at the time of the applicant’s detention. The Government provided the following overview of all the cells in the temporary detention centre:\nCell no.\nCell surface, square metres\n1\n10.  There were no individual beds in the cells. The inmates had to share sleeping platforms. The number of inmates detained together with the applicant varied from one to four. On the average, the number of the inmates detained daily at the temporary detention centre was seven to eight. There was no ventilation system. There was only artificial lighting. The cells were lit by a 100-watt electric bulb. The cells were not equipped with a toilet. Nor was there an outdoor exercise area.\n11.  According to the applicant, he was kept in a windowless cell measuring approximately nine sq. m and housing from four to six inmates. The cell was not equipped with a toilet. Instead, the inmates were to use a tank placed in the cell. The person using it could be seen by others present in the cell. The applicant had to stay indoors all the time. No daily exercise was provided for. Nor was he given any bedding or a mattress. He received one meal per day and had to eat standing or sitting on a bed with a plate in the hands as there were no chairs or table in the cell.\n12.  In response to the applicant’s complaint about conditions of his detention in the temporary detention centre, the prosecutor’s office carried out an inquiry which confirmed the applicant’s allegations. The prosecutor asked the regional department of the interior to take measures necessary to bring the conditions of detention in the temporary detention centre in compliance with statutory standards. He also informed the Regional Governor of the situation suggesting an allocation of budgetary funds for reconstruction of the temporary detention centre. In particular, in his report to the Governor, the prosecutor stated as follows:\n“The inspection of the temporary detention centre of the Bargationovsk department of the interior conducted by the regional prosecutor’s office on 24 July 2007 in response to the complaints lodged by six persons who had been detained there has disclosed a serious violation of all requirements of the law: [toilets and sinks] are not installed, there are no sanitary hygiene products in the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7710", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Tomsk.\n5.  By judgment of 13 November 2008, the Kirovskiy District Court of Tomsk convicted the applicant and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment in a high-security correctional facility.\n6.  From 18 November 2005 to 26 December 2006, from 4 December 2007 to 16 February 2009 and from 16 June to 7 July 2010 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-70/1 of Tomsk.\n7.  In the latter period, the applicant was brought to the Tomsk prison in connection with a hearing on his application for supervisory review of his conviction. He was placed in cell 218, known as a “transit cell”. It measured 14 square metres and was equipped with 4 three-tier beds. The cell population varied from 9 to 12 inmates. There was one small window which was additionally covered with two layers of bars. The inmates were allowed one hour of outdoor exercise in the courtyards that measured from 18 to 25 square metres and were surrounded with three-metre-high walls.\n8.  On 20 July 2010 the applicant complained about inadequate conditions of detention to the Tomsk regional prosecutor. By letter of 27 August 2010, the acting prosecutor acknowledged that the prison was overcrowded.\n9.  On 16 March 2011 the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation for non-pecuniary damage he had incurred on account of the inadequate conditions of detention. He also sought leave to appear before the court.\n10.  By letter of 2 June 2011, a judge of the Kirovskiy District Court of Tomsk asked the director of remand prison IZ-70/2 to deliver a summons to the applicant and –\n“... to explain to him that neither the Code of Civil Procedure nor other federal acts allow the individuals who are serving a court-imposed sentence in correctional facilities, to appear in person before courts that hear their civil claims (whether they are plaintiffs, defendants, third parties or other parties). The Penitentiary Code provides for transporting detainees from correctional facilities to remand prisons only if it is necessary to ensure their participation in criminal proceedings (Article 77.1).\nIt follows that the courts have no obligation to bring these individuals to the places where their civil claims are being heard with a view to ensuring their participation in such hearings.”\n11.  On 23 June 2011 the Kirovskiy District Court heard the applicant’s civil claim, with the participation of a representative of the Ministry of Finance and a representative of the remand prison. It noted that the applicant had been duly notified of the time and place of the hearing but had not appointed a representative. The District Court examined documents from the remand prison, heard testimony by a prison official and found that the allegation of overcrowding had been proven but that all other allegations by the applicant, including those relating a shortage of sleeping place and bed linen, poor ventilation and tiny exercise yards, were unfounded. It awarded the applicant 15,000 Russian roubles (RUR).\n12.  On 6 September 2011 the Tomsk Regional Court quashed the judgment on procedural grounds, nothing that the District Court had proceeded to hearing the case without ascertaining that the applicant had indeed received the summons. It directed that the District Court should hold a new examination of the claim.\n13.  By letter of 16 September 2011 addressed to the director of the remand prison, the District Court judge informed the applicant that the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7711", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Tula.\n6.  On 16 November 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion.\n7.  On 18 November 2004 the Proletarskiy District Court of Tula authorised his pre-trial detention. The court noted as follows:\n“... in view of the nature of the charges against [the applicant], the investigating authorities have compelling reasons to believe, that [he] may, if released, abscond, continue to commit crimes, or intimidate witnesses to impede the establishment of the truth ...\nHaving regard to the nature of the charges against [the applicant], [the court] does not consider it possible to apply a less severe preventive measure than detention.”\n8.  On 29 November 2004 the applicant was charged with robbery.\n9.  On 14 January 2005 the Tsentralniy District Court of Tula extended the applicant’s detention pending investigation until 13 April 2005. The court accepted the reasoning of the investigator, who suggested that the applicant might, if released, continue to commit crimes, intimidate witnesses to interfere with the administration of justice, or abscond. On 9 February 2005 the Tula Regional Court upheld the decision of 14 January 2005 on appeal.\n10.  On 12 April and 13 May 2005 the District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 16 May and 28 June 2005 respectively. On both occasions the court used the following reasoning:\n“... [the court] does not consider it feasible to release [the applicant], given that he has committed several serious offences and may continue to commit crimes, intimidate witnesses to interfere with the administration of justice, or abscond.”\n11.  On 23 June and 21 July 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 28 July and 28 August 2005 respectively. In each of the detention orders the court noted as follows:\n“[The court] does not consider it feasible to release [the applicant], given that he has committed several offences, some of which were very serious, and may, if released, continue to commit crimes, intimidate witnesses to interfere with the administration of justice, or abscond.”\n12.  On 5 August 2005 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 23 June on appeal.\n13.  According to the Government, in 2004-2005 a number of witnesses complained to the investigator that the applicant had threatened them while at liberty. According to the applicant, it was the investigator who encouraged the witnesses to complain. On an unspecified date the witnesses confirmed the applicant’s allegations in court.\n14.  On 2 August 2005 the District Court received the case file for the trial, which involved six defendants, including the applicant.\n15.  On 24 August 2005 the District Court fixed the trial date for 28 September 2005 and extended the detention of five of the defendants until 28 February 2006. The court noted, in particular, as follows:\n“Having regard to the fact that Ch., [the applicant], M., K., and A. are charged with particularly serious offences ..., they may continue to commit crimes, intimidate witnesses to interfere with the administration of justice, or abscond. The court does not discern any reason why they should be released.”\n16.  On 2 September 2005 the Regional Court upheld the decision of 21 July 2005 on appeal.\n17.  On 28 September 2005 the Regional Court considered an appeal lodged by the applicant against the court order of 24 August 2005 and upheld it in substance, changing the end date of the applicant’s detention to 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7712", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in various districts of Chechnya. They are close relatives of five men who were allegedly abducted by State agents and whose bodies were subsequently discovered under various circumstances. In one of the applications, Tazurkayeva and Others (application no. 14046/10), the body of one of the two men abducted was never found. Below are the summaries of the facts relevant to each individual application. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in the attached table (Appendix I). The events complained of took place between 2001 and 2004.\n6.  The applicant, Mr Sharip[1] Dovletukayev, was born in 1949 and lives in Avtury, Chechnya. He is the father of Aslan Dovletukayev, born in 1973. The applicant is represented before the Court by Mr A. Ryzhov and Ms O. Sadovskaya.\n7.  At the material time the applicant and his family, including his son Aslan Dovletukayev, were living at 41 Ordzhonikidze Street, Avtury. The area was under the full control of the Russian federal forces. Military checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the village.\n8. According to the applicant, at about 11 p.m. on 9 January 2004 a group of about eighteen masked armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at his house in three APCs (armoured personnel carriers) and two grey UAZ minivans. The vehicles did not have registration numbers. The men were equipped with portable military radios.\n9.  Without showing any documents three of the men searched the house of the applicant’s neighbours at 21 Ordzhonikidze Street. Afterwards one of them told the residents that it was a routine identity check and ordered them to stay inside. The group checked the identity documents of residents in three other houses in the street.\n10.  The group then went to the applicant’s house and checked the passports of all the males present. The men did not return Aslan Dovletukayev’s passport; they instead led him from his yard into the street and forced him into one of their vehicles. The applicant’s relatives tried to stop the men, but were threatened at gunpoint. The abductors then drove away in the direction of Shali, passing through a military checkpoint on the way.\n11.  At about 10.20 a.m. on 17 January 2004 Aslan Dovletukayev’s body was found by two servicemen of the 34th squadron stationed in Argun, by the village of Dzhalka in the Gudermes district, Chechnya.\n12.  The Government furnished part of criminal case no. 35002 opened in connection with the abduction and murder of Aslan Dovletukayev, without specifying the number of pages. The materials comprised two volumes.\n13.  On 12 January 2004 the applicant reported his son’s abduction to the Shali District Department of the Interior (ROVD), stating that his son had been taken away by “unknown armed persons in three APCs and two UAZ vehicles.”\n14. The Shali district prosecutor’s office examined the crime scene that day. No evidence was collected.\n15. On the same date the investigators sent requests to the Shali District Department of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the military commander’s office and the military prosecutor of military unit no. 20116, seeking information about whether special operations had been carried out in Ordzhonikidze Street in Avtury, whether Aslan Dovletukayev (in a number of documents also spelt Davletukayev or Dovletmurzayev) had a criminal record, and whether he was involved in illegal armed groups. No replies ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7713", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975. When lodging his application, the applicant was serving a prison sentence in Temnivka no. 100 Prison, in the Kharkiv Region.\n6.  On 10 July 2008 the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell as punishment for a disciplinary offence committed in the prison. Another prisoner was also placed in the same cell for a disciplinary offence.\n7.  According to the applicant, on 11 July 2008 the first deputy governor of the prison took the applicant to a storage room and asked him for certain information about alleged unlawful activities on the part of other prisoners. When the applicant refused to give any information, the deputy governor cuffed the applicant’s hands behind his back, pushed him onto a mattress and put a plastic bag over his head. When the applicant chewed a hole in the bag, the deputy governor threw several mattresses on top of him and, presumably, jumped on them. The applicant lost consciousness. When he regained consciousness, he noticed injuries on his forearms caused by the handcuffs.\n8.  On 14 July 2008, during a meeting with his lawyer, the applicant wrote a complaint of ill-treatment on 11 July 2008 and described the circumstances as noted above.\n9.  On 15 July 2008 the applicant’s lawyer submitted the complaint to the Prosecutor of Kharkiv Region. On the same date the applicant was examined by a doctor, who noted that the applicant had suffered injuries on his forearms. The applicant explained to the doctor that the injuries had been caused to him by the handcuffs used on him on 11 July 2008.\n10.  On 18 July 2008 the applicant was examined by a medical expert, who had about one year of experience. During the medical examination, the applicant explained that he had caused the injuries himself using coarse yarn. The expert reported abrasions to both forearms and opined that the injuries could have been sustained at the time indicated by the applicant, namely on 11 July 2008, and could have been caused by either metal handcuffs or coarse yarn. The expert classified the injuries as light.\n11.  On 19 July 2008 the applicant wrote a statement that he had inflicted the injuries himself with the use of coarse yarn which he had detached from a floor cloth. His cellmate stated that the applicant had inflicted the injuries himself using a rope he made out of a floor cloth. His cellmate also stated that the applicant had rubbed salt into the skin of his forearms to deepen the injuries. The first deputy governor of the prison asserted that no physical or psychological pressure had been applied to the applicant.\n12.  On 21 July 2008 the applicant wrote a statement that the events he had described in his complaint of 14 July 2008 were fictitious and that he himself had inflicted the injuries on his forearms with the purpose of framing the prison administration.\n13.  On 25 July 2008, following pre-investigation enquiries, the prosecutor’s office responsible for supervising the lawfulness of the enforcement of sentences adopted a decision refusing to open an investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, finding that there had been no corpus delicti. The prosecutor noted that the applicant had withdrawn his initial allegations of ill-treatment and had submitted that the injuries had been self-inflicted, and the applicant’s cellmate had confirmed that the applicant had inflicted the injuries himself using yarn detached from a floor cloth; the medical report had suggested that the injur", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7714", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Ms Nina Ivanovna Zakharova, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Voronezh.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicant’s employer allocated her a flat. However, the flat was unlawfully occupied by other persons. In 1994 civil proceedings were initiated to evict these persons.\n7.  On 16 November 2000 the Kominternovskiy District Court upheld the applicant’s right to the flat and ordered eviction of unlawful residents.\n8.  On 17 April 2001 the judgment was enforced and the applicant moved into the flat which was, however, in a state of disrepair.\n9.  By judgment of 13 May 2002, the Kominternovskiy District Court ordered the housing maintenance service to carry out repairs in the flat. On 3 October 2002 the judgment was upheld on appeal and became enforceable.\n10.  On 23 October 2003 enforcement proceedings were instituted but the judgment was not enforced. The applicant bought the necessary materials and equipment at her own expense and sued the housing service for compensation. By judgment of 26 April 2004, the Kominternovskiy District Court granted her claim in part and made an award against the housing maintenance service with regard to the costs of the applicant relating to the acquisition of materials for repairs. The court also held that the argument of the housing maintenance service according to which the applicant had hindered the enforcement procedure should be rejected. According to the applicant, the payment was effected without undue delay but it covered only a portion of the actual costs.\n11.  On 15 December 2003 the applicant lodged a claim against the Ministry of Finance before the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow. She sought to recover compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage incurred through the excessive length of proceedings in the housing dispute.\n12.  On 21 January 2004 the Basmanniy District Court disallowed the applicant’s claim. Referring to the Constitutional Court’s Ruling of 25 January 2001, the District Court noted that the Parliament had not yet adopted a law determining jurisdiction over claims concerning State liability for the damage caused by a court’s or judge’s failure to adjudicate a case within a reasonable time. For that reason the District Court held, relying on Article 134 § 1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the applicant’s claim could not be examined in civil proceedings.\n13.  On 2 June 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision to disallow the applicant’s claim.\n14.  On 22 December 2003 the applicant lodged a claim against the Voronezh Department of the Ministry of Finance and the Voronezh Regional Court before the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh. She sought to recover compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage incurred through the excessive length of proceedings in the housing dispute.\n15.  On 15 January 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh disallowed the applicant’s claim on the ground that the legislator had not yet determined which courts would be competent to examine claims for compensation by the State of the damage incurred through unlawful judicial actions.\n16.  On 7 June 2004 the Lipetsk Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision in the part concerning the rejection of her claim against the Voronezh Regional Court, but remitted the remainder for a new consideration.\n17.  On 21 June 2004 the Leninskiy District Court returned the stat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7715", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Polzela.\n5.  On 21 August 1996 the applicant bought business premises from company I. Shortly afterwards, he learned that the premises were in fact smaller than had been agreed in the contract.\n6.  On 14 September 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against company I. before the Celje District Court, claiming reimbursement of the corresponding part of the purchase price exceeding the payment for the actual size of the premises.\n7.  Hearings were held on 26 November 2001 and 19 December 2001. On the latter date the court decided to appoint a construction expert and adjourned the main hearing so that an expert opinion could be obtained. Both parties agreed that I.U. would be appointed as expert.\n8.  On 23 January 2002 the Celje District Court appointed I.U. as the construction expert. On 21 February 2002 notification of the appointment and a summons to retrieve the case file were sent to I.U. Two attempts to serve the court’s correspondence on I.U. were made, but he failed to collect them from the post office. The correspondence was finally served on him on 24 May 2002.\n9.   After I.U. had failed to retrieve the case file, despite being reminded to do so by the Court in letters dated 17 July and 15 November 2002 respectively, the Celje District Court appointed another construction expert, J.A, on 12 February 2003. The applicant filed a request to have J.A. excluded from the case on grounds of partiality.\n10.  On 25 April 2003 the court granted the applicant’s request to have J.A. excluded and appointed a new expert, F. J.\n11.  On 5 May 2003 F. J. informed the court that owing to medical reasons he would not be able to fulfil his appointment. On the same date the court appointed V. T. as expert.\n12.  On 30 June 2003 V. T. submitted his expert opinion.\n13.  On 29 September 2003 the court held a main hearing at which the parties proposed that the expert opinion be supplemented by further information. The main hearing was for that reason adjourned.\n14.  On 4 December 2003 V.T. informed the court that there was no need to supplement his opinion.\n15.  On 12 January 2004 a main hearing was held. The parties agreed to obtain additional project documentation from company S.\n16.  After having obtained the documentation from company S., the applicant informed the court that he would not be requesting a main hearing with regard to the submitted documentation.\n17.  On 2 April 2004 the Celje Distric Court delivered its judgment and ordered company I. to pay 1,103,650 Slovenian tolars (SIT − approximately 5,800 euros (EUR)) plus statutory default interest calculated from 1 September 1996.\n18.  On 8 April 2004 the Celje District Court decided to open bankruptcy (insolvency) proceedings against company I.\n19.  On 6 May 2004 the applicant lodged a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings, seeking the amount payable under the Celje District Court judgment of 2 April 2004.\n20.  After the opening of the bankruptcy proceedings, 247 creditors lodged claims in the total amount of SIT 2,320,682,457 (approximately EUR 12,212,000).\n21.  On 7 July 2004 the applicant’s claim in the amount of SIT 5,502,364 (approximately EUR 29,000) was acknowledged in the bankruptcy proceedings.\n22.  On 7 February 2007 the receiver reported to the applicant about the debts and assets of the estate, estimating that after distribution to the priority creditors there would probably be nothing left to repay the ordinary creditors.\n23", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7716", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Novosibirsk.\n6.  In 1997 the applicant married S. B.\n7.  On 19 January 2001 the applicant gave birth to their son, Yar. B.\n8.  The couple ceased to have a relationship from January 2008 onwards.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant went to court seeking a divorce and custody of her son. S. B. lodged a counterclaim, also seeking custody of the child.\n10.  While the proceedings were still pending, on 24 February 2009 S. B. picked up Yar. B. from school, and the boy has not been seen since.\n11.  On 12 March 2009 the Novosibirsk Kalininskiy District Court granted the divorce and held that the boy should reside with the applicant, his mother. In taking this decision the court considered, among other relevant factors, the child’s strong affection for the applicant and the warm and trusting relationship which existed between them. The court established, on the other hand, that the child had an ambiguous relationship with his father S. B. Witness M., a child psychiatrist of the Novosibirsk Regional Children’s Psychoneurological Clinical Centre (Новосибирский областной детский клинический психоневрологический диспансер), submitted that she had seen Yar. B. on two occasions. In March 2008 the boy had been accompanied by both parents. The major complaints during the first visit were the child’s problems with speech, and appropriate medication was prescribed. During the second visit, in August 2008, the child was accompanied only by his mother. He submitted that he was worried about his parents’ divorce proceedings. He also said that his father S. B. hit him on the hands and shouted at him, and that he wanted his parents to be divorced. He submitted that he had sleeping problems and that he feared that when he fell asleep his father would come and take him away. M. found that the divorce proceedings were having an effect on the child: his stammering had worsened and he had become unhappy and fearful. She diagnosed the boy with childhood anxiety, phobic disorder and stammering, and recommended medication, sessions with a psychologist, and family therapy. It was further recommended that the child’s communication with his father be assessed and that the father be communicated with. The court further established that the boy had not lived with his father S. B. since August 2008. S. B. had not been paying the child support ordered by the court in August 2008. He had taken no interest in the child’s education. The Novosibirsk Regional Department of Education had been unable to get in touch with S. B., who was avoiding all contact. It had therefore been impossible to make a full assessment of the latter’s personality. The court expressed concern at the behaviour of S. B., who, knowing of the proceedings pending, deliberately changed the child’s place of residence by abducting him, and had been hiding the child ever since, thus disrupting the latter’s usual lifestyle and preventing the child from communicating with his mother. S. B. acted through his representative in the proceedings.\n12.  On 30 March 2009 the judgment entered into force. A writ of execution was issued.\n13.  On 20 November 2009 the Kalininskiy District Court refused to hear an appeal lodged by S. B. against the judgment of 12 March 2009.\n14.  Following the disappearance of her son Yar. B. with his father S. B. on 24 February 2009, on 26 February 2009 the applicant applied to the Novosibirsk Zayeltsovskiy District Department of the Interio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7717", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Gravina di Puglia.\n6.   The applicant submitted a development plan (piano di lottizzazione) to the municipality of Cassano delle Murge with a view to building housing near the Mercadante forest, On 31 October 1984 the municipality approved the plan. On 1 March 1985 the applicant concluded a development agreement (convenzione di lottizzazione) with the municipality and obtained the building permits for an initial group of buildings.\n7.  On 6 February 1986 a ministerial decree of 1 August 1985 was published in the Official Gazette. This decree stated that the land around the Mercadante forest was to be given protected landscape status and as such be subject to the provisions of Law no. 1497/1939, which imposed compulsory prior ministerial authorisation for the issue of building permits.\n8.  The municipality of Cassano delle Murge challenged the Ministerial Decree before the Puglia Administrative Court and, under a decision of 10 March 1993, was partially successful. Pursuant to that decision (which is not included in the case file) the land covered by the applicant’s plan was no longer subject to landscape constraints.\n9.  Furthermore, two laws had come into force in the meantime. The first (Law no. 431/1985) had granted the regions exclusive legislative powers in the landscape protection field. The second (Regional Law no. 30/1990) made the land adjacent to the forests subject to landscape constraints necessitating authorisation from the Region, except where the development plan had been approved prior to 6 June 1990. Under the combined effect of these laws, plans to be approved after this date had to receive a favourable opinion from the relevant regional committee.\n10.  In 1993 the applicant submitted to the municipality of Cassano delle Murge a variant of the plan already approved in 1984. The case file shows that the new variant had been necessary because the original plan had accidentally included an area comprising an aqueduct. It had therefore been necessary to reduce the size of the project by 3,917 square metres. Moreover, the owners of the neighbouring plots had decided not to continue with the project, and so it had had to be modified, particularly where the layout of the buildings was concerned. That variant was approved by the municipality of Cassano delle Murge on 30 May 1994.\n11.  On 19 August 1994 the applicant concluded a development agreement with the municipality. The latter issued him with the building permits.\n12.  On 21 May 2007 the municipality issued a certificate to the effect that all the buildings constructed by the applicant prior to 30 September 2004 had been in conformity with landscape legislation.\n13.  Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant for unlawful land development. On 6 February 1997 and interim attachment order was issued in respect of the land and buildings (seventeen blocks containing four apartments each).\n14.  In a judgment of 1 June 1998, the Acquaviva delle Fonti District Court noted that the applicant had built seventeen apartment blocks in accordance with the variant approved in 1994 and the building permits issued by the municipality. However, the court considered that this variant was not merely a modification of the 1984 project but rather a new development plan which had to comply with the provisions which had since come into force. Given that the provisions in question required a favourable opinion from the regional commit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7718", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Riga.\n6.  The applicant alleges that for an extended period of time in the 1990s he was a police informant on criminal matters in Balvi. It appears that that collaboration was officially documented by the police and the applicant was paid for his services. Over time, the criminal community in Balvi became aware of his role as an informant, and as a result he was assaulted and threatened with murder on several occasions. The applicant then moved to Rēzekne.\n7.  On 6 October 2005 the applicant was arrested on charges of rape of his partner’s minor daughter and of indecent assault on the partner’s minor son.\n8.  The applicant was transferred to Daugavpils Prison on 25 October 2005, and stayed there until 26 October 2006, when he was transferred elsewhere (see paragraph 20 below). During this period he was taken to Riga Central Prison on four occasions. He spent a total of approximately fifty-five days in Riga and more than 300 days in Daugavpils.\n9.  The Government submitted, and the applicant did not deny, that when he had arrived at Daugavpils Prison he had had the standard entry interview with a member of the security staff of the prison. It appears that during the interview the applicant gave the names of several inmates of the prison with whom he had had conflicts in the past, and the administration of the prison undertook to keep him isolated from those individuals throughout his stay in Daugavpils. On the other hand, according to the Government, the applicant did not inform the administration of the prison about his previous collaboration with the police, and did not ask to be kept isolated from any other prisoners. The Government submitted that on 21 February 2006 the applicant requested the governor of Daugavpils Prison to transfer him to a unit in which prisoners were involved in housekeeping activities (kitchen duties and laundry work) and hence often came into contact with other prisoners.\n10.  On 17 January 2006 the prosecutor charged with investigating the criminal charges against the applicant invited the applicant to submit his final motions concerning the criminal case. According to the applicant, on that day he requested the prosecutor to arrange for his transfer to Matīsa Prison, which has a section designated for holding detainees who have worked for law-enforcement institutions or collaborated with those institutions (see paragraph 37 below). The applicant alleged that the prosecutor agreed to order his transfer to Matīsa Prison in exchange for a plea bargain. The applicant submitted that he felt pressured to accept that arrangement, and the plea bargain was signed on 20 January 2006. The applicant’s defence counsel was present when the plea bargain was signed. The Government questioned the reliability of the applicant’s version of the events, underlining that under national law the prosecutor did not have any authority to order the applicant’s placement in a particular prison; the institution competent to do so was the Prisons Administration (Ieslodzījuma vietu pārvalde).\n11.  The applicant alleged, and the Government did not in substance dispute, that on 24 March 2006 a note was added to his case file that he was to be held in isolation from other detainees. The parties differ as to the precise nature and effects of such a requirement – according to the Government the applicant’s case file did not contain anything in writing to the effec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7719", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1969 and 1953 and live in Espoo and Helsinki respectively.\n6.  The first applicant is an editor and the second applicant is his immediate superior. Both applicants are employed by a Finnish broadcasting company.\n7.  On 27 February 2006 the company broadcast on a national TV channel a current affairs programme criticising the lack of co-operation between the authorities concerning a specific investigation into economic crime. It was revealed that the tax authorities had refused the request of the National Bureau of Investigation (keskusrikospoliisi, centralkriminalpolisen) to conduct a tax inspection of the functioning of two companies running a certain sports centre. Reference was made in that connection, inter alia, to K.U., a well-known Finnish businessman who, at the time, was standing trial for economic offences. In the programme it was stated that the police wanted to know whether the sports centre had been purchased using K.U.’s money.\n8.  The programme was broadcast anew on the following day. Then the programme included an addition from K.U.’s business partner who indicated that the money spent on the sports centre had in fact come from an insurance company, not from K.U.\n9.  On 10 December 2007 the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against both applicants. He maintained that the first applicant, by editing the programme, and the second applicant, by allowing its broadcast, had intentionally and in concert made false insinuations about K.U. such that their conduct had been conducive to causing the latter suffering, subjecting him to contempt and causing him damage. A similar accusation was made against the broadcasting company’s editor-in-chief who had, along with the second applicant, allowed the second broadcast of the programme. As the false insinuations had been disseminated through the mass media to a large public, and as this had caused K.U. great suffering, the defendants should be convicted for aggravated defamation.\n10.  K.U., for his part, claimed compensation for mental anguish and legal costs in the same proceedings.\n11.  The applicants contested the charge and the civil claim. They argued, inter alia, that all information imparted had been correct. There had been no false insinuations about K.U., nor any criminal intent on behalf of the applicants. The programme had dealt with an issue of general importance, that is, problems of co-operation between the police and the tax authorities.\n12.  On 9 May 2008 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) issued its judgment. In its reasons the court found it established that the first applicant had edited the programme, broadcast on 27 and 28 February 2006. The programme had reached some 750,000 viewers. It had been announced as a report on the termination of tax inspections of the affairs of a person in a high position and his friend.\n13.  The court went on to note that at the beginning of the programme footage was shown of the criminal trial concerning K.U.’s alleged economic offences shot on the same day, that is, 27 February 2006. It was followed by a diagram illustrated by K.U.’s photograph and indicating: “National Bureau of Investigation → [K.U.] → [K.U.’s] business associate → Sports centre.” While these images were shown on the screen the narration ran as follows:\n“The Helsinki District Court continued today the examination of an extensive trial concerning economic crime. One of the accused was the businessm", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7721", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Krasnodar.\n6.  On 26 January 2004 the applicant was charged with murder. He was assisted by legal counsel and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter. On 5 August 2004 the Novokubansk District Court of Krasnodar Region convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.\n7.  On 14 August 2004 the applicant and his counsel submitted their statements of appeal in which they requested the appeal court to reclassify the offence as manslaughter and challenged the findings of fact made by the trial court.\n8.  On 15 September 2004 the appeal hearing was adjourned as the applicant and his lawyer had not been notified of the appeal hearing fourteen days in advance.\n9.  The Government produced a typed summons issued by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 22 September 2004, by which the applicant and his counsel were to be informed of the appeal hearing scheduled for 6 October 2004. According to the Government, a copy of this summons was sent to the lawyer’s address.\n10.  On 6 October 2004 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment of 5 August 2004. A representative of the prosecution and the applicant, but not his counsel, attended the appeal hearing.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7722", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Makiyivka.\n6.  On 13 January 2000 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the Makiyivka Police Department and taken to a police station, where he was kept in police custody until 25 January 2000. According to the applicant, during that time he had no access to a lawyer and was forced to confess to various crimes. The applicant claimed that during the interrogation he had been severely beaten on many occasions by the police officers, who had also made him suffocate and had applied electroshock to his genitals. According to the Government, the applicant had his procedural rights to legal representation and to freedom from self-incrimination explained to him and he signed a waiver of his right to legal representation. He was questioned about a car theft and confessed. He also confessed to being involved in a robbery.\n7.  On 14 January 2000 the applicant had been brought to a hospital by an ambulance and the medical reports of that date confirmed abdominal trauma and bruise in the lumbar region received during the alleged beating by the police (see paragraph 37 below).\n8.  On 15 January 2000 the investigator instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for theft from a garage, theft of non-ferrous metals and attempted robbery.\n9.  On 16 January 2000 the applicant was charged with the car theft. According to the Government, the applicant had his procedural rights to legal representation and to freedom from self-incrimination explained to him and he then signed a waiver of his right to legal representation. The applicant was questioned in respect of the car theft and he denied his guilt. He explained that he had not been aware that the other person involved had actually been stealing the car and claimed that he had previously confessed under duress from the police.\n10.  On that date the applicant participated in an on-site reconstruction of events. An expert and two attesting witnesses also took part in that investigative action.\n11.  The Government asserted that on 17 January 2000 the applicant had his procedural rights to legal representation and to freedom from self-incrimination explained to him again and that he then signed a waiver of his right to legal representation. The applicant was subsequently questioned and confessed to a theft from a garage, a theft of non-ferrous metals and a robbery. He again participated in an on-site reconstruction of events together with two attesting witnesses.\n12.  On 18 January 2000 the applicant was additionally charged with the theft from a garage, the theft of non-ferrous metals and the robbery.\n13.  On 19 January 2000, in the Government’s version of events, the applicant had his procedural rights to legal representation and to freedom from self-incrimination explained to him once again. The applicant waived his right to legal representation. The applicant was then questioned and pleaded guilty to the charges of 18 January 2000. He also participated in an on-site reconstruction of events together with two attesting witnesses. On the same date further criminal proceedings for theft of property were instituted against the applicant.\n14.  On 25 January 2000 the applicant was transferred to the SIZO (see paragraph 38 below).\n15.  On 29 February 2000 the investigator conducted a confrontation between the applicant and his co-accused, D. The applicant denied his guilt, while D. testified that the applicant had been the instigator of all the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7723", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are close relatives of individuals who disappeared in the Chechen Republic after being apprehended, in 2001 and 2006, by armed men whom the applicants believed to have belonged to the Russian military or security forces. In each case a criminal investigation file was opened by the local prosecutor’s office. The proceedings were suspended and resumed on several occasions thereafter.\n6.  When the latest rounds of observations were submitted to the Court, the investigation in each case remained pending without having produced any tangible results as to the whereabouts of the applicants’ missing relatives or the identity of the perpetrators of the crimes.\n7.  In their observations, the Government did not challenge the essential facts as presented by the applicants, but noted that as the investigations were pending, it would be premature to draw any conclusions about the exact circumstances of the cases. In addition, they argued that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the abduction and/or subsequent killing of the applicants’ relatives, or that the missing persons were dead.\n8.  Summaries of the facts relevant to each complaint are set out below. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in Annex I.\n9.  The applicants in the three applications complained about the detention and subsequent disappearance of their three relatives – Magomed Edilov, Akhamdi Isayev and Ali Vadilov – in the early hours of 9 December 2001 in the village of Valerik, in the Achkhoy-Martan district of Chechnya. All the men were detained at their respective family homes by a group of up to thirty armed masked men in camouflage uniforms. The fourth man detained on that night in Valerik, who also disappeared, Rizvan S., was a resident of Achkhoy-Martan and a relative of Akhamdi Isayev, with whom he had stayed that night. The description of the events is based on the applicants’ accounts and the documents submitted with the applications. The applicants and their neighbours, G., M. and O., gave detailed written statements about the intruders using up to four UAZ cars and one armoured personnel carrier (APC), which had been stationed in Sheripova Street. The men were well-built and equipped with special gear such as portable radios and spherical helmets, and spoke Russian without an accent. The applicants also informed the Court that at the material time a curfew had been in place in Valerik and the movement of vehicles had been monitored by roadblocks.\n10.  One set of criminal investigations was carried out into the abduction of the four men. It failed to elucidate the crime, and the families have had no news of the detainees since 9 December 2001. The relevant details of the abductions and the investigation are set out below.\n11.  At the material time the only applicant in this case and her common-law partner Magomed Edilov, born in 1979, lived at Sheripova Street, 11 (in the submitted documents the address is also referred to as Lenina Street, 89) in Valerik. At the time of the event, the applicant was pregnant; their daughter Sofi was born on 13 June 2002.\n12.  At about 2 a.m. on 9 December 2001 a group of about seven armed masked men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicant’s gate in two UAZ cars without registration plates. The men broke into the house and took Magomed Edilov outside. The applicant attempted to follow ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7724", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Bitola.\n6.  On 2 December 2002 an article was published in the daily newspaper Utrinski Vesnik entitled “The uncle was stealing, Jovan was standing guard” (Вујкото крадел, Јован чувал стража). A reference to the article appeared on the front page of the newspaper. The text of the article read, in so far as relevant, as follows:\n“Risto Popovski, uncle of dismissed bishop J. and owner of the company Voskresenie from Bitola, together with seven boys, entered the courtyard of St. Spas church in Gevgelija and continued towards the church garage. The uncle started the engine of the tractor [inside] and drove it out of the courtyard, while his helpers warned the church housekeeper, who was upset, to step aside. During the violent disturbance, the dismissed bishop Jovan drove around waiting for the outcome...\n... On the basis of an anonymous tip-off concerning the break-in, police stopped the tractor from leaving Gevgelija. The owner of Voskresenie, [the applicant], produced documents [showing] that Voskresenie owned the tractor! Only dismissed bishop Jovan knew how the tractor, which was a donation by Japan to Gevgelija’s church co-operative, happened to belong to a private company from Bitola ... (R.P.)”\n7.  The applicant submitted a letter to the newspaper the next day, in which he requested that it publish a retraction given the false allegations that he had stolen the tractor. In this connection he submitted a copy of a certificate issued by the Ministry of the Interior confirming that the tractor had been returned to him. He alleged that in the absence of a retraction, he would be perceived as a criminal in Bitola, a small town where people knew each other. The newspaper did not publish anything in this regard.\n8.  On 31 December 2002 and after several verbal requests, the applicant submitted a letter to the newspaper seeking information about the identity of the journalist (R.P.), whose initials appeared at the end of the article.\n9.  On 31 January (as alleged by the applicant) or 4 February 2003 (according to the Government) the applicant brought private criminal charges for defamation under sections 16(1) and (2) and 417(1) of the Criminal Proceedings Act, which was an offence punishable under section 172(2) of the Criminal Code (see paragraphs 27, 31 and 38 below). The complaint was made against B.T., editor-in-chief of the newspaper and R.P., the journalist responsible. The applicant claimed that the article had disgraced him and his family and said that he was seeking compensation for non-pecuniary loss, the amount of which was to be specified, as stated in the complaint, at the hearing.\n10.  On 31 March and 16 April 2003 respectively the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) requested that the applicant complete the complaint by providing information about the identity of R.P., describing the actions imputable to the accused and submitting an original of the article. In reply, the applicant specified his complaint and informed the trial court that all his attempts to get the newspaper to reveal the identity of the journalist responsible had been to no avail.\n11.  During the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer practicing in Bitola. The applicant alleged (without providing any evidence in support) that the first hearing had been scheduled for 23 September 2003; however, the parties agreed that between 10 October 2003 and 16 January 2007, the trial court ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7725", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Bosanski Brod, Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n6.  On 12 December 1983 the Slavonski Brod Office of the Workers’ Pension and Invalidity Insurance Fund (Samoupravna interesna zajednica mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja radnika Hrvatske, Područna služba u Slavonskom Brodu, hereinafter “the Republic Workers’ Fund”) recognised the applicant’s reduced capacity for work and ordered his employer, company M., to find him a post suitable to his condition.\n7.  On 22 June 1987 the Republic Workers’ Fund issued a decision granting the applicant the right to work part-time on account of his reduced capacity for work, and the right to payment of special benefits for that reason.\n8.  After the institution of insolvency proceedings against the company, M., on 13 December 1990 the Republic Workers’ Fund issued a new decision, granting the applicant unemployment benefit with effect from 1 December 1990. In order to retain the benefit the applicant had to report to the Republic Workers’ Fund at regular (monthly) intervals.\n9.  On 25 June 1991 the Croatian Parliament declared Croatia independent of Yugoslavia.\n10.  According to the applicant’s record in the Republic Workers’ Fund, the applicant reported regularly every month to the Republic Workers’ Fund until 24 March 1992, when he reported by sending a letter. Thereafter, due to the applicant’s non-compliance with the duty to report, the payment of the unemployment benefit was discontinued.\n11.  On 9 June 2000 the applicant submitted a request to the Slavonski Brod Office of the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Područna služba u Slavonskom Brodu) for payment of unemployment benefits. He argued that because of the escalation of the war in Croatia, following its declaration of independence, he had not been able to come to Croatia after February 1992.\n12.  On 5 September 2000 the Slavonski Brod Office of the Croatian Pension Fund issued a decision terminating the applicant’s right to unemployment benefits, and discontinued payments with effect from 31 March 1992. The relevant part of that decision read as follows:\n“The insured [the applicant] last contacted the regional office on 24 March 1992. His right to unemployment benefit is therefore terminated and payment of unemployment benefit was discontinued from 31 March 1992, in accordance with section 128 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act.”\n13.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision with the Central Office of the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski avod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Središnja služba) on 20 September 2000, arguing that he had been unable to come to Croatia after March 1992 because of the escalating war there. He considered that he should not lose his right to unemployment benefits because of circumstances beyond his control.\n14.  On 11 April 2001 the Central Office of the Croatian Pension Fund dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The relevant part of the second-instance decision read as follows:\n“The appellant ... submits that before and during the [Homeland] War he had been living in Bosanski Brod and that after March 1992 he could no longer contact the Slavonski Brod Office because of the war. He argues that his right to benefits was terminated because of circumstances beyond his control, within the meaning of section 128 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act.\nThe appeal is unfounded.\nAfter consulting the entire case file, it was established th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7726", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1974 and 1954 respectively and live in Luleå.\n7.  On 25 March 2006, the first applicant arrived in Sweden with her son, A, born in 1999. On 17 April 2006, she married the second applicant. Subsequently, on 7 September 2006, she and A applied to the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) for asylum and residence permits, submitting that she belonged to a family of political opponents in Turkmenistan and was sought by the authorities there. A’s father had died in a car accident in 2005. She further referred to her marriage to the second applicant. To prove her identity, she submitted a work identity card, a birth certificate and the diploma of her degree in medicine.\n8.  On 27 May 2008, the Migration Board rejected the application. It questioned the first applicant’s credibility because her statements had been vague and inconsistent. In addition, she had not submitted her passport, of which the Board considered she was in possession, and she had not helped the domestic authorities to clarify her route to Sweden. In response to a question to the German Embassy in Ashgabat, the Board had been informed that the first applicant and A had been granted visas to visit Germany from 1 April to 22 April 2006. A’s father had given his approval and, consequently, must have been alive in 2006. As the first applicant had been granted a visa, the Board concluded that she had left Turkmenistan legally. Consequently, it was improbable that she was perceived as a political opponent. As concerned the first applicant’s marriage to the second applicant, the Board questioned the seriousness of the applicants’ marriage since they had married less than a month after the first applicant’s arrival in Sweden and had never met before. Moreover, an application for a residence permit on this ground should, as a rule, be submitted before arrival in Sweden.\n9.  The first applicant and A appealed against the decision to the Migration Court (Migrationsdomstolen) and added that the visa documents were false. Moreover, their ties to Sweden were stronger than those to their home country since they had no remaining family in Turkmenistan.\n10.  On 29 April 2009, after having held an oral hearing, the Migration Court upheld the Board’s decision in full. It considered that the documents related to the visas were most probably authentic whereas A’s father’s death certificate, submitted by the first applicant, had low evidentiary value. Turning to whether the first applicant could be granted a residence permit because of her marriage, the court did not find it unreasonable to ask her and A to return to their country, or another country, and apply from there.\n11.  The first applicant and A appealed to the Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen) which, on 16 July 2009, refused leave to appeal.\n12.  On 28 January 2010, the first applicant gave birth to her and the second applicant’s son, B, and lodged an application for reconsideration of her case on the basis of her family ties. The Migration Board rejected her request as it considered that she could not be granted a residence permit on the basis of her family ties and that there were no impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order. Their appeal to the Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal against this decision was unsuccessful.\n13.  On 24 September 2010, A was adopted by the second applicant and hence became a Swedish citizen. Subsequently the first applicant again appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7727", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Split.\n5.  On 1 August 2008 an investigating judge of the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) opened a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant and seventeen other persons for conspiracy to supply heroin and cocaine in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period between 10 January and 30 July 2008.\n6.  At a hearing held on 7 August 2008 before the investigating judge, the applicant stated that he had decided to remain silent. The investigating judge heard evidence from another suspect.\n7.  On 11 August 2008 the investigating judge heard evidence from two other suspects. On the same day he asked for the applicant’s criminal record, which was submitted on 12 August 2008 with a note that he had not been previously convicted of any criminal offence.\n8.  On 20 August 2008 the investigating judge commissioned a psychiatric report on eleven defendants, including the applicant, in order to assess their mental state at the time the criminal offence was committed and whether they were drug addicts.\n9.  On 8 September 2008 a psychiatric report commissioned for the purposes of the investigation was submitted by a psychiatrist of the Split Medical Faculty. As regards the applicant, the report stated that he was a long-term drug addict who had received treatment on two occasions but with no lasting results. He had resumed taking drugs a few months before. Since being detained he had been on Heptanon therapy which helped him to overcome his withdrawal symptoms. It was recommended that he continued with that therapy.\n10.  On 16 September 2008 the investigating judge heard evidence from six witnesses, police officers who conducted the police inquiry prior to the institution of the criminal proceedings.\n11.  On 24 October 2008 the investigating judge heard evidence from another suspect and on 29 and 31 October 2008 from four further police officers. On 7 November 2008 he heard evidence from another two suspects.\n12.  On 21 January 2009 the State Attorney’s Office for the Prevention of Corruption and Organised Crime preferred charges of conspiracy to supply heroin and cocaine in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in the period between 10 January and 30 July 2008 against the applicant and seventeen other defendants in the Split County Court.\n13.  On 29 January 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal against the bill of indictment (prigovor protiv optužnice). By 4 February 2011 all the other defendants had also lodged their objections.\n14.  On 4 March 2009 the Supreme Court returned the bill of indictment to the State Attorney’s Office asking it to submit, within three days, a request to take further investigative steps.\n15.  On 10 March 2009 the State Attorney’s Office asked the investigating judge to take further steps.\n16.  On 13 March 2009 the investigating judge ordered a transcript of all telephone conversations between the defendants, previously tapped by the police.\n17.  On 12 June 2009 an expert in telecommunications submitted his report with a transcript of those telephone conversations. The transcript comprises 568 pages.\n18.  On 16 June 2009 the State Attorney’s Office submitted the same indictment to the Split County Court.\n19.  On 1 July 2009 the applicant reiterated his objection to the indictment. He also requested that the evidence obtained by the police tapping of his telephone be excluded from the case file. The other defendants also lodged their objections.\n20.  On 8 Sep", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7728", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is serving a prison sentence in the Kemerovo Region.\n6.  On an unspecified date the prosecution authorities opened an investigation into the activities of an organised criminal gang that had committed a series of murders and other crimes. The applicant was one of the suspects.\n7.  On 1 August 2006 the Naberezhnyye Chelny Town Court, Republic of Tatarstan, authorised a search of the applicant’s flat. According to the applicant, he unsuccessfully complained about the court’s search order to the town prosecutor on 20 March 2009.\n8.  On 19 August 2006 the applicant was arrested and informed of the court order of 1 August 2006. His flat was searched on the same day.\n9.  On 20 August 2006 the prosecutor’s office appointed counsel N. to represent the applicant. On the same date the Town Court authorised the applicant’s detention pending investigation. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“[The applicant] is suspected of involvement in serious crimes which present a heightened danger to public order and entail a custodial sentence exceeding two years ...\nThe court considers that, if released, [the applicant], who does not have a permanent place of residence in Naberezhnyye Chelny and who knows where the witnesses reside, might abscond or otherwise interfere with the establishment of the truth.”\n10.  On 12 October 2006 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 18 February 2007. The court refused to release the applicant pending investigation, noting as follows:\n“The investigator requests that the [applicant’s] detention be extended. ... If released, [the applicant] might abscond, continue criminal activities, put pressure on witnesses or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice.\nHaving heard the defendant and his lawyer, who asked the court to dismiss the request, and the prosecutor who considered that it should be granted, and having studied the materials of the case, the court finds that the investigator’s request is substantiated and should be granted.”\n11.  On 14 November 2006 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan upheld the decision of 12 October 2006 on appeal.\n12.  On 12 January 2007 counsel K. replaced counsel N., who had asked to be withdrawn.\n13.  On 13 February 2007 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 27 April 2007. The court held as follows:\n“... [the applicant] is charged with very serious offences which present a heightened danger to public order and entail a custodial sentence exceeding two years. This criminal case is of extreme complexity. The reasons justifying the [applicant’s] remand in custody have not ceased to exist. The time-limit for the preliminary investigation has been extended until 27 April 2007. A number of investigative activities involving [the applicant] are pending. [The applicant] might abscond or commit new crimes [if released].”\n14.  On 20 March 2007 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan upheld the court order of 13 February 2007 on appeal.\n15.  On 24 April 2007 the Town Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 27 July 2007. The court reiterated verbatim the reasoning of 13 February 2007.\n16.  On 17 July 2007 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 18 August 2007, noting as follows:\n“[The applicant] is charged with a number of serious offences. His involvement in the crimes he has been charged with is supported by the materials submitted. The circumstances underlying th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7730", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Bosilegrad.\n5.  The applicant was employed by HKP Yumco a.d., a socially/State-owned company based in Vranje (hereinafter – “the debtor”).\n6.  On 12 February 2007 the Bosilegrad Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay her:\n(a)  salary arrears in the amount of 70,387.12 Serbian dinars (RSD),[1] plus statutory interest; and\n(b)  RSD 5,517 (approximately EUR 70) for her legal costs.\n7.  On 2 March 2007 the judgment became final.\n8.  On 13 February 2008 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Vranje Municipal Court, proposing that it be carried out by means of a bank transfer.\n9.  On 14 February 2008 the court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.\n10.  On 16 April 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\n11.  On 26 December 2012 the Constitutional Court held that the applicant’s “right to trial within reasonable time” was violated and ordered the Vranje Municipal Court and National Bank of Serbia to enforce the final judgment as soon as possible.\n12.  On 28 April 2007 the Bosilegrad Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay her:\n(a)  salary arrears in the amount of RSD 78,712 (aproximatelly EUR 990), plus statutory interest;\n(b) employee meal benefits (naknada za ishranu na radu) in the amount of RSD 51,715.68 (approximately EUR 650), plus statutory interest;\n(b)  RSD 14,360 (approximately EUR 185) for her legal costs; and\n(c)  the pension, disability, and health contributions due for the period 1 January 2004 to 8 February 2005.\n13.  On 13 December 2007 the judgment became final.\n14.  On 13 February 2008 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Vranje Municipal Court, proposing that it be carried out by means of a bank transfer.\n15.  On 15 April 2008 the court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.\n16.  On 16 April 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\n17.  According to information in the file the case is still pending before the Constitutional Court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7731", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently detained in Sincan prison.\n5.  On 5 October 1999 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by police officers in Havza, a district of Samsun, in the course of a routine identity check. He was taken to the Havza police headquarters. According to the arrest and seizure report, the applicant was arrested at around 1.30 p.m., after he had tried to evade the police by jumping off the two‑metre high balcony of a café and was apprehended by the officers. According to the report, the applicant threw himself on the ground repeatedly and sustained various injuries. In particular, he had bruises and scratches on his back, on the left shoulder, on both arms and on the forehead. In the arrest and seizure report it was also noted that the applicant had false identity papers and, inter alia, a Kalashnikov rifle, bullets, night-vision binoculars and a walkie-talkie in his bag.\n6.  The applicant was subsequently taken to the Samsun police headquarters.\n7.  On the same day, at around 3.05 p.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor in Samsun who observed that the applicant was rather tired. He further observed the following injuries on the applicant’s person: ecchymoses on both the left and right sides of the forehead, on both the left and right scapulas and in the lumbar region; hyperaemic lesions on both the left and right sides of the neck, hyperaemia and ecchymoses on the left biceps, hyperaemia on the right biceps and ecchymoses on both calves.\n8.  On 6 October 1999, at around 9.25 a.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Samsun Forensic Institute who noted that he was tired and weak and had bruises of various shapes and colours on his body. In addition to those noted in the medical report of 5 October 1999, the doctor observed the following injuries on the applicant’s body: ecchymoses, swellings and scratches of various sizes on the middle of the forehead, in the left zygomatic region, on his head, on the left clavicle, on the left side of the abdomen, on the left side of the crista iliaca region, on the outside of the left arm, on the inside of the left upper arm, on both thighs, on the right elbow and on both wrists. According to the report, there was also bleeding under both nipples, hyperaemia on the glans of the penis and three ecchymoses on the penis.\n9.  On 7 October 1999, at around 10.30 a.m., the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Samsun Forensic Institute who found no additional injuries on his body, apart from those recorded in the previous medical report of 6 October 1999.\n10.  On the same day, the applicant was transferred to the Ankara police headquarters.\n11.  On 12 October 1999 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Ankara Forensic Institute who, in addition to the injuries noted in the previous reports, observed oedema on the palmar surface of the third finger and sensitivity on the first toe. The doctor asked for additional examinations to be carried out by the Department of Urology and Neurology at Ankara Hospital.\n12.  The applicant claimed that he had been subjected to various forms of ill-treatment during his arrest and subsequent detention at the Samsun police headquarters and the Ankara police headquarters. In respect of the treatment at the Samsun police headquarters, he claimed to have been beaten, given electric shocks, hung by his arms, hosed with cold water, had his genitals and fingers squeezed, been made to lie on an icy surface and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7732", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966. He used to be the bodyguard of the then Albanian President, Mr Sali Berisha. At the time of the introduction of the application, he was detained in Turkey pending the outcome of his extradition to Albania.\n7.  On 12 September 1998 at about 9.15 p.m. Mr Azem Hajdari, a Member of Parliament (“MP”), and his bodyguards B.C and Z.N were shot as they came out of the Democratic Party (“DP”) headquarters in Tirana. Mr Hajdari and B.C died the same day in hospital. The second bodyguard Z.N was seriously injured. Mr Hajdari was a leading member of the DP which was one of the two main political parties in Albania and, at the material time, in opposition. A criminal investigation was opened into the murder.\n8.  On 13 January 2001 the prosecutor’s office issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant, on suspicion of involvement in the assassination of the MP and of one of his bodyguards as well as in the attempted murder of the other bodyguard. The arrest of four other people in connection with the murder was also ordered by the prosecutor.\n9.  On 31 January 2001 the Tirana District Court (“District Court”) ordered the applicant’s arrest. He was represented by a court-appointed lawyer.\n10.  On 3 March 2001 the District Court declared the applicant a fugitive after unsuccessful attempts to locate him. The decision stated that the applicant’s family did not know of his whereabouts. His neighbours had also mentioned that no one had lived in the applicant’s residence for two years.\n11.  On 13 March 2001 the prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the District Court. The applicant and four other co-accused were indicted on charges of having participated in, or organised, the assassination of the MP, his bodyguard and the attempted murder of civilians.\n12.  The trial proceedings against the applicant were conducted in absentia. He was represented by a lawyer appointed by his family in accordance with Article 48 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”).\n13.  On 29 April 2001 the District Court convicted the applicant in absentia. He was sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment.\n14.  The applicant’s family-appointed lawyer as well as the co-accused appealed against the conviction to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.\n15.  On 9 July 2002 and 14 February 2003 the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld the District Court’s decision. The applicant was represented by the family-appointed lawyer.\n16.  The applicant’s family-appointed lawyer did not lodge a constitutional appeal, owing to the lack of a power of attorney to do so. The constitutional appeals of two of the co-accused, concerning the overall unfairness of the proceedings, were declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court on 9 July 2003 on the ground that the appeals did not disclose a breach of the right to a fair trial.\n17.  A detailed account of the facts, the criminal investigation and the domestic courts’ decisions has been described in Haxhia v. Albania, no. 29861/03, 8 October 2013, not yet final and Mulosmani v. Albania, no. 29861/03, 8 October 2013, not yet final.\n18.  On 3 June 2006 the applicant was arrested by the Turkish authorities, apparently on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by the Albanian authorities. It would appear that the Albanian authorities requested the applicant’s extradition. A copy of the extradition request has not been submitted to this Court. No further information has been pr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7733", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. The applicant was born in 1993 and lives in Hakkari.\n5. On 22 March 2008 the applicant, who was fifteen years old at the time, was arrested for participating in an unlawful demonstration in support of an illegal organisation, the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan). According to the arrest report signed by the applicant, a group of three hundred people gathered by the Atatürk statue in Hakkari city centre shouting slogans in support of the illegal organisation. They then attacked the statue with stones and sticks. The police intervened and started chasing the demonstrators, who set up a barricade in the street and burned car tyres. The arrest report stated that the applicant had been among the people arrested during the incident.\n6.  In video footage submitted by the applicant, he is seen in the street crying, and a plain-clothes police officer is seen holding him by the right arm. The officer is then seen twisting his arm behind his back, which forces him to bend forward. While this is happening another police officer calls the applicant “dishonourable” (şerefsiz). There appear to be no other demonstrators present and besides the police officer holding the applicant, there appear to be at least four other officers next to him.\n7.  On the same day the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Hakkari Forensic Medicine Institute, who noted no signs of ill-treatment on his body.\n8.  On 23 March 2008 the applicant underwent another medical examination. The report drawn up in respect of the applicant again indicated no signs of ill-treatment on his body.\n9.  The applicant was subsequently brought before the Hakkari public prosecutor and the Hakkari Magistrates’ Court respectively. In the presence of his lawyer, he denied the accusations against him, specifically stating that he had neither participated in the unlawful demonstration nor shown resistance to the police officers, and maintained that he had been walking through the city centre when he was apprehended. Following his interrogation, the investigating judge ordered his immediate release.\n10.   The public prosecutor filed an objection against the decision of the investigating judge. On 25 March 2008 the Hakkari Criminal Court found in line with the public prosecutor and ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. He was rearrested and detained the same day. Before being taken to prison, the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Hakkari State Hospital, who noted no signs of ill-treatment on his body.\n11.  On 28 March 2008 the applicant’s parents filed a criminal complaint against the police officers involved in his arrest, alleging that as a result of the excessive force used during his arrest, their son’s arm had been broken. On the same day the applicant was taken to the Hakkari State Hospital for a medical examination. The doctors ordered X-rays of his head, shoulders, arms, wrists and hands. According to the medical reports, the applicant had no fractures, but had an old scar measuring 2 x 1 cm on his vertex (the top of his head) as a result of an earlier fall, and a scabbed wound of 2 x 1 cm on the second phalanx (finger bone) of his right hand index finger.\n12.  On 31 March 2008 the applicant was examined again, this time by the prison doctor, who reported a minimal oedema (slight swelling) on his right elbow resulting from a soft issue injury and noted the presence of healing wounds on the distal phalanges of his right hand ring and little fingers.\n13.  The Hakkari pu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7734", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant and Beogradski Pamučni Kombat, a company based in Belgrade (hereinafter: “the debtor”) concluded a contract on 7 March 2000. The debtor failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the contract.\n5.  On 11 December 2001 the Commercial Court in Belgrade instituted insolvency proceedings against the debtor. This decision was published on the court’s notice board on 19 December 2001.\n6.  On 12 March 2002 the applicant lodged its pecuniary claim within the insolvency proceedings.\n7.  As its claim had been disputed, on 11 October 2002 the applicant filed a separate civil suit before the Commercial Court in Belgrade and requested the determination of its claim.\n8.  On 2 September 2004 the Commercial Court in Belgrade determined one part of the applicant’s claim and ordered the debtor to pay the applicant 6,686.15 euros (EUR).\n9.  On an unspecified date thereafter this judgment became final.\n10.  On 4 April 2005 the Commercial Court determined the reminder of the applicant’s claim and ordered the debtor to pay the applicant EUR 11,409 as well as 80,500 Serbian dinars in respect of the costs of civil proceedings.\n11.  This judgment became final on 9 June 2005.\n12.  On 30 September 2009 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the judgment of 4 April 2005 in respect of the costs awarded. On the same day the Commercial Court in Belgrade allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.\n13.  The judgment of 2 September 2004 and the reminder of the judgment of 4 April 2005 were to be enforced in the context of the insolvency proceedings.\n14.  Before the insolvency proceedings the debtor company was predominantly socially owned. It has remained registered as predominantly socially owned in the relevant public registries throughout the insolvency proceedings.\n15.  On 18 December 2009 the Commercial Court in Belgrade terminated the insolvency proceedings against the company. This decision became final on 11 January 2011. On 1 June 2011 the debtor was erased from the Companies’ Register.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7735", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  On an unspecified date the İzmir police received an anonymous telephone message which concerned the applicant.\n6.  On 30 May 2006 the İzmir police received another phone call from the same person stating that the applicant was in the house of a certain S.T., brother of the applicant’s fiancée.\n7.  According to the house search and seizure report drafted on the same day at 1.30 p.m., the İzmir police conducted a drug-related operation targeting S.T.’s house, under the supervision of the İzmir public prosecutor. The report stated that the applicant had given a false name and resisted the police when the officers showed him their search warrant. According to the report, the applicant physically attacked and injured two officers. He then fell and hit his head on the door. Four officers handcuffed him by pinning him to the floor by the arms and shoulders. During the search, the officers found ecstasy pills in the house. They also found a weapon hidden under a sofa. The report was signed by nine police officers, the applicant and the applicant’s fiancée, Ş.T. The applicant was subsequently arrested and placed in police custody.\n8.  At 1 p.m. on the same day the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Alsancak State Hospital, who observed a two-centimetre-long laceration on the scalp with an oedema around it on the left parietal region, a bruise on the front of his neck (under the chin), a minor erythema on his right cheek, and pain and another slight erythema in the right lumbar region.\n9.  On the same day A.T.E. and M.A., two police officers from the team that had effected the applicant’s arrest, were also examined by the same doctor. The doctor observed an erythema in the abdominal region, three bruises and erythemas on the right of the back, and erythemas on both arms of A.T.E.’s body. As regards M.A., the doctor noted an erythema of 20 cm on the left arm and a bruise of 5 cm x 5 cm on the left side of the abdominal region.\n10.  At 8.40 p.m. on the same day A.T.E. and M.A gave statements to police officers in their capacity as complainants and victims. They submitted that the applicant had resisted arrest and had insulted and physically attacked them. According to the officers, the applicant had fallen and hit his head on the door and had then been arrested. At 10 p.m. the applicant gave statements to the police and alleged that he had been beaten by police officers and injured during his arrest.\n11.  On 31 May 2006 the applicant was once again examined by a doctor, who noted a red lesion measuring 2 cm x 2 cm on his right upper arm and a complaint of intense pain in the right part of his back.\n12.  On the same day the applicant was brought before the İzmir Magistrates’ Court. The judge informed him that he was charged with insulting and resisting the police officers as well as causing them injuries. The applicant denied the allegation that he had insulted and resisted the police officers. He maintained that he had been hit on the head by police officers with a weapon and beaten with truncheons and guns during the house search. The judge subsequently ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.\n13.  On 20 June 2006 the İzmir public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the İzmir Criminal Court against the applicant charging him with resisting the police, insulting public officials and possession of firearms without a licence.\n14.  During the trial, the İzmir Criminal Court t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7737", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarized as follows.\n5.  On 18 November 1994 the applicants initiated civil proceedings before the Belgrade Commercial Court against DD “Yuko Farma”, a socially-owned company from Žitište (hereinafter: “the debtor”) seeking damages arising from the debtor’s failure to fulfil conditions of contract on breed of chickens.\n6.  On 3 June 1998 the Belgrade Commercial Court accepted the applicants’ claim and ordered the debtor to pay the applicants 813,120 Serbian dinars (RSD) in respect of damage sustained, plus statutory interest and RSD 15,514.25 for legal costs.\n7.  On 5 October 1998 the Belgrade High Commercial Court quashed the judgment of 3 June 1998 and returned the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.\n8.  On 13 May 2005 the Belgrade Commercial Court dismissed the applicants’ civil suit.\n9.  On 20 October 2005 the Belgrade High Commercial Court quashed the decision of 13 May 2005 and returned the case to the first-instance court.\n10.  On 1 November 2006 the Belgrade Commercial Court stayed the proceedings due to the opening of insolvency proceedings against the debtor. On 8 November 2007 the proceedings resumed.\n11.  On 27 November 2007 the Belgrade Commercial Court declared that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case and transferred it to the Zrenjanin Commercial Court.\n12.  On 8 May 2008 the Zrenjanin Commercial Court adopted a judgment by virtue of which the debtor was ordered to pay the applicants RSD 813,120 (approximately 10,000 euros) for damages[1] and RSD 586,912.40 (approximately 7,200 euros) for their legal costs.\n13.  The judgement became final on 5 June 2008.\n14.  On 6 September 2006 the insolvency proceedings were opened against the debtor.\n15.  On 10 June 2011 the applicants[2] lodged an application for the enforcement of the judgement of 8 May 2008 in respect of the costs awarded.\n16.  On 13 June 2011 the Zrenjanin Commercial Court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.\n17.  In 16 June 2011 the applicants[3] received the payment in respect of the legal costs.\n18.  In the course of insolvency proceedings the applicants received 0,44% of the sums awarded in respect of pecuniary damages by the final judgement of 8 May 2008.\n19.  On 27 August 2008 the applicants filed a civil suit against the State under Article 172 of the Obligations Act seeking damages because of the length of the civil proceedings described above.\n20.  On 25 September 2009 the Second Municipal Court in Belgrade rejected their claim.\n21.  On 9 February 2012 the Belgrade Appellate Court upheld this judgment.\n22.  On 23 April 2012 the applicants filed an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court of Cassation.\n23.  The case is pending before the Supreme Court of Cassation.\n24.  Before the insolvency proceedings the debtor company was predominantly socially-owned. It has remained registered as predominantly socially-owned in the relevant public registries throughout the insolvency proceedings.\n25.  On 24 April 2012 the Niš Commercial Court terminated the insolvency proceedings against the company. This decision became final on 29 May 2012. On 25 July 2012 the debtor was erased from the Companies’ Register.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7738", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 9 June 1995 the Vilnius District Court dismissed an action by several private individuals against the applicant company for attribution of ownership rights to two partially built houses, nos. 57-1 and 57-2. The court declared null and void the sale contracts on the basis of which the claimants, including G.G. and M.N., had maintained their title to the houses, and recognised the ownership rights of the applicant company in respect of the houses.\n7.  The claimants’ appeal was dismissed by the Vilnius Regional Court on 5 September 1995. The court noted, inter alia, that G.G. and M.N. could request the company to cover their costs for construction of the houses. That decision was final.\n8.  On 15 July 1996 the applicant company lodged a civil claim for the eviction of G.G. from the house, no. 57-2, that had previously been attributed to the applicant company in the above-mentioned civil proceedings between G.G. and the applicant company. G.G. had unlawfully occupied the house and continued to live there, thus preventing the applicant company from enjoying its ownership rights.\n9.  From 10 January to 11 November 1997 the proceedings were suspended at G.G.’s request, because he had a pending appeal on points of law against the court decision of 9 June 1995.\n10.  In December 1998 G.G. lodged a counterclaim against the applicant company, seeking acknowledgement that he was the owner of the house. G.G. also requested that the applicant company be prohibited from disposing of or mortgaging it.\n11.  On 21 January 1999 the Vilnius Region District Court (hereinafter “the district court”) imposed a provisional measure and prohibited the applicant company from selling or transferring the disputed property, in order to secure G.G.’s counterclaim. On the same day the proceedings were suspended due to a related civil case which contained material relevant to the proceedings in question.\n12.  On 3 February 1999 a letter was sent to G.G. requesting monthly payments from him because he was unlawfully occupying the house.\n13.  On 12 May 2000 the district court suspended the enforcement of the court decision of 9 June 1995.\n14.  The civil proceedings were resumed on 28 August 2001.\n15.  On 23 May 2002 the same court allowed the applicant company’s claim. However, on 18 June 2002 the Vilnius Regional Court remitted the case for re-examination to the first-instance court. On 23 December 2002 the Supreme Court upheld that decision.\n16.  Court hearings of 8 April 2003 and 9 February 2004 were adjourned at the request of the parties, as they were involved in friendly settlement negotiations; however, the negotiations failed on both those occasions.\n17.  On 18 November 2003 the Vilnius Regional Court ordered the case to be examined by the Vilnius Regional Court as the court of first instance, having found that the district court did not have jurisdiction to examine this kind of case. At the same time the adjournment of the case which had been ordered by the latter court on 2 October 2003 was set aside.\n18.  On 7 September 2004 the Vilnius Regional Court, at the request of G.G., issued an order seizing the applicant company’s plot of land on which the house stood, to secure G.G.’s counterclaim.\n19.  The case was adjourned from 27 September to 6 December 2004 for a file from a related criminal case against G.G. to be obtained from another court.\n20.  On 23 December 2004 the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7739", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Mr E. B., is an Austrian national born in 1947.\n6.  On 23 September 1982 the Innsbruck Regional Court convicted the applicant of homosexual acts with consenting adolescents within the age bracket of 14 to 18, an offence under Article 209 of the Criminal Code, and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment. On 10 August 1983 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal reduced the sentence to seven months’ imprisonment.\n7.  On 18 November 1999 the Vienna Regional Court convicted the applicant of other offences under the same provision and sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment. On 30 March 2000 the Supreme Court partly acquitted him and reduced the sentence to one year’s imprisonment.\n8.  On 6 April 2001 the Vienna Regional Court convicted the applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. The applicant did not appeal.\n9.  All those convictions were entered in the applicant’s criminal record.\n10.  On 8 May 2006 the first applicant applied to have each conviction under Article 209 of the Criminal Code deleted from his criminal record on the grounds that Article 209 of the Criminal Code had been repealed by the Constitutional Court in the meantime. On 20 October 2006 the Federal Minister of the Interior dismissed his application.\n11.  On 29 November 2006 the applicant applied for legal aid in order to lodge a complaint against the Federal Minister’s decisions with the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court.\n12.  On 18 December 2006 the Constitutional Court dismissed the request for legal aid, holding that the applicant’s complaint had no prospect of success. It noted that in a previous judgment of 4 October 2006 it had found that the administrative authorities were only entitled to execute the orders of the criminal courts concerning registration, but that they had no competence to review on their own initiative the lawfulness of the respective order on its merits. Since a review of the lawfulness of an ordinary court’s decision by an administrative authority would be in contradiction to the separation of powers under constitutional law, the Federal Ministry of the Interior’s decision had not breached the law.\n13.  On 12 December 2006 the Administrative Court, referring to the Constitutional Court’s case-law, according to which the authorities were only entitled to check whether a mistake had occurred when a conviction was registered, but not to decide on the lawfulness of an entry on their own initiative, dismissed the applicant’s request for legal aid on the grounds that his complaint lacked any prospect of success.\n14.  On an unspecified date the first applicant lodged a request for a renewal of each set of criminal proceedings which had led to his convictions under Article 209 of the Criminal Code with the Supreme Court in order to seek the quashing of the convictions, with a view to their subsequent deletion from his criminal record.\n15.  By decisions of 27 September 2007, 23 October 2007 and 15 November 2007 respectively, the Supreme Court rejected the application. As the highest instance for criminal proceedings, it found that it had, in principle, the competence to take the necessary decisions in fulfillment of its obligations arising from the Federal Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. However, in order to safeguard the principle of legal certainty, it had to apply the same admissibility criteria as the European Court of Huma", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7740", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Bremen, Germany.\n6.  In 1996, after having worked for forty years in Ukraine, the applicant retired and began receiving a retirement pension.\n7.  From 1999 the applicant authorised his mother to receive his pension.\n8.  In August 2000 the applicant emigrated to Germany. Prior to his departure, he was supposed to inform the local department of the Pension Fund that he was leaving for permanent residence abroad and to receive six months’ pension payments in advance, with subsequent termination of all pension payments during the whole period of his stay abroad (see Relevant domestic law below). However, the applicant did not follow this procedure and his mother continued to receive his pension after his departure. The monthly amount of the applicant’s pension varied from 107 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH), which was equivalent of around 21 euros (EUR) at the material time, in February 2001 to UAH 365.41 (EUR 58) in September 2005 and totalled in UAH 10,872.40.\n9.  On 23 September 2005, on discovering that the applicant was no longer resident in Ukraine, the Zaporizhzhya Leninskiy District Department of the Pension Fund (hereinafter “the Pension Fund Department”) took a decision in accordance with Section 49 § 1 (2) of the General State Pension (Obligatory Insurance) Act to terminate pension payments to the applicant with effect from 1 September 2005 on the ground that he lived permanently abroad.\n10.  At the request of the Pension Fund Department, on 6 April 2006 the Zaporizhzhya Leninskiy District Court (hereinafter “the District Court”) ordered the applicant to pay back the amount of UAH 10,872.40 Ukrainian hryvnias unlawfully received after his emigration. This judgment was upheld by the higher courts and became final, but remained unenforced.\n11.  On 8 September 2008 the Zaporizhzhya Leninskiy District Police Department refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant for allegedly unlawful receipt of pension between 2001 and 2005 for lack of corpus delicti in his actions.\n12.  On 7 October 2009 the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the provisions on the basis of which the applicant’s pension payments had been terminated (see Relevant domestic law below).\n13.  On 12 October 2009, following the above decision of the Constitutional Court, the applicant requested the Pension Fund Department to restore his pension payments. By a letter of 10 February 2010 the Pension Fund Department, referring to the Pension Fund letter of 28 December 2009 concerning the procedure for application of the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, informed the applicant that the above decision of the Constitutional Court applied only to those who had left for abroad after 7 October 2009 and that therefore there were no legal grounds for the restoration of his pension payments. On 3 September 2010 the applicant challenged the above interpretation of the Constitutional Court decision by the Pension Fund before the Kyiv Administrative Court, which rejected his complaint as submitted too late.\n14.  On 20 October 2009 the applicant applied to the District Court for revision of its judgment of 6 April 2006 on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances, referring to the decision of the Constitutional Court of 7 October 2009. On 2 December 2009 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Prosecutor’s Office (the ZRPO) made a similar application to the same court, acting in the applicant’s interests. On 29 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7741", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1987, 1992 and 1968 respectively. They all live in Kraków.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 1988 the first applicant, represented by the third applicant, filed with the Kraków Regional Court an application under the New York Convention of 20 June 1956 on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance (“the New York Convention”) for the recovery of maintenance from his father, P.M., a Greek national. The first applicant requested that the Greek authorities institute court proceedings with the aim of recovering the maintenance and enforce any decision that might be given by the Greek courts.\n7.  On 23 March 1988 the Kraków Regional Court, acting as the Transmitting Agency under the New York Convention, transmitted the application to the Greek Ministry of Justice (“the Greek Ministry”), which acted as the Receiving Agency.\n8.  On 13 July 1988 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that the debtor had been summoned but had failed to appear, and that the case had been referred to the Law Department of the Ministry for Macedonia and Thrace for further action.\n9.  On 5 August 1989 the Kraków Regional Court wrote to the Greek Ministry requesting information about the progress in the recovery of the maintenance. It appears that in reply the Greek Ministry resent its letter of 13 July 1988.\n10.  On 22 January 1990, in response to the query from the Kraków Regional Court, the third applicant informed the court that the first applicant had not received any maintenance payments from the debtor.\n11.  On 29 January 1990 the Kraków Regional Court requested the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to intervene in the case. The Ministry requested the assistance of the Polish Embassy in Athens.\n12.  On 3 September 1990 the third applicant and P.M. signed an agreement stipulating that P.M. would pay 10,000 Greek drachmas (29.35 EUR) in maintenance to the first applicant monthly for a period of two years.\n13.  On 1 October 1990 the third applicant again informed the Kraków Regional Court that she had not received any maintenance payments from the debtor.\n14.  On 2 November 1990, upon a request filed by the first applicant, the Kraków Regional Court once again requested the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to intervene in the proceedings.\n15.  On 19 December 1990 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that the third applicant had hired a Greek lawyer to act in the divorce and maintenance proceedings. In the lawyer’s opinion, there were good prospects of reaching a friendly settlement in the case. Consequently, the Greek Ministry considered that its intervention at that point was not required. However, it would continue to monitor the situation and inform the Kraków Regional Court of any further developments. The applicant contested the Greek Government’s assertion that she had hired a Greek lawyer.\n16.  On 19 November 1992 P.M. acknowledged before a notary his intention to pay 10,000 Greek drachmas in monthly maintenance to the first applicant until he reached the age of 18. He also promised to pay 260,000 drachmas (763.02 EUR) for the period up to 31 December 1992. The monthly maintenance payments were to be deposited on an account at the National Bank of Greece. This notarial deed was declared enforceable.\n17.  On 17 February 1993 the Greek Ministry informed the Kraków Regional Court that P.M. had acknowledged his obligation to pay maintenance to the first applicant. It requested the Kraków Regional Court to p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7742", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1958 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Odessa following his conviction in criminal proceedings subsequent and unrelated to those examined in the present case.\n8.  On 4 December 2003 the applicant was convicted of possession of illegal drugs and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. However, the sentence was suspended and he was put on probation. It was his third conviction for a drug-related offence.\n9.  On 12 May 2004 the Khadzhybeyivskyy Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against an individual, Mr B., on suspicion of possession of illegal drugs. In the course of the investigation Mr B. stated that he had bought the drugs from the applicant.\n10.  On 18 May 2004 the investigator applied to the Odessa Suvorivskyy District Court (hereafter – “the Suvorivskyy Court”), seeking authorisation of a search of the applicant’s home with a view to verifying Mr B.’s statement.\n11.  On 19 May 2004 the Suvorivskyy Court authorised the police search, having agreed that it was required for the criminal investigation to progress.\n12.  According to the authorities, on 2 July 2004 an undercover police agent bought 1.9 millilitres of liquid opium from the applicant, having paid him 30 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in banknotes previously marked with a luminous substance. The undercover operation was followed by a search, in the course of which the police seized the aforementioned banknotes from the applicant and equipment used for drug production that was found in his house. They also discovered a condom filled with liquid opium in his pocket.\n13.  According to the applicant, on 2 July 2004 while he was repairing his car in the yard, a group of policemen in plain clothes broke into his property without identifying themselves or giving reasons for their intrusion and started beating him. One of the officers grabbed the applicant’s hair and pulled him into the house, where the beating continued. The applicant was then handcuffed, after which the police planted the liquid opium and the pre-marked banknotes on him. The applicant further alleged that the house search had been conducted in a chaotic and violent manner. While it was going on, he had been lying on the floor, handcuffed, in one of the rooms. From time to time, a number of officers had approached him, sworn at him and beaten him.\n14.  The applicant’s parents and wife, as well as his acquaintance Mr Zh., who happened to be in the house at the time, witnessed the search.\n15.  The applicant gave a written explanation to the police in which he stated that he was a drug addict and produced liquid opium for his own use. While admitting that the police had found some liquid opium and poppy straw, as well as some money in his trousers, the applicant denied selling drugs.\n16.  According to the search report, signed by the police officers involved, two attesting witnesses and the applicant, the search lasted from 4 to 7.30 p.m.\n17.  The undercover agent reported in writing to his superior on the same date that he had received the pre-marked banknotes at 5 p.m. and that he had bought the liquid opium from the applicant at about 6 p.m.\n18.  After the search was completed, the police arrested the applicant and took him to Khadzhybeyivskyy Police Station “for further inquiries”.\n19.  On 3 July 2004 the applicant was examined by a neurosurgeon in the city hospital (see also paragraph 30 below). The medical certificate issued by the doctor read as follows:\n“No f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7743", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Ravne Na Koroškem.\n5.  On 21 December 1992 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela v Ljubljani) concerning his disability allowances.\n6.  Between 17 March 1993 and 28 June 1994 when the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia, the court held three main hearings.\n7 Between 21 February 1994 and 16 May 1996 the court sent to the applicant’s employer ten requests to provide information on the calculation of the allowances that the applicant had been receiving.\n8.  On 12 November 1996 the court held a main hearing and requested the defendant’s auditor to establish, on the basis of documentation, the information that the applicant’s employer had failed to submit.\n9.  At the hearing on 17 October 1997 the court established that the defendant’s auditor failed to fulfill the task delegated by the court and decided to appoint an expert on finance.\n11.  On 10 October 1998 the (renamed) Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) held a hearing and issued its decision, dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 11 November 1999 the Higher Labour and Social Court granted the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case back to the first instance court.\n13.  After three hearings had been held between 22 March 2001 and 3 September 2002 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court issued its decision, dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 22 August 2005 and 22 September 2005 the applicant urged the Higher Labour and Social Court to issue a decision.\n15.  On 24 November 2005 the Higher Labour and Social Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n16.  On 2 October 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\n17.  On 22 January 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal. The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 30 January 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7744", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Kharkiv.\n7.  At about 11 a.m. on 18 July 2005 several police officers in civilian clothes came to the hostel where the applicant lived, and invited him to come with them to their office. The applicant followed the officers, who took him to the Kominternivskyy District police station (hereafter “the police station”).\n8.  On arrival the applicant was notified that the police had received complaints from two mothers implicating him in sexual abuse of their minor daughters, and was questioned on this matter.\n9.  At about 5 p.m. on the same day the applicant confessed to the offence and signed permission for the police to inspect his home.\n10.  At about 6 p.m. seven or eight police officers, including those who had questioned the applicant, took him back to the hostel, examined his room, seized a bed cover, a rug and some of the applicant’s personal belongings, and brought the applicant back to the police station. No documentary record of his arrest was drawn up at that stage.\n11.  At about 7 p.m. on 19 July 2005 the applicant, who was still at the police station, had a first meeting with a lawyer, hired for him by his relatives.\n12.  At about 8.40 p.m. on the same date the police investigator B. drew up an arrest report, stating that the applicant had been arrested at that hour as a crime suspect on the basis of Article 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n13.  On 22 July 2005 the applicant was brought before a judge of the Kominternivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”), who remanded him in custody for ten days pending gathering of personal information to determine feasibility of his further detention.\n14.  On 29 July 2005 the applicant was released subject to an undertaking not to abscond.\n15.  In September 2005 one of the two mothers who had made the complaint of sexual abuse of their daughters withdrew her complaint against the applicant, stating that it had been lodged under pressure from the police.\n16.  The parties did not inform the Court of any outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.\n17.  During the evening of 18 July 2005 the concierge of the applicant’s hostel and three of his neighbours informed the Kharkiv Human Rights Group (a non-profit organisation), that they had seen the applicant leaving the hostel with the police officers at about 11 a.m. that day. They noted that at that time the applicant had been sober, neatly dressed and in good health. They had also seen him some seven hours later, when the police had brought him back for his room to be searched. They had noticed that the applicant was limping, stooping, and had bruises and swellings on his face, and that his clothes were dirty and wrinkled. Some neighbours also mentioned that the applicant had arrived handcuffed and that the police officers had prevented him from explaining to the neighbours what was going on.\n18.  At about 10 p.m. on the same date an unidentified person telephoned the police hotline, demanding an investigation of the applicant’s arrest and detention.\n19.  At about 10.30 p.m. on the same date M.K., the Kominternivskyy District Police Deputy Chief Officer, arrived to investigate the complaint received via the hotline, and interviewed the applicant, who complained that he had been ill-treated by the police. The Deputy Chief Officer also questioned the police officers, who stated that the applicant had injured himself.\n20.  At about 10 a.m. on 19 July 2005 the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7745", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1972. Until 2 November 2012 he was detained in Nizhniy Novgorod. He is currently held in detention in Andijan, Uzbekistan.\n8.  Until 2009 the applicant and his family were living in the Zhalokuduk District of the Andijan Region, located in the Fergana Valley of Uzbekistan. He transported goods to the nearby villages in a cart pulled by a donkey. The applicant is a practising Muslim. In 1995 he started performing Salah and attending a mosque.\n9.  In 2007 the applicant’s passport (“the old passport”) expired, and, to apply for its renewal, he completed a “form no. 1”, a questionnaire containing his personal details and the old passport number. On 29 March 2007 he was issued with a new passport (“the current passport”). The original form no. 1 was filed at the local branch of the Department of the Interior of the Andijan Region, Uzbekistan.\n10.  According to the applicant, in March 2009 he learned of the arrest of a neighbour with whom he had regularly performed Salah. Being aware of the widespread practice of torture in detention in Uzbekistan, he decided to leave the country for fear of arrest on fabricated charges and torture in custody.\n11.  On 11 March 2009 the applicant arrived in Russia via the Moscow Domodedovo International Airport (“Domodedovo Airport”). On 23 July 2009 he was issued with a temporary residence permit valid until August 2012. He lived in Dzerzhinsk in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region, until his arrest. His wife and a minor daughter live in Andijan.\nB  Criminal proceedings against the applicant in Uzbekistan\n12.  On 26 August 2009 the Investigative Unit of the Andijan Regional Department of the Interior brought criminal proceedings against a group of persons, apparently including the applicant, on suspicion of setting up a criminal group attempting to overthrow the constitutional order of the Uzbek State.\n13.  On 16 September 2009 the above-mentioned department issued two separate formal statements of charges against the applicant. Both decisions specified that he had been charged in absentia with involving minors in criminal activity (Article 127 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan (“the UCC”)), terrorism (Article 155 § 1 of the UCC), incitement to hatred and hostility giving rise to discrimination on grounds of race and religion by an organised group and by means dangerous to the public (Article 156 § 3), conspiracy to overthrow the Uzbek State’s constitutional order (Article 159 § 4), unlawful crossing of the State border (Article 223 § 3 (b)), repeated forgery of official documents and use of the fabricated documents (Article 228 § 2 (a), (b)), setting up a criminal group (Article 242 § 1), producing and disseminating documents containing ideas of religious extremism, separatism and fundamentalism, and threats to national security and public order (Article 244(1) § 3 (a) of the UCC), setting up, managing and participating in extremist, separatist, fundamentalist and other banned organisations (Article 244(2) § 1 of the UCC), and smuggling material disseminating extremist, separatist and radical fundamentalist ideas (Article 246 of the UCC).\n14.  The first statement of charges, issued in respect of the applicant only, began with an outline of Uzbek State policy in the sphere of the fight against religious extremism and, in particular, referred to the events of 2005 in the Fergana Valley as an armed attempt to seize State power conducted by members of the extremist ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7746", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants in application no. 29381/09 live together as a couple in Athens. In the case of application no. 32684/09, the first and second applicants and the third and fourth applicants have lived together for a long time as couples in Athens. The fifth and sixth applicants are in a relationship together but for professional and social reasons do not live together. As shown by their bank statements, the sixth applicant pays the fifth applicant’s social security contributions. The seventh applicant is a not‑for-profit association the aims of which include providing psychological and moral support to gays and lesbians.\n9.  On 26 November 2008 Law no. 3719/2008, entitled “Reforms concerning the family, children and society”, came into force. It made provision for the first time in Greece for an official form of partnership other than marriage, known as “civil unions” (σύμφωνο συμβίωσης). Under section 1 of the Law, such unions can be entered into only by two adults of different sex.\n10.  According to the explanatory report on Law no. 3719/2008, the introduction of civil unions reflected a social reality, namely cohabitation outside marriage, and allowed the persons concerned to register their relationship within a more flexible legal framework than that provided by marriage. The report added that the number of children born in Greece to unmarried couples living in de facto partnerships had increased over time and by then represented around 5% of all children being born in the country. It further noted that the position of women left without any support after a long period of cohabitation, and the phenomenon of single-parent families generally, were major issues which called for a legislative response. However, the report pointed out that the status of religious marriage remained unparalleled and, alongside civil marriage, represented the best option for couples wishing to found a family with a maximum of legal, financial and social safeguards. The report also made reference to Article 8 of the Convention, which protected non-marital unions from the standpoint of the right to private and family life, and observed that a number of European countries afforded legal recognition to some form of registered partnership for different-sex or same-sex couples. Without elaborating further, it noted that civil unions were reserved for different-sex adults. It concluded that they represented a new form of partnership and not a kind of “flexible marriage”. The report considered that the institution of marriage would not be weakened by the new legislation, as it was governed by a different set of rules.\n11.  A lively debate preceded the implementation of Law no. 3719/2008. The Church of Greece spoke out officially against it. In a press release issued on 17 March 2008 by the Holy Synod, it described civil unions as “prostitution”. The Minister of Justice, meanwhile, addressed the competent parliamentary commission in the following terms:\n“... We believe that we should not go any further. Same-sex couples should not be included. We are convinced that the demands and requirements of Greek society do not justify going beyond this point. In its law-making role, the ruling political party is accountable to the people of Greece. It has its own convictions and has debated this issue; I believe this is the way forward.”\n12.  The National Human Rights Commission, in its observations of 14 July 2008 on the bill, referred in particular to the concept of fami", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7747", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n6.  Shamkhan Khaysumov, born in 1954;\n7.  Shamset Khaysumova, born in 1966;\n8.  Tamara Tabulayeva, born in 1931;\n9.  Magomed Alaudinov, born in 1920 (died in 2009);\n10.  Larisa Alaudinova, born in 1968.\nThe first, second and third applicants were living in the village of Martan-Chu, Urus-Martan district; the remainder were living in Grozny, Chechnya. 6.  The ten applicants in this case belong to three separate families. One member of each family was detained on 17 April 2000 in Grozny and taken to the premises of the Oktyabrskiy district temporary department of the interior (“VOVD”). The three individuals disappeared following their detention, and the applicants conducted the search together. For about five years the disappearances were investigated within the set of criminal proceedings concerning the torture of Mr Alaudin Sadykov, who had been detained at the Oktyabrskiy VOVD between March and May 2000 (see Sadykov v. Russia, no. 41840/02, 7 October 2010) and the disappearance of Magomed Dzhabayev in March 2000 (see Dzhabayeva v. Russia, no. 13310/04, 2 April 2009). 7.  The first two applicants are the parents of Luiza Dagayeva (maiden name Bopayeva), born in 1972. The third applicant is their son and a brother of Luiza Dagayeva. Luiza Dagayeva was married to Arbi Dagayev; they had two children – Ramzan, born in 1992, and Petimat Dagayeva, born in 1996. At the material time Luiza Dagayeva was pregnant with her third child, although the exact term of her pregnancy is unclear (different witnesses mentioned that she was four, five and seven months pregnant). 8.  In April 2000 Luiza Dagayeva and her family were living in Urus-Martan. On 17 April 2000 Luiza Dagayeva travelled to Grozny to check her flat, situated in Veterinarnaya Street. A relative, Fatima O., travelled with her from Urus-Martan and testified that between 11 a.m. and 12 noon on that day she saw Luiza Dagayeva enter the courtyard of the five-storey building on Minutka Square where her flat was located. One of the offices of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD was situated in nearby Ukrainskaya Street. 9.  According to the applicants, an unidentified woman saw Luiza Dagayeva and her neighbour, Sharip Khaysumov, being arrested in the courtyard of that building by a group of police officers from the Oktyabrskiy VOVD, who put cloth sacks over their heads. The woman related that information to the second applicant on the following day when he went to Grozny to look for his daughter. She described the clothes Luiza Dagayeva had been wearing, as well as those of Sharip Khaysumov. Other witnesses saw two men and a woman whose heads had been covered with cloth being taken to the premises of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD in Ukrainskaya Street on the same day.\n11.  The fourth and fifth applicants are the parents of Sharip Khaysumov, born in 1956. The sixth and seventh applicants are Sharip Khaysumov’s brother and sister. Sharip Khaysumov owned a small café in Grozny near his flat in Lenina Street.\n12.  When the hostilities started in October 1999, Sharip Khaysumov and his family left Grozny and moved to Novye Atagi. In March 2000 the sixth applicant returned to Grozny. On 17 April 2000 Sharip Khaysumov went to Grozny to help the sixth applicant. He told the sixth applicant that he would go and check his flat, but he did not return.\n13.  On 18 April 2000 the sixth applicant went to the passport section of the Oktyabrskiy VOVD to ask about his brother. Several people who were queuing at", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7749", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Ljubljana.\n5.  On 5 May 1986 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against six defendants before the Ljubljana Basic Court claiming non-pecuniary damages for defamation.\n6.  By 28 June 1994 when the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia, the court had scheduled eight main hearings which were all adjourned.\n7.  A hearing was scheduled for 19 September 1994 but was adjourned after the applicant had on 15 September 1994 lodged a motion for the referral of the matter to a Labour and social Court.\n8.  On 19 September 1994 the applicant’s motion was dismissed.\n9.  By 17 September 1998 when the Ljubljana District Court held a main hearing further four scheduled hearings had been postponed, one at the request of the applicant. On the latter date the court issued its decision, granting the applicant’s claim. The defendants appealed.\n10.  On 29 March 2000 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeal and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n11.  On 8 March 2001 the Supreme Court granted the applicant’s appeal on points of law and remitted the case back to the second instance court which on 21 June 2002 issued a decision to remit the case back to the first instance court.\n12.  On 29 November 2002 the applicant requested that a scheduled main hearing be postponed due to health reasons.\n13.  The hearing scheduled for 10 March 2003 was postponed after the applicant had on 6 March 2003 lodged a motion for suspension of the presiding judge, a motion to have disciplinary proceedings instituted against the judge, a motion to have the presiding judge excluded and a motion to transfer the case to another court.\n14.  On 23 April 2003 the Ljubljana District Court imposed a fine on the applicant for abusing procedural rights and for contempt of court.\n15.  On 25 May 2004 the applicant made a motion to have the case transferred to another court. On 24 June 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the motion.\n16.  On 31 May 2004 a main hearing was held. The applicant did not appear at the hearing.\n17.  On 11 November 2004 the court held a main hearing and issued its decision, dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.\n18.  On 15 June 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n19.  On 9 October 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\n20.  On 3 November 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 6 November 2010.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7750", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Until 1994 the applicants lived and worked as farmers in the villages of Kuşkonar and Koçağılı, which were located close to each other in a mountainous area within the administrative jurisdiction of the province of Şırnak, in south-east Turkey.\n6.  The events which took place on 26 March 1994 are disputed by the parties. Thus, the parties’ submissions will be set out separately. The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 7-19). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraph 20). The documentary evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 21-87).\n7.  In 1994 PKK[1] activity in the area where the applicants’ villages were located was at its peak and frequent armed clashes were taking place between PKK members and the Turkish security forces. A number of the surrounding villages whose residents had refused to become village guards[2] were evacuated by the security forces who suspected that those villagers had been providing logistical support to the PKK. Villages whose residents had become village guards, on the other hand, were being subjected to armed attacks by members of the PKK. The applicants and other residents of their two villages had refused to become village guards and the security forces believed that the PKK was being assisted by them.\n8.  The military considered that, so long as the villages in the area continued to exist, their fight against the PKK would not be successful, and carried out a big military operation in order to evacuate the villages forcibly. During the operation almost all the villages in the area were either bombed or set on fire by the soldiers and their residents were forced to flee. The circumstances surrounding the destruction of one such village in that particular region were examined by the Court in its judgment in the case of Ahmet Özkan and Others v. Turkey (no. 21689/93, §§ 404-408, 6 April 2004). According to a report prepared by the Turkish Parliament, 3,428 villages had been evacuated in east and south-east Turkey between 1987 and1996.\n9.  In the morning of 26 March 1994 most male residents of the applicants’ two villages were working in the fields outside the villages. As the weather was sunny, most of the children were playing outside. The women and the elderly were either in their homes or sitting on the terraces outside their houses. When they first heard aircraft flying nearby at around 10.30 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. they did not get scared because military planes and helicopters often flew in the area for reconnaissance and bombing missions against the PKK on the mountains. Such missions had never caused any damage to the villagers or to their villages. Furthermore, there were no PKK members in the village at the time.\n10.  That day, however, military planes and a helicopter circled the applicants’ two villages and then started to bomb them. The bombs dropped from the planes were very large; some villagers described them “as big as a table”. Subsequently, machine gun fire was opened from the helicopter. Some of the people were hit directly and some were trapped under the rubble of the houses that were destroyed in the bombing. Those who survived tried to take cover. The men working in the nearby fields ran to the village and tried to rescue people from underneath the rubble.\n11.  As a result, 13 people in Koçağılı village and 25 people in Kuşkonar village lost their lives. Mo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7752", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1920 and resides in Vilnius.\n6.  In 2000, the local authorities restored the applicant’s rights to part of a plot of land located near house no. 43 in Svajonių street in the Valakupiai neighbourhood in Vilnius. The plot had belonged to her late mother, but had been nationalised in the 1940s.\n7.  The applicant brought an action against the Vilnius local authority, claiming restitution of her property rights to the remaining 0.33 hectares of the plot in natura.\n8.  On 21 December 2001 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed her action as unsubstantiated. It noted that in the Government ruling no. 239 (see Relevant domestic law and practice part below) the area where the plot was located was designated as a forest of national importance. Given that such forests were to be bought out by the State, in accordance with Article 13 of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to Existing Real Property enacted in 1997 (hereinafter “the Law on Restitution”), there was no legal basis to grant the applicant’s action. The court also implied that the applicant could obtain restitution in another form, as Article 16 of the Law on Restitution provided.\n9.  On 12 February 2002 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision and granted the applicant’s action. On the basis of topographic plans provided by the local authorities the court found that the disputed plot of land was situated adjacent to the buildings that belonged to the applicant. The court noted that the documents concerning the return in natura of that plot had been prepared before the Government ruling no. 239 was adopted. Nevertheless, that ruling merely noted that 13,990 hectares of land constituted forests of national importance; the boundaries of those plots had not been marked. For the appellate court, there were no factual data to support the claim that the disputed 0.33 hectares of land were in a forest of national importance. The court also noted that by a letter of 23 March 2001 the Vilnius local authority had confirmed that the boundaries of forests of national importance in Valakupiai neighbourhood had not [yet] been established. Lastly, and as it had been confirmed by the Vilnius local authority, there were no other obstacles to return the plot in natura.\nThe appellate court thus ordered the Vilnius local authority to restore the applicant’s rights to “the 0.33 hectares of land adjacent to the house no. 43 in Svajonių street in Vilnius”. That decision became final and effective.\n10.  In 2003, the applicant brought an action against the Vilnius local authority, complaining that the decision of 12 February 2002 had not been executed.\n11.  On 31 October 2003 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court granted her action, obliging the Vilnius local authority to take relevant measures to execute the court decision of 12 February 2002. The court noted that the local authority had not established any additional circumstance, which had materialised after 12 February 2002, that would make it impossible to restore the property rights in natura.\n12.  The Vilnius local authority appealed, arguing that the disputed plot in fact was in the forest of national importance. It noted that, contrary to what had been concluded by the lower court, there was new evidence to that effect. Firstly, on 7 August 2002 the Ministry of Environment had presented a report no. 08-03-4386 stating that the forest did include the plot; the local ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7753", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Akademija, Kaunas Region.\n6.  In 1994 a local authority assigned a plot of land of 0.5 hectares to the applicant. On 6 August 1996 the Kaunas Region Administration confirmed the sale of the land to the applicant.\n7.  By an agreement of 24 September 1996 she acquired the plot of land from the State for 61 “single-use investment vouchers” (investiciniai čekiai) and registered it with the Land Registry in her name.\n8.  The applicant then grew vegetables on the plot and sold them at the market.\n9.  Following a civil claim brought in December 2001 by third parties seeking restoration of ownership rights to that plot, on 2 October 2003 the Kaunas Regional Court, acting as a court of appeal, quashed the authorities’ decision of 6 August 1996 as unlawful, and cancelled the sale of the disputed plot of land, which then had to be returned to the State. It was concluded that the authorities did not have the right to sell that plot of land as the former owners had already in 1991 lodged a request for restoration of their property rights to the nationalised property. It was also decided to remit the case to the first-instance court for the determination of questions of restitution and compensation, as the land-sale agreement had now been declared null and void. On 6 February 2004 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal on points of law as out of time.\n10.  After the plot of land was taken from the applicant by the State, it was transferred to the former owners following a decision of 16 September 2005 by the Kaunas Region Administration to restore ownership rights to T.M.K. and J.R.\n11.  After the case had been remitted to the first-instance court an independent expert was appointed in the proceedings.\n12.  A valuation of the plot was carried out by an independent and certified valuer, which included a comprehensive assessment of the characteristics of that plot of land and estimated its value by comparing market prices.\n13.  It was established that the plot’s market value in September 2005 was 112,500 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 32,580 euros (EUR)) while in August 1996 it had amounted to LTL 18,000. Nonetheless, the Kaunas Regional Court, acting as a court of first instance, on 5 October 2006 decided to award the applicant LTL 1,466 (approximately EUR 430), noting that that price corresponded to the sum the applicant had paid in single-use investment vouchers in 1996.\n14.  On 26 February 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court and rejected the applicant’s arguments that Article 6.147 § 2 of the Civil Code had to be applied by awarding the applicant the highest value of the property, as she had been deprived of it because of error by the State authorities.\n15.  On 8 May 2007 the Supreme Court refused to accept the applicant’s cassation appeal for examination, on the ground that her appeal raised no important legal issues.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7754", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Ҫanakkale.\n6.  On 26 June 2005 following an undercover police operation, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of selling illegal drugs.\n7.  According to the police records issued at the Avcılar police station, after having been informed by an unidentified source that the applicant had been trafficking illegal drugs, two officers contacted him by telephone to purchase a fix of heroin for 40 Turkish liras (TRY)[1]. Subsequently, the officers met the applicant at an address they had determined on the telephone, where he tried to sell them a light brown substance, which they suspected to be heroin, wrapped in a piece of paper. In exchange, the officers gave him TRY 40 in banknotes, the serial numbers of which had been noted before. The applicant was arrested immediately afterwards.\n8.  Following his arrest, the police found four other small packages of the same substance and a syringe on the applicant. The police records noted that the total weight of the substance, including that sold to the police officers, was 2.2 grams. The substance was then sent to the Istanbul Criminal Police Laboratory for chemical examination.\n9.  On the same day the applicant gave statements to the police in the presence of a lawyer. He maintained that the police officers had searched him while he had been sitting in front of his house and found a syringe and four small packages of heroin, which he had bought from a certain A. for TRY 120 two days before, for his own personal use. The applicant denied that he had sold heroin and argued that he had only had TRY 35 on him at the time of the search.\n10.  Later that day, the Avcılar Directorate of Security informed the officers at the Avcılar police station that a warrant had been issued for the applicant’s arrest following a previous conviction by the Küçükçekmece Assize Court for using illegal drugs.\n11.  On 27 June 2005 the Istanbul Criminal Police Laboratory established that the light brown substance, which had a net weight of 2.1 grams, was indeed heroin.\n12.  On the same day the applicant was questioned by the Küçükçekmece Criminal Magistrates’ Court. He submitted that he had been using drugs for more than twenty years and that he purchased a certain amount of heroin from A. every four days for his own consumption. The investigating judge held that he should be placed in detention pending the outcome of the proceedings.\n13.  Subsequently, on 11 July 2005 the Bakırköy public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Bakırköy Assize Court, accusing the applicant of possession of and trafficking illegal drugs under Article 188 (3) of the Criminal Code (Law no. 5237).\n14.  In the meantime, it was established that the applicant had previous convictions for using and selling heroin and for attempted theft.\n15.  During the course of the proceedings before the Bakırköy Assize Court, at a hearing on 14 September 2005 the applicant maintained that he was merely an addict and that the police records falsely stated that he had accepted money in exchange for drugs.\n16.  At a subsequent hearing on 14 October 2005 two police officers made statements. One of them submitted that after being informed that the applicant had been selling drugs, another police officer, C.D., had called the applicant on the telephone and arranged a meeting to buy a certain amount of the illegal substance. The applicant’s lawyer argued that the police evidence was unlawful in that the officers had condu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7755", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born on 19 June 1956 and lives in Tryškiai.\n6.  He joined the Lithuanian army during the 1990s. In 2003 and 2004 respectively the Commander of the Armed Forces awarded him the “Exemplary Service” and “Merit” medals.\n7.  On 5 August 2002 the Commander of the Armed Forces and the applicant, who had the military rank of senior non-commissioned officer (vyriausiasis puskarininkis), concluded a five-year professional service contract. That contract was to come to an end on 5 August 2007. The contract also stipulated that in certain circumstances and in accordance with the rules provided for by the Law on Military Service (hereinafter – “LMS”, see paragraph 43 below), it could be rescinded even before that date (point 6 of the applicant’s contract).\n8.  In 2003 the applicant graduated from the College of Management, Law and Languages of Šiauliai Region and obtained professional qualifications as a lawyer. These were higher-level non-university studies (aukštosios neuniversitetinės studijos).\n9.  By order of the Commander of the Armed Forces of 18 April 2003 the applicant was assigned military code 42701 as a human resources specialist.\n10.  On 16 August 2005 the applicant’s duties changed: he was transferred to the post of assistant on legal matters (vado padėjėjas teisės klausimais) to the Commanding Officer of the Grand Duke Vaidotas battalion.\n11.  On 1 March 2006 the daily Kauno Diena published an article ‘War without constitutional rights’ (Karas be konstitucinių teisių), which was written after the applicant had approached the newspaper with criticism of the new Army Disciplinary Statute, adopted by the Lithuanian Seimas almost unanimously a couple of months previously. In the article the applicant argued that the new Disciplinary Statute restricted a serviceman’s defence rights when he was the subject of disciplinary proceedings. In particular, the Statute was vague on servicemen’s right to acquaint themselves with the substance of any internal investigation report against them. The applicant also claimed that during disciplinary proceedings a serviceman had only a limited opportunity to have recourse to legal representation, which in his view was particularly harmful, since few servicemen had the proper legal knowledge to defend themselves in person. The article further stated that the applicant, discontented with the new Statute, had conveyed his observations and suggestions to the President of the Republic, asking the latter to veto the Statute. According to Presidential office sources, the President took account of the applicant’s proposals but decided to promulgate the Statute anyway. The Chairman of the Committee of National Security of the Seimas commented that the Committee had received numerous suggestions in connection with the text of the Statute, all of which had been given serious consideration before the Statute was adopted.\n12.  On 1 March 2006 the applicant’s superiors initiated an internal investigation into the applicant’s actions as regards his communication with journalists from the daily Kauno Diena and contact with the State President.\n13.  On 13 March 2006 Kauno Diena published a new article, ‘Criticism of the Statute angers the Ministry [of Defence] (Statuto kritika užrūstino ministeriją)’. The article noted that the Ministry of Defence had initiated an internal investigation after the publication of the first article. It further quoted the applicant as stating that, disappointed with the S", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7756", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Ludvika.\n12.  In September 2002, when she was 14 years old, she discovered that her stepfather had hidden a video-camera in the laundry basket in the bathroom, which was in recording mode and directed towards the spot where she had undressed before taking a shower. Immediately after the incident, the film was burned without anyone seeing it.\n13.  In September 2004, two years later, the applicant’s mother reported the incident to the police. An officially appointed counsel (målsägandebiträde) was assigned to the applicant on 5 October 2004.\n14.  On 21 October 2005 the public prosecutor indicted the applicant’s stepfather for sexual molestation (sexuellt ofredande) under Chapter 6, Article 7 § 3, of the Penal Code. He was also charged on two counts of sexual molestation of the applicant’s cousin, committed during the spring and summer of 2003 when the cousin was 16 years old, for having caressed her thigh and for having expressed his desire to have sex with her. He was charged on a fourth count of sexual molestation for having allegedly looked through the window of the applicant’s room when she was undressing in the late summer of 2003.\n15.  On 20 January 2006 the applicant, represented by counsel, submitted a claim for damages of 25,000 Swedish kronor (SEK): SEK 15,000 in compensation for violation of her personal integrity and SEK 10,000 for pain and suffering, to be joined to the criminal proceedings. The applicant based her private claim on “the criminal act for which her stepfather was being prosecuted”, without invoking any specific sections of the Tort Liability Act.\n16.  The applicant, her stepfather, her mother and her cousin gave evidence before the District Court of Falun (Falu Tingsrätt). The applicant explained that on the relevant day in September 2002, as she was about to take a shower, her stepfather had been doing something in the bathroom. When she discovered the camera, it was in recording mode, making a buzzing sound and flashing. She did not touch any of the buttons. She went to her mother in tears, taking the video-camera wrapped in a towel. H stepfather took the camera from her mother. Subsequently, the applicant saw her mother and stepfather burning a film, but she was not sure whether it was a recording of her.\n17.  The applicant’s mother confirmed the applicant’s statement and added that she did not know whether anything had been recorded since the film had been burned without her seeing it. She had not reported the incident to the police until 2004, when she had heard that the applicant’s cousin had also experienced incidents with the accused.\n18.  The applicant’s stepfather explained that he had lived with her mother from 1997 until the autumn of 2003. They had separated on account of the incident in question, among other things. He had wanted to try to film with a hidden camera, but it had been an impulsive act. He was not sure whether the camera had been in recording mode or whether a film had been recorded. The applicant’s mother had burned the film without any of them seeing it.\n19.  By a judgment of 14 February 2006, the District Court convicted the applicant’s stepfather on all four counts of sexual molestation under Chapter 6, Article 7 § 3, of the Penal Code. As regards the first count of sexual molestation, it found it established that he had had a sexual intention in hiding the camera in the laundry basket and directing it at the part of the bathroom wh", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7757", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Zagreb.\n6.  On 5 October 2006, by a final decision of the Nova Gradiška Social Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Nova Gradiška), the applicant adopted a three-year old child. At that time the applicant was a self-employed businesswoman living in Zagreb.\n7.  On 16 October 2006 the applicant submitted a request to the Zagreb office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund (Hrvatski zavod za zdravstveno osiguranje Područni ured u Zagrebu) seeking to establish her right to paid maternity leave.\n8.  On 20 October 2006 the Zagreb office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that under the legislation on maternity leave for self-employed entrepreneurs and unemployed mothers (“the Maternity Leave Act”), biological mothers were entitled to paid maternity leave only until the child’s first birthday, and adoptive mothers had to be treated equally.\n9.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the central office (Direkcija) of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund against the first-instance decision. She complained that she had been discriminated against as an adoptive mother and a self-employed businesswoman. She relied on the Labour Act, which provided that the adoptive parent of a child under the age of twelve was entitled to paid leave of 270 days, starting from the date of adoption.\n10.  On 21 March 2007 the central office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the Maternity Leave Act had to be applied in the applicant’s case as a lex specialis. That Act did not provide for maternity leave to be granted to either a biological or an adoptive mother if the child was older than one year.\n11.  On an unspecified date in 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske), challenging the administrative bodies’ decisions.\n12.  On 26 November 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint on the grounds that the administrative bodies had correctly applied the Maternity Leave Act as a lex specialis, and that under that Act she was not entitled to paid maternity leave since at the time of adoption, her child had been older than one year.\n13.  On 10 December 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). She argued that the administrative bodies had interpreted the relevant domestic law in a manner that rendered its provisions ineffective and illusory, since it was extremely rare for somebody to adopt a child under the age of one. In her view, the purpose of paid maternity leave was to provide the adoptive parent and the child with a period of adaptation. Paid maternity leave was accessible to biological mothers after childbirth, and to employees who adopted a child under the age of twelve. In denying her that opportunity, the administrative bodies had discriminated against her as an adoptive mother and a self-employed businesswoman.\n14.  On 9 February 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7758", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the town of Perm, the Perm Region.\n6.  On 27 February 2004 the criminal investigation unit of the Perm Leninskiy District Department of the Interior (“the criminal investigation unit”) received information about a planned robbery of a shop in Perm.\n7.  The next day at least nine police officers, including the Head of the criminal investigation unit, M., senior investigator L., officer A. and a number of other officers belonging to the Perm Regional Department of the Interior’s organised crime squad set up a sting operation in the shop.\n8.  On 29 February 2004 at around 1 a.m. the applicant, along with four other individuals, one of whom was carrying a sawn-off shotgun, entered the shop with a view to robbing it. They were immediately stopped by the police. A. ordered them to put down the shotgun. He fired warning shots into the air. Thereafter he shot at the applicant’s armed accomplice.\n9.  The applicant was pushed down a flight of stairs by M. and hit his head. Subsequently the police officers immobilised and handcuffed all of the participants in the robbery.\n10.  According to the applicant, the police officers then began beating him, with a view to obtaining a confession. The applicant eventually confessed.\n11.  Shortly after his arrest the police officers made a video recording of the applicant at the place of the incident. On the recording the applicant introduced himself, explained the reasons for his arrest and fully admitted his guilt.\n12.  At approximately 3 a.m. the applicant was taken to the organised crime squad’s headquarters (“the police station”).\n13.  According to the applicant, the interrogating officers ordered him to confess and inflicted a number of blows to his head and body. One of the officers stepped on the applicant’s wrist with his shoes on, fracturing the applicant’s left middle finger and scraping his left wrist. As a result of the ill-treatment, the applicant made a confession about the robbery.\n14.  At the police station the applicant fully admitted his guilt and gave written statements of confession which read as follows:\n“On the night of 28 February I committed a [robbery in a shop] in the following circumstances ... We rang a doorbell. The door was opened and we went down the stairs. Thereafter the police arrested us. One of us had a sawn-off shotgun. I do not remember who it was. I had black gloves on my hands. The robbery was aimed at [getting hold of] a cash box with RUB 170,000 [around 4,500 euros] [in it]. The other [robbers] had scarves and black gloves to prevent their identification.\nThe present statements were written [by me] in the absence of physical or psychological pressure.”\n15.  Thereafter at about 11 a.m. the applicant was provided with first aid. The doctor who came from the first-aid station to examine the applicant issued the following medical certificate:\n“[The present document], given to [the applicant], certifies that on 29 February 2004 at 11.20 a.m. [the applicant] consulted a doctor in connection with a contused wound on his scalp, a bruise, scrapes on the third and fourth fingers of his left hand, a fracture of the third finger of the left hand and a fracture of his nose...”.\n16.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked the Prosecutor for the Perm Region to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the alleged ill‑treatment by the police officers. On 17 June 2004 his request was transmitted to the Perm Sverdlovskiy District P", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7759", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1964. His current whereabouts are unknown.\n8.  The applicant was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical Islamic organisation calling for the overthrow of non-Islamic governments and the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate. Hizb ut-Tahrir is classified as a terrorist organisation and banned both in Uzbekistan and in Russia.\n9.  According to the applicant, he left Uzbekistan for Russia in 1995. In 1998 he lost his Uzbek passport, no. CL-0084412, issued in 1995.\n10.  On 30 October 1999 the Andizhan Regional Department of the National Security Service of Uzbekistan opened criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir.\n11.  On 15 December 1999 the applicant was charged in absentia with attempting to overthrow the constitutional order, a criminal offence under Article 159 of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan. The statement of charges indicated that the applicant, being an active member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, had founded several local sections of that organisation, had involved minors in its activities and had distributed its literature calling for the overthrow of governments in Central Asia and the entire world and their replacement by an Islamic State in the form of a recreated Caliphate. On the same date, the prosecutor for the Andizhan Region ordered the applicant’s arrest. The applicant was put on the list of wanted persons.\n12.  On 13 June 2000 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Uzbekistan informed the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation that they had information that the applicant was living in Moscow, and requested the Russian authorities to arrest him and extradite him to Uzbekistan.\n13.  On 13 February 2004 the applicant was arrested with a view to his extradition.\n14.  On 19 February 2004 the Andizhan Regional Department of the National Security Service of Uzbekistan amended the charges against the applicant. An additional charge of founding a criminal organisation, a criminal offence under Article 242 of the Criminal Code of Uzbekistan, was brought against him.\n15.  On 11 March 2004 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Uzbekistan lodged a formal request for the applicant’s extradition with the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation.\n16.  On 25 March 2004 the Russian authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir. He was charged with aiding and abetting terrorism, founding a criminal organisation, and use of forged documents, offences under Articles 205.1 § 1, 210 § 1 and 327 § 3 of the Russian Criminal Code. The extradition proceedings were suspended pending the criminal proceedings in Russia.\n17.  On 11 November 2004 the Moscow City Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seven years and four months’ imprisonment. On 13 January 2005 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the conviction on appeal.\n18.  On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant was transported to correctional colony no. IK-18 in the Murmansk Region. It can be seen from a letter of 1 July 2011 from the head of the correctional colony that the applicant’s personal file did not contain any passport or other identity document.\n19.  On 8 June 2011 the Andizhan Regional Department of the National Security Service of Uzbekistan amended the charges against the applicant, adding charges of dissemination of materials damaging to public order, membership of a religious extremis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7760", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and is currently detained in Baku.\n7.  The applicant was a member of Chechen rebel groups fighting against the Russian regular army in Chechnya. According to the applicant, he participated in military operations in Chechnya in the years 2000 to 2002. In early 2002 he stepped on a landmine and lost a part of his leg below the knee. He was wanted in Russia as a participant in military operations and terrorist activities in Chechnya and Dagestan in the period from 1999 to 2002. He was also suspected by the Russian authorities of being one of the perpetrators of a 2002 bombing in Kaspiysk, Dagestan.\n8.  In 2002 the applicant fled to Baku using a different name (apparently using false identification documents in the name of Mr Rizvan Magomayev). He applied to the UNHCR Baku Office under this false name. The UNHCR issued a statement (valid until 30 June 2005) noting that he was a person of concern to the UNHCR.\n9.  While in Azerbaijan, the applicant established criminal contacts with an organised group of people responsible for a homicide, falsification of documents, illegal possession of firearms and other criminal offences. On 19 April 2006 the Assize Court of Azerbaijan convicted him of founding an illegal armed group and illegal possession of firearms, and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment.\n10.  Shortly after his conviction in Azerbaijan, on 7 July 2006 the Russian authorities sought the applicant’s temporary extradition in connection with the criminal proceedings concerning the offences he was alleged to have committed in Russia. According to the temporary extradition request, two separate sets of criminal proceedings were pending against the applicant in the Russian republics of Dagestan and Kalmykia under part 2 of Article 105 (aggravated murder), part 3 of Article 111 (premeditated infliction of grievous bodily harm, with aggravating circumstances), part 2 of Article 112 (premeditated infliction of actual bodily harm, with aggravating circumstances), part 3 of Article 205 (terrorism, with aggravating circumstances), part 1 of Article 208 (operating an illegal armed group), part 3 of Article 222 (illegal acquisition, transfer, sale, storage, transportation, or bearing of firearms, ammunition or explosives, with aggravating circumstances), Article 279 (armed mutiny) and part 1 of Article 327 (forgery of official documents) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and part 3 of Article 144 (theft, with aggravating circumstances) of the Criminal Code of the Russian SFSR. It was noted that, according to the investigation materials, the applicant had committed, among others, the following criminal acts: (a) in 1999 in Dagestan, he participated in “armed mutinies” with the purpose of overthrowing the constitutional government and violating the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation; (b) on 9 May 2002 in Kaspiysk, he had been in charge of the unlawful armed group which had committed the bombing attack in Kaspiysk that had resulted in the deaths of 43 people and injured 138 people; (c) at an unspecified time, he had used a false passport; and (d) in 1995 and 1996, the applicant, as a member of an organised group, had committed acts of burglary and theft in the Republic of Kalmykia and in the Rostov Region.\n11.  On 29 July 2006, in accordance with the 1993 CIS Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (“the Minsk Convention”), the applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7762", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Zaporizhzhya.\n6.  On the afternoon of 21 July 2001 the applicant was beaten up by another individual. The incident took place at the market and was observed by numerous witnesses.\n7.  The applicant was taken to the hospital where he was diagnosed with a fractured right cheekbone and bruise to the right infraorbital region. Subsequently, he was also diagnosed with an injury to the right knee joint.\n8.  On 22 November 2001 the applicant complained to the police on account of his injuries. On the same date a police officer referred the applicant to a forensic examination centre to have the seriousness of his injuries assessed.\n9.  On 29 November 2001 a forensic medical expert completed the examination and stated that the applicant had suffered from complete ruptures of the cruciate ligament and tibial collateral ligament in his right knee; a fractured right cheekbone and a bruise on the face. The injuries were classified as being of medium severity.\n10.  On 1 December 2001 a police investigator opened criminal proceedings in connection with the injuries sustained by the applicant.\n11.  On 4 December 2001 the applicant was admitted to the proceedings as an aggrieved party. On the same date he was granted the status of civil claimant.\n12.  On 7 June 2002 the investigator suspended the proceedings for the reason that the individual who had inflicted injuries on the applicant could not be identified.\n13.  On 13 June 2002 the supervising prosecutor quashed that decision as unsubstantiated and ordered further investigation.\n14.  On 6 August 2002 the investigator opened a criminal case against R., a private individual, noting that during an altercation between R. and the applicant on 21 June 2001 the latter had sustained injuries.\n15.  On 6 September 2002 the investigator terminated the proceedings against R. for lack of corpus delicti.\n16.  On 16 October 2002 the supervising prosecutor quashed that decision as unlawful, noting that the investigator had failed to properly assess the witness evidence suggesting that R. had inflicted injuries on the applicant. The prosecutor therefore ordered further investigation.\n17.  On 20 November 2002 the investigator suspended the proceedings for the reason that the individual who had inflicted injuries on the applicant could not be identified.\n18.  On 18 April 2005 the supervising prosecutor quashed the decision of 20 November 2002 as unfounded and ordered further investigation.\n19.  On 6 February 2006 the proceedings were again suspended on the ground that the individual who had inflicted injuries on the applicant could not be identified.\n20.  On 30 March 2006 the supervising prosecutor quashed that decision as unfounded and ordered further investigation.\n21.  By letter of 31 August 2006 the police informed the applicant that the investigator deserved a disciplinary penalty for the delays in the investigation of the case; however, he had been dismissed by that time.\n22.  On 17 October 2007 the investigator obtained from R. a written undertaking not to abscond.\n23.  On 26 October 2007 R. was charged with the crime of inflicting medium severity injuries on the applicant. On the same date the applicant was once again granted the status of civil claimant and his civil claim was added to the file.\n24.  On 28 May 2008 the Prosecutor of the Komunarskyy District of Zaporizhzhya approved the investigator’s decision to apply to the court for the discontinuation of the c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7763", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Odessa.\n6.  The applicant is a vice-president of Zelyonka (Зелёнка), a non-governmental youth organisation, and a member of the Odessa City Council.\n7.  On 17 March 2009 the applicant, acting on behalf of Zelyonka, notified the Odessa City Mayor and the Head of the Prymorsky District Police Department of Odessa of the organisation’s intention to hold a peaceful assembly (picket) in front of the Odessa City Council building on 19 March 2009 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. The purpose of the assembly was declared as the demand for completion of the construction of the residential buildings contracted by the Council’s Department of Construction.\n8.  In reply, by a letter of the same date, the Odessa City Council informed the applicant that holding a picket within such short notice was liable to be considered unlawful. The letter indicated that, pursuant to the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of 28 July 1988 on the procedure for organisation and holding of meetings, rallies, street marches and demonstrations in the USSR (the 1988 Decree – see paragraph 18 below), notification had to be given no later than ten days prior to the meeting in question. It further indicated that the Constitutional Court, in its decision of 19 April 2001 (see paragraph 20 below), had held that the organisers of peaceful assemblies must inform the authorities in advance of their intention to hold a meeting. It also mentioned that no implementing law in respect of the right to peaceful assembly had yet been enacted in Ukraine and that the 1988 Decree was still in force. The applicant was further informed that untimely notification about the picket could be considered as a violation of the procedure for holding meetings under paragraph 2 of the 1988 Decree and the person responsible held administratively liable under Article 185-1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO).\n9.  The picket took place as planned between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. on 19 March 2009. According to the applicant, it was peaceful and only a few people took part in it. The police report of the same day noted that about 250 persons had taken part in the picket and that there had been no violation of public order.\n10.  On 4 April 2009 a police officer of the Prymorsky District Police Department of Odessa drew up an administrative offence report, in the applicant’s presence, indicating that on 19 March 2009 the applicant had organised and held a picket in violation of Article 185-1 of the CAO and the decision of the Constitutional Court of 19 April 2001. The applicant signed the report, adding a note to the effect that he considered his actions lawful. The report was referred to a court.\n11.  On 15 May 2009 the Prymorsky District Court of Odessa (“the District Court”) examined the applicant’s case. According to the record of the hearing, provided by the Government, the questioning took place between 1.24 and 1.34 p.m. After that the judge retired to the deliberations chamber. At 2.27 p.m. the judge publicly pronounced judgment and the hearing closed at 2.32 p.m. According to the Government, the full text of the judgment was pronounced publicly and three hours later the court clerk handed a hard copy of the judgment to the applicant’s representative. According to the applicant, the judgment was not pronounced in public but given to his representative in writing three hours after the end of the hearing.\n12.  In that judgment the Distri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7764", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lived before his arrest in the Kaliningrad region. He is currently serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony in the Kaliningrad region.\n7. The applicant stood trial on charges of robbery and murder before the Kaliningrad Regional Court (“the Regional Court”).\n8.  On 10 June 2003 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of robbery and aggravated murder, and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment with forfeiture of estate. The applicant’s co-defendant, Sh., was found guilty of conspiring to commit robbery, incitement to commit robbery, aiding and abetting, and concealing evidence of murder.\n9.  Regarding the applicant’s right to appeal against his conviction, the judgment of 10 June 2003 stated as follows:\n“The judgment may be appealed against to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation by lodging grounds of appeal with the Kaliningrad Regional Court within ten days of the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. Convicted persons held in detention may appeal against the judgment within the same time-limit, which starts to run from the day when they received a copy of the judgment.\nIf an appeal is lodged, the convicted persons are entitled to apply for participation in the examination of their case by the appeal court.”\n10.  The record of the hearing before the trial court, which was issued on 16 June 2003, stated as follows:\n“The procedure for lodging an appeal against the judgment within ten days of its pronouncement was explained [to the parties], as was the procedure for convicted persons to lodge appeals within the same time-limit, starting to run from the date on which they received a copy of the judgment.\nThe right to apply for leave to take part in the examination of the case by the appeal court was also explained”.\n11.  On 17 June 2003 a copy of the judgment of 10 June 2003 was served on the applicant.\n12.  On 24 June 2003 the applicant’s co-defendant appealed against the judgment of 10 June 2003 to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”). He submitted that it was him and not the applicant who had committed the murder, but that the trial court had not verified his version of the events.\n13.  The Government submitted that on an unspecified date the applicant had appealed against the judgment of 10 June 2003. However, the Regional Court had returned his grounds of appeal to him for correction. In its accompanying letter the Regional Court advised the applicant that his grounds of appeal should comply with the requirements of Article 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCrP”). The Government did not provide the Court with a copy of that letter.\n14.  On 5 July 2003 the applicant, who was detained in Kaliningrad remand prison, submitted a corrected version of his grounds of appeal against the judgment of 10 June 2003. He complained, in particular, that he had not committed the impugned crimes and had an alibi which the trial court had refused to verify; police officers had ill-treated him during the pre-trial investigation to extort a confession from him; and his conviction had been based on statements by witness P. and his co-defendant, Sh., given during the pre-trial investigation under pressure by police officers, and which they had refuted before the trial court. Moreover, Sh. had confessed before the trial court to having committed the murder himself. The applicant asked the appeal court to quash his conviction. When lodging his appea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7765", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Kharkiv.\n6.  At the relevant time he was working as a shipping agent at a private company. According to the applicant, on 28 November 2005 R., the deputy director of the company, and L., the head of security there, decided to question the applicant about the disappearance of cash from one of the company’s shops. In the course of the argument the applicant was beaten up.\n7.  On the same day, the applicant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a closed traumatic head injury and numerous injuries to his body. The incident was reported to the police.\n8.  On 2 December 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the law-enforcement authorities about the ill-treatment.\n9.  On 7 December 2005 the police refused to open an investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, noting that the medical assessment of the applicant’s injuries had not been completed.\n10.  On 26 December 2005 a forensic medical expert issued a report finding that on 28 November 2005 the applicant had sustained the following injuries: a closed traumatic head injury; bruises to his nose, eyes, lower jaw, upper lip and left ear; a cut to his right upper eyelid; an injury to the left side of his waist affecting the kidney; bruises to the left side of his groin and scrotum; and bruises to his limbs. The expert classified the injuries as minor.\n11.  On 23 January 2006 the prosecutor quashed the decision of 7 December 2005 as unfounded and ordered further pre-investigation enquiries.\n12.  The police adopted decisions refusing to open an investigation on 16 February, 2 March, 4 April 2006 for the reason that there had been no corpus delicti. The decisions were quashed by the supervising prosecutors as unsubstantiated and the police officers were given instructions to conduct further pre-investigation enquiries.\n13.  On 21 May 2006 the police once again decided not to open an investigation considering that there had been no corpus delicti.\n14.  On 14 June 2006 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Region quashed the decision of 21 May 2006 as unfounded. He noted that the file did not disprove the applicant’s consistent allegations that he had been beaten by R. and L. with a wooden bat and cut with a knife with the aim of making him confess to taking the cash in the shop. The prosecutor further found that the available evidence was sufficient for the institution of criminal proceedings against R. and L. under Article 127 § 1 of the Criminal Code (torture). He therefore opened proceedings and remitted the case to the police for an investigation. The police officer responsible for the previous decisions not to open an investigation was disciplined.\n15.  In the course of investigation the authorities seized medical documentation in respect of the applicant, ordered a forensic medical examination, questioned the applicant and witnesses, and carried out a reconstruction of the events with the participation of a forensic medical expert. As a preventive measure, R. and L. were required to give a written undertaking not to abscond. They were questioned as suspects.\n16.  On 12 June 2007 the police closed the investigation. According to their decision, the injuries sustained by the applicant in the course of the conflict with R. and L. were classified as minor and the specific elements of torture set out in Article 127 § 1 of the Criminal Code were not present. The police therefore recommended that the applicant bring a private ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7766", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Drobeta-Turnu Severin.\n6.  On 23 August 1996 the applicant brought criminal proceedings and joined civil claims against a third party for forgery and use of forged documents.\n7.  In a letter of 2 April 1997 addressed to the domestic authorities investigating the case, the applicant complained that the investigation had been excessively lengthy and that the authorities had failed to react with sufficient urgency.\n8.  By a final order of 12 July 2002, the Drobeta-Turnu Severin Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal investigation against the third party on the grounds that it was time-barred. At the same time, it referred the case to the civil courts, in particular the Drobeta-Turnu Severin District Court, to determine whether the documents contested by the applicant had been forged by the third party and whether the said documents were invalid.\n9.  By a judgment of 26 November 2002 the Drobeta-Turnu Severin District Court referred the case to the Mehedinţi County Court, on the grounds that it had jurisdiction to examine the case. The applicant appealed on points of law (recurs) against the judgment.\n10.  By a final judgment of 31 January 2003 the Mehedinţi County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the judgment of 26 November 2002 as without merit.\n11.  By a judgment of 10 June 2003, after examining the merits of the applicant’s case, the Mehedinţi County Court dismissed the applicant’s action on the basis of documentary, testimonial and expert evidence. The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment on the grounds that the first-instance court had failed to examine the validity of some of the documents contested by him.\n12.  By a final judgment of 24 February 2004 the Craiova Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, quashed the judgment of 10 June 2003 and ordered a retrial by the first-instance court. It held that the first-instance court had not examined the validity of some of the documents contested by the applicant, which amounted to a failure to examine the merits of the case.\n13.  By a judgment of 16 June 2004 the Mehedinţi County Court dismissed the applicant’s action on the merits. The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n14.  By a judgment of 3 November 2004 the Craiova Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 16 June 2004 on the merits. The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment.\n15.  By a final judgment of 2 November 2006 the Court of Cassation, sitting as a bench of three judges which included judges E.E. and B.S., dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the judgment of 3 November 2004 on procedural grounds without touching on the merits. The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal (contestaţie în anulare) against the judgment on the grounds that the domestic courts had failed to examine one of the grounds of appeal on points of law he had raised.\n16.  By a final judgment of 4 March 2008 the Court of Cassation allowed the applicant’s extraordinary appeal, quashed the final judgment of 2 November 2006 and ordered a retrial. It held that the Court of Cassation sitting as a court of final appeal had failed to examine all the grounds of appeal on points of law raised by the applicant.\n17.  By a final judgment of 25 November 2008 the Court of Cassation allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law against the judgment of 3 November 2004,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7767", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1969 and 1971 respectively and live in Oradea.\n6.  The first applicant is a journalist, and at the time of the publication of the article which forms the object of the current application he was the editor in chief of the local newspaper Afaceri bihorene and was married to the second applicant.\n7.  On 29 May 2002 another local newspaper, Bihoreanul, published on the front page and on several other pages an article entitled ‘Sex scandal involving VIPs’ son’ (Scandal sexual cu fiu de VIP-uri). The article referred to an extramarital relationship being conducted by the first applicant with a woman, D.M. The author, G.L., wrote that D.M. wanted to put an end to the relationship but that the applicants were harassing her. Details were given about an incident allegedly set up by the applicants to get the wife of C.I., the son of a football club director (the alleged VIP), to catch him cheating on her with D.M. Large photographs of the applicants and of D.M., as well as of all the other people mentioned in the article, were posted on each of the five pages of the article.\n8.  The article contained banner headlines such as: ‘A scandal never seen in Oradea! Because of the obsession with his lover developed by a well-known journalist from Oradea, C.I., the son of the technical director of the national football team, has now got to explain himself to his wife’ and ‘A marriage which started off on the right foot was placed in jeopardy by a rather bothered journalist’ posted under a photograph of the applicant. Another headline, which filled a whole page, read: ‘The son of E.I. fell victim to a flagrant set-up by a journalist obsessed with his former lover’. Under a photograph of the applicants was the caption: ‘The Someşans. She the cock, he the hen, together two eagles’.\n9. Under the title ‘D.[M.] on Claudiu [the first applicant]’ the following remarks were made about the applicant:\n“D. [M.] says about Claudiu that he is a weak person who doesn’t know what he wants. Because on the one hand he wants to escape from a failed marriage, and on the other, he stays stuck in it.”\n10.  The article also included several statements from D.M. in quotes, the relevant parts reading as follows:\n“I told him not to get a divorce for my sake, but only to divorce if this is what he feels is right. So many terrible things have happened in his house. In the Someşan family, Gina [the second applicant] is the boss. Claudiu came to me several times with his back covered with bruises and scratches He told me that she beats him every time she gets angry. And she is the one he stayed with! And when I think that Gina called me once ... to tell me to go back to Claudiu, because he is suffering, and she does not want him to be in this state because of me. She said she did not want someone else’s leavings. I see that she has changed her mind now ... I fell in love with him. Maybe because I felt he was a captive in an unhappy marriage.”\n11.  Under the title ‘Treatment for venereal diseases’ the article contained statements allegedly given by the first applicant but without quotes, as follows:\n“Claudiu claims that as a result of the sexual relationship he had with his former lover, D.[M.] he caught a venereal disease which he transmitted to his wife, and he had to pay ten million lei for treatment.”\n12.  Under the title ‘Businessmen from Bihor...’ (Afacerişti bihoreni) it was mentioned:\n“Ex-reporter at Morning Journal until it was closed in 1994, C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7768", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is the Bogdan Vodă Greek-Catholic Parish, which belongs to the Maramureş Greek-Catholic Diocese United with Rome and is located in the village of Bogdan Vodă, Romania. The priest-vicar of the parish, Mr Ioan Petreuş, authorised Mr M. Cupcea, a lawyer practising in Sighetu Marmaţiei, to represent the applicant before the Court.\n6.  Until 1948 there were two recognised Christian religious groups in Bogdan Vodă, the Greek-Catholic and the Orthodox, each having its own church.\n7.  The Greek-Catholic Church was abolished in that year by Decree no. 358/1948 and its members were obliged to adhere to the Orthodox Church. The goods of the Greek-Catholic Church were transferred to the Orthodox Church on the basis of Decree no. 177/1948 on the general regime for recognised religious groups, which provided that if the majority of a group’s believers became members of another church, the goods belonging to the abandoned group would be transferred into the property of that church. In 1948, following the entry into force of the above-mentioned legal provisions, the property rights over the goods belonging to the Bogdan Vodă Greek-Catholic Parish were therefore transferred to the Bogdan Vodă Orthodox Parish.\n8.  Following the fall of the communist regime in December 1989, Decree no. 358/1948 was annulled by Decree no. 9/1989. Subsequently, the Greek-Catholic Church was officially recognised by Decree no. 126/1990. With respect to the legal status of the goods formerly owned by the Greek-Catholic Church, Decree no. 126/1990 provided that this would be decided by a special joint commission formed of representatives of the Orthodox and Greek-Catholic Churches. The commission was to take into account the wishes of the believers in each community. However, this commission rarely reached a consensus and took very few decisions with respect to the restitution of churches to the Greek-Catholics.\n9.  In the village of Bogdan Vodă there are three churches which are the property of the Orthodox Parish: the “old church” (built between 1715 and 1720) which belonged to the Greek-Catholic Parish and is no longer in use, as it has been locked by the head of the Orthodox Parish; the Orthodox church (built between 1935 and 1937), also not in use; and a new Orthodox church (built between 1993 and 1998) currently used by the Orthodox Parish.\n10.  The religious services of the Greek-Catholic Parish are currently held in an old house in Bogdan Vodă, a place which, according to the applicant, is not suitable for the needs of the local Greek-Catholic community.\n11.  The applicant parish’s attempts to recover the property rights, or at least the use of the “old church” which it formerly owned, through negotiations with representatives of the Orthodox Church as provided by Decree no. 126/1990, have remained unresolved, and no special joint commission has ever been set up in this connection. The views of the Orthodox Church concerning the applicant parish’s demands were expressed in a letter sent to the applicant parish in 1995 by the Council of the Bogdan Vodă Orthodox Parish. The letter noted that the Greek-Catholic Parish was forbidden to enter the “old church” and to perform religious services in the church’s cemetery, because of the very small number of Greek-Catholic believers in Bogdan Vodă.\n12.  Following the failure of its attempts at negotiation, on 19 June 1996 the applicant parish brought a civil action against the Bogdan Vodă Orthodox Parish, seeki", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7769", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. They were born in 1949, 1959 and 1962, respectively, and live in Sarajevo (Mr Avdić and Mr Adamović) and in Banja Luka (Mr Kovačević).\n6.  On 10 April 2006 the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the State Court”) rejected a claim lodged by the applicant in a labour dispute against the fiscal administration. On 27 February and 1 October 2007 that judgment was confirmed by a trial chamber of the State Court and an appeals chamber of the State Court, respectively.\n7.  On 27 November 2007 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\n8.  On 9 July 2010 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”), in a formation of eight judges, rejected the applicant’s appeal as a majority of five judges could not agree on any of the proposals. The court’s reasoning included all the views expressed at the session on the issues raised in the case. By virtue of Article VI § 4 of the Constitution (see paragraph 17 below), the decision was final.\n9.  On 14 January 2008 the first instance disciplinary panel of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council removed the applicant from the post of State Court judge for causing damage to the reputation of the judiciary.\n10.  On 16 April, 29 May and 27 November 2008 that decision was confirmed by the second instance disciplinary panel, the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council and the State Court, respectively. On 8 July 2009 an appeals chamber of the State Court rejected an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant.\n11.  On 2 October 2009 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\n12.  On 25 September 2010 the Constitutional Court, in a formation of eight judges, rejected the applicant’s appeal as a majority of five judges could not agree on any of the proposals. The court’s reasoning included all the views expressed at the session on the issues raised in the case. By virtue of Article VI § 4 of the Constitution, the decision was final.\n13.  After an unsuccessful attempt to resolve his employment-law claim before the administrative commission set up under the employment legislation, on 30 October 2003 the applicant initiated proceedings against his former employer seeking reinstatement and payment of outstanding salaries, together with all work-related benefits.\n14.  On 20 October 2006, following remittal, the Bosanska Krupa Municipal Court partially acceded to his claim. On 17 April 2007 and 14 July 2008 that judgment was upheld by the Bihać Cantonal Court and the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, respectively.\n15.  On 9 September 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining about the length and the outcome of the impugned proceedings as well as alleged discrimination.\n16.  On 21 January 2011 the Constitutional Court, in a formation of seven judges, found that the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated, but rejected the rest of his appeal as a majority of five judges could not agree on any of the proposals. The court’s reasoning as regards the rejected part of the appeal contained all the views expressed at the session on the issues raised. By virtue of Article VI § 4 of the Constitution, that decision was final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7771", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Gdynia. He is a naval officer.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on 1 July 2001. By a decision of 2 July 2002 the Poznań District Military Court (Sąd Garnizonowy w Poznaniu) remanded the applicant in custody for three months on suspicion of accepting bribes in connection with his professional activities and heading an organised criminal group (case no. So 4/05). The decision was stated to be justified by the strong evidence against the applicant, the gravity of the offences with which he had been charged and by the severity of the penalty which could be imposed on him.\n7.  On 25 July 2002 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) appointed two experts with a view to establishing whether the applicant could be held criminally liable. Subsequently, on 14 August 2002 that court lifted the detention order and ordered the applicant’s release on health grounds, as he had been diagnosed as suffering from severe depression and was considered likely to attempt to commit suicide if incarcerated. The court suspended the applicant from duty.\n8.  On 7 March 2005 the indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Poznań Regional Military Court. Hearings in the case were subsequently held on 27 April, on 23 and 24 August, on 6 and 7 December 2005 and on 10 and 11 January 2006. On 23 August 2005 the court remanded one of the applicant’s co‑accused in custody.\n9.  On 21 August 2007 the president of the bench examining the applicant’s case requested that he should be allowed to recuse himself from the proceedings. By a decision of the Poznan Regional Military Court dated 22 August 2007 his recusal was accepted. The court noted that that judge was sitting on the bench dealing with another case against the applicant in which the prosecution had submitted the same evidence in support of separate charges (No. So 9/06).\n10.  On 10 September 2007 the applicant’s case was joined with another case against him pending at that time. The new case was registered as No. So 4/05.\n11.  On 5 February 2006 the applicant was arrested in connection with the second case against him. He was charged with the offences punishable under Article 258 § 3 (leadership of an organised criminal gang), Article 228 § 1 (receiving bribes) and Article 228 § 3 (bribery) of the Criminal Code.\n12.  An expert opinion dated 6 February 2006 concluded that the applicant’s remand in custody was compatible with his health and that he was able to take part in the proceedings. On the same date the Poznań Regional Military Court remanded him in custody on suspicion of heading an organised criminal gang and having committed multiple counts of fraud, embezzlement, uttering threats and accepting bribes. The case was registered under case number So 20/06. The reasons given for the decision to detain the applicant were the strong evidence against him, the severity of the penalty which could be imposed and the risk that he would attempt to induce the witnesses to give false testimony or to otherwise obstruct the proceedings. The latter risk was considered of the utmost importance in the light of the fact that the case involved a great number of alleged accomplices. The applicant challenged this decision. His appeal was dismissed on 8 March 2006. On 25 April 2006 the Poznań Regional Military Court extended the applicant’s detention for a further three months. The court referred to concrete pieces of evidence which, in the court’s view, supported the suspicion again", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7772", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Izmir.\n6.  On 3 September 2007 at around 8.10 p.m. the applicant was shot by officers from a gendarmerie special operations team immediately after he and his brother left a neighbouring house in the vicinity of their hamlet, Gölek, in the district of Mazgirt, in Tunceli, south-east Turkey.\n7.  As a result of the shooting, the applicant was hit with a total of eight bullets and suffered injuries to his arms, his legs, and his left shoulder. According to a medical report issued by the Forensic Medicine Department of Fırat University dated 13 November 2007, the injuries that the applicant sustained were life-threatening. According to the report, the applicant received medical treatment and underwent surgical operations at the cardiac surgery units at the Elazığ Military Hospital and the Fırat University Hospital between 3 and 19 September 2007. He was then transferred to the Ege University Hospital in Izmir upon the request of his family members. A further medical report issued on 27 June 2011 by a board of doctors from the Karşıyaka State Hospital stated that the applicant was experiencing difficulties in walking and using his left shoulder as a result of firearm injuries. In particular, he had suffered a 48% loss of function in his legs and a 10% loss of function in his left shoulder. According to the report, the applicant was permanently disabled and only able to walk with the aid of two crutches. The applicant’s brother was not injured during the shooting.\n8.  On 4 September 2007 a crime scene investigation was carried out by gendarmerie officers from the Tunceli Provincial Gendarmerie Command, who then drafted a crime scene report. The report was signed by six gendarmerie officers, including İ.S. and M.K., who had taken part in the operation of 3 September 2007. The report drafted by the officers stated that the special operations team had received information that members of the PKK[1], an illegal organisation, would be going to the house where the applicant and his brother had gone. The information had been given by B.B., the son of M.B., the owner of the house, who had been threatened by members of the PKK. The security forces began search and detection activities in the region at around 3.30 a.m. after the receipt of this information and at 3.30 p.m. the commander of the operation, together with two team commanders, identified four points in the vicinity of M.B.’s house at which the officers could position themselves. At around 7.40 p.m. gendarmerie officers arrived in the vicinity, took up position at the four different points identified earlier by their commanders and waited for PKK members. The applicant and his brother arrived at the house at 8 p.m. and left at 8.10 p.m. When they had left the house, E.Ö. and G.A., officers positioned at point no. 3 who had a thermal camera and a night vision device, informed the commander of the operation, İ.S., who was positioned at point no. 2, that the applicant and his brother might have weapons on them. They also informed the commander that the applicant and his brother were acting suspiciously and that they had checked the area around the house with their torches and then turned them off. The team commander subsequently asked M.A. and Y.S., officers who were positioned at the same point and who had thermal cameras, whether the applicant and his brother were carrying weapons. The officers informed the commander that the applicant and his br", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7774", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Púchov.\n5.  On 17 November 1998 the applicant’s sister initiated civil proceedings before the District Court in Trnava claiming that real property in issue belonged to the estate of her late parents. On 22 September 1999 the District Court dismissed the claim. On 23 November 2001 the Trnava Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment.\n6.  On 5 February 2003 the District Court allowed the applicant to join the proceedings as one of the plaintiffs.\n7.  On 2 October 2007 the District Court stayed the proceedings. On 30 January 2009 the Regional Court quashed that decision in part and ordered the District Court to proceed with the case in respect of one of the defendants.\n8.  On 16 April 2012 the applicant complained about the duration of the proceedings to the Constitutional Court. She claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction and EUR 318.84 in reimbursement of her legal costs.\n9.  On 3 October 2012 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had breached the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. There was no justification for the overall duration of the proceedings.\n10.  The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction and legal costs. It noted that, between 28 May 2009 and 4 April 2012, it had delivered four judgments in which it had found a breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in respect of nine other persons who were in the same position as the applicant in the above proceedings before the Trnava District Court (see paragraphs 14-15 below). In those four judgments, the Constitutional Court had granted the plaintiffs, who had been represented by the same lawyer as the applicant, the overall sum of EUR 18,000 as just satisfaction and EUR 1,609.85 for their legal costs.\n11.  The Constitutional Court expressed the view that the legal representative of the plaintiffs had chosen to submit separate complaints in order to earn money. Had all the persons concerned submitted a single constitutional complaint, the overall just satisfaction award would have certainly not attained the amount of EUR 18,000, and the costs granted would have been lower than the above sum. As a result, the share in just satisfaction to which the applicant might be entitled as one of the multiple parties to the proceedings had been “granted to and consumed by” the precedent successful plaintiffs before the Constitutional Court.\n12.  Subsequently the District Court took further evidence and heard the parties. A hearing scheduled for 6 March 2013 was adjourned to 15 July 2013 as the case had been assigned to a different judge. The documents submitted to the Court indicate that the proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7775", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1938 and 1947 respectively and live in Vilnius.\n5.  By decision of the Vilnius District Court on 9 June 1995 the applicants’ action against a building company for attribution of ownership rights to two partially-built houses was dismissed. The court declared null and void the sale contracts on the basis of which the applicants claimed title to the houses, and recognised the ownership rights of the building company in respect of the houses.\n6.  The applicants’ appeal was dismissed by the Vilnius Regional Court on 5 September 1995. The court noted, inter alia, that the applicants could request the company to cover their expenses for construction of the houses. That decision was final.\n7.  On 5 January 1996 the applicants brought a new action, claiming property rights to the houses. On 18 March 1996 the Vilnius District Court stayed the proceedings, ordering an expert examination with a view to establishing the sum of money invested by the applicants in the construction. The expert examination was concluded on 18 April 1997.\n8.  On 27 September 1996 the applicants brought a further action, claiming reimbursement of expenses which they had incurred while terminating the construction after the alleged sale of the partially-built houses. These proceedings were joined to the proceedings regarding the claim to ownership.\n9.  A number of hearings took place on 11 November, 16 and 30 December 1997, 9 February, 9 April, 10 June, 6 October 1998, 21 January 1999, 28 August, 8 October, 20 November, 4 December 2001, 17 January, 27 February, 11 July, 4 September, 22 October, 27 November 2002, 7 January 2003, 3 February, 3 and 31 March, 17 April, 12 May, 24 and 25 June, 15 and 22 December 2003.\n10.  On 16 December 1997 the applicants dropped the claim to ownership but the claim concerning the expenses remained.\n11.  On 4 February 1998 the applicants modified their claim by increasing the amounts of expenses to be reimbursed.\n12.  On 10 June and 6 October 1998 the hearings were adjourned due to non-appearance of the applicants.\n13.  On 21 January 1999 the Vilnius District Court stayed the examination of the applicants’ claim until the resolution of a case brought by the building company (see paragraph 22 below) observing that relevant documents were included in the latter case.\n14.  In the meantime, criminal proceedings were instituted against a manager of the building company, on a charge of unlawfully selling the company’s property. The criminal proceedings were discontinued and resumed several times.\n15.  On 21 February 2000 and, repeatedly, on 16 May 2001 and 7 January 2003 the Vilnius District Court sent requests to another court for relevant material from a related civil case to be transmitted. It appears that the examination of the merits was stayed during that period.\n16.  On 28 August and 20 November 2001 the hearings were adjourned upon the request of the parties as they were involved in friendly settlement negotiations and the first applicant was considering abandoning his claim (although he had not done so).\n17.  On 8 October and 4 December 2001, 17 January 2002 the hearings were adjourned as one of the applicants failed to appear; his participation was declared mandatory.\n18.  On 27 February 2002 the Vilnius District Court suspended the proceedings pending the determination of criminal proceedings concerning the same parties (see paragraph 14 above). Upon the applicants’ appeal, that decision was quashed by th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7776", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n5.  On 25 April 2005 the Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud) in Leskovac ruled in favour of a company “KHK” (at that time the applicant company’s mother company – “matično preduzeće”), and ordered GP “Rad” (a company based in Grdelica – “the debtor”) to pay: (i) RSD 20,403,432.58 (EUR 250,515[1]) plus statutory interest as of 28 February 2001; and (ii) RSD 947,142.00 (EUR 11,630) on account of the costs of civil proceedings.\n6.  On 26 April 2005 the company “KHK” transferred this entitlement to the applicant company.\n7.  The Commercial Court judgment became final on 24 November 2005 and enforceable on 27 December 2005.\n8.  On 27 December 2005 the applicant company filed with the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Leskovac requests for the enforcement of the Commercial Court judgment and for an award of the statutory interest on the costs of the civil proceedings in line with Article 35 § 1 of the Enforcement Procedure Act 2004 (see paragraph 25 below).\n9.  On 19 January 2006 the Municipal Court ordered the enforcement by evaluation and sale of the debtor’s immovable assets and the registration of the enforcement order in the real estate registry. In addition, the court awarded the applicant company the statutory interest on the costs of the civil proceedings as of 25 April 2005 and set the costs of the enforcement proceedings at RSD 69,500 (EUR 790). On 3 October 2007 the Municipal Court partially amended the enforcement order in that the enforcement by sale of some of the land plots was terminated and the costs of the enforcement proceedings were set at RSD 267,150 (EUR 3,400). These decisions became final on 14 December 2007.\n10.  On 3 June 2008 the enforcement order was registered in the Land Registry (Katastar nepokretnosti) in Leskovac.\n11.  By 19 December 2008 the Municipal Court established that the value of the debtor’s seized immovable assets was RSD 121,403,430.00 (EUR 1,356,640) and referred a third party, who was disputing the debtor’s ownership in respect of certain plots of land, to institute separate civil proceedings in that respect against the applicant company.\n12.  By 4 February 2009 the Municipal Court suspended the enforcement in respect of certain plots of land the ownership of which was disputed.\n13.  On 10 February 2009 the Municipal Court partially amended the decision of 19 December 2008 in that it assessed the value of the debtor’s seized assets at RSD 108,654,410.00 (EUR 1,214,184). On 5 March 2009 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Leskovac quashed this decision and ordered a retrial.\n14.  On 27 April 2009 the Commercial Court (Privredni sud) in Leskovac instituted the insolvency proceedings (stečajni postupak) against the debtor.\n15.  By 11 June 2009 the Municipal Court stayed the enforcement proceedings due to the initiation of the insolvency proceedings.\n16.  On 18 May 2009 the applicant company duly submitted its claim to the Commercial Court within the insolvency proceedings against the debtor, seeking that it be recognized as a secured creditor (razlučni poverilac).\n17. On 15 June 2009, at the first creditors’ hearing, attended also by the applicant company, the Assembly of Creditors agreed that the insolvency proceedings should lead to the debtor’s bankruptcy. On 7 September 2009 the Commercial Court initiated the proceedings for the sale of the debtor’s assets.\n18.  On 24 August 2009 the Insolvency Judge (stečajni su", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7777", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  On 30 January 1994 he was taken into police custody on suspicion of first-degree murder. On the next day, the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Timiş County Court opened a criminal investigation and authorised his continued detention.\n7.  On 18 November 1994 the applicant was brought to trial on indictment on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated theft.\n8.  From February to December 1995 monthly hearings before the Timiş County Court were scheduled to hear evidence from prosecution witnesses.\n9.  On 13 December 1995 the court remitted the case to the prosecution authorities for further investigation. On 22 April 1996 this decision was reversed on appeal by the Timişoara Court of Appeal, which found that the criminal investigation was complete and that the trial should continue before the first-instance court.\n10.  When the proceedings were resumed, the county court listed hearings for the examination of the defence witnesses and adjourned the case on five occasions before delivering its judgment.\n11.  On 22 November 1996 the applicant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to an eighteen-year prison sentence.\n12.  On 14 April 1997 the Timişoara Court of Appeal allowed appeals by both parties, quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the lower court for re-examination.\n13.  On 15 September 1997 the applicant was convicted again and given an eighteen-year prison sentence. His appeal was dismissed on 12 March 1998 by the Court of Appeal of Timişoara.\nHe lodged a further appeal, which was allowed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice (“ICCJ”) on 28 October 1998. The case was thus sent back to the prosecution authorities on the ground that the criminal investigation had been incomplete.\n14.  On 8 July 1999 the Public Prosecutor’s Office lodged an indictment with the Timiş County Court on charges of first-degree murder. The theft charges were dropped.\n15.  The county court summoned witnesses and, at the prosecution’s request, ordered that a forensic medical report be submitted in the space of six months. The applicant’s requests for a counter forensic medical report, as well as for the removal of the panel of judges on allegations of partiality, were rejected.\n16.  On 5 May 2000 the applicant was convicted of first-degree murder and given a fifteen-year prison sentence. His appeal on points of law was allowed by the ICCJ on 9 November 2000, and the case was sent back to the prosecuting authorities for further investigation.\n17.  On 15 October 2001 a new bill of indictment was issued against the applicant on the same charges of first-degree murder. Shortly after the case was registered with the Timiş County Court, the applicant filed a request with the ICCJ for referral to a different court on allegations of lack of impartiality. Hearings were subsequently adjourned for failure to serve the bill of indictment on the applicant.\n18.  On 12 April 2002 the applicant’s request for the case to be referred to another court was allowed by the ICCJ and the case was referred to the Dolj County Court.\n19.  The case remained with that court for more than a year. It was necessary to schedule several hearings on account of absences and improper summoning of witnesses, and pending the submission of a forensic report.\n20.  On 9 September 2003 the Dolj County Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a fifteen-year prison sentence. H", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7779", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Deva.\n6.  In November 2004, the prosecutor’s office attached to the Alba‑Iulia Court of Appeal opened criminal investigations in respect of a large number of people, including the chief commander of the Deva police and other police officers, on suspicion of their involvement in an organised criminal group engaged in practising the illegal gambling game “alba‑neagra”.\n7.  As part of this complex set of proceedings concerning a large number of people in Deva allegedly involved in organised crime, on 2 December 2004 investigations were initiated against the applicant and three other people suspected of being members of an organised criminal group, an offence created by the Prevention and Combat of Organised Crime Act (Law No. 39/2003). The applicant and another defendant were police officers, and in this capacity were also suspected of favouring offenders and blackmail. The other two defendants were suspected of organising the gambling games.\n8.  In the evening of 2 December 2004, the applicant and his three co‑defendants were arrested and detained for twenty-four hours.\n9.  The prosecutor attached to the Alba-Iulia Court of Appeal submitted a proposal for the extension of the detention for another twenty‑nine days. According to the prosecution’s version of events, the two police officers became members of the criminal group in 2003. They collected protection money from the network of people who were organising the gambling games in Deva and the surrounding area. In exchange, they provided information to them concerning police raids organised by their colleagues and the best places to hold the gambling games. As expressly stated in the proposal for the extension of the detention, this version of events was supported by statements of the victims, witnesses and defendants, and a summary of recorded telephone conversations.\n10.  At a hearing held on 3 December 2004 before the Alba‑Iulia Court of Appeal, the defence requested that the prosecution and the court deciding on the application to extend the applicant’s detention put at their disposal all of the materials on the basis of which the applicant’s continued detention had been proposed.\n11.  According to the applicant’s lawyer, the only evidence in the file were the statements given by the applicant and the other three defendants arrested on the previous day, which did not reveal any incriminatory facts.\n12.  One of the main pieces of incriminating evidence submitted by the prosecution was a summary of various telephone conversations which had been recorded. The recordings had been made by the police as part of a secret surveillance operation concerning the entire criminal group. The prosecution submitted the summary to the court during the hearing with the recommendation that it should not be consulted by the defence. The defence’s request to examine the recordings was refused by the court on the grounds that the recordings concerned the merits of the case and that this was irrelevant to the extension of detention.\n13.  In spite of the defence lawyer’s express request to have access to the rest of the evidence mentioned in the proposal for prolongation of the detention, such as the statements of the victims, witnesses and other defendants, the Alba-Iulia Court of Appeal neither replied nor provided any explanation for their absence from the file.\n14.  In her final oral submissions, the applicant’s lawyer stressed that she had not had access ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7781", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1954 respectively and live in Majur.\n5.  The applicants were employed by “7 Juli”, a company based in Šabac (hereinafter – “the debtor”).\n6.  On 13 November 2006 the applicant and the debtor concluded a settlement before the Šabac Municipal Court, according to which the debtor was ordered to pay the applicant certain sums in respect to salary arrears and costs of proceedings.\n7.  On 29 December 2009 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Šabac Municipal Court.\n8.  On 31 December 2009 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.\n9.  On 11 December 2008 the applicant and the debtor concluded a settlement before the Šabac Municipal Court, according to which the debtor was ordered to pay the applicant certain sums in respect to salary arrears and pension and disability insurance contributions.\n10.  On 7 July 2009 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Šabac Municipal Court.\n11.  On 9 July 2009 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.\n12.  On 21 July 2006 the applicant and the debtor concluded a settlement before the Šabac Municipal Court, according to which the debtor was ordered to pay the applicant certain sums in respect to salary arrears, pension and disability insurance contributions and costs of proceedings.\n13.  On 7 July 2009 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Šabac Municipal Court.\n14.  On 9 July 2009 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.\n15.  On 14 March 2007 the debtor was privatised.\n16.  On 10 June 2008 the contract for the sale of the debtor was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations.\n17.  Following the annulment of the debtor’s privatisation 70% of its shares were transferred to the State.\n18.  As it would appear from media reports, in November 2009 the State sold its shares to a private company.\n19.  On 14 April 2010 the Valjevo Commercial Court opened the preliminary insolvency proceedings against the debtor.\n20.  On 1 December 2010 the Commercial Court terminated the insolvency proceedings against the debtor because the creditors and the debtor failed to advance the costs of the insolvency proceedings.\n21.  In addition, the court ordered the transfer of the debtor’s property to the State.\n22.  The decision became final on 14 April 2011.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7782", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Davut Abo, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and is currently serving his prison sentence in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 1 October 2000 the applicant was arrested by gendarmerie forces on the suspicion of his membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan).\n6.  Between 2 and 4 October 2000 the applicant was questioned by police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Branch of the Beytülşebap Security Directorate. All of the interviews were conducted in the absence of a lawyer. In his statements, the applicant acknowledged that he was a member of the PKK and gave details of certain events in which he had taken part.\n7.  On 5 October 2000 the Beytülşebap Public Prosecutor took statements from the applicant. The applicant confirmed the contents of his police statements and gave detailed information about the events, again in the absence of a lawyer.\n8.  On the same day, an investigating judge at the Beytülşebap Magistrate’s Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention, without the assistance of a lawyer. The applicant repeated the statements he had made to the police and public prosecutor.\n9.  On 1, 2, 4 and 5 October 2000, the applicant was medically examined by a doctor who noted that there were no sign of physical violence on the applicant’s body.\n10.  On 22 December 2000 the Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor lodged an indictment with the Diyarbakır State Security Court, composed of three civilian judges, accusing the applicant of carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory, pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code in force at the time.\n11.  In his written submissions to the Diyarbakır State Security Court lodged on 6 February 2001, the applicant explained in detail the treatment to which he had allegedly been subjected.\n12.  On 22 February 2001 the Diyarbakır State Security Court heard the applicant at its first hearing. He denied all the accusations against him and retracted his statements given to the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge. He maintained that he had been threatened by the police whilst being taken to both the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, and he further stated that he thought that he was being brought before police officers when he had been taken to the offices of the prosecutor and judge. He complained that he had been subjected to torture in police custody. During the hearing, the applicant read out his written submissions.\n13.  State Security Courts were abolished by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004. The case was accordingly transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.\n14.  On 22 September 2005, the applicant’s recently appointed lawyer requested the court for a fresh medical examination to be ordered in order to determine whether the applicant had been subjected to ill-treatment five years ago during his detention in police custody. The court dismissed this request, having based its rejection on the content of the case file and the state of the evidence.\n15.  On 9 November 2006 the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged. The court emphasised the consistency of the applicant’s statements during the preliminary investigation with the investigation reports obtained from another case file related to the offence in question. It further found the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment implausible in the light of the medical reports in the case file. S", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7783", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1974 and now resides in Australia. She is a Latvian national, who, in 2007, also acquired Australian nationality.\n10.  After meeting T. and beginning a relationship with him at the beginning of 2004, she moved into his flat at the end of that year, although she was still married to another man, R.L., whom she divorced on 24 November 2005.\n11.  On 9 February 2005 the applicant gave birth to a daughter, E. The child’s birth certificate does not give the father’s name, and no paternity test was carried out. The applicant, who was still living with T., subsequently received single-parent benefits. In spite of the deterioration in their relationship, the applicant continued to live with T. as a tenant.\n12.  On 17 July 2008 the applicant left Australia for Latvia with her daughter, then aged three years and five months.\n13.  On 19 August 2008 T. submitted an application to the Family Court in Australia to establish his parental rights in respect of the child. In support of his claim, he testified in a sworn affidavit that he had been in a relationship with the applicant since 2004 and the latter had always indicated that he was the father of the child, the rental agreement with the applicant for the flat was a sham and had been a mutual decision, and he had made false statements to the social security services in order to enable the applicant to receive single-parent benefit. T. asserted that the applicant had left Australia with the child without his consent, in violation of Article 3 of the Hague Convention, and had gone to an unknown place of residence in Latvia. In support of his claim, he submitted e-mail correspondence with members of his family.\n14.  The applicant, although apparently invited by various means to attend the hearing or follow it by telephone, was not present.\n15.  By a judgment of 6 November 2008, the Australian Family Court recognised T.’s paternity in respect of E. and held that the applicant and T. had had joint parental responsibility for their child since her birth. The judge added that examination of the case would be continued once the child had been returned to Australia, while stating as follows:\n“... however, it is not of course for me to say whether the child’s presence in Latvia is the consequence of a wrongful removal or retention. With all due respect, it is for the Latvian judge to rule on that question.”\n16.  The applicant did not appeal against that decision.\n17.  On 22 September 2008 the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs, which was the Latvian Central Authority responsible for implementing the Hague Convention, received from their Australian counterpart a request from T. seeking the child’s return to Australia on the basis of that Convention. The return request was accompanied by a sworn affidavit setting out the applicable Australian law and certifying, without prejudice to the issue of paternity, that on the date on which the child had been removed from Australia T. had exercised joint parental authority over her within the meaning of Article 5 of the Hague Convention.\n18.  On 19 November 2008 the Riga City Zemgale District Court (“the District Court”) examined the request in the presence of both T. and the applicant.\n19.  At the hearing the applicant contested T.’s request. She explained that he had no grounds for being recognised as the father, since she had still been married to another man at the time of the child’s birth and T. had never expressed a wish to hav", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7784", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1955 and 1991 respectively and live in Molodyozhnoye.\n5.  On 17 January 2001 at 9 p.m. police officer S. accompanied by another police officer, Z. and, a private person, P. entered the first applicant’s house and claimed that he was to appear before a civil court. According to the first applicant, he asked officer S. to present his authority to act on the court’s behalf, to stop disturbing his family and to leave his home. In reply officer S. several times punched the first applicant in the face and chest.\n6.  The same day the first applicant called an ambulance. The doctor diagnosed the first applicant as having high blood pressure. According to the first applicant they also recorded concussion and bruises on his face. According to the case-file materials, in particular the decisions of the domestic courts, the doctor of ambulance could not recollect seeing any injuries on the applicant’s face during that visit.\n7.  On 18 January 2001 the first applicant’s wife wrote a complaint to the Simferopol District Prosecutor’s Office (the SDPO) requesting them to investigate the allegedly unlawful actions of officer S.\n8.  On 19 January 2001 the first applicant underwent a forensic medical examination which found two bruises, one on his right shoulder and another near his left eye. These injuries were classified as minor bodily injuries.\n9.  On 2 February 2001 the SDPO refused to institute criminal proceedings against officer S. The first applicant complained to the Prosecutor’s Office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the Crimea Prosecutor’s Office), which quashed the above decision on 7 March 2001 for incompleteness of the investigation.\n10.  On 20 March 2001 the SDPO again refused to institute criminal proceedings against officer S. This decision was quashed by the Simferopol Central District Court (the District Court) on 25 February 2002 for failure to explain the origin of the injuries of the first applicant.\n11.  Between April 2002 and August 2005 the prosecutor eleven times refused to institute criminal proceedings against officer S. and all these decisions were quashed by the higher prosecutors or the court for failure to conduct all necessary investigative actions.\n12.  On 13 January 2003 the first applicant lodged a civil claim in the Simferopol Zaliznychnyy District Court against the Simferopol District Police Department seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the unlawful actions of officer S. According to the applicant the claim was not examined.\n13.  On 20 December 2003 police officer S. died in a traffic accident.\n14.  On 8 September 2005 the SDPO refused again to institute criminal proceedings against officer S. for lack of corpus delicti in his actions.\n15.  On 22 March 2006 the District Court quashed the decision of the SDPO for incompleteness of the investigation.\n16.  On 27 April 2006 the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (the Crimea Court of Appeal) overruled the decision of the first-instance court and rejected the first applicant’s complaint. It noted that the investigator had conducted all necessary activities and the first applicant’s complaints were unsubstantiated. The court noted that it had not been established that officer S. inflicted any bodily harm on the first applicant. It also noted that the doctor, who had seen the first applicant on 17 April 2001, could not confirm any bodily injuries and that bruises on the soft tissue of the applicant’", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7785", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is serving a prison sentence in Kotlas, Arkhangelsk region.\n6.  On 23 September 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. He remained in custody pending investigation and trial.\n7.  On 9 April 2004 the Solombalskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk found the applicant guilty of battery and sentenced him to six months’ community work. The applicant was represented by a State-appointed lawyer. On 28 May 2004 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. It is apparent from the text of the appeal judgment that the applicant was not represented before the appeal court.\n8.  On 8 July 2004 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to 13 years’ imprisonment. The applicant was again represented by a State-appointed lawyer. The applicant appealed against his conviction, alleging that the trial court had erred in its assessment of the evidence. On 20 October 2004 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. It is apparent from the text of the appeal judgment that the applicant was not represented before the appeal court.\n9.  On an unspecified date, the correctional facility where the applicant was serving the prison sentence asked the Regional Court to advise as to the execution of the sentence for battery of 9 April 2004. The court fixed the hearing for 18 March 2005.\n10.  On 5 March 2005 the Regional Court forwarded to the correctional facility a request to inform the applicant of the date, time and place of the hearing. The applicant signed a statement acknowledging receipt of the notice on 17 March 2005. The relevant part of his statement read as follows:\n“I, Aleksandr Leonidovich Dementyev, hereby acknowledge that I have been notified about the hearing to be held at the Arkhangelsk Regional Court concerning the execution of the sentence imposed by the Solombalskiy District Court on 9 April 2004. I have been informed that my attendance at the hearing is not mandatory and that I have a right to participate through a legal representative.”\n11.  On 18 March 2005 at 11 a.m. the administrative office of the correctional facility where the applicant was serving a prison sentence informed the Regional Court by phone that the applicant had chosen not to be represented at the hearing. The message was worded as follows:\n“[The applicant] has chosen not to be represented by a lawyer at the hearing on 18 March 2005 concerning the execution of the sentence imposed by the Solombalskiy District Court on 9 April 2004.”\n12.  On 18 March 2005 at 2 p.m. the Regional Court reconsidered the term imposed on the applicant sentence by the verdict of 9 April 2004. The court converted it into a prison sentence and added it, in part, to the term of imprisonment imposed on the applicant by the murder verdict. As a result, the applicant’s overall prison sentence was increased by one month to take into account his conviction for battery of 9 April 2004. After having examined the applicant’s statement - confirming that he had been apprised of the hearing and his right to attend - and the transcript of the telephone message from the correctional facility stating that the applicant had chosen not to be represented at the hearing by a lawyer, the court decided to hold the hearing in the applicant’s absence. The prosecutor and a representative of the regional department of corrections who attended the hearing considered it acceptable to proc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7786", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and is currently detained in Diez Prison.\n6.  Following several convictions mainly of property offences, the applicant was found guilty by the Frankfurt am Main District Court on 16 February 1984, in particular, of sexual abuse of children and dissemination of pornographic documents and sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment. He was notably found to have shown pornographic films to children aged twelve to sixteen.\n7.  On 17 December 1997 the Hanau Regional Court convicted the applicant of eleven counts of sexual abuse of children, committed between July 1986 and December 1996. It sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment and ordered his preventive detention under Article 66 § 2 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 34 below).\n8.  The Regional Court found that the applicant had partly masturbated boys aged six to thirteen and had partly incited them to commit acts of a sexual or masochist nature on him in his apartment. He had recorded the acts on video and shown them to other minors. The applicant, who had been diagnosed by psychiatric expert R. with a sexual deviation with paedophile and masochist elements which was not so severe as to be pathological, had acted with full criminal responsibility.\n9.  The Regional Court further considered that the applicant’s preventive detention was necessary. He had a propensity to commit further similar offences, which he considered as harmless and not necessitating punishment, by which the children concerned could suffer serious psychological damage.\n10.  On 27 October 2001 the applicant, having fully served his prison sentence, was placed for the first time in preventive detention, executed initially in Werl Prison and since 19 January 2004 in Diez Prison.\n11.  The continuation of the applicant’s preventive detention in prison was ordered by the courts dealing with the execution of sentences at regular intervals. It was ordered, in particular, by the Koblenz Regional Court on 3 February 2011, based on a report dated 1 December 2010 by a psychiatric expert, V.\n12.  On 9 and 23 May 2011 the applicant, referring to the Federal Constitutional Court’s leading judgment on preventive detention of 4 May 2011 (see paragraphs 42-48 below), requested the Koblenz Regional Court to order his release immediately.\n13.  On 16 September 2011 the Koblenz Regional Court, having heard the applicant in person, his counsel and an external psychiatric expert, V., ordered the applicant’s preventive detention to continue (Article 67 d § 3 of the Criminal Code; see paragraph 37 below).\n14.  The Regional Court found that the applicant would have served ten years in his first preventive detention by 26 October 2011. This had been the maximum duration for such detention at the time of the applicant’s offences and conviction under Article 67 § 3 of the Criminal Code in the version then in force, which had, however, been abolished in January 1998 (see paragraph 36 below).\n15.  The Regional Court further noted that the stricter standards set by the Federal Constitutional Court in its leading judgment of 4 May 2011 for a continuation of preventive detention beyond that time-limit (see paragraph 44 below) had been met in the applicant’s case. It was still highly likely that the applicant, owing to specific circumstances relating to his conduct, would commit the most serious offences against the sexual self‑determination of children, by which the victims would severely be harmed mentally and physicall", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7787", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in the Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre (SIZO).\n6.  In November 2003 the applicant met and started cohabiting with Ms T.\n7.  On 2 June 2004 Mr D., a relative of Ms T., complained to the police that the applicant had robbed him of 1,100 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) (equivalent to about 165 euros (EUR)).\n8.  In late July 2004 (the exact date is unknown) a TV set, an iron and a radio were stolen from the household of Ms G., an acquaintance of Ms T. Ms G. was away on a trip at the time and discovered the theft upon her return home a few days later. As the investigation later established, the theft had been committed by the applicant and Ms T.\n9.  On 8 August 2004 Mr D. brought another complaint before the police, this time that the applicant and Ms T. had robbed him of UAH 2,700 (equivalent to about EUR 400) and two electric kettles.\n10.  The three incidents in question took place in the Kharkiv region. The investigations into the incidents were joined into one criminal case against the applicant and Ms T. on suspicion of theft and robbery. At first, the suspects’ whereabouts could not be identified.\n11.  In August 2004 the applicant was arrested by the Kharkiv police. The exact date of his arrest is unclear. According to the applicant, it was 10 August 2004. He did not, however, specify the time or circumstances of his arrest. As indicated by the investigator in his application for the applicant’s pre-trial detention (see paragraph 13 below), it was 11 August 2004. This was also the date from which the term of the applicant’s imprisonment was calculated according to the verdict of 13 April 2005 (see paragraph 59 below). However, according to the explanations of officers from the Kharkiv Police Department, it was on 12 August 2004, at about 2 a.m. (see paragraph 67 below). Also, as indicated in the verdict of 9 November 2011, the applicant was arrested on 12 August (see paragraph 29 below). There is no copy of the arrest report in the case file before the Court.\n12.  According to the applicant, the Kharkiv police officers ill-treated him in the Merefa Temporary Detention Facility (ITT) with a view to making him confess to the alleged theft and robberies (for a more detailed account see paragraph 63 below). As a result, the applicant made a statement of confession, allegedly as dictated by the investigator.\n13.  On 13 August 2004 the Kharkiv District Court – in a hearing which the applicant attended – remanded him in custody pending trial, having allowed an application to that end by the investigator.\n14.  On the same date the applicant had his procedural rights explained to him and signed a waiver of legal assistance.\n15.  On 17 August 2004 Ms T. was detained, too. According to her statements, she and the applicant had committed the theft in the household of Ms G. and the second robbery of Mr D. As to the first robbery, Ms T. submitted that, as far as she knew, the applicant had merely borrowed some money from Mr D. on 2 June 2004.\n16.  On 31 August 2004 the applicant was indicted.\n17.  On 9 September 2004 the case was referred to the Kharkiv District Court for trial.\n18.  As the defendants had been transferred to Sevastopol on 20 September 2004 in order to attend the second set of proceedings (see paragraphs 40-62 below), no hearings took place until 11 July 2005.\n19.  On 11 July 2005 the hearing was adjourned until 8 September 2005, as the court had ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7788", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a registered association which has its seat in Vienna. Its aim is to research and study past and present transfers of ownership of agricultural and forest land in order to reach conclusions as to the impact of such transfers on society. The applicant association also gives opinions on draft laws falling within its field of interest.\n6.  In essence, agricultural and forest land transactions require approval by local and regional authorities. The latter are called Regional Real Property Transactions Commissions (Landes-Grundverkehrs-kommis­sionen). The aim of this requirement, laid down in the Real Property Transactions Acts of the Länder, is to preserve land for agricultural use and forestry and, in some of the regions including Tyrol, to avoid the proliferation of second homes. The applicant association states that it is sent all decisions issued by the Regional Real Property Transactions Commissions with the exception of the one for Tyrol. In the decisions it receives, the names of parties and other sensitive data are usually anonymised.\n7.  On 26 April 2005 the association asked the Tyrol Real Property Transactions Commission (“the Commission”) to provide, by mail, all decisions issued since 1 January 2005 in anonymised form, the costs thereof to be reimbursed. By letter of 12 July 2005 the Commission replied that it could not comply with the request owing to lack of time and personnel.\n8.  On 18 July 2005 the applicant association submitted a further request, this time requesting the provision, by mail, of all decisions issued since 1 January 2000 in anonymised form. In the event of refusal of the application, it demanded a formal decision in accordance with the Tyrol Access to Information Act (Tiroler Auskunftspflichtgesetz - “the Information Act”). The applicant association argued that since the Commission’s decisions concerned “civil rights” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention, the decisions should be either publicly announced or made public by other appropriate means.\n9.  In its decision of 10 October 2005 the Commission rejected the request, holding that the transmission of anonymised copies of its decisions did not constitute information within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Information Act, which defines information as “existing knowledge on matters known to the authority at the time it provides the information”. Moreover, even if the request were to fall within the scope of that provision, the Information Act stated that pursuant to section 3(1) subparagraph (c) there was no duty to provide the information if doing so would require so many resources that the functioning of the authority would be affected. The decision stated that complaints could be lodged with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) and the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs­gerichtshof).\n10.  The applicant association complained to both the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court. It relied on Article 10 of the Convention.\n11.  In its submissions in reply to the applicant association’s complaint to the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court, the Commission maintained that its decisions did not constitute information within the meaning of the Information Act. It argued that a decision contained the facts of the case and the legal conclusions the authority had drawn from them. Legal arguments could be discussed and decisions could be challenged and set aside if the legal conclusions were fou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7789", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and is serving a prison sentence in the town of Rubtsovsk (Altay Region).\n6.  On 10 February 2003 the applicant was detained on suspicion of theft.\n7.  On 12 February 2003 the Altayskiy District Court of the Khakasiya Republic (“the District Court”) remanded the applicant in custody pending investigation. The applicant remained in custody after the start of the trial. The applicant’s detention pending trial was due to expire on 17 December 2003.\n8.  On 10 December 2003 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention “for three months, until 17 March 2004”.\n9.  On 28 January 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant of theft, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The District Court stated in the operative part of its judgment that the applicant should remain in custody until the judgment became final. The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n10.  On 30 June 2004 the Khakasiya Supreme Court quashed the judgment of 28 January 2004 and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination. It left the preventive measure unchanged, stating that there were “no reasons to release [the applicant]”. The Supreme Court did not specify the time-limit for the applicant’s detention. The detention order was based on Article 388 § 1 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n11.  On 13 July 2004 the District Court received the applicant’s case for re-examination.\n12.  On 3 August 2004 the District Court set a date for a hearing and ordered that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged. The detention order was based on Article 231 § 2 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure The detention order neither specified the period of the applicant’s detention nor gave any reasons therefor. The applicant did not appeal against that detention order.\n13.  On 12 August 2004 the applicant lodged an application for release. On the same day the District Court rejected it. The applicant appealed.  By a letter of 19 August 2004 the Khakasiya Supreme Court informed the applicant that his appeal against the decision of 12 August 2004 had been struck off the list, since the above-mentioned decision was not amenable to judicial review.\n14.  On 19 August 2004 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention from 19 August to 19 October 2004 and noted as follows:\n“On 12 February 2003 [the applicant] was remanded in custody. On 17 March 2003 [his] criminal case was submitted to the court for trial. On 17 September 2003 his detention was extended for three months, until 17 December 2003. On the latter date [sic] his detention was extended until 17 March 2004. On 28 January 2004 [the applicant] was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. On 30 June 2004 the [conviction] judgment was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted for a new examination to the first-instance court. On 13 July 2004 the case arrived at the court. The authorised period of [the applicant’s] detention expires on 19 August 2004 ...”\n15.  The applicant appealed, arguing that the previous term of his detention had expired on 18 August 2004.\n16.  On 13 October 2004 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention for one month and seventeen days, until 30 November 2004.\n17.  On 23 November 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n18.  On 9 February 2005 the Khakasiya Supreme Court, havin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7790", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod.\n6.  At the relevant time the applicant was an employee of one S., the owner of a private company. On 1 December 2003 an unknown person fired at S.’s car using an AK-74 assault rifle. S. was wounded but survived the attack.\n7.  The investigative authorities suspected the applicant and his acquaintances D.A., D.M. and Sh. of having planned it.\n8.  In this connection, on 21 April 2004 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Department of the Interior authorised an operative drill.\n9.  On 26 April 2004 the following instruction was given to the police officers in charge of it:\n“The police officers should take [the applicant] in a car belonging to S. to the designated location. The police officers should hold themselves out as members of S.’s personal security service. At the designated location [the applicant] should be met and questioned by a police officer disguised as S.”\n10.  At about 10 a.m. on 27 April 2004 on his way to work the applicant was stopped by an unknown man. This man grabbed the applicant’s hand and dragged him into a black car belonging to S.\n11.  The applicant tried to escape and shouted for help. Two other men came out of the car and started beating him, forcing him into the vehicle.\n12.  The applicant was handcuffed and driven to a forest in the Balakhinskiy District of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region.\n13.  According to the applicant, some time later, another car drove up. S. and a man in camouflage with a gun and a plastic bag appeared from the car. The man in camouflage hit the applicant on the back of the head. The applicant fell to his knees and the man kicked him in the back. Then S. kicked the applicant in the chest. After being severely beaten, the applicant was asked why he had wanted S. dead. The applicant denied his involvement in the attempt on S.’s life. Then the man in camouflage rammed a gun in the applicant’s mouth, making his lower lip bleed. Later, unknown persons put a plastic bag over his head, with a view to suffocating him. The applicant passed out a few times. When he regained consciousness, the men began beating him again. Later S. said: “Take an axe and cut off his leg!” After the applicant saw an axe in the hands of one of the men, he told them he would write whatever they wanted. He was given a pen and paper. One of his kidnappers dictated several written statements to him and another one made a video recording. The applicant promised to confess his involvement in the attempt on S.’s life to a police officer, V. He was driven to the police station for this purpose.\n14.  On his arrival there, the applicant changed his mind and instead of confessing filed a complaint of ill-treatment by S. and his associates.\n15.  In the evening the applicant returned home, where he was met by his partner, L. Later that day he went to a hospital. The following entry was made in his medical record:\n“Date of admission to the hospital: 27.04.2004 at 20.30\nDate of discharge from the hospital: 14.05.2004\nDepartment: surgery\n...\nDiagnosis: contusion of the right kidney, a brain contusion, bruising of the soft tissue of the face and limbs, blood in the urine, a subarachnoid haemorrhage and a fracture of the right ninth rib.\n...\n[According to the applicant,] on 27.04.2004 around 10 a.m., close to Svoboda Square, he was beaten up by three unknown persons, then he was put in a [car] and driven to Dubravniy, where he was beaten again. He received blows to the head, body a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7791", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Livny, Orel region.\n6.  The applicant suffers from locomotor impairment resulting from a gunshot wound he received in 1997.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant was found guilty of assault on a police officer, theft and illegal possession of firearms and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. He was sent to correctional colony no. IK-2 in Livny, Orel region, to serve the prison sentence. He was released in September 2013.\n8.  The Government submitted copies of official floor plans of the colony premises and statements from the colony administration. The information provided can be summarised as follows:\nPeriod of detention\nUnit no.\nTotal surface in square metres (including exercise area)\nDormitory surface area in square metres\nNumber of inmates assigned to the dormitory\nNumber of sleeping places\nFrom 6 to 17 November 1999\nQuarantine section\n216\nNo data provided\nNo data provided\n44\nFrom 17 November 1999 to 14 July 2006\nUnit 15\n690\n9.  Each unit comprised a dormitory, a lavatory, a cafeteria, a TV room, a storage room and a locker room. At all times the applicant was provided with an individual bed, bedding and cutlery. All the dormitories were equipped with a ventilation system in good working order. The windows in the dormitories, except for those in the quarantine section, were not covered with grilles and provided adequate access to daylight. All the premises in the correctional colony were equipped with electric lighting. The lavatory was separate from the living area of the units. Each toilet was located in a separate cubicle. The inmates were allowed at least one hour’s exercise twice a day in a specially designated area which was equipped with a volleyball playground and exercise bars.\n10.  The Government submitted a copy of the daily schedule of correctional colony no. IK-2 which reiterated the routines as set out in the model daily schedule approved by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation for correctional colonies (see paragraph 22 below). According to the Government, most detainees spent their day at work. Because of the disability, the applicant was not obligated to work. He was offered a job in a sewing shop where the working conditions were appropriate for his disability.\n11.  The applicant did not challenge the data submitted by the Government in respect of the measurements and population of the dormitories. He submitted that the beds were arranged in two tiers which prevented access to daylight. The dormitories were not equipped with any ventilation system. They were infested with lice. The lighting was dim and insufficient. The water supply was irregular. The level of medical service provided was unsatisfactory. The applicant did not provide any detail as to his daily routines. Nor did he explain whether he had accepted a job offer in the sewing shop or not.\n12.  On numerous occasions the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell for failure to comply with internal regulations. Each time his head was allegedly shaved.\n13.  In response to a complaint by the applicant about the conditions of his detention, on 30 March 2007 the Federal Department of Corrections confirmed that the applicant was detained in an overcrowded dormitory where the living area per inmate was below the statutory two square metres. In particular, the letter stated as follows:\n“The medical division of the Federal Department of Corrections has considered your complaint ... .\nPursuant t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7793", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.   The applicant, Mr Bogdan Ioan Bulea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973.\n6.  On 30 January 2003 the applicant was arrested and charged with several crimes. On 24 February 2003 the investigation concluded with the applicant’s indictment for fraud, use of forged documents and associating with several people with the goal of committing economic crimes.\n7.  On 28 August 2003 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was replaced by the Bacău County Court with the preventive measure of a prohibition on leaving town. Claiming that the prohibition on leaving his town of residence had prevented him from obtaining a job, the applicant sought to have the measure overturned. On 25 November 2003 the Bacău County Court allowed the applicant’s application and replaced it with a prohibition on leaving the country.\n8.  On 20 April 2004 the Bacău County Court convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud, use of forged documents and associating with several people with the goal of committing crimes and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment.\n9.  The applicant filed an appeal, which was partially allowed on 22 March 2005 when the Galaţi Court of Appeal decided to send the case back to the Galaţi County Court for retrial on the merits.\n10. During the retrial, the applicant sought the revocation of the preventive measure prohibiting him from leaving the country on several occasions, complaining that the unreasonably long travel ban had prevented him from conducting his business activities and earning a living for his family. He also argued that there were no reasons to suspect that he posed a flight risk. On 7 March 2006 the Galaţi County Court rejected the applicant’s application, holding that the severity of the crimes he was accused of, the significant losses to the State treasury which had been caused by those offences and the early phase of the trial justified the need to keep the preventive measure against him in place. The court further stated that the duration of the proceedings and the duration of the preventive measure imposed on him were also due to the complexity of the case, which involved numerous defendants and witnesses.\nSimilar applications for revocation of the preventive measure filed by the applicant were rejected with the same reasoning by the Galaţi County Court on 3 and 28 April 2006. On 19 September 2006 a new application by the applicant was again rejected by the same court, which found that the measure was still necessary given the significant losses caused to the State treasury, the complexity of the case and the fact that the measure had not been in force for an excessive period of time.\n11. On 30 March 2007 a new judgment on the merits was issued by the Galaţi County Court, which found the applicant guilty of aggravated fraud, use of forged documents and associating with several people with the goal of committing crimes and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment. The applicant was also obliged to repay to the State treasury the sum of 3,740,901,433 Romanian lei (ROL) which he had received illegally. The court analysed the necessity of the preventive measure prohibiting the applicant from leaving the country and decided to maintain it, considering that it was necessary in view of the severity of the crimes committed by the applicant.\n12.  The applicant filed an appeal against the judgment of 30 March 2007. During the appeal hearings before the Galaţi Court of Appeal, the applicant once again applied for the remov", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7795", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are members of four families. Anvar Ghorbanov and Nasibeh Ghorbanov were born in 1970 and 1975 and are married. Nadereh Ghorbanov, Omokolsoum Ghorbanov, Mohammad Ghorbanov and Ibrahim Ghorbanov are their children who were born in 1994, 1996, 2001 and 2002 respectively. Ologhbeig Rahmanov and Tajkhan Rahmanov were born in 1969 and 1973 and are married. Ameneh Rahmanov, Mohammadali Rahmanov, Maryam Rahmanov, Fatima Rahmanov and Zehra Rahmanov are their children who were born in 1996, 1998, 2003, 2008 and 2008 respectively. Oktamjan Rahmanov and Sedaghat Rahmanov were born in 1973 and 1978 and are married. Rahimeh Rahmanov and Marziyeh Rahmanov are their children who were born in 1998 and 2000 respectively. Zaher Tordiev and Maheireh Tordiev are married and were born in 1980 and 1993 respectively. Maheireh Tordiev is the daughter of Ologhbeig Rahmanov and Tajkhan Rahmanov.\n5.  The applicants currently live in hiding in Turkey.\n6.  According to the applicants’ submissions, they were living in Andijan when they decided to leave Uzbekistan as a result of increasing State pressure on those who practised Islam. A number of their family members, friends or relatives had been questioned by the Uzbek authorities, imprisoned or even killed for practising their religion. Documents in the case file indicate that criminal proceedings are currently pending in Uzbekistan against seven of the eight adult applicants for attempting to change the constitutional order.\n7.  The four families left Uzbekistan separately on unspecified dates and eventually reunited in Tajikistan in 1997. They then fled to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. Once in Iran, they initially settled in Zahedan, where they lived for three years from 2001. During that time they applied to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) for refugee status.\n8.  In August 2005 the applicants went to Tehran and applied to the foreigners’ police. They were settled in a refugee camp and some six months later they were granted refugee status by the UNHCR. While at the refugee camp the applicants requested that a school be set up within the camp for some thirty refugee children, including theirs. The applicants claim that their request was turned down by the Iranian authorities and they were threatened with deportation to Uzbekistan. Consequently, the applicants fled to Turkey on 21 September 2007.\n9.  Upon their arrival in Turkey the applicants applied to the UNHCR office in Van. On 5 January 2008 all the applicants (except Fatima Rahmanov and Zehra Rahmanov, who were not yet born) were given UNHCR refugee certificates. The applicants also applied to the Turkish authorities, which issued each of them with asylum-seeker cards. The applicants were given temporary residence permits until 24 September 2008 and told to report for signature three times a week. They were given food rations. They rented flats and sent their children to school.\n10.  The applicants claim that on 12 September 2008 the authorities invited all the Uzbek asylum seekers in Van to the police headquarters for distribution of food rations and school stationery. Some twenty-five Uzbek asylum seekers, who went to collect the items, including the applicants, were placed in detention. Police officers drove the group of asylum seekers to the border that same evening and forcibly deported them to Iran. The Government denied the veracity of the claim that the applicants had been tricked into going to the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7796", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Budapest. The second applicant, Irodalom Kft, is a Hungarian limited liability company, with its seat in Budapest.\n6.  Mr Ungváry is a well-reputed historian specialised in 20th century Hungarian history including State security under the Communist regime.\nIrodalom Kft is the publisher of the literary and political weekly Élet és Irodalom.\n7.  On 18 May 2007 Élet és Irodalom published a study (entitled The Genesis of a Procedure – Dialógus in Pécs) written by Mr Ungváry. The article dealt with the actions of the security service against a spontaneous student peace movement (“Dialógus”) active in Pécs and elsewhere in the country in the 1980s. The author stated inter alia that:\n“... the Dialógus-affair had demonstrated ... how closely the Ministry of the Interior and the ‘social organisations’ – which had taken over some State-security functions covertly, in case of necessity – had been intertwined”.\n8.  The lead of the article pointed out that the recent scandals exposing former agents acting for the party-State’s security system covered up the fact that most reporting for that system had been done through accidental, social or official contacts (as had been the case with a Mr K., a judge of the Constitutional Court at the material time, elected by Parliament), rather than by actual agents.\nThe lead contained the following passage:\n“From the perspective of informing (besúgás) and repression (megtorlás), Officer J. W. ... and the nine “official contacts” (hivatalos kapcsolat) proved to be a lot more important ... [in the Dialógus-affair], [these official contacts including] Mr K. (today judge of the Constitutional Court)... Their respective responsibilities are of course different.”\nThe author argued that Mr K., without being an actual agent,\n“... was in regular and apparently collegial (kollégiális) contact with the State security, quite often anticipating and exceeding its expectations” ... “and as an official contact, he was busy as an informant (besúgó) and demanding hard-line policies”.\nThe writing made reference to the role of further contemporary public figures, amongst others the Prime Minister, a member of the European Economic and Social Committee, a former Member of Parliament and a university professor.\n9.  In the article, Mr Ungváry relied, inter alia, on documents available in the Historical Archives of the State Security Service archived as a “strictly confidential action plan”. Referring to the above material, he described the role played by leaders of Pécs University – including Mr K., deputy secretary of the local party committee between 1983 and 1988 – in assisting the security operations.\nMr Ungváry characterised Mr K.’s attitude in the Dialógus case as that of a “hardliner”, in comparison to other “social contacts”. He recalled that Mr K. had ordered the removal of Dialógus’s poster, saying that “the country did not need such an ... organisation [i.e. Dialógus]”, and that he had reproached a candidate in the Communist youth organisation’s elections for having been supported by Dialógus.\n10.  In its next issue of 25 May 2007 Élet és Irodalom published Mr K.’s statement written in response to the disputed article, denying the allegations.\n11.  On 27 May 2007 a television channel broadcast an interview with Mr Ungváry about the article published in Élet és Irodalom. He reiterated his argument that in the previous political system most reporting had been done through ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7798", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are:\n1) Mr Dag Vilnes, born in 1949, who lives in Tønsberg;\n2) Mr Magn Håkon Muledal, born in 1953, who lives in Førde;\n3) Mr Anders Lindahl, born in 1942, who lives in Avaldsnes;\n4) Mr Sigurdur P. Hafsteinsson, born in 1953, who lives in Jersey (United Kingdom);\n5) Mr Knut Arvid Nygård, born in 1961, who lives in Tananger;\n6) Mr Bjørn Anders Nesdal born in 1958, who lives in Kristiansand;\n7) Mr Per Arne Jakobsen, born in 1954, who lives in Larvik.\nThe third applicant is a Swedish national, the fourth applicant is an Icelandic national and the other five applicants are Norwegian nationals.\n9.  After the adoption of the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf, the Norwegian Government proclaimed in a Royal Decree of 31 May 1963 Norwegian sovereignty over the sea floor and the ground beneath it outside Norway. This was followed up by the 1963 Act on the Exploration and Exploitation of Sub-Sea Natural Resources – the Continental Shelf Act 1963 (kontinentalsokkelloven). Drilling in the North Sea area started in June 1966. In this connection diving operations were carried out in part in sheltered waters from barges and smaller boats, for example in relation to the construction and equipment of drilling platforms, and in part in the open sea. During the first years the depths involved were not particularly great. In the Ekofisk oilfield the sea was approximately seventy metres deep, and in the Statfjord oilfield it was approximately 150 metres. To begin with, diving took place from oil rigs, supply ships, drilling ships or pipe-laying ships. From the mid-1970s specially built diving support vessels, operational regardless of weather conditions, were used, and after a while became the usual means.\nFor dives down to fifty metres air gas was used, and decompression took place either in the water or at the surface.\n10.  For professional North Sea diving, deep and relatively short diving jobs (rarely more than one hour) were described as bounce diving. This was normally performed with a diving bell and a surface decompression chamber. Two divers would access the diving bell at the surface under regular atmospheric pressure. The diving bell would be lowered into the water and down to the work location on the seabed. When the diving bell was in position at the work location and the necessary tools had been lowered, the diving bell would be put under the same pressure as the work location, normally within minutes. The diver could then leave the diving bell and do the job.\n11.  Both the diving bell and the diver would be supplied with gas from tanks attached to the diving bell (normally heliox). One of the divers would perform the job while the other would serve as a combined “tender” and stand by the diver in case something went wrong. When the job had been completed the diver would return to the diving bell. Then the diving bell would be lifted to the surface and connected to a decompression chamber, where the divers would complete their decompression. Heliox would normally be replaced by air when the diving bell pressure was similar to the water pressure, at fifty metres. Generally, bounce diving was perceived as stressful, because divers had little time to do the job on the seabed and felt thermal unease (first the increased temperature when the diving bell was put under pressure, and then hypothermia when entering the water, which was five to seven degrees Celsius).\n12.  North Sea dives of longer duration were performed as sat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7799", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Karlovac.\n5.  The applicant and her husband were holders of a specially protected tenancy on a flat in Karlovac. In 1991 a bomb was thrown into the flat and the family moved out of the flat for security reasons. By a decision of the Karlovac Housing Committee of 29 November 1991 they were given another flat in Karlovac for temporary occupation. The applicant’s husband moved out of the flat in 1992 and they subsequently divorced. The applicant and two children born of the marriage continued to occupy the flat. The above-said decision was annulled by the same Commission on 11 November 2000.\n6.  In 2000 the Karlovac Municipality, as the owner of the flat, brought a civil action in the Karlovac Municipal Court against the applicant, seeking her eviction. The claim was granted on 1 February 2008 on the ground that the flat at issue had been given for temporary occupation to the applicant’s husband who had left the flat and that that decision had been annulled in 2000 and that therefore she no longer had a legal basis for occupying the flat.\n7.  This judgment was upheld by the Karlovac County Court on 19 August 2009.\n8.  In her subsequent constitutional complaint the applicant argued that she had been a holder of a specially protected tenancy on a flat in Karlovac, owned by the Karlovac Municipality and had to leave that flat owing to the circumstances not attributable to her. She had moved into the other flat, on the basis of a decision issued by the Karlovac Housing Committee. That other flat was also owned by the Karlovac Municipality and it had been agreed between the owner and the applicant that she would be granted a specially protected tenancy on that other flat. She also argued that the case concerned an existential issue for her; that she had been living in the flat for more than twenty years; that she had addressed the Karlovac Municipality on numerous occasions and had been told “not to worry and that everything would be alright”; that she had fulfilled her obligations as a tenant. The complaint was dismissed on 29 March 2012.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7800", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 22 March 2001 the applicant’s son, S., who was forty-two years old, was taken by ambulance to the Simferopol Anti-Tuberculosis Clinic (“the hospital”), a public health-care institution, and hospitalised with the following diagnosis: left-sided pneumonia; tuberculosis of the left lung; haemoptysis; and pulmonary insufficiency.\n7.  In the morning on 23 March 2001 the doctors noted, among other things, that S. was euphoric, behaved inadequately and complaining of dizziness. On the same date S. was X-rayed. S.’s state of health was characterised as serious. He was prescribed antibacterial, blood clotting and detoxification medicines.\n8.  On 25 March 2001 the attending doctor noted that S.’s state of health had improved.\n9.  On 26 March 2001 S. was X-rayed and offered a bronchoscopy, which would allow a specific diagnosis to be achieved and localise the source of bleeding he was suffering. The doctors noted that S. refused to undergo the procedure. They further assessed S.’s condition as serious. According to the medical file, the need for S. to undergo the bronchoscopy was explained to the applicant.\n10.  On 27 March 2001 S. remained in a serious condition. The doctors noted that S. was excited and suffering from visual hallucinations. A psychiatrist invited by the medical staff noted that S. refused to talk to him.\n11.  On 28 March 2001 the doctors observed that S. appeared psychologically and emotionally unstable, excitable and that he displayed an aggressive attitude towards the medical staff. They also diagnosed S. with an acute abscess of the left lung.\n12.  On that date S. again refused to undergo a bronchoscopy and countersigned a note to this effect made in his medical records. As the conservative treatment had not produced the necessary improvement in his condition and S. did not consent to the bronchoscopy, he was taken to the thoracic surgery department of the hospital for a radioscopy and further examination. S., however, left the surgical department of the hospital. According to the medical file, the doctors continued to talk to the applicant on account of the necessity of the treatment which S. had refused.\n13.  On 29 March 2001 S.’s condition was assessed as extremely serious. On that date he wrote in his personal diary that he had refused to undergo any surgical operations as he was in fear for his life. He noted the following:\n“... I ... declare that I am against any surgery on my recovering body. [This] text has been written because of [my] fear for my life ...”\n14.  On 30 March 2001 the doctors noted that S. was in a serious condition and was refusing to accept intramuscular and intravenous injections. A thoracic surgeon examined S. and recommended that the patient be persuaded to undergo an X-ray examination in the surgical department for the purpose of subsequent drainage of the abscess and to continue receiving the previously prescribed treatment. The surgeon qualified the condition of S. as serious. The doctors further explained to the applicant that S. required an examination and surgical treatment.\n15.  On the same date a psychiatrist diagnosed S. with somatogenic paranoid disorder.\n16.  Between 31 March and 3 April 2001 S. was in an extremely serious condition. The doctors noted that S. had refused penicillin injections. The other medical treatment was provided in accordance with the previous prescriptions.\n17.  On 3 April 2001 S. was still suffering fr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7801", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1938 and 1944 respectively and live in Draginje, Serbia.\n5.  On 15 November 2001 the applicants applied to the Karlovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Karlovcu) for enforcement of a civil court judgment awarding him damages adopted on 28 August 1991 by the Šabac Municipal Court in Serbia.\n6.  On 4 March 2005 the case was forwarded to the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).\n7.  The applicants’ motion for enforcement was declared inadmissible on 24 October 2005 on the ground that the Šabac Municipal Court judgment had never been recognised in Croatia.\n8.  This decision was upheld by the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on 3 January 2006 and served its decision on the applicants’ representative on 17 February 2006.\n9.  On 20 March 2006 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske).\n10.  On 10 June 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint as ill-founded.\n11.  The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicants’ representative on 10 July 2009.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7802", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.   All of the applicants have either tenancy rights to their flats on the basis of occupancy vouchers (yaşayış sahəsi orderi) issued by the relevant executive authorities or ownership rights to them on the basis of an ownership certificate issued by the competent domestic authority (see Appendix - Table I).\n5.  In four of these cases, the applicants’ flats were unlawfully occupied by internally displaced persons (“IDPs”) from different regions of Azerbaijan under occupation by Armenian military forces following the Armenian Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, and in one case (application no. 7928/11) by a family of refugees from Armenia.\n6.  The applicants lodged separate civil actions before the domestic courts seeking the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.\n7.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix (Table I), the applicants’ claims were granted by various domestic courts, which ordered the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.\n8.  The respective judgments became final and enforceable. However, the IDP families refused to comply with those judgments and despite the applicants’ complaints to various authorities, the judgments were not enforced.\n9.  According to the Government’s letter of 17 May 2012, the judgments in the applicants’ favour in applications nos. 58265/09, 73346/10, 7928/11 and 16785/11 were enforced in April 2012.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7803", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Rab.\n5.  On 20 June 2001 the applicant’s brother J.K. brought a civil action against the applicant and their father in the Rab Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rabu) seeking to be declared a co-owner of the house previously owned by their father.\n6.  On 20 February 2002 the applicant lodged a counter-claim against J.K.\n7.  By a judgment of 4 October 2004 the single judge of the Rab Municipal Court, Mrs L.P.M., ruled for J.K. and dismissed the applicant’s counter-claim.\n8.  By a judgment of 12 December 2007 the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. This judgment was served on the applicant’s representative on 14 January 2008.\n9.  On 23 January 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the judgments of the ordinary courts. He complained, inter alia, that the first-instance judgment in his case had been rendered by a person whose appointment as a judge had later on been quashed by the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske).\n10.  On 6 March 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint. The Constitutional Court held that judgments of the Administrative Court quashing judicial appointments had ex nunc effects only and that therefore the first-instance judgment in his case had been reached by a person who had been a judge at the relevant time. This decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 15 March 2012.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 26 November 2003 National Judicial Council (Državno sudbeno vijeće) appointed Mrs L.P.M. a judge of the Rab Municipal Court. L.P.M. took her office on 15 December 2003.\n12.  However, a certain Mrs N.M., who was running for the same office, lodged a request for the protection of a constitutionally guaranteed right (zahtjev za zaštitu ustavom zajamčenog prava i slobode čovjeka i građanina) with the Administrative Court against the above decision of the National Judicial Council claiming that L.P.M. had not satisfied statutory requirements for the appointment.\n13.  By a judgment of 2 December 2004 the Administrative Court ruled for N.M. and quashed the National Judicial Council’s decision. It found that L.P.M. had not had the required work experience as a law clerk (sudski savjetnik) at the time when the notice of competition for the judicial office at issue had been published.\n14.  On 13 July 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed subsequent constitutional complaint by L.P.M.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7804", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n5.  On 2 November 2002 Klin police officers found the dismembered corpse of a man. They later found traces of blood which led them to the applicant’s mother’s apartment, where they found a bloodstained axe and further traces of blood. Three men (the applicant, G. and O.) and two women were in the flat. G. told the police officers that the applicant had asked him to get rid of the dead body of a man who had been with the applicant to see him the day before. The applicant was arrested. On 3 November 2002 he was questioned in the presence of a duty lawyer.\n6.  On 6 November 2002 the Klin District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.\n7.  On 10 June 2003 the Moscow Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder, sentencing him to sixteen years’ imprisonment. During the proceedings before the first-instance court the applicant was represented by a court-appointed lawyer.\n8.  The applicant appealed against the judgment. He complained, inter alia, that the court had refused to admit statements made by A. and K. as evidence or to summon Ka. who, according to the court’s findings, had brought G. a note from the applicant in which he had asked G. to change his statement.\n9.  On 8 October 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance judgment. According to the applicant, he asked for the hearing to be adjourned and to be appointed a legal aid lawyer, but his request was rejected. With respect to his complaints, the court found that A. and K. had not been eyewitnesses and that their statements were irrelevant to the outcome of the case. As regards Ka., the court found that the circumstances of his appearance with the applicant’s note had been confirmed during the trial by another witness, L.\n10.  On 28 July 2010 the Presidium of the Supreme Court re-examined the criminal case against the applicant by way of supervisory review, set aside the appeal decision of 8 October 2003, and ordered a new appeal hearing. It held that the applicant’s right to defend himself through legal assistance had been violated at the appeal hearing.\n11.  On 7 September 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of 10 June 2002 in part and reduced the applicant’s sentence to fourteen years’ imprisonment. Both he and his lawyer were present at the hearing.\n12.  The applicant was examined upon his arrival at the temporary detention unit on 3 November 2002. The examination revealed several bruises and scratches on his body. It was also noted that the applicant had not made any complaints about his state of health. He had however claimed that at the time of his arrest he had been brutally beaten by the police officers.\n13.  On 10 November 2002 the investigator ordered the applicant to undergo a forensic medical examination. The expert submitted his report on 12 November 2002. The only injuries found were a puncture wound and a bruise which could have been from an injection.\n14.  On 13 November 2002 the applicant was examined at Klin Hospital and his state of health was found to be compatible with detention.\n15.  On 15 November 2002 he was transferred to Volokolamsk Detention Facility and underwent a medical check-up upon arrival, which did not reveal any chronic illnesses or bodily injuries.\n16.  According to the applicant, he repeatedly complained of back pain and muscle loss in his left leg. According to the Government, he did not mention having any back problems.\n17.  On 19 March", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7805", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1971 respectively and live in Slatina, Croatia. They are father and son.\n6.  The first applicant is a lawyer practising in Slatina. He was admitted to the Croatian Bar on 1 April 2003.\n7.  The first applicant lodged a civil action in the Slatina Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Slatini) on 2 December 1987 against the predecessor body of the Virovitičko-Podravska County (Županija Virovitičko-podravska), the State and a certain A.K., as well as an insurance company, C.O., claiming damages concerning an alleged physical attack by A.K. The second applicant joined the action several days later.\n8.  In 1990 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) delegated the case to the Virovitica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Virovitici).\n9.  The Virovitica Municipal Court declared the applicants’ action inadmissible on 24 March 2000, giving as the reason that they had not complied with the Municipal Court’s request that they rectify their action.\n10.  The Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru) dismissed the applicants’ appeal on 30 November 2000 and upheld the first-instance decision.\n11.  On 21 November 2001 the Supreme Court allowed appeals on points of law (revizija) by both applicants, quashed the decisions of the lower courts, and remitted the case to the Virovitica Municipal Court for fresh consideration.\n12.  In a fresh set of proceedings on 3 June 2004 the Virovitica Municipal Court dismissed the applicants’ civil action as without merit. In its judgment, the Municipal Court enumerated the evidence examined during the proceedings. The list of evidence contained, inter alia, the decision of the Executive Board of the Croatian Bar Association of 27 March 2003, by which the first applicant had been admitted to the Bar. A copy of this decision formed page 250 of the case file.\n13.  On 2 March 2006 the Virovitica County Court (Županijski sud u Virovitici) allowed the applicants’ appeal in part. It upheld the first-instance judgment concerning the merits and quashed the decision on the costs and expenses. It remitted the case for fresh consideration in respect of costs and expenses.\n14.  The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court on 27 March 2006 against the judgment of the County Court by which the first-instance judgment of the Virovitica Municipal Court had been upheld.\n15.  Amendments to the Civil Procedure Act entered into force on 1 October 2008 (see paragraph 26 below).\n16.  On 29 October 2008 the Supreme Court, in respect of the applicants’ action against A.K., quashed the judgments of the lower courts and remitted the case for fresh consideration.\n17.  In the fresh set of proceedings on 1 March 2010, the Virovitica Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s action against A.K.\n18.  On 11 March 2010 the Virovitica Municipal Court ordered the first applicant to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings in the total amount of 439,303 Croatian kunas[1] (HRK) and the second applicant in the total amount of HRK 233,797[2].\n19.  On 9 September 2010 the Virovitica County Court dismissed the applicants’ appeals and upheld both the first-instance judgment on the applicants’ action against A.K. and the first-instance decision on costs and expenses.\n20.  The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court on 30 September 2010. It was signed by the first applicant.\n21.  The Supreme Court separated the applicants’ appeal on points of law into ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7806", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Volgograd.\n6.  At the material time the applicant held the post of President of Vostok-Plus, an open joint-stock company, which was a shareholder in the limited liability company Volga Aviaexpress Airlines (ООО “Авиакомпания Волга‑Авиаэкспресс”).\n7.  On 30 July 2003 the Volgograd Regional Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings for fraud involving a Yak-42 aircraft.\n8.  On 3 October 2003 an investigator filed charges against the applicant in absentia and ordered his placement on a domestic wanted list.\n9.  On 6 October 2003 the applicant was placed on an international wanted list.\n10.  On 8 October 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd (“Tsentralniy District Court”) ordered the applicant’s remand in custody in absentia on suspicion of fraud. The Tsentralniy District Court held as follows:\n“... Following the institution of the criminal proceedings [the applicant] absconded from Volgograd.\nOn the basis of the operational information [provided by the law-enforcement authorities] about [the applicant’s] whereabouts in the United Kingdom or Canada, on 6 October 2003 he was placed on an international wanted list.\n... The court considers it necessary to grant the investigator’s request [to authorise the applicant’s remand in custody] since [the applicant] has sought to evade the investigation, was placed on an international wanted list and may obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case. The court also takes into account the gravity of the charges [against the applicant].”\n11.  On the same date the applicant was arrested in Volgograd, was served with a list of the charges and detained on the basis of the above detention order.\n12.  The exact time and place of the applicant’s arrest are disputed between the parties. According to a report drawn up by a police officer, the applicant was arrested in the central district of Volgograd on 8 October 2003 at 6 p.m. and was subsequently brought to the Volgograd Regional Prosecutor’s Office. According to the applicant, until 7 October 2003 he did not know anything about the criminal proceedings against him. As soon as he learned about them, he went to the investigation department of the Volgograd Regional Prosecutor’s Office, where he was arrested on 8 October 2003 at about noon. During the subsequent trial several witnesses confirmed the applicant’s version of events.\n13.  On 8 December 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 30 March 2004, giving the following reasons:\n“... The court considers the [investigator’s detention] application well-founded and grants the request, as [the applicant] has been placed on an international wanted list and, therefore, may abscond from the investigation and the court. The court also takes into account the gravity of the charges.”\n14.  On 20 February 2004 the applicant was additionally charged with forgery, deliberate bankruptcy, tax evasion and a new count of fraud.\n15.  On 15 March 2004 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 30 May 2004. The court relied on the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the fact that he had been placed on an international wanted list prior to his arrest, which gave the court sufficient grounds to believe that, if at large, the applicant might obstruct the proceedings. The court held that the application of a non‑custodial preventive measure was not possible. The", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7807", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Vienna.\n5.  In 2007, the applicant was recipient of emergency relief payments (Notstands­hilfe) under the Unemployment Insurance Act (Arbeitslosen-versicherungsgesetz).\n6.  On 15 March 2007 the Vienna Labour Market Service (Arbeitsmarkt­service) withdrew payments of emergency relief for six weeks finding that the applicant had thwarted an employment offer. The applicant appealed contesting the establishment of facts by the authority and requesting the taking of further evidence.\n7.  On 4 July 2007 the Vienna Regional Labour Market Service, without holding an oral hearing, dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded. It found that the applicant, when he had applied for a post as an IT-trainer, had declared an excessive salary expectation and had emphasised that he was handicapped and that a potential employer had to expect him to be absent for three weeks’ sick leave every three years. The applicant had also stated in his application that his handicap would not hinder him to fully perform the exigencies of a post in the IT-area. The Regional Labour Market Service thereupon concluded that the reference to a handicap that was not relevant for the post advertised, the reference to expected sick leave and the high salary expectation showed the applicant’s negative attitude towards a reasonable employment opportunity.\n8.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs­gerichtshof) inter alia contesting the assumptions made by the administrative authorities, complaining of the lack of taking of evidence and explicitly requesting an oral hearing.\n9.  On 11 September 2008 the Administrative Court, without holding an oral hearing, dismissed the complaint as unfounded. On the merits it found that the applicant’s salary expectation had been communicated to the potential employer without indicating an acceptable margin of negotiation. Therefore, his statement in this respect gave the impression that the applicant was not willing to take the post with a lower salary. His initial application could therefore be understood as an attempt to thwart an employment offer. With regard to the decision not to hold an oral hearing, the Administrative Court found that the facts had been sufficiently clear in the present case and that a hearing had therefore not been necessary.\n10.  That judgment was served on the applicant’s counsel on 21 October 2008.\n11.  The applicant did not lodge a complaint with the Constitutional Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7808", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Leithen.\n5.  In 2007, the applicant was recipient of emergency relief payments (Notstands­hilfe) under the Unemployment Insurance Act (Arbeitslosen­versicherungs­gesetz).\n6.  On 18 September 2007 the Salzburg Labour Market Service (Arbeitsmarkt­service) withdrew payments of emergency relief for eight weeks finding that the applicant had thwarted an employment offer. The applicant appealed contesting the establishment of facts by the authority and requesting the taking of further evidence.\n7.  On 24 October 2007 the Salzburg Regional Labour Market Service, without holding an oral hearing, dismissed the appeal as unfounded. It found that the applicant’s information to the potential employer to be only available for work until 4 p.m. due to continuing education that the applicant followed at the time was effectively a frustration of an attempt to find employment.\n8.  The Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) dismissed the applicant’s request for legal aid to lodge a complaint on 28 February 2008.\n9.  However, after having been awarded legal aid, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs­gerichtshof), explicitly requesting an oral hearing.\n10.  On 2 July 2008 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded. On the merits it found that the applicant had not acted sufficiently seriously interested in the employment offer at issue and therefore had thwarted an attempt to find employment. The withdrawal of the emergency relief by the authorities, based on the Unemployment Insurance Act, had therefore not been unlawful. With regard to the decision not to hold an oral hearing the Administrative Court stated that, since the relevant facts had already been established and since the legal questions were sufficiently answered by existing case-law, an oral hearing had not been necessary.\n11.  That judgment was served on the applicant’s counsel on 3 October 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7809", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and currently lives in Pirot.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 14 September 1990 the applicant was granted an old-age pension as from 1 September 1990 by the Pirot branch (Filijala Pirot) of the Serbian Pensions and Disability Insurance Fund (Republički fond za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje zaposlenih – hereinafter “the Fund”).\n8.  Following a successful claim for unpaid wages against his former employer, on 8 December 1993 the applicant asked the Fund to amend its decision of 14 September 1990. In particular, he asked the Fund to apply a more favourable period for the calculation of his base pension and to increase his pension on account of the additional income that he had earned in the period before retirement (during 1989-90) which had not initially been taken into account (da se utvrdi nov penzioni osnov i izvrši obračun razlike u plaćanju).\n9.  Following a remittal, on 16 May 1994 the Fund issued an amended decision (hereinafter “the 1994 decision”): (i) establishing a new increased pension (14,015.66 old dinars (YUD)); (ii) establishing an increased \"base pension\" (penzijski osnov) to be applied from 1 September 1990, applying an adjustment rate of 45.30% as from 1 January 1991 and another adjustment of 28.13% as from 1 April 1994; (iii) determining that a supplementary pension should be paid on the basis of the difference between the pension received for the prior period starting on 1 September 1990 and the new pension granted retroactively by this decision; and (iv)  noting that the calculations for the pension were attached to the decision and formed an integral part of it. In addition, the reasoning in the 1994 decision contained an exact figure to be used as the base pension and determined that the applicant’s pension should be 85% of that amount.\n10.  The decision of 16 May 1994 became final on 22 July 1994.\n11.  On 31 December 2003 the applicant lodged a motion with the Pirot Municipal Court (“the Municipal Court”) for the enforcement of the part of the 1994 decision concerning the outstanding supplementary pension, and also sought payment of statutory interest from 25 January 1994 on the amounts due. The applicant supplied, together with his request for enforcement, an expert’s calculation determining the exact amount due.\n12.  On 20 January 2005 the Municipal Court issued the enforcement order as requested.\n13.  On 3 February 2006 the Municipal Court quashed that enforcement order following the Fund’s objection (prigovor) that there was no proof that the 1994 decision was enforceable.\n14.  On 16 February 2006 the Municipal Court requested that the Fund provide it with a reissued copy of the 1994 decision containing an enforceability clause (klauzula izvršnosti) within three days. On 22 February 2006 both the Fund and the applicant supplied the court with reissued copies of the 1994 decision containing an enforceability clause.\n15.  On 15 March 2006 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s fresh enforcement request. The Municipal Court firstly noted that the 1994 decision had established the applicant’s entitlement to a pension, his base pension and the date on which the applicant had acquired his right to a pension. The court found, however, that the decision in question was not “liable to enforcement” as it had not set the exact, total amount to be paid, which rather had been subject to recalculations depending on stat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7810", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Münster, Germany.\n7.  The applicant’s father owned a plot of land with two houses on it in the centre of the city of Kaunas, Lithuania. The plot was nationalised following the Soviet occupation in the 1940s. Ownership of the houses was attributed to the former wife of the applicant’s father in 1948 and she continued living there. At some time between 1964 and 1968 the title to the buildings was transferred to third persons.\n8.  After Lithuania regained its independence in 1990, the applicant applied for the property to be returned to him in natura, pursuant to the 1991 legislation on restitution of property rights. He submitted a complete request to the authorities in 1997 and again in 1999.\n9.  In his first court action, the applicant sought to oblige the authorities to restore his property rights to the two buildings.\n10.  On 16 October 2000 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court dismissed his claim on the ground that the houses had never been nationalised and had remained private property; as confirmed by a decision of the court of 1948, they had been owned by his father’s former spouse. Accordingly, the applicant had no entitlement to them under the domestic legislation on restitution of nationalised property.\n11.  On 13 April 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court that the local authorities had remained inactive in the restoration of his property rights to the plot of land. He also requested that his father’s original plot be returned to him.\n13.  On 27 November 2001 the court allowed the applicant’s complaint in part. It was established that the documents which the applicant had submitted to the local authorities were sufficient for them to adopt a decision on the restoration of his property rights. However, the court held that in 1999-2001 almost the entire disputed plot had already been acquired and was being used by other persons, so it was not possible to return the original plot to the applicant; his property rights would have to be restored by other means provided for under the Restitution of Property Act.\n14.  By the same judgment the court noted the inactivity of the administrative authorities. It ordered the Kaunas County Governor to restore the applicant’s property rights in respect of the land which had belonged to his father, in accordance with the provisions of the Restitution of Property Act. No deadline or form of restitution was specified in the court decision. The parties did not appeal and the decision became final.\n15.  Following a complaint by the applicant that the authorities had failed to execute the judgment of 27 November 2001, a writ of execution was issued on 27 March 2002.\n16.  On 19 April 2002 the Kaunas County Governor rejected the applicant’s request for restitution in natura. The applicant appealed and the refusal was quashed by a final judgment of the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court on 12 February 2004 on the ground of a procedural flaw: the said decision had not been signed by a competent person.\n17.  Between 2003 and 2006 the administrative authorities made inquiries about the availability of parcels of land within the original plot owned by the applicant’s father. However, on several occasions it was concluded that no land was available and that the applicant’s rights would therefore have to be restored by other means provided", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7811", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 30 October 1992 the applicant, who is a university professor, got married and took her husband’s surname pursuant to Article 153 of the Turkish Civil Code. As she was known by her maiden name in her academic and professional life, she continued using it. However, she could not use it in official documents.\n7.  Following the amendment made to Article 153 of the Civil Code on 14 May 1997 that entitled married women the right to put their maiden name in front of their husband’s surname, the applicant started to avail herself of this possibility in official documents.\n8.  Following the adoption of new Civil Code on 22 November 2001, Article 187 was worded identically to the former Article 153.\n9.  On 5 December 2007 the applicant brought proceedings before the Beyoğlu Court of First Instance for permission to use only her maiden name, “Tanbay”.\n10.  On 31 January 2008 the Beyoğlu Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s request on the ground that, under Article 187 of the Turkish Civil Code, married women had to bear their husband’s name throughout their marriage and were not entitled to use their maiden name alone.\n11.  The applicant appealed. On 14 July 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.\n12.  On 4 December 2008 the applicant’s rectification request was further rejected by the Court of Cassation on the ground that it failed to meet the requirements foreseen in the law and the applicant was fined the equivalent of EUR 80 (euros) as a result. The latter decision was delivered to the applicant on 9 January 2009.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7812", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant carried on business with a socially-owned company, HK “Viskoza a.d.-Celvlakno a.d” from Loznica (hereinafter: “the debtor”), which appeared to have failed to pay a certain invoice.\n6.  On 5 March 2003 the applicant filed an application for the enforcement of that invoice with the Valjevo Commercial Court.\n7.  On 11 March 2003 the Valjevo Commercial Court issued an enforcement order, by virtue of which the debtor was ordered to pay the applicant 2,669,582.39[1] Serbian dinars (RSD), plus statutory interest as of 21 March 2001 and costs of enforcement proceedings.\n8.  On an unspecified day this decision became final.\n9.  On 24 November 2003 the enforcement proceedings were stayed, due to the restructuring of the debtor.\n10.  On 29 May 2009 the enforcement proceedings were continued.\n11.  On 11 June 2009 insolvency proceedings were initiated against the debtor and the Privatisation Agency was appointed to be the insolvency administrator. The insolvency proceedings against the debtor are still ongoing.\n12.  On 17 March 2010 the Valjevo Commercial Court recognised the applicant as a secured creditor (razlučni poverilac).\n13.  On 15 January 2013 the applicant was partially settled in the amount of RSD 1,178,784.52[2].\n14.  The remainder of the final court decision of 11 March 2003 remained unsettled.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7813", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  On 10 February 2009 the applicant, former Mayor of the Budapest 7th District Municipality, was arrested on charges of aggravated fraud and other crimes. Previously, criminal proceedings had been initiated against some of the close colleagues and acquaintances of the applicant in the same context.\n7.  In the prosecution’s ensuing motion to have the applicant detained on remand, the dangers of absconding, collusion and recidivism were referred to.\n8.  The defence argued that the applicant, as soon as he had become aware that the police wanted him, had voluntarily reported to the police and also indicated to the authorities his willingness to cooperate, without having any intention to abscond.\n9.  The defence moreover submitted that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was not justified and should be substituted with a less coercive measure if any was needed at all.\n10.  On 12 February 2009 the Pest Central District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand, despite the defence’s request to have the applicant released, or that, if a coercive measure was inevitable, house arrest be considered instead. The court held that an element had occurred in the investigation according to which the applicant intended to influence the investigative authority, namely the prosecutor’s office, with the help of his rather wide circle of acquaintances; however, this element was not specified. The court also noted that several further steps of investigation were still outstanding, and therefore the risk of collusion or interference was real. It moreover held that the risk of repetition of crime would also be a real one if the applicant were released. After the announcement of the decision, the applicant’s lawyer immediately appealed, again proposing the application of less stringent measures if any were needed.\n11.  On 20 February 2009 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision but expanded the reasoning to include the risk of absconding. It noted the applicant’s settled family circumstances, but held that the detention was necessary, “for other reasons” (más okból), to pre-empt his absconding, without specifying the underlying reasons.\n12.  The defence’s ensuing request lodged with the Central Investigation Prosecutor’s Office to have further evidence gathered, namely expert opinions (in particular, a real estate valuer), was rejected.\n13.  On 10 and 12 February 2009 the Central Investigation Prosecutor’s Office restricted, for fear of collusion, the applicant’s personal contacts, that is, correspondence and contacts in person with his family members were allowed only under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. He was authorised to maintain phone contacts only with his lawyer.\nIn the context of the death of his father, the applicant was granted two meetings with relatives in May and June 2009.\n14.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was repeatedly prolonged at the statutory intervals. In these proceedings, the arguments of the defence remained largely the same, supplemented by the fact that some concerns had emerged as to the applicant’s health condition. In reply to the applicant’s respective appeals, the second-instance court was satisfied that the lower court had assessed, in an individualised manner, the applicant’s personal circumstances as such.\nThe defence raised the argument that the applicant, an influential former politician, had never attempted ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7814", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Bosilegrad.\n5.  The applicant was employed by HK.PK. Yumco a.d., a socially/State-owned company based in Vranje (hereinafter – “the debtor”).\n6.  On 6 March 2007 the Bosilegrad Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:\n(a)  salary arrears in the amount of 70,387.12 Serbian dinars (RSD),[1] plus statutory interest; and\n(b)  RSD 6,262.50[2] for his legal costs.\n7.  On 29 March 2007 the judgment became final.\n8.  On 19 March 2008 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Vranje Municipal Court, proposing that it be carried out by means of a bank transfer.\n9.  On 24 March 2008 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.\n10.  On 10 August 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\n11.  According to the material in the Court’s possession, the case is still pending before the Constitutional Court.\n12.  On 30 May 2007 the Bosilegrad Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:\n(a)  salary arrears in the total amount of RSD 28,024[3], plus statutory interest;\n(b)  employee meal benefits (naknada za ishranu na radu) in the amount of RSD 18,900.40[4], plus statutory interest;\n(c)  holiday pay in the amount of RSD 5,373,33[5], plus statutory interest;\n(d)  RSD 5,088[6] for his legal costs; and\n(e)  the pension and disability insurance contributions due for the period 1 January 2004 to 7 June 2004.\n13.  On 14 June 2007 the judgment became final.\n14.  On 19 March 2008 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Vranje Municipal Court, proposing that it be carried out by means of a bank transfer.\n15.  On 24 March 2008 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.\n16.  On 10 August 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\n17.  On 3 April 2013 the Constitutional Court held that the applicant’s “right to trial within reasonable time” was violated and ordered the Vranje Municipal Court and National Bank of Serbia to enforce the final judgment at issue as soon as possible.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7815", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  The case concerns the criminal investigations against the applicant, a police officer; two other police officers, I.U. and R.B; and two business people, H.S. and S.B. The applicant was suspected of having facilitated contact between the other two police officers and H.S., who acted on behalf of S.B., in order for the two police officers to convince a prosecutor to revoke, in exchange for a significant bribe, an international arrest warrant issued in the name of S.B. in the context of a different criminal investigation concerning financial crimes.\n7.  On 18 June 2002, the applicant was summoned to the office of the Military Prosecutor attached to the Supreme Court of Justice for questioning. He was informed that he was suspected of conspiracy to commit bribery and on the same date he was placed in pre-trial detention.\n8.  On 11 July 2002 an indictment was issued and on 12 July 2002 the file was transferred to the Bucharest Military Tribunal. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor included transcripts of recordings of telephone conversations between the accused, some of which were in Romanian and some in Hebrew.\n9.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was regularly extended by the competent courts and his requests to be released on bail were all dismissed.\n10.  On 4 December 2002, the military court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to examine the case. On 7 January 2003, the Supreme Court of Justice established that the Bucharest Court of Appeal was the competent court to hear the case.\n11.  By an interlocutory judgment of 12 March 2003, the Bucharest Court of Appeal ordered a technical expert examination of the audio tapes submitted to the file by the prosecutor. In a hearing held on 19 March 2003, all the accused denied that the voices on the audio tapes were theirs and disputed the authenticity of the tapes. In the interlocutory judgment issued on that date, the Court of Appeal stated the following:\n“In respect of the [prosecutor’s] request to review the decision to adduce as evidence a technical expert examination of the audio tapes, the court considers that it is ill-founded, given that the basis for the indictment as well as the main evidence against the accused are precisely these audio recordings and their transcriptions and that the accused denied that the voices on the tapes were theirs or that those discussions took place; therefore it is necessary to draw up an expert report on the recordings.”\n12.  The hearings were postponed several times, among other reasons because the technical expert report was not ready. The expert report had to be drawn up by the National Institute for Forensic Expertise (“the INEC”), an institution governed by the Ministry of Justice.\n13.  In a hearing on 13 October 2003, the Court of Appeal took note of the fact that the accused had requested that the audio tapes be played in court in order to establish and verify whether the transcripts from the case file corresponded with the recordings, whether the recordings had been made in line with the legal requirements, and whether some excerpts had been taken out of context. The domestic court further considered that given the fact that it had ordered a technical expert report on the tapes, the tapes could not be played in court until they had been analysed.\n14.  In a hearing on 24 November 2003, the parties discussed a letter sent by the INEC in which it stated that it did not have exp", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7816", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Valjevo.\n5.  The applicant worked as a truck-driver in a company (“E”) until a work-related accident in July 1990.\n6.  On 27 February 1991 the employer declared him redundant. On 9 July 1992 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Valjevo quashed this decision and remanded the case for reconsideration. This judgment became final on 9 September 1992.\n7.  On 12 July 1993 and 30 January 1996 the applicant was reassigned to a position of a tractor-driver and a dumper-driver, respectively.\n8.  On 9 May 1996 the applicant was dismissed.\n9.  On 29 September 1999 the applicant was reinstated following a court order in that respect (see paragraph 15 below). On 2 March 2000 he was dismissed again.\n10.  The applicant had instituted a number of civil and criminal proceedings in respect to the above:\n11.  On 6 July 1990 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Labour Court (Sud udruženog rada) in Šabac against his employer seeking payment of salary arrears due from 6 July 1987 to 1 March 1993. On 9 September 1993 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) of Serbia delegated the Municipal Court in Šabac to trial the case.\n12.  Following remittals in 1995 and 2001, on 28 February 2006 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s claim. On 28 April 2006 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Šabac upheld the judgment of 28 February 2006.\n13.  On 8 March 2007 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible.\n14.  On 13 September 1993 the applicant instituted labour dispute before the Municipal Court in Valjevo seeking revocation of the employer’s decisions of 12 July 1993, 30 January 1996 and 9 May 1996 (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above), reinstatement, as well as compensation of due salary arrears, pension benefits and damages. On 18 February 1997 the Supreme Court delegated the Municipal Court in Čačak to trial the case.\n15.  On 23 February 1999 the Municipal Court, in a partial judgment (delimična presuda), ordered the applicant’s reinstatement and dismissed his request for revocation of the employer’s decision of 12 July 1993 and his claim for the payment of pension benefits. On 26 August 1999 the District Court in Čačak upheld the judgment of 23 February 1999.\n16.  On 9 May 2000 the Municipal Court suspended the proceedings until a final resolution of the labour dispute instituted by the applicant in 1999 (see Part B.3 below). On 12 July 2000 the District Court upheld the decision of 9 May 2000.\n17.  On 23 November 2009 the applicant requested the proceedings to be resumed.\n18.  On 5 March 2010, the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Čačak, now acting as the competent court, rejected the applicant’s request pending the outcome of his request for reopening of the case instituted by him in 1999 (see paragraph 28 below). On 17 June 2010 the High Court (Viši sud) in Čačak quashed this decision and reversed the case for reconsideration.\n19.  On 21 December 2012 the Court of First Instance rejected the applicant’s claim for compensation of due salary arrears. On 10 April 2013 the High Court quashed this judgment and ordered a retrial.\n20.  According to the information in the case-file, the proceedings are still pending before the Court of First Instance.\n21.  On 6 October 1999 the applicant filed with the Municipal Court in Valjevo a lawsuit seeking revocation of the employer’s decision of 29 September 1999 (see paragraph 9 above).\n22.  On 8 March 2000 the applicant filed wit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7817", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Murmansk. At the material time the applicant was an elected member of the Murmansk regional legislature (the “Murmansk Duma”).\n5.  At about 1.30 p.m. on 27 April 2003, some police officers stopped the applicant on suspicion of drunk driving and took him to the Severomorsk police station. At the station the applicant became agitated, verbally abusing police officers, grabbing them by the clothing and hitting them. He was then handcuffed.\n6.  As the applicant initially refused to give his name, police officers searched his clothing and found an identity card showing him to be a member of the Murmansk Duma. The applicant confirmed that he was a member of the regional legislature. His handcuffs were removed. The chief of the police station, who was away from the station at the time, phoned the duty officer and instructed him to invite the applicant to take an alcohol test and, should he refuse, to prepare a report on his refusal and arrange for his release. The applicant refused to make any statements and continued to behave in an unruly manner, pulling at the officers’ clothing and throwing his shoes at them. The police officers repeatedly asked the applicant to leave the station but he refused to go unless the mayor and the chairman of the Murmansk Duma came to see him.\n7.  At 2.30 p.m. the police chief arrived and invited everyone into his office. The applicant verbally abused him and the other police officers, claiming that his arrest had been politically motivated. He again refused to take an alcohol test.\n8.  In connection with the applicant’s “inadequate behaviour”, the police chief decided to record the applicant’s actions on video. To that end, he got in touch with a cameraman from the Murman State television and radio broadcasting company (ГТРК «Мурман»­) and asked him to come to the station with his camera. A few minutes later the cameraman arrived and started filming in the police chief’s office. The applicant repeated on camera the same allegations he had made earlier against the police and refused to take an alcohol test. The police chief again told him that he was free to leave but the applicant instead sat at the duty officer’s desk, taking out a drawer and throwing its contents onto the floor. Some of the events were captured on camera by the cameraman, who remained at the police station until 4.30 p.m.\n9.  At 5.30 p.m. a presenter and a cameraman from Northern Fleet television (телевидение Северного Флота) arrived at the station. Upon receiving an official authorisation from the police chief, they started filming the applicant, who was still sitting at the desk dishevelled, without shoes on and with his feet on the table, making calls on his mobile phone. The television crew interviewed the police chief and asked the applicant to make a statement but he declined. They stayed at the station for approximately forty minutes.\n10.  The applicant’s assistant then arrived and called an ambulance for him. However, when it turned up, the applicant refused to get in it with the doctor to go to the town hospital. The Murmansk regional prosecutor, who arrived at about 7.30 p.m., formally informed the applicant that he was free to go and that he could leave immediately. After the applicant refused to leave and ignored further warnings against him if he did not do so, he was escorted out by two police officers.\n11.  The following day, Murman included in its news programme extracts from the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7819", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant bank, Zagrebačka banka d.d., is a joint stock company incorporated under Croatian law which has its registered office in Zagreb.\n8.  The applicant bank was founded on the basis of a “self-management agreement” (samoupravni sporazum, hereafter “the founding agreement”) concluded on 8 July 1986 between several companies (at the time called “organisations of associated labour”). One of the parties to the agreement, company Textil, contributed, as a founder, some eleven billion Yugoslav dinars (hereafter “the establishment sum”).\n9.  It appears that on 24 June 1992 Textil notified the applicant bank of the termination of the above agreement and requested repayment of the establishment sum. As the applicant bank refused to repay, in 1992 Textil brought a civil action in the Zagreb Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Zagrebu) seeking the refund, plus statutory default interest (zakonska zatezna kamata). The applicant bank replied that during its transformation into a joint stock company in November 1989 it had made the plaintiff its shareholder and assigned to it a certain number of shares corresponding to the establishment sum.\n10.  On 7 June 1995 the court delivered a judgment (hereafter “the original judgment”), ruling for the plaintiff. It ordered the applicant bank to pay the plaintiff the principal amount of 1,100 Croatian kunas (HRK) plus statutory default interest. The operative part of that judgment read as follows:\n“I. The defendant ZAGREBAČKA BANKA d.d., Zagreb, Paromlinska 2, is ordered to pay the plaintiff TEXTIL import-export d.d. from Zagreb, Šoštarićeva 10, the amount of HRK 1,100 plus statutory default interest in accordance with the applicable regulations stipulating the interest rate and the Interest Rate Act, accruable from 15 September 1986 until the date of payment, as well as the costs of the proceedings in the amount of HRK 900, all within eight days.\nII. The alternative claim, for 12,272 shares with the pertaining outstanding dividends, is dismissed.”\n11.  The court held that the applicant bank had not been entitled to transform the funds received into shares without Textil’s consent. Thus, Textil had been entitled to terminate the 1986 agreement and request repayment. The applicant bank appealed.\n12.  On 31 October 1995 the High Commercial Court (Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment, endorsing the reasons given therein. The original judgment thus became final.\n13.  It appears that the applicant bank did not attempt to lodge an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court against the second-instance judgment, nor did it lodge a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court.\n14.  On 5 January 2000 the applicant bank filed a petition for reopening of the proceedings with the Zagreb Commercial Court, seeking to have the above first- and second-instance judgments set aside. It argued that Textil had already ceased to exist as a legal entity by 15 March 1994, and therefore after that date did not have standing to sue in the above civil proceedings. In its petition the applicant bank relied on the extract from the register of commercial companies (sudski registar) of 6 December 1999 according to which Textil had been deleted from that register on 15 March 1994 following its incorporation into company Turist Trip d.o.o.\n15.  On 13 April 2004 the Zagreb Commercial Court allowed the applicant bank’s petition and set aside its ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7820", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently serving a life sentence in Ilava prison.\n6.  By way of a series of judgments in 2000, 2001 and 2002, the applicant was acquitted of kidnapping and murder and found guilty of extortion, tax fraud and customs fraud, for which he was sentenced to eight and a half years’ imprisonment (see Černák v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 67431/01, 1 March 2005).\n7.  He served this sentence until November 2002, when he was released on parole. On an unspecified later date, he left Slovakia for the Czech Republic.\n8.  In 2003 a warrant was issued in Slovakia for his arrest for the purpose of returning him to prison to carry out the remainder of his sentence imposed in 2000, 2001 and 2002 (see paragraph 6 above); he was arrested in the Czech Republic on that warrant and extradited to Slovakia upon a decision of the Minister of Justice of the Czech Republic of 18 September 2003.\n9.  He then served the remainder of his previously imposed sentence until it ended on 26 October 2006.\n10.  Prior to that date, however, he had been remanded in custody pending trial on new charges, which led to a new trial and conviction. The details are summarised below.\n11.  On 22 December 2005, 15 February, 4 April and 25 October 2006, and 21 February 2007 respectively, the applicant was charged with seven counts of murder and conspiracy to murder, which were all alleged to have taken place before his extradition to Slovakia in 2003 (see paragraph 8 above).\n12.  The proceedings on all these charges were joined on 26 February 2007, but the proceedings in respect of one of the counts of murder were eventually separated on 10 June 2007.\n(b)  Initial pre-trial detention\n13.  Meanwhile, on 24 October 2006 the Banská Bystrica District Court (Okresný súd) had remanded the applicant in custody pending trial on the charge of 15 February 2006. The detention was to commence as soon as he completed his sentence (see paragraph 9 above).\nFollowing an interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť) by the applicant, the detention order was upheld by the Banská Bystrica Regional Court (Krajský súd) on 15 November 2006.\n14.  The applicant was detained until 1 February 2007 when he was released by the Banská Bystrica Regional Court, pursuant to its decision of the same day to uphold a release order previously issued by the Banská Bystrica District Court on 21 December 2006.\n15.  In ordering his release, the courts held that the charge of 15 February 2006 was in breach of the rule of speciality under Article 14 of the ECE with respect to his extradition in 2003, as was his detention on that charge.\nThe courts also held that, consequently, the charge against him and any procedural action performed in the framework of the proceedings against him on that charge were legally flawed.\nNevertheless, it was not justified to terminate his prosecution on that charge because nothing prevented its continuation subject to additional consent being given by the Czech Republic.\n(c)  Consent by the Czech Republic to the applicant’s prosecution in Slovakia\n16.  Meanwhile, on 22 December 2006 the Prešov District Court in Slovakia had issued a European arrest warrant (“EAW”) in respect of the applicant on the basis of the charge of 25 October 2006.\n17.  On 19 and 26 January 2007 respectively, two courts in the Czech Republic, the Prague City Court (Městský soud) and, following an appeal by the applicant, the Prague High Court (Vrchní soud), gave their consent for applicant’s trial to take", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7821", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Călărași, Moldova.\n5.  On 24 December 2007 the Călăraşi District Court approved a friendly settlement agreement concluded between the applicant and the Călăraşi local council and discontinued proceedings. This judgment was final. A writ of enforcement obliging the Călăraşi local council to pay the applicant the amount of 521,811 Moldovan lei (MDL) was issued and on 11 January 2008 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings.\n6.  On 12 May 2008 the Călăraşi local council submitted a revision request challenging the final judgment of 24 December 2007. They argued that the representative of the local council had not been authorized to conclude a friendly settlement agreement with the applicant. They invoked as new circumstances a report prepared by the local committee on issues regarding victims of political repressions. The report was drawn up after the settlement agreement had been approved by the court and it invalidated a previous decision of the committee, which acknowledged the applicant’s right to compensation for property confiscated during the 1949 political repressions.\n7.  On 30 May 2008 the Călăraşi District Court dismissed the revision request as submitted outside the three-month time-limit and as ill-founded. The local council appealed this judgment.\n8.  On 28 October 2008[1] the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, quashed the judgments of 30 May 2008 and 24 December 2007, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. On 14 November 2012 the Supreme Court of Justice finally obliged the Călărași local council to pay the applicant MDL 426,265.[2]\n9.  On 2 December 2011 the applicant lodged a civil action claiming damages for the violation of his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time pursuant to Law no. 87 of 21 April 2011 (see paragraph 12 below), which at the time amounted to four years and four months.\n10.  On 12 May 2012 the Supreme Court of Justice finally found the length of the proceedings to be excessive and attributable to the acts of the authorities; it awarded the applicant MDL 5,000 (approximately 316 euros (EUR)) as non-pecuniary damage, dismissing the remainder of his claims.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7822", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Riga.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 4 November 2000 the applicant addressed a letter to the World Bank, the Parliament of the Republic of Latvia and the President of the Supreme Court in which he alleged, somewhat confusedly, that certain judges in Latvia were corrupt and had acted fraudulently. In the letter he called the President of the Civil Cases Division of the Senate of the Supreme Court “a super cheater” and “a fundamental cheater who commits criminal offences”. He insisted that the judges should be prosecuted for various crimes. It appears that on other occasions before and after the aforementioned letter, the applicant had accused various other state officials in a similar manner.\n8.  On 20 December 2000, upon an application received from the President of the Supreme Court, the prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for defamation of state officials. At the material time such activities were considered an offence under section 271 of the Criminal Law (see paragraph 48 below).\n9.  On 11 October 2001 the prosecutor’s office brought charges against the applicant. On the same day the applicant was informed thereof.\n10.  On 14 June 2001 the applicant underwent an outpatient psychiatric examination as part of the criminal investigation. Experts recommended that he undergo an inpatient medical examination in order for a decision to be made about his mental capacity.\n11.  From 25 October to 7 December 2001 the applicant underwent an inpatient medical examination at a psychiatric hospital (Psihiatrijas centrs). On 22 November 2001 the experts issued a report concluding that since 1985 the applicant had been having fantasies and other-worldly ideas which had turned into paranoid delusions. They also concluded that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and at the time of committing the offence had not been fully aware and in control of his actions. It was therefore recommended that he be declared to have been in a state of mental incapacity (nepieskaitāms) with respect to the charges brought against him and that he undergo compulsory medical treatment in a secure psychiatric hospital, owing to the fact that he was in denial about his illness, refused to take medication and had “delusional plans with respect to certain judges and officials”. They also noted that the applicant’s participation in the pre-trial investigation and his attendance at court would not be useful.\n12.  On 6 December 2001 a judge of the Riga City Centre District Court (Rīgas pilsētas Centra rajona tiesa) imposed a preventive measure on the applicant of confinement in a psychiatric hospital pending a court order for his compulsory medical treatment. It appears that the order was never executed.\n13.  On 21 January 2002 the same court, in the presence of the applicant’s wife, acting as his legal representative, and his lawyer, absolved the applicant from criminal liability. It ruled that the applicant did not pose a danger to society and decided to release him into the care of his wife and under the supervision of a medical institution, in accordance with section 68(2) of the Criminal Law.\n14.   Upon an appeal by the prosecutor, on 6 March 2002 the appellate court established that the lower court had failed to provide an assessment of the experts’ report and the evidence proving the applicant’s guilt. The 21 January 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7823", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Târgu Jiu.\n6.  On 15 November 2002 the applicant and M.P. were committed for trial on charges of robbery and aggravated murder. Throughout the proceedings the applicant pleaded innocent.\nIn his statements to the police and the prosecutor, the applicant’s co‑accused declared that he had committed the acts together with the applicant. He changed his position before the court, stating that he had acted alone and that the applicant had not participated in the alleged crimes.\n7.  On 16 December 2003 the Gorj County Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to twenty-three years’ imprisonment. It based its decision on the evidence in the file, including the statements made by both the accused during the investigations and in court, as well as on witness testimony and forensic evidence. The court concluded that both defendants had committed the crimes.\n8.  On 28 June 2004 the Craiova Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case to the County Court for re-examination.\n9.  On 13 July 2004 the Gorj County Court heard evidence from the applicant and the co-defendant. On 20 December 2004 it found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to twenty-three years in prison.\n10.  The defendants appealed. The Craiova Court of Appeal re‑examined the merits of the case. It examined the evidence already gathered, heard evidence from the defendants, requested new evidence and was addressed by defence counsel and the prosecutor.\n11.  On 22 September 2005 it acquitted the applicant as it considered that the evidence in the file did not convincingly link the applicant to the robbery.\n12.  The prosecutor appealed in cassation on the ground that the Court of Appeal had wrongly assessed the evidence and had relied exclusively on the evidence administered directly before it, ignoring the evidence adduced during the prosecution and before the lower courts. The High Court of Cassation and Justice was addressed by defence counsel and the prosecutor. It allowed the defendants to address it before the end of the hearing (ultimul cuvânt al inculpatului).\n13.  In a final decision of 8 February 2006 the High Court quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision, re-examined the evidence in the file and upheld the County Court’s decision of 20 December 2004. The High Court found that the Court of Appeal had not weighed the evidence properly and had ignored relevant information from the file, notably the statements made by the co-defendant immediately after the commission of the crimes, whereby he had incriminated the applicant. It reassessed the evidence and found that the first statements given by the applicant’s co‑defendant were corroborated by the remaining evidence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7824", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Jilava Prison.\n6.  In 1999 the applicant was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. He served his sentence in various Romanian prisons. From 30 April to 12 May 1998 and from 9 to 21 February 2009 he was detained in Rahova Prison.\n7.  On 18 April 2006 the applicant was diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C by doctors at Colentina Hospital. On 21 June 2006 Dr S. A., a specialist in internal medicine, recommended further investigations and especially viremia testing to establish whether treatment with Interferon would be appropriate. On 17 July 2006, after a full medical examination, Dr. V. R., a gastroenterologist, made the same recommendation and held that the applicant could receive treatment while in detention.\n8.  From 2006 onwards the applicant requested the Rahova Prison authorities and the National Prison Service to provide him with a vegetarian diet in accordance with his Buddhist beliefs. He also claimed that this type of diet was the most appropriate for a person with hepatitis.\n9.  On 3 May 2007 Dr P. M. O., a general practitioner in Rahova Prison, made the following written note on one of the applicant’s request forms: “Is registered with chronic hepatitis type C. Propose to approve.” (“Este în evidenţă cu hepatită cronică tip C. Propun să aprobaţi”).\n10.  On 14 June 2007 the Rahova prison authorities informed the applicant that the relevant legislation did not provide for a vegetarian diet. They noted however that a Christian Orthodox fasting diet that excluded food of animal origin (“norma 17 – mâncare de post fără produse de origine animală”) was provided for and that detainees could apply for this type of diet.\n11.  The applicant was provided with the diet for detainees who were ill (“norma 18 pentru persoane bolnave”). The parties submitted several menus for this type of diet; these menus included pork.\n12.  According to the information submitted by the parties, seventeen types of diet were provided for; they each took into consideration the detainees’ age, sex, medical condition or availability for work. With the exception of diet no. 17 (see paragraph 10 above), none took into consideration religious requirements.\n13.  On 26 January 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint before the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences in Rahova Prison. He claimed, among other things, that he had received discriminatory treatment in respect of the dietary requirements of his religious beliefs. He also alleged that the prison authorities had failed to treat him with Interferon, as prescribed by the specialist doctors.\n14.  On 20 March 2007 the judge responsible for the execution of sentences noted that the prison authorities had contacted the “Group for Buddhist Meditation” for information regarding the dietary requirements of this faith, and were open to accommodating the applicant’s dietary requirements. With respect to the medical treatment, the judge held that, according to the applicant’s medical report, he had received the medication prescribed by the doctors. The judge also noted that in February 2007 the applicant had refused a medical examination and that he had been offered a fresh examination in a public hospital in order for him to be diagnosed and receive treatment recommendations. Consequently, the judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded.\n15.  The applicant appealed before the Bucharest District Court. He argued that the prison", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7825", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1952 respectively and live in Sofia.\n7.  The first applicant was an investigator with the national police, holding the rank of captain. At the time of the events she was working in the specialised department dealing with intellectual property offences within the Sofia Regional Directorate of the Interior Ministry.\n8.  Following the receipt of information from a shopkeeper alleging bribery and corruption by police officials, a preliminary investigation was carried out. The applicant and one of her colleagues were placed under investigation for the offences of taking bribes and obstructing the course of justice, committed in the performance of their duties. On 19 December 2001 the first applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. The accusations against the two officials were reported in the press.\n9.  The second applicant, a member of the Sofia Bar, agreed to represent the first applicant.\n10.  In a judgment of 4 March 2003 the Sofia Military Court found the first applicant guilty of several counts of corruption and obstructing the course of justice and sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment and to payment of a fine of 3,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN). The court also barred her from further employment in the Interior Ministry. It acquitted the first applicant on one of the counts, relating to the acceptance of a bribe of BGN 320 on 28 February 2001.\n11.  The first applicant appealed. In a judgment of 19 June 2003 the Sofia Military Court of Appeal quashed, on the grounds of procedural irregularities, the part of the judgment in which the applicant had been found guilty, and referred the case back to the investigating authorities. As the prosecution did not appeal, the applicant’s acquittal on one of the counts with which she had been charged became final.\n12.  On 28 January 2004 the public prosecutor again committed the accused for trial. On 5 February 2004, however, the reporting judge remitted the case for further investigation. Following a further decision to commit the accused for trial dated 10 May 2004, the reporting judge once again sent the case file back to the public prosecutor.\n13.  The first applicant lodged an application under Article 239a of the 1978 Code of Criminal Procedure, complaining of the excessive length of the proceedings. Under that provision, the reporting judge returned the case file to the public prosecutor on 8 April 2005, informing him that he must either commit the accused for trial or discontinue the proceedings within two months.\n14.  The public prosecutor committed the accused for trial on 8 June 2005. However, on 16 June 2005 the reporting judge once again returned the case file to the prosecuting authorities, giving them one month to correct certain procedural irregularities in the indictment. In an order of 28 July 2005 the reporting judge noted that the accused had not been committed for trial within the prescribed time-limit and discontinued the criminal proceedings under Article 239a of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n15.  Following the first applicant’s prosecution, disciplinary proceedings were started against her. In that connection she gave evidence in person, furnished written explanations and was informed of the contents of the file. Under an order issued by the Minister of the Interior on 26 February 2002, the first applicant was dismissed from her post on the ground that, on 28 March 2001, she had requested and received from a person under investig", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7826", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1947 and 1975 respectively and live in Budapest.\n6.  On 15 February 2006 the first applicant was interrogated as a suspect on charges of tax fraud. On 5 February 2008 the second applicant was interrogated as a suspect on charges of tax fraud in connection with the same criminal proceedings.\n7.  On 13 May 2008 the Budapest IX District Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against both applicants and two other co-accused charging them with tax fraud, a conduct punishable under section 310 (1) of the Criminal Code, and other related crimes, including fraud and forgery of private documents.\n8.  The Pest Central District Court held a first hearing on 6 April 2011, when the four defendants gave evidence. The next hearing was scheduled for 1 September 2011. On that occasion the District Court took the evidence of six witnesses.\n9.  Two further hearings were held on 2 December 2011 and 4 April 2012.\nThe District Court adopted a judgment on 4 April 2012 finding the applicants guilty as charged. It fined the first applicant 600,000 Hungarian forints (HUF – approximately 2,000 euros (EUR)) and the second applicant HUF 300,000 (approximately EUR 1,000). Since none of the accused or the Public Prosecutor appealed, the District Court confined its reasoning to the statement of the facts and the applied legal provisions. The judgment was served on the applicants on 30 May 2012.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7827", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Sfântu-Gheorghe.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 2005 the applicant, with the assistance of a lawyer, brought proceedings against a third party seeking the annulment of a will and the acknowledgement of her inheritance rights. She estimated the value of the deceased’s estate to be 31,800 lei (RON) (approximately 9,244 euros (EUR)).\n7.  By a judgment of 21 December 2005 the Iaşi District Court, acting as a court of first-instance, allowed the applicant’s action on the merits and acknowledged her inheritance rights. The operative part of the judgment expressly stated that it was subject to appeal within fifteen days of notification. The third party appealed.\n8.  By a judgment of 4 April 2007 the Iaşi County Court, sitting as a bench of two judges, allowed the third party’s appeal on the merits, quashed the judgment of 21 December 2005 and dismissed the applicant’s action. The operative part of the judgment expressly stated that it was subject to an appeal on points of law (recurs) within fifteen days of notification. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n9.  At the hearing of 10 October 2007 the Iaşi Court of Appeal, of its own motion, raised a preliminary objection concerning the admissibility of the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It allowed the parties to submit observations on whether the ordinary appeal brought by the third party before the Iaşi County Court should have been reclassified by that court as an appeal on points of law, considering the value of the disputed estate and the applicable rules of civil procedure.\n10.  On 24 October 2007 the applicant submitted written observations before the Iaşi Court of Appeal concerning the preliminary objection it had raised. She contested it by arguing, inter alia, that an action seeking the annulment of an instrument could not be valued and considered to have a pecuniary component. In addition, Law no. 304/2004 expressly stated that an appeal on points of law had to be examined by a court sitting as a bench of three judges. Consequently, by allowing the preliminary objection, the Court of Appeal would be ignoring a mandatory legal provision concerning the composition of the bench.\n11.  By a final judgment of 14 November 2007 the Iaşi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible without touching on the merits of the case. It held that, under Article 2811 of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, judgments delivered by first-instance courts in respect of disputes where the subject-matter of the litigation had been valued at less than one billion Romanian lei (approximately EUR 27,000) were not subject to an ordinary appeal. The applicant had estimated the value of the disputed estate to be EUR 9,244. A dispute between parties which concerned the annulment of a legal instrument relating to a particular estate had a pecuniary content and could be valued. The value of the assets specified in the legal instrument had to be taken into consideration for the purposes of establishing which court had jurisdiction. The value indicated by the applicant was the only criteria for establishing the value of the estate concerned. Consequently, the only relevant criteria in determining the competent court was the value of the assets specified in the instrument the applicant sought to annul. Therefore, the proceedings brought by the applicant were regulated by Article 2811 and consequently the judgment delivere", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7828", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Ungheni.\n5.  In the evening of 4 July 2002, at approximately 11 p.m., the applicant was apprehended by two police officers. They were seeking the perpetrator of several rapes committed in that area over the previous few months. As the applicant fitted the description given by the victims, he was body‑searched and arrested.\n6.  According to the applicant, he was beaten up both on the way to the police headquarters and then all through the night, and forced to confess to crimes he had not committed. His criminal complaint to that effect, lodged on 14 August 2002, was eventually dismissed as unsubstantiated on 30 January 2007 by the High Court of Cassation and Justice.\n7.  On 5 July 2002 the applicant made three handwritten statements at the police headquarters. He was not assisted by counsel.\nIn the first statement he denied having committed the crimes. In the second and third statements he confessed to having committed three rapes, on 8 November 2001 and in February and April 2002, and two attempted rapes in May and June 2002, and stated that he had been planning similar deeds for 4 July 2002. He gave details of how he had approached, immobilised and abused the victims on each occasion.\nOn the same day he was taken to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Mureş County Court where, in the presence of counsel, he reiterated his confession. According to the applicant, the police officers who accompanied him to the prosecutor’s office threatened him with violence if he changed his statements before the prosecutor. A police officer was present during the questioning of the applicant in the prosecutor’s office.\n8.  The applicant was examined by a panel of psychiatrists and forensic doctors. They concluded that at the time of the offences the applicant was accused of, he had been aware that what he was doing was wrong. They also concluded that he had a personality disorder which led to antisocial behaviour, and he was unable to control his instinctual impulses. On 5 August 2002 they submitted their report to the prosecutor.\n9.  On 18 December 2002 the prosecutor lodged the indictment with the Târgu Mureş District Court. Before the court, the applicant was represented by counsel. He retracted his previous confessions and reiterated that he had been beaten and threatened by police during the early questioning sessions. On 11 August 2003 the court convicted the applicant.\n10.  However, in a final decision of 17 October 2003 the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal quashed the applicant’s conviction and sent the case back to the prosecutor’s office for further investigation. The court found that the rights of the defence had been breached in that the applicant had not been assisted by counsel during the first questioning sessions and that the prosecutor had not ordered an expert examination of the material evidence.\n11.  Following the instructions set out in the final decision, the prosecutor again heard evidence from the applicant, in the presence of his counsel, and from witnesses and the victims. The applicant denied the commission of the rapes. The prosecutor also ordered an expert examination of the material evidence and assessed whether it would have been feasible for the applicant to leave his work place and commit the rapes within the relevant time frame.\n12.  On 16 March 2004 the prosecutor again indicted the applicant.\n13.  On 9 October 2006 the Târgu Mureş District Court acquitted the applicant, a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7829", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Penitentiary no. 72 in Voznesensk.\n6.  On 16 September 2003 a Ms D. was robbed and murdered in her apartment.\n7.  On 26 November 2003 the applicant’s acquaintance, Mr M., a drug addict who was detained on suspicion of an unrelated offence at the time, stated that the applicant had asked him to sell some gold jewellery and dentures and had admitted that he had robbed and murdered Ms D. Later, during the judicial proceedings, Mr M. would retract that statement (see paragraph 24 below).\n8.  On 1 December 2003 the investigator of the Yevpatoriya City Prosecutor’s Office (hereafter “the Yevpatoriya Prosecutor”) ordered the police to ensure the applicant’s presence (здійснити привід) for questioning as a suspect.\n9.  On 6 December 2003 the applicant was taken by the police from a hospital in Mykolayiv, where he was undergoing treatment for drug addiction, to the Yevpatoriya City Police Department. He was held there without his detention being documented from 6 p.m. on 6 December till 11:30 a.m. on 7 December 2003. According to the applicant, during that time he was questioned and subjected to beatings and psychological pressure with a view to extracting a confession.\n10.  Early in the morning on 7 December 2003 the applicant wrote a “statement of voluntary surrender to the police”, in which he confessed to having robbed and murdered Ms D.\n11.  Thereafter, at 11.30 a.m., the investigator drew up a report on the applicant’s detention as a suspect. His “voluntary surrender to the police” and risk of absconding were cited as the grounds for the detention.\n12.  Also in the morning on 7 December 2003 the applicant’s mother signed contracts for his legal representation with two lawyers – Mr A. and Mr K. According to the applicant, the choice of Mr K. had been imposed on them by the investigator.\n13.  The applicant and the two lawyers signed a record of the explanation of the applicant’s procedural rights to him.\n14.  On 7 December 2003, from 11.45 to 12.40 a.m., the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the presence of his two lawyers. He retracted his initial confession as allegedly obtained under psychological pressure.\n15.  On the same day, from 2.45 to 4.20 p.m., the applicant was questioned again, this time in the presence of Mr A. alone. He signed a record confirming that the provisions of Article 63 of the Constitution (privilege against self-incrimination and right to legal assistance) had been explained to him. The applicant retracted the statements he had made during the previous questioning and upheld his initial confession. He submitted that he had realised that there was serious evidence against him and that he wished to confess.\n16.  Thereafter, on 7 December 2003 the investigator conducted a reconstruction of the crime with the participation of the applicant and his lawyer, Mr A. The applicant gave a detailed account of the robbery and murder.\n17.  Prior to the applicant’s placement in the Yevpatoriya Temporary Detention Facility on the same date, he was physically examined by a police officer in the presence of two attested witnesses, who issued a report stating that no signs of injury had been detected.\n18.  On 12 December 2003 the Yevpatoriya Prosecutor issued an order for samples of the applicant’s blood and saliva to be taken by a forensic medical expert.\n19.  On 13 December 2003 the applicant and his lawyer, Mr A., signed a record attesting that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7830", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Osijek.\n6.  On 21 March 2011 an investigating judge from the Vukovar County Court (Županijski sud u Vukovaru) opened an investigation in respect of the applicant, four other persons, T.O., O.K., T.K. and N.Š., and two companies, K. and O., in connection with suspected abuse of power and authority, fraud, false accounting and business misfeasance.\n7.  On the same day the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on the grounds of the risk that he might tamper with evidence and of the gravity of the charges (Article 102 §§ 1(2) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The judge held that it was necessary to question several witnesses who could be influenced by the applicant and the other defendants, and that the pecuniary gain allegedly obtained suggested that the circumstances of the offences were particularly serious.\n8.  On 22 March 2011 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody.\n9.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision with the Vukovar County Court. On 31 March 2011 a three-judge panel of the court dismissed the appeal as ill-founded.\n10.  In the period between 22 March and 4 April 2011 the investigating judge questioned the defendants and heard evidence from eight witnesses.\n11.  On 21 April 2011 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention on the ground of the gravity of the charges (Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), reiterating his previous arguments.\n12.  An appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed by a three-judge panel of the Vukovar County Court on 28 April 2011.\n13.  In May 2011 the investigating judge heard evidence from three witnesses and additionally questioned defendants T.K. and N.Š.\n14.  On 20 June 2011 the investigating judge again extended the applicant’s detention on the ground of the gravity of the charges (Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure).\n15.  The applicant appealed and on 30 June 2011 a three-judge panel of the Vukovar County Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded.\n16.  In July 2011 the investigating judge again questioned defendants T.O. and O.K., and in September 2011 commissioned an auditor’s report.\n17.  On 19 September 2011 the Vukovar County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Vukovaru) indicted the applicant in the Vukovar County Court on charges of abuse of power and authority.\n18.  On 21 September 2011 a three-judge panel of the Vukovar County Court extended the applicant’s detention on the ground of the gravity of the charges (Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The relevant part of the decision reads:\n\"As regards the second accused, Igor Orban, his detention was extended under [Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure] since he was working with the first accused. He was authorised to sign contracts, which he did by signing a contract on cooperation with company Ž., from Osijek, on 25 February and 31 July 2008. Furthermore, the second accused transported the goods he received to company K. without any accompanying documentation, which resulted in a financial loss to company Ž. of 6,258,895.02 kunas. In view of the extent of the damage, [this panel] finds that the detention should be extended under Article 102 § 1(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\"\n19.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), complaining that there had b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7831", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953. He is currently detained in prison.\n6.  On 16 December 2005 a criminal investigation was opened in connection with a sexual offence allegedly committed the previous day by the applicant against V. and K. (boys aged 11 and 17).\n7.  On the same day, K., V. and V.’s older brother were interviewed by police.\n8.  K. submitted that he had known the applicant for a long time and had visited him a couple of times with friends. In respect of the events in question he stated that the boys had stayed overnight at the applicant’s home, but he had no recollection of what had happened that night as he had been drunk and had fallen asleep. When he woke up the next morning the boys had been naked and their underpants were missing. V. told him that the applicant had undressed them and engaged in oral sex with both of them. The next evening, when the boys returned to the applicant’s residence, the applicant accused K. of breaking the windows of his house, damaging his car and stealing blank CDs from his home. There was an argument and a minor scuffle between the applicant and K.\n9.  V. was interviewed in the presence of a psychologist and the interview was video-recorded. According to him the boys had drunk alcohol with the applicant. The boys had gone to bed dressed but during the night the applicant had undressed them and engaged in oral sex with both of them. The next morning the boys’ underpants had been missing. V. had told his brother what had happened. The next evening, when the boys returned to the applicant’s residence, the applicant had attacked K. The copy of the report of the interview in the case file contains no mention of a promise made to V. that if he told what had happened he would never be asked questions about it again (see paragraph 22 below).\n10.   According to V.’s brother V. had told him about the applicant having undressed the boys and engaged in oral sex with them. The next evening V.’s brother had gone with V. and K. to the applicant’s home. He submitted that there had been a conflict between the applicant and K.\n11.  On the same day, 16 December 2005, the applicant was arrested and questioned in respect of a suspicion under Article 142 § 2 (satisfaction of sexual desire in respect of a minor) of the Penal Code (Karistusseadustik). He denied having had oral sex with the boys, said that he had had an altercation with them and suggested that they might have wished to take revenge. According to the record of the interview the applicant did not wish defence counsel to be present.\n12.  On 17 December 2005 the Tartu County Court heard the applicant, who was assisted by counsel, and remanded him in custody.\n13.  On 29 December 2005 the applicant was again interviewed in respect of the suspicion under Article 142 § 2 of the Penal Code according to which he had had oral sex with the victims. This time the interview took place in the presence of counsel. The applicant submitted that because of a memory blackout due to intoxication he was unable either to confirm or deny whether he had committed the offence he was suspected of. He acknowledged his bisexuality and admitted that the age of his partners was as young as 15-16 years. He had known K. for three years and during the last year they had engaged in consensual sex a couple of times and had “simply” slept in the same bed more often. The applicant expressed regret that “he [had] sexually abused an 11-year-old boy”. He submitted that he could explain ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7832", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n6.  From 18 July 2006 to 2 June 2009 the applicant was detained in custody pending trial in Tallinn Prison. Subsequently he was transferred to Viru Prison.\n7.  According to the applicant, he stayed in cell no. 443 in the second block of the remand wing of Tallinn Prison. The applicant provided conflicting information concerning the size of the cell and its usable floor area. According to his initial submissions, cell no. 443 measured 15 square metres. Later he submitted that it measured 14.3 square metres. It accommodated six detainees including the applicant. The cell was equipped with bunk beds, a table, benches and a toilet, which left either 7.4 or 6.5 square metres (according to the applicant’s different submissions) of usable floor area in the cell.\n8.  The detainees were locked in the cell day and night except for one hour of daily outdoor exercise. The outdoor exercise yard measured 2.7 by 4.7 metres and was also used by other detainees. It had a concrete floor which could be wet or covered in snow according to the weather conditions and had no benches or sports equipment. Persons remanded in custody pending trial, like the applicant, had no access to a gym.\n9.  The Government provided the following information about the applicant’s stay in different cells:\nNumber of cell\nNumber of days\nAverage number of inmates\nCell surface in square metres\nAverage surface per person in square metres\nPercentage of time out of the total period of 1023 days\n126\n44\n6\n10.  The Government noted that the number of days was approximate as days of transfer were given a double entry (half-days were counted as whole).\n11.  According to the Government, cell no. 443 – where the applicant spent most of his detention in Tallinn – measured 16.8 square metres, including a separate toilet area of 1.5 square metres. When the toilet space was deducted from the total cell surface area, this left 15.3 square metres of usable floor area for the detainees in the cell. The furnishings (two benches, a table, three bunk beds and closets for personal belongings) took up 6.906 square metres of the floor area and left 8.394 square metres of free floor space in the cell. For most of the time six detainees were kept in the cell (76% of the time), and for some periods four or five detainees were accommodated in cell no. 443. In respect of the occupancy of cell no. 443, the Government provided the following information:\nNumber of persons in cell no. 443 at the same time\n6\n5\n4\nNumber of days with the above number of persons\n698\n196\n27\nSurface area per person in square metres (excluding toilet)\n12.  Cell no. 443 had a window which could be partly opened and ensured natural light and ventilation in the cell. There was also both artificial lighting and artificial ventilation in the cell. The cell was equipped with central heating. There was a sink with cold running water and a toilet which was separated from the sleeping area by a door.\n13.  The detainees had a possibility of one-hour daily outdoor exercises in yards measuring on average 3 by 5 metres.\n14.  During his detention the applicant complained on several occasions of pain in his back and neck. He was examined by doctors and given painkillers. X-ray examinations on 2 April and 3 September 2008 revealed small signs of osteochondrosis.\n15.  A neurologist who examined the applicant on 8 April 2008 noted in the applicant’s health card that his movem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7833", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Khimki in the Moscow region.\n6.  Since 29 April 2005 the applicant has been the managing director of a limited liability construction company, Print Capital.\n7.  In June 2005 criminal proceedings were initiated concerning the company’s unauthorised construction of apartment buildings in the Moscow Region. In November 2005 further criminal proceedings were opened concerning fraud related to the sale of flats in those buildings. The two sets of proceedings were subsequently joined.\n8.  On 4 December 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud.\n9.  On 6 December 2005 the Meshchanskiy District Court in Moscow authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention, holding as follows:\n“In taking its decision on the [investigator’s] request, the court takes into account the parties’ arguments and the character of the suspect, Mr Segeda, in particular his good references, lack of criminal record, the fact that he has a dependent child, his state of health, and his Category 3 disability. At the same time, the court takes into account that the request was submitted and approved by the appropriate officials in accordance with criminal procedural law. The court also takes into account the gravity of the charges, that Mr Segeda is suspected of having committed a serious criminal offence punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, [and that he] continues to exercise his responsibilities as managing director of Print Capital and enjoys powers of authority and decision-making and therefore, there are sufficient grounds to believe that if a preventive measure not involving custody were applied, Mr Segeda might abscond, reoffend, intimidate victims and witnesses and other participants ... destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the proceedings. Furthermore, taking into account that at the present stage of the proceedings the court is not making its assessment of the evidence in the criminal case, it is impossible to apply a more lenient preventive measure in respect of Mr Segeda not involving custody, such as [releasing him subject to] a written undertaking.”\n10.  On 12 December 2005 the applicant was charged with fraud.\n11.  In an appeal against the detention order, the applicant’s counsel submitted that there were insufficient grounds to place the applicant in detention. In particular, prior to his arrest the applicant had not interfered with the proceedings and Print Capital, headed by him, had provided the investigating authorities with all the necessary documents. The investigating authorities had not provided any evidence to support their assertion that the applicant was at risk of absconding. The court had not taken into account that the applicant had good references, a permanent place of residence, a job, a dependent child, or that he had been registered as Category 3 disabled.\n12.  On 21 December 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the detention order of 6 December 2005.\n13.  On 26 January 2006 Khimki Town Court in the Moscow Region (“the Town Court”) extended the applicant’s detention until 22 March 2006, holding as follows:\n“The present request has been submitted and approved by the appropriate officials and in accordance with criminal procedural law. The court takes into account that Mr Segeda is charged with a serious offence punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment, and therefore if released, he might abscond or obstruct the establishment of truth by destroying documents and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7835", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are:\n1) Tanzila Dobriyeva, born in 1979;\n2) Milana Adzhiyeva, born in 1984;\n3) Yelizaveta Dobriyeva, born in 1969;\n4) Fatima Dzhaniyeva, born in 1982.\n7.  The first and second applicants live in St Petersburg, the third applicant lives in Arkhangelsk, and the fourth applicant lived in Ingushetia before leaving it in December 2009 (her current whereabouts are unknown).\n8.  The applicants are distantly related to Maksharip Aushev, a well-known Ingushetia businessman who was killed, along with his sister, in October 2009 in Kabardino-Balkaria by unidentified gunmen. Prior to that, in August 2008 his colleague and a co-founder of the opposition Internet site Ingushetia.ru, Magomed Yevloyev, was killed in Nazran by a police officer who was later found guilty of causing death by negligence.\n9.  On 15 December 2009 the fourth applicant – Maksharip Aushev’s widow – and her mother and two brothers were the victims of a car explosion in Ingushetia. The fourth applicant, who was in the last month of pregnancy, was the only survivor of the explosion. That crime has not been solved.\n10.  On 17 December 2009 the car of another brother of the fourth applicant exploded in Ingushetia in front of a police road block, wounding more than 20 servicemen. His relatives disputed the identity of the suicide bomber.\n11.  After the explosion of 15 December 2009, the fourth applicant was taken to St Petersburg for treatment. She was accompanied by her relatives: Yunus Dobriyev, born in 1971; Magomed Adzhiyev, born in 1989; Yusup Dobriyev, born in 1969; and Ali Dzhaniyev, born in 1992.\n12.  The first applicant is the wife of Yunus Dobriyev; they have one minor son. The second applicant is a sister of Magomed Adzhiyev. The third applicant is the wife of Yusup Dobriyev; they have four minor children. The fourth applicant is a sister of Ali Dzhaniyev. Yunus and Yusup Dobriyev are brothers and the fourth applicant’s uncles, Magomed Adzhiyev is their nephew and the fourth applicant’s cousin.\n13.  On 25 December 2009 the four men listed in paragraph 11 above, together with the fourth applicant, arrived in St Petersburg from Ingushetia. They went to the flat rented by the second applicant and her husband, where they joined other members of the family. At about midnight the four men listed above left for Yunus Dobriyev’s home, with the first applicant’s husband, Yunus Dobriyev, driving the VAZ 21099 car. About one hour later the first applicant called her husband’s mobile phone and then those of the other three men, but they were switched off.\n14.  Alerted by the first applicant, at about 4.30 a.m. the second applicant’s husband and his friend drove along the route likely to have been taken by the missing men. They noted a Lada car following them and wrote down its registration number, as well as those of several other cars following them. At some point they even approached the Lada and saw two men sitting inside whom they later described to the police.\n15.  On 26 December 2009 the first applicant submitted a complaint to the local police department in St Petersburg about the disappearance of her husband and three of his relatives. She indicated that she had last seen her husband and the three other men at about 11.30 p.m. on 25 December 2009 at Kamskaya Street, driving away in his car. They had intended to drop two of the men at the Tekhnologicheskiy Institut metro station and then continue to her home address at Novikova Street. At about midnight Yunus", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7836", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1957, 1952 and 1926 respectively and live in Gerasdorf.\n5.  In 1983 land consolidation proceedings were opened in respect of Gerasdorf, where the applicants live as farmers. The proceedings related to a total area of 1,329 hectares, including 60 hectares out of the 200 hectares of the applicants’ farming estate. The applicants and other family members used to farm their land jointly. In addition they had entered into agreements on rights of use (Nutzungstauschvereinbarungen) with other farmers, allowing them to cultivate third-party plots while waiving their rights to cultivate a number of their own plots of land. These agreements had been made orally and had not been entered into the land register.\n6.  In 1986 the occupation and valuation schedule (Besitzstands- und Bewertungsausweis) was issued and on 13 November 1986 the provisional transfer of property (vorläufige Übernahme) was ordered.\n7.  On 16 May 1990 the District Agricultural Authority issued the consolidation plan (Zusammenlegungsplan), against which the applicants and some other family members appealed on 5 July 1990. Thirty-seven other parties also appealed.\n8.  The Regional Land Reform Board (Landesagrarsenat) granted the applicants’ appeal as well as the appeals of thirty-four other parties in a decision of 28 April 1992 and referred the case back to the lower instance.\n9.  In January 1993 the applicants filed an application for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag). As a result, the Regional Land Reform Board became competent to deal with the matter. The applicants’ further application for transfer of jurisdiction to the Supreme Land Reform Board was dismissed by the latter on 7 December 1994 on the ground that there had not been an undue delay in the proceedings before the Regional Land Reform Board. Consequently, the proceedings remained pending before the Regional Land Reform Board.\n10.  On 19 June 1995 the Regional Land Reform Board having held a hearing issued a new consolidation plan, amending the allocation of compensatory parcels to the applicants and a number of other parties. The applicants appealed.\n11.  In a decision of 6 December 1995 the Supreme Land Reform Board decided to suspend the appeal proceedings pending further amendments of the consolidation plan concerning other parties. The applicants filed a complaint against that decision with the Constitutional Court. On 13 March 1996 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the complaint and transferred the case to the Administrative Court where it became pending on 7 May 1996. On 7 November 1996 the Supreme Land Reform Board submitted observations.\n12.  On 26 May 1998 the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) quashed the decision of 6 December 1995 and ordered the Supreme Land Reform Board to continue the proceedings.\n13.  Subsequently between 27 October 1998 and 2 June 1999 the Supreme Land Reform Board conducted comprehensive proceedings. It carried out on-site visits, took expert opinions and held a number of hearings. It appears that in the course of a hearing held in April 1999 two judges declared to withdraw from the case as they were also sitting in related proceedings concerning the applicants’ claim under the Official Liability Act.\n14.  By decisions of 2 June and 12 October 1999 the Supreme Land Reform Board, after having held hearings in its new composition, again amended the consolidation plan in respect of the applicants and a number of other ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7839", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Segezha, in the Republic of Karelia.\n6.  On 27 September 2004 the applicant and three other men - L., Ls. and Pc. - visited the flat belonging to Bs. They met three women there, D., I. and Kh. All of them gathered in the kitchen and started drinking heavily. At some point, as was established later in the course of the trial, the applicant took D. against her will to another room and raped her.\n7.  On 28 September 2004 the applicant was arrested. On 30 September 2004 the Segezha Town Court authorised his detention pending investigation and trial. Mr B., appointed as the applicant’s counsel, and the applicant attended the hearing. Neither of them appealed against the court order of 30 September 2004.\n8.  On 1 December 2004 the Segezha Town Court fixed the first trial hearing for 14 December 2004. Ms P., who was an attorney at the time, was appointed to represent the applicant during the trial.\n9.  On 1 March 2005 the Segezha Town Court held the last court hearing. According to the applicant, he was not notified in advance of the hearing which prevented him from preparing for it. The court found the applicant guilty of rape and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The applicant and his lawyer were present. The court based its findings, inter alia, on the testimonies provided by D., I., Bs., Kh. and Ls., and on physical and forensic evidence. D. testified that the applicant had pulled her out of the kitchen where they all had been drinking and taken her to another room where he had threatened, slapped and raped her. The other witnesses submitted that they had been drunk at the relevant time and could not provide an accurate account of the events of 27 September 2004. According to the forensic biological report, the traces of body fluids found on D.’s underwear could have belonged to the applicant. The applicant, but not his counsel, appealed.\n10.  In the statement of appeal, the applicant claimed that the trial court had failed to study all the materials in the case file; had erroneously dismissed his request for additional forensic expert examinations; had failed to question certain witnesses and had not properly assessed the witnesses’ testimonies. He further alleged that the trial transcript had not been accurate or complete.\n11.  On 24 March 2005 the Segezha Town Court informed the applicant and his counsel of the date and time of the appeal hearing.\n12.  On 25 April 2005 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal. As it follows from the text of the judgment, the applicant took part in the hearing by video link. Ms P. did not appear. The court proceeded with the hearing in her absence. It heard submissions from the judge rapporteur, the applicant and the prosecutor.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7841", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1958 and 1980 respectively and live in Kemerovo.\n6.  Both applicants were suspected of involvement in an organised criminal gang.\n7.  On 11 March 2005 the Kemerovo Zavodskoy District Court authorised the second applicant’s detention pending investigation. When justifying the decision to remand him in custody, the court noted, in particular, as follows:\n“... [The second applicant] is charged with a serious offence which entails a custodial sentence exceeding ten years; he might abscond or ... put pressure on and threaten B., one of the co-defendants, who voluntarily testified that he and [the second applicant] had committed an armed robbery at the premises of ... a furniture manufacturing company. Furthermore, if released, [the second applicant] might attempt to destroy ... evidence.”\n8.  On 24 June 2005 the Kemerovo Tsentralniy District Court authorised the first applicant’s detention pending investigation. The court did not find it possible to use any other measure of restraint. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“... the court takes into account that [the first applicant] is charged with a number of very serious criminal offences which ... entail a custodial sentence of from eight to fifteen years.\nFurthermore, the court takes into account that [the first applicant] played an active part in the offences: as well as the specific circumstances of the crimes committed ... the fact that he had had firearms in his possession ... and had so far failed to turn them in. Accordingly, the court considers that even though [the first applicant] does not have a criminal record, that he was employed and provided positive character references, the conclusion is that if released [the first applicant] might abscond, interfere with the administration of justice by putting pressure on and threatening witnesses, and continue with criminal activities. The court finds without merit the arguments furthered by the defence and [the first applicant] that he has not absconded in the past. The criminal investigation against [him] was suspended due to the [authorities’] failure to identify the culprits ... [The first applicant] was identified as a suspect only in May 2005 ... [Before that time] he did not have any reasons to abscond.”\n9.  On 22 July 2005 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the second applicant’s detention until 2 October 2005, reasoning as follows:\n“The circumstances underlying the [second applicant’s] remand in custody had not changed or ceased to exist. [The second applicant] is charged with a serious crime and a number of particularly serious offences. Accordingly, there are reasons to believe that once at liberty he might abscond, continue with his criminal activities or interfere with the establishment of the truth in the case.”\n10.  On 11 August 2005 the Tsentralniy District Court extended the first applicant’s detention until 2 October 2005. The court took into account the gravity of the charges against him and indicated as follows:\n“... the court finds that [the circumstances underlying the court’s decision to remand the first applicant in custody] did not cease to exist and it is still necessary to detain him. The court considers that, if released, [the first applicant] might continue his criminal activity, abscond or interfere with administration of justice.”\n11.  On 30 September 2005 the Kemerovo Regional Court extended the applicants’ pre-trial detention until 2 January 2006. The court issue", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7842", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are spouses. They were born in 1949 and 1965 respectively and live in Vienna, Austria.\n5.  On 13 April 2005 the applicants brought an action seeking dissolution of joint ownership of a real estate before the Dunajská Streda District Court (file no. 9C 70/2005).\n6.  On 6 September 2006, at its fifth hearing, the District Court delivered a judgment. The defendant appealed. The applicants requested the District Court to give a supplementary judgment. On 9 November 2006 the case file was submitted to the Trnava Regional Court.\n7.  On 20 March 2007 the Regional Court returned the case file to the first-instance court as incomplete. On 11 September 2007 the District Court gave a supplementary judgment and on 11 January 2008 the case file was again submitted to the Regional Court.\n8.  In 2008 the Regional Court stayed the proceedings for two months pending the outcome of inheritance proceedings after the defendant had died.\n9.  On 31 March 2009 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court for a new determination.\n10.  On 20 August 2010 the applicants complained before the Constitutional Court about the length of the proceedings before the District Court.\n11.  On 4 October 2010 the District Court approved the friendly settlement of the case reached between the parties. This decision became final on 30 October 2010.\n12. On 24 November 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the applicants’ complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded (case no. I. ÚS 455/2010). It held that there had been no significant delays in the proceedings before the District Court in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and its constitutional equivalent.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7843", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Mysłowic\n7.  From 22 October 2002 to 21 February 2003 the applicant was detained on remand in Mysłowice Remand Centre. Subsequently, from 13 October 2003 to 26 November 2003, from 31 August 2005 to 7 March 2006 and from 21 April 2006 to 30 July 2007 he served his sentence of imprisonment there.\n8.  On 3 May 2006 the applicant received a disciplinary punishment of 14 days of solitary confinement. He was also subject to certain restrictions concerning accessibility of the prison canteen, religious service, outdoor activities, etc. Furthermore, he was limited in receiving packages until the end of that quarter.\n9.  The applicant submitted that throughout his detention in Mysłowice Remand Centre he had been held in overcrowded cells which did not meet the basic standards of hygiene. According to the official statistics published by the Prison Service (Służba Więzienna) at the relevant time the overcrowding in the facility ranged from 23 to 67%.\n10.  The Government did not submit any information as to the number of detainees held in Mysłowice Remand Centre.\n11.  On 27 February 2006 the applicant brought a civil action in tort against Mysłowice Remand Centre, seeking compensation for the infringement of his personal rights on account of the inadequate conditions of his detention.\n12.  On 15 May 2006 the Mysłowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) acknowledged that, at times, the applicant had indeed been held in overcrowded conditions. It dismissed his claim, finding that this practice had not been unlawful, as the penitentiary judge had been duly informed about the situation. The District Court also held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had suffered any harm as a result of the overcrowding. It further considered that the overall sanitary conditions and the quality of food in the defendant remand centre had been adequate.\n13.  On 2 June 2006 the applicant appealed against the above first instance judgment.\n14.  On 8 June 2006 the Mysłowice District Court decided to exempt the applicant from the court fee for appeal. The applicant was called to rectify the appeal by providing the court with a copy of the appeal, by informing the court about the scope of his appeal, by informing the court about the content of his appeal request and by paying the basic fee of 30 Polish zlotys [PLN] (approx. 7 euros [EUR] within 30 days. The court also informed the applicant that lack of rectification would result in rejection of the appeal.\n15.  On 22 June 2006 the same court rejected the applicant’s appeal for failure to pay the basic court fee.\n16.  The applicant’s interlocutory appeal against that decision was rejected on 28 July 2006 for failure to pay the applicable court fee. The applicant did not appeal against the latter decision.\n17.  On 26 March 2007 the applicant filed a complaint about the conditions of his detention to the Regional Inspectorate of the Prison Service (Okręgowy Inspektorat Służby Więziennej).\n18.  On 22 May 2007 the Inspectorate acknowledged that the applicant had been occasionally held in overcrowded cells and it apologised for this situation, but refused to remedy the situation, finding that the problem affected Poland’s entire penitentiary system.\n19.  On an unspecified date the applicant filed a request for a temporary release from prison (przerwa), arguing that the release was necessary in order to allow him to participate in person in two sets of court proceedings w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7844", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company is a multimedia publishing house which was established under the laws of Slovakia in 1999. It is constituted as a joint‑stock company and its head office is in Bratislava.\n6.  The applicant company’s legal predecessor in respect of the events giving rise to the present application was a limited-liability company established under the laws of Slovakia in 1994 and registered in Bratislava. The latter company was the publisher of a popular daily newspaper, Nový Čas, which has national coverage and was later acknowledged by the courts to be one of the most widely read newspapers in Slovakia.\n7.  Prior to the proceedings described below, in 2004, the applicant company’s legal predecessor was merged with the applicant company. For ease of reference, henceforth in this judgment “the applicant company” includes the applicant company’s legal predecessor.\n8.  The present case revolves around the participation by an individual, A., in a “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?” type of knowledge quiz in March and April 2004.\n9.  The quiz was broadcast by a popular national TV channel.\n10.  For the assessment of certain aspects of this case, it may be of relevance that A. was a student of information technology and was also a co-owner and the statutory representative of a limited liability company specialising in, inter alia, the purchase, sale and repair of mobile phones.\n11.   A. was doing remarkably well in the quiz and had answered thirteen questions correctly, until he failed to answer the fourteenth question right, which was worth the equivalent of some 50,000 euros (EUR). A. was thereby excluded from the quiz with the equivalent of some EUR 2,500 worth of winnings.\n12.  A. subsequently complained to the organisers of the quiz, arguing that the fourteenth question had been formulated in an ambiguous way and that, in the circumstances, his answer had been correct. The complaint was however dismissed.\n13.  On 19 May 2004 the organiser of the quiz lodged a criminal complaint on the basis of a suspicion that, in connection with the quiz, A. or other persons unknown had committed the offence of fraud.\n14.  On 15 May 2006 the investigation of the criminal complaint was stayed, on the ground that it had not been possible to establish any matters of fact justifying the bringing of charges against any specific person.\n15.  The controversy over the fourteenth question as well as the suspicion against A. received wide media coverage in Nový Čas and other press in Slovakia and abroad, inter alia presenting amply A.’s position.\nBoth topics were also the subject of lively debate on various Internet fora.\n16.  Meanwhile, in addition to the coverage mentioned above, on 11, 18 and 22 May 2004 the applicant company had published three feature articles in Nový Čas about the incident. The titles and the introductory paragraphs of these articles appeared on the front pages of the issues published on those days. They were accompanied by photographs and followed by further text and photographs under separate titles further in the paper.\n17.  On the front page of the paper, the article had the title:\n‘Was he cheating? An investigation has already begun!’\n18.  Further headings on the front page read as follows:\n‘Discharged contender’\nand\n‘Scandal in [the name of the quiz]’\n19.  The introductory paragraph on the front page read as follows:\n“The tables have turned! A contender who it was thought had been unlawfully divested of [the equivalent of some E", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7845", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company is a multimedia publishing house which was established under the laws of Slovakia in 1999. It is constituted as a joint‑stock company and its head office is in Bratislava.\n6.  Its legal predecessor in respect of the events giving rise to the present application was a limited-liability company established under the laws of Slovakia in 1994 and registered in Bratislava. The latter company was the publisher of a popular daily newspaper, Nový Čas, which has national coverage and was later acknowledged by the courts to be one of the most widely read newspapers in Slovakia.\n7.  In the course of the proceedings described below, in 2004, the applicant company’s legal predecessor was merged with the applicant company. Hereinafter “the applicant company” includes the applicant company’s legal predecessor.\n8.  In the evening of an unspecified day in 2001 an accident happened in a car park in a district capital in north-eastern Slovakia. It involved a collision between a car, driven by A., and a pedestrian, B.\n9.  Shortly after the accident B. succumbed to his injuries and A. was arrested and detained on charges related to the accident.\n10.  B.’s father, C., was a chief prosecutor with the District Office of the Public Prosecution Service (“the PPS”) in the same district. In this capacity, his full name is accessible to the public via the official Internet site of the PPS.\n11.  Following the accident, a reporter with Nový Čas, D., contacted C. and asked him for a comment. C. gave him a short statement. The question of disclosure of his and his son’s identity was not discussed.\n12.  On 24 October 2001 the applicant company published an article in Nový Čas, written by D., concerning the accident. The title of the article was:\n‘The [PPS] and the courts violate the human rights of a driver who is being prosecuted for running over a son of the [chief] District Prosecutor of [a town].’\nThe article also had a subtitle, which read:\n‘The investigation file travels around the region like a hot potato’.\n13.  The article referred to B. and C. by their full names, while A. was referred to by his first name and the initial of his surname. In its first part, the article described the accident.\n14.  The subsequent part, referring to the handling of the case file concerning the accident and giving the positions of those concerned, with contextual explanations, contains, inter alia, the following passages:\n“... The case in north-eastern Slovakia has become the centre of an unprecedented merry-go-round of files being pushed around from the [PPS] to the courts and back ...\n‘My wife and I, we have lost the meaning of our lives’, the district prosecutor [C.], devastated by the loss of his son’ said in a short interview for our daily ....”\n15.  The third and final part of the article deals with the circumstances of the investigation and A.’s detention, in the following terms:\n“[A.] has been charged by an investigator and remanded in custody by a judge of the [a city] District Court. If he is found guilty, he risks being jailed for up to five years.\nAfter one month the defence lawyer for A. requested that he be released on bail. Then the transferring of the file from one institution to another started. From the regional prosecutor to the [a town] District Court, and from there to [a town] and back to the prosecutor. The judges of the [a town] District Court pronounced themselves biased and the case was transferred to the [a town] Regional Court. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7846", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants were born in 1974, 1980, 1980, 1957 and 1979 respectively. The third applicant lived in Hajdukovo, whilst all other applicants lived in Subotica.\n6.  In the course of 2006 and 2007 numerous robberies took place in the municipalities of Bačka Palanka, Bačka Topola, Bački Petrovac, Bečej, Kula, Novi Sad, Odžaci, Senta, Sombor and Vrbas (in northern Serbia). The main targets were older persons and some of them suffered grievous bodily harm. One such robbery took place in Kucura, a village in the vicinity of Vrbas, on 5 November 2007 at about 8 p.m. Shortly thereafter a police patrol noticed what it deemed to be a suspicious vehicle near that village. Whilst they managed to arrest another person, PN, according to the Government, the first, second and third applicants escaped. The next morning the fourth and fifth applicants allegedly went to give them a lift back to Subotica. A police patrol, however, stopped them before they entered the town. All five applicants were then arrested and taken to the Novi Sad Police Station.\n7.  On 6 November 2007 the investigating judge ordered that DNA samples be taken from the applicants. Later on, the fifth applicant was released.\n8.  On 7 November 2007, in their separate reports to their superiors, the police officers involved in the above-described operation stated that the applicants had resisted arrest and/or tried to escape, which is why force had had to be used and the applicants had sustained some injuries. In particular, the first and third applicants had excoriations on their foreheads, the second applicant had “redness on his forehead (above his eyebrows) as well as around his right eye”, and the fourth applicant had an “excoriation on the left side of his head (temporal bone)”. Concerning the first and the third applicants, the reports noted that they were not provided with medical assistance since they never asked for any. Officer VD is also referred to as having been injured by the second applicant in the course of arrest.\n9.  On 8 November 2007 the first, second, third and fourth applicants were taken to the investigating judge. They complained, in the presence of the public prosecutor, of being beaten by the police during arrest and whilst in the Novi Sad Police Station. The investigating judge also noted the injuries sustained by the second and fourth applicants respectively. In particular, the second applicant’s injuries included two excoriations and one laceration on the left rear side of his neck, while the fourth applicant’s injuries included bruises on his left shoulder and his face. With the authorisation of the investigating judge, the applicants’ lawyer took photographs of their injuries. The fourth applicant was then released, whereas the first, second and third applicants were remanded in custody on suspicion of having committed numerous robberies and in view of the severity of the potential sentence and the nature of the crimes alleged (under Article 142 § 2 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure; see paragraph 38 below). The investigating judge stated that the crimes in question had all been committed in a similar manner, specifically that: (i) the assaults had occurred during the night; (ii) the victims were elderly people who had been living alone; (iii) overwhelming physical force had been used against them, resulting in some cases in serious bodily harm; and (iv) the victims had been left behind tied with ropes in the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7848", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lived until his arrest in the town of Morshansk, Tambov Region.\n6.  On 25 October 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder committed in a drunken rage. He was placed in temporary detention facility no. IZ-68/2 in Morshansk.\n7.  On 1 February 2005 the Morshansk District Court found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The judgment became final on 10 March 2005 and the applicant was sent to serve his sentence in correctional colony no. 5.\n8.  Medical certificates submitted by the applicant indicate that in 2000 he was admitted to the neurological department of the Morshansk Town hospital for in-patient treatment as he was suffering frequent seizures and loss of consciousness. He was diagnosed with episyndrome with vascular malformation in the right parietal lobe. In 2001 he was again admitted to the hospital with severe headaches and seizures. Doctors confirmed the previous diagnoses of vascular malformation of the brain accompanied by episyndrome, and designated the applicant as category 2 disabled. The applicant was not allowed to perform any physical activity or work other than “light managerial work in a specially designated environment”.\n9.  On admission to detention facility no. IZ-68/2 the applicant complained to a prison doctor of frequent headaches. An examination resulted in his being diagnosed with neurocirculatory dystonia, encephalopathy with complex genesis, and chronic alcoholism. On the following day the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist, who recorded his complaints of regular and lengthy epileptic seizures and prescribed treatment with anticonvulsants. Clinical blood tests and an X-ray examination showed that the applicant was not suffering from any infectious diseases.\n10.  In December 2004 a prison psychiatrist and medical assistant saw the applicant three times in response to his complaints of insomnia, extreme irritability and disturbed emotional state. Having noted that close supervision was necessary, the doctor amended the applicant’s treatment to include another anticonvulsant, a strong neuroleptic and a sedative.\n11.  A prison paramedic attended the applicant on two occasions in January 2005. The applicant’s complaints intensified, to include not only severe headaches but insomnia and frequent and uncontrolled mood swings, with a depressed emotional state being quickly replaced by aggressive behaviour. The paramedic recorded that the applicant was making continual demands for a large number of drugs, in particular strong tranquillisers to fight insomnia, as the headaches only disappeared when the applicant was asleep. He introduced another anticonvulsant to the applicant’s drug regimen and prescribed a strong tranquilliser.\n12.  In February 2005 the applicant was seen at least every four days, by a psychiatrist or the head of the facility medical unit. The doctors registered extremely negative changes in the applicant’s behaviour, numerous complaints, refusal to take medication and subsequent persistent demands for drugs, in particular neuroleptics and tranquillisers. Each time this was done a discussion on the negative consequences of interruption of the treatment followed. The side effects of the treatment with neuroleptics and tranquillisers were also explained to the applicant. Following these “educational” talks, as the psychiatrist called them, the applicant complained of severe headaches and requested an in-depth exam", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7849", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants in the present cases are Russian nationals. Four of the applicants in Pitsayeva and Others v. Russia (no. 53036/08) reside in Belgium, the applicant in Ibragimova v. Russia (no. 30592/10) resides in Norway, and the remaining applicants live in various districts of the Chechen Republic, as specified in the attached table (Appendix I).\n7.  The applicants are close relatives of persons who disappeared in the Chechen Republic between 2000 and 2006 allegedly after being abducted from their homes by groups of unidentified men. The applicants believed that the abductors were Russian federal servicemen since they were wearing camouflage uniforms, had Slavic features and spoke unaccented Russian. Armed with machine guns, the culprits broke into the applicants’ homes, searched the premises, checked the identity documents of the applicants’ relatives and took the latter away in military vehicles, such as armoured personnel carriers (APCs), UAZ minivans or Ural lorries. Only a few of the vehicles had official registration plates. In a number of cases the registration numbers were obscured with mud. None of the applicants have had news of their missing relatives since.\n8.  The abductions took place in various districts of Chechnya and were primarily carried out during curfew hours late at night and early in the morning. In some cases the applicants reported that a special operation had been conducted by Russian troops in the area. Indeed, in Saraliyeva and Others v. Russia (no. 63608/09), Ibragimova v. Russia (no. 30592/10) and Abdulvakhidova v. Russia (no. 52446/10), the investigative authorities officially acknowledged that a special operation had been carried out in the area at the time of the events.\n9.  The applicants reported the incidents to the law-enforcement authorities, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed. From the documents submitted it appears that the relevant State authorities were unable to identify the State servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions.\n10.  In their observations the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants. However, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the abductions.\n11.  The facts relevant to each individual case are summarised below. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives are summarised in the attached table (Appendix I).\n12.  At the material time the first, second, third and fourth applicants and Mr Mulat Barshigov lived in Samashki, Achkhoy-Martan District, Chechnya. Mulat Barshigov was working as deputy head of the Samashki village administration.\n13.  On 14 November 2002 a special operation was carried out in Samashki. The village was placed under curfew and at least three roadblocks were set up in the vicinity. A military commander’s office was located in the village.\n14.  According to the applicants, at 2 a.m. on 14 November 2002 five or six men armed with sub-machine guns broke into their house. The intruders, who were wearing camouflage uniforms and masks, arrived in APCs (armoured personnel carriers) and UAZ vehicles. One of them, who was unmasked, was of Slavic appearance. The men, who spoke unaccented Russian, bound and gagged the first, second, third and fourth applicants, then beat Mulat Barshigov unconscious and took him away in one of their vehicles.\n15.  There has been n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7850", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lived until his arrest in the village of Sushzavod, in the Novosibirsk Region. He is serving a sentence in a correctional colony in the town of Raisino, in the Novosibirsk Region.\n6.  Arrested in August 2007 on suspicion of aggravated robbery, the applicant was convicted on 28 January 2008 and sentenced to nine years and three months’ imprisonment. On 23 November 2011 the applicant was also convicted of aggravated fraud and sentenced to another three years.\n7.  On 7 February 2011 a blood test revealed that the applicant had contracted HIV. Tests conducted on previous occasions, in particular in 2009 and 2010 when the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no. 13, medical penal facility no. 10 and a temporary detention facility in the town of Barnaul, were all negative.\n8.  Believing that he had contracted the virus during medical procedures in detention facilities, the applicant lodged an action with the Berdsk Town Court, seeking compensation from the detention facility authorities for causing him to become HIV-positive.\n9.  On 16 June 2011 the Novosibirsk Regional Court, acting as a court of final instance, disallowed the action, having found that the applicant had not complied with the procedural requirements for lodging it. He did not name a public official who could have been responsible for his having contracted the virus, he did not indicate his home address, he did not pay a court fee, and so on.\n10.  The applicant sent a complaint to the Investigations Department of the Novosibirsk Region, asking for criminal proceedings to be instituted against detention facility personnel. He argued that he had become HIV-positive as a result of negligence on the part of the prison medical staff.\n11.  On 5 July 2011 a deputy head of the Department readdressed the complaint to the Novosibirsk Regional Prosecutor.\n12.  On 13 July 2011 the first deputy prosecutor of the Novosibirsk Region returned the applicant’s complaint to the Investigations Department of the Novosibirsk Region, informing it that there were indications of a possible criminal offence and that a thorough inquiry into the matter should be conducted.\n13.  Ten days later the Investigations Department redirected the applicant’s complaint to the head of the Novosibirsk regional police department, seeking an inquiry into the circumstances causing the applicant to become HIV-positive.\n14.  In March 2012 the applicant received a letter from a Berdsk deputy prosecutor, informing him that his request for institution of criminal proceedings against detention officers had been examined and refused on 18 June 2011. The applicant lodged a claim with the Berdsk Town Court, complaining that the investigating authorities had failed to look closely into what had caused him to contract the virus. On 2 October 2012 the Town Court discontinued the examination of the complaint, noting that on 2 October 2012 the decision of 18 June 2011 had been overturned by the investigation authorities as premature and a new inquiry had commenced. The outcome of those proceedings is unknown.\n15.  In December 2012 specialists from the Hygiene and Epidemics Centre of the Federal Service for Execution of Sentences conducted an inquiry for the purpose of establishing the transmission mode of the applicant’s HIV infection. They studied the applicant’s medical record and interviewed him. Having observed that the applicant had never travelled abroad, had not been a blood, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7851", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Zagreb.\n6.  In 1985 the applicant was employed as an inspector for Zagreb Municipal Council (Grad Zagreb). On 25 June 1991 the Executive Board (Izvršno vijeće) of the Municipal Council removed the applicant from her position and on 26 June 1991 she was made available for redeployment (stavljena na raspolaganje) and subsequently redeployed to the Municipal Council’s Secretariat for Planning, Public Utilities, Transport and Infrastructure (Gradski sekretarijat za prostorno uređenje, komunalne poslove, promet i veze – “the Secretariat”) until 30 September 1991, without being given a permanent role there.\n7.  On 30 September 1991 the Secretariat determined that the applicant could not be found a permanent position within the organisation and terminated her employment upon the expiry of her notice period on 31 March 1992. The applicant did not, at the time, receive any severance pay following her dismissal.\n8.  On 29 July 2006 the applicant requested payment of severance pay from Zagreb Municipal Council’s Office for Planning, Environmental Protection, Development, Construction, Public Utilities and Transport (Gradski ured za prostorno uređenje, zaštitu okoliša, izgradnju grada, graditeljstvo, komunalne poslove i promet – “the Municipal Office”).\n9.  On 10 October 2006 the Municipal Office found that the request for payment should have been submitted within three years of the applicant’s dismissal and rejected it as lodged out of time. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:\n“...\nThe request of Dragica Markeš is inadmissible, as the conditions for initiating proceedings have not been met...\nBy the Secretariat’s decision... the applicant’s employment was terminated on 31 March 1992 in accordance with section 383 of the Public Administration Act.\nOn 29 July 2006 the applicant requested the severance pay, relying on section 383(a) of the Public Administration Act.\nThis Office finds that in the present case the conditions for initiating proceedings following the request of Dragica Markeš have not been met.\nSection 138 of the Labour Act... sets the statute of limitations for claims arising from employment at three years.\nSection 214 subsection 1 of the Obligations Act... provides that the right to claim fulfilment of an obligation ceases when the statutory limitation period expires...\nIn the present case, the statute of limitations ran from 1 April 1992. It follows that the applicant lodged her request for severance pay out of time...”\n10.  The applicant appealed against this decision to the Chief of the Municipal Office and on 9 November 2006 he dismissed the appeal as without merit and upheld the first-instance decision. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:\n“...\nThe appeal is without merit.\n...\nAfter an examination of the appeal and the entire case file, it was found that the first-instance body had fully and correctly established the factual background and had rendered a correct decision. There had been no breaches of procedural rules or errors in the application of the law to the detriment of the appellant...\nAs regards the appellant’s allegations that, instead of provisions of the Labour Act and the Obligations Act, the provisions of the State Administration Act and Administrative Proceedings Act should have been applied to her case, [this authority finds them to be] unfounded...\nSection 371 of the Obligations Act provided that claims became time-barred after five yea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7852", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Brestanica.\n6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in the semi-open and closed sections of Ljubljana prison in the period between 21 July 2009 and 24 December 2009. On the latter date he was transferred to Celje prison, where he stayed until his conditional release on 31 May 2010. The transfer was made on the basis of a decision issued by the director-general of the General Administration at the request of the governor of Ljubljana prison. The decision cited overcrowding as the ground for the transfer.\nThe applicant’s complaints relate to the conditions of detention in Ljubljana prison only.\n7.  From 21 July 2009 to 25 October 2009 he was held in the semi-open section in cell 146 (third floor) measuring 18.8 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility). From 25 October 2009 to 4 November 2009 and from 10 December 2009 to 24 December 2009 he was held in the semi-open section in cell 138 (third floor) measuring 18.6 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility). Due to drug problems he was temporarily held from 4 November 2009 to 10 December 2009 in the closed section in cell 7 (third floor) measuring 16.8 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility). All the cells contained, apart from the furniture, five sleeping places (two bunk beds and one single bed). According to the applicant, five prisoners were being held in each of the cells during his detention. The Government, however, submitted that the number varied between four and five. Each cell had one 107 x 110 cm double casement window, which the prisoners could freely open or close.\n8.  During his imprisonment the applicant had twelve consultations with a general practitioner and six dental appointments. He attended several interviews and group sessions with a pedagogue.\n9.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells, material conditions inside the cells, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011.\n10.  As to the out-of-cell time in the closed section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (Štrucl and Others § 86).\n11.  As to the out-of-cell time in the semi-open section, the Government submitted that the cell doors in the semi-open section of the prison were unlocked, except from 9.45 p.m. (on Fridays, Saturdays and before holidays from midnight) until 6.00 a.m. (on Saturdays, Sundays and during holidays until 8.30 a.m.). During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor (35.7 square metre), living quarters of co-prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas, in accordance with prison rules. The Government alleged that this regime had been in place for several years.\n12.  As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5- 5.30 p.m.) in the second half of July and August 2009 had been approximately 28oC, exceeding 30oC on seven days.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7853", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Novi Pazar.\n5.  The applicant was employed by “Raška Holding Kompanija A.D. u restrukturiranju”, a socially/State-owned company based in Novi Pazar (hereinafter – “the debtor”).\n6.  On 22 December 2004, 5 January 2007, 10 April 2007, and 24 October 2007 the Novi Pazar Municipal Court adopted four judgments in the applicant’s favour according to which the debtor was ordered to pay certain sums.\n7.  On 11 February 2005, 5 March 2007, 21 November 2007 and 31 December 2007 respectively, the applicant lodged applications for the enforcement of the above judgments with the Novi Pazar Municipal Court.\n8.  On 22 February 2005, 11 September 2007, 22 November 2007 and 3 January 2008 respectively, the court allowed the applications and issued enforcement’s orders.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7856", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Piatra-Neamț.\n6.  The applicant (also referred to herein as prosecutor L.), in her capacity as a prosecutor at the prosecutor’s office attached to the Neamț County Court, initiated criminal proceedings against A.B. on two occasions. She filed an indictment proposing A.B.’s conviction in both sets of proceedings.\n7.  The first indictment, filed by the applicant on 17 January 2000, sought the conviction of A.B. for the offences of making false declarations and destruction. On 20 September 2001 the Ploiești District Court found A.B. guilty as charged and sentenced her to six months’ imprisonment in respect of each offence. The judgment was upheld by the Prahova County Court, which dismissed an appeal lodged by A.B. on 7 January 2002. On 22 March 2002 the Ploiești Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on points of law lodged by A.B. in part, noting that the limitation period had expired in respect of the offence of destruction.\n8.  The second indictment of 25 July 2001 was not approved by the chief prosecutor, who ordered the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings against A.B.\n9.  On 7 February 2002 disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant following a complaint being lodged by A.B. On 6 March 2002 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice found that the applicant had not committed any disciplinary offence and closed the investigation.\n10.  A.S., a journalist at the national newspaper Romania Liberă, wrote two articles concerning the applicant’s professional activity in connection with the criminal proceedings against A.B.\n11.  The first article published on 13 February 2002 was entitled “Judicial corruption. Prosecutor L. falsified two indictments! An innocent person was sentenced to prison” and had six sections. The first section, entitled “Professional dross, confirmed by her superiors” (“Rebut professional, confirmat de șefi”), referred to an allegedly “falsified” indictment filed by the applicant on 25 July 2001. It concerned A.B., who according to the journalist had been innocent and a victim of the applicant’s corrupt actions. In the journalist’s opinion the fact that this indictment had been invalidated by the chief prosecutor proved that it had been the result of falsification and could be considered professional dross (“rebut professional”).\n12.  In the second section, entitled “Exclusion from the magistracy” (“Excludere din magistratură”), the journalist referred to “the cheating prosecutor L.” (“procurorul măsluitor”) who “did not manage to send A.B. before a court on the basis of her falsified indictment on this occasion. However she had already managed to send A.B. before a court of justice on the basis of another indictment, the product of scandalous falsification”. It was stated that an examination of the applicant’s conduct in connection with the first indictment “could result, besides criminal charges against her for abuse of position, in her rapid exclusion from the magistracy by the disciplinary board of the public prosecutor’s office. By misleading her superiors, cheating prosecutor L. managed to send the defendant A.B. before a court on 17 January 2000 for criminal damage and making false declarations. The lies and the wilfully erroneous interpretation contained in the ten pages of the second falsified indictment could fill a whole chapter in ‘a real handbook of judicial corruption’”.\n13.  The third and the fourth sections of the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7857", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Bucharest.\n7.  He is a doctor with substantial experience, having been a general practitioner for more than eighteen years. In this capacity, he currently has his own private practice, with two employees. He also teaches at the Bucharest Faculty of Medicine and has authored several works in the field of general medicine.\n8.  In 2006 the applicant graduated from law school; one year later, he registered to become a lawyer, after having passed the annual entrance examination organised by the Bucharest Bar. On 18 December 2007 the Bucharest Bar issued a decision validating the results of the examination and declaring that the applicant was admitted to the Bar.\n9.  The Bucharest Bar further decided on 14 February 2008 to register the applicant as a trainee lawyer (avocat stagiar) as of 15 February 2008. A two-year traineeship period being an obligatory condition for obtaining a licence to practise as a lawyer, the applicant signed a traineeship agreement (contract de colaborare) with the B.P. private law firm. On 15 February 2008 the Bar approved the applicant’s traineeship within the firm.\n10.  On 13 March 2008 the applicant submitted a request to the Dean of the Bucharest Bar to be allowed to pursue his two-year traineeship (stagiu) in compliance with section 17 of Law no. 51/1995 regulating the legal profession, notwithstanding the fact that he simultaneously had his own private medical practice. He considered that “the medical profession was not incompatible with the dignity of the legal profession or the lawyers’ rules of conduct within the meaning of Rule 30 of the Rules governing the Legal Profession”.\nOn 20 March 2008, applying section 14 (b) and section 53 (2) (e) of Law no. 51/1995, the Bucharest Bar rejected the applicant’s request. In its decision the Bar held:\n“the applicant’s request to practise simultaneously as a lawyer and as a doctor is dismissed, and the applicant must consequently opt for one of the two professions.”\n11.  On 21 April 2008 the applicant contested that decision before the National Bar Association. He challenged the reason for the dismissal of his request, which, citing section 14 (b), referred to ineligibility to practise as a lawyer for anyone who already pursued a “profession that infringes the dignity and the independence of the legal profession or is contrary to good morals”. He contended that his professional CV, including a Ph.D. in medicine, a career of teaching at the university and the authorship of several books on medicine, could on no account infringe the dignity of the legal profession. At the same time, he pointed to the fact that he was neither an employee nor a trader, as proscribed by the legislation regulating the activities of lawyers.\nOn 18 June 2008 the National Bar Association upheld the Bucharest Bar’s decision, this time on the basis of section 15 of Law no. 51/1995, which enumerated “exhaustively” the professions that were compatible with the profession of lawyer (see “Relevant domestic law” below). As the practice of medicine was not specified among those professions, the applicant’s request was dismissed.\n12.  That decision was contested before the Bucharest Court of Appeal.\nIn its reply to the applicant’s submissions, the respondent argued, firstly, that the combined interpretation of sections 14 and 15 of the Law led to the conclusion that no other profession could be practised in parallel with that of a lawyer, except for those r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7859", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and habitually resides in Krupina.\n6.  On 20, 21 and 22 May 2009 respectively the applicant was arrested, charged and remanded in custody on suspicion of unlawful production, possession and trafficking in drugs within the meaning of Article 172 § 1 (c) of the Criminal Code, on grounds that, if left at liberty, he would continue offending.\n7.  On 22 July 2009 the applicant requested release, and in support of his request he offered a pledge that he would live in accordance with the law and that he would not interfere with the course of justice.\n8.  On 3 August 2009 the Zovlen District Prosecutor found no reasons for releasing the applicant and transmitted his request to the Zvolen District Court (Okresný súd) for a judicial determination with a proposal that the request be dismissed.\n9.  On 19 August 2009 the District Court examined the request in chambers (neverejné zasadnutie), following which, on the same day, the request was dismissed. The District Court observed, inter alia, that by a judgment of 23 April 2009 the applicant had been convicted of theft.\n10.  Immediately after the decisions of 19 August 2009 had been pronounced, the applicant submitted an oral interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť), which he later amended with the assistance of his lawyer.\n11.  The written version of the District Court’s decision of 19 August 2009 was served on the applicant on 24 September 2009.\n12.  On 8 October 2009, sitting in chambers (neverejné zasadnutie), the Banská Bystrica Regional Court (Krajský súd) dismissed the applicant’s appeal, fully endorsing the reasoning of the District Court, adding that, at the same time, the applicant was also being prosecuted for other drug‑related offences.\n13.  On 16 October 2009 the written version of the Regional Court’s decision was transmitted to the District Court, which was responsible for ensuring service of that decision on the applicant.\nService was effected on 30 October 2009.\n14.  On 11 November 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd), relying on Articles 127 of the Constitution and 5 § 4 of the Convention, challenging the length of the proceedings relating to his request for release, and claiming 1,500 euros (EUR) by way of just satisfaction. In support of the latter claim, he submitted that, while his request for release had been under examination, he had been in a state of legal uncertainty, which had had a particularly severe effect on his state of mind since he had been deprived of liberty.\n15.  On 20 January 2010 the Constitutional Court appointed the applicant a legal-aid lawyer and, on 18 February 2010, it declared the complaint admissible.\n16.  On 30 March 2010 the Constitutional Court issued a judgment (nález) finding a violation of the applicant’s right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. At the same time, it awarded him EUR 500 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The amount was not explained by any particular reasons.\nThe written version of the constitutional judgment was served on the applicant on 24 May 2010.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7860", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1976 and 1971 and live in Åminnefors and Kotka respectively.\n6.  The applicants were serving their prison sentence in Riihimäki Prison. The first applicant had been convicted of aggravated drug offence, aggravated theft and firearms misdemeanour, and sentenced to an imprisonment of two years and eight months. He started to serve his sentence in Riihimäki Prison in early 2004. The second applicant had been convicted of attempted manslaughter and sentenced to an imprisonment of four years and three months. He started to serve his sentence in Riihimäki Prison approximately in November 2003.\n7.  After an unsupervised meeting with his family, the first applicant was put in isolation from 13 to 16 November 2004 as he was suspected of having concealed unlawful substances inside his body. The second applicant was isolated from 9 to 16 May 2004 on returning to the prison after leave.\n8.  While in isolation, the applicants had to give up their normal prison clothing and to wear overalls which covered them from feet to neck and were “sealed” by prison staff with plastic strips. The applicants were not able to remove the overalls by themselves. When they needed to use the toilet, they had to call the guards to escort them there and to remove the overalls. According to the first applicant, the first time the guards did not come quickly enough and he had to relieve himself in the overalls.\n9.  On his second day in isolation, the second applicant was given laxatives without any prior medical consultation but with his consent. When they took effect, the second applicant called for a guard to take him to the toilet but it took a long time for the guard to arrive and the applicant had to defecate in the overalls. He claims that afterwards he had to put the same dirty overalls back on and was not provided with the possibility to wash.\n10.  The applicants claimed that they were not allowed to wash during the whole time in isolation. The dirty overalls apparently caused skin irritation in the first applicant and broke the skin of the second applicant.\n11.  In February 2005 the applicants reported the matter to the police.\n12.  On 25 January 2007 the public prosecutor pressed charges against the Riihimäki Prison director and two chief guards for breach of official duty (virkavelvollisuuden rikkominen, brott mot tjänsteplikt) because they had failed to respect the applicants’ human dignity during their isolation. In addition, the applicants pressed charges for coercion (pakottaminen, olaga tvång) and defamation.\n13.  On 15 June 2007 the Riihimäki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten), after having held an oral hearing in the presence of the applicants and several witnesses, dismissed all charges against the accused. It found that the use of overalls was acceptable because of the need to control and prevent smuggling of drugs and other substances into prison. It was not intended that a prisoner defecate in them, but defecation took place in separate, supervised toilets. The use of overalls as such did not have any effect on how quickly a prisoner could be taken to a toilet. The use of overalls was not meant to humiliate the prisoners and did not restrict their privacy any more than the isolation itself did. The use of overalls was thus not as such a measure which would have degraded the applicants. They had not been expected, let alone coerced, to defecate in the overalls: the first applicant had done so of his own will as ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7862", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Timişoara.\n6.  On the evening of 17 November 2005 the applicant’s family car was involved in an accident: it hit a person who was crossing the street at a pedestrian crossing and the driver then fled from the scene of the accident.\n7.  Soon after the events, a police patrol alerted to the accident by an eyewitness went to the applicant’s home, informed the applicant about the accident and asked him who the driver was. The applicant stated that he had been driving the car that evening. As the applicant smelled of alcohol, he was taken to hospital for a blood test and then to the police station, where he made a written confession in the presence of a lawyer.\n8.  On the same evening, the police officers drafted a report on the above events.\n9.  On 8 December 2005 the applicant changed his statement and told the prosecutor that his wife had been the driver on the night of the accident, but that he had lied to protect her. His wife confirmed his statement.\n10.  The applicant was committed for trial on charges of failure to stop after an accident and drink driving.\n11.  Before the Timiş County Court the applicant pleaded innocent. He also requested that the first statement he had made in the police headquarters be removed from file, as he had made it before the police had informed him of the nature of the accusation and before he had had time to prepare his defence. He also reiterated that his wife had been driving the car that night.\n12.  The court heard statements from several witnesses for the prosecution and for the defence. The evidence before it included a medical report confirming that the applicant had had 2.55 per mil alcohol in his blood on the night of the accident.\n13.  On 15 June 2007 the County Court found the applicant guilty as charged and imposed a three-year suspended sentence. The court noted that the applicant had changed his position during the investigation but considered that his initial confession was more consistent with the evidence in the file.\n14.  The applicant appealed. He gave evidence before the Timişoara Court of Appeal and reiterated that the statement of 17 November 2005 and the police report of the same day should not have been allowed as evidence as his statements had been taken in violation of his defence rights.\n15.  On 1 November 2007 the Timişoara Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant on the ground that the confession of 17 November 2005 did not constitute “evidence” under the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) and that the first-instance court had not taken into account the evidence adduced before it, but based its decision solely on the evidence presented before the prosecutor, at the pre-trial phase of the proceedings.\n16.  The prosecutor appealed in cassation, invoking essential factual errors in the Court of Appeal’s decision (Article 3859 § 18 of the CCP, see paragraph 19 below). He argued that the applicant’s first statements were corroborated by the evidence given by the witnesses for the prosecution, whereas the applicant’s wife and other witnesses for the defence were clearly biased and in any event their statements did not preclude the possibility that the applicant was the author of the crime.\n17.  The High Court of Cassation and Justice held two hearings. It heard submissions from the prosecutor and counsel for the defence and allowed the applicant to address it at the end of the hearing (ultimul cuvânt al inculpatului). In his address,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7863", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1958, 1974, 1979, 1982 and 1974 respectively and live in Adana and Mersin.\n6.  Murat Kasap was the first applicant’s son and the other applicants’ brother.\n7.  At around 8.30 p.m. on 29 September 2006, Murat Kasap and his friend R.S. were riding on a motorcycle in the Adana district. When they realised that two police officers wanted them to stop, they panicked because they did not have driving licences. They started driving away and the two officers, I.H.Y. and H.B., gave chase until Murat Kasap and R.S. crashed into a wall.\n8.  Immediately after the accident, H.B. arrested R.S. but Murat Kasap started to run away, followed by the officer I.H.Y.\n9.  Meanwhile, R.S. made an attempt to escape. In order to stop him from running away, the officer who stayed with him fired two shots in the air. R.S. told the officer that there was no need to open fire, and explained that Murat Kasap was running away because he had panicked. If he were to be allowed to telephone him, his friend would give himself up. He also stated that he knew where Murat Kasap lived.\n10.  I.H.Y. heard the shots fired by his colleague and thought that Murat Kasap might have a gun. According to his statement, he ordered Murat Kasap to stop and fired three shots in the air. While he was running after Murat Kasap, he lost his balance and his pistol went off. The bullet hit the ground, ricocheted, and entered the back of the body of Murat Kasap, who died on the way to hospital.\n11.  The incident was notified to the Ceyhan public prosecutor, who immediately gave instructions for security precautions to be taken. A crime scene examination team arrived at the site of the incident and encircled the crime scene with barrier tape.\n12.   At 9.15 p.m. on the same night, a prosecutor went to the site of the incident. The prosecutor questioned the eyewitness and prepared an incident report.\n13.  On the same night, R.S. was questioned by two police officers at the Ceyhan Police Headquarters. He described the incident but was not aware of the death of Murat Kasap.\n14.  On the same night at 10.50 p.m., the guns of the police officers were seized as evidence.\n15.  At 12.45 a.m. on the same night, a post-mortem examination was carried out on the body of Murat Kasap. The public prosecutor and the doctor observed a bullet entry wound on his back. The doctor was of the opinion that a full autopsy was needed to establish the cause of death. After the examination, Murat Kasap’s clothes were seized in order to be able to determine the exact shooting range.\n16.  At 2.15 a.m. on the same night, the public prosecutor questioned the officer H.B. at a police station.\n17.  According to a crime scene investigation report which was drawn up by two other police officers under the supervision of the public prosecutor, six bullet cases and a bullet jacket were found at the site of the incident.\n18.  On 30 September 2006 at 7.00 a.m. a complete examination of the motorcycle was carried out.\n19.  On 30 September 2006 a full autopsy was carried out on Murat Kasap’s body. The public prosecutor and the experts observed that the cause of death was internal bleeding caused by the entry of a deformed bullet.\n20.  On the same day, the officer I.H.Y. was questioned by the Ceyhan public prosecutor. According to his statement, the death of Murat Kasap was the result of an accident. He maintained that he had not shot Murat Kasap intentionally but that his pistol had gone off accidentally wh", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7864", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Early in the morning of 13 October 2005 law-enforcement agencies in the town of Nalchik, the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya, were attacked by a number of heavily armed people, who appear to have been local insurgents. The agencies included the Republican Department of the Ministry of the Interior, Centre T of the Main Department of the Ministry of the Interior, various district departments of the Ministry of the Interior, the Special Purpose Police Unit of the Republican Ministry of the Interior, various checkpoints of the Traffic Police, the Republican Department of the Federal Security Service, the Republican Department of the Federal Service for the Execution of Penalties and the office of the Border Guard Service of the Federal Security Service. Also, a few privately owned weapon shops were attacked. According to the Government, there were over two hundred and fifty participants in the attack.\n6.  The ensuing fight between the governmental forces and the insurgents lasted until at least 14 October 2005.\n7.  The first, second, third, fifth and seventh applicants submit that they are relatives of the people whose dead bodies were found following the events of 13 and 14 October 2005 (see paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 12 and 14). The fourth applicant claims that his son was killed by State agents in the village of Anzorey in the Leskenskiy District of the Republic of Kabardino‑Balkariya on 6 January 2006 (see paragraph 11). The sixth applicant claims that her son was killed by State agents in the town of Nalchik on 12 November 2005 (see paragraph 13). All of the applicants live in the Republic of Kabardino-Balkaria and, unless stated otherwise, are residents of Nalchik.\n8.  The first applicant, Mr Khusen Kadirovich Arkhestov, born in 1954, referred to the death of his son Mr Lokman Khusenovich Arkhestov, born on 30 December 1989.\n9.  The second applicant, Mrs Kulisum Zhantuganovna Balkizova, born in 1956, referred to the death of her son Mr Kantemir Safudinovich Balkizov, born on 29 March 1982.\n10.  The third applicant, Mrs Asiyat Kunakovna Guziyeva, born in 1976, referred to the death of her husband Mr Arsen Gumarovich Margushev, born on 6 January 1979.\n11.  The fourth applicant, Mr Askarbi Khamidovich Zhekamukhov, born in 1955, referred to the death of his son Mr Albert Askarbiyevich Zhekamukhov, born on 23 November 1980.\n12.  The fifth applicant, Mr Arsen Khazhmastafovich Tukov, born in 1939, referred to the death of his son Mr Anatoliy Arsenovich Tukov, born on 3 August 1974.\n13.  The sixth applicant, Mrs Mariya Latifovna Khuranova, who was born in 1955 and lives in the village of Shalushka, referred to the death of her son Mr Azamat Anatolyevich Brayev, born on 29 July 1975.\n14.  The seventh applicant, Mrs Lyuda Khazhmuradovna Shogenova, who was born in 1965 and lives in the village of Zalukokoazhe, referred to the death of her brother Mr Aslan Khadzmuratovich Shogenov, born on 26 January 1965.\n15.  The Government did not dispute this information.\n16.  It appears that on 13 October 2005 the authorities instituted criminal proceedings no. 25/78-05 in connection with the attack in Nalchik.\n17.  In the course of the investigation it was established that between 1999 and February 2005 a group of individuals including A. Maskhadov, Sh. Basayev, I. Gorchkhanov, A. Astemirov, Abu-Valid Khattab and Abu‑Dzeit, had formed a terrorist group. It was this group that organised the attack. Thirty-five law-enforcement officers and fifteen civilians we", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7865", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1925, 1950, 1954, 1960, 1961, 1966 and 1968 respectively and live in the village of Troitskaya, the Republic of Ingushetiya.\n6.  The first applicant is the mother of the other six applicants and of Isa Kushtov. All are practising Muslims.\n7.  On 10 July 2006 the Federal Security Service of Russia (the FSB) carried out a military operation in the village of Ekazhevo in the Nazran District of the Ingushetia Republic. On the same date the FSB Director reported to the President of Russia that as a result of an explosion a group of “guerrilla fighters”, including their leader Shamil Basayev, had been “eliminated”.\n8.  The operation received wide media coverage and, according to further statements of FSB officials, Isa Kushtov, the applicants’ relative, was among the deceased persons.\n9.  On 11 July 2006 the second, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants went to the Nazran morgue. All of them identified one of the bodies as their brother’s, Isa Kushtov’s. On the same date the first applicant requested the return of the body of her son for a burial in accordance with the traditions and customs of her people.\n10.  On 11 July 2006 the Office of the Prosecutor General opened a criminal investigation into the explosion of 10 July 2006 on counts of terrorism and unlawful possession of weapons. Sixteen expert reports had been commissioned in respect of four bodies and physical evidence collected at the scene of actions.\n11.  On 16 July 2006 a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms headed by prosecutor Sh. came to the first applicant’s house and ordered her to give a blood sample for the identification of her son, Isa Kushtov. The first applicant complied with the order on the next day.\n12.  On 25 August 2006 the Prosecutor General’s Office rejected the first applicant’s request to return the body of her son on the ground that persons killed in the explosion of 10 July 2006 had not been identified.\n13.  The Government confirmed that Isa Kushtov died as a result of a counter-terrorist operation aimed at tracking down and eliminating Shamil Basayev.\n14.  They also submitted that the investigation in respect of Isa Kushtov’s activities was discontinued on 10 October 2006 due to his death. It has revealed Isa Kushtov’s participation in the activities of Shamil Basayev and his death on 10 July 2006 whilst handling the explosives during the preparation of the next terrorist attack. Isa Kushtov’s remains were identified through molecular genetic expert examination. The decision of 10 October 2006 also referred to an expert report which had reached the conclusion that Isa Kushtov had died between 9 and 10 July 2006 as a result of an explosion trauma.\n15.  On 11 October 2006 an investigator of the prosecutor’s office decided to bury the people who died in the explosion of 10 July 2006, including Isa Kushtov, in an undisclosed location pursuant to part 3 of Decree no. 164, ‘On interment of persons whose death was caused by the interception of terrorist acts carried out by them’ and the Federal Interment and Burial Act (Law no. 8-FZ).\n16.  The applicants were notified about this decision, but did not receive its copy.\n17.  The first applicant challenged the prosecutor’s refusal to return the body of her son. On 12 October 2006 the Nazran District Court of the Ingushetia Republic dismissed the action without addressing the applicant’s arguments. It upheld the decision not to return the body of the applicant’s son for burial ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7866", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in the village of Goyty of the Urus-Martan District of the Chechen Republic. She was the mother of Sultan Shotovich Vagapov.\n6.  The applicant alleges that from 14 to 16 January 2005 the Russian authorities “mopped up” the village of Zumsoy of the Itum-Kalinskiy District of Chechnya, by first bombarding and then “cleaning it up” by entering houses and abducting some of the residents.\n7.  In January 2005 the applicant was invited for an interview in the Territorial Department of the Ministry of the Interior of the Goyty village in the Urus‑Martan District of the Chechen Republic. She alleges that she was shown a copy of her son’s identity card and a photograph of a dead person, presumably her son Sultan Shotovich Vagapov. She was also informed that he had been killed during the mopping-up operation in the village of Zumsoy in early 2005. According to the authorities, the applicant’s son was a rebel whose body would be kept at the military base near the village of Khankala.\n8.  The applicant was unable to identify her son solely on the basis of the photograph and asked to see the body, without success.\n9.  The applicant’s requests to have the body of her son returned to her remained essentially unanswered until 26 April 2005, when the Military Prosecutor, relying on section 16.1 of the Suppression of Terrorism Act and section 14.1 of the Interment and Burial Act, responded that “the bodies of terrorists are not handed over for burial and the place of their burial remains undisclosed”.\n10.  The Prosecutor’s Office indicated that her son had offered armed resistance during the operation of 14 January 2005 and was killed. He was found to have been in possession of an automatic rifle, an ammunition belt and a backpack with his personal belongings.\n11.  The Government confirmed that a special operation had taken place in the vicinity of the village of Zumsoy between 14 and 16 January 2005, which had resulted in detection of a boot camp belonging to the insurgents. An airstrike and subsequent search of the area lead to the discovery of the corpse of the applicant’s son, Sultan Shotovich Vagapov, along with an automatic rifle and ammunition presumably belonging to him. The body carried an ID card, which enabled swift identification.\n12.  The Government submitted that an official inquiry into, among other things, the finding of the corpse of the applicant’s son resulted in a decision of 15 April 2005. It described the collected pieces of evidence, including the oral evidence given by the soldiers who had searched the area after the airstrike and the circumstances of the death of the applicant’s son, and concluded that his death had resulted from a justified use of lethal force in respect of an armed terrorist.\n13.  It appears that the applicant challenged the prosecutor’s letter of 26 April 2005 in court. On 19 December 2005 the Urus-Martan District Court upheld the decision not to return the body of the applicant’s son for burial without reviewing its merits. The first-instance judgment was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chechnya on 30 May 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7867", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Nova Kakhovka.\n6. On 4 July 2001 the applicant’s wife, Mrs Yelena Fukleva, was admitted to the gynaecological ward of the Kherson Regional Clinical Hospital (Херсонська обласна клінична лікарня – “the hospital”) with metrofibroma. An operation was scheduled for 5 July 2001. According to the medical file, she signed a written consent to undergo the operation. On that date she underwent an unsuccessful intubation of the trachea for the purpose of anesthetisation. The operation was therefore postponed to 9 July 2001. The applicant’s wife was discharged until that date.\n7.  On 9 July 2001 the applicant’s wife underwent an operation for metrofibroma in the hospital. According to the medical file, she signed a written consent to undergo that operation.\n8.  After the operation her condition started to deteriorate rapidly.\n9.  On 15 July 2001 a panel of doctors found that the applicant’s wife was suffering from post-operative peritonitis. Although she was then treated for peritonitis, she died of peritonitis and sepsis on 18 July 2001.\n10.  An autopsy was carried out shortly after her death and confirmed that Mrs Fukleva had died of post-operative peritonitis complicated by sepsis.\n11.  Following the incident, the local health-care authorities set up a commission consisting of three members to investigate the quality of the medical treatment provided to the applicant’s wife by the hospital. Having examined the case, the commission found that the medical staff had committed no errors which could have aggravated the patient’s state of health or accelerated her death. The commission concluded that the patient’s death had not been caused by the medical staff.\n(b)  Conclusions of the hospital commission\n12.  On 8 August 2001 the hospital commission examined the case and found that the surgical treatment had been carried out correctly; that post-surgical treatment had been fully provided to the patient; and that, despite appropriate treatment, the fatal outcome had been inevitable.\n(c)  Conclusions of the ministerial commission\n13.  Following a complaint by the applicant, on 7 September 2001 the Ministry of Health set up a commission to investigate the adequacy of Mrs Fukleva’s treatment at the hospital.\n14.  The ministerial commission found that (i) the applicant’s wife had not been properly prepared for the planned operation and had been operated on urgently on 9 July 2001; (ii) the antibacterial and infusion treatment for the peritonitis and sepsis had been insufficient; (iii) the peritonitis had developed due to the decline of the patient’s immune system; and (iv) the difficulties in the early diagnosis of the peritonitis had been caused by the vague clinical symptomatology (namely, subdiaphragmatic and subhepatic abscesses) and, as a result, a relaparotomy had been conducted only on the sixth day.\n(d)  Further developments\n15.  On 24 September 2001 the Health Department of the Kherson Region State Administration (“the Health Department”), having regard to the conclusions of the ministerial commission, ordered that (i) an inspection of the gynaecological ward of the hospital be carried out; (ii) the obstetrician-gynaecologist S. undergo training on the medical treatment for sepsis in obstetrics and gynaecology; and (iii) the case of the applicant’s wife be discussed at the meeting of the regional association of obstetrician-gynaecologists.\n16.  In a letter of 8 October 2001 the Ministry of Health re", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7870", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1933 and 1949 respectively. The first applicant lives in the village of Shalushka in the Republic of Kabardino‑Balkariya, whilst the second applicant is resident in the village of Pervomayskoe, Stavropol Region.\n6.  Early in the morning of 13 October 2005 law-enforcement agencies in the town of Nalchik, the Republic of Kabardino-Balkariya, were attacked by a number of heavily armed people, who appear to have been local insurgents. The agencies included the Republican Department of the Ministry of the Interior, Centre T of the Main Department of the Ministry of the Interior, various district departments of the Ministry of the Interior, the Special Purpose Police Unit of the Republican Ministry of the Interior, various checkpoints of the Traffic Police, the Republican Department of the Federal Security Service, the Republican Department of the Federal Service for the Execution of Penalties and the office of the Border Guard Service of the Federal Security Service. Also, a few privately owned weapon shops were attacked. According to the Government, there were over two hundred and fifty participants in the attack.\n7.  The ensuing fight between the governmental forces and the insurgents lasted until at least 14 October 2005.\n8.  The applicants submitted that they were relatives of the persons who participated in the attack and died on 13 and 14 October 2005 or shortly afterwards.\n9.  The first applicant refers to the death of his son Zamir Mikhaylovich Zalov, born on 13 November 1978, whilst the second applicant refers to the death of her son Murat Abubovich Khakulov, born on 26 March 1978.\n10.  The Government stated that the authorities had killed a total of ninety-five insurgents in the anti-terrorist operations mounted in response to the attack of 13 October 2005. In essence, they acknowledged that the deceased referred to by the applicants were among those killed by the authorities.\n11.  It appears that on 13 October 2005 the authorities instituted criminal proceedings no. 25/78-05 in connection with the attack in Nalchik.\n12.  In the course of the investigation it was established that between 1999 and February 2005 a group of individuals, including A. Maskhadov, Sh. Basayev, I. Gorchkhanov, A. Astemirov, Abu-Valid Khattab and Abu‑Dzeit, had formed a terrorist group. It was this group that organised the attack. Thirty-five law-enforcement officers and fifteen civilians were killed, whilst one hundred and thirty-one law-enforcement officers and ninety-two civilians were injured. Massive damage was done to property.\n13.  The applicants did not have any procedural status in the criminal proceedings in case no. 25/78-05.\n14.  It appears that on several occasions the applicants requested various officials, including the prosecutors, to return the bodies of their sons for burial.\n15.  The requests either remained unanswered or were refused.\n16.  The applicants were furnished with death certificates in respect of their sons, indicating 13 October 2005 as the date of death in respect of both individuals and 23 January 2007 (in respect of Zamir Zalov) and 7 April 2008 (Murat Khakulov) as the dates of issue.\n17.  On 13 April 2006 the investigation authority terminated the criminal proceedings in respect of the ninety-five deceased on account of their deaths, having taken an individual decision in respect of each deceased person. Each decision described the degree and character of their individual involvement and con", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7871", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Veliki Grđevac.\n6.  Between 1979 and 15 January 1999 the applicant’s husband, E.B., worked for company V.S., also in Veliki Grđevac.\n7.  On 15 March 1999 he lodged a civil action against company V.S. in the Daruvar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Daruvaru), seeking payment of salary arrears and other benefits allegedly owed to him for the period May 1998 to January 1999.\n8.  He died on 14 June 2000. The applicant and their two children were declared his successors.\n9.  On 21 May 2002 the Daruvar Municipal Court, on the basis of an accounting expert report commissioned during the proceedings, found that the applicant’s husband had not received his full salary for the period May 1998 to January 1999. It therefore ordered company V.S. to pay the applicant’s husband’s family the sum of 24,540.81 Croatian kunas (HRK) on account of his salary arrears, together with any statutory default interest accruing from that date.\n10.  On 12 September 2002 the Bjelovar County Court (Županijski sud u Bjelovaru), acting in its appellate capacity, dismissed an appeal by company V.S. and upheld the Daruvar Municipal Court’s judgment which thereby became final. As regards company V.S.’s arguments that the first-instance court erred in its findings as to the amount of salary arrears and other benefits owned to the applicant’s husband and that it had failed to take into account the fact that certain amount had been paid to the applicant’s husband’s creditors directly from his salary, the Bjelovar County Court noted:\n“In the impugned judgment ... the first-instance court found that the defendant had had no relevant criteria for the reduction of salaries and that such reduction had been arbitrary and unlawful, and therefore it correctly found that the salary should be granted in the amount before the unlawful reduction.\n...\nIn its appeal the defendant also submits unfounded arguments that the first-instance court made it to pay 50,00 Kunas of monthly fees which had been paid to the Croatian Veterinary Chamber. [However] this portion of the salary was taken into account by the accounting expert and the defendant was not obliged to pay that amount.”\n11.  On 4 and 15 October 2002 the company paid the judgment debt.\n12.  Approximately three years later, on 8 September 2005 the company brought a civil action for unjust enrichment against the applicant as her late husband’s successor in the Grubišno Polje Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Grubišnom Polju), seeking payment of HRK 23,093.17.\n13.  The company argued that the sum claimed represented a portion of the applicant’s husband’s salary for the period May 1998 to January 1999, together with statutory default interest, that had been paid twice. It explained that it had been paying him a reduced salary in that period because before paying him his net salary it had deducted certain amounts and paid them directly to his creditors with a view to satisfying claims they had against him. However, this fact had not been taken into account in the previous civil proceedings instituted by the applicant’s husband even though it had been specified in the accounting expert report commissioned during the proceedings. Given that the Daruvar Municipal Court’s judgment of 21 May 2002 had required the company to pay a portion of the applicant’s husband’s salary it had already paid to his creditors, it had actually paid the same amount twice.\n14.  During the proceedings the applicant argue", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7872", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in various districts of the Chechen Republic. They are close relatives of persons who disappeared after allegedly being arrested at home by servicemen. In each of the applications the events took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces.  The alleged abductions were primarily carried out during curfew hours, at night or early in the morning. In some of the cases the applicants submitted that at the material time a special operation was being conducted by Russian servicemen in the area, which was subsequently confirmed by the investigation.\n6.  The applicants complained to law-enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without achieving any tangible results. The investigations consisted mainly of the authorities making requests for information and formal requests to their counterparts in various parts of Chechnya and other regions of the North Caucasus to carry out operational search measures. The requests received negative responses or no replies at all.\n7. From the documents submitted it appears that the relevant State authorities were unable to identify the State servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions.\n8.  In their observations the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants. At the same time, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the abductions.\n9.  Below are the summaries of the facts relevant to each individual complaint. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in the attached table (Appendix I).\n10.  The applicant, Mr Pakhrudin (also spelt as Pakhruddin and Bakhrudin) Akhmatov, was born in 1950 and lives in Noybera (in the documents submitted also referred to as Melchikhi and Nizhniy Noyber), Gudermes district, in the Chechen Republic. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Itslayev.\n11.  The applicant is the father of Mr Lom-Ali Akhmatov, who was born in 1978.\n12.  Between 1 and 5 January 2005 the applicant’s son Lom-Ali Akhmatov was celebrating his wedding and staying at the applicant’s house.\n13.  At around 4 p.m. on 6 January 2005 three armed men in military uniforms arrived at the applicant’s house in a silver VAZ-21099 car without official registration numbers, and asked to speak to Lom-Ali outside. Once in the street they put him in their car and drove away towards Gudermes. The abduction took place in the presence of the applicant’s fellow villagers.\n14.  The applicant has not seen Mr Lom-Ali Akhmatov since 6 January 2005.\n15.  On 8 January 2005 the applicant complained to the Gudermes district prosecutor’s office (the investigators) and the Gudermes district department of the interior (the ROVD) that his son had been arrested by unidentified military men who had arrived in a civilian VAZ-2199 car without registration numbers.\n16.  On 5 March 2005 the Gudermes ROVD informed the investigators that the abduction of the applicant’s son had been perpetrated under the pretext of an “informal inquiry” by the police and that it could have been connected to the arrest of Lom-Ali’s acquaintance who was a member of an illegal armed group, Mr U.-M. D.\n17.  On 15 March 2005 the applicant wrote to the the prosecutor’s office asking for a criminal ca", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7873", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1939 and 1944 respectively and live in Dubna, the Moscow Region.\n6.  The applicants are a married couple. They are the parents of Mr Shchiborshch, who was an economist and the author of a number of publications. At the time of the events he was thirty-seven years old and suffering from a psychiatric disorder which required in-patient treatment.\n7.  On 7 July 2006 the first applicant, having obtained a referral from Moscow’s Psychoneurological Dispensary no. 10 recommending in-patient treatment for Mr Shchiborshch, contacted the Nagatinskiy Zaton department of the interior (“the OVD”) and asked the police to assist with placing his son in a psychiatric hospital. He explained that Mr Shchiborshch was in a delirious state and was not letting anyone except the first applicant into his flat as he was afraid of burglars.\n8.  Between 11.20 a.m. and 12.40 p.m. on 7 July 2006 the head of the OVD ordered police officer G. to forcibly place Mr Shchiborshch in a hospital. Subsequently police officers G., L. and D. arrived at the residence of the applicants’ son. When Mr Shchiborshch opened the lobby door and saw the police officers, he immediately ran back to his flat and tried to close the door. He refused their orders to go to the OVD for transfer to a hospital. First, the police officers tried to remove his hand from the door knob so that he could not close the door. Mr Shchiborshch threatened the police officers with a kitchen knife and wounded G. The police officers, who were wearing bullet-proof vests, hit him with rubber truncheons and other objects. Mr Shchiborshch eventually ran to the kitchen and barricaded the door from the inside. The officers called the special police unit (“the OMSN”) for support.\n9.  While in the kitchen, Mr Shchiborshch called an ambulance and said that he needed help because he had been wounded. He also called the police, asking for help because he was being “attacked by burglars”. In the meantime, the OMSN arrived. After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate with him, they decided to “storm” the kitchen. Mr Shchiborshch ran to the balcony and cried for help while the police officers continued trying to apprehend him. When he fell on the balcony floor, they handcuffed him and put him on the kitchen floor. The first applicant, who had been ordered to stay in the lobby while the police forced an entry to the kitchen, was then allowed into the kitchen. He saw his son handcuffed and lying on the floor in a pool of blood.\n10.  Mr Shchiborshch was taken to hospital no. 7 with multiple wounds and in a coma. He died without regaining consciousness, having sustained craniocerebral trauma, brain oedema, concussion, and slash wounds to the head, body and extremities, several fractured ribs and a ruptured jugular vein.\n11.  On 7 July 2006 the case file concerning the death of Mr Shchiborshch was transmitted to the Simonovskiy Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office.\n12.  On the same date the investigating authorities ordered a forensic examination of Mr  Shchiborshch’s body.\n13.  On 10 July 2006 forensic report no. 1262 was issued. The experts made the following findings:\n(1)  The following injuries were found on Mr  Shchiborshch’s body:\n-  open non-penetrating craniocerebral trauma: depressed fracture of the left frontal and parietal bones, fracture of the sphenoid and parietal bones, and the orbital part of the frontal bone; sub-arachnoid haemorrhages and contusion of the convex surface of the left fr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7874", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The first applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul. The second applicant is a joint-stock company incorporated in Turkey in 1991 and dissolved in 2001 (see below). The first applicant was appointed as Director General of Mesopotamia Publishing on 24 December 2001.\n4.  On 26 October 1997 Mesopotamia Publishing inaugurated a branch office in Şanlıurfa. On the same day, police officers from the Şanlıurfa Security Directorate conducted a search of that office, confiscating certain newspapers, magazines, books, cassettes and documents, which were allegedly illegal.\n5.  On 27 October 1997 the Deputy Governor of Şanlıurfa requested the Ministry of Industry and Trade to institute proceedings against Mesopotamia Publishing with a view to its dissolution.\n6.  On 30 October 1997 the public prosecutor instituted proceedings against Mr Murat Gökdağ, the manager of the Şanlıurfa branch office, and Ms Nuray Şen, the then Director General of Mesopotamia Publishing. They were accused of storing banned books at the branch office.\n7.  On 6 June 2000 the Şanlıurfa Magistrate’s Court held that the criminal proceedings should be discontinued since the prosecution was time-barred under Article 102 of the Criminal Code.\nAs regards the Diyarbakır Branch Office\n8.  On 13, 14, 20, 25, 27 and 28 December 1997, the Diyarbakır office of Mesopotamia Publishing was searched by police officers. Various books and publications, including a calendar published by Mesopotamia Publishing, were confiscated.\n9.  On 14 January 1997 the Diyarbakır office was closed on the order of the Diyarbakır Governor.\n10.  On 10 February 1998 the Diyarbakır Governor requested the Ministry of Industry and Trade to institute proceedings against Mesopotamia Publishing with a view to its dissolution under the relevant provisions of the Commercial Code.\n11.  On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted in the Istanbul State Security Court against members of Mesopotamia Publishing’s board of directors for publishing a calendar which was allegedly used to disseminate propaganda in favour of the illegal Kurdistan Workers’ Party (“the PKK”).\n12.  On 17 September 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court suspended the proceedings, pursuant to Law No. 4454 on the suspension of pending cases and penalties in media-related offences.\nAs regards the Izmir branch office\n13.  On 26 December 1997 the Izmir office of Mesopotamia Publishing was searched by police officers. Certain publications, which were allegedly illegal, and a satellite decoder were seized.\n14.  On 30 December 1997 the Izmir Governor asked the Ministry of Industry and Trade to institute dissolution proceedings against Mesopotamia Publishing, alleging that the company had been disseminating propaganda in favour of the PKK.\n15.  On an unspecified date, criminal proceedings were instituted in the Izmir Magistrate’s Court against Ms Hatice Çoban, the manager of the Izmir branch.\n16.  On 14 May 1998 the court acquitted Ms Çoban of the charges against her.\n17.  Following complaints lodged by the Şanlıurfa Governor and the Diyarbakır Governor respectively, on 24 February 1998 the Ministry of Industry and Trade (“the plaintiff”) instituted proceedings against Mesopotamia Publishing in the Istanbul Beyoğlu Commercial Court, with a view to its dissolution on account of its activities against public order. On 27 February 1998 the Istanbul Beyoğlu Commercial Court registered the case against Mesopotamia Publishing. It decided, in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7875", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Specchia (Lecce).\n6.  In 1993 the applicant, aged eighteen at the time, was called up to undertake compulsory military service. For the purposes of his conscription he had a combined psychological evaluation and physical examination on 3 December 1993, as a result of which he was found to be fit for military service. The detailed report, which was not disclosed to the applicant (until 21 September 2010 in the course of pension proceedings), considered that the applicant was slow in understanding and executing a task but logical in its exercise, although prone to giving up. In an evaluation covering language and cultural skills, motivation, mental performance and behaviour, he obtained a grade of 4 out of 10 in each area.\n7.  Upon his conscription, the applicant underwent another medical examination on 14 June 1994, as a result of which he was again found to be fit for military service on the basis that he was not suffering from any illness. He was assigned to Battalion no. 123 in Chieti, where he was subject to intensive physical and mental training, including in the use of firearms.\n8.  On 9 July 1994 the applicant was transferred to the provincial command unit in Aquila, where he remained until 30 December 1994. During this time, from 1 September to 2 November 1994 he temporarily formed part of its logistical battalion. While in Aquila the applicant was subjected to multiple punishments. According to the documentation presented, he was subjected to eight punishments between July and December, amounting to twenty-four days of confinement, including periods of solitary confinement, for reasons ranging from negligent care of his camp-bed area to failure to report to his supervisor, or informal behaviour towards his superior. During the time he spent with the logistical battalion he was hospitalised at least four times for medical care unrelated to his mental problems (see below).\n9.  On 30 December 1994 the applicant was transferred to Lecce, where a commander noted that the applicant suffered from nervous tics and twitches, difficulty in socialising and learning, and absent-minded behaviour. The commander ordered the applicant to undergo a specialised medical assessment to test his fitness to perform military service.\n10.  On 24 January 1995 he was admitted to hospital, where he was diagnosed with anxiety disorder and considered to be in a fragile state of mind.\nA medical report by the NHS of Tricase of 6 February 1995 considered that in his youth the applicant had suffered from affection-relational problems and learning difficulties. He was physically weak and insecure, had a low aptitude for learning and was prone to isolation, was dysfunctional and incapable of taking up responsibilities. Tests revealed that he was unable to perform assigned tasks, had difficulty orienting himself and impaired cognitive functions (a deficit in logic and memory). He was considered to have a slight intellectual deficit (an IQ of 67) and to be incapable of creating positive relationships with people. This inadequacy caused him to live military life with anxiety and fear of his fellow soldiers, who he considered were aggressive towards him, even if they had only been joking. The report considered that the longer he remained in military service, the more severe his anxiety would become, and his defensive attitude arising from his fears would intensify.\n11.  The applicant remained on medical leave for recover", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7876", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Diyarbakır.\n5.  On 10 December 1985 he began working as a biology teacher at a private tutoring centre (dershane) in Diyarbakır. Between December 1985 and July 1999 he worked there on a contractual basis. The renewal of his contracts was subject to the approval of the Director of the National Education Department attached to the Diyarbakır Governor’s Office.\n6.  On 13 July 1999 the Governor’s Office decided not to renew the applicant’s contract, on the strength of a security investigation conducted into him.\n7.  On 21 July 1999 he was informed by the head of the tutoring centre that his contract was being terminated.\n8.  On 1 September 1999 the applicant lodged a claim with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court, challenging the termination of his contract. In his application, he stated, inter alia, that he had not been informed of the reasons for his dismissal and that the administrative authorities had failed to respect the established case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court, according to which security investigations could not be used as the sole basis of an administrative decision, as their content was confidential. The applicant submitted that he had been working at the private tutoring centre since its establishment in 1985 and that his right to work was breached on account of this unlawful administrative decision. The applicant claimed that he was deprived of his livelihood as he did not have any other work and that the administrative authorities’ decisions had irreversible consequences for his life.\n9.  On 30 December 1999 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court annulled the Governor’s Office’s decision. In its judgment, the court noted that the Governor’s Office had decided to terminate the applicant’s contract on the basis of a security investigation conducted by the office of the Regional Governor of the state-of-emergency (Olağanüstü Hal Bölge Valiliği). The court further noted that the administrative authorities had been requested to provide information on the reasons for the termination of his contract. In a document sent to the court by the Governor’s Office, it was stated that the applicant had been involved in a number of ideological activities before 1980; that the Karşıyaka police had instituted proceedings against him for having committed an offence against the “national legal personality of the State”; that he had been sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment; and that he had been the representative of the Diyarbakır branch of Eğit-Sen (a trade union) in 1991. The court considered that the applicant had worked in State schools for a number of years and had been known to the administrative authorities when he began working at the private tutoring centre. It therefore concluded that the decision to terminate his contract, which had been taken on the basis of intelligence information known to the authorities from the outset, had been unlawful.\n10.  On 20 March 2000 the Diyarbakır Governor’s Office appealed against the judgment of 30 December 1999. In the appeal, it was noted that the applicant had been involved in illegal activities and therefore did not possess the right qualities to be a teacher. It was also stated that the administrative authorities, taking into consideration the particularities of the country and the region concerned, as well as the nature and the sensitivity of the post, had found that there was no public interest in keeping him employed in his post.\n11. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7877", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Maribor.\n6.  On the night of 13 April 1990 the applicant, then eighteen years old, was raped by a group of seven males. Three other males allegedly participated: one as an aider and abettor and two others by committing a sexual assault on her. Five of the accused had not yet reached the age of majority (eighteen years) at the time of the commission of the criminal acts and were accordingly tried as juveniles.\n7.  In September 1990 criminal charges of rape, aiding and abetting rape and sexual assault were brought against the accused. All of them submitted in their defence that the applicant had voluntarily engaged in sexual activity with them.\n8.  The court held a number of hearings and obtained expert reports. An expert in clinical psychology found that the applicant had a learning disability and that she had not been physically or mentally capable of offering serious resistance.\n9.  On 13 November 1990 the Maribor Basic Court rendered a judgment acquitting the defendants of all charges. The verdict was based on the findings that the applicant had not seriously resisted sexual intercourse, that she had changed her testimony regarding the events surrounding one of the rape charges during the proceedings and that the defendants could not be considered to have employed force or threats which would be objectively capable of breaking the victim’s resistance.\n10.  The Public Prosecutor appealed against the judgment.\n11.  On 10 April 1991 the Maribor Higher Court quashed the first-instance judgment, finding that the facts had been insufficiently established. It ordered that the case be remitted to the first-instance court for fresh consideration before a different panel, without the participation of the judges who had delivered the impugned judgment.\n12.  In July 1991 the Maribor Basic Court conducted inquiries in order to establish the place of residence of two of the defendants. However, as the two defendants had allegedly emigrated to Austria, they could not be found. Several more inquiries were made in 1995, 1999, 2000 and 2001, but all attempts at establishing these two defendants’ whereabouts proved unsuccessful.\n13.  Between 10 March 1995 and 31 August 2000 the applicant sent at least eight letters urging the Maribor District Court (previously called the Maribor Basic Court) to accelerate the proceedings and/or asking for a case review by the president of the court owing to delays in scheduling the first retrial hearing.\n14.  In the period from 20 May 1999 to 25 September 2001 the court scheduled five hearings, all of which were, however, adjourned for failure of some of the defendants to appear.\n15.  On 5 January 2001 the Director of the Department for Judicial Administration at the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the court had encountered difficulties identifying some of the defendants’ residences. He also noted that between 28 May 1990 and 27 September 2000 there had been frequent changes of the presiding judge in her case due to judges being promoted. He mentioned that in the aforementioned period seven different judges had been dealing with the case.\n16.  Following this information, on 9 March 2001 the applicant suggested that the charges against the two defendants, one charged with rape and the other with aiding and abetting rape, who were allegedly residing in Austria and could not be found, be severed into a separate case and an international arrest warrant be issue", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7878", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  At the time of the events the applicant company, along with ATI (an air cargo traffic company), URARP (an aircraft repairs and maintenance company), and some other companies involved in the aviation business, belonged to the Titan Consortium.\n8.  At various times between August 1997 and March 2002, when he was elected to the national parliament, the president of the Ukrainian office of the applicant company, ATI and the Titan Consortium was a certain Mr L.\n9.  Pursuant to a sale contract of 30 July 1999, as modified on 28 December 1999, the applicant company purchased eight Antonov-28 (“An-28”) aircraft from the Russian airline company S. The aircraft had been manufactured in 1988-1990, and their flying records ranged from 1,455 to 2,821 hours.\n10.  On 9 and 19 January 2000 the applicant company leased those aircraft to ATI for ten years. It was stipulated in the contract that the aircraft would remain the property of the applicant company during that entire period. The ownership could then be transferred to ATI, on condition that it had settled all the leasing payments.\n11.  On 22 and 28 March 2000 the Ministry of Transport of Ukraine registered the aircraft. The applicant company was indicated as the owner in the registration certificates.\n12.  In November 2000 one of the aircraft was relocated to Moldova for commercial purposes.\n13.  On 7 March 2001 another aircraft was sold to company C.\n14.  The six remaining aircraft were parked at the Uzyn airbase in the Kyiv region (Bila Tserkva).\n15.  On 6 July 2001 the applicant company and ATI terminated the lease agreement because the lessee was unable to comply with its terms.\n16.  On 20 August 2001 the applicant company concluded an agreement on a ten-year lease of the six aircraft to another company, R.S.T., which was to take effect on 1 October 2001. That agreement, however, never entered into force.\n17.  Between 23 and 25 January 2001 the tax police conducted a search on the premises of the Titan Consortium in Kyiv, including the applicant company’s office, apparently in the context of criminal investigations against URARP on account of suspected tax evasion. As a result, it seized “a considerable number of documents” (quoted from a ruling of the Kyiv Prosecutor’s Office of 20 September 2002 – see paragraph 27 below). The seized documentation included the original contract of sale for the six An-28s parked at the Uzyn airbase. The case file does not contain the search-and-seizure report.\n18.  On 23 March 2001 the tax police launched criminal proceedings against ATI officials on suspicion of tax evasion.\n19.  On 29 March 2001 the proceedings were discontinued as they had been instituted prematurely. However, by the same ruling the tax police instituted criminal proceedings against ATI officials on suspicion of document forgery.\n20.  On 30 March 2001 the tax police held an “inspection of the scene” at the Uzyn airbase, as a result of which they discovered and seized the six An-28 aircraft. The seizure was documented by a “report of the inspection of the scene” (the same procedure took place at Cherkasy airport in respect of eight L-410 planes also belonging to the applicant company – see paragraph 104 below). As the security guard was unable to produce the documentation for those aircraft, submitting that it was in the applicant company’s office in Kyiv, the police concluded that “their owner could not be established”.\n21.  The applicant company challenged the aforementioned seizure (", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7879", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1982 and 2002 respectively and live in Chișinău. The second applicant is the daughter of the first applicant.\n6.  The first applicant and M.M. married in 2001. M.M. became involved in gambling and started behaving aggressively towards the applicants. The first applicant filed for divorce, which she obtained on 25 February 2010.\n7.  On 22 June 2010 the first applicant complained to the police that she was being verbally abused by M.M., following which he was fined administratively in the amount of 500 Moldovan lei (MDL − approximately 31 euros at the time).\n8.  According to the applicants, on 5 September 2010 M.M. assaulted the first applicant; he also caused some bruises to the second applicant. A medical report dated 6 September 2010 established that the first applicant had two haematomas on her lower lip and a slight defect to her teeth on the left side. Another report produced on the same day established that the second applicant had two bruises on her right hand. The medical expert noted the applicants’ explanations that M. M. had punched the first applicant in the face and had pushed the second applicant to the ground, which had caused her to have pain in her arm. Each of the medical reports also stated that the examination had been carried out at the request of the Buiucani police.\n9.  On 24 February 2011 the Chişinău Court of Appeal decided that the applicants had the right to a three-quarter share of the family apartment, leaving a one-quarter share to M.M. He allegedly became even more aggressive after that decision was adopted.\n10.  On 21 March 2011 the first applicant complained again to the police that she was being physically and psychologically abused by her ex-husband. A medical report produced on the same day established that she had two haematomas on her right leg. M.M. was fined MDL 500.\n11.  On 1 April 2011 the first applicant made another complaint concerning M.M. and applied for a protection order.\n12.  On 5 April 2011 she asked the prosecutor’s office to initiate a criminal investigation against M.M. On 6 May 2011 a prosecutor rejected her request, finding that the medical evidence had confirmed that the injuries caused to the applicants were not considered damaging to their health, meaning that the offence of domestic violence, which required at least slight bodily harm or damage to health, had not been committed. The applicants challenged that decision before the Prosecutor General’s Office on 12 May 2011.\n13.  On 11 April 2011 the Buiucani District Court issued a protection order, obliging M.M. to temporarily leave the family home and to avoid coming within 100m of the applicants or their places of work and study. However, the order was not sent to the relevant authorities and the first applicant did not obtain her copy until 22 April 2011. On that day she brought the protection order to the attention of the local police, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Social Assistance Department.\n14.  On 20 April 2011 a psychological report confirmed that the second applicant was experiencing anxiety and emotional distress. It recommended that she have no contact with her abusive father.\n15.  Despite two visits by the police aimed at forcing M.M. to leave the family apartment (on 27 and 29 April 2011), M.M. refused to leave and the applicants had to stay several nights with their relatives. The last attempt to evict M.M. on 29 April 2011 failed, when he showed the police a decision of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7880", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Riga.\n6.  The applicant had been living with A.Z. since the summer of 2005. They were not married. In the course of that year, A.Z. became pregnant. After the birth of A.E.Z. on 24 May 2006, the applicant continued to care for the child and to support A.Z. and the child financially, including paying the rent and utility bills for the apartment in which they were residing.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant suggested to A.Z. that they officially register the birth of A.E.Z. and record the applicant’s paternity in the register of births. A.Z. refused.\n8.  The applicant informed A.Z. that he would try to have his paternity established by the courts.\n9.  Starting from 13 January 2007 A.Z. no longer permitted the applicant to meet the child.\n10.  On 15 January 2007 the applicant consulted a lawyer and on the same day requested a copy of a report of the registration of the child’s birth (izziņa par bērna dzimšanas reģistrāciju) from a civil registry office (dzimtsarakstu nodaļa). He received the requested report on 18 January 2007 and found out that the previous day, on 17 January 2007, a certain A.L. had voluntarily acknowledged his paternity and had been registered as the child’s father. According to the applicant, he did not know who A.L. was.\n11.  On 8 February 2007 the applicant lodged a claim with the Riga City Zemgale District Court. He asked the court to order forensic biological testing in order to establish the child’s descent, to strike the record of A.L.as the father of the child and to record himself, the applicant, as the child’s father instead.\n12.  On 4 April 2007 A.Z. and A.L. submitted a response, arguing that the fact that civil proceedings had been instituted had infringed their rights guaranteed by, inter alia, Article 8 of the Convention. The respondents also argued that the applicant lacked standing to contest paternity and denied that he had ever co-habited with A.Z.\n13.  The Zemgale District Court held hearings on 28 June, 31 August and 12 September 2007. On 13 September 2007 it decided to discontinue the proceedings. The court agreed with the respondents that the applicant lacked standing to contest a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity. It reached that conclusion by interpreting the Civil Law in conjunction with the Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born out of Wedlock (“the Legal Status Convention”) and the 11 October 2004 judgment of the Latvian Constitutional Court, and found that the restrictions in section 156 of the Civil Law (see paragraph 53 below) were not contrary to the Legal Status Convention.\n14.  The applicant appealed on 24 September 2007. On 27 September 2007 the case was forwarded to the Riga Regional Court, which held hearings on 17 January and 22 September 2008, and quashed the lower court’s decision by a decision adopted on the latter date. It was found that the lower court had erred in not ordering forensic biological testing. The case was remitted to the Zemgale District Court.\n15.  The first hearing in the Zemgale District Court was held on 12 November 2008 and was attended only by the applicant’s lawyer. The hearing was adjourned. The verbatim record of the hearing shows that the court decided to invite a representative of the Guardianship Tribunal (bāriņtiesa) to attend the following hearing.\n16.  According to the applicant’s lawyer, the question of involving the Guardianship Tribunal had not in fact been discussed in court an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7881", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Widełka.\n6.  The applicant has two children. Prior to his early retirement he had been employed and had paid his social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 13 February 2002 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with his application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning his daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor on 21 December 2001. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1991) suffered from neurogenic bladder dysfunction and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 18 February 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension.\n10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension until the end of February 2002 due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision.\n11.  On 28 February 2002 the applicant’s employment contract expired.\n12.  Consequently, on 1 March 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board started to pay the retirement pension in the net amount of 943.88 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 232).\n13.  The applicant was issued with a pensioner’s identity card marked “valid indefinitely” and he continued to receive his pension without interruption until the date of the revocation of the right.\n14.  On an unspecified date the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. The doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n15.  On 8 October 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant.\n16.  By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Social Security Board revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance.\n17.  The applicant appealed against the decision divesting him of the right to an early-retirement pension. He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n18.  On 20 November 2003 the Rzeszów Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n19.  The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n20.  On 16 April 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s further appeal. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of his right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as he had not satisfied the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n21.  A professional lawyer prepared and lodged a cassation appeal against the second-instance judgment on the applicant’s beha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7882", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Cork, Ireland.\n13.  The following facts were not contested by the parties.\n14.  The applicant attended Dunderrow National School from 1968. The school was owned, through trustees, by the Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Cork and Ross who was recognised by the Department of Education and Science (“the Department”) as the school’s patron. The manager (S.), acting on behalf of the bishop, was the local parish priest. The latter being elderly and infirm, a local priest (Ó.) was the de facto manager who acted on behalf of, and in the interests of, S. The term “manager” used below refers both to Ó. and to the management function he performed. Dunderrow National School had two teachers, one of whom (L.H.) was the school’s principal, a married man. Dunderrow was one of four national schools in the applicant’s parish.\n15.  In 1971 a parent of a child complained to the manager that L.H. had sexually abused her child. That complaint was not reported to the police, to the Department or to any other State authority and was not acted upon by the manager.\n16.  During the first six months of 1973 the applicant was subjected to approximately twenty sexual assaults by L.H. during music lessons in his classroom. During the time she attended those lessons, the applicant and her parents were unaware of the allegation made in 1971 about L.H.\n17.  In September 1973 other parents brought to the applicant’s parents’ attention similar allegations concerning L.H. Following a meeting of parents chaired by the manager about this, L.H. went on sick leave. In September 1973 he resigned from his post. Those allegations were not reported at that time to the police, to the Department or to any other State authority. In a brief conversation, the applicant’s mother asked her whether L.H. had touched her. The applicant responded to the effect that something of a sexual nature had happened but she did not recall the conversation going any further. In January 1974 the manager notified the Department that L.H. had resigned and named his replacement. Soon thereafter L.H. took up a position in another national school where he taught until his retirement in 1995.\n18.  Between 1969 and 1973, the inspector assigned to the region visited Dunderrow National School on six occasions which was, as he later stated in evidence, an above average number of visits. He met with L.H. and S. He attended parent meetings on the question of Dunderrow’s amalgamation with other schools. No complaint about L.H. was made to him. He observed the teaching work of L.H. and considered it satisfactory.\n19.  The applicant suppressed the sexual abuse. While she had significant psychological difficulties, she did not associate those with the abuse.  In 1996 she was contacted by the police who were investigating a complaint made in 1995 by a former pupil of Dunderrow National School against L.H. The applicant made a statement to the police in January 1997 and was referred for counselling. During the investigation a number of other pupils made statements. L.H. was charged with 386 criminal offences of sexual abuse involving some twenty-one former pupils of the school during a period of about ten years. In 1998 he pleaded guilty to twenty-one sample charges and was sentenced to imprisonment. His licence to teach was withdrawn by the Minister for Education (“the Minister”) under Rule 108 of the National School Rules 1965 (“the 1965 Rules”).\n20.  In or around June", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7883", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Porto.\n5.  On 31 May 2005 the applicant started criminal proceedings against several people before the Court of Fafe (domestic proceedings no. 310/05.0TAFAF), accusing them of illegally changing property boundaries.\n6.  On 2 October 2006 the Public Prosecutor (Ministério Público) filed the case. The applicant requested a judicial investigation to be opened (abertura de instrução).\n7.  On 23 October 2006 the applicant sought to intervene in the proceedings as an assistant to the public prosecutor (assistente).\n8.  On 20 June 2008 the applicant claimed damages under civil law against one of the defendants.\n9.  On 3 November 2008 the parties reached an agreement on the civil claim. On the same date the criminal proceedings ended with the withdrawal of the complaint by the applicant.\n10.  On 22 May 2009 the applicant started enforcement proceedings for the execution of the agreement.\n11.  On 20 July 2009 the defendant contested the enforcement. The claim was accepted by the court on 4 December 2009.\n12.  On 7 April 2011, after two appeals before the Guimarães court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice, the latter court determined that the enforcement proceedings should continue.\n13.  On 9 September 2011 the court ordered the attachment (penhora).\n14.  On 30 October 2012 the parties reached an agreement and the enforcement proceedings ended.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7884", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Chișinău.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 5 April 2009 general elections took place in Moldova. On 6 and 7 April 2009 large crowds gathered in the streets to protest against alleged electoral fraud. Hundreds of persons were arrested on 7 April 2009 and thereafter.\n8.  The applicant was arrested in the evening of 7 April 2009 and on the next day was sentenced by a court to ten days’ administrative detention. According to the applicant, he was punched in the eye by a plain-clothes police officer during his arrest and then subjected to ill-treatment in the Buiucani police station and subsequently at the General Police Directorate (“the GPD”). He was hit by groups of five to twelve persons, both in uniform and plain clothes, taken through a “death corridor” in which officers lined up and kicked or hit each victim as he or she passed through the corridor while being taken to or from the police station or, especially, the GPD.\n9.  He was also hit on both ears simultaneously (a form of torture known as “the telephone”), and struck on the head with fists and rubber sticks, all while his hands were handcuffed behind his back. He was also forced to keep his hands up for long periods of time while being hit periodically. He lost consciousness several times as a result of the ill-treatment.\n10.  The applicant was also allegedly held with eight other persons in a damp humid cell measuring 4 x 4 metres, where he had no access to daylight or any means of determining the time of the day or the date; he also had no access to the outside world, his relatives, a lawyer or a doctor.\n11.  No water was provided to him during the first twenty-four hours of his detention. Thereafter dirty water was distributed in unhygienic plastic bottles to be used by everyone in the cell. The applicant was subsequently diagnosed with hepatitis of an unknown origin. No food was provided. In the congested damp cell he had no opportunity to sleep for three days. There was no toilet in the cell and access to the toilet outside the cell was allowed at random and only after subjecting the person to humiliation.\n12.  Psychological ill-treatment was also allegedly used: the applicant was threatened with a lengthy term of imprisonment, with rape and death. He was subjected to interrogation by several persons simultaneously and was forced to sign blank papers.\n13.  On 11 April 2009 the applicant was seen by a doctor, who found a haematoma on his left eye.\n14.  On 15 April 2009 the applicant complained to the military prosecutor of ill-treatment by the police.\n15.  On 29 April 2009 the applicant was examined at the “Memoria” Rehabilitation Centre for Torture Victims, a non-governmental organisation financed by the European Union and member of the General Assembly of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT). On 15 December 2009 it issued an “Extract from the medical file” (Extras din Fişa Medicală) concerning the applicant’s examination. He appears to have undergone detailed medical tests and examinations by various medical specialists. According to the document, the applicant was suffering from, inter alia, the consequences of a head injury, which included intracranial hypertension syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as a post-traumatic ear condition.\n16.  The prosecutor in charge of the case interviewed the police officers in charge ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7885", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The particulars of the applicants appear in Appendix 1.\n7.  After 1948, when the communist regime had been installed in the former Czechoslovakia, the housing policy was based on a doctrine aimed at the restriction and abolition of private ownership.\n8.  Some residential houses were confiscated and some owners of residential houses were compelled to transfer their property to the State for no or inadequate compensation. Those owners who were not formally deprived of the ownership of their residential housing were subjected to restrictions in the exercise of their property rights.\n9.  As regards flats in residential houses, tenancies were replaced by the “right of lasting use”.\n10.  The Flats Management Act 1964, which was in force until 1 January 1992, entitled public authorities to decide on the right of use of flats. Special regulations governed the sums which the users had to pay. On 1 January 1992 “the right of lasting use” was transformed into a tenancy with regulated rent.\n11.  After 1991 some residential houses were restored to their former owners; however, flats in these houses were mostly occupied by tenants with regulated rent.\n12.  Under the relevant law (for details see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below), owners of residential houses in a position similar to that of the applicants in the present case have been obliged to accept that all or some of their flats are occupied by tenants while charging no more than the maximum amount of rent fixed by the State (“the rent-control scheme”). Despite repeated increases in the maximum rent which the domestic law entitles house owners in this position to charge, that amount has remained below the level of rent chargeable for similar housing let on the principles of a free-market economy.\n13.  In situations similar to that of the applicants, the owners of residential houses had practically no means of terminating tenancies and evicting tenants without providing them with “housing compensation”. Furthermore, owners were not allowed to transfer ownership of a flat rented by an individual to any third person other than the tenant.\n14.  The Government of the Slovak Republic have dealt with the issue of rent control on several occasions as indicated below.\n15.  Documents of the Ministry of Construction and Regional Development indicate that, by 20 January 2009, registration forms had been submitted by tenants in respect of 923 flats where rent control was applied. 2,311 persons lived in those flats, the average surface area of which was 71.38 square metres. The documents indicate that it was envisaged that substitute accommodation would be made available to the persons concerned by the planned reform so long as this was justified by their social situation. 76.5% of the tenants thus registered lived in flats located in Bratislava.\n16.  On the basis of those data, the authorities estimated that the rent‑control scheme concerned approximately 1,000 flats, that is, 0.24% of rented flats in houses that existed in 1991 and 0.06% of the inhabited housing facilities which were available in Slovakia in 2001.\n17.  The applicants are owners or co-owners of residential buildings in Bratislava and Trnava to which the rent-control scheme applies, or has applied, (further details are set out in Appendix 2). They obtained the ownership of the flats by various means, such as restitution, donation or inheritance from their relatives to whom the flats had been restored in the early 1990s. In two c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7886", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Matosinhos.\n5.  On 27 October 2004 the Union for Tax Workers (Sindicato dos Trabalhadores dos Impostos) brought an administrative action against the Ministry of Finance on behalf of the applicant and three other employees regarding their early retirement before the Administrative and Fiscal Court of Lisbon (domestic proceedings no. 2594/04.2BELSB).\n6.  The Administrative and Fiscal Court of Lisbon dismissed the action on 20 October 2005. The Union appealed to the Central Administrative Court of the South.\n7.  On 27 March 2008, the Central Administrative Court of the South reversed the first instance decision and ordered the Ministry of Finance to revoke the contested administrative Act which had not accepted the early retirement and to proceed with a new evaluation of the applicant’s request.\n8.  On 29 December 2008 the Union started enforcement proceedings against the Ministry of Finance before the Administrative Court of Lisbon.\n9.  On 31 May 2012 the Administrative Court of Lisbon dismissed the action.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7887", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in Silves (Portugal) and lives in Bonn (Germany).\n5.  On 28 February 2007 the applicant started civil proceedings against two companies before the Court of Vila Nova de Gaia (Portugal). The proceedings concerned the occupation of a land which the applicant claimed to be her own (domestic proceedings no. 1908/07.8TBVNG).\n6.  The defendants contested the proceedings and the court ordered that the size of the land be analysed by an expertise. These procedural steps ended on 18 December 2007.\n7.  In the first trimester of 2008 an attempt of conciliation of the parties took place.\n8.  On 18 July 2008 the court ordered the suspension of the proceedings as the property was not registered in the name of the applicant, before the Land Registry Office (Conservatória do Registo Predial).\n9.  On 20 January 2010 the court ordered the interruption of the proceedings.\n10. On 18 July 2010 the applicant joined an additional supporting document to the proceedings, informing the court of the registration of the land. The judge ordered the proceedings to be resumed.\n11.  According to the last information received by the Court on 3 May 2013, the proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7888", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Lisbon.\n5.  On 26 March 1997 the applicant started enforcement proceedings against a company before the court of Lisbon (domestic proceedings no. 1476/97.7 TVLSB) in order to obtain the payment of 12 740 euros (EUR).\n6.  On 24 April 1997 the debtor (executada) opposed the proceedings through the introduction of a motion on that regard (dedução de embargos). The motion was granted and remained valid until 19 September 2006. In the course of the proceedings, procedural steps were taken in the context of the opposition, which had to be suspended twice while waiting for a final decision in other two different proceedings.\n7. On 16 September 1997 the court ordered the seizure (penhora) of the debtor’s assets, which took place on 16 January 1998. The applicant opposed it on 22 January 1998. The court ordered the lift of the seizure (levantamento da penhora) on 15 October 1998.\n8.  On 18 October 1999 the court ordered the suspension of proceedings because of the inactivity of the parties. The proceedings were suspended until May 2002.\n9.  Between June 2002 and 20 June 2012 several procedural steps took place, mostly notifications, provision of information from the parties and court orders (despachos). On 11 March 2003 the court ordered the sale of the business establishment that had previously been seized. Several attempts to sell it were made until 24 May 2012.\n10.  On 10 September 2012 due to the inactivity of the parties the court ordered the proceedings to be suspended once again.\n11.  According to the last information received by the Court on 11 June 2013, the proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7889", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and, at the material time, lived in Žilina.\n6.  On 26 June 2009 the applicant went to the offices of the Asylum Authority in Gbely with the intention of applying for asylum in Slovakia. From there, he was escorted to the Foreigners Police Department in Bratislava, where he arrived at about 3 p.m.\n7.  Following questioning on the same day, that is to say on 26 June 2009, the Foreigners Police Department decided to detain (zaistenie) the applicant, finding, inter alia, that he was staying in Slovakia without a valid travel document or any legal entitlement, and in spite of a previous decision expelling him from Slovakia and banning him from returning there for five years.\n8.  Under the detention order of 26 June 2009, the applicant was detained in the Alien Detention Centre in Medveďov.\n9.  On 16 July 2009 the Trnava Regional Court (Krajský súd) received a submission dated 13 July 2009 in which the applicant applied for judicial review of the order of 26 June 2009, challenging the assessment of the facts and the interpretation and application of the law by the police.\n10.  On 13 August 2009 the Regional Court held a hearing at which the applicant was not present in person but was represented by his lawyer. At the conclusion of the hearing, on the same day and in the presence of the applicants’ lawyer, the Regional Court dismissed the claim.\n11.  The written version of the judgment of 13 August 2009 was sent out on 27 August 2009 and served on the applicant on 7 September 2009.\n12.  On 2 November 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd), relying on Article 127 of the Constitution (individual complaint) and Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (speedy review of the lawfulness of detention), and complaining about the length of the proceedings in respect of his application dated 13 July 2009.\n13.  On 16 December 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.\nIt observed, on the one hand, that the Regional Court had granted the police as long as fifteen days to submit observations in reply to the applicant’s claim, which the Constitutional Court held to have been disproportionately long.\nHowever, overall, the decision-making process in respect of the applicant’s claim had lasted only twenty-nine days, and not thirty-one days, as argued by the applicant. On that account, the Constitutional Court observed that the period under consideration had not commenced until 16 July 2009 – when the applicant’s submission had reached the Regional Court – and that it ended on 13 August 2009, when the applicant had learned of the Regional Court’s judgment through his lawyer.\nThe written version of the Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 21 January 2010.\n14.  Meanwhile, at an unspecified time in November 2009, the applicant had been expelled to Russia.\n15.  In his observations in reply to those of the Government on the admissibility and merits of the present application, the applicant informed the Court that he had challenged the judgment of 13 August 2009 by means of an appeal to the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd).\n16.  On 3 November 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the matter to the Regional Court for re-examination, having found that the latter had neither established all the relevant facts nor dealt properly with some of the applicant’s material objections.\n17.  On 19 January 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7890", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Mielec.\n6.  The applicant is married with two children. Prior to his early retirement he had been employed for seven years and had paid his social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 9 January 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with his application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning his son’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1990) suffered from chronic inflammation of upper respiratory tract and that he was in need of his parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 19 January 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension. The pension amounted to PLN 1,155.05 brut which at that time constituted about 54% of the average brut salary in Poland.\n10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension until 26 January 2001 due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision. The applicant’s employment relationship was terminated with effect from 26 January 2001 and the pension was paid as of that date.\n11.  The applicant was issued with a pensioner’s identity card marked “valid indefinitely” and he continued to receive his pension without interruption until the date of the revocation of the right.\n12.  On an unspecified date the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s son required the permanent care of a parent. On 6 June 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n13.  On 10 and 11 June 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued two decisions in respect of the applicant.\n14.  By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Social Security Board revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance.\n15.  On 24 June 2002 the applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting him of the right to an early-retirement pension. He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n16.  On 4 December 2003 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) amended the challenged decisions and granted the applicant the right to the EWK payment with effect from 1 June 2002.\n17.  The Social Security Board appealed against the first‑instance judgment.\n18.  On 22 April 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal allowed the Board’s appeal, amended the challenged judgment and dismissed the applicant’s appeals lodged against the Social Security Board’s decisions. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of hi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7891", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Łańcut.\n6.  Prior to her early retirement she had been employed for 23 years and had paid her social security contributions to the State. Between October 1992 and November 1997 she received a disability pension.\n7.  On 6 March 2000 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her son’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1985) suffered from chronic asthma and that he was in need of his parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 19 April 2000 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension with effect of 1 March 2000.\n10.  Due to the applicant’s employment the Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension until the end of April 2000. The payment started on 1 May 2000.\n11.  The EWK pension granted to the applicant amounted to 773.89 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately EUR 193).\n12.  The applicant was issued with a pensioner’s identity card marked “valid indefinitely” and she continued to receive her pension without interruption until the date of the revocation of the right.\n13.  On an unspecified date the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s son required the permanent care of a parent. The doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n14.  On 25 April 2003 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant.\n15.  By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Social Security Board revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance.\n16.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n17.  On 12 May 2004 the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n18.  The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n19.  On 6 October 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s further appeal. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she had not satisfied the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n20.  On 24 February 2004 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant’s cassation appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 15 March 2005.\n21.  Following the social security proce", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7892", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 8 October 1993 the applicant, following her temporary suspension from work, instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court against her employer, company D.\n6.  In December 1993, following her dismissal from work, the applicant instituted further proceedings against D. before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court. The actions were joined.\n7.  On 8 December 1995 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court upheld the applicant’s action concerning the suspension and dismissal and rejected the part of the applicant’s action against the decision of D. ordering the applicant to pay compensation. D. appealed.\n8.  On 29 May 1997 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the decision on rejection of the applicant’s action against the order to pay compensation and annulled the decision upholding the applicant’s action and remitted the case back to the first instance court.\n9.  On 11 September 1998 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court upheld the applicant’s action against the dismissal and ordered D. to pay the applicant the outstanding salaries for the period between the dismissal and the issuing of the decision and dismissed the action against the suspension. D. appealed.\n11.  On 12 August 1999 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings against D. before the Ljubljana Local Court on the basis of the final judgment issued in the labour proceedings, concerning the payment of SIT 4,931,874.\n12.  On 18 October 1999 the Ljubljana Local Court issued an enforcement order against D. D. lodged an objection.\n13.  On 5 April 2000 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the objection of D. and upheld the enforcement order. The enforcement order became final.\n14.  On 18 July 2000 Ljubljana Local Court sent the enforcement order for execution to the Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Payments.\n15.  On 25 September 2000 the Ljubljana District Court decided to open bankruptcy proceedings against D.\n16.  On 18 November 2000 the applicant lodged her outstanding claims against D., including those subject to enforcement proceedings, in the bankruptcy proceedings.\n17.  On 19 December 2000 the Ljubljana District Court in the bankruptcy proceedings acknowledged the applicant’s claims, apart from a claim concerning redundancy payment.\n18.  On 9 February 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings concerning the redundancy payment before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court.\n19.  On 6 March 2001 the Ljubljana Local Court suspended the enforcement proceedings due to the pending bankruptcy proceedings.\n20.  On 9 April 2001 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court issued a declaratory default judgment acknowledging the applicant’s claim concerning redundancy payment.\n21.  On 16 September 2005 the Ljubljana District Court terminated the bankruptcy proceedings and ordered D. to be struck off the court register of companies. The applicant received no payment from the bankrupt’s estate.\n22.  On 30 September 2005 the notice of terminated bankruptcy proceedings and the strike-off of D. from the court register of companies was published in the Official Gazette.\n23.  According to the applicant she was not aware of the termination of the bankruptcy proceedings and the strike-off of D. from the court register until 3 May 2006 when she inspected the case file. Further to her discovery she requested the Ljubljana District Court for a copy of the decision of 16 September 2005 which she received on 12 May 2006.\n24.  On 11 April 2011 the Ljubljana Local Court sta", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7893", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was born in 1965, is a former resident of the Chechen Republic (Chechnya) and presently lives in Austria. She is a sister of Mr Zhamalayl (also spelled as Zhamalayla and Dzhamalayl) Yanayev, born in 1961. The second applicant is the wife of Zhamalayl Yanayev. She was born in 1965 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya.\n7.  At the material time Mr Zhamalayl Yanayev and his family were living in Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia. Neither applicant was a witness to Mr Yanayev’s arrest, and the following presentation is based on the information collected by the relatives after the incident and the materials of the official investigation.\n8.  At about 3 p.m. on 28 December 2004 Mr Zhamalayl Yanayev was about to take a flight from Vladikavkaz to Moscow from Beslan airport in North Ossetia. He checked in and passed through the security controls, and was waiting in the departure zone to board the aircraft.\n9.  At that time, two armed men wearing camouflage uniforms went to the office of the head of the airport security services, Lieutenant-Colonel V.T. of the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”). According to V.T., the men produced documents indicating that they were servicemen of the Regional Department for Combating Organised Crime (“the RUBOP”) of the Ministry of the Interior. They told him to call for a passenger by the name of Yanayev, but did not produce any papers that could have served as the basis for Mr Yanayev’s arrest.\n10.  The men accompanied V.T. to the departure zone. V.T. asked a police officer on duty there to call for Mr Yanayev. The men first took Mr Yanayev to the personal inspection room, and then left the building and drove off in three vehicles, two UAZ-469s and a Niva. The applicants submitted to the Court a list of names, ranks and vehicle registration numbers that had been communicated to the family by unnamed eyewitnesses, including airport security guards. The list included the names of servicemen of the Ministry of the Interior stationed in Chechnya and military servicemen. The registration number of one of the UAZ vehicles was noted as 33-03 65-86 OA 12 RUS.\n11.  The family have had no news of Mr Zhamalayl Yanayev since 28 December 2004.\n12.  The applicants and other members of Mr Zhamalayl Yanayev’s family learnt of his detention when he failed to arrive in Moscow. They immediately contacted the airport authorities in Beslan, prosecutors’ offices and other law-enforcement agencies. On 2 January 2005 the second applicant went to Beslan airport and spoke to the head of the airport police. The latter told her that her husband was not on a wanted list and that on 28 December 2004 he had checked in for his flight. He claimed that he had been absent at that time. After his return, his subordinate officers had informed him that unidentified persons had called the airport authorities requesting that Mr Zhamalayl Yanayev’s flight be postponed and that he be arrested. Shortly thereafter several officers of an unidentified “power structure” had arrived at the airport in a Niva and two UAZ vehicles. Two officers had entered the office of the head of the airport security services, Mr V.T. They had gone with V.T. to fetch Mr Zhamalayl Yanayev. Meanwhile the officers’ vehicles had been admitted inside the airport security perimeter. Subsequently, the officers had taken Mr Zhamalayl Yanayev outside the terminal building, put him in a Niva vehicle and driven off.\n13.  In the weeks immediately after Mr Zhamalayl Yanayev’s d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7894", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants in the present cases are Russian nationals residing in various settlements in the Chechen Republic, Russia. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared in the Chechen Republic after their alleged abduction from their homes in 2001-2004 by groups of servicemen. According to the applicants, the servicemen had belonged to the Russian federal troops, as they had been in camouflage uniforms, had had Slavic features and had spoken unaccented Russian. Armed with machineguns, the servicemen had broken into the applicants’ homes, searched the premises, checked the identity documents of the applicants’ relatives and taken the latter away in military vehicles, such as armoured personnel carriers (APCs), UAZ cars or URAL lorries. According to witnesses, after being abducted the applicants’ relatives were taken to the main federal military base in Khankala. None of the applicants have seen their missing relatives thereafter.\n6.  The applicants complained about the abductions to law-enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without attaining any tangible results. The investigations mainly consisted of making requests for information and formal requests for operational search measures to be carried out by counterparts in various parts of Chechnya and other regions of the North Caucasus. The requests received either negative responses or no replies at all.\n7.  From the documents submitted it appears that the relevant State authorities were unable to identify the State servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions.\n8.  In their observations the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants. At the same time, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the abductions.\n9.  Below are the summaries of the facts relevant to each individual application. The personal details of the applicants and their disappeared relatives are shown in Appendix I.\n10.  The facts of this application are linked to the case of Atabayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 26064/02, 12 June 2008, which concerned the abduction of Mr Ramzan Kukuyev together with the applicants’ relative, Mr Isa Mikiyev, during a sweeping-up operation that took place on 3 May 2001 in the settlement of Tsa-Vedeno. The following account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and neighbours.\n11.  According to the applicants, on 3 May 2001 at around 7 a.m. federal servicemen started a sweeping-up operation in the settlement of Tsa‑Vedeno. A group of thirty armed servicemen, some of whom were wearing masks, arrived at the applicants’ house in two APCs and a URAL lorry and broke in. They took Mr Isa Mikiyev and his son, Mr Kh. Mikiyev, outside, forced them into one of the APCs and drove in the direction of Grozny. The applicants followed the intruders. On the road out of the village the servicemen freely passed through a checkpoint which was sealed off that day. When asked by the applicants the officers manning the checkpoint denied seeing the vehicles and suggested that the applicants return home. Upon their return home, the applicants saw groups of servicemen conducting identity checks in almost every courtyard. There were many military vehicles, including APCs, and helicopters were flying over the settlement. As ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7895", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Shchelkovo, the Moscow Region. He is currently serving a prison sentence in the Saratov Region.\n6.  On 31 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and was placed in a temporary detention facility of the Shchelkovo Office of the Interior of the Moscow Region (“the Shchelkovo IVS”). According to the applicant, police officers under the command of police officer N. took him to special cells for questioning, where they tried to extract a confession from him or else make him sign blank sheets of paper. As he refused, they handcuffed him to a chair and beat him on his back and sides. Eventually he did sign a confession.\n7.  On 21 April 2003 the applicant was transferred to remand prison no. 50/8 in Sergiyev Posad, the Moscow Region (“SIZO-50/8”). Following a medical examination, the remand prison authorities refused to admit the applicant. In a report of the same date they indicated that he had a number of injuries, including a contusion of the spine and a contusion of the left side of the chest with a suspected fracture of the ribs, and that he needed further examination by medical experts.\n8.  On the same date the applicant was taken back to the Shchelkovo IVS and then transported to the Shchelkovo town hospital, where he underwent a medical examination, including an X-ray examination. The physician and neuropathologist who examined the applicant noted their findings in the above-mentioned report of SIZO-50/8. They are barely legible, but appear to confirm that the applicant had contusions of the spine and of the chest.\n9.  On the reverse side of the referral for the X-ray examination dated 21 April 2003 there is a hand-written finding by a radiologist dated 23 April 2003. It is likewise barely legible, but appears to confirm the contusion of the spine and the absence of a fracture.\n10.  On 25 April 2003 the applicant was admitted to SIZO-50/8.\n11.  On 24 March 2011 the head of SIZO-50/8 issued two certificates addressed to the Court. According to one certificate, between 25 April 2003 and 20 January 2004 – while the applicant was held in SIZO-50/8 – he had not made any complaints concerning his detention. According to the other certificate, admission of the applicant to SIZO-50/8 had been refused on 21 April 2003 as it appeared necessary to conduct an additional medical examination in order to confirm the diagnosis. No entry to that effect was made in the remand prison register since, in accordance with the applicable regulations, the register contained only information about individuals actually held in the remand prison, whereas the applicant was not admitted.\n12.  On 16 August 2007 the applicant complained that he had been beaten by the police. He referred, in particular, to the report of 21 April 2003 confirming his injuries.\n13.  On 24 August 2007 the Shchelkovo prosecutor’s office refused to institute a criminal investigation into the applicant’s complaint. The relevant decision stated briefly that there was no information in the Shchelkovo IVS indicating that the applicant had ever requested medical assistance during his detention pending trial. It went on to note that, according to a certificate from the Shchelkovo town hospital, which the applicant had attended, he had been diagnosed with influenza and spontaneous rupture of tendons. The decision further stated that during his detention pending trial, none of the injuries indicated in the applicant’s complaint had", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7896", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Matosinhos (Portugal).\n5.  On 11 January 2006 the applicant started eviction proceedings against three tenants before the Court of Matosinhos (domestic proceedings no. 355/06.3TBMTS).\n6.  On 23 February 2006 the court ordered their eviction and ordered the tenants to pay 2,170 euros (EUR) for rent arrears.\n7.  On 14 September 2006 the applicant started enforcement proceedings.\n8.  The following month the court ordered the seizure (penhora) of one third of one of the tenant’s income (executado). The payment of the debt began in December.\n9.  Meanwhile, the tenant had asked the court to reduce the deducted amount to one sixth of his salary. The court ordered that reduction on 10 January 2007.\n10.  The payments stopped on 7 October 2008, when the tenant became unemployed.\n11.  Between October 2008 and September 2009 the enforcement solicitor (solicitador de execução) tried to find attachable assets.\n12.  In September 2009 the parties made an agreement according to which the debtor’s wife would continue to pay the arrears in instalments, which she did for one year.\n13.  According to the last information received by the Court on 17 April 2013, the proceedings were pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7897", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Mem Martins (Portugal).\n5.  The applicant is a former employee of G.N., a media company which entailed a collective dismissal in 2009. The applicant was dismissed on 4 May 2009.\n6.  On 27 October 2009 he brought an action against the company before the Labour Court of Lisbon (ação especial de impugnação do despedimento colectivo), seeking his reintegration and the payment of extra workload, (domestic proceedings no. 2150/09.9TTLSB-A).\n7.  On 16 March 2010 his case was joint to others related to the same collective dismissal.\n8.  On 25 October 2010 the applicant sent a letter to the court drawing its attention to the existence of a delay in the proceedings. The court replied on 26 October 2010 saying that some parties in the proceedings still had to be summoned.\n9.  Between 4 February 2011 and 9 May 2011 the labour court and the parties in the proceedings appointed experts to give technical assistance in the proceedings, as established by law.\n10.  On 6 September 2011 the experts presented their report.\n11.  On 31 October 2011 a preliminary hearing took place.\n12.  On 15 November 2011 the applicant contested the expert’s report. On 2 December 2012 the court notified the experts and on 9 February 2012 granted more 30 days for the submission of their observations.\n13.  On 27 March the applicant was notified of the experts’ reply and submitted his observations on 26 April 2012.\n14.  On 11 October 2012 the applicant informed the labour court that he had reached an agreement with the company. On 22 October 2012 the labour court endorsed the agreement.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7899", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in the Leningrad Region.\n7.  On 9 February 2001 the Solnechnogorsk Town Court of the Moscow Region found the applicant guilty of torture and manslaughter and sentenced him to thirteen and a half years’ imprisonment.\n8.  As is evident from medical documents provided by the applicant, prior to his arrest in October 1999 he completely lost the vision in his left eye, while the vision in his right eye was substantially impaired. In 1984 he was registered as Category 3 disabled on account of his poor eyesight.\n9.  In 2001, during his detention in correctional facility IK-1 in the Mordoviya Republic, the applicant was severely beaten up by warders, and sustained a serious spinal injury leading to partial paralysis of his lower extremities. He started using crutches. According to him, subsequent ill-treatment, inadequate conditions of detention and a lack of proper medical assistance caused his health to deteriorate drastically: he developed an intervertebral hernia and intravascular tumor which, in turn, resulted in the lower part of his body being completely paralysed. He became wheelchair-bound. He supported his allegations with medical certificates issued in penal medical facilities.\n10.  From 1 January 2006 to 27 January 2010 the applicant served his sentence in correctional facility IK-7 in the Mordoviya Republic. In January 2010 he was transferred to correctional facility IK-11 in the Mordoviya Republic, where he was detained until his release on 14 January 2013.\n11.  Having made no complaints about the conditions of his detention in facility IK-7, the applicant provided the following description of the conditions of his detention in facility IK-11 supporting his arguments with handwritten statements by a former inmate, D. On his arrival to the facility the applicant was assigned to Unit 5, which was not equipped to house wheelchair-bound inmates. A large number of two-tier beds were installed in the dormitory. The unit was dimly lit as the beds blocked the windows. Ninety inmates occupied the dormitory.\n12.  The lavatory in the dormitory was not adapted for disabled people, as the lavatory pans were not at floor level and did not have rails. The applicant always asked for assistance from at least two other inmates, as he was unable to use the lavatory on his own. Not every inmate was willing to help, which made a sensitive situation even more frustrating and embarrassing for him, since he suffered from enuresis and encopresis (bladder and bowel incontinence). Relying on D.’s statement, the applicant argued that he had received assistance from inmates in the facility in exchange for cigarettes and money. Without payment, inmates had refused to help him. The applicant stressed that in addition to their unwillingness to help him, the inmates also had to perform their own daily duties in the unit. They therefore had had no free time to help him to move around the facility. The facility administration had not taken any steps to rectify the situation. The applicant cited, as an example, behavior by two inmates, Ya. and Z., appointed by the administration of the facility to assist him. The applicant insisted that they had created “acute” situations to force him to pay more for their services. When he could not pay, he had been left without any assistance, unable to go to the lavatory and forced to defecate in his underpants. The applicant also submitted that in November 2012, once the Court had com", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7901", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  On 8 March 2008 at around 4.40 p.m. the applicant’s seventeen-year-old son (V.) died after falling from one of the common-use balconies in an apartment block.\n7.  The police opened a preliminary inquiry into the causes of V.’s death, the most likely explanation being suicide.\n8.  On 8 March 2008 the investigator in charge of the case (F.) ordered a medical expert report in order to establish precisely the cause of death, the presence and origin of any injuries on V.’s body and whether there was any trace of alcohol or narcotic drugs in his blood. That report was completed on 10 March 2008 and found that V. had died from severe injuries caused by his fall; no traces of alcohol or narcotic drugs had been found in his blood.\n9.  Some fifteen persons were questioned as witnesses during the following three months. According to the applicant, some of the witnesses mentioned that V. had talked to two men on the day of his death. Three witnesses (B.A., B.O. and S.V.) allegedly stated that they had seen a young man and a young woman exiting the building and leaving the place in a hurry, taking a taxi shortly after V. had fallen. The applicant also stated that her son had been contacted on his mobile phone number by persons unknown to her and that her son had been upset after these discussions and had destroyed his subscriber identity module (SIM) card. She confirmed her son’s phone number and asked the prosecution to verify who had called him. She also stated that someone had visited her son the evening before the incident and had run away when she went out to see what was going on.\n10.  On 24 March 2008 F. proposed that no criminal investigation be initiated since there was no evidence that any offence had been committed, V. having committed suicide. On 4 July 2008 a prosecutor of the Ciocana prosecutor’s office decided not to initiate a criminal investigation.\n11.  On 1 August 2008 the applicant challenged that decision before a superior prosecutor. She stated that witnesses had not been questioned in respect of their allegation that they had seen two young persons exiting the building in a hurry immediately after the incident and that no one had asked the relevant mobile phone company to provide information about the phone calls made to her son prior to his death. Moreover, two assistants in a nearby shop had claimed that they had seen V. in their shop some hours prior to his death and that he had fainted there, and had then been taken away by two young men.\n12.  On 18 August 2008 a supervising prosecutor annulled the decision of 4 July 2008 as having been taken prematurely without considering other possible causes of death, such as murder by pushing V. from above or provoking him into committing suicide. The investigator was ordered to question the applicant and the witnesses identified by her.\n13.  After that date, the preliminary inquiry was extended on many occasions at the request of investigator F. On 12 December 2008 F. proposed that no investigation be initiated. It appears that this proposal was rejected by a superior prosecutor on an unknown date, since F. made similar proposals on 4 February and 29 April 2009. Both times a prosecutor accepted that no investigation should be initiated, but each time a supervising prosecutor found the decision premature and ordered a re-examination of the material by the investigator. The prosecution adopted a further decision not to initi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7902", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a Romanian citizen of Hungarian origin who was born in 1971 and was detained at the date of lodging the application in Jilava Prison in Bucharest.\n6.  On 20 October 2003 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Bucharest County Court arrested the applicant on suspicion of aggravated homicide and robbery. On 22 October 2003 the Bucharest County Court granted the prosecutor’s office’s application for pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant, holding that the applicant was suspected of having stabbed a couple to death in order to take 13,000 US Dollars in cash from their house. The county court further held that the applicant represented a danger to the public order in the light of the severity of the crimes he was accused of and the punishment set by law for the respective crimes.\n7.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was successively extended by court order until he was convicted of aggravated homicide and robbery and sentenced to twenty three years’ imprisonment by a judgment of the Bucharest County Court rendered on 23 September 2005. On 23 December 2005 the Bucharest Court of Appeal upheld the Bucharest County Court’s judgment of 23 September 2005. By a final judgment of 12 May 2006 the High Court of Cassation and Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law and upheld the previous judgments.\n8.  The reasoning for the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention remained unchanged in each order, namely the fact that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the crimes for which he was on trial and that the severity of the crimes implied that the applicant was a danger to the public order.\n9.  The applicant appealed against many of the orders extending his pre‑trial detention, submitting that there was not enough evidence from which to infer a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the crimes, that he had a clean criminal record, that he had been open and honest during the proceedings and that there was no proof that, if set free, he would be a danger to the public order. He also repeatedly complained that his continuing detention without specific reasons based on his particular situation breached his rights under the Convention. His appeals were consistently rejected as without merit, the courts considering that the reasons for his initial pre-trial detention still existed without analysing the applicant’s specific arguments.\n10.  In a judgment issued on 30 September 2004 on the applicant’s appeal against the order to extend his pre-trial detention of 14 September 2004, the Bucharest Court of Appeal, quoting the Court’s decisions in the cases of Amuur v. France and Tomasi v. France, held that the lower court had correctly decided that the reasons for the initial pre-trial detention still existed. The court further stated that pre-trial detention was regulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure in order to ensure the good progress of trials. Finally, the court decided that the evidence admitted to date in the case allowed the inference that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the crimes and this justified the extension of his detention.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7903", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Vilnius.\n7.  The applicant is a member of the International Banknote Society, the American Numismatic Association and the Collectors’ Club of Vilnius.\n8.  On 12 December 2000 the applicant signed a contract with the Educational Coin Company (“the company”), registered in the United States of America (“the USA”), according to which he would deliver to the company 8,500 kg of banknotes (in five and ten rouble notes) issued by the self-proclaimed Bank of the “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria (MRT)” (see further details about the events leading to the creation of the self-proclaimed “MRT” in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004‑VII). In exchange, under the contract, he had the right to select items from the company’s wholesale catalogue to a value of 7,000 United States dollars (USD).\n9.  On 26 January 2001 the applicant bought from the “MRT” bank 13,590,000 “MRT” roubles (in five and ten rouble banknotes) issued in 1994. The banknotes issued in 1994 were no longer in circulation in the “MRT”, having been replaced by new banknotes in 2000. Such banknotes have never been in official circulation in Moldova and had been accepted as payment only in the “MRT” and only prior to 2000.\n10.  On 1 February 2001 the applicant submitted to Moldovan customs 353 sealed bags of banknotes issued by the “MRT” bank in 1994. He asked for permission to ship the items to the USA, in accordance with the contract with the company. He declared that the paper in the bags had a numismatic value of USD 7,000.\n11.  The customs authority decided to store the bags in its warehouse until a decision could be taken about what to do with them. Subsequently, the bags were moved to the premises of the State Tax Inspectorate (“the STI”), where they have remained since.\n12.  By a decision of 23 July 2003 and further to a report of 25 August 2003, the Customs Department decided not to return the banknotes to the applicant and to transfer them instead to the STI for free as the items were banned from general circulation in Moldova.\n13.  The applicant asked on a number of occasions for the return of the items confiscated from him. On an unknown date in 2005 he initiated court proceedings to have the decisions taken in July and August 2003 set aside and the items returned to him.\n14.  On 19 April 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal dismissed his court action as lodged out of time. On 3 August 2005 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed that decision and ordered a rehearing of the case by the lower court.\n15.  On 7 November 2005 the Chişinău Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s claims in part. The court found that the banknotes under examination had never been introduced into general circulation in Moldova and had never been exchanged for the official currency of the country. There was no evidence in the file that the banknotes had been manufactured for circulation in Moldova. The applicant had officially declared the 353 bags of banknotes, which he considered to be waste paper with numismatic value, in order to transport them abroad. Moreover, it had to be presumed that he had obtained the items in a lawful manner, unless proof to the contrary had been adduced. However, nobody had claimed a property right in respect of the relevant items. The court concluded that the Customs Department and the STI had acted unlawfully.\n16.  On 17 May 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice quashed the lower court’s judgme", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7904", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Abdurrahman Şiray, is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Siirt.\n5.  On 20 June 2003 the applicant, who is of Kurdish origin, was arrested in Mardin and taken into police custody with three other individuals on suspicion of acting as a courier for an illegal armed organisation, namely the PKK/KADEK. The applicant was in possession of a false identity card at the time of his arrest.\n6.  On 21 June 2003 F.A., who was arrested with the applicant on suspicion of attempting to participate in the armed activities of the PKK/KADEK, was questioned at the Nusaybin police headquarters, in the absence of a lawyer. F.A. claimed that he had met the applicant the day before in Batman and that at the time they were arrested in Nusaybin the applicant was taking him to the mountains to join members of the PKK/KADEK.\n7.  On 22 June 2003 the applicant was taken for questioning at the Nusaybin police headquarters. Before his questioning the applicant signed a form which explained the rights of arrested persons, by which he was informed of the charges against him and his right to remain silent. In his statement, given in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant denied any affiliation with the illegal organisation and contested F.A.’s allegations. He also stated that he was a shepherd and at the time of his arrest he was in the mountains looking for sheep that he had lost. He also explained that he had been carrying a false identity card as he was an army deserter. An interpreter was present during this questioning.\n8.  A confrontation was held between the applicant and F.A., without any legal assistance.\n9.  On 23 June 2003 the applicant was brought before the Nusaybin Public Prosecutor, where he reiterated the statement he had made to the police.\n10.  Later the same day the applicant was also questioned at the Nusaybin Magistrates’ Court in the absence of a lawyer. At the end of that questioning the judge remanded the applicant in pre-trial custody.\n11.  On the same day the applicant’s co-accused, F.A., also made statements before the Nusaybin public prosecutor and the Nusaybin Magistrates’ Court, in which he repeated his allegations about the applicant.\n12.  On 7 July 2003 the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court accusing the applicant of aiding and abetting the PKK/KADEK, and F.A. of membership of that organisation.\n13.  On 19 August 2003 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held its first hearing, at which the applicant informed the court that he did not have sufficient knowledge of Turkish to follow the hearings. The court bailiff, who spoke Kurdish, was therefore appointed as interpreter. During the hearing, the applicant denied the charges against him, but confirmed that the statements he had made during his detention in police custody were accurate. He explained that those statements, which he had made in Kurdish, had been translated into Turkish by Kurdish-speaking clerks.\n14.  F.A. was also heard by the State Security Court at the same hearing, with the assistance of an interpreter. F.A. also denied all charges against him, as well as retracting the statements he had made before the police, the public prosecutor and the magistrates’ court. He asserted that those statements had been extracted from him under duress. He further argued that he had made his statements in Kurdish and had no way of knowing whether they had been translated into Turkish accurately.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7905", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Borki Nizińskie.\n6.  The applicant is married with two children. Prior to his early retirement he had been employed for 23 years and had paid his social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 18 December 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with his application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning his daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor on 14 December 2001. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1990) suffered from, among other things, urinary tract infection and chronic headaches and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 20 December 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension.\n10.  The Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension until the end of the year 2001 due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision.\n11.  On 31 December 2001 the applicant’s employment contract expired. It had been terminated by the employer with three-month notice for reasons attributable to the employer’s financial situation.\n12.  Consequently, on 1 January 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board started to pay the retirement pension in the net amount of 1,324.57 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 370 euros (EUR)).\n13.  The applicant was issued with a pensioner’s identity card marked “valid indefinitely” and he continued to receive his pension without interruption until the date of the revocation of the right.\n14.  On an unspecified date the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. On 13 September 2002 the doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n15.  On 19 September 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant.\n16.  By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. By virtue of the other decision, the Social Security Board revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance.\n17.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting him of the right to an early-retirement pension. He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n18.  On 25 September 2003 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n19.  The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n20.  On 12 October 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s further appeal. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully diveste", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7906", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is detained currently in Matīsa Prison. The relevant facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 21 March 2002 the State Police telephoned the applicant and asked him to appear at their station. According to the applicant, at the State Police station, prior to any formal charges being laid against him, he was accused of murdering Ģ.Č. The police officers used physical force against him in order to obtain a confession to the crime. As a result of the duress brought to bear upon him, the applicant made a written confession.\n8.  On 23 March 2002 the applicant was transferred to a short-term detention facility.\n9.  On 23 May 2002 the police opened an investigation into the alleged misconduct of police officers at the time of the applicant’s questioning. On 25 June 2005 a prosecutor concluded that the complaint was no longer subject to the prosecutor’s review. The prosecutor referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court of 26 April 2005 (see paragraph 40 below) dismissing the allegation of ill-treatment.\n10.  Further details in relation to the events following the applicant’s appearance on 21 March 2002 at the State Police station are set out in the decision in Cesnieks (cited above), where the Government acknowledged, inter alia, that the applicant had been ill-treated while in police custody and there had been a lack of effective investigation of the applicant’s complaint of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (ibid., §§ 30, 32 and 36).\n11.  The typewritten transcript of the applicant’s questioning as a witness dated 21 March 2002 from 5.20 p.m. to 6.40 p.m.[1] recorded the applicant’s statement to the police.\n12.  The applicant declared that he had given Ģ.Č. documents concerning his late father’s company, T.S.C., because Ģ.Č. had been looking for a company to carry out the leasing of motor vehicles. Later, Ģ.Č. had asked the applicant whether he knew anyone who could make withdrawals at the bank. The applicant had suggested his acquaintance Z.K. Occasionally Z.K. had sent Ģ.Č. sums of money that he had withdrawn from the bank via the applicant.\n13.  On the applicant’s evidence at the end of January 2002 he travelled to Moscow. While there Ģ.Č. had called him looking for Z.K., because Ģ.Č. had needed Z.K. to collect money at the bank.\n14.  The applicant gave further information in his police statement about meeting Z.K. in Riga upon his return from Moscow and Z.K. telling him about a withdrawal of the funds and their handover to Ģ.Č.\n15.  The applicant stated that he had learnt of Ģ.Č.’s murder from the police officers on the day the police had contacted him.\n16.  In the applicant’s handwritten confession dated 22 March 2002[2], he stated that in October 2001 he had borrowed the sum of 4,500 Latvian lati (LVL), which he had been unable to pay back.\n17.  On 25 January 2002 the applicant together with his acquaintance O.O. had travelled to Moscow hoping to obtain money there, but they were unsuccessful.\n18.  The applicant had told O.O. about the transfers of money to Ģ.Č. by Z.K. and himself. O.O. had also learnt that the sum of LVL 17,000 would arrive in the coming days in the bank account, to be sent on to Ģ.Č., and had told the applicant that he could resolve the issue of the debt if the applicant gave him full information.\n19.  On 1 February 2002 they had left Moscow and had arrived the next day in Riga. At around 2 p.m. the applicant had phoned Z.K.,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7907", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Ledinci. In December 2006 her pension was 6,568.30 Serbian Dinars (“RSD”), i.e. approximately 80 Euros (“EUR”).\n6.  The relevant facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 8 April 2005 the Novi Sad Municipal Court, acting on the basis of a private criminal action (privatna krivična tužba) filed on 10 March 2003, found the applicant guilty of criminal defamation (kleveta) and sentenced her to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for a period of two years (uslovna osuda; see paragraph 35 below). Ms SN, a journalist, was also found guilty of the same offence and sentenced identically.\n8.  The Municipal Court noted, inter alia, that on 12 December 2002 Dnevnik, a Novi Sad daily newspaper, had published an article, prepared by Ms SN and based on the information provided by the applicant, to the effect that the latter’s lawyer, Mr NB, had deliberately failed to represent her properly in a pending civil case. The article maintained that this was subsequently confirmed by the Novi Sad Police Department. The Municipal Court described the applicant’s and article’s assertions as lacking any factual basis and being aimed solely at harming the honour and reputation of Mr NB, a highly respected member of the Novi Sad legal community and a former judge.\n9.  On 11 January 2006 the Novi Sad District Court upheld this judgment on appeal and endorsed its reasoning. The applicant received the District Court’s decision on 19 July 2006.\n10.  On 16 August 2006 the applicant filed a request for the reopening of these proceedings.\n11.  Following two remittals, on 29 July 2009 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s motion and reopened the case. The applicant personally and a number of witnesses were reheard and numerous documents/files were re-examined, but ultimately, on 25 March 2011, both the original conviction and the sentence imposed were reaffirmed in their entirety. The Municipal Court’s reasoning likewise remained the same. It clarified, however, that, whilst the police had indeed filed a criminal complaint against Mr NB on 15 May 2002, by 5 July 2002 the Novi Sad Municipal Public Prosecutor’s Office had informed the applicant of its formal rejection based on the applicable statute of limitation. The applicant had thereafter attempted to take over the prosecution of the case in the capacity of a subsidiary prosecutor, but this had ultimately been rejected by the courts by 30 September 2004.\n12.  On 29 November 2011 the Novi Sad Appeals Court upheld the Municipal Court’s judgment of 25 March 2011. The applicant was served with the Appeals Court’s decision on 21 December 2011.\n13.  On 19 January 2012 the applicant filed a further appeal with the Constitutional Court, complaining, inter alia, about the outcome, fairness and length of the criminal proceedings, as well as the alleged breach of her freedom of expression. This appeal is still pending.\n14.  On 19 December 2006 Mr NB filed a separate civil claim for damages with the Novi Sad Municipal Court, alleging that he had suffered mental anguish due to the publication of the impugned article.\n15.  On 31 January 2007 the Municipal Court ruled partly in favour of Mr NB and ordered the applicant to pay RSD 300,000 in compensation, together with default interest, plus costs in the amount of RSD 94,120, i.e. approximately EUR 4,900 Euros in all.\n16.  In its reasoning the Municipal Court found that: (a) the applicant ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7908", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  On 4 December 2010 the applicant and his alleged accomplice were apprehended by the police.\nOn 6 December 2010 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was ordered by the Pest Central District Court on charges of multiple thefts by breaking into three cars and attempting to break in a fourth (all committed in one day, in the approximate value of altogether 400 euros), for fear of repetition of crime under section 129 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In its reasoning the court noted that the applicant did not have a job or any other income and that the criminal acts allegedly committed were of serial nature.\nThe applicant was present at this hearing without his public defender attending.\nOn 14 December 2010 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, dismissed his appeal, reiterating that the applicant was unemployed without income and adding that no less restrictive measure could be applied.\n7.  On 20 December 2010 the applicant applied for release, arguing that the courts had not specified any facts supporting the perceived risk of repetition of crime. He submitted documents showing that he was about to be employed and that his mother was willing to pay for his living expenses until his salary became available. He also referred to the fact that he had no criminal record.\n8.  On 12 January 2011 the Pest Central District Court refused the release application, without hearing the applicant or refuting the applicant’s arguments for his release. It repeated, in a rather stereotyped manner, that the serial nature of the crimes allegedly committed by the applicant and his financial circumstances gave rise to the risk of repetition of crime.\nOn 22 February 2011 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, without holding a hearing.\nAll these proceedings took place entirely in writing.\n9.  Meanwhile the prosecution requested the prolongation of the applicant’s detention but did not inform his lawyer of this motion. On 28 December 2010 the prolongation was ordered until 6 March 2011, without hearing the applicant. In these proceedings the findings of the court remained the same, namely that the applicant not having either an employment or any income would reoffend, that is, continue with the serial crime he was accused of. Simultaneously, a further application for release submitted by the applicant’s alleged accomplice was dismissed.\n10.  On 19 January 2011 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the prolongation order, without the applicant attending; the court was satisfied that the applicant’s unemployment and the serial nature of the alleged criminal acts justified his continued detention on remand.\n11.  A further prolongation request was processed by the District Court on 3 March 2011. Although this time the defence had been notified, the court did not await its observations on prolongation, and maintained the applicant’s detention, in essence relying on the grounds previously quoted.\nHowever, the applicant successfully appealed and was released on 13 April 2011. The Regional Court noted that the applicant’s financial situation was secured, pointed out that the mere fact that a suspect was unemployed did not establish the risk of repetition of crime, especially since he had no previous criminal record, and, moreover, that several counts of larceny committed in one day did not qualify as serial crime.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7909", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Chișinău.\n6.  At the time of the events the applicant was the manager of a State-owned veterinary clinic.\n7.  According to the official version of events, on 25 September 2006 a person (C.) came to the applicant’s office at around 9.10 a.m. and expressed his wish to have his dog vaccinated and to obtain a document required for travelling abroad with that dog. The applicant then told him that the process could last two to three months, but could be sped up. In exchange for 1,000 Moldovan lei (MDL, approximately 63 euros (EUR) at the time), the applicant said that he would issue C. with the relevant document without seeing the dog, knowing that it had not been vaccinated.\n8.  Immediately after that, C. went to Rîşcani police station in Chişinău and asked for help in catching the applicant in the act of receiving the bribe. In his report to the police made at that time, C. noted that he had asked for vaccination documents for his six-month old dog called “Ghera”, which was a variety of terrier.\n9.  In response to C.’s report, a number of procedural acts were carried out that same morning:\n(i) V., an officer at Rîşcani police station, issued an order to initiate a criminal investigation, which was countersigned by a prosecutor on the same day at 4.40 p.m.;\n(ii) a prosecutor from the Rîşcani prosecutor’s office issued an order giving subject-matter jurisdiction over the investigation of the case to Rîşcani police station, while noting that jurisdiction to handle such cases normally lay with the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption.;\n(iii) the Prosecutor General’s Office issued an order giving territorial jurisdiction to Rîşcani police station;\n(iv) V. issued a search warrant for the applicant’s office (countersigned by the Rîşcani District Court’s investigating judge on 26 September 2006);\n(v) V. issued a second order to trace the source of the money paid as a bribe;\n(vi) a third order was issued by V., pursuant to which the money to be given as a bribe was to be marked with a special substance; and\n(vii) MDL 1,000 in five banknotes of MDL 200 each was marked by V. in the presence of C. and a specialist at 11 a.m. and a record of this was drawn up.\n10.  At approximately 11.30 a.m. on the same day C. entered the applicant’s office and told him that he only had MDL 400. The applicant took the money, stamped and made the relevant notes in the dog’s passport. At around 12.30 p.m. officers from Rîşcani police station entered the applicant’s office and discovered MDL 400 in his pocket. The money was subsequently confirmed as bearing the specific mark made earlier for the purpose of proving the act of bribe taking.\n11.  On 27 September 2006 the applicant was released against an undertaking not to leave the city.\n12.  In the record of an interrogation made on 29 November 2006, it is recorded that the applicant declared that there were individuals who, for a long time, had wanted to frame him due to his past conflicts with them. He also mentioned a criminal complaint concerning an assassination attempt that took place on 4 April 2004 which had not been examined and which meant, in the applicant’s opinion, that someone had a motive for making a false accusation against him.\n13.  On 8 December 2006 the Rîşcani District Court transferred the case to the Botanica District Court in Chişinău for examination, as the latter court had territorial jurisdiction over the matter.\n14.  On 27 March 2007 t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7910", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Jelgava Prison.\n5.  On 4 October 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.\n6.  On 13 September 2002 the Riga Regional Court (Rīgas apgabaltiesa) convicted the applicant of aggravated murder, burglary and theft and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment.\n7.  On 3 February 2003 the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Krimināllietu tiesu palāta) upheld the conviction for burglary and theft, acquitted the applicant of the charge of aggravated murder, and convicted him of murder instead. The sentence was reduced to twelve years’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 17 March 2003 the Senate of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Senāts) dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant in a preparatory meeting.\n9.  The applicant has since been serving his sentence in various prisons: Central Prison, Brasa Prison, Matīsa Prison, Jelgava Prison, Daugavpils Prison and Daugavgrīva Prison.\n10.  On 18 October 2007 the applicant was convicted of attacking a member of prison staff in Daugavpils Prison. He was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.\n11.  On 1 July 2009, at around 10 a.m., the applicant was searched, as he was scheduled to be transferred to Jelgava Prison. The applicant had more than 30 kg of personal effects, which was the maximum, so he was asked to leave some things behind. A dispute ensued between the applicant and prison officers M.B., A.F. and K.D., who had carried out the search.\n12.  According to the Government, the applicant tried to obstruct the search, insulted the prison officers, used contemptuous and abusive language, and made threats. In particular, he said he was “a former boxer” and that he could “kill anyone” since he had “nothing left to lose”. The prison officers tried to calm the applicant down and verbally ordered him to stop behaving aggressively. The applicant ignored those requests and, instead, at around 10.20 a.m., grabbed M.B. by the arm and tried to hit him. M.B. avoided the blow. Prison officers A.F. and K.D. used restraint measures (blows with rubber truncheons) to stop the applicant’s aggressive behaviour, for about three minutes.\n13.  The applicant did not contest the Government’s version of events, but said that he was brutally beaten by three prison officers until he fell to the ground unconscious. He received more blows when he regained consciousness.\n14.  At around 10.50 a.m. the applicant was taken to the prison medical unit. A doctor wrote a note indicating that the applicant had “many bruises on [his] body, arms and legs”. The following remarks were made in the applicant’s medical record: “A dark violet, elongated haematoma 20 x 2 cm in the right shoulder blade area. A dark violet haematoma 25 x 17 cm in the left shoulder blade area. A haematoma 16 x 6 cm on the left (upper) arm. A haematoma 8 x 3 cm on the left forearm. A haematoma 20 x 3 cm on the right (upper) arm. A haematoma 10 x 2 cm on the right forearm. Small abrasions and haematomas on both legs.”\n15.  After the incident, on 1 July 2009, prison officers A.F. and K.D. filled in a report form on the use of restraint measures. It was mentioned that the applicant had issued threats against the prison guards, had attempted to hit M.B., and that A.F. and K.D. had intervened to stop the attack. They had used restraint measures (blows with truncheons) for about three minutes, from 10.20 to 10.23 a.m. The doctor made an entry in the re", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7911", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  The applicant was convicted of several counts of fraud, by three successive convictions in the Bucharest District Court on 26 November 2007 (upheld on 29 September 2008 by the Bucharest Court of Appeal), 2 July 2008 and 2 July 2009 (upheld on 18 May 2010 by the Bucharest Court of Appeal). In the latter hearing, the District Court also combined (contopirea pedepselor) the sentence of 26 November 2007 with that given for the applicant’s most recent conviction for fraud, and reached a resulting sentence of three years and six months’ imprisonment.\nNo further information was provided to the Court concerning the decision of 2 July 2008.\n7.  On 30 September 2008 the applicant started serving his sentence. He was released from prison on 3 November 2010.\n8.  The applicant provided the following description of the conditions of his detention in Jilava Prison. There was a general problem of overcrowding and he had to share a 20 sq. m cell with between seventeen and eighteen inmates. Hygiene conditions were poor and inadequate for detainees in his state of health. There was no hot or cold running water.\n9.  From 12 November 2008 to 8 April 2009 the applicant was examined by an expert medical panel and diagnosed as morbidly obese with type 2 diabetes. It was also established that he suffered from hypertension, psoriasis and lumbar spondylosis. In a report drafted in May 2009, the expert panel concluded that the applicant’s obesity had to be treated in a specialist civilian hospital where he could be taken under escort, but that his other conditions were treatable in prison hospitals.\n10.  From 17 to 19 January 2009 the applicant was placed in a small cell on his own, where he was continuously kept naked and tied to a bed, without any way of going to the toilet. He was also transported to and from the prison hospital chained to a food cart. According to the applicant, the prison doctor who saw him on the third day refused to report the incident (see paragraph 21 below).\n11.  From 16 to 26 February 2009 the applicant was hospitalised in Bucharest Prison Hospital for surgery and post-operative care.\n12.  The applicant requested that his sentence be suspended on medical grounds. By a decision of 10 March 2010, the Bucharest District Court denied that request based on the medical report drafted in May 2009, and ordered the prison administration to transfer the applicant, if he consented, to a civilian hospital to undergo the treatment necessary for his obesity. It ordered that round-the-clock surveillance be put in place during the applicant’s hospitalisation.\n13.  The applicant was scheduled for surgery in a civilian hospital, but on 28 May 2010 he refused to undergo the operation.\n14.  According to the official prison records, the applicant was transferred nineteen times during his detention between Jilava Prison and the prison hospitals of Jilava and Rahova. He served about thirteen months of his detention in eight different cells in Jilava Prison. The cells he was placed in measured around 43 sq. m and contained eighteen to twenty-one beds, and most of the time they were below full capacity. For about two months, he had about 4 sq. m of personal space in these cells. The rest of the time, he had between 2.11 and 3.41 sq. m of personal space. He also spent a few days on his own in two-bed cells measuring between 6.53 and 6.7 sq. m.\n15.  As the applicant was assigned to a semi-open regime ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7912", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Iaşi.\n6.  On 14 December 2009 the District Court convicted the applicant of battery and threatening behaviour, for which he was sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine. The conviction was upheld by the Bucharest County Court on 3 May 2010, following an unsuccessful appeal by the applicant.\n7.  On 26 January 2010 the applicant started serving his sentence. He was released from prison on 1 March 2011.\n8.  The applicant provided the following description of the conditions of his detention in Jilava Prison. There was a general problem of overcrowding and constant noise. Cells were dirty, the air was stale and there were cockroaches, rats, bedbugs and lice in the cells and beds. Hygiene conditions were poor throughout the prison, including in the kitchen and in the toilets, where there was no privacy. The building was poorly insulated, which made it very cold in the winter and very hot in the summer, when the temperature could often reach 50oC. Living in those conditions had caused him to lose consciousness several times.\n9.  The tap water was undrinkable, being filled with impurities and rust from the pipes. The food was of poor quality and cooked with the prison water. In addition, there were cockroaches on the canteen tables and the place was infested with mice.\n10.  The applicant maintained that drugs were dealt openly in the prison and that drug users would attack him, steal his clothes and abuse him in order to get money for drugs. He did not report the abuse, as his attackers had threatened to kill him if he did.\n11.  The applicant stated that after the first six months of his detention, he was deprived of sleep, food and water, had lost his teeth and weight, and had become depressed.\n12.  According to the official prison records, the applicant was transferred sixteen times during his detention but served most of his sentence in Jilava Prison. The cells he was placed in measured between 36 and 38.34 sq. m and contained eighteen or nineteen beds, most of the time being slightly below full capacity. The applicant had between 2 and 3.4 sq. m of personal space in his cell at all times.\n13.  As the applicant was assigned to a semi-open regime (regim semi‑deschis), cell doors were left open except when food was served, and he had daily access to the courtyard between 8 and 11 a.m. and again between 1 and 5 p.m. Cells could be aired by opening the windows. The applicant had unrestricted access to the toilet, which was completely separated from the cell living space by a wall. There was central heating throughout the prison. Detainees had access to showers twice a week; the shower rooms had even been renovated in 2009.\n14.  The quality of water was tested periodically and that of food daily. The results were satisfactory.\n15.  Hygiene and pest control were performed by specialist companies. Toilets were disinfected daily and cells whenever necessary.\n16.  Prisoners’ clothes were washed weekly upon request.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7913", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Mielec.\n7.  The applicant is married and has four children born in 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1994. Prior to his application for an early-retirement pension he had been unemployed with no right to unemployment benefit.\n8.  On 31 May 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so‑called “EWK” pension.\n9.  Along with his application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning his daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1994) suffered from chronic asthma and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care.\n10.  On 31 July 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension in the net amount of 870.83 Polish zlotys (PLN). The pension was granted with retroactive effect of 1 May 2001.\n11.  On an unknown date the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. The doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n12.  On 18 July 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board reopened the pension proceedings and, on 8 August 2002, the Board refused the applicant the right to early retirement and discontinued the payment of the pension with effect of 1 August 2002.\n13.  The applicant appealed against the decision divesting him of the right to an early-retirement pension. He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n14.  On 24 October 2003 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) amended the challenged decisions and granted the applicant the right to early retirement pension with effect of 1 August 2002. The Regional Court found that the applicant could not bear the responsibility for the mistake made by the administrative authorities. It further held that the pension proceedings could not be reopened in this case because no new circumstances had arisen; the reopening decision was based on the same circumstances freshly assessed.\n15.  The Rzeszów Social Security Board appealed against the first‑instance judgment.\n16.  On 17 March 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) amended the first-instance judgment and dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Social Security Board’s decisions. It held, among other things, that the Social Security Board based its decisions on evidence which did not constitute basis for the original decision granting the applicant the early retirement pension, namely medical documentation concerning the applicant’s daughter.\n17.  On 22 June 2004 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant’s lawyer.\n18.  Following ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7914", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Sombor.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 8 July 1998 the applicant, a practising lawyer, filed a civil claim with the Municipal Court in Novi Sad, seeking payment of fees from a private insurance company (“the respondent”) for the service rendered on account of a legal fee agreement concluded in 1995.\n8.  On 17 September 1998 the Municipal Court ordered that payment (izdao platni nalog). The respondent objected to this order.\n9.  On 27 September 2001, in the course of a hearing, the respondent filed a counter-claim, requesting the Municipal Court to declare the 1995 contract null and void.\n10.  On 16 September 2002 the Municipal Court decided to join the proceeding initiated by the claim and the counter-claim.\n11.  On 24 November 2003 the Municipal Court quashed the payment order of 17 September 1998, rejected the applicant’s claim, declared a part of the contract void and decided that the other part of the contract remained in force.\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against this judgment.\n13.  On 24 February 2005 the District Court in Novi Sad upheld this judgment on appeal.\n14.  On an unspecified date in April 2005, the applicant filed an appeal on points of law (revizija).\n15.  On 30 November 2006 the Supreme Court returned the file to the District Court, which had apparently failed to adjudicate a part of the applicant’s appeal.\n16.  On 25 April 2007 the District Court adopted a supplementary judgment (dopunska presuda), rejecting that part of the applicant’s appeal.\n17.  On 24 October 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law (odbacio reviziju kao nedozvoljenu), stating that the applicant was not entitled to lodge it, given that Article 84 of the Civil Procedure Act 2004 prescribes that an appeal on points of law may only be submitted by an attorney at law, not the plaintiff personally. The Supreme Court specified that, according to this Act, parties to the proceedings had lost the legal capacity to file an appeal on points of law individually, even if they were themselves attorneys at law.\n18.  The decision of 24 October 2007 was served on the applicant on 14 January 2008.\n19.  On 11 February 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court of Serbia.\n20.  On 13 May 2008 the Constitutional Court requested the applicant to specify his complaint.\n21.  On 6 June 2008 the applicant filed his amended constitutional appeal.\n22.  On 25 March 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as incomplete.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7916", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Liptovský Mikuláš.\n6.  The applicant is an enforcement officer. In the context of enforcement proceedings, he seized movable property of a company with a view to having it sold. Subsequently bankruptcy (insolvency) proceedings were brought against the debtor. The administrator in bankruptcy asked the applicant to transfer the property to him in accordance with the required legal procedure in such cases. The applicant stored some of the items at the premises of one of the creditors. The representatives of the latter decided to retain the property until the debtor discharged the debt. They later revoked that decision.\n7.  On 21 October 2003 the Liptovský Mikuláš District Court, on an application by the administrator, ordered the applicant to transfer the property to the administrator within fifteen days. It further ordered the applicant to pay his costs amounting to EUR 1,130.\n8.  On 14 April 2005 the Žilina Regional Court quashed the judgment. It held that the first-instance court had not duly examined whether the applicant had standing in the case as a defendant, given that the property in question was being retained by a third party.\n9.  A hearing was scheduled for 21 March 2006, but on 14 March 2006 the applicant asked the District Court for an adjournment “on account of his incapacity for work”.\n10.  On 21 March 2006 the District Court, after taking further evidence, again ordered the applicant to transfer the property to the administrator, with reference to sections 14 and 18 of the Bankruptcy Act 1991. He was further ordered to reimburse the administrator’s costs amounting to EUR 1,964. The District Court held that, under the relevant law, the property had been at the applicant’s disposal. The creditor company where the applicant had stored the property had no obligation towards the bankruptcy administration. In those circumstances, the applicant’s argument, that the creditor had availed itself of its right to retain the property, could not be upheld.\n11.  The judgment indicated that the applicant had not submitted any documentary evidence to prove that he had been unable to attend the hearing. The District Court had therefore proceeded with the case in his absence.\n12.  The applicant appealed. He indicated, among other things, that he had been bedridden and unable to submit relevant documentary evidence of his sick leave for the period 16 February to 2 May 2006. He enclosed a medical certificate drawn up on 17 February 2006 confirming his inability to work until 2 May 2006 because of an accident.\n13.  On 6 September 2007 the Žilina Regional Court upheld the first‑instance judgment. The decision on the claim in issue became final on 10 December 2007.\n14.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. Relying on Article 237(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, he argued that the first-instance court had not accepted his excuse and had proceeded with the case in his absence. He further argued, among other things, that he had no standing in the case as a defendant, and that the lower courts had applied the law incorrectly and had decided arbitrarily. In particular, the applicant maintained that he could not have been ordered to transfer the movable property to the administrator as it was not in his possession. The decision against the applicant was therefore unenforceable.\n15.  In addition, the applicant argued that the administrator also lacked standing to bring the claim, as the law d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7917", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Mielec.\n6.  The applicant is married and has three children. Prior to her early retirement she had been employed and had paid her social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 25 October 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her daughter’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor on 8 October 2001. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1992) suffered from chronic asthma and that she was in need of her parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 6 December 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early retirement pension.\n10.  The Social Security Board suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision.\n11.  On 30 June 2002 the applicant’s employment was dissolved by a mutual consent of the parties.\n12.  Consequently, on 29 July 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board decided to start payment of the retirement pension starting from 1 August 2002.\n13.  On 17 July 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board had asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent. The doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n14.  On 30 July 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board issued simultaneously two decisions in respect of the applicant.\n15.  By virtue of one decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect. It follows that the applicant was never paid the pension. By virtue of the other decision, the Social Security Board revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the 1989 Ordinance.\n16.  The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early-retirement pension. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n17.  On 29 December 2003 the Rzeszów Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n18.  The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n19.  On 2 June 2004 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s further appeal. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she had not satisfied the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n20.  A professional lawyer, who had been either hired by the applicant or appointed to represent her under a legal-aid scheme, prepared and lodged a cassation appeal against the second-instance judgment on the applicant’s behalf.\n21.  On 14 December 2004 the Supreme Court refused to examine the cass", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7918", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977. He is serving a life sentence in prison.\n6.  According to an extract from the register of convictions provided by the Government, the applicant had nine criminal convictions and one misdemeanour punishment on record. He was serving a life sentence on the basis of his conviction in 2001 for the murder of two people and attempted manslaughter of another person. Furthermore, he had several convictions for attacking prison officers and other prisoners. In addition, a large number of disciplinary punishments had been imposed on him in prison, including for disobeying orders of and threatening prison officers. In the individual action plans (kinnipeetava individuaalne täitmiskava) drawn up in Tartu Prison and in Viru Prison, the applicant was characterised as a dangerous person lacking in self-control and capable of physically attacking others.\n7.  On 3 July 2009 the applicant was informed by prison guard KA that he would be transferred to a punishment cell in the evening in order to serve a disciplinary punishment. The applicant was dissatisfied, as he had been led to understand that he would not have to serve the punishment in question until the resolution by the Chancellor of Justice (Õiguskantsler) of his complaint related to the matter. He said that he would not gather his belongings until he could clarify the situation with a security officer. KA told him that if he continued to object to going to the punishment cell, he would be taken there by force. The applicant replied that he would defend himself if unlawfully attacked.\n8.  At 5.45 p.m. KA, together with two further guards, MN and JT, went to the applicant’s cell. KA had a plastic shield and MN and JT wore flak jackets and helmets. KA moved towards the applicant, keeping the shield in front of him. MN and JT followed him.\n9.  According to the applicant, KA came up to him and pressed the shield into his chest while the two other guards added pressure from behind. The applicant tried to push back against the shield, while MN and JT tried to grab his hands. Then KA let the shield fall and tried to grab the applicant’s neck. The guards twisted his arms behind his back and ordered him to lie down on the floor. The applicant was brought down and KA pressed his neck so strongly that he lost his breath. According to the applicant, KA pinched his nose with his fingers, covered his mouth with his palm, pressed his knee into his neck and poked him in the eyes with two fingers. While on the floor, the applicant was handcuffed and kicked in the ribs so hard that he felt his left rib cracking. He was then raised up and escorted to the punishment cell. In the corridor the applicant lost his breath, cried that he could not breathe and asked for permission to straighten up but the guards pressed him down and continued on their way.\n10.  According to the prison guards, the applicant attempted to hit them and had a scuffle with KA, in the course of which the latter sustained minor injuries. They denied having kicked or strangled the applicant and submitted that he had subsequently threatened to kill them one by one.\n11.  In the punishment cell, two nurses came to examine the applicant. They suspected a broken rib and told him to lie still until an X-ray image was taken (for the medical evidence in the case, see paragraphs 21 to 27 below). A guard told them that a medical certificate was required to keep a mattress in the punishment cell around the clock. According ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7919", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Primošten.\n6.  On 31 March 2003 the Šibenik Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Šibeniku) indicted the applicant in the Šibenik Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Šibeniku) on charges of attempted grievous bodily harm.\n7.  The first hearing before the Šibenik Municipal Court was scheduled for 16 March 2006.\n8.  On the day of the hearing, the applicant informed the Šibenik Municipal Court that he was unable to appear at the hearing owing to a medical condition. He also submitted medical documentation in that regard.\n9.  Several witnesses also failed to attend the hearing and the applicant’s lawyer informed the trial court that she no longer represented the applicant. The hearing was adjourned and the next hearing was scheduled for 26 April 2006.\n10.  At the hearing of 26 April 2006 the applicant, who was not properly summoned, failed to appear. The president of the trial panel ordered that the applicant be summoned by a letter indicating that his defence lawyer no longer represented him and that he should either appoint another lawyer or the hearing would be held in the absence of a lawyer.\n11.  On 22 May 2006 the applicant informed the Šibenik Municipal Court that he was not able to appear for trial owing to his medical condition. He explained that he would be unavailable for a certain period of time because he was required to undergo medical treatment and promised to inform the court of the progress of that treatment. He therefore asked that the proceedings be stayed until he was able to appear at the hearings. The applicant also submitted back-up medical documentation.\n12.  At a hearing on 23 May 2006 the Deputy State Attorney asked the trial court to commission a medical report concerning the applicant’s capacity to take part in the proceedings given his state of health.\n13.  On 30 May 2006 a medical expert, M.D.G., submitted a report indicating that the applicant suffered from heart arrhythmia. She considered that he would not be able to take part in the hearings for a period of time which was hard to predict. She therefore suggested that the trial court re-examine his condition after a month.\n14.  On 11 August 2006 the Šibenik Municipal Court invited the applicant to submit medical documentation noting the progress of his treatment.\n15.  The applicant complied with the order and submitted the documentation on 16 August 2006. The Šibenik Municipal Court then commissioned another medical report.\n16.  On 13 September 2006 medical expert M.D.G. submitted a further report, indicating that the applicant’s state of health had not stabilised despite the medical treatment he had been receiving and that he could not appear at the hearings. She reiterated that it was not possible to predict the exact period of time in which he would not be able to take part in the proceedings and suggested that his condition be reassessed at appropriate intervals.\n17.  Another medical report was commissioned on 13 March 2007 from a forensic expert, a cardiologist and a psychiatrist.\n18.  On 15 April 2007 the medical experts, M.D.G., D.M. and D.B., submitted a joint report. They found that the applicant was not able to take part in the hearings and that a strong triggering factor, such as stress, could lead to a heart attack with a possibly fatal outcome.\n19.  On 23 April 2007 the Šibenik Municipal Court commissioned a further medical report from medical experts M.D.G., D.M. and D.B.\n2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7920", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Ms Gazal Dülek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul. She is represented before the Court by Ms G. Tuncer, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.\n5.  On 25 April 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation, namely the PKK[1].\n6.  On 26 April 2000 she was arrested for interrogation at the Anti‑Terrorism Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate (“the Anti-Terrorism Branch”). In her statement, taken in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant declared that she had worked as a secretary at a local branch of HADEP[2] for approximately five months and that she had been a member of the youth branch of HADEP since 1999. She also admitted that she was a member of the PKK, that on one occasion she had hidden a bomb in her house upon the request of another PKK member, that she had assisted in sending a number of persons to PKK camps in eastern Turkey and Iran and that she had acted as a messenger for some PKK members detained at the Ümraniye prison. The applicant duly signed her statement.\n7.  At 11.20 a.m. on 30 April 2000 the applicant was examined by a doctor, who stated that there were no traces of ill-treatment on her body.\n8.  Subsequently, on the same day, the applicant was brought before the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court, again in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant alleged that at the Anti-Terrorism Branch, she had been forced to sign a statement which had been prepared by the police officers and stated that she did not even know the content of the statement. When her police statement was read out to her, she denied any involvement in the activities mentioned therein, apart from her membership of the youth branch of HADEP and her work experience there.\n9.  On the same day, the applicant was further interrogated by a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, in the absence of a lawyer. She denied all the accusations against her, reiterating the statement she had made before the public prosecutor. At the end of the questioning, the judge ordered her pre-trial detention.\n10.  On 4 May 2000 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court against the applicant and four other persons, accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation under Article 168 (2) of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765).\n11.  On 7 August 2000 the Istanbul State Security Court, composed of three civilian judges, held its first hearing. The applicant made her defence statement at the fourth hearing held on 18 April 2001, and denied all the charges against her. The applicant also denied her police statement, alleging that she had been forced to sign it without knowing its content. At the end of the hearing the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s release.\n12.  On 3 September 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 169 of the former Criminal Code of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation. Accordingly it sentenced her to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. In convicting her, the State Security Court mainly relied on the applicant’s police statement, and the statements made by her co-defendants.\n13.  On 19 October 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court.\n14.  In the meantime, by Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on 30 June 2004, State Security Courts", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7921", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in Lovas.\n5.  The Veszprém County Administrative Office rejected the request of the applicant, a real-estate developer, for a building permit to construct a three-flat condominium. The Office was of the view that the project was irreconcilable with the planned location, the historical neighbourhood of Veszprém town.\n6.  On 21 June 2001 the applicant challenged this decision in court.\n7.  On 25 March 2003 the Veszprém County Regional Court quashed the administrative decision and remitted the case to the administrative authorities.\n8.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 2 March 2007 the applicant’s request was again dismissed.\n9.  On 18 April 2007 the applicant renewed its action.\n10.  On 31 October 2007 the Regional Court dismissed the action, holding that the administrative decisions had been given in compliance with the law.\n11.  On 25 February 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed, on the merits, the applicant’s petition for review (service: 14 April 2009).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7922", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Samsun.\n5.  On 14 July 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court issued an order in respect of the applicant, in absentia, for him to be arrested on suspicion of trafficking illegal drugs. He was living in the Netherlands at the time. A few days later, an Amsterdam public prosecutor filed an indictment, accusing him of importing and trafficking illegal drugs.\n6.  On 21 July 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court requested that the applicant be extradited from the Netherlands in order for criminal proceedings to be instigated against him for trafficking illegal drugs as part of a criminal organisation.\n7.  On 23 July 1999 the prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing the applicant of trafficking cocaine, pursuant to Article 403 of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765). Meanwhile, criminal proceedings were brought against other members of the criminal organisation, of which the applicant was also accused of being a member.\n8.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the Amsterdam Criminal Court found the applicant guilty as charged, and sentenced him to a fixed term of imprisonment.\n9.  After serving thirty-three months of his sentence in the Netherlands, on 19 January 2002 the applicant was released and deported to Turkey by the Dutch authorities. He was arrested and remanded in police custody upon arrival.\n10.  On 21 January 2002 the applicant was interrogated by the police at the Narcotics Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate, in the absence of a lawyer. According to a form explaining arrested persons’ rights, which the applicant signed, he was informed of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent. It was also noted on the form that the applicant had waived his right to legal assistance.\n11.  On the same day the applicant was again questioned by the police, without being asked whether he wanted legal assistance. In the absence of a lawyer, he admitted some of the allegations made against him.\n12.  Later the same day the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court, still in the absence of a lawyer.\n13.  On 22 January 2002 the applicant was taken before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who remanded him in custody. Again in the absence of a lawyer, the applicant denied the statements he had given to the police and maintained that he had been compelled to sign them without having read them.\n14.  On 23 January 2002 the public prosecutor filed another indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing the applicant of trafficking heroin as part of a criminal organisation, pursuant to Article 403 of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765).\n15.  In the meantime, the proceedings against the other members of the criminal organisation were concluded.\n16.  On 26 February 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court found the applicant guilty of trafficking cocaine and sentenced him to thirty-six years’ imprisonment. The court held that there was no need to consider the heroin charge. In convicting the applicant, it relied on his statements, the statements made by the other members of the criminal organisation, which had been taken during the proceedings against them, and forensics reports on the drugs that had been seized. The court deducted the thirty-three months the applicant had already served in the Netherlands from his t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7923", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970. He is currently detained in Mărgineni Prison.\n6.  On 22 November 2003 the applicant was detained pending trial on charges of aggravated murder and placed in Mărgineni Prison.\n7.  By a final judgment of 22 June 2007 the Dâmbovița County Court convicted him of aggravated murder and sentenced him to twenty-two years’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 27 July 2004 the applicant lodged his first application before the Court, namely application no. 31470/04, alleging that his rights under Article 3 of the Convention had been violated on account of, inter alia, the material conditions of his detention in Mărgineni Prison. He argued in particular that the cells were small and overcrowded; that the toilets were not separated from the cells, were uncovered and smelled badly because there was no running water; that he lacked sufficient physical exercise given that he was rarely taken out of his cell and allowed to walk in the small courtyard, which in any case smelled unpleasant; and that his food was inadequate and low in calories.\n9.  On 19 January 2009 the applicant’s complaint concerning the material conditions of detention was communicated to the Romanian Government and they were asked to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.\n10.  On 9 June 2009 the observations submitted by the Romanian Government were forwarded to the applicant and he was asked twice to submit observations in reply. However, he failed to submit any observations.\n11.  By a decision of 3 July 2012 the Court decided to strike application no. 31470/04 out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 1(a) of the Convention. The applicant did not ask for the aforementioned application to be restored to the Court’s list of cases.\n12.  According to the applicant, in Mărgineni Prison he had to sleep on metal beds with large holes in them. The cells lacked natural light and air, were squalid and damp, infested with lice and bed bugs, and there were no proper facilities for serving food. The sanitary facilities lacked air vents and running water and had no doors or mirrors, while the waste bins were made out of cut plastic containers.\n13.  The applicant attached to his letter several photographs allegedly taken by him in prison to support his allegations.\n14.  The applicant also contended that the food was poor and that he did not have access to adequate medical care.\n15.  The Government informed the Court that the applicant had been detained in Mărgineni Prison from 22 November 2003 to 26 April 2005, 18 to 21 July 2005, 10 August 2005 to 30 October 2007 and 2 November 2007 to the present date.\n16.  During his detention the applicant had stayed in several detention cells.\n17.  All the detention cells where the applicant had stayed had been connected to electricity, heating and water supplies. Each cell had a window measuring 0.92 metres long by 0.78 metres wide or 1.75 metres long by 1.25 metres wide, depending on the size of the cell and the number of occupants. The cells were aired manually by opening the available window. They had a separate area with sanitary and personal hygiene facilities, which could be accessed from the detention room directly. The sanitary facility area was fitted with an air vent.\n18.  The cells had individual beds and were adequately furnished for the detainees to be able to eat their meals and store their personal belongings. They were fitted with radiators connected to the prison’s own heating system, wh", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7925", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Cusco (Peru). At the material time he was living in Zurich.\n8.  On 6 April 1995 the applicant’s wife was found dead. The applicant who, according to the toxicological examinations that he subsequently underwent, was under the influence of alcohol and cocaine, had stabbed his wife 49 times. He had also cut off her head and thrown it out of the window of the flat where the incident had taken place.\n9.  At an unknown date the applicant was charged with his wife’s murder.\n10.  On 16 May 1995 the public prosecutor for the district of Zurich asked the psychiatric clinic of the University of Zurich (Psychiatrische Universitätsklinik Zürich) to carry out a psychiatric assessment of the applicant.\n11.  On 10 October 1995 Doctor R., a psychiatrist, issued his report. He found that the applicant had been suffering for several years from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and had a drug addiction. He took the view that the offence had been directly related to his illness and drug abuse. He concluded that at the material time the applicant had not been criminally responsible for his actions. In view of the serious danger he represented for public safety, Dr R. recommended his confinement.\n12.  On 31 May 1996 the District Court of Zurich found, having regard to the evidence before it, that the applicant had killed his wife and that he had been totally lacking in criminal responsibility for his actions at the material time. The court thus ordered his confinement within the meaning of Article 43 of the Criminal Code as then in force.\n13.  The applicant was placed in confinement from 29 August 1996 onwards at Pöschwies Prison in Regensdorf (Canton of Zurich).\n14.  His discharge was refused on 14 July 1997, 29 July 1998, 24 September 1999 and 17 August 2000.\n15.  On 7 June 2001, at the request of the Probation and Sentence-enforcement Service of the Canton of Zurich (Bewährungs- und Vollzugsdienste des Kantons Zürich), the applicant’s mental health was examined by a head doctor and an assistant doctor of the Cantonal Psychiatric Clinic of Rheinau (Kantonale Psychiatrische Klinik Rheinau), who drew up a second psychiatric report.\n16.  The expert psychiatrists observed that the applicant had not encountered any particular difficulties in the custodial facility where he had been held since 1997. In the prison he had successively worked as a bookbinder, in the dispensary, as a gardener and lastly as a cook. The experts took note of the fact that, according to a psychological report of 5 June 1998, the applicant had not displayed any awareness of his illness and no capacity for introspection. As regards his mental health, the experts concluded that he was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and that in the “not very stimulating” atmosphere of the prison, “the positive symptoms of the illness had become less noticeable”, even though he “still display[ed] a delirious interpretation of the details of his offence”. His situation had thus changed little since his psychiatric assessment in 1995. In view of the lack of treatment, the experts took the view that “no indication c[ould] be given as regards alternative arrangements for the enforcement of the measure or the possibility of discharge on probation”.\n17.  On 14 January 2002, 23 September 2002 and 21 August 2003, the Judicial Enforcements Office of the Canton of Zurich (Justizvollzug des Kantons Zurich) refused the applicant’s discharge on probation. The ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7926", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1927 and 1956 respectively and live in Cluj-Napoca. They are mother and daughter.\n5.  From 1960 they lived in an apartment rented from the State in a nationalised building. On 16 December 1996, under Law no. 112/1995, the first applicant and her husband bought that apartment from the State.\n6.  In a final decision of 3 August 1998 the Cluj-Napoca County Court allowed an action brought by the former owner against the State and noted that the latter had acquired ownership without any legal title.\n7.  Based on that decision, the former owner lodged several actions for annulment of the sale purchase contracts concluded under Law no. 112/1995 against persons who had bought apartments in the nationalised building in similar conditions, including the applicants.\n8.  In a judgment of 3 May 2001 the Cluj County Court annulled the sale purchase contract. During the proceedings the first applicant’s husband died. Therefore, the proceedings were continued by their daughter, the second applicant.\n9.  On 19 October 2001 the Cluj Court of Appeal rejected the applicants’ appeal. Therefore, they lodged an appeal on points of law before the High Court of Cassation and Justice.\n10.  On 29 September 2006 the High Court of Cassation and Justice remitted the trial of the appeal on points of law to the lower court, noting that the latter was competent in the matter.\n11.  In a final judgment of 19 April 2007 the Cluj Court of Appeal annulled the contract concluded on 16 December 1996. The court found that the nationalised building had been acquired unlawfully by the State, which therefore had no valid title deed over it.\n12.  In two judgments of 7 April and 19 April 2006 different panels of the same Court of Appeal dismissed the actions for annulment of contracts concluded under Law No. 112/1995, lodged by the former owner against other persons, neighbours with the applicants, who had bought apartments in the same nationalised building.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7927", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 27 April 1995 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on charges of fraud and forgery.\n6.  The bill of indictment was preferred on 9 October 2000, and the first hearing took place in 2003.\n7.  On 8 April 2010, after several hearings, the Pest Central District Court found the applicant guilty of the crimes he was charged with.\n8.  On the applicant’s appeal, the Budapest Regional Court acquitted him on 27 May 2011.\n9.  The judgment became final on 4 July 2011.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7928", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Šabac.\n5.  The applicant was employed by “Zorka -mineralna đubriva” AD, a socially/State-owned company based in Šabac (hereinafter – “the debtor”).\n6.  On 3 July 2003 the Šabac Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicant certain sums in respect of salary arrears and procedural costs. On the same date the judgment became final.\n7.  On 17 May 2007 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Šabac Municipal Court.\n8.  On 18 May 2007 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.\n9.  On 19 February 2008 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring.\n10.  On 2 March 2010 the applicant urged the court to continue the enforcement proceedings.\n11.  On 1 June 2010 the court informed the applicant that the debtor was still undergoing restructuring and that therefore the enforcement proceedings could not be continued.\n12.  On 10 July 2002 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the debtor as part of privatisation process. The restructuring of the debtor is still ongoing.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7929", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Galați.\n6.  The applicant is a civil servant and works for the Galaţi mayor’s office as head of the technical department. On 11 April 2008 an article was published in the local online newspaper Antidotul by the journalist I.G. The title of the article, printed in bold type, was “Two Slyboots from the Mayor’s Office Protect the Maxi-taxi Mafia in Galaţi”(Doi şmecheri din primărie protejează mafia maxi-taxi din Galaţi). A photograph of the applicant was shown under the title of the article with the following comment in bold type: “Suckers complain in vain to Jalbă” (La Jalbă, fraierii vin degeaba cu jalba-n proţap).\n7.  The article started by describing the applicant as the former head of the department of transport in the Galaţi mayor’s office, who was subsequently promoted to a higher-level post within the mayor’s office. The article went on to present what the journalist deemed to be “the facts”. Firstly, it stated that it was no coincidence that the son of the applicant’s successor as head of the department of transport in the Galaţi mayor’s office had been employed as a manager by company S., one of the larger private maxi-taxi transport providers operating in the area. It stated that this was an attempt “to ensure peace of mind on the road and a healthy profit” for the transport provider. Secondly, it stated that “it’s blatantly obvious that young Laurenţiu Jalbă is an old fox in a sneaky business. The dude owns cars that run on the maxi-taxi routes and bring in large sums of money for the private transport operator ACJGT”. The last part of the article depicted violence similar to the kind found in films portraying members of organised crime and went on to state that the local public transport department operated by the town council had made several attempts to improve transport services in the city but its requests for public transport licences – including transport licences for the routes covered by the maxi-taxis – had been rejected by “the mayor’s office when the applicant was employed there”, in spite of the scandal that ensued, “because this fellow, with his maxi-taxi business, is not interested in making the public transport services efficient, but rather in filling up his bank accounts without anyone holding him accountable”.\n8.  Since he considered the impugned article to be defamatory and to have subjected him to public contempt, thereby destroying his honour, dignity and professional reputation and interfering with his right to family life, the applicant lodged a general tort-law action against the journalist I.G. seeking 10,000 lei (RON) (approximately 2,800 euros (EUR)) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He argued that the journalist had published an insulting and slanderous article about him, accusing him of abuse of power without any proof and without properly examining the transport legislation in force at the time. He submitted evidence proving that neither he nor his family members owned any maxi-taxi business – nor were they associated with one – that no disciplinary or criminal action had been initiated against him for alleged acts of corruption, that the department of transport he was managing had not suffered any loss as a result of his actions, and that no third parties had lodged any complaints in relation to his conduct. In addition, he submitted that – under the transport legislation in force at the time – the 2005 contract for transport licences awarde", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7930", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in a prison in Baku.\n6.  The applicant was a founder of the private Borçalı Bank and of the Borçalı Association. He was also the chairman of the bank’s supervisory board.\n7.  On 19 April 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 213 of the Criminal Code (tax evasion) by the Ministry of Taxes in connection with the activities of the Borçalı Association.\n8.  The applicant responded to the investigator’s calls to testify as a witness within the framework of the above-mentioned criminal proceedings and participated in various investigative steps.\n9.  In particular, on 16 July 2004 the applicant was questioned by the investigator and on 20 July 2004 a confrontation was carried out between the applicant and another witness.\n10.  On 21 and 27 July 2004 the applicant was again requested to attend to assist with the investigation; however he failed to comply with the request.\n11.  On 18 and 26 August 2004 the applicant voluntarily appeared before the investigating authorities and two confrontations were conducted by the investigator between the applicant and two other persons.\n12.  In the beginning of September 2004, the investigator tried to contact the applicant, but he could not determine his whereabouts.\n13.  On 14 September 2004 the investigator ordered the applicant’s compulsory participation in the investigation.\n14.  On 28 September 2004 the applicant appeared before the investigating authority. On the same day the investigator in charge of the case informed the applicant that he was charged under Articles 178 (fraud), 179 (embezzlement) and 313 (forgery by an official) of the Criminal Code. The charges against the applicant were based on the results of a financial audit carried out in respect of the Borçalı Association, and on the statements of various persons with whom the applicant had business relationships within the framework of his activities at the Borçalı Bank and the Borçalı Association.\n15.  Again on the same day, the prosecutor requested the judge to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri) in respect of the applicant. The prosecutor gave as the reasons for requesting that measure the seriousness of the applicant’s alleged criminal acts and the possibility of his absconding from and obstructing the investigation.\n16.  At the hearing before the court, the applicant and his lawyer submitted that the applicant had never absconded from or obstructed the investigation. They also submitted that the applicant’s failure to comply with some of the requests to assist with the investigation had been due to his state of health, because he had been sick at the time.\n17.  On 28 September 2004 the judge, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody, ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of three months. The judge reasoned the necessity for this measure as follows:\n“Taking into account that Ismayilov Novruz Binnat oglu has committed a serious crime, the possibility of his absconding from the investigation and illegally influencing persons participating in the criminal proceedings, obstructing the normal functioning of the investigation by hiding or falsification of the items necessary for the prosecution, and that there are sufficient grounds [that he might] fail to comply with calls to att", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7931", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in the town of Tolyatti, Samara Region.\n6.  On 26 October 2003 police officers from the Inza District Police Department arrested the applicant. He was accused of having broken into a flat and having stolen personal belongings the estimated cost of which was 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB), (approximately 550 euros (EUR). He was remanded in custody at the Inza Town police station (“the police ward”).\n7.  Three days later, a prosecutor authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention and charged him with theft. He was transferred to Inza temporary detention facility IZ-73/3.\n8.  On 24 December 2003 a deputy prosecutor of the Inza District served the applicant with a bill of indictment. The applicant was committed to stand trial before the Inza District Court.\n9.  On 13 January 2004 the District Court held the first trial hearing, and on 19 January 2004 it found the applicant guilty of aggravated theft and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. On 24 March 2004 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n10.  In addition to his first period of detention in the police ward following his arrest, the applicant was taken to the ward on twenty-two occasions during the pre-trial investigation and court proceedings.\n11.  The applicant provided the following description of the conditions of his detention in the ward. He was usually detained in a cell containing two wooden bunk beds and accommodating up to ten detainees. Inmates had had to take turns to rest owing to the shortage of sleeping places. No bedding was provided. The cell did not have a window in the proper sense of that word – a small window was covered with a metal sheet, blocking access to natural light and air. In the absence of any artificial ventilation in the cell, it was hard to breathe owing to the thick smoke and the humidity. The cell was lit by a small bulb inserted in a recess in the concrete wall above the door. Thick metal bars separated the bulb from the cell. According to the applicant, there was no furniture, wash-bowl or lavatory pan in the cell. Once a day, in the morning, inmates were taken to a public lavatory outside the police station. For the rest of the day, they had to use a bucket as a lavatory pan. They were allowed to clean the bucket once a day, in the morning. The foul smell permeated the cell, as the bucket had no cover. The police station did not have a recreation yard and inmates were therefore confined to their cells day and night. Food was provided once a day. The daily food ration consisted of half a bowl of cabbage soup and a piece of bread. In addition, inmates were given tea, which they drank from containers cut from plastic bottles. Medical assistance was unavailable.\n12.  The Government submitted that in the period after his arrest and until 4 February 2004, the applicant had been taken back to the police ward twenty-two times. He had usually been taken from the detention facility IZ-73/3 to the ward early in the morning and had been returned to facility IZ-73/3 in the evening, only to be sent back to the police ward in the following morning or several days later. The Government observed that he had spent ten days in the police ward during the pre-trial investigation: five days while attending the court hearings, four days while he was re-acquainting himself with the case-file materials, and an additional three days while he was studying the court records. The Government acknowledged th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7932", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Narva.\n6.  The applicant is an entrepreneur; he was also a member of the Narva City Council and chairman of its financial committee at the material time.\n7.  On 27 October 2010 a criminal investigation was initiated into influence peddling in the municipalities of Ida-Viru County.\n8.  On 12 July 2011 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of prejudicing free competition, influence peddling, demanding bribes and money laundering.\n9.  On 13 July 2011 he was presented with a statement outlining the suspicion and was questioned as a suspect. The suspicion was set out over eight pages and contained a detailed factual description and legal classification of the offences the applicant was suspected of having committed. For example, it included descriptions of a number of agreements concluded on specific dates in connection with public tenders and the persons involved in the unlawful practices were named and specific sums of money were mentioned. Furthermore, several persons in respect of whom the applicant had exerted his influence and from whom he had unlawfully demanded specific sums of money were named in it. However, no mention was made of the evidence on which the suspicion was based.\n10.  Also on 13 July 2011, the prosecutor asked the Viru County Court to issue a detention order concerning the applicant. In the request, firstly, a summary of the suspicions against the applicant was set out. It was further submitted that the materials of the criminal case presented to the court (statements of witnesses and other suspects, copies of contracts, procurement documents, bank account statements, inspection reports and surveillance reports) provided grounds for the assertion that the applicant was very probably linked to the acts of which he was suspected. Furthermore, it was noted that, although the applicant had no prior convictions, he was suspected of the commission of crimes falling under four different Articles of the Penal Code (Karistusseadustik), committed over an extended period of time. The bringing of further charges against the applicant could not be excluded since there were hints of other similar episodes. The prosecutor noted that, considering the nature of the crimes the applicant was suspected of (including offences relating to a breach of the duty to maintain integrity), and having regard to his active and leading role in them, there was a reasonable suspicion that, if at liberty, he could compromise the ongoing investigation by tampering with the evidence or exerting pressure on witnesses or other suspects. In the course of the investigation several witnesses (including municipal officials) had repeatedly testified that the applicant had influenced them to take decisions in his favour by threatening them with trouble or loss of employment. There was further information and evidence indicating that the applicant was a wealthy and influential person who was capable of carrying out these threats and affecting processes in the city. It was also mentioned that several of the acts suggested ongoing corrupt behaviour on his part despite the detention of a number of his accomplices. The prosecutor considered that there was a real risk that, if at liberty, the applicant would contact other persons with a view to hindering the investigation and influence the municipal officials, entrepreneurs and other witnesses who had so far given statements against him and his accomplices. Exerting in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7933", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Baku.\n6.  The applicant was a journalist and the editor-in-chief of the Azadliq newspaper.\n7.  On 7 November 2007 when the applicant was in front of the entrance of a publishing house in Baku, he had a verbal altercation with a woman (S.Q.) who accused him of having “abused” her. At that moment a man (V.H.) who was an acquaintance of S.Q. approached them and intervened in the quarrel. Following V.H.’s intervention, the initial verbal altercation turned into a physical altercation between the applicant and V.H., which was stopped after other people intervened.\n8.  On the same day the applicant informed the media of the incident, stating that he had been attacked because of his activities as a journalist and that he had been set up.\n9.  On 7 November 2007 V.H. lodged a complaint with the Yasamal District Police Office alleging that he had been beaten and insulted in front of the publishing house by a man he did not know. In his statement to the police, V.H. stated that on 7 November 2007 he took S.Q. to the publishing house by car. On their arrival, he parked the car in front of the publishing house. S.Q. crossed the street first and he followed her. At that moment he realised that a man was insulting S.Q. and that a verbal altercation occurred between them. He immediately approached the man, asking him in a normal way why he had insulted S.Q., but the man in question began to insult him. When he replied, the man physically assaulted him by first slapping him, then headbutting and punching him. They were separated by bystanders.\n10.  S.Q., who was questioned on the same day by the investigator, confirmed V.H.’s statement. In particular, she stated that on 7 November 2007, while she was on the street in front of the publishing house, a man complimented her on her looks. She rebutted his compliment, saying that “she [was] not his type” and the man began to “abuse” her by calling her a prostitute. At that moment a verbal altercation occurred between her and the man. V.H was nearby and approached the man, asking him why he had insulted her. The man also began to insult V.H., and the verbal altercation turned into a physical altercation between V.H. and the man. He first slapped V.H. and then headbutted and punched him.\n11.  On 7 November 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted by the Yasamal District Police Office in connection with above-mentioned incident under Article 221.1 (hooliganism) of the Criminal Code.\n12.  On 8 November 2007 V.H. informed the police that he could identify the man with whom he had been involved in the physical altercation on 7 November 2007. V.H. said that it was the applicant and that he could identify him, having seen the applicant’s photo in the Yeni Musavat newspaper.\n13.  On the same day the investigator in charge of the case contacted the applicant, asking him to come to the police office. The applicant informed him that he was not currently in Baku, but that he would come to the police office present himself on 10 November 2007.\n14.  On 9 November 2007 S.Q. and V.H. were examined by a forensic expert. In respect of S.Q., the expert concluded that there were no signs of injury on her body. As regards V.H., the expert noticed that there were bruises and injuries to his nose, left ear and upper lip. The expert also observed an incomplete fracture of V.H.’s right cheekbone, noting that he had suffered a head injury. Lastly, the expert concluded that the injuries w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7934", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in Vladikavkaz.\n6.  The applicants are former policemen. They were all involved in the conflict-resolution and peace-keeping operation in the zone of the armed Ossetian-Ingush conflict in October and November 1992. As a consequence they were entitled to certain social payments.\n7.  The applicants sued the Severnaya Osetiya-Alaniya Regional Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (hereafter “the regional internal-affairs department”) for social-payments arrears. On various dates in 2001 or 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz allowed their claims and ordered that the regional internal-affairs department pay the arrears. The dates of the judgments and the amounts of the awards are listed in the Annex.\n8.  The applicants submitted the writs of execution to the Ministry of Finance. However the Ministry returned the writs of execution on the ground of lack of funds to pay the judgment debts.\n9.  The judgments in favour of all the applicants were eventually enforced between September 2004 and April 2005. The dates of payment in respect of each applicant are listed in the Annex.\n10.  All the applicants except Mr Varziev sued the regional internal-affairs department for pecuniary damage incurred through the belated enforcement of the judgments in their favour. On various dates in 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz acknowledged that the delays in enforcement had violated the applicants’ rights and awarded each of them a sum to cover inflation losses sustained as a result. The awards were paid on various dates in 2005. One of the applicants, Mr Tsallagov, did not submit the writ of execution to the Ministry of Finance and did not therefore receive his award.\n11.  On 15 September 2003 the applicants notified the Vladikavkaz Town Administration of their intention to hold a demonstration in Svoboda Square in Vladikavkaz to protest against the regional internal-affairs department’s failure to settle the social-payments debt. The demonstration was scheduled to start on 30 September 2003 and was announced as being of unlimited duration.\n12.  On 24 September 2003 the Town Administration refused to approve the venue and suggested that the demonstration be held in front of the Tkhapsayev theatre.\n13.  On 30 September 2003 the applicants began their demonstration in Svoboda Square in front of the Severnaya Osetiya-Alaniya Regional Government building. About one hundred people participated in it. They put up tents and remained in the square day and night. They displayed placards and banners stating their criticisms and demands.\n14.  On 3 October 2003 the Vladikavkaz Town Legislature annulled the decision of 24 September 2003 at the request of the regional internal-affairs department “in connection with a risk of terrorist acts in the places of mass gatherings of people”. It asked the regional internal-affairs department to take measures to break up the demonstration and restore public order in Svoboda square.\n15.  On 11 October 2003 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladikavkaz declared the demonstration unlawful because it violated the rights of others. The court found that it hampered citizens’ access to public transport and to the cinema and officials’ access to the administrative buildings situated in Svoboda Square. The chanting of slogans by the applicants also disturbed the officials’ work. Moreover, the regional internal-affairs department had information about an expected outbreak of terrorist ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7935", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is serving a prison sentence in the Adygeya Republic, Russia.\n6.  It appears that the applicant was arrested on 23 or 24 March 2004. A court found him guilty of disorderly behaviour and sentenced him to administrative detention for fifteen days. According to the applicant, he was not provided with a copy of that order and therefore could not appeal against it. It appears that he served his sentence in the police station in a cell assigned to people convicted in administrative offence proceedings.\n7.  On 7 or 9 April 2004 the applicant was remanded in custody in relation to criminal proceedings (see paragraph 49 below). He was placed in Mayskiy Temporary Detention Centre (hereinafter “TDC”) attached to Mayskiy police station in the town of Mayskiy in the Kabardino-Balkariya Republic.\n8.  On 16 April 2004 the applicant was transferred to a remand centre in Nalchik, but was transferred back to the TDC every month for the following periods: 27 to 30 April; 11 to 21 May; 25 to 29 June; 2 to 6 July; 9 to 23 July; 3 to 6 August; 24 to 31 August; 3 to 7 September; 14 to 21 September; and 28 September to 1 October. According to the applicant, he spent a total 112 days in the TDC in 2004. He also spent unspecified periods of time there in 2005. According to him, they amounted to some fifty days in total.\n9.  The TDC cells in which he was detained measured no more than 8 sq.m, and were designed to hold up to four detainees; however, at times they housed up to seven. When the cells were overcrowded, the applicant did not have his own individual bed and had to take turns sharing with his cellmates or sleeping on the floor. No bedding was provided. As the cells had no toilet, detainees had to relieve themselves in a large pot, which produced a disgusting smell in the cells. In addition, the cells were usually filled with smoke because the majority of detainees smoked. There was no functioning ventilation in the cells. The cells had no sink or washbasin, and no facilities were provided for maintaining personal hygiene or for washing clothes. The TDC had no shower facilities. On many occasions, the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to have a shower, as often his transfer to the TDC coincided with the remand centre’s bath days. There was no table or seating in the cells, no artificial lighting and limited access to natural light, which meant the applicant was unable to read in his cell and to prepare for hearings.\n10.  The applicant spent the majority of his time in the cell, since in the TDC no facilities were available for outdoor exercise. He was fed once a day, but the quality of the food (normally a piece of bread and porridge) was poor and the amount small. The TDC had no canteen or catering facilities. No provision was made for the supply of drinking water to detainees.\n11.  In April 2005 the applicant was held in a cell with a detainee who allegedly suffered from acute tuberculosis.\n12.  From 24 March 2004 to an unspecified date the applicant was held in Mayskiy police station, in a cell assigned to people convicted of administrative offences.\n13.  From 7 to 16 April 2004 he was detained in Mayskiy Temporary Detention Centre in relation to criminal proceedings and for various other periods in 2004 and 2005. The Government provided the Court with copies of registers containing a daily record of the number of detainees held in each of four cells (measuring between 5.5 and 7 sq.m each) over 161 days.\n1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7936", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and is currently serving a prison sentence. Since his sentence began, he has been imprisoned in a number of prisons in Romania.\n6.  On 22 January 2007 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of murder.\n7.  On 10 July 2007 the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to seventeen years and six months’ imprisonment.\n8.  According to the information provided by the National Prisons Administration (Administraţia Naţională a Penitenciarelor, the “ANP”), from his arrest to January 2012 the applicant was mainly held in Târgu Jiu, Craiova, Giurgiu, Gherla and Arad Prisons. Every two or three months he spent about a week in a prison hospital, in one of Jilava, Colibaşi or Dej Prisons.\nDuring the reporting period, the applicant was transferred forty-seven times between these eight facilities; fifteen of these transfers were to the psychiatric wards of prison hospitals.\n9.  The applicant alleged that in all of the prisons in which he had been held other inmates had tried to poison his food and to beat him to death, and had been encouraged to do so or even helped by the prison authorities.\n10.  On 14 March 2007, while in detention, the applicant was diagnosed with delusional disorder, a type of psychosis. Psychiatric treatment in Jilava Prison Hospital was recommended.\n11.  According to the official prison records, each time the applicant was admitted to a prison hospital the diagnosis was confirmed. From 2007 to March 2010, each time he was discharged from prison hospital he was prescribed medication for his psychiatric disorder. It is mentioned in the official prison records that he refused to accept the diagnosis and to take his medication. For this reason, he was on each occasion discharged from hospital and transferred back to prison.\n12.  From March to July 2010 the applicant spent two periods of two weeks and one period of one week in Jilava Prison Hospital. He was discharged from hospital each time, it being considered that no medication was needed for his psychiatric condition. Following a further period of admission to Colibaşi Prison Hospital in September 2010, he was given medication again.\n13.  On several occasions the applicant reported to the authorities that the other inmates were trying to poison him. According to him, instead of receiving an answer to his complaints, he was transferred each time to a psychiatric hospital. He also asked to be placed in a cell alone, in order to prevent other attempts at poisoning him.\n14.  According to the information provided by the ANP, the quality of food was tested daily, and water quality was tested periodically. The results were satisfactory. The applicant was never admitted to the infirmary with symptoms of poisoning.\n15.  In 2009, in Craiova Prison, he was transferred, at his request, to the maximum security wing of that prison, where he shared a room with two others. While he was there, the applicant nevertheless chose to sleep in a small bathtub (measuring 80 cm by 80 cm) in the unheated bathroom from November 2009 to February 2010, as he feared that his cellmates were trying to poison him while he was asleep.\n16.  The applicant lodged criminal complaints against the prison guards, the doctor and the governor of Craiova Prison, whom he accused of improper behaviour. On 10 March 2010, 31 March 2010 and 8 July 2011 the Prosecutor’s Office decided not to bring a criminal prosecution. It noted that there was no evidence that priso", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7937", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  On 8 April 2002 the Ministry of the Interior notified the division of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice responsible for handling organised crime and drug trafficking cases (“the Prosecutor’s Office”) that the applicant, T.T., S.M. and S.I. were believed to be selling ecstasy that had been brought into the country from Israel.\n7.  On the same day, a prosecutor authorised the tapping of the telephone of those involved and assigned undercover agents to the operation. The applicant’s telephone was apparently not tapped.\n8.  A police informant facilitated contact between T.T. and L.G., on the one hand, and the undercover agents pretending to be potential buyers, on the other hand. On 10 April 2002 the police and prosecutor apprehended T.T. and L.G. while they were trying to sell 5,000 tablets of ecstasy to the undercover agents. Arrested and questioned on the same date, allegedly without the presence of a lawyer, they confessed that they had taken part in drug trafficking. In addition, T.T. made incriminating statements about the applicant.\n9.  Again on 10 April 2002, the police broke into the applicant’s apartment, in his absence, and searched for drugs. When the applicant and his wife returned home, the police officers, who did not identify themselves, admitted that they did not have a warrant for the search. They then conducted searches of the applicant and his car, but no illegal substances were found.\n10.  In the same evening of 10 April 2002, at the end of the search, the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of trafficking in dangerous drugs, a crime prohibited by Law no. 143/2000 on the fight against drug trafficking and illegal drug use (“Law no. 143”).\n11.  On 11 April 2002 the Prosecutor’s Office decided to keep the applicant in custody for five days.\n12.  On 15 April 2002 the police informant gave statements, detailed by the prosecutor in a report. The informant reported that in March 2002 the applicant had offered to sell him 12,000 tablets of ecstasy brought into the country from Israel. The drugs were allegedly intended to be held in the applicant’s home, following the latter’s receipt of the tablets from L.G. The three suspects were reported to have already sold 5,000 of the 12,000 tablets.\n13.  Based on that report, the prosecutor decided, on 15 April 2002, to start criminal proceedings against the applicant (începerea urmăririi penale) and ordered that he be placed in pre-trial detention for twenty-five days. The applicant was released pending trial on 5 July 2003 by the Bucharest County Court.\n14.  On 15 May 2002 the applicant, T.T. and L.G. were committed for trial on charges of drug trafficking. The prosecutor based the charges on the initial confessions made by T.T. and L.G., the reports by the undercover agents and the informant, witness statements, and transcripts of telephone conversations between the suspects, one of them allegedly taking place on 10 April 2002 between the applicant and T.T. They both denied that the conversation had been about drugs.\n15.  The case was examined by the Bucharest County Court. T.T. and L.G. retracted their confessions and asked the court not to take them into account, as they had been without legal representation at that time. The applicant denied any participation in drug trafficking.\n16.  A witness, D.C., who had temporarily shared the same prison cell with the defendants, declared ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7938", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Riga.\n6.  The Department for the Combat of Organised Crime (Organizētās noziedzības apkarošanas pārvalde) received information regarding the applicant’s alleged involvement in the sale of drugs. The department initiated a covert investigative measure, namely a test purchase of drugs. This measure was carried out on 24 and 26 March 2004.\n7.  After the test purchase on 26 March 2004 a police patrol unit working with officers from the Department for the Combat of Organised Crime stopped a vehicle being driven by S.I. in which the applicant was a passenger, at about 10 p.m. near Riga city centre. The applicant was apprehended and taken to State Police premises.\n8.  The applicant submitted that he had been repeatedly hit on the head, hit several times on the back, knocked down on to the pavement and pushed, which had resulted in bodily injuries. He had not offered any resistance.\n9.  In the Government’s version of events V.V., a police officer, opened the front passenger door and pulled the applicant out of the vehicle by his clothing. The applicant fell on to the edge of the pavement. He was then placed face down on the pavement and handcuffed.\n10.  The Government noted that while on State Police premises the applicant had complained of chest pain, saying he had heart disease.\n11.  At around 1.30 a.m. the applicant was transported from the premises of the State Police by the emergency medical service to the hospital. Head of the emergency medical service unit made an entry in form no. 573, as follows: “Abdominal contusion (sasitums). Acute gastritis? Facial contusion with skin abrasions (nobrāzumi).”\n12.  The applicant was admitted to Riga no. 1 Hospital at 1.33 a.m. The applicant’s medical record indicated the following diagnosis on admission: “Head, thorax and abdominal contusion.”\n13.  The entry made following the applicant’s examination by a surgeon at 1.35 a.m. indicated the same diagnosis and the applicant’s complaint: “The patient was beaten up during the arrest approximately one and a half hours ago.”\n14.  Further, at 2.20 a.m. a neurosurgeon recorded that the applicant had an eyelid haematoma around his left eye. The doctor also noted that the applicant had said that during his arrest he had fallen and hit his head in the area of the right eyebrow.\n15.  At 2.55 a.m. the applicant was referred to be tested for narcotic and psychotropic substances. The applicant was found not to be under the influence of alcohol, narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.\n16.  On the same day, between 4.35 a.m. and 5.00 a.m., I.K., a chief specialist from the Department for the Combat of Organised Crime questioned the applicant as a suspect. The applicant indicated that he wished to make a statement in the presence of a lawyer.\n17.  At 5.51 a.m. the applicant was transferred to a temporary detention facility, where he stayed until 30 March 2004, during which time he did not seek any medical assistance.\n18.  On 29 March 2004 between 1.30 p.m. and 1.55 p.m. I.K. questioned the applicant in the presence of a lawyer. The applicant made a statement, the record of the relevant part of which is as follows:\n“... While being arrested on 26 March 2004 [the applicant] was pulled out of the vehicle, a jacket was pulled over [his] head and [he] was pushed on to the ground. [He] then received one to three blows to the head and one blow to the abdomen. [The applicant] does not recall the precise number of blows he rec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7940", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Laszlo Kilyen, was born in 1972 and lives in Murgeşti.\n6.  On 10 May 2003 police officers T.M. and L.C.V. were carrying out an investigation into the theft of two cars in the village of Murgeşti. The applicant, who lived alone in a house with a yard, was away from home on a trip abroad. On the same day at around 4 p.m., the two officers entered the applicant’s yard by breaking the main gate which had a closing system made by the applicant from metal wires. The officers took note of the chassis series of two cars found in the applicant’s shed. They also looked in several boxes which contained spare parts for cars.\n7.  After a certain period of time, the applicant’s neighbour, K.M., entered the yard and questioned the two officers about the reason for their presence there. T.M. and L.C.V. disclosed their identities and informed K.M. that they were carrying out an investigation into the theft of two cars. Before leaving the yard, the officers informed K.M. that the two cars found in the applicant’s shed were not the ones reported stolen and left him a summons ordering the applicant to report to the police station as soon as possible.\n8.  On 15 May 2003, upon his return home, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office of the Mureş County Court against the two police officers for the crime of trespassing under Article 192 of the Criminal Code. He alleged that the officers had entered his yard in his absence and without his consent. He also sought civil damages from the two alleged perpetrators.\n9.  In his statement given before the prosecutor on 1 July 2003, the applicant mentioned that he was a car mechanic and that he often travelled to Hungary to buy spare parts. He alleged that he felt harassed by local police officers working in the Car Theft Department who, on several occasions, had entered his yard in his absence in order to check whether he was hiding stolen cars. The applicant also alleged that, although the police never found stolen cars in his possession, the frequent police checks gave him a reputation in the village of being a car thief.\n10.  The two officers declared before the prosecutor that they had found K.M. in the applicant’s yard and had entered believing that he was the owner and assuming that they had his permission.\n11.  On 8 July 2003 the Prosecutor’s Office of the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal decided to discontinue the proceedings against T.M. and L.C.V. The prosecutor investigating the case noted that the two officers had entered the applicant’s yard in his absence and without his permission. However, when K.M. had arrived at the scene, they had immediately disclosed their identities. Moreover, they had been on duty and had only noted the chassis series of the applicant’s cars. The prosecutor therefore concluded that the officers had had no intention of committing a crime. On 29 October 2003 a complaint by the applicant against this decision was rejected by the superior Prosecutor from the Prosecutor’s Office of the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal.\n12.  On 27 January 2004 the applicant appealed against the prosecutors’ decisions before the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal. He alleged that the two officers had illegally entered his home in his absence, without his consent and without a search warrant. He also complained that his rights as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention had been breached by the unlawful search carried out by the two police officers.\n13.  The Court of Appeal r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7942", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant arrived in Belgium in the summer of 2007. On 30 July 2007, when she was eight months pregnant, she lodged an application for asylum in which she stated that she had fled her country after the family of the child’s father, M.A., in whose home she had lived since the age of eleven, had tried to put pressure on her to have an abortion.\n8.  Because the applicant was a minor, a guardian was appointed. The guardianship ended when the applicant reached full age, on 26 December 2007.\n9.  After the applicant’s fingerprints had been recorded in the EURODAC system, the Aliens Office observed that she had already lodged an asylum application in Malta on 29 June 2007.\n10.  On 3 August 2007 the Aliens Office requested the Maltese authorities to take charge of the applicant’s asylum application under Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (“the Dublin II Regulation”). On 17 September 2007 the Maltese authorities accepted the request.\n11. The applicant nevertheless remained in Belgium on account of the request for leave to remain which she had lodged and the ensuing proceedings (see paragraphs 33 et seq. below).\n12.  Subsequently, owing to the imminent birth of the applicant’s second child (see paragraph 20 below), the Aliens Office decided in early 2009 to examine her asylum application itself. A first interview was held, after which the file was sent to the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons (“the Commissioner General”).\n13.  On 25 May 2010 the Commissioner General rejected the asylum application because of inconsistencies in the applicant’s account. Among other factors, the Commissioner General observed that the applicant had claimed not to have applied for asylum in another country. She had also been unable to explain how she had travelled to Belgium and did not know how much time she had spent in Malta or the exact identity of the persons she had lived with in Nigeria.\n14.  The applicant appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board. In judgment no. 49.384 of 12 October 2010, the Board upheld the Commissioner General’s decision on the grounds that no credence could be lent to the applicant’s alleged fear of pursuit or to the existence of a real risk of serious harm.\n15.  No administrative appeal on points of law was lodged with the Conseil d’État against that judgment.\n16.  On 1 August 2007, in the course of an antenatal examination, the applicant was diagnosed as HIV positive with a serious immune system deficiency requiring antiretroviral (“ARV”) treatment.\n17.  The applicant gave birth to her first child on 5 September 2007. The infant was given treatment to prevent HIV infection.\n18.  In October 2007 a course of ARV treatment (a combination of Kalestra and Combivir) was started at St Pierre University Hospital in Brussels (“the University Hospital”).\n19.  During 2008 the applicant attended a semi-residential facility and was monitored by the not-for-profit association Lhiving, which specialises in providing psychosocial assistance to underprivileged persons living with HIV and to their children.\n20.   On 27 April 2009 the applicant gave birth to a second child by the same father, M.A.\n21.  On 14 July 2010 the University Hospital, at the request of the Aliens Office, issued a medical certificate which stated that the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7943", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1989 and 1954 respectively and live in Kazan.\n7.  On 9 June 2009 the first applicant was arrested in connection with a drug-related offence, and on 10 June 2009 he was detained in custody.\n8.  On 29 July 2009 a forensic psychiatric examination found that the first applicant was suffering from schizophrenia requiring compulsory psychiatric treatment.\n9.  On 3 August 2009 the Sovetskiy District Court of Kazan (“the District Court”) extended the first applicant’s detention until 9 September 2009.\n10.  On 28 August 2009 the District Court further extended the first applicant’s detention until 9 October 2009. On 8 September 2009 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan (“the Supreme Court”) upheld the above extension order on appeal.\n11.  On 15 December 2009 the District Court relieved the first applicant of criminal responsibility, finding that he was mentally incapacitated. The District Court ordered the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature to the applicant and his admission to a general psychiatric hospital (психиатрический стационар общего типа). The District Court further decided that he should remain in custody until the entering into force of its decision and his admission to the psychiatric hospital.\n12.  On 19 January 2010 the first applicant was admitted to V.M. Bekhterev Republican Clinical Psychiatric Hospital (Республиканская клиническая психиатрическая больница им. Бехтерева – hereinafter “V.M. Bekhterev Psychiatric Hospital”).\n13.  After attempting to escape from the hospital on 21 April 2010, he was held for a week, until 28 April 2010, in a ward measuring approximately 5 sq. m, with no windows, no ventilation, around-the-clock artificial lighting, and a bucket instead of a lavatory pan, emptied twice every twenty-four hours.\n14.  On 21 May 2010 the administration of V.M. Bekhterev Psychiatric Hospital submitted a request for the first applicant to be transferred to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision (психиатрический стационар специализированного типа с интенсивным наблюдением). The request was supported by a report of the same date drawn up following an examination of the first applicant by a panel of three of the hospital’s psychiatrists. The report read as follows:\n“... [The first applicant] suffers from a chronic psychiatric disorder in the form of pseudo-psychotic schizophrenia aggravated by multiple drug addiction. While under compulsory psychiatric treatment, [the latter] systematically breaches hospital rules, surrounds himself with antisocial patients, sets them against hospital personnel, disrupts the work of the department, [and] refuses treatment. [The first applicant] escaped from hospital and incites other patients to do so; [he] smuggles in prohibited items, including [those for] cutting. In view of the foregoing, the panel considers it necessary to recommend changing the form of compulsory medical treatment in respect of the [first applicant] from compulsory treatment in a general psychiatric hospital to [treatment in] a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision.”\n15.  Basing its decision on the report prepared by the hospital’s psychiatrists, on 4 June 2010 the District Court granted the hospital’s request. The first applicant was not taken to the hearing. His legal guardian (the second applicant) and his lawyer were not informed of the hearing.\n16.  On 16 June 2010 the first applicant was transferred to Kazan", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7944", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed section of Ljubljana prison in the period between 28 May 2009 and 27 February 2010. From 28 May 2009 to 23 September 2009 he was held in cell 2 (third floor), which measured 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained 5 sleeping places. From 23 September 2009 to 22 January 2010 and from 28 January 2010 to 27 February 2010 he was held in cell 129 (second floor), which measured 8.8 square metres (including a separate 1.3 square metre sanitary facility) and contained two sleeping places. From 22 January 2010 to 28 January 2010 he was held in cell 121 (second floor), which measured 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained six sleeping places. According to the applicant, five prisoners were being held in each of the cells during his detention. The Government submitted that in cell 2 the numbers varied between four and five, in cell 129 the applicant was held alone and in cell 121 three prisoners were held.\n7.  During his imprisonment the applicant had three consultations with a general practitioner and one dental appointment. He did not ask for psychological or psychiatric treatment.\n8.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells, material conditions inside the cells, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011.\n9.  As to the out-of-cell time in the closed section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (Štrucl and Others § 86).\n10.  From 26 October 2009 to 13 January 2010 the applicant was placed under a stricter regime as he had physically attacked another prisoner. During that time he could spend two hours per day outside his room during recreation time, he had two hours for visits per week and telephone contacts twice a week. He was not allowed to use a multipurpose hall and he received his meals in his cell.\n11.  As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5- 5.30 p.m.) in the second half of July and August 2009 had been approximately 28oC, exceeding 30oC on seven days.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7945", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Zagreb.\n6.  On 3 May 1999, at around 8.00 p.m., J.N. lodged a criminal complaint with the Zagreb Police Department (Policijska uprava Zagrebačka – “the police”) alleging that during the previous night the applicant had raped her. He had offered to drive her home from bar A., where she worked, but had then driven into the nearby woods and raped her in his car. She had then asked him to drive her to a night-club, “S.”, where he had dropped her off and left.\n7.  The applicant was arrested on the same evening and J.N. identified him as her rapist.\n8.  During the night of 4 May 1999 J.N. was examined by a doctor who found no injuries on her body or genitals. The applicant was also taken to a doctor and the doctor found abrasions on his right upper arm and elbow and his right knee.\n9.  On 4 May 1999 the applicant was questioned by an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu). He admitted to having had sexual intercourse with J.N. in his car but argued that it had been consensual. He contended that the abrasions on his right arm and leg were the result of friction during the intercourse. After the questioning the applicant was released.\n10.  On 31 May and 17 June 1999 J.N.’s lawyer asked the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu) to request the investigating judge to have the applicant detained on the grounds that he had been trying to contact J.N., threatening her in order to make her withdraw her criminal complaint. She also argued that J.N. had sought psychiatric help and submitted medical reports in that connection.\n11.  On 18 June 1999 the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office asked the investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court to open an investigation in respect of the applicant on charges of rape and to order his detention on the basis of the information submitted by J.N.\n12.  The investigating judge opened the investigation on 6 July 1999 but refused to order the applicant’s detention on the grounds that there was no reliable evidence suggesting that he might influence the witness or reoffend.\n13.  On 9 July 1999 J.N., in the presence of her lawyer, gave oral evidence at a hearing before the investigating judge. The applicant and his defence lawyer were not informed of the hearing and were not present during the questioning.\n14.  During the questioning, J.N. reiterated her previous allegation that the applicant had raped her.\n15.  On 13 July 1999 the Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office lodged an appeal with a three-judge panel of the Zagreb County Court against the investigating judge’s decision refusing the request for the applicant’s detention.\n16.  The three-judge panel granted the application and on 16 July 1999 ordered the investigating judge to re-examine the request for detention.\n17.  On 27 August 1999 the investigating judge again dismissed the request for the applicant’s detention on the grounds that there were no relevant reasons for his remand in custody. The Zagreb County State Attorney’s Office appealed, but on 2 September 1999 a three-judge panel upheld that decision.\n18.  In the course of the investigation the investigating judge heard several witnesses and commissioned medical reports.\n19.  On 24 September 1999 S.S., a colleague of J.N., testified before the investigating judge that she had been working with J.N. in bar A. on the day in issue and that when J.N. had wanted to go home, S.S. ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7946", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed section of Ljubljana prison in the period between 30 March 2009 and 23 December 2009. From 30 March 2009 to 14 April 2009 he was held in cell 5 (third floor), which measured 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained 5 sleeping places. From 14 April 2009 to 11 June 2009 he was held in cell 7 (third floor), which measured 16.8 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained 5 sleeping places. From 11 June 2009 to 2 July 2009 and from 30 July 2009 to 19 December 2009 he was held in cell 124 (second floor), which measured 8.8 square metres (including a separate 1.3 square metre sanitary facility) and contained two sleeping places. From 2 July 2009 to 30 July 2009 he was held in cell 120 (second floor), which measured 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained 6 sleeping places. From 19 December 2009 to 23 December 2009 he was held in cell 98 (first floor), which measured 8.8 square metres (including a separate 1.3 square metre sanitary facility) and contained two sleeping places. The Government submitted that in cells 5 and 7 the numbers varied between four and five, in cell 120 the numbers varied between five and six and in cells 98 and 124 the applicant was held with one other prisoner.\n7.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells, material conditions inside the cells, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011.\n8.  As to the out-of-cell time in the closed section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (Štrucl and Others § 86).\n9.  During his imprisonment the applicant had thirty-three consultations with a general practitioner and declined some of them. He also had five dental appointments and five treatments by a psychiatrist. He asked for and was given a psychological consultation, however he did not attend it.\n10.  As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5- 5.30 p.m.) in the second half of July and August 2009 had been approximately 28oC, exceeding 30oC on seven days.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7947", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in various districts of the Chechen Republic. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared, allegedly after having been unlawfully detained by servicemen during a special operation. In each of the applications the events concerned took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives since the alleged arrests.\n6.  The applicants complained about the circumstances to law‑enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without achieving any tangible results. The investigations have mainly consisted of requests for information and formal requests for operational search measures to be carried out by counterparts in various parts of Chechnya and other regions of the North Caucasus. The requests received either negative responses or no reply at all.\n7.  From the documents submitted it appears that the relevant State authorities were unable to identify the State servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions.\n8.  In their observations the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants. At the same time, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the incidents.\n9.  Below are summaries of the facts in respect of each individual application. Each account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to the Court and to the domestic investigative authorities. The personal details of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in the attached table (Appendix I).\n10.  The applicants are:\n(1) Mr Khamzat Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1941,\n(2) Ms Tamara Taysumova (also referred to as Dzhabrailova), who was born in 1955,\n(3) Ms Zarema Dzhabrailova, who was born in 1978, and\n(4) Ms Larisa Dzhabrailova, who was born in 1985.\n11.  The applicants live in Argun, Shali District, the Chechen Republic. They are represented before the Court by lawyers from the Memorial Human Rights Centre.\n12.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Yakub Dzhabrailov, who was born in 1981; the third and fourth applicants are his sisters.\n(a)  Events surrounding the abduction of the applicants’ relative\n13.  At the material time the applicants and Mr Yakub Dzhabrailov lived in Argun in one household consisting of two dwellings. Between 13 and 15 December 2001 Russian servicemen conducted a sweeping-up operation in that settlement. The town was surrounded by military checkpoints and the residents required authorisation to enter or leave it. On-duty servicemen patrolling the streets made it impossible for the residents to move around.\n14.  On 14 December 2001 a group of twenty servicemen arrived at the applicants’ house in an armoured personnel carrier (APC) and a UAZ “tabletka” vehicle with obscured registration plates. The servicemen were camouflaged and unmasked, of Russian or Asian appearance, and spoke unaccented Russian. Having searched Mr Yakub Dzhabrailov’s dwelling, they threatened to take him with them and added that those whom they took away never returned. On the same day the servicemen took the applicants’ neighbour, Mr B.U., to the Argun district military commander’s office (“the military command", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7948", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  A list of the applicant parties is appended.\n6.  At the relevant time Mr Gianluigi Gabetti was the chairman of the two applicant companies and Mr Virgilio Marrone was the authorised representative (procuratore) of the applicant company Giovanni Agnelli & C. s.a.a.\n7.  On 26 July 2002 the public limited company FIAT (Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino) signed a financing agreement (prestito convertendo) with eight banks. That contract was due to expire on 20 September 2005 and stipulated that, should FIAT fail to reimburse the loan, the banks could offset their claim by subscribing to an increase in the company’s capital. Thus, the banks would have obtained 28% of FIAT’s share capital, while the holdings of the public limited company IFIL Investments (which subsequently, on 20 February 2009, became Exor s.p.a., the name by which it will be referred to hereafter) would have decreased from 30.06% to about 22%.\n8.  Mr Gabetti wished to obtain legal advice on the best way to ensure that Exor remained the controlling shareholder in FIAT, and to this end he contacted a lawyer specialising in company law, Mr Grande Stevens. He considered that one possibility would be to renegotiate an equity swap (that is, a contract allowing a share’s performance to be exchanged against an interest rate, without having to advance money), dated 26 April 2005 and based on approximately 90 million FIAT shares, concluded by Exor with an English merchant bank, Merrill Lynch International Ltd, which was due to expire on 26 December 2006. In Mr Grande Stevens’s opinion, this would be one way to prevent the launch of a takeover bid with regard to the FIAT shares.\n9.  Without mentioning Merrill Lynch International Ltd for fear of breaching his duty of confidentiality, on 12 August 2005 Mr Grande Stevens asked the National Companies and Stock Exchange Commission (Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa – “the CONSOB”, which in the Italian legal system, has the task, inter alia, of protecting investors and ensuring the transparency and development of the stock markets) whether, in the scenario he envisaged, a takeover bid could be avoided. At the same time Mr Grande Stevens began making enquires with Merrill Lynch International Ltd about the possibility of amending the equity swap contract.\n10.  On 23 August 2005 the CONSOB asked Exor and Giovanni Agnelli to issue a press release providing information on any initiative taken in the light of the forthcoming expiry of the financing agreement with the banks, any new fact concerning FIAT and anything that might explain the market fluctuations in FIAT shares.\n11.  Mr Marrone alleges that he was on leave on that date. He had informed Mr Grande Stevens of the CONSOB’s request and had sent him a copy of it. Mr Marrone submits that he was not involved in drafting the press releases described in paragraphs 13 and 14 below.\n12.  Mr Gabetti submits that on 23 August 2005 he was in hospital in the United States. He had received a draft press release and had contacted Mr Grande Stevens by telephone; the lawyer had confirmed to him that, given the significant number of elements that remained uncertain, renegotiation of the equity swap contract could not be considered as a relevant and currently available option. In those circumstances, Mr Gabetti approved the draft press release.\n13.  The press release issued in response [to the CONSOB’s query], approved by Mr Grande Stevens, merely indicated that Exor had “neither institu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7949", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, who are brothers, were born in 1973 and 1983 respectively and live in Plovdiv.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In September 2003 the applicants’ father made them beneficiaries under his life insurance and accident insurance policies. The total amount payable in case of death as a result of accident under the accident insurance policy was 10,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN), or BGN 5,000 in respect of each brother. The applicants’ father died on 29 June 2004 as a result of an allergic reaction to a wasp sting.\n8.  In September 2004 the applicants were informed by the insurance company that a “wasp sting” was not a risk covered by the accident insurance policy, and the company accordingly refused to pay out on the claim.\n9.  In 2005 the applicants, represented by counsel, brought a claim under the Commerce Act for the payment of compensation under the accident insurance policy. During a hearing on 12 April 2005, the applicants informed the court that, after their father’s death, they had handed the original insurance policy documents to the insurance company upon its request. Although the applicants had sought to recover those documents from the company, the latter had only returned to them the “additional conditions”. During the same hearing, upon a request by the applicants, the court ordered the insurance company to produce the complete insurance policy file, referring to Article 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1952, in force at the time. The company produced the file during a hearing on 10 May 2005 and the court accepted it as evidence in the case.\n10.  By a judgment of 26 July 2005 the Sofia District Court allowed the applicants’ claim. The court noted that, in so far as allergic reactions were not included in the disclaimer to the accident insurance policy signed on 15 September 2003, the applicants were entitled to benefit from the compensation payable in the event of their father’s death as a result of an accident.\n11.  The insurance company appealed against the judgment. In its appeal it acknowledged, inter alia, that the existence of a valid contract was not disputed. However, it claimed that the allergic reaction did not fall under the “accident” category as defined in the insurance policy.\n12.  On 16 May 2006 the Sofia City Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicants’ claim in a final judgment. The court stated that no copy of the insurance policy had been produced by the parties. It further stated that in the absence of a copy of the policy it was unable to correctly establish the circumstances of the case. Finally, it found that, while the fact of the contracting of the policy was not a subject of dispute between the parties, that did not in itself prove its existence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7950", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Ankara.\n6.  In 1993 the applicant, who was a court registrar (zabıt kâtibi) in the registry of the Ankara Tax Court, passed a local competitive examination organised by the Ankara Judicial Committee for the post of head registrar (yazı işleri müdürü) at the Ankara State Security Court. However, since his ranking (15th place) in the competition was insufficient for him to obtain the post, he was placed on the reserve list drawn up at the close of the competition. The first successful candidate was appointed to the post in question. The second successful candidate was subsequently appointed to a position as head registrar in the second section of the Ankara State Security Court.\n7.  On 20 August 1997 the applicant applied to the Ministry of Justice to be appointed to the post of head registrar at the Eskişehir Administrative Court.\n8.  The authorities having refused his request, he lodged an application for judicial review with the Ankara Administrative Court (“the Administrative Court”).\n9.  By a judgment of 17 September 1998 the Administrative Court upheld the applicant’s claims. The court found that of the candidates who had passed the aforementioned competition, seven who had done better and eleven who had done less well than the applicant had been appointed head registrars in other judicial districts, and concluded that the authorities’ refusal had had no basis in law.\n10.  The Ministry of Justice appealed on points of law against that judgment. 6.  As the appeal lacked suspensive effect, the Ministry proceeded to appoint the applicant to the post of head registrar in Eskişehir, in compliance with the judgment. 7.  On 20 December 2000 the Fifth Administrative Proceedings Division of the Supreme Administrative Court (“the Fifth Division”) quashed the impugned judgment, contrary to the submissions of the Advocate-General, Ms A.Ö. The Fifth Division pointed out that the competitive examination organised by the Ankara Judicial Committee had been intended to fill a post in the Ankara State Security Court and that registration on the reserve list had not entitled the candidate in question to a post as head registrar in a court within the jurisdiction of a different judicial committee. It explained that an appointment could only be made to another judicial district at the request of the judicial committee in question or else in order to meet current judicial needs, upon a decision from the Ministry of Justice, which had discretionary powers in this field. 9.  On 21 March 2002 the same division dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment, on the grounds that none of the preconditions for recourse to this remedy as set out in the Code of Administrative Procedure had been met. 10.  On 1 July 2002 the Administrative Court decided to maintain the position set out in its initial judgment, thus electing to disregard that adopted by the Fifth Division of the Supreme Administrative Court (ısrar kararı).\n11.  Following a fresh appeal on points of law lodged by the authorities, the case was referred automatically to the General Assembly of the Administrative Proceedings Divisions of the Supreme Administrative Court (Danıştay İdari Dava Daireleri Genel Kurulu; “the General Assembly”) owing to the resistance of the court of first instance.\n12.  On 17 January 2003 the said General Assembly quashed the judgment delivered by the Administrative Court by twenty-two votes to nine. Mr E", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7951", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1953 respectively and live in İstanbul. They are both journalists who were working for the Akit daily newspaper at the material time.\n A.  Background to the case\n6.  On 25 June 2000, on the occasion of the funeral of Admiral Güven Erkaya, the former Commander-in-Chief of the navy and member of the National Security Council, Mr Karakaya published an article in the Akit daily newspaper, whose front-page headline read “We will not waive our rights”. In the article the journalist criticised the late Admiral for the role he had played in the political process triggered by the meeting of the National Security Council on 28 February 1997, which some observers have called a “post-modern coup d’état”.\n7.  On 26 June 2000 Mr Dilipak also published an article in the same newspaper on Admiral Erkaya, criticising his actions.\n8.  On 29 September 2000 the deceased’s family brought a civil action for damages in the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance (“the Civil Court”) against the applicants and the company owning the newspaper. The family also lodged a complaint with the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office.\n9.  When bringing their civil action, the Erkaya family gave the newspaper’s registered office as the defendants’ address.\n10.  However, the postal service did not succeed in serving the summons and the statement of claim on the applicants at this address, as they were not to be found there. This fact was confirmed by the elected neighbourhood leader (muhtar), who countersigned the report noting that the summons could not be served on the relevant persons.\n11.  The Civil Court then asked the police to ascertain the applicants’ addresses.\n12.  According to the Civil Court, after the police had completed their inquiries, they informed it of two addresses in Istanbul: one in the Aksaray neighbourhood (Küçüklanga Caddesi no. 103), in respect of Mr Karakaya, and the other in the Mecidiyeköy neighbourhood (Mecidiye Caddesi no. 7/50 Çavuşoğlu İş Merkezi), in respect of Mr Dilipak.\n13.  The decision was subsequently taken to send fresh summonses to these addresses.\n14.  The record of the service of Mr Karakaya’s summons stated that it had been handed to a certain N.G., describing him as an “authorised employee” (yetkili personel).\n15.  In the case of Mr Dilipak, the summons could not be served on the ground that he was unknown at the stated address.\n16.  The Civil Court decided to serve the summons via publication in the press on the ground that it was impossible to ascertain Mr Dilipak’s address.\n17.  On 21 January 2003, in the absence of the defendants, who had never appeared at the hearings, the Civil Court delivered a judgment ordering them jointly to pay the sum of 30,000 Turkish liras (TRY), equivalent to some 17,000 euros (EUR), together with interest in arrears from 25 June 2000, for non-pecuniary damage.\n18.  The Civil Court considered that in his article Mr Dilipak had insinuated that the deceased would pay for his wrongdoing and that justice would be done The Civil Court noted that he had used the phrase “may your land be abundant”, which was reserved for non-Muslims. It cited the following passage in particular:\n“Whatever you do, do not remind me of the injunction ‘do not speak ill of the dead’. This injunction does not apply to Hitler, Mussolini or Stalin. Otherwise the Koran would not say what it does about Nimrod and Pharaoh. Güven Erkaya was certainly not Hitler, but nonetheless he holds a particu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7952", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 31 July 2000 the applicant company entered into a contract with a sole trader, Ms T.Z., to jointly operate a billiards club. The contract stipulated, in particular, that the sole trader would operate the club against an undertaking on the part of the applicant company to supply the club with alcohol. The contract also made provision for the manner in which profits would be shared between the parties, and set out penalties in case of breach.\n7.  On 7 August 2000 the applicant company obtained a licence to sell alcoholic beverages in the billiards club.\n8.  On 18 January 2001 the applicant company entered into a similar contract with another sole trader, Ms V.G., for the joint operation of an electronic games club. At that time the applicant company had already obtained a licence to sell alcoholic beverages in that club.\n9.  Both the billiards club and the electronic games club were operated in premises leased by the applicant company.\n10.  On 3 July 2002 the tax authorities carried out an inspection at the billiards club. They found that the sole trader, Ms T.Z., was selling alcohol without the requisite licence. The next day, 4 July 2002, the authorities drew up a report accusing her of trading in excise goods without the requisite licence, contrary to section 17a(2) of the Excise Act 1994 (see paragraph 23 below), and impounded the alcohol (eighteen bottles) that they had found in the club. The applicant company was not notified of those events.\n11.  On 8 July 2002 Ms T.Z. objected to the report, saying she had been selling the alcohol on behalf of the applicant company, which had a licence to do so. She further claimed that the impounding had been unlawful.\n12.  On 16 July 2002 the regional tax director dismissed the objection, observing that the impounding could not be challenged separately as it had been ancillary to the opening of administrative-penal proceedings and had amounted to a measure intended to prevent tampering with evidence. On an appeal by Ms T.Z., on 25 October 2002 the Dobrich District Court upheld that decision, finding that the impounding could not be challenged in separate judicial review proceedings; only the penal order which would conclude the administrative‑penal proceedings was capable of being challenged by way of judicial review.\n13.  In the meantime, on 17 July 2002 the regional tax director issued a penal order against Ms T.Z. The penalties imposed thereby were a fine and forfeiture of the impounded alcohol. The applicant company was not served with a copy of the order.\n14.  Ms T.Z. sought judicial review of the order. On 29 January 2003 the applicant company applied to intervene in the proceedings as a third party, arguing that it was the owner of the forfeited alcohol. The next day, 30 January 2003, the Dobrich District Court discontinued the judicial review proceedings, finding that Ms T.Z.’s application was out of time.\n15.  A subsequent appeal by the applicant company against the discontinuance was rejected by the Dobrich District Court on 17 February 2003 on the grounds that, not being a party to the proceedings, the company did not have standing to appeal against their discontinuance. On an appeal by the applicant company, in a final decision of 22 April 2003 the Dobrich Regional Court upheld that decision, holding that the company did not have standing to intervene in the proceedings. The court found it irrelevant to now discuss whether or not the company could have claimed to be a victim o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7954", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Baku.\n6.  He was a student at the Azerbaijan State Oil Academy at the time of the events.\n7.  On 15 March 2008 the applicant and his girlfriend (A.M.), who was an adult, accompanied by other three persons, travelled by car from Baku to Ganja in order to get married there.\n8.  On the same day the father of A.M. lodged a complaint with the police alleging that his daughter had been kidnapped.\n9.  On 16 March 2008 criminal proceedings were instituted on the basis of that complaint under Article 144.2.3 (kidnapping committed by a group of persons) of the Criminal Code.\n10.  On 16 March 2008 A.M. called her family, informing them that she had gone to Ganja with her boyfriend. On the same day her parents went to Ganja to bring her back to Baku.\n11.  On 17 March 2008 the applicant returned to Baku. As the police had been to his home several times while he was in Ganja, on 19 March 2008 he went to the police station. The applicant was arrested at the police station and the investigator issued an order for his detention for forty-eight hours as a suspect (tutma protokolu).\n12.  On 21 March 2008 the applicant was formally charged with the criminal offence of kidnapping as provided in Article 144.2.3 of the Criminal Code. On the same date the prosecutor requested the judge to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri) in respect of the applicant. The prosecutor substantiated the necessity of this measure by the gravity of the applicant’s alleged criminal act and the risk of his absconding from and obstructing the investigation.\n13.  On 21 March 2008 the Narimanov District Court examined the prosecutor’s request. At the hearing before the court, the applicant’s lawyer asked the judge to apply a non-custodial preventive measure, submitting that the applicant had no criminal record, that he had a permanent place of residence, and that he was young. The judge at the Narimanov District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody, remanded the applicant in custody for a period of three months. The judge substantiated the necessity for this measure as follows:\n“Taking into account the fact that there is sufficient evidence that Allahverdiyev Amil Allahverdi oglu has committed criminal acts, the gravity and character of the crime, the possibility of his absconding from the investigation, and that there are sufficient grounds [to believe that he might] obstruct the normal functioning of the investigation, I consider it necessary to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of him.”\n14.  The applicant appealed against the Narimanov District Court’s decision of 21 March 2008. He complained that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and that his personal circumstances had not been taken into account when the court had ordered his detention. The applicant submitted in this connection that he had a permanent place of residence, that he had voluntarily presented himself to the police, that he was an internally displaced person, and that his family and financial situation were difficult. The applicant also submitted that his pre-trial detention would violate his right to education, as he would no longer be able to attend courses during his pre-trial detention, which would result in his expulsi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7955", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lived until his arrest in St. Petersburg. He is serving a sentence of life imprisonment.\n6.  On 18 May 2006 the Kalininskiy District Court of St. Petersburg found the applicant guilty of unintentional manslaughter and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.\n7.  On 10 December 2008 the St. Petersburg City Court, by a jury verdict, found the applicant guilty of several counts of aggravated robbery and murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant was represented by Ms D. as counsel. On 5 March 2009 the judgment was upheld on appeal and became final.\n8.  From 23 December 2002 to 8 October 2010 the applicant was detained in temporary detention facility IZ-47/1 in St. Petersburg, known as “Kresty”. He stated that the cells had been extremely overcrowded, with cells nos. 899, 907, 90, 74, 184 and 411, where he had been detained between 2002 and 2004, housing from seven to nine inmates and the cells where he was detained between 2004 and December 2008 accommodating between five and eight inmates. According to the applicant, each cell measured 8 square metres. Daily searches were performed in the cells, during which warders deliberately destroyed inmates’ personal belongings.\n9.  On 10 December 2008 the applicant was transferred to wing 2/1 of the facility and was placed in cell no. 128, which also measured 8 square metres and where he was detained alone. Wing 2/1 was allegedly designed for the detention of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment. Up to 8 October 2010 he was held in a number of similar cells, where he was always kept alone. The cells did not have a table or chair. A concrete platform served as a bed. The cells were not equipped with an artificial ventilation system. They had a small window which had three rows of metal bars and was covered by a metal mesh which separated the window from the rest of the cell. It did not allow access to fresh air. As a result the cells were extremely stuffy. A video camera was installed in the corner “to spy on inmates” and as a result the applicant did not have privacy even when using the toilet. It was extremely cold in winter. A lavatory pan and a sink were installed side by side in the corner of the cell, not separated from the living area by a door or partition. The applicant could only have a shower once a week for fifteen minutes. A small 60-watt lamp was installed above the cell door. It produced very little light, making it impossible to read or write in the cell. The applicant was allowed a daily hour-long walk in a recreation yard. On court hearing days that walk was cancelled.\n10.  In response to numerous complaints by the applicant pertaining to the conditions of his detention and the quality of the medical care, various prosecution authorities informed him that the conditions were satisfactory save for minor irregularities pertaining to the absence of a bench in the cell, for instance, and that the applicant had received adequate medical assistance whenever he had asked for it. The applicant provided the Court with copies of the prosecutors’ letters.\n(b)  The Government’s version of events\n11.  Relying on certificates issued by the director of facility IZ-47/1 in 2012, the Government noted that the applicant had been detained in that facility from 23 December 2002 until 8 October 2010, save for the period between 14 August and 23 October 2003 when he had been transferred to facility IZ-47/6 in the Leningrad Region.\n12.  The Gove", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7957", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  On 25 November 2008 the applicant, then a member of the Municipal Council of Budapest VIIth District and chairman of the municipal economic committee, was arrested on charges of aggravated fraud and other crimes. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were initiated against some of the close colleagues and acquaintances of the applicant in the same context.\n7.  On 27 November 2008 the Pest Central District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand relying on section 129 (2) b), c), and d) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Defence counsel for the applicant requested the court not to detain him but to order house arrest, if a coercive measure was inevitable. The court however held that there was a danger that the applicant would abscond in the face of the serious charges and by virtue of his contacts abroad. It also noted that further steps of investigation were outstanding, and held that there was a risk of collusion.\nOn 8 December 2008 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision, adding that the risk of repetition of crime was also real if the applicant were released. The court noted that he had a registered employment and regular income but had committed the alleged criminal acts as a member of a criminal group, over a long period of time, and through the companies founded and operated by him and his associates.\n8.  On 25 and 27 November 2008 the Central Investigation Prosecutor’s Office, for the fear of collusion, restricted the applicant’s personal contacts, that is, correspondence and personal contacts with his family members were allowed only under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. He was authorised to maintain phone contact only with his lawyer.\n9.  On 22 December 2008 the investigating judge of the Pest Central District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 27 March 2008, on the grounds in section 129 (2) b) and c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court noted that the applicant was charged with aggravated fraud, corruption and forgery of documents. It observed that the applicant’s settled family circumstances did not diminish the risk of absconding given the applicant’s network of contacts with influential acquaintances both in Hungary and abroad, his probable dire financial situation following a release and the gravity of the alleged crimes.\nThe court further noted that the risk of collusion or interference with the investigation was real, finding that there was information (“adat merült fel arra”) confirming that the applicant, together with an associate, intended to eliminate evidence and incriminating documents, thereby impeding the on-going investigation. This “information” was not however specified.\nNonetheless, the court agreed with defence’s argument that the applicant had committed the alleged acts as a member of the municipal assembly so that following the intervening termination of his mandate there was no real risk of repetition of crime.\n10.  On 14 January 2009 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision but expanded the reasoning to include the risk of reoffending under section 129 (2) d). It noted that the applicant had committed the alleged criminal acts over a longer period of time, in an organised manner and in close cooperation with his associates. It added that the applicant had engaged in the alleged crimes despite his employment and regular income, this revealing a criminal lifes", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7958", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  The applicant was a professional staff member of the Hungarian Police since 1994.\n6.  In early 1997 she was warned that her employment might be terminated in a few months; therefore, on her initiation, she was interviewed at another police department.\n7.  As a ‘top executive’ (kiemelt főelőadó), she was found suitable for a new position within the counter-terrorism unit.\n8.  From 1998 onwards, she was ordered to undergo, annually, a medical aptitude test of a kind different from what she had formerly been subjected to. This test was meant for the position of a ‘member of counter-terrorism unit’ (terrorelhárító beosztású).\n9.  On 13 February 2001 she commenced her regular annual medical examination but, by the order of her supervisor, she interrupted the test. However, there were still two particular examinations outstanding.\n10.  Subsequently, the applicant was ordered to take part, afresh, in another medical examination on 27 May 2001. It appears that the reason for this was that the change in her aptitude test regime back in 1997 had not been correctly applied.\n11.  As a result of this latter examination, she was qualified as ‘unfit’ for the position she held and dismissed from service.\n12.  On 28 February 2002 the applicant lodged an action with the labour court claiming that her employment had been unlawfully terminated and seeking damages.\n13.  The Budapest Labour Court found for the applicant on 21 September 2005 and ordered the employer to pay compensation.\n14.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Labour Court on 14 April 2006.\n15.  In the resumed proceedings, the Labour Court rejected the applicant’s action on 16 January 2008. The court relied on the parties’ and other witnesses’ testimonies, a medical expert’s report and other documentary evidence and was satisfied that the applicant’s service had been justifiably and lawfully terminated.\n16.  On appeal, the Regional Court upheld this decision on 15 October 2008.\n17.  The Supreme Court confirmed the second-instance decision on 7 April 2010.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7959", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Sofia.\n6.  On 13 May 2007, at around 7.30 p.m., the applicant and one of his friends, Z.N., also a Sudanese national, were involved in a fight with two Bulgarian youths outside a shopping centre in central Sofia. The two Bulgarian youths, M.V. and R.G., fled before the police arrived, but they were arrested and remanded in custody for breach of the peace (хулиганство). The report drawn up by the police officers described the two Bulgarian youths as skinheads, adding that they were already known to the police for various offences such as breach of the peace, theft, burglary and drug trafficking.\n7.  The police initiated a preliminary investigation. The applicant and his friend, the two Bulgarian youths and an eyewitness were interviewed. According to the applicant’s submissions, Z.N. and he had been coming out of the shopping centre when they were attacked by the two young men. The first Bulgarian, who had a shaved head, had thrown the applicant on to the ground and kicked him. The applicant had then got up and punched him back. The two Bulgarians had insulted them by calling them “Negros” (негри), also shouting “dirty Negros, what are you doing here?”. The second Bulgarian, who had long hair, had brandished a knife and threatened Z.N. with it. The applicant and Z.N. had fled, and had met a police patrol, which had started looking for the two Bulgarians and managed to arrest them a few minutes later. Z.N.’s statements broadly corroborated those of the applicant.\n8.  According to M.V., the fight had begun because one of the Sudanese youths had shoved him with his shoulder when they had passed each other at the entrance to the shopping centre. He said that he had not paid any attention to what his friend R.G. had been doing. The fighting had stopped at some stage and his friend and he had fled when someone warned them that the police were on their way.\n9.  R.G. confirmed that one of the Sudanese men had pushed his friend M.V. as he passed by and that that was when the fight had started. Blows had been exchanged on both sides, and M.V. had had his face bloodied. At one stage R.G. had taken out his knife, which had put an end to the fight, and the two groups had then gone their separate ways. M.V. and R.G had been arrested by the police a few minutes later.\n10.  The eyewitness stated that he had seen one of the Bulgarians, the one with the shaved head, trip up one of the Sudanese men, who had then riposted with a punch. A general fight had then broken out among the four persons involved.\n11.  The applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert on 15 May 2007. According to the medical certificate drawn up on that occasion, the applicant had a swelling of the nasal base, an approximately one‑centimetre‑long abrasion on the left-hand side of his nose, covered with a scab, a swollen finger on his left hand and a contusion to the right knee. According to the medical certificate, the injuries noted had caused physical pain. They had resulted from blows struck by blunt instruments and could have been occasioned in the manner described by the applicant, namely in the course of a fight.\n12.  At the end of the investigation the police transmitted the evidence gathered to the public prosecutor for a decision on instituting a criminal prosecution for racist violence pursuant to Article 162 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n13.  By an order of 15 June 2007 the district prosecutor decided not to bring a criminal", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7960", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Tallinn. The second applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Luiste village, Rapla County.\n5.  The applicants were married form 1989 to 2006. The first applicant gave birth to child K. on 20 September 2002. The second applicant was recorded in the civil status records as the father of the child.\n6.  On 10 October 2003 the first applicant lodged an action for divorce and division of marital property.\n7.  On 25 October 2004 the first applicant lodged an action against the second applicant with the Harju County Court (previously named the Tallinn City Court). She sought alimony for their child K.\n8.  On 11 January 2005 a preliminary hearing was held. Subsequently, the parties submitted evidence and made requests concerning evidence.\n9.  At a preliminary hearing of 25 April 2005 the first applicant requested adjournment of the hearing as only the second applicant’s representative but not the second applicant himself had appeared.\n10.  On 27 April 2005 the second applicant filed a separate action to establish that he is not the father of the child K. and to contest the civil status record (civil case no. 2-3307/109, filiation proceedings).\n11.  On 2 June 2005 the second applicant requested the suspension of the proceedings in the alimony case, referring to the above filiation proceedings. On 9 September 2005 the first applicant submitted that she did not dispute the request for the suspension of the proceedings, although she disproved the submission of the request by the second applicant.\n12.  On 14 October 2005 the County Court granted the second applicant’s request and suspended the proceedings until the delivery of the judgment in the civil case no. 2-3307/109.\n13.  In the meantime, on 12 May 2005, in the course of the filiation proceedings, the Harju County Court decided to carry out DNA analyses of the child and the second applicant. The court obliged the first applicant to take the child to an expert to take DNA samples. The first applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this decision. On 31 January 2007 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal. However, the first applicant did not take the child to analyses. According to the available information, on 10 May 2012 the Harju County Court dismissed the filiation action.\n14.  In the meantime, on 14 June 2007 the first applicant requested that the proceedings concerning the alimony be resumed. She referred to the Supreme Court’s recent practice according to which the contestation of the civil status record did not affect the contesting person’s obligation to provide subsistence for the child.\n15.  On 20 June 2007 the Harju County Court resumed the alimony proceedings and scheduled a hearing for 27 August 2007. The hearing was postponed at the second applicant’s request.\n16.  On 25 July 2007 the second applicant made a compromise proposal; the time-limit for the first applicant’s reply was extended until 10 October 2007.\n17.  Between September and November 2007 the parties submitted evidence and opinions and made requests. Among others, the second applicant requested that the proceedings be not resumed and, later, that a hearing be adjourned. The first applicant supplemented her claim.\n18.  On 23 October 2007 the County Court requested evidence from banks and the Tax and Customs Board and obliged the second applicant to submit documents.\n19.  On 30 November 2007 a hearing was held.\n20.  On 11 January 2008 the Harju County Court delivered", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7961", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1983.\n6.  In December 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having been involved in several violent crimes committed by the members of the Odessa Komsomol (Young Communists League) seeking to revive the communist State by violent means. The arrest report undersigned by the applicant is dated 20 December 2002.\n7.  On the same date (20 December 2002) the applicant signed a document notifying him of his procedural rights as a suspect. His signature was preceded by the following statement, handwritten by him:\n“I have been informed of my right to defence as a suspect and I understand it. I wish to waive my right to use the services of a lawyer during my questioning as a suspect and to consult him/her before the first questioning as I consider that at the present time there is no need for this. Should such a need arise, I will use the services of a defence lawyer at a later time, when I consider fit”.\n8.  On the same date the applicant was questioned as a suspect. Before the questioning, he signed a statement similar to the one cited above on the questioning report form. In the course of his questioning, the applicant acknowledged that he sympathised with communist views, knew personally some of the Komsomol members suspected by the authorities of having been involved in criminal activity and had discussed ideological issues with them on various occasions. However, he was neither engaged in any criminal activity, nor aware of any such activity by those individuals. Likewise, he did not support any violent methods of reviving a communist state in Ukraine.\n9.  On 21 December 2002 the applicant had a confrontation with G., another individual arrested on suspicion of involvement with the same group. Before the confrontation, the applicant signed another waiver of his right to legal assistance by way of a handwritten statement similar to the one cited above, on the confrontation report form. During the confrontation, G. alleged that several members of the group, including the applicant and himself, had robbed the “F.” food shop in 2001 to raise money for the organisation. The applicant denied those allegations.\n10.  On 28 December 2002 the applicant expressed the wish to be legally represented. On the same date Sh. was appointed as his legal-aid counsel.\n11.  On the same date the applicant, in the presence of Sh., was indicted for membership of a criminal association that was planning a revolutionary war against the constitutional order, including by participating in two fund‑raising robberies for the benefit of that organisation. When questioned in the presence of Sh., the applicant reiterated his earlier submissions. At the end of the questioning, the applicant declared, in response to a question raised by Sh., that he had not been subjected to any ill-treatment by the investigative authorities. According to the applicant, he did not see Sh. either before or after this questioning.\n12.  On 23 February 2003 the applicant was transported to the Odessa no. 21 pre-trial detention centre (“Odessa SIZO”), where he remained in detention until November 2005.\n13.  According to the applicant, he contracted pneumonia after being transported to the SIZO – a journey that took several hours – in an unheated vehicle and without any winter clothes. Upon his arrival in the SIZO, the applicant received very poor treatment for his pneumonia.\n14.  According to the Government, there was no record whatsoever that the applicant ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7962", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in St Petersburg.\n7.  On 19 May 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of organising a criminal gang and placed in the IVS, which, according to the applicant, was in a poor sanitary condition.\n8.  On the following day the applicant’s detention was authorised by domestic courts. It was regularly prolonged until his release (see paragraph 11 below).\n9.  On 1 June 2006 the applicant was transferred from the IVS to remand prison IZ-47/1 of St Petersburg, where he stayed until 19 May 2011. The facility was overcrowded. Thus, cell 81 measuring 8 sq. m was equipped with six sleeping places and accommodated up to six inmates; cell 104 measuring 8 sq. m was designed for six detainees and housed up to six individuals; finally, cell 907 measuring 8 sq. m presented six sleeping places and up to six persons who occupied them.\n10.  On an unspecified date the St Petersburg City Court commenced the examination of the case. From that date, in order to take part in the hearings, the applicant was regularly transported by prison van between the remand prison and the court premises. While in the courthouse, he was placed in a confinement cell. The applicant alleged that both the van and the cell had been overcrowded.\n11.  On 19 May 2011 the St Petersburg City Court ordered to release the applicant and on 14 June 2011 it acquitted him of all charges.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7963", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in the Tyumen region.\n6.  On 2 May 1997 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. He was given a written note explaining that he could not be obliged to give evidence against himself, his spouse or close relative and that he was entitled to legal assistance from the moment that the arrest record or the detention order was read out to him. He signed the explanatory note and asked for legal assistance.\n7.  At 6.30 p.m. on the same day the applicant was questioned. He was not assisted by a lawyer. According to the applicant, he was threatened that if he did not confess the investigator would order his cellmates to rape him. The applicant confessed to the murder.\n8.  At 8.20 p.m. on the same day the arrest record was read out to him.\n9.  On 3 May 1997 the applicant was brought to the scene of the crime where he repeated his confession and gave details of the murder. He was not assisted by a lawyer.\n10.  On 8 May 1997 the applicant was provided with a lawyer.\n11.  At the trial the applicant retracted his confession. He admitted that he had been at the victim’s house on the evening of the murder. However, he denied killing her.\n12.  On 15 January 2001 the Kondinskiy District Court of the Khanty-Mansiyskiy Region convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. It relied on the applicant’s confession statement of 2 May 1997, testimony by several police officers that the confession had been made by the applicant without any pressure and statements by witness Kh. that he had seen the applicant in the victim’s house several hours before the murder. The court also relied on the autopsy of the victim describing the injuries and establishing the cause of death.\n13.  On 18 October 2006 the Khanty-Mansiskiy Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. It found, in particular, that the District Court’s reliance on the applicant’s confession statement had been lawful. The applicant had been questioned and had confessed before the arrest record had been read out to him. He had not therefore been entitled to legal assistance during that questioning.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7964", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 in the Russian Federation and is currently serving a prison sentence in Ukraine.\n7.  In December 2002 a group of officers from the State Security Service of Ukraine (“SSU”) and the “Berkut” special armed unit received a mission order to arrest several individuals, including the applicant, implicated in a number of crimes committed as members of a criminal association affiliated with the Odessa Komsomol (Young Communist League), including illegal arms handling, terrorism, assault and robbery with a view to preparing a communist revolution.\n8.  At about 5 p.m. on 13 December 2002 six armed officers of the SSU and two officers of the “Berkut” unit arrived at a flat in Mykolayiv occupied at the material time by the applicant and three of his acquaintances, and ordered them to lie on the floor. Two of the applicant’s acquaintances complied with the order, while the applicant and another associate started shooting at the officers with firearms. As a result of the shooting, several officers sustained bodily injuries and damage to their protective gear. Having exhausted his cartridges, the applicant attempted to detonate an explosive. At this moment, the officers knocked him onto the floor, immobilised and handcuffed him.\n9.  At about 11 p.m. on the same date an investigator with the Mykolayiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office drafted an arrest report, indicating that the applicant was suspected, in particular, of attempting to murder law-enforcement officers, that he had been notified of his procedural rights, including the rights to remain silent and to obtain legal assistance, and that he had expressed the wish to have a lawyer.\n10.  At an unspecified time on the same date the applicant was referred to a forensic medical expert to determine the gravity of his bodily injuries. According to the applicant, the expert assessment was carried out on 13 December 2002. According to the Government, it was carried out the following day (14 December 2002). The assessment revealed that the applicant was suffering from a number of bruises and abrasions to his face, limbs, chest and knees, had swollen lips and a wound on his forehead. The expert qualified the injuries as “minor” and recorded that the applicant had complained of headaches and pain in his limbs and ribs and had explained that he had sustained his injuries when resisting arrest. In particular, he had fallen, had been beaten by the “Berkut” officers and had been subjected to martial arts.\n11.  At an unspecified time on 13 December 2002 the applicant and his co-detainees were placed in police custody in the Leninskyy District of Mykolayiv.\n12.  According to the applicant, in the evening of 13 December and the morning of 14 December 2002 he was beaten by police officers, possibly in retaliation for having wounded two officers from their unit earlier that year (on 22 November 2002). Subsequently, the officers questioned him concerning the offences of which he was suspected and solicited incriminating statements concerning a number of other individuals implicated in the revolutionary communist activity. As the applicant refused to cooperate, the officers resorted to various torture techniques. In particular, they suspended him head down from a crowbar by his hands, which were handcuffed behind his knees; beat him with rubber truncheons; stuck needles under his nails; put a gas mask on his face and interrupted his air flow; banged his head against the wall; and jumped", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7965", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Between 1 March 2005 and 21 September 2011 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-42/2 in the Kemerovo Region. The prison was overcrowded. Thus, cell 219 measuring 36 sq. m was designed for 12 and housed up to 18 individuals. Since October 2011 the applicant was isolated from the other detainees and kept in virtually solitary confinement conditions. In addition, the applicant claimed that on several occasions he had been beaten by prison wardens.\n6.  From 12 June to 7 September 2005, from 29 October to 27 November 2009 and from 7 to 15 December 2010 the applicant was transferred from the remand prison to a prison hospital to undergo medical treatment.\n7.  It appears that the applicant complained to the regional prosecutor about the conditions of his detention in the remand prison. On an unspecified date he received the prosecutor’s reply and challenged it before courts.\n8.  On 28 April 2011 the Kuznetskiy District Court of Novokuznetsk rejected the applicant’s claims.\n9.  On 21 June 2011 the Kemerovo Regional Court upheld the above judgment on appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7966", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 10 December 2008 the applicant was charged with an aggravated fraud and remanded in custody.\n8.  On 4 February 2010 the Arzamas Town Court of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to five years and six months’ imprisonment and a fine. The applicant appealed, complaining about a number of procedural irregularities and allegedly erroneous assessment of the evidence.\n9.  On 9 April 2010 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction, reducing the sentence by one month.\n10.  During several periods between 10 December 2008 and 6 February 2010 the applicant was held in the temporary detention centre (IVS) of Arzamas in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region. He was regularly taken out of that facility either to take part in the trial or to undergo medical treatment in a prison hospital.\n11.  The conditions of the applicant’s detention in IVS of Arzamas were characterised by the following elements: the applicant’s cell 6 in the basement measured 5.3 sq. m and accommodated two inmates, there was no window, table or bench, the toilet was not seaprated from the rest of the cell by a partition. In addition, no outdoor exercise was available to the detainees.\n12.  The applicant brought an action in connection with poor conditions of detention in IVS of Arzamas. By the judgment of 18 February 2010, the Arzamas Town Court found that the applicant had been detained in an overcrowded cell located in the basement that had no windows. The applicant was not taken outdoors. It held that the conditions of the applicant’s detention during that period had fallen short of the requirements of Russian law.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7967", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in the Russian Federation.\n7.  On 5 December 2002 the applicant was stopped by the police at a bus station in Odessa, Ukraine, and detained in a holding facility for vagrants (приймальник-спецрозподільник) on the grounds that he had no identity documents with him.\n8.  According to the applicant, he was detained and held alternately in the aforementioned facility and the Kakhovka, Kherson and Mykolayiv police detention facilities until 23 December 2002, and was questioned off the record about his alleged involvement with a terrorist group plotting to instigate a revolt to reinstate a communist state. During those question sessions the applicant was beaten and tortured.\n9.  According to the documents on file, on 9 December 2002 the applicant was examined by B., a medical specialist of the Odessa holding facility for vagrants, who noted that he had no bodily injuries. Subsequently (on 14 December 2002) the applicant was taken to Kakhovka and placed in the police temporary detention facility, where he stayed until 18 December 2002. On the date of his arrival the applicant was examined by S., a medical expert, who recorded no bodily injuries and noted that the applicant had made no complaints of ill-treatment.\n10.  On 14 and 15 December 2002 the Kakhovka police questioned the applicant as a witness in connection with unidentified proceedings. During those interviews the applicant explained to the police that he was a member of a Russian-based non-governmental organisation, “Z.”, which advocated rights for political prisoners and propagated communist political views. He and two other members of Z. had been commissioned to come to Ukraine to distribute their newspaper, Soviet rabochikh deputatov, and other materials, participate in public activities organised by opposition political forces in Ukraine, and promote networking with local leftist groups.\n11.  On 17 December 2002 the applicant participated in a confrontation with V.S., a Kakhovka resident, who confirmed having communicated with the applicant’s associates and having received the Soviet rabochikh deputatov newspaper.\n12.  On 23 December 2002 the applicant addressed a handwritten statement to investigator V.K. of the Security Service of Ukraine (“the SSU”) in Mykolayiv, in which he confessed, in particular, that he had been distributing the Soviet rabochikh deputatov newspaper and other printed materials in Ukraine and that he, with two other members of the communist movement, of which he was a member, had blown up a rubbish bin near the SSU headquarters in Kyiv in October 2002.\n13.  On the same date the applicant was arrested in Mykolayiv on suspicion of a terrorist offence and was subsequently remanded in custody following a court order. It appears from the arrest report drafted on 23 December 2002 that the applicant, who had been notified of his right to legal assistance upon his arrest, expressed the wish to consult a lawyer before his first questioning.\n14.  At about 12.30 p.m. on 24 December 2004 the applicant signed two documents confirming that he understood his rights as a suspect, and also that he wished to consult a lawyer. Subsequently (at about 12.45 p.m.), the applicant signed a statement of consent to be questioned by an SSU officer without a lawyer. During that questioning the applicant reiterated his earlier statements and provided further details concerning his acquaintance and encounters with various activists of the comm", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7968", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lived in Odessa. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Ukraine.\n6.  In summer 2002 the applicant, who was the president of the Odessa Komsomol (Young Communist League) at the material time, unsuccessfully ran for the Odessa Regional Council. According to him, following the election campaign, the State Security Service of Ukraine (“SSU”) put in place secret surveillance measures against him.\n7.  On 15 December 2002 the SSU arrested the applicant in Odessa on suspicion of having organised a criminal group formed of Komsomol members and having planned and directed several violent crimes committed by its members.\n8.  On 16 December 2002 the applicant was taken for questioning to Mykolayiv, where several other individuals implicated in membership of the same group had been arrested and detained some time before.\n9.  On the afternoon of 16 December 2002 the applicant signed a notice that he had been informed of his rights as a suspect and expressed the wish to have a lawyer. On the same date the applicant was appointed a legal-aid lawyer, A.S. In his presence, the applicant terminated the appointment and stated that he agreed to be questioned without a lawyer, until his wife hired one privately.\n10.  On the same date the applicant was questioned and acknowledged his affiliation with the communist party and the Komsomol, a number of whose activists named by the investigator he knew in person. At the same time, the applicant denied having taken part or having been aware of any criminal activity by these individuals. The record of the applicant’s questioning was preceded by his signature, which was underneath a note summarising his rights as a suspect and stating that he had given his consent to take part in the questioning session without legal representation.\n11.  On the same date the applicant was placed in Mykolayiv temporary detention centre (ITT), which, according to him, had unsuitable living conditions. The applicant was subsequently remanded in custody and transferred to Mykolayiv pre-trial detention centre (SIZO).\n12.  On 17 December 2002 a confrontation was conducted between the applicant and A., one of the individuals implicated in membership of the applicant’s criminal group. The record of the confrontation notes that before the questioning, the investigator informed the parties of their procedural rights and asked the applicant whether, regard being had to the fact that he had no legal representation, he agreed to take part in the confrontation. The applicant expressed his willingness to take part in the confrontation, stating that he felt capable of representing himself at that point. Following this introduction, A., who was represented by a lawyer, testified that the applicant had planned and organised several robberies, in which A. and some other individuals from the Komsomol had been involved. Having heard A.’s statement, the applicant refused to take any further part in the confrontation without a lawyer and the confrontation was discontinued.\n13.  On 21 December 2002 lawyer A.A., hired by the applicant’s spouse, was admitted to the proceedings as the applicant’s representative.\n14.  On 25 December 2002 the applicant was indicted on a number of charges including organising and directing a terrorist group with a view to re-establishing a communist state by violent means and being in charge of several robberies (“expropriations”) committed in order to raise funds for the group. Follo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7969", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 13 June 2007 the Ust-Ilimsk Town Court of the Irkutsk Region found the applicant guilty of inflicting grave bodily harm which caused the death of the victim and sentenced him to a prison term. The applicant appealed, claiming in general terms that the proceedings had been unfair, and that the court had applied domestic law and assessed the evidence erroneously. He further alleged that the court had failed to examine two witnesses and had delivered its judgment in the absence of one of the co‑defendants.\n6.  On 1 October 2007 the Irkutsk Regional Court quashed the conviction on appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for a fresh examination.\n7.  On 20 March 2009 the Ust-Ilimsk Town Court found the applicant guilty of the same offence and gave him a custodial sentence. The applicant appealed. Giving no further details, he alleged that the Town Court had applied domestic law and assessed the evidence erroneously, and that it had rejected the majority of the motions lodged by the defence. He further complained about the change of his counsel during the proceedings.\n8.  On 5 October 2009 the Irkutsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint and upheld the judgment on appeal.\n9.  Between 26 September 2005 and 9 January 2009 the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-38/2 of the Irkutsk Region. The prison was severely overcrowded. Thus, cell 95 measuring 24 sq. m was equipped with 8 sleeping places and accommodated up to 17 inmates. In addition, the applicant claimed that he had contracted tuberculosis during his stay there.\n10.  From 23 February to 27 April 2008 the applicant was transferred to remand prison IZ-38/1 of Irkutsk and from 17 July to 3 August 2008 he was transferred to penitentiary medical facility LIU-27 in the Irkutsk Region for treatment of his tuberculosis.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7970", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 31 January 1998 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. On 6 February 1998 he was charged with aggravated murder. Subsequently, the applicant and a number of other individuals (see Salmanov v. Russia, no. 3522/04, 31 July 2008) were accused of other violent crimes. The proceedings in relation to all these offences were joined into one case, which was investigated by a group of investigators from the Moscow prosecutor’s office. The investigation was completed in December 1998.\n7.  The applicant studied the case file in June and July 1999 and requested a trial by a jury.\n8.  On 19 July 1999 the Moscow city prosecutor approved the indictment and the case was submitted to the City Court for trial. The applicant was committed to stand trial on charges relating to a number of offences including conspiracy to commit murder. Fifteen other co-defendants were committed to stand trial on similar charges.\n9.  On 5 August 1999 the City Court noted that the majority of the defendants had opted to exercise their constitutional right to a trial by jury. However, as there were no juries in the City Court, it decided to send an inquiry to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation as to where the case should be tried. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Moscow Regional Court, where juries were available.\n10.  On an unspecified date a judge of the Regional Court sent a request to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, inviting it to rule on the compatibility of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the jurisdictional rules with the Russian Constitution. On 17 February 2000 she suspended the proceedings pending a decision by the Constitutional Court and held that the defendants were to remain in custody because of the dangerousness of the criminal offences they had been charged with, which were classified as serious or particularly serious.\n11.  On 13 April 2000 the Constitutional Court issued a decision to the effect that the decision on the change of venue had been incompatible with the Russian Constitution.\n12.  In accordance with that ruling, on 14 June 2000 the Regional Court returned the case file to the Supreme Court, which decided on 6 September 2000 that the City Court was competent to try the case.\n13.  On 29 September 2000 the City Court scheduled the first hearing for 13 October 2000 before a bench consisting of a professional judge and two lay judges, but it was adjourned on the day because the presiding judge was sitting in another case.\n14.  In 2001 and 2002 the presiding judge was replaced by other judges of the City Court. The lay judges were replaced several times.\n15.  On 24 December 2001 the applicant asked the judge for additional time to study the case file. His request was left without reply.\n16.  Numerous hearings were scheduled between 2001 and early 2003. They were adjourned for various reasons, mainly because the prosecutor, interpreter and some of the defence lawyers failed to appear, but also because the presiding judge was involved in other proceedings in May and October 2001 and May, September and October 2002.\n17.  It appears that consideration of the merits began in March 2003, but hearings scheduled for 4 March and 29 April 2003 were again adjourned, inter alia, because several of the lawyers failed to appear.\n18.  On 12 March 2003 the trial judge ordered that the applicant be removed from the courtroom “until the closure of the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7971", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Tallinn.\n5.  On 10 October 2003 the applicant lodged an action with the Harju County Court (previously named the Tallinn City Court) for divorce and division of joint property including a number of real estates and shares of companies.\n6.  The defendant submitted his arguments to the court on 15 January 2004.\n7.  A preliminary hearing took place on 20 April 2004. An adjournment was requested because of the illness of the defendant’s lawyer. The applicant submitted a request concerning new evidence and interim measures.\n8.  On 9 November 2004 a preliminary hearing took place. The applicant submitted that she intended to supplement her action.\n9.  On 20 December 2004 the applicant submitted new arguments and a request concerning new evidence. On 5 January 2005 the defendant replied.\n10.  On 7 April 2005 a preliminary hearing took place.\n11.  On 22 August 2005 the applicant submitted a number of procedural objections and requests concerning new evidence, including a request to appoint an expert. On 2 September 2005 she requested to stay the proceedings.\n12.  On 13 September 2005 a preliminary hearing took place. As the defendant had failed to appear at the hearing, the examination of the case was adjourned.\n13.  On 25 October 2005 the defendant submitted additional evidence. On 11 November 2005 the applicant replied, submitted new arguments and a request concerning new evidence. On 11 January 2006 the defendant made further submissions.\n14.  On 17 January 2006 a preliminary hearing took place.\n15.  On 31 March and 24 August 2006 the applicant submitted new evidence, arguments and requests concerning new evidence, including a request to appoint an expert, and supplemented her action.\n16.  On 5 September 2006 a hearing took place. The applicant requested ordering an expert assessment. She had not yet submitted the list of the joint property, information about its value and relevant proof. The applicant objected to the defendant’s request that a partial judgment in respect of divorce be made.\n17.  On 15 September 2006 the Harju County Court delivered a partial judgment divorcing the marriage. The applicant appealed.\n18.  On 25 September 2006 she submitted a request for the removal of the judge and requests concerning new evidence.\n19.  On 7 May 2007 the Tallinn Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 25 July 2007 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.\n20.  On 20 December 2007 the applicant submitted a complete version of her claims that had been requested by the County Court since she had previously made numerous amendments to her initial claims. She also made a request concerning new evidence and an expert assessment. In the months to follow, written submissions were exchanged between the parties.\n21.  On 11 July 2008 the applicant submitted new arguments and requests concerning new evidence.\n22.  On 18 September 2008 the County Court ruled on an advance payment concerning an expert assessment.\n23.  On 10 October 2008 the applicant requested an interim judgment for the establishment of joint property. The defendant agreed. On 17 November 2008 the County Court requested the parties to submit the lists of property.\n24.  In April 2009 the parties exchanged submissions concerning the court expenses and the court ordered the parties to submit any unsubmitted evidence.\n25.  On 26 June 2009 the Harju County Court delivered an interim judgment on the composition of the jo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7972", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, a Turkish national, was born in 1949 and is currently being held in İmralı Prison.\n6.  The facts of the case up to 12 May 2005 were presented by the Court in the Öcalan v. Turkey judgment ([GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005‑IV). They may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 15 February 1999 the applicant was arrested by members of the Turkish security forces in an aircraft in the international area of Nairobi airport. The applicant was returned to Turkey from Kenya and taken into custody at İmralı Prison on 16 February 1999. The inmates at this prison had meanwhile been transferred to other prisons.\n8.  On 23 February 1999 the applicant appeared before a judge of the Ankara National Security Court, who ordered that he should be detained pending trial.\n9.  By a judgment of 29 June 1999, the Ankara National Security Court found the applicant guilty of carrying out acts designed to bring about the secession of part of Turkey’s territory and of training and leading a gang of armed terrorists for that purpose, and sentenced him to death under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. It found that the applicant was the founder and principal leader of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan – hereafter “the PKK”). The National Security Court found that it had been established that, following decisions taken by the applicant and on his orders and instructions, the PKK had carried out several armed attacks, bomb attacks, acts of sabotage and armed robberies, and that in the course of those acts of violence thousands of civilians, soldiers, police officers, village guards and public servants had been killed. The court reiterated that the applicant had acknowledged that the Turkish Government’s estimate of the number of those killed (almost 30,000) or wounded as a result of the PKK’s activities was fairly accurate, that the actual number might even be higher, and that he had ordered the attacks as part of the armed struggle being waged by the PKK. The court did not accept that there were mitigating circumstances allowing the death penalty to be commuted to life imprisonment, having regard, among other things, to the very large number and the seriousness of the acts of violence and the major, pressing threat to the country that those acts posed.\n10.  By a judgment adopted on 22 November 1999 and delivered on 25 November 1999, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 29 June 1999 in its entirety.\n11.  In October 2001 Article 38 of the Constitution was amended so that the death penalty could no longer be ordered or implemented other than in time of war or of imminent threat of war, or for acts of terrorism.\nBy Law no. 4771, published on 9 August 2002, the Turkish Grand National Assembly resolved, inter alia, to abolish the death penalty in peacetime (that is to say except in time of war or of imminent threat of war) and to make the necessary amendments to the relevant legislation, including the Criminal Code. As a result of the amendments, a prisoner whose death sentence for an act of terrorism has been commuted to life imprisonment must spend the rest of his life in prison.\n12.  By a judgment of 3 October 2002, the Ankara National Security Court commuted the applicant’s death sentence to life imprisonment.\n13.  On 20 February 2006 Turkey ratified Protocol No. 13 concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances.\n14.  The applicant’s conditions of detention in İmralı Prison before 12 May 2005 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7973", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1962, 1964 and 1974 respectively and live in Târgu Mureş.\n6.  On 15 January 1997 a criminal investigation was opened against the applicants and two other persons and on 4 April 1997 they were indicted for trespassing, inflicting grievous bodily harm causing the death of the victim and making false statements to the police.\n7.  Between 13 May 1997 and 21 April 1998, the Mureş County Court adjourned the proceedings nine times pending the summoning of several witnesses requested by the prosecutor and the summoning of witnesses and examination of other evidence requested on three occasions by the applicants.\n8.  On 29 May 1998 the Mureş County Court adjourned delivery of the judgment at the request of the applicants’ representatives, who asked permission to submit written pleadings.\n9.  On 5 June 1998 the Mureş County Court convicted the applicants of inflicting grievous bodily harm causing the death of the victim as defined in Article 183 of the Criminal Code, and trespassing, and sentenced them each to three years’ imprisonment. The applicant Ştefan Şopterean was also given a suspended sentence for insulting a police officer and causing a breach of the peace. All three applicants were ordered to pay civil damages jointly.\n10.  The applicants and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the Mureş County Court.\n11.  At the first hearing before the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal on 23 December 1998 the prosecutor requested that the court change the legal classification of the acts committed by the applicants to aggravated murder as defined in Article 174 taken together with Article 176 of the Criminal Code. Under those circumstances, the applicants requested an adjournment of the proceedings in order to prepare their defence.\n12.  On 3 February 1999 the Court of Appeal heard all the parties in the trial and decided to adjourn delivery of the judgment to 18 February and subsequently to 4 March 1999.\n13.  On 4 March 1999 the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal allowed the prosecutor’s appeal and sent the case back to the first-instance court for a retrial on the merits.\n14.  Between 11 May and 19 October 1999, the Mureş County Court adjourned the proceedings seven times on account of the absence of the civil party and pending the summoning of several witnesses requested by the prosecutor.\n15.  At a hearing on 16 November 1999 the Mureş County Court heard the applicants’ submissions on the prosecutor’s request to change the classification of the crimes charged. The applicants’ lawyers asked the court to reject that request and to adjourn delivery of the judgment in order for them to submit written observations. The court adjourned delivery of the judgment to 3 December and subsequently to 10 December 1999. Written observations on behalf of the applicants were submitted to the case-file before the delivery of the judgment.\n16.  On 10 December 1999 the Mureş County Court, after a thorough analysis of all the evidence contained in the file, rejected the prosecutor’s request for the reclassification of the acts committed by the applicants and upheld their previous conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm causing the death of the victim as defined in Article 183 of the Criminal Code, and trespassing. The amount of the civil damages the applicants were ordered to pay jointly was increased.\n17.  Appeals by the prosecutor and the applicants against the above‑mentioned judgment were allowed by the Târgu Mureş Court of A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7974", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Tirana.\n5.  On 10 December 2001 the applicant, who worked as an accountant for the Tirana City Hall, was dismissed. The dismissal took effect on 11 January 2002.\n6.  On 6 February 2002, following the applicant’s action against his dismissal, the Civil Service Commission (“CSC”) quashed the dismissal decision and ordered his employer to reinstate him. By final decision of 8 May 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the CSC decision. On 10 March 2006 the applicant was offered employment by the Tirana City Hall (see paragraph 11 below).\n7.  On 15 May 2003 the Tirana District Court supplemented the CSC’s decision by ordering the Tirana City Hall to pay the applicant’s salary for the period between 10 December 2001 and the date of reinstatement. The employer’s request for revision was dismissed on 10 October 2003.\n8.  On 4 June 2003 an enforcement writ was issued in respect of both decisions.\n9.  On 31 March 2006 the Constitutional Court, following a constitutional complaint by the applicant, acknowledged that there had been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to court on account of the non-enforcement of the Supreme Court’s decision. However, it made no award.\n10.  On 1 March 2006 the applicant took up employment with the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports (“the Ministry”).\n11.  On 10 March 2006 the Tirana City Hall appointed the applicant to a position in a maintenance company, which was responsible to the Tirana City Hall. The applicant challenged the appointment.\n12.  On 15 May 2006 the CSC quashed the appointment decision. The CSC decision became final, none of the parties having appealed against it.\n13.  In 2004 and 2006 the applicant successfully sought the payment of accrued interest arising from the delay in the payment of his salary.\n14.  On 9 April 2008, following a third action by the applicant, the Tirana District Court found in the applicant’s favour and ordered the Tirana City Hall to pay the applicant ALL 774,076 in salary arrears and ALL 105,258 in accrued interest. The court reasoned that, since the applicant had taken up employment with the Ministry on 1 March 2006, the Tirana City Hall was obliged to pay him salary arrears for the period from 11 January 2002 (see paragraph 5 above) to 28 February 2006. That obligation had ceased to exist ipso lege as of 1 March 2006. Relying on an expert’s report, the court found that the applicant’s salary arrears for the period from 11 January 2002 to 28 February 2006 amounted to ALL 1,720,261, of which ALL 946,185 had been paid by the Tirana City Hall. The accrued interest for the corresponding period amounted to ALL 105,258.\n15.  On 11 November 2009 an enforcement writ was issued.\n16.  On 12 February 2010 it would appear that the Tirana District Court’s decision became final, the Supreme Court having dismissed the defendant’s appeal.\n17.  On 31 March 2010 the Tirana City Hall paid the salary arrears. There is no information in the case file concerning the payment of accrued interest.\n18.  On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicant lodged a fourth civil action seeking the payment of accrued interest for the period between 9 April 2008 and 31 March 2010 and the payment of social security contributions by the Tirana City Hall.\n19.  On 30 June 2010 the Tirana District Court found in his favour and ordered the Tirana City Hall to pay accrued interest as a result of the delay in payment of the salary arrears from 9 April 2008 to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7975", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Dabas.\n6.  In 1985 the applicant’s father brought an action in compensation and including other claims before the Pest Central District Court. In 1986 the applicant joined the litigation.\n7.  Between June 1995 and January 1998 as well as between March 2000 and December 2004 the case was interrupted on account of the deaths of several of the altogether 37 respondents.\n8.  In 2007 the applicant’s father died. The court again interrupted the proceedings pending the entry into litigation of the successor. However, it appears that this successor was the applicant herself, who had been party to the case since 1986.\n9.  The case is still pending before the Pest Central District Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7976", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 25 January 2006 the applicant brought an action in compensation in the context of water damage in her condominium.\n6.  After holding several hearings and obtaining expert evidence, on 18 March 2010 the Buda Central District Court found for the applicant.\n7.  On 6 October 2010 the Budapest Regional Court reversed this judgment.\n8.  On 2 June 2011 the Supreme Court rejected, without an examination on the merits, the applicant’s petition for review since it did not meet the statutory requirements.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7977", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Strzyżów.\n6.  Prior to her early retirement she had been employed for 21 years at the same furniture factory and had paid her social security contributions to the State.\n7.  On 18 December 2001 the applicant filed an application with the Rzeszów Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych) to be granted the right to an early-retirement pension for persons raising children who, due to the seriousness of their health condition, required constant care, the so-called “EWK” pension.\n8.  Along with her application for a pension, the applicant submitted, among other documents concerning her son’s health condition, a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor. The certificate stated that the child (born in 1989) suffered from mild intellectual disability and that he was in need of his parent’s constant care.\n9.  On 21 December 2001 the Rzeszów Social Security Board (“the SSB”) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early‑retirement pension in the net amount of around 730 Polish zlotys (PLN) per month.\n10.  Due to the applicant’s employment the Social Security Board initially suspended the payment of the pension. The payment started on 1 January 2002 when the applicant resigned from her employment.\n11.  On 12 July 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board asked the Main Social Security Board’s doctor (Główny Lekarz Orzecznik) to inform it whether the applicant’s son required the permanent care of a parent. The doctor stated that, on the basis of the medical documents, the child could not be considered as ever having required such care.\n12.  On 20 August 2002 the Rzeszów Social Security Board simultaneously issued two decisions in respect of the applicant. By virtue of the first decision, the payment of the applicant’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect (1 September 2002). By virtue of the second decision, the Board reopened the proceedings, revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to award the applicant the right to an early-retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the Cabinet’s Ordinance of 15 May 1989 on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care (Rozporządzenie Rady Ministrów z dn. 15 maja 1989 w sprawie uprawnień do wcześniejszej emerytury pracowników opiekujących się dziećmi wymagającymi stałej opieki) (“the 1989 Ordinance”).\n13.  The applicant appealed against these decisions. She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care, as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant’s original application for a pension. Moreover, the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights.\n14.  On 27 February 2003 the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n15.  The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment.\n16.  On 19 September 2003 the Rzeszów Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s further appeal. The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the 1989 Ordinance as she had not satisfied the requirement of necessary permanent care.\n17.  On 4 May 2004 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant’s cassation appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 1 July 2004.\n18.  Following the social security p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7978", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Velké Dravce, Slovakia.\n6.  The applicant and his former spouse, also of Slovakian nationality, found employment in Hungary and settled there in 2004. They married in Slovakia in 2005. Their child, also a Slovakian citizen, was born in Hatvan, Hungary, in 2007.\n7.  As their marriage deteriorated, the wife lodged a divorce action and a custody claim with the Hungarian Hatvan District Court on 18 June 2008.\n8.  The applicant filed an objection contesting the jurisdiction of the Hungarian courts. The District Court held a hearing and dismissed the case, accepting the applicant’s argument. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant had filed a divorce action before the Slovakian Rimavská Sobota District Court.\n9.  On appeal, the Hungarian Heves County Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision on 19 February 2009, for further circumstances to be clarified, namely the exact date of filing the action before the Slovakian court. The Regional Court noted that the law applicable by the Hatvan District Court was the Slovakian one.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings, the Hatvan District Court ascertained that the action before the Slovakian court had been filed on 24 June 2008, that is, six days later than the one before the Hungarian court. During the procedure the court obtained the necessary translation of the Slovakian law.\nThe District Court rejected the applicant’s jurisdictional objection on 10 March 2010, holding that the Slovakian case had been pre-empted by the Hungarian one. On his appeal, the second-instance court upheld the decision on 16 June 2010.\n11.  Meanwhile, the applicant filed a complaint about the protraction of the proceedings. The objection was dismissed by the Heves County Regional Court on 18 May 2010. The court held that there was no unreasonable delay or omission to be observed during the proceedings.\n12.  The first hearing on the merits was held by the Hatvan District Court on 5 October 2010 in the absence of the applicant. Although two more hearings were held on 8 February and 28 April 2011, the applicant, properly summoned, failed to appear.\n13.  Meanwhile, the applicant had brought several actions against his former spouse before the Slovakian Rimavská Sobota District Court. The applicant’s contact with his child was also regulated with provisional measure by that court on 22 December 2008.\n14.  On 28 April 2011 the Hatvan District Court dissolved the applicant’s marriage and ordered him to pay child maintenance.\n15.  The applicant appealed but the Hungarian Eger High Court upheld the first-instance decision on 15 February 2012. This decision was served on the applicant on 15 June 2012.\n16.  The applicant lodged a petition for review. On 14 May 2013 the Kúria rejected the request since it was excluded by law in such cases.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7979", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Siófok.\n5.  On 11 January 2002 the applicant was dismissed from the civil service.\n6.  On 20 February 2002 she challenged her dismissal before the Budapest Labour Court.\n7.  On 15 May 2003 the court found for the applicant, establishing that her dismissal had been unlawful, and awarded her compensation.\n8.  On appeal, on 17 March 2004 the Budapest Regional Court upheld in essence the first instance decision, increased the award, but dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s compensation claims and, as to the applicant’s claim regarding the amount of certain additional allowances, it remitted the case to the first-instance court.\n9.  On 5 September 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the second-instance decision and remitted the case to the Labour Court.\n10.  In the resumed proceedings, on 7 June 2007 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action.\n11. On 29 October 2008 the Budapest Regional Court reversed the first-instance decision and awarded compensation to the applicant. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court on 31 March 2010.\n12.  The applicant’s further pecuniary claims, also originating in the labour dispute, were finally adjudicated on 16 January 2013 by the Budapest High Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7980", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1963.\n8.  The applicant was convicted twice of fraud, in 1986 and in 1987.\n9.  Until 1992 the applicant lived in the town of Gabrovo. From 27 May 1992 onwards he lived at an address in Sofia.\n10. On 26 October 1993 the applicant registered as a sole trader. The applicant did not engage in any business activities until 1995. In 1995, in particular from 20 April to 17 May, on the territory of the town of Varna and in his capacity as a sole trader, the applicant developed a quasi-banking activity by taking loans from individuals with the promise of repaying them at significant levels of interest.\n11.  On 17 May 1995 the applicant left Bulgaria and moved to Georgia, where he married a Georgian national in 1997. He has two children.\n12.  On an unspecified date in 1995, but after the applicant’s departure from the country, criminal proceedings were instituted against him and an accomplice on charges of large-scale fraud. The applicant was declared wanted for prosecution on 12 June 1995. It is not clear what measures the authorities took to detect the whereabouts of the applicant.\n13.  On an unspecified date an indictment was filed at Varna District Court. The proceedings were conducted in the absence of the applicant and his accomplice by virtue of a court decision taken in a hearing of 30 September 1996. As regards the applicant, the proceedings were held in absentia on the grounds of Article 268 § 3(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974, namely because the accused was outside the country and his address was not known to the authorities (see paragraph 25 below). The applicant was represented by court-appointed counsel.\n14.  In a judgment of 28 October 1996 the Varna District Court found the applicant guilty of fraud and sentenced him to a ten-year term of imprisonment. The court held that between 20 April and 25 May 1995 the applicant, with his accomplice, committed fraud in the amount of 108,846,390 old Bulgarian levs (BGL) against 1,740 individuals by means of establishing a company which operated as a “financial pyramid” and accrued large amounts of money through loans from the population. Some of the loans were returned to the people with significant interest, apparently with the aim of gaining popularity and attracting more contributions. The majority of the loans, however, were not returned.\n15.  The court based its judgment on witness statements, a number of expert reports, documents and other material evidence. No appeal was lodged against the judgment and it became final on 11 November 1996.\n16.  On 19 May 2004 the Varna District Court authorities destroyed the case file.\n17.  On 22 October 2004 the applicant was arrested at the Bulgarian border and taken to Kremikovtsi Prison to serve his sentence. On 5 November 2004 he sent a request to the prison governor, asking to be treated as a Georgian national for the duration of his ten-year term of imprisonment. He appears to have assumed that being treated as a Georgian national would facilitate contact with his Georgian family.\n18.  On 11 December 2004 the prison governor issued a note which contained an explanation of the reasons for the applicant’s arrest. In reply to a letter from the applicant, apparently inquiring about the reasons for his detention, on 8 March 2005 the prosecutor informed the applicant once more that his detention had been ordered on the grounds that he had received a ten-year prison sentence.\n19.  Meanwhile, the applicant began t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7982", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Târgu-Jiu.\n6.  On 25 August 2003 the applicant, who was the director of a local bank branch, was arrested and charged with several economic crimes, namely approving loans without respecting the legal requirements, abuse of office, fraud, forgery and conspiracy to commit crimes. Seven other individuals were also charged with various bank frauds allegedly committed in association with the applicant between January 2002 and April 2003.\n7.  On 27 July 2007 the Sibiu County Court acquitted the applicant of all the charges against him. The court held that the applicant was not guilty of the crimes of abuse of office, fraud, forgery and conspiracy to commit crimes. As regards the crime of approving loans without respecting the legal requirements, the court held that from 26 March 2007 this was no longer an offence in law and therefore acquitted the applicant of this offence too. On 2 November 2011 the applicant’s acquittal was finally upheld by a judgment of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.\n8.  Following the applicant’s arrest on 25 August 2003 for a period of three days, the investigating prosecutor requested the Gorj County Court to confirm the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a total period of thirty days. The prosecutor reasoned the request by quoting the text of Article 148 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provided for the cases in which a defendant may be arrested, namely that the defendant had made preparations to abscond from the authorities; that there was sufficient evidence that the defendant had tried to obstruct the investigation by influencing witnesses and destroying evidence; that the defendant had committed crimes for which the punishment was imprisonment for more than four years; that there was evidence that if released the defendant would pose a danger to public order and that there were sufficient data to justify the concern that the defendant would exert pressure on the victim or that he would try to make a fraudulent settlement of the case with the latter. No specific reference was made to the applicant’s situation or to the application of the legislation quoted in his particular case.\n9.  On 26 August 2003, on the basis of the reasons advanced by the prosecutor, the Gorj County Court granted this request and remanded the applicant in pre-trial custody for twenty-seven days. By the same judgment and with the same reasoning the court remanded the other three co-defendants who were arrested at the same time as he applicant in pre-trial custody.\n10.  On 29 August 2003 the Craiova Court of Appeal rejected an appeal by the applicant on points of law against the above-mentioned interlocutory judgment as ill-founded. The court held “In the current case the applicant has committed the above-mentioned offences and their nature leads to the conclusion that the defendant’s release would constitute an actual danger to public order.”\n11.  The applicant’s and his co-defendants’ pre-trial detention was subsequently extended on 10 September 2003, with the reasoning that the motives which had justified their arrest still existed. In taking this decision the court also held relevant the fact that two more suspects had been arrested since the beginning of the investigation. An appeal by the applicant on points of law against this judgment was rejected by the Craiova Court of Appeal on 12 September 2003; the court held that the applicant’s release had been correctly deemed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7985", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Khabarovsk.\n6.  In 1997 the Department of Justice of the Irkutsk Region registered a non-profit non-governmental association, “The Art of Living” (hereinafter “the association”). The goals the association set out in its charter included the “promotion of social adaptation”, the popularisation of a healthy lifestyle, helping people in stressful situations and improving social and family relations. In practical terms the activity of the association consisted of training sessions, lectures, personal consultations and the like. Participation in the “programmes” of the association was offered to anyone interested and was free of charge, although participants were encouraged to make voluntary contributions to support the activities of the association. The association also issued a number of brochures containing information about its goals and basic principles. The brochures explained that the association was inspired by the teachings of SriSri Ravi Shankar, a modern Indian spiritual leader. According to one of the brochures, participation in the programmes of the association would help its participants to fight insomnia and depression, strengthen their cardio-vascular systems, control their emotions and boost their natural defence mechanisms.\n7.  The association operated without a licence. On 2 February 2001 the association applied to the Committee on Sport and Recreation of the Administration of the Khabarovsk Region for a licence. On an unspecified date in February the Committee confirmed to the association that it did not require a licence to run its programmes, stating the following:\n“... Your type of activity, [namely] yoga seminars with application of the postures (asana) of Hatha Yoga, Bhakti Yoga, and Kriya Yoga (practising kriya pranayama, i.e. rhythmical breathing at different speeds) does not belong to the category of sports activities or health-improving gymnastics and is not listed in the Unified Russian Register of Sports Activities”.\n8.  In the spring of 2002 Ms S.D., who was at the time a third-year student at the Institute of Pedagogy in Irkutsk (hereinafter – “the university”), enrolled in the basic programme of the association, “The Healing Breath Workshop”. She enrolled together with her twin sister, Ms N.D. The applicant was one of the “instructors” of the association responsible for that programme. The course included elements of yoga, special breathing techniques, mantra singing, meditation, listening to music, aromatherapy and other similar practices. Participants were recommended to follow a certain diet and do exercises at home. The applicant claimed that she had been doing the exercises regularly herself since 1994.\n9.  In April 2002 Ms S.D. and her sister started to attend daily training sessions on the premises of the association. Ms S.D. contributed 700 roubles (about 20 euros) to the association as a gift. Upon completion of the course Ms S.D. was encouraged to enrol in an advanced course called “Eternity”, which was run by a different instructor, Ms M.S.\n10.  At a certain point Ms S.D. started experiencing serious psychological problems. Her mother called the association and blamed the instructors for having turned Ms S.D. “into a zombie”. According to the applicant, Ms S.D.’s mother was a fervent Orthodox Christian and did not approve of her daughters’ interest in a group which the mother described as a “sect”.\n11.  According to Ms S.D.’s mother, after the traini", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7986", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  All three applications were lodged with the Court by the same applicants. They were initially registered under application no. 31355/09 (not communicated to the Government).\n7.  After a preliminary examination of the case file and taking account of the applicants’ additional clarifications as well as the conduct of the domestic proceedings, it was considered necessary to divide the case into three applications, two additional application numbers having been allocated (nos. 64480/09 and 64482/09). These latter two cases have been communicated to the Government.\n8.  The facts in respect of each application have been described below.\n9.  On 6 March 1996 the Durrës Restitution and Compensation of Properties Commission (“the Durrës Commission”) recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 174,000 sq. m, 4,200 sq. m of which was restored. The applicants would have the right to first refusal (e drejta e parablerjes) of a further 5,800 sq. m and they would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law for the remaining 158,200 sq. m (“the first Commission decision”).\n10.  On the same day, the Durrës Commission, consisting of the same composition, delivered another decision which bore the same number and Commission stamp (“the second Commission decision”). According to the second decision, the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 17,400 sq. m, 4,200 sq. m of which was restored. The applicants would have the right to first refusal of 5,800 sq. m, no other award having been made.\n11.  On 6 December 2005 the Durrës District Court recognised the existence of the applicants’ inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring 400,000 sq. m situated in the city of Durrës (vendim për vërtetim fakti). This plot of land was made up of two smaller plots: one measuring 260,000 sq. m (“Plot A”) and the other measuring 140,000 sq. m (“Plot B”).\nProceedings concerning the restitution of Plot B\n12.  On an unspecified date the applicants made an application for the recognition of property rights to Plot B (see paragraph 11 above).\n13.  On 30 July 2007 the Durrës Regional Agency for Compensation and Restitution of Properties (“the Durrës Regional Agency”) recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights to Plot B, 53,200 sq. m of which was restored. The applicants would also be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law in respect of a further 22,960 sq. m, no decision having been taken in respect of the remaining 63,840 sq. m.\n14.  On 15 November 2007, following the applicants’ appeal, the Agency for Compensation and Restitution of Properties in Tirana (“the Central Agency”) quashed the Durrës Regional Agency’s decision of 2007 and remitted the case for re-examination.\n15.  On 16 May 2008 the Durrës Regional Agency recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights in respect of only 76,160 sq. m of Plot B, no decision having been taken in respect of the remaining 63,840 sq. m. The applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law in lieu of restitution of the area of Plot B measuring 76,160 sq. m.\n16.  On 28 February 2011 the Central Agency quashed the Durrës Regional Agency’s decision of 2008. The applicants were informed of their right to appeal, within 30 days of notification, to the Tirana District Court.\n17.  It would appear that, following the applicants’ appeal, the proceedings are currently pending before th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7987", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954. At present he is serving his prison sentence in Jilava Prison.\n6.  On 11 October 2011 the High Court of Cassation and Justice sentenced the applicant to ten years’ imprisonment.\n7.  Since 23 September 2009 the applicant has been held in a number of different detention centres. Initially he was detained in Bucharest police station and then transferred to Rahova and Jilava Prisons. In respect of the establishments in which he was detained, the applicant alleged that he had been kept in overcrowded cells in poor conditions of hygiene. He also alleged that, despite the fact that he was a non-smoker, he had been detained with inmates who smoked inside the cell in all three prisons. He claimed that his health had worsened because of the conditions in which he had been kept and that he had been diagnosed with tuberculosis.\n8.  The Government supplied the following details concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention in each establishment:\n9.  The applicant was detained in Bucharest police station no. 15 between 23 and 30 September 2009 and again from 9 October to 24 November 2009, in cell no. 3.\n10.  Cell no. 3 had a surface area of 16.25 square metres and was occupied by six detainees.\n11.  The applicant was detained in Rahova Prison for the following periods: from 24 November 2009 to 7 June 2011; from 16 June 2011 to 20 January 2012; from 26 January to 2 April 2012 and from 4 April to 8 June 2012.\n12.  The Government submitted that each cell occupied by the applicant during the above-mentioned periods had a surface area of 19.58 square metres and was occupied by between nine and eleven detainees.\n13.  The applicant has been detained in Jilava Prison from 8 June 2012 to date.\nThe cells in which the applicant has been detained are as follows:\n- cell E1.16 and E1.20 with a surface area of 12.69 square metres and occupied by up to six detainees;\n- cell E3.5 with a surface area of 34.78 square metres and occupied by up to twenty-seven detainees;\n- cell E3.8 with a surface area of 51.08 square metres and occupied by up to thirty-five detainees;\n- cell E3. 13 with a surface area of 33.08 square metres and occupied by between nineteen and twenty-four detainees;\n- cell E6.26 with a surface area of 44.97 square metres and occupied by up to twenty-six detainees;\n- cell E4. 35 with a surface area of 44.97 square metres and occupied by up to twenty-three detainees;\n- and cell E6.16 with a surface area of 14.71 square metres and occupied by up to twelve detainees.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7988", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is currently detained in Giurgiu Prison.\n6.  In a final judgment by the Dolj County Court, the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder.\n7.  The applicant was detained in Craiova Prison between 2 December 1997 and 26 June 2008. During that time he was transferred to other prisons or prison hospitals for short periods. On 26 June 2008 he was transferred to Poarta Albă Prison. He has been serving his sentence in Giurgiu Prison since 2 September 2010.\n8.  The material conditions of detention in Craiova Prison were described by the applicant as being inhuman and degrading.\n9.  As a result of the severity of his sentence, the applicant was classified as a dangerous prisoner in accordance with the prison regulations and was held in solitary confinement. He alleged that he had insufficient living space in his cell because it contained unnecessary beds. His requests for some of the beds to be removed were always refused by the prison administration. He also complained that he felt isolated, as he had been forbidden to share the cell with another person or to meet other detainees for the entire duration of his detention. This situation was aggravated by the complete lack of activities outside the cell. In this respect he contended that he had participated in educational activities only in 2002 and 2003. For the rest of the time he had spent in Craiova Prison, no activities had been proposed to him.\n10.  There was a severe lack of drinking water, and of hot and cold water in general. The insufficient provision of hot water, namely once a week for one hour for a high number of detainees in collective showers, made it impossible to maintain a proper standard of personal hygiene.\n11.  Heating was provided for only two hours in the morning and two in the evening, which was not enough to heat the cell. The applicant therefore suffered constantly from the cold during the winter.\n12.  The food was insufficient and of very poor quality. The applicant, who did not have the financial means to buy additional food, suffered from hunger for most of the time.\n13.  There was not enough light in the cell because the window was too narrow and artificial light was only provided in the evening.\n14.  The applicant was systematically handcuffed every time he was taken out of his cell, even when he was taken to the prison’s religious facilities.\n15.  The applicant alleged that those conditions had had a negative impact on his physical and psychological well-being. In this connection, it appears from his prison medical file that he was suffering from chronic depressive psychopathy and had attempted to commit suicide. He was also diagnosed with gastritis and duodenitis, both of which became chronic as from 2004.\n(b)  The Government’s account\n16.  The applicant was held alone in a cell measuring 9.03 sq. m, in which three rows of bunk beds were installed each measuring 1.90 m by 0.80 m. The cell also contained a table and two chairs. All the furniture was fixed on the floor and could not be moved. During his detention in Craiova Prison, the applicant shared the cell with other detainees for various periods of time. On one occasion, he even planned an escape with his cellmate, R.A. The applicant participated in two educational activities in the course of 2002 and one educational activity from January to April 2003.\n17.  There was a constant supply of cold drinking water, in accordance with the international conventions", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7989", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Brežice.\n6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed and semi-open sections of Ljubljana prison in the period between 29 February 2008 and 29 December 2010. From 29 February 2008 to 11 July 2008, from 20 October 2008 to 3 February 2009 and from 14 July 2009 to 29 December 2010 he was held in the closed section. From 11 July 2008 to 20 October 2008 and from 3 February 2009 to 14 July 2009 he was held in the semi‑open section.\n7.  From 11 July 2008 to 20 October 2008 and from 3 February 2009 to 14 July 2009 he was held in cells 145 and 147 (third floor), which measured 18.8 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained 5 sleeping places. From 14 July 2009 to 14 June 2010 he was held in cell 7 (third floor), which measured 16.8 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained 5 sleeping places. From 14 June 2010 to 29 December 2010 he was held in cell 1 (third floor), which measured 18.4 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility) and contained 5 sleeping places.\n8.  All the cells in the closed and semi-open sections contained, apart from the furniture, five sleeping places (two bunk beds and one single bed). According to the applicant, five prisoners were being held in each of the cells during his detention. The Government, however, submitted that the number varied between four and five. Each cell had one 107 x 110 cm double casement window, which the prisoners could freely open or close.\n9.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the closed and semi-open sections, material conditions inside the cells therein, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011.\n10.  As to the out-of-cell time in the closed section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (Štrucl and Others § 86).\n11.  As to the out-of-cell time in the semi-open section, the Government submitted that the cell doors in the semi-open section of the prison were unlocked, except from 9.45 p.m. (on Fridays, Saturdays and before holidays from midnight) until 6.00 a.m. (on Saturdays, Sundays and during holidays until 8.30 a.m.). During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor (35.7 square metres), living quarters of co-prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas, in accordance with prison rules. The Government contended that this regime had been in place for several years.\n12.  During his imprisonment the applicant had forty-nine consultations with a general practitioner and visited a dentist on seven occasions. He was treated by a psychiatrist on eight occasions and by a psychologist on five occasions.\n13.  As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5- 5.30 p.m.) in the second half of July and August 2009 had been approximately 28oC, exceeding 30oC on seven days.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7990", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Semič.\n6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in Ljubljana prison from 1 July 2009 to 4 November 2009. On the latter day he was transferred to Celje prison. He stayed there until 9 December 2009, when he was further transferred to Ljubljana prison, the Section Novo mesto (the Section Novo mesto). The applicant’s complaints do not relate to the conditions of detention in Celje prison.\n7.  In the period between 1 July 2009 and 23 September 2009 the applicant was held in the closed section of Ljubljana prison. From 1 July 2009 to 13 July 2009 he was held in cell 7 (third floor) measuring 16.8 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility). From 13 July 2009 to 17 July 2009 he was held in cell 4 (third floor) measuring 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility). From 17 July 2009 to 23 September 2009 he was held in cell 3 (third floor) measuring 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility).\n8.  In the period between 23 September 2009 and 4 November 2009 the applicant was held in the semi-open section of Ljubljana prison, in cell 3 (third floor) measuring 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility).\n9.  All the cells in the closed and semi-open sections contained, apart from the furniture, five sleeping places (two bunk beds and one single bed). According to the applicant, five prisoners were being held in each of the cells during his detention. The Government, however, submitted that the number varied between four and five. Each cell had one 107 x 110 cm double casement window, which the prisoners could freely open or close.\n10.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the closed and semi-open sections, material conditions inside the cells therein, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011.\n11.  As to the out-of-cell time in the closed section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (Štrucl and Others § 86).\n12.  As to the out-of-cell time in the semi-open section, the Government submitted that the cell doors in the semi-open section of the prison were unlocked, except from 9.45 p.m. (on Fridays, Saturdays and before holidays from midnight) until 6.00 a.m. (on Saturdays, Sundays and during holidays until 8.30 a.m.). During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor (35.7 square metres), living quarters of co-prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas, in accordance with prison rules. The Government alleged that this regime had been in place for several years. However, as the applicant was transferred to the semi-open section only on a ground of overcrowdedness, while being detained there he was not granted outside visits and unsupervised leave.\n13.  From 9 December 2009 to 1 April 2010 the applicant was held in the closed section of the Section Novo mesto. During his detention in the Section Novo mesto the applicant was held in unit 5 measuring 58.83 square metres and including four sep", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7991", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1959 and comes from Almaty, Kazakhstan. He is currently residing in Moscow.\n7.  In the 1990s the applicant was an entrepreneur in Almaty.\n8.  On 3 August 2004 the applicant was detained in Almaty on charges of involvement in the murder of Mr Ch., a crime which had been committed in 2001. In the applicant’s submission, he was beaten upon detention by police officers and later by his fellow inmates. He did not complain about these beatings at the national level. No documents or other evidence were provided by the applicant in this respect.\n9.  On 27 September 2005 the Almaty City Court acquitted the applicant and two other men of the murder. The court noted the complaints of the two other men, but not of the applicant, that investigating officers had threatened them in order to obtain confessions.\n10.  In November 2005 the applicant and his family moved to Moscow.\n11.  On 20 December 2005 the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan, upon appeals by the victim’s family and the prosecutor’s office, quashed and remitted the judgment of the Almaty City Court. The applicant was represented at the hearing by his lawyer.\n12.  On 14 February 2006 the Almaty City Court ordered the applicant’s remand in custody in connection with the criminal proceedings pending against him and put him on the wanted list. The charges against the applicant included, in particular, the creation of an organised crime group in 2001 in Almaty, purchasing and trafficking of arms, banditry and aggravated murder of Mr Ch.\n13.  At 10.30 p.m. on 3 May 2009 the applicant was arrested by policemen of the Yuzhnoye Butovo district department of the interior (Moscow) for the reason that his name had appeared on the international wanted list. On the same date the applicant was remanded in custody in Moscow remand prison SIZO-4 (“the remand prison”).\n14.  On an unspecified date following the applicant’s arrest, the Kazakhstan Prosecutor General’s Office informed the Zyuzinskiy Inter‑District Prosecutor’s Office (“the district prosecutor’s office”) by fax of their intention to request the applicant’s extradition and asked that office to ensure that the applicant remain in custody pending such request. They referred to the Almaty City Court’s decision of 14 February 2006.\n15.  On 1 June 2009 the Kazakhstan Prosecutor General’s Office sent a request to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office for the applicant’s extradition pursuant to the Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 1993 (“the Minsk Convention”). The request contained assurances that the applicant would not be extradited to a third State without the Russian authorities’ consent or be discriminated against on any grounds, that he would be prosecuted only for the crimes mentioned in the extradition order, namely, banditry and aggravated murder, and that he would be free to leave Kazakhstan after having served the sentence imposed by a court. They also referred to a death penalty moratorium in place in Kazakhstan and stated that capital punishment would not be requested in respect of the applicant. They appended the judgments of the Almaty City Court of 27 September 2005 and of the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan of 20 December 2005, as well as the Almaty City Court’s decision of 14 February 2006.\n16.  On 18 June 2009 the Kazakhstan Prosecutor General’s Office sent their Russian counterparts an amended version of the extradition request, indicating the ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7992", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Ljubljana.\n5.  On 21 July 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Ljubljana Local Court against M.P. and N.M. requesting the court to determine the validity of a sale contract concluded between the defendants concerning an apartment in a building partially owned by the applicant and proposing that a note on dispute be entered in the Land Register. She indicated as the disputed value SIT 500,000 (approximately EUR 2,100).\n6.  On 20 August 1997 the court issued a decision rejecting the applicant’s proposal to enter a note on dispute in the Land Register. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 18 February 1998, after several unsuccessful attempts to serve the applicant’s appeal on the first defendant, the court posted the appeal on the court’s notice board.\n8.  On 4 March 1998 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 20 August 1997.\n9.  Following the applicant’s supervisory appeal to the Ministry of Justice, the court on 18 February 1998 reported to the Ministry that the case could not be given priority.\n10.  On 21 April 1998 the applicant requested the court to schedule a hearing.\n11.  On 27 March 2000 the applicant requested the court to give priority to her claims which she had lodged with the court.\n12.  On 5 April 2000 the court dismissed the applicant’s request.\n13.  On 16 June 2000 a third party intervener, D.S., who had in the meantime bought the apartment subject to the proceedings from the first defendant, joined the proceedings by submitting a written statement.\n14.  On 1 March 2002 the third party intervener lodged a supervisory appeal submitting inter alia that since the proceedings were still pending she was unable to dispose of the apartment.\n15.  The first hearing was scheduled for 13 February 2004 but was subsequently postponed to 26 March 2004.\n16.  On 18 March 2004 the applicant lodged written submissions raising the value of the claim to SIT 1,100,000 (approximately EUR 4,600).\n17.  On 26 March 2004 the first main hearing was held. The court adopted a decision, modifying the value of the claim as requested by the applicant.\n18.  On 11 May 2004 the applicant lodged a request for an interim order.\n19.  Between 9 April 2004 and 4 June 2004 three further main hearings were held. On the latter date the court issued its judgment partially upholding the applicant’s claim. The decision was served personally on the applicant and the second defendant and to the first defendant and the third party by posting it on the court’s notice board.\n20.  On 27 September 2004 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision.\n21.  On 7 December 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court returned the file to the first instance court instructing the court that the first defendant should be served the documents related to the appeal in accordance with Section 145 of the Civil Procedure Act and that the court should also decide on the applicant’s request for an interim order.\n22.  On 6 January 2006 the Ljubljana Local Court requested the applicant to pay the court’s fees and supplement her proposal to issue an interim order.\n23.  On 3 March 2006 the judgment of 4 June 2004 and the applicant’s appeal were served on the first defendant by posting them on the court’s notice board.\n24.  On 20 March 2006 the Ljubljana Local Court dismissed the applicant’s request for an interim order. The applicant appealed.\n25.  On 21 June 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court dis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7994", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Moscow.\n5.  On 30 August 2002 the applicant, a former police officer, was summoned to the Moscow Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office and then arrested on suspicion of kidnapping and extortion committed as a member of a group. The arrest was based on statements given by an eyewitness.\n6.  On 31 August 2002 the investigating authorities applied to the Moscow Kuzminskiy District Court (“the District Court”) for the applicant to be remanded in custody.\n7.  On 31 August 2002 the District Court remanded the applicant in custody without specifying any time-limit. The relevant part of this decision reads as follows:\n“... Having heard the parties to the proceedings, the court considers that the request for the extension of [the applicant’s] detention, brought under Article 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia, should be approved for the following reasons. The request for an extension of the applicant’s detention is drafted in compliance with the relevant requirements of the law of criminal procedure and in line with statutory time-limits. It is approved by the competent prosecutor. The case file documents show that [the applicant’s] arrest was lawful and that it was based on sufficient grounds.\nThe court takes into account the fact that [the applicant] is suspected of a serious criminal offence. If released, he may put pressure on witnesses or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. He may also continue criminal activities or abscond. This does not allow the court to order a measure of restraint other than remand in custody ...”\n8.  The applicant did not appeal against this order.\n9.  On 6 September 2002 a Moscow Inter-District Prosecutor’s Office investigator brought official charges against the applicant. The applicant was suspected of armed kidnapping committed by an organised group driven by mercenary motives and of being an accessory to extortion committed by an organised group. These crimes were of a violent character and aggravated by the fact that the perpetrators had been associates previously. There were four co-accused in this case, including the applicant.\n10.  On 24 October 2002 the District Court examined the investigator’s request for an extension of the applicant’s detention. The request was based on the suspicion that the applicant had committed a very serious offence, punishable by fifteen years’ imprisonment. The investigator stated that not all the required investigative actions had yet been taken. In particular, the alibi of all four co-accused needed to be checked, and the final version of the official charges had not yet been served on the applicant. The applicant’s lawyer submitted objections. He noted that the investigator’s request was unsubstantiated, that the applicant had no criminal record, had a family, a stable place of residence in Moscow, and positive references from his employer. These circumstances indicated no risk of absconding.\n11.  The District Court granted the investigator’s request for the applicant’s detention to be extended until 30 November 2002. It stated that:\n“... the investigator’s request should be granted. The court agrees with the investigator’s arguments. It sees no reasons to change the measure of restraint. The investigator’s request is drafted in compliance with the law of criminal procedure and is approved by the competent prosecutor ...”\n12.  On 25 November 2002 the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”), restating t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7995", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and resides in Kyiv.\n6.  At 4.00 a.m. on 3 March 2003 M.’s house in the town of Pyryatyn (in the Poltava region) was burgled by several persons. M., his mother (M.S.), his wife (M.L.) and M.G. (M.L.’s niece) were in the house at the time. M. and M.S. sustained bodily injuries. Various items of property, including jewellery, were stolen. Criminal proceedings were instituted by the police on the same day.\n7.  On 24 April 2003 the applicant was arrested in Kyiv. According to the applicant, he was arrested while at home. According to official records, the applicant was arrested at 6.20 p.m. for swearing in public and behaving “with insolence” (викликаюче).\n8.  On 25 April 2003 the Kyiv Golosiyivskyy District Court imposed on the applicant fifteen days’ administrative arrest for disorderly conduct.\n9.  On 7 May 2003 the applicant was transported from Kyiv to the town of Pyryatyn (about 150 kilometres). On 8 May 2003 he confessed to the above-mentioned burglary.\n10.  On 9 May 2003 the applicant was formally arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime.\n11.  On 11 May 2003 a lawyer, Ma., allegedly hired by the applicant’s family, submitted a request to the investigation officer for permission to represent the applicant in the criminal case against him. The lawyer also noted that since investigative actions planned for that day had not taken place he had returned to Kyiv. On the same day, Ma. was given leave to represent the applicant.\n12.  On 12 May 2003 an identification parade took place in the presence of two attesting witnesses. The victims, M., M.L. and M.G., identified the applicant as the person who had been in their house on the night of 3 March 2003. Two more persons participated in the identification parade. Their description, according to the official records, was as follows: person no. 1: 1.81 metres tall, dark hair, brown eyes, wearing dark blue jeans, a grey T-shirt and trainers; person no. 2: 1.76 metres tall, dark blond hair, green eyes, wearing grey trousers, a grey T-shirt and trainers; person no. 3 (the applicant): 1.89 metres tall, dark blond hair, grey eyes, wearing dark blue sport pants, a T-shirt and trainers.\n13.  M.G. stated that she had recognised the applicant by his voice, height and body type. M. stated that he had recognised the applicant by his voice, and M.L. that she had recognised the applicant by his voice and body type.\n14.  The identification parade was carried out in the absence of the applicant’s lawyer. The police officer who conducted the parade informed his supervisor that the applicant’s lawyer was not able to attend as he was busy in another criminal case. The applicant was offered another lawyer but refused. The record of the identification parade was signed by all those present and it was noted that the parade’s participants had “no complaints”.\n15.  On 14 May 2003 a lawyer, S., was given leave to represent the applicant. She represented him until at least 18 August 2005.\n16.  On 9 November 2004 the Pyryatynskyy District Court sentenced the applicant to nine years’ imprisonment with confiscation of his property, and two of his accomplices (D. and Zh.) to terms of imprisonment and confiscation of their property for the burglary of M.’s house and the infliction of minor bodily injuries on M. and M.S. Two other persons involved in the crime (P. and L.) had not been found. The court also granted the victims’ civil claims.\n17.  In the course of the trial proceedin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7996", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Novo mesto.\n6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in the period between 24 November 2008 and 25 March 2010, in the semi-open and closed sections of Ljubljana prison as well as in the open section Ig, Ljubljana prison (the open section).\n7.  From 24 November 2008 to 22 January 2009 and from 15 July 2009 to 10 August 2009 he was held in the closed section. From 24 November 2008 to 22 January 2009 he was held in cell 3 (third floor) measuring 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility). From 15 July 2009 to 16 July 2009 he was held in cell 6 (third floor) measuring 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility). From 16 July 2009 to 10 August 2009 he was held in cell 4 (third floor) measuring 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility).\n8.  From 23 January 2009 to 12 July 2009 and from 10 August 2009 to 16 November 2009 he was held in the semi-open section. From 23 January 2009 to 12 July 2009 he was held in cell 138 (third floor) measuring 18.6 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility). From 10 August 2009 to 16 November 2009 he was held in cell 145 (third floor) measuring 18.8 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility).\n9.  All the cells in the closed and semi-open sections contained, apart from the furniture, five sleeping places (two bunk beds and one single bed). According to the applicant, five prisoners were being held in each of the cells during his detention. The Government, however, submitted that the number varied between four and five. Each cell had one 107 x 110 cm double casement window, which the prisoners could freely open or close.\n10.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the closed and semi-open sections, material conditions inside the cells, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011.\n11.  As to the out-of-cell time in the closed section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (see Štrucl and Others, § 86).\n12.  As to the out-of-cell time in the semi-open section, the Government submitted that the cell doors in the semi-open section of the prison were unlocked, except from 9.45 p.m. (on Fridays, Saturdays and before holidays from midnight) until 6.00 a.m. (on Saturdays, Sundays and during holidays until 8.30 a.m.). During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor (35.7 square metres), living quarters of co-prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas, in accordance with prison rules. The Government contended that this regime had been in place for several years.\n13.  From 12 July 2009 to 15 July 2009 and from 16 November 2009 to 25 March 2010 the applicant was held in the open section in cell 2 measuring 40 square metres, which contained six sleeping places. The Government submitted that four prisoners were held in that cell during the applicant’s detention. On 15 July 2009, he was transferred back to the closed section on the ground", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7997", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Ljubljana.\n5.  On 1 December 1993 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court against his employer, company K. and four further defendants.\n6.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia.\n7.  On 4 August 1994 the first defendant, company K. replied to the claim.\n8.  On 28 March 2003 the applicant was requested to supplement or amend his claim.\n9.  On 14 April 2003 the applicant lodged his submissions by which he withdrew the action against the second, third, fourth and fifth defendant and proposed to determine another court with subject matter jurisdiction.\n10.  On 15 July 2003 the court stayed the proceedings against the second, third, fourth and fifth defendant.\n11.  On 23 September 2003 the Supreme Court issued a decision by which it dismissed the applicant’s request to determine another court with subject matter jurisdiction.\n12.  On 23 March 2004 the court adjourned the first main hearing at the request of both parties.\n13.  On 31 May 2004 the settlement hearing and the first main hearing were held.\n14.  On 24 June 2004 the second main hearing was held.\n15.  On 15 February 2005 the scheduled hearing was postponed at the applicant’s request.\n16.  Between 14 April 2005 and 14 September 2006 further four hearings were held.\n17.  On 21 September 2006 the Labour and Social Court partially upheld the applicant’s claim and dismissed the remainder of the claim. Both parties appealed.\n18.  On 18 January 2007 the Higher Labour and Social Court dismissed the appeals and issued a decision that an appeal on points of law would not be allowed in the present case. The applicant appealed.\n19.  On 24 April 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision that appeal on points of law was not allowed. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.\n20.  On 17 October 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-7998", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom.\n6.  At the time of the events the applicant company was the creditor of company C. which, in its turn, was the creditor of company P. On 1 October 2005 the applicant company and company C. concluded an agreement by which the debt owed by company P. to company C. was assigned to the applicant company in lieu of the debt owed by company C. to the applicant company.\n7.  Later company P. became bankrupt and the insolvency procedure was commenced in its respect. On 10 May 2006 the applicant company requested that the Chişinău Economic Court allow it to replace company C. in the list of creditors of company P. In so doing, the applicant company relied on an agreement that it had concluded on 1 October 2005 with company C.\n8.  On 5 June 2006 the Chişinău Economic Court held a public hearing in the case and accepted the applicant company’s request. As a result the applicant company replaced company C. in the list of creditors of company P. with a debt of some 14,015,000 Moldovan lei (MDL) (the equivalent of some 901,000 euros (EUR)).\n9.  On 16 October 2006 company C. lodged an appeal against the above decision on the ground, inter alia, that the agreement of 1 October 2005 was faulty and that the persons who had signed it from both sides had acted ultra vires.\n10.  On 9 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice examined the appeal lodged by company C. in a hearing to which the applicant company had not been summoned to appear. The other parties participated in the hearing. The Supreme Court upheld the appeal and reversed the judgment of the lower court. In particular, the Supreme Court held that the person who had signed the agreement of 1 October 2005 on behalf of company C. had acted ultra vires, because at the relevant time she had been on maternity leave. The decision of the Supreme Court of Justice was final and the applicant company was excluded from the list of creditors of company P.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8000", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Yerevan.\n6.  On 18 December 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted on account of a fight with use of firearms between two groups of people, which had taken place that day. As a result of the fight, one person died and two others were wounded. The applicant went into hiding after having participated in the fight and a search for him was declared.\n7.  On 22 December 2007 the applicant turned himself in to the police. He surrendered his two guns and stated that he had used them during the fight in defence against an assault by unknown persons. He was arrested and taken into custody.\n8.  On 25 December 2007 the applicant was charged with aggravated murder, under Article 104 § 2 (6) of the Criminal Code (CC), aggravated infliction of serious injuries, under Article 112 § 2 of the CC, and illegal possession of firearms, under Article 235 § 1 of the CC.\n9.  On the same day the investigator applied to the Kotayk Regional Court seeking to have the applicant detained for two months. The application stated that on 18 December 2007 the applicant, in a manner dangerous to the life of many, had opened fire from illegally-possessed guns on individuals G.S., R.V. and V.H., as a result of which he had unlawfully and intentionally deprived G.S. of his life and inflicted serious injuries on R.V. and V.H. The application further stated that the applicant had to be detained, inter alia, because he had committed a serious crime.\n10.  On the same day the Kotayk Regional Court decided to grant the motion and detain the applicant for two months, from 22 December 2007 until 22 February 2008. The court found that the applicant might abscond, obstruct the examination of the case, avoid criminal liability and serving the imposed sentence as well as hinder the execution of the judgment. In so finding, the court took into account the nature and gravity of the imputed offence and the fact that the applicant had committed a serious crime.\n11.  On 9 January 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal, claiming that his detention was not based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence and that the Regional Court had not adduced sufficient reasons when finding that his detention was justified. He also alleged that the principle of the presumption of innocence had been breached since the Regional Court had stated in the affirmative that he had committed a grave crime.\n12.  On 29 January 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Regional Court. The Court of Appeal found that there was sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed an offence. In this regard, it referred to the applicant’s statements to the investigative bodies and the results of G.S.’s autopsy, according to which he had died from a bullet wound. As to the reasons for detention, the Court of Appeal found that the applicant might obstruct the examination of the case. In so finding, it referred to the nature and gravity of the imputed offences, the scope of possible investigative activities and the circumstances of the case. Concerning the allegation of a violation of the presumption of innocence, the Court of Appeal found that the Regional Court’s statement had to be taken solely as meaning that the offence was imputed.\n13.  On 25 April 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n14.  On 19 May 2008 the Court of Cassation left the appeal unexamined on the ground that it had been lodge", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8001", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 20 March and 3 October 1996 the Tirana Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties (“the Commission”) recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 1,214 sq. m. Since the plot of land was occupied by two buildings which housed foreign embassies, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law.\n6.  The Commission decision remains unenforced.\n7.  On 28 March 1995 the Mat Commission recognised the applicant’s title to a plot of land measuring 7,984 sq. m, of which 4,797 sq. m were restored. Since 3,187 sq. m were occupied, the applicant would be compensated in State bonds.\n8.  The Commission decision remains unenforced.\n9.  On 27 December 1996 the then Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the lower courts’ refusal to rule in favour of his property claim in respect of a different plot of land measuring 11,112 sq. m.\n10.  On 29 August 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited title to a plot of land measuring 1,154.62 sq. m. Since a stadium had been constructed on the plot of land, the applicant would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law.\n11.  The Commission decision remains unenforced.\n12.  On 28 December 1994 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited title to a plot of land measuring 8,900 sq. m, of which 7,727 sq. m were to be restored. Since 1,173 sq. m were occupied, the applicant would be compensated in kind in accordance with the law.\n13.  However, the plot of land measuring 7,727 sq. m was occupied by buildings belonging to the Urban Transportation Company (“UTC”) pursuant to a sale contract of 1994 concluded between the UTC and the National Privatisation Agency. The Commission indicated that, pursuant to the law, the UTC was obliged to pay rent to the applicant on the basis of a contract to be concluded between the two parties.\n14.  On 25 November 1996 the UTC sold the buildings and the plot of land to a third party, which was subsequently placed under compulsory administration. Following judicial proceedings instituted by the administrators against the Commission decision that had restored the applicant the plot of 7,727 sq. m, the domestic courts annulled that part of the Commission decision and decided that the applicant would be compensated in one of the forms provided for by law. The applicant’s appeals were rejected by the Constitutional Court on 15 December 2005 and 18 July 2006.\n15.  Meanwhile, between 2003 and 2004 the applicant sold three plots of land, all measuring 2,558 sq. m, to third parties.\n16.  On 12 November 2007 the applicant informed the Registry that the authorities had allowed construction to begin on four buildings on his plot of land.\n17.  The Commission decision, as amended by the later court decisions, remains unenforced as regards a plot of land measuring 6,342 sq. m.\n18.  On 12 December 1994 the Vlora Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 3,600 sq. m, of which two warehouses and two plots of land, both measuring 820 sq. m, were restored. Since 2,240 sq. m were occupied by buildings, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law.\n19.  The Commission decision remains unenforced.\n20.  On 12 November 1993 the Korça Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 2,250 sq. m of which 278 sq. m were restored. Since the remaining 1,972 sq. m were occupie", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8003", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are religious communities and individuals. The applicant communities originally existed and operated lawfully in Hungary as Churches registered by the competent court in conformity with Act no. IV of 1990 (“the 1990 Church Act”).\n7.  In application no. 70945/11, Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház (Hungarian Christian Mennonite Church[1]) is a religious community active in Hungary since 1998. Mr J. Izsák-Bács is a Hungarian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Budapest. He is a minister of Magyar Keresztény Mennonita Egyház.\n8.  In application no. 23611/12, Evangéliumi Szolnoki Gyülekezet Egyház (Evangelical Szolnok Congregation Church) is a religious community active in Hungary since 1998. Mr P.J. Soós is a Hungarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Budapest. He is a minister of Evangéliumi Szolnoki Gyülekezet Egyház.\nThis applicant community was involved in social activities outsourced by the municipality of Szolnok and had concluded an agreement with the State Treasury on the provision of services for homeless people. In 2011 the Treasury cancelled this agreement and granted the relevant subsidy only until 30 June 2011. As a consequence the applicant had to terminate the corresponding contract with the municipality, but was obliged to continue to perform its social services up to and including July 2011, thereby allegedly sustaining damage in the amount of 691,407 Hungarian forints.\n9.  In application no. 26998/12, Budapesti Autonóm Gyülekezet (Budapest Autonomous Congregation) is a religious community active in Hungary since 1998. Mr T. Görbicz is a Hungarian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Budapest. He is a minister of Budapesti Autonóm Gyülekezet.\n10.  In application no. 41150/12, Szim Salom Egyház (Sim Shalom Church) is a religious community active in Hungary since 2004. Mr G.G. Guba is a Hungarian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Budapest. He is a member of Szim Salom Egyház.\n11.  In application no. 41155/12, Magyar Reform Zsidó Hitközségek Szövetsége Egyház (Alliance of Hungarian Reformed Jewish Communities Church) is a religious community active in Hungary since 2007. Ms L.M. Bruck is a Hungarian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Budapest. She is a member of Magyar Reform Zsidó Hitközségek Szövetsége Egyház.\n12.  In application no. 41463/12, the European Union for Progressive Judaism is a religious association with its registered office in London. It acts as an umbrella organisation for progressive Jewish congregations in Europe. Szim Salom Egyház (see application no. 41150/12) and Magyar Reform Zsidó Hitközségek Szövetsége Egyház (see application no. 41155/12) are among its members.\n13.  In application no. 54977/12, Magyarországi Evangéliumi Testvérközösség (Hungarian Evangelical Fellowship) is a religious community active in Hungary since 1981.\n14.  In application no. 56581/12, Magyarországi Biblia Szól Egyház (“The Bible Talks” Church of Hungary) is a religious community active in Hungary for over twenty years.\n15.  In application no. 41553/12, the applicants (ANKH Az Örök Élet Egyháza (ANKH Church of Eternal Life), Árpád Rendjének Jogalapja Tradícionális Egyház (Traditional Church of the Legal Basis of Árpád’s Order), Dharmaling Magyarország Buddhista Egyház (Dharmaling Hungary Buddhist Church), Fény Gyermekei Magyar Esszénus Egyház (“Children of Light” Hungarian Essene Church), Mantra Magyarországi Buddhista Egyháza (Mantra Buddhist Church of Hungary), Szangy", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8004", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Marsala (Trapani).\n6.  The applicant, who subsequently acquired Italian nationality, was at the relevant time a Tunisian national who had entered Italy on the basis of a lawful residence and work permit. He was employed by company A. and insured with the National Social Security Agency (Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale – “the INPS”). His family was made up of his wife and their four minor children. His income for the year 1999 totalled 30,655,000 Italian lira (ITL – approximately 15,832 euros (EUR)).\n7.  On 24 May 2001 the applicant lodged an application with the Marsala District Court, acting as an employment tribunal, seeking payment of the family allowance (assegno per nucleo familiare) provided for by section 65 of Law no. 448 of 1998. Under the terms of that provision, the allowance in question was paid by the INPS to families made up of Italian nationals living in Italy with at least three minor children, whose annual income was below the amounts set out in the table appended to Legislative Decree no. 109 of 31 March 1998 (in this instance, the amount applicable to families with five members, namely ITL 36 million (approximately EUR 18,592)).\n8.  The applicant submitted that even though he did not have Italian nationality as required by Law no. 448 of 1998, the allowance was nevertheless due to him under the association agreement between the European Union and Tunisia – known as the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement – which had been ratified by Italy (Law no. 35 of 3 February 1997). Article 65 of the Agreement provides as follows:\n “1. Subject to the provisions of the following paragraphs, workers of Tunisian nationality and any members of their families living with them shall enjoy, in the field of social security, treatment free from any discrimination based on nationality relative to nationals of the Member States in which they are employed.\nThe concept of social security[1] shall cover the branches of social security dealing with sickness and maternity benefits, invalidity, old-age and survivors’ benefits, industrial accident and occupational disease benefits and death, unemployment and family benefits.\nThese provisions shall not, however, cause the other coordination rules provided for in Community legislation based on Article 51 of the EC Treaty to apply, except under the conditions set out in Article 67 of this Agreement. 2. All periods of insurance, employment or residence completed by such workers in the various Member States shall be added together for the purpose of pensions and annuities in respect of old age, invalidity and survivors’ benefits and family, sickness and maternity benefits and also for that of medical care for the workers and for members of their families resident in the Community. 4. The workers in question shall be able to transfer freely to Tunisia, at the rates applied by virtue of the legislation of the debtor Member State or States, any pensions or annuities in respect of old age, survivor status, industrial accident or occupational disease, or of invalidity resulting from industrial accident or occupational disease, except in the case of special non-contributory benefits. 5. Tunisia shall accord to workers who are nationals of a Member State and employed in its territory, and to the members of their families, treatment similar to that specified in paragraphs 1, 3 and 4.”\n9.  In a judgment of 10 April 2002 the Marsala District Court rejected the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8005", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Balakan.\n6.  On 16 March 2005 an operation was planned for the applicant’s arrest following allegations made by N.V. and H.M. to the police that he was a drug dealer and had tried to sell them narcotic substances.\n7.  At around 4 p.m. on 17 March 2005 the applicant stopped for petrol at a petrol station in Balakan. At that moment he was approached by several plain-clothes police officers. According to the applicant, they dragged him out of his car and began beating, punching and kicking him, and hitting him with a truncheon. He then fainted.\n8.  When he regained consciousness, he found himself in the back seat of a moving car with the above‑mentioned police officers. According to the applicant, one of the two officers sitting on either side of him in the back seat slipped something into his right side trouser pocket. The applicant tried to stop him, but was punched and hit in the head with the butt of a handgun and fainted again. He was taken to the Zagatala District Police Station.\n9.  According to the applicant, he was repeatedly beaten after his arrival at the Zagatala District Police Station.\n10.  A search of the applicant and his car was conducted at the police station. According to the search record, the search was carried out at 4.30 p.m. on 17 March 2005 in the presence of the applicant, police officers and two attesting witnesses. It appears from the record that the applicant was not represented by a lawyer. During the search, narcotic (cannabis-based) substances were found both on his person and in his car. The applicant claimed that the drugs did not belong to him and had been planted. He refused to sign the search record. According to him, the search had been filmed and the recording would have shown signs of ill-treatment on his body.\n11.  At 7 p.m. on 18 March 2005 a police investigator drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest (tutma protokolu). It indicated that the applicant was arrested on 18 March 2005, not 17 March 2005. The applicant refused to sign the record.\n12.  At an unspecified time on 18 March 2005 the investigator gave the applicant details of four defence lawyers registered with the Zagatala Bar Association who could represent him. The applicant did not choose any of them, and stated that he would be defending himself. However, he refused to sign a waiver of legal assistance.\n13.  On 20 March 2005 the Zagatala District Court ordered the applicant’s detention for three months, calculating the period of detention from 18 March 2005.\n14.  On the same day the applicant was examined by a forensic expert from the Zagatala District Forensic Medicine and Pathological Anatomy Department. According to the forensic report, the applicant complained of having been ill-treated by the police on 17 March 2005. The expert noticed an oval-shaped bruise on his neck. The conclusion of the expert reads as follows:\n\"The oval-shaped bruise on Layijov’s neck, caused by a hard blunt object, its time of infliction corresponds to 17 March 2005, the time initially indicated. The degree of the injury was not determined because it was not an injury causing harm to health. The injury found would not have caused Layijov to lose consciousness.”\n15.  On an unspecified date during his interrogation, the applicant informed the investigator that there was a knife in his car. In this connection, he submitted that the police had not carried out a “real” search of his car on 17 March 2005, and had ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8006", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Chişinău. At the time of the events she was thirty-four years old and married. She was a lecturer at the Police Academy.\n6.  It appears from the case-file materials that at the time of the events the relationship between the applicant and her superiors at the Police Academy were tense and that there had been a set of employment-related civil proceedings between them.\n7.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant underwent artificial insemination at a fertility clinic and became pregnant with twins. On 3 August 2003 she was seen by a doctor from the No. 7 Centre for Family Doctors (“the CFD)”, an institution belonging to the Ministry of Health, who ordered her hospitalisation on account of an increased risk of miscarriage. The applicant was hospitalised between 4 and 20 August 2003 and was later closely supervised by a doctor from the CFD. It would appear that the applicant’s absence from work during her hospitalisation was certified by a sick note referring to her pregnancy and an increased risk of miscarriage as the reasons for her absence.\n8.  On 5 November 2003 the President of the Police Academy requested information from the CFD in connection with the applicant’s medical leave in August 2003. In particular, he asked who had ordered her hospitalisation, when she had been hospitalised, what had been the initial and final diagnoses, and what treatment she had received.\n9.  In a letter dated 7 November 2003 the CFD informed the applicant’s employer that the applicant had been hospitalised between 4 and 20 August 2003 on account of an increased risk of miscarriage. The letter also stated that this was the applicant’s first pregnancy and that she was carrying twins; that the pregnancy had resulted from artificial insemination and that the applicant had hepatitis B. The letter further mentioned that the applicant had obstetrical complications and that she had a negative blood type. A copy of the applicant’s medical file from the hospital where she had been hospitalised, containing a detailed description of all the medical procedures she had undergone and of all the medical analyses, was annexed to the letter.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicant suffered a miscarriage. According to the medical report, one of the factors which had led to the miscarriage was the stress to which she had been subjected.\n11.  In January 2004 the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the CFD and the Police Academy and claimed compensation for a breach of her right to private life. She argued, inter alia, that her employer had had sufficient information as to the reasons for her medical leave and had not been entitled to seek further details of such a private nature. Moreover, after the information had been obtained it had not been kept confidential but had been disclosed to everybody at the Police Academy. According to the applicant, the disclosure had caused her serious stress and anxiety. Everyone at her workplace, including her students, had learned details about her private life, and different rumours had begun to circulate. Only two days after the disclosure, she had suffered a miscarriage due to the stress to which she had been subjected. Her husband, who had also been an employee of the Police Academy, had had to resign from his post and accept a less well-paid job.\n12.  On 6 July 2004 the Centru District Court dismissed the applicant’s action on the grounds, inter alia, that the disclosure ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8007", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The circumstances of the case are analogous to those described in Maggio and Others v. Italy (nos. 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, 31 May 2011).\n6.  The applicants worked in Switzerland for the following periods of time, in total, over the relevant years:\nMr Stefanetti: approximately 23 years between 1959 and 1996;\nMr Rodelli: approximately 31 years between 1962 and 1996;\nMr Negri: approximately 13 years between 1954 and 1997;\nMr Della Nave: approximately 28 years between 1962 and 1989;\nMr Del Maffeo: approximately 32.5 years between 1959 and 1996;\nMr Cotta: approximately 26 years between 1962 and 1987;\nMr Curti: approximately 28 years between 1962 and 1997;\nMr Andreola: approximately 10.5 years between 1967 and 1977.\n7.  In 1982 Italy changed its pension system from a contributory one, where the amount received in pension was dependent on the contributions paid, to an earnings- or remuneration-based (“retributivo”) one.\n8.  The applicants, who had transferred to Italy the contributions they had paid in Switzerland, requested the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (“INPS”) to calculate their pensions, in accordance with the 1962 Italo-Swiss Convention on Social Security (see Relevant domestic law and practice below), on the basis of the contributions paid in Switzerland for work they had done there over a number years (see appended table for details). As a basis for the calculation of their pensions (in respect of their average remuneration over the last ten years), the INPS employed a theoretical remuneration (“retribuzione teorica”) instead of the real remuneration (“retribuzione effettiva”). The former resulted in a readjustment on the basis of the contribution rate applied in Switzerland (8%) and that applied in Italy (32.7%), which meant that the calculation had as its basis a pseudo-salary with the result that the applicants received a lower pension than expected. According to the applicants, their pension was approximately a third of what it should have been.\n9.  As an example, the pension the applicants actually received in 2010 and an estimation, calculated by them, of what they should have received in that same year had this method of calculation not been applied is appended.\n10.  Consequently, in 2006 the applicants instituted judicial proceedings, contending that this was contrary to the spirit of the Italo-Swiss Convention. Various individuals in the applicants’ position had done the same and had been successful. The domestic courts had determined that people who had worked in Switzerland and had subsequently transferred their contributions to Italy should benefit from the remuneration-based pension calculations based on the wages they had earned in Switzerland, irrespective of the fact that the transferred contributions had been paid at a much lower Swiss rate.\n11.  While their proceedings were still pending, Law no. 296/2006 (see Relevant domestic law and practice below) entered into force on 1 January 2007.\n12.  The applicants’ claims were rejected in separate judgments of the Sondrio Tribunal (filed in the relevant registry as mentioned below), in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006:\nJudgment (no. 149/09) of 30 November 2009 in respect of Mr Stefanetti;\nJudgment (no. 96/09) of 27 October 2009 in respect of Mr Rodelli;\nJudgment (no. 09/10) of 28 January 2010 in respect of Mr Negri;\nJudgment (no. 104/09) of 27 October 2009 in respect of Mr Della Nave;\nJudgment (no. 09/10) of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8010", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, a professor of medicine, was born in 1945 and lives in Istanbul.\n5.  On 29 November 1981 a well-known journalist/columnist published an article in the daily newspaper Cumhuriyet in which he drew attention to the similarities between the books Mother’s Book[1], written by Professor Dr I.D., a prominent academic and president of the Higher Education Council between 1981 and 1992, and that of Dr Benjamin Spock entitled Baby and Childcare[2]. It mentioned, humorously, that the latter must have copied from Professor Dr I.D.’s book.\n6.  On 14 December 1997 the applicant brought to the attention of the members of the Turkish Academy of Sciences the allegation that Professor Dr I.D. had committed plagiarism in respect of the above-mentioned book.\n7.  On 9 January 1998 the applicant, acting as the head of the Ethics Committee of the Turkish Academy of Sciences, together with two other members of the Committee, submitted a two-page report in which they took the view that Professor Dr I.D. had committed plagiarism in his book entitled Mother’s Book. They gave five examples in this connection. They asked the Council of the Academy of Sciences to take various actions in this regard. It appears, however, that no action was taken.\n8.  Similar allegations were also made by Professor Dr M.T.H. in his book The History of the University in Turkey, 2nd edition, 2000.\n9.  In December 2000 an article written by the applicant entitled ‘Ethics of Science and plagiarism’ was published in the Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. In this article the applicant renewed his claim that Professor Dr I.D. had committed plagiarism in his book entitled Mother’s Book.\n10.  In the meantime, on 15 November 2000, a daily newspaper, Milliyet, had published a shortened version of the article that was to be published in the Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. The headline read, in small type, “the YÖK[3] is establishing an ethics committee to examine the ethics of science of docent[4] candidates”, and in larger type “D. should first be reprimanded”. A photograph of Professor Dr I.D. accompanied the article.\n11.  In this article the applicant stated, inter alia, that there were many ways to deviate from the ethics of science, but that the most primitive and dangerous way was to present the work of others as one’s own, that “plagiarism” was, unlike in Turkey, an action frowned upon in Western culture, and those who committed it were seen as common criminals, that such actions were punished by the laws on copyright, and that in developing countries like Turkey creative ideas and their products had not yet reached the sacred untouchable status they had in developed countries. In this connection, the applicant noted that the YÖK had decided to create an ethics committee to examine the publications of docent candidates. He maintained that plagiarism was so common that the YÖK’s decision was well-founded, and proposed that the latter should approach its founder, I.D., and ask him to apologise for the plagiarisms he had committed. In this part of the article the applicant claimed that Professor Dr I.D.’s book Mother’s Book was plagiarised from Dr Benjamin Spock’s book Baby and Childcare. The applicant congratulated YÖK for the initiative of the ethics committee, but considered that it was not possible to correct “our ethics of science” without first dealing with this issue. Later in the article the applicant criticised the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8011", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  The applicant is a Palestinian who lived in the Gaza Strip until March 2008. He claims to have lost approximately twenty-five relatives to Israeli attacks over the years, and to have personally suffered three missile attacks between 2000 and 2007. According to his allegations before the Court, he was directly and personally targeted in the most recent attack, in 2007, as the missile that struck near him on that day immediately followed an anonymous call on his mobile phone asking him to confirm his name, a ruse by the Israeli forces to identify his location. That attack left him severely injured and rendered him paraplegic.\n7.  On 25 March 2008 the applicant was taken to Turkey by a humanitarian organisation, the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (İnsani Yardım Vakfı, “İHH”), along with fortynine other injured civilians from the Palestinian territories, to have access to better medical care.\n8.  In June 2008 the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”) issued the group of Palestinians with short-term residence permits in view of their continuing medical treatment in Turkey.\n9.  On 30 April 2009 the applicant married a Turkish national, who was also his physiotherapist. Because he was married to a Turkish national, he was granted a long-term temporary residence permit valid until 17 May 2010.\n10.  On 12 August 2009, at approximately 11 a.m., two police officers from the Istanbul Police Headquarters arrived at the applicant’s house. They informed the applicant and his wife that his presence was required at the police headquarters for an interview and that he would be brought back afterwards. Once he was at the police headquarters, however, he was verbally informed that his temporary residence permit had been cancelled in accordance with orders received from the Ministry and that he would soon be deported from Turkey. Without being given any further information as to the reasons for the deportation order, when it would be carried out and where he would be deported to, the applicant was placed in the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre attached to the Istanbul Police Headquarters.\n11.  According to the police record drawn up on the same day at 3.30 p.m., the Ministry had decided on 27 July 2009 to deport the applicant. This decision had been taken at the request of the National Intelligence Agency of Turkey, which had received intelligence regarding the applicant’s possible involvement in acts of international terrorism. Neither the Ministry’s deportation order nor the police record in question was served on the applicant.\n12.  Upon learning of the applicant’s detention, on 12 August 2009 his wife got in touch with a local human rights organisation, Mazlumder, which in turn contacted the UNHCR to seek assistance in securing the applicant’s release and halting his deportation. Mazlumder also informed the UNHCR of the poor conditions in which the applicant was being detained, including the fact that he had spent the night sleeping on a table, that he was not able to use the squat toilets at the detention centre, and that his medical treatment had been stopped on account of his detention.\n13.  On 14 August 2009 the applicant brought an action against the Ministry before the Ankara Administrative Court seeking the quashing of the deportation order, and also requested a stay of its execution until the matter had been examined by the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8012", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966.\n6.  In 1990 the applicant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was held in a number of different detention centres. No information is available in respect of his places of detention before 8 April 2009. From the latter date until 10 November 2011 he was detained in Jilava Prison. On the latter date he was transferred to Giurgiu Prison.\n7.  The applicant and the Government disagreed as to most aspects of the conditions of detention in Jilava Prison.\n8.  The applicant alleged that he had occupied overcrowded cells, without providing details about the surface area and the number of cellmates.\n9.  He also complained of unsatisfactory sanitary conditions. The cells did not have any furniture in which to keep personal objects and food, therefore the prisoners were forced to keep them under their beds where there were hundreds of insects.\n10.  The temperature in the cells was very low in winter.\n11.  The applicant claimed that for three months, from April until July 2009, they had not had hot water. The prisoners were confronted with the same situation in the summer of 2010 when they had to live without hot water from 28 June until 5 August 2010.\n12.  He also contended that even though he was a non-smoker, he had had to share the cell with smokers. He further claimed that in his cell there were prisoners who frequently consumed drugs and that the smoke from the cigarettes combined with the smoke released from the drugs made the air in the cell unbreathable.\n13.  The Government supplied the following details concerning the cells in which the applicant has been detained in Jilava Prison:\n-  Between 8 April and 24 May 2009 the applicant was detained in cell no. 513, measuring 45.30 sq. m. The cell was occupied by between fourteen and seventeen inmates.\n-  Between 25 May and 28 December 2009 the applicant was detained in cell no. 405, measuring 13.28 sq. m, which he shared with five or six other inmates.\n-  Between 29 December 2009 and 11 February 2010 the applicant was detained in cell no. 309, measuring 34.78 sq. m. The cell was occupied by up to thirteen inmates.\n-  Between 12 February and 1 August 2010 the applicant was detained in cell no. 414, measuring 44 sq. m. The cell was occupied by between thirteen and eighteen inmates.\n-  Between 2 August and 16 September 2010 the applicant was detained in cell no. 413, measuring 12.83 sq. m, which he shared with two or three other inmates.\n-  Between 17 September 2010 and 4 September 2011 the applicant was detained in cell no. 207, measuring 34.78 sq. m, which he shared with fourteen or fifteen other inmates.\n-  Between 5 September and 10 November 2011 the applicant was detained in cell no. 305, measuring 32.76 sq. m, which he shared with nine or eleven inmates.\n14.  The applicant was detained in smoking cells and he had not asked to be transferred to a non-smoking cell.\n15.  As regards cleanliness and hygiene, the Government submitted that every year the prison authorities signed contracts for rodent and pest control with companies specialising in this work. Disinfection of the cells was carried out at least once every three months. Moreover, the quality of the drinking water was tested regularly by the prison authorities, with the aid of a specialised laboratory. Furthermore, the food was fresh and of good quality.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8013", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Liepāja.\n7.  It appears that in 1983 the applicant was certified as being Category 3 disabled (the least severe level of disability).\n8.  On 28 April 2004 the applicant was certified as being Category 2 disabled (the medium level of disability) on the grounds of an unspecified illness. His disability was to be reassessed on a further occasion.\n9.  According to the applicant, on 29 April 2008 his Category 2 disability status was certified as permanent.\n10.  On 19 August 2003 the applicant was administratively detained by the municipal police. The circumstances are disputed between the parties.\n11.  According to the Government, at 8 p.m. on 19 August 2003 the fire and rescue services received a call about a man who was lying on the ground near an apartment building. A municipal police patrol was dispatched to the address given. Police officers I.L. and N.M. arrived there at 8.18 p.m. and found no one there. However, they were approached by an unidentified woman who indicated that somebody was lying on the stairs inside the building. They found the applicant lying face-down on the stairs between the ground and 1st floor. He appeared to be in a state of heavy alcohol intoxication, was unable to communicate or identify himself, and was unable to move. He had several bruises and grazes on his face – cheeks, eyebrows and forehead. The officers carried him by his arms and legs to a municipal police van and took him to the municipal police station. They arrived there approximately one hour later, on the way having picked up another person who had been lying on the ground unconscious somewhere else.\n12.  At the municipal police station, a medical orderly visually examined the applicant and treated and recorded his facial injuries. The officers then carried him to a “sobering-up room” and placed him on a wooden plank bed. Several hours later the applicant was able to reveal his identity. According to the Government, reports (protokoli) in respect of administrative detention (administratīvā aizturēšana) and the administrative offence of “indecent public behaviour while being in a state of alcohol intoxication” were being drawn up. The Government could not provide the Court with copies of these procedural documents since they were destroyed in 2008 upon the expiry of their archival period.\n13.  Later, at some point during the night of 19 to 20 August 2003, the applicant complained of pain in his left leg. The medical orderly called an ambulance and the applicant was taken to a hospital in Liepāja.\n14.  The applicant did not agree with the Government’s version of the events. According to the applicant, on 19 August 2003, between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m., he was sitting on a bench by the apartment building he lived in with a bottle of beer in his hand, when the municipal police arrived and two officers approached him with a view to taking him to the municipal police station. They did not inform him of the reasons for his detention; he got into the police van by himself and was taken to the municipal police station, where at 8.55 p.m. an administrative detention report was drawn up.\n15.  At the station, he was briefly examined to determine his state of health and level of intoxication. Following an examination, an officer instructed him to stand up immediately. The applicant replied that he was capable of doing so by himself, but slowly. Then another officer, who was standing behind him, ordered him to do as req", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8014", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, the private company Mladina d.d. Ljubljana, whose registered office is in Ljubljana, is the publisher of the weekly magazine Mladina.\n6.  On 16 and 22 June 2005 the National Assembly (hereinafter –“Parliament”) examined a draft law on same-sex civil partnerships. At a later date it adopted the Registration of Same-Sex Civil Partnerships Act (hereinafter – “the Act”). During the parliamentary debate on the issue, certain deputies of the Slovenian National Party (hereinafter – “the SNP”), which opposed legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, took the floor in order to express their disagreement with the proposed draft.\n7.  On 27 June 2005 the Mladina magazine published a one-page article entitled “Registration of Same-Sex Civil Partnerships Act adopted”, with the standfirst: “Right-wingers full of pride, but according to non-governmental organisations the Act is not consistent with the Constitution”, summarising the parliamentary debate preceding the adoption of the Act. The first three paragraphs of the article read as follows:\n“Last week, the second reading of the proposed Act on the registration of same-sex civil partnerships ended up as a crash course in narrow-mindedness, pervaded by a Stone Age mentality. Our elected representatives were so keen to reject amendments to the draft [and the] actual rights of same-sex oriented citizens that they decided to pass the Act at the third attempt within one single parliamentary session. On Wednesday, the Act came to fruition, the outcome being 44 votes to 3 ...\nThe SNP’s gunslingers ... shone brilliantly during the explanation of their votes. [B.Z.] spouted forth all the same stupidities as at the previous reading (such as that the Act was completely unnecessary, that the Act had been extorted by marginal groups, that there were other groups which merited the legislature’s priority), and touched on the objections against his use of words such as ʻfaggotsʼ and ʻlesbiansʼ a week ago. He stated: ʻWhere I come from, we call them “faggots” and “lesbians”; in Primorska [a region in Slovenia], they are called “kulotini” and in Ljubljana they are “gays”. I am not someone who would change his way of speaking just because he has come to Ljubljana. In Štajerska [another region in Slovenia], we simply have faggots and lesbians.ʼ\n[S.P.], also from the SNP, assured with a playful smile that there was probably not a single person in the assembly hall who wished for the ‘fruit of their loins to declare themselves to be what we are voting on today, with our rights ... in other words, none of us would want to have a son or a daughter who would opt for this kind of marriage’. If our homeless people could follow the breadcrumb trail to Finland or even further, let these ladies and gentlemen also go there to marry. But the biggest victims of this law would be the children of such a marriage: ‘Just imagine a child whose father comes to pick him up from school and greets him with “Heeeeey, I’ve come to take you hooooome! Have you got your coat on yet?’ He accompanied this brilliant remark with a coffeehouse imitation which was probably supposed to clearly illustrate some orthodox understanding of a stereotypically effeminate and mannered faggot, whereas in reality [what it illustrated was] just the typical attitude of a cerebral bankrupt who is lucky to be living in a country with such a limited pool of human resources that a person of his characteristics can even end up in Parliament, when in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8015", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Amöneburg.\n6.  In April 2005, the applicant published an article in a local newspaper concerning the political orientation of the Berger-88-e.V. association (“the  association”). Subsequently, the newspaper published the association’s response to that article describing the applicant’s statements as “intellectually weak and crude” (“geistig schwach und primitiv”) and as “pamphlets constituting a public danger” (“gemeingefährliche Pamphelete”). The newspaper also published two letters to the editor. One of them was written by F.G., an elected town councillor, who contended that the association had no extreme right-wing tendencies (“keine  rechtsradikale Vereinigung”). He expressed that it was “unfortunate that [the applicant] again and again manages to publicize his false accusations and to show himself as a pitiful victim” (“[...] bedauerlich, dass es Herrn Dr. Brosa immer wieder gelingt, seine falschen Anschuldigungen öffentlich zu machen und sich als bedauernswertes ‘Opfer’ darzustellen [...]”). He contended that “he [the applicant] had evoked the current situation in particular by his constant spying and false accusations” (“Die  derzeitige Situation hat er insbesondere durch seine ständigen Bespitzelungen und Falschbehauptungen heraufbeschworen [...].”).\n7.  F.G. was also running for the office of town mayor. In the run-up to the elections the applicant then distributed a leaflet with the headline: “Don’t vote for an agitator” (“Wählen Sie keinen Scharfmacher”). The text on the leaflet maintained: “Amöneburg is the seat of several neo-Nazi organisations. Particularly dangerous is the Berger-88-e.V., for which F.G. [last name written out] is providing a cover.” („Amöneburg ist Sitz mehrerer Neonazi-Organisationen. Besonders gefährlich sind die Berger-88-e.V., die  F.G. deckt.“). The leaflet also showed photos of F.G.’s son, the association’s chairman at the time, taken by a security camera on the applicant’s property late at night. The applicant explained that he had previously been attacked and that his door had been smashed repeatedly at night.\n8.  On 6 July 2005 the Kirchhain District Court, at F.G.’s request, issued a civil injunction prohibiting the applicant from distributing the leaflet and making other assertions of fact (Tatsachenbehauptungen) which might depict F.G. as a supporter of neo-Nazi organisations. Any contravention was punishable by a fine of up to 250,000 euros (EUR) or by imprisonment of up to six months. The court reasoned that the assertion that F.G. had covered for a particularly dangerous neo-Nazi organisation had infringed his personality rights. Because of the upcoming elections, the court found that there was a risk that the applicant might continue to distribute the leaflet or disseminate the allegations in another form.\n9.  The applicant lodged an objection with the Kirchhain District Court. He submitted, inter alia, that the designation “88”, standing for the eighth letter of the alphabet [H] as a reference to “Heil Hitler”, was displayed by members of the association in runes and thus in a form attributed to neo‑Nazism by the German federal domestic intelligence service (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz). In addition, the association had held a ceremony on the weekend after Hitler’s birthday using the colours black, white and red – the national colours of the German empire – for the invitation. In support of his allegations, the applicant referred to the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8016", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Voronezh.\n7.  In 1982 a municipal authority registered the applicant on the waiting list for war veterans in need of improved housing conditions (“the housing list”).\n8.  On 3 March 1995 the Sovetskiy District Court of Voronezh (“the District Court”) gave judgment in the applicant’s favour, obliging the Administration of Voronezh (“the town council”) to:\n“... allocate a separate well-furnished flat for rent to [the applicant] for her whole family as from the date of the provision of the flat with living space of no less than nine square metres per person, with account to be taken of [the applicant’s] right to additional living space and the possibility of providing a flat located close to her daughter’s residence at 5 Komarova Street, Voronezh ...”\n9.  On 11 April 1995 the Voronezh Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the judgment on appeal and on the same date it became binding.\n10.  On 3 May 1995 the District Court issued the applicant with a writ of execution (no. 2-286/95) and on an unspecified date bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings.\n11.  On 29 June 1995, 13 October 1995 and 2 February 1996 the town council was fined for failure to enforce the judgment of 3 March 1995.\n12.  On 14 August 1995 the Voronezh expert medical commission registered the applicant as Category 2 disabled and declared her unfit for work. On the same day a municipal authority registered the applicant on another waiting list, this time for disabled war veterans in need of improved housing conditions.\n13.  On 26 February 1996 the Presidium of the Regional Court by way of supervisory review supplemented the judgment of 3 March 1995, by adding the words “in order of priority” to the operative provisions quoted above (see paragraph 8 above). On 16 May 1996 the Regional Court explained to the applicant that the amendment did not mean that the town council had been released from its obligation to enforce the judgment. Rather, it meant that its enforcement became dependent upon the moment she moved from third to first place on the housing list.\n14.  On 6 March 2000 the Presidium of the Regional Court by way of supervisory review supplemented the operative part of the judgment for a second time, with the words “in order of priority among those entitled to obtain housing on preferential terms”.\n15.  By an order (no. 41) of the head of the Administration of the Sovetskiy District of Voronezh (“the district council”) dated 18 January 2000, the applicant was provided with a two-room flat at 257, 3 Putilovskaya Street (hereinafter “Flat 1”) measuring 55.17 square metres with 30.76 square metres of living space, for a family of three (the applicant, her son and her grandson). By the same order the applicant was struck off the housing list.\n16.  The applicant refused to participate in the privatisation of Flat 1 in favour of one of her two grandsons, Mr A.A. Stetsenko. On 23 March 2006 title to the flat was transferred, by way of privatisation, to him. On 30 June 2009 he signed an agreement gifting Flat 1 to his father, the applicant’s son, Mr A.M. Stetsenko, who remains its current owner.\n17.  The head of the district council amended his order no. 41 (see paragraph 15 above) on two occasions: on 17 October 2000 the applicant was reinstated to the housing list, and on 7 April 2004 she was struck off it again.\n18.  On 13 May 2002 the Voronezh neuropsychology clinic informed the district council that: a) since 1989", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8017", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1980. Prior to his arrest in 2012 he resided in Arzamas, in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region. He is currently detained in the special detention facility in Balakhna, in the Nizhniy Novgorod Region.\n7.  Until April 2011 the applicant lived in Uzbekistan. His family members, including a minor son, live in Uzbekistan. From 2001 onwards he went to Russia on several occasions, in order to earn money.\n8.  On 12 April 2011 the applicant arrived in Russia to look for employment. On 12 July 2011 the period of the applicant’s lawful residence in Russia expired.\n9.  On 24 January 2012 he was fined for failure to comply with immigration laws. He did not leave the country at that point.\n10.  On 12 June 2012 the investigator at the Department of the Interior of the Andizhan Region of Uzbekistan charged the applicant with establishing, leading or participating in religious extremist, separatist, fundamentalist or other prohibited organisations (Article 244-2 of the Uzbek Criminal Code). The applicant was accused, in particular, of membership of a banned religious extremist organisation, “the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan”, and a terrorist organisation, “O’zbekiston Islomiy Harakati”, between late 2008 and October 2009. According to the relevant investigator’s decision, the applicant, together with his brother and two other persons, “planned to destroy the constitutional order of Uzbekistan” and then “to create an Islamic State on the territory of Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia”. For these purposes they had moved to Russia and started to “study the ideology of the head of the terrorist movement, Tohir Yo’ldoshev, and Jumaboi Khojayev, also known as Jummah Namangani”. Further, together with other members of O’zbekiston Islomiy Harakati, they had planned an attack with intent to destroy the constitutional order of Uzbekistan and other countries in order to create an Islamic State there. They had also attempted to “carry out terrorist attacks”. The investigator stated that there was sufficient evidence against the applicant, without giving further details.\n11.  On the same date, the Andizhan Town Court of Uzbekistan ordered the applicant’s arrest and his name was put on a cross-border wanted list.\n12.  On 13 September 2012 the applicant was arrested in the town of Arzamas in the Nizhny Novgorod Region, pursuant to a request by the Uzbek authorities, and was detained pending extradition.\n13.  On 12 October 2012 the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Republic of Uzbekistan submitted a formal request for the applicant’s extradition. The request contained assurances that the applicant would be prosecuted only for the offences for which he was extradited, that he would be able to freely leave Uzbekistan when he had stood trial and served any sentence, and that he would not be expelled or extradited to a third State without the consent of the Russian authorities. The Uzbek prosecutor’s office further assured its Russian counterpart that the applicant would not be prosecuted in Uzbekistan on political or religious grounds, that he would not be subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment, that he would be provided with an opportunity to defend himself, inter alia through legal assistance, and that the criminal proceedings against him would be conducted in compliance with the domestic law of the Republic of Uzbekistan. It was pointed out in the letter that all forms of inhuman and degrading treatment were prohibited in the destin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8018", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in the village of Suzak, situated in the Jalal-Abad Region of Kyrgyzstan. He is currently staying in Krasnoarmeysk, the Moscow Region, Russia, where he is subject to a measure of restraint applied in the course of extradition proceedings.\n7.  The applicant is an ethnic Uzbek.\n8.  In June 2010 inter-ethnic violence between Kyrgyz and Uzbek groups broke out in the southern areas of Kyrgyzstan, including the city of Osh and the Jalal-Abad Region. The applicant claimed not to have taken part in any violent actions. He left Kyrgyzstan for Russia, allegedly fleeing ethnically motivated violence. It appears that his next-of-kin remain in the country.\n9.  In July 2010 the applicant arrived in Russia. In 2010 and 2011 he did not lodge any applications for refugee status or temporary asylum. By a final judgment of 16 September 2011 the Moscow Meshchanskiy District Court (“the Meshchanskiy court”) convicted the applicant of robbery. The applicant served a prison term and was released on 19 January 2012.\n10.  In the meantime, on 24 August 2010 the Osh Region Prosecutor’s Office (Kyrgyzstan) charged the applicant in absentia with a number of serious violent offences committed in June 2010 in the course of inter‑ethnic rioting in the village of Suzak.\n11.  On 25 August 2010 the Suzak District Court, the Jalal-Abad Region of Kyrgyzstan, ordered the applicant’s remand in custody. On an unspecified date the applicant’s name was placed on an international wanted list.\n12.  On 25 March 2012 the applicant was arrested by the Russian police while he was travelling by train in the Moscow region, on the basis that he was wanted in Kyrgyzstan.\n13.  On 26 March 2012 the transport prosecutor’s office for the Moscow‑Yaroslavl railway (“the transport prosecutor’s office”) ordered the applicant’s remand in custody pending receipt of an extradition request pursuant to Article 61 of the Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 1993 and on the basis of the Kyrgyz court’s decision of 25 August 2010.\n14.  On 18 April 2012 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Kyrgyzstan sent an official extradition request to their Russian counterparts.\n15.  On 25 April 2012 the transport prosecutor’s office again ordered the applicant’s remand in custody.\n16.  On 28 April 2012 the applicant sought refugee status in Russia. He claimed, among other things, that the criminal case against him had been opened exclusively because of his ethnic origin and that he would face a real risk of ill-treatment in Kyrgyzstan if returned there. He referred to reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.\n17.  On 10 May 2012 the applicant’s lawyer wrote to the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia, indicating that extradition should be refused on account of the substantiated risk of ill-treatment in respect of the applicant in Kyrgyzstan. On 14 June 2012 the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia replied that the above submissions would be taken into account in the decision-making process on the extradition request.\n18.  On 22 May 2012 the Meshchanskiy court extended the term of the applicant’s detention up to six months, that is to say, until 25 September 2012.  On 4 June 2012 the Moscow City Court dismissed an appeal brought by the applicant and upheld the detention order.\n19.  By a decision of 21 August 2012 the Moscow Department of the Federal Migration Service of Russia (“Moscow migration au", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8019", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kryvyy Rig.\n6.  In 2005-2006 the applicant created a local non-governmental organisation, as well as several newspapers.\n7.  On 16 November 2006 the Kryvyy Rig Transport Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of interfering with gas pipeline repairs in July 2006.\n8.  On 17 May 2007 the Kryvyy Rig City Prosecutor’s Office opened another criminal case in respect of the applicant, on suspicion of extortion from a local politician, Ms B. As noted in the ruling, on 4 January 2006 the applicant had sent a letter to Ms B., demanding 20,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (the equivalent of about 3,000 euros) under the threat of dissemination of some discrediting information about her. He had also threatened her with physical violence in the presence of several witnesses.\n9.  The two aforementioned criminal cases were joined.\n10.  On 4 June 2007 the applicant was detained.\n11.  On 6 June 2007 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig (“the Dzerzhynskyy Court”) ordered that he remain in pre-trial detention. It referred to complaints by the victim, as well as her representative, about numerous telephone calls from the applicant during which he had made threats of violence. The court also noted that the applicant had refused to comply with the investigator’s summonses and had stated that he was considering absconding.\n12.  On 11 June 2007 an outpatient forensic psychiatric expert examination of the applicant was carried out in the Kryvyy Rig Psychoneurological Dispensary. The expert discerned indications of a paranoid personality disorder with a tendency towards “forming fixed ideas”. An inpatient examination was recommended for a more precise diagnosis.\n13.  On 14 June 2007 the Dzerzhynskyy Court ordered an inpatient forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant at Dnipropetrovsk Psychoneurological Centre with a view to establishing his ability to stand trial in the extortion case. The court referred to the expert’s recommendation of 11 June 2007. It also noted that the applicant had been showing “inadequate behaviour”. Furthermore, the case file contained copies of threats and clearly slanderous statements he had made to the victim and certain third parties.\n14.  On 15 June 2007 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the detention order of 6 June 2007.\n15.  On 20 June 2007 another case was opened against him on suspicion of extortion. This time the applicant was suspected of having threatened Mr S. and his family and of having extorted 3,000 US dollars from Mr S. in May 2007.\n16.  On 27 June 2007 the applicant was taken to the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital for an inpatient forensic psychiatric examination in the framework of the criminal case regarding the charge of extortion from Ms B.\n17.  On 25 July 2007 the investigator in charge applied to the Dzerzhynskyy Court for an extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention (which was to expire on 4 August 2007) till 17 August 2007, because more time was required to complete the investigation. In particular, the following investigative measures were still to be carried out: completion of the applicant’s forensic psychiatric examination, a confrontation between the applicant and Mr S., and the questioning of a number of witnesses.\n18.  On the same date the Dzerzhynskyy Court granted the aforementioned application and endorsed its reaso", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8020", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  On 16 June 1998 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant and his associates for embezzlement and other offences.\nOn 7 June 2002 a bill of indictment was preferred.\n7.  A first instance judgment was adopted on 17 November 2009. The Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court took into account as a mitigating factor the lapse of time and imposed only a fine.\nThis judgment was quashed on appeal.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings, a first-instance judgment was adopted afresh, in which the lapse of time was again appreciated as a mitigating factor.\nThis judgment was also quashed on appeal.\n9.  The case was then resumed before the Budapest High Court. On 23 April 2013 this court convicted the applicant and imposed only a fine, holding that the lapse of time was an important mitigating factor.\n10.  An appeal by the public prosecutor is currently pending before the Budapest Court of Appeal.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8021", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 22 February 2002 the applicant, then head of the Budapest Public Administration Authority, was dismissed from the civil service, as a disciplinary measure. In the ensuing labour action the parties reached a friendly settlement on 22 March 2002; the applicant was reinstated and obtained damages. However, on the same day, the Prime Minister revoked his mandate to preside over the Authority. As a consequence, the applicant left the Authority.\n6.  From this labour dispute, four sets of proceedings ensued. On 2 May 2002 the applicant brought a labour action, claiming unlawful revocation of his mandate. In parallel, the Authority brought a civil action against the applicant, claiming the invalidity of the friendly settlement and seeking the reimbursement of the compensation received by the applicant. The applicant also brought labour proceedings, claiming the unlawfulness of the disciplinary measure imposed on him on 22 February 2002 as well as his salary arrears.\n7.  The friendly settlement was annulled by a final judgment of the Baranya County Regional Court, acting as a second instance court, on 3 November 2005.\n8.  On 2 February 2010 the Baranya County Regional Court, acting as a second instance court, adopted a final judgment establishing the unlawfulness of the revocation of the applicant’s mandate on 22 March 2002.\n9.  In the labour action concerning the disciplinary measure, the Zalaegerszeg Labour Court found for the applicant in an interim judgment on 3 April 2007 and established the unlawfulness of the sanction.\n10.  As regards the applicant’s claim for salary arrears and the Authority’s action for the repayment of compensation, the proceedings appear to be still pending before the Kúria and the Budapest Surroundings High Court, respectively.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8022", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1972, 1965, 1966, 1974 and 1976 respectively.\n6.  When their application was lodged the applicants were being held at the E-type prison of Muş.\n7.  During their previous detention in another prison – the H-type prison of Erzurum – they had applied to the sentence-execution judge of Erzurum seeking the lifting of the restrictions that the prison authorities imposed, according to them, by preventing them from using the Kurdish language in their telephone conversations.\n8.  On 29 May 2006, based on the case file, the sentence-execution judge of Erzurum dismissed their application. In his reasoning he began by stating that, while Article 22 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protected the freedom of correspondence, those two Articles also provided for limitations of such freedom on grounds such as national security and public order. He further mentioned that Law no. 5275 on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures (“Law no. 5275”) provided that telephone conversations had to be conducted under the conditions and according to the principles laid down in the Rules on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures (“the Rules”). He noted that the prison authorities had not yet received any reply to their request for it to be ascertained, under Rule 88/2 (p) of the Rules, whether or not the individuals with whom the applicants wished to speak understood Turkish. He pointed out in this connection that the question remained to be clarified and that the applicants’ action thus concerned the general practice of the prison authorities which, in his view, was not in breach of the law. He concluded that the prison authorities had acted in conformity with Law no. 5275 and Rule 88/2 (p).\n9.  On 11 May 2006 the applicants requested that this decision be set aside.\n10.  On 12 July 2006, based on the case file, the Erzurum Assize Court dismissed the applicants’ action to have the decision set aside, finding that the sentence-execution judge had not acted in breach of the procedure or of the law.\n11.  At the time when they lodged their applications, the applicants were being held at the F-type prison of Bolu.\n12.  While in that prison, they applied on 5 May 2008 to the sentence-execution judge of Bolu seeking the lifting of the restrictions that, according to them, the prison authorities imposed by preventing them from using the Kurdish language in their telephone conversations.\n13.  On 13 May 2008, based on the case file, the sentence-execution judge of Bolu dismissed the application, finding that the practice of the prison authorities was in conformity with both the procedure and the law. In his decision, he noted that the rules on telephone conversations between convicted and remand prisoners and their relatives had been revoked on 17 February 2007. He indicated that those rules did not contain any provision about the handling of a request concerning a telephone conversation in a language other than Turkish. He explained that Law no. 5275 had come into force and that Rule 88 laid down new principles that had to be taken into account. He set out all the conditions provided for in Rule 88 as regards the supervision of telephone conversations in prisons, particularly the principle that telephone conversations had to be conducted in Turkish, with the exception of those cases in which the convicted prisoner and/or the person telephoned or telephoning did not understand", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8023", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Balkány.\n5.  On 11 November 2004 the applicant brought an action before the Debrecen Labour Court. She claimed that she had been unlawfully dismissed from public service.\n6.  On 14 November 2007 the Labour Court found against her. Relying on various pieces of evidence, the court was satisfied that the reasons for the applicant’s dismissal were real and relevant.\n7.  On 10 April 2008 the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n8.  On 11 November 2009 the Supreme Court rejected her petition for review (service: 17 December 2009).\n9.  The applicant’s criminal accusations made in the above context against third persons were to no avail.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8024", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Pomarkku.\n5.  On 9 June 2005 the applicant’s husband was injured in a car accident and he received insurance benefits from an insurance company. However, on 2 and 5 March 2006 the insurance company refused his applications for compensation for rehabilitation. On 30 March and 4 April 2006 the husband appealed against these decisions to the Insurance Court (vakuutusoikeus, försäkringsdomstolen). The husband died on 3 August 2006 but the applicant and the estate decided to continue the appeals.\n6.  On 3 May 2010 the Insurance Court rejected the appeals. No appeal lies against these decisions. The judgment of the Insurance Court was sent to the applicant on 1 June 2010.\n7.  On 26 February 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan oikeusasiamies, riksdagens justitieombudsman) complaining, inter alia, about the excessive length of the proceedings in the Insurance Court.\n8.  On 17 November 2011 the Ombudsman gave a reply, after having requested a statement from the Insurance Court which included reports from the referendary and the judges responsible for examining the applicant’s case. The Ombudsman considered that the proceedings in the applicant’s case had taken, in total, a long time. However, the Ombudsman accepted the reasons given by the Insurance Court, namely that the case had been exceptionally extensive, complex and time-consuming. The Insurance Court examined the case as a first instance, which required more preparation than when it examined appeals as a second instance. Also the case file had been incomplete and several requests for information had been made. The applicant, on her part, had sent a considerable number of documents during the course of the proceedings, which had also contributed to the length. The Ombudsman considered that there had been no particular inactivity in the Insurance Court. Hence it considered that, despite the lengthy proceedings, there had not been unjustified delays in the course of the proceedings.\n9.  On 20 October 2010 the applicant initiated extraordinary proceedings before the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), requesting that the decisions of the Insurance Court be quashed because the referendary in the Insurance Court had been biased.\n10.  On 29 July 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the application for being outside its competence. As the proceedings before the Insurance Court were administrative, it was the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) that was competent to examine an extraordinary appeal concerning an alleged procedural flaw.\n11.  On 5 October 2011 the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court, claiming that the proceedings before the Insurance Court had been flawed due to the partiality of the referendary and the wrong application of law.\n12.  On 31 May 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the complaint concerning the wrong application of law without examining the merits and rejected the partiality complaint after having examined it. The Supreme Administrative Court considered that the applicant had reasoned her complaint about the referendary’s partiality only with the fact that she had complained about the referendary to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The court was of the opinion that the mere fact that the applicant had complained about the referendary to the Ombudsman did not put the im", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8025", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1966, 1953 and 1961 respectively and live in Struga (the first and third applicants) and Ohrid (the second applicant). The applicants were private entrepreneurs.\n6.  On 23 December 2008 an investigating judge of the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) opened an investigation against fifteen people (some of the accused were bankruptcy trustees, trial judges, lawyers, notaries and civil servants), including the applicants, on reasonable suspicion of having been involved in crimes with respect to bankruptcy proceedings concerning company I. All the applicants were charged with money laundering. In respect of the first applicant, the investigation also concerned charges of abuse of position, fraud and forgery and as regards the third applicant, charges of fraud. After having heard oral evidence from the accused, the investigating judge, in a single decision, ordered that nine of the accused, including the applicants, be placed in pre-trial detention for thirty days. The detention order was based on all the grounds specified under section 184(1)(1-3) of the Criminal Proceedings Act (hereinafter “the Act”, see paragraph 32 below), namely, a risk of the accused absconding and reoffending and interfering with the investigation. The judge relied on the gravity of the charges, the severity of the potential sentence and the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses, accomplices and other people concerned.\n7.  The first and second applicants appealed, arguing that the investigating judge had not given any concrete reasons to justify the detention of each of them. Both applicants pointed out that they had a permanent residence and family in the respondent State. The second applicant further submitted evidence regarding his poor health.\n8.  On 25 December 2008 a three-judge panel of the trial court (“the panel”), set up under section 22(6) of the Act (see paragraph 29 below), sitting in private, dismissed the appeal submitted by the first applicant. On 26 December 2008 it replaced the order for pre-trial detention with an order for house arrest in respect of the second applicant.\n9.  With three decisions dated 21 January, 19 February and 20 March 2009, the panel ordered, on each occasion, a thirty-day extension of the applicants’ pre-trial detention and house arrest, respectively. All extension orders were taken at hearings held in private (нејавна седница). The first two extension orders were given on a proposal by the investigating judge and were based on all three grounds specified under section 184(1)(1-3) of the Act. In the decision of 20 March 2009, which was given on a proposal by the public prosecutor, “interference with the investigation” was excluded from the list of grounds since an indictment was lodged against the applicants on that date. According to the applicants, the indictment was communicated to them on 6 April 2009.\n10.  As regards the risk of absconding, the extension order of 21 January 2009 stated that:\n“Having regard to the type, gravity and nature of the criminal offenses with which the accused are charged, the panel considers that there is a real risk of them absconding if they are released. That is sustained with the behaviour of some of the accused, namely [the first applicant] has a previous criminal record and criminal proceedings are pending in respect of [the second applicant]. As regards the personal circumstances of the accused, the panel took into consideration t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8026", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Cubinec.\n6.  Part of the house where the applicant has been living since 1991 with her family is occupied by a bar, and for a certain period of time a shop (see paragraph 43 below), run by company O-P. and its predecessor company F. (hereinafter “the company”), since August 2002.\n7.  The applicant is the owner of 59.63% of the house, while the company owns the remainder of the house with a share of 40.37%.\n8.  The bar is located on the ground floor of the house, below the applicant’s flat. The applicant also owns a flat on the ground floor adjacent to the bar.\n9.  In August 2002 the company began reconstruction work on its premises in order to open a bar and a shop.\n10.  On 21 August 2002 a building inspector (građevinski inspektor), acting on a complaint by the applicant, found that the reconstruction carried out by the company had not required any additional planning permission or authorisation.\n11.   The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the building inspector with the Ministry of Ecology, Spatial Planning and Construction (Ministarstvo zaštite okoliša, prostornog uređenja i graditeljstva, hereinafter “the Ministry of Construction”), arguing that the company had demolished one of the load-bearing walls and had made a hole in the façade.\n12.  On 28 June 2004 the Ministry of Construction allowed the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case to the building inspector on the grounds that he had failed to establish all the relevant facts.\n13.  On 7 June 2005 the building inspector found that the company had carried out the construction within the scope defined by the existing planning permissions.\n14.  The applicant again appealed to the Ministry of Construction, arguing that she had not had an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and that the findings of the building inspector were erroneous.\n15.  On 6 February 2006 the Ministry of Construction remitted the case to the building inspector on the grounds that he had failed to take into account the obvious modifications to the building, in particular the demolition of the load-bearing wall and fissures on the surrounding walls.\n16.  On 4 June 2007 the construction inspector ordered the applicant and the company to remove certain walls, a balcony, staircases and part of a rooftop, considering that they had been constructed without the necessary planning permissions.\n17.  The applicant appealed against that decision to the Ministry of Construction and on 26 October 2007 the Ministry dismissed her appeal.\n18.  On an unspecified date in 2008 the applicant lodged an administrative action in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) challenging the decisions of the building inspector and the Ministry of Construction.\n19.  On 3 November 2011 the Administrative Court quashed the decisions of the administrative bodies and ordered that the case be re-examined on the grounds that the relevant facts had not been correctly established.\n20.  The administrative proceedings are still pending.\n21.  In August 2002 the company applied to the Koprivničko-Križevačka County State Administration Office (Ured državne uprave u Koprivničko-križevačkoj županiji, hereinafter “the County Office”) for an operating licence to run a bar and a shop.\n22.  An administrative commission, established to examine whether the premises in which the company intended to run a bar met the necessary operating requirements, noted in its report of 27", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8027", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in the town of Gorlivka, Ukraine.\n6.  From 1953 to 1966 the applicant worked in a mine.\n7.  In 2001-2002 the applicant asked the Lenin Mine (his former employer) and the State mining enterprise Artemvugillya (the Lenin Mine’s legal successor) to explain to him how section 43 of the Mining Act (“Гірничий закон”) (see “Relevant domestic law” below) was to be implemented, and to pay his electricity and gas costs in accordance with this provision. In reply he was informed that persons who were entitled to receive coal free of charge but were living in houses with central heating had the right to exemption from electricity and gas payments, such costs being borne by the mining companies. However, no appropriate legal mechanisms implementing “the methods of calculation and the sources of financing” had been adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers.\n8.  In 2003 the applicant complained to a prosecutor’s office that his requests to have his electricity and gas payments covered had been ignored. In a letter dated 13 February 2003 from the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Prosecutor’s Office, the applicant was informed that he was entitled to exemption from electricity and gas payments. Since the Lenin Mine had refused to accept his claims owing to the lack of funds and no compensation mechanism was provided for by law, the applicant was advised to lodge his claims with the court.\n9.  In April 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Court against the State mining enterprise Artemvugillya and local communal heating and gas providers. He claimed that under section 43 of the Mining Act the mine should cover his electricity and gas costs by means of contributions paid into the local budget. He also claimed reimbursement of amounts already paid and asked that the State mining enterprise Artemvugillya settle his heating and gas debts. The applicant also claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He updated his claims in 2004.\n10.  On 7 April 2004 the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Court found against the applicant. The court held that the applicant had worked in a mine for more than ten years and thus was entitled to receive free coal for everyday domestic needs. As he lived in a house with central heating, section 43-8 of the Mining Act should apply in his case. However, no mechanism was in place for the implementation of that provision. In particular, there was no procedure for transferring funds from mining enterprises to the local budget. The court also held that the applicant’s request for reimbursement of the amounts already paid had no basis in law.\n11.  On 29 July 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld that decision.\n12.  On 4 April 2006 the Supreme Court rejected an appeal on points of law by the applicant.\n13.  In a decision of 1 December 2006 the Tsentralno-Miskyy District Court ordered the applicant to settle his heating debts, noting that section 43 of the Mining Act did not exempt him from paying for heating services. That decision was upheld on 26 June 2007 by the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal. On 23 October 2007 the Supreme Court of Ukraine rejected a request by the applicant for leave to appeal on points of law.\n14.  In a letter dated 4 November 2008 the Gorlivka Town Council informed the applicant that at that date no mechanism had been set up to handle the compensatory payments requested by him.\n15.  In letters dated 14 May and 2 July 2009 the Ministry", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8028", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Skopje.\n6.  On 4 February 2003 the applicant was apprehended by the police on a location in Skopje and searched. As indicated in the search record, which the applicant duly signed, the search was carried out without a court warrant and in the absence of witnesses, as provided for in sections 200(4) and 202(2) of the Criminal Proceedings Act (“the Act”, see paragraph 32 below). The police confiscated 13 keys and a mobile phone from him. The search was completed at 2.10 pm.\n7.  On that date, an investigating judge of Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) issued two separate search warrants (Kri.br.34/03 and Kri.br.35/03) concerning two apartments (nos. 8 and 9 in the building in which the applicant lived) and other premises (наредба за претрес на дом и други простории) owned by the applicant’s father. The search warrants were issued on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had been involved in drug trafficking.\n8.  Both apartments and the accompanying cellars were searched that day in the presence of the applicant’s father and two neighbours, who acted as witnesses. Seven packages containing an unknown substance were found. An authorised police officer, the neighbours, as well as the applicant’s father, who was specified in the search records as the occupier of the premises, signed the search records without any objection. The searches were completed at 6 pm. and 7.30 pm. At the request of those attending the search, the following note was included in the search record concerning apartment no. 9:\n“The packages were found in the cellar belonging to apartment no. 10 of the same building, which was opened with a key confiscated during the personal search of [the applicant] ....”\n9.  As indicated in that search record, a certificate of confiscation of property (“the certificate”) was issued concerning the seven packages found in the cellar. It stated that the packages had been confiscated in relation to a crime punishable under the Criminal Code (drug trafficking). The applicant had not been present in the cellars while those were being searched but was brought to the premises afterwards (see § 16 below). He signed the certificate of confiscation as a person from whom the packages had been confiscated.\n10.  On 5 February 2003 the Criminal Investigations Bureau at the Ministry of the Interior (“the Bureau”, Сектор за криминалистичка техника) carried out an expert examination of the padlock which had secured cellar no.10 and 13 keys that had been confiscated from the applicant. According to the expert report of that date (no. 10.2.6-5520/1), the locking system of the padlock had been damaged and it could be opened with any object, including all keys confiscated from the applicant.\n11.  In another expert report (X-164/2003) of that date, the Bureau confirmed that five packages found in cellar no.10 contained 2.296 kg of heroin. As to the remaining 0.991 kg found in the two other packages, the report stated that they contained two substances that were often mixed with heroin. That was confirmed by an additional expert report of the Bureau dated 10 February 2003 (no. X-164/2/2003). As indicated in the report X-164/2003, each of six packages found in the cellar contained between 486gr and 527gr. The dimensions of the largest package were 20x10x2.2 mm.\n12.  A third expert report of the Bureau (SK-164/2003) of 5 February 2003 that concerned a fingerprint found on one of the packages c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8029", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Elixhausen.\n6.  On 19 November 1993 the applicant’s wife made a claim for spousal maintenance to the Salzburg District Court (Bezirksgericht Salzburg - hereinafter “the District Court”). She also requested the court to make an interim order for provisional maintenance pending the conclusion of the main proceedings. At that time, the applicant had already filed for divorce and had left the marital home.\n7.  In his written submissions of 21 December 1993, the applicant accused the presiding judge of bias. On 24 March 1994 the District Court issued an interim order requiring him to pay his wife provisional maintenance. On 8 April 1994 he appealed against that order. The judge in those proceedings was subsequently excluded from the case. His decisions were declared null and void, with the exception of the interim order of 24 March 1994, which was confirmed by the Salzburg Regional Court (Landesgericht Salzburg – hereinafter “the Regional Court”) on 7 July 1995.\n8.  On 29 September 1994 the applicant’s wife sought to amend her claim and requested another interim order for provisional maintenance. On 6 July 1995 the District Court issued a fresh interim order awarding her a higher amount of provisional maintenance. On 18 September 1995, after an oral hearing, the court dismissed an appeal by the applicant against that order. However, on 7 July 1997 the Regional Court quashed that decision in part, and on 5 January 1998 the District Court partly allowed the applicant’s appeal.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 1997, the presiding judge of the Regional Court was excluded from the case for bias upon a request by the applicant. The replacement judge left the court soon after, and a third judge took over the case.\n10.  During an oral hearing on 20 March 1998 the applicant and his wife agreed that he would pay her a specific amount of provisional maintenance until the conclusion of the proceedings. On 6 May 1998 the applicant submitted a request to the District Court to have the proceedings accelerated.\n11.  On 28 July 1999 the applicant requested that the hearing scheduled for 30 July 1999 be postponed because of serious health problems. The next hearing was held on 14 October 1999. On 20 August 1999 the District Court granted the applicant and his wife’s divorce and found that the applicant had been largely responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. He appealed. The outcome of these proceedings is unclear.\n12.  During an oral hearing on 6 December 1999 the parties agreed to stay the main maintenance proceedings. On 25 May 2000 the applicant requested that they be continued. Between 2000 and 2004, a number of further oral hearings were held. On three occasions, hearings were postponed upon requests by the applicant, mainly for health reasons. The applicant’s wife also requested several postponements.\n13.  On 19 December 2001 and on 16 July 2004 the applicant lodged applications to the Regional Court under section 91 of the Courts Act (Gerichts­organisationsgesetz) for an appropriate time-limit to be imposed on the District Court (Fristsetzungsantrag). It appears that his applications were never decided.\n14.  During an oral hearing on 8 October 2004 the applicant’s wife sought to amend her claim and requested another interim order for provisional maintenance. On 12 February 2005 the applicant lodged a further application under section 91 of the Courts Act, but it was rejected by the Regional Court on ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8030", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born on 18 November 1940 and lives in Lipovača, Croatia.\n6.  In the period between 1 January 1980 and 30 November 1992 the applicant was insured by the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje) as an agricultural entrepreneur. She lived in Klokočevik, near Slavonski Brod.\n7.  In November 1992 the applicant left Klokočevik and moved to Lipovača, part of the so-called “Serbian Independent Region of Krajina”, a self-proclaimed entity established on the territory of Croatia. She stopped contributing to the Croatian Pension Fund.\n8.  On 6 April 1998 the Slavonski Brod Office of the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Područna služba u Slavonskom Brodu) accepted a payment by the applicant of 4,978 Croatian kunas (HRK) in respect of pension contributions for the period from 30 November 1992 to 31 December 1994. It issued a certificate of payment, which read as follows:\n“This is to confirm that on 6 April 1998 the person contracted to pay contributions, BOŽIĆ MARIJA, made a full payment of the contributions due to the [pension fund]. This certificate ... serves as evidence of the registration of the pension-qualifying period in the central register, and may not be used for other purposes.\nFor the insured person the [period concerned is from] 1 January 1980 [to] 31 December 1994.\nFOR THE REGISTRATION OF THE PENSION-QUALIFYING PERIOD”\n9.  On 21 November 2000 the Slavonski Brod Office of the Croatian Pension Fund accepted another payment by the applicant of HRK 11,663 in respect of pension contributions for the period from 1 January 1995 to 31 May 2000, and issued a certificate in that respect.\n10.  On 22 November 2000 the applicant, having met the age criteria applicable at the time, asked the Croatian Pension Fund to grant her pension.\n11.  On 12 April 2002 the Slavonski Brod Office of the Croatian Pension Fund decided of its own motion that the applicant had ceased to have the status of an insured person as of 30 November 1992, when she had wound up her agricultural activities.\n12.  On 22 April 2002 the Slavonski Brod Office of the Croatian Pension Fund further decided to refuse the applicant’s request to grant her pension. It found that the applicant’s pension-qualifying period amounted to twelve years and eleven months, namely the period from January 1980 to November 1992, which was insufficient to obtain a pension. The applicant did not appeal against that decision. Instead, in April 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal against the first decision of the Slavonski Brod Office of the Croatian Pension Fund (see paragraph 11 above), arguing, inter alia, that she had followed the instructions of the Croatian Pension Fund and had paid sufficient pension contributions to qualify for a pension.\n13.  On 13 May 2002 the Central Office of the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Središnja služba) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision concerning her status, without referring to the applicant’s contribution payments. The applicant lodged an action in the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) against that decision, reiterating her previous arguments.\n14.  On 28 September 2006 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s action as without merit. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:\n“It is not clear from the file whether the applicant continued to pursue the agricultural activity on the occu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8031", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were each targeted in undercover operations conducted by the police in the form of a test purchase of drugs under sections 7 and 8 of the Operational-Search Activities Act of 12 August 1995 (no. 144-FZ). Those operations led to their criminal conviction for drug dealing.\n6.  The facts of each individual criminal case, as submitted by the parties, are summarised below. The applicants disagreed with the Government on the underlying causes and the circumstances leading to the test purchases, and where this is so both versions are given. As regards the factual details of the covert operations, it is common ground that the applicants knowingly procured drugs in the course of the test purchases.\n7.  The applicants are brothers. At the time of arrest they were vendors working in a video- and audio-rental kiosk. At the time of lodging their applications they were serving prison sentences in correctional colonies following their criminal conviction in respect of which they lodged these applications.\n8.  On an unspecified date the Federal Service for Drug Control (ФСKН, the drugs police) received information from an undisclosed source that the applicants were involved in drug dealing. On that basis the police decided that an undercover policeman, X, would infiltrate the group and carry out test purchases of cannabis from the applicants.\n9.  It is undisputed by the parties that X approached Ivan Lagutin through an acquaintance and asked him whether he could supply him with cannabis. The parties differ as to whether Ivan Lagutin agreed to do so. According to the Government, which relied on X’s testimony, Ivan Lagutin had readily agreed to supply him with cannabis. According to the applicants, he had replied that he did not have any but could ask his dealer who occasionally passed by his kiosk.\n10.  The applicants contended that after that conversation X had called Ivan Lagutin repeatedly to ask if he had cannabis. Ivan Lagutin thought that X was a drug user, and being a cannabis smoker himself he decided to help him. When the dealer eventually came to the kiosk Ivan Lagutin asked him to supply cannabis for X as well, and when the dealer agreed the applicant called X back to tell him. He bought the cannabis for X with money borrowed from the kiosk cash till which he refunded after X had paid him back. On that occasion it was Viktor Lagutin who had passed the parcel to X at his brother’s request. After that, X had continued to call Ivan Lagutin regularly. In total Ivan Lagutin had bought cannabis for X on three occasions, all of which had been test purchases.\n11.  The official records of the three test purchases contain the following account. On 16 October 2007 undercover policeman X was assigned to carry out the first test purchase of cannabis from the applicants. He was given 350 Russian roubles (RUB) in banknotes that had been photocopied. He met the applicants at the kiosk, they went inside and he purchased 7.5 grams of cannabis. Ivan Lagutin took the money and Viktor Lagutin handed him a paper bag with the drug inside. He asked the applicants if he could come back for more in future, and they confirmed that he could. Afterwards, he handed the cannabis to the police. The second test purchase took place on 1 November 2007, allegedly following a phone call from Ivan Lagutin telling X that he had obtained the cannabis. After being given RUB 500 that had been photocopied X called Ivan Lagutin to arrange a meeting, picked him up in ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8032", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Petrinja.\n5.  On 9 October 2000 the applicant lodged a civil action in the Sisak Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Sisku) seeking payment of unpaid pension instalments.\n6.  On 4 July 2002 the Sisak Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the parallel administrative proceedings before the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje). The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 16 January 2003 the Sisak County Court (Županijski sud u Sisku) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n8.  On 5 January 2012 the Sisak Municipal Court resumed the proceedings.\n9.  On 10 February 2012 the Sisak Municipal Court adopted a judgement and the applicant appealed.\n10.  On 31 May 2012 the Sisak County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 24 November 2011 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Sisak County Court, complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings.\n12.  On 24 January 2012 the Sisak County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded him 4,500 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and ordered the Sisak Municipal Court to decide on the applicant’s case within six months of the service of its decision.\n13.  Following an appeal by the State Attorney, on 4 June 2012 the three‑member panel of the Supreme Court reduced the amount of compensation awarded to HRK 500.\n14.  The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint and on 18 October 2012 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared it inadmissible.\n15.  On 19 April 2001 the Croatian Pension Fund, Sisak Regional Office (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Područni ured u Sisku) decided about the applicant’s request for payment of his pension arrears.\n16.  On 15 May 2001 the applicant appealed.\n17.  On 13 July 2001 the Croatian Pension Fund, Central Office (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Središnji ured) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n18.  Following the applicant’s administrative action, on 2 March 2006 the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske) quashed the second-instance decision and remitted the case to the Central Office.\n19.  On 8 May 2006 the Central Office quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Sisak Regional Office.\n20.  On 18 September 2006 the Sisak Regional Office adopted a new decision and the applicant again appealed.\n21.  On 3 April 2007 the Central Office dismissed the applicant’s appeal.\n22.  On 7 July 2011 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s subsequent administrative action.\n23.  On 12 May 2011 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the above administrative proceedings.\n24.  By a decision of 5 October 2011 the Supreme Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded him HRK 6,500 in compensation.\n25.  The applicant appealed and on 7 September 2012 the three-judge panel of the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8033", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1962 and 1963 respectively and live in Snovo-Zdorovo, a village in the Ryazan Region.\n6.  On 26 May 2003 the applicants’ son, Mr Mikhail Perevedentsev (“M.P.”), born on 12 January 1985, was drafted into the army to perform two years’ mandatory military service. He was assigned to military unit no. 52157 in the village of Mulino-1 in the Volodarskiy District of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region.\n7.  The applicants regularly received letters from their son. In those letters he described various abuses that he and his fellow new recruits were suffering at the hands of more senior conscripts (Dedy) (under a system called dedovshchina or “rule of the grandfathers”): extortion, beatings, deprivation of sleep, and so on.\n8.  In a letter dated 29 June 2003 M.P. wrote:\n“Stodnevka [the last hundred days before a recruit is demobilised] is hard here, guys have paid 1000 roubles each in ten days. I can’t imagine where I’m going to get such money ...”\n9.  In his next letter (undated) he wrote:\n“It’s been a nightmare here, the dembels are not being discharged. And we dukhi have our own problems. We are being punished, each of us has to find 1000 roubles [to be paid] to the cherpaks. It’s probably going to be like that every month ...”\n10.  In the following letter M.P. wrote:\n“The Dedy were offended that I did not bring them vodka and money, and now I do work-outs at night for two hours, the sweat is pouring ...”\n11.  In a letter dated 17 November 2003 he wrote:\n“Our demobbees have left and tough times have begun. Flying in the day and working out at night. I counted that I slept eight hours [this] week. That is supposed to be a soldier’s sleep per day .... [No more easy life for us], we get bullied every day, so that it has become a routine, even though I think I’ve got a broken rib [as] I can hardly breathe, but they stop us from seeing the medics and they have dislocated my jaw, which creaks like a rusty cart.\n... Mum, I’ll wait for you for one and a half weeks and then I’ll go on the run on my own, maybe with a friend. I don’t know, maybe you won’t understand, but this will be for the best as the dedy are getting wilder by the hour.”\n12.  In a letter dated 30 December 2003 M.P. wrote:\n“Although I’ve left the battery I’m still assigned to it and continue to carry out my stodnevka. I now owe 2000 roubles. The Dedy say that I have to pay off 500 roubles a month and have given me a deadline of 15 January. If I don’t pay I’ll be in trouble. Mum, I understand that this is a lot of money, but believe me [when] I come back home [I will pay it back].”\n13.  In a letter dated 11 January 2004 he wrote:\n“The Dedy are waiting for my payment, I borrowed 500 roubles here and gave them some. I am lucky that I have at least given them some, as some guys here got in trouble, half of them are in the medical unit with injuries and the other half all have bruises, and our commander cannot do anything about it.”\n14.  On 16 February 2004, at 11.30 a.m., M.P. was found dead with a noose around his neck.\n15.  On the same date the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Mulino Garrison (“the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office”) instituted criminal proceedings into the death of M.P. under Article 110 of the Russian Criminal Code (Incitement to suicide). An on-site inspection and an inspection of M.P.’s body were carried out.\n16.  Also on the same date, sergeant Kolyadova O., M.P.’s immediate superior, was questioned. She stated that she was in charge of the g", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8036", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in the Cēsis District (Latvia).\n6.  On 16 June 1997 the applicant gave birth in the Cēsis District Central Hospital (a municipal enterprise, hereinafter “the Cēsis hospital”). Caesarean section was used, with the applicant’s consent, because uterine rupture had occurred during labour.\n7.  In the course of that surgery the surgeon performed tubal ligation (surgical contraception) without the applicant’s consent.\n8.  On 4 February 2005, after her attempt to achieve an out-of-court settlement with the hospital had failed, the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the hospital, seeking to recover damages for the unauthorised tubal ligation. In December of 2006 her claim was upheld and she was awarded compensation in the amount of 10,000 Latvian lati for the unlawful sterilisation.\n9.  On 19 February 2004 the director of the Cēsis hospital wrote to the Inspectorate of Quality Control for Medical Care and Fitness for Work (hereinafter “the MADEKKI”), requesting it to “evaluate the treatment received by [the applicant] during childbirth in accordance with the legislation in force in 1997”. The MADEKKI initiated an administrative procedure on the following day. The administrative inquiry concerned the applicant’s health care and in particular the gynaecological and childbirth assistance she had been provided from 1996 to 2003. In the process of that inquiry the MADEKKI requested and received medical files from three different medical institutions, containing detailed information about the applicant’s health over that period.\n10.  In April 2004 M.Z., a MADEKKI staff member, telephoned the applicant and informed her of the on-going inquiry. M.Z. invited the applicant to comment on the case, which she declined to do, referring the MADEKKI to her legal representative, Ms Olsena, instead. During the conversation M.Z. allegedly admonished the applicant for wanting to sue the hospital for damages, and told her that she herself was to blame for her sterilisation.\n11.  On 7 May 2004 Ms Olsena asked the MADEKKI for information on the legal grounds for, and the factual circumstances of, the inquiry.\n12.  On 14 May 2004 the MADEKKI issued a report concerning the medical treatment given to the applicant during childbirth in 1997. The report contained medical details about the applicant of a particularly private and sensitive character. It concluded that no laws had been violated during the applicant’s antenatal care or during childbirth. A summary of the findings of the report was sent to the director of the Cēsis hospital on 21 May 2004.\n13.  On 18 May 2004 the MADEKKI answered Ms Olsena’s questions concerning the administrative inquiry, setting out its opinion on the legal basis for it and providing information on the steps that had been taken in the course of the inquiry.\n14.  The applicant’s representative lodged a claim with the Administrative District Court, alleging that the MADEKKI had initiated the inquiry unlawfully, since in essence its purpose had been to help the Cēsis hospital to gather evidence for the impending litigation, which was outside the MADEKKI’s remit. It was also alleged that the MADEKKI had acted unlawfully in requesting and receiving information about the applicant’s health, as it had violated the applicant’s right to respect for her private life. That right had been further violated when the MADEKKI unlawfully transferred the applicant’s data to the Cēsis hospital. Lastly, the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8039", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Dobele. He was employed by the State Border Guard Service as a border guard from 1992.\n6.  On 20 January 1997 the applicant was promoted to head of the Jelgava section. On 5 October 1998 a certification commission (atestācijas komisija) deemed him suitable for his new position.\n7.  After the Law on State Secrets (see paragraphs 30 to 34 below) came into force on 1 January 1997 and the adoption of Regulation no. 225 of the Cabinet of Ministers, entitled “Regulations for the Protection of State Secrets” (see paragraph 36 below) on 25 June 1997, the applicant was invited to apply for security clearance for work with State secrets. He filled in a questionnaire on 23 September 1997. According to a letter sent to the Government Agent by the Constitution Protection Bureau (Satversmes aizsardzības birojs, hereinafter “the SAB”), one of the Latvian intelligence services responsible, inter alia, for issuing security clearances, he had been invited to attend a “discussion” (pārrunas) on 20 April 1998 in respect of his application. The Government provided a copy of additional written explanations submitted by the applicant the same day. Therein he had explained that he had been a reserve lieutenant in the Soviet Army and a member of the Latvian Communist Party until approximately 1990. He denied having had any links with foreign secret services, and in that regard referred to a prior interview he had apparently had with the Security Police.\n8.  On 19 January 1999 the head of the Border Guard Service showed the applicant a letter from the SAB, which indicated that he had been refused the first category security clearance. The letter did not contain any motivation of the refusal apart from a reference to section 9(3)(4) of the Law on State Secrets (see paragraph 32 below).\n9.  The applicant presumed that clearance had been refused because he had been suspected of past collaboration with the State Security Committee of the former USSR (Комитет государственной безопасности in Russian, hereinafter – “the KGB”). He accordingly made use of the remedy available under the domestic system to have the question of his alleged collaboration adjudicated in court. As a result, in a judgment of 19 May 1999, the Dobele District Court established that the KGB archives contained a document which indicated that on 30 July 1991 the applicant had been recruited as a KGB “agent” and given a codename. His recruiter had been a KGB operative, V.P. The court, however, went on to note that there was no indication that the applicant had ever submitted any reports in his alleged capacity as a KGB agent. Moreover, the court considered that there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant had been aware that he had been an “informer” of the KGB. Accordingly, the court concluded that the applicant had not knowingly collaborated with the KGB. That judgment was not appealed against and became final on 30 May 1999.\n10.  However, prior to the completion of the inquiry into the applicant’s alleged collaboration with the KGB, and after he had refused to leave his job voluntarily, an order was made by the head of the Border Guard Service on 11 March 1999 to dismiss him from service with effect from 16 March 1999. The reasons given for the termination of his employment were the letter of the SAB and section 39(1)(8) of the Law on Border Guard Service (Robežsardzes likums), which provided that border guards were to be retired from service ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8040", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Mirkovci.\n6.  On 7 July 2004 the Krk Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Krku) issued an enforcement order (hereinafter “the first enforcement order”) against the applicant’s movable assets for unpaid mobile telephone bills in the period between 5 July and 6 October 2003. This decision was served on a certain M.K. on 22 October 2004, and subsequently became final.\n7.  At the plaintiff’s request, on 7 July 2006 the Krk Municipal Court ordered the enforcement (hereinafter “the second enforcement order”) by way of attachment of the applicant’s earnings. This decision was served on the applicant on 27 November 2006.\n8.  On 4 December 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal against both enforcement orders. She argued that she could not have made the said telephone calls, because she had been in prison between 14 August 2003 and 26 October 2004 and the police seized her mobile telephone. She enclosed a receipt to show that her mobile telephone and SIM cards had been taken from her.\n9.  She further argued that the first enforcement order had never been served on her as she was in prison at the time.\n10.  Finally, the applicant requested the quashing of the certificate of enforceability (klauzula ovršnosti) of the first enforcement order.\n11.  The recipient of the applicant’s submission of 4 December 2006 was the Krk Municipal Court, which forwarded it to the Koprivnica County Court (Županijski sud u Koprivnici) as an appeal against the second enforcement order.\n12.  On 29 August 2007 the Koprivnica County Court declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible as lodged out of time, finding that the last day for lodging an appeal was 5 December 2006, whereas the appeal had been lodged on 6 December 2006.\n13.  On 17 September 2007 the applicant asked the County Court to rectify its decision, as in fact she had lodged her appeal on 4 December 2006.\n14.  On 12 October 2007 the Koprivnica County Court dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification. The relevant part of that decision reads as follows:\n“... the Court can rectify mistakes in names and numbers and other obvious mistakes... and flaws... In this case, the complaint was indeed erroneously declared inadmissible as out of time... Nevertheless, a mistake of this sort is not an obvious mistake... which can be rectified, but it is an erroneous decision binding the Court after its service on the parties, notwithstanding its invalidity...\nIt should be mentioned, however, that the enforcement debtor did not suffer any disadvantage as a result of such a decision. The enforcement debtor in fact appealed against the enforcement order... of 7 July 2006 on the grounds of a serious breach of procedural rules, arguing that the enforcement order was not served on her. Since the enforcement order in question was merely a decision changing the means of enforcement, and a decision of such nature can be appealed against only if it orders enforcement of objects and rights exempted from enforcement (section 46 (2) of the Enforcement Act)... the enforcement debtor’s appeal should have been dismissed.\nIf the enforcement debtor’s claim that the initial enforcement order was never served on her were true, that decision could not have become final and the enforcement debtor should, in the view of this Court, have asked the first-instance court to duly serve the enforcement order on her, so that she could appeal against it...”\n15.  The applicant subsequently made a constituti", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8041", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Blagoveshchensk.\n6.  On 11 March 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud. On 12 March 2006 the Blagoveshchensk Town Court of the Amur Region authorised the applicant’s detention. As regards the reasons justifying applicant’s detention, the court noted as follows:\n“...  [the applicant] is charged with moderately serious offences carrying a custodial sentence of up to five years. It can be seen from the materials submitted that [the applicant] is charged with offences committed by a group of people. In such circumstances, the court considers that, if at liberty, [the applicant] might abscond in order to evade justice, or fail to appear for questioning before the investigator or in court in order to obstruct the proceedings, and he might [also] put pressure on witnesses or destroy evidence.”\n7.  The applicant remained in custody pending the investigation and trial. His detention was extended on several occasions.\n8.  On an unspecified date the investigator reclassified the charges against the applicant to several counts of theft and robbery.\n9.  On 21 November 2006 the Town Court opened the trial against the applicant and seven other persons.\n10.  On 29 June 2007 the Town Court extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and four of the co-defendants until 21 October 2007. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“Having heard the defence parties, who consider that the preventive detention imposed on [the defendants] can be replaced by a less strict measure, having studied the materials of the case-file, and having regard to the fact that [the defendants] are charged with grievous offences and moderately serious offences against property, the court does not consider that it is possible to [release the defendants pending trial].”\n11.  On 16 November 2007 the Town Court extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and the four other persons until 21 January 2008. The court reiterated verbatim its own reasoning from the detention order of 29 June 2007. The applicant appealed, alleging that from 21 October to 16 November 2007 he had been detained without a court order.\n12.  On 17 December 2007 the Town Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.\n13.  On 21 February 2008 the Amur Regional Court quashed the detention order of 16 November 2007 on appeal. The court acknowledged that the review by the Town Court of the applicant’s detention had been carried out more than three weeks late, in contravention of the applicable domestic rules of criminal procedure. The court further noted that, in view of the applicant’s conviction and the imposition of a ten-year sentence, he could not be released and there was no need to examine the issue of his pre-trial detention on the merits.\n14.  On 31 July 2008 the Regional Court upheld, in substance, the applicant’s conviction on appeal and reduced his sentence to eight years’ imprisonment. The court quashed the applicant’s conviction in respect of one count of theft and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.\n15.  On 13 October 2008 the Town Court discontinued the criminal proceedings concerning one of the thefts allegedly committed by the applicant. The applicant did not appeal.\n16.  On 8 June 2009 the Presidium of the Regional Court carried out a supervisory review of the applicant’s conviction and reduced his sentence to seven years and six months’ imprisonment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8042", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Teykovo, a town in the Ivanovo Region.\n6.  On 25 June 1999 the applicant’s son, Andrey Tikhonov (A.T.), was drafted into the army to perform two years’ mandatory military service. He was initially assigned to military unit no. 57233 in Teykovo. He was convicted on 9 November 2000 under Article 334 of the Criminal Code (for violence against his military superior) and sentenced to eighteen months’ punishment in a disciplinary military unit. On 27 December 2000 he was assigned to military unit no. 12801 in Mulino, a village in the Volodarskiy District of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region.\n7.  At 1 a.m. on 14 April 2001 A.T. was found hanging with a belt around his neck in the unit’s canteen, with numerous bruises and abrasions to his body.\n8.  On the same date the Military Prosecutor’s Office of the Mulino Garrison (“the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office”) instituted a criminal investigation into A.T.’s death. An onsite inspection and examination of A.T.’s body were carried out. A table knife was found at the scene of the incident, but no evidence of a violent death. The applicant obtained a copy of the decision to institute criminal proceedings after eight requests to that effect to the Garrison Prosecutor’s Office.\n9.  On 16 April 2001 a post-mortem of A.T.’s body was completed. It established that A.T. had died of strangulation. Apart from visible marks on his neck, the following injuries were recorded: bruising on the outer corner of the right eye and eyelid, bruising on the left cheek, bruising on the left of the neck underneath the belt marks, an abrasion and bruising on the right of the back near the eighth and ninth ribs, three abrasions on the left of the lower spine, bruising with a soft-tissue hemorrhage in the intercostal space (gap) near the ninth left rib, bruising with a soft-tissue hemorrhage on the left collar bone, and twenty-two scratches on the inner left forearm. It was established that the bruises and abrasions had been caused by a blunt hard object with a limited damage-causing surface. Traumatic force (blows and friction) had been applied to the area around the right eye, left cheek, back, intercostal space near the ninth left rib and the area around the left collar bone. All of the abrasions and bruises could have been caused either while A.T. was still alive or within a short period of his death, but there was no causal connection between the injuries and his death. The scratches had been caused by a sharp-edged object (a blade) shortly (up to twenty-four hours) before A.T.’s death. There had been 0.26% of ethyl alcohol found in A.T.’s blood and traces of alcohol in his urine.\n10.  On 30 May 2001 a psychological autopsy was carried out. It established that A.T. had not been suffering from a psychiatric disorder. Prior to his being drafted into the army, A.T. had been examined by a panel of doctors, including a psychiatrist, and found fit for military service. During psychological aptitude testing he had been assigned to the third (second lowest) group in terms of psychological stability (the lowest group containing the least psychologically stable recruits most likely to suffer a nervous breakdown). In August 1999, during his military service, A.T. had been examined by a psychiatrist and found fit. In September 2000 he had again been examined by a psychiatrist after complaining of low mood, depression and anxiety for his future. He was diagnosed with “situational neurotic (psyc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8043", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Orenburg.\n6.  During the night of 14 September 2008 the applicant had an altercation with Ms K. in a local bar. He repeatedly slapped her across the face in response to her allegedly insulting behaviour. Ms K. called the police, complaining that she had been beaten up and robbed of two gold rings. Criminal investigation was instituted following the complaint.\n7.  According to the applicant, he went to the Leninskiy District police department the following day and submitted a written statement explaining the events of the previous night. He denied having robbed Ms K. but admitted to hitting her a number of times in the course of a heated argument. An officer on duty immediately wrote a report informing the head of the Leninskiy District police department that the applicant intended to abscond and to intimidate the victim and witnesses. In response, the head of the police department prepared a memorandum, which read as follows:\n“The Operative Search Division of the Leninskiy District police department in Orenburg is in possession of information that [the applicant] ... is an accomplice to a number of serious criminal offences committed in Orenburg and has been arrested on a number of occasions on suspicion of having committed criminal offences. However, he avoided criminal liability owing to his connections with organised criminal groups. In November 2007 a stolen car was found in [the applicant’s] garage, and number plates from stolen cars were discovered in his house during the search. However, [the applicant] was released on his own recognisance. During that period witnesses were intimidated and threatened, and subsequently changed their statements. [The applicant] was not charged with the crime. It is known that [the applicant] is a member of an organised criminal group, ‘Marmony’, [and] that he enjoys authority within the criminal community despite his young age.”\n8.  Having received the written statement from the applicant, a police investigator authorised the applicant’s arrest. He noted that both the victim and eyewitnesses had identified the applicant as the robber.\n9.  On 17 September 2008 the applicant was charged with armed robbery. The police investigator asked the Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg to order the applicant’s remand in custody for seventy-two hours. On the same day the District Court accepted the investigator’s request for an extension of the detention for seventy-two hours. It noted that the decision to arrest the applicant was lawful and well-founded given the reasonable suspicion, confirmed by statements by the victim and eyewitnesses, that he had committed a serious criminal offence.\n10.  On 19 September 2008 the police investigator released the applicant on his own recognisance.\n11.  In January 2009 the applicant was served with the final version of the bill of indictment, charging him with aggravated armed robbery. He was committed to stand trial before the Leninksiy District Court.\n12.  In the course of the trial proceedings, Ms K. amended her statements to say that she doubted that the applicant had taken her two gold rings. She accepted the possibility that the rings could have been lost during the altercation with the applicant.\n13.  On 10 March 2009 the District Court dismissed the charge of aggravated armed robbery. It reclassified the offence committed by the applicant as an aggravated disorderly act performed in a public place with the use of objec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8044", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant, Mr Avazbek Mukhammad Ugli Nizamov, was born in 1992. The second applicant, Mr Khakim Tursunovich Dzhalalbayev, was born in 1983. The third applicant, Mr Rakhmatullo Abudullayevich Mukhamedkhodzhayev, was born in 1989. The fourth applicant, Mr Olim Tursunovich Dzhalalbayev, was born in 1979. The applicants are currently detained in Moscow.\n7.  In 2011-12 the applicants moved from Uzbekistan to Russia to seek employment.\n8.  On 15 October 2012 an investigator with the Uzbek Ministry of the Interior indicted the applicants on the charges of participation in an extremist religious group known as the Islamic Movement of Turkestan and attempting to overthrow the State’s constitutional order in Uzbekistan and ordered their arrest. Their names were put on the list of wanted persons.\n9.  On 15 November 2012 the applicants were arrested at Vnukovo airport in Moscow.\n10.  On 17 November 2012 the Solntsevskiy District Court of Moscow authorised the applicants’ detention pending extradition. On 13 December 2012 the District Court further extended their detention until 15 June 2013.\n11.  Between 26 March and 1 April 2013 the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation refused the Uzbek authorities’ request for the applicants’ extradition citing, as a ground for his decision, Article 464 § 1 (6) of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure which banned extradition in respect of persons charged with an offence not punishable under the Russian criminal law. The parties did not submit copies of the relevant decisions.\n12.  Between 27 March and 4 April 2013 the Acting Moscow Prosecutor for Supervision of Legal Compliance for Air and Water Transport ordered the applicants’ release.\n13.  The applicants were immediately re-arrested as illegal aliens. The Babushkinskiy District Court of Moscow examined the applicants’ cases, imposed an administrative fine of 2,000 Russian roubles on each of them and ordered their expulsion to Uzbekistan. The court noted that the applicants had failed to leave Russia upon the expiration of the permissible three-month period of residence without a permit. It further noted that the applicants’ request for asylum had been refused and that they had not applied for “legalisation” of their stay in Russia.\n14.  The District Court delivered the relevant decisions on 28 March, 3, 5 and 9 April 2013 respectively.\n15.  The applicants appealed. They argued, inter alia, that their removal to Uzbekistan would be contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and that they would run a risk of being subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment if forcefully returned to Uzbekistan to be tried for the offences they were charged with.\n16.  Between 4 and 16 April 2013 the Court indicated to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court, that the applicants’ removal/expulsion to Uzbekistan should be suspended until further notice.\n17.  On 14 May 2013 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicants’ appeals and upheld the expulsion orders. The court found the applicants liable for their failure, as foreign nationals, to leave Russia upon the expiry of the maximum permissible period of temporary residence in the country. It further noted that the applicants were refused refugee status even though it considered their asylum application to be irrelevant for the purpose of the proceedings. Lastly, referring to the interim measure indicated by the Court to the Government, the City Court suspended the execution of the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8046", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Leeds.\n5.  The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicant arrived in the United Kingdom on 26 January 2001 and thereafter lived illegally at an address in Bedford.\n7.  Whilst living in the United Kingdom the applicant successfully applied for three jobs using a false French passport. Between April 2003 and November 2004 he was employed by a recruitment agency. Between August 2004 and January 2006 he was employed in a cash and carry business and between January 2006 and February 2007 he was employed as a forklift truck driver.\n8.  The applicant had used the false passport to support his assertion that he was entitled to work in the United Kingdom. All of his employers subsequently stated that they would not have employed him had they known of his true immigration status. Between April 2003 and February 2007 the applicant earned a total gross salary of 73,293.17 pounds sterling (GBP) from his employment. At the end of this period he had total savings of GBP 21,649.60.\n9.  In January 2007 the applicant applied to the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency for a provisional driving licence. The application was accompanied by the same false French passport that the applicant had used to obtain employment in the United Kingdom. When the falsity of the passport was discovered, the police were informed.\n10.  On 4 June 2007 the applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Luton to three counts of dishonestly obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception (counts one, two and three on the indictment). He also pleaded guilty to one count of having a false identity document with intent (count four), one count of driving whilst disqualified (count five) and one count of driving a motor vehicle without insurance (count six). On 29 June 2007 the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen months’ imprisonment for the first four counts together with a consecutive sentence of two months’ imprisonment for the offence of driving whilst disqualified. No separate sentence was imposed for driving without insurance. The trial judge also recommended the applicant for deportation.\n11.  In addition to the custodial sentence and the recommendation for deportation, the prosecution sought a confiscation order under section 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in respect of the applicant’s earnings (see relevant domestic law and practice below). The trial judge accepted that the applicant had paid all the tax and national insurance due on his earnings and that the money he had made from his employment had been truly earned. After deducting tax and national insurance payments, it was calculated that the benefit the applicant received from his earnings was GBP 50,000. It was agreed that of the GBP 50,000 the applicant still had assets of GBP 21,949.60. On this basis, on 29 June 2007 the trial judge imposed a confiscation order in the sum of GBP 21,949.60 upon the applicant, with a consecutive sentence of twelve months’ imprisonment to be served in default of payment. Thus, the confiscation order had the effect of depriving the applicant of all of the savings that he had accumulated during the four years of employment.\n12.  On 8 April 2008 the applicant sought an extension of time within which to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the imposition of the confiscation order. In his grounds of appeal, he contended that the grant of the confiscation order had not respected “European law”. That", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8047", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  The media reported that on 14 December 2004 a group of about forty members of the National Bolsheviks Party (also referred to herein as “the Party”) occupied the reception area of the President’s Administration building in Moscow and locked themselves in an office on the ground floor.\n7.  They asked for a meeting with the President, the deputy head of the President’s Administration Mr Surkov, and the President’s economic advisor Mr Illarionov. They waved placards with “Putin, resign!” («Путин, уйди!») written on them through the window and distributed leaflets with a printed address to the President that listed ten ways in which he had failed to uphold the Russian Constitution, and a call for his resignation.\n8.  The intruders stayed in the office for an hour and a half until the police broke through the door. During the arrest, they did not offer any resistance to the authorities.\n9.  According to the applicant, she was not a member of the National Bolsheviks Party. She was writing a master’s thesis in sociology on forms of activity of radical political movements in modern Russia. On 14 December 2004 one of the members of the National Bolsheviks Party told her about the direct action in the President’s Administration building planned for that day. She came to witness the protest action in order to collect information for her thesis. She did not take part in the occupation of the office, but merely watched the action, took notes and pictures.\n10.  The indictment of the applicant states that at 12.30 p.m. on 14 December 2004 forty Party members effected an unauthorised entry into the reception area of the building used by the President of the Russian Federation’s Administration. Some of them pushed back the guards at the entrance and occupied room no. 14 on the ground floor. They locked themselves in, blocked the door with a heavy safe and let other members of their group enter through the window.\n11.  Until the police arrived, the Party members, including the applicant, waved placards through the office window, threw out leaflets and chanted slogans calling for the President’s resignation. They stayed in the office for approximately one hour, destroyed office furniture and equipment and damaged the walls and the ceiling.\n12.  On 14 December 2004 the applicant was arrested.\n13.  On 16 December 2004 the Khamovnicheskiy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s detention on the grounds that she was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence, might abscond, reoffend, interfere with the witnesses or obstruct the investigation in some other way.\n14.  On 22 December 2004 the applicant was charged with the attempted violent overthrow of the State (Article 278 of the Criminal Code) and intentional destruction and degradation of others’ property in public places (Articles 167 § 2 and 214).\n15.  On the same date the applicant asked to be released, referring to her clean criminal record, permanent residence in Moscow and permanent employment as a school teacher.\n16.  On 24 December 2004 the investigator refused her request, referring to the gravity of the charges, the absence of a registered residence in Moscow and the risk that she might abscond.\n17.  On 7 February 2005 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow extended the applicant’s detention until 14 April 2005, finding that the grounds on which the preventive measure had previously been imposed still persisted and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8048", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Ig.\n6.  On 9 June 2008 the police fined the applicant 333.83 euros (EUR) for verbally and physically assaulting Š.S. The applicant lodged a request for judicial review in which he contested the finding of the police that he had hit Š.S. in the head. He requested that he and two witnesses who had been present on the spot at the time of the alleged commission of the minor offence be heard.\n7.  On 4 March 2011 the Ljubljana Local Court heard the two witnesses proposed by the applicant, a police officer and another witness. On the basis of their submissions it rejected the applicant’s request for judicial review.\n8.  On 8 June 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining that because the Local Court had failed to inform him and his lawyer of the hearing, he could not examine the witnesses and did not have any opportunity to be heard.\n9.  On 13 September 2011 the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional appeal as inadmissible.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8051", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in London.\n5.  The applicant suffered an incapacitating stroke in September 1999 which left her with severely limited mobility. In April 2006 she fell heavily, breaking her hip in several places. She then suffered two further falls, both of which resulted in further hospitalisation.\n6.  The applicant has a small and neurogenic bladder. As a result, she usually has to urinate some two to three times a night. On account of her mobility problems she is unable safely to access a toilet or commode unaided.\n7.  In March 2007, after the applicant’s third fall, she applied to the Independent Living Fund (“ILF”) for full day and night support. While the application was pending she was provided with a care package by the local authority (the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) which included seventy hours per week of night-time care. The application to the ILF was ultimately unsuccessful as the applicant ceased to be eligible for funding when she turned sixty-five in 2008.\n8.  A local authority care plan dated 27 April 2007 indicated that the applicant needed “assistance with toileting, when it’s required during the night”. Likewise, the FACE (Functional Analysis of Care Environments) Overview assessment which followed on 8 January 2008 noted that “Miss McDonald needs assistance to manage continence at night. Substantial need.”\n9.  However, the FACE Overview Assessment was subsequently amended to read “Miss McDonald needs assistance at night to use the commode. Moderate need.”\n10.  A further Needs Assessment was started on 19 February 2008 and signed off on 29 February 2008. It noted:\n“Ms McDonald wanted to emphasise that she requires assistance with all transfers and when she mobilises. Ms McDonald requested night care in order [for] someone to assist her using commode during the night. This is because Ms McDonald does not wish to use incontinence pads and sheets...\nSummary of Needs Assessment\nMs McDonald needs assistance to use the commode at night. Substantial need.”\n11.  A further Needs Assessment signed off on 28 October 2008 concluded that “Miss McDonald needs assistance to use the commode at night. Substantial need.” This assessment was subsequently described by Lord Dyson as “a concession” granted on a “temporary basis” (see paragraph 53 of the opinion of the Supreme Court).\n12.  On 17 October 2008 a formal decision was taken to reduce the amount allocated for the applicant’s weekly care from GBP 703 to GBP 450. This figure appears to have been assessed on the basis that the applicant would be provided with incontinence pads in lieu of night-time care. This decision was taken at a meeting between the local authority and the applicant at the applicant’s home. She was formally notified of the decision by letter dated 21 November 2008. It noted that:\n“As stated at the meeting, the rationale behind the planned reduction is that we consider the current provision to be in excess of that required to meet your eligible needs under the council’s Fair Access to Care Services criteria. The council has a duty to provide care, but we must do so in a way that shows regard for use of public resources.”\n13.  On 22 December 2008 the applicant sought permission to apply for judicial review on the ground that the local authority was unreasonably and unlawfully failing to meet her assessed and eligible needs. She further submitted that the local authorities’ actions would cause her to suffer indignity which w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8052", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Lugoj.\n6.  A private exporting company (“company E”) had concluded a contract with the Lugoj Merchandise Subsidiary of the National Railway Company (Stația CFR Marfă Lugoj) and another private company (company M). The contract provided that company E could use an industrial railway track for the five wagons put at its disposal by the National Railway Company in order to perform all the necessary operations, including customs inspections, for exporting its merchandise abroad.\n7.  On 20 September 2002, at about 9.30 a.m., S.V. went to Lugoj Railway Station with all the documents relating to the transportation of company E’s merchandise, in order to have the station’s stamp applied to them. When all the documents had been stamped, the manager of company E, together with S.V., went to the Lugoj Customs Office to ask for a customs inspector to carry out an inspection of the wagons and apply the required seals. The applicant was designated to carry out the customs inspection.\n8.  At about 1 p.m. the applicant went with the manager of company E and S.V. to Lugoj Railway Station. They firstly went to the station’s cash desk, where the manager of company E paid the taxes relating to the transportation of the merchandise and asked to have the consignment note (CIM) stamped. According to the statements of the manager of company E, S.V., and the applicant, an employee of the National Railway Company, M.M., went with them in order to show them where the wagons were.\n9.  At 1.19 p.m., while he was on top of a wagon trying to apply the customs seals, the applicant was electrocuted. As a result of the accident, the applicant needed 138 days of medical care. He suffered burns to 70% of his body.\n10.  In most of the official documents regarding the accident, such as the report of the investigation commission of 16 October 2002, the decisions of the courts and the prosecutors, and a medical report drafted on 16 February 2004, it was stated that the applicant’s life was at risk. For almost two months he was in a deep coma in a hospital in Hungary. Because of the severe burns he had serious breathing difficulties and had to undergo multiple skin grafts.\n11.  Following a decision by the National Pension Authority on 28 May 2004, the applicant was classed as permanently disabled.\n12.  Two police officers attended at the scene of the accident and drafted a preliminary on-the spot report on the same day.\n13.  A special commission composed of experts from the Timișoara Labour Inspectorate, the Timișoara Regional Customs Department (Direcția Regională Interjudețeană Timișoara) and the Timișoara Subsidiary of the National Railway Company was set up to investigate the accident. The commission started its investigation on 24 September 2002, four days after the accident.\n14.  According to the report drafted by the commission, which was completed on 16 October 2002, the accident had occurred because of the improper organisation of the procedure for inspecting the merchandise. It stated that there were several concurrent causes which had led to the applicant’s accident.\n15.  The report stated that the receipt of the wagons by company E from the National Railway Company had not been effected in accordance with the framework agreement signed on 24 June 2002 by the Lugoj Railway Station and company M, or with the document entitled “Declarație” signed by company M, company E and the National Railway Company. According to a fi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8053", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Smederevo.\n5.  The applicant was employed by “HP Fagram DP”, a socially-owned company based in Smederevo (hereinafter – “the debtor”).\n6.  On 30 September 2003 the Smederevo Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicant certain sums in respect of salary arrears, social security contributions and procedural costs.\n7.  On 22 October 2003 the judgment became final.\n8.  On 9 January 2004 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Smederevo Municipal Court.\n9.  On 17 March 2003 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.\n10.  On 1 September 2004 the Požarevac Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor, which led to the ongoing enforcement proceedings before the Smederevo Municipal Court being stayed.\n11.  In 22 November 2004 the applicant duly registered a claim for the sums specified in the judgment referred to above.\n12.  On 26 April 2005 the Commercial Court accepted the applicant’s claim. His right to separate settlement from the immovable property of the debtor was contested and he was instructed to initiate separate civil proceedings in order to secure his right to separate settlement of his claim.\n13.  The applicant did not initiate separate civil proceedings.\n14.  On 3 April 2008 the Commercial Court adopted the decision on final distribution of the company’s insolvency assets, classifying the applicant into the fourth sequence of payment. In the course of the insolvency proceedings the final judgment in the applicant’s favour was partially enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8055", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966. Currently, he is detained at Szeged Prison.\n7.  It appears that on an unspecified date in 2002 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant and his accomplices.\n8.  As the investigation against the applicant and nine other defendants proceeded, the applicant was interrogated on numerous occasions as a suspect in connection with various violent crimes committed in many different villages. The investigation resulted in a case file of 25 large boxes. According to the material collected, the applicant and his co-defendants had committed a series of burglaries against lonely elderly people in various parts of the country. They had tied up the victims and beaten them or threatened them until they disclosed where their valuables were hidden and then left them tied up alone in their houses. Some of the victims had died soon after the assaults.\n9.  The bill of indictment submitted on 26 June 2003 was 48 pages long, concerned ten defendants, and proposed the hearing of 72 witnesses and two forensic medical experts. The applicant was indicted on 3 counts of homicide, 19 counts of robbery, 19 counts of infringement of personal liberty, 4 counts of assault causing grievous bodily harm, 7 counts of trespass and 3 counts of theft or attempted theft.\n10.  After 34 hearings held from 4 February 2004 onwards, on 12 May 2005 the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder, robbery and several other offences, in a 135-page-long judgment. The applicant was, as a multiple recidivist, sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole, that is, whole life sentence (tényleges életfogytiglan).\n11.  On appeal, the Debrecen Court of Appeal held a preparatory meeting on 21 November 2005 and a hearing on 21 January 2006. It quashed the first-instance judgment on 25 January 2006 and remitted the case to the Regional Court.\n12.  In the resumed proceedings before the Regional Court, an amended bill of indictment was preferred on 31 August 2006 and 27 hearings were held between 25 October 2006 and 19 November 2008. Several forensic medical and graphology experts were appointed in order to verify the defence of a co-defendant to the effect that he could not have taken part in the commission of one of the crimes he was charged with since he had undergone an operation on his knee – under a false name – and was not able to walk. Although this issue was irrelevant for the applicant, it appeared to be crucial for the determination of the charges against his co-defendant.\n13.  On 19 November 2008 the Regional Court again convicted the applicant. The applicant submitted that the judge hearing his case this time used to be the trainee of the judge who had tried his case in the first proceedings before the Regional Court.\n14.  The Regional Court’s judgment was 161 pages long and covered 33 cases of crimes committed by the ten defendants. The applicant, as well as the above-mentioned co-defendant, was again sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole.\n15.  On appeal, the Debrecen Court of Appeal held hearings on 29 June, 28 September, and 14 and 16 December 2009. In its judgment of 16 December 2009 the Court of Appeal re-characterised the offences of which the applicant had been convicted but upheld his sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole. In order to reflect differences between the attitude of the applicant during the trial and that of the above", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8058", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1972 and 1966 respectively. At the time of the events in question they were detained in Lovech Prison, serving sentences of life imprisonment, after being convicted of numerous crimes, including murder, rape and armed robberies.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 2006 the two applicants brought proceedings against the Ministry of Justice under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act, seeking damages for the allegedly poor conditions of detention in Lovech Prison. The case was examined by the Sofia City Court, which accepted a request by the applicants to have two of their fellow inmates questioned as witnesses regarding the living conditions in the prison.\n7.  A special court hearing for that purpose took place on 26 January 2007 in a hearing room in Lovech Prison.\n8.  The applicants were brought to the hearing with their arms handcuffed behind their backs and their ankles shackled. Once the hearing began, Mr Radkov requested that his handcuffs be removed because he was uncomfortable. The judge presiding over the hearing refused, without giving any specific reasons. Mr Sabev then asked that it be noted in the record of the hearing that his handcuffs had not been removed either. The applicants’ arms remained handcuffed behind their backs until the end of the hearing.\n9.  The two witnesses heard by the court – who were from the same group of life prisoners – had their handcuffs removed.\n10.  A prosecutor was also present at the hearing.\n11.  The hearing continued for about an hour.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8059", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Kraków.\n5.  On an unspecified date the applicant became a party to proceedings for division of joint property.\n6.  On 18 December 1995 the Kraków–Śródmieście District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a severance order and decided to examine the applicant’s motion in separate proceedings.\n7.  From that date the proceedings have been pending before the first‑instance court.\n8.  The applicant lodged three complaints under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n9.  In his complaint of 26 November 2008 he sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation.\n10.  On 2 February 2009 the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) examined the complaint. It found that the length of the proceedings had been partly attributable to the parties who had requested adjournment of three hearings. One hearing was adjourned due to the absence of one of the parties’ lawyers. The court also considered that the impugned proceedings had been complex. At the same time, however, it found some periods of inactivity on the part of the Kraków District Court, acknowledged that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy and granted the applicant PLN 1,000 which it considered “adequate in view of the periods of inactivity found.”\n11.  On 7 July 2010 the Kraków Regional Court allowed another applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act. The court held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicant PLN 2,000 in compensation.\n12.  In 2012 the applicant again lodged a complaint under the 2004 Act. He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed PLN 20,000 in compensation.\n13.  On 14 August 2012 the Kraków Regional Court held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicant PLN 2,000 in compensation. In the Regional Court’s view the trial court had failed to act in an effective and diligent manner, in particular in the light of the overall length of the proceedings in issue.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8060", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1961 and 1956 respectively and live in Warsaw.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 2 June 1997 the applicants, business partners, lodged before the Łódź Regional Court a civil action against a third party for protection against copyright infringement (o ochronę praw autorskich). They also applied that their claims would be secured from the respondent’s property. On 15 September 2000 the motion to secure the claims was dismissed.\n7.  The first hearing was held on 24 February 1998. The subsequent hearings were held on the following dates: 10 September 1999, 1 September 2000, 14 September 2001, 14 November 2003, 6 January 2004, 24 February 2004, 5 October 2004, 3 March 2006, 24 March 2006 and 10 November 2006. On 23 February 2007 the applicants increased the value of their claims (rozszerzenie powództwa). A subsequent hearing was held on 22 May 2007.\n8.  On 30 May 2007 the Łódź Regional Court awarded the applicants 1,000 Polish Zlotys (PLN), ordered the respondent to publish a certain statement in a daily newspaper and dismissed the remaining claims. Both parties appealed.\n9.  On 13 December 2007 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed and remitted the first-instance judgment in part and dismissed a remainder.\n10.  On re-examination of the case the first hearing before the Łódź Regional Court was held on 29 October 2008. The applicants’ council requested then to allow evidence from an expert opinion. By the decision of 13 January 2009 the Łódź Regional Court granted the request.\n11.  On 20 October 2009 the applicants filed a request for their claims to be secured. By the decision of 18 November 2009 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed their motion. The applicants’ interlocutory appeal was dismissed on 15 January 2010 by the Łódź Court of Appeal.\n12.  The Łódź Regional Court held its further hearings on 20 January, 21 April and 30 July 2010. Subsequently four more hearings were held on unspecified dates.\n13.  On 12 December 2011 the applicants filed another motion to secure their claims from the respondent’s real property or his other property rights. On 7 February 2012 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed the motion.\n14.  On 11 March 2013 the Łódź Regional Court found in part for the applicants and dismissed the remainder.\n15.  The proceedings appear to be pending before the second-instance court.\n16.  On 1 October 2004 each of the applicants lodged their complaint with the Łódź Court of Appeal under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).\n17.  On 24 November 2004 the Łódź Court of Appeal acknowledged that the examination of the applicants’ motion to secure claims had been lengthy (period from 2 June 1997 to 15 September 2000). The domestic court held, however, that the Law of 2004 could not apply retroactively. The remaining part of the complaint was found to be unjustified.\n18.  On 11 August 2009 the applicants lodged with the Łódź Court of Appeal another complaint under section 5 of the 2004 Act.\n19.  On 24 September 2009 the Łódź Court of Appeal acknowledged that between 1997 and 2005 the proceedings were not conducted in a timely manner. The Court of Appeal further held that since 2006 the proceedings had been conducted timely, although, taking unde", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8065", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Vilnius. The second applicant was born in 1955 and according to the most recently available data, also lives in Vilnius.\n6.  In 1994 the Vilnius City municipality assigned a plot of land measuring 0.08 hectares to the first applicant for the construction of an individual house. At the same time similar plots were assigned to other private persons. In accordance with the provisions of the domestic law in force and because of his status as a deportee’s family member, the first applicant was entitled to acquire the plot of land.\n7.  On 5 September 1995 the first applicant and the Vilnius Region Administration signed a contract by which he purchased the plot of land from the State. He paid 422 Lithuanian litai (LTL; approximately 122 euros (EUR)) and 423 “single-use investment vouchers” (investiciniai čekiai).\n8.  Subsequently, the first applicant registered the plot of land in his name in the land registry.\n9.  In 10 April 1997 the first applicant sold the plot for LTL 6,000 (about EUR 1,740) to the second applicant, who then registered the plot of land in his own name.\n10.  On an unspecified date the second applicant brought a claim before the courts against a private person, R.A., alleging that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possession had been breached. The second applicant claimed that he had been unable to use his land because R.A., who lived next to the plot of land, had unlawfully put a fence around it.\n11.  R.A. lodged a counterclaim against both applicants, requesting the annulment of the land sale contracts of 1995 and 1997 (see paragraphs 7 and 9 above), together with the decisions of the authorities. R.A. claimed restoration in natura of her ownership rights to the disputed plot of land, as it was part of her father’s land which had been nationalised by the Soviet authorities. R.A. had requested the restoration of her property rights in 1991, and in 1999 her rights had been restored in natura, but only to a part of her father’s plot of land.\n12.  The courts at two instances granted the second applicant’s claim and dismissed R.A.’s counterclaim, noting that under the Law on the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property (įstatymas “Dėl piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atstatymo tvarkos ir sąlygų”; hereinafter “Law on Restitution I”) in 1994, R.A. had been entitled to restitution in natura of not more than 0.2 hectares of land. The local authorities had taken this circumstance into consideration when assigning the plot of land to the first applicant. The fact that under the new Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (Piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atkūrimo įstatymas; hereinafter “Law on Restitution II”) in force after 1 July 1997 R.A. was entitled to restoration in natura of up to 1 hectare of land was not considered as meaning that the decisions adopted by the local authorities in 1994-95 were automatically invalid.\n13.  R.A. appealed against those court decisions to the cassation court. By a final decision of 27 November 2002 the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the lower courts. By applying the principle of priority for former owners’ rights that had been developed in the civil case P. Roževičienė v. Panevėžio miesto valdyba and others, no. 3K-3-384/1999, the Supreme Court concluded that the local", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8066", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first and the second applicants were born in 1956 and 1975 respectively.\n5.  At the time of the events the first applicant Mr Mustafa Erdoğan was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Hacettepe in Ankara. The second applicant Mr Haluk Kürşad Kopuzlu was the editor of the quarterly publication Liberal Thinking and the third applicant Liberte A. Ş. was a joint-stock company and the publisher of Liberal Thinking (hereinafter: “the publishing company”). Mr Buhay Baytekin, the president of the board of members of Liberte A. Ş. at the material time, applied to the Court on behalf of the publishing company.\n6.  In 2001 an article entitled ‘Turkey’s Constitutional Court problem in the light of its decision to dissolve the Fazilet [Virtue] Party’ written by the first applicant was published in Liberal Thinking. It read as follows:\n“The Constitutional Court has finally delivered its judgment on the Fazilet Party at the end of a long period, which lasted more than two years, and has dissolved the party on the grounds that it had become ‘a hub of activity contrary to [the] principles of secularism’. As a result, the high court has decided that Nazlı Ilıcak and Bekir Sobacı, who were members of parliament at the date of the judgment, [should be] stripped of their parliamentary status and it has prohibited former parliamentarians Merve Kavakçı, Mehmet Sılay and Ramazan Yenidede from participating in political activities for the next five years. Only three members of the Court have dissented and I am of the opinion that their names should be mentioned: Haşim Kılıç, Sacit Adalı and Samia Akbulut.\nThe judgment of the Constitutional Court has naturally created widespread discontent throughout the country. Apart from a few fanatical individuals in the media who have character deficiencies, everyone who is sensible and whose conscience has not been paralysed has considered the judgment legally wrong and politically inappropriate. Even people whose sensitivities to democratic issues have never been that obvious have criticised the Constitutional Court about this judgment. Nevertheless, it is clear that concerns about the difficulties that the judgment might cause Turkey in its dealings with the Council of Europe and the European Union have played a great role in the emergence of this reaction. Moreover, it is commonly believed that this judgment was not the product of the free will of the Constitutional Court but that it was brought about under pressure [from] and at the suggestion of military circles.\nIt is certain that the dissolution of the Fazilet Party is closely related to the current political situation, the direction of which has been determined by the status quo powers (‘the deep State’). However, it seems to me that we cannot be sure whether the Court was put under direct pressure. The first point is important to find out the nature of the present regime in Turkey. From a legal point of view, however, what is more important is how the Constitutional Court gave such a judgment. In other words, the people who should be criticised and who should be held responsible are the eight judges at the Court, all of whom are ‘adults’ and ‘sensible’. The real issue is to examine to what extent the professional backgrounds and intellectual capacities of these individuals are sufficient for such a job and to question whether they had the right to act in accordance with their prejudices. This can be done only through analysing the judgment", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8067", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Penza.\n5.  The applicant sued the Penza town administration and the Penza committee for municipal property management (“the property management committee”), seeking to obtain free of charge the title to a plot of land under the office building he owned.\n6.  On 16 November 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of Penza (“the District Court”) held for the applicant and ordered the town administration to establish his title to the land at issue. The judgment was not appealed against and became final within the statutory ten-day time-limit.\n7.  On 7 March 2006 the Penza town administration lodged an application for supervisory review.\n8.  On 19 June 2006 the Presidium of the Penza Regional Court quashed the judgment of 16 November 2005, considering that the District Court had incorrectly established the facts of the case and erroneously applied the domestic material law. It consequently remitted the case to the District Court for consideration anew.\n9.  On 10 August 2006 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim in full. The applicant did not appeal and the judgment became final within the statutory ten-day time-limit.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8068", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Achisu, the Republic of Dagestan.\n5.  On 31 January 2005 the applicant applied to the district court for readjustment of compensation for damage to his son’s health awarded by judgments of 13 August and 4 December 2002 against OAO Dagenergo, an open joint-stock company (“the company”), in line with new legislation.\n6.  On 19 April 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala allowed his claim. The court awarded the applicant 61,607 Russian roubles (RUB) in readjustment. The court also ordered the company to pay monthly amounts equal to the living cost for the employable population from 15 December 2004. On 20 May 2005 the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic upheld that judgment on appeal.\n7.  On an unspecified date the company initiated supervisory review proceedings.\n8.  On 6 October 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic quashed the judgments of 19 April and 20 May 2005 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The Presidium established that the courts had erred in the application of the domestic law, namely that they had applied the new legislation retrospectively and had failed to reflect the correct adjustment method in their judgments.\n9.  On 22 November 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala ruled against the applicant, finding that the new legislation was inapplicable to the case at hand.\n10.  On 10 February 2006 the Supreme Court of the Dagestan Republic upheld that judgment on appeal.\n11.  The applicant was a party to several sets of civil proceedings.\n12.  In 1999 he brought an action in connection with an injury sustained by his son. On 13 August 2002 the district court allowed the applicant’s claim in part and ordered the defendant company to pay him pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. On 19 December 2002 the district court issued a writ of enforcement. The enforcement proceedings were ended on 14 September 2004.\n13.  On 25 April 2006 the applicant sued the Department of Education of Izberbash at the Izberbash Town Court on a work-related matter. The applicant sought reinstatement in his job and work-related benefits. On 16 August 2006 the town court rejected the applicant’s action in full. He did not lodge an appeal.\n14.  The applicant was also engaged in a housing dispute. On 27 January 2003 the Izberbash Town Council refused to provide him with housing. It does not appear that the applicant challenged the refusal before a court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8069", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Mr Oleg Yuryevich Kopnin, Mr Yuriy Olegovich Kopnin, Ms Natalya Borisovna Kopnina and Ms Olga Olegovna Kopnina, who were born in 1958, 1986, 1961 and 1983 respectively and live in Stavropol. The first and the third applicants are former husband and wife and the second and the fourth applicants are their children.\n6.  The applicants lived in a building which the local authority had declared unsuitable for habitation in 1986. In 2003 the local authority declared that the building was at imminent risk of collapse (грозящий обвалом).\n7.  On 13 May 2004 the Stavropol Oktyabrskiy District Court (“the district court”) acknowledged that the applicants’ flat was unsuitable for habitation. Notably, the district court established that the building was in a critical state and that use of the kitchen and corridor in particular presented a risk, as those parts of the building were liable to collapse at any moment. It consequently ordered the Stavropol City Council (“the Council”) to rehouse them within ten days in accommodation from its temporary housing stock (маневренный фонд – “temporary stock”), and subsequently to provide them with suitable housing in compliance with the applicable legislation. The court also awarded them 500 Russian roubles (RUB) in non-pecuniary damage on the grounds that living in such conditions had caused the applicants physical and mental distress. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 24 May 2004.\n8.  On 17 June 2004 enforcement proceedings were initiated and on 14 July 2004 the applicants were offered to be rehoused in a flat from the Council’s temporary stock. This offer was turned down by them on the grounds that the flat offered was unsuitable for habitation.\n9.  Following their refusal, on 27 September 2004 the enforcement proceedings were terminated by the bailiffs on account of the impossibility of enforcing the judgment, given that the Council had no other available housing or the financial resources to purchase any.\n10.  On an unspecified date the applicants challenged the bailiffs’ inactivity and their decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings. On 2 December 2004 the district court found that the flat offered by the Council was unsuitable for habitation and did not meet the applicable health and safety requirements and building regulations. As a consequence, the district court quashed the decision of 27 September 2004 to terminate the enforcement proceedings. It also found that the Council’s reference to the lack of other available housing in its temporary stock had no legal value and could not justify non-compliance with a final court judgment.\n11.  On 25 January 2005 the applicants complained under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Council’s continuing failure to comply with the judgment of 13 May 2004. On the same date the district court dismissed this complaint, on the grounds that it concerned the same parties and subject-matter as the action previously examined on 13 May 2004. The district court consequently indicated that the applicants should have used other remedies, such as compulsory enforcement under the Enforcement Act and Article 315 of the Criminal Code. On 4 March 2005 this decision was upheld by the Regional Court.\n12.  In March 2005 the Council offered three applicants, Mr Y. O. Kopnin, Ms N. B. Kopnina and Ms O. O. Kopnina, to move to another flat. They refused this offer on the grounds that the property was not compliant with t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8070", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Moscow.\n7.  The applicant has a wife and three children who live in Uzbekistan. He is a practising Muslim. Since 1996 he had regularly gone to Russia for seasonal jobs. In 2010 the applicant again went to Russia and remained in the Moscow region until his arrest on 17 March 2012.\n8.  On 14 June 2011 the investigator at the Bukhara Regional Department of National Security, Uzbekistan, charged the applicant, in absentia, with incitement to national, racial, ethnic or religious hatred, and producing and disseminating documents containing threats to national security and public order (Articles 156 § 3 (d) and 244-1 § 3 (a) of the Uzbek Criminal Code). The decision stated, in particular, that Mr A., an Uzbek national, had formed an organised criminal group in 1996-1997 which a view to disseminating ideas based on Muslim religious extremism. According to the decision, the applicant had been involved in the group while working as the head of a bakery and being responsible for providing other members of the group with work and housing.\n9.  On the same date the applicant was placed on the list of wanted persons.\n10.  On 15 June 2011 the Bukhara Criminal Court ordered the applicant’s placement in detention. On the same date the Deputy Prosecutor of the Bukhara Region issued an international search warrant in respect of the applicant.\n11.  On 17 March 2012 the applicant was arrested by police in Moscow. The record of arrest, drawn up on the same date and signed by the applicant, stated that he had been arrested in accordance with Articles 91 and 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a person wanted by the Uzbek authorities on suspicion of criminal offences under Articles 156 § 3 (d) and 244 § 3 (a) of the Uzbek Criminal Code.\n12.  On 18 March 2012 the applicant was questioned and stated as follows. In Uzbekistan he had worked as a builder. As it had become difficult to find a job there, in July 1996 he went to Russia for the first time to look for a job. For three months he lived in the Moscow Region unofficially, and he then returned to Uzbekistan. Between 1996 and 2010 he went to Russia every year for several months, during which he worked unofficially on construction sites in the Moscow Region. He never applied for authorisation in respect of his temporary stays in Russia. In October 2010 he went again to Russia. He went to the village of Poyarkovo, in the Moscow Region, where he found lodgings in a mobile home with three other builders. In October-November 2010 he worked at a construction site in the town of Himki. During 2011 he had occasional jobs in Poyarkovo, including some building work for its residents, and cleaning the streets. On 17 March 2012 the applicant went to the Kazanskiy railway station in Moscow as he wanted to return to Uzbekistan. He bought a ticket to Kazan, where he planned to buy tickets for the remainder of the journey. However, before he could board the train he was approached by three men in civilian clothes who told him they were police officers and presented their badges. They informed him that he was on a wanted list in Uzbekistan and asked him to go with them to the police station located near the railway station, which he did. According to the applicant, when he spoke on the telephone with his wife in spring 2011, she had said that police officers had asked her about his whereabouts, but they had not explained why they were looking for him. In Uzbekistan he had no", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8071", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Novocherkassk, the Rostov Region. He is a retired military serviceman.\n5.  On 25 March 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Court Circuit of Novocherkassk ordered the recovery of the applicant’s pension arrears for the period 1 January 1995 to 31 January 2003 and for the amount owed to be adjusted in line with the rate of inflation. The Justice of the Peace awarded him 40,356.67 Russian roubles (RUB), to be paid by the Military Commissariat of the Rostov Region (“the respondent authority”). The judgment was enforced.\n6.  The applicant brought a second claim against the respondent authority seeking a further adjustment to his pension as calculated by the judgment of 25 March 2003, because of an increase to the minimum wage. His claim was backdated to include the period 1995 to 1998.\n7.  By a judgment of 15 September 2004 the Novocherkassk Town Court allowed the claim. The court observed, in particular, that the amount awarded on 25 March 2003 had been adjusted to take into account the rise in inflation, but not the increase to the minimum wage for the specified period. The court awarded the applicant RUB 265,594.27, to be paid by the respondent authority, and ordered that the judgment be executed immediately. Representatives of the respondent authority were present at court.\n8.  On 12 October 2004 the applicant’s representative sent a copy of the judgment and a writ of execution to the respondent authority. According to its incoming correspondence log (item no. 11734), the documents were registered as having been received.\n9.  On an unspecified date the respondent authority lodged a statement of appeal with the Town Court. It appears that on 9 November 2004 (the exact date is unclear) the Novocherkassk Town Court refused to examine the application because the authority had failed to pay the court fee.\n10.  On 11 November 2004 the respondent authority withdrew its statement of appeal.\n11.  On 24 November 2004 the respondent authority requested a re‑examination of the case in the light of newly discovered circumstances. On 10 February 2005 the Novocherkassk Town Court dismissed the application.\n12.  In September 2005 the respondent authority applied for the case be re-examined by way of supervisory review.\n13.  On 29 December 2005 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 15 September 2004 by way of supervisory review and transferred the case for fresh examination by a different court. The Presidium concluded that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law and had failed to verify whether the same claim had already been examined by the Justice of the Peace on 25 March 2003. It also found that the Novocherkassk Town Court had lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. The Presidium noted that judgment had been awarded against the respondent authority and that the case should have been examined by a court in the district where the respondent authority was located.\n14.  The applicant did not attend the hearing and received a copy of the judgment on 17 February 2006.\n15.  On 17 March 2006 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Rostov examined the applicant’s claim against the respondent authority and rejected it as having no basis in law. No further appeal was brought.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8072", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Ajka.\n5.  On 22 July 1990 the applicant and Pápa és Vidéke ÁFÉSZ, a legal person, concluded a lease contract concerning the property of the latter party.\n6.  The applicant apparently breached his contractual obligations and failed to pay the monthly rental fees between October 1993 and October 1994.\n7.  After several unsuccessful deadline extensions and requests for payment, Pápa és Vidéke ÁFÉSZ terminated the lease contract with immediate effect on 26 October 1994.\n8.  In November 1994 Pápa és Vidéke ÁFÉSZ lodged a compensation claim with the Veszprém County Regional Court against the applicant.\n9.  The first-instance court found for the plaintiff and ordered the applicant to pay the overdue rental fees (approximately 1,600 euros (EUR)) and accrued interests to the plaintiff.\n10.  On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the judgment on 2 December 2003.\n11.  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which rejected it on 8 December 2005. The decision was served on the applicant on 26 January 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8073", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Madrid.\n6.  He was living in Spain together with a Slovak national, to whom he was not married. On 27 May 2009 a child was born to the applicant’s partner (“the mother”) in Slovakia. The applicant is the father of the child. The child is both a Slovak and a Spanish national.\n7.  Following the birth, the applicant, the mother and the child lived together with the applicant in Spain until 21 July 2010, when the mother took the child from Spain to Slovakia. Neither of them has ever returned.\n8.  On 31 August 2010 the mother petitioned the District Court (Okresný súd) in Martin (Slovakia) to make an order governing the exercise of parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the child. At the same time, she requested that, pending the final outcome of the proceedings, the District Court deal with these matters by way of an interim order.\n9.  On 14 September 2010 the District Court issued an interim order, pursuant to which the child was placed with the mother and the applicant was ordered to contribute towards the child’s maintenance pending the outcome of the proceedings on the merits. It was submitted by the applicant and not disputed by the Government that the written version of the interim order was not served on the applicant before 9 February 2011 and that, upon its service, the applicant was contributing to the child’s maintenance as ordered.\n10.  The interim order remained in force until the proceedings on the merits of the mother’s petition were terminated by the District Court on 28 February 2011 and, following the mother’s appeal, by the Regional Court (Krajský súd) in Žilina (Slovakia) on 30 June 2011.\nThese courts found that the relevant law for the determination of jurisdiction in the matter was Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility (“Regulation No. 2201/2003”) and that, under Regulation No. 2201/2003, the crucial criterion for establishing jurisdiction over the matter was the place of habitual residence of the child. Having regard to the conclusions that had meanwhile been reached in that respect by the Bratislava I (Slovakia) District Court and the Bratislava Regional Court (see paragraphs 20 and 23 below), the place of the child’s habitual residence was Spain, and the Slovakian courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 5 August 2010, the applicant had complained about the removal and retention of the child by the mother before the Spanish Central Authority responsible for implementing the Hague Convention.\n12.  Subsequently, on 21 October 2010, the applicant lodged an application with the Bratislava I District Court under the Hague Convention and Regulation No. 2201/2003.\nIn his application, he argued that the child’s habitual residence was in Spain and that the mother had removed or retained the child wrongfully within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention.\nAccordingly, the applicant sought an order for the child’s return to Spain.\n13.  On 3 November 2010 the District Court appointed the social services department for the city of Martin to represent the child’s interests in the proceedings.\n14.  The District Court called a hearing for 11 November 2010. However, two days before that date, that is to say on 9 November 2010, the mother’s lawyer asked for an adjournment on the groun", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8074", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Kocaeli.\n5.  On 25 July 1999, at 11.30 a.m., the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation, namely the Turkish Revolutionary Communist Union, Türkiye İhtilalci Komünistler Birliği, “the TIKB”. The arrest records held by the police stated that they had had to use force to arrest the applicant, who had tried to escape when officers approached him to conduct an identity check.\n6.  On the same day he underwent a medical examination at 1.30 p.m. at Atatürk Hospital in Izmir. The report drawn up afterwards stated that no indication of ill-treatment had been observed on the applicant’s body.\n7.  The applicant was examined again later that day, at 5.45 p.m. at the same hospital. The report issued following that examination noted that the applicant had a healing, scabbed scratch measuring 2 x 2 cm on his right elbow. It concluded that there was no indication of physical violence on his body.\n8.  Following the medical examinations, the applicant was transferred to Istanbul, where he was placed in police custody at the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters. According to his submissions, he was subjected to ill-treatment during his time there.\n9.  On 27 July 1999 the applicant’s residence in Istanbul was searched by the police, who found several guns and cartridges, which were later sent to the Istanbul Criminal Police Laboratory for ballistic examination.\n10.  On 28 July 1999 the applicant was examined by a doctor at Haseki Hospital, who noted a swelling, a bruise and a scratch measuring 1 x 2 cm on his right elbow, as well as another scratch measuring 0,5 x 1 cm on his arm. The doctor recommended that the applicant undergo an orthopaedic examination.\n11.  At the request of the public prosecutor, on 29 July 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court decided to extend the applicant’s police custody by three days.\n12.  On 30 July 1999 the applicant was examined again at Haseki Hospital. This time, two scars on his gluteal region were noted.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicant made statements to the police, in the absence of a lawyer.\n14.  On the last day of his police custody, namely on 1 August 1999 the applicant underwent another medical examination at Haseki Hospital. The report drawn up afterwards indicated a scar measuring 1 x 1 cm on his right elbow. The doctor also noted that the applicant’s medical condition was generally good, and recommended that he should undergo a urological consultation to follow up his complaint of rectal pain. He stated that a final report would be issued by the Forensic Medicine Institute.\n15.  On the same day the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court. He was not legally represented when he made his statements.\n16.  Subsequently, the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court; he was remanded in custody. In the presence of a lawyer appointed by the Bar association, he retracted his previous statements and maintained that he had been subjected to ill‑treatment during his time in police custody. In response to a question by the investigating judge, the applicant maintained that he did not object to the content of the medical report drawn up earlier that day.\n17.  According to the applicant’s submissions, on 2 August 1999 he was examined by a doctor at Haydarpaşa Numune Hospital. The Gover", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8075", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  In the period between 5 August 1992 and 15 August 1998 the applicant worked as deputy chair of the Central Bank of Turkmenistan. In 2000 he became a member of the political movement “Watan”, which broadly criticised the political regime in Turkmenistan.\n7.  In October 2001 the applicant, his wife and children moved to Bulgaria. The applicant set up his own business in the field of construction development and obtained permanent residency. In 2003 he became a co‑founder and an executive member of the Turkmen Helsinki Foundation, an organisation which was founded in Varna and was engaged in human rights protection in Turkmenistan.\n8.  It appears that because of his political activity members of the applicant’s family were subjected to persecution in Turkmenistan. In 2006 his sister was tortured and murdered in prison.\n9.  On 10 March 2004 the Bulgarian authorities granted humanitarian status to the applicant under the Asylum and Refugees Act 2002.\n10.  On 22 October 2002 the Turkmen authorities charged the applicant with aggravated embezzlement of public funds amounting to 40,000,000 United States dollars (USD). The crime had allegedly been committed between 25 July and 3 September 2002. According to the charges, the applicant had acted in his capacity as an official at the Central Bank of Turkmenistan and together with his accomplices had used the standard system for bank-to-bank payments, SWIFT, to illegally transfer the above amount from the Turkmen bank to banks in Germany, Latvia, the Russian Federation and Hong Kong. On 10 February 2003 those charges were supplemented by an additional charge of forging documents. In relation to those charges, the Turkmen prosecutor also ordered the applicant’s detention.\n11.  Since at that time the applicant resided in Bulgaria, on 22 October 2002 the Turkmen Prosecutor’s Office filed a request with the Bulgarian authorities for his extradition.\n12.  In relation to the extradition request, on 4 December 2002 the applicant was taken into custody for twenty-four hours by virtue of a police order. The applicant sought judicial review of the order and on 5 December 2002 the Varna Regional Court set it aside. The court ruled that the order was flawed because it did not indicate any legal ground for the applicant’s detention. On 18 June 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the lower court.\n13.  On his release from police custody on 5 December 2002, the applicant was served with a prosecutor’s decree which ordered his detention for seventy-two hours in relation to the extradition proceedings. The decree relied on the 1974 Code of Criminal Procedure (“the 1974 Code”) and Article 65 of the 1975 Treaty between the Republic of Bulgaria and the former USSR for Legal Aid in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases (“the 1975 Treaty”).\n14.  On 6 December 2002 the Varna Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for a period of thirty days on the basis of Article 68 of the 1975 Treaty. On an appeal by the applicant, in a decision of 17 December 2002 the Varna Court of Appeal lifted the detention order and the applicant was released on bail.\n15.  On 23 January 2003 the prosecutor brought the extradition request to the Varna Regional Court for examination.\n16.  In a final decision of 22 May 2003 the Varna Regional Court refused the extradition request. The court applied the 1975 Treaty and the relevant provisions of the 1974 Code. The court found, in particular, that in the period during w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8076", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1948, 1939, 1946, 1973 and 1941 respectively. The first applicant, Mr Fulvio Rossi, lives in Turin, while the other applicants live in Naples.\n5.  The applicants inherited a plot of land in Crispano. The land in issue – of a surface area of 8,950 square metres – was recorded in the land register as Folio no. 2, Parcel no. 44.\n6.  On 9 February 1982 the Mayor of Crispano issued a decree authorising the Municipality to take possession, through an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public-interest declaration, of 416 square metres of the applicants’ land in order to begin the construction of a road.\n7.  On 23 March 1982 the authorities took physical possession of the land.\n8.  By a writ served on 30 May 1990, the applicants brought an action for damages against the Crispano Municipality in the Naples District Court. They alleged that the occupation of the land was illegal and that the construction work had been completed without there having been a formal expropriation of the land and payment of compensation. They claimed a sum corresponding to the market value of the land and a further sum in damages for the loss of enjoyment of the land, both during the periods of lawful and unlawful occupation. Lastly, the applicants claimed compensation for the demolition of buildings and the destruction of crops present on the land.\n9.  On an unspecified date the court ordered an expert valuation of the land. In a report submitted on 5 November 1996 the expert concluded that the market value of the land on the date of its irreversible alteration, which he identified as having occurred in 1987, corresponded to 73,682 Italian lire (ITL) per square metre (38.054 euros (EUR)).\n10.  By a judgment delivered on 31 May 2000 and filed with the court registry on 12 January 2001, the Naples District Court declared that the possession of the land, which had been initially authorised, had become unlawful as of 23 March 1990. It found that the land had been irreversibly transformed by the public works. As a result, in accordance with the constructive-expropriation rule (occupazione acquisitiva or accessione invertita), the applicants had been deprived of their property, by virtue of its irreversible alteration, on the date on which the possession had ceased to be lawful. In the light of those considerations, the court concluded that the applicants were entitled to compensation in consideration for the loss of ownership caused by the unlawful occupation.\n11.  The court considered that the land could be classified as building land and that its market value on the date the occupation had become unlawful (23 March 1990) corresponded to ITL 275,000 per square metre (EUR 142.026).\n12.  The court held that the applicants were entitled to compensation, calculated in accordance with Law no. 662 of 1996, which had entered into force in the meantime, in the sum of ITL 61,339,393 (equivalent to EUR 31,679.53), to be adjusted for inflation, plus statutory interest.\n13.  The court further awarded the applicants ITL 22,305,234 (EUR 11,519.692) as compensation for the damage occasioned by the unavailability of the land during the period from the beginning of the lawful occupation (23 March 1982) until the date of loss of ownership (23 March 1990), as well as 45,400,000 (EUR 23,447.143) as compensation for the demolition of buildings and the destruction of crops present on the land.\n14.  On 31 May 2001 the Municipality appealed against the ord", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8078", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  In November 2006 protests broke in a number of prisons throughout the country regarding demands for the Serbian Parliament to enact specific amnesty-related legislation.\n7.  On 22 November 2006, according to various official reports, violent conflicts between the two main groups of prisoners occurred in the Niš Penitentiary. It would appear that a radical group of prisoners clashed with the moderate leaders over how to proceed with the protests.\n8.  On 23 November 2006 the prevailing group of prisoners requested that all prison staff, including the guards, vacate the dormitories. They also reportedly threatened the prison staff with kidnappings should they fail to comply with this request. The prison staff therefore left the three buildings in question and the prisoners subsequently, at approximately 4.45 p.m., barricaded the entrances with furniture. Almost 600 prisoners were thus left without any official supervision. The security situation in the Niš Penitentiary continued to deteriorate thereafter. The prison authorities assessed that there was a very real threat to the life and health of the prisoners who had refused to take part in the revolt.\n9.  On the same day the governor of the Niš Penitentiary formed a crises team which decided that a large scale intervention was necessary. The Ministry of Internal Affairs produced a detailed action plan in this regard. It included, inter alia, the assessment of the resistance that could be expected on the part of the prisoners, the force needed to overcome this resistance and the need to secure the presence of medical teams during and in the aftermath of the intervention.\n10.  On 24 November 2006, at around 7.20 a.m., more than 330 special police officers, members of the Gendarmerie, wearing helmets with visors, assisted by prison guards and other security staff, entered the Niš Penitentiary. The protests were brought under control by 8.45 a.m.\n11.  According to the information subsequently provided by the Ministry of Justice, a total of 79 prisoners had been injured and medically treated. The same document stated that the injuries sustained, except in one case, were slight in character and had been inflicted by means of blunt force trauma.\n12.  The police maintained that during their intervention a certain number of prisoners had offered active resistance. Many also had certain pre-existing injuries stemming from a violent conflict which had apparently occurred between the prisoners themselves prior to the intervention. The police lastly noted that some prisoners had been injured as a result of the general commotion that had ensued in the course of the intervention, including prisoners being trampled over by other prisons and/or pushed against the furniture which had been moved into the corridors.\n13.  The applicants claimed that in the course of the intervention and/or shortly thereafter they had been physically abused by the police officers and/or the prisons guards. Concerning the intervention itself, the applicants contended that they had been beaten with baseball bats and truncheons, forced to run between two rows of police officers and/or prison guards who had kicked them as they passed and, lastly, compelled to lie on a cold, concrete floor for hours while being handcuffed. As a result, the applicants allegedly sustained various injuries, such as fractured bones, bruises and wounds all over the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8079", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Novi Sad, Serbia.\n7.  On 8 March 1998 D.P.V. brought a civil action against M.V. (the applicant’s legal predecessor) in the Biograd na Moru Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Biogradu na moru) seeking (a) to be declared joint owner of a house and surrounding land on Pašman, an island off the coast of Croatia, and (b) payment of 30,000 German marks (DEM).\n8.  On 18 December 1998 the Biograd na Moru Municipal Court ordered an onsite inspection of the property, including an expert valuation. It took place on 29 December 1998.\n9.  The expert submitted his opinion to the Biograd na Moru Municipal Court on 19 January 1999, assessing the value of the property at 208,575.66 Croatian kunas (HRK).\n10.  On 16 September 1999 the Biograd na Moru Municipal Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff D.P.V., who was declared owner of a one half share of the property. M.V. was ordered to pay her DEM 30,000.\n11.  M.V. lodged an appeal but it was dismissed by the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) on 18 July 2001.\n12.  On 20 December 2001 M.V. simultaneously lodged an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) and a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the appeal judgment. In using both of these remedies she challenged the judgments of the lower courts, arguing that they had failed to address all of her allegations.\n13.  On 22 March 2002 the Constitutional Court sent a letter to M.V., informing her that, while her appeal on points of law was pending, it would be unable to deal with her constitutional complaint, and that the proceedings in that regard would have to be terminated unless otherwise requested after the decision of the Supreme Court.\n14.  In examining the admissibility ratione valoris of the appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the value of the half share of the property had not been assessed. On 16 November 2004 the Supreme Court therefore requested the Biograd na Moru Municipal Court to determine the value of the subject matter of the dispute (vrijednost predmeta spora), in accordance with section 40(4) and (5) of the Civil Procedure Act.\n15.  On 15 February 2005 M.V. died and bequeathed all her property to the applicant, who took over the proceedings thereafter.\n16.  On 27 July 2005 the Biograd na Moru Municipal Court held a hearing and heard representatives of both parties. The plaintiff’s representative relied on his alleged statutory prerogative to set the value of the dispute at HRK 10,000, while the applicant’s representative relied on the expert valuation (see paragraph 9 above) and requested that the value of the dispute be set at at least HRK 101,000. The relevant part of the transcript of that hearing reads as follows:\n“The plaintiff’s representative maintains that the value of the dispute in this case is HRK 10,000 in accordance with section 26 of the Court Fees Act ... and that this is the value the plaintiff has set.\nThe defendant’s representative objects to such an interpretation of the value of the dispute, arguing that [it] could only have been established after the expert valuation had been obtained from the court expert, who assessed the value of the property at HRK 200,000, which the Municipal Court is bound to accept, and that in any event the value of the dispute exceeds HRK 101,000.”\n17.  On the same day the Biograd na Moru Municipal Court issued a decision whereby i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8080", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Maribor.\n6.  On 16 January 1992 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Maribor Basic Court against the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Spatial Planning for an injunction that they put into effect a decision on the construction of a dam close to a hydroelectric power plant built by the applicant.\n7.  On 18 March 1993 the applicant modified his claim into payment of pecuniary damages.\n8.   By 28 June 1994 when the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia, the court had scheduled three main hearings of which one had been adjourned.\n9.  On 28 July 1995 the Maribor Local Court issued an order declaring itself as not having the subject-matter jurisdiction and referring the case to the Maribor District Court.\n10.  Two main hearings were held on 3 July 1996 and 19 September 1996 respectively.\n11.  Further two hearings scheduled for 24 October 1996 and 20 November 1997 were adjourned due the applicant’s health problems.\n12.  A further hearing was held on 26 February 1999.\n13. On 30 March 1999 the court held the last main hearing and issued its decision dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.\n14.  On 14 September 1999 the Maribor Higher Court quashed the first instance court’s decision and remitted the case back to the first instance court.\n15.  Five hearings were held in the new proceedings between 11 January 2001 and 7 November 2002. On the latter date the Maribor District Court issued a decision dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.\n16.  On 11 July 2006 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and altered the decision on the merits, upholding the applicant’s claim in part. Both parties lodged an appeal on points of law.\n17.  On 8 May 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the defendant’s appeal on points of law and altered the decision of the higher court by dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint.\n18.  On 28 November 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8081", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Osijek. Prior to his arrest and detention, which gave rise to the case at issue, the applicant worked as a police officer in the Osijek-Baranja Police Department (Policijska uprava Osječko-baranjska).\n5.  On 23 March 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy and abuse of power and authority.\n6.  The following day he was brought before an investigating judge (sudac istrage) of the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) who ordered that he be placed in pre-trial detention (istražni zatvor) for a further two months under Article 123 § 1(2) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion and risk of reoffending) or, alternatively, released on bail, which was set at 700,000 Croatian kunas (HRK). The judge held that the applicant’s detention was necessary because some further physical evidence had to be collected, and in order to prevent him from coordinating his defence with the second suspect, who was still at large. She also considered that there was a risk that the applicant might suborn witnesses and, given the circumstances of the case and his employment as a police officer, that he might reoffend.\n7.  On the same day the State Attorney’s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta; hereinafter: the “State Attorney’s Office”) opened an investigation against the applicant and six others persons in connection with suspected conspiracy and abuse of power and authority.\n8.  The applicant and the State Attorney’s Office also lodged appeals against the investigating judge’s decision on the applicant’s detention. The applicant challenged the reasons for his pre-trial detention while the State Attorney’s Office challenged the part of the investigating judge’s decision allowing for the applicant’s conditional release on bail.\n9.  On 4 April 2012 a three-judge panel of the Zagreb County Court allowed the appeal of the State Attorney’s Office and reversed the investigating judge’s decision allowing for the applicant’s conditional release on bail. It held that the circumstances of the case suggested that detaining the applicant was the only way to prevent the risk of collusion and reoffending.\n10.  On 6 April 2012 the same three-judge panel of the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded. It held that the circumstances of the case suggested that the applicant might coordinate his defence with the second suspect, who was still at large, and that he might interfere with the seizure of further physical evidence and suborn nine witnesses (M.I., I.R., T.P., M.H., Z.N., S.K., Z.L., D.J. and S.P.) who worked as police officers in the Osijek-Baranja Police Department. It also endorsed the investigating judge’s finding as to the possibility of the applicant’s reoffending.\n11.  On 23 April 2012 the State Attorney’s Office requested the investigating judge to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the grounds of the risk of collusion and risk of reoffending, relying on the same grounds on which the applicant had initially been detained.\n12.  The investigating judge extended on the same day the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a further two months under Article 123 § 1(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion) and dismissed the request to extend his detention under Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending). She held ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8083", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The Slovenian-based applicant company operates gaming and entertainment centres.\n6.  On 19 June 1996, the applicant company’s then new managing director instituted disciplinary proceedings against one of its employees, N.N., in respect of the disciplinary offence of excessive and irresponsible use of the company’s funds. The new managing director had been informed about the alleged offence two days earlier. On 21 October 1996 the disciplinary board terminated N.N.’s employment on the grounds that she had seriously breached her employment obligations. An appeal lodged by N.N. against that decision was dismissed. On 24 December 1996 N.N. brought a claim before the Koper Labour Court, requesting that the termination of her employment be declared null and void. She alleged, inter alia, that the disciplinary proceedings against her were time-barred.\n7.  In a judgment of 30 September 1997 the Labour Court dismissed N.N.’s request. Having considered that the applicant company’s former managing director had not had sufficient knowledge of the acts constituting the disciplinary offence, the Labour Court concluded that the three-month time-limit for the institution of disciplinary proceedings had started to run from the date on which N.N.’s disciplinary offences had been discovered by the new management of the applicant company. The court therefore held that disciplinary proceedings had not been time-barred. N.N. appealed against the judgment.\n8.  On 17 December 1999 the Higher Labour and Social Court, sitting in a panel of three judges, which included judge M.K., upheld N.N.’s appeal and ordered the applicant company to reinstate her. Relying on a statement made by the applicant company’s former managing director, it concluded that he had had sufficient knowledge of N.N.’s actions to be able to institute disciplinary proceedings against her if he had considered that to be necessary. Accordingly, the higher court held that the disciplinary proceedings against N.N. had in fact been time-barred. The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court.\n9.  On 7 November 2000 the Supreme Court upheld the applicant company’s appeal on points of law, as the higher court had established the facts differently from the first-instance court without having conducted an oral hearing. The Supreme Court therefore found that the adversarial principle had been breached in the appeal proceedings and set aside the second-instance judgment. The case was remitted to the Higher Labour and Social Court for fresh consideration.\n10.  On 7 December 2000 the Higher Labour and Social Court, sitting in a panel presided by judge M.K., held that the facts which had affected the expiry of the statutory limitation period for commencing disciplinary proceedings had not been duly established, and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh consideration.\n11.  On 12 April 2001 the Koper Labour Court rendered an interim judgment, finding again that the disciplinary proceedings had not been time-barred and thus dismissing N.N.’s request for annulment of the decision to terminate her employment. N.N. appealed against the judgment.\n12.  On 3 July 2003 the Higher Labour and Social Court again established quite the opposite, namely that the disciplinary proceedings had been time-barred, and upheld N.N.’s appeal. Judge M.K. did not take part in the proceedings. The applicant company appealed on points of law.\n13.  On 15 June 2004 the Supreme Court", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8084", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  In 1985 she got married and gave birth to her first daughter. In 1987 she gave birth to her second daughter.\n6.  The applicant’s relationship with her husband deteriorated and in August 1994 she and her daughters moved into a house rented by her husband in the village of Pisochyn. Her husband visited his daughters from time to time.\n7.  In late November or the beginning of December 1994 the applicant’s husband took the children back to Kharkiv. The applicant was left alone.\n8.  On 17 December 1994 the applicant was admitted to Kharkiv Regional Psychiatric Hospital (“the psychiatric hospital”), a State-run institution. According to the medical records, the applicant was brought by ambulance since she was in a reactive state and showed signs of mental disorder.\n9.  Soon after her admission to the psychiatric hospital, the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and given treatment.\n10.  Between January 1995 and November 1997 the applicant unsuccessfully and repeatedly asked to be discharged from the psychiatric hospital and lodged complaints about her internment. During that time the applicant was provided with neuroleptic treatment.\n11.  On 7 November 1997 the applicant escaped from the psychiatric hospital and found shelter with some acquaintances. By that time she was divorced.\n12.  On 23 December 1997, at the applicant’s request, she was admitted to Kharkiv Municipal Psychiatric Hospital for in-patient psychiatric assessment. According to the medical records, during the applicant’s stay in the municipal hospital she did not take any medicine; discussions with psychiatrists were the only treatment.\n13.  On 4 February 1998 the applicant was discharged from that hospital with the conclusion that her mental health was normal.\n14.  Subsequently, the applicant re-established contact with her children and started living with them.\n15.  Following the applicant’s complaint, on 17 February 1998 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against P., the applicant’s doctor, on suspicion of unlawful placement of the applicant in a psychiatric hospital, an offence under Article 123-2 of the Criminal Code of 1960.\n16.  On 21 July 1998 an expert panel conducted a forensic psychiatric examination and found that the applicant was not suffering from any mental illness. It further concluded that the applicant’s admission to the psychiatric hospital on 17 December 1994 might have been necessitated by her state of health; however, during her stay in the psychiatric hospital she had been wrongly diagnosed, she had not been assessed comprehensively, and she had not been provided with correct medical treatment from the outset, in December 1994.\n17.  On 9 October 1998 the expert panel additionally concluded that the applicant could have been discharged from the psychiatric hospital on 17 January 1995 on the basis of her discharge request, since her mental state had not suggested that she had posed a danger to herself or to the others.\n18.  On 24 February 1999 the applicant was recognised as a civil claimant within the framework of the criminal proceedings.\n19.  On 25 February 1999 the charges against P. were classified as negligence in the performance of official duties which resulted in grave consequences for the applicant.\n20.  On 9 April 1999 P. was committed to stand trial in the Kharkivskyy District Court.\n21.  On 20 June 2000 the case file ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8085", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in Ljubljana prison from 16 July 2009 to 31 December 2010, but he was released on 27 December 2010.\n7.  From 16 July 2009 to 23 September 2009 and from 24 February 2010 to 27 December 2010 the applicant was held in the closed section of Ljubljana prison. According to the applicant, five prisoners were being held in each of the cells where he was held during his detention. From 16 July 2009 to 23 September 2009 he was held in cell 6 (third floor) measuring 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility). The Government submitted that the number of prisoners held there varied between four and five. From 24 February 2010 to 2 April 2010 he was held in cell 130 (second floor) measuring 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility). The Government submitted that the number of prisoners held there varied between five and six. From 2 April 2010 to 5 October 2010 he was held in cell 132 (second floor) measuring 18 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility). The Government submitted that the number of prisoners held there varied between three and five. From 6 October 2010 to 16 December 2010 he was held in cell 117 measuring 17.66 square metres (including a separate 1.68 square metre sanitary facility). The Government submitted that the number of prisoners held there varied between two and five and that for the most part the applicant had more than four square metres of personal space. From 17 December 2010 to 27 December 2010 he was held in cell 123 measuring 17.47 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility). The Government submitted that the number of prisoners held there varied between four and six.\n8.  In the period between 23 September 2009 and 24 February 2010 the applicant was held in the semi-open section of Ljubljana prison, in cell 147 (third floor) measuring 18.8 square metres (including a separate 1.72 square metre sanitary facility).\n9.  The cells in the closed and semi-open sections contained, apart from the furniture, five to six sleeping places. Each cell had one 107 x 110 cm double casement window, which the prisoners could freely open or close.\n10.  The general characteristics of the cells in the closed and semi-open sections, material conditions inside the cells therein, sanitary conditions and health care are set out in the Court’s judgment Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia (nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011).\n11.  As to the out-of-cell time in the closed section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (Štrucl and Others § 86).\n12.  As to the out-of-cell time in the semi-open section, the Government submitted that the cell doors in the semi-open section of the prison were unlocked, except from 9.45 p.m. (on Fridays, Saturdays and before holidays from midnight) until 6.00 a.m. (on Saturdays, Sundays and during holidays until 8.30 a.m.). During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor (35.7 square metres), living quarters of co-prison", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8086", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and is serving a prison sentence in the Voronezh Region.\n6.  On 19 September 2002 a search of the applicant’s flat was carried out. He was then charged with drug trafficking. The applicant was kept in police custody until 21 September 2002, when he was released on undertakings of good behaviour and to not leave town.\n7.  In separate proceedings, on 19 September 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of causing bodily harm to another person. On 21 September 2003 he admitted the charge, allegedly under duress. According to the applicant, lawyer V., assigned to represent him, was not present at the interview and signed the record later on. However, there was no mention of counsel’s name in the list of visitors in the detention centre. On 23 September 2003 Judge M. of the Talovskiy District Court, the Voronezh Region (“the District Court”) authorised the applicant’s continued detention and stated that he “had indeed committed a very serious offence”. The applicant was charged with causing bodily harm resulting in the victim’s death. On the same date, the police took him to a hospital and required him to undergo a blood test.\n8.  The applicant confirmed his earlier confession in V.’s presence during an on-the-spot interview, which was recorded on video. On an unspecified date, the applicant terminated V.’s representation of him. A new lawyer, B., was appointed for the trial.\n9.  On 27 November 2003 Judge L. of the District Court convicted the applicant of drug trafficking. In February 2004 the District Court issued a decision admitting the applicant’s mother, K., as the applicant’s lay defender in the appeal proceedings concerning the drug-trafficking conviction. On 29 March 2004 the Voronezh Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed the judgment of 27 November 2003 and ordered a retrial.\n10.  By a judgment of 22 November 2004, the District Court convicted the applicant of causing bodily harm resulting in the victim’s death. However, on 1 March 2005 the Regional Court quashed this judgment, considering that the trial court had wrongly allowed the reading out of a pre-trial witness statement, despite the defence’s objection and in the absence of the applicant. Thus, the appeal court ordered a retrial and that the applicant be held in custody pending it.\n11.  On 23 March 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention, referring to the gravity of the charges against him and the risk that he would continue criminal activity, if at large.\n12.  In April 2005 the Regional Bar Association decided on a complaint brought by the applicant and imposed a disciplinary penalty on V., the applicant’s former lawyer, apparently, in relation to the drug-related case.\n13.  On 26 April 2005 the District Court returned the case about drug trafficking to the prosecutor. On 29 April 2005 the prosecutor joined the criminal cases against the applicant. On 30 April 2005 the investigator dismissed a number of motions lodged by the defence. In particular, the investigator stated that K. could no longer act as the applicant’s lay defender, since the decision to admit her to the proceedings issued in February 2004 had concerned only the appeal proceedings.\n14.  On 3 May 2005 the joined cases were submitted for trial before the District Court.\n15.  Hearings were held on 8 July and 21 July 2005. On the latter date Judge M. stripped K. of her lay-defender status in the criminal proceedings against her son, because she ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8088", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Bucharest. At the time of the facts of the case, the applicant was in private legal practice and was a senator.\n6.  On 10 December 2009 the Anti-Corruption Department of the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (referred to herein as “the prosecutor” and “the DNA”) started criminal proceedings against the applicant (urmărirea penală) on suspicion of trading in influence (traffic de influenţă). In particular, the prosecutor alleged that: (i) the applicant had accepted 200,000 euros (EUR) from a businessman, C.C., in return for using his connection to Judge F.C. of the High Court of Cassation and Justice in order to influence the outcome of a case pending before that court which concerned a dispute between C.C.’s company and a state agency; and (ii) that he had accepted money from M.L., under the pretext of providing legal services through his law firm, in order to facilitate M.L.’s access to the head of the police with the aim of discussing criminal investigations that were being conducted against M.L.\n7.  On 11 December 2009 the applicant was returning home during the day in a car belonging to the Senate. Close to his home, his route was blocked by another car. Several armed individuals jumped out, dragged the applicant from his car and, in front of his neighbours and a crowd of passers-by, handcuffed him and put him in their car. He was then taken to the DNA’s headquarters, where he was informed of the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant gave a statement to the prosecutor.\n8.  At the DNA’s headquarters, the applicant found out that he had been under investigation for a crime against national security. However, the prosecutor had decided on 27 November 2009 not to prosecute that offence. The evidence gathered in that investigation, in particular through intercepting the applicant’s telephone, had led the investigators to suspect the commission by the applicant of the crimes of corruption for which he was currently under investigation by the DNA.\n9.  On the same date, the prosecutor issued an order prohibiting the applicant from leaving town for thirty days.\n10.  Upon the applicant’s request, on 12 January 2010 the prosecutor sent him a copy of the decision of 27 November 2009.\n11.  On 9 March 2010 the prosecutor sought, through the Minister of Justice, Parliament’s approval to arrest the applicant. On the same date, the DNA issued a press release informing the public that it had sought authorisation for the arrest.\n12.  From the moment the DNA informed the public about the proceedings against the applicant, the media took great interest in the case. Numerous panel discussions were broadcast and journalists and politicians commented publicly on the events.\n13.  Excerpts from conversations between the defendants which had been obtained through telephone tapping during a criminal surveillance operation conducted prior to the criminal prosecution made it into the newspapers before the applicant and his co-accused had been committed for trial. Those excerpts gave the impression that the applicant and Judge F.C. had tried to manipulate some of the judges from the panel ruling in a commercial case involving C.C., and had reported back to the latter on the progress of those alleged manoeuvres. In the conversations among them, the applicant and the co‑defendants expressed in strong terms their disappointment that the outcome had not been favourable to ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8089", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975. He is currently detained in Măgineni Prison.\n  The physical conditions of the applicant’s detention in Poarta Albă and Mărgineni Prisons\n6.  In his initial letters to the Court the applicant stated that he had been detained in overcrowded cells which had lacked heating.\n7.  Starting from 2004 the applicant was detained and transferred between a number of prisons, including Poarta Albă and Măgineni Prisons.\n8.  The applicant was first detained in Poarta Albă Prison on 17 April 2006. The records concerning the cells the applicant had been detained in and the number of detainees he had shared the cells with during his time in detention there between 2006 and 2010 had been destroyed in accordance with the requirements of applicable domestic legislation.\n9.  From 2010 onwards the applicant was detained in Poarta Albă Prison from 19 February 2010 to 22 July 2013. During this period he was transferred repeatedly from Poarta Albă to Măgineni and other prison facilities as a result, among other things, of his violent behaviour towards other inmates and prison personnel.\n10.  In Poarta Albă Prison the applicant was detained in several cells where he was afforded between 3, 79 and 5, 03 sq. m of living space.\n11.  Part of the prison was fitted with its own central heating system, while the remaining part was heated by stoves. The heating was carried out based on a pre-determined schedule and on the available heating supplies and by taking into account the outdoor temperature.\n12.  The applicant was detained in Măgineni Prison from 5 December 2011 to date. During this period he was transferred repeatedly to Poarta Albă and other prison facilities.\n13.  In Măgineni Prison the applicant was detained in several cells where he was afforded between 1, 62 and 8, 02 sq. m of living space.\n14.  Each cell had electrical power and was fitted with individual beds, tables, chairs and benches.\n15.  The prison was also fitted with its own gas central heating system. The system was working properly. The cells had radiators, which ensured an appropriate temperature in the rooms during winter and when the outside temperature demanded it.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8090", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Ljubljana. She has suffered from a psychotic disorder for a number of years and has been admitted to psychiatric hospitals for treatment several times since 2000. The present case concerns two consecutive periods of confinement in such hospitals between July 2005 and January 2006.\n6.  On 10 July 2005 the applicant’s family physician received a telephone call from the local police informing him that the applicant had broken into an unoccupied house, apparently with the intention of sleeping there, and that they were having trouble communicating with her. He referred her to the Idrija Psychiatric Hospital, a public healthcare institution, indicating that she was disturbing the environment and behaving psychotically.\n7.  On the same day the applicant was admitted to the closed ward of the Idrija Psychiatric Hospital. On admission, she signed a consent form for confinement and psychiatric treatment. In her exchange with the hospital staff, the applicant said that she was “possessed by energetic and physical people sent to her through the lens of cameras operated by President Bush”. The psychiatrists treating her diagnosed her with schizophrenia and noted that she exhibited “delusional interpretations and perceptual anomalies as well as features of depersonalisation and derealisation”. The applicant was started on medication consisting of 10 mg of Moditen three times a day, three Akineton tablets a day, 5 mg of Apaurin three times a day, and an ampoule each of Haldol and Akineton a day. No mention was made in her medical records of her having refused to take any medication.\n8.  On 11 July 2005 the applicant started to ask how long she would have to stay in the hospital and told the psychiatrists that she would resist. The hospital notified the Idrija Local Court of her confinement, indicating the reasons given by the family physician for referring her to the hospital.\n9.  On 13 July 2005 the Idrija Local Court appointed a lawyer, I.R.P., to represent the applicant in proceedings it had commenced in her respect. It also scheduled a confinement hearing for 15 July. A notification of the hearing, addressed to the applicant, was sent to the hospital; however, it is not clear when or whether it was received by the applicant.\n10.  On 15 July 2005 a hearing was held regarding the applicant’s confinement. The applicant and one of the psychiatrists treating her were heard. The psychiatrist stated that the applicant had apparently been living in a garage and had broken into a house, and that she had been found wandering around and had been psychotic and uncontrollable. The applicant stated that she would rather be at home, that she did not understand why she had been taken to the hospital, but that other people she named, including a former politician, might have more of an idea. She provided an account of the events which had taken place prior to her confinement, in which she made no mention of having broken into a house. She also stated that she missed her father, and that she had been taking medication while at home.\n11.  In the weeks that followed, the applicant continued her treatment and, according to the medical records, also continued to agree to therapy. On 4 August 2005 the Haldol was replaced with Leponex and the dosage of Apaurin was reduced to 5 mg a day. Eventually, the applicant was taken off the Apaurin altogether.\n12.  Meanwhile, on 30 July 2005 the applicant gave D.P., a lawyer from Lju", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8091", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Sisak.\n6.  According to the applicant at 9.45 p.m. on 15 November 1991 five men, wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas, had come to their house in Sisak and taken her husband, Vaso Jelić, who was of Serbian ethnic origin. All five men were carrying firearms. She had reported the entire incident to the police on the same evening.\n7.  On 19 November 1991 the Sisak Police interviewed a certain B.S., who told them that on 15 November 1991 four men dressed in camouflage uniforms and wearing balaclavas had come to his flat and taken him to a lorry, where they had tied his hands and blindfolded him. Soon afterwards they had placed another person in the van, and they were transported to an unknown building. There the men had questioned him, then driven him somewhere else and released him. Later he learned that the other person who had been taken with him was Vaso Jelić.\n8.  On 9 February 1992 the body of Vaso Jelić was found on the banks of the river Kupa in Sisak. An autopsy carried out on 10 February 1992 showed that he had been shot dead.\n9.  On 10 February 1992 the applicant learned that her husband’s body had been found in Sisak, on the banks of the river Kupa.\n10.  On 3 April 1992 the Sisak Police lodged a criminal complaint with the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office against a person or persons unknown on charges of murdering Vaso Jelić.\n11.  It appears that no further investigative measures were taken in respect of the death of Vaso Jelić between 1992 and September 1999.\n12.  In 1996 the United Nations Security Council established the United Nations Transitional Administration in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (the “UNTAES”). On 15 January 1998 the UNTAES mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the Croatian authorities began.\n13.  On 10 September 1999 the Prevention of Terrorism Unit in the Criminal Justice Section of the Sisak County Police (Policijska uprava sisačko-moslavačka, Odjel kriminalističke policije, Odsjek za suzbijanje terorizma, hereinafter “the Sisak Police Prevention of Terrorism Unit”) interviewed a certain S.K. He said that he had been collecting information about the killing of persons of Serbian ethnic origin in Sisak and its area. To his knowledge fifty-four Serbs had been killed in Sisak and a further twenty-nine in Kinjačka, a village near Sisak, all of them in the period 1991-1992. In addition, about five hundred persons of Serbian origin were listed as having disappeared. S.K. also said that he had heard that Đ.B., then Head of the Sisak Police, had expressed his surprise that one S.B. had been killed, given that he had not been on the list for liquidation.\n14.  On 8 December 2000 the Sisak Police Prevention of Terrorism Unit interviewed the applicant. She reiterated that at 9.45 p.m. on 15 November 1991 five men, wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas, had come to their house and taken her husband. All five men were carrying firearms. She further reiterated that she had reported the entire incident to the police on the same evening.\n15.  On 9 January 2001 the Sisak Police Prevention of Terrorism Unit again interviewed B.S. (see paragraph 7 above) and on 12 January 2001 they questioned the doctor who had, on 10 February 1992, carried out the autopsy on Vaso Jelić’s body.\n16.  On 25 January 2001 the Sisak Police Prevention of Terrorism Unit interviewed M.Lj. and Mi.Lj., who had lived with the Jelić family at the relevant time; they conf", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8092", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is currently serving a prison sentence in correctional colony IK-3 in the Ryazan Region.\n6.  On 10 June 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder, and on 12 June 2004 he was charged with aiding and abetting murder under Articles 33 § 5 and 105 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n7.  On the same day (12 June 2004) the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ryazan (hereinafter “the District Court”) authorised the applicant’s detention pending investigation. The court noted that the applicant was suspected of having committed a particularly serious criminal offence and held that, if he remained at large, he might abscond from the investigation and the court and obstruct the establishment of truth in the case. On 22 June 2004 the Ryazan Regional Court (hereinafter “the Regional Court”) upheld the above decision on appeal.\n8.  On 6 August 2004 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 26 September 2004. The court reiterated that the applicant had been charged with a particularly serious criminal offence and that his position during the investigation gave grounds to believe that, if released, he might abscond and obstruct the establishment of the truth.\n9.  On 22 September 2004 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 26 November 2004. The court once again relied on the particular gravity of the charges against the applicant and the risk of his absconding and obstructing the establishment of the truth.\n10.  On 18 November 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant who in these proceedings was suspected of being involved in kidnapping and robbery under Articles 126 § 2 (a) and 161 § 2 (a) and (d) of the Criminal Code respectively. On the same day the two criminal cases against the applicant were joined.\n11.  On 24 November 2004 the proceedings concerning the charges of aiding and abetting murder were discontinued owing to lack of evidence and the charges were dropped. On the same day, charges of kidnapping and robbery were brought against the applicant following the investigation instituted on 18 November 2004 (see paragraph 10 above).\n12.  On 25 November 2004 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 December 2004. The court relied on the gravity of the new charges against the applicant and the applicant’s previous criminal record, which characterised him as a person prone to unlawful conduct. On 7 December 2004 the Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal.\n13.  On 8 December 2004 the District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 26 January 2005. The court relied on the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the risk of his absconding from the investigation.\n14.  Upon receipt of the case file, on 1 February 2005 the District Court scheduled the opening date of the trial and extended the applicant’s detention until 1 August 2005 with reference to the gravity of the charges and the risk of the applicant’s absconding from the court.\n15.  At the end of the trial, on 20 May 2005 the prosecutor dropped the charges of robbery, following which the District Court convicted the applicant of kidnapping and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. However, on 14 July 2005 the Regional Court quashed the above judgment on appeal and remitted the case for retrial. The court held that the preventive measure should remain unchanged.\n16.  On 12 August and 13 October 2005 the District Court, referring to the gr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8096", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Žrnovica.\n6.  On 7 August 2003 the applicant’s wife, in the ninth month of pregnancy, gave birth to a stillborn child at Split Clinical Hospital (Klinički bolnički centar Split), a publicly owned health institution.\n7.  After the birth the applicant and his wife did not want to take their child’s remains, so the hospital assumed the responsibility for the body.\n8. An autopsy carried out in the hospital on 18 August 2003 showed that the child had died as a result of gestational complications.\n9.  On 13 October 2003 the hospital disposed of the child’s body together with other clinical waste (human tissue and amputated body parts). The clinical waste was taken by the hospital’s contractor, company L., to the Zagreb cemetery for cremation.\n10.  Soon afterwards the applicant and his wife started to enquire about their child’s burial, but were unable to obtain any specific information.\n11.  On 2 June 2004 the applicant and his wife brought a civil action against the hospital in the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu), seeking damages for distress caused by the manner in which it had disposed of their child’s body. They argued that they had given their consent to an autopsy and burial of their child, but the hospital had failed to show that they had performed the burial and to inform them where it had taken place.\n12.  The hospital raised the defence that they had acted in accordance with section II of the Ministry of Health’s Instructions on the Disposal of Clinical Waste, allowing them to dispose of the child’s body together with other clinical waste.\n13.  At a hearing on 24 November 2004 the court heard evidence from pathologist Š.A., who carried out the autopsy of the child’s body. He explained that in situations in which parents did not want to assume responsibility for the body of their stillborn child, the hospital was required by law to treat the body as clinical waste and to dispose of the remains by cremation or burial. He further explained that before concluding the contract with company L. in 2002, the hospital had buried bodies of stillborn babies in a communal grave. Company L. had then suggested cremating the bodies rather than burying them, because the communal grave had been full. The applicant’s child’s remains had therefore been packed together with other clinical waste and taken to the Zagreb cemetery for cremation. The applicant’s wife disputed Š.A.’s version of events, arguing that Š.A. had first told her that her baby had been buried. Š.A. replied that he had initially thought that to be the case, not finding out until later what had actually happened.\n14.  Another hearing was held on 1 February 2005, at which a nurse from the hospital, M.K., gave oral evidence. She testified that after the child’s body had been taken to the pathology department, she had spoken to the applicant who had told her that he wanted the hospital to bury his child. She had seen the applicant on another occasion, and he had told her that he did not want to assume responsibility for the funeral. When the applicant had again approached her to ask where the burial had taken place, she had told him that his child had been buried in the communal grave, although she had not been sure, but in any event she had considered cremation in the communal grave to be a form of burial. The witness also expressed her regret that the applicant might have been under the impression that the child would be bur", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8097", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 21 November 1991 the Chuvash Christian mission “Voice of Truth” was registered as a religious organisation under the RSFSR Religions Act of 25 October 1990. It belonged to the Pentecostal movement of the Christian faith.\n5.  On 24 November 1998, in connection with the enactment of a new Religions Act of 26 September 1997, the organisation was renamed the Biblical Centre of the Evangelical (Pentecostal) Christians of the Chuvash Republic (Библейский Центр Чувашской Республики Христиан веры евангельской (пятидесятников)).\n6.  Under paragraph 2.2 of the organisation’s articles of association, one of the activities of the Biblical Centre was the establishment of educational institutions for training clergymen, organising conferences and seminars and lecturing. To that end the Biblical Centre had the right to found institutions of professional religious education, spiritual educational institutions, including Sunday schools for youth and children, and to establish non-commercial organisations pursuing educational aims (paragraph 2.3 of the articles).\n7.  On 20 January 1996 the Biblical Centre founded the Middle Volga Biblical College and a Sunday school, which were not registered as legal entities.\n8.  The Sunday school did not have any organised structure as such. It was held once a week as a means of keeping the children of parishioners occupied while the adults attended the religious service. Parents took turns to spend time with the children, to read and discuss the Bible with them. The school was free of charge and did not employ any staff.\n9.  The Biblical College recruited students from religious organisations belonging into the same Pentecostal denomination but located in different regions of Russia. Students were trained as evangelical attendants, pastors, preachers, missionaries, Sunday school teachers, preceptors, biblical signers for the deaf, and youth leaders. The subjects taught at the College included theology (dogma), exegesis (interpretation of religious texts), homiletics (the study of preparation and delivery of sermons), apologetics (defence of the Christian faith), history of Christianity, basics of pedagogy, theory of music, memorisation, and others. Upon completion of a training course, students obtained a document, referred to as a “diploma”, which certified training in particular subjects. Education at the College was free of charge.\n10.  In April and May 2007 the Novocheboksarsk town prosecutor, together with the Novocheboksarsk Fire Inspection Service and the Consumer Protection Service, conducted an inspection of the applicant organisation’s premises with the declared aim of verifying its compliance with the requirements of the legislation on education, freedom of conscience and religious associations. The grounds for the inspection were not revealed.\n11.  On 2 May 2007 the town prosecutor requested the director of the Biblical Centre to provide, within two days, detailed information about the activities of the Sunday school and Biblical College, including a list of subjects taught and the names of the teachers and all students, both past and present.\n12.  On 10 May 2007 the State Fire Inspection Service issued a formal note establishing the following violations of fire safety regulations:\n(a)  the windows of the premises were equipped with solid metal bars;\n(b)  an automatic fire alarm with smoke detectors was not installed;\n(c)  fire-safety signs were absent.\n13.  By letter of 11 May 2007, the Consumer P", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8098", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 10 April 2006 a group of seven people living in the Dokuzparinskiy District of Dagestan, a mountainous region close to the border with Azerbaijan, posted a written notice informing the district authorities that on 25 April 2006 they would hold a public demonstration in the village of Usukhchay. The applicants’ names were not mentioned in the list of organisers of the demonstration. The principal aims of the demonstration were to criticise the work of the head of the local administration, Mr A., to denounce corruption and the misuse of public funds by the local administration, and to draw attention to the inactivity of the law-enforcement agencies vis-à-vis abuses committed by Mr A. and his colleagues. The demonstration was supposed to be held in a recreational park in the village of Usukhchay from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.; the estimated number of participants was 5,000. The organisers asked the police to dispatch officers for the protection of those participating in the demonstration. Although the applicants’ names were not in the notice, they claimed that they had played an active part in the organisation of the meeting in their respective communities.\n6.  The notice (уведомление) was sent to the district administration with copies to the Dokuzparinskiy district prosecutor and the head of the district police department. The applicants produced a copy of a payment slip from a post office in Makhachkala indicating that the notice had been posted by registered mail on 10 April 2006. It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that the notice was received by the district administration on 17 April 2006.\n7.  On 17 April 2006 the head of the district administration, Mr A. – the same person who was the principle target of the criticism by the demonstrators – informed the organisers that the district administration was opposed to the demonstration. In his letter of 17 April 2006 Mr A. said that, first, the notice had been lodged (подано) outside the time-limit fixed in the Public Gatherings Act. Secondly, the park in Usukhchay was not supposed to admit more than 500 people, so it was impossible to hold a demonstration there. Thirdly, the purpose of the demonstration was to condemn the embezzlement of public funds and the deliberate destruction of financial records by the district administration. However, according to Mr A., the competent law-enforcement authorities, in particular the prosecutor’s office, and financial authorities such as the Ministry of Finance of Dagestan, had already inquired into those allegations and concluded that there had been no case to answer. The letter also contained a warning addressed to the organisers that if they proceeded with the demonstration as planned, they would be held liable in accordance with the law.\n8.  At about 4 p.m. on 19 April 2006, a group of men armed with iron rods and sticks attacked another group of individuals near the village of Khiv. Two persons were injured. Having received information about the clash, the Derbent police dispatched a group of officers to the scene. The police set up an improvised roadblock near the “Gereykhanov Sovkhoz” (Kasumkent village) to check the passing cars and prevent further clashes. A few hours later a group of about 300 people armed with wooden sticks, iron rods and similar objects arrived at the roadblock in several cars without licence plates. The police stopped those cars. According to the authorities, the second applicant then climbed onto th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8099", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1928 and 1930 respectively and live in Sofia.\n6.  The applicants were acknowledged as heirs to their father’s rights over a plot of land of 1,219 square metres situated by the sea coast in the area around Sozopol, acquired in the 1930s pursuant to legislation allocating agricultural land to refugees. In the 1950s the authorities considered the land abandoned and later on, in the 1960s, entered it in the register of state‑owned property. During the same period the municipality of Stara Zagora took over the use of the land and constructed a student summer camp, which, at the time, consisted of two solid-construction buildings and twenty-two wooden bungalows. The buildings were entered into the register of state-owned property in 1964. At the time of the events in the present case the camp consisted of three solid-construction buildings and twenty-six wooden bungalows, spread over 17,705 square metres of land, which included the plot claimed by the applicants (see paragraph 7 below). During the domestic proceedings discussed below the municipality of Stara Zagora alleged that they had had an agreement with the Sozopol municipality (in the area of which the land was situated) for exchange of land in their respective regions.\n7.  In 1991, following the enactment of the Agricultural Land Act (“the ALA”), the applicants applied for the restitution of the land. In a decision of 20 October 1997 the Sozopol agricultural land commission held that the land was to be restored in its “actual boundaries”. The commission did not comment on the existence of any buildings or other construction on the plot, referring to it as “an abandoned plot covered with perennial weeds” adjoining a student summer camp. The municipality of Stara Zagora did not participate in those proceedings.\n8.  On 10 April 1998 the land commission issued an act formally transferring possession of the plot to the applicants on the basis of the above decision. On 22 July 1998 the applicants obtained a notary deed (констативен нотариален акт). However, they did not assume actual possession of the land, which remained occupied by the student camp.\n9.  Referring to instructions from the Minister of Agriculture and unspecified decisions by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture, on 1 March 1999 the Sozopol land commission reversed its earlier decision concerning the same property and refused to restore to the applicants 879 square metres of the land, which formed part of “the Stara Zagora summer camp”.\n10.  The applicants applied for judicial review, arguing that the decision of 1 March 1999 was unlawful as it was issued in the absence of new circumstances or evidence which could permit amendments to the decision of 20 October 1997, and that for this reason it should be quashed.\n11.  On 26 July 1999 the Burgas District Court quashed the decision of 1 March 1999. It found that it had not been open to the land commission to re-examine the matter and upheld the commission’s earlier decision of 20 October 1997 holding that the applicants were entitled to have the 879 square metres of land restored “in actual boundaries”. The District Court further held that, based on the evidence before it, the applicants were entitled to the restitution of the land, no evidence having been presented to it to establish that any lawful construction works within the meaning of section 10(7) of the ALA (see paragraph 31 below) had been carried out prior to that Act’s entry into force.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8100", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Adrian Richart Zamfirachi, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  At the time of the events the applicant was a lawyer registered with the Bucharest Bar Association.\n7.  On 23 April 2010, the National Anticorruption Department (“the NAD”) asked the Bucharest Court of Appeal to place the applicant in pre‑trial detention for twenty-nine days on charges of organising a criminal group (constituirea unui grup infracţional) and trading in influence (complicitate la cumpărare de influență). At the hearing the applicant asked the court to note, inter alia, that he had been taken before the court handcuffed by a single pair of handcuffs to a co-accused.\n8.  By an interlocutory judgment delivered on the same date, which was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 26 April 2010, the Bucharest Court of Appeal granted the NAD’s request.\n9.  At a hearing of 23 August 2010 before the Bucharest Court of Appeal, the applicant argued, inter alia, that he had been brought to the hearings and presented to the public and press handcuffed to a co-accused. He also claimed that the conditions of his pre-trial detention were degrading.\n10.  By an interlocutory judgment delivered on the same date, the Bucharest Court of Appeal found that the applicant could lodge a complaint about the conditions of his pre-trial detention under Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences with the post-sentencing judge, who was competent ratione materiae to examine his submissions.\n11.  On 26 October 2010 the applicant brought proceedings against the Codlea Prison authorities before the post-sentencing judge, complaining, inter alia, that he had been unlawfully restrained in public and when being taken before the domestic courts.\n12.  By an interlocutory judgment of 1 November 2010 the post‑sentencing judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint. He held that according to the relevant legal provision detainees had to be restrained during their transfer from the transport vehicle to the court-house cells and from the court-house cells to the courtrooms when passing through public areas. Consequently, when the applicant had attended hearings before the Braşov Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation he had been restrained only during his transfer from the transport vehicle to the court-house cells and from the court-house cells to the courtroom when he had been passing through public areas. The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n13.  By a final judgment of 18 January 2011, the Braşov District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It held that the applicant had been lawfully handcuffed. The measure had been necessary because of the route taken, which was a public route, had been applied only for that segment of the transfer, and had been proportionate to the potential danger the transfer represented for the safety of the public, the applicant and the escort. The same treatment was applied to any detainee in a similar situation. The applicant’s public exposure in handcuffs had been a consequence of his detention and not the result of an abuse of power by the prison authorities. Therefore, the applicant had not been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment.\n 14.  In a letter of 30 November 2011 the applicant informed the Court that when he had learned about the criminal investigation opened against him, and his potential pre-trial detention, he had informed the press about it and had asked to speak to the prosecutor inves", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8101", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Ljubljana.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 2 September 2009 the applicant stopped her car on the road in front of a school to let her children get out of the car. At that time, during a regular control, police officer S. found that the applicant had failed to use the seat-belt. The next day, the applicant allegedly approached S. and started insulting her. S. asked the applicant to follow her to the police station but the applicant refused to do so. Then S. requested the applicant to present her identity card which the applicant also refused to do. On the same day, S. issued a penalty notice against the applicant for not using the seat-belt, indecent behaviour, failure to comply with a public official’s lawful order and failure to submit identity papers. The fine amounted to 991.12 euros (EUR).\n7.  On 22 October 2009 the applicant filed a request for judicial review in which she submitted that on 3 September 2009 she was at home and she was not the person that S. dealt with.\n8.  On 15 September 2010 the Ljubljana Local Court heard S. According to the applicant, she was not informed of the hearing.\n9.  On 16 September 2010 the Local Court rejected the request for judicial review on the basis of S.’s statement. Moreover, it held that the applicant had failed to submit any evidence in support of her application.\n10.  On 11 October 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal challenging the Local Court’s findings of fact. Moreover, she complained that she had not been heard.\n11.  On 2 November 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal as inadmissible.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8102", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Split.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s father-in-law was granted a specially protected tenancy on a flat at Teutina 1, Split. However, since that flat was derelict, in 1983 he was granted a specially protected tenancy on another flat, at Kvaternikova 1, also in Split. The same year the applicant’s father-in-law, his wife, the applicant’s husband, the applicant and their child moved into the flat in Kvaternikova street. Another child was born in 1984.\n7.  The applicant’s parents-in-law renovated the first flat in Teutina street and moved back into it in 1985. The applicant, her husband and their children continued to live in the second flat in Kvaternikova street. They paid the rent and all bills. On 3 June 1991, Parliament enacted the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act (Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo), which regulated the sale of publicly owned flats previously let under a specially protected tenancy. In general, the Act entitled the holder of a specially protected tenancy on a publicly owned flat to purchase it under favourable conditions of sale.\n8.  In 1994 the applicant’s husband died and she continued to live in the same flat with her two children.\n9.   It recognises a special category of lessees, those who were previously holders of specially protected tenancies on privately-owned flats. Such a category is, according to the Act, subject to a number of protections, such as an obligation for the owners to contract a lease for an unlimited period of time, the payment of a so called “protected rent”, the amount of which is to be prescribed by the Government, and strictly limited reasons for termination of the lease. This Act abolishes the specially protected tenancy as such.\n10.  The applicant’s father-in-law died in 1998. In 2000 the applicant’s mother-in-law bought the first flat.\n11.  On the basis of the Specially Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act, the applicant requested that the Town of Split, as the owner of the flat she occupied, conclude a contract for the sale of the flat between the owner as the seller and herself as the buyer. Since the owner declined her request, on 7 November 2000 the applicant brought a civil action in the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) seeking a judgment in lieu of the contract of sale.  She subsequently also sought recognition of her status of a protected lessee. On 23 November 2007 the Town of Split lodged a counter-claim, arguing that the applicant had no legal basis for occupying the flat and seeking her eviction.\n12.  On 30 June 2009 the Split Municipal Court dismissed the applicant’s claims on the ground that she had never acquired a specially protected tenancy or any other right on that flat and therefore had no legal basis for occupying the flat. The Municipal Court accepted the counter claim and ordered the applicant’s eviction.\n13.  That judgment was upheld on appeal by the Split County Court on 25 August 2010.\n14.  On 19 September 2012 the Supreme court declared inadmissible an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant. It found that the legal issues raised therein were not important for ensuring the uniform application of the law and equality of citizens within the meaning of section 382(2) of the Civil Procedure Act.\n15.  On 8 March 2011 and 3 December 2012 the applicant lodged two constitutional complaints, whereby she argued that she had moved into the flat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8103", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Kaspiysk, the Dagestan Republic. She worked as chief accountant in the finance department of Kaspiysk Town Council (“the Kaspiysk finance department”) from 29 September 1980 until her dismissal on 25 January 1993.\n5.  On 13 May 1993 the applicant challenged the lawfulness of her dismissal. She also requested her reinstatement and salary arrears for the period of her enforced absence from work (вынужденного прогула).\n6.  By a final judgment of 21 September 1993 the Sovetskiy District Court of Makhachkala (“the Sovetskiy District Court”) ordered the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Dagestan to reinstate the applicant in the position she had held in the Kaspiysk finance department on 25 January 1993, and to pay her salary arrears in the amount of 364,708 Russian roubles (RUB), corresponding to the period of her enforced absence from work, that is from 25 January to 21 September 1993. As regards the applicant’s reinstatement, the judgment was subject to immediate enforcement.\n7.  On 20 October 1993 the Ministry of Finance issued an order to reinstate the applicant in her previous position. On 1 November 1993 the Kaspiysk finance department issued the relevant order and the applicant returned to work. The salary arrears awarded by the judgment of 21 September 1993 were paid to the applicant in December 1993 or February 1994.\n8.  On 7 February 1994 the applicant resigned. She subsequently alleged that she had written her resignation letter under pressure.\n(a)  First examination of the case\n9.  On 13 May 1994 the applicant brought a court action against the Kaspiysk finance department complaining of the delay in the execution of the judgment of 21 September 1993. On 10 December 1996 the applicant lodged additional claims.\n10.  On 27 December 1996 the Kaspiysk Town Court of the Republic of Dagestan (“the Town Court”) rejected all the claims lodged by the applicant. The Town Court found it established that the judgment of 21 September 1993 had been executed, the applicant had been reinstated to her position and the sum due under that judgment had been paid to her in December 1993.\n11.  On 26 February 1997 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan quashed the judgment of 27 December 1996 and remitted the case for fresh examination. The Supreme Court indicated that the lower court had failed to establish whether the applicant had received the full amount of money due under the judgment of 21 September 1993 and whether she had the right to indexation.\n(b)  Second examination of the case\n12.  The applicant amended her claims on 21 May, 25 June, 14 November and 17 November 1997. She indicated that she had received the sum of RUB 317,734 under the judgment of 21 September 1993, but complained that the Sovetskiy District Court had miscalculated her salary arrears because it had not taken the indexation into account. She also asked for salary arrears from 21 September 1993 to 7 February 1994 and for the period in which delivery of her work record had been delayed.\n13.  On 28 November 1997 the Town Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part. In particular, it stated as follows:\n“[T]he court has established that in accordance with the judgment of the Sovetskiy District Court of Machachkala, Palacheva P.G. received in December 1993, together with her salary and holiday pay, RUB 364,708 minus RUB 43,327 of income tax and 1% deduction for pension fund in the amount of RUB 3,647 = RUB 317,734. This is", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8104", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Murmansk.\n6.  The applicant brought proceedings against the Murmansk Regional branch of the Pension Fund (“the initial respondent”) seeking to have his pension recalculated in view of the fact that he worked in the Far North of Russia and had become entitled to preferential conditions of retirement. The applicant relied on the provisions of the 1993 Act on Guarantees and Compensations for Persons Working and Residing in the Far North (“the Far North Act”). The respondent authority disagreed, stating that provisions of the Pensions Act (in force as of 1 January 2002) were to be applied and that those provisions did not contain any basis for the requested increase.\n7.  On 10 June 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Murmansk (“the District Court”) granted the applicant’s claim and found that the Far North Act remained in force and was applicable to the dispute at stake. The court ordered the Murmansk Regional Department of the Pension Fund to recalculate his pension in accordance with the preferential conditions and to pay him the arrears for the period from 1 January 2002 to 30 June 2002 in the amount of 1,642.64 Russian roubles (RUB) and to further recalculate his pension in line with the applicable provisions of the pensions law, that is to increase it at a time and a half rate.\n8.  The respondent authority appealed, arguing an incorrect application of the domestic law. On 30 October 2002 the Murmansk Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment.\n9.  On 27 January 2003 the respondent authority requested the district court to modify the way of execution, arguing that the Oktyabrskiy District Department of the Pensions Fund was a due authority to enforce the judgment.\n10.  On 12 February 2003 the initial respondent claimed suspension of the enforcement proceedings pending determination of the request.\n11.  On 13 February 2003 the District Court granted the request.\n12.  On 19 February 2003 the same court ordered that the judgment was to be enforced by the Oktyabrskiy District Department of the Pensions Fund (“the District Department”).\n13.  On 6 March 2003 the District Department challenged the above decision. On 10 April 2003 the Murmansk Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Ruling of 19 February 2003.\n14.  On 21 January 2003 the bailiffs’ service recovered RUB 1,642.64 from the District Department. The payment order erroneously defined the purpose of the payment as “reimbursement of the transportation expenses”. The District Department challenged the recovery as unlawful, referring to the error in the documents. On 29 April 2003 the judicial award in the amount of RUB 1,642.64 was paid to the applicant.\n15.  On 24 September 2003 the bailiffs’ service fined the head of the District Department for the failure to comply with the judgment in the applicant’s favour. The head of the District Department challenged that decision. According to the Government, on 22 December 2003 the District Court adjourned the enforcement proceedings pending determination of a dispute until 7 April 2004. It appears that the proceedings were resumed after that date. The Government did not provide copies of the respective documents.\n16.  On 29 January 2004 the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation reviewed constitutionality of certain legal provisions concerning calculation of the pensions and clarified how to apply the law.\n17.  On 25 June 2004 the District Court granted the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8105", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and is now serving his sentence in a correctional colony in the Chelyabinsk region.\n6.  On 14 March 2002 the applicant was arrested and charged with double murder and attempted murder.\n7.  During the trial the applicant was represented by State-appointed counsel, Mr A.\n8.  On 8 October 2003 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court, in a trial by jury, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-five years and eleven months’ imprisonment.\n9.  The applicant appealed, unassisted by counsel. He submitted, in particular, that he had acted in self-defence and asked for reduction of the sentence from murder to manslaughter.\n10.  On 8 December 2003 the applicant was notified that the appeal hearing would be held on 23 January 2004. According to the Government, his counsel, Mr A., was also informed by telegram of the date of the appeal hearing.\n11.  On 23 January 2004 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation held an appeal hearing. The applicant and the prosecutor were present. Counsel Mr A. did not attend. According to the applicant, he had asked for replacement counsel to be appointed for him. According to the Government, no such request had been made. On the same day the court upheld the conviction and reduced the sentence to twenty-five years and five months’ imprisonment.\n12.  In April 2004 the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no. 16/9 in Omsk, where he remained until January 2005.\n13.  On 8 April 2004 the Court sent the applicant at his request the text of the Convention, an application form together with the explanatory note, an authority form, and the notice to applicants. On 6 May 2004 the letter was received by the Chelyabinsk remand centre where the applicant had been previously held. It was opened, stamped, and then transferred to colony no. 16/9 in Omsk.\n14.  According to the applicant, on 6 July 2004 a deputy head of the Omsk Department of Execution of Sentences had summoned him and strongly advised him not to submit an application to the Court. Immediately after this conversation he had been put in a disciplinary cell for eight days. According to the Government’s account, it was the applicant who had asked for a meeting with the official. At the applicant’s request, the official had explained to him the procedure for applying to the Court. He had not made any threats. The applicant had then been put into a disciplinary cell for having sent a letter through informal channels instead of sending it via the detention facility’s administration.\n15.  On 10 July 2004 the Court’s letter of 8 April 2004 was received by the staff of colony no. 16/9 and was opened and stamped. According to the applicant, he had received the covering letter of 8 April 2004 and the text of the Convention on 15 July 2004. The other enclosures and the envelope had not been given to him. According to the Government, all the enclosures had been handed over to the applicant on 10 July 2004.\n16.  On 23 June 2004 the applicant sent an improvised application form to the Court.\n17.  The applicant stated that on 9 August 2004 he had been summoned by the head of correctional colony no. 10 in Omsk, who had issued the threat that if he did not stop complaining, he would regret it. According to the Government, it was the applicant who had asked for a meeting with the head of the correctional colony. No threats had been made to the applicant during the meeting.\n18.  On 18 August 2004 the applicant was temporarily", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8106", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Žalec.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 4 May 2008, the applicant lost control over his motorcycle on a bend by, allegedly, failing to adjust his speed to the road conditions. Consequently, he was severely injured.\n7.  On 29 July 2008 the police sent the applicant a penalty notice fining him 460 euros (EUR) and six penalty points for failing to adjust his speed according to the road conditions under Section 30 (5) of the Road Traffic Safety Act.\n8.  On 1 August 2008 the applicant lodged a request for judicial review. He argued that he had not exceeded the speed limit since he had been driving together with his friends during a Sunday trip and the bends on the relevant part of the road prevented a speed which exceeded the speed limit. In this regard, B. and G., who were driving behind him with their motorcycles, could confirm that he had not exceeded the speed limit. Firstly, in his view, the road could have been covered with sand, as it was the end of the winter time. Secondly, he argued that the road could have been slippery. Whatever the nature of the obstacle on the road, it was that obstacle that caused the traffic accident. In his further submissions he stressed again that he had been driving within the speed limit. He further drew attention to the fact that a sign should have been installed earlier, considering that many accidents involving motorcycles had happened in the past on that road. According to the applicant, one or two days after the accident a slippery road sign had been installed. Therefore, he requested the hearing of the responsible person of the Slovenian Roads Agency. Finally, he pointed out that he was a careful and experienced driver who had followed several trainings on road security.\n9.  On 20 May 2009 the Slovenske Konjice Local Court rejected the applicant’s request without holding a hearing. On the basis of the police record of the scene visit, the sketch of the road accident, the notice of the applicant’s physical injury, the penalty notice and the request for judicial review it held that the applicant had been driving carelessly. According to the police findings of fact, the accident happened on a sharp bend with poor visibility due to a forest embankment. Moreover, the road was divided by a solid line. The Local Court held that the applicant should have expected a slippery road and the presence of sand but he failed to adjust his speed accordingly. It further considered that the applicant’s complaints related only to exceeding the speed limit, an offence with which he was not charged. The Local Court did not comment on the applicant’s request for a hearing.\n10.  On 24 August 2009 the applicant proposed to the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office to file a request for the protection of legality.\n11.  On 21 September 2009 the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office notified the applicant that it would not use this legal remedy, having found no violation of a legislative provision.\n12.  The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal and a petition for a review of the constitutionality and legality of the Minor Offences Act (hereinafter referred to as “the MOA”).\n13.  On 22 June 2011 the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional appeal and the petition as inadmissible. On 18 July 2011 this decision was served on the applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8107", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 2000 the applicant fled Russia and travelled to Turkey following the alleged killing of his father and brother by Russian security forces.\n7.  On 25 October 2010 he was arrested at Atatürk International Airport in Istanbul, following an identity check, on the ground that he had entered Turkey illegally and possessed no passport. He was placed in custody at the police station in the airport.\n8.  On 26 October 2010 the applicant was questioned by a police officer at Atatürk International Airport police station. He stated that he had entered Turkey in 2000 through the Sarp border crossing on the Georgian border using his birth certificate and that he had never possessed a passport.\n9.  On 1 November 2010 the applicant was transferred to the Kumkapı Removal Centre.\n10.  On 17 February 2011 the applicant met with his lawyer, Mr A. Yılmaz, who also represented him during the proceedings before the Court. There is no information in the case file regarding the scope of their meeting, nor is it clear whether this was the applicant’s first meeting with his lawyer.\n11.  On 13 April 2011 the applicant met with another lawyer, Mr F. Amca. The lawyer indicated in his meeting notes that the applicant had not yet filed an asylum request at that point. He further noted that the applicant had caught flu three to four months before, but had not sought any treatment and was still suffering from it. It appears from the lawyer’s notes that at the end of the meeting the lawyer advised the applicant to speak to the officers in charge at the removal centre about his asylum request and his health problems.\n12.  On 18 April 2011 the applicant applied for asylum.\n13.  On 21 April 2011 the applicant’s lawyer, Mr A. Yılmaz, sent a letter to the General Security Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior by standard post complaining that the applicant was being detained unlawfully and requesting his release. In the letter he also brought the applicant’s health issues to the authorities’ attention and requested medical assistance. According to the information provided by the parties, the letter reached the Ministry of the Interior on 2 May 2011.\n14.  In the meantime, on 29 April 2011, the applicant was released from detention and granted an asylum-seeker certificate. He was instructed to reside in the Sakarya province pending the determination of his asylum request.\n15.  On 30 April 2011 the applicant went to a private clinic in Istanbul complaining of a cough and fatigue. He was diagnosed with an infection of the lower respiratory tract on the basis of a chest X-ray examination. He was prescribed a ten-day course of antibiotics and was asked to return to the clinic for a check-up at the end of that period. It is not clear whether the applicant did return to the clinic for his check-up.\n16.  On 9 June 2011, as his symptoms persisted, the applicant went to the Süreyyapaşa Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Training and Research Hospital in Istanbul. Further medical tests conducted at the hospital revealed that the applicant was suffering from tuberculosis pleurisy. He received in-patient treatment at the hospital until 15 June 2011. On being discharged, he was advised to apply to a tuberculosis clinic for follow-up treatment. The applicant has not provided any information regarding his state of health or the treatment he received following his discharge.\n17.  The applicant claimed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8108", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1981 and 1980 respectively and live in Burgas.\n6.  On the morning of 4 March 2007, while the applicants and a third person, Mr V., were in a hotel in Stara Zagora, the police entered their room and arrested Mr V., whose name was on a national list of wanted persons.\n7.  At around 4 p.m. on the same day, when the two applicants were back in their hotel room, several police officers entered and searched the room. The applicants were taken to a police station, where they were questioned for about ten minutes on what business had brought them to Stara Zagora. No records were taken of the interviews.\n8.  At around 6 p.m. the applicants were presented with written orders for their twenty-four-hour detention, drawn up under section 63(1)(1) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Act (“the MIAA”, see paragraph 25 below). The orders merely referred to section 63(1)(1) and to the Criminal Code provision concerning theft. They did not mention any factual grounds justifying a suspicion that the applicants had committed an offence.\n9.  Upon being presented with the orders, the applicants stated that they wished to telephone a lawyer. The first applicant indicated the name and telephone number of his lawyer. According to the applicants, their lawyers were not contacted by the police and when, nonetheless, their relatives contacted another lawyer and he arrived at the police station the following morning, he was not allowed to see them.\n10.  While in custody, the applicants were not questioned further or summoned for any other reason. They were released at 5.15 p.m. on 5 March 2007.\n11.  On 9 August 2007 the applicants applied for judicial review of the detention orders of 4 March 2007, pointing out that the orders did not refer to any factual circumstances justifying a suspicion against them.\n12.  In the course of the ensuing two sets of proceedings the police stated that the applicants had been arrested because they had been with Mr V., whose name was on a list of wanted persons and who, during his initial questioning, had not explained in a satisfactory manner what the three of them had been doing in Stara Zagora. In addition, on unspecified dates there had been several thefts in the city, which appeared to have been committed by persons coming from elsewhere. The applicants had already been suspected of having committed other thefts. Accordingly, it had been necessary to question them in order to verify what they had been doing in Stara Zagora and whether they had alibis. In addition, the police explained that it had been necessary to check “in detail” the applicants’ involvement in the thefts, because they had been behaving “rudely, arrogantly and in manifest disrespect of the set rules”.\n13.  In two judgments dated 31 October 2007, containing largely identical reasoning, the Stara Zagora Administrative Court found that the detention orders were lawful. It considered that the reference to the Criminal Code provision on theft amounted to an indication of the relevant factual circumstances, and that the police had held sufficient information to justify a suspicion of a criminal offence. Moreover, the detention had served the legitimate purpose of “facilitating the carrying out of a police check-up unhindered”.\n14.  In addition, the Administrative Court found that the applicants’ complaints that they had not had access to a lawyer were irrelevant, as they did not concern the lawfulness of the detention orders but merely ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8109", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The circumstances of the case are analogous to those described in Maggio and Others v. Italy (nos. 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, 31 May 2011).\n6.  In 1995, by means of the Dini reform, Italy changed its pension system from a retributive one, which applied the remuneration-based (“retributivo”) method of calculation, to a contributory one, where the amount received in pension was dependent on the contributions paid.\n7.  Mr Cataldo, who had transferred to Italy the contributions he had paid in Switzerland, requested the INPS to establish his pension in accordance with the 1962 Italo-Swiss Convention on Social Security (see Relevant Domestic Law and Practice below) on the basis of the contributions paid in Switzerland for work he had performed there between 1956 and 1994. As a basis for the calculation of his pension (in respect of the average remuneration of the last ten years), the INPS employed a theoretical remuneration (“retribuzione teorica”) instead of the real remuneration (“retribuzione effettiva”). The former resulted in a readjustment on the basis of the existing ratio between the contributions applied in Switzerland (8%) and in Italy (32.7%), which meant that the calculation had as its basis a pseudo-salary which amounted to approximately a quarter of the salary actually received by the applicant and therefore led to a reduction in the pension itself.\n8.  Consequently, in 2006 Mr Cataldo instituted judicial proceedings, contending that this was contrary to the spirit of the Italo-Swiss Convention.\nVarious individuals in the same position had done the same and had been successful, the domestic courts having determined that persons having worked in Switzerland and who had subsequently transferred their contributions to Italy should benefit from the remuneration-based pension calculations, on the basis of the wages earned in Switzerland, irrespective of the fact that the transferred contributions had been paid at a much lower Swiss rate.\n9.  Pending the proceedings, Law no. 296/2006 (see Relevant Domestic Law and Practice below) entered into force on 1 January 2007.\n10.  By a judgment of the Lecco Tribunal (Labour and Welfare Section) of 27 February 2008, filed in the relevant registry on 6 May 2008, the court rejected Mr Cataldo’s claim in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006.\n11.  Mr Cataldo did not appeal, deeming it to be futile given that the impugned law had been considered legitimate by the Constitutional Court in its judgment of 23 May 2008, no. 172 (see Relevant Domestic Law and Practice below), which other courts were then bound to uphold.\n12.  Mr Maggioni, who had transferred to Italy the contributions he had paid in Switzerland, requested the INPS to establish his pension in accordance with the 1962 Italo-Swiss Convention on Social Security on the basis of the contributions paid in Switzerland for work he had performed there between 1965 and 2000. As a basis for the calculation of his pension (in respect of the average remuneration of the last ten years), the INPS employed a theoretical remuneration (“retribuzione teorica”) instead of the real remuneration (“retribuzione effettiva”). The former resulted in a readjustment on the basis of the existing ratio between the contributions applied in Switzerland (8%) and in Italy (32.7%), which meant that the calculation had as its basis a pseudo-salary which amounted to approximately a quarter of the salary actually received by the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8110", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Jan Grzona, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Radom.\n5.  On 1 February 1993 the applicant and his wife lodged a motion with the Radom District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) for dissolution of co-ownership of a civil association (zniesienie współwłasności spółki cywilnej) and for division of its property (podział majątku spółki cywilnej). One M.J. was also a co-owner and a party to the proceedings. A petrol station was a subject of the civil association’s business activity.\n6.  On 19 April 1994, during a hearing, the District Court allowed a motion for an expert report on the value of the property to be provided by an accountant. The report was submitted on 20 February 1995.\n7.  On an unspecified date M.J. submitted additional documents that were later included in the expert’s report. The applicant complained before the district court that M.J. forged the documents and that the expert report should be rejected.\n8.  As a result of the allegations, the prosecution service opened criminal proceedings against M.J.\n9.  On 30 April 1996 the Radom District Court stayed the civil proceedings for the dissolution of co-ownership and the division of its property pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against M.J.\n10.  The criminal proceedings against M.J. were terminated on 14 December 2001 by a final judgment of the Radom Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). M.J. was found guilty of submitting forged documents to the court in the civil proceedings in question.\n11.  On 16 May 2002 the applicant lodged a motion to resume the civil proceedings.\n12.  On 20 September 2002 the District Court resumed the proceedings. The case file received a new number (V GNs 3/02).\n13.  On 1 October 2003 a new expert report on expenses incurred by co‑owners of the association was submitted to the domestic court.\n14.  On 2 February 2004 the Radom District Court delivered a decision (postanowienie). The court granted the ownership of the property to M.J. and his spouse and ordered M.J. to pay the applicant and his wife an equivalent of their share in the property.\n15.  Both parties appealed. On 29 July 2004 the Radom Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case.\n16.  On 13 October 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s motion for another expert report on the evaluation of the property and the parties’ shares in the company. The report was submitted to the court on 25 July 2006.\n17.  On 28 November 2006 the Radom District Court delivered a second first‑instance decision, granting the ownership of the petrol station to M.J. and his spouse and ordered him to pay to the applicant and his wife an equivalent of their share in the property in ten instalments.\n18.  The applicant appealed. In the course of the appeal proceedings the applicant lodged a motion for an additional expert’s report. The report was submitted on 4 June 2007.\n19.  On 19 October 2007 the Radom Regional Court merely changed the wording of the decision of 28 November 2006 and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s appeal.\n20.  On 28 May 2008 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to examine the applicant’s cassation appeal.\n21.  On 16 February 2009 the applicant lodged a claim for damages under Article 417 of the Civil Code. He sought a finding that the State Treasury was liable for damage caused to him by the domestic courts which had conducted the civil proceedings in his case for an unreasonably long time. He further soug", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8111", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are agricultural firms operating in northern and/or disadvantaged areas in Italy as defined in the relevant Italian laws.\n6.  In the 1980s the Italian legislator instituted a series of norms to favour economic activity in general and, more specifically, agricultural activity.\n7.  More precisely, Article 1(6) of Law no. 48 of 1988 (Legislative Decree no. 536 of 30 December 1987) (see “Relevant domestic law”, below) provided a concession (fiscalizzazione), namely, that as of 1 January 1987 the State would bear a portion of the contributions paid by employers in the agricultural sector for the purposes of Article 31(1) of Law no. 41/48 in respect of each employee.\n8.  Furthermore, Article 9(5) of Law No. 67 of 1988 (Legge finanziaria 1988) (see “Relevant domestic law” below) introduced a system of exemptions (sgravi contributivi) in respect of payments for the purposes of premiums and contributions related to welfare and assistance. Such payments were due in the measure of 15% (later 30%) by employers in the agricultural sector in northern regions and 40% (later 60%) by employers in the agricultural sector working in disadvantaged agricultural zones in the south of Italy.\n9.  According to the applicant companies, Article 9(6) of Law No. 67 of 1988 (see “Relevant domestic law” below) indicated that the latter benefit was not alternative to the one provided for by Law no. 48 of 1988. That sub-article specified that for the purposes of the calculation of the exemption mentioned above, the concession was not to be taken into account. This, they considered, was also clear from the explanatory memorandum (scheda di lettura) to the law (see “Relevant domestic law” below).\n10.  Following further normative changes between 1988 and 1996, the burden to be taken over by the State amounted to the following:\na)  85,000 Italian lire (approximately 44 euros (EUR)) per employee for twelve monthly salaries;\nb)  a global 5.62 percentage points for exemptions in respect of contributions for the purposes of TBC (Tuberculosis), ENAOLI (Orphans of Italian Employees) and the SSN (National Health Service);\nc)  a global 4.92 percentage points for exemptions regarding the said contributions in respect of labourers and 5.02 percentage points for employees and directors, as from 1 June 1996.\n11.  Despite the law, by circular no. 160 of 18 July 1988 the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (“INPS”), an Italian welfare entity, considered that the two benefits (concession and exemption) could not be accumulated and had to be considered as alternative.\n12.  In fact, the applicant companies benefited only from the exemption (sgravi contributivi) and not from the concession (fiscalizzazione). They considered that this interpretation was contrary to what was provided for in the law.\n13.  Indeed, from as early as 1994 a number of agricultural firms (in particular Floramiata Spa) instituted proceedings (following administrative refusals) complaining about the matter, and consistent case-law in favour of the agricultural firms was established by the Italian courts, including the Court of Cassation. The applicant companies submitted that between 1997 and 2003 more than twenty-five first-instance judgments and more than five appeal judgments on the same subject matter had been delivered, together with two Court of Cassation judgments (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”, below) finding in favour of the agricultural firms.\n14.  In this light, in 2000", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8112", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The circumstances of the case are analogous to those described in Maggio and Others v. Italy (nos. 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, 31 May 2011).\n6.  In 1995, by means of the Dini reform, Italy changed its pension system from a retributive one, which applied the remuneration-based (“retributivo”) method of calculation, to a contributory one, where the amount received in pension was dependent on the contributions paid.\n7.  The applicants, who had transferred to Italy the contributions they had paid in Switzerland, requested the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (“INPS”) to establish their pensions in accordance with the 1962 Italo-Swiss Convention on Social Security (see Relevant Domestic Law and Practice below) on the basis of the contributions paid in Switzerland for work they had performed there over several years (see annexed table for details). As a basis for the calculation of their pensions (in respect of the average remuneration of the last ten years), the INPS employed a theoretical remuneration (“retribuzione teorica”) instead of the real remuneration (“retribuzione effettiva”). The former resulted in a readjustment on the basis of the existing ratio between the contributions applied in Switzerland (8%) and in Italy (32.7%), which meant that the calculation had as its basis a pseudo-salary which according to the applicants amounted to approximately a quarter of the salary actually received by them and therefore led to a reduction in the pension itself.\n8.  Consequently, in 2005/6 the applicants instituted judicial proceedings, contending that this was contrary to the spirit of the Italo-Swiss Convention.\nVarious individuals in the applicants’ position had done the same and had been successful, the domestic courts having determined that persons having worked in Switzerland and who had subsequently transferred their contributions to Italy should benefit from the remuneration-based pension calculations, on the basis of the wages earned in Switzerland, irrespective of the fact that the transferred contributions had been paid at a much lower Swiss rate.\n9.  Pending their proceedings, Law no. 296/2006 (see Relevant Domestic Law and Practice below) entered into force on 1 January 2007.\n10.  By a judgment of the Varese Tribunal (Labour and Welfare Section) of 23 September 2008 (no. 306/2008), these applicants’ claim was rejected in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006.\n11.  By a judgment of the Varese Tribunal (Labour and Welfare Section) of 7 October 2008 (no. 329/2008), these applicants’ claim was rejected in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006.\n12.  By a judgment of the Udine Tribunal (Labour and Welfare Section) of 7 October 2008, filed in the relevant registry on 8 October 2008 (no. 311/2008), these applicants’ claim was rejected in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006.\n13.  By a judgment of the Varese Tribunal (Labour and Welfare Section) of 26 November 2008, filed in the relevant registry on 9 December 2008 (no. 389/2008), these applicants’ claim was rejected in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006.\n14.  By a judgment of the Bergamo Tribunal (Labour and Welfare Section) of 17 September 2008 (no. 789/2008), these applicants’ claim was rejected in view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006.\n15.  By a judgment of the Como Tribunal (Labour and Welfare Section) of 15 June 2006, filed in the relevant registry on 30 June 2006, Mr Gagliardi’s and Mr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8113", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Riga. She is the mother of Mr Oļegs Petrovs (the applicant’s son), a Latvian national who was born in 1979 and who died on 29 May 2002.\n6.  On 26 May 2002 at approximately 7 a.m. the applicant’s son sustained very serious injuries in a car accident near Bauska. At approximately 8.45 a.m. he was taken to hospital in Bauska. Later, at 2.45 p.m., he was transferred to Riga’s First Hospital (Rīgas 1. slimnīca – “the Hospital”) – an entity that was registered as a “non-profit municipally-owned limited-liability company” (Rīgas pašvaldības bezpeļņas organizācija sabiedrība ar ierobežotu atbildību) at the material time – where surgery was carried out on his head. Following the operation his condition remained very serious; he remained in the emergency department of the Hospital (reanimācijas nodaļa) and did not regain consciousness.\n7.  At 11.50 p.m. on 28 May 2002 a call from the Hospital was received by the transplantation centre of Pauls Stradiņš Clinical University Hospital – an entity that was registered as a “non-profit State-owned joint stock company” (bezpeļņas organizācija valsts akciju sabiedrība) at the material time – providing information about a potential donor who was undergoing resuscitation. A coordinator from the transplantation centre, together with another doctor, went to the Hospital.\n8.  At 0.45 a.m. on 29 May 2002 the applicant’s son’s condition was noted in his medical record as being fatal. It was noted that medical resuscitation had been started. The death of the applicant’s son was recorded at 1.20 a.m. in his medical record at the Hospital.\n9.  Between 1.35 a.m. and 3.45 a.m. a laparotomy was performed on the body, in the course of which the kidneys and the spleen were removed for organ transplantation purposes. This operation was carried out by the transplantation centre’s transplant surgeon, urologist and operating nurse, in the presence of the coordinator and the Hospital’s resuscitation specialist. On the death certificate the time of death was recorded as 2.45 p.m. on 29 May 2002 (probably by mistake – see 15 below).\n10.  According to the applicant, during her son’s stay in the Hospital she was in permanent contact with the doctors there. On 29 May 2002, although her son’s condition was deteriorating, the applicant was not informed of it. She was also not asked whether her son had consented to being an organ donor and whether she would consent to organ transplantation in the absence of any wishes expressed by her son.\n11.  According to the Government, the Hospital did not have information on record providing the contact details of any relatives, and they had informed the police about the son’s hospitalisation by dialling the emergency telephone number for the police. It had therefore, not been possible to contact any relatives. In this regard the Government referred to information provided by the Hospital which stated that “given the fact that no telephone numbers of any relatives were recorded on the patient’s medical card ... there was apparently no contact with the applicant”.\n12.  On 30 May 2002, in the context of criminal proceedings against the person held liable for the car accident, a forensic (post-mortem) examination on the applicant’s son’s body was carried out. It was noted, inter alia, that on 29 May 2002 between 1.35 a.m. and 3.45 a.m. a laparotomy had been performed on the body. The applicant obtained a copy of the forensic report on 11 February 200", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8114", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Rīga Parish.\n7.  On 18 October 2001 the applicant, who was forty years old at the time, discovered that she was in the fifth or sixth week of pregnancy during a gynaecological examination at A. Hospital.\n8.  On Tuesday 15 January 2002, in her eighteenth week of pregnancy according to her medical notes (medical record no. 43), the applicant had an appointment with her gynaecologist, Dr L., at A. Hospital. The medical record notes that, during the appointment Dr L. issued a referral for the applicant to undergo an alpha-fetoprotein (“AFP”) test on the following Monday, 21 January 2002. The test checks the level of AFP in a pregnant woman’s blood as an indicator of potential foetal abnormalities. The applicant disputes the authenticity of medical record no. 43 and denies that any referral was made.\n9.  The applicant did not attend the appointment for the AFP test on 21 January 2002.\n10.  From February to June 2002 the applicant regularly attended appointments with Dr L. and her general practitioner.\n11.  On 5 June 2002 the applicant gave birth to a daughter with Down’s syndrome.\n12.  The applicant was discharged from hospital on 18 June 2002. She claims that a few days later she went to A. Hospital to obtain a copy of her medical records. She was given her medical records and made a copy at the hospital, before returning them. According to the applicant, her copy of medical record no. 43 contained no reference to the 15 January 2002 referral for an AFP test.\n13.  On 1 July 2002 the applicant complained to the Inspectorate for Quality Control of Medical Treatment (“the MADEKKI”) about the quality of the antenatal medical care provided by Dr L. In particular, she complained that Dr L. had failed to refer her for the AFP test, which would have indicated the risk of foetal abnormality.\n14.  On 2 July 2002 the MADEKKI requested A. Hospital to forward the applicant’s medical records.\n15.  On 15 July 2002 the MADEKKI interviewed Dr L. She explained that although the applicant had been referred for the AFP test on 15 January 2002, she had failed to attend because she had been hospitalised. Following her release from hospital there had been no point in carrying out an AFP test since she was by then in her twenty-first week of pregnancy. Dr L. referred to the fact that the applicant had been referred for a genetic consultation in her twenty-fifth week of pregnancy. Dr L. also explained that after the baby had been delivered, she had discovered that the applicant’s eldest son had a mental illness, a fact which the applicant had concealed during her pregnancy. The applicant had further concealed the excessive alcohol consumption of her partner and father of the child.\n16.  On 25 July 2002, having examined the applicant’s medical records and interviewed relevant doctors, the MADEKKI issued its opinion. It found that although the applicant had been referred for the AFP test, Dr L. had failed to ensure that the test was carried out. This failure was, it said, contrary to Ordinance No. 324 concerning antenatal and prenatal care (see paragraph 48 below). Dr L. was given an administrative fine of twenty-five Latvian lati.\n17.  On 29 July 2002 the MADEKKI informed the applicant of its finding that she had received antenatal medical care in accordance with national law, save that Dr L. had failed to ensure that she had undergone the AFP test. It noted that AFP screening results could neither confirm nor exclude ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8116", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are husband and wife. They were born in 1981 and 1987 respectively and live in Syktyvkar in the Komi Republic of Russia.\n7.  The first applicant, a Georgian national, arrived in Russia in 1999. On 4 May 2001 he received a first residence permit, which was subsequently extended at regular intervals.\n8.  The first applicant’s parents have lived in Syktyvkar since the early 2000s. His father and mother acquired Russian nationality in 2005 and 2008 respectively.\n9.  On 26 August 2011 the first applicant married the second applicant, a Russian national.\n10.  On 28 June 2012 the second applicant gave birth to a son.\n11.  On 14 November 2011 an operative officer of the Federal Service for Drug Control in the Komi Republic discovered that the first applicant had injected himself with desomorphine, a derivative of morphine known under the street name “krokodil”. An administrative case was instituted under Article 6.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“Use of narcotic substances without a medical prescription”) and the matter was referred to the Town Court.\n12.  On the following day the Syktyvkar Town Court found the first applicant guilty as charged and, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 6.9 concerning foreign nationals, fined him 4,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and ordered his administrative expulsion from Russia (the “expulsion order”).\n13.  Counsel for the first applicant appealed. He submitted that the penalty of expulsion was extremely severe given that the first applicant had lived in Russia for almost ten years, his wife, who was pregnant with their first child, was a Russian national and a majority of his relatives lived in Russia. In the lawyer’s opinion, the first applicant’s expulsion would destroy his family life.\n14.  On 1 December 2011 the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic rejected the appeal, upholding the first applicant’s conviction. On the alleged disruption of the first applicant’s family life, the Supreme Court pronounced as follows:\n“The representative’s argument to the effect that, in the light of Mr Gablishvili’s family situation, the Town Court had wrongly ordered his administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation cannot be taken into account as paragraph 2 of Article 6.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences provides for mandatory expulsion of the offender and is not an alternative to the main penalty which may take the form of either detention or a fine.”\n15.  On 24 April 2012 the first applicant paid the fine.\n16.  On 29 March 2008 the first applicant was issued with a five-year residence permit that was valid until 8 May 2013.\n17.  On 6 June 2011 the Komi Regional Centre for AIDS Prevention and Treatment notified the Komi division of the Federal Migration Service that the first applicant had been diagnosed with HIV.\n18.  On 10 June 2011 the Migration Service revoked the first applicant’s residence permit in accordance with section 9(1)(13) of the Foreign Nationals Act, which provided for the revocation of the residence permits of HIV-positive foreign nationals. The first applicant was informed of that decision on 9 November 2011 and ordered to leave Russia within fifteen days.\n19.  Counsel for the first applicant challenged the decision before a court, claiming that it amounted to a disproportionate interference with the first applicant’s family life and also put the first applicant’s life at risk.\n20.  On 28 February 2012 the Syktyvkar Town Court set aside the decision of 10 June 2011, o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8117", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 in the town of Kustanay, in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, a constituent member of the Soviet Union. From 1988 to 1990 he served in the Soviet Army in Vladivostok. In 1990 he enrolled as a student at the military academy in the town of Ryazan in Russia. When the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, Kazakhstan became an independent State. Under Kazakh law, all those who were permanent residents of Kazakhstan in 1991 acquired Kazakh citizenship. A similar law was enacted in the Russian Federation. In 1992 the applicant left the military academy and for personal reasons returned to Kazakhstan. He had a USSR passport and was married to a Russian woman.\n6.  In 1998 the applicant was convicted in Kazakhstan for armed robbery. According to him, he was wrongly accused and ill-treated by the investigating officers. He claimed that the conditions of his detention in Kazakhstan were very poor, that prison officials ill-treated him and other convicts, that he was subjected to discrimination as an ethnic Russian and that prison officials extorted money from him.\n7.  The applicant served part of the sentence in a prison and was later transferred to an “open colony”, where convicts could move around unguarded. In 2001, when he was on leave from the colony, he fled to Russia. He explains that he feared for his life and for the lives of his relatives. In Kazakhstan he was put on the wanted list.\n8.  Upon his arrival in Russia the applicant obtained a false Russian passport. He lived and worked in Russia under a false name using that passport. The applicant’s real identity was discovered in 2007; he was sentenced by a judge to a fine for forgery of an official document, but remained in Russia.\n9.  The applicant claims that he tried to regularise his residence status. In particular, he claims that he was eligible for Russian nationality, since in 1991 (when the law on Kazakh nationality was enacted) he had been residing in Russia, not Kazakhstan.\n10.  In 2007 the Kazakh authorities requested the extradition of the applicant to Kazakhstan. On 2 May 2007 the applicant was arrested and detained in Russia in connection with that request, but on 5 October 2007 he was released on the order of Judge K. No extradition followed.\n11.  It appears that some time later the Kazakh authorities renewed their request. On 28 February 2011 the applicant was detained again upon the orders of the Kaluga town prosecutor.\n12.  On 30 March 2011 the applicant challenged the detention order before the court. The case was received by Judge K. from the Sverdlovskiy District Court, who set the date of the first hearing for 8 April 2011.\n13.  At the hearing of 8 April 2011 the prosecutor challenged Judge K. on the ground that she had already participated in the examination of the applicant’s extradition case earlier, in 2007, when she had ordered his release. It is unclear whether the applicant or his lawyer objected to the replacement of the judge.\n14.  On 15 April 2011 Judge N. from the Sverdlovskiy District Court of Kostroma examined the applicant’s complaint and ruled that the prosecutor’s detention order of 28 February 2011 was unlawful. The District Court found that under Russian law a prison sentence handed down by a foreign court was not sufficient for a person to be detained without a detention order issued by a court in Russia. The District Court ordered the prosecutor to take measures in order to rectify the situation complained of.\n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8118", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lived in Balakliya.\n6.  On 7 October 2003 the applicant was admitted to hospital to undergo treatment for drug addiction.\n7.  On 11 October 2003, in the course of a police operation, an undercover police agent bought a certain amount of cannabis from the applicant when he was in hospital. After the sale was completed it was documented in the presence of two witnesses. The applicant was further searched and some additional quantities of the drug were seized.\n8.  On the same day the police officers arrested the applicant under Article 263 of the Administrative Offences Code for a violation of the drug circulation rules. Relying on the provisions of that Code, the police detained the applicant for three days pending the results of an expert examination of the seized drugs.\n9.  On 14 October 2003, upon receipt of the expert report confirming that the seized drug was cannabis, the investigator of the Kharkiv Region Police Department decided to arrest the applicant and detain him further under Articles 106 and 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering that the sale of cannabis in hospital constituted a crime under Article 307 § 2 of the Criminal Code. The applicant was questioned on that day.\n10.  On 15 October 2003 the police also opened criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 309 § 2 of the Criminal Code, noting that on 11 October 2003 they had seized some additional quantities of cannabis from him which he had transported to and kept in the hospital.\n11.  On 17 October 2003 the applicant was brought before the Leninskyy District Court of Kharkiv, which ordered his pre-trial detention as a preventive measure. The court noted that the charges against the applicant were serious, that he was not in employment and had committed crimes while being treated in a hospital. For these reasons the court concluded that the applicant might abscond from justice, obstruct the investigation, or reoffend.\n12.  On 18 December 2003 the criminal case file arrived at the Kominternivskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the first-instance court”) for the applicant to be tried.\n13.  On 26 December 2003 the first-instance court committed the applicant for trial. It decided that the preventive measure applied in respect of the applicant, namely, custody, should remain the same.\n14.  On 4 May 2004 the applicant requested the first-instance court to release him under a written obligation not to abscond.\n15.  On 9 June 2004 the first-instance court rejected the applicant’s request. The court noted that there had been no grounds to consider that the reasons justifying the earlier court decision of 17 October 2003 on the applicant’s detention were no longer valid. The applicant’s reference to the illness of his mother and the death of this father was not relevant. Likewise, his acknowledgment of guilt was irrelevant and could only be taken into account for mitigation of sentence.\n16.  On 23 December 2004 the first-instance court ruled that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should remain the same, without specifying the reasons.\n17.  On 10 March 2006 the local prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant’s allegations that his initial detention was unlawful.\n18.  On 27 April 2006 the applicant lodged a request to have the preventive measure changed. On the same day the first-instance court rejected the request as unfounded. The court noted that there w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8119", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are Jehovah’s Witnesses belonging to various congregations in Moscow. In 2004, the Moscow courts banned the local religious organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Moscow.[1]\n5.  In early 2006, the applicant Mr Krupko, acting on behalf of the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses, signed a rental contract with the Academy of Agriculture for the purpose of holding religious meetings in the academy’s assembly hall (актовый зал) twice a week. By the time of the events, the meetings had been being held for approximately ten weeks.\n6.  The most solemn and significant religious meeting for Jehovah’s Witnesses, their families and supporters, known as the annual celebration of the Memorial of the Lord’s Evening Meal, was scheduled to begin at approximately 8 p.m., after sundown on 12 April 2006. Around four hundred people, including the four applicants, gathered for the service.\n7.  At 8:50 p.m. police officers, led by the chief of the Lyublino police station, arrived in substantial numbers at the building. The building was cordoned off by the police units whose deployment included ten police vehicles, two minibuses, an armed unit of the Special Police Force (OMON) and dozens of other officers in uniform.\n8.  The police chief went on stage, took over the microphone and announced that the meeting was unlawful and that the participants were to disperse. Those in attendance complied with the order. The police officers segregated the male individuals from the rest of the group and made them stand in the corridor behind the hall. Fourteen male members of the congregation were escorted into the minibuses waiting outside. The police then proceeded to search the premises and took away a few boxes of religious literature and some documents from the notice board.\n9.  The applicants were brought to the Lyublino police station where they were placed in a holding room and collectively photographed. Their identity documents were taken away. Their lawyer, Mr S., was not allowed to visit them at the police station.\n10.  The applicants were released shortly after midnight.\n11.  On the following day, more than twenty press agencies, including a federal television channel, reported on the disruption of the service and the detention of participants.\n12.  The four applicants brought proceedings before the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow, seeking a declaration that the police had unlawfully disrupted a service of worship, removed religious literature, taken them to the police station, photographed and detained them and hindered the work of their counsel. They claimed compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage.\n13.  On 15 June 2006 the District Court gave judgment, making the following findings of fact:\n“It was established that the plaintiff[s] and approximately 400 fellow believers ... had gathered for a service of worship on 12 April 2006 in the assembly hall ... The service was stopped by police officers of the Lyublino police station who declared the meeting illegal and demanded that the hall be vacated. Mr Krupko, Mr Burenkov, Mr Solovyov and Mr Anorov were detained and escorted to the Lyublino police station to give statements.\nThese circumstances, including the curtailment of the religious service ... were confirmed by the representative of [the Lyublino police station]. His arguments that the plaintiffs were not detained, but went of their own accord, are unfounded. The fact of detention is corroborated by the testimonies of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8120", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Both applicants were born in 1938 and live in the city of Lugansk and in the town of Zhovti Vody, Ukraine, respectively.\n6.  Both applicants have the special status of “a child of war” (see paragraph 17 below). From 1 January 2006 they were entitled to a special supplement to their pensions in the amount of 30% of the minimum pension in accordance with section 6 of the Children of War Social Protection Act (Закон України “Про соціальний захист дітей війни”).\n7.  In May 2008 the first applicant instituted court proceedings against the Artemovskyy District Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine and the Lugansk Regional Main Department of the State Treasury of Ukraine, asking them to recalculate his pension for 2006-08, to determine the amount of and to pay him the outstanding indexed debt, and to pay his pension in the recalculated amount in the future. The first applicant also claimed compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and legal expenses.\n8.  On 22 July 2008 the Lugansk Regional Administrative Court held that in 2006 section 6 of the Children of War Social Protection Act had been suspended by the State Budget Act 2006. In return the State Budget Act had empowered the Cabinet of Ministers to set up a mechanism for a pension increase. However, because in 2006 no such mechanism had been set up, the first applicant’s claims relating to 2006 had to be rejected.\n9.  The court further found that in 2007 section 6 had again been suspended, and in 2008 it had been modified by the State Budget Acts for the relevant years. However, this modification was found to be unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court on 9 July 2007 and 22 May 2008. The court consequently held that the State Pension Fund should recalculate the first applicant’s pension for the periods between 9 July and 31 December 2007 and as of 22 May 2008.\n10.  On 19 December 2008 the Donetsk Administrative Court of Appeal upheld that decision.\n11.  On 28 July 2010 the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.\n12.  In December 2009 the second applicant instituted proceedings in the Zhovtovodsky Town Court against the Pension Fund, asking for recalculation of his pension from January 2006.\n13.  On 2 March 2010 the court found in part for the second applicant. It held that the second applicant was entitled to the supplement from the date of the decision of the Constitutional Court (9 July 2007) and not from 1 January 2006. The court further held that the Pension Fund should recalculate the second applicant’s pension for the periods between 9 July and 31 December 2007 and between 22 May 2008 and 2 March 2010.\n14.  On 10 August 2010 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. The decision of the Court of Appeal was final.\n15.  On 14 February 2011 the second applicant instituted a second set of proceedings in the Zhovtovodsky Town Court claiming payment of the above-mentioned supplement to his pension starting from 3 March 2010.\n16.  On 17 May 2011 the court found for the second applicant and held that the Pension Fund should recalculate the applicant’s pension from 3 March 2010. On 14 October 2011 the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal upheld this decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8121", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1975 in the Andijan Region of Uzbekistan.\n7.  The applicant first arrived in Russia in November 2008. In summer 2009 he applied for Russian nationality using a false name and a forged Kyrgyz passport. His application was granted on 16 March 2010.\n8.  On 31 July 2009 an investigator from the National Security Service of Uzbekistan issued a decision to charge the applicant with membership of the extremist organisation Nurchilar (also spelled Nurcilar) and possession and dissemination of extremist literature, offences under Articles 244-1(3) and 244-2(1) of the Uzbek Criminal Code. A search warrant was issued on the same date. On 5 August 2009 the Unus-Abad District Court ordered the applicant’s arrest.\n9.  On 22 February 2013 the applicant was arrested in Omsk and charged with using a false identity document to cross the Russian border. Once his real identity had been established, he was detained pending extradition proceedings. On 26 February 2013 the Isilkul Town Court of the Omsk Region imposed a custodial preventive measure, which was subsequently extended on 22 March and 22 April 2013 until 22 June 2013.\n10.  On 22 March 2013 the Russian Prosecutor General’s office received an extradition request from his Uzbek counterpart. The request stated that the applicant was wanted in Uzbekistan in connection with his membership of an extremist organisation, an offence under Article 244-1(1) of the Uzbek Criminal Code.\n11.  On 23 May 2013 the Isilkul town prosecutor lifted the custodial measure that had been imposed in the extradition proceedings. The extradition was adjourned until such time as the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charge of using a false document had been completed.\n12.  As of the date of the applicant’s most recent submission of 6 March 2014, he was not aware of the outcome of the extradition proceedings.\n13.  On 23 May 2013, immediately after the applicant’s release from custody, the Isilkul Town Court heard an administrative case against him on the charge of illegal residence in Russia, an offence under Article 18.8 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The Town Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a fine and administrative removal from Russia (“expulsion order”). Pending removal, he was to be held in the Centre for Social Adaptation for foreign nationals.\n14.  On 29 May 2013 the applicant asked the Court to apply interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to prevent his expulsion to Uzbekistan. The Court granted his request on 31 May 2013.\n15.  On 11 June 2013 the Omsk Regional Court summarily rejected the appeal against the Town Court’s expulsion order of 23 May 2013.\n16.  In the meantime, on 6 June 2013 an investigator with the border control department of the Federal Security Service for the Kurgan and Tyumen Regions had the applicant transferred from the Centre for Social Adaptation to the Kazanskoye police ward in the Tyumen Region pending the criminal proceedings against him on the charge of using a false passport.\n17.  On the following day the Kazanskiy District Court of the Tyumen Region issued a detention order against the applicant and he was placed in remand prison IZ-72/2 in the Tyumen Region.\n18.  On 17 September 2013 the Kazanskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of using two false passports and of illegally crossing the Russian border, and sentenced him to a fine. He was released in the courtroom.\n19.  On 27 March 2013,", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8122", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first and second applicants were born in 1965 and 1955 respectively. The third and fourth applicants were born in 2000. They all live in Maisons-Alfort.\n7.  The first and second applicants are husband and wife. They were unable to have a child of their own because the second applicant is infertile.\n8.  After a number of unsuccessful attempts to conceive a child using in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with their own gametes, the first and second applicants decided to undergo IVF using the gametes of the first applicant and an egg from a donor with a view to implanting the fertilised embryos in the uterus of another woman. Accordingly, they went to California, where the process is legal, and entered into a gestational surrogacy agreement.\nThe applicants specified that, in accordance with Californian law, the “surrogate mother” was not remunerated but merely received expenses. They added that she and her husband were both high earners and therefore had a much higher income than the applicants and that it had been an act of solidarity on her part.\n9.  On 1 March 2000 the surrogate mother was found to be carrying twins and, in a judgment of 14 July 2000, the Supreme Court of California, to which the first and second applicants and the surrogate mother and her husband had applied, ruled that the first applicant would be the “genetic father” and the second applicant the “legal mother” of any child to whom the surrogate mother gave birth within the following four months. The judgment specified the particulars that were to be entered in the birth certificate and stated that the first and second applicants should be recorded as the father and mother.\n10.  Twins – the third and fourth applicants – were born on 25 October 2000 and their birth certificates were drawn up in accordance with the terms stated above.\n11.  In early November 2000 the first applicant went to the French consulate in Los Angeles to have the particulars of the birth certificates entered in the French register of births, marriages and deaths and the children’s names entered on his passport so that he could return to France with them.\n12.  The applicants stated that many French couples in their situation had previously succeeded in carrying out that procedure. The consulate rejected the first applicant’s request, however, on the grounds that he could not establish that the second applicant had given birth and, suspecting a surrogacy arrangement, sent the file to the Nantes public prosecutor’s office.\n13.  As the US Federal Administration had issued US passports for the twins on which the first and second applicants were named as their parents, the four applicants were able to return to France in November 2000.\n14.  In December 2000 a preliminary investigation was carried out at the request of the public prosecutor’s office.\n15.  In May 2001 an investigation was commenced against a person or persons unknown for acting as intermediary in a surrogacy arrangement and in respect of the first and second applicants for false representation infringing the civil status of children.\n16.  On 30 September 2004, in accordance with the submissions of the Créteil public prosecutor, the investigating judge gave a ruling of no case to answer on the ground that the acts had been committed on US territory, where they were not classified as an offence, and therefore did not constitute a punishable offence in France.\n17.  In the meantime, on 25 November 2002, on the instructions of the public pro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8123", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Edineț. At the time of the events the applicant was working as a tax inspector at the Edineț tax authority.\n6.  On 17 February 2004 Z., the owner of a small shop, lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant. He stated that on an unspecified date he had visited the applicant for the purpose of de-registering his till and closing down his shop. When the applicant compared data in the till’s memory with the shop owner’s books, she found a discrepancy in the figures and told him that he risked incurring a fine. According to Z., the applicant implied to him that the matter could be resolved if he agreed to pay her an amount of money which she wrote on a piece of paper. Z. understood that the applicant was asking for a bribe.\n7.  On 17 February 2004, the police organised an undercover operation. They fitted Z. with a wire and instructed him to meet the applicant in her office and give her banknotes marked with special powder.\n8.  According to the transcript of the conversation between Z. and the applicant during the police operation, Z. was grateful to the applicant for helping him and offered her a reward, but the applicant refused to accept it. He insisted and asked the applicant “How much?” to which she answered “Nothing”. Z. continued to insist, and said “I do not want you to worry about this. How much?” The applicant did not answer. Z. insisted: “One, two hundred?” but the applicant refused again. Z. then said “At least fifty, please”. The applicant conceded, saying “It’s up to you”. Z. said “If it’s up to me, then at least fifty more”. The applicant said “A painting would be nice”. Z. asked “What painting?” The rest of the conversation is not clear because only Z.’s words are recorded in the transcript, while there is a blank space in respect of the applicant. However, it would appear from Z.’s statements that the applicant finally agreed to accept the money offered by him in order to buy a painting.\n9.  Immediately after that, police officers entered and arrested the applicant. They found 200 lei (MDL) (the equivalent of approximately 11 euros (EUR)) marked with special powder in the pocket of her coat, which was hanging in the next office.\n10.  In her statements to the police the applicant submitted that on 13 February 2004 Z. had gone to her office for the purpose of de-registering his till. She noted that the last entry in the till’s memory had not been reflected in the shop owner’s books and helped him solve the problem by asking a technician to remove the last entry from the till’s memory. On 17 February 2004 Z. went to her office and offered to pay for her help. She refused but as he kept insisting she eventually agreed to accept from him a painting for the office. After he left she saw MDL 200 on her table and ran after him to give them back; however, she could not find him. She returned to the office to call him on his mobile phone when police officers entered and arrested her. Subsequently, she changed her statements to the effect that after she had refused to take money from Z., on his way out Z. had placed the money in the pocket of her coat, which had been hanging in the next office. She also argued that she had been set up by the police.\n11.  In his statements to the police, Z. submitted that he had had a problem with his accounting because he had forgotten to reflect the last entry in the till in the books. Z. told the applicant that he was prepared to reward her for h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8124", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  All applicants were employed by Rudnik bakra Majdanpek, a copper mining company based in Majdanpek (“the debtor”).\n8.  Between 2001 and 2005 they all instituted separate civil suits against the debtor, seeking pecuniary redress on various grounds.\n9.  On 10 June 2002 the Majdanpek Municipal Court ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:\n(a)  the salary arrears due between 31 May 1998 and 20 July 2001, plus statutory interest;\n(b)  the pension, disability, health and other insurance contributions due for the same period; and\n(c)  his legal costs.\n10.  On 2 October 2002 the judgment became final.\n11.  Having only received payment of the amounts referred to under (b) above, on 17 December 2002 the first applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Majdanpek Municipal Court.\n12.  On 10 January 2003 the court accepted the first applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order. On 21 January 2004 the same court issued an additional order to the same effect.\n13.  On 18 January 2006 the enforcement proceedings were stayed.\n14.  In May 2011, following their resumption, the first applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour.\n15.  On 25 April 2002 the Majdanpek Municipal Court ruled in favour of the second applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:\n(a)  the salary arrears due between 1 November 1999 and 1 August 2000, plus statutory interest;\n(b)  the pension, disability, health and other insurance contributions due for the same period; and\n(c)  his legal costs.\n16.  On 19 June 2002 the judgment became final.\n17.  Having only received payment of the amounts referred to under (b) above, on 17 December 2002 the second applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Majdanpek Municipal Court.\n18.  On 10 January 2003 the court accepted the second applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.\n19.  On 18 January 2006 the enforcement proceedings were stayed.\n20.  In July 2011, following their resumption, the second applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour.\n21.  On 8 February 2001 and 7 February 2002, the latter following a brief reopening of the proceedings, the Majdanpek Municipal Court ruled in favour of the third applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him the salary arrears due between 1 April 1998 and 28 February 2000, plus statutory interest, as well as his legal costs.\n22.  By 12 April 2002 these judgments became final.\n23.  On unspecified dates, the third applicant filed separate requests for the enforcement of the above judgments before the Majdanpek Municipal Court.\n24.  On 19 June 2001 and 13 November 2003, respectively, the court accepted the third applicant’s requests and issued the enforcement orders.\n25.  On 20 February 2006 the enforcement proceedings were stayed.\n26.  In May 2011, following their resumption, the third applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour.\n27.  On 23 October 2001 the Majdanpek Municipal Court ruled in favour of the fourth applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him the salary arrears due between 1 December 1998 and 31 December 1999, plus statutory interest, as well as his legal costs.\n28.  By 22 November 2001 this judgment became final.\n29.  On 27 February 2002 the fourth applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Majdanpek Municipal Court.\n30.  On the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8125", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Suwanee, the United States of America (“the U.S.”).\n6.  In 1993 the applicant married D.B. in the U.S. state of Georgia. The couple both had American and Romanian citizenship. They had three children: A.H.B who was born on 25 March 1998, and twins, N.A.B. and P.N.B., who were born on 19 October 2000. The parents had joint custody of the children under U.S. law. They all lived in the U.S.\n7.  On 1 May 2007 the Superior Court of Forsyth County in the U.S. issued an injunction forbidding the applicant and his wife from removing their children or settling outside the jurisdiction of the said court without its express permission.\n8.  On 14 August 2008 the applicant signed a notarised form authorising his wife to leave the U.S. with their three children on 5 September 2008 for a short holiday to Romania on condition that she returned the children to the U.S. at the end of the holiday period.\n9.  The applicant’s wife failed to return the children to the U.S. and on 14 October 2008 she instituted divorce-and-custody proceedings against the applicant before the Braşov District Court in Romania.\n10.  On 19 December 2008 the applicant filed for divorce and custody of his children with the Superior Court of Forsyth County.\n11.  On 13 January 2011 the Superior Court of Forsyth County dismissed the applicant’s action for insufficient notice of the trial and lack of jurisdiction. It held that the divorce proceedings instituted by the applicant’s wife on 14 October 2008 were regulated under Romanian legislation. In addition, the Romanian jurisdiction applied to the two spouses because they were both Romanian citizens, held Romanian nationality and their children lived in Romania. The applicant appealed against the judgment.\n12.  On 14 December 2011 the Georgia Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 13 January 2011.\n13.  On an unspecified date the applicant submitted a request for the return of his three under-age children to the U.S., under Article 3 of the Hague Convention, to the U.S. Central Authority responsible for the obligations established by the Hague Convention. On 11 December 2008, the U.S. authority submitted the request to the Romanian Ministry of Justice. The applicant argued that his children had been unlawfully removed from U.S. territory by his wife, in breach of the joint-custody agreement between the spouses at the time of the removal.\n14.  On 12 December 2008 the Romanian Ministry of Justice contacted the applicant’s wife, informed her about the Hague Convention request lodged by her husband and asked her to express her position on a potential friendly settlement of the case and voluntary return of the children to the U.S.\n15.  On 14 January 2009 a private psychologist’s practice produced a psychological evaluation report concerning the applicant’s children. The report concluded based on tests and a psychological interview with the children that they were extremely affectionate; had a maternal fixation; had a need for safety, security and stability; they feared authority and unknown circumstances; felt anxiety in respect of the troubled family situation; wished to reject or quash any threat and had a defensive attitude. The report also noted that at the time of the examination the children were well balanced emotionally, were willing to communicate and cooperate, were expressive, adapted to the situation and willing to integrate and did not show any di", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8127", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, a medical doctor by profession, was born in 1967. She currently lives in Celje, Slovenia, having lived in Šabac, Serbia, at the material time.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 2 September 1997 the applicant and her neighbour P.V. confronted each other in front of their houses following a verbal conflict between P.V. and the applicant’s mother. While the applicant allegedly shouted obscenities at him, P.V. allegedly punched her in the face, causing her to fall down and lose consciousness. The medical records from the emergency ward showed that the applicant had sustained a number of injuries to her head. She was released from hospital the next day upon her own request.\n8.  On an unspecified date, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint (krivičnu prijavu) in respect of this event.\n9.  On 16 September 1997 P.V. and his wife brought a private criminal action (privatnu krivičnu tužbu) against the applicant for insult and defamation (zbog uvrede i klevete) and against both the applicant and her mother for making serious threats (zbog ugrožavanja sigurnosti).\n10.  On 2 March 1998 the Šabac Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment (optužnicu) against P.V. with the Šabac Municipal Court for the crime of severe bodily injuries (zbog nanošenja teških telesnih povreda).\n11.  On 20 March 1998 the Municipal Court joined the two sets of proceedings.\n12.  At some point in 2000 the applicant lodged a civil compensation claim within the criminal proceedings (istakla imovinsko-pravni zahtev).\n13.  Between 14 April 1998 and 31 May 2000 a total of thirteen hearings were held or adjourned.\n14.  At the hearing of 11 January 2000 a medical expert stated that, based on the available documentation, on 2 September 1997 the applicant had sustained a concussion as well as a contusion. She had also continued receiving medical treatment for another two months.\n15.  On 15 June 2000 the Municipal Court convicted both the applicant and P.V. as charged and sentenced them to a fine and four months imprisonment, respectively, both sentences suspended for a period of one year. The court instructed the applicant to pursue her civil claim in a separate civil suit. The applicant’s mother was acquitted.\n16.   On 20 June 2001 the Šabac District Court quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial, but upheld the acquittal.\n17.  On 12 January 2004 a new hearing was scheduled for 25 February 2004.\n18.  On 25 February 2004 the Municipal Court terminated the proceedings against the applicant as time-barred, while the proceedings against P.V. continued.\n19.  On 2 April 2004 the main hearing started anew due to changes to the composition of the bench. Following the applicant’s testimony, the proceedings were adjourned for an indefinite period, as the Municipal Court had to obtain certain missing medical documentation.\n20.  At the next hearing of 18 May 2005, the Municipal Court heard P.V., as well as three witnesses. The court further decided to request the Belgrade Forensic Medicine Institute to give its opinion as regards the applicant’s bodily injuries allegedly sustained at the material time. No new hearing was scheduled.\n21.  On 19 December 2005 the Municipal Court received the relevant medical opinion dated 16 September 2005. The opinion stated that the attack had caused the applicant severe bodily injuries (loss of consciousness, a concussion and a contusion of the zygomatic bone).\n22.  On an ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8128", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Mr Raycho Angelov Dimitrov, was born in 2000 and lives in Blagoevgrad. The second applicant, Ms Anita Rumenova Velyanova, was born in 1979 and lives in Sofia. The third applicant, Mr Raycho Dimitrov Dimitrov, was born in 1948 and lives in Blagoevgrad. The fourth applicant, Ms Adriana Georgieva Dimitrova, was born in 1950 and lives in Kyustendil.\n6.  The event which gave rise to their application was the death on 10 November 2005 of Mr Angel Raychov Dimitrov (alias Chorata), born in 1967 and living in Blagoevgrad, who died in the course of a police operation against him. Five police officers who took part in that operation were later investigated and tried on charges of aggravated murder. They were ultimately acquitted.\n7.  The first applicant is Mr Dimitrov’s son. The second applicant was Mr Dimitrov’s de facto spouse. The third and fourth applicants are Mr Dimitrov’s parents.\n8.  At the end of October 2005, following a high-profile assassination in Sofia, the Minister of Internal Affairs ordered a nation‑wide police operation whose aim was to trace and arrest persons who had committed serious offences. The Blagoevgrad police interviewed Mr Dimitrov in connection with that assassination; no link between him and the offence was established.\n9.  The carrying out of the Minister’s order on the territory of the Blagoevgrad region was organised by the head of the Blagoevgrad Regional Directorate of Internal Affairs. On 10 November 2005 he ordered six police officers to take part in a police operation between 6 p.m. on that day and 2 a.m. the following day. They were told to report for instructions at 6 p.m. In another decision the head of the Directorate’s organised-crime unit, Colonel A.K., ordered an operation against Mr Dimitrov, who was suspected of distributing narcotic drugs and pimping. According to the order, the operation’s goal was to establish, document and put an end to those activities. The plan of the operation was to establish Mr Dimitrov’s whereabouts and carry out urgent investigatory steps. The written plan specified that when making arrests, the police had to proceed with caution so as to avoid any risk to the life and health of arrestees and passers-by. The applicants submit that evidence given by police officers during the ensuing proceedings showed that, although this was not mentioned in the written plan, the police were anticipating resistance on the part of Mr Dimitrov. According to the plan, the officers who were to take part in the operation were split in three groups: one to find Mr Dimitrov and check for evidence of drug trafficking in his car, another to search a hotel run by his family with a view to uncovering evidence of drug trafficking and prostitution, and a third to search Mr Dimitrov’s home, again with a view to uncovering evidence of drug trafficking. There is no information in the case file – the applicants submitted that none had been gathered in the course of the ensuing criminal proceedings – about whether the officers who were to take part in the operation were briefed about the plan or about the exact instructions given to them. The written plan said that the actual operation was to begin at 8 p.m. and that the briefing was to begin at 8 p.m. as well; the Government submitted that the briefing had taken place at about 7 p.m.\n10.  The Government submitted that the identity of the person against whom the operation was directed was not revealed during the briefing with a view", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8129", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are all Russian nationals living in various regions of the Russian Federation. They obtained binding judicial decisions ordering the State authorities to provide them with housing or various services in kind, but the enforcement of those judgments was considerably delayed. Some of the judgments remain unenforced to date. The applicants’ individual circumstances are detailed below.\n9.  The applicant, Mr Mikhail Yefimovich Gerasimov, was born on 30 June 1927 and lived in Vladivostok, Primorskiy Region.\n10.  On 3 September 2002 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok ordered the town administration to conclude a contract for utilities with the applicant before 1 December 2002, and to repair the basement of the building he lived in in accordance with the sanitary regulations before the cold season. The judgment became final on 14 September 2002.\n11.  On 14 March and 17 May 2005 a commission composed of several members of the housing maintenance authority and residents inspected the basement and found it up to standard.\n12.  On the 27 July 2005 the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment, finding that the basement had been repaired as required.\n13.  On 19 July 2007 the Leninskiy District Court of Vladivostok clarified the judgment of 3 September 2002 with regard to the utilities to be supplied. The court specified that the applicant’s apartment had to be provided with heating, hot and cold water, wastewater services and a cleaning service for the communal area. The enforcement proceedings were resumed.\n14.  On an unspecified date, the town administration provided the applicant with a draft contract for the utilities but the applicant refused to sign it without giving a reason.\n15.  Considering their obligations under the judgment of 3 September 2002 to be fulfilled, the town administration requested that the enforcement proceedings be closed. The bailiffs refused.\n16.  On 17 October 2007 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok dismissed the administration’s complaint against the bailiffs’ refusal to close the enforcement proceedings.\n17.  On 11 December 2007 the Primorskiy Regional Court granted the administration’s appeal, finding that the latter had taken all possible measures to comply with the judgment of 3 September 2002.\n18.  The bailiffs accordingly closed the enforcement proceedings on 21 January 2008.\n19.  The applicant, Mr Andrey Gennadyevich Shmakov, was born on 30 October 1960 and lives in Yakutsk, Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya).\n20.  On 10 January 2002 the Yakutsk Town Court ordered the town administration to provide the applicant and his family with appropriate housing in Yakutsk, in accordance with the law, in lieu of his house, which had been demolished by the authorities in 2001. The judgment became final on 21 January 2002.\n21.  As the judgment had still not been enforced, in 2004 the applicant unsuccessfully sought a court order for the seizure of an apartment in a new block which had been built on the plot of land on which his former house had stood.\n22.  On 7 July 2004 the Yakutsk Town Court specified that the judgment had to be enforced by the mayor’s office of Yakutsk.\n23.  On 3 March 2010 the Yakutsk Town Court modified the method of enforcement, specifying that the judgment could be enforced by the payment of 1,653,264 Russian roubles (RUB) by the town administration. The applicant did not appeal against that judgment and received the monetary award on 1 July ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8130", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In 1994 the applicants’ father entered into a loan agreement with H.M.C., offering a mortgage on his immovable property, a building and the appurtenant land located in Osorhei as a guarantee.\n6.  On 3 June 1994, the mortgage was registered with the land registry.\n7.  As the applicants’ father did not reimburse the loan on the appointed day, his immovable property was sold at auction to a family, T.T.T. and T.T.S., on 31 May 1996.\n8.  The right of ownership of the successful bidders over the immovable property was entered in the land register.\n9. On 1 July 1996 the applicants’ father challenged the forced sale, seeking the annulment of the order for the sale of his immovable property. The proceedings were registered with the land registry on 5 January  1998.\n10.  Subsequently, on 30 December 1998 despite the pending proceedings regarding the annulment of the sale at auction, the buyers (T.T.T. and T.T.S.) sold the immovable property to another individual, S.R.\n11.  On 26 April 2000 the Oradea Court of Appeal allowed the applicants’ father’s action and consequently annulled the forced sale of the immovable property on the ground that the loan had been reimbursed and the price was considerably lower than the real value of the property. However, he could not obtain possession of the immovable property as meanwhile it had been sold to S.R.\n12.  Invoking the principle quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum, he lodged an action with the Oradea District Court seeking the annulment of the two sale agreements: the agreement by which T.T.T. and T.T.S. had acquired the immovable property at auction and the subsequent agreement concluded between T.T.T. and T.T.S and S.R.\n13.  During the proceedings, the applicants’ father died and he was replaced by the applicants as his heirs.\n14.  On 25 October 2001 the Oradea District Court dismissed the civil action on the ground that the last buyer, S.R., had acquired the immovable property in good faith.\n15.  The applicants lodged an appeal, claiming that S.R. had not bought the property in good faith. They submitted that S.R. had been aware of the proceedings initiated by their father for the annulment of the forced sale as they had been entered in the land register. The appeal was allowed by a decision of the Bihor County Court delivered on 22 May 2003 on the ground that the annulment of the forced sale should have resulted in the annulment of all other subsequent acts concluded by persons aware of the annulment.\n16.  On 8 April 2004 the Oradea Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on points of law lodged by the buyers on the ground that the last buyer, S.R., had entered into the contract in good faith. The reasoning of the appeal court concerning the buyer’s good faith reads as follows:\n“In the instant case, as can be seen from the contract itself, sworn before a public notary, the sale contract had been concluded a long time before its signing before the public notary, the price being fixed by the parties and paid in full on 9 October 1996; at that date there was no element from which it could be inferred that the buyer acted with fraudulent intent.”\n17.  The decision contained a dissenting opinion by one of the three judges, who maintained that even though the proceedings initiated by the applicants’ father for the annulment of the forced sale - and consequently the sale of his immovable property to T.T.T. and T.T.S. - had been entered in the land register on 5 January 1998, only on 30 December 1998 ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8131", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971. He is currently detained in Iaşi Prison.\n6.  On 8 February 2012 the applicant was detained pending trial on charges of human trafficking and was placed in the Bacău Police Department’s detention facility (Centrul de Reţinere şi Arestare Preventivă al Inspectoratului de Poliţie Judeţeană Bacău).\n7.  On 6 March 2012 he was transferred to Bacău Prison.\n8.  In his initial letters to the Court the applicant stated that in the Bacău Police Department’s detention facility he had been forced to sleep on the floor because there had been more detainees than beds. He was forced to eat without cutlery and sitting on the floor because the cell was unfurnished. In addition, he was not provided with a blanket and had to share the room with smokers even though he was a non-smoker.\n9.  In the same letters he also stated that in Bacău Prison he had had to sleep in overcrowded, flooded and damp cells infested with bed bugs, without furniture and on very old, smelly and lumpy mattresses without any bed linen, blanket or pillow. He was forced to eat sitting on the floor and was not provided with a broom or any cleaning products. The bathroom pipes and lavatories were defective and he had been splashed with waste from the pipes located on the ceiling. The rooms smelled and he could not sleep at night on account of the constant noise made by some detainees and their conversations with the women inmates detained in the same prison. Furthermore, he was forced on many occasions to eat spoiled food because there was no refrigerator. There was no access to natural light, nor any ventilation or opportunity to air the cells. The food was insufficient and poorly cooked. He was not allowed more than one hour of outdoor exercise per day and his health was affected because he had to share the cell with smoking detainees, even though he was a non-smoker.\n10.  The applicant was detained in cell no. 3 of the Bacau Police Department’s detention facilities. The cell measured 12.82 sq. m and contained four beds. During the first day of his detention the applicant shared the cell with three other inmates. For the remainder of his time in police custody he shared his cell with two other inmates.\n11.  The applicant was assigned a bed, and was provided with a mattress, a blanket and a pillow. The cell was also fitted with a window which ensured natural ventilation and light, a radiator for heating the cell and with air-conditioning. No other furniture was available in the cell.\n12.  On 16 September 2013 the Service for the Coordination of Pre-trial Detention Centers attached to the Romanian Police Inspectorate informed the Government that it would have been impossible to have separated smokers and non-smokers in the Bacău Police Department’s detention facility on account of the large number of smokers.\n13.  The applicant was detained in Bacău Prison from 6 March to 6 November 2012 and from 13 November 2012 to 2 April 2013.\n14.  The applicant was detained in several cells measuring 33.23, 32.09, 27.22, 35.81, 39.36, 18.52 and 27.05 sq. m, which he shared with a maximum number of six, two, fourteen, ten, ten, eight and eleven other detainees, respectively.\n15.  The cells had bathrooms, toilets and showers. They were fitted with windows for natural light and ventilation. The available furniture allowed the detainees to store their clothes and eat. The cells were also fitted with radiators, which were connected to the prison’s central heating syste", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8133", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n6.  The applicants live in the Vargashinskiy District, Kurgan Region. They are members of two families originally from Chechnya: the first and second applicants are married and the third to fifth applicants are their children; the sixth to seventh applicants are married and the eighth to tenth applicants are their children. The Antayev family (the first to fifth applicants; the first applicant family) have lived in the Kurgan Region since 1979; the Vashayev family (the sixth to tenth applicants; the second applicant family) have lived in the Kurgan Region since 1998.\n7.  The applicants submitted that attitudes towards the Chechen minority had worsened after 2000, when the second armed conflict in Chechnya had started.\n8.  On 8 March 2006 the third and eighth applicants had a fight with Mr A.B. in the settlement of Prosekovo. The third applicant was injured in the hand and Mr A.B. took him to the hospital. On 27 March 2006 the Kurgan regional forensic bureau noted knife wounds on the third applicant’s hand, which were classified as passing damage to health. According to the applicants, both parties to the conflict decided not to contact the authorities in this regard. As is apparent from subsequent questioning, the Antayev family had asked Mr A.B. to pay them 50,000 roubles (RUB) by way of compensation for their expenses, while Mr A.B. offered RUB 10,000.\n9.  In March 2006 the Vargashinskiy District Department of the Interior (ROVD) questioned Mr A.B. about threats to his life by the third and eighth applicants and opened criminal investigation file no. 388644 under Article 119, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (threat to life or health). It does not appear that anyone was charged or found guilty within this set of proceedings. In May 2007 Mr A.B. submitted a statement to the Court alleging that the police had used threats to force him to lodge a complaint against the first applicant family.\n10.  On 24 March 2006 the investigator in charge of the case issued urgent search warrants at both applicants’ families’ homes, referring to the possible presence of firearms. On 25 March 2006 that decision was found lawful by the district court.\n11.  On 24 March 2006 the first applicant family were at home at 4 Zarechnaya Street, in the Verkhnesuyerskoye settlement in the Vargashinskiy District. At about 1 p.m. three vehicles – a Gazel minibus, a black Volga and a VAZ-99 – arrived at their house. According to the applicants, about 20 men from various law-enforcement agencies got out of the vehicles. Some of them were wearing military uniforms and masks, others were dressed in civilian clothes. The applicants later identified Mr E.K. and Mr V.G. from the Regional Police Department for Combating Organised Crime (RUBOP), Mr. A.K., deputy head of the Vargashinskiy ROVD, Mr. N.P. and Mr U. from the Vargashinskiy ROVD. The RUBOP servicemen carried automatic weapons and hand pistols. Mr N.P. was in charge of carrying out the search.\n12.  According to the applicants, no search warrant or other document was produced by the police. The fourth and fifth applicants were in the courtyard; the policemen beat them there and said “Why don’t you go to Chechnya, to fight us there?”\n13.  The servicemen wearing masks and Mr E.K. entered the house. Mr E.K. grabbed the second applicant by the hand and pushed her towards the sofa in order to handcuff her; she fell to the floor and felt severe pain in her back. The first applicant was also punched i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8135", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Zaporizhzhya.\n6.  On 4 January 1994 the Leninskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya ordered the applicant’s former husband, S., to pay her child maintenance in respect of their daughter, who was living with the applicant.\n7.  According to a bailiff’s report of 24 January 2006, the outstanding arrears to the applicant at that date were 7,546 Ukrainian hryvnias ((UAH), at the time equivalent to about 1,200 euros (EUR)), of which UAH 2,052 (about EUR 330) was owed for 2005. The bailiff’s calculations were based on the average salary indicators in the district where S. lived, since he had been unemployed at the time.\n8.  On 1 April 2006 the same bailiff issued a fresh report, assessing the total amount of the arrears at 31 March 2006 at UAH 667.50. The sum owed for 2005 was assessed at UAH 480. The bailiff recalculated the earlier established amount on the basis of a tax return submitted by the applicant’s ex-husband for the last quarter of 2005, which showed that he had earned UAH 3,000 for that period. Viewed as his actual earnings for the whole year, that amount was lower than the average salary, which would have otherwise been taken as a basis for the arrears’ calculation.\n9.  On 4 April 2006 the report of 1 April 2006 was served on the applicant, who had ten days to challenge it.\n10.  On 11 April 2006 the applicant sought to challenge the accuracy of the report before the Khortytskyy District Court of Zaporizhzhya (“the Khortytskyy Court”).\n11.  On 24 May 2006 the Khortytskyy Court allowed her application and invalidated the impugned report as erroneous. It concluded that the bailiff had had no reasons to depart from the earlier calculation, since the tax return submitted by S. concerned only the last quarter of 2005. In the absence of any appeal, the ruling became final.\n12.  On 6 June 2006 the bailiff issued another report, according to which the outstanding child maintenance arrears owed to the applicant at that date were UAH 7,671 Ukrainian hryvnias, of which UAH 2,358 was owed for 2005.\n13.  On 29 June 2006 the bailiff reassessed the arrears owed by S. to the applicant, concluding that they were UAH 6,606 at 1 June 2006 (as S. had made some payments during that year), of which UAH 2,358 was owed for 2005.\n14.  On 19 October 2006 the Bailiffs’ Service terminated the child maintenance enforcement proceedings because on 2 October of that year the applicant’s daughter had reached the age of majority. The bailiff assessed the outstanding arrears at 2 October 2006 at UAH 8,637.32 (equivalent to about EUR 1,300 at that time); the sum owed for 2005 remained unchanged (UAH 2,358, equivalent to about EUR 330). Neither the applicant nor her former husband challenged this assessment.\n15.  On 26 January 2006 the applicant lodged a civil claim against S. for penalties to be imposed on him for late child maintenance payments. She relied on the bailiff’s report of 24 January 2006 (see paragraph 7 above).\n16.  On 16 March 2006 the court adjourned its hearing on the applicant’s request with a view to summoning the bailiff who had issued the aforementioned report. S. did not object to that, but submitted that he had requested recalculation of the arrears owed to the applicant.\n17.  On 3 April 2006 the Khortytskyy Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part and awarded her UAH 141.58 (about EUR 22) in penalties to be paid by her former husband. It based its calculation, in so far as the arrears for 2005 we", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8136", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant is a limited liability company with its registered seat in Brno. It owns a five-storey tenement house in Brno, which it bought in 1994 for 1,450,000 Czech korunas (CZK 52,920[1] euros (EUR)). There is a shop on the ground floor and one flat on each remaining floor. In three of these four flats the rent was regulated. The rent in those three flats was CZK 2,037 (EUR 74), CZK 2,007 (EUR 73) and CZK 1,392 (EUR 50.80) respectively per month. The monthly rent for the fourth flat was fixed at CZK 5,200 (EUR 190).\n7.  On 10 February 2004 the first applicant sued the State for damages in the amount of CZK 229,563 (EUR 8,378) corresponding to the difference between the regulated rent and the usual rent in the given area as estimated by the first applicant for the period between February 2002 and end of January 2004.\n8.  On 22 December 2004 the Prague 1 District Court (obvodní soud) dismissed the first applicant’s action. It held that it was not possible to award damages under the State Liability Act since failure to enact deregulating legislation could not be qualified as an “incorrect official procedure” within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, the adoption by the Ministry of Finance of decrees nos. 01/2002 and 06/2002 could not be qualified as an incorrect official procedure either.\n9.  On 28 February 2006 the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) dismissed an appeal by the first applicant. It held that the impossibility of reaching an agreement on deregulating legislation in Parliament could not be qualified as an “incorrect official procedure” within the meaning of the State Liability Act. The court added that in respect of the period from February 2002 to 20 March 2003 rents had been regulated by Government Decree no. 567/2002.[2] Although that decree had subsequently been repealed by the Constitutional Court, the latter’s judgments were not of retroactive effect and thus previous contractual relationships remained unchanged. Accordingly, there was no legal basis for compensation for that period.\n10.  On 24 October 2007 the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the first applicant. It found that the legislative procedure in Parliament could not be described as an “administrative procedure” under the State Liability Act and that it was impossible to engage liability on the part of the State for the result of voting in Parliament.\n11.  On 27 November 2008 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) dismissed a constitutional appeal lodged by the first applicant as manifestly ill-founded, holding that actions for damages against the State had a subsidiary character and that the applicant company should have started by bringing an action for rent increase.\n12.  The applicant owns a tenement house in Prague consisting of eleven flats and three non-residential premises. The application concerns seven of these flats for which the applicant collected regulated rent in the total amount of CZK 398,196 (EUR 14,533) for the period between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2004 while the usual rent in the given locality would have amounted to CZK 1,757,160 (EUR 64,130) according to an expert report commissioned by the applicant. The applicant and his sister acquired the house under the restitution law in 1992. The applicant’s sister later transferred her share to the applicant.\n13.  On 4 January 2005 the applicant sued the State for damages in the amount of CZK 1,358,964 (EUR 49,597) corresponding ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8137", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Chastoozerye, the Kurgan Region, Russia.\n6.  The applicant and his family are of Chechen ethnic origin. They live in the Chastoozerskiy district of the Kurgan Region (also called Chastoozerye). According to the applicant, at the time of the events in question the population of the Chastoozerye district constituted about 6,000 persons, of whom about 50 were of Chechen origin.\n7.  The applicant submitted that attitudes towards the Chechen minority had worsened after 2000, when the second armed conflict in Chechnya had started. Two Russian nationalist organisations were particularly active in the Region: Russian National Unity (RNE) and Russian National Cultural Autonomy (RNKA).\n8.  It appears from the applicant’s statements and other documents that prior to 18 May 2002 there was a conflict between individuals involving Chechens. This was perceived by some as mounting ethnic tension in the district. In particular, the applicant claimed that a resident of Kurgan, Mr A.I., the manager of a sausage factory in Chastoozerye, and Mr S.K., a boxing coach from Chastoozerye, had invited the Chechen community and some nationalist Russian groups to meet to “settle the dispute” on 18 May 2002. Pursuant to a statement of 3 June 2006 given by Mr D.A., who calls himself “the spiritual leader of the Chastoozerye Chechens”, on 18 May 2002 he had transmitted this information to the district prosecutor and the head of the administration in order that measures could be taken with a view to maintaining law and order (see below).\n9.  In the afternoon of 18 May 2002 a group of police officers was deployed on the main road of Chastoozerye, near the sausage factory. At about 5 p.m. this group stopped the applicant’s car, in which there were also two other Chechen men from Chastoozerye, Mr S.-A.B. and Mr U.B. Their vehicle was inspected, together with their documents. The car then proceeded to Mr S.-A.B.’s house at no. 28 Marx Street.\n10.  At about 5.30 p.m. three cars – a white and a red VAZ 2110 and a Moskvich 2115 – passed the same police officers and stopped in front of the house. About fifteen men, including Mr S.K., got out of the cars and invited the applicant and Mr U.B. to get into the cars and accompany them. When they refused, one of the men shot the applicant in one knee, and then in the other knee, with an airgun. They then beat the two men with baseball bats, as a result of which the applicant’s right arm was broken.\n11.  The applicant was left on the road in front of Mr S.-A.B.’s house, while Mr U.B. was forced into the Moskvich and driven to the sausage factory. There was a crowd of up to 70 men there, including the manager Mr A.I.; they beat Mr U.B. with metal rods, baseball bats and pipes. During the beatings the crowd shouted nationalist and anti-Chechen slogans. The police eventually intervened and set Mr U.B. free. Later the same day the applicant and Mr U.B. were taken to the local hospital by Mr D.A. The applicant did not submit any medical documents to the Court, but the criminal investigation (see below) cited two forensic expert reports describing his and Mr U.B.’s injuries.\n12.  It appears that other incidents not involving the applicant directly took place later that day in Chastoozerye. A group of men of Chechen ethnic origin remained in the forest near the village; in the early hours of 19 May 2002 the police rounded them up and found weapons and home-made explosive devices. This group wa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8138", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Velikiye Luki, Pskov Region.\n6.  On an unspecified date the regional police department for combating organised crime opened a criminal investigation into the activities of an organised group involved in a series of residential burglaries and car thefts in Pskov Region. The applicant was suspected of acting as a coordinator and go-between for the group. In the course of the investigation of the group’s activities, on 25 June 2007 the Pskov Regional Court authorised the tapping of the applicant’s telephone, a search of his home and the interception of his communications for a period of six months.\n7.  On 10 August 2007 the police intercepted the applicant’s mobile phone communications with T. which they conducted while they were stealing a Lada car in the settlement of Dedovichi, Pskov Region. The car belonged to the President of the Dedovichi District Court. An official investigation into the car theft was opened on 13 August 2007. On 8 December 2007 the investigation was suspended, as the perpetrator(s) could not be found.\n8.  On 27 March 2008 the police intercepted another mobile phone communication between the applicant and T. which they conducted while they were stealing a Lada car in the town of Opochka, Pskov Region. Police officers were at the scene. They observed T. driving a Volkswagen car and the applicant driving the stolen Lada car. Then they followed the applicant to a garage in Velikiye Luki.\n9.  In the morning of 28 March 2008 the police arrested the applicant while he was taking the stolen Lada car out of the garage.\n10.  The applicant was charged with a car theft (theft causing serious financial detriment). On 30 March 2008 he was brought before the Opochka District Court, Pskov Region, where investigator B., arguing that the applicant might (1) abscond, (2) continue criminal activities, or (3) put pressure on witnesses, other parties to the proceedings, destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice, asked for the applicant’s remand in custody during the investigation. The court, however, dismissed the investigator’s motion. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“Investigator B. submitted that he had no factual information substantiating the fact that [the applicant] might abscond, that he put or might put any pressure on the witnesses by way of threatening them or [that he might] otherwise interfere with the establishment of the truth in the case.\nThere is no evidence that would allow the court to conclude that another car or the car plates discovered in the [applicant’s] garage had anything to do with the criminal activities involving car thefts. The court was not provided with any information about the nature of the equipment found [in the garage] or confirmation that it had been used to modify the registration numbers on the vehicle’s parts or to perform other work on the vehicles.”\n11.  After the court hearing, the applicant was taken back to the Opochka police station, where he signed an undertaking not to leave his place of residence during the investigation. However, he was not released. It appears that on the same date, the Dedovichi Department of the Interior reopened the criminal investigation of the car theft of 10 August 2007 (see paragraph 7 above). At 5:40 p.m. police officers from the Dedovichi police station showed up at the Opochka police station and rearrested the applicant on suspicion of involvement in the car theft of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8139", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 4 December 1991 proceedings before the Ljubljana Court of Associated Labour were instituted against the applicant company by forty-seven of its former employees, following their dismissal from work.\n5.  By 28 June 1994 when the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia, the court held one hearing.\n6.  A hearing was scheduled for 8 July 1998 but the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court was unable to serve the summons to the applicant company as the latter changed its address without informing the court. The court therefore ordered that all further court’s writings would be served on the applicant company by a publication on the court’s notice board.\n7.  On 30 June 1999 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court held a hearing in the absence of the applicant company and issued its decision, deciding that the dismissal of the plaintiffs by the applicant company was illegal and ordering the applicant company to acknowledge their rights from the employment contract and to pay them outstanding salaries. The decision was served on the applicant company on 27 October 1999 through diplomatic channels. The applicant company appealed.\n8.  On 17 January 2001 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the first instance court’s decision in the part concerning the illegality of the dismissal, annulled the remainder of the decision and remitted the case back to the first instance court.\n9.  In the remitted proceedings the court’s writings were initially served on the applicant company. Later on, the applicant company authorized a Slovenian lawyer, M. J., to represent it in the proceedings.\n10.  On 17 December 2004 the first instance court held a hearing and decided to examine the claims of twenty-two of the plaintiffs separately from the remaining claims. On the same date it issued its decision on the claims of the remaining plaintiffs and upheld their claim concerning the payment of the outstanding salaries. The applicant company appealed.\n11.  On 15 March 2005 the Higher Court requested the applicant company’s representative to present his power of attorney.\n12.  On 31 May 2005 the plaintiffs filed a motion for interim order.\n13.  On 8 June 2005 the court made the interim order requested.\n14.  On 20 June 2005 the applicant lodged an objection against the interim order.\n15.  On 18 July 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s objection. The applicant appealed.\n16.  On 14 October 2005 the Higher Labour and Social Court quashed the decision of 18 July 2005 and remitted the case back to the first instance court.\n17.  On 22 October 2005 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court again dismissed the applicant’s objection against the interim order. The applicant appealed.\n18.  On 15 December 2005 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the applicant’s appeal, annulled the first-instance court’s decision of 8 June 2005 and dismissed the plaintiffs’ motion for an interim order.\n19.  On 9 November 2006 the Higher Labour and Social Court partially upheld the applicant company’s appeal against the decision of 17 December 2004 and modified the decision of the first instance court in the part concerning the payment of interest and dismissed the remainder of the appeal. The applicant company and the plaintiffs lodged an appeal on points of law.\n20.  On 6 February 2007 the applicant company was reminded by the court to pay the court fee for lodging an appeal on points of law.\n21.  On 28 February 2007 the applicant company was reminded by the court to pay the cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8140", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  On 19 September 1999, at approximately 1 a.m., a police patrol from the Ilfov Police Inspectorate pulled the applicant over in his car and asked him to produce an identity card. He replied that he did not have his identity card with him but that his name was Vasile Stoian and he was a lawyer and a former police officer. The applicant was invited to get out of the car.\n7.  After a few minutes, he got back into his car and drove off abruptly. According to the police officers, their colleague, A.A., was hit by the applicant’s car while he was trying to stop him.\n8.  The applicant alleged that he had left because the police officers had physically abused and insulted him.\n9.  The four police officers involved in the incident contested the applicant’s account of events. They stated that because the applicant had smelled strongly of alcohol, they had asked him to accompany them to a forensic laboratory to determine his blood alcohol content. The applicant had refused, got into his car and left the scene.\n10.  The police officers got into their car immediately and began chasing him. They also asked the police station for reinforcements. After about five kilometres the police car collided with the applicant’s car, forcing him to stop. The police officers immobilised and handcuffed the applicant.\n11.  As the applicant again refused to show an identity card, the police officers carried out a body search and a search of his car.\n12.  The applicant tried to escape, running towards the field to the left side of the road. Being handcuffed, he moved with difficulty. After about twenty metres, the police officers immobilised him again. The applicant claimed that he had been repeatedly kicked by the police officers.\n13.  One of the police officers had the idea to invite reporters from the “Antena 1” television channel to come to the scene in order to film the incident. Within thirty minutes a group of television reporters had arrived and started taking images of the applicant handcuffed and covered in blood.\n14.  The police officers continued their search, checking the contents of a bag found in the applicant’s vehicle. Inside the bag they found the applicant’s driving licence.\n15.  The applicant claimed that the police officers had carried out the search of his bag after breaking its lock despite the fact that he had expressed his intent to open the bag and give them his identity documents. This allegation was confirmed by witness statements and the images filmed by the television reporters.\n16.  In the end the applicant was taken to the forensic laboratory, where his blood alcohol content was tested.\n17.  The applicant underwent a medical examination at the National Forensic Institute. According to the medical certificate issued on 19 September 1999, he presented injuries that could have been caused by being hit with a hard object and would need twelve to fourteen days of medical treatment.\n18.  A few hours after the incident, the four police officers drafted an incident report, presenting their version of the events. The report was signed by V.L. and C.G., who allegedly eye-witnessed the incident.\n19.  The police officers also drafted a search report describing the items found in the applicant’s bag and car. This report was signed by C.G. and B.F., who were allegedly present when the search was carried out.\n20.  Other police officers arrived at the scene of the incident, carried out an in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8141", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Banja Luka.\n7.  By a judgment of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 23 February 2009 which became final on 11 May 2009, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, 34,000 convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of non-pecuniary damage together with default interest at the statutory rate and BAM 4,667 in respect of legal costs together with default interest at the statutory rate to the applicant.\n8.  The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 29 June 2009.\n9.  The applicant complained of non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”). On 16 January 2013 the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.\n10.  The final judgment in favour of the applicant remains unenforced to this day.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8142", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first and second applicants were born in 1969, and the third and fourth applicants in 1986 and 1999 respectively. They live in Geneva.\n6.  The first and second applicants married on 25 December 1988 in Ecuador and brought up the third and fourth applicants together. The third applicant is the second applicant’s daughter and the first applicant’s stepdaughter; the fourth applicant is the first and second applicants’ daughter.\n7.  Between 1995 and 1999 the applicants sought asylum in Switzerland on three occasions. Each time their applications were rejected they returned to Ecuador.\n8.   On 1 January 2002 the applicants, having re-entered Swiss territory, filed a fresh request for asylum. The first and second applicants claimed that they had been tortured and had received death threats from the Ecuadorian police after the first applicant had attended two political demonstrations in Quito.\n9.  On 4 February 2002 the Swiss Federal Office for Refugees (“the Refugee Office”) rejected the applicants’ request.\n10.  On 1 March 2005 the first applicant was convicted of selling stolen goods and was given a three-month suspended prison sentence and fined 2,000 francs (CHF). On 15 October 2007 he was convicted of driving without a valid licence and sentenced to 80 hours of community service. On 9 April 2008 he was convicted of attempting to steal perfumes in a shopping centre and was sentenced to 120 hours of community service. On 14 April 2009 he was convicted of buying stolen goods and given a nine‑month suspended sentence and fined 1,000 CHF. The suspension of his previous sentence having been revoked, he served this sentence as from December 2009.\n11.  On 24 October 2007 the Federal Administrative Court quashed the decision of 4 February 2002 and ordered the Refugee Office to review the applicants’ request. It considered that the information contained in medical records regarding the first applicant’s state of mental health drawn up in Ecuador in 2001 might be a reason to grant refugee status to the applicants. According to medical certificates, the first applicant suffered from post‑traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and schizoaffective disorder. He had been hospi­talised on several occasions after attempting to commit suicide.\n12.  In May 2009 the first and the second applicants separated. Their young daughter, the fourth applicant, stayed with the second applicant, who obtained full parental authority, while the first applicant was granted extended access, including the right to see her every Wednesday, every second weekend and for half of the school holidays.\n13.  On 27 October 2009 the Refugee Office granted the third applicant a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. She then withdrew her asylum request and applied for Swiss citizenship, which was granted on 17 September 2012.\n14.  On 20 March 2012 the Refugee Office, following a fresh examination of the facts, rejected the remaining applicants’ request for asylum. On 17 April 2012 they lodged an administrative appeal, arguing, inter alia, that they continued to have a close family relationship even after the first two applicants had separated.\n15.  On 7 September 2012 the Federal Administrative Court partially reversed the Refugee Office’s decision. The court specified, at the outset, that the decisions given by the Refugee Office could be contested before the Federal Administrative Court, whose decision was final.\n16.  The court also observed that the first and secon", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8143", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lived in Budapest.\n6.  On 23 April 2002 she brought an action before the Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court, seeking the dissolution of common ownership.\n7.  On 22 November 2007 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second instance court, adopted a partial judgment in the case.\n8.  Pursuant to the applicant’s petition for review, the Supreme Court quashed the partial judgment on 25 June 2008 and remitted the case to the first instance court.\n9.  The case was terminated by the Budapest Regional Court on 1 December 2011 (service: 6 January 2012).\n10.  On 6 March 2012 the applicant’s lawyer posted a first communication to the Court, indicating an intention to lodge an application and giving some indication of the nature of the application. The communication was dated 5 March 2012.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8145", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant lives in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n7.  By a judgment of the Prijedor Court of First Instance of 24 November 2000 which became final on 12 January 2001, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, 7,000 convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 600 in respect of pecuniary damage together with default interest at the statutory rate to the applicant.\n8.  The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 24 August 2001.\n9.  The applicant complained of non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”). On 20 December 2005 the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The applicant did not claim compensation, but even if she had done so, her claim would most likely have been refused (see, for example, the Constitutional Court’s decisions AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, § 438; AP 557/05 of 12 April 2006, §195; AP 1211/06 of 13 December 2007, §79; AP 224/08 of 8 December 2010, §37).\n10.  After the extensive information campaign explaining the available options for the settlement of the Republika Srpska’s public debt (including its debt arising from domestic judgments), on 25 April 2012 the applicant informed the authorities that she agreed to be paid the principal debt and default interest in bonds. Government bonds were then issued to the applicant on 31 May 2012. On 17 September 2012 the applicant sold all of her bonds on the Stock Exchange.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8146", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant in the first application (no. 15018/11), Mr Harakchiev, was born in 1968. He is currently serving a whole life sentence (see paragraphs 58-60 and 65 below) in Stara Zagora Prison.\n7.  The applicant in the second application (no. 61199/12), Mr Tolumov, was born in 1954. He is currently serving a life sentence (see paragraphs 56 and 65 below) in Plovdiv Prison.\n8.  Between 1992 and 2005 Mr Harakchiev, a driver and car mechanic, was convicted eight times of non-violent offences: theft and aggravated theft (four convictions), and fraud and aggravated fraud (three convictions). He was given sentences ranging from two to five years’ imprisonment.\n9.  On 21 January 2003 the Haskovo Regional Court convicted Mr Harakchiev of illegal possession of a firearm and four armed robberies of motor vehicles carried out between 14 October and 6 November 2001, two of which had been accompanied by attempted murder and two by murder. It sentenced him to whole life imprisonment.\n10.  On 26 June 2003 the Plovdiv Court of Appeal upheld Mr Harakchiev’s conviction and sentence.\n11.  In a final judgment of 23 November 2004 (реш. № 476 от 23 ноември 2004 г. по н. д. № 901/2003 г., ВКС, ІІІ н. о.) the Supreme Court of Cassation likewise upheld Mr Harakchiev’s conviction and sentence. It held, inter alia, that in view of the gravity of his offences – in particular, the determination and cruelty with which they had been carried out – a more lenient sentence, such as life imprisonment (доживотен затвор със замяна), would not be adequate. That conclusion could not be altered by the fact that Mr Harakchiev had confessed and had helped the investigating authorities to uncover his criminal activities.\n12.  Mr Harakchiev has been detained in Stara Zagora Prison since 18 January 2002. He was initially placed under the “enhanced regime” (see paragraph 115 below). With the entry into force of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act on 1 June 2009, that regime was replaced by the “severe regime” (see paragraph 118 below) by operation of law. On 17 June 2009 the Execution of Punishments Commission (see paragraph 121 below) proposed that the Stara Zagora Regional Court place Mr Harakchiev under the “special regime” normally applicable to life prisoners, citing his “negative attitude” and lack of respect for internal order, as well as the fact that he should in any case have been placed under that regime from the outset. On 21 July 2009 the Stara Zagora Regional Court accepted the proposal. Mr Harakchiev’s legal challenge against that decision, filed on 12 July 2010, was rejected by the Stara Zagora Regional Court and the Plovdiv Court of Appeal as being out of time. The Government submitted that there was at present no intention on the part of the prison authorities to make further changes to Mr Harakchiev’s prison regime.\n13.  Between December 2005 and March 2013 Mr Harakchiev was given nine disciplinary punishments. The latest such punishments, in August 2012 and March 2013, were imposed in relation to (a) a scuffle between himself and another inmate during the daily walk on the morning of 4 August 2012, and (b) the theft on 18 February 2013 of food that another inmate had left in the communal toilet. In relation to the former, Mr Harakchiev was given a reprimand, and in relation to the latter isolation in a disciplinary cell for three days.\n14.  Mr Harakchiev’s cell – in which he is currently alone but which he apparently shared with another ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8147", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Adana. As the facts of the case are in dispute between the parties, they will be set out separately. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraph 6). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraph 7). The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D (paragraph 8-30).\n6.  At the time of the incidents the applicant was selling CDs from a street stand in Adana. On 5 July 2001 the applicant and his relative M.Y. were arrested by the police while they were working at the stand. They were taken to the police station and beaten up by a police officer there. As a result of a punch to his ear, the applicant’s eardrum was perforated. The applicant and M.Y. were subsequently released from the police station.\n7.  On 5 July 2001 the Adana Police Station received a complaint that damaged CDs were being sold from a street stand. A number of police officers went to the venue and talked the applicant and M.Y. into a solution with the complainant, but they did not arrest them because their activity had not constituted an offence.\n8.  On 7 July 2001 the applicant and M.Y. lodged a criminal complaint with the Adana prosecutor against a police officer who they alleged had ill-treated them on 5 July 2001. At the time of their complaint they did not know the identity of the police officer but gave a description of his physical appearance. They also complained that they had been arrested without any explanation and that as a result of that arrest they had been arbitrarily deprived of their rights.\n9.  On 9 July 2001 the applicant went back to the Adana prosecutor’s office and complained that he had been injured as a result of the ill-treatment. In order to provide evidence of his injuries the applicant requested a medical examination. On the same day the Adana prosecutor referred the applicant to the Adana Forensic Medicine Institute.\n10.  On 10 July 2001 the Adana Forensic Medicine Institute reported that the applicant’s left eardrum had been perforated as a result of physical trauma, and that the injury required a 15-day healing period.\n11.  On 10 July 2001 the applicant also applied to the Adana branch of the Turkish Human Rights Foundation, where a number of physical and psychological assessments were carried out by the doctors working for the Foundation. According to a report drawn up on 22 October 2001, the applicant had a perforation in his left eardrum and he was suffering from acute post-traumatic stress disorder. The report concluded that the doctors’ findings were compatible with the applicant’s story of ill-treatment.\n12.  In the Turkish Human Rights Foundation’s report the applicant was reported as having described the incident and told the doctors that after he was punched on his ear, his eardrum had been perforated and he was no longer able to hear on that side. He added that, at the end of his arrest, he had not been taken to a forensic doctor for the required medical check, but the police officers had taken him to a private doctor, where he was diagnosed with ear perforation. The applicant submitted the report for the investigation file. However, this evidence was not further investigated during the proceedings.\n13.  On 11 July 2001 the applicant and his relative M.Y. gave their statements at the Adana prosecutor’s office. The applicant complained that he had been ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8148", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1971. Prior to his arrest he was residing in the Moscow Region.\n7.  On an unspecified date in 1999 the applicant arrived in Russia and settled in Moscow. Between 1 and 18 November 2009 he travelled to Uzbekistan (see paragraphs 43-44 below). It appears from the domestic judgment of 18 September 2013 (see paragraph 39 below) that he was registered with the local migration authorities from 20 November 2009 to 18 February 2010.\n8.  On 3 March 2010 the National Security Department of the Samarkand Region of Uzbekistan brought criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of his alleged membership between 1990 and 1998 of Hizb ut‑Tahrir (“HT”), a transnational Islamic organisation, banned in Russia, Germany and some Central Asian republics, and making public calls to overthrow the constitutional order of Uzbekistan and to establish an Islamic state in its place.\n9.  On 6 April 2010 the applicant was charged in absentia in Uzbekistan with attempting to overthrow the Uzbek State’s constitutional order (Article 159 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan); storage and disseminating of documents containing ideas of religious extremism, separatism and fundamentalism, and threats to national security and public order (Article 244-1 § 3 (a) of the Code); and participation in and direction of religious, extremist, separatist and other prohibited organisations (Article 244-2 § 1 of the Code). The statement of charges indicated that between 1990 and 1998 the applicant, as a member of HT, had regularly held unlawful religious gatherings with three other persons at which they had made “public calls to overthrow the existing constitutional order” in their home country and “made use of materials containing ideas of religious extremism”. The applicant had shown a video-recording of an address by Yu., the leader of the religious extremist “Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan”. Furthermore, since 1990 the applicant had systematically participated in religious studies and physical training sessions of a “shahid belt community”, as well as meetings organised by R. at which public calls for the replacement of the Uzbek Government by an Islamic state in the form of a recreated Caliphate had been made.\n10.  On the same date the Samarkand Town Court ordered the applicant’s arrest, and his name was put on the cross-border list of wanted persons.\n11.  On 17 April 2013 the applicant was arrested by the police in Moscow as a person wanted by the Uzbek authorities. On the same date the National Security Department of the Samarkand Region of Uzbekistan confirmed their intention to request the applicant’s extradition and requested that he be remanded in custody.\n12.  When interviewed by the police on the same date after his arrest, the applicant stated that he had moved to Russia in 1999 to look for work. He had not registered as a foreign national temporarily residing in the country and had not applied for refugee status in Russia. He was unaware of the reasons for his criminal prosecution in Uzbekistan and had not been persecuted on political grounds in his home country. His wife and four minor children lived with him in the Moscow Region.\n13.  On 13 May 2013 the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Republic of Uzbekistan submitted a formal request for the applicant’s extradition. The request contained assurances that the applicant would be prosecuted only for the offences for which he was being extradited, that he woul", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8149", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 19 July 2010 the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic found the applicant guilty of corruption and an abuse of official powers and gave him a custodial sentence. The applicant appealed alleging, in particular, that he was innocent, that the prosecution had been unlawful and the trial court had applied the criminal law erroneously.\n7.  On 26 October 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted it for a new hearing.\n8.  On 2 March 2011 the Supreme Court of the Chuvash Republic found the applicant guilty as charged before and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal. He complained, among other matters, about erroneous interpretation of law, improper assessment of evidence by the courts, and an excessive severity of the penalty\n9.  On 23 May 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the judgment on appeal reducing the sentence to four years’ imprisonment.\n10.  Between 2 March and 16 June 2011 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-21/1 in the Cheboksary Region. The facility was overcrowded. Thus, cell 39 measuring 23 sq. m was equipped with fourteen sleeping places and accommodated up to ten inmates.\n11.  The applicant submitted the following evidence in support of the above allegations: his complaints to the prison management and their reply and statements by three cellmates.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8150", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.\n5.  The applicant, an army officer at the material time, sued the military unit in which he had served.\n6.  On 13 December 2000 the Pyatigorsk Garrison Military Court (hereinafter “the Garrison Court”) granted the applicant’s claims. The court awarded the applicant nine various monetary allowances overdue and pecuniary indemnities, 500 Russian roubles (RUB) of non-pecuniary damage and ordered the military unit to remove from his personal record his character reference made by his superior in February 1998, to provide him with some information on his alimony payments and on whether his name had been put on the list of persons eligible for housing.\n7.  This judgment had not been appealed against and became final.\n8.  The allowances and indemnities awarded by the judgment of 13 December 2000 were paid to the applicant on 21 December 2000, on 29 August 2001 and the remaining debt in July 2004.\n9.  On an unspecified date the applicant’s name was put on the list of persons eligible for housing.\n10.  On 11 February 2004 bailiff opened enforcement proceedings. The applicant’s military unit was invited to remove his character reference of February 1998 from his personal record and to provide him with information on the payment of alimony.\n11.  On 12 March and 11 June 2004 the Head of the military unit informed the bailiff that the execution of these parts of the judgment of 13 December 2000 was outside of his competence.\n12.  On 23 December 2005 the Garrison Court rejected the bailiff’s request for clarification of the judgment of 13 December 2000 as regards the obligation to remove the applicant’s character reference from his personal record. It considered that the bailiff failed to indicate what exactly in the judgment was unclear and to demonstrate the existence of obstacles to the execution of this part of the judgment. The court also indicated a possible way to comply with the judgment by sending a request to the Military Commissariat where the applicant’s personal file was kept.\n13.  On 23 December 2009 the Head of the social department of the Military Commissariat of the Rostov Region confirmed that the applicant’s record did not contain his character reference made in February 1998. It was however impossible to establish when it had been removed from the record.\n14.  The authorities’ obligation to provide the applicant with information on the payment of alimony has never been executed.\n15.  On 30 September 2004 the Garrison Court adjusted the sums paid to the applicant in July 2004 under the judgment of 13 December 2000 in accordance with the inflation rate and awarded the applicant RUB 1,716.72.\n16.  This sum was paid to the applicant in February 2005.\n17.  On 5 December 2005 the Garrison Court adjusted the sums paid to the applicant in February 2005 under the judgment of 30 September 2004 in accordance with the inflation rate and awarded him RUB 1,700.\n18.  On 1 October 2006 the applicant’s military unit was disbanded and Military Unit 89 UNR became its successor.\n19.  On 21 November 2006 the Garrison Court substituted the original defendant in the judgment of 5 December 2005 for Military Unit 89 UNR.\n20.  On 23 November 2006 the new writ of execution was sent directly to the Krasnodar Regional Department of the Federal Treasury.\n21.  On 12 December 2006 the Krasnodar Regional Department of the Federal Treasury informed the Garrison Court that the new defendant had no bank ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8151", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and is serving a prison sentence in the Mordoviya Republic.\n6.  According to the official version of the events, on 31 May 2007 K., a close friend of the applicant, was arrested by the police when he attempted to sell to P. the amphetamines he had earlier bought from the applicant. K. voluntarily agreed to participate in a fake drug deal organised by the police to help them arrest the applicant in order to stop his drug dealing. He made a written statement to that effect. K. called the applicant in the presence of two attesting witnesses and police officers and asked him to sell him ten ecstasy pills. The applicant met K. at 11 p.m. He gave him the drugs and K. paid him in cash. The police officers then arrested him. K. gave the police the drugs he had received from the applicant. The police took the marked banknotes K. had paid for the drugs from the applicant’s bag. Then they cut the applicant’s nails for forensic analysis. The attesting witnesses were present at the scene and could observe the whole operation.\n7.  According to the applicant, K. called him and asked for help because he had been arrested. He also asked for money. The applicant agreed to help him. When he met K., the latter put several banknotes in his bag, which was open. Then several plain-clothed police officers arrested him. They handcuffed him, took the banknotes which K. had planted in his bag, cut a section out of his bag and cut his nails, together with some adjacent skin. When the applicant refused to sign the arrest record, one of the police officers punched him. The applicant then signed the document.\n8.  The applicant was taken to a police station. The head of the police station, S., beat the applicant up in order to make him confess to the crime. The police officers also took some of the applicant’s personal effects and the cash he had on him. The applicant spent the night at the police station.\n9.  On 1 June 2007 the applicant met with a lawyer, Kh. The latter told him to confess to the crime and to give some cash to the police. They would then let him go and make sure that he received a conditional sentence. The applicant did as he had been told by Kh.\n10.  The applicant remained in custody during the criminal proceedings against him.\n11.  On 17 January 2008 the Lefortovskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of drug dealing and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The court based its findings on (1) the testimonies of K., police officers, one of the attesting witnesses and the investigator; (2) materials pertaining to the fake drug deal; and (3) forensic evidence. The court also noted that the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment had not been subjected to examination in the course of the trial.\n12.  At the trial the applicant was represented by three lawyers. He pleaded not guilty. He recounted his version of the events, alleging that K. and the police had set him up.\n13.  On 23 April 2008 the Moscow City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.\n14.  The Government’s submissions as regards the conditions in which the applicant was transported may be summarised as follows:\n \nDate of transport\nTime in transit from the remand prison to the courthouse\nTime in transit from the courthouse to the remand prison\n28 August 2007\n\nNo data available\n10 September 2007\n20 September 2007\n27 September 2007\n11 October 2007\n23 October 2007\n2 hours 30 minutes\n2 hours 34 minutes\n2 November 2007\n1 hour 25 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8153", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lived in Split.\n8.  He was the owner of a flat in Split with a surface area of 66.76 square metres.\n9.  On 17 October 1955 a certain Ms P.A. was, on the basis of the Decree on Administration of Residential Buildings of 1953 (see paragraph 24 below), awarded the right to live in the flat and moved in together with her mother and her cousin I.T. (born in 1948) whom her parents had entrusted to P.A.’s care in 1951. This right was by the entry into force of the Housing Act of 1959 transformed into the specially protected tenancy (stanarsko pravo, see paragraphs 24-30 below about the specially protected tenancy in the former Yugoslavia).\n10.  P.A. and I.T. lived together in the applicant’s flat until P.A. moved out in 1973. I.T. continued to live there with her husband and her son, Ig.T. (born in 1972). I.T.’s husband died in 1998.\n11.  On 5 November 1996 the Lease of Flats Act entered into force. It abolished the legal concept of the specially protected tenancy and provided that the holders of such tenancies in respect of, inter alia, privately owned flats were to become “protected lessees” (zaštićeni najmoprimci, see paragraphs 31 and 40 below). Under the Act such lessees are subject to a number of protective measures, such as the duty of landlords to contract a lease of indefinite duration, payment of protected rent (zaštićena najamnina), the amount of which is set by the Government and significantly lower than the market rent; and better protection against termination of the lease.\n12.  The applicant refused to conclude a lease contract with I.T. stipulating the protected rent pursuant to section 31(1) of the Lease of Flats Act (see 40 below). On 16 May 1997 I.T. brought a civil action against him in the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu), relying on section 33(3) of the same Act (see paragraph 43 below), with a view to obtaining a judgment in lieu of such a contract.\n13.  Shortly afterwards in 1997 the applicant brought a civil action in the same court seeking to obtain a judgment ordering I.T. and her son to vacate the flat in question. He argued that she had not been “a child without parents” and thus could not have been considered a member of P.A.’s household within the meaning of section 9(4) of the 1974 Housing Act or section 12(1) of the 1985 Housing Act (see respectively paragraphs 28 and 29 below). Consequently, she could not have taken over the specially protected tenancy after P.A. had moved out of the flat in 1973, and thus had not had any title to use it.\n14.  The two proceedings were subsequently joined.\n15.  By a judgment of 2 September 2002 the Split Municipal Court found in favour of I.T. and her son in part. It ordered the applicant to conclude with I.T. a lease contract stipulating protected rent in the amount of 102.14 Croatian kunas (HRK) – approximately 14 euros (EUR) at the time – per month within fifteen days; otherwise the judgment would substitute such a contract. Since the existence of a specially protected tenancy was a necessary precondition for acquiring the status of a protected lessee under the Lease of Flats Act (see paragraph 11 above) the court had first to determine, as a preliminary issue, whether I.T. had become the holder of the specially protected tenancy after P.A. had moved out of the flat in 1973. The court held that, unlike the subsequent legislation relied on by the applicant, the legislation in force at the material time, namely the Housing Ac", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8154", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.   The applicant company is a public limited company with its registered office in Hamburg. Among other activities, it is the publisher of the mass-circulation daily newspaper Bild.\n7.  On the evening of 22 May 2005, after his party (the Social Democratic Party (SPD)) had suffered a heavy election defeat in the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who had been in power as head of the Federal Government since 1998, announced that parliamentary elections would be brought forward to autumn 2005 from their scheduled date in September 2006. Because the early elections could not be held until the Bundestag (German Federal Parliament) had been dissolved – a process which could only take place by order of Federal President of Germany after a motion of confidence in the Federal Chancellor had been defeated – Chancellor Schröder called a vote of confidence on 1 July 2005 and lost it, with 148 of the 304 members of parliament from the parties making up his government abstaining as requested by the Chancellor. On 21 July 2005 Federal President Horst Köhler dissolved the Bundestag. This means of securing the dissolution of Parliament prompted discussions in public and among members of parliament, and was also the subject of appeals to the Federal Constitutional Court, which, by a majority, dismissed them and ruled that the disputed procedure was in conformity with the Basic Law (see in particular the decision of 25 August 2005, nos. 2 BvE 4/05 and 7/05).\n8.  The elections were held on 18 September 2005. None of the main political parties emerged victorious with a sufficient majority, but the parties forming the outgoing Schröder government (the SPD and the Greens) lost their majority. Subsequently, the conservative parties (the CDU and CSU) and the SPD agreed to form a coalition headed by Ms Angela Merkel, the candidate for the CDU and CSU. On 22 November 2005 Mr Schröder left office and Ms Merkel was elected as the new Federal Chancellor.\n9.  On 9 December 2005, at a ceremony to mark the start of work on the Baltic Sea gas pipeline (“Ostseepipeline”), it was announced that Mr Schröder had been appointed chairman of the supervisory board of the German-Russian consortium NEGP (Konsortium Nordeuropäische Gaspipeline). The aim of the consortium, which had its registered office in Switzerland and was controlled by the Russian company Gazprom, was to build a gas pipeline to supply Russian gas to western Europe. The agreement on the principle of building the pipeline had been signed on 11 April 2005 by the German company BASF and Gazprom in the presence of Mr Schröder and the Russian President Vladimir Putin. The signing of the contract itself, initially scheduled for mid-October at an energy summit in Moscow, had taken place on 8 September 2005 – again in the presence of Mr Schröder and Mr Putin – ten days before the early elections.\n10.  On the day of the announcement, a member of Bild’s editorial staff attempted to contact the deputy spokesperson for the government, S. (who had continued to occupy this post under the new government), for information on the subject but received no reply. The following day he made a further attempt, which was likewise unsuccessful. Following a third request later that day, the deputy spokesperson informed the journalist that Mr Schröder had nothing to add to his statement of 9 December 2005 in which he had indicated his willingness to accept an offer from the consortium partners to take ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8155", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant is a Russian national and lives in Saratov.\n5.  On 1 June 1994 the applicant’s father, Mr Vladimir Dmitrievich Yakovlev, deposited an unspecified amount of money with the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation (“the Savings Bank”) in her name. The deposit was to be kept for at least ten years and was redeemable after the applicant had reached the age of sixteen. The interest rate was fixed at 190 per cent per annum.\n6.  Later, the Savings Bank reduced the interest rate.\n7.  Considering the Savings Bank’s unilateral decision unlawful, Mr Yakovlev brought a civil claim against it.\n8.  On 25 July 2001 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Saratov found that the terms of the deposit did not provide for unilateral changes in the interest rate and held that the Savings Bank should calculate interest at the rate of 190 per cent starting from 1 June 1994 and until the maturity of the deposit.\n9.  On 31 August 2001 the Saratov Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal.\n10.  On 13 January 2003 Mr Yakovlev died.\n11.  On an unspecified date the Savings Bank lodged an application for supervisory review which was rejected by the Saratov Regional Court on 19 May 2003.\n12.  On 30 January 2004 the Savings Bank filed a new application for supervisory review with the Presidium of the Saratov Regional Court. It asserted that Mr Yakovlev’s claim should have been dismissed as premature because the maturity date had not yet occurred.\n13.  On 26 April 2004 the Presidium of the Saratov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 25 July 2001, as upheld on 31 August 2001, and dismissed the claim lodged by the late Mr Yakovlev, holding that the interest could only be calculated after the terms of the deposit had been fulfilled. As regards the re-opening of the proceedings after the plaintiff’s death, the Presidium found as follows:\n“The fact that Mr V. Yakovlev died does not preclude a new decision from being made in the case because his claim had been lodged on behalf of his underage daughter – Ms Ye. Yakovleva. At present she is represented by her mother, Mrs N. Yakovleva, who participated to the hearing before the Presidium.”\n14.  On 2 May 2005 the applicant turned sixteen. On an unspecified date the Savings Bank offered to pay her 28,928 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 900 euros (EUR)). There is no information on whether she accepted this offer.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8156", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1968. He is currently serving a life sentence.\n7.  On 22 October 1999 the Donetsk Kuybyshevsky District Prosecutor’s Office instituted a criminal investigation into a series of murders accompanied by robberies. On an unspecified date the applicant and Mr L. were identified as possible perpetrators and were put on the list of wanted persons. The police also issued an internal search notice in which the applicant was described as a dangerous criminal. According to the applicant, in November 1999 his picture was shown on television as a previously convicted person who was wanted by the police in connection with multiple robberies.\n8.  On 31 January 2000 the applicant and Mr L. were arrested.\n9.  On 1 February 2000 the applicant was questioned as a suspect and refused to give a statement. According to the Government, the applicant had his procedural rights explained to him.\n10.  On 4 February 2000 the Donetsk Kyivsky District Prosecutor ordered the applicant’s pre‑trial detention on the grounds that he was suspected of serious criminal offences.\n11.  On 9 February 2000 the applicant was questioned as an accused and refused to give a statement. According to the Government, the applicant had his procedural rights explained to him. According to the applicant, a police officer drafted a written confession on his behalf, but he refused to sign it.\n12.  During questioning on 4, 5, 7, 17 and 23 February and 15 March 2000 Mr L. confessed to having been involved in eight murders he was suspected of. He also revealed places near the applicant’s country estate where the bodies of several victims and murder weapons were hidden. Mr L. stated that the applicant had taken part in those offences, and in particular that five of the eight victims had been murdered by him.\n13.  On 14 February 2000 Mr K. was admitted to the case as the applicant’s legal counsel. On the same date the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer. From that date on, all major procedural actions were conducted in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer.\n14.  On 18 February 2000 an investigator appointed to deal with the applicant’s case held a confrontation between Mr L. and the applicant, in the presence of their lawyers. During that confrontation the applicant and his lawyer were allowed to put questions to Mr L., who repeated his accusations against the applicant.\n15.  On 23 March 2000 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 1 June 2000 because of the gravity of the charges and the need to gather further evidence.\n16.  On 29 May 2000 the investigator declared the pre-trial investigation complete. From that date until 26 October 2000 the applicant and his lawyer had access to the case file.\n17.  On 27 October 2000 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor sent the indictment together with the case file to the Donetsk Regional Court for trial.\n18.  On 6 December 2000 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor recalled the case file from the Donetsk Regional Court and ordered that the pre-trial investigation be resumed.\n19.  On 8 December 2000 the prosecutor ordered the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention up to a maximum of five months on the grounds of the severity of the imputed offences and the need to undertake further investigative measures.\n20.  On 28 December 2000 the additional investigation was completed and the applicant and his lawyer were given access to the case file.\n21.  On 15 March 2001 a new", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8157", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Venissieux.\n6.  In the course of 2000 the applicant, a Congolese national, was granted refugee status under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Cameroon (hereafter UNHCR/Cameroon). According to his certificate of refugee status, he was accompanied by his wife, who also held such a certificate, and his children (Vanessa Ntabugi, born in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1994, and Michelle Tanda-Ngubiri, born in 2001 in Cameroon). The couple had a third child (Benjamin Tanda) who was born in Yaoundé (Cameroon) in 2004, but the applicant was absent when his son was born, having left Cameroon to claim asylum in France.\n7.  On 19 July 2004 the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (hereafter, the OFPRA) rejected his claim. On 6 August 2004 the applicant appealed against that decision. By a decision of 8 February 2007, the Refugee Appeals Board (the Commission des recours des réfugiés, formerly the National Asylum Tribunal, the Commission nationale du droit d’asile, CNDA) granted the applicant refugee status. He obtained a ten-year residence permit and in April 2007 the OFPRA issued him with a marriage certificate and a family record book (livret de famille), serving as civil-status documents.\n8.  By a letter of 26 June 2007, for the purpose of family reunion and on the basis of the “family reunification” procedure for certified refugees (see paragraph 36 below), the applicant applied for long-stay visas for his wife and three children. By a letter of 28 June 2007, the Movement of Aliens Section at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the applicant that it would contact the OFPRA to verify, on the basis of the statements which had enabled him to be granted refugee status, whether those persons were indeed members of the family group, before contacting the French consular services in Yaoundé with a view to compiling an application file for long-stay visas.\n9.  By a letter of 13 February 2008, the Visa Section at the Ministry of Immigration informed the applicant that the consular services in Yaoundé would be summoning his family for an interview.\n10.  The applicant’s wife was requested to attend an interview at the consulate on 21 February 2008. After she had submitted the necessary documents for compiling the application, the consular authorities asked her to contact the UNHCR/Cameroon delegation to obtain travel papers for herself and her children, in accordance with the Convention of 28 July 1951. She was assured that once she had brought those documents to the consulate she would be issued with an acknowledgement of receipt of the visa application. On 18 March 2008 the applicant’s wife submitted to the consulate a travel document, issued in her name after a favourable opinion had been obtained from the Cameroonian Ministry of External Affairs. This document, which could substitute a national passport, indicated that she was accompanied by her three children. She did not receive an acknowledgment of receipt of her visa application.\nHaving received no news on examination of his request, the applicant applied to various authorities, including the consulate in Yaoundé, for information as to why the visas had not been issued, and included a copy of all of the documents in his possession, including his residence permit, the reconstituted documents issued by the OFPRA, his wife’s certificate of refugee status, the document serving as", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8158", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Nizmennoye, the Kaliningrad Region.\n6.  In the 1990s the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme which would entitle her to receive a passenger car in 1994. She paid the car’s full value but never received the car. The applicant brought the court action against the authorities, claiming the full monetary value of the special‑purpose settlement orders for purchasing of a car.\n7.  On 19 August 2002 the Yakutsk Town Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic allowed the applicant’s action. The court found that the State commodity bonds, including the special-purpose settlement orders, were to be recognised as the State internal debt, and should be settled at the expense of the federal budget. With reference to the State Commodity Bonds Act of 1995 as amended on 2 June 2000 the court noted that the compensation to the bearers of special-purpose settlement orders that gave the right to purchase passenger cars in 1993-1995 was to be paid in 2002-2003. The court awarded the applicant 115,000 Russian roubles against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.\n8.  On 18 September 2002 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment and it became final. The award remained unenforced.\n9.  According to the Government’s observations of 23 October 2008, on 16 September 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic reviewed the lower courts’ judgments by way of the supervisory review proceedings, acting upon a relevant request by the respondent authority. The Presidium found that the lower courts had failed to take into account the provisions of the amended State Commodity Bonds Act and the Government’s Resolution no. 1006 and therefore had misapplied the domestic law. The Presidium annulled the judgment of 19 August 2002 and the appeal decision of 18 September 2002 and delivered a new judgment in which it dismissed the applicant’s claim in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8159", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants’ personal details are listed in Annex I to this judgment.\n6.  On various unspecified dates during the 1970-ties the applicants moved into flats in Mlini, Dubrovnik, as employees of the publicly-owned enterprise Mlini Hotels.\n7.  On 3 June 1991 Parliament enacted the Protected Tenancies (Sale to Occupier) Act (Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo), which regulated the sale of publicly-owned flats previously let under protected tenancies, giving the right to holders of such tenancies of publicly-owned flats to purchase them from the provider of the flat under favourable conditions.\n8.  Sometime after 1991 the Mlini Hotels were privatised.\n9.  On various unspecified dates during the 1990-ies the applicants sought to purchase their flats from Mlini Hotels. Their requests were refused.\n10.  On various dates during the 2000-ies Mlini Hotels brought separate civil actions in the Dubrovnik Municipal Court against each of the applicants, seeking their eviction on the ground that they had no legal basis to occupy the flats.\n11.  The applicants lodged their counterclaims, seeking recognition of their protected tenancy on the flats they occupied as well as judgments in lieu of the contracts of sale. They argued that they had been occupying the flats at issue for lengthy periods and paid the rent and all utility bills and had the right to permanently occupy those flats.\n12.  On various dates the Dubrovnik Municipal Court reached decisions in the applicants’ cases. It accepted the plaintiff’s claims and dismissed the applicants’ counterclaims on the ground that the premises in dispute were not flats within the meaning of section 6 § 1(1) of the Housing Act because they did not concern a single construction unit. Furthermore, it held that the premises in question were situated in the plaintiff’s personal building designed for temporary accommodation for the plaintiff’s employees on which the applicants could not acquire protected tenancies.\n13.  The applicants lodged their appeals arguing that they had been living in the flats at issue for lengthy periods, that they had no other place to live and that the flats had been allocated to them for permanent occupation. The first-instance judgments were all upheld by the Dubrovnik County Court.\n14.  The applicants all lodged their constitutional complaints whereby they challenged the lower courts’ judgments ordering their eviction.\n15.  The applicants were all forcefully evicted from the flats owned by the Mlini Hotels on 19 November 2010.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8160", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Jarmina.\n5.  On 14 November 2008 the applicant applied to the Vinkovci Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vinkovcima) for enforcement of a final judgement by which D.C., the applicant’s former husband, was ordered to pay her alimony.\n6.  On 18 November 2008 the first-instance court issued a writ of execution ordering D.C. to pay the applicant amounts of 700 Croatian kunas (HRK) together with the statutory default interest for the period starting from 12 July 2007 until the payment, and also the amount of HRK 2,440 together with the statutory default interest starting from 10 June 2008 until the payment on account of costs and expenses.\n7.  The writ of execution was served on the Vukovar Regional Office of the Croatian Pension Fund (Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje, Područna služba Vukovar) for enforcement.\n8.  On 29 December 2008 D.C. appealed against the writ of execution and on 20 January 2009 the applicant responded to his appeal.\n9.  On 12 February 2009 the first-instance court held a hearing at which both parties gave their statements.\n10.  On 24 February 2009 the first-instance court instructed D.C. to institute separate civil proceedings with a view to declaring the enforcement inadmissible.\n11.  On 9 March 2009 the applicant appealed against the decision of 24 February 2009.\n12.  On 24 April 2009 the case-file was forwarded to the Vukovar County Court (Županijski sud u Vukovaru) to decide upon the parties’ appeals.\n13.  On 19 August 2009 the Vukovar County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and returned the case-file to the first-instance court.\n14.  However, since the Vukovar County Court failed to decide upon the appeal lodged by D.C., the case file was again returned to it and on 7 January 2010 it dismissed D.C.’s appeal.\n15.  On 26 January 2010 the first-instance court informed the Vukovar Regional Office of the Croatian Pension Fund, that the writ of execution became final and that it should be executed.\n16.  On 19 February 2010 the first-instance court again asked the Vukovar Regional Office of the Croatian Pension Fund to execute the final writ of execution.\n17.  On 24 March 2010 the Vukovar Regional Office of the Croatian Pension Fund transferred HRK 15,600 to the applicant’s account; on 15 April 2010 it transferred the amount of HRK 1,200; and on 14 May 2010 the amount of HRK 881.50.\n18.  Meanwhile, on 7 December 2009 and 14 January 2010 the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time (zahtjev za zaštitu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the above enforcement proceedings. In these proceedings the State was represented by the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia (Državno odvjetništvo Republike Hrvatske).\n19.  On 14 September 2010 the Supreme Court examined the case file of the Vinkovci Municipal Court and a submission of the Vukovar County Court, and found that the enforcement proceedings had started on 14 November 2008 and that they were still pending. It considered that the proceedings had not been excessively long and dismissed the applicant’s request.\n20.  On 6 September 2012 the applicant’s appeal was dismissed by a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court.\n21.  On 12 December 2012 the applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8161", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1958 respectively and live in Neukirchen.\n5.  The applicants own agricultural real estate in Upper Austria which is dedicated green area (Grünland) in the zoning plan – therefore land that is not meant for construction purposes with the exception of buildings necessary to use the land agriculturally.\n6.  On 29 July 2002, the applicants applied for a building permit for an agricultural building, stables and a riding hall to conduct horse breeding and training for therapy purposes. The mayor of Neukirchen requested an expert opinion of the Regional Agricultural and Forestry Authority (Agrar- und Forstrechts­abteilung der Oberösterreichischen Landesregierung) which, on 7 February 2003, stated that the conditions for the construction were not met by the project.\n7.  On 24 April 2004 the applicants filed a new request for a building permit on the same plot. In this request the same project was presented and in addition premises for the production of brandy. This request included a business plan for the activities envisaged by the applicants and plans of the construction.\n8.  On 10 August 2004, the Regional Agricultural and Forestry Authority again commented on the project.\n9.  On 11 November 2004, the mayor of Neukirchen dismissed the request of 29 July 2002 as well as the request of 24 April 2004 stating that the planned construction was not permitted by the zoning plan. The applicants appealed against that decision.\n10.  On 25 May 2005, the Neukirchen Municipal Council dismissed the appeal. This decision was based on an expert opinion according to which the project was uneconomical and merely a hobby and therefore not in compliance with the zoning plan for the area in question.\n11.  The applicants filed objections (Vorstellung) with the Upper Austria Regional Government (Landesregierung), which quashed the decision on 17 November 2005 finding that it violated the applicants’ rights in that it was based on an unclear expert opinion.\n12.  After obtaining supplementary expert opinions, on 17 May 2006, the Neukirchen Municipal Council dismissed both building requests. The applicants again filed objections.\n13.  On 16 November 2006, the Regional Government dismissed the applicants’ objections against the decision concerning the first building request of 29 July 2002, quashed that decision regarding the second request of 24 April 2004 and referred it back to the Municipal Council stating that the supplemented expert opinion was still not sufficiently clear. The decision regarding the dismissal of the first request of 29 July 2002 became final.\n14.  The Neukirchen Municipal Council lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court against the Regional Government’s decision on 22 December 2006.\n15.  On 18 May 2007, the Neukirchen Municipal Council suspended appeal proceedings awaiting the Administrative Court’s decision on the complaint. The applicants filed objections against this decision with the Regional Government.\n16.  On 6 November 2007, the Regional Government granted the applicants’ objections and quashed that decision. The Neukirchen Municipal Council lodged a complaint against this decision with the Administrative Court.\n17.  Meanwhile, the applicants had filed an application against the administration’s failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde), challenging the decision concerning the suspension of further proceedings. On 21 September 2007 the Administrative Court rejected this application.\n18.  On 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8163", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Constanţa.\n6.  On 30 June 2005 he was placed during his pre-trial detention in Poarta Albă Prison. On 9 November 2006 he was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment by the High Court of Cassation and Justice. He served his sentence in the same prison until 16 February 2010, when he was conditionally released.\n7.  The first applicant alleged that there had been severe overcrowding, having had to share cells measuring 35 sq. m. with fourteen other prisoners without proper ventilation. He further alleged that there had been a severe lack of hygiene, no provision of hygiene products, a lack of heating during the winter, a lack of bedclothes, an infestation of lice and bugs in the cells, as well as frequent water and power cuts and poor quality water.\n8.  In addition, he alleged that strip-searches were conducted regularly on groups of prisoners in the prison yard, even during the winter, with prisoners being bullied by guards. In this connection, the first applicant submitted statements made by three inmates who declared seeing such a search conducted on prisoners, including the first applicant, in December 2006.\n9.  The Government submitted that Poarta Albă Prison had been built in 1949 and that no changes were made to the size of the cells since. They further submitted that the prison authorities held no information with respect to the number of persons with whom the first applicant had shared his cell before 5 February 2010, the date a regulation requiring such statistics to be logged entered into force. Hence, between 5 and 16 February 2010 the first applicant had been placed in a cell measuring 68.09 sq. m, which he shared with fourteen other inmates.\n10.  With respect to hygiene conditions, the Government mentioned that all prisoners had unrestricted access to water and sanitary facilities, while access to showers was allowed twice per week. In addition, hygiene products and bedclothes were provided to all prisoners in accordance with the regulations and within the limits of the budget available. The Government also mentioned that internal prison regulations provided that prisoners could bring or buy their own hygiene products or bedclothes – the first applicant had been given permission to receive bedclothes from his family on two occasions. The Government also submitted that, according to the governor of Poarta Albă Prison, regular disinfections had been carried out between 2005 and 2010.\n11.  The Government further contended that Poarta Albă Prison had its own heating system with wood-burning stoves and a heating program which provided adequate warmth. In this connection, they submitted documents showing that between 2008 and 2010 certain quantities of wood were consumed each year, while certain quantities remained unused.\n12.  Lastly, according to documents submitted to the Government by the prison governor, potable water and food were tested regularly and were in compliance with hygiene standards.\n13.  On 6 June 2013 the applicants’ representatives at the time informed the Court that the applicant Andrei Dumitrof no longer wished to pursue his application.\n14.  Two letters, in which Mr Dumitrof’s attention was drawn to the fact that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application, were sent by the Court by registered mail directly to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8164", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Belgrade. The applicant’s son, Mr Dejan Petrović, was born in 1973 and died on 15 February 2002 in hospital, a month after reportedly having fallen from the window of a police station in Belgrade.\n8.  At about 9.30 p.m. on 16 January 2002 Mr Dejan Petrović was arrested by the Vračar Police Department (OUP Vračar-SUP Beograd) on suspicion of having snatched a woman’s handbag earlier that evening and was kept overnight in police custody. Mr Dejan Petrović, then aged twenty-nine, was apparently known to the police as an alleged drug user and as having been involved in similar incidents previously.\n9.  According to the police reports, the following morning at 8.30 a.m. Mr Dejan Petrović was questioned by three police officers, D.K., S.K. and N.K. Mr Dejan Petrović allegedly confessed that he had committed the robbery in question and had hidden a sum of money (around 20,000 Serbian dinars (RSD)) in his home. After an unsuccessful search of the Petrović family’s flat that morning, the police officers left the house together with Mr Petrović in handcuffs.\n10.  The applicant alleged that her son had been visibly distressed and very pale, and his mouth had been yellowish. On the way out, he had turned to her and said “call a lawyer, I have done nothing, they will kill me”.\n11.  According to the incident report of 17 January 2002 drawn up by Major M.M., the police officers’ superior, Mr Dejan Petrović had been brought back handcuffed, at around 10.30 a.m., to office no. 24 on the second floor of the Vračar police station to be questioned further. As they entered the office, while D.K. was approaching his desk, S.K. was standing and N.K. was closing the office door, Mr Dejan Petrović suddenly rushed forward, jumped head first through a closed window, breaking a window pane, and fell out into the courtyard. None of the police officers had been able to prevent it. The police officers ran out to the courtyard and, as Mr Dejan Petrović showed some signs of still being alive, they took the handcuffs off, while some other colleagues called an ambulance.\n12.  Around noon, the police informed the applicant’s family that Mr Dejan Petrović had jumped from the second floor of the police premises and that he had been taken to the emergency unit of the Serbian Clinical Centre in Belgrade.\n13.  Upon their arrival at the emergency unit, the applicant and her husband (Mr Dejan Petrović’s father) were informed that at around 11.10 a.m. the hospital had admitted an unidentified and severely injured patient who had jumped from the second floor of a building. He was in a comatose state, with a fracture of his left ribs and femur and contusion and haematoma of the liver, and was undergoing surgery that could take several hours.\n14.  While the surgical operation was being carried out, the applicant’s husband went to the Vračar Police premises. Following an on-site inspection (see paragraphs 18-19 below), he was shown the scene of the incident. The applicant claimed that her husband, as well as certain media, had initially been informed that their son, who had been handcuffed and in his winter jacket, had been alone in the office when he had jumped through the window, but had later been told that their son had broken away in the presence of the three police officers.\n15.  Mr Dejan Petrović remained in a comatose state while in hospital, except between 26 and 28 January 2002, when he showed some signs of consciousness and m", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8165", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Sofia.\n6.  On 15 October 1993 the applicant got married. At the time of the marriage, the applicant’s wife had an almost three-year old son, who had been born on 20 September 1990 and whose father had been registered as “unknown”. On 21 September 1993 the applicant was registered as having recognised paternity in respect of that child.\n7.  The spouses apparently stopped living together about two years after their marriage and divorced in 1997.\n8.  In 1999 the applicant brought a claim in court to declare his recognition of paternity null and void. In particular, he asserted that the declaration, with which the child had been recognised and which had been enclosed in the case file, bore a signature that was not his. The Sofia City Court examined his case and found that the legal requirements for recognition of the child had not been met. More specifically, the applicant had not personally expressed his will to recognise the child before the State agent authorised to receive such declarations; in addition, it had been established on the basis of an expert report during the proceedings that the signature on the documents with which the child had been recognised in 1993 was not that of the applicant. The court declared the recognition of the child by the applicant null and void in a final decision of June 2001, which entered into force the following month.\n9.  In March 2002 the applicant’s former wife brought a claim on behalf of her child to establish the applicant’s paternity. She asked the court to order gynecological and blood tests in the context of the proceedings. She indicated in the claim the applicant’s “permanent address” as the address where he could be reached.\n10.  The applicant was not found at his “permanent address” when the authorities visited it once in April 2002. According to a note by the summons officer, a neighbour had indicated that the applicant no longer lived there. The authorities proceeded by summoning the applicant with a publication in the State Gazette in July 2002. As he did not appear in court, a lawyer was appointed ex officio to represent him. The lawyer attended the court hearing before the Sofia City Court which took place on 2 December 2002; it appears that she had no contact with the applicant at any point in time, either before or after the hearing.\n11.  In a judgment of 16 December 2002 the Sofia City Court allowed the claim, declaring the applicant the biological father of the child. The court also held that the child was to carry the applicant’s names (as a patronymic and family name) and determined a monthly amount of child maintenance which the applicant had to pay. The court remained silent on the request for blood tests made by the applicant’s former wife. Instead, it based its findings on the date of the child’s birth and on testimony submitted by the applicant’s former wife’s cousin and aunt. The latter stated that, at the time of the child’s conception, the mother had been in an intimate relationship only with him. The court held that this was sufficient to conclude that the applicant was the child’s father. The applicant was also ordered to pay about 50 euros (EUR) in legal fees to each of the ex officio lawyers appointed by the court to represent him and the child respectively.\n12.  On 19 December 2002 the Sofia City Court prepared two notifications of the judgment, one for the attention of the applicant and another for the attention of the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8166", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Laç.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 2002 the applicant lodged an application to have his status as a (national liberation) war veteran recognised. On 15 January 2003 the Central Commission on War Veterans (“the Central Commission”), which was the body responsible for the examination of such applications, informed the applicant that it had stopped receiving applications in September 2001.\n7.  On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant lodged an application for leave to appeal out of time. On 13 May 2003 the Lezha District Court allowed his application for leave to submit an application to the Central Commission out of time.\n8.  On 19 June 2003, following the Lezha District Court’s decision, the applicant requested the Central Commission to have his status as a (national liberation) war veteran recognised.\n9.  On 14 July 2003 the Central Commission informed him, by way of a letter, that, in spite of the Lezha District Court’s decision, it had ceased to operate on 30 July 2002 and could not examine his application. The applicant did not institute any judicial proceedings in response to the Central Commission’s communication.\n10.  On 9 December 2004 the applicant was informed by the Directorate of Information at the Council of Ministers (Drejtoria e Informacionit, Këshilli i Ministrave) that the end date for the Central Commission’s operations had been extended to 31 December 2006 (paragraph 26 below).\n11.  On 7 December 2005 the applicant lodged a civil action with the Tirana District Court (“the District Court”) for the legal recognition of his time and status as a (national liberation) war veteran (vërtetimin e faktit juridik të njohjes së kohës së veteranit të LANC-it...si dhe njohjen e statusit të veteranit). He relied on Article 388 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) (paragraph 27 below), the Status of War Veterans Act (paragraph 21 below) and the Council of Ministers’ decisions no. 190 of 3 May 1995 and no. 748 of 11 November 2004 (paragraph 26 below).\n12.  On 1 February 2006 the District Court allowed the action. It found that from 1 March 1943 to the liberation of the country, the applicant had been a messenger for a partisan unit (korrier ... në shërbim të çetës partizane). The Tirana District Court considered just the applicant’s reliance on CMD no. 748 of 11 November 2004. It recognised the applicant’s war veteran status (vendosi...njohjen e statusit të veteranit).\n13.  On 14 February 2006 the Central Commission, which had intervened as a third party in the proceedings, appealed against the District Court’s decision arguing that the decision had been taken contrary to the law.\n14.  On 1 February 2007, the Tirana Court of Appeal upheld that decision. It found that, in so far as the Central Commission did not challenge the accuracy of the evidence examined by the District Court, its decision was considered just and given in accordance with the law (...meqenëse për provat e paraqitura personi i tretë nuk ka pretendime, Gjykata e Apelit çmon se vendimi i Gjykatës së Rrethit Tiranë është i drejtë dhe i bazuar dhe si i tillë duhet të lihet në fuqi). On 12 March 2007, following a request by the applicant, an enforcement writ was issued.\n15.  On 13 April 2007 a bailiff requested the Central Commission to voluntary comply with the court’s decision.\n16.  On 26 September 2007 the bailiff’s office decided to conclude the enforcement proceedings (pushimin e ekzekutimit) on the grounds that", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8167", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were former employees of “Društveno preduzeće Industrija mesa ‘Crvena zvezda’” Kragujevac (hereinafter “the debtor”), which was, at the relevant time, a company predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital.\n6.  On 15 October 2002 the Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud) in Kragujevac opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor (St. 1079/02).\n7.  The applicants duly submitted their claims for the payment of due salary arrears and related employment benefits.\n8.  On 25 August 2003 and 11 October 2004 the Commercial Court accepted some of the applicants’ claims. As regards the remainder of their claims, it instructed them to initiate a regular civil suit. Two of the applicants did so and on 31 May 2004, 1 June 2004 and 21 January 2005 the Commercial Court ordered the debtor to pay them different amounts on account of salary arrears and related employment benefits, together with statutory interest and legal costs.\n9.  On 20 February 2009 the Commercial Court terminated the insolvency proceedings. This decision was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia on 27 March 2009 (no. 21/09) and became final on 16 July 2009.\n10.  On 26 February 2010 the debtor ceased to exist.\n11.  The court decisions rendered in the applicants’ favour on 25 August 2003, 11 October 2004, 31 May 2004, 1 June 2004 and 21 January 2005 (see paragraph 8 above) became final on an unspecified date. They remain only partly enforced to the present day.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8168", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1976, 1949 and 1952 respectively and live in Germany.\n10.  Prior to the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), two of the present applicants, Ms Ališić and Mr Sadžak, had deposited foreign currency in Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo[1]. In 1990, within the context of the economic reforms carried out in 1989-90 (see paragraph 21 below), Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo became a branch of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana, a Slovenian bank. Also prior to the dissolution of the SFRY, the third applicant, Mr Šahdanović, had deposited foreign currency in the Tuzla branch, located in Bosnia and Herzegovina, of Investbanka, a Serbian bank. According to the material in the Court’s possession, on 31 December 1991 the balance in Ms Ališić’s and Mr Sadžak’s accounts at the Sarajevo branch of Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana was 4,715 Deutschmarks (DEM) and DEM 129,874 respectively; on 3 January 2002 the balance in Mr Šahdanović’s accounts at the Tuzla branch of Investbanka was DEM 63,880, 4 Austrian schillings and 73 United States dollars (USD).\n11.  The applicants’ complaints under the Convention concern their inability to withdraw their foreign-currency savings from the bank accounts described above. In their submission, this constituted a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention by all of the respondent States. They also alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.\n12.  Before the economic reforms that were carried out in the SFRY in 1989-90, its commercial banking system consisted of basic and associated banks. Basic banks had separate legal personality, but were integrated into the organisational structure of one of the nine associated banks. As a rule, basic banks were founded and controlled by socially owned companies based in the same territorial unit (that is, in one of the Republics – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia – or Autonomous Provinces – Kosovo and Vojvodina – of the SFRY). Socially owned companies were the flagship of the Yugoslav model of self-management: neither private nor State-owned, they were a collective property controlled by their employees, based on a communist vision of industrial relations (the phenomenon and the current status of such companies in Serbia, where they continue to exist, has been described in R. Kačapor and Others v. Serbia, nos. 2269/06, 3041/06, 3042/06, 3043/06, 3045/06 and 3046/06, §§ 71-76 and 97, 15 January 2008). Two or more basic banks could form an associated bank. Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana, one of the associated banks of the SFRY, was composed of Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo, at which two of the present applicants had opened accounts, Ljubljanska Banka Zagreb[2], Ljubljanska Banka Skopje[3] and a number of other basic banks. Similarly, Investbanka, at which one of the present applicants had opened accounts, had, together with some other basic banks, formed an associated bank called Beogradska udružena Banka.\n13.  In the SFRY there were also nine national banks, the National Bank of Yugoslavia (“the NBY”) and a national bank in each of the six Republics and two Autonomous Provinces.\n(b)  Foreign-currency deposits\n14.  Being hard-pressed for hard currency, the SFRY made it attractive for its expatriates and other citizens to deposit foreign currency with its banks. Such deposits earned high interest, the annual rate often exceeding 10%, and were ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8170", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are of Uzbek ethnic origin. They lived in the Jalal‑Abad region of Kyrgyzstan. After mass disorders and inter-ethnic clashes in the region in June 2010, they left Kyrgyzstan for Russia to flee, together with many other ethnic Uzbeks, ethnically motivated violence.\n7.  Mr Kadirzhanov was born in 1970. He currently lives in Orel, Russia.\n8.  In July 2010 the applicant arrived in the town. Before June 2012 he had not lodged any applications for refugee status or temporary asylum.\n9.  On 3 October 2011 the Kyrgyz authorities charged the applicant in absentia with violent crimes committed in the course of the inter-ethnic violence of June 2010, when a group of individuals had barricaded a road near the village of Suzak, which had led to a number of deaths.\n10.  On 11 November 2011 the Suzak District Court ordered the applicant’s detention for two months. The Kyrgyz authorities also added the applicant’s name to an international wanted list.\n11.  On 14 May 2012 the applicant was arrested in Orel and placed in remand prison no. 1. It appears that he first learnt about the criminal prosecution and charges against him in Kyrgyzstan on that day. He denied his involvement in the June 2010 violence. On an unspecified date, the applicant was provided with the services of a State-appointed lawyer for the purposes of the extradition proceedings.\n12.  On 15 May 2012 the Severnyy district prosecutor of Orel ordered the applicant’s custodial detention on the basis of the decision of 11 November 2011, referring to Article 61 of the 1993 CIS Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (“the Minsk Convention”).\n13.  The Kyrgyz authorities confirmed their intention to seek the applicant’s extradition.\n14.  On 12 June 2012 the Kyrgyzstan Prosecutor General’s Office lodged a formal extradition request with its Russian counterpart. It submitted the following diplomatic assurances: that the applicant would be provided with every opportunity, as prescribed by international and Kyrgyz criminal law, to defend himself, including by way of legal assistance; that he would not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and that he would not be prosecuted on political, racial, ethnic or religious grounds.\n15.  On 15 June 2012 the Severnyy district prosecutor again ordered the applicant’s custodial detention, referring to Article 466 § 2 of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCrP”).\n16.  On the same date the applicant applied to the regional migration authority for refugee status.\n17.  On 10 July 2012 the Severnyy District Court of Orel examined the Severnyy district prosecutor’s request to extend the applicant’s detention for four months. Noting that the prosecutor had not substantiated the need for such a long period by reference to specific measures to be taken during the “extradition check” procedure (экстрадиционная проверка) and noting the need to take account of the upcoming decision on the application for refugee status (which could bar further extradition proceedings), the judge extended the applicant’s detention for one month only, until 14 August 2012. On 25 July 2012 the Orel Regional Court upheld the extension order.\n18.  On 25 July 2012 the applicant’s lawyer made submissions to the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office in relation to, inter alia, the risk of ill‑treatment in the event of the applicant’s extradition to Kyrgyzstan.\n19.  On 9 August 2012 the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8171", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 in the Uzbek SSR of the Soviet Union. Since 1990 he has been living in St Petersburg, Russia. It appears that he did not acquire any nationality following the break-up of the USSR.\n6.  On 19 July 2011 the police stopped the applicant for an identity check and discovered that he had no identity documents. On the same day a judge of the Sestroretsk District Court of St Petersburg found him guilty of an administrative offence under Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences (breach of residence regulations in Russia), fined him 2,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and ordered his expulsion from Russia. The court ruled that the applicant should be detained in the detention centre for aliens until his expulsion.\n7.  Officers of the Federal Migration Service (FMS) interviewed and fingerprinted the applicant, who had no passport or other identity documents. He told them that he had been born in Tashkent and, prior to his arrival in Russia, had had a registered place of residence in the Tashkent Region.\n8.  On 30 November 2011 the director of the detention centre for aliens asked the Embassy of Uzbekistan to issue travel documents (return certificates) to thirteen individuals, including the applicant, who were described as being Uzbek nationals. No reply was received.\n9.  Further similar requests sent on 10 February, 29 March, 31 July and 11 November 2012 did not elicit any reply from the Embassy of Uzbekistan either.\n10.  On 7 June 2012 counsel for the applicant sent an inquiry to the Embassy of Uzbekistan in Russia, seeking to find out whether or not the applicant had Uzbek nationality and whether he could be removed to Uzbekistan. No reply was received.\n11.  On the same day counsel asked the FMS to inform him what measures had been taken with a view to expelling the applicant from Russia, whether or not his identity had been established and why the applicant had already spent more than eleven months in detention. In reply, the FMS refused to give any information, citing the law on the protection of personal data.\n12.  On 14 November 2012 counsel applied to the Sestroretskiy District Court for an order discontinuing the enforcement of the expulsion order of 19 July 2011. He pointed out that the enforcement was impossible since the Uzbek authorities would not accept the applicant, who was not a national of that State.\n13.  On 10 December 2012 a judge of the Sestroretskiy District Court rejected the application, without hearing the parties or the applicant. According to the judge, a failure to take measures with a view to expelling the applicant was not a ground for discontinuing the enforcement of the expulsion order. Counsel submitted an appeal, in which he complained in particular about the absence of a periodic judicial review of the applicant’s detention in breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and about the State authorities’ failure to show special diligence in the conduct of the expulsion proceedings, contrary to the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention. On 14 March 2013 a judge of the St Petersburg City Court rejected the appeal in a summary fashion.\n14.  Counsel also attempted to challenge the applicant’s detention as unlawful. By decision of 26 November 2012, the Krasnoselskiy District Court of St Petersburg disallowed the complaint, finding that the decision of 19 July 2011 constituted a sufficient lawful basis for the ensuing detention. It noted in particular that the applicant ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8172", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Kharkiv.\n6.  In August 2003 F., a cashier in a game-machines arcade, was found at his workplace unconscious with head injuries. He died in hospital shortly afterwards.\n7.  On 8 June 2004 the applicant was arrested by the Leninskiy District police of Kharkiv (“the district police”) and confessed to having inflicted injuries on F. and robbed the arcade. According to the applicant, that confession was false and had been given by him as a result of ill-treatment. In particular, police officers had applied electric current to his body, suffocated him in a gas mask and applied various other unspecified torture techniques.\n8.  At an unspecified time on the date of the applicant’s arrest he was assigned a legal-aid lawyer, S.\n9.  Also on the same date the applicant had a confrontation with two witnesses, who claimed that they had seen him running near the arcade, with his bare chest covered in mud and blood, on the day when F. had been found injured.\n10.  On 9 June 2004 the applicant participated in a reconstruction of the crime scene and confirmed his confessional statements in presence of S.\n11.  On 10 June 2004 the applicant was indicted on charges of causing fatal injuries to F. and robbing the arcade. During questioning on that date he confirmed his previous statements. On the same date the Leninskiy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) remanded the applicant in custody, having found that there was a substantial risk that he might abscond or commit other crimes, as the charges against him were serious and he had no steady employment.\n12.  On 11 June 2004 the applicant was placed in the Kharkiv pre-trial detention facility (“the Kharkiv SIZO”), examined by the SIZO medical staff and certified as having no bodily injuries.\n13.  In July 2004 the Kharkiv Psychiatric Hospital, having conducted an in-patient psychiatric assessment of the applicant, issued an opinion that he was suffering from a mixed personality disorder, which did not prevent him from understanding the meaning of his actions or controlling them.\n14.  In July 2004 B., a privately hired lawyer, was admitted in the proceedings as a replacement for the legal-aid lawyer, S.\n15.  On 31 July 2004 the applicant, questioned in B.’s presence, retracted his previous confessions, claiming that they had been given under duress from the police, and pleaded innocent. Copies of his relevant statements and ill-treatment complaints have not been submitted to the Court.\n16.  On 4 August 2004 in a confrontation with the applicant, police officer B. denied having ill-treated him. On the same date the Leninskiy District Prosecutor’s Office (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) refused to set up a criminal inquiry into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment for want of objective evidence. There is nothing to show that the applicant appealed against that decision.\n17.  On 18 August 2004 the applicant was committed to stand trial before the District Court.\n18.  On 13 September 2004 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention, having found no reasons to release him.\n19.  On 14 December 2004 the applicant complained in court that he had been ill-treated by the authorities with a view to extract self-incriminating statements and requested to be released against an obligation not to abscond. On the same date the District Court ordered the applicant’s release against an undertaking not to abscond. It noted that, notwithstanding the g", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8173", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1972. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Berdychiv.\n7.  On 27 October 2004 the body of Ms V. was found on a deserted street in Simferopol. V. had suffered numerous knife wounds.\n8.  On 28 October 2004 the police obtained an expert opinion that a fingerprint found on the cover of V.’s notebook could possibly belong to the applicant (whose fingerprints were stored in the police database). The police also discovered that some of V.’s belongings, including a mobile telephone and one earring, were missing.\n9.  On 29 October 2004 several officers from the Simferopol Kyivsky District Police arrived at the applicant’s home (some 120 kilometres away from Simferopol), inspected it, seized some of the applicant’s clothes and took him to the police station in Simferopol.\n10.  No formal record of the applicant’s arrest was drawn up.\n11.  On 29 and 30 October 2004 the applicant was questioned as a witness about V.’s murder and the theft of her belongings.\n12.  On 30 October 2004 he confessed that on 27 October 2004 he had come to Simferopol from his village to enjoy himself and had decided to murder a passer-by in order to steal her belongings. He had stolen V.’s mobile telephone, which he had lost on his way back home, and had killed her with a kitchen knife he had been carrying with him.\n13.  On 31 October 2004 the applicant was questioned as a suspect. Before the questioning session, the applicant was informed that he was suspected of having committed the murder of V. within the meaning of Article 115 § 1 of the Criminal Code of 2001 and that as a suspect he had right to legal assistance, which he waived in writing.\n14.  On the same date the applicant underwent a medical expert assessment, according to which he had not sustained any injuries in the period from 29 to 31 October 2004.\n15.  Again on the same date an undertaking not to abscond was selected as the preventive measure to be used in the applicant’s respect.\n16.  According to the applicant, it was not until 1 November 2004 that he was released from custody under the undertaking not to abscond.\n17.  During the afternoon of 1 November 2004 the applicant was arrested in Simferopol on charges of breaching the public order (through swearing, spitting and vagrancy) and detained for ten days as an administrative punishment, pursuant to a decision of the Simferopol Zaliznychnyy District Court.\n18.  On 4, 9 and 10 November 2004 the applicant, held in administrative detention, was further questioned concerning the murder and robbery. Before each of the questioning sessions the applicant signed waivers of his right to legal representation.\n19.  On 11 November 2004 the Simferopol Kyivsky District Court remanded the applicant in custody as a preventive measure in connection with the criminal proceedings against him.\n20.  On 16 November 2004 lawyer E. was admitted to the proceedings to represent the applicant. However, according to the applicant, the lawyer did not visit him until 26 December 2004 and no questioning of the applicant took place in his presence.\n21.  On 12 January 2005 the charges against the applicant were reclassified in law from those of simple murder within the meaning of Article 115 § 1 of the Criminal Code of 2001 to those of murder for profit (an aggravated form of murder) under Article 115 § 2 of the Code.\n22.  On 10 February 2005 a new lawyer, R., was admitted to the proceedings to replace lawyer E.\n23.  On 28 Fe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8174", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicants were born in 1968 and 1970 respectively. The first applicant, Mr Svinarenko, is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in the Murmansk region. The second applicant, Mr Slyadnev, lives in the settlement of Sinegorye in the Yagodninskiy district of the Magadan region.\n8.  In 2002 the Far Eastern Federal Circuit Investigation Department of the Investigation Committee at the Ministry of the Interior brought several sets of criminal proceedings against a Mr Grishin.\n9.  On 24 September 2002 the first applicant was questioned as one of the suspects in those proceedings. On 9 October 2002 he was arrested. In a decision of 12 November 2002 ordering his detention on remand, the Magadan Town Court noted that the crimes he was charged with had been committed during a three-year probation period under a judgment of the Magadan Region Yagodninskiy District Court of 13 April 2001 convicting him of theft and imposing on him a conditional sentence of five years’ imprisonment. It also noted that he had negative references from his place of residence and that he had breached his undertaking to appear before the investigating authority. According to the final charges against the first applicant, he was accused of robbery with violence against Mr A.S. and Mrs T.S. in September 2002 as a member of a gang led by Mr Grishin, and of the illegal acquisition, storage, transportation and carrying of ammunition.\n10.  On 20 January 2003 the second applicant, who was serving a sentence of imprisonment after his conviction by the Magadan Region Yagodninskiy District Court on 26 July 2002 for negligent infliction of death under Article 109 § 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“the CC”), was questioned as one of the suspects in the proceedings brought against Mr Grishin. On 22 January 2003 he was charged with the following crimes:\n(i)  establishing an armed gang under Mr Grishin’s leadership and participating in the gang’s attacks on citizens from October 2001 to September 2002 – under Article 209 § 1 of the CC;\n(ii)  the robbery in October 2001 of Mr V.B., the director of a private gold‑refining company, with the use of weapons and violence endangering life and health and a threat to use such violence, by an organised group, with the aim of misappropriating another’s property of substantial value – under Article 162 § 3 of the CC;\n(iii)  illegal storage and transportation of precious metals (industrial gold allegedly misappropriated from Mr V.B.) of substantial value by an organised group in October 2001 – under Article 191 § 2 of the CC;\n(iv)  extortion (against Mr V.B.) in October 2001 with the aim of obtaining a right to property under the threat of the use of violence, by an organised group – under Article 163 § 3 of the CC;\n(v)  the robbery of Mr Ya.B. in October 2001 with the use of weapons and violence endangering life and health and the threat to use such violence, by a group of persons according to a premeditated plan, by means of illegal entry into a dwelling with the aim of misappropriating another’s property of substantial value – under Article 162 § 3 of the CC; and\n(vi)  illegal acquisition, storage, transfer, transportation and carrying of firearms by an organised group in October 2001 – under Article 222 § 3 of the CC.\n11.  On 11 April 2003 the Magadan Region Khasynskiy District Court found the second applicant to be eligible, in view of his orderly behaviour and positive references, for early conditional release", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8175", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  Valentin Câmpeanu, a man of Roma ethnicity, was born on 15 September 1985. His father was unknown, and his mother, Florica Câmpeanu, who died in 2001, abandoned him at birth. Mr Câmpeanu was therefore placed in an orphanage, the Corlate Centre, where he grew up.\nIn 1990 Mr Câmpeanu was diagnosed as HIV-positive. He was later diagnosed with “profound intellectual disability, an IQ of 30 and HIV” and was accordingly classified as belonging to the “severe” disability group. In time, he also developed associated symptoms such as pulmonary tuberculosis, pneumonia and chronic hepatitis.\nIn March 1992 he was transferred to the Craiova Centre for Disabled Children and at a later date to the Craiova no. 7 Placement Centre (“the Placement Centre”).\n8.  On 30 September 2003 the Dolj County Child Protection Panel (“the Panel”) ordered that Mr Câmpeanu should no longer be cared for by the State. The decision was justified on the grounds that Mr Câmpeanu had recently turned eighteen and was not enrolled in any form of education at the time.\nAlthough the social worker dealing with Mr Câmpeanu had recommended transferring him to the local Neuropsychological Recovery and Rehabilitation Centre, the Panel ordered that a competent social worker should take all measures necessary for Mr Câmpeanu to be transferred to the Poiana Mare Neuropsychiatric Hospital (“the PMH”). According to the relevant law, the decision could be challenged before the Craiova District Court.\nMr Câmpeanu was not present in person and was not represented at the hearing held by the Panel.\n9.  On 14 October 2003 Mr Câmpeanu’s health was reassessed by the Dolj County Council Disabled Adults Medical Examination Panel. The assessment resulted solely in a finding of HIV infection, corresponding to the “average” disability group. It was also mentioned that the patient was “socially integrated”.\n10.  Subsequently, on an unspecified date in October or November 2003, a medical and welfare assessment of Mr Câmpeanu was carried out by a social worker and a doctor from the Placement Centre as a prerequisite for his admission to a medical and social care centre. Under the heading “Legal representative” they indicated “abandoned at birth”, while the space next to “Person to contact in case of emergency” was left blank. The diagnosis indicated was “severe intellectual disability, HIV-positive”, without any reference to the previous diagnosis (see paragraph 9 above). The following information was included in the assessment report: “requires supervision and intermittent assistance with personal care”, and the report concluded that Mr Câmpeanu was able to take care of himself, but at the same time required considerable support.\n11.  By a letter dated 16 October 2003, the PMH informed the Panel that it could not admit Mr Câmpeanu, who had been diagnosed with HIV and mental disability, as the hospital lacked the facilities necessary to treat individuals with such a diagnosis.\n12.  Following this refusal, between October 2003 and January 2004 the Panel and the County Department for the Protection of the Rights of the Child (“the Child Protection Department”) contacted a series of institutions, asking for assistance in identifying a social care or psychiatric establishment willing to admit Mr Câmpeanu. While stating that the PMH had refused to admit the patient because he had HIV, the Child Protection Department asked for the cooperation of the institutions concerned, mentioning that Mr Câmpeanu’s cond", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8176", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Podgorica.\n6.  On 8 May 2001 the applicant murdered X and immediately thereafter left the country.\n7.  On 6 March 2002 the applicant, in his absence, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to twenty years in prison.\n8.  On 27 June 2002 the applicant was arrested in Spain pursuant to an international arrest warrant (potjernica), and placed in custody.\n9.  On 14 May 2003 he was extradited to Montenegro.\n10.  On 3 February 2004 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were re-opened (ponavljanje krivičnog postupka).\n11.  On 10 April 2009 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica found the applicant guilty, sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings as well as court fees (na osnovu sudskog paušala).\n12.  On 29 January 2010 the Court of Appeal (Apelacioni sud) in Podgorica quashed the judgment and ordered a retrial.\n13.  On 4 October 2010 the High Court found the applicant guilty, sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment, and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings and court fees.\n14.  On 21 March 2011 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision. It would appear that on 26 April 2011 the decision was served on the applicant and he was transferred to prison.\n15.  On 19 September 2011 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) in Podgorica dismissed an appeal on points of law (zahtjev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosnažne presude) lodged by the applicant.\n16.  On 25 November 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining, in substance, about the reasoning of the courts, their assessment of the evidence and their interpretation of the law. He also complained of various irregularities in dealing with his request for review and his action for fair redress (see paragraphs 17-22 below). On 2 November 2012 the applicant withdrew his constitutional appeal and the Constitutional Court terminated the proceedings (obustavio je postupak) on 27 November 2012.\n17.  On 10 November 2009 the applicant lodged a request for review (kontrolni zahtjev), complaining that the Court of Appeal had not ruled on his appeal within three months (see paragraph 75 below).\n18.  On 11 January 2010, having received no reply to the previous request, the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court.\n19.  On 7 July 2010, having still received no reply, the applicant lodged an action for fair redress (tužba za pravično zadovoljenje).\n20.  On 29 September 2010 the Supreme Court rejected the action on the grounds that the applicant had not lodged a request for review.\n21.  On 10 May 2011 the applicant lodged another action for fair redress.\n22.  On 17 June 2011 the Supreme Court ruled that the criminal proceedings had been unreasonably long. Considering that the applicant’s detention required urgent proceedings, but also that it had been a complex case and that the applicant had contributed to the overall length of the proceedings, the court awarded him 2,000 euros (EUR). The applicant’s proposal that that decision be published was refused as the court did not consider it to be a “serious breach” of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. It was also noted that the applicant had indeed submitted a request for review beforehand, which had not been considered, and that his appeal in that regard had never been forwarded by the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.\n23.  On 25 July 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against that decision, complainin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8177", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Šabac.\n5.  The applicant was employed by “Zorka-mineralna đubriva” AD, a socially/State-owned company based in Šabac (hereinafter – “the debtor”).\n6.  On 10 April 2001 the Šabac Municipal Court, by a court order, gave effect to a settlement made by the applicant and the debtor. According to that settlement the debtor had to pay the applicant certain sums in respect of salary arrears and costs of proceedings.\n7.  On 25 March 2003 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Šabac Municipal Court.\n8.  On the same date the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.\n9.  On 4 April 2003 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring.\n10.  On 11 May 2007 the applicant requested the court to continue the enforcement proceedings.\n11.  On 6 July 2007 the court continued the enforcement proceedings.\n12.  On 24 June 2008 the enforcement proceedings were stayed again because the debtor was undergoing restructuring.\n13.  On 26 March 2010 the applicant requested the court once again to continue the enforcement proceedings.\n14.  On 27 December 2011 the court considered the request of 26 March 2010 to be a fresh application for the enforcement of the decision of 10 April 2001 and ordered the applicant to submit again a copy of that decision.\n15.  As the applicant failed to comply with this this request on 30 January 2012 the court terminated the enforcement.\n16.  On 3 July 2003 the Šabac Municipal Court ruled in the favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him certain sums in respect of salary arrears and costs of proceedings. This judgment became final on the same date.\n17.  On 29 September 2004 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Šabac Municipal Court.\n18.  On 30 September 2004 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.\n19.  On 4 January 2005 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring.\n20.  On 11 May 2007 the applicant requested the court to continue the enforcement proceedings.\n21.  On 4 October 2007 the court continued the enforcement proceedings.\n22.  On 3 March 2008 the enforcement proceedings were stayed again because the debtor was undergoing restructuring.\n23.  On 10 July 2002 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the debtor as part of privatisation process. The restructuring of the debtor is still ongoing.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8178", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are ethnic Uighur Muslims from Xinjiang, an autonomous region in northwest China (the “Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region” or “XUAR”), and were born in 1972, 1974, 1972, 1977 and 1974 respectively. According to the latest information provided to the Court, the first, fourth and fifth applicants currently live in Istanbul, the second applicant lives in the Netherlands and the third applicant lives in Egypt. They all left China on different dates mainly because of the pressure and fear of persecution they faced there as practising Muslims of Uighur ethnic origin.\n6.  On 12 July 2008 the second applicant, who had entered Turkey legally in August 2007, was arrested in Istanbul following an identity check, which revealed that he had overstayed his visa and was thus in Turkey illegally. He was placed in the Kumkapı Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre attached to the Istanbul Police Headquarters.\n7.  On 1 August 2008 the Ministry of the Interior instructed the Istanbul Governor’s Office to deport the second applicant.\n8.  In the meantime, on 17 July 2008 a meeting was held between the General Security Directorate and representatives from the Chinese Government office in Ankara regarding security measures to be taken in connection with the 2008 Beijing Olympics. The Chinese Government agents informed the Turkish authorities that they had identified approximately fifty members of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (“ETIM”) – considered a terrorist organisation by the Chinese Government – who had undergone training in Pakistan for seven months. While some of the group had been captured in the United Arab Emirates (Dubai) while preparing for an attack, approximately thirteen others had escaped to Turkey through Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. These individuals aimed to carry out an attack on Chinese targets in Turkey using their connections there, and were collecting intelligence on the Olympics and explosives for that purpose. The Chinese authorities provided a list of the suspects they believed had fled to Turkey, which included all five applicants.\n9.  Following a decision by the Ministry of the Interior, and on the basis of the security information received from the Chinese authorities, on 25 July 2008 the applicants’ names were registered on the list of persons banned from entering into Turkey.\n10.  On 6 August 2008 the Anti-Terror Branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate (Terörle Mücadele Şube Müdürlüğü) advised the Istanbul Governor’s Office by letter of the information received from the Chinese authorities and the Turkish National Intelligence Agency regarding the presence of trained ETIM members in Turkey aiming to carry out terrorist attacks in China or Turkey prior to, during or in the aftermath of the Beijing Olympics. The addresses used by the suspects in Istanbul were also indicated in this letter.\n11.  On the same date the Ministry of the Interior instructed the Istanbul Security Directorate to hold any suspects captured on the basis of the information received from the Chinese Government at the Foreigners Department of the Istanbul Security Directorate for the duration of the Olympic Games, with a view to them being expelled after the end of the Games. According to the internal documents and correspondence submitted by the Government, the Turkish authorities were concerned that a terrorist attack on Turkish soil, including on Chinese targets, would paint a negative image of the country", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8179", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Curchi.\n6.  At the time of the events the applicant was head of female patient services at the Orhei Psychiatric Hospital. In February 2003 the hospital’s chief physician was suspended from his position – owing to his being the subject of a criminal investigation – and the applicant was appointed to temporarily replace him. Another doctor, V.C., was appointed to temporarily fill the applicant’s former position.\n7.  In October 2005 the criminal investigation conducted in respect of the hospital’s chief physician was terminated and, on the basis of a court order, he returned to his position. On 27 October 2005 the hospital ordered the applicant’s transfer to the position of head of female patient services and V.C.’s transfer to the position of an ordinary doctor. On the basis of that order, the applicant took up his initial position of head of female patient services and V.C. returned to being a simple doctor.\n8.  On an unspecified date V.C. challenged the order of 27 October 2005 arguing that he had not consented to being removed from the position of head of female patient services. The proceedings lasted until February 2006 during which time the applicant worked as head of female patient services. Nobody informed the applicant about the proceedings.\n9.  On 28 February 2006 the Orhei District Court examined the action brought by V.C. without involving the applicant in the proceedings, and upheld it, quashing the hospital’s order of 27 October 2005. V.C. was reinstated in the position of head of female patient services. The applicant learned about the trial after its conclusion and appealed against the judgment. He argued, inter alia, that the judgment was unlawful because he had not been involved in proceedings in which his own rights and interests were clearly affected, relying – inter alia – on Article 360 (1) (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 14 below). The hospital did not appeal against the judgment but supported the applicant’s position during the proceedings before the Court of Appeal.\n10.  On 8 June 2006 the Chişinău Court of Appeal declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible on the grounds that he had not been a party to the proceedings and had no right to lodge an appeal against the judgment of 28 February 2006. In dismissing his argument quoting Article 360 (1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court of Appeal stated: “[...] the [applicant’s] reference to Article 360 (1)(b) of the Code, which would have entitled him to appeal without having been a party to the proceedings [...], is based on a wrong interpretation of this procedural rule, which cannot be applied in the present case”.\n11.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court of Justice, again relying on Article 360 (1)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 14 below).\n12.  On 15 November 2006 the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law after finding that the applicant did not have the right to lodge an appeal against the judgment of 28 February 2006 because his rights and obligations had not been affected by that judgment.\n13.  After the above events, the applicant took up a position as an ordinary doctor at the hospital, receiving a salary which was lower than that of the head of section.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8180", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants live in Bosnia and Herzegovina.\n6.  By five judgments of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance of 30 March 2009, 5 February 2001, 19 November 2001, 3 May 2000 and 13 December 2000 which became final on 12 November 2009, 23 August 2004, 26 October 2004, 26 April 2005 and 26 December 2001, respectively, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in convertible marks (BAM)[1] in respect of war damage with default interest at the statutory rate:\n7.  The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 24 December 2009, 22 October 2004, 27 May 2005, 6 September 2006 and 5 April 2002, respectively.\n8.  The applicants, except for Mr Dragoslav Banjac and the Tutićs, complained of non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”). On different dates the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the cases of Mr Draško Bokan, the Jovešs and the Kovačevićs. The applicants did not claim compensation, but even if they had done so, their claim would most likely have been refused (see, for example, the Constitutional Court’s decisions AP 774/04 of 20 December 2005, § 438; AP 557/05 of 12 April 2006, § 195; AP 1211/06 of 13 December 2007, § 79; AP 224/08 of December 2010, § 37).\n9.  After an extensive information campaign explaining the available options for the settlement of the Republika Srpska’s public debt (including its debt arising from domestic judgments), between 25 March 2008 and 19 March 2013 the applicants informed the authorities that they agreed to be paid only the legal costs in cash and the principal debt and default interest in bonds. Government bonds were then issued on the following dates:\n 10.  Ms Smiljana Joveš, Mr Dragoslav Banjac, the Tutićs, and the Kovačevićs have already sold some or all of their bonds on the Stock Exchange.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8182", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Tiszalök.\n6.  On 11 November 2002 the applicant was arrested in Spain on charges of drug trafficking. On 12 November 2002 his pre-trial detention was ordered. On 2 May 2003 he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. While he was serving this sentence in a Spanish prison, he was granted a leave, from which he did not return. Subsequently, he absconded.\n7.  It appears that simultaneously another investigation was in progress on the side of the Hungarian authorities who suspected that the applicant and his Hungarian common-law wife were involved in a drug trafficking network operating between Spain, Hungary and South America. In this context, a European arrest warrant was issued by the Hungarian Miskolc District Court. Acting upon this warrant, the Spanish police arrested the applicant on 8 August 2005. The applicant was then obliged to serve the remainder of his Spanish sentence.\n8.  For the purposes of the ongoing Hungarian investigation, on 3 April 2006 the applicant was temporarily extradited for six months to Hungary where his pre-trial detention was ordered. After the expiry of the temporary extradition, on 29 September 2006 he was transferred back to Spain in order to complete his sentence. After serving the remainder of the sentence, on 20 November 2006 he was definitively extradited to Hungary.\n9.  On 21 November 2006 his pre-trial detention was ordered by the Miskolc District Court. His detention was subsequently prolonged at the statutory intervals (on 14 December 2006, 8 March 2007, 13 September 2007 and 22 April 2008) on the grounds that there was a risk of absconding and repetition of crime. The applicant’s respective appeals were dismissed on 27 December 2006 and 11 June 2008.\n10.  On 4 June 2009 the applicant requested the termination of his pre‑trial detention or its replacement by a less stringent measure on the ground that the duration of his pre-trial detention had exceeded the statutory limit of three years. The Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court rejected this argument. It held that the period of the applicant’s first pre-trial detention in 2006 during his temporary extradition to Hungary had been credited against his Spanish sentence, and that therefore the period in question was to be counted only from the day after his definitive extradition on 20 November 2006. The court also held that the circumstances invariably justified the continued detention. The Debrecen Court of Appeal upheld this decision on 16 July 2009.\n11.  On 12 June 2009 the applicant was convicted of aggravated drug trafficking by the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court and sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment, a ten-year ban from Hungary and confiscation of assets in the amount of 5 million Hungarian forints (HUF).\n12.  On 9 June 2010 the Debrecen Court of Appeal quashed this judgment on procedural and substantive grounds and remitted the case. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was reordered on the ground that there was a risk of absconding and repetition of offences. The applicant again requested the termination of the detention or its replacement by a less stringent measure. On 5 August 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision with regard to the continuation of the detention. The Supreme Court held that the applicant, an inveterate drug-dealer, might re-offend or abscond in the face of the impending severe sanction.\n13.  On 4 October 2010 the Regional Court p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8183", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a company incorporated in Moldova.\n6.  On 13 February 2003 the Vadul lui Voda local council adopted a decision concerning the sale of a plot of land with a greenhouse on it to the applicant company. Subsequently, in March 2003, a contract was entered into for that purpose between the local council and the applicant company.\n7.  On 15 June 2006 the local council adopted a decision revoking its previous decision. The applicant initiated proceedings against the local council.\n8.  On 25 December 2006 the Vadul lui Voda local council introduced a counter action seeking the termination of the contract of sale between it and the applicant company on the grounds that the price asked for the property had been too low and that the land had been sold unlawfully owing to its proximity to a river. The applicant company opposed this action and argued, inter alia, that it was time-barred under the provisions of the Civil Code in force at the time the contract was entered into.\n9.  On 13 April 2007 the Ciocana District Court rejected the applicant’s action but accepted that of the local council and declared the contract of sale null and void. The court held that the rules governing time limitation contained in the new Civil Code should apply. The court expressed of its own motion the opinion that the local council’s action had concerned the declaration of the absolute nullity of the contract of sale and that therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 217 of the new Civil Code, it could not be time-barred. The applicant appealed.\n10.  On 5 September 2007 the Chişinău Court of Appeal upheld the appeal lodged by the applicant company and quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. It upheld the applicant company’s action and dismissed the counter action lodged by the local council. The local council lodged an appeal on points of law.\n11.  On 16 January 2008 the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the appeal on points of law lodged by the local council. It quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and upheld the judgment of the Ciocana District Court of 13 April 2007. The Supreme Court did not state any position in respect of the applicant company’s initial defence concerning the statute of limitations. Only the representative of the local council was present at the Supreme Court hearing. The judgment of the Supreme Court was final.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8184", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Diyarbakır. He is the father of Tarık Ataykaya, born on 25 September 1983, who died on 29 March 2006.\n6.  Following the death of fourteen members of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal armed organisation) in an armed clash on 24 March 2006, many illegal demonstrations took place in Diyarbakır between 28 and 31 March 2006, during which a number of demonstrators were killed. According to the Government, some 2,000 individuals took part in those demonstrations, in which the police headquarters was bombarded with stones, sticks and petrol bombs, with the police and their vehicles coming under attack around the city. It was reported that, during those incidents, nine people died and over 200 members of the police force and 214 higher-ranking officers, a doctor, a nurse, two journalists and an ambulance driver were wounded. Similarly, a number of offices and public buildings, including the school of medicine of Dicle University and police premises, were damaged.\n7.  On 29 March 2006, at around 13.30 p.m. to 2 p.m., on leaving his workplace, Tarık Ataykaya found himself in the middle of a demonstration. The Government accepted the argument that Tarık Ataykaya had not taken part in the demonstration but had just been passing by, and explained that the police had fired a large number of tear-gas grenades to disperse the demonstrators. Tarık Ataykaya was struck on the head by one of the grenades and died a few minutes later.\n8.  On 30 March 2006, at 11.15 a.m., an autopsy was carried out at the public hospital of Diyarbakır. The report’s conclusions read as follows:\n“1.  Death was caused by a haemorrhage and brain damage inflicted by a firearm projectile (tear-gas grenade – gaz fişeği).\n9.  On 3 April 2006, I.D., an eyewitness and colleague of Tarık Ataykaya, went with M.S.D., another eyewitness and colleague of the latter, to the office of the Human Rights Association in Diyarbakır. I.D. stated in particular as follows:\n“... On 29 March 2006, at around 1.30 p.m. to 2 p.m., we closed the workshop with Tarık Ataykaya, one of the workers, and returned home on foot. We saw tanks go past. People were very worried. Six or seven members of the security forces, armed and wearing the uniform of special teams (they were wearing special military uniforms with mixed colours, they were not ordinary policemen or soldiers), arrived. They started shooting at random. There was a great pandemonium. While we were running we heard gunfire ... We saw Tarık Ataykaya fall to the ground unconscious (the security force personnel were firing with one knee on the ground and taking aim. That means they were not firing in the air but towards people). ... I realised that [Tarık Ataykaya] was wounded in the head. M.S.D. also realised this. We carried Tarık Ataykaya to an empty space near a building and called an ambulance ...”\n10.  Following a request by the Diyarbakır public prosecutor’s office on 4 April 2006, a forensic report was drawn up on 12 April 2006 by the presidency of the criminal investigation department’s forensic laboratories attached to the Diyarbakır police headquarters. It showed that the object extracted from Tarık Ataykaya’s head was a plastic cartridge (muhimmat) from a tear-gas grenade of type no. 12. The report also stated that the cartridge did not bear any characteristic markings from which the firearm in question could have been identified.\n11.  On 19 April 2006 the applicant filed a criminal ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8185", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant currently lives in Turkey and the second to fifth applicants live in Stavanger, Norway.\n6.  The first applicant, a mechanics and a professional driver, is of Kurdish ethnic origin coming from south-east Turkey. He was not a member of any political party but like many other members of his family sympathised with the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party). During the violent conflicts between Turkish authorities and Kurdish people in 1992 and 1993 he lived in the City of Sirnak. The first applicant stated that he had assisted the PKK and that because of several occurrences he felt persecuted by Turkish authorities. Fearing for his life he found it necessary to flee in March 1993.\n7.  The second applicant, Mrs Naime Kaplan, married the first applicant in the early 1990s. She and the third applicant, their son Azat (born in 1993), continued to live with the first applicant’s parents in Sirnak. After the latter’s house was set on fire, she and the son spent a period as refugees in Iraq.\n8.  Over a period of more than a year and a half, the first applicant sojourned at several locations in Turkey. He had some contact with his wife and son and applied for visa to visit Denmark, where his older brother had obtained asylum (in 1988). Only the first applicant obtained a visa. In February 1995 he arrived in Denmark and applied for asylum. His wife and son went back to Sirnak, where she gave birth to the couple’s second son, Cemsit, in August 1995 (the fourth applicant).\n9.  The first applicant’s asylum application in Denmark was refused. He then stayed in several European countries and returned to Denmark where his second asylum application was refused in September 1998.\n10.  On 23 October 1998 he applied for asylum in Norway. The Directorate of Immigration rejected the application on 30 September 1999. His appeal to the Ministry of Justice was rejected by a decision of 21 January 2000, according to which he was under a duty to leave the country and measures were to be taken to implement this decision.\n11.  On 7 December 1999 the Sunnhordaland District Court (tingrett) convicted the first applicant on charges of aggravated assault and sentenced him to 90 days’ imprisonment, of which 60 days were suspended. He was found guilty of having inflicted with a kitchen knife a cut in the shoulder of another man which had been mended with three stiches. Even though the extent of the injury was not considerable, the offence was deemed very serious and could easily have had great consequences for the victim. In mitigation, the District Court had regard to its finding that, whilst it was uncertain who had started the row, the victim had gone further than the applicant and had provoked him by hitting his face with his palm and by uttering serious insults against his family. The victim had also withdrawn his criminal complaint against the applicant. The judgment was transmitted to the Directorate of Immigration for consideration of whether there was a ground for ordering his expulsion.\n12.  On 5 May 2000 the Ministry of Justice refused to revise its earlier rejection (of 21 January 2000) of the first applicant’s asylum application and asked the Stavanger Police to implement the decision. It contained no mention of the judgment of 7 December 1999, but on 5 May 2000 the Ministry also forwarded a copy to the Directorate of Immigration requesting it to assess whether there was a basis for expulsion. The applicant did not leave the country, and the aut", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8186", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Riga.\n7.  On 23 August 2012 a federal grand jury sitting in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York indicted the applicant on five counts of conspiracy to violate the criminal laws of the United States. He was charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud, with a maximum prison sentence of thirty years; wire fraud, with a maximum prison sentence of twenty years; access device fraud, with a maximum prison sentence of five years; computer intrusion, under several subsections, with maximum prison sentences of five and ten years; and aggravated identity theft, with a mandatory prison sentence of two years, which must run consecutive to the sentence for any other offence.\n8.  The charges were based on allegations that the applicant and his co-conspirators, as members of a criminal enterprise, had created and distributed malicious software known as the “Gozi Virus”, which had infected computers worldwide, including in the United States. It was suspected that the Gozi Virus had been designed to steal login credentials, such as usernames and passwords, for online bank accounts and other internet-based accounts. The data had then been used to withdraw funds from victims’ accounts in the United States and Europe. It was alleged that the applicant specialised in creating software to work in conjunction with the Gozi Virus and other malicious software to deceive an account holder into divulging personal information.\n9.  Following the issuance of the indictment, on 23 August 2012 the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a warrant for the applicant’s arrest in relation to the offences listed in the indictment.\n10.  On 27 November 2012, pursuant to the 2005 US-Latvia Extradition Treaty, the United States Department of Justice submitted to the Latvian authorities a request for the applicant’s extradition from Latvia to the United States, which was delivered to the Office of the Prosecutor General on 3 December 2012.\n11.  On 3 December 2012 M.V., Prosecutor of the International Cooperation Division, ordered the police to arrest the applicant in accordance with section 699 of the Criminal Procedure Law (Kriminālprocesa likums) (arrest for the purpose of extradition). The prosecutor referred to the United States’ request of 27 November 2012 for the applicant’s extradition.\n12.  At 11.21 a.m. on 4 December 2012 the applicant was arrested at his place of residence under section 699(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law. A search of his residence was carried out, which lasted until 1.20 p.m.\n13.  The record of the applicant’s arrest indicated that he had been informed of his rights under section 698 of the Criminal Procedure Law, including the right to invite a lawyer. The Government stressed that the applicant had not requested a list of lawyers or an opportunity to use a telephone. He had asked to call his mother. The record was signed by the applicant and an investigator. The text of section 698 of the Criminal Procedure Law (paragraph 73 below) in three languages, Latvian, English and Russian, was attached to the record. The applicant had signed under that text, having written “[the applicant] has read [and] familiarised [himself]”.\n14.  According to the applicant, however, he was deprived of an opportunity to contact a lawyer for legal assistance until 1.20 p.m. on 4 December 2012. In his submission, the above-mentioned record confirmed only tha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8187", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod.\n6.  In February 2008 a series of thefts from individual garages was committed in the Volodarskiy District of the Nizhniy Novgorod region. The Volodarskiy District police department (ОВД по Володарскому району) initiated a criminal investigation into the thefts.\n7.  During the night of 24 to 25 April 2008 police officers U. and K. from the Volodarskiy District police department were patrolling an area of Ilyinogorsk in which there was a garage cooperative where some of the thefts had been committed. At 2.30 a.m. they stopped the applicant, who had entered one of the garages.\n8.  According to the applicant, that night he had gone to Ilyinogorsk searching for abandoned scrap metal which he could then sell. He entered a garage, the door of which was allegedly open. He was then stopped by two police officers, who asked him to accompany them to a police station to check his identification documents. He explained that he had the documents with him and suggested that they check them right away. They insisted that he should go with them to the police station and he obeyed.\n9.  According to the reports of police officers U. and K. to the head of the Volodarskiy District police department of 25 April 2008 and their statements as witnesses to an investigator in the garage-thefts case of 26 April 2008, they were patrolling the garage cooperatives on the outskirts of Ilyinogorsk in order to detect persons involved in the garage thefts that had been committed previously. They heard metallic sounds and saw the applicant, who had opened and entered one of the garages. They apprehended him and took him to the Ilyinogorsk police station in order to check his identity and to establish whether he had been involved in the garage thefts. The applicant refused to accompany them to the police station, “swinging his arms” and trying to escape. Therefore they “used physical force” and handcuffs, in accordance with section 12 of the Police Act. At the Ilyinogorsk police station his identity was established and he was found to be in possession of homemade lock-picking tools.\n10.  According to the search record drawn up at the Ilyinogorsk police station, the police seized, in particular, six metal items made of screws which the applicant had on him.\n11.  According to the applicant, he was coerced by police officers into confessing to the garage thefts. He described his ill‑treatment as follows.\n12.  A police officer, who arrived after the applicant had been searched, took him to one of the offices and tied him up with a rope so that his head was between his legs while he was sitting on the floor with his legs crossed and his hands shackled behind his back. The police officer pressed on his back and legs. After about an hour of such treatment he was untied and placed in a cell for detainees.\n13.  About ten minutes later another police officer arrived and the applicant was taken to the same office and tied up again in the same way, with his hands shackled behind his back. The second police officer had a box with a handle and two wires, the last ten centimetres of which were bare. The police officers tied the wires to the applicant’s little fingers and the second police officer started rotating the handle. The applicant felt a sharp muscle contraction and screamed. The police officers gagged him. They took turns to rotate the handle. The wires kept falling off and the police officers had to attach them a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8188", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  Standard procedures and treatment of “High-Value Detainees” in CIA custody (combined use of interrogation techniques)\n4.  Conditions of detention at CIA detention facilities\n5.  Closure of the HVD Programme 1.  Information supplied by the Polish Government in their written and oral submissions made in the present case and in the case of Al Nashiri v. Poland 2.  Facts supplied by the applicant in the present case and supplemented by the facts related in the case of Al Nashiri v. Poland and certain materials available in the public domain", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8189", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants’ names, dates of birth and places of residence may be found in the Annex.\n6.  From the 1950s/60s to early 2000, the applicants in applications nos. 60908/11, 62110/11, 62129/11 and 62312/11 were full-time employees at the Malta Drydocks Corporation (the MDC), a state-owned enterprise (1968-2003). The applicants in application no. 62338/11 are the wife and children of Mr Attard, who also worked at Malta Drydocks during the same period (having started in 1959) but left in 1974 to take up managerial duties with the Malta Trade Fair Corporation, where he was no longer exposed to asbestos.\n7.  According to the applicants, the applicants in applications nos. 60908/11, 62110/11, 62129/11 and 62312/11 and Mr Attard had been constantly and intensively exposed to asbestos during their employment. Asbestos in its various forms was one of the substances kept in stock in Malta Drydocks’ storerooms and ships incorporating asbestos as part of their structure regularly entered the docks (or ship repair yard) and were repaired there by workers. Repairs included breaking apart the asbestos casing that was used for insulation purposes, thereby releasing the particles into the surrounding air. Once a machine was repaired, it had to be reinsulated using asbestos retrieved from the store-rooms. Such repairs were carried out both on the ships themselves and in the MDC’s workshops.\n8.  The applicants contended that asbestos particles would settle on the workers’ clothing and be carried around in this way, with the result that it could also affect the lives of their family members, creating further anguish and affecting their private and family life.\n9.  In the 1960s, Malta became a member of the International Labour Organisation (“ILO”) (see “Relevant domestic law and international standards” below) and of the World Health Organisation (“WHO”), both organisations having been raising awareness regarding the dangers of asbestos since the 1950s. At the time, however, the employees of MDC had been neither informed about nor protected from the dangers of asbestos in any way. The Government disagreed with the applicants’ assertion that international organisations had raised awareness of the dangers of asbestos in the 1960s, noting that the ILO Asbestos Convention had been concluded in 1986 and that the WHO had issued its guidelines much later than the 1960s.\n10.  The first publicly available – though not publicly disseminated – information concerning the fatal consequences of asbestos at MDC appears to be the judicial acts and judgment relating to a lawsuit brought in the names of Mary Pellicano proprio et nomine vs Francis Spiteri nomine, concerning the deceased Paul Pellicano (erroneously referred to by the parties as Joseph Pellicano) who died from asbestosis in 1979. In that case, in a judgment of 30 August 1989, the then Commercial Court established MDC’s responsibility for the death of Paul Pellicano and awarded (in a separate decision of 27 June 1990) damages under Maltese law consisting of lucrum cessans and damnum emergens (see also “Relevant domestic law” below).\n11.  No action was taken following that judgment save that employees were assured that adequate ventilation and the wearing of fabric masks would protect them from asbestos.\n12.  Mr Attard died in 2006, aged sixty-one, as a result of a malignant cancer linked to exposure to asbestos (mesothelioma).  Following the death of a number of their colleagues, the applicants in applicati", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8190", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born on 8 September 1989 and lives in Dubrovnik.\n6.  On 4 March 2008, at around 7.00 p.m., the Dubrovnik Police Station (Policijska uprava Dubrovačko-neretvanska, Policijska postaja Dubrovnik; hereinafter: the “police”) received an anonymous call informing the police that a mass fight was planned in the vicinity of the Naval High School in Dubrovnik (Pomorsko-tehnička škola u Dubrovniku). Three police officers were immediately sent to the scene.\n7.  When the police officers arrived at the scene there was no fighting going on but inside the school they found the applicant with an injury on his forehead. He was immediately taken to hospital and examined by a doctor. The applicant’s medical record of 4 March 2008 reads:\n“Diagnosis\nVLC reg supraorbicularis lat dex\nMedical history and status\nAllegedly took part in fighting and sustained a cut of three centimetres above the right brow bone. He did not lose consciousness, he recollects the event, he did not vomit. No neurological symptoms.\nThe wound was treated, no sign of fracture.\nAn antibiotic is recommended, bandage every third day in clinic.\nFollow-up by a surgeon if necessary.”\n8.  On the same date the applicant was interviewed by the police. He stated that he had been standing in front of the school together with his classmates and that all of a sudden he had been hit on the head with a rock, which had knocked him to the ground. His friends had helped him to stand up and carried him inside the school. He himself had not been involved in any fighting and had had no idea that something might happen.\n9.  On 23 May 2008 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Dubrovnik Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Dubrovniku; hereinafter: the “State Attorney’s Office”) against unknown perpetrators, under Articles 99 and 331 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 54 below), alleging that on 4 March 2008 he had been injured by a group of hooligans in front of his school. One of them, who he could not identify, had thrown a rock at his head hitting him on the forehead. Blood had immediately started to run and one of his friends had to carry him inside the school.\n10.  The applicant submitted the medical record of 4 March 2008 and explained that his father had erased part of the text on the medical record which suggested that he had taken part in a fight because he had not wanted to have something untrue noted on the record.\n11.  On 29 May 2008 the State Attorney’s Office forwarded the applicant’s criminal complaint to the police and requested a report on the matter.\n12.  In the period between 5 and 30 June 2008 the police interviewed several people, including the doctor who had drafted the medical report of 4 March 2008. He considered that the applicant’s injury should be classed as a minor bodily injury. The police also questioned V.Č. and I.N., two of the applicant’s schoolmates, who confirmed his version of events.\n13.  The police also obtained a medical opinion of 6 June 2008 recommending that the applicant undergo further neurological examination.\n14.  On 2 July 2008 the police informed the State Attorney’s Office of the results of their preliminary investigation. The relevant part of the police report reads:\n“... a group of boys from Mokošica, headed by P.H., in which G.V. and M.P. and several other unidentified individuals were involved, went to the front of the Naval High School on 4 March 2008 in order to take revenge [for a previous ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8191", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n1.  USS Cole bombing in 2000\n2.  MV Limburg bombing\n3.  Standard procedures and treatment of “High Value Detainees” in CIA custody (combined use of interrogation techniques)\n4.  Conditions of detention at CIA detention facilities\n5.  Closure of the HVD Programme 1.  Information supplied by the Polish Government in their written and oral submissions made in the present case and in the case of Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland 2.  Facts supplied by the applicant in the present case and supplemented by the facts related in the case of Abu Zubaydah v. Poland and certain materials available in the public domain", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8192", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Matulji.\n6.  On 8 October 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of incitement to aggravated murder in that he, together with another person, had incited a person who had owed them money to kill their competitors in the security business in Rijeka, and that for that purpose they had obtained machine guns and explosive devices.\n7.  An investigation in respect of the applicant was opened in the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) on 10 October 2008.\n8.  On the same day an investigating judge of the Rijeka County Court remanded the applicant in custody under Article 102 § 1 (2), (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion, risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges). The judge held that there was a risk that the applicant might suborn several witnesses who were to be questioned during the investigation, and that his clear determination to commit the offence at issue and its possible consequences justified his detention on the grounds of risk of reoffending and the seriousness of the charges.\n9.  The applicant’s detention was extended on 7 November 2008 under Article 102 § 1 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges). The investigating judge found that the witnesses had already been questioned and that therefore there was no reason to remand the applicant in custody on the grounds of risk of collusion. However, the judge reiterated that the applicant’s clear determination to commit the offence and its possible consequences warranted the applicant’s detention on the grounds of risk of reoffending and the seriousness of the charges.\n10.  On 14 November 2008 the investigation in respect of the applicant was expanded to the offences of unlawful possession of firearms and explosives.\n11.  The investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention on 5 December 2008 under Article 102 § 1 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges) using the same reasons as in his previous decision.\n12.  The applicant appealed on 11 December 2008, arguing that the reasons put forward by the investigating judge were not convincing justifications for his detention.\n13.  On 17 December 2008 a three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded, endorsing the reasoning of the investigating judge.\n14.  On 31 December 2008 the Rijeka County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državni odvjetništvo u Rijeci) indicted the applicant in the Rijeka County Court on charges of incitement to aggravated murder and unlawful possession of firearms and explosives. Another individual, I.F., was also indicted in the same proceedings on charges of incitement to aggravated murder. Later, on 23 January 2009, criminal proceedings against another person, V.V., on charges of trafficking in firearms were joined to the proceedings against the applicant and I.F. in the Rijeka County Court.\n15.  A three-judge panel of the Rijeka County Court extended the applicant’s detention on 7 January 2009, relying on Article 102 § 1 (3) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges). The relevant part of the decision reads:\n“There is a reasonable suspicion that the accused have committed the offences at issue. The fact that the second accused, Robert Dragin, in an agreement with the first accused, I.F., twice went to the Republic of B", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8193", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Grozny.\n7.  The applicant is an ethnic Uzbek. He was born and lived in Jalal‑Abad in the south of Kyrgyzstan. In 2004 he and his family moved to Dagestan and, three years later, to Grozny where the applicant worked at a telephone repair service. In October 2011 the applicant went to Jalal-Abad to attend his sister’s wedding. On 7 November 2011 he was carrying several passengers of Kyrgyz ethnic origin in his car. Afterwards one of them, a Mr M., was found dead.\n8.  On 10 November 2011 the applicant returned to Grozny.\n9.  On 9 November 2011 the Jalal-Abad regional police department brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and four other individuals on suspicion of having murdered Mr M. On 12 November 2011 the applicant was charged in absentia and on 15 November 2011 the Jalal‑Abad Town Court ordered his remand in custody, allegedly in the absence of his lawyer. On 3 February 2012 the applicant was placed on the international wanted list.\n10.  According to the applicant and as confirmed by a lawyer of a local human rights organisation (see paragraph 22 below), several Kyrgyz law‑enforcement officers had demanded 6,000 United States dollars from his mother in return for dropping the criminal charges against him. Apparently she did not comply with their demand.\n11.  On 26 June 2012 the Suzakskiy District Court of the Jalal-Abad Region convicted Mr U. of Mr M.’s murder and six more individuals of misprision and disorderly conduct. The applicant is mentioned in the judgment as the driver of the car transporting the defendants and the victim on the night of the murder. It does not follow from the judgment that the applicant had been involved in Mr M.’s murder, which had apparently been committed by Mr U. alone.\n12.  On 27 July 2012 the Jalal-Abad Regional Court of Kyrgyzstan altered the judgment of the trial court by reducing the term of Mr U.’s imprisonment from nineteen to twelve years.\n13.  On 23 April 2012 the applicant was arrested in Grozny.\n14.  On 24 April 2012 the prosecutor of the Leninskiy District of Grozny issued an order for the applicant to be remanded in custody for a period of two months.\n15.  On 18 June 2012 the Leninskiy District Court of Grozny extended the applicant’s detention until 24 October 2012. The applicant neither objected at the hearing nor appealed against that decision.\n16.  On 19 October 2012 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 January 2013, reasoning that extradition proceedings were pending and that the applicant might abscond.\n17.  On 22 October 2012 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chechnya. He argued that the court had failed to duly reason the risk of his absconding, that the period of his detention was excessive, and that the court had not considered less stringent preventive measures, in breach of paragraph 16 of Directive Decision no. 22 adopted by the Plenary Session of the Russian Supreme Court on 14 June 2012.\n18.  By a final decision of 22 November 2012 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chechnya rejected the appeal and upheld the lower court’s ruling.\n19.  On 24 January 2013 the District Court extended the applicant’s period of detention until 24 April 2013. On 11 March 2013 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chechnya dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld that decision.\n20.  On 19 April 2013 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Republic of Chechnya ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8195", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is of Chechen ethnic origin. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Azerbaijan.\n7.  The applicant appears to have arrived in Azerbaijan in 2009. In July 2009 he was arrested while attempting to illegally cross the border from Azerbaijan to Russia together with several other individuals.\n8.  On 5 April 2011 the Assize Court convicted the applicant, together with a number of other accused, of a number of serious criminal offences committed in Azerbaijan in 2009, including: creation of an illegal organised armed unit; illegal border crossing; illegal possession of firearms, explosives and other weapons; and creation of a network of clandestine flats in Baku as temporary accommodation for members of illegal armed units operating in Chechnya. He was sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment. His conviction was upheld by the higher courts. The applicant is currently serving his sentence in Prison No. 11 in Baku.\n9.  By a decision of 6 September 2011, an investigator of the Vedeno district department of the interior of the Russian Federation (“the Vedeno ROVD”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 208 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code (participation in an armed unit not envisaged by federal law), on suspicion that during the period 2000 to 2007, he had been an active member of an illegal armed unit operating in the Vedeno district of Chechnya under the command of Khuseyn Gakayev, and that he was still a member of that unit at the time of institution of the criminal proceedings.\n10.  On 10 October 2011 the Vedeno ROVD issued a search warrant in respect of the applicant as a suspect.\n11.  On 26 April 2012 it formally charged him as an accused person under Article 208 § 2 of the Russian Criminal Code.\n12.  On 18 July 2012 it issued an international search warrant in respect of him.\n13.  By a decision of 20 July 2012, the Vedeno District Court of the Chechen Republic remanded him in custody in absentia.\n14.  In the meantime, in January 2012 the applicant applied to the Baku Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) with a request for asylum. It appears that, since the early 2000s, by mutual agreement and understanding between the UNHCR and the Azerbaijani Government, the processing of asylum applications by people originating from Chechnya was separated from the ordinary government procedure, with applications by members of this group being dealt with directly by the UNHCR. In September 2012 the applicant was interviewed by UNHCR representatives but his application was rejected.\n15.  On 24 August 2012 the Russian Deputy Prosecutor General formally requested the Azerbaijani Prosecutor General’s Office to extradite the applicant under the CIS Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters (“the Minsk Convention”). As an alternative, in the event the extradition was subject to postponement under Article 64 of the Minsk Convention owing to the fact that the applicant was serving a prison sentence in Azerbaijan, he requested the applicant’s “temporary extradition” for a period of three months for the purposes of carrying out necessary procedural steps in the framework of the criminal proceedings pending in Russia.\n16.  The extradition request contained a number of assurances: that the applicant would only be prosecuted in connection with the criminal offence he was charged with; that he would not be subjected to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8196", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1947 and 1942 respectively and live in Baku.\n6.  The applicants’ son, E.A., was born in 1971 and was an Azerbaijani national. He had his own business in Ukraine and lived in Kiev at the time of the events.\n7.  At around 4 a.m. on 1 June 2001 E.A. was stabbed with a knife outside a cafe in Kiev, Ukraine. He died as a result of the stabbing.\n8.  On the same day the Shevchenko District Police instituted criminal proceedings in connection with E.A.’s death.\n9.  On 9 June 2001 an investigator from the Shevchenko District Police decided to charge G.A., an Azerbaijani national working at the Azerbaijani embassy in Ukraine at the time of the events, on suspicion of E.A.’s murder.\n10.  It appears that on the same date G.A. was arrested by the Ukrainian law-enforcement authorities and on 12 June 2001 was remanded in custody. During the investigation, G.A. denied that he had murdered E.A., but refused to testify in connection with his stabbing.\n11.  On 11 July 2001 a forensic expert established that the stab wound to E.A.’s body had been caused by a knife with a blade 22 centimetres long and 2 centimetres wide.\n12.  On 17 July 2001 the Shevchenko District Court ordered G.A.’s release from custody on account of serious illness. On an unspecified date he left Ukraine for Azerbaijan.\n13.  It transpires that in the course of the investigation, the Ukrainian authorities also considered the possible involvement of another person in E.A.’s murder. In this connection, they requested the Azerbaijani authorities to question R.A., a major general of the Azerbaijani army who had been on an educational mission to Ukraine at the time of the events.\n14.  On 5 January 2002 the Azerbaijani prosecution authorities questioned R.A. as a witness in connection with E.A.’s stabbing. According to the record of questioning of the same date, R.A. denied any involvement. He stated that he knew G.A. who was an employee of the Azerbaijani embassy in Ukraine and that he had met E.A. there, but had not known him very well. As regards his whereabouts on 1 June 2001, R.A. stated that he did not remember exactly where he had been that day. He further stated that he had learned about E.A.’s death from employees at the Azerbaijani embassy.\n15.  On 30 January 2002 an investigator from the Shevchenko District Prosecutor’s Office decided to transfer the criminal case to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Azerbaijan for further investigation, relying on the CIS Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters of 22 January 1993 (“the 1993 Minsk Convention”). The investigator substantiated the transfer by the fact that the two Azerbaijani nationals (G.A. and R.A.) who had been identified by witnesses as the people involved in E.A.’s murder on 1 June 2001, were on Azerbaijani soil.\n16.  The relevant part of that decision reads as follows:\n“M.S., who was questioned within the framework of the investigation, indicated that on 1 June 2001 he had been with E.A. at Cafe Sikora. When he had left the cafe, he had seen E.A. having an argument with two Azerbaijani nationals he did not know. One of the two men had then stabbed E.A. in the thorax.\nSubsequently, among the photographs submitted for identification, M.S. recognised R.A’s photograph and identified him as the person who had stabbed E.A.\nIt was established that R.A., born on 4 June 1965, married, an Azerbaijani national, who had no criminal record, a de", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8197", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lived prior to his arrest in Baku.\n6.  On 23 June 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of complicity in an armed robbery and two murders committed on 13 November 2002 by a group of individuals, including his brother. The applicant was held in the detention facility of the Organised Crime Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs as from 23 June 2004 and was on 24 June 2004 transferred to the Ganja City Police Office.\n7.  According to the applicant, he was from 23 to 26 June 2004 repeatedly subjected to ill-treatment in police custody, with the aim of extracting a confession from him. In particular, he noted that at the Ganja City Police Office he was regularly punched, kicked and beaten with a rubber truncheon two or three hours per day. He was suffocated with a plastic bag placed over his head and his suffocation lasted two or three minutes and sometimes even five minutes. He was placed twice inside a metal cupboard for several hours and was also tied to the pipe of the metal heater. He was electrocuted with telephone cables attached to his toes. The applicant was deprived of water. During this period, he was threatened with rape if he told anything about the ill-treatment to his lawyer. As to the perpetrators of his ill-treatment, the applicant noted that two police officers K.H. and K.G., the investigator J.A. and the head of the investigating department at the Prosecutor General’s Office T.K. participated in his ill‑treatment. He further noted that he had been ill-treated at the request of R.R. who was at the relevant time the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In support of his claim of ill-treatment, the applicant also submitted in his observations lodged with the Court in reply to the Government’s observations two written statements, dated 6 December 2010 and 18 December 2010, from two former police officers confirming the applicant’s ill-treatment in police custody.\n8.  On 25 June 2004 the applicant told his lawyer about the ill-treatment and showed her his injuries. On the same day, the applicant’s lawyer asked the investigator in charge of the case for a forensic expert examination of the applicant.\n9.  On 25 June 2004 the applicant’s lawyer also sent telegrams to the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, asking for an investigation concerning the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment. She informed both authorities that the applicant had been ill-treated by the police at the Ganja City Police Office and that during her meeting with him on 25 June 2004, which had taken place before the applicant was questioned by the investigator, he had shown her injuries to his body and arm.\n10.  On 25 June 2004 the investigator in charge of the case issued a decision confirming the applicant’s arrest as a suspect (şübhəli şəxs kimi tutma haddında qərar). Thereafter, the applicant was questioned by the investigator as a suspect in the presence of his lawyer. According to the record of questioning of the same date, the applicant admitted that he had known about his accomplices’ intention to rob the victims on 13 November 2002. In particular, he stated that his role had consisted in conducting surveillance over the victims’ arrival to their house by car and notifying his accomplices by mobile phone. He stated that on 13 November 2002 when the victims’ car arrived, he did not call his accomplices but went home. He learned about the murders some hour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8198", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow. He is a professional politician who has held in the past the posts of Nizhniy Novgorod governor, Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister for Energy. He later became one of the best-known opposition leaders, a founder of the political party the Union of Right Forces, and subsequently of the political movement Solidarnost.\n7.  On 10 December 2010 eight individuals, none of whom are applicants in the present case, submitted notice of a public demonstration to the mayor of Moscow. They indicated, in particular, that a meeting would be held from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. on Triumfalnaya Square, Moscow. They estimated that about 1,500 people would take part in the event. The notice stated that the proposed demonstration was intended “to demand respect for the constitutional right to peaceful demonstration and assembly guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation”. The organisers indicated, inter alia, that it would not be necessary to divert the traffic.\n8.  On 22 December 2010 the Moscow Government’s Department for Liaison with Security Authorities informed the organisers that the event had been approved by the deputy mayor of Moscow. The number of participants had been limited to 1,000, and a particular sector of Triumfalnaya Square had been designated for the event: “in the area between the First and the Second Brestskaya Streets, opposite the Pekin Hotel and the adjacent road leading to the Tchaikovsky Concert Hall”.\n9.  In the meantime, on 16 December 2010 another group of three individuals, none of whom are applicants in the present case, submitted notice of an alternative public demonstration to the mayor of Moscow, at the same time and place as the authorised event and with the same title. It appears that this second public demonstration was not authorised, but on 22 December 2010 a number of alternatives as to the time and place were offered to the organisers. Moreover, none of its organisers could go to the venue on 31 December 2010 because two of them had been arrested earlier on the same day; the third had been abroad.\n10.  The authorised meeting began at 6 p.m. on 31 December 2010 at Triumfalnaya Square, as planned. According to the applicant, the perimeter of the square was cordoned off and was guarded by the riot police. The only access to the meeting venue was at Tverskaya Street. The applicant claimed that he had arrived at the meeting with his daughter; he had parked his car at Tverskaya Street and they had entered Triumfalnaya Square from Tverskaya Street through the only opening in the cordon.\n11.  During the meeting the applicant addressed the participants with a speech in which he criticised the criminal conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovskiy, the former owner of the Yukos oil company, and Platon Lebedev, his associate. He also condemned the corruption in the State administration. He chanted the slogans “The authorities to resign!”, “Putin to resign!”, “Happy New Year without Putin!”\n12.  At the end of the meeting the applicant, accompanied by his daughter, headed across Triumfalnaya Square towards Tverskaya Street. At the exit he saw the riot police arresting one of the participants in the demonstration. Shortly afterwards the applicant was also arrested and put into a police vehicle.\n13.  The parties disagreed as to the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest.\n14.  The applicant claimed that on the way to his car his passage had been obstructed by pol", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8200", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1987. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n6.  On 10 October 2010 the applicant, who was serving his sentence in Tartu Prison, took a walk together with other detainees. When he entered the accommodation block, two prison guards searched him in the stairwell of the building. According to the applicant he was requested to lower his trousers and underpants twice and lift his sexual organ. A guard felt his underpants to find out whether any tobacco products had been hidden therein. According to the applicant he was in the sight of other detainees, since the door to the stairwell where the search was carried out had a transparent window. Another door leading from the stairwell to a corridor of the accommodation block also had a transparent window and detainees or female prison officers could have seen him through it or entered the stairwell at any time.\n7.  The applicant claimed from the prison administration 25,000 kroons (EEK) (corresponding to approximately 1,600 euros (EUR)) for the non-pecuniary damages he had allegedly sustained. He named three of the detainees who had been behind him when he had entered the building and had been searched.\n8.  The prison administration rejected the applicant’s claim. Relying on the statements of one of the prison guards involved, the administration found that the search had been conducted in private and not in the sight of other detainees. According to the prison guard’s written statements, the detainees had entered the stairwell one by one. One guard had searched their jackets and the other one had searched the detainees. In the event that they suspected a detainee, they had closed the door in order to create a private space and the detainee in question had been requested to lower his trousers. Only the detainee to be searched and two guards had been in the stairwell.\n9.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Tartu Administrative Court. He reiterated his claim, named three detainees who had seen his search and included written statements from two of them.\n10.  By a judgment of 21 September 2011 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s claim. It found reliable the statements of the prison guard, according to whom the applicant’s privacy had been respected.\n11.  The applicant appealed to the Tartu Court of Appeal. At the Court of Appeal hearing he submitted that the windows of the doors to the stairwell had measured 1 m by 30 cm and that some days after his complaint to the Administrative Court they had been covered by metal sheets to prevent other detainees from seeing the searches.\n12.  By a judgment of 16 March 2012 the Tartu Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It established that the search had lasted for a few minutes at most and noted that the applicant had not been sure whether any other detainees had been in the stairwell. He had been unable to explain from where exactly the detainees named by him had seen his search. The Court of Appeal concluded that his privacy had not been violated. It further found that in order to effectively manage a large number of detainees, the prison also had to have the possibility of carrying out a body search of a detainee, when necessary, in a location other than a private room designated for that purpose. In order to conduct such a search it was sufficient that the authorities had a suspicion that a detainee re-entering the building after a walk had hidden cigarettes – which were prohibited in prison", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8201", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is currently being held in Rappahannock Prison in Stafford, Virginia (United States).\n6.  On 14 September 2001 an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant by an investigating judge of the Brussels Regional Court. A search of his home had led to the discovery of false passports, automatic weapons and ammunition, as well as chemical formulae that could be used for making explosives and a detailed plan of the United States Embassy in Paris.\n7.  Following a simultaneous search of a Brussels café, where the applicant had been a regular customer, drawing on information provided by another suspect, who had also been arrested, the police discovered 59 litres of acetone and 96 kilograms of sulphur powder. Under the arrest warrant which was subsequently issued, the applicant was accused of acts of criminal conspiracy, destruction by explosion, possession of combat weapons and belonging to a private militia.\n8.  The applicant admitted the offences as charged and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment by the Brussels Regional Court on 30 September 2003 for attempting to blow up the Kleine-Brogel Belgian army base, forgery, and instigating a criminal conspiracy to attack persons and property. The court’s judgment included the following finding:\n“[the defendant] attempted to commit one of the most serious crimes since Belgian independence; in spite of the lapse of time since his arrest, he has never shown any remorse, the danger which he poses has remained intact and his case presents no mitigating circumstances.”\n9.  In a judgment of 9 June 2004 the Brussels Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s ten-year prison sentence for a range of offences, including:\n“ - attempting to blow up the Kleine-Brogel Belgian army base, with the added circumstance that the perpetrator must have presumed that there were one or more persons present at the time of the explosion ...,\n- holding a position of command in a conspiracy formed to perpetrate serious crimes liable to life imprisonment and, in the present case, to carry out a terrorist attack ...,\n- receiving from a foreign organisation funds intended for conducting, in Belgium, an activity liable to jeopardise national security ...,\n- being in unlawful possession of a combat weapon ...,\n- setting up, and assisting or participating in, a private militia or other organisation of private individuals for the purpose of using force ...”\n10.  On 26 January 2005 the applicant was sentenced in absentia by a Tunisian military court to ten years’ imprisonment for belonging to a terrorist organisation abroad in peacetime. On 29 June 2009 the Permanent Military Court in Tunis issued a warrant for the applicant to be brought before it, for which an application for enforcement was submitted to the Belgian authorities by diplomatic note of 10 September 2009.\n11.  The principal prison sentence imposed on the applicant in Belgium was completed on 13 September 2011. Two subsequent subsidiary prison sentences of six and three months respectively were imposed in 2007 and enforced immediately. The applicant completed these sentences on 23 June 2012.\n12.   On 25 August 2005, meanwhile, the applicant had submitted an asylum application in Belgium, which the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons dismissed in a decision of 10 April 2009. This decision refused the applicant refugee status and subsidiary protection on the grounds that he had committed offences contrary to th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8202", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Gadyach.\n6.  On 25 February 2004 the applicant was arrested in Gadyach by the Kharkiv Chervonozavodskiy District Police Drug Squad (Відділ по боротьбі із незаконним обігом наркотиків Червонозаводського районного відділу Харківського міського управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ України – “the Drug Squad”) and taken to Kharkiv. The applicant stated that he had been ill-treated by the police and that upon his arrest a police officer had hit him in the left eye.\n7.  On 19 July 2004 the Gadyachskiy District Court convicted the applicant of unlawful possession of weapons and drug trafficking and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, suspended for three years. On the same date the applicant was released.\n8.  On 27 November 2004 the applicant was diagnosed with a cataract and a subatrophy of the left eyeball. The only recommendation after the diagnosis was to avoid hypothermia. According to the applicant, he planned to have eye surgery. No medical evidence was submitted in this respect.\n9.  On 19 April 2005 the applicant was again arrested in Gadyach after selling drugs to D. and taken to Kharkiv by the Drug Squad. The applicant stated that he “had been beaten by the police after his arrest for three days simply because he had wanted to have a lawyer”. He further stated that “pending investigation” a gas mask had been put on his face with lit cigarettes inserted into the air valve.\n10.  On 20 April 2005 Kharkiv Hospital no. 11 issued a certificate stating that the applicant had head and left shoulder injuries, a haematoma on the left ear and had possibly suffered a closed craniocerebral injury. However, the certificate stated that the applicant could be detained, so long as he was under the supervision of a neurosurgeon.\n11.  On 22 April 2005 criminal proceedings on drug trafficking charges were instituted against the applicant and it was decided to arrest him.\n12.  On 29 April 2005 the Kharkiv Chervonozavodskiy District Court (“the Chervonozavodskiy Court”) remanded the applicant in custody.\n13.  On 5 May 2005 Kharkiv Hospital no. 11 issued a certificate stating that the applicant was suffering from the after-effects of a head injury but that he could be detained. He was also examined by an ophthalmologist and diagnosed with an old optic subatrophy in the left eye.\n14.  On 6 May 2005 the applicant was placed in Kharkiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre no. 27 (“the SIZO”). It was noted in his medical file that on 25 February 2004 he had suffered an eye injury and that on 19 April 2005 he had been suffering from a head injury. He was diagnosed with a cataract and with a subatrophy of the left eye.\n15.  On 3 June 2005 the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office ordered the Head of the Kharkiv Regional Office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine (начальник Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ України в Харківській області – “the regional head”) to look into the applicant’s complaints of ill-treatment.\n16.  On 21 July 2005 the regional head informed the applicant that the police officers involved had not broken any laws.\n17.  On 5 October 2005 the applicant asked the Chervonozavodskiy Court to obtain medical evidence from his SIZO medical file which would confirm the infliction of injuries on him.\n18.  On 25 October 2005 the applicant complained to the regional head that:\n“... on 19 April 2005 police officers, M., S., Sh., K. and G., accompanied by two witnesses, arrived in Gadyach. Aga", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8203", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the village of Tatariv, which forms part of Yaremche, a resort town in the Ivano-Frankivsk Region of Ukraine.\n7.  The applicant owns a house and an adjacent plot of land in Tatariv. The village of Tatariv is situated in a mountainous region and because of its location holds the status of mountainous residential area. It is also known as a resort for “green tourism” in Carpathy region. It is situated on the banks of Prut river.\n8.  On 10 February 2000 Tatariv Village Council (“Tatariv Council”), having considered four sites on which to construct a new cemetery, chose the land previously occupied by garages belonging to a company called Vorokhtya Lisokombinat (“the VL plot”) as it was not occupied, it was located in the village and the cemetery could be constructed at low cost.\n9.  The VL plot is located near the applicant’s house (for further details see paragraphs 14 and 33 below), in which he was residing with his family at the time. Two rivers flow at a distance of 30 and 70 metres from the VL plot. Drinking water for Tatariv comes from wells fed by groundwater; there is no centralised water supply system and the wells are not protected.\n10.  On 24 May 2000 the All-Ukrainian Bureau of Environmental Investigations informed the Chairman of Yaremche Town Council (“Yaremche Council”) that the construction of the cemetery on the VL plot might cause contamination of the river and the wells situated on adjacent plots of land by ptomaine carried by the groundwater flow.\n11.  The cemetery was opened for use by the Yaremche Council in August 2000. It is being administered by the Yaremche Council.\n12.  On 6 February 2001 the Yaremche Environmental Health Inspectorate (санітарно-епідеміологічна станція) concluded that the cemetery should not have been constructed on the VL plot in view of its proximity to residential buildings and the risk of contamination of the surrounding environment by ptomaine.\n13.  On 20 August 2002 the Regional Environmental Health Inspectorate of the Ministry of Health refused to approve the construction plan. In particular, it stated that the cemetery should not be situated in the proposed area as its distance from private housing did not comply with the norms and standards of a health protection zone (санітарно-захисна зона).\n14.  On 30 August 2002 and 20 January 2003 the Marzeyev Institute of Hygiene and Medical Ecology, part of the Academy of Medical Sciences, informed the applicant and Yaremche Council that another location would have to be found for the cemetery. It was of the view that constructing the cemetery on the VL plot would breach environmental health laws and regulations and would worsen the living conditions of the residents of adjacent houses. In particular, it would be located less than 300 metres from the nearest residential buildings, which are 38 metres away from the edge of the cemetery (which would not allow for the establishment of the necessary health protection zone). It could lead to contamination of the groundwater reservoir used by the residents of adjacent households for drinking water and of the nearby rivers with by-products of human decomposition. It further stated that a health protection zone was also intended to reduce psychological pressure on the residents of adjacent houses.\n15.  The applicant alleges that from 2002 to the present moment he has been receiving treatment for hypertension and various cardio-related diseases. He supplied i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8205", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lived in Budakalász.\n7.  He had a joint title to a plot of land in the value of 4.59 “gold crowns” (aranykorona). The land was, from an unspecified date on, in the possession of, and used by, a Socialist “collective farm”. Following the adoption of Act no. II of 1993 on Land Settlement and Land Distribution Committees, the Pest County Land Registry adopted a plan on the division of such properties. That decision was subsequently upheld by the Bács-Kiskun and Pest County Office of Compensation.\n8.  On 15 November 1999 a plot of arable land of 979 square metres, situated in the village of Budakalász, was designated by the Pest County Land Registry for the purpose of privatisation, under lot no. 3305. This measure was approved by the Regional Office for Restitution and Compensation Affairs. On 15 November 1999 the applicant was granted ownership of the plot by the Regional Office of Agriculture. His title to the land was registered on 28 August 2000.\n9.  However, he could not enter into possession, because the plot which he had been granted was apparently occupied and being used by the owners of the neighbouring plots.\n10.  The applicant brought a trespass claim before the District Notary, asserting that his use had been unjustifiably interfered with. Following the dismissal of his request, he sought judicial review of the decision, bringing a civil action before the Budapest II/III District Court against the neighbours, seeking protection of his possession rights.\n11.  While this case was pending, the respondents initiated the correction of the land register maps. In the ‘remapping’ proceedings, the District Land Registry observed that plot no. 3305 did not exist in reality. On appeal, the County Land Registry confirmed this finding, designating a new plot for the applicant, under no. 3305/1, on 21 June 2006. This plot was nonetheless smaller than that originally allocated to the applicant, and was apparently not suitable for farming.\nQuite independently of the present dispute, on 16 December 2005 a new, digitally compiled land register was put in place by the Budakalász authorities, with the apparent intention of eliminating the existing inaccuracies.\n12.  The applicant’s civil action was stayed for the duration of the remapping proceedings. After the adoption of the County Land Registry’s final decision, the District Court dismissed the action on 15 December 2006, observing that the respondents had not used the applicant’s land unlawfully, as the plot of land registered under plot no. 3305 did not exist in reality. The applicant appealed.\n13.  The appeal proceedings appear to have been subsequently suspended since the applicant sought judicial review of the remapping decision. In the course of these administrative court proceedings, it was confirmed by an expert land surveyor that the applicant had originally been granted a plot which had been registered with topographic and editing errors, and that these had been duly corrected in the remapping proceedings. Therefore, the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on 13 March 2008. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 28 April 2009.\n14.  Since in the remapping proceedings the location of the land belonging to the applicant eventually became indisputable and it turned out that this plot was not possessed by any of the respondents, the applicant withdrew his appeal against the first-instance judgment of 15 December 2006.\n15.  A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8206", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Timișoara.\n6.  In February 2011 a large-scale criminal investigation was initiated against ninety‑four police and customs officers for corruption‑related offences.\n7.  According to the charge, between October 2010 and January 2011 a criminal group was formed at the Moravița and Foeni border checkpoints, which were controlled by the Timiș County Border Police Inspectorate (“the PCTF”). Its members were involved in acts of corruption and the smuggling of cigarettes from Serbia.\n8.  The applicant was a customs officer at the Moravița border checkpoint at that time, and was considered to be part of the criminal group by the investigation authority. On 3 February 2011 the National Anti‑Corruption Prosecution Service (“the NAP”) initiated a criminal investigation against him on suspicion of being a member of a criminal group and bribery. On 28 March 2011 prosecutors extended the investigation to take into account the offence of repeated smuggling.\n9.  On 7 February 2011 the prosecutor issued orders to appear on behalf of the applicant and the other ninety-three police and customs officers. The orders contained reasons justifying the measure. After referring in extenso to the impugned facts and the nature of the offences allegedly committed, the prosecutor emphasised that it was in the best interests of the investigation to take all the suspects to the NAP headquarters simultaneously.\n10.  In the framework of the criminal investigation, on 8 February 2011 police officers from the NAP carried out a search at the applicant’s home. The search started at 6 a.m. and lasted about three hours. The applicant benefitted from the legal assistance of a lawyer of his own choosing during the search. Related searches were carried out at the residences of the other officers under suspicion.\n11.  At about 9 a.m. the police officers informed the applicant that on 7 February 2011 the prosecuting authorities had issued an order to appear before the NAP on his behalf.\n12.  At 9.15 a.m. he was taken to the headquarters of the Timiș County Police Inspectorate.\n13.  At about 2 p.m., he was taken with ninety-three other police and customs officers by bus to the NAP headquarters in Bucharest. He alleged that during the journey he could not get off the bus and could not use his mobile phone or contact his lawyer.\n14.  At about 9.20 p.m., after travelling almost 600 km, they arrived at the NAP headquarters in Bucharest.\n15.  The applicant alleged that at the NAP headquarters in Bucharest he had been kept in a room under permanent guard and that he could not have any contact with his lawyer. He also claimed that he had neither been allowed to go and purchase food nor offered it; he had only been allowed to leave the room to go to the toilet or for a cigarette.\n16.  Multiple investigative activities were carried out that night by a large team of prosecutors. Each suspected officer was informed of the charges against him and invited to give a statement in the presence of a lawyer of his own choosing.\n17.  The same lawyer who had assisted the applicant during the search carried out at his residence arrived at the NAP headquarters at about 00.27 a.m.\n18.  At 8.15 a.m. on 9 February 2011, after almost eleven hours, the applicant was informed in the presence of his lawyer of the charges against him. He was provided with an eleven-page document containing a record of the facts.\n19.  At about 9.33 a.m. the applicant informed the in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8209", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Ms Dana Ruxanda Atudorei, is a Romanian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  In her initial letter to the Court, the applicant stated that from an early age she had been subjected to repeated physical and psychological abuse by her family. Her parents, especially her mother, had been aggressive towards her both verbally and physically, had refused to allow her to go anywhere unsupervised and had taken her to a psychologist because she had not achieved the highest possible marks when she was in second grade. In addition, her parents’ abuse had continued after they discovered that she had been attending weekly yoga classes organised by the Movement for Spiritual Integration into the Absolute (Mişcarea pentru Integrare Spirituală în Absolut – “MISA”).\n7.  According to some reports, including an Amnesty International report of 27 May 1997 (AI Index EUR 39/03/97), from 1995 there had been several accounts of alleged police abuse of individuals who practised yoga and who were members of MISA. The reports noted that the authorities seemed to condone public intolerance of MISA as they perceived the leader of the organisation as an individual who urged his sympathisers to leave their way of life in order to pursue a communal life and to practice sexual perversion.\n8.  In March 2004 a large-scale negative press campaign and police operation targeted MISA. The leader and some members of the organisation faced criminal investigation for the alleged sexual corruption of minors. MISA’s leader left the country for Sweden. In 2005 the Swedish authorities refused an extradition request by the Romanian authorities.\n9.  On 30 July 2003 the applicant, who was of full legal age, was hospitalised in the Socola Psychiatric Hospital. According to her, she was taken to the said hospital by her parents against her will after they had discovered that she was attending yoga classes.\n10.  The medical reports produced by the said hospital stated that it was the first time the patient had been admitted to the Socola Hospital, and that she had been admitted at her mother’s request because of anxious and negative behaviour, irritability, a tendency to cry easily and depression, which were a reaction to psychological trauma, in particular a conflict with her parents. She was diagnosed with reactive depression and anxiety. The applicant’s condition had improved after group psychotherapy. She had been recommended medical treatment, psychotherapy and been advised to avoid psychotraumatic situations.\n11.  Her hospitalisation ended on 8 August 2003.\n12.  On 19 January 2005 the applicant travelled to her hometown, Bârlad, accompanied by M.A., her fiancé, in order to obtain a copy of her birth certificate, which she needed inter alia for her marriage to M.A.\n13.  While she was in the building housing the register office (Oficiul de Stare Civilă), her family appeared and surrounded her.\n14.  According to the applicant, her mother convinced her to go outside and talk to them before applying for her birth certificate. Once outside the building, her family became aggressive. After they pushed M.A. to the ground, they forced her into a vehicle and drove her to her grandparents’ house. Once there, her family took away her regular clothes and replaced them with old clothes and slippers. They also took away her money and identity papers. In addition, she was kept indoors continuously, supervised, threatened and psychologically pressured by them.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8210", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n11.  Mrs Anca Mocanu and Mr Marin Stoica were born in 1970 and 1948 respectively. They live in Bucharest.\n12.  The Association “21 December 1989” (Asociaţia 21 Decembrie 1989) was set up on 9 February 1990 and is based in Bucharest.\n13.  The applicant association brings together mainly individuals who were injured during the violent suppression of the anti-totalitarian demonstrations which took place in Romania in December 1989 and the relatives of persons who died during those events. It was one of the groups which supported the anti-government demonstrations held in Bucharest between April and June 1990, at which demonstrators called, inter alia, for the identification of those responsible for the violence committed in December 1989.\n14.  The main facts concerning the crackdown on anti-government demonstrations from 13 to 15 June 1990 were described in the decisions of 16 September 1998 (see paragraphs 99-110 below) and 17 June 2009 (see paragraphs 152-63 below), issued by the prosecutor’s office at the Supreme Court of Justice (which in 2003 became the High Court of Cassation and Justice), and in the decisions to commit for trial (rechizitoriu) issued by the same prosecutor’s office on 18 May 2000 and 27 July 2007.\n15.  On 13 June 1990 the security forces’ intervention against the demonstrators who were occupying University Square and other areas of the capital resulted in several civilian casualties, including Mrs Mocanu’s husband, Mr Mocanu, who was killed by a shot fired from the headquarters of the Ministry of the Interior.\n16.  On the evening of 13 June 1990 Mr Stoica and other persons, some but not all of whom were demonstrators, were arrested and ill-treated by uniformed police officers and men in civilian clothing, in the area around the headquarters of the State television service and in the basement of that building.\n17.  On 14 June 1990 thousands of miners were transported to Bucharest, essentially from the Jiu Valley (Valea Jiului) mining region, to take part in the crackdown on the demonstrators.\n18.  At 6.30 a.m. on 14 June 1990 the President of Romania addressed the miners, who had arrived in the square in front of the Government building, inviting them to go to University Square, occupy it and defend it against the demonstrators; they subsequently did so.\n19.  The violent events of 13 and 14 June 1990 resulted in more than a thousand victims, whose names appear in a list attached to the decision issued on 29 April 2008 by the military section of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice.\n20.  The headquarters of several political parties and other institutions, including those of the applicant association, were attacked and ransacked. The latter association subsequently joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party.\n21.  The criminal proceedings into the unlawful killing by gunfire of Mr Velicu-Valentin Mocanu are still pending. The investigation opened on 13 June 1990 into the ill-treatment allegedly inflicted on Mr Stoica was closed by a decision not to bring a prosecution, dated 17 June 2009, subsequently upheld by a judgment of the High Court of Cassation and Justice of 9 March 2011.\n22.  The facts as set out by the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice in its decisions of 16 September 1998 and 17 June 2009 and in the decisions to commit for trial of 18 May 2000 and 27 July 2007 may be summarised as follows.\n23.  University Square in Bucharest was considered a s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8211", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in various districts of the Chechen Republic. They are the close relatives of people who disappeared after allegedly being arrested at their homes by servicemen. In each of the applications, the events took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The alleged abductions were primarily carried out during curfew hours, at night or early in the morning. In some of the cases, the applicants submitted that, at the material time, a special operation was being conducted by military servicemen or law-enforcement agencies in the area, which was subsequently confirmed by the investigation (see, for example, Vezirov and Others (no. 44284/11), Nuraliyevy (no. 48134/11) and Sangariyevy (no. 52182/11)).\n6.  The applicants complained to law-enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without achieving any tangible results.\n7.  From the documents submitted, it appears that the relevant State authorities were unable to identify the State servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions.\n8.  In their observations, the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants. At the same time, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the alleged abductions.\n9.  Below are summaries of the facts relevant to each individual complaint. Each account of events is based on statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and/or neighbours to the Court and to the domestic investigative authorities. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in Appendix I.\n10.  The applicant, Ms Petimat Ismailova (in the documents submitted also referred to as Baskhanova), was born in 1980, and lives in Katyr‑Yurt in the Achkhoy-Martan district, the Chechen Republic. She is represented before the Court by lawyers from the NGO Materi Chechni.\n11.  The applicant is the wife of Mr Ruslan Baskhanov, who was born in 1980.\n12.  At the material time, the applicant and her husband Mr Ruslan Baskhanov lived in Achkhoy-Martan, Chechnya. Their house was situated in proximity to the Achkhoy-Martan district military commander’s office.\n13.  At about 3 a.m. on 6 January 2004 a group of about fifteen masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicant’s house in two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and took Mr Ruslan Baskhanov away.\n14.  There has been no news of Mr Ruslan Baskhanov since that day.\n15.  The Government furnished a copy of “the contents of the entire criminal case file” without specifying the number of pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows.\n(a)  Main investigative steps taken by the investigators\n16.  On 9 January 2004 the applicant reported the abduction, and on 15 January 2004 the Achkhoy-Martan inter-district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 38002.\n17.  On 15 January 2004 investigators examined the crime scene and collected three bullet cartridges. The expert examination they carried out subsequently concluded that they had been fired from various types of firearms.\n18.  On 26 April 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 replied to the investigators, denying that military servicemen had been involved in the abduction.\n19.  On 15 May 2004 the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8212", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Zagreb. She has suffered since her early childhood from cerebral palsy and uses a wheel chair. In 1968 she was deprived of her legal capacity on account of “her physical illness and intellectual underdevelopment”. On 10 July 1979 her legal capacity was fully restored by a ruling of the Zagreb Municipal Court.\n7.  On 12 November 2009 the Pešćenica Social Welfare Centre (hereinafter “the Centre”) asked the Zagreb Municipal Court to institute proceedings with a view to partially depriving the applicant of her legal capacity in order to prevent her from disposing of her assets. They relied on a previous ruling of 1968 by the same court by which the applicant had been deprived of her legal capacity (see the preceding paragraph). They further asserted that the applicant had been suffering from “grave bodily damage” (velika tjelesna oštećenja) since early childhood, as she had been diagnosed with cerebral palsy and various chronic illnesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure and defective eyesight.\n8.  They further asserted, relying on a statement given by the applicant’s son at the Centre and a report by the Centre’s social worker, that the applicant’s condition had worsened after she had undergone an operation on her head on 9 September 2008. Since then she had suffered from personality changes, manifested in managing her money in an irrational manner, such as by not paying the monthly instalments for the purchase of her flat, electricity, water and other bills, and by purchasing mobile telephone cards instead of food. This could have led to the applicant’s eviction from the flat she occupied, as she had already received a final warning that a civil action in that respect was to be lodged.\n9.  The Centre’s request was supported by evidence, such as an electricity bill of 27,625.70 Croatian kunas (HRK) dated 30 March 2009, a copy of a final demand for payment of monthly instalments for the purchase of the applicant’s flat, with the debt amounting to HRK 8,290.25 as at 7 March 2009, a notice that the water supply for the applicant’s flat would be stopped as of 25 May 2009 on account of non-payment of a debt in the amount of HRK 4,447.42, and a debt recovery notice for the amount of HRK 451.70 payable to Croatian Radio and Television (HRT).\n10.  On 28 October 2009 the Centre appointed its employee, Ms J.T., as the applicant’s legal guardian in the proceedings before the Zagreb Municipal Court. In the proceedings before that court the guardian gave her full consent to the Centre’s application. The applicant was represented by a lawyer of her own choosing.\n11.  The Municipal Court heard the applicant on 24 March 2010 and established that:\n“The respondent was found at her address in a wheelchair. She gave very meaningful answers; [she] stressed that she acted autonomously, kept her flat tidy, prepared her meals and was provided with help by her son and a tenant. She moved about independently in her wheelchair and did her own shopping, [and] paid [her own] bills, which gave rise to difficulties during winter. She stated that in the period when she had underwent a head surgery in September [2008], she had been late with paying her utility bills ... She did not agree with the proceedings [being brought] and considered that she did not need a guardian. She stressed that she regularly took [her] prescribed medication ... It is to be noted that the respondent was presentable and her home was tidy.”\n12. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8213", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1948, the second applicant was born in 1976, the third applicant was born in 1980 and they all live in Slatina. The fourth applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Osijek, and the fifth applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Josipovac.\n6.  The first applicant is the husband, the second and third applicants are children, and the fourth and fifth applicants are sisters of the late M.B.B., a lawyer who was based in Slatina.\n7.  M.B.B. represented M.N. in divorce proceedings instituted in December 2001 in the Slatina Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Slatini) against her husband, A.N.\n8.  A first hearing in those proceedings was held on 12 February 2002, attended by the parties and the lawyer M.B.B. The court heard the parties’ arguments and decided to request a report from the local social services. It then adjourned the hearing until 9 April 2002.\n9.  According to A.N.’s police records, he had a history of alcohol abuse, violent behaviour and unlawful possession of firearms. In May 1993 the Slatina Police (Policijska Postaja Slatina – hereinafter “the police”) instituted minor offences proceedings against him for beating up his daughter and wife under the influence of alcohol and making serious threats using firearms. On that occasion, the police seized from A.N. a rifle with a dozen bullets and a hand grenade. There is, however, no further information on the outcome of these proceedings. Furthermore, between 2000 and 2002 A.N. was reported three times for family violence and twice for a breach of the peace and public order, and in May 2001 the police lodged a criminal complaint against him with the State Attorney’s Office for making serious death threats to his wife.\n10.  On 16 October 2000 the Slatina Minor Offences Court (Prekršajni sud u Slatini) found A.N. guilty of the minor offence of family violence and fined him 500 Croatian kunas (HRK). During the proceedings, M.N. explained that the divorce proceedings were pending before the courts and that A.N. had contested them. She also explained that she had ended up in hospital after having been severely beaten by A.N.\n11.  On 25 July 2001 the Slatina Municipal Court found A.N. guilty of the criminal offence of making serious death threats to his wife and sentenced him to two months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year.\n12.  According to a police report drawn up on 25 March 2002, M.N., accompanied by A.N., attended the police station on 21 March 2002, alleging that her husband had been harassing her. She made no other complaints of possible threats or violence. She further explained that A.N. had previously beaten her up and had been convicted in the minor offences and criminal courts. She also pointed out that their divorce proceedings were pending and that a hearing was scheduled for 9 April 2002. On the same occasion, A.N. argued that he did not want his wife to see other men. The police officer who interviewed the couple, Ž.J., warned A.N. to stop harassing his wife and instructed them to settle all their disputes in the divorce proceedings. The report also contains a note suggesting that during the interview, A.N. and M.N. showed no signs of aggression, alcohol abuse or agitation.\n13.  Afterwards, police officer Ž.J. informed his superior officer, M.Kr., of the interview. He was told to make a short note of the event in the logbook and that it was not necessary to draft a report or take any further action.\n14.  According to further police reports, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8214", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Stavropol Region.\n6.  On 22 March 2006, following an application by a police chief and without the applicant’s knowledge, a judge of the Georgievsk Town Court of Stavropol Region issued a decision authorising the taking of “operational-search measures”, which read in its entirety as follows:\n“[The court], having examined a decision by the chief of the Georgievsk district police station on the taking of operational-search measures,\nFOUND AS FOLLOWS:\nIt follows from the decision and a memorandum that ... Samvel Avanesyan, residing at ... probably has in his household certain objects and items prohibited from free circulation and [which have also been] criminally acquired.\nWith a view to finding and seizing them, it is necessary to take operational-search measures. On the basis of Article 25 of the Constitution and section 6(8) of the Operational-Search Activities Act, the court\nHOLDS:\nThat the carrying-out of operational-search activities, that is, an inspection of the premises, buildings, constructions, vehicles and plots of land belonging to Samvel Avanesyan, residing at [the address], is authorised.”\n7.  On the same day two officers from the Georgievsk police station came to the applicant’s house at the Budennova Street and “inspected” (обследовали) the living quarters.\n8.  The applicant was away from home on that day. The police showed the authorisation to the applicant’s father. He had a heart attack and died before the ambulance arrived.\n9.  The “inspection record” (акт о результатах обследования) indicated that nothing had been found or seized.\n10.  On 29 March 2006 the applicant complained to the Georgievsk district prosecutor’s office, claiming that the police officers had carried out an unlawful search. On 10 April 2006 (or 8 May 2006, according to the Government) an investigator from the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings, finding that the officers had acted lawfully and that the death of the applicant’s father had been a coincidence. According to the applicant, the existence of the judicial authorisation of 22 March 2006 was for the first time revealed in the investigator’s reply.\n11.  The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to lodge a supervisory-review application against the judicial authorisation of 22 March 2006. He submitted that, contrary to the requirements of the Operational-Search Activities Act, the decision had not mentioned specific grounds for carrying out the “inspection” of his home or spelled out the information on which the suspicion had been founded. He had had no criminal record, no criminal charge had been levelled against him, and he had not been heard as a victim or witness. Furthermore, the scope of the decision had been too vague and imprecise; it had not mentioned what specific items were to be uncovered. The applicant relied on Article 8 of the Convention and the inviolability of his home under the Constitution.\n12.  On 20 June and 20 October 2006 two judges of the Stavropol Regional Court returned the supervisory-review applications to the applicant. Their covering letters stated that judicial decisions issued in the framework of the Operational-Search Activities Act were not amenable to supervisory review.\n13.  The applicant also complained to the Constitutional Court, seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of section 5 of the Operational-Search Activities Act. On 18 September 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected his ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8215", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1936.\n6.  In the summer of 2005, the applicant was hired as a guard to accompany a shipment of some sixty tonnes of onions from Tajikistan to Siberia. After a nine-day journey by rail, the cargo arrived at Rubtsovsk station in the Altay Region. Using sniffer dogs, Russian customs officials found concealed rubber containers inside onion skins that held a total of more than seventy-three kilograms of heroin.\n7.  At about 9 p.m. on 1 August 2005 the applicant was taken to the organised crime department at the Rubtsovsk police station and placed in a room (no. 26) under police guard. A record of his arrest was not drawn up. The applicant spent the night on a mattress in the corridor.\n8.  At 8.50 a.m. on 2 August 2005 a criminal case was instituted in connection with the uncovered shipment of drugs. The investigator, L., accepted the case at about 11 a.m. and interviewed the applicant. He was searched, and a small package of heroin was found concealed in his bag.\n9.  Later that day a record of arrest was drawn up, and the applicant was formally remanded in custody on a charge of drug smuggling. According to the record, the applicant was arrested at 8.20 p.m. on 2 August 2005 at the Rubtsovsk police station.\n10.  During the applicant’s trial, his counsel repeatedly raised the issue of his unrecorded detention from 1 to 2 August 2005 and put questions to the police officers, who were heard as witnesses, about the events following the applicant’s apprehension. According to the hearing records, they replied as follows:\n11.  The chief of the drug control department, M., stated:\n“Rakhimberdiyev was taken to the department. While [there], he remained under guard. He stayed in the department for five hours. Pending [his placement in] the IVS (temporary detention cell), he was not allowed to go outside. During the twenty-four hour period of detention, Rakhimberdiyev did not go to the toilet, he did not ask to.”\n12.  The deputy chief of the organised crime department, Ch., stated:\n“Rakhimberdiyev could not get up and go out because we had to take a decision on the basis of the documents. I cannot say what the grounds for keeping him in the corridor were.”\n13.  An operative of the drug control department, Shl., testified:\n“Rakhimberdiyev could not go out because the door was locked, he was under guard.”\n14.  An officer of the special-purpose department of the criminal police, B., stated:\n“Rakhimberdiyev could not leave because I said so – the case was in progress, the expert was working. I do not know what the grounds for his detention were ... I stood guard over him so as to prevent him from going out ...”\n15.  On 9 March 2006 the Rubtsovsk Town Court found the applicant guilty of drug smuggling with intent to supply and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment in a high-security facility.\n16.  On 18 May 2006 the Altay Regional Court acquitted the applicant on the charge of smuggling, but upheld his conviction in the part concerning the possession of twenty-seven grams of heroin. The sentence was commuted to three years’ imprisonment.\n17.  In the meantime, counsel for the applicant complained to the Rubtsovsk town prosecutor about the applicant’s unrecorded detention from 1 to 2 August 2005. The prosecutor forwarded the complaint to the chief of the organised crime department for verification.\n18.  On 13 April 2006 the chief of the organised crime department approved the conclusions of an internal inquiry a senior operati", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8216", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Grozny, Chechnya. Her son, Mr Apti Zaynalov, was born in 1980.\n8.  In October 2005 Mr Apti Zaynalov was convicted of belonging to an illegal armed group. In July 2006 he was released from detention and after that date lived in Saratov, working in the construction industry. The applicant often stayed with him in Saratov.\n9.  On 25 June 2009 the applicant travelled back to Grozny from Saratov. Before her departure Mr Apti Zaynalov told her that he was going to study in Egypt and that he had to go to Moscow to finalise certain formalities.\n10.  On 26 June 2009 the applicant received a message from her son on her mobile phone saying that he would be flying to Egypt the next day. She did not hear from him again and had assumed that he was in Egypt.\n11.  The applicant alleged that her son had been abducted in June 2009 by unknown servicemen and had disappeared in July 2009. Below is a summary of her submissions to the Court and to the national authorities.\n12.  According to the applicant’s submissions of 15 July 2009, on 2 July 2009 an unknown person had contacted the offices of Memorial in Grozny, claiming that a young man called Apti, whose body exhibited signs of torture, had been placed under guard in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital. Staff from Memorial decided to follow up this information, believing that the young man might be Mr Apti Sh., who was considered to be a missing person.\n13.  On 3 July 2009 Memorial staff member Mr G. had gone to Achkhoy-Martan together with Mr Apti Sh.’s uncle, Mr I. Sh. They had found a patient under guard in the hospital’s surgical department. Mr G. had peeped into the ward and had seen two armed guards wearing camouflage uniform and black caps bearing the letters “K.R.A.” in Cyrillic. Two more guards had been sitting on beds near the door. On a bed near the window there had been a young man who was being assisted by a nurse. He was about thirty years old, had bruises on his face, his head was bandaged, and he was covered by a sheet displaying red stains. Mr I. Sh. realised that the patient was not his nephew. A hospital nurse had allegedly told Mr G. that the patient was twenty-nine years old, that his name was Apti Zaynalov, and that he was from the village of Makhety. He had been brought from Grozny, the medical staff had not been allowed to talk to him, his file contained no personal information, and he had been registered as “unknown”. Judging from his wounds, he might have been subjected to ill-treatment.\n14.  Later that day Mr G. had contacted a relative of Mr Apti Zaynalov. That relative had showed Mr G. and Mr I. Sh. a photograph of Mr Apti Zaynalov and they had identified him as the patient.\n15.  On 3 July 2009 the applicant’s elder son, Mr R., had told her that he had received information from Memorial stating that there was a patient resembling Mr Apti Zaynalov under guard in Achkhoy-Martan Hospital.\n16.  On 4 July 2009 the applicant and Mr R. had visited the Memorial office in Grozny.\n17.  On 5 July 2009 Mr G. and Mr R. had travelled to Achkhoy-Martan but had obtained no new information.\n18.  On 7 July 2009 the applicant and Memorial staff member Mrs Natalia Estemirova had been received by the Achkhoy-Martan district prosecutor Mr P. The latter had ordered two officers to go with them to Achkhoy-Martan Hospital in order to conduct an inspection there. Then he had left for a meeting. According to the applicant, the two officers had accompanied her and Mrs", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8218", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  In August 2001, the applicant started going to the dental practice of Dr A.D. in order to have dental bridges fitted. The treatment involved work on about twenty teeth, fitting bridges and crowns and adapting the adjacent teeth.\n7.  The treatment started in September 2001. When the first part of the bridgework was ready, the applicant noticed that it did not fit well. The dentist told her that she could still use it in order to eat and that he would rectify the problem. When the rest of the bridgework was ready, she again noticed that she could not close her mouth and that when she tried to eat it caused her great pain. The bridges were fitted provisionally and it was agreed that they would be permanently fixed at a later stage after being further adapted. Nevertheless, while wearing them she realised that her gums were affected. During the following days, she went to the dental surgery several times in order to have the bridges adapted, but the dentist told her that they were perfect and that all that remained was for them to be fixed permanently, even though she showed him that she could not close her mouth and that her gums were bleeding.\n8.  The applicant alleged that she had attempted to make a new appointment with Dr A.D. on several occasions prior to the end of January 2002, but to no avail. During this period, her state of health worsened and she had no money to pay for further dental treatment.\n9.  On 30 January 2002 the dentist issued her with a certificate of guarantee for the dental work that he had carried out and he kept the bridges with a view to adapting them. The applicant only received them back one and a half months later, without any change having been made to them.\n10.  She insisted that she could not use the bridgework, she could not eat while wearing it and that it hurt her gums and caused them to become infected.\n11.  In a complaint of 18 July 2002 addressed to the Ministry of Health, the applicant asked to undergo a medical expert examination in order to determine whether the bridgework was functional, to what extent it affected her teeth and how long she could wear bridges which were only fitted provisionally without this affecting her teeth and gums or causing irreversible speech problems.\n12.  On 6 August 2002 she was informed that her complaint would be reviewed by the Bucharest College of Doctors.\n13.  At the end of September 2002, she had a consultation with another dentist, Dr A.B. According to the applicant, she was told that the bridgework had not been correctly done and, given all the problems that it had caused her (infected gums, cuts, pain), it was not recommended that the bridges be fixed permanently.\n14.  A few days later, she was asked to undergo an examination by a panel of experts attached to the Faculty of Dentistry.\n15.  The second examination took place on 8 October 2002. She submitted that she had been told that there had been no need to perform an overly detailed examination, as it could be easily seen that the bridges should not be worn.\n16.  In a letter of 14 January 2003 addressed to the Bucharest College of Doctors, she asked to be informed of the findings in the medical expert report. On the same date, the Bucharest College of Doctors replied that the findings of the medical examination that they had carried out were only for the internal use of the Disciplinary Panel of the College of Doctors. If she wished to obtain an e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8219", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant lives in Budapest.\n7.  On 1 July 2002 the applicant concluded an employment contract with a State-owned specialised financial institution.\n8.  On 27 July 2003 the Hungarian Government adopted Government Decree no. 2173/2003. (VII. 29.) on the remuneration of senior professionals within business entities under majority State control. The applicant’s employment contract was amended in accordance with the Decree and stipulated, in case of ordinary dismissal, severance payment equal to two months’ salary and remuneration corresponding to a notice period of eight months.\n9.  On 30 June 2010 the applicant’s employment was terminated by mutual agreement. Under this agreement, on 5 July 2010 the applicant’s former employer paid the applicant, after taxes, a net amount of 13,879,643 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 46,300 euros (EUR)), amounting to eight months’ salary.\n10.  Under new legislation (see paragraph 11 below) the gross amount corresponding to the above payment was subsequently taxed at a 98% rate in its part exceeding HUF 3.5 million; the income tax and social security contributions already paid (see paragraph 9 above) were deducted from the tax payable. Thus, the applicant had to pay an additional HUF 11,296,051 as special tax, until 20 May 2011.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8220", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Budapest.\n7.  On 18 May 2009 the applicant, a left-wing politician, participated in a peaceful demonstration wearing a five-pointed red star on his jacket. A police patrol which was present called on the applicant to remove the star, which was then confiscated. The applicant’s complaint to the Head of National Police was to no avail.\n8.  Subsequently, he challenged the measure in court.\n9.  On 29 June 2010 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed his action. The court held that the display of the red star contravened section 269/B of the Criminal Code and consequently its confiscation was justified under sections 115(1) and 151(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n10.  In review proceedings, the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision on 8 June 2011, holding that the police measure had been lawful, despite the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Vajnai v. Hungary (no. 33629/06, ECHR 2008), whose application in the circumstances had been no task of the police officers present on the premises.\n11.  The applicant incurred altogether 1,115 euros in legal costs.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8221", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Van.\n6.  According to the incident and the crime scene investigation reports, upon receipt of intelligence that terrorists were hiding in the area, on 24 June 2008 a large group of gendarme officers from the Hakkari Mountain Commando Brigade blocked the road near the village of Armutdüzü in the Yüksekova district. At about 1.30 a.m. the gendarme officers stopped a lorry on suspicion of fuel smuggling. Subsequently, another lorry approached the gendarme officers. The applicant was travelling in this vehicle and it was being driven by his cousin, N.A. The soldiers ordered them to stop, but N.A. continued to drive. According to the report drafted by the gendarme officers, the driver attempted to escape and the gendarme officers fired a warning shot in the air and then fired at the tyres of the lorry to stop it. According to the applicant, they were driving down a steep hill at high speed, and as the brakes had failed, they could not stop. They maintained that they had shouted from the window that the brakes were not working and N.A. had tried to avoid hitting the other lorry, which was parked in the middle of the street, by trying to pass it on the right. He then headed towards the hills, where there was a group of gendarme officers. The gendarme officers opened fire, first in the air and then at the vehicle. The applicant was wounded in the hip and his cousin in the leg during the incident as a result of ricochet bullets.\n7.  The crime scene investigation report revealed that there were no bullet holes on the left side or the back of the lorry. Three of the tyres were flat, namely the two front tyres and the rear right tyre. Eight bullet holes were observed on the right wing over the tyres, three bullet holes in the petrol tank, a bullet entry and exit hole on the front right door, and another bullet hole on the right wheel rim. The gendarme officers further collected a total of nine bullet cases from the scene of the incident.\n8.  On the same day, a major from the District Gendarmerie wrote to the Yüksekova Public Prosecutor and requested authorisation to search the two vehicles which had been stopped by the gendarmes. Upon receipt of authorisation, the gendarme officers searched the two lorries. They found sixty‑six barrels of smuggled fuel in the first lorry and forty-five barrels in the applicant’s cousin’s lorry. No other illegal items were found in the vehicles. The applicant’s cousin, N.A., declined to sign the search report.\n9.  Also on the same day, two gendarme officers tested the lorry belonging to the applicant’s cousin in the presence of the village mayor. They reported that the vehicle had three flat tyres, that there were four bullet holes in the petrol tank, that the engine was working correctly and that the brake system was intact.\n10.  Subsequently, on the same day, the applicant’s cousin gave a statement to the Yüksekova Public Prosecutor and stated that the applicant had been taken to Van Hospital. He requested that criminal proceedings be initiated against the gendarme officers who had used force against them. He emphasised that when he had been told to stop he had been driving down a steep hill at high speed, and when he could not stop, he had shouted from the window that the brakes were not working. He had had no intention of escaping from the gendarmes. He further denied that he had been transporting smuggled fuel and maintained that the barrels found by the gendarmes", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8222", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1970, 1963 and 1989 and live in Paks and Budapest respectively.\n6.  At the material time, Mr Vajnai was Vice-President and Ms Noé and Mr Bakó were activists of the Workers’ Party (Munkáspárt), a registered left-wing political party. The party had no known intention of participating in Hungarian political life in defiance of the rule of law.\n7.  On 21 December 2008 the applicants organised an event in front of a shopping mall in Budapest, entitled “Anti-Capitalist Santa Claus”, with the intention to demonstrate against consumerism, draw attention to poverty, point out the shortcomings of market economy, and demand free internet access for all.\n8.  To express their affiliation with Communism, four persons, including the applicants, displayed a sheet and a flag with a five-pointed red star and distributed leaflets with their political message, depicting red stars.\n9.  In application of section 269/B(1) of the Criminal Code, a police patrol which was present called on the applicants to terminate the demonstration, checked their identity and committed them to Budapest VI District Police Department for interrogation.\n10.  On 23 December 2008 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Independent Police Complaints Board against the police measures. They relied on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights adopted in the case of Vajnai v. Hungary (no. 33629/06, ECHR 2008). They referred to the Court’s finding that the prosecution for having worn a red star had amounted to a violation of Mr Vajnai’s freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention.\n11.  The applicants’ complaints were dismissed by the Complaints Board on 4 March 2009.\n12.  The applicants’ further complaints against the measures were dismissed by the District Police Department on 22 May 2009. This decision was upheld by the Budapest Chief Police Commander, acting as a second-instance authority, on 17 November 2009.\n13.  On 29 June 2010 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ requests for judicial review. The court held that the display of the red star contravened section 269/B of the Criminal Code, despite the Vajnai judgment, whose application in the circumstances had been no task of the police officers present on the premises. Consequently, the applicants’ identity check and committal to the Police Department was justified under sections 29 (1) and 33 (1) of Act no. XXXIV of 1994 on the Police.\n14.  In review proceedings, the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision on 22 June 2011 (in the case of Mr Bakó), 27 June 2011 (in the case of Ms Noé), and 5 September 2011 (in the case of Mr Vajnai), endorsing in essence the first-instance decisions’ reasoning.\n15.  The applicants, jointly (they had a lawyer in common), incurred altogether 2,760 euros in legal costs.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8223", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Riga.\n6.  On 3 March 2004 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for Internet fraud.\n7.  In the course of the pre-trial investigation the applicant underwent two inpatient psychiatric examinations. On both occasions the applicant was found to have full mental capacity (pieskaitāms).\n8.  On 3 October 2006 the Riga City Vidzeme District Court found the applicant guilty and gave him a suspended six-month prison sentence. The applicant and his counsel appealed.\n9.  Taking into account that during the hearing of the appeal court of 9 January 2007 the applicant was said to have “behaved aggressively towards the advocate and the prosecutor [and] in the course of the subsequent hearings [had] made illogical and disjointed statements”, on 13 March 2007 the Riga Regional Court decided to request an outpatient psychiatric assessment.\n10.  On 27 April 2007 a psychiatrist found that the applicant was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and that his participation in court hearings was therefore “unhelpful” (nav lietderīga). The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant undergo outpatient treatment.\n11.  On 18 June 2007 a single judge of the Riga Regional Court decided to initiate proceedings with a view to applying a compulsory measure of a medical nature. Taking into account that “the nature of [the applicant’s] illness [did] not permit him to take part in court proceedings”, it was decided that the case would be examined in the applicant’s absence, with the participation of a prosecutor, defence counsel, a legal representative for the applicant and an expert psychiatrist. The applicant’s mother was named as his legal representative.\n12.  The applicant’s mother did not attend the following hearing on 19 September 2007. She had sent the court a letter stating that she would be unable to attend court hearings due to ill-health. She also expressed her belief that her son had legal capacity and was able to express his own point of view. During the hearing the prosecutor suggested that D.A., a psychiatrist responsible for the applicant’s medical treatment, could better serve as his legal representative, a suggestion which was approved by the court with the consent of the applicant’s counsel and the expert psychiatrist.\n13.  The subsequent hearing on 16 October 2007 was attended by D.A., who described the applicant as “chaotic”, “contemptuous” and as having “delirious fantasies”. She considered that he should be ordered to undergo involuntary outpatient psychiatric treatment. She explained that if the applicant did not take medication he did not become aggressive, but became “a burden on society”. At the conclusion of the hearing, the defence counsel, D.A. and the prosecutor all agreed that an additional inpatient psychiatric assessment ought to be carried out, which was ordered by the court.\n14.  The inpatient assessment was completed on 27 November 2007 and the applicant was diagnosed with episodic paranoid schizophrenia with increasing residual symptoms (paranoīda epizodiskas norises šizofrēnija ar pieaugošām reziduālām parādībām). It was concluded that at the time he had committed the incriminated acts, he had been unable to control his actions. It was therefore recommended that he be relieved of criminal liability.\n15.  On 18 February 2008 the Riga Regional Court decided to relieve the applicant of criminal liability and imposed a compulsory measure of a medical nature – o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8224", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Germany.\n5.  On 7 July 1999 the Ankara Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicant’s arrest in absentia on suspicion of membership of the PKK, an illegal organisation.\n6.  On 13 July 1999 the applicant was captured in Chisinau, Moldova, and taken to Turkey on the same day. He was interrogated by MIT (the National Intelligence Organisation of Turkey) agents until 21 July 1999.\n7.  In July 1999, shortly after being taken to Turkey, the applicant was described by a number of media outlets as the “second man of the PKK”, the “European representative of the PKK”, “a terrorist” and “a traitor to the country”. According to an article published in Turkish Daily News of 22 July 1999, the National Intelligence Agency of Turkey (MIT) issued a press statement in which it stated that the applicant had worked to increase terrorist activities and incited the PKK supporters in Turkey to use violence.\n8.  On 21 July 1999 the applicant was handed over to the Ankara Security Directorate for further questioning. At the time of transfer, a hand-written delivery report was produced. It is not known who drafted the report.\n9.  On 23 July 1999 the applicant was brought first before the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court and subsequently before a judge at the Ankara State Security Court, who ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody.\n10.  On 9 August 1999 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and two other persons. The applicant was charged with being a leading member of the PKK, whose aim was to bring about the secession of part of the national territory. The charges against the applicant were brought under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code.\n11.  The public prosecutor accused the applicant of being one of the leaders of the PKK in Europe and of having been involved in the training of PKK members in Romania. According to the indictment, the applicant had been in contact with Mr Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK, and had provided him with information about the persons who had been trained. The public prosecutor further noted that when he had questioned Mr Öcalan on 22 February 1999, the latter had maintained that he had given instructions to the applicant regarding that training. Moreover, the leader of the PKK had confirmed the veracity of that statement during his trial on 1 June 1999.\n12.  The public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court further claimed that during telephone conversations with a number of people in Turkey, the applicant had issued instructions to perpetrate acts of violence following the arrest of Mr Öcalan. In the indictment, the public prosecutor quoted the transcripts of eight of the applicant’s alleged telephone conversations dated 4, 18 and 22 February 1999 and 1, 5, 7, 15 and 19 March 1999. The public prosecutor also noted that the applicant had referred to the State of Turkey as “the enemy” in his conversations. Furthermore, according to the indictment, a number of PKK members – A.G., K.O., Ş.Ö., H.K., N.Y., M.Ş. and A.Y. – had maintained in their statements that the applicant had been involved in the activities mentioned in the indictment. As a result, the public prosecutor alleged that the applicant had issued instructions for hundreds of bombings, fires, hunger strikes, suicide attacks and massacres, including the killing of thirteen people as a result of an attack on Mavi Çarş", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8225", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1942 and 1963 respectively and live in Budapest.\n7.  At the material time, Mr Vajnai was Vice-President and Mr Horváth was a member and activist of the Workers’ Party (Munkáspárt), a registered left-wing political party. The party had no known intention of participating in Hungarian political life in defiance of the rule of law.\n8.  Mr Vajnai was the editor of the Party’s web page containing news and articles related to the Hungarian and European Communist movements. On 18 November 2003 Mr Vajnai placed a five-pointed red star and a sickle-and-hammer logo on the web page.\n9.  On 3 April 2004 the applicants participated in a peaceful demonstration commemorating the 1945 Soviet liberation of Hungary from Nazi occupation. Mr Vajnai wore a five-pointed red star on his jacket, whilst Mr Horváth wore a sweater ornamented with five-pointed red star and a sickle-and-hammer pattern.\n10.  Subsequently, criminal proceedings were instituted against them for the offence of having worn totalitarian symbols in public. In the context of these proceedings, the public prosecutor summoned the applicants. On 10 September 2004 they appeared in the public prosecutor’s office wearing five-pointed red stars on their jackets.\n11.  On 11 March and 2 June 2004 and 16 November 2005, in the context of other criminal proceedings against him, Mr Vajnai appeared in court wearing a five-pointed red star on his jacket. On 5 November 2004, the applicant spoke on the national television about his Party’s political aims and the criminal proceedings against him. On that occasion he wore a five-pointed red star on his jacket.\n12.  On 2 July 2005 the applicants participated in a peaceful demonstration in the National Cemetery. Mr Vajnai wore a five-pointed red star on his jacket, whilst Mr Horváth wore a five-pointed red star on his rain coat.\n13.  On 22 March 2007 the applicants were convicted by the Pest Central District Court under section 269/B (1) of the Criminal Code of the offence of having worn totalitarian symbols in public. The court observed that the applicants had worn a five-pointed red star and a sickle-and-hammer logo on several occasions of public appearance.\n14.  Mr Vajnai was sentenced to a criminal fine of 120,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) and ordered to pay another HUF 45,000 in criminal costs[1]. In the case of Mr Horváth, the court refrained from imposing a sentence for a probationary period of one year.\n15.  On 10 June 2008 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this judgment.\n16.  On 8 July 2008 the European Court of Human Rights adopted a judgment in a case introduced by Mr Vajnai on account of a previous conviction similar in nature (see Vajnai v. Hungary, no. 33629/06, 8 July 2008). The Court held that prosecution for having worn a red star amounted to a violation of the applicant’s freedom of expression enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention.\n17.  Subsequently, the applicants challenged the Regional Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court. Relying on section 10(2) of the Criminal Code, they claimed that their conduct did not represent danger for society in the face of the Vajnai judgment.\n18.  On 23 June 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ petition for review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8227", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants own property close to Umeå, in the vicinity of a Natura 2000 area, the European network of nature protection areas established under the EU Habitats Directive of 1992 (see further below at paragraph 33). Most of them live there (permanently or on a part-time basis).\n6.  On 15 October 1999, the National Rail Administration (Banverket; hereinafter “the NRA”) applied to the Government for permission, under the Environmental Code (Miljöbalken), to construct a 10 km long railway section in a river area in the north of Sweden (constituting the final section of a railway called “Botniabanan”, the total length of which is 190 km). The NRA presented some alternative railway stretches, all located in a specified “corridor”, but recommended the one named “alternative east”. The proposed railway construction concerned certain areas which were or were going to be part of Natura 2000.\n7.  It appears that six of the present applicants own houses or land within the mentioned “corridor”: Ms Carina Granberg, Ms Agneta Holmström, Mr Gustaf Härestål, Mr Björn Höjer, Ms Inga-Britt Höjer, and Mr Christer Skoog. Ownership of Mr Skoog’s property was transferred to Ms Granberg on 7 January 2011. The properties of the other twelve applicants – houses and land in their ownership or owned houses located on non-freehold sites – are situated outside the “corridor”. The distance from their properties to the “corridor” or the specific stretch of the railway fixed in later proceedings vary; the houses appear to be situated 300 – 2500 metres away whereas the closest piece of land is located about 50 metres from the “corridor”.\n8.  On 12 June 2003 the Government, after having heard the European Commission, granted the application and allowed the construction of the railway in the proposed “corridor” under the condition, inter alia, that the NRA adopt a railway plan before 1 July 2009 and also a specific plan for the realisation of the necessary environmental compensation measures in the Natura 2000 areas. The plan on compensation measures had to be presented to the Government before the railway plan was adopted. The Government stated, inter alia, that the activity could be permitted, despite its harmful effect on the environment in a Natura 2000 area, if there were no alternative solutions and the railway had to be constructed for reasons of public interest.\n9.  A number of individual property owners, including three of the applicants in the present case – Ms Bring, Mr Bäcklund and Mr Osterman – petitioned the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten) for a judicial review of the case and requested that the Government’s decision be quashed. The property owners claimed that the decision contradicted Swedish law as well as applicable European Union law, including the Habitats Directive. It was argued, firstly, that the decision contravened the general rule in the Environmental Code on the site to be chosen for activities and installations that may affect human health or the environment. This aspect allegedly had a direct and clear bearing on their civil rights. Secondly, they asserted that the Government’s decision violated Swedish regulations on nature conservation by failing to consider relevant alternative sites for the railway.\n10.  On 1 December 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the petitions for a judicial review because it was not possible to determine who should be considered an interested party at that stage of the railway pla", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8228", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1968 and 1965 respectively and live in Pazardzhik. They are spouses.\n7.  On 20 August 2002 the first applicant, as a sole trader, took out a bank loan in order to purchase computers and to set up a computer club. The computer club was situated in a garage owned by the applicants. The second applicant assisted the first applicant in running the club and replaced him when he was absent.\n8.  When he started his business, the first applicant purchased five computers and several computer games, which he installed on the computers. His customers were able to use the computers for one Bulgarian lev (BGN) per hour.\n9.  As the first applicant was renting the computers to his clients, he was obliged to pay the necessary licensing fees to the distributors of the companies that owned the copyright of the products. However, in 2004 the first applicant failed to renew his contracts with the distributors.\n10.  On 3 April 2004 the police conducted a check on the applicants’ premises and warned the first applicant to abstain from illegally reproducing and distributing software.\n11.  On 9 November 2004 the director of the local sanitation department at the Ministry of Health ordered that the computer club be closed down for health reasons.\n12.  On 31 January 2005 Mr V.E., a manager of a company that distributed computer games, lodged a complaint with the district prosecutor in Pazardzhik. Mr V.E. stated that he had visited the applicants’ computer club on several occasions in the period between September and December 2004. He claimed to have noticed that despite their lack of a software license for reproduction and distribution, the applicants had installed certain types of games on the computers and were renting them to their clients. Mr V.E. mentioned specifically some of the games. He also claimed that the applicants had visited his office several times and had been aware of the requirements concerning reproduction and distribution of computer games. Lastly, he claimed that he had warned the applicants about the possible sanctions but had received only threats in response, especially from the second applicant.\n13.  In an order of 2 February 2005 the district prosecutor noted that a complaint had been lodged by Mr V.E. alleging that a crime had been committed under Article 172a § 2 of the Criminal Code of 1968 (see paragraph 32 below). He further observed that there was insufficient information to justify the institution of criminal proceedings. Therefore, relying on section 119(1)(3) of the Judiciary Act 1994 (see paragraph 26 below), he ordered the police to conduct an inquiry into the computer club in order to collect more information as to whether a crime had been committed under Article 172a § 2 of the Criminal Code 1968. The prosecutor stated that when examining the computer club, in the event that the police officers established that software was being used illegally, they should take measures to secure the necessary evidence, including an on‑the‑spot inspection and search and seizure of the computers.\n14.  In executing the prosecutor’s order, on 14 February 2005 the police authorities drew up an action plan. A police officer with technological expertise would compare the software installed on the computers with the purchased software. In the event that discrepancies were found, the police would conduct a search and seizure. The operation was planned for 21 February 2005.\n15.  At approximately 3.30 p.m. on 21 Febr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8229", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and is currently detained in the Cricova prison.\n6.  At the time of the events, the applicant was serving a ten-year sentence and was detained in the same detention facility. In August 2008 a murder was committed there and the applicant was one of the suspects. In December 2008 he was taken to the Chişinău Central police station for questioning. According to him, he was told to confess to the murder and was ill-treated after refusing to do so. On 21 January 2009 the applicant was taken to the police station detention facility again. Since he refused to make a confession, he was subjected to such acts of violence as being struck and slapped all over, and was detained in a very cold cell. As a result, he attempted to commit suicide by cutting the veins in his wrist. On 23 January 2009 he was taken to hospital for medical treatment where, according to the documents in the case file, he was seen by a doctor and given stitches and a bandage. After returning from hospital the ill-treatment continued and intensified. According to the applicant, his arms and feet were tied together behind his back and he was suspended on a metal bar placed on two chairs. He was left in that position until he fainted. As a result, his right hand became numb and stopped functioning. He was also beaten on his lower back with a plastic bottle full of water. As a result, he suffered kidney pain and had blood in his urine. The Government disputed the applicant’s allegations concerning ill-treatment.\n7.  On 28 January 2009 the applicant was seen by a medical assistant in the police station detention facility, who noted in his medical records that the applicant had complained of pain around his right bicep and that the tissue in that area was swollen. On 30 January 2009 the same medical assistant noted that the applicant had complained of numbness and tingling in his right arm. On 31 January 2009 the same medical assistant concluded that the applicant’s problem was a result of the self-inflicted laceration to his ligament.\n8.  In the meantime, on 28 January 2009 the applicant’s family learned of his situation and employed a lawyer. As a result of the lawyer’s involvement, on 30 January 2009 the applicant was transferred back to Cricova prison.\n9.  On 12 February 2009 the applicant’s state of health deteriorated and he was hospitalised in a prison hospital, where he was examined by a neurologist and diagnosed with severe radial neuropathy of the right arm (damage to the radial nerve running down the length of the arm, which controls movement in the triceps and is responsible for extending the wrist and fingers). He was released from hospital on 9 April 2009, but returned later on several occasions.\n10.  In the meantime, the applicant’s lawyer complained to the prosecutor’s office that his client had been subjected to ill-treatment, but on 31 July 2009 the complaint was dismissed as ill-founded. The investigating authorities found the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment to be ill-founded, in view of the absence of any physical evidence except for that resulting from his self-harm. In reaching this conclusion, the investigating authorities relied on the statements of the accused police officers, who denied ill-treating the applicant, and on the conclusion of the medical assistant from the police station detention facility (see paragraph 7 above). The findings of the doctors from the prison hospital (see paragraph 9 above) were not c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8230", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1931 and died on 10 November 2011.\n10.  For many years, the applicant had expressed the wish to end her life. She explained that she was becoming increasingly frail as time passed and was unwilling to continue suffering the decline of her physical and mental faculties. She decided that she wished to end her life by taking a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital. She contacted an assisted-suicide association – EXIT – for support, which replied that it would be difficult to find a medical practitioner who would be prepared to provide her with a medical prescription for the lethal drug.\n11.  On 20 October 2008 a psychiatrist, Dr T., submitted an expert opinion in which he observed that there was no doubt that the applicant was able to form her own judgment. From a psychiatric medical point of view, Dr T. did not have any objection to the applicant being prescribed a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital. However, he refrained from issuing the prescription himself on the ground that he did not want to confuse the roles of medical expert and treating physician.\n12.  By letters of 5 November and 1 December 2008 and 4 May 2009, the applicant’s representative submitted on her behalf a request to be given a prescription for sodium pentobarbital to three further medical practitioners, who all declined to issue the requested prescription.\n13.  On 16 December 2008 the applicant submitted a request to the Health Board of the Canton of Zurich to be provided with 15 grams of sodium pentobarbital in order for her to commit suicide. On 29 April 2009 the Health Board rejected the applicant’s request.\n14.  On 29 May 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich. On 22 October 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed the appeal. It considered, in particular, that the prerequisite of a medical prescription for obtaining a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital was in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention. The requirement to obtain a medical prescription served the aim of preventing premature decisions and guaranteed that the intended action was medically justified. It further ensured that the decision was based on a deliberate exercise of the free will of the person concerned. The Administrative Court observed that Dr T., in his expert opinion, had not considered whether the applicant was suffering from any illness which would justify the assumption that the end of her life was near. The wish to die taken on its own, even if it was well considered, was not sufficient to justify the issuing of a medical prescription. Accordingly, the content of the case file did not demonstrate that the necessary prerequisites for issuing a medical prescription had been fulfilled in the instant case. There was therefore a need for further medical examination. Under these circumstances, the Administrative Court considered that there was no sufficient reason to dispense the applicant from the necessity of undergoing a thorough medical examination and of obtaining a medical prescription.\n15.  On 12 April 2010 the Federal Supreme Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant. It observed, inter alia, that the applicant undisputedly did not fulfil the prerequisites laid down in the medical-ethical guidelines on the care of patients at the end of life adopted by the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences, as she was not suffering from a terminal illness, but had expressed a wish to die because of her advanced a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8231", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicants worked for a private company (“the company”). The company is one of the main Internet service providers in the city of Varna; it operated out of at least two offices in Varna, both of which were located on the same street. The first applicant was the company’s manager; the second, third and fourth applicants were employees of the company; the fifth applicant was a freelance expert providing services to the company at the time of the events.\n7.  On 16 June 2008 the Varna District Public Prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings (досъдебно производство) against a person unknown, suspected of disseminating materials in violation of intellectual property laws by using the company’s servers during the period January to May 2008 and thus committing a continuous offence as defined in Article 172a (1) of the Criminal Code. The proceedings were not directed at anyone specifically at the company. The prosecutor’s order for opening criminal proceedings comprised the following instructions: that the facts be established; that unlicensed software be identified and seized, and a forensic examination be carried out in respect of it; that the results be discussed with the prosecutor without delay; and that the investigation be carried out by officers of the Central Service for Combating Organised Crime (CSCOC).\n8.  The following facts are undisputed between the parties.\n9.  Following the prosecutor’s order of 16 June 2008, a special police operation was carried out on 18 June 2008 in two of the company’s offices located in the same street in Varna. The operation was aimed at the search and seizure of illegal software and was carried out pursuant to the instructions of the supervising prosecutor. Ya.K., a CSCOC officer and the head of the operation, had given the operational instructions to the officers involved shortly before the operation began. Those instructions were to enter the company’s premises as quickly as possible, to overpower all individuals found there in order to prevent them from interfering with any electronic evidence, and to seize the computer equipment found in the offices. A district court judge confirmed the validity of the search‑and‑seizure operation within 24 hours of its having taken place. A number of computers and black boxes, the latter referred to in the search‑and-seizure reports as “computer systems”, as well as one folder of paper documents, were seized in the presence of certifying witnesses during the operation. The manager of the company, Anzhelo Angelov Georgiev, was not present in the company’s offices when the operation took place. The second applicant was working in the first company office at the time of the operation and the third, fourth and fifth applicants were present in the second company office.\n10.  The parties disagree in particular in respect of whether the force used by some of the CSCOC officers during the above-mentioned operation had been provoked by the applicants and therefore whether it had been excessive or absolutely necessary in the circumstances.\n11.  The applicants, in their complaints to the prosecutor on 19 June 2008 about having been ill-treated during the operation the previous day, described the conduct of the operation as follows.\n12.  Anzhelo Angelov Georgiev, the first applicant, submitted that on 18 June 2008 CSCOC officers barged into two offices of the company, having broken th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8232", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a Russian national who was born in 1930 and lives in Arkhangelsk.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 19 February 2001 the applicant brought a court action against the Social Security Fund of the Russian Federation (Фонд социального страхования Российской Федерации) for compensation of health damage.\n8.  On 4 April 2001 her claim was dismissed by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk. The decision was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted for a fresh examination to the same court.\n9.  On 3 June 2002 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Arkhangelsk granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the Social Security Fund (i) to calculate the amount of the lump-sum compensation for the period from 1 January 2000 to May 2002 and of the monthly compensation which should be paid from 1 June 2002, (ii) to pay these amounts to the applicant, and (iii) to index-link the monthly payments in future in accordance with national law.\n10.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 13 June 2002.\n11.  The applicant states that no lump-sum compensation was paid to her.\n12.  On 26 August 2002 the Social Security Fund calculated the monthly payments due to the applicant as of 15 November 2001.\n13.  On 18 December 2002 the President of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court lodged with the Presidium of that court an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 3 June 2002. He also suspended the execution of the judgment pending the supervisory review proceedings.\n14.  On the same date the Arkhangelsk Regional Court informed the applicant that the Presidium would examine her case on 25 December 2002.\n15.  On 25 December 2002 the Presidium quashed the judgment of 3 June 2002 stating that the first instance court had incorrectly applied domestic law: the lump-sum compensation should have been calculated from 15 November 2001 and not 1 January 2000. The case was remitted for a fresh examination to the first instance court.\n16.  On 25 June 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim.\n17.  On 28 July 2003 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court upheld the judgment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8233", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  At the material time the applicants were employed by the CJSC “AeroSvit Airlines” (“AeroSvit”) as aircraft cabin crew.\n7.  As confirmed, in particular, by the minutes of the trade union’s constituent assembly of 2 July 2003, all the applicants were members of the company’s trade union. Mr Tymoshenko was its chairman.\n8.  On 16 February 2011 the National Mediation and Reconciliation Service (“the NMRS”) registered a collective labour dispute between the employees and the management of AeroSvit. The employees’ demands concerned, in particular, the following issues:\n- repairs to the aircraft electronic catering and air-conditioning equipment;\n- enhancing the safety of on-flight technical processes;\n- salary payments to be made no later than three days before a period of leave;\n- full and timely salary payments twice per month;\n- a 3% pay rise and recalculation of salaries for 2009 and 2010;\n- salary payment on the basis of the exchange rate of the US dollar and the Ukrainian hryvnia as established by the National Bank of Ukraine, with salaries to be recalculated from 2008;\n- recalculation of long-service bonuses;\n- ensuring transportation of aircraft cabin crew to and from the airport;\n- establishing a USD 50 per diem allowance for all foreign flights;\n- uniform cleaning and ironing to be at the employer’s expense;\n- allocation of at least 0.3% of the salary budget for cultural and sporting events;\n- awarding employees a bonus of 3.23% from the 2008 profits; and\n- inflation adjustment of salaries if payment was delayed, with effect from December 2008.\n9.  On 16 March and 12 April 2011 the NMRS deregistered some of the employees’ demands, noting that they had been resolved, with reference to decisions of the reconciliation commissions of 28 February, 10 and 30 March 2011.\n10.  On 27 May 2011 the NMRS Labour Arbitration Court delivered its decision on the employees’ remaining demands, following a hearing in which representatives of both parties participated. It found most of the demands to be legitimate and directed the employer to comply with them.\n11.  In the absence of any compliance measures, AeroSvit cabin crew, including the applicants, decided to embark on industrial action.\n12.  On 9 September 2011 the general meeting of AeroSvit employees, seeking resolution of the labour dispute, announced a strike of 150 aircraft cabin crew members. The strike was due to start on 28 September 2011 and continue until the employees’ demands were fully met. The announcement specified that all foreign flights which began prior to the beginning of the strike would be completed. The meeting appointed a strike committee of six persons (including all of the applicants except Mr Pushnyak, who, however, attended the meeting and voted in favour of the strike). The committee was vested with the following powers: to conduct negotiations on behalf of the employees with the company’s management and State authorities; to draw attention to the strike in the mass media; to receive information from the company’s management on compliance with the employees’ requirements; to initiate and participate in a reconciliation commission; to organise and conduct meetings and pickets in support of the demands put forward; to sign agreements with the owner or an authorised representative on resolution of the labour dispute; and to consult the NMRS.\n13.  By 12 September 2011 the strike committee had notified the following authorities about the decision to hold a strike: the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8234", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) The Church of Scientology of St Petersburg, an unincorporated group of Russian citizens formed for the collective study of Scientology (“the applicant group”);\n2) Ms Galina Petrovna Shurinova, born in 1954, the president of the applicant group and a member since 1989;\n3) Ms Nadezhda Ivanovna Shchemeleva, born in 1955, a member of the applicant group since 1993;\n4) Ms Anastasiya Gennadyevna Terentyeva, born in 1979, a member of the applicant group since 1998;\n5) Mr Ivan Vladimirovich Matsitskiy, born in 1975, a member of the applicant group since 1994;\n6) Ms Yuliya Anatolyevna Bryntseva, born in 1977, a member of the applicant group since 1995;\n7) Ms Galina Georgiyevna Frolova, born in 1955, a member of the applicant group since 1999.\n6.  In 1984, a first group of Scientologists appeared in St Petersburg under the leadership of Mr M. Goldberg. By the end of the 1980s it had split into two smaller groups, one of which was led by the second applicant.\n7.  On 23 March 1995 the second applicant, together with nine other founder members of the “Church of the Scientology Mission in St Petersburg”, applied for registration of their group. Having received no response for more than two years, the second applicant pressed the authorities for an explanation. The St Petersburg Justice Department replied that their application had been sent to the State Duma’s Expert Consultative Council for an opinion by an expert in legal and religious studies but had received no response, and it had been decided to “leave the application unconsidered”.\n8.  On 7 February 2002 the individual applicants, together with other fellow believers, submitted a new application for registration of the applicant group as a local religious organisation. The municipal council of municipal circuit no. 20 of St Petersburg provided the applicants with a letter which stated:\n“In accordance with section 11 (5) of the Religions Act and on the basis of the application and documents provided, the municipal council ... confirms that the religious group of Scientologists has existed in St Petersburg since 1984.”\n9.  On 6 March 2002 the St Petersburg Justice Department refused the application, citing three technical grounds relating to the application documentation. On 7 March 2002 the applicants corrected these defects and resubmitted the application.\n10.  On 3 April 2002 the Justice Department notified the applicants that it had extended the period for consideration of the application because of the “necessity of conducting a State expert religious study”.\n11.  On 11 September 2002 the Justice Department issued a formal refusal of the resubmitted application. The refusal made no reference to any religious study but instead cited eight different technical grounds and asserted that the confirmation of the applicant group’s existence in St Petersburg for at least fifteen years was “unreliable”, without giving further details.\n12.  On 24 October 2002 the applicants resubmitted a corrected application which was refused on 22 November 2002, referring to the eight new technical grounds and the “unreliability” of the group’s existence for fifteen years. It also stated that an unspecified expert religious study had concluded that the applicant group was non-religious in nature.\n13.  On 19 December 2002 the second applicant asked the Justice Department to explain the basis for its claim regarding the “unreliability” of the group’s existence and to provide her with a copy", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8235", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lived in Balezino in the Republic of Udmurtiya prior to his arrest.\n5.  On 29 December 2005 the applicant was arrested on drug-related charges and taken to the local anti-narcotics unit. According to the applicant, he was beaten by policemen and then questioned in the absence of a lawyer.\n6.  On 8 November 2006 the Balezinskiy District Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to two years and ten months’ imprisonment. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against the judgment.\n7.  During several periods between 29 December 2005 and 9 November 2006 the applicant was held in IVS Balezino, a temporary detention facility located in the Udmurtiya Republic.\n8.  The applicant submitted that the facility had been overcrowded. There were no windows in the cells where he stayed. The ventilation and water taps did not function. No mattresses or bed linen was available. Moreover, the detainees were not taken outdoor for exercise.\n9.  The applicant lodged a number of complaints seeking to bring the above issues to the attention of domestic authorities. In his reply of 5 October 2006 the district prosecutor acknowledged that the conditions of detention in the IVS had fallen short of the legal requirements. He further informed the applicant that he had brought an action against the management of the IVS for their failure to improve the conditions.\n10.  On 1 September 2006 the Balezinskiy District Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya granted the district prosecutor’s lawsuit. It found that the conditions of detention in the IVS Balezino had been characterised, inter alia, by a lack of bed linen and a possibility to take a shower and that the detainees had not been afforded daily outdoor exercise.\n11.  On 19 October 2006 the regional Ministry of Interior sent a letter to the applicant, acknowledging, in particular, that the detainees kept in the IVS had been deprived of outdor exercise and and lacked bed linen.\n12.  After some time the applicant brought a civil claim for compensation in connection with inadequate conditions of detention. By final judgment of 6 February 2008, the Supreme Court of Udmurtiya found that the applicant’s allegations had been substantiated and granted the claim, awarding him 3,000 Russian roubles.\n13.  On 27 February 2007 the applicant lodged his first letter with the Court. It contained, in particular, a detailed description of the conditions of his detention in the IVS Balezino.\n14.  \n“You must send the duly completed application form and any necessary supplementary documents to the Court as soon as possible and at the latest within six months of the date of the present letter. No extension of this period is possible. If the application form and all the relevant documents are not sent within the above period, the file opened will be destroyed without further warning.”\n15.  According to a postmark on an envelope, on 30 October 2007 the applicant sent his completed application form which reached the Registry on 12 November 2007.\n16.  Rule 47 of the Rules of Court in force from 1 July 2006 until 1 January 2009 provided in its relevant part that:\n“5. The date of introduction of the application shall as a general rule be considered to be the date of the first communication from the applicant setting out, even summarily, the object of the application. The Court may for good cause nevertheless decide that a different date shall be considered to be th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8236", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant lives at Nesoddtangen, Norway.\n6.  In 1989 Mrs B., who was then the applicant’s wife, bought a property named Ekheim from him for 6,400,000 Norwegian kroner (NOK), currently corresponding to approximately 760,000 euros (EUR). The couple drew up marital agreements (“ektepakt”) in 1990 and 1995.\n7.  On 3 November 1995 Mrs B. and the applicant concluded an agreement stipulating that they each owned 50% of the Ekheim estate, regardless of what was stated or might follow from formal entitlements (hereinafter referred to as the joint ownership agreement).\n8.  Subsequently, after their divorce, the applicant lodged an action against Mrs B. with Fredrikstad City Court (tingrett), seeking a ruling to the effect that the marital agreements were invalid and that the joint ownership agreement was valid. By a judgment of 4 April 2001, the City Court found against the applicant and in favour of the respondent, concluding that the marital agreements were valid and that the joint ownership agreement was invalid. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment, which gained legal force.\n9.  In 2005 Mrs B. sold the Ekheim estate to Ekheim Invest AS, a limited liability company, for NOK 15,000,000 (approximately EUR 1,1780,000).\n10.  On 28 June 2007 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the City Court against Ekheim Invest claiming that he had title to 50% of the Ekheim estate and seeking, firstly, an order that the latter convey 50% of the property to him and, secondly, that he held a pre-emption right with respect to the remaining 50%.\n11.  According to the summary of the applicant’s submissions made by the City Court in its judgment referred to below, the applicant argued in the main as follows:\n(a)  The question was how to interpret the former spouses’ joint ownership agreement of 3 November 1995. In the case that had previously been decided by the City Court on 4 April 2001, the subject-matter of the dispute had been whether the marital agreements from 1990 and 1995 were valid. The subject-matter in the present case was different. Two spouses having completely separate property had the opportunity to conclude a mutual agreement involving an obligation of performance for each party. According to legal doctrine, such a contract was not dependent on any condition as to form.\n(b)  The contract had been a reality in the present case. Ekheim Invest had purchased the half of the Ekheim estate that had been in Mrs B.’s ownership, not the half owned by the applicant, because Mrs B. had had no right to sell the other half. Consequently, Ekheim Invest ought to transfer by deed of conveyance half of the Ekheim estate back to the applicant.\n(c)  The applicant further submitted that in its 2001 judgment the City Court had not reviewed the validity of the joint ownership agreement. In any event, the legal force of that judgment extended only to the relationship between Mrs B. and the applicant, not between Ekheim Invest and the applicant. The applicant referred to legal doctrine, according to which a judgment as a main rule only had legal force in the relationship between the parties to the proceedings. Moreover, the parties’ arguments ought to be taken as a starting point in the assessment of whether any new factual circumstances had arisen.\n(d)  The applicant’s argument was that in the period since 2001 the estate had increased so greatly in value that the City Court now had to assess the ownership issue independently of the concl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8237", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant worked as a deputy chief guard in “Lviv Railways”, a State-owned company.\n5.  On 26 October 2009 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant suspecting that he, against bribes, had covered up thefts from the company’s premises in conspiracy with S. and D.\n6.  On 3 November 2009 the Galytskyy District Court of Lviv ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention stating that “[The applicant] committed serious crimes, he does not admit his guilt, if at liberty [he] will influence witnesses and other persons involved in the criminal case. [As the applicant] works as a policeman, [he] is well aware of how to obstruct the investigation and justice”. There is no evidence in the case-file that the applicant worked as a policemen prior to or during the events described in the present application. It remains unknown whether S. and D. were also arrested or remained at liberty.\n7.  On 9 November 2009 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision.\n8.  On 25 December 2009 the Galytskyy Court extended the applicant’s detention until 26 February 2010 on the grounds that “not all the applicant’s accomplices were detained ... [the investigative authorities] keep receiving complaints [from persons who gave bribes to the applicant]. If at liberty the applicant will have an opportunity to obstruct the investigation or abscond”. On 30 December 2009 the Court of Appeal upheld this decision.\n9.  On 22 February 2010 the Galytskyy Court extended the applicant’s detention until 26 April 2010 stating that “the accused committed serious crimes, he does not admit his guilt and refuses to testify, while if at liberty [the applicant], who has higher education and extensive work experience [as a guard], might influence witnesses, obstruct the investigation and abscond”.\n10.  On 22 April 2010 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention until 26 July 2010 stating that there was a need to carry out a number of investigative measures in the case, the applicant was charged with serious crimes, he might abscond, obstruct the investigation, or continue his criminal activities.\n11.  On an unspecified date the preliminary investigations in the applicant’s case were completed and the case was submitted to the Sykhiv District Court of Lviv for trial.\n12.  On 17 August 2010 the Sykhiv District Court, holding a preliminary hearing in the criminal case against the applicant, upheld the applicant’s preventive measure without providing any reasons for doing so or fixing a time-limit for the applicant’s detention.\n13.  On 16 February 2012 the Sykhiv Court allowed the applicant’s request for change of a preventive measure on health grounds. On the same date the applicant was released against an undertaking not to abscond.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8238", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lived in Vladivostok. She died on 16 April 2007.\n6.  On an unspecified date the military prosecutor’s office had opened criminal proceedings against the applicant’s father K., a naval officer, on suspicion of document forgery.\n7.  On 14 March 2003 the acting prosecutor of the Pacific Fleet issued a warrant to search the applicant’s flat. The parties did not submit a copy of the warrant. It is apparent from the search record of 14 March 2003 that the purpose of the search was “to find and seize objects and documents, including draft calculations in respect of the salary due to [K.] and other naval officers of the ship Argun, and other data storage media exposing [K.’s] involvement in criminal activity”.\n8.   The police came to the applicant’s flat on the same evening, at about 9.30 p.m. As the applicant refused to let them in, the police broke down the door and suggested that the applicant surrender objects and documents which could be of relevance for the criminal case against her father. The applicant surrendered K.’s seaman’s passport and claimed that she had no other documents or objects belonging to her father. The police searched the flat and seized the applicant’s seaman’s passport, a printer and six floppy disks. The search ended at about 11 p.m.\n9.  On 18 March 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint before the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok, claiming that the search had been unlawful. She submitted, in particular, that night searches were unlawful under domestic law. She further submitted that the search had not been justified because the calculations in respect of the salary due to naval officers of the ship Argun had been submitted to the court at an earlier date and could therefore be found in the case file. She also complained that her and her husband’s personal belongings, including their printer and floppy disks and her seaman’s passport, had been seized.\n10.  On 20 April 2003 the applicant was informed that her complaint would be examined on 21 April 2003 by the Military Court of the Vladivostok Garrison.\n11.  On 21 April 2003 the Military Court of the Vladivostok Garrison examined the applicant’s complaint. The applicant did not attend the hearing. The court found:\n“[The applicant’s] signature on the search warrant confirms that she had been notified of it at 9.30 p.m. on 14 March 2003.\nIt is apparent from the search record of 14 March 2003 that a search was carried out in [the applicant’s] flat from 9.30 p.m. to 11 p.m. In the course of the search the following objects were seized: seaman’s passport in the name of K. no. [...], seaman’s passport in the name of K. no. [...], seaman’s passport in the name of [the applicant] no. [...], Canon printer no. EUK04532, its power module no. 981202TT06 and six floppy disks. That investigative measure was carried out in the presence of two attesting witnesses who signed the search record and a note explaining their rights.\nBefore the start of the search [the applicant] wrote a note on the search record stating that her rights, obligations or applicable procedures had not been explained to her.\nIt is apparent from the questioning record of witness [N.] that she participated in the search of [the applicant’s] flat as an attesting witness. Her rights were respected.\nIn view of the above, it follows that the search of [the applicant’s] flat was carried out in accordance with Articles 182 and 183 of the CCrP, without any breaches of law. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8239", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Batalha (Portugal).\n5.  On 15 March 2006 the applicant lodged an action with the Court of Porto de Mós (domestic proceedings no. 607/06.2TBPMS) seeking the recognition of an easement (servidão de passagem).\n6.  On 24 May 2006 and on 27 June 2007 the applicant rectified the initial application upon request of the Court of Porto de Mós.\n7.  Between 28 April and 2 May 2006 the defendants lodged their submissions in reply (contestação) and informed the Court of Porto de Mós that one of the defendants had died.\n8.  On 9 January 2008 the Court stayed the proceedings, pending the outcome of the inheritance proceedings in relation to the deceased defendant.\n9.  On 28 January 2008 the applicant applied to the Court for leave to continue the proceedings against the widow of the deceased defendant (incidente de habilitação de herdeiros).\n10.  On 30 July 2008 the applicant requested that the proceedings also continued against M. as heir of the deceased.\n11.  On 18 November 2008 the applicant’s lawyer resigned. A new one was appointed on 10 March 2009.\n12.  On 20 March 2010 the Court of Porto de Mós requested the applicant to provide information with regard to the relationship between M. and the deceased defendant.\n13.  On 15 July 2010 the Court of Porto de Mós delivered a decision concerning the proceedings of inheritance, stating that the deceased defendant’s widow and M. should replace him in the proceedings.\n14.  On 8 November 2011 the Court of Porto de Mós, taking into account its decision of 15 July 2010, resumed the main proceedings.\n15.  On 23 October 2012 the applicant’s representative resigned. The applicant appointed a new one on 19 December 2012.\n16.  On 7 February 2013 the judge gave directions (despacho saneador) setting out the matters that had already been established and those that remained outstanding. The case was set down for hearing on 7 June 2013. Two more hearings were scheduled for 12 July and 13 September 2013.\n17.  On 29 November 2013 the court of first instance partially found in favour of the applicant.\n18.  On 28 January 2014 the applicant appealed against that decision to the Coimbra Court of Appeal (Tribunal da Relação).\n19.  The proceedings are still pending at second instance.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8240", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1967 and is living in The Hague.\n9.  In March 1987 the applicant met and started a relationship with Mr W., who – like the applicant – was born and had always lived in Suriname. Both of them had acquired Surinamese nationality in 1975 when Suriname gained its independence (Article 3 of the Agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Suriname concerning the assignment of nationality (Toescheidingsovereenkomst inzake nationaliteiten tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en de Republiek Suriname), see paragraph 62 below). In September 1989, the applicant and Mr W. started to cohabit in the house of the latter’s paternal grandfather in Suriname.\n10.  On 19 October 1991, Mr W. travelled from Suriname to the Netherlands, holding a Netherlands visa for the purpose of stay with his father in the Netherlands. In 1993, Mr W. was granted Netherlands nationality which entailed the renunciation of his Surinamese nationality.\n11.  Mr W. has one sister, two brothers and one half-brother who are living in the Netherlands. Two other half-brothers and one half-sister are living in Suriname. The applicant has one brother, G., who was expelled from the Netherlands to Suriname in 2009. The applicant has also one half-brother and one half-sister who are living in the Netherlands. She has another half-sister who is living in Suriname.\n12.  Between 1991 and 1995, the applicant filed five unsuccessful requests for a Netherlands visa for the purpose of visiting a relative. These requests were rejected because her sponsor (referent) was insufficiently solvent, had failed to sign the required affidavit of support (garantverklaring) or had failed to supply sufficient information required for the assessment of the visa request. The applicant did not challenge any of these rejections in administrative appeal proceedings.\n13.  On 19 November 1996 the applicant filed a sixth visa request for the purpose of visiting a relative. After this request had been granted on 4 March 1997, the applicant entered the Netherlands on 12 March 1997 and did not return to Suriname when her visa expired 45 days later. To date, she has been staying in the Netherlands. She lived in Rotterdam until 20 July 1998, when she moved to The Hague. Since 17 December 1998 she has been living at the same address in The Hague.\n14.  On 20 October 1997, the applicant applied for a residence permit. According to the applicant, she had done so for the purpose of taking up residence with her Netherlands-national partner Mr W. According to the Government, the applicant’s stated aim had been to take up “paid employment”. On 16 February 1998, the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) decided not to process the application (buiten behandeling stellen) as the applicant had on two occasions failed to appear in person before the immigration authorities for the purpose of giving further information about her application. When, on 13 February 1998, the applicant’s lawyer had requested a new appointment on the ground that she would be unable to attend the interview scheduled for 16 February 1998, she was informed by the immigration authorities that – despite her lawyer’s absence – the applicant should appear in person. The applicant did not appear on 16 February 1998. The Deputy Minister’s decision of 16 February 1998 was notified to the applicant on 23 February 1998 and she was ordered to leave the Netherlands within seven days.\n15.  The ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8241", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are husband and wife. Mr D. Ďurďovič was born in 1942 and lives in Hodonín, the Czech Republic. Ms M. Trančíková was born 1939 and lives in Bratislava.\n7.  On 2 October 1997 the applicants brought a claim in the Stará Ľubovňa District Court, alleging that they were the owners of real property which had been included in the assets of an insolvent company.\n8.  On 16 August 2006 the District Court dismissed the claim. With reference to the documents before it and judicial decisions delivered earlier the court established that the property in question had been transferred to the company which had later become insolvent.\n9.  In an appeal the applicants argued, in particular, that the first-instance court had failed to take evidence, as suggested by them, with a view to establishing that the property had not actually been transferred to the company. They also maintained that the case should have been assigned to a judge dealing with civil cases instead of a judge deciding commercial disputes.\n10.  On 24 April 2008 the Prešov Regional Court upheld the first‑instance court’s judgment. It found that the applicants had failed to show that the property had been erroneously included in the assets of the insolvent company in the context of the insolvency proceedings.\n11.  On 9 July 2008 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law. They argued that there had been shortcomings in the proceedings before the appellate court which rendered the appeal on points of law admissible pursuant to Article 237 (a), (d) and (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n12.  In particular, they alleged that the appellate court had determined the case without hearing the parties and establishing the relevant facts. Earlier consent they had given for the appellate court to proceed with the case in their absence at the hearing of 24 April 2008 did not mean that they accepted the determination of the merits without the parties having been heard. The applicants further argued that the case had been dealt with as a commercial dispute, whereas it should have been determined by judges dealing with civil cases.\n13.  On 30 November 2009 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law. It held that the reasons for its admissibility as invoked by the applicants could not be accepted. In particular, the Supreme Court noted that the applicants had notified the Regional Court that they would not be appearing on 24 April 2008, and that they had agreed with the case proceeding in their absence. The fact that the appellate court had not quashed the first-instance court’s judgment as requested by them could not affect the position.\n14.  The Supreme Court further held that in the proceedings complained of, the situation described in Article 237 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure did not exist, and that the applicants had not shown that a final decision on the matter had been given earlier for the purposes of Article 237 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n15.  On 8 March 2010 the applicants complained of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the proceedings leading to the District Court’s judgment of 16 August 2006, the Regional Court’s judgment of 24 April 2008 and the Supreme Court’s decision of 30 November 2009.\n16.  For reasons invoked in their appeal and appeal on points of law, they complained that their right to a fair hearing by a tribunal established by law had been breached. They also complained that the Supreme Court had not allowed them to res", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8242", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are all Jehovah’s Witnesses, except for the ninth applicant, M. Kvergelidze. Their application to the Court is based on thirty cases of alleged violence and assault to which the applicants were subjected at different times. The applicants lodged approximately 160 complaints with the investigation authorities, including the General Prosecutor’s Office of Georgia (“the GPO”), with a view to criminal proceedings being brought against the perpetrators. The complaints failed to yield any concrete results.\n6.  At least four acts of religiously motivated violence were allegedly carried out with the direct participation of the police and other representatives of the authorities, while four other cases indicate their indirect involvement. Twelve of the thirty acts of alleged violence described in the application involved assaults on Jehovah’s Witnesses by the group of Orthodox believers run by Mr Basil Mkalavishvili (“Father Basil”), a priest defrocked by the Georgian Orthodox Church (see Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, § 11, 3 May 2007). Although in all the cases the applicants complained to the investigation authorities, in only a few of the cases did they receive a written response. In at least fifteen of the cases, when the applicants challenged the inactivity and ignorance of the law enforcement authorities, the courts refused to hear their complaints. In the majority of the cases, the victims reported the original investigation authorities’ indifference and failure to act to the GPO, but the latter took no adequate action. In only three cases were the applicants able to take their complaints right up to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which then dismissed them.\n7.  The Public Defender of Georgia, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Amnesty International and national and international media repeatedly reported that Jehovah’s Witnesses had been the target of violence by private and Orthodox religious individuals, the majority of whom had been led by Father Basil, and that the relevant authorities had failed to prevent or stop it.\n8.  In support of the factual account set out below, the applicants produced the statements of more than 100 victims and witnesses of the alleged violence, photographs of police officers failing to take action while attacks were taking place, photographs of the injured applicants, as well as video recordings and photographs of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ meeting places that had been pillaged and ransacked. To illustrate the situation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Georgia at the material time, the applicants’ representatives also referred to the evidence submitted in two other applications made by Jehovah’s Witnesses before the Court (Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others, cited above, and Union of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 72874/01, pending before the Court).\nThe following account presents the facts as the applicants claim they occurred.\n9.  This part of the application concerns applicants K. Pirtskheliani, E. Pirtskheliani, G. Lemonjava, Z. Sartania, N. Pularia, D. Pachkoria, Z. Gogokhia, R. Tskhadaia, B. Tskhadaia, B. Kurashvili, N. Kantaria, L. Esebua, R. Karchava, D. Gulua, T. Biblaia, S. Kintsurashvili, K. Kutaladze, D. Samkharadze, L. Sabashvili and M. Berishvili (listed in the appendix as nos. 40-59).\n10.  On 23 August 2000, A.T", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8243", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Russian nationals who are close relatives of persons who disappeared after allegedly being arrested by servicemen. In each of the applications the events took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces.\n6.  The applicants complained to law-enforcement bodies and official investigations were opened. The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without achieving any tangible results. The investigations consisted mainly of the authorities making requests for information and formal requests to their counterparts in various parts of Chechnya and Ingushetia and other regions of the North Caucasus to take operational search measures. The requests received negative responses or no replies at all.\n7.  From the documents submitted it appears that the relevant State authorities were unable to identify the State servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions.\n8.  In their observations the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants. At the same time, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the abductions.\n9.  Below are summaries of the facts relevant to each individual application. They are based on the statements provided by the applicants, their relatives and neighbours and copies of the contents of the criminal investigation files furnished by the Government. The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives, and some other key facts, are summarized below and in the attached table (Appendix I).\n10.  The applicants are:\n(1)  Mr Gerikhan Sultygov, born in 1972;\n(2)  Ms Fatima Sultygova, born in 1966;\n(3)  Mr Musadi Samrailov, born in 1943, and\n(4)  Ms Maus Nasayeva, born in 1953.\nThe first applicant resides in Chippis, Switzerland. The second applicant lives in Boras, Sweden. The fourth applicant resides in Grozny, Chechnya; prior to his death, the third applicant also lived there.\n11.  The third applicant, Mr Musadi Samrailov, passed away on 3 February 2013. Mr Viskhan Samrailov, his grandson and the son of Mr Visadi Samrailov, expressed his wish to pursue the application.\n12.  The first and second applicants are the siblings of Mr Alikhan Sultygov, who was born in 1969. The third and fourth applicants are the father and stepmother of Mr Visadi Samrailov, who was born in 1964.\n13.  In 2000 the Sultygov family, including the first and second applicants and their children, moved from Grozny to Ingushetia owing to armed hostilities. In the summer of 2000 Mr Alikhan Sultygov returned to Grozny to check on the family house left behind.\n14.  On the morning of 4 August 2000 Mr D.U. and Mr Alikhan Sultygov drove in the latter’s Volga car to the house of the Samrailov family through checkpoint no. 7 on the outskirts of Grozny. The checkpoint was manned by servicemen of Special Police Forces Unit (OMON) from the Sverdlovsk Region. The servicemen checked Mr Alikhan Sultygov’s and Mr D.U.’s identity documents and let them through.\n15.  On the way back, after having picked up Mr Visadi Samrailov, the three men were stopped at the checkpoint and detained. Mr Alikhan Sultygov, Mr Visadi Samrailov and Mr D.U. were placed in a UAZ vehicle and taken to the Leninskiy district military commander’s office which was situated in the same building as the Leninskiy district department of the interior (the ROVD). Mr Alikhan Sultygov’s car wa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8244", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Izmayil.\n5.  On 28 November 2012 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having murdered Mr S. earlier the same day.\n6.  On 30 November 2012 the investigating judge of the Reni Local Court of the Odessa Region ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 27 January 2013.\n7.  On 25 January 2013 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 27 February 2013.\n8.  On 26 February 2013 the indictment in the applicant’s case was approved.\n9.  On 27 February 2013 the indictment and the criminal case file were forwarded by the prosecutor to the court.\n10.  On 28 February 2013 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Head of the Izmail SIZO to release the applicant immediately given that the period of detention ordered by the court had expired on 27 February. By a letter of the same day, the Head of the Izmail SIZO replied to the applicant’s lawyer that, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, after the forwarding of the criminal case file to the trial court it was for that court to decide on the applicant’s continued detention.\n11.  The same day the lawyer complained to the prosecutor about the failure of the prison authorities to release the applicant. In reply to that letter, the Odessa Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant’s lawyer that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been extended in January 2013 until 27 February 2013 and that on the latter date the criminal case file against the applicant had been forwarded to the trial court; the prosecutor’s office therefore considered that the applicant’s rights and interests had not been violated.\n12.  On 11 March 2013 the lawyer submitted a request to the investigating judge for the applicant’s release. He noted that the applicant’s pre-trial detention ordered by the judge had expired on 27 February 2013 and that no decision had been taken on the applicant’s continued detention.\n13.  On 14 March 2013 the investigating judge rejected the above request. With reference to Article 331 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), the judge noted that on the last date of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, that is, on 27 February 2013, his criminal case had been referred to the trial court, which had two months to decide on his continued detention. The judge concluded that there had been no grounds for the applicant’s release on 28 February 2013.\n14.  On 25 March 2013 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 14 March 2013.\n15.  On 15 April 2013 the Izmayil Local Court of the Odessa Region held a preliminary hearing in which it ordered the applicant’s continued detention.\n16.  On 5 November 2013[1] the applicant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8245", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Petrozavodsk, in the Republic of Kareliya. The second applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Mezen, in the Arkhangelsk Region.\n6.  The first applicant was an employee of the municipal unitary enterprise “Avtokolonna 1126” (Auto Transport Column 1126) in Petrozavodsk, the Republic of Kareliya.\n7.  “Avtokolonna 1126” was set up by a decision of the administration of the Town of Petrozavodsk (“the town administration”). It provided public transport services in the town on a commercial basis. The company had “the right of economic control” (право хозяйственного ведения) over the assets allocated to it by the town administration in order to carry out its statutory activities. Legal provisions on the status of municipal unitary enterprises and the right of economic control are summarised in paragraphs 55‑75 below.\n8.  At the request of the company, on 29 December 2001 the town administration withdrew unspecified assets of an aggregate value in excess of 25,000,000 Russian roubles (RUB) from the company’s economic control and immediately allocated them to the same company for temporary use free of charge under a loan agreement.\n9.  Under several agreements between the company and the town administration, including one dated 21 January 2002, the company undertook to provide transport services to certain sections of the population free of charge, and the town administration was to reimburse it for the expenses incurred out of the budget allocated for that purpose by the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kareliya or the federal budget. According to a letter from the Committee of Housing and Communal Services of Petrozavodsk dated 19 March 2003, at some point the respective budgets accumulated a considerable debt towards the company owing to a shortage of funds. Consequently, the company was unable to pay its employees in due time. The town administration requested the legislative body of the Republic of Kareliya to consider the allocation of additional funds to cover the company’s debt in 2004, but to no avail.\n10.  On an unspecified date the administration ordered the restructuring of the company in the form of a spin-off and transferred the assets mentioned in paragraph 8 above to the newly created municipal unitary enterprise “Avtokolonna 1126 Plus”. The debt accumulated in respect of the unpaid salaries was not transferred and remained with the applicant’s employer.\n11.  On 6 July 2003 the Commercial Court of the Republic of Kareliya declared the respondent company insolvent, and a liquidation procedure commenced.\n12.  The applicant sued her employer for salary arrears.\n13.  On 20 June 2003 the Petrozavodsk Town Court awarded her RUB 5,421.89 in salary arrears, compensation for non-pecuniary damage and court expenses. The judgment was not appealed against and became final ten days later. On 4 July 2003 the bailiffs’ service received the writ of execution in respect of the award.\n14.  On 22 June 2003 the applicant was dismissed from the company in view of its upcoming liquidation (see paragraph 10 above).\n15.  By a final judgment of 25 November 2003 the Petrozavodsk Town Court granted her new action and ordered the respondent company to pay her RUB 19,445.53 in salary arrears for a different period of time, severance pay and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The applicant obtained a writ of execution in respect of the award.\n16.  By a final judgment of 16 April 2004 the same cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8246", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in St Petersburg.\n6.  On the morning of 23 April 1999 the pregnant applicant, after her contractions had started, was taken by ambulance to the gynaecology ward of the S. M. Kirov Military Medical Academy Hospital.\n7.  Following her admission, she was handed a booklet issued by the hospital which contained, among other things, a notice warning patients about their possible involvement in the clinical teaching taking place at the hospital. The notice read:\n“We ask you to respect the fact that medical treatment in our hospital is combined with teaching for students studying obstetrics and gynaecology. Because of this, all patients are involved in the study process.”\n8.  The exact time at which the booklet was handed to her is unclear.\n9.  At 9 a.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor, who established that she was forty weeks pregnant and that there were complications with the pregnancy because she had mild polyhydramnios (excess amniotic fluid). The doctor noted that the applicant’s contractions appeared premature and that she was suffering from fatigue. In view of these symptoms, she was put in a drug-induced sleep, which lasted from 10 a.m. to 12 noon.\n10. At 2 p.m. the applicant’s doctor again established that the contractions had been premature and prescribed her anti-contraction medication to suppress premature labour.\n11.  Between 2 and 10 p.m. the applicant underwent various medical examinations. The doctors found no other pathologies except that she had been having irregular contractions.\n12.  According to the applicant, at around 3 p.m. she was informed that her delivery was scheduled for the next day and that it would be attended by medical students.\n13.  At 10 p.m. the applicant was put in a drug-induced sleep. During the night her condition was monitored by doctors.\n14.  At 8 a.m. the next day, after the applicant had been woken up, the frequency and intensity of her contractions increased. The doctors found traces of meconium in her amniotic fluid, which indicated there was a risk that the foetus was suffering from hypoxia. The applicant was prescribed medicine to improve uteroplacental hemodynamics (blood flow to the placenta).\n15.  At 9 a.m. the doctors carried out a cardiotocography examination and described the state of health of both the applicant and her foetus as satisfactory. They also decided to conduct a vaginal delivery. According to the applicant, in the delivery room she objected to the presence of medical students at the birth.\n16.  The birth lasted from 10 to 10.35 a.m. in the presence of doctors and medical students, who had apparently received some information about her state of health and medical treatment. During the labour the doctors performed an episiotomy (incision). The child was diagnosed with light asphyxia. At 1 p.m. the child was moved to a special care baby unit and remained there until 13 May 1999, the date the applicant took her home.\n17.  On 10 August 1999 the applicant lodged a complaint with the hospital, seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damage allegedly caused as a result of the measures aimed at delaying the birth.\n18.  In response, the hospital administration carried out an internal inquiry. The results of were set out in a report dated 14 August 1999, which confirmed that the delivery had been conducted in line with the relevant standards, and that upon the applicant’s admission she had been notified of the possible presence of the pub", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8247", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Van.\n6.  On 30 April 2001 the applicant went to Muş prison during visiting hours to see her brother, who was being held there in connection with a case related to the PKK, an illegal armed organisation.\n7.  The staff responsible for body searches found on the applicant “close to the left side of her abdomen”, a piece of paper that had been folded several times and wrapped in tape. It was an unsigned letter dated 24 April 2001, written by a member of the PKK and addressed to another member.\n8.  The applicant was taken into police custody on the same day and questioned in Turkish by the gendarmes the following day. During the interview she stated that she had picked up the object in question in Van at the bus stop where she was waiting for the bus to Muş. She had thought that the object might have some value and had intended to remove the wrapping once she was alone.\n9.  On 1 May 2001 she gave a statement to the same effect before the public prosecutor and then before the District Court. As she was illiterate, she signed the statements with her fingerprint.\n10.  She was remanded in custody after being examined and was released on 5 July 2001.\n11.  On 27 September 2001 the State Security Court of Van acquitted the applicant, considering her version of events to be credible.\n12.  On 17 December 2001 the applicant visited her brother again in Muş prison during a religious festival. After the visit she was taken into police custody.\n13.  The police report drawn up that same day stated that the staff responsible for body searches had discovered, hidden in the lining of the applicant’s dress, a sixteen-page document consisting of rolled-up onionskin paper protected by adhesive tape. According to the report, the document contained, in particular, information about the PKK’s strategy and its activities in prisons, about the conduct to be adopted vis-à-vis the prison authorities and about prison staff.\n14.  She was questioned in Turkish by two gendarmes on 18 December 2001. The report stated that she had been reminded of her right to the assistance of a lawyer but had waived that right. As to the facts, she had stated that she had seen a wrapped object in the prison waiting room and had picked it up out of mere curiosity, placing it in her bra. She added that, during the search, the prison officers had discovered the object and had unwrapped it. She had noticed pieces of paper covered in writing. During her visit to her brother she had told him about the incident but he had not said anything about it. The gendarmes had then arrested her as she was leaving the prison.\n15.  In response to a question about her personal status, she replied that she was married to G.I. on the basis of a religious marriage, not a civil one, and that they had had five children together. Her husband had another partner with whom he had had six children.\n16.  When asked whether she worked for the PKK, she replied in the negative. She added that, on the first occasion, she had picked up the object thinking it might contain gold and that it was with the same thought in mind that she had taken the paper in the waiting room.\n17.  In response to a question about ten pieces of gold discovered on her during the search, she stated that half of them belonged to her daughter and the other half were hers.\n18.  After she had been questioned, the public prosecutor called for her to be remanded in custody. As a result she was brought befor", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8248", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Šaľa.\n6.  On 31 May 1994 the applicant claimed a sum of money from a bank.\n7.  On 16 September 2005 the applicant lodged an application before the Court challenging the length of these proceedings. On 22 May 2007 the Court decided to strike that case (application no. 34161/05) out of its list of cases on the ground that a friendly settlement had been reached between the parties.\n8.  In the proceedings complained of the Supreme Court’s decision of 30 April 2007 to dismiss the applicant’s appeal, examined as an appeal on points of law, became final on 11 June 2007.\n9.  On 27 January 2010 the above decision was quashed by the Constitutional Court and the case was remitted to the Supreme Court for re‑examination.\n10.  On 23 September 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint challenging the length of the proceedings.\n11.  On 7 June 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment. Upon the applicant’s appeal on points of law the cassation chamber of the Supreme Court quashed that decision on 25 April 2013.\n12.  On 19 June 2014 the Supreme Court again dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment. The applicant indicated that he intended to lodge an appeal on points of law after the service of the Supreme Court’s decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8249", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently serving a sentence in Kandıra Prison.\n5.  On 17 July 1996 the applicant was wounded by a gunshot in the vicinity of a jewellery shop, which had been robbed by a group of people, allegedly including him. During the incident, shots were fired and the owner of the shop was shot dead. The applicant was unconscious when admitted to the emergency department of the hospital.\n6.  On 18 July 1996 the gendarmerie took statements from the applicant, which he did not sign. They noted that as the applicant’s hands were wounded and bandaged, he was unable to sign them. In these statements, the applicant admitted that he had been involved in the armed robbery. He stated, inter alia, that he had had a gun in his possession, which he had used during the robbery after the shop owner had begun firing. He also stated that he had committed the offence with two other people.\n7.  On 22 July 1996 the officers took further statements from the applicant and the applicant’s fingerprint was added in lieu of a signature. On the same day, he was discharged from the emergency department of the hospital. According to a document drafted and signed by a doctor, the applicant had undergone a thoracotomy and laparotomy while there.\n8.   On 23 July 1996 the applicant was taken to the gendarmerie for questioning. According to a document drafted by three officers, the applicant’s doctors had authorised his transfer to custody. On the same day, he was asked to identify the guns allegedly used in the incident. He was also asked to identify two other people who had been arrested in connection with the same robbery. According to reports drawn up by the officers on the same day, the applicant’s condition deteriorated at around 11 p.m. and he was therefore taken back to hospital.\n9.  On 25 July 1996 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge. According to a document containing his statements to the judge, the applicant did not ask to be represented by a lawyer. He once again admitted that he had been involved in the armed robbery, but denied the accusation that he had killed the owner of the shop. The applicant’s fingerprint was added at the end of the statements. On the same day, the investigating judge ordered his pre-trial detention.\n10.  While being questioned in custody and subsequently by the public prosecutor and the judge, the applicant was not represented by a lawyer.\n11.  On 9 August 1996 the public prosecutor at the Bakırköy Assize Court filed an indictment against the applicant and three other people, charging them with armed robbery and murder.\n12.  On 21 February 1997 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a second indictment against the applicant and eight other people, accusing them of being members of the THKP-C (Turkish People’s Liberation Party/Front) and of attempting to undermine the constitutional order by force.\n13.  On 27 September 1996 the applicant told the Bakırköy Assize Court that he had not been involved in the armed robbery in question. He submitted that he had been in possession of a firearm as he had enemies, and had used the gun as he had heard gunshots when he was in the vicinity of the incident. He had thought that he had been attacked by his enemies, and had therefore opened fire.\n14.  On 13 May 1997 in his defence submissions to the Istanbul State Security Court, the applicant challenged the veracity of his statements taken bet", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8250", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Leskovac.\n6.  On 5 September 1994 the Leskovac Municipal Court (“the Municipal Court”) ordered the Leskovac branch of the “JIK” Bank (“the debtor”), a predominantly socially-owned bank, to reinstate the applicant and to pay her outstanding salary and all work-related benefits for the period following her unlawful dismissal. That judgment became final on 1 September 1995.\n7.  On an unspecified date, the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment. On 17 October 1995 the Municipal Court issued a writ of execution (rešenje o izvršenju).\n8.  On 19 December 1995 the applicant was reinstated. However, as the debtor refused to pay the outstanding judgment debt, the applicant, on an unspecified date, filed a new request for the enforcement.\n9.  On 18 November 1997, on the basis of a financial expert’s analysis, the Municipal Court ordered the enforcement by debtor account transfer in the total amount of 72,076.55 Yugoslav dinars (YUM) in respect of salary arrears and all work-related benefits, for the period from 1 May 1992 until 31 December 1995, together with statutory interest and YUM 550 for legal costs.\n10.  On 29 September 1999 the applicant requested the court to change the means of enforcement as it appeared that there were no funds in the debtor’s account. On 1 October 1999 the Municipal Court ordered the enforcement by auctioning of the debtor’s specified movable assets.\n11.  On 26 July 2000 the applicant obtained a pledge (zalog) over certain movable assets which were seized from the debtor (two vehicles and some technical equipment).\n12.  On the same day, the Belgrade Commercial Court (“the Commercial Court”) instituted liquidation proceedings against the debtor.\n13.  On 8 May 2001 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued in view of the pending liquidation proceedings. On 22 May 2001 the applicant reported her claims to the liquidation council (likvidaciono veće).\n14.  On several occasions thereafter, the applicant petitioned the court to continue with the enforcement and to schedule a public auction for the sale of the pledged assets, arguing that their value was decreasing due to the passage of time and that she had to bear the maintenance costs. On 15 January 2002 she submitted the same request to the liquidation administrator (likvidacioni upravnik).\n15.  The Municipal Court held two hearings concerning the applicant’s requests, on 10 December 2003 and 30 October 2005, but it would appear that no decision was issued.\n16.  In the meantime, on 11 March 2004 the Commercial Court appointed the Agency for Deposits as a liquidation administrator. On 7 April 2005 the Commercial Court terminated the liquidation proceedings and opened bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor.\n17.  On 18 November 2005 the Commercial Court rejected the applicant’s claims against the debtor (paragraph 13 above) and instructed her to initiate a new set of civil proceedings. On 16 May 2007 the Belgrade High Commercial Court (“the High Commercial Court”) upheld that decision.\n18.  The applicant did not initiate a new set of civil proceedings as instructed.\n19.  It would appear that bankruptcy proceedings are still pending and that the debtor is still predominantly socially-owned.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8251", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  On 13 April 2006 the Vlasotince Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicants. The respondent, AD Retex, a privately owned company as of 2003, was ordered to: (a) reinstate them to their former jobs; (b) pay their salary arrears; (c) pay the relevant social insurance contributions due for the same period; and (d) pay the their legal costs.\n7.  By 11 July 2007 this judgment, as amended on appeal in respect of the legal costs, became final.\n8.  On 27 July 2007 the applicants filed a request for the enforcement of the said judgment.\n9.  On 6 August 2007 the Vlasotince Municipal Court accepted the applicants’ request and issued an enforcement order.\n10.  On 3 December 2007 the Leskovac District Court upheld this decision on appeal.\n11.  In January 2008 the Vlasotince Municipal Court carried out an assessment of the debtor’s movable assets.\n12.  On 21 April 2008, in response to a third party’s request, the Vlasotince Municipal Court excluded certain movable assets from the enforcement proceedings.\n13.  On 26 May 2008 the Vlasotince Municipal Court obtained an additional report regarding the value of the debtor’s movable assets.\n14.  On 22 April 2010 the Leskovac High Court ordered the re-examination of the third party’s exclusion request lodged in respect of the debtor’s assets.\n15.  On 21 January 2011 the Leskovac Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings (stečajni postupak) in respect of AD Retex and on 3 June 2011 the applicants’ claims were confirmed in their entirety. The applicants themselves were classified as third-class creditors.\n16.  On 16 June 2011 the debtor’s assets were sold as part of the insolvency proceedings.\n17.  On 12 June 2013 the enforcement proceedings were stayed.\n18.  The insolvency proceedings before the Leskovac Commercial Court are still pending, and the applicants have yet to be paid apparently as a consequence of two related civil suits brought by other creditors.\n19.  On 26 April 2010 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Constitutional Court, maintaining that they had suffered a breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and a violation of their property rights. In terms of redress, the applicants sought recognition of these violations, an order from the Constitutional Court for the expedition of the impugned enforcement proceedings, and the “removal of all adverse consequences” suffered in this connection (including through the payment of their outstanding pecuniary claims).\n20.  On 4 April 2012 the applicants noted the adoption of the amendments to the Constitutional Court Act, and specified their compensation claims accordingly. Specifically, on account of the pecuniary damage suffered, the applicants requested the respective amounts awarded to them by the final judgment in question, whilst as regards the non‑pecuniary damage sustained they claimed 2,200 euros each (see paragraphs 27-30 below).\n21.  On 27 March 2013 the Constitutional Court found, in the operative part of its ruling (u izreci), that the applicants had indeed suffered a violation of their right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, as well as a violation of their property rights, but rejected the compensation claims regarding the non-pecuniary damages sought by the applicants. The Constitutional Court, lastly, ordered that the impugned enforcement proceedings be terminated in accordance with the applicable legislation (see paragraph 31 below).\n22.  In its reasoning the Constitutional Court established t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8252", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first and second applicants, Mr Andrzej Stankiewicz and Ms Małgorzata Solecka, were born in 1974 and 1970 respectively and live in Piaseczno-Józefosław and Kraków. The third applicant, Presspublica sp. z o. o. is a limited liability company having its registered office in Warsaw. The company is the publisher of the daily newspaper “Rzeczpospolita” where the first and second applicants worked as journalists.\n6.  It appears that A.F., the chief executive of the Polish branch of M.S.D. Inc. (“M.S.D.”), a large pharmaceutical company, approached journalists of the daily newspaper “Rzeczpospolita”. He informed them on condition of anonymity that the company had received a proposal to “arrange” the placement of its drug on the list of refunded drugs in exchange for a bribe.\n7.  On 12 May 2003 “Rzeczpospolita” published on the front and fourth pages an article entitled “Drugs for millions of dollars” (“Leki za miliony dolarów”), written by the first and second applicants. The subtitle read: “A pharmaceutical company asserts that the Head of the Private Office of the Minister of Health demanded a large bribe” (“koncern farmaceutyczny twierdzi, że szef gabinetu politycznego ministra zdrowia żądał dużej łapówki”).\n8.  The journalists alleged that in the summer of 2002 W.D., the Head of the Private Office of the Minister of Health (Szef Gabinetu Politycznego Ministra Zdrowia) had demanded a bribe from representatives of a pharmaceutical company, offering in return his assistance in having a drug manufactured by the company placed on the list of drugs refunded within the framework of the national health care scheme.\n9.  In the article, the applicants recounted the circumstances of two meetings which had taken place in Warsaw restaurants. They were attended by W.D., B.O. – director of a private osteoporosis clinic and W.D.’s friend, as well as two representatives of the pharmaceutical company – Ł.Z. and H.M.N. The meetings had been devoted to the plan to set up jointly, by the two companies, a network of osteoporosis clinics in Poland.\n10.  The relevant parts of the article read:\n“W.D., the Head of the Private Office of M.Ł. [Minister of Health], demanded a multi-million dollar bribe, offering his assistance in placing drugs on the list of refunded drugs – asserts foreign pharmaceutical company. W.D. rejects these allegations, and M.Ł. [the Minister] does not believe the version of events presented by the company. ...\n“It is the first such obvious case of a corruption proposal which has happened to me” – asserts the representative of the company. W.D. admits that he twice met the representatives of the company, but denies that he demanded money from them. ...\nCompanies are keen to have their drugs placed on the list [of refunded drugs]. Why? Because the State pays part of their price so they are cheaper and more accessible to patients. It has been known for years that decisions concerning registration and placement of drugs on the list of refunded drugs were accompanied by “informal payments”. However, up to now the representatives of the pharmaceutical companies have never directly admitted that they were asked for a bribe. ...\nAccording to the director of the pharmaceutical company, W.D. was trying to convince [them] that the osteoporosis clinic [of B.O.] was a serious project. ... “He [W.D.] offered us cooperation and demanded a one-off rapid payment of 1.5 million dollars and then annual payments of 1-1.5 million. Money was to be spent o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8253", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Vilnius.\n6.  By a decision of 18 June 2002 the Vilnius Region Administration restored the applicant’s property rights to 0.23 hectares of land in the context of restitution of property rights which had been violated by the unlawful nationalisation during the Soviet regime. Subsequently, the plot of land was registered in the land registry in her name.\n7.  On 15 July 2002 the applicant sold the plot of land for 76,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL; approximately 22,000 euros (EUR)) to two private buyers, E.T. and D.Z., who became the owners of the plot.\n8.  In August 2003 the Vilnius Region Administration found that a mistake had been made in granting the plot of land to the applicant and notified her and, later, the public prosecutor.\n9.  In June 2004 the public prosecutor initiated civil proceedings to have the decision of 18 June 2002 and sale contract annulled on the ground that in 1993 part of the same plot of land had already been sold by the State to a private buyer, R.G. Moreover, the plot was situated in a community garden (sodininkų bendrija) and therefore the former owner’s rights to it could not be restored under the Law on the Restoration of Citizens’ Rights of Ownership to Existing Real Property (Piliečių nuosavybės teisių į išlikusį nekilnojamąjį turtą atkūrimo įstatymas – hereinafter “Law on Restitution”).\n10.  At the same time criminal proceedings had been instituted into possible forgery of the documents. However, suspicions with regard to the applicant were not confirmed, and the proceedings were discontinued in July 2006.\n11.  The Vilnius Region Administration acknowledged that the plot of land had been assigned to the applicant unlawfully.\n12.  On 20 August 2004 assets belonging to the applicant amounting in value to LTL 76,000, including bank deposits and her pension, were seized to ensure satisfaction of the prosecutor’s civil claim.\n13.  On 5 May 2005 the Vilnius 1st City District Court granted the prosecutor’s claim. The transfer of title involving the plot of land was annulled. Ownership was awarded to R.G. and the applicant was ordered to pay LTL 76,000 to E.T. and D.Z. The applicant did, however, reserve the right to have her ownership rights to a plot of land restored.\n14.  On 15 September 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant.\n15.  By a final decision of 22 March 2006 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts.\n16.  On 30 May 2006 the order requiring the applicant to pay LTL 76,000 was enforced by a bailiff.\n17.  According to information submitted by the applicant, she had to borrow money to comply with the order to pay LTL 76,000 and to cover other legal expenses. She also alleged that the unlawful actions of the authorities and the related court proceedings had caused her health to deteriorate significantly, as she had suffered stress and later become disabled.\n18.  In November 2005, after receiving a refusal from the Vilnius Region Administration to compensate her for her loss, the applicant brought a claim against the State before the administrative courts for LTL 90,479 (about EUR 26,200) in pecuniary damage and LTL 300,000 (about EUR 87,000) in non-pecuniary damage.\n19.  By a final decision of 15 November 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the first instance court and granted the applicant’s claim in part awarding her LTL 838 (approximately EUR 240) for pecuniary (part of her legal costs and", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8254", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Turkish nationals who were born in 1972, 1965 and 1961 respectively. Mr Yılmaz Yıldız lives in Niğde and the others live in Mardin.\n6.  The first applicant, Yılmaz Yıldız, is a health officer and the branch chairman of the Health and Social Services Workers’ Union (Sağlık ve Sosyal Hizmet Emekçileri Sendikası – “the SES”) in Niğde. The second applicant, Kamiran Yıldırım, is a doctor and the branch chairman of the SES in Mardin. The third applicant, Mehmet Metin Çılgın, is a doctor and also a member of the SES in Mardin.\n7.  On 4 February 2005 several members of the union gathered in front of the Niğde Social Security Institution (Sosyal Sigortalar Kurumu – “the SSK”) Hospital. Subsequently the first applicant read out the SES’s press statement drawing attention to the problems that could arise as a consequence of the transfer of hospitals incorporated in the SSK to the Ministry of Health.\n8.  The statement read as follows:\n“For the attention of the press and the public:\nHospitals incorporated in the SSK have been transferred to the Ministry of Health pursuant to Law no. 5283. Following that structural change patients were unable to take their medication for a long time and hospital staff have been working in a tense atmosphere.\nBefore the structural changes our union warned the Government and the public. The probable administrative and bureaucratic problems were pointed out: SSK was going to be under a huge economic burden, people would have to pay for health care services and an additional tax was going to be imposed on workers.\nOur union maintains that the Government should allocate more funds from the budget to the health care services to redress the structural problems.\nOur union states that all citizens should be provided with equal, accessible, sufficient and free health care services.”\n9.  On 25 February 2005 the second and third applicants together with another thirty persons gathered in the Mardin Yenişehir SSK Hospital yard. Subsequently, the second applicant read out the press statement in his capacity as chairman of the Mardin branch of the union.\n10.  The police did not prevent anyone from entering the yard during either gathering. Nor did they interfere with the demonstrations or the reading out of the press statements.\n11.  According to the police reports of 4 February 2005 in Niğde and 25 February 2005 in Mardin, the two groups of demonstrators had been warned verbally that their gatherings were illegal and ordered to disband for the protection of public order and safety.\n12.  The Niğde and Mardin public prosecutors filed indictments charging the applicants with intentionally disobeying orders issued by the authorities aimed at protecting public order and safety, pursuant to section 32 of the Misdemeanours Act, Law No. 5326 (see paragraph 17 below).\n13.  On 8 June and 14 July 2005 the Mardin Magistrates’ Court and the Niğde Magistrates’ Court, respectively, convicted the applicants as charged and imposed on them administrative fines of 100 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 62 euros (EUR)).\n14.  The applicants appealed against the courts’ decisions.\n15.  On 20 June 2005 and 26 July 2005 the Mardin Assize Court and the Niğde Assize Court, respectively, dismissed the applicants’ appeals. These decisions were notified to the applicants respectively on 15 July 2005 and 3 August 2005.\n16.  On 23 August 2005 and 11 October 2005 the applicants paid the fines to the relevant tax departments.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8255", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961. He is currently serving his prison sentence in Pechora prison (Komi Republic).\n6.  On 20 December 2001 a judge at the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan (Верховный суд Републики Башкорстан) ordered the interception of the applicant’s telephone calls.\n7.  On 19 January 2002 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of several counts of theft and aggravated murder. The prosecution’s case was that the applicant, the chief security officer of the joint stock company “Bashneft” (АНК «Башнефть»), together with other security officers, had repeatedly stolen petroleum products from Tuymazy gas-processing plant (Туймазинский газоперерабатывающий завод) belonging to ”Bashneft”. The applicant was also accused of having killed O., a presumed accomplice, in order to cover up the criminal activity.\n8.  On 23 November 2002 a senior investigator of the Bashkortostan Prosecution Office (Прокуратура Републики Башкорстан) dismissed the applicant’s complaints concerning different investigation steps. The applicant argued, inter alia, that:\n“As it appears from a comparison of the audio records with the printed records of telephone conversations, the records concerning the telephone conversations of [the applicant] show traces of forgery, the audio cassettes contain much less conversations than the printed records. Consequently, it is impossible to establish the time of each conversation. The annotation of the conversations shows that they were forged.\n...\nOne of the groups which was looking for [O.] ... on 14 January 2002, was headed by ... the brother of co-defendant [Nu.]. It follows that there are reasonable doubts as to the truthfulness of the testimony given by this witness.”\n9.  The prosecutor stated in his decision in particular that:\n“There is no need to examine the audio records on the audio cassettes Nos. 613, 933 and 137, as there are no reasons to consider that the said audio records are forged or that any other modifications were made. Apart from this, many of the audio records ... do not concern the subject of the investigation .... The most important audio records were submitted to [forensic experts] who confirmed that the records did not show any signs of forgery or any other modifications made in the course of the recording or afterwards.”\n10.  In the proceedings, the applicant and certain co-defendants pleaded not guilty. The remaining co-defendants pleaded guilty in part. Some of them, including co-defendant Nu. in respect of the theft on the night of 6 December 2001, also confessed to having falsely accused the applicant during the pre-trial investigation under pressure from the police officers. The records of telephone conversations between persons involved in the petroleum thefts were also admitted in evidence. In this respect, the applicant submitted at trial that the audio cassettes with the records of these conversations showed traces of forgery and that the evidence of the forensic expert had been carried out contrary to the law. He stated that he had never had any conversation with anybody in respect of the stealing of petroleum products from Tuymazy gas-processing plant.\n11.  On 16 June 2003 a judge at the Supreme Court of Bashkortostan found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment.\n12.  With respect to the theft of petroleum products on the night of 6 December 2001, the court heard O.’s mother and V. with whom O. lived in partnership. I", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8256", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in the town of Beloozerskiy (Moscow Region).\n6.  According to the Government, in the morning of 20 March 2002 the applicant, who was armed with a handgun, along with two other persons robbed a shop in Moscow. After the robbery the applicant left the shop with bags containing the stolen items – mobile phones. The two victims of the robbery (Mr G., the owner of the shop, and Mr P., a shop assistant) ran after the applicant. They managed to catch up with him and knocked him to the ground. Mr P. and Mr G. then disarmed the applicant and tied his hands with a belt. The applicant offered resistance. With the help of passers-by, Mr P. and Mr G. held the applicant down for several minutes until the arrival of the police at 11.20 a.m. The police arrested the applicant, seized his handgun and the bags containing mobile phones, and took him to the Lefortovo police station in Moscow. In the police station the applicant wrote a “voluntary confession” acknowledging his participation in the robbery.\n7.  According to the applicant, he had nothing to do with the robbery. He was walking down the street when Mr G. and Mr P. suddenly pushed him in the back, knocked him to the ground and apprehended him. He offered no resistance. The bags and the handgun did not belong to him. Then he was arrested by the police and escorted to the Lefortovo police station, where they arrived at about 12 noon. After admission formalities had been completed, including a personal search in the presence of attesting witnesses, he was taken to an office, seated on a chair and handcuffed to it. Then five or six police officers entered, including Mr S.P. and Mr R., who started to question him about the circumstances of the robbery. He denied his involvement in the robbery. Mr S.P. took out a baseball bat and threatened to use it unless he confessed to the robbery. He refused and Mr S.P. started to beat him on the head with the bat wrapped in a terry towel. The applicant then fell to the floor. Other police officers started to kick him and beat him with the bat and with rubber truncheons. He alleged that the questioning and beatings continued for about five hours. The police officers also threatened to suffocate him with a gas mask, and to use other torture instruments, such as needles and pincers. To avoid further suffering, the applicant wrote the “voluntary confession”.\n8.  The handwritten confession of 20 March 2002 contains the following statement, followed by the applicant’s signature:\n“This confession statement has been written by me voluntarily, without any mental or physical pressure from police officers.\n[I] have read Article 51 of the Constitution, which states that I have the right not to give explanations concerning my conduct.”\n9.  Subsequently, the applicant was placed in a temporary isolation ward (“IVS”) at the Lefortovo police station.\n10.  The following day, on 21 March 2002, the applicant and his counsel lodged complaints with the investigator, Ms K., alleging that he had been ill-treated by the police officers. The applicant’s counsel also asked the investigator to arrange a medical expert examination of the applicant in order to establish when the injuries had occurred and how they had been inflicted. The request contained a description and diagram of the applicant’s injuries.\n11.  Still on 21 March 2002, a face-to-face confrontation between the applicant and Mr G. and Mr P. took place. They testified that on 20 Mar", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8257", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Yefremov, Tula Region.\n6.  On 8 November 2002 criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant, who was suspected of murder. The same day he gave an undertaking not to leave town.\n7.  On 11 November 2002 the applicant was arrested. On 12 November 2002 the Yefremovskiy Town Court of the Tula Region (“the Town Court”) remanded him in custody. His detention was subsequently extended by court order on several occasions.\n8.  On 20 November 2002 the applicant was formally charged with murder and the illegal acquisition, keeping and wearing of a handgun and ammunition. On 28 February 2003 he was committed to stand trial before the Town Court.\n9.  On 21 August 2003 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial for three months until 28 November 2003. Neither he nor his counsel were present at the hearing. No ordinary appeal was brought by them against that detention order; however, the applicant challenged the detention order in supervisory review proceedings.\n10.  On 27 February 2004 the Town Court extended the applicant’s remand in custody from 28 February until 28 May 2004 in his absence. His counsel was not present at the hearing either. Instead of bringing an ordinary appeal, the applicant lodged a request with the court to have supervisory review proceedings initiated in respect of the detention order.\n11.  On 26 May 2004 the Town Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment, acquitting him of the other charges. He appealed.\n12.  On 25 August 2004 the Tula Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. The appellate court noted in the operative part of its judgment that the preventive measure applied to the applicant should “remain unchanged”.\n13.  On 9 September 2004 the applicant’s criminal case file arrived at the Town Court.\n14.  On 6 October 2004 the Town Court examined a request by the applicant for release and dismissed it, stating:\n“On 12 November 2002 the court remanded [the applicant] in custody. The reasons for that decision were the risk of him absconding and interfering with the investigation ...\nThe court does not see any reason to grant the request [for release]. Although the conviction of 26 May 2004 was quashed on appeal on 25 August 2004, the case was remitted for retrial ... The appellate court left the preventive measure unchanged. The [applicant’s] reference ... to the deterioration of his health while in detention is [inconclusive]. In the remand prison [he] receives the necessary medical assistance.”\nThe decision was amenable to appeal; however, it appears that no appeal was lodged.\n15.  On 25 February 2005 the Town Court ruled that the applicant was considered to have been detained “pending trial” from 9 September 2004 and that the maximum period of detention of that kind was to expire on 9 March 2004 [sic]. It extended his detention for three months until 9 June 2005. On 23 March 2005 the detention order was upheld on appeal.\n16.  On 15 August 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia, following the applicant’s supervisory review complaint, initiated supervisory review proceedings in respect of the detention order of 21 August 2003 (see paragraph 9 above) and remitted the case to the Presidium of the Tula Regional Court for examination.\n17.  On 24 October 2005 the Presidium reviewed and upheld the detention order of 21 August 2003. It found t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8258", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Koper.\n5.  On 17 November 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the Koper District Court concerning the division of joint property.\n6.  On 24 September 1997 the Koper District Court rejected the applicant’s claim on procedural grounds. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 18 February 1998 the Koper Higher Court partially upheld the appeal of the applicant and remitted the case back to the first instance court.\n8.  On 14 August 2001 the Koper District court issued a partial judgment. Both parties appealed.\n9.  On 22 October 2002 the Koper Higher Court dismissed the appeals.\n10.  On 1 March 2007 the Koper District Court issued a judgment concerning the remainder of the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 18 November 2008 the Koper Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal concerning the decision on the main issue. The court however annulled the decision on the costs of proceedings and remitted that issue back to the first instance court.\n12.  On 18 August 2008 the Koper District Court issued a decision on the costs of proceedings. The applicant appealed.\n13.  On 18 November 2008 the Koper Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 10 December 2008.\n14.  On 29 September 2008 the applicant lodged an application for settlement with the State Attorney’s Office with a view to reaching an agreement on just satisfaction on account of the delays in the civil proceedings.\n15.  On 26 May 2008 the State Attorney’s Office dismissed the applicant’s claim.\n16.  On 25 November 2009 the applicant, relying on Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”), lodged a claim with the Koper Local Court seeking compensation in the amount of EUR 5,800 for non-pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the length of the civil proceedings.\n17.  On 25 November 2010 the Koper Local Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.\n18.  On 17 January 2011 the Koper Higher Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case back to the first instance court.\n19.  In the course of proceedings, the State on 5 April 2011 acknowledged the claim of the applicant in the amount of 1,200 EUR.\n20.  On 16 November 2011 the Koper Local Court gave a judgment. The court found that the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached and that, in addition to the 1,200 EUR, the State was to pay a further EUR 420 to the applicant for non-pecuniary damages and to reimburse the applicant EUR 275 in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings. In determining the amount of compensation, the court considered that the applicant had contributed to the duration of the proceedings by amending her claim several times and submitting written observations directly at the hearings which had as a consequence the adjournment of three hearings. Accordingly it deducted 10% from the amount to be awarded. The applicant appealed.\n21.  On 17 April 2012 the Koper Higher Court partially upheld the applicant’s appeal and modified the decision, ruling that the State was to pay the applicant in total EUR 2,500 as non-pecuniary damages and further EUR 586 in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings. The higher court also noted the applicant’s contribution to the duration of the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8259", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in the Ivanovo Region.\n6.  According to the applicant, in 1991, at the age of fifteen, he moved to Russia from Georgia with his parents. In 1998 he settled in Shuya, Ivanovo Region, whereas his parents moved back to Georgia.\n7.  On 18 November 1999 the Shuya Town Court of the Ivanovo Region found the applicant guilty of extortion and theft of a passport, and sentenced him to three years and one month’s imprisonment. According to the applicant, in order to spare his mother’s feelings, he told the prosecuting authorities that his name was Shermandin Goderziyevich Mazmishvili. On 4 June 2001 the applicant was released on parole. Upon release he was issued with an ID card in the name of Shermandin Goderziyevich Mazmishvili.\n8.  On 26 April 2005 the Town Court found the applicant guilty of theft and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. Again he claimed that his name was Shermandin Goderziyevich Mazmishvili and presented the relevant ID card. On 1 June 2007 the applicant was released on parole.\n9.  The applicant was in a relationship with Ms K. On 29 February 2008 Ms K. gave birth to a girl. On 21 September 2009 the applicant was recognised as the girl’s father. On 22 September 2009 the applicant and K. got married. On 20 December 2011 Ms K. gave birth to the couple’s second daughter. According to the Government, Ms K. and her two daughters are Russian nationals.\n10.  According to the Government, on 19 June 2007 the applicant was found administratively liable for failing to have his residency in Russia duly authorised.\n11.  On 26 June 2007 the applicant was registered as a migrant under the name of Mazmishvili. The registration remained valid until 26 October 2007.\n12.  It appears that on an unspecified date the applicant asked the Russian migration authorities to issue him with a Russian passport indicating that his name was Shota Petrovich Adeishvili. Following their refusal, the applicant lodged a claim with the Digora District Court of the Northern Osetiya and Alaniya Republic, asking the court to confirm that he had been residing permanently in Russia since 1991.\n13.  On 30 October 2007 the District Court granted the applicant’s request. The court based its findings on the applicant’s birth certificate in the name of Shota Petrovich Adeishvili submitted by him, a certificate issued by the Digora municipal authorities and the testimony of Ms G., stating that the applicant had been renting a flat from her since 1991.\n14.  On 8 July 2008 the applicant received a Russian passport in the name of Shota Petrovich Adeishvili.\n15.  On 10 February 2010 the regional migration service asked the District Court to quash the judgment of 30 October 2007 and remit the matter for new consideration.\n16.  On 17 March 2010 the District Court quashed the judgment of 30 October 2007, noting that the certificate confirming the applicant’s residence in Digora had not in fact been issued by the town administration. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration.\n17.  On 31 March 2010 the District Court noted that the applicant, who had been duly notified of the date and time of the court hearing, had failed to appear in court on two occasions. The Court left the matter without consideration on the merits and discontinued the proceedings. The applicant did not appeal.\n18.  On 18 April 2010 the migration service terminated the applicant’s Russian citizenship and invalidated his passport. According to the applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8260", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lived in Kharachoy. She was the mother of Raisa Kosumova, born in 1967, and the widow of Alikhazhi Kosumov, born in 1932.\n8.  On 7 June 2003 at about 5 p.m. an operational investigative group composed of officers of the Vedenskiy District Prosecutor’s Office (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”), the Vedenskiy District Department of the Interior (“ROVD”), the Criminal Police of the Provisional Task Force of the Russian Ministry of the Interior and the Directorate of the Federal Security Bureau for the Vedenskiy District (“UFSB”), were driving several vehicles along the Dyshne-Vedeno-Kharachoy road, returning from Kharachoy to the village of Vedeno. One of the vehicles of the convoy was blown up and thrown down a steep slope by the explosion into the nearby River Khul‑Khulau. Several officers in the vehicle were wounded and two were killed instantly.\n9.  After the explosion, the police officers called for reinforcements. In the following hour and fifteen minutes an armoured unit, a reconnaissance unit of the Vedenskiy District military command and a special operations unit of the FSB arrived at the scene. After the reinforcements arrived, unidentified forces started firing mortars at the forested slopes. Shells were exploding on the roadside less than 100 metres from the explosion scene.\n10.  Meanwhile, the applicant’s daughter was driving her GAZ-66 truck from Vedeno to Kharachoy. As she passed the scene of the explosion, mortar shells started exploding on the roadside. She received a wound to the head and died instantly. Two FSB officers were also wounded and hospitalised.\n11.  On 16 January 2004 the civil registration office of the Vedenskiy District issued a death certificate (no. 13), certifying that Raisa Kosumova, aged 35, had died on 7 June 2003 in Kharachoy in the Vedenskiy District, from a shell wound to the head.\n12.  Around the time the applicant’s daughter died, the applicant’s seventy-year-old husband was ill. Concerned for her husband’s health, the applicant hesitated about telling him about their daughter’s death.\n13.  The applicant’s husband found out about their daughter’s death on 1 July 2003. He could not cope with her loss and died two days later, on 3 July 2003.\n14.  On 7 June 2003 the District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings into the death of the applicant’s daughter under Article 109 § 1 of the Russian Criminal Code (negligent homicide). An on-site inspection and an inspection of the applicant’s daughter’s body were carried out.\n15.  On 10 June 2003 the chief assistant of the District Prosecutor’s Office sent an order to the Vedenskiy District Temporary Department of the Interior (“VOVD”), the Vedenskiy District ROVD and the UFSB requesting them to carry out without delay the necessary operational-search measures for establishing who had been involved in the death of the applicant’s daughter.\n16.  On the same day two officers of the Vedenskiy ROVD were questioned about the circumstances of the events of 7 June 2003.\n17.  On 17 June 2003 a post-mortem examination of the applicant’s daughter’s body was completed. It was established that she had died from a vast penetrating head wound resulting in brain damage.\n18.  On 29 June 2003 the Vedenskiy District UFSB replied to the request of 10 June 2003, stating that it had appeared impossible to identify the individuals involved in the death of the applicant’s daughter.\n19.  On 25 July 2003 the applicant was grante", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8263", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Mr Ruslan Nushravanovich Gasanov, was a Russian national, who had been born in 1979 and lived in Vyshniy Volochek.\n5.  On 20 April 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug‑related offences.\n6.  During several periods between July 2006 and May 2008, the applicant was detained in the police ward (IVS) of Vyshniy Volochek in the Tver Region. He claimed, in particular, that the cells of the ward were overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition.\n7.  On 29 January 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence.\n8.  By letter submitted on 20 June 2012, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They acknowledged that Mr Gasanov had been “detained in the conditions which did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention” and stated their readiness to pay him 5,000 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction.\n9.  By letter of 24 August 2012 the applicant’s representative notified the Court of Mr Gasanov’s acceptance of the terms of the Government’s declaration.\n10.  In a further letter of 25 September 2012 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that on 5 September 2012 the applicant had died and that Ms V. Pavlova and Ms L. Semyonova, the applicant’s grandmother and aunt respectively, intended to pursue his application before the Court.\n11.  On 31 October 2012 the Government requested the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases on account of the applicant’s death.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8264", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  All the applicants are relatives of Mr I. Cheban, as specified in the Appendix.\n8.  On 23 December 2000 I. Cheban was struck by a car when crossing a street in the city of Chernivtsi. Following the accident he died in a hospital.\n9.  On 30 December 2000 the Chernivtsi regional police department refused to open criminal proceedings in connection with the accident, noting that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of T., the driver of the car.\n10.  On 16 January 2001 the Chernivtsi city prosecutor’s office quashed the decision of 30 December 2000 as unfounded and instituted criminal proceedings for causing death by careless driving.\n11.  On 16 March, 23 August, 17 September 2001, 15 May 2002, 11 July and 27 December 2003 the Chernivtsi regional police department terminated the investigations on the grounds that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of T.\n12.  Following the applicants’ complaints, all those decisions were quashed by the supervising authorities as unsubstantiated and further investigations were ordered. When quashing those decisions, the supervising authorities held that the evidentiary basis had been incomplete and that the investigations had not been carried out thoroughly. In particular, on 10 February 2004 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Chernivtsi quashed the decision of 27 December 2003 as unfounded and noted that serious contradictions in the case file had still not been removed, despite numerous orders to the investigators dealing with the case. The court considered that it was necessary to carry out additional investigative measures and expert examinations.\n13.  On 6 April 2005 the Chernivtsi regional police department terminated the investigation on the grounds that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of T. The police referred to the results of expert examinations suggesting that T. had had no technical possibility of avoiding the accident; at the same time the materials of the file suggested that I. Cheban had violated the traffic rules.\n14.  On 6 January 2006 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Chernivtsi upheld that decision, noting that it was lawful and substantiated.\n15.  On 14 March 2006 and 10 April 2007 the Chernivtsi Region Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, respectively, upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8265", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kherson.\n6.  In 1980 the applicant sustained a craniocerebral injury and underwent surgery for a brain hematoma.\n7.  In 1993 the applicant sustained another craniocerebral injury, following which he started to suffer from epileptic attacks. According to the applicant, since that time the attacks usually occur twice a week.\n8.  The applicant was designated as Category 2 (medium-level) disabled on account of his poor health.\n9.  At about 9.30 a.m. on 24 March 2006 the applicant was standing at a trolleybus station when T. allegedly clipped him slightly while attempting to park his car. A conflict arose between them, with T. punching the applicant in the face and then throwing some further punches at him.\n10.  On the same day the applicant complained to the Suvorivskyy District Police Department of Kherson (“the Police Department”) about T. The police registered the complaint and directed the applicant to a forensic medical expert for assessment.\n11.  On 27 March 2006 the forensic medical expert issued a report noting that the applicant had sustained a bruise measuring 3 cm by 1.5 cm on the right side of his lower jaw. The report specified that the injury was minor, could have been caused on 24 March 2006, and had been inflicted by a blunt object.\n12.  On 15 May 2006 the Police Department refused to open a criminal investigation against T., noting that the applicant’s injury was minor and that he could institute private prosecution proceedings against T.\n13.  On 19 May 2006 the Suvorivskyy District Prosecutor’s Office of Kherson (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) quashed that decision and instituted criminal proceedings against T. under Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code (“disorderly conduct”). The case was referred to the Police Department for pre-trial investigation.\n14.  On 9 June 2006 a forensic medical expert issued a report stating that the applicant had suffered bruising on his face, which had been caused by a blunt object. The expert considered that the injury was minor and that it could have been inflicted on 24 May 2006 as described by the applicant.\n15.  On 22 July 2006 another forensic medical expert report was issued. It stated that there had been no exacerbation of the applicant’s chronic illnesses after the incident of 24 March 2006.\n16.   Following his complaints that his epileptic attacks had increased, the applicant underwent neurological treatment in the local hospital between 24 July and 3 August 2006. During that period the applicant had one epileptic attack. Between 25 January and 3 February 2007 the applicant underwent another course of neurological treatment. During that time he had two epileptic attacks. Between 19 and 31 December 2007 the applicant was admitted to hospital again for neurological treatment and in that period he had no epileptic attacks.\n17.  On 24 July and 19 August 2006, 22 January and 11 April 2007 the Police Department closed the criminal investigation for lack of evidence that T. had committed the crime provided for under Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code. All those decisions were quashed by the supervising prosecutors as unfounded and further criminal investigations were ordered.\n18.  On 9 July 2007 the Police Department closed the investigation once again for essentially the same reasons.\n19.  On 14 November 2007 the Kherson Regional Prosecutor’s Office quashed that decision and ordered a further investigation. On the same date it opened ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8266", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicants’ personal details are provided in the appendix below.\n4.  On 15 March 1982 the first, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth applicants initiated civil proceedings for determination of title to plots of land, together with Mr Mite Ristov, Mr Dinko Ristov. Upon the death of Mr Mite Ristov, the domestic proceedings on his behalf were pursued by his heirs, from the second to fifth applicants. Upon the death of Mr Dinko Ristov the domestic proceedings were pursued on his behalf by his heirs, from the sixth to eighth applicants.\n5.  On 21 July 2004, namely before the application was introduced, the ninth applicant had died. With a letter of 3 September 2007 the applicants’ representative informed the Court about the ninth applicant’s death and that the application would be pursued on his behalf by his heir Mr Taško Šterjov (the name of this heir is the same with the name of the third applicant).\n6.  On 21 December 2004 the first applicant died and the application was pursued on his behalf by his heirs Mr Taško Mihajlov, Mr Saltir Mihajlovski and Mr Stojan Mihajlov.\n7.  The proceedings ended on 7 March 2008 when the legal representative was served with a judgment of the Štip Court of Appeal of 28 January 2008 which listed the following plaintiffs: the heirs of the first applicant (see paragraph 6 above), the second to eighth applicants, the heir of the ninth applicant (see paragraph 5 above) and the tenth to twelfth applicants. The appeal on the points of law lodged against this judgment was rejected by the Supreme Court (отфрла) as ratione valoris.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8267", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants’ personal details are listed in the appendix below.\n5.  On 16 March 1982 five people (“the predecessors”), the ninth and the twenty-second applicants initiated civil proceedings for determination of title to plots of land.\n6.  Between 1984 and 2001 the predecessors died. The first, second, third and fourth applicants stepped in the proceedings on behalf of their late predecessor. The fifth to eighth and the tenth to twenty-first applicants did not step in the proceedings on behalf of their late predecessors.\n7.  On 12 May 2004 the ninth applicant died.\n8.  On 23 April 2005 the twenty-second applicant died and his heirs, Mr Stojan Kostov and Mr Mite Kostov, applied to continue the application in his name.\n9.  On 17 April 2009 the fourth applicant died and her heirs, the second and third applicants, applied to continue the application also in her name.\n10.  The impugned proceedings, which were reconsidered on one occasion, ended on 31 August 2007 when the final decision of the Štip Court of Appeal was served on the applicants. This decision listed the following as plaintiffs: the first, second, third, fourth, ninth and twenty-second applicants as well as the predecessors of the remaining applicants.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8268", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lived in St Petersburg before the events of the case.\n5.  In 2004 several criminal cases were opened against the applicant on suspicion of kidnapping, extortion and planning an assassination.\n6.  By final judgments of 15 March 2007 and 8 October 2009, the Supreme Court of Russia found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a total of twenty-three years’ imprisonment.\n7.  Starting from 10 March 2004, the date of his arrest, the applicant was detained in various custodial facilities in connection with the criminal proceedings against him. In particular, on 15 January 2010 the applicant was transported from a prison hospital to remand prison IZ-47/1 of St Petersburg, where he stayed until 18 February 2010. According to the applicant, the facility was overcrowded. Thus, cell 456 measuring 8 sq. m accommodated up to three inmates. The applicant further claimed that he had been denied the necessary medical treatment there. In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted several photographs of his cell.\n8.  On 1 February 2010 Ms Klykova, the applicant’s representative at that time, lodged an application form complaining about the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Attached was a power of attorney, dated 12 January 2010 and signed by the applicant, which read as follows:\n“Power of Attorney\n[In accordance with] Rule 36 of the Rules of Court\nI, Mr Makovoz ... authorise Ms Klykova ... to represent me before the European Court of Human Rights ... in connection with my complaint against the Russian Federation, lodged under Article 34 of the Convention.”\n9.  In letter of 19 April 2010, Ms Klykova informed the Court that between 15 January and the end of February 2010 the applicant had been held in the St Petersburg remand prison and described the conditions of his detention there. She also submitted that she had lost contact with the applicant after he had left the prison on an unspecified date in late February 2010.\n10.  In letter of 26 October 2012, the applicant further complained about the conditions of his detention in various custodial facilities between 10 March 2004 and 22 December 2011.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8270", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lived in Nizhny Novgorod prior to the events of the case.\n5.  On 23 September 2005 the applicant was arrested on charges of robbery, theft, forgery and extortion.\n6.  On 11 April 2008 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence.\n7.  On 21 August 2008 the Presidium of the Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment 11 April 2008 and remitted the case to the trial court for fresh examination. Referring to the gravity of the charges, it also ordered the applicant’s detention to continue for a further three months.\n8.  By orders of 17 November 2008 and 16 February and 19 May 2009, the authorised period of the applicant’s detention was extended. These orders cited the gravity of the charges and the possibility of the applicant’s absconding as the main reasons for the continued detention.\n9.  On 24 November 2009 the Regional Court found the applicant guilty of a number of grave crimes and sentenced him to a six years and one month’s imprisonment.\n10.  Between 24 September 2005 and 14 January 2009 the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-52/1 of Nizhniy Novgorod. He submitted that the cells had been severely overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8271", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lived in Bolshaya Kivara in the Republic of Udmurtiya before his arrest.\n5.  On 13 July 2005 the applicant was arrested and charged with murder.\n6.  On 18 April 2006 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya, at final instance, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to fifteen years and six months’ imprisonment.\n7.  During several periods between 13 July 2005 and 19 January 2007, for a total length of sixty-one day, the applicant was held in IVS Votkinsk, a temporary detention facility located in the Udmurtiya Republic. According to the applicant and the statements by his three cellmates, the conditions of detention in that facility were as follows. The applicant’s cell, located on the basement floor, was overcrowded: it measured 8 sq. m and accommodated up to five inmates. There were no individual beds, mattresses or bed linen. The detainees were afforded one meal per day. No outdoor exercise was available to them.\n8.  On 14 July 2005 the sanitary-epidemiological service inspected the detention facility. In their report, drafted on the same day, they noted that the IVS held sixty-three detainees which was nearly twice its design capacity, that there was no heating and restricted access to daylight. The general sanitary state of the facility was poor. The service recommended to the management of the facility to bring the conditions in line with the legal requirements.\n9.  It appears that the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention to various authorities. In his reply of 27 November 2006 the local prosecutor acknowledged some of his claims and informed the applicant that he had directed the management of the detention facility to upgrade the conditions.\n10.  On 23 October 2007 the Votkinsk Town Court of the Republic of Udmurtiya examined the applicant’s civil action in connection with inadequate conditions of detention. It found that a part of the allegations, in particular those concerning an overcrowding of the facility, a lack of bedding and poor sanitary conditions, were substantiated but rejected the claim.\n11.  On 19 June 2006 the applicant lodged his first letter to the Court, complaining about violations of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention in the criminal proceedings against him.\n12.  On 17 August 2006 the applicant despatched the completed application form.\n13.  In his letter of 3 April 2007 the applicant gave a detailed account of the conditions of his detention in IVS Votkinsk, alleging that they violated Article 3 of the Convention.\n14.  By letter of 23 May 2012, the Registry informed the applicant that his complaint had been more than ten pages long and, referring to the provisions of the Rules of Court and the Practice Direction on Institution of Proceedings, requested him to submit a summary application form listing the complaints which he wished to pursue.\n15.  Complying with the above request, on 6 August 2012 the applicant lodged the application form. It contained, in particular, the complaint about the conditions of his detention in IVS Votkinsk.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8272", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Bozoy, Irkutsk Region.\n6.  According to the applicant, and not contested by the Government, at approximately 11 p.m. on 5 April 2007 she was arrested on suspicion of abducting, raping and murdering S. According to the arrest record, she was arrested at 3.30 a.m. on 6 April 2007.\n7.  Following the arrest, the applicant was taken to a police station where she was questioned by an investigator in the presence of a lawyer. Prior to the questioning, she wrote a statement admitting to S.’s abduction. According to her, police officers threatened to beat her if she refused to make a written statement. She did not explain whether she had been denied access to a lawyer prior to writing the statement.\n8.  According to the applicant, on the morning of 6 April 2007 she was taken to the town prosecutor’s office. She was taken to an office where policemen started beating her and urging her to confess to S.’s murder. They hit her on the head and threatened to rape her, and then handcuffed her and pushed her to the floor. They put a hat on her head and pulled it down over her eyes. They also threw a coat over her. They punched her in the solar plexus and the stomach, and pulled her by the legs. They attached a wire to her right leg and placed a metal object between her shoulders, then subjected her to electrocution while gagging her mouth to muffle her screams.\n9.  On the same day the applicant was questioned by the investigator and confessed to S.’s abduction. She was later taken to the location where she had last seen S. alive and was questioned again afterwards. The applicant’s lawyer was present during the questioning.\n10.  Later that day the applicant was taken to a temporary detention centre, where an officer conducted a medical examination and noted numerous bruises on her belly and scratches below the right clavicle. It appears that the administration of the detention facility informed the investigator from the town prosecutor’s office accordingly, who ordered that the applicant undergo a forensic medical examination.\n11.  At approximately 5 or 6 p.m. that evening the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination which, in addition to the injuries noted before, revealed two bruised areas on her chest, possibly caused by blunt solid objects one to two days before the examination. At the time, the applicant did not offer any explanation as to the cause of the injuries.\n12.  On 13 April 2007 the investigator questioned the applicant again the in the presence of her lawyer. She denied having any intent to kill S. According to her, it was two other co-defendants who had decided to do so.\n13.  On 10 May 2007 a local newspaper published an article about S.’s murder and the opening of the investigation. The names of the alleged perpetrators were not disclosed.\n14.  On 28 June 2007 the town prosecutor’s office received a complaint from the applicant alleging that she had been ill-treated.\n15.  On 10 March 2008 investigator T. from the town prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal investigation into the applicant’s and her co‑defendants’ allegations of ill-treatment in police custody. The investigator noted as follows:\n“In the course of the investigation, [the applicant and three other defendants] alleged that their initial statements had been coerced by police officers and the prosecutor’s office and were false. In addition, the medical examination conducted revea", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8275", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  On 17 April 2007 the applicant was questioned as suspect on charges of theft.\n7.  On 25 June 2008 the Budapest XIV/XVI District Public Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant for theft.\n8.  On 14 October 2011 the Pest Central District Court acquitted the applicant.\n9.  The first-instance judgment was upheld on appeal by the Budapest High Court on 8 October 2012. This judgment was served on the applicant on 19 October 2012.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8276", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, who is of Roma ethnic origin, was born in 1969 and is currently detained in Jilava Prison.\n6.  On 11 February 2002 he was placed in detention in Arad Prison. On 12 October 2007 the Bucharest County Court convicted him of drug trafficking and sentenced him to twelve years and three months’ imprisonment.\n7.  At a medical examination upon his initial placement in Arad Prison on 11 February 2002, the applicant was found to be a heroin addict suffering from sequels of tuberculosis and psychopathic tendencies.\n8.  On 8 August 2006 on a transfer to Gherla Prison he was diagnosed with arterial hypertension, coronary heart disease and dyslipidaemia.\n9.  On 30 March 2009 the applicant asked the Bucharest District Court to suspend his sentence for medical reasons. He alleged that his heart condition required surgery which could not be performed within the prison health system. He further submitted that any delays in receiving the appropriate treatment for his condition would put his life at risk.\n10.  Following an order by the court, in April 2009 the applicant underwent a coronary angiography (X-ray of the heart’s arteries) and was seen by specialist doctors. According to the forensic medical report drafted by the Bucharest Institute of Forensic Medicine on that occasion, the illnesses he was suffering from included coronary heart disease, effort angina, a severe coronary lesion (80%-90%) and severe high blood pressure with an increased risk level. He was recommended bypass surgery in a public hospital, since it was considered that the hospitals within the prison system were not adequately equipped for such an operation.\n11.  By a letter of 17 September 2009 the authorities of the Giurgiu Prison, where the applicant was detained at the time, informed the court that the prison was capable of ensuring the security measures necessary for his admission to a public hospital for the recommended operation, therefore there was no need to suspend his sentence for that purpose.\n12.  On the basis of the above, on 1 October 2009 the Bucharest District Court rejected the applicant’s request to have his prison sentence suspended.\n13.  On 2 November 2009 the Bucharest County Court allowed an appeal on points of law (recurs) lodged by him against that decision. The County Court held that the first-instance court had correctly decided that the prison authorities could ensure the necessary security measures to take the applicant out of prison and admit him to a public hospital. However, precise details on this needed to be set out in the operative provisions of the judgment. Accordingly, the Bucharest County Court ordered his admission, under escort, to a cardiovascular centre run by the Ministry of Health to receive the necessary treatment. The judgment became final.\n14.  Between 22 October and 23 November 2009 the applicant was admitted to the cardiology ward of Jilava Prison Hospital. The doctors there recommended his transfer to Rahova Prison Hospital with a view to his admission to a public cardiovascular clinic run by the Ministry of Health.\n15.  Between 23 November and 3 December 2009 the applicant was hospitalised in Rahova Prison Hospital. According to the hospital’s assessment and treatment plan, he was recommended a cardiovascular examination at the Central Military Hospital (a public hospital in the Ministry of Health’s network) on 26 November 2009. According to the same document, on 27 November 2009 he was examined by a cardiology d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8277", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is an Icelandic national who was born in 1978 and lives in Reykjavik. She is a journalist, working for the newspaper DV. In its weekend issue of 31 August to 2 September 2007, DV published an article about a high-profile criminal case which was being investigated at the time, involving Mr Y and his wife, Mrs X. Mr Y was the director of a Christian rehabilitation centre called Byrgið (the Shelter), which he had founded in 1996 to help people dealing with drug, alcohol and gambling addictions. Accusations against Mr Y surfaced in December 2006 when a television news programme broadcast a story in which he was accused of sexually abusing several female patients at Byrgið and embezzling public funds which had been granted to it. Documents, including sexually explicit video recordings, appearing to substantiate the allegations against Mr Y, were shown on the television programme. After the programme had been aired, three women filed complaints with the police against Mr Y for sexual abuse while they had been patients at Byrgið. Mr Y and his wife were both suspects in the criminal investigation.\n6.  The article published in DV contained interviews and comments made by Ms A, one of the women who had pressed charges against Mr Y, and Mr B, the financial manager at Byrgið and a close friend of Mr Y and Mrs X. The article was entitled “Satan’s attacks” and included, among other things, Ms A’s description of how Mrs X had been active in the so-called sex games organised by Mr Y, in which female patients at Byrgið had been manipulated and convinced to participate as they had been told that it was part of their healing process. According to Ms A, Mrs X had helped to seduce the women and had even sought sexual encounters with them by herself, without her husband. Ms A criticised the fact that Mrs X was at the time working as a teaching assistant in a school, stating “I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist but this person is crazy. I cannot see that she has anything to offer as a teaching assistant or in any kind of relief work. I do not know what she is doing in this school. In the light of [Mr Y’s] fantasies about primary school girls, I don’t think it is appropriate that the one who hunts for him works in a primary school.”\n7.  Mr B also stated that both Mr Y and Mrs X had sexually abused several patients of Byrgið and that he found it strange, considering Mrs X’s position, that she was allowed to work with children.\n8.  The article also referred to comments made by the lawyer of Mrs X and Mr Y, who said that the accusations against the couple were absurd. He also said that it was very common that people had the legal status of suspect during an investigation, without later being indicted, so it was not fair to implicate Mrs X in any criminal activity. Moreover, neither of the two had broken the law and he did not think that an indictment would be issued in the case.\n9.  The article also contained comments made by an officer of the police department dealing with the investigation. He confirmed that Mrs X had the legal status of a suspect during the investigation.\n10.  On 28 February 2008 Mrs X instituted defamation proceedings against Ms A, Mr B and the applicant before the Reykjavik District Court. In her writ, in which she made the judicial claims set out below, she argued that the following statements published by DV amounted to libel, in breach of Articles 234, 235 and 236 of the Penal Code, and requested that they be decla", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8278", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Ankara.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In the early hours of 28 April 2005 the applicant went to a primary school in the town of Sincan and poured paint on a statue of Atatürk[1] which was situated in the school’s garden. On the evening of the same day, he poured paint on a statue of Atatürk in the garden of another primary school.\n8.  On 6 May 2005 he did the same thing in the same two primary schools.\n9.  On 8 July 2005 the applicant poured paint on a statue of Atatürk in Sincan town centre.\n10.  On 12 September 2005 the applicant went to the same statue in Sincan town centre equipped with a tin of paint, paint thinner and a ladder. As he was about to open the tin of paint he was arrested by police officers and taken to a police station where he was questioned. In a statement taken from him on the same day the applicant was reported as having told the police officers that he had carried out the above-mentioned actions because he resented Atatürk and had expressed his resentment by pouring paint on the statues.\n11.  On the same day the applicant was brought before a prosecutor and then a judge, who ordered his detention on remand pending the opening of criminal proceedings against him. In his statement to the prosecutor the applicant maintained that he had carried out his actions to express his “lack of affection” for Atatürk.\n12.  In his indictment of 15 September 2005, lodged with the Sincan Criminal Court of First Instance (hereinafter “the trial court”), the Sincan prosecutor charged the applicant with the offence of contravening the Law on Offences Committed Against Atatürk (Law no. 5816; see “Relevant Domestic Law and Practice” below).\n13.  In the course of the trial the applicant admitted that he had poured paint on the statues. He told the trial court that he had completed his university studies and qualified as a teacher. However, he had been unemployed for a long time because his application to work as a teacher had not been accepted by the Ministry of Education. He had carried out his offences in order to protest against the Ministry’s decision.\n14.  On 10 October 2005 the trial court found the applicant guilty as charged. Having regard to the fact that the offence was committed in a public place and on a number of occasions, the trial court sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment instead of the minimum term of imprisonment applicable under Law no. 5816, which is one year. The fact that the offence had been committed in a public place also led the trial court to increase the sentence by half in accordance with section 2 of Law no. 5816. The trial court also considered that the applicant had committed the offence on five separate occasions, and decided to multiply the sentence by five. The applicant was thus sentenced to a total prison term of twenty-two years and six months for his above-mentioned actions.\n15.  The applicant appealed. In his appeal he argued that, according to the provisions of the Criminal Code, only one sentence should have been imposed on him because, regardless of the fact that he had poured paint on the statues on five occasions, he had in fact only committed one offence and not multiple offences. In support of his argument, he submitted that his five actions had been carried out within a short span of time.\n16.  The applicant also pointed ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8279", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and, according to the latest information available to the Court, lives in Aksaray.\n5.  On 2 April 2011 the applicant, who had been living in Turkey since 2008, was taken into custody in the context of an investigation into murder by a person or persons unknown. He was placed in the Yedikule Security Directorate in Istanbul.\n6.  On 4 April 2011 the applicant delivered his witness statement before a criminal court in relation to the aforementioned investigation. However, he was not released after delivering the statement; instead he continued to be detained in the Yedikule Security Directorate for having outstayed his visa.\n7.  On 5 April 2011 the applicant was transferred to Şehit Tevfik Fikret Erciyes police station in Fatih, Istanbul (“Fatih police station”), where he was placed in a custodial cell for the next five days.\n8.  On 10 April 2011 the applicant was sent to Kumkapı Removal Centre with a view to being deported. According to the applicant’s account, Kumkapı Removal Centre was severely overcrowded at the time of his detention. He had to share a dormitory measuring approximately 30‑35 sq. m with twenty-four to forty-five other people and the overcrowding of the centre resulted in hygiene problems. The building was infested with insects and the quality and quantity of the food provided was also fairly poor. Moreover, there was no provision for outdoor exercise.\n9.  On 12 April 2011 the applicant lodged an application with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for refugee status.\n10.  On 27 April 2011 he claimed asylum from the Ministry of the Interior.\n11.  On 29 April 2011 the applicant was granted a temporary residence permit in the province of Aksaray as an asylum seeker and he was released from Kumkapı Removal Centre on the same day. It appears that the applicant was subsequently permitted to reside in Konya.\n12.  According to the latest information provided to the Court, the applicant’s applications for asylum and refugee status are still pending before the domestic authorities and the UNHCR respectively.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8281", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants were born in 1966 and 1996 respectively and live in Sheffield, the United Kingdom.\n9.  On 8 November 2010 the applicants arrived in Turkey from Iran. They were planning to fly to Manchester (the United Kingdom) from Istanbul Atatürk Airport on the next day.\n10.  At around 11 a.m. on 9 November 2010 the applicants were about to board the plane for Manchester, but were prevented from doing so by officers from the private airport security company. It was alleged that the second applicant’s passport photograph did not resemble him and could belong to someone else. Both applicants were taken to the “problematic passenger room” at the office of the passport police for an examination of the second applicant’s passport.\n11.  At 4 p.m. on the same day the applicants signed documents entitled “Report of apprehension and custody/rights of suspects and accused persons”, which set out their rights within the context of their arrest. According to the report which the first applicant signed, she had been apprehended on account of “being an accomplice to false identity”. The reports stated that a public prosecutor had been informed of the apprehension. However, the prosecutor did not order that the applicants be taken into police custody. The reports signed by the applicants do not bear the signature of an interpreter.\n12.  According to a report drafted by two police officers at 4 p.m. the same day, the police asked one of the public prosecutors at the Bakırköy public prosecutor’s office for instructions on how to proceed. The public prosecutor ordered that the photographs, fingerprints and statements of the first applicant, S.T., be taken; that the second applicant, K.A., be transferred to the Bakırköy police station juvenile department and that the passport in question be seized for an examination of its authenticity.\n13.  The second applicant was kept at the office of the passport police at Atatürk Airport until 10.50 p.m. on 9 November 2010. He was then transferred to the Bakırköy police station juvenile department following the instructions of the public prosecutor, before being sent to the police criminal laboratory in order to establish his identity.\n14.  On 10 November 2010 the Bakırköy Magistrates’ Court decided to confiscate the second applicant’s passport.\n15.  On the same day the second applicant was taken to the Bakırköy public prosecutor’s office. His statements were taken by the public prosecutor, who decided to impose an administrative sanction under the Misdemeanors Act and to release him.\n16.  Later on the same day the police criminal laboratory issued a report establishing the authenticity of the second applicant’s passport.\n17.  Subsequently, the police received instructions from one of the prosecutors from the Bakırköy public prosecutor’s office to either hand the second applicant over to a family member or transfer him to social services.\n18.  At around 4 p.m. on 11 November 2010 the second applicant was handed over to one of his relatives, Mr. B.M., who was also the first applicant’s husband. At the same time his passport was given back to him as its authenticity had been proved.\n19.  Meanwhile, following the arrest of the first applicant at the airport on 9 November 2010, her photograph and fingerprints were taken. At 9 p.m. on the same day she was questioned by two police officers at Istanbul Atatürk Airport with the help of another police officer, who acted as an interpreter. The first applicant was informed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8282", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  At 8.04 a.m. on 31 August 2010 the applicant was apprehended at his home and a house search was conducted on the premises until 11.12 a.m.\nDuring this time, the applicant told the officers that he intended to attend a funeral later that day. He submits that his request was “unofficially” dismissed at once. The Government denied this allegation.\n7.  On completion of the house search, the applicant was committed to the offices of the Central Investigating Prosecutor’s Office, about seven kilometres away from the cemetery in question.\n8.  From 1.35 p.m. onwards the applicant was interrogated as a suspect of attempted misappropriation of funds. At the beginning of the procedure, he formally requested that the authorities allow his attendance at his stepmother’s funeral which took place on the same day, at 2.15 p.m. The request was rejected with the reasoning that its granting would have contravened the purpose of the arrest. The interrogation ended at 2.29 p.m. on the same day.\n9.  The applicant then complained to the Attorney General. That office rejected the complaint on 10 September 2010, pointing out that the relevant decree did not allow as such for arrestees – as opposed to those in pre-trial detention – to attend funerals, for which reason the refusal of his request had been lawful.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8283", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974. According to the latest information available to the Court, he lives in Istanbul.\n7.  The applicant arrived in Turkey in 2006. The parties are in dispute as to whether he entered the country legally at the time.\n8.  On 4 or 6 November 2009 the applicant was apprehended in Edirne while trying to flee to Greece illegally. Following brief periods of detention at İpsala Gendarmerie Command and Tunca Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre (“Tunca Accommodation Centre”), he was transferred to Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre (“Gaziosmanpaşa Accommodation Centre”) in Kırklareli, with a view to being deported. The exact date of his transfer is unknown to the Court; while the applicant claimed that he had been transferred on 9 November 2009, the Government maintained that the transfer had taken place on 11 November 2009 without, however, presenting any documents in support of their submission.\n9.  It appears that throughout his stay at Gaziosmanpaşa Accommodation Centre, the applicant made numerous attempts to seek asylum, all of which were allegedly ignored by the national authorities, until he was able to get in touch with a lawyer. On 27 July 2010 he lodged a new asylum request through his lawyer, which was admitted by the domestic authorities for processing.\n10.  On 1 September 2010 the lawyer requested the applicant’s immediate release from Gaziosmanpaşa Accommodation Centre in two separate letters sent to the Kırklareli Governor’s Office and the Ministry of the Interior, claiming thqsat his detention in prison-like conditions had no basis in domestic law and also contravened Article 5 of the Convention.\n11.  On 24 September 2010 the applicant was granted asylum seeker status by the Ministry of the Interior, along with a temporary residence permit in Kırklareli, valid until the completion of the asylum procedure.\n12.  On 27 September 2010 he was released from Gaziosmanpaşa Accommodation Centre.\n13.  Following his release, on 30 September 2010 the applicant went to Istanbul instead of staying in Kırklareli as ordered. On 1 October 2010 he was arrested on suspicion of attempted burglary and placed in police custody at Şehit Tevfik Fikret Erciyes district police station in Fatih, Istanbul (“Fatih police station”). On the same day, he was interrogated by the Fatih public prosecutor and the Fatih Magistrates’ Court, which ordered his release. The relevant decision was not made available to the Court.\n14.  Despite the court order for his release, the applicant was taken back to Fatih police station, where he was placed in a holding cell in the basement.\n15.  On 4 October 2010 the applicant’s lawyer visited him at the station and requested his release. He was, however, informed that this would not be possible as there was an order for his deportation.\n16.  On 7 October 2010 his lawyer went to Fatih police station once again, to visit the applicant and to inspect the conditions of his detention. According to the lawyer’s notes, there were two cells with iron bars in the basement of the station where the applicant was being held, both of which measured approximately 2 x 4 m. On the day of his visit, the applicant was sharing a cell with approximately ten other foreigners, all of whom were sitting on the floor with their backs against the wall and sharing three blankets between them. There were similarly ten to twelve people in the other cell. There was a small vent in the wall m", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8284", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Balassagyarmat.\n5.  The applicant is a television journalist. From 15 February 2001 he was employed by the State television company (Magyar Televízió Zrt.). Following an amendment of his work contract on 10 July 2002, he was appointed for an indeterminate period. At the material time, he was chairman of the Trade Union of Public Service Broadcasters (Közszolgálati Műsorkészítők Szakszervezete), active within the television company.\nThe applicant was in charge, as editor and presenter, of a periodical cultural programme called Éjjeli menedék (Night Shelter) which involved interviews with various figures of cultural life.\n6.  According to point 10 of his work contract, the applicant was bound by professional confidentiality. He was obliged not to reveal any information acquired in connection to his position the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to either his employer or any other person. According to the labour contract, he also took note of the fact that a breach of this obligation would lead to the immediate termination of his employment.\n7.  Following the appointment of a new cultural director the applicant had apparently contacted the television company’s president, since he had perceived the new director’s conduct in modifying and cutting certain contents of Éjjeli menedék as censorship. He had received no response to his complaint.\n8.  On 6 June 2003 the editor-in-chief of Éjjeli menedék addressed a letter to the board of Magyar Televízió Zrt. stating, amongst other things, that the appointment of the new cultural director had led to censorship of the programme by his suggesting modifications to, and the deletion of, certain contents.\nOn 19 June 2003 an article appeared in the online version of a Hungarian daily (Magyar Nemzet Online)[1], containing the editor-in-chief’s letter as well as a statement of Magyar Elektronikus Újságírók Szövetsége (Hungarian Union of Electronic Journalists), inviting the board to end censorship in the television company.\n9.  In 2004 the applicant published a book entitled “Az antifasiszta és a hungarista – Titkok a Magyar Televízióból” (The Antifascist and the Hungarista - Secrets from the Hungarian Television). Each chapter of the book contained an extract from different interviews recorded in 2003, which had not been broadcast in the cultural programme, apparently on the basis of the instructions of the cultural director in question. Along with the extracts, the applicant included numerous in-house letter exchanges between the cultural director and the editor-in-chief concerning the suggested changes in the programme. Moreover, the chapters contained a short introduction or summary of the events, reflecting the applicant’s personal opinion. The preface of the book said that it would contain documentary evidence of censorship exercised in the State television company. It called on the readers to decide whether the documents indicated the cultural director’s legitimate exercise of his supervisory functions or an interference with the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.\n10.  On 11 November 2004 the television company dismissed from employment the applicant and the editor-in-chief of Éjjeli menedék, with immediate effect. The reason for the applicant’s summary dismissal was that, by publishing the book in question, he had breached the confidentiality clause contained in his labour contract.\n11.  The applicant challenged his dismissal in court. He arg", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8285", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  At the material time, the applicant lived in the United States. On 14 January 2001 she arrived in Hungary on a visit. She had a laptop with her which she had bought on 9 January 2001 in the United States for 1,624 US dollars (approximately 1,500 euros (EUR) at that time). She did not declare it to the airport customs authority, since in her opinion it constituted a ‘travel item’, exempted from customs duty, within the meaning of section 110 of Act no. C of 1995 and section 185(3) of the implementing Decree of the Act.\n7.  Although she specified to the authorities that she was living abroad and had no intention of importing the laptop into Hungary but intended to take it back to the United States on departure, the customs authority nevertheless seized the laptop and filed a criminal report, charging the applicant with smuggling.\n8.  A bill of indictment was preferred by the Budapest X/XVII District Public Prosecutor’s Office on 28 April 2001. In the bill of indictment, the prosecutor proposed that the seizure of the laptop be discontinued according to section 102(1) of Act no. I of 1973 on the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the applicant be ordered to pay the value of the item instead of its confiscation.\n9.  On 9 May 2001 the Pest Central District Court, without holding a hearing, found the applicant guilty as charged, imposed a fine of 23,000 Hungarian forints (HUF; approximately EUR 90) and ordered the release of the laptop on the payment of another HUF 100,000 (approximately EUR 390) as ‘value equivalent to confiscation’ (elkobzás alá eső érték).\n10.  On 23 June 2001 the applicant requested a hearing, seeking her acquittal.\n11.  No hearing took place subsequently, and the laptop remained under seizure.\n12.  On 24 April 2006 the District Court found that the case was statute-barred and discontinued the proceedings. It ordered the release of the laptop. This decision became final on 2 June 2006.\n13.  On 28 June 2006 the customs authority invited the applicant to recover the laptop.\n14.  The applicant submitted that during these proceedings she had moved back to Hungary. On her repatriation, she could have imported her belongings, including the laptop, free of customs. However, its release was in these circumstances nevertheless subject to the payment of customs duty. Since the laptop had meanwhile become technically outdated and thus worthless, she decided to have it returned to the United States rather than recover it.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8286", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Vilnius.\n6.  By an agreement of 18 July 2000 and an order of the Vilnius Region Administration of 21 June 2000 the applicant acquired from the State a plot of land measuring 0.2 ha for 59,776 Lithuanian litai (LTL; approximately 17,312 euros (EUR)) and registered it in the land registry in her name. According to the documents issued by the authorities, the plot was designated for residential use (namų valda). The applicant had previously, in 1999, acquired from a private person the remains of a burned-down house (registered in the real estate registry) which stood on that land, with the intention of renovating it.\n7.  In December 2002 after establishing that the sale was not in accordance with the law, a public prosecutor applied to the courts to have the sale contract and related legal acts of the authorities annulled in order to protect the public interest.\n8.  On 23 September 2003 the Vilnius 1st City District Court dismissed the claim. That decision was upheld by the Vilnius Regional Court on 18 December 2003. The courts rejected the arguments of the prosecutor that the applicant had not been entitled to buy the plot for residential use and that residential use of the land was no longer possible; however, on 26 April 2004 the Supreme Court remitted the case for re-examination.\n9.  On 10 February 2005 the Vilnius 1st City District Court dismissed the claim again.\n10.  On 17 June 2005 the Vilnius Regional Court overturned that decision and granted the claim; the applicant and her lawyer participated in the hearing. It was established that in 1999 to 2000 the State’s plot had not been used as “residential land”, and its sale had breached Government Resolution no. 260 of 9 March 1999 and the Law on Territorial Planning.\n11.  The transfer of title to the applicant was annulled and pursuant to Article 1.80 of the Civil Code the land was returned to the State while the applicant received back the money she had paid for it.\n12.  On 13 February 2006, by way of written proceedings, the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant as unfounded.\n13.  According to the information submitted by the parties, in 2011 the disputed plot was assigned for restitution to a private individual, V.J. The applicant was still the owner of the remains of the house; however, its use or renovation was uncertain, given that she had no right to use the area of land on which the house stood.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8287", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Lagos, Nigeria.\n6.  On 27 September 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. On 28 September 2007 the Krasnogvardeiskiy District Court of St Petersburg authorised his detention pending investigation. The court noted that the applicant was suspected of having committed a serious offence entailing a custodial sentence of up to seven years, that he did not have a permanent place of residence or employment in St Petersburg and that, if released, he might re-offend or abscond. The applicant appealed.\n7.  On 9 October 2007 the applicant was charged with robbery.\n8.  On 22 October 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint against the investigator, claiming that he had been charged belatedly. He argued that he should have been released in view of the applicable rules of criminal procedure, which provided that, if a suspect was not charged within ten days of his arrest, he was to be released immediately.\n9.  On 26 October 2007 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint lodged on 22 October 2007, noting that the appeal proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention authorised by the court order of 28 September 2007 were still pending. On 29 January 2008 the City Court upheld the decision of 26 October 2007 on appeal.\n10.  On 1 November 2007 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the court order of 28 September 2007 on appeal.\n11.  On 21 December 2007 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 27 January 2008. On 26 February 2008 the City Court upheld the relevant decision on appeal. The applicant remained in custody during the criminal proceedings against him.\n12.  On 1 April 2008 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment.\n13.  On 22 July 2008 the City Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal.\n14.  Following the applicant’s arrest, the investigator in charge of his case seized the applicant’s Nigerian passport, which was supposed to be filed together with the other materials concerning the criminal investigation. It appears that the passport was lost.\n15.  In response to a complaint lodged by the applicant, the regional department of the interior carried out an inquiry, which confirmed the applicant’s allegations about the loss of the passport. The investigator was subjected to a disciplinary sanction. On 5 September 2010 the applicant was informed accordingly. As regards the issuance of a new passport, the applicant was advised to contact the Nigerian consulate.\n16.  It appears that the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to bring a civil action against the domestic authorities for the loss of his passport. On 17 December 2010 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow dismissed the applicant’s claims against the Ministry of Finance. The applicant appealed. He did not inform the Court about the outcome of the appeal proceedings.\n17.  As regards the timeframe of the applicant’s detention, the Government provided the following information:\nPeriod of detention\nType of detention facility\nFrom 28 September 2007 to 29 February 2008\nRemand prison no. IK-1 (former remand prison no. IZ-47/1) (from 19 to 24 December 2007, from 3 to 7 January, from 16 to 21 January, and from 31 January to 2 February 2008 the applicant was held in a disciplinary cell)\nFrom 29 February to 21 March 2008\nRegional prison hospital\nFrom 21 March to 4 August 2008\nRemand prison no. SIZO-1 (from 14 to 21 J", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8288", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n13.  The applicant was born in 1968 in Khanabad, Uzbekistan.\n14.  In 2008, in the face of potential prosecution for religious extremism, he fled Uzbekistan with a forged Kyrgyz passport under an assumed name. On 19 April 2008 he entered the territory of the Russian Federation.\n15.  On 6 September 2009 he obtained a Russian passport using forged documents.\n16.  On 26 January 2009 and 28 September 2012 the applicant was indicted by the investigative authorities of Uzbekistan on charges of terrorism, inciting religious hatred, encroaching upon the constitutional order, illegally crossing the State border, organising a criminal group, producing and disseminating material threatening public security and order, participating in religious extremist, separatist, and fundamentalist movements, and smuggling. Since the Uzbek authorities could not locate him he was indicted in absentia.\n17.  According to the Uzbek investigative authorities, in 2006 and 2007 the applicant had been actively involved in operating the terrorist organisation ‘Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan’, which has extensive ties with Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad and Libyan Jamaat. He allegedly took part in recruiting and training terrorists, smuggling extremist material into Uzbekistan, organising gatherings where extremist material, including video and audio recordings, were viewed and distributed, fundraising for terrorist acts, training recruits in using firearms and hand-grenades, and facilitating illegal border crossings by the leaders of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. The Uzbek authorities further contended that members of the above-mentioned group had been involved in terrorist acts that had taken place in Khanabad and Andizhan on 25 and 26 May 2009.\n18.  On 27 January 2009 the Andizhan Criminal Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The order was issued in absentia and the reasons given were the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the fact that he could not be located. On the same day an investigator issued an international search and arrest warrant against him.\n19.  In March 2010 the Uzbek investigative authorities sent a notification to the Ministry of Internal Affairs Anti-Extremism Department in the Orenburg Region that according to their intelligence, the applicant was living in the region.\n20.  On 10 March 2010 the applicant’s name and his two aliases were put in the ‘RM’ public transport search and identification system. The record mentioned his alleged association with radical and extremist organisations.\n21.  On 11 June 2012 the ‘RM’ system registered the sale of a ticket for a passenger train going from Moscow to Bishkek. The ticket had been bought under the applicant’s assumed name, which he used in his Russian passport. An alert was sent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs.\n22.  On 13 June 2012 at approximately 2.45 a.m. the applicant was apprehended at Orenburg railway station by officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Anti-Extremism Department and Federal Security Service (FSB). During the initial identity check, he used his Russian passport bearing an assumed name.\n23.  After the applicant’s true identity had been established, an ‘express interview’ was conducted with him by Orenburg’s assistant transport prosecutor, Mr M. The applicant stated during the interview that he had fled Uzbekistan after learning that he was suspected of taking part in watching extremist material, while his prosecution was actually politically motivated.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8289", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961. When lodging his application, he was detained in Hagen Prison. He was released on 12 July 2011.\n6.  On 18 October 2007 the Aachen District Court authorised criminal investigations against S. and five other persons (not including the applicant) to be conducted by up to five undercover police officers, in accordance with Article 110a § 1 no. 1 and Article 110b § 2 no. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraphs 24-25 below). Criminal investigation proceedings on suspicion of drug trafficking had previously been instituted against the six suspects. Prior to the District Court’s order, the police’s suspicion against the suspects had been confirmed, in particular, by information obtained via telephone tapping and police surveillance of the suspects.\n7.  The police decided to attempt to establish contacts between S. and the undercover agents via the applicant, a good friend of S. and business partner for real estate transactions. The applicant, who had no criminal record, was not, at that time, suspected of any involvement in drug trafficking.\n8.  From 16 November 2007 onwards, two undercover police officers, P. and D., established contacts with the applicant. They visited him in the restaurant he ran and pretended to be interested in purchasing real property for running a club. In the following weeks the applicant made a number of offers of real property to the undercover agents and visited the estates with them.\n9.  The applicant subsequently established contacts between the two undercover agents and S. for organising an international contraband trade in cigarettes after one of the undercover agents had pretended to have a suitable lorry at hand for transporting the cigarettes abroad. S. refused, however, to communicate directly with undercover agent P. by telephone and proposed to further communicate via the applicant. When undercover agent D. disclosed to the applicant on 23 January 2008 that he considered that the risk of being caught with smuggling cigarettes was too high compared to the possible profits, the applicant disclosed that they (that is, S. and others and himself) would also traffic in cocaine and amphetamine. He stated that he did not want to be involved in the drug trafficking itself, but would only draw commissions. The undercover agents showed interest in transporting and purchasing drugs.\n10.  However, on 1 February 2008 the applicant, having been telephoned by undercover agent P., explained to P. that he was no longer interested in any business other than the restaurant he ran.\n11.  On 7 February 2008 the Aachen District Court, having regard to the applicant’s submissions to undercover agent D. on 23 January 2008, extended the court order of 18 October 2007 authorising investigations so as to cover also the applicant.\n12.  On 8 February 2008 undercover agent P. visited the applicant in his restaurant and dispersed the applicant’s suspicions against the undercover agents as well as his fear of having to serve a prison sentence in case the drug deal was discovered. The applicant thereupon continued arranging two purchases of drugs (cocaine and amphetamine) by the undercover agents from S. on 16 February 2008 (10 kilograms of amphetamine paste and 40 grams of cocaine) and on 12 March 2008 (some 250 kilograms of amphetamine paste). On the latter day, the applicant and S. were arrested after the delivery of the drugs to the undercover agents. The applicant would have received a com", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8290", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Sokal Prison no. 47 in the Lviv region.\n6.  In February 2000 the applicant was detained on suspicion of several counts of robbery and a murder. He claimed that he had been beaten by the police.\n7.  On 13 September 2000 the Zaporizhzhya Regional Court (“the Zaporizhzhya Court”), sitting as a court of first instance, found the applicant guilty as charged. It sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder and considered that the prison terms for the other crimes were absorbed by the life sentence. The court dismissed the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment as unsubstantiated.\n8.  On 21 December 2000 the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment.\n9.  On 30 October 2009 the Supreme Court reviewed the applicant’s case under an extraordinary procedure and commuted his sentence to fifteen years’ imprisonment. It reasoned that life imprisonment had not been listed as a possible penalty in the Criminal Code on the date when the murder for which the applicant had been sentenced had been committed.\n10.  On 6 December 2001 the applicant was transferred to Vinnytsya Prison no. 1, which had a section for life prisoners, to serve his sentence. That prison is located some 700 kilometres from Zaporizhzhya, where the applicant had been living before his detention and where his mother lived. The train journey from Zaporizhzhya to Vinnytsya takes from twelve to sixteen hours.\n11.  On numerous occasions the applicant and his mother, Mrs Kapiton, who acted on his behalf as his representative under a power of attorney, asked the State Department of Ukraine for the Enforcement of Sentences (“the Prison Department”) to transfer the applicant to a prison closer to his home to make it easier for her to visit him. They drew attention, in particular, to the long travel time from Zaporizhzhya to Vinnytsya by public transport, which was very burdensome for Mrs Kapiton given her advanced age (born in 1938) and poor health (she had been officially certified “second-degree” (medium) disabled).\n12.  On 10 June and 15 September 2004 the Prison Department replied to the applicant’s mother that her request had been rejected, since “in accordance with the legislation in force, convicted prisoners must serve their entire sentence in the same prison”.\n13.  On 29 October 2004 Mrs Kapiton arrived at Vinnytsya Prison to visit the applicant. During the visit she fainted and was provided with medical assistance for low blood pressure. Her meeting with the applicant was not resumed once she had recovered, on the recommendation of a medical professional.\n14.  On many subsequent occasions Mrs Kapiton continued to contact various authorities on her own and the applicant’s behalf, requesting his transfer to a prison closer to his home to enable her to visit him. She always enclosed with her requests the medical certificate confirming her disability and her doctor’s advice not to travel outside the Zaporizhzhya region.\n15.  All Mrs Kapiton’s requests were rejected. On numerous occasions (on 2, 12 and 18 November 2004, and on 12 February, 21 and 24 March 2005) the Prison Department repeated its previous reasoning, referring to the legal requirement that prisoners must serve their entire prison term in the same establishment.\n16.  On 17 March 2006 the Prison Department informed the applicant’s mother that her request could not be granted because no places were available for life prisoners in establishment", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8291", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1943, 1937 and 1965 respectively and live in Skopje.\n6.  In 1950 two plots of land (former plots nos. 100 and 102) were confiscated from the late Mr K.S., the applicants’ predecessor, and a third person. The land was divided into several new plots, which were renumbered in accordance with the new land register (нов премер). A new plot, no. 2943/6, comprising both the former plots nos. 100 and 102, was created. Two separate sets of restitution proceedings concerning the former plots nos. 100 and 102 respectively – both including parts of plot no. 2943/6 – were instituted by ten individuals (“the claimants”) in respect of property confiscated from their predecessor and by the applicants in respect of property confiscated from Mr K.S.\n7.  On 7 December 2001 the claimants submitted a request to the Restitution Commission of the Ministry of Finance (“the Restitution Commission”) for the restitution of several plots (those comprising former plot no.100) – including part of plot no. 2943/6, the surface area of which was 2,260 sq. m. – that had been confiscated from their late predecessor. On 24 June 2002 the Restitution Commission granted the restitution claim in the relevant part and returned the relevant part of plot no. 2943/6 to the claimants. The restitution order was based on the report – dated 22 February 2002 – of an on-site examination carried out on 20 February 2002 by three representatives of the competent body within the Ministry of Finance. In the relevant part, the restitution order stated that:\n“...an on-site inspection of plots nos. 2943/3 and 2943/6 was carried out... and established that the land in question was undeveloped building land, but that preliminary construction work had been undertaken, the legal basis of which should be determined”.\n8.  The relevant parts of the report of 22 February 2002, which was submitted in the case-file, stated inter alia:\n“The former plot no. 100 comprised parts of new plots nos. 2943/3 and 2943/6 and 6798 on which preparatory construction work had begun: on the day the examination was carried out, the construction site was fenced off and initial digging had started ...\nAccording to cadastral records (катастарот на недвижности), plots nos. 2943/3 and 2943/6 are recorded in land register (имотен лист) no. 30165 as an orchard ... and as undeveloped building land belonging to (a company) G.D.\nSince preparatory construction work has begun on the site and there is no information as to its legal basis, we consider that the [Restitution Commission] should examine the circumstances in order to decide whether the land in question could be returned or not, given the fact that no buildings have been constructed on the plot.”\n9.  After the restitution order had become final, the public prosecutor and the Solicitor General (Јавен Правобранител) requested that the Government Appeal Commission (“the Appeal Commission”) declare it null and void (барање за огласување ништовно) in the part concerning plots nos. 2943/3 and 2943/6. On 20 November 2003 the Appeal Commission granted the requests, finding that plot no. 2943/6 could not be returned to the claimants since 1) a building permit for the construction of a petrol station had been issued on 16 May 2001 (it became final on 2 June 2001), namely, before the restitution claim was submitted and 2) according to an on-site examination carried out on 22 February 2002, construction work had started on the plot in question.\n10.  On ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8292", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Togliatti, in the Samara Region.\n6.  On 31 August 2004 the applicant was arrested in his flat on suspicion of drug-related offences after a “test purchase” of heroin, which involved his girlfriend, Ms P., acting on instructions from State agents, and which was supervised by the police.\n7.  During the arrest the police officers pushed the applicant to the floor and handcuffed him. After the arrest the applicant was taken to the police station. In his submission, he stated that he had been beaten up by officers R. and K. in the presence of their superior S. and other unspecified officers throughout the evening and night until 5 a.m. the next day. During the interrogations the applicant’s hands were allegedly attached to a radiator with handcuffs while the officers beat and kicked him. The applicant also alleged that a plastic bag had been put over his head to restrict his air supply; the officers subjected the applicant to insults and threatened to kill him if he refused to confess.\n8.  It remains unclear at precisely what time after his arrest the applicant was placed in the temporary detention facility of the Togliatti police department (“the IVS”).\n9.  On 1 September 2004 a medical certificate was issued confirming that the applicant had a chest injury.\n10.  On 2 September 2004 a judge authorised the applicant’s continued detention on suspicion of drug trafficking.\n11.  On 3 September 2004 the IVS personnel arranged for the applicant to be examined by a traumatologist. On the same date the traumatologist diagnosed the applicant with a closed rib fracture.\n12.  On 6 September 2004 the applicant complained to the Avtozavodskiy district prosecutor’s office of Togliatti (“the prosecutor’s office”) about his ill-treatment, first in Ms P.’s flat and then in the police station (his letters nos. 57/13-1116 and 57/13-1117).\n13.  On 13 September 2004 an investigator from the prosecutor’s office instituted a preliminary criminal inquiry. It was claimed that the applicant’s complaint had been received on 13 September 2004.\n14.  On 23 September 2004 the investigator from the prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of any criminal event. The decision referred to the applicant’s account of events, according to which two police officers had beaten and kicked him repeatedly in his flat; to depositions by several police officers, who all claimed that the applicant had resisted arrest and had then been handcuffed but had not been beaten at any time; to statements by four of the applicant’s fellow inmates in the IVS, who submitted that the applicant “had not looked like someone with a broken rib”; and to the testimony of Ms P., who stated that the applicant had tried to jump out of the window during the arrest but had been handcuffed. The decision further referred to a registration log maintained by the IVS – in which it was stated that the applicant had arrived at the facility in good health but with an abrasion on his knee – and to the traumatologist’s examination of 3 September 2004 confirming that the applicant had had a rib fractured. The investigator concluded that the applicant had been injured “under unknown circumstances”.\n15.  On 11 December 2004 the Avtozavodskiy District Court of Togliatti (“the district court”) convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 Russian roubles. Despite ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8293", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Chisinau, Moldova.\n7.  On 28 October 2006 the applicant married Ms E.P., also a national of Moldova. On 15 June 2007 she gave birth to their son, A.P. At some point relations between the couple deteriorated. As was established by the Moldovan courts in subsequent proceedings, on 24 June 2008 Ms E.P. moved to the town of Cahul, in Moldova, where her parents lived. The boy, A.P., went with her.\n8.  On 22 August 2008 Ms E.P. initiated divorce proceedings before the Rîșcani District Court of Chisinau. She also sought a residence order in her favour in respect of A.P. On 25 September 2008 the applicant filed a counterclaim seeking a residence order in his favour in respect of the child.\n9.  On 13 September 2008, while the proceedings were still pending, Ms E.P. left Moldova with the child and settled in Moscow, Russia.\n10.  On 1 October 2008 the court fixed a contact schedule, pursuant to which the applicant was to be allowed to visit his son.\n11.  On 10 October 2008 the applicant sought a court order prohibiting Ms E.P. from leaving the country with the child without his consent. On the same date the court granted the order sought by the applicant. An interim restraining order was issued with immediate effect.\n12.  On 28 October 2008 Ms E.P., by letter, informed the court and the police that she was opposed to any contact between the applicant and their son. Her letter was certified by a notary public in Moscow.\n13.  On 31 October 2008 Ms E.P. obtained a certificate of “temporary residence registration” with the Russian Immigration Authority in Moscow. In the following months she went through this process several times, obtaining such a certificate for the last time on 26 June 2009.\n14.  In the following months Ms E.P. did not take part in the proceedings before the Moldovan courts; however, she was represented by a lawyer.\n15.  On an unspecified date the applicant contacted the Moldovan police in order to establish the whereabouts of the child. According to a written reply from the police dated 10 March 2009 (which was apparently based on information provided by Ms E.P.’s parents), the applicant’s son was living with his mother at an address on Nag. Street in Moscow.\n16.  According to the applicant, on 27 April 2009 Ms E.P. returned to Moldova with the boy. During their stay in Moldova she allowed the applicant to see the child twice. During one of the visits Ms E.P. informed the applicant that she was living with a new partner, Mr A.G., in Moscow and that she had told her son that Mr A.G. was his father.\n17.  On 12 May 2009 Ms E.P. left for Russia again, taking the child with her.\n18.  On the same date the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Russian police, seeking the institution of criminal proceedings against Ms E.P. for abduction of their child. A police officer of the Teplyi Stan Police Department questioned Ms E.P. and Mr A.G., and established that Ms E.P. was not preventing the applicant from seeing his son. The police officer concluded that the situation was within the jurisdiction of the civil courts and that there was no need for the criminal prosecution of Ms E.P.\n19.  The applicant contacted the Russian police and asked them to verify whether the child and the mother were in fact living at the address on Nag. Street. On 24 June 2009 and 29 December 2010 the Russian police informed the applicant that, according to their information, Ms E.P. and her son were not living a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8294", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently serving a sentence in Daugavgrīva Prison.\n6.  On 23 August 2010 criminal proceedings were initiated concerning a burglary. On 1 September 2010 they were joined to another set of proceedings concerning another burglary.\n7.  On 3 September 2010 the applicant was officially declared a suspect.\n8.  On 6 September 2010, following a request from the police, an investigating judge of the Daugavpils Court issued a warrant for his arrest and detention. The decision reads as follows:\n“The judge, having examined the case material, the arguments of the [investigative authority] and the attorney’s opinion, considers that the request is justified and should be granted.\nSection 241(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law sets out the grounds for the application of a procedural compulsory measure, namely a person’s resistance to the reaching of the aim of criminal proceedings in specific proceedings or to the performance of a separate procedural action, or non-execution or improper execution of his or her procedural duties.\nIn accordance with section 272(1) of the Criminal Procedure Law a person may be detained only if specific factual information obtained in the course of criminal proceedings creates a reasonable suspicion that the person in question has committed a criminal offence, for which the law provides for a custodial sentence, and if no other preventive measure can ensure that they will not commit another criminal offence or obstruct or avoid the pre-trial proceedings, trial or execution of the sentence.\nSection 12(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law provides that human rights may be restricted only in cases where such restriction is required for public safety reasons and according to the nature and danger of the criminal offence.\nOn 3 September 2013 the [applicant] was declared a suspect of a criminal offence proscribed by section 175(3) of the Criminal Law. Information obtained in the course of criminal proceedings excludes reasonable doubt about his implication in a serious criminal offence. The only possible sanction for commission of this crime is a custodial sentence.\nIt follows from the case material that the [applicant] has declared [to the domestic authorities] his place of residence as [address of Daugavgrīva Prison] in Daugavpils. The case material also contains [a document from another set of criminal proceedings] with [his] signature, whereby he undertakes an obligation to reside at [a particular address] in Daugavpils. On 25 August 2010 the [investigating authority] sent a notice to that address for the [applicant] to appear at a police station on 27 August 2010. On a copy of that notice the investigator has made a note that the [applicant] failed to appear at the allotted time and did not inform [anyone] about the reasons for his absence. On 2 September 2010 a decision was made to forcibly escort the [applicant] to the [investigating authority] on 3 September 2010, but [this decision] could not be executed since the [applicant] was not living at [that particular address]. Police officers verified on several occasions other possible places where the applicant might be, but it was impossible to find him or where he might be; this is evidenced by the police officers’ reports of 4 and 7 August 2010. Information has been obtained in the course of the criminal proceedings that the [applicant] is renting an apartment in the [name of a particular street] area of Daugavpils, but the specific add", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8295", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Formigine (Italy). The second and third applicants were born in 2003 and 2004 respectively and apparently live with their mother in Budakeszi (Hungary) or somewhere nearby.\n7.  In June 2004 the first applicant’s then wife, whom he had married in 2002 and who is the mother of the second and third applicants, took the second and third applicants from Italy, where the family was living, to Hungary.\n8.  In August 2004 the first applicant travelled to Hungary. The family was supposed to return to Italy but the first applicant’s wife refused to leave and the first applicant returned to Italy alone.\n9.  In December 2004 the first applicant joined his family in Hungary for the Christmas holidays and his wife again refused to return to Italy with him and kept the children with her.\n10.  In February 2005 the first applicant wrote to his wife requesting that she return to Italy with their daughters.\n11.  On 3 March 2005 the first applicant asked the Italian Ministry of Justice to initiate proceedings for the return of the children to Italy. On 23 March 2005 he also instigated proceedings before the Court of Modena (Italy) for separation from his wife and the return of his daughters to Italy.\n12.  On 25 April 2005 his wife started parallel divorce proceedings before the Buda Surroundings District Court.\n13.  On 2 May 2012, the applicants lodged a complaint before the European Commission alleging a violation of Article 11 of the Council Regulation (EC) no. 2201 of 2003 concerning Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and Matters of Parental Responsibility (“the EU Regulation on Recognition of Judgments”), which is still pending.\n14.  In 2011 the marriage between the first applicant and his ex-wife was annulled (see paragraph 26 below). As at the date of introduction of the present application, the first applicant had been unable to see his daughters since 2005.\n15.  On 25 August 2005 the Pest Central District Court found that the first applicant’s ex-wife was keeping the children in Hungary illegally, in violation of Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention”). However, it considered that given their young age, the children needed to be cared for by their mother and therefore refused to order their return to Italy.\n16.  On 9 November 2005 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the decision of the Pest Central District Court and ordered that the children be returned to Italy by 10 December 2005 at the latest, but this failed to happen.\n17.  An enforcement order was issued against the first applicant’s ex-wife by the Buda Surroundings District Court on 26 April 2006 and upheld by the Pest County Regional Court on 5 September 2006. The decision was not enforced.\n18.  On 5 February 2007 the Buda Surroundings District Court ordered the enforcement of the decision of 9 November 2005, this time with the assistance of the police. Again, the decision was not enforced.\n19.  On 21 July 2010, following the issue of a European arrest warrant by the Italian authorities, the first applicant’s ex-wife was arrested by the Hungarian police but was released shortly thereafter with no progress having been made regarding a possible return of the second and third applicants to Italy.\n20.  On 14 October 2011, she was sentenced in absentia by the Buda Surroundings District Court to a 200-day fine for illegally ch", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8296", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Craiova. He was, at the time of the events, a lecturer at Craiova University.\n6.  On 8 September 2001 the local newspaper Republica Oltenia published an article entitled “Feature story on sex-blackmail professor” (“Poveste de lung metraj cu un professor de sex-şantaj”). The article, written by R.C., was illustrated by two photographs showing a man and a woman naked and having sex. The man’s face was not visible. On the photographs were the handwritten words “the man in the photos is Ion Cârstea, university as.[sistant] at the electrotechnical faculty”. One of the photographs also appeared at the top of the front page of the newspaper.\n7.  The article started by mentioning that the man in the photographs was a university professor, an important person in society, who was involved in bribery, blackmail, child sex abuse and sexual deviance, the details of which would be given in the article.\n8.  The article continued by stating that in 1992 the applicant’s students had complained to the university dean that he was not very friendly during sessions and used to demand money from them. The applicant was also branded as litigious, because he had three trials pending before the courts, two of them brought with the purpose of contesting decisions taken by his university superiors.\n9.  Further on, the article contained the following statements:\nSex pervert, criminal, blackmailer\nIn 1982 a girl, so young that she was not even eighteen, got pregnant. Abortion being illegal, she decided to ask her second cousin, a university assistant at the time, to help her find a doctor. The cousin took advantage of the girl’s desperate situation. He might have told her that he would tell her mother if she did not let him “taste” her at least once. The atmosphere at the time may be inferred from the black and white photos attached. They were taken ... by the cousin himself. Apparently, even from a young age, Ion Cârstea had unorthodox habits. After satisfying his needs, Cârstea remembered that in fact he could not help his cousin, and advised her to sell some jewellery in order to raise money for a doctor. To develop the photos, Cârstea appealed to a repeat student and amateur photographer ... “In your fourth or fifth year you will have an exam with me and won’t pass” Cârstea said, according to the photographer. The student gave in to the blackmail, but after developing only gave Cârstea 24 photos instead of 36. The gesture had its logic, because in 1990, when our student managed to proceed to the fifth year, Cârstea tried to raise the stakes, by asking for a non-reimbursable loan of 130 [German] marks to pass an exam. The student was upset and went to the prosecutor’s office: “I made a complaint to the prosecutor’s office in [19]90, accusing him of blackmail. I submitted the relevant evidence, namely the first [set of] photos, because he later came to me with six more films, also porn ... the prosecutor said that we were dealing with a university professor and should leave him alone, not amplify the case.\nWax in the ears at the dean’s office\nWhy not amplify the case? We’ll tell you: because between Cârstea and M.I., the University dean, there is a special relationship, which might also be based on blackmail ... We know that [M.]I. sold Cârstea a flat, but this doesn’t say much. That would be another case of blackmail, because we heard that Cârstea’s obsession with audio-video recordings remained unchanged ... As fo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8298", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957. He is currently detained in Timişoara Prison.\n6.  On 28 December 2009 the Cluj Directorate for Investigating and Combating Organised Crime and Terrorism (“DIICOT”) charged the applicant with aggravated fraud and organising a criminal group, and placed him in police custody for twenty-four hours.\n7.  By an interlocutory judgment of 29 December 2009 the Cluj County Court allowed a request by DIICOT to detain the applicant pending trial for thirty days. On the same date he was detained in the Cluj Police Department. His pre-trial detention was subsequently extended to cover the entire duration of his trial.\n8.  By a judgment of 5 December 2011 the Cluj County Court convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud and organising a criminal group, and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. The judgment remained final, after the Cluj Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the applicant on 29 May 2012 and the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by him on points of law (recurs) on 24 September 2012.\n9.  In his initial letters to the Court, the applicant contended, without providing details, that during the criminal investigation opened against him in 2009 he had been beaten up by police officers.\n10.  On 17 June 2010 he brought civil proceedings against the Romanian Ministries of Finance and Justice seeking financial compensation for inadequate medical treatment during his pre-trial detention. In his written submissions he also stated that he had been subjected to violence after his arrest.\n11.  By a final judgment of 7 January 2011 the Cluj County Court dismissed the proceedings as inadmissible on the grounds that it was not competent ratione loci to examine his claim. It referred the case to the Bihor County Court.\n12.  By a judgment of 31 October 2011 the Bihor County Court dismissed the proceedings on the grounds that the statute of limitations for his claim had taken effect. In addition, the Romanian Ministries of Finance and Justice lacked the locus standi to be sued. There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against the judgment.\n13.   In his letters to the Court, the applicant contended that in Aiud, Gherla, Rahova, Jilava, Slobozia, Dej and Miercurea-Ciuc Prisons he had been forced to share cells with between thirty and forty-five smokers, even though he was a non-smoker. They had been noisy and violent. Also, he would constantly be transferred from one prison to another, sometimes for distances of up to 400 kilometres in a vehicle with between thirty and forty detainees, who would smoke, eat and be noisy. Moreover, he had not been provided with adequate medical care during his pre-trial detention.\n14.  Between 8 January and 3 March 2010 the applicant was detained on several occasions in Dej Prison Hospital for a total of thirty-nine days, in non-smoking cells. He was afforded between 4 and 5.62 sq. m of living space, and was provided with adequate medical treatment for his condition.\n15.  Between 3 February 2010 and 18 January 2011 he was detained in Gherla Prison on several occasions for a total of two hundred and seventy‑four days, in non-smoking cells. For sixty-three days of his detention he was afforded 5.31 sq. m of living space. For the remaining period he was afforded between 2.06 and 3.43 sq. m of living space.\n16.  Between 10 and 15 February 2010 the applicant was detained on two occasions in Jilava Prison for a total of four days, in non-smoking cells. For most of his", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8299", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is a Polish national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Będzin.\n7.  The parties gave partly different descriptions of certain facts of the case concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention and the “dangerous detainee” regime (see paragraphs 54-57 and 68-75 below). The remaining facts were not in dispute.\n8.  On 27 December 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery.\n9.  On 29 December 2000 the Sosnowiec District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed robbery, theft and had caused bodily harm, acting with two other persons. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence. In that respect, it was noted that the applicant had threatened the victims in order to stop them from informing the police of the offences allegedly committed and from testifying against him. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.\n10.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on 31 January and 19 March 2001. In their detention decisions, the courts repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention.\n11.  On 13 June 2001 the Sosnowiec District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Sosnowiec District Court. The applicant, together with two co-accused, was charged with robbery, two counts of theft and causing bodily harm.\n12.  During the court proceedings the authorities further extended the applicant’s detention pending trial on 26 June and 6 December 2001, 8 March, 26 July, 22 November and 18 December 2002 and again on 29 January 2003. The courts repeated the grounds previously given for his continued detention.\n13.  On 28 February 2003 the Sosnowiec District Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment.\n14.  The applicant appealed. He was held in detention pending appeal for the subsequent months.\n15.  On 23 April 2004 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) heard the applicant’s appeal. It quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.\n16.  The courts further extended the applicant’s detention on 10 May, 23 July, 27 September and 11 October 2004, relying on the initial grounds.\n17.  On 22 November 2004 the District Court decided that the applicant’s detention should be replaced by police supervision (dozór policji) but he was not released and remained in custody under a detention order given in the second set of criminal proceedings against him (see paragraph 23 below).\n18.  On 27 January 2006 the Sosnowiec District Court again convicted the applicant as charged but mitigated the sentence to 5 years’ imprisonment. The period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 27 December 2000 to 23 November 2004 was deducted from the sentence.\n19.  On 26 October 2006 the Katowice Regional Court upheld the first‑instance judgment.\n20.  From 7 December 2006 to 10 January 2008 the applicant served the prison sentence following his conviction of 27 January 2006.\n21.  On 26 April 2004 the applicant was charged with robbery and battery committed in an organised criminal group.\n22.  On 28 April 2004 the Katowice District Court remanded the applicant in custody for three months relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It also considered that keeping th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8300", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Barcelos (Portugal).\n5.  On 21 September 2007 the applicant lodged a request to be granted permanent disability with respect to work before the Public Prosecutor of the Barcelos Labour Court as a consequence of a labour accident that he had suffered (domestic proceedings no. 697/07.0TTBCL).\n6.  Following the applicant’s request, the Public Prosecutor initiated the conciliatory stage of the proceedings with a view to an agreement between the parties.\n7.  On 12 February 2008 the applicant was submitted to a medical examination in accordance with a Public Prosecutor’s order. After the examination, other medical specialty exams were requested by the Public Prosecutor.\n8.  The hearing with a view to the agreement took place on 19 January and continued on 26 February 2009. On this date the conciliatory stage ended without an agreement between the parties.\n9.  On 18 March 2009 the applicant requested the Barcelos Labour Court to continue with the judicial stage of the proceedings against the insurance company and his employer.\n10.  Between 12 May 2009 and 18 April 2010 several procedural steps took place, mostly notifications, a preliminary hearing, medical examinations and provision of information from the parties and others to the Labour Court.\n11.  The hearing started on 7 May 2010 and continued on 11 and 18 October 2010.\n12.  On 16 November 2010 the Barcelos Labour Court delivered its decision, which was challenged by the applicant’s employer.\n13.  On 30 January 2012 the Court of Appeal adopted its decision. The applicant appealed against it.\n14.  On 30 January 2013 the proceedings ended with the judgement of the Supreme Court of Justice.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8301", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lived in Solnechnogorsk of the Moscow Region prior to his arrest.\n5.  Between 30 June 2011 and 13 June 2012 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-50/3 in the Moscow Region in connection with the criminal proceedings against him. The prison was overcrowded. Thus, cell 29 measuring 30 sq. m was equipped with 10 sleeping places and accommodated up to 15 inmates. In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted statements by two cellmates and a plan of the cell he had drawn up.\n6.  On 9 December 2011 the Balashikha Town Court of the Moscow Region found the applicant guilty of drug-related offences and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment.\n7.  On 16 December 2011 the applicant lodged a preliminary statement of appeal. The full statement was introduced on 29 December 2011 and contained the following paragraph:\n“I request that the appeal complaint be examined in my absence”.\n8.  On 21 February 2012 the Moscow Regional Court held an appeal hearing and upheld the conviction. The applicant was absent from the hearing, but his counsel was present and made oral submissions.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8302", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Kyiv.\n6.  On 24 August 2011, as part of the Independence Day festivities, there was a wreath-laying ceremony at a monument to Taras Shevchenko, a famous Ukrainian poet and public figure, with the participation of the then President of Ukraine Mr Yanukovych.\n7.  The applicant, as a member of the opposition party Batkivshchyna, took part in a public gathering organised by it on the occasion of Independence Day. According to her, the beginning of the meeting was delayed because of the aforementioned wreath-laying ceremony.\n8.  After the ceremony the applicant approached the wreath laid by Mr Yanukovych and detached part of the ribbon bearing the words “the President of Ukraine V.F.Yanukovych” without damaging the wreath itself. This was meant to express her opinion that Mr Yanukovych could not be called the President of Ukraine for a number of reasons.\n9.  The case file contains several copies of photos of the applicant in the aforementioned setting. In four of them she is seen near the wreath detaching the ribbon from it in a careful and concentrated manner, without changing the position of the wreath. In another photo the applicant holds the already detached ribbon in front of her and seems to be either laughing or saying something. There are many people next to her. In the last photo the applicant seems to be trying to tear the ribbon apart. Her face expresses either effort or contempt.\n10.  The applicant’s action was video recorded by one of the police officers in charge of maintaining public order. The aforementioned photos may also have been taken by the police.\n11.  On the same day the police officer in question established the applicant’s identity and reported the incident to his superiors.\n12.  On 25 August 2011 the applicant was apprehended (for less than three hours – see paragraph 16 below) and taken to the Shevchenkivskyy district police station, where a report was drawn up indicating that her actions amounted to petty hooliganism in breach of Article 173 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicant, who was not allowed to consult a lawyer, refused to sign that report.\n13.  On 30 August 2011 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv, at a hearing attended by the applicant and the lawyer retained by her in the meantime, found the applicant guilty of petty hooliganism on account of the incident of 24 August 2011 and sentenced her to ten days’ administrative detention. The court explained that it had decided to apply such a penalty given the nature of the offence, the applicant’s cynical attitude towards it and her failure of admit her guilt. The applicant submitted at the hearing that she had been expressing her civil position and that she had not damaged the wreath, but had merely taken a piece of the ribbon to show her children and grandchildren and also her acquaintances who had voted for Mr Yanukovych.\n14.  On the same day the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal on her behalf. He argued that the applicant’s action had been an expression of her civil position and that it had been neither prompted by hooligan motives nor aimed at disturbing public order or breaching the peace. The appeal further referred to Article 10 of the Convention and the Court’s case-law, according to which the notion of “expression” concerned not only words, but also actions intended to convey a certain message or information. Referring to paragraph 16 of Resolution of the Plenary Supreme Court n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8303", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kursk.\n6.  On 16 December 2008 the applicant, a high-ranking police officer at the time, was arrested on suspicion of misappropriation of funds and abuse of power.\n7.  On 17 December 2008 the applicant was charged with abuse of power and fraud.\n8.  On 18 December 2008 the Leninskiy District Court of Kursk authorised the applicant’s detention pending investigation. The court noted, in particular, as follows:\n“It follows from the materials submitted that the investigating authorities have grounds to charge the applicant with [abuse of power and fraud] which entail a custodial sentence exceeding two years.\n...\nWhen deciding to remand [the applicant] in custody, the court also takes into account that the circumstances justifying deprivation of liberty are reasonable suspicion [that the applicant committed the offences he is charged with] and the investigator’s argument that, if at large, [the applicant] would put pressure on witnesses, attempt to destroy evidence and interfere with the investigation.\nThe investigating authorities consider that, if at large, [the applicant] might put pressure on witnesses. This fact was confirmed by witness Sp., who stated that [the applicant] and B. wilfully and knowingly kept him in an office [at the regional migration service] from 5 p.m. on 7 November 2008 to 0:30 a.m. on 8 November 2008 in order to make him change his testimony, write an explanation and tender his resignation ...\nWitness V. submitted that ... [the applicant] had put pressure on him. [The applicant] ordered an internal inquiry in respect of V. allegedly for V.’s failure to prepare certain documents. On 3 December 2008 ... [the applicant] removed V. from office.\nFurthermore, it follows from the materials submitted that, according to Sp., on 8 November 2011, after he had left the building of [the regional migration service] he had been assaulted and sustained bodily injuries ... When questioned, Sp. submitted that the assault, in his opinion, had been connected with the criminal investigation against [the applicant] and Sp.’s testimony [against him].\nFollowing complaints lodged by Sp. and V., who feared for their lives, the investigating authorities considered including the said witnesses in the state protection programme.\nFurthermore, it follows from the materials ... submitted by the investigating authorities that [the applicant] had attempted to hide documents ... prevent witnesses from being questioned ... and reconcile testimonies in order to evade criminal liability. This has been confirmed by the materials obtained in the course of interception of the [applicant’s] telephone communications.\nFurthermore, [the court] accepts as substantiated the argument made by the investigating authorities that [the applicant] had attempted to influence the investigation in order to evade criminal liability. He is currently head of [the regional migration service], and for a long time has been in charge of [the regional department of the interior]. Because of his position, he has connections in law enforcement and could interfere with the preliminary investigation by putting pressure on witnesses who report to him and who have not been questioned yet.\n...\nRegard being had to the above, the court accepts the argument of the investigating authorities that, if at large, [the applicant] who is charged with [serious] criminal offences, would continue putting pressure on witnesses and other parties to the pr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8304", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were both targeted in undercover operations designed to investigate bribe-taking launched by the police under sections 6 and 8 of the Operational-Search Activities Act of 12 August 1995 (no. 144-FZ).\n6.  The facts of each individual criminal case, as submitted by the parties, are summarised below. The factual details of the undercover operations are not in dispute and the applicants admitted that they had received the money in return for promises to render certain services. However, the applicants contested the Government’s position as to the reasons for the undercover operations and the circumstances leading to them. In particular, they contended that they had accepted the money only because the police had incited them to do so, and they would not have done it under any other circumstances.\n7.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Zarechnyy, in the Penza Region. At the time of her arrest, she was working as a dermatologist‑venerologist in the outpatient unit of the municipal hospital in Zarechnyy.\n8.  According to the Government, the police in Zarechnyy received confidential operational information implicating the applicant in the illegal acceptance of money for issuing and extending false sick-leave certificates. On 19 November 2007 it was decided to conduct an undercover operation targeting the applicant, with the aim of documenting her illegal activity. The police proposed Ms A. to participate in the operation as their agent.\n9.  According to the applicant, she had not been implicated in any bribe‑taking prior to the operation and the police had had no grounds to suspect her. On 20 November 2007 her colleague and former fellow classmate from medical school, X, had come to her office while she was seeing patients. He had been accompanied by a young woman, Ms A. He had asked the applicant to provide Ms A. with a sick-leave certificate as she had herpes on her leg. The applicant had examined the woman, confirmed the diagnosis, prescribed treatment and issued the sick-leave certificate. The applicant thought that she had recognised Ms A. as the mother of a girl she had treated on a previous occasion. On 23 November 2007 Ms A. had come to the applicant’s office by herself and the applicant had agreed to extend her sick-leave as her condition had not yet been cured. Ms A. had been given the certificate and had handed 500 roubles (RUB – 11 euros (EUR)) to the applicant. The applicant had taken the money as she thought that Ms A. was offering it as a token of appreciation for having successfully treated her daughter previously. Immediately after Ms A. had left, the police had entered the applicant’s office and asked her and the nurses who were present to show them all the money in their possession. The applicant had taken out her wallet and while the police were searching the office she had remembered about the money that Ms A. had given her. She had become frightened and had moved the money from the pocket of her uniform into her left boot, where the police eventually discovered it.\n10.  On 26 May 2008 the Zarechenskiy Town Court of the Penza Region examined the applicant’s case. The applicant admitted that she had taken the money because she had thought of it as a gift from a grateful patient. She maintained that the police had incited her to accept the money. In particular, they had sent their agent to her office together with a colleague of hers whom she had known well since their student years in medical schoo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8305", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company is a Portuguese limited liability company. The second and third applicants are the applicant company’s managing partners (see Annex for details).\n5.  On 17 September 1999 the Porto Criminal Department for Investigation and Prosecution (Departamento de Acção e Investigação Penal) started an investigation into the applicant company’s fiscal activity between 1994 and 1997.\n6.  Following the investigation, two sets of fiscal criminal proceedings were instituted before the Porto and Barcelos Criminal Courts.\n7.  On 20 December 1999 the applicants were made defendants (arguidos) in both sets of proceedings.\n8.  On 5 November 2003 the public prosecutor brought charges (acusação) against the applicant company and third applicant in the Porto Criminal Court for tax fraud in relation to activities dating back to 1997, when the applicant company was registered in Porto.\n9.  On 27 September 2005 the trial began. The hearing was adjourned to October and then to 27 March 2006 due to the absence of some of the defence witnesses.\n10.  On the day of the hearing, the applicant company’s and third applicant’s representative resigned. The hearing was adjourned pending his replacement.\n11.  In June 2006 the applicant company and third applicant gave power of attorney to the same lawyer.\n12.  On 14 November 2006 the applicants informed the Porto Criminal Court that they had sought a judicial review before the Porto Administrative and Fiscal Court of a tax adjustment applied to them regarding the applicant company’s fiscal activity between 1994 and 1997.\n13.  On 29 November 2006 the Porto Criminal Court suspended the fiscal criminal proceedings in accordance with Article 50 § 1 of the Legal Framework for Non-Customs Tax Offences (Regime Jurídico das Infracções Fiscais não Aduaneiras – “RJIFNA”).\n14.  On 19 December 2008 the applicants applied to the High Council of Magistrates (Conselho Superior de Magistratura) for an order to have the criminal proceedings expedited (pedido de aceleração processual).\n15.  On 5 May 2009 the High Council of Magistrates dismissed their application on the grounds that the delay in the proceedings, under the law, was attributable to the Porto Administrative and Fiscal Court rather than the Porto Criminal Court. The Council pointed out that the applicants should have therefore lodged their expedition application with the High Council of the Administrative and Fiscal Courts.\n16.  The proceedings are still pending before the Porto Criminal Court.\n17.  On 28 April 2003 the public prosecutor of the Barcelos Criminal Court brought charges against the three applicants for tax fraud and abuse (fraude fiscal e abuso de confiança fiscal) in relation to activities that had taken place between 1994 and 1996, when the applicant company was registered in Barcelos.\n18.  On 1 October 2003 the applicants contested the proceedings. On the same date they applied for them to be suspended until a final decision was adopted in relation to the judicial review pending before the Porto Administrative and Fiscal Court (see paragraph 13 above).\n19.  On 17 November 2003 the Barcelos Criminal Court ordered that the proceedings be suspended in accordance with Article 50 § 1 of the RJIFNA and requested information from the Porto Administrative and Fiscal Court regarding the progress of the judicial review.\n20.  On 14 December 2006 the Porto Administrative and Fiscal Court informed the Barcelos Criminal Court that the proceedings broug", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8306", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Saransk.\n6.  In 2005 the applicant brought civil proceedings against the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Mordoviya (“the Ministry”) seeking compensation for damage to his health caused during his service in the police (“the compensation”).\n7.  On 7 November 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of Saransk (“the District Court”) found in the applicant’s favour and ordered the Ministry: (a) to pay the applicant the compensation due to him for the period from 19 November 2004 to 31 October 2005 in the amount of 77,250.12 Russian roubles (RUB); and (b) starting from 1 November 2005, to make monthly compensation payments to the applicant of RUB 6,892.92 with subsequent indexation in accordance with the law. The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 22 November 2005.\n8.  However, on 12 October 2006, following a request lodged by the Ministry, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordoviya (“the Presidium”) quashed the final judgment by way of supervisory review and dismissed the applicant’s claims. The Presidium found that the first‑instance court had erroneously applied and interpreted substantive legal provisions which had resulted in their significant violation. The Presidium held that there was no basis under domestic law for awarding the applicant the compensation sought and that he was entitled instead to insurance payments. The applicant did not provide the Court with information as to whether he had applied for those payments and/or was receiving them.\n9.  The District Court’s judgment of 7 November 2005 had been duly enforced until it was quashed by way of supervisory review.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8309", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.\n9.  On an unspecified date the first applicant left Afghanistan for Pakistan, where he met and married the second applicant. The couple subsequently moved to Iran, where they lived for fifteen years.\n10.  On an unspecified date the couple and their children left Iran for Turkey and from there took a boat to Italy. According to the findings of the Italian police and the identification forms annexed to the observations of the Italian Government, the applicants (the couple and their five oldest children) landed on the coast of Calabria on 16 July 2011 and were immediately subjected to the EURODAC identification procedure (taking of photographs and fingerprints) after supplying a false identity. The same day the couple and the five children were placed in a reception facility provided by the municipal authorities of Stignano (Reggio Calabria province), where they remained until 26 July 2011. On that date they were transferred to the Reception Centre for Asylum Seekers (Centro di Acoglienza per Richiedenti Asilo, “CARA”) in Bari, in the Puglia region, once their true identity had been established.\n11.  According to the applicants, living conditions in the centre were poor, particularly on account of the lack of appropriate sanitation facilities, the lack of privacy and the climate of violence among the occupants.\n12.  On 28 July 2011 the applicants left the CARA in Bari without permission. They subsequently travelled to Austria, where on 30 July 2011 they were again registered in the EURODAC system. They lodged an application for asylum in Austria which was rejected. On 1 August 2011 Austria submitted a request to take charge of the applicants to the Italian authorities, which on 17 August 2011 formally accepted the request. On an unspecified date the applicants travelled to Switzerland. On 14 November 2011 the Austrian authorities informed their Italian counterparts that the transfer had been cancelled because the applicants had gone missing.\n13.  On 3 November 2011 the applicants applied for asylum in Switzerland.\n14.  On 15 November 2011 the first and second applicants were interviewed by the Federal Migration Office (“the FMO”) and stated that living conditions in Italy were difficult and that it would be impossible for the first applicant to find work there.\n15.  On 22 November 2011 the FMO requested the Italian authorities to take charge of the applicants. In their respective observations the Swiss and Italian Governments agreed that the request had been tacitly accepted by Italy.\n16.  In a decision of 24 January 2012 the FMO rejected the applicants’ asylum application and made an order for their removal to Italy. The administrative authority considered that “the difficult living conditions in Italy [did] not render the removal order unenforceable”, that “it [was] therefore for the Italian authorities to provide support to the applicants” and that “the Swiss authorities [did] not have competence to take the place of the Italian authorities.” On the basis of these considerations it concluded that “the file [did] not contain any specific element disclosing a risk to the applicants’ lives in the event of their return to Italy.”\n17.  On 2 February 2012 the applicants appealed to the Federal Administrative Court. In support of their appeal they submitted that the reception conditions for asylum seekers in Italy were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention and that the federal authorit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8310", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970.\n5.  On an unspecified date in the second half of 1994 the applicant was arrested and detained in investigation detention facilities in Kyustendil and Sofia in the framework of a criminal investigation against him. On 25 November 1994 he was transferred to Pazardzhik Prison.\n6.  On 11 July 1996 the Kyustendil Regional Court found the applicant guilty of a number of violent offences committed between May 1993 and August 1994 and sentenced him to death. On 4 February 1999 the Sofia Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction but, following the abolition of the death penalty with effect from 27 December 1998 and the concomitant introduction of the sentence of life imprisonment without commutation (see paragraph 30 below), replaced his sentence with life imprisonment without commutation.\n7.  On 27 January 2000 the applicant was transferred from Pazardzhik Prison to Bobov Dol Prison, where he has been serving his sentence ever since. By order of the prison governor, he was placed alone in a constantly locked cell, as required under the legal provisions governing the regime of life prisoners (see paragraph 30 below).\n8.  In a decision of 30 November 2001, which became final on 25 April 2002, the Sofia Court of Appeal decided that the applicant was to serve his sentence under the “special regime” applicable to life prisoners at that time (see paragraph 30 below).\n9.  On 19 April 2007 a special commission in charge of deciding on changes in a prisoner’s regime decided to place the applicant under the “enhanced regime” (see paragraph 30 below).\n10.  On 1 June 2009, when the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009 superseded the Execution of Punishments Act 1969, the applicant was placed under the “severe” regime (see paragraph 30 below). His continued to be kept isolated from the rest of the prison population, as normally required under the relevant provisions of the 2009 Act and the regulations for its application (ibid.). The above-mentioned commission has apparently not decided to place the applicant together with the main prison population, as permitted under those provisions under certain conditions (ibid.).\n11.  In Bobov Dol Prison, the applicant was kept in an individual cell measuring thirteen and a half square metres. The Government submitted that not later than 2007 significant improvements had been made to that cell. In particular, central heating was installed and the old wooden window frames were replaced by modern ones measuring 138 cm by 50 cm and providing enough temperature isolation and access to sunlight. According to evidence put before the Kyustendil Administrative Court and its judgment of 9 June 2011 (see paragraph 28 below), those works were completed in October or November 2006.\n12.  At all relevant times the applicant’s cell contained an in-cell toilet and a water tap.\n13.  The applicant’s assertions in respect of the material conditions of his detention are voluminous and lack clarity in that grievances apparently relating to different periods of time are not clearly distinguished. The applicant alleged that during unspecified periods of his incarceration in Bobov Dol Prison he had encountered the following problems: food had been substandard and insufficient in quantity, with some meals containing pieces of plastic, hairs and fur, and the meat meals often containing meat substitutes or no meat at all; the plates in which the food was being served had been dirt", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8311", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Wrocław.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant is a film director, historian, and author of press articles often commenting on current issues. The Government contested that the applicant could be considered a journalist.\n8.  On 20 April 2007 the applicant participated in a debate on a regional radio station, Polskie Radio Wrocław. During the debate he stated as follows:\n“... among the informers (informator) of the [communist-era] secret political police is Professor [J.M.] – this information confirms the theory that among those who speak out the most against lustration are people who have good reasons for doing so.”\n9.  On the same day the applicant called Mr J.M. an “informant” (konfident) on television. The matter was widely commented on in the media.\n10.  On 17 May 2007 a special commission set up at Wrocław University to examine the problem of covert surveillance of academics issued a statement in the case of Mr J.M. The statement included a list of documents concerning Mr J.M., which had been found in the archives. The commission concluded that those documents had not led it to the unequivocal conclusion that Mr J.M. had been a collaborator with the secret police.\n11.  On 24 May 2007 Mr J.M. brought a civil action for protection of his personal rights against the applicant.\n12.  On 3 July 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court allowed the action. It ordered the applicant to pay 20,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) to a charity and to reimburse the claimant PLN 5,800 for the costs of the proceedings. The applicant was also ordered to publish an apology for having damaged the claimant’s good name in six national and regional newspapers, on three national TV channels and on Radio Wrocław. The court considered that the applicant had clearly used several expressions indicating that the claimant had been a secret collaborator with the communist-era secret services. The main question to be considered was whether such statements could be considered true.\n13.  The court noted that Mr J.M. was a distinguished linguist and well‑known person in Poland. He was a member of the Polish Language Council and for many years had been presenting a programme on television. The court established that between 1975 and 1984 Mr J.M. had been summoned by agents of the secret services on five occasions for interviews in connection with applications he had made for passports and returns from stays abroad. This was not contested by the claimant, who had himself made this information public. In 1978 Mr J.M. had been formally registered as a secret collaborator (a “TW”). Other notes from the Institute of National Remembrance (“IPN”) archives indicated that until 1989 a two-volume file on the claimant had existed; however, the file could no longer be found at the Wrocław branch of the IPN.\nThe court noted that the case of Mr J.M. had been examined by a special commission set up at Wrocław University to examine the problem of covert surveillance of academics, but that the commission had been unable to reach any unequivocal conclusions.\n14.  The trial court heard the applicant and the claimant as well as a number of witnesses: historians (specialists on lustration), former agents of the secret services assigned to recruiting collaborators at Warsaw University, and employees of the IPN. Some of them testified that many files on secret collaborators had been destroyed when ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8312", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Roman.\nPhysical conditions of detention and conditions of transport\n6.  On 29 September 2011 the applicant was arrested after criminal proceedings had been opened against him for bribe taking. On the same date he was detained in Bacău Police Department’s detention facility.\n7.  On 29 November 2011 he was moved to Bacău Prison.\n8.  On 20 June 2012 he was released. The criminal proceedings opened against him are still pending before the domestic courts.\n9.  In Bacău Police Department’s detention facility and Bacău Prison the applicant had to share a cell with smokers, even though he was a non‑smoker and was suffering from a heart condition. He was unable to rest because the other detainees would smoke continuously from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m., and the cell would be covered by thick smoke.\n10.  The cell did not have enough furniture, and lacked coat hangers, shelves and cupboards. Clothes had to be stored on the floor, under beds, where no cleaning was carried out. The bathrooms lacked shelves and privacy, as the washing area and toilet facilities were not separate. In addition, the cell was damp, measured 15 sq. m., had a volume of 50 cubic metres, contained six beds, and was occupied by ten detainees. Cleaning and dehumidification materials were provided by his family, and in the absence of any action on the part of the prison authorities, he and the other detainees had to clean the cell themselves. The cell was not heated during the cold season, and as a result of the extreme cold the applicant had to ask his family to provide him with warmer bed linen. Also, the cell was infested with fleas, lice, bed bugs and mosquitoes, but the detainees were not allowed to disinfect it, even at their own expense.\n11.  The detention facilities did not provide detainees with any areas for washing, drying or cleaning their clothes. He was forced to wear dirty clothes, or if he did wash them, he had to wear them damp.\n12.  The bed linen provided by the authorities was unusable, was not suitable for the time of year and was not changed during the entire time he was detained.\n13.  Warm water was available twice a week for two hours each time therefore not all detainees could wash. He was unable to shave on a daily basis. Detainees did not have access to a barber, toiletries were not provided by the authorities and he had to purchase shaving products at his own expense.\n14.  The food was poor, insufficient and served in unhygienic conditions by detainees not wearing the appropriate equipment for serving food. The cutlery and plates were rusty and dirty, and the cell did not have a table and chairs for detainees to be able to sit down and eat their meal.\n15.  He was taken out of his cell for a walk only twice a week for thirty minutes; between ten or twenty inmates would be in the prison courtyard at a time. The courtyard was covered by a metal mesh, measured 25 sq. m, had no bathroom facilities and did not receive any sunlight.\n16.  The applicant was transported to and from court and was held in the courthouse cells with smokers.\n17.  In Bacău Police Department’s detention facility the applicant was detained in a cell which measured 12.82 sq. m and contained four beds. The cell had central heating and was ventilated. The sanitary facilities were outside the cell and were accessible to everyone twenty-four hours a day. Detainees had access to a shower, a sink, and a toilet that was separate from the rest of the bathr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8313", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and is currently detained in Zamość Remand Centre.\n6.  On 15 October 2010 he was arrested on suspicion of having committed a number of offences connected with handling drugs and psychoactive substances in an organised criminal group.\n7.  On 17 October 2010 the Rzeszów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody for three months. The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question and on the reasonable risk that he would obstruct the proceedings, because the offences had been committed in an organised group. The court did not share the prosecutor’s view according to which there had been a reasonable fear that the applicant might abscond or go into hiding. The court found no reasons to hold so.\n8.  The applicant’s detention on remand was extended by the Rzeszów Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 13 January, on 11 April and on 11 July 2011. In these decisions, in order to justify the extension of the detention, the court repeated the previous reasons relied on. In the decision of 11 April 2011 the court further noted that, taking into consideration the number of offences that the applicant had been suspected of, further detention was additionally justified by a heavy penalty that might be imposed on the applicant if convicted.\n9.  Subsequently, on 6 October 2011, the detention was extended by the Rzeszów Court of Appeal until 30 November 2011. The court relied on the same grounds as previously and additionally noted that the applicant’s case was particularly complicated which justified extension of the detention beyond the statutory time-limit of 12 months.\n10.  On 7 November 2011 a bill of indictment against the applicant and several other co-accused was lodged with the Zamość Regional Court.\n11.  On 23 November 2011 the Zamość Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for further three months, until 29 February 2012. No new grounds were relied on.\n12.  Further extension of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was ordered by the Lublin Court of Appeal on 30 May 2012. The Regional Court had requested a three-month extension. The court granted the prosecutor’s request only in part for two further months that is until 4 August 2012 and found that since the trial court had scheduled hearings only until the end of June 2012, the detention could not be extended until September. The court further considered that the time-limit until 4 August 2012 should be sufficient to complete the proceedings before the first-instance court.\n13.  On 1 August 2012 the Lublin Court of Appeal again granted the Regional Court’s request only in part and extended the applicant’s detention for two further months and not for three months as requested by the Regional Court. The court relied again on the same grounds, analysed the course of the proceedings and considered that the time-limit until 4 October 2012 should be sufficient to complete the proceedings. The court also justified the extraordinary extension of the detention by the complexity of the case resulting, among other things, from the nature of evidence; there were anonymous witnesses to be heard and part of the evidence constituted material classified as confidential.\n14.  On 27 September 2012 the Lublin Court of Appeal, relying on the same grounds as previously, extended the applicant’s detention until 4 January 2013. The court additionally noted that large part of evidence in the trial constituted", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8314", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  The applicant was detained in the closed section of Ljubljana prison from 5 May 2009 to 26 May 2009, in the remand section from 25 August 2009 to 11 February 2010, from 11 March 2011 to 22 March 2011 and from 8 June 2011 to 11 January 2012 and again in the closed section from 24 August 2012 to 4 December 2012.\n7.  On 25 August 2009 he was held in cell 90 measuring 18.07 square metres (not including a separate 1.75 square metre sanitary facility), shared with four other detainees and with 3.2 square metres of personal space. From 26 August 2009 to 11 February 2010 he was held in cell 50 measuring 8.07 square metres (not including a separate 1.23 square metre sanitary facility) and cell 52 measuring 8.04 square metres (not including a separate 1.25 square metre sanitary facility), alone with almost 7 square metres of personal space or with another detainee with 3.4 square metres of personal space.\n8.  The cell for two detainees, where the applicant was held in the remand section, contained one bunk bed, one bigger and one smaller table, two chairs, two wardrobes and two 89 x 54 cm windows, which detainees could freely open or close.\n9.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the remand section of Ljubljana prison, material conditions inside the cells and sanitary conditions, see the judgment in Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia, nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, §§ 10 to 23, 20 October 2011.\n10.  As to the out-of-cell time in the remand section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that detainees in the remand section were confined to their cells day and night, save for two hours of daily outdoor exercise, and an additional two hours per week in a recreation room (Mandić and Jović, cited above, § 78). The Government stated that from 9 February 2011 on detainees could spend three hours per day outdoors.\n11.  On 18 December 2009 the applicant lodged the application complaining about the prison conditions of his detention from 25 August 2009. In the supplement to his application of 17 September 2013, he complained also about the conditions of his detention from 5 May 2009 to 26 May 2009, from 11 March 2011 to 22 March 2011, from 8 June 2011 to 11 January 2012 and from 24 August 2012 to 4 December 2012.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8315", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed and semi-open sections of Ljubljana prison and in the open section Ig, Ljubljana prison.\n7.  In the period between 19 May 2009 and 1 July 2009 he was held in the closed section: in cell 117, measuring 17.66 square metres (not including a separate 1.68 square metre sanitary facility) shared with three to five other inmates and with 2.66 to 3.99 square metres of personal space and in cell 2 measuring 16.18 square metres (not including a separate 1.7 square metre sanitary facility) shared with two to four other inmates and with 2.9 to 4.8 square metres of personal space.\n8.  In the period between 2 July 2009 and 31 October 2009 he was held in the semi-open section: in cell 139, measuring 19.36 square metres (not including a separate 1.76 square metre sanitary facility) shared with two to four other inmates and with 3.5 to 5.8 square metres of personal space and in cell 146 measuring 16.89 square metres (not including a separate 1.76 square metre sanitary facility) shared with two, three or four other inmates and with 3 to 5 square metres of personal space.\n9.  In the period between 1 November 2009 and 18 February 2010 he was held in the open section Ig in cell 1, measuring 41.64 square metres (not including a separate 13.90 square metre sanitary facility) shared with three to seven other inmates and with 3.5 to 6.9 square metres of personal space.\n10.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the closed and semi-open sections, material conditions inside the cells, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011.\n11.  As to the out-of-cell time in the closed section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (Štrucl and Others § 86).\n12.  As to the out-of-cell time in the semi-open section, the Government submitted that the cell doors in the semi-open section of the prison were unlocked, except from 9.45 p.m. (on Fridays, Saturdays and before holidays from midnight) until 6.00 a.m. (on Saturdays, Sundays and during holidays until 8.30 a.m.). During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor (35.7 square metres), living quarters of co-prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas, in accordance with prison rules. The Government contended that this regime had been in place for several years.\n13.  As to the open section, cells were open twenty-four hours per day and prisoners could, except when sleeping, move around freely, inside the open section (in a dining room, classroom, recreation room) and in outdoor areas (a park and sports ground). Further, the prisoners were allowed to exercise for four hours per day, they could do shopping in a shop outside the prison, their visits were unsupervised and their correspondence with people from outside the prison and the use of a telephone were not limited and supervised. The open section had a capacity for twenty seven prisoners in five cells. The prisoners shared sanitary facilities with five showers, five washbasin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8316", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed section of Ljubljana prison in the period between 5 August 2009 and 5 October 2009. He was held in cell 119 which measured 17.51 square metres (including a separate 1.74 square metre sanitary facility), with four or five other prisoners, having between 2.63 and 3.15 square metres of personal space. From 5 August 2009 to 15 September 2009 and from 24 September 2009 to 5 October 2009 six prisoners were held therein, from 15 September 2009 to 24 September 2009 five prisoners were held therein.\n7.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells, material conditions inside the cells, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011.\n8.  As to the out-of-cell time in the closed section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (Štrucl and Others § 86).\n9.  As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5‑5.30 p.m.) in the second half of July and August 2009 had been approximately 28oC, exceeding 30oC on seven days.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8317", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Mr Peter Azzopardi, was born in 1950 and lives in Naxxar. The registered address of Canadian Brothers Limited is also Naxxar.\n6.  Canadian Brothers Limited was the holder of the utile dominium (by way of sub-emphyteusis) of land in Msida, Malta, measuring approximately 772 sq.m., which it intended to develop for commercial purposes. The applicant, that is, Mr Peter Azzopardi, as director for and on behalf of Canadian Brothers Limited had lodged a development application but no development permit had been issued.\n7.  By a declaration published in the Government Gazette on 11 October 1974 the President of Malta declared that 901 sq.m. (including a rural room) and 240 sq.m. of land – which included the land held by the Canadian Brothers Limited – were to be expropriated (acquired by a title of absolute purchase). The taking of possession of the land was undertaken following a request by the Director of Public Works in connection with the construction of a reservoir.\n8.  On 19 June 1992 the applicant was served with a Notice to Treat offering the sum of approximately 18,050 euros (EUR) for the acquisition. Other parties who had an interest in the property (including heirs, as a result of the demise of some individuals) were also served with a Notice to Treat. Of those interested parties, some accepted the sum offered while others objected to the amount by means of a judicial letter dated 15 September 1992. The applicant contested the amount offered and – by means of a judicial letter filed on 25 September 1992 – made a counter-claim for approximately EUR 559,050.\n9.  The law at the relevant time did not provide for any procedure allowing the applicant to initiate proceedings for compensation. The initiation of compensation proceedings was an action which could be undertaken only by the authorities, and to which no time-limit applied. However, in the 1990s it was confirmed, through case-law, that if a request was made by anyone in a position similar to the applicant’s the courts of civil jurisdiction had the competence to set a time-limit within which the authorities – namely the Commissioner of Land (“CoL”) – was obliged to initiate such proceedings, and this by application of Article 1078 of the Civil Code.\n10.  According to his affidavit, the applicant repeatedly solicited the authorities to process his case, but to no avail. By the year 2000 the competent authority had still not instituted proceedings before the Land Arbitration Board (“LAB”) to determine the relevant compensation and the applicant therefore instituted constitutional redress proceedings (see below).\n11.  In the meantime, in December 2002, the CoL filed an application informing the domestic courts that the Notice to Treat was missing from the court archives and requesting the appointment of new curators to replace those who were deceased.\n12.  Pending those proceedings, on 12 January 2004 the public authorities instituted proceedings before the LAB to determine the compensation due. To date those proceedings, to which the applicant is a party, are still pending.\n13.  In 2006 the law governing the determination of compensation was amended. In particular, interest was no longer calculated at 5% per annum on the value of the land as determined by the LAB but rather on the mean value between the value on the date of the taking and the value on the date of the determination itself. Secondly, following an amendment in 2004, the compensation awarded could not exceed the amou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8319", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Kranj.\n6.  The applicant was detained in the remand section of Ljubljana prison from 31 May 2008 to 29 August 2008. He was again detained in the remand section of Ljubljana prison from 23 April 2009 to 27 January 2010.\n7.  In the period from 23 April 2009 to 24 April 2009 he was held for two days in cell 59 alone or with another detainee. From 25 April 2009 to 25 May 2009 he was held for thirty-one days in cell 99 measuring 8.44 square metres (not including a separate 1.39 square metre sanitary facility), alone with 7.05 square metres of personal space. From 26 May 2009 to 27 January 2010 he was held for eight months and three days in cell 50 measuring 8.07 square metres (not including a separate 1.23 square metre sanitary facility), alone with 6.84 square metres of personal space or with another detainee with 3.4 square metres of personal space.\n8.  The cell for two detainees, where the applicant was held, contained one bunk bed, one bigger and one smaller table, two chairs, two wardrobes and two 89 x 54 cm windows, which detainees could freely open or close.\n9.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the remand section of Ljubljana prison, material conditions inside the cells and sanitary conditions, see the judgment in Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia, nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, §§ 10 to 23, 20 October 2011.\n10.  As to the out-of-cell time in the remand section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that detainees in the remand section were confined to their cells day and night, save for two hours of daily outdoor exercise, and an additional two hours per week in a recreation room (Mandić and Jović, cited above, § 78).\n11.  As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5- 5.30 p.m.) in the second half of July and August 2009 had been approximately 28oC, exceeding 30oC on seven days.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8320", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Trlić.\n6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed and semi-open sections of Ljubljana prison.\n7.  In the period from 25 August 2009 to 22 September 2009 and from 4 November 2009 to 12 November 2009 he was held in the closed section: for two days in cell 4, measuring 18.75 square metres (not including a separate 2.44 square metre sanitary facility) shared with two to four other inmates and with 3.26 to 5.4 square metres of personal space and for thirty‑six days in cell 2 measuring 16.18 square metres (not including a separate 1.7 square metre sanitary facility) shared with two to four other inmates and with 2.9 to 4.8 square metres of personal space.\n8. In the period between 23 September 2009 and 3 November 2009 he was held in the semi-open section for forty-two days in cell 137, measuring 17.94 square metres (not including a separate 1.75 square metre sanitary facility) shared with two to four other inmates and with 3.2 to 5.4 square metres of personal space.\n9.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the closed and semi-open sections, material conditions inside the cells, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011.\n10.  As to the out-of-cell time in the closed section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (Štrucl and Others § 86).\n11.  As to the out-of-cell time in the semi-open section, the Government submitted that the cell doors in the semi-open section of the prison were unlocked, except from 9.45 p.m. (on Fridays, Saturdays and before holidays from midnight) until 6.00 a.m. (on Saturdays, Sundays and during holidays until 8.30 a.m.). During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor (35.7 square metres), living quarters of co-prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas, in accordance with prison rules. The Government contended that this regime had been in place for several years.\n12.  As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5-5.30 p.m.) in the second half of July and August 2009 had been approximately 28oC, exceeding 30oC on seven days.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8321", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in the Krasnodar Region.\n5.  On 29 November 2010 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. On 27 October 2011 and other dates he was additionally charged with membership in a criminal syndicate and other offences.\n6.  On 27 January, 19 April, 19 July, 20 September, 17 October and 25 November 2011, 19 January, 16 April and 19 October 2012 and on other dates the authorised period of the applicant’s detention was extended. Each time the courts relied chiefly on the gravity of the charges against him. On 1 November 2012 the Krasnodar Regional Court considered and rejected, in a summary fashion, the applicant’s and his co-defendants’ appeals against the extension order of 19 October 2012.\n7.  The jury found the applicant not guilty of the offences he was charged with. On 19 June 2013 the applicant was acquitted and released. On 30 September 2013 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the acquittal on appeal.\n8.  Invoking his “right to rehabilitation” under Article 133-135 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant brought a claim against the Federal Treasury for the loss of income and reimbursement of legal fees. He did not seek any compensation for non-pecuniary damage. By judgment of 28 January 2014, the Krasnodar Regional Court granted his claim in part.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8322", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Iaşi.\n9.  The applicant, who was admitted to the Bucharest Bar Association in December 2004, was involved, as a party, in several sets of civil and criminal proceedings.\n10.  In February 2003 she was informed by E.E., a prosecutor attached to the Iaşi District Court, that she was suspected of incitement to false testimony. She was specifically suspected of having persuaded the witnesses in a different set of criminal proceedings to give false testimony. The development of those proceedings is described in paragraphs 37 to 57 below.\n11.  At about 9 a.m. on 28 May 2003 the applicant went to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Iaşi District Court. According to her, she wanted to submit a complaint to the superior of the prosecutor investigating the case against her. According to the Government, the applicant went there at the prosecutor’s invitation in order to be informed of the content of the criminal file against her (prezentarea materialului de urmărire penală).\n12.  The applicant argued that the prosecutor had seen her for only a few minutes at the entrance to his office and that afterwards she had been taken by a police officer to a room on the first floor, where she was kept waiting.\n13.  The Government claimed that when the prosecutor declined the applicant’s request to have photocopies of all the documents in the criminal file, she had refused to remain in the prosecutor’s office. Consequently, at 9.30 a.m. the prosecutor issued an order to appear (mandat de aducere) to prevent her from leaving the building and instructed police officer M.L.E. to ensure that it was complied with. The Government submitted a copy of the order to appear.  They also claimed that the applicant had refused to comply with the order, and had continued to behave inappropriately, using malicious language against the prosecutors and the police. The police prevented her from leaving the building. At 10.40 a.m. the applicant was received by the chief prosecutor. She was then allowed to write a complaint in the waiting room of the building.\n14.  Subsequently, at an unknown time the same day, E.E. ordered the applicant’s immediate confinement to the Iaşi Psychiatric University Hospital (“the Socola hospital”) for an assessment of her mental state. The reasons given were the following:\n“Given that [the applicant] has shown an exaggerated propensity to complain and that her language has become extremely vehement, facts that give rise to doubts as to her psychological state, and having regard to Articles 116, 117 and 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 14 of Decree no 79/1971, I order that a psychiatric assessment be conducted ...”.\n15.  While she was still in the building, the applicant made a handwritten complaint against the confinement order. In her complaint, she also mentioned that she had been held in the building since 11 a.m. After her confinement she lodged other similar complaints.\n16.  At about 2 p.m., as the applicant refused to go to the hospital, prosecutor E.E. asked the police to execute the confinement order. According to the applicant, several police officers dragged her by the hands and lifted her by force into a car, in which she was then taken to the hospital. She sustained several bruises and other injuries. According to a report drafted by the Iaşi police the same day, four police officers (other than M.L.E. – see paragraph 13 above) carried the applicant in their arms to the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8323", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976. He is currently detained in Iaşi Prison.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant was convicted of rape and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment.\n7.  According to the medical documents submitted by the parties, the applicant started serving his prison sentence on 9 August 2004.\n8.  In his initial letters to the Court the applicant contended that conditions had been overcrowded and squalid in the Romanian prisons. In addition, he submitted that the cells had lacked sufficient air, had been infested by insects and rodents, and constituted a major health hazard. Also the food was insufficient and inadequate and the detainees did not have a place on which meals could be served.\n9.  Between 28 September 2004 and 10 October 2012 the applicant had been detained on six occasions in Târgu-Ocna Prison Hospital for periods of time varying from one week to more than three months in cells measuring 50.6 sq. m. The number of detainees he had to share the cells with changed every day. For the last seven days of his detention he had been detained in cells with nine beds. The rest of the time he was detained in cells with sixteen beds. The number of detainees had not been higher than the number of beds.\n10.  From 5 January 2005 to date the applicant was detained on fourteen occasions in Iaşi Prison in various sections of the prison. During his detention he was afforded between 1.33 and 3.98 sq. m of living space.\n11.  Between 6 July 2006 and 10 January 2007 the applicant was detained three times in Rahova Prison Hospital, for six days on each occasion. During his detention he was afforded between 6.2 and 7.46 sq. m of living space.\n12.  Between 24 August 2006 and 13 March 2008 the applicant was detained four times in Jilava Prison for periods varying from twelve days to more than three months. During most of his detention he was afforded between 1.54 and 3.65 sq. m of living space. During the last month he spent in the aforementioned detention facility, he was occasionally afforded 5.80 sq. m of living space.\n13.  From 15 September to 16 November 2006 the applicant was detained in Arad Prison. During his detention he was afforded between 3.46 and 5.77 sq. m of living space.\n14.  Between 30 September 2011 and 20 November 2012 the applicant was detained on three occasions in Tulcea Prison for periods between two weeks and two months. During his detention he was afforded between 1.69 and 4.96 sq. m of living space.\n15.  Between 10 October 2011 and 12 July 2012 the applicant was detained on two occasions in Timişoara Prison. During his detention he was afforded between 2.33 and 2.60 sq. m of living space.\n16.  From 18 November 2011 to 27 April 2012 the applicant was detained in Botoşani Prison. During his detention he was afforded between 2.31 and 3.52 sq. m of living space.\n17.  Between 11 September and 5 November 2012 the applicant was detained on two occasions in Vaslui Prison. During his detention he was afforded between 1.98 and 2.45 sq. m of living space.\n18.  From 14 to 21 November 2012 the applicant was detained in Focşani Prison where he was afforded 4.72 sq. m of living space. The number of available beds in the cell was forty-six and the number of detainees was fifty-two.\n19.  All the detention cells had sanitary facilities, were fitted with one or more windows and were connected to electricity and running water. They could be ventilated by opening the windows and were equipped with storage areas. In additi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8324", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1945, 1981, 1971 and 1972 respectively and live in Yerevan.\n7.  The applicant Levon Ghasabyan (hereafter, the first applicant) owned a flat which measured 57 sq. m. and was situated at 25 Byuzand Street, Yerevan. The remaining three applicants – the first applicant’s family members who resided in the same flat – allege that they enjoyed a right of use in respect of that flat.\n8.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of the Kentron District of Yerevan to be taken for State needs for town-planning purposes, having a total area of 345,000 sq. m. Byuzand Street was listed as one of the streets falling within such expropriation zones. A special body, the Yerevan Construction and Investment Project Implementation Agency (hereafter, the Agency) was set up to manage the implementation of the construction projects.\n9.  On 1 December 2004 the first applicant’s flat was valued upon the request of the Agency by a valuation organisation. The market value of the flat was estimated at 23,640 United States dollars (USD).\n10.  By a letter of 14 January 2005 the Agency informed the first applicant that his flat was subject to expropriation and that it had been valued at USD 23,640, and offered him this amount as compensation. An additional sum of USD 14,827.01 was offered to him as a financial incentive if he signed an agreement within five days.\n11.  By a letter of 18 January 2005 the first applicant expressed his consent to sign an agreement but disagreed with the amount of compensation offered.\n12.  On 20 January 2005 the Agency lodged a claim against the first applicant, seeking to oblige him to sign an agreement on the taking of his flat for State needs and to have him and his family members evicted.\n13.  On 3 March 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the Agency’s claim, ordering the first applicant to sign an agreement for the total amount of USD 23,640 and that he and his family members be evicted.\n14.  On 15 March 2005 the first applicant lodged an appeal. The remaining three applicants allege that they unsuccessfully sought to be recognised as parties to the proceedings, despite the fact that they enjoyed a right of use in respect of the flat in question and the fact that their eviction was ordered by the District Court.\n15.  On 12 April 2005 the Civil Court of Appeal granted the Agency’s claim upon appeal and dismissed that of the first applicant.\n16.  On 27 April 2005 the applicants jointly lodged an appeal.\n17.  On 26 May 2005 the Court of Cassation examined the appeal only in its part concerning the first applicant and decided to dismiss it.\n18.  On an unspecified date the awarded sum was paid to the applicants.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8325", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1961 respectively and live in Yerevan.\n7.  The applicants and a third person jointly owned a flat which measured 55.7 sq. m. and was situated at 25 Byuzand Street, Yerevan.\n8.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of the Kentron District of Yerevan to be taken for State needs for town-planning purposes, having a total area of 345,000 sq. m. Byuzand Street was listed as one of the streets falling within such expropriation zones. A special body, the Yerevan Construction and Investment Project Implementation Agency (hereafter, the Agency) was set up to manage the implementation of the construction projects.\n9.  On 7 September 2004 the applicants’ flat was valued upon the request of the Agency by a valuation organisation. The market value of the flat was estimated at 20,080 United States dollars (USD).\n10.  In January 2005 the Agency informed the applicants that their flat was subject to expropriation and that it had been valued at USD 20,080. An additional sum of USD 14,734.70 was offered to the applicants as a financial incentive if they signed an agreement within five days.\n11.  The applicants did not accept the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation offered.\n12.  On 20 January 2005 the Agency lodged a claim against the applicant Sedrak Baghdasaryan, seeking to oblige him to sign an agreement on the taking of the flat in question for State needs and to have him, and the others residing in the flat, evicted.\n13.  On 10 March 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the Agency’s claim, ordering the applicants to sign the agreement for the total amount of USD 20,080.\n14.  On 24 March 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal.\n15.  On 17 May 2005 the Court of Appeal granted the Agency’s claim upon appeal.\n16.  On 31 May 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law in which they argued, inter alia, that the deprivation of their property was not prescribed by law as required by Article 28 of the Constitution and that there was no public interest in depriving them of their property.\n17.  On 7 July 2005 the Court of Cassation decided to dismiss the applicants’ appeal.\n18.  On an unspecified date the awarded sum was paid to the applicants.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8326", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in İzmir.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant’s daughter, Gülperi O., worked as a nurse at the Aegean University Hospital in İzmir. She was married to O.O., who worked in the pharmacy at the same hospital.\n8.  According to the applicant, the couple had frequent rows and O.O. used violence against Gülperi O. on a number of occasions.\n9.  At 5.30 p.m. on 18 July 2005 O.O. brought Gülperi O. to the accident and emergency department of the Aegean University Hospital and told the doctors and nurses at the hospital that she had taken an overdose of two medicines called “Prent” and “Muscoril”.\n10.  A police officer at the hospital took a statement from O.O. at 6.45 p.m. In his statement O.O. was reported as having stated that he and Gülperi O. had had a row earlier in the day; she had attacked him and he had hit her. He had then left home and some time after his return at 3.00 p.m. Gülperi O. had felt unwell. He had then brought her to the hospital.\n11.  It was stated in a report prepared by police officers that a police officer had spoken to the prosecutor over the telephone at 6.50 p.m. and that the prosecutor had instructed that police officer to question Gülperi O. and her husband, O.O.\n12.  At the time of her admission to the hospital, Gülperi O. was conscious but drowsy. Doctors and nurses, who had been informed about O.O.’s assertion that she had taken an overdose of the two medicines, pumped her stomach. When her pulse slowed down the doctors unsuccessfully tried to resuscitate her. Gülperi O. died at 10.10 p.m.\n13.  The doctor and the prosecutor who subsequently examined her body were unable to establish the cause of death and they decided, in view of the fact that the deceased’s husband, O.O., had told the police officers that he had hit her, that a post-mortem examination was necessary.\n14.  The post-mortem examination was carried out the following day and samples taken from Gülperi O.’s body were sent for forensic analysis.\n15.  On 20 July 2005 the police prepared a report summing up their inquiry. It was stated in this report that Gülperi O. had committed suicide by taking an “overdose of medicines”.\n16.  On 22 July 2005 the applicant’s husband, Mr Elaattin Kanter, lodged an official complaint with the İzmir prosecutor against O.O., and alleged that O.O. had been responsible for the death of his daughter. Mr Kanter stated in his complaint petition that O.O. had beaten Gülperi O. up on a number of occasions and, as a result, she had been thinking of divorcing him. However, O.O. had apologized and had persuaded her to change her mind by promising to her that he would not be violent towards her again. Mr Kanter informed the prosecutor that Gülperi O. had telephoned her sister during the afternoon of the day of her death, and that they had had a normal conversation; she had not been suicidal at all.\n17.  Mr Kanter alleged that O.O. had forced Gülperi O. to take the medicines and had subsequently dumped her body at the hospital. The family had heard nothing from O.O. since that date and he had not even attended the funeral.\n18.  On 25 July 2005 the İzmir prosecutor questioned the applicant and her husband. The applicant told the prosecutor that O.O. had beaten up her daughter before and that as a result she had had to be hospitalised twice with suspected head injuries. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8328", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Portorož.\n5.  On 13 March 2010 the police issued a payment order fining the applicant 540 euros (EUR) for two traffic offences under Section 27(1) and (3) and Section 135(3) and (5) of the Road Traffic Safety Act. From the police’s description of the facts and evidence it appears that on 13 March 2010 at 9:45 am while trying to overtake X’s car, which had been improperly parked, the applicant failed to make sure that he could do so without endangering X’s car and with the rear right end of his car he hit the rear left end of X’s car. Allegedly, after the collision the applicant left the scene of the accident without submitting his personal data to X who was not present during the accident or notifying the police that he had been involved in an accident. X stated to the police that an unknown witness told him that the person responsible for the accident was driving a dark car with the number plate LJ 37-33. On the basis of this information the police checked two vehicles with number plates LJ 37-33V and LJ 37-33L. These vehicles did not show any sign of damage. On 14 March 2010 X informed the police that he had found a dark car with the number plate KP L3-733. The police established that the owner of the car was the applicant. On the same day the police interviewed the applicant and checked his car. They found that the damage on the applicant’s car corresponded to that of X’s car. They further found that Y was present in the applicant’s car during the accident.\n6.  On 31 March 2010 the applicant lodged an objection. He argued that he did not detect any collision between the two cars and that, accordingly, he had not informed X or the police of the accident; that there had been many passers-by on the road who had witnessed how he had been manoeuvring the car but nobody had warned him of any kind of abrasion or dent caused to X’s car; that he lived at the address of the scene of the accident and would have never left the scene even if he had caused the damage; that he had been informed of the accident only the following day when called by the police, and that together with the police he had checked his car visually and discovered a scratch of 10 to 15 cm in length for which he did not know when it appeared. According to the applicant, due to X’s improper parking any vehicle could have hit his car; from the damage on X’s car it was clear that the applicant could not have caused the damage with his car. The applicant reiterated that if he had detected the accident he would have reported it and this fact could have been proved by witness Y which was present in his car. He described in detail the events of 13 March 2010, namely approximately at 9.30 am he drove out of the parking spaces, he wanted to turn to the right but two cars prevented him from doing so because they were actually parked on the road; the cars parked posed a threat to road traffic safety because the space between them would have not allowed an ambulance or any other emergency vehicle to pass; in such a situation the applicant was forced to position his car at an appropriate angle to enable him to pass safely between the cars; he had to fold both side mirrors; otherwise he would not have been able to pass the two parked vehicles without collision; he manoeuvred his car at almost zero speed and was not aware that he had caused an abrasion or damage to any other vehicle.\n7.  On 14 April 2010 the police issued a reasoned decision ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8329", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Rinschnach. The second applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Linz.\n5.  In 1997 the Wels Regional Court (Landesgericht Wels, “the Regional Court”) instituted preliminary investigations (Vorerhebungen) against the two applicants and several other persons on account of the suspicion of aggravated fraud (schwerer gewerbsmässiger Betrug) by having set up and managed an internationally operated gambling system which was based on a pyramid scheme.\n6.  On 19 January 1999 the Regional Court decided that the proceedings against the applicants were to be separated from those of the co-suspects to avoid delays.\n7.  On 9 December 1997 the Regional Court issued an international arrest warrant (Steckbrief) in respect of the first applicant. He was in detention on remand from 26 to 27 May 1998.\n8.  On 18 February 2008 the first applicant filed a request for the acceleration of the proceedings under Section 91 of the Courts Act (Fristsetzungsantrag). The Linz Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht, “the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the request on 11 September 2008, stating that it could only be directed against delays caused by the courts, not the Public Prosecutor.\n9.  On 2 May 2013 the Regional Court acquitted the first applicant of all charges. The decision was served on his counsel on 15 October 2013.\n10.  On 18 April 1997 the Regional Court issued an international arrest warrant in respect of the second applicant. He was in detention on remand from 22 May 1997 until 6 August 1999.\n11.  On 12 April 2002 the preliminary investigations against the second applicant were closed and the file was transferred to the Wels Public Prosecutor (Staatsanwaltschaft, “the Public Prosecutor”) for further processing. However, no indictment was brought against him.\n12.  On 4 December 2007 the second applicant filed a request for the acceleration of the proceedings under Section 91 of the Courts Act. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request on 11 September 2008, stating that it could only be directed against delays caused by the courts, not the Public Prosecutor.\n13.  On 2 April 2010 the Public Prosecutor brought an indictment against the second applicant. The second applicant lodged an appeal against the indictment and a motion requesting the discontinuation of the proceedings. On 28 February 2011 the Court of Appeal rejected the indictment, but did not discontinue the proceedings.\n14.  On 13 October 2011 the Public Prosecutor discontinued the proceedings against the second applicant.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8330", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1946, 1954 and 1985 respectively and live in Yerevan.\n7.  The applicants jointly owned a flat which measured 44.1 sq. m. and was situated at 25 Byuzand Street, Yerevan.\n8.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of the Kentron District of Yerevan to be taken for State needs for town-planning purposes, having a total area of 345,000 sq. m. Byuzand Street was listed as one of the streets falling within such expropriation zones. A special body, the Yerevan Construction and Investment Project Implementation Agency (hereafter, the Agency) was set up to manage the implementation of the construction projects.\n9.  On 7 September 2004 the applicants’ flat was valued upon the request of the Agency by a valuation organisation. The market value of the flat was found to be 16,350 United States dollars (USD).\n10.  By a letter of 14 January 2005 the Agency informed the applicants that their flat was subject to expropriation and that it had been valued at USD 16,350 by an independent licensed organisation. An additional sum of USD 12,638.55 was offered to the applicants as a financial incentive if they signed an agreement within five days.\n11.  The applicants did not accept the offer, not being satisfied with the amount of compensation offered.\n12.  On an unspecified date the Agency lodged a claim against the applicants, seeking to oblige them to sign an agreement on the taking of their flat for State needs and to have them evicted.\n13.  On 1 March 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the Agency’s claim, ordering the applicants to sign the agreement for the total amount of USD 16,350.\n14.  On 15 March 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal.\n15.  On 30 March 2005 the Civil Court of Appeal granted the Agency’s claim upon appeal.\n16.  On 13 April 2005 the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law, in which they argued, inter alia, that the deprivation of their property was not prescribed by law as required by Article 28 of the Constitution.\n17.  On 26 May 2005 the Court of Cassation decided to dismiss the applicants’ appeal.\n18.  On an unspecified date the awarded sum was paid to the applicants.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8331", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  At the material time the applicant was a managing director of a tour operator limited liability company, HTC Kft.\n7.  On an unspecified date criminal investigations were opened against HTC Kft and another limited liability company on suspicion of bankruptcy fraud. On 8 September 2000 the Budapest VI/VII Police Department ordered the search of the applicant’s flat and vehicle, since there were grounds to believe that as the managing director of HTC Kft, he kept certain company documents at home.\n8.  On 14 February 2007 the applicant was heard as suspect on charges of bankruptcy fraud.\n9.  On 18 May 2007 the Budapest VI/VII District Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him with bankruptcy fraud.\n10.  The first hearing was held by the Pest Central District Court on 3 November 2009.\n11.  On 21 April 2012 the Pest Central District Court acquitted the applicant. The judgment became final on 1 August 2012.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8332", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Split.\n6.  On 17 May 2004 the applicant’s father was hit by a car while attempting to cross a motorway. He suffered serious bodily injury and died at the scene.\n7.  On the same day the Split Police Department (Policijska uprava Splitsko-dalmatinska) interviewed two witnesses and the driver of the car, Z.K. The police also carried out the necessary tests to measure Z.K.’s alcohol level, which showed that he had been intoxicated at the time of the accident.\n8.  The police informed an investigating judge of the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) of the accident. Later that day the investigating judge, assisted by a road traffic expert, carried out an on-site inspection.\n9.  On 18 May 2004 the road traffic expert submitted his report to the investigating judge, finding that in crossing the motorway the applicant’s father had caught the driver of the car by surprise, which had caused the accident.\n10.  On 19 May 2004 the investigating judge obtained a medical report concerning the applicant’s father, indicating that he had been intoxicated at the time of the accident.\n11.  Meanwhile, the case file was forwarded to the Split Municipal State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Splitu – “the State Attorney’s Office”) for its assessment of the relevant facts.\n12.  On 18 June 2004 the State Attorney’s Office obtained a medical report confirming that the driver of the car Z.K. had been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.\n13.  On 20 December 2004 the State Attorney’s Office asked the investigating judge of the Split County Court to open an investigation in respect of Z.K. on suspicion of causing a road accident resulting in death.\n14.  Before deciding on that request, the investigating judge questioned Z.K. on 19 January 2005. He denied the charges, arguing that when the applicant’s father had crossed the motorway he had been caught by surprise, and had had no way of avoiding the accident.\n15.  On 7 February 2005 the investigating judge declined to open the investigation on the grounds that there was no reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed. This was upheld by a three-judge panel of the Split County Court on 22 February 2005.\n16.  The case file was then returned to the State Attorney’s Office, which was informed of its right to appeal against the decision of the Split County Court. There is no evidence before the Court that the applicant was informed of this decision.\n17.  The State Attorney’s Office decided not to appeal. There is no evidence before the Court that the applicant was informed of this decision.\n18.  On 16 June 2006 the applicant inquired with the Split County Court about the progress of the case. He indicated that the last information he had received had been the on-site inspection report. He explained that he had been away for a while, so if any new documents had been forwarded to him it was possible that he had not received them.\n19.  On 3 July 2006 the investigating judge of the Split County Court informed the applicant that the investigation into the circumstances of his father’s death had been discontinued.\n20.  On 7 July 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the Split County Court’s decision refusing to open the investigation into the accident.\n21.  On 19 September 2006 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal and ordered the investigatio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8333", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The Association, which has now been dissolved, was a non‑profit‑making non-governmental organisation (NGO). It was active between 1991 and 2003. Mr Azer Samadov was Chairman of the Association, and Mr Ilgar Allahverdiyev was a member of its management board. They were born in 1961 and 1973, respectively, and live in Baku.\n6.  The Association was registered by the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”) on 12 January 1995 and acquired the status of a legal entity.\n7.  Clause 1.1 of the Association’s Charter defined it as an association with voluntary membership of citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan, conducting its activities within the framework of the Constitution and the laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan, as well as its own Charter.\n8.  According to clause 2 of its Charter, the main aims of the Association included the repair and maintenance of abandoned mosques and other places of worship, organising pilgrimages to Islamic shrines, providing material and moral aid to orphanages as well as elderly, ill and disabled people, and publishing books with a religious content.\n9.  The Association’s actual activities included the repair and maintenance of several mosques and projects aimed at promoting respect for human rights and building a civil society. The Association also engaged in a number of humanitarian activities, such as assistance to disabled children, campaigning against drugs and alcoholism, and a programme dedicated to promoting tolerance between representatives of different religions in Azerbaijan.\n10.  The highest governing body of the Association was the general assembly of members, held once a year, as provided for in clause 4 of its Charter. At the general assembly, the members elected the Association’s chairman and the three members of its management board. They also discussed and commented on the Association’s annual activity and submitted their proposals for its future activity.\n11.  It appears from the documents submitted to the Court that at the general assembly held on 8 August 1997 the members discussed the Association’s annual activity and decided to assist financially orphaned children and economically disadvantaged sections of the population and to raise awareness about the historical and religious values in the society.\n12.  The Association held its next general assembly on 4 January 1998. According to the minutes of the assembly, after having discussed the Association’s annual activity, the members decided to repair the Juma mosque in Baku and to participate actively in the process of building a civil society in the country by raising this issue in the media. They further decided to inform the public about the unlawfulness of the existing monopoly in organising pilgrimages to Islamic shrines. It was also decided to provide pilgrims with relevant information about the organisation of their visits.\n13.  On 29 December 2001 the Association held another general assembly at which the members adopted the Association’s annual activity report and decided, inter alia, to hold a conference on Prophet Muhammad on the occasion of his birthday and to prepare for the forthcoming seminar on the dialogue between civilizations, which would be held in Baku. They also agreed on the necessity to write articles in the media about subjects relating to existentialism and humanism.\n14.  On an unspecified date in 2002, the Ministry commenced an inspection of the Association’s activities in order to determine whether its activities ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8334", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4. The applicant was born in 1982 and is currently detained in the Tekirdağ F-type Prison.\n5.  According to the arrest report, signed by thirteen police officers, on 18 March 2009 at 2.15 p.m. the applicant was stopped by police officers for an identity check. He resisted and opened fire, killing a police officer. The other police officers used force to neutralise and arrest him. Several fake identity cards were found in the applicant’s bag.\n6.  At 5.15 p.m. the applicant was sent to the Bursa Şevket Yılmaz State Hospital for a medical examination. The medical report indicated that there were superficial grazes on the applicant’s back and bruises to the frontal region of his head, caused by blunt instrument trauma. It further specified that the abrasions on the applicant’s wrists could have been caused by handcuffs. The report concluded that the injuries on the applicant’s body were not life-threatening.\n7.  The applicant was then taken to the Kestel District Police Station. According to the form explaining the rights of arrested persons, the applicant was reminded of his rights, including his right to have the assistance of a lawyer, to remain silent, and to inform his family members of his arrest. According to a report signed by seven police officers, the police tried to conduct a fingerprint examination in order to identify the applicant, but he resisted, shouted slogans, tried hitting his head on the machine and kicked the nearby furniture. The applicant alleged that he had been beaten at the police station.\n8.  The applicant was subsequently transferred to the anti-terrorism branch of the Bursa Security Headquarters, where he was allegedly subjected to ill-treatment. According to the applicant, in the basement of the Bursa Security Headquarters, his testicles were squeezed and he was beaten, subjected to hanging by his arms, hosed with cold water, exposed to cold air circulation and forced to lie in an ice-covered blanket.\n9.  According to a police report, on 19 March 2009 at about 7 p.m. the applicant was taken by four police officers to Istanbul, where he had offered to show the officers a house used as a cell by the MLKP (Marxist-Leninist Communist Party), an illegal organisation. It was reported that, as the applicant could not find the house, they returned to the Bursa Security Headquarters on 20 March 2009 at 4.15 a.m. This report was signed by four police officers, but the applicant declined to sign it.\n10.  On 20 March 2009 the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer at the Bursa Security Headquarters in connection with the killing of a police officer and his alleged involvement in the MLKP. The applicant exercised his right to remain silent.\n11.  On the same day, the applicant was taken to the Bursa Forensic Medicine Institute. During his examination, the applicant complained that he had been ill-treated whilst in custody. He stated that he had been beaten, hung by his arms and hosed with cold water and alleged that ice cubes had been placed over his body. The medical examination revealed that the applicant had a haematoma under his left eyelid, a red-coloured bruise measuring 5 x 10 cm and swellings in his occipital region, and purple‑coloured bruises on his right eye and periorbital region. It was also noted that the applicant had several bruises on his left eyebrow, on the zygoma, on both sides of his mouth, between his eyebrows, on his left arm and both wrists, and also on his penis. The doctor noted tha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8336", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 25 December 1997 the applicant became a member of the executive board of Yurtbank, and subsequently on 25 March 1998 he was appointed as Director General of the bank.\n5.  On 19 August 1998 Yurtbank founded the Yurt Security Offshore Bank in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (the “TRNC”). Subsequently, Yurtbank branch offices in Turkey started collecting deposits to be transferred to offshore accounts in the “TRNC”.\n6.  On 4 October 1999 the applicant resigned from his post as Director General and subsequently on 30 November 1999 he resigned from membership of the executive board.\n7.  On 21 December 1999 the Committee of Ministers decided to transfer the management and control of Yurtbank to the Savings Deposits Insurance Fund (Tasarruf Mevduat Sigorta Fonu). As result, a new executive board was set up and an inspector was appointed to study the administration of Yurtbank.\n8.  On 6 October 2000 the inspector submitted his report. Following an inspection of all the bank’s accounts, the inspector found it established that the Yurt Security Offshore Bank owed 32,898,662,376,959 Turkish liras (TRL), 5,105,982 US dollars (USD) and 7,514,387 German marks (DEM) to account holders. The report stated that these sums had been used by Yurtbank to provide loans to companies owned by Mr A.B., the main shareholder of the bank. The applicant’s name was also included in the list of persons who had authorisation to make the transfers. It was however stressed that the inspection had not revealed any direct or indirect responsibility on the part of the applicant in the impugned transfers.\n9.  On 2 November 2000 the new executive board filed a criminal complaint against the former board members, including the applicant. It was alleged that fifteen people, including the applicant, had established a criminal organisation to commit fraud. The complainants stated that the former board members had set up an offshore company with the aim of collecting deposits which they subsequently used to provide irregular loans. In that connection, it was indicated that the deposits collected for the offshore account had never been transferred to the “TRNC”.\n10.  On 14 November 2000 the applicant was arrested in Istanbul on suspicion of aggravated fraud. According to a form explaining arrested persons’ rights which the applicant signed, he had been informed of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent. In the form it was further noted that legal assistance could not be provided to persons accused of offences falling within the jurisdiction of the State Security Courts.\n11.  On 17 November 2000 the applicant was questioned without a lawyer present. In his police statement, the applicant explained that although he had been the Director General of the bank, he had not been directly involved in offshore banking activities, which were administered by a separate directorate. He stated that Yurtbank had acted as a correspondent bank for Yurt Security Offshore Bank. He explained that he had not put pressure on the managers of branch offices to collect deposits for offshore accounts but had known that the managers received bonus payments depending on the number of deposits they had collected for offshore accounts. He further explained that, using the deposits saved in offshore accounts, the bank had signed loan contracts with companies which were owned by the main shareholder of the bank, Mr A.B. In concluding these loan agreements, the bank had not requ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8337", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Kragujevac.\n6.  The applicant was employed by “Društveno preduzeće Industrija mesa ‘Crvena zvezda’” Kragujevac (hereinafter “the debtor”), which was, at the relevant time, a company predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital.\n7.  On 15 October 2002 the Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud) in Kragujevac opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor (St. 1079/02).\n8.  The applicant duly submitted his claims for the payment of due salary arrears and related employment benefits.\n9.  On 25 August 2003 and 11 October 2004 the Commercial Court accepted some of the applicant’s claims. Those decisions became final on an unspecified date.\n10.  On 20 February 2009 the Commercial Court terminated the insolvency proceedings. That decision was published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia on 27 March 2009 (no. 21/09) and became final on 16 July 2009.\n11.  On 26 February 2010 the debtor ceased to exist.\n12.  The court decisions rendered in the applicants’ favour on 25 August 2003 and 11 October 2004 remain only partly enforced to the present day.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8338", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is an Iranian national who was born on 12 October 1977 in Teheran and currently lives in Einsiedeln, Switzerland.\n7.  The applicant entered Switzerland illegally on 26 June 2011 and applied for asylum the next day. He had two hearings before the Federal Migration Board (Bundesamt für Migration – hereafter “the Migration Board”).\n8.  The first hearing was a summary interview at the Migration Board’s “Centre for Reception and Procedure” (Empfangs- und Verfahrenszentrum) in Basel on 6 July 2011. The applicant gave an account of the alleged events in Iran leading to his escape from his home country. This account was summarised by the Migration Board’s interviewer in official minutes. At the beginning of this summary, the interviewer noted: “For lack of staff, the facts - summarised under no. 15 of the minutes - were not established in detail.” (“Es wird aus Kapazitätsgründen auf eine vertiefte Abklärung zu Pt. 15 verzichtet.”). An interpreter was present during the hearing and the minutes were translated for the applicant prior to his signing.\n9.  During the hearing the applicant stated that, following serious ballot‑rigging after the Iranian presidential elections on 12 June 2009, anti-regime demonstrations had started to take place. He had participated in almost all these demonstrations until the beginning of March 2011. He claimed that he and his friends had organised peaceful demonstrations every Tuesday. As the demonstrations had been brutally oppressed by the Iranian regime, he and his friends had documented the demonstrations and had circulated this documentation to people. He further claimed that during the last demonstration he had attended, at the beginning of March 2011, several of his friends had been arrested. He alleged that they had been tortured and that one of them had probably mentioned his name to the Iranian authorities and had told them about his participation in the demonstrations. Consequently, on 10 May 2011, a summons issued by the Revolutionary Court of Teheran had been delivered to his residence, namely his parents’ house in Karaj, by a court courier. He had not been present at the time of delivery as he had been on a visit to his sister’s house in Teheran. The summons had ordered him to appear in court on 12 May 2011. Fearing that he might be arrested upon his appearance, he had not presented himself in court but had hidden at his sister’s home and at the homes of various friends in Teheran. As a result of his non-appearance before the court, agents of the secret service had come to his parents’ house the following day (13 May 2011) in order to arrest him. Because of his absence, his father had been arrested instead. The applicant had been left a message that he should report to the district police, otherwise his father would remain in detention. For fear of arrest and on his family’s advice, he had fled the country without legal exit papers in June 2011.\n10.  In order to support his account during the first hearing, the applicant submitted the allegedly original summons of the Revolutionary Court of Teheran of 10 May 2011. He also submitted documentary material pertaining to the anti-regime demonstrations, which had allegedly been produced by him and his friends.\n11.  The second, more detailed hearing took place at the Migration Board’s office in Berne 21 months after the first hearing, on 5 April 2013. A member of the non-governmental Aid Organisation of the Protestant Church of Switzerland (H", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8339", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n5.  On 21 May 2004 at 08.15 two household workers (“M.R.” and “I.B”) discovered the body of the applicant’s daughter (“S.J.”) at her home in Ventspils. She had a rope around her neck, the other end of which was thrown over the top of a door and tied to the door handle on the other side.\n6.  At 08.20 M.R. and I.B. reported the incident to the Ventspils City and District Police Department of the State Police (“the Ventspils State Police”). Three police officers from the Ventspils State Police were dispatched to S.J.’s home. S.J.’s husband (“A.J.”), who worked as a policeman-driver for the Ventspils State Police, arrived separately.\n7.  The Government have provided details of the investigation which followed. Their account has not been disputed by the applicant.\n8.  From 09.40 to 10.35 officers G.A. and A.G. from the Ventspils State Police examined S.J.’s home. They prepared the procedural record, photographed the scene and seized material evidence. Later that same day S.J.’s body was transported to the Ventspils City Morgue and A.G. requested an autopsy and forensic medical examination of the body. He also submitted an internal report to the Head of the Ventspils State Police which stated that he and G.A. had arrived at the scene, established that S.J. was dead, arranged for the transportation of the body, examined the scene, and took statements. In the report he noted that the persons transporting S.J.’s body to the morgue had removed the rope from around her neck.\n9.  In a letter dated 23 May 2005 a Prosecutor from the General Prosecutor’s Office admitted to the applicant that the examination of the scene by A.G. had not been done “qualitatively” or in compliance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law. He had been subjected to disciplinary action and prosecuted under Article 319(1) of the Criminal Law (Failure of a State Official to Perform His Duties) and under Article 327(19) (Forgery of a Document by a State Official). The second prosecution would appear to relate to the forgery of a Doctor’s signature on a document purporting to set out an expert’s conclusion. A.G. was later released from criminal liability.\n10.  In the same letter the Prosecutor from the General Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that another officer from the Ventspils State Police (“A.M.”) had been subjected to disciplinary action for violating the Criminal Procedure Law when verifying the fact of S.J.’s death. It is not clear whether or not the disciplinary action related to the examination of the scene on 21 May 2004.\n11.  On 24 May 2004 the police took statements from the applicant and S.J.’s sister (“B.L.”), both of whom expressed the opinion that S.J. had no reason to commit suicide.\n12.  On 25 May 2004 a forensic expert, having examined S.J.’s body, concluded that she had died on 21 May 2004 and attributed the cause of death to mechanical asphyxiation. The report stated that there was no evident sign of violence, aside from the strangulation, although it noted that S.J. had bruises on her shoulder, hands and legs and three scratches on her right palm which could have been acquired up to three days prior to her death.\n13.  The following day the police obtained statements from a neighbour (“M.N.”) and two of S.J.’s colleagues. M.N. recalled that between 22.00 and 22.15 on 20 May 2004 she had observed a red vehicle similar to the one driven by A.J. parked ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8340", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Ms Borovská and Mr Forrai (“the first and third applicants”) were born in 1948 and 1927 respectively, and live in Košice.\n6.  Ms Buzová (“the second applicant”) was born in 1937 and also lived in Košice.\nOn 17 April 2014 the Court received a letter from the applicants’ lawyer informing it that, on 27 October 2013, the second applicant had died and that the inheritance proceedings were pending.\n7.  This application and three others (nos. 18803/10, 42812/10 and 44019/11) concern the regularisation of the relationship between ownership and use of real property located in the cadastral area of Košice-Sever.\n8.  Certain land in that area was expropriated in the 1980s by the (then socialist) State and a public sports centre was built on it. The sports centre comprises buildings and various other facilities, such as a tennis court, a grandstand, a water station and paved areas.\n9.  After the post-1989 political, constitutional and legal changes, litigation took place with a view to resolving various property claims made by the original owners (or their legal successors) against the entities that owned or operated the sports centre or various parts of it.\n10.  The land concerned is divided into a number of plots with various owners, many of whom are linked by family relations and history, and who had the same legal representation in the above-mentioned proceedings. Their lawsuits followed a similar pattern, but sometimes had varying results. They included the following proceedings.\n11.  The applicants in the present case are successors in title to a plot of land in the above-mentioned area, having inherited their title from the original owner, who died in 1959.\n12.  On 22 August 1994 the applicants lodged an action against the owner of a sports centre seeking to obtain a court order for the removal of the constructions on the land.\nThe principal line of argument was that the expropriation decision of 24 February 1984 was invalid in law. The applicants were therefore the lawful owners of the land in question, in particular plot no. 10610 (recorded on sheet no. 1460 in the “old” records), and the defendant had no lawful title to have the constructions on the applicants’ land.\n13.  The action was subsequently amended to state that, alternatively, the applicants sought a judicial ruling establishing an easement on their land for the benefit of the owner of the sports centre in return for financial compensation payable to the applicants. It was also extended to two more defendants: the municipality concerned and a private company.\n14.  The action was examined and determined at first instance by the Košice I District Court (Okresný súd). In its judgment (rozsudok) of 11 August 2008, the District Court acknowledged that (i) the expropriation of 1984 was legally ineffective on account of procedural flaws; (ii) as a consequence the applicants were the owners of the land in question; (iii) the constructions on it had been built without a valid legal title in so far as the land was concerned; and (iv) the applicants were entitled to seek redress under general civil law, that is to say Article 135c of the Civil Code (Law no. 40/1964 Coll., as amended), which was not subject to any statute of limitation, unlike the special legislation on restitution, which contained specific time-limits (see paragraph 24 below).\n15.  The District Court further held that, for practical reasons, it was out of the question to regularise the situation by establishing that t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8341", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The particulars of the applicants appear in the appendix.\n6.  This application and three others (nos. 18803/10, 42812/10 and 48554/10) concern the regularisation of the relationship between ownership and use of real property located in the cadastral area of Košice-Sever.\n7.  Certain land in that area was expropriated in the 1980s by the (then socialist) State and a public sports centre was built on it. The sports centre comprises buildings and various other facilities, such as a tennis court, a grandstand, a water station and paved areas.\n8.  After the post 1989 political, constitutional and legal changes, litigation took place with a view to resolving various property claims made by the original owners (or their legal successors) against the entities that owned or operated the sports centre or various parts of it.\n9.  The land concerned is divided into a number of plots with various owners, many of whom are linked by family relations and history, and who had the same legal representation in the above-mentioned proceedings. Their lawsuits followed a similar pattern, but sometimes had varying results, and included the following proceedings.\n10.  The applicants in the present case are successors in title to a plot of land in the above-mentioned area, having inherited their title from the original owners, who died in 1970 and 1997.\n11.  On 17 May 1994 the latter of the original owners lodged an action against a sports club seeking to obtain a court order for the removal of the constructions on the land.\nThe principal line of argument was that the expropriation decision of 24 February 1984 was invalid in law. The applicants were therefore the lawful owners of the land in question, in particular of plots nos. 10620/1 and 10620/2 (recorded on sheet no. 6946 in the “old” records), and that the defendant had no lawful title to have the constructions on the applicants’ land.\n12.  The action was subsequently amended to state that, alternatively, the applicants sought a judicial ruling establishing an easement on their land for the benefit of the owner of the sports centre in return for financial compensation to be paid to the applicants. It was also extended to two more defendants: the municipality concerned and a private company.\n13.  The action was examined and determined at first instance by the Košice I District Court (Okresný súd). In its judgment (rozsudok) of 2 April 2009, the District Court acknowledged that (i) the expropriation of 1984 was legally ineffective on account of procedural flaws; (ii) as a consequence, the applicants were the owners of the land in question; (iii) the constructions on it had been built without a valid legal title in so far as the land was concerned; and (iv) the applicants were eligible to seek redress under general civil law, that is to say Article 135c of the Civil Code (Law no. 40/1964 Coll., as amended), which was not subject to any statute of limitation, unlike the special legislation on restitution, which contained specific time-limits (see paragraph 23 below).\n14.  The District Court further held that, for practical reasons, it was out of the question to regularise the situation by establishing the applicants as the owners of the constructions and ordering them to pay the current owners financial compensation. Furthermore, in the circumstances, it was likewise not practical to order the physical removal of the constructions in question.\n15.  However, contrary to the applicants’ assertions, the Distr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8342", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1947, 1952, 1965, and 1921 respectively and live in Perugia, Fano, and (the third and fourth applicant) in Lecce, respectively.\n5.  The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicants are the owners of a plot of land in Galatina. The land in issue, an area of 6,241 square metres, was recorded on the land register as folio no. 76, parcel no. 29.\n7.  On 10 July and 9 August 1985 respectively, the Mayor of Galatina issued two decrees authorising the Municipality to take possession, under an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public-interest declaration, of 560 and 894 square metres of land in order to begin the construction of low-rent housing.\n8.  By two writs served, respectively, on 17 September and 8 October 1990, the applicants brought actions in damages against the Galatina Municipality before the Lecce District Court. The applicants alleged that the occupation of the land was illegal and that the construction work had been completed without there having been a formal expropriation of the land and payment of compensation. They claimed a sum corresponding to the market value of the land as well as compensation for the area of land that had become unusable as a result of the building work. They further claimed a sum in damages for the loss of enjoyment of the land during the period of lawful occupation.\n9.  On 13 November 1991 and 15 January 1992, the court ordered two expert assessments of the land in connection with the two sets of proceedings.\n10.  On 22 November 1996 the applicants submitted a motion pursuant to Article 186 quater of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure requesting that the court issue an order for the immediate payment of the requested compensation by the Municipality.\n11.  On 13 December 1996 the court concluded that sufficient evidence existed for it to proceed with the order. The court granted the motion and merged the two sets of proceedings.  By means of an order delivered on the same day, the Lecce District Court drew on the expert reports to conclude that the market value of the land on the date of its irreversible alteration (31 December 1985) corresponded to ITL 355 000 000 (EUR 342,199). On this basis, the court ordered that the applicant was entitled to compensation equivalent to the latter sum, adjusted for inflation, plus statutory interest, for a total amount of ITL 600 000 000 (EUR 309 874,139). The claim concerning the loss of enjoyment of the land during the period of lawful occupation was dismissed.\n12.  The order was served on the Galatina Municipality on 24 March 1997 and thereupon became immediately enforceable.\n13.  In April 1997 the Municipality submitted a motion, pursuant to Article 186 quater of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, expressing their intention to waive the delivery of the final judgment (“rinuncia alla pronuncia della sentenza definitiva”). The motion was served on the applicants on 4 April 1997 and filed with the registry on 31 May 1997. By virtue of the foregoing provision, once the motion is served and filed with the registry, the order becomes final and can, therefore, be subject to appeal.\n14.  On 2 June 1997 the Municipality appealed against the order before the Lecce Court of Appeal, their main contention being that the portion of land subject to expropriation was actually less than the size identified in the Lecce District Court’s order. The Municipality, therefore, requested that a new expert valuation be subm", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8343", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lived in Żary. She is currently residing in a social care home in K.\n7.  The applicant, who is a widow, was living alone in an apartment in Żary. She was receiving a pension from the Social Security Board. She has a daughter, with whom she apparently had had no contact for several years.\n8.  On 24 March 1981, at the request of the applicant’s daughter, the Zielona Góra Regional Court declared the applicant to be partially incapacitated. The court established that she had been suffering from psycho-organic dementia syndrome with elements of paranoia and that she had a tendency to abuse alcohol and medications. It reasoned that it was necessary to declare her to be partially incapacitated because she needed help in making the right decisions, particularly as regards her treatment and the amount of money she spent on alcohol.\n9.  On 19 December 2007 the Żary City Centre for Social Services (Miejski Ośrodek Pomocy Społecznej) requested the Żary District Court to place the applicant, against her will, in a social care home. The City Centre for Social Services submitted that the applicant was suffering from mental disorders, did not go to doctors and behaved in a way that departed from “socially accepted norms”, which posed a threat to her health and life. The Centre explained that the applicant had been “walking in the streets incompletely dressed, untidy and dirty. She smelled, talked to herself and often looked as if she was under the influence of alcohol”. A medical certificate dated 3 December 2007 was attached to the request. The certificate had been issued by a psychiatrist on the basis of an examination of the applicant in the psychiatric ward of the Żary Military Hospital. It had been found that the applicant had been suffering from organic personality disorders (organiczne zaburzenie osobowości) and that she needed constant care. However, she did not require hospital treatment.\n10.  The Żary District Court scheduled several hearings at which the applicant failed to appear. Therefore, it was decided to hear the applicant at her place of residence on 25 March 2008. On that day contact with the applicant was difficult; her answers to some of the court’s questions were illogical. She made it clear, however, that she did not want to be placed in the social care home. At the end of the hearing she refused to sign the relevant document and told the people present in her apartment to get out.\n11.  On 19 June 2008 the Żary District Court decided to place the applicant in a social care home. The court based its decision on an opinion given by a psychiatrist, I.S., who had examined the applicant once, on 8 May 2008, and had diagnosed her with chronic schizophrenia and a disorder of the central nervous system. The doctor found that until the time of the examination the applicant had been in the care of a social guardian, R.D. However, the doctor claimed that “care was not provided properly or was not provided at all”. The applicant had been neglecting the basic principles of hygiene and nutrition, which might lead to infections or undernourishment. He stressed however that she did not pose a direct danger to her own or other peoples’ health or life. The doctor also found that the applicant needed to be under the constant care of a third person. The relevant part of the opinion read as follows:\n“Through her behaviour she poses a risk to her life, i.e. in certain circumstances leaving her without constant ca", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8344", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Igar.\n6.  Between 25 April 2004 and 3 December 2004 the Fejér County Regional Centre for Taxes (the “Tax Authority”) carried out a tax audit of the applicant for the assessment of the years 1999-2001. The Tax Authority drafted an audit report on which the applicant submitted comments.\n7.  Having regard to the audit report, the testimonies of the applicant and her father and the applicant’s comments, the Tax Authority levied on her additional personal income tax in the amount of 10,961,884 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 39,100 euros (EUR)), tax surcharges in the amount of HUF 5,480,808 (EUR 19,500) and interest in the amount of HUF 6,551,884 (EUR 23,300). The Tax Authority dismissed the testimonies of the applicant and her father to the effect that the disputed funds, invested in her company as an equity loan, had been given to her by her father as personal credit. Relying on a targeted tax inspection (célvizsgálat) of the father, the Tax Authority observed that, despite an invitation to do so, the applicant’s father had failed to provide any documentary evidence of the fact that at the material time he had been in possession of the disputed amount.\n8.  On appeal, the second-instance tax authority upheld the first-instance decision on 5 May 2005. It stressed that the applicant’s father had only alleged but not proven in any manner the origin of the disputed amount and noted that since the tax scrutiny had been carried out to investigate the absence of an adequate source of revenue on the taxpayer’s side (adózói forráshiány), it was for the applicant to prove the origin of the amount in question. The Tax Authority also noted that it was implausible that the applicant’s father had provided a large loan to his daughter so that she could provide a financial service to a cooperative whose majority shareholders were her own parents.\nThe applicant sought judicial review of these decisions.\n9.  On 28 February 2006 the Fejér County Regional Court sitting as a single judge held an oral hearing and then overturned the decisions of the Tax Authority. The court based its decision essentially on testimony given by the applicant’s father as to the origin of the money in question. The court noted that, contrary to the findings of the Tax Authority, the applicant’s father was under no obligation to prove the existence and origin of his income and property which had served as personal credit for his daughter.\nThe Tax Authority filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, insisting in particular that the applicant’s allegations should have been supported by bookkeeping evidence, an argument already developed in the tax administration proceedings.\nIn reply to these arguments, the applicant submitted, in a memorandum to the Supreme Court, that, in her view, her father’s statement was of as good probative value as any bookkeeping evidence would have been. She did not request an oral hearing, a possibility provided under section 274(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n10.  On 12 April 2007 the Supreme Court, sitting as a three-judge panel, granted the Tax Authority’s petition for review, without holding an oral hearing.\nThe Supreme Court observed that in the circumstances – that is, because the plaintiff was required to refute the Tax Authority’s tax estimate – the burden of proof lay, statutorily, with the applicant to prove, providing credible evidence (hitelt érdemlő bizonyíték), the origin of th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8345", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1965.\n7.  The relevant facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  On 11 December 2002 the Jēkabpils District Court (Jēkabpils rajona tiesa) found the applicant guilty of aggravated theft. The judgment of the District Court did not indicate that the applicant had a lawyer.\n9.  The applicant was given a prison sentence of two years. Having taken into account the applicant’s seven prior convictions the District Court imposed a final prison sentence of three years and six months.\n10.  On 24 January 2003 the Zemgale Regional Court (Zemgales apgabaltiesa) partially upheld the applicant’s appeal against the above-mentioned first-instance judgment. The judgment of the District Court indicated that the applicant’s lawyer, G.L., had participated.\n11.  The Regional Court reclassified the charge as theft of a small amount and reduced the prison sentence to six months, reducing the final prison sentence to three years and one month accordingly.\n12.  On 27 January 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the appeal judgment with the Criminal Cases Division of the Senate of the Supreme Court. On 14 February 2003 he supplemented his appeal.\n13.  The Government submitted, and the applicant did not argue otherwise, that in his appeal on points of law the applicant had not expressed a wish to participate in the cassation hearing.\n14.  At its preparatory session on 20 February 2003 the Senate of the Supreme Court decided to accept the appeal for review on points of law and scheduled the hearing for 11 March 2003.\n15.  On 21 February 2003 the Senate of the Supreme Court wrote to the applicant informing him that the cassation hearing had been scheduled for 11 March 2003. The notification was also addressed to the lawyer, G.L.\n16.  The letter also stated that the applicant had the right to participate in the cassation hearing. However, in the event of non-appearance by the parties the hearing could be held in their absence.\n17.  On 27 February 2003 the applicant made a request to participate in the cassation hearing “in order to provide the necessary explanations”.\n18.  As submitted by the Government, on 3 March 2003 the applicant’s request was received at the registry of the Senate of the Supreme Court.\n19.  On 4 March 2003 V.E., a judge of the Senate of the Supreme Court, wrote to the director of Daugavpils Prison, where the applicant was held at the time, in the following terms:\n“Concerning [the applicant’s] request about the possibility of participating in the court hearing of 11 March, please inform [him] that it is impossible to ensure [his participation].\nHe made no such request in his appeal on points of law. His request to participate in the hearing of 11 March was received at the Supreme Court only on 3 March. [A]s escorts from the Daugavpils Prison to Riga depart only on 4 and 12 [March], it is no longer possible to organise his transport to the hearing of 11 March.”\n20.  On 11 March 2003 the hearing took place before the Senate of the Supreme Court.\n21.  The only party present was the public prosecutor. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer participated.\n22.  The decision of the Senate of the Supreme Court dated 11 March 2003 indicated, inter alia, that the Senate had heard the prosecutor’s opinion that the lower court’s judgment should be left unmodified.\n23.  The Senate of the Supreme Court upheld the appeal judgment and dismissed the applicant’s appeal on po", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8346", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n(1)  Ms Roza Kharayeva (also known as Bugayeva), who was born in 1968,\n(2)  Mr Ayndi Bugayev, who was born in 1972, and\n(3)  Ms Zayna (also spelt as Zaynap) Maluyeva (also known as Bugayeva), who was born in 1961.\nThe first applicant lives in Goyty and the second and third applicants live in Grozny, Chechnya.\n6.  The applicants are the siblings of Mr Andarbek Bugayev, who was born in 1977.\n7.  At the material time Mr Andarbek Bugayev and his family resided in Khankala, in the Grozny District. As the main military base of the Russian federal forces was located nearby, Khankala residents used special passes to enter and leave the town.\n8.  On the night of the incident, 27 July 2004, Mr Andarbek Bugayev was at home alone as his family was visiting their relatives who lived in the same settlement. At around 3 a.m. or 4 a.m., a group of masked men in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns arrived at Mr Andarbek Bugayev’s house and searched the premises. Then they put Mr Bugayev in one of their two UAZ vehicles and drove away. No witnesses were present during the abduction. On the following morning Mr Andarbek Bugayev’s relatives found his passport on the floor in the house.\n9.  According to the applicants’ neighbour Ms R.M., on that night, at about 4 a.m. the same group of men broke into her house. They introduced themselves as military officers conducting an identity check. After having searched the house, the men left. Sometime later the witness heard noise from the house of Mr Andarbek Bugayev and someone asking in Russian “Are there any drugs or guns here?”  On the following morning she asked the men who worked on the rail road contruction site and who were walking by her house to work, to have a look inside of Mr Andarbek Bugayev’s house. The men returned shortly and told her that the house was empty, that everything there was upside down and that Mr Andarbek Bugayev’s passport was on floor at the door.\n10.  The applicants have had no news of Mr Andarbek Bugayev since 27 July 2004. Their submission to the Court was based on the accounts of their neighbour Ms R.M. and Mr Andarbek Bugayev’s wife Ms Z.I.S. none of whom were present during the abduction.\n11.  In their submission concerning the facts of the case the Government did not dispute the circumstances of the abduction as presented by the applicants. At the same time they stated that Mr Andarbek Bugayev “...had been abducted by unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms who had driven in UAZ vehicles”.\n12.  On 30 July 2004 the third applicant complained about her brother’s abduction to the Grozny district department of the interior (the Grozny ROVD). She stated that Mr Andarbek Bugayev had been abducted from home “between 3 and 4 a.m. on 27 July 2004 by unidentified armed men”.\n13. On the same date, 30 July 2004, the investigators examined the crime scene. No evidence was collected. They also questioned the applicants’ relatives Ms L.Ar. and Ms M.E. and the wife of Mr Andarbek Bugayev, Ms Z.I.S. All of them stated that they did not witness the abduction and had no information as to who could have been involved in the incident.\n14.  On 5 August 2004 the Chechnya Federal Security Service (the Chechnya FSB) informed the police that Mr Andarbek Bugayev was an active member of illegal armed groups.\n15.  On 27 August 2004 the senior operational search officer Mr M.A. reported to the head of the Grozny ROVD of the following:\n“... upon the orders given by the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8347", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Oktyabrskiy, Bashkortostan Republic.\n6.  On 10 March 2004 the police opened an investigation against Mikhail Timin, the applicant’s brother, and two other individuals, on charges of extortion. Mr Timin was arrested on the same day and taken to the temporary detention centre of a police station.\n7.  On 11 March 2004 at 7.25 a.m. Mr Timin complained of headaches and cramps in his legs, allegedly resulting from ten days’ drinking. Paramedic A., who had been called by the administration, examined Mr Timin and diagnosed him with alcohol intoxication. She also advised that he be taken to hospital for inpatient treatment. It appears that there was some delay in his transfer to hospital pending the arrival of the convoy officers who would take him. He was taken to a rehabilitation clinic at 10.15 a.m. Doctor Kh. examined and diagnosed him with alcohol withdrawal syndrome and seizures and he was administered treatment. The doctor found him fit for detention and he was discharged from the clinic. He was then taken back to the temporary detention centre.\n8.  At the temporary detention centre Mr Timin did not feel well and the guards once again summoned an emergency response team, which arrived at 3.24 p.m. Paramedics I. and Z. examined and diagnosed him with alcohol intoxication. They recommended that he be given inpatient treatment. The administration of the temporary detention centre did not take him to the clinic, as they had failed to provide a convoy.\n9.  On 12 March 2004 the Oktyabrskiy Town Court of the Bashkortostan Republic (hereinafter “the Town Court”) authorised Mr Timin’s detention pending investigation. He attended the hearing at court. According to investigator Kam., who asked for him to be remanded in custody, he had not complained of any health issues either at the time of his arrest on 10 March 2004 or at the hearing on 12 March 2004.\n10.  Upon his return to the temporary detention centre, Mr Timin was placed in cell no. 3 together with E., S. and Sh. The inmates complained repeatedly to the guards about his aggressive behaviour (he assaulted Sh.) and asked the guards to transfer him to another cell. At 8.45 p.m. he was transferred to cell no. 10, where he was detained in isolation. He did not calm down and continued shouting, swearing and banging on the door.\n11.  On 13 March 2004 at 6.25 a.m. one of the guards heard some noise coming from cell no. 10 and looked through the peephole. He saw Mr Timin lying on the floor. The guard entered the cell, checked for a pulse but there was none. When the emergency response doctor summoned by the guards arrived, Mr Timin was pronounced dead.\n12.  On 13 March 2004 the police carried out an inquiry into the circumstances of Mr Timin’s death and concluded that the guards had failed to properly carry out surveillance over him. The relevant report was then forwarded to the prosecutor’s office, which commissioned a forensic examination to establish the cause of his death.\n13.  On 16 March 2004 the prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal investigation into the death. Investigator A. indicated that Mr Timin had died as a result of acute coronary insufficiency exacerbated by alcohol withdrawal syndrome.\n14.  On the same date the head of the town department of the interior found that the chief of police, his deputy and the police officers on duty at the time of Mr Timin’s death had failed to carry out their duties properly, in particular, they h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8348", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Krasnoyarsk.\n5.  The applicant was prosecuted for drug dealing and running a criminal syndicate, together with seven co‑defendants. He was first arrested on 12 October 2005 for selling heroin but released two days later on the undertaking to appear.\n6.  On 11 November 2005 the applicant was remanded in custody. Subsequently, the criminal case against the applicant was joined with a number of other investigations into drug dealing. On 8 June 2006 the charges against the applicant were re‑formulated. He was charged with creating and operating a criminal syndicate, twelve counts of drug dealing, three counts of attempted drug dealing and money laundering.\n7.  The facts concerning the applicant’s pre-trial detention are summarised in the table below.\n\nDecisions\n1st instance court \n2nd instance court\n1st detention order (pre-trial stage) 11.11.2005 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk\nNo information\nReasons\nRisks:\nSpecific factual circumstances:\nConduct of the proceedings: not specified.\nAlternative preventive measures: not analysed (“It is impossible to apply another preventive measure”).\nOther aspects: The court noted that the applicant was an individual entrepreneur and a Russian citizen. The court did not specify the authorised period of the applicant’s detention.\n2nd detention order (pre-trial stage) 22.12.2005 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk\nNo information\nReasons\nRisks:\nSpecific factual circumstances:\nConduct of the proceedings: The court noted that the investigation was not finished.\nAlternative preventive measures: not analysed (“No reasons to lift or change the preventive measure”).\nOther aspects: The court noted that the applicant was an individual entrepreneur and a Russian citizen, that he was married and had no criminal record. The court did not address the applicant’s argument that being at large he had not absconded and had appeared before the investigator on his requests.\n3rd detention order (pre-trial stage) 16.03.2006 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk\nNo information\nReasons\nRisks:\nSpecific factual circumstances:\nConduct of the proceedings: The need to conduct investigative actions referred to by the investigator which were: to detect and question other suspects; to obtain results of chemical, psychiatric and phonoscopic examinations; to identify the members of the criminal organisation; to formulate final charges against six co-defendants; to question them, to have them study the expert examination reports; to attach to the case file audio tapes of telephone conversations; to question witnesses; to have the co-defendants and their advocates study the case file, to prepare the bill of indictment; to conduct other investigative action which may prove necessary.\nAlternative preventive measures: not analysed (“No reasons to lift or change the preventive measure”).\nOther aspects: The court noted that the applicant had no criminal record and that he was married. It did not address the applicant’s argument that being at large he had not absconded and had appeared before the investigator on his requests. The court also did not address the applicant’s argument that the charges against him were ill-founded.\n4th detention order (pre-trial stage) 27.04.2006 Sovetskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk\nNo information\nReasons\nRisks:\nSpecific factual circumstances:\nConduct of the proceedings: The court established that the investigator had conducted a considerable number of proc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8349", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant union is a trade union of medical practitioners incorporated under Croatian law. Its registered office is in Zagreb.\n6.  On 8 December 2004 the Government of Croatia on the one side, and the Autonomous Trade Union for the Health Service and Social Protection Service of Croatia, the Croatian Professional Trade Union of Nurses, the Trade Union of Workers in the Health Service, Social Service and Disability Pension Insurance of Croatia, and the applicant union on the other, concluded the Collective Agreement for the Health and Health Insurance Sector (Kolektivni ugovor za djelatnost zdravstva i zdravstvenog osiguranja – hereinafter “the Collective Agreement” or “the main Collective Agreement”). Its clause 102 stipulated that the agreement would enter into force on 15 January 2005 if approved by a majority of the votes cast in a referendum, in which at least one third of those employed in the health-care institutions and the Croatian Health Insurance Fund voted. The Collective Agreement was approved in the referendum held on 5 January 2005 and entered into force, as envisaged, on 15 January 2005.\n7.  In order to regulate issues specific to doctors and dentists, on 8 December 2004 the Government of Croatia and the applicant union also concluded the Collective Agreement for the Medical and Dentistry Sector (Strukovni kolektivni ugovor za liječničku i stomatološku djelatnost), which formed an annex (hereinafter “the Annex”) to the above-mentioned main Collective Agreement. Clauses 6 and 98(2) of the Annex stipulated that if doctors approved it in a referendum, it would enter into force on 15 January 2005.\n8.  On 15 December 2004 the Autonomous Trade Union for the Health Service and Social Protection Service of Croatia and the Croatian Professional Trade Union of Nurses instituted civil proceedings against the State and the applicant union, seeking to declare the Annex null and void because it had not been entered into by all the trade unions that had concluded the main Collective Agreement, contrary to the law (for a more detailed description of the course of those proceedings see paragraphs 26-30 below).\n9.  On 29 December 2004 the Government of Croatia adopted an instruction whereby it (a) instructed the State Attorney’s Office to acknowledge the plaintiffs’ claim in those proceedings because it was well-founded, with a view to having the Annex declared null and void, and (b) instructed the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare to immediately commence negotiations on the conclusion of a new collective agreement for the medical and dentistry sector.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 21 December 2004 the referendum committee issued a decision to hold the referendum mentioned in the Annex (see paragraph 7 above).\n11.  However, on 31 December 2004 the President of the Socio-Economic Council (Gospodarsko-socijalno vijeće) – a tripartite body consisting of representatives of trade unions, employers and the Government – set aside the decision on holding the referendum.\n12.  The referendum was nevertheless held on 5 January 2005. Of 11,016 doctors, 8,290 voted; 8,255 voted “yes” and twenty-five voted “no”.\n13.  On 18 January 2005 the President of the Socio-Economic Council issued a decision not to recognise the results of the referendum.\n14.  In a letter to the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare of 23 March 2005, the applicant union announced a strike for 11 April 2005. It stated that the strike was being organised in order to (a) protect the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8351", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kharkiv.\n5.  On 5 May 2004 the applicant was arrested by four police officers on suspicion of bribe-taking. The police officers took him to the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Police Station, where he was held overnight. According to the applicant, the police officers beat him for several hours, forcing him to confess.\n6.  On 6 May 2004 the applicant was taken to the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office. He complained of ill-treatment to a senior prosecutor from the above office. The prosecutor referred the applicant for a forensic medical examination.\n7.  On 7 May 2004 the applicant was diagnosed with concussion and admitted to hospital.\n8.  On 8 May 2004 the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination, which established that he had numerous bruises on his face, chest, legs and arms, as well as a damaged tooth.\n9.  On 11 May 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on charges of bribe-taking. They were eventually terminated on 27 April 2007 for lack of corpus delicti.\n10.  On 2 June 2004 the applicant lodged another complaint of ill-treatment with the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office.\n11.  On 23 June 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office about the failure to examine his complaint of 2 June 2004.\n12.  On 12 August 2004 the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers. That decision was quashed by the higher prosecutor on 7 October 2004 and an additional inquiry was ordered.\n13.  On 28 October 2004 the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Prosecutor’s Office ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant, which was conducted between 28 December 2004 and 13 January 2005. The experts’ opinion confirmed the previous medical findings (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above) and concluded that the injuries had been the result of blows with blunt objects and had been inflicted during the period indicated by the applicant. The experts further opined that it could not be excluded that the injuries had originated in the circumstances indicated by the applicant, as they could all have been inflicted by fists.\n14.  On 23 September 2005 the Kharkiv Frunzenskyy District Prosecutor’s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. That refusal was quashed by the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office on 31 May 2006.\n15.  On 15 June 2006 the Kharkiv Frunzenskyy District Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. In a letter dated 10 August 2008, the Kharkiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that the decision of 15 June 2006 had been quashed and that the prosecutor who had conducted the inquiry would be subjected to disciplinary sanctions for the improper performance of his duties.\n16.  On 29 March 2007 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s allegations. That decision was subsequently quashed.\n17.  On 8 January 2008 the Kharkiv City Prosecutor’s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. That decision was quashed by the Kharkiv Kyivskyy District Court on 17 October 2011 and the case was remitted for further inquiries.\n18.  On 17 February 2012 the Kharkiv City Prosecu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8352", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Pskov.\n6.  From 5 January 2000 to 22 March 2001 the applicant worked at the Pskov Department of the Federal Debt Centre. On 22 March 2001 the Debt Centre terminated his employment due to its liquidation, failing to pay him certain compensation amounts. On various dates the domestic courts granted the applicant’s claims and awarded him compensation of salary arrears, indexation amounts, non-pecuniary damage and postal expenses. The particulars of the respective judgments may be summarized as follows:\nDomestic court\nDate of the judgment\nFinal on\nAwarded amount, Russian roubles (RUB)\nJustice of the Peace, Court Circuit no. 28 of Pskov\n27 June 2003\n15 July 2003\n20,634.50\nJustice of the Peace, Court Circuit no. 28 of Pskov\n15 September 2003\n15 October 2003\n2,421\n \nPskov Town Court, Pskov Region\n13 September 2004\n28 September 2004\n3,470\nPskov Town Court, Pskov Region\n12 May 2005\n24 May 2005\n1,529.42\n7.  The applicant submitted writs of execution in respect of the above judgments to the Ministry of Finance in 2003–2005. The writs were returned to him in September 2005. The applicant sought before the courts the clarifications as to the enforcement of the four judgments, but his claims were refused. He filed the writs anew with the Ministry of Finance in December 2006 and September 2009 and they were sent back to him without execution in June 2007 and December 2009 respectively.\n8.  In 2010 the applicant claimed compensation for the lengthy non‑enforcement of the judgment of 27 June 2003 under the Federal Law no. 68-ФЗ “On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or the Right to Enforcement of a Judgment within a Reasonable Time” (“the Compensation Act”, see paragraph 12 below). On 10 December 2010 the Pskov Regional Court granted his claim and awarded the applicant RUB 30,000 (approximately 730 euros (EUR)) for non‑enforcement of the judgment, and RUB 200 for legal expenses. These amounts were fully paid to him on 16 March 2011. The judgment of 27 June 2003 remained unenforced.\n9.  In February 2012 the applicant again sent the writs of execution to the Ministry of Finance. The latter brought court proceedings seeking clarifications and amendment of the judgments, in the part related to the way of execution and rectification of calculation errors. By separate rulings of 29 March 2012 the Pskov Town Court and the Justice of the Peace of Court Circuit no. 28 of Pskov amended the initial judgments as claimed.\n10.   On 18 April 2012 the four initial judgments in the applicant’s favour were enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8353", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1954 and prior to his arrest lived in the town of Makhachkala, Dagestan Republic. He is currently being detained in a temporary detention facility in Rostov-on-Don.\n8.  In 1993 the applicant, at the material time the deputy Prime Minister of the Dagestan Republic, survived an assassination attempt. However, his spine was badly wounded and he became paralysed. He cannot walk and is confined to a wheelchair. He also lost his ability to urinate or defecate without special medical procedures, such as catheters and enemas.\n9.  Since 1998 the applicant has been mayor of Makhachkala, the Dagestan Republic.\n10.  Сriminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of organised aggravated murder and attempted murder of State officials, including several prosecutors, investigators, a member of the town council and the head of the investigative committee in the Dagestan Republic. The investigation was assigned to a group of senior investigators and criminologists from the investigative committees of various regions of the Russian Federation and led by the deputy head of the Russian Federal Investigative Committee, a major-general. The applicant was arrested on 1 June 2013.\n11.  On the following day the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial, citing the gravity of the charges against him and the risk that he might abscond, interfere with the investigation, in particular influence witnesses, and reoffend. The District Court’s decision was based on the applicant’s official powers and his significant contacts with various persons involved in the investigation, as well as his consequent ability to influence the investigation. The court referred to the case-file materials, according to which a number of defendants arrested on suspicion of participating in the murders were also public officials and law-enforcement agents, investigators or police officers. They had identified the applicant as the “master-mind” of the murders, had provided details of the murders and had argued that certain victims had been murdered in retaliation for their failure to obey the applicant’s orders.\n12.  At the same time, the District Court dismissed the applicant’s arguments pertaining to his poor state of health, his stable family situation, his age and his standing in the community, having considered that they did not outweigh the reasons warranting his detention. The District Court was also not convinced by the description given by the head of the Makhachkala police department portraying the applicant as “an example of compliance with the law and public order”.\n13.  The decision of 2 June 2013 was upheld on appeal on 3 July 2013 when the Moscow City Court found the District Court’s finding reasonable and convincing. The City Court also noted that no alternative measure, such as house arrest or a written undertaking, could ensure the proper course of the criminal proceedings.\n14.  On 26 July 2013 the Basmannyy District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 11 November 2013, having again linked the gravity and nature of the charges against him, as well as his standing in society, to the likelihood that he would obstruct the course of justice, reoffend or abscond. The District Court once again relied on the applicant’s connections to support the conclusion that if released he would tamper with the evidence. At the same time, the District Court took into account a medical opin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8354", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Murmansk, Russia.\n7.  In November 2008 the Murmansk Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Russia instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of fraud. The applicant had been working as a police officer and was suspected of having obtained by fraud a number of sick leave certificates justifying his absence from work.\n8.  On 24 November 2008 the applicant arrived in Ukraine.\n9.  On 1 December 2008 he was placed on the list of wanted persons by the Murmansk Regional Department of the Interior.\n10.  On 3 December 2008 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Murmansk ordered the applicant’s arrest. On the same date an international arrest warrant was issued.\n11.  On 19 April 2010 the applicant was arrested by the Ukrainian police with a view to his extradition.\n12.  On 22 April 2010 the Prymorskyy District Court of Odessa (“the Prymorskyy Court”), following an application from the prosecution authorities, remanded the applicant in custody for forty days pending the extradition procedure.\n13.  On 29 or 30 April 2010 (both dates are mentioned in different case-file materials) the General Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine (“the GPOU”) received a request from its Russian counterpart about the applicant’s extradition and the extension of his detention pending extradition. As noted in that request, there were criminal proceedings against the applicant pending in Russia on suspicion of fraud. The extradition request did not contain any further details in that regard, but mentioned that “a detailed description of the charges against [the applicant was] in the enclosed documents”. It is not known what enclosures were attached to the request in question.\n14.  It appears from the judicial ruling of 30 July 2010 (see paragraph 25 below) that on 11 May 2010 the GPOU received another request from the Russian prosecution authorities about the applicant’s detention and extradition. There is no mention of that request in any other documents in the case file.\n15.  On 19 May 2010 the Prymorskyy District Prosecutor’s Office applied to the Prymorskyy Court for an extension of the applicant’s detention “pending resolution of the issue of his extradition”.\n16.  On 21 May 2010 the Prymorskyy Court allowed that application.\n17.  On 26 May 2010 the applicant appealed. He complained that he had not been familiarised with the charges against him, that no time-limit for his detention had been set, and that the Prymorskyy Court had announced the contested decision following a hearing at which he had not been present.\n18.  On 3 June 2010 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal examined the applicant’s appeal in a hearing at which two prosecutors were present, but in the absence of the applicant. The prosecutors submitted that the applicant’s extradition to Russia was all but settled and would take place shortly thereafter. Having regard to those arguments and noting that an international arrest warrant had been issued in respect of the applicant, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision extending his detention pending extradition.\n19.  On 21 June 2010 the Malynivskyy District Prosecutor’s Office applied to the Malynivskyy District Court of Odessa (“the Malynivskyy Court”) for an extension of the applicant’s “extradition detention” pursuant to the legislative amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure in force since 17 June 2010 (see paragraph 37 below).\n20.  On 23 June 2010 the Malynivskyy Court allowed the above ap", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8355", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1950 and 1953 respectively and live in Chişinău.\n6.  Both applicants were politicians at the time of the events. The first applicant was mayor of Chișinău and the leader of an opposition political party. The second applicant was a Member of Parliament (“MP”) and member of an opposition party.\n7.  On 30 November 2004 and 3 March 2007 the then president of the Republic of Moldova Mr V. Voronin (hereinafter “the President”) participated in two television programmes on two privately owned channels, one of which had national coverage. He was interviewed by journalists on various topics such as the economy, justice, foreign relations and elections. The President stated, among other things, that “during the ten years of activity as a Mayor of Chisinau, Mr Urecheanu did nothing but to create a very powerful mafia-style system of corruption”. When referring to the second applicant and to other persons, the President stated that all of them “came straight from the KGB”.\n8.  Both applicants brought libel actions against the President, seeking a retraction of the impugned statements and compensation. The first applicant sought compensation of 0.1 Moldovan lei (MDL), while the second applicant claimed MDL 500,000 plus payment of her court fees and legal costs. The President’s representative opposed the actions arguing that the impugned statements had been covered by his immunity.\n9.  On 11 January 2005 the Buiucani District Court discontinued the proceedings in the case lodged by the first applicant on the grounds that the President enjoyed immunity and could not be held responsible for opinions expressed in the exercise of his mandate. The court gave the following reasoning in its decision:\n“Having examined the materials of the case and heard the parties, in the light of Article 265 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court considers it necessary to strike out the case.\nThus, Article 81 para. 2 of the Constitution provides as follows: ‘The President of the Republic of Moldova shall enjoy immunity. He may not be held legally responsible for opinions expressed in the exercise of his mandate’.\nIt its judgment Nr. 8 of 16 February 1999 on the interpretation of Article 71 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court held that legal responsibility encompasses responsibility under criminal, civil and administrative laws.\nIn the same judgment, the Constitutional Court gave an extensive explanation to the expression “opinions expressed in the exercise of his mandate” used in Article 71 of the Constitution, holding that it means the point of view, opinions and convictions expressed in the exercise of his mandate in respect of matters and events from public life.\nIn such circumstances of fact and law, the court considers it necessary to strike out the case against the President of the Republic of Moldova, V. Voronin, on the ground that he cannot be held liable under civil law.”\n10.  On 25 April 2007 the Centru District Court discontinued the proceedings in the case lodged by the second applicant on the grounds that the President enjoyed immunity. The court gave the following reasoning in its decision:\n“Having heard the arguments of the parties and having analysed the materials of the case, the court considers well founded the plea of the representative of the defendant to strike the case out.\nThe Constitution guarantees a large immunity to the chief of the state. Thus, Article 81 para. 2 of the Constitution provides as follows", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8356", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Bratislava.\n6.  On 5 February 2010 the applicant was accused of fraud. The alleged crime was considered particularly serious.\n7.  On 24 and 31 August 2010 the applicant examined the case file in the presence of his lawyer and accepted that plea bargaining negotiations should be started.\n8.  On 20 September 2010 a plea bargain agreement (dohoda o vine a treste) was concluded in the presence of the injured parties, which contained an admission of guilt by the applicant and details of the sentence to be imposed on him. It was submitted to the Nitra District Court for approval.\n9.  At a hearing held on 20 October 2010 the applicant replied in the negative to questions put to him by the judge in respect of the above‑mentioned agreement. The court therefore refused to accept it and returned the case at its preliminary stage. Its decision was delivered to Nitra prison, where the applicant was being detained, on 8 November 2010.\n10.  On 3 November 2011 the Prosecutor General’s Office dismissed a request by the applicant for certain public prosecutors to be excluded from the Nitra Regional Prosecutor’s Office.\n11.  On 21 January 2011 the public prosecutor gave detailed instructions to the police as to what further investigations were to be carried out into the case.\n12.  On 8 February 2010 the District Court remanded the applicant in custody with effect from 5 February 2010. His detention was considered necessary for the reasons set out in Article 71 § 1 (a) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely that there was a risk of him absconding and committing further offences.\n13.  On 10 April 2010 the applicant filed a request for release with the Regional Prosecutor’s Office. It was transferred to the District Court on 28 April 2010, but dismissed on 20 May 2010. The applicant filed a complaint the same day.\n14.  The District Court transferred the file to the Nitra Regional Court on 6 August 2010, which dismissed the applicant’s complaint on 18 August 2010. It returned the file to the District Court the following day. On 8 September 2010 the District Court dispatched the Regional Court’s decision, which was deemed served on the applicant on 16 September and his counsel on 23 September 2010.\n15.  In the meantime, on 4 August 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 5 November 2010.\n16.  On 25 October 2010 it dismissed the applicant’s second request for release, which he had filed on 19 August 2010 with the Regional Prosecutor’s Office. On 19 November 2010 the Regional Court dismissed his complaint against that decision, which had been lodged on 25 October 2010. Its decision was served on him on 26 November 2010.\n17.  On 20 January 2011 the applicant again petitioned the Regional Prosecutor’s Office for release. He argued that there were no relevant grounds for his continued detention. On 28 January 2011 the public prosecutor transferred his request to the District Court, which, after hearing him, dismissed it on 9 February 2011.\n18.  The District Court noted that the applicant had admitted his actions in preliminary proceedings. As he was suspected of committing the offence using a false identity, there was still a specific risk that he might abscond if released and thus hamper the further investigations into the case which had been ordered. The fact that he had a family and a permanent residence could not outweigh this consideration. Furthermore, the offence was punishab", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8358", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Mr İhsan Güler and Mr Sinan Uğur were born in 1964 and 1947 respectively and live in Ankara and İzmir respectively.\n6.  At the relevant time they were active members and regional leaders of the Party for a Democratic Society (Demokratik Toplum Partisi (DTP)), which was subsequently dissolved by the Constitutional Court. The applicant Mr Güler, former mayor of the district of Başkale (Van), was at the relevant time the chairman of an association called KÜRT-DER (Kürt Demokrasi Kültür ve Dayanışma Derneği – association for Kurdish culture, democracy and solidarity).\n7.  On 21 August 2006 the applicants took part in a religious ceremony (mevlût)[1] on the premises of the DTP in Altındağ (Ankara), in which they paid tribute to three members of the PKK who had been killed by the security forces.\n8.  The participants read out passages from the Koran and said prayers, and showed a film about the lives of the deceased. The DTP’s regional representative gave a short speech, which can be summarised as follows:\n“Our fears and worries continue. People are still being killed. In such a context, we would like this mevlût to be a moment of peace and fraternity.”\n9.  On 3 October 2006 the Muş public prosecutor’s office received an anonymous letter of denunciation, together with a CD containing a recording of the ceremony in question. The writer, who said that he had been a participant himself but had subsequently regretted it, explained that the ceremony had been held in memory of “the martyrs of the PKK”.\n10.  Following an investigation by the public prosecutor’s office, the applicant Mr Güler was arrested and taken into police custody on 28 December 2006. He was released the next day.\n11.  Both applicants were committed to stand trial before the Ankara Assize Court. In their defence they stated that they had taken part in the ceremony for the observance of their religious duties.\n12.  In a judgment of 24 September 2008 the Ankara Assize Court, relying on section 7(2) of Law no. 3713 on the prevention of terrorism, sentenced the two applicants to ten months’ imprisonment.\n13.  In its judgment, the Assize Court observed, firstly, that the persons in whose memory the ceremony had been held were members of a terrorist organisation and that they had been killed by the security forces during an operation against that organisation. It also took the view that the choice of venue for the ceremony – the premises of a political party –, and the fact that the PKK flag had been spread over the tables and photos of members of the organisation had been displayed, contributed to raising serious doubts as to the actual reasons for the gathering that had been given by the applicants in their defence.\n14.  Further to an appeal on points of law by the applicants, their conviction was upheld by a final judgment of the Court of Cassation on 8 March 2010. The applicants were imprisoned for the duration of their sentence.\n...", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8360", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Elazığ.\n5.  On 19 October 1999 the applicant sat an examination in order to become a public servant. She was successful in the examination and on an unspecified date she was informed by the State Personnel Department attached to the Prime Minister’s office that she had been appointed to the post of security officer in the Batman branch of TEDAŞ, the state-run Electricity Company, the first of the five choices that the applicant had made in the course of the examination procedure.\n6.  On 5 July 2000 the human resources department of the Batman branch of TEDAŞ informed the applicant that she would not be appointed as she did not fulfil the requirements of “being a man” and “having completed military service”.\n7.  In a letter dated 9 August 2000 and addressed to the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, the human resources department of TEDAŞ requested the Ministry to provide a list of new persons to be appointed instead of a number of persons, including the applicant, who could not be recruited for various reasons. As regards the applicant and three other persons, B.U., R.B. and A.O.C., the human resources department of TEDAŞ informed the Ministry that they were women and therefore could not work as security officers. In the letter, it was stated that security officers had the task of protecting depots, switchyards and transformer stations in rural areas far from city centres, against attacks and in case of fire and sabotage. They were obliged to work day and night and to use weapons, including those with long barrels, and physical force in case of an attack. It was therefore considered that women were not suitable for the post of security officer.\n8.  On 18 September 2000 the applicant lodged an action against the general directorate of TEDAŞ with the Ankara Administrative Court requesting the annulment of the decision of the Batman branch of TEDAŞ with all its financial consequences. In her deposition, the applicant noted that being a man was not a requirement for appointment to the post in question and that she fulfilled all the requirements for that post. The applicant also noted that she had been deprived of the opportunity to be appointed to one of the other four posts that she had indicated following the refusal in question and that she could not sit the examination again in 2000 as she had succeeded in 1999.\n9.  On an unspecified date the general directorate of TEDAŞ submitted to the administrative court that one of the requirements for the post in question had been declared by the State Personnel Department as “having completed military service” and that therefore only men could be appointed to the post. The applicant, being a woman, could therefore not be recruited as a security officer.\n10.  On 27 February 2001 the Ankara Administrative Court annulled the decision of the Batman branch of TEDAŞ. The court held that the requirement of “having completed military service” should be considered to apply only to male candidates and that there had been no restriction on women working as security officers in TEDAŞ. The court also noted that another woman, Y.P., who had also brought a case against TEDAŞ for the same reasons as the applicant, had been appointed to the post of security officer after she had lodged the case.\n11.  Subsequent to the judgment of 27 February 2001, the applicant was offered a contract by the Batman branch of TEDAŞ. On 11 July 2001 she took up her duties. On 1 M", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8361", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Kadzidło.\n5.  The applicant’s parents owned land within the administrative borders of Warsaw. It was expropriated by way of an administrative decision issued on an unspecified date under the provisions of the Decree on Ownership and Use of Land in Warsaw of 26 October 1945. In February 1949 the applicant’s legal predecessor requested to be granted a right of perpetual use (użytkowanie wieczyste) for another plot of land situated in Warsaw as compensation provided for by the provisions of the 1945 Decree. His request was dismissed by way of an administrative decision given in 1961 and ultimately upheld in 1968.\nA judicial decision given in 1975 confirmed that the applicant was his parents’ general heir.\n6.  On 16 July 1993 the applicant requested that the decision given in 1961 be declared null and void.\n7.  On 20 September 1994 the Minister of Construction and Land Planning (Minister of Gospodarki Przestrzennej and Budownictwa) gave a decision. It noted that in 1961 the authorities had failed to examine whether the substantive conditions for granting the owners the right of perpetual use of the land specified in section 7 of the 1945 Decree (see paragraph 46 below) had been met at that time. He declared, referring to Article 156 § 1 item 2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (CAP) (see paragraph 39 below), that decision null and void in so far as it related to the part of the land concerned which was used as family gardens. In so far as this decision related to the part of the land which had already been used for construction purposes, he considered that the contested decision had given rise to irrevocable legal consequences within the meaning of Article 156 § 2 of the CAP (see paragraph 41 below). Therefore under Article 158 § 2 he could merely declare that it had been issued contrary to law within the meaning of this provision.\n8.  The municipality of Warsaw did not lodge an appeal against this decision. It accordingly became final within thirty days after its service on the applicant.\n9.  The applicant instituted three separate sets of proceedings, seeking compensation for damage caused by the expropriation decision.\n10.  On 10 October 1994 the applicant, referring to the decision of 20 September 1994, requested the authorities to re-examine the original motion submitted in 1949 to be granted a right of perpetual use in respect of the land covered by the part of the expropriation decision declared null and void (see paragraph 7 above). On 28 October 1994 the Land Planning Division (Wydział Gospodarki Przestrzennej) of the Warsaw City Hall requested the Warsaw-Mokotów Town Hall to provide certain information concerning the land concerned.\n11.  On 3 March 1995 the applicant complained to the Minister of Construction and Land Planning about the authorities’ failure to give a decision in his case.\n12.  On 7 September 1995 the Minister of Minister of Construction and Land Planning stayed the compensation proceedings instituted by the applicant under Article 160 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (see paragraphs 29-33 below). He observed that the decision given on 20 September 1994 (see paragraph 7 above) made it necessary in law to re‑examine the former owners’ request for grant of the right to perpetual use submitted in 1949 and that it created a compensation claim for the applicant. It referred to the applicant as “the claim’s owner” (właściciel roszczenia).\n13.  In March and May ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8362", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965. He is currently detained in Jilava Prison.\n6.  By a decision of the Romanian prime minister from 29 November 2002 to 20 December 2004 the applicant occupied the post of Secretary of State for the State Secretariat for the Problems of the December 1989 Revolutionaries (“the State Secretariat”).\n7.  On 7 December 2002, as a result of his appointment to the post of Secretary of State, the applicant delegated his duties as president of the Revolutionary Association “Club 22” (“the Association”) to the vice‑president of the said organisation. Under the terms of the agreement signed on the same date, he did not delegate his right to be a signatory on the bank account and various other duties of utmost importance for the organisation and its members, which were to be determined by mutual agreement at a later date.\n8.  In an interlocutory judgment of 25 May 2005 the Romanian Court of Auditors (Curtea de Conturi a României) examined the report produced after inspection of the financial documents and the activity of the State Secretariat for the year 2004. It noted inter alia that, although the applicant was dismissed from his post on 20 December 2004, he continued even after that date to sign and authorise payments on behalf of the State Secretariat. By unlawfully using his power to authorise payments, he approved 2,907,902,590 Romanian lei (ROL) (approximately 75,190 euros (EUR)) from public funds in the form of financing for the Association as a subsidy covering rent and utility charges incurred by the Association, despite the lack of any contractual agreement with the aforementioned Association as required by law. Consequently, the Court of Auditors referred the case to the Bucharest Court of Appeal and the Public Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Court of Cassation in order to investigate the applicant’s administrative and criminal liability respectively.\n9.  On 25 January 2006 the National Anticorruption Department brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and a co-accused for improperly using his influence and information acquired by virtue of his position in order to obtain unwarranted material gain for himself or others. It held that on 21 and 22 December 2004 the applicant, although his post of State Secretary had already been revoked, authorised payments of approximately EUR 75,000 from the account of the Secretariat to the account of the Association of which he was a president. Although required by law, no formal agreement had been signed between the two organisations and, although he was not registered as a tenant, the applicant was living in the building occupied by the offices of the Association.\n10.  On an unspecified date the National Anticorruption Department indicted the applicant and his co-accused for improperly exploiting his influence and information obtained by virtue of his position for the purposes of acquiring unwarranted material gain for himself or for others and sent his case for trial.\n11.  At hearings on 31 May and 23 October 2006, the Court of Cassation examined the applicant’s and some of the parties’ submissions in respect of the procedural aspects of the case.\n12.  At a hearing on 1 November 2006 the Court of Cassation, sitting as a panel of three judges, heard the applicant in respect of the charges brought against him. In addition it allowed the applicant’s request for a financial expert report, documents and testimonial evidence to be added to the file.\n13.  At ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8363", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Salaspils.\n6.  The applicant, who had been working as a bailiff (tiesu izpildītājs) since 1996, was arrested and eventually convicted of corruption offences. He was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. The events leading up to the final decision adopted by the Senate of the Supreme Court on 17 March 2006 unfolded as follows.\n7.  On 9 November 2001, following a request by a private company, R.L., for its claim to be secured in a commercial dispute with another private company, M., a court issued an order for M.’s moveable property to be seized. On 15 November 2001 the director of R.L., O.V., submitted a writ of execution of the said decision to the Riga City Vidzeme District Bailiffs’ Office (Rigas pilsētas Vidzemes priekšpilsētas Tiesu izpildītāju kantoris). The applicant was the senior bailiff of that office, but the specific matter was entrusted to another bailiff of the same office, G.P. On 19 November 2001 G.P. seized M.’s property, which chiefly consisted of fur coats, transported it to another location, and entrusted its storage to O.V. On the same day representatives of M. contacted the applicant, asking him to ensure that the coats were stored in proper conditions, to prevent any damage. The applicant alleged that he then decided to entrust the storage of the seized property to an independent third party, whose costs would have to be reimbursed by R.L. Accordingly, the applicant directed his secretary to prepare documentation for the request of an advance payment from R.L. for the expected costs of the storage. The next day the applicant signed a document requesting an advance payment of 500 Latvian lati (LVL), which he considered would be sufficient to cover the costs of transporting the fur coats to an independent storage facility and obtaining an estimate of the value of the coats from an expert.\n8.  On 28 November 2001 the order of 9 November for the seizure of the property was quashed and a court ordered the immediate return of the seized property to M. On 5 December 2001 the bailiffs’ office sent a letter to O.V., informing him that the seized property must be returned to M. On 7 December 2001 R.L. lodged an ancillary complaint against the decision of 28 November. Under Latvian law as it stood at the relevant time, the lodging of such a complaint had suspensive effect.\n9.  It appears that on 14 December 2001 O.V. submitted a complaint to the police, alleging that the applicant and G.P. were asking him to pay a bribe of LVL 500, failing which the seized property would be returned to M. in accordance with the decision of 28 November. On the same day a recording was made of a telephone conversation between S.Ž. (a lawyer for R.L.) and G.P. The relevant part of the conversation ran as follows:\n“S.Ž. Listen, [G.P.], [O.V.] called me. G.P. Well, not me, I have a court decision that he has to return this property, it says “return”. Do you understand? And I cannot do anything else about that.\n10.  On the same day a recording was made of a telephone conversation between the applicant and S.Ž. Also on the same day O.V. and S.Ž. visited the applicant in his office. Their conversation was secretly recorded.\n11.  On 17 December 2001 O.V. went to the bailiffs’ office to receive a document confirming that the decision of 28 November had been suspended pending examination of an ancillary complaint lodged by R.L.\n12.  It appears that on 18 December 2001 a prosecutor from the Office of the P", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8364", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and before his conviction lived in the Volgograd Region.\n6.  On 28 March 2003 the Novoannenskiy District Court of Volgograd (“the District Court”) convicted the applicant of theft and robbery. The applicant was given a suspended sentence of four years’ imprisonment, conditional upon three years’ probation.\n7.  On 1 December 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and manslaughter.\n8.  On 3 December 2003 the District Court held that the applicant should be detained on remand. The court held as follows:\n“The applicant is charged with two crimes, one of which is a grave crime representing a high risk of public danger. [He] had previously been convicted of a grave crime, and had not completed his sentence. All these crimes were committed by [the applicant] in a state of alcoholic intoxication. [The applicant] has no family, does not work, and abuses alcohol. [He] has no means of subsistence, which may result in his committing other crimes.\nHaving regard to the circumstances of the case, and the [applicant’s] personality, the court has grounds to believe that if not detained [the applicant] may continue his criminal activity, and abscond from the investigation and the court ...”\n9.  On 27 December 2003 the pre-trial investigation was completed and charges were brought against the applicant under Articles 161 § 2 and 109 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n10.  On 1 January 2004 the Novoannenskiy District Prosecutor (“the District Prosecutor”) approved the bill of indictment.\n11.  On 18 January 2004 the applicant applied to the District Court seeking to have the custodial measure replaced by an undertaking not to leave his place of residence.\n12.  On 2 February 2004 the District Court, having repeated the reasoning applied on 3 December 2003 and having noted the absence of any grounds for altering the preventive measure, dismissed the applicant’s request. On 6 April 2004 the Volgograd Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the decision of 2 February 2004 on appeal.\n13.  On 17 May 2004 the applicant’s criminal case was sent to the District Court for trial.\n14.  On 1 June 2004 the District Court scheduled the opening date of the trial and ordered that the preventive measure should remain unchanged.\n15.  On 15 June 2004 the District Court referred the case to the District Prosecutor in order to enable the applicant, his co-accused and the victims to study the case file. The court further held that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged.\n16.  On 28 June 2004 the District Prosecutor resubmitted the case to the District Court for trial.\n17.  On 12 July 2004 the District Court scheduled the opening date of the trial and held that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged.\n18.  On 23 July 2004 the applicant submitted a written waiver of his right to legal representation.\n19.  On 4 August 2004 the District Court convicted the applicant of robbery and manslaughter and, having taken into account the applicant’s previous sentence of 28 March 2003, sentenced him to four years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.\n20.  On 18 January 2005 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 4 August 2004 in so far as the charges of robbery were concerned, upheld the rest of the judgment on appeal and reduced the sentence to four years and one month’s imprisonment.\n21.  Later the applicant brought proceedings seeking to have his convictio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8365", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Kamna Gorica.\n6.  The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed and semi-open sections of Ljubljana prison.\n7.  In the period from 7 June 2009 to 31 August 2009 he was held in the closed section: for five days in cell 117, measuring 17.66 square metres (not including a separate 1.68 square metre sanitary facility) shared with three to five other inmates and with 2.66 to 3.99 square metres of personal space and for eighty-one days in cell 7 measuring 16.7 square metres (not including a separate 1.68 square metre sanitary facility). The Government submitted that in cell 7 the number of prisoners varied between three and five and when there were three prisoners therein the applicant had 5 square metres of personal space.\n8.  In the period between 1 September 2009 and 12 November 2009 he was held in the semi-open section in cell 137, measuring 17.94 square metres (not including a separate 1.75 square metre sanitary facility) shared with two to four other inmates and with 3.2 to 5.4 square metres of personal space and cell 136, measuring 18.44 square metres (not including a separate 1.78 square metre sanitary facility) shared with two to four other inmates and with 3.3 to 5.6 square metres of personal space.\n9.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the closed and semi-open sections, material conditions inside the cells, sanitary conditions and health care, see the judgment in Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia, nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, §§ 21 to 32, 20 October 2011.\n10.  As to the out-of-cell time in the closed section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities, most of which were to take place in the recreation room. There was, however, only one 50‑square-metre recreation room per floor, which was to be used by ten inmates at most (Štrucl and Others § 86).\n11.  As to the out-of-cell time in the semi-open section, the Government submitted that the cell doors in the semi-open section of the prison were unlocked, except from 9.45 p.m. (on Fridays, Saturdays and before holidays from midnight) until 6.00 a.m. (on Saturdays, Sundays and during holidays until 8.30 a.m.). During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor (35.7 square metres), living quarters of co-prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas, in accordance with prison rules. The Government contended that this regime had been in place for several years.\n12.  As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5- 5.30 p.m.) in the second half of July and August 2009 had been approximately 28oC, exceeding 30oC on seven days.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8366", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy.\n6.  On an unspecified date the prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation into the activities of a criminal gang allegedly organised by V., a high-ranking police officer at the time. The members of the gang were suspected of numerous thefts of goods and foodstuffs from various storage facilities. One of the episodes under investigation was a fraudulent attempt by the members of the gang to sell scrap metal, which belonged to a private company, to a scrap metal processing plant. According to the official version, the attempt to sell the scrap metal was carried out by V., the applicant, who was also a high-ranking police officer at the time, and G., another member of the gang. On an unspecified date in November 2000 V., the applicant and G. met with M., a director of the scrap processing plant, and fraudulently represented to him that the scrap metal belonged to K. and that they were acting on her behalf. M. agreed to purchase the scrap metal and on 23 November 2000 he sent a group of workers to the company’s site in order to have the scrap metal removed. G.’s boyfriend Yer., another member of the gang, was also present at the site at the time. The removal of the scrap metal was interrupted by B., one of the private company’s directors. Yer. phoned G., who told him to go to the police station to notify V. of the incident. Then both Yer. and G. returned to the site to settle the issue with B., who had complained to the police about the attempted theft of the scrap metal. B. also informed Vosh., the company’s managing director, of the incident. Acting in his official capacity, V. assigned the investigation into the attempted theft of scrap metal to Yem., who decided to question M. However, V. interviewed M. himself and brought Yem. M.’s statement. Yem. questioned K., who submitted that she had nothing to do with the removal of the scrap metal from the company’s premises.\n7.  On 8 May 2002 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. On 3 December 2002 he was released on bail.\n8.  On 9 December 2002 the applicant was formally charged with more than ten counts of financial fraud, theft and embezzlement committed in collusion with eight members of the gang.\n9.  The trial opened in January 2003. At the end of the trial the prosecutor dropped all the charges against the applicant except the attempted theft of scrap metal.\n10.  The applicant maintained his innocence. The testimony he gave at the trial was summed up as follows in the judgment:\n“... he has known V. since 1996 due to his service in the Ministry of the Interior[.] They have been friends. Since the late nineties he has known G. too, whom he met from time to time at different places and visited her at her home for work purposes. In the summer of 2000, V. asked ... to take him to the site [where the scrap metal was] in order to meet G. G. asked him and V. to help the buyer of the scrap metal to ensure its safety. He and V. promised to ask one of the police patrol teams to secure the scrap metal. They informed accordingly the buyer who arrived later to inspect the scrap metal. He did not talk to anyone about stealing and selling the scrap metal. He did not conspire with such intent and he did not take part in any negotiations about that. He did not receive any proceeds from the sale of the scrap metal or any advance payment. Nor did he take any measures to conceal the crimes committed by G. She fal", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8367", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1976 and 1983 respectively and live in Moscow. Both applicants are political activists and opposition leaders. The first applicant is also a well-known anti-corruption campaigner and a popular blogger. The second applicant is a leader of the political movement “Solidarnost”.\n6.  On 4 December 2011 general elections of the State Duma took place in Russia.\n7.  On 5 December 2011 the applicants took part in a public demonstration (a meeting) at Chistyye Prudy, Moscow, to protest against the allegedly rigged elections. The demonstration had been duly authorised by the mayor of Moscow. The number of participants at the meeting was estimated between 5,000 and 10,000. During the meeting, conducted by the second applicant, the first applicant addressed the participants with a speech calling for fresh, fair elections and describing United Russia, the election frontrunner, as “a party of crooks and thieves”.\n8.  After the demonstration the applicants were arrested. The parties disagreed as to the circumstance of their arrest, and their respective submissions are summarised below.\n9.  The applicants claimed that at the end of the meeting they had headed, with other people, towards the Kuznetskiy Most metro station, where the first applicant had left his car. They were walking along the pavement, leaving the road clear for traffic. Suddenly their way was blocked by the riot police (сотрудники внутренних войск и OMOН). Without any introduction or demand, the police surrounded a group of about one hundred protesters, including the applicants, pressing them against a building. The surrounded group chanted “One for all, and all for one!”. The riot police then began to arrest the protesters. According to the applicants, no one put up any resistance. They obeyed the police and followed them to the police bus.\n10.  According to the Government, at the end of the meeting the second applicant called on the participants to march down Myasnitskaya Street onto Lubyanskaya Square and then to the office of the Central Electoral Commission. At 8.30. p.m. about sixty people, including the applicants, began walking down Chistoprudnyy Boulevard, Bolshaya Lubyanka Street and Rozhdestvenka Street. They walked along the road, obstructing the traffic and chanting slogans such as “This is our city!” and “Down with the police state!” At the crossroads of Pushechnaya and Rozhdestvenka Streets the police blocked the march and ordered the marchers to stop. They pushed thought the cordon and went on until they were stopped by the police again at 2 Teatralnyy Proyezd. They ignored the repeated demands of the police to stop and thereby prevented the police from carrying out their mission of securing public order. Confronted with this persistent behaviour, the police arrested the applicants.\n11.  Both applicants were arrested at about 8.45 p.m. and were taken to a police bus.\n12.  At about 9.40 p.m. the applicants were taken to the Severnoye Izmaylovo District police station, Moscow. At 11.40 p.m. the first applicant was subjected to a body search, which lasted until 12.15 a.m. His personal affairs, including his mobile phone, barrister licence, watch, money, credit cards, driving licence and some items of clothing were seized. The second applicant was searched as well, and his mobile phone, belt, watch, whistle and a badge reading “Against the Party of Crooks and Thieves” were seized. The list of the seized objects was recorded in the search repor", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8369", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Bibinje.\n6.  On 6 July 2009 the Zadar County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Zadru; hereinafter: the “State Attorney’s Office”) indicted the applicant in the Zadar County Court (Županijski sud u Zadru) on charges of continuous offences of rape and indecent behaviour against a child.\n7.  During the proceedings the applicant denied the charges, arguing that he knew the victim and her family, who lived nearby, but had never engaged in any sexual or indecent behaviour with her.\n8.  On 23 April 2010 the Zadar County Court found the applicant guilty on three counts of rape, one count of sexual intercourse with a child and one count of indecent behaviour, and sentenced him to fourteen years’ imprisonment. The trial bench found that the evidence of several witnesses and expert reports confirmed the victim’s accusations against the applicant, and that the charges brought against him should be classified not as a continuous offence but as cumulative offences of rape, sexual intercourse with a child and indecent behaviour.\n9.  On 28 May 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against the first‑instance judgment before the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske), challenging the factual and legal grounds for his conviction and sentence, and complaining of numerous substantive and procedural flaws in the trial and the judgment. In particular, he argued that he had not had an opportunity to effectively challenge the victim and witnesses during the trial, that a psychologist expert report had not been properly drafted, that the judgment lacked the relevant reasoning, and that the trial bench had erred in the legal classification of the acts at issue and in its factual findings, leaving some crucial facts undetermined. He thus requested that the first-instance judgment be quashed and the case be remitted for a retrial. He also asked that he and his lawyer be invited to the hearing before the Supreme Court.\n10.  During the appeal proceedings the case file was forwarded to the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia (Državno odvjetništvo Republike Hrvatske), which submitted in its reasoned opinion that the appeal be dismissed. That submission was never forwarded to the defence.\n11.  On 12 May 2011 the Supreme Court held a hearing in the presence of the applicant’s lawyer and the Deputy State Attorney, holding that the applicant’s presence was not necessary. During the hearing, the Deputy State Attorney reiterated her reasoned opinion. The applicant’s lawyer complained that there had been a breach of procedure.\n12.  On the same day the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded, reversing the legal classification of the cumulative offences to one continuous act of sexual intercourse with a child, and sentencing the applicant to twelve years’ imprisonment.\n13.  On 4 July 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). Relying on the Court’s case-law, he complained, inter alia, that during the appeal proceedings the submission of the State Attorney’s Office had never been communicated to the defence and that he had not been given an opportunity to be present at the appeal hearing. The Supreme Court had been invited to examine all the legal and factual aspects of the case, which should not have been done without his presence at the hearing. He also stressed that the defence had not le", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8370", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in County Antrim.\n7.  On 6 January 1996 the applicant’s son, Mr James McDonnell, was remanded in custody to Crumlin Road Prison in Belfast. Since that prison had to close, all prisoners were to be transferred on 30 March 1996 to HMP Maghaberry.\n8.  On the morning of 30 March and prior to his transfer, Mr McDonnell was informed that his father had died suddenly during the night. Upon hearing the news, the applicant asked to be moved to a single cell. At 10.50 a.m. he was transferred to HMP Maghaberry. His cell was not ready on arrival so he waited in the recreation area. When a prisoner officer informed him that he would share a cell, Mr McDonnell said that he would wreck it. A principal officer was informed.\n9.  At 12.15 p.m. Mr McDonnell was informed his cell was ready and he said that he would hit the first prisoner who came into it. The principal officer was informed.\n10.  At 2.10 p.m. another prisoner, with two prison officers, arrived to share the cell. Mr McDonnell said that he wanted to be left alone. He left the cell and announced that he was going to the Punishment and Segregation Unit (“PSU”). There was then a scuffle between several prison officers and Mr McDonnell, which resulted in his being wrestled to the ground and physically restrained. He was brought to a standing position and, while still restrained, was taken to the PSU at approximately 2.20 p.m. A body search was carried out at the PSU with his consent. He was also examined by a medical officer, who noted that he had suffered bruising and grazing and was experiencing discomfort in his chest. The medical officer left at approximately 2.30 p.m. Statements later taken from prison officers and prisoners diverged as regards, inter alia, the circumstances of the incident, the level of restraint used and whether Mr McDonnell had been beaten.\n11.  At 3.45 p.m. on the same day Mr McDonnell was found unconscious in his cell in the PSU having suffered a heart attack. A number of unsuccessful attempts were made to resuscitate him. He was declared dead at 4.15 p.m.\n12.  On 30 March 1996 the first autopsy was conducted by Professor Crane, the State Pathologist for Northern Ireland. Professor Crane noted that Mr McDonnell had suffered a fracture to the hyoid bone in the neck, consistent with being grasped by a hand, and that it appeared that Mr McDonnell had suffered a heart attack some 12-24 hours prior to his death. He found that:\n“[the earlier heart attack] ... could ... have precipitated a fatal upset in the heart rhythm at any time ... [T]he possibility that the stress of the incident shortly before his death played some part in the fatal outcome cannot be completely excluded.”\n13.  Professor Crane’s report was sent to the Coroner in April 1997.\n(b)  Professor Vanezis\n14.  A further autopsy was carried out on 2 April 1996 by Professor Vanezis. Professor Vanezis reported that Mr McDonnell’s thyroid cartilage was also fractured and that there was bruising to the area. He could not exclude that stress suffered while being restrained had contributed to the cause of death.\n15.  An initial copy of the report was provided to the Coroner in March 1997. A copy was sent by the Coroner to Professor Crane for consideration in April 1997. Having considered Professor Crane’s autopsy, Professor Vanezis produced, on 26 June 1997, a supplemental report confirming his own previous findings.\n(c)  Dr Kirschner\n16.  The Northern Ireland Civil Liberties", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8372", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Amsterdam.\n6.  The applicant was suspected of membership of a crime ring organised around one H., a person widely known to have amassed criminal convictions for serious crimes; of complicity in extortion; and of possession of an illegal firearm.\n7.  On 30 January 2006 the applicant was arrested. On 2 February 2006 he was taken into initial detention on remand (bewaring) for fourteen days by order of an investigating judge of the Haarlem Regional Court (rechtbank). The order included the following grounds:\n“(post alia)\nConsidering in addition that it appears that there is a serious reason of public safety requiring the immediate deprivation of liberty;\nConsidering in this connection:\nthat there is a suspicion of a [criminal] act which, according to the law, carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment of twelve years or more and that act has caused serious upset to the legal order (een feit waarop naar de wettelijke omschrijving een gevangenisstraf van twaalf jaren of meer is gesteld en de rechtsorde ernstig door dat feit is geschokt);\nthat there is a serious likelihood (dat er ernstig rekening mee moet worden gehouden) that the suspect will commit a crime (misdrijf) by which the health or safety of persons will be endangered, since the framework of the suspicion encompasses the display of aggressive and unrestrained behaviour by the suspect;\nthat detention on remand is necessary in reason for discovering the truth otherwise than through statements of the suspect; ...”\n8.  On 14 February 2006 the applicant was taken into extended detention on remand (gevangenhouding) for thirty days by order of the Haarlem Regional Court following a hearing in camera. This decision stated the following grounds:\n“considering that the Regional Court finds, after examining the case, that the suspicion, indications and grounds which have led to the order for the suspect’s initial detention on remand still obtain;\nconsidering that the existence of these grounds is borne out by the conduct, facts and circumstances stated in the order for the suspect’s initial detention on remand, given on 2 February 2006, which the Regional Court adopts as its own; ...”\n9.  The Regional Court renewed its order for a further term of thirty days on 11 April 2006. The applicant appealed against this decision; his appeal was dismissed by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) on 17 May 2006.\n10.  The order for the applicant’s extended detention on remand was renewed periodically by the Regional Court until its suspension.\n11.  On 7 May 2007 the Haarlem Regional Court ordered the suspension (schorsing) of the applicant’s detention on remand with effect from noon the following day. The reason stated was the following:\n“The Regional Court is of the view that the serious reasons and grounds stated in the order for extended detention on remand (bevel tot gevangenhouding) still exist and that Article 67a § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering) is not yet applicable.\nEven so, the Regional Court considers it appropriate, in view of the circumstance that it has today ordered the suspension of the trial until a date next September, to decide as follows as to the execution of the detention on remand.\nThe suspension of the trial is directly linked with the state of health of a co-suspect and the Regional Court’s decision in principle (uitgangspunt) to pursue the proceedings against all suspects simultaneously.\nThat ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8373", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in the Moscow Region.\n7.  The applicant came to Russia from Uzbekistan in 2010. In 2012 he lost his Uzbek passport.\n8.  On 20 January 2013 the Karshi Town Interior Department of Uzbekistan put the applicant’s name on the list of wanted individuals, on account of criminal charges brought against him for membership of a religious extremist organisation, attempted overthrow of the constitutional order of Uzbekistan, and terrorism.\n9.  On 9 June 2013, at the request of the Uzbek authorities, the applicant’s name was added to the Russian federal list of wanted persons.\n10.  On 31 October 2013 the applicant was arrested in the Moscow Region, where he lived with his wife and two children.\n11.  On 2 November 2013 the Serpukhov Town prosecutor’s office noticed that the applicant was wanted by the Uzbek authorities and was therefore liable to extradition to Uzbekistan. At the same time, given that the applicant had violated immigration regulations in Russia, the prosecutor’s office ordered that the Serpukhov District Interior Department take measures to ensure his administrative removal to Uzbekistan.\n12.  On the same day the Serpukhov District Interior Department drew up a report on the commission of an offence under Article 18.8 of the Administrative Offences Code.\n13.  On 2 November 2013 the Serpukhov Town Court of the Moscow Region found that the applicant had infringed the immigration regulations and was therefore guilty of an offence under Article 18.8 of the Administrative Offences Code. The court ordered the applicant’s administrative removal to Uzbekistan and his detention pending such removal. The applicant was not assisted by counsel during the hearing before the Town Court.\n14.  On 12 November 2013 the applicant lodged an application for refugee status. He submitted that he was being persecuted in Uzbekistan for his religious beliefs and that he feared torture and ill-treatment in Uzbekistan in the criminal proceedings against him.\n15.  On 14 November 2013 counsel for the applicant appealed against the administrative removal order of 2 November 2013. He submitted, in particular, that the applicant had lodged an application for refugee status and could not therefore be removed to Uzbekistan as long as that application was pending. He further argued that the applicant would be exposed to a real risk of torture in Uzbekistan. To substantiate the risk of ill-treatment he relied on the Court’s case law and reports by United Nations institutions about widespread ill-treatment in detention facilities.\n16.  On 28 November 2013 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the administrative removal order on appeal. In reply to the applicant’s argument about pending refugee status proceedings it noted that, pursuant to the Refugees Act, a person who had applied for refugee status could not ‒ indeed ‒ be returned to his country of origin against his will. However, in the present case the applicant had not applied for refugee status immediately after his arrival in Russia. Given that the application for refugee status had been lodged after the administrative removal order had been made, the pending refugee status proceedings could not prevent the applicant’s administrative removal. The applicant’s allegations about the risk of ill‑treatment or persecution for religious beliefs were hypothetical and unsubstantiated.\n17.  On 22 January 2014 the Moscow Region Department of the Federal Migration Service rejected the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8374", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Novoyavorivsk, Lviv Region.\n5.  In the late evening of 1 April 2006 the applicant’s husband and his friend (P.) were attacked in a street of Novoyavorivsk by a group of young men. The applicant’s husband sustained grievous head injuries, including fractures to his skull. His friend sustained bruises and abrasions to his face, a fractured nose, brain concussion and other less serious injuries. Following the incident the applicant’s husband was placed in hospital and remained there in a vegetative state.\n6.  On 2 and 3 April 2006 the police interviewed K., Dz. and Sh. who stated that they had beaten up the two men.\n7.  On 11 April 2006 the investigator of the Yavorivsk District Police Department of Lviv Region (“the District Police Department”) opened an investigation into disorderly conduct by a group under Article 296 § 2 of the Criminal Code. In the course of further questionings and confrontations, Dz., Sh., and K. gave details as to their scuffle with the two men.\n8.  On 28 April 2006 the investigator reclassified the case as individual disorderly conduct under Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code as only K. had behaved in a disorderly manner in respect of the applicant’s husband. On the same day K. was charged with individual disorderly conduct under Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 29 May 2006 the investigator additionally charged K. with the individual infliction of grievous bodily injury on the applicant’s husband under Article 121 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n10.  On 30 May 2006 the investigator refused to open criminal proceedings under Article 121 of the Criminal Code against Dz. and Sh. noting that they had not inflicted any injuries on the applicant’s husband and that they had only been nearby when K. was beating the applicant’s husband.\n11.  On 5 June 2006 the applicant submitted a civil claim against K. for damages caused by the crime. The civil claim was joined to the criminal case.\n12.  On 12 June 2006 the Yavoriv District Court of Lviv Region (“the District Court”) committed K. for trial.\n13.  On 25 July 2006 the authorities instituted another set of criminal proceedings under Article 296 § 1 of the Criminal Code against Dz. for individual disorderly conduct during the incident on 1 April 2006 which resulted in injuries inflicted on P. (the applicant’s husband’s friend).\n14.  On 27 July 2006 the investigator refused to open criminal proceedings against Sh. for disorderly conduct as the latter had not done anything wrong during the incident on 1 April 2006.\n15.  On 31 July 2006 the applicant’s husband died as a result of the head injury sustained on 1 April 2006.\n16.  On 10 August 2006 the District Court committed Dz. for trial in respect of charges of individual disorderly conduct.\n17.  On 3 October 2006 the District Court consolidated the criminal cases against K. and Dz. in a single set of proceedings noting that the charges against the two defendants were inextricably linked to each other and the consolidated proceedings were necessary for the comprehensive and objective examination of the charges.\n18.  On 16 March 2007 the District Court remitted the case for additional investigation after finding that the facts suggested that the defendants should be charged with more serious offences.\n19.  On 26 April 2007 a forensic medical expert issued a report stating that the death of the applicant’s husband had been caused by an open head injury which was accompanied b", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8375", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1984.\n5.  On 15 October 2009 he was arrested by the Darnytskyy District Police Department of Kyiv on suspicion of having committed a robbery in aggravated circumstances. On the same day he was charged with that crime.\n6.  On 16 October 2009 the Darnytskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Darnytskyy Court”) ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention for two months.\n7.  On 10 November 2009 the applicant was also charged with murder.\n8.  On 10 December 2009 the Darnytskyy Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to three months, namely to 15 January 2010.\n9.  On 13 January 2010 the Darnytskyy Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to four months, namely to 15 February 2010.\n10.  On 13 February 2010 the case was referred to the Kyiv Court of Appeal for consideration on the merits.\n11.  On 15 March 2010 the Kyiv Court of Appeal held a preliminary hearing in the case and ordered, inter alia, that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should be left unchanged.\n12.  On 14 April 2011 the Kyiv Court of Appeal found the applicant guilty of robbery and murder. It convicted him to fourteen years’ imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of his property.\n13.  On 13 September 2011 the Higher Specialised Court for Civil and Criminal Matters quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh trial.\n14.  On 24 December 2013 the applicant was found guilty of robbery and murder and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment. The court also ordered the confiscation of the applicant’s property.\n15.  The applicant lodged an appeal. No further information was provided.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8376", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1983. His present place of residence is unknown.\n6.  On 5 October 2005 the applicant was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to two years’ restriction of liberty.\n7.  In March 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted against him on suspicion of robbery, theft and illegal drug dealing committed in 2005 and 2007. The applicant was detained as a suspect within this set of proceedings from 8 to 23 March 2007 and from 10 September 2007 to 21 October 2008. During the remaining period of the pre-trial investigation he was bound by an undertaking not to leave his town of residence.\n8.  On 21 October 2009 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the Shevchenkivskyy Court”) found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment, which also absorbed the outstanding part of the sentence of 5 October 2005 (see paragraph 6 above).\n9.  On 9 April 2010 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.\n10.  The case file contains no further information about the aforementioned proceedings.\n11.  On 3 July 2009 Mr B. lodged a complaint with the police to the effect that the applicant had robbed him of a mobile phone on 22 June 2009 (the applicant had then been at liberty subject to an undertaking not to leave his town of residence – see paragraph 7 above).\n12.  On 3 July 2009, at about 7 p.m., the applicant was summoned to the Shevchenkivskyy District Police Station no. 2 (ТВМ-2 Шевченківського РУ ГУМВС у м. Києві) by a telephone call. According to him, he could not refuse given that he was bound by the undertaking not to leave the town, which also implied his obligation to obey any police summonses. As the applicant further submitted, he was arrested in the police station upon his arrival there without any explanation. According to the report of the police officer involved, the latter had “invited [the applicant] to the police station on suspicion of having committed the criminal offence alleged by [Mr B.]”.\n13.  It appears that the applicant was held in the police station overnight (see, in particular, paragraph 27 below). The case file contains his written explanations to the police dated 3 July 2009 regarding the events of 22 June 2009. He admitted that he had met Mr B., but denied his involvement in the robbery.\n14.  On 4 July 2009 a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of having robbed Mr B.\n15.  On the same day, at 2.15 p.m., the police issued a report, according to which the applicant had been apprehended at 2 p.m. on 4 July 2009 in the premises of the police station on suspicion of having committed a crime. The applicant signed the report with a comment that he had nothing to say. He also signed extracts from the Constitution and the legislation on pre-trial detention as regards his procedural rights, as well as a waiver of his right to legal assistance.\n16.  On 4 July 2009 the applicant was questioned as a suspect and denied that he was guilty.\n17.  On 7 July 2009 the investigator applied to the Shevchenkivskyy Court for an order remanding the applicant in custody pending trial, stating as reasons the applicant’s previous criminal record and the severity of the alleged offence, which was punishable with imprisonment for up to six years. The investigator considered that if the applicant remained at liberty, there was a risk that he would abscond or hinder the investigation.\n18.  On the same date, having upheld the investigator’s reasoning, the Shevchenkivskyy", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8377", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are all Russian nationals. They were charged with different criminal offences and placed in detention. The applicants complain in particular that after their cases had been submitted to the trial court they were detained for approximately six months without a court order. The applicants’ individual circumstances are detailed below.\n6.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Vsevolozhsk.\n7.  In 1998 criminal proceedings were instituted against him on suspicion of being a member of a large criminal group which had committed extortions by threats and other serious crimes.\n8.  On 7 December 1999 he was arrested by Czech police in Prague and on 18 February 2002 extradited to Russia where he was placed in detention.\n9.  On 1 March 2002 the Prosecutor of St Petersburg extended his detention up to four months, until 18 June 2002. The applicant did not appeal against this order.\n10.  On 10 June 2002 the Deputy Prosecutor General extended the applicant’s detention until 18 September 2002.\n11.  On 15 July 2002 the applicant’s counsel lodged an application for release with the Oktyabrskiy Federal Court claiming that the applicant should be released on the ground that the new Code of Criminal Procedure had entered into force on 1 July 2002, and that a person could now be detained only on the basis of a court order.\n12.  On 9 August 2002 the Oktyabrskiy Federal Court dismissed the application for release. This decision was quashed on 11 September 2002 by the St Petersburg City Court on the applicant’s appeal and the matter was sent back for reconsideration. On 4 October 2002 the Oktyabrskiy Federal Court referred the matter back to the City Court because the case had already been referred to it for trial.\n13.  On 19 September 2002 the applicant was served with a bill of indictment and on the same date the case was referred for trial to the St Petersburg City Court.\n14.  On 20 September and on 23 December 2002 the applicant applied to the St Petersburg City Court asking to be released on the grounds that his detention had ceased to be lawful after the expiration on 18 September 2002 of the last detention order.\n15.  On 13 March 2003 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court (“the Supreme Court”) about the St Petersburg City Court’s failure to examine his application for release of 23 December 2002. On 10 April 2003 the Supreme Court forwarded his complaint to the City Court.\n16.  The applicant’s detention was further extended by the St Petersburg City Court on 18 March, 18 June and 18 September 2003. Each time the City Court relied on the gravity of charges. All detention orders were appealed by the applicant. The detention orders of 18 March and 18 June 2003 were upheld by the Supreme Court on 18 September and on 8 October, respectively, whereas the detention order of 18 September 2003 was quashed on 3 December 2003.\n17.  On 8 December 2003 the applicant lodged an application for release with the St Petersburg City Court on the ground that since the extension order of 18 September 2003 had been quashed on appeal, he should be immediately released from detention. This application was never examined by the City Court.\n18.  On 16 December 2003 the St Petersburg City Court relying on the gravity of the charges extended the applicant’s detention for further three months, until 18 March 2004.\n19.  On 30 December 2003 the applicant appealed on the ground that the order had been unlawful since it was only based on the gravity of c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8378", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1977 and 2007 respectively and live in Svinaře.\n6.  The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant. During her pregnancy she had regular check-ups with a doctor and attended ante-natal classes at Hořovice Hospital. Prior to giving birth she had expressed, among other things, her wish to leave the maternity ward as soon as possible provided that there were no complications.\n 7.  On 24 October 2007 the first applicant contacted a pediatrician, S., who agreed to take charge of her future child and to come and see them both at their home as soon as they were discharged from the maternity ward. She informed the first applicant that she would, however, be away the following weekend. The applicant then told her that she intended to leave the hospital “earlier”, without enlarging on that statement. S. subsequently stated that it had not been her understanding that the applicant wanted to leave the hospital a few hours after the birth.\n8.  The second applicant was born on Friday 26 October 2007 at Hořovice Hospital. It was a natural and spontaneous delivery with no complications. The applicants were found to have no health problems, the Apgar score for newborns (recording the pulse rate, respiration, complexion, muscular activity and reflex irritability) was the highest possible, according to the medical team’s assessment. In these circumstances, the first applicant decided to leave the hospital the same day, which she did at about noon despite meeting opposition from the medical team.\n9.  According to a statement issued by the hospital on 29 October 2007 following extensive media coverage of the case, the hospital staff had suggested that the applicants remain at the hospital for at least 48 hours and had warned the first applicant of the possible risks to the child’s health, but the first applicant had indicated that a pediatrician would be taking charge of the child. After the applicants had left, the hospital staff informed the police, which was standard practice in situations where a patient left hospital prematurely without the doctor’s consent and this could have repercussions on his or her health. The social welfare authority was not informed until after the pediatrician S. had contacted the hospital (see below). The hospital found it regrettable that the first applicant had not expressed her wish to leave the hospital only hours after the birth during the ante-natal classes. Had she done so, the staff would have recommended that she obtain a personal care plan for the newborn baby and secure written agreement from the pediatrician (who would thus have had proper advance notice), whereupon her decision would have been accepted. The first applicant had accepted, moreover, that the events in question might have arisen as a result of a misunderstanding regarding the care arrangements for her newborn baby.\n10.  According to the explanations given by the pediatrician S., on 26 October 2007 at about 2 p.m. she had been informed by the nurse from her surgery, who had received a call from the first applicant, that the latter had given birth that very morning and returned home. As it was an unusual situation, the pediatrician, who had been preparing to leave for the weekend and could not visit the applicants until Monday afternoon, informed the staff at Hořovice Hospital accordingly. D., the hospital doctor, decided to contact the social welfare authority, namely, the Černošice municipal office. In the m", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8379", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948, and at the time of lodging the application lived in Milton, Ontario, Canada.\n6.  Malta has gone through various legislative regimes in order to regulate its housing situation. The first regime came about in 1931 and protected tenants from the termination of their leases. This was followed by the 1944 Rent Restriction (Dwelling Houses) Ordinance which, apart from regulating termination of the lease of dwelling houses, also controlled rents and the initial conditions of contracts. The Housing Act was then enacted in 1949, with the aim of providing a solution to homelessness caused by the Second World War. In 1959 the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance, Chapter 158 of the Laws of Malta (hereinafter “the HD Ordinance”) was enacted, which provided incentives to encourage landlords to rent their property, and created a special class of dwelling houses free from rent control.\n7.  The applicant owns a property in Gozo (a maisonette measuring 105 square metres) which he inherited from his parents, his mother having passed away in 1984.\n8.  On 12 January 1960 the property was registered as a “decontrolled dwelling house” in accordance with Article 3 of the HD Ordinance. At the time, Article 5 (1) of the HD Ordinance provided that the provisions of the “Rent Ordinances” (the Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordinance, Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta and the Rent Restriction (Dwelling Houses) Ordinance, Chapter 116 of the Laws of Malta) were not applicable to dwelling houses decontrolled in accordance with Article 3 of the HD Ordinance.\n9.  In 1970 the applicant’s mother leased the premises to couple C., who are Maltese citizens (born in 1943 and 1950 respectively), for a rent of 35 Maltese Liri (MTL) (approximately 81.50 euros (EUR)) every six months, which was later decreased to the equivalent of EUR 75.70 every six months. At the time, the law permitted her to increase the rent, to refuse to renew the lease or to change its terms on renewal.\n10.  In 1979 the Maltese parliament enacted an amendment to the HD Ordinance, which provided that the rent restrictions set out in the Rent Ordinances would apply where tenants were Maltese citizens and occupied houses as ordinary residences. It further provided that landlords could not refuse to renew leases, raise their rent, or impose new conditions on renewal, except as provided for by law (see “Relevant domestic law” below). The applicant submitted that the contractual freedom of parties was greatly restricted as a result of the new provisions, in that his family could not charge a fair rent or recover possession of their property, despite the fact that his tenants owned substantial immovable property.\n11.  By a decision of the Rent Regulation Board (RRB) of 7 July 1998, the rent was further reduced to EUR 65.22 per year. The applicant did not appeal.\n12.  In 1995 new laws were enacted in respect of new leases which could again be free from rent control. They did not apply to the applicant’s case.\n13.   In 2009 and 2010 new concepts and provisions were introduced, aimed at gradually eliminating the restrictive regimes applicable to leases entered into before 1995.\n14.   Thus, while a rent of EUR 65.22 per year had been paid to the applicant since September 1998, a rent of EUR 185 had been paid from September 2010 onwards in view of the above-mentioned amendments. However, the applicant refused to accept any rent as from 2007 and it was duly deposited in court by th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8380", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Prague, the Czech Republic. The second applicant was born in 2005. She currently lives in Russia with O.H., her mother.\n7.  On 5 June 2003 the first applicant married a Russian national, O.H. The couple decided to settle in Prague.\n8.  On 28 January 2005 their daughter, the second applicant, was born.\n9.  In 2007 the first applicant and O.H. decided to separate.\n10.  On 1 November 2007 O.H. filed for divorce in the Czech Republic. Both O.H. and the first applicant sought custody of the child.\n11.  In April 2008 O.H., unbeknownst to the first applicant, obtained a one‑month Russian visa for the second applicant, and on 17 April 2008, together with the latter, left for Russia (Vologda Region). Upon the expiry of the visa on 12 May 2008 O.H. did not bring the second applicant back to the Czech Republic. Instead, on 20 May 2008 she obtained a temporary residence permit for the second applicant from the Russian Federal Migration Service, and on 27 May 2008, Russian citizenship for the latter. On an unspecified date O.H. and the second applicant left for St Petersburg.\n12.  On 7 July 2009 O.H. applied to the Federal Security Service Border Control (Пограничное управление Федеральной службы безопасности Российской Федерации по городу Санкт-Петербургу и Ленинградской области) in order to restrict the second applicant’s travel outside Russia.\n13.  As of 10 July 2009 the second applicant’s travel abroad was restricted.\n14.  Since 29 May 2011 the first applicant has had no contact with the second applicant, because O.H. prevented him from either seeing the second applicant or communicating with her by telephone. The Russian authorities have been unable to establish O.H.’s and the second applicant’s whereabouts since then.\n15.  The interim decision of Prague 4 District Court of 30 April 2008 as amended by the interim decision of Prague Municipal Court of 21 July 2008 granted the first applicant temporary custody of the second applicant pending the outcome of the divorce proceedings. The Prague Municipal Court thereby obliged O.H. to hand the child over to the first applicant, not to leave the Czech Republic and not to remain outside the territory of the Czech Republic with the minor. The interim decision entered into force on 8 August 2008.\n16.  On 2 June 2011 Prague 4 District Court issued a final custody judgment by which custody of the second applicant was granted to the first applicant. O.H. was obliged to pay the first applicant 5,000 Czech korunas – about 200 euros (EUR) – monthly in alimony. The court held as follows:\n“The father loves [his daughter] very much; in the opinion of the experts he is better developed emotionally in comparison to the mother, is more capable of self-control and handling [stress] so as to not spoil the relationship between the mother and [the child] or otherwise turn [the child] against her mother. It was established that the interests of [the child] require that she be placed in her father’s care [as he] was established to be a more suitable caregiver; at the same time it was established that as a result of [the child’s] separation from her father the former’s psychological well-being [has been affected]. It was established that for the last three years the father, unlike the mother, has been cooperating with [the custody and guardianship authority], and the [guardian] had therefore had a real possibility to examine the father’s living conditions and his situat", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8381", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and is currently serving a prison sentence in medical penal institution LIU-58, Sverdlovsk Region.\n6.  On 23 April 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. He was taken to the police station, where he was allegedly ill-treated by police officers and confessed to murder.\n7.  On 24 April 2005 the applicant was subjected to a forensic medical examination, which recorded two bruises under his left and right eyes measuring 1 x 2 cm, an abrasion on the middle finger of the left hand measuring 0.5 x 0.8 cm, and an abrasion on the back of the right forearm measuring 0.2 x 2 cm. The expert concluded that the bruises under the eyes could have been inflicted three to five days prior to the examination, and the abrasions of the upper limbs could have appeared one to two days prior to the examination.\n8.  On the same day the record of the applicant’s arrest was drawn up. The applicant was questioned as a suspect and, allegedly for fear of further beatings, confirmed his previous confession. He was placed in a temporary detention unit. The unit’s medical records show that the applicant had a bruise under his left eye when admitted. They further indicate that the applicant was otherwise in good health.\n9.  On 26 April 2005 the applicant complained of chest pain. An ambulance was called, and he was found to have a bruised breastbone.\n10.  On 29 April 2005 the applicant was allegedly beaten again by the police officers in an attempt to make him confirm his previous statements to the investigator.\n11.  On 5 May 2005 the applicant again complained of chest pain. He was taken to Ozersk Town Hospital. An X-ray examination showed a breastbone fracture.\n12.  On 6 May 2005 the applicant was transferred to remand prison IZ‑74/3, Chelyabinsk. The facility doctor who examined the applicant on admission entered the breastbone fracture diagnosis of 5 May 2005 in the applicant’s medical records.\n13.  On 10 November 2005 Ozersk Town Court, Chelyabinsk Region, convicted the applicant, under Article 111 § 4 of the Criminal Code, of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm on V., causing his death by reckless conduct. The applicant was sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment. The applicant was represented by a legal-aid lawyer at the trial.\n14.  The applicant appealed. He asked the appeal court to allow him to attend the appeal hearing in his case, and also expressed the wish to be represented by a lawyer.\n15.  On 27 April 2006 Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The applicant was present at the appeal hearing. He was, however, unrepresented.\n16.  On 16 March 2011 the Presidium of Chelyabinsk Regional Court granted an application for supervisory review by the Chelyabinsk Region Prosecutor and quashed the appeal decision of 27 April 2006. The Presidium found that the applicant’s right to legal representation had been violated in the appeal hearing and remitted the case for a fresh examination before the appellate court.\n17.  On 21 April 2011 Chelyabinsk Regional Court held a new appeal hearing in the applicant’s criminal case, with the applicant taking part (by video link) and in the presence of his legal-aid lawyer. The Regional Court upheld the applicant’s conviction on appeal and reduced his sentence to ten years and six months’ imprisonment.\n18.  Meanwhile, in December 2005 the applicant complained of ill‑treatment to the Ozersk Town Prosecutor’s Office.\n19.  On 26 January 2006 investigator", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8383", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1923, 1959 and 1963, respectively, and live in Casteltermini.\n5.  The applicants are the joint owners of a plot of land designated as agricultural land in Casteltermini. The land in issue was recorded in the land register as Folio no. 40, Parcel no. 185.\n6.  On 13 July 1989 the regional councillor for public works issued a decree authorising the Municipality to take possession, through an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public-interest declaration, of a portion of the applicants’ land in order to begin the construction of a road.\n7.  On 4 January 1991 the authorities took physical possession of the land.\n8.  By a writ served on 23 June 1998, the applicants brought an action for damages against the Casteltermini Municipality before the Agrigento District Court. They alleged that the occupation of the land was illegal and that the construction work had been completed without there having been a formal expropriation of the land and payment of compensation. They claimed a sum corresponding to the market value of the land and a further sum in damages for the loss of enjoyment of the land during the period of lawful occupation.\n9.  On an unspecified date the court ordered an expert valuation of the land. In a report submitted on 17 September 2001 the expert concluded that the occupied land covered a surface area of 124.87 square metres and confirmed that it could be classified as building land. He further concluded that the market value of the land on the date the occupation became unlawful, which he identified as having occurred on 13 July 1994, corresponded to 6.20 euros (EUR) per square metre, for a total of EUR 773.88.\n10.  By a judgment delivered on 22 January 2003 and filed with the court registry on 23 January 2003, the Agrigento District Court declared that the possession of the land, which had been initially authorised, had become unlawful as of 4 June 1993. It found that the land had been irreversibly transformed by the public works. As a result, in accordance with the constructive-expropriation rule (occupazione acquisitiva or accessione invertita), the applicants had been deprived of their property, by virtue of its irreversible alteration, on the date on which the possession had ceased to be lawful. In the light of those considerations, the court concluded that the applicants were entitled to compensation in consideration for the loss of ownership caused by the unlawful occupation.\n11.  The court drew on the expert valuation to conclude that the land could be classified as agricultural land and that its market value on the date the occupation had become unlawful corresponded to EUR 773.88. However, in contrast with the expert’s finding, the court reiterated that the occupation had become unlawful as of 4 June 1993.\n12.  Therefore, the court held that the applicants were entitled to compensation in the sum of EUR 773.88, to be adjusted for inflation, plus statutory interest.\n13.  The court further awarded the applicants EUR 37.43 as compensation for the damage occasioned by the unavailability of the land during the period from the beginning of the lawful occupation (13 July 1989) until the date of loss of ownership (4 June 1993).\n14.  The judgment became final in March 2004.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8384", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1964, 1958, 1993, 1997, 1997, 2000, 1998, 1994, 1990 and 1989 respectively and live in Batman.\n5.  On 26 June 2005, the first two applicants’ son and the other applicants’ brother, A.O., aged fourteen at the time, went into Batman Stream to swim and subsequently drowned.\n6.  According to the applicants, the uncontrolled draining of sand from Batman Stream of Dicle River changed the stream’s ecological balance. Eventually, holes and vortexes which occurred as a result of uncontrolled sand drain allegedly contributed to A. O.’s drowning.\n7.  Criminal proceedings where initiated against the Beysan joint stock company (“the company”), which was conducting the sand mining business at the time of events, and the Batman Governor’s office which issued the necessary permits to run the sand mine. On 5 March 2005, the criminal proceedings before the Batman public prosecutor’s office concluded with a decision not to prosecute. On 12 March 2006, the first applicant appealed against the non-prosecution decision. However, on 19 March 2007 his appeal request was also rejected by the Batman Assize Court.\n8.  While the criminal proceedings were pending, the first applicant requested the determination of evidence from the Batman Magistrates’ Court into the incident which led to A.O.’s death. Two expert reports were issued following the scene investigation, conducted by the Batman Magistrates’ Court on 8 July 2005. According to the expert reports, it was stated that the uncontrolled sand draining from Batman Stream changed the natural flow of the water and caused artificial holes and vortexes which amounted to three meters in depth in some parts. Despite these dangers, there were no warning signs.\n9.  On 27 July 2005 the applicants being convinced that the failure of the authorities and the company to take necessary safety measures to protect A.O.’s right to life, applied to the civil court of first instance with a compensation request. They sought a total of 75,000 Turkish liras (TRY) (46,500 euros (EUR) at the time) in compensation for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.\n10.  The applicants also requested legal aid for the court fees. On 15 August 2005, the Batman Civil Court of First Instance ordered the Security Directorate in Batman to investigate the economical means of the applicants. According to the report submitted by the Security Directorate, it was revealed that the applicants were unemployed and lived on state benefits and help from their neighbours. Nevertheless, the trial court rejected the applicants’ legal aid request on the basis of Sıddık Onar, the father of the deceased’s, age and his ability to work.\n11.  On 1 December 2006 the trial court notified the applicants that they were required to pay a court fee of TRY 214.76 (approximately EUR 115) within ten days in order to continue the proceedings and that the proceedings would be discontinued if they failed to do so.\n12.  On 29 December 2006 the Batman Civil Court of First Instance decided to discontinue the proceedings as the applicants had not paid the court fees.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8387", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Krasnoobsk, the Novosibirsk Region. She had a daughter, Oksana Vladimirovna Belenko, born in 1983 but now deceased.\n6.  On 14 August 2003 Oksana Belenko complained of feeling ill. She was trembling, felt pain in her limbs, was having delusions and was behaving strangely. That evening her parents called an ambulance. The doctor of the ambulance team, having decided that she was suffering from hysterical neurosis, gave her some sedatives and painkillers. Her condition became worse, so the next morning she was taken to the town hospital, accompanied by her parents. In the town hospital she was examined by the chief psychiatrist, Rz., and a neuropathologist, Pn. The applicant’s daughter was behaving hysterically: she was laughing, shouting, trying to run around and threw a trolley over. As she was showing signs of a serious psychiatric disorder, later that day she was transferred to a psychiatric clinic.\n7.  It appears from her medical records that on admission to the clinic, the daughter did not react when spoken to, refused to submit to examination, and was moving her hands and legs around chaotically. The doctors at the clinic examined her and concluded that she was suffering from schizophrenia. No signs of any other illness or injury were evident at that time. Oksana Belenko was already in such a state that the clinical director decided to ask the District Court for authorisation for her continued confinement in the clinic. Her parents (her father and the applicant) did not object to the confinement.\n8.  According to the applicant, during the first few days in the psychiatric clinic her daughter was still able to recognise her relatives and had some understanding of the people and things around her. According to the official records, her condition was very serious and continued to deteriorate, and her understanding of the situation was seriously impaired.\n9.  On 16 and 17 August 2003 she was examined by the clinic’s doctors on duty, Kr. and Vas. She was administered Sibazon and Haloperidol injections.\n10.  On 18 August 2003 the applicant’s daughter was examined first by a psychiatrist on duty and then by a team of three doctors, including the acting chief doctor, Yar., and two other doctors, Lkh. and Olkh. She did not react to their questions, her eyes were motionless, she shouted out sporadically, and dropped herself onto the bed. The expert team considered that she needed further inpatient treatment.\n11.  On the same day the applicant asked the clinical director to release her daughter for further treatment at home. However, it was refused, the chief psychiatrist instead asking the court to issue a confinement order in respect of her.\n12.  On 20 August 2003 the Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Novosibirsk examined the clinical director’s request for Oksana Belenko’s further confinement to the psychiatric clinic. Neither the applicant nor her daughter participated in those proceedings. According to the applicant, she was not informed about the date or place of the hearing. The District Court authorised the further confinement.\n13.  The applicant continued to visit her daughter in the clinic almost every day. According to her, on one occasion her daughter was taken by the clinic staff to a meeting with her directly from the shower; her head was wet and, as a result, she caught a cold. The clinic staff also allegedly prevented her from visiting her daughter.\n14.  Oksana Belen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8389", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and prior to his arrest lived in Ganja.\n6.  The applicant is a former head of the Ganja City Police Office and the Dashkasan District Police Office. On 11 January 2001 the Military Assize Court found him guilty of various crimes and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n7.  Council of Europe experts considered the applicant to have been a political prisoner. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated in its Resolution 1305 (2002) adopted on 26 September 2002 that it was profoundly disturbed by the fact that the applicant had neither been pardoned nor granted a retrial.\n8.  The applicant was dispensed from serving the remainder of his sentence by a presidential pardon decree of 20 March 2005.\n9.  According to the applicant, on 16 October 2005, when he was dining at his friend’s home in Baku, nine or ten plain-clothes police officers entered and arrested him. The applicant was taken to the Narimanov District Police Office, where a record on an administrative offence was drawn up by police officers.\n10.  On the same day the applicant was taken to the Narimanov District Court and appeared before a judge. The judge found the applicant guilty under Article 310.1 (obstructing the police) of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced him to fifteen days’ administrative detention. The judge held that the police had arrested the applicant at around 7.30 p.m. on 16 October 2005 near the metro station Ganjlik in Baku, because he had failed to comply with a lawful request of the police to present his identity card.\n11.  On 21 October 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision.\n12.  By a letter of 29 October 2005, a certain R.M. informed the Ministry of National Security (“the MNS”) about the applicant’s unlawful activities, claiming that he had been conspiring to usurp State power by force. The author of the letter asked the MNS to carry out a search in the garden of the applicant’s house where the applicant had buried weapons in order to use them for the purposes of the said crimes.\n13.  On 30 October 2005, the police and officers of the MNS carried out a search of the applicant’s house and garden, situated in the village of Bayan in the Dashkasan region. According to the search record of 30 October 2005, some weapons and ammunitions, including different types of guns, an assault rifle, a pistol, cartridges and a grenade, were found buried in the garden. The search was carried out in the absence of the applicant, his lawyer or members of his family. The search record was signed by police officers, two attesting witnesses (hal şahidi) and two employees of the local executive authority. It appears from the case file that the search was carried out on the basis of a decision by the Ganja City Nizami District Court and was filmed. However, despite the Court’s explicit request to the Government to submit copies of all documents and materials relating to the criminal proceedings, including a copy of the video recording of the search, the Government failed to provide the Court with a copy of the video recording.\n14.  On 30 October 2005, while in administrative detention, the applicant was informed that he was being charged with the crimes of conspiring to organise mass disorder, illegal possession of weapons and conspiring to usurp State power by force under Articles 28 (preparation of a crime), 220 (mass disorder), 228 (illegal possession of weapons) and 278 (usurpation of state powe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8390", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  In April 2008 the applicant was arrested and placed in detention on suspicion of aggravated rape and ill-treatment of a young woman.\n7.  On 29 December 2009 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment.\n8.  In the meantime, between 30 April 2008 and 6 September 2010 the applicant was detained in Prison no. 13 in Chisinau where, according to him, the conditions of detention were very poor. In particular, the applicant alleges that the cells were overcrowded and dirty, that the food was of very poor quality, and that he was not provided with appropriate medical care.\n9.  The relevant parts of the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment concerning his visit to Moldova from 4 to 11 July 2008 (The United Nations Human Rights Council, document A/HRC/10/44/Add.3, 12 February 2009) read as follows:\n“B.  Conditions in places of detention\nInstitutions under the Ministry of Justice 30.  Undoubtedly, progress has been achieved in improving conditions of detention. However, some of the institutions visited by the Special Rapporteur were heavily overcrowded. The authorities themselves pointed out that Institution No. 13 in Chişinău was severely overcrowded - on the day of the visit it held 931 persons with the official capacity being 600 (see also appendix). The Special Rapporteur was informed of Government plans to close down this institution. 31.  Common problems at all pre- and post-trial prisons are the poor hygienic conditions, restricted access to health care and lack of medication as well as risk of contamination with tuberculosis and other diseases. Whereas the Special Rapporteur notes that the minimum norms regarding nutrition of detainees (Government Decision n. 609 of 29 May 2006) are checked on a daily basis and that, according to the financial plan of the Penitentiary Department, the food budget for 2008 had almost doubled in comparison to 2004 and is set to rise further, he also received consistent allegations regarding the poor quality and quantity of food ...”\n10.  In its report for 2009 (page 117 ­-“Conditions of detention”), the Centre for Human Rights in Moldova (“the Human Rights Centre”, which also acts as the Moldovan Ombudsman) found, inter alia, that:\n“Regarding personal hygiene, clothing and bedding, despite [the fact that] Government decision no. 609 (29 May 2006) concerning minimum daily food requirements and the issuing of items of personal hygiene provides for the issuing of soap to detainees for bathing and other sanitary-hygienic needs, this has remained unfulfilled during 2009.”\n11.  In its report for 2010 (page 142 et seq. - “Conditions of detention”) the Human Rights Centre found, inter alia, that:\n“Failure to adhere to the statutory cell size (4 square metres per person) in the living blocks of the institution has become an unpleasant problem which now affects the prison system across the entire country ...\nThe same situation was confirmed during a visit to Chişinău Prison no. 13 in on 9 September 2010. In some cells the living space was not proportionate to the number of detainees. During the visit, eight detainees were being held in cell no. 38, which measured 24 square metres. This situation has been seen repeatedly during visits by the Centre’s staff to the Chişinău Pre-trial Detention Centre. Similar findings were made during visits to Rusca Pri", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8391", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and is currently detained in Łódź Remand Centre.\n6.  On 25 September 2006 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand for a period of three months. He was charged with a number of offences committed with an armed organised criminal group.\n7.  In its decision, the District Court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. The court further emphasised the gravity of the offences in question, the applicant’s active role in the criminal group and the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on him after conviction. In the domestic court’s view the fact that the applicant was at the time detained pending other criminal proceedings against him did not guarantee the proper course of the proceedings since the applicant could had been released at any time from the pre-trial detention without the relevant authorities, responsible for the impugned proceedings, being notified. Moreover, the necessity to obtain further evidence justified remanding the applicant in custody.\n8.  The applicant’s appeal against the decision of 24 September 2006 was dismissed by the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 25 October 2006. The court emphasised that the applicant’s detention on remand was necessary even though at the relevant time he was in any event detained pending another set of criminal proceedings against him.\n9.  On 19 December 2006 and 26 June 2007 the Łódź Regional Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. Subsequently, the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention on 19 September 2007, 19 December 2007, 28 March 2008, 18 June 2008, 22 October 2008 and on 23 December 2008.\n10.  On 18 March 2009 the State Prosecutor (Prokurator Krajowy) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Łódź Regional Court. The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion and robbery committed in an organised and armed criminal group and with participation in an organised and armed criminal group. The bill of indictment comprised 94 charges brought against 28 defendants. The prosecution authorities requested that 318 witnesses be heard before the court.\n11.  On 30 March 2009 the Łódź Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 31 December 2009. Subsequently, the same court ordered prolongation of his detention on 21 December 2009 (detention extended until 30 September 2010), on 22 September 2010 (detention extended until 31 March 2011) and on 23 March 2011 (detention extended until 30 September 2011). The applicant lodged a number of motions to be released as well as appeals against the decisions extending his pre-trial detention, all in vain.\nIn their decisions the courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s detention.\n12.  On 3 April 2009 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal against one of the decisions extending the applicant’s detention. The lawyer argued that the reasons for continued pre-trial detention ceased to exist since the applicant had started serving a seven years’ prison sentence imposed by the Łódź District Court in the case no. IV K 239/06.\n13.  Meanwhile, the court scheduled fifteen hearings for November and December 2009. Due to sick-leaves of the presiding judge and of some of the accused those hearings did not take place.\n14.  The trial was eventually opened on 18 January 2010. Subsequent scheduled hearings were ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8392", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Łódź.\n6.  On 6 June 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of committing a number of offences in an armed organised criminal group.\n7.  On 15 June 2007 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody. The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. The risk of the applicant fleeing was also taken into account since he had spent almost a year in hiding after a ‘wanted’ notice (list gończy) had been issued against him. The court also referred to the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant after conviction.\n8.  The applicant’s detention on remand was extended by the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 4 September 2007, 18 December 2007 and 26 March 2008. Subsequently it was extended by the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 4 June 2008, 22 October 2008, 23 December 2008 and on 25 March 2009. The applicant’s appeals filed against some of the above decisions were dismissed by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 6 February 2008, 2 July 2008, 12 November 2008 and 22 April 2009.\nIn their detention decisions the courts relied on the original grounds for the applicant’s arrest. They stressed, in particular, the danger of the applicant absconding referring to the fact that he had remained in hiding before his arrest. They further referred to the need to apprehend other members of the criminal group and to obtain additional evidence supporting the case against the applicant. In the courts’ view, the applicant, if released, would try to obstruct the proceedings by passing vital information about the preliminary proceedings onto the other members of the criminal group and by influencing witnesses. The courts concluded that in the context of the applicant’s case, which concerned organised crime, detention on remand was the only security measure to guarantee the proper conduct of the proceedings.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 2009 the charges against the applicant were severed to a separate set of the proceedings as he was to undergo a psychiatric examination.\n10.  On 16 June 2009 the Łódź Prosecutor of Appeal (Prokurator Prokuratury Apealacyjnej) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Łódź Regional Court. The applicant was charged with several counts of robbery and drug trafficking committed in an organised criminal group.\n11.  On 24 June 2009 the Łódź Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 31 December 2009. Subsequently, the same court ordered prolongation of his detention on 21 December 2009 (detention extended until 30 September 2010), on 22 September 2010 (detention extended until 31 March 2011) and on 23 March 2011 (detention extended until 30 September 2011). The applicant appealed against all of those decisions but to no avail.\nIn their decisions the courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s detention. They also stressed the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant after conviction.\n12.  Meanwhile, on 28 July 2009, the Łódź Regional Court joined the applicant’s case with the case against the other members of the criminal group. The joined proceedings concerned altogether 29 defendants charged with 102 offences. The prosecution authorities requested that 318 witnesses be heard before the court.\n13.  The court scheduled fifteen hearings for November and December 2009. Due to sick-leaves of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8393", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in London.\n6.  The applicant met V.T., a Lithuanian citizen, in the United Kingdom in 2005. They lived together in London.\n7.  On 18 September 2007 a son, A.M., was born to them. A.M. is a Lithuanian citizen.\n8.  In March 2008 V.T. went with the child to visit her family in Lithuania. After a month, the father went to Lithuania to fetch them. They all returned to the United Kingdom. In June the mother and their son went back to Lithuania for the summer. In July the mother wrote to the applicant stating that their relationship was over. She went to the United Kingdom shortly afterwards to collect their son’s belongings and returned to Lithuania, where she remained with the boy. On 17 July 2008 V.T. registered her and her son’s permanent residence at her parents’ address in Kuktiškės village, Utena district in Lithuania.\n9.  The applicant claimed that his son had been abducted and held in Lithuania without his consent. He initiated proceedings before the Vilnius Regional Court, asking that the child be returned to the United Kingdom, which was his son’s usual permanent place of residence.\n10.  By a decision of 6 March 2009, the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request. The applicant, V.T., two of her lawyers and representatives of the Lithuanian child care authorities were present at the hearing. The child care specialist asked the court to resolve the issue of the child’s return to his country of birth as it saw fit. This notwithstanding, the authorities observed that the child had good living conditions in Lithuania and was growing up in a secure environment among loving people.\n11.  The court acknowledged that since his birth the boy’s parents had taken care of him together and that consequently his permanent place of residence was the United Kingdom. Both of the parents had custody rights in respect of the boy. The Vilnius Regional Court also dismissed V.T.’s allegation that the applicant had agreed that the child could settle permanently in Lithuania. Moreover, V.T. had no legal basis on which to decide to change the child’s permanent place of residence on her own. Her refusal to return the child to the country of his birth after the holidays in summer 2008 could not be recognised as being justified.\n12.  The Vilnius Regional Court nevertheless ruled that the child should stay in Lithuania. In setting out its reasons, the court held that before arriving in Lithuania the child had lived in London for some seven months. It was therefore his mother, who did not go out to work, who had predominantly taken care of him during that time. Moreover, his living conditions in the United Kingdom were worse than those in Lithuania. In particular, the boy and his parents had lived in London in one small room, with construction work going on close by. By contrast, in Lithuania the child lived at V.T.’s parents’ house where, according to a child care representative, the boy felt happy and was spry, active, communicative and loved. The court also observed that the boy’s mother had taken care of him the entire time since birth, that they were very close and that the boy had never been left with a nanny or any other person. Furthermore, even though there was no evidence that the applicant had ever behaved improperly in front of the child, or that he had abused alcohol, used drugs or resorted to violence, the applicant had not demonstrated that he had the skills to take care of such a small ch", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8394", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is currently detained in Łódź Remand Centre.\n6.  On 25 September 2006 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision, ordering the applicant’s detention on remand for a period of three months. He was charged with a number of offences committed in an armed organised criminal group. At that time the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed in another criminal proceedings against him. The end of that prison sentence fell on 18 November 2007.\nIn its decision, the District Court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. The court further emphasised the gravity of the offences and the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant after conviction. According to the domestic court, the fact that the applicant was at the relevant time serving a prison sentence did not minimise the risk of him obstructing the proceedings. Additionally, the ongoing questioning of other members of the criminal group as well as the necessity to obtain other evidence justified remanding the applicant in custody.\n7.  On 19 December 2006 and 26 June 2007 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. Subsequently, the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention on 19 September 2007, 19 December 2007, 28 March 2008, 18 June 2008, 22 October 2008 and on 23 December 2008.\nIn their detention decisions the courts repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question and on the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on him. The courts considered that keeping the applicant in detention on remand was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. They emphasised the complex character of the case and the considerable number of co-accused involved who, if released, would had obstructed the proceedings. The courts noted that due to the nature of the organised criminal group, its methods of influencing and bringing pressure to bear on the other members of the group as well as witnesses, the authorities had had difficulties in collecting evidence and taking statements.\n8.  On 18 March 2009 the State Prosecutor (Prokurator Krajowy) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Łódź Regional Court. The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion and drug-trafficking committed in an organised and armed criminal group. The bill of indictment comprised 94 charges brought against 28 defendants. The prosecution authorities requested that 318 witnesses be heard before the court.\n9.  On 30 March 2009 the Łódź Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 31 December 2009. Subsequently, the same court ordered prolongation of his detention on 21 December 2009 (detention extended until 30 September 2010), on 22 September 2010 (detention extended until 31 March 2011) and on 23 March 2011 (detention extended until 30 September 2011). The applicant lodged a number of motions to be released as well as appeals against the decisions extending his pre-trial detention, all in vain.\nIn their decisions the courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s detention.\n10.  Meanwhile, the court scheduled fifteen hearings for November and December 2009. Due to sick-leaves of the presiding judge and of some of the accused those hearings did not take place.\n11.  The trial was eventually opene", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8395", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Sopron.\n6. From 1994 the applicant’s family operated a grocery with the personal involvement of the applicant. They sold, initially under the excise licence of the applicant’s mother, merchandise subject to excise tax, that is, alcohol and tobacco products. On average, the turnover of tobacco retail represented about one-third of the family’s business.\nThe applicant himself obtained a shop-keeping licence in 1999 (see also paragraph 15 below). In 2001 he qualified as a trader and shop manager. In 2005, he was registered in his own right as a trader of excise goods.\n7.  On 11 September 2012 Parliament enacted Act no. CXXXIV of 2012 on the Repression of Smoking of the Youth and on Tobacco Retail. The Act was published on 24 September 2012. The Act was subsequently amended on several occasions, and the final version was enacted on 6 June 2013. It entered into force on 1 July 2013.\n8.  According to the Act, tobacco retail – previously exercised at about 42,000 retail points nationwide – was to become a State monopoly (exercised through a State-owned company, ND Nemzeti Dohány-kereskedelmi Nonprofit Zrt, “ND Zrt”), and tobacco retailers would become licensed through a concession tender, advertised on 15 December 2012, for up to five retail points per tenderer. In applying for the new concessions, tenderers were required to produce business plans reflecting, inter alia, the new governmental policy to limit to the utmost the access of minors to tobacco products, notably by prohibiting the entry of those less than 18 years of age into shops selling tobacco. Under the new licences, tobacco retail could take place only in shops with separate entrances, with dark shades in the shop windows preventing seeing through, and with only a limited selection of other goods on sale.\nThe final time-limit for applying was 22 February 2013. Entities previously engaged in tobacco retail had no privileges in the tender. The decision about the tenders was to be taken by ND Zrt.\nIn the tender, altogether some 6,800 licences were granted nationwide[1].\n9.  The applicant applied for a concession on 4 February 2013, for the would-be licence to be used in the family enterprise. The application was signed by the applicant, and witnessed by his wife and their son. The applicant then amended the application according to the upcoming new rules, on 20 February 2013. According to the Government, the application was very succinct and in no way developed; in particular, it contained no appropriate business plan, which was part of the criteria for the tenders. The applicant submitted that no information was ever made available about the assessment of the tender.\n10.  On 23 April 2013 the applicant was informed that he had not obtained a tobacco retail concession. The decision contained no reasons or any indication of the applicant’s score on the 120-point tender adjudication score-sheet, and it was not subject to any legal remedy.\nThe enterprise run by the applicant’s family was obliged to terminate the sale of tobacco products by the statutory deadline, that is, 14 July 2013. Tobacco wholesalers were under a legal obligation to re-buy any outstanding stocks from terminated retailers.\nThe remaining sales activities of the applicant’s family enterprise were no longer profitable, entailing the winding-up of the business.\n11.  Under the law, no compensation is available for former holders of tobacco retail licences who, by not havin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8396", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Chişinău. At the time of the events he was an academic and member of the Moldovan Academy of Science.\n6.  On 21 July 2009 the applicant was arrested and charged with the offence of producing and putting into circulation counterfeit money. Since then he has remained remanded in custody pending criminal investigation and trial. The detention warrants were prolonged every month initially and every three months once the case had reached the Ialoveni District Court. Each time the reasons given for the detention were that the applicant had been accused of a serious offence punishable with imprisonment of up to fifteen years, that the criminal case was complex and that, if released, he might interfere with the investigation or collude with other co-accused, or abscond or reoffend.\n7.  The last two extensions of the applicant’s detention before the lodging of the present application took place on unspecified dates in May and August 2011. The applicant argued that there was no risk of his interfering with the investigation since all the witnesses and the parties to the proceedings had already been heard and all the evidence had been examined by the court. He also submitted that there were no reasons to believe that he would abscond or re-offend and agreed to be placed under house arrest if he could not be released. The applicant also argued that according to Article 186 § 8, once the case had been referred to a court, the detention could not last longer than six months, other than in exceptional cases.\n8.  The Ialoveni District Court dismissed the applicant’s arguments and, relying on the same grounds as before, extended his detention for a further three months. The court stated that the case was exceptional within the meaning of Article 186 § 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decisions of May and August 2011 contain similar wording. The applicant’s appeals against them were rejected by the Court of Appeal.\n9.  On 30 January 2012 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 10 April 2013 and the Court has not been informed about the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8397", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Riga.\n6.  The applicant was a professor and the head of the Department of Dermatological and Venereal Diseases of the Faculty of Medicine of Riga Stradiņa University (hereafter “the University”), which is a State university. The applicant had been elected to the position of head of department with effect until 13 April 2013. He was also an elected member of the constituent assembly of the University (Satversmes sapulce).\n7.  On 22 February 2010 the Council of the Faculty of Medicine decided to merge the Department of Dermatological and Venereal Diseases and the Department of Infectious Diseases. That decision was approved by the Senate of the University (Senāts) on the following day. It appears that as a result of the merger the position of head of department occupied by the applicant was abolished. Accordingly, on 24 February 2010 the applicant received a warning (brīdinājums) to that effect and was given the opportunity to agree to the changes in his contract with the University. He was also informed that if he refused, his employment relationship with the University would be terminated.\n8.  On 28 February 2010 the applicant sent various emails to the Rector of the University concerning the circumstances of the reorganisation and the abolition of his department. He criticised the decisions taken by the deputy dean, G.B.\n9.  On 3 March 2010 the applicant sent another email to the Rector of the University and to several other recipients, including the members of the Senate. The email criticised the lack of democracy and accountability in the leadership of the organisation, which, according to the applicant, stemmed from the fact that all the members of the Senate were also a part of the executive authority of the University and there was thus an inadequate system of checks and balances. He also drew the recipients’ attention to the alleged mismanagement of the University’s finances. In support of this allegation the applicant relied on the conclusions adopted by the State Audit Office (Valsts Kontrole) in December 2009.\n10.  The applicant further spoke in unfavourable terms about several representatives of the management of the University, stating, for example, that [Mr ...]. “pretends to be a God-fearing Catholic ... yet, as far as is known, has several children born out of wedlock”, that [Mr ...] “cannot decide a single question by himself, does not keep his word, is lying” and that [Mrs ...] “has called me and asked me to break the law in the interests of her protégés”.\n11.  Finally, the applicant came up with a proposal involving several amendments to the constitution of the University, such as changes in the election of the members of the Senate (an obligation to inform the constituent assembly of the candidate’s CV at least one week before the elections, the setting-up of an independent electoral commission); separation of powers between the University’s governing bodies (Senate members should not be part of the executive body of the University); and the granting of independence to the Senate (changing the remuneration system so that the Rector did not unilaterally fix the remuneration of members of the Senate). He asked the Rector to forward his proposals to the members of the constituent assembly and to send him the email addresses of those members or inform him where to find those contacts.\n12.  It appears that on 16 March 2010 the applicant expressed his disagreement with the reo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8398", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.\n6.  On 28 April 1995 the applicant company filed a civil suit against S.M. (“the debtor”) for the payment of debt. On 2 February 2005 the Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud) in Leskovac ordered the debtor to pay to the applicant 6,590 Serbian dinars (RSD), which was approximately 82 euros (EUR) at the time of the delivery of the judgment, plus statutory default interest on account of the debt and RSD 92,442 (approximately EUR 1,154) for the costs of the civil proceedings. By 15 September 2005 this judgment became both final and enforceable.\n7.  On 24 October 2005 the applicant company filed with the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Leskovac a request for the enforcement of the Commercial Court judgment by means of an inventory, valuation and sale of the debtor’s movable assets. On 26 October 2005 the Municipal Court issued an enforcement order. On 9 December 2005 the enforcement order was upheld on appeal.\n8.  On 16 March 2006 the bailiff made an inventory of certain movable assets found on the debtor. On 30 March 2006 the said property was seized. On 28 April 2006 the debtor sought return of the seized property, alleging that it belonged to a third person and offering other assets in its stead. On the same day the seized property was returned to the debtor, although no replacement assets were seized.\n9.  In the period from 20 July 2006 to 28 May 2007 the bailiff visited the debtor’s house and business premises six times, but no further attempts were ever made to make an inventory of her movable assets.\n10.  In the meantime, on 6 and 20 February, 2 October and 21 November 2006 the applicant company filed complaints about the delay in the enforcement proceedings with the Presidents of the Municipal, District and Supreme Courts, the Supreme Court’s Supervisory Board, the Supreme Council and the Ministry of Justice. On 25 October 2007 the Supreme Court’s Supervisory Board found that the impugned enforcement proceedings were excessively long and ordered their prompt completion.\n11.  On 15 November 2007 the applicant company filed a request for a change of means of enforcement in view of the failure of the authorities to enforce the judgment on the debtor’s movable assets. It proposed that the enforcement be carried out by means of seizure and sale of a family house registered in the name of the debtor’s husband. On 13 February 2008 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant company’s request and referred it to institute civil proceedings for determination of the debtor’s part in the family house in question. On 18 August 2008 this decision was upheld on appeal.\n12.  Since the applicant company’s request for a change of means of enforcement was rejected, the enforcement order of 26 October 2005 remained in force. No further steps were ever made to enforce that order.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8399", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  By orders of 5 and 8 March 2010 the National Anticorruption Department (“the N.A.D.”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and three other co-accused, all of them border guard police officers, for bribe-taking and abetting bribe-taking. It held – on the basis of testimonial, documentary and surveillance evidence of phone conversations between one of the co-accused, his wife and a third party – that there was reasonable suspicion that on 6-7 September 2007 the applicant and his colleagues had asked seven Turkish nationals to pay them money in order to allow them to leave Romania.\n7.  On 8 March 2009 prosecutor G.B., who was attached to the N.A.D., authorised several police officers to enforce a warrant to appear (mandat de aducere) issued in the applicant’s name and the names of the three co‑accused. According to the order to appear produced by the N.A.D., the applicant’s presence was required in order for him to be heard as an accused (ȋnvinuit) in the criminal investigation instituted against him in 2008. No other reasons or considerations were stated on the order.\n8.  On 9 March 2010 two police officers went to the applicant’s workplace to enforce the warrant to appear. According to the report produced by the police officers and signed by the applicant, he was shown the warrant to appear and was informed that he would be taken to the N.A.D.’s premises. He was also informed that he could contact and retain the services of a legal representative of his own choosing. He refused to do so because he considered that he did not need one. The applicant and the escorting police officers left the applicant’s workplace at 8.40 a.m.\n9.  On the same date, at 12 noon, G.B. informed the applicant in the presence of a publicly appointed legal representative that a criminal investigation had been opened against him for bribe-taking. According to the documents submitted before the Court, and signed by the applicant and his legal representative, he had refused to retain a legal representative of his own choosing and had accepted assistance from a publicly appointed lawyer. According to the statement made before the prosecutor, he notified the authorities that he suffered from diabetes and that he needed his insulin treatment, which would have to be brought from his workplace. In addition, he requested the authorities to notify his wife in the event of his placement in police custody. He also stated that he reaffirmed the statement he had made previously concerning the events in connection with which he was being investigated. According to the record of the applicant’s statement, he was heard as an accused by the prosecutor at N.A.D.’s offices from 12 noon to 9.34 p.m.\n10.  On the same date, at 7.36 p.m., the applicant was informed that at 7.08 p.m. he had been charged with bribe-taking. According to the report produced by the authorities and signed by the applicant and his legal representative he refused to make any statement as a defendant (inculpat) and reaffirmed the statement he had made as an accused.\n11.  By an order dated 9 March 2010 the N.A.D. placed the applicant in police custody for twenty-four hours commencing at 9.15 p.m. for bribe‑taking. The arrest order was signed by both the applicant and his legal representative. It stated that on the basis of the available evidence there was reasonable suspicion that the applicant had accepted money from Turkish nationals", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8400", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Łódź Remand Centre.\n6.  On 25 September 2006 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered the applicant’s detention on remand for a period of three months. He was charged with a number of offences committed with an armed organised criminal group. At the time, the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed in another set of criminal proceedings against him. The end of that sentence fell on 7 November 2007.\nIn its decision, the District Court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. The court further emphasised the gravity of the offences in question, the applicant’s active role in the criminal group and the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on him after conviction. In the domestic court’s view the fact that the applicant was at the time detained in reference to other criminal proceedings against him did not guarantee the proper course of the proceedings since the applicant could had been released at any time from the pre-trial detention without the relevant authorities, responsible for the impugned proceedings, being notified. Moreover, the necessity to obtain further evidence justified remanding the applicant in custody.\nThe applicant’s appeal against the decision of 25 September 2006 was dismissed by the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 25 October 2006.\n7.  On 19 December 2006 and 26 June 2007 the Łódź Regional Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. Subsequently, the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention on 19 September 2007, 19 December 2007, 28 March 2008, 18 June 2008, 22 October 2008 and on 23 December 2008.\nThe applicant’s appeals against the decisions to extend his pre-trial detention were dismissed by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 24 January 2007, 16 April 2008, 2 July 2008, 12 November 2008 and 21 January 2009.\n8.  In the period from 7 November 2007 until 7 May 2011 the applicant served a prison sentence imposed by the Łódź Regional Court in separate set of criminal proceedings against him (case no. XVIII K 28/06).\n9.  During this period the Łódź Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s the applicant’s detention on remand by the decisions of 30 March 2009 (detention extended until 31 December 2009), of 21 December 2009 (detention extended until 30 September 2010), of 22 September 2010 (detention extended until 31 March 2011) and of 23 March 2011 (detention extended until 30 September 2011). The applicant lodged a number of motions to be released as well as appeals against the decisions extending his pre-trial detention, all in vain.\nIn their decisions the courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s detention.\n10.  Meanwhile, on 18 March 2009 the State Prosecutor (Prokurator Krajowy) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Łódź Regional Court. The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion and drug-trafficking committed in an organised and armed criminal group. The bill of indictment comprised 94 charges brought against 28 defendants. The prosecution authorities requested that 318 witnesses be heard before the court.\n11.  The court scheduled fifteen hearings for November and December 2009. Due to sick-leaves of the presiding judge and of some of the accused those hearings did not take place.\n12.  The trial was eventually opened on 18 January 2010. Subsequent scheduled hearings were adjourne", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8402", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Bratislava.\n6.  The applicant brought an action before the Trnava District Court (Okresný súd) on 6 July 2007 arguing that an individual (“the defendant”) had unlawfully seized a lorry belonging to her and that he was retaining it without good title. Accordingly, she asked the court to order the defendant to return the vehicle to her.\n7.  On 2 March 2009 the defendant filed his observations in reply, explaining in detail the history and legal status of the vehicle.\n8.  The District Court heard the case on 10 August, 23 September and 28 October 2009. The applicant’s lawyer was present at all of these hearings, as was the applicant herself, except for the first one. In addition, on 26 October 2009, the applicant consulted the court’s case file on her own initiative.\n9.  At the conclusion of the last-mentioned hearing, the District Court pronounced its judgment dismissing the action. In doing so, it found that the applicant had failed to show that she had lawfully acquired title to the vehicle and concluded that the defendant had lawfully acquired it by way of purchase from the receiver appointed to act in connection with the insolvency of the vehicle’s previous owner, a legal entity with which the applicant had been involved.\n10.  The applicant lodged an appeal (odvolanie) contesting en bloc the District Court’s assessment of the facts and the interpretation and application of the relevant law.\n11.  In response to a specific written request by the District Court dated 21 January 2010, she objected to having her appeal decided without a public hearing.\n12.  On 5 February 2010 the defendant filed his observations in reply to the appeal, contesting its procedural, substantive and factual grounds and again querying the legal status and history of the vehicle.\n13.  According to a written record and minutes submitted by the Government, on 20 October 2010 a notice was displayed on the official noticeboard of the Trnava Regional Court (Krajský súd) stating that the applicant’s appeal would be decided in chambers on 27 October 2010 and the Regional Court’s judgment was publicly pronounced on that date.\n14.  By that judgment, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, endorsing the findings of the first-instance court and finding that, in her appeal, the applicant had not submitted any relevant new information to refute those findings. No hearing of the appeal was held. In the written version of the judgment, no mention is made of the defendant’s observations.\n15.  On 15 December 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (dovolanie). She relied on Article 237 (f) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 99/1963 Coll., as amended) (“the CCP”), under which such an appeal was admissible if the courts had prevented a party to the proceedings from pursuing a case before them.\nShe also invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and argued, inter alia, (i) that the Court of Appeal had ruled on her appeal without having held a public hearing, despite her objection to such a course of action; (ii) that the defendant’s observations in reply to her appeal had not been communicated to her; and (iii) that the Court of Appeal had not only failed to summon her to a public pronouncement of its judgment but had, indeed, failed to pronounce that judgment publicly at all.\n16.  On 20 April 2011 the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) declared the applicant’s appeal inadmissible without examining the merits of t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8403", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and is currently detained in Łódź Remand Centre.\n6.  On 29 November 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of committing a number of offences in an armed organised criminal group.\n7.  On 6 December 2006 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody until 28 February 2007. The court relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences he had been accused of. The risk of the applicant fleeing was also taken into account as a ‘wanted’ notice (list gończy) against him had been issued in October 2006. At that time he had not been residing at his permanent address and his whereabouts had not been established. The court further anticipated a heavy prison sentence to be imposed on the applicant if convicted.\n8.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended by the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 27 February 2007, 26 June 2007 and on 19 September 2007. Subsequently, it was extended by the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 21 November 2007, 19 December 2007, 28 March 2008, 18 June 2008, 22 October 2008 and on 23 December 2008.\nIn their decisions to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention the courts relied on a reasonable suspicion, supported by evidence given by witnesses and other members of the criminal group, that the applicant had committed the offences in question. The courts further emphasised the risk of the applicant fleeing or obstructing the proceedings and the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on him if convicted. The domestic courts attached importance to the complex character of the case, to the complex structure of the criminal group and the number of suspects involved and the necessity of collecting additional evidence for the inclusion in the already voluminous case file.\n9.  On 18 March 2009 the State Prosecutor (Prokurator Krajowy) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with the Łódź Regional Court. The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion and drug-trafficking committed in an organised and armed criminal group. The bill of indictment comprised 94 charges brought against 28 defendants. The prosecution authorities requested that 318 witnesses be heard before the court.\n10.  On 30 March 2009 the Łódź Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 31 December 2009. Subsequently, the same court ordered prolongation of his detention on 21 December 2009 (detention extended until 30 September 2010), on 22 September 2010 (detention extended until 31 March 2011) and on 23 March 2011 (detention extended until 30 September 2011). The applicant lodged a number of motions to be released as well as appeals against the decisions extending his pre-trial detention, all in vain.\nIn their decisions the courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s detention.\n11.  Meanwhile, the court scheduled fifteen hearings for November and December 2009. Due to sick-leaves of the presiding judge and of some of the accused those hearings did not take place.\n12.  The trial was eventually opened on 18 January 2010. Subsequent scheduled hearings were adjourned due to absences of some of the co‑accused and due to problems with sound system in the court room.\n13.  In May 2010 the Regional Court gave a severance order and decided to determine charges against two co-accused separately.\n14.  The bill of indictment was only finally read out to the defendants at the hearing held o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8404", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1985 and 1987 respectively and live in Istanbul. They are brothers. As the facts of the case are in dispute between the parties, they will be set out separately. The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 6-17). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C (paragraphs 18-20). The documentary evidence submitted by the applicants and the Government is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 21‑74).\n6.  On 23 November 2002 at about 2.30 a.m. the applicants’ neighbour, B.S., was shot in the street. The applicants, who were at their aunt’s house at the time, and a number of their friends, took the injured neighbour to hospital, where he died on arrival.\n7.   A police chief and a number of police officers arrived at the hospital at 3 a.m. and asked the applicants and their friends to accompany them to Beyoğlu police station, where they could be questioned as witnesses in relation to the incident. By the time they arrived, however, the police officers had already established that the applicants’ neighbour had been shot by a police officer. They then decided to detain the applicants at the station. Although the applicants had been taken to the station at 3 a.m., the time of their arrival was stated as 5.30 a.m. in the relevant police report (see paragraph 24 below).\n8.  The necessary formalities concerning their detention at the police station were not complied with. For example, their names were not entered in the custody ledgers, and although they were minors and should have been taken to a special police station for minors, this was not done. Furthermore, they were not informed of their rights or allowed to contact a lawyer, nor were their next of kin informed.\n9.  On 24 November 2002 two police officers working at the special police station for minors went to Beyoğlu police station and questioned the applicants in the absence of a lawyer and thus in contravention of the applicable procedure, which stipulates that the presence of a lawyer is compulsory during the questioning of minors. Furthermore, although the applicants were questioned there, it was written in the statements taken from them that they had been questioned at the special police station for minors.\n10.  While detained at the police station, the applicants were stripped naked, doused with cold water, kicked, punched and beaten with truncheons. The reason for the ill-treatment was to force them to implicate themselves in the incident. As they were illiterate and unrepresented by a lawyer, they had no way of verifying the statements before they were forced to sign them. As a result of those incriminatory statements the prosecutor instigated an investigation against the second applicant, but it was subsequently closed for lack of evidence (see paragraph 35 below).\n11.  At around 4 or 5 p.m. on 25 November 2002 the police officers hit the applicants with their truncheons and told them to leave the police station.\n12.  The following day the applicants went to the Istanbul branch of the Human Rights Association and were referred to the Human Rights Foundation, also in Istanbul, where they were examined by a number of doctors the same day. The reports pertaining to their medical examination were drawn up on 8 April 2003.\n13.  With the assistance of their lawyer, Bülent Kurt, the applicants made an official complaint against the police officers on 29 November 2002. The prosecutor refer", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8405", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Asvag (Norway).\n6.  In 2000 the applicant married a Slovak national (A.) in Norway. There were two children from the marriage, born in 2000 and 2002 respectively.\n7.  The family lived together in Norway until May 2004, when the applicant left the family home. On 18 August 2004 an administrative decision was taken in Norway on the couple’s separation.\n8.  On 7 September 2004 the Vesterålen District Court (tingrett) issued an interim order that, until the resolution of the matter on the merits, the children should be the joint responsibility of both parents and should remain in the care of A. The court also determined the applicant’s visiting rights and forbade both parents to remove the children from the Norwegian territory without the consent of the other parent.\n9.  Nevertheless, on 8 July 2005 A. left Norway for Slovakia, taking the children with her.\n10.  On 21 September 2005 the Vesterålen District Court ruled that the children be put under the exclusive parental responsibility and in the care of the applicant. It also determined the visiting rights of A. and issued an order that she should not remove the children from the territory of Norway. This judgment was upheld by the Hålogaland High Court (lagmannsrett) on 10 March 2006 following an appeal by A., and her request for leave to appeal on points of law was dismissed by the Appeals Leave Committee of the Supreme Court (Høyesteretts kjæremålsutvalg) on 23 May 2006.\n11.  On 14 December 2005 the applicant initiated proceedings in Slovakia against A. under the Hague Convention, seeking an order for the return of the children to their country of habitual residence ‒ Norway.\n12.  The action was examined by the courts in four rounds, two of which were followed by enforcement proceedings. They are described below in turn.\n13.  The first examination resulted in the dismissal of the action by the Liptovský Mikuláš District Court (Okresný súd) on 23 May 2006 and of the applicant’s appeal (odvolanie) by the Žilina Regional Court (Krajský súd) on 28 February 2007. These decisions became final and binding (právoplatnosť).\n14.  The applicant subsequently petitioned the Prosecutor General (“the PG”) to exercise his discretionary power to challenge these decisions by way of an extraordinary appeal on points of law (mimoriadne dovolanie) on the applicant’s behalf. However, in a letter of 25 October 2007 he was informed that, under the applicable procedural rules, no such extraordinary appeals were available in family law matters.\n15.  Meanwhile, on 30 May 2007, the applicant had challenged the ordinary courts’ decisions by way of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended).\n16.  Upon examining this complaint, on 12 June 2008, the Constitutional Court (Ustavný súd) found a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 § 1 (fairness), but no separate issue under Article 8 of the Convention.\nAs a result, it quashed the decision of 28 February 2007 and remitted the matter to the Regional Court for re‑examination of the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 23 May 2006.\n17.  In consequence, on 7 October 2008 the Regional Court re-examined the appeal and decided to quash the decision of 23 May 2006 and to remit the case to the first-instance court for re‑examination.\n18.  In the second round of examination, an order for the return of the children was issued by the District Court on 16 Apr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8406", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Wrocław.\n6.  The applicant was a journalist with “Gazeta Wyborcza - Gazeta Dolnośląska”.\n7.  On 25‑26 November 2000 the newspaper published an article by the applicant entitled “The dishonest gaze of the Wrocław Themis” (“Fałszywe spojrzenie wrocławskiej Temidy”). The article carried a subtitle in small print “Thieves in the administration of justice” (Złodzieje w wymiarze sprawiedliwości”). It was one in a series of articles describing the alleged theft of valuable hunting trophies from the office of a former bailiff of the Wrocław‑Krzyki District Court, Mr H.J.\n8.  The article read, in so far as relevant:\n“For the last three years we have been trying to solve the mysterious offences committed in 1995 in the Wrocław Themis building. Valuable hunting trophies valued at 200,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) were stolen by thieves in the administration of justice. The facts indicate that neither the Wrocław prosecution service nor the courts were interested in solving those cases in spite of articles we published on the subject at various stages of our investigation, and the witnesses and evidence we unearthed. It is not excluded that this offence is connected with the still unsolved theft of PLN 370,000 of deposits after the auction sale of properties [of wound‑up companies]. (...)\nThe audit of the bailiff’s office carried out by an auditor of the Court of Appeal proved irregularities in the functioning of the court and of the bailiff in the course of auction sales concerning wound‑up companies. On 20 October 1995 H.J., as he claims, on advice of his superiors, took leave and subsequently resigned. On 23 October 1995 bailiff Herbert L. took over the bailiffs’ office [previously run by H.J. until his resignation]. Two days later, in the absence of Herbert L. and after working hours, M.K., a trainee bailiff, loaded the hunting trophies into his van. (...)\nIn the autumn of 1997 we got hold of a copy of the list – prepared by M.K. – of 77 items removed by him. It is not known what happened to further 33 apparently most valuable ones whose value was estimated by hunters at PLN 200,000. (...)\n“This case does not interest me and I will not speak about it” – replied M.K., still an employee of the justice system, to our questions in January 1998.\nDid the court provide a cover?\nAlready the form of the list raises suspicions. After the end of the list of items there is 10‑centimter long empty space and then a note: “I received the above movables in the presence of M.K., a trainee bailiff (praktykant komorniczy) and I make no reservations. Except for the received items I leave no other personal items at the office.” The signature of H.J. appears under the note.\n“Such empty sheets of paper served to order stationery” – tells us bailiff H.J., the injured party.\n“I would have never signed a statement that I did not leave my personal items at the office – continues H.J. – since I left them there and then they were formally returned to me. (...)”\nThe successor of H.J. – bailiff Herbert L. – told us that he had not known about the removal planned by M.K., and the President of the Wrocław‑Krzyki District Court, W.G., refused to talk to us. According to H.J., the injured party, it was the President of the Wrocław‑Krzyki District Court who instructed him to hire the trainee M.K. (...). That is why – according to the bailiff – the court was never determined to solve this theft.\nLogic like a flood – knocking you down\nAfter", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8407", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Sigulda. She is the widow of Mr Egils Elberts (“the applicant’s husband”), a Latvian national who was born in 1961 and who died on 19 May 2001.\n6.  On 19 May 2001 the applicant’s husband was involved in a car accident in the parish of Allaži. An ambulance transported him to Sigulda Hospital but he died on the way there as a result of his injuries. He was placed in the mortuary at Sigulda Hospital. The applicant’s mother-in-law, who worked at Sigulda Hospital and thereby learned about her son’s death immediately, stayed with his body at Sigulda Hospital until it was transported to the State Centre for Forensic Medical Examination (Valsts tiesu medicīnas expertīžu centrs – “the Forensic Centre”) in Riga.\n7.  At 5 a.m. on 20 May 2001 the body was delivered to the Forensic Centre in order to establish the cause of death. Between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. an autopsy was carried out and numerous injuries were found to the deceased’s head and chest, including several broken ribs and vertebrae. There were bruises on his right shoulder, thigh and knee. A forensic medical expert, N.S., classified the injuries as serious and life-threatening and established a causal link between them and his death.\n8.  According to the Government, after the autopsy, N.S. had verified that there was no stamp in Mr Elberts’ passport denoting his objection to the use of tissue from his body and he had removed a 10 cm by 10 cm piece of dura mater (the outer layer of the meninges) from Mr Elberts’ body. According to the applicant, N.S. could not have checked whether or not there was a stamp in Mr Elberts’ passport because at that time it had been at their home in Sigulda. The applicant submitted that the area of tissue removed was larger than 10 cm by 10 cm and that it was not only dura mater that had been removed.\n9.  On 21 May 2001 the prosecutor’s office issued a permit to bury the body. According to the applicant, on 21 or 22 May 2001 her sister had arrived at the Forensic Centre with a view to obtaining the certificate showing the cause of death, in relation to which she had signed the Forensic Centre’s registration log. On 22 May 2001 her sister submitted that document, together with Mr Elberts’ passport, to the relevant authority in Sigulda to obtain the death certificate.\n10.  According to the Government, on 25 May 2001 the body of Mr Elberts had been handed over to a relative. According to the applicant, his body had been handed over to another person who was merely helping with its transportation prior to the funeral.\n11.  On 26 May 2001 the funeral took place in Sigulda. The applicant first saw her deceased husband when his remains were transported back from the Forensic Centre for the funeral. She saw that his legs had been tied together. He was buried that way. The applicant herself was pregnant at the time with their second child.\n12.  The applicant was not aware that tissue had been removed from her husband’s body until about two years later, when the security police (Drošības Policija) informed her that a criminal inquiry had been opened into the illegal removal of organs and tissue, and that tissue had been removed from her husband’s body.\n13.  On 3 March 2003 the security police opened a criminal inquiry into the illegal removal of organs and tissue for supply to a pharmaceutical company based in Germany (“the company”) between 1994 and 2003. The following sequence of events was established.\n14.  In January 1994", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8408", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  All the applicants were employed by Raketa-Putnički Saobraćaj AD, a company based in Užice (hereinafter – “the debtor”).\n6.  Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees, the applicants brought numerous separate civil claims, seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions.\n7.  The applicants obtained final court decisions ordering the debtor to pay them certain sums. The essential information as to the domestic proceedings in respect of each application is indicated in the appended table.\n8.  On 12 July 2010 the Užice Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor. As a result, all of the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were stayed.\n9.  That decision was posted on the Užice Commercial Court’s notice board on the same date. It was also published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia on 4 August 2010.\n10.  The applicants duly reported their respective claims based on the above-mentioned court decisions to the insolvency administration.\n11.  The court examined the reported claims at hearings held on 30 September 2010, 30 November 2010, 31 January 2011, 16 March 2011, 28 April 2011 and 8 June 2011.\n12.  On 8 June 2011 the court partially accepted the applicants’ claims.\n13.  On 17 April 2012 some of the debtor’s property was sold. The remaining assets were advertised for sale in the newspapers and a public auction was scheduled for 29 June 2012. It is not known whether any assets were sold at that auction.\n14.  The insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor are still ongoing.\n15.  On 30 December 2002 the debtor was privatised.\n16.  On 17 July 2007 the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations.\n17.  Following the annulment of the debtor’s privatisation the State owned 58.18% of shares in the debtor.\n18.  On 11 December 2008 the State sold its shares to a private company.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8409", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Yoshkar‑Ola, the Mari‑El Republic.\n7.  The applicant, a military serviceman at the material time, was dismissed from military service on 28 October 1999. He challenged in court his superior’s orders related to the dismissal.\n8.  On 22 February 2001 the 101st Garrison Military Court, referring inter alia to Article 239.7 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the R.S.F.S.R. (see paragraph 12 below), allowed the applicant’s challenge of his dismissal from military service in part. The court annulled the respective orders of the commander of the military unit no. 69795 and obliged the commander to change the date of the applicant’s dismissal to 6 March 2000 and to pay him all the allowances due over the period between 28 October 1999 and 6 March 2000 without listing them. The court specified that the allowances were to be calculated in accordance with the instructions and rates applicable on the date of the actual payment. It further ordered the military unit to reimburse the applicant’s legal expenses in the amount of 212.52 Russian roubles (RUB). The court rejected the remainder of the claims as unfounded. The respondent was represented at the court room.\n9.  On 25 May 2001 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the 3rd Garrison Military Court and entered into force.\n10.  On several occasions, notably on 11 June, 20 July and 29 August 2001 and on 4 March and 22 June 2002, the applicant sent complaints to various authorities arguing that the above–mentioned judgments in his favour had been unfair. On 20 July 2001 and 4 March 2002 he requested the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia to quash those judgments by way of supervisory review and to suspend their execution. On 22 June 2002 he submitted, in his complaint to the Constitutional Court, that the judicial award had not been enforced.\n11.  On 8 July 2008 the amounts awarded were paid to the applicant in part. According to the Government, on 16 January 2009 the judgment was enforced in full.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8410", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1983 and has lived in Moscow since 15 May 2012.\n7.  On 27 April 2013 the applicant was arrested in Moscow on the basis of an arrest warrant that had been issued on 15 November 2012 by a criminal court in the Uzbek city of Qarshi. The applicant was charged with participation in banned religious organisations, including the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, dissemination of ideas of religious extremism, and organisation of illegal departure of persons to foreign countries, including for training in terrorist camps in Pakistan.\n8.  On 30 April 2013 the Simonovskiy District Court of Moscow approved the applicant’s detention pending extradition. Following the receipt of extradition request, the applicant’s detention was extended until 27 October 2013.\n9.  On 22 October 2013 the Russian Prosecutor General granted the request of his Uzbekistani counterpart for the applicant’s extradition. The extradition decision read in particular as follows:\n“Mr Eshonkulov is accused of ... having committed the following crimes in the period from December 2011 to September 2012 in the territory of the Russian Federation:\n- undermining the constitutional foundations of the Uzbekistan Republic by means of public calls to extremist activities ... calls for forcible removal of the State leaders of Uzbekistan ... incitement to undergoing training in the special sabotage and terrorism training facilities of the international terrorist organisation ‘Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan’ ...\n- used the money from his accomplices to purchase videos of the international terrorist organisation ‘Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan’ ... propagating the ideas of religious extremism, separatism and fundamentalism, calls to pogroms and extermination of unfaithful, and distributed those videos among Uzbek nationals ...\n...\nThe fact that Mr Eshonkulov committed crimes ... in the territory of the Russian Federation is not an obstacle to his being extradited, since the Russian competent authorities did not institute any criminal proceedings in connection with these crimes ...”\n10.  On 27 October 2013 the maximum six-month period of the applicant’s detention pending extradition expired. From the remand prison he was taken to the Donskoy district police station where an assistant prosecutor communicated the release order to him. On his way out of the police station, the applicant was arrested for an infringement of migration rules.\n11.  On 1 November 2013 counsel for the applicant submitted an appeal against the extradition decision to the Moscow City Court, complaining that the Prosecutor General gave no assessment to the risk of torture.\n12.  By judgment of 28 November 2013, the Moscow City Court rejected their challenge to the extradition decision, finding that there was no evidence that the applicant would be subject to unlawful prosecution or torture in Uzbekistan, and noting the assurances provided by the Uzbekistani Government to the Russian Prosecutor General. It refused to examine the reports by international human rights NGOs and UN bodies about the situation in Uzbekistan which the defence prayed in aid, finding that those documents had no direct bearing on the issues considered.\n13.  On 19 February 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation examined and rejected the final appeal against the extradition order. It refused likewise to take into consideration translations of the Court’s judgments in similar cases or the documents from NGOs and UN bo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8411", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Kemerovo.\n5.  On 1 March 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily injuries to Mr K. On 3 March 2008 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Kemerovo remanded him in custody.\n6.  On 10 October 2008 the applicant and other persons were charged with running of a criminal syndicate, extortion and other offences. On 18 March 2010 the case was sent for trial to the Kemerovo Regional Court.\n7.  On 28 May 2013 the Kemerovo Regional Court, further to a verdict by a jury, found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 11 February 2014 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the conviction and remitted the case for a new trial. It decided that the applicant should stay in custody:\n“Zavorin, P[.], K[.], Sp[.] and Sl[.] stand accused of serious and particularly serious offences. Having regard to the gravity of the charges and the information on their character which is available in the case materials, the court considers that the grounds listed in paragraph 1 of Article 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are present. The information about the case, taken in its entirety, gives reason to consider that, if the above individuals were to be released from custody, they might abscond and thereby prevent the case from being examined within a reasonable time (the time the proceedings before the first-instance court have already taken should not be discounted) or they might influence the witnesses or victims. Under these circumstances, the court considers that these individuals must be placed into custody for a period of three months”.\n9.  On 28 April 2014 the Kemerovo Regional Court returned the case to the prosecutor so that certain procedural defects could be remedied. It also extended the applicant’s and other defendants’ detention for a further three months, referring mainly to the gravity of the charges but also to the wording of the Supreme Court’s decision of 11 February 2014. In so far as the applicant sought to rely on the Government’s admission of a violation, the Regional Court held as follows:\n“The defendant A. L. Zavorin filed an application for release on an undertaking to appear and to be of good conduct, relying on the fact that his prolonged detention in the present proceedings was deemed to be unjustified in the framework of the proceedings on his application before the European Court of Human Rights and that the [Russian] Government offered him compensation ... which he refused ...\n10.  On 28 July 2014 the senior investigator of the Investigations Committee ordered the applicant’s release, noting that he had spent in custody more than seventy-six months, whereas the Code of Criminal Procedure set the maximum duration of pre-trial detention at eighteen months.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8412", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1953 and 1975 respectively and live in Mykolayiv.\n6.  The applicants are respectively mother and sister of Mr K. who had been working at a mill operated by company O.\n7.  On 4 March 2006, as K. was cleaning an extruder machine at the mill, someone switched on the electricity, which set the machine in motion seriously injuring K.\n8.  On 9 March 2006 K. died in hospital of his injuries.\n9.  On 10 March 2006 the Mykolayiv Regional Department of State Authority for Workplace Safety and Mining Supervision (“the Regional Workplace Safety Department”) appointed a committee (“the first committee”) to conduct a special inquiry into the circumstances of the fatal accident with K.\n10.  On 30 March 2006 the Mykolayiv Regional Labour Inspectorate (“the Labour Inspectorate”), in response to a request from the first committee, stated that K. had worked at the mill under a services contract concluded between him and company O. under which he had, as a matter of form, the status of an independent contractor. The Labour Inspectorate took the view that this contract arrangement operated to conceal employment relations which in fact existed between K. and the company.\n11.  On 7 April 2006 the first committee found that K. had been registered as unemployed and was referred to company O. as a trainee by the unemployment office. He was not an employee and it had been planned that he would start as an employee of company O. only in April 2006. At the time of the accident he merely had a contract to provide services to the company. He did not contribute to the workplace accident insurance scheme. The committee concluded that the fact that an employment relationship existed between K. and the company had to be established in a court given that the nature of the contract between the parties was unclear. In view of these findings, the committee decided that the special inquiry procedure did not apply to K. since he had neither been an employee nor did he contribute to the workplace accident insurance scheme as a self-employed person. It accordingly decided not to conduct an investigation and to refer the materials to the local administration and local prosecutor’s office.\n12.  On 20 November 2006 the Zavodsky District Court of Mykolayiv, upon the applicants’ claim, established that the contract between K. and company O. had been an employment contract.\n13.  On 22 March 2007 the Mykolayiv Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 20 November 2006.\n14.  On 24 March 2008 the State Bailiffs ordered the Regional Workplace Safety Department to give effect to the judgment.\n15.  Complying with the order, in May 2008 the Regional Workplace Safety Department appointed three public officials, Mr L., Mrs L., and Mrs B., as well as Mrs Z., managing director of company O., and Mr Ku., a representative of company O.’s employees, as members of the second committee to investigate the circumstances of the accident (“the second committee”).\n16.  On 12 June 2008 the second committee issued its report regarding the circumstances of the accident and K.’s death. It considered that the accident was not work-related. K. was not asked to repair the extruder and was even prohibited by the management from doing so. According to the conclusions, K., being drunk, himself switched on the extruder and started cleaning it with a vacuum cleaner. The extruder sucked in a loose end of K.’s clothing tearing off his arms and inflicting other injuries, which proved", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8413", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Chernyanka, a village in Belgorod Region.\n6.  On 10 October and 16 November 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted against the management of the Kristall-Group holding (“the holding”) under Articles 176 § 1 (loan fraud) and 159 § 3 (fraud) of the Criminal Code.\n7.  On 18 November 2007 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, director general of the holding, on suspicion of fraud and loan fraud under Articles 159 § 3 and 176 § 1 of the Criminal Code respectively. On the same day the applicant was arrested in Kursk. Criminal cases against the management of the holding were joined to the criminal case against the applicant.\n8.  On the same day (18 November 2007) the investigator questioned witnesses L. and D., the applicant’s subordinates. L. claimed that the applicant had told him to temporarily leave Belgorod Region and not to divulge anything to the police. D. claimed that he feared the applicant, who was, in his opinion, capable of anything in order to evade criminal liability.\n9.  On 19 November 2007 Sverdlovskiy District Court of Belgorod (“the District Court”) decided to remand the applicant in custody. The court held as follows:\n“... Substantiating the request [for application of a custodial measure], the investigator indicated that [the applicant] might try to flee from the pre-trial investigation and the court, as well as obstruct the administration of justice. Those arguments have been confirmed. The court came to this conclusion for the following reasons.\nWhen the criminal cases were opened in respect of the unlawful actions of the management of the holding, investigative actions were carried out in the course of which it was necessary to question [the applicant] ... The suspect has a permanent place of residence, employment and a family. Nevertheless, for a long time the investigating authorities could not get hold of [the applicant] either through his work, his family, or his place of residence.\nThe arguments advanced by the prosecution to the effect that [the applicant], using his office, exerted pressure on the witnesses in the case, have also been confirmed ...\nThese circumstances counter the arguments to the contrary advanced by the defence ...\nIn view of the above, the court considers it impossible to impose on [the applicant] any other, more lenient, preventive measure, and deems the arguments by the prosecution to be substantiated and sufficient for applying the preventive measure of detention ...”\n10.  On 27 November 2007 the applicant was charged with two counts of fraudulently obtaining a loan under Article 176 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n11.  On 28 November 2007 Belgorod Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the detention order of 19 November 2007 on appeal.\n12.  On 15 January, 4 March and 8 May 2008 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 10 March, 18 May and 18 July 2008 respectively. The court opined that the grounds for holding the applicant in custody were still valid. It considered that the risk of the applicant’s absconding or otherwise interfering with the proceedings had been supported by statements of witness L. (see paragraph 8 above) and the fact that when the police had identified the applicant’s whereabouts in Kursk he had tried to escape. The court considered and rejected other pertinent facts, such as the fact that since 8 December 2007 the applicant had no longer been director general of the holding, that", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8414", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and prior to his arrest lived in Jalilabad.\n6.  On 8 June 2008 an operation was planned for the applicant’s arrest following allegations made by two previously arrested persons to the Organised Crime Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Mütəşəkkil Cinayətkarlığa Qarşı Mübarizə İdarəsi, hereinafter “the OCU”) that he was a drug dealer and had sold them narcotic substances.\n7.  At around 2.30 a.m. on 9 June 2008, when the applicant and an acquaintance of his were driving in the latter’s car in Baku, they were stopped and searched by the police. A packet of heroin was found on each of them. Some other narcotic substances were also found inside the car. The applicant and his acquaintance were arrested immediately after the search and taken to the department for narcotics-related crime of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. They were held there until 9 a.m. on 9 June 2008.\n8.  At 9 a.m. on 9 June 2008 an investigator drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest as a suspect (tutma protokolu). The applicant was then taken to the temporary detention facility of the OCU.\n9.  The following day, on 10 June 2008, the applicant was returned to the investigator for questioning. However, according to the record drawn up, the applicant refused to answer any questions in the absence of his lawyer.\n10.  The applicant’s family appointed a lawyer for the applicant on 10 June 2008. The lawyer tried to organise a meeting with the investigator and the applicant and this was eventually scheduled for 11 June 2008.\n11.  According to the applicant, during the night of 10 to 11 June 2008 he was ill-treated by four police officers in the temporary detention facility of the OCU.\n12.  On 11 June 2008 the applicant was returned to the investigator for further interrogation in the latter’s office in the presence of his lawyer. According to the applicant, he was at that time limping and there were injuries to his feet which were swollen and bruised. It appears from the record of questioning of 11 June 2008 that the applicant stated that the previous night he had been ill-treated by four plain-clothes police officers in the temporary detention facility of the OCU with the aim of extracting a confession that he was a drug dealer. He had been beaten with a truncheon on the soles of his feet and the beating had lasted for about one hour. The applicant also alleged that he had been threatened with electric shocks if he did not confess. As to the identity of the perpetrators, he stated that he did not know them, but he would recognise them if he saw them again. The applicant and his lawyer asked the investigator to order a forensic examination of the applicant and his transfer to another detention facility. The record of questioning of 11 June 2008 was signed by the applicant, the lawyer and the investigator.\n13.  It does not appear that the investigator took any immediate action upon the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment. Following the applicant’s transfer, on 21 June 2008, from the temporary detention facility of the OCU to detention facility No. 1., on 12 July 2008 the investigator inquired about the applicant’s state of health upon arrival. By letter of 16 July 2008 the head of detention facility No. 1 informed the investigator that the applicant had been examined by a doctor on arrival at the detention facility and that no injury had been found.\n14.  On 29 July 2008, during a further questioning, the applicant complained to the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8415", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Novosibirsk.\n6.  On 8 April 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and placed in pre-trial detention pursuant to an order of the Berdsk District Court of the Novosibirsk Region (“the Berdsk District Court”).\n7.  Between 3 June 2003 and 12 May 2004 the Berdsk District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending trial on several occasions. On the latter date it ordered that he remain in detention until 12 August 2004. It referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the absence of any grounds to change that particular preventive measure.\n8.  On 11 August 2004 the Berdsk District Court convicted the applicant as charged and he was sentenced to imprisonment. It also ordered that he remain in detention until his conviction became final.\n9.  On 15 December 2004 the Novosibirsk Regional Court quashed the applicant’s conviction and sent his case to the first-instance court for fresh examination. Its decision stated that the preventive measure applied to him “should remain unchanged”.\n10.  In an interlocutory hearing on 9 March 2005 the Berdsk District Court examined a request by the applicant for release pending trial, subject to him either giving an undertaking not to leave a specified place or the application of a different preventive measure. He argued, in particular, that the Novosibirsk Regional Court’s brief indication in its decision of 15 December 2004 that the preventive measure applied to him should remain unchanged could not serve as a sufficient legal basis for his continued detention. In this connection, the Berdsk District Court noted that the Novosibirsk Regional Court’s decision, in so far as it had concerned the preventive measure, had been lawful as it had been taken in accordance with the relevant provisions of national law. It further did not consider it possible to release the applicant pending trial on account of the seriousness of charges against him and the fact that he was a foreign national and did not reside within the territory of Russia, with the result that he might abscond if at liberty or put pressure on witnesses. The court thus ordered that his detention be extended until 15 June 2005.\n11.  On 6 April 2005 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the decision of 9 March 2005 on appeal. It stated that the Berdsk District Court, in convicting the applicant on 11 August 2004, had indicated that he should remain in detention until that judgment became final. It further noted that when quashing the conviction, it itself had stated that the preventive measure applied to the applicant should remain unchanged, and that then, in accordance with Article 255 § 3 of the Russian Criminal Code, the Berdsk District Court had extended the applicant’s detention for three months. It thus concluded that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was lawful, well‑founded and based on a court order.\n12.  On 8 June 2005 the Berdsk District Court further extended the applicant’s detention until 15 September 2005. He requested his release, stating that he had been in custody for a long time and that his health had deteriorated. The court held that there were no grounds to change the preventive measure applied to him. It referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the fact that he was a foreign national and did not reside within the territory of Russia, with the result that he might abscond or influence witnesses if released.\n13.  On 5 September 2005", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8417", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Xanten.\n6.  The applicant’s daughter A. was born on 9 March 1994. Since their separation in September 1994, the applicant and A.’s mother, Ms J., have been quarrelling over the custody of and contacts with A. The child was initially living with her mother. In 2004, A. was placed in a home.\n7.  On 9 November 2006 Ms J. laid an information against the applicant with the police, accusing him of having raped their daughter since 1998. As A. had persistently declared not to be ready to make a statement before the police, the proceedings were initially discontinued. Following a visit of A. to her mother, the latter informed the police that A. was now ready to testify. A. was heard by the police twice in May 2007. On 5 November 2007 psychological expert K., having examined A., submitted a report on the credibility of A.’s submissions.\n8.  On 18 January 2008 the Münster Public Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant with fifteen counts of serious sexual abuse of children (Article 176a of the Criminal Code, see paragraph 19 below) and of sexual abuse of a person entrusted to him for upbringing (Article 174 of the Criminal Code, see paragraph 20 below), his daughter A., committed between the beginning of 2002 and summer 2004 mostly in or in the vicinity of Senden. The applicant was accused of having raped A. in his car on thirteen occasions and in a holiday apartment on two occasions when he met her on weekends and during vacations following her parents’ separation.\n9.  The applicant was in detention on remand between 14 February 2008 and 26 February 2008, when the execution of the detention order was suspended.\n10.  On 17 September 2008 the Münster Regional Court, having held five hearings, acquitted the applicant of the charges on account of insufficiency of proof. It further ordered the Treasury to bear the costs of the proceedings and the applicant’s necessary expenses and to pay the applicant compensation for his detention on remand from 14 to 26 February 2008.\n11.  The Regional Court, having regard to the testimonies of several witnesses and the (diverging) reports of two psychological experts, K. and B., on the credibility of A.’s submissions, found that the offences the applicant had been charged with had not been proven with the certainty necessary for a criminal conviction. It noted that the applicant had contested the charges. He was only incriminated by A.’s statements. The Regional Court stated that it has not been convinced by A.’s testimony in the hearing that the charges were completely correct, in particular, in terms of a clear definition of the criminal acts and their time frame.\n12.  The Regional Court, having regard to the witness statements of two educators who had noted signs of sexual abuse in A.’s conduct, two psychologists who had treated A. and a friend of A., was not persuaded that A. had been influenced by third persons, including her mother, so as to incriminate her father.\n13.  The Regional Court then stated in its judgment:\n“... To sum up, the Chamber does not discern any signs of suggestive influence.\nTherefore, the Chamber assumes, in sum, that the core events described by the witness have a factual basis, that is, that the accused actually carried out sexual assaults on his daughter in his car. Nevertheless, the acts could not be substantiated, in terms of either their intensity or their time frame, in a manner that would suffice to secure a conviction. The incon", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8418", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Ordzhonikidzevskoye, Ingushetiya Republic.\n6.  According to the applicant, on 10 July 2009 she was at her flat with her two daughters, her son Batyr Albakov and his wife. At about 5.30 a.m. four men arrived at the flat to carry out a passport check. They introduced themselves as officers of the Nazran District Department of the Interior. The men were armed, some were wearing camouflage uniforms and the rest were in civilian clothes. They spoke Russian, Chechen and Ingush. They checked the passports of the applicant’s family members and then announced that they were taking Batyr Albakov to the police station to complete the identity check. There were four other men waiting outside the building. At the time, Batyr Albakov was wearing black trousers and a black-and-white striped shirt with short sleeves. The applicant was not allowed to accompany him.\n7.  The men and Batyr Albakov left in two silver VAZ 2110 cars. The applicant’s neighbour, Ms M. Galayeva, witnessed their departure. The applicant was able to remember part of the registration number of one of the cars, which appeared to have been registered in the Chechen Republic.\n8.  On the same day the applicant saw several silver VAZ cars parked at the premises of the operational search unit (hereinafter “the ORB-2”). She also saw a group of men in camouflage uniforms exit the building. Among them she identified three of the men who had fetched her son. The men got into one of the cars and left before the applicant was able to talk to them.\n9.  On 21 July 2009 the applicant read on the internet that her son had been shot dead by State servicemen in the course of a counter-terrorist operation in a forest close to Arshty, a village in the Ingushetiya Republic. According to the website, Batyr Albakov had been a member of an illegal armed group and had been offering active armed resistance to the federal forces. It was claimed that a number of items including a Kalashnikov machine gun and its ammunition, one bullet shell, fragments of a spent grenade, a backpack containing clothes and the deceased’s passport were found at the scene. Mr M. Albakov, the uncle of the deceased, identified Batyr Albakov’s body in the morgue in Nazran. The deceased was then dressed in a camouflage uniform.\n10.  On the same day medical forensic expert O. conducted a forensic examination of Batyr Albakov’s body. He documented seven gunshot wounds which the deceased had sustained shortly before his death and considered them to be the cause of his death. He further noted five bruises on the deceased’s legs and arms, which the latter could have sustained shortly before his death. The camouflage uniform was removed, packed, sealed and admitted as evidence. The report made no mention of the presence of gunshot residue on the deceased’s body.\n11.  On 22 July 2009 the deceased’s naked body wrapped in a cellophane bag was taken to the applicant’s flat. The applicant, one of her daughters, her son’s wife and some other relatives saw multiple injuries on his body, including a gunshot wound to his chest, stab wounds, fractured bones, burns and bruises. His left arm was partially severed. The applicant’s daughter took photographs of Batyr Albakov’s body and injuries.\n12.  On 10 July 2009 the applicant addressed a complaint to the Suzhenskiy District prosecutor’s office in respect of her son’s disappearance. In her statement she expressed doubts as to whether the persons who had t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8419", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Krasnoyarsk.\n6.  On 5 February 2006 Mr V.N. informed the local office of the Federal Drug Control Service (“DCS”) that he had purchased heroin from the applicant. The DCS officers then decided to organise a covert operation of the test purchase of the drug.\n7.  At about 3 p.m. on 6 February 2006 the DCS officers arrived at the applicant’s block of flats and rang at the door of a flat located next to that of the applicant in which two sisters, Ms E.N. and Ms T.N, resided. The DCS officers asked the two women to ring at the applicant’s door so that he would open it unaware of the DCS officers’ presence. Ms E.N. and Ms T.N. refused to cooperate.\n8.  The DCS officers then waited on the stairway for the applicant to leave the flat. At some point the applicant stepped out of his flat.\n9.  According to the applicant, three DCS officers forcibly dragged him out of the flat, pushed him to the floor and beat him on the stairway. According to the Government, the applicant showed active resistance by beating and kicking the DCS officers. They had to resort to physical force in order to overcome his resistance, and handcuffed the applicant.\n10.  Ms E.N. and Ms T.N. observed through the open door that three men were beating and kicking the applicant.\n11.  According to the Government, the applicant voluntarily allowed a visual inspection of his flat. According to the applicant, he was forced to make a written statement agreeing to the inspection. It is common ground between the parties that the DCS officers then proceeded to carry out the inspection in the presence of two attesting witnesses and discovered syringes with traces of heroin and pieces of aluminium foil.\n12.  The officers took the handcuffs off the applicant so that he could sign an inspection report. At some point the applicant rose to his feet suddenly and ran at a cupboard with glass doors, ramming it with his head. The cupboard fell on the applicant.\n13.  The applicant was then brought to the DCS premises. At about 1.50 a.m. on 7 February 2006 he was formally detained as a suspect in a temporary detention cell.\n14.  Two of the DCS officers presented their hierarchical superior with reports dated 6 February 2006 on the use of physical force in the course of the applicant’s arrest, claiming that the force had been used legitimately to overcome the violent resistance offered by the applicant.\n15.  On 7 February 2006 the applicant was brought to a trauma centre and then to hospital. He was diagnosed with a closed cerebral injury.\n16.  On the same day the Kirovskiy District Court of Krasnoyarsk authorised the applicant’s detention.\n17.  On 9 February 2006 the applicant was transferred to a remand prison. On arrival he was examined by a doctor and diagnosed with a closed cerebral injury as well as injuries to his face and head.\n18.  On 15 February 2006 the applicant complained to the Kirovskiy district prosecutor’s office of Krasnoyarsk (“the district prosecutor’s office) about the alleged ill-treatment.\n19.  On 2 March 2006, having conducted a pre-investigation inquiry, the district prosecutor’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the DCS officers who had allegedly beaten the applicant on 6 February 2006. They referred to statements made by the DCS officers and one of the attesting witnesses who had been present during the inspection in the flat and concluded that the applicant had resisted lawful arrest and that the use o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8420", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Vela Luka.\n6.  He worked as a sailor on an ocean carrier for a shipping company headquartered in Croatia.\n7.  In 2007 the police and the State Attorney’s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta; hereinafter: “the OSCOC”) investigated allegations of possible drug trafficking between Latin America and Europe via ocean carriers, involving several persons from Croatia.\n8.  On 23 March 2007, on the basis of a police report, the OSCOC requested an investigating judge of the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) to authorise the use of secret surveillance measures to tap the applicant’s telephone and covertly monitor him.\n9.  The investigating judge granted the request and on the same day issued an order for the use of secret surveillance measures. Its statement of reasons reads as follows:\n“On 23 March 2007 the OSCOC lodged a request, no. ..., for secret surveillance measures under Article 180 § 1 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of Ante Dragojević. The request refers to the [police] report of 2 March 2007, concerning the use of secret surveillance measures in respect of M.R., M.V., B.Ž. and I.B., alleging probable cause to believe that [Ante Dragojević] is also involved in the commission of the offence proscribed by Article 173 §§ 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code.\nThe investigating judge considers that the request is well-founded because the investigation cannot be carried out by other means and the use of these measures in respect of Ante Dragojević is also necessary for satisfactory completion of the investigation, given that there are sufficient grounds for suspecting that he has also been involved in the commission of the offence in issue.\nIt is therefore appropriate to temporarily limit the constitutional rights and decide as above.”\n10.  In the course of the further investigation the OSCOC learnt that the applicant had been using another telephone number. On 25 May 2007 it asked the investigating judge to extend the use of secret surveillance measures to tap that number.\n11.  On the same day the investigating judge granted that request and issued an order, which contains the following statement of reasons:\n“Based on an order of this court under the above number, the secret surveillance measures provided for in Article 180 § 1 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure are being conducted in respect of several persons for the offence proscribed under Article 173 §§ 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code.\nOn 25 May 2007 the OSCOC lodged a request for secret surveillance measures under Article 180 § 1 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of D.Š., and the secret surveillance measure under [Article 180 § 1] (1) of the above-cited provision in respect of Ante Dragojević, who was using the telephone number ... This measure was also requested in respect of another unidentified person who was using the number ... since the results of the previous use of secret surveillance measures showed that they had made contact in order to commit the offence in issue.\nThe investigating judge considers that the request is well-founded because the investigation cannot be carried out by other means, so it is necessary to temporarily limit the constitutional rights and order the measures noted in the operative part of this order under points I and II.\nThe OSCOC also asked that certain measures", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8421", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Maribor.\n6.  On the evening of 3 November 1983, the applicant, who was eight months pregnant and was returning home from work, was attacked by three men, A.M., T.D. and N.T. They pulled her into a car, drove to a remote location and raped her one after the other.\n7.  Immediately after the incident, the applicant went to the Maribor Police. The police arrested the three men at around midnight. They remained in custody following an investigating judge’s order. They were released from custody on 24 November 1983. The applicant was taken to the Maribor Hospital to be medically examined.\n8.  On 5 November 1983 the police lodged a criminal complaint against A.M., T.D. and N.T. accusing them of rape. Three days later, the Maribor District Public Prosecutor asked the investigating judge of the Maribor Basic Court to open an investigation.\n9.  During the investigation, three reports concerning the examination of the crime scene were prepared, and the three accused men and witnesses were heard by the investigating judge. T.D. and N.T. admitted to having had sex with the applicant, but denied that any force had been used. A.M. denied having had sex with the applicant.\n10.  On 13 March 1984 A.M., T.D. and N.T. were charged with aggravated rape under section 100 § 2 of the Penal Code of the Republic of Slovenia. The proceedings that followed were conducted in secrecy in order to protect the private lives of those involved.\n11.  The first trial hearing was scheduled for August 1988. However, it was adjourned due to the absence of A.M. and N.T. Another hearing to be held on 24 February 1989 was adjourned because it had proved impossible to serve a court order on N.T. In this connection, the Government pointed out that all three men had been born outside the territory of Slovenia and were Roma. At the time of the incident, two of them (A.M. and T.D.) resided in Slovenia, while the third (N.T.) resided in another part of what was then Yugoslavia.\n12.  On 14 December 1989, an order for detention pending trial was issued against N.T. because he was considered to pose a flight risk. However, he could not be found and went missing. Therefore, an arrest warrant was issued against him on 25 April 1990, which could not, however, be executed. In May 1995, the court conducted inquiries as to the whereabouts of all three defendants and established the places of residence of A.M. and T.D., but not that of N.T. A hearing on 13 October 1995 was adjourned due to the absence of A.M.’s defence counsel. As his whereabouts could not be established, on 26 October 1995 the charges against N.T. were severed into a separate case.\n13.  N.T. could not be found and brought to trial in the following years, so an international arrest warrant was issued against him in 2004. However, his whereabouts remained unknown and the charges against him were dropped on 1 October 2008. The international arrest warrant was revoked on 29 September 2010.\n14.  The main hearing in the case against A.M. and T.D. began on 18 November 1996 and continued on 27 and 30 March 1998, 29 April 1998 and 5 June 1999. Thirty-one other hearings were scheduled between 29 November 1995 and 4 March 2002, though they were all postponed, mainly due to the absence of the defendants or of their counsel. From 2000 onwards, a number of steps were taken in order to ensure the presence at trial of T.D., who had apparently been absent from Slovenia for some time. At the end o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8422", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Harju County. She is the widow of R.\n6.  On 20 February 2001 M. attempted to smuggle 105 kilograms of waste containing precious metals into Estonia. The waste was hidden in the fuel tank of his car. However, it was found at the border and seized by the Estonian authorities. M. was arrested. J., a suspected organiser of the smuggling, fled to Russia.\n7.  Investigating authorities asked R., an expert in geology, to give an expert opinion in respect of the content of precious metals in the waste. According to the expert opinion, dated 1 March 2001, the value of the metals was 19,620.90 kroons (EEK) (approximately corresponding to 1,254 euros (EUR)). This value was above the limit of a “significant amount” as defined in criminal law. P. who apparently had certain interests in the matter, approached R. and asked him to prepare another expert opinion, which would state that the value of the metals was lower. R. drew up another report, dated 6 March 2001, which stated that the value of the seized metals was EEK 13,356 (EUR 854), which was below what was designated as a “significant amount”. Smuggling of less than a “significant amount” of goods would not have been a criminal offence but a misdemeanour. P. sought to pass, through an intermediary, the new expert opinion, along with a sum as a bribe, to an officer dealing with the matter. However, the intermediary was apprehended when handing over the money and the second expert opinion.\n8.  On 11 March 2001 R. was arrested. His home and later his workplace were searched. A large amount of various substances containing precious metals as well as pure precious metals was seized, including 150 kilograms of silver, one kilogram of gold, thirty-one silver bars, five diamonds and eighteen silver-coloured spoons.\n9.  On 12 March 2001 R. committed suicide in the detention facility. He was taken to hospital in a state of clinical death, and died there on 17 March 2001.\n10.  In the case file there are two decisions of the police concerning the discontinuance of criminal proceedings in respect of R.\n11.  In a decision of 27 March 2001 the above situation was described, including the fact that two expert opinions had been drawn up by R. It was concluded that he had knowingly given a false expert opinion and had thereby committed an offence under Article 175 § 1 of the Criminal Code (Kriminaalkoodeks). The criminal proceedings against him were terminated because of his death.\n12.  In a decision of 9 April 2001, firstly, it was stated that the applicant had committed the offence under Article 175 § 1 of the Criminal Code.\n13.  Secondly, the decision stated that it had been established that since 1995 R. had been giving unofficial expert opinions concerning substances containing precious metals. Knowing that such substances were not found in Estonia and that they were being smuggled from Russia, he had committed an offence of smuggling as an accomplice (Article 17 § 6 and Article 76 § 3 (2) of the Criminal Code).\n14.  Thirdly, in respect of the silver, gold and diamonds the decision stated as follows:\n“During the search of [R.’s] home and workplace a large amount of pure precious metals ([about] 150 kg of silver granules, 31 silver bars, [about] 1 kg of gold, five diamonds) [and] other items made of precious metals were found, which refer to purchasing items made of precious metals from the population, and substances containing precious metals [were also found], ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8423", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are Russian nationals who, at the material time, lived in various districts of the Chechen Republic. They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared, allegedly after having been unlawfully detained by servicemen during special operations. In each of the applications the events concerned took place in areas under the full control of the Russian federal forces. The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives since the alleged arrests.\n6.  The applicants complained of the abductions to law‑enforcement bodies, and official investigations were opened. However, the proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed, and have remained pending for several years without having achieved any tangible results. The investigations have mainly consisted of requests for information and formal requests for operational search measures to be carried out by counterparts in various parts of Chechnya and other regions of the North Caucasus. The requests received either negative responses or no reply at all.\n7.  From the documents submitted it appears that the relevant State authorities were unable to identify the State servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions.\n8.  In their observations the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants. However, they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that State agents had been involved in the incidents.\n9.  Summaries of the facts in respect of each individual application are set out below. Each account of the events is based on the statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and/or neighbours to the Court and to the domestic investigative authorities. The personal details of the applicants and their missing relatives, and some other key facts, are summarised in the attached table (Appendix I).\n10.  The applicants are:\n(1)  Ms Malika Yusupova, who was born in 1957,\n(2)  Mr Ilman Yusupov, who was born in 1983, and\n(3)  Ms Remisa Ependiyeva, who was born in 1978.\nThe applicants live in Gudermes, Chechnya. They were represented before the Court by lawyers from the SRJI/Astreya.\n11.  The first applicant is the mother, the second applicant is the brother and the third applicant is the sister of Mr Arbi Yusupov, who was born in 1973.\n12.  At about 8 a.m. on 23 March 2002 Mr Arbi Yusupov and the second applicant were driving in a Niva car in the center of Gudermes, Chechnya. The brothers were stopped at a bridge in the town centre by a group of about ten armed military servicemen, some of whom were wearing masks. Those without masks were of Slavic appearance. The brothers were ordered to get out of the car and taken to an armoured personnel carrier (APC) parked nearby. The servicemen blindfolded the brothers and took them for a short ride in the APC to a checkpoint located about 500 metres away from the bridge. At that time the checkpoint was manned by a police unit from the Ivanovo Region of Russia. About ten minutes later, the brothers were taken from the checkpoint to an unidentified location in the centre of Gudermes; from there, they were taken by UAZ minivan to a basement.\n13.  In the basement the brothers were put in separate cells. The second applicant spent four days handcuffed to a metal pipe. He was not fed for several days and was questioned about members of illegal armed groups. On the fifth day the second applicant was taken to another basement where he was detained for one day and again qu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8424", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970. He is currently serving a life sentence in Dnipropetrovsk.\n7.  On 23 June 2005 O.K., a young woman, was found hanged on a tree in a forested area near a bus station. It was also discovered that her mobile phone, earrings and ring were missing and that she had had sexual intercourse shortly before her death.\n8.  At about 2 p.m. on 27 June 2005, officers of the Apostolovskiy District Police took the applicant to the police station for questioning in connection with the investigation into O.K.’s death.\n9.  On the same day, the applicant signed a confession statement according to which on the afternoon of 22 June 2005 he had met O.K. at a bus station and asked her to have sex with him in the nearby forest. O.K. had agreed to his proposal and volunteered her ring and earrings after intercourse. As the applicant was leaving, she had threatened to complain that she had been raped and robbed. In order to get away, the applicant had grabbed her by the neck; O.K., still alive, had lost consciousness and he had taken her mobile phone and left the scene.\n10.  According to the applicant, between 27 and 28 June 2005 he remained in police custody without any record being drawn up or his relatives being notified.\n11.  On 28 June 2005 the applicant was questioned by an investigating officer of the Apostolovskiy District Prosecutor’s Office and gave further details of his encounter with O.K. He stated that after she had lost consciousness he had taken the cord from her umbrella, tied it round her neck and hung her on the tree. The applicant’s statements were recorded on a form headed “Explanation”, which did not refer to any criminal proceedings against him, but stated that the applicant had been informed of his right under Article 63 of the Constitution not to incriminate himself.\n12.  At an unspecified time on the same date an investigating officer of the District Prosecutor’s Office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion that he had committed a non-aggravated murder within the meaning of Article 115 § 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and notified the applicant of his right to legal assistance. He further drafted an arrest report according to which the applicant had been arrested as a suspect at 6.15 p.m. on that date at the premises of the prosecutor’s office.\n13.  After the applicant’s arrest he was assigned a legal-aid lawyer, M., and was officially questioned as a suspect in her presence from 6.35 p.m. until 8.50 p.m. During the questioning, the applicant largely reiterated his previous statements.\n14.  On the same date the applicant surrendered a gold ring to the police, which, as subsequently confirmed by her relatives, had belonged to O.K. O.K.’s former phone was also either seized from the applicant’s home or surrendered by him.\n15.  On 1 July 2005 the Dnipropetrovsk Apostolovskiy District Court ordered the applicant’s remand in custody as a preventive measure. It appears from the case-file materials that that decision was not appealed against.\n16.  On 2 July 2005 the applicant, questioned in M.’s presence, provided further details concerning his sexual encounter with O.K. He also stated that all his confessions had been voluntary and no pressure had been applied by the authorities to make him confess. Feeling remorse for his crimes, he wounded himself with a pen top in an attempt to cut his veins and commit suicide, but his cellmate intervened.\n17.  On 5 July 2005 M. was replaced", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8425", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Syktyvkar.\n6.  On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated rape.\n7.  Between 8 August and 9 November 2006 the applicant was held in pre-trial detention in remand prison SIZO no. 1 of Syktyvkar (СИЗО № 1 г. Сыктывкара).\n8.  On 9 November 2006 the applicant was released subject to an undertaking not to leave a specified place.\n9.  On 8 December 2006 the Syktyvkar Town Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment.\n10.  On the same date the applicant was detained in SIZO no. 1 of Syktyvkar.\n11.  On 11 April 2007 the applicant was transferred to prison IK-31 in Mikun.\n12.  On 6 March 2009 the applicant’s prison sentence expired and he was released from the correctional facility.\n13.  The applicant has been suffering from an insulin-dependent form of diabetes since the age of four. The disease has entailed various complications, including diabetic angioretinopathy and complicated diabetic cataracts.\n14.  On 24 April 2006 the applicant underwent a medical examination in connection with his eyesight problems at a municipal clinic at his place of residence. The examination confirmed that the visual acuity of the applicant’s right eye was 0.02, which corresponded to his ability to count the fingers on a hand from a distance of one metre, and that the visual acuity of his left eye corresponded to his ability to see hand movements near his face. According to the applicant, at that time he was able to orientate himself within familiar spaces, such as his flat, medical institutions and streets in the town.\n15.  On 20 November 2006, following his release from pre-trial detention, the applicant underwent another medical examination at the same municipal clinic, which established that he could count the fingers on a hand from a distance of 0.5 metres, that is that his visual acuity was 0.01, and that he could see hand movement near his face with his left eye. A cataract operation was recommended.\n16.  In December 2006, shortly after the applicant had been detained following his conviction by the Syktyvkar Town Court, he was admitted to prison hospital B-18 and diagnosed with a serious form of insulin‑dependent Type 1 diabetes, subcompensation, diabetic polyneuropathy, diabetic nephropathy, symptomatic arterial hypertension, chronic renal insufficiency, an immature diabetic cataract in the left eye and an almost mature diabetic cataract in the right eye. The visual acuity of the applicant’s right eye was 0.02 and of his left eye was 0.004.\n17.  In late December 2008, in connection with his request for release on parole (see paragraphs 60-62 below), the applicant was examined by a special medical commission of the correctional facility where he was being detained at that time. The commission confirmed that the applicant had a serious form of insulin-dependent diabetes and all the accompanying diseases which had been established before. As regards the applicant’s eyesight, it was stated that he could detect hand movement near his face with his right eye but that he was blind in his left eye. The applicant was diagnosed with complicated diabetic cataracts in both eyes, and specifically with an almost mature cataract in the right eye and a mature cataract in the left eye.\n18.  On 14 March 2009, after the applicant had been released, he was examined by an ophthalmologist at the municipal clini", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8426", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Loka pri Žusmu.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 1992 the applicant was raped by her eldest uncle J.D., then aged nineteen, with whom she and her family were living at the time in her grandparents’ house. Thereafter J.D. forced the applicant to engage in sexual intercourse on a regular basis, approximately twice a week. This continued until March 1994, when the applicant, together with her mother, sister and stepfather moved to a nearby village, after which she would only visit her grandparents on the weekends and during the holidays. According to the applicant, on these occasions J.D. touched her in an inappropriate manner, and also attempted to have sexual intercourse with her once again.\n7.  On 24 November 2000 the applicant told her school’s counsellor that she had been sexually abused. The school counsellor informed the local social work centre of the allegation of sexual abuse of a minor, and they, in turn, informed the police, who took a statement from the applicant.\n8.  In the next few days the police questioned J.D., the applicant’s mother, sister, stepfather and grandfather, her doctor and the school counsellor.\n9.  On 7 December 2000 a criminal complaint against J.D. for the sexual assault of a person younger than fifteen years of age was submitted to the District Public Prosecutor’s Office in Celje under Article 183 § 3 of the Criminal Code.\n10.  On 29 December 2000 the public prosecutor asked the investigation department of the Celje District Court to open a judicial investigation against J.D. for continuous sexual assault on a child.\n11.  Having heard J.D., on 29 March 2001 the investigating judge issued a decision to open a judicial investigation against J.D. for continuous sexual assault on a child.\n12.  On 9 May 2001 the public prosecutor sought to have the investigation against J.D. for continuous sexual assault on a child expanded to include the applicant’s younger sister, S.\n13.  On 16 May 2001 the investigating judge questioned the applicant and S., their mother and the school counsellor whom the applicant had first spoken to about the sexual assault. In her statements to the investigating judge the applicant, who was at the time being treated in a hospital for psychological trauma, gave a detailed account of the events.\n14.  The investigating judge appointed two clinical psychologists to prepare reports on the psychological states and characteristics of the applicant and of J.D., respectively. On 7 November 2001 the first expert submitted her report, in which she stated that the applicant exhibited characteristics typical of children who have been sexually abused which could be diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder. The other report concerning J.D. was submitted on 3 April 2002.\n15.  On 28 May 2002 the public prosecutor indicted J.D. for sexual assault on a person younger than fifteen years of age. At the trial, the charge was modified to sexual assault on a person younger than fourteen years of age under Article 103 § 3 of the Criminal Code of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia, the applicable legislation at the time of the events in question.\n16.  On 10 September 2002 the president of the Celje District Court appointed R.G. as the applicant’s legal representative, as she was still a minor.\n17.  On 16 January 2003, the district court excluded from the case file a summary of J.D.’s statement given to the police in the preliminary proceedings, before he had been pro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8427", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Heidelberg. He is the father of a son born out of wedlock on 21 December 2003. Shortly after the child was born, the mother refused the applicant any contact with him. In 2004 the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to establish contact.\n6.  On 19 May 2005 the applicant lodged a request with the Frankfurt/Main District Court for the regulation of contact rights. The course of proceedings before the District Court is summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Kuppinger v. Germany [Committee], no. 41599/09, §§ 6-33, 21 April 2011. By interim order of 22 May 2007 the District Court ordered weekly supervised contact between the applicant and his son. Three supervised contact meetings took place between 14 June and 19 July 2007.\n7.  On 21 December 2009 the District Court suspended the applicant’s contact rights for one year. This decision was amended on 22 March 2010 with respect to the applicant’s right to be informed about the child’s personal circumstances.\n8.  By judgment of 21 April 2011 (see Kuppinger, cited above, § 51), the Court found that the length of the proceedings before the Frankfurt District Court, which had lasted from 19 May 2005 to 22 March 2010, violated the applicant’s right to a trial within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court further considered that there had been a violation of the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention.\n9.  On 30 December 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision given by the District Court on 21 December 2009. On 15 April 2010 the Frankfurt Court of Appeal held a hearing.\n10.  By interim decision of 12 May 2010 the Court of Appeal decided that the applicant had the right to see his son for three hours on six specific dates between 26 May and 6 August 2010. The first three contact meetings were to take place in the presence of a supervisor. The Court of Appeal further ordered the child’s mother to take the child to the meetings on time. Finally, the Court of Appeal warned the mother that an administrative fine (Ordnungsgeld) of up to 25,000 euros (EUR) could be imposed if she did not comply with her obligations under this decision.\n11.  The Court of Appeal noted that the last contact meeting had taken place in 2007. There was no indication that contact with the applicant would jeopardise the child’s welfare. According to expert opinion, the child’s refusal to meet the applicant was not based on an autonomous decision, but was influenced by the mother’s stance. This was in line with the personal impression the judge rapporteur had gained from hearing both parties and the child. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the conflict between the parents, and their ensuing lack of communication, posed a risk to successful contact. However, the course of the proceedings had shown that both parents were unwilling to settle these conflicts by availing themselves of specialist help. As it was unlikely that the parents would change their attitude, the granting of contact rights could not await the outcome of successful counselling.\n12.  The Court of Appeal further considered that the overall course of the proceedings had demonstrated that both parents had contributed to the failure of contact visits. In view of the lengthy proceedings, which imposed an emotional burden on the child, it was particularly important to re‑establish contact carefully after a regrettable interruption of two years", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8428", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Vittorio Veneto.\n7.  The applicant entered into a relationship with D.P., an Austrian national, and lived together with her in Vittorio Veneto. Their daughter, who is an Italian and Austrian national, was born in December 2006. Under Italian law the applicant and D.P. had joint custody of her.\n8.  The relationship between the applicant and D.P. deteriorated and the latter left the family home on 31 January 2008, taking their daughter with her.\n9.  The applicant applied to the Venice Youth Court (tribunale per i minorenni di Venezia) for an award of sole custody of the child and asked the court to issue a travel ban prohibiting her from leaving Italy without his consent.\n10.  On 8 February 2008 the Venice Youth Court issued a travel ban in respect of the applicant’s daughter. On the same day the applicant learned that D.P. had left Italy with the child and had travelled to Austria, where she intended to take up residence.\n11.  On 23 May 2008 the Venice Youth Court lifted the travel ban in respect of the applicant’s daughter, granted preliminary joint custody of the child to both parents, and authorised her to reside with her mother in Austria, having regard to her young age and close relationship with her mother. It also appointed an expert who was entrusted with the task of collecting the necessary information for a final decision on custody. In addition, the court granted the applicant access rights twice a month in a neutral location, noting that the meetings should alternate between Italy and Austria and that the dates and arrangements should be agreed with the expert.\n12.  According to the applicant, D.P. brought their daughter to Italy only once. Visits took place in Austria, although D.P. did not facilitate their organisation. At a later date visits ceased, allegedly due to D.P.’s obstructive behaviour. In a report of 15 May 2009 the expert noted that she was not in a position to evaluate the applicant’s ability to take care of his daughter.\n13.  According to the Government the applicant met his daughter fifteen times in Austria, where supervised visits took place between October 2008 and June 2009. Subsequently, he refused to travel to Austria without giving any reasons.\n14.  The applicant applied for assistance to secure his daughter’s return under the Hague Convention. His application was forwarded via the respective central authorities in Italy and Austria to the Leoben District Court (Bezirksgericht), where proceedings began on 19 June 2008. Subsequently, the court appointed an expert.\n15.  On 3 July 2008, the Leoben District Court dismissed the applicant’s application for the return of the child under the Hague Convention. Referring to the expert’s opinion and having regard to the very young age of the child, the court found that her return would constitute a grave risk for her within the meaning of Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.\n16.  On 1 September 2008, the Leoben Regional Court (Landes­gericht) set aside that decision because the applicant had not been duly heard in the proceedings.\n17.  On 21 November 2008 the Leoben District Court, having heard the applicant, again dismissed his application for his daughter’s return, referring to the Venice Youth Court’s decision of 23 May 2008.\n18.  On 7 January 2009 the Leoben Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, finding that returning the child to him and her separation from her mother would entail a grave risk of ps", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8429", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Vladikavkaz.\n6.  The applicant was a police officer at the Office of the Interior of the Iristonskiy District of Vladikavkaz (“the police station”) until 2005.\n7.  Between 25 and 27 February 2008 a submachine gun disappeared from the police station. The police officers noticed it was missing on 27 February 2008.\n8.  According to the applicant, on 28 February 2008, in the evening, police officers delivered him to the police station. There they handcuffed him to a chair and ill-treated him overnight, beating him on the back and head and pressing bare electric wires against his ears to make him confess to the theft of the sub-machine gun. He was released from the police station before noon on 29 February 2008.\n9.  On 3 March 2008 the applicant underwent a medical forensic examination. Forensic report no. 521 attested that he had concussion, abrasions on his head which could have been inflicted by hard blunt objects, areas of pigmentation on his earlobes resulting from healing abrasions which could have been inflicted as a result of the application of low-frequency electrical current, and areas of pigmentation on his lower arms which could have been caused by hard blunt objects, possibly handcuffs. The report stated that the aforementioned injuries could have been inflicted within the period, and in the circumstances, described by the applicant.\n10.  On 3 March 2008 the applicant complained about the events of 28‑29 February 2008 to the prosecutor’s office of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania. The latter referred his complaints to the prosecutor’s office of the Pravoberezhniy District of Vladikavkaz and to the prosecutor’s office of the Iristonskiy District of Vladikavkaz for inquiry, in letters of 6 and 12 March 2008 respectively. The latter prosecutor’s office further transmitted the applicant’s complaint to the Vladikavkaz Investigation Department on 18 March 2008.\n(a)  First refusal to open a criminal investigation\n11.  On 4 April 2008 the Vladikavkaz Investigation Department refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant’s allegations. The decision stated that according to the applicant, at 9.15 p.m. on 28 February 2008 he received a phone call from a former colleague at the police station, Ms P., who told him that another former colleague from the same police station, Officer K., had some problems. Ms P. asked the applicant to call Officer K. The applicant called Officer K. The latter said that he had problems and asked the applicant to join him in Officer K.’s car, parked outside the applicant’s house, to go to South Ossetia. Officer K. also asked the applicant to take his passport with him. The applicant went outside and joined Officer K. and another man in camouflage uniform in a silver grey Niva-Chevrolet car. The applicant sat in the back seat and they drove off. As they were driving, Officer K. told the applicant that when he started his duty shift he had signed an entry in the register confirming that he had been issued with a sub-machine gun, but this had not actually been the case, as the gun had not been found. Officer K. asked the applicant to go with him to South Ossetia until everything had “cleared up”. Then Officer K. and the other man began contending that it was the applicant who had taken the sub-machine gun, because on the day the sub-machine gun had gone missing he had been at the police station; this was recorded on CCTV. The applicant ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8431", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in St Petersburg.\n6.  She had a dispute with private individuals over a contract of sale for a flat, concluded in 1998, in which the applicant was the purchaser. According to the contract, she was to pay the equivalent of 26,500 US dollars (USD) in two instalments: half of the price on signing the contract, and the rest before 2 January 1999. The sellers were to vacate the flat before the same date. The applicant paid a sum equal to USD 13,250 on signing the contract and a further sum equal to USD 6,155 in 2001, but never paid the remaining sum. The sellers were evicted from the flat in 2004. The applicant claimed interest on the amounts paid by her for the period up to the time at which she had taken possession of the flat.\n7.  At a public hearing on 17 March 2004, in the presence of the applicant’s representative and the defendants, the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St Petersburg partially found for the applicant, awarding her interest on the amount of USD 13,250 at an annual rate of 12% for the period from 2 January 1999 until the day on which she had taken possession of the flat, and dismissed the remainder of her claims. It read out the operative part of its judgment.\n8.  At a public hearing on 21 December 2004 the St Petersburg City Court examined the case on appeal in the presence of the applicant’s representative and the defendants. It quashed the part of the judgment in which the District Court had found for the applicant, and dismissed the applicant’s claims in view of her own failure to pay the price of the flat in full. It upheld the remainder of the judgment. The applicant’s claims were thus dismissed in their entirety.\n9.  At the close of the hearing the City Court read out the operative part of its judgment.\n10.  On 17 January 2005 the applicant’s representative received a copy of the City Court’s reasoned judgment.\n11.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Ulyanovsk.\n12.  A private individual brought proceedings against the applicant seeking recovery of a debt in the amount of 1,116,619 Russian roubles (RUB).\n13.  At a public hearing on 13 October 2008 the Leninskiy District Court of Ulyanovsk examined the case in the presence of the claimant and the applicant’s representative. It ordered that the applicant pay the amount of the debt in full, as well as interest in the amount of RUB 10,000 and the court fee in the amount of RUB 2,861.19.\n14.  At the close of the hearing the District Court read out the operative part of its judgment.\n15.  On 16 October 2008 a copy of the District Court’s reasoned judgment was sent to the applicant by post.\n16.  At an open hearing on 25 November 2008 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court examined the case on appeal in the presence of the parties’ representatives. It dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment. At the close of the hearing the Regional Court read out the operative part of its judgment.\n17.  On 9 December 2008 the applicant’s representative received a copy of the Regional Court’s reasoned judgment.\n18.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Tyumen.\n19.  The Tavda Town Administration brought proceedings against the applicant for recovery of “unjust enrichment” in the amount of RUB 175,276.40 resulting from the use of a plot of urban land for a period of two years and interest in the amount of RUB 17,704.57.\n20.  At a public hearing on 26 June 2009 the Tavda Town Court of the Sverdlovsk Region examined the case ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8432", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974. When his application was lodged he was being held in the F-type prison in Bolu.\n6.  On 25 June 2007, while the applicant was being held in anther prison – the F-type prison in Tekirdağ – that prison’s education board decided not to deliver the 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 June 2007 editions of the Azadiya Welat daily newspaper to the applicant or to other prisoners. They based their decision on section 62 § 3 of Law No. 5275 on the Execution of Sentences and Preventive Measures (“Law No. 5275”), which provides that no publication containing information, articles, photographs and comments which are obscene or liable to jeopardise prison security should be delivered to convicted prisoners. The board argued that the non-delivered publications were in the Kurdish language, that the prison had no staff able to understand Kurdish, that, furthermore, there were several dialects of that language and that it had therefore been impossible to have the publications in question translated. They consequently considered it impossible to ascertain whether those publications fulfilled the conditions laid down in the section of the relevant law.\n7.  On 28 June 2007 the applicant appealed against that decision.\n8.  On 22 October 2007, ruling on the basis of the case file, the Tekirdağ post-sentencing judge dismissed that appeal. He adjudicated in the light of the State Prosecutor’s opinion that in order to assess the conformity with section 62 § 3 of Law No. 5275 of publications in a language other than the official language, a translation of those publications was required, that there was no legal provision requiring the prison to finance the translation costs, that such expenses had not been covered by the appellant and that consequently, the appeal had to be dismissed.\n9.  On 30 October 2007 the applicant applied to have that decision set aside, submitting that the prison administration had suspended the delivery to the prison of the Azadiya Welat newspaper, which in his submission was widely distributed outside the prison, on the ground that it had no staff who understood Kurdish. He requested the setting aside of the post-sentencing judge’s decision declaring the measure consistent with the law, because in his view that measure would prevent the newspaper from being distributed inside the prison, as had previously been normal practice.\n10.  On 8 November 2007 the Tekirdağ Assize Court, ruling on the basis of the case file and having taken cognisance of the State Prosecutor’s opinion, concluded that the impugned decision was not incompatible in procedural or legal terms, and dismissed the application.\n11.  The applicants were born in 1982, 1980, 1973 and 1973 respectively. When their application was lodged they were held in the F-type prison in Tekirdağ.\n12.  On 28 May 2007 the Tekirdağ prison education board, drawing on section 62 of Law No. 5275, decided not to deliver to the applicants the 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 June 2007 editions of the Azadiya Welat daily newspaper on the grounds that they were in the Kurdish language and that the prison had no staff capable of translating that language.\n13.  On 4 June 2007 the applicants appealed against that decision.\n14.  On 10 August 2007, ruling on the basis of the State Prosecutor’s opinion that the education board’s decision had been justified, the Tekirdağ post-sentencing judge dismissed that appeal.\n15.  On 21 August 2007 Mr Atabey and Mr Çiftçi and on 23 Augus", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8433", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  In a decision of 22 May 2007, which became final on 20 July of that year, the Üsküdar Family Court (Istanbul) authorised the applicant, who was then single, to adopt a child, E., born on 5 November 2003 to Ms S.Ö.\nConsequently, under Article 314 §§ 2 and 3 of the Civil Code (no. 4721), “Gözüm” was registered as the surname of E. in the register of births and on the child’s identity documents. However, the registrar refused to indicate the applicant’s forename under the heading “mother”, where the name “S.” was retained, this being the forename of the child’s biological mother.\n7.  On 23 November 2007 the applicant applied to Üsküdar District Court seeking the replacement of the forename “S.” by her own. In her view, the fact that her forename had not been given as that of the mother of her adopted son was both discriminatory and unconstitutional, likely to undermine their personal, family and social development, and thus constituting a violation of, among other provisions, Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. She argued that in relation to single-parent adoptions there was a lacuna in the Civil Code which required the court to make provision for such a situation of its own motion, pursuant to Article 1 of that Code or, failing that, to request a preliminary ruling of the Constitutional Court.\n8.  On 26 February 2008 the court dismissed the applicant’s request on the ground that it had no legal basis. It found that the Civil Code, in choosing to regulate only two-parent adoptions – those granted to a couple jointly –, intended to treat the legal relationship between the adoptive parents and the adopted child as “a biological relationship”, which was not possible in the case of single-parent adoptions, where either a mother or a father was absent. Thus the legal situation obtaining in the present case could not be regarded as unconstitutional.\nOn 14 April 2008 the applicant appealed on points of law.\n9.  On 15 March 2009, when those proceedings were still pending, a new regulation entered into force entitled “Regulation on the implementation of mediation services for the adoption of minors” (“the Regulation”), enabling a single adoptive parent to have his or her forename registered in the place of that of the biological parent ...\n10.  On 5 November 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the court below in a judgment which made no mention of the legislative reform.\n11.  On 14 December 2009 the applicant was notified of that judgment.\n12.  On 9 November 2010 she applied to the registry office for the registration of her forename as that of the mother of E., relying on Article 20 § 4 of the new Regulation. That request was granted on the same day and the record entries concerning the child were consequently amended with immediate effect.\n...", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8434", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  By six judgments of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”) of 17 February 2000, 25 October 2000, 12 December 2008, 8 July 2003, 11 February 2003 and 31 August 1999, which became final on 15 May 2001, 18 March 2004, 12 January 2009, 30 June 2005 and 4 December 2000 respectively, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate:\n(i)  BAM 21,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,300 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 2,350 in respect of legal costs to the Đurićs;\n(ii)  BAM 31,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 3,570 in respect of legal costs to the Bošnjaks;\n(iii)  BAM 28,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 4,470.60 in respect of legal costs to the Bojanićs and Ms Banjac;\n(iv)  BAM 40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 2,835 in respect of legal costs to the Čolićs;\n(v)  BAM 19,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 600 in respect of legal costs to Mr Lazarević;\n(vi)  BAM 14,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,810 in respect of legal costs to the Komljenovićs.\n6.  The Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 24 August 2001, 16 August 2004, 4 April 2011, 8 August 2007, 27 April 2009 and 28 March 2001.\n7.  The applicants complained of the non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”).\n8.  On 16 January 2013 the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the cases of the Đurićs, Mr Lazarević, the Bojanićs and Ms Banjac. In line with its established practice in cases of this type, it refused the applicantsʼ compensation claims, holding that a finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction.\n9.  The cases of the Čolićs, the Komljenovićs and the Bošnjaks are still pending before the Constitutional Court.\n10.  On 10 April 2008, 12 November 2010, 13 December 2010 and 18 July 2008 respectively the Đurićs, the Bošnjaks, the Čolićs, Mr Lazarević and the Komljenovićs were paid legal costs and default interest.\n11.  Under the new settlement plan (see paragraph 16 below) the Đurićsʼ case was scheduled for enforcement in 2014; the Bošnjaksʼ in 2019; the Bojanićsʼ and Ms Banjacʼs in 2030; the Čolićsʼ in 2024; Mr Lazarevićʼs in 2026; and the Komljenovićsʼ in 2017.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8435", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Kars.\n5.  On 27 April 2002 the applicant, who was seventeen years old at the time, was arrested by police officers in Kars, on suspicion of robbery. On the same day, he was examined by a doctor at the Kars State Hospital, and no signs of injury were reported.\n6.  At the police station, the applicant was allegedly forced to make self-incriminating statements. During his interrogation, the applicant claims that the police officers pulled his ears and he was beaten and subjected to falaka (beating on the soles of his feet).\n7.  On 29 April 2002, following the complaint of the applicant’s representative, the Kars Public Prosecutor went to the police station to see the applicant. According to his report, there were several widespread bruises on the soles of the applicant’s feet and oedema behind his ears. The public prosecutor also noted that the applicant had stated that he had been ill‑treated and that he could identify the police officers who had ill‑treated him. The same day, the applicant identified the four police officers who had ill‑treated him. Following his interrogation by the public prosecutor, the applicant was released.\n8.  The applicant was subsequently taken to the Kars State Hospital for a medical examination. According to the doctor’s report, there were several scars on his left arm, bruises and oedema behind his left ear, and bruises on both of his palms and on the soles of his feet. It was noted that his injuries would heal in five days.\n9.  On 1 May 2002 the Kars Public Prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against four police officers, accusing them of ill-treating the applicant under Article 245 of the former Criminal Code. The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party.\n10.  On 9 May 2002 the Kars Criminal Court declared that it lacked jurisdiction, holding that the proceedings should be initiated before the Assize Court on account of torture under Article 243 of the former Criminal Code.\n11.  The proceedings therefore resumed before the Kars Assize Court. At the end of the trial, on 15 June 2010 the Kars Assize Court, on the basis of the evidence in the case file, found the police officers guilty of inflicting torture pursuant to Article 243 of the former Criminal Code. The court found it established that the police officers had intentionally ill-treated the applicant to extract a confession. It accordingly sentenced each of the police officers to one year imprisonment under Article 243 of the former Criminal Code, and banned them from public service for six months. Having regard to the good attitude of the police officers during the trial, the court then reduced their sentence to ten months’ imprisonment and five months’ ban from public service. It subsequently suspended the pronouncement of the judgment in accordance with Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8436", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1988. Both applicants live in Skopje.\n6.  On 10 June 2009 at about 1:30 a.m. the first applicant, driving a car belonging to the second applicant, was coming back home from a discotheque. In the centre of Skopje, two traffic police officers (J.B. and J.A.), who were in uniform and authorised by law (Order no. 1493 of 9-10 June 2009) to conduct traffic stops, ordered, using a flashlight, the first applicant to stop the car for a routine inspection. Instead of stopping, the first applicant made a U-turn and accelerated away. J.B. and J.A. followed him in a police car with active sirens and visual warnings. Four police cars and several cars from the “Alfa” special mobile police unit joined the pursuit. There were fifteen police officers involved in the chase.\n7.  A police car with flashing lights was used to block the street in order to stop the first applicant. The latter, however, drove around the roadblock. He continued driving at high speed. This was confirmed by written statements given by several police officers (see paragraphs 16, 18 and 19 below), as well as in a letter of 21 November 2009 that the Ministry of the Interior sent to the Helsinki Committee in reply to a request for information.\n8.  A second roadblock was established. The first applicant attempted to go around it by mounting the pavement on the left side of the street, where, as the Government maintained, Z.G., a police officer from the “Alfa” unit, was standing. M.D., also a member of the “Alfa” unit, who was standing on the opposite side of the street next to the roadblock, fired two shots from an automatic rifle in the direction of the car’s right front tyre (see paragraph 16 below). Z.G., whom the car was allegedly approaching, jumped aside in order to avoid being hit by the car. He lost his balance and, while falling, fired two shots from a pistol towards the car’s back right tyre (see paragraph 17 below). As specified in the letter of 21 November 2009 (see paragraph 7 above), the bullets fired by Z.G. hit the car, with one bullet hitting the rear of the car between the rear door and the roof. As a result, the rear window shattered. The second bullet passed through the rear door of the car and the rear seat and ended up hitting the front passenger seat.\n9.  The first applicant’s car stopped 100 m beyond the roadblock. According to the letter of 21 November 2009, police officers approached the first applicant’s car. One of them had a gun pointed at him.\n10.  I.A., a police officer from the “Alfa” unit, opened the door of the car. Since the first applicant did not get out, he twisted his arm behind his back, pulled him out of the car and made him lie down on the street. M.B., a police officer from the “Alfa” unit, arrived and handcuffed the first applicant. The Government provided copies of reports that I.A. and M.B. had submitted on 10 June 2009 to the Ministry of the Interior regarding the use of means of force (see paragraph 20 below). According to the Government, there were over twenty police officers present at the scene observing the first applicant’s arrest.\n11.  In their application, the applicants submitted that at 2:15 a.m. on 10 June 2009 the first applicant, driving the second applicant’s car, had passed by a traffic police patrol and he had started driving backwards in order to reach a fast-food restaurant. Police officers from the “Alfa” mobile unit had started chasing him in a police car through the streets of Skopj", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8438", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Debrecen. He is a practising lawyer and member of the Békés County Bar Association.\n6.  At the material time the applicant was appearing as the legal representative of a hunting association before the Battonya District Court. On 19 March 2003 he filed with the court a notice of appeal for the attention of the second-instance Békés County Regional Court, in which he also requested this court to initiate proceedings with a view to examining the first-instance judge’s competence to exercise the duties of a judge. In his appeal he wrote, inter alia:\n“Of course, we do not assume any professional incompetence on the side of the sitting judge, thus the fact... that he appointed a guardian ad litem despite explicit objection...is the first proof of his bias...\nQuestioning whether or not the general assembly of the respondent was entitled to suspend its session, continue at a later point and call another general assembly is not a question of bias but that of clear-cut professional incompetence ...\nBecause the judgment reflected the personal opinion of the judge and was not based on any evidence, we cannot but call into question the professional competence of the sitting judge. His conduct was guided either by sympathy for the plaintiff or a dislike for the respondent and this was also represented in the judgment. In a State based on the rule of law where proceedings should be based on the constitutional independence of judges, such judicial bias cannot be permissible.\nBased on the above, besides our request for appeal, we also request the County Regional Court to forward our motion to the authority responsible for initiating proceedings to examine the professional [in]competence of the judge.”\n7.  The motion was transferred to the Békés County Regional Court, whose vice-president indicated to the Békés County Bar Association that, in his view, the applicant’s submissions should give rise to disciplinary proceedings.\nOn 11 April 2003 the President of the Bar Association informed the applicant about the opening of disciplinary proceedings.\nOn 24 April 2003 the applicant submitted his observations, contesting the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings.\n8.  In the ensuing proceedings, the Szeged Bar Association Disciplinary Board dealt with the case. On 10 June 2004 it fined the applicant 300,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 1,000 euros (EUR)) for having committed a serious disciplinary offence. On appeal, on 5 November 2004 the National Bar Association Disciplinary Board upheld this decision in essence.\nThe applicant sought judicial review. On 19 September 2006 the Budapest Regional Court remitted the case to the disciplinary instances, essentially on procedural grounds.\n9.  In the resumed disciplinary proceedings, on 11 April 2008 the Disciplinary Board fined the applicant HUF 170,000 (EUR 570) for having committed a deliberate disciplinary offence. The Board was of the opinion that the expressions “of course, we do not assume any professional incompetence on the side of the sitting judge”, “this is not a question of bias, but that of clear-cut professional incompetence” and “we cannot but call into question the professional competence of the sitting judge” amounted to disrespecting the court’s dignity and to denying the judge the requisite respect. This was a disciplinary offence consisting of the applicant’s breaching the relevant ethical obligations.\n10.  On 3 November 2008 the Natio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8439", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are thirty-seven Romanian nationals of Roma origin. They all live in the Apalina neighbourhood in the town of Reghin, Romania.\n6.  On 7 September 2006 at around 2.30 p.m. the applicant Augustin Biga and his friend C.A had a quarrel in a bar with R.O., a policeman who worked for the Mureş County police. Consequently, R.O. filed a criminal complaint against the two men, accusing them of insulting behaviour.\n7.  In the context of the investigation of the above-mentioned complaint, at around 4 p.m. the same day, the chief of the Mureş County police gave the order by telephone for several police officers to go to Apalina, the neighbourhood where Augustin Biga and C.A lived, in order to summon them before the prosecutor. He advised them to exercise particular caution, mentioning on the phone that it would be difficult to get there owing to a large number of people (several hundred) blocking the way armed with bats, pitchforks, axes and scythes, and that the law-enforcement authorities had been unable to secure the area. He also requested the assistance of officers from the local special forces police (Detaşamentul de Intervenţie şi Acţiuni Speciale Mureş – DIAS). According to the operation order completed by the chief of the local special forces unit on 7 September 2006, the reason for the request was “to ensure the protection of the policemen conducting an investigation for insulting behaviour towards policeman R.O.”\n8.  Immediately afterwards, seven special forces officers (P.Ş., C.I., V.M., M.F., H.D.M., S.P. and G.P.J.) wearing special uniforms and masks covering their faces, together with two local police officers from the Reghin Police (B.M. and M.V.) and four plain-clothes officers from the investigations department of the Mureş County police (A.M., M.M., C.R.R. and S.C.L.) left for Apalina, taking a van and two cars.\n9.  On 7 September 2006 around 5 p.m., on seeing the police vehicles, the applicants and other inhabitants of the neighbourhood, mostly women and children, started gathering in the street out of curiosity.\n10.  In order to disperse the crowd, the special forces officers threw several tear gas grenades, which sent everyone into a panic, pushing each other and running around in all directions. At that point the police officers started shooting at the running crowd while backing up their vehicles and leaving the neighbourhood.\n11.  According to the prosecutor’s decision of 16 July 2007 (see paragraph 51 below), shortly after the police officers arrived in the neighbourhood, the local residents started gathering and a fight broke out between them and the special forces officers, who were forced to use their weapons. The prosecutor gave details about the incident, noting that shortly after all the State agents (except the one driving the van) got out of their vehicles, they found themselves surrounded by eighty to a hundred people, who began to jostle against them and pull at their equipment. In the meantime, the police officers recognised the mother of Augustin Biga and told her they were going to summon her son for a hearing before the prosecutor. As this discussion was taking place, some of the policemen heard shouting and noticed that about a hundred Roma were attacking the special forces officers with bats, pitchforks, empty bottles and stones.\n12.  According to statements made by the special forces officers to the prosecutor, they initially used three defensive tear gas sprays. This only infuriated the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8440", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant, Ms Asiye Genç, was born in 1976 and lives in Burdur.\n5.  On 30 March 2005 the applicant, who was pregnant and in pain, was taken by her husband, Mr Bülent Genç, to the Gümüşhane public hospital.\n6.  At about 11 p.m. on 31 March 2005 the applicant gave birth by Caesarean section to a boy (Tolga Genç), who – at 36 weeks’ gestation[1] –was premature and weighed 2.5 kg.\n7.  Shortly after his birth, Tolga began showing signs of respiratory distress.\n8.  As there was no suitable neonatal unit in the Gümüşhane public hospital, the doctors decided to transfer the baby to the Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Farabi public hospital (“KTÜ Farabi”), located in Trabzon, 110 km away.\n9.  On 1 April 2005 at around 1.15 a.m. the KTÜ Farabi public hospital refused to admit Tolga on the grounds that there were no places available in the neonatal intensive care unit.\n10.  Around 2 a.m. Tolga was transferred to the Trabzon Medico-Surgical and Obstetrics Centre (“TMOC”). There, the duty doctor explained to Mr Genç that there were no incubators available and advised him to return to the KTÜ Farabi public hospital, which the father had no choice but to do.\n11.  On their arrival, the doctors at the KTÜ Farabi public hospital again argued that they were unable to admit the premature baby, owing to a lack of available places in the neonatal unit.\n12.  A fresh attempt was then made to drive Tolga to the TMOC.\n13.  Towards 3.30 a.m., he died in the ambulance, which he had apparently never left throughout this sequence of events.\n14.  On 6 April 2005 Mr and Ms Genç filed a complaint.\n15.  In particular, they called for the conviction of doctors K.M. and T.Ö. from the KTÜ Farabi public hospital.\n16.  Two investigations, one criminal and the other administrative, were opened.\n17.  In the context of these investigations, several witness statements were taken. The relevant passages read as follows:\nThe deceased’s relatives:\nThe applicant: “My pregnancy was progressing normally. The doctors preferred a birth by Caesarean section on account of the baby’s position. The birth had initially been scheduled for 25 April 2005, but during the night of 30 March 2005 I had pains, and the baby was born by Caesarean section the next day. I don’t know what happened after that. I was told that the baby had been transferred to another hospital on account of a respiratory problem, but that he had not been admitted because there were no available places, and that he died in an ambulance, in the garden of a hospital, without a doctor taking the trouble to care for him. I want those responsible for my son’s death to be punished.”\nMr Genç: “My son was born prematurely at the Gümüşhane public hospital. The doctors decided to transfer him to another hospital with better equipment. The KTÜ Farabi hospital did not admit him owing to a lack of places. He was also refused admission to the Trabzon Medico-Surgical and Obstetrics Centre, for the same reasons. Instead of caring for my son, the doctors wasted time with administrative formalities. They did not even take the trouble to examine him, although it was an emergency situation. They ought to have diagnosed and treated him. We fought for four hours for my son to be seen by a doctor, but no hospital would agree to admit him. After several trips back and forth between hospitals, he died in an ambulance, in a hospital garden. Had my son been admitted to hospital in time, he would not have died. The persons responsible must be puni", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8441", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Voyvodinovo.\n5.  The applicant worked as a driver of tractors and other heavy machines for a number of years before 1985. This work led to her developing dysfunctions of the nervous system. In 1985 she was declared to have a “third degree disability” and started receiving a disability pension.\n6.  Between 1985 and 2000 the applicant underwent seven medical re‑examinations by the local Territorial Expert Medical Commission (“the TEMC”), the body competent to assess the level of disability. The medical examinations serve as a basis for the allocation of disability pensions. She was diagnosed with vegetative polyneuropathy of the upper extremities, coxarthrosis, cervical spondylosis and radiculopathy. On all occasions she was assessed to have a “third degree disability” ─ she had lost between 50% and 70% of her ability to work, which entitled her to receive a disability pension.\n7.  On 14 November 2000 the applicant underwent a new regular re‑examination by the TEMC. This time she was diagnosed with vegetative polyneuropathy of the upper extremities and myotendinosis. No mention was made of the other diseases diagnosed earlier, namely coxarthrosis, cervical spondylosis and radiculopathy. On that basis the TEMC assessed the applicant’s loss of ability to work at 40%, which was not sufficient to entitle her to a disability pension.\n8.  The applicant challenged this decision before the National Expert Medical Commission (“the NEMC”). After re-examining her, the NEMC declared the applicant fully fit to work in a decision of 14 February 2001. Its diagnosis was “spondylosis and related diseases”.\n9.  The applicant applied to the Sofia City Court for judicial review of that decision.\n10.  The Sofia City Court appointed a medical expert who examined the applicant and concluded that she suffered from the following conditions: cervical spondylarthrosis, vegetative polyneuropathy, myotendinosis of the upper limbs and coxarthrosis of the coxofemoral joint. The expert pointed out that these conditions had a chronic character and had permanently and negatively affected the applicant’s state of health. If anything, some of them had become worse after 1985. The expert pointed out that such conditions typically led to a significant reduction in the affected person’s ability to work.\n11.  On the basis of that report, on 27 December 2002 the Sofia City Court quashed the NEMC’s decision of 14 February 2001 as unlawful. It found, on the basis of the expert’s conclusions corroborated by the remaining documents in the case file, that the applicant’s ability to work was reduced. The court concluded that the NEMC had erroneously assessed the applicant’s state of health by failing to consider all relevant elements to her actual state of health. The court remitted the case for a fresh examination, pointing out that it was the NEMC which had to fix the exact percentage of the applicant’s reduced ability to work. The judgment entered into force on 11 February 2003.\n12.  The NEMC examined the applicant on 9 October 2003. In its decision of the same date it indicated as a leading diagnosis “spondylosis and related diseases”. It specified that the applicant suffered from cervical spondylarthrosis and cervical radiculopathy, which were occupational diseases, and from myotendinosis of the upper limbs and coxarthrosis, which were not. It considered that she did not suffer from vegetative polyneuropathy of the upper limbs. On t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8442", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Şanlıurfa.\n6.  The facts of the case as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 4 March 2005 the applicant’s mother-in-law, Mrs Aişe Sayğı, submitted a petition to Suruç prosecutor D.K., and informed him that on 3 June 1994 her son Mustafa Sayğı, ‐ the applicant’s husband ‐ had been travelling home on his motorbike when he was stopped and apprehended by soldiers who had set up a temporary base in a public building near Yoğurtçu village. She described the motorbike as “Russian-made, red and with a basket”. She told the prosecutor that nothing had been heard from her son since that date and that the complaint she had made to the authorities some six days after the disappearance had not elucidated any response. She gave the prosecutor the names of two villagers who, she claimed, had witnessed her son being apprehended, and asked the prosecutor to make enquiries in order to find her son.\n8.  The same day the Suruç prosecutor D.K. questioned Aişe Sayğı in relation to her above-mentioned petition. Mrs Sayğı confirmed the contents of her petition detailed above and added that the family had been informed about the incident some two days afterwards by villagers who had witnessed the incident. Her elder son, Mehmet Sayğı, had then gone to the military base near Yoğurtçu village where he was informed that his younger brother had been transferred to the gendarmerie station in Suruç. When Mehmet Sayğı had gone to the gendarmerie station in Suruç, he was told that his brother’s questioning was continuing and that it would probably continue for another three days.\n9.  When Mustafa Sayğı was not released, Mehmet Sayğı had gone to the Suruç prosecutor’s office and informed the prosecutor of the detention of his younger brother. When the prosecutor had contacted the military authorities he was told that Mustafa Sayğı had never been detained by the military. The family’s subsequent attempts to find Mustafa Sayğı had not yielded any results.\n10.  A detailed investigation was carried out by Suruç prosecutor D.K. into the allegations made by Mrs Sayğı. In the course of that investigation the prosecutor questioned the two villagers named by Mrs Sayğı as eyewitnesses and identified and questioned as suspects fourteen soldiers who had been based at the temporary military station at the time of the disappearance. The prosecutor also questioned family members who informed the prosecutor about the steps they had taken to find Mustafa Sayğı. Both the police and the military authorities contacted by the prosecutor denied that Mustafa Sayğı had been detained as alleged.\n11.  The two eyewitnesses named by Mrs Sayğı told the prosecutor that on 3 June 1994 they had been travelling to their village when they were stopped by soldiers outside the temporary military base near Yoğurtçu village. While the soldiers were checking their identity documents, Mustafa Sayğı had arrived at the scene and had also been stopped by the soldiers. After their identity papers had been checked they had been allowed to leave but Mustafa Sayğı had been detained. They had then informed Mustafa Sayğı’s family about what had happened.\n12.  The security forces personnel questioned by the prosecutor as suspects confirmed that at the time of the events a disused public building outside Yoğurtçu village had been used as a temporary military base. The soldiers denied, however", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8443", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in İzmir.\n5.  On 15 May 2001, the applicant had cardiac surgery in Ege University Hospital in İzmir and her heart valve was replaced by a mechanical valve. The applicant was insured by the Retired Civil Servants’ Fund (emekli sandığı) and all her medical expenses were covered by the insurance.\n6.  Following the operation, the applicant’s heart condition did not improve and she suffered physiologically as a result of a disturbing noise coming from the mechanical heart valve.\n7.  In 2003, the applicant found out from the press that the type of mechanical valve used in her operation was banned by the Ministry of Health because of serious production defects.\n8.  Being convinced that she was subjected to negligence, the applicant decided to bring compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Health, the Retired Civil Servant’s Fund, the Ege University Hospital and the doctors who operated on her.\n9.  In October 2003, the applicant applied to the İzmir Administrative Court and requested 250,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 153,000 euros (EUR)). The applicant requested legal aid for the court fees and submitted a certificate attesting to her indigence. On 5 November 2004 the İzmir Administrative Court, without giving any specific reason, decided that the applicant did not fulfil the prerequisite to be eligible for legal aid which was required under Article 465 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). On 21 December 2004 and 17 February 2005 respectively, the applicant was notified that she had to pay TRL 3,364,900,00 (approximately EUR 20,600) in court fees within one month in order for the proceedings to continue, and that failure to do so would result in the discontinuation of the proceedings.\n10.  The applicant failed to pay the court fees. On 20 April 2005 the İzmir Administrative Court decided to discontinue the proceedings.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8444", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  Mr Neshkov was born in 1971 and is currently detained in Belene Prison. Mr Tsekov was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Stroitel, an open-type prison hostel attached to Burgas Prison. Mr Simeonov was born in 1976. He was detained in Burgas Prison until 15 July 2014, when he was released; his current whereabouts are unknown. Mr Yordanov was born in 1962 and is currently detained in Atlant, a closed-type prison hostel in Troyan attached to Lovech Prison. Mr Zlatev was born in 1965 and is currently detained in Burgas Prison.\n10.  Since his incarceration Mr Neshkov has been placed successively in Varna Prison (2002-05), Lovech Prison (2005-06), Vratsa Prison (2006-14), and Belene Prison (2014-present). In the course of transfers to court hearings he also spent short periods of time, one to two days on each occasion, in Stara Zagora Prison.\n11.  Mr Neshkov was placed in Varna Prison on 19 June 2002 in execution of eight separate criminal sentences. In a decision of 25 October 2007 of the Lovech District Court these were combined into an aggregate sentence of twenty-eight years and eleven months’ imprisonment.\n12.  In the course of his stay in Varna Prison Mr Neshkov was kept in the prison’s high-security area, Group 3 (life prisoners and other prisoners under special regime) on the ground floor, in cells nos. 15, 19, 19a and 24. Cell no. 15 measured 6.5 by 3.2 metres and had two windows letting in enough sunlight and allowing the cell to be properly aired. Cells nos. 19 and 24 each measured 3.2 by 2 metres and had one window, and, according to the Government, were not overcrowded. According to them, cell no. 19a measured 2 by 1.9 metres, and was equipped with a bed, a metal locker and a table. According to Mr Neshkov, the cell was only equipped with a bed and a plastic bucket. According to the Government, Mr Neshkov was during most of the time kept alone in these cells, all of which had windows that let in enough sunlight and allowed them to be properly aired. According to Mr Neshkov, the cell windows were covered with metal sheets, which did not permit sunlight or fresh air to come in, and the cells were not equipped with a ventilation system. None of these cells was equipped with a toilet. The Government said that they had no records on the exact amount of time spent by Mr Neshkov in each of these four cells. Mr Neshkov submitted that he had spent two years in cell 19a. This cell, as well as the others in which he had been housed – and indeed all cells in the prison’s high security area – had been kept locked all the time, save for three periods of thirty to forty minutes in the morning, at lunch and in the evening. During these periods, he was able to go to the toilet, but the rest of time he had to use a bucket to relieve his sanitary needs. Mr Neshkov submitted that while in cell 24, he was tied to the bed with handcuffs for thirty-four days.\n13.  According to the Government, all inmates in Varna Prison, including Mr Neshkov, were provided with adequate health care. Varna Prison had a medical centre, and where necessary inmates were consulted by outside medical doctors.\n14.  On 29 June 2005 Mr Neshkov was transferred to Lovech Prison, then on 11 October 2006 to Vratsa Prison, and then on 23 May 2014 to Belene Prison, where he is currently housed. He did not provide any information about the conditions in these prisons.\n15.  Between 2002 and 2008 Mr Neshkov spent periods of time of several days in Stara Zagora Prison on a num", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8446", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and is currently serving his sentence in prison.\n6.  On 15 November 2004 a man was murdered at a bus stop in the town of Dymytriv, Donetsk Region. A criminal investigation was opened.\n7.  According to the applicant, on 12 December 2004 he was taken by police officers to some premises where they interrogated and tortured him with the aim of extracting a confession to the murder. The torture allegedly included the administration of electric shocks and the infliction of physical injuries.\n8.  On 14 December 2004 the applicant wrote a confession admitting that he had committed the murder.\n9.  On the same day the applicant was provided with a lawyer and questioned as a suspect. During the questioning, in the presence of the lawyer, the applicant submitted that on the evening of 15 November 2004 he had met the victim at the bus stop and asked if he had a cigarette; the victim responded aggressively and an argument arose between them, which developed into a fight; when the victim attacked him with a knife, the applicant grabbed the arm that was holding the knife and, at a certain moment during the struggle between them, the knife ‒ still in the victim’s hand ‒ caused a lethal wound to the victim’s neck. The investigator also asked the applicant to explain why he had a swelling on the left forearm in the wrist area. The applicant disputed that it could be described as a swelling and added that it might have been caused by the handcuffs.\n10.  In the evening of 14 December 2004 the police drew up a report on the applicant’s arrest.\n11.  On 15 December 2004 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert who reported that the applicant had no injuries. According to the applicant, the expert had examined him superficially and he had not been required to undress.\n12.  On 16 December 2004 the applicant participated in a reconstruction of the incident and, in the presence of his lawyer, explained and demonstrated how the conflict between him and the victim had developed and how the fatal wound had been caused.\n13.  On 17 December 2004 the Dmytriv Town Court extended the applicant’s preliminary detention to 24 December 2004. On 24 December 2004 the Dmytriv Town Court ordered the applicant’s detention in custody. During these hearings the applicant ‒ in the presence of his lawyer ‒ described the circumstances of the incident in the same way as he had done earlier. He also stated that he had not been subjected to pressure on the part of the police officers. The applicant then admitted that he regularly took Tramadol (an opioid analgesic) and specified that before the incident of 15 November 2004 he took five pills of Tramadol.\n14.  On 24 December 2004 the applicant was charged with the murder. He was again questioned in the presence of his lawyer. The applicant repeated the details of the struggle between him and the victim and the circumstances of the victim’s death.\n15.  On 28 December 2004 the applicant was placed in Pre-Trial Detention Centre No. 6 (“the SIZO”). Upon admission he was given a medical examination, during which no injuries were found.\n16.  On 8 and 14 January 2005 the applicant’s mother lodged a complaint with the prosecutor’s office, alleging that the police officers had tortured the applicant and made him confess to a crime which he had not committed.\n17.  On 24 February 2005 the forensic medical expert issued a report in which ‒ referring to the results of the applicant’s medical assessment ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8447", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Baku.\n6.  The applicant is an independent journalist who at the relevant time was working for the Gündəlik Azərbaycan newspaper.\n7.  At the time of the events described below, criminal proceedings were pending against the editor-in-chief of the newspaper for publication of certain articles.\n8.  The applicant regularly authored articles in which he criticised the Government’s security and defence policies, as well as the activities of various senior military officers.\n9.  On 20 April 2007 an article entitled “Comrade General, I am ready to ransack the army” (“Yoldaş general, ordunu çapıb-talamağa hazıram”) and signed by the applicant was published in the Gündəlik Azərbaycan newspaper. In the article the applicant criticised a colonel in the army (F.M.), accusing him of corruption and illegal activities.\n10.  On the same day the applicant was present at the hearing held in the Yasamal District Court as part of the criminal proceedings instituted against Eynulla Fatullayev, the editor-in-chief of the Gündəlik Azərbaycan newspaper. Following the hearing, the Yasamal District Court convicted Eynulla Fatullayev of defamation and sentenced him to two and half years’ imprisonment (see Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40984/07, 22 April 2010).\n11.  At around 5.45 p.m. on 20 April 2007 the applicant left the Yasamal District Court building and went to the offices of the newspaper.\n12.  At around 11.45 p.m. on 20 April 2007, when the applicant left the newspaper office, he was subjected to a violent attack by two men. The applicant was hit several times on head with a hard blunt object. He was also punched by his aggressors.\n13.  Having heard the applicant’s screams, his colleagues came out of the office. At that moment, the assailants left the scene of the incident by car.\n14.  The applicant was immediately taken to hospital where, owing to the gravity of his injuries, he received in-patient treatment for a period of seven days. It appears from the medical certificate issued by the doctor who examined him that the applicant arrived at the hospital at 1.45 a.m. on 21 April 2007 and left the hospital on 28 April 2007. The applicant was diagnosed with cranial injury and contusions on the upper lip.\n15.  On 23 April 2007 the Yasamal District Police Office instituted criminal proceedings under Article 132 (beating) of the Criminal Code in connection with the attack on the applicant.\n16.  On 25 April 2007 the investigator questioned the applicant in hospital. It appears from the record of the questioning that the applicant described in detail the circumstances of the attack, giving a detailed physical description of his assailants. He further stated that he had seen one of his assailants before, on 20 April at the Yasamal District Court. He also stated that on the same day at around 10 p.m. his colleagues had seen the assailants in the vicinity of the newspaper office. As to the investigator’s question whether he had an ongoing dispute with anyone, the applicant answered that he had had a dispute with T.C. (the person who had instituted the criminal proceedings for defamation against the editor-in-chief of the Gündəlik Azərbaycan newspaper), who had threatened him verbally and in the media. At the end of the questioning, the applicant stated that, as he had authored articles relating to the activities of the Ministry of Defence, the attack on him could have been organised by officials of that Ministry.\n17.  ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8448", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Kyiv.\n6.  On the evening of 29 December 2006 the applicant was arrested on a street in Kyiv and taken to the Shevchenkivskyy District Police Department of Kyiv (“the police department”), where he was asked to empty his pockets in the presence of two attesting witnesses. The attesting witnesses were two unemployed men. The applicant produced small bags containing cocaine.\n7.  According to the applicant, during his arrest on the street some police officers struck him down, handcuffed him and escorted him to their car, where they allegedly planted drugs (small bags of cocaine) on him and continued to beat him up. The assault was accompanied by threats of sexual abuse, and continued until he arrived at the police department.\n8.  At 10 p.m. on 29 December 2006 the police took the decision to arrest and detain the applicant under Article 263 of the Administrative Offences Code for violating drug circulation rules, an administrative offence pursuant to Article 44 of that Code.\n9.  The applicant was then interviewed. He wrote a confession admitting that he had unlawfully bought cocaine for personal use. According to him, he was forced to make the confession, which was dictated to him by one of the police officers.\n10.  After the confession he was placed in a police cell.\n11.  According to the applicant, during his stay in the police department he was not given enough food or water. He was held in bad sanitary and hygienic conditions. Allegedly, he was locked for one night in a toilet of the police department, which was dirty and stinking. He felt unwell and had acute lower back pain.\n12.  On 2 January 2007 the police received a specialist report stating that the substance seized from the applicant had contained 1.18 grams of cocaine.\n13.  That day the police investigator instituted criminal proceedings against him for illegally purchasing and storing narcotic drugs in large quantities, an offence pursuant to Article 309 § 2 of the Criminal Code.\n14.  At 5.25 p.m. the investigator, relying on Articles 106 and 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, took a decision to arrest and detain the applicant on suspicion of the above-mentioned offence. The decision authorised the applicant’s preliminary detention for another seventy-two hours.\n15.  The applicant was also questioned that day and gave details of the circumstances surrounding his purchase of the drugs. According to him, his lawyer, who had been hired by his parents, joined him when the interview had gone on for a considerable length of time. In the lawyer’s presence he complained of being in a poor state of health, and added that one of his acquaintances had instigated purchasing the drugs.\n16.  According to the Government, on 2 January 2007 the applicant was given a medical examination and diagnosed with intercostal neuralgia. His state of health was considered satisfactory.\n17.  On 5 January 2007 the prosecutor refused to approve the investigator’s application to have the applicant placed in pre-trial detention. The investigator then decided to release him on a written undertaking not to abscond.\n18.  On the afternoon of 5 January 2007, following his release, the applicant was examined by an ambulance team, who noted that he was suffering from acute pyelonephritis (a severe kidney infection) and lumbosacral radiculitis (sciatica).\n19.  On 6 and 8 January 2007 he was examined by ambulance teams again, who diagnosed him with acute radiculitis an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8450", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Baku.\n6.  Since his birth the applicant had lived in a house in the Khutor settlement of Baku which previously belonged to his parents. The total surface area of the house was 84.6 sq. m, including a habitable area of 58.8 sq. m. According to the “technical passport” for the house issued on 26 May 2004 by the Technical Inventory and Ownership Rights Registration Department of the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), it was located on a plot of land measuring 257 sq. m, of which 93.4 sq. m was occupied by the house and 163.6 sq. m by the courtyard. The applicant lived in the house with his wife and two small children and his elderly mother.\n7.  The original ownership of the house is unclear. On 8 October 2005 the applicant acquired private ownership of the house and was issued with an ownership certificate by the Technical Inventory and Ownership Rights Registration Department of the BCEA confirming that he was the private owner. The plot of land underneath the house was not registered as being in the applicant’s formal ownership.\n8.  On 14 May 2004 the Head of the BCEA issued an order assigning various sites in Baku for development by a number of private promoters. The order read, in the relevant part, as follows:\n“Order on permission for project designs for a sports complex, a cinema, office buildings, residential buildings, a shopping centre, an underground car park,cottage-type houses, a dolphinarium and a planetarium on privatised plots of land\nFor the purpose of coordinating with the General Development Plan [of the City] and completing the facilities [obyektlərin Baş Plana uyğunlaşdırılaraq tamamlanması] in our capital which are in a state of ruin owing to having remained partially constructed for a long period of time and which undermine the beauty and development of the city, the following plots of land should be assigned [ayrılsın] to the following companies and firms:\n... 6.  Taking into account the request made by Kaspi Nur LLC on 13 May 2004, the land comprising neighbourhoods nos. 1070, 1072, 1073 and 1076 on Shushinski Street in the Narimanov District shall be assigned to the aforementioned company on the basis of a lease, for the purpose of designing and constructing cottage-type houses.\n...\n9.  The developer is instructed [to do the following:] 9.2.  To comply with the instructions of the Chief Department for Architecture and Urban Planning [“the CDAUP”] concerning the timing and procedure of the project design and with the other conditions laid down in the construction certificate [inşaat pasportu]. 9.3.  Prior to completion of the project design, to coordinate with the [CDAUP] the sketches for the architectural planning of the land and buildings. After completing the project design, to submit the full working plan to the [CDAUP]. 9.5.  This order, together with the construction certificate, form the basis solely for preparing the project design.\n10.  In accordance with Articles 66, 67 and 68 of the Land Code, the developer shall obtain [from the relevant authorities] the certificate and other documents confirming its rights over the plot of land ...\n11.  The construction work shall start after the registration of all the project design documentation by the Baku State Architecture and Construction Surveillance Inspectorate.\n...\n14.  Should the developer fail to comply with the requirements of the above provisions, this order may be repealed in accordance with the la", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8451", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 17 March 2005 the applicant bought a flat in Moscow at 69/4‑2 Bolshaya Filevskaya Street (“the flat”). The seller of the flat, Mr S., had acquired it under the privatisation scheme in 2004.\n7.  Before its privatisation the flat was owned by the City of Moscow. On an unspecified date it was allocated to Mr P. as social housing.\n8.  On 17 April 2001 Mr P. died.\n9.  On 14 December 2001 the Moscow City housing authorities authorised a certain exchange of flats which resulted in Mr M. moving into the flat which had previously been allocated to Mr P.\n10.  On 20 November 2002 and 5 March 2003 respectively Mr M. registered his grandfather, Mr S., and his grandmother, Mrs S., as also living in the flat.\n11.  On 23 March 2004 Mr M. and Mrs S. moved out of the flat.\n12.  On 18 May 2004 Mr S. signed a social tenancy contract with the Housing Policy and Housing Fund Department of the City of Moscow (Департамент жилищной политики и жилищного фонда г. Москвы, hereinafter “the Moscow Housing Department”).\n13.  On 10 September 2004 the Moscow Housing Department transferred the ownership of the flat to Mr S. under the privatisation scheme.\n14.  On 1 November 2004 Mr S. registered his ownership of the flat in the State register (Единый государственный реестр прав на недвижимое имущество и сделок с ним).\n15.  On 25 January 2005 an “informational ban” (информационный запрет) was imposed in respect of the flat by the criminal investigations service of the Moscow Department of the Interior (УУР ГУВД г. Москвы) in view of the possible illegal alienation of the flat.\n16.  On 17 March 2005 Mr S. sold the flat to the applicant. The terms of the purchase included an undertaking by the seller to buy the applicant an equivalent flat in the event that she lost the title for reasons relating to any defects in the title which pre-dated her purchase of the flat.\n17.  According to the Government, on 18 April 2005 the applicant’s representative was informed that the registration of her ownership of the flat had been postponed for one month.\n18.  On 17 May 2005, at the request of Mr S., the “informational ban” in respect of the flat was lifted.\n19.  On 18 May 2005 the applicant’s ownership of the flat was entered in the State register.\n20.  The applicant moved into the flat and has been living there ever since.\n21.  On 25 November 2008 the criminal investigations service of the Moscow Department of the Interior informed the Moscow Housing Department that it had discovered that the exchange of flats between Mr P. and Mr M. had taken place after the former’s death (see paragraph 9 above).\n22.  On 25 May 2009 the Moscow Housing Department instituted proceedings against Mr M., Mr and Mrs S. and the applicant, asking the court to declare null and void the flat exchange between Mr P. and Mr M. of 14 December 2001, the social tenancy contract between Mr S. and the Moscow Housing Department of 18 May 2004, the privatisation of the flat in favour of Mr S. of 10 September 2004 and its subsequent sale to the applicant of 17 March 2005. They further sought the applicant’s eviction, the termination of her title to the flat, and the return of the flat to the city of Moscow.\n23.  On 27 September 2010 the applicant lodged a counterclaim seeking to have her title to the flat recognised by the court. She contended that she had purchased the flat in good faith (as a bona fide buyer) and that she had not known that Mr S. had had n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8452", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Zhytomyr.\n6.  The applicant was the director of B., a limited liability company. In 2007 and 2008 the company took out bank loans for the purpose of production activities. In April 2009 the company changed the composition of the shareholders and management. The changes were allegedly made on the basis of forged documents. Subsequently, the company failed to repay the loans. The company refused the banks’ requests to repay the debts. The applicant claimed that he was no longer working at the company.\n7.  On 30 October 2009 the Prosecutor of Zhytomyr City instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the embezzlement of funds by the managers and owners of company B. and the forgery of documents.\n8.  On 25 and 27 November 2009 the investigator of the Zhytomyr Prosecutor’s Office questioned the employees of the banks dealing with the loans to company B., the shareholders and the staff of company B. The witnesses gave details as to the role of the applicant in arranging the loan agreements and in the way the shareholders and management had been changed. One of the former shareholders claimed that his signature had been inserted on loan documents which he had not actually signed. He alleged that the applicant had then calmed him down by explaining that everything would be fine; his signature had been inserted without asking him as nobody had wished to bother him.\n9.  On 27 November 2009 the applicant was also questioned. At 10.15 p.m. on 27 November 2009 the investigator of the Zhytomyr Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that he was being arrested and detained for seventy-two hours on suspicion of having committed a crime. The investigator drew up an arrest report specifying that the applicant was being arrested in accordance with Articles 106 and 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds that “eyewitnesses had directly identified him as a person who had committed a crime”.\n10.  On 28 November 2009 the applicant challenged his arrest and detention before the Bohunskyy District Court of Zhytomyr (“the District Court”). He argued that his arrest and detention had been unlawful, noting that no eyewitness had identified him as a person who had committed any crime; furthermore, the alleged events had taken place a long time ago and there was no risk that he would abscond since he had previously voluntarily appeared before the investigator.\n11.  On 30 November 2009 the investigator applied to the District Court with a request to place the applicant in pre-trial detention. On the same day the District Court, relying on Article 165-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, found that in order to make a decision on the application of a preventive measure it required more information concerning the applicant’s personality, family status and lifestyle. The court therefore ordered that the investigator produce that information and extended the applicant’s preliminary detention to ten days.\n12.  On 7 December 2009 the investigator released the applicant against a written undertaking not to abscond. The investigator noted that the applicant was disabled; he was the breadwinner for three minor children, one of whom was disabled; he had a permanent place of residence; and that there was no information that he would abscond or hinder the proceedings.\n13.  On 29 January 2010 the District Court found that the applicant’s arrest had been unlawful because the prosecutor’s office had failed to prov", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8453", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1988 and is currently serving a prison sentence.\n6.  On 28 February 2004 R., an adolescent who was born in 1987, disappeared. On 18 March 2004 he was found dead in a garden area of Cherkasy city. The body had numerous stab wounds, including in the neck and the chest.\n7.  On 18 March 2004 the Sosnivskyy District Prosecutor’s Office of Cherkasy (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) opened a criminal investigation into the murder.\n8.  In the evening of the same day the police searched the applicant’s home and seized seven knives, clothes and other items. Allegedly, on the same night the police took the applicant to the police station.\n9.  Between 11 a.m. and 1.40 p.m. on 19 March 2004 the applicant was questioned as a witness in the murder case. During the questioning, which was not attended by a lawyer, the applicant told that earlier in February 2004 he and R. had committed fraud in order to steal a mobile phone from one of the applicant’s acquaintances. The applicant stated that he did not know who had killed R.\n10.  That day the Sosnivskyy District Police Department of Cherkasy instituted another set of criminal proceedings concerning the fraudulent theft of the mobile phone and questioned the applicant as a witness in that case. The applicant told the police how he and R. had stolen the mobile phone. The questioning was carried out without a lawyer but in the presence of the applicant’s father.\n11.  At 6.20 p.m. the police investigator ordered the applicant’s arrest on suspicion of the fraudulent theft of the mobile phone. Further to the applicant’s request, the investigator allowed lawyer G. to act as the applicant’s defence counsel in that set of criminal proceedings. The lawyer signed the arrest report. Then, in the presence of the lawyer, the applicant refused to give any further statements, claiming that he was tired; he asked the police to postpone the questioning until the following day.\n12.  Between 6.40 and 7.50 p.m. the applicant, in the absence of his lawyer, was questioned as a witness in the murder case. During the questioning the applicant gave further details concerning the theft of the mobile phone; he also said that on 28 February 2004 he had seen R. only at school.\n13.  Between 9 and 11 p.m. the police searched the home of D., another acquaintance of the applicant. They seized knives, clothes and other items.\n14.  At 11.15 p.m. the police investigator ordered D.’s arrest on suspicion of murder, noting in the report that there had been brown spots on D.’s jacket.\n15.  Later that night D. confessed that he had been present at the crime scene. He explained that on 28 February 2004 the applicant had asked him to attend a meeting with R. that day and to bring a knife with him; during the meeting the applicant and R. had started to fight; D. had assisted the applicant in knocking down R., who at a certain moment had attempted to run away; the applicant had then stabbed R. with the knife and cut his throat; D. had helped the applicant to hide the body.\n16.  The same night the applicant confessed to the murder. He was not assisted by a lawyer at that time. The applicant stated that on 28 February 2004 he had had a meeting with R. concerning the stolen mobile phone, which R. had allegedly sold; the applicant had asked D. to be present at that meeting and to bring a knife; as R. had started to fight, the applicant had taken the knife, cut R.’s throat and caused other injuries to him.\n17.  According", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8454", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1928, 1949, 1958 and 1954 respectively. Mr Stanko Kalinov Stanev and Mr Kalin Tsvetanov Iliev live in Teteven and Mr Stanko Tsvetanov Iliev lives in Pleven. Ms Stanka Tsanova Ilieva also lived in Teteven.\n7.  Ancestors of the applicants owned agricultural land in the area of the village of Ribaritsa, Lovech region, which was collectivised after 1945.\n8.  In 1964 the municipal authorities in Lovech decided to allocate land for the construction of a hotel in Ribaritsa. The exact borders of the plot were specified in a decision delivered in 1984: it was one of the plots formerly owned by the applicants’ ancestors. In 1985 a proposal to formally expropriate the land from the agricultural co-operative in which it had been included earlier was rejected by a commission created by the Government.\n9.  The hotel was constructed between 1962 and 1968. It consisted of a main building ‒ comprising a restaurant and five bedrooms, ten bungalows and maintenance buildings. In the 1990s the complex also included an unfinished building, designed to be used as six bedrooms and a lounge, and a swimming pool. The plot of land on which it was constructed measured 8,182 square metres.\n10.  In March 1987 the local authorities in Lovech created a State-owned enterprise named “Pochivno delo na SO”, which was charged with the task, in particular, of using and managing the hotel in Ribaritsa. On 23 January 1995 the Minister of Agriculture ordered the creation of a State-owned limited liability company named “Pochivno delo na SSHP” EOOD, which took over the assets of the enterprise; under the applicable domestic provisions, this entailed the company becoming the owner of these assets. “Pochivno delo na SSHP” EOOD was entered in the companies register in Lovech on 1 March 1995.\n11.  In June 1996 the company initiated a procedure aimed at changing the status of the land on which the hotel was constructed, and which was still formally considered agricultural. The course of that procedure is unclear.\n12.  On 13 November 1998 the Minister of Agriculture issued an “act of State ownership” of the hotel and the land on which it was constructed. The document noted that the property had been included in the capital of “Pochivno delo na SSHP” EOOD.\n13.  In 1991, following the adoption of the Agricultural Land Act (“the ALA”), the applicants, who had inherited their ancestors in equal shares, applied for the restitution of the land formerly owned by them.\n14.  In a decision of 25 July 1995 the Teteven agricultural land commission (“the land commission”) restored the applicants’ property rights to several plots, including one of 8,290 square metres on which the hotel had been constructed. The decision referred to this plot as a “meadow”.\n15.  On 26 February 1996 the land commission issued a new decision concerning the applicants’ land, amending its previous one. In the new decision the commission did not mention the plot on which the hotel had been constructed, which, according to the applicable rules, was considered to amount to a tacit refusal to order restitution.\n16.  The applicants instigated proceedings for judicial review of the decision of 26 February 1996. In a final judgment of 9 April 1998 the Teteven District Court quashed the decision. It noted that in 1985 a proposal to expropriate the disputed plot from the agricultural co-operative had been rejected by the competent commission. It noted further that the procedure aimed at changing ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8455", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Târgu Mureș.\n7.  The Anti-Corruption Department of the Prosecutor’s Office (“the DNA”) started a criminal investigation against the applicant, his wife and three businessmen on suspicion of repeated corruption offences committed in his capacity as mayor of Cluj Napoca.\n8.  The prosecutor sought authorisation for the interception of the applicant’s telephone calls. The transcripts of the intercepted telephone calls were admitted as evidence against the applicant.\n9.  On 9 November 2011 police officers belonging to the DNA carried out a search at the applicant’s home. They carried out another search at the applicant’s office at Cluj Napoca Town Hall.\n10.  The applicant was taken to the DNA’s Cluj headquarters on the basis of a summons to appear before the investigative body.\n11.  Newspaper and television crews were present and the events were given widespread media coverage.\n12.  At about 8.50 p.m. on the same day the prosecutor ordered the applicant’s remand in custody.\n13.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was ordered by an interlocutory judgment delivered the next day by the Cluj Court of Appeal. The court reasoned that it was necessary to stop the criminal activity of the applicant, who was allegedly preparing to commit a new corruption offence. The court also referred to the seriousness and the continuous nature of the offences. It stressed that the applicant had acted in his capacity as mayor when he had allegedly committed the offences. It concluded that the public would be shocked if the applicant were to be released. In assessing the concrete danger to public order if the applicant were released from detention, the court stressed that the offences had allegedly been committed over a long period of time (starting in 2009, when he had been appointed mayor, until the time of his arrest), that they were repetitive and that the perpetrator was a mayor in charge of protecting legal order. The court pointed out that as the applicant’s wife was under investigation, the applicant having used her law firm to cash the money received as bribes, his release from prison would allow him to influence her position. It concluded that his release from detention would intimidate other persons in possession of information relevant for the investigation.\n14.  The applicant appealed. On 21 November 2011 the High Court of Cassation and Justice upheld the above judgment, holding that there were strong indications from the criminal investigation file that the accused had committed the crimes.\n15.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was regularly extended by interlocutory judgments of the Cluj Court of Appeal.\n16.  The court reasoned that the extensions were justified on account of the nature and severity of the offences for which the applicant was under investigation, and the fact that he might obstruct the course of justice by intimidating possible witnesses and the persons who had lodged complaints against him.\n17.  The applicant lodged appeals against the interlocutory judgments; all the appeals were dismissed by final decisions of the High Court of Cassation and Justice.\n18.  The applicant lodged several applications for his release from prison under judicial supervision. He mainly emphasised that he had a stable family, two minor children and an unblemished reputation. He also pointed out that he had been accused of non-violent crimes and had no criminal record.\n19.  The Cluj Court of Appeal dismiss", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8456", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971. He is a migrant worker who arrived in Voronezh in 2002 and has been working on construction sites and in repairs. He lives in the village of Mikhnevo, Nizhnedevitskiy district of Voronezh region.\n6.  At about 2 p.m. on 26 April 2009 the applicant arrived at a meeting place as requested by his employer, Mr G., who was acting on police instructions. Three police officers in plain clothes knocked the applicant to the ground, handcuffed him and pushed him into their unmarked car. They did not explain who they were, where they were taking him or why. According to G., who witnessed the scene, they were armed with pistols.\n7.  The police officers took the applicant to the Zheleznodorozhniy district police department of Voronezh (отдел внутренних дел Железнодорожного района г. Воронежа, “the Zheleznodorozhniy ROVD”), where he was led to an office on the upper floor. Two police officers in uniforms demanded that he confess to a murder. He refused to do so and was punched.\n8.  The uniformed police officers and those in plain clothes subjected the applicant to various acts of physical violence. They removed the handcuffs from him and bound his hands with scotch tape instead. He was seated on the floor with his arms around his bended knees. A metal bar was passed under his knees. The police officers lifted him and hung him on the bar, the ends of which were put on two tables. The police officers continued punching him in the head and the rest of his body. The pressure caused by the bar behind his knees was such that it prevented his blood from circulating. The police officers hit him several times on the head with an empty glass beer bottle. The applicant felt unwell. He was taken off the bar and untied for a short time. The police officers then hung him again in the same way and attached wires from a special device to his ears. They subjected him to electric shocks by rotating a handle on the device. The applicant felt sharp pain.\n9.  Then four men in masks and rubber gloves entered the office. They undressed the applicant completely, including his underwear, tied his arms and legs with his own shirt and leather belt, and hung him with a rope on the door of the office, head down. They showed him a syringe containing a yellowy fluid and threatened him with an intravenous injection. One of them tied a rope to his penis and pulled it, thereby opening and shutting the door on which the applicant was hanging. They squeezed his testicles. Several times the applicant said that he agreed to confess to the murder, but his answers did not satisfy the policemen. At some point they loosened the rope and he fell onto his head.\n10.  The treatment described above continued until the next morning, when the applicant was placed in a cell for administrative detainees at the same police station. A young man who was detained in that cell advised him to do as the police had requested. Two or three hours later the applicant was taken to an office and given some food. His questioning by the police officers continued. He was warned that he would not be able to support two more days of such treatment. He then confessed to the murder of a certain D., as dictated by them. In the evening he was again placed in the cell for administrative detainees, where he spent the night.\n11.  On 28 April 2009 police officers B. and E.S. took the applicant in handcuffs to the Zheleznodorozhniy district investigation department of the investigative commit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8457", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Vukovar.\n6.  The applicant worked for the Borovo Municipality until 16 January 1991, when he was made redundant.\n7.  On 28 March 1991 the applicant brought a civil action against the Borovo Municipality in the Vukovar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vukovaru), seeking reinstatement and salary arrears.\n8.  By a partial judgment (djelomična presuda) of 15 October 1996, the Vukovar Municipal Court annulled the decision on the applicant’s dismissal as unlawful and ordered his reinstatement within eight days of the judgment becoming final. At the same time, the court decided to wait until the partial judgment became final before examining the applicant’s claim for salary arrears. The relevant part of the partial judgment in question reads as follows:\n“The decision of the defendant, the Borovo Municipality, ... of 16 January 1991 on the termination of the plaintiff’s [the applicant’s] employment is hereby annulled,\n... the defendant, the Borovo Municipality, is ordered to reinstate the plaintiff in his post ... and to acknowledge his employment-related rights ..., and to do so within eight days of this judgment becoming final ...\nOn the remaining part of the claim and the [claim for] costs and expenses [the court] shall decide by a definitive [i.e. later] judgment.”\nThe judgment was served on the applicant’s representative on the same day, and on the defendant on 13 November 1996.\n9.  On 5 December 1996 the defendant, represented by the Zagreb State Attorney’s Office, appealed against the partial judgment. The applicant received a copy of that appeal on 27 January 1997.\n10.  In the meantime, after having submitted several written requests for reinstatement to the Borovo Municipality without success, on 17 December 1996 the applicant wrote to the President of the Vukovar County Court (Županijski sud u Vukovaru) seeking help in that regard. In particular, he submitted that on 26 November and 16 December 1996 he had requested the Vukovar Municipal Court to certify that its partial judgment had become final (see paragraph 8 above) by adding a stamped endorsement to that effect (klauzula pravomoćnosti – “certificate of finality”). He alleged that his requests had been refused orally with the explanation that the defendant’s appeal of 5 December 1996 had prevented the judgment from becoming final.\n11.  On 6 February 1997 the applicant lodged a response to the defendant’s appeal, arguing, inter alia, that the Vukovar Municipal Court should declare the appeal inadmissible as it had been lodged out of time.\n12.  By a decision of 28 March 1997 the Vukovar Municipal Court declared the defendant’s appeal inadmissible as having been lodged outside the statutory time-limit, finding that the last day for lodging the appeal had been 28 November 1996. The defendant appealed against that decision.\n13.  On 30 September 1997 the applicant took early retirement on grounds of disability.\n14.  By a decision of 2 July 1998 the Vukovar County Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal against the Vukovar Municipal Court’s decision of 28 March 1997 (see paragraph 12 above).\n15.  On 13 October 1998 the Vukovar Municipal Court stamped the applicant’s copy of its partial judgment of 1996 (see paragraph 8 above) to indicate that it had become final. The stamp indicated that the partial judgment had become final on 29 November 1996.\n16.  In the resumed proceedings concerning the salary arrears (see paragraph 8 above), by a judgme", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8458", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Magadan.\n6.  In April 2008 the administration of Magadan Region forwarded for review to the Magadan Regional Psychoneurological Clinic (MRPC) letters sent by the applicant to the President of the Russian Federation, the governor of the region, and 11 other administrative bodies. In these letters the applicant alleged in particular that she had a “special relationship” with the mayor of Magadan, that she was destined to protect people in high office, and that she was being persecuted by employees of the mayor’s office.\n7.  On 17 April 2008 the Chief Psychiatrist of the MRPC asked the Magadan Town Court to order an involuntary psychiatric examination of the applicant. The relevant part of the request read:\n“[T]he resident psychiatrists concluded that [the applicant’s letters] are morbid (delusional) and that she suffers from a mental disorder. The content of the letters reveals high levels of emotional stress, crystallised delusions, and the probability of unlawful actions against the persons involved in the delusions. The MRPC attempted to persuade the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination voluntarily, but she refused. Her son suffers from a chronic mental disorder manifested as paranoid schizophrenia. [Accordingly] a judicial authorisation of the applicant’s psychiatric examination under sections 24-25 of the Psychiatric Assistance Act 1992 [is requested] ...”\n8.  On 28 April 2008 the Magadan Town Court returned the application for involuntary psychiatric examination.\n9.  On 11 October 2008 after a heated argument in the town hall, the applicant was brought to the police station and then transferred to the MRPC for urgent treatment.\n10.  On 13 October 2008 a clinical psychiatric evaluation report was issued by the panel of three psychiatrists in the MRPC. The applicant was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and paranoid syndrome. The panel noted in particular her belief that she had an affectionate relationship with the mayor of Magadan (attempting to contact him directly by phone and in person), her sense of being persecuted by the mayor’s assistants, and the intense arguments during her visits to the town hall.\n11.  Involuntary hospitalisation of the applicant was recommended in the light of her persistent refusal to commit herself to hospital voluntarily, her failure to acknowledge her medical condition, and the risk of significant damage to her health through aggravation of her psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance.\n12. The MRPC submitted the application for involuntary treatment to the Magadan Town Court under Article 29 c of the Law of the Russian Federation on Psychiatric Assistance and Guarantees of Citizens’ Rights related to its Administration of 1992 (Psychiatric Assistance Act 1992).\n13.  On 17 October 2008 the Magadan Town Court terminated proceedings on the MRPC’s application because the applicant had agreed to undergo the necessary treatment voluntarily and had signed the consent form in the courtroom. The MRPC representative thus withdrew the application for involuntary treatment.\n14.  Between 17 October 2008 and 26 December 2008 the applicant was an in-patient in the MRPC, following a course of anti-schizophrenia treatment.\n15.  In a letter of 6 May 2010, the Magadan Mayor’s Office asked the Chief Psychiatrist of the MRPC to take “prophylactic measures” within his competence in respect of the applicant. The letter stated that she persis", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8459", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Maribor. From 1991 to 1997 he lived with M.P. in an extramarital relationship. On 14 December 1993 the latter gave birth to their daughter, P.\n6.  In 1997 the applicant and M.P. separated and, with the assistance of the Maribor Social Work Centre (hereinafter “the Centre”), concluded an agreement determining the amount of child maintenance to be paid by the applicant for his daughter. Another agreement was concluded on 23 February 1998 setting up a provisional contact schedule governing the applicant’s contact with P. for the period from 24 February to 13 April 1998.\n7.  Having been unable to come to an agreement with M.P. as to a more permanent contact schedule, on 24 February 1998 the applicant asked the Centre to issue an order determining his contact rights. He sought contact with P. every Tuesday afternoon, every second Thursday afternoon, every other weekend, one week during the winter holiday and one month during the summer holiday.\n8.  It appears that, as of 13 April 1998, M.P. stopped letting the applicant have contact with P.\n9.  The first hearing in the case was scheduled for 18 June 1998 and subsequently adjourned at the request of M.P., who informed the Centre that she was taking holiday during the period in question.\n10.  On 14 June 1998 M.P. sent another letter to the Centre informing them that she would be living abroad in the period between 1 July 1998 and 31 August 1999 for the purposes of her doctoral studies. She requested that the contact proceedings be suspended during that period.\n11. Further to the applicant’s objection to M.P.’s request for the suspension of the proceedings, the Centre’s social workers paid three visits to M.P.’s address in Maribor in order to establish whether she was still living in Slovenia. However, M.P. was not found at home on either occasion.\n12.  On 30 July 1998 the Centre sent a request to M.P.’s employer, Maribor University, to provide the address of her foreign residence.\n13.  On 26 August 1998 the applicant sought an interim order granting him contact with P.\n14.  On 4 September 1998 the Centre received a reply from Maribor University stating that M.P. was studying in Graz, Austria, but that they were unaware of her address. However, the university offered to serve M.P. with the summons to attend a hearing. The Centre scheduled a hearing for 22 October 1998, but the university was unable to reach M.P. and the hearing was adjourned.\n15.  On 29 October 1998 the Centre issued an interim order setting up a provisional contact schedule between the applicant and P. According to the order, the applicant was to have contact with P. once a month and for a week during both the winter and summer holidays. The applicant was supposed to pick up his daughter at M.P.’s permanent address in Maribor and bring her back to the same address.\n16.  Another hearing was scheduled for 10 December 1998 and subsequently adjourned, as the university was again unable to serve M.P. with the summons.\n17.  On 12 January 1999 Maribor University provided the Centre with the address of the Austrian university where M.P. was studying. The Centre thus sent the interim order of 29 October 1998 and a summons for a hearing scheduled for 11 February 1999 to M.P. at the address of that institution.\n18.  On 24 February 1999 M.P. appealed against the interim order of 29 October 1998, arguing that the provisional contact schedule could not be implemented, as she and her daughter w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8460", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Khanty-Mansiysk.\n5.  On 11 March 2002 the applicant lodged an action against his former employer, the Khanty-Mansiysk Institute of Northern Wildlife Management (“the institute”, Ханты-Мансийский «Институт природопользования Севера»), which was affiliated to the State Agricultural Academy of Tyumen (“the Academy”, Тюменская государственная сельскохозяйственная академия), a State-owned educational institution. The applicant sought reinstatement in a job and work-related benefits.\n6.  On 13 May 2002 the Khanty-Mansiysk Town Court of the Tyumen Region (“the Town Court”) held in the applicant’s favour.\n7.  On 26 June 2002 the Court of the Khanty-Mansy Autonomous Region (“the Regional Court”), acting on appeal, reversed the above judgment and remitted the case to the Town Court for a fresh examination.\n8.  On 22 July 2002 the case file was sent to the Town Court.\n9.  On 13 August 2002 the institute was liquidated.\n10.  On 10 November 2003 the judge invited the defendant to present its objections and the applicant to specify his claims.\n11.  On 29 December 2003 the Town Court replaced the institute by the Academy as the defendant following the applicant’s request lodged on 10 November 2003.\n12.  On 19 January 2004 the Town Court joined two other persons as co-plaintiffs.\n13.  The hearing of 29 January 2004 was postponed to 2 March 2004 following the applicant’s request for collection of certain documents.\n14.  The hearing of 2 March 2004 was postponed to 26 April 2004 due to the prosecutor’s absence and the applicant’s position according to which it was impossible to examine the case in his absence.\n15.  The hearing of 26 April 2004 was postponed to 7 June 2004 following the applicant’s request to consult documents in the case file which had not been previously communicated to him.\n16.  On 7 June 2004 the applicant presented additional claims which required their communication to the respondent. The hearing was thus postponed to 2 July 2004.\n17.  The hearing of 2 July 2004 was postponed to 20 August 2004 following the applicant’s request to summon a witness and to collect additional documents.\n18.  The hearing of 20 August 2004 was postponed to 8 October 2004 due to the applicant’s health problems.\n19.  At the hearings of 8 October 2004 and 10 December 2004 the applicant amended his claims. Both hearings were adjourned to enable the respondent to study the amendments.\n20.  On 17 January 2005 the Town Court partly granted the applicant’s action, ordering his immediate reinstatement at “the Khanty-Mansiysk academy’s affiliate” as from 13 February 2002 and awarding him 474,587.05 and 20,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in arrears and non‑pecuniary damage respectively.\n21.  On 27 January 2005 and on 2 February 2005 respectively the respondent and the applicant appealed.\n22.  On 21 March 2005 the prosecutor presented his objections on both appeals. On the same day the case was sent to the Regional Court.\n23.  On 5 April 2005 the Regional Court, acting on appeal, affirmed the above judgment as to the reinstatement and non-pecuniary damage, reversing and remanding it for a new trial as to the arrears.\n24.  On 17 May 2005 the sums due to the applicant under the judgment of 17 January 2005, as amended by the Regional Court on 5 April 2005, were transferred to his bank account.\n25.  In the meanwhile the Town Court was renamed the Khanty‑Mansiysk District Court of the Khanty-Mansy Autonomous Region (“the District ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8461", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in Berdychiv Prison no. 70.\n6.  At the time of the events the applicant had four criminal convictions for theft, in particular. He had been released from prison in October 2007.\n7.  From January 2008 onwards, a number of armed robberies and thefts were committed in the Kyiv and Vinnytsia regions.\n8.  On 16 July 2008 the Vinnytsia Police Department for Combating Organised Crime, having received some preliminary reports concerning the possible involvement of the applicant in the aforementioned crimes, arrested him together with his brother and an acquaintance. The police approached them when they were in a car at a fuel station. They attempted to flee, but without success. The police broke the side window and, having overcome the resistance of those inside, took them out by force and handcuffed them. Two passers-by witnessed this and gave written explanations to that effect to the police, in which they confirmed the above.\n9.  Several guns, gas sprays, some jewellery and several pairs of gloves were found in the car.\n10.  The officers wrote a report stating that the detainees had demonstrated manifest disobedience to their orders and had attempted to escape, in response to which martial arts techniques had been practised and handcuffs had been applied to them. The report noted that no firearms had been used.\n11.  On the same day, 16 July 2008, the applicant confessed to several counts of theft and robbery. He also wrote a note stating that he had no complaints against the police and that no physical or psychological coercion had been applied to him.\n12.  On 17 July 2008 the police drew a report on an administrative offence (a minor offence under Ukrainian legislation) committed by the applicant. It stated that during his arrest he had manifested malicious disobedience to a lawful order given by police officers in breach of Article 185 of the Code of Administrative Offences (see paragraph 67 below).\n13.  On the same day the applicant wrote a statement to the effect that during his arrest he had resisted the police and had tried to escape and that he regretted his behaviour.\n14.  Still on that day the Zamostyanskyy District Court of Vinnytsia (“the Zamostyanskyy Court”) found the applicant guilty under Article 185 of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced him to ten days’ administrative detention commencing at 11:20 a.m. on 16 July 2008.\n15.  It appears from the material in the case file (see paragraph 42 below) that on 17 July 2008 the applicant was examined by doctors after his admission to the Vinnytsia Temporary Detention Facility (ITT). The examination revealed scratches and bruises on his right shoulder. No complaints or requests for medical assistance from the applicant were recorded.\n16.  On 16, 17, 18, 19 and 22 July 2008 the applicant confessed to numerous counts of theft and robbery committed in the Vinnytsia and Kyiv regions. All his confessions were accompanied by written statements by the investigator co-signed by the applicant to the effect that the latter had had his rights explained to him. Furthermore, each confession was accompanied by a written waiver by the applicant of his right to legal assistance.\n17.  On 25 July 2008 the investigator detained the applicant on suspicion of banditry, numerous counts of theft and armed robbery, money laundering, hooliganism, and illegal arms possession and handling. The applicant signed th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8462", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicant was born in 1917 and lives in Ternopil.\n9.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n10.  Since 1997 the applicant has claimed, so far unsuccessfully, title to part of a house, owned by Mr M. at the material time, and to the land on which it stands. Her claim is based on the following arguments: that the part of the house in question was constructed at her and her late husband’s expense; that her husband lawfully obtained title to the property, which she subsequently inherited; that it was not sold to Mr M. despite there having initially been an agreement with the applicant’s son to that effect; and that the sales contract on which Mr M.’s claim to the property was based was forged.\n11.  The applicant’s property claim was considered on numerous occasions by the domestic courts. Eventually, following the reassignment of the case by the Supreme Court to lower courts with different territorial jurisdiction, the applicant’s claim was dismissed. Relying on the statements of seventeen witnesses, one of whom was heard in person, and documents submitted by Mr M., the courts at two levels of jurisdiction found that Mr M. had bought the foundations of the part of the house in question from the applicant’s son in 1993 and had subsequently built it at his own expense. Mr M., accordingly, was the lawful owner of that part of the house and had the right to use the land on which it had been constructed. The final decision, upholding the rulings of the lower courts, was taken by the Supreme Court on 22 August 2002.\n12.  On 17 July 2001 the applicant lodged an application with the Court, complaining in particular of unfairness in the domestic court proceedings concerning her claim. She also complained of the length of the proceedings and alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention on account of their outcome.\n13.  On 3 May 2007 the Court delivered a judgment in the case, which became final on 3 August 2007. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, having regard to the circumstances in which the applicant’s case had been reassigned by the Supreme Court and to the lack of sufficient reasoning in the domestic decisions, these issues being taken together and cumulatively (see Bochan, cited above, § 85).\n14.  The Court reasoned as follows.\n“74.  ... [The] reassignment [of the applicant’s case] was ordered by the Supreme Court after having expressly disagreed with the findings of the lower courts as to the facts and having stated its position concerning one of the principal aspects of the case ... even before the new assessment of facts and taking of evidence by the lower courts took place ... Considering in addition the Supreme Court’s failure to provide reasons for the reassignment, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant’s fears that the judges of the Supreme Court, including its Deputy President, had a prefixed idea concerning the outcome of the case and that the judges to whom the case had been transferred on 9 October 2000 would have to consider the case in accordance with the Supreme Court’s view could be held to be objectively justified. 75.  The Court considers that this overall procedural situation also disturbed the principle of legal certainty (see Ryabykh v. Russia, no. 52854/99, §§ 51-52, ECHR 2003‑IX). The fact that the Supreme Court’s views on the subject of the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8464", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Schalchen.\n6.  On 8 September 1999, the Salzburg Federal Police Authority (Bundespolizeidirektion) issued fifteen preliminary penal orders (Strafverfügung) against the applicant for infringements of the Motor Vehicle Act (Kraftfahrgesetz) and EU Regulations No. 3820/85 and 3821/85. On 23 September 1999, the applicant lodged objections (Einspruch) to all fifteen orders.\n7.  On 27 December 2000, the Salzburg Federal Police Authority issued six penal orders (Straferkenntnis) against the applicant. On 16 January 2001, the applicant lodged appeals against all six penal orders with the Salzburg Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat).\n8.  On 4 December 2001, after having held an oral hearing, the Salzburg Independent Administrative Panel sentenced the applicant to pay a fine of a total amount of 21,500 Austrian Schillings (ATS) (approx. 1,562 Euros (EUR)), and to contribute ATS 6,450 (approx. EUR 469) to the costs of the first and second instance proceedings. It discontinued the proceedings concerning one of the penal orders. On 24 January 2002, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) against that decision.\n9.  On 12 September 2006, the Administrative Court quashed the appeal decision.\n10.  On 3 January 2007, the Independent Administrative Panel issued a fresh decision and quashed four of the penal orders. As concerns the remaining penal order, it sentenced the applicant to pay a fine of EUR 210, and to contribute EUR 21 to the costs of the proceedings. It took into account the length of the proceedings as a mitigating circumstance when determining the amount of the fine.\n11.  On 6 February 2007, the applicant lodged a complaint pursuant to Article 144 of the Federal Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). He complained about the length of the proceedings and lack of an effective remedy and asked for just satisfaction.\n12.  On 10 June 2008, the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the complaint on the grounds that it did not raise an important legal question.\n13.  On 30 July 2008, the applicant applied for his complaint to be referred to the Administrative Court, which was done on 8 August 2008. On 3 September 2008, the Administrative Court requested him to specify his complaint. He provided the supplementary information on 6 October 2008.\n14.  On 24 October 2008, the Administrative Court refused to deal with the complaint pursuant to Section 33a Administrative Court Act, because the fine imposed did not exceed EUR 750.\nThe decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 17 November 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8465", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in St. Petersburg.\n7.  On 28 February 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having organised a stable criminal group to commit several counts of aggravated kidnapping, extortion, robbery and possession and trafficking of firearms.\n8.  On the following day the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St. Petersburg accepted the investigator’s motion for the applicant’s remand in custody, having linked the necessity to detain him to the gravity of the charges against him and the risk of his absconding, reoffending and obstructing justice. In particular, the District Court noted the applicant’s potential to influence his accomplice, Mr G. (the prosecution’s main witness in the case against the applicant), and stressed that firearms had been found in the applicant’s car during his arrest and that he was skilled in combat and fighting military techniques, as well as that he had a serious military experience. The District Court took into account the investigator’s argument that there was a serious risk of the applicant tampering with witnesses, including with other members of his criminal group by mounting threats against them and their family members. In addition, the investigators argued, and the District Court found it convincing, that the applicant was attempting to contact other members of the criminal group to plot their defence, in particular taking into account his authority within the criminal group and his connections to the criminal underworld. The District Court linked the applicant’s potential to reoffend to, among other things, the fact that, in addition to the firearms discovered in the applicant’s car, a large arsenal of firearms had been found in the accomplices’ houses. It finally noted the applicant’s potential to abscond given his frequent travelling to various regions of the Russian Federation prompted by the nature of his activities. The District Court concluded that no alternative measure of restraint could mitigate the cited risks. That decision became final on 21 March 2012 when the St. Petersburg City Court upheld it on appeal having fully accepted the District Court’s reasoning.\n9.  On 25 April 2012 the Oktyabrskiy District Court authorised the applicant’s detention until 21 June 2012, having mainly cited the similar reasons as in its previous detention order. Having mentioned the risk of collusion and, in particular, possible threats to witnesses from the applicant, the District Court relied on handwritten statements by Mr G. and a Mr K. expressing fear for their lives and lives of their relatives. In addition, the District Court noted that a number of members of the criminal group were on the run, which provided ground to conclude, that if released, the applicant could use his influence to interfere with the investigation. A month later the St. Petersburg City Court fully endorsed the District Court’s reasoning and upheld the extension order on appeal.\n10.  By another detention order issued on 19 June 2012 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 21 August 2012, having essentially relied on the same reasons as on the previous occasions. That detention order was also challenged on appeal and, with the appeal having been unsuccessful, became final on 10 July 2012.\n11.  Another extension followed on 17 August 2012 when the District Court accepted a request of an investigator to keep the applicant detained until 21 November 2012. The reasoning for the exte", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8466", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Paşcani.\n6.  The applicant is a journalist and chief editor of the local weekly magazine, Orizontul.\n7.  The applicant wrote an article about R.N., the mayor of Paşcani, which appeared in the 15-21 February 2005 edition of that magazine under the headline “Resignation of honour”, listing ten points advocating the mayor’s resignation. The article contained references to the mayor’s activities, with wording such as “Twenty years of local dictatorship”; “[R.N.] at the peak of the pyramid of evil”; “in Paşcani, only those who subscribe to [R.N.]’s mafia-like system can still do business”; “we have been ruled for over twenty years by a former communist who still has the reflexes of a county chief secretary”; and “[R.N.] does not represent the interests of the [local community]”.\n8.  On the same page, the applicant wrote a news piece about an investigation into the mayor’s activities. He quoted a statement by a politician about an ongoing investigation into some of the mayor’s activities by the prefectural standards board. The article also contained a statement by another politician and the mayor’s point of view on the investigation.\n9.  On 14 March 2005 R.N. lodged a criminal complaint with the Paşcani District Court, accusing the applicant of insult and defamation. He also sought civil damages.\n10.  On 19 December 2005 the court convicted the applicant of defamation and ordered him to pay a criminal fine of 10,000,000 Romanian lei (ROL) and to pay to R.N., together with the publishing company, ROL 30,000,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. It acquitted him of the accusations of insult.\n11.  The court noted that the applicant had submitted official documents proving that there had been irregularities in the activities of the public administration, but considered that that proof alone was not sufficient to justify making those statements of fact. The court reiterated that a journalist had a general obligation to act in good faith:\n“Although irregularities have been found in the activity of the Pașcani Agency for the Administration of Markets, this fact alone did not entitle the applicant to write that the victim was a ‘Mafioso who received bribes from businessmen’ in order to create facilities for them, as there is no evidence to support these statements.\nAccording to the Code of Press Ethics the right to freedom of expression comes with duties and responsibilities, the journalists having an obligation to act in good faith, in order to provide accurate and credible information.”\nIn establishing the sentence, the court took into account the applicant’s criminal record, as he had previously been convicted of insult and defamation.\n12.  The applicant appealed on points of law, arguing, in particular, that the statement that had brought about his conviction was not an imputation of a crime, as required for the existence of calumny. Moreover, he pointed out that he had not written the sentence quoted by the District Court, namely that the mayor was a Mafioso who received bribes from local businessmen.\n13.  In a final decision of 27 April 2006 the Iaşi County Court upheld the previous decision. The court of appeal confirmed the lower court’s finding and explained that the expression “subscribe to ... a mafia-like system” was defamatory of the victim. It further reiterated the journalist’s obligation to act in good faith, and took the view that in not limiting his assertions to what was neces", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8467", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Iaşi.\n6.  On 20 February 2003 the Iaşi Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant and a third party for procurement and for unlawful deprivation of freedom. It held, amongst other things, that there was reasonable suspicion that the applicant and his co-accused had threatened and forced into prostitution five underage girls, namely C.R.R., M.A., F.P.D., I.A.P. and G.S.S. It relied on testimonial evidence, including the statements of the five girls, the minutes of witness confrontations, a report of the search carried out at the applicant’s home, lists of telephone calls, the applicant’s medical documents, his statements and those of his co-accused.\n7.  Between 20 March 2003 and 17 June 2004 the Iaşi District Court adjourned the proceedings fifteen times to allow, amongst other things, the summoning of the witnesses who had been heard at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. At the hearings of 2 and 30 October 2003 the applicant’s lawyer asked the court to hear the aforementioned witnesses. The court ordered that as from 27 November 2003 any witness who refused to appear should be fined.\n8.  Between 12 May 2003 and 3 March 2004, bailiffs tried seventeen times to enforce the warrants (mandate de aducere) issued by the court for some of the witnesses to appear before the court. According to the bailiffs’ reports, witnesses had left the country (M.M.K., F.P.D. and I.A.P.), moved to unknown addresses (T.E.P., C.R.R., C.R. and G.C.R.) or could not be found at home (I.I.C.). I.I.C. was still living at the indicated address but was not found at home. C.R.R., as confirmed by her neighbours, had changed her name and had moved to an unknown address years earlier. T.E.P. was not living at the address known by the authorities; he had sold his flat and was not registered at a different one. According to the available information he had left for the United States of America. M.M.K., who was a foreign national, had left the country on an unspecified date and for an unknown destination, while F.P.D.’s and I.A.P.’s mothers declared that their daughters had left the country for Venice, Italy and Austria in November 2002 and on 18 March 2003, respectively, and that they did not know their addresses. According to I.A.P.’s relatives, she had married, changed her name and did not plan to return to Romania in the near future because she was pregnant. F.P.D.’s neighbours confirmed her mother’s statements. G.C.R. had changed his name and according to his neighbours he had moved some time ago to an unknown address. C.R.’s address was incorrect and no one with the witness’s first name lived at the available address.\n9.  The Iaşi District Court asked the Neamţ Population Records Office (Serviciul de Evidenţă al Populaţiei Neamţ), the Romanian Passport Service and the Iaşi Border Guard Service on several occasions to provide information on the whereabouts of the witnesses who had failed to appear before the court, namely T.E.P., M.M.K., C.R., F.P.D., I.A.P., G.C.R. and I.I.C. At the hearing of 27 November 2003 the court noted that the Neamţ Population Records Office had confirmed that the witness G.C.R. had changed his name to G.C.G. and continued to summon him under both names. On 22 December 2003 the Creţeşti Police Department informed the court that according to I.A.P.’s relatives, she had left the country after marrying a Turkish national, and confirmed that she had changed her name and was residing at an unknown", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8469", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  Word of Life is an international religious organisation based in Uppsala, Sweden. In the early 1990s, three non-profit organisations affiliated with Word of Life (Слово на живот) were registered by the Sofia City Court under the Persons and Family Act, and one of these organisations opened a Bible study centre in Sofia. However, on 1 April 1994 the Supreme Court reversed the Sofia City Court’s decision to register the three organisations, on the ground that they had not submitted the necessary applications to renew their registration within the three month time-limit which had been introduced on 18 February 1994 following amendment of the Persons and Family Act. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the three organisations affiliated with Word of Life were deleted from the registry of non-profit organisations. Moreover, the organisations were not registered in accordance with the Religious Denominations Act and the Bible study centre was not registered with the Ministry of Education. Word of Life therefore had no legal status in Bulgaria at the time of the events in question.\n7.  On an unknown date in 1994 a complaint was submitted to the office of the Sofia City Public Prosecutor by the Directorate of Religious Denominations with the Council of Ministers, raising concerns about the activities of Word of Life in Bulgaria. On 13 May 1994, having carried out an investigation, the prosecutor’s office adopted a decision stating that the “sect” had an influence on its followers which increased the risk of suicide and other psychological problems. Membership might lead to the severance of family and social ties with the wider community; followers were prohibited from watching television or reading literature other than the Bible or from undergoing any form of surgical intervention. In conclusion, the prosecutor decided to order the restriction of the right of members of the three organisations linked to Word of Life from assembling to promote their beliefs and from continuing to operate the Bible study centre. Relying on Article 185 of the 1974 Code of Criminal Procedure (“the 1974 Code”), which allowed the prosecutor to take all measures necessary to prevent the commission of a criminal offence where there was a suspicion that an offence might be committed, the prosecutor ordered the police to take measures to restrict the organisation’s access to places where it could hold meetings and preach about its beliefs and convictions. Following an appeal by members of the community, the above decision was upheld by a higher prosecutor.\n8.  At all relevant times the applicant was a member of Word of Life. Following the prosecutor’s decision of 13 May 1994, groups of Word of Life members organised meetings in private homes, including that of the applicant. On 8 September 1995 a prosecutor granted permission for a search of the applicant’s flat. On 27 September 1995 the applicant was summonsed and interviewed by the police in relation to her religious beliefs and to meetings of members of Word of Life in her home. The police then accompanied the applicant to her flat and searched it. They seized a number of items, including audio tapes with religious content, notebooks with sermons, brochures, books, magazines and video tapes.\n9.  After the search the police issued a warning order (протокол за предупреждение) under the Public Education Act instructing the applicant not to host further meetings of members of the religious community. The order rel", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8471", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 2006 respectively and live in Würzburg, Germany.\n7.  In 2009 the two applicants and V.P., the first applicant’s husband and the second applicant’s father, travelled to Germany, to take up a nine-month paid traineeship in State institutions which the first applicant had been granted there.\n8.  On 27 February 2010 the father went to Bulgaria with the second applicant. He refused to return the child to Germany on 20 March 2010, despite the child’s having a ticket for that date and contrary to what had been agreed with the mother.\n9.  As a result, the first applicant interrupted her training and returned to Bulgaria on 25 March 2010 where she joined V.P. and their child.\n10.  The first applicant brought judicial proceedings seeking protection against V.P. The proceedings were suspended on an unspecified date, following a joint request by the first applicant and V.P. The proceedings were later resumed after the first applicant claimed that the abuse continued.\n11.  The Ruse District Court issued, on 28 April 2011, a protection order in favour of the two applicants, prohibiting V.P. from approaching them for the next six months. The court established that, during the period between 25 March 2010 and 31 March 2010, V.P. had subjected the two applicants to psychological abuse. In particular, he had repeatedly insulted the mother in front of the child, had called her a bad mother, had not allowed the two of them to have contact unsupervised by him and, for that purpose, had locked the bathroom and bedroom doors in the apartment at night. The court also found that V.P. had made the first applicant sleep on the floor, had driven at a high speed with the child on the front seat of the car, had held the child over the balcony banister pressing the child’s carotid (neck) artery and had threatened the first applicant that he would “rip [her] open from top to bottom and serve the corresponding jail time”.\n12.  As a result of the restraining order V.P. did not have contact with the child between 12 May 2011 and 26 November 2011.\n13.  On 31 March 2010 the two applicants left the family home and the first applicant has exercised actual custody over the second applicant ever since. The first applicant was initially granted a scholarship to study for a master’s degree in Germany during the academic year 2010/2011. The father did not give his consent to the child’s travel to Germany. As a result, the second applicant lived with his maternal grand-parents from the autumn of 2010 onwards.\n14.  In order to spend as much time as possible with her child, the first applicant traveled frequently between Germany and Bulgaria. She submitted that between March 2010 and October 2012 she spent around half her time in Bulgaria with her child. This negatively affected her studies: because she was often absent from classes in order to visit her child, she needed longer overall time to complete her master’s programme, namely two years instead of one year. She was awarded another scholarship for a doctorate degree in Germany, starting in the academic year 2012/2013.\n15.  On 9 April 2010, the first applicant filed a claim for divorce.\n16.  On 8 October 2010 the district court pronounced the divorce of the first applicant and her husband as being due to V.P.’s fault, and granted the exercise of parental rights to the first applicant. The father’s contact rights were determined with a view to the child’s possible residence in Germany and", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8472", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Vrdnik, Serbia.\n7.  On 19 November 1991 the Sisak Police Department (Policijska uprava Sisak) lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant alleging that he had participated in a group of members of the Serb paramilitary forces who, in September 1991, had shot twenty-seven prisoners of war in Petrinja, killing twenty-two and severely injuring five of them. The police noted in their report that the applicant could not be apprehended because he lived in an area of Croatia which was, at the time, outside the country’s effective control.\n8.  On 8 January 1992[1] an investigating judge of the Sisak County Court (Županijski sud u Sisku) opened an investigation in respect of the applicant, his brother, D. Sanader, and two others, M.D. and S.D., in connection with a suspicion that they had committed war crimes against the prisoners of war. As all the suspects were at large, the judge ordered their pre-trial detention and issued arrest warrants.\n9.  During the investigation the investigating judge questioned a number of witnesses. Several of them testified about the applicant’s brother’s involvement in the killings and his position as commander of the paramilitary group. They also named M.D. as a direct perpetrator of the killings. One of the witnesses, D.P., testified that after the killings he had heard people saying that “Sanader’s group” had committed the crime and he had later seen the applicant with that group. Another witness, M.Ž., who had survived the shootings, testified that after the event he had been shown the applicant’s photo and it had appeared to him that the applicant had also been there and had personally killed three people. Another survivor of the shooting, I.B., testified that after the crime one of the newspapers in Croatia had published photos of the applicant and his brother. He had recognised the applicant’s brother as one of the participants in the shooting but he had not recognised the applicant as having been at the scene.\n10.  On 25 November 1992 the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office (Županijsko državno odvjetništvo u Sisku) indicted the applicant, D.Sa., M.D. and S.D. in the Sisak County Court on charges of war crimes against prisoners of war.\n11.  On the same day the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office asked the Sisak County Court to try the applicant and the other accused, who lived on the occupied territory of Croatia, in absentia, as they were not available to the Croatian authorities, and requested that warrants for their arrest be issued.\n12.  On 15 December 1992 a three-judge panel of the Sisak County Court ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial and issued an arrest warrant.\n13.  It also granted the request for the applicant’s trial in absentia on 30 December 1992. The relevant part of the decision reads:\n“On 25 November 1992 D. Sanader and others were indicted in this court on a reasonable suspicion that they had committed the offence [specified] under Article 144 of the Criminal Code. The State Attorney further requested that they be tried in absentia.\nThe request is granted.\nThe accused are at large and a detention and arrest warrant have been issued, as noted in the police report.\nSince the accused have been indicted for a crime against humanity and international law – a war crime against prisoners of war under Article 144 of the Criminal Code, and given that they are at large, [this court] considers that highly justified reasons for their ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8473", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant, Ms Dina Yakovlevna Yuditskaya, was born in 1950. The second applicant, Ms Natalya Vladimirovna Yuditskaya, was born in 1979. The third applicant, Mr Aleksandr Viktorovich Kichev, was born in 1966. The fourth applicant, Ms Yelena Robertovna Lavrentyeva, was born in 1958. The fifth applicant, Mr Valeriy Valeryevich Frolovich, was born in 1966. They live in Perm.\n7.  The applicants are members of the Perm Bar. They are lawyers with the “Biznes i Pravo” law firm. At the relevant time, the firm’s premises comprised a reception area, five offices and a conference room. The first and second applicant shared an office. The fourth applicant and lawyer P. each had an individual office. The third and fifth applicants shared an office with lawyer I.T. Each lawyer had his or her own computer. There was also one more computer shared by all lawyers.\n8.  On 1 December 2004 a criminal investigation was opened into bribe-taking by court bailiffs. One of the charges involved Kirov Perm Factory (the “Factory”), a State unitary enterprise, and bailiff T. According to the Government, in January 2005 the Factory’s director K. had paid 300,000 roubles (RUB) to a bailiff as a bribe. The actual bagman for the bribe cash had been bailiff T. In order to legalise “the transaction”, T. had asked his brother I.T. to sign a fictitious legal assistance contract with the Factory.\n9.  On 7 February 2005 I.T. signed a legal assistance contract with the Factory in respect of legal advice on tax and other matters.\n10.  According to the Government, on an unspecified date the investigator questioned K. and T. Both of them admitted to having been involved in the bribery scheme.\n11.  On 6 May 2005 the Leninskiy District Court of Perm issued a search warrant authorising a search of the premises of the “Biznes i Pravo” law firm. The entire reasoning read as follows:\n“On 1 December 2004 a criminal case was opened into [aggravated bribery] against Perm Regional Court bailiffs’ service no. 48. The investigation established that the State unitary enterprise Kirov Perm Factory and the ‘Biznes i Pravo’ law firm had entered into a fictitious contract in order to cover up the bribery. The investigator is seeking authorisation for a search of the premises of the ‘Biznes i Pravo’ law firm with a view to seizing documents that may be relevant to the case.\n[The court] considers that the investigator’s request is justified and must be granted because there are reasons to believe that documents of the ‘Biznes i Pravo’ law firm may contain evidence relevant to the criminal case.”\n12.  On 16 May 2005 the investigator conducted a search of the applicants’ premises. The applicants and two attesting lay witnesses were present during the search.\n13.  According to the applicants, they voluntarily handed over the documents sought by the investigators; nevertheless, all the offices, including those of the applicants who had no relationship with the Factory, were searched. The investigators took away all the desktop and laptop computers and copied the entire contents of their hard disks. The computers were returned one week later.\n14.  The applicants appealed against the District Court’s decision of 6 May 2005. They submitted that the contract with the Kirov Perm Factory had been signed by I.T. in his personal capacity as a lawyer rather than by the “Biznes i Pravo” law firm and that there had been no grounds to search the entire premises of the law firm. Moreover, the District ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8474", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976.\n5.  On 29 December 2009 a police investigator initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and charged him with fraudulent appropriation of property. On the same day the applicant was placed on the list of wanted persons.\n6.  On 27 April 2010 the applicant was arrested and informed of the charges.\n7.  On 29 April 2010 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was ordered by a court.\n8.  On 25 June 2010 the applicant was released under a written undertaking not to abscond.\n9.  In February 2011 the case was referred to the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) for trial.\n10.  On 4 April 2011 the District Court held a preliminary hearing in the case. Following the request of the prosecutor, it ordered that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should be changed and that the applicant should be placed in pre-trial detention. The court, paying regard to the fact that the applicant denied his guilt, considered that the applicant could influence witnesses, conceal or remove traces and evidence of the crime. It stated that the applicant was charged with a serious crime and his actual place of residence did not coincide with his registered address. It therefore concluded that the applicant could behave negatively and his isolation was necessary. The court noted that the applicant was of middle age, he was not a disabled person, he did not suffer from chronic illnesses, he had a family and a minor son, and that he worked as director of a company.\n11.  On a number of occasions during the trial the applicant requested the District Court to change the preventive measure in his respect and release him.\n12.  On 5 July, 19 August, 23 November 2011 and 17 January 2012 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s requests maintaining the impugned preventive measure. The court referred to its decision of 4 April 2011 and repeated that the applicant’s actual and registered addresses did not coincide, he was charged with a serious crime, and that there were grounds to believe that the applicant could behave negatively, if released. The court also repeated that the applicant was of middle age, he was not a disabled person, he did not suffer from chronic illnesses, he had a family and a minor son, and that he worked as director of a company. The court then found that there had been no grounds to change the preventive measure for health reasons or to apply bail; furthermore, the applicant showed no remorse and had refused to admit his guilt.\n13.  On 30 January 2012 the District Court found the applicant guilty of fraudulent appropriation of property and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment and ordered confiscation of his property.\n14.  The Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 30 January 2012 on 9 April 2013 and 6 February 2014 respectively.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8475", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Vidin. She is a member of the Board of Directors of the Animal Protection Society in Vidin. On 16 September 2002 she was authorised to represent the organisation before any and all institutions in Bulgaria in relation to its activities.\n7.  On 11 April 2002 the applicant asked the mayor of Vidin for access to information about an agreement, concluded between the municipality and the municipal company “Cleanliness” EOOD, for the collecting of stray animals on the territory of Vidin municipality.\n8.  The mayor sought the explicit consent to that effect of the head of “Cleanliness” EOOD, considering that that was a statutory condition under section 31 (2) of the Access to Public Information Act 2000. The head of “Cleanliness” EOOD refused to give consent on 28 May 2002. The mayor issued a decision on 4 June 2002 in which he refused to provide the applicant with access to the information she sought. The mayor referred to section 37 (1) (2) of the Access to Public Information Act 2000, which at the time listed the absence of a third interested party’s explicit written consent for the provision of information among the grounds for refusal to grant access to information.\n9.  The applicant brought court proceedings against the decision of the mayor refusing access to the information. The Vidin Regional Court allowed the applicant’s claim on 27 June 2003, finding that the information sought did not affect the rights of “Cleanliness” EOOD and therefore section 37 (1) (2) was not applicable. The court accordingly ordered the mayor to provide the information to the applicant.\n10.  Following a cassation appeal by the mayor, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment on 25 May 2004. It held that the information was of high public interest, the rights of third parties were not affected and the mayor’s decision denying access to information to the applicant was not reasoned.\n11.  On 20 January 2003 the applicant again asked the mayor of Vidin for information. This time the information she sought concerned the annual statistics for 2001 and 2002 about animals held in an animal shelter called “Municipal Care”. In particular she asked how many animals were placed there, how many of them died or were put to death, and how much their care had cost the municipal budget.\n12.  The mayor sought the explicit consent to that effect of the head of the public utilities company concerned, “Titan Sever” OOD, considering once again that that was a statutory condition under section 31 (2) of the Access to Public Information Act 2000. In a letter of 10 February 2003 the head of “Titan Sever” OOD refused to give consent. On 14 February 2003 the mayor refused to provide the applicant with access to the information, referring to section 37 (1) (2) of the Access to Public Information Act 2000.\n13.  The applicant brought court proceedings against the decision of the mayor refusing access to the information. The Vidin Regional Court allowed the applicant’s claim on 27 June 2003. It found that, if third parties objected to the provision of information concerning them, section 31 (4) of the Access to Public Information Act 2000 obliged the mayor to grant access to that information in a manner not disclosing the parts related to the third party. It then sent the case back to the municipality ordering it to provide the information to the applicant.\n14.  Following a cassation appeal by the mayor, the Supreme A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8476", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1930 and 1953 respectively and live in Sofia.\n6.  Mr Popov is an heir of Mr M. and Mr Chonin is an heir of Ms F. Mr Popov is entitled to one eighth of the inheritance of Mr M., and Mr Chonin to one ninth of the inheritance of Ms F. The applicants’ two predecessors were co-owners of an afforested island in the Danube, currently named Tsibar, measuring, at the time of expropriation, 1,048,000 square metres. Ms F. owned another afforested island measuring 400,000 square metres and other forestry land on the shores of the Danube, totalling 9,300 square metres.\n7.  The above-mentioned land was nationalised in 1948.\n8.  As a result of the Danube’s fluvial activity over the years, Tsibar island’s area has increased and it currently measures about 1,500,000 square metres. The second island no longer exists.\n9.  On 21 October 1998, following the adoption of the 1997 Forests Restitution Act (see paragraph 27 below), Mr Popov and Mr Chonin’s mother, whom Mr Chonin later succeeded, applied for the restitution of their predecessors’ forests and forestry land.\n10.  By two decisions of 12 December 2000 the Valchedram land commission acknowledged that the heirs of Mr M. and Ms F. had the right to restitution or compensation. Finding that actual restitution was impossible because the forests had become “exclusive State property” (“изключителна държавна собственост”, see paragraph 28 below), the commission decided that the heirs would receive compensation bonds. Those decisions were served on the applicants on 5 October 2001.\n11.  In the meantime, legislative amendments entered into force repealing the provisions allowing the award of compensation bonds for properties falling under the Forests Restitution Act (see paragraph 27 below) and providing for a sole means of compensation, namely in the form of equivalent State-own land.\n12.  In the Valchedram district where the forests belonging to the applicants’ predecessors had been situated there was insufficient State‑owned land to compensate the applicants and the remaining heirs. In a letter dated 2 July 2003 the Ministry of Agriculture therefore instructed the relevant authorities in the neighbouring Montana district to identify appropriate land.\n13.  In two decisions of 17 October 2003 the Montana Agriculture and Forestry Department allotted to the heirs of Mr M. a plot of 542,500 square metres, and to the heirs of Ms F. a plot of 933,800 square metres in the Montana district.\n14.  On 16 March 2004 the applicants applied for judicial review of those decisions, arguing that the allotted land and the forests were not equivalent to the ones their predecessors had owned.\n15.  On 27 December 2007, the Montana District Court gave a judgment in the proceedings brought by Mr Popov. Noting that the land and the forests allotted by way of compensation to the heirs of Mr M. were not equivalent to those owned by him in the past, it quashed the respective decision of the Agriculture and Forestry Department of 17 October 2003. Furthermore, on the basis of an expert report commissioned by it, the District Court observed that there were appropriate forests in the area of the village of Gorna Byala Rechka in the adjacent Varshets district. It thus remitted the case for a fresh examination with a view to allotting land in the specified area to the heirs.\n16.  The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on 4 March 2008.\n17.  In a new decision dated 25 February 2009 the Mont", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8477", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1979. At the time of the introduction of the application, he was detained in the Kırıkkale F-type prison.\n5.  On 24 April 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul police.\n6.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant was taken before a judge who ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.\n7.  On 6 May 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and two other persons charging them under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code with having carried out activities on behalf of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation) for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.\n8.  In 2004, pursuant to Law no. 5190 abolishing State Security Courts, the case against the applicant was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.\n9.  On 7 May 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to aggravated life imprisonment. It further established, in the light of a number of expert reports, witness testimonies and the statements of the accused, that the applicant and two other persons had planned and executed the bombing of a shopping centre in protest at the arrest of the leader of the PKK. The bombing had caused the death of thirteen innocent people and the injury of numerous persons.\n10.  On 7 May 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.\n11.  The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time can be found in the case of Şefik Demir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 51770/07, §§ 11‑15, 16 October 2012.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8479", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lived in Velikiy Novgorod.\n5.  On 13 April 2011 the applicant was arrested for theft and remanded in custody. On 31 May 2011 he was additionally charged with more counts of theft and illegal possession of firearms. On 24 August 2011 a further 27 counts of theft were added to the charges against him. On 29 September 2011 the Valdayskiy District Court of the Novgorod Region found the applicant guilty as charged but the conviction was quashed by the Regional Court on 6 December 2011.\n6.  The facts concerning the initial period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention are summarised in the table below.\n \nDecisions\n1st instance court \n2nd instance court\n1st detention order 16.04.2011 Valdayskiy District Court (Novgorod Region)\nNo information\nReasons\nRisks:\nSpecific factual circumstances:\nConduct of the proceedings: no information.\nAlternative preventive measures: not analysed.\nOther aspects: The court noted that there was sufficient evidence for opening a criminal case against the applicant.\n2nd detention order 14.06.2011 Valdayskiy District Court (Novgorod Region)\nNo information\nReasons\nRisks:\nSpecific factual circumstances:\nConduct of the proceedings: no information.\nAlternative preventive measures: not analysed.\nOther aspects: The court noted that there was sufficient evidence for opening the criminal case against the applicant.\n3rd detention order (trial stage) 06.12.2011 Novgorod Regional Court\n \nn/a\nReasons\nRisks: not specified.\nSpecific factual circumstances:\nConduct of the proceedings: The detention order was a part of the appeal judgment which quashed the first instance conviction judgment.\nAlternative preventive measures: not mentioned.\nOther aspects: The court noted that the applicant’s detention was necessary for the protection of the rights and legal interests of the participants of the criminal proceedings as well as for the proper conduct of the trial within a reasonable time.\n4th detention order 06.03.2012 Novgorod Regional Court\nReasons\nRisks:\nSpecific factual circumstances:\nAlternative preventive measures: not mentioned.\nConduct of the proceedings: no information.\nOther aspects: The court noted that the applicant’s detention was necessary for the protection of the rights and legal interests of the participants of the criminal proceedings as well as for the proper conduct of the trial within a reasonable time.\n5th detention order 17.07.2012 Novgorod Regional Court\nReasons\nRisks:\nSpecific factual circumstances:\nAlternative preventive measures: not mentioned.\nConduct of the proceedings: no information.\nOther aspects: The court noted that the applicant’s detention was necessary for the protection of rights and legal interests of the participants of the criminal proceedings as well as for the proper conduct of the trial within a reasonable time.\n6th detention order 06.09.2012 Valdayskiy District Court (Novgorod Region)\nNo information\nReasons\nRisks:\nSpecific factual circumstances:\nAlternative preventive measures: not mentioned.\nConduct of the proceedings: no information.\nOther aspects: The court noted that the applicant’s detention was necessary for the protection of the rights and legal interests of the participants of the criminal proceedings as well as for the proper conduct of the trial within a reasonable time.\n7th detention order 25.12.2012 Novgorod Regional Court\nReasons\nRisks:\nSpecific factual circumstances:\nAlternative preventive measures: not mentioned.\nConduct of the proceedings: Th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8480", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1971. He is currently serving a prison sentence.\n6.  On 1 May 2007, at about 1 a.m., the corpse of Ms Kh., the applicant’s wife, from whom he was separated, was discovered with multiple stab wounds.\n7.  Later on 1 May 2007, at about 3 a.m., the police apprehended and questioned the applicant. His questioning was documented as that of a witness. The applicant confessed to the murder of Ms Kh.\n8.  The applicant described the circumstances in which that confession was given as follows. He had been taken to Gorodok Town Police Station, where the police had threatened him with a view to extracting a confession. As the applicant had refused to confess, they had handcuffed his hands behind his back, pulled a black cap over his head, covering his eyes, and had taken him somewhere downstairs. The applicant had been made to sit on a chair and his feet had been tied to the chair legs. The applicant had felt something touching his head behind the ears and something being pressed against his temples, and as his body started to shake and jerk realised that electric shocks were being administered to him. This had been repeated several times. The applicant had fallen off the chair. Thereafter a police officer had unzipped the applicant’s trousers and attached electric wires to his genitals. After several electric shocks had been administered to his genitals, the applicant had agreed to confess to the incriminated murder. After saying that he could not remember certain details, more electric shocks had been administered to him. One of the police officers involved in the ill-treatment had complained to the applicant that the latter had ruined his birthday celebration and had expressed his determination to obtain a confession from him.\n9.  According to the Government’s account of the events, the applicant had not suffered any ill-treatment and had confessed to the murder of his own free will.\n10.  On the evening of 1 May 2007 the applicant’s “voluntary surrender to the police” was documented, and he was questioned again, this time as a suspect. He signed a report confirming that his right to legal assistance had been explained to him. As noted in the questioning report, at first the applicant had expressed the wish to be represented by a lawyer, but had later decided to waive his right to legal assistance. He stated during the questioning that his waiver had not resulted from any ill-treatment.\n11.  On the same day an expert from the Yarmolyntsi Town Forensic Expert Examination Bureau examined the applicant on the investigator’s instruction with a view to establishing whether he had any injuries, if so, what their location and nature were, and finally whether those injuries could have been caused by a struggle with the victim.\n12.  With effect from 2 May 2007, the applicant was represented by lawyer B., who had been contracted by his sister. He was questioned as a suspect in the presence of his lawyer and maintained his confession. He further maintained it during the reconstruction of the crime conducted on the same day with the participation of his lawyer.\n13.  On 3 May 2007 the expert who had examined the applicant on 1 May 2007 completed the examination report. It documented a bruise on the applicant’s left shoulder blade, a bruise on the left side of his torso, a bruise beneath the right shoulder blade, a bruise on the left shoulder and another bruise in the upper part of the left forearm, a bruise on the left wrist, a br", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8481", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in L.\n6.  For several years the applicant had been under the supervision of, and had been receiving various types of financial assistance amounting to some 600 Croatian kunas (HRK) per month from, a local social care centre.\n7.  In June 2008, the applicant’s family doctor submitted to the social care centre a report on her medical treatment, stating as follows:\n“With regard to your question concerning Ms M.S.’s state of health and treatment and my observations on her health problems ... I confirm that she has been my patient since March 2008. She is a person with polymorphic health issues, and, in terms of the somatic aspect of her state of health, abdominal sensations related to the gynaecological area (a gynaecologist has prescribed surgery, which the patient constantly refuses) and thereby related anaemia – of course, treated by an alternative therapy.\nBecause of a number of other health issues (frequent headaches, lumbar pain) she has been sent for specialist examinations, which attested to a sufficiency of outpatient treatment, in the form of both medication and physiotherapy.\nUnfortunately, the patient has her own peculiar interpretation of her health issues, on which she insists, and therefore I consider that the best help for her would be psychological/psychiatric treatment. Of course, this requires her consent, which so far could not be obtained. The continuity of the treatment is additionally hampered by the patient’s change of her place of residence. Her visits to the doctor are random, and so are her wishes as to the scope and area of treatment.\nThe particular difficulty in the medical treatment of Ms [M.]S. is related to her mental [state].”\n8.  On 26 June 2008 the social care centre instituted proceedings in the competent court for divesting the applicant of legal capacity, which was one of the issues giving rise to a case before the Court in M.S. v. Croatia (no. 36337/10, §§ 40-46, 25 April 2013).\n9.  Following an expert report of 19 August 2013 indicating that the applicant had been effectively engaged in psychiatric treatment, which had been progressing well, on 9 September 2013 the social care centre withdrew the request to divest her of legal capacity.\n10.  On 29 October 2012 the applicant went to see her family doctor complaining of severe lower-back pain. Her doctor, after having examined her, called the emergency health service and sent the applicant for some further medical checks.\n11.  The doctor who received the applicant in the emergency service found that her general condition was good, that she was conscious and well oriented, but that she had difficulty moving. The doctor made a working diagnosis of lumbago and sent the applicant for further medical checks by a neurologist.\n12.  The neurologist in the emergency service examined the applicant on the same day and found that the information she was giving was incoherent and disproportionate to her pain, and that she had not been taking her medication. He made a diagnosis of back pain and anxiety disorder, and sent the applicant for a further examination by a psychiatrist.\n13.  The applicant was then examined by a psychiatrist in the emergency service who after interviewing her found that she was making fanciful and confusing allegations of persecution by various doctors. The psychiatrist made a diagnosis of acute psychotic disorder, systemic delusional disorder and delusional dysmorphic disorder, and prescribed hospi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8484", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Tomsk.\n6.  The regional security service (the “FSB”) suspected the applicant and F. of involvement in a number of crimes including extortion and kidnapping. On an unspecified date the FSB agents received information indicating that the applicant and F. had beaten Ch. to death. They accordingly informed the investigator from the regional prosecutor’s office who was in charge of the investigation into Ch.’s death. The investigator asked the officers to arrest both suspects.\n7.  On 25 May 2006 the FSB officer D. telephoned the applicant and asked him to come over to the FSB premises to make a photocopy of his passport.\n8.  On the same day M., a friend of the applicant’s, drove the applicant to the FSB office. The applicant entered the FSB premises at about noon. M. waited for him for about two hours and then drove off.\n9.  At the FSB premises the applicant was taken to office no. 320 and handcuffed. According to the applicant, in the office the FSB officers had started kicking and punching him, urging him to confess to Ch.’s murder. They had stuffed a cloth into his mouth to stifle his cries. From time to time they had put a bag over his head to suffocate him. The beatings had lasted several hours. During that time the applicant did not received any food. Before the investigator’s arrival, the officers had let the applicant wash the blood off his face and clean up his clothes.\n10.  At 10.54 p.m. of the same day, 25 May 2006, the investigator in charge of the criminal case drew up the record of the applicant’s arrest at the FSB premises. According to the arrest record, the applicant was arrested at 12.30 p.m. on the same day. The document contained the following statement made by the applicant:\n“I have nothing to do with Ch.’s murder; [I] have no comments as regards [my] arrest.”\n11.  After the questioning the FSB officers took the applicant to the temporary detention centre in the regional police department. The officers on duty at the centre refused to admit the applicant because he appeared to be injured. The FSB officers then took the applicant to a hospital, where he was examined by a doctor. The doctor documented the following injuries on the applicant’s body: “contusion of the right side of the chest, the right knee joint and the soft tissue of the head”.\n12.  On 26 May 2006 the applicant was taken back to the temporary detention centre. On the same day he was transferred to remand prison no. IZ-70/1. Upon arrival, the applicant was examined by a paramedic who documented the following injuries: two yellowish bruises on the right shoulder joint measuring 2 by 3 cm and a pinkish semi-round bruise on the right wrist. The applicant informed the officer on duty that his injuries had been inflicted by FSB officers.\n13.  On 28 May 2006 the applicant complained to the prison doctor about a pain of medium intensity in the lower ribcage. The doctor examined the applicant, diagnosed him with a contusion of the right side of the chest and prescribed treatment.\n14.  On 31 May 2006 the governor of the remand prison, referring to the applicant’s allegations that he had been beaten up while in the FSB custody, forwarded the relevant documents to the prosecutor’s office.\n15.  On 27 June 2006 a military investigator, Ts., questioned the applicant about his injuries. The latter refused to make any statement in this regard.\n16.  On 3 July 2006 Ts. found the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment unsubsta", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8486", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lived in Aksay.\n10.  He sued Russian military authorities in domestic courts, seeking recovery of pension arrears.\n11.  On 12 August 2004 the Rostov-on-Don Military Circuit Court granted the applicant’s claim and ordered the Military Commission of the Rostov Region (“the military commission”) to pay the applicant 204,870.78 Russian roubles. The judgment became final on 23 August 2004.\n12.  On 23 August 2004 the respondent military commission received a writ of execution in relation to the judgment debt from the court and at some point issued a payment order pursuant to the judgment in the applicant’s favour. However, that order was subsequently revoked and the writ of execution was seized due to a check held by a military prosecutor’s office and no funds were transferred to the applicant’s account (see also paragraph 13 below).\n13.  At some point the respondent authority sought restoration of the term for challenging of the judgment by way of the supervisory review procedure. On 1 December 2006 the Rostov-on-Don Military Circuit Court rejected that claim.\n14.  In response to the applicant’s several requests, the authority in charge of the payment submitted that the writ of execution was not in its possession and therefore it was unable to pay the judgment debt. At some point the applicant requested a court to issue a duplicate of the writ of execution and to restore the time-limit for its submission for execution. In its decision of 14 April 2009 the Rostov-on-Don Military Circuit Court confirmed that the writ of execution had been seized during the inquiry. However, the court found no reasons to consider the writ of execution as being lost as it was apparently in the possession of the military prosecutor’s office. The court accordingly decided that no duplicate could be issued as the time-limit for its submission for execution had expired. The court also refused to reinstate the missed term as the applicant could have requested the prosecutor’s office to return him the document in question and after that submit it for execution. On 10 June 2009 the North Caucasus Circuit Military Court upheld the decision on appeal.\n15.  The judgment of 12 August 2004 remained unenforced up to the date of the applicant’s death in 2010. In December 2011 his widow obtained a certificate issued by a public notary by which she was officially recognised as the applicant’s successor in respect of his right to claim the judgment debt. Then she sought in courts substitution of her late husband in the enforcement proceedings. On 10 August 2012 the Rostov-on-Don Military Circuit Court rejected her claim, stating that the deceased applicant could not be substituted because no execution proceedings had ever been initiated, no writ of execution had been submitted for execution, and the three‑year term for its submission and initiation of the execution proceedings had expired. The applicant’s widow sought in court reinstatement of the term for appealing against the decision of 10 August 2012. It follows from the parties’ later submissions that the request was granted and she was able to challenge the decision on appeal. The parties have not provided any information on the outcome of those proceedings.\n16.  The judgment remains unenforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8487", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, who was born in 1972, is serving a thirty-year prison sentence imposed on 31 May 2007 by the Meurthe-et-Moselle Assize Court for murder, attempted murder and assault involving the use or threatened use of a weapon. He has been imprisoned since 17 May 2002 and will become eligible for release on 18 July 2027.\n6.  On 18 March 2006, while he was in prison in Nancy, the applicant fell several metres during an attempted escape and suffered a fractured spine. He spent several months at the Fresnes rehabilitation clinic before being transferred to Mulhouse Prison, where he encountered substantial difficulties (particularly on account of the staircases, which made it impossible for him to move about unaided), and Metz Prison, where his cell was not equipped for wheelchair use. He was subsequently transferred back to Fresnes from 5 November 2008 until 28 May 2009. From that date until 17 September 2014 he was held in Uzerche Prison, before being transferred to Poitiers-Vivonne Prison, where he is currently detained.\n7.  On 12 August 2010 the applicant applied to the Tulle judge responsible for the execution of sentences to have his sentence suspended on medical grounds, under Article 720-1-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 27 below). He explained that as a wheelchair user with paraplegia, he was not being detained in appropriate conditions since the premises were not designed for wheelchair use, and he was unable to receive the care he required. He noted that access to the toilet in his cell was undignified, that he could not reach all parts of the prison premises unaided, and that the provision of medical and paramedical care was inadequate, particularly as regards physiotherapy. He pointed out that he was unable to go to the showers autonomously and that the prison had assigned a prisoner to assist him for a payment of fifty euros per month. This prison orderly was responsible for cleaning the applicant’s cell and accompanying him to the showers and washroom.\n8.  In an order of 27 September 2010 the judge appointed two doctors as experts. They submitted their reports on 2 and 14 November 2010.\n9.  The report by Dr G., drawn up on 21 October 2010, concluded:\n“... Mr Mohammed Helhal has incomplete paraplegia with total effective urinary incontinence requiring self-catheterisation and round-the-clock use of a nappy. He also has major haemorrhoidal irregularities, for which he has refused any treatment.\nMr Mohammed Helhal currently has active muscle relaxation in the two lower limbs, for which physiotherapy is required several times a week on a regular, long-term basis.\nThat being so, Mr Mohammed Helhal’s state of health is not incompatible with imprisonment, subject to the express condition of being detained in a facility catering for his disability, where he can undergo regular physiotherapy and have appropriate access to a gym.”\n10.  The report by Dr R. was drawn up on 28 October 2010 and read as follows:\n“... On 17 November 2009 ... Dr Dubois stated: ... ‘his condition requires treatment by a physiotherapist in a specialist environment and daily pressure-sore relief’. ...\nThe most recent assessment at Bordeaux University Hospital, where the patient stayed from 5 to 12 March 2010, confirms that there has been a good sensorimotor recovery in the lower limbs and that mobility is possible with two walking sticks and a frame, whereas at present the patient mainly moves about in a wheelchair.\nAppropriate physiothe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8489", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Čajetina.\n5.  He was employed by Raketa-Putnički Saobraćaj AD, a company based in Užice (hereinafter “the debtor”).\n6.  Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees, the applicant brought a civil claim, seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions.\n7.  On 10 July 2007 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Užice rendered a decision ordering the debtor to pay him certain sum. On 7 September 2007 this decision became final.\n8.  Due to the debtor’s failure to fulfil its obligations from this decision, the applicant submitted an enforcement request. On 17 March 2009 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Požega issued an enforcement order to that effect.\n9.  On 12 July 2010 the Commercial Court (Privredni sud) in Užice opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor. As a result, all of the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were terminated.\n10.  The applicant duly reported his claim based on the above-mentioned court decision to the insolvency administration.\n11.  On 8 June 2011 the court accepted the applicant’s claim.\n12.  On 31 July 2014 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the decision at issue had been partially enforced in the insolvency proceedings.\n13.  The insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor are still ongoing.\n14.  The debtor, which operated as a socially-owned company, was privatised on 27 December 2002.\n15.  On 17 July 2007 the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations.\n16.  Following the annulment of the debtor’s privatisation the State owned 58.18% of shares in the company.\n17.  On 11 December 2008 the State sold its shares to a private company.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8490", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Fîrlădeni.\n6.  Her late husband, Mr Alexandru Ciobanu (“the victim”), was a taxi driver and died at work, in a car accident on 6 April 2008. He was twenty-seven years’ old at the time and the father of a three-year-old child. The present application is about the circumstances of his death and the investigation carried out by the Moldovan authorities into those circumstances.\n7.  The accident happened at approximately 11.30 p.m. on 6 April 2008 in an illuminated two-way street with two lanes in the town of Hîncești. The speed limit was 40 k.p.h. and a solid line in the centre of the road indicated that no overtaking was allowed. A petrol station was located on one side of the road and there was a short broken line allowing cars to enter the petrol station from the opposite side of the road.\n8.  There are two versions of the events leading to the accident. The first version is based on the accounts of two eyewitnesses. According to them, the applicant’s husband was driving his Lada (“the victim’s car”) along the street and when he was level with the petrol station located on his left, he slowed down, indicated a left turn and then turned to the left. When his car had crossed the line in the centre of the road and was perpendicular to the road in the lane for traffic from the opposite direction, a speeding 5 series BMW car (“the grey car”) came from behind and hit it in the left side doors. The impact was so powerful that the victim’s car was lifted spinning up in the air at a height of several meters and was propelled onto a lamp post on the left side of the road. The grey car passed under the victim’s car and continued on its way for a while before coming to a complete stop.\n9.  The second version of the events was that of the grey car driver involved in the accident. He submitted that he had been driving at a speed of between 40 and 50 k.p.h. and had not overtaken any cars, when suddenly the victim, whose car had been parked on the right-hand side of the road, had started to turn left without looking out or indicating. The grey car driver claimed that he could not have applied his brakes or avoided the impact. He had a passenger in his car who submitted that he had not seen anything as he had been talking on the telephone at that very moment. Neither of the grey car occupants was injured in the accident.\n10.  According to measurements made by the police at the scene of the accident, the distance between the two cars involved in the accident after their complete stop was thirty-three metres. Experts later established that the grey car had hit the victim’s car at an angle of approximately ninety degrees. There were no skid marks, meaning that the grey car driver did not apply his brakes before impact. The victim died on the spot from multiple lethal injuries.\n11.  The police carried out an immediate examination of the scene of the accident and the grey car driver was taken to hospital, where he tested negative for the presence of alcohol in his blood. A criminal investigation was initiated the next day.\n12.  One of the witnesses questioned during the criminal investigation was a taxi driver, C., who had been driving along the same street and in the same direction as the victim. He submitted that the victim’s car had been further ahead but within sight. C. had been driving at a speed of approximately 60 to 70 k.p.h. when a speeding grey car had overtaken him in spite of the solid line on the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8491", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1953, 1950, 1969 and 1969 and live in Uster, Zürich, Bäretswil and Nussbaumen respectively.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  In 2003 the third applicant, an editor of the Kassensturz television programme, prepared a report on practices employed in selling life-insurance products. The report was prompted by the annual reports of the Private Insurance Ombudsman for the Canton of Zürich and by letters which the programme’s editors had received from viewers expressing their dissatisfaction with insurance brokers. Kassensturz is a long-running weekly consumer-protection programme on Swiss-German television (SF DRS).\n9.  The third applicant agreed with the first applicant (the editor-in-chief of SF DRS) and the second applicant (the editor in charge of the programme) that she would record meetings between customers and brokers, using a hidden camera, to provide evidence of the brokers’ inadequate advice. It was decided that the meetings would be recorded in a private flat and that an insurance expert would then be asked to comment on them.\n10.  The fourth applicant, a journalist working for SF DRS, arranged a meeting with an insurance broker from company X, which took place on 26 February 2003. She pretended to be a customer interested in taking out life insurance. The SF DRS crew installed two hidden cameras (Lipstickkameras) in the room in which the meeting was to take place, transmitting the recording of the conversation to a neighbouring room where the third applicant and the insurance expert had taken up position, together with a camera operator and a technician who had been assigned to film the expert’s views on the meeting.\n11.  Once the meeting had finished, the third applicant joined the broker and the fourth applicant in the room, introduced herself as an editor of Kassensturz and explained to the broker that the conversation had been filmed. The broker replied that he had suspected as much (“Das habe ich gedacht”). The third applicant told him that he had made some crucial errors during the meeting and asked him for his views, but he refused to comment.\n12.  The first and second applicants subsequently decided to broadcast part of the filmed meeting during a forthcoming edition of Kassensturz. They suggested that company X be invited to comment on the conversation and the criticism of the broker’s methods, and assured the company that his face and voice would be disguised and would therefore not be recognisable. Before the programme was broadcast, the applicants proceeded to pixelate the broker’s face so that only his hair and skin colour and his clothes could still be made out. His voice was also distorted.\n13.  On 3 March 2003 the broker brought a civil action in the Zürich District Court, seeking an injunction preventing the programme from being broadcast. The action was dismissed in a decision of 24 March 2003.\n14.  On 25 March 2003 the day after the application for an injunction to protect the broker’s interests had been rejected, excerpts from the meeting of 26 February were broadcast, with the broker’s face and voice disguised as planned.\n15.  On 29 August 2006 the single judge for criminal cases at the Dielsdorf District Court (Canton of Zürich) found the first three applicants not guilty of intercepting and recording the conversations of others (offences under Article 179 bis §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code), and the fourth applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8492", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  All the applicants were employed by Raketa-Putnički Saobraćaj AD, a company based in Užice (hereinafter “the debtor”).\n6.  Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees, the applicants brought numerous separate civil claims, seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions.\n7.  The applicants obtained final court decisions ordering the debtor to pay them certain sums. The essential information as to the domestic proceedings in respect of each application is indicated in the annexed table.\n8.  On 12 July 2010 the Commercial Court (Privredni sud) in Užice opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor. As a result, all of the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were terminated.\n9.  The applicants duly reported their respective claims based on the above-mentioned court decisions to the insolvency administration.\n10.  On 8 June 2011 the court accepted the applicants’ claims.\n11.  On 29 July 2014 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that some of the decisions at issue had been partially enforced in the insolvency proceedings.\n12.  The insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor are still ongoing.\n13.  The debtor, which operated as a socially-owned company, was privatised on 27 December 2002.\n14.  On 17 July 2007 the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations.\n15.  Following the annulment of the debtor’s privatisation the State owned 58.18% of shares in the company.\n16.  On 11 December 2008 the State sold its shares to a private company.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8493", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The case concerns an incident which took place on Friday, 20 May 2011, in front of the Banya Bashi Mosque in the centre of Sofia, in which leaders, members and supporters of the Bulgarian political party Ataka clashed with Muslim worshippers who had gathered around the mosque for the regular Friday prayer. The case also concerns the ensuing official investigations into that incident.\n5.  The Banya Bashi Mosque was built in 1576 and is currently the only operating mosque in Sofia. It can hold up to 700 worshippers. According to information provided by the Chief Mufti’s Office, there are about 30,000 Muslims in Sofia; some of them are Bulgarian nationals, and others immigrants from Turkey, the Middle East and Africa. The mosque is fitted with loudspeakers which were installed soon after the fall of the communist regime in 1989. Those loudspeakers are turned on during the call for prayer, which lasts about five minutes five times a day, and during the whole of the Friday prayer. They are turned off between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. to comply with the regulations concerning the level of urban noise.\n6.  The mosque itself is surrounded by railings approximately 1.5 metres high. Two sides of the mosque face onto a park, behind which is the Sofia Central Mineral Baths (“Софийска централна минерална баня”). One side faces onto a side street, Triaditsa Street. The final side faces onto the Princess Marie Louise Boulevard. There, the pavement of the boulevard is approximately 15 metres wide. Owing to a lack of space inside the mosque, worshippers often pray around the building during the Friday prayer, placing their prayer rugs on the boulevard pavement. On the boulevard side of the mosque, there is also a single storey extension, which is not protected by railings, the top of which is just over 1.5 metres high. It is therefore possible to gain access to the mosque compound from the boulevard by climbing onto the roof of the single storey extension.\n7.  Ataka is a Bulgarian political party. It was founded in April 2005 and, since then, in parliamentary elections has gained around 7-9% of the popular vote and 21-23 seats in Parliament. The party’s leader, Volen Siderov, has been a Member of Parliament for Ataka since June 2005.\n8.  In 2006 Ataka and Mr Siderov began a campaign against the noise emanating from the loudspeakers installed on Banya Bashi Mosque. That year, they gathered about 35,000 signatures for a petition, presented to the Sofia Municipal Council on 18 July 2006, which called for the removal of the loudspeakers. On the evening of 18 July 2006 Ataka organised a rally against the “howling” emanating from the loudspeakers during the call to prayer.\n9.  In 2007 Ataka’s mayoral candidate for Sofia, Mr S. Binev, declared that, if elected, he would ban the calls for prayer broadcast from those loudspeakers because he believed that they disturbed persons who had other religious beliefs.\n10.  On Friday, 29 April 2011, supporters of Ataka mounted loudspeakers on a car and circled close to mosque, playing recordings of church bells and Christian chants during the regular Friday prayer that was taking place at the time. This was repeated during the week that preceded the incident of 20 May 2011. In the words of one of Ataka’s Members of Parliament, this was done to counter the “noise terror” emanating from the mosque.\n11.  At about 12 noon on Friday, 20 May 2011, worshippers began to gather in and around the mosque for the regular Friday prayer. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8494", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Karan.\n5.  He was employed by Raketa-Putnički Saobraćaj AD, a company based in Užice (hereinafter “the debtor”).\n6.  Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees, the applicant brought three separate civil claims, seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions.\n7.  On 31 August 2007 and 19 September 2007, respectively, the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Užice rendered decisions ordering the debtor to pay the applicant certain sums. Both decisions became final on 9 October 2007.\n8.  Due to the debtor’s failure to fulfil its obligations from these decisions, the applicant submitted an enforcement request. On 15 May 2009 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Požega issued an enforcement order to that effect.\n9.  On 23 July 2009 the Municipal Court in Užice rendered a decision in the third set of civil proceedings brought by the applicant ordering the debtor to pay him an additional sum from the outstanding debt. On 2 September 2009 this decision became final.\n10.  Due to the debtor’s failure to fulfil its obligations from this decision, the applicant submitted an enforcement request. On 29 September 2009 the Municipal Court in Požega issued an enforcement order to that effect.\n11.  On 12 July 2010 the Commercial Court (Privredni sud) in Užice opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor. As a result, all of the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were terminated.\n12.  The applicant duly reported his claim based on the above-mentioned court decisions to the insolvency administration.\n13.  On 8 June 2011 the court accepted the applicant’s claim.\n14.  The insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor are still ongoing.\n15.  The debtor, which operated as a socially-owned company, was privatised on 27 December 2002.\n16.  On 17 July 2007 the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations.\n17.  Following the annulment of the debtor’s privatisation the State owned 58.18% of shares in the company.\n18.  On 11 December 2008 the State sold its shares to a private company.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8495", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1947, 1981, 1982 and 1988 respectively and live in Novi Pazar.\n6.  The applicants’ late wife and mother, Ms Fatima Nuhović was employed by “Raška” Viskozna predionica DOO Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the debtor”), which was, at the relevant time, a company predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital.\n7.  On 13 July 2004 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Novi Pazar ordered the debtor to pay Ms Fatima Nuhović certain amount on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. By 7 February 2006 this judgment became both final and enforceable.\n8.  On 3 April 2006, upon Ms Nuhović’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court in Novi Pazar ordered the enforcement of the judgment of 13 July 2004 by means of a bank transfer and ordered the debtor to pay Ms Nuhović the enforcement costs. This judgment became final on an unspecified date.\n9.  On 25 December 2011 Ms Fatima Nuhović passed away. Inheritance proceedings have been instituted shortly thereafter before the Novi Pazar First Instance Court. Those proceedings are still pending.\n10.  On 25 October 2013 the Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud) in Kraljevo opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor (St. 17/2013). On 5 January 2014 the applicants submitted their claims for the payment of the amount ordered by the judgment of 13 July 2004. The insolvency proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8496", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 29 January 2009 the police arrested a person who was protesting peacefully in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office.\n6.  As a reaction to that event, the applicant organisations decided to hold a demonstration in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office, followed by a march to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and a demonstration in front of the latter.\n7.  On 2 February 2009 the first and the second applicants lodged a notification with the municipal authorities in which they stated their intention to conduct the above event, which they described as a spontaneous reaction to the events of 29 January 2009. They relied on Section 12(1) of the Assemblies Act (see paragraph 11 below).\n8.  On 3 February 2009 the first and the second applicants organised a protest demonstration in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office. From the video submitted by the parties, it appears that approximately twenty individuals took part in the demonstration. The third applicant was among the participants. Several minutes after the beginning of the demonstration the protesters were attacked by six men wearing masks who started to physically assault them and to spray tear gas and paint over them. As a result of the attack the third applicant sustained numerous injuries to his head and limbs and needed medical treatment. The protesters defended themselves and managed to chase away the attackers. They also managed to immobilise two of the attackers. One of the attackers admitted to having been paid 1,000 Moldovan lei (approximately 60 euros (EUR)) by an unknown person for his participation in the attack.\n9.  The gathering was observed from the very beginning by four uniformed police officers who were in a patrol car parked close to the place of the event. Also, the event was filmed by approximately six people in plain clothes, who ‒ according to the applicants ‒ were police officers. The Government denied that those filming the event were police officers. When the clash between the protesters and the attackers began, no police officer intervened. The protesters called the police and requested assistance but to no avail. A police patrol appeared only one hour and a half later and took the two immobilised attackers into custody.\n10.  The organisers of the demonstration lodged a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office and complained inter alia about the failure of the police to intervene promptly. A criminal investigation was initiated and all six attackers identified. Only two of them were eventually given suspended sentences of four years for violation of the freedom of assembly of others and hooliganism. No action was taken in respect of the applicant’s complaint about the inaction of the police.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8497", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, daughter and mother, were born respectively in 2001 and 1980 and live in Samokov. Mr Boris Mihaylov, the victim of the police action in question, was a young Roma man: the first applicant’s father and the second applicant’s unmarried partner.\nThe facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, can be summarised as follows.\n6.  Late in the evening of 3 August 2004, while driving in the centre of Samokov, KK noticed three individuals who were trying to open the doors of a parked lorry. Mr Mihaylov was one of these men. KK called the police. Shortly afterwards, two on-duty police officers from the Samokov District Police Unit, Chief Sergeants S and M, who at that time had been responding to another call, received information from the central office that three “gypsies” had been seen breaking into a lorry and the officers drove immediately to the scene.\n7.  When the police car, apparently with its siren on, approached the lorry, the three men started running. The officers followed by car. When the street became narrower, they got out of the car and separated, with Chief Sergeant S chasing Mr Mihaylov while Sergeant M followed the other two men, whom he was unable to catch. Chief Sergeant S caught up with Mr Mihaylov by the side of the street, close to a parked car. A short fight followed, and two shots were fired. One of the bullets, fired at very close range, entered the left back of Mr Mihaylov’s head and exited through the right side of his forehead. An ambulance was called and Mr Mihaylov was taken to a hospital where his death was registered at 00.10 a.m. on 4 August 2004.\n8.  On the same day a criminal investigation (VII-20/2004) was opened against Chief Sergeant S to establish whether he caused Mr Mihaylov’s death as a result of a disproportionate reaction to an attack (Article 119 of the Criminal Code: see paragraph 42 below). At this stage no charge was brought against him.\n9.  An autopsy was carried out on Mr Mihaylov’s body on 4 August 2004. In his report the forensic pathologist determined that death had resulted from a severe cerebral trauma and ensuing cardiovascular insufficiency. The trauma was caused by a transitory gunshot: the entry wound was located on the left side of the back of Mr Mihaylov’s head and the exit wound on the right side of the forehead towards the temporal bone. The shot was fired from a distance close to point-blank range. The expert noted that, as the head could move in different directions, on the basis of the route of the bullet it was difficult to establish the dynamic position of the victim’s body in relation to the gun at the moment of shooting. He also noted several bruises on the right side of Mr Mihaylov’s face, his right hand and both knees, which he concluded had in all probability resulted from the fall to the ground after the shooting.\n10.  The pathologist also examined Chief Sergeant S. He noted a reddish‑pink bruise on his right hand, measuring 0.5 centimetres long, and another bruise measuring 0.5 by 0.8 centimetres on his right side. The pathologist concluded that the injuries could have been inflicted in the manner described by the police officer, namely when he was trying to knock the knife from Mr Mihaylov’s hand and during the struggle for the gun.\n11.  An inspection of the scene was carried out at 2.20 a.m. on 4 August 2004 by a military investigator in the presence of two certifying witnesses. There was no subsequent day-light examination. The investigator exami", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8498", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in the town of Akhtubinsk, in the Astrakhan Region.\n6.  Since 2002 the applicant has been infected with hepatitis C.\n7.  On 20 December 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of knifepoint rape with an accomplice.\n8.  On 22 December 2002 the Astrakhan Region Akhtubinsk Town Court (“the Town Court”) remanded him in custody pending trial. The court noted that the applicant was suspected of a serious criminal offence, and held that if he remained at large he might abscond from the investigation and the court and continue his criminal activity.\n9.  On 19 February 2003 the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 20 March 2003.\n10.  On 20 March 2003 the Town Court held that the preventive measure should remain unchanged and should be extended until 20 April 2003. The court reiterated that the applicant had been charged with a serious criminal offence and that the circumstances of the case gave grounds to believe that if released he might continue his criminal activity. In addition the court noted that he should not be released, because this might prevent the investigator from performing certain investigative actions.\n11.  On 18 April 2003 the Town Court ordered the extension of the applicant’s detention until 20 May 2003. It endorsed the reasons for the extension of his detention which had been given before. It also noted that the investigating authorities needed time to perform certain investigative actions, to draft a bill of indictment, and to provide him with an opportunity to study his case file. It further observed that the applicant’s neighbours had given negative references regarding his character.\n12.  On 12 May 2003 the Town Court granted the investigator’s request to extend the applicant’s detention. The request was based on the arguments that the applicant was suspected of a serious crime, and that if released he might abscond. The investigator also noted that he had to perform certain investigative actions and ensure that the applicant had the opportunity to acquaint himself with the case file. The applicant argued that he was a student who had a stable place of residence, and that he could not abscond as he required in-patient medical treatment for his hepatitis C. He also provided some positive references concerning his character. The court accepted the investigator’s arguments, and extended the detention until 20 June 2003.\n13.  The applicant appealed against the order of 12 May 2003, complaining that insufficient reasoning had been given for that decision. He also noted that his arguments had not been addressed by the Town Court, and that the investigating authorities had unnecessarily extended the period for his familiarisation with the case file.\n14.  On 23 June 2003 the Astrakhan Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) dismissed the applicant’s claim. It held that his arguments could not constitute grounds for the overturning of the impugned order on appeal.\n15.  On 20 June 2003 the investigator applied for an extension of the applicant’s detention for two months to give the applicant an opportunity to study the case file. In response to the applicant’s arguments, the Town Court noted:\n“... The circumstances cited by the investigator [concerning the need to ensure the applicant’s familiarisation with the case file] were already [sufficient] grounds for the detention orders of 18 April and 12 May 2003.\nThe case file contains the order of 16 June 2003, which provid", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8500", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Konotop.\n6.  On 8 January 2009 the Konotop Transport Prosecutor’s Office of the Sumy Region instituted proceedings against the applicant, then an officer of the Konotop Transport Police, on suspicion of abuse and exceeding his authority with respect to Mr Z.\n7.  On 9 January 2009 the applicant was arrested and taken to the Konotop Temporary Detention Facility (“the ITT”).\n8.  On 12 January 2009 the Konotop Court examined the applicant’s complaint against his arrest and the investigator’s request for the applicant’s detention. The court rejected the applicant’s complaint and extended his detention for up to ten days.\n9.  On 17 January 2009 the applicant was charged with abuse and exceeding his authority.\n10.  On 19 January 2009 the Konotop Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the grounds that he was accused of a serious offence related to corruption which had become publicly known, that being at large he could evade investigation, continue his criminal activities and influence persons related to the investigation, and that his state of health was compatible with detention.\n11.  The same day, the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the above decision.\n12.  On 26 January 2009 the applicant was transferred to the Sumy Pre-Trial Detention Centre (“the SIZO”).\n13.  On 3 February 2009 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the decision of 19 January 2009.\n14.  On 5 March 2009 the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for up to three months. The court noted that the applicant was accused of a serious offence and if released could evade investigation and trial, obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case, influence witnesses and victims. This decision was upheld by the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) on 24 March 2009.\n15.  On 3 April 2009 the investigator brought additional charges against the applicant for misappropriation of money and documents.\n16.  On 7 April 2009 the Zarichnyy District Court of Sumy extended the applicant’s detention for up to four months on the same grounds as in its decision of 5 March 2009. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 28 April 2009.\n17.  On 6 May 2009 the Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention for up to six months on the ground that the applicant was accused of serious offences punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment and that being at large he could obstruct investigation and continue his criminal activities.\n18.  On 30 June 2009 the Konotop Court (“the trial court”) held a preparatory hearing. The applicant’s lawyer requested the applicant’s release, but this request was rejected. The court stated that there were no reasons to change the preventive measure in respect of the applicant.\n19.  On 23 February 2010 the trial court found the applicant guilty of misappropriation of property and abuse of authority sentencing him to five years’ and one month’s imprisonment and confiscation of half of his property other than his residence. It also barred him from occupying positions in law enforcement for three years.\n20.  On 18 May 2010 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 23 February 2010 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the trial court. It also decided that the applicant was to remain in detention pending retrial.\n21.  On 17 September 2010 the trial court found the applicant guilty as in its judgment of 23 Fe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8501", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk.\n6.  He instituted numerous sets of proceedings before the domestic courts at various times.\n7.  In July 2009 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Administrative Court received several letters from the applicant, which contained extremely rude remarks about the judges involved in his cases (including calling one of the judges “a louse [whose recusal was] warranted by his basic knowledge of parasitology”).\n8.  On 23 July 2009 the court drew up an administrative offence report in respect of the letters, stating that the applicant was in contempt of court. The case was sent to the Krasnogvardiyskyy[1] District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court”) for examination.\n9.  On the same day the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court, sitting in a single-judge formation, held a hearing with the applicant’s participation. According to the minutes of the hearing, the applicant insisted on his vision of the situation as presented in his letters, which he did not consider to be rude. Having studied the case file and heard the applicant, the court ordered an in-patient forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant with a view to establishing whether he could be held legally accountable. The examination in question was to be carried out by the Forensic Psychiatric Examinations Department of the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital (“the psychiatric hospital”). The judge relied on Article 20 of the Code of Administrative Offences and section 21 of the Psychiatric Assistance Act (see paragraphs 60 and 63 below). The ruling stated that it was not amenable to appeal.\n10.  The applicant was taken by the police from the hearing room to the Krasnogvardiyskyy District police station, where he was held for about three hours. He was then taken to the psychiatric hospital.\n11.  On the following day, 24 July 2009, the psychiatric hospital informed the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court that it would be unable to conduct a forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant, as ordered by the court, because there were no documents about his collateral history or personality in the case file. The applicant was discharged from the hospital without any documents having been issued concerning his psychiatric condition.\n12.  On 31 July 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal against the ruling of 23 July 2009. He submitted, in particular, that it had been in breach of his right to the presumption of good mental health and that such a ruling was not mentioned in the list of rulings a court was entitled to deliver under the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicant also referred to the statement contained in the impugned ruling that it was not amenable to appeal as another indication of its unlawfulness and arbitrariness.\n13.  On 4 August 2009 the President of the Krasnogvardiyskyy Court instructed the police to collect information on the applicant’s personality, which was required for the psychiatric hospital to establish his mental state. The police were instructed, in particular, to collect any documentation relating to psychiatric treatment or drug therapy received by the applicant, as well as character references for him from his relatives, neighbours and colleagues.\n14.  On the same day two of the applicant’s neighbours wrote quite positive character references about him for the police.\n15.  On 6 August 2009 the local hospital informed the police that the applicant had no psychiatric medical history and was not", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8502", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1938 and 1972 respectively and live in Donetsk.\n5.  On 13 October 2001 Yaroslav Barsukov, the first applicant’s grandson and the second applicant’s son, born in 1992, and his friend N. P. were hit by a car, when crossing the street. Yaroslav Barsukov died in hospital from his injuries. N. P. sustained minor injuries. On the date of the accident the police inspected the site of the collision, established the identity of the driver (O.F.) and examined him as well as several eyewitnesses.\n6.  On 17 October 2001 the Donetsk Police Department instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion that O.F. had driven negligently. On various dates both applicants were admitted to the proceedings as injured parties.\n7.  On 26 November 2001, after having questioned the eyewitnesses and having conducted several expert assessments, the police discontinued the proceedings. They concluded that O. F. had no technical possibility to avoid the collision, as the two boys had suddenly emerged from behind a vehicle parked along the street.\n8.  Following the Barsukov family’s complaints that the investigation was perfunctory, on 8 January 2002 the above decision was revoked and the case was remitted for further investigation.\n9.  Between January 2002 and June 2008 the proceedings were discontinued on numerous occasions (namely, on 30 January and 15 April 2002 and 8 May, 1 August and 30 October 2003) for want of evidence that O. F. had been at fault in causing the accident. The above decisions were subsequently quashed by higher law-enforcement or judicial authorities (namely, on 8 January and 22 March 2002, 3 March, 19 May and 26 September 2003 and 4 August 2004), with reference to various omissions in the investigation and instructions to carry out further activities with a view to collecting evidence.\n10.  On 12 May 2005 the Deputy Minister of the Interior informed the first applicant that, following her complaints, an internal investigation into the quality of work organisation in the Donetsk Police Department for the investigation of road traffic accidents had been carried out. As a result, various shortcomings had been revealed and the Chief of the Department and a Senior Investigator had been subjected to disciplinary sanctions.\n11.  On 8 June 2005, following the applicants’ complaints, the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office requested the First Deputy Head of the Donetsk Department of the Ministry of the Interior to review the quality of investigation in Yaroslav Barsukov’s case. It was noted that there were numerous omissions in the examination of the accident site. In particular, the police had failed to record the position of Yaroslav Barsukov’s body after the collision; to establish the exact place of the collision; to identify the driver of a parked vehicle from behind which the children had emerged on to the road; to photograph the site; to examine the interior of O.F.’s car; to check the level of alcohol in O.F.’s blood; to question a street-stall seller who had witnessed the accident.\n12.  On 18 June 2005 the Donetsk Department of the Ministry of the Interior acknowledged that there were omissions in investigating the circumstances of the accident. It found, however, that a disciplinary action against the officer responsible would have been time-barred.\n13.  In April 2008 O.F. was indicted of negligent driving resulting in a fatal accident and in June 2008 committed to stand trial before the Voroshylivsky District Cou", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8503", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Donetsk.\n6.  On the night of 30 September 2006 the applicant’s son (born in 1984) took part in “AutoQuest”, a location-based driving game in the city of Donetsk. In accordance with the rules of the game, the participants were divided into teams and each team had to move by car to different locations in the city. On arrival at an intermediary destination each team had to solve a riddle in order to establish the next destination point, and the winner was the team that reached the final destination first.\n7.  The applicant’s son was in the team of P., who was the driver. During the game P. lost control of the car and collided with a pillar. As a result of the accident, P. was injured and his three passengers, including the applicant’s son, died.\n8.  On 1 October 2006 the Donetsk Region police department opened an investigation under Article 286 § 3 of the Criminal Code in connection with the fatal car accident.\n9.  On 3 October 2006 the applicant was admitted to the proceedings as a victim.\n10.  On 19 February 2007, in reply to an enquiry from the applicant concerning the investigation, the Donetsk City prosecutor’s office informed him that the case was complicated and the police had to order various expert examinations; the activities of the organisers of the driving game were also being examined.\n11.  On 23 February 2007 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings against the organisers of the driving game.\n12.  On 10 July 2007 the board of forensic psychiatric experts completed their examination and found that at the time of the accident P. had been aware of his actions and able to control them. Following the injuries sustained in the accident, P. had developed a chronic mental disability. He was diagnosed with a complicated organic impairment of the brain and amnestic syndrome. The experts found that at the time of the examination P. had no longer been aware of his actions or able to control them and that he should therefore undergo mandatory psychiatric treatment.\n13.  On 24 October 2008, in reply to a complaint lodged by the applicant about the ineffectiveness of the investigation, the Donetsk Region prosecutor’s office maintained that the criminal investigation was being carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that there had been no grounds to change the investigator in the criminal proceedings.\n14.  On 5 February 2009 the case file was referred to the Kuybashevskyy District Court of Donetsk (“the first-instance court”) in order to determine whether it was appropriate to apply compulsory medical measures in respect of P.\n15.  On 15 March 2010 the chairman of the Donetsk Region Council of Judges requested that the chairman of the first-instance court ensure prompt consideration of the criminal case. He noted that the court hearings had been repeatedly adjourned and the length of the proceedings had not been reasonable.\n16.  On 28 February 2011 the board of forensic psychiatric experts issued a report repeating their previous conclusions as to P.’s mental state.\n17.  On 8 June 2011 the first-instance court found that P. had committed a crime by violating the traffic safety regulations, which had resulted in the death of the applicant’s son and the two other passengers. The court noted that P. had collided with a pillar because he had exceeded the speed limits and had lost control of the car. It further noted that, according to the fo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8504", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1983 and is currently detained in Moscow.\n7.  Until 2011 the applicant lived with his wife and three children in Urgut in the Republic of Uzbekistan.\n8.  According to the applicant, in July 2011 a friend with whom he used to “discuss religious topics” was arrested. Shortly thereafter several plain-clothed officers searched the applicant’s apartment, taking away a number of his books. Shortly afterwards the applicant left Uzbekistan and moved to Moscow, where he apparently lost his passport soon after arriving.\n9.  On 1 February 2012 the Uzbek authorities charged the applicant with attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and membership of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a radical Islamic organisation banned both in Uzbekistan and Russia which calls for the overthrow of non-Islamic governments and the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate. On the same day the applicant was put on the wanted list.\n10.  On 2 February 2012 the Samarkand Town Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant in absentia against the applicant, citing the above charges.\n11.  On 17 April 2013 the Russian police, acting pursuant to the warrant of 2 February 2012, arrested the applicant in Moscow.\n12.  The next day a public prosecutor interviewed the applicant regarding his background and the circumstances of his arrival in Moscow. The applicant submitted that he was aware of the charges laid against him by the Uzbek authorities and had crossed into Russia in order to avoid prosecution and find a job. It was specifically noted in the interview record that the applicant had no passport on him.\n13.  On 19 April 2013 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow, referring to the charges against the applicant in Uzbekistan and the absence of a registered residence and a job in Russia, authorised the applicant’s detention pending extradition until 17 May 2013. No appeal was lodged against that detention order.\n14.  On 13 May 2013 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan submitted an extradition request. It included diplomatic assurances that the applicant would not be charged with any further crimes or handed over to a third State without the Russian authorities’ consent. It also contained assurances that the applicant would be afforded a fair trial and provided with legal aid and the necessary medical assistance, and that he would not be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.\n15.  Following receipt of the above request, on 17 May 2013 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court extended the applicant’s detention pending extradition until 17 October 2013 referring to the same grounds as in the order of 19 April 2013, and noting in addition that the applicant had absconded from the Uzbek authorities. The applicant did not appeal against the extension order.\n16.  It appears that the extradition proceedings are still pending before the competent Russian authorities.\n17.  On 17 October 2013 a deputy prosecutor requested the Moscow police to check whether the applicant’s stay in Russia complied with the relevant legislation. Among other things he enquired as to “the date of the actual expulsion [of the applicant] from [the territory of] the Russian Federation and the date of his actual handing over to the competent authorities of the Republic of Uzbekistan”.\n18.  On the same day the applicant was taken to a prosecutor’s office, where the deputy prosecutor ordered his release as the time-limit for his detention pending extradition had expired. Immed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8506", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  The applicant was arrested on 19 July 2010 on charges of trafficking in human beings and held in detention on remand in Prison No. 13 in Chișinău until 15 March 2011.[1] According to her, the conditions of detention were very poor. In particular, the applicant alleged that the cells were overcrowded, dirty and cold, with no access to daylight or fresh air, no bedding, very poor quality food, showers only once a week, only cold water, and clothes had to be washed and dried in the cell.\n \n7.  The relevant parts of the Special Rapporteur’s report on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment compiled following his visit to Moldova from 4 to 11 July 2008 (The United Nations Human Rights Council, document A/HRC/10/44/Add.3, 12 February 2009) read:\n“B.  Conditions in places of detention\nInstitutions under the Ministry of Justice 30.  Undoubtedly, progress has been achieved in improving conditions of detention. However, some of the institutions visited by the Special Rapporteur were heavily overcrowded. The authorities themselves pointed out that Institution No. 13 in Chişinău was severely overcrowded - on the day of the visit it held 931 persons with the official capacity being 600 (see also appendix). The Special Rapporteur was informed of Government plans to close down this institution. 31.  Common problems at all pre- and post-trial prisons are the poor hygienic conditions, restricted access to health care and lack of medication as well as risk of contamination with tuberculosis and other diseases. Whereas the Special Rapporteur notes that the minimum norms regarding nutrition of detainees (Government Decision no. 609 of 29 May 2006) are checked on a daily basis and that, according to the financial plan of the Penitentiary Department, the food budget for 2008 had almost doubled in comparison to 2004 and is set to rise further, he also received consistent allegations regarding the poor quality and quantity of food. ...” 15.  In its report for 2009 (page 117 – “Conditions of detention”), the Centre for Human Rights in Moldova (“the Human Rights Centre”, which also acts as the Moldovan Ombudsman) found, inter alia, that:\n“Regarding personal hygiene, clothing and bedding, despite [the fact that] Government decision no. 609 (29 May 2006) concerning minimum daily food requirements and the issuing of items of personal hygiene provides for the issuing of soap to detainees for bathing and other sanitary-hygienic needs, this has remained unfulfilled during 2009.”\n8.  In its report for 2009 (page 117 – “Conditions of detention”), the Centre for Human Rights in Moldova (“the Human Rights Centre”, which also acts as the Moldovan Ombudsman) found, inter alia, that:\n“Regarding personal hygiene, clothing and bedding, despite [the fact that] Government decision no. 609 (29 May 2006) concerning minimum daily food requirements and the issuing of items of personal hygiene provides for the issuing of soap to detainees for bathing and other sanitary-hygienic needs, this has remained unfulfilled during 2009.”\n9.  In its report for 2010 (page 142 et seq. – “Conditions of detention”) the Human Rights Centre found, inter alia, that:\n“Failure to adhere to the statutory cell size (4 square metres per person) in the living blocks of the institution has become an unpleasant problem which now affects the prison system across the entire country. ...\nThe same situation was confirmed d", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8507", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1987 and currently lives in Skierniewice.\n7.  On 5 January 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. He was subsequently charged with three counts of similar offences. On 7 January 2007 the Warsaw District Court remanded the applicant in custody.\n8.  On an unspecified later date the applicant was additionally charged with the sexual abuse of a minor and with having recorded a pornographic image of the minor (Article 200 § 1 of the Criminal Code).\n9.  On 21 December 2007 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Warsaw District Court comprising all the above charges. The courts gave a number of subsequent decisions prolonging the applicant’s detention on remand.\n10.  On 14 August 2008 the Warsaw-Mokotów District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment. It banned the applicant from any position, profession or activity related to the taking care of minors for a period of fifteen years. The court further imposed a five‑year order preventing the applicant from frequenting any places or institutions connected with the care or education of minors.\n11.  The applicant appealed. On 6 May 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment.\n12.  On 26 August 2009 the applicant’s legal-aid counsel informed the Regional Court that he had found no grounds to lodge a cassation appeal in the case.\n13.  On 24 August 2007 the applicant was admitted to the Warsaw‑Mokotów Detention Centre in order to undergo a psychiatric examination. He remained there until 24 October 2007.\n14.  Between 31 August and 12 October 2007 the applicant was placed in the psychiatric wing of the Warsaw-Mokotów Remand Centre.\n15.  According to the applicant, between 7 and 10 September 2007 (Friday afternoon until Monday morning) he was abused by two of his fellow inmates (T.G. and P.O.). They attempted to rape him with a broom stick and unsuccessfully ordered a third inmate (J.C.) to insert his penis in the applicant’s mouth. The inmates poured cold water over the applicant who was lying in bed, spat on him and scrubbed his head with a toilet brush. They further abused him verbally and threatened to kill him.\n16.  The applicant attempted to alert the staff of the Remand Centre about the incident, but to no avail. In the morning of 10 September 2007 (Monday) he reported the incident to a doctor and was quickly moved to a different cell.\n17.  On 12 September 2007 the Governor of the Warsaw-Mokotów Remand Centre ordered an inquiry into the incident. On 20 September 2007 a report was presented to the Governor. The inquiry established that between 7 and 9 September 2007 the applicant had been ill-treated by two of his fellow inmates (T.G. and P.O.). The inquiry found that they had held his arms and had urged another inmate J.C. (suffering from a mental disability) to strip off in front of the applicant. The applicant had been threatened with sexual abuse. Furthermore, T.G. and P.O. had spat on the applicant, poured water over him, hit him with a broom stick and forced J.C. to touch his head with a toilet brush. They had threatened to kill the applicant if he reported the incident.\n18.  The applicant was held in cell no. 6 which was equipped with a CCTV camera and was located opposite the nurses’ room.\n19.  As regards the causes of the incident, the inquiry established that the fellow inmates had probably learnt that the applicant had been suspected of the sexual abuse of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8508", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Sofia.\n6.  On 19 September 1999 the applicant, then a 22-year-old student, left Sofia for Blagoevgrad in a vehicle with two young men, B.Z. and S.P., and another young woman whom she frequented at the time and whose acquaintance she had made through one of her close friends, H.I. During the journey the two men told her that they intended to “sell” her as a prostitute to people with whom they were in contact in Blagoevgrad, and then to “take her back” after receiving the money. The applicant refused, but was threatened by B.Z. On their arrival at Blagoevgrad the group met a number of people in various cafés in the town; those people were apparently involved in prostitution rings abroad and discussed with B.Z. and S.P. sending the applicant to Greece, Italy or Macedonia to work as a prostitute and her alleged experience in the trade. The applicant was told that three of the men they had met were police officers. The applicant was then taken to a flat where she was held against her will and repeatedly beaten and raped by several men for about 48 hours, following which she managed to escape and found refuge in a neighbouring apartment block where occupants called the police.\n7.  During her first police interview the applicant attempted to throw herself out of the window and was then admitted to a psychiatric hospital. She subsequently received psychological counselling.\n8.  A criminal investigation was instituted by the Blagoevgrad District Public Prosecutor’s Office for abduction and false imprisonment; abduction for the purposes of coercing into prostitution; and rape. The applicant identified some of her assailants and two police officers whom the group had met prior to holding her against her will. She stated that the men were part of a criminal gang involved in human trafficking who wanted to force her into prostitution in western Europe.\n9.  In an order of 19 October 1999 the Blagoevgrad military prosecutor considered that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the two police officers, Z.B. and Y.G., who had been charged with abduction, and discontinued the proceedings against them. The prosecutor observed, in particular, that after initially identifying the police officers, the applicant had not subsequently claimed that they had taken part in her abduction and false imprisonment. The prosecutor’s order was amenable to appeal, but the applicant does not appear to have lodged one.\n10.  During 1999 and 2000 several people involved were questioned, and an expert medical report was drawn up. The investigation was closed and the case sent to the prosecutor for a decision regarding committal for trial. However, on 12 April 2001 the prosecutor decided to send the case back for further investigation on the grounds that irregularities had been committed and further evidence was required regarding the involvement of H.I. and another individual, G.M. Subsequently the case was returned three more times for further investigation. In an order of 2 November 2001, the prosecutor found that the investigator had failed to carry out any investigative measures since the case had been sent back. He also noted a number of irregularities in the charges against the various defendants, such as wrong dates, inaccurate legal classifications or inconsistencies between the facts set out and the legal classification retained. The prosecutor also noted that the investigation had been carried out in the absence ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8509", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1973 and 2004 respectively and live in Sofia.\n6.  The applicants are the widow and the son of Mr Konstantin Dimitrov Dimitrov, who died in December 2003.\n7.  In 2001, following publications in the media concerning the income of the first applicant and her husband, the Sofia regional public prosecutor’s office opened proceedings against them under Chapter Three of the Citizens’ Property Act (“the CPA”, see paragraphs 23-28 below). In a decision of 23 August 2002 a prosecutor from that office discontinued the proceedings.\n8.  The prosecutor found, first, that for the period from 1990 to 1992 Mr Dimitrov’s expenditure had exceeded his income, but that in 2002 he had paid the difference to the State budget. Accordingly, there was no ground to pursue the proceedings for that period (section 45 of the CPA, see paragraph 27 below).\n9.  Next, the prosecutor described the income and the expenditure of the first applicant and Mr Dimitrov for the period from 1993 to 1997, but did not make an explicit finding as to whether she considered their income lawful within the meaning of the CPA.\n10.  Lastly, analysing the couple’s income and expenditure for the period from 1997 to 2001, the prosecutor concluded that they were equivalent, and that there were no grounds for bringing forfeiture proceedings under the CPA.\n11.  On an unspecified date the Sofia regional public prosecutor’s office opened new proceedings under Chapter Three of the CPA. On 18 November 2004 it brought an action in the Sofia Regional Court against the two applicants, seeking the forfeiture of two flats, one in Varna and one in Sofia, a garage, an office and a share in a plot of land in Sofia, a holiday house in the Borovets resort and a Toyota Land Cruiser car, all acquired by the first applicant and Mr Dimitrov with income received between 1990 and 1999, which was allegedly “unlawful” within the meaning of section 34 of the CPA (see paragraph 25 below).\n12.  The Sofia Regional Court gave a judgment on 28 November 2006. It analysed in detail the income received by the first applicant and her husband and their expenditure during the period at issue. Due to the difficulties in making an assessment because of the high inflation of that time, the court relied on expert conclusions, calculating all the amounts in United States dollars (USD).\n13.  The Regional Court accepted in particular, referring to rent contracts, the tax declaration submitted by the first applicant in 1998 and witness statements by those involved, that in 1997 the first applicant and her husband had received substantial income from farming.\n14.  On the basis of its calculations, the Regional Court concluded that the couple’s expenditure for the period at issue had exceeded their proved income by approximately USD 40,000, which by virtue of section 34 of the CPA represented “unlawful” income. Accordingly, allowing the action brought before it in part, the Sofia Regional Court ordered the forfeiture of property of that value, namely the flat in Varna, the share in a plot of land in Sofia and approximately one-quarter of the flat in Sofia.\n15.  Both parties lodged appeals.\n16.  On 17 March 2008 the second-instance Sofia Court of Appeal gave a judgment. It found that the applicants had not established all the income considered proven by the Regional Court, in particular as concerns the family’s farming business. According to the Court of Appeal it was unacceptable to prove such income on th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8510", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974.\n6.  In 2003 the applicant, his wife and two children (born in 1992 and 1999) settled in Germany. Between 2003 and 2008 the applicant held various managerial positions in German companies. He was also a co-owner and the president of the limited liability company L., registered in Ukraine. That company was run by a director employed under contract.\n7.  On 27 May 2005 the applicant sent a request to the official representative of the Ministry of Home Affairs of Ukraine in Frankfurt am Main enquiring whether certain business activities undertaken by the director of company L. had been lawful.\n8.  By a letter dated 8 July 2005 the applicant was informed that the Ministry of Internal Affairs had not found any wrongdoing on the part of the director.\n9.  On 14 April 2008 the Kyiv Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with a financial fraud allegedly committed by him in April 2005. The investigator stated that the applicant, as co-owner and president of company L., had concluded an agreement for the sale of a car, had received the payment from the purchaser, but had failed to supply the car; the applicant was assisted by the director of that company who, allegedly, had not been aware of the applicant’s malicious intent. The investigator found that the fraudulent actions of the applicant had been confirmed by both victim and witness statements and also by the documents examined. Among the persons testifying as witnesses concerning the specifics of the business and managerial relationships between the applicant and company L., the investigator also questioned the applicant’s mother, who stated that the applicant had not lived in Ukraine for several years as he and his family had moved to Germany.\n10.  On 19 April 2008 the investigator decided to put the applicant on the national list of wanted persons, stating that the latter had not lived at the registered place of his residence in Ukraine and his whereabouts were unknown.\n11.  In November 2008 the applicant arrived in Ukraine on personal business.\n12.  According to the applicant, on 13 November 2008, when he arrived at the migration service department in Kharkiv to exchange his international travel passport for a new one, he was arrested and escorted to Kyiv.\n13.  At 1.30 a.m. on 14 November 2008 the applicant was questioned by the investigator in the Shevchenkivskyy District Police Department of Kyiv in connection with the charges against him. The questioning session terminated at 4.17 a.m. in the morning. During the questioning the applicant stated, among other things, that he was temporarily unemployed.\n14.  At 4.20 a.m. on 14 November 2008 the investigator, relying on Articles 106 and 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960 (“the CCP”), decided to arrest the applicant for seventy-two hours on suspicion of having committed the crime. He drew up an arrest report citing Article 106 of the CCP concerning the grounds for arresting a person without a court order.\n15.  On 17 November 2008 the Shevchenkivskyy District Court of Kyiv (“the District Court”) considered the investigator’s request to place the applicant in pre-trial detention. Relying on Article 165-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the District Court found that before taking its decision concerning the application of a preventive measure, it needed to examine in more detail the personality of the applicant, his place of employment and residence, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8511", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1975, 1987, 1961, 1968, 1973 and 1984, respectively. When introducing the applications, they were detained in prisons in Baracska, Szolnok, Budapest, Sopronkőhida, Pálhalma and Szeged, respectively.\n6.  On 31 December 2013 the Hungarian prisons accommodated altogether 18,042 inmates (that is, an overcrowding rate of 144 %), out of which 5,053 people were in pre-trial detention.\n7.  Mr Varga was held at Baracska Prison which, he claimed, was severely overcrowded at the time of his detention lasting from 17 January to 3 September 2011. In particular, the cell in which he was detained measured 30 square metres and accommodated seventeen prisoners (that is, 1.76 square metres gross living space per inmate). The quality and quantity of the food provided were poor, as a result of which he claimed to have lost 20 kilograms.\nFrom 4 July 2011 he was kept in solitary confinement for eleven days as a disciplinary measure. He submitted that he was kept in a cell of some eight square metres and in poor sanitary conditions, without adequate running water. This led to problems of hygiene and a skin infection, for which he did not receive adequate treatment. Throughout this confinement he had outdoor stays of only 30 minutes a day.\n8.  Mr Lakatos was held from 20 January 2011 until an unspecified date in the spring of 2012 at Hajdú-Bihar County Prison in a cell that measured nine square metres and accommodated three inmates including him (that is, three square metres gross living space per inmate). As of spring 2012, he was transferred to Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Prison where he has been held in a cell measuring nine square metres and housing four inmates including him (that is, 2.25 square metres gross living space per inmate). He claimed that at the latter facility there was no ventilation and the toilet was only separated from the living area by a curtain, offering insufficient privacy.\n9.  Mr Tóth was placed in pre-trial detention on 7 April 2010. On 10 April 2010 he was transferred to Hajdú-Bihar County Prison where he was held until 18 January 2012 in a cell of about ten square metres together with three other detainees (that is, 2.5 square metres gross living space per inmate). Only a curtain was used as a partition between the toilet and the living area.\nHe was subsequently transferred to Budapest Prison (Budapesti Fegyház és Börtön) where the cell in which he was held between 18 January 2012 and 18 January 2014 was about ten square metres in size; he shared it with two other inmates (that is, 3.33 square metres gross living space per inmate).\nSince 18 January 2014 he has been detained with seven other detainees in a cell measuring 25 square metres (that is, 3.13 square metres gross living space per inmate). He claimed that the toilet is separated only by a curtain from the living area. The bed linen is changed only once every five or six weeks.\n10.  The applicant started to serve his prison sentence in 2009 at Márianosztra Prison. He shared his cell with eight to ten inmates and the surface available was 25.7 square metres (that is, a maximum of 2.86 square metres gross living space per inmate).\nOn 6 December 2012 he was transferred to Sopronkőhida Prison where his cell measures 6.2 square metres and is occupied by him and another man (that is, 3.1 square metres gross living space per inmate).\n11.  On 27 October 2011 Mr Fakó was placed in pre-trial detention at Budapest Correctional Facility (Fővárosi Bünteté", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8512", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Puck.\n7.  On 19 September 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and membership in an organised criminal group. The investigation against him and several other persons was conducted by the Puck District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy).\n8.  On 21 September 2007 the Wejherowo District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the complex nature of the case.\n9.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention was later extended by the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 6 December 2007 and on 11 March and 10 June 2008. On 10 September 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) further extended the applicant’s detention. The courts repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention. They also emphasised the need to secure the process of obtaining evidence as the case concerned activities of an organised criminal group.\n10.  On an unspecified date in 2008 the investigation was taken over by the State Prosecutor (Prokurator Krajowy).\n11.  On 5 December 2008 a bill of indictment against the applicant and seventeen other persons was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with numerous counts of drug trafficking and with membership in an organised criminal group. The bill of indictment stated that six accused had pleaded guilty and agreed to the sentences indicated by the prosecution authorities under Article 335 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (wniosek o skazanie). It was accompanied by 20 volumes of the case file. The prosecutor requested the court to hear 48 witnesses.\n12.  During the court proceedings the applicant’s detention pending trial was further extended by decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court delivered on 11 December 2008 and 12 March and 9 June 2009; and by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal’s decisions of 26 August and 25 November 2009, 23 February, 19 May, 25 August and 19 October 2010, 12 January and 23 March 2011.\nThe applicant’s appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent applications for release were unsuccessful.\nThe courts continually justified their decisions by the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences. They also referred to the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant after conviction. They further relied on the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, emphasising that the accused and subsequently the witnesses in the case had to testify before the trial court. They considered that the risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence or otherwise obstruct the proceedings resulted from the fact that he had been charged with membership in an organised criminal group. Finally, they found that the trial court conducted the proceedings in a correct and timely manner. They noted in this regard the complex character of the case and the voluminous documentation gathered (on 23 March 2011 the case file comprised 36 volumes). They also referred to multiple procedural motions of the accused and their lawyers.\n13.  Between 12 November 2008 and 14 Augu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8513", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Sutomore.\n6.  On 24 April 2000 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Municipality of Bar concerning a plot of land.\n7.  Following a remittal, on 23 January 2003 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Bar ruled partly in favour of the applicant.\n8.  On 27 April 2004 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica upheld a part of this judgment but quashed the remainder.\n9.  On 16 September 2004 the applicant filed at the same time a request for reopening of the proceedings with the Court of First Instance and an appeal on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud), both in respect of the part of the judgment which had been upheld.\n10.  On 2 February 2005 the case-file was transmitted to the Supreme Court, which court returned the case-file to the Court of First Instance on 20 December 2005.\n11.  On 20 October 2006 the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s request for reopening of the proceedings, which decision was upheld by the High Court on 9 May 2008.\n12.  On 13 June 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.\n13.  On 9 October 2008 the Court of First Instance joined the examination of the remainder of the applicant’s claim with other two claims previously lodged by the applicant.\n14.  On 27 October 2008 the applicant filed another submission to the court, in view of the joined proceedings.\n15.  On 5 May 2009 the applicant specified his claim, in substance repeating his earlier submissions.\n16.  On 18 June 2009 the hearing started anew given that the case had been assigned to a new judge. The applicant notified the court that he was withdrawing his submission of 27 October 2008. The court invited the applicant to specify his claim, which the applicant did the next day.\n17.  On 9 September 2009 the hearing started anew given that the case had been assigned to a new judge.\n18.  On 2 November 2009 the Court of First Instance declared it lacked competence to deal with the case (sud se oglašava nenadležnim) and rejected the claim. On an unspecified date thereafter this decision was quashed by the High Court and in March 2010 the proceedings were again pending before the Court of First Instance.\n19.  Between April and August 2010 the parties attempted to reach a friendly settlement but to no avail.\n20.  On 14 February 2011 the hearing started afresh given that the case had been assigned to another judge.\n21.  On 17 February 2011 the Court of First Instance ruled against the applicant, which decision was quashed by the High Court on 20 September 2011.\n22.  On 10 May 2012 the Court of First Instance again ruled against the applicant. This judgment was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court on 19 October 2012 and 7 February 2013 respectively.\n23.  In 2003 and 2004 the applicant proposed that another set of civil proceedings be suspended (prekid postupka) until the proceedings initiated upon the claim lodged in 2000 were concluded. On 6 November 2006 the applicant proposed that this other set of proceedings be continued.\n24.  On 20 March 2013 the applicant instituted another set of civil proceedings, which are currently pending before the High Court.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8514", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1937, 1933, 1941 and 1934, respectively, and live in Albania and the United States of America.\n5.  On 30 December 1994 the Tirana Restitution and Compensation of Properties Commission (“the Commission”) recognised, amongst others, the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 2,461.97 sq. m and decided to restore the property. Since buildings had been constructed on the land by a third party, the Commission ruled that the third party should pay rent for the land or re-purchase the land pursuant to an agreement to be entered into between the parties. It also recognised the applicants’ right to first refusal of the buildings.\n6.   On 18 February 1997 the applicants lodged a civil claim with the Tirana District Court seeking the annulment of a 1996 sale contract entered between the State and the third party over two plots of lands measuring 197 sq. m and 195 sq. m, which they claimed to own. The applicants also sought the payment of rent by the third party pursuant to the 1993 Property Act. In the same set of proceedings, the third party lodged a counter action requesting the partial annulment of the Commission decision.\n7.  On 24 April 2002 the Supreme Court gave a final decision dismissing the applicants’ claims. It also dismissed their right to first refusal as regards the buildings on the plots of land which had been granted by the Commission. It decided that the applicants are entitled to compensation in respect of the plot of land measuring 2,461.97 sq. m to be determined in accordance with the 1993 Property Act.\n8.  On 22 October 2004 the Constitutional Court, sitting as a full bench, found no violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial.\n9.  To date, no compensation has been paid.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8516", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973. He is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment without commutation in Lovech Prison.\n6.  The applicant has been sentenced eleven times at the end of different sets of criminal proceedings. In 2002 the prosecutor discontinued as time-barred others, in which he had been detained during different periods in 1991, 1992 and 1995.\n7.  In August 2007 the applicant brought proceedings seeking compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention during the criminal proceedings against him which had been discontinued as time-barred in 2002 (see paragraph 6 above). His claim was dismissed by two levels of court in 2008. Referring to section 8 of interpretative decision No. 3 of 22 April 2004 of the Supreme Court of Cassation (see paragraph 43 below), the second-instance court held that State responsibility for damage could not be engaged as measures and steps taken before the expiration of the statute of limitations cannot be considered unlawful within the meaning of the SMRDA.\n8.  On 13 October 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and murder and convicted to serve a cumulated punishment of life imprisonment without commutation on 26 October 2000.\n9.  The applicant was detained and served this punishment in the Lovech and Varna Prisons. He was in Lovech Prison between 17 January 2000 and 14 June 2002, between 12 August 2005 and 20 December 2006, and again as of 19 February 2009, where he continued to be at the time of the last information which the Court received from the Government in May 2011. He was detained in Varna Prison between 14 June 2002 and 12 August 2005, and again between 20 December 2006 and 19 February 2009.\n10.  In both prisons and throughout this period the applicant was placed under the “special regime” and was kept in permanently locked cells with heightened security.\n11.  The applicant submitted that occasionally he had had to share his cell in Varna Prison with other inmates. According to the Government he was mostly kept alone in his cell in Lovech Prison; they did not provide information in respect of his cell in Varna Prison.\n12.  According to the applicant the cells were not equipped with toilet facilities or taps and wash basins. He was allowed to use the common toilet and to wash his hands three times a day before meals. He had had to use a plastic bucket to relieve himself in his cell at all other times. Apart from the daily hourly walk in the open air, these had been the only times he had been allowed out of his cell.\n13.  The Government did not dispute that in respect of the period before the autumn of 2008, when works had been carried out in the special security wing in Lovech Prison and toilets and sinks had been installed in each of the cells of the prisoners serving sentences of life imprisonment. Likewise, the windows had been changed. The Government did not provide details in relation to sanitary facilities in Varna Prison. Referring to section 71(2) of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009 according to which persons placed under the special regime had to be kept in constantly locked cells and under heightened supervision, they explained that the “special regime” conditions did not allow unrestricted access to the toilet facilities.\n(b)  General hygiene\n14.  The applicant complained that he was allowed to shower only once a fortnight in Varna Prison. He further claimed that hygiene in the common areas was poor, with rats in the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8517", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981.\n6.  The applicant is a transgender person whose gender is recorded in the civil-status register as female. He stated that he had become aware, even as a child, of feeling that he was male, a feeling that was at variance with his anatomical sex.\n7.  On 30 September 2005 the applicant applied to the Mersin District Court (“the District Court”) under Article 40 of the Civil Code seeking authorisation to undergo gender reassignment surgery. In the application instituting the proceedings the applicant’s lawyer gave the following reasons for his client’s request. His client had, since he was a child, regarded himself as male rather than female and for that reason had been receiving psychological counselling since childhood; at the age of nineteen or twenty he had contemplated suicide; his current biological identity was at odds with the gender to which he felt he belonged; and gender reassignment was necessary in order for him to achieve harmony between his private perception of himself and his physical make-up. The lawyer stated that several doctors whom his client had consulted since childhood had recommended gender reassignment. The applicant, who was twenty-four years old, was living as a man, had been in a relationship with a woman for four years and was accepted as a man by his family and friends. The lawyer added that his client had been receiving treatment for the past year in the psychiatric department of İnönü University Hospital with a view to undergoing the gender reassignment surgery that he sought. Lastly, the lawyer requested that the proceedings remain confidential in view of his client’s psychological state.\n8.  On 16 December 2005 the District Court granted the request concerning the confidentiality of the proceedings.\n9.  On 6 February 2006 the court heard evidence from the applicant’s family. The applicant’s mother stated that as a child her daughter had played mainly with boys and as an adolescent had told her mother that she felt more like a boy and wanted to be one. The applicant’s mother had therefore consulted psychologists, who had expressed the view that her daughter would be happier if she could live as a man, a view which the applicant’s mother shared. The applicant’s older brother also said that his sister had played with boys when she was a child, had started to behave like a boy during adolescence and had had girlfriends, and that she had been determined to undergo gender reassignment by means of surgery. She had made several suicide attempts and was still in therapy. As far as the applicant’s brother was aware, the doctors had decided to go ahead with the operation.\nOn conclusion of the hearing the District Court sent a request for information to the medical director of the hospital where the applicant was being treated, seeking to ascertain whether the applicant was transgender, whether gender reassignment was necessary to ensure his mental health and whether he was permanently unable to procreate.\n10.  On 23 February 2006 a medical committee of İnönü University Medical Centre drew up a psychiatric report which found that the applicant was transgender. The report further found that, from a psychological viewpoint, the applicant should henceforth live with a male identity.\n11.  On 28 February 2006 a medical committee of the gynaecology and obstetrics unit of the same medical centre drew up a report which found that Y.Y. had a female phenotype and was transgender.\n12.  On 7 A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8518", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in the town of Nizhniy Novgorod.\n6.  On 14 December 2006 the Military Conscription Committee of the Moscow District of the town of Nizhniy Novgorod examined the applicant’s medical condition. Having declared him fit, they conscripted him into the army. The applicant was given the rank of junior sergeant and sent to preparatory Military Unit no. 73864, located in the town of Kovrov in the Vladimir Region.\n7.  Six months later, on 28 May 2007, he was transferred to Military Unit no. 34605 of the town of Volgograd of the Volgograd Region.\n8.  The applicant submitted that personal relations among the servicemen of the unit were tense and violent. The applicant had panicked and decided to escape.\n1  The applicant’s first attempt to escape\n9.  On 4 June 2007 the applicant and junior sergeant V. ran away from the unit.\n10.  The command of the unit launched a search operation to find the fugitives.\n11.  On the morning of 5 June 2007 deputy commander major A. and captain K. located and apprehended the applicant and junior sergeant V. close to the nearby village of Stepnoy.\n12.  According to the applicant, on their way back to the unit A. and K. had threatened to execute or drown them. The threats had frightened the applicant to such an extent that he decided to escape again.\n13.  During a stopover the applicant made another attempt to escape. Shortly thereafter he was caught in a nearby swamp. The escorting officers stripped him of his clothes and put him in the cargo compartment of a military truck which brought both fugitives back to the unit.\n14.  On 6 June 2007 the applicant and V. were brought before battalion commander Ch., who lined up the battalion. The applicant and V. ‒ allegedly stripped naked ‒ were made to stand in front of the other servicemen. It does not appear that there were any female service personnel present on this occasion. The Government submitted that the applicant and V. had been wearing military briefs. The battalion commander publicly condemned and reprimanded them.\n15.  Thereafter the applicant was brought to the commander’s office and was asked to prepare an explanatory note concerning the events of 4-6 June 2007.\n16.  The applicant stated that after he had drafted the explanatory note, the commander had ordered company commander lieutenant S. to load a machine gun with bullets, go outside and execute the applicant. The applicant was taken outside and placed up against a wall. Captain Kar. aimed a machine gun at him. The applicant pleaded for mercy and promised “to become the best sergeant in the unit”, whereupon Kar. brought him back into the commander’s office. At this moment the applicant heard a machine gun being discharged and thought that V. had just been executed.\n17.  Some time later the battalion commander ordered officer G. to dress the applicant in a military protection suit. The suit consisted of a mask, protective cloak, rubberized stockings and gloves and was unsuitable for continuous use in hot weather. The applicant’s fellow servicemen then shaved his head and warrant officer G. painted a five-pointed star on his head using brilliant green antiseptic. A fellow serviceman then delivered a few blows to the applicant’s body and head with an army belt buckle. Then another soldier put a leash around his neck and walked him around the training ground. The applicant was also threatened with sexual violence if he ever decided to escape again.\n18.  According to the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8519", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Charlotte, North Carolina (the United States).\n6.  On 7 June 2008 the applicant married Ms K.A., a Croatian national, in Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina). On 29 November 2008 K.A. gave birth to their son, N.A. In May 2009 she moved to the United States of America to join her husband.\n7.  In June 2011 the applicant’s wife and son spent their summer holidays in Croatia. They were supposed to return to the United States on 31 August 2011. Instead, the applicant’s wife sent him an e-mail, informing him that she and their son were to remain in Croatia and that she had brought a civil action against him there, seeking a divorce (see paragraph 51 below).\n8.  On 7 September 2011 the applicant’s legal representative sent an e-mail to the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (Ministarstvo zdravstva i socijalne skrbi, hereafter “the relevant Ministry”), as the Croatian Central Authority within the meaning of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”, see paragraph 61 below). She asked the Ministry to urgently contact the applicant’s wife and take other appropriate measures to seek the voluntary return of the child until the receipt of the official request under the Hague Convention from the United States Central Authority.\n9.  On 15 September 2011 the Ministry forwarded the applicant’s request to the competent local social welfare centre with a view to establishing his wife’s intentions regarding their son and the possibility of a voluntary return to the United States. The centre immediately invited her for an interview. During the interview of 26 September 2011 she stated that while living in the United States she had been subjected to constant psychological abuse by the applicant. She did not oppose the applicant’s having contact with their son, but insisted that any contact take place under the supervision of a child welfare professional.\n10.  On 3 October 2011 the Ministry received an official request from the United States Central Authority under the Hague Convention for the return of the applicant’s son.\n11.  On 13 October 2011 the Ministry forwarded the request for return to the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court (Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu) and thus instituted non-contentious proceedings for the return of the applicant’s son. The court received the request the next day.\n12.  On 24 October 2011 the court invited the local social welfare centre to submit a report on the applicant’s wife’s social and financial situation, the reasons for her taking the child to Croatia, the child’s general and psychological condition, and the potential effects on his mental development of any decision to return him to the United States. On the same day the court also invited the applicant’s wife to respond to her husband’s request for the boy to be returned.\n13.  In her response of 15 November 2011 the applicant’s wife opposed his request for the return of their child, with or without her. She submitted in particular that the applicant had agreed to her trip to Croatia and that his consent was not time-limited. She also stated that the applicant had expressly forbidden her to return to their flat in the United States, that he had been abusing her, and that there, unlike in Croatia, she had been completely dependent on him in every way (financially, economically, and in terms of accommodation). Lastly, she claimed that no significant changes had occur", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8520", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  All the applicants were prosecuted in Russia for various crimes. They were arrested and detained pending investigation and trial. Their detention was ordered and extended by the courts. The detention orders were essentially based on the gravity of the charges as the primary ground supporting the risk of the applicants’ absconding and interfering with the course of justice. The detention and extension orders used stereotyped formulae without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures.\n5.  Mr Pushchelenko and Mr Isachkov were co-defendants in the same criminal proceedings.\n6.  On 15 October 2009 a criminal case was opened into murder of Mr G. On 15 and 16 January 2010 Mr Pushchelenko and Mr Isachkov were arrested on suspicion of their involvement in the murder. On 22 and 25 January 2010 they were formally charged. On 3 and 7 September 2010 they were additionally charged with fraud in respect of the Mr G.’s flat.\n7.  On 31 December 2010 their case was submitted to the Primorskiy Regional Court for trial. On 29 February 2012 Mr Pushchelenko and Mr Isachkov were convicted as charged and sentenced to thirteen years’ imprisonment. On 24 October 2012 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation quashed the judgment on appeal on account of procedural irregularities and ordered a retrial. The outcome of the proceedings is unknown.\n8.  Mr Pushchelenko and Mr Isachkov were in detention on remand at least until 24 January 2013.\n9.  On 4 March 2003 a criminal case was opened into the murder of Mr P. Subsequently this case was joined with an unspecified number of other criminal cases. On 27 May 2010 Mr Fobyanchuk was arrested on suspicion of his involvement in those acts. On 1 June 2010 he was formally charged with one count of murder and one count of attempted murder. On 15 April 2011 Mr Fobyanchuk was additionally charged with two counts of attempted murder. It appears that the charges in respect of the two counts of attempted murder were dropped but on 27 August 2011 Mr Fobyanchuk was additionally charged with illegal dealing in explosive substances.\n10.  On 26 March 2012 Mr Fobyanchuk’s case was referred to the Primorskiy Regional Court for trial. He stood trial along with ten co‑defendants.\n11.  As of the date of Mr Fobyanchuk’s last letter of 5 August 2014, the trial has been pending and he has remained in custody.\n12.  On 7 September 2005 a criminal case was opened into the attempted murder of Mr Ye. Subsequently this case was joined with an unspecified number of other criminal cases. On 27 May 2010 Mr Kasyanov was arrested on suspicion of his involvement in the murder, together with Mr Fobyanchuk (see the case above). On 1 June 2010 he was formally charged. On 15 April 2011 Mr Kasyanov was additionally charged with the illegal sale of a Kalashnikov assault rifle.\n13.  On 26 March 2012 Mr Kasyanov’s case was submitted to the Primorskiy Regional Court for examination on the merits. He stood trial along with ten co-defendants.\n14.  As of the date of Mr Kasyanov’s last letter of 22 November 2013, the trial has been pending and he has remained in custody.\n15.  On 27 November 2010 Mr Lysenko was arrested on suspicion of his involvement in the murder of Mr B. On 5 August 2011 he was additionally charged with kidnapping, bribe-taking, money-laundering and perverting the course of justice. On 8 November 2011 the charges of running a criminal syndicate and of illegal dealing with firearms and explosives were added to the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8522", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Sudiyivka.\n5.  On 13 March 2002 the body of Eduard Kryvonis, the applicant’s adult son, with numerous injuries, was found lying on a village street. According to a subsequent forensic assessment, he died between 2 and 4 a.m. on that date.\n6.  On the same date the Novosanzharsky district police examined the site and questioned some potential witnesses. They discovered, in particular, that the night before his death, Eduard Kryvonis had been visiting friends and had left for home with his bicycle that had gone missing.\n7.  On 11 April 2002 the prosecutor’s office ordered a criminal investigation into the applicant’s son’s death.\n8.  On 17 April 2002 the police drew up an investigation action plan.\n9.  On 23 April 2002 the applicant was admitted to the proceedings as an injured party. During a questioning on an unspecified date she alleged, inter alia, that her son could have been killed by M.\n10.  On 11 June 2002 the police stayed the proceedings as they could not find any useful leads.\n11.  On 13 June 2002 the district prosecutor’s office quashed this decision as premature. It instructed the police, among other actions, to take comprehensive measures in searching for the victim’s bicycle and to question some local residents known as prone to violence, including M. and K.\n12.  In October 2002 Z. and L. confessed that in the company of K. they had encountered Eduard Kryvonis on his way home late at night on 12 March 2002 and beaten him up.\n13.  On 28 October 2002 Z. and L. retracted their confessions, alleging that they had been extracted from them under duress.\n14.  On 10 November 2002 the proceedings were discontinued in view of absence of any useful leads.\n15.  On 14 March 2003 the prosecutor’s office quashed this decision, ordering further investigative steps to be taken. They noted that the investigation had already been suspended on similar grounds without appropriate action having been taken.\n16.  On 27 May 2003, 10 September 2003, 29 April and 15 July and 16 December 2004 five further decisions to stay the proceedings were taken.\n17.  On 10 July and 24 October 2003, 12 May, 30 September 2004 and 31 March 2005 respectively those decisions were quashed by the prosecutor’s office, which found that not all of its previous instructions had been duly complied with.\n18.  On 23 August 2005 D. confessed that late at night on 12 March 2002 M., V. and himself had engaged in a fight with Eduard Kryvonis and had beaten him.\n19.  On 24 August 2005 a confrontation between D. and M. was organized, during which the former confirmed his confessions, while the latter denied any accusations. V. had died by the time D. confessed.\n20.  On 16 January 2006, responding to the applicant’s complaint, the Deputy Head of the Chief Investigative Department of the Ministry of Interior stated that the investigation had been “patchy, passive”, “conducted at a low professional level and not in conformity with the methodology of investigating this category of offences”; and marked by “loss of time and sources of evidence”. He noted, in particular, that the case-file featured no documents explaining a one-month delay after the discovery of the body and before the initiation of the criminal proceedings; that no meaningful and prompt action had been taken to locate the purportedly missing bicycle; that no comprehensive measures had been taken to verify whether M. could be involved in the crime, notwithstanding the applica", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8523", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, who are brothers, were born in 1986, 1987 and 1985 respectively and live in Bucharest.\n6.  In the early hours of 17 March 2008, around five minutes after midnight, the applicants, together with their parents, decided to go to a police station to report that the applicant Marius-Romeo Chinez had been a victim of crime. They stopped a taxi on the street and because the taxi driver, B.G., refused to take them, they got involved in a verbal dispute with him and one of the applicants punched the bonnet of the car. Shortly afterwards, several taxi drivers from the same taxi company arrived at the scene. A team of two police officers (D.M. and F.I.) who were patrolling the area also arrived at the scene of the incident. They were followed by three additional police units.\n7.  In the presence of the police the dispute between the applicants and the taxi drivers escalated, with the applicant Mihai Chinez being hit in the face. When he tried to retaliate, the police handcuffed him and took him to their car. At the same time the applicant Ionuţ Ludovic Chinez was hit on the head by an unknown person and lost consciousness. When he saw his brother lying on the ground, the applicant Mihai Chinez refused to get into the police car. At this point the three police officers who had hold of him started hitting him and used their electric stun gun to force him into their car. Afterwards, Ionuţ Ludovic Chinez was lifted off the ground, handcuffed and put into a police car. The applicant Marius-Romeo Chinez, who was watching the scene from a distance, was pushed to the ground by two policemen, handcuffed and taken to another police car nearby.\n8.  The applicants were then taken to the police station, where Mihai and Marius-Romeo were punched and kicked in the stomach and chest by the police officers who had brought them in. After several hours of waiting without being questioned and without making a statement, Marius-Romeo was taken by ambulance, under police escort, to the Floreasca Emergency Hospital, where he had treatment for two days.\n9.  The other two applicants were questioned separately by different police officers. On 17 March 2008, at around 4 p.m., when a lawyer hired by their father arrived, they were allowed to leave the police station.\n(b)  The Government’s account of the events\n10.  According to the incident report drafted by the chief of the police units involved, on 17 March 2008 at around 00.20 a.m. the team of two police officers who were on patrol had seen a group of five persons attacking a taxi driver. When they intervened to stop the fight and to identify the persons involved, the applicants became aggressive towards them too and punched them. The officers asked for support and additional patrol units arrived at the scene. Subsequently, the decision was taken to accompany the attackers, namely the applicants, to the police station to identify them, but because they refused to go the police officers had to use force and handcuff them. The report further mentioned that the applicants had damaged a taxi belonging to Mr. B.G., who was identified by name, age, personal identity number and address.\nThe report also stated:\n“Before the arrival of the police units, several colleagues came to protect the taxi driver and assaulted the five [people]; because of the injuries he sustained Marius-Romeo Chinez was taken to the Floreasca Emergency Hospital, where he was admitted to the surgical ward ...\nOn the occasion of the inves", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8524", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1966, 1960, 1953, 1980 and live in Budapest, Pápa, Budapest and Répcelak, respectively.\n7.  From 2008 Mr Mester was employed as a civil servant in a government ministry. His employment was terminated in 2010. His former employer paid him, after payroll burdens, a net amount of 2,500,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 7,800 euros (EUR)), including payment for unused annual leave and an additional three months’ salary.\n8.  Mr Gőgös was employed in a government ministry from 2006 as a civil servant. Following the termination of his employment in 2010, his former employer paid him severance payment in the net amount of HUF 5,200,000 (EUR 16,300) corresponding to six months’ salary and payment for unused annual leave.\n9.  From 2005 Ms Zimay was employed by a State-owned company. Her employment was terminated by mutual agreement in January 2010. Under this agreement, the employer paid her a gross amount of HUF 25,900,000 (EUR 81,200), including payment for unused annual leave and an additional eight months’ salary. The severance payment was subject to payroll burdens in the amount of HUF 12,400,000 (EUR 38,900).\n10.  From 2003 Ms Hegedűs was employed as a civil servant in various government ministries. Following the termination of her employment in 2010, her former employer paid her severance payment in the net amount of HUF 3,100,000 (EUR 9,700) after deduction of payroll burdens.\n11.  Under new legislation (see paragraph 12 below) the severance payments were subsequently taxed at a 98% rate in their part exceeding HUF 3.5 million; the income tax and social security contributions already paid were deducted from the tax payable. Thus, Mr Mester paid additional tax in the amount of HUF 1,400,000 (EUR 4,400), Mr Gőgös in the amount of HUF 4,000,000 (EUR 1,300), Ms Zimay in the amount of HUF 11,100,000 (EUR 34,900) and Ms Hegedűs in the amount of HUF 2,000,000 (EUR 6,300).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8525", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Msida.\n7.  On 8 September 2009 the applicant was arrested. A search of a hotel room close to where he was apprehended revealed a number of packets of cannabis (weighing approximately 15 kg). The following day he was questioned and made a statement. On 10 September 2009, two days after his arrest, he and some other Maltese and foreign suspects were charged with the possession of cannabis not for their own exclusive use and conspiracy for the purposes of drug trafficking. They were brought before a magistrate (sitting in the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry) and remanded in custody.\n8.  On 25 March 2010, following multiple bail requests which were rejected by the relevant courts, the applicant lodged constitutional redress proceedings, complaining ‒ inter alia ‒ that there had been a breach of his rights under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and requesting his immediate release as per Article 5 § 4.\n9.  By a judgment of 12 August 2010, following a thorough assessment of the factual circumstances and the Court’s relevant case-law, the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional jurisdiction dismissed the applicant’s claims, and thus did not order his release. It pointed out, however, that the decision was without prejudice to any remedies which he would be entitled to request at the proper time and if the need arose.\n10.  The applicant appealed. On 18 January 2011, pending the constitutional appeal proceedings, the applicant was granted bail subject to certain conditions (including a curfew order and reporting to the police twice daily, as well as residing in an apartment rented for that purpose) against a number of guarantees, including a bail bond in the form of a deposit of 50,000 euros (EUR) and a further personal guarantee of EUR 15,000.\n11.  Since the specified amount was not paid, he remained in custody.\n12.  By a judgment of 14 February 2011 the Constitutional Court found a breach of the applicant’s rights under Article 5 § 3 [and § 4] in view of the ongoing passage of time since the first-instance judgment, during which period the applicant’s requests had continued to be repeatedly rejected. Although the court was empowered to order release and alter the bail conditions imposed ‒ noting that by the time of the judgment the applicant had been formally granted bail ‒ it did not deem it appropriate to order release as or take any other action. It awarded the applicant EUR 1,000.\n13.  On 18 February 2011 the applicant asked the investigating court (Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Inquiry) to reduce the amount of the bail deposit.\n14.  By a decision of 22 February 2011 the Court of Magistrates, having heard submissions, reduced the deposit to EUR 40,000 and increased the personal guarantee to EUR 60,000.\n15.  On 29 March 2011, still unable to pay, the applicant asked the court to reduce the deposit even further. He referred to his wife’s testimony to the effect that the applicant and his family did not possess such funds.\n16.  By a decision of 4 May 2011 the Court of Magistrates, having heard the submissions, reduced the deposit to EUR 15,000 and reduced the personal guarantee to EUR 30,000 (allowing the option of a third-party surety for that amount). However, it required that, before any surety could assume the obligation, proof of the surety’s financial capacity to furnish the requested amount be submitted.\n17.  A further request to reduce the amounts ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8526", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in the village of Budy, Kharkiv Region.\n6.  On 4 May 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of stealing cucumbers from a greenhouse on a vegetable farm. On the same day the applicant was also arrested for an administrative offence (disobeying and resisting police officers). The report concerning the applicant’s arrest for the administrative offence indicated that the applicant had no bodily injuries.\n7.  According to the Government, the applicant was released on 4 May 2003.\n8.  According to the applicant, on that day police officers beat him up in the Chervonozavodskyy District Police Department of Kharkiv (“the Police Department”), forcing him to confess to the theft. The applicant made self-incriminating statements. He was released on 5 May 2003 after the court had imposed a fine on him for the administrative offence.\n9.  On 5 May 2003 the investigator of the Police Department instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and another person (P.) in connection with the theft of the cucumbers. As a preventive measure the applicant signed a written undertaking not to abscond.\n10.  On 5 May 2003 the applicant sought medical treatment at a hospital. A doctor at the trauma unit of the hospital noted that the applicant had numerous bruises on his body, and diagnosed him with concussion and a possible fracture of the nose.\n11.  On 8 May 2003 the applicant was examined by a surgeon, who noted that he had bruises on his nose, on the right side of the waist and on the suprapubic area.\n12.  On 12 May 2003 the applicant was admitted to the hospital for inpatient treatment on account of the injuries he had sustained.\n13.  On 20 May 2003, in the course of questioning, P., another suspect in the criminal case, complained of ill-treatment to the police investigator and noted that on 4 May 2003 he had also been in the Police Department and had heard noises and the applicant shouting.\n14.  On 13 June 2003 the applicant was discharged from the hospital.\n15.  On 25 June 2003 the applicant denied any involvement in the theft and argued that his earlier self-incriminating statements had been made as a result of ill-treatment on the part of police officers.\n16.  On 26 June 2003 a medical expert completed the medical examination (which started on 8 May 2003) and issued a report stating that the applicant was recovering from concussion accompanied by asthenic syndrome, he had bruises on the right leg and the trunk, swollen fingers on the left and right hands, and a swollen nose. The expert opined that the injuries had been inflicted by blunt solid objects and could have been sustained on 4 May 2003. The expert also cited the applicant’s statement that the injuries had been caused on 4 May 2003 by unknown persons in the street.\n17.  On 27 June 2003, in the course of questioning, P. once again stated that on 4 May 2003 he had also been in the Police Department and had heard noises and the applicant shouting.\n18.  On 8 July 2003 the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist and diagnosed with postcontusional syndrome accompanied by occasional anxious depression.\n19.  On 10 July 2003 the applicant applied to the Chervonozavodskyy District Prosecutor’s Office of Kharkiv (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) seeking criminal prosecution of police officers for ill-treatment.\n20.  On 19 July 2003 the prosecutor, having conducted a pre-investigation enquires, refused to open criminal proceedings in connection wit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8527", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  Mr Ionel Garcea was born in 1973 and died on 19 July 2007 in Rahova prison hospital. He had no known relatives.\n5.  At the material time, Mr Garcea was serving a seven-year sentence for a rape which he had consistently denied having committed. On the date of the criminal conviction, the courts found that he had full legal capacity (discernământ) and was thus capable of taking decisions and acting freely upon them.\n6.  Mr Garcea was held in Jilava and Rahova prisons and prison hospitals. He was diagnosed with epilepsy, personality disorder (impulsive and explosive), polymorphic psychosis and phlebitis of both legs. During his detention he had numerous conflicts with the prison warders, the police and the prosecutor. On several occasions he was reprimanded for “insulting authority” (înjurii aduse cadrelor) and for self-harm (inserting nails into his forehead).\n7.  In 2002, when he started serving his sentence, Mr Garcea contacted APADOR‑CH from the police headquarters to inform them of his arrest. He also wrote to the association from prison. The association had paid for his legal assistance in a civil suit for damages brought against the State in connection with his detention in a previous case and in previous criminal proceedings, and had occasionally given him material support, such as medicine, paper, pens and prepaid telephone cards.\n8.  According to the official prison records, Mr Garcea received regular check-ups for his mental illness. He was admitted on ten occasions to the psychiatric ward of the prison hospitals for a few days each time. While in hospital he was prescribed medical treatment for his condition, which he often refused to take. On a few occasions he also refused medical examinations and often insisted on being discharged from hospital. On other occasions he signed the hospital consent form for treatment and at times he complained that he had not received medical treatment while in hospital.\n9.  On 4 August 2004 Mr Garcea inserted a nail in his forehead. On 9 August he was taken to the psychiatric ward of Jilava prison hospital and then to a civilian hospital. Mr Garcea agreed to have the metal object removed from his head, but later that day changed his mind. His two statements were recorded by the hospital personnel in his medical file.\nThe nail was ultimately removed and on 13 August 2004 he was discharged from the civilian hospital and sent back to the psychiatric ward of Jilava prison hospital.\n10.  At the beginning of 2005 Mr Garcea attempted suicide by overdose and as a result fell into a fourth-degree coma. It is mentioned in his medical record that in the psychiatric ward he refused any medical examinations following his suicide attempt and requested to be discharged.\n11.  In May 2005, after a week’s stay in Rahova prison hospital where, according to the medical record, he did not receive any treatment for his phlebitis, Mr Garcea was transferred to Rahova Prison.\n12.  In June 2005 Mr Garcea was operated on in a civilian hospital in order to have metal fragments removed from his head (pieces of nails which he had inserted into his forehead). After the operation, the doctors performed a brain scan on Mr Garcea, only to discover that some pieces of metal had been left inside his head. Mr Garcea underwent another operation one month later.\n13.  According to his prison medical record, Mr Garcea was monitored by a psychologist in order to help reduce the risk of aggressive behaviour towards himself and other", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8528", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Săvârșin.\n6.  She was adopted on 25 February 1972, at the age of seventeen.\n7.  The applicant’s adoptive mother also had another adopted daughter, H.M. The applicant’s mother died in 1986.\n8.  In 2003, the two sisters were jointly granted title to ten hectares of forest, based on their entitlement through adoption to inherit land which had been expropriated from their grandmother.\n9.  Subsequently, the applicant brought an action for division of the land between the sisters.\n10.  While the proceedings were ongoing, H.M. brought an action for annulment of the applicant’s adoption. She claimed that the main aim pursued by her adoptive mother when she had sought to adopt the applicant had been to ensure emotional and financial support for her in old age and help with everyday activities. H.M. averred that the only aim pursued by the applicant in agreeing to the adoption had been to obtain inheritance rights.\n11.  The applicant submitted that the main reason why her sister had lodged the action for the annulment of her adoption had been to preclude her from inheriting half of the ten hectares of land and to keep all the property inherited from their adoptive mother for herself. In this respect she claimed that the lawfulness of the adoption order had never been questioned before, although it had been issued thirty-two years previously. She concluded that the misunderstandings which had arisen between her and her sister after the death of their adoptive mother could not justify the annulment of an adoption concluded in accordance with the law.\n12.  In his final oral submissions before the first-instance court the applicant’s lawyer raised the objection of lack of locus standi of the plaintiff. He contended that H.M. had not proved a legitimate and current interest in seeking the annulment of her sister’s adoption.\n13.  On 7 December 2004 the Suceava County Court dismissed the applicant’s objection and declared the applicant’s adoption void, finding that it had not had a purpose envisioned by the Family Code. It held that the only aim of the applicant’s adoption had been the fulfilment of the patrimonial interests of the adoptive mother and the adopted child, and that it had not been intended to ensure a better life for the applicant.\n14.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, maintaining that she had lived with her adoptive mother since she was nine years old, although the adoption order had only been issued in 1972 when she was seventeen. She submitted that the family relationship established between her and her adoptive mother since she was nine had been proved by witness statements which were in the case file, and that it was also attested to in the report drafted by the authorities when they carried out a social investigation in connection with her adoption.\n15.  The judgment of the court of first instance was upheld by a decision of the Suceava Court of Appeal rendered on 15 April 2005. A dissenting opinion to that decision stated that the adoption had not been improper, as its main aim had been the welfare of the applicant, who had been born into a family with eight children and a difficult financial situation.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8529", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1951 and 1973 respectively and live in Hakkari. The first applicant is the father of the second applicant.\n6.  İ.D., a non-commissioned officer, telephoned the second applicant and asked him to tell his father, the first applicant, to go to the Çukurca Gendarmerie Station. At around 5 p.m. on 17 July 2007 the first applicant, accompanied by the second applicant, went to the gendarmerie station. On their arrival the second applicant waited at the entrance to the station and the first applicant was taken into Major M.C.’s office, where he was subjected to ill-treatment by M.C. and İ.D. who was also an officer at the same station. The two officers accused the first applicant of providing support to the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal armed organisation), and of making propaganda for a political party, the DTP (Democratic Society Party). Using box tape, officers M.C. and İ.D. attached a hand grenade to the first applicant’s face. An object was forcefully put into his nose and mouth, and he was threatened that his eyes would be gouged out. He was also repeatedly hit with an object on the left side of his face and on his chest. The ill-treatment and accusations continued for approximately one hour with accompanying threats to kill him and his family members.\n7.  After his release the first applicant and his son returned to their home in their village and later the same day the first applicant went to a hospital in the nearby town of Çukurca where he was examined and a report was drawn up setting out his injuries.\n8.  On 17 July 2007 the first applicant went to the Çukurca Gendarmerie Station following the request of Major M.C. He was not, however, subjected to ill-treatment.\n9.  On 18 July 2007 the first applicant filed a criminal complaint with the local prosecutor, alleging that he had been beaten and threatened at the Çukurca Gendarmerie Station.\n10.  Subsequently, criminal proceedings were brought against the officers İ.D. and M.C. and those proceedings are still pending.\n11.  The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties.\n12.  According to a medical report issued at Çukurca Hospital at 7.30 p.m. on 17 July 2007, there was an ecchymosed swelling and two blood-clotted small lacerations on the left side of the first applicant’s face. The report also mentioned a restriction in the movement of his arms and chest pain. After his examination at the hospital the first applicant was transferred to the Hakkari State Hospital where he was examined once more and subsequently discharged.\n13.  On 18 July 2007 the first applicant made a formal complaint to the Hakkari prosecutor’s office against the military officers İ.D. and M.C. for having subjected him to ill-treatment, insults and intimidation. On the same day his statement was taken by the prosecutor.\n14.  Subsequently the applicant was referred to the Forensic Medicine Institute’s Hakkari branch for a medical examination. On 27 July 2007 the Institute reported that the applicant had ecchymosed swelling on his left cheekbone and restriction and pain on the movement of his left arm and shoulder.\n15.  On 27 July 2007 the Hakkari prosecutor decided that he did not have jurisdiction ratione loci to examine the complaint and referred the file to the Çukurca prosecutor.\n16.  On 1 August 2007 the Çukurca prosecutor decided that he also did not have the requisite jurisdiction, and referred the case file to the prosecutor’s officer a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8530", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant, Mr Manuel Rogelio Gallardo Sanchez, is a Venezuelan national who was born in 1965 and lives in Cape Town (South Africa).\n8.  On 19 April 2005 the applicant, who had been accused of arson by the Greek authorities, was taken into custody pending extradition by the Rome police on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by the Athens Court of Appeal on 26 January 2005 under the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957.\n9.  On 22 April 2005 the L’Aquila Court of Appeal validated the applicant’s arrest and ordered his detention.\n10.  On 26 April 2005 the Ministry of Justice asked the Court of Appeal to extend his detention.\n11.  At the hearing of 27 April 2005, the President of the Court of Appeal, ruling under Article 717 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 25 below), established the applicant’s identity and asked if he gave his consent to his extradition. He did not consent.\n12.  On 9 June 2005 the Ministry of Justice informed the Court of Appeal that, on 25 May 2005, the Greek authorities had sent a request for extradition together with all the requisite supporting documents.\n13.  On 21 June 2005 the public prosecutor’s office asked the Court of Appeal to grant the extradition request.\n14.  The hearing was scheduled for 15 December 2005. At the request of the applicant’s representative, it was postponed until 12 January 2006.\n15.  Without any prior investigation the Court of Appeal approved the extradition by a decision of 12 January 2006, deposited on 30 January 2006. It verified the conformity of the extradition request with the European Convention on Extradition and its compliance with the ne bis in idem and double-criminality principles, and it ruled out the possibility that the proceedings had been brought for any discriminatory or political reasons.\n16.  On 3 March 2006 the applicant appealed on points of law, arguing in particular that the request for his extradition had been sent by the Greek authorities after the forty-day time-limit provided for in Article 16 § 4 of the European Convention on Extradition, which meant in his view that his detention had been unlawful. He further argued that the charges laid against him by the Greek authorities were not based on serious indications of guilt. He submitted that he should therefore be released.\n17.  In a judgment of 11 May 2006, deposited with the registry on 18 September 2006, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal with only one page of reasoning, in particular because it found that the extradition request had been received within the time-limit provided for in the European Convention on Extradition and that it did not have jurisdiction to examine whether serious indications of guilt had been adduced.\n18.  In the meantime, on three occasions between June and September 2005, the applicant had applied to the Rome Court of Appeal, unsuccessfully, requesting his release. In its last decision of 27 October 2005, adopted in private in compliance with the adversarial principle, and without any prior investigation, the Court of Appeal found that there was no reason to depart from its two previous decisions, having regard to the ongoing risk that the applicant might abscond, even though the authorities had taken away his passport, and to the State’s obligation to comply with its international commitments.\n19.  On 9 October 2006 the Minister of Justice signed th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8531", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Lublin.\n6.  The applicant was a surgeon at the Hospital no. 4 in Lublin with thirty‑two years of practice and who started kidney‑transplant operations there. He was also an assistant professor at the Lublin Medical Academy.\n7.  In 1998 the applicant was diagnosed with sleep apnoea (a sleep disorder characterised by pauses in breathing during sleep) and since then was required to use a respirator when asleep.\n8.  At 6 a.m. on 1 June 2006 five armed plain‑clothes police officers came to the applicant’s flat to arrest him. According to the applicant, they were violently knocking on the door. They presented the prosecutor’s order for the applicant’s arrest.\n9.  At about 8 a.m. the applicant was brought in handcuffs to his clinic. The event was seen by hospital staff and patients. The police searched the applicant’s locker. The applicant’s arrest was filmed by one of the police officers. Subsequently, the applicant was brought to the Lublin Regional Police Headquarters where he was questioned. He was informed of the bribe‑taking charges against him.\n10.  After questioning, the applicant was taken to the Lublin Military Hospital for a medical check. Doctor O. issued a certificate that the applicant could be held in detention and recommended the use of the respirator.\n11.  Subsequently, the applicant was brought to the Lublin‑Północ District Prosecutor. The prosecutor charged him with ten counts of accepting material benefits from his patients for medical treatment and/or making the provision of such treatment conditional upon receiving material benefits (Article 228 § 1 and Article 228 § 4 of the Criminal Code respectively). The charges related to the period between 1997 and 2004 and the impugned amounts ranged from 100 to 500 zlotys (approx. 25 to 125 euros).\n12.  The applicant submitted that on 1 June he had been twice approached by police officers from the anti‑corruption unit and once three months later. According to the applicant, they promised him a beneficial treatment if he would confess and name other doctors engaged in corrupt practices. The applicant refused.\n13.  On 1 June 2006 the Lublin District Court granted the prosecution’s request and remanded the applicant in custody until 1 September 2006. It found as follows:\n“The prosecution’s request is well‑founded and should be granted. The evidence gathered so far in the proceedings points to a strong likelihood – within the meaning of Article 249 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – that the suspect committed the misdemeanours with which he was charged. [That likelihood] is shown by the depositions of the witnesses who described in an extensive and precise manner the circumstances concerning the acts imputed to the suspect.\nThe suspect is charged with commission of ten misdemeanours; in respect of each of those misdemeanours he is liable to a maximum sentence of at least 8 years’ imprisonment, and thus the need to apply detention on remand in order to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings is justified by the severe penalty to which the suspect is liable. The real possibility that such a penalty would be imposed follow from the multitude of acts, their character and circumstances.\nThe reasons militating against the imposition of detention on remand specified in Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not identified. The suspect does not have dependent children, and as regards his state of health, it transpires from ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8532", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  On 16 March 1998 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against a third party, I.L., accusing him of aggravated theft, rape and unlawful deprivation of liberty. She alleged that on the night between 14 and 15 March 1998, I.L. had entered her lodgings and repeatedly hit her, threatened to kill her if she did not give him the money she owed him and other assets, and raped her. She claimed that the violence and threats had started at about 7.30 p.m. on 14 March 1998 and lasted until 4 a.m. the next day. She also claimed that when he had left, I.L. had taken with him 250 German Marks and 100 American Dollars (USD), a travelling bag, two leather jackets, as well as the original documents of a building belonging to her.\n7.  As evidence of the physical violence to which she had been subjected, the applicant presented a medical certificate issued on 16 March 1998 by the Mina Minovici National Institute of Forensic Medicine. The certificate stated that she had traumatic lesions that could have been caused by blows with a hard object and that she would need at least eight to nine days of medical care to recover. The certificate made no mention of rape.\n8.  On 17 March 1998 the applicant gave a written statement. On 2 April 1998 she gave a supplementary statement by which she added a civil complaint to her initial criminal complaint.\n9.  On 8 April 1998 the prosecutor started a criminal investigation into the applicant’s allegations against I.L. concerning aggravated theft and unlawful deprivation of liberty.\n10.  On the same day I.L. was arrested and remanded in custody for thirty days. On 4 May 1998 the County Court extended his detention for another thirty days. On 6 June 1998 the court decided not to further extend I.L.’s detention and ordered his release from prison.\n11.  The investigators searched I.L’s home, but only found the documents of the building.\n12.  I.L. was questioned by the prosecutor on 8 and 9 April and 20 October 1998. He stated that the applicant had borrowed USD 17,000 from him on 25 August 1996 and that she had refused to return the money. He claimed that she had lodged the criminal complaint so that he would not ask for reimbursement of the loan. As regards the documents belonging to the applicant found at his home, he contended that they had been given to him by the applicant.\n13.  On 6 and 9 April 1998 the prosecuting authorities heard a witness, D.B., a common friend of I.L. and the applicant. D.B. stated that he had borrowed USD 12,000 from I.L. and had also been threatened and held against his will by the latter in 1997 in order to make him return the money.\n14.  On 2, 6, 28 and 29 April 1998 the prosecutor took statements from seven witnesses proposed by the applicant. Most of them had not been present at the events but had seen the traces of violence on the applicant.\n15.  On 28 May 1998 D.P.S., I.L.’s friend, gave a statement according to which I.L. had spent the whole evening of 14 March 1998 with her. Moreover, at about 8 p.m. R.C. had paid them a visit and at about 10.30 p.m. I.L. had had a telephone conversation with A.M.I.\n16.  R.C. and A.M.I. confirmed the visit and the telephone conversation with I.L. in their statements before the investigating authorities.\n17.  On 15 May, 9 June and 20 October 1998, the applicant was invited to take part in a confrontation with I.L. She refused, claiming that she was afraid of I.L.\n18.  The applicant gave a ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8533", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1967, 1974, 1953 and 1961 respectively and live in Baia Mare.\n6.  On 1 April 2001 the Cluj Military Security Department started secretly monitoring the applicants’ telephone conversations on the basis of an order issued by the Military Prosecutor’s Office attached to the National Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (“the Military Prosecutor’s Office”). The surveillance order issued by the Military Prosecutor’s Office was based on Law no. 51/1991 on national security (“the National Security Act”). The applicants were suspected of being part of a network trafficking in Schengen visas.\n7.  The first two applicants were at the material time Romanian army officers, while the last two applicants were civilians.\n8.  On 2 October 2002 the first two applicants were questioned for the first time at the Military Prosecutor’s Office as part of the investigation initiated by the domestic authorities against a network of individuals trafficking in Schengen visas. At the material time the two applicants had not been charged with any offence and were not assisted by a lawyer. The first applicant had allegedly been pressurised by the prosecutor to sign a written statement. The second applicant was detained by the Military Prosecutor’s Office for twenty hours, allegedly without an arrest warrant in his name and without being informed about the reasons for his detention.\n9.  On 3 October 2002 the second applicant was heard by the Military Prosecutor’s Office for the second time. No charges had been brought against him at the time. He was informed of his right to be assisted by a legal representative and agreed that one could be appointed for him.\n10.  On 12 December 2002 the third applicant was questioned at the Military Prosecutor’s Office for the first time. At the time he had not been informed of the charges brought against him and he was not assisted by a lawyer.\n11.  On 13 December 2002 the fourth applicant was questioned for the first time at the Military Prosecutor’s Office. At the time he had not been charged with any criminal offence and was not assisted by a legal representative. His written statement contained only confirmation that he had been using a company mobile phone and the phone number attached to the phone since May 2000. On the same day the fourth applicant was summoned to appear at the Military Prosecutor’s Office on 16 December 2002.\n12.  By a Military Prosecutor’s Order issued on the same date a criminal investigation was opened (ȋnceperea urmăririi penale) against the first three applicants for complicity in bribery and aiding an offender. The Prosecutor’s Order did not expressly state that a criminal investigation had been opened against the fourth applicant as well, although his name and the unlawful act he was suspected of was mentioned in the order.\n13.  On the same date, in the presence of the chosen legal representative of the first two applicants and of the officially appointed legal representative of the third applicant, the previously mentioned three applicants were charged by the domestic authorities with complicity in bribery and aiding an offender, and were heard in respect of the charges brought against them. They maintained and reiterated their previous statements and they were presented with the evidence available in the file. In addition, they stated that they did not request any other evidence.\n14.  On 16 December 2002, in the presence of an officially appointed legal representative", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8534", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants are:\n(1)  Ms Isita (also spelled as Yisita) Zhebrailova, born in 1956;\n(2)  Mr Shuddi Vakhayev, born in 1954, and\n(3)  Mr Salavdi Zhebrailov, born in 1980.\n5.  The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Balavdi (also spelled as Balauddi) Zhebrailov, born in 1982. The third applicant is Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov’s brother. The applicants reside in the village of Gekhi, the Chechen Republic.\n6.  At about 12 midnight on 25 April 2005 a group of four men wearing uniforms and armed with assault rifles burst into the applicants’ property at 23 Pervomayskaya Street in Gekhi. Two of the intruders were wearing masks. The applicants inferred that the intruders were law-enforcement officers. The men ordered the applicants to lie down and grabbed hold of Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov and the third applicant, who was in his underwear. They then dragged them outside, firing several shots in the air to prevent the first and second applicants, as well as their relatives L.Sh. and Kh.A., from following them. The men threw the Zhebrailov brothers into a UAZ vehicle with a beacon on the roof and marked “police” (милиция), which was parked about 300 metres away from the applicants’ house, and drove off.\n7.  On the outskirts of Gekhi, Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov and the third applicant were transferred from the UAZ vehicle to a VAZ-99 vehicle driven by officer S. of the 2nd Regiment of the Road Police of the Ministry of the Interior of the Chechen Republic (hereinafter “the 2nd regiment”). The VAZ-99 vehicle took the road leading to Grozny and on the journey the men physically assaulted the Zhebrailov brothers. After a while the car passed through a checkpoint and Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov and the third applicant were taken to the premises of the 2nd regiment. The third applicant recognised the premises because he had come there two months earlier with a friend to apply for a job.\n8.  Upon arrival the Zhebrailov brothers were put in a cell in a basement, beaten with rifle butts and interrogated about a pistol. After a while they were separated and the third applicant was placed in a cell with another arrestee of about forty years old. From his cell the third applicant could hear Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov screaming whilst being beaten.\n9.  Shortly thereafter the persons, whom the applicants considered to be officers of the 2rd regiment, returned and physically assaulted the third applicant, saying that Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov had confirmed that the third applicant had a pistol and threatening to take the latter to the military base in Khankala. They kicked and beat the third applicant all over his body and also hit him several times on the head with a rifle butt. Sometime later they dragged the third applicant outside, gave him police trousers and a shirt belonging to his brother and pushed him into a grey UAZ vehicle equipped with a partition for prisoners’ transport. The car carrying the third applicant and two police officers passed through a checkpoint and after a short time stopped in the vicinity of the “northern market” in Grozny, where the third applicant was released. The third applicant then went to the home of an uncle of his who lives in Grozny, from where the third applicant’s relatives took him home on the morning on 26 April 2005.\n10.  Upon his return home, the third applicant had numerous bruises on his chest, back and legs and also wounds on his head, sustained as a result of the blows with the rifle butt.\n11.  On 26 April 2005 the third a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8535", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Mayrtup in Shali district, Chechnya. She is the mother of Mr Vakhit (also spelt as Vakhid) Gambulatov, who was born in 1976.\n6.  On 28 June 2001 (in the documents submitted the date also referred to as 29 June 2001) Mr Vakhit Gambulatov left home and did not return. The next day the applicant and her relatives learned that on 28 June 2001 Mr Vakhit Gambulatov and his fellow villager Mr Ramzan S. had been arrested at the checkpoint located between the villages of Tsentoroy and Bachi-Yurt and taken in an APC to the Kurchaloy district military commander’s office (“the military commander’s office”) and from there to the Kurchaloy temporary district department of the interior (“the Kurchaloy VOVD”) situated in the same courtyard.\n7.  On 29 June 2001 duty officers at the military commander’s office confirmed that Mr Vakhit Gambulatov had been detained on their premises. For the next couple of weeks the applicant spent every day next to the military commander’s office waiting for her son’s release. On the 15th or 16th day of his detention Mr Vakhit Gambulatov passed a note to the applicant stating that he was not aware of the reasons for his arrest, but that he would be released soon. Every day the applicant brought food for Mr Vakhit Gambulatov, and twice a week she collected his laundry from the guards.\n8.  At some point in late July 2001 the applicant and her daughter were told by an officer at the military commander’s office that Mr Vakhit Gambulatov would be released on 29 July 2001. However, the applicant’s son was not released and at the beginning of August 2001 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as the beginning of July 2001) a duty officer told the applicant that her son had been transferred elsewhere.\n9.  The applicant has had no news of her son since.\n10.  The Government did not dispute the applicant’s statement concerning the factual circumstances of her son’s detention. In their submission concerning the admissibility and merits of the application they stated, amongst other things, the following:\n“... On 29 June 2001 the applicant’s son Mr Vakhit Gambulatov was taken for identification to the temporary detention centre of the Kurchaloy VOVD. On 26 July 2001 he was released from detention and disappeared. His whereabouts have not been established since ...”\n11.  The Government submitted copies of documents from the criminal case file no. 39099 opened in connection with the disappearance of Mr Vakhit Gambulatov. The relevant information may be summarised as follows.\n12.  On 2 August 2001 the applicant complained about her son’s detention to the Argun prosecutor’s office and to the Kurchaloy district military commander’s office. She stated that her son Vakhit had been detained in the Kurchaloy VOVD (the police station) between 28 June and 31 July 2001.\n13.  On 6 December 2001 the investigators asked the Kurchaloy VOVD for information about Mr Vakhit Gambulatov’s arrest. On the same date the VOVD replied that on 29 June 2001 Mr Vakhit Gambulatov and Mr Ramzan S. had been brought to their premises for a passport check and released on 29 July 2001.\n14.  On 8 December 2001 the Argun district prosecutor’s office initiated a criminal investigation into the events under Article 126 of the Criminal Code (abduction). The case file was given the number 39099.\n15.  The investigator sent requests to various temporary detention centres for information about Mr Vakhit Gambulato", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8537", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were each targeted in undercover operations conducted by the police in the form of a test purchase of counterfeit software under sections 7 and 8 of the Operational-Search Activities Act of 12 August 1995 (no. 144-FZ). The operations led to their criminal conviction for distribution of counterfeit software.\n7.  On 6 December 2007 an undercover police officer V called the applicant on the number advertised by him on a job-advertisement site on the Internet and asked him to perform some computer repairs, including the installation of software. The applicant agreed, bought several compact discs with counterfeit software on them and installed the software on V’s computer for 3,300 roubles (RUB) (about 45 euros (EUR)). The relevant part of the recording of the applicant’s conversation with V in the course of the repairs read as follows:\n“...\nV: how much will [the installation] cost approximately?\nMr Volkov: I don’t know exactly, [it] depends on the programmes to be installed.\nV: [I need] Photoshop, [Windows] XP etc.\nMr Volkov: with Photoshop, it is 200 roubles more.\nV: We called other companies; they said it would cost about twenty thousand. Why are the prices so different? ...\nMr Volkov: [other companies] are probably being careful, unlike me, I come instantly. They are probably afraid of getting caught; they may have done it before and run into some inspection.\nV: What kind of inspection?\nMr Volkov: [Licensing] inspection, if I installed a licensed programme for you, it would cost a lot.\nV: How much does the licensed programme cost?\nMr Volkov: Photoshop is 500 dollars.\nV: To install?\nMr Volkov: No, the programme itself. ... if it is done like now, in a semi-legal way, the price is obviously lower ...”\n8.  Following the above, the applicant was charged with copyright infringement. The applicant retained a lawyer during the pre-trial proceedings but could no longer afford paying for legal representation in court. He was therefore provided with a legal aid lawyer.\n9.  On 3 July 2008 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow (District Court) examined the applicant’s case. The applicant testified that he had agreed to help V because he had already performed similar services for his relatives and acquaintances. He also testified that V had asked him to have some programmes installed but did not indicate whether V had specifically asked for unlicensed software. V testified that the police had launched an undercover operation after they had received information incriminating the applicant in the distribution of counterfeit software. The applicant pleaded not guilty to copyright infringement and claimed that the police had incited him to commit the crime. The court found the applicant guilty of copyright infringement and imposed a suspended sentence of one year and three months’ imprisonment with one year’s probation.\n10.  The applicant lodged an appeal (кассационная жалоба) asking the appellate court (кассационный суд) to examine the case in his presence. In his appeal, he did not request to have a lawyer appointed for the hearing of his case.\n11.  On 6 August 2008 the Golovinskiy District Court of Moscow informed by post and telephone Ms D., the applicant’s lawyer in the proceedings before the District Court, that the hearing of the applicant’s appeal had been scheduled for 20 August 2008. The court’s call log indicated that the applicant had no retainer agreement with Ms D. for representation in the appeal proceedings.\n12.  On ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8538", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant organisation is a non-governmental human rights organisation based in Yerevan.\n6.  On 12 May 2007 a third person, L.G., who was apparently a witness in a murder investigation, died while at a police station. According to the official version, L.G. died in an attempt to escape by jumping out of a second-floor window of the police station. It appears that this event provoked an outcry among Armenian human rights groups and civil society.\n7.  On 19 February 2008 a presidential election was held in Armenia, which was followed by mass post-election rallies and protests and an intense standoff between the authorities and the supporters of the opposition, resulting in clashes and at least ten persons being killed.\n8.  On 1 March 2008 a state of emergency was declared by the President of Armenia for a period of 20 days, during which all public assemblies were banned.\n9.  On 6 May 2008 the applicant organisation applied to the Mayor of Yerevan, notifying its intention to hold a mourning march on the first anniversary of L.G.’s death. The march was to take place on 12 May from 8 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. It was to start at Republic Square and continue through Nalbandyan Street in the direction of the police station.\n10.  On 8 May 2008 the Mayor decided to ban the planned event, with reference to Sections 9 § 4 (3) and 13 § 1 (3) of the Assemblies, Rallies, Marches and Demonstrations Act (“the Act”), finding:\n“According to the official opinion of the Police ... of 8 May 2008 ..., the mass public event held on 1 March 2008 turned into mass disorder resulting in human casualties and not all the circumstances of the crime and offenders have been disclosed, and not all weapons and ammunition used [at that event], whose circulation may pose danger to the lives and health of citizens, have been found in the course of the investigation into the criminal case instituted in connection with that fact by the Special Investigative Service of Armenia[. H]ence, it will be impossible to prevent new crimes, if the mass public event [in question] is held.\nAccording to the official opinion of the National Security Service ... of 7 May 2008 ..., the National Security Service of Armenia has credible and verified data which show that the mass public event in question, if allowed, will result in undermining national security, public order, and the health and morality of society, in encroachments on constitutional rights and freedoms and in disorder and [new] crimes.”\n11.  By a letter of 12 May 2008 this decision was posted to the applicant organisation. On the same date the police, who had apparently been informed of the decision of 8 May 2008, prevented the organisers from holding the planned event.\n12.  On 13 May 2008 the applicant organisation received the letter of 12 May 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8539", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, Senanik Öner and Ferhan Türk, were born in 1952 and 1951 respectively and live in Diyarbakır.\n6.  On 21 March 2007 the applicants attended the Newroz celebrations in Kızıltepe, a district of Mardin, and made certain speeches concerning the problems of Kurdish people. The relevant extracts from the applicants’ statements can be summarised as follows:\n“For the attention of the press and public:\nI celebrate your day of Newroz. I commemorate the civilians who were killed by the members of security forces in Cizre, Nusaybin and Şırnak.\nThe PKK declared a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed and to contribute to the peace establishment process. Subsequently, the PKK also withdrew its armed forces out of the borders of Turkey to maintain peace. We expect affirmative steps from the state.\n(...) The Kurdish leader, “Sayın[1]” Abdullah Öcalan has been poisoned and this is a very serious problem. Turkey should order an investigation into the Öcalan ‘poisoning’.\n(...) The state did not take any steps for democratisation or to solve the Kurdish problem. We believe in peace and the state should take appropriate steps for solving the Kurdish problem.’’\n7.  Subsequently, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants by the Kızıltepe Public Prosecutor, charging them with disseminating terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation), under Section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).\n8.  On 15 April 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to one year and eight months’ imprisonment.\n9.  On 28 December 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.\n10.  The applicants learned of this decision on 6 March 2012.\n11.  On 12 October 2012, following an amendment to the law, the Diyarbakır Assize Court revised its judgment pursuant to Provisional Article 1 § 1 of the Law no. 6352 and suspended the execution of the applicants’ sentences.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8540", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Yerevan.\n6.  From 1997 to 1999 the applicant worked as the executive director of the Credit Service Bank (hereafter, the Bank).\n7.  On 19 March 2002 the prosecutor decided to institute criminal proceedings under paragraph 2 of Article 182 of the former Criminal Code (hereafter, the former CC) on account of abuse of official capacity by the former management of the Bank through embezzlement of funds entrusted to it in June 2001 by another company. It appears that at the material time the applicant worked as an advisor to the chamber of control of the Armenian parliament.\n8.  On 31 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of large‑scale embezzlement, abuse of official capacity and official falsification under paragraph 4 of Article 90, paragraph 1 of Article 182 and Article 187 of the former CC.\n9.  On 1 April 2003 the applicant was formally charged under paragraph 4 of Article 90, paragraph 1 of Article 182 and Article 187 of the former CC with embezzlement through abuse of his official capacity and official falsification through preparation and use of false accounting documents during his office as the executive director of the Bank from 1997 to 1999, causing damage to the Bank and its clients. It appears that ten other persons were also charged with involvement in these or related crimes.\n10.  On the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the investigator’s application to have the applicant placed in pre-trial detention for a period of two months. The applicant alleged that during the hearing his lawyer had requested the court not to impose detention as a preventive measure, due to the applicant’s poor health. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by the District Court on two occasions until 31 August 2003.\n11.  On 2 April 2003 a group of nine members of the Armenian Parliament applied to the Prosecutor General requesting that the applicant’s detention be replaced by another preventive measure in view of, inter alia, the applicant’s poor health.\n12.  On 10 April 2003 the General Prosecutor’s Office addressed a letter to the Head of Staff of the Parliament, stating that the applicant’s release was not possible since he had committed a grave crime and had refused to return embezzled funds.\n13.  On 1 August 2003 a new Criminal Code (hereafter, the new CC) entered into force in Armenia.\n14.  On 11 August 2003 the charges against the applicant were adapted to the new CC and he was formally charged under Article 179 § 3 (1), Article 214 § 1 and Article 325 § 2 of the new CC.\n15.  On 14 November 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan found the applicant guilty under Article 179 § 3 (1) and Article 325 § 1 of the new CC. In particular, the applicant was found to have executed a number of financial operations involving bonds and fixed assets, the proceeds of which he embezzled. The District Court sentenced the applicant to six years’ imprisonment without confiscation of property under Article 179 § 3 (1) and terminated the proceedings under Article 325 § 1 by applying a statute of limitations with reference to Article 35 § 1 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP).\n16.  On 29 November 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal.\n17.  On 10 April 2006 the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal decided to uphold the judgment of the District Court. The Court of Appeal found, inter alia, that:\n“The first instance court, considerin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8541", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1961, 1964 and 1988 respectively. The first and second applicants appear to have been serving prison sentences in Kosh and Abovyan penitentiary institutions at the time of submission of their application. The third applicant lives in the town of Vardenis, Armenia.\n6.  The first and second applicants are husband and wife. The third applicant is their daughter. At the material time they resided in Vardenis, in the Gegharkunik Region of Armenia.\n7.  On 8 June 2004 criminal proceedings were instituted on account of the murder of a local girl who was apparently the third applicant’s classmate and whose body was found not far from the applicants’ home.\n8.  The first applicant alleges that on the same date he was taken to the Vardenis Police Department where he was unlawfully kept without his arrest being formally recorded. At the police department he was subjected to continual beatings by police officers in an attempt to coerce him to confess to the above-mentioned murder.\n9.  On 24 June 2004 the Gegharkunik Regional Court found the first applicant guilty under Section 182 of the Code of Administrative Offences of maliciously disobeying lawful orders of police officers and sentenced him to fifteen days’ imprisonment. The first applicant was found to have used foul language in the street and to have disobeyed the police officers who tried to call him to order.\n10.  The first applicant alleges that the above decision was a fake and that in reality he was kept at the police department during that entire period in connection with the above murder. The administrative penalty imposed on him was simply used as a means to legitimise his continued unlawful deprivation of liberty.\n11.  The second and third applicants allege that from 8 June 2004 onwards they were also under constant pressure from the local law‑enforcement officers, being frequently taken to the police department and pressurised and coerced to confess to the murder or to incriminate each other.\n12.  On 30 June 2004 the second applicant, together with a number of other residents of Vardenis, filed a complaint with the General Prosecutor and the Chief of the Armenian Police, alleging that the first applicant had been unlawfully detained since 8 June 2004 in connection with the above murder and that the applicants’ family had been terrorised by the local law-enforcement officers. They further alleged that the second applicant had been invited to the Vardenis Police Department where she was ordered by the Chief of Department, Vi.H., to admit that the first applicant had wanted to rape the victim and that she, having found out about it, had killed the girl out of jealousy. They alleged that the second applicant had been beaten but had refused to confess.\n13.  The second applicant alleges that on 8 July 2004 she was invited to the Vardenis Police Department where Chief of Department Vi.H. ordered her to testify against the first applicant. When she refused to do so, she was beaten by V.H. and a number of other law-enforcement officers, including the deputy of the criminal investigation unit, N.H., two officers of the criminal investigation unit, K.N. and K.M., and the Gegharkunik Regional Deputy Prosecutor, F.B. She was beaten on her feet with a baton and when she fainted the police officers would bring her back to consciousness and continue the beating. Thereafter the police officers brought the third applicant to the police department and locked her up in a n", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8542", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Zagreb.\n6.  On 25 April 1992 the applicant married Ms Z.J.\n7.  On 9 October 1993 Z.J. gave birth to their son I.R.\n8.  In December 1993 Z.J., together with their son, moved out of the flat in which she had lived with the applicant and went to live with her parents. After that she started avoiding contact with the applicant. Prior to the institution of the divorce and custody proceedings in February 1996 (see paragraphs 9-30 below) the applicant saw his son only twice, in January 1994 and in 1995 during Easter holidays. The applicant and Z.J. officially divorced by a court judgment to that effect on 12 February 2002 (see paragraphs 21-22 below).\n9.  On 19 February 1996 Z.J. brought a civil action against the applicant in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking divorce, custody of, and the maintenance for their son.\n10.  On 22 April 1997 the court asked the Zagreb Social Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Zagreb, hereafter “the local social welfare centre”) to prepare a report on the family situation in the Ribić family and submit its recommendation as to whom of the parents custody of their son should be awarded.\n11.  The Government submitted that the applicant had ignored the local social welfare centre’s calls to attend interviews necessary for the preparation of the report by not collecting the centre’s letters to that effect from the post office. The applicant denied that allegation, noted that the Government had not substantiated it by relevant documents and invited them to do so. He further submitted that while it was true that in the period between 1993 and 2003 he had worked in Ljubljana (Slovenia) on weekdays, he had been staying in Zagreb every weekend. If there had been any problem with the service of the local social welfare centre’s correspondence to him, the centre should have contacted the advocate who had represented him in the civil proceedings in question.\n12.  On 7 July 1997 the applicant’s and Z.J.’ legal representatives agreed to temporarily suspend the proceedings (mirovanje postupka) for a period of three months with a view to reaching an amicable solution, which however did not materialise.\n13.  Thus, in the further course of the proceedings, on 23 January 1998, the court decided to obtain information on the parties’ income, and scheduled the next hearing for 20 April 1998 with a view to hearing the parties.\n14.  However, the hearing scheduled for 20 April 1998 was adjourned because the applicant did not attend it.\n15.  At the hearing held on 22 May 1998 the court again decided to hear the parties and invited Z.J. to provide information on her income, something the applicant had already done.\n16.  At that hearing and in his written submission of 9 March 1999 the applicant asked the court to issue a provisional measure whereby it would provisionally regulate his contacts with his son. According to the information submitted by the parties, the court did not decide on the applicant’s motion, apparently because under the legislation in force at the material time interim contact orders were in the exclusive jurisdiction of the social welfare centres as administrative authorities (see paragraph 81 below).\n17.  At the hearing held on 9 October 1998 the court heard the parties and decided to obtain an opinion from an expert in psychiatry with a view to deciding on custody and access rights. However, since the applicant and Z.J. did not advance the c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8543", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lived in Donetsk.\n7.  On 28 January 2003 the applicant sustained two knife cuts. According to him, they were inflicted by two strangers, who attacked him on a deserted street.\n8.  At about 2 p.m. on 29 January 2003 the applicant was arrested at his home by three police officers and taken to the Proletarskiy District Police Station in Donetsk (“District Police Station”) for questioning in connection with a murder of L.S., an adolescent girl. Later on the same day he was also taken for questioning to the Proletarskiy District Prosecutor’s Office (“District Prosecutor’s Office”).\n9.  On the same date O. was appointed as the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer. According to the applicant, she saw him briefly, advised him to remain silent and left him alone during the actual questioning.\n10.  As follows from the report of the applicant’s questioning dated 29 January 2003 and countersigned by him and by his lawyer, he provided detailed information on his life and personal details, but refused to make any statement concerning the offence of which he was suspected.\n11.  In the evening of 29 January 2003 an ambulance team was called to provide the applicant with medical assistance for his cuts. Upon its arrival at 7:30 p.m., the team recorded that the applicant had two cuts on his body and a flushed red face (лицо гиперемировано), that he was conscious, had normal blood pressure (120/80), was breathing freely, and that his general state was satisfactory. Having provided the applicant with first aid for his wounds, the ambulance team left at 7:55 p.m.\n12.  On 30 January 2003 the applicant complained to the District Prosecutor’s Office of having been tortured by the police officers before and after having been brought to the police station. He noted, in particular, that the three police officers who had arrested him had severely beaten him all over his body, including in the groin area, notwithstanding that he was unable to resist his arrest in any event as he was suffering from two cuts sustained the previous day. Upon his arrival at the police station at about 3 p.m., several police officers had started torturing him with a view to extracting a confession from him. In particular, they had put plastic bags filled with cigarette smoke over his head, twisted his fingers, stepped on his hands with their feet, beaten him, punched him while pressing a book against his body and suspended him handcuffed face down between two desks. As a result, he had started to lose consciousness and had felt so unwell that an ambulance had to be called. However, according to the applicant, the ambulance team had not taken his complaints seriously and had omitted to record a number of injuries. Following the departure of the ambulance team, the applicant’s ill-treatment, according to him, continued until the morning of 30 January 2003.\n13.  At about 3:30 p.m. on 30 January 2003 the applicant was examined by a forensic expert who had been asked to assess his injuries, to comment on their timing and the manner in which they had been inflicted, and to assess whether they could have been inflicted by the applicant’s own hand. The expert noted in his report that the applicant had suffered two cuts and some twelve surface injuries (scratches, abrasions, bruises, etc.) on the face and other parts of his body. He further noted that the applicant’s injuries cumulatively qualified as “minor”, that they had been inflicted as a result of the impact ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8544", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1959, 1950 and 1952 respectively, and live in Brestovec Orehovički and Krapina respectively.\n6.  In 1990 I. Ku., the applicants’ predecessor, brought a civil action in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) against M.K., seeking his eviction from a flat and reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings.\n7.  In 2001, following the death of I. Ku, the applicants, as his heirs, took over the proceedings as plaintiffs, while M. K. also died in the course of proceedings and I. Kr. replaced him as defendant.\n8.  During the proceedings, I. Kr. brought a counterclaim against the applicants, seeking either a specially protected tenancy of the flat at issue or compensation for investments in the flat he had made in the amount of 95,000 Croatian kunas (HRK). The applicants also, in addition to I. Ku.’s civil action, requested the Zagreb Municipal Court to order I. Kr. to remove everything he had installed in the flat.\n9.  At the closing hearing before the Zagreb Municipal Court on 12 June 2007 the applicants reiterated all their arguments and requested reimbursement of the costs of proceedings. At the same hearing, the applicants submitted a written itemised claim for costs in the amount of HRK 14,786.40. At the same time, the defendant’s representative reiterated his arguments and requested reimbursement of the costs in the amount which he promised to specify later.\n10.  On the same day the Zagreb Municipal Court allowed the applicants’ action in part, ordering the eviction of I. Kr. from the flat, whereas it dismissed the remainder of their civil action, as well as I. Kr.’s counterclaim for compensation of the investments in the flat. As regards the costs of the proceedings, the Zagreb Municipal Court noted:\n“With regard to the costs of the proceedings, each party shall bear their own costs, as provided under section 154 § 2 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the plaintiff succeeded with part of [their] action while [they] were dismissed as regards the remainder, and the counterclaim was fully dismissed.”\n11.  On 10 October 2008, in a supplementary judgment, the Zagreb Municipal Court dismissed I. Kr.’s civil action for a specially protected tenancy.\n12.  Meanwhile, the parties challenged the first-instance judgment of the Zagreb Municipal Court of 12 June 2007 before the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu). The applicants argued that the first-instance court had incorrectly assessed the situation concerning their right to reimbursement of the costs of proceedings.\n13.  On 2 February 2010 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) dismissed the appeals and upheld the first-instance judgment. As regards the applicants’ arguments concerning the costs of proceedings, the Zagreb County Court noted:\n“... it is to be noted that [the applicants] correctly consider that they should be reimbursed the costs of the proceedings, since the part of their claim by which they sought the eviction [of I. Kr.] from the flat was successful. However, it is to be noted that the case file shows that they failed to comply with the requirement under section 164 § 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides that a party must set out his or her request for reimbursement of costs at the latest at the end of the closing hearing which precedes the decision on costs. At the hearing held on 12 June 2007, by which the proceedings terminated, [the applicants’] representative sought reimbursement of the costs of the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8545", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and, at the time of the most recent communication from the applicant, was detained in Odessa.\n6.  On an unspecified date in 2006 K. mentioned in a confession given whilst being questioned by the police that the applicant had participated in the murder of Z., a gang member, in 2002.\n7.  On 28 July 2006 the applicant was stopped on the motorway and arrested by police, who also seized his car.\n8.  According to the applicant, the reasons for his arrest were not clearly explained to him. Between 28 July and 1 August 2006 he was transferred to various police units and questioned.\n9.  On 30 July 2006 the police found explosives in the car which had been seized from the applicant upon his arrest.\n10.  On 1 August 2006 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of the illegal possession of explosives and the murder of Z., and an arrest report was drafted and countersigned by the applicant.\n11.  On 4 August 2006 the Kyivskiy District Court of Odessa (“the Kyivskiy Court”) remanded the applicant in custody for ten days pending collection of information concerning his person.\n12.  On 10 August 2006 the applicant was formally charged with possessing illegal explosives and taking part in the murder of Z., which had been committed by an organised gang in 2002.\n13.  On 11 August 2006 the Kyivskiy Court remanded the applicant in custody for two months, to be counted from 28 July 2006. The court noted that the gravity of the charges against the applicant constituted a sufficient basis for the fear that he would abscond or interfere with the investigation if released.\n14.  On the same day the court made a separate ruling drawing the attention of the Minister of the Interior to breaches of the applicant’s rights whilst effecting his arrest. It noted, in particular, that the applicant’s undocumented detention between 28 July and 1 August 2006 was unlawful. The court asked the Minister to investigate the incident. The case file does not show any follow-up.\n15.  The applicant, acting through his lawyer, appealed against the detention order. He submitted that he had good references from his employer, had a family including three children who were minors, and that he had been suffering from health problems.\n16.  On 17 August 2006 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (“the Odessa Court of Appeal”) rejected the applicant’s appeal. The court noted, in particular, that taking into account the gravity of the charges against the applicant, together with the fact that he resided in Crimea ‒ whereas the investigative authority was located in Odessa ‒ there was reason to fear that he might abscond or interfere with the investigation if released.\n17.  On 25 September 2006 the Odessa Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 28 February 2007, stating in general terms that the applicant might abscond, pressure witnesses or interfere with the investigation if released.\n18.  On 23 February 2007 the applicant, represented by his lawyer, lodged an objection against the investigative authority’s request to extend his detention. He reiterated that he had a permanent address, a family with three children who were minors, and that prior to his arrest he had been engaged in lawful business activity. He referred to the aggravation of his ulcers and stated that during the time he had been held in custody, no investigative action involving him had been initiated and no new evidence of his involvement in any ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8546", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Sisak.\n6.  In 1993 the applicant took up employment with the Sisak-Moslavina Police Department (Policijska uprava sisačko-moslavačka) as a police officer. On 1 January 1998 he was assigned to a post in the Dvor Police Station (Policijska postaja Dvor).\n7.  Dvor is a municipality that receives special State support as defined by the legislation in force at that time, namely the Act on Areas receiving Special State Support (Zakona o područjima posebne državne skrbi, Official Gazette, nos. 44/1996, 57/1996, 124/1997 and 73/2000; hereinafter: the “Special State Support Act”). Among other things, that Act guaranteed to those employed in the public sector in areas receiving special State support a special salary uplift, which in the case of the Dvor municipality amounted to 50% of the salaries received in other parts of the country.\n8.  The amendments to the Special State Support Act which entered into force on 29 July 2000 (Official Gazette no. 73/2000) guaranteed the right to a special salary bonus only to those public sector employees in areas receiving special State support who had both their registered domicile (prebivalište) and also actually resided (borave) in the area at issue.\n9.  In May 2001 the applicant was assigned to another post in the Sisak-Moslavina Police Department, with his place of work being Sisak.\n10.  On 29 September 2000 the applicant brought an action against the State in the Kutina Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Kutini), seeking payment of a salary bonus in accordance with the Special State Support Act.\n11.  Soon afterwards the Kutina Municipal Court decided that it was not competent to hear the case and transferred it to the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Hrvatskoj Kostajnici).\n12.  During the proceedings before the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court, the Sisak State Attorney’s Office (Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Sisku) ‒ representing the State ‒ objected to that court’s territorial jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant had his domicile and lived in Majur, which was also within an area receiving special State support but outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court. The Sisak State Attorney’s Office also submitted that the applicant had been receiving expenses for travel between Sisak and Dvor and that he was not entitled to the special salary bonus as provided under the Special State Support Act because Sisak was not an area receiving special State support.\n13.  The applicant replied to these submissions with the argument that during his tenure in Dvor he had had authorisation to use a police car, and that he had in fact lived in Majur, but since his house had not been fully reconstructed after the war, he had also spent some time in Sisak.\n14.  With regard to the contentious submissions of the parties, the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court heard evidence from the applicant, who pointed out that during his tenure in Dvor his registered domicile had been Majur, where he had actually resided ‒ some of the time in his own house and some of the time with his sister, since his house had needed reconstruction. He also explained that he had had authorisation to use a police car and had also been entitled to travel expenses, even though he had actually lived in Majur.\n15.  On 2 October 2003 the Hrvatska Kostajnica Municipal Court accepted the applicant’s civil action, ordering the State to pay compensation f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8549", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n(1)  Mr Salambek Ireziyev, who was born in 1959,\n(2)  Mr Imaddi Iriziyev (also spelled as Ireziyev), who was born in 1965,\n(3)  Mr Sidyk Ireziyev, who was born in 1967.\nThe first applicant lives in Grozny and the second and third applicants live in Avtury, the Chechen Republic.\n6.  The applicants are the brothers of Mr Aslan Ireziyev (also spelled as Iriziyev), who was born in 1975.\n7.  In May 2002 Mr Aslan Ireziyev lived with the second and third applicants and their families in two neighbouring houses in Avtury. At the material time Mr Khaseyn Suleymanov, the applicants’ nephew, was staying together with Mr Aslan Ireziyev. The settlement was under curfew. Checkpoints of the federal forces were functioning on the roads leading to and from Avtury.\n8.  At about 4 a.m. on 7 May 2002 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 7 May 2003) masked men in camouflage uniforms with machineguns and rubber truncheons arrived in two APCs and a UAZ car in the village. They split in two groups of up to ten persons and broke into the two houses. The men spoke unaccented Russian. They took Mr Aslan Ireziyev and Mr Khaseyn Suleymanov to the backyard, locking the remaining family members inside. Having checked their passports, the men pulled sacks over their heads and put them in one of the APCs.\n9.  At dawn the applicants, together with the head of the Avtury administration, followed the tracks left by the vehicles. They found that one of the APCs had entered the premises of the Avtury collective farm (совхоз Автуринский), where a Russian military base was located (for the description of the premises see, for example, Dovletukayev and Others v. Russia, nos. 7821/07, 10937/10, 14046/10 and 32782/10, § 25, 24 October 2013 and Gakayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 51534/08, 4401/10, 25518/10, 28779/10, 33175/10, 47393/10, 54753/10, 58131/10, 62207/10 and 73784/10, §§ 138 and 141, 10 October 2013), and the other one had driven in the direction of Shali. The servicemen and the head of the Shali administration denied seeing the vehicles.\n10.  On 13 May 2002 Mr Salambek Bisultanov, the deputy head of the Shali district department of fight against organised crime, informed the first applicant that Mr Aslan Ireziyev and Mr Khaseyn Suleymanov had been brought to the Main Federal Military Base in Khankala, and promised to arrange their release at 5 p.m. in Argun. At the specified time four camouflaged servicemen brought Mr Khaseyn Suleymanov in a UAZ car. They promised to set Mr Aslan Ireziyev free on the following day, which did not happen. Later Mr Bisultanov told the applicants that he had not managed to obtain Mr Aslan Ireziyev’s release.\n11.  According to Mr Khaseyn Suleymanov, after the arrest the men took him and Mr Aslan Ireziyev to the Avtury collective farm. There they were handed over to other men, put in a UAZ car and driven away, passing through several roadblocks. At a certain point the men stopped and placed him and Mr Aslan Ireziyev in a cellar. The men introduced themselves as officers of the Special Task Police Unit (the OMON) from St. Petersburg. They questioned them about involvement in illegal armed groups and beat them up.\n12.  Some time later the applicants learnt that during the night raid of 7 May 2002 the men had killed their neighbour, Mr Sultan Saykhadzhiyev.\n13.  The applicants have not seen Mr Aslan Ireziyev since his abduction on 7 May 2002.\n14.  The applicants’ description of the circumtances ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8551", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Dubrovnik.\n7.  On 18 February 2003 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Gornji Milanovac ordered V.T. (“the debtor”) to pay to the applicant 2,500 Euros (“EUR”) plus statutory interest on account of debt and 187,750 Serbian dinars (“RSD”), which was approximately EUR 3,028 at the time of the delivery of the judgment, for the costs of the civil proceedings.\n8.  On 23 August 2003 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Čačak, on appeal, reduced the award in respect of costs to RSD 97,250 (approximately EUR 1,568) and upheld the first-instance judgment for the remainder.\n9.  The judgment of 18 February 2003, as amended on 23 August 2003, became final on 5 September 2003.\n10.  On 23 October 2003, at the applicant’s request, the Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the judgment by seizure and sale of the debtor’s movable assets.\n11.  Following three failed attempts at seizure of the debtor’s movable assets, on 21 December 2004 the Municipal Court informed the applicant that the enforcement by seizure and sale of the judgment debtor’s property was impossible due to the debtor’s indigence.\n12.  On 13 July 2005 the Municipal Court terminated the enforcement proceedings. This decision was quashed on appeal on 24 October 2005 by the Municipal Court.\n13.  Following a further attempt at seizure of the debtor’s movable assets, on 11 October 2007 the Municipal Court stayed the enforcement proceedings (prekida se postupak izvršenja) because of the debtor’s death in the meantime.\n14.  On 3 June 2008 the applicant proposed that the enforcement proceedings be continued by seizure and sale of the deceased debtor’s movable and immovable estate. In support of his request, the applicant submitted a court decision of 2 October 2001 by which the debtor and two other persons had previously inherited a house with a plot of land. He also requested the court to appoint a temporary representative for the debtor’s heirs in accordance with Article 32 of the Enforcement Procedure Act. On 20 June 2008 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s request. This decision was quashed on appeal on 27 March 2009 by the Municipal Court.\n15.  On 16 April 2009 the Municipal Court invited the applicant to provide the names and the addresses of proposed debtors, indicate the debtor’s heirs, propose the means of enforcement and details and proof of ownership concerning immovable assets, all within three days, failing which his request would be rejected. It was further specified that no appeal was allowed against this decision. In the reasoning, the court found that the names and the addresses of the debtor’s potential heirs were available from the decision of 2 October 2001, and that therefore, there was no need for the appointment of a temporary representative. On 8 June 2009, however, the Municipal Court instructed the applicant to advance the costs for a temporary representative within eight days. It was also specified that no appeal was allowed against this decision.\n16.  On 27 August 2009 the Municipal Court rejected the applicant’s request for continuation of the enforcement proceedings because of his failure to abide by the orders of 16 April and 8 June 2009. This decision was upheld on appeal on 13 October 2009.\n17.  According to the Government, there are eight heirs of the deceased debtor, the names and addresses of which have been known.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8552", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Seliște.\n6.  On 28 November 2012 the applicant was arrested by the police at his home and charged with child trafficking. He was accused of recruiting and travelling with four minors aged from 14 to 17 to Ukraine, where the children did agricultural work.\n7.  On 30 November 2012 the prosecutor applied to the Centru District Court for a warrant for the applicant’s detention in custody. The reasons relied upon by the prosecutor were that the applicant could abscond from prosecution, interfere with the criminal investigation and reoffend.\n8.  On the same day the Centru District Court issued an arrest warrant for thirty days’ custody. In court the applicant argued that the allegations made by the prosecutor were not supported by any facts and that no evidence had been submitted by the prosecutor. According to the verbatim record, he explicitly asked for access to the supporting evidence attached to the prosecutor’s request for detention, but was refused. He also submitted medical records which stated that he had two broken ribs and was suffering from post-traumatic pneumonia (see paragraph 17 below); he argued that his state of health required treatment in hospital. The court heard Doctor A., who confirmed the applicant’s assessment of his state of health and that it required hospitalisation because the treatment was difficult and lengthy. The prosecutor and the court accepted the medical records as evidence. The court accepted that the applicant’s state of health required medical treatment, but concluded that such care could also be provided at home. The applicant asked to be released on bail, in response to which the court cited the legal provisions which entitled it to remand in custody a person at risk of absconding and of reoffending. The court concluded that the applicant presented such a risk because he was charged with an exceptionally serious offence.\n9.  The applicant appealed and argued, inter alia, that the detention order was unlawful under Article 177 (11) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because it lacked reasoning referring to the specific case, and because the court had relied only on suppositions and had ignored the proposed non-custodial alternative. The applicant relied on the provisions of Article 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that, contrary to those provisions, the court had refused to provide his representative with any of the contents of the file other than the prosecutor’s request, and did not generally examine such material. He also argued that his state of health required medical treatment which he had not received in custody.\n10.  On 6 December 2012 the Chișinău Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, relying on the same reasons as the lower court. The court did not reply to any of the contentions made by the applicant in his appeal.\n11.  On 26 December 2012 the Centru District Court extended the applicant’s detention by thirty days for the same reasons as before. The court dismissed the applicant’s allegations about his health as unsubstantiated, and referred to the previously submitted medical records (see paragraph 8 above) as “some copies of some documents” which could not be accepted as evidence because they did not comply with Article 94 (1) p.6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (they originated from a source unverifiable in court). The court concluded that Prison no. 13 and the Prisons Department in general had special divisions fo", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8553", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Arundel.\n5.  In 2006 he was convicted of assault occasioning grievous bodily harm. He had a previous conviction for a similar offence against the same victim. A pre-sentencing report identified the Enhanced Thinking Skills (“ETS”) course followed by the Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage It (“CALM”) course as potentially appropriate courses for the applicant to complete during a sentence of imprisonment and explained that attendance at these courses would take around two years. On 23 November 2006 an indeterminate sentence for public protection (“IPP sentence”) was imposed. A minimum term (“tariff”) of fourteen months and twelve days was fixed.\n6.  The applicant was detained in HMP Lewes. On 20 March 2007 a post‑sentence report by his probation officers confirmed that the ETS and CALM courses were, in principle, appropriate and that completion would take around two years. At a sentence planning board on 31 October 2007, following completion of an assessment using the Offender Assessment System (“OASys”), his targets were identified as: positive use of his time in custody; improved awareness of appropriate behaviour (thinking skills); and completion of a course on Victim Awareness, the latter of which, it was noted, had already been completed.\n7.  A progress report dated 20 December 2007 noted:\n“Mr Hall has taken the only opportunities offered to him to address his offending and appears to have modified his attitude, which was a big step for him.”\n8.  On 4 February 2008 the applicant’s tariff expired.\n9.  On 15 February 2008 a first Parole Board Review was held. On 21 February 2008 the Parole Board informed the applicant of its decision not to direct his release or recommend his transfer to open conditions. The panel considered that the applicant still posed a high risk to his victim, particularly as the victim had been also been detained in HMP Lewes and the applicant had received an adjudication for assaulting him. In order to address this risk, the applicant was required to complete the ETS course and to be assessed for the CALM course, in closed conditions. The panel continued:\n“Your supervisors considered that you should be assessed for ETS and Anger Management, but this has not been possible at HMP Lewes, where you are considered to be a polite and respectful Enhanced Prisoner.”\n10.  The Parole Board referred to the applicant’s submission that he would control himself and avoid the victim in future and that he was prepared to respect non-contact and exclusion zone conditions to secure his release. It concluded:\n“The Panel accepts without reservation, that your high level of risk relates solely to your involvement with [the victim], but this is a risk which cannot be ignored, despite your determination to avoid him. Any such involvement is a real concern and cannot be ignored. It is the view of the Panel, having taken into account the varying views of your supervisors, that prior to your release you should have the opportunity to carry out all outstanding offending behavior work, namely ETS and to be assessed for CALM, and that the appropriate place for this to be done, is in Closed Conditions.”\n11.  On 5 March 2008 the Secretary of State approved the Parole Board’s recommendation and set the review period at eighteen months to complete outstanding offender behaviour work, with a hearing to take place in August 2009.\n12.  On 16 April 2008 the applicant was transferred to HMP Erle", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8554", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Rome.\n7.  The twenty-seventh G8 Summit took place in Genoa on 19, 20 and 21 July 2001 under the chairmanship of Italy.\n8.  In the run-up to the Summit a large number of non-governmental organisations had set up a coordinating group known as the Genoa Social Forum (“GSF”) with a view to organising an “anti-globalisation” Summit in Genoa during the same dates (see Final Report of the Parliamentary inquiry into the events during the Genoa G8 Summit (see “Final Rapport of the Parliamentary Inquiry”), pp. 7-18).\n9.  Since the meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Seattle in November 1999, such demonstrations by the “anti-globalisation” movement have been organised during inter-State summits and meetings of international institutions on different aspects of global governance. They have sometimes been accompanied by acts of vandalism and clashes with the police (ibid.).\n10.  Law No. 349 of 8 June 2000 (“Law No. 349/2000”) had assigned the task of organising the preliminary meetings and the Final Summit of the Heads of State and Government scheduled for July 2001 to a plenipotentiary body set up within the Prime Minister’s Office. Several meetings were attended by representatives of the GSF, the Head of the plenipotentiary body, the Prefect of Genoa, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and local authority representatives (see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry, pp. 18-21).\n11.  Substantial security measures were put in place by the Italian authorities (see Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, § 12, ECHR 2011). Under section 4(1) of Law no. 149 of 8 June 2000, the prefect of Genoa was authorised to deploy military personnel. In addition, the part of the city where the G8 were meeting (the historic centre) was designated as a “red zone” and cordoned off by means of a metal fence. As a result, only residents and persons working in the area were allowed access. Access to the port was prohibited and the airport was closed to traffic. The red zone was contained within a yellow zone, which in turn was surrounded by a white (normal) zone.\n12.  According to the information garnered by the Genoa police department up to July 2001 (see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry, p. 23), the various groups expected to take part in the demonstrations were broken down into various blocs depending on the danger they posed: the non-dangerous  “Pink Bloc”; the “Yellow Bloc” and the “Blue Bloc”, which were deemed to comprise persons likely to vandalise property, set up street and railway blockades and cause confrontations with the police; and lastly, the “Black Bloc”, which embraced several anarchist groups and more broadly, demonstrators dressed in black and wearing masks and balaclavas who had systematically wreaked havoc during other summits.\n13.  On 19 July 2001 two demonstrations took place during the day without incident. Disorder occurred during the evening (see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry, p. 25).\n14.  On 20 July several demonstrations had been announced for various areas of the city, and rallies were scheduled for specific squares (“piazze tematiche”) (see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry, pp. 25-27).\n15.  On the morning of 20 July the Black Bloc sparked numerous incidents and clashes with law-enforcement officers, and ransacked banks and supermarkets (see Giuliani and Gaggio, cited above, § 17). Marassi Prison was attacked and a numbe", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8555", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Paris.\n6.  She has been living with her daughter and brother in a flat in the Paris area since 2003. By a decision of 12 February 2010, served on 12 March 2010, the Paris mediation commission, finding that the applicant and her relatives were housed in indecent and insalubrious conditions, earmarked their case as a priority for urgent rehousing.\n7.  As she had not received any offer of accommodation taking account of her needs and capacities six months after the date of that decision, the applicant lodged an application with the Paris Administrative Court seeking an order for the State to provide her with housing, on pain of a fine.\n8.  On 28 December 2010 the Administrative Court upheld her application and instructed the prefect of the Île-de-France region to rehouse the applicant, her daughter and her brother, on pain of a fine of 700 euros (EUR), payable to the urban development fund for the Île-de-France region, for each month’s delay from 1 February 2011 onwards. The Administrative Court found as follows:\n “It emerges from the investigation that a safety architect employed by the Paris Police Commissioner’s Office noted on 9 July 2009 that the kitchen ceiling in the flat occupied by [the applicant], her daughter and her brother was in a dangerous state as it was unstable and weak. Her request should therefore be granted as a matter of particular urgency.”\n9.  On 31 January 2012, as the applicant had still not been rehoused, the Administrative Court assessed the interim amount of the fine for the period from 1 February 2011 to 31 January 2012 and ordered the State to pay EUR 8,400 into the urban development fund for the Île-de-France region.\n10.  As matters stand, the applicant and her family have still not been rehoused.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8557", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953.\n6.  By judgment of 16 January 2006 the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal, composed of three judges and adjudicating as a court of first instance, convicted the applicant of fraud and forgery to the detriment of a bank and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The applicant, who was being detained in Korydallos Prison at the time, appeared in person, assisted by a lawyer of his own choosing, N.G.\n7.  At the hearing held on 11 February 2009 before the Criminal Court of Appeal, composed of five judges, the applicant, who had meanwhile been transferred to Grevena Prison, appeared in person, assisted by two lawyers of his choosing, N.T. and E.P. The hearing was adjourned and scheduled to resume the next day. On 12 May 2009 the proceedings were once again adjourned, owing to a lawyers’ strike, until 20 May 2009. Before the end of the 12 May 2009 hearing the court informed the applicant that he would not be summoned to appear at the hearing on 20 May 2009.\n8.  Before the hearing on 20 May 2009 the applicant informed the court in writing that he would not be present but would be represented by his lawyers. However, neither of the lawyers whom the applicant had appointed on 11 February 2009 attended the hearing in question. The court then concluded that at the 12 February 2009 hearing the applicant had voiced a wish for a ruling on his appeal; it appointed G.M. official counsel for the applicant and adjourned the 27 May 2009 hearing so that the latter could familiarise himself with the case file. At the hearing G.M. submitted to the court that the offences with which the applicant had been charged were petty rather than serious offences, which plea had also been raised and dismissed at first instance. He also invited the court to take account of mitigating circumstances in respect of the applicant.\n9.  On 27 May 2009 the Criminal Court of Appeal reduced the applicant’s sentence to seven years’ imprisonment for the same offences. It dismissed the allegations that the offences came under tort law and ruled that they should be classified as criminal offences because the conditions set out in Act No. 1608/1950 on “increasing sentences imposed on persons found guilty of embezzling public funds” were fulfilled in the instant case. However, it acknowledged the existence of mitigating circumstances.\n10.  On 1 June 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law complaining of the erroneous application of the relevant legislation, in particular Act no. 1608/50. Relying on the case-law of the Court of Cassation, he submitted that the offences with which he had been charged fell under tort law and not under criminal law, and had become statute-barred by the date on which he had stood trial. He also complained of a violation of Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention. The applicant had prepared his appeal on points of law himself (albeit, evidently, with the assistance of a lawyer), lodging it with the Court of Cassation through the intermediary of the Grevena Prison authorities. On 5 November 2009, in Grevena prison, the applicant received a summons to appear at the 5 February 2010 hearing before the Court of Cassation.\n11.  On 30 December 2009 the applicant asked the President of the Court of Cassation to appoint an official lawyer to represent him before that court.\n12.  On 2 January 2010 the President of the Court of Cassation, noting the applicant’s situation of financial hardship, appointed F.K. to represent him", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8558", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant was born in 1973 and was detained in London at the time he lodged his application.\n10.  On 9 October 2009 the Public Prosecutor ordered an investigation against the applicant on charges of rape and indecent assault on a girl under the age of sixteen, with the aggravating circumstance that the perpetrator held a position of authority over her.\n11.  On 4 December 2009 the applicant was arrested in the United Kingdom under a European Arrest Warrant. The Government indicated that the applicant was presented with the European arrest warrant, which contained a statement in English of the facts and of the nature of the offences with which he was charged. The applicant submitted that he had been placed in “detention pending extradition” in a British prison, and that it did not transpire from the criminal file that the European arrest warrant had been served on him at that precise time.\n12.  On 17 December 2009 the applicant was surrendered to the Luxembourg authorities. At 2.45 p.m. he was officially served with the European arrest warrant on his arrival at Luxembourg airport, and at 3.20 p.m. he was questioned at the police station in the presence of an interpreter. It transpires from the police report of 17 December 2009 that “[the applicant] initially refused to make any statement. With repeated reference to British legislation, he claimed his right to legal assistance. After having received the requisite explanations regarding the procedure to be followed in cases such as his, he agreed to take part in the questioning”. The applicant was informed of the victim’s statements and the suspicions against him, and was questioned on the facts. He stated his version of events and contested all the charges against him, denying any guilt. At the end of the interrogation he requested legal assistance for the following day’s interrogation before the investigating judge. At 7.15 p.m. he was transferred to Luxembourg Prison.\n13.  On the morning of 18 December 2009 he was questioned by the investigating judge in the presence of an interpreter. In that connection, the minutes of the interrogation read as follows: at 9.02 a.m. the investigating judge checked the identity of the applicant – who now held accused (Beschuldigter) status – and informed him that a criminal investigation (Untersuchungsverfahren) had been initiated against him concerning the offences with which he had been charged. The applicant was then informed of his right to choose a defence lawyer from among the members of the Bar Association or to obtain the assistance of an officially appointed lawyer. The applicant availed himself of that right, and was assigned Mr W. as his officially appointed lawyer. The applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer and an interpreter; he made statements on the facts and confirmed his statements to the police. The interrogation ended at 10.53 a.m.\n14.  It transpires from the case file that the applicant, who had been remanded in custody, was released on 10 March 2010 by the Luxembourg District Court subject to his remaining in Luxembourg, reporting regularly to the police and refraining from contacting his victim.\n15.  By a judgment of 31 March 2011 the criminal division of the District Court sentenced the applicant to a seven-year prison term accompanied by a three-year partial probation period. The judges reiterated the statements from the victim, the witnesses and the applicant during the judicial and police investigations a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8560", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Băcioi.\n5.  The applicant is a police officer and on 21 July 2004 the Centru District Court delivered a judgment obliging the Chișinău municipality to provide him and his family with social housing. This judgment was upheld by the Chișinău Court of Appeal on 19 October 2004 and became final on 4 November 2004. Enforcement proceedings were instituted on 11 May 2005.\n6.  After the communication of the present case to the Government, on 2 August 2011, the applicant initiated court proceedings under Law no. 87 (see paragraph 12 below) seeking enforcement of the final judgment in his favour and compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 10,000 euros (EUR), for pecuniary damage in the amount of 129,700 Moldovan lei (MDL) (equivalent to EUR 7,886) (MDL 123,200 of which represented the rent he had paid from September 2004 to December 2011 for alternative accommodation and MDL 6,500 of which represented costs and expenses before the Court), and MDL 3,950 (EUR 240) as costs and expenses in domestic proceedings. In support of his claims in respect of pecuniary damage, the applicant submitted four lease contracts, each of them concluded for periods of less than three years.\n7.  In court, the Ministry of Finance disputed the validity of the lease contracts, arguing that they were fictitious because the landlady and the applicant were relatives, because the landlady had not applied for commercial registration (patenta de intreprinzator) to earn profits from lease, and because the contracts had not been registered with the tax authorities until 2011 and had never been registered in the land register.\n8.  On 30 November 2011 the Rîșcani District Court acknowledged that there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention resulting from the non‑enforcement of the final judgment in his favour for over seven years. The court dismissed the arguments of the Ministry of Finance, holding that the lease contracts had been concluded for periods of less than three years and were therefore not subject to mandatory registration in the land register. The court also took the view that the landlady’s failure to register promptly her lease profits and her commercial activity had resulted in penalties and taxes ‒ which had been paid ‒ but that this failure was anyway not imputable to the applicant and did not affect the validity of the contracts. The court awarded the applicant MDL 112,000 (equivalent to EUR 7,050) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and granted his claims in respect of pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses in full. The Ministry of Finance appealed.\n9.  On 29 February 2012 the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, quashed the first-instance judgment and delivered a new judgment, acknowledging a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 6 of the Convention resulting from the non-enforcement of a final judgment for a period of 78 months (from 11 May 2005 to 30 November 2011). The court awarded the applicant MDL 36,000 (equivalent to EUR 2,270) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and MDL 8,965 (EUR 565) for costs and expenses. The court dismissed the applicant’s claims in respect of pecuniary damage as unsubstantiated, arguing that the lease contracts had been ineffective vis à vis the State on the grounds cited by the Ministry of Finance (see paragraph 7 above) and cited Article 876 of the Civ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8563", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are German nationals born in 1979 and 1978 respectively. They are currently serving prison sentences in Germany, following their conviction by the Romanian authorities for drug trafficking, as described below.\n6.  At the time of the impugned events, S.R.B., one of the applicants’ acquaintances, was in police custody accused of drug-related offences. In the context of a covert operation, S.R.B. agreed to contact the applicants by phone in order to arrange a drug transaction. It appears that following several phone conversations between S.R.B. and the first applicant, the latter agreed to deliver 5,000 Ecstasy pills to Romania.\n7.  On 9 November 2007 the prosecutor in charge of investigating S.R.B.’s case issued an order (ordonanta) in which he authorised the intervention of three undercover agents, namely D.D., N.A. and L.C., who were mandated to purchase 6,000 Ecstasy pills with the assistance of S.R.B. The justification given for such an intervention was that, based on S.R.B.’s statements, there existed a strong indication that individuals as yet unknown to the police intended to commit the offence of drug trafficking. The undercover agents were necessary in the operation because the individuals in question “belonged to a drug-dealing network which acted very cautiously, taking a lot of precautions in their activities and relying exclusively on highly trustworthy persons”.\nOn the same date, the prosecutor authorised the undercover agents N.A. and L.C. to be provided with 35,000 euros (EUR), to be taken from the special funds of the police, with the purpose of using it to purchase the drugs.\n8.  On the night of 9 to 10 November 2007 the applicants entered Romania and met S.R.B. in a petrol station in Timişoara. Subsequently, they requested to be directed to a mechanical workshop, where they asked to be left alone. S.R.B. was asked to wait for their phone call before returning to the garage with the money for the drugs.\n9.  The applicants’ activity of removing the drugs from hidden compartments under the front passenger seat of the vehicle was video recorded by the investigators, based on an authorisation issued by the court on 25 October 2007.\nAfter more than an hour, the applicants called S.R.B. to return to the garage together with the buyers, who were the undercover agents. One of them, N.A., handed over EUR 35,000, and the second applicant verified the authenticity of some of the bank notes with a special pencil.\nAt the same time, the applicants presented the drugs, packed in zip-locked plastic bags, to the undercover agents. The investigators then intervened in order to ensure that the applicants were caught in flagrante delicto.\n10.  On the same day the applicants were placed in custody in the detention facility of the Timiş police station, in connection with drug-trafficking charges.\n11.  In his statement given before the prosecutor on 10 November 2007, the first applicant declared that he and the second applicant had come to Romania for personal reasons, namely to visit relatives. He claimed that they had intended to spend the night at the home of S.R.B., a friend of theirs, and that they had no knowledge of the content of the plastic bags found in the garage.\nThe second applicant refused to give any statements, claiming that he was overwhelmed by the situation.\nOn 5 December 2007 the first applicant specified before the prosecutor that when they had been in the garage, the two individuals who had entered with", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8564", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in L’Aquila.\n5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n6.  The applicant was the owner of a plot of land designated as industrial land in L’Aquila. The land in issue – of a surface area of 10,059 square metres – was recorded in the land register as Folio no. 4, Parcel no. 222.\n7.  In 1989, the regional administrative authorities granted the Consortium for the industrial development of L’Aquila (“Consorzio per il nucleo di sviluppo industriale di L’Aquila”, hereinafter “the Consortium”) permission to occupy a portion of the applicant’s land in order to begin the construction of an industrial compound.\n8.  On an unspecified date, the applicant brought an action for damages in the L’Aquila District Court against the regional administrative authorities seeking compensation for the remaining portion of land which had become unusable following the occupation.\n9.  On 9 April 1991 the regional administrative authorities issued an expropriation order in respect of the land.\n10.  Pursuant to the order, the consortium offered the applicant a global sum of 106.400.000 Italian lire (ITL) (equivalent to EUR 55,000) as compensation for the expropriation and compensation for the period during which the land had been occupied before the expropriation order had been issued.\n11.  The offer was refused by the applicant on the ground that he considered it inadequate.\n12.  On 9 May 1991, contesting the amount that he had been awarded, the applicant brought proceedings against the Consortium in the L’Aquila Court of Appeal. He argued that the amount determined by the regional authorities was extremely low in relation to the market value of the land.\n13.  On 14 August 1992 Law no. 359 of 8 August 1992 came into force (“Urgent measures aimed at stabilising public finances”). Article 5 bis of the Law laid down new criteria for calculating compensation for the expropriation of building land. The Law was expressly applicable to pending proceedings.\n14.  On 3 November 1993, the applicant accepted the consortium’s offer and requested the termination of the proceedings (“cessazione della materia del contendere”).\n15.  By a provisional judgment delivered on 22 November 1994, the Court of Appeal acknowledged the entry into force of Law no. 359 of 8 August 1992 and held that the amount of the compensation for the expropriation had to be in accordance with the new criteria laid down in the legislation’s Article 5bis. The court therefore rejected the applicant’s request to terminate the proceedings, appointed an expert and instructed him to assess the compensation for the expropriation according to the new criteria.\n16.  On an unspecified date, the expert submitted his report.\n17.  By a judgment delivered on 23 July 2002 and filed with the court registry on 1 August 2002, the Court of Appeal held that the applicant was entitled to compensation in the sum of EUR 77,556.40, as calculated according to the criteria laid down in Law no. 359 of 1992. Moreover, the Court of Appeal held that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the period during which the land had been occupied before the expropriation order had been issued, in the sum of EUR 12 778,37. The amounts were subject to tax, deducted at the source at a rate of 20%.\n18.  On an unspecified date the consortium appealed on points of law.\n19.  By a judgment delivered on 21 November 2006 and filed with the court registry on 8 J", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8566", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Ms Kisa Abdul-Kadirovna Mezhiyeva, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Grozny.\n6.  The applicant lived with her husband, Mr Mauda Mezhiyev, in Grozny. In 1999 they temporarily left Chechnya for Ingushetia, but returned in 2000. Her husband was a bus driver. When they returned to Chechnya he resumed his work. The applicant worked as a conductor on the same bus. Usually they worked for two weeks and then had two weeks off.\n7.  In March 2001 the applicant’s husband’s employer asked him to work for the two weeks which were supposed to be rest weeks, because the bus station did not have enough buses. He was asked to use his own bus, which was in good condition. The applicant’s husband agreed.\n8.  The applicant and her husband worked on route no. 7, which connected the Grozny bus station with Altayskaya Street. It went along Lenin Street and Pobeda Prospekt, which were connected by a bridge over the river Sunzha in the centre of Grozny. The bridge was controlled by, and observed from, two checkpoints of the Russian federal forces.\n9.  According to the applicant, in 2001 Russian engineer units checked the main streets of Grozny every morning for explosive devices that might have been installed by rebel fighters. Lenin Street and Pobeda Prospekt were also checked regularly.\n10.  In the morning of 6 March 2001 the applicant was working with her husband on route no. 7. When they approached the bridge, it appeared that it had been closed by Russian servicemen. They had therefore to cross another bridge, in Krasnykh Frontovikov Street. They finished the first trip on route no. 7 between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. The applicant enclosed statements by four witnesses, bus drivers G.Sh., U. M. and V.M., and conductor K.M., corroborating that the bridge between Lenin Street and Pobeda Prospekt had been closed by the military that morning, before the explosion. According to the Government, the closure of the bridge in Lenin Street was evidence that an inspection was being carried out, because it was a strategically important area and took a long time to be checked.\n11.  In the afternoon the applicant and her husband made another trip on route no. 7 from Altayskaya Street to Grozny bus station. At about 13-14 minutes to 3 p.m., after they had stopped at the central market and had gone further towards the bus station, they saw another no. 7 bus, operated by driver Sh., crossing the bridge. It was followed by buses nos. 1 and 18 and a convoy of military vehicles. The convoy was headed by a tank, which was followed by three or four Ural vehicles and an armoured personnel carrier (hereinafter “the APC”). The convoy went straight on, but the APC turned left near the bridge and stopped.\n12.  When the applicant and her husband saw that the bridge was open, they decided not to make a detour into Krasnykh Frontovikov Street, but to drive across the bridge. They approached the bridge two or three minutes after the military convoy had passed through.\n13.  Before crossing the bridge bus drivers always had to register at the checkpoint and pay a fee of ten Russian roubles (RUB). At the checkpoint the applicant’s husband stopped the bus, which had some twenty passengers on board, and got out to register and pay the fee. However, the soldier at the checkpoint neither checked his documents nor took the money for the fee, but told the applicant’s husband to move forward quickly.\n14.  When the applicant’s husband’s bus moved towards the brid", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8567", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1994 and currently resides in Moscow.\n7.  The applicant is a Kyrgyz national of Uzbek ethnic origin. He lived in the village of Osh in Kyrgyzstan together with his parents and sister. All of his relatives are Uzbek. After the mass disorder and inter-ethnic clashes that took place in the region in June 2010, he left Kyrgyzstan for Russia to study at a college. It appears that his next-of-kin remain in the country.\n8.  According to the applicant, he has lived in Russia since September 2010.\n9.  On 3 February 2011 the Kyrgyz authorities charged the applicant in absentia with violent crimes committed in June 2010, namely, participation in mass rioting, kidnapping, destruction of property and damage to property.\n10.  On 4 February 2011 the applicant was put on a wanted list.\n11.  On 25 January 2013 the applicant was arrested in Russia. The Kyrgyz authorities confirmed their intention to seek his extradition.\n12.  On 20 February 2013 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan sent his Russian counterpart a letter containing assurances that the applicant would benefit from legal assistance, and would not be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. He further asserted that the extradition request was related to ordinary criminal offences and was not aimed at persecuting the applicant on religious or political grounds, or grounds relating to his nationality.\n13.  On 22 April 2013 the applicant’s lawyer submitted to the Prosecutor General of Russia a letter referring to reports of international organisations and the Court’s case-law evidencing that there was a high risk that the applicant would be subjected to inhuman treatment if he were extradited.\n14.  On 3 May and 23 July 2013 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan supplemented the extradition request with an assurance that following the applicant’s extradition, Russian diplomatic staff would be given an opportunity to visit him in the detention facility.\n15.  On 13 August 2013 the Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia granted the extradition request and ordered the applicant’s extradition. He held that there were no grounds in Russian or international law for refusing to extradite the applicant. The applicant challenged that decision before the courts.\n16.  On 9 September 2013 the Moscow City Court upheld the extradition order, finding as follows:\n“The court has not established any circumstances which, under paragraph 1 of Article 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia, would exclude the possibility of extraditing an individual residing on Russian territory to a foreign state ...\n... judicial review proceedings in respect of the local migration authority’s refusal to grant refugee status do not impede the decision-making process in respect of the extradition order ...\nThe court takes into account the arguments of the defence with regard to information contained in reports of international organisations, judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, and other documents ... relating to the situation in the Republic of Kyrgyzstan, including deficiencies relating to the investigation of crimes and the conduct of judicial proceedings. However, this information cannot be regarded as sufficient grounds for refusing to extradite an Uzbek who was involved in the events that took place in Kyrgyzstan in June 2010 and has been charged with a criminal offence.\nThe Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Russia stated that it had no information which coul", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8568", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Poltava.\n5.  The applicant is a private entrepreneur in the food supply sector.\n6.  Since November 2009 the Poltava Regional Police Department has been investigating a number of apparent offences related to forgery of food quality certificates and supply of overpriced foodstuffs for school catering in the city of Poltava. As part of this investigation the police ran checks on the applicant’s business and questioned his associates and family members.\n7.  On 3 November 2010 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in the context of an investigation of unlawful food supply price increases.\n8.  On 5 November 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of a financial offence. A record of his arrest was drawn up between 2.45 and 3.30 p.m. on that day.\n9.  On 8 November 2010 the applicant was taken to the Poltava Oktyabrsky District Court (hereinafter “the District Court”), which remanded him in custody for up to ten days under Article 165-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 19 below) without giving any specific reasons for this decision. According to the applicant, the hearing started at 2.55 p.m. and the decision was taken only at 4 p.m., when the maximum period of detention without a court decision (seventy-two hours) permitted under domestic law had expired. The applicant’s lawyer lodged a formal complaint with the judge about unlawful arrest and detention. That complaint was not examined that day.\n10.  On the same day the police instituted two more sets of proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of other counts of the same crime.\n11.  On 9 November 2010 the applicant’s lawyer submitted to the court a further complaint about unlawful detention, in addition to the one he had submitted on the date of the hearing (see paragraph 9 above).\n12.  On 15 November 2010 the District Court remanded the applicant in custody with no maximum duration and on the basis of standard reasoning, referring to gravity of charges, risk of interference with investigation, and personal characteristics without any further explanation. In a separate ruling it rejected the applicant’s lawyer’s complaint (see paragraph 9 above) that from 2.45 p.m. onwards on 8 November 2010 his detention had been unlawful. It noted “Documents [attached] to the application [for a warrant for the applicant’s arrest] refute the allegations regarding the detention of [Mr] Gal O.A. in terms that are not provided by law.”\n13.  On 23 November 2010 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court. In reply to the lawyer’s complaint about the failure to release the applicant after seventy-two hours of initial detention without a court order, the appellate court noted that on 8 November 2010 the applicant’s detention had been extended for up to ten days.\n14.  On 29 December 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention for up to three months, i.e. until 5 February 2011, on the grounds that the applicant might avoid justice, obstruct the investigation and continue his criminal activities, and that it was necessary to ensure the implementation of procedural decisions.\n15.  On 18 January 2011 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first-instance court.\n16.  On 3 February 2011 the criminal case against the applicant was referred to the court and was received by that court on 4 February 2011. Twenty days later the prosec", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8569", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1972, 1949 and 1950 respectively. The first applicant lives in Sydney, Australia and the second and third applicants live in Skopje.\n7.  On 19 September 2008 the first applicant married Mrs J.S.M. in Skopje. They went to Australia, where on 30 August 2010 Mrs J.S.M. gave birth to their daughter, M.M. Relations between the first applicant and Mrs J.S.M. became strained, and on an unspecified date in 2011 Mrs J.S.M. and M.M. came back to the respondent State. In November 2011 the first applicant took eleven months’ unpaid leave from work in Australia and went to the respondent State to stay with his daughter.\n8.  On 10 October 2011 Mrs J.S.M. brought a civil claim before the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) seeking the dissolution of her marriage with the first applicant.\n9.  On 13 October 2011, at the request of the first-instance court, the Centre initiated proceedings regarding the parental rights of the first applicant and Mrs J.S.M.\n10.  On 6 December 2011 the first applicant requested that the Centre establish his specific rights in respect of contact with his daughter. On 3 January 2012 the Centre gave interim custody of the child to Mrs J.S.M. and set out the first applicant’s contact rights regarding M.M. (one hour twice a month in the Centre under supervision by professionals). Mrs J.S.M. was ordered to bring the child to the Centre. The decision further stated that it would be valid until the final conclusion of the civil proceedings regarding the dissolution of the marriage. It further provided that an appeal would not suspend its enforcement. On 8 April 2012 the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (“the Ministry”) quashed this decision and ordered the Centre to reconsider the facts of the case, taking into consideration the interests of the child. Before that date the first applicant saw his daughter on only one occasion (13 January 2012).\n11.  On 16 May 2012 the first-instance court dissolved the marriage between the first applicant and Mrs J.S.M. It granted custody of the child to the mother, ordered the first applicant to pay child maintenance, and established that he would have continuing contact with his daughter as decided by the Centre. This decision became final on 25 December 2012.\n12.  In the meantime, on 10 May 2012, the first applicant made a new application to the Centre for a contact order in respect of M.M. On 4 July 2012 the Centre set out that the first applicant could meet with his daughter four times a month at intervals specified in the decision. It no longer specified supervised meetings in the Centre and ordered his ex-wife to comply with the decision. The decision again stated that an appeal would not suspend its enforcement. On 1 October 2012 the Ministry dismissed an appeal by Mrs J.S.M.\n13.  On 8 October 2012 the first applicant informed the Centre that he was going back to Australia. On 22 October 2012 the Centre set aside its decision of 4 July 2012 and stated, inter alia, that:\n“[The first applicant], despite the decision (of 4 July 2012), did not see his minor child at any of the scheduled meetings set up in accordance with the decision dated 4 July 2012.”\n14.  This decision was served on the first applicant on 29 October 2012.\n15.  In April 2013 the first applicant informed the Centre that he would be staying in the respondent State between 16 May and 2 September 2013. In this connection, on 23 April 2013 he requested that the Centre se", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8571", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1970 and 1973 respectively and live in Pirita.\n6.  The present case concerns the circumstances surrounding the killing of the applicants’ 18-year-old son, Vadim Pisari, by a Russian soldier, V.K., at a peacekeeping security checkpoint located on the territory of Moldova following the Transdniestrian armed conflict.\n7.  The facts concerning the historical background of the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-92 and the subsequent events, are set out in Ilaşcu, Ivanţoc, Leşco and Petrov-Popa v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-183, ECHR 2004‑VII), and in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012).\n8.  Vadim Pisari lived in Pirita, a village located on the left bank of the Dniester River but controlled by the Moldovan Constitutional Authorities. Early in the morning of 1 January 2012, after an all-night New Year’s Eve party with his friends at which alcoholic drinks were consumed, Vadim Pisari, accompanied by a friend “passenger”, took a car belonging to another friend of theirs for a joy ride. Since the car needed urgent refuelling, they decided to drive to a petrol station located on the right bank of the Dniester River in the town of Vadul lui Vodă. They were stopped at the exit from their village by a police patrol and Vadim Pisari was asked to open the boot of his car. The two young people were then allowed to continue on their way. In order to reach the petrol station they needed to cross a bridge over the Dniester River located approximately one kilometre from their village. Peacekeeping security checkpoints were located at both ends of the bridge (“the left checkpoint” and “the right checkpoint”).\n9.  The checkpoints were controlled by peacekeeping military forces belonging to the Russian Federation, the Republic of Moldova and the self‑proclaimed Republic of Transdniestria. At the time of the events, each checkpoint was manned by eight soldiers of whom four were Russians, two Moldovans and two Transdniestrians. The command of the left checkpoint was ensured by a Russian sergeant, V.K., who was the only one armed with a loaded machine gun at the time of the events. The command of the right checkpoint was also ensured by a Russian sergeant. At each checkpoint concrete blocks and metal barriers were placed on the road in such a way that cars would be forced to slow down in order to pass through them. Each checkpoint had barracks in which the soldiers took turns to rest, and armoured personnel carriers. The distance between the right and the left checkpoints was approximately 600 metres.\n10.  Vadim Pisari’s car reached the left checkpoint at approximately 7.10 a.m. Three soldiers, including V.K., were guarding the road. The remaining soldiers were inside the barracks. When passing through the checkpoint, Vadim Pisari not only failed to stop but hit and ran over the “stop” sign and a barrier on which it was located and which was blocking half of the road, with the front right wing of his car. His passenger explained later that the windshield had been partly covered with ice, as the car’s heating system had not been functioning and the driver’s visibility had been poor. V.K. ordered the driver to stop the car, but Vadim Pisari did not obey and continued on his way. V.K. immediately contacted the right checkpoint and asked the Russian sergeant in command to stop the approaching car. However, the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8572", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Essex. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, can be summarised as follows.\n5.  The applicant was arrested in the Netherlands on 31 January 1999. On 3 February 1999, following transfer to the United Kingdom, he was charged with the attempted importation of 163 kilograms (compressed weight) of cocaine with a potential street value of GBP 11 million.\n6.  Prior to trial, in order to seize and preserve the applicant’s assets for future confiscation in the event of a conviction, the prosecution applied for and obtained a restraint order and the appointment of a receiver under section 26 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (“the 1994 Act”). The receiver sought to sell the applicant’s horses immediately and this was successfully challenged by the applicant. In its judgment dated 23 July 1999 the Court of Appeal confirmed that the purpose of the 1994 Act was to preserve the value of assets for the purpose of future confiscation proceedings.\n7.  Also prior to trial, the applicant sought to challenge the admissibility of telephone interception evidence obtained in the Netherlands. He ultimately pursued an appeal to the House of Lords, which delivered its judgment against the applicant on 24 March 2000.\n8.  The trial subsequently commenced in the Crown Court in June 2000. However, after the jury had already retired to consider their verdict a prejudicial document was discovered within the jury bundle. The fault for this lay with the prosecution, a matter admitted at the time. Consequently, on 31 August 2000 the jury were discharged.\n9.  A retrial commenced on 6 April 2001. At the start of the retrial the applicant’s counsel pursued an unsuccessful application to stay the proceedings on grounds of hardship suffered as a result of the prosecution’s negligence in causing the first trial to be abandoned.\n10.  On 5 June 2001 the applicant was found guilty of the offences charged. On 6 June 2001 he was sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment. He lodged an appeal against sentence, which was unsuccessful. In 2004 he lodged an out-of-time appeal against conviction. He was released from prison in February 2006 and, on 17 November 2006, he abandoned his appeal (see further paragraph 29 below).\n11.  The 1994 Act provides for the making of a confiscation order in the event of a conviction for drug trafficking offences. Accordingly, prior to the sentencing hearing, the prosecution served notice under section 2 of the Act of its intention to seek a confiscation order and a statement under section 11 of the Act containing the prosecution’s assessment of whether the applicant had benefited from drug trafficking and the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking.\n12.  At the sentencing hearing on 6 June 2001, the judge ordered the defence to serve a written response to the prosecution’s statement within six weeks. The defence failed to serve its response within the six-week period. At the prosecution’s request, a further procedural hearing took place on 9 October 2001. At this hearing, the judge was informed that the delay in serving the defence response had been caused by the applicant moving prisons and wishing to instruct new solicitors. The prosecution drew the judge’s attention to section 3 of the 1994 Act, which provided a six-month deadline in respect of the confiscation proceedings. Prosecution counsel indicated that an extension of the deadline might be required. Defence counsel confirmed that the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8573", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Piatra Neamţ.\n6.  On 27 November 2001 the applicant, an administrator in a small commercial company, started serving a seventeen-year prison sentence for fraud and tax evasion.\n7.  From 10 August 2010 to 22 April 2014, when he was conditionally released, the applicant was detained in Bacău, Iaşi, Galaţi, Brăila, and Vaslui Prisons.\n8.  According to the applicant, the detention conditions in Bacău, Iaşi, Galaţi, Brăila, and Vaslui Prisons amounted to physical and psychological torture. His detailed description of the conditions, common to all those prisons, is set out below:\n–  overcrowding: in Bacău Prison, he was briefly held from 10 to 13 August 2010 in the old detention block in a cell measuring 12 sq. m with fifteen other prisoners; in Iaşi Prison, in a cell measuring 24 sq. m with twenty-seven other prisoners; in Galaţi Prison, in a cell measuring 15.2 sq. m with thirteen other prisoners; and in Brăila Prison, in a cell measuring 20 sq. m with fifteen other prisoners;\n–  inadequate heating in the winter and inadequate insulation of the windows. In the prisons of Iaşi and Galaţi there were no glass panes in the toilet window. In addition, in Galaţi Prison the toilet had no door. The applicant alleged that he contracted rheumatic fever and skin lesions on his hands owing to the cold he had endured;\n–  defective sanitary installations/no proper bathrooms: the cells were usually provided with an area where two sinks, a shower and a toilet were installed. In Iaşi and Brăila Prisons there was no shower, he had to wash in the sink or carry water and wash himself in the toilet if he wanted privacy. Hot water was provided twice a week for a period of only two hours, in which there was not always time for everyone to wash;\n–  presence of bed bugs and other parasites: in Bacău and Iaşi Prisons he could not sleep at night because of bed bugs falling on him from the upper bed. No disinfection was ever carried out by the prison authorities and in Bacău and Iaşi Prisons the detainees were not even allowed to bring in their own disinfectants from outside;\n–  the prisons had no place specially designed for eating. He was forced to eat in the cells, most of which did not have the requisite furniture – there were no chairs or tables, and the distance between the bunk beds was such that he could not sit up straight on his bed;\n–  insufficient daylight in the cells and electricity provided only for a few hours during the day and evening, so that he was forced to read and write in the dark most of the time;\n–  dirty and worn-out mattresses and sheets;\n–  very poor quality food;\n–  in Vaslui Prison there was so much dampness that there was always water on the floors.\n9.  In addition, the applicant alleged that the inhuman conditions of his detention had been aggravated by his constant and unnecessary transfers between prisons and between various cells in the same prison. He also alleged that on numerous occasions he had had to share his cell with mentally ill detainees who sometimes acted strangely, terrifying him or making his life unbearable.\n10.  The Government submitted that all of the prisons mentioned by the applicant had adequate natural and electric lighting and ventilation, and that the windows had never been covered by spare beds. All of the prisons had a central heating system providing adequate heating in the winter. All of the cells in which the applicant had been held had had the requisite fur", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8575", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  The facts of the case are linked to the same events and criminal proceedings as those described in the case of Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011). They can be summarised as follows.\n7.  The military operations which were conducted in the second half of December 1989 in several towns in Romania caused many civilian victims. According to a letter of 5 June 2008 from the military prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, “more than 1,200 people died, more than 5,000 people were injured and several thousand people were unlawfully deprived of their liberty and subjected to ill treatment”, in Bucharest, Timişoara, Reşiţa, Buzău, Constanţa, Craiova, Brăila, Oradea, Cluj, Braşov, Târgu Mureş, Sibiu and other towns in Romania. In addition, it appears from Ministry of Defence documents, declassified by Government decision no.  94/2010 of 10 February 2010, that thousands of servicemen, equipped with combat tanks and other armed vehicles, were deployed in Bucharest and other cities. During the period of 17 to 30 December 1989 they used considerable quantities of ammunition.\n8.  In Bucharest, many people were killed or wounded by gunshot. According to a report of 24 July 1990 by the Directorate of Military Prosecutor’s Offices (Direcţia procuraturilor militare), in the night of 21 to 22 December 1989 “48 people died and 150 people were injured in Bucharest as a result of the violent crackdown by the armed forces, including through the use of firearms”.\n9.  Many victims were also killed after 22 December 1989, the date on which the then Head of State was deposed.\n10.  On 25 December 1989, the applicant’s husband was shot in the head and killed at his home in Bucharest. He had been sitting in front of a window of his apartment, when a bullet came from outside. According to a ballistic report of 17 April 1990, the bullet had been shot by an AKM-type semi-automatic rifle.\n11.  On an unspecified date in 1990, the Bucharest Military Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation into the death of the applicant’s husband. From 1990 to 1994, the Military Prosecutor’s Office heard several witness testimonies in connection with the investigation.\n12.  In parallel with the investigation concerning the death of the applicant’s husband, a separate criminal investigation concerning the use of violence in Bucharest during the last days of December 1989 was undertaken (file no. 97/P/1990).\n13.  On 23 May 2007, the file concerning the death of the applicant’s husband was joined to file no. 97/P/1990.\n14.  By a decision of 15 January 2008, the military prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Cassation and Justice decided to separate the investigation concerning sixteen civilian defendants, including a former President of Romania and a former Head of the Romanian Intelligence Service, from the investigation involving military personnel, and to relinquish its jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice.\n15.  In a letter of 5 June 2008, the head prosecutor of the military prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice indicated that during the period from 2005 to 2007, 6,370 individuals had been questioned in case no. 97/P/1990. In addition, 1,100 ballistics reports had been prepared, and more than 10,000 investigative measures and 1,000 on-sit", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8576", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  On 17 April 2003 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of robbery and extortion and took him to the Yuzhnoye Tushino police station in Moscow. The applicant alleged that once at the police station, he had been beaten by police officers to make him confess to criminal offences and that he had then written a self-incriminating statement.\n7.  On 18 April 2003 the Tushinskiy Interdistrict Prosecutor’s Office (“the prosecutor’s office”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of several criminal offences, including robbery and extortion. On the same date the applicant was released.\n8.  On 24 April 2003 an investigator from the prosecutor’s office ordered that the applicant be taken to the police station for questioning. The order stated that despite numerous summonses, the applicant had failed to appear at the police station for questioning.\n9.  On 25 April 2003 the investigator questioned the applicant in the presence of legal counsel. During the interview the applicant submitted that he had confessed to criminal offences on 17 April 2003 after having been beaten by police officers.\n10.  On the same date the investigator charged the applicant with several criminal offences, including robbery and extortion, and made him sign a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence. The decision stated that the applicant had a permanent address and was not trying to abscond and that there was therefore no need to deprive him of his liberty. It appears from the material of the case file that starting from that date and throughout the criminal proceedings against him, the applicant was assisted by legal counsel.\n11.  On 28 April 2003 the deputy prosecutor quashed that decision on the grounds that the applicant had failed to appear at the police station despite numerous summonses, had no permanent job, and might reoffend and interfere with the proceedings.\n12.  On the same date the Tushinskiy District Court of Moscow (“the District Court”) authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention, holding as follows:\n“It transpires from the evidence at the disposal of the court that Mr Mikhalchuk A.V. has committed serious and particularly serious offences punishable by deprivation of liberty and that he has no job. Having regard to the nature of the offences committed by him, the court has grounds to believe that he might abscond and reoffend.\nHaving regard to the above, the court comes to the conclusion that there are no grounds to choose a more lenient measure of restraint, other than pre-trial detention.”\n13.  On 19 May 2003, following the applicant’s statement that he had been beaten by police officers, the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant.\n14.  On 31 May 2003 a forensic expert concluded that the applicant had several bruises on his body and face. However, it was impossible to ascertain the date on which they had been sustained.\n15.  On the same date the investigator refused to open criminal proceedings into the applicant’s complaints that he had been beaten by police officers on 17 April 2003. The decision stated that the applicant had the right to appeal against it either to a prosecutor or to a court. On the same date a copy of that decision was sent to the applicant.\n16.  On 20 June 2003 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 28 July 2003, holding as follows:\n“It transpires from the evidence at t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8577", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are:\n1) Ms Khava Aziyeva, who was born in 1983,\n2) Ms Aysha Aziyeva, who was born in 2008, and\n3) Mr Abdurrakhman Aziyev, who was born in 2010.\nThey live in Grozny, the Chechen Republic. They are the relatives of Mr Rizvan Aziyev, who was born in 1979. The first applicant is his sister, the second and third applicants are his children.\n6.  At the material time the applicants and Mr Rizvan Aziyev lived at 23 Gagarina Street, in the settlement of Staraya Sunzha in Grozny. The first applicant’s two other brothers, Mr I.A. and Mr Kh.A., had been convicted for the participation in illegal armed groups and were serving their sentences.\n7.  In 2005 Mr Rizvan Aziyev was arrested in Irkutsk, Russia, and then convicted for the participation in illegal armed groups. In 2008 he was released upon completion of the sentence.\n8.  For an unspecified period of time, prior to August 2008, the first applicant was married to Mr A.Kh. who was wanted by the authorities for active membership in illegal armed groups. On 31 October 2009 he had been killed as a result of a special operation carried out by the authorities in Grozny (see application Gaysanova v Russia, no. 62235/09 concerning alleged abduction of the applicant’s daughter Ms Zarema Gaysanova by State agents during that special operation).\n9.  On 31 October 2009 the applicants and their relatives were at home. Mr Rizvan Aziyev was not there. The applicants’ neighbours in the house across the street (at 20 Gagarina Street) were preparing a wedding dinner; their house was full of guests.\n10.  In the evening on that date a large group of servicemen in military camouflage or black uniforms arrived in about fifteen UAZ and VAZ model civilian vehicles and cordoned off several streets around the applicants’ house. According to the applicants’ neighbours, the servicemen blocked access to the nearby streets to its residents explaining that they were conducting a special operation.\n11.  At about 7 p.m. a group of about twenty to thirty armed men arrived at the applicants’ house in Gagarina Street in several vehicles. The men were in military camouflage uniforms, they were armed with automatic rifles, had portable radios and special military ammunition belts. The men spoke Chechen and Russian. The applicants and their relatives thought that these men were police officers.\n12.  Three of the men went into the applicants’ house whereas the rest remained outside blocking the building and the nearby houses. One of the three men, who was in charge of the group, demanded in Chechen that the first applicant telephoned her brother Mr Rizvan Aziyev and asked him to come home without mentioning that the police were waiting for him. Meanwhile, two other men quickly searched the house. One of the intruders received a phone call on his mobile phone and explained to someone that he was at work.\n13.  The first applicant called Mr Rizvan Aziyev and asked him to come home as soon as possible. Mr Rizvan Aziyev told her that he would be there in about ten minutes. The man in charge of the intruders’ group stood next to the applicant and listened to the conversation. As soon as the conversation was over he took the phone away from her and went outside whilst one of his colleagues remained in the house.\n14.  The first applicant looked out from the window and saw that a group of about fifteen other men was standing under the shed in the yard.\n15.  About twenty minutes later one of the policemen opened the house do", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8578", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Baku.\n6.  On 15 November 2007 there was a bomb explosion in Moscow. Criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with this explosion and on 13 December 2007 the applicant was charged with unlawful possession of explosive materials under Article 222.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.\n7.  On 21 December 2007 the Preobrazhensky District Court, Moscow City, ordered the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant and issued an arrest warrant.\n8.  On 26 December 2007 the arrest warrant was sent to the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the MIA”) of Azerbaijan.\n9.  It appears from a letter of 30 October 2008 signed by the head of the Criminal Investigation Department of the MIA that following the transfer of the arrest warrant to the Azerbaijani authorities the police contacted the applicant, who was in Azerbaijan, sometime in January 2008. The applicant came voluntarily to the MIA and submitted that he had no link with the explosion in question. The MIA established that the applicant was an Azerbaijani national and decided to transfer his statement to the relevant Russian authorities. At the request of the Russian authorities, on 31 January 2008 the applicant was again questioned at the MIA with the participation of two Russian police officers about his possible involvement in the explosion. Following a two-hour interrogation, no action was taken against the applicant and he left the premises of the Ministry.\n10.  On 30 June 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Organised Crime Department (“the OCD”) of the MIA about an alleged misappropriation of his property by a certain E.H. and others. Dissatisfied with the progress in the case, the applicant subsequently lodged complaints with various State authorities about the failure of the OCD to investigate his complaint.\n11.  On 18 September 2008 the applicant was summoned to the OCD and on arrival there he was arrested. The applicant was not allowed to contact his family or a lawyer, and his arrest was not documented.\n12.  As the applicant’s family had no information about his whereabouts, on 21 September 2008 they lodged a criminal complaint with Khatai District Police Station No. 36 related to the applicant’s disappearance, and submitted a photograph of him to the police.\n13.  On 22 September 2008 the OCD informed the applicant’s family by telephone that the applicant had been arrested and detained in the temporary detention facility of the OCD.\n14.  On 24 September 2008 the applicant’s brother was allowed to visit him in the temporary detention facility of the OCD. However, the applicant’s family was not informed of the reasons for the applicant’s arrest and detention.\n15.  On 26 September 2008 the applicant’s family contacted a lawyer for the applicant’s defence and at around 10 a.m. on 27 September 2008 a contract was concluded between them.\n16.  At around 3 p.m. on 27 September 2008 the lawyer went to the OCD and tried to meet the applicant. However, the lawyer was informed that he could not meet the applicant without the authorisation of the investigator. The lawyer immediately sent telegrams to the MIA, the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ombudsman complaining that he had been prevented from meeting the applicant.\n17.  At around 9 p.m. on 27 September 2008 the applicant was brought before a judge of the Narimanov District Court who ordered his detention on remand (see pa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8579", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Zakan-Yurt, the Chechen Republic. The applicant is the brother of Mr Rustam (also known as Balavdi and Khamzat) Kagirov, who was born in 1979. Mr Rustam Kagirov suffered from a disability due to removal of one of his lungs.\n7.  According to the applicant, his brother had held strong religious beliefs and had studied at an “Islamic Institute” in Grozny. In the applicant’s opinion, Mr Rustam Kagirov’s religious convictions could have led the authorities to consider him a follower of Wahhabism, an Islamic fundamentalist movement, whose members had been accused of supporting illegal armed groups in the Chechen Republic.\n8.  On an unspecified date in the autumn of 2004 officers from the 7th Company of the 2nd Regiment of the Chechen traffic police allegedly apprehended Mr Rustam Kagirov and tortured him for two days demanding that he confessed to involvement in illegal armed groups. The officers had suspected him of the illegal activity because of a photograph depicting two men, one of whom thought to be a leader of an illegal armed group and the other one resembled Mr Rustam Kagirov.\n9.  At the time of the events described below, the Kagirov family, including the applicant and Mr Rustam Kagirov, resided at 50 Sovetskaya Street in Zakan-Yurt. Their house was situated about a hundred metres from the building of the village administration.\n10.  On 17 May 2009 Mr Ramzan Kadyrov, President of the Chechen Republic, was supposed to take the Kavkaz (also referred to as the Rostov‑Baku) motorway. Therefore, a section of the route between Grozny and Zakan-Yurt was heavily guarded by traffic police officers, who were stationed at every intersection and who would not let any vehicle through without checking the drivers’ and passengers’ identity documents. Driving from Grozny to Zakan-Yurt on that day the applicant was stopped on the motorway three times for identity checks.\n11.  At about 6 p.m. on that day the applicant, having pulled over to his house, saw a black VAZ Priora vehicle with registration number A 720 AT 95 parked next to the village administration in Sovetskaya Street. Meanwhile, Mr Rustam Kagirov and his friend Mr Kh.Kh., were walking in the street, next to the administration. When they were passing by the Priora vehicle, three armed men in black uniforms got out of the car. Two of them grabbed Mr Rustam Kagirov and forced him into the back seat. The third man pointed his gun at Mr Kh.Kh. and shouted in Chechen: “Turn around or I will shoot you!” Immediately thereafter the armed men got back in the car and drove off at high speed.\n12.  A few moments later the applicant, accompanied by Mr Kh.Kh., got into his car to follow the abductors. They saw that the abductors had passed, unimpeded, a roadblock situated on the road leading to Zakan-Yurt from the Kavkaz motorway which was manned by several traffic police officers. Then the abductors took the Kavkaz motorway and headed in the direction of Grozny. At the roadblock the applicant asked the police officers about the identity of the persons in the Priora vehicle they had just let to pass through and whether their documents had been checked. The policemen replied that they had not checked their documents as the persons had been in a hurry. Although the applicant immediately informed them that the men in Priora car had abducted his brother, the policemen disregarded that information and continued checking other vehicles. Despite being equipped w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8580", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, who was born in 1960 and lives in Paris, is a lawyer (avocat) and member of the Paris Bar.\n10.  On 19 October 1995 Mr Bernard Borrel, a judge who had been seconded by France for the year before as a technical adviser to the Djiboutian Minister of Justice, in the context of cooperation agreements between the two States, was found dead 80 kilometres from the city of Djibouti. His half-naked and partially burnt body was lying some 20 metres below a remote road. The investigation by the Djibouti gendarmerie in the days that followed concluded that he had committed suicide by self-immolation.\n11.  On 7 December 1995 a judicial investigation was opened at the Toulouse tribunal de grande instance to determine the cause of death. Bernard Borrel’s body, which was repatriated and interred in Toulouse, underwent an autopsy on 15 February 1996. The report concluded that the death was not suspicious, although the body’s state of decomposition did not permit a precise cause to be established.\n12.  On 3 March 1997 Mrs Elisabeth Borrel, the widow of Bernard Borrel and also a judge, disputing the finding of suicide, filed a complaint as a civil party, in her own name and on behalf of her two minor children, against a person or persons unknown for premeditated murder. She appointed the applicant, Mr Morice, to represent her in the proceedings.\n13.  On 8 and 23 April 1997 two judicial investigations were opened in respect of premeditated murder committed by a person or persons unknown.\n14.  In a decision of 30 April 1997, the judicial investigation into the cause of death and the two investigations in respect of premeditated murder were joined.\n15.  On 29 October 1997 the Court of Cassation accepted a request by the applicant to withdraw the case from the Toulouse court and it was transferred to the tribunal de grande instance of Paris, where it was assigned on 12 October 1997 to Ms M., assisted from 7 January 1998 by Mr L.L., both investigating judges, who were to conduct the judicial investigation jointly.\n16.  On 19 November 1999 a lawyer at the Brussels Bar informed the police that A., a former senior officer and member of the Djiboutian Presidential Guard, who had found asylum in Belgium, had certain revelations to make concerning Judge Borrel. The information thus disclosed was transmitted to the French authorities via Interpol. A judgment of the Versailles Court of Appeal of 28 May 2009 (see paragraph 18 below) records the following sequence of events: Judges M. and L.L. did not reply, owing to the fact that the witness wished to remain anonymous, and the information was not followed up; the witness’s Belgian lawyer thus contacted the applicant, who arranged for the witness to be interviewed by journalists from the daily newspaper Le Figaro and the French TV channel TF1, at the end of December 1999; lastly, it was as a result of the publication and broadcasting of that interview in early January 2000 that Judges M. and L.L. decided to go to Belgium to assist the Belgian investigator in taking evidence from the witness.\n17.  On 31 January 2000 Judges M. and L.L. interviewed the witness in Brussels. It was subsequently alleged by A. that he had been pressurised and intimidated by Judge M. to withdraw his testimony, those complaints being expressly made in a letter of 2 February 2000 from his lawyer to the Crown Prosecutor. In addition, the witness accused the public prosecutor of Djibouti of having threatened him to make him recant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8581", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Tirana.\n6.  On 15 March 2008 a massive explosion occurred at a demilitarisation facility. The explosion claimed 26 lives. Two hundred and sixty-five other persons were either grievously or lightly wounded and a number of nearby buildings was heavily damaged. The demilitarisation process was carried out by a private commercial company, whose administrator the applicant was.\n7.  Following the explosion, the prosecutor started criminal proceedings against the applicant and 28 other persons.\n8.  On 17 March 2008 the applicant was remanded in custody. The District Court imposed no time-limits on the length of his detention. It appeared that he was suspected of having committed the criminal offences of murder in aggravating circumstances of more than two persons, destruction of property with explosives and breach of the rules on explosive, flammable or radioactive substances” contrary to Articles 79 (dh) and (ë), 152 and 282 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  On 13 March 2009 the prosecutor sent the case against the applicant and the other co-accused for examination to the Supreme Court, since one of the co-accused was a Member of Parliament (MP) as well as a Cabinet Minister.\n10.  On 22 May 2009 the Supreme Court decided to sever the proceedings against the MP, who also was a Cabinet Minister, from those against the applicant and the other co-accused.\n11.  On 11 June 2009 the case file against all co-accused, including the applicant, was registered with the Tirana District Court (“the District Court”) for examination.\n12.  On 19 July 2010 the applicant requested his release on the ground that the time-limits laid down by Articles 262 and 263 § 2 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CCP”) had expired. He argued that the prescribed time-limit started to run from 13 March 2009, the date on which the case was sent for examination to the Supreme Court.\n13.  On 23 July 2010 the Tirana District Court, in an interlocutory decision, rejected the request. It considered that, since the time-limit had started to run from 11 June 2009, the date on which the case file was registered at its registry and, since it had been stayed or prolonged on account of other interlocutory decisions, the time-limit had not yet expired.\n14.  On 6 August 2010 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision.\n15.  On 3 November 2010 the Supreme Court quashed both decisions. It reasoned that Article 263 of the CCP provided for three time-limits: the first running from the date of an accused’s arrest to the date the file is transferred to the first-instance court (Article 263 § 1 of the CCP); the second running from then to the date of delivery of the decision by that court (Article 263 § 2 of the CCP); and the third running from then to the date of delivery of the appellate court’s decision (Article 263 § 3 of the CCP). According to the Supreme Court, in the applicant’s case, the first time-limit ended on 13 March 2009 when the case was sent to the Supreme Court (Article 263 § 1 of the CCP). On that date, the second time-limit before the first-instance court began to run (Article 263 § 2 of the CCP), since the Supreme Court was hearing the case as a first-instance court, one of the co-accused being an MP and a Cabinet Minister. Even though the proceedings against the MP were disjoined from those against the applicant and other co-accused, the period between 13 March 2009 and 11 June 2009, the date on which the case file against the applicant ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8582", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant’s identity has been the subject of controversy at the national level. In his submission to the Court he referred to himself as mentioned above (see paragraph 1), and indicated his year of birth as 1977.\n6.  During the proceedings in Slovakia described below, the applicant also was or has been referred to as Jurij Rybakovas, with the surname at birth of Vilcinskas, alias Kolja, born in 1976, and as Valerij Juriovi Grinevsky, a Lithuanian national.\n7.  On 31 December 2007 the applicant was arrested; on 4 January 2008 he was remanded in custody pending trial on charges of conspiracy and murder.\n8.  On 18 June 2009 the Bratislava I District Court (Okresný súd) authorised extension of his pre-trial detention until 28 August 2009. Following an appeal by the applicant the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) on 25 June 2009 upheld that decision.\n9.  On 11 August 2009 the applicant was indicted to stand trial; on 22 August 2009 the District Court dismissed his request for release.\n10.  The District Court heard the case on 27-29 October 2010 and a further hearing was scheduled for 12 to 14 January 2011.\n11.  On 27 July 2011 the applicant was acquitted; his acquittal was upheld on appeal on 18 April 2013.\n12.  On 16 September 2010, while he was still in detention, and acting through the intermediary of his lawyer, the applicant requested release. In support of the request, he argued that he was innocent and that his detention in the present trial was no more than an arbitrary means of retaining him in detention in the interest of another trial.\nThe request was submitted by mail and was received at the District Court on 20 September 2010.\n13.  On 12 January 2011 the District Court heard the applicant in private, when he confirmed that he was seeking a response to the request for release he had made in September 2010. On the same day the District Court dismissed the request and the applicant stated on the record that he wished to appeal.\n14.  Through his lawyer, the applicant submitted his reasons for appealing in writing on 17 January 2011. At the same time, he offered a pledge that, if released, he would live in accordance with the law.\n15.  On 25 January 2011, at a private session, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and rejected his offer. It observed, inter alia, that there had been unjustified delay in dealing with the applicant’s request at the first level of jurisdiction, which could potentially serve as a ground for calling the President of its Chamber to account, but which in itself did not constitute a reason for releasing the applicant.\n16.  The written version of the decision of 25 January 2011 was served on the applicant via the District Court on 23 February 2011. It was not amenable to appeal.\n17.  In March 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended) with the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd).\nHe directed the complaint against the District Court and alleged that, in determining his request for release of September 2010, there had been a violation of his right under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention to a “speedy” review of the lawfulness of his detention.\nIn terms of redress, he claimed reimbursement of his legal costs and 6,000 euros (EUR) by way of compensation.\n18.  On 5 April the Constitutional Court declared the complaint admissible; on 21 June 2011 it found a violation of the applicant’s right as claimed.\nRefer", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8583", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Buenos Aires. He is a military pilot.\n5.  On 11 August 2005 his child was born of his marriage with M.T.R. who holds both Romanian and Argentinean nationality. At the date of the facts, the family’s permanent residence was in Argentina, but they travelled due to the applicant’s various work assignments.\n6.  In September 2006 the applicant was sent to a UN mission in Cyprus where his family joined him shortly after. While in Cyprus, the family travelled to Spain to visit the applicant’s sister. In order to facilitate the travelling, the applicant and his wife signed an authorisation form allowing each one of them to travel abroad with the child.\n7.  After having lived together for seven months in Cyprus, the applicant and M.T.R. decided together that M.T.R. would take their child to Romania for a few months, and would join the applicant in Buenos Aires in October, at the end of his contract in Cyprus. The parents agreed that M.T.R. and the child would return to Argentina before 15 October 2007, the date at which the child’s passport would expire.\n8.  M.T.R. was unable to make travel arrangements on time, as the applicant had been late in sending money for the tickets, and eventually the child’s passport expired. M.T.R. sought the applicant’s consent to request a Romanian passport for the child, but the applicant refused.\n9.  On 14 November 2007 M.T.R. informed the applicant that she would not return with the child to Argentina. Later on, on 3 February 2008 she filed for divorce and custody of the child before the Romanian courts.\n10.  On 16 November 2007 the applicant withdrew the authorisation that he had given to the wife to travel with the child. On 4 December 2007 he also lodged a request for the return of the child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”), with the Argentinean Ministry of Foreign Relations, the Central Authority for the purpose of the Hague Convention.\n11.  On 4 January 2008 the notification made by the applicant was received by the Romanian Ministry of Justice, the Central Authority for the purpose of the Hague Convention (“the Ministry”). At the Ministry’s request, the police visited M.T.R.’s home and inquired about their situation. She provided copies of their identity papers and of the authorisation form allowing her to travel with the child.\n12.  On 12 February 2008 the Romanian Central Authority tried unsuccessfully to engage the mother in negotiations concerning the return of the child to Argentina. On 30 March 2008 they lodged before the Bucharest County Court an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the child.\n13.  Five hearings took place in the case. At the first hearing M.T.R. filed a response to the applicant’s motion; a postponement was granted at the Ministry’s request. At the second hearing M.T.R. learned, allegedly for the first time, that the authorisation to travel had been withdrawn by her husband. This hearing as well as the next one were postponed at M.T.R.’s request. At the next hearing M.T.R. asked that the applicant’s request be dismissed; she claimed that he was sexually deviant and stated that she feared for her child’s safety should he be returned to his father. The applicant did not appear in court.\n14.  On 8 July 2008 the County Court granted the applicant’s request and ordered M.T.R. to return the child to the habitual residence in Buenos Aires within two ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8584", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and habitually resides in Pružina.\n6.  Between 29 October 2007 and 12 March 2009 the applicant was charged with a number of offences, mainly of a violent nature and with an organised crime background.\n7.  On 27 September 2008 he was arrested in the context of his prosecution on these charges, and subsequently remanded in custody pending trial. At the time of his request for release, which forms the subject matter of this application and is described in detail below, his detention was authorised by the Special Court (Špeciálny súd) until 27 September 2009.\n8.  After the events complained of, the applicant was released on 1 April 2010. However, the criminal proceedings against him appear to be still pending.\n9.  By a submission dated 20 May 2009, addressed to the Office of Special Prosecutions (Úrad Špeciálnej prokuratúry - “the OSP”), and received by its addressee on 26 May 2009, the applicant requested release.\nHe relied on a recent judgment of the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) concerning the status of the Special Court (see Fruni v. Slovakia, no. 8014/07, §§ 11-15 and 68-89, 21 June 2011), argued that his detention on the authority of the Special Court had been unlawful, and maintained that his detention had in any event been unwarranted.\n10.  By a submission dated 21 May 2009, the applicant addressed a similar request to the Office of the Prosecutor General (Generálna prokuratúra - “the OPG”), where it was received on 25 May 2009.\n11.  Lastly, by a submission dated 21 May 2009, addressed to the Special Court and received there on 29 May 2009, the applicant requested release on similar grounds and offered a formal pledge that, if released, he would live in accordance with the law.\n12.  By law, all three submissions fell to be examined at first instance by the OSP. Those made to the OPG and the Special Court were therefore transmitted to the OSP on 26 May and 3 June 2009, respectively.\n13.  As the OSP did not grant the request formulated in the three submissions, they fell to be judicially examined by the Special Court, to which they were transmitted on 2 and 3 June 2009, respectively.\n14.  By way of a submission dated 23 May 2009, which was received by the Special Court on 29 May 2009, the applicant expressed objections to the handling of his case by the Special Court judge who was handling his detention case at first-instance, which the Special Court interpreted as a challenge to the judge on the grounds of bias.\n15.  On 2 June 2009 the challenge was dismissed. On 10 June 2009 the decision was served on the applicant and on 11 June 2009 he lodged an interlocutory appeal (sťažnosť), which was dismissed by the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd) on 24 June 2009. The case file was returned to the Special Court on 1 July 2009.\n16.  On 1 July 2009 the Special Court ordered that the request be examined in the framework of a public session (verejné zasadnutie) to be held on 13 July 2009.\n17.  On 8 July 2009 the Special Court was informed that the applicant’s lawyer had been struck off the list of counsel and thus could no longer represent him. In response, on 9 July 2009 the Special Court enquired of the investigator whether the applicant had been asked to appoint a new lawyer and, if so, whether he had actually done so. Later on the same day, the investigator asked the applicant to appoint a lawyer within three days, failing which a lawyer would be appointed for him by the court.\n18.  On 13 July 2009 the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8585", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Chisinau.\n6.  The applicant and O.P. were in a relationship for over one year. They did not live together but often used to spend the night over each other’s house. Towards the end of their relationship they started to have disputes because O.P. became very jealous. According to the applicant he also became violent.\n7.  On the evening of 10 May 2010 O.P. became upset with the applicant because she was not at home for several hours and did not answer his telephone calls. He waited for her in front of her home and when she arrived he assaulted her and forced into his car. The applicant’s attempts to escape were countered by O.P.’s violent behaviour and threats with violence and death. According to the applicant, he punched her, pulled her hair and threatened her every time she wanted to leave the car. O.P. denied the applicant’s allegations concerning the acts of violence and only admitted having slapped her face several times before entering the car. He submitted that she did not object to their going to his home.\n8.  At midnight the applicant and O.P. arrived at the latter’s house in a village near Chişinău. According to the applicant, O.P. locked her inside the house and left her alone for approximately forty-five minutes. The applicant attempted to escape but was not able to and there was no telephone in the house. She also submitted that she did not have money and that her clothes were torn and dirty with blood. After O.P.’s return he ordered the applicant to undress and to lie with him on the bed. As a result of the applicant’s refusal they clashed but O.P. broke her resistance by violently assaulting and threatening her after which he raped her. In the morning, when the applicant attempted to leave O.P.’s house, a new dispute broke out between them. After assaulting her, O.P. forcefully sodomised her against her will and only after that he called a taxi for her.\n9.  On 11 May 2010 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against O.P. and underwent a forensic medical investigation. A medical report issued on the same date found multiple bruises on the applicant’s face, lips, neck and thorax. Some of the bruises were as large as 5x4 centimetres. Traces of semen were found only in her vagina.\n10.  On 14 May 2010 O.P. underwent a forensic medical investigation as a result of an order issued by a prosecutor. A medical report found scratches produced by nails on his neck. The medical report recorded that O.P. had not denied having had sexual intercourse with the applicant; however, he had insisted that both partners had consented. The report concluded that the injuries on his body resembled those frequently inflicted by rape victims.\n11.  In his statements to the prosecutor, O.P. denied having had sexual intercourse with the applicant both on the evening of 10 May and in the morning of 11 May 2010. He also denied having forced the applicant into his car and having taken her by force to his house and claimed that she had consented to come with him. He admitted having slapped her face twice on the evening of 10 May 2010 as a result of which she had riposted by scratching his neck. O.P. could not explain the presence of bruises outside her face, the presence of traces of semen in her vagina and the conclusion of the forensic doctors that the injuries on his body appeared to be inflicted by a rape victim. He only submitted that he disagreed with the conclusions of the medical report which reac", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8586", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1974 and 1981 respectively and live in Podgorica.\n6.  At the relevant time they were in detention (u pritvoru) at the Institution for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions (Zavod za izvršenje krivičnih sankcija, hereinafter “IECS”), where they shared a cell with five other detainees.\n7.  On 27 October 2009 the first applicant was to be transferred to a disciplinary unit (disciplinsko odjeljenje) and the cell in which he was detained was to be searched. The submissions of the applicants and the Government as to what exactly happened on that occasion differ.\n8.  The first applicant submitted that after having entered his cell, several guards had grabbed him and thrown him on to the concrete floor of the corridor outside the cell. They had handcuffed him, beaten him using batons and their fists, and sworn at him. In addition, two rows of guards positioned along the corridor had beaten him as he was being taken away.\n9.  The second applicant submitted that he had protested against this abuse. In response, four guards had started to kick him and had beaten him with their fists and batons. After that he had been taken into the corridor outside the cell, where eight other guards had continued to beat him. The beating had continued after he had returned to the cell.\n10.  The Government, for their part, submitted that the applicants had resisted the actions of the prison guards and had tried to prevent them from performing their duties, which had triggered the guards’ intervention. In particular, when they had entered the cell the second applicant had attacked one of the guards without any reason and had injured him.\n11.  The first applicant had refused to be examined by a prison doctor as he doubted his impartiality. On the same day, however, he had talked to the doctor and, in answer to the doctor’s question whether he was feeling well and whether he had any injuries, he had apparently said “No, doctor, I am healthy and both physically and psychologically stable, and I do not consent to an examination; there is no need for it as I have not been ill-treated either physically or psychologically by the security forces”.\n12.  The second applicant had been examined by the prison doctor after the Deputy Ombudsman had made a request to that effect. It would appear that the doctor made two reports in this regard. The Ombudsman, who obtained the reports from the IECS, described them as barely legible and apparently referring to the same subject matter in two different ways.\n13.  On 30 October 2009 the first applicant’s representative in the domestic criminal proceedings reported the incident to the prison governor and requested that the appropriate responsible bodies be informed, that his client be provided with medical assistance, and that no further punitive measures be taken against him.\n14.  On an unspecified date before 4 November 2009 the State prosecutor (Osnovno državno tužilaštvo) asked the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Danilovgrad to establish the elements of criminal offences of torture and ill-treatment (predlog radi utvrđivanja elemenata bića krivičnog djela mučenje i zlostavljanje). Acting upon this an investigating judge (istražni sudija) from the Court of First Instance requested, inter alia, the medical examination of both applicants by an external forensic doctor, and ordered evidence to be heard from a number of individuals, including the prison guards, and the second applicant.\n15.  On 4 Nove", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8587", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kraljevo.\n6.  On 6 November 2008 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Kraljevo ordered socially/State-owned companies Holding Kompanija FVK AD “Vagonogradnja”, Holding Kompanija FVK AD, and Koncern FVK AD “Vagonogradnja” (the debtors) to pay to the applicant certain sums on account of salary arrears and employment related benefits.\n7.  On 5 March 2009 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Kraljevo quashed one part of the judgment and remitted it to the first-instance court for a retrial. That part of the judgment is not the subject-matter of the present case. Furthermore, the District Court amended another part of the judgment of 6 November 2008 and upheld the remainder of it.\n8.  The relevant part of the judgment of 6 November 2008, as amended on 5 March 2009, became both final and enforceable on 20 April 2009.\n9.  On 28 December 2009 the applicant filed a request for enforcement of the judgment of 6 November 2008.\n10.  On 29 January 2010 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Kraljevo, now acting as the competent court, ordered the applicant to remedy some shortcomings in her request for enforcement. On 3 February 2010 the applicant did so.\n11.  On 26 April 2010 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtors were undergoing restructuring.\n12.  On 5 September 2011 the applicant requested the Court of First Instance to continue with the enforcement.\n13.  On 26 September 2011 the Court of First Instance issued an enforcement order. On 17 May 2012 the enforcement order was quashed on appeal, as the debtors’ names were changed in the meantime.\n14.  On 19 June 2012 the applicant informed the enforcement court of the debtors’ new names.\n15.  On 17 September 2013 the Court of First Instance issued a fresh enforcement order. It awarded the applicant 36,567 Serbian dinars (RSD) on account of the enforcement costs. On 13 December 2013 the enforcement order was upheld on appeal.\n16.  On 30 April 2014 the Court of First Instance ordered the applicant to provide further details about the debtors’ names, the amounts of social benefits due and the bank accounts for their payment. On 12 May 2014 the applicant provided the requested information.\n17.  The judgment of 6 November 2008, as amended on 5 March 2009 is yet to be enforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8588", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Chisinau.\n6.  On 11 November 2009 at approximately 11.30 p.m. the applicant was arrested on the street by several police officers wearing plain clothes, on suspicion of possession of drugs.\n7.  According to the applicant, she was ill-treated by the police officers before being taken to the police station. At the police station she was held until the next morning.\n8.  In a medical report issued on 13 November 2009 a forensic doctor found that the applicant presented numerous bruises to her face, arms and hips. An x-ray examination of the applicant’s head, which according to the medical report was conducted on the same date, showed that the applicant also had a broken nose.\n9.  On 15 November 2009 the applicant was examined by a neurologist who determined that she had also suffered concussion.\n10.  On 14 January 2010 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office concerning her ill-treatment by the police on 11 November 2009.\n11.  On 1 April 2010 the Rascani Prosecutor’s Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the ground that the applicant’s complaint was ill‑founded. The decision was based on the statements of the accused police officers who had denied having ill-treated the applicant and on the fact that there was a possibility that the applicant’s injuries were the result of her falling over.\n12.  On 15 October 2010 a superior prosecutor from the same Prosecutor’s Office rejected the applicant’s appeal.\n13.  On 29 November 2010 an investigating judge from the Rascani District Court upheld the applicant’s appeal on points of law and ordered a re-examination of the applicant’s case. The judge found that the investigation conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office had been superficial and incomplete.\n14.  After the reopening of the investigation, the Prosecutor’s Office ordered the conduct of a new forensic medical examination. In a report dated 30 December 2010 a forensic doctor found that on 13 November 2009 the applicant had presented numerous bruises on her face and limbs and a broken nose. The applicant’s injuries had been produced by at least six different blows with a hard blunt object and since they were located on different parts of her body, they could not have been a result of a fall from the height of her body.\n15.  On 20 May 2010 the Rascani Prosecutor’s Office refused again to initiate criminal proceedings. This time the prosecutor argued that according to his verifications in the documents of the hospital where the applicant had undergone an x-ray of her nose, the procedure had been carried out not on 13 but on 10 November 2009. Moreover, the prosecutor found a discrepancy between the records in the forensic medical report of 13 November 2009 where the time of the applicant’s ill-treatment was indicated as 1 a.m. on 12 November and her subsequent statements indicated it as 11.30 p.m. on 11 November 2009. This decision was upheld by a superior prosecutor on 26 September 2011 and by an investigating judge from the Rascani District Court on 1 November 2011.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8589", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant is the mother and the remaining six applicants are the siblings of Mustafa Döleksoy who was born in 1952 and died in 2007.\n7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows.\n8.  At around 10 a.m. on 25 August 2007 Mustafa Döleksoy’s neighbours noticed a strong smell coming from his summer house near the town of Erdemli in southern Turkey. They informed the caretaker and the security guard of the summer house complex, who immediately went to Mustafa Döleksoy’s house. The door to the house was closed but the two men were able to see, by looking under the door, that Mustafa Döleksoy was lying on his back on the floor. They then called the gendarmerie.\n9.  A number of gendarmes, accompanied by a doctor from the local health clinic, arrived at the scene at around 10.30 a.m. As the door to the house was locked, a locksmith had to be found to open the door.\n10.  The doctor who accompanied the gendarmes prepared a report at 10.30 a.m. in which he concluded that Mustafa Döleksoy had died of a cerebral haemorrhage and circulatory failure which had been caused by head trauma as a result of falling from the worktop in the kitchen. The doctor estimated that the death had occurred four to five days previously.\n11.  In their statements to the gendarmerie, the applicants Mahmut and Ahmet Cengiz Dölek said that they did not know who might have been responsible for the death of their brother and that they did not suspect anyone in particular. The caretaker and the security guard of the summer house complex were also questioned by the gendarmes and they were reported as having stated that they had no idea how Mustafa Döleksoy might have met his death.\n12.  The Erdemli prosecutor went to the house at around 11.40 a.m. and drew up an examination report with the assistance of the same doctor. Mustafa Döleksoy’s body was formally identified by a colleague from the law firm where Mustafa Döleksoy had been working as a lawyer. The colleague also told the prosecutor that Mustafa Döleksoy had recently purchased the summer house and had been making preparations to move in.\n13.  In his report the prosecutor noted the presence of a large amount of dried blood on the floor which had come from Mustafa Döleksoy’s head. He observed that the corpse had swollen and the face had completely blackened. The doctor reported two fractures on both the left and right of the occipital region of the head and two cuts above the fractures. No indications of firearm injuries or stab wounds were noted on the body. A handful of hair found in the left hand of Mustafa Döleksoy and the samples taken from Mustafa Döleksoy’s own hair were placed in two separate envelopes and sealed. A decision was made to hand over to the family the clothes taken off the body, because the prosecutor considered that they had no evidential value as there were no holes in them caused by a firearm or a knife. The personal belongings, such as a wallet with money and credit cards in it and a mobile phone found in the trouser pockets, were taken away as evidence.\n14.  The doctor did not find it necessary to conduct a full post mortem examination because, in his opinion, the cause of death had already been established as cerebral haemorrhage and circulatory failure caused by head trauma. Nevertheless, having regard to the fact that “the death had occurred in an empty house and the deceased had a clump o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8590", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and is currently detained in Giurgiu Prison.\n5.  On 19 May 2010 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of having committed drug-related crimes. He was convicted on 6 May 2011 by the Bucharest County Court and sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment. The decision became final on 5 June 2012.\n6.  The applicant was held in the pre-trial detention facilities of the Bucharest Direction of Criminal Investigations until 16 November 2010. On that date he was transferred to Rahova Prison, where he remained until 13 August 2012.\n7.  He described the overall conditions of detention as follows: overcrowded cells, lack of natural light and lack of fresh air. In particular he described cells that measured about 19 sq. m and were 2.2 m high; each cell containing eight beds constantly occupied at full capacity; there was no natural light, only artificial light provided by one 40 W bulb which was insufficient; he had no access to fresh air. There was no refrigerator to store food in proper conditions. He shared cells with individuals arrested for violent crimes and there had been no means of summoning the guards, even though several violent incidents had taken place between the detainees.\n8.  According to the official prison records adduced by the Government, in the police detention facilities the applicant had been placed in cells situated in the basement (demisol), the first measuring 9 sq. m and containing four beds and the second measuring 13.5 sq. m and having six beds. The cells were occupied at full capacity. The cells had a table and chairs as well as a squat toilet, sink and shower separated from the living space by a curtain. The detainees had access to running water, and the cells were heated during winter. There was access to natural light, as each cell was provided with a window, but also to artificial light provided by a lamp placed in each cell, above the door, and protected by an iron grille. Personal hygiene was effected by means of products provided by the prison or acquired by the detainees themselves.\n9.  According to the same official information, in Rahova Prison the applicant had been held in different cells, all measuring 21 sq. m and containing eight beds (except for one cell where there were only six beds), a table, chairs and a support for a TV set. Adjacent to the cell there was a bathroom equipped with a toilet, sinks and a shower. Cold water was available continuously and hot water was available twice a week. The cell was heated to 18oC during the winter. The applicant was allowed to exercise for two hours daily in the interior courtyard and had access to outdoor and indoor sport facilities.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8591", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Nizhniy Tagil.\n5.  On 19 August 2009 the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg convicted the applicant of massive fraud, an offence punishable with up to ten years’ imprisonment, and sentenced him to five and a half years’ in prison.\n6.  During the trial the applicant was represented by his counsel.\n7.  On 3 September 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal.\n8.  On 23 October 2009 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. It follows from the appeal judgment that the applicant could follow the appeal hearing by video link from the Yekaterinburg remand prison IZ-66/1. Counsel and prosecutor did not attend the hearing.\n9.  On 19 August 2009 the applicant was placed in Yekaterinburg remand prison IZ-66/1 and was held there until 27 October 2009. According to the applicant, conditions of detention there were inhuman and degrading because of overcrowding.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8592", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Porto.\n5.  On an unknown date, the applicant and I. dissolved their marriage and the latter stayed with the children’s custody.\n6.  On 28 November 2008 the Porto Family Court adopted a decision establishing the applicant’s contact rigths.\n7.  On 27 May 2009 I. sent a letter to the applicant informing him that she had suspended his contact rights.\n8.  On 5 June 2009 the applicant lodged an application with the Porto Family Court informing about I.’s decision to not comply with the court’s decision of 28 November 2008 and asking the court to schedule a hearing with him and his former wife (audiência de pais) so he could continue to have access to his children (processo de incumprimento das responsabilidades parentais).\n9.  In June 2009 the Porto Family Court held a hearing with the parents and subsequently requested a social report about the children to the Social Security Institute (Instituto da Segurança Social).\n10.  On 14 July 2009 the Porto Family Court adopted a decision suspending the applicant’s right to visit his children for a period of three months on the grounds of the social report that had been submitted on 13 July 2009. The Family Court also requested a psychological assessment of the children.\n11.  From September 2009 to January 2012 the applicant lodged several requests with the Family Court seeking the reestablishment of his right to visit his children and asking permission to spend special dates (birthdays, Christmas, Easter) with them.\n12.  On 4 February 2010 the Social Security Institute submitted the children’s psychological report to the Family Court. On 18 February 2010 the report was challenged by the applicant who complained that he had not been heard. On 5 March 2010 the Family Court ordered the psychological report to be completed after the applicant had been heard.\n13.  On 22 March and 27 August 2010 two new reports were submitted to the Family Court and a mediation hearing with the parents was scheduled for November 2010. The hearing did not take place due to I.’s refusal to participate in the mediation. The proceedings continued and, on an unknown date, the Family Court adopted a decision stating that the applicant’s visits would continue to take place in an open place and in dates to be decided by the court.\n14.  On 30 March 2011 a hearing with the parents took place and both agreed that the applicant could continue to visit his children in the Family Court’s premises.\n15.  On 25 November 2011 the Family Court requested another social report on the children’s situation and their family.\n16.  On 2 February 2012 another social report was submitted to the Family Court and on 28 February the applicant was heard.\n17.  A hearing with the parents was scheduled for 27 March 2012 and later postponed to 2 May 2012. A few days after this hearing, the children were heard by the Family Court.\n18.  On 10 May 2012 a new hearing took place in which the applicant and I. reached a settlement concerning the rights of the former to visit the children. On the same day, the Family Court endorsed the agreement.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8593", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953, in Slovenia, and lives in Braga, Portugal.\n6.  On 22 November 2006 the applicant brought a liability action (ação de responsabilidade civil) in the Braga Court against F., a lawyer who had acted as her legal representative in previous proceedings, claiming damages for professional negligence.\n7.  On 12 December 2006 F. was notified of the action. On 25 January 2007 he lodged his submissions in reply (contestação) and requested the intervention of his insurance company to which he had transferred his responsibility for the acts committed by him in his capacity as lawyer.\n8.  On 8 March 2007 the applicant lodged new submissions in reply (réplica).\n9.  By a Braga Court’s decision of 11 July 2007 the intervention of the insurance company in the proceedings was accepted. The company was summoned on an unknown date. On 14 September 2007 it lodged its submissions, to which the applicant replied on 11 October 2007.\n10.  Between January and April 2008 the parties disputed the applicant’s legal capacity to be a party to the proceedings (capacidade judiciária).\n11.  On 28 April 2008 the judge gave directions (despacho saneador) absolving F. of the proceedings (absolvição do réu da instância) on the grounds of the applicant’s lack of legal capacity.\n12.  On an unknown date the applicant appealed against that decision to the Guimarães Court of Appeal (Tribunal da Relação). By a decision of 4 December 2008 the Court of Appeal considered that the applicant had legal capacity and ordered the re-analysis of the case at first instance. In February 2009, the proceedings were allocated to the Braga Court.\n13.  On 29 April 2009 the judge gave directions setting out the matters that had already been established and those that remained outstanding.\n14.  Between 28 May and 6 November 2009 the parties lodged, in total, three requests to which the judge promptly replied in less than one month.\n15.  On an unknown date the case was set down for hearing on 10 March 2010. The hearing was later adjourned to 15 June 2010. A second hearing took place on 7 October 2010.\n16.  On 29 October 2010 the Braga Court partially found in favour of the applicant.\n17.  The parties appealed against the decision to the Guimarães Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeals on 20 October 2011.\n18.  The parties challenged the Court of Appeal’s decision before the Supreme Court.\n19.  On 29 May 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8594", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is currently serving a life sentence in Zhytomyr Prison.\n5.  In 2001 the applicant was prosecuted for two counts of murder. Those criminal proceedings had been examined by the Court in the first case of the applicant (see Yaremenko v. Ukraine, no. 32092/02, 12 June 2008). The abridged facts from the above judgment, insofar as relevant, read as follows.\n6.  On 27 January 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murdering a taxi driver, M., and of several other crimes committed in 2001 (“the 2001 crimes”). At the applicant’s request, he was represented by lawyer O. Kh. during the initial questioning, which took place the same day.\n7.  On 1 February 2001 M., a police officer at the Kyiv Kharkivsky District Police Department (“the police department”), who was in charge of an investigation into the death of a taxi driver, Kh., in the summer of 1998, questioned the applicant with a view to establishing his possible involvement in that crime. The crime was classified as infliction of grievous bodily harm causing death, for which legal representation of a suspect was not obligatory. According to the applicant, he was beaten with truncheons on his wrists and shoulders by police officers, who forced him to sign a waiver of his right to counsel and to confess that he and S. had murdered taxi driver Kh. in the summer of 1998 (“the 1998 crime”). On the same day, that criminal case was transferred to the Kharkivsky Prosecutor’s Office on the grounds that the applicant’s actions could be classified as murder and the investigation of such a crime was within the competence of the prosecutor’s office.\n8.  On 2 February 2001 the criminal cases in respect of the 1998 and 2001 crimes were joined. On the same day, the applicant participated in a videotaped on-site reconstruction of the 2001 crimes. According to the minutes of this investigative action, which was attended by the applicant, his lawyer O. Kh., two attesting witnesses, investigating prosecutor G. and police officer M., who had questioned the applicant on the previous day, the applicant made statements concerning the circumstances of the 2001 crimes, but denied his involvement in the 1998 crime. His lawyer formally requested the authorities to conduct a medical examination of him. This request was handed to investigating prosecutor G., who acknowledged receipt by signing a copy of it. After the reconstruction had been conducted, the applicant signed a waiver in respect of his lawyer O. Kh., on the grounds that the said lawyer had prevented him from confessing to the 1998 crime. According to the applicant, while the waiver bore the date of 2 February 2001, it had actually been signed on a later date under coercion from the police officers and the case investigator.\n9.  On an unknown date investigating prosecutor G. replied to lawyer O. Kh., stating that his request of 2 February 2001 for a medical examination of the applicant could not be granted since he had been removed from the case.\n10.  On 7 February 2001 the applicant, who was represented by a newly‑appointed counsel, K., participated in a videotaped on-site reconstruction of the 1998 crime and confessed to having committed it with S.\n11.  On 8 February 2001 lawyer O. Kh. complained to prosecutor V. that investigating prosecutor G. had not replied to his request for a medical examination of the applicant, would not permit him to visit the applicant, and had tried to force the applicant to request", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8595", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Zhytomyr.\n5.  At about 9 a.m. on 7 August 2002 two men, one of them wearing a mask, entered the applicant’s house, tied the applicant and took the valuables belonging to her and other household members. Subsequently, the unmasked man put a revolver in the applicant’s ear and fired a shot. The applicant survived, having sustained a permanent disability. To this day the bullet remains in her head.\n6.  On the day of the assault, the Zhytomyr police instituted criminal proceedings into the incident, examined the crime scene, collected fingerprints and other evidence, questioned the applicant’s household members and neighbors and ordered several expert assessments.\n7.  On 9 August 2002 the applicant was admitted in the proceedings as an injured party.\n8.  On several occasions the applicant identified the photos of various persons presented by the police as those of the unmasked offender. Among them, on 24 September 2002 she identified a certain V.P.\n9.  On an unspecified date I. K., V.P.’s partner, acknowledged to the police that she had seen a revolver in his possession. She also noted that at about 8 a.m. on 7 August 2002 V.P. had left their home for an appointment with his friend S.K. On that date he had returned home at about 1 p.m., wearing a new suit and carrying some money, which, according to him, had been entrusted to him by S.K. for safekeeping.\n10.  On 25 September 2002 A.V., V.P.’s neighbor, identified S.K. on a photograph, as V.P.’s friend.\n11.  On 8 October 2002 I.K. also identified S.K. on a photograph as V.P.’s friend.\n12.  On several occasions in October 2002 the authorities questioned S.K. as a witness.\n13.  On 18 October 2002 the investigation was suspended on the ground that all possible measures to locate the perpetrators had been exhausted.\n14.  On 5 November 2002 the Zhytomyr City Prosecutor’s Office revoked this decision, having found that additional measures were warranted.\n15.  Two further decisions to suspend the proceedings taken on 26 November and 16 December 2002, respectively, were, in turn, revoked by the prosecutor’s office on 4 December 2002 and 8 January 2003.\n16.  According to the applicant, in January 2003 she informed the investigator in charge of her case that she suspected that O.M., her cousin, had been the masked offender. Having assured her that he would conduct the necessary inquiries, the investigator left this information without any follow-up.\n17.  On 31 March 2003 the proceedings were suspended on the ground that all possible measures to locate the perpetrators had been exhausted. According to the applicant, she was not informed of this decision and kept soliciting the authorities to investigate her suspicions in respect of O.M.\n18.  On 24 June 2003 the applicant and several other members of her family complained to the Zhytomyr Regional Prosecutor’s Office of the length of the proceedings and the failure of the investigator to react to the applicant’s suspicions with respect to O.M.\n19.  On 25 July 2003 the prosecutor’s office informed the complainants that the proceedings had been suspended since 31 March 2003. On the same date it revoked the suspension decision, noting that the measures taken to identify the perpetrators had not been comprehensive, and transferred the case to the Korolyovskiy District Prosecutor’s Office in Zhytomyr for supervising further investigative activities.\n20.  On 4 September 2003 O.M. was arrested and remanded in cust", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8596", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Skopje.\n7.  On 6 December 2010 a three-judge panel of the Skopje Court of Appeal, presided over by the applicant (including Judges I.L. and M.S.), decided, in second instance, to grant an appeal of a detainee. The panel accepted a proposed bail and replaced an order for detention on remand with an order for house arrest (Ксж.бр. 537/2010). On 9 December 2010 the State Public Prosecutor challenged this decision by means of a request for the protection of legality (барање за заштита на законитоста). He sought that the Supreme Court declared that decision unlawful and that it be remitted for fresh consideration.\n8.  On 10 December 2010 a five-judge panel of the Supreme Court, presided over by Judge J.V., the President of the Supreme Court at the time, held a session at which the public prosecutor’s request was examined. The Supreme Court accepted the prosecutor’s amended request (преиначено) and stated inter alia that:\n“The Supreme Court finds that Skopje Court of Appeal, which decided the appeal ... against the decision ... in which the Skopje Court of First Instance had dismissed a request for termination of pre-trial detention (предлог за укинување на мерката притвор) as unsubstantiated, had no statutory ground to decide the complaints on the merits, but, on the contrary, it was bound by law to establish that the appeal ... was inadmissible ...”\n9.  On 10 December 2010 the criminal division of the Supreme Court composed of six judges of that court, including Judge J.V. (see section 39(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, paragraph 22 below), held a session at which they discussed the case Ксж.бр. 537/2010. Following an examination of the record of the deliberations of the Skopje Court of Appeal regarding the decision of 6 December 2010 (see paragraph 7 above), the criminal division of the Supreme Court concluded that two judges had disclosed professional misconduct. The relevant part of the record of that session reads as follows:\n“... the criminal division of the Supreme Court unanimously found (едногласно се донесе заклучок) that there had been professional misconduct by two judges of the Skopje Court of Appeal who had adjudicated in the case Ксж.бр. 537/2010.\nThe President of the Supreme Court, J.V., then closed the session of the criminal division.”\n10.  In submissions of the same date, Judge J.V., as an ex officio member of the State Judicial Council (“the SJC”, see Amendment XXVIII to the Constitution, paragraph 19 below), requested that the SJC establish professional misconduct in respect of the applicant and Judge I.L. This request was submitted pursuant to sections 78 and 79 of the State Judicial Act 2010 (“the Act”, see paragraph 20 below) according to which a member of the SJC or the president of the higher court can seek that professional misconduct proceedings were launched regarding a judge. As stated in the request, there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant and Judge I.L. had exercised the office of judge in an unprofessional and unconscientious manner given that they had voted in favour of the decision of 6 December 2010 in the criminal case Ксж.бр. 537/2010, which had been in violation of the Criminal Proceedings Act. In support, he submitted copies of the decisions of 6 and 10 December 2010 (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above).\n11.  On 23 December 2010 the plenary of the SJC, including Judge J.V., discussed Judge J.V.’s request for determination of profession", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8597", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, who was born in 1943, lives in Urus-Martan, Chechnya. She is the mother of Mr Apti Islamov, who was born in 1977 (in the documents submitted also stated as 1976) and Mr Said-Emi (also spelled as Said-Emin) Islamov, who was born in 1981.\n6.  At the material time the brothers Mr Apti Islamov and Mr Said-Emi Islamov worked as policemen at the Zavodskoy district department of the interior (the ROVD) in Grozny.\n7.  On 14 October 2000 the two brothers were driving from Grozny to Urus-Martan in “Volga” car with their colleagues Mr Sh. Gadayev and Mr A. Shovkhalov. Their vehicle was stopped by servicemen at checkpoint number 160 (in the documents submitted also referred to as checkpoint no. 160-44, checkpoint no. 104, checkpoint no. 152 and checkpoint no. 140) situated next to the Chernorechye village on the south-west outskirts of Grozny. At the material time the checkpoint was staffed by police officers from the Special Task Unit (the OMON) of the Ryazan region of Russia.\n8.  The four men were arrested in the presence of a number of their colleagues from the Zavodskoy ROVD who were crossing the checkpoint at the same time. One of the servicemen introduced himself as “Alexei” and informed the colleagues of the detained men that their arrest had been ordered by a commander with call-name “Chelsea”.\n9.  At about 6 p.m. two APCs and two UAZ vehicles with a group of armed servicemen arrived at the checkpoint. The servicemen in the APCs, who were wearing black masks, threatened to shoot the ROVD colleagues of the detained and forced them to leave while the four arrested men, including Mr Apti Islamov and Said-Emi Islamov, remained at the checkpoint. The four men have gone missing since.\n10.  The Zavodskoy ROVD in Grozny was immediately informed about the arrest of its four employees at the checkpoint.\n11. The Government submitted copies of the documents from the criminal case file no. 13004 opened into the abduction of Mr Apti Islamov and Mr Said-Emi Islamov, Mr Gadayev and Mr Shovkhalov. The relevant information may be summarised as follows.\n12.  On 17 October 2000 the head of the Grozny town administration complained on behalf of the applicant to the Grozny prosecutor’s office about the abduction of her sons by State servicemen.\n13.  On 24 October 2000 the Grozny prosecutor’s office took statements from seven on-duty officers who had manned the checkpoint no. 160 on the day of the abduction: Mr M.A., Mr A.P., Mr A.S., Mr A.Ma., Mr S.S., Mr A.Sh. and Mr M.K. All of the officers stated that on 14 October 2000 in the early afternoon they had been ordered by the commander to stop the black “Volga” car and arrest its passengers and wait for the arrival of the assault team. They had stopped the car with four men in it. The four men had identified themselves as police officers from the Zavodskoy ROVD and showed their service identity cards. The on-duty checkpoint servicemen had searched the car and asked the four men to wait. Afterwards, officers from the Main Intelligence Service (the GRU) and the Oktyabrskiy temporary district department of the interior (the VOVD) in two APCs and two UAZ vehicles had arrived at the checkpoint. They had put the four men in one of the APCs and driven away to an unknown destination.\n14.  On 27 October 2000 the head of the Zavodskoy ROVD complained about the abduction of their four employees to the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20102 and requested assistance in establishing the where", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8598", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lived in Moiano.\n6.  The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant was the owner of a plot of land in Moiano. The land in issue was recorded on the land register as folio no. 11, parcels no. 392 and 396.\n8.  On 18 June 1987, a decree authorising the Moiano Municipality to take possession of a portion of the applicants’ land was issued for a period of three years, through an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public-interest declaration, in order to begin the construction of a road.\n9.  On 14 July 1987 the authorities took physical possession of the land.\n10.  By a writ served on 1 October 1990, the applicant brought an action for damages against the Moiano Municipality before the Benevento District Court. He alleged that the occupation of the land was illegal and that the construction work had been completed without there having been a formal expropriation of the land and payment of compensation. He claimed a sum corresponding to the market value of the land and a further sum in damages for the loss of enjoyment of the land during the period of lawful occupation.\n11.  On an unspecified date the court ordered an expert valuation of the land. In a report submitted in September 1992, the expert concluded that the occupied land covered a surface area of 109 square metres. The expert further concluded that the market value of the land on the date the land had been irreversibly transformed, which he identified as having occurred in May 1998, corresponded to 50,000 Italian lire (ITL) (EUR 25.80) per square metre.\n12.  By a judgment delivered on 9 March 2005 and filed with the court registry on 18 March 2005, the Benevento District Court declared that the possession of the land, which had been initially authorised, had become unlawful as of 14 July 1990. It found that the land had been irreversibly transformed by the public works. As a result, in accordance with the constructive-expropriation rule (occupazione acquisitiva or accessione invertita), the applicants had been deprived of their property, by virtue of its irreversible alteration, on the date on which the possession had ceased to be lawful. In the light of those considerations, the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation in consideration for the loss of ownership caused by the unlawful occupation.\n13.  The court drew on the expert valuation and considered that the market value of the land, which in 1998 corresponded to ITL 50,000 (EUR 25.82) per square metre, corresponded to ITL 57,000 (EUR 29.43) per square metre on the date the occupation had become unlawful in 1990.\n14.  The court held that the applicant was entitled to compensation, calculated in accordance with Law no. 662 of 1996, which had entered into force in the meantime, in the sum of ITL 2,997,500 (equivalent to EUR 1,548.08), to be adjusted for inflation, plus statutory interest.\n15.  The court further awarded the applicant ITL 408,750 (equivalent to EUR 211.10) as compensation for the damage occasioned by the unavailability of the land during the period from the beginning of the lawful occupation (June 1987) until the date of loss of ownership (July 1990), as well as ITL 5,000,000 (EUR 2,582.28) for the damage caused by the building works and ITL 3,000,000 (EUR 1,549.37) as compensation for the decrease in the value of the adjoining land.\n16.  The judgment became final in May 2006.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8599", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first two applicants were born in 1939 and 1964 respectively. They are father and daughter. The last two applicants, who are husband and wife, were born in 1951 and 1946 respectively. All the four applicants live in Rivne, Ukraine.\n6.  Early on the morning of 24 December 1989, the first applicant and his wife, Ms Nadejda Stepanovna Melnichuk, who was the mother of the second applicant – at that time both citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (“USSR”) – were driving through southern Romania, heading home after a trip to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, together with the third and fourth applicants. They were driving in a column of five cars which were transporting fifteen Soviet citizens in total.\n7.  At the same time, a Romanian army unit from Craiova had been notified by an unidentified person from the Border Police of Drobeta Turnu Severin that a column of foreign cars was driving from Drobeta Turnu Severin towards Craiova. At the time of the events, the former President Ceauşescu had just been toppled and there were allegedly persistent news reports that terrorists were trying to reinstate the regime.\n8.  Suspecting that the foreign cars belonged to the so-called terrorists, a team of soldiers was dispatched by Colonel C. – the commander of the army unit of Craiova, who later became general and commander-in-chief of the Romanian Army – to block the road in the nearby of the village of Brădeşti, on the viaduct named Valea rea. The unit was led by Lieutenant Colonel S. The road was blocked by two armoured vans, between which only a single car could pass.\n9.  The column of cars reached the blockade, followed by a local bus. The soldiers asked the passengers several times, in Romanian, to get out of the cars and surrender. As the tourists did not understand what was happening, they did not get out of the cars. During the domestic inquiry, the applicants and the other persons in the cars submitted that the shooting had started without any prior warning. The passengers in the cars started screaming in Russian that they were Soviet tourists. The applicants and the other persons travelling in the column tried to turn back the cars. After a brief pause, the soldiers started shooting again. The first applicant’s wife was shot in the head and the passenger sitting behind her – namely the third applicant – was wounded by bullets, as was the fourth applicant.\n10.  Those who were not wounded started to run away from the cars and tried to hide by the side of the road. At that moment a third round of shooting started. One of the five cars caught fire. Then the shooting stopped and the soldiers approached the cars. The first applicant tried to explain that they were tourists.\n11.  Several bullets also hit the local bus and wounded a passenger who was going to his workplace in Craiova.\n12.  After a while, the first applicant and his wife, together with the third and fourth applicants, were taken to a nearby hospital. The first applicant submits that he was called a terrorist by the Romanian soldiers, who pushed him around.\n13.  Ms Melnichuk was operated on the same day but fell into a coma. On 9 January 1990 she was transferred to a hospital in Bucharest, where she eventually died on 8 February 1990. The medical certificate issued in respect of her death stated that it had been caused by wounds inflicted by gunfire.\n14.  The second applicant travelled to Bucharest to bring back her mother’s body.\n15.  On 9 January 19", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8600", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Rome.\n5.  The applicant was the owner of a plot of land in Randazzo (Catania). The land in issue was recorded in the land register as Folio no. 57, Parcels no. 24, 28, 31, 32, 35 and 360.\n6.  By an order issued on 5 August 1981, the regional administrative authorities approved a land development plan for the construction of a road on the applicant’s land.\n7.  On 24 February 1984 the Mayor of Randazzo issued a decree authorising the Randazzo Municipality to take possession, through an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public-interest declaration, of a portion of the applicant’s land in order to begin the construction of the road.\n8.  On 2 April 1984 the authorities took physical possession of the land.\n9.  By a writ served on 26 July 1991, the applicant brought an action for damages against the Randazzo Municipality before the Catania District Court. They alleged that the occupation of the land was illegal and that the construction work had been completed without there having been a formal expropriation of the land and payment of compensation. They claimed a sum corresponding to the market value of the land and a further sum in damages for the loss of enjoyment of the land during the period of lawful occupation.\n10.  On an unspecified date the court ordered an expert valuation of the land. In his report the expert concluded that the occupied land covered a surface area of 2,235 square metres and confirmed that it could be classified as agricultural land. He further concluded that the market value of the land on the date the occupation became unlawful, which was identified as having occurred on 2 April 1990, amounted to 9,000,000 Italian Lire (ITL).\n11.  By a judgment delivered on 26 May 1999 and filed with the court registry on 8 June 1999, the Catania District Court declared that the possession of the land, which had been initially authorised, had become unlawful as of 2 April 1990. It found that the land had been irreversibly transformed by the public works. As a result, in accordance with the constructive-expropriation rule (occupazione acquisitiva or accessione invertita), the applicant had been deprived of his property, by virtue of its irreversible alteration, on the date on which the possession had ceased to be lawful. In the light of those considerations, the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation in consideration for the loss of ownership caused by the unlawful occupation.\n12.  The court drew on the expert valuation to conclude that the land could be classified as agricultural land and that its market value on the date the occupation had become unlawful in 1990 corresponded to ITL 9,000,000 (approximately EUR 4,600), to be adjusted for inflation, plus statutory interest. The court further awarded the applicant ITL 2,339,600 (approximately EUR 1,200) as compensation for the damage occasioned by the unavailability of the land during the period from the beginning of the lawful occupation (24 February 1984) until the date of loss of ownership (13 July 1990), as well as ITL 5,150,000 (approximately EUR 2,700) as compensation for the decrease in the value of the adjoining land.\n13.  On 17 July 2000 the Municipality appealed against the judgment before the Catania Court of Appeal, primarily contesting the assessment of the property’s market value by the court-appointed expert and arguing that the District Court’s awards for damages ought to be reduced.\n14.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8601", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in the town of Kozelsk, the Kaluga region.\n6.  On 20 April 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in infliction of bodily injuries leading to death.\n7.  On 22 April 2003 the Kozelskiy district court of the Kaluga region (“the district court”) authorised the applicant’s continued detention with reference to the gravity of the charges against him and his previous conviction of theft. The court considered that if at large the applicant could obstruct the proceedings and continue his criminal activities. On 7 May 2003 the Kaluga regional court (“the regional court”) upheld the decision.\n8.  On 18 June 2003 the district court extended the applicant’s detention in view of the gravity of the charges, the fact that the applicant had a criminal record, was not employed and, if released, could reoffend or obstruct the criminal proceedings against him. The judge also noted that the materials adduced by the prosecution disclosed that there was a serious case against the applicant. The applicant did not appeal.\n9.  On 20 July 2003, upon completion of certain investigative measures, the prosecutor’s office decided to release the applicant from custody.\n10.  On 22 July 2003 the applicant was released under an undertaking not to leave his place of residence.\n11.  On 19 May 2004 the district court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten years and six months’ imprisonment. The period of detention from 20 April to 22 July 2003 was counted towards the sentence. The applicant was immediately taken into custody.\n12.  On 20 July 2004 the Kaluga regional court quashed the conviction on appeal and ordered a re-trial. It also held that the applicant should remain in custody; the court cited no legal ground for the preventive measure and set no time-limit.\n13.  On 8 October, 9 December 2004 and 20 January 2005 the district court repeatedly returned the case to the prosecutor, inter alia, in view of certain deficiencies in the bill of indictment. On all occasions the judge found that the applicant should remain in custody without citing any legal grounds for it. The decisions of 8 October 2004 and 20 January contained no reasons for extending the detention while that of 9 December 2004 dismissed the applicant’s request for release with a reference to the gravity of charges. The applicant did not appeal.\n14.  On 20 January 2005 the district court extended the applicant’s detention until 20 April 2005. It gave no reasons except for the fact that the trial was pending.\n15.  On 5 February 2005 the applicant pleaded guilty while being questioned in the presence of his lawyer and signed the record. Later he withdrew his plea.\n16.  On 7 April 2005 the district court convicted the applicant of inflicting bodily injuries leading to death. The defence and the prosecution lodged their respective appeals.\n17.  On 10 June 2005 the regional court sitting on appeal found that the first-instance court should have excluded testimonies given without counsel, quashed the judgment of 7 April 2005 and ordered a re-trial. The regional court also held without any reasons being given that the applicant should remain in custody, and extended the applicant’s detention until 1 August 2005.\n18.  In July 2005 counsel requested that the applicant be released pending the re-trial. On 25 July 2005 the district court rejected that request, inter alia, with reference to the gravity of the charges and the applican", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8602", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 18 May 2002 Vitaliy Kholodkov, the applicants’ adult son, was found dead in his office with a gunshot wound to his head. Having examined the site and questioned potential witnesses, the Kuibyshevskiy District Police in Donetsk noted that some of his personal belongings, including two mobile telephones, were missing.\n6.  On the same date the Kuibyshevskiy District Prosecutor’s Office in Donetsk instituted criminal proceedings into the incident.\n7.  On 22 and 23 May 2002 the first and the second applicants respectively were admitted to the proceedings as injured parties.\n8.  On a number of occasions the applicants complained to various authorities that the investigation was ineffective. They maintained, in particular, that their son had been the victim of a contract killing and insisted that several persons, including A. S., his former business partner, could have ordered his murder. They also identified that their son’s missing mobile telephones had been appropriated by certain S.O. and V.R. They demanded that these persons be arrested and questioned as the potential contract killers.\n9.  On 20 December 2002 the District Prosecutor’s Office suspended the investigation referring to lack of any useful leads.\n10.  On 21 April 2003 this decision was quashed and the investigation was resumed.\n11.  On 4 August 2004 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office developed an action plan to verify the applicants’ allegations concerning deficiencies in the investigation. The parties did not provide any documents concerning the implementation of that action plan.\n12.  On 26 November 2004 an investigator with the Donetsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office suspended the proceedings referring to lack of any useful leads.\n13.  On 12 March 2005 this decision was quashed by the supervising prosecutor and the proceedings were resumed.\n14.  On 11 November 2005 V.R. (indicated by the applicants as a potential contract killer of their son) was placed on the wanted list as a potential suspect.\n15.  On 17 June 2008 the case was transferred to the Donetsk Regional Police Department for further investigation.\n16.  On 4 December 2008 the Donetsk Regional Police Department informed the first applicant, in response to his complaint concerning the protractions in the investigation, that they had identified a potential suspect. However, as his whereabouts were unknown, it was impossible to take any further actions in relation to the case.\n17.  On 25 February 2010 the General Prosecutor’s Office responded to the applicants’ complaint concerning ineffectiveness in the conduct of the investigation by mentioning that two officers from the Kuibyshevskiy District Police Department had been under disciplinary investigation on account of their purported failure to take necessary measures for the collection of evidence in the initial phase of the proceedings.\n18.  On 6 May 2010 the Donetsk Regional Prosecutors’ Office confirmed the above information. The parties did not inform the Court concerning the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings at issue.\n19.  In September 2011 the police arrested V.R. and a certain O.B., who confessed of having beaten Vitaliy Kholodkov in his office on 17 May 2002. O.B. also divulged that he had fired a gun while struggling with Vitaliy Kholodkov.\n20.  On 14 November 2011 the prosecutor’s office instituted criminal proceedings against A.S. (earlier indicated by the applicants as a potential organizer of Vitaliy Kholodkov’s killing) on suspicion of ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8603", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Baku.\n6.  He is a person with a Category 2 disability.\n7.  The applicant is an independent journalist and the chairman of the Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety (“IRFS”), a non-governmental organisation specialising in the protection of journalists’ rights. He also worked as a reporter for the news agency Turan Information Agency.\n8.  On 14 June 2008 a group called the “Che Guevara Fan Club” held a gathering at a private café in Baku to celebrate the eightieth anniversary of the birth of Che Guevara. The café in question was located in the basement of a building in the city centre and there were about twenty-five attendees in the gathering. The applicant, accompanied by two other colleagues (R.A. and M.H.) from the IRFS, attended this gathering.\n9.  The gathering began at noon and approximately thirty minutes later about thirty police officers entered the café. Some of them were in police uniform and others were in plain clothes. They suspended the gathering and announced that they were going to take the attendees to the police station.\n10.  The applicant identified himself, informing the police officers that he was a journalist and the chairman of the IRFS. He had with him his identity card and the card confirming that he was the chairman of the IRFS. The applicant also asked the police officers to identify themselves and to release his arrested colleagues. He further informed the Turan Information Agency by telephone about the police intervention. In response, one of the police officers, who was apparently in charge of the intervention, ordered other police officers to take the applicant to the police station.\n11.  According to the applicant, he was taken to a police car by four police officers, who used force against him. In particular, they punched and kicked him in the stomach.\n12.  In support of his version of events, the applicant relied on written eyewitness statements from R.A. and M.H., dated respectively 23 June 2008 and 24 June 2008, who confirmed that the applicant had informed the police officers that he was a journalist and the chairman of the IRFS before asking the police officers to release them. A police officer had then instructed other police officers to arrest the applicant and they had used force against him while taking him to a police car.\n13.  After his arrival at the police station, the applicant had been separated from the others who had been arrested and had been taken to the office of the Deputy Head of Nasimi District Police Station no. 22, A.K. Four police officers had entered the room and had threatened the applicant in the presence of A.K. One of the police officers, O.A., had, according to the applicant, shouted at him and had taken out his gun. Hitting his gun on the table, he had shouted “I can eliminate you”, “I can arrest you”, “I can send you to jail”. Then he had pushed down the applicant’s head by pressing on the back of his neck so that his head hit the table. The applicant had warned the police officer that he was a person with a Category 2 disability and that his health was fragile. At that point O.A. had struck the applicant in the neck with his elbow; as a result, the applicant had lost consciousness.\n14.  In support of his version of events, the applicant relied on the above-mentioned written eyewitness statements from R.A. and M.H. In particular, R.A. submitted in his witness statement that, when he was in the corridor in the police ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8604", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Kriva Palanka.\n6.  On 24 April 2009 the applicant was operated on for stomach cancer and subsequently underwent chemotherapy.\n7.  On 29 October 2009 she had been feeling anxious and distressed, and her husband requested medical assistance from Kriva Palanka hospital (110 km from Skopje). Dr M., a general practitioner, gave an instruction that the applicant was to be transferred to a psychiatric clinic in Skopje. Dr C.T., a specialist in neuropsychiatry in Kriva Palanka hospital, also gave instructions for her to be transferred to that clinic with police assistance.\n8.  Still on 29 October, at around 5 pm., an ambulance arrived at the applicant’s house in the village of Uzem. Two police officers, who were later identified as M.N. and I.A. in the subsequent criminal proceedings, assisted with the applicant’s transfer to the Bardovci psychiatric hospital in Skopje, where she remained until 31 October 2009.\n9.  The relevant parts of a notice of her discharge, dated 2 November 2009 from Bardovci hospital provide as follows:\n“[This is the] first admission of (the applicant) to this hospital; it was carried out with the assistance of the police from Kriva Palanka.\nAccording to the limited information obtained from (the applicant’s) husband by telephone, (it is known) that since summer this year, when she was diagnosed with and treated for stomach cancer, (the applicant) had become ... melancholic, lethargic, and had threatened with committing suicide.\nWhen admitted, [the applicant] was malnourished, dehydrated, and had several haematomas of different sizes, most probably of recent date (најверојатно од понов датум) ... Concerning her psychological state she was depressed, anxious, tearful, and fixated on her poor state of health (cancer) ...she was burdened with depressive ideas and had a paranoid attitude towards her husband, which may be well-founded ...\nShe is discharged without having been examined or treated, at her husband’s request.”\n10.  Following her discharge from the hospital in Skopje, the applicant was on the same day admitted to the Kriva Palanka hospital. A handwritten medical certificate was issued and entered in the hospital’s records under no. 2131. At the applicant’s request a transcript of this certificate was made by Dr G.S. The relevant parts of this certificate state that:\n“[According to the applicant] she was handcuffed by the police during her transfer to Bardovci psychiatric hospital, as instructed by a doctor. Objectively: haematoma measuring 2 x 6 cm on both forearms around the wrist joints; 3 hematomas measuring 1 x 2 cm on both lower legs. On the right hip, (a haematoma) measuring 1 x 2 cm.\nRegarding these injuries, [the applicant] says that they were inflicted by kicks and blows.”\n11.  Still on 31 October 2009 the applicant was also examined by Doctor M. (see paragraph 7 above). The relevant parts of the medical certificate issued on that date read as follows:\n“On 29 October 2009 at about 5 pm., on a request by (the applicant’s) husband and as suggested in (a neuropsychiatric opinion), the patient was transported to Skopje psychiatric clinic. The applicant states that she was abused during the transfer: she was hit and punched on the legs, [a third person] sat on her legs, and her hands were handcuffed behind her back. When she arrived she was treated violently by hospital staff.\nWhen examined ... [the following] is observed: [she] is upset; a haematoma and a scratc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8605", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are sisters who were born in 1987 and 1992 respectively and live in P.\n6.  In June 1997 the applicants, represented by their mother V.L., concluded a real estate agreement with B.P. in which they expressed their intention of buying a villa of 87 square metres and the adjacent courtyard of 624 square metres in V., a seaside neighbourhood of P. (hereinafter: the “house”). The agreement stated that the house was in poor condition as certain individuals had lived there for several years without any legal basis and had ruined the furniture and installations.\n7.  The agreement was formalised in a real estate purchase contract of 17 December 1997 by which the applicants acquired ownership of the house for an amount of 450,000 Croatian kunas (HRK).\n8.  On 26 November 1999 the applicants registered their ownership of the house and the plot of land in the land register in equal shares.\n9.  On an unspecified date V.L. requested from the relevant Social Welfare Centre (hereinafter: the “Centre”) the authorisation to sell the house owned by the applicants, such authorisation being required under the relevant domestic law in cases where a parent wishes to dispose of a child’s property (see paragraph 39 below).\n10.  As a result of that request, on 10 April 2000 V.L. and her husband Z.L. (the father of the second applicant) were interviewed at the Centre. They stated that they had bought the house in 1997 for HRK 450,000 and that they had already spent approximately 80,000 Deutsche marks (DEM) renovating it. However, the house required some further investment for which they lacked the necessary means and thus they intended to sell it and to live with one of their parents. They further explained that they owned a retail business and that they had no problems with their children, who both had excellent marks at school. V.L. and Z.L. also promised that they would open a bank account on behalf of their children, into which they would deposit the money from the sale of the house. They pointed out that they had contacted a real estate agency, which was looking for a potential buyer. They also agreed that V.L. would conclude the sale contract once they had managed to find a buyer.\n11.  In February 2001 Z.L. was arrested and held in detention in connection with a suspected attempted murder and the unlawful possession of firearms. He was later indicted on the same charges in the P. County Court (Županijski sud u P.), which on 10 October 2001 found him guilty and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. During the criminal proceedings his defence lawyer was M.I, a lawyer practising in P.\n12.  On 15 October 2001 M.I. submitted a request to the Centre seeking authorisation for a real estate swap agreement between the applicants and a certain D.M., who was in fact M.I.’s mother-in-law. He provided powers of attorney signed by V.L., Z.L. and E.B. (the father of the first applicant) authorising him to obtain the Centre’s consent to a swap real estate agreement.\n13.  Together with his request, M.I. provided a draft swap agreement stipulating that D.M. would transfer to the applicants her four-room flat of 78.27 square metres, situated on the fourth floor of a residential building in P. (hereinafter: the “flat”), while the applicants would transfer their ownership of the house to D.M. The draft swap agreement also stated that the values of the properties to be exchanged were the same and that the parties waived their right to object that they had su", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8606", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  With the exception of the first applicant, a legal entity registered under Georgian law on 8 November 2010, the remaining fourteen applicants live in Tbilisi. Their dates of birth are indicated in the attached annex.\n6.  The first applicant, a Georgian non-governmental organisation set up to promote and protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Georgia, planned to organise a peaceful march on 17 May 2012 in the centre of the capital city to mark the International Day Against Homophobia.\n7.  In advance of the march, on 8 May 2012 the first applicant gave the Tbilisi City Hall and the Ministry of the Interior prior notice of its intention to hold a peaceful demonstration on the above-mentioned date. It informed the authorities of the planned route of the march, which would start from the grounds of the Tbilisi Concert Hall and proceed to Orbeliani Square, and the approximate number of participants. In addition, in the light of a foreseeable protest from those opposed to the LGBT community in Georgia, given the general background of hostility towards the sexual minorities, the applicant organisation specifically requested that the authorities provide sufficient protection from possible violence.\n8.  On 14 May 2012 the Tbilisi City Hall acknowledged receipt of the first applicant’s request and explained, in reply, the rights and responsibilities of demonstrators, as provided for by the relevant law.\n9.  On 15 May 2012 the applicant organisation was contacted by a senior officer of the Ministry of the Interior, who clarified the details of the planned march and confirmed to the organiser that police forces would be deployed to ensure that the procession took place peacefully.\n10.  The second to fourteenth applicants submitted written statements describing the exact circumstances surrounding the incident. At around 1 p.m. on 17 May 2012, members of the LGBT community, staff members of Identoba and other LGBT activists, including the thirteen above‑mentioned applicants – approximately thirty people in total (“the LGBT marchers”) – gathered in the grounds adjacent to the Tbilisi Concert Hall. They were holding banners with slogans such as “I am gay”, “I love my gay friend”, “Love is love” and “Get colourful”, as well as rainbow flags and umbrellas. A police patrol was present, as agreed, near the Tbilisi Concert Hall.\n11.  Shortly before the beginning of the demonstration, members of two religious groups, the Orthodox Parents’ Union and the Saint King Vakhtang Gorgasali’s Brotherhood, arrived in the Tbilisi Concert Hall area. Journalists were also present, recording interviews with the LGBT marchers.\n12.  Approximately 200 metres from the starting point of the march, members of the two above-mentioned religious groups (“the counter‑demonstrators”) stopped some of the LGBT marchers and started arguing with them. The counter-demonstrators claimed that nobody was entitled to hold a Gay Pride Parade or to promote “perversion”, as it was against moral values and Georgian traditions. In reply, the marchers tried calmly to explain that it was not a Gay Pride Parade but a public event dedicated to supporting the fight against homophobia, and continued to walk.\n13.  When the LGBT marchers reached Rustaveli Avenue, they were met there by a hundred or more counter-demonstrators, who were particularly aggressive and verbally offensive. The counter-demonstrators blocked the marchers’ way, made a human chain and encirc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8609", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  In 1999 he purchased a house and the land on which it was built, located in Bucharest. The applicant’s parcel of land was adjacent to a parcel of land purchased by two other third parties in 1948.\n7.  On 13 November 2001 the applicant lodged a civil action against the two third parties, seeking to obtain the demarcation of the adjacent parcels of land and an order requiring the defendants to return to him an 11 sq. m parcel of land which was allegedly being illegally occupied by them.\n8.  In a judgment of 4 April 2002 the Bucharest District Court held that the defendants had been illegally occupying a parcel of 10.78 sq. m of the applicant’s land since 1965. It established the boundaries of the properties on the basis of a technical report prepared by an expert and ordered the defendants to return the land in question to the applicant.\n9.  The defendants lodged an appeal with the Bucharest County Court. The court ordered a new expert report. On 22 May 2003 the court dismissed the appeal as ill-founded endorsing the reasoning of the first-instance court.\n10.  The defendants lodged an appeal on points of law on the ground that the courts had misinterpreted the facts and the applicable legal provisions.\n11.  In a final decision of 26 November 2003 the Bucharest Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on points of law, quashed the decisions of the first two courts and dismissed the applicant’s action. It held that both the applicant and the defendants had in their possession smaller areas of land than those mentioned in their respective contracts of acquisition, and invited the parties to reach a friendly settlement. It also held that the parties could bring a fresh action only if they could not reach an agreement.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8610", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicant, Mr Lutpiddin Bakhritdinovich Mukhitdinov (a.k.a. Sattarov, see below), was born in 1967 in the Uzbek SSR of the USSR. He claims to have lived in Uzbekistan until 1992 when he left for Saudi Arabia.\n10.  Since 1997 the applicant has been living in Russia. In 2001, he acquired Russian nationality and changed his name to Sattarov.\n11.  On 7 May 2013 the Tyumen division of the Federal Migration Service determined that the applicant had obtained Russian nationality by fraud and cancelled his Russian passport. On 25 December 2013 the Tyumen Regional Court upheld, in the final instance, the decision of the Migration Service.\n12.  According to the letter from the police chief in Namangan, Uzbekistan, dated 8 April 2013, the applicant forfeited his Uzbek nationality because of his unaccounted absence from the country for more than five years.\n13.  On 7 May 1998 a criminal case was instituted against the applicant in Uzbekistan on the charge of illegal crossing of the Uzbek State border, an offence under Article 223 of the Uzbek Criminal Code.\n14.  On 15 December 2009 further charges were levelled against the applicant under Article 159 § 3 of the Uzbek Criminal Code (“Infringement of the constitutional order of Uzbekistan”) and Article 242 § 1 (“Organisation of a criminal enterprise”). The charges related to the applicant’s alleged participation in the religious terrorist organisation The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (Wahhabii); he was suspected of meeting with its representatives during his stay in Saudi Arabia and of spreading the ideas of the organisation.\n15.  On 16 December 2009 the Namangan Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant.\n16.  On 30 June 2013 the applicant was arrested in Tyumen, Russia.\n17.  On 2 July 2013 the Kalininskiy District Court of Tyumen issued a detention order valid until 30 July 2013. On the latter date the District Court extended the authorised detention period until 30 December 2013. The extension was upheld by the Tyumen Regional Court on 15 August 2013.\n18.  On 11 December 2013 the Russian Prosecutor General approved the applicant’s extradition in relation to the offence of organising, and taking part in, the activities of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, an extremist organisation (Article 244-2 § 1 of the Uzbek Criminal Code). It was noted that “the [applicant’s] extradition ... in relation to the extremist charges ... cannot be regarded as an obstacle for extradition since no procedural decision was taken in this respect by the competent Russian authorities” and further that the Uzbek authorities had provided “diplomatic assurances that [the applicant] ... would not be subject to torture, violence, other cruel or degrading treatment”.\n19.  On 26 December 2013 the District Court approved a further extension of the detention period until 30 March 2014. The applicant challenged the extension before the Regional Court, claiming that the maximum detention period in case of a medium-gravity offence, for which his extradition had been approved, was set by law at six months. By decision of 13 February 2014, the Regional Court quashed the extension order of 26 December 2013, finding that the District Court did not give any specific reasons for extending the applicant’s detention, and remitted the detention matter to the District Court. It directed that the applicant should remain in custody until 24 February 2014.\n20.  In the meantime, on 21 January 2014 the Tyumen Regional Court upheld the extrad", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8611", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 17 December 1999 the applicant brought a criminal complaint to the Zhovtnevyy District Police Office of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Police”) that on 16 December 1999 Z. had beaten her on the street near his office and inside his office.\n5.  The District Police, having questioned Z., who had denied that he had beaten the applicant, refused to institute criminal investigation into the applicant’s criminal complaint on 22 December 1999.\n6.  On 18 January and 1 February 2000 the applicant renewed her criminal complaint.\n7.  On 22 March 2000 the District Police ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant. The examination revealed that she suffered from head injury, concussion, haemorrhage in the right temporal area, post-traumatic right-side cocleite, haemorrhage on the left and right thighs and the right leg’s shin. The medical experts concluded that these injuries could have been inflicted on her by Z. on 16 December 1999.\n8.  On 5 April 2000 an investigator of the District Police instituted criminal investigation into the infliction of the bodily injuries on the applicant.\n9.  On 20, 24 and 29 April, 5 and 10 May 2000 respectively, the investigator questioned: i) Zub., Kyb. and Nos. who had been in Z.’s office on 16 December 1999; ii) St. and Krav. who had been near the office on that date. St. stated that he had seen Z. having beaten the applicant while Krav. stated that she had seen the applicant having been punched by an unknown man on 16 December 1999.\n10.  On 9 August 2000 the second medical examination of the applicant confirmed findings of the previous examination.\n11.  On 14 February 2001 the Dnipropetrovsk Prosecutor’s Office informed the District Police that the investigation into the applicant’s beating was ineffective and urged the police to accelerate it.\n12.  In 2001-2003 the District Police repeatedly questioned the applicant and persons whom it had already questioned earlier. During the same period of time it issued several decisions to suspend the investigation which were all quashed as being unfounded by the higher police department, prosecutors or by a court.\n13.  On 24 June 2003 the medical examination of the applicant ordered by the District Police revealed that she suffered from closed head injury, concussion, post-traumatic encephalopathy, hearing deterioration and circle vestibular disorder. According to the medical report, these health problems could have been caused by the beating on 16 December 1999.\n14.  On 17 August 2003 the District Police completed the pre-trial investigation and sent the case to the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk (“the District Court”) for trial. The pre-trial investigation included the examination of thirteen witnesses, four confrontations between the persons involved in the case, one examination of the crime scene and four reconstructions of events.\n15.  On 6 October 2003 the applicant lodged a civil claim in the criminal proceedings seeking Z. to pay her UAH 5,000 (EUR 787) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage and UAH 5,346.7 (EUR 842) to compensate her for pecuniary damage.\n16.  On 10 November 2003 the District Court found itself unable to rule on Z.’s guilt based on the material in the case-file and sent the case to the Prosecutor’s Office for additional investigation. The prosecutor referred the case to the District Police instructing it to carry out specified investigative measures.\n17.  On 11 December 2003 the applicant requested the District Po", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8612", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Ravne na Koroškem.\n6.  In 1993 his former employer, company Z. R., transferred him to another company.\n7.  On 20 April 1993 the applicant instituted proceedings against the company Z.R. before the Maribor Court of Associated Labour, complaining about his transfer.\n8.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia.\n9.  In September 1995 the applicant’s case was transferred to the Slovenj Gradec division of the Maribor Labour Court.\n10.  Between February 1996 and March 1997 the court held five hearings.\n11.  On 13 March 1997 the Maribor Labour Court established that the applicant’s transfer had never taken effect and that his employment with the defendant had continued. It ordered company Z.R. to re-employ the applicant and to pay him the salary due and the applicable benefits backdated to the day of his transfer. It dismissed the remainder of the claim. The applicant appealed.\n12.  In a decision of 16 April 1999 the Slovenian Pensions and Disability Insurance Institute recognised the applicant’s right to a pension as of 1 February 1999. His employment relationship with Z.R., which as of that date had still not re-employed him, hence terminated.\n13.  On 17 June 1999 the judgment of 13 March 1997 was upheld by the Higher Labour and Social Court and became final.\n14.  As Z.R. had not executed the court’s judgment, on 6 April 2000 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings before the Slovenj Gradec Local Court.\n15.  On 12 July 2000 the court suspended the enforcement proceedings pending a final resolution of bankruptcy proceedings which had been instituted in the meantime against Z.R. (see below).\n16.  On 3 February 2005 the court decided to terminate the enforcement proceedings, since the applicant’s claims had been recognised in the bankruptcy proceedings. The decision became final on 22 February 2005.\n17.  On 5 July 2000 the Slovenj Gradec District Court decided to institute bankruptcy proceedings against the company Z.R.\n18.  On 31 August 2000 the applicant lodged a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings, seeking 2,000,000 Slovenian tolars (SIT, approximately 8,346 euros (EUR)) payable under the judgment of 13 March 1997 (see paragraph 11 above).\n19.  On 11 October 2000 the court held the first main hearing in order to review the claims lodged by the creditors. It was decided that a committee of creditors would not be appointed. According to the applicant, both the receiver and the insolvency panel had assured him and his son, U.Z., who represented him, that they would inform them of any progress in the case, in particular of the scheduling of hearings concerning the distribution of the estate. On the same date the insolvency panel acknowledged part of the applicant’s claims and referred him to the contentious proceedings in respect of the remainder of the claims. The applicant appealed.\n20.  On 5 December 2000 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and overturned the District Court’s decision by instructing the receiver to institute proceedings in respect of the disputed part of the applicant’s claim.\n21.  On 22 January 2000 the official receiver instituted proceedings before the Slovenj Gradec District Court, requesting it to declare that the disputed part of the applicant’s claim did not exist.\n22.  On 20 June 2001 the receiver reported to the insolvency panel that the conclusion of the proceedings was dependent on the conclusion of bankruptcy p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8613", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Veles.\n6.  The applicant was the owner of a plot of undeveloped land, the total surface area of which was 558 sq. m (“the land”). On 30 June 1987 the Council of the Municipality of Kavadarci (“the Municipality”) expropriated the land. As stated in the expropriation order, the expropriation was carried out for the benefit of the Municipality and in the interest of the then socially owned company K. (во корист на општина Кавадарци, а за потребите на ООЗТ „К.”) in order to construct a storehouse (стовариште).\n7.  On 25 July 1989 the Municipality requested, in non-contentious proceedings, that the Kavadarci Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) determine the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicant. The request was submitted after the parties (the applicant and the Municipality) had failed to reach an agreement on the issue.\n8.  On 20 August 1997 the first-instance court ordered the State to pay the applicant the equivalent of 11,500 euros (EUR) in compensation for the land. On 23 April 1998 the Skopje Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration because of substantial procedural flaws.\n9.  On 29 December 1999 the first-instance court awarded the applicant the equivalent of EUR 8,000 in compensation for the expropriated land (558 sq. m). It ordered that the compensation was to be paid by a company, M.K., the successor to the company K., and by the State. The former was ordered to pay compensation for the part of the land it had used, and the latter to pay compensation for the remainder, which had been reserved for the construction of a public road. The court further dismissed the claim against the Municipality, finding that it had no requisite standing to be sued (недостаток на пасивна легитимација). On 20 April 2000 the Skopje Court of Appeal allowed the appeals lodged by the State and the company M.K. and remitted the case for renewed examination. It held that insolvency proceedings were pending against the company M.K. and that any claims should be established in those proceedings. It further found that the lower court had incorrectly established that the State should pay compensation.\n10.  On 11 December 2001 the first-instance court ordered that the Municipality was to pay compensation, which amount was set at approximately EUR 9,000, since the 1987 expropriation order had identified it as the beneficiary of the expropriation. It dismissed the claim as regards the State and the company M.K. for lack of requisite standing to be sued. On 27 February 2003 that judgment was quashed by the Skopje Court of Appeal, which held that, inter alia, the lower court had not identified the final beneficiary of the land.\n11.  On 27 May 2004 the first-instance court held that the company M.K.2000, the legal successor of the company M.K., and the Public Road Fund (Фонд за магистрални и регионални патишта Скопје), should pay compensation in an amount equivalent to approximately EUR 8,650, which corresponded to the market value of the land. It dismissed the claim as regards the State and the Municipality for lack of requisite standing to be sued in the proceedings. It further held that each party to the proceedings should pay their own costs.\n12.  On 16 November 2005 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment, with the exception of the costs, which matter was remitted for fresh consideration.\n13.  On 10 February 2006 the first-", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8615", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Jesenice.\n6.  On 15 April 1998 the Kranj District Court instituted insolvency proceedings against the company S., at that time the applicant’s employer.\n7.  On 29 April 1998 the receiver in insolvency issued a decision on the termination of the applicant’s employment contract with the company S.\n8.  On an unknown date, the applicant lodged his claim for a redundancy payment in the insolvency proceedings. Since the receiver disputed the claim, the Kranj District Court on 11 September 1998 referred the applicant to labour proceedings.\n9.  On 22 December 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Kranj Divison of the Labour and Social Court.\n10.  In the same period about 150 claims similar to that of the applicant were lodged before the same court.\n11.  In 1999 the Kranj Labour and Social Court issued decisions in four cases similar to the applicant’s, dismissing the claims. It held that the workers who had lost their jobs owing to the employer’s insolvency before section 19 of the 1999 Act Amending the Guarantee Fund of the Republic of Slovenia Act (“the 1999 Act”) became effective were not entitled to a redundancy payment. Section 19 explicitly foresaw a right to a redundancy payment for workers who were let go after a company had become insolvent.\n12.  In 2000 several applications for a constitutional review of section 19 of the 1999 Act were lodged with the Constitutional Court, challenging the constitutionality of non-retroactive application of that provision.\n13.  On 5 October 2001, following the negative decisions issued in the four cases (see paragraph 11 above), the trade union which was also representing the applicant requested the court to postpone hearings scheduled in other cases. The union wanted to first check whether the other workers wanted to withdraw their claims in order to avoid the costs of the proceedings.\n14.  No formal decision on adjourning or staying the proceedings was issued by the court.\n15.  On 10 April 2003 the Constitutional Court dismissed the motions for review of the constitutionality of section 19 of the 1999 Act. It held that they were unfounded, since they were based on the false premises that the right to a redundancy payment for workers laid off because of their employer’s insolvency was introduced only by section 19, and that moreover it did not apply retroactively. Referring to its own decisions issued in 1994, 1995 and 2000, it stressed that this right had already been foreseen by the general labour legislation in force prior to the adoption of the 1999 Act. It explained that the purpose of Section 19 was solely to explicitly clarify that also workers who lost their jobs because of the insolvency of their employers were entitled to redundancy payments. Such clarification was needed because of the conflicting case-law of the lower courts. In this respect the Constitutional Court emphasised that while it could not interfere with the correct interpretation of legal norms by the lower courts, the latter could not apply an interpretation which would be unconstitutional, arbitrary, or clearly wrong.\n16.  On 14 July 2003, the parties settled with the company S., which acknowledged the applicant’s claim.\n17.  On 13 July 2006 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for damage sustained because of the length of the labour proceedings.\n18.  On 27 September 2007 the Ljubljana Local Court dismissed his claim. It held that Section 25 of the 2006 A", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8616", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  The applicant’s employment was terminated unlawfully according to the judgment of the Budapest Labour Court dated 24 August 2004.\n6.  Relying on this decision, on 19 October 2004 the applicant lodged a claim for unpaid wages and other claims against his former employer.\n7.  The Pest County Labour Court rejected the claim on 5 May 2006.\n8.  On appeal, the second-instance court quashed the judgment and transferred the case to the competent Budapest Regional Court on 24 January 2007.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings, the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on 28 November 2008.\n10.  On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld in essence the first‑instance decision on 14 September 2010.\n11.  The applicant lodged a petition for review. On 11 July 2011 the Supreme Court reversed the previous decision and awarded the applicant 2,053,440 Hungarian forints in salary arrears.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8617", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in Ukraine in 1987 and arrived in Slovenia in 2000 with her sister and mother, who had married a Slovenian.\n6.  Between July and December 2001, at the age of 14, she was allegedly repeatedly sexually assaulted by a family friend, X, 55 years old at the time, who together with his wife often took care of her and helped her in preparations for beauty contests.\n7.  In July 2002 the applicant told her mother about the alleged sexual assaults by X, but was unwilling to talk about them with anyone else.\n8.  On 15 July 2002 a priest gave a statement to the Maribor police, in which he said that the applicant’s mother had told him about her concern that the applicant had been raped by X.\n9.  On 16 July 2002 the applicant’s mother lodged a criminal complaint against X, in which she alleged that X had forced the applicant to engage in sexual intercourse with him on several occasions.\n10.  On 17 July 2002 the applicant was questioned by Maribor police officers and described how X had forced her to engage in various sexual activities. As regards the time frame of the assaults, the applicant stated that X had first attempted to kiss her before July 2001, when she had started modelling for fashion shows. She proceeded to give an account of a number of occasions when X had sexually assaulted her. On one occasion X had lain on top of her while she was sleeping at his house and had attempted to have sexual intercourse with her, spreading her legs with one hand and putting his other hand over her mouth to prevent her from screaming, but he was interrupted by his younger son coming up the stairs. On another occasion, when they were at a swimming pool, he had groped her in the water. On yet another occasion X had allegedly taken the applicant to an abandoned workshop owned by his family and performed oral sex on her. Moreover, according to the applicant, X had forced her to perform oral sex on him at least three times, once at his home, once at his company’s garage, and the third time in his van, which he had parked in woods near the town. On that last occasion the applicant had allegedly tried to escape; however, being unfamiliar with the surroundings, she had come back to the van. The applicant stated that X had on several occasions attempted to have intercourse with her, but that she had not been certain whether he had managed to achieve penetration. She further stated that she had tried to defend herself by crying and pushing X away, but without success.\n11.  The applicant was also examined by an expert in gynaecology, who found that her hymen was intact. Moreover, in the course of July and August 2002 the police questioned X, who denied any sexual relations with the applicant, and three other people.\n12.  Following a series of unsuccessful attempts to obtain specific information from the police as regards the progress of the investigation, the applicant’s mother complained to the Maribor District State Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “the State Prosecutor’s Office”).\n13.  On 27 June 2003 the State Prosecutor’s Office sent a letter to the Maribor police, urgently requesting a copy of the criminal complaint lodged against X.\n14.  On 18 August 2003 the police sent a report to the State Prosecutor’s Office stating that the applicant had failed to provide a detailed account of her allegations or to indicate the locations where the alleged rapes had taken place. The police noted that the applicant had given the impression of being", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8618", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1962 and habitually resides in Krivoj Rog (Ukraine).\n7.  From 25 June 2002 until 19 September 2013 the applicant was continuously deprived of his liberty in Slovakia, mainly within the scope of detention pending trial on various charges pursued against him, partly in parallel and partly consecutively. His overall deprivation of liberty included the following periods.\n8.  From 25 June 2002 until 19 May 2005 he was remanded pending trial on several charges, which included what would later be classified as the charge of conceiving, setting up and supporting a criminal and terrorist group (see paragraphs 11 and 35 below). On the latter date the prosecution on that charge was removed to be dealt with in a separate set of proceedings.\n9.  The applicant’s pre-trial detention in the subsequent period would later be set off against a four-year prison sentence imposed on him for the offence of attempting to legalise the proceeds of a criminal activity. He was released from detention in connection with that offence on 13 July 2010.\n10.  Immediately after his release from the last-mentioned detention, the applicant’s liberty was again restricted and it later resulted in his being remanded pending trial on the charge of murder, of which he was ultimately acquitted on 27 July 2011. In consequence, he was released from detention on that very day.\n11.  Following his release on 27 July 2011, the applicant was immediately re-arrested on the same day, and later remanded pending trial on the charge of conceiving, setting up and supporting a criminal and terrorist group (see paragraphs 8 above and 35 below). This term of detention ended with the applicant’s release on 22 February 2012.\n12.  Upon his release on 22 February 2012, the applicant was immediately re-arrested on the same day, and was later remanded pending trial on another charge of murder. This term of detention ended with the applicant’s release on 17 September 2013.\n13.  Upon his last-mentioned release, the applicant was immediately transferred to the detention centre for foreigners (záchytný tábor) in Medveďov, where he was detained until his expulsion to Ukraine on 19 September 2013.\n14.  The applicant’s prosecution on the first charge of murder (see paragraph 10 above) commenced in 2007 while he was still deprived of his liberty within the scope of detention pending trial on the charge of attempting to legalise the proceeds of a criminal activity (see paragraph 9 above).\n15.  On 6 June 2010 an investigator informed the public prosecution service (“PPS”) that if the applicant’s conviction and sentence for attempting to legalise the proceeds of a criminal activity were to be upheld on appeal ‒ an appeal which was about to be heard ‒ the applicant would be eligible for release because the four-year term of his sentence would soon be fully covered by the term of his detention. It would therefore be advisable to consider lodging an application for the applicant to be detained pending trial on the murder charge, which the PPS subsequently did.\n16.  Immediately after the applicant’s release from detention in connection with the charge of attempting to legalise the proceeds of a criminal activity, on 13 July 2010, he was taken to the Border and Foreigners Police Department in Bratislava, where a decision was taken ordering his administrative expulsion, a ban from re-entering Slovakia for five years, and detention pending the enforcement of the expulsion order (zaistenie", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8619", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1923, 1948, 1957 and 1924 respectively. The fourth applicant lives in the village of Rogachevo, the second applicant lives in the village of Obrochishte and the third applicant lives in Varna. The first applicant also lived in Rogachevo.\n7.  A predecessor of the applicants had owned agricultural land in the village of Kranevo, which had been collectivised after 1945.\n8.  Following the adoption of the Agricultural Land Act (“the ALA”, see paragraph 16 below) in 1991, the fourth applicant, on behalf of his predecessors’ heirs, sought the restitution of land totalling 15,000 square metres. In a decision of 19 June 1995, the Balchik agricultural land commission partially allowed the request, refusing to restore the heirs’ rights to 9,210 square metres of land which had been either taken for urban development or transferred to third parties.\n9.  Upon an appeal lodged by the fourth applicant, in a final judgment of 7 December 1995 the Balchik District Court quashed the relevant part of the land commission’s decision of 19 June 1995. It noted, in particular, that the public works for which parts of the land at issue had been taken had not been completed, and that in so far as other parts of the land had been transferred to third parties, there was no bar to restitution as the third parties had not carried out any construction work. On that basis the District Court recognised the heirs as the “owners” of all of the land claimed by them.\n10.  In execution of the above judgment, on 19 February 1996 the land commission issued another decision, restoring to the heirs, inter alia, in its “actual boundaries”, a plot of 1,180 square metres described as “plot no. 891, district 23, under the cadastral plan of Kranevo of 1950”. On 29 July 1996 the heirs obtained a plan of that plot. After agreeing as to the partition of the restituted land, the plot at issue was allocated to the fourth applicant and his sister (who after her death in 2004 was succeeded by the remaining applicants, namely her husband and her sons). On 30 September 1996 the fourth applicant and his sister obtained a notarial deed.\n11.  However, the plot was in actual fact held by several private persons, having been transferred in 1972 by the agricultural co-operative of the time to the predecessors of a certain Ms D.S. in exchange for another plot. In 1996 Ms D.S. had sold a share of the plot to a certain Ms E.H. and Mr N.R.\n12.  On 28 March 1997 the fourth applicant and his sister brought a rei vindicatio action against Ms D.S., Ms E.H. and Mr N.R., claiming that the 1972 transfer of the property and the subsequent sale could not have prejudiced their own rights.\n13.  The action was examined by three levels of jurisdiction and disallowed in a final judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 1 June 2005. The domestic courts took note of the Balchik District Court’s final judgment of 7 December 1995, but found that they were competent to exercise an “indirect judicial review” (косвен контрол) of it. The courts found further that the documents describing the plot, namely the Balchik land commission’s decision of 19 February 1996 and the notarial deed of 30 September 1996, referred to “plot no. 891, district 23 under the cadastral plan of Kranevo of 1950”. However, there existed no cadastral plan dating from 1950 and the current plans, the last of which dated from 1984, did not show a plot bearing that number. The Balchik District Court and the land commiss", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8620", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1962, 1967, 1989, 1996, 1998, 1942, 1944, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1955, 1957 and 1960 respectively, and live in Larnaca, Nicosia and Famagusta. The first and second applicants are husband and wife. The third, fourth and fifth applicants are their children. The sixth to thirteenth applicants are the five brothers and three sisters of the first applicant.\n7.  On 1 December 2000 a Turkish Cypriot named Ömer Gazi Tekoğul was arrested by the police of the Republic of Cyprus in possession of two kilograms of heroin. His arrest brought protests from the authorities of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”), who alleged that he had been unlawfully arrested in the buffer zone controlled by the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (“the UNFICYP”), where neither the Greek Cypriot nor the Turkish Cypriot side was allowed to exercise authority. There were reports that Mr Tekoğul’s vehicle had allegedly been found abandoned by the Turkish Cypriot authorities inside the United Nations (“UN”) buffer zone, with its engine running and headlights on. The Republic of Cyprus authorities maintained that the arrest had been effected within their jurisdiction just outside the buffer zone.\n8.  On 8 December 2000 Mr Tekoğul was charged with drug possession and smuggling, and was remanded in custody by the Larnaca District Court in the Republic of Cyprus.\n9.  According to a report of the UN Secretary General dated 30 May 2001 on the UN operation in Cyprus, UNFICYP’s own investigation into the incident had not yielded sufficient evidence to confirm or refute either version of the events regarding the arrest of Mr Tekoğul[1].\n10.  In the meantime, on 20 March 2001 Mr Tekoğul was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment by the Larnaca Assize Court on various drug‑related charges, but was subsequently pardoned by President Clerides and released on 28 September 2001.\n11.  The first applicant is a building contractor. At the time of the events giving rise to this application, he owned a construction company, Panicos Tsiakkourmas and Company Ltd., which employed workers from both sides of the island.\n12.  Like many other Greek Cypriot contractors employing Turkish Cypriot workers, the first applicant picked up his Turkish Cypriot workers each morning from a café (“Rabiye’s café”) located in the Sovereign Base Area (“SBA”) of Dhekelia[2] in the vicinity of the Pergamos checkpoint, where people crossed from the “TRNC” to the SBA. The first applicant would collect his Turkish Cypriot workers from the café every weekday morning at approximately 5.45 to 6 a.m. and would drive them to work. At the end of the working day, he would drop them off at the same location.\n13.  The events that took place on the morning of 13 December 2000, which resulted in the first applicant’s detention by the “TRNC” authorities, are disputed between the parties. They will therefore be presented separately.\n14.  At approximately 5.30 a.m. on 13 December 2000 the first applicant left his house in the village of Livadhia in Larnaca to collect his Turkish Cypriot workers from Rabiye’s café in his red Chevrolet double-cabin pickup, as he did every workday. Since it had rained heavily the night before, parts of the road were flooded, which forced him to drive slowly. The heavy rain had stopped by the morning, but it was still drizzling when he left the house.\n15.  On the main road from Pyla to Pergamos leading to Rabiye’s café, the first applicant noticed five to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8621", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Ms Erla Hlynsdóttir, is an Icelandic national who was born in 1978 and lives in Reykjavík. She is a journalist, working for the newspaper DV.\n6.  In May 2007 the Director of Public Prosecutions issued an indictment against two individuals for importing cocaine into Iceland. The cocaine had been hidden in a Mercedes Benz vehicle, where it had been discovered by customs officers. The police had removed the cocaine and put another substance in its place. One of the accused, Mr A, had collected the car from customs and had paid customs duties for it. He and the other accused had driven the vehicle to a garage, where the substance had been removed.\n7.  The newspaper DV published an article on 5 July 2007 on the ongoing criminal proceedings against Mr A and his co-accused before the Reykjavík District Court. A picture of Mr A was published on the front page of the newspaper showing him walking into the courtroom. There was a large headline under the photograph which read “Scared cocaine smugglers” and underneath that it was written that both the accused were afraid of retaliation by their accomplices and had therefore refused to identify them. Mr A´s name also appeared on the front page, with a report that he and his co-accused could expect prison sentences of seven to eight years and three to four years respectively for removing the substance.\n8.  The article itself was reproduced on page 2 of the newspaper and the applicant was identified as its author. Next to the article appeared another photograph of Mr A, again using his name. The article stated that Mr A had been afraid to reveal the identity of the man he claimed had actually been behind the importation, and that he feared for his family’s and his own safety. The article contained the following passage:\n“The Director of Public Prosecutions is requesting a punishment of seven to eight years´ imprisonment in respect of [Mr A], who has been indicted for importing nearly 3.8 kilograms of cocaine, intended for sale, together with an unknown accomplice. A punishment of three to four years is requested in respect of [Mr B], who is also charged in the case with removing the alleged drug from the vehicle, in cooperation with [Mr A],”.\n9.  In the next paragraph it was stated:\n“The cocaine was hidden in a vehicle which [Mr A] imported into the country and took possession of in February 2007, believing that the cocaine was still in the vehicle, but the police had already confiscated the cocaine and replaced it with a decoy drug.”\nThis sentence was a verbatim rendering of a part of the description of the facts contained in the indictment, without explicit reference being made to that document.\n10.  By a judgment of 12 July 2007 the District Court acquitted both Mr A and his co-accused of all charges, and on 29 May 2008 the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal.\n11.  On 21 October 2008 Mr A lodged defamation proceedings before the Reykjavík District Court against the applicant and Mr S.M.E., who was the editor of DV at the time. In his writ he requested that the headline (“Scared cocaine smugglers”) which had appeared on the front page of the newspaper published by DV on 5 July 2007 and the passage quoted in paragraph 9 above be declared null and void. In addition, Mr A requested that the respondents jointly and severally be ordered to pay him 2,500,000 Icelandic krónur (ISK) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and ISK 500,000 to cover the costs of publishing the judgment in the case", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8623", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Korolivka, in the Kyiv Region.\n6.  On 12 July 2010 the Bila Tserkva Town Court (“the Bila Tserkva Court”) found the applicant guilty of inflicting grievous bodily injuries on a certain Mr N. on 12 May 2006. Although this type of crime was punishable with five to eight years’ imprisonment, the court considered it possible to apply a more lenient sanction to the applicant. It had regard, in particular, to the fact that he had pleaded guilty and had shown remorse. Accordingly, the Bila Tserkva Court sentenced the applicant to four years and seven months’ imprisonment. It also decided to include in the served part of the applicant’s sentence the period from 20 October 2005 to 3 May 2006 (six months and fourteen days), during which he had been detained in the context of another criminal case. Lastly, in fixing the applicant’s sentence the court had regard to the fact that he “had spent more than four years in [pre-trial] detention facilities in which the detention conditions were considerably harsher than in a post-conviction prison, and the previous judgments in respect of him had been quashed”. No further information is available regarding the earlier detention of the applicant, the other criminal cases involving him, or the judgments that had been quashed.\n7.  In the operative part of its judgment, the Bila Tserkva Court also ruled that the applicant should remain in a pre-trial detention centre (“SIZO”) as a preventive measure until the judgment became final. It further noted that the judgment was amenable to appeal within fifteen days of the date of its delivery.\n8.  On 15 July 2010 the term of the applicant’s sentence expired, and he asked the SIZO administration to release him. His request was rejected. On the same day the SIZO administration, however, applied to the Bila Tserkva Court for permission to release the applicant subject to an undertaking not to abscond, given that he had served his prison sentence in full. No reply was received.\n9.  On 19 July 2010 the applicant’s lawyer applied once again to the SIZO administration for the applicant’s immediate release. He submitted, in particular, that there were no grounds for his client’s continued detention. A copy of that letter was also sent to the Kyiv Region Prosecutor’s Office.\n10.  On 27 July 2010 the fifteen-day time-limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of 12 July 2010 expired and, in the absence of an appeal, it became final.\n11.  On the same day the SIZO administration wrote to the applicant’s lawyer stating that it could not release the applicant until either the preventive measure in respect of him was changed or the judgment became final. It was noted in the letter that, in any event, it was for the Bila Tserkva Court to authorise the applicant’s release.\n12.  On 29 July 2010 the SIZO received the court’s order to enforce the final judgment and the applicant was released.\n13.  On 5 August 2010 the State Prisons Department wrote to the applicant’s lawyer in reply to his complaints regarding the delayed release of the applicant, stating that there had been no violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8625", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Las Vegas, United States of America.\n6.  Her mother owned a plot of agricultural land of 1,000 square metres which was expropriated in 1952. Subsequently the plot was included in the urban territory of the Bankya district of Sofia.\n7.  The applicant is her mother’s sole heir.\n8.  In 1992, following the adoption of the Agricultural Land Act, the applicant requested that her property rights to the plot be restored. In a decision of 7 September 1994 the Bankya land commission held that, since the plot had become part of the urban territory, the procedure could only continue after the presentation of a plan of the plot and a certificate, showing whether any part of the plot had been constructed upon (see paragraph 23 below).\n9.  In a letter dated 19 June 2000, in response to an inquiry of the applicant as to the status of her request for restitution, the Bankya land commission stated once again that it needed a plan and a certificate.\n10.  On an unspecified date after that the applicant requested the Bankya district mayor to issue these documents, to allow her to pursue the restitution procedure.\n11.  During the years which followed the Bankya district authorities instructed the applicant to submit various documents, allegedly necessary for the preparation of the plan and the certificate, which she did. Nevertheless, the documents sought by the applicant were not issued.\n12.  On 27 February 2007 the applicant applied for judicial review of the mayor’s tacit refusal to issue the documents at issue.\n13.  Initially, the Sofia Administrative Court dismissed the application as inadmissible. Upon an appeal by the applicant, on 19 May 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed that decision and ordered the lower court to examine the merits of the application. It commented as follows on the applicant’s situation:\n“It can only be concluded on the basis of the case file that in the course of many years the municipal bodies were unlawfully refusing to provide [the applicant] with a plan of the plot and a certificate, and were instead flooding her with correspondence, expressing in different letters some kind of views as to what documents she needed to present and informing her that different procedures on which her request depended were under way. ...”\n14.  After a fresh examination of the case, in a judgment of 9 January 2009 the Sofia Administrative Court quashed the mayor’s refusal, finding that the mayor enjoyed no discretion as to whether to issue the documents sought by the applicant, and ordered him to issue these documents within one month. It noted that the plan of the plot and the certificate were mandatory for the Agriculture and Forestry Department (the former land commission) to be able to resume the restitution procedure, and pointed out that the mayor’s unlawful refusal to issue them affected the applicant’s right to restitution.\n15.  The above judgment was not appealed against and became final.\n16.  On 5 March 2009 the Bankya district mayor once again instructed the applicant to submit additional documents so that a plan of the plot and a certificate could be issued. The applicant challenged these instructions as irrelevant and impossible to observe. Nevertheless, in a decision of 24 February 2010 the mayor refused to issue a certificate and a plan because the instructions had not been complied with.\n17.  The applicant applied once again for judicial review. In a decision of 25 June 20", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8626", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company was established in 1995 and has its registered office in Prešov.\n6.  In 2004 the applicant company bought real property registered on ownership certificate no. 5604 for the cadastral area of Južné mesto in the city of Košice. The seller was a State-owned enterprise (“the seller”) acting through a receiver in insolvency.\n7.  Prior to the sale, in a decision (uznesenie) of 8 April 1998, the Košice Regional Court (Krajský súd) acting as an insolvency court had consented to the property being sold directly as opposed to through a public auction.\n8.  By way of an order (opatrenie) of 9 July 2004 the insolvency court approved the sale of the property to the applicant company because it had fulfilled the conditions for the sale as set out in the decision of 8 April 1998. It observed that the proposed price was adequate in view of all the circumstances, including the fact that there were municipal and other roads situated on the land in question.\n9.  The order of 9 July 2004 was not amenable to appeal. It became final and binding on the same day as it was issued.\n10.  On 28 July 2004 the sale was registered in the land registry. The title to the property was thereby effectively transferred to the applicant company.\n11.  The seller was subsequently dissolved and struck out of the companies register, whereby it ceased legally to exist.\n12.  On 22 April 2008 the City of Košice (“the claimant”) brought an action against the applicant company seeking a ruling that it was the owner of the property.\nThe claimant argued in principle that, by mistake, the property had not been registered as its own; that accordingly it did not belong to the seller; and that – consequently – the sale had been void.\n13.  The action was examined and dismissed on 27 February 2009 by the Košice I District Court (Okresný súd) and, following an appeal lodged by the claimant, on 8 October 2009 by the Regional Court.\nThe District Court held a hearing and took complex documentary evidence and oral submissions from the parties.\nBoth courts unanimously concluded that there was a non-rebuttable legal presumption, under Article 19 § 2 of the Insolvency Code (Law no. 328/1991 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time), that the property belonged to the insolvency estate and could be lawfully sold to third parties unless its exclusion from the estate had been claimed by way of a special action (vylučovacia žaloba), which had not happened in the present case. The applicant company had acquired the property in good faith and the present action could not be used to contest that.\n14.  The dismissal of the action became final and binding on 7 January 2010.\n15.  On 13 December 2010 the claimant filed a petition with the Office of the Prosecutor General (“the PG”) requesting the latter to exercise his discretionary power to challenge the above-mentioned judgments by way of an extraordinary appeal on points of law (mimoriadne dovolanie – “extraordinary appeal”).\n16.  Having decided to accede to the request and acting through his First Deputy, on 5 January 2011 the PG challenged the contested judgments in the Supreme Court (Najvyšší súd).\nHe argued that the courts had erred in applying the said legal presumption which, in his view, only applied if the party concerned had been invited by the insolvency court to seek the exclusion of the property in question from the insolvency estate by the special action mentioned above and if that party had failed to act on the invita", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8627", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  As respondent party, the applicant was involved in a case of property litigation as of 6 March 1996.\n5.  Due to pending proceedings before the construction authorities, the Pest Central District Court suspended the procedure. Subsequently, a first hearing was held in 1999.\n6.  The court separated the proceedings from further claims on 2 December 2004.\n7.  On 27 June 2006 the court rejected the counterclaim of the applicant.\n8.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court quashed this decision on 27 March 2007. It remitted this part of the action to the first-instance court.\n9.  In the resumed proceedings the first-instance court partly found for the applicant on 27 January 2010.\n10.  On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld this judgment on 1 January 2010.\n11.  The applicant lodged a petition for review; and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment on 9 November 2011. The decision was served on the applicant on 1 March 2012.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8628", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in the village of Ribaritsa.\n6.  Her father, of whom she is the sole heir, owned agricultural land in the area surrounding the village which was incorporated into an agricultural cooperative at the beginning of the 1950s.\n7.  In 1991, following the adoption of the Agricultural Land Act (“the ALA”, see paragraph 17 below), the applicant applied for the land’s restitution.\n8.  By a decision dated 10 March 1999 the land commission dealing with the case refused to restore her rights to two plots of 900 and 2,000 square metres respectively, noting that sheep pens had been built on them by the agricultural cooperative. It held that the applicant was entitled to compensation in lieu of restitution.\n9.  The above decision was served on the applicant in 2004, whereupon she applied for a judicial review.\n10.  In a judgment of 8 September 2005 the Teteven District Court quashed the decision of 10 March 1999, finding, on the basis of an expert report, that there were no buildings on the plots at issue, only assorted construction materials. Accordingly, there was no obstacle to the plots’ restitution in kind. In addition, the Agriculture and Forestry Department – the successor body of the land commission – had argued in the proceedings that the land had been sold by the agricultural cooperative to a third party. According to the District Court, this circumstance, apart from being unsubstantiated, could not bar restitution in kind either, because any dispute as to the land’s ownership would fall to be examined by the civil courts after completion of the restitution procedure.\n11.  On the basis of the above, the District Court held that the applicant was entitled to the restitution in kind of the two plots of land.\n12.  No appeal was lodged against the above judgment and it entered into force on 26 September 2005.\n13.  On 20 February 2006 the Agriculture and Forestry Department took another decision on the same matter, refusing the restitution in kind of two plots of land, one of 2,127 square metres and the other of 454 square metres, apparently identical to the plots discussed above. The Department noted that in 1995 the two plots had been sold by the agricultural cooperative to a third party, and that an agricultural building and a metal shelter had been erected on the plot of 2,127 square metres. It held once again that the applicant was entitled to compensation in lieu of restitution.\n14.  The applicant applied for a judicial review of that decision. In a final judgment of 4 October 2006 the Lovech Regional Court found the decision null and void since it contradicted the judgment of 8 September 2005.\n15.  The applicant submits that following the Lovech Regional Court’s judgment she paid numerous visits to the Agriculture and Forestry Department to request compliance with the judgment of 8 September 2005. In July 2007 she wrote to the Department’s superior body, the Lovech Regional Directorate of Agriculture and Forests, requesting its intervention.\n16.  In 18 October 2006 the Agriculture and Forestry Department adopted a new decision on the matter. Noting that the applicant’s right to restitution had been recognised by virtue of the judgments of 8 September 2005 and 4 October 2006, it restored her rights to three plots, measuring 2,127, 319 and 454 square metres respectively, which were apparently identical to the plots discussed above. The decision identified the plots measuring 2,127 and 454 square me", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8629", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company was established in 1993 and has its registered office in Opava (the Czech Republic).\n6.  The present application concerns claims against a Slovak gas company (“the defendant”) dating back to 1998 when the defendant was still a State‑owned enterprise and when its director and statutory representative was Mr J.D. It came to light subsequently that, at the time, Mr J.D. had issued a number of promissory notes (vlastná zmenka) in the name of the defendant for large amounts of money (see Michaela Huserová, Administrator in Bankruptcy of Union banka, a.s. in liquidation and Stroden Management Limited v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 760/04, 9 November 2010).\n7.  Prior to becoming the statutory representative of the defendant, Mr J.D. had served a term as Minister of Industry and two terms as Minister of the Economy. In 1999 he was murdered in circumstances that are yet to be clarified.\n8.  The promissory notes have always been contested by the defendant. Nevertheless, they have been negotiated among many parties and have given rise to a deal of litigation, including the proceedings in the present case. They have also attracted extensive media attention.\n9.  In 2001, the defendant was transformed into a joint‑stock company. It then underwent privatisation and 49% of its shares were sold to private foreign investors.\n10.  The contract for the privatisation of the defendant contains a clause pursuant to which the State agreed to indemnify the investors for any loss they might incur on account of the promissory notes signed by Mr J.D.\n11.  Of relevance for the present application is the fact that at the time, 51 % of the defendant’s shares were held by the State, while the remaining 49 % were held by a private party.\nAt present, the defendant is wholly owned by the State.\n12.  On 23 December 2005 the applicant company instituted proceedings against the defendant before the Bratislava V District Court (Okresný súd). Then and at all stages of the proceedings, it was represented by a lawyer.\nThe applicant company relied on a promissory note for the payment of the equivalent of some 11,350,000 euros (EUR) signed by Mr J.D. in the name of the defendant on 29 September 1998. The date of issue indicated on the promissory note was 1 October 1998.\nOn the basis of that note and four endorsements on it, the applicant company claimed to be the holder of the note and sought a judicial order for the defendant to pay the above-mentioned amount with interest and some additional associated amounts.\n13.  On 17 February 2006, in summary proceedings, the District Court issued a payment order (zmenkový platobný rozkaz) for the amounts claimed. The defendant protested (námietky) and appealed (odvolanie), but the order was upheld in ordinary proceedings by, respectively, the District Court on 21 May 2007 and the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) on 28 April 2009.\n14.  Both the District Court and the Regional Court held hearings at which the legal representatives of the parties and two witnesses were heard and documentary evidence as adduced by the parties was examined.\n15.  The courts concluded that the promissory note had been validly issued in the name of the defendant by Mr J.D.; that, at the time of issue, the note had been incomplete as it had had no maturity date; and that its maturity date, 1 November 2005, had been added to it later.\nThe courts dismissed the defendant’s claims that the note had been issued for payment “at sight”, that it ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8630", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant company was established in 1995 and has its registered office in Bratislava.\n6.  On 17 March 1995 the applicant company concluded a contract with Slovak Radio (Slovenský rozhlas), Slovakia’s national public-service radio broadcaster, a publicly funded institution with its own legal personality, the status of which is regulated by law (at that time Law no. 619/2003 Coll., as amended, presently Law no. 532/2010 Coll., as amended).\n7.  Under the contract, in return for a fee, the applicant company agreed to act as exclusive agent for Slovak Radio as the principal (“the principal”) for the sale of broadcasting time for the purposes of advertising.\n8.  The venture worked well and the contract was amended several times. The amended contract was valid until 31 December 2007.\n9.  However, in 2004 the relationship between the applicant company and the principal began to sour because the principal was not content with the amount of business acquired by the applicant company in 2003.\n10.  The principal had accordingly issued the applicant company with a bill for the difference between the estimated profit and the real profit from such business.\n11.  As the applicant company did not pay the bill, the principal served the applicant company with a notice of termination of the contract, considering the applicant company’s failure to pay the bill to be a fundamental breach of the contract.\n12.  The notice period expired on 30 September 2005, following which the principal arranged for the sale of its broadcasting time by other means.\n13.  On 20 October 2005 the applicant company challenged the validity of the principal’s notice of termination of the contract in court, but later withdrew the action.\n14.  The principal, for its part, sued the applicant company for payment of the difference between the estimated profit and the real profit. No information has been made available about the current state and outcome of those proceedings.\n15.  On 5 December 2006 the applicant company demanded that the principal pay it the equivalent of some 693,000 euros (EUR), according to the exchange rate applicable at that time, by way of indemnity for termination of the contract.\nWith reference to the contract, the amount of the indemnity had been calculated as the applicant company’s average yearly commission for the preceding five years, taking into account both financial and non-financial transactions between the principal and third parties, the latter being referred to as barter transactions.\n16.  As the principal did not satisfy the applicant company’s claim, on 1 June 2006 the applicant company sued it for the above-mentioned amount and late-payment interest.\n17.  On 29 March 2007 a copy of the action was served on the principal for observations. Hearings were scheduled for 13 and 27 April and 14 May 2007, in the course of which the Bratislava I District Court (Okresný súd) examined complex documentary evidence and heard the statutory representative of the applicant company and four witnesses.\n18.  However, the principal submitted no written observations and appeared at none of the hearings. The circumstances of its absence were disputed (see below).\n19.  On 14 May 2007 the Bratislava I District Court (Okresný súd) granted the action in full. It observed that despite having been represented by a lawyer, the principal had failed to submit any observations or to present a good excuse for its failure to appear at any of the hearings. It therefore proc", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8632", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Vienna.\n6.  On 3 October 2000 the applicant was stopped by the police at 11.05 p.m. while driving his car on a public road. He was ordered to undergo a breathalyser test. After nine attempts to measure the amount of alcohol, among which only one was valid, the test was discontinued. The applicant’s conduct was considered to amount to a refusal to undergo the breathalyser test and his driving licence was temporarily withdrawn. Two different sets of proceedings were initiated against the applicant.\n7.  On 15 December 2000 the Melk District Administrative Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft, DAA) issued a decision to withdraw the applicant’s driving licence for a period of four months as a preventive measure to secure road safety. The DAA observed that, according to the case-law of the Administrative Court, it amounted to a refusal to undergo a breathalyser test if the person who had been ordered to undergo the test had made four invalid attempts out of five. According to the statements of police officers W. and R. and the paper print outs of the test results, the applicant had been allowed to make much more attempts, namely nine and only one had produced a valid result. When the applicant had claimed that the breathalyser had been defective, police officer R had made himself two attempts using the same mouthpiece as the applicant and both attempts had produced valid results. The DAA also noted that technical tests of the breathalyser had been carried out on 15 May 2000 and on 9 November 2000 and each time the breathalyser had been found fully functioning. On the basis of this evidence it was safe to conclude that the applicant had refused to undergo the breathalyser test. The DAA also ordered that an appeal had no suspensive effect because it was necessary to avoid the risk that a person lacking trustworthiness for road traffic might drive. Moreover the applicant was ordered to follow driver improvement training before his driving licence would be returned.\n8.  The applicant appealed and argued that the DAA should have obtained the report of a technical expert on the functioning of the breathlyser as only such an expert could clarify whether the machine was working properly.\n9.  On 19 December 2005 the Lower Austria Regional Governor (Landeshauptmann) dismissed the applicant’s appeal. He found that according to the paper print out of the breathalyser test the applicant had made nine attempts of which only one had been valid whereas during the other attempts the applicant had not blown sufficient air into the mouth-piece. Thereupon two attempts with the same mouth-piece as used by the applicant had been made by police officer R., which both produced valid results. Thus, there were no indications that the breathalyser did not function properly or that it had not been handled correctly by the police officers who had been specially trained for this task. In such circumstances a request for obtaining a report by a technical expert, without giving clear indications in what the malfunctioning of the breathalyser might have consisted, amounted to an inadmissible request for evidence (Erkundungsbeweis). The Regional Governor concluded that refusing to undergo a breathalyser test was as serious as driving under the influence of alcohol because it prevented the authorities from verifying whether a person was actually drunk. The additional measure imposed on the applicant was therefore justified in order ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8633", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Sevastopol.\n5.  On 20 June 2003 Ivan Mashchenko, the applicant’s husband, was reported by an ambulance team to have died in a garage cooperative complex. The same day the police examined the site and ordered a forensic examination of the body.\n6.  On 23 June 2003 the applicant received a medical certificate indicating that her husband had died of a head injury.\n7.  On 30 June 2003 the Gagarinskiy District Prosecutors’ Office in Sevastopol concluded that Mr Mashchenko’s death had resulted from a head injury caused by an accidental fall and there were no grounds for instituting criminal proceedings. They referred, primarily, to the statements by D., who had submitted that his friend Mr Mashchenko had accidentally fallen on his back in D.’s presence, after both of them had consumed some alcohol in the garage. An ambulance had been called, but Mr Mashchenko died before it had arrived. The investigation also referred to the statements by K., the garage complex guardian, who had submitted that he had called the ambulance, after having been informed by G., the garage complex electrician, that Mr Mashchenko had been lying on the floor and in need of assistance.\n8.  In September 2003 the applicant appealed against the decision of 30 June 2003 in the Gagarinskiy District Court of Sevastopol. She noted, in particular, that she had only been apprised of the above decision on 3 September 2003 and had not been provided with a copy of it; that the authorities had neither questioned her as part of their inquiry, nor informed her of the progress in the proceedings. Likewise, they had not studied her husband’s medical file and had examined the location where the death had occurred in a perfunctory manner.\n9.  In the meantime, on 31 July 2003, following the completion of all laboratory tests, a forensic expert concluded that Ivan Mashchenko had in fact died of a heart attack, while his head injury could be classified as a minor one.\n10.  On 26 February 2004 the court revoked the disputed decision of 30 June 2003, having concluded that the inquiry had been perfunctory. It referred to the discrepancies between the death certificate and the expert conclusion concerning the cause of Mr Mashchenko’s death; found that the investigation had failed to question all pertinent witnesses, including the ambulance staff, who had been first to certify Mr Mashchenko’s death, and noted that there had been unreconciled factual discrepancies between the accounts of the incident provided by the main witnesses D. and G.\n11.  On 30 April 2004 the District Prosecutor’s Office took a fresh decision not to institute criminal proceedings.\n12.  On 5 July 2004 this decision was revoked by the District Court, which found that its instructions had not been fulfilled in good faith.\n13.  Between 2004 and 2011 nine more decisions not to institute criminal proceedings were taken (on 5 January and 8 August 2005, 16 August 2006, 14 May and 8 June 2007, 14 March, 13 June and 24 October 2008 and 11 May 2010). All of them were subsequently revoked either by the Sevastopol City Prosecutor’s Office or by the District Court (on 1 August 2005, 24 May 2006, 10 April, 31 May and 22 November 2007, 6 May and 3 September 2008, 28 April 2010 and 25 March 2011 respectively) with reference to insufficiency of the measures taken and failure of the inquiring officers to fulfil the earlier instructions given to them. At various times these instructions concerne", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8635", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Yuriy Vitaliyovych Lutsenko, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1964.\n6.  The applicant was the Minister of the Interior. He occupied this post from 2005 to 2006 and from 18 December 2007 to 11 March 2010. Since 27 August 2014 he has been the leader of the Bloc of Petro Poroshenko party.\n7.  On 2 November 2010 the General Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “the GPO”) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and another individual, Mr P., on suspicion of abuse of office under Article 191 § 3 of the Criminal Code. On 5 November 2010 the applicant was formally charged. On the same day he gave a written obligation not to abscond.\n8.  On 11 December 2010 the GPO instituted another criminal case against the applicant for exceeding his official powers under Article 365 § 3 of the Criminal Code, on the ground that he had arranged for the allocation of a one-room apartment to his driver, Mr P.\n9.  The two criminal cases were joined together.\n10.  On 13 December 2010 the GPO completed the investigation in the case and formally charged the applicant with both offences, having reclassified his actions specified in the first charge under Article 191 § 5 of the Criminal Code (misappropriation, embezzlement, and conversion of property by malfeasance).\n11.  On 26 December 2010 the applicant was arrested and detained in the Security Service Detention Centre (Слідчий Ізолятор Служби Безпеки України).\n12.  On 27 December 2010 the Pechersk District Court (Печерський районний суд) (hereinafter “the Pechersk Court”) ordered that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant be changed from a written obligation not to abscond to remand in custody.\n13.  On 28 December 2010 the applicant was transferred to Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre no. 13 (Київський Слідчий Ізолятор №13) (hereinafter “the SIZO”).\n14.  On 17 May 2011 the GPO submitted the applicant’s criminal case to the Pechersk Court which, on 27 February 2012, rendered a judgment sentencing the applicant to four years’ imprisonment. The case received extensive attention in both national and international media which were present at court hearings. Photographs depicting the applicant behind metal bars were published soon after the court hearings.\n15.  On 7 March 2012 the applicant appealed, seeking the quashing of the first-instance judgment on the ground of lack of guilt.\n16.  On 16 May 2012 the Kyiv Court of Appeal (Апеляційний суд міста Києва) upheld the judgment of the Pechersk Court.\n17.  On 31 August 2012 the applicant was transferred to Mena colony in Chernihiv Region to serve his prison sentence.\n18.  In a judgment of 3 April 2013 the Higher Specialised Court of Ukraine for civil and criminal cases (Вищий спеціалізований суд України з розгляду цивільних і кримінальних справ) upheld the applicant’s prison sentence slightly reducing the amount of compensation that he had to pay.\n19.  On 7 April 2013 the former President of Ukraine issued a decree of pardon in respect of a number of individuals, including the applicant, who was released the same day.\n20.  Prior to his arrest the applicant was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus type 2 and chronic gastritis and pancreatitis.\n21.  Upon his admission to the SIZO on 28 December 2010, the applicant was examined by the head of the medical unit and a duty doctor. He underwent clinical, laboratory and X-ray examinations. On the basis of those examinations and the applicant’s anamnesis, he was diagnosed with symptomati", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8636", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in St Petersburg.\n5.  In 1995, a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of fraud and bribery. On 31 August 1995 the investigators searched the applicant’s home and office. They removed some items and money.\n6.  On 10 March 1998 the applicant sued the Prosecutor’s Office for the return of his possessions. On 27 May 1998 the proceedings were adjourned pending the outcome of the criminal case.\n7.  By decisions of 29 November 2000 and 23 January 2001, the Oktyabrskiy District Court of St Petersburg established that the searches of 31 August 1995 had been unlawful.\n8.  In July 2002 the civil proceedings were resumed.\n9.  On 4 February 2004 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued. Prosecutors returned a part of the applicant’s possessions but the rest of them had already been disposed of.\n10.  In its judgment of 8 February 2005, the Court found that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant did not satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement (see Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, § 136, 8 February 2005).\n11.  On 9 March 2005 the Oktyabrskiy District Court partly upheld the applicant’s claims. On 18 May 2005 the St Petersburg City Court remitted the case to the first instance for a fresh examination.\n12.  On 13 February 2007 the applicant submitted an amended statement of claims. In particular, he asked the court to award him damages in respect of the loss of value and profit, and, finally, costs and expenses.\n13.  By a final judgment of 3 October 2007, the St Petersburg City Court awarded the applicant damages and costs and expenses in the amounts claimed but dismissed his claim for the loss of profit. The City Court acknowledged that the investigative authorities had illegally removed, and subsequently disposed of, the applicant’s property.\n14.  The judgment was enforced in January 2008.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8637", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Innsbruck.\n5.  The applicant was the manager of Alpenland Holland B.V., a company registered in the Netherlands dealing with artwork.\n6.  On 11 May 1994 the Innsbruck Tax Authority first informed the Innsbruck Public Prosecutor of the suspicion of tax fraud by the applicant in connection with the sale of several pieces of artwork by Alpenland Holland B.V.\n7.  On 16 May 1994 the Innsbruck Regional Court issued an order for the applicant’s home to be searched. The search was conducted on 30 May 1994, which is also the date when the applicant was first notified of the investigations against him.\n8.  On 26 February 1997 the Innsbruck Tax Authority submitted its final report to the Innsbruck Public Prosecutor.\n9.  On 8 June 1998 the Innsbruck Public Prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant concerning the suspicion of tax fraud during the years 1989, 1990 and 1992, alleging that the applicant had evaded taxes amounting to 6.87 million. Austrian Schilling (equivalent to approximately 500,000 euros (EUR)).\n10.  The Innsbruck Regional Court held oral hearings on 19 November 1998, 14 January 1999 and 5 October 2000. On the latter date it acquitted the applicant of the charges. On 22 November 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment upon a plea of nullity by the Innsbruck Tax Authority and referred the case back to the first instance for a re-trial.\n11.  After having held oral hearings on 5 June 2002, 9 September 2002 and 14 October 2002, the Innsbruck Regional Court convicted the applicant of tax fraud and sentenced him to a fine of EUR 120,000, EUR 40,000 of which was suspended on probation. The judgment was served on 16 November 2002. The applicant lodged a plea of nullity.\n12.  On 11 September 2003 the Supreme Court again quashed the judgment and referred the case back to the first instance.\n13.  In March 2003 the Innsbruck Regional Court commissioned an expert to determine the assessment base for the calculation of the taxes.\n14.  On 18 and 19 November 2004 and on 23 December 2004 further oral hearings were held. The Innsbruck Regional Court remarked in a note to the file dated 14 February 2005, quoting the case Hennig v. Austria (no. 41444/98, 2 October 2003), that the length of the proceedings was already considerable, and admitted that this was attributable to the court system.\n15.  In March 2004 the expert opinion was delivered. During the oral hearing of 18 May 2006 the Innsbruck Regional Court requested the expert to supplement his report, as it had turned out to be incomplete and did not answer the most relevant questions. A revised expert opinion was received in March 2007.\n16.  During the oral hearing on 29 May 2009, at which the applicant was heard, the Innsbruck Public Prosecutor withdrew the indictment because the statutory time-limit for the prosecution of the offence had expired. Consequently, the Innsbruck Regional Court acquitted the applicant of the charges (judgment delivered orally on 29 May 2009, served on the applicant’s counsel on 25 February 2010). The written judgment contained, inter alia, the following wording:\n “The above-mentioned sales transactions solely aimed at the commission of tax fraud in Austria. No levies were paid in the Netherlands in connection with the sale of the paintings. The profits made constitute income deriving from a business according to Section 23 of the Income Tax Act [Einkommenssteuergesetz], which from an economic point of vie", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8638", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bataysk, Rostov Region.\n5.  In 1987 the applicant took part in emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result the applicant suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions.\n6.  In 1993 due to that fact he was granted status of a disabled person and awarded a monthly compensation, to be adjusted once a year in line with the minimum subsistence amount (величина прожиточного минимума).\n7.  In 2002 the applicant brought proceedings against the Bataysk Social Security Office (Отдел социальной защиты населения г. Батайска) seeking indexation of the compensation amount and payment of the respective arrears for the previous years.\n8.  On 21 January 2003 the Bataysk Town Court rendered a judgment ordering the increase of the monthly allowances due to the applicant in line with the increase of the minimal subsistence amount in the Rostov Region. In re-calculating the amount of the applicant’s allowances the court applied the multiplier of 1.92 based on the data provided by the regional committee on statistics. As a result, the monthly allowance increased up to 4,800 Russian roubles (RUB), and monthly food allowance increased up to RUB 576. The court ordered the defendant to pay the applicant the recalculated amount as from 1 January 2002 less the sums already paid. On 16 April 2003 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Rostov Regional Court and entered into force.\n9.  On an unspecified date the Bataysk Social Security Office appealed to the Rostov Regional Court by way of supervisory review seeking to quash the judgment of 21 January 2003. On 30 June 2003 the judge-rapporteur refused to initiate the supervisory review proceedings.\n10.  On an unspecified date the Bataysk Social Security Office lodged a new supervisory review complaint, now with the President of the Rostov Regional Court. The President granted the application. On 24 October 2003 the case was transferred to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court for the examination on the merits.\n11.  On 4 December 2003 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 21 January 2003 stating that the first instance court’s calculation of the compensation amount had not been supported by evidence and that the first instance court had misinterpreted the domestic law. The case was remitted to the Bataysk Town Court for a fresh examination.\n12.  On 25 December 2003 the Bataysk Town Court reduced the multiplier to 1.25, recalculated the compensation amount and reduced it to RUB 3,125. In this set of proceedings the applicant amended his claims and dropped the food allowance claim. The applicant did not appeal against this judgment.\n13.  On 20 January 2010 the Bataysk Town Court had awarded the applicant pecuniary damages in the amount of RUB 76,061.40 for the period from 1 July 2000 to 4 December 2007, which were paid to the applicant in July 2010. There is no information as to the grounds for the claim of the damages. Nor related documents were provided.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8639", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Volgograd.\n5.  On 15 August 2001 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of large-scale fraud.\n6.  On 28 September 2001 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody.\n7.  On 2 October 2001 and 22 July 2002 charges were brought against the applicant.\n8.  On 7 August 2002 the criminal case was submitted to the Tsentralniy District Court of Volgograd (“the District Court”) for trial.\n9.  On 8 October 2002 the first hearing was held. It was presided over by judge A.\n10.  On 26 November 2002 the applicant was released from custody.\n11.  On 30 December 2002 the case was transferred to judge G. and, pursuant to Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Immutability of court composition), the trial was restarted.\n12.  Between March and June 2003 and between June 2004 and January 2005 the hearings were adjourned on seven occasions: on five occasions due to the non-attendance of the accused, their representatives and the witnesses, and on two occasions, from 19 May to 11 July 2003 and from 10 December 2004 to 17 January 2005, following requests from the applicant for more time to study the case file.\n13.  In the meantime, on 19 January 2003, an unrelated criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of storing firearms and narcotic drugs. He was again remanded in custody on 20 January 2003. On 19 June 2003 the District Court convicted the applicant of storing firearms and narcotic drugs and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.\n14.  On 28 March 2005 judge G. went on maternity leave, and on 26 April 2005 the initial case was transferred to judge S. The trial was restarted.\n15.  Between May and November 2005 the hearings were adjourned on two occasions due to the non-attendance of the participants in the trial.\n16.  On 16 December 2005 judge S. resigned, and on 14 February 2006 the case was transferred to judge M. The trial was again restarted.\n17.  Between March and June 2006 the hearings were adjourned on three occasions due to the non-attendance of the participants in the trial.\n18.  On 19 July 2006 judge M. resigned and the case was transferred to judge Mar. The trial was restarted for the fourth time.\n19.  Between November 2006 and June 2008 the hearings were adjourned on five occasions due to the non-attendance of the participants in the trial.\n20.  On 6 August 2008 the District Court of Volgograd found the applicant guilty of complicity in large-scale fraud and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The final sentence under both verdicts was set at nine years’ imprisonment.\n21.  On 1 December 2009 Volgograd Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.\n22.  The applicant was detained in Volgograd remand prison IZ-34/1 from 10 October 2001 to 26 November 2002, from 20 January 2003 to 19 August 2003, from 23 September 2003 to 17 May 2005[1], from 12 July 2005 to 29 April 2008 and from 16 May 2008 to 6 September 2008. He submitted that the cells had been severely overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition.\n23.  The cell where the applicant was held most recently, measuring approximately thirty square metres and equipped with eighteen bunk beds, accommodated between twenty and thirty inmates at any given time. The inmates were obliged to take turns to sleep.\n24.  The toilet in the corner of the cell (a hole in the floor measuring about 15-20 cm in diameter), elevated above the floor by 0.4 metres and separated by a ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8641", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n12.  At the time of the demise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was an autonomous region (oblast) of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (“the Azerbaijan SSR”). Situated within the territory of the Azerbaijan SSR, it covered 4,388 sq. km. There was at the time no common border between Nagorno-Karabakh (known as Artsakh by its Armenian name) and the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (“the Armenian SSR”), which were separated by Azerbaijani territory, the district of Lachin being the shortest distance between them, including a strip of land often referred to as the “Lachin corridor”, less than 10 km wide.\n13.  According to the USSR census of 1989, the NKAO had a population of 189,000, consisting of 77% ethnic Armenians and 22% ethnic Azeris, with Russian and Kurdish minorities. The district of Lachin had a different demographic, the vast majority of its population of some 60,000 being Kurds and Azeris. Only 5-6% were Armenians.\n14.  In early 1988 demonstrations were held in Stepanakert, the regional capital of the NKAO, as well as in the Armenian capital, Yerevan, to demand the incorporation of Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia. On 20 February the Soviet of the NKAO made a request to the Supreme Soviets of the Armenian SSR, the Azerbaijan SSR and the USSR that the NKAO be allowed to secede from Azerbaijan and join Armenia. The request was rejected by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on 23 March. In June it was also rejected by the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan, whereas its counterpart in Armenia voted in favour of unification.\n15.  Throughout 1988 the demonstrations calling for unification continued. The district of Lachin was subjected to roadblocks and attacks. The clashes led to many casualties, and refugees, numbering in the hundreds of thousands on both sides, flowed between Armenia and Azerbaijan. As a consequence, on 12 January 1989 the USSR government placed the NKAO under Moscow’s direct rule. However, on 28 November, control of the region was returned to Azerbaijan. A few days later, on 1 December, the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR and the Nagorno‑Karabakh Regional Council adopted a Joint Resolution on the reunification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia. As a result of this Resolution, a joint budget for the two entities was established in January 1990 and a decision was taken to include Nagorno-Karabakh in the Armenian elections, which were to take place in the spring of that year.\n16.  In early 1990, following an escalation of the conflict, Soviet troops arrived in Baku and Nagorno-Karabakh and the latter was placed under a state of emergency. Violent clashes between Armenians and Azeris continued, however, with the occasional intervention by Soviet forces.\n17.  On 30 August 1991 Azerbaijan declared independence from the Soviet Union. This was subsequently formalised by the adoption of the Constitutional Act on the State Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan of 18 October. On 2 September the Soviet of the NKAO announced the establishment of the “Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh” (the “NKR”), consisting of the territory of the NKAO and the Shahumyan district of Azerbaijan, and declared that it was no longer under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. On 26 November the Azerbaijani Parliament abolished the autonomy previously enjoyed by Nagorno-Karabakh. In a referendum organised in Nagorno-Karabakh on 10 December, 99.9% of those participating voted in favour of secession. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8643", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Mr Hatip Dicle and Mr Selim Sadak were born in 1955 and 1954 and live in Diyarbakir and Şırnak, respectively.\n6.  Mr Hatip Dicle and Mr Selim Sadak, who were MPs in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey and members of the DEP political party (Democracy Party), which has since been dissolved by the Constitutional Court, were arrested on 2 March 1994 and 1 July 1994 respectively.\n7.  On 8 December 1994 they were sentenced by the Ankara State Security Court to fifteen years’ imprisonment for belonging to an illegal organisation, pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Penal Code.\n8.  By judgment of 26 October 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld that judicial decision.\n9.  On 17 July 2001, adjudicating on an application lodged by the applicants and two other persons, the European Court of Human Rights found, in its judgment in the case of Sadak and Others v. Turkey (no. 1) (nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96, ECHR 2001‑VIII), a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court, as well as a violation of Article 6 § 3 (a), (b) and (d) of the Convention in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 on the grounds that the applicants had not received timely information on the reclassification of the charges against them and had been unable to question the prosecution witnesses or to have them questioned.\n10.  On 9 December 2004, at the 906th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies at the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers adopted a Final Resolution (ResDH(2004)86) on the judgment of the Court in the case of Sadak and Others, cited above. The relevant passages of that Resolution read as follows:\n“The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Convention’),\nHaving regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Sadak and others case delivered on 17 July 2001 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;\nRecalling that the case originated in several applications (nos. 29900/96, 29901/96, 29902/96 and 29903/96) against Turkey, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 17 January 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by Mr Selim Sadak, Ms Leyla Zana, Mr Hatip Dicle and Mr Orhan Doğan, four Turkish nationals, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaints relating to the lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against them, to the lack of independence and impartiality of the State Security Court which convicted them, in 1994, to 15 years’ imprisonment for belonging to an armed organisation, as well as to the discriminatory violation of their right of freedom of expression and freedom of association;\nWhereas in its judgment of 17 July 2001 the Court unanimously:\n- held that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of the Ankara State Security Court;\n- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraphs 3 (a), (b) and (d), of the Convention, taken together with paragraph 1, on account of the fact that the applicants were not notified in good time that the charges against them had been altered and that they were unable to examine or have examined the witnesses against them;\n- held that it was not necessa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8644", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n14.  At the time of the demise of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) was an autonomous region (oblast) of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic (“the Azerbaijan SSR”). Situated within the territory of the Azerbaijan SSR, it covered 4,388 sq. km. There was at the time no common border between Nagorno-Karabakh (known as Artsakh by its Armenian name) and the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (“the Armenian SSR”), which were separated by Azerbaijani territory, the district of Lachin being the shortest distance between them, including a strip of land often referred to as the “Lachin corridor”, less than 10 km wide.\n15.  According to the census of the USSR of 1989, the NKAO had a population of approximately 189,000, consisting of 77% ethnic Armenians and 22% ethnic Azeris, with Russian and Kurdish minorities.\n16.  In early 1988 demonstrations were held in Stepanakert, the regional capital of the NKAO, as well as in the Armenian capital, Yerevan, to demand the incorporation of Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia. On 20 February the Soviet of the NKAO appealed to the Supreme Soviets of the Armenian SSR, the Azerbaijan SSR and the USSR that the NKAO be allowed to secede from Azerbaijan and join Armenia. The request was rejected by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on 23 March. In June it was also rejected by the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan, whereas its counterpart in Armenia voted in favour of unification.\n17.  Throughout 1988 the demonstrations calling for unification continued. The district of Lachin was subjected to roadblocks and attacks. The clashes led to many casualties, and refugees, numbering in the hundreds of thousands on both sides, flowed between Armenia and Azerbaijan. As a consequence, on 12 January 1989 the USSR government placed the NKAO under Moscow’s direct rule. However, on 28 November, control of the region was returned to Azerbaijan. A few days later, on 1 December, the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR and the Nagorno‑Karabakh regional council adopted a Joint Resolution on the reunification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia.\n18.  In early 1990, following an escalation of the conflict, Soviet troops arrived in Baku and Nagorno-Karabakh and the latter was placed under a state of emergency. Violent clashes between Armenians and Azeris continued, however, with the occasional intervention by Soviet forces.\n19.  On 30 August 1991 Azerbaijan declared independence from the Soviet Union. This was subsequently formalised by the adoption of the Constitutional Act on the State Independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan of 18 October 1991. On 2 September the Soviet of the NKAO announced the establishment of the “Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh” (the “NKR”), consisting of the territory of the NKAO and the Shahumyan district of the Azerbaijan SSR, and declared that it was no longer under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. On 26 November 1991 the Azerbaijani Parliament abolished the autonomy previously enjoyed by Nagorno-Karabakh. In a referendum organised in Nagorno-Karabakh on 10 December 1991, 99.9% of those participating voted in favour of secession. However, the Azeri population boycotted the referendum. In the same month, the Soviet Union was dissolved and Soviet troops began to withdraw from the region. Military control of Nagorno‑Karabakh was rapidly being handed over to the Karabakh Armenians. On 6 January 1992 the “NKR”, having regard to the results of the referendum, reaffirmed its ind", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8645", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Oryahovo.\n6.  On 13 June 2002 he, his son and his brother were attacked by a group of men and beaten with bats and metal rods. The applicant was left unconscious with a traumatic brain injury and broken skull and a dislocated finger. Both injuries, necessitating his hospitalisation for several days, were classed as intermediate bodily harm under Bulgarian law.\n7.  On the same day the police opened criminal investigation and carried out an inspection of the scene of the attack. In the next few days they interviewed the applicant and the other victims, as well as witnesses including suspected participants in the incident.\n8.  The applicant, his son, and his brother explained that the family had made a living out of collecting snails and had been in a dispute with K.K., who had been buying them. On 13 June 2002 the applicant and the other victims were in his son’s car, looking for K.K. to discuss the situation. They found him, accompanied by about fifteen other men in four cars. The men were carrying metal rods and bats. The applicant, who was the first to approach them, was hit by K.K. in the face. The others then proceeded to hit him until he fell to the ground. His brother was also attacked, receiving several blows and a broken arm. His son remained in the car and managed to lock the doors, but the car was heavily damaged. The attack took place at a bus station in front of onlookers.\n9.  A man named T.K. said that in the days preceding the attack, members of the applicant’s family had been threatening K.K. On 13 June 2002 he heard K.K. call friends he did not know. After gathering, the group left in their cars to look for the applicant and his family. When they found them, K.K. had a short exchange with the applicant and the two groups then started to fight. K.K.’s friends were carrying bats. T.K. stated that he had not participated in the fight, and had attempted to pull K.K. away. He had not seen who had started it.\n10.  When interviewed as a suspect on 14 June 2002, K.K. refused to explain what had happened.\n11.  On 14 June 2002 the police investigator appointed an expert with the task of making an assessment of the injuries sustained by the applicant. The parties did not provide the Court with a copy of that report.\n12.  On 24 and 25 July 2002 the investigator in charge of the case requested information from the police on any links the parties might have had with criminal groups, on T.K. and K.K., and on several other suspected participants in the attack. The information provided showed, in particular, that T.K. had various previous convictions.\n13.  The parties did not inform the Court of any other investigative actions taken at that stage.\n14.  In a decision of 2 December 2002 a prosecutor from the Oryahovo regional prosecutor’s office stayed the criminal proceedings, reasoning that some of the perpetrators of the attack had not been identified. That decision was quashed on an unspecified date by the Oryahovo District Court. It appears that K.K. was charged after this date for his participation.\n15.  On 21 March 2003 the prosecutor discontinued the proceedings against K.K., considering that the charges against him had not been proven. Once again this decision was quashed by the Oryahovo District Court.\n16.  On 31 October 2005 the prosecutor once again stayed the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the perpetrators had not been identified. Following an appeal by the applicant, th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8646", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The first applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Varna. The second applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Sokobanja.\n8.  The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n9.  The applicant ran a transport business as a sole proprietor (samostalni preduzetnik) from 1979 to 1995.\n10.  In 1990 and 1991 the applicant provided transport services to the Pocerski Metković local community (Mesna zajednica Pocerski Metković) in Šabac. According to the contract, the local community which had engaged his services had levied what were known as self-imposed local taxes (“SILT”; samodoprinosi).\n11.  On an unspecified date in 1994 the applicant, together with two other traders, brought an action against the local community requesting payment for services provided. The applicant’s business ceased to exist in 1995 and the applicant, as its sole proprietor and manager, took over the outstanding claim as its successor.\n12.  The local community was represented in the proceedings by the Solicitor General (javni pravobranilac) of the Šabac Municipality, the latter being the founder of the Pocerski Metković local community.\n13.  On 11 May 2001 the Valjevo Commercial Court ordered the local community to pay the applicant 24,400 Serbian dinars (RSD) with interest. The court also ordered the local community to pay all the claimants jointly the amount of RSD 54,520 for the costs of the civil proceedings. On an unspecified date soon after, the judgment of 11 May 2001 became final and enforceable.\n14.  On 29 April 2003 the applicant applied to the Valjevo Commercial Court for enforcement of the said judgment, and proposed that this be carried out by bank transfer.\n15.  On 6 October 2003 the Valjevo Commercial Court ordered the enforcement, also awarding the applicant RSD 4,664 for the costs of the enforcement proceedings. Thereafter, the said court transmitted this enforcement order to the competent department of the Central Bank in Kragujevac (Narodna banka Srbije).\n16.  On 9 June 2006 and 8 October 2007 the applicant enquired about the enforcement. He was informed that the debtor’s bank account had been frozen since 13 November 2003 and that he had been registered as the second-class priority creditor.\n17.  According to the Government, on 19 December 2003 the Commercial Court archived the enforcement case as terminated. The applicant, however, had apparently not received any decision to this effect, nor did the Government submit that such a decision had been adopted.\n18.  Pursuant to the rules of court, the enforcement court was obliged to keep the case file for five years from the date on which the enforcement proceedings had been terminated. After the enforcement court’s proposal of 4 August 2010 for elimination of worthless registration material and archival holdings, the next day the Inter-Municipal Historical Archive in Valjevo destroyed the applicant’s case file in accordance with the Law on Cultural Goods (published in Official Gazette of the RS, no. 71/94). According to the relevant court’s statement, no minutes of the destruction or the record of any documents had been made.\n19.  The judgment of 11 May 2001 remains unenforced.\n20.  The applicant ran an installation business “Instalaterska radnja Sokosat” as a sole proprietor. The business entered into a contract with the Sokobanja local community (Mesna zajednica Sokobanja), regarding the maintenance of the cable-satellite transmission system on the territory of tha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8647", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Nalchik. She is the mother of the late Ms Madina Eneyeva, who was born in 1972 and died in 2007.\n7.  On 26 May 2007 Ms Eneyeva was at a local market together with Mr A, her brother-in-law. One of the stall-holders, Ms G.Zh., suspected that Ms Eneyeva was planning to steal a skirt from her market stall. The two women started a fight and exchanged a few blows. The police arrived and arrested the applicant’s daughter on suspicion of theft. Ms Eneyeva and Mr A. were both put into a police vehicle.\n8.  The parties have presented different accounts of the subsequent events.\n9.  According to Mr A., after Ms Eneyeva had been put into the police vehicle, an unknown police officer with the rank of lieutenant approached the vehicle, kicked Ms Eneyeva fifteen times on her legs and then left. Once at the police station, Mr A. was released. According to the applicant, upon arrival at the police station, her daughter was taken to the interrogation room situated on the second floor (in Russian referred to as the “third floor”) of the police station and was beaten by the police officers until she fainted. While Ms Eneyeva was unconscious, unspecified police officers threw her out of the window.\n10.  In the Government’s submission, it was alleged that during the drive to the police station Ms Eneyeva had unsuccessfully tried to escape from the police vehicle. Upon arrival at the police station, she had been escorted to the office of Lieutenant A.Zh. She had refused to answer his questions and had asked for permission to use a lavatory. Since there were no female police officers in sight, A.Zh. escorted her to the lavatory on the second floor of the police station himself and waited for her in the corridor outside the locked door. Being unguarded, Ms Eneyeva jumped out of the window in an attempt to escape from police custody.\n11.  Ms Eneyeva was then taken to hospital by ambulance. She underwent urgent surgery. At 10.45 p.m. on 26 May 2007 Ms Eneyeva died of complex internal injuries to her head, body and extremities.\n12.  The applicant then sought an investigation into her daughter’s suspicious death and ill-treatment. According to the applicant, her daughter had no suicidal tendencies; she had three young children and a good home in recently obtained social housing.\n13.  On 26 May 2007 the prosecutor’s office of Nalchik (“the town prosecutor’s office”) were notified that Ms Eneyeva had jumped out of the window of the police station and then died.\n14.  On an unspecified date the town prosecutor’s office opened pre‑investigative inquiry no. 663-07 into the circumstances of Ms Eneyeva’s death.\n15.  On 28 May 2007 a forensic expert issued a post-mortem report, according to which ‒ apart from various injuries ‒ Ms Eneyeva had bruises and scratches on her legs, those injuries being unrelated to the fall.\n16.  On 4 June 2007 the deputy town prosecutor received and examined the applicant’s complaint, in which she alleged that her daughter had been thrown out of the window by the police officers. He stated that the investigator in charge of pre-investigative inquiry no. 663-07 had not yet carried out all requisite investigative measures, in particular, that he had not questioned a number of persons: the police officers who had arrived at the market once Ms G.Zh. had reported the theft, those who had arrested Ms Eneyeva, the ambulance crew members and Mr A. Nonetheless, the deputy town prosecutor concluded that “th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8648", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are a married couple. They were born in 1976 and 1988 respectively. The first applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment in Kholodnogirska penitentiary no. 18. The second applicant lives in Kharkiv.\n6.  At the time of the events the applicants lived in a two-room apartment together with Ms S., the second applicant’s mother.\n7.  Ms S. had a pending judicial dispute with a certain Mr L. regarding the inheritance of a house. The applicants, being interested in improving their living conditions, provided her with various support in those proceedings.\n8.  In April 2008 the first applicant visited Mr L. with a view to dissuading him from pursuing the mentioned dispute.\n9.  On 27 June 2008 Mr L. was found dead in his house. His throat was cut and there were multiple stabs and cuts on his body. One of the windows was broken, and there was a hoe lying nearby on the floor.\n10.  On the same day a criminal investigation was opened into the murder.\n11.  At about 10 p.m. on that same day the applicants came home where several police officers were waiting for them. The applicants were taken to the Kharkiv Frunzenskyy District Police Department (Фрунзенський районний відділ Харківського міського управління Головного управління внутрішніх справ МВС України в Харківській області). According to the applicants, this was done under the pretext that they needed to be questioned in respect of the first applicant’s debt vis-à-vis some third persons. As submitted by the Government, the police apprehended the applicants on suspicion of the murder of Mr L.\n12.  The applicants were questioned regarding their whereabouts and actions on 26 and 27 June 2008. They stated that they had been together shopping, going to the cinema, having meals and so on.\n13.  Both applicants were held in the police station during the night on 27-28 June 2008. They stated in their submissions to the Court that they had not been subjected to any ill-treatment at that stage.\n14.  On 28 June 2008 the first applicant underwent a forensic medical examination. According to its report, which was completed on 1 July 2008, the examination revealed multiple bruises and sores on virtually all the body of the first applicant. They included about thirty multidirectional sores on his back and about the same number of sores on his hips, buttocks and knees. The expert gave the following possible dates of the injuries: a bruise on the left shoulder and a sore on the torso – between 22 and 24 June 2008; bruises on the right part of the torso – between 25 and 27 June 2008; sores on the torso, the back and the legs – between 25 and 27 June 2008. Those sores were assessed as having possibly originated from the impact of some protruded blunt objects, such as glass fragments.\n15.  According to the first applicant, he sustained the injuries discovered on 28 June 2008, having accidentally fallen a day before.\n16.  The first applicant submitted the following account of the subsequent events. After the aforementioned examination, he was taken to the criminal investigation department, where one of the officers suggested that he should confess to the murder of Mr L. As the first applicant refused to do so, some officers brought in a dirty mattress and a gas mask. They put wet cloths around his wrists and handcuffed him. One of the officers punched him in the solar plexus and pushed him on the mattress. The others twisted his arms behind his back and made him split his legs while beating him t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8649", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lived in Nakhchivan at the time of the events.\n6.  The applicant was an independent journalist and worked as a reporter of the Yeni Musavat newspaper in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic (“the NAR”).\n7.  The applicant was the author of two critical articles about the economic and political situation in the NAR published in the Yeni Musavat newspaper in August and September 2007. The articles, entitled “Food has become considerably more expensive in Nakhchivan (owing to Vasif Talibov’s “care”)” (“Naxçıvanda ərzaq xeyli bahalaşıb (Vasif Talıbovun “qayğısı” sayəsində)”) and “Vasif Talibov rebuilds his native village” (“Vasif Talıbov doğulduğu kəndi söküb yenidən tikdirir”), related in particular to the activities of the Speaker of the Parliament of the NAR, Vasif Talibov, who is also “the supreme official of the NAR” (“Naxçıvan Muxtar Respublikasının ali vəzifəli şəxsi”) under its Constitution of 29 December 1998.\n8.  On 17 September 2007 the applicant also met a reporter from Radio Liberty and helped him to prepare a report about the economic and political situation in Nakhchivan.\n9.  At around 2 p.m. on 22 September 2007, when the applicant was in a café in the village of Jalilkand in the Sharur District, the head (M.M.) of the district department of the MNS approached him. M.M. accused the applicant of publishing defamatory articles about the NAR, and ordered four men in uniform to arrest him.\n10.  The applicant was taken to the premises of the MNS in Sharur by car. His mobile phone was taken away while he was being transported there. When they arrived at the MNS building M.M. told him to stop spreading misinformation about the NAR. He further ordered agents of the MNS to explain to the applicant “the meaning of his activity as a reporter” and left the room.\n11.  Five men then began to torture the applicant. They hit him repeatedly with truncheons, kicked him and punched him in the head. Approximately an hour later, M.M. returned and asked the applicant whether he had “grown wise”. M.M. further ordered five men to make the applicant “understand his mistakes”. The applicant was then subjected to further ill-treatment.\n12.  The applicant was subsequently taken to the office of M.M. who demanded that he become a member of the ruling political party (YAP - Yeni Azərbaycan Partiyası) and to write defamatory articles about opposition leaders. The applicant refused to do so.\n13.  The applicant was released at 2 a.m. on 23 September 2007; his mobile phone was returned to him. Before his release, M.M. told him that if he did not “grow wise”, he would be brought back to the MNS.\n14.  Following his release, the applicant immediately informed the Yeni Musavat newspaper of his arrest. According to the applicant, his relatives also took photographs of the injuries on his body. However, he was unable to see a doctor immediately, because it was night.\n15.  The Government submitted that on 22 September 2007 the applicant was not arrested, detained or ill-treated, by agents of the MNS.\n16.  In the morning of 23 September 2007, while the applicant was about to go and see a doctor, he was arrested by the police and taken to the Sharur District Police Office.\n17.  The head of the Sharur District Police Office, M.H., shouted at the applicant, demanding to know why he had informed the press of his arrest.\n18.  On the same day the applicant was taken to the Sharur District Court, which sentenced him to fifteen days’ admi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8650", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Miass, Chelyabinsk Region.\n6.  The applicant is a mentally disabled person. On 19 September 2003 the applicant was arrested on a suspicion of having committed a murder. On the same day the applicant’s mother informed the investigator that the applicant suffered from a mental disease.\n7.  In the period from 19 September until 25 October 2003 during the questionings conducted in the presence of counsel the applicant confessed, and furthermore confessed to murders of another five persons.\n8.  On 20 September 2003 the Kopeysk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region remanded the applicant in custody upon the investigator’s request.\n9.  On 14 November 2003 the Tsentralniy District Court of Chelyabinsk extended the applicant’s detention. It was subsequently extended on 18 February, 23 April and 17 September 2004 on the grounds that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence, might abscond, reoffend, interfere with the witnesses or obstruct the investigation in some other way. On 17 September 2004 the applicant detention was extended until 25 November 2004.\n10.  On 4 March 2004 the investigator ordered a psychiatric expert examination of the applicant.\n11.  On 16 July 2004 the commission of experts concluded that at the time of examination the applicant was in an acute phase of the disease and was not able to account for his actions. It was therefore impossible to determine the applicant’s state of mind at the time of the offences. The experts stated that the applicant posed a danger to society and needed a compulsory treatment at a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision.\n12.  On 22 October 2004 the applicant’s case was sent by the investigator to the court.\n13.  On 11 November 2004 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court held a preliminary hearing and extended the applicant’s detention.\n14.  The court hearings in the applicant’s case started on 17 November 2004.\n15.  On 11 February 2005 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court ordered compulsory treatment of the applicant in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision until the improvement of his condition subsequently followed by the expert examination. The court also stated that until his placement to the hospital the preventive measure should remain unchanged. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:\n“The court has no reason to doubt the conclusions of the medical experts [of 16 July 2004]. Taking into account the mental state of Y. and the nature of committed acts posing a danger to society and the need for compulsory treatment in a specialized psychiatric hospital with intensive supervision, the court considers that in accordance with Articles 97, 99(1) (g), 101 (4) of the Criminal Code he should be placed in this kind of hospital for compulsory treatment. However the question of releasing him from execution of sentence or criminal responsibility cannot be currently resolved, as it was not possible to resolve the question of sanity of Y. in relation to the alleged acts due to a temporary disorder, namely the depressive episode of severe degree. In these circumstances Y. should be placed in the mental hospital until the improvement of his condition ...\nThe preventive measure should remain unchanged until his placement in the mental hospital.”\n16.  The applicant’s counsel appealed. In particular she argued that the applicant should be released, as the compulsory treatmen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8651", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1979 and 1987 respectively and live in Petrinja.\n6.  The documents submitted by the parties reveal the following facts.\n7.  On 9 August 1991 the Sisak Police lodged a criminal complaint with the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office against a person or persons unknown, alleging that at about 11 p.m. on 4 August 1991 V.B., who was driving a coach, had been stopped by a road patrol; he had allegedly not complied with the orders given and had been beaten up. He had been taken to the Sisak Hospital where he died soon afterwards. The autopsy was carried out on 5 August 1991. V.B. was the applicants’ respective husband and father.\n8.  On 9 August 1991 the Sisak Police interviewed Vl.P., who told them that on 4 August 1991 he had been in a bar in Odra when V.H. and M.S., both dressed in Croatian Army uniforms and armed with automatic guns, asked him to drive a coach to Sisak. They had kept the driver, V.B., with them. Vl.P. had complied with the order and two other Croatian soldiers, I.C. and M.B., had accompanied him in the coach while Mi.T., another Croatian soldier, followed them in a vehicle. There had been about ten passengers on the coach. When he subsequently returned to Odra, V.B. was no longer there.\n9.  In 1996 the United Nations Security Council established the United Nations Transitional Administration in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (the “UNTAES”). On 15 January 1998 the UNTAES mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the Croatian authorities began.\n10.  V.H. died in 1997.\n11.  The documents submitted by the parties do not indicate that any steps were taken between 9 August 1991 and 22 October 2002.\n12.  M.B. (see paragraphs 13, 15, 22, 25 and 26 below) died on 25 June 2002.\n13.  Between 22 October 2002 and 4 March 2003 the Sisak Police interviewed ten former Croatian soldiers who had been stationed in the Sisak area. D.M., interviewed on 19 February 2003, said that in 1991 he had worked in the Sisak Police. One night he and two of his colleagues, H. and K., had been instructed by Croatian soldiers to go to the Odra Community Centre (Društveni dom Odra), where they had arrested one person. On their arrival, V.H., one of the soldiers who was personally known to D.M., told him that the arrested person could not walk. There had been about twenty men in camouflage uniforms. He had recognised M.B., who was commander of the unit. The arrested man, named [V.]B., had been put into the back of the vehicle. He had been covered in blood, was unconscious and could hardly breathe. They had taken [V.]B. to the police station in Sisak and then to a hospital.\n14.  D.K., interviewed on 20 February 2003, said that he knew who had beaten up V.B. and that he had told an inspector everything at the material time, and would not reveal the identity of the perpetrators to the police. He described in detail the events of 4 August 1991 with regard to the killing of V.B. and said that it had occurred in the Odra Community Centre where a Croatian Army unit had been stationed. He had been upstairs and heard some noise downstairs. He had gone down to see what was happening, and had seen V.B. lying in blood and surrounded by some soldiers.\n15.  Several of the soldiers interviewed identified M.B. as the commander of the unit which was stationed in the Odra Community Centre.\n16.  On 20 February 2003 the Sisak Police also interviewed M.S., who denied any involvement in the abduction and killing of V.B.\n17.  ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8652", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Helsinki. The applicant company has its seat in Helsinki.\n7.  The first applicant is a journalist for a weekly magazine, Seura, which is published by the applicant company.\n8.  On 16 March 1998 and 19 November 2001 respectively the Finnish national public service broadcasting company broadcast two TV documentaries in its MOT series which concerned mould-infested houses and the protection of forests. They were made by several reporters, including Mr M.B. who was the complainant at the origin of criminal proceedings that were subsequently brought against the first applicant (“the complainant”) (see paragraph 12 below).\n9.  On 18, 19 and 23 March 2002 the first applicant criticised on two separate internet discussion sites, namely on the “Ylevi” site maintained by the Green League (Vihreä liitto, Gröna förbundet) and the “Journalism” site maintained by Tampere University, the manner in which these two documentaries had been made. He wrote, inter alia, that:\n“[The complainant] is a fanatic warrior of the faith for whom facts are just in the way. He has indisputably been caught at cold, intentional lying.”\n“[The complainant] in fact claimed that the house was healthy but that one cheating company doing mould inspections had managed to find some insignificant mould spots because of which a completely unnecessary court case was initiated. ... Contrary to [the complainant’s] assurances, N.N.’s former house was rotten. ... [The complainant] must have known that. He is thus lying cold-bloodedly and intentionally. ... He thus knew that [the expert] lied but he let it happen.”\n10.  On 31 May 2002 the first applicant published a four-page article in Seura magazine, which is one of the biggest nationwide family magazines in Finland, on similar lines. The article had been approved by a lawyer before publication. The article included passages such as:\n“[The complainant] claimed that over 10% of the Finnish forest area was already protected and that conservationists demanded that an additional 10-15% of the forest area in Southern Finland should be preserved. These figures are fabricated.... S.S. thus said in [the documentary] the complete opposite of what her research showed and what was stated in her grant application. When I interviewed [the complainant], he admitted that he had known about the grant and the 1993 research. Still he accepted S.S.’s clearly groundless testimony in the documentary.”\n11.  On 5 July 2002 Seura magazine published a two-page reply in which the reporters who had made the documentaries in question replied to the first applicant’s criticism. In response to this reply, the magazine published a page-long counter-reply by the first applicant.\n12.  On 21 September 2002 the complainant reported the matter to the police, asking them to investigate whether the first applicant was guilty of defamation when he called him a liar in his writings. By letter dated 16 October 2002 the complainant presented his claim for damages against the applicants.\n13.  On 15 and 17 November 2002 the applicant company and the first applicant submitted their replies to the police. On 5 December 2002 the first applicant was questioned by the police for the first time.\n14.  On 23 April 2004 the public prosecutor pressed charges in the Espoo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) against the first applicant for defamation. The complainant concurred with the charges brought by the public prosecutor. Th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8653", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Gherla.\n6.  On 29 March 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit crimes and blackmail, and was placed in the Cluj County Police detention centre. On 28 July 2009 he was transferred to Gherla Maximum Security Prison (“Gherla Prison”) where he remained until 2 February 2011, when his pre-trial detention was replaced by the courts with a prohibition on leaving the town.\n7.  The applicant alleged that for a period of four months, between 29 March and 28 July 2009, he was held in the Cluj County Police detention centre in a 4 sq. m underground cell with three other prisoners. The cell had no window or ventilation and the walls were covered in mould. He had no free access to water and the cell was extremely unhygienic. He further alleged that access to the toilet was given in accordance with a daily programme which in his opinion amounted to psychological torture.\n8.  In Gherla Prison the applicant was detained in severely overcrowded cells. He submitted that for a certain period he shared a 38 sq. m cell with twenty-six other prisoners. The cell also lacked ventilation because the window was covered with two rows of metal bars and additional metallic netting.\n9.  The applicant supported his allegations with statements from Mr S.O.A., who was held in a neighbouring cell in the Cluj County Police facility, and from Mr F.F., who was also held at the Cluj County Police centre at the same time as the applicant, and who afterwards shared a cell with him in Gherla Prison. They confirmed entirely the applicant’s allegations.\n10.  In the Cluj County Police detention centre the applicant shared a cell of 4.14 sq. m with another prisoner (thus 2.07 sq. m of personal space for each inmate). The cell was not provided with any sanitary facilities such as a toilet, sink or shower. However, the centre had two common bathrooms where the prisoners had access to the toilet on request and to the showers twice a week. The cell had no window to the outside, but ventilation was ensured by a window located above the door and protected with bars and metallic netting.\n11.  In Gherla Prison the applicant was initially held in quarantine for three days in a 35 sq. m cell which he shared with fourteen other prisoners also in pre-trial detention (thus 2.33 sq. m of personal space for each inmate). The cell had seven rows of bunk beds.\n12.  Between 31 July and 19 August 2009, still in quarantine, the applicant shared a cell of 43.25 sq. m with twenty-five other prisoners (thus 1.66 sq. m of personal space for each inmate). This cell had eight rows of bunk beds.\n13.  On 19 August 2009 the applicant was transferred for six days to a cell measuring 16.38 sq. m together with five other prisoners (thus 2.73 sq. m of personal space for each inmate). The cell had three rows of bunk beds.\n14.  Between 24 August and 9 November 2009 the applicant was held in a cell of 15.96 sq. m with four other prisoners (thus 3.19 sq. m of personal space for each inmate). The cell had three rows of bunk beds. On 9 November 2009 the applicant was moved from this cell at his own request. Between 9 November 2009 and 22 September 2010 he was placed in a cell which measured 51.52 sq. m and accommodated fifteen prisoners (thus 3.43 sq. m of personal space for each inmate). The cell had nine rows of bunk beds.\n15.  Between 22 and 29 September 2010 the applicant shared a cell measuring 46 sq. m with twenty-two other prisoners (th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8655", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava.\n6.  On 9 May 2007 the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava V District Court (Okresný súd) seeking a ruling declaring that a meeting of flat owners in a block of flats held on 24 April 2007 was contrary to the law, and that the decisions adopted at that meeting were void.\nThe defendant of the action was an entity with legal personality referred to as a community of owners of residential and non-residential premises in the given building (“the defendant”). Such entities are officially registered with the local District Authority (obvodný úrad). The defendant was so registered with the District Authority in Bratislava.\n7.  On 2 January 2008 a submission was made to the District Court by a lawyer indicating that he was acting on behalf of the defendant and informing the court that on 14 December 2007 the defendant had ceased legally to exist. In that connection he submitted a letter from the District Authority which indicated that the defendant had been struck out of the relevant register on that date, the context being that the administration of the building was no longer the responsibility of the defendant and that that responsibility had been transferred to a specialised agency.\n8.  On 24 January 2008 the applicant requested that a hearing scheduled before the District Court for 28 January 2008 be postponed sine die. She submitted that she had just learned of the striking out of the defendant by consulting the relevant register, and that she would make a further submission once she had analysed the situation, for which she needed time. The hearing scheduled for 28 January 2008 was accordingly adjourned.\n9.  On 3 March 2008 the District Court discontinued the proceedings, on the grounds that the defendant had ceased to exist and had no legal successor. In particular, the District Court held that neither the individual owners of the flats in the building nor the newly contracted administration agency could be considered as having succeeded to the defendant’s position in the proceedings.\n10.  On 20 March 2008 the applicant appealed (odvolanie), raising two principal arguments.\nFirst, she submitted that the administration agency was the successor to the original defendant, and that consequently the proceedings should have continued against it.\nSecond, even assuming that the first contention was not correct, the court should not have terminated the proceedings but should rather have stayed them pending the outcome of another set of proceedings before the same District Court, in which a decision was being contested which had been taken at another meeting of the flat owners on 11 September 2007, to the effect that the defendant should be wound up (zrušenie). If that other set of proceedings ended with a ruling declaring the winding up of the original defendant void, its striking out of the given register would lose basis and the proceedings could continue against that defendant. More details about those other proceedings are set out below (see paragraphs 18 et seq.).\n11.  On 30 May 2008 the Bratislava Regional Court (Krajský súd) upheld the first-instance decision, noting that the defendant had been struck out of the relevant register and had thereby lost capacity to be a party to the proceedings, in which situation there was no alternative to a discontinuance of the proceedings. The relevant legal provisions were referred to, but no reasons were offered for the latter conclu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8656", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Bucharest.\n6.  On 23 August 1996 the Sibiu Police Department remanded the applicant in custody for twenty-four hours on suspicion of intellectual forgery (fals intelectual) and use of forged documents (uz de fals).\n7.  By an order of 24 August 1996 the Sibiu Prosecutor’s Office detained the applicant for five days pending trial on account of the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect public order.\n8.  By an order of 28 August 1996 the Sibiu Prosecutor’s Office extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention by twenty-five days on account of the seriousness of the offences, the need to protect public order, and the need to prevent him from destroying evidence.\n9.  The applicant challenged the order before the domestic courts and requested to be released under judicial supervision.\n10.  By a final interlocutory judgment of 18 October 1996 the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s challenge. It held that the applicant’s arrest had been lawful; however there was no lawful reason concerning the applicant that would prevent the court from releasing him under judicial supervision.\n11.  On 2 September 1997 the Sibiu Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant and other co-accused for bribery, influence peddling, complicity in fraud, intellectual forgery, and use of forged documents, and referred the case to the Sibiu County Court.\n12.  On 17 April 1997, 15 May, 2 July and 17 September 1998 the Sibiu County Court heard the applicant, his co-accused and the witnesses in the case. In addition it allowed the applicant’s and his co-accuseds’ request for documentary evidence, and ordered an expert financial report to be produced in the case. The applicant submitted that he did not agree that a financial expert report should be produced in the case, and refused to submit observations on the report’s objectives following the court’s request.\n13.  On 15 October 1999 the applicant informed the Sibiu County Court that he had no objections in respect of the financial expert report.\n14.  On 22 May 2000 the applicant’s chosen legal representative submitted oral observations to the court in respect of the merits of the case.\n15.  On 15 June 2000 the Sibiu County Court acquitted the applicant on the basis of documentary, testimonial and expert evidence in addition to the applicant’s statements, on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed.\n16.  The Sibiu Prosecutor’s Office appealed against the judgment.\n17.  On 5 December 2000 the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal allowed the Sibiu Prosecutor’s Office’s appeal on the merits, quashed the judgment of 15 June 2000, convicted the applicant of bribery, trafficking influence, complicity in fraud, and forgery of privately signed documents (fals ȋn ȋnscrisuri sub semnătură privată) which following changes to the relevant domestic legislation had absorbed the offences of intellectual forgery (fals intelectual) and use of forged documents (uz de fals), and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.\n18.  The applicant appealed on points of law (recurs) against the judgment.\n19.  On 1 March 2002 the Court of Cassation allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, quashed the judgments of 15 June and 5 December 2000, and referred the case back to the Sibiu Prosecutor’s Office for the entire criminal investigation of the case to be carried out again. The court held that the prosecutor’s office had failed to observe the lawful requirements for inves", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8657", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant initiated a payment warrant procedure for repayment of debts on 21 July 1997 which, by the protest of the debtor, developed into court proceedings.\n5.  The procedure was suspended on 16 April 1999 due to other pending court proceedings, which ended in July 2003.\n6.  Subsequently, after several hearings, the first-instance court partly found for the applicant on 21 December 2003.\n7.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court quashed the decision and remitted the case on 10 March 2005.\n8.  In the resumed proceedings, after the transfer of the case from one court to another for reasons of jurisdiction, the Budapest IV/XV District Court partly found for the applicant on 23 November 2007.\n9.  On appeal, the second-instance court found for the applicant on 25 September 2008.\n10.  In review proceedings, the Supreme Court upheld this decision on 14 May 2009. Its ruling was served on the applicant on 27 August 2009.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8658", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Bitlis.\n5.  On 10 November 2000 the applicant and his two brothers, E.B. and B.B., went to Darkolink hill[1] in Güroymak, Bitlis, with their two oxen to collect leaves and twigs. The sledge pulled by the oxen detonated a landmine and the animals died on the spot as a result of the explosion that ensued. The applicant and his brother E.B., both injured, were promptly taken to a health care centre in Güroymak by the gendarmerie, who were stationed at the Cevizyatağı gendarmerie station located approximately 500 metres from the scene of the incident. They were subsequently transferred to the Tatvan Military Hospital for further medical intervention.\n6.  According to a medical report prepared by the Gölcük State Hospital on 28 March 2001, both of the applicant’s legs were amputated below the knee as a result of the serious injuries he had sustained. It appears, however, that his brother E.B. was only slightly injured.\n7.  On 12 March 2002 he was declared disabled by a medical panel of the Van State Hospital, which established that his working capacity had been reduced by 80 %.\n8.  Shortly after the incident, the gendarmes drafted an incident report and made a sketch map of the scene of the incident. The incident report indicated that the explosion had taken place on Darkolink hill located 500 metres from the Cevizyatağı Gendarmerie Station, in an area which had previously been regularly used by the gendarmerie for exploration and surveillance purposes. The gendarmes who drafted the report were of the opinion that the landmine had been planted by members of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation) after nightfall, when the area was not under surveillance, with the intention of targeting the security forces. There was no further information in the report as to when the landmine might have been planted.\n9.  The gendarmes also took witness statements from the applicant’s brothers and five village guards between 10 and 15 November 2000.\n10.  In his statement to the gendarmerie the applicant’s injured brother E.B. stated that they regularly used the site of explosion to collect leaves and that he did not want to bring any complaints in connection with the incident.\n11.  The applicant’s other brother B.B., who was apparently a village guard, gave an account of the events in his statement to the gendarmerie. He submitted that the hill where the explosion took place had been used in the past by security officers from the Cevizyatağı gendarmerie station, as well as by village guards, for surveillance purposes. It was very likely that the area had been mined by the PKK to strike at the gendarmerie forces and the guards whilst on surveillance duty.\n12.  The other five witnesses, all village guards, confirmed that the hill in question had served as a surveillance and exploration area in the past for both security forces and village guards. According to one of the witnesses, the PKK terrorists must have realised the purpose for which this hill was used and mined the area to harm them.\n13.  In his statement taken by the gendarmes on 15 November 2000, the applicant said that he regularly went to the hill in question to collect leaves, but he did not know that the area was mined. He also told the gendarmes that he did not wish to lodge any complaints in relation to the incident.\n14.  On 16 November 2000 the commander of the mine-sweeping unit issued a report, where he stated that the pie", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8659", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The first applicant, Mr Juozas Sidabras, was born in 1951 and lives in Kaunas.\n7.  He graduated from the Lithuanian Physical Culture Institute (currently the Lithuanian Sports University), qualifying as a sports instructor.\n8.  From 1975 to 1986 he was employed by the Lithuanian branch of the USSR State Security Committee (the KGB). After Lithuania declared independence in 1990, he found employment as a tax inspector.\n9.  On 31 May 1999 the Lithuanian authorities concluded that the first applicant was subject to the restrictions of Article 2 of the KGB Act (see paragraph 64 below). As a result, on 2 June 1999 he was dismissed by the tax authorities.\n10.  The first applicant brought an administrative action against the security intelligence authorities, claiming that his dismissal under the KGB Act, and the ensuing inability to find employment, were unlawful. The domestic courts dismissed his claims (see Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, §§ 14-16, ECHR 2004‑VIII).\n11.  On 29 November 1999 the first applicant submitted an application to the Court, alleging that he had lost his job and that his employment prospects had been restricted as a result of the application of the KGB Act, in breach of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention.\n12.  By a judgment of 27 July 2004 in the case of Sidabras and Džiautas (cited above), the Court found a violation of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 8. It concluded that the ban on the first applicant seeking employment in various branches of the private sector, in application of Article 2 of the KGB Act, constituted a disproportionate measure, despite the legitimacy of the aims pursued (see § 61 of the judgment). The Court ordered the State to pay the first applicant 7,000 euros (EUR) as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs.\n13.  By a letter of 2 November 2004 the Court informed the Lithuanian Government that, as no request had been made under Article 43 of the Convention for the above-mentioned cases to be referred to the Grand Chamber, the judgment of 27 July 2004 had become final on 27 October 2004, in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention.\n14.  In 2005 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe discussed the question of whether the Court’s judgments in the cases of Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania (cited above) and Rainys and Gasparavičius v. Lithuania (nos. 70665/01 and 74345/01, 7 April 2005) had been executed. As regards individual measures, the Government informed the Committee of Ministers that the sum awarded to the first applicant had been paid to him. As regards general measures, the Lithuanian Parliament was preparing amendments to the KGB Act, which would be adopted in the near future. Moreover, in order to prevent similar violations of the Convention, the Lithuanian courts and other institutions had been informed about the Court’s judgment and provided with a translation (see also paragraphs 61-63 below).\n15.  On 8 December 2006 the first applicant started domestic court proceedings against the State of Lithuania, seeking 257,154 Lithuanian litai (LTL) in pecuniary damages, which he counted as ten years of his tax inspector’s salary, and LTL 500,000 in non-pecuniary damages, which he claimed to have suffered because of the continuing violation of his right to respect for his private life under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. The first applicant noted that since 1999 he had been une", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8660", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and at the time of the events she lived in Baku.\n7.  On 7 April 2009 criminal proceedings were instituted under Article 178 (fraud) of the Criminal Code against the applicant.\n8.  On 20 August 2009 the criminal proceedings under Article 178 of the Criminal Code were terminated owing to the impossibility of determining the applicant’s whereabouts.\n9.  On 24 August 2009 the applicant was invited to the Sabail District Police Office as a witness in connection with the above-mentioned criminal proceedings. After her arrival at the police office she had a conversation with the investigator which lasted approximately one hour. The applicant was then taken by three police officers to a drug rehabilitation centre, where it was established that she was a drug user.\n10.  The applicant was then returned to the police office and she was subjected to a body search in the presence of two attesting witnesses (hal şahidi) and three police officers. During the search, narcotic substances were found on her person.\n11.  At 10.10 p.m. on 24 August 2009 the investigator drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest (tutma protokolu). It appears from the record that the applicant was arrested under Article 234.1 of the Criminal Code on suspicion of illegal possession of narcotic substances in an amount exceeding that necessary for personal use, without intention to sell.\n12.  On 26 August 2009 the applicant was charged with the criminal offence of possession of narcotic substances in an amount exceeding that necessary for personal use, without intention to sell, as provided in Article 234.1 of the Criminal Code. On the same day the prosecutor requested the judge to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody (həbs qətimkan tədbiri) in respect of the applicant.\n13.  On 26 August 2009 the Sabail District Court, relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor’s request for the preventive measure of remand in custody to be applied, ordered the applicant’s detention for a period of two months. The judge substantiated the necessity of this measure by the gravity of the applicant’s alleged criminal acts and the possibility of her absconding from and obstructing the investigation.\n14.  The applicant did not appeal against the Sabail District Court’s decision of 26 August 2009.\n15.  On 21 September 2009 the investigator in charge of the case decided to reinstitute criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article 178 (fraud) of the Criminal Code.\n16.  On 26 September 2009 the investigator decided to join the two criminal proceedings against the applicant under Articles 178 and 234 of the Criminal Code in the same criminal proceedings.\n17.  On 22 October 2009 the Sabail District Court extended the applicant’s remand in custody by one month, until 24 November 2009. The judge reasoned the need for this extension by citing the possibility that she would abscond from or obstruct the investigation. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:\n“Taking into account the facts that the detention period of the accused Isayeva Ofeliya Alik gizi will end on 24 October 2009 and that, if released, there are sufficient grounds [to believe that she might] abscond from the investigation and the court, obstruct the normal functioning of the investigation, or prevent the clarification of important facts relating to the criminal inquiry by illegally influencing individuals taking part in the criminal pro", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8661", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Grozny. She is the mother of Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov, who was born in 1982.\n6.  At the material time the applicant and her family, including Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov, lived in Vedeno, Chechnya. Checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement which was situated at high altitude. Since January 2002 Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov worked as a policeman at the Argun district department of the interior (“the Argun ROVD”) providing security in the building of the Vedeno district department of the State Pension Fund (the Pension Fund). The applicant’s husband was the head of the Pension Fund.\n7.  According to the applicant, on an unspecified date in September 2002 Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov was abducted by a group of servicemen from the ‘Vostok’ battalion of the Russian federal forces which was staffed by ethnic Chechens under the command of Mr Sulim Yamadayev. The applicant’s son was apprehended on the suspicion of membership in illegal armed groups and released on the following day upon payment of ransom.\n8.  On or around 7 or 8 January 2004 a group of men in camouflage uniforms had arrived at the Pension Fund’s building and asked the on-duty colleagues of Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov, Mr A.M. and Mr. D. Kh., to show them their identity documents saying that they were from the Yamadayev’s battalion and were checking the posts. The men were looking for Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov.\n9.  At about 7.30 a.m. on 13 January 2004 a grey UAZ vehicle with three Chechen armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the Pension Fund. The men asked the on-duty servicemen Mr A.M. and Mr. D. Kh. at what time employees of the fund came to work. When the on-duty officers asked them to show their identity documents, the men refused and said that they were checking the posts.\n10.  On 13 January 2004 Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov was at work at the Pension Fund. He was supposed to be on the overnight duty until the morning of 14 January 2004. At about 5 p.m. he went home to have dinner. At about 6 p.m. he left home with his service gun to return to work and disappeared on the way to the Pension Fund.\n11.  In the morning of 14 January 2004 the applicant’s husband went to work and found out that his son was missing. He immediately started searching for him. At about 1 p.m. the applicant was informed by the head of the Vedeno district administration Mr Pashayev that Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov had allegedly been detained at the Vedeno military commander’s office where he had been taken in the evening of 13 January 2004 for an identity check.\n12.  On or around 20 January 2004 the applicant and her husband went to Gudermes, Chechnya, to visit the head of the ‘Vostok’ battalion, Mr Sulim Yamadayev. The latter promised to assist them in the search for their son in exchange for 10,000 American dollars (USD). The applicant explained to him that they did not have the required amount.\n13.  In February 2004 unidentified officers from the Vedeno ROVD who were working there on mission from the Perm Region in Russia provided the applicant with information about her son’s abduction. According to the officers, on 13 January 2004 servicemen from ‘Vostok’ battalion in an UAZ minivan (‘tabletka’) had allegedly arrested Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov on the street and taken him to the military commander’s office where he had been detained between 13 and 16 January 2004. Two officers from the criminal search division of the Vedeno ROVD, Mr V.St. and Mr P.K., h", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8663", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently being detained in Giurgiu Prison. He is married and has four children. His wife resides in Turkey together with their children.\n6.  On 28 June 2005 the Bucharest County Court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to eighteen years’ imprisonment. The Bucharest County Court also decided that the applicant would be deported to Turkey at the end of his prison term.\n7.  In his letters to the Court, which he began sending on 15 July 2008, the applicant complained of the inhuman conditions in which he was being detained, first in Rahova Prison and then in Giurgiu Prison. He described a severe lack of hygiene in both prisons, with insufficient cleaning and personal hygiene products being provided by the prison authorities. He alleged that he could not sleep at night because of bed bugs. He also complained that the food was not adapted to his diabetes.\n8.  The applicant further alleged that throughout his detention in both prisons he had not been included in any educational activities and had not been allowed to do any work. He had thus been unable to integrate, to be re-educated or to have the term of his prison sentence reduced.\n9.  In 2008 the applicant was diagnosed with type II diabetes and a sleep disorder.\n10.  In Rahova Prison the applicant was detained in cells measuring 21 sq. m, which he shared with seven other prisoners (2.62 sq. m of personal space). The cells contained eight beds, a window measuring 1.2 by 1.2 m and their own bathroom with a shower, a sink and a toilet. Cold water was always available and hot water was available twice per week. Heating was provided during the winter up to a maximum temperature of 18oC.\n11.  The Government submitted that, whenever the presence of bugs was noticed, disinfection operations took place without delay. They submitted documents showing that disinfection had been performed two or three times per year in 2005, 2007 and 2008 in the cells occupied by the applicant in Rahova Prison.\n12.  The food provided to the applicant was adequate and adapted to his diabetes by substituting pork with beef.\n13.  The applicant participated in educational and recreational activities whenever necessary. The Government further indicated that the applicant’s reduced participation in the above-mentioned activities was due to his state of health.\n(b)  Giurgiu Prison\n14.  The Government submitted that on 17 January 2009 the applicant had been transferred to Giurgiu Prison where he was currently being held in a cell measuring 21.47 sq. m together with five other prisoners (3.57 sq. m of personal space). The cell contained six beds, three bedside tables, one bench, one table and a box for shoes. It had a window measuring 1.5 by 1.8 m and a bathroom with a shower, a sink and a toilet. During the winter, a temperature of 19oC was ensured in all the cells. Hot water was provided twice per week.\n15.  With respect to the prisoners’ personal hygiene, once per month the prison administration provided each prisoner with two bars of soap, one tube of toothpaste, one tooth brush, one tube of shaving cream, one razor, and toilet paper. Concerning the hygiene in the cell, the Government submitted that prisoners were responsible for cleaning the cells and were provided with cleaning products by the prison administration. Regular disinfection was conducted once every three months.\n16.  The applicant received a menu adapted for his diabetes, which included ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8668", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1995 and lives in Cracow.\n8.  On 7 May 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed three armed robberies and one attempted armed robbery with the use of a machete on 4 May 2012. He was initially detained in a police establishment for children (policyjna izba dziecka) in Cracow.\n9.  On 7 May 2012 the Cracow-Krowodrze District Court (Family and Juvenile Section) instituted inquiry (postępowanie wyjaśniające) with a view to determining whether the applicant had committed the offences at issue.\n10.  On the same day the Cracow-Krowodrze District Court decided to place the applicant in a shelter for juveniles (schronisko dla nieletnich) for a period of three months. It found that, in view of the available evidence, there existed a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed three armed robberies and one attempted armed robbery and some other offences. The court also noted that the applicant was lacking in moral character and that the nature of the offences with which he had been charged militated in favour of placing him in a correctional facility (zakład poprawczy). It also noted that there was a risk that he might go into hiding or put pressure on witnesses.\n11.  The applicant appealed. He argued, inter alia, that there had been no risk of fleeing or interfering with witnesses. He also objected to his placement in the shelter on the grounds that he had a history of mental difficulties and had been schooled in a specialised institution.\n12.  On 10 July 2012 the Cracow Regional Court upheld the decision of the lower court. It had regard to the gravity of the offences which the applicant had allegedly committed and the fact that they could not be treated as an isolated incident. The court also noted that in the past a family court had handed down a warning and that on 29 May 2012 he had been put under the supervision of a court guardian. In view of those circumstances, it was considered likely that the applicant would be placed in a correctional facility. His placement in the shelter was further justified by the fact that he had threatened one of the victims of the robbery. Responding to the arguments related to the applicant’s mental health, the court noted that the placement in the shelter, in addition to the applicant’s isolation, placed him under educational supervision which could not be seen as incompatible with his well-being.\n13.  On 27 July 2012 the Cracow‑Krowodrze District Court ordered that the applicant’s case should be examined in correctional proceedings (postępowanie poprawcze).\n14.  On 9 August 2012 the applicant’s counsel requested the Cracow‑Krowodrze District Court to order the applicant’s immediate release. He submitted that the three-month period for which the measure was applied had expired on 7 August 2012 and that no decision on prolongation of the measure had been given. He argued that in accordance with section 27 §§ 4 and 5 of the Juvenile Act the decision on prolongation of the placement in a shelter for juveniles could be taken only by a court after summonses had been sent to the parties and counsel. The applicant’s counsel obtained information from the court’s registry that in practice such decisions were not given, and that it sufficed for the court to issue an order for the case to be examined in correctional proceedings. The applicant’s counsel objected to such a practice and considered it to be unlawful.\n15.  On 9 August 2012 the Cracow-Krowodrze Di", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8669", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.\n10.  The applicant was born in 1968 and is currently serving a life sentence in the town of Solikamsk, Perm Region.\n11.  On 21 November 1994 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of banditry, robbery and aggravated murder.\n12.  Between 21 November 1994, the date of his arrest, and the summer period of 1995 the applicant was held in various remand prisons in Ekaterinburg, Perm, Izhevsk and the Perm Region.\n13.  On 13 October 1995 the Perm Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to death. The judgment became final on 6 June 1996.\n14.  From the summer of 1995 to the autumn of 1999 the applicant was held in remand prison no. 1 in Perm. Following his conviction he was held in a special cell for prisoners awaiting the implementation of their death sentence.\n15.  On 19 May 1999 the President of Russia commuted the applicant’s death sentence to life imprisonment.\n16.  On 8 October 1999 the applicant was transferred to a special-regime correctional colony for life prisoners in the Perm Region, and on 11 October 1999 he began serving the first ten years of his sentence of imprisonment within the meaning of Article 127 § 3 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences. The applicant fell within the exception from the general rule of that legal provision, in that the first ten years of his sentence were calculated from the date of his placement in the special-regime correctional colony, rather than from the date of his initial arrest in 1994. The exception applied only to those prisoners whose conduct during their detention on remand had been in breach of the rules (see paragraph 52 below). The applicant later unsuccessfully challenged this rule before the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 30 below).\n17.  For the next ten years the applicant was held under a strict regime of imprisonment, governed by Article 125 § 3 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (see paragraph 29 below).\n18.  On 11 October 2009, on expiry of the first ten years of his sentence, the applicant’s prison regime was changed from a strict regime to an ordinary regime, governed by Article 125 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (see paragraph 50 below).\n19.  At the time of his arrest on 21 November 1994 the applicant was married to S. and had a three-year-old son. His remaining family consisted of his parents, O. and A., his brother Se. and his grandmother M. According to the applicant, his extended family numbered seventeen people in total, and after his arrest he wished to maintain contact with all of them.\n20.  From 21 November 1994 to 8 October 1999 the applicant was not allowed to see his family at all, with the exception of one visit by his wife in the week following the first-instance judgment in the criminal case against him in October 1995.\n21.  In 1996, following the first-instance judgment in his criminal case, the applicant’s wife divorced him, on her initiative.\n22.  The applicant submitted that he had been allowed to start corresponding with the outside world following the entry into force of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences in January 1997. He then re‑established contact with all of his family members and his former wife.\n23.  During this period the applicant was allowed to have one short-term visit from his relatives every six months. The visits lasted no longer than four hours. During the meetings the applicant communicated with his visito", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8670", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Strumica, where he works as a surgeon at Strumica Hospital (“the hospital”).\n6.  On 8 June 1997 the applicant treated Z.R.’s broken and injured arm. In the days that followed Z.R. complained of pain in the arm. The applicant, together with two other doctors and other hospital staff, applied various treatments and referred Z.R. to the children’s clinic in Skopje.\n7.  On 11 June 1997 Z.R. was admitted to the children’s clinic in Skopje. It was discovered that he had a serious bacterial infection; consequently, his right hand was amputated on 19 June 1997.\n8.  On 25 September 1997, an investigating judge of Strumica Court of First Instance (“the trial court”), on a request by the public prosecutor, opened an investigation against the applicant. On 19 April 2000 the public prosecutor lodged an indictment against the applicant for aggravated medical malpractice (тешки дела против здравјето на луѓето).\n9.  On 10 July 2001 and 13 December 2004 the trial court acquitted the applicant (се ослободува од обвинение). Those judgments were quashed by the Štip Court of Appeal (“the appellate court”) on 30 January 2002 and 9 March 2005 respectively. The appellate court on both occasions observed, inter alia, that the degree of the applicant’s guilt and consequently, the proper qualification of the criminal offence, had not been correctly established in the proceedings before the trial court. It further ordered that the experts’ opinions be supplemented.\n10.  On 13 September 2006 the trial court again acquitted the applicant, finding no grounds that a criminal offence had been intentionally committed.\n11.  On 13 December 2006 the appellate court, of its own motion, at a session in the presence of both parties, re-qualified the charges and dismissed them (се одбива обвинението) as time-barred. It found that despite its instructions given in the earlier remittal orders, the degree of the applicant’s guilt was not correctly established in the proceedings before the trial court. The appellate court concluded that the applicant’s actions could have been negligent rather than intentional and therefore the criminal prosecution had become time-barred.\n12.  On 21 March 2007 the Supreme Court accepted the public prosecutor’s request for the protection of legality, and remitted the case to the appellate court. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court, having re-qualified the charges, established the facts anew without holding a hearing (претрес).\n13.  On 8 October 2007 the appellate court held a hearing in the presence of both parties and again dismissed the charges as time-barred.\n14.  The applicant and the public prosecutor both lodged appeals before the Supreme Court. The applicant also submitted observations in reply to the public prosecutor’s appeal.\n15.  On 26 March 2008 the Supreme Court held a session (седница) in the presence of the public prosecutor. After hearing the public prosecutor’s oral pleadings, in which she sought a dismissal of the applicant’s appeal and for the prosecutor’s appeal to be allowed, relying as well on the parties’ written submissions, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, allowed the public prosecutor’s appeal, and reversed the appellate court’s judgment. The Supreme Court accepted the trial court’s findings of facts and law, namely that the imputed offence should be qualified as intentional aggravated medical malpractice. The Supreme Court concluded that the app", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8671", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, Mr V.M. and Mrs G.S.M., and four of their children were born in 1981, 1977, 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2011 respectively and live in Serbia. Their eldest daughter, who was also an applicant, was born in 2001 and subsequently died on 18 December 2011 after the application had been lodged.\n7.  The applicants are of Roma origin and were born in Serbia, where they spent the greater part of their lives. They explained that they decided to leave their country for Kosovo because of the discrimination and ill‑treatment they had suffered on account of their origin in every sphere: access to the employment market, medical care, schooling difficulties and so forth.\n8.  The eldest daughter of the first two applicants had been physically and mentally disabled since birth and had suffered from epilepsy.\n9.  After failing to obtain a more secure situation for themselves in Kosovo, in March 2010 the applicants travelled to France, where they lodged an application for asylum. Their application was rejected by a final decision on 4 June 2010.\n10.  The applicants stated that in the meantime they had returned to Kosovo, and then to Serbia, in May 2010 owing to the precariousness of their situation in France and their inability to provide for their essential needs.\n11.  In March 2011, as their situation had not changed, the applicants decided to go to Belgium, where they lodged an asylum application on 1 April 2011.\n12.  During their interview with the “Dublin” department of the Aliens Office on 4 April 2011 the applicants gave an account of their movements to date and expressed their fears in the event of a return to Serbia. The first applicant stated that he had chosen to seek asylum in Belgium because he had been told that he could obtain better treatment for his disabled daughter there. He said that he was suffering from psychological problems. The second applicant said that Belgium had been the choice of the smuggler. When asked about her health, she replied that she was six months’ pregnant. She also mentioned their eldest daughter’s health problems.\n13.  The applicants maintained that they had explained the reasons why they refused to return to France, where they had been living in extremely precarious conditions. They submitted that they had not been asked to provide any evidence of having left the territory of the Member States of the European Union (“EU”) or regarding the family members’ state of health.\n14.  On 12 April 2011 the Belgian authorities sent France requests to take the applicants back on the grounds that the latter had been unable to prove that they had left the territory of the Member States of the EU for Serbia since their stay in France.\n15.  On 22 April 2011, relying on Article 16(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third‑country national (“the Dublin II Regulation”), France refused to take charge of the applicants on the grounds that the couple were considered to have disappeared since May 2010 because they had not collected the notice of final refusal of their asylum application dated 4 June 2010 and this corroborated their statements to the Aliens Office according to which they had left the Schengen Area in 2010 and re-entered it in March 2011, thus leaving for a period of more than three months.\n16.  On 2 May 2011 the Belgian au", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8673", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1969 and 1965 respectively and live in Chişinău.\n6.  The applicant was a police officer from 1991 to 2012, when he retired.\n7.  On 27 February 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeal delivered a judgment obliging the Chișinău municipality to provide him and his family with social housing. The court concluded that the applicant had been entitled to social housing under Article 35 (1) of the Law on Police Forces. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice on 11 June 2008 and became final on the same day. Enforcement proceedings were instituted on 10 April 2008.\n8.  Between 2008 and 2012 he lodged numerous complaints about the failure to enforce the judgment in his favour to no avail. The judgment of 27 February 2008 of the Chișinău Court of Appeal has not been enforced to date.\n9.  The applicant was a police officer from 1988 to 2005, when he retired.\n10.  On 6 May 2008 the Chișinău Court of Appeal delivered a judgment obliging the Chișinău municipality to provide him and his family with social housing. The court noted that the applicant had retired from the police force in 2005 and concluded that he had been entitled to social housing under Article 35 (1) of the Law on Police Forces. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice on 23 July 2008 and became final on the same day.\n11.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted on 16 June 2008. The judgment of 6 May 2008 of the Chișinău Court of Appeal has not been enforced to date.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8674", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In implementation of the Court’s judgment in the case of Kudła v. Poland given on 26 October 2000 (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000-IX) Poland enacted the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaint about breach of the right to have a case examined in judicial proceedings without undue delay (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”) (see also paragraphs 75-83 below).\nSubsequently, following the introduction of the Law of 20 February 2009 on amendments to the law on complaint about breach of the right to have a case examined in judicial proceedings without undue delay (ustawa o zmianie ustawy o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2009 Amendment”) the name of the 2004 Act was altered to the Law on complaint about breach of the right to have a case examined in an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and in judicial proceedings without undue delay (ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki (see also paragraphs 84-89 below).\n6.  The Court has previously considered the remedies introduced by the 2004 Act under Article 35 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention in three leading cases and concluded that they were “effective” for the purposes of those provisions (see Charzyński v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 36-43 ECHR 2005-V; Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII; and Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 68-73, ECHR 2005‑V (extracts). In consequence, in 2005 over 600 Polish cases involving complaints of excessive length of proceedings, which were at that time pending before the Court, were rejected by committees of three judges under former Article 28 of the Convention on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.\n7.  However, since then every year at least 100 prima facie well-founded applications concerning complaints of breaches of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time have been lodged with the Court by persons who have exhausted the remedies under the 2004 Act. As in the present three cases the facts of which are described below, and in 591 cases to be communicated listed in the annex to this judgment (see also paragraphs 209‑212 below), the applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the unreasonable length of civil or criminal proceedings and under Article 13 of the domestic courts’ refusal to grant them sufficient just satisfaction for a breach of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time.\nAs regards their grievances under Article 13, all the applicants in essence maintained that the Polish courts dealing with their complaints under the 2004 Act had failed to comply with the principles established by the Court with respect to the “reasonable-time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 and the criteria for “appropriate and sufficient redress” to be afforded at domestic level for a breach of that requirement (for the relevant criteria, see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 195-216 and 272, ECHR 2006‑V).\n8.  Between 30 October 1998, when the Court gave its judgment in the case of Styranowski and for the first time found a violation of Article 6 § 1 by Poland on account of the excessive length of proceedings (see Styranowski v. Poland, 3", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8675", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Armavir. She is disabled and is confined to a wheelchair. She depends on her disability pension as a means of subsistence.\n7.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings against her neighbour, M., seeking to have dismantled a construction that the latter had built in 1987 inside the entrance of their multi-flat house for the purpose of insulating the building. In its place the applicant sought to install a wooden ramp for her wheelchair in order to facilitate her access to her flat, situated on the ground floor.\n8.  It appears that during the court proceedings the applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer, modified her claim and asked for the construction in question not to be dismantled but to be allocated to her so that she could install a wooden ramp in its place.\n9.  On 26 July 2007 the Armavir Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, finding that the applicant had failed to substantiate with any proof, such as an expert opinion, that it was necessary and possible to dismantle the construction and that it was technically possible to install a wooden ramp in its place.\n10.  On 1 August 2007 the applicant, still not represented, lodged an appeal.\n11.  On 13 September 2007 the Civil Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s claim on appeal. The court found that the applicant’s request to have the construction allocated to her was ill-founded since the construction had not been built by her and, moreover, belonged to the owner of the underlying plot of land. The court further referred to an opinion issued on 16 January 2007 by the Armavir Municipality, according to which it was technically preferable to build a wooden ramp from the balcony side of the applicant’s flat rather than from the building’s main entrance.\n12.  On 7 November 2007 the applicant, still unrepresented, lodged an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation.\n13.  By a letter of 12 November 2007 the Chief Registrar of the Court of Cassation returned the applicant’s appeal, informing her that the appeal had not been admitted for examination as it had not been lodged by an advocate licensed to act before the Court of Cassation, pursuant to Article 223 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the CCP).", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8676", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  In or before the year 2009 criminal proceedings were instituted in Italy against named individuals (not including the applicants) who were charged, inter alia, of conspiracy, money laundering, abuse of a position of influence in financial trading, embezzlement, tax evasion and fraud. In particular it was suspected that Mr EMP organised, financed and managed, directly or indirectly a network of companies situated in various states (San Marino, Italy, Malta, Portugal (Madeira) and Vanuatu) which were all traceable to one source namely, San Marino Investimenti S.A. (hereinafter “S.M.I.”). According to the applicants, Mr EMP owned S.M.I.’s entire capital stock which was instrumental to the accomplishment of a series of investment and fiduciary operations (operazioni fiduciarie) the aim of which was to allow a number of Italian clients to launder money coming from illicit sources (by impeding the identification of the real source of the money entrusted to it by means of a double system of fiduciary mandates (mandati fiduciari)). The group of co-accused were suspected of having, through such network, abusively supplied investment services contrary to the legal requirements as provided in the relevant Italian law (Testo Unico Della Finanza) and of having abusively carried out financial activities without being in possession of the necessary economic and financial requisites and the relevant registration as required by Italian law (Testo Unico Bancario).\n8.  In the context of these proceedings, by means of a letter rogatory received by the San Marino judicial authorities on 8 May 2009, the Public Prosecutor’s office (of the Rome Tribunal) asked the San Marino authorities for assistance in obtaining documentation and carrying out searches in various banks, fiduciary institutes and trust companies (banche, fiduciare e societa’ trust) in San Marino, in accordance with Article 29 of the Bilateral Convention on Friendship and Good Neighbourhood between Italy and San Marino of 1939.\n9.  By a decision of 27 November 2009 (hereinafter also referred to as the exequatur decision), the ordinary first-instance tribunal (Commissario della Legge, hereinafter the Commissario), accepted the request in conjunction with the crimes of conspiracy, money laundering, aggravated fraud and embezzlement with the aim of fraud, considering that the relevant requirements for the execution of the request were fulfilled. In particular the Commissario considered that those crimes were also punishable under San Marino law. It therefore ordered, inter alia, an investigation in respect of all banks, fiduciary institutes and trust companies in San Marino. The purpose was to acquire information and banking documents (inter alia, copies of statements showing transactions and movements, cheques, fiduciary dispositions (disposizioni fiduciarie) and emails) related to a number of named current accounts in specified institutes as well as any other current account which could be traced back (riferibile) to S.M.I, held by all banks and fiduciary institutes in San Marino, which were directly or indirectly involved with the company or physical persons mentioned in this decision. In reaching that decision the Commissario bore in mind the relevant articles of the Bilateral Convention on Friendship and Good Neighbourhood between Italy and San Marino of 1939, law no. 104/2009, the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, and San Marino’s commitment to international or", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8677", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Narva.\n6.  On 17 September 2012 the applicant, in misdemeanour proceedings, was fined 80 euros (EUR) by a police officer of the East Prefecture of the Police and Border Guard Board for a breach of public order (breaking a glass panel of a bus shelter).\n7.  The applicant contested this decision before the Viru County Court. He argued that he had not committed the act in question and challenged the assessment of witness statements. He complained about the failure of the police to present him to a witness for identification. Lastly, he complained that the police had not indicated in its decision the specific provisions of the local rules on public order which he had allegedly breached.\n8.  The County Court sent summons to the applicant for a hearing scheduled for 21 March 2013 at 12.30 p.m. It was noted in the summons that the applicant’s participation in the hearing was mandatory. Furthermore, it was noted, with reference to Article 126 § 2 of the Code of Misdemeanour Procedure (Väärteomenetluse seadustik), that if a complainant failed to appear at the hearing, although he had been notified of the obligation to participate, and the hearing was not adjourned, the court would refuse to examine the complaint. The applicant’s counsel, a representative of the police prefecture and witnesses were also summoned.\n9.  The summons sent to the applicant’s address, which he had used throughout the proceedings and which had been indicated in his complaint, could not be served on him personally as he was not present on 4 February 2013 when the court’s security officer attempted to serve the summons. His mother refused to accept the summons and said that the applicant was living abroad. The applicant’s counsel received the summons on 8 February 2013. The witnesses also received the summons in the beginning of February.\n10.  On 20 March 2013 the County Court issued a ruling by which the applicant’s complaint was admitted for the proceedings. According to the ruling the hearing was scheduled for 21 March 2013 at 12.30 p.m. and the names of persons to be summoned to the hearing were set out.\n11.  On 21 March 2013 the County Court held its hearing. The applicant did not appear. His counsel asked the court to examine the matter without the applicant’s presence as the applicant was abroad and it was not known when he would return to Estonia. According to the applicant’s father, who was in the courtroom as a spectator, the applicant was not to return to Estonia within the next five years. The County Court refused to examine the applicant’s complaint. It delivered its decision in writing on 2 April 2013.\n12.  According to the County Court’s decision, the applicant had failed to inform the authorities of his new address. However, as the applicant’s father was aware of the time of the court hearing and of the applicant’s intention not to return to Estonia within the next five years, the court concluded that the applicant’s parents were communicating both with the applicant and his counsel. Thus, the applicant must have been aware of the court hearing and summons sent to him.\n13.  The County Court found that in view of the substance of the misdemeanour case and the court’s duty to hear a misdemeanour matter in its entirety, regardless of the limits of the complaint filed, and to verify the factual and legal circumstances on the basis of which the body conducting the extra-judicial proceedings (that is, the police) ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8678", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants are HIV-positive, with a minimum degree of disability of 67%. They are, or were, detained in Aghios Pavlos Hospital (psychiatric section) at Korydallos Prison.\n6.  Andreas Martzaklis: imprisoned on 7 May 2011 and detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by the Athens Criminal Court, a decision given by the Indictments Division of the Khalkida Criminal Court in 2010 ordering the execution of a sentence passed by the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal which had been stayed, and a judgment delivered by the Athens Court of Appeal sentencing him to four years’ imprisonment. Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the Court. Released on licence on 8 May 2013 but rearrested the same day and placed in preventive detention.\n7.  Christos Sarris: provisionally detained from 5 December 2011 to 14 December 2012, and detained by judgment of 14 December 2012 sentencing him to 6 years’ imprisonment and then by judgment of 19 March 2014 sentencing him to 6 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the Court. Released on licence on 9 May 2014 pursuant to section 19 of Act No. 4242/2014.\n8.  Christos Efstathiou: imprisoned on 14 February 2011. Detained pursuant to a decision given by the Indictments Division of the Khalkida Criminal Court on 22 December 2008, ordering the execution of the remainder of a sentence with suspensive effect, and pursuant to a judgment delivered by Athens Criminal Court, which merged the sentences into a total of 25 months. Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the Court. Released on licence on 26 June 2014 pursuant to Article 105 of the Criminal Code.\n9.  Efthymios Karatzoglou: imprisoned on 18 July 2011. Detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by the Piraeus Criminal Court of Appel on 12 April 2013 sentencing him to two years and eight months’ imprisonment. Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the Court. Released on licence on 15 May 2013 pursuant to section 1 of Act No. 4043/2012.\n10.  Achilleas Papadiotis: imprisoned on 17 February 2011. Detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal on 10 June 2013 sentencing him to 10 years and 4 months’ imprisonment (starting date for serving the sentence: 8 December 2012). Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the Court. Transferred to Patras Prison on 6 October 2014.\n11.  Dimitrios Nikolopoulos: imprisoned on 20 August 2012 and detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by the Athens Criminal Court of Appeal on 9 February 2012 sentencing him to 10 years’ imprisonment, and a judgment delivered by the Athens Criminal Court on 1 December 2010 sentencing him to three months’ imprisonment. Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the Court. Placed in Aghios Pavlos Hospital.\n12.  Spyridon Petrenitis: detained since 18 April 2012 pursuant to a judgment delivered by the Larissa Court of Appeal on 1 April 2013 sentencing him to two years’ imprisonment. Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the Court. Released on licence on 23 May 2013 under section 1 of Act No. 4043/2012.\n13.  Chrysafis Chatzikos: imprisoned on 13 July 2012 and detained ever since under the following decisions: 17 March 2010 judgment of the Athens Criminal Court sentencing him to ten months imprisonment; 23 February 2012 judgment of the Athens Criminal ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8679", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Lepoglava.\n6.  On 23 October 2008 I.P., a well-known Croatian journalist, and his business associate N.F. were killed by the explosion of an improvised device placed under I.P.’s car, which was parked in front of his publishing company. The explosion also caused injuries to two employees of the publishing company and considerable material damage on the surrounding buildings and nearby parked cars.\n7.  On 23 October 2009 the State Attorney’s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta; hereinafter: the “State Attorney’s Organised Crime Office”) indicted several persons in the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on charges of conspiracy to kill I.P. and for putting that into action. The applicant was indicted for having participated in the group by aiding and abetting the direct perpetrators.\n8.  On 3 November 2010 the Zagreb County Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to sixteen years’ imprisonment.\n9.  The applicant’s conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske) on 8 February 2012.\n10.  Following the attack against I.P. and his publishing company, the intelligence available to the police showed that the applicant and several other persons could be implicated in the events and it was therefore decided to arrest them.\n11.  The Police Director (Glavni Ravnatelj Policije) issued an oral order that the arrests be carried out by an antiterrorist team of the Special Police Forces (Specijalna policija, Antiteroristička jedinica Lučko; hereinafter: the “ATJ”).\n12.  On 29 October 2008, at around 6.05 p.m., the ATJ stormed into the applicant’s flat, where he was at the moment together with his sister and grandmother.\n13.  According to the applicant, immediately after breaking into the flat, the AJT officers threw him on the floor and started punching him over the head and body.\n14.  According to the Government, an ATJ team of six officers broke into the applicant’s flat and ordered him to lie down. As he started resisting, the police officers applied the throwing technique of “foot sweep”, which made the applicant to lose his balance and while falling on the ground he hit the table with his head. He was immediately offered medical assistance but he refused.\n15.  A report available to the Court signed by the Commander-in-chief of the Special Police Forces (Zapovjednik Specijalne Policije) of 30 October 2008, which is essentially a verbatim of a report of one of the arresting ATJ officers (see paragraph 36 below), in its relevant part concerning the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest, reads:\n“... the intervention with a view to arrest [the applicant] started by the ATJ officers forceful breaking the front doors using the [battering ram]. Inside the flat they found the suspect and an older woman to whom they issued several orders: “Police, lie down on the floor”. As the suspect resisted, two officers approached him and grabbed him by the arms but he continued to resist. [The officers] then applied the technique of foot sweep and pulled him to the ground. As he was still trying to set himself free he was handcuffed. While he was falling on the ground he hit the table with his face ... Afterwards ... [the officers] offered to the suspect medical assistance but he refused it saying that he felt good.”\n16.  According to the appl", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8680", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in St. Gallenkappel, Switzerland.\n7.  Since 2004, the applicant and F.H. have been involved in legal disputes against each other concerning the property rights in 75% of the bearer shares in both the EMK stock corporation and the EMK Engineering stock corporation, companies resident and registered in Liechtenstein which trade in building units.\n8.  By an immediately enforceable interim injunction dated 28 December 2009, taken in accordance with Article 276 § 1 of the Act on Enforcement and Injunction Proceedings (see paragraph 36 below), the Regional Court granted F.H.’s request to prohibit the Real Property and Commercial Registry to register certain changes concerning the EMK Engineering stock corporation which had been decided in the corporation’s extraordinary shareholders’ meeting of 23 July 2004 (file no. 02.CG.2007.83). It thereby confirmed its provisional order of 21 March 2007 to that effect. The Regional Court notably prohibited registering the decisions taken in that meeting that F.H. had been voted out of his office as a representative and member of the corporation’s supervisory board with power to represent the corporation and that the applicant had been elected managing director of the corporation with power to represent the corporation alone.\n9.  On 25 March 2010 the Court of Appeal quashed that decision on the applicant’s request and the case was remitted to the Regional Court for a further investigation of the facts.\n10.  On 30 July 2010 the Regional Court issued a fresh identical interim injunction. It stated that the interim order served to secure F.H.’s claim in the main proceedings for a declaration that the decisions taken in the EMK Engineering stock corporation’s extraordinary shareholders’ meeting of 23 July 2004 were null and void and for a prohibition of the entry of those decisions in the real property and commercial register.\n11.  The Regional Court confirmed that the applicant had not obtained property of 75% of the bearer shares in the EMK Engineering stock corporation and had not therefore validly represented 75% of the shares in the corporation’s extraordinary shareholders’ meeting. The decisions taken in that meeting were thus unlawful. It further found that interim injunctions under Article 276 § 1 of the Act on Enforcement and Injunction Proceedings could also be taken in order to secure claims for a declaration (Feststellungsansprüche) if such a measure was necessary to preserve the status quo of either an object or a legal relationship. For such interim orders the restriction that interim injunctions should not anticipate the outcome of the main proceedings did not apply. In the present case, it was necessary to maintain the status quo in the commercial register in order to prevent F.H. from suffering irreversible damage. F.H. could suffer such damage if the changes in question were made in the real property and commercial register as dispositions could then be taken for the stock corporation without his participation.\n12.  On 23 September 2010 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the order of 30 July 2010.\n13.  On 22 October 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court against the Court of Appeal’s decision dated 23 September 2010.\n14.  On 7 November 2011 the Constitutional Court informed the applicant that judges B., Bu., S., V. and W. would deliberate on his complaint in private on 28 Novemb", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8681", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant, Mr Boutros Yaacoub El Khoury was born in 1977. At the time of lodging his applications he was detained in Berlin’s Moabit prison.\n6.  On 2 August 2005 the Berlin Tiergarten District Court issued an arrest warrant against the applicant on suspicion of two counts of drug trafficking. The arrest warrant specified that the strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences resulted from statements made by one of his co‑suspects, the separately prosecuted A.K. The District Court further found that there was a risk that the applicant, who did not have a permanent residence in Germany and in the past had been travelling between Brazil and Europe, would abscond. A partly suspended prison sentence had previously been imposed on him in Germany. Moreover, two additional arrest warrants were pending against him in Germany, one relating to a further offence of drug trafficking and the other, dated 1 July 2004, concerning forgery of identification papers.\n7.  On 16 August 2006 the applicant was detained in Portugal pending his extradition to Germany (Auslieferungshaft) as a consequence of the arrest warrants dated 1 July 2004 and 2 August 2005. On 8 September 2006 he was extradited to Germany where he was remanded in custody in Berlin Moabit prison. His detention on remand (Untersuchungshaft) was subject to reinforced security conditions. He was kept separate from other prisoners in an isolated cell (isolierter Einzelhaftraum) and was excluded from most group prison events. Contacts with visitors were limited and subject to close supervision.\n8.  On 18 September 2006 the Berlin Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant with having used a forged passport when entering German territory on one occasion in 2003. By a further bill of indictment dated 20 October 2006, he was charged with two counts of drug trafficking, committed jointly with several co-accused, among them G., U. and A.K. He was further accused of having incited G. to import drugs illicitly.\n9.  In their description of the facts underlying the drugs-related offences allegedly committed by the applicant, the prosecution authorities mainly relied on statements made by A.K. in the course of separate criminal proceedings jointly conducted against A.K. and U. before the Berlin Regional Court on suspicion of organised drug trafficking. The bill of indictment further specified that the applicant was suffering from a congenital heart defect and as a consequence was not to be subjected to long-lasting situations of physical and mental stress.\n10.  On 13 December 2006 the Berlin Regional Court admitted both indictments and opened the trial against the applicant. The trial started on 20 February 2007. The applicant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings.\n11.  By a judgment of the Berlin Regional Court dated 28 February 2007 in the proceedings separately conducted against A.K., the latter was convicted of several counts of drug trafficking and illicit importation of drugs and sentenced to a cumulative prison sentence of five years and three months. A.K. appealed against the judgment on points of law.\n12.  On 20 September 2007 and 30 October 2007 the applicant applied for the arrest warrants dated 1 July 2004 and 2 August 2005 to be set aside. By decisions of 20 September 2007 and 19 November 2007 respectively the Regional Court rejected the applicant’s motions.\n13.  By a decision of 17 December 2007 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal. The C", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8682", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The first applicant was born in 1953 and the second applicant was born on 1957. They live in Izhevsk.\n5.  In 1986 the first applicant was called up to take part in the emergency operations at the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster. As a result, he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions. In October 1996 experts established a causal link between the applicant’s disability and his involvement in the Chernobyl events.\n6.  Under domestic law the first applicant is entitled to monthly payments in compensation for health damage. He brought court proceedings against local authorities claiming adjustment of the monthly payments in line with the increase of a statutory minimum wage for the period between October 1996 and April 2000.\n7.  On 3 May 2000 the Oktryabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk of the Udmurtia Republic allowed his claim in part and ordered the Pensions and Social Allowances Department of the Oktyabrskiy District of Izhevsk and the Ministry of Social Welfare of the Republic of Udmurtia to pay the applicant a lump sum of 9,823.37 Russian roubles (RUB) in respect of the debt accrued as a result of previous underpayment. The court ordered that the award be paid at the expense of the federal budget. On 15 May 2000 the judgment became final and entered into force.\n8.  On 13 June 2000 the bailiffs’ office opened the enforcement proceedings. On 10 December 2003 those proceedings were discontinued on account of the respondent authority’s lack of funds.\n9.  On 24 May 2004 the amount awarded was paid to the first applicant in full.\n10.  Being a victim of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, the first applicant is entitled to additional housing. As he was not offered any, he brought an action against the local authorities claiming to provide him with housing.\n11.  On 15 November 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk found for the first applicant and ordered the Ministry of Architecture, Construction and Housing Policy of the Republic of Udmurtia to grant him a separate room which should meet sanitary and technical requirements and be well-equipped in accordance with the set standards.\n12.  The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force ten days later.\n13.  The Ministry of Construction of the Republic of Udmurtia did not execute the judgment due to lack of available housing.\n14.  On 31 January 2005 the respondent authority informed the first applicant that as of 15 December 2004 the competence to distribute the social housing to the victims of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster had been transferred to the Ministry for Disaster Relief of the Republic of Udmurtia, and since that date the Ministry of Construction had accordingly been unable to execute the judgment in his favour.\n15.  On 20 April 2005 the first applicant filed a claim to alter the mode of enforcement of the judgment of 15 November 2004 from in-kind provision of the room to monetary compensation for its acquisition. His claim was granted by the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Izhevsk on 11 May 2005 and he was awarded RUB 230,000 to be paid by the Ministry for Disaster Relief of the Republic of Udmurtia at the expense of the federal budget.\n16.  On 27 July 2006 the Federal Treasury Department at the Ministry of Finance informed the applicant that the debtor had not enforced the judgment and proposed to bring actions against the Ministry for Disaster Relief of the Russian Federation.\n17.  Since 25 April 2007 the State compensations for acqu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8683", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Telki.\n6.  Between 25 February 2002 and 18 May 2005, litigation was in progress between the applicant and his former employer. The latter was eventually obliged to re-employ the applicant.\n7.  The applicant did not accept the position that was offered to him in pursuit of the re-employment order. New litigation started on 5 January 2006.\n8.  On 18 November 2008 the Budapest Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action.\n9.  On appeal, on 9 July 2010 the Budapest Regional Court reversed this decision and found for the applicant.\n10.  The respondent pursued a petition for review before the Kúria. On 29 February 2012 this court reversed the appeal judgment and found for the respondent.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8684", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Kryvyy Rig. Before his arrest he was rector of a State-owned university.\n5.  On 23 September 2009 the applicant was medically examined. An endocrinologist noted that he had type-2 diabetes and prescribed insulin injections. The endocrinologist advised that commencement and adjustment of the insulin treatment should take place on an in-patient basis in a local hospital.\n6.  On 29 September 2009 an investigator from the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office arrested the applicant on suspicion of having received bribes in his capacity as university rector. He was detained in the temporary detention facility of Kryvyy Rig (“the ITT”).\n7.  On 2 October 2009 the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kryvyy Rig (“the District Court”) ordered the applicant’s detention for three months, stating, without referring to any concrete facts, that he might abscond, hinder the investigation or continue his criminal activities. The court also noted that there was evidence in support of the prosecutors’ suspicion that the applicant had received bribes.\n8.  On 5 October 2009 the applicant was transported to the Kryvyy Rig remand centre (“the SIZO”).\n9.  On 7 October 2009 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) upheld the above decision. The court noted, without providing further details, that the case file contained evidence that the applicant had attempted to hinder the investigation, and medical documents indicating that he was physically fit for detention. No further information about the said evidence and documents was made available to the Court.\n10.  On 18 November 2009 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention to 29 January 2010, relying on the same grounds as in its previous decision.\n11.  On 25 November 2009 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision. Referring to unspecified medical documents, it again noted that the applicant was physically fit for detention.\n12.  On 29 January 2010 the investigation in the applicant’s case was completed and the case was referred to the District Court for trial.\n13.  In a preliminary hearing on 9 March 2010, the District Court ruled that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant had to be maintained as there were no reasons to change it. The court did not fix the length of the applicant’s detention.\n14.  In a judgment of 23 May 2011, the District Court sentenced the applicant to five years and two months’ imprisonment for bribery. On 5 October 2011 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal modified that judgment and sentenced the applicant to five years’ suspended imprisonment with a probationary period of three years. On the same date the applicant was released from the SIZO. The judgment became final.\n15.  In the course of the criminal proceedings the applicant took part in fifty court hearings and in a number of investigative actions.\n16.  In a written request for release, the applicant stated that his state of health was incompatible with detention and that, as he no longer held the post of rector, he could not hinder the investigation. On 31 May 2010 he submitted his request to the SIZO administration asking them to send it to the District Court for examination. On 2 June 2010 the SIZO administration duly forwarded the request. On 7 June 2010 the District Court rejected the request, holding that if he were freed, the applicant could influence witnesses. It continued:\n“... In so far as the applicant’s health is co", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8685", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Chernigiv. Since childhood the applicant has suffered from the second-highest officially recognised degree of disability. In particular, the applicant’s walking ability is impaired – he can only walk with the aid of crutches. Since August 1977 the applicant has worked as a senior researcher at the Chernigiv Institute of Agricultural Microbiology.\n6.  The applicant was married to O.M., with whom he had a daughter – A.M. – who was born on 5 May 2002. They lived together as a family in the applicant’s flat in Chernigiv. Y.L. – another daughter of O.M.’s – who was born on 30 April 1994, and M.M., the applicant’s mother, also lived in the same flat.\n7.  In October 2005 O.M. moved to live at her mother’s flat in Chernigiv, as O.M. was suffering from cancer and required external assistance, taking with her A.M., who was then three years old.\n8.  On 3 April 2006 a lawyer acting on behalf of O.M. lodged a claim with the Desnyanskyy District Court in Chernigiv against the applicant, seeking maintenance payments. In particular, in the claim it was stated that O.M. and the applicant “had not lived as a married couple” since August 2005, that the applicant “had left the family”, that he was not participating in the upbringing of A.M. and was not contributing to it financially.\n9.  The applicant submitted his observations on the claim, in which he stated that it had been O.M. who “had left the family” to live at her mother’s flat and that O.M. had taken A.M. with her. The applicant asserted that he was contributing money towards his daughter’s upbringing and that whenever his daughter had been unwell she had stayed at his home in order to protect O.M. against possible infection, most recently from 31 March to 5 April 2006. The applicant further contended that O.M. was in a poor state of health and taking opioids constantly, and that the claim had been instigated by her relatives, in particular by V.K., O.M.’s mother. The applicant asked the court to order A.M. to return to live at his flat as long as O.M. remained in a poor medical condition.\n10.  On 16 May 2006 the Desnyanskyy District Court allowed O.M.’s claim, finding that she and A.M. were living separately from the applicant and that he was not contributing money towards the child’s upbringing. The applicant did not appeal against that judgment, stating that he had only learnt of it after some delay.\n11.  On 16 June 2006 O.M. died. V.K. took A.M. away from Chernigiv without informing the applicant of the latter’s whereabouts.\n12.  The applicant stated that he had lodged a number of complaints and requests with the police, prosecutors, local child-care authorities and non-governmental organisations seeking assistance in his daughter’s return. In particular, he submitted a copy of his complaint of 19 September 2006 addressed to the police and to the Municipal Centre of Social Services for Family, Children and Youth (Міський центр соціальних служб для сім’ї, дітей та молоді, “the Municipal Family Welfare Centre”) in Chernigiv.\n13.  In a letter dated 16 October 2006, the Municipal Family Welfare Centre informed the applicant that his request of 19 September 2006 for his daughter’s return had been examined. The applicant was also informed by V.K.’s neighbours that she had left Chernigiv for Andriyivka, a village in the Chernigiv oblast (about 25 km away from Chernigiv), and had taken A.M. with her. The local authorities in Andriyivka were thus asked to", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8686", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and currently lives in Traun.\n6.  On 21 January 2005 the Linz Regional Court convicted the applicant of having deliberately caused severe bodily harm and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. The court found that the applicant had beaten his 80‑year-old mother by kicking and punching her face, head and thorax, which resulted in a severe and lasting infirmity. The applicant had been convicted on seven previous occasions, four of which involved similar offences of violence. Relying on a report by a psychiatric expert, the court found that even though the applicant was responsible for his acts, he was suffering from a grave mental disorder, was dangerous to the public and was likely to re-offend. For these reasons, the court ordered the applicant’s detention in an institution for mentally ill offenders in accordance with section 21 § 2 of the Criminal Code, in addition to the term of imprisonment. Given the time the applicant had served in detention on remand, the Court stated that the applicant’s detention pursuant to the prison sentence was likely to end on 7 May 2010.\n7.  On 7 June 2005 the Linz Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against his sentence. On the same day the applicant was placed in Garsten detention centre, an institution for mentally ill offenders.\n8.  On 31 March 2006, in a first set of proceedings in which the applicant requested his conditional release from the institution, the Steyr Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) ordered that the applicant remain in the institution. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision on 9 May 2006.\n9.  On 10 January 2007 the applicant applied for the lifting of the order to detain him at Garsten detention centre (under section 21 § 2 of the Criminal Code) in order to serve his sentence in an ordinary prison.\n10.  On 12 January 2007 the Regional Court asked the Garsten prison administration and its psychiatric and psychological service to transmit further information on the applicant, which it received on 9 March 2007. On 12 March 2007 it ordered a fresh psychiatric expert report and instructed the expert to submit the report before 11 June 2007.\n11.  On 23 June 2007 the applicant filed an application with the Court of Appeal for the setting of a time-limit (Fristsetzungsantrag) under section 91 of the Court Act (Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz) for the Regional Court to decide on his application, as the last determination of the continuing need to detain him had taken place on 9 May 2006, and he had not yet received a decision concerning his application of 10 January 2007.\n12.  On an unspecified date, the applicant was transferred to a psychiatric institution in Vienna. It appears, however, that this transfer was only temporary, and on an unspecified date, the applicant was transferred back to Garsten detention centre.\n13.  After having been urged by the Regional Court to deliver her report, the expert replied on 3 July 2007 that she would submit it as soon as possible. She did so on 10 July 2007 and explained that the applicant had meanwhile been transferred to an institution in Vienna, for which reason she had not been able to examine him earlier. She found that the applicant, even though he had started to respond positively to his therapy, was still suffering from a serious mental disorder and that there was still the risk that the applicant would commit dangerous acts of violence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8687", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Ulan-Ude.\n6.  In 2007 the applicant’s wife, N., gave birth to a daughter, A.\n7.  In 2010 the applicant and N. divorced.\n8.  On 18 January 2011 the Oktyabrskiy District childcare and guardianship authority (“the childcare authority”) determined that A. would reside with the applicant during even weeks and with her mother, N., during odd weeks. In January, June, July and August, A. was to live with the applicant for one week of his choice per month.\n9.  On 22 March 2011 the applicant discovered several bruises on A.’s body. Suspecting that she had been beaten and sexually abused by N.’s new partner, he refused to return A. to N.\n10.  During the following year, A. lived with the applicant and her paternal grandmother. On several occasions the applicant allowed N. to visit A. in his presence.\n11.  On 25 March 2011 the applicant complained to the police and to the Oktyabrskiy District investigation committee that his daughter had been beaten and sexually abused by N.’s partner. The investigation committee opened a pre-investigation inquiry.\n12.  The applicant and N. both applied to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ulan-Ude for a residence order in respect of A.\n13.  On 25 April 2011 A. was questioned by an investigator in the presence of a psychologist as part of the pre-investigation inquiry. A. stated that she wanted to live with the applicant because he was nice, whereas her mother and her mother’s new partner had treated her badly. She was again questioned by the investigator in the presence of a psychologist on 27 June and 3 August 2011, and confirmed her previous statements.\n14.  On 19 May 2011 the Oktyabrskiy District Court granted N.’s application for a residence order and refused the applicant’s similar application. The court found that both parents had taken an equal share in A.’s upbringing. They both had sufficient financial means and their standard of living was equally satisfactory. However, taking into account A.’s gender and age, it was preferable for her to be brought up by her mother. A child under the age of twelve could be separated from the mother only in exceptional circumstances. No such circumstances had been established in the present case. N. was employed and had sufficient income. There was no evidence of negligence or mistreatment on her part. A.’s bruises could have been sustained as a result of a fall or in the course of a game, and were insufficient to prove mistreatment. A criminal inquiry into the allegations of mistreatment was still pending. The court-appointed expert psychologist’s finding that A. was emotionally closer to her father and paternal grandmother than to her mother could not be taken into account in the absence of established evidence of mistreatment by the mother. The court concluded that it was therefore in A.’s best interests to live with her mother.\n15.  On 20 May 2011 the childcare authority noted that A. wished to live with her father. An inspection of the applicant’s flat had revealed that he had created all the appropriate conditions for A.’s normal development. The childcare authority therefore found that A. should reside with the applicant.\n16.  On 22 June 2011 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Buryatiya upheld the judgment of 19 May 2011 on appeal. It found that the Oktyabrskiy District Court had failed to consider the childcare authority’s findings and opinion and had therefore committed a serious breach of the procedure prescribed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8688", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants, two brothers, were born in 1982 and 1974 respectively and live in Tautii Magheraus.\n5.  According to the first applicant, in the summer of 2004 he was contacted on several occasions by an undercover police agent who wanted to buy ecstasy from him, brought into the country from the Netherlands.\nAccording to the prosecutor’s report, the police gained knowledge of the first applicant’s alleged involvement in drug trafficking at the beginning of September 2004.\n6.  It was established by the prosecutor and domestic courts that some time in September the first applicant brought a batch of drugs into the country and sold ten tablets to the undercover agent on 26 October 2004 and 115 tablets on 29 October 2004. According to the transcripts of the conversations intercepted between the first applicant and the police agent, on 28 October the latter called the first applicant, asked him if he had “any left” and at the applicant’s confirmation that some 150 remained, the undercover agent calculated their price at 1,000 euros, and advised the applicant on where and how to meet the next day for him to buy them all.\n7.  On 29 October 2004 the police intercepted a conversation between the undercover agent and the first applicant when they met for the drug transaction. The police agent told the applicant that the day before he had been offered a batch of “1,000 pieces” (1,000 de bucăţi) which would be available the next week, and that he would not want to miss such an opportunity. The applicant offered to bring the same amount for him. The police agent agreed, and asked how much more he could bring. They settled for 5,000 pieces. The undercover agent warned the first applicant repeatedly during their conversation that if he did not receive his supply from the applicant he would go to the other provider. During the conversation it appeared that the applicant had meanwhile sold some twenty more tablets. The first applicant called someone on his mobile phone and discussed in English getting 5,000 or 10,000 tablets. He then reported to the agent that he could get him some stronger tablets, and described the sensations he had had when he had used them himself. The agent proposed the place and arrangements for their next transaction.\n8.  The new transaction was postponed for various reasons and was finally planned to take place on 23 December 2004 in Baia Mare. That day the first applicant informed his brother for the first time that he had brought drugs into the country and about the deal. After having initially refused and argued extensively about it with his brother, the second applicant agreed to help, in order to save the family from potential retaliation by the Dutch seller. That evening he took the drugs to an agreed location while the first applicant negotiated the terms of the transaction with the undercover agent.\n9.  The first applicant and the undercover agent then joined the second applicant; the agent was offered an ecstasy tablet for testing and then left with the first applicant in order to set out the details of the transaction. The second applicant was to wait at the same location for the buyer to return with the money to pay for the drugs. Meanwhile, the second applicant saw police agents approaching in a taxi. He threw the bag containing the drugs into a nearby bush and phoned his brother to warn him. The first applicant told the undercover agent that the transaction was cancelled.\n10.  Police agents apprehended the two ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8689", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Fălticeni.\n6.  On 31 July 2008, the applicant was driving to Galați accompanied by C.P. in a car registered in the United States of America. At about 7 p.m. they visited a mutual friend, O.C. Shortly thereafter, all three of them returned to his car, which was parked near O.C.’s home. They found it surrounded by three police cars, approximately ten police officers and dozens of curious civilians.\n7.  The applicant overheard one of the police officers informing his colleagues that they had found out the car registered in America had been involved in that accident in which some pedestrians had been injured. He informed the police officers that he was the owner of the car and denied that he had been involved in an accident.\n8.  The police officers immediately proceeded to detain the applicant aggressively, without checking his identity papers. Police officer G.S. twisted the applicant’s arm behind his back and hit him in the legs. The blow was so powerful that the applicant had to grab one of the police car’s wing mirrors and window in order to avoid falling down. At the same time he was hit on the head and his mouth was covered because he was shouting for, amongst other things, his identity documents, which were in his car. Police officer I.V.V. also punched the applicant repeatedly.\n9.  Once he was in the police car, the applicant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back and two police officers, who remained unidentified, continued to hit him. He lost his dentures and eventually fainted. Police officer R.P. travelled in a separate car and police officer M.G. drove the police car in which the applicant was detained. Consequently, the applicant concluded that those two officers could not have hit him.\n10.  At the police station police officer C.M. removed the handcuffs from the applicant.\n11.  On 31 July 2008, the applicant was caught speeding and refused to stop his car at a police officer’s request. When the police eventually found his car parked in an area surrounded by blocks of flats, the applicant and his friends became very agitated and the applicant refused to show his identity papers to the police officers. He claimed that he was immune to prosecution because he was an American citizen.\n12.  The police officers lawfully took the applicant to the police station in order to establish his identity and to fine him for speeding. According to eyewitness statements, the police officers handcuffed the applicant in a stern, but not abusive manner. They confirmed that the applicant and his friends had been verbally abusive towards the police officers.\n13.  On 1 August 2008, following a request by the applicant, the Galați Forensic Medical Service produced an expert report concluding that the applicant had suffered traumatic lesions which could have been sustained on 31 July 2008. It also concluded that he had suffered an injury to the lower lip and damage to the dental prosthesis next to his upper-right canine as a result of his being struck with a solid object, possibly on the chin. In addition, the skin on the bridge of his nose and the left side of his neck had been scratched by a hard and sharp nail-like object. The bruises located on his left shoulder and below his left clavicle had resulted from being struck with a solid object. The bruise on the inside of his right arm had resulted from finger compression. Also his left forearm and the back of his left hand had been scratched with ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8691", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Cheboksary.\n6.  In 2001 the applicant obtained an award of remuneration arrears in the proceedings against a private company that went under insolvency administration. On 15 May 2003 the applicant sued the insolvency manager of the company seeking the recovery of the remuneration awarded to him by the court.\n7.  On 30 November 2004 the Novocheboksarskiy Town Court of the Republic of Chuvashiya dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.\n8.  On 12 January 2005 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashiya upheld the judgment of 30 November 2004.\n9.  On 3 July 2004 the applicant lodged a claim with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashiya against the Novocheboksarskiy Town Court seeking recovery of non‑pecuniary damages for excessively long examination of his claim against the insolvency manager.\n10.  On 8 July 2004 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashiya returned the applicant’s claim on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction to examine it. The court directed the applicant to lodge the claim with a district court. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 17 August 2004 the Supreme Court of Russia amended the decision of 8 July 2004 and dismissed the applicant’s claim without consideration on the merits on the ground that it could not be examined in the course of civil proceedings. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:\n“... According to Article 16 of the Federal Law “On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation” a judge could only be held responsible for actions committed in the course of administration of justice if he or she had been convicted of abuse of powers ... Since the issue of holding a judge responsible for an opinion expressed or a decision taken while administering justice could only be resolved in the course of the procedure established by law, the disputes of such kind could not be examined by courts in the course of civil proceedings.\nWith regard to the issue of compensation for damages caused by unlawful actions ... of a judge in cases when the judge’s fault had been established in the course of other type of proceedings than criminal, the issues of the basis for and the procedure of compensation by the state of the damage caused by unlawful actions ... which manifested themselves, among other things, in the breach of [the requirement of] the reasonable length of court proceedings ... are at present not determined by law [as well as] the courts’ jurisdiction in such cases.”\n12.  In the meantime on an unspecified date the applicant lodged with the Leninskiy District Court of Cheboksary, as advised by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashiya (see paragraph 10 above), a claim against the Treasury of the Russian Federation and the Novocheboksarskiy Town Court seeking non‑pecuniary damages for the excessive length of the civil proceedings in his case.\n13.  On 15 July 2004 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim without examination on the merits. The court noted that the procedure for challenging the actions of a judge required a special legal framework which had not yet been set up. The applicant appealed. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:\n“... Taking into account the nature of the judiciary and the constitutional immunity of the judge, the procedure of appeal against the judge’s acts not resulting in the decision on the merits of a case required an adoption of special legislation. Currently there i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8692", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently detained at Sátoraljaújhely Prison.\n6.  On 19 October 2001 he started to serve a prison sentence at Szeged Prison, where he remained until 30 January 2006. According to the applicant, he spent 63 months with eleven other inmates in three different cells (nos. 356, 358 and 215) measuring 27 square metres each, including sanitary facilities. The cells were equipped only with one tap and a toilet, separated from the living area only by a curtain. The dining table was fixed to the floor just a metre away from the toilet. The applicant had a daily one‑hour‑long outdoor activity. The yards were closed premises measuring 40 by 20 metres, about 100-150 persons being taken to the yard at a time.\nThe applicant was also entitled to thirty minutes’ exercise in the gym three times a week. He attended secondary school classes three times a week, six hours on each occasion.\n7.  On 30 January 2006 the applicant was transferred to Budapest Prison Unit “B”, where his cells (nos. 316, 130, 325, 211, and 206) measured 27 square metres and were occupied by him and seven other men (that is, 3.4 square metres gross living space per inmate). The cells had no ventilation system and were infested with parasites. Detainees were permitted to take a shower once a week, according to the applicant, in unhygienic conditions and for no longer than 1-2 minutes.\nThe applicant was entitled to a daily walk of about one hour in the prison yard measuring 20 by 20 metres. He indicated, however, that he was not able to go outdoors during the period between 20 June 2009 and 12 May 2010 on those days when he was employed as a librarian.\n8.  Between 12 May 2010 and 27 May 2011 the applicant continued to serve his sentence in Unit “A” of Budapest Prison. He was kept in five cells described as follows: cell nos. 8, 9 and 141 (8 square metres, three inmates), and cell nos. 3 and 252 (6.5 square metres, two inmates). Only a curtain was used as a partition between the toilet and the living area.\nThroughout his detention the applicant had no out-of-cell activities other than a daily one-hour walk in the yard of the prison facility, gym exercise twice a week for about 50 minutes each time and a weekly visit to the library for about 15 minutes.\nThe inmates were allowed one shower per week. The shower room was equipped with four shower heads. There were about 25 inmates taken to have a shower at the same time, making it impossible to move around because of the sheer number of prisoners.\n9.  On 27 May 2011 the applicant was transferred back to Unit “B” of Budapest Prison, where he spent two years in five different cells.\nThe size of those cells was 27 square metres. The occupancy rate varied between 8 persons (that is, 3.38 square metres gross living space per inmate) and 10 persons (that is 2.7 square metres gross living space per inmate).\n10.  Since 16 June 2013 the applicant has been detained at Sátoraljaújhely Prison with three other inmates in a cell measuring 8 square metres.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8693", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Split.\n6.  On 5 June 1992 the Customs Office Sežana in customs offence proceedings seized a large amount of gold belonging to the applicant and his car.\n7.  On 5 July 1996 the customs offence proceedings were discontinued and the seized property was returned to the applicant on 12 September 1997.\n8.  On 17 November 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State claiming pecuniary losses sustained due to the seizure with the Koper District Court.\n9.  On 19 March 1999 the applicant requested the court to expedite the proceedings.\n10.  On 1 April 1999 the Koper District Court issued its decision dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.\n11.  On 7 March 2000 the Koper Higher Court dismissed the appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n12.  On 30 August 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint.\n13.  On 8 April 2004 the Constitutional Court quashed the decisions of the lower instances in the part concerning pecuniary damages in respect of the car and remitted that part of the case back to the first instance court.\n14.  On 1 September 2004 the Koper District Court held the first main hearing after the remittal. At the hearing the applicant’s representative informed the court of his intention to lodge an application with the European Court of Human Rights and requested the district court to postpone the hearing until the Court would decide on his application. The district court followed the applicant’s representative’s motion and adjourned the proceedings.\n15.  In August 2006 the Koper District Court scheduled a hearing for 27 September 2006. After the applicant’s representative had received the summons to the hearing, he requested the hearing to be postponed since the Court had not yet decided on his application. The district court dismissed the applicant’s motion.\n16.  At the hearing held on 27 September 2006 the applicant again requested that the hearing be postponed pending the outcome of his application with the Court. The district court dismissed the request. Since the applicant modified his claim at the hearing and submitted further evidence the court adjourned the hearing in order to enable the defendant to respond to the modification and the new evidence.\n17.  On 3 November 2006 the court held a further hearing and issued its decision. Both parties appealed.\n18.  On 18 September 2007 the Koper Higher Court granted the appeals and remitted the case back to the first instance.\n19.  On 12 February 2008 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the Koper District Court due to the length of the proceedings.\n20.  On the same day, 12 February 2008, the Koper District Court held a hearing and issued its decision. The applicant appealed.\n21.  On 26 February 2008 the Koper District Court dismissed the applicant’s supervisory appeal as unfounded, since in the meantime the court had issued its decision in the case and therefore no acceleratory measures could be taken by the court.\n22.  On 18 June 2008 the Koper Higher Court dismissed the appeal. After several unsuccessful attempts of service the decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 10 December 2008. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n23.  On 17 September 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.\n24.  On 14 December 2009 the applicant lodged an applica", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8694", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1979, while the second and third applicants were born in 1984 and 1983, respectively. They all habitually reside in Pružina.\n6.  Since 2007 the applicants have been facing multiple charges mainly concerning alleged violent offences, against a background of organised crime. In the context of their prosecution on these charges, they were arrested, remanded, released, and re-arrested and re-remanded several times.\n7.  A part of the present application directly relates to three of their unsuccessful requests for release from detention following their arrest on 1 April 2010 on a charge of perjury. These requests and the underlying procedures are described in chronological order in sections B. to D. below.\n8.  The applicants’ term of detention following the arrest of 1 April 2010 ended with their release on 1 April 2011, subsequent to which, on the same day, they were again arrested and later remanded in detention pending trial on a charge of extortion. The remainder of the application directly concerns their interlocutory appeal against the remand order following that arrest and, together with the underlying procedure, it is described below in section E.\n9.  On 2 May 2010 the first applicant made a submission requesting release. It was received at the Považská Bystrica District Court on 11 May 2010 and the applicant amended it by means of a further submission, which reached the District Court on 19 May 2010.\n10.  On 21 May 2010 the District Court heard the first applicant. In the course of the questioning he challenged the judge in charge of the case on grounds of bias, alleging that there had been an arbitrary interference with the organisation of the workload at the District Court, as a result of which the case had not been assigned to the lawful judge.\n11.  At the conclusion of the questioning on the same day, that is to say on 21 May 2010, the District Court dismissed the challenge. Immediately afterwards the first applicant used his right to state on the record that he wished to appeal against the decision on his challenge and he submitted his grounds for appeal on 24 May 2010. That appeal was dismissed by the Trenčín Regional Court on 10 June 2010, the decision being served on the first applicant on 21 June 2010.\n12.  The first applicant’s request for release was then dismissed by the District Court on 25 June 2010 and, following his interlocutory appeal, by the Regional Court on 20 July 2010, the latter decision being served on the applicant on 26 July 2010.\n13.  On 27 September 2010 the first applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court, arguing that the examination of his request for release had not been speedy, that its dismissal had been arbitrary, and that it had not been determined by the lawful judge.\n14.  On 4 October 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible. As for the length of the proceedings in the first applicant’s request for release, the Constitutional Court recapitulated the course of those proceedings and found that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded as regards both the part of the proceedings that took place before the District Court and the part that took place before the Regional Court. The remaining complaints were partly out of time and partly manifestly ill-founded.\nThe Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the first applicant on 23 November 2011.\n15.  On 10 May 2010 the second applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8695", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  On 9 August 1995 the Shijak Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 1,020 sq. m of which 747 sq. m were restored. Since the remaining plot of land measuring 272 sq. m was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law.\n5.  The Commission decision remains unenforced.\n6.  On 8 February 1995 the Shkodër Commission recognised the applicant’s and other heirs’ inherited title to a two-storey building and to a plot of land surrounding the building measuring 500 sq. m.  Since the plot of land measuring 500 sq. m was occupied, the applicant and the heirs would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law. It was also decided that the building should be restored to them.\n7.  The applicant claimed that in 1995 and 1997 he instituted two legal actions against a third party for the vacation and restoration of his property. However, he decided to discontinue those actions, having regard to pending judicial proceedings in other cities. It would appear that the third party has built unauthorised constructions on the applicant’s plot of land.\n8.  The Commission decision remains unenforced.\n9.  On 12 May 1994 the Shijak Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 5,527 sq. m of which 5,000 sq. m were restored. Since the remaining plot of land measuring 527 sq. m was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law.\n10.  The Commission decision remains unenforced.\n11.  On 13 August 2007 the Durrës Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring 65,000 sq. m of which 60,000 sq. m were restored to them. Since the remaining land measuring 5,000 sq. m consisted of arable land, roads and channels (“e llojit arë, rrugë e kanale”) was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law.\n12.  The Commission decision remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8696", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lived prior to his arrest and conviction in the Perm region. He is currently serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony in the Yamalo-Nenetskiy Autonomous region.\n6.  On 20 February 2005 the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of triple murder and attempted murder.\n7.  On 21 February 2005 Chusovskiy District Court of the Perm Region ordered that he be placed in detention. The applicant remained in a temporary detention facility in the town of Chusovo until his conviction in June 2005.\n8.  On 21 June 2005 the Perm Regional Court found the applicant guilty of triple murder and attempted murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.\n9.  The applicant was represented by state-appointed counsel at the investigation stage and before the first-instance court.\n10.  On 29 June 2005 the applicant appealed against his conviction to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (“the Supreme Court”).\n11.  On 14 November 2005, while he was detained in Moscow remand prison no. 2, the applicant asked the Supreme Court to appoint legal counsel to defend him during the appeal proceedings. He also asked to meet counsel prior to the appeal hearing in order to prepare his defence. His request of 14 November 2005 was registered in the register of outgoing correspondence of the remand prison. According to the Government, the applicant’s request never reached the Supreme Court and has therefore not been examined.\n12.  On 18 November 2005 the Supreme Court examined the applicant’s appeal. The applicant was not assisted by legal counsel at the appeal hearing. The Government acknowledged that the appeal court had not taken measures to ensure that the applicant be provided with free legal assistance for the appeal hearing. The Supreme Court heard the applicant and the prosecutor and modified the legal classification of the applicant’s action. However, that modification had no impact on the applicant’s sentence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8697", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1983, 1985, 1937 and 1947 respectively and live in Villepinte, apart from the second applicant, who lives in Drancy. The second, third and fourth applicants are the first applicant’s brother, mother and father, respectively.\n6.  During the afternoon of 30 November 2004 the first applicant, who was smoking a cigarette in the Mitry-Villeparisis railway station, was identity-checked by officers of the General Security Service (“SUGE”) of the French National Railway Company (“SNCF”).\n7.  Just before 8 p.m. on the same day two police officers from the Mitry Mory police station, S.D. and S.G., were called out to that railway station after a report that an individual had been throwing stones at the trains. Arriving at the railway station, they saw a man who did not correspond to the description provided, who appeared to be drunk, and who reacted aggressively when approached. They called for reinforcements just as five SUGE officers arrived on the scene. The individual in question, who was later identified as the first applicant, ran off towards an underground passageway.\n8.  The SUGE officers, who included L.P., Y.F. and O.D.B., stopped and questioned the first applicant. The latter put up no resistance to his arrest. The SUGE officers then took him outside the main entrance to the railway station had placed him against a wall.\n9.  The statements given by witnesses to that scène diverge concerning the subsequent events (see paragraphs 15 to 18, 20 and 34 to 44 below).\n10.  The first applicant was forced to the ground by the SUGE officers, who handcuffed him behind his back, before frisking him. He was then placed in a police vehicle parked nearby. The operation ended at 7.59 p.m.\n11.  During his transport to and arrival at the police station, the first applicant complained of nausea, and had to be helped out of the vehicle by the police officers. The latter mentioned that he was bleeding profusely from the chin.\n12.  Having arrived in the police cells, the first applicant lost consciousness and went into a coma. A doctor present in the police station administered first aid, before the arrival of the fire brigade ambulance at 8.14 p.m. and then the emergency medical services (SMUR) at 8.45 p.m. He was then transferred to the Lagny-sur-Marne hospital, and later, to the Beaujon hospital in Clichy.\n13.  The first applicant was remanded in custody at 8.15 p.m. on charges of insulting members of the police force and deliberate violence against a public-service employee, although the measure could not be notified to him owing to his state of alcoholic intoxication, according to the police report. The police custody was terminated at 10.10 p.m. on the instructions of the State Prosecutor.\n14.  The duty officer at the Meaux public prosecutor’s office was advised of the case at 8.40 p.m. He ordered the opening of a flagrante delicto procedure on charges of deliberate violence against persons performing public duties, assigning the task to the Versailles Regional Police Department (“DRPJ”).\n15.  The police and SUGE officers who had been involved or present during the first applicant’s arrest were questioned. Their versions contradicted each other: the SNCF employees spoke of a model arrest, whereas some of the police officers described it as “robust”. Among the latter, N.T., D.F. and R.D. pointed out that they had seen a SUGE officer, identified as Y.F., kneeing the first applicant in the face while he was being held on th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8698", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Budapest.\n6.  On 28 June 2011 the applicant, a retired army general, was apprehended on charges of spying.\nOn 1 July 2011 the court placed him under house arrest. Upon the prosecution’s appeal, his pre-trial detention was ordered on 14 July 2011 for fear of absconding. He was detained at Budapest Penitentiary’s Maglódi Facility. He submitted that while he had been in detention, the prison staff had very often switched on the light in his cell disturbing his night rest.\nThe applicant’s requests for release were to no avail, although he demonstrated that he could have absconded during the house arrest but had not. In the face of his arguments that he had no criminal history, was nearly 60 years old with a settled background and family situation, the court insisted on the argument that, because of his connections abroad, there was a risk that he might nevertheless abscond.\n7.  On 30 September 2011 the investigation was terminated and the case file presented to the applicant and his lawyer.\n8.  On 11 November 2011 the Military Bench of the Budapest Court of Appeal quashed a previous detention order of the Military Bench of the Budapest High Court and remitted the case to it. In the applicant’s view, this was procedurally incorrect, since the Court of Appeal should have decided on the merits, rather than remitting the case.\n9.  The applicant was in pre-trial detention until 6 April 2012. After that date, he was under house arrest again until 13 March 2013. Subsequently, he was released but restricted to the village of Szada.\n10.  The applicant unsuccessfully filed requests for release on 27 July and 30 September 2011. Moreover, on 14 November 2011, 9 January and 7 November 2012 and 1 March 2013 he unsuccessfully appealed against the court decisions prolonging the pre-trial detention or house arrest.\n11.  According to the applicant – a submission uncontested by the Government – the orders prolonging the coercive measures reiterated, in a rather stereotypical manner, the risk of his absconding, although without specifying any particular risk other than his foreign connections. Moreover, whenever prolongation motions or requests for release were decided on in oral proceedings, the prosecution’s motions were communicated to the defence only at the hearing, not before. Whenever the decisions prolonging the coercive measure were adopted without a court session, that is, in written proceedings, the prosecutorial motions had not been served to the defence at all.\n12.  On 5 July 2013 the applicant was convicted of spying and sentenced to two years and 10 months’ imprisonment. The procedure appears to be still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8699", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  In his application form to the Court the applicant stated that following the events in Qamishli in March 2004 (see paragraph 242 above; paragraph 3.13 of the United Kingdom Border Agency’s Country of Origin Information Report on Syria) he had participated in demonstrations that took place at his university. He was arrested in July the same year by the civil police and was detained for four days. During this period he was ill-treated and his health was adversely affected by the physical violence he was subjected to. The applicant was arrested again in March 2005 for three days and once again subjected to physical violence. Following his release, he was not able to find any employment as his police file remained open. He also submitted that he had not served compulsory military service.\n10.  The applicant left Syria on 10 February 2006 and entered Cyprus illegally on 5 March 2006 after travelling from Turkey. He submitted that he secured a visa for Turkey after bribing officials.\n12.  The Asylum Service discontinued the examination of his application and closed his file on 29 August 2007 by virtue of section 16A (1) (a) of the Refugee Law of 2000-2004 (as amended up to 2004; Law no. 6(I)/2000; see paragraphs 236 below and M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, § 74, ECHR 2013 (extracts)) as the applicant had not complied with the obligation deriving from section 8 of that Law, according to which, in the event of a change of address, the applicant had to inform the Asylum Service either directly or through the local Aliens and Immigration Police Department, within three days (see paragraph 236 below). According to the note in his file the applicant had not attended the interview arranged for 6 July 2007. In the note it is stated that a letter had been sent to him on 7 June 2007 by the Asylum Service requesting him to attend the interview. The applicant, however, had not received this letter as he had changed address in the meantime without notifying the authorities. Furthermore, it had not been possible to make telephone contact with him as he had given a wrong number.\n13.  The applicant did not lodge an appeal with the Reviewing Authority for Refugees (hereafter “the Reviewing Authority”).\n14.  The applicant submitted that he never received a letter asking him to attend an interview nor had he received notification of the decision of the Asylum Service to close his file so as to be able to appeal against it.\n16.  The applicant left Syria on 25 September 2008 and entered Cyprus illegally on 12 November 2008 after travelling from Turkey.\n17.  In his application form to the Court the applicant stated that he had left Syria because he had been harassed and ill-treated by the Syria Security Police due to his origin and his connections to the Yekiti party. He stated that he had left Syria illegally.\n18.  The applicant applied for asylum in Cyprus on 13 November 2008. In his application for asylum, the applicant claimed that he had left Syria for two reasons. First of all, he had been beaten up by members of the Security Forces as he had complained about having to repair their cars at his car repair garage without payment. Secondly, his business had suffered setbacks by rising oil prices. He stated that he had left Syria legally.\n19.  The Asylum Service held an interview with him on 15 May 2009. In his interview the applicant claimed that he had been arrested and beaten up by the Security Forces on a number of occasions in connection with their deman", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8700", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n3.  The applicants were the main shareholders of Demirbank, established in 1953. In 1999 Demirbank was ranked the fifth largest private bank in Turkey, with 193 branches and 3,885 employees.\n4.  By a decision dated 6 December 2000 (no. 123), the Banking Regulation and Supervision Board (Bankalar Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurulu – hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) decided to transfer the management and control of Demirbank to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (Tassarruf Mevduat Sigorta Fonu – hereinafter “the Fund”), pursuant to section 14 (3) of the Banking Activities Act (Law no. 4389). In its decision, the Board held that the assets of Demirbank were insufficient to cover its liabilities and that the continuation of its activities would threaten the security and stability of the financial system. Accordingly, Demirbank’s management and control, and the privileges of its shareholders except for dividends, were transferred to the Fund. The Fund also confiscated all properties belonging to Demirbank.\n5.  On 2 February 2001, the applicant company brought administrative proceedings against the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (Bankalar Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu – hereinafter referred to as “the Agency”) before the Ankara Administrative Court, seeking the annulment of the decision of 6 December 2000 regarding the transfer of Demirbank to the Fund.\n6.  The Ankara Administrative Court found that it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Supreme Administrative Court.\n7.  In its submissions before the Supreme Administrative Court, the applicant company claimed that its property rights had been violated. It also raised a plea of unconstitutionality under section 14 of the Banking Activities Act. The applicant company further stated that prior to November 2000, Demirbank had never encountered major financial problems. It was pointed out that pursuant to section 14 (2) of the Act, a bank with financial difficulties should first be given a warning to strengthen its financial structure and be allowed time to take specific measures. However, no such warning had been given in the instant case. Secondly, the Board had not claimed that Demirbank’s financial situation was so weak that it could not be strengthened even if specific measures were taken. Lastly, the applicant company stated that following the transfer of the bank to the Fund, a General Assembly composed of the Fund’s officials had exonerated the former managers of Demirbank, holding that they had not been at fault in the incident leading to the bank’s transfer.\n8.  After examining the file, on 3 June 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the case. It held that the takeover of the bank by the Fund had been in accordance with section 14 (3) of the Banking Activities Act. The applicant company lodged an appeal.\n9.  On 18 December 2003 the Joint Administrative Chambers of the Supreme Administrative Court decided to quash the decision of 3 June 2003. In its judgment, the court held that prior to ordering the transfer of Demirbank to the Fund, the Board should have carried out an objective evaluation of the bank’s financial situation. The court also concluded that the Board should first have ordered Demirbank to take specific measures in accordance with section 14 (2) of the Banking Activities Act before applying section 14 (3) of the Act.\n10.  On 29 April 2004 a request for rectification lodged by the Agency was refused.\n11.  The case was remitted to the Su", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8701", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Kallithea-Attaki, Greece.\n7.  The applicant is one of the heirs of Mr Serkis Gövderelioğlu, who used to live in Istanbul. On 7 July 1988 Mr Gövderelioğlu purchased movable and immovable goods from the bankrupt estate of a company by way of a public tender.\n8.  On 5 February 1996 the sale in question was annulled by a court order on the ground that the instalments had not been paid in time. The decision annulling the sale became final on 3 October 1997 and on 14 November 1997 Mr Gövderelioğlu was requested by the Istanbul Bankruptcy Office to return the purchased goods within seven days. He did not comply with that request.\n9.  On 10 August 2000 Mr Gövderelioğlu died.\n10.  Due to his non-compliance with the Bankruptcy Office’s order to return the goods, on 5 June 2001 the bankrupt estate of the aforementioned company filed an action against Mr Gövderelioğlu’s heirs, including the applicant, before the Şişli Court of First Instance (hereinafter “the Şişli Court”) for the recovery of the goods or their equivalent value.\n11.  A lawyer acting on behalf of the applicant and the other heirs of Mr Gövderelioğlu submitted a petition to the Şişli Court on 3 December 2001, arguing, inter alia, that the case had been lodged outside the statutory time-limit and thus had to be rejected. The lawyer submitted that the statutory one-year time-limit had started to run on 14 November 1997 but that the plaintiffs had not lodged their action until 2001.\n12.  On 15 April 2002 three experts appointed by the Şişli Court submitted their opinion on the value of the goods. Two of the experts considered the value to be approximately 245,000 euros (EUR), whereas the third expert considered it to be in the region of EUR 45,000.\n13.  On 11 June 2002 the Şişli Court issued an interim decision, rejecting a request to hear two witnesses who, according to the applicant, would have provided pertinent information about the value of the goods in question. The Şişli Court considered that the existence of the expert reports made it unnecessary to hear the applicant’s witnesses.\n14.  In its decision of 13 December 2002 the Şişli Court ordered Mr Gövderelioğlu’s heirs to return the goods which were still in their possession and to pay a certain sum of money corresponding to the value of the goods which had been disposed of in the meantime. The amount of money ordered was based on the calculations made by the two experts. The Şişli Court further awarded statutory interest on this amount accruing from 21 November 1997, the original due date for the return of the goods. No response was given by the Şişli Court in its decision to the applicant’s objection concerning the issue of the time-limit.\n15.  The applicant appealed against the judgment and argued, inter alia, that the action for recovery should have been dismissed by the Şişli Court as it had been instituted outside the statutory time-limit. He also submitted that the Şişli Court had acted unlawfully by ordering the payment of interest on the amount due, given that no request for interest had been made by the plaintiff. He also added that the Şişli Court had failed to hear the witnesses he had proposed. The applicant asked the Court of Cassation to hold a hearing before rendering its decision.\n16.  On 10 July 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Şişli Court without holding a hearing and without providing any answers to the applicant’s objections.\n17.  On 22 De", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8702", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Zurich.\n6.  The applicant is a Polish national. He married M.S., another Polish national, in 1994. Shortly afterwards they moved to Switzerland where the applicant works as a software specialist. In 1998 their son P. was born and in 2002 their daughter J.\n7.  In autumn 2007 the applicant began an affair with H.\n8.  In February 2008 the applicant and M.S. decided to separate and he moved to another flat. However, the applicant’s flat was located opposite the flat of his family and he kept regular contacts with his children.\n9.  On 24 September 2008 M.S. filed a petition for divorce with the Kraków Regional Court. M.S. applied for an interim order granting her temporary custody over P. and J. for the duration of the divorce proceedings. She had also informed the court that she would be in Kraków between 4 and 28 October 2008.\n10.  On 4 October 2008 M.S. took the children to Poland for school holidays. She promised to return on 20 October 2008. The applicant was informed about the trip and consented to the travelling dates.\n11.  On 15 October 2008 the Regional Court granted the request of M.S. for an interim custody order. The applicant was neither informed of nor summoned to the court session concerning this order.\n12.  Subsequently, on 24 October 2008 the applicant lodged a request for return of his children under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”) (see paragraphs 20-30 below).\n13.  On 12 November 2008 the applicant requested the Kraków Regional Court to stay the execution of the interim custody order of 15 October 2008. He also appealed against that order.\n14.  On 11 December 2008 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for stay of the execution of the interim order and instead stayed the divorce proceedings. The court referred to the pending proceedings under the Hague Convention (see below). The applicant’s appeal against this decision and against the interim custody order was dismissed by the Kraków Court of Appeal on 26 February 2009.\n15.  On 3 March 2010 the Kraków Regional Court gave an interim order and determined the applicant’s contacts with P. and J. for the duration of the divorce proceedings.\n16.  On 6 May 2011 the Kraków Family Consultation Centre (Rodzinny Ośrodek Diagnostyczno-Konsultacyjny) submitted an expert report to the Kraków Regional Court. According to the report, M.S. should continue to exercise custody of the children as she had always been more involved in their upbringing. Moreover, the experts considered that another separation from a parent and another change of environment would be detrimental to the children. They further noted that the applicant should be allowed to have contacts with his children outside the territory of Poland as long as there was no risk of destabilisation of their situation. He should have the right to spend with them half of summer vacation, holidays and weekends and to visit them 1-2 times a month.\n17.  On 24 July 2012 the Kraków Regional Court dissolved the applicant’s marriage. It found that the applicant had been at fault in the breakdown of the marital relationship. It further held that full parental authority was to be exercised by M.S., whereas the parental rights of the applicant were limited to decisions regarding the children’s upbringing, health and education. He was authorised to have contacts with P. and J. two afternoons per week and two w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8703", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicant, who is of Kurdish origin, was born in 1979 in Syria and is currently living in Northern Iraq. He is married with three children.\n11.  The applicant left Syria on 7 January 2005 and entered Cyprus illegally on 10 February 2005 after travelling from Turkey.\n12.  He applied for asylum on 17 February 2005.\n13.  On 15 October 2007 the applicant married in Cyprus a Kurdish woman from Turkey. His wife had applied for asylum in 2004 when she came to Cyprus with her parents and siblings.\n14.  The Asylum Service held an interview with the applicant on 1 August 2008.\n15.  His application was dismissed by the Asylum Service on 13 August 2008 on the ground that the applicant did not fulfil the requirements of the Refugee Law of 2000-2004 (as amended up to 2004), namely, he had not shown a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group or political opinion or a well-founded fear of serious and unjustified harm for other reasons. The Asylum Service noted that the reason for which the applicant had left Syria was not at all relevant to the conditions set out in Article 3 of the Refugee Law and Article 1 of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951). Further, the Asylum Service considered that there was no possibility that the applicant would be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if he returned to Syria. It observed that contradictions had been identified between the applicant’s written application and the statements he had made during his interview which affected the credibility of his claims. In particular, he had given different reasons for leaving Syria in his interview from those given in his application.\n16.  On 2 September 2008 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Reviewing Authority for Refugees against the Asylum Service’s decision.\n17.  It appears that on 20 May 2009 the applicant applied for a temporary residence permit.\n18.  On 5 June 2009 the Asylum Service’s decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed.\n19.  The Reviewing Authority observed that the applicant had not given the same reasons for leaving Syria in his written application and in his interview. In the former he had stated that he had come to Cyprus “for living” whereas in his interview he claimed that he had left Syria because he had been persecuted by the family of a girl with whom he had eloped and had a sexual relationship. She had been killed by her family and they were after him. The applicant had also claimed that someone else had filled in the asylum application form on his behalf but then had stated that he had filled it in himself. He had also stated that he did not remember the contents of his application. The Reviewing Authority considered that if the applicant’s life was in danger he would have remembered the reasons for which he left Syria and thus what he had written in his application form. As the Reviewing Authority considered that the applicant’s claims were not credible they did not accept the documents he submitted concerning his claim of persecution by the girl’s family. It therefore found that the application was unsubstantiated.\n20.  The Reviewing Authority concluded by observing that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to Syria. Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds.\n21.  It appears that his wife’s asylum application was also rejected by the authoritie", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8704", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1989 and 1984 respectively. They are currently serving prison terms in the Dubnica nad Váhom and Hrnčiarovce nad Parnou Prisons, respectively.\n7.  On 4 August 2009 a criminal investigation was opened into suspected trafficking in drugs within the meaning of Article 172 § 1 (c) of the Criminal Code (Law no. 300/2005 Coll., as amended – “the CC”), an offence with which the applicants would later be charged. The offence was considered an ordinary criminal offence (zločin), which carried a penalty of four to ten years’ imprisonment and did not require mandatory legal assistance.\n8.  On 4 November 2009 a warrant was issued for the search of non‑residential premises situated in a factory complex, which the applicants were renting and using as a music studio.\n9.  At 6.10 p.m. on 7 November 2009 the warrant was served on the second applicant on the premises. The search was then carried out by the police between 6.30 p.m. and 7.40 p.m.\nAccording to the search report, the police seized a pair of digital scales, various items used for the consumption and packaging of drugs, and what would later be established to be 11.724 grams of cannabis.\nNo lawyer representing the applicants or any other of the parties concerned was present.\n10.  The police also found the first applicant and four other individuals on the premises.\n11.  At 6.40 p.m. the applicants were taken to the police station (predvedení) where it was decided that they would be detained and subsequently questioned by the police as suspects (podozriví). The first applicant was thus detained at 9.15 p.m. the same day, while the second applicant was detained at 1.10 a.m. the following day.\nNo lawyer was involved on behalf of the applicants.\n12.  The questioning of the first applicant took place between 9.30 p.m. and 10.45 p.m. the same day and that of the second applicant between 1.10 a.m. and 2.00 a.m. the following day.\n13.  The applicants’ police statements were transcribed on pre-printed forms, the relevant part of which was filled in to indicate, inter alia, that the applicants were suspected of trafficking in drugs within the meaning of Article 171 §§ 1 and 2 of the CC.\nOn the first page of the forms there was a pre-printed message stating, inter alia, that the person being questioned had the right to remain silent and the right to choose a lawyer. That page, as well as the subsequent pages, was signed by the applicants.\nThe applicants made their statements without a lawyer and the transcript contains no mention of the issue of legal representation.\n14.  In his statement, the first applicant described his arrangement with the second applicant concerning the sale to third parties of cannabis sourced by the second applicant and their profit sharing. He identified five individuals as his customers and described how he was selling the drug to them and what he was doing with the profit.\n15.  The second applicant’s statement was along the same lines, except that he identified three individuals as his customers and added that cannabis had been smoked on the premises by all those present before the arrival of the police.\n16.  Around the same time, the police also questioned as witnesses the other four individuals found on the premises. No lawyer for the applicants or those four individuals was present at the questioning. Two of those individuals, A. and B., gave statements incriminating the applicants.\n17.  On 8 November 2009 the applicants were charged with conspi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8705", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Kharkiv, Ukraine.\n6.  The applicant lived with her partner, a dual Georgian-Ukrainian national, Mr G. Ch., in Kharkiv. On 29 July 2004 their first child, L., was born; he was registered in Ukraine at the applicant’s address and acquired Ukrainian citizenship.\n7.  Some time in mid-2005 G. Ch. left Ukraine for Russia. L. continued to live with his mother and attended a pre-school educational institution in Kharkiv.\n8.  In 2005 and 2006 G. Ch. visited the applicant and L. twice. In September 2006 the applicant gave birth to another child of the couple, T.\n9.  On 22 July 2010 T. died in an accident. She fell from an open window of an apartment. L., who had apparently witnessed the tragic incident, started receiving psychological help in the form of dolphin-assisted therapy.\n10.  On 30 July 2010 the applicant allowed G. Ch. to take their son for the first time to Georgia for the summer holidays. She signed a document authorising G. Ch. to travel with L. to Georgia and Russia between 30 July 2010 and 28 February 2011. According to the applicant, L. was expected to return to Kharkiv by the end of August in order to start in September at a primary school in which he had been pre-enrolled.\n11.  On 13 August 2010, the applicant learned when talking on the telephone with her son that the latter would not be returning to Ukraine and would be staying in Georgia. For two months the applicant tried to persuade her former partner to allow their child to return to Ukraine, to no avail however. It appears that soon after this G. Ch. left for Russia, while L. stayed in Georgia with his uncle, G. Ch.’s brother, and his grandfather. G. Ch. travelled occasionally to Georgia to see his son.\n12.  On 16 November 2010 L. was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and began having outpatient treatment.\n13.  On 22 March 2011 the Kievskiy District Court of Kharkiv ordered L.’s return to Ukraine. The court ruled that L.’s place of permanent residence should be that of the applicant.\n14.  G. Ch. was not apparently informed of the institution of the above proceedings. He did not accordingly appeal against that decision.\n15.  In October 2010 the applicant initiated child return proceedings under the Hague Convention via the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. On 18 November 2010 the latter contacted the Ministry of Justice of Georgia and requested legal cooperation on the matter. On 2 December 2010 the Ministry of Justice of Georgia, acting as the central authority responsible for the obligations established by the Hague Convention, instituted proceedings on behalf of the applicant before the Tbilisi City Court.\n16.  On 10 February 2011 two social workers went to see L. at the request of the Tbilisi City Court. They visited him at his uncle’s apartment, where he was living with his cousins. According to the report drawn up thereafter, L. was being looked after by his uncle, since his father was mainly based in Russia. The boy spoke Russian, although he had started attending a Georgian school. L.’s uncle told the social workers that L.’s sister had died as a result of their mother’s lack of attention; hence it was dangerous for L. to live with his mother. The social workers also had a short conversation with L. during which he stated that he was happy with his uncle and cousins, and did not want to go back to Ukraine. In conclusion, the social workers noted that L. was living in appropriate living conditions, and that his basic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8706", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Riga.\n6.  He is currently on trial in criminal proceedings instituted on 30 December 2005 for an attempt to take a bribe, together with A.B. and A.S. At the time the applicant was the head of a division in the Economic Crime Bureau (Ekonomikas policijas birojs) in the Main Police Department in Riga (Rīgas galvenā policijas pārvalde).\n7. According to the applicant, during his trial before the appellate court, he learned that an operational investigation (operatīvās uzskaites lieta) had been opened in respect of his co-defendant A.S.\n8.  According to the Government, on 27 December 2005 the operational investigation had been opened on the basis of information provided by a private person. On 28 December 2005 the relevant authority, the Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption (Korupcijas novēršanas un apkarošanas birojs – the “KNAB”), had informed the prosecutor’s office about this. On the same date, a Supreme Court judge had authorised the interception of A.S.’s telephone conversations and the prosecutor’s office had authorised an undercover operation (operatīvais eksperiments). On 29 December 2005 the Head of the KNAB had authorised the interception of A.B.’s telephone conversations on the basis of section 7(5) of the Law on Operational Activities, and they included conversations with the applicant. On 30 December 2005 the KNAB had informed the prosecutor’s office about the operational measures under the same provision. The Government did not adduce any evidence in this connection.\n9.  On 22 January 2009 a judge of the Criminal Cases Chamber of the Supreme Court (Augstākās tiesas Krimināllietu tiesu palāta), in the context of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, requested information about the operational investigation.\n10.  On 18 February 2009 a specialised prosecutor, having examined the material in accordance with section 35(1) of the Law on Operational Activities, replied that the operational investigation had been opened on 27 December 2005. In respect of the applicant, no interception of telephone conversations had been carried out in the context of that operational investigation. However, she noted that “his conversations were recorded if he was speaking to [a person], whose conversations were intercepted in accordance with the Law on Operational Activities”. According to the applicant, he learned about this information during the appellate court hearing on 22 October 2009.\n11.  On 22 October 2009 the applicant requested the prosecution authorities to review the lawfulness of the operational measures which had been carried out and asked specific questions concerning these measures.\n12.  On 4 November 2009 the specialised prosecutor replied, among other things, that on 28 December 2008 an undercover operation had been approved on the basis of section 15(3) of the Law on Operational Activities in the context of the operational investigation to record the manner in which the sworn attorney A.S. would proceed upon receipt of 19,500 Latvian lati (LVL), to be handed over to the officials of the economic crime police, to find out whether he would continue arranging for a bribe and to ascertain his possible accomplices. She also noted that the domestic law did not provide for independent judicial supervision of operational activities; such supervision was carried out by the Prosecutor General and specially authorised prosecutors in accordance with section 35(1) of the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8707", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a taxi cab company from Chişinău. At the time of the events it employed approximately ninety persons and was functioning on the basis of a licence issued by the Licensing Chamber (Camera de Licențiere din Republica Moldova) in July 2005.\n6.  On 13 December 2007 the Licensing Chamber issued decision no. 4891 by which the applicant company’s licence was withdrawn in view of irregularities. In particular, the applicant company failed to request the inclusion of the names of two new persons employed in administrative positions and of new cars in its licence within the ten-day time-limit provided for by law.\n7.  On 18 January 2008 the applicant company initiated court proceedings against the Licensing Chamber seeking the annulment of its order of 13 December 2007. The applicant company submitted, inter alia, that the sanction applied to it had been disproportionally harsh and in breach of the company’s right to property. It argued that ninety persons employed by the company had lost their jobs as a result of the measure applied to it and that the company had suffered losses of approximately 170,000 Euros (EUR). The applicant company submitted that it could not comply with the requirement of including all fifty-two new cars in the licence in ten days because of new regulations instituted by the Government according to which all taxi cabs had to be equipped with receipt printing machines. The company did not have sufficient time to equip all new cars because of the lengthy bureaucratic procedure and because all the taxi cab companies were attempting to do that at the same time. The company submitted that it only managed to equip twenty-eight of its cars with the new equipment.\n8.  On 9 April 2008 the Chişinău Court of Appeal found in favour of the applicant company. Referring to the alleged breach by the applicant company of the ten-day time limit to inform the authorities about the new cars, the Court of Appeal found inter alia that the formalities linked to the equipment of those cars with receipt printing machines made it impossible for the applicant company to comply with the time-limit. In that context the Court of Appeal found that all the taxi cab companies were doing the same thing at the time, which created lengthy delays. As to the applicant company’s failure to inform the Licensing Chamber about two new employees at the company, the Court of Appeal held that that breach was minor and could not justify such a severe sanction. Relying on the Court’s judgments in the cases of Megadat.com SRL v. Moldova (no. 21151/04, 8 April 2008) and Bimer S.A. v. Moldova (no. 15084/03, 10 July 2007) the Court of Appeal found that the interference with the applicant company’s right to respect for its possessions had not been proportionate with the legitimate aim pursued and, thus, that the withdrawal of the applicant company’s licences had been in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.\n9.  On 23 September 2008 the Licensing Chamber lodged an appeal against the above judgment. It does not appear that the applicant company lodged written pleadings with the Supreme Court of Justice.\n10.  On 12 February 2009, after an oral hearing, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the appeal lodged by the Licensing Chamber, quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and dismissed the applicant company’s action. The Supreme Court held that that according to the law in force, the breaches committed by the applicant company were suf", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8708", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1977. He is currently being detained in the Belgrade Central Prison.\nIt would appear that the applicant’s criminal record predates the events complained of, and that he was arrested pursuant to an international arrest warrant in the Netherlands in 2003 for crimes other than those at issue in the present case.\n8.  On 5 December 2006 the applicant was arrested and placed in custody in Austria, pursuant to an international arrest warrant.\n9.  On 20 December 2006 the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Serbia (Министарство правде Републике Србије; “the Ministry of Justice”) requested the applicant’s extradition for the purpose of conducting several sets of criminal proceedings against him unrelated to the present case.\n10.  On 11 January 2007 the investigating judge of the Belgrade District Court (“the District Court”) opened an investigation against the applicant, who was suspected of having participated in aggravated murder with unauthorised use of another person’s vehicle and forgery. The offences had allegedly been committed on 24 March 2006.\n11.  On 29 January 2007 the Ministry of Justice extended its extradition request to include the above-mentioned criminal proceedings (see paragraph 10 above), which are the subject of the present case.\n12.  In the meantime, on 16 April 2007 the competent court in Austria found the applicant guilty of possession of an unlicensed firearm, which had been found on him at the time of his arrest, and sentenced him to seven months’ imprisonment.\n13.  On 6 July 2007 the applicant was extradited to Serbia.\n14.  On 31 December 2007 the public prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant and two other persons, V.S. and B.A, who were at large.\n15.  On 7 May 2008 the first hearing was held before the District Court. It was decided that V.S. and B.A. would be tried in absentia.\n16.  Subsequently, forty-one hearings were scheduled, of which nineteen were adjourned: four at the request of the applicant’s defence counsel and fifteen for various procedural reasons, such as the absence of the co-accused’s defence counsel, the absence of duly summoned witnesses and/or experts, erroneous delivery of summons, and delays concerning experts’ opinions. Furthermore, the trial had to start anew six times because the presiding judge and/or the composition of the trial chamber changed. From March 2010, following a reform of the domestic judicial system, the Belgrade High Court (“the High Court”) took over the case.\n17.  On 1 April 2014 the High Court found the applicant guilty of complicity in aggravated murder, unauthorised use of another person’s vehicle and forgery. It sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment.\n18.  On 4 and 17 July 2014, respectively, the applicant and the public prosecutor appealed against the High Court judgment.\n19.  On 31 October 2014 the Belgrade Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”), quashed the High Court judgment of 1 April 2014 and remitted the case for a re-trial.\n20.  On 11 January 2007 the investigating judge issued a detention order against the applicant in his absence, on the following grounds: (1) the risk of absconding; (2) the risk of obstructing the course of justice by exerting pressure on witnesses and his co-accused; (3) the risk of reoffending; and (4) the gravity of the criminal offences of which he was accused and the sentence that might be imposed on him. The one-month period of detention was to be calculated from the date of the applic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8709", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1982. His current whereabouts are unknown.\n6.  On 29 December 2012 the applicant fled Syria and on an unspecified date entered the Russian Federation. It appears that he applied for asylum, but on 4 May 2013 he left the country before his application was examined.\n7.  On 4-5 May 2013 the applicant crossed the Latvian border on foot. On 5 May 2013 the State Border Guard Service (Valsts roberžsardze) stopped him near the border.\n8.  On 7 May 2013 the State Border Guard Service completed an asylum application form and the applicant signed it in the presence of an Arabic-speaking interpreter.\n9.  On 7 May 2013 an initial interview (sākotnējā aptauja) with the applicant was conducted with the assistance of an Arab-speaking interpreter. The applicant explained that he could speak, read and write in English and Arabic.\n10.  On 16 May 2013 a personal interview (pārrunas) with the applicant took place. The applicant was assisted by an Arab-speaking interpreter.\n11.  On 22 May 2013 the closed facility in which the applicant was being held (see paragraph 23 below) received a parcel addressed to him. The sender was unknown. The parcel contained the applicant’s identity card and military service certificate in Arabic. Their translation was requested and on 24 May 2013 it was received.\n12.  On 28 May 2013 those documents, together with their translations into Latvian, were sent to the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs (Pilsonības un migrācijas lietu pārvalde). The latter was also informed that it would receive certified translations as soon as possible. On 21 June 2013 the State Border Guard Service received the certified translations and, on the same date, sent them to the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs.\n13.  On 31 May 2013 authenticity of the applicant’s identity card was confirmed by two forensic experts. On 21 June 2013 the State Border Guard Service received their report and, on the same date, sent it to the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs.\n14.  On 28 June 2013 the applicant appointed a lawyer to assist him in the administrative proceedings. The same lawyer continued to represent him before the Court (see paragraph 2 above).\n15.  On 4 July 2013 the Asylum Affairs Division (Patvēruma lietu nodaļa) of the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs informed the applicant that they had received his application for asylum and would examine it within three months.\n16.  On 3 October 2013 the Asylum Affairs Division decided to refuse the applicant’s asylum application. However, they granted him subsidiary protection status (alternatīvais statuss) and issued a temporary residence permit for one year. It was noted that that decision would take effect from the time the applicant had been informed of it. A reference was made to section 70(1) of the Administrative Procedure Law and section 8(3) of the Notification Law (see paragraph 38 below).\n17.  On 4 October 2013, which was a Friday, a letter was sent to the State Border Guard Service in Daugavpils informing them of the decision and stating that the applicant was to be informed of it immediately. They also asked that one copy of the decision be handed over to the applicant and that the second copy be sent back to the Asylum Affairs Division with the applicant’s signature confirming that he had been informed of it. The letter, together with two copies of the decision, was received in Daugavpils on Monday 7 October 2013 (see paragraphs 29-30 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8710", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The details concerning the applicants may be found in the Annex.\nThe background to the case\n10.  In July 2008 these two applicants, who were in a committed stable relationship with each other, declared their intention to marry, and requested the Civil Status Office of the Trent Commune to issue the relevant marriage banns.\n11.  On 25 July 2008 their request was rejected.\n12.  The two applicants challenged the decision before the Trent Tribunal (in accordance with Article 98 of the Civil Code). They argued that Italian law did not explicitly prohibit marriage between persons of the same sex, and that, even if that were the case, such a position would be unconstitutional.\n13.  By a decision of 24 February 2009 the Trent Tribunal rejected their claim. It noted that the Constitution did not establish the requirements to contract marriage, but the Civil Code did and it precisely provided that one such requirement was that spouses be of the opposite sex. Thus, a marriage between persons of the same sex lacked one of the most essential requirements to render it a valid legal act, namely a difference in sex between the parties. In any event there was no fundamental right to marry, neither could the limited law provisions constitute discrimination, since the limitations suffered by the applicants were the same as those applied to everyone. Furthermore, it noted that European Union (“EU”) law left such rights to be regulated within the national order.\n14.  The applicants appealed to the Trent Court of Appeal. While the court reiterated the unanimous interpretation given to Italian law in the field, namely to the effect that ordinary law, particularly the Civil Code, did not allow marriage between people of the same sex, it considered it relevant to make a referral to the Constitutional Court in connection with the claims of unconstitutionality of the law in force.\n15.  The Italian Constitutional Court in judgment no. 138 of 15 April 2010 declared inadmissible the applicants’ constitutional challenge to Articles 93, 96, 98, 107, 108, 143, 143 bis and 231 of the Italian Civil Code, as it was directed to the obtainment of additional norms not provided for by the Constitution (diretta ad ottenere una pronunzia additiva non costituzionalmente obbligata).\n16.  The Constitutional Court considered Article 2 of the Italian Constitution, which provided that the Republic recognises and guarantees the inviolable rights of the person, as an individual and in social groups where personality is expressed, as well as the duties of political, economic and social solidarity against which there was no derogation. It noted that by social group one had to understand any form of community, simple or complex, intended to enable and encourage the free development of any individual by means of relationships. Such a notion included homosexual unions, understood as a stable cohabitation of two people of the same sex, who have a fundamental right to freely express their personality in a couple, obtaining – in time and by the means and limits to be set by law – juridical recognition of the relevant rights and duties. However, this recognition, which necessarily requires general legal regulation aimed at setting out the rights and duties of the partners in a couple, could be achieved in other ways apart from the institution of marriage between homosexuals. As shown by the different systems in Europe, the question of the type of recognition was left to regulation by Parlia", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8711", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n10.  The applicants, A.H. (“the first applicant”) and J.K. (“the second applicant”), who are wife and husband, are Syrian nationals of Kurdish origin and were born in Syria in 1985 and 1979 respectively. They live in Paphos.\n11.  The second applicant left Syria on 25 August 2004 and entered Cyprus illegally on 9 September 2004 after travelling from Turkey.\n12.  He applied for asylum the next day.\n13.  The first applicant left Syria at a later date in order to join the second applicant in Cyprus as they had been engaged to be married. She entered Cyprus illegally on 29 November 2007 after travelling from Turkey.\n14.  The applicants married in Cyprus on 4 December 2007 and the first applicant applied for asylum on 6 February 2008.\n15.  The applicants’ asylum applications were examined jointly by the Asylum Service.\n16.  The Asylum Service held an interview with the applicants on 3 March 2009.\n17.  Their applications were dismissed on 26 March 2009 on the ground that they did not fulfil the requirements of the Refugee Law of 2000-2007 (as amended up to 2007), in that they had not shown that they had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular group or political opinion or a well-founded fear of serious and unjustified harm for other reasons. The Asylum Service noted that there had been contradictions in the account of facts given by the second applicant with regard to his participation in a demonstration concerning the Qamishli events which raised doubts as to his credibility. Furthermore, it considered that there was no possibility of the second applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Syria. Consequently, it held that the asylum applications had not been substantiated.\n18.  On 24 April 2009 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Reviewing Authority against the Asylum Service’s decision.\n19.  On 26 March 2010 the Asylum Service’s decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed.\n20.  The Reviewing Authority underlined the contradictions and inconsistencies in the second applicant’s claims. It pointed out that he had not given the same reasons for leaving Syria in his written application and in his interview. In the former he had stated that he had come to Cyprus to find work whereas in his interview he claimed that he had left Syria because he feared arrest following his participation in a demonstration. Further, the Reviewing Authority gave weight to the fact that the second applicant had stated that following the demonstration he had allegedly participated in, nothing had actually happened to him and that he had not been sought by the authorities. In his asylum application he had stated that he had not been arrested, detained, harassed, persecuted or wanted by the Syrian authorities. He had also been able to leave Syria legally. The second applicant’s claims were therefore unsubstantiated. No issue arose in respect of the first applicant as she had stated that she had left Syria in order to join the second applicant and marry him and had admitted that she did not face any problems in Syria.\n21.  The Reviewing Authority concluded by observing that the applicants had not established that they were at risk of persecution if they returned to Syria. Nor did they satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds.\n22.  On 15 May 2010 the second applicant brought a “recourse” (judicial review proceedings) before the Supreme Court (", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8712", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Maryland (the United States of America).\n6.  In 1999 the applicant married A., a Slovak national. There were three children of the marriage: B., born in 1999, C., born in 2002, and D., born in 2004.\nThe children are all Slovak nationals, while B. is also a Peruvian national, and C. and D. also have the United States nationality.\n7.  For about eight years, until July 2010, the family lived together in one household in Maryland. A. then moved to stay with friends, took the children with her, the couple agreed on alternating custody, and they started receiving marriage counselling. Nevertheless, A. filed for divorce, but then withdrew her petition.\n8.  On 25 August 2010 A. left the United States for Slovakia, taking the children with her. The following day she informed the applicant that they had left and that she had no intention of coming back.\n9.  In September 2010 A. filed for divorce in Slovakia and requested that the children be entrusted to her custody by way of an interim measure. The status and outcome (if any) of these proceedings is not known.\n10.  On 14 October 2010 the applicant filed an application for the return of the children to the United States as the country of their habitual residence, relying on the (Slovakian) International Private and Procedural Law Act (Law no. 97/1963 Coll., as amended), the Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and the Hague Convention.\n11.  On 25 November 2010 the applicant’s Hague Convention application was transmitted to the Bratislava I District Court, through the intermediary of the Slovak Central Authority responsible for implementing the Hague Convention.\n12.  On 21 January 2011 the District Court ordered the children’s return to the United States, having found that it was the country of their habitual residence, that they had been removed from there wrongfully, and that no obstacles to the return had been established.\n13.  On 28 April 2011 the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed an appeal filed by A. and upheld the return order. The matter thus became resolved by force of a final and binding decision on 9 May 2011.\n14.  On 31 May 2011 the applicant filed for judicial enforcement of the return order.\n15.  Upon several unsuccessful attempts at having A. comply with the order voluntarily, the Komárno District Court acceded to the petition on 28 November 2011 by issuing a warrant for the order’s enforcement.\n16.  On 29 June 2012 the Nitra Regional Court quashed the enforcement warrant following an appeal by A. It observed that, meanwhile, A. had challenged the decision of 28 April 2011 by way of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution (Constitutional Law no. 460/1992 Coll., as amended) to the Constitutional Court; that on 15 December 2011 the Constitutional Court had declared that complaint admissible; and that, at the same time, it had suspended the enforceability of the return order pending the outcome of the proceedings on the merits of the complaint of A. (see paragraphs 20 and 21 below).\nThe Regional Court concluded that, in those circumstances, an essential prerequisite for the enforcement of the return order had lapsed.\nConsequently, the matter was remitted to the District Court for a new decision to be taken in the light of the outcome of the constitutional complaint of A.\n1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8713", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Schrobenhausen, Germany. Through the German stock market, he purchased six hundred and fifty German Certificates in Demirbank, which at the time was identified as the fifth largest private bank in Turkey.\n6.  By a decision dated 6 December 2000 (no. 123), the Banking Regulation and Supervision Board (Bankalar Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurulu, hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) decided to transfer the management and control of Demirbank to the Savings Deposit Insurance Fund (Tassarruf Mevduat Sigorta Fonu – hereinafter “the Fund”), pursuant to section 14 (3) of the Banking Activities Act (Law no. 4389). In its decision the Board held that the assets of Demirbank were insufficient to cover its liabilities and that the continuation of its activities would threaten the security and stability of the financial system. Accordingly, Demirbank’s management and control, and the privileges of its shareholders except for dividends, were transferred to the Fund. The Fund also confiscated all properties belonging to Demirbank.\n7.  On 31 January 2001 all equities of the bank were removed from its account at the Istanbul Stock Exchange and were transferred to the account of the Fund. Subsequently, on 20 September 2001 the Fund entered into an agreement with the HSBC bank, and sold Demirbank to the latter for 350,000,000 United States dollars (USD). As a result, on 14 December 2001 Demirbank’s legal personality was extinguished and it was struck off the commercial register.\n8.  On 2 February 2001, the main shareholder of Demirbank, namely Cıngıllı Holding A.Ş., brought administrative proceedings against the Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (Bankalar Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu – hereinafter referred to as “the Agency”) before the Ankara Administrative Court, seeking the annulment of the decision of 6 December 2000 regarding the transfer of Demirbank to the Fund.\n9.  The Ankara Administrative Court found that it lacked jurisdiction, and transferred the case to the Supreme Administrative Court.\n10.  In its submissions before the Supreme Administrative Court, the plaintiff claimed that its property rights had been violated. It also raised a plea of unconstitutionality under section 14 of the Banking Activities Act. The company further stated that prior to November 2000 Demirbank had never encountered major financial problems. It was pointed out that pursuant to section 14 (2) of the Act, a bank with financial difficulties should first be given a warning to strengthen its financial structure and be allowed time to take specific measures. However, no such warning had been given in the instant case. Secondly, the Board had not claimed that Demirbank’s financial situation was so weak that it could not be strengthened even if specific measures were taken. Lastly, the company stated that following the transfer of the bank to the Fund, a General Assembly composed of the Fund’s officials had exonerated the former managers of Demirbank, holding that they had not been at fault in the incident leading to the bank’s transfer.\n11.  After examining the file, on 3 June 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the case. It held that the takeover of the bank by the Fund had been in accordance with section 14 (3) of the Banking Activities Act.\n12.  On 18 December 2003 the Joint Administrative Chambers of the Supreme Administrative Court decided to quash the decision of 3 June 2003. In its judgment, the cour", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8714", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1957, 1984, 1989 and 1991, respectively, and live in Novi Pazar.\n6.  The applicants’ late wife and mother, Ms Sadija Ljajić was employed by “Raška” Holding kompanija AD Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the debtor”), which was, at the relevant time, a company predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital.\n7.  On 14 December 2005 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Novi Pazar ordered the debtor to pay Ms Sadija Ljajić certain amount on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings.\n8.  On 10 October 2006, upon Ms Ljajić’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court in Novi Pazar ordered the enforcement of the judgment of 14 December 2005 by means of a bank transfer and ordered the debtor to pay Ms Ljajić the enforcement costs.\n9.  On 24 April 2013 Ms Sadija Ljajić passed away. On 9 September 2013 the Novi Pazar First Instance Court issued a decision declaring Mr Fuad Ljajić as the sole inheritor of late Sadija Ljajić.\n10.  In view of these facts, the applicants’ representative informed the Court that Ms Alma Ljajić, Mr Ertan Ljajić and Ms Samra Ljajić no longer intend to pursue their application before the Court.\n11.  On 25 October 2013 the Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud) in Kraljevo opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor (St. 17/2013). On 5 January 2014 Mr Fuad Ljajić submitted his claims for the payment of the amount ordered by the judgment of 14 December 2005. The insolvency proceedings are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8715", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Ljubljana.\n5.  On 29 July 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana District Court against the State claiming non-pecuniary damages inflicted on her by involuntary confinements in the Ljubljana Psychiatric Hospital in December 1999 and between July and September 2000.\n6.  At the first hearing held on 3 May 2005 the applicant lodged a request to delegate territorial jurisdiction to another court.\n7.  On 24 June 2005 the Supreme Court upheld her request and delegated jurisdiction to the Kranj District Court.\n8.  On 16 March 2006 the Kranj District Court held the first main hearing.\n9.  On 26 March 2006 the applicant lodged a request with the Kranj District Court a motion to have the presiding judge excluded.\n10.  On 5 May 2006 the Vice-President of the District Court upheld the applicant’s request.\n11.  Between August 2006 and March 2008 the court held further four hearings.\n12.  On 12 May 2007 the applicant lodged a second request to have the then presiding judge excluded and a request to transfer the case to another court with the subject-matter jurisdiction.\n13.  On 31 May 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request to transfer the case to another court.\n14.  On 28 September 2007 the President of the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for the exclusion of the presiding judge.\n15.  On 18 March 2008 the applicant lodged a request to have the president of the District Court and the presiding judge excluded.\n16.  On 9 April 2008 the President of the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s request to have the President of the Kranj District Court excluded.\n17.  On 21 April 2008 the President of the Kranj District Court dismissed the applicant’s request to have the presiding judge excluded.\n18.  In the meantime, on 5 April 2008, the Kranj District Court imposed a fine of 500 euros (EUR) on the applicant for abuse of her procedural rights by having lodged the requests concerning the exclusion of the presiding judge. The applicant appealed.\n19.  On 5 November 2008 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and annulled the order to fine the applicant. The court held that the district court failed to establish that by lodging the requests the applicant had abused her procedural rights.\n20.  On 16 September 2009 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal. On 6 October 2009 the President of the Kranj District Court replied that a hearing would be scheduled for 22 October 2009.\n21.  A further hearing was held on 22 February 2010.\n22.  On 9 March 2011 the Kranj District Court issued a judgment in which it upheld the applicant’s claim in part. Both parties appealed.\n23.  On 18 January 2012 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeals, quashed the judgment of the lower court and modified it by dismissing the claim in respect of the confinement in December 1999 as time-barred and decided that the claim for non-pecuniary damages in respect of the confinement between July and September 2000 was well-founded but that the first instance court needed to decide on the amount of compensation in a new set of proceedings.\n24.  The applicant lodged a motion for leave to file an appeal on points of law in respect of the question whether her claim for damages due to the December 1999 confinement was time-barred.\n25.  On 19 July 2012 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.\n26.  On 31 January 2013 the Supreme Court grante", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8716", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Volzhskiy, Volgograd Region.\n6.  On 1 October 2010 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug offences.\n7.  On 2 October 2010 he was charged with two episodes of attempted drug trafficking, allegedly committed on 7 and 8 September 2010 in conspiracy with others.\n8.  On 3 October 2010 Kirovskiy District Court, Astrakhan, (“the District Court”) granted the investigator’s request to place the applicant in detention until 1 December 2010. The District Court held as follows:\n“It follows from the evidence provided by the investigator in support of his request for application of a measure of restraint that Mr A.N. Shevchenko is charged with particularly serious criminal offences which represent a significant danger to society and are punishable by deprivation of liberty for a period of five to twelve years.\nThe charges against the applicant are justified by the report on the detection of the crime, operational search materials, search records, expert reports, and the testimony of Mr A.C. Filenko, which directly implicates Mr Shevchenko in those criminal offences.\nHaving regard to the above, and also taking into account the circumstances of the case and information on the implication of Mr Shevchenko in the criminal offences, as well as the personality of the defendant, who is not registered as resident in the Astrakhan region and has no job and no dependents, the court has come to the conclusion that at liberty he might abscond and thereby interfere with the proceedings.\nTaking into account information about the personality of the defendant and the criminal offences with which he is charged, it is impossible to apply a more lenient measure of restraint.”\n9.  On 8 October 2010 a further set of criminal proceedings was initiated against the applicant on suspicion of drug offences allegedly committed between the beginning of September and 1 October 2010.\n10.  On 9 October 2010 those proceedings were joined to the first set of proceedings against the applicant.\n11.  On 23 November 2010 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 20 January 2011. The District Court held as follows:\n“Mr A.N. Shevchenko is charged with particularly serious criminal offences punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment.\nIn taking a decision on this request, the court considers that the investigating authorities reasonably argue that it is impossible to finalise their investigation for objective reasons, such as there being a large number of witnesses and defendants and it being necessary to finish the investigation. The character of the case, its circumstances and the charges [brought against the co-defendants] indicate that the case is particularly complex; this is also due to there being a large number of co‑defendants.\nThe circumstances which served as the grounds for choosing the measure of restraint in the form of placement in detention have not changed in view of the legal characterisation of the criminal offence. The personality of Mr Shevchenko, his engagement in illegal distribution of narcotic drugs which, as indicated by the evidence, constituted the source of his income, and the absence of any other income, allow the conclusion that the investigator’s request is well founded and that it is necessary to place Mr Shevchenko in isolation from society.\nMr Shevchenko’s term of detention expires on 1 December 2010. This is too short a period of time to carry out planned investigative actions", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8718", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Kumanovo. He was a surgeon at Kumanovo Hospital.\n6.  On 17 September 2004 the applicant parked his car in a street in Kumanovo. After he returned, he found a notice of illegal parking under the windscreen wiper. He started his car and went looking for a police officer in order to discuss the issue regarding the ticket (the applicant alleged that there had been no sign there that parking was illegal). When he saw a police car he started following it until it stopped. Two police officers, M.A. and P.J., were inside the car. P.J. was a neighbour with whom the applicant was not on good terms. The parties presented rather conflicting versions of events as to what happened on that occasion. The Government’s account was based on the version of events which had been “correctly and fully established” by the national courts in the criminal proceedings against the applicant (see paragraphs 19-38 below).\n7.  While following the police car, the applicant signaled to it by flashing his lights. He did not sound the car horn. When he approached the police car, he addressed M.A. However, the two police officers started insulting him. P.J. said “I’ve been looking forward to this ...” P.J. opened the front passenger’s door “hard” and hit the applicant on the legs. Both officers left the car, grabbed the applicant by the shoulders and neck, and started punching him on the back. P.J. kicked and punched him all over the body. He was also hit on the back of the head. As a result, he slumped forward, which allowed P.J. to knee the applicant in the back, causing a fracture of two spinal vertebrae. M.A. also kicked him in the lower part of the back. He was then handcuffed, and while he was putting him into the police car P.J. kneed him in the lower back. During the incident, the applicant asked the officers to stop beating him, because he was in poor health: notably he had a weak heart and had had heart surgery. The incident was witnessed by many people. The applicant was then taken to Kumanovo police station, where the beating continued until he lost consciousness.\n8.  After an hour, an emergency ambulance was called, which took the applicant to Kumanovo Hospital. He was then transported to Skopje Clinic and subsequently to Skopje City Hospital, where he remained until 28 September 2004.\n9.  On 17 September 2004 Dr Z.T. from the Kumanovo Hospital examined the applicant and issued a medical report, which stated that the applicant had the following injuries: head contusion, concussion, bruises on the chest and back, and bruises on both arms. The medical report also noted that the applicant was in post-heart-attack condition, and that he had had heart surgery.\n10.  On the same day, an investigating judge of the Kumanovo Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) agreed to a request from the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”) and ordered an external examination of the applicant’s body (телесен преглед). The order was issued in the context of criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant. The examination was carried out by the Forensic Institute (Институт за Судска Медицина). It took place on 18 September 2004, while the applicant was in Skopje City Hospital. As indicated in the medical report, the applicant stated that he had signaled by flashing his lights and had sounded the car horn to attract the police car’s attention so that it would stop; also that the police officers had beaten him up during hi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8719", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1976 and is detained in correctional colony no. 2 in the Tatarstan Republic.\n7.  Since 1999 the applicant has been suffering from progressive multiple sclerosis. He was designated with Category 1 disability as a result of that condition.\n8.  On 22 February 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of active membership of an organised criminal group between 1995 and 2005 and the murder or attempted murder of several people in 1999.\n9.  The applicant’s health deteriorated significantly and rapidly in the detention facility, where his health complaints were not addressed in any way, as the facility did not have any medical specialists. In August 2012 the prison authorities recorded that the applicant’s movement was impaired and that he was unable to walk without a cane.\n10.  In September 2012 the applicant suffered an epileptic seizure which resulted in paralysis of the left side of his body. Several days later an investigator authorised a forensic medical examination of the applicant to determine whether he was fit to stay in a detention facility. A medical examination, based, inter alia, on the results of an MRI exam performed by civilian experts from the Tatarstan Republic medical institute, led to the conclusion that the applicant was suffering from “a serious condition preventing his detention”. In particular, experts diagnosed him with progressive multiple sclerosis, left-sided hemiplegia (paralysis) in the cerebral spinal form, acute right-sided hemiparesis (muscle weakness of the right side of the body) with the persistent astheno-depressive syndrome, memory deterioration, partial atrophy of the visual nerves, symptomatic epilepsy with polymorphic partial motor and generalised attacks three to four times a month, arterial hypertension of the first degree, and light myopathy of both eyes. On 25 September 2012 the applicant was released from detention.\n11.  On 29 May 2013 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment, to be served in a correctional facility under a strict regime. The trial court, however, decided that the applicant should not be placed in custody pending appeal proceedings. On 3 September 2013 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation upheld the judgment on appeal.\n12.  On 17 September 2013 the applicant asked the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic to order a medical examination for him with a view to confirming that he was not fit for detention. The request was not processed.\n13.  The applicant was taken into custody on 8 October 2013. He was placed in a prison hospital in correctional colony no. 2 in the Tatarstan Republic.\n14.  In November 2013 the applicant underwent an MRI test and was examined by several doctors, including by a neurologist, from the prison hospital in correctional colony no. 2. Their decision issued on 23 November 2013 indicated that given the negative prognosis for and the severity of the applicant’s condition, he should be sent for a forensic medical examination to determine whether he could be released early on health grounds. The doctors relied, inter alia, on the results of the MRI examination, which had shown that in comparison to the results of the previous MRI exam in September 2012 the applicant’s illness had progressed significantly and demonstrated further negative dynamic. The applicant was informed by the prison administration that they would seek his immediate r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8720", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1991 and lives in Kharkiv.\n6.  On 16 May 2008 the applicant was arrested by police officers G. and B. of the drug crimes unit and taken to the Kharkiv City Police Department (“the police station”).\n7.  Officer G. drew up a report following the search of his personal effects, according to which a package containing a substance, later determined to be marijuana, was found on the applicant. The report, indicating that it was drawn up at 6.25 p.m. on 16 May 2008, was signed by the applicant and attesting witnesses L. and T.\n8.  According to the Government, when officers G. and B. began drawing up the above-mentioned report at the scene of the applicant’s arrest, the applicant attempted to escape. The officers then handcuffed him. The applicant was then taken to the police station where he and the attesting witnesses were questioned. At 10.05 p.m. the applicant was released having signed a note affirming that he had no complaints against the police.\n9.  According to the applicant, at the police station he was ill-treated to make him confess. In particular, he alleged that he was threatened with rape, kicked and hit on the head and torso, and threatened with weapons. He was subjected to a “Palestinian hanging”; with his hands cuffed behind his back he was raised to the height of one or one and a half metres and then dropped face down on the floor. He lost consciousness several times. When she arrived at the police station, the applicant’s mother found him with bruises on his face, a swollen chin and marks of handcuffs on his wrists.\n10.  At the police station the applicant wrote two notes addressed to the police dated 16 May 2008. In an “explanatory note” the applicant stated that he had acquired some marijuana for personal use and had had it when the police had stopped him. The applicant further stated that he had not been physically or psychologically pressured. In a separate note he stated that he had no complaints against the police and undertook to appear when summoned.\n11.  At 11.10 p.m. on 16 May 2008 an ambulance arrived at the police station and the applicant was examined by a paramedic, F. The paramedic noted in her report that the examination was completed at 11.40 p.m. According to the report, the applicant had no complaints and nothing abnormal was detected. According to the applicant, the head of the drug crimes unit, officer O.D., was present during this examination and spoke with the paramedic afterwards.\n12.  Following the applicant’s examination at the police station he and his mother went to the Kharkiv Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior (“the Regional Directorate”), where they arrived at about 11.45 p.m. on 16 May 2008, and where the applicant lodged a complaint accusing police officers of ill-treatment.\n13.  Officer O.D. followed the applicant to the Regional Directorate and arranged for him to be examined by the medical expert on duty there.\n14.  At 00.47 a.m. on 17 May 2008 forensic medical expert A.P. examined the applicant at the Regional Directorate. According to his report, finalised on 29 May 2008, the expert had been called upon to determine the presence and seriousness of any bodily injuries. The applicant said to the expert that the police had grabbed him by the neck and arms at the time of the arrest and had handcuffed him. He complained of a headache and pain in his shoulders. The report recorded a haematoma of 1.5 cm in width on the applicant’s neck, a haematoma", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8721", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1977, 1937 and 1938 respectively and live in Moscow. The second and third applicants are the parents of the first applicant.\n6.  In 2004 the first applicant, who was suffering from tachycardia and severe headaches, was diagnosed with neurocirculatory dystonia. In 2004‑05 he underwent treatment in various hospitals in Moscow, without any tangible result.\n7.  In April 2005 his illness worsened.\n8.  On 25 May 2005 he called an ambulance and was taken to the neurology unit of Moscow City Clinical Hospital no. 6 (Московская городская клиническая больница № 6). The doctor in the admissions unit, however, refused to admit him, finding no pathology, and recommended outpatient treatment in a district polyclinic.\n9.  Desperate for relief, on the same day the first applicant cut the veins on his forearm. Another ambulance was called for him by the second and third applicants, and he was taken to N.V. Sklifosovsky Research Institute of Emergency Medicine (НИИ скорой помощи им. Н.В. Склифосовского). After the first applicant was provided with emergency medical aid at the surgical unit, he was taken to somato‑psychiatric unit no. 2 (ПСО-2, “the psychiatric hospital”) of the Institute with a diagnosis of “chronic somatoform pain disorder, personality disorder, continuous sluggish schizophrenia, cutting of left forearm, attempted suicide”.\n10.  On 26 May 2005 the first applicant contacted his parents, asking them to take him home. When the parents arrived, they were not allowed to take him home and were asked to leave.\n11.  During the night of 26 to 27 May 2005 the first applicant alleged that he was beaten up. According to him, three nurses held his arms and two recovering patients hit him on the face and body. He was taken to his ward, and one of the nurses allegedly threw him on the bed with such force that his head hit the bedside table, following which he lost consciousness. When the first applicant recovered he found himself bleeding and strapped to the bed with a gag in his mouth. He was given no medical assistance.\n12.  The first applicant was subsequently allegedly warned by a doctor, L., that his parents would not be allowed to see him and that it would be put on record that he had himself initiated a brawl. Furthermore, he was allegedly warned that any complaints to the authorities, including the police, would be futile as he would be given a diagnosis which would show that his allegations could not be taken seriously.\n13.  The first applicant remained hospitalised until 9 June 2005. He alleged that he was subjected to scientific research by being treated with Seroquel (a then new antipsychotic medication) and forbidden all contact with the outside world. He had blood tests every other day.\n14.  Some hours after the first applicant’s discharge from the psychiatric hospital on 9 June 2005, an ambulance was called for him at home due to his state of health. The ambulance doctor saw a haematoma under the first applicant’s right eye, and bruises and contusions around his chest and waist. The first applicant was further diagnosed with hypertensive crisis and severe tachycardia. He was immediately hospitalised in Moscow City Clinical Hospital no. 67 (Московская городская клиническая больница № 67), where he remained until 5 August 2005 and was diagnosed with “depressive hypochondriasis against the background of traumatic encephalopathy”. The diagnosis of personality disorder was not confirmed.\n15.  In October 2005 t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8722", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1943 and 1957 and live in Zabbar and Birkirkara respectively.\n6.  The applicants own, in equal shares, a property built in the 1960s in Zabbar and which is known today as the Cressi-Sub Store. According to the applicants, the property is used as a storage facility for a nearby shop. At first, this was not contested by the Government, but at a later stage in the proceedings, they submitted that the property had been abandoned and was not in use.\n7.  The applicants inherited the property from their uncle on 7 October 2000. At the time, the property was already leased to E., a company registered in Malta, for 185 Maltese lira (MTL) (equivalent to 431 euros (EUR)) every six months, that is, EUR 862 a year on the basis of a voluntary lease agreement. Although there was no evidence of the parties’ ever having signed a lease agreement, it appears that the lease commenced in 1971. Rent is payable every six months in advance, and in accordance with the law the lease is renewed automatically every six months.\n8.  In such circumstances, the Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordinance (hereinafter “the Ordinance”), Chapter 69 of the Laws of Malta, (see Relevant domestic law below) provides that the eviction of a tenant or a change in the conditions of a lease requires the authorisation of the Rent Regulation Board (“the RRB”).\n9.  In 2002, the applicants undertook a valuation of the property with a view to making a request for an increase in the rent. The architect who carried out the valuation indicated that the current rental value of the property was EUR 7,000 a year.\n10.  In accordance with legal requirements (see Relevant domestic law below), on 22 April 2002, the applicants informed E. by means of a judicial letter that they intended to raise the rent to EUR 7,000 a year with effect from 1 July 2002.\n11.  By means of a judicial letter dated 17 May 2002, E. replied that it did not agree to the request. It failed, however, to apply to the RRB for the rejection of such an increase or for new conditions, as required by law (see Article 14 of the Ordinance).\n12.  As from the second term of 2002 the applicants stopped accepting rent for fear it would prejudice their claim. In consequence, company E. continued to pay the rent by means of a schedule of deposit filed with the domestic courts.\n13.  On 27 March 2003 the applicants brought an action before the Civil Court, requesting it to impose on E. an obligatory time-limit within which to make an application to the RRB. They considered that in default of such action by E., the increase in rent requested should be deemed to have been agreed. E. having eventually filed the said application (see below), the applicants’ action was dismissed.\n14.  On 31 May 2004 E. applied to the RRB, requesting it to dismiss the claim for the increase in rent. The applicants responded, arguing that the rent should reflect market values.\n15.  In a report dated September 2006 two court-appointed architects concluded that the rent of EUR 862 was already more than 40% over and above the rent level at which the premises were or could have been leased before 4 August 1914 (Article 4 (1) (b) of the Ordinance, see Relevant domestic law below). It followed that in the light of Article 4 (1) (b) of the Ordinance, the increase in rent could not be recommended.\n16.  By a note filed on 30 November 2006 the applicants submitted that an unfavourable decision would breach their rights under the Con", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8723", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 13 October 2008 the applicant’s son, Mr Ry., was found dead in the pond which he had been guarding as a night watchman.\n6.  On the following day a post-mortem examination was completed. It concluded that Mr Ry. had drowned. A number of bruises and sores were discovered on his chest. The expert assessed those injuries as insignificant and considered that they had been inflicted by blunt hard objects.\n7.  During the period from October 2008 to February 2013 the police refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the death fifteen times. All those rulings were quashed by the prosecution authorities or the courts for superficiality and incompleteness of the investigation undertaken.\n8.  On 7 February 2013, following the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in November 2012, the case was registered in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.\n9.  Thereafter the police terminated the criminal investigation twice having found that there was no indication of a homicide. Both those decisions were quashed.\n10.  As of April 2014 the pre-trial investigation was ongoing.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8724", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Samara.\n6.  At the material time the applicant was an employee of a municipal company, Arsenal (“the Arsenal company”, «Муниципальное предприятие «Арсенал») and worked as a store keeper at a car park operated by the company.\n7.  The company was founded in 1996 by the administration of the Oktyabrskiy District of Samara. It was created as a result of the re-organisation of a “self-supporting enterprise S. at the [local] Department of the Interior” («хозрасчетное предприятие ... при УВД ...»). According to an extract from the company’s articles of association (§§ 1.3 and 1.4) submitted by the Government, the company exercised the right of operational and financial control («право хозяйственного ведения») in respect of the assets allotted to it. It was responsible for the entirety of its assets. The founder of the company was not liable for the company’s debts, and the company was not liable for the founder’s debts.\n8.  In reply to a specific request by the Court as regards the functions performed by the company, the Government submitted that, according to its articles of association, the Arsenal company was competent to provide a wide range of services, including the organisation of car pounds and car parks, as well as legal, medical and tourism services. It could operate in the areas of scientific, agricultural or consumer-goods production, and participate in commercial and other activities. It was competent to plan its activities on its own (§§ 2.1 and 7 of the articles of association).\n9.  According to the applicant, the company only operated a car park at Novo‑Vokzalnaya Street in Samara and did not perform any of the other activities mentioned in the articles of association. It had the same legal address as the local Road Traffic Safety Inspectorate (“the Road Inspectorate”). The car park consisted of a car pound – a secure storage area for vehicles that had been stolen, abandoned, or parked illegally or had been involved in an accident or a crime. The company’s only function was to ensure storage of vehicles that had been impounded pursuant to the Road Inspectorate’s orders. The company’s employees registered the cars on arrival using the official forms of the inspectorate. The tariffs for storing the vehicles were determined by the inspectorate. The company could return an impounded vehicle to its owner only if authorised to do so by a road inspector. Free parking spaces could be rented for a daily tariff. The applicant submitted a reorganisation agreement of 1996, a sample of a “vehicle return” form containing a road inspector’s authorisation to return a car, extracts from local authorities’ decisions designating the car park as a pound, extracts from local newspapers and other documents in support of his submissions. According to an information note of 21 February 2002 drawn up by the Samara Committee of the Federal Land Registry Service («Федеральная служба земельного кадастра»), between 1996 and 29 November 2001 the Arsenal company had rented three more car pounds.\n10.  On 3 December 1998, pursuant to a decision by the head of the town administration, the Committee for the Administration of Property of the Town of Samara (“the Committee”) ordered the liquidation of the company. The decision of the head of the town administration was dated 13 November 1998 and concerned several municipal companies operating in Samara. It cited as reasons for the liquidation the “unsatisfactory resu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8726", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1976 and the second applicant in 2001 and they live in Zadar.\n6.  On 23 June 2001 the second applicant married I.M.\n7.  On 4 September 2001 the second applicant gave birth to the first applicant.\n8.  Relations between the spouses deteriorated, and in 2006 the second applicant brought a civil action against her husband seeking divorce, custody of, and maintenance for the first applicant. Her husband, I.M., filed a counterclaim, seeking custody of the first applicant.\n9.  In the period between 5 July 2006 and 7 March 2008 a total of eight criminal complaints were filed against the second applicant and I.M. Most of these complaints were filed against each other directly, but some were filed at the initiative of the police. Three of those eight complaints resulted in criminal proceedings being instituted (two against I.M. and one against both I.M. and the second applicant), the outcome of which is unknown. The remaining five criminal complaints were dismissed, including three in which it was alleged that criminal offences of child abuse and domestic violence had been committed against the first applicant.\n10.  By a judgment of 24 August 2007, the Zadar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zadru) (a) granted the second applicant and I.M. a divorce; (b) awarded I.M. custody of the first applicant; (c) granted the second applicant access (contact) rights; and (d) ordered the second applicant to make regular maintenance payments for the first applicant. In so deciding the court relied on the opinion of forensic experts in psychiatry and psychology obtained during the proceedings and on the recommendation of the Zadar Social Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Zadar, “the local social welfare centre”) which participated in those proceedings as an intervener sui generis with a view to protecting the first applicant’s interests. The judgment became final on 2 January 2008.\n11.  Previously, by a decision of 7 November 2006 the local social welfare centre had ordered a child protection measure of supervision of the exercise of parental authority in respect of the first applicant. The measure was imposed with a view to improving communication between the second applicant and I.M. regarding the first applicant, and also with a view to preventing her from being drawn into their conflict. The measure lasted until 31 August 2008, when it was discontinued. In its decision of 2 September 2008 the local social welfare centre stated, inter alia, the following:\n“The measure only partly achieved its goal, in that contact with the mother has stabilised. The parents still do not communicate with each other and it is evident that the mother intends to continue with such behaviour. Furthermore, the mother’s cooperation with the supervising officer is not adequate and it is evident that the measure has become futile.”\n12.  The applicants submit that on 1 February 2011 the first applicant’s father I.M. hit her in the face and squeezed her throat while verbally abusing her.\n13.  The next day the second applicant took the first applicant to the police to report the incident. The police instructed them to see a doctor and accompanied them to the local hospital, where the first applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist, who diagnosed her with bruising of the eyeball and eye socket tissue. In particular, the ophthalmologist noted:\n“Clinically discrete haematoma of the left lower eyelid, in resorption. The motility of the eyes is nor", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8728", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Berlin.\n7.  The proceedings at issue in the present application are part of a large number of proceedings which have been brought before the Liechtenstein courts since 2001. All of these proceedings concern, in substance, questions relating to the property rights to considerable assets (more than 14 million Swiss francs (CHF)) which the applicant had brought into five different foundations (including the H. foundation) set up by him in 1999 in Liechtenstein and of which he was the beneficiary. The applicant’s mother G.B., represented by her guardian, and the applicant’s sisters R. and K. claimed in different sets of proceedings that the applicant had not been the owner of the assets he had brought into the foundations, but that these assets had partly belonged to G.B. and partly to their deceased husband and father.\n8.  On 30 August 2001 the Regional Court, on a request lodged by the applicant’s sisters R. and K. in interlocutory proceedings, prohibited the H. foundation and the applicant from disposing of assets amounting to more than three million euros (EUR) deposited with the P. bank.\n9.  By submissions dated 27 September 2001, received by the Regional Court on 28 September 2001, the applicant’s two sisters brought an action for payment of some EUR 3,3 million against both the H. foundation and the applicant (file no. 2 CG.2001.317).\n10.  On 12 November 2003 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for legal aid as he had not given sufficient information on his financial condition despite the court’s repeated requests. That decision was quashed by the Court of Appeal on 3 March 2004, which found that the Regional Court had been obliged to investigate further into the applicant’s financial condition on its own motion.\n11.  On 21 July 2004 the Regional Court, having received further information from the applicant, granted the latter legal aid.\n12.  On 28 July 2004 R. and K. withdrew the action against the applicant and maintained it only against the H. foundation.\n13.  On 30 December 2004 the Regional Court, having questioned the parties and ten witnesses and having inspected numerous documents, ordered the H. foundation to pay R. and K. some EUR 240,000 each and dismissed the remainder of their claim. It found that the applicant’s allegation that he had received the assets he had brought into the H. foundation as a gift from his mother had not been proven. The applicant had therefore not been authorised to bring the assets of the estate of his deceased father into the H. foundation. The amounts payable to R. and K. corresponded to their respective rights to a share in the deceased’s estate.\n14.  On 8 February 2005 both R. and K. and the H. foundation lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal against the Regional Court’s judgment.\n15.  On 7 March 2005 the applicant, being the beneficiary of the H. foundation, requested leave to intervene in the proceedings as a third party and applied for legal aid.\n16.  On 14 June 2005 the Regional Court granted the applicant legal aid and appointed him a lawyer. On 26 August 2005 the applicant joined the proceedings as an intervening third party.\n17.  On 7 September 2005 the Court of Appeal, granting the H. foundation’s appeal, quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and dismissed the action brought by R. and K. as inadmissible. It found that the plaintiffs, two of several statutory heirs, had not been authorised to claim assets from the H. f", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8729", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Tartu.\n6.  Estonia lost its independence as a result of the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (also known as “Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact”), concluded on 23 August 1939, and the secret additional protocols to it. Following an ultimatum to set up Soviet military bases in Estonia in 1939, a large-scale entry of the Soviet army into Estonia took place in June 1940. The lawful government of the country was overthrown and Soviet rule was imposed by force. Interrupted by the German occupation in 1941-1944, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until its restoration of independence in 1991 (see Kolk and Kislyiy v. Estonia (dec.), nos. 23052/04 and 24018/04, ECHR 2006‑I, and Penart v. Estonia (dec.), no. 14685/04, 24 January 2006). After the independence of the Republic of Estonia was restored on 20 August 1991, Soviet troops remained in the country. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation assumed jurisdiction over the Soviet armed forces. On 26 July 1994 Estonia and Russia concluded a treaty on the withdrawal of Russian troops from Estonia and the conditions under which they could reside temporarily in Estonia. Under the terms of the treaty, the Russian Federation undertook to withdraw from Estonia, by 31 August 1994, all military personnel who were in active service with the Russian armed forces (see Nagula v. Estonia (dec.), no. 39203/02, ECHR 2005‑XII (extracts); Mikolenko v. Estonia (dec.), no. 16944/03, 5 January 2006; and Dorochenko v. Estonia (dec.), no. 10507/03, 5 January 2006) .\n7.  After the regaining of independence Estonia carried out comprehensive legislative reforms for transition from a totalitarian regime to a democratic system and for rectifying injustices. On 28 June 1992 the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia (Eesti Vabariigi põhiseadus) and the Constitution of the Republic of Estonia Implementation Act (Eesti Vabariigi põhiseaduse rakendamise seadus) were adopted by a referendum. The Constitution Implementation Act provided that until 31 December 2000, persons standing in elections or seeking certain high positions, such as those of ministers or judges, or any other elected or appointed position in an agency of the national government or a local authority, had to take a written oath of conscience (süümevanne) affirming that they had not been in the service or agents of security, intelligence or counterintelligence services of countries which had occupied Estonia. On 8 July 1992 the Riigikogu (the Estonian Parliament) adopted the Procedure for Taking Oath of Conscience Act (Seadus süümevande andmise korra kohta).\n8.  In order to ensure national security of the Republic of Estonia, persons having been in the service of or having collaborated with the security, intelligence or counterintelligence services of the countries which had occupied Estonia, had to be ascertained. Such a security authority was first and foremost the Committee for State Security of the USSR and its local arm, the Estonian SSR Committee for State Security (also known as “the KGB”). However, the most sensitive of the KGB materials were removed from Estonia and the government committee set up by the Estonian authorities to liquidate the KGB managed to get hold of documents of mainly historical value.\n9.  On 10 March 1994 the Riigikogu adopted the Procedure for the Collection, Recording, Preservation and Use of the Mater", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8731", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were spouses born in 1952 and 1954 respectively. In 2013 the first applicant died, following which the second applicant expressed the wish to continue the application both in her own name and in the name of her late husband. The second applicant lives in Bratislava.\n6.  On 11 October 2002 the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the Bratislava V District Office of Investigation alleging that an individual, A., had obtained an amount of money from them in return for the promise of arranging for the renovation of the flat in which they lived, that she had failed to keep that promise, and that she had not even been in the possession of the appropriate business licence for so doing. They considered that the criminal offence of fraud could have been committed in that connection, alleged that they had suffered the equivalent of some 7,300 euros worth of damage, and submitted that A. had refused to compensate them.\n7.  On 3 December 2002 the second applicant was questioned by an investigator. According to the transcript of the questioning, she inter alia referred to Article 43 of the 1961 Code of Criminal Procedure (Law 141/1961 Coll., as applicable at the relevant time – “the 1961 CCP” – see paragraph 19 below), submitted that she wished to join the proceedings as a civil party claiming damages, and proposed that the amount of the compensation be determined by a sworn expert.\n8.  On 23 January 2003 a criminal investigation was opened into the suspicion of the offence of fraud having been committed by one or more persons unknown in connection with the events mentioned above.\n9.  On 13 March 2003 the investigator appointed a sworn expert to establish the value of the pecuniary damage allegedly sustained by the applicants. The expert filed his report on 22 May 2003.\n10.  On 4 November 2004 A. was charged but the charges were quashed by the Bratislava V District Office of the Public Prosecution Service (“the PPS”) on 10 January 2005. The matter was thus remitted to the investigation stage.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 3 January 2005, the District Office of the PPS had informed the applicants that unjustified delay had been established in the proceedings, that it was due to the existing caseload and the staffing situation, and that the investigator’s attention had been brought to the need to accelerate the proceedings.\n12.  In a letter of 5 February 2005 the Bratislava Regional Office of the PPS responded to the applicants’ repeated complaint by accepting that there had been unjustified delay in the proceedings, which had been repeatedly indicated to the investigator. However, except for flagging up the delays to the investigator, notifying the investigator’s superior, and changing the investigator, the PPS had no means of ensuring acceleration of the proceedings.\n13.  On 21 January 2008 the District Office of the PPS responded to a further complaint from the applicants by again accepting that the investigation was in general vitiated by significant delays. This had repeatedly been indicated to the investigator’s superior, but had not produced the expected improvement. The case had not been reassigned to another investigator because this did not appear to be efficient in view of the staff shortage. However, the investigator had again been reminded of the delays and if no improvement was to be seen, a new investigator would be appointed.\n14.  On 14 January 2010 the investigator decided to terminate the proceedings. Referring to evid", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8732", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Chişinău.\n6.  On 13 June 1999 the applicant’s seventeen-year-old daughter (C.) was found dead in P.’s office in a gas company.\n7.  On 14 June 1999 a forensic medical report concluded that C.’s death had resulted from medicinal intoxication. The following lesions were also found on the victim’s body: an ecchymosis on her left leg and a haemorrhage on the anal mucous membrane and on the vestibule of vagina, caused by a blunt and hard object at least several but not more than 30-40 minutes before death.\n8.  On 26 October 1999 criminal proceedings were instituted to investigate the crime of incitement to commit suicide under Article 94 (1) of the Criminal Code, which was in force at the time of the events.\n9.  Six persons were heard as witnesses. Three of them confirmed that C. had spent the night from 12 to 13 June 1999 at a party and that she feared punishment from her parents because she had not informed them she was going there. They confirmed that at 8 a.m. on 13 June 1999 C. had come to the company’s office together with P. and M. and had decided to wait there for a friend before going home. P. and M. had left the premises soon afterwards. A security employee of the company, I., stated that C. had looked tired and that she had gone to sleep in an office after P. and M. had left. He also stated that he had gone into the office twice to see how C. was. The first time he had been able to hear her breathing, but when he had come back after another thirty minutes, C. had already stopped breathing and had had no pulse. He then called upon V., an unqualified fellow worker, to assist him and to call an ambulance. All the witnesses denied having had sexual intercourse with C. and stated that there was no outsider on the company’s premises who could have had intercourse with her.\n10.  On 24 December 1999 the Centru District prosecutor closed the criminal investigation, finding as follows:\n“Having investigated the suicide, and also the theory that C. had committed suicide after having been raped, it was found that:\n-  according to witness statements, from 8.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. on 13 June 1999 no outsider other than C. was on the company’s premises;\n-  according to the medical forensic examination report no. 881 of 14 June 1999, no traces of semen were found in C.’s cavities;\n-  according to the same forensic report there were no injuries on C.’s body or face.\n... It was impossible to establish when C. had obtained and used the medication. The investigation did not reveal any reasons or causes which would determine C.’s death as violent; it concludes that this was a fatal accident: that C., being very worried about her unexplained absence from home on the night from 12 to 13 June 1999, tried to avoid punishment from her parents by getting hospitalised with \"poisoning\", but due to the negligent use of medication, had died of an overdose.\nTherefore ... there are no elements of a crime under article 94 (1) of the Criminal Code. ”\n11.  In 2005 the applicant complained to the Prosecutor General’s Office that she had never been informed about the prosecutor’s decision of 24 December 1999 and had found out about it only in December 2004. She argued that the investigation had been superficial and inefficient, and requested that the investigation be reopened. She alleged in particular that the investigation had essentially pursued the suicide theory and had failed to establish the circumstances which had r", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8733", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  In March 2002, criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant in absentia for being a member of the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), an illegal armed organisation. In the indictment, the public prosecutor relied on, among others, incriminating statements by certain accused persons who, in their statements to the police, had maintained that the applicant had been involved in a number of terrorist activities since 1991. A Red Notice was accordingly issued in respect of the applicant via Interpol.\n6.  On an unspecified date the applicant was arrested in Syria. After being detained in the Damascus Security Headquarters, allegedly for twenty-three days, the applicant was handed over to the Turkish authorities on 15 August 2003. The medical report issued at the beginning of the applicant’s custody indicated no signs of ill-treatment.\n7.  On 18 August 2003 the applicant was questioned at the Erzurum Gendarmerie Command, in the absence of a lawyer. According to a form explaining arrested persons’ rights, which the applicant had signed, he had been reminded of the charges against him, his right to a lawyer and his right to remain silent. The applicant refused legal assistance, and gave a detailed statement regarding his activities in the illegal organisation. He admitted that he had been a member of the PKK since 1989, maintained that he had been involved in several armed attacks and gave details about such events. He also stated that he had been acting as the Paris representative of the illegal organisation since 1994 and signed his statement as such.\n8.  On the same day, the applicant was examined at the hospital; no signs of ill-treatment were noted on his body. Subsequently, he was questioned by the Erzurum Public Prosecutor. The applicant refused legal assistance and confirmed this in his statement given to the gendarmerie. In this connection, he admitted to being a member of the PKK and participating in several terrorist activities between 1990 and 1998 and also being the Paris representative of the illegal organisation since 1999. He further admitted that he had been involved in some of the armed attacks with which he had been charged. These events were indicated by their location, nature and dates, which were between 1990 and 1998.\nThe applicant denied his participation in five terrorist attacks which had happened in 1992.\n9.  Later on the same day, the applicant was taken to the Erzurum State Security Court. Before the court he expressed the wish to be represented by a lawyer, and stated that he would make further submissions once a lawyer had been appointed. The court remanded the applicant in pre-trial detention and allowed him time for the assignment of a representative until the next hearing to be held on 7 October 2003.\n10.  On 20 August 2003 the Erzurum Public Prosecutor lodged an additional indictment, charging the applicant under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code with seeking to destroy the constitutional order and unity of the Turkish State and to remove part of the country from the State’s control.\n11.  On 9 December 2003, at the fifth court hearing, in the presence of his three lawyers, the applicant retracted the statements he had made to the gendarmerie and the public prosecutor, alleging that he had been under psychological pressure during his interrogation. He confessed to being a member of the PKK, but only in charge of the instruction of the members, and claimed that he had never taken part in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8734", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and is detained in Dąbrowa Górnicza.\nThe applicant’s refusal to undergo body searches and the disciplinary punishments imposed on him\n6.  The applicant was detained on remand in 2007 and 2008. He was subsequently convicted and served his sentence in various detention centres and prisons.\n7.  From 24 May 2011 the applicant was imprisoned in the Sosnowiec Remand Centre and from 17 May 2012 until 10 June 2013 in Wojkowice Prison.\n8.  On 20 October 2011 the applicant was transported to another location for the purpose of executing some procedural measures (doprowadzenie na czynności proceduralne) and was therefore asked to undergo a body search, however he refused to undress. He addressed the public officers in a vulgar fashion and displayed an unrepentant manner. His rehabilitation supervisor (wychowawca) therefore lodged a request for disciplinary punishment.\n9.  On 26 October 2011 the applicant went to the doctor to have his nails cut and behaved offensively towards the doctor, whereupon another request for disciplinary punishment was lodged against him. According to the reasoning supporting the request, the applicant admitted committing an act warranting disciplinary punishment but his attitude was unrepentant.\n10.  On 27 October 2011 the Director of the Sosnowiec Detention Centre examined both requests simultaneously and issued a reprimand (nagana) to the applicant by way of disciplinary penalty.\n11.  The applicant appealed.\n12.  On 17 January 2012 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the challenged decision, finding that it had been issued in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.\n13.  On 18 May 2012 the applicant again refused to undergo a body search in Wojkowice prison.\n14.  On 23 May 2012 the Director of Wojkowice Prison imposed a disciplinary penalty on the applicant for his refusal to undergo a body search. The applicant was forbidden to receive food parcels for two months.\n15.  On 28 May 2012 the applicant appealed against this decision to the court.\n16.  On 18 July 2012 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the challenged decision. The court did not examine the reasons for which the applicant had been required to undergo body searches. It found that the decision in question had been given in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences.\n17.  On 26 June 2012 the applicant again refused to undergo a body search in Wojkowice prison. From the written request for imposition of a disciplinary punishment on the applicant, it appears that he refused to take off his underwear. The rehabilitation supervisor requested that the applicant be placed in solitary confinement for a period of 7 days by way of punishment.\n18.  On 27 June 2012 the Director of Wojkowice Prison imposed on the applicant a disciplinary penalty of solitary confinement for a period of 7 days. The applicant served this penalty between 27 June and 4 July 2012.\n19.  The applicant appealed against this decision.\n20.  On 3 September 2012 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the challenged decision, finding that it had been issued in accordance with the law and had been justified in the circumstances of the case, namely that the applicant had refused to undergo a body search, which constituted a disciplinary offence.\n21.  On 27 June 2012 the applicant refused to undergo a body search when being admitted to a hospital ward, a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8735", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Istanbul. He is a professional writer and journalist, and states that he is a human rights activist.\n5.  He published an article on the front page of issue 84 of the weekly magazine Türkiye’de Cuma (“Friday in Turkey”), which came out on 29 August 2003. His article, which was entitled “If the pashas [the generals] refuse to obey”, contained criticisms of high-ranking officers who were about to retire. He hinted that some generals in the armed forces were wont to sound false alarms concerning an alleged advance of fundamentalism and anti-secularism, which they then used as a pretext for interfering in the country’s general politics, and that they appeared to have links with certain business circles, the media, senior civil servants and even the Mafia, endeavouring to create a political atmosphere that tallied with their worldview. He suggested that the high-ranking officers in question should set up a political party on retirement and present their political projects to the people, instead of “deciding on the future of the nation on their own, in the name of the nation”. He added that in his view the army generals who he claimed were interfering in the country’s general politics were far removed from social realities and that in their approach to social affairs they lacked any empathy with and sensitivity towards the various social strata.\n6.  By an indictment of 9 January 2004, the Military Prosecutor’s Office with the Third Army Corps in Istanbul applied to the Military Court within that Corps for the applicant’s prosecution under Article 95 §§ 4 and 5 of the Military Criminal Code, which, in the Prosecutor’s view, penalised acts vis-à-vis high-ranking military officers geared to damaging hierarchical relations within the army and undermining confidence in commanding officers.\n7.  The applicant submitted an objection as to the jurisdiction of the Military Court to try him, on the grounds of his civilian status and relying on the Convention and his right to freedom of expression.\n8.  By a decision of 12 July 2004 the Military Court declined jurisdiction in favour of the Bakırköy Assize Court on the grounds that the offence at issue was not military in nature and the applicant should be tried by the non-military courts for denigration of the State armed forces, which offence was punishable under Article 159 of the former Criminal Code. The Military Court noted that by claiming that the armed forces were led by commanding officers who appeared to have links with certain business circles and even the Mafia, and to be far removed from social realities, the applicant had tarnished the image of the whole armed forces. It emphasised that the commanding officers who had been criticised were plenipotentiary representatives of the armed forces empowered to act on behalf of the latter.\n9.  On 9 August 2004 the commanding officer of the Third Army Corps lodged an appeal on points of law against the aforementioned decision to decline jurisdiction. He submitted that the impugned article constituted an act which had to be assessed under Article 95 § 4 of the Military Criminal Code. He argued that the military criminal provision in question constituted a lex specialis vis-à-vis Article 159 of the Criminal Code.\n10.  The Military Prosecutor also lodged an appeal on points of law on the same grounds, submitting that the Military Courts should have jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, and that the applicant ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8736", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant, Mr Kovyazin, was born in 1986 and lives in Kostino, Kirov Region. The second applicant, Mr Savelov, was born in 1979 and lives in Moscow. The third applicant, Mr Gushchin, was born in 1988 and lives in Khimki, Moscow Region.\n6.  On 6 May 2012 a public demonstration entitled the “March of Millions” was held in central Moscow to protest against the allegedly rigged presidential elections. The event had been approved by the city authorities in the form of a march followed by a meeting at Bolotnaya Square which had to end at 7.30 p.m. Numerous clashes between the police and protesters occurred when the marchers arrived at Bolotnaya Square. At 5.30 p.m. the police declared the early closure of the meeting and began to disperse the participants. It took them about two hours to clear the protestors away from the square.\n7.  On the same day the Moscow city department of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation opened criminal proceedings to investigate the suspected mass disorders and violent acts against the police (Articles 212 § 2 and 318 § 1 of the Criminal Code). On 18 May 2012 the file was remitted to the headquarters of the Investigative Committee for further investigation. On 28 May 2012 the investigation was also launched into the criminal offence of organising mass disorders (Article 212 § 1 of the Criminal Code). The two criminal cases were joined on the same day.\n8.  All applicants took part in the demonstration of 6 May 2012 at Bolotnaya Square. They were arrested on later dates indicated below and charged with participation in mass disorders; the second and the third applicants were also charged with having committed violent acts against the police officers. They were detained and tried on these charges, and the second and the third applicants have been convicted as charged, while Mr Kovyazin had been exempted of liability under the Amnesty Act.\n9.  The complaints to be examined in the present case concern various aspects of the applicants’ pre-trial detention.\n10.  From 2006 to 2012 the applicant studied culture and history at the Vyatskiy State University in Kirov while working part-time as a video‑operator for a newspaper “Vyatskiy Nablyudatel”. On 1 May 2012 he dropped out of the university.\n11.  On 4 May 2012 the applicant received an assignment from the newspaper to attend the “March of Millions” on 6 May 2012 and to take video footage of the event.\n12.  The applicant claimed that on 6 May 2012 he arrived at Bolotnaya Square, filmed the event and did not take part in any disorders or clashes with the police.\n13.  On 15 May 2012 the applicant submitted the footage to the newspaper and it was published on its website.\n14.  Until 5 September 2012 the applicant continued working and living at his usual address. On the latter date he was detained and charged under Article 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code (participation in mass disorders). He was accused of having breached public order during the demonstration on 6 May 2012, in particular, of having turned over portable toilet cabins and having piled them on the road to build a barrier obstructing the riot police.\n15.  On 7 September 2012 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 5 November 2012 on the grounds of the gravity of the charges and for the following reasons:\n“Having regard to the circumstances of the offence under investigation, the personality of the accused, the information objectively p", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8737", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Prilep.\n6.  The applicant was a taxi driver. On 25 July 2007 his car was parked on a taxi post at the Prilep bus station. As established in the course of the subsequent criminal proceedings (see paragraph 9 below), P.K., accompanied by S.O. and G.F., all Albanian nationals (“the migrants”), asked the applicant to drive them to the village of Vitolište, Mariovo. Only P.K., who was fluent in Macedonian, told the applicant that they were going to Vitolište to work. S.O. and G.F. did not speak during the journey. At around 4 p.m. they were stopped by the police at a place called Sliva. The migrants had no travel documents. The applicant and the migrants were arrested. The applicant’s car was also seized. A receipt for temporarily seized objects was issued to him.\n7.  On 26 July 2007 an investigating judge of the Prilep Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) opened an investigation against the applicant and P.K. on grounds of a reasonable suspicion of migrant smuggling, punishable under Article 418-b of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 15 below).\n8.  On 8 August 2007 the public prosecutor withdrew the charges against the applicant for lack of evidence. In a written statement of that date the public prosecutor indicated that there was no evidence that the applicant had known or had reasonable grounds to believe that he had transported illegal migrants. He had met them for the first time at the Prilep bus station. He had never had any contact with them before. Since P.K. was fluent in Macedonian, the applicant could not have suspected that he (P.K.) was a migrant. The other two migrants had not spoken during the journey. Furthermore, P.K. had confirmed that he had misled the applicant, since otherwise nobody would have driven them. For that reason, he had advised S.O. and G.F. not to speak. When the police had stopped them, he had apologised to the applicant. That had been confirmed by S.O. and G.F. and two police officers who had stopped them on the day in question. On the same day, the investigating judge discontinued the investigation concerning the applicant. The latter decision indicated that the applicant had no previous criminal record.\n9.  On 3 September 2007 the trial court convicted P.K. of migrant smuggling and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment. The court established that P.K. had told S.O. and G.F., illegal migrants from Albania, that he could transfer them illegally into Greece. They had paid him 270 euros (EUR). They had crossed the Macedonian-Albanian border illegally; they had used a taxi to travel to several cities in the respondent State and to arrive ultimately at the Prilep bus station. There, P.K. had agreed with the applicant, who participated in the proceedings as a witness, to transport them to the village of Vitolište, from where all the migrants had intended to cross the border on foot.\n10.  The trial court also ordered, under Articles 100-a and 418-b of the Criminal Code 2004 (see paragraphs 14 and 15 below) confiscation of the applicant’s car, as the means by which the criminal offence had been committed (“the confiscation order”). The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:\n“According to Article 100-a(2) and (3) taken in conjunction with Article 418-b(5) of the [Criminal Code], the court confiscated ... from [the applicant] the vehicle which had been used for transportation of [S.O. and G.F.], because [the applicant] could have known that [they] we", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8739", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Bersenevka, Republic of Mordovia.\n6.  On 5 March 2009 the prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation in response to S.’s complaint that two policemen had extorted money from him by threatening to open a criminal case against him on charges of drug possession.\n7.  On 23 March 2009 the investigator received information implicating the applicant in said crime. On 30 March 2009 the investigating authorities established where the applicant was officially registered as living.\n8.  On 2 April 2009 the applicant was charged in absentia with kidnapping (Article 126 of the Russian Criminal Code) and extortion (Article 163 of the Russian Criminal Code). Noting that the applicant might abscond or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice, the investigator considered that the applicant should sign an undertaking not to leave his place of residence and to abstain from improper behaviour.\n9.  On 3 April 2009 the applicant’s name was put on the list of wanted persons. It was not elucidated in the relevant decision whether any effort had been taken on the part of the investigating authorities to establish the applicant’s whereabouts. On the same day the police informed the investigating authorities of the addresses where the applicant and his father were registered.\n10.  On 6 May 2010 the investigating authorities established the applicant’s temporary address.\n11.  On 24 June 2010 the applicant voluntarily went to see the investigator. He was questioned and released on his own recognisance. The next interview was scheduled for 1 July 2010. On that day the applicant duly appeared at the prosecutor’s office where he was arrested. When questioned, he claimed that the authorities had had no grounds to put his name on the list of wanted persons. In particular, he submitted that the investigating authorities had failed to verify his whereabouts or to issue a request for him to appear for questioning.\n12.  The following day, 2 July 2010, the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow authorised the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 1 August 2010. In particular, the court noted as follows:\n“... the court ... considers that, in view of the [applicant’s] character and the nature of the charges, if released, he might again abscond or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. [The applicant] is charged with offences entailing a custodial sentence in excess of two years. As is apparent from the evidence submitted, he has absconded before and his name was put on the list of wanted persons. The court concludes that it is impossible to apply more lenient restrictions, such as release on bail.\nThe court considers that there were grounds for the [applicant’s] arrest. It follows from the evidence submitted to the court that [the applicant] could have committed the crime he is charged with. As regards the fact that on 24 June 2009 the applicant voluntarily appeared for questioning, the court does not consider it sufficient to dismiss the [investigating authorities’] request for the [applicant] to be remanded in custody. [The applicant] did not deny that even though his name was on the list of wanted persons, he did not appear for [questioning] for two months.”\n13.  On 3 July 2010 the applicant lodged an appeal against the court order of 2 July 2010. He addressed it to the Moscow City Court. On an unspecified date the City Court forwarded it to the District Court for processing. According to ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8740", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is currently being detained in Târgu Jiu Prison.\n6.  In 1998 the applicant started serving a twenty-five-year sentence for murder. On 23 July 1998 he was placed in Târgu Jiu Prison. Except for short periods of time when he was transferred to other prisons in order to appear before the courts and three occasions when he was hospitalised for a maximum of one day in prison hospitals, the applicant was held in Târgu Jiu Prison.\n7.  The applicant alleged that the conditions of his detention in Târgu Jiu Prison since his incarceration in 1998 amounted to torture. More specifically, he alleged that he was being held in severely overcrowded cells with thirty-five to forty prisoners, with worn-out furniture and without natural light or ventilation. He further submitted that the cells were full of bed bugs and the food was insufficient and of very poor quality. The applicant also alleged that he was being held in cells with smokers.\n8.  The applicant lastly alleged that he had become sick as a result of the inhuman conditions to which he had been subjected. He submitted in that connection a medical certificate issued by the prison doctor on 17 March 2014, according to which he was suffering from: chronic cholecystitis, fatty liver disease, chronic venal insufficiency of the legs, type-II diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, gastroduodenitis, lumbar discopathy and impulsive personality disorder.\n9.  The Government submitted that the applicant had been held for unspecified periods of time in three different cells of the Târgu Jiu Prison infirmary block, which are described below.\n10.  Cell E 2.2 measured 22.62 sq. m, of which 2.41 sq. m were occupied by a bathroom (20.21 sq. m of remaining space). The cell had five rows of bunk beds and accommodated eight prisoners (2.52 sq. m of personal space, including the space occupied by the beds). Ventilation was ensured by a window measuring 0.97 by 1.45 m. The bathroom had its own window measuring 40 by 45 cm.\n11.  Cell E 2.3 measured 21.75 sq. m, of which 3.85 sq. m were occupied by a bathroom (17.92 sq. m of remaining space). The cell had four rows of bunk beds and accommodated five prisoners (3.5 sq. m of personal space, including the space occupied by the beds). Ventilation was ensured by a window measuring 0.97 by 1.45 m. The bathroom had its own window measuring 40 by 45 cm.\n12.  Cell E 2.4 measured 24.05 sq. m, of which 3.36 sq. m were occupied by a bathroom (20.69 sq. m of remaining space). The cell had four rows of bunk beds and accommodated four to six prisoners (between 3.44 and 4.13 sq. m of personal space, including the space occupied by the beds). Ventilation was ensured by a window measuring 0.97 by 1.45 m. The bathroom had its own window measuring 40 by 45 cm.\n13.  For the rest of the time the applicant was held in non-smoking cells, a description of which is set out below.\n14.  Cell E 2.5 measured 49.8 sq. m, of which 7.31 sq. m were occupied by a bathroom (42.49 sq. m of remaining space). The cell had twenty-seven beds and accommodated twenty-five to twenty-six prisoners (an average of 1.63 sq. m of personal space, including the space occupied by the beds). The cell had three windows measuring 90 by 109 cm and the bathroom had a window measuring 40 by 45 cm.\n15.  Cell E 3.4 measured 36.15 sq. m, of which 5.55 sq. m were occupied by a bathroom (30.6 sq. m of remaining space). The cell had eight rows of bunk beds and usually accommodated twenty prisoners (1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8741", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Moreni.\n6.  On 17 July 2000, R.C.A. was hired as an inspector by the Moreni City Council on the recommendation of the applicant and another person, G.A. She had a contract for a limited period of time, namely three months, which was extended for another three months. In order to obtain a permanent contract she took part in a competition organised by the City Council in February 2001. She succeeded, being the only candidate. After a few months, the atmosphere at the workplace became tense. R.C.A. was on probation in her new post and was therefore monitored and kept under close scrutiny.\n7.  According to R.C.A.’s statements, she was persecuted by her superiors and even sexually harassed by the mayor. Therefore, she asked for the protection of the applicant, to whom she allegedly gave 1,000 German marks (DEM).\n8.  According to the applicant’s statement, the money was given to her as a loan with no prearranged date of reimbursement in the summer of 2001. The applicant also stated that another colleague, C.M., had borrowed money from R.C.A., and that the practice of borrowing money from each other was common in their workplace. The applicant’s statements were confirmed by her colleague, who was heard as a witness before the court.\n9.  On 24 January 2002 R.C.A. denounced the applicant to the police for influence peddling. She claimed that the applicant had asked her for DEM 1,000 in order to persuade the mayor to give her a permanent position within the City Council.\n10.  On 29 January 2002 R.C.A. obtained the authorisation of the prosecutor’s office attached to the Ploiești Court of Appeal to record conversations between herself and the applicant. Subsequently, all the conversations that took place between the applicant and herself between 29 January and 2 February 2002 were recorded. The recording was carried out using two recording devices, one belonging to R.C.A. and the other to a police officer.\n11.  Following a request by R.C.A. for the return of the money, the applicant and R.C.A. met in a cake shop close to the applicant’s home on 2 February 2002. The applicant stated that she was accompanied by a colleague, D.C. According to R.C.A.’s version, the applicant was alone, while she herself was accompanied by her husband and brother, who waited outside the cake shop. The applicant handed over to R.C.A. 400 United States dollars (USD) (the equivalent of DEM 1,000).\n12.  On 4 April 2002 a criminal investigation was initiated against the applicant on the charge of influence peddling.\n13.  On 12 June 2002 R.C.A. was invited to the prosecutor’s office attached to the Dâmbovița County Court to give clarification on the recordings. After some discussion of the transcripts of the conversations she said she had a headache and left, promising to come back the same day. However, she never came back to continue the discussion with the prosecutor. This was mentioned in the record of the meeting drafted by the prosecutor.\n14.  On 24 September 2002 the Ploiești Division of the National Anti‑Corruption Directorate decided to discontinue the investigation against the applicant on the ground that the actus reus of the offence was missing.\n15.  On 9 December 2002 the chief prosecutor decided to reopen the criminal investigation against the applicant. He noted that the investigation had been incomplete and that there were several aspects to be clarified in connection with the charges against the applicant. He a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8742", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1950 and 1987 respectively and live in Makhachkala. The applicants are the mother and the wife of Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov (in the documents submitted also written as Abdurashidov), who was born in 1985.\n6.  The second applicant and her husband Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov have lived in Moscow since 2008. In the middle of June 2010 the second applicant went to Makhachkala to visit her relatives. On 24 June 2010 her husband Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov arrived from Moscow, and on the same date they went to visit Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov’s sister Ms F.Sh. at 29 Sovetskaya Street in Kaspiysk, Dagestan.\n7.  The first applicant and her husband, a federal judge of the Leninskiy District Court in Makhachkala, lived at 11 Gadzhiyeva Street, Makhachkala.\n(b)  Events in Makhachkala\n8.  At about 8 p.m. on 25 June 2010 a group of five officers from the Sovetskiy district department of the interior in Makhachkala (the Sovetskiy ROVD) arrived at the first applicant’s house. One of them, who identified himself as Shamil, showed the first applicant arrest warrant no. 6/3-3726 issued in the name of her son Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov and signed by Captain A. Plugin, the investigator of the Investigative Committee of the Federal Security Service (the FSB). According to the warrant, Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov was suspected, amongst other things, of involvement in terrorist activities.\n(c)  Events in Kaspiysk\n9.  Meanwhile, on 25 June 2010 the second applicant and her husband Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov were visiting their relative Ms F.Sh. in Kaspiysk. At about 9 p.m. on that date, a group of five to seven men, some of whom were in black masks, arrived at the house of Ms F.Sh. in a black VAZ-2107 (‘Приора’) car with the registration number containing the numbers 256 or 259 and the letters PH. One of them told the second applicant that they were from the police. The men abducted Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov next to the house, in the street. First they fired shots at his feet, then they knocked him down, dragged him into the car and drove off. The abduction took place in broad daylight and in the presence of a number of witnesses, including neighbours and the applicants’ relatives.\n10.  Shortly after the abductors’ departure, several police officers in uniform and plain clothes arrived at the scene of the shooting in two police cars; without giving any explanation they collected the cartridge cases left after the incident.\n11.  The Government did not dispute the applicants’ account of the circumstances of the abduction, stating that it “does not contradict the information collected by the authorities during the course of the investigation”.\n12.  At about 9 p.m. on 25 June 2010, immediately after the incident, the second applicant in Kaspiysk called the first applicant in Makhachkala and informed her about the abduction.\n13.  In the morning of 26 June 2010 the first applicant complained about the abduction to the Dagestan FSB and the Dagestan Prosecutor’s office. She stated that on the date of the abduction she had been visited by a group of five officers from the Sovetskiy ROVD who had showed her a warrant for her son’s arrest issued by the FSB Captain A. Plugin; that shortly after their visit the second applicant had called her from Kaspiysk and told her about the abduction of Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov by a group of armed men who had opened fire and that shortly after the incident a group of police officers ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8743", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1984, 1974 and 1985 respectively and currently reside in Bicske, Hungary.\n6.  Originally coming through Greece, the applicants entered Hungary via Serbia and were intercepted and arrested by the border police on 5 (Mr Nabil) and 6 (the other two applicants) November 2011. They were transferred to the border station in Röszke, Hungary, since they could not prove either their identities or their legal residence in Hungary.\n7.  On 6 November 2011 the applicants were interviewed with the assistance of an interpreter.\nOn the same day the Csongrád County Police Department ordered the applicants’ expulsion to Serbia and a ban on entry to the territory of Hungary for three years, pursuant to section 43 (2) (a) of Act no. II of 2007 on the Admission and Right of Residence of Third Country Nationals (the “Immigration Act”). With regard to the requirement of non-refoulement, it was considered that there was no such obstacle to the expulsion.\nThe execution of the expulsion order was simultaneously suspended for a maximum period of six months or until the expulsion became feasible, noting that “the Serbian party failed to reply before the expiry of the “retention time” (visszatartási idő)”.\nAt the same time, that is, on 6 November 2011, the applicants’ detention was ordered by the Csongrád County Police Department until 9 November 2011 under section 54(1)(b) of the Immigration Act, on the ground that “[they] refused to leave the country, or for other substantiated reasons it can be assumed that [they] are delaying or preventing the enforcement of expulsion or transfer”. In the findings of fact it was noted that the applicants were not in possession of any travel documents; that they had crossed the border illegally via Serbia; that they said that their travel destination was [Western] Europe, Germany in particular; and that they had not applied for asylum.\n8.  The applicants were first detained at Bács-Kiskun County Police Department’s guarded accommodation (őrzött szállás).\n9.  On 9 November 2011 the applicants applied for asylum, claiming that they were persecuted in their home country by the terrorist organisation Al‑Shabaab.\nOn 10 November 2011 the applicants were transferred to the guarded accommodation of Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Police Department in Nyírbátor.\n10.  Preliminary asylum proceedings were put in place on 10 November 2011, and the immigration authorities were notified thereof. On 9 December 2011 the applicants were interviewed by the Citizenship and Immigration Authority (hereinafter: “asylum authority”)\nOn 12 December 2011 their case was admitted to the “in-merit phase” by a decision of the asylum authority, in view of the fact, among other things, that there existed no “safe third country” in their respect.\n11.  Meanwhile, on 8 November 2011 the Kiskunhalas District Court had heard the applicants, assisted by a guardian ad litem and an interpreter, and had extended their detention until 5 December 2011. Relying on section 54(1) b) of the Immigration Act, it endorsed in essence the decision of 6 November 2011 of the Csongrád County Police Department, saying that the applicants, in a state of illegal entry, were likely to frustrate their deportation.\nOn 29 November and 30 December 2011 the detention was extended again by summary decisions of the Nyírbátor District Court, referring to the immigration authority’s renewed requests to have the applicants detained for the same reasons as before and s", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8744", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The applicants were born in 1986 and 1979 respectively and live in Saint-Josse-ten-Noode (a district of the Brussels-Capital region).\n10.  The applicants are brothers who live with their parents, their brother and two sisters next to the local police station of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode. They both complained that they had been slapped in the face by police officers – which allegation is disputed by the Government – one on 8 December 2003 and the other on 23 February 2004. They submitted that those events had taken place against a background of tense relations between their family and certain officers in the police station.\n11.  The applicants submitted that on 8 December 2003, at around 4 p.m., the first applicant had been standing with a friend in the street outside the door of the building where he lived with his family and, since he had forgotten his keys, had been ringing the bell so that his parents would let him in, when a plain-clothes policeman, A.Z., had asked him to show him his identity card. The first applicant had refused to comply, asking the officer to show him his credentials. The officer had then grabbed him by his jacket – tearing it – and taken him to the police station. The first applicant had been placed in a room and, while he was alone with A.Z., the officer had slapped him in the face as he was protesting about his arrest.\n12.  The applicants provided a certificate issued at 7.20 p.m. on the same day by a general practitioner attesting that the first applicant had been “in a state of shock” and had presented the following injuries: “erythema on the left cheek (disappearing)” and “erythema on the left-side external auditory canal”.\n13.  The Government submitted that, on account of the first applicant’s refusal to show him his identity card, Officer A.Z. had had no choice but to take him to the police station for identification. The first applicant had then caused a scene, claiming to have suffered an injustice and been subjected to an unlawful identity check, and had insulted an officer who was telling him to calm down. He had been allowed to leave the police station once his identity had been verified and after being informed by A.Z. that a police report would be filed against him for forceful resistance to a public officer, abusive behaviour and verbal threats. He had returned to the police station a few minutes later with his parents, accusing A.Z. of having struck him, but the officer had always denied this.\n14.  At 6 p.m. A.Z. had lodged a criminal complaint against the first applicant, alleging forceful resistance to a public officer, abusive behaviour and verbal threats. The record drawn up on that occasion showed that A.Z. had notified his superiors of the events at 5.30 p.m., as well as a certain Superintendent K.\n15.  The applicants indicated that on 23 February 2004, between 9.44 a.m. and 10.20 a.m. (as shown by the record of the second applicant’s questioning), while the second applicant was at the Saint-Josse-ten-Noode police station and Officer P.P. was interviewing him about an altercation involving him and his mother together with a third party (and about which the latter had filed a complaint), P.P. had slapped him in the face after asking him not to lean on his desk. He had then forced him to sign his statement by threatening to put him in a cell.\n16.  The applicants provided a medical certificate issued on the same day by a general practitioner, who observed “bruising [on the] left cheek” of the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8745", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  The applicant was serving as a judge at the Budapest Labour Court and at the Pest Central District Court. In September 2003 the employer pursued the applicant’s appraisal which resulted in the applicant’s inadequacy for judicial service. From 1 July 2004 the applicant continued working as judicial secretary. The employer ordered further appraisals of the applicant in the forthcoming months. The applicant contested the grounds and the results of these appraisals.\n6.  The applicant initiated labour lawsuit against her employer on 25 March 2005. On 15 December 2008 the Székesfehérvár Labour Court partly found for the applicant, however, it dismissed the overwhelming part of her claim.\n7.  On appeal, the Fejér County Court upheld the judgment on 30 September 2009.\n8.  The applicant challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court which upheld the judgment on 17 January 2011.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8746", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicants were born in 1948 and live in Budapest.\n5.  The applicants have had a long-lasting legal dispute with a housing cooperative and two individuals in respect of ownership right to a real property. The applicants’ several claims for title were dismissed by the competent courts.\n6.  The applicants lodged an action in damages against the housing cooperative and the two individuals on 15 October 2002.\n7.  The procedure was suspended on 17 December 2004 for eighteen months due to other pending proceedings before the land registry authority.\n8.  Subsequently, after several hearings, the first-instance court partly found for the applicants on 9 March 2010.\n9.  On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and dismissed the applicants’ claim on 30 November 2010.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8747", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Komló.\n5.   On 19 February 2003 the applicant was interrogated as suspect of forgery of private documents.\n6.  The Public Prosecutor preferred a bill of indictment on 8 October 2004. Subsequently, on 27 June 2005 the Public Prosecutor extended the charges against the applicant with charge of fraud.\n7.  In the ensuing criminal proceedings on 23 March 2010 the Komló District Court acquitted the applicant in respect of fraud and found him guilty in forgery of private documents.\n8.  On appeal of the Public Prosecutor, the Baranya County Court reversed the judgment and acquitted the applicant in respect of all charges on 20 May 2011.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8748", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Győr.\n5.  The applicant’s ex-husband initiated civil lawsuit before Győr District Court against the applicant for dissolution of marital property and for return of present on 21 February 2003.\n6.  The court separated the claim to two proceedings and dismissed the claimant’s claim in respect of the return of present.\n7.  Subsequently, after several hearings, the first-instance court delivered the judgment in respect of dissolution of the marital property on 13 January 2010.\n8.  On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal delivered the final and binding judgment on 7 July 2011 amending the first-instance judgment in several aspects.\n9.  Both the applicant and the claimant challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court which upheld the judgment on 2 October 2012.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8750", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  Although the present case primarily relates to the anti-riot operation of 26 September 1999, that operation in fact constituted the climax of a series of long-standing conflicts between the Ulucanlar prison staff and some of the 170 male and female prisoners convicted of belonging to illegal extreme left-wing organisations (“the leftist prisoners”).\nIt transpires from old classified documents exchanged among the office of the prosecutor attached to Ulucanlar Prison (“the prosecutor’s office”), the Governor of Ankara (“the Governor”) and the various regional gendarmerie commands, including the Ankara Gendarmerie Command (“the CDGA”), that the hostilities between the prison authorities and the prisoners dated back to 1996 (see paragraph 8 below). Since that time the authorities had been aware of the problems, particularly relating to overcrowding and the age and inadequate facilities of the Ulucanlar complex, which, moreover, had been intended as a short-term prison and should never have housed convicted prisoners. It transpires from the various information sources that the exiguity of the living area in the “dormitories”[4] was central to the leftist prisoners’ complaints and actions, which they conducted together despite their political differences and personal conflicts of interest.\nA clearer picture might be gained of the present dispute by recapitulating the factors mentioned in the above-mentioned exchange of documents and the facts noted by the five-MP sub-commission set up under the Commission of Inquiry into Human Rights in the Turkish National Assembly (“the Sub-Commission”) in order to investigate and ascertain the circumstances under which the impugned incidents had occurred.\n8.  On 5 January 1996, under the Governor’s supervision, the prosecutor’s office, the CDGA, the gendarmerie unit on duty at Ulucanlar (“CGP”) and the other gendarmerie commands drew up their so-called “Anti-Prison Riot Action Plan No. 1”. The authorities in question were convinced that the leftist prisoners were planning a mass break-out, that they would therefore probably engineer an internal clash among the various extreme left-wing fractions in the prison and would dig tunnels, knock down walls, occupy the roofs, start fires and, finally, trigger an insurrection against the prison authorities. The authorities considered that as the CGP lacked the operational capacities to deal with such eventualities, they had to work together in order to identify the ringleaders and ensure durable security in the prison.\nOn 16 January 1996 the Governor ratified the plan, under which the CGP would be backed up by auxiliary forces, that is to say two senior officers and twenty gendarmes, to be seconded from other commands, accompanied by the local police.\n9.  However, that plan was not implemented as foreseen.\nAccordingly, on 31 July 1996 the authorities met to reassess the situation and draw up a new Action Plan in accordance with the Prime-Ministerial Directive of 12 November 1993 concerning the suppression of rioting in prisons.\nOn 2 August 1996 the Secretary General of the National Security Council urged the relevant ministries and several decision-making bodies, as well as the Governors’ Offices, to implement that new plan promptly, drawing on some more specific coercive measures. In substance, the parts of the plan relevant to the assessment of the present case were based on short- and medium-term actions, as follows[5]:\n–  refusing any compromise with the “te", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8751", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1986 and lives in Chișinău.\n6.  The applicant lived with her four-year-old daughter, A., and with her mother, G.\n7.  Following a call from C.I., on 22 September 2011 the police removed A. from her home and placed her in the care of the Municipal Children’s Hospital “V. Ignatenco”. A medical report drawn up on the same day found that the applicant had severe alcohol intoxication.\n8.  C.I. later stated to the police that, as a salesman in a shop on a street near the applicant’s house, he would regularly see the applicant and her mother drinking alcohol and failing to take care of A., who often had an unkempt appearance and would wander around without adult surveillance, asking for food. He called the police on the evening of 22 September 2011 after A. had asked him to call for an ambulance because her mother and grandmother had been fighting.\n9.  On an unspecified date the Ciocana Police Office reported to the Ciocana Child Protection Service the circumstances of their intervention on 22 September 2011:\n“On 22 September around 8.45 p.m. [a call] was registered about domestic violence occurring at [the applicant’s address]. At the scene [the applicant and her mother], both visibly drunk, were found exhibiting aggressive behaviour and were unkempt in their appearance. Physical and psychological violence was exercised in the presence of the child.\nA child was found in the yard ... she looked unkempt and said that she had not eaten anything the whole day.\nFrom discussions with the neighbour who had called the police, it was established that the child had been without surveillance for a week, in an unkempt state and sometimes asking for food. Subsequently the child was identified as A.\nAt the scene it was also established that the child lives in unsanitary conditions, without electricity. The child does not have the basic requirements for her physical and intellectual development, and is not enrolled in any pre-school institution. ... [S]he does not have a healthy diet [because she] begs food from neighbours.\n...[The applicant] was directed to undergo an examination in order to assess the level and the nature of her intoxication.\n...On 22 September 2011 the child inspector who was present at the scene called for an ambulance which took the child to [hospital] for medical investigation and appropriate medical assistance ....\nThe Ciocana Police Office is currently investigating whether [the applicant] had committed an offence under Article 63 (2) of the Code of Administrative Offences. ...\n[We request] ... adoption of a decision on the placement of the child in a special institution and the lodging of an action in court seeking withdrawal of [the applicant’s] parental authority”.\n10.  On 23 September 2011 a social worker and a psychologist from a non-governmental organisation visited the applicant’s home and found that the house was in disorder and lacked running water, electricity and gas.\n11.  On 27 September 2011 the applicant was interviewed by a Ciocana police officer. On the same day a police report concluded that the applicant was failing to duly fulfil her parental duties of educating and caring for her child because her abuse of alcohol, quarrelling or fighting with her mother in the child’s presence, and at times using physical violence towards her mother. The report concluded that the applicant had committed an offence under Article 63 (1) of the Code of Administrative Offences and took into account the a", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8752", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  The applicant was the director of the Eminönü district branch of HADEP (Halkın Demokrasi Partisi – the People’s Democracy Party) in Istanbul at the time of the events giving rise to the application.\n7.  On 24 June 2000 a number of trade unions organised a demonstration in Istanbul. During the demonstration, some participants carried signs and chanted slogans in support of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), an illegal armed organisation. These demonstrators were identified by the police as members of HADEP.\n8.  On 26 June 2000 the public prosecutor at Istanbul State Security Court applied for a warrant to search the offices of four branches of HADEP to obtain incriminating evidence concerning the PKK.\n9.  On the same date the Istanbul State Security Court issued a search warrant.\n10.  That same evening police officers from the Istanbul police headquarters conducted a search of the Eminönü branch office of HADEP. The search protocol, which was signed by the applicant, indicated that illegal publications and flags and symbols of the PKK had been found there, together with pictures, articles and books pertaining to Mr Öcalan.\n11.  On the same date the applicant was taken to the Istanbul police headquarters for questioning. The police officers informed the applicant of his right under Article 135 (3) of the former Code of Criminal Procedure to request a lawyer. However, the applicant did not ask for a lawyer. In his statement, the applicant contended that, although he was the director of the Eminönü district office of HADEP, he was not always present at the office and that he had not been aware of the existence of the pictures and symbols regarding Mr Öcalan and the PKK found in the office. He similarly denied responsibility for the illegal publications and books which had been found on the premises, which he claimed had been brought in by publishers or other persons visiting the office without his knowledge. He claimed that whenever he came across similar pictures and symbols, he requested their removal. This statement was signed by the applicant.\n12.  On 27 June 2000 the applicant was questioned by the Istanbul public prosecutor, to whom he repeated the statement he had previously made to the police. The applicant also waived his right to request a lawyer before the public prosecutor.\n13.  On 30 June 2000 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant, charging him with praising and condoning acts punishable by law under Article 312 § 1 of the former Criminal Code.\n14.  On 19 January 2001 the Istanbul Criminal Court held the first hearing. At the end of the hearing, to which the applicant attended, the court decided to hold the next hearing on 15 June 2001.\n15.  On 15 June 2001, at the second hearing, the Istanbul public prosecutor presented his opinion (esas hakkında mütalaa) to the first‑instance court in the absence of the applicant. In his opinion, the public prosecutor advised that the court should find the applicant guilty as charged. The Istanbul Criminal Court accordingly convicted the applicant at the end of the hearing, and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of 91,260,000 old Turkish liras (TRL)[1]. In its judgment the domestic court held that the applicant’s defence lacked credibility and that the display of symbols and pictures pertaining to the PKK and Mr Öcalan in the party building ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8753", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Szczecin.\n6.  The applicant and her husband married in 1979 under the statutory regime of common marital property, provided for by the provisions of the 1994 Family and Custody Code. Under the applicable provisions of that Code they had equal shares in their common property.\n7.  By an administrative decision of 20 November 1989 the Szczecin Town Council (Urząd Miejski) held that the applicant’s husband, Mr Henryk Żuk, was determined a candidate to purchase two plots of land, nos. 184/3 and 187/3, owned at that time by the State Treasury and managed on its behalf by the State Land Fund (Państwowy Fundusz Ziemi). The Town Council, representing the State Treasury at that time, was obliged to sell the land to him on the basis of that decision. The administrative body established a three-month time-limit for the sale contract to be concluded.\n8.  J.S., W.K. and W.H., who had also applied to purchase the plots of land concerned, appealed against this decision. On 21 March 1990 the Director of the Regional Land Management Office in Szczecin (Urząd Wojewódzki) dismissed the appeal brought by J.S. It further confirmed the entitlement to purchase the land created by the contested decision, considering, inter alia, that the plots concerned were adjacent to a farm owned and run by the applicant and her husband and that therefore they were natural candidates for the purchase. The authority referred to the Act on Selling State-Owned Properties 1958 (ustawa o sprzedaży nieruchomości Państwowego Funduszu Ziemi).\n9.  By letters of 27 April 1990 and 23 July 1990 the Mayor of Szczecin (Prezydent m. Szczecina) informed the applicant and her husband that the decision of 20 November 1989 confirmed by the decision of 21 March 1990 could not be executed because W.K. had also contested it. The proceedings had therefore been re-opened ex officio. It was further stated that after the finalization of the appellate proceedings, the documents would be forwarded to the Cooperative Bank in Szczecin in order for the contract to be concluded. The three-month time-limit for the conclusion of the contract would start to run only after the decision became final.\n10.  On 16 April 1993 the Szczecin Governor (Wojewoda) upheld the validity of the decision of 20 November 1989. On 6 June 1994 the Minister of Agriculture dismissed the appeals referred to in paragraph 8 above. On 16 October 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court in Warsaw dismissed the appeal brought by W.K.\nAccordingly, the contested decision became final on an unspecified date in early 1996.\n11.  On 16 May 1994 a new local land development plan (plan zagospodarowania przestrzennego) was adopted by the Szczecin municipality.\n12.  On 27 March 1998 the Szczecin Governor (Wojewoda) gave an administrative decision transferring ownership of the land concerned to the Agency of Agricultural Property of the State Treasury (Agencja Własności Rolnej Skarbu Państwa) in order for the 1989 decision to be executed. The Agency appealed. On 10 January 2002 the Minister of Agriculture quashed this decision. He found that under the provisions of the Szczecin land development plan of 1994 the lands situated within the administrative limits of the municipality and intended for agricultural purposes were not to be owned by the State Treasury and therefore not subject to transfer to the resources of the Agency.\n13.  The Szczecin Town Council, when subsequently called by the applicant and ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8754", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant company is a shipping company in liquidation incorporated under Greek Law in 1991, with its legal seat in Kallithea, Greece.\n5.  On 13 March 1995 the Vlora District Court decided that the applicant company’s vessel had been unlawfully seized. This decision was upheld on appeal and it became final at the latest on 1 August 1995.\n6.  On 1 December 1995 the applicant company brought a civil action against the local Treasury office (“Seksioni i Financës - Dega e Thesarit Vlorë”), the district prosecutor’s office (“Prokuroria e Rrethit Vlorë”) and the local Customs Administration (“Dogana e Rrethit Vlorë”), seeking compensation in respect of the damage caused by the unlawful seizure. The Customs Administration lodged a counter action requesting payment of expenses for keeping the vessel.\n7.  On 4 July 1996 the Vlora District Court dismissed both civil actions.\n8.  On 14 November 1996 the Tirana Court of Appeal quashed that decision. It ordered the local Treasury office to pay the applicant company 1,621,575 United States dollars (“USD”) for damages. It further ordered the applicant company to pay the Customs Administration USD 333,120 to cover the expenses incurred for the keeping of the vessel.\n9.  On 30 July 1997 the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision. After this had become final, on 27 October 1997 an enforcement writ was issued at the request of the applicant company.\n10.  On 22 April 1999 the Customs Administration and the district prosecutor lodged a request for supervisory review (“rekurs në interes të ligjit”) against the Supreme Court’s decision. On 29 March 2000 the Supreme Court requested the appellants to resubmit the request as well as supplementary documents. On 28 April 2000 the appellants resubmitted the request. It would appear that the request was never examined by the Supreme Court.\n11.  On three occasions, namely on 10 November 1999, in 2003 and on 21 June 2006 the applicant company requested the bailiff to enforce the Court of Appeal’s decision, as upheld by the Supreme Court. It accordingly paid the bailiff tax in part.\n12.  On 8 August 2000 the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings, having regard to the impossibility of the Savings Bank to freeze the local Treasury’s bank account.\n13.  On 3 February 2005 the applicant company withdrew its enforcement request.\n14.  From 2006 to 2008 the bailiff unsuccessfully sought the enforcement of the decision from the local Treasury office and the Ministry of Finance. The bailiff further fined the director of the local Treasury office for failure to enforce the decision. On 10 March 2008 it discontinued the enforcement on the grounds that the enforcement writ did not specify the nature of the obligation that had to be enforced and the applicant company had failed to pay the bailiff tax in full.\n15.  To date, the final decision remains unenforced.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8756", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod.\n6.  In August 2007 the body of a man with multiple injuries was found in a public garden in Nizhniy Novgorod and an investigation started into the murder.\n7.  On 14 September 2007 the applicant was arrested by police officers of the Kanavinskiy district police department of Nizhniy Novgorod (управление внутренних дел Канавинского района Нижнего Новогорода – “the Kanavinskiy RUVD”) at a house in the village of Druzhkovo in the Nizhniy Novgorod region. He was taken to the Kanavinskiy RUVD with Mr M.K., Ms N. and Ms S., who had been at the house with him at the time. They arrived at about 8 p.m. and were interviewed by the same officers about the murder.\n8.  According to the applicant, M.K. was beaten up and gave statements implicating him in the murder, which he confirmed during a confrontation with the applicant in the presence of an investigator in the murder case. He subsequently retracted them.\n9.  At about 2.30 a.m. the next morning the officers interviewed the applicant, demanding that he confess to the murder. He refused to do so and was allegedly beaten up.\n10.  At 5.55 a.m. an official record was drawn up of his arrest as a suspect in the murder case.\n11.  The applicant’s ill-treatment allegedly lasted until the arrival of an investigator from the Kanavinskiy District Investigation Department of the Investigative Committee at the Nizhniy Novgorod regional prosecutor’s office (“the Investigative Committee”), who was in charge of the murder case. The investigator arrived at about 6.30 a.m. and questioned the applicant in the presence of a lawyer. He refused to confess.\n12.  At 9.20 a.m. the applicant was placed in the Kanavinskiy RUVD’s temporary detention facility (“the IVS”). According to its records, he wrote two statements concerning the origin of his injuries, notably an abrasion on his chin and bruising to his chest. One of the statements read that he had received the injuries “before [arriving] at the IVS”, while the other said “on 14 September on Sovetskaya Street in the village of Druzhkovo”.\n13.  At about 7.30 p.m. the applicant was taken to pre‑trial detention facility SIZO-52/1. He was examined by a doctor on duty, who reported the following injuries to the head of administration: haemorrhages on the upper chest up to 7cm in size, a haematoma on the left shoulder, an abrasion on the chin and an oedema on the back of the head. The applicant wrote to the head of the SIZO explaining that he had been beaten up by police officers of the Kanavinskiy RUVD on 15 September 2007 and requested that an inquiry be carried out. The information about his alleged ill‑treatment was communicated to the Kanavinskiy district prosecutor’s office, which transferred it to the Investigative Committee on 26 September 2007.\n14.  In November 2007 two police officers visited the applicant in SIZO‑52/1 and allegedly demanded under threat that he confess to the murder. He signed a confession which he later retracted. He subsequently stood trial for the murder. There is no information in the case file about the outcome of those proceedings.\n15.  An investigator of the Investigative Committee carried out a pre‑investigation inquiry, in the course of which he interviewed operative officer K. of the Kanavinskiy RUVD, who had arrested the applicant and taken him to the police station for questioning by the investigator in the murder case. K. asserted that no physical violence had been used", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8757", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Ukhta, the Komi Republic.\n6.  In April 2005 a jewellery shop and other premises in a commercial centre in the Sosnogorsk district of the Komi Republic were robbed; in the course of those events, a woman guard was attacked and suffered injuries. Investigator A., from the investigation unit of the Sosnogorsk police department, opened a criminal case into the robbery. On 15 June 2005 the criminal proceedings were suspended for failure to establish the identity of a person to be charged.\n7.  On 25 August 2005 a certain R. reported to the police that her boyfriend B. had committed the robbery together with Zh. and the applicant. On the same day investigator A. reopened the criminal proceedings.\n8.  On 26 August 2005 the police arrested B., Zh. and the applicant. Investigator A. was present at the time of the arrest. The three men were taken to the Sosnogorsk police department of the Komi Republic (отдел внутренних дел г. Сосногорска Республики Коми).\n9.  Police officers, in particular Z., the head of the criminal police division of the Sosnogorsk police department, interviewed the applicant about his involvement in the robbery. According to the applicant, they demanded that he confess to the robbery and G., an operative officer in the criminal investigation unit of the police department, punched and kicked him on different parts of his body. Fearing new violence, the applicant confessed to having participated in the crime as requested, and signed a record of his “surrender and confession” (явка с повинной) that had been drawn up by operative officer G. at Z.’s request.\n10.  According to that record, on 26 August 2005 in office no. 12 of the Sosnogorsk police department police officer G. obtained from the applicant his confession to the crime, in accordance with Article 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (“CCrP”). In particular, the record stated that the applicant had assisted B. and Zh. by loading the property stolen from the shops into his car and transporting it; that he had confessed without any physical or psychological pressure being exerted on him; and that he had been informed of Article 51 of the Constitution. The record did not indicate the exact time when the confession was obtained and did not explain the meaning of Article 51 of the Constitution (concerning self-incrimination, see paragraphs 28, 47 and 49 below).\n11.  At Z.’s request, the applicant wrote in the police station visitors’ registration log that he had struck his own head against a wall, and that he had no complaints against the police officers.\n12.  At 2.57 p.m. on the same day investigator A. drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest as a suspect in the case.\n13.  On the same day the applicant was placed in a temporary detention facility (IVS) at the Ukhta police department. According to the IVS records, on arrival he had bruises under his eyes, his lips were burst, his lower jaw was swollen on the left side, and he had bruises on his back and abrasions on his knees.\n14.  On 27 August 2005 the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the presence of a lawyer. He retracted the confession statement that he had given on the previous day, and explained that he had made the statement as a result of ill‑treatment by the police officers.\n15.  On 30 August 2005 a judge of the Sosnogorsk Town Court ordered that the applicant be detained on remand. In reply to the judge’s question about the origin ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8758", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants, daughter and mother, were born in 1949 and 1921, respectively, and live in Ajdovščina.\n6.  On 2 February 1989 the Ajdovščina Municipality Land Consolidation Commission (hereinafter “the Commission”) adopted a land consolidation programme concerning, inter alia, land owned by the first applicant’s legal predecessor and a separate piece of land owned by the second applicant.\n7.  On 4 March 1989 the first applicant’s legal predecessor and the second applicant appealed against the Commission’s decision before the Slovenian Surveying and Mapping Authority (“the Authority”), arguing that they had not been duly compensated for the plots which they had owned and which had been transferred to the land consolidation programme.\n8.  On 6 November 1990 the Commission amended the land consolidation programme by assigning the second applicant a different plot of land. The second applicant appealed against the decision.\n9.  On 21 December 1990 the first applicant’s predecessor lodged an appeal for the failure of the Authority to adopt a decision within the prescribed time-limit.\n10.  On 1 February 1991 the Authority granted the first applicant’s legal predecessor’s appeal, remitting the case to the Commission for further consideration. The Authority found that the operative part of the decision lacked clarity and that the Commission had misapplied the law.\n11.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention became operational in respect of Slovenia.\n12.  On 16 November 1994 the Authority granted the second applicant’s appeal against the decision of 6 November 1990, finding that the operative part of the decision was inconsistent with its reasoning. The case was remitted to the Commission for further consideration.\n13.  On 15 December 1994, 15 March 1996, 24 April 1996 and 20 February 1997 the first applicant’s predecessor and the second applicant lodged informal motions before the Commission, asking that the proceedings be expedited.\n14.  On 10 April 1997 – the Commission having failed to undertake further examination of their cases – the first applicant’s legal predecessor and the second applicant each lodged a separate appeal with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (“the Ministry”) alleging that the Commission had failed to adopt a decision within the prescribed time-limit. Moreover, on 30 June 1997 they both appealed to the Ministry to expedite the resolution of their respective land consolidation decisions.\n15.  On 25 September 1997 – the Ministry not having responded to their appeal – the first applicant’s legal predecessor and the second applicant brought an action before the Administrative Court for the failure of the Ministry to adopt a decision within the prescribed time-limit.\n16.  On 24 September 1999 the Administrative Court allowed those actions and ordered the Ministry to decide on the matter at issue within thirty days from the date on which its judgment became final.\n17.  Meanwhile, on 16 August 1999 the Ajdovščina Administrative Unit (previously the Commission, hereinafter “the Administrative Unit”), which had acquired competence to decide on matters of land consolidation, adopted new decisions on the land at issue.\n18.  On 23 September 1999 the first applicant’s legal predecessor and the second applicant appealed before the Ministry against those decisions.\n19.  On 25 August 2000 their appeals were allowed by the Ministry, which again assigned them different plots of land to compensate them for the loss of their origin", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8759", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1960, 1963, 1988 and 1986 respectively and live in Zonguldak. The first two applicants are the parents, the third applicant is the brother and the fourth applicant is the fiancée of Mr Toğay Gültekin.\n6.  Toğay Gültekin was born in 1983 and started doing his compulsory military service on 22 August 2003 in the city of Kırklareli. At that time he had no known health problems.\n7.  On 17 March 2004 Toğay Gültekin was examined by a doctor at his regiment and the doctor decided to refer him to a hospital specialising in infectious diseases. On 22 March 2004 a doctor who examined him at his regiment’s infirmary referred him to Trakya University Hospital (“The University Hospital”) for suspected hepatitis or meningoencephalitis. The following day Toğay Gültekin was sent to the hospital in Edirne where, after a number of examinations were conducted, he was diagnosed with fulminant hepatitis (acute liver failure). A decision was taken on 24 March 2004 to send him to the Haydarpaşa GATA Hospital in Istanbul for a liver transplant operation. On arrival at the hospital in Istanbul the same afternoon he was put in the intensive care unit.\n8.  At 5.15 p.m. on 27 March 2004 he died at the GATA Hospital. No autopsy was performed.\n9.  An investigation was carried out at the military unit where Toğay Gültekin had been doing his military service. On 30 and 31 March 2004 a total of eleven military personnel who knew or had had dealings with Toğay Gültekin were questioned by their superiors.\n10.  The eleven military personnel all stated that Toğay Gültekin had spoken to his commanding officer on 16 February 2004 and told him that a friend of his had hepatitis and that he had suspected that he might also have contracted the same disease. His superior had then transferred him to the regiment’s infirmary where tests had been conducted, establishing that he did not have hepatitis.\n11.  One of the eleven military personnel was the doctor who had examined Toğay Gültekin in the regiment’s infirmary on 22 March 2004 (see paragraph 7 above). The doctor stated that on 22 March 2004 Toğay Gültekin had come to see him because he had been feeling unwell and the colour of his urine had been darker than usual. He had then sent Toğay Gültekin for a urine examination and when he had got the results back he had noticed a problem. The same day he had asked for Toğay Gültekin to be referred to the University Hospital.\n12.  The military officers who carried out the investigation concluded, on the basis of the statements referred to above, that the military authorities had acted in accordance with their duties when providing medical assistance to Toğay Gültekin and that there had been no fault attributable to them in his death.\n13.  On 28 September 2004 the applicants initiated compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Defence before the Supreme Military Administrative Court (“the Military Administrative Court”). They argued, in particular, that Toğay Gültekin had not received prompt or adequate medical care in his regiment.\n14.  The applicants submitted in their petition that, according to the official documents in their possession, Toğay Gültekin had been examined by a doctor attached to his regiment on 17 March 2004 and that the doctor had recommended his transfer to a hospital specialising in infectious diseases. Nevertheless, the military authorities had not followed that recommendation. When his condition had deteriorated he had been ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8761", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Sulejówek.\n7.  In April 2007 the applicant’s wife left the matrimonial home and moved to Zakopane with the couple’s son M., who was born on 1 July 2004.\n8.  On 22 November 2007 the applicant lodged an application with the Zakopane District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) for the establishment of contact.\n9.  On 7 February 2008 he withdrew the application in the light of the parties’ agreement to establish the contact arrangement by way of a friendly settlement. On the same date the Zakopane District Court discontinued the proceedings.\n10.  On 4 July 2008 the applicant again requested that the Zakopane District Court regulate his contact with his child. On 22 August 2008 he asked the same court to issue an interim contact order in that regard.\n11.  On 3 September 2008 the Zakopane District Court issued an interim contact order. It ruled that the applicant was allowed to visit the child at the mother’s home on the first and third Saturday of each month from 2 to 7 p.m. The applicant was also allowed to take the child outside his place of residence accompanied by his mother. The court noted that the applicant had encountered difficulties in having regular contact with his son and that he had not seen his child since July 2008. The court further observed that at the material time it had not been established whether the applicant could be granted access without the child’s mother’s presence.\n12.  Meanwhile, on 29 August 2008 the applicant’s wife brought an action for separation before the Nowy Sącz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on the basis of the applicant being the party at fault. She requested that she be granted custody of her son and that the child have his place of residence with her. She also requested that the court hear evidence from nine witnesses.\n13.  On 20 October 2008 the applicant filed for separation on the basis of his wife being the party at fault. He asked that the court hear evidence from twenty-two witnesses.\n14.  On 21 October 2008 the case was transferred to the Siedlce Regional Court.\n15.  On 23 February 2009 the applicant lodged a petition for divorce with the Siedlce Regional Court on the basis of his wife being the party at fault. He also requested that the court grant him custody of his son and rule that the child’s place of residence was to be with him. On the same date he asked the court to issue an interim order for contact for the duration of the divorce proceedings.\n16.  The cases for separation and for divorce were subsequently joined and the first hearing was scheduled for 30 June 2009. At the request of the applicant’s wife, the hearing was adjourned until 25 August 2009. The court instructed the court’s guardian (kurator sądowy) to conduct a local assessment (wywiad środowiskowy) at the child’s place of residence.\n17.  The first hearing in the divorce case was held by the Siedlce Regional Court on 25 August 2009. The court heard evidence from the parties.\n18.  On the same date the Siedlce Regional Court issued an interim contact order pending the outcome of the divorce proceedings. The applicant was allowed to have contact with his son every second and fourth weekend of the month and every Wednesday, outside the child’s place of residence but in the presence of the child’s mother.\n19.  Both the applicant and his wife lodged appeals against this decision.\n20.  On 14 December 2009 the applicant requested that the court authorise him to contact his son by phone three time", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8762", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  According to the applicants, at the relevant time the first three applicants were leaders, the fourth, fifth and seventh applicants were members, and the sixth applicant was a supporter of the Ukrainian National Assembly (“the UNA”), a nationalist party. At the relevant time, the UNA was associated with an unregistered organisation known as the Ukrainian National Solidarity Organisation or Ukrainian National Self-Defence Force (“the UNSO”).\n7.  In late 2000 and early 2001 a group of politicians and organisations who were in opposition to the then President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma launched a series of large-scale rallies and demonstrations and a civil campaign known as “Ukraine without Kuchma” movement.\n8.  According to media reports, on 8 March 2001, the organisations engaged in the movement publicly announced that protesters were planning not to let President Kuchma come to the monument to Taras Shevchenko, a famous Ukrainian poet, in Kyiv (“the Shevchenko monument”) and lay flowers there the next day, 9 March 2001, the 187th anniversary of Taras Shevchenko’s birth.\n9.  On 9 March 2001 at about 8 a.m. the applicants and other UNA and UNSO supporters participated in a political rally near the Shevchenko monument announced by the opposition forces on 8 March 2001. As established by the domestic courts, the organisers failed to give advance formal notice to the authorities about the rally, as provided by Article 39 of the Constitution of Ukraine (see paragraphs 60 and 86 below).\n10.  Prior to the arrival of protesters, the police and troops of the Ministry of the Interior (“the police”) formed a cordon, and for some time did not allow the participants of the rally to approach the monument. The cordon had been formed to allow President Kuchma and other State officials to lay flowers at the monument. As established by domestic courts, the protesters attempted to break through the cordon to disrupt the flower-laying ceremony and attacked the police (see paragraph 52 below). The police moved on protesters seeking to control and break up the crowd. No information has been provided by the parties as to whether the police explicitly ordered the protesters to disperse. It is undisputed that clashes between the police and protesters ensued and as a result of the events a number of police officers were injured.\n11.  In the course of events near the Shevchenko monument several protesters were arrested. At around 2 p.m. the same day a column of protesters, including the applicants, marched to the Ministry of the Interior building to demand their release. They dismantled a wooden barrier nearby, pelted the building with eggs and then left.\n12.  At about 3 p.m. the same day a group of protesters, including the applicants, marching away from the Ministry of the Interior building to the center of the city arrived at Bankova Street, where they clashed with police officers who had cordoned off the street to block access to the President’s Administration building located there. The police officers were attacked with stones and a metal street barrier, and a Molotov cocktail was thrown at them. As the domestic courts established in convicting the applicants, as a result of the clashes forty-nine police officers were injured, including fourteen with concussion.\n13.  According to the findings of the domestic courts, the first three applicants played a leading role in inciting and directing attacks on the police near the Shevchenko monument and Bankova Stre", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8763", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Focșani.\n6.  As administrator of four commercial companies, the applicant concluded several contracts with different commercial companies for the supply of merchandise. In payment for the merchandise the applicant issued several cheques.\n7.  On an unspecified date a criminal investigation was initiated against the applicant for fraud in connection with the cheques issued for the payment of the merchandise.\n8.  On 24 June 2003 the prosecutor’s office attached to the Vrancea County Court informed the applicant, in his capacity as administrator of one of the four companies, that the criminal investigation initiated against him was going to be discontinued because the elements of the offence of fraud were missing.\n9.  On 3 July 2003 one of the sellers lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant, accusing him of fraud (înşelăciune) under Article 215 of the Criminal Code (as in force at the material time) for having issued cheques and promissory notes without holding the necessary funds in the companies’ accounts and after the companies’ accounts had been frozen.\n10.  On 8 September 2003, the prosecutor ordered criminal proceedings to be instituted against the applicant on charges of fraud. The investigation took place in the absence of the applicant, who had left the country on 25 June 2003.\n11.  According to documents submitted by the applicant, his wife instituted divorce civil proceedings against him. By a final judgment of 20 October 2003 the Focșani District Court allowed her claim and pronounced the divorce.\n12.  On 13 November 2003, the prosecutor issued an indictment for aggravated fraud under Article 215 § § 1, 3 and 4 of the Criminal Code. The case was registered with the Vrancea County Court.\n13.  The proceedings before the first-instance court took place in the applicant’s absence on the grounds that the applicant’s domicile abroad was unknown. The applicant was represented by I.B., a lawyer assigned by the court. In his final submissions before the court the latter maintained that the bill of indictment contained many errors because the investigation had been carried out in the applicant’s absence. His main argument was that the applicant had not committed the acts with the intention of deceive his business partners. In this respect he added that the applicant had continued to pay his debts. He contested the allegation that the cheques had been issued after his companies’ accounts had been frozen. Moreover, several cheques had been issued while the applicant was abroad. He also contested the amounts that the applicant allegedly had to reimburse to different creditors.\n14.  On 13 May 2005 the Vrancea County Court found the applicant guilty of fraud and imposed a three-year prison sentence suspended on probation. It found that the applicant, in his capacity as administrator of four commercial companies had issued cheques after the companies’ accounts had been frozen and without holding the necessary funds in the companies’ accounts.\n15.  Both the applicant and the prosecutor’s office appealed against the judgment. The applicant claimed, inter alia, that his defence rights had not been observed as he had not been notified about the accusations against him and had not been summoned by the investigating authorities to attend the hearing. In this respect, the applicant claimed that he had been unaware that criminal proceedings were pending against him. He admitted that his criminal", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8764", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Ruše.\n6.  On 11 November 2006 K.R. sent a letter to the applicant by registered mail. In the letter, she asked the applicant to repay a loan which she had given to her in 2004 within thirty days of receipt of the letter, and stated that she would institute court proceedings if the applicant failed to pay.\n7.  Following the applicant’s refusal on 13 November 2006 to accept the letter and sign the notice of receipt, K.R. resent it by ordinary mail.\n8.  On 20 November 2006 the applicant replied to K.R. with a letter, the relevant parts of which read:\n“I do not owe you anything!\nIt is true that you gave me some money as a gift. I did not want to take it, but you literally forced me, saying that you did not have anyone to whom you could give it and that I had helped you a lot... Those were your words, remember!\nFor the time being, I do not have any money. I have a loan that I have not yet repaid; therefore, for now, I cannot return your gift.\n...\nWhen I have it, I will gladly return your gift!”\n9.  On 13 December 2006 K.R. brought an action against the applicant, claiming repayment of the loan (totalling 14,000 euros (EUR)) which she had allegedly given to her in July and August 2004, on the basis of oral agreements. In order to prove that the loan existed, K.R. attached to her claim the letter written by the applicant on 20 November 2006 (see paragraph 8 above), as the only evidence in support of her claim.\n10.  On 22 January 2007 the applicant, allegedly unaware of the claim which had been brought against her, travelled to Vienna in order to obtain a visa for a trip to Namibia. She stayed in Vienna until 26 January 2007, when she obtained a visa, and flew to Namibia on the same day.\n11.  On 24 January 2007 the Maribor District Court forwarded K.R.’s claim to the applicant, advising her that she had thirty days to file her observations. Referring to section 277 of the Civil Procedure Act, the District Court warned the applicant that, in the event that she failed to reply within the given time-limit, it would grant the claim by default judgment.\n12.  On 25 January 2007 the postman tried (unsuccessfully) to serve the applicant with the court documents, including the claim, at her home address. He left in her mailbox a standard official delivery slip used in registered mail deliveries, which was printed on a thin piece of paper measuring 7.3 cm by 10 cm. The slip informed her that he would return the following day.\n13.  The following day, having not located the applicant at her address, the postman left another delivery slip of identical dimensions in her mailbox, informing her that she could collect the relevant correspondence at the post office within the next fifteen days. The delivery slip included a reference to sections 140 and 141 of the Civil Procedure Act (see paragraph 26 below).\n14.  As the applicant did not collect the mail from the post office within fifteen days, the letter in question was returned to the Maribor District Court by the post office, with a note indicating that the correspondence had not been collected, and that a delivery slip had been left in the applicant’s mailbox. Service was deemed to have been effected on 26 January 2007, when the delivery slip was left in her mailbox; therefore, the deadline for her to file any observations expired on 26 February 2007.\n15.  The applicant claims that, upon her return from Namibia on 24 March 2007, she did not find either of the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8765", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Orel. At the time of the events the applicant, a Ph.D. in Physics and Mathematics, was a tenured professor in the physics department of the Orel State Technical University.\n6.  By Order no. 383 of 14 December 2006, the president (ректор) of the Orel State Technical University convened a university-wide conference for the election of the university’s academic senate (ученый совет), its standing governing body. The date of the conference was fixed for 26 December 2006. According to the Regulation on the Composition of the Academic Senate of the Orel University, candidates to the senate were to be nominated at staff meetings in structural entities by open majority vote (section 3 of the Regulation of 12 December 2006).\n7.  Unhappy about the fact that neither he nor his colleagues in the physics department had been consulted or informed about the nomination and discussion of candidates to the academic senate, the applicant took the floor at the above public conference and spoke as follows:\n“... the elected academic senate may not be considered a legitimate body and its decisions likewise cannot be considered legitimate. All of them can be challenged in courts. The problem is that the staff or departments did not know anything about the candidates to the academic senate or of their academic achievements; no one nominated those candidates. This is some kind of a private party that is going on, some people have gathered and elected themselves. My rights have been violated: I, as a member of the faculty, have been excluded from the procedure which is of great importance both for me and for the university as a whole – the election of the academic senate. My rights have been breached, and I will complain to courts about the breaches of my rights. The rights of ordinary university employees, ordinary lecturers, have been breached, too: they were removed from the election to the academic senate, this is discrimination. Any discrimination is a form of war; you have declared war to the people, and sooner or later you will get the results of this war in some way or another, in your own families.”\n8.  The Orel University sued the applicant in defamation, claiming that his speech had undermined the professional reputation of the university and of its academic senate. The statement of claim was signed by the university president.\n9.  The Sovetskiy District Court of Orel reviewed the university statutes and regulations on the procedure for the election of the academic senate and took oral evidence from witnesses. Four witnesses testified that the physics department had not held a meeting for the election of delegates to the conference or nomination of candidates to the senate because the delegates and candidates had been elected and nominated at the meeting between the heads of departments. The staff had been informed about the meeting several days in advance and anyone could attend it.\n10.  By judgment of 27 February 2007, the District Court found the applicant liable for defamation of the Orel University and its academic senate. According to the judgment, the applicant “publicly accused [them] of a violation of applicable laws [and] commission of a dishonest act”. It also held as follows:\n“The court cannot agree with the respondent party’s argument that the statements [he had] disseminated at the conference were an expression of an opinion. The statements were made in the affirmative form which is apparent", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8767", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lived in Sarov, in the Nizhniy Novgorod region.\n7.  An all-terrain vehicle and a car were stolen from private garages in Sarov in February and April 2008, respectively. An investigation unit at the Sarov police department (управление внутренних дел г. Саров, “the Sarov UVD”) instituted criminal proceedings into the thefts. The police had information about the applicant’s involvement in the thefts.\n8.  At about 10.40 a.m. on 5 May 2008, V., an operative agent of the Sarov UVD, contacted the applicant by telephone and requested him to come to office no. 320 at the Sarov police station at 2 p.m. for questioning. At 2 p.m. on the same day the applicant arrived at the police station, as requested. He was accompanied by K., F., Zh. and P., who stayed outside awaiting his return. A police officer on duty registered the applicant’s arrival at the police station at 2 p.m.\n9.  The applicant provided the following account of events at the police station. In office no. 320 police officer V. and the chief of the criminal investigation unit of the Sarov UVD, B., demanded that he confess to the thefts. Following his refusal, he was taken to a nearby office, shackled and beaten up by B., who kicked and punched him in the head, torso and extremities and jumped on his head, while V. was shouting threats at the applicant. Afterwards the applicant was kept in different offices of the criminal investigation unit. He was given no food or drink. He felt unwell and vomited blood. No medical help was provided to him despite his requests.\n10.  On 6 May 2008 the applicant’s wife lodged an application with the Sarov town prosecutor and the head of the Sarov town police department, complaining that the applicant was being held at the police station unlawfully, that he had a serious stomach ulcer condition and that a lack of food could cause bleeding. A lawyer appointed by the applicant’s family was unable to locate him at the police station.\n11.  According to the police records, at midday on 6 May 2008 investigator K. of the Sarov UVD questioned the applicant as a witness in the theft case.\n12.  According to documents prepared by investigator K. and police officer V., at an unspecified time on the same day the investigator requested that the applicant, who was suspected of having committed the theft, be brought to the police station for investigative measures. Police officer V. reported that he had found the applicant in the street at 8 p.m. and taken him to the police station at 8.15 p.m. on 6 May 2008.\n13.  At 8.20 p.m. on 6 May 2008 the investigator drew up a record of the applicant’s arrest as a suspect in the criminal proceedings concerning the theft of the all-terrain vehicle.\n14.  At 8.55 p.m. the applicant was placed in a temporary detention facility at the Sarov UVD (“IVS”). The applicant’s cellmate C. saw injuries on the applicant’s head and learned from him that he had been beaten up by police officers in order to force him to confess to a crime.\n15.  At 9.15 p.m. an ambulance was called. An ambulance doctor diagnosed the applicant with a stomach ulcer. According to the IVS records, the applicant had abrasions on his arms.\n16.  On 7 May 2008 the applicant’s lawyer visited the applicant in the IVS and photographed the injuries on his body. According to the applicant, he had bumps and bruises on his head and neck and was unable to hear well, and he also had bruises on his torso and extremities.\n17.  On 8 May 2008 the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8768", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  He suffers from progressive spinal muscular atrophy and needs twenty-four hour assistance with all his daily activities.\n7.  In 2006 the Pensions and Disability Insurance Institute of the Republic of Slovenia (“the Institute”) awarded the applicant an assistance and attendance allowance (hereinafter “the allowance”) of 70% of the reference amount.\n8.  On 28 May 2009 the applicant’s general practitioner applied for an increase in the allowance due to the applicant’s worsening condition, referring in particular to the deterioration of the applicant’s respiratory functions. In the application the general practitioner indicated that the applicant needed twenty-four hour assistance by a family member or a lay care assistant, along with permanent professional assistance. At that time the applicant organised his care by hiring students to assist him in his daily activities and to provide the necessary aid. He also relied significantly on the assistance of his family members.\n9.  On 9 July 2009 the first-instance disability commission of the Institute (“the commission”) reported that the applicant did not need permanent, professional, medical assistance. The commission was composed of F.V., an internal medicine specialist, and M.F.B., an occupational medicine specialist. It gave its opinion on the basis of an examination of the medical documentation provided by the applicant, specifically opinions of a doctor of internal medicine, a pulmonologist and a clinical neurologist. They also examined the applicant.\n10.  On 20 July 2009, the Ljubljana unit of the Institute, relying on the opinion of the commission, dismissed the request for an increase in the allowance.\n11.  On 28 July 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal.\n12.  On 23 September 2009 the second-instance disability commission (“the second-instance commission”) of the Institute examined the applicant’s file and again reported that he did not need permanent professional assistance and that he could be cared for by a combination of care assistants without specific medical knowledge and by members of his family. The second-instance commission was composed of L.S., an occupational medicine specialist, and M. G., a specialist neuropsychiatrist.\n13.  On 24 September 2009 the Institute, referring to the conclusions of the second-instance commission, dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The Institute further referred to the 1998 Decision on Assistance and Attendance Allowance for Beneficiaries Suffering from a Severe Disability (see paragraph 23 below), according to which beneficiaries were only entitled to a higher allowance if they were in need of twenty-four-hour assistance by family members and further professional medical assistance.\n14.  On 22 October 2009 the applicant instituted court proceedings against the Institute before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court, requesting the appointment of an independent expert to examine his medical file.\n15.  On 30 September 2010 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court heard the applicant’s testimony and reviewed the case file. Subsequently it dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court rejected the applicant’s request for the input of an independent expert, concluding that the opinions of the first- and second-instance disability commissions of the Institute together with other evidence sufficed to establish that the applicant did not need professional assistance. The relevant part of the decisio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8770", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is currently serving his prison sentence in Kemerovo.\n6.  On 19 November 2008 the applicant was convicted of several counts of attempted drug trafficking. He was sentenced to ten years and six months’ imprisonment and sent to correctional colony no. 43 in Kemerovo.\n7.  Prior to his arrest the applicant was diagnosed with hepatitis C.\n8.  Following his arrival at the correctional colony, the applicant underwent a medical check-up, which did not reveal any diseases.\n9.  Sometime later the colony administration received a certificate from a civil hospital attesting that the applicant was suffering from hepatitis C. On the following day he was prescribed hepatoprotectors.\n10.  In December 2009 the applicant started experiencing severe pain in the knees. Following a large number of complaints, he was examined on 29 June 2010 by a colony doctor. The doctor suspected that he might have rheumatoid polyarthritis and deforming osteochondrosis of the knee joints and recommended an X-ray examination.\n11.  In August 2010 the applicant was transferred to a prison hospital in correctional colony no. 5. Following medical examinations by a physician, a neurologist and an ophthalmologist, and an X-ray, he was diagnosed with an articular syndrome which the doctors concluded was linked to his hepatitis C. No serious pathology was detected. The applicant was prescribed treatment with hepatoprotectors. His complaints of severe pain in the joints were not addressed.\n12.  The applicant and his relatives complained to various prison authorities of the lack of proper medical assistance. The replies received by the applicant were almost identical in wording: the officials stated that the medical examinations of the applicant, including an X-ray examination, and his consultations in the prison hospital, had not revealed any articular pathology. They stressed that the prison medical personnel were trained and equipped to address the applicant’s health problems. They also said that an in-patient check-up in the prison hospital of colony no. 5 had been scheduled for the applicant in December 2010 or early 2011.\n13.  The applicant asked the administration of his colony to authorise a forensic medical examination or to admit him to a prison hospital for an in‑depth examination and treatment. He also complained that the medical unit of the correctional colony was not equipped to address his health problems. The applicant’s relatives supported his request, having also asked that he be held in the colony in Rostov, close to his home. They argued that they had been unable to travel across the country to see him and could not provide him with assistance or medicines as the colony in which he was detained was too far away. They requested the applicant’s transfer to a hospital in view of his poor state of health.\n14.  On 9 April 2012 the applicant was taken from the correctional colony in Kemerovo to a temporary detention facility in Rostov-on-Don to take part in court hearings related to a supervisory review of his conviction. His transfer from Kemerovo to Rostov lasted two months and included several transit destinations: the towns of Mariinsk, Chelyabinsk, Samara, Saratov and Voronezh. On arrival at each of those towns the applicant was taken from the train to a temporary detention facility. According to the applicant, he spent hours on the road carrying a heavy bag with his belongings. He also had to wait for hours for admission to e", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8771", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Graz.\n8.  On 7 March 1997 she married Mr S.V. in Vienna (Austria). They lived in Vienna until January 2006, when they decided to move to Komletinci (Croatia).\n9.  Meanwhile, on 3 January 1999 the applicant gave birth to their daughter, E.V, on 6 June 2001 to their son, F.V., and on 21 January 2006 to their second daughter, L.V.\n10.  On 6 January 2009 the applicant and S.V. separated. He remained in Croatia, whereas the applicant returned to Austria.\n11.  Following her arrival in Austria the applicant collected the children from her husband’s parents, who lived in Vienna and with whom the children had been spending the Christmas holidays, and took the children with her to Graz.\n12.  When the applicant did not return to Croatia, S.V. went to Austria with a view to taking the children back to Croatia. However, the applicant opposed that. The children therefore remained in Graz where the applicant enrolled the two older children in school and the youngest child in kindergarten. S.V. maintained contact with the children by talking to them over the phone and by visiting them occasionally. It would appear that the applicant and S.V. eventually agreed that the children would remain in Austria but would spend holidays with their father in Croatia.\n13.  In August 2010, after the summer holidays, which the children spent with their father and paternal grandparents in Croatia, the father refused to return them to the applicant, claiming that the children had refused to go back to Austria.\n14.  In September 2010, relying on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter: “the Hague Convention”, see paragraph 54 below), the applicant asked the Austrian Ministry of Justice, as the Austrian Central Authority within the meaning of that Convention, to return her children. The Ministry of Justice immediately contacted the Croatian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (Ministarstvo zdravstva i socijalne skrbi) as the Croatian Central Authority.\n15.  By a letter of 23 September 2010 the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare forwarded the applicant’s request to the Vinkovci Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vinkovcima).\n16.  A copy of the Ministry’s letter of 23 September 2010 was sent to the Vinkovci Social Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Vinkovci). Pursuant to Article 10 of the Hague Convention (see paragraph 53 below), the latter was invited to mediate with the father the voluntary return of the children to Austria, and to inform the Vinkovci Municipal Court and the Ministry of the results thereof.\n17.  The Vinkovci Social Welfare Centre interviewed S.V., talked to the children without his presence and carried out an on-site inspection of his home. On 28 October 2010 it replied to the Ministry’s request. The relevant part of that reply reads as follows:\n“S.V. states that his actions were in accordance with the wishes of his children, who wanted to remain living with him in Croatia. He justifies his current actions by the wish to afford his children a happy life. During the interview on the [premises] of the Centre S.V. did not try to portray [the applicant] as a bad or irresponsible mother ... S.V. verbalises the wish that in the divorce proceedings the custody of the children be awarded to him primarily because he wants the children to be happy. He states that the children wish to remain living with him. He does not want to restrict his wife’s contacts with t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8772", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Arad.\n6.  At around 4 a.m. on 8 August 2010, the applicant and his friends were involved in a fight with a group of people outside a bar. S.L., who was inside the bar, called the police. When the police arrived the group of aggressors ran away. The applicant and his friends were taken to the police station to give statements and possibly complain against their aggressors.\n7.  While he was waiting inside the police station, the applicant saw a police officer who was behaving roughly with an arrestee who had just been brought in. He commented loudly that the police officer represented the State authority and should not hit people. D.C.I., the police officer in question, became angry and asked a colleague, M.C., to “take him [the applicant] to the toilets to teach him how to speak”. The applicant, who resisted entering the toilets, was taken outside and then into a back office where the two police officers, D.C.I. and M.C., handcuffed him to a radiator and started punching and kicking him. Alerted by the applicant’s screaming, another police officer entered and put an end to the hitting. At that point, one of the officers who had assaulted the applicant warned him not to say anything or he would find him and beat him again. The applicant and his friends were then escorted home by police officers.\n(b)  The Government’s account of the events\n8.  On 8 August 2010 the police were called in order to stop a fight between several people on a street in Arad. By the time the police arrived, the applicant and his friends had had their clothes torn and had already been injured. They were accompanied to the police station to make statements. The police officers took statements from S.L. and D.V.\n9.  S.L. declared that he had been in a bar when he had seen that his brother, S.N., was involved in a fight outside. He called the police emergency number and then went outside to help his brother. He and his brother received blows to their bodies. He further stated that he did not wish to lodge a complaint against the aggressors at that time but reserved his right to do so later. D.V. stated that when he had left the bar he had seen some people fighting. Someone was throwing stones, one of which hit him in the leg. He stated that he did not wish to lodge a complaint.\n10.  Afterwards the applicant and his friends were all escorted home by the police in order to avoid further violent incidents.\n11.  An investigation was opened nonetheless in order to clarify the circumstances surrounding the incident. However, after a discussion on 20 August 2010 with the bar attendant and a sales woman at a nearby store, who said they had not seen or heard anything, the case was closed on 23 August 2010.\n12.  Later on 8 August 2010, the applicant went to the emergency unit of Arad County Hospital, where he was diagnosed with maxillofacial trauma, and contusion of the lower lip and of the thorax. His injuries were treated.\n13.  On 9 August 2010 a forensic medical certificate was issued by the Arad County Forensic Service at the request of the applicant. According to the certificate, the applicant had a sutured cut on the lower lip and bruising on the upper lip, bruising on the left side of the chest, two excoriations on the left side of the back, grazes and bruising on the right elbow, right leg and the left knee. The applicant also had two excoriations covered with brown scabs measuring 1 by 0.2 cm to 2 by 0.2 cm on the back of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8773", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 24 May 2001 the applicant started his compulsory military service in Şırnak. On 25 July 2001 he contacted the infirmary of his regiment, complaining of severe pain in his left eye. According to the applicant, the military doctor was absent and he was given eye drops by a soldier who had no medical qualifications. According to the Government, the records of the infirmary (which were not made available to the Court) showed that the applicant had been examined by a military doctor and given eye drops by that doctor and not by a soldier.\n7.  The following day the pain became persistent, so the applicant contacted the infirmary once again. He was told that he should go to his dormitory and rest. According to the applicant, despite the pain he was in, he was not relieved of his sentry duties during that period. On 2 August 2001 he was referred to the Cizre State Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a corneal ulcer.\n8.  On 6 August 2001 the applicant was transferred to the Diyarbakır Military Hospital, where his treatment started. However, he completely lost the sight in his left eye. According to the applicant, the doctors informed him that he had lost his eyesight because of the delay in starting the treatment, as in corneal ulcer cases it was essential to start treatment immediately.\n9.  On 13 August 2001 the applicant was transferred to Ankara GATA Military Hospital for further treatment. He stayed there until 25 September 2001, during which time he underwent several operations. He returned to the hospital for a number of additional operations from 9 November 2001 to 7 February 2002, 10 to 21 March 2002, 2 to 10 May 2002, and lastly, 15 to 18 July 2002.\n10.  A medical report issued on 17 July 2002 concluded that the applicant was no longer medically fit for military service and that he was eligible for an ocular prosthesis. On the basis of that report, the applicant was formally discharged from the army.\n11.  On 15 October 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, seeking compensation from the Ministry of the Interior for the damage he had suffered to his eye during his compulsory military service as a result of the delay in his treatment. He claimed 30,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL[1]; approximately 19,000 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRL 30,000,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He argued that for a period of one week after the start of his eye problem, he had been unable to see a doctor because there had been no doctor present at his regiment infirmary during that time. He gave the administrative court the names of a number of his fellow conscripts who had witnessed the fact that he had not been provided with medical treatment by a doctor in the first week but had instead been told to rest and use eye drops, and asked the court to question them.\n12.  In the written defence submissions that it sent to the administrative court, the Gendarmerie High Command argued that on 25 and 26 July 2001 the applicant had been examined at the infirmary of his regiment by military doctor İ.H.Ş., who had prescribed medication for him.\n13.  In his observations submitted to the administrative court on 6 January 2003 in response to those of the Gendarmerie High Command, the applicant maintained his allegation that on his first visit to the infirmary he had been examined by a soldier because the military doctor, İ.H", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8774", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Siófok. The second applicant was born in 1995 and lives in Lepsény.\n6.  On 6 August 2012 the applicants were on an excursion to Lake Balaton. In the evening, they decided not to return home, but to spend the night in their car, a Fiat Punto, parked in a car park next to a pizzeria in Zánka. Waking up, they noticed that a car was passing by theirs, coming back and forth several times. They found this frightening and drove on to the village of Tagyon, where they stopped their car in the parking lot of a private house.\n7.  At the same time, around 3.05 a.m., an unknown person telephoned Mr S., a volunteer law enforcer, to tell him about a Fiat Punto suspiciously moving around in the neighbourhood, near a local grocery store. Mr S. informed off-duty police officer K., who was serving with the Balatonfüred Police Department.\n8.  Subsequently, officer K., driving his private car and taking a self-defence pistol, went to inspect the grocery store, together with Mr S. Not having found any trace of a criminal offence, they notified the duty officer of Balatonfüred Police Department about the sighting of the suspicious car. They were informed about the identity of the owner of the Fiat Punto, following which they continued to look for the vehicle in the surrounding area.\n9.  At about 3.30 a.m., they noticed the Fiat Punto parked in front of a private house. Officer K. stopped his vehicle, a black Ford Mondeo, perpendicularly to the applicants’ car, about a metre away. Both officer K. and the volunteer law enforcer started to run towards the applicants’ car, approaching from the back. The police officer shouted: “Police! Get out!” and held up his police identification card.\n10.  Ms Haász, sitting at the steering wheel, only noticed two people getting out of a dark civilian car and running towards them in civilian clothes. Finding this frightening, she attempted to drive away, forcing the garden gate of the adjacent property and driving into its yard. Inside the garden, the dimensions of which were 67 x 17.6 metres, and noticing that there was no other way to exit, she turned the car around and drove back towards the gate.\n11.  When the car was on its way out, officer K. waved at the car shouting “Police! Stop!” and fired a warning shot. As it appears from the case file, at this time Mr S. was standing in front of the police officer’s car, rather than in the prospective way of the applicants’ car. When the car passed officer K., he shot twice more, at the car. The first shot was fired downwards from about 6 metres’ distance, hitting the mudguard of the car on the left side at the level of the lights. The other shot was fired from about 4-4.5 metres following a downward trajectory. It went through the rear window, which fell into the car, missed the head of Ms Szabó by 5-10 centimetres and then went through the window of the right front door.\n12.  Ms Haász continued to drive, trying to leave the garden by passing around the police officer’s car to the left. She finally hit the officer’s car at its right side, at the passenger front door. At this moment Mr S. was standing next to the police officer’s car, at its left side, next to the open driver’s door.\n13.  Officer K. again called on the applicants to get out of the car, which they did. He put his gun away, presenting his police ID. Since the two men wore plain clothes and neither they nor their car had any police signs, the applicants realised ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8775", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1992.\n6.  On 8 May 2013 he was arrested on suspicion of sexual abuse and indecent behaviour towards two children.\n7.  On 10 May 2013 an investigating judge of the Z. County Court (Županijski sud u Z. –“the County Court”) ordered his pre-trial detention under Article 123 § 1(2) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of collusion and reoffending).\n8.  On 17 May 2013 the applicant appealed. On 21 May 2013 a three-judge panel of the County Court dismissed his appeal as ill-founded, upholding the decision of the investigating judge.\n9.  On 6 June 2013 the investigating judge extended the applicant’s detention under Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending) on the grounds that he might commit the same offences against the victims again if at large.\n10.  The applicant appealed on 12 June 2013, arguing that there was no reason to suspect that he had committed the offences at issue and alleging numerous procedural flaws when his pre-trial detention was extended.\n11.  On 14 June 2013 a three-judge panel of the County Court dismissed the appeal as ill-founded, endorsing the view of the investigating judge. The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 26 June 2013.\n12.  On 5 July 2013 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the decision of 14 June 2013, challenging the decisions on his pre-trial detention. He argued, in particular, that they lacked the relevant reasoning, and that the procedure for ordering and extending pre-trial detention had not been duly complied with.\n13.  On 8 July 2013 the applicant was indicted in the Z. Municipal Criminal Court (Općinski kazneni sud u Z. –“the Municipal Court”) on charges of sexual abuse and indecent behaviour towards two children.\n14.  On the same day a three-judge panel of that court extended his pre-trial detention under Article 123 § 1(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of reoffending). The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 15 July 2013.\n15.  On 10 July 2013 the applicant challenged the decision by lodging an appeal with the County Court, arguing that it lacked the relevant reasoning and alleging procedural flaws in the Municipal Court’s conduct.\n16.  On the same day the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaint of 5 July 2013 (see paragraph 12 above) inadmissible, on the grounds that a new decision on his detention had since been adopted (see paragraph 14 above) and he was no longer being detained in connection with the decision complained about.\n17.  The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 18 July 2013.\n18.  On 19 July 2013 a three-judge panel of the County Court, in its examination of the applicant’s appeal of 10 July 2013 (see paragraph 15 above), quashed the decision of 8 July 2013 extending the applicant’s pre-trial detention and remitted the case to the Municipal Court for re-examination.\n19.  On 22 July 2013 a three-judge panel of that court released the applicant from detention, imposing a number of conditions on his release.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8776", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Sacile.\n6.  The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant is the mother of three children, R., P. and J., who were born in 2005, 2006 and 2008 respectively.\n8.  At the material time the applicant was living with the children’s father, was suffering from depression and was undergoing a pharmacological treatment.\n9.  In August 2009 the social services informed the Rome Youth Court (hereafter “the court”) that the children had been hospitalised several times following the accidental ingestion of medication, and emergency proceedings were commenced before the court. By decision of 11 August 2009 the court ordered the children’s removal from their family and their placement in an institution, and instructed the social services to draw up a support project for the children.\n10.  On 20 October 2009 the applicant and the children’s father were heard by the court. They admitted that owing to the applicant’s state of health and the side-effects of the medication she was taking to treat her depression they had had difficulties looking after the children. They affirmed, however, that they could take proper care of the children with the help of the social services and the children’s grandfather. The applicant pointed out that she was undergoing treatment and that the side-effects initially caused by the medication had ceased. Both parents requested that the social services put in place a support project so that the children could return home.\n11.  On 3 December 2009 the psychiatrist submitted her report on the applicant. The report stated that the latter was undergoing pharmacological treatment, that she was willing to have psychotherapy and to accept the assistance of the social services and that she had a very strong emotional bond with her children.\nOn the same day the Integrated Working Group on Adoption (the “GIL”) submitted its report, pointing out that despite the family difficulties, the parents had reacted positively, had taken part in the meetings and were prepared to accept the support of the social services. Consequently, the GIL proposed returning the children to their parents and introducing a family support project.\n12.  By decision of 19 January 2010 the court, having regard to the expert reports and the fact that the paternal grandfather was available to help his son and the applicant to look after their children, ordered the children’s return to their parents.\nOn 24 March 2010, however, the parents’ reunion with their children was interrupted and the children were once again removed from the family home on the grounds that the applicant had been hospitalised owing to an aggravation of her illness, that the father had left the family home and that the grandfather had fallen ill. The court established visiting rights for both parents as follows: for the applicant, one hour per fortnight, and for the children’s father, two hours per week.\n13.  In March 2010 the prosecutor requested the opening of a procedure for declaring the children available for adoption.\n14.  On 10 June 2010 the parents were heard by the court. The applicant submitted that she was undergoing treatment, that the children’s father was available to look after them and that they had therefore not been abandoned. The father emphasised that even if he was working he could take proper care of the children with his father’s help, and that he had recruited a home help.\n15.  ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8777", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 19 September 1974 the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Cyprus approved the introduction of a scheme of aid for displaced persons and war victims. Under the scheme, displaced persons were entitled to refugee cards. The holders of such cards were (and still are) eligible for a range of benefits including housing assistance. For the purposes of the scheme the term “displaced” was determined as being any person whose permanent home was in the areas occupied by the Turkish armed forces, in an inaccessible area, or in an area which had been evacuated to meet the needs of the National Guard.\n6.  To implement the scheme, the Director of the Care and Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons Service (“SCRDP”) issued a circular on 10 September 1975. The circular provided that non-displaced women whose husbands were displaced could be registered on the refugee card of their husbands. It also provided that children whose fathers were displaced could be registered on the refugee card of their fathers (see paragraph 20 below). No provision was made for the children of displaced women to be registered on the refugee cards of their mothers.\n7.  Although the term “displaced” was extended by the Council of Ministers on 19 April 1995 (see paragraphs 23 and 24 below), at the time of the facts giving rise to the present application it had not been extended to allow children whose mothers were displaced but whose fathers were not, to qualify for refugee cards.\n8.  The applicant’s mother has been a refugee since 1974. Her mother is the holder of a refugee card.\n9.  In September 2002, the applicant married and began looking for a house for her family in Kokkynotrimithia. She wished to obtain housing assistance and so, on 27 February 2003, applied to the Civil Registry and Migration Department of the Ministry of the Interior for a refugee card with occupied Skylloura, the place from which her mother was displaced, as her place of displacement.\n10.  By letter dated 6 March 2003 the request was rejected on the basis that the applicant was not a displaced person because, while her mother was a displaced person, her father was not.\n11.  The applicant filed a recourse before the Supreme Court challenging the above decision. She claimed, inter alia, that the decision was in violation of the principle of equality safeguarded by Article 28 of the Constitution and in breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. She claimed that it also breached Article 13 of the Convention.\n12.  A single judge of the Supreme Court dismissed the recourse on 12 May 2004, finding that, on the basis of the relevant case-law, the extension of the applicable criteria so as to cover the children of displaced women was not possible. The question of extending the term “displaced” to cover the children whose mothers were displaced but whose fathers were not had been repeatedly discussed before the House of Representatives’ Committee for Refugees. A proposal to change the law to that effect had been placed before the Committee but was never approved. Furthermore, because of the consequences which would ensue from such an extension of the term “displaced”, the Minister of the Interior had referred the question to the Council of Ministers for its consideration and, on 19 April 1995, the Council of Ministers had decided not to extend the term in this manner (see the relevant domestic law and practice set out at paragraphs 23 and 24 below).\n13. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8778", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant company runs logistics services. On 23 June 2007 one of the company’s lorries was stopped for inspection at the Yambol customs post. The Bulgarian authorities discovered and seized the following substances from the cabin and trailer: 500,060 tablets (with a total value of 24,584.2 Bulgarian levs (BGN) or 12,200 euros (EUR)); 3,564 grams of white tablets (with a total value of about EUR 40) which included ephedrine hydrochloride; and, 6,880 pills which included testosterone enanthate (with a total value of about EUR 15,000). The lorry was also seized as material evidence. Criminal proceedings were opened against the driver of the lorry.\n7.  On 26 June 2007 the applicant company, as the owner of the lorry, asked the Yambol Regional Prosecutor to return its vehicle. The prosecutor rejected the request on the grounds that the lorry had to be retained as material evidence until the end of the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 23 below).\n8.  On 3 August 2007 the applicant company again applied to the Yambol Regional Prosecutor’s Office asking that the lorry be returned in accordance with Article 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In particular, the applicant company claimed that: there had been no hidden compartment in the lorry; the driver had abused his position; the holding of the lorry was no longer justified as a forensic expert report had already been prepared; the lorry’s value (around EUR 83,000) was over three times the value of the drugs and therefore the lorry could not be confiscated under Article 242 § 8 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 16 below); and, lastly, the company faced significant losses because of the lorry’s seizure. At the time of this request the case file was no longer with the prosecution service as it had been transferred to the courts, so the Yambol Regional Prosecutor’s Office did not reply to the request.\n9.  In the meantime the lorry driver concluded a plea bargain agreement with the prosecutor. The terms of the agreement included a one-and-a-half-year prison sentence for the driver and the forfeiture of the lorry.\n10.  On 8 August 2007 the applicant company asked the criminal court competent to approve the plea bargain agreement not to confiscate its lorry. The applicant company emphasised in particular its inability to participate in the criminal proceedings against the driver and to state its position. It further pointed out that as the value of its lorry was three times higher than the value of the smuggled goods, according to the relevant national law the vehicle should not be forfeited (see paragraph 16 below).\n11.  On 14 August 2007 the Yambol Regional Court confirmed the plea bargain agreement in accordance with Article 382 § 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 22 below). In the agreement the driver confessed that he was guilty of smuggling under Articles 242 § 1 (d) and 242 § 3 of the Criminal Code and accepted the forfeiture of the transported drugs and the lorry under Article 242 §§ 7 and 8 of the Criminal Code. The decision was not subject to appeal and became enforceable on the same day.\n12.  On 26 May 2008 the applicant company brought proceedings before the Istanbul Second Enforcement Office (“the Office”) against the lorry driver, seeking damages. The Office found that the driver was liable to pay EUR 110,116.75 to the applicant company for the damage his actions had caused. However, the applicant company could not collect any of this amount as the lorr", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8779", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Belgrade.\n7.  On 7 July 2008 the applicant was arrested in Croatia on suspicion of war crimes against the civilian population.\n8.  On 9 July 2008 an investigating judge of the Osijek County Court (Županijski sud u Osijeku, hereinafter “the County Court”) ordered his pre-trial detention under Article 102 § 1 (1), (2) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of absconding, risk of collusion and the seriousness of the charges).\n9.  After the completion of the investigation, the applicant was indicted in the County Court on charges of war crimes against civilians. He was remanded in detention during the proceedings. The period of his detention was extended several times by the decisions of a three-judge panel of the County Court and by the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).\n10.  On 15 March 2011 the County Court found the applicant guilty on charges of war crimes and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.\n11.  The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court, and on 22 February 2012 it quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the County Court on the grounds of procedural flaws during the trial.\n12.  At the same time, the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention under Article 102 § 1 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (risk of absconding) on the grounds that he lived in Serbia and had Serbian nationality, and therefore posed a flight risk if at liberty.\n13.  On 2 April 2012 the Supreme Court extended the maximum period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention for a further year.\n14.  On 18 April 2012 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the decision of 2 April 2012 challenging the lawfulness of and grounds for his continued pre-trial detention.\n15.  On 1 June 2012 the County Court, after a retrial, found the applicant guilty on charges of war crimes against civilians and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment.\n16.  On the same day the County Court extended the applicant’s detention until the first-instance judgment became final.\n17.  The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision extending his detention, and on 15 June 2012 it dismissed his appeal as ill-founded.\n18.  On 20 July 2012 the applicant challenged the decision of the County Court on his detention of 1 June 2012, upheld by the decision of the Supreme Court of 15 June 2012, before the Constitutional Court (see paragraphs 16-17 above).\n19.  On 8 January 2013 the Constitutional Court dismissed as ill-founded the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the decisions extending his detention until the first-instance judgment became final (see paragraphs 15-18 above).\n20.  On 14 January 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint of 18 April 2012 (see paragraph 14 above) inadmissible on the grounds that a new decision on his detention had been adopted in the meantime on 1 June 2012 (see paragraph 16 above). The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 17 January 2013.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8781", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Strathfield in Australia.\n8.  At the material time he had been a correspondent with an Australian newspaper in Turkey. He had also been working voluntarily for a bookshop specialising in books on Christianity.\n9.  On 24 June 1997 he appeared in a television documentary broadcast in the framework of the programme Son çare (“Last Resort”), hosted by Ms Hülya Koçyiğit.\n10.  During the programme the hostess introduced the documentary by pointing out that it concerned covert activities conducted in Turkey by “foreign pedlars of religion” (yabancı din tüccarları).\nThe ensuing documentary was along the following lines:\nOver footage of mosques and then Christian religious ceremonies, a voice stated that everyone, whether a member of the Muslim majority or a religious minority, had the right to belong to the religion of his or her own choosing and the freedom to practise that religion. According to the voice-over, it was strange that some proselytising activities were being carried out in a covert manner, despite the freedom of conscience and religion.\nAgainst a background of images of a dhikr ceremony performed by a Muslim brotherhood, showing followers in a state of trance, the voiceover asked whether, “in order to combat such instances of bigotry (yobazlık), an attempt was being made to set up groups of Christian converts, plunging the country into chaos”.\nThe voiceover explained that the aim of the programme was not to judge any specific religion but to show that whatever their nationalities or religious beliefs, the pedlars of religion all used the same methods.\n11.  The voiceover explained that the programme producers had been contacted by a certain A.N., who lived in Samsun. This person had been intrigued by an advertisement asking “would you like to read books free of charge?”, and had replied. In return, he had received a number of books by mail, all of them concerning Christianity. He had written back and had once again received books on the same subject. The second dispatch had been accompanied by a letter thanking him for his interest in the subject.\n12.  There had subsequently been a telephone exchange between A.N. and the sender, who had proved to be the applicant.\n13.  After that exchange it had been agreed that the applicant would travel to Samsun to meet A.N.\n14.  It was at that point that A.N. had decided to inform the programme producers and to invite them to make a documentary on the subject.\n15.  On 17 June 1997 the applicant had travelled to Samsun to meet A.N. and some of his “friends [purportedly] interested in Christianity” for the first time, in a restaurant. The conversation had been filmed by a hidden camera.\n16.  According to the voiceover, the applicant had then presented the teachings of the Bible. He had continued by comparing Christianity with other religions, emphasising his own beliefs. However, that sequence was not shown, on the grounds that the aim of the documentary was not to discuss the merits of specific beliefs but to expose the methods used.\n17.  A.N. and the applicant had arranged to meet up again the next day in an apartment, again accompanied by a group of A.N.’s friends purportedly desirous of learning about the Christian religion.\n18.  During that second meeting the applicant had explained that he was not alone but was part of a group working throughout Turkey. He had said that premises could be rented in Samsun for the converts, but that he would ha", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8782", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Artyom, in the Primorye Region.\n7.  The applicant is a Kyrgyz national of Uzbek ethnic origin. He originally lived in the town of Osh in Kyrgyzstan.\n8.  In June 2010, which was a time of mass disorders and interethnic clashes in the region, the applicant had been the head of the territorial board of a municipal authority in which most residents were ethnic Uzbeks. He was, according to him, considered as a leader of the local Uzbek community.\n9.  After the clashes, the applicant had repeatedly been invited by the Kyrgyz investigative bodies for questioning as a witness.\n10.  In June 2011 the applicant learned that criminal proceedings had been opened against him (see paragraph 12 below). The applicant submits that law-enforcement officers started to extort money from him, threatening him with imprisonment. Due to this he moved to a different city in Kyrgyzstan, to his sister’s home, where he stayed for several months.\n11.  Afterwards, in March 2012, the applicant left Kyrgyzstan for Russia. He settled in the Primorye Region, and after obtaining a work permit, worked as a sports instructor.\n12.  On 16 June 2011 the Kyrgyz authorities charged the applicant with the commission of violent crimes in June 2010 (attempted murder, participation in mass disorders and unlawful firearms trafficking) and ordered his arrest. It appears that when the authorities eventually tried to execute the arrest order, the applicant had left the country (see paragraphs 10 and 11 above). The applicant was therefore put on the international wanted list.\n13.  On 14 March 2013 the applicant was arrested in Russia and detained in custody pending extradition\n14.  On 5 April 2013 the Kyrgyz authorities lodged an extradition request with the Prosecutor General of Russia, asking that the applicant be extradited to Kyrgyzstan for prosecution and trial.\n15.  On 16 September 2013 the Russian Prosecutor General’s Office granted the extradition request and ordered the applicant’s extradition.\n16.  The applicant appealed, arguing that due to his Uzbek ethnic origin the aforementioned decision would expose him to a serious risk of torture. The applicant supported his appeal through reference, inter alia, to various UN sources, NGOs’ reports and the judgment of the Court in the case of Makhmudzhan Ergashev (see Makhmudzhan Ergashev v. Russia, no. 49747/11, 16 October 2012).\n17.  On 1 November 2013 the Primorye Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the extradition order, giving the following reasoning:\n“The charges pressed against [the applicant] [by Kyrgyz authorities] are criminal offences liable to punishment in Russia ... They are not time-barred ...\nPursuant to Article 464 § 1 (1) of the Russian Code of Criminal Procedure, an extradition request lodged by a foreign state in respect of a Russian citizen should be denied ...\nIt is apparent from the conclusions of the Federal Migration Service (FMS) for the Primorye Region that [the applicant] is not a Russian citizen. ... He holds a Kyrgyz passport ... and is a Kyrgyz national. ...\nOn 28 June 2013 the FMS for Prymorye Region rejected a request from [the applicant] for refugee status in Russia.\n[The applicant’s] allegations of persecution by the Kyrgyz authorities on false criminal charges on the basis of his [Uzbek] ethnic origin were addressed [within the refugee status procedure].\nThe lawfulness of the refusal [to grant the applicant refugee status i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8783", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in the town of Feodosiya, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.\n7.  On 19 September 2000 the Prosecutor’s office of the North‑Western Administrative District of the city of Moscow (“the Prosecutor’s office”) opened a criminal investigation into the murder of a businessman.\n8.  By a decision of 30 October 2000 the Prosecutor’s office ordered the applicant to appear as a witness in this case. Since at that time the applicant resided in the town of Feodosiya in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the prosecutor also ordered the police to take measures with a view to ensuring the applicant’s attendance. It appears that the relevant summons was sent to the applicant’s only known address in Russia, that of his sister, who resided in Moscow. The applicant denied having received the summons at that time.\n9.  On 1 and 2 November 2000 the Prosecutor’s office ordered the applicant’s apartment in Feodosiya to be searched, requested the cooperation of the Ukrainian authorities in conducting the search, and also dispatched a team of police officers from the Department of Criminal Investigations of the Moscow City Department of the Interior to Ukraine. In his letter dated 1 November 2000 a prosecutor from the Prosecutor’s office specifically mentioned that he had decided to send two police officers from that Department to Feodosiya for “operative follow-up”.\n10.  Two Russian police officers, Ti. and Go., were entrusted with this operation and at once sent to Ukraine. It appears that they had secured the support of the head of the Department of Criminal Investigation of the Feodosiya Department of the Interior, lieutenant‑colonel Mir., who had apparently instructed his subordinate, police officer Kov., to assist the Russian police officers in their task. The exact mandate of police officer Kov. is unclear.\n11.  On 3 November 2000 police officer Kov. and the two Russian police officers, Ti. and Go., located and arrested the applicant. He was handcuffed and his apartment was searched. The search took place in the presence of the applicant’s mother, B.N., and her neighbours K.M. and P.N. acting as witnesses; it was documented in a report drawn up by Kov. on 3 November 2000. The report stated that the applicant had been given a copy of the report on the day of the search.\n12.  According to the applicant, after the search he remained in the custody of the Ukrainian and Russian police, who the next day escorted him to a local airport. The Russian officers and the applicant took the first flight to Moscow. On arrival, the applicant was formally arrested by the same two officers and detained on suspicion of murder.\n13.  The applicant submitted a copy of the passenger manifest for Aeroflot flight Su-200 dated 4 November 2000. The document showed that the applicant and police officers Go. and Ti. had travelled on the same flight and occupied seats nos. 5 (Go.), 6 (the applicant) and 7 (Ti.).\n14.  According to the Russian Government, after the search the applicant had been taken to the Ukrainian police and shortly thereafter had been released. The next day he had bought a ticket and took a flight to Moscow. Two police officers, Ti. and Go., had been tipped off about the applicant’s decision to buy a ticket and managed to buy tickets for the same flight. When the applicant arrived at a Moscow airport, he had been arrested by Ti. and Go. and brought before an investigator from the Prosecutor’s office.\n15.  The Ukrainian Gove", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8784", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Baku.\n6.  The opposition group Ictimai Palata was planning a demonstration to be held on 19 June 2011 in Baku. On 9 June 2011 the organisers – consisting of several members of that group – gave prior notice to the relevant authority, the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”), informing it of the date, time, place and purpose of the demonstration. According to the notice, the assembly was scheduled to take place from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on 19 June 2011 at the square in front of the Narimanov Cinema in Baku.\n7.  The BCEA refused to authorise the holding of the demonstration at the place indicated by the organisers and proposed another location on the outskirts of Baku.\n8.  Nevertheless, the organisers decided to hold the demonstration in one of the central areas of Baku, namely, near the Puppet Theatre on Seaside Boulevard.\n9.  According to the applicant, the demonstration was intended to be peaceful and was conducted in a peaceful manner. The participants were demanding free and fair elections, democratic reforms, freedom of assembly, and the release of persons arrested during some previous demonstrations.\n10.  The applicant attended the demonstration, but shortly after it had started the police started to disperse it. The applicant was arrested at around 6.10 p.m. during the dispersal operation. He claimed that he had been arrested and taken to a police car by plain-clothed persons. According to the official records, he was arrested by police officers Z.H. and J.M. He was taken to police station No. 9 of the Sabail District Police Office.\n11.  Police officers Z.H. and J.M. stated the following in a report (raport) submitted to a superior police officer:\n“... at around 6.10 p.m. we were on duty ... when Mammadov Gafgaz Suleyman oglu, whose identity was established later, was attempting to hold an unlawful demonstration. We demanded that he stop his illegal actions, [he] deliberately disobeyed [and] continued his actions, and for that reason we brought him to the [police station] ...”\n12.  According to the applicant, he was questioned at the police station.\n13.  At 6.50 p.m. on the day of the arrest, an “administrative-offence report” (inzibati xəta haqqında protokol) was issued by police officer H.H. in respect of the applicant. The report stated that by deliberately failing to comply with the lawful order of the police during the demonstration, the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Article 310.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”).\n14.  The applicant refused to sign the report, which contained a pre‑printed text declaring that “[the arrested person] was familiarised with the report, the reasons for his or her arrest and his or her rights under Articles 371, 400.2, 401.1.6, 401.1.7 of the CAO of the Republic of Azerbaijan were explained”.\n15.  Subsequently, police officer H.H. prepared an “administrative-arrest report” (inzibati qaydada tutma haqqında protokol), stating that:\n“... the [applicant] was subjected to administrative arrest at 8 p.m. on 19 June 2011 ... in order to ensure issuance of an administrative-offence report, to ensure a correct and timely examination of the case, [and] to ensure the execution of decisions, in accordance with Articles 396.1.2 and 398 of the CAO.”\n16.  According to the applicant, he was never served with a copy of the administrative-offence report or with other documents in his case file. He was not given access to a ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8786", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Ohrid.\n6.  The applicant is suffering from multiple sclerosis.\n7.  On 1 April 1994 the Ministry of Health (“the Ministry”) issued a certificate allowing a bank, in which the applicant’s father had a foreign currency savings account, to transfer 20,000 United States dollars into the account of a hospital in the United States, in order to cover medical expenses related to treatment which the applicant was expected to undergo. It was given on the basis of a medical report (конзилијарно мислење) issued by the Skopje Neurology Clinic which stated, inter alia:\n“... [the applicant] is suffering from multiple sclerosis, which requires further medical examination and treatment in a medical institution abroad, given the fact that all possibilities for her treatment in the State are exhausted ...”\n8.  Between 17 May and 28 June 1994 the applicant underwent medical treatment in the hospital H.H.I. in the United States.\n9.  On 12 July 1994 the Skopje Neurology Clinic issued another medical report (конзилијарно мислење, “the report of 12 July 1994”), the relevant part of which reads as follows:\n“It is impossible to treat the disease in the State due to the critical state of [the applicant’s] health and the Clinic’s calendar of events. [The applicant] should leave immediately or by the middle of the month at the latest ...”\n10.  The report was signed by three doctors, who confirmed that it was impossible to treat the disease in the respondent State. As stated in the report, it was expected that the treatment abroad would prevent the progressive deterioration of the applicant’s health.\n11.  On 29 November 1994 the applicant requested that the Health Insurance Fund (“the Fund”) issue ex post facto a decision referring her to be treated in hospital H.H.I. (решение за упатување на лекување во странство). This request did not contain a claim for reimbursement of the expenses for the treatment that she had undergone.\n12.  On 8 December 1994 the Fund dismissed the applicant’s request after an expert commission set up within the Fund (“the Fund’s commission”) had provided an opinion that the applicant could have been treated in the respondent State.\n13.  On 21 March 1995 the applicant appealed against the Fund’s decision to the Ministry, arguing that the Fund’s expert commission had not taken into account the report of 12 July 1994 (see paragraph 9 above). She also requested that the Ministry approve further check-ups and treatment in hospital H.H.I.\n14.  On 30 November 1995 the Ministry, as the second-instance administrative body, dismissed the applicant’s appeal after obtaining an opinion from the Second-Instance Medical Commission for Treatment Abroad (“the Second-Instance Commission”). The Ministry found that the possibilities for treatment in the State had not been exhausted.\n15.  The applicant initiated administrative-dispute proceedings before the Supreme Court. On 14 January 1998 the Supreme Court quashed the Ministry’s decision. It found that it had not been clear whether the applicant was supposed to undergo a medical check-up or prolonged treatment abroad and that there was a contradiction in the medical reports as to whether the possibilities to treat the applicant’s condition domestically had been exhausted.\n16.  On 9 July 1999 the Ministry again dismissed the appeal by the applicant against the Fund’s decision of 8 December 1994.\n17.  In so far as can be established from the available material, on ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8787", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1991 and lives in Zakan-Yurt, Chechnya.\n6.  The facts of the case are connected to Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, 24 February 2005, and Abuyeva and Others v. Russia, no. 27065/05, 2 December 2010. These two applications were lodged by residents of Katyr-Yurt, Chechnya, who alleged that their relatives had been killed or wounded, and that they had suffered injuries and lost their property during the attack on the village from 4-7 February 2000. In the Isayeva case, cited above, the applicant and her relatives were trying to flee the fighting on 4 February 2000 when an aviation bomb exploded near their minivan, wounding the applicant and killing three of her relatives. In the Abuyeva and Others case, cited above, the applicants described how they had been trapped in the village during intense shelling and had tried to leave through what they had perceived to be a safe exit route. The Court has established a number of facts relevant to the present case, which can be summarised as follows.\n7.  Ever since the start of operations by the Russian military and security forces in Chechnya in the autumn of 1999, the village of Katyr-Yurt, situated in the Achkhoy-Martan district, had been considered a “safe zone”. By the beginning of February 2000 up to 25,000 persons were living there, including local residents and internally displaced persons from elsewhere in Chechnya. In the period leading up to 4 February 2000 the residents of Katyr-Yurt were not informed by the State authorities about the possible advance of illegal fighters into the village, even though such information was available to the military commanders. On 4 February 2000 the village was captured by a large group of Chechen fighters escaping from Grozny. The Russian military forces carried out an assault, using indiscriminate weapons such as heavy, free-falling aviation bombs, artillery, missiles and other weaponry. Although the operation was not spontaneous and involved the use of indiscriminate and highly lethal weaponry, the residents of the village were provided neither with sufficient time to prepare to leave nor with safe exit routes to escape the fighting. The two exits from the village were controlled by the military by means of roadblocks. The residents were allowed to leave through the roadblock on the road leading towards the district centre of Achkhoy-Martan, but the other one, on the road leading towards Valerick, remained closed during most of the fighting. The shelling of Katyr-Yurt continued until 7 February 2000 inclusive (see Abuyeva and Others, cited above, §§ 8 and 197-201).\n8.  The applicant and her family had been living in the village of Zakan‑Yurt, situated about thirteen kilometres from Katyr-Yurt. In November 1999 the applicant turned eight years old. She had lived with her mother, father, two elder brothers and a younger sister. She could remember the events of winter 1999-2000 when the hostilities erupted. On 1 February 2000 a large group of insurgent fighters entered Zakan-Yurt, walking into houses and asking for clothes and food. On the same day airstrikes started. The applicant’s family went into hiding in a cellar.\n9.  On 2 February 2000 the applicant’s family decided to travel to Katyr‑Yurt, which the applicant’s father described as a “peace zone”. The applicant’s father drove his black Volga car; her mother and brother Magomed sat in front, while the applicant, her sister Madina and brother Ruslan, as well as two cousi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8788", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Zsámbék.\n5.  The applicant lodged a compensation claim for medical negligence against a hospital on 10 October 2006.\n6.  The Pest Central District Court dismissed the action.\n7.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first‑instance decision on 29 November 2011.\n8.  The applicant lodged a petition for review. The Kúria upheld the decision on 13 March 2013. The judgment was served on the applicant on 30 May 2013.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8789", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest.\n5.  On 14 March 1997 the applicant was interrogated as suspect of breach of duty and other offences.\n6.  In the ensuing criminal proceedings, after a remittal, the Budapest Regional Court acquitted the applicant on 5 November 2008.\n7.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal on 26 November 2009.\n8.  The applicant lodged a petition for review; but the Supreme Court rejected the motion on 13 December 2010.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8790", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Novaj.\n5.  In the context of the protraction of a former administrative procedure concerning a land dispute, the applicant brought an official liability action on 12 May 2003.\n6.  The Heves Regional Court rejected the action but, on appeal, the second-instance court quashed the decision and remitted the case to it.\n7.  The first-instance court dismissed the claim again on 13 September 2007.\n8.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court of Appeal considered the first-instance judgment as an interlocutory decision and reversed it.\n9.  The second-instance court found for the applicant by pronouncing the liability of the administrative authority on 31 January 2008.\n10.  Concerning the amount of damages, the first-instance court delivered a judgment on 23 December 2009.\n11.  On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal essentially upheld this decision on 3 June 2010.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8791", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants are Syrian nationals or had their habitual residence in Syria. At the time of lodging their applications they were detained at a detention centre for foreign nationals in the town of Maloyaroslavets, Kaluga Region (ОСУСВИГ – “the detention centre”), run by the local Federal Migration Service (“FMS”).\n7.  The applicant L.M. (application no. 40081/14) was born in 1988. He entered Russia on 9 February 2013. He was detained on 14 April 2014. He is a stateless Palestinian who had his habitual residence in Syria. He was not in possession of a valid national ID at the time of detention, and his identity was established by an immigration officer in Russia in 2014.\n8.  The applicant A.A. (application no. 40088/14) was born in 1987. He entered Russia on 21 April 2013. He was detained on 15 April 2014.\n9.  The applicant M.A. (application no. 40127/14) was born in 1994. He entered Russia on 21 April 2013. He was detained on 15 April 2014 and has a brother, Mr Akhmad A., who received temporary asylum in Russia and is married to a Russian national, Albina A.\n10.  On 14 and 15 April 2014 (see Appendix) the applicants were detained by the police and officers of the FMS at a clothing factory in Maloyaroslavets.\n11.  On 15 and 16 April 2014 (see Appendix) the Maloyaroslavets District Court (“the District Court”) examined the applicants’ administrative files, found them guilty of administrative offences (breach of immigration rules and working without a permit) and ordered them to pay fines of between 2,000 and 3,000 Russian roubles (RUB) and their expulsion to Syria, in line with the procedure under Article 3.10 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicants all stated in court that they feared for their lives if returned to Syria and referred to information about the ongoing and widespread conflict there. The court found these statements to be general in nature and unsupported by any relevant evidence. The applicants also referred to the absence of work in Syria and the fact that in Russia they had been able to work illegally. The District Court then focused on the economic motives of their arrival and illegal stay. Pending expulsion the court ordered their detention at the detention centre.\n12.  The lawyer representing the applicants before the Court lodged appeals for all three of them, describing in detail the general situation in Syria and the danger of returning there, and citing and attaching the relevant country reports produced by the UNHCR and FMS. She also cited a circular letter issued by the Federal Bailiff Service on 30 August 2013 to its regional branches, according to which no entry was possible into Syrian territory in view of the hostilities and problems that would arise with the execution of court judgments ordering expulsion there. The lawyer argued, in detail, that the decisions to expel the applicants could not be implemented; in such circumstances their detention lost any purpose and became indefinite. The lawyer further cited an FMS circular letter of 23 January 2013 entitled “On the situation in Syria and the work with persons originating from Syria”, which stated that “in the current difficult political situation, when the Syrian authorities are unable to provide effective protection of their citizens from the illegal actions of the armed opposition ... most of the applicants ... have fled the country as a result of the armed conflict. ... Individuals who cannot not safely return [to Syria] and hav", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8792", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is detained in Mozzhukha, Kemerovo Region.\n5.  On 15 July 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of large-scale embezzlement.\n6.  On 16 July 2009 he was formally charged with the crime.\n7.  On 17 July 2009 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Kemerovo remanded the applicant in custody pending investigation. The judge found that (1) the applicant was suspected of a serious crime, (2) his involvement in embezzlement was confirmed by the evidential material in the case file, (3) he might put pressure on witnesses or (4) he might interfere with investigation.\n8.  On 10 November 2009 the Zavodskoy District Court of Kemerovo extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. The court referred to the gravity of the charges and reiterated that the applicant might threaten witnesses or interfere with investigation. It also observed that the applicant might re‑offend or abscond.\n9.  On 26 November 2009 the Kemerovo Regional Court upheld the detention order of 10 November 2009 on appeal.\n10.  The applicant remained in custody pending investigation and trial until his release on 24 June 2010.\n11.  On 5 November 2013 the applicant was found guilty of the charge.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8793", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Csengőd.\n5.  After the death of the applicant’s father, his second wife brought an action about the inheritance against the applicant on 13 February 2004.\n6.  At first instance, the court partly found for the applicant on 21 December 2007 but, on appeal, the Szeged Court of Appeal quashed the decision and remitted the case.\n7.  In the resumed proceedings, the second-instance court quashed a decision again on 22 February 2010, as confirmed by the Supreme Court on 8 December 2010.\n8.  In the proceedings resumed again, the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court partly found for the applicant on 27 May 2010. The judgment became final on 4 September 2010.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8794", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Vladičin Han.\n6.  The applicant was employed by “DPPK Delišes”, a socially-owned company based in Vladičin Han (“the debtor”).\n7.  On 7 October 2003, 28 January 2004 and 21 September 2004 the Vladičin Han Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the applicant specified sums in respect of salary arrears, social security contributions and procedural costs.\n8.  These judgements became final on 6 November 2003, 15 March 2004 and 26 October 2004, respectively.\n9.  On 12 August 2011, 2 September 2011 and 17 August 2011, respectively, the Vladičin Han Municipal Court issued enforcement orders with regard to the said judgements.\n10.  On 6 March 2013 the Vranje Court of First Instance, acting now as an enforcement court instead of the Vladičin Han Municipal Court, found, with respect to the judgments of 28 January 2004 and 21 September 2004, that the debtor had no assets against which the enforcement could be carried out and requested the applicant to propose a new inventory of the debtor’s assets within 45 days. The said court also warned the applicant that should he fail to do so, or if during the new inventory no assets were to be found, the court could decide to stay the enforcement proceedings.\n11.  The applicant did not propose a new inventory of debtor’s assets and by decision of the Vranje Court of First Instance of 10 May 2013 the enforcement proceedings were stayed in respect of the judgments of 28 January 2004 and 21 September 2004.\n12.  The enforcement proceedings instituted on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Vladičin Han Municipal Court on 7 October 2003 continued and are still pending.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8795", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Vardenis. She worked as a judge at Gegharkunik Regional Court.\n6.  On 17 February 2004 the Minister of Justice filed a motion with the Council of Justice seeking to have the applicant dismissed from her post under Section 30 (8) of the Law on the Status of a Judge. The motion stated that the applicant had been severely reprimanded on three occasions, namely in 1997, 2000 and 2001, for various gross violations of the rules of criminal procedure and another set of disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against her on the same grounds in December 2003.\n7.  On 2 March 2004 the Council of Justice examined the motion and decided to form a three-member commission to examine the factual basis of the motion and to report back to the Council.\n8.  On 27 April 2004 the Council of Justice adopted a conclusion recommending to the President of Armenia that the applicant be dismissed.\n9.  On 30 April 2004 the President of Armenia issued a decree dismissing the applicant from her post.\n10.  On 15 March 2005 the applicant lodged a claim with the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan, seeking to annul the President’s Decree of 30 April 2004 as unlawful. She argued that her dismissal from work had been in violation of a number of provisions of domestic law and various European instruments relating to the status of a judge. In particular, the motion for dismissal filed by the Minister of Justice on 17 February 2004 had been based upon matters which had been the subject of earlier disciplinary proceedings and in respect of which penalties had already been imposed. The motion did not contain any reasoning and was not accompanied by any supporting documentation and was, therefore, unsubstantiated. She further argued that judicial decisions were not supposed to be subject to a review other than by way of an appeal procedure prescribed by law. Thus, the commission of gross violations of the law (the alleged grounds for her dismissal) could only have been found by a higher court (which had not happened in her case) and not by non-judicial bodies and officials, such as the Council of Justice or the Minister of Justice. Finally, she claimed that the question of her dismissal had been examined by the Council of Justice in her absence, in violation of the relevant rules.\n11.  On 26 May 2005 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan decided under Article 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure to terminate the proceedings on the ground that the applicant’s claim was not subject to examination by the courts of general jurisdiction. In doing so, the District Court referred, inter alia, to Article 100 (1) of the Constitution, Article 15 § 2 of the Civil Code and Article 160 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the CCP).\n12.  On 7 June 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal.\n13.  On 13 July 2005 the Civil Court of Appeal examined and dismissed the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated.\n14.  On 5 August 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n15.  On 23 September 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and decided to terminate the proceedings on the same grounds as the District Court.\n16.  On 16 November 2006, in proceedings unrelated to this case, the Constitutional Court found the second paragraph of Article 160 § 1 of the CCP to be unconstitutional.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8798", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Kars.\n5.  As the facts of the case are in dispute between the parties, they will be set out separately. The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 5-9 below). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraphs 10-13 below). The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 14-30 below).\n6.  On 21 October 2006 the applicant and three of her friends were in the city of Kars, distributing leaflets prepared by TAYAD (Association for Solidarity with the Families of Persons Deprived of Their Liberty), in a residential neighbourhood.\n7.  A man in plain clothes arrived and attempted to seize the leaflets without showing his identity documents demonstrating that he was a police officer. As the applicant and her friends refused to comply with the man’s demand, he held two of the applicant’s friends around their necks. Subsequently, around thirty police officers arrived at the scene and arrested the applicant and her friends. In the course of the arrest, the police officers used force and hit the applicant on various parts of her body before putting her in a police vehicle. In the vehicle, a police officer sat on her head and continued to hit her. A number of police officers also touched various parts of her body and made sexually suggestive comments.\n8.  The applicant was taken to hospital, where she was examined by a doctor who observed skin erosions, red patches (erythema) and sensitive areas on the applicant’s head, face, shoulders, lower back, abdomen and wrist. He concluded that the injuries were not life-threatening and a simple medical procedure was sufficient to treat them.\n9.  The applicant was then taken to a police station, where the beating continued and where she was threatened with rape by one of the police officers. The applicant’s requests for information about the reasons for her arrest and for a lawyer were refused. Each time the applicant repeated her requests the police officers used offensive language.\n10.  A lawyer who arrived at the police station the same afternoon secured the applicant’s release.\n11.  On 21 October 2006 at around 11 a.m. the police received information according to which TAYAD members were distributing leaflets in a residential area in Kars. Two police officers, V.G. and H.Ö., arrived at the scene of the incident at 11.15 a.m. in order to verify whether the content of the leaflets was legal. One of the officers, V.G., approached the applicant and her friends, told them that he was a police officer and requested to see the content of the leaflets and their identity cards. As the applicant and her friends refused to comply and began using offensive language and hitting him, a second police officer intervened. They subsequently asked for help from other officers, who also arrived at the scene of the incident. The police arrested the applicant and her friends and tried to put them in a police vehicle. The arrestees, however, resisted arrest. They also continued to hit the officers in the vehicle. During the physical struggle between the arrestees and the police officers, V.G., was injured.\n12.  At 11.30 a.m. the applicant was examined by a doctor, who observed minor injuries on her head, shoulders and wrist. At 11.45 a.m. V.G. was also subjected to a medical examination by the same doctor. According to the medical repor", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8799", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1961, 1960 and 1949, respectively, and live in Novi Pazar.\n6.  They were employed by DP “Raška Holding Kompanija” AD, a socially-owned company based in Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the debtor”).\n7.  On 27 March 2003, 11 December 2003 and 3 October 2005 respectively, the Novi Pazar Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. These judgments became final on 22 April 2003, 16 January 2004 and 1 January 2006 respectively.\n8. On 23 May 2003, 25 February 2004 and 20 April 2006 respectively, upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Novi Pazar Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgments and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs.\n9.  On 5 November 2007, the Tutin Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. This judgment became final on 20 November 2007.\n10. On 19 October 2012, upon the second applicant’s request to that effect, the Tutin Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs.\n11.  On 12 May 2008, the Novi Pazar Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the third applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. This judgment became final on 22 July 2008.\n12. On 13 June 2011, upon the third applicant’s request to that effect, the Novi Pazar Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the third applicant the enforcement costs.\n13.  On 5 January 2004 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the debtor.\n14.  On 11 September 2013 the Kraljevo Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor.\n15.  The applicants duly reported their respective claims based on the above-mentioned judgments to the insolvency administration.\n16.  The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.5, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8800", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1957 and 1966, respectively, and live in Vladičin Han.\n6.  They were employed by DP “PK Delišes”, a socially-owned company based in Vladičin Han (hereinafter “the debtor”).\n7.  On 20 October 2003, the Vladičin Han Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions. This judgment became both final and enforceable by 31 October 2003.\n8. On 31 December 2003 upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Vladičin Han Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs.\n9.  On 18 February 2004, the Vladičin Han Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions. This judgment became both, final and enforceable by 11 April 2004.\n10. On 4 May 2004, upon the second applicant’s request to that effect, the Vladičin Han Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs.\n11. On 18 February 2004 the Privatisation Agency ordered the restructuring of the debtor.\n12.  On 30 January 2014 the Leskovac Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor.\n13.  The applicants duly reported their respective claims based on the above-mentioned judgments to the insolvency administration.\n14.  The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8801", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1991 and lives in Szeged.\n7.  On 21 January 2011 around 4 a.m. the applicant and his girlfriend Ms D.L. were about to leave a club in Szeged, when three men in their twenties, unknown to them, started to insult them. The three men made degrading comments about the applicant’s Roma origin and about the physical appearance of his girlfriend.\n8.  Subsequently a fourth person, Mr E.D., appeared, presenting himself as a police officer. (In fact, he was a penitentiary officer.) When Mr E.D. was about to leave, the applicant questioned him about his attitude using offensive and vulgar language, upon which Mr E.D. turned back and got into a fight with the applicant, which ended due to the intervention of three persons, the applicant’s acquaintances.\nFollowing the fight, Mr E.D. called the police. Two officers arrived. The applicant, Mr E.D. and Ms D.L. were then escorted to the local police station. They were released the day after. Although both the applicant and Mr E.D. had visible injuries, only Mr E.D. underwent a medical examination. According to the medical findings, he had bruises on his temple and a haematoma around his right eye.\n9.  On 23 January 2011 the applicant was examined by a general practitioner, who found that he had bruises on his chest, back, neck and face.\n10.  On 1 February 2011 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Szeged Public Prosecutor’s Office against Mr E.D. He submitted that the three who had insulted him had shouted at him “Dirty gypsy, do you need a cigarette? Here is money!” and thrown cigarettes and money at him. He also maintained that Mr E.D., who presented himself as a police officer upon his arrival at the scene, had asked the others whether “[they] could not handle a dirty little gypsy” and, turning to him, had called him a gypsy. He also gave a description of the injuries he had suffered.\nFurthermore, the applicant explained that the day after the incident he had identified Mr E.D. on a social network. He had extracted some of his posts and submitted them to the Prosecutor’s Office.\n11.  In these posts, Mr E.D. commented that the night before he “had been kicking in the head a gypsy lying on the ground when [he] was overcome by three of his buddies”. In reply to favourable posts by other users, Mr E.D. posted an Internet link to a video clip containing a widely known excerpt from a feature film with overtly intolerant and explicitly racist language. He added that the list of the types of people loathed by the character speaking in the clip could be completed with “some other types of rubbish living among us”.\n12.  On 7 February 2011 the Public Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation against Mr E.D. for the offence of “violence against a member of a group” within the meaning of section 170 (1) of the Criminal Code.\n13.  On 17 March 2011 the two police officers who had arrived at the scene were questioned, as well as Ms D.L. The latter corroborated the applicant’s version of the events. The testimony of the police officers’ did not contain any account of the incident; they had arrived at the scene only after the fight.\nThe applicant’s three acquaintances, whose intervention had ended the fight, were not questioned, their identity remaining unknown to the prosecution. The applicant was questioned about their contact details, however the only information he could provide were their nicknames.\n14.  In parallel, the Szeged Public Prosecutor’s office initia", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8803", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1944 and 1945 respectively and live in the village of Dospey.\n6.  The applicants are the parents of Angel Georgiev, who died on 26 December 1993, aged 23.\n7.  In the criminal proceedings related to Angel Georgiev’s death, the national courts established the relevant facts as follows.\n8.  On the evening of 25 December 1993 the applicants’ son was with friends of his in a bar in the town of Samokov. At some point an argument and a fight erupted between Angel and his friends and another group, one of whom was K.S. O.V., who was working as a security guard in the bar, attempted to separate the two groups, but was himself beaten up. The two groups went on to another bar, where there was another argument. The two groups then left.\n9.  O.V. gathered friends of his, who took several cars and started searching the streets for the people who had beaten him up. They found Angel Georgiev’s group, walking home. O.V. and his friend B.G. were among the first to get out of the cars. O.V. went first for Angel Georgiev’s brother, who ran away, while at the same time B.G. hit Angel Georgiev with a wooden plank. Angel fell to the ground, but managed to stand up again, and was then attacked by O.V. The two of them struggled briefly, until O.V. drew back, saying that Angel had stabbed him in the abdomen. O.V. was then taken by his friends to a hospital, and Angel ran away.\n10.  During that time K.S. and his friends had also been driving around the area. They heard people fighting in the distance and approached them. They saw somebody, who turned out to be Angel Georgiev, lying on the ground. First they kicked him repeatedly, but then became aware that he had been seriously wounded. They fled the scene, leaving him lying on the ground.\n11.  Angel Georgiev’s body was found by his brother the following morning, 26 December 1993, at the place where he had been left by K.S. and his friends, namely about 200 metres away from the scene of the struggle with O.V. Next to the body lay the pocket knife with which Angel had stabbed O.V. as found later by the investigation and the national courts.\nThere were shoeprints and car-tyre tracks around the body.\n12.  A post-mortem report showed that the applicants’ son had been lethally stabbed in the back. The blow had been administered while he had been standing, with considerable force. For some time thereafter, he had still been capable of moving and even running. He had died as a result of a hemorrhage in the chest cavity. There were other wounds and bruises on his face and head, which were unrelated to the cause of death.\n13.  Criminal proceedings in connection with Angel Georgiev’s murder were opened on 26 December 1993.\n14.  The place where his body had been found was inspected on the same day.\n15.  In the weeks that followed many of the participants in the events were interviewed by the investigating authorities. Some of them were interviewed again in 1997, after the prosecutor supervising the case had found that the relevant circumstances had not been adequately established.\n16.  On 28 December 1993 and 9 February 1994 respectively, the investigator in charge of the case charged K.S. and O.V. with Angel’s murder. K.S. was remanded in custody from 28 December 1993 to 2 March 1994, and O.V. from 9 February to 8 March 1994. The two accused were questioned on numerous occasions. K.S. denied having killed Angel Georgiev. O.V. initially confessed to having stabbed the victim but then withdrew", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8805", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul.\n6.  On 7 June 1999 the applicant and a number of other suspects were taken into police custody by officers from the Security Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters (Güvenlik Şube Müdürlüğü) on suspicion of membership of the DHKP-C (the abbreviation for the Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front, an illegal organisation). The applicant alleges that she was subjected to torture by police officers for four days.\n7.  On 9 June 1999 the applicant was taken to a forensic doctor, who noted that the applicant had complained that she had been hung by her arms for approximately ten minutes and that her head had been banged against a wall. The medical report indicates that she had a scrape under her left armpit, a 7-8 cm-long large brown macule on her right forearm and a 3 cm‑long oedema on her forehead above the nose.\n8.  On 11 June 1999 the applicant was brought before the Istanbul public prosecutor and then before a judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. Before both authorities she denied all accusations against her and complained that she had been subjected to ill-treatment while in police custody. She was subsequently detained pending trial.\n9.  On 14 June 1999 the applicant was examined by the prison doctor, who reported a 4x5 cm mark on her right forearm and a swelling on her right clavicle. According to the medical report, the applicant had stated that her arms felt painful and she had a headache.\n10.  On 18 June 1999 the applicant filed a complaint with the public prosecutor’s office in Istanbul against the police officers of the Security Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters, accusing them of having tortured her. She stated in particular that she had been hung by her arms and had received blows to her head.\n11.  On 8 June 2001 the Fatih public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute. The public prosecutor considered that the applicant had not been questioned as a suspect and that there was no evidence showing that the accused police officers had committed the crime of torture. The applicant claims that she was not notified of this decision.\n12.  On an unspecified date the investigation was reopened. Accordingly, on 18 April 2003 the applicant’s statement was taken by a public prosecutor in the prison where she was detained on remand. The applicant stated that at some time in June 1999 she had been taken into custody at the Anti-Terror Branch of the Istanbul Security Headquarters, where she had been ill-treated for seven to eight days. She noted in particular that she had been undressed, threatened with rape, beaten and hung by her arms by the police officers. The applicant stated that she had been unable to use her arms for approximately one month subsequent to her detention in police custody. She further stated that she could identify the police officers in question.\n13.  On 6 August 2003 the Fatih public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Fatih Criminal Court, charging two police officers, A.T. and Z.T., under Article 245 of the former Criminal Code with inflicting ill‑treatment on the applicant while in police custody between 7 and 10 June 1999.\n14.  On 8 September 2005 the Fatih Criminal Court considered that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The court held that the accusations against A.T. and Z.T. could not be qualified as ill-treatment within the meaning of Article 245 of the former Criminal Code but should be qualified rather as t", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8806", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1976 and 1948 respectively and live in Požega.\n6.  They were employed by Raketa-Putnički Saobraćaj AD, a socially-owned company based in Užice (hereinafter “the debtor”).\n7.  On 26 June 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. This judgment became final on 7 July 2006.\n8. On 15 August 2006 upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Požega Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs.\n9.  On 22 September 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. This judgment became final on 8 October 2006.\n10.  On 19 October 2006 upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Požega Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs.\n11.  On 22 January 2008 the Požega Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. This judgment became final by 2009.\n12.  On 24 September 2009 upon the first applicant’s request to that effect, the Požega Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs.\n13.  On 19 June 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. This judgment became final on 5 July 2006.\n14. On 21 August 2006 upon the second applicant’s request to that effect, the Požega Municipal Cour ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs.\n15.  On 21 September 2006 the Požega Municipal Court ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. This judgment became final on 6 October 2006.\n16.  On 17 October 2006 upon the second applicant’s request to that effect, the Požega Municipal Court ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs.\n17.  The debtor, which operated as a socially-owned company, was privatised on 27 December 2002.\n18.  On 17 July 2007 the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations.\n19.  Following the annulment of the debtor’s privatisation the State owned 58.18% of shares in the company.\n20.  On 11 December 2008 the State sold its shares to a private company.\n21.  On 12 July 2010 the Užice Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor. As a result, all of the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were stayed.\n22.  The applicants duly reported their respective claims based on the above-mentioned judgments to the insolvency administration.\n23.  On 8 June 2011 the Commercial Court recognized a part of the applicants’ claims.\n24.  In March 2014 an", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8807", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1992.\n6.  On 9 July 2009 the applicant’s father introduced the applicant ‒ who was seventeen years old at the time ‒ to Mr R., an official of the Derbent town administration. The latter promised to hire the applicant as his personal assistant.\n7.  On 10 July 2009 the applicant went to Mr R.’s office, assuming that she was to be employed there. She was assigned minor tasks such as making tea and cleaning up the office. On several occasions between 10 and 17 July 2012 the applicant was forced to have sexual intercourse with Mr R. in his office. Mr R. employed physical violence and put psychological pressure on the applicant as he threatened to use his influence and connections in the town administration to harm her family.\n8.  On 17 July 2009 Mr R. and Mr A. locked the door to Mr R.’s office at the end of the working day and raped the applicant. Afterwards both men cleaned their genitalia with a piece of pink cloth. Mr R. also used a green baby shirt for this purpose. Later Mr R. took the applicant outside, put her in a car and drove out of town. At some point he stopped the car and forcibly had intercourse with the applicant. Mr R. then drove the applicant to her family home and told her to remain silent about the events, threatening to kill her or her family should she complain to anyone.\n9.  After that day, the applicant stopped going to Mr R.’s office.\n10.  It later transpired that Mr R. had never had any intention of employing the applicant and that she had not been formally hired as his personal assistant.\n11.  On 21 July 2009 the applicant told her father that she had been forced to have sexual intercourse with Mr R. and Mr A. He contacted a local unit of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Prosecutor’s Office (“the investigative committee”), asking that an investigation into the rape be opened.\n12.  On 24 July 2009 the applicant made a statement to an investigator from the Derbent investigative committee, Mr M.K., describing the events of 10‑17 July 2009 in detail.\n13.  On the same date Mr M.K. and other officials from the Derbent investigative committee inspected Mr R.’s office. They found the pieces of green and pink cloth which, according to the applicant, had been used by Mr R. and Mr A. on 17 July 2009 after the intercourse had taken place, and collected them as evidence.\n14.  Between 24 July and 6 August 2009 a forensic expert, a gynaecologist and a proctologist examined the applicant. The forensic report drawn up afterwards stated that the applicant’s hymen was intact and that there were no signs of anal intercourse.\n15.  On 2 August 2009 Mr M.K. rejected the request to open an investigation into the rape. He noted, among other things, that Mr R. and Mr A., when questioned, had stated that they had not had sexual intercourse with the applicant. Mr R. had also claimed that the applicant had stolen 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB) from his desk and had therefore had an interest in slandering him. The investigator also mentioned the medical examinations of the applicant, Mr R. and Mr A. carried out on 23 and 24 June 2009, which had recorded no visible signs of blood or sperm on either Mr R.’s or Mr A.’s genitalia and had shown the applicant’s hymen to be intact. The investigator further pointed out that the pieces of cloth found in Mr R.’s office had not been examined by any experts and that in the absence of an expert examination report it was impossible to open a criminal investigation; howeve", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8808", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1970. According to the most recently available information, in June 2013 the applicant moved to the town of Illichivsk, Ukraine, after being released from detention. He did not inform the Court of his current whereabouts.\n7.  According to the information submitted by the Government, on 21 August 2006 the Illichivskyy Town Court conditionally sentenced the applicant to two years’ imprisonment for drug-related offences. On the same day the same court remanded the applicant in custody pending trial, since the applicant was also suspected of committing a theft.\n8.  On 29 May 2007 the Illichivskyy Town Court sentenced the applicant to one year’s imprisonment for theft.\n9.  On 25 June 2008 the same court convicted the applicant of inflicting grievous bodily harm and sentenced him to eight and a half years’ imprisonment. Since the applicant had previous unserved convictions the total term was established as nine years’ imprisonment.\n10.  According to the Government, the applicant tested positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”) as early as 1996. According to the available information, while at liberty the applicant spent time in an infectious diseases department of a hospital (diagnosis unspecified) on one occasion on 18-22 September 2003.\n11.  On 30 December 2006 the applicant was arrested and placed in the Illichivskyy Pre-trial Detention Facility (ізолятор тимчасового тримання Іллічівського міського відділу Головного управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ України в Одеській області). The Government submitted that it was impossible to establish the exact period of the applicant’s stay in that facility, since all the relevant documents had already been destroyed.\n12.  Between 15 January 2007 and 25 December 2008 the applicant was detained in the Izmayilskyy Temporary Detention Centre (Ізмаїльський слідчий ізолятор) (“the SIZO”). He was also there between 10 March and 4 May 2009.\n13.  According to the Government, on 15 January 2007 the applicant was examined and it was established that he was “practically healthy”. During his stay in the SIZO the applicant underwent examinations and received medical treatment as follows: on at least three occasions in 2007 and 2008 the applicant underwent chest X-rays (lungs and heart: no pathologies revealed) and had one blood test (RW, negative). In July and November 2008 he was also examined by a paramedic and diagnosed with prostatitis. The applicant was prescribed medication.\n14.  Between 26 December 2008 and 10 March 2009 the applicant was serving a sentence in Odessa Correctional Colony No. 14 (Одеська виправна колонія №14). He was also there between 5 May 2009 and 5 September 2012.\n15.  In Odessa Correctional Colony No. 14 the applicant received the following treatment: in March 2009 the applicant was examined and found to be “practically healthy”. In December 2009 the applicant had a viral respiratory infection. In January and September 2011 the applicant was examined by a general practitioner. On a later date the applicant was diagnosed with thrombophlebitis and prescribed treatment. On two occasions, in 2011 and 2012, the applicant was X-rayed; no pathologies were found.\n16.  Between 23 November and 3 December 2011 the applicant was in a medical ward with a diagnosis of thrombophlebitis. In November 2011 the Odessa Colony’s authorities enquired about the applicant’s HIV status with the Odessa Regional State Sanitary-Epidemiological Service. On 23 November ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8809", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Chervonograd.\n5.  On 29 June 2010 the applicant’s mother K. was found in her house with grave bodily injuries. On 1 July 2010 she succumbed to those injuries while undergoing treatment in a hospital.\n6.  On 7 November 2010 the police instituted a criminal investigation into her death.\n7.  On 16 November 2010 the police questioned K.’s neighbours and relatives who stated that the applicant had frequently beaten her. A. and B. stated that shortly before her death, K. had told them that on 29 June 2010 she had been beaten by the applicant.\n8.  On 16 November 2010 the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of having beaten his mother which resulted in her death. On the same date the applicant was arrested for seventy-two hours. According to the applicant, the arrest record mentioned that he was arrested in order to “prevent him from fleeing or obstructing the course of investigation”. It also mentioned that witnesses had indicated that the applicant had beaten his mother. A copy of the arrest record is not available to the Court.\n9.  On 19 November 2010 the Sokal Court¸ referring to Article 165-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, extended the applicant’s detention until 26 November 2010 on the ground that the police needed time to collect information about his personality and health condition. The court did not explain why the said information had not been collected between 16 and 19 November 2010.\n10.  On 26 November 2010 the same court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand until 26 January 2011 on the grounds that he was charged with a serious offence and that, if at liberty, he might continue his criminal activities, abscond and obstruct justice. The court did not provide any further details in this respect.\n11.  On 26 November 2010 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was sent to the Sokal Court for trial.\n12.  On 24 December 2010 the Sokal Court held a preliminary hearing during which the applicant lodged a request for release. He argued that there was no evidence that he might hinder investigation or evade justice, that he had a permanent place of residence and poor health. On the same date the court rejected this request and ordered the applicant to remain in detention stating that there was no reason to change his preventive measure. The court did not fix a time-limit for the applicant’s continuing detention.\n13.  On 17 March and 10 July 2011, respectively, the applicant lodged two more requests for release advancing the same arguments as in his previous request. In the request of 17 March 2011 he also argued that his wife had financial means to pay his bail. The Sokal Court rejected the request of 17 March 2011 on the day when it was lodged and the request of 10 July 2011 on 12 July 2011. The court stated, without providing further details or referring to concrete facts, that if at liberty the applicant could continue his criminal activities and abscond.\n14.  According to the applicant, on 22 March 2011 the Lviv Regional Court of Appeal refused to consider his appeal against the decision of 17 March 2011. A copy of the court of appeal’s decision is not available to the Court.\n15.  On 30 January 2012 the Sokal Court granted the applicant’s further request for release. He was released on the same day.\n16.  As of 26 March 2014 the criminal case against the applicant remained pending before the Sokal Court. The parties did not in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8811", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1979 in the town of Osh, Kyrgyzstan, and lives in St Petersburg.\n7.  The applicant is an ethnic Uzbek. In June 2010 ethnic violence erupted in the town of Osh, where the applicant lived at the material time, during which around 400 people were killed.\n8.  On 15 July 2010 the applicant came to Russia, and has not returned to Kyrgyzstan since.\n9.  On 9 April 2012 the police of the town of Osh charged the applicant in absentia with participation in the mass riots and several other offences.\n10.  On 10 April 2012 the Osh Town Court issued an arrest warrant against the applicant, and on 20 April 2012 his name was put on the cross‑border wanted list.\n11.  On 23 January 2013 the applicant was arrested in St Petersburg and remanded in custody two days later by a court order. His detention was extended several times.\n12.  On 7 March 2014 the St Petersburg transport prosecutor noted the interim measure indicated by the Court and ordered the applicant’s release from detention under the personal guarantee of his lawyer.\n13.  On 11 February 2013 the Kyrgyzstan Prosecutor General’s Office requested the applicant’s extradition for prosecution for participation in mass riots in June 2010, intentional infliction of grievous bodily injury and use of violence against a police officer, car-jacking, and intentional destruction of property.\n14.  On 24 May 2013 the applicant’s lawyer submitted to the Prosecutor General of Russia a letter referring to reports of international organisations and the Court’s case-law evidencing that there was a high risk that the applicant would be subjected to inhuman treatment if he were extradited.\n15.  On 24 July 2013 a deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation granted the request of the Kyrgyzstan Prosecutor General’s Office for the applicant’s extradition. He held that there were no grounds in Russian or international law for refusing to extradite the applicant.\n16.  The applicant appealed, maintaining that, as a member of the ethnic Uzbek community which was being persecuted and discriminated against, he ran a serious and real risk of being subjected to torture in detention.\n17.  On 6 November 2013 the St Petersburg City Court rejected that appeal, finding as follows:\n“Taking into account the materials submitted, there are no grounds under Article 464 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia that exclude the possibility of extraditing an individual ...\nThe applicant’s argument that the extradition is unlawful because he has refugee proceedings pending is untenable, and the arguments about his possible persecution by the law-enforcement authorities of Kyrgyzstan because of his ethnic origin are unsubstantiated and do not constitute a ground to refuse the extradition. The information of [the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Russia] according to which the examination of the criminal case against [the applicant] by the authorities of Kyrgyzstan might be biased, is conjecture and is not based on any proof ...\nThe Prosecutor General of Kyrgyzstan has provided assurances that, according to the standards of international law and the criminal law of Kyrgyzstan, [the applicant] would be afforded all means of defence, including legal assistance, would not be handed to a third country without the approval of the Russian Prosecutor General, or charged with and convicted of any offence committed before the extradition and for which he was not extradited. He would not be subjected to torture or to c", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8813", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Baku. She is an Azerbaijani national of Tatar origin and has no relatives in Azerbaijan.\n6.  The applicant was the owner of flat no. 51, with a surface area of 28.5 sq. m, situated on the first floor of building no. 58 on Fuzuli street, in Baku.\n7.  The building where the applicant’s flat was located was built in 1908 and was classified as an architectural monument. It was registered on the list of “Historical and Cultural Immovable Property of Local Importance” established by a decision of 2 August 2001 of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Azerbaijan.\n8.  On 24 September 2008 the Head of the Baku City Executive Authority (“the BCEA”) issued order no. 511 entitled “Concerning Construction of a New Park Complex, Relocation of Residential and Non‑Residential Accommodation from that Area” (Yeni park kompleksinin salınması, ərazidə yerləşən yaşayış və qeyri-yaşayış sahələrinin köçürülməsi haqqında) (“the order of 24 September 2008”). The order of 24 September 2008 reads:\n“The Baku City Executive Authority has in recent years taken the appropriate steps in the organisation of renovation projects, which comply with international standards, in the capital of the Republic of Azerbaijan within the framework of the economic development programmes carried out in the Republic, and in this connection, in accordance with the economic development of the city, renovation and reconstruction projects have been continuously carried out in areas which are for the communal use of inhabitants, such as municipal roads, streets and squares, parks and avenues, as well as residential areas.\nIn accordance with an instruction from the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the task of demolishing the buildings located behind Heydar Aliyev Palace (the area bounded by Fuzuli, Samed Vurgun, Shamsi Badalbeyli and Tobchubashov streets) and constructing a new garden-park complex in that area was assigned to the Baku City Executive Authority and it was decided that the compensation due in respect of residential and non-residential premises situated in that area would be paid by the State Oil Company of the Republic of Azerbaijan.\nIt should be emphasised that, as current legislation has not so far provided rules concerning evaluation in connection with the relocation of dwellings situated in a demolition area and purchased for State needs, there are difficulties in relation to the relocation of the population residing in such dwellings. Moreover, when such relocation is carried out by State bodies, the population overestimates the value of their homes, offering them for a price several times higher than their market value, resulting in additional expense. For these reasons, it was decided that a natural person, namely Kazimov Rufan Habil oglu, would be contracted to conduct negotiations with the people residing at the above-mentioned addresses and carry out their relocation.\nIn this connection, on the basis of a letter from the Baku City Executive Authority, the State Oil Company of the Republic of Azerbaijan transferred 5 (five) million manats to the bank account of natural person Kazimov Rufan Habil oglu for the purpose of executing the aforementioned tasks, and this amount was duly spent.\nIn the next phase, the State Oil Company did not consider it appropriate to transfer the remaining part of the amount directly to the bank account of a natural person and instead proposed to transfer it to the Baku City Execu", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8814", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1981. According to the most recently available information, in January 2014 the applicant was released from detention having served his sentence. He did not inform the Court of his current whereabouts.\n6.  According to the available medical documents, the applicant has been using drugs since 1996. In 1997 the applicant was diagnosed with hepatitis C and hepatic cirrhosis. The applicant has been HIV-positive since 2008. In 2008 he also had tuberculosis.\n7.  In March 2010 the applicant was taken into custody and placed in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre (Київський слідчий ізолятор) (“the SIZO”). On 13 July 2010 the Obolonskyy District Court, Kyiv, sentenced the applicant to five years’ imprisonment for drug-related offences and theft. On 4 September 2010 the applicant was transferred to serve his sentence in the Bilotserkivska Correctional Colony No. 35. In May 2011 the applicant was diagnosed HIV-positive at clinical stage 4. On 24 May 2011 the applicant’s CD4+ cell count was 687 (16.3%). On 7 July 2011 the Irpinskyy Town Court released him from serving the remainder of his sentence in view of his poor state of health.\n8.  On 25 July 2011 the applicant was registered for regular medical checks at the Kyiv City Aids Centre.\n9.  On 1 February 2012 the Dniprovskyy District Court sentenced the applicant to four years’ imprisonment for theft.\n10.  On 2 February 2012 the applicant was placed in the Kyiv SIZO. On arrival the applicant was examined by medical staff and had two chest X‑rays. It was recommended that the applicant consult a tuberculosis specialist.\n11.  On 8 February 2012 the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist and diagnosed with post-tuberculosis residual changes in the right lung.\n12.  On 16 or 20 March 2012 (relevant documents contain both dates) the applicant was placed in the SIZO medical ward. He stayed there until 18 February 2013 with the following diagnoses: acute haemorrhoidal bleeding, haemorrhoids, chronic multiple drug use, HIV at clinical stage 3, oropharyngeal candidiasis, chronic secondary candidiasis, acute enterocolitis, chronic hepatitis, residual post-tuberculosis changes, liver cell failure, and other conditions. The applicant was prescribed various medication.\n13.  According to the Government, the applicant was examined by doctors in the SIZO medical ward on numerous occasions. In particular, on 22 March 2012 the applicant was examined by a surgeon and was examined by a general practitioner on the following dates: on 11, 16, 21 and 25 May 2012 with complaints of fever and weakness; on 18 and 22 June 2012 with complaints of fever and weakness; on 16 July 2012 with complaints of coughing with sputum, sweating, general weakness and fever; on 1, 3, 10, 15, 23 and 28 August 2012; on 4 and 10 September 2012; on 4, 10, 15, 22 and 29 October 2012; on 5, 9, 16, 23 and 29 November 2012; and on 5, 11, 18, 24 and 27 December 2012.\nOn the majority of those occasions it was decided to continue the prescribed treatment.\n14.  In addition to the above consultations, between March 2012 and 18 February 2013 the applicant received the following medical care: on 10 April 2012 the applicant had a chest X-ray and it was recommended that he see a tuberculosis specialist. Subsequently the applicant was examined and diagnosed with post-tuberculosis residual changes in the right lung. On 13 July 2012 he had another consultation with a tuberculosis specialist; on 24 October 2012 the appli", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8815", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977. According to the most recently available information, in June 2013 the applicant was placed by a court under house arrest in the town of Bryanka, Ukraine. The applicant has not informed the Court of his current whereabouts.\n6.  In January 2012 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking.\n7.  On 30 January 2012 the applicant was placed in the Starobilsk Pre-Trial Detention Centre (Старобільський слідчий ізолятор) (“the SIZO”). On arrival the applicant was examined by a general practitioner, a psychiatrist, a dentist, a tuberculosis specialist and a dermatologist. According to the Government, the applicant was diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”) (clinical stage 3), chronic bronchitis, toxic encephalopathy and neuropathy caused by prolonged use of drugs, and tuberculosis residual changes. At that time the applicant’s weight was 55 kg. The applicant is 1.78 metres tall.\n8.  According to the Government, on 1 February 2012 the applicant was offered a CD4+ cell count, which he refused. The case-file material includes a written note dated 7 February 2012 that the applicant refused “a blood test”. It is signed by a member of staff of the SIZO medical unit.\n9.  According to the Government, between 30 January 2012 and 8 January 2013 the applicant did not ask for any medical assistance in the SIZO. However, it appears from the applicant’s medical file that in September 2012 he was examined by a tuberculosis specialist and underwent an X-ray. According to the medical records provided by the Government, in November 2012, while briefly detained in a different temporary detention facility, the applicant had bronchitis and complained of kidney pain.\n10.  On 8 January 2013, following the applicant’s complaint of a cough and a fever, he was diagnosed with chronic bronchitis and was prescribed treatment.\n11.  On 9 January 2013 the applicant was found unconscious in his cell.\n12.  On the same day the Head of the SIZO requested the Bryankivskyy Local Court to accelerate the proceedings in the applicant’s case or to release him on an undertaking not to abscond, since the applicant needed urgent medical treatment in a specialised hospital.\n13.  On 10 January 2013 the above court decided that the applicant should remain in pre-trial detention but should be placed either in a specialised prison hospital or in a civilian hospital.\n14.  According to a medical certificate, between 9 and 11 January 2013 the applicant was in hospital. He was diagnosed with acute serose meningoencephalitis. It was noted that the applicant was “in a soporose state”.\n15.  On 11 January 2013 the applicant was returned to the SIZO, where he stayed in the medical unit until 15 February 2013. During this period the applicant was also an inmate at least once in the Alchevsk Temporary Detention Facility (“Alchevsk ITT”) (Алчевський ізолятор тимчасового тримання).\n16.  On 17 January 2013 the applicant requested under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that the respondent Government be asked to place him in a hospital. It was argued that the applicant needed additional examination, in particular by a psychiatrist, in order to be prescribed anti-retroviral therapy (“the ART”), and for the stage of his tuberculosis to be correctly determined and for appropriate treatment to be prescribed, as well for him to be provided with adequate medical assistance in respect of the epilepsy from which the applicant allegedly suffered.\n17.  Accordi", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8816", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1975. According to the most recently available information, in September 2013 the applicant arrived at Buchanska Correctional Colony No. 85, Ukraine, to serve a sentence. He has not informed the Court of his current whereabouts.\n6.  For a number of years the applicant has been suffering from various health problems. In particular, in July 2009, apparently also while serving a sentence, he was hospitalised in Buchanska Correctional Colony No. 85 and later transferred to a tuberculosis hospital in Slavyanoserbska Correctional Colony No. 61. Since November 2009 the applicant has been registered with the Kyiv City Aids Prevention and Control Centre. It appears that in December 2011 the applicant had a CD4+ cell count, the result of this count being 23 cells. No more detailed information about his precise diagnosis or about any further events between 2009 and September 2012 is available.\n7.  According to the applicant, on 7 September 2012 he was arrested on suspicion of theft. In a letter to this Court of 21 June 2013 the applicant stated that at the moment of his arrest he had had the following illnesses: human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) at clinical stage 4, post-tuberculosis residual effects, oropharyngeal candidiasis, and chronic hepatitis type C.\n8.  The decision on the applicant’s pre-trial detention was taken by a court on 10 September 2012. Between 27 September 2012 and 29 September 2013 the applicant was detained in the Kyiv Pre-Trial Detention Centre (Київський слідчий ізолятор) (“the SIZO”).\n9.  On arrival at the SIZO the applicant underwent an initial medical examination. The Government submitted a copy of the applicant’s initial medical examination card with the following information: height 1.77 m; weight 63 kg; blood pressure 125/80; blood type (unclear handwriting); bodily injuries none; infectious diseases: pulmonary tuberculosis – 2008, Botkin’s disease, – “-”, and sexually transmitted diseases – “-”. It was noted that the applicant had “no health complaints”. The applicant also submitted during the examination that he was registered with the Kyiv City Aids Prevention and Control Centre.\n10.  According to the applicant, because of the deterioration of his health in November 2012 he was examined in the above Centre. The only document provided in support of this statement is an advisory opinion issued by the Centre “on request” on 8 November 2012. The opinion stated, without noting when exactly the applicant had been examined, that the applicant had been diagnosed with HIV at clinical stage 4, post-tuberculosis residual changes, oropharyngeal candidiasis, and chronic viral hepatitis type C. The opinion also cited the result of the applicant’s CD4+ cell count performed on 13 December 2011. It was recommended that the applicant take antiretroviral therapy (“ART”) for life. In their submissions of 5 July 2013 following the applicant’s request under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court (see paragraph 4 above), the Government noted that on 8 November 2012 the applicant had been diagnosed as above.\n11.  On 10 December 2012 the applicant agreed to undergo an HIV test following his “request submitted to the SIZO doctors”. According to the results of this test dated 12 December 2012, the applicant had HIV antibodies.\n12.  On 9 January 2013 the applicant underwent a biochemical blood analysis and a CD4+ cell count (the result of the count was 3 cells, or 0.5% (percentage of total lymphocytes)). The applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8817", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 6 October 2004 the applicant, who was then a police officer, was arrested on suspicion of extortion. On 8 October 2004 the Khabarovsk Zheleznodorozhniy District Court (“the District Court”) remanded him in custody, finding as follows:\n“There is a reasonable suspicion in the present criminal case, supported by the enclosed documents: statements by B. [the alleged victim of the extortion]; the crime scene report; the report on the marking and examination of the banknotes; the report on the search of and seizure of money from O. [a co-accused]; minutes of interviews with B., the prime suspect O., and K, a witness. When deciding on the remand matter, the court is not required to evaluate whether the existing evidence is sufficient for a finding of guilt.\n[The applicant], a police officer, is suspected of having masterminded and supervised the commission of a serious crime by a criminal group which included other police officers. It follows from the statements by B. and K. that, after they had complained to the police about extortion, they continued to receive threats of physical violence from [the applicant], Sh. and Z. In these circumstances, [the applicant] must be remanded in custody because a more lenient restrictive measure cannot be imposed.”\n8.  On 21 October 2004 the Khabarovsk Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) upheld the decision of 8 October 2004 on appeal.\n10.  On 3 December 2004 the District Court extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention until 6 February 2005. The court noted as follows:\n“Regard being had to the submissions made by the parties, the case file, and the fact that, as a police officer, [the applicant], if not in custody, might abscond, put pressure on victims and witnesses who identified him as a person who had committed a crime, or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice ... The judge does not consider that the restrictive measure imposed on [the applicant] can be replaced with a more lenient one ...”\n12.  On 4 February 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 6 April 2005 indicating as follows:\n“Having studied the case file and having listened to the parties to the proceedings, the court does not discern circumstances that would justify the replacement of the restrictive measure imposed on [the applicant].\n[The applicant] is charged with a serious offence. He has organised a criminal group and has been its leader. If not in custody, he can put pressure on the parties to the proceedings.\nThe above presumption as to the [applicant’s] potential conduct is based on the information about the [applicant’s] character and his modus operandi.”\n13.  On 5 April 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 7 May 2005, noting as follows:\n“... [The] court takes into account the seriousness of the crime [the applicant] is charged with ... The court considers that, as an active police officer able to use his position, [the] applicant might put pressure on victims and witnesses who directly identified him as an offender, or otherwise interfere with the establishment of the truth. Furthermore, the [applicant’s] assertion that he is suffering from a serious disease ... cannot be taken into account by the court. No medical report has been submitted to show whether [the applicant] was fit or not for detention.”\n14.  On 5 May 2005, the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 6 July 2005 arguing as follows:\n“Regard being had to the circumstances of", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8818", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1989 and lives in Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland.\n6.  In 2006 a solicitor in Northern Ireland was arrested and charged with a number of offences, including inciting paramilitaries to murder and perverting the course of justice. The case arose out of the covert recording of his consultations with clients at Antrim police station. As a direct consequence of the criminal proceedings, solicitors in Northern Ireland became aware that their private consultations with detainees in police stations and prisons could be the subject of covert surveillance. Thereafter, solicitors attending detainees in police stations and prisons began to seek assurances from the police that their consultations would not be the subject of such surveillance.\n7.  When the police refused to give assurances, judicial review proceedings were initiated on the basis that there had been a breach of the common law right to legal and professional privilege, the statutory right to a private consultation with a lawyer, and Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.\n8.  In the case of Re C & Others [2007] NIQB 101A the Divisional Court of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland found that, despite the express statutory right to private consultations, the covert surveillance of lawyer-client consultations was permitted by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”). However, RIPA provided for two principal surveillance schemes: intrusive surveillance and directed surveillance. At the time of the hearing, covert surveillance of legal consultations was being treated as directed surveillance, which was the least restrictive of the two schemes. The Divisional Court held that the fundamental right of a detained person to consult a legal adviser privately necessitated an enhanced authorisation scheme and that protections afforded by the directed as opposed to the intrusive surveillance scheme offered insufficient protection. If the surveillance of consultations between legal advisers and clients in police custody was to be lawful for the purposes of Article 8 of the Convention, the safeguards for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance had to apply.\n9.  The applicants in these judicial review proceedings appealed against the court’s ruling that the surveillance was permitted by the domestic legislation. The appeal went to the House of Lords, where it was referred to as Re McE (Northern Ireland) [2009] UKHL 15. The House of Lords agreed with the Divisional Court that although the provisions of RIPA could override, inter alia, legal professional privilege, the higher level of authority necessary for an intrusive surveillance warrant was required rather than the directed surveillance warrants that had, until then, been issued.\n10.  As the Police Service of Northern Ireland (“PSNI”) had not appealed against the Divisional Court’s ruling that the use of the directed surveillance scheme had breached Article 8 of the Convention, the House of Lords criticised the Secretary of State for not having taken any steps to ensure that covert surveillance of legal consultations was not treated as directed surveillance.\n11.  Following the decision of the House of Lords in Re McE the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Extension of Authorisation Provisions: Legal Consultations) Order 2010 (“the 2010 Order”) was adopted and on 6 April 2010 a revised Covert Surveillance Code of Practice (“the Revised Code”) came into effect. Pursuant to the 2010 Order, directed", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8821", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  On 16 May 2006 the applicant’s husband filed a petition for divorce with the Larnaca Family Court. This was on the ground that his marriage to the applicant had broken down irretrievably because, among other reasons, he and the applicant had been separated for five years (that is, one year longer than the minimum period required by law: see relevant domestic law and practice at paragraph 25 below).\n6.  The case was set for a directions hearing on 14 June 2006. On that date the applicant appeared in person and asked for additional time to file her defence to the petition: the Family Court acceded to her request and adjourned the hearing to 4 October 2006.\n7.  On 14 June 2006 the applicant applied to the Family Court for legal aid. The hearing of that legal aid application was fixed for 15 September 2006. On 15 September the applicant appeared before the court and asked for a one-month extension as she was not sure if she would maintain her application. The court adjourned the legal aid hearing to 19 October 2006.\n8.  On 4 October 2006, the applicant attended court and requested a further extension for filing her defence to the petition on the ground that her legal aid application was pending. The court adjourned the case to 1 November 2006 and directed that the applicant file her defence by that date.\n9.  The applicant did in fact decide to maintain her legal aid application. When this legal aid application came before the Family Court on 19 October 2006, the court considered that the application came within the scope of the Law on Legal Aid (see relevant domestic law and practice at paragraph 23 below) so it instructed the Welfare Office to prepare a social welfare report on the applicant and adjourned the hearing of the legal aid application to 17 November 2006.\n10.  The applicant failed to file her defence to the petition for divorce by 1 November 2006 as directed. She also failed to appear in court on that date. In her absence, counsel for the applicant’s husband requested that the case be set for trial. The court acceded to this request and a trial date of 22 November 2006.\n11.  The legal aid application came before the court on 17 November 2006 as scheduled. The applicant attended court. However, because no one from the Welfare Office was present, the court adjourned its examination of the application to 21 December 2006.\n12.  On 22 November 2006 the applicant did not appear at court for the trial in the main proceedings. The applicant’s husband attended with counsel. In the applicant’s absence, the court proceeded to hear the evidence of her husband who stated that the couple had been suffering problems and had been separated since December 2000. No other witnesses were heard. The court gave an ex tempore judgment granting the petition for divorce.\n13.  Although the petition for divorce had been granted, the hearing in the legal aid application went ahead as scheduled on 21 December 2006. The applicant was not present at court. A representative of the Welfare Office informed the court that, from a letter in the court file dated 20 December 2006, which had been sent by a welfare officer to the court registrar, it appeared that the applicant was no longer interested in receiving legal aid. The court accordingly dismissed the legal aid application for want of prosecution.\n14.  On 29 December 2006 the applicant appealed against the Family Court’s judgment to the Family Court of Appeal. She was legally represented on appeal.\n15.  T", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8822", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Şomoşcheş, Arad County.\n6.  At the time of the events in the present case, the applicant was serving a prison sentence for fraud, imposed by two decisions of the Timişoara Court of Appeal on 14 August 2002 and 11 November 2004. He was held mainly in Arad and Timişoara Prisons. In 2008 he spent a few days in cell no. 309 of Jilava Prison. According to the applicant’s description, the cell was dirty and lacked access to warm water.\n7.  On several occasions the applicant was kept in the court’s detention rooms where the detainees and guards were allowed to smoke. According to the applicant, he was exposed to passive smoking in the Arad County Court detention room on 15 December 2008.\n8.  According to the information provided by the prison administration and forwarded to the Court by the Government, the applicant was held in cell no. 309 in Jilava Prison from 29 May to 1 June 2008 and from 16 to 18 June 2008. The personal space available to the applicant was 1.65 sq. m during the first period of detention and 1.93 sq. m during the second period of detention. Disinfection and pest control were carried out three times per year and the cell was cleaned daily by the inmates. The same rules of hygiene applied to the toilets and shower rooms. The cell benefitted from both natural and artificial light and had beds with mattresses, tables, shelves, and a television set. In an annex to the cell there was a toilet space, consisting of two partitioned toilet bowls and two wash basins. Access to warm water was possible in the common shower room, which contained eighteen showers and to which the inmates had access in privacy once a week.\n9.  On 30 November 2008 the applicant was not allowed to vote in the parliamentary elections and, despite his requests for clarifications, the prison authorities gave him no explanations as to whether he was entitled to vote or not. The next day, he informed the Court about what had happened.\n10.  On 21 December 2009 the applicant was released on probation. He was arrested again on 2 July 2010 and served the rest of his sentence until 28 March 2011.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8823", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in the town of Ananyiv, Ukraine. At the material time, the applicant was the head of a territorial election commission.\n6.  At approximately 6.30 a.m. on 31 October 2004 – the day of the first round of the presidential elections – while on his way to the territorial election commission headquarters, the applicant met four police officers walking in the same direction who were unfamiliar to him (later identified as police officers K., L., P. and D.). The applicant struck up a conversation with them, which apparently ended up in a verbal confrontation.\n7.  According to the applicant, when they reached Ananiyivskyy District Police Station, the police officers pushed him inside and physically assaulted him.\n8.  According to the Government, when the group reached the police station, the applicant suddenly grabbed L.’s uniform and the grille of the security door and started shouting that he was being beaten. After that, the applicant talked to the head of the police station and left.\n9.  On the same day, the applicant phoned a prosecutor and complained of the above events. The applicant stated that at 6.30 a.m. police officers he did not recognise had pushed him into the corridor of the police station, knocked him to the ground and started to kick him. A police officer who had been on duty at the time had seen this. The applicant had been kicked in the head, the groin and the spine. As he had also been shouting out during the incident, the head of the police station had come and had ordered the officers to let him go. These events had been witnessed by a certain S.\n10.  Later, the applicant also testified that he had seen five unfamiliar police officers while walking to work. He had asked them where they were from, and had said that they would be working together that day. They had answered that they were from the town of Ananyiv. When the group had neared the police station, the applicant had been pushed inside. He had grabbed the door grille and shouted. The police officers had continued to hit him and had dragged him into the police station. There, they had kicked him to the floor and had continued to kick him while he was on the floor.\n11.  At around 1 p.m. on 31 October 2004 the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert, B. The applicant complained of nausea and a headache, in addition to pain below his right shoulder blade, in the lumbar part of his spine, in his legs and in his groin. The applicant had a scratch on his left cheek and an oedema on his right leg. He was advised to consult both a surgeon and a neuropathologist. The applicant was supposed to go and see the expert again the next day, but did not do so.\n12.  On the same day, the police officers involved in the incident (K., L., D. and P.) were questioned. Police officer K. reported to the head of the police station that, while walking along the street with his three colleagues, they had been approached by a stranger who had asked them provocative questions such as, “Did you come here to kill and hang people? What are you doing here? What are you eavesdropping on?” The police officers had answered that they had been sightseeing and that the town was very beautiful. In reply, the man had said that they had seen enough and that they, “should go to the town of Reni where police officer P. should sit on the stork’s post”. The group had stopped near the police station, where the man had grabbed L.’s shoulder strap with one han", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8824", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  According to the applicant, he is a Russian national, A.L., born in 1972. According to the Government, the applicant is a Chinese national, X.W., born in 1973. He lives in Elista.\n7.  On 19 March 2014 the applicant was arrested in St Petersburg on suspicion of murdering a Chinese policeman in 1996. He was in possession of a Russian national passport in the name of A.L., born in 1972 in the Primorskiy region of Russia.\n8.  On 21 March 2014 the Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg ordered the applicant’s detention until 17 April 2014, pending receipt of an official extradition request from the Chinese authorities. The District Court noted that the applicant had been identified by means of photographic comparisons as X.W., a Chinese national born in China in 1973. His name was on Interpol’s list of wanted persons. The Chinese authorities had issued an arrest warrant in his name dated 15 December 2011 from which it was apparent that he was suspected of a criminal offence under Article 232 of the Chinese Criminal Code. That offence was punishable by the death penalty, life imprisonment or at least three years’ imprisonment, and the limitation period was twenty years. The limitation period in respect of a comparable criminal offence in the Russian Criminal Code was fifteen years, but this was suspended if the suspect had fled from justice. The court further noted that a Russian national passport in the name of A.L. had apparently been unlawfully obtained by the applicant after he submitted false information to the competent Russian authorities. It was clear that he was not a Russian national but a Chinese national and could be therefore extradited to China.\n9.  The Chinese authorities failed to submit an official extradition request within the thirty-day time-limit established by the Bilateral Treaty on Extradition of 26 June 1995.\n10.  On 17 April 2014 the St Petersburg Transport Prosecutor ordered the applicant’s release. At the same time he noted that it was necessary to start administrative removal proceedings against the applicant on the grounds that his residence in Russia was unlawful.\n11.  Despite the release order, the applicant remained in detention.\n12.  On 18 April 2014 the St Petersburg transport police drafted a report on the commission by the applicant of an offence under Article 18.8 of the Administrative Offences Code (unlawful residence in Russia of a foreign national, see paragraph 47 below).\n13.  On the same day, 18 April 2014, the Smolninskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of an administrative offence under Article 18.8 of the Code of Administrative Offences and ordered his administrative removal to China. The court took note of a letter dated 21 March 2014 by the Federal Migration Service which showed that it was impossible to establish whether or not the applicant was a Russian national. He had received a Russian national passport in the name of A.L. in 2000 after declaring that he had lost his previous passport, which had been issued in 1988. However, according to the Federal Migration Service, the allegedly lost passport never existed. The court further relied on the extradition case‑file, from which it was apparent that the applicant was in fact a Chinese national, X.W., rather than a Russian national A.L. Being a Chinese national, he was residing in Russia unlawfully without a valid visa or residence permit. The court noted that the applicant was sought by the Chinese authorities on suspicion o", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8825", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1985. He resides in Germany.\n6.  At around 11 p.m. on 15 July 2005 an anti-tank mine exploded in the courtyard of a police station in Skopje, causing considerable material damage.\n7.  On 16 August 2005 an investigating judge of the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the trial court”) ordered (Kri.br.308/2005 and ID.br.921/05) a search of the home and other property belonging to the applicant’s father and the father of F.R. (a co-defendant in the ensuing criminal proceedings, see paragraph 22 below), on account of a reasonable suspicion that relevant items of evidence relating to allegations of terrorism and trafficking in arms would be found.\n8.  The search was carried out at 9.30 a.m. on the same day, in the presence of the applicant’s father and two neighbours, who acted as witnesses. According to the search record, which was signed by a police officer, the applicant’s father and the witnesses, the following objects were found: a semi-automatic weapon; a case containing nine bullets; ten TNT bullets; a slow-burning fuse and a detonator; an audio tape; CDs; six photographs of the applicant and a piece of paper with a map drawn on it. At the request of the applicant’s father, the search record indicated that he “does not know the origin of the objects found”, and at the request of the attending witnesses the record noted that they “had no comments to make on the work of the police officers”. A certificate of the seized objects was issued to the applicant’s father, which the latter signed.\n9.  The police officer who had carried out the search submitted an official note, in which he listed all the above objects found in the house of the applicant’s father. The note stated, inter alia:\n“The wanted person [the applicant] was not found and according to his mother, he was on a visit, but (the mother) did not want to specify where.”\n10.  The applicant’s father was taken to a police station for an interview. On that occasion he denied that weapons found in his house belonged to him. He stated that it was possible that they belonged to the applicant, whom he had not seen since 14 August 2005 at 8 a.m., when he (the applicant) had left his house.\n11.  According to an official record (записник за задржување на лице) of the Ministry of the Interior, a copy of which was included in the file, at 12.30 a.m. on 16 August 2005 the applicant, who had no previous criminal record, was arrested near a department store in a suburb of Skopje by R.J. and P.M., police officers. The record stated the following reasons for his arrest:\n“(since the applicant) was not in possession of any identification document and his suspicious movement in the vicinity of buildings which are targets for criminal offences (објекти кои се цел на извршување на кривично дело).”\n12.  At 12.45 a.m. he was taken to a police station, where he remained until 7 p.m. that day. As stated in the record, the applicant was informed about his rights; he waived the right to be represented by a lawyer; he had no visible injuries, nor were there any signs of illness, alcohol or drug addiction. The applicant signed all four pages of the record separately.\n13.  At 7 p.m. on 16 August 2005 the applicant was brought before the investigating judge under suspicion of having been involved in the incident of 15 July 2005. According to the court record of that date, which was duly signed by the applicant, he understood the charges against him; he had sufficient command of Macedon", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8826", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Kranj.\n6.  He was detained in the remand section of Ljubljana prison from 26 May 2010 to 6 November 2012.\n7.  For one day he was held in cell no. 89 measuring 16.63 square metres (not including a separate 1.68 square metre sanitary facility) with four other inmates, with 3.33 square metres of personal space.\n8.  For seven hundred and eighty-three days he was held in cell no. 82 measuring 16.37 square metres (not including a separate 1.82 square metre sanitary facility). For three hundred and eighty-two days he was held therein with four other inmates with 3.27 square metres of personal space and for one hundred days he was held therein with five other inmates with 2.73 square metres of personal space. For three hundred and one days he shared the cell with two or three other inmates with more than 4 square metres of personal space.\n9.  For one hundred and eleven days he was held in cell no. 88 measuring 16.37 square metres (not including a separate 1.82 square metre sanitary facility). For thirty-six days he was held therein with four other inmates with 3.07 square metres of personal space and for fifty-eight days he was held therein with three other inmates with 3.84 square metres of personal space. For seventeen days he shared the cell with two other inmates with more than 4 square metres of personal space.\n10.  The cells for six detainees, where the applicant was held, were equipped with three bunk beds with a total of six sleeping places, one large and one small table, six chairs and a set of cupboards for each of the detainees. Detainees could freely open or close windows in cells. On 14 November 2011 the sixth bed was removed.\n11.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the remand section of Ljubljana prison, material conditions inside the cells and sanitary conditions, see the judgment in Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia, nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, §§ 10 to 23, 20 October 2011.\n12.  As to the out-of-cell time in the remand section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that detainees in the remand section were confined to their cells day and night, save for two hours of daily outdoor exercise, and an additional two hours per week in a recreation room (see Mandić and Jović, cited above, § 78). According to the information supplied by the Government in the present case, on 9 February 2011 the time spent outdoors was extended to two hours and a half per day and in November 2011 the outside yard was covered by a roof. From 2 July 2012 detainees could spend five hours per day out of their cells.\n13.  As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5- 5.30 p.m.) in July and August 2010 had been approximately 27.5oC, exceeding 30oC on eight days, in July and August 2011 approximately 27oC, exceeding 30oC on ten days and in July and August 2012 it had been approximately 28.6oC, exceeding 30oC on eleven days.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8827", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Barcelona.\n6.  On 25 April 2005 the Justice of the Peace of the 3rd Court Circuit of the Kirovskiy District of Astrakhan dismissed the applicant’s action against the Astrakhan Regional Military Commissariat in which he sought the increase of monthly pension and military-related benefits.\n7.  On 29 June 2005 the Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan quashed the judgment on appeal and granted the first applicant’s action in part, awarding him a lump sum of 49,215 Russian roubles. The judgment became final.\n8.  On 28 February 2006 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 29 June 2005 on the ground of incorrect application of substantive law by the Kirovskiy District Court and upheld the judgment of 25 April 2005.\n9.  The second applicant was born in 1939 and lived in Ozersk, Russia. She was the widow of Mr Lev Gayev who died of cancer in 1985.\n10.  On 1 June 2005 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Chelyabinsk acknowledged that Mr Gayev had been exposed to radioactive emissions following a nuclear accident at the Mayak power plant in 1957.\n11.  In August 2006 the applicant sued the Ozersk Social Security Office for the monthly compensation in connection with the loss of the breadwinner.\n12.  On 17 October 2006 the Ozersk Town Court of the Chelyabinsk Region rejected her claim on the ground that she failed to show that she had been financially dependent on her husband on the day of his death.\n13.  On 4 December 2006 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court quashed this judgment and partly granted the applicant’s claim. It held that the Ozersk Social Security Office should pay the applicant monthly compensation to be determined in accordance with law.\n14.  On 25 July 2007 the Presidium of the Chelyabinsk Regional Court, by way of supervisory review, quashed the appeal judgment of 4 December 2006 and remitted the matter to the appeal court, noting that the lower instance court did not duly examined evidence and made wrong application of the substantive law.\n15.  The judgment of 4 December 2006 was executed between 1 March 2007 and 1 August 2007.\n16.  On 27 August 2007 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court held a new appeal hearing and rejected the second applicant’s claim.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8829", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in the Lipetsk Region.\n6.  From 20 May 2008 to 17 July 2008 the applicant was held in the IZ‑44/1 remand prison in the Kostroma Region in connection with the criminal proceedings against him.\n7.  According to the applicant, the three cells in which he was held were severely overcrowded. Cell no. 5 measured eight square meters, was equipped with four sleeping places and accommodated up to seven inmates. Cell no. 7 also offered eight square meters of floor surface, was designed for six detainees but housed up to seven inmates. Finally, cell no. 25 measured twenty-four square meters, had fourteen sleeping places and accommodated up to twenty-five persons.\n8.  According to the Government, the applicant had been held in cells nos. 7 and 25. Cell no. 7 measured 14.3 square meters and accommodated three detainees, while cell no. 25 measured 29.2 square meters and housed up to seven detainees. The applicant had an individual sleeping place in both cells.\n9.  In support of their submissions the Government provided certificates issued by the remand prison governor in June 2012, written statements by prison warders signed on 13 and 18 June 2012, undated photographs, and pages from the prison population register which recorded, for each day, the number of sleeping bunks and the number of inmates in each cell, and the total number of inmates in the remand prison.\n10.  On 20 October 2008 the applicant sent his first letter to the Court. It contained, in particular, his complaint about allegedly appalling conditions of his detention in the IZ-44/1 remand prison.\n11.  By letter of 14 November 2008 the Registry sent an application package to the applicant, informing him as follows:\n“You must send the duly completed application form and any necessary supplementary documents to the Court as soon as possible and at the latest within six months of the date of the present letter. No extension of this period is possible. If the application form and all the relevant documents are not sent within the above period, the file opened will be destroyed without further warning.”\n12.  On 4 May 2009 the applicant dispatched the application form which reached the Registry on 10 August 2009.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8830", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Ljubljana.\n6.  He was detained in the remand section of Ljubljana prison from 1 June 2011 to 16 July 2012.\n7.  He was held in cell no. 82 measuring 16.37 square metres (not including a separate 1.82 square metres sanitary facility). For two hundred and twelve days he was held therein with four other inmates with 3.27 square metres of personal space and for nine days he was held therein with five other inmates with 2.73 square metres of personal space. For one hundred and ninety days he shared the cell with two or three other inmates with more than 4 square metres of personal space.\n8.  The cell for six detainees, where the applicant was held, was equipped with three bunk beds with a total of six sleeping places, one large and one small table, six chairs and a set of cupboards for each of the detainees. Detainees could freely open or close windows in cells. On 14 November 2011 the sixth bed was removed.\n9.  As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the remand section of Ljubljana prison, material conditions inside the cells and sanitary conditions, see the judgment in Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia, nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, §§ 10 to 23, 20 October 2011.\n10.  As to the out-of-cell time in the remand section, the Court found in the aforementioned judgment that detainees in the remand section were confined to their cells day and night, save for two hours of daily outdoor exercise, and an additional two hours per week in a recreation room (see Mandić and Jović, cited above, § 78). According to the information supplied by the Government in the present case, on 9 February 2011 the time spent outdoors was extended to two hours and a half per day and in November 2011 the outside yard was covered by a roof.\n11.  As regards the cell temperature, the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in the late afternoon (5-5.30 p.m.) in July and August 2011 had been approximately 27oC, exceeding 30oC on ten days and in the second half of June and the first half of July 2012 it had been 30oC, exceeding 30oC on twelve days.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8831", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Dnipropetrovsk.\n6.  On 18 October 2010 the applicant lodged with the Dnipropetrovsk Amur‑Nyzhnyodniprovskyy District Court (“the District Court”) an administrative claim against the Department of the Pension Fund for the Dnipropetrovsk Amur‑Nyzhnyodniprovskyy District (“the defendant”) seeking an increase in his pension based on the rise in the average wages in the country since his retirement.\n7.  On 1 December 2010 the District Court, having considered the applicant’s claim by way of an abridged administrative procedure, allowed the claim. In the judgment it was pointed out that any appeal must be lodged by the appellant within a period of ten days following their receipt of a copy thereof.\n8.  The defendant received a copy of the judgment on 27 December 2010.\n9.  The defendant lodged its first appeal with the District Court on 13 January 2011 and did not request an extension of the time-limit for appeal.\n10.  On 11 April 2011 Judge N. of the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) dismissed the defendant’s appeal on the grounds that it had been lodged after the time-limit for appeal had expired and the defendant had failed both to explain the reasons for the late lodging of the appeal and to submit a request for an extension. The ruling stated that it could be appealed against before the Higher Administrative Court. The defendant did not appeal.\n11.  On 1 June 2011 the District Court, at the applicant’s request, issued a writ of enforcement confirming that the judgment had become final on 11 April 2011.\n12.  With effect from 1 August 2011 the defendant complied with the judgment and increased the applicant’s pension.\n13.  On 17 June 2011 the defendant lodged a second appeal with the District Court. By letters of 21 June and 5 July 2011 the District Court forwarded the case file, including the appeal and its copy for the applicant, to the Court of Appeal. The case file gives no indication of any steps to follow up on the matter.\n14.  On 15 August 2011 the defendant lodged a third appeal, requesting that the Court of Appeal extend the time-limit for its submission. As grounds for its request the defendant stated that it “had begun the process of appealing against” the District Court’s judgment on 31 December 2010.\n15.  On 26 October 2011 Judge N. of the Court of Appeal scheduled a hearing for 26 January 2012 to examine the question of extending the time-limit for appeal.\n16.  According to a summons dated 26 October 2011[1] addressed to both the applicant and the defendant, they were summoned to attend a hearing of the Court of Appeal on 26 January 2012 at which the court was to examine the applicant’s request for an extension of the time-limit for appeal. The summons included the warning that failure to appear would not prevent the Court of Appeal from examining the matter.\n17.  It is apparent from the domestic case file that no other document was added to it between 26 October 2011 and 26 January 2012.\n18.  On 26 January 2012 a panel of the Court of Appeal, presided over by Judge N., extended the time-limit for appeal, stating that the defendant had missed the deadline for “valid reasons”. The Court of Appeal recounted the sequence of events in the case from 1 December 2010 to 15 August 2011, found it established that the first appeal had been lodged outside the time-limit, namely on 13 January 2011, and observed that the defendant had requested the extensio", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8832", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Lublin.\n6.  The parties gave partly different descriptions of certain factual elements of the case concerning the “dangerous detainee” regime (see paragraphs 42-45 below). The remaining facts were not in dispute.\n7.  The applicant has a history of criminal convictions. For several years he was sought by the law-enforcement authorities pursuant to a “wanted” notice.\n8.  On 6 May 2005 an international search warrant was issued against the applicant on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed, as a member of an organised criminal group, several counts of robbery, extortion, uttering threats, causing bodily harm and placing an explosive with intent to damage property. Earlier, on 4 May 2005 the Lublin District Court had also ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody for a period of fourteen days.\n9.  On 24 November 2005 the applicant was arrested by the Italian police.\n10.  On 21 December 2006 the applicant was handed over to the Polish authorities.\n11.  On 28 December 2006 the Lublin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed, as a member of an organised criminal group, several counts of robbery, extortion, uttering threats, causing bodily harm and placing an explosive with intent to damage property. It attached importance to the serious nature of those offences and the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant. The court also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might abscond. With regard to the latter possibility, the court relied on the fact that he did not have a permanent place of residence in Poland and that he had already been hiding from the police. Finally, the court emphasised that the applicant was a member of an organised criminal group and that certain other members of that group were still at large, which increased the risk that the detainee, if released, might obstruct the proceedings.\n12.  The applicant’s appeal against the detention order, like his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all of his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful.\n13.  On 19 March 2007 the Lublin District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Lublin District Court. The applicant was charged with several counts of robbery, extortion, uttering threats, causing bodily harm and placing an explosive with intent to damage property. The bill of indictment comprised numerous charges against five defendants.\n14.  During the court proceedings the authorities further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on 14 September 2007 (to 20 December 2007) and 17 December 2007 (to 20 March 2008). The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s continued detention. They also found no grounds warranting the applicant’s release from detention as provided for by Article 259 of the Criminal Code.\n15.  On 7 March 2008 the Lublin District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment and a fine.\n16.  The applicant appealed. He was kept in detention pending his appeal.\n17.  On 30 January 2009 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) heard the applicant’s appeal. It quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. The court also extended ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333, 0.3333333333333333], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8833", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first two applicants were born in 1974 and 1953 respectively. The first applicant is a journalist working for the daily newspaper Rzeczpospolita and the second applicant was, at the material time, its editor‑in‑chief. The third applicant is Gremi Media sp. z o.o. (at the material time Presspublica sp. z o.o.), the publisher of Rzeczpospolita. It is a limited liability company represented by the chairman of its board of directors, Mr P. Bien, and its vice chairman, Mr R. Dobrzyński. Its registered office is in Warsaw.\n6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  In October 2004 the Polish government submitted a draft amendment to the Tax Act (Ordynacja Podatkowa) to the Sejm[1]. During the drafting process various bodies and individuals, including the National Council of Legal Advisers (Krajowa Rada Radców Prawnych), were invited to submit their comments. Their opinion was prepared by Ms D.S., a former senior civil servant, who was a well-known expert on tax law and a member of its legislative committee. She further acted as an expert and adviser at meetings before the parliamentary finance subcommittee where amendments to the Tax Act were being examined. One of the amendments proposed by the Council to section 181, and defended by Ms D.S. at the meetings, consisted of limiting what could be used as evidence in tax proceedings to material collected in criminal proceedings, but only once they had been concluded. The law as it stood did not contain such a limitation and allowed, for instance, material collected in a pending criminal investigation to be used as evidence. Her proposal was accepted by the subcommittee and later by the Sejm and, together with other amendments to the Tax Act, entered into force on 1 September 2005.\n8.  On 14 and 15 September 2005 the first applicant wrote three articles describing the possible consequences of the amendment to section 181 of the Tax Act, the legislative process leading to its adoption and the role that Ms D.S. had apparently played. One of the articles contained comments made by Ms D.S. and featured her photograph.\n9.  The first applicant and another journalist analysed the recordings of all the parliamentary finance subcommittee meetings during which amendments to the Tax Act were discussed. Two articles which appeared in Rzeczpospolita on 14 September 2005 contained transcripts of the subcommittee’s meeting of 17 February 2005 at which the section 181 amendment was discussed. The journalists interviewed Mr J.K., a Member of Parliament who chaired the subcommittee, Mr M.W., an appellate prosecutor and Ms D.S. Their statements were quoted in the articles, as was a statement made by an unidentified member of the government during the subcommittee meeting.\n10.  The first article, “Mafia pays no taxes” (Mafia nie zapłaci podatków), appeared as a cover story on 14 September 2005. The subheading and an excerpt from the article read as follows:\n“[Subheading] Two words introduced to the new Tax Act have paralysed the prosecution of the petrol mafia, Rzeczpospolita has discovered. Our investigation reveals who changed the law and when it was changed. However, even we do not know why the government did not take any action.\n...\n[text] Some days ago, the newest version of the Tax Act, enacted by the Sejm in June, entered into force. Problems then started. Because of one provision in the law, cooperation between the tax and prosecution authorities has bee", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8834", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1959, 1978 and 1958, respectively, and are currently in the Drin social care home (“Drin”).\n7.  On 23 November 2006, at the request of the Visoko Social Work Centre, the Visoko Municipal Court deprived the applicant of legal capacity. It was established that she had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and that placement in a social care home would be in her best interest.\n8.  On 26 December 2006 the Visoko Social Work Centre placed the applicant under the guardianship of her sister.\n9.  On 23 January 2007 the Visoko Social Work Centre placed the applicant in Drin in accordance with the social care legislation.\n10.  On 13 June 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal concerning the lawfulness of her detention.\n11.  On 25 April 2013 the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”) held that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty had not been “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as she had been held in psychiatric detention without a decision of the competent civil court. It also found that Article 5 § 4 of the Convention had been breached because of lack of judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention. The Constitutional Court ordered the Visoko Social Work Centre to take measures to ensure respect for the applicant’s rights under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. The relevant part of the decision reads:\n“27. The Constitutional Court recalls that it examined the same factual and legal situation in the decision no. AP 2472/11[...]. Therefore, instead of a separate legal analysis in this case, it refers to the reasoning set out in that decision... 28. As regards Article 5 § 1 of the European Convention...the Constitutional Court concluded that the appellant was placed in the social care home under the social care legislation of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of the [Zenica-Doboj] Canton, which do not regulate the procedure for compulsory admission of mentally ill persons to social care homes. That procedure is regulated in the sections 22-42 of the Mental Health Act 2001. Section 41 of that Act prescribes that a mentally ill person released from a hospital, who is incapable of living on his/her own and has no relatives or others who are required by law to care for him/her, shall be placed in a social care home under the social care legislation of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, in that case, a hospital is under a duty to inform the competent court of such placement immediately... [I]t is evident from the case-file that the appellant was detained without a decision of the competent civil court...thus her initial deprivation of liberty was not in accordance with the Mental Health Act 2001... [T]herefore the court concludes that the deprivation of liberty in the appellant’s case was unlawful and thus in violation of Article 5 § 1(e) of the Convention.\n... 30. In the above-mentioned decision, the Constitutional Court noted that the Federal and the Cantonal social care legislation, under which the appellant was placed in a social care home, do not envisage mandatory judicial control of the lawfulness of such placement...\n... 32. There has been a violation of Article 5 § 1(e) of the Convention in the present case because the appellant was placed in the social care home under the Federal and Cantonal social care legislation, whereas the compulsory", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8835", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and resides in Riga.\n6.  The relevant facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\n7.  The applicant was the chairman of the State-owned joint stock company L. On 14 June 2010 the Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption (Korupcijas novēršanas un apkarošanas birojs) opened a criminal investigation into suspected unlawful activity by the company’s officials.\n8.  On 15 June 2010 at 7 a.m. investigator A.R. ordered a search of the applicant’s apartment. It was possible that he was involved in the offences under investigation, and there was reason to believe that unlawfully obtained money and some other items were located there.\n9.  Between 7.40 and 10.40 a.m. officers from the Bureau carried out the search. The applicant was allowed to telephone his lawyer who, according to him, arrived at 9.38 a.m.\n10.  The applicant submitted that during the search he had not been free to leave the apartment.\n11.  The search record, however, stated that he and his wife had been informed of their right to remain present and make remarks about the investigators’ actions. They had attended the search. His lawyer had noted down in the record that the decision authorising the search did not comply with certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law (Kriminālprocesa likums). It was signed by all three of them.\n12.  At about 11 a.m. the applicant telephoned a security guard at company L. to ask that his driver place his briefcase in a car.\n13.  At 11.15 a.m. the officers informed the applicant he was under arrest.\n14.  Between 11.21 and 11.34 a.m. investigator G.B. drew up an arrest record specifying that the applicant had been arrested at 11.15 a.m. on suspicion of abuse of office with intent to obtain a material benefit and assisting money laundering, and that a witness had identified him as a perpetrator. He and his lawyer signed the record, noting also that his arrest was unjustified.\n15.  At 6.30 p.m. the applicant was interviewed.\n16.  The investigating authorities performed thirty searches in total that day and, according to the applicant, arrested seven other individuals. The Government submitted, without indicating when, that nine individuals had been arrested. They further drew attention to the large scale of the crimes under investigation and various investigative actions.\n17.  On 17 June 2010 at about 9 a.m. A.R. served on the applicant a decision declaring him a suspect and an application addressed to the Riga City Centre District Court (Rīgas pilsētas Centra rajona tiesa) for his pre-trial detention. His lawyer was present at the time.\n18.  According to A.R. there was a strong suspicion that, between 1 January 2006 and 15 June 2010 the applicant, in his position as chairman of company L., had secured decisions favourable to companies ANS and GGSMT for the reconstruction of hydro units and regarding a thermal power plant project. A sum of no less than 1,130,000 euros (EUR) obtained as a result of this unlawful activity had allegedly been laundered through companies registered in Latvia and abroad, by way of property transactions and investments in companies owned by the applicant and K.M. By doing so, the applicant had allegedly committed the offences of abuse of office with intent to obtain a material benefit and assisting money laundering.\n19.  The applicant, referring to his lawyer’s handwritten application, contended that at 9.20 a.m. that morning his lawyer had ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8836", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in the village of Gorno Sahrane.\n7.  In the morning of 20 February 2012 Mr N.K. and Mr I.K., officers of the Pavel Banya police force, went to the applicant’s house in connection with a complaint that a burglary had taken place several days earlier, on 16 February. They were making inquiries into the matter but a formal criminal investigation had not yet been opened. The applicant was not home but the officers obtained his mobile telephone number from his wife and called him, telling him to appear at the police station for inquiries.\n8.  The applicant went to the police station at about 1 p.m. According to the findings of the criminal courts which later examined the events (see paragraphs 20 and 21 below), he was taken to a room where there were Mr N.K., Mr I.K. and a third officer. Mr N.K. asked the applicant whether he had anything to tell them. After the third officer had gone out of the room, Mr I.K. took out a wooden bat and hit the applicant’s left shoulder. He hit him again and the applicant fell to the ground. After that Mr N.K. kicked him with his knee and repeatedly hit him with a rubber truncheon. Some time after that another officer, Mr T.A., came into the room carrying an electroshock prod. He administered an electric shock to the applicant’s left leg. The applicant curled up on the floor, while Mr N.K. and Mr I.K. kept beating him. The beating continued intermittently for some time, and the applicant was able to stand up on his feet. Another officer came into the room for a while. After he left, Mr N.K., Mr I.K. and Mr T.A. again administered electric shocks to the applicant and carried on hitting and kicking him. At one point, when the applicant’s head was low down, he was kicked on the nose and started bleeding, and the beating stopped.\n9.  The blows sustained by the applicant caused a haematoma on his nose and haematomas and bruises on the upper left back, the left side of the torso and the left shoulder.\n10.  At about 4 p.m. Mr N.K. drew up a written statement on behalf of the applicant that said that he knew nothing of the reported burglary, and presented it to the applicant for signature. The applicant was released at about 5 p.m.\n11.  The next day, 21 February 2012, the applicant was examined by a forensic doctor who noted the numerous haematomas and bruises on his face and upper body, which he believed to have been caused by “hard blunt objects and objects with cylindrical form”.\n12.  On 27 February 2012 the applicant complained about the incident to a member of Parliament, who forwarded his complaint to the prosecuting authorities. As a result, the Kazanlak District Prosecutor’s Office opened criminal proceedings against the three officers who had ill-treated the applicant, and on 1 February 2013 charged them with causing him minor bodily harm while carrying out their duties, an offence under Article 131 § 1 (2) read in conjunction with Article 130 § 2 of the Criminal Code 1968 (see paragraphs 28 and 29 below).\n13.  On 1 March 2013 the prosecutor in charge of the case informed the applicant that, since the penalty for this offence was up to one year’s imprisonment, the officers’ criminal liability would be waived and replaced with administrative penalties, as required under Article 78a of the Code (see paragraph 42 below).\n14.  On 28 March 2013 the applicant asked the Kazanlak District Prosecutor’s Office to consider bringing charges against the officers under Article 2", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8837", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1957 and the second applicant in 1963. They live in Jedwabne.\n6.  The applicants’ son M.O. was a student in Białystok. At the relevant time he was 22 years old. On 13 February 2010 he and some of his friends were celebrating the end of examinations in one of the clubs in Białystok. M.O. left the club at around 3 a.m. on 14 February 2010 with his friend J.O. They were walking together to the university campus. M.O. wanted to take a shortcut and go through the border guards area. J.O. did not agree and she took the normal road and continued alone. The applicants’ son took the shortcut and while crossing the border guards area, he was apprehended by the border patrol, who called the police. Soon afterwards two police officers Z.W. and T.B. arrived and at 3.45 a.m. took the applicants’ son to the police station in Białystok.\n7.  According to the police officers, M.O. was under the influence of alcohol. However, his state did not qualify him to be taken to the sobering‑up centre. They did not make him undergo a breath test. They were not sure with what offence he could be charged, if any, and therefore they ordered him to appear at the police station at 2 p.m. and let him go. It was about 4.30 a.m. and the temperature outside was below zero centigrade.\n8.  At 5.30 a.m. the applicants’ son telephoned his sister E.O. He requested her to come with her car and collect him from a bus station in Łomża. When she got there she telephoned her brother who then asked her to come to Białystok, some 80 km away. According to E.O.’s statement her brother sounded frightened on the phone. While she was driving to Bialystok M.O. called again and told her to go back home because he would manage to come back by himself.\n9.  On 14 February 2010 at 9.58 a.m. the second applicant called her son. She asked him whether he was on the campus and he apparently confirmed. She asked him some more questions but he did not reply although the telephone call was still ongoing. According to the second applicant she was not sure whether she was speaking to her son or someone else.\n10.  The applicants then went to the campus to check whether their son was indeed there but he was not. They contacted all hospitals in Białystok, the sobering-up centre and all police stations, including the Białystok police station No. 3 where their son was interrogated the night before. They were informed however that their son had been neither arrested nor had his identity been checked.\n11.  In one of the hospitals they were informed that the previous night two unidentified men had been brought there. One of them was then taken by the police to the police station No. 3. The applicants went to the police station again where they were told that no men of unknown identity had been there the previous night.\n12.  The applicants then officially reported their son as missing and started to look for him on their own.\n13.  Only on 19 February 2010 they were informed by the police station No. 3 that their son had been brought there on the night of 14 February 2010 and released because there were no grounds to keep him there.\n14.  According to the minutes taken by the police officers on the night of 14 February 2010, the applicants’ son was drunk; he mumbled and was unsteady on his legs. The officers had problems communicating with him.\n15.  The applicants’ son never returned to the campus. He was found dead on 6 March 2010 in a meadow, some 300 metres from the exit road ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8838", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Balatonszabadi.\n5.  On 11 September 2012 Parliament enacted Act no. CXXXIV of 2012 on the Repression of Smoking of the Youth and on Tobacco Retail. The Act was published on 24 September 2012.\n6.  According to the Act, tobacco retail was to become a State monopoly (exercised through a State-owned company, ND Nemzeti Dohánykereskedelmi Nonprofit Zrt), and tobacco retailers would become authorised through a concession tender, advertised on 15 December 2012. The time-limit for applying was 22 February 2013.\n7.  Entities or persons previously engaged in tobacco retail had no privileges in the tender.\n8.  The Act was subsequently amended on several occasions, and the final version was enacted on 6 June 2013, with entry into force on 1 July 2013. Government Decree no. 181/2013. (VI.7.), which contained the detailed rules for the operations of the future concession-holders, was published on 8 June 2013, that is, after the completion of the tendering process, the results of which had become public on 22 April 2013. The decision about the tenders was taken by ND Zrt itself.\n9.  The applicant, a tobacco retailer active in this business since 2008, applied for a concession and paid the relevant application fee.\n10.  On 10 July 2013 the applicant was informed, in a letter sent by ND Zrt, that she had not obtained a tobacco retail concession. The decision said that her application did not fully meet the requirements, without developing the shortcomings. The Government submitted that her application scored 59 out of 120.\nNo compensation is available for ex-tobacco-retailers who, by not being awarded a concession, lost part of their livelihood.\n11.  The refusal was not subject to any legal remedy. The applicant submitted that she pursued a constitutional complaint, and that although the outcome was not known on introducing the present application, this legal avenue could not in any case provide material redress.\n12.  The applicant further submitted that others in comparable situations – and in the case of those who had never been engaged in tobacco retail beforehand, in non-comparable situations – were granted concessions, which difference in treatment cannot be explained by any circumstance other than political adherence.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8840", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Parede. At the material time, she was working as a Chinese-Portuguese translator and was married to a Portuguese national.\n6.  On 16 December 2010 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, her husband and others by a public prosecutor of the Central Department of Investigation and Prosecution (Departamento Central de Investigação e Ação Penal) in Lisbon on allegations of aiding illegal immigration, money laundering and forgery.\n7.  In April 2011 the applicant sent letters to the Attorney General (Procurador-Geral da República) and Director of the Immigration and Borders Service (Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras), informing them that she knew she was being investigated, and that she was available to present herself to the judicial authorities to be questioned and considered as a defendant. The letters read, in so far as relevant, as follows:\n“[The applicant] is ready to be made a defendant and questioned. She hereby suggests the following dates for these procedural steps, for which she volunteers to attend when summoned:\n30 April – Saturday, at any time;\n1 May – Sunday, at any time;\n7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18 and 20 May, at any time.”\n8.  On 9 June 2011 the public prosecutor issued an arrest warrant against the applicant on the basis of Articles 254 and 257 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP”), as the case material provided sufficient grounds for believing that she might abscond, obstruct the investigation or continue the alleged criminal activity. The arrest warrant reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:\n“In view of the above, it is essential to question the suspect and thus assess the application of other preventive measures in addition to providing information on identity and residence [termo de identidade e residência]. Having regard to the strong grounds that exist regarding the commission of the acts described, which are crimes allowing for the application of pre-trial detention, and taking into account that, in the present case, there is a risk of absconding, a risk of continuing the criminal activity and obstructing the investigation ... I order Qing Xu’s arrest... to bring her before the investigating judge...”\n9.  On 14 June 2011 the applicant was arrested at her home between 5 and 6 a.m. She was questioned by an investigating judge of the Lisbon Criminal Investigation Court over the following two days, 15 and 16 June 2011.\n10.  The applicant challenged the arrest before the investigating judge and submitted observations with regard to the preventive measure she thought should be applied. She argued that there was no reason to believe that she would abscond and, as such, the arrest warrant had been issued by the public prosecutor unlawfully. She further stated that she did not have a criminal record; she had two young children who lived with her. She further claimed that she had a permanent residence in Portugal, where she had been living for at least twenty years. She also stated that she was ready to hand over her passport, and that prohibiting her from going to places attended by immigrants and contacting the other defendants in the proceedings would be adequate preventive measures.\n11.  On 16 June 2011 the investigating judge dismissed her request, noting as follows:\n“In the present case it appears evident that there is a risk of the defendant absconding, given that she is a Chinese national and once confronted with the seriousness of ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8841", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Odessa.\n6.  On 4 September 2005 the applicant’s daughter, Ms Ye., and her child D., when crossing a road, were hit by a car driven by Ms M. It appears that the driver called an ambulance and the police. According to her statements to the police, Ms Ye. and the child had stopped at first in the middle of the road giving her the impression that they would wait until the car passed, but then had unexpectedly started running further across the road making the collision inevitable.\n7.  On the same day the police inspected the site and questioned some witnesses. They submitted that Ms. Ye. and her daughter had been crossing the road at some distance from the marked pedestrian crossing.\n8.  On 21 November 2005 the applicant’s daughter died in hospital. As to the injuries of his granddaughter, they were not dangerous for life.\n9.  On 12 December 2005 a forensic medical examination of the body of Ms Ye., which had been started on 23 November 2005, was completed. It established that she had died from the injuries sustained in the accident. The expert also established the victim’s position in respect of the car at the collision.\n10.  On 28 December 2005 another expert report was issued. It stated that it had been technically impossible for Ms M. to avoid the accident.\n11.  On 29 December 2005 an investigator of the Traffic Accidents Investigation Unit of the Odessa Regional Department of the Ministry of the Interior (слідчий відділу розслідування дорожньо-транспортних пригод ГУ МВС в Одеській області) delivered a ruling refusing to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the accident. It was established that Ms Ye. and her daughter had been crossing the road unexpectedly and not on a pedestrian crossing, and when the driver, Ms M., had seen them, it had been technically impossible for her to avoid the accident.\n12.  On unspecified dates thereafter three additional witnesses of the accident, whom the applicant had identified in the meantime, stated that the collision had taken place at the pedestrian crossing.\n13.  The Government submitted to the Court a copy of the notarised agreement of 14 March 2006 signed by Ms M. and her father, for one part, and the applicant, his wife, Ms Ye.’s widower Mr Dr. (the applicant’s son-in-law) and Ms Y.A., another daughter of Ms Ye., for the other part. Its contents are as follows. Ms M. and her father undertook to pay the other party UAH 101,000 (then equivalent of about 16,700 euros (EUR)) “in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the traffic accident”. This obligation would be considered discharged if the payment was made to anyone of the cosignatories for the other party. It was additionally noted that, by that time, Ms M. had also paid UAH 87,264 (then equivalent of EUR 14,400) in respect of the victims’ medical treatment. In exchange, the victims’ family undertook not to seek initiation of criminal proceedings and not to lodge any claims or complaints against Ms M. In case they did not comply, they would have to pay back to Ms M., within three days, the amount of the compensation received. As an attachment to the agreement, there was a receipt signed by Mr Dr., the applicant’s son-in-law, in confirmation that he had received the money in question.\n14.  The case file did not contain any further information or documents regarding the aforementioned agreement or any follow-up to it. The applicant neither mentioned it in any of his submissions", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8842", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Baku.\n6.  He was the Deputy Chairman of the Musavat Party. He also worked as a columnist for the Yeni Musavat newspaper.\n7.  On 23 January 2013 rioting broke out in the town of Ismayilli, located to the northwest of Baku. According to media reports quoting local residents, the rioting was sparked by an incident involving V.A., the son of the Minister for Labour and Social Protection and nephew of the Head of the Ismayilli District Executive Authority (“the IDEA”). It was claimed that after being involved in a car accident, V.A. had insulted and physically assaulted passengers travelling in the other car involved in the accident, who were local residents. On hearing of the incident, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of local residents took to the streets and destroyed a number of commercial establishments and other properties in Ismayilli thought to be owned by V.A.’s family.\n8.  On 24 January 2013 the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General’s Office issued a joint press statement, placing the blame for the rioting on E.S., a hotel manager, and his relative E.M., who had allegedly been drunk and who, it was claimed, had committed acts of hooliganism by damaging local residents’ property and inciting people to riot.\n9.  On 24 January 2013 the Yeni Musavat newspaper decided to send the applicant on a mission to Ismayilli to cover the events in question. A mission order (no. 28) was issued in this respect by the Yeni Musavat for the period from 24 to 25 January 2013.\n10.  On 24 January 2013 the applicant travelled to Ismayilli with three other persons. He arrived there in the afternoon. In the city centre he saw Ilgar Mammadov, the Chairman of the Republican Alternative Civic Movement (“REAL”), who was also visiting the town separately from the applicant. They stopped to greet each other and immediately went their separate ways.\n11.  Approximately twenty minutes after his arrival in the town, the applicant was arrested by the police and was taken to the local police station. In the police station the applicant was ordered to leave Ismayilli and was sent to Baku in his own car accompanied by a police car.\n12.  The Government did not submit any comment in respect of the applicant’s submissions.\n13.  On 29 January 2013 the Prosecutor General’s Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs issued a further joint press statement concerning the events in Ismayilli. It stated that ten people had been charged with criminal offences in connection with the events of 23 January 2013 and they had been detained pending trial. In addition, fifty-two people had been arrested in connection with their participation in “actions causing a serious breach of public order”; some of them had been convicted of “administrative offences” and sentenced to a few days’ “administrative detention” or a fine, while others had been released. The statement further noted that “lately, biased and partial information has been deliberately disseminated, distorting the true nature of these events which were the result of hooliganism”, including information about the large numbers of injured people and the disappearance of one individual. The statement refuted that information, highlighting that only four people had been admitted to the regional hospital with injuries and that no one had disappeared. It further stated, inter alia, the following:\n“Following the carrying out of enquiries, it has been established that on 24 Ja", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8843", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant is a Russian national who was born in 1960 and lived before his arrest in Vatazhnoe, a village in the Astrakhan region.\n6.  On or around 22 December 2003 the applicant sold drugs to B. and O.\n7.  On 1 March 2004 B. and O. sold a quantity of those drugs to Su., a police officer taking part in an undercover operation.\n8.  In March 2004 the Voronezh branch of the Federal Drug Control Service (“FSKN”) instituted criminal proceedings against B. and O. When questioned they submitted that they had purchased drugs from the applicant, who lived in Astrakhan.\n9.  On 20 May 2004 the FSKN instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and ordered a “test purchase” from him, to be carried out with the help of B. and two undercover police officers, Sh. and P.\n10.  The covert operation took place between 3 and 5 June 2004 in a hotel in Astrakhan, where Sh. had booked a room. Audio recording devices were installed in the room and the hotel was placed under surveillance. The applicant alleged that during the operation the police had poisoned him with an unknown substance, which had resulted in him being admitted to a prison hospital.\n11.  According to the arrest record drafted at 3.30 p.m. on 5 June 2004, police arrested the applicant in the hallway of the eighth floor of the hotel on the grounds that “witnesses and eyewitnesses indicated that the applicant had committed a criminal offence”. The record also indicated that immediately after his arrest the applicant had been apprised of his right to be assisted by counsel and that he had been searched. The search and its results were described as follows:\n“... Mr Chukayev was asked to hand over of his own free will any powerful narcotic substances ... he had been keeping on himself unlawfully, money acquired illegally... In reply to the investigator’s request, Mr Chukayev explained that he had none of those things except money, which he had made illegally from selling a narcotic substance, heroin, in a quantity of approximately 38-50 grams. He also explained that the money he had made illegally was in his bag, and submitted that he wished to give it [to the investigator] of his own free will. As a result of the personal search, Mr Chukayev took the money out of his bag voluntarily ...”\n12.  According to the applicant, investigator L. refused to provide him with a lawyer immediately after his arrest on the grounds that no investigating activities were being carried out in respect of him, therefore he did not need a lawyer. The applicant also stated that he had not been questioned on the day of his arrest.\n13.  According to the arrest record, which he had signed, the applicant had made no comments concerning its contents or any other matters, and his wife had been notified of his arrest over the telephone.\n14.  Following the personal search, the investigator seized other money found in his pockets along with his identity papers, mobile phone and some other items. The personal search was photographed.\n15.  On the same day the investigator ordered fingerprint and palm print chemical expert reports. The applicant’s fingerprints and palm prints were taken. The applicant alleged that he had not been informed of the request for these reports or their results. He had only learnt of the expert analyses while reviewing the criminal case file in March 2005.\n16.  On 6 June 2004 the investigator started questioning the applicant as a suspect. According to the interrogation report, lawyer Or. wa", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8844", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1970 and 1987 respectively. The first applicant lives in Noviy Redant, Ingushetia, and the second applicant in Mayskiy (also spelled as Mayskoye), North Ossetia-Alania. The first applicant is the sister of Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov, who was born in 1983. The second applicant is his wife.\n6.  At the material time Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov was working as a martial arts trainer in the “Ellin” sports club (gym) (in the documents submitted also referred to as the “Kaloy” sports club) in Nazran, Ingushetia. He was the mixed martial arts European champion and a well-known sportsman in the region. He and the second applicant lived in Mayskiy, a settlement on the border between North Ossetia-Alania and Ingushetia. Permanent checkpoint no. 105, also known as “Chermenskiy krug”, was located between Mayskiy on one side of the border and the settlement of Chermen on the other. The checkpoint was equipped with CCTV cameras. Every passing vehicle was checked along with the driver’s and passengers’ identity documents. From the documents submitted to the Court it appears that other traffic checkpoints were located in the area.\n7.  Between 9 and 10 p.m. on 6 December 2012 Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov was driving home from Nazran in his white Lada-Priora car with registration number AH214A06. At about 10 p.m. he called his wife saying that he would arrive soon, but he did not. The applicants tried to call him, but his mobile phone was switched off. At around 5 a.m. on 7 December 2012 the applicants and their relatives found Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov’s training shoe, socks and hat in a street in the neighbourhood.\n8.  At about 9.30 a.m. on 7 December 2012 Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov’s car was found in the vicinity of Mayskiy, not far from the motorway. The car’s front side windows were smashed and the front of the vehicle had been damaged.\n9.  According to the applicants, in the evening of 6 December 2012 Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov had been stopped about 200-300 metres from his house by masked men in military uniforms, who had followed him in three cars. The men had forced him into one of their vehicles and taken him to an unknown destination. The applicants did not witness the abduction.\n(b)  Subsequent developments\n10.  On 20 and 24 December 2012 a local newspaper published an article concerning a meeting held on 17 December 2012 (in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as 20 December 2012) by the President of Ingushetia, Mr Yunus‑Bek Yevkurov, and other high-ranking officials with members of the sports club where Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov had worked. Information about the meeting, held in Ingush, was posted on various websites. At the meeting one of the officials stated that Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov had been aiding a member of an illegal armed group, Mr D. The President of Ingushetia reminded them that at his previous meetings with members of the sports community, at which Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov had also been present, he had warned them not to engage in illegal acts. The President also said that he had information concerning phone calls proving Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov’s involvement in illegal activities. A video recording of the meeting was provided to the investigating authorities (see paragraph 44 below).\n11.  The applicants have had no news of Mr Akhmed Buzurtanov since his alleged abduction.\n12.  The Government contested neither the applicants’ description of the circumstances of the abduction, nor their account of the subsequent events. However, the", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8845", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Tokat Prison.\n6.  On 30 September 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Hizbullah. According to the arrest report, signed by four police officers, during his arrest the applicant attempted to swallow some pieces of papers and resisted the police officers who tried to take the papers out of his mouth.\n7.  On the same day, the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Diyarbakır State Hospital. The doctor noted, on a police document, that the applicant had a widespread bruised area under his left eye, oedema under his right eye, a scratch on his left wrist, red patches behind his left ear and bleeding on his right ear.\n8.  On 7 October 2001 the applicant was examined by a doctor who diagnosed him with pharyngitis and prescribed him medication.\n9. On 8 October 2001 the applicant was questioned at the anti-terror branch of the Diyarbakır security directorate and confessed to his involvement in Hizbullah.\n10.  On 9 October 2001 at 2.45 p.m. the applicant was sent for a medical examination at the Diyarbakır Health Clinic. In a document of the police directorate in which the applicant’s name was put, the doctor who examined the applicant noted that he had a widespread bruised area under his left eye and small scratches on his left wrist.\n11.  On the same day, the applicant was questioned by both a public prosecutor and an investigating judge. Before the public prosecutor, the applicant responded to the questions by nodding. The public prosecutor noted that the applicant was unable to speak and therefore could not make statements. Before the investigating judge, the applicant wrote down on a piece of paper that his throat and internal organs hurt and that he was unable to speak. He further noted that he would examine his police statements and the evidence against him in detail and make his defence submissions before the trial court.\n12.  On the same day the investigating judge authorised the applicant’s detention at the anti-terror branch of the Diyarbakır security directorate for a further period of ten days on the basis of Legislative Decree no. 430 in force at the material time.\n13.  Later that day, at 9 p.m., the applicant was examined at the Diyarbakır State Hospital. The doctor who conducted the examination stated in a police document that the applicant had a bruise, measuring 2x3 cm, under the left orbital region and was suffering from tonsillitis.\n14.  On 10 October 2001 the applicant was referred to the emergency room of the state hospital in Diyarbakır, where the doctors considered that he should be examined by a doctor at the otolaryngology department of the hospital. The applicant was subsequently subjected to a number of auditory examinations and at 2.30 p.m. on the same day an otolaryngologist stated, in a letter sent to the hospital by the police, that the applicant suffered from otitis in his right ear and tympanic membrane perforation in his left ear which could have occurred as a result of trauma. The doctor further noted that the applicant suffered from hearing loss.\n15.  On 18 October 2001 the applicant made further statements to the police. According to the document containing his police statement, he had already made statements concerning his relations with the illegal organisation and he did not wish to make any further submissions as to the content of the documents that he had attem", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8846", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n8.  The applicants are the publication director and the publishing company, respectively, of the weekly magazine Paris Match. Ms Anne-Marie Couderc was born in 1950 and lives in Levallois-Perret. The company Hachette Filipacchi Associés has its registered office in Levallois-Perret.\n9.  On 3 May 2005 the British newspaper the Daily Mail published an article headlined “Is this boy the heir to Monaco?”, describing the disclosures by a woman, Ms Coste, who claimed that her son’s father was Albert Grimaldi, who had become reigning prince of Monaco (“the Prince”) following the death of his father on 6 April 2005. The article mentioned a forthcoming publication in Paris Match, and set out its core elements. It was accompanied by three photographs, one of which showed the Prince holding the child in his arms and was captioned “His successor to the throne? Prince Albert with Alexandre”.\n10.  On the same day, having been informed that an article was about to appear in Paris Match, Prince Albert served notice on the applicants to refrain from publishing it.\n11.  On 4 May 2005 the German weekly magazine Bunte published the interview with Ms Coste. The front cover of the magazine was headlined “Prinz Albert ist der Vater meines Kindes” (“Prince Albert is the father of my child”). It was illustrated by two photographs of the Prince: in one of them he was pictured alongside Ms Coste, and in the other he held the child in his arms.\n12.  On the same day various Internet sites relayed the news. In France, information from the forthcoming Paris Match article was included in an article on the RTL radio station’s Internet site entitled “Le prince Albert II aurait un fils, silence au Rocher” (“Prince Albert II alleged to have a son, no comment from Monaco”). For its part, the LCI channel published an article headlined “Albert : la rumeur d’un fils” (“Albert: rumours about a son”) on its Internet site. The news also appeared on the Internet site of the MEDEF (French Business Confederation), as follows: “L’enfant caché du prince Albert de Monaco : selon certains journaux britanniques et allemands, Albert de Monaco serait le papa d’un petit garçon de 19 mois” (“Prince Albert of Monaco’s secret son: according to certain British and German newspapers, Albert of Monaco is the father of a 19-month-old boy”).\n13.  On 5 May 2005, in spite of the Prince’s notice to refrain, the weekly magazine Paris Match published an article in its edition no. 2920, referred to on the magazine’s front cover under the headline “Albert of Monaco: Alexandre, the secret child” (“Albert de Monaco: Alexandre, l’enfant secret”), and illustrated by a small photograph showing the Prince with the child in his arms. The article, published on pages 50 to 59 of the magazine, consisted of an interview with Ms Coste, who replied to questions put by a journalist and stated that the father of her son Alexandre, born on 24 August 2003, was the Prince. In particular, the interview described the circumstances in which Ms Coste had met the Prince, their intimate relationship, their feelings, and the manner in which the Prince had reacted to the news of Ms Coste’s pregnancy and had behaved towards the child at his birth and subsequently.\n14.  The relevant passages of this interview were the following.\n“Paris Match (P.M.): When did you meet Albert of Monaco?\nNicole Coste (N.C.): Eight years ago, on a Nice to Paris flight ... Before landing he asked for my telephone number. Two weeks later I had a message ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8847", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in London.\n5.  On 29 April 1997 the applicant was arrested in London on suspicion of trafficking of illegal drugs.\n6.  On the same day he was placed in police custody, where he was informed that he would be charged with importation of a controlled drug, namely diamorphine.\n7.  In his statements before the British police, the applicant maintained that he had been importing clothing goods from Turkey and had not been aware of the trafficking of drugs by his partners.\n8.  On 15 September 1998, after having heard witness statements and evaluated all relevant evidence, the Crown Court acquitted the applicant of all charges and ordered his release.\n9.  On 16 June 1997 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing certain persons of trafficking of illegal drugs by establishing a criminal organisation pursuant to Article 403 of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765). In that indictment, the public prosecutor indicated the involvement of the applicant in the alleged acts, without bringing any charges against him.\n10.  On 19 August 1997 the public prosecutor issued an indictment, accusing the applicant of the same offence as the others. The public prosecutor stated that the applicant had actively participated in the transfer of the illegal drugs from Turkey to the United Kingdom and noted that he was in detention on remand in the United Kingdom.\n11.  In a report dated 13 June 1997, the public prosecutor stated that the British authorities had provided him with the tapes of the applicant’s police statements as well as other evidence on the alleged offence.\n12.  On an unspecified date in 1997, the Magistrates’ Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand in absentia.\n13.  At a hearing on 24 February 1998 the İzmir State Security Court joined the proceedings against the applicant with the proceedings against the other persons involved in the same offence. At this hearing the domestic court also requested the case file of another set of related proceedings, which contained the statements of a certain F.A.\n14.  On 5 November 1998 one of the co-accused, B.Ӧ., gave his statements before the court, maintaining that he had been hired by the applicant for the receipt and storage of certain goods which he had not known to be drugs.\n15.  On 3 December 1998 the lawyer of one of the co-accused submitted to the national court the applicant’s certificate of acquittal issued by the Crown Court.\n16. On 15 July 1999 the military judge sitting on the İzmir State Security Court hearing the applicant’s case was replaced by a civilian judge.\n17.  On 20 September 1999 the applicant went back to Turkey; he was placed in detention on remand the following day.\n18.  At the subsequent hearing on 30 September 1999, the applicant submitted his statements before the court and denied his involvement in the trafficking of illegal drugs. In particular, he contested the incriminating statements of B.Ӧ. and F.A. The applicant further requested to have certain witnesses, including his counsel in the United Kingdom, heard. The İzmir State Security Court rejected that request, finding that the statements of the witnesses called by the applicant would not contribute to the case in view of the information already available concerning the proceedings in the United Kingdom. The court went on to decide that the applicant should be released pending trial.\n19.  During the numerous hearing", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8848", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n7.  On 28 December 1994 the Vlora Commission on Property Restitution and Compensation (“the Commission”) recognised the applicant’s and other heirs’ inherited title to a number of plots of land measuring 46,750 sq. m, of which 900 sq. m were restored to them. As the remaining plot of land was occupied, the Commission decided that the applicant and the other heirs would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law in respect of 45,850 sq. m. The Commission could not determine the boundaries of a plot of land measuring 13,750 sq. m and did not decide on the recognition of the applicant’s inherited property rights.\n8.  On 8 March 2011 the Court delivered its judgment in the case of Eltari v. Albania, no. 16530/06 as regards the authorities’ failure to pay compensation in respect of a plot measuring 10,500 sq. m, which was part of the Commission decision.\n9.  To date, no compensation has been paid.\n10.  On 21 March 1996 the Lushnjë Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 576 sq. m. Since the plot of land was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law. The applicants submitted that they were the remaining heirs of the above plot of land in respect of which the Court had already delivered the judgment in the case of Hamzaraj v. Albania (no. 1) (no. 45264/04, 3 February 2009).\n11.  To date, no compensation has been paid to the applicants.\n12.  On 18 May 1995 the Tirana Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 1,000 sq. m. It ordered that the plot of land should be entirely restored to the applicants. On 11 February and 14 December 2000 the Tirana District Court and the Tirana Court of Appeal amended the Commission decision and ordered that the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided for by law of which 200 sq. m were restored to them. Since the remaining plot of land measuring 800 sq. m was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law.\n13.  To date, no compensation has been paid.\n14.  On 13 September 1996 the Tirana Commission recognised, amongst others, the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 16,500 sq. m. Since the plot of land was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law.\n15.  To date, no compensation has been paid.\n16.  On 25 October 1995 the Tirana Restitution and Compensation of Properties Commission (“the Commission”) recognised, amongst others, the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 150,000 sq. m of which 29,700 sq. m were restored to them. Since the remaining plot land measuring 120,300 sq. m was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law.\n17.  To date, no compensation has been paid.\n18.  On 10 December 1999 the Korçë Commission recognised the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 11,000 sq. m of which 10,100 sq. m were to be compensated in one of the ways provided by law.\n19.  To date, no compensation has been paid.\n20.  On 23 October 1996 and 24 April 1998 the Korçë Commission recognised the applicant’s inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 9,950 sq. m. Since the plot of land was occupied, the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law.\n21.  To date, no compensation has been paid.\n22.  On 7 July 2006 the Tirana Comm", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8849", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Yerevan.\n6.  On 30 August 2007 the applicant was arrested and later charged under Article 112 § 1 of the Criminal Code with intentional infliction of a grave injury.\n7.  On 1 September 2007 the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan granted the investigator’s motion to place the applicant in pre-trial detention.\n8.  On 28 September 2007 the same court decided, upon the applicant’s motion, to release him on bail.\n9.  On 4 October 2007 the investigator decided to cancel bail and to detain the applicant on the basis of the decision of 1 September 2007. It appears that on the same day the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention.\n10.  On 22 October 2007 the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan decided, upon the applicant’s appeal, to quash the investigator’s decision and to release the applicant. The District Court stated that, in accordance with Article 136 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, detention could be imposed only by a court and was the court’s prerogative. The investigator had therefore exceeded his authority and had incorrectly interpreted the law by imposing detention. The law required the investigator to apply to the court with a reasoned motion, if there were sufficient grounds to replace bail with detention. The District Court found that the applicant’s detention imposed on the basis of the decision of 4 October 2007 had violated his rights guaranteed under, inter alia, Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention and Article 16 of the Constitution.\n11.  On 13 December 2007 the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan acquitted the applicant.\n12.  On 28 March 2008 the Criminal Court of Appeal upheld this judgment.\n13.  On 21 April 2009 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of Finance, seeking pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in connection with the criminal proceedings against him, including his detention. The claim for pecuniary damage included alleged lost earnings, expenses related to food parcels received in detention and the transport costs of his relatives. The applicant estimated the non-pecuniary damage suffered by him at 15,400 euros (EUR).\n14.  On 25 September 2009 the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan decided to grant partially the applicant’s claim for pecuniary damages and award him 215,100 Armenian drams (AMD) (approximately EUR 380 at the material time). As regards the claim for non-pecuniary damages, the District Court decided to dismiss it, with reference to Article 17 of the Civil Code, on the ground that the Armenian law did not provide for this type of compensation.\n15.  On 26 October 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal.\n16.  On an unspecified date the Ministry of Finance also lodged an appeal, contesting the judgment in its part concerning the award of pecuniary damages.\n17.  On 4 December 2009 the Civil Court of Appeal decided to dismiss the applicant’s appeal and to grant that of the Ministry of Finance, reducing the amount of compensation for pecuniary damage to AMD 96,800 (approximately EUR 165 at the material time). As regards the claim for non-pecuniary damages, the Court of Appeal decided to terminate the proceedings on the ground that Armenian law did not provide for this type of compensation and therefore that claim could not be examined by the court.\n18.  On 14 December 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.\n19.  On 1 July 2011 the Court of Cassation decided to di", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8850", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in the village of Baybuzy, Cherkassy region, Ukraine.\n5.  On 26 September 2003 at around 8 p.m. the applicant’s wife, while riding a bicycle, was hit by a car and died on the spot.\n6.  On the same day police examined the accident spot in the presence of two witnesses, V. and M. (both inhabitants of Baybuzy who arrived at the spot after the accident) and the accident sketch map was drawn. The driver of the car, P., was questioned. He testified that he had been temporarily blinded by the long-distance headlights of an approaching car. After that he saw a bicycle rider 7-8 meters in front of his car. He did not brake and his car hit the bicycle. Similar testimonies were given by the car passenger, S. The driver also underwent a test for the blood alcohol and drugs level.\n7.  On 27 September 2003 a forensic medical expert concluded that the applicant’s wife’s death had been caused by a basal skull fracture.\n8.  On 29 September 2003 criminal proceedings into the accident were instituted by the Cherkassy District Police Office (Черкаський районний відділ Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ України в Черкаській області) for an alleged breach of traffic rules which caused a person’s death (Article 286 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code). On the same day an investigation officer requested the head of the Cherkassy District Police Office to order a search for the accident witnesses, if any.\n9.  On the next day the applicant was recognised as a victim in the above criminal proceedings.\n10.  On 7 October 2003 a police officer informed the head of the Cherkassy District Police Office that it was impossible to identify witnesses who could have seen the accident.\n11.  On 17 October 2003 a reconstruction of events was carried out and a decision to perform an auto-technical forensic examination was adopted. The expert was requested to determine interposition of the car and the bicycle at the moment of collision, whether the driver had had a technical possibility to avoid the collision and whether the driver and the bicycle rider had breached the traffic rules.\n12.  On 27 October 2003 the applicant lodged a civil claim within the criminal proceedings.\n13.  On 18 November 2003 an expert concluded that the applicant’s wife had breached the traffic rules when riding a bicycle since there had been no lights and light reflectors on the bicycle and that the car driver had had no technical possibility of avoiding the accident.\n14.  On 26 November 2003 the proceedings were terminated for absence of evidence of a crime.\n15.  On 6 February 2004 the Cherkassy District Prosecutor’s Office (прокуратура Черкаського району Черкаської області) quashed this decision and remitted the case for additional investigation. A prosecutor instructed the head of the police investigation department in charge of the investigation to perform numerous additional investigation actions. It was noted, inter alia, that the questioning of P. and S. had been superficial, a number of details had not been clarified, the witnesses of the accident had not been properly sought, and the reconstruction of events had been conducted improperly. There were significant corrections on the accident sketch map and there was contradictory evidence in the case-file materials. It was also noted that “the expert conclusion was based actually on the testimonies of P. and S.”  Consequently, another auto-technical forensic examination should be performed and an ex", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8851", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and prior to his arrest lived in Moscow.\n6.  On 30 June 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing as a result of an undercover police operation. On an unspecified date the Podolskiy Town Court of the Moscow Region (“the Town Court”) remanded him in custody. He remained in detention pending the investigation and trial.\n7.  On 11 March 2005 the Town Court found the applicant and his co-defendant B., also a Tajikistani national, guilty as charged. The applicant was sentenced to fourteen and a half years’ imprisonment.\n8.  On 25 April 2005 the Moscow Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) quashed his conviction on appeal and remitted the matter to the Town Court for fresh consideration. The Regional Court noted that, in contravention of the rules of criminal procedure, the indictment had been prepared by a prosecutor who had been the spouse of one of the police officers taking part in the undercover operation leading to the applicant’s arrest and had testified as a prosecution witness. As regards the applicant’s detention, the court ruled as follows:\n“Regard being had to the gravity of the charges against the defendants, their foreign nationality and illegal residence in the Russian Federation, [the court] does not consider it possible to lift the preventive measure pending trial applied and ... extends their detention.”\n9.  On 14 June 2005 the Town Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 8 November 2005. On 29 August 2005 the Regional Court upheld the relevant court order on appeal, noting as follows:\n“When deciding on the preventive measure, the [trial] court legitimately referred to the gravity of the charges and the [defendants’] characters ... It further legitimately indicated that there were no grounds for the defendants’ release. If at large [the defendants], in view of the gravity of the charges, might abscond, continue criminal activities, put pressure on witnesses, or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice.”\n10.  It appears that the applicant remained in custody pending consideration of the criminal charges against him.\n11.  On 9 December 2005 the Town Court found him guilty of drug dealing and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment.\n12.  On 17 April 2006 the Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal.\n13.  On 26 September 2006 the Regional Court granted the prosecutor’s request for a supervisory review of the applicant’s conviction, noting that the charges against him had not been classified in accordance with the law.\n14.  On 14 February 2007 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the appeal judgment of 17 April 2006 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter to the appellate court for fresh consideration.\n15.  On 16 April 2007 the Regional Court quashed the applicant’s conviction of 9 December 2005 and remitted the matter for a retrial. It further noted that the preventive measure applied in respect of him and his co-defendant should remain unchanged.\n16.  On an unspecified date the Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until 27 July 2007.\n17.  On 25 July 2007 it authorised his detention for a further period until 27 October 2007, noting as follows:\n“When deciding the issue of extending the [defendants’] pre-trial detention and accepting the prosecutor’s argument, [the court] considers that there are no grounds for changing the preventive measure. Regard being had to the gravity of the charges against [the defen", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8852", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The first applicant was born in 1979, the second and third applicants were born in 1974, and the date of birth of the fourth applicant is unknown. The fourth applicant is the common-law wife of Mr Pavel Aleksandrovich Bazhenov (“the fourth applicant’s partner”). The second and fourth applicants live in Irkutsk Region and Irkutsk respectively. The first and third applicants are serving prison sentences in Irkutsk Region.\n6.  On 14 October 2003 the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant’s partner were arrested and taken to the police station on suspicion of murder. They were allegedly intimidated by police officers seeking to extract self-incriminating statements.\n7.  On 15 October 2003 a forensic medical examination was conducted in respect of the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant’s partner. It revealed that the first applicant had abrasions on his left shoulder, and bruises on both ears and on the back of his thorax; the third applicant had bruises on his left hip and under his jaw. The expert concluded that those injuries had been sustained the day prior to the examination and that they had not caused any permanent damage to the applicant’s health. The fourth applicant’s partner was discovered to have a closed nose fracture which amounted to slight damage to his health.\n8.  On 16 October 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Irkutsk (“the District Court”) authorised the detention of the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant’s partner pending the investigation. It relied on the gravity of the charges and the risk that they might interfere with the administration of justice (abscond, resume their criminal activity or threaten witnesses). They were placed in remand prison IZ-38/1 in Irkutsk.\n9.  On 24 October 2003 charges of aggravated murder were brought against them.\n10.  On 11 December 2003 the District Court extended the detention of the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant’s partner until 5 March 2004 on the same grounds. Those decisions were upheld on appeal by the Irkutsk Regional Court (“the Regional Court”) in respect of the first applicant on 29 January 2004 and in respect of the third applicant and the fourth applicant’s partner on 3 February 2004.\n11.  The first and third applicants’ detention was subsequently extended, on the same grounds, on 3 March and 4 March 2004 respectively, until 5 June 2004. The Regional Court upheld those decisions on appeal in respect of the first applicant on an unspecified date and in respect of the third applicant on 21 April 2004.\n12.  According to the first applicant, between 14 and 16 October 2003 the police subjected him to beatings, torture with electric wires, and deprivation of food and sleep.\n13.  Subsequently, for several days starting from 17 October 2003 the first applicant was intimidated by one of his cellmates, S. Ye. (nicknamed “the Nazi”), who had been instructed by the police to extract the applicant’s confession. As a result, on 21 October 2003 the applicant attempted suicide by cutting his left forearm.\n14.  On the same day the applicant was examined by a doctor, who reported superficial cuts on his left forearm.\n15.  On 4 November 2003 the applicant was taken to the police station. Throughout the day police officers allegedly beat him in the head, kidneys and genitals, tortured him with electric wires and threatened to kill him and to rape him. As a result, he attempted suicide by cutting his neck with a blade.\n1", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8853", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Gladbeck (Germany). When lodging his application, he was detained in Essen Prison.\n6.  On 9 October 2008 the Gladbeck District Court convicted the applicant of several counts of extortion, robbery, burglary, embezzlement and assault. Applying the criminal law relating to young offenders, it sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. The District Court suspended the execution of the sentence and granted probation. In a separate decision of the same day, the District Court imposed conditions on the applicant during the probation period, which was to run until 16 October 2010. The applicant was not to reoffend; in addition, he was ordered, inter alia, to complete at least 200 hours of unpaid social work.\n7.  On 11 December 2008 the applicant’s counsel informed the District Court that he represented the applicant in the proceedings concerning the applicant’s probation.\n8.  On 15 June 2009 the Gladbeck District Court issued a detention order against the applicant, which was confirmed on appeal. The courts found that there was a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed a burglary on 31 May/1 June 2009 in a hotel in Gladbeck. The suspicion was based on the witness statement made by the applicant’s former girl-friend S. to the police.\n9.  By a letter dated 5 October 2009 the applicant’s counsel notified the Essen Public Prosecutor’s Office, which received the letter on 8 October 2009, that he represented the applicant also in the investigation proceedings concerning the burglary on 31 May/1 June 2009.\n10.  On 7 October 2009 the applicant was arrested. He was heard on 8 October 2009 by the investigating judge at the Herford District Court, without his counsel being present, on suspicion of having committed the burglary in a hotel on 31 May/1 June 2009 in Gladbeck. The applicant, who had been informed of his rights to remain silent and to consult a defence counsel at any time, admitted having committed the offence described in the detention order of 15 June 2009.\n11.  On 20 October 2009, in a hearing before the Gladbeck District Court for review of the necessity of his further detention on remand, the applicant, in the presence of his counsel, revoked his confession of 8 October 2009. He submitted that he had only admitted having committed the burglary on 31 May/1 June 2009 as a police officer had told him at the time of his arrest that he had good chances of being released from detention on remand if he did so.\n12.  Subsequently, on 23 October 2009, the Essen Public Prosecutor’s Office charged the applicant with the burglary committed in Gladbeck.\n13.  On 22 October 2009 the Gladbeck District Court, relying on section 26 § 1 of the Juvenile Courts Act (see paragraph 28 below), revoked the suspension on probation of the applicant’s prison sentence granted in that court’s judgment of 9 October 2008.\n14.  The District Court noted that in its decision of 9 October 2008 to suspend the sentence on probation, the applicant had been imposed the condition not to reoffend during the probation period. He had breached that condition as he had confessed having committed a burglary on 31 May/1 June 2009 in Gladbeck. His new offence was similarly serious as the offences he had been convicted of on 9 October 2008.\n15.  The District Court further observed that the applicant had failed to comply with additional conditions imposed in the probation order. In particular, he had not completed the unpaid social w", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8854", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n9.  The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarized as follows.\n10.  Both applicants are pensioners. In 2002 they sued the regional department of the Pension Fund (hereinafter “Pension Fund”) for miscalculating their pensions. They argued that the Pension Fund omitted to take into consideration the entire record of their service.\n11.  On 26 July 2002 the Akhtubinsk Town Court of the Astrakhan Region granted the applicants’ claims.\n12.  On 3 September 2002 the Astrakhan Regional Court confirmed this judgment on appeal.\n13.  On 27 January 2003 the Akhtubinsk Town Court delivered a new judgment clarifying that the applicants’ pensions should be recalculated as from 19 December 2001.\n14.  On 26 January 2005 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court rejected the supervisory-review application lodged by the Pension Fund against the judgment of 26 July 2002.\n15.  On 3 March 2006 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the judgments of 26 July 2002, of 3 September 2002 and of 26 January 2005 on account of incorrect application of substantive legislation and rejected all the applicants’ claims.\n16.  After the decision of the Court to strike the applicants’ case out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see paragraph 5 above) the applicants brought further proceedings before the Russian courts. 1.  The applicants’ request for reopening of proceedings following the decision of the Court to strike their applications out of its list of cases\n17.  On unspecified date the applicants applied for reopening of proceedings concluded by the judgment of 3 March 2006 delivered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, on the basis of newly discovered circumstances. There is no indication that the applicants claimed the pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the quashing of the domestic judgments in their favour.\n18.  They argued that the decision of the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases taken on 18 September 2012 following the acknowledgment of a violation of their rights by the Government constituted a newly discovered circumstance entailing the reopening of proceedings in their case.\n19.  On 15 March 2013 the Supreme Court observed that it resulted from the decision by which the Court decided to strike the application out of its list of cases following the acknowledgment of a violation of the applicants’ rights by the Government that, on the one hand, all sums due under the quashed judgment had been paid to the applicants and, on the other hand, the Court did not find that the judgment of the supervisory-review court was as such contrary to the Convention. The Supreme Court thus concluded that no reopening was required in the applicants’ case.\n20.  On 8 July 2013 the applicants’ supervisory-review application lodged against this decision with the Presidium of the Supreme Court was dismissed by a judge of this court.\n21.  On 18 September 2013 the Deputy President of the Supreme Court refused the applicants’ request to bring a supervisory review application on their behalf under Article 391.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.\n22.  On unspecified date the applicants complained under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure about the Pension Fund’s failure to enforce the judgment of 26 July 2002 prior to its quashing on 3 March 2006. They sought pension arrears under the judgment of 26 July 2002 delivered by the Akhtubinsk Town Court for the period between 19 December 2001 and 3 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8855", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Belgium.\n6.  He was an independent journalist, satirist and poet who at the relevant time was working for the Azadliq newspaper.\n7.  At around 5 p.m. on 23 June 2006 the applicant met a friend at the Gozel Mekan café in Baku where they had a meal. At 7 p.m. they left and the applicant took a taxi home.\n8.  Shortly after the taxi moved off, it was stopped by four plain-clothes agents of the NDMIA. Without showing themselves, they dragged the applicant into a Jeep. He was not informed of the reasons for his arrest. After his arrest they restrained his hands and only after some time, when the vehicle was moving, did they inform him that they were police officers.\n9.  According to the applicant, as he was in shock during his arrest, he did not immediately notice that the officers had planted some drugs on him. However, he later realised that one of the officers, A.A., had slipped narcotic substances into his pocket, taking advantage of the fact that the other officers had restrained his hands.\n10.  The applicant was taken to the NDMIA, where a search was conducted. According to record no. 94 on carrying out operational measures and the seizure of physical evidence (əməliyyat tədbirinin keçirilməsi və maddi sübutun götürülməsi barədə protokol), it was carried out at 7.20 p.m. on 23 June 2006 in the presence of the applicant, some police officers and two attesting witnesses. It appears from the record that the applicant was not represented by a lawyer. During the search, 9.264 grams of a substance similar to heroin was found in his left trouser pocket. He signed the record to say that he drank alcohol, but did not use or sell drugs. He further indicated that the drugs found did not belong to him, but that he could not explain where they had come from. Moreover, it appears from record no. 95 in the case file that the search was filmed. Despite the Court’s explicit request to the Government to submit a copy of the video-recording, they did not do so.\n11.  Following the search, at around 7.45 p.m., the applicant was taken to the Republic Narcotics Clinic, where he underwent a urine test to determine his state of intoxication. According to him, the urine test was also a drugs test and after examination the doctor, R.M., stated that he was in a state of intoxication but was not a drug user. Record no. 1/4104 was compiled the same day containing details of the urine test. Despite the Court’s explicit request to the Government to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings in question, the Government failed to provide the Court with a copy of the record in question.\n12.  The Government did not submit any comments in respect of the applicant’s version of events.\n13.  It appears, however, from police report no. 922 dated 23 June 2006 submitted by the Government that on that date an operation was planned for the applicant’s arrest on the basis of operational information (əməliyyat məlumatları) suggesting that an individual named Sakit was a drug dealer and had been involved in drug dealing near the Gozel Mekan café. It was also noted in the report that he had obtained drugs from A., who lived in Veravul, a village in the Lankaran region.\n14.  It further transpires from the documents submitted by the Government that at 10.55 p.m. on 23 June 2006 a police investigator drew up an official record of the applicant’s arrest (cinayət törətməkdə şübhəli şəxsin tutulması haqqında protokol). The rele", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8856", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Bas-Gordali, Chechnya. She is the sister of Mr Magomed Bimuradov, who was born in 1972.\n6.  According to the applicant, at about 3 p.m. on 27 May 2002 (in the documents submitted the date is also referred to as 26 May 2002) Mr Magomed Bimuradov was abducted from a street in the vicinity of his house in Bas‑Gordali by a group of armed masked men in a white car. He was forced into the car which drove away in the direction of the village of Shuani in the Nozhay-Yurt district of Chechnya. The abductors allegedly belonged to the federal forces.\n7.  The applicant’s brother has been missing since.\n8.  In her submission to the Court the applicant stated that her brother’s abduction had been witnessed by fellow villagers Mr E.Ts. and Ms Kh.Ts. However, she did not furnish statements of those witnesses to the Court. It does not appear that those witnesses gave statements to the official investigation. In support of her application, she submitted an undated joint statement on the factual circumstances of the case given by herself and her two sisters, Ms Kh.B. and Ms Z.Kh., none of whom were present during the abduction.\n9.  The Government did not dispute the facts as presented by the applicant, but denied any involvement of State servicemen in the disappearance of Mr Magomed Bimuradov.\n10.  The Government submitted a copy of “the entire criminal case file no. 71056” into the abduction of Mr Magomed Bimuradov amounting to seventy-five pages. The information submitted may be summarised as follows.\n11.  On 5 June 2002 Mr Magomed Bimuradov’s relatives lodged a complaint about his disappearance stating that he had gone out and had not returned home. The applicant, her four sisters, and other relatives including their father, Mr M.M.B., subsequently maintained correspondence with the authorities.\n12.  On 1 October 2002 the Nozhay-Yurt district prosecutor’s office opened criminal case no. 71056 under Article 105 of the Criminal Code (murder).\n13.  On 14 October 2002 the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case.\n14.  In October and November 2002 the investigators forwarded information requests concerning Mr Magomed Bimuradov’s possible detention to various law enforcement agencies. The replies were negative.\n15.  On 2 December 2002 the investigation was suspended for failure to identify suspects.\n16.  On various dates in July 2003 the investigators, at the request of the applicant’s and her relatives, provided them with statements that Mr Magomed Bimuradov had gone missing and that he had not been involved in an illegal armed group.\n17.  On 31 March 2004 the military prosecutor’s office of military unit no. 20116 stated in reply to a request of March 2004 from the applicant’s sister, Ms Z.B., that it was impossible to verify the theory of the involvement of military servicemen in her brother’s disappearance.\n18.  On 19 April 2005 the investigation was resumed. The applicant was informed thereof.\n19.  On 20 May 2005 the investigation was again suspended for failure to identify suspects. The applicant was informed thereof.\n20.  According to the applicant, between June 2005 and November 2010 she and her relatives submitted a number of requests to the investigating authorities. For instance, on 8 November 2010 she and a number of other relatives of disappeared persons complained to the North Caucasus Department of the Prosecutor General’s Office about their relatives’ abductions by federal servic", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 10 — freedom of expression?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8857", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Norilsk.\n5.  The applicant was convicted in 1998 and 2000; having partially served his sentence of 2000, he was released on parole.in 2002.\n6.  On 14 October 2003 the police carried out a test buy of drugs from the applicant, searched his flat and seized, in particular, the drugs, an audio system and 9,000 Russian roubles (RUB).\n7.  On 21 November 2003 the Norilsk town court (“the town court”) retroactively upheld the seizure of the audio system and RUB 9,000 for securing an eventual confiscation order. A sum of RUB 1,500 was also seized on an unspecified date. The investigator deposited the audio system to the police warehouse; the sum of RUB 10,500 was deposited onto the police bank account.\n8.  The applicant was charged with drug-related crimes. On an unspecified date the investigation file was transferred to the town court for trial.\n9.  On 3 March 2004 the applicant’s retained lawyer Mr B. failed to attend a trial hearing. The town court rescheduled the hearing on 12 March 2004.\n10.  On 12 March 2004 Mr B. again failed to attend the hearing; the trial court appointed Ms V., a legal-aid lawyer, to represent the applicant. It follows from the trial record that the applicant did not indicate any failings on the part of Ms V. to the trial court.\n11.  At some point between 12 and 30 March 2004 the applicant decided to replace Mr B. with Ms M. as his retained lawyer.\n12.  On 30 March 2004 the town court held the second hearing. It convicted the applicant of a drug‑related offence and procurement and possession of firearms and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The town court ordered that RUB 10,500 and the audio system be confiscated as “unlawfully acquired”.\n13.  On 6 July 2004 the Krasnoyarsk regional court (“the regional court”) quashed the conviction for procurement and possession of firearms and reduced the applicant’s sentence for the drug‑related crime to nine years and six months’ imprisonment. In the remaining part the judgment of 30 March 2004 was upheld and became final and enforceable.\n14.  On 3 November 2004 the applicant sent an introductory letter to the Court in which no specific complaint was raised.\n15.  On 15 November 2004 the sum of RUB 10,500 was added to the State budget.\n16.  On 6 June 2005 the applicant sent to the Court a completed application form complaining for the first time that Mr B. had not represented him on 12 March 2004.\n17.  On 3 November 2005 the audio system was sold for RUB 2,274.30; the proceeds were added to the State budget.\n18.  On 21 April 2006 the town court brought the applicant’s sentences for the crimes committed in 2000 and 2004 into conformity with the amendments in law; the decision was upheld on appeal on 20 June 2006.\n19.  On 20 June 2007 the applicant complained to the Court for the first time about the order to confiscate his property contained in the judgments of 30 March and 6 July 2004.\n20.  On 11 November 2007 the presidium of the regional court delivered two separate supervisory review rulings: one in respect of the decisions bringing the sentences of 2000 and 2004 into conformity with the new law, by which it mitigated the sentences on technical grounds, and one in respect of the judgments of 30 March and 6 July 2004. In the latter the presidium briefly confirmed lawfulness of the applicant’s conviction and declared the judgments unlawful in the part concerning confiscation of the applicant’s property, which it remitted for", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.5, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8858", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Moscow.\n6.  In 2003 the prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation into a series of fraudulent property transactions carried out by an organised group. On 14 April 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in these activities.\n7.  On 15 April 2005 the Ostankinskiy District Court of Moscow considered the investigator’s request to remand the applicant in custody during the investigation. The investigator argued that the applicant was suspected of having committed serious offences and was unemployed. He further alleged that the applicant might abscond or reoffend. Lastly, he referred to the applicant’s attempt to prevent witness Sh. from meeting with the investigator. The court granted the investigator’s request, noting as follows:\n“... the court takes into consideration that [the applicant] is suspected of having committed a lucrative crime which entails a custodial sentence exceeding ten years’ imprisonment, that he is not employed, and, as a result, he has no means of subsistence. The investigator’s knowledge of the reliable information that [the applicant] has put pressure on witnesses ..., convinces the court that, if [released], he might abscond, continue his criminal activities or otherwise interfere with the administration of the criminal proceedings ...”\n8.  On 22 April 2005 the applicant was charged with fraud. On 10 June 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 August 2005. The court stated as follows:\n“[The applicant] is charged with a serious offence committed by an organised criminal group. The reasons underlying the court’s decision to detain the applicant pending investigation still pertain. The court has accordingly grounds to believe that, if released, given that [the applicant] is a member of an organised criminal group, certain members of which are still at liberty and continue their criminal activities and interfere in any possible way with the investigation, [the applicant] will continue his criminal activities too or interfere with the criminal investigation ...”\n9.  On 2 August 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 November 2005 reiterating verbatim the reasoning in the previous court order.\n10.  On 7 November 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 February 2006. The court reasoned as follows:\n“There are no grounds to [release the applicant] because the circumstances justifying [his] detention still pertain. As prescribed by law, the court cannot discuss the [applicant’s] guilt and, when deciding on [the investigator’s request], the court is unable to discuss whether the extension of the investigation is justified and ... the court, when considering the request to extend the pre-trial detention, cannot decide to apply another preventive measure.”\n11.  On 14 December 2005 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 7 November 2005 on appeal.\n12.  On 8 February 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 April 2006. With reference to the seriousness of the charges, the court stated that “if released, [the applicant] might abscond or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice”.\n13.  On 13 April 2006 the Moscow City Court extended the pre-trial detention in respect of the applicant and S. until 14 July 2006. Referring to the seriousness of the charges, the court discerned no grounds to release the defendants. On 19 July 2006 ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8860", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1976 in Havana, Cuba, and lived in the Moscow Region prior to his arrest on 6 April 2007.\n6.  On 6 June 2008 the Moscow Regional Court convicted the applicant of armed robberies, illegal possession of firearms and other offences and sentenced him to twelve and a half years’ imprisonment.\n7.  The applicant was detained in the following facilities:\n(a)  until September 2008: remand prison IZ-77/4 in Moscow;\n(b)  from 28 September to 9 October 2008: remand prison IZ-55/3 in Omsk;\n(c)  from 9 October 2008 to 9 April 2009: correctional colony IK-9 in the Omsk Region;\n(d)  from 9 April to 28 May 2009: remand prisons in Omsk and Moscow;\n(e)  from 28 May 2009 to 12 January 2010: correctional colony IK-9 in the Omsk Region;\n(f)  from 12 January to 26 March 2010: correctional colony IK-3 in the Omsk Region;\n(g)  between an unspecified date and 7 December 2010: the applicant received treatment at medical facility LIU-2 (UKh-16/2) in the Omsk Region;\n(h)  after 7 December 2010: correctional colony IK-6 in the Omsk Region.\n8.  As regards the conditions in the IK-9 facility, the Government submitted a number of certificates concerning various aspects of Mr Butko’s detention which were issued by the facility director on 11 May 2012, as well as a copy of a director’s letter to the Omsk regional prosecutor dated 19 April 2012, from which it is apparent that Mr Butko was assigned to Unit 6 (бригада №6). According to the floor plan, the living areas measured 281.33 sq. m, of which the dormitory comprised 164.2 sq. m. There were 86 sleeping places and the average population ranged between 80 and 86 detainees, their number being logged by the officer on duty. The dormitory was ventilated through openings in the windows. The bath and laundry complex – which detainees were allowed to visit once a week between 6.30 a.m. and 9 a.m. or between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m., two units at a time – was equipped with eight shower heads, two plunge pools and one steam room. The facility was equipped with 28 toilets, all of them located in heated areas. Toilet bowls were screened by partitions.\n9.  The Government produced copies of the prosecutor’s infringement reports detailing various aspects of the detention regime. It appears from the report dated 24 September 2009 that the total population of the IK-9 facility was 1,350 persons. The report of 12 March 2010 read, in the relevant part, as follows:\n“The inspection uncovered a number of gross violations of the law as regards material conditions of detention.\nThe statutory living space of two square metres per inmate ... is not available in many units. For instance, the premises occupied by Unit 3 measure 232 sq. m but accommodate 126 convicted detainees.\nThe premises are not equipped with the necessary amenities; there are no toilets inside the living areas (except in Unit 3). There are two installations within the facility, one of them accommodating 12 toilets, the other 16, which are used by all the detainees. It follows that the statutory number of toilets (1 toilet for every 10 persons) is not available. Their sanitary condition is not satisfactory; privacy when using the toilet is not ensured ...\nA number of detainees who are or were serving their sentence in the facility ... have written letters to the European Court of Human Rights, and the above-mentioned violations of law relating to the material conditions of detention may result in unfavourable outcomes for the State.”\n10.  The applicant ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "2": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8861", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Morozovsk in the Rostov Region.\n6.  On 7 July 2004 the applicant was arrested and placed in a temporary detention centre at the Morozovsk police station («Изолятор временного содержания», «ИВС», “IVS”) on suspicion of murder.\n7.  The applicant was detained in the IVS on four separate occasions: between 7 and 24 July 2004; 17 August and 8 October 2004; 24 October and 16 November 2004; and 4 and 16 December 2004.\n(a)  The applicant’s account\n(i)  Material conditions of detention\n8.  In the applicant’s submission, the conditions of his detention in the IVS during those four periods were essentially identical and as described below.\n9.  The IVS was situated in the basement of the police station. The applicant was placed in a cell measuring approximately 12.5 square metres, which housed six to seven people. The walls, floor and ceiling were all covered with cement. There was no ventilation in the cell and consequently it was stuffy. The windows were covered with exterior and interior metal plates with minuscule openings, which gave practically no access to natural light. The cell was lit by a lamp set high up in an alcove in the wall, so there was insufficient light for reading or writing.\n10.  In summer, temperatures inside exceeded 40˚C and the cell had a high level of humidity. There was no glass in the windows and in winter it was cold.\n11.  No mattresses, bedding, cups, eating utensils or toiletries were distributed. There were no pest control measures in place to eliminate cockroaches and mice. The cell was not connected to a sewer and detainees had to relieve themselves in a bucket, which was removed from the cell once a day to be emptied. The water which was distributed once a day (ten litres per cell) was not drinkable. There was no provision for outside exercise or showers.\n12.  The applicant was fed once a day. The food was wholly inadequate, both in terms of quality and portion size.\n(ii)  The applicant’s state of health\n13.  The applicant sustained an injury to his head prior to his arrest. While in the IVS, he did not receive adequate medical treatment for the injury. The applicant – who had contracted tuberculosis in 2001 – shared a cell with a person who was actually suffering from the open form of the disease at the time of his detention, and this represented a potential risk to his health.\n(b)  The Government’s account\n14.  Each of the IVS cells in which the applicant was kept measured approximately 15 square metres and had six sleeping places. However, it was impossible to provide more detailed information, as the registration logs for the IVS had been destroyed.\n15.  According to the findings of the inquiry carried out by the Morozovskiy district prosecutor’s office on the basis of the applicant’s complaint, the applicant shared one of the cells in which he was kept – which was equipped with six sleeping places – with four inmates. At some point, he was transferred to a solitary confinement cell upon his request. The applicant received three meals a day. There were no mice or insects in the cells. The bucket that acted as a substitute for sanitary facilities was cleaned daily. The applicant had access to drinking water and toiletries. The applicant was provided with adequate medical assistance on request.\n16.  On 12 November 2004 the Morozovskiy District Court of the Rostov Region convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment. On 15 March ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8862", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and is serving a life sentence in Varna Prison.\n6.  The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.\n7.  On 10 November 1989 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court confirmed this sentence on 15 January 1990. The applicant was placed in Pleven Prison and was not executed because a presidential moratorium on the execution of death sentences was introduced in the meantime.\n8.  After the death penalty was abolished in Bulgaria, the Vice-President commuted the applicant’s sentence to life imprisonment on 21 January 1999. On 7 June 1999 the authorities placed the applicant under a “special regime” to serve his sentence, and on 11 June 1999 they transferred him to Varna Prison, where he remained until June 2004. Between June 2004 and June 2007 the applicant was detained in Pleven Prison, and on 27 June 2007 he was transferred again to Varna Prison, where he was at the time the most recent information was submitted to the Court, in late 2013.\n9.  At times he shared his cell with other life prisoners who were serving their sentences under the “special regime”.\n10.  According to the applicant, throughout the entire period of his detention he has been held in cells not equipped with sanitary facilities, and has only been allowed to go to the toilet three times a day. During the rest of the time he has had to relieve himself in his cell in a bucket which he could wash out once a day. The prison authorities have not provided him with chemicals for disinfecting the bucket.\n11.  He has been permanently locked in his cell.\n12.  According to the Government, between 2004 and 2007 in Pleven Prison the applicant was placed in a cell which was only locked at night. This allowed him unlimited access to the toilet, situated in the wing’s corridor, between 5.30 a.m. and 8 p.m. Furthermore, toilets and sinks with running water were installed in all cells in Pleven Prison in 2008.\n13.  In Varna Prison the applicant was allowed to go to the lavatory more than three times a day. In particular, he had access to sanitary facilities and hot water also when he was taken out of his cell for his hour’s exercise in the open air. Without specifying further, the Government also stated that this was also the case when he took part in the weekly prison activities. A toilet and a sink with running water were installed in his cell in August 2012.\n14.  Between 7 June 1999 and 6 December 2005 the applicant was held under the most restrictive “special regime”. Under this regime prisoners were locked permanently in their cells, and could only communicate with other life inmates and not with the general prison population. In December 2005 a Commission for the Execution of Sentences changed the applicant’s regime to the lighter “enhanced regime” which became called the “severe regime” with the adoption of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act in June 2009. He was able to take part in religious discussions for up to an hour a week and to play table tennis for half an hour up to twice a week.\n15.  The Government submitted annual psychological assessments of Mr Radev in respect of 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013. According to those assessments, the applicant demonstrated anti-social behaviour and periodically engaged in conflict with other inmates, whom he also incited to go on hunger strike as a means of pressuring the prison authorities into taking decisions favourable to them. According to the Governme", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8863", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  All the applicants were employed by RTB Bor – grupa Industrija za preradu Majdanpek, a socially-owned company based in Majdanpek (hereinafter “the debtor”).\n6. Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees, the applicants brought numerous separate civil suits, seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions.\n7.  The applicants obtained final court judgments ordering the debtor to pay them certain sums. The essential information as to the domestic proceedings in respect of each application is indicated in the appended table.\n8.  Following a period during which the enforcement proceedings had been suspended, between June and August 2011 the final court judgments in question were all fully enforced in respect of the applicants.\n9.  Since October 2011, the debtor is a company predominantly comprised of State or socially owned capital and is still in the process of being restructured.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "3": "Article 10 — freedom of expression"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8864", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1974 and 1979 respectively and are serving whole life sentences in Burgas Prison.\n6.  The facts of the case can be summarised as follows.\n7.  In November 2001 both applicants were arrested on suspicion of murder and were remanded in custody. In September 2002 they were transferred to Burgas Prison. In December 2004 the trial court, Burgas Regional Court, found them guilty of murder resulting from terrorist activity and sentenced them to whole life imprisonment, to be served initially under the “special regime”. In April 2006 the appellate court, Burgas Court of Appeal, upheld that sentence which was further upheld by the Supreme Court of Cassation in a final judgment of 16 January 2008.\n8.  The applicants have been serving their sentences under the “special regime” in Burgas Prison, in permanently locked individual cells measuring 1.5 by 3 metres, under heightened security supervision. Both applicants have been allowed out of their cells for between one and two hours a day to take exercise in the open, which they have been spending walking in the prison courtyard.\n9.  The parties diverge in respect of the material conditions in which the applicants have been kept.\n10.  According to the applicants, the daylight in the cells has been scant and a light bulb attached to the ceiling has been on 24 hours a day. There is so little unencumbered space in the cell that the applicants are forced to spend most of the day either lying or sitting on their beds. There are no toilets in their cells and, since the beginning of 2008, the prison authorities have allowed them to use the common sanitary facilities three times a day. The rest of the time they use a bucket to satisfy their physiological needs. Hygiene is rather poor: the prison premises, including the canteen and kitchen, are infested with cockroaches and rats. The food is of inadequate quality and insufficient quantity. The medical service in the prison lacks even the most basic medical supplies. Mr Dimitrov caught psoriasis in prison and because of the absence of adequate treatment his condition has deteriorated into psoriatic arthritis.\n11.  According to the Government, the applicants’ cells are equipped with toilets and the light is sufficient for them to read and write. In addition, the prison premises are cleaned every day and a thorough cleaning is carried out weekly by a specially designated individual. The authorities employ the services of an external company which regularly cleans and disinfects all prison areas. The prison director supervises the quality and quantity of the food offered to the inmates who receive meat dishes six times a week and a vegetarian dish once a week. The prisoners have access to a bathroom with hot running water six times a day. Sometimes they spend up to two hours a day in the open. They can visit the prison library, the prison chapel, as well as take part in – unspecified – group activities. Mr Ribov has tended to participate in them happily, while Mr Dimitrov has refused to do so without giving any reason for that.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "1": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8865", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1970 and is serving a sentence in Batman prison.\n5.  In April 2000 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of Hizbullah, an illegal organisation. He claimed to have been arrested on 4 April 2000, whereas according to the arrest report he was taken into custody on 7 April 2000. His first medical examination upon his arrest was, however, carried out on 6 April 2000.\n6.  The examination was carried out by a doctor at the request of the police. According to the medical report issued in respect of the applicant, it was conducted prior to his detention in police custody. The report stated that there was old scar tissue measuring 3 cm on his upper right wrist. The doctor also noted that there were no signs of violence on the applicant’s body.\n7.  On 9 April 2000 a second medical report was drafted, according to which the scar tissue mentioned in the medical report of 6 April 2000 was 2.5 cm long.\n8.  On 10 April 2000 the applicant was questioned by the police without a lawyer being present. According to the document containing his statements to the police, he acknowledged being a member of Hizbullah.\n9.  On 11 April 2000, at the end of his detention in police custody, the applicant was once again examined by a doctor. According to the report, there were no signs of violence on his body.\n10.  On the same date the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and, subsequently, a judge, who questioned him and recorded his statements. On both occasions he denied the veracity of his statements to the police, claiming that he had signed them under duress. The judge remanded him in custody.\n11.  On 3 May 2000 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicant and a number of other individuals. They were charged with being members of Hizbullah under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code.\n12.  On 27 June 2000 the Diyarbakır State Security Court held the first hearing on the merits of the case, at which the applicant gave evidence. He maintained, inter alia, that while in police custody, he had been beaten and given electric shocks to his genitals. He also told the court that he had been taken into police custody on 6 April 2000.\n13.  On 2 July 2001 the applicant once again maintained before the first‑instance court that his statements to the police had been obtained under torture.\n14.  In 2004 State Security Courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.\n15.  On 11 October 2004 the applicant was released pending trial.\n16.  On 25 October 2005 the case against the applicant and his co‑accused was joined with another case brought against a number of other people charged with being members of Hizbullah.\n17.  Between 11 October 2004 and 13 February 2008 the applicant did not attend court, although during this period his lawyers attended some hearings on his behalf.\n18.  On 13 February 2008, during the final hearing in the case, the applicant’s lawyer contended that the court should not base its judgment on the applicant’s statements to the police, as they had been made under duress.\n19.  On the same day the Diyarbakır Assize Court convicted the applicant of being a member of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The court noted that he had alleged that he had been tortured in police custody. It nevertheless based its judgment on the statements the ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8866", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants, Mr. Mehmet Özel, Mr Ali Kılıç, Mr İsmail Erdoğan, Mr Salim Çakır, Mrs Betül Akan, Mrs Menekşe Kılıç, Mrs Güher Erdoğan and Mrs Şehriban Yüce (Ergüden), were born in 1974, 1955, 1938, 1954, 1960, 1956, 1927 and 1966 respectively.\n7.  The Çınarcık Municipal Council, meeting in October 1994, adopted a decision increasing to six storeys the authorised height of the blocks covered by the building permits which had been issued to property developers for the construction of apartment blocks in Kocadere, on allotment 987, plot 1, and allotment 1257, plot 1. Pages 7 and 8 of the minutes of that meeting, recording the Municipal Council’s discussions, comprise the following exchange:\n“H.D.: ... at the Municipal Council meeting of 17.10.1994 [the height of buildings in] the restricted zone was raised to six storeys in Kocadere, where, on the worksite belonging to K.P., [the blocks were already] six storeys high. [During] the on-site visit it was noted that there were two more six-storey buildings in Kocadere. I think the decision we took at the time was insufficient. I am therefore requesting a modification of the restricted zone for sites comprising six-storey blocks of flats...\nThe Mayor: ... As I said at the 17.10.1994 meeting, our friend here is proposing legalising the six-storey buildings which have been completed, without bothering about the mistakes made in the past... I repeat what I said at the June meeting: let us correct, rather than mull over, our past mistakes. I acknowledge that mistakes have been made. But from now onwards no one will be able to add an extra storey, we will not allow it. And it was not us that made the mistake. That was already the situation when we arrived [in the municipality]. N.P.: Mr Mayor, three persons have built six-storey blocks in Kocadere. What a cheek! And we subsidise these builders.. V.G. has built six-storey blocks on the site ... Who was asked for authorisation? ... I don’t have to clean up his mess! In June we decided that he should coat [the buildings] in concrete. He should just bury them... the municipality should revise the plans for the whole Kocadere region and authorise six storeys ... Y.B.: The new Municipal Council has been in place for seven months now. Have we visited the site where K.P.’s and V.G.’s buildings stand to record our findings and impose a fine? What exactly have we done so far?\nThe Mayor: They are standing trial. As things stand [their buildings] are not lawful. They have put up five- to six-storey buildings, which is against the law... We at no stage authorised their construction. There are two or three blocks. Either we authorise the six storeys or they will have to be demolished... If you ask me, I think that action should have been taken earlier on this situation ... we should now just leave this mess alone and issue a decision authorising the six storeys, thus correcting the mistake. After which we will not allow any more such buildings... Y.B.: Mr Mayor, you did not answer my questions. What has been done about these blocks over the last seven months?\nThe Mayor: As I say, the builders are being prosecuted. Representatives of the housing department have inspected the site and the municipality has fined certain persons. Furthermore, we will not issue permits [for] these buildings before ... having imposed fines of two or three million Turkish lire ...\n... M.P: Mr Mayor, the fine you mentioned is the second stage in proceedings. I would remind you that ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8867", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Saint Petersburg.\n6.  On 25 November 2007 the applicant took part in a march.\n7.  The applicant was then taken to a police station and was accused of disobeying the police order for the march to disband, as it was considered to be a non-authorised public gathering. The applicant was suspected of an offence under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO), which punishes disobedience of a lawful order by a public official. The police also considered that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Article 20.2 of the CAO, on account of her participation in a public gathering which had not been subject to prior notification to the authorities, as required by the 2004 Public Gatherings Act.\n8.  On the same day, the administrative offence record was submitted to a justice of the peace of the 201 district. The applicant was then apprised of her procedural rights under Article 25.1 of the CAO.\n9.  The applicant lodged a request for adjournment in respect of both cases, since she needed time to retain counsel. The judge granted an adjournment until 28 November 2007.\n10.  On 27 November 2007 the applicant sought another adjournment, referring to the need for time to study the case material. The judge adjourned the cases until 5 December 2007.\n11.  On 28 November 2007, referring to the European Court’s case-law under Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant sought free legal assistance in these proceedings.\n12.  On 5 December 2007 the judge adjourned the case again, since the applicant sought to call witnesses.\n13.  By a procedural order of 19 December 2007, the justice of the peace dismissed the request for free legal assistance as follows:\n“Having examined the administrative offence record and the other documents in the case file, I dismiss the request because the CAO contains no rule concerning provision of legal assistance to the defendant. [The applicant] has been apprised of her rights under Article 25.1 of the CAO and thus must take her own decision whether she wants to retain an advocate, with due regard to her financial situation ...”\n14.  By a judgment of 19 December 2007 the applicant was found guilty of the administrative offence under Article 19.3 of the CAO and was sentenced to a fine of 500 Russian roubles (RUB)[1].\n15.  On the same date, the same justice of the peace found the applicant guilty of breaching the requirements of the Public Gatherings Act, which is an administrative offence under Article 20.2 of the CAO. The applicant was ordered to pay a fine of RUB 500.\n16.  The applicant appealed against both judgments and sought free legal assistance for the appeal proceedings.\n17.  On 19 February 2008 the Dzerzhinksiy District Court of St Petersburg gave her leave to call witnesses but dismissed her request for free legal assistance as follows:\n“[The applicant] has submitted a request for free legal assistance, submitting that she is a pensioner and has insufficient means to retain an advocate; she has no knowledge in the area of jurisprudence.\nHaving examined the request, the court cannot grant it because the CAO contains no rule concerning provision of legal assistance to the defendant. [The applicant] has been apprised of her rights under Article 25.1 of the CAO and thus must take her own decision whether she wants to retain an advocate, with due regard to her financial situation ...”\n18.  On 11 March 2008 the District Court granted the applicant", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8868", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Vilnius.\n6.  In the 1930s the applicant’s father bought a plot of 1.975 ha of land in territory which is now part of the city of Vilnius. The property was nationalised in the 1940s.\n7.  In 1991 the applicant asked the Lithuanian authorities to restore his rights to his father’s land. In 1992 the Vilnius city authorities restored his property rights by conferring on him a right to obtain a plot no bigger than 0.2 ha to build an individual house (individualaus namo statybai); under the Law on Restitution in force at that time, 0.2 ha was the maximum area of land returnable in natura within the Vilnius city boundaries.\n8.  On 16 September 1999, the authorities transferred into the applicant’s ownership, without any payment, a plot of 0.18 ha in Vilnius city to build a house.\n9.  On 2 April 2001 the Constitutional Court held that the limiting of the return of land in natura, if vacant and consequently of no particular societal value, was in breach of Article 23 of Constitution, which protects the right to property.\n10.  Relying on the Constitutional Court’s ruling, on 4 May 2001 the applicant asked the Vilnius city authorities to stop distributing or selling the land which he claimed to be that of his father, given that he could now claim a bigger portion of that land. He enclosed land registry maps indicating the 1.975 ha plot of land that had previously belonged to his father.\n11.  The Vilnius city authorities replied on 25 May 2001 that, taking into account the guidelines set out in the Constitutional Court’s ruling, the Law on Restitution had to be amended as regards the restitution of the land within the city limits. Given that the applicant’s request related to the return of a plot of land in Vilnius in the actual place where his father had had his land (perduodant žemės sklypą turėtoje vietoje), his request could only be examined after the aforementioned legislation had been amended.\n12.  Following another unrelated request for restitution, by a decision of 30 May 2001 the Vilnius County Administration (Vilniaus apskrities viršininko administracija) transferred part of the disputed land, specifically plot no. 171 comprising 0.09 ha, to M.P. to build an individual house. M.P. later resold that plot to third parties.\n13.  On 2 April 2002, the Law on Restitution was amended to the effect that the maximum area of land returnable in Vilnius city, provided that that land was not State redeemable, was 1 ha.\n14.  Relying on the amended Law of Restitution, on 21 June 2002 the applicant asked the Vilnius city authorities to return to him the remaining part of the plot, 0.82 ha (that is to say, 1 - 0.18 ha), in his father’s land.\n15.  In their internal correspondence of January and October 2003 the Vilnius city authorities concluded that the land could not be returned to the applicant in natura because it had been built upon and it also contained a forest of State importance. The land thus had to be bought by the State and the applicant was to be compensated by other methods as provided for by the Law on Restitution.\n16.  On 31 July 2003 the National Land Service (Nacionalinė žemės tarnyba) informed the applicant that the land formerly owned by his father was State redeemable land. However, having examined the land registry maps of the land owned by the applicant’s father, the National Land Service also noted that only part of that land had been divided into plots for the construction of houses. I", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8869", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Vilnius.\n6.  The applicant owned a 0.53 hectare plot of land in the village of Tarailiai (Tauragė region). In 2005 he submitted a request to the local authorities to change the classification of the land from agricultural to residential use. In accordance with the domestic law, such a request had first to be granted by the municipal council and then approved by the county administration.\n7.  Tauragė District Municipal Council granted the applicant’s request and prepared a detailed area plan (detalusis planas) (hereinafter “the plan”). The plan was subsequently submitted for approval to the Tauragė County Administration (hereinafter “the TCA”). However, on 25 November 2005 the TCA refused to approve the plan on the ground that it had not been prepared in accordance with the domestic laws governing the planning process.\n8.  The applicant submitted a complaint to the State Inspectorate for Planning and Construction (hereinafter “the Inspectorate”), which was the competent institution for out-of-court settlement of disputes arising from the planning process. On 10 August 2006 the Inspectorate held that the TCA’s refusal to approve the plan had been unfounded.\n9.  After the Inspectorate’s decision, Tauragė District Municipal Council re-submitted the plan to the TCA. However, on 13 November 2006 the TCA informed the council and the applicant that it would not review its previous decision to refuse approval.\n10.  On 22 December 2006 the Inspectorate notified the TCA that its refusal to approve the plan had been unfounded and urged it to review that decision. It appears that the TCA did not take any action in that respect.\n11.  In January 2007 the applicant lodged a claim with the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court. He asked the court to order the TCA to approve the plan. Following the court’s suggestion, in April 2007 the applicant added a request to annul the TCA’s decision of 25 November 2005.\n12.  On 4 May 2007 the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. The court held that county administration’s decisions on approval of detailed area plans were valid for one year after their adoption. If the plan had not been adopted within that time, the decision became invalid and the plan had to be re-submitted for approval. Therefore, the court found that the TCA’s decision of 25 November 2005 was no longer valid and could not have any effect on the applicant’s situation. The court stated that it had no competence to examine the lawfulness of an invalid act and dismissed the claim. It also held that, as a result, there was no need to examine the applicant’s remaining claims.\n13.  The applicant appealed against that judgment. He complained, inter alia, that the first instance court had not examined his original request – to order the TCA to approve the plan.\n14.  On 15 February 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the applicant’s appeal and returned the case for re-examination by the first‑instance court. The Supreme Administrative Court noted that when a county administration refused to approve a detailed area plan, that plan could be re-submitted only after the errors indicated in the refusal had been corrected. However, if the author of the plan disagreed with the indicated errors, he or she would effectively be denied access to court if the proceedings lasted longer than a year. The court also noted that the applicant’s original request had been to order th", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 6 — right to a fair trial?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8870", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicants were born in 1965 and 1961 respectively and live in Ramučiai, Kaunas Region. They are wife and husband.\n6.  In 1993 the Karmėlava Circuit Council of the Kaunas Region (Kauno rajono Karmėlavos apylinkės tarnyba) assigned a plot of land measuring 1.97 hectares to the first applicant (hereinafter “the land”), Ms Noreikienė (hereinafter “the first applicant”), for individual farming. In 1996 the Kaunas County Administration authorised her to buy the land for a nominal price of 123 “single-use investment vouchers” (investiciniai čekiai) and 6 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 1.7 euro (EUR)).\n7.  On 2 August 2004 the first applicant signed a land purchase agreement with the Kaunas County Administration to acquire the land from the State. The plot was subsequently registered in the Land Registry in the joint names of both applicants.\n8.  In 2005 a third party, V.A., brought a civil claim against the Kaunas County Administration and the both applicants, seeking restoration of his ownership rights to the land. He argued that a request for restitution of property had already been submitted in 1991, so the land had been assigned and later sold to the first applicant unlawfully.\n9.  On 14 April 2006 the Kaunas District Court (Kauno rajono apylinkės teismas) allowed V.A.’s claim. It held that the first applicant had been assigned the land unlawfully because the local authorities had an obligation to resolve restitution claims before assigning plots to new owners, and because she did not fulfil the legal criteria for being assigned land. Applying the principle of priority of former owners’ rights, the court annulled the administrative decisions assigning the land to the first applicant and the land purchase agreement, and ordered the Kaunas County Administration to return LTL 129 (EUR 37) to the applicants.\n10.  On 31 October 2006 the Kaunas Regional Court quashed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the civil claim. V.A. lodged a cassation appeal. On 15 May 2007 the Supreme Court quashed the disputed decision and remitted the case to the Kaunas Regional Court for re-examination.\n11.  On 24 September 2007 the Kaunas Regional Court upheld the first‑instance decision of 14 April 2006 and allowed V.A.’s claim.\n12.  On 30 November 2007 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicants’ cassation appeal, on the grounds that it did not raise any important legal issues.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8872", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1977 and is currently detained in Timişoara Prison.\n6.  On 10 May 2013 he was detained in Jilava Prison Hospital after receiving a five year sentence for aggravated theft. From 16 June 2013 onwards he was allowed to serve his sentence in a semi-open detention regime. He was held in Timişoara Prison from 10 October to 12 November 2013, where he was transferred again on 16 December 2013. He remains there to date.\n7.  In his initial letters to the Court, the applicant stated that he had been diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prior to his incarceration, for which he required treatment.\n8. He stated that he had not received adequate medical treatment for his illness on account of a lack of funding, and that his family had had to assist him in this regard. Furthermore, even if he had tried to complain to the post‑sentencing judge about the matter, his request for a hearing had been denied on the erroneous ground that he had requested a hearing for legal matters.\n9. From May 2013 to November 2014 the applicant was examined, tested and treated regularly for his condition in prison and civilian medical centres and hospitals. He received a number of vitamins and was administered antiretroviral treatment on a daily basis.\n10.  On 10 May and 26 November 2013 the infectious diseases ward of Bucharest Prison Hospital informed the socio-medical ward of Jilava Prison Hospital that they were monitoring the applicant’s condition. He was hospitalised there from 10 to 20 May and from 22 to 26 November 2013 respectively. It was noted, among other things, that on 9 May 2013 the applicant had been taken to a civilian hospital for blood tests, and that he had been undergoing treatment with antiretroviral medication, in particular Truvada, Prezista and Norvir. It was recommended that he follow a high‑calorie, protein-rich diet, take vitamins and liver protection medication, have an immunological and viral evaluation after six months, and continue with the aforementioned antiretroviral treatment.\n11. On 12 December 2014 Jilava Prison Hospital informed the National Prisons Agency (Administrația Națională a Penitenciarelor), among other things, that during his detention in the aforementioned facility the applicant had refused treatment through the national infectious diseases programme on the grounds that he could purchase it himself. In Romania, the drug Truvada was not included in the national programme, but could be replaced with Emtriva and Viread, which contained the same active substances. Upon his incarceration the applicant asked to be provided with Norvir and Prezista only, but the doctor had denied him the treatment as it would have been incomplete.\n12.  On the same date the medical centre attached to Timişoara Prison informed the Government and submitted documents showing, among other things, that during his detention the applicant had lacked any HIV-related symptoms and complications. Also, his clinical and immunological condition and biological tests had remained normal. On 12 February 2014 the Timişoara Forensic Institute produced a forensic expert report in respect of the applicant’s condition, recommending, among other things, that he be hospitalised in Jilava Prison Hospital. On 8 March 2014 the applicant signed a waiver refusing hospitalisation on the grounds that his medical condition had been good, he had wanted to work, and he had been monitored by the local civilian hospital in October 2013, where", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8873", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicants were born in 1959, 1964, 1968, 1946, 1980, 1948, and 1958 respectively. The first, second, fourth and fifth applicants live in Podgorica (Montenegro), the third applicant lives in Windsor (Canada), the sixth applicant lives in Farmington Hills (USA) and the seventh applicant lives in Troy (USA).\n7.  The facts of the cases as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.\n8.  In the early morning hours of 9 September 2006 a special anti-terrorist unit arrested seventeen persons, including the applicants, on suspicion of associating for the purpose of anti-constitutional activities (udruživanje radi protivustavne djelatnosti), preparing actions against the constitutional order and security of Montenegro (pripremanje djela protiv ustavnog uređenja i bezbjednosti Crne Gore) and illegal possession of weapons and explosives (nedozovoljeno držanje oružja i eksplozivnih materija).\n9.  The applicants maintain that as of the moment of their arrest and during the next few days, during police detention as well as when being taken to the investigating judge, they were ill-treated with the aim of extorting statements. In particular, they were beaten, deprived of food, verbally abused, including on the basis of their ethnic origin, and threatened by police officers.\n10.  On 11 and 12 September 2006, when interrogated by the investigating judge of the High Court, the applicants made statements to that effect. The investigating judge included these statements in the interrogation minutes, as well as the following: (a) the third applicant had a bandage on his head beneath which there was a visible cut (razderotina), as well as a haematoma (krvni podliv) on the upper part of his left cheekbone (jagodica); (b) the fourth applicant admitted that he did not have any injuries; (c) the fifth applicant had a haematoma on both shoulders, in the area above both elbows, a scratch on the outside part of his left ankle (skočni zglob), and a haematoma on the left ankle as well as on the outside part of the left thigh, the dimensions of which were 10x1.5 cm; the fifth applicant also maintained that he had a pain in his right ear; and (d) the seventh applicant had scratches on his left elbow and left knee, and a haematoma on the left part of his back above the hip, and complained that his ribs hurt and that he could barely move and breathe.\n11.  On 12 September 2006 a prison doctor examined the third and sixth applicants. He noted in a medical report that the third applicant had a 5 cm long scratch on top of his head, a dark blue haematoma on the left cheekbone measuring 4x0.3 cm, a dark blue haematoma stretching from his left nipple to his armpit measuring 25x3 cm and a large hematoma above the left elbow. The doctor noted that there were no visible injuries on the sixth applicant’s body.\n12.  On 14 September 2006 the first, second, fourth, fifth and seventh applicants filed a criminal complaint (podnijeli krivičnu prijavu) with the investigating judge against unknown police officers for extorting their statements (iznuđivanje iskaza), torture and ill-treatment in the period between 9 and 11 September 2006.\n13.  Between 27 and 29 September 2006 all the applicants save for the third one signed written statements to their lawyers describing the ill-treatment they had been subjected to.\n14.  On 13 October 2006 the above criminal complaint was amended so as to include the sixth applicant’s complaint to the same effect. The applicants also expres", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "2": "Article 2 — right to life", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8874", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Kaunas.\n6.  In 1989 the local authorities assigned a plot of land measuring 0.03 hectares to the applicant for the construction of a house (hereinafter “the land”). In 1991 Kaunas City Council confirmed the validity of that decision.\n7.  Between 1992 and 1994 the applicant obtained a building permit and began laying the foundations. According to the applicant, he subsequently had to suspend the building works due to the worsening economic situation, thus the house was not completed.\n8.  In 1994 the applicant bought the land for a nominal price of 24 “single-use investment vouchers” (investiciniai čekiai) and 98 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 28 euros (EUR)), which he paid to the Kaunas County Administration. In 2005 he signed a land purchase agreement with the Kaunas County Administration. The plot was subsequently registered in the Land Registry in his name.\n9.  In 2006 third parties V.P. and T.I. brought a civil claim seeking restoration of their ownership rights to the land. They argued that they had already submitted requests for restitution of property in 1992, 2001 and 2003, so the land had been assigned and later sold to the applicant unlawfully.\n10.  On 16 August 2007 the Kaunas City District Court allowed the civil claim. The court held that the applicant had been assigned the land unlawfully because the local authorities had an obligation to resolve restitution claims before assigning plots to new owners. Applying the principle of priority of former owners’ rights, the court annulled the administrative decisions assigning the land to the applicant and the land purchase agreement, and ordered the Kaunas County Administration to return LTL 122 (EUR 35) to the applicant. The land was returned to the State.\n11.  On 23 January 2008 the Kaunas Regional Court upheld that decision.\n12.  The applicant lodged a cassation appeal. On 30 April 2008 the Supreme Court refused to examine it on the ground that it did not raise any important legal issues.\n13.  In September 2008 the applicant requested the Kaunas regional prosecutor to investigate whether V.P. and T.I. had produced false documents proving their ownership rights. The prosecutor refused to launch an investigation on the ground that no crime appeared to have been committed. The domestic courts upheld that decision.", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 2 — right to life"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8875", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, are similar to those presented in Association “21 December 1989” and Others v. Romania (nos. 33810/07 and 18817/08, §§ 12-41, 24 May 2011) and in Bosnigeanu and Others v. Romania (nos. 56861/08 and 33 others, §§ 5-15, 4 November 2014). They belong within the same historical context and relate to the same domestic criminal proceedings as those at issue in the above-mentioned case.\n6.  Between 21 and 23 December 1989, the applicants took part in the anti-communist demonstrations in Bucharest which led to the fall of the communist regime.\n7.  In 1990, following the overthrow of the communist regime, the military prosecutor’s office opened a criminal investigation in respect of the December 1989 armed crackdown on the anti-communist demonstration in Bucharest.\n8.  According to the documents submitted to the Court by the parties, all the applicants were interviewed at the military prosecutor’s office as witnesses in connection with the use of violence against civilian demonstrators. Subsequently, they lodged criminal complaints and joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties, citing the psychological suffering they had experienced following the violent crackdown on the anti‑communist demonstration. It appears from the medical certificates issued between April 2008 and February 2009 and submitted by the applicants to the domestic criminal investigation file that they did not present any medical symptoms when they were examined following their involvement in the tragic events. Nevertheless, it could not be ruled out that they suffered psychological trauma at the time of the events in question.\n9.  The criminal investigation appears to be still pending before the prosecuting authorities. The most important procedural steps were summarised in Association “21 December 1989” and Others, cited above (§§ 12-41). Subsequent developments in the investigation are as follows.\n10.  On 18 October 2010 the military prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice decided not to institute criminal proceedings with regard to the acts committed by the military, finding that the applicants’ complaints were partly statute-barred and partly ill-founded. The investigation into crimes committed by civilians, members of the Patriotic Guards, members of militia and prison staff was severed from the case file and jurisdiction was relinquished in favour of the prosecuting authorities at the High Court of Cassation and Justice.\n11.  On 15 April 2011 the chief prosecutor at the military prosecutor’s office set aside the decision of 18 October 2010 on the grounds that the investigation had not yet been finalised and not all victims and perpetrators had yet been identified.\n12.  On 18 April 2011 the military prosecutor’s office relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor’s office at the High Court of Cassation and Justice on the ground that the investigation concerned both civilians and military.\n13.  On 9 March 2012 – following the opening to the public in 2010 of the classified information in the criminal investigation file – the case was re‑registered with a view to an investigation in the light of the recently available data.\n14.  This investigation appears to be still pending before the domestic authorities.\n15.  The main facts of these cases concerning the crackdown on anti‑government demonstrations between 13 to 15 June 1990 are similar to those presented in Mocanu and Others v. R", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 2 — right to life", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8876", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Weinheim.\n7.  On 18 and 19 July 2005 the applicant, who campaigns against abortion, distributed leaflets in the immediate vicinity of the medical practices of anesthetists Dr M. and Dr R., who run a day clinic. Furthermore, the applicant deposited leaflets in all letterboxes in the vicinity of the day clinic.\n8.  The front page of the leaflets contained the following text in bold letters:\n“In the day clinic Dr M./Dr R. [full names and address] unlawful abortions are performed” (“In der Tagesklinik Dr.M./Dr.R. [...] werden rechtswidrige Abtreibungen durchgeführt”)\n9.  Followed by an explanation set in smaller letters:\n“which are, however, allowed by the German legislator and are not subject to criminal liability. The attestation of counselling protects the “doctor” and the mother from criminal responsibility, but not from their responsibility before God.” (“die aber der deutsche Gesetzgeber erlaubt und nicht unter Strafe stellt. Der Beratungsschein schützt „Arzt“ und Mutter vor Strafverfolgung, aber nicht vor der Verantwortung vor Gott.“)\n10.  A box below contained the following text:\n“According to international criminal law: murder is the intentional “bringing-to-death” of an innocent human being!” (“Sinngemӓβ aus den internationalen Strafgesetzen: Mord ist das vorsӓtzliche “Zu-Tode-Bringen” eines unschuldigen Menschen!”)\n11.  On the back of the folded leaflet, the applicant quoted the Federal Constitutional Court’s leading judgment with regard to abortion (see paragraph 28 below) as well as a statement by Christoph‑Wilhelm Hufeland, the personal physician of Goethe and Schiller, dealing with the role of doctors in relation to voluntary euthanasia and abortion. He also cited section 12 § 1 of the Law on Conflicts in Pregnancy (see paragraph 27 below) and asked readers to make use of their influence on those performing and assisting in abortions.\nFurthermore, the following text appeared on the back of the folded leaflet:\n“The murder of human beings in Auschwitz was unlawful, but the morally degraded NS-State allowed the murder of innocent people and did not make it subject to criminal liability.” (“Die Ermordung der Menschen in Auschwitz war rechtswidrig, aber der moralisch verkommene NS-Staat hatte den Mord an den unschuldigen Menschen erlaubt und nicht unter Strafe gestellt.”)\n12.  Below this sentence the leaflet referred to the website “www.babycaust.de”. This website, which was operated by the applicant, contained, inter alia, an address list of so-called “abortion doctors”, in which the day clinic and the full names of Dr M. and Dr R. were mentioned. This list was accessible on the website under the link “death or life”/“request for prayers for Germany” (Gebetsanliegen für Deutschland).\n13.  Dr M. and Dr R. filed a request for a civil injunction against the applicant. They submitted that only legal abortions were performed at their day clinic. The applicant’s leaflet created the erroneous impression that the abortions performed were contrary to the relevant legal provisions.\n14.  On 22 January 2007 the Ulm Regional Court granted the requested injunction and ordered the applicant to desist from further disseminating in the immediate vicinity of the day clinic leaflets containing the plaintiffs’ names and the assertion that unlawful abortions were performed in the plaintiffs’ medical practice. The Regional Court further ordered the applicant to desist from mentioning the plaintiffs’ name", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8878", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kyiv.\n5.  On 24 February 2002 the applicant was travelling on a tram and was approached by Mr G. and Mr S., ticket inspectors employed by the Kyivpastrans municipal enterprise (“the transport company”). As subsequently established by domestic authorities in the indictment and in the judgment convicting S. (see paragraphs 31 and 34 below), there was a disagreement between the applicant and the inspectors as to whether he had a valid ticket. They insisted that the applicant pay a fine for travelling without a ticket, while he insisted that he had broken no rules. The applicant was asked to get off the tram. It was then agreed that the applicant would accompany the inspectors to a tram depot to resolve the dispute. While they were on their way to the depot S. kicked the applicant. In response the applicant sprayed the inspectors with tear gas from a can he had on him. S. then kicked the applicant in the left knee, causing a fracture. A struggle between the applicant and S. ensued. G. and S. then left the scene. The applicant could not stand up or walk following the knee fracture, he was helped to the nearby tram stop by the bystanders who called an ambulance for him. According to the applicant, he has been receiving treatment for his injury until early 2005.\n6.  On 26 February 2002 the applicant made a statement to the police describing the circumstances of the incident. In particular, he stated that on the day of the incident he had been approached by two ticket inspectors who questioned the validity of his ticket, suggesting that he appeared too old to be using a student ticket. While they insisted that he pay a fine he insisted his ticket was in order. He volunteered to go with them to a police station to resolve the dispute. In response they suggested that they go to the tram depot instead and he agreed. On the way to the depot he was kicked from behind. He turned round and sprayed the inspectors with tear gas, and was kicked in the knee. He stated that he did not know the names of the inspectors but could identify them by sight.\n7.  On 4 March 2002 a police investigator of the Svyatoshynskyy District Police Department (“the District Police Department”) refused to institute criminal proceedings into the incident. The investigator noted that the ticket inspector on duty on the tram line in question at the relevant time was identified as S. He went on to note that S. could not be contacted for an interview since he was said to be on sick leave from work and was not found at his home address. The investigator also noted that the gravity of the applicant’s injuries could only be evaluated after completion of the applicant’s treatment.\n8.  On 5 March 2002 a forensic medical expert diagnosed the applicant with a knee fracture and classified this as bodily injuries of medium gravity.\n9.  On 18 December 2002 the Svyatoshynskyy District Prosecutor’s Office (“the District Prosecutor’s Office”) quashed the decision of 4 March 2002 and instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of deliberate infliction of bodily injuries of medium gravity. On the same day the District Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant about this decision, also informing him that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the investigator who made the decision of 4 March 2002. According to the applicant, he first learned about the decision of 4 March 2002 from this letter from the District Prosecutor’s Office.\n10. ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8879", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was (to her knowledge) born in 1996 and at the time of the introduction of the application was detained in Lyster Barracks, Ħal Far.\n6.  The applicant entered Malta in an irregular manner by boat on 27 May 2012. Upon arrival, she was registered by the immigration police, given an identification number (12H-006), and presented with two documents in English, one containing a Return Decision and the other a Removal Order.\n7.  The Return Decision stated that she was a prohibited immigrant by virtue of Article 5 of the Immigration Act (Chapter 217 of the Laws of Malta) because she was in Malta “without means of subsistence and liable to become a charge on public funds”. The Return Decision also informed the applicant that her stay was being terminated and that she had the possibility to apply for a period of voluntary departure. The Removal Order was based on the consideration that the applicant’s request for a period of voluntary departure had been rejected. It informed the applicant that she would remain in custody until removal was effected, and that an entry ban would be issued against her. The two documents further informed the applicant of her right to appeal against the Decision and Order before the Immigration Appeals Board (“the IAB”) within three working days.\n8.  According to the applicant, the contents of the decision in English were not explained to her, although she could not understand the language. According to the Government, in practice the immigration police inform the migrants verbally in English about their right to appeal, and the migrants translate for each other.\n9.  The applicant was further provided with an information leaflet entitled “Your entitlements, responsibilities and obligations while in detention” in Arabic, a language she did not understand. According to the Government the applicant did not request a booklet in another language.\n10.  In accordance with Article 14(2) of the Immigration Act (see Relevant domestic law), the applicant was detained in Lyster Barracks.\n11.  During the registration process upon her arrival, in the absence of an interpreter, the applicant’s age was recorded as twenty-six (born 1986). She claims to have told the authorities that she was sixteen years old. According to the Government, it emerged from the authorities’ records (not submitted to the Court) that the applicant declared that she was born in 1986.\n12.  On 30 May 2012 the applicant appealed against the Removal Order and Return Decision. By the date of the introduction of the application (4 February 2013), no date had been set for her appeal hearing by the IAB.\n13.  A few days following her arrival the applicant was called for an information session provided by the staff of the Office of the Refugee Commissioner. She was assisted in submitting the Preliminary Questionnaire (PQ), thereby registering her wish to apply for asylum under Article 8 of the Refugees Act, Chapter 420 of the Laws of Malta (see Relevant domestic law below). She stated on the form that she was sixteen years old.\n14.  On an unspecified date some two months after her arrival in Malta, the applicant was called for an interview with a member of Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers (AWAS) staff, who informed her that as she had claimed to be sixteen years old she would be interviewed by three members of AWAS staff with a view to assessing the veracity of her claim that she was a minor.\n15.  About a week later, three people from AWAS in", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 2 — right to life", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 5 — right to liberty and security?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 1.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8880", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  Mr Cengiz was born in 1974 and lives in İzmir. He is a lecturer at the Law Faculty of İzmir University and is an expert and legal practitioner in the field of freedom of expression.\nMr Akdeniz and Mr Altıparmak were born in 1968 and 1973 respectively. Mr Akdeniz is a professor of law at the Law Faculty of Bilgi University. Mr Altıparmak is an assistant professor of law at the Political Science Faculty of Ankara University and director of the university’s Human Rights Centre.\n6.  YouTube (http://www.youtube.com) is the leading video-hosting website on which users can upload, view and share videos. Most videos on the site or on YouTube channels can be viewed by any Internet users, but only users with a YouTube account may upload video files. The platform is available in more than seventy-six countries. Over one billion users visit the site each month, viewing more than six billion hours of videos.\n7.  On 5 May 2008, under section 8(1)(b), (2), (3) and (9) of Law no. 5651 on regulating Internet publications and combating Internet offences (“Law no. 5651”), the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance made an order for the blocking of access to the website http://www.youtube.com and the IP addresses 208.65.153.238-208.65.153.251 providing access to the website. The court held, among other things, that the content of ten pages on the website (ten video files) infringed Law no. 5816 prohibiting insults to the memory of Atatürk.\n8.  On 21 May 2010 the first applicant lodged an objection against the blocking order of 5 May 2008. Relying on his right to freedom to receive and impart information and ideas, he sought to have the order set aside.\n9.  On 31 May 2010 the second and third applicants, as YouTube users, also lodged an objection against the blocking order of 5 May 2008. They sought to have the order set aside, arguing that there was a public interest in having access to YouTube and that the blocking of such access seriously impaired the very essence of their right to freedom to receive information and ideas. They also submitted that six of the ten pages to which the order of 5 May 2008 related had already been deleted and that the other four were no longer accessible from inside Turkey. This meant, in their submission, that the blocking order had become devoid of all purpose and constituted a disproportionate restriction on the rights of Internet users to receive and impart information and ideas.\n10.  On 9 June 2010 the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance dismissed the applicants’ objection, holding in particular that the blocking order complied with the requirements of the legislation. Addressing the inaccessibility of the video files from inside Turkey, it stated that while access to the files had indeed been blocked by YouTube within Turkey, the videos in question had nevertheless not been removed from the website’s database and thus remained accessible to Internet users worldwide. It also held that as they had not been parties to the investigation procedure, the applicants did not have locus standi to challenge such orders. Lastly, the court noted that an objection against the same blocking order had already been dismissed on 4 June 2008.\n11.  On 2 July 2010 the Ankara Criminal Court upheld the decision of 9 June 2010 of the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance, holding that it had complied with the procedural rules and fell within the court’s discretion.\n12.  On 17 June 2010 the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance adop", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8881", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n6.  The applicant is a Kyrgyz national of Uzbek ethnic origin. He was born on 1 September 1988 and resided in the town of Osh in Kyrgyzstan. After mass disorder and inter-ethnic clashes in the region in June 2010, he fled to Russia, together with many other ethnic Uzbeks, for fear of ethnic‑motivated violence. It appears that his next of kin remain in Kyrgyzstan.\n7.  In August 2010 the applicant arrived in Russia and received a temporary residence permit for the period from 3 December 2010 to 3 December 2013.\n8.  After the applicant’s departure from Kyrgyzstan, on 25 June 2010 the Kyrgyz authorities charged him in absentia with involvement in riots accompanied by violence, inter-ethnic clashes, arson, use of firearms and destruction of property on 17 June 2010 in the city of Osh, Kyrgyz Republic. The applicant was also alleged to have kidnapped someone.\n9.  On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicant was put on a list of fugitives in Kyrgyzstan; on 12 February 2011 he was put on a list of fugitives in Russia as well.\n10.  On 29 October 2012, while travelling by train in Russia, the applicant was arrested by the transport police. He denied his involvement in the 2010 events. On 31 October 2012, the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Court of St Petersburg ordered the applicant’s detention for a month. His detention was subsequently extended numerous times.\n11.  The Kyrgyz authorities confirmed their intention to seek the applicant’s extradition. On 23 November 2012, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation received a request from the Kyrgyz Republic seeking the applicant’s extradition. On 13 August 2013 it granted the request.\n12.  The applicant and his counsel appealed against the extradition order claiming, in particular, that he would face a risk of torture and ill‑treatment since ethnic Uzbeks were a particularly vulnerable group following the June 2010 violence in the southern regions of Kyrgyzstan. On 26 November 2013 the St Petersburg City Court quashed the extradition order, finding it unlawful, and released the applicant. It appears that the applicant is currently at large.\n13.  On 25 February 2014 the Supreme Court of Russia quashed the ruling of the St Petersburg City Court of 26 November 2013 and upheld the extradition order. In its decision of 25 February 2014 the Supreme Court held, in particular, as follows:\n“... the conclusion of the lower court that the prosecutor’s office failed to examine the question of the risk of unacceptable treatment in the Kyrgyz Republic in the event of [the applicant’s] extradition does not fit the case-file materials. The Prosecutor General’s office of the Kyrgyz Republic has given guarantees to the effect that [the applicant] would only be prosecuted in respect of the crimes indicated in the initial extradition request and the behaviour of a general criminal character. They guaranteed that he would not be prosecuted on the basis of political or discriminatory reasons, including motives based on his origins, social background, the office he may have occupied, the pecuniary situation, gender, race, ethnicity, language, convictions and relations to religion, that [the applicant] would be given all possibilities to defend himself, that he would not be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and that if he was convicted and after having served the sentence he would be able to leave the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic freely. The materials submitted by ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "1": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8884", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Šilėnai, in the Šiauliai Region.\n6.  In June 2000 the Radviliškis Land Department of the Šiauliai County Administration recognised L.S.G.’s right to the restoration of title to 4.07 hectares of land in the Radviliškis area. The plot of land in question had belonged to two other individuals, P.M. and E.M., and had been nationalised by the Soviet regime.\n7.  Later that month the applicant and L.S.G. signed a notarised agreement by which L.S.G. transferred (perleido) to the applicant the right to the restoration of title to 2.07 hectares of the above-mentioned plot of land. The agreement did not indicate whether the applicant had given any money to L.S.G. in exchange for this right. However, the applicant subsequently claimed (see paragraph 12 below) that she had paid 1,400 Lithuanian litai (LTL; approximately 405 euros (EUR)).\n8.  On 16 October 2001 the Šiauliai County Administration estimated that the value of the plot of land transferred to the applicant was LTL 2,124 (EUR 615). The Šiauliai County Administration then awarded the applicant the right of title to 1.78 hectares of land of equivalent value. The applicant registered the plot in the Land Registry under her own name.\n9.  In October 2004 the Special Investigation Service began investigating allegations of fraud, forgery of documents and abuse of office (under Articles 182, 228 and 300 of the Criminal Code) relating to the restoration of property rights by the Radviliškis Land Department. In January 2005 the prosecutor of the Šiauliai Region (hereinafter “the prosecutor”) launched a similar investigation. Subsequently, the two investigations were joined.\n10.  In May 2008 the prosecutor submitted a request to the Radviliškis District Court for the annulment of the agreement between the applicant and L.S.G. The prosecutor stated that L.S.G. had not had the right to the restitution of P.M. and E.M.’s land and thus could not legally have transferred that right to the applicant.\n11.  On 11 November 2008 the Radviliškis District Court granted the prosecutor’s request. The court held that L.S.G. had not been P.M. and E.M.’s relative or heir and thus, under the applicable law, had not been entitled to the restoration of title to their land (see paragraph 17 below). Therefore, the court declared the agreement between the applicant and L.S.G. null and void ab initio, confiscated the plot of land from the applicant, and returned it to the State.\n12.  During the proceedings the applicant claimed that she had paid LTL 1,400 (EUR 405) to L.S.G. for the right of title to the land, and L.S.G. acknowledged that she had received an unspecified sum of money. However, since no such payment had been mentioned in the text of their agreement, the court held that the right of title had been transferred to the applicant for free and did not award her any compensation.\n13.  On 17 February 2009 the Šiauliai Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the lower court. The court found that the applicant had not proved that she had paid for the transfer of the right of title. It also noted that under the Civil Code, property which had been unlawfully obtained for free could be confiscated from an owner, irrespective of whether the owner had acquired such property in good faith (see paragraphs 19 and 20 below).\n14.  On 22 April 2009 the Supreme Court refused to examine a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant on the ground that i", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 10 — freedom of expression", "2": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "3": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 2 — right to life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8885", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Zagreb.\n6.  On 19 May 2011 the Split Office of the National Police Unit for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (Policijski nacionalni ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta, Odjel za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta Split; hereinafter: “the police”) lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant before the State Attorney’s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (Državno odvjetništvo, Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta; hereinafter: “the State Attorney’s Office”), alleging that he had participated in an organised international drug-trafficking scheme.\n7.  On the basis of the extensive evidence collected during the preliminary investigation, including through mechanisms of international legal assistance in criminal matters from the authorities in Spain, Slovenia and the Netherlands, and the results of secret surveillance measures, on 20 May 2011 the State Attorney’s Office opened an investigation in respect of the applicant and nine other persons suspected of drug trafficking. In particular, it was alleged that the applicant had participated in an organised drug-trafficking scheme by securing the means of communication between other members of the group.\n8.  During the investigation, the State Attorney’s Office questioned a number of witnesses and obtained further voluminous evidence from the police. It also commissioned telecommunication expert reports and requested assistance in obtaining evidence from the authorities in Spain, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Netherlands.\n9.  On 9 November 2011 the State Attorney of the Republic of Croatia (Glavni državni odvjetnik Republike Hrvatske) extended the investigation for a further six months.\n10.  Following the completion of the investigation, on 16 May 2012 the State Attorney’s Office indicted the applicant and nine other defendants in the Split County Court (Županijski sud u Splitu) on charges of drug trafficking. It alleged that the applicant had facilitated communication between other members of the group operating an international drug-trafficking scheme.\n11.  On 18 May 2012 the investigating judge forwarded the indictment to the defendants, instructing them that they could submit their comments on it within a period of eight days.\n12.  On 28 May 2012 the applicant denied the charge, alleging numerous substantive and procedural flaws.\n13.  Several hearings for the confirmation of the indictment were held before a three-judge panel of the Split County Court. Meanwhile, the defence lawyers challenged the decision on the admissibility of evidence before the Supreme Court.\n14.  On 23 November 2012 the applicant complained to the Supreme Court of a lack of diligence in the conduct of the proceedings. He pointed out that the Supreme Court had not yet decided on the question of the admissibility of the evidence, which was incompatible with the requirement of due diligence in the conduct of the proceedings.\n15.  On 25 January 2013 a three-judge panel of the Split County Court confirmed the indictment and referred the case to trial.\n16.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending.\n17.  On 19 May 2011 the applicant was arrested in connection with the criminal complaint lodged against him by the police (see paragraph 6 above).\n18.  The next day, after hearing the applicant’s defence, the State Attorne", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "1": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "2": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security", "3": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8886", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1931 in Huercal-Overa, Almería and lives in La Laguna, Tenerife.\n6.  On 27 May 2003 La Laguna University lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant, a professor at the university’s Faculty of Pharmacy, accusing him of committing forgery. The university claimed that the applicant had presented a falsified curriculum vitae in the framework of a public tender for the allocation of pharmaceutical establishment licences.\n7.  On 6 February 2004, La Laguna investigating judge no. 1 ordered the suspension of the criminal investigation, considering that there were no objective reasons to believe that the crime had been committed.\n8.  The university submitted an appeal to the Santa Cruz de Tenerife Audiencia Provincial. In a decision (auto) of 19 May 2006, the Audiencia Provincial allowed the appeal and quashed the investigating judge’s decision declaring the suspension of the criminal investigation, holding that additional investigation proceedings were necessary. The Audiencia Provincial’s chamber was composed of judges A. (president), S. and C.\n9.  On 19 January 2008, La Laguna investigating judge no. 1 issued a decision (auto de transformación en procedimiento abreviado) confirming the conclusion of the investigatory stage and the continuation of the proceedings, and ordering the parties to submit their provisional pleadings. The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision. On 21 June 2008 an Audiencia Provincial chamber composed of judges S. (president), Sa., and C. declared the appeal inadmissible.\n10.  On 8 June 2010 the Audiencia Provincial issued an order (providencia) that the applicant’s case be sent for trial. It was also indicated in the order that the bench of the Audiencia Provincial that would try the applicant would be composed of judges A. (president), S. and G.\n11.  On 1 July 2010 the Audiencia Provincial held a preliminary hearing for the examination of evidence prior to trial. Contrary to what had been indicated in the Audiencia Provincial’s order of 8 June 2010, the trial bench was composed of A. (president), G. and Sa., the latter acting as substitute judge. The defence lawyer was informed at the beginning of the preliminary hearing that the composition of the Audiencia Provincial bench had been modified. The applicant claimed that he had not, however, been personally given the names of the judges sitting on the modified bench.\n12.  On 15 and 20 July the trial hearing was held before the Audiencia Provincial’s bench. The judges sitting on it remained the same as in the preliminary hearing.\n13.  On 27 July 2010 the same Audiencia Provincial bench found the applicant guilty of the offence as charged and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment, a suspension from office for the same period of time, and a fine of 25 euros (EUR) per day for eight months.\n14.  The applicant appealed on points of law to the Supreme Court complaining, inter alia, of lack of impartiality on the part of two of the judges sitting on the Audiencial Provincial bench. The applicant claimed that Judge A., president of the chamber, had previously sat on the bench that had heard the appeal introduced by the private prosecutor against the suspension of the criminal investigation (see paragraph 8 above). The applicant further claimed that Judge Sa. had participated as a substitute judge in the proceedings brought by La Laguna University, while being at the same time an associate professor and an employ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial", "1": "Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination", "2": "Article 8 — right to respect for private and family life", "3": "Article 5 — right to liberty and security"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association?"}}, "targets": {"article": [1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0], "violated": 0.0}}
{"id": "ecthr-8888", "family": "ecthr", "state": "European Court of Human Rights — statement of facts (excerpt):\n5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Yerevan.\n6.  A third person, G., owned a plot of land, a part of which, with her consent, was separated by a fence and used by another person, J.\n7.  On 21 April 1998 G. concluded an agreement with J., according to which she gave a part of her plot of land, measuring 285 sq. m., to him. It appears that the plot of land actually used by J., as separated by the fence, was 38.75 sq. m. bigger than the 285 sq. m. plot given by G. The 38.75 sq. m. also belonged to G. In this connection, another agreement was reached between G. and J., according to which G. gave her consent for J. to become the owner of the whole plot of land used by him. However, it appears that J.’s ownership rights were officially registered only in respect of the plot of land measuring 285 sq. m.\n8.  On 28 April 1998 the applicant bought the larger plot of land from J. and, since the fence was still in place, continued to use also the 38.75 sq. m. strip of land.\n9.  In 2004 G. instituted proceedings against the applicant, seeking to take the 38.75 sq. m. strip of land used by the applicant, claiming her ownership rights.\n10.  On 14 December 2006 the Erebuni and Nubarashen District Court of Yerevan granted the claim, ordering the applicant to release the strip of land to G.\n11.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal.\n12.  On 9 March 2007 the Civil Court of Appeal granted the appeal and dismissed G.’s claim. In particular, the Court of Appeal found that since G. had agreed that J. become the owner of the plot of land used by him, as separated by the fence, she had relinquished her rights in respect of the strip of land in favour of J. and, consequently, in favour of the applicant.\n13.  This judgment was subject to appeal on points of law within six months from the date of its delivery.\n14.  On 26 March 2007 G. lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of 9 March 2007 with the Court of Cassation, claiming that it had been adopted in violation of substantive and procedural law. As a ground for admitting her appeal on points of law, G. submitted, pursuant to Article 231.2 § 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (the CCP), that the violations of the substantive and procedural law might have grave consequences, such as deprivation of her ownership rights in respect of the plot of land.\n15.  On 7 April 2007 amendments were introduced to the CCP which stipulated that there was no right to bring an appeal on points of law more than once, unless the Court of Cassation – when returning an appeal – fixed a time-limit to correct and re-submit it (see paragraph 26 below).\n16.  On 12 April 2007 the Court of Cassation decided to return G.’s appeal as inadmissible for lack of merit. The reasons provided were as follows:\n“The Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation ... having examined the question of admitting [G.’s appeal lodged against the judgment of the Civil Court of Appeal of 9 March 2007], found that it must be returned for the following reasons:\nPursuant to Article 230 § 1 (4.1) of [the CCP] an appeal on points of law must contain any of the grounds [required by] Article 231.2 § 1 of [the CCP].\nThe Court of Cassation finds that the admissibility grounds raised in the appeal on points of law[, as required by] Article 231.2 § 1 of [the CCP], are absent. In particular, the Court of Cassation considers the arguments raised in the appeal on points of law concerning a possible judicial error and its consequences, ", "questions": {"article": {"type": "choice", "instructions": "Which Convention article did the Court find violated in this case?", "criteria": {"0": "Article 1 of Protocol 1 — protection of property", "1": "Article 3 — prohibition of torture", "2": "Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion", "3": "Article 6 — right to a fair trial"}}, "violated": {"type": "noul", "instructions": "Did the Court find a violation of Article 3 — prohibition of torture?"}}, "targets": {"article": [0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.5], "violated": 0.0}}